Category Archives: Imam Abu Hanifa

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.”


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


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:

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.


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!!!!!


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.

Falsity of Dividing Tawheed into Three Parts

          By Dr. Omar Abdullah Kaamil


Dividing tawheed into Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah and Al-Ruboobiyyah and Al-Asmaa Wa Al-Sifaat was not known prior to Ibn Taymiyyah. The Messenger of Allah did not tell someone who wanted to enter Islam that there are two types of tawheed (i.e. of Lordship and of Divinity) and one won’t become Muslim unless and until he acknowledges both. Nor did the Prophet ﷺ imply the multiplicity of tawheed in any way nor was it reported from any of the righteous predecessors until the seventh century where Ibn Taymiyyah divided tawheed into three parts:

1. Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah: Ibn Taymiyyah claimed that Muslims and polytheists alike acknowledge this type of tawheed. Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, means that one has to believe that Allah is the sole creator, sustainer and disposer of affairs in the universe.

2. Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah: This means worshipping Allah alone. Ibn Taymiyyah states: “The true God is the one who deserves to be worshipped … and the tawheed means that you worship Him alone without associating any partners.” [Al-Tadmeeriyyah, p. 106]

3. Al-Asmaa Wa Al-Sifaat: It means, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, believing in the attributes of Allah according to the apparent literal meaning.

Ibn Taymiyyah says in his Minhaj al-Sunnah talking about the Muslims, Scholars of the Islamic Creed of Ash’aris and others:

“They took out from tawheed what is part and partial of it such as Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah and believing in the Attributes of Allah according to the apparent literal meaning. The only thing left in tawheed for them is Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah which is to believe that Allah is the Creator of all things and their Lord. This last type of tawheed is even acknowledged by the polytheists. Allah Ta’ala says about them:

“If you ask them, who is it that created the heavens and the earth. They will certainly say: “Allah”. Say: “Praise be to Allah.” But most of them understand not.” [Surah Luqman: 25]

“Say, who is it in whose hands is the governance of all things, who protects (all), but is not protected (of any)? (say) if ye know, They will say, “(It belongs) to Allah.” Say: “Then how are ye deluded.” [Surah al-Mu’minoon: 86 & 87]

“And most of them believe them not in Allah without associating (others as partners) with Him!.” [Surah Yusuf: 106]

Some of the righteous predecessors said that when the polytheists were asked as to who created the heavens and the earth, they would respond: “Allah,” yet they used to worship idols. The tawheed that Allah demands of his slaves is Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah which contains Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah and it means that only Allah is worshipped without any partners…” [Minhaaj al-Sunnah, Pages 2 & 6]

He said in his article called “Ahl al-Sunna”:

“Tawheed Al-Ruboobiyyah alone is not sufficient and does not guarantee that one is not a disbeliever.”

Ibn Abdul Wahhab said in his book called “Kashf al-Subhohaat”:

“The last of the Messengers, Muhammad, who destroyed the statues of these righteous people, was sent to a people, who used to worship, perform Hajj, give charity and remember Allah often. However, they used to take some of the creation as intermediaries between them and Allah. They used to say, “We want them to get us closer to Allah and we want their intercession for us with Allah.” Their intercessors include those of the angels, Jesus and Mary and other righteous people.” [Kashf al-Subhohaat: Pages 3-4]

He also says:

“These polytheists accept and acknowledge that Allah is the sole Creator without any partner, He is the sole Sustainer, He is the sole giver of life and taker of life, He is the sole disposer of affairs in the universe, and that all seven heavens and the earth and their inhabitants are all His slaves and worshippers He does with as He pleases and when He pleases.”

Then he quoted a few verses from the Holy Qur’an to prove that the polytheists are as he just described them and he added:

“When it is established that the Messenger of Allah fought them so that only Allah is called upon, vow is made to Him, sacrifices made only for His sake, only His aid is sought after and all for of worship is dedicated to Allah alone, then you must realize that their acknowledging the Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah did not make them enter into the circle of Islam and the fact that they turn towards the Angels, the Prophets, the Saints seeking their intercession to get closer to Allah is what made their blood and their wealth permissible. It should now be clear that the tawheed to which the Messengers called is the Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah and that is exactly what the polytheists refused.”

How could the Messenger of Allah ﷺ stay quiet about a matter such as this? How was it possible that all the scholars of the Ummah missed this point for seven centuries until the coming of Ibn Taymiyyah? Or was it that the generations before Ibn Taymiyyah were not on the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah Wa al-Jama’ah and that the Ahlus Sunnah Wa al-Jama’ah are those who follow this division of tawheed?

This division of tawheed into three is illogical. The true God is at the same time the true Lord and vice versa. These two words are inseparable in that when (the word) ‘God’ is used ‘Lord’ is implied and when ‘Lord’ is used ‘God’ is also implied. We find that they are used interchangeably in the Qur’an, in hadith and in the statements of the scholars alike.

The Holy Qur’an and Prophetic tradition indicates the unrepeatability of Tawheed al-Uloohiyya and Ruboobiyyah. Allah Ta’ala says:

“(Kept them away from the Path), that they should not worship Allah, Who brings to light what is hidden in the heavens and the earth, and knows what ye hide and what ye reveal.” [Surah al-Naml: 25]

These verse establishes that none deserves to be prostrated to except the Omnipotent and Omniscient.

Allah Ta’ala says,

“And neither would he enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords…” [Surah Aal Imran: 80]

This verse clearly states that the polytheists worshipped multiple lords. Despite this Divine injunction, the proponents of the bid’ah of trinity of tawheed say: The polytheists believed in the Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah and they only have one Lord. They became polytheists because they associated partners with Allah in the Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah!!!.

Look at what the polytheists will say on the Day of Judgement:

“By Allah!, we were truly in an error manifest. When we held you (idols) as equals with the Lord of the Worlds.” [Surah al-Shura’a: 97-98]

That is to say that the polytheists held their idols as lords equal with Allah Ta’ala.

Allah Ta’ala says:

“Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)? They said: “Yeah, we do testify!”   [Surah al-A’raaf: 172]

If acknowledging the Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah was not enough, then it would not have been enough to take the covenant with just the Lordship (Am I not your Lord?) Nor would it be correct for them to say:

“Surely, we were heedless of this.”

If the Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah were not included in the Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah, then the wording of the covenant would not be enough and the mankind would have to have been asked to acknowledge also the Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah as part of the covenant. The fact that Allah Ta’ala asked for the acknowledgement of His Lordship means that Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah is already included in Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah.

As for evidence from the Sunnah [that the tawheed is inseparable], there is the questioning of the two Angels of an individual right after the burial – only about his Lord. They only say, “Who is your Lord?” This is because the angels do not distinguish between Lord and God. According to the view of the proponents of trinity of tawheed, the angels would have to ask: Who is your God not Who is your Lord? Or, they would have to ask both questions.

Thus, limiting the tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah to ‘tawheed of creation’ is a mistake and a dubious statement. This is because Lordship is not limited to creation only, as we have shown previously, but it also includes the administration of the universe as well as disposing of its affairs. Not all the polytheists and disbelievers were in agreement regarding the Lordship nor did they all believe in the Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah as the proponents of the trinity of tawheed claim.

Some of the disbelievers at the time of the Prophet ﷺ were atheists and disbelieved in resurrection and life after death. Some of them were polytheists who associated partners with Allah Ta’ala and claimed that their idols were partaking in the creation as well as in controlling some of the matters of the universe. There were people of the book who believed in multiple gods. Yet Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers speak of the disbelievers as if they were one group having the same belief.

After all this, how can someone describe the word ‘Lord’ as just the Creator and the Originator?

Let us now examine the usage of the word ‘Allah’ in the Qur’an.

Use of the word ‘ilaah’ (a god) in the Qur’an

Upon beholding the Qur’an, we see that the word ‘god’ is a general term that is used for the same meeting as His exalted name ‘Allah’ but the latter is the clearest of all names that can refer to Him. We find that the understanding from these two words are one and the same to the extent that the word ‘Allah’ is used in place of “God” as a description, not as a proper noun in this verse:

“And He is Allah in the heavens and on earth. He knoweth what ye hide, and what ye reveal, and He knoweth the (recompense) which ye earn by your deeds.”   [Surah al-An’aam, 3]

This verse is a parallel of the following verse [where the word ‘God’ instead of ‘Allah’]:

“It is He Who is God in heaven and God on earth; and He is full of Wisdom and Knowledge.”   [Surah al-Zukhruf, 84]

The use of His exalted name “Allah” in this verse and the like is a synonym for “the God (al-ilaah)” That is to say: “He is the God Who is…”

Whoever studies the verses in which the word “the God (al-ilaah)” is mentioned, finds that this word is used to mean “He who does what the lord must do — either all of it or some of it — from creation, to managing, to having full control over all affairs in the universe, etc. In addition, He is the only One deserving to be worshipped since He possess the above qualities. Examples of such verses include:

1. “If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! But glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!” [Surah al-Anbiya: 22]

The confusion in heavens and on earth won’t happen by the mere fact of multiplicity of gods unless and until we take the words “the God (al-ilaah)” in this verse to mean the disposer of affairs and the manager of the matters of the Universe.

2. “No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah. (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him!” [Surah al-Mu’minoon: 91]

In this verse, “the God (al-ilaah)”, is described as the Creator,  Disposer of affairs, Victor over all things.

3. “Say: if there had been other (gods) with Him, as they say, behold, they would certainly have sort out a way to the Lord of the Throne!” [Surah al-Isra’: 42]

Seeking out a way to the Lord of the Throne would necessitate multiple creators, disposer of affairs, victors who control the universe.

Use of the word rabb (a lord) in the Qur’an

The word “Lord (rabb)” is used in the Nobel Qur’an, as in the language, with various shades of meanings:
1. Upbringing (al-tarbiya)
2. Mending and caring (al-islaah wa al-ria’aya)
3. Governance and politics (al-hukooma wa al-siyaasa)
4. Owner (al-maalik)
5. Possessor (al-Saahib) as in the saying of Allah Ta’ala in Surah Quraysh: (3): “Let them adore the Lord of this House.”

The original meaning of this word “Lord (rabb)” is He in Whose Hands is the power of administration, managing and bringing about what is necessary. This is the general meaning of the term and being a creator is not among its meanings as some claim.

The Falsity of Dividing Tawheed into Three Parts

Allah Ta’ala says:

“Behold! Verily to Allah belong all who dwell in the heavens and on earth. Those who follow [alleged] partners apart from Allah follow nothing but conjecture. They do nothing but lie.” [Surah Yunus: 66]

“He merges Night into Day, and He merges Day into Night, and He had subjected the sun and the moon (to His Laws); each one runs its course for a term appointed. Such is Allah your Lord: to Him belongs all Dominion. All those whom ye invoke besides Him have not the least power.” [Surah Faatir: 13]

These two verses indicate that the polytheists believed that the lords they were worshipping had a share in the dominion (mulk) and that they had influence on the Divine plan of Allah. The verses conclude by saying that what they believe is only conjecture. The lords or the idols had no influence over the Divine plan nor can they create anything.

Allah Ta’ala also says:

“Say: Do ye see what it is ye invoke besides Allah. Show me what it is they have created on earth, or have they a share in the heavens? Bring me a book (revealed) before this, or any remnant of knowledge (ye may have), if ye are telling the truth!”   [Surah al-Ahqaaf: 4]

This verse proclaims that the polytheists believed that their lords had a share in the lordship (ruboobiyyah) of Allah and that is why Allah Ta’ala demanded them to bring forth their evidence if they were speaking the truth.

How then can Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers claim that the polytheists were believing in Allah and were monotheists as far as the oneness of His Lordship (Uloohiyyah), despite the fact that Allah Ta’ala describes them as the violators of His Covenant!?

“Those who break Allah’s Covenant after it is ratified.”   [Surah Baqarah, 27]

What is the covenant that is mentioned in this verse? Isn’t it the first covenant that Allah took from mankind as described in the following verse?

“When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam – from their lions – their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): “Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)? – They said, “Yeah! We do testify!” (This) lest ye should say on the Day of Judgement “Of this we were never mindful.” [Surah al-A’raf: 172]

Did Allah Ta’ala take the covenant by saying “Am I not your God” Did not Allah Ta’ala say:

“In the case of those who say, “Our Lord is Allah, and, further, stand straight and steadfast, the angels descend on them (from time to time): “Fear ye not! (they suggest), Nor grieve! But receive the Glad tidings of the Garden (of Bliss), that which ye were promised.” [Surah Fussilat: 30]

Why would the polytheists then end up in hellfire after having believed in the Lordship of Allah?

Didn’t Fir’awn say:

“I am your Lord, the Most High.”   [Surah al-Naaziaat: 24]

Where is the Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah of Fir’awn and his followers?

Didn’t the Prophet ﷺ inform us that the two angels ask everyone in the grave who his Lord is not who his God is?

The truth is that the word god (ilaah) and lord (rabb) are used interchangeably in the Qur’an as synonyms. The evidence is that “the God” and “the Lord” are one and the same thing in the Qur’anic and prophetic usage and are also found in the Qur’an itself and in the tradition of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

Allah relates the words of Yusuf (alayhissalaam) in Surah Yusuf: 39:

“O my two companions of the prison! (I ask you), are many lords differing among themselves better, or the One Allah, Supreme and Irresistible?”

He said thereafter:

“If not Him, ye worship nothing but names which ye have named, – ye and your fathers, – for which Allah hath sent down no authority. The command is for none but Allah. He hath commanded that ye worship none but Him, that is the right religion, but most men understand not.”   [Surah Yusuf, 40]

The “many lords” referred to in the above verse were being worshipped (not just taken as intermediaries or intercessors).

Allah Ta’ala said regarding ‘Eesa (alayhissalaam):

“Nor would he instruct you to take angels and prophets for Lords and patrons.” [Surah Aal Imran: 80]

He said regarding the same subject in another place:

“And behold! Allah will say: “O ‘Eesa the son of Maryam! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation to Allah?” [Surah Ma’idah: 116]

Read the following verse again:

“Nor would he instruct you to take angels and prophets for Lords and patrons.” [Surah Aal Imran: 80]

This was the religion of some of the polytheists of the Arabs. They took the angels as lords as did the tribe of Bani Maleeh from Khuzaa’ah. They used to worship Jinn and claimed that jinn appeared to them. They further believed that they were angels and daughters of Allah (Astaghfirullah). The fact that they claim that their lords were angels, it is as if they worshipped angels and that is why the angels will renounce the misdeeds of these polytheists as recorded in the Qur’an:

“One day He will gather them all together, and say to the angels, “Was it you that these men use to worship?” They will say,”Glory to Thee! Our (tie) is with Thee – as Protector – not with them. Nay! But they worshipped the Jinns: most of them believed in them (Jinns).” [Surah Saba 40 & 41]

Then Allah Ta’ala says regarding the angels:

“If any one of them should say, “I am a god besides Him,” such a one We should reward with Hell. Thus do We reward those who do wrong.” [Surah al-Anbiya: 29]


“The Lord” and “The God” are two terms that the Qur’an uses as synonyms meaning one and the same thing. The polytheists, therefore, who worships the false gods, not Allah, will automatically violate the Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah. The evidence for this is that the formula “La ilaha illa Allah (There is none worthy of worship except Allah)” encompasses the Tawheed of both Al-Uloohiyyah and Al-Ruboobiyyah. If it weren’t so, tawheed of Al-Ruboobiyyah would be expressed with a formula other than “La ilaha illa Allah” and this does not exist. Those who claim otherwise, we would refer them to the following verse:

“Say: produce your proof if ye are truthful.” [Surah al-Baqarah:111]

Al-Sanusi mentions that the formula “La ilaha illa Allah”  contains both tawheeds and that “The God” is in fact “The Lord” who is worshipped. And as was related already the two terms are inseparable.

Allah Ta’ala says:

“But (I think) for my part that He is Allah, My Lord, and none shall I associate with my Lord.” [Surah al-Kahf: 38]

The disbeliever will say, after having tasted punishment of Allah, in the hereafter:

“…and he could only say, ‘Woe to me! Would that I had never ascribed partners to my Lord and Cherisher.” [Surah al-Kahf:42]

The usage of these terms in the Sunnah is the same as in the Qur’an. For example, Al-Haakim narrates in his “Al-Mustadrak” on the authority of Qurra bin Iyadh (radhiyallahu anhu) who said:

“In the Day of Battle of Qadisiyyah…a Zoroastrian said to Mughira bin Shu’ba (radhiyallahu anhu): “I know exactly what brought you Arabs to us. You don’t find enough food in your country to eat until you are full. Here, we will give you  of the food that you need…” Al-Mughira said to him: “By Allah, we did not come for that. We are a people who worshipped the rocks and idols. When we saw a rock better than the one we worshipped, we would throw the former and start worshipping the latter. We did not know what a Lord is until Allah Ta’ala sent us a Messenger from among us who invited us to Islam and we followed him…(to the end of the hadith)” [Al-Musradrak, Hadith 5901, 3/510]

Al-Mughira (radhiyallahu anhu) states clearly in this hadith that they did not know what a Lord (rabb) was yet Ibn Taymiyyah says that they acknowledged the Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah!.

Al-Haakim said this hadith has an authentic chain even though neither of the Sahihs contains it. Al-Dhahabi agreed with Al-Haakim in his “Talkhees al-Khabeer.”

Perhaps the clearest evidence that the polytheists disbelieved in both Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah and Al-Uloohiyyah is that when the angels ask the person in the grave who his Lord is, the disbeliever will say: “I do not know.”

[From the Book: The Bid’ah and Perils of Trinity of Tawheed]

Ibn Taymiyyah & The Conundrum Of Deobandi Praise


Some of our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband have lauded praise on Ibn Taimiyyah, and this created much obfuscation for laymen who have to contend with severe criticism of Ibn Taimiyyah by many other Ulama of Deoband. 

To dispel this confusion, we reproduce in this brief article a question and its answer which appeared in Hadhrat Thanvi’s Views – Some Ishkals (Doubts) From the Ibaraat of Malfuzaat Hakim ul-Ummat & Its Answers

A Deeni Student in U.K. wrote an Addendum which further clarifies the conundrum of the praise of Ibn Taimiyyah by some Akaabir Ulama of Deoband. We reproduce the Addendum as well. 

_Mujlisul Ulama of S.A. 

Hadhrat Thanvi praised Imaam ibn Taymiyyah and Imaam ibn al-Qayyim, saying they were `Aarifeen, and he referred to Imaam ibn Taymiyyah with the title of Allaamah.  

In India there was at that time a great dearth of the kutub of Ibn Taimiyyah and Ibn Qayyim, hence   most of our Akaabir of that era were unaware of the views of Ibn Taimiyyah. They were therefore justified to speak highly of Ibn Taimiyyah on the basis of the paucity of their awareness of his deviation. If you read some of our own publication of 40 years ago, you will find praise for Ibn Taimiyyah. That was due to our ignorance of his views. It was years later when Hadhrat Husain Ahmad Madani (Rahmatullah alayh) came from Madinah to teach Hadith in Deoband, that he began to apprize our Ulama of the reality of Ibn Taimiyyah. We are under no obligation to follow Hadhrat Thanvi’s view on this issue – a view based on insufficient information.

Such ‘taqleed’ is in fact jumood (fossilization of the brains) which is condemned by the Fuqaha.

Consider the example of stock market shares. Since our Akaabir were unaware of the true meaning of this concept, and since it was erroneously explained to them by some traders and by the one who posed the question, they understood that it was a valid shirkat, hence they issued their fatwa of permissibility. However, those who are aware of this concept, understand its hurmat to be clearer than the sun’s light at mid-day. Now making ‘taqleed’ of such an error of the Akaabir is satanic jumood (intellectual fossilization).


The authentic and only correct position regarding Ibn Taymiyyah as conveyed by a Deobandi authority who had had the opportunity to study many of Ibn Taymiyyah’s books which were not available in India to most of the Akaabir of Deoband, is represented by the explicit statements below of Shaykh-ul-Islam Maulana Husayn Ahmad Madani (rahmatullahi alayh), the Principal of Deoband for around 30 years.

Expressing conviction on the Tajseem (anthropomorphism) of Ibn Taymiyyah, Shaykhul Islam states:

“I am certain, having read his unpublished treatises, that he was guilty of innovation in beliefs, Tajseem and so on.” [Anwaar ul-Baari]

Shaykh-ul-Islam acquired this conviction only after having gained access to Ibn Taymiyyah’s unpublished treatises and books in Madeenah which were not accessible in India:

“While I was staying in Madeenah Munawwarah, I saw [Ibn  Taymiyyah’s] writings and treatises. I even saw some books which are probably not found in any of the libraries of Hindustan. Having read all of them, I came to the conclusion – upon insight – that there was an open deviation and departure from the path of Ahlus Sunnah found in him.” [Anwaar ul-Baari] 

Now that in this day and age the mass-publication and mass-propagation worldwide of Ibn Taymiyyah’s books have made his anthropomorphism as clear as daylight (see explicit statements below), and virulent sects are fervently propagating such anthropomorphic beliefs, it would be moronic and an aid for Baatil for someone to dig up some earlier Malfooz (statement) of Maulana Husayn Ahmad Madani in praise of Ibn Taymiyyah while he was still in a state of ignorance or uncertainty regarding Ibn Taymiyyah’s Tajseem.

It would be similarly moronic and an aid for Baatil for someone to translate and propagate some Malfoozaat of Allamah Taaj ud Deen as-Subki, Allamah Abu Hayyaan al-Andalusi, Allamah Salah ud Deen al-Alaai, Allamah Quwnawi, Allamah Zamlakani, and numerous others, in profuse praise of Ibn Taymiyyah, when the very same scholars turned extremely harshly against him later on, only after his Tajseem or his numerous other deviations became clear to them.

While the Salafis, Halafis (Salafis masquerading as Hanafis), and their like-minded breeds used to insinuate that the countless Fuqaha (jurists) throughout the ages who had carried out extremely harsh “Jarh Mufassar” (detailed criticism) on Ibn Taymiyyah, were all liars, fabricators, guilty of extreme bias, or part of a massive freemasonic-like conspiracy, in light of the mass-publication of Ibn Taymiyyah’s works in this age and the absolute vindication of such “Jarh Mufassar”, the Salafis are no longer able to maintain such irrational insinuations which tarnish the judgement and integrity of hundreds of upright scholars for the sake of their dear Mujaddid. “Hazrat-worship” (turning a blind eye to the flagrant evil of one’s dear Mujaddid) has never been more evident than in the attitude of the salafi-like breeds towards the deviances of Ibn Taymiyyah.

Furthermore, the status of the Salafis as Ahlul Hawaa (people of  desires), their hypocrisy, and their double-standards, are most manifest in their indiscriminate  application of the principle of  “Jarh Mufassar takes precedence over Ta’deel” (i.e. detailed criticism overrides praise), and the sudden and absolute suspension of this principle in regards to Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibnul Qayyim. We shall elaborate more on this principle and the Nafsaani-based application of it by the Ahlul  Hawaa such as the Salafis in a future article inshaAllah.

Consider the following explicit transmission of Mullah Ali al-Qaari that the Salafus-Saaliheen would regard as Kaafir the one who attributes a direction to Allah:

“A group from them (Salaf-us-Saaliheen) and the Khalaf said, ‘The one who believes in a direction [for Allah] is a Kaafir’, as explicitly stated by al-Iraaqi. He said, ‘This is the statement of Abu Hanifah, Maalik, Shafi’i, al-Ash’ari, and al-Baqillaani’”  [Mirqaat ul-Mafaateeh]


Now that in this age it is manifestly clear without the slightest doubt that Ibn Taymiyyah regarded Allah to be in a specific direction, with countless Salafi sects today propagating such a belief openly and shamelessly, it would be moronic and a complete disservice to the teachings of Mullah Ali al-Qaari himself, to dig out some Malfoozaat of his in praise of Ibn Taymiyyah, while he was obviously ignorant of the fact that Ibn Taymiyyah firmly affirmed a belief that would warrant a Takfeer according to the Salaf whom Mullah Ali al-Qaari himself approvingly quoted. Yet, the Mudaahins (psychophants) of this age do exactly this, thus advertising thoroughly their stupidity.

Perhaps a group of Deobandi Mudaahin Muftis, Maulanas and Shaykhs who have nothing better to do, should embark on the urgent task of digging out Malfoozaat of the Akaabir of Deoband in profuse praise of Maududi, the evil denigrator of the Ambiya (alayhis salaam) and the Sahabah (radhiyallahuanhum). Hadhrat Ilyas Khandelwi, for example, before passing away, paid glowing tribute to Maududi, indicating that Maududi’s movement was far more important and valuable than the Tableegh Jama’at. It is obvious that many of the deviate beliefs of Maududi were yet hidden from Hadhrat Ilyas Khandelwi and other Akaabir who had praised him. And, even if some Akaabir did praise Maududi while cognizant of his denigration of the Ambiya (alayhis salaam) and Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhu), we are obliged to regard it as a lapse on their part, now that there no longer exists any ambiguity over Maududi’s deviance.

While it is possible for righteous authorities of the past to have committed errors in Furoo’ (e.g. certain fiqhi matters), without such errors impinging on their authority and integrity, to grant the same latitude for errors in Usool (e.g. Sifaat of Allah) is to spell the destruction of the Deen. Kufr shall always remain Kufr, regardless of the Nooraniyat shining from the perpetrator’s face, or his monumental textual knowledge, or the length of his beard, or the extent of his Zuhd and Jihaad, or the numbers attending his Urs (death anniversary). 

If we were to tolerate such evil as  the anthropomorphism of Ibn Taymiyyah as vividly apparent in the explicit statements to come below, then justice and consistency would demand that we also tolerate the Baatil of all other deviate sects today. Exhibiting leniency towards such beliefs as Allah having a direction, body, size, Allah being able to sit upon the back of a mosquito, Hell-fire ending for even the Kuffaar, the beginninglessness of the Arsh etc. would entail tolerating all the deviances of the Barelwi grave-worshippers, modernists, feminists, progressives, etc. Perhaps even some of the more ‘moderate’ Shiah sects will then have to be shoved back into the Ummah.

Furthermore, in authentic Ahadith and narrations from the Salaf, it is clearly indicated that Mudaahanah (tolerating evil) is THE primary cause of Allah’s punishment which often takes the form of brutal Kuffaar armies such as those which are ravaging the Ummah today. According to the Shar’iah, deviations in Aqeedah of the degree of anthropomorphism are worse than adultery and murder. Knowingly propagating and aiding the cause of the leaders of anthropomorphism are worse than propagating adultery and murder.

Thus, the Mudaahin Maulanas, Muftis and Shaykhs of this age should understand that their praise and aid in service of Baatil are not trivial issues that can simply be consigned as Kuffaar-style “academia”. They should reflect on their true intention of propagating such Malfoozaat of the Akaabir in praise of deviates which were obviously made in ignorance. Perhaps in the freelancing deviances of Ibn Taymiyyah there exists a uniquely wide scope for justification for the Tafarrudaat (abominations/ anomalies) of their own Hazrats.

A detailed treatise will be compiled elaborating on the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah regarding which the Salafi-lovers and the proponents of Mudaahanah bury themselves head-first, deep under the sand. Such is the explicit nature and unambiguous anthropomorphism in the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah which have only been recently published that even many of the most fanatic Salafi breeds have been constrained to adopt a stance of deafening silence regarding them.  

For now, for the edification of the sincere Mudaahins who may consider rectifying their Mudahaanah, below is a small sample of explicit quotes straight from the books of Ibn Taymiyyah, whose existence is easily verifiable today, which lift the veil of ambiguity that may have shrouded for many centuries Ibn  Taymiyyah’s true beliefs which elicited the severe and now completely vindicated “Jarh Mufassar” of hundreds of Fuqaha throughout the ages.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s fork-tongued and taqiyyah-like statements elsewhere in other books, in a fashion typical of Ahlul Hawaa, which successfully duped many a scholar, cannot render into non-existence the monstrosities cited below and many other statements of the same category of depravity, which are all absolutely irreconcilable with the true Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah wa’l Jama’ah.

Let us begin with Ibn Taymiyyah’s explicit, non-taqiyyah affirmation of body (jism) and direction (jihat) for Allah. In one of his many refutations of the Ash’aris, Ibn Taymiyyah employs some typically perverse Salafi Kalaam to “prove” that it is necessary for Allah to have a body and direction, according to how these terms are defined by the Ulama of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah:

“It is known that the vision [of Allah in the afterlife] which the Lawgiver has told [us] about cannot be affirmed while negating [for Allah] what they regard as a ‘body’. Rather, affirming it [i.e. vision] necessitates [affirming for Allah] what they regard as a ‘body’ and ‘direction’. It is clear that whoever tries to combine these two [i.e. affirmation of vision and negation of ‘body’ and ‘direction’] is stubbornly refusing what is established by reason and by the senses.” [Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah]


While asserting ‘Jism‘ for Allah in the statement above, Ibn Taymiyyah was, no doubt, well aware of how his opponents defined ‘Jism‘ i.e. “what they regard as a body“. This clearcut definition of ‘Jism’ of the Ulama of Ahlus Sunnah which Ibn Taymiyyah emphatically and shamelessly affirmed for Allah Ta’ala is: 

“[Something with spatial] measurement of length, breadth and depth, which prevents something else from being present where it is, unless it moves from that place.”


Ibn Taymiyyah employs more stupid Salafi Kalaam here to “prove” that it is impossible for Allah (azza wa jal) not to have a size:

“As for a thing not be described with increase and decrease, nor the absence of that, and it is existent without having a size, then that is inconceivable.”   [Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah]


Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly affirms limits for Allah and the “Kufr” of denying limits for Allah:

“Allah, exalted is He, has a limit which nobody but Him knows. It is not permitted for anybody to imagine himself a demarcation to his limit, and rather he must believe in it and consign the knowledge of it to Allah. Allah’s place also has a limit, namely [His place] on the Throne above His heavens; so that means two limits.…[Here he cited a number of texts from the Qur’an which in his opinion show that Allah has a physical limit then he says:] This and what is like it are proofs that all show that [Allah has a] limit and whoever does not profess that has disbelieved in the revelation and denied the verses of Allah.” [Muwaafaqah, vol. 2, p. 29]


In his Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah, while gently refuting another Mujassim (anthropomorphist) who restricts Allah to only one limit, Ibn Taymiyyah makes clear that he believes Allah to have more limits from various sides.

Finally to end this short sample, Ibn Taymiyyah states that Allah is actually able to mount on the back of a mosquito, hence this is stupid Salafi Kalaamic “proof” that Allah is actually mounted on the throne:

“If He wanted He could board/get on the back of a mosquito and it would hold Him up/carry Him by His power and the gracefulness of His Lordship; so what about a great throne greater than the seven heavens and the seven earths?” [Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah]


Observe the violent and irreconcilable conflict between Ibn Taymiyyah’s explicit affirmation of body (tajseem), direction, size, limits for Allah, etc. with the pure Aqeedah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhu), and the Salafus-Saaliheen, as transmitted here by Imam Abu Ja’far Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh) whom even the Salafis are constrained to accept as an authentic and uprighteous transmitter of the Aqeedah of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen:

“He (Allah Ta’ala) is transcendent beyond limits and boundaries, parts, limbs and instruments. The six directions do not contain Him like (the six directions contain) all created entities.” [Aqeedat-ut-Tahaawiyyah]


Furthermore, Imam Tahaawi transmits from the Salaf-us-Saaliheen the ruling of Kufr (disbelief) for the one who describes Allah with such attributes that can apply only to created entities which self-evidently includes direction, body, size, limits, ability to sit on the back of a mosquito, and other descriptions with which the Mujassimah such as Ibn Taymiyyah describe Allah Ta’ala:

“Whoever describes Allah with a meaning (or property) from the meanings (or properties) of man, he has committed Kufr (disbelief).” [Aqeedatut Tahaawiyyah]


For the sincere seekers of truth, the “Malfoozaat” (statements) above will more than suffice in providing a glimpse into the abundant reasons due to which Ibn Taymiyyah was severely and rightfully disparaged (Jarh Mufassar) by innumerable righteous scholars in every age, and which thoroughly overrides any praise (Ta’deel) he received from others who had clearly not come across all his abominations in their full gory detail which include literally dozens of contraventions of Ijma’ (consensus) in both the spheres of Aqeedah and Fiqh. The future article will highlight and examine many of those abominations in detail insha Allah.

ALSO READ:- The Kufr and Shirkiyyah Philosophy of Ibn Taymiyyah

Alleged Statement of Imam Abu Hanifa About Prophet ﷺ Following his Opinions

By Waqar Akbar Cheema

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

Sometimes back I found a fellow referring to an alleged statement of Imam Abu Hanifa. Although he did not derive any conclusions from it, it really alarmed me because there is a potential of gross misuse of the statement as recorded in the work usually cited.

In this time of tribulation (fitna) there are people –liberals and the secular– who never cease to twist the meanings of the Qur’an according to whims and wishes and to restrict the scope of countless hadith narrations to seventh century Arabia. To these people statements of scholars and mutahid imams mean nothing but at the same time if somehow they can use a statement attributed to any of great early scholars they forget everything else and take any such statement as ultimate evidence as if it is a revelation from Allah. This attitude speaks a lot of their objectives and objectivity. And what if the statement they use is not authentic to begin with?

The alleged narration:

The alleged statement goes as;

قال أَبُو حنيفة: لو أدركني رسول الله صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وأدركته لأخذ بكثير من قولي

Below is the reproduction of the translation given in the article by Muhammad Altaf Hussain Ahangar titled “Iqbal and Hadith.”

Khatib Baghadadi in his history, with reference to Yusuf Ibn Isbat, writes:

Abu Hanifa used to say that if the Prophet (s.a.w) would have found me and I could have found him (i.e. both would have lived at the same time), then He [the Prophet (s.a.w)] would have adopted many of his (Abu Hanifa’s) thoughts. Religion is not anything else except the good and fine opinion.

Let’s find out and analyze the truth of these words;

What works actually record this narration?

The narration is as such related by Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 453 A.H.)[1] and before him Ibn Hibban (d. 354 A.H.)[2] and has been reproduced by some later writers as well.

Authenticity of the Narration:

Now we discuss the most important issue i.e. the authenticity of this report.

1- The rules of narration (riwayah) check:

Wherever the report is given with a chain of narrator, we find that it comes through Yusuf bin Asbat (not “Isbat”). And this narrator itself is not truly reliable.

Ibn Abi Hatim said, “He is not to be sought evidence with.”[3]

And Imam Bukhari said, “He had buried his books, and did not narrate the narrations the way they were written.”[4] i.e. he mixed the things up

So these facts about the person attributing the words to Imam Abu Hanifah make the case of the narration quite weak. The following details will further add to the clarity on the evident dubious nature of the narration.

2- The rational rule (dirayah) check:

Imam al-Hafiz Muhibuddin Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Mahmud aka Ibn al-Najjar al-Baghdadi (d. 643 A.H.) actually showed that what the narration says is not tenable rationally. He first reproduces the narration and then writes;

“It is narrated from Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) and all his fellows rule accordingly as to what is narrated from al-Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) that when the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) gave the sermon, he in a lengthy report said, ‘Verily Makkah is one the sanctuaries of Allah (where nothing can be harmed)” Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “Except idhkhir  (a kind of grass), O Messenger of Allah”, so the Prophet (saaw) said, “”Except idhkhir ” Abu Hanifa said regarding it, ‘The Prophet (saaw) himself intended to make this exception (already), Abbas (just) uttered it before him.” Thus Abu Hanifa did not interpret it in a way making the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) follow the opinion of Abbas, so how could he (speak of to) make him follow his own opinion?”[5]

Simply put, there is a narration in which apparently the prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said something after his uncle and a great companion Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) had spoken of it, yet Abu Hanifa said the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has already decided to say it. It’s only that Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) in that moment uttered it before him i.e. the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not follow the opinion of Abbas (radhiyallahu angu). The argument is, when he did take the pain to interpret the narration against the apparent meanings just to avoid the notion of Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) following someone else opinion albeit of a great companion, how could then he say that Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would ever need to follow his own opinion?

On the reality of the alleged narration:

An Egyptian scholar Shaykh Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari (d. 1371 A.H.) has discussed the narration in detail in his dedicated work on the narrations about Imam Abu Hanifa in “Tarikh Baghdad” of al-Khatib.

Following detail gives a fair proof on the origins of the narration.

Imam Mofiq bin Ahmad al-Makki (d. 568 A.H.) narrated the following words Imam Abu Hanifa on authority of Yusuf bin Khalid;

لو أدركني البتي لترك كثير من قوله

“If al-Batti would have found me, he would have left many of his opinions (in favor of mine).”[6]

Abu al-Mo’id Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Khwarazmi (d. 665 A.H.) narrates it with the following words;

لو أن البتي رآني لأخذ بكثير من أقوالي

“If al-Batti would have found me he would have adopted many of my sayings.”[7]

al-Batti here refers to a Kufan scholar who later settled in Basra, Usman bin Muslim al-Batti (d. 143 A.H.)

Shaykh al-Kawthari, following al-Mo’id al-Khwarazmi, argues that it is actually a scribal error or confusion of the narrator that made the narration as it is now recorded in Tarikh al-Baghdad etc.. In the narration al-Batti ( البتي) first became al-Nabi (النبي). This is easy to understand as the skeleton of both the words is same and the difference is only of the dots (nuqaat). Then seemingly undergoing the narration-by-meaning phenomenon the word النبي was replaced by  رسول الله and thereafter understandably the words صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ added to it.

This is no far-fetched an assertion, in fact we have a categorical example like it, in totally a different context, recorded in Tarikh Baghdad [8] itself where it is stated that a narrator confused the words رأيت البتي (I saw al-Batti) and put them as رأيت النبي (I saw the Prophet).

In fact this seems to be too general a mistake and confusion. Another example of the same is quoted by Al-Qifti (d. 646 A.H.)[9]

These examples show it was quite common for people to mix the two in both writing and reading.

So the reasonable conclusion is that the actual narration is misconstrued, apparently by, Yusuf bin Asbat who often did such things due to inadvertence and ignorance.[10] Here please recall Imam Bukhari’s statement about him quoted above.

The phrase, “Religion is nothing but fine opinion:

Coming to the last phrase, “Religion is not anything else except the good and fine opinion”, Shaykh al-Kawthari is of the opinion that this too involves confusion due a scribal error. He argues that the Arabic wording هل الدين إلا الرأي الحسن was originally هل أرى إلا الرأي الحسن i.e. what would he opine except according to the good opinion.He supports this by the fact that al-Batti too like Abu Hanifa was known for making extensive ijtihad and as as such known to be among Ahl al-Ra’i.[11]

Having looked into various old manuscripts myself I find the explanation quite plausible but it is a bit lacking in external independent support. However, even if accepted as such the phrase still does not signify more than the fact that when a matter is not resolved directly through Qur’an, Sunnah or the verdicts of the companions and it comes down to the opinions of the scholars then among those opinions the religious verdict is on nothing but the best of those opinions.

The principle of Imam Abu Hanifa:

Here I must quote the principle of Imam Abu Hanifa about the order of precedence among the the sources of Shariah.

ما جاء عن الله تعالى فعلى الرأس والعينين وما جاء عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسمعا وطاعة وما جاء عن الصحابة رضي الله عنهم تخيرنا من أقوالهم ولم نخرج عنهم وما جاء عن التابعين فهم رجال ونحن رجال

“What comes to us (directly) from the Allah the Almighty (i.e. in the Qur’an) is held the most supreme by us, and what reaches us from the Messenger of Allah -peace and blessings of Allah be upon him – we (simply) listen and obey, and what reaches from the Companions -Allah be pleased with them- we chose the best from their opinions and do not leave them all (i.e. we stick to one of their opinions) and what comes to us from the opinions of the Followers (tabi’un), so they are men like us.”[12]

This shows the truth of the above explanation for he clearly stated that he could not think of leaving the opinions of the Companions even let alone leaving a hadith or thinking that Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would ever -God forbid- follow his opinion. But yes he, being himself a Follower (tabi’i) could contend with another of the same category and expect him to follow his opinion once he convinced him of its fineness.

And Indeed Allah knows the best!


[1] Tarikh al-Baghdad wa Ziyuluhu, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 1417 A.H, vol.13 p.386

[2] Al-Majruhin, Dar al-Wa’i, Halb, 1396 A.H. vol.3 p.65

[3] Mezan al-A’itdal, Dar al-Ma’rifah, Beirut 1963 vol.4 p.462 No. 9856

[4] ibid.

[5] Kitab al-Radd ‘alaa Abu Bakr al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, included in Tarikh al-Baghdad wa Ziyuluhu, vol.22 p.54

[6] Manaqib al-Imam al-‘Azam Abi Hanifa, Da’ira al-Ma’arif al-Nizamia, Hyderabad Deccan 1321 A.H. vol.2 p.102

[7] Jami’ al-Masanid, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut n.d. vol.1 p.63

[8] Tarikh al-Baghdad wa Ziyuluhu, vol.2 p.78

[9] Inbah al-Ruwat ‘ala Anbah al-Nuhat, Maktaba al-‘Ansariya, Beirut 1424 A.H. vol.2 p.344

[10] Ta’nib al-Khatib ‘ala Ma Saqahu fi Tarjimati Abi Hanifah Min al-Akazib, Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyyah, Beirut, 1990 p.175

[11] ibid.

[12] Ibn Hazm, Al-Ahkam fi Usool al-Ahkam, Dar al-Afaq al-Jadida, Beirut n.d. vol.4 p.188


The Feet In Salaat – A Salafi Error

[Mujlisul  Ulama  of  South  Africa]


In  this  fourteenth  century  of  the  Islamic  era,  a  recently  mushroomed  sect  known  as  the  Salafis,  has  invented  some  new  rules  which  they  believe  are  the  Sunnat  teachings  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Inspite  of  their  views  being  in  conflict  with  the  teachings  of  the  Salf-e-Saaliheen  belonging  to  the  Noblest  Ages  of  Islam  (Khairul  Quroon),  they  obstinately  cling  to  their  misguided  opinions.  Their  method  is  to  subject  the  Ahadith  to  their  personal  understanding.  Inspite  of  the  divergence  which  this  self-opinion  produces  from  the  Way  of  the  Ummah  inherited  from  the  Sahaabah,  the  Salafis  intransigently  cling  to  their  deviation.

A  little  reflection  would  convince  them  that  it  is  not  possible  that  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  who  were  the Students  of  the  Sahaabah  would  propagate  acts  which  are  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah.  Any  act  which  has been  accepted  and  practised  by  the  entire  Ummah  from  the  earliest  era  of  Islam  cannot  be  deviation. Deviation  will  be  the  act  which  is  in  conflict  with  this  sacred  Unanimity.

One  of  the  erroneous  practices  of  the  Salafis  is  their  act  of  spreading  their  legs  wide  apart  during  Salaat.  In the  bid  to  touch  the  toes  of  the  musalli  standing  adjacent  to  them,  they  disfigure  their  stance  and  ruin  their composure  with  the  mental  preoccupation  of  touching  the  toes  of  the  musallis  standing  on  both  sides  in  the Saff  during  Jamaat  Salaat.  Even  when  performing  Salaat  alone,  they  stretch  the  legs  hideously  apart.  But  for this  innovation  they  have  absolutely  no  Shar’i  evidence.  A  solitary  Hadith  which  makes  reference  to  ‘foot with  foot’  has  been  grievously  misunderstood  and  misinterpreted  by  them.  Besides  their  misinterpretation, they  have  intentionally  ignored  all  the  other  Shar’i  proofs  which  refute  their  interpretation.

A  perusal  of  the  relevant  Ahadith  on  this  subject  will  convince  every  unbiased  Muslim  that  the  Salafi  interpretation  of  the  Hadith  is  a  concoction  of  the  nafs.  It  is  a  concoction  designed  and  prepared  by  shaitaan to  create  rifts  and  discord  in  the  Ummah.  When  people  opt  to  abandon  the  practices  which  the  Aimmah Mujtahideen  have  reported  on  the  basis  of  the  authority  of  the  Sahaabah,  then  shaitaani  manipulation  is evident.

All  four  Math-habs  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  Wal  Jama’ah  unanimously  refute  the  Salafi  contention  on  the position  to  be  adopted  when  standing  for  Salaat.  None  of  the  Math-habs  teaches  that  the  legs  should  be  spread  out  widely  when  standing  for  Salaat  nor  that  the  toes  of  the  Musalli  alongside  should  be  touched. Some  of  the  Salafis  go  to  great  lengths  in  spreading  their  legs  in  the  bid  to  touch  the  next  man’s  toes  causing  annoyance  and  much  irritation.

The  Emphasis  on  Straightening  the  Sufoof (Sufoof  is  the  plural  of  saff  which  refers  to  the  row  of  musallis  in  a  Jamaat)

The  Ahadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  emphasise  the  straightening  of  the  sufoof.  The emphasis  in  all  the  Hadith  narrations  dealing  with  this  subject  is  directed  to  proper  saff*–  formation,  not  on  the  feet  of  the  musallis  touching  the  toes  of  the  musalli  standing  alongside  as  the  Salafis  inordinately  and inconsiderately  practice.

In  the  endeavour  to  sustain  the  practice  of  stretching  the  legs  wide  open  while  performing  Salaat,  the  Salafis  have  gone  to  the  extreme  of  adopting  this  ugly  stance  even  when  performing  Salaat  alone.  While  a  man  who  is  uneducated  in  the  laws  of  the  Shariah  may  misunderstand  the  solitary  Hadith  in  which  reference  has  been  made  to  foot  with  foot,  the  same  mistake  cannot  and  should  not  be  made  in  so  far  as  Salaat  performed  alone  because  the  question  of  foot  with  foot  is  not  remotely  related  to  infiraadi  Salaat,  i.e.  performing  Salaat alone.

The  Salafis  may  abortively  argue  that  the  aim  of  spreading  the  legs  wide  apart  is  to  ensure  straightness  of  the  sufoof,  but  what  argument  do  they  have  for  justifying  this  unbecoming  practice  when  a  man  is  performing Salaat  infiraadan (individually)?  Furthermore,  there  is  no  Hadith  narration  in  this  regard  which  could  even  be  misinterpreted  to  support  the  case  of  a  munfarid  stretching  his  legs  to  the  extremities  of  east  and  west  or  north  and  south,  depending  on  the  location  of  the  Qiblah  from  where  he  happens  to  be.

The  Salafis  claim  that  it  is  Sunnah  to  stretch  the  legs  wide  apart  and  for  a  musalli’s  toes  to  touch  the  toes  of the  musalli  standing  alongside  him  in  the  saff.  This  ludicrous  position  is  imposed  by  the  Salafis  on  even  women  who  are  obliged  to  stand  with  their  legs  wide  open.  What  an  ugly,  miserable  and  immodest  stance for  a  woman  to  adopt?  A  woman  is  an  object  of  concealment  according  to  the  statement  of  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  When  she  has  to  stretch  her  legs  wide  open,  she  adopts  the  stance  of  lewd  and shameless  women.  Throughout  Salaat,  a  woman’s  postures  are  to  be  constricted  —  made  small  and  drawn in,  not  asserted  like  a  man  asserts  and  expresses  his  actions  during  Salaat.

As  far  as  their  stance  is  concerned  for  the  munfarid,  there  is  not  a  single  Hadith  which  they  can  cite  in substantiation  for  their  view  which  anyhow  is  utterly  baseless.  All  the  relevant  Ahadith  on  this  topic  teach  the contrary,  namely,  that  the  feet  should  be  held  slightly  apart  —  about  four  to  five  inches  (10  cm).  There  also exists  consensus  of  the  Four  Math-habs  on  this  issue.

As  far  as  the  feet  position  for  the  saff  is  concerned,  the  Salafis  conveniently  overlook  all  the  Ahadith  which  negate  their  corrupt  view  and  intransigently  cling  to  a  view  which  they  have  understood  to  be  the  method.  In  taking  to  this  view,  they  deliberately  cast  aside  what  exactly  the  Hadith  in  question  says.  They  took  a  single word  (namely  ‘foot  with  foot’)  out  of  the  context  of  the  Hadith  and  formulated  the  practice  of  stretching  the legs  wide  apart  and  touching  the  toes  of  the  musallis  standing  alongside  on  either  side  in  the  saff.  For  understanding  this  issue,  it  is  best  that  we  cite  all  the  relevant  Ahadith.

The  Ahadith

1.  Hadhrat  Umar  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: Straighten  the  sufoof,  line  up  the  shoulders,  close  the  gaps  and  become  tender  in  the  hands  of  your  brothers.  Do  not  leave  any  gaps  for  shaitaan.  Whoever  joins  the  saff,  Allah  will  join  him.  And whoever  cuts  the  saff  Allah  will  cut  him.  (Bukhari  &  Abu  Dawood)

[Become  tender:  that  is  to  comply  when  a  brother  musalli  in  the  saff  touches  your  shoulder  indicating  that you  should  bring  it  in  line  with  the  shoulders  of  the  other  musallis  in  the  saff.]

2.  Hadhrat  Baraa’  Bin  Aazib  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) used  to  enter  the  saff  from  end  to  end,  touching  our  chests  and  our  shoulders.  He  would  say:  Do  not  be  irregular  (in  your  rows),  for  then  your  hearts  will  become  irregular  (i.e.  discord  will  overtake  you). He  would  (also)  say: Verily,  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal  and  His  Malaaikah  dispatch  Salaam  on  the  first  sufoof

[When  the  word  ‘Salaat’  is  related  to  Allah  Ta  ‘ala,  it  denotes  Rahmat,  i.e.  He  sends  down  mercy.  When  it  is related  to  the  Malaaikah,  it  means  that  they  supplicate  to  Allah  Ta`ala  to  send  His  mercy  upon  His  servants.]

3.  Hadhrat  Anas  Bin  Maalik  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates  that  the  Iqaamah  for  Salaat  was  given. Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  turned  towards  us  and  said:  Straighten  your  sufoof  and stand  close  together,  for  verily  I  see  you  from  behind.  In  a  narration  of  Hadhrat  Anas  (radhiyallahu anhu)  it  is  mentioned:  Everyone  among  us  would  put  his  shoulder  with  the  shoulder  of  his  companion  (alongside)  and  his  foot  with  his  foot.

4.  Hadhrat  Anas  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:  Join your  sufoof  and  stand  close  together,  and  stand  in  line  with  (your)  necks.  I  take  oath  by  The  Being in  Whose  power  is  my  life  that  most  certainly  I  see  shaitaan  entering  the  gaps  in  the  saff  as  if  he  is a  lamb.  (Abu  Dawood)

5.  Abul  Qaasim  Jadli  (rahmatullah  alayh)  said  :I  heard  Nu’maan  Bin  Basheer  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  say: ‘Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  turned  towards  the  people  (the  musallis)  and  say  three times:  ‘By  Allah!  Most  certainly,  you  should  straighten  your  sufoof  otherwise  Allah  will  create discord  in  your  hearts.’  Thereafter  I  saw  that  a  man  would  attach  his  shoulder  to  the  shoulder  of  his companion  (the  one  standing  alongside),  his  knee  to  the  knee  of  his  companion  and  his  ankle  to  the  ankle  of  his  companion.  (Bukhari  &  Abu  Dawood)

6.  Nu’maan Bin  Basheer  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates:  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  would arrange  (set  in  order)  our  sufoof.  One  day  he  came  out  (from  his  home)  and  saw  a  man  (in  the  saff) whose  chest  was  protruding  in  front  of  the  (chests  of)  the  community  (i.e.  the  musallis).  He  then commented:  ‘Straighten  your  sufoof  otherwise  Allah  will  cast  discord  in  your  faces  (i.e.  in  the  words coming  from  your  mouths).  (Tirmizi)

7.  Maalik  Ibn  Abi  Aamir  Ansaari  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates:  Uthmaan  Bin  Affaan  (radhiyallahu  anhu) would  recite  in  his  Khutbah:  ‘When  the  Salaat  is  ready,  arrange  the  sufoof  properly  and  line  up  with the  shoulders’  (i.e.  the  shoulders  of  the  musallis  should  all  be  in  line  and  touching).  (Muatta  Imaam Muhammad)

8.  Hadhrat  Anas  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrated  that  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:  Join  your  sufoof  and  draw  close  among  yourselves  and  line  up  with  the  necks.  Reported  by  Abu  Dawood  and Nisai.  Authenticated  by  Ibn  Hibbaan.  (Bulooghul  Maraam)–*I’laaus  Sunnan

These  are  about  all  the  narrations  pertaining  to  the  manner  and  style  of  standing  in  Jamaat  Salaat. Explaining  these  Ahadith,  Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in  the  section  captioned:


This  is  what  the  Jamhoor  have  said:  ‘Verily,  the  meaning  (of  joining  in  this  context)  is  complete  nearness and  lining  up,  not  actual  joining  (or  touching).’  Al-Haafiz  said:  The  meaning  of  this  is  to  emphasise  in straightening  the  saff  and  closing  the  gaps.  And  Aini  too  has  said  so.  With  this,  the  indication  is  towards emphasis  in  straightening  the  sufoof  and  closing  the  gaps.  Qustulaani  and  others  have  also  said  this. (Laamiud Duraari commentary of Bukhari)

In  Faidhul  Baari  it  is  reported  as  follows:

It  is  stated  in  Sharhul  Wiqaayah:  ‘The  musalli  should  stand  apart  (with  his  feet)  so  that  there  is  a  distance  of  four  fingers  in  between  them,  and  that  is  also  the  view  of  Imaam  Shaafi  (rahmatullah  alayh),  In  another  view  it  is  said  that  the  distance  (between  the  feet)  should  be  one  hand  (i.e.  about  10  cm).’  (The  author  says):  I  did not  find  any  difference  of  opinion  among  the  Salf  (i.e.  Salf-e-Saaliheen)  between  the  stance  (of  the  musalli) in  Jama’ah  and  in  infiraad  (i.e.  performing  alone).  There  is  no  difference  regarding  the  gap  (between  the feet).  It  is  not  that  the  spreading  of  the  feet  should  be  more  in  Jama’ah  than  when  performing  Salaat  alone.

The  summary  of  this  is:  When  we  do  not  find  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Taabi-een  differentiating  in  their standing  position  between  Jama’ah  and  individual  Salaat,  then  we  understand  that  the  only  meaning  of Rasulullah’s  statement  of  ‘joining  the  shoulders’  is  to  line  up  closely  and  to  abstain  from  leaving  gaps (between  the  musallis).

The  following  appears  in  Laamiud  Duraari,  Commentary  of  Saheeh  Bukhaari:

The  Authorities  (the  Fuqaha)  stated  that  it  is  best  for  the  musalli  to  keep  his  feet  about  four  fingers  apart. They  did  not  say  that  the  feet  should  be  united  in  ruku’  or  sajdah.  Aini  says  in  Binaayah:  ‘It  is  appropriate  that  there  be  the  distance  of  four  fingers  between  the  feet  of  the  musalli,  for  verily,  this  is  nearest  to  khushoo.’

Ibn  Umar  (radhiyallahu  anhuma)  would  not  spread  (widely)  his  feet  nor  would  the  one  foot  touch  the  other, but  between  this  there  would  be  neither  much  closeness  nor  much  distance.

In  Raddul  Muhtaar  it  is  reported  as  follows:

The  meaning  of  joining  ankles  to  ankles  is  that  everyone  in  the  Jama’ah  should  stand  alongside  the  other (i.e.  in  a  straight  line).  So  is  it  said  in  Fataawa  Samarqand).  (I’laaus  Sunan)

From  all  the  narrations  and  views  of  the  Muhadditheen  and  Fuqaha  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  era  it  is abundantly  clear  that  the  Hadith  which  mentions  joining  foot  with  foot  does  not  have  a  literal  meaning.  It simply  means  that  the  feet  should  be  all  in  line,  and  this  is  achieved  by  the  heels  of  the  musallis  all  being  in the  same line. This  will  ensure  a  straight  saff  on  which  the  emphasis  of  all  the  Ahadith  is.

The  Salafis

The  Salafis  of  this  age,  while  grabbing  the  words  ‘foot  with  foot’,  ignore  ‘neck  with  neck’,  ‘shoulder  with  shoulder’,  ‘knee  with  knee’  and  ‘ankle  with  ankle’.  The  narrations  command  joining  of  the  necks  just  as  it instructs  joining  of  the  feet.  And,  in  the  same  way  it  commands  joining  of  the  knees  and  ankles.  How  is  it possible  for  the  neck  of  one  musalli  to  touch  the  neck  of  the  musalli  alongside?  At  most,  shoulders  can  touch.  But  to  achieve  the  phenomenal  act  of  joining  necks,  the  musallis  will  have  to  ruin  their  Salaat  and stand  on  their  toes  balancing  at  a  precarious  angle  to  achieve  the  goal  of  touching  each  other’s  neck.  But  no  one  has  ever  advocated  this  ludicrous  stance.  Similarly,  if  the  literal  sense  of  the  ‘ankle  with  ankle’  has  to  be  accepted,  it  will  place  the  musallis  under  great  stress  to  achieve  what  is  not  simple  because  the  protruding heels  are  barriers  for  this  achievement.  Also,  if  ‘knee  against  knee’  had  to  be  literally  considered,  the  musallis  would  have  to  stand  with  ugly  bandied  legs,  stretching  even  their  thighs  hideously  in  order  to  join their  knees  with  the  knees  of  their  companions?  But,  not  even  the  Salafis  have  ventured  such  ludicrousness.

Why do the  Salafis  choose  only  ‘foot  with  foot’  out  of  the  several  instructions  pertaining  to  the  joining  of various  bodily  parts?  For  this  choice  they  have  only  their  intransigent  nafsaani  desire –no  daleel  whatsoever. What  is  the  determining  factor  to  choose  only  feet  and  to  ignore  necks,  knees,  shoulders  and  ankles?  On the  other  hand,  the  Ahlus  Sunnah Wal  Jama’ah  —  the  followers  of  the  Four  Math-habs  —  *have  a  mass  of evidence  to  support  ‘joining  of  the  shoulders’.  Furthermore,  joining  or  lining  up  of  the  shoulders  is  simple, rational  and  fulfills  in  the  best  way  the  instruction  of  straightening  the  saff.

It  should  be  noted  that  the  emphasis  is  on  closing  the  gaps.  There  should  be  no  gap  between  two  musallis  standing  in  the  saff.  But,  the  wider  the  legs  are  spread  apart,  the  more  the  distance  between  the  shoulders will  increase.  Thus,  spreading  the  legs  wide  apart  defeats  the  very  command  issued  in  the  Hadith  to  close the  gaps  and  straighten  the  sufoof.

In  order  to  achieve  ‘foot  with  foot’  literally,  the  Salafis  are  constrained  to  turn  their  feet  at  angles  away  from  the  Qiblah.  In  this  hideous  exercise  they  manage  only  to  touch  the  toes  of  the  adjacent  musalli  with  much  difficulty  and  irritation  to  those  whose  peace  of  mind  is  disturbed  with  the  unruly  encroachment  of  his companion’s  toes.  When  the  toes  are  made  to  touch  with  the  feet  in  diagonal  positions,  the  shoulders  cannot touch,  the  knees,  ankles,  necks,  etc.  are  thrown  completely  out  of  alignment.

When shoulders  are  not  lined  up,  it  is  impossible  to  achieve  straight  sufoof.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the Hadith  emphasises  more  on  shoulders.  Feet  are  mentioned  only  once.  The  Sahaabah  and  the  Taabi-een  relate  the  instruction  ‘to  line  up’  and  straighten  the  saff  to  the  shoulders,  necks,  knees,  ankles  and  the  feet.  In  other  words,  all  these  should  be  in  line,  not  out  of  alignment.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  Hadith  clearly mentions  that  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen,  in  fact  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  himself,  would  order  protruding  chests  to  recede  into  line.  Never  did  any  of  the  Authorities  of  the  Shariah  speak  about  feet  which  should  touch.

In  the  adoption  of  the  Salafi  mode,  the  movement  is  excessive  in  Salaat.  Neither  is  proper  Ruku’  nor  proper  Sajdah  possible  if  this  hideous  posture  has  to  be  retained  throughout  Salaat.  In  fact  Sajdah  is  not  at  all  possible  with  the  feet  spread  wide  apart.  Therefore,  the  Salafis  are  constrained  to  shift  positions  repeatedly  when  going  to  ruku’.  This  excessive  movement  in  Salaat  in  negatory  of  khushoo’.


While  the  case  of  the  Four  Math-habs  is  logical,  the  actual  daleel  (proof)  for  our  view  is  not  rational interpretation,  but  is  narrational  evidence.  Such  evidence  has  been  transmitted  down  the  centuries  from  the Sahaabah.  It  should  be  understood  that  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  —  the  Imaams  of  the  Math-habs  —  had acquired  their  knowledge  of  Islam  from  either  the  Sahaabah  or  the  Taabi-een  who  were  the  Students  of  the Sahaabah.  Whatever  they  taught  is  therefore,  what  the  Sahaabah  had  instructed.  It  is  the  height  of  folly  and deviation  to  differ  with  them  and  to  choose  a  way  which  is  at  variance  with  what  they  had  disseminated.

It  is  not  conceivable  that  the  Salf-e-Saaliheen  —  all  the  Imaams  of  the  Math-bas  were  among  them  —  were in  deviation  and  the  present-day  Salafis  are  on  Rectitude.  This  is  unacceptable  to  any  Muslim  who  is prepared  to  reflect  a  bit.  The  greatest  daleel  for  the  view  of  the  Math-habs  is  that  whatever  they  teach  has been  acquired  directly  from  either  the  Sahaabah  or  the  Taabi-een.

The  Salafi  practice  of  spreading  the  feet  wide  apart  and  the  irritating  attempt  to  touch  the  next  man’s  toes  are  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah  as  the  aforegoing  Shar’i  evidences  have  established.


1.  According  to  the  Hambali  Math-hab  there  should  be  a  ‘small’  gap  between  the  feet  of  the  musalli.

2.  According  to  the  Maaliki  Math-hab,  the  distance  should  be  moderate,  neither  together  nor  so  wide  apart  which  is  considered  repugnant.

3.  According  to  the  Shaafi  Math-hab,  the  gap  between  the  feet  should  be  one  hand.  It  is  Makrooh  to  spread the  feet  wider  than  this.

4.  According  to  the  Hanafi  Math-hab,  the  distance  between  the  feet  should  be  four  fingers.

This  is  the  Sunnah  and  the  Way  of  the  Salf-e-Saaliheen.  The  Salafis  have  no  authority  from  the  Salf-e-Saaliheen  to  substantiate  its  view  of  bid’ah.

Manner of standing in the rows of the jama`ah

[Shaikh Muhammad Ilyas Faisal, Madinat  al-Munawwara]

It  is  established  from  several  ahadith  that  the  row  should  be  absolutely  straight and  no  gaps  should  be  left  between  the  worshippers.  However,  some  people  insist on  spreading  their  feet  and  standing  in  such  a  manner  that  their  ankles  touch  the ankles  of  their  neighbour.  What  is  the  reality  of  standing  in  this  fashion?  

Those  who  stand  in  this  way  base  their  practice  upon  a  hadith  narrated  by Nu’maan  bin  Basheer  (radhiallahu  anhu).  He  says:  “Once  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alaihi  wasallam)  faced  us  and  said:  “Straighten  your  rows”.  He  repeated  this thrice.  He  then  said:  “By  Allah,  you  must  most  certainly  straighten  your  rows  or else  Allah  Ta’ala  will  disunite  your  hearts”.  Hazrat  Nu’maan  bin  Basheer (radhiallahu  anhu)  says:  “I  then  saw  the  people  joining  together  their  shoulders and  ankles”.  [Abu  Dawood,  Sahih  ibn  Khuzaima]  

The  concluding  statement  of  Hazrat  Nu’maan  (radhiallahu  anhu)  is  also  reported in  Sahih  Bukhari.  

However,  upon  analysing  this  hadith,  several  points  come  to  light:  Firstly, Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  never  commanded  the  joining  of  the ankles.  No  hadith  has  yet  been  found  wherein  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi wasallam)  himself  instructed  the  Sahaaba  (radhiallahu  anhu)  to  join  their  ankles. The  Sahaaba  (radhiallahu  anhu)  had  themselves  adopted  this  manner  in  order  to fulfil  the  command  of  straightening  the  saff.  Secondly,  this  hadith  clearly mentions  that  Nu’maan  bin  Basheer  (radhiallahu  anhu)  saw  the  Sahaaba (radhiallahu  anhu)  doing  this  PRIOR  to  the  commencement  of  the  salah.  There is  no  mention  of  this  position  being  maintained  even  after  the  salah  had commenced.  Therefore  we  find  that  great  muhadditheen  such  as  Hafiz  ibn  Hajar (Rahimahullah)  and  Allama  Shawkani  (Rahimahullah)  have  regarded  this  as  an  extreme  measure which  was  occasionally  adopted  by  the  Sahaaba  (radhiallahu  anhu)  to  ensure  that the  row  is  straight.  

In  fact,  a  hadith  of  Hazrat  Anas  (radhiallahu  anhu)  makes  it  absolutely  clear  that this  practice  was  merely  a  measure  adopted  BEFORE  the  salah  to  ensure  the straightening  of  the  row.  He  says:  “If  I  had  to  do  that  (join  the  ankles)  with anyone  of  them  (the  tabi’een)  today,  they  would  run  like  wild  mules”.  [Fath  al-Bari,  vol.2,  pg.176]  

This  simply  means  that  the  taabi’een  severely  disliked  that  anybody  should  join their  ankles  with  them.  Several  points  are  understood  from  this:  Firstly,  Hazrat Anas  (radhiallahu  anhu)  had  stopped  doing  this  completely.  Had  this  been  a sunnah  and  not  just  a  manner  of  ensuring  that  the  saff  was  straight,  it  is impossible  that  Hazrat  Anas  (radhiallahu  anhu)  would  have  left  it  out  merely upon  somebody  disliking  it.  

Secondly,  the  taabi’een  would  never  have  disliked  it  if  they  had  observed  many  of the  Sahaba  (radhiallahu  anhum)  continuously  practicing  upon  this.  It  was  only due  to  the  fact  that  they  had  not  generally  observed  the  Sahaba  (radhiallahu anhum)  adopting  this  procedure  that  they  disliked  it.  Hence  this  makes  it  crystal clear  that  the  Sahaba  (radhiallahu  anhum)  had  only  occasionally  adopted  this practice  to  ensure  the  straightening  of  the  saff.  It  was  not  a  sunnah  in  itself, otherwise  they  would  never  have  left  it  out.  

It  has  already  been  made  clear  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  never  himself  instructed  the  joining  of  the  ankles,  nor  is  there  any  mention  of  the  Sahaba  (radhiallahu  anhum)  having  maintained  this  position  even  IN  salah. However,  if  for  a  moment  we  do  accept  that  this  position  must  be  adopted  during  the  course  of  the  salah  as  well,  the  question  is:  In  which  posture  of  salah  must this  position  be  maintained?  Must  it  be  maintained  during  qiyam,  ruku,  sajdah  and qada  or  in  only  some  of  these  postures?  If  one  says  that  the  ankles  should  be  joined  only  in  the  qiyam  posture,  on  what  basis  were  the  other  postures  excluded? If  it  is  argued  that  it  is  difficult  to  do  so  in  ruku  and  sajdah,  the  same  could  be  said for  qiyam,  since  to  stand  with  one’s  feet  spread  apart  is  naturally  awkward  and hence  it  presents  a  certain  amount  of  difficulty  and  uneasiness  for  many  people.  In short,  this  practice  is  not  established  as  a  sunnah  of  salah.  It  was  merely  adopted initially  by  the  Sahaba  (radiallahu  anhum)  BEFORE  the  commencement  of  salah  to  ensure  that  the  rows  are straight. 

Related Reading: The Distance to be kept between the feet during Salaat [Hanafi view]