Category Archives: Imam Abu Hanifa

How Samarkhand was Conquered

Samarkand is a great country located in North Asia. It has green mountains, hills and forests that you can never imagine. Samarkand is a city filled with gold and silver, silk, porcelain and natural resources. People of Samarkand used to worship idols they made of jewelry. They placed these gods in a temple in the mountains. The temple was specifically made for senior monks, and there were a lot of small temples in the center of Samarkand.

In that era, Muslims were ruled by a Caliph who was an example because of his good manners, piety and fear of God. He had many of the attributes of his grandfather, the second caliph Al-Farooq ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab, may Allah bless him. He governed a huge country which never had been ruled by anyone, not even by the Persian Chosroes, Roman Caesars or Hakan. His kingdom extended from China to the Atlantic Ocean. His wife Fatima, the daughter of Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik and also the sister of Caliph Sulaiman, was the most honorable woman of her time as seven males of her relatives had been rulers. He was the Caliph ‘Umar ibn Abdul Aziz.

The Islamic army was under a commander who was very seasoned and merciful. His name was Qutaybah ibn Muslim. When the Islamic army led by him reached the outskirts of Samarkand, he ordered it to go to the mountain behind the city because he didn’t want the people of Samarkand to see them. The Muslim army attacked the city. The battalions behind the mountains attacked as if they were a hurricane. They reached the centre of Samarkand without resistance. The monks had fled to the great temple in the mountains and hid in their homes. People of Samarkand didn’t go out of their home for fear of the Muslims, but for Muslims, the situation was stable.

Slowly the people of Samarkand began to come out of their homes to fetch water and food. They started sending their young children to perform these tasks and the Muslims didn’t trouble them. Instead, the Muslim helped them to fetch the food and water. The children entered their homes with happiness. This situation began to spread feelings of trust and tranquility in the hearts of the people of Samarkand. As a result, people returned to their shops, farms and properties after some time. They found them intact – same as they had left, nothing more or less. The normal life returned between Muslims and people of Samarkand. They found that Muslims are faithful in their business and dealings; they did not lie or cheat. This impression rose when two persons quarreled. One of them was from the people of Samarkand, and the other was a Muslim. They went to the judge who favoured the man from Samarkand.

The news reached the runway monks in the mountain temple. They said if this was their judgment, then they must have a fair ruler. They ordered their men to go to the ruler of the Muslims  and tell him what happened.

A young man went out. When he arrived at Damascus, he was full of fear. He saw a large palace. He told himself that this is the palace of their leader, but he saw people enter and exit without being stopped by a guard or soldier. He encouraged himself to enter this palace. It turned out to be the “Umayyad Mosque.” It was studded with precious gems, ornaments and majestic minarets. People knelt down in this wonderful place. He saw Muslims praying together and was surprised to see how those people were sitting and how they lined up quickly.

He stood up after the prayer and asked a Muslim about the palace of the ruler: “Where is your leader?” That Muslim told him  he was the man who led the prayer. Didn’t you see him? He said: no. The Muslim told him: “Did you pray with us?” He said: “What is prayer?” The Muslim said: It is worshipping the Almighty Allah alone and becoming obedient to Him without any partner. The Muslim asked him: “Are you not a Muslim?” He said: no. The Muslim smiled and asked him: “What is your religion?” He said: “the religion of the priests of Samarkand”. The Muslim asked: “What is their religion?” He said: “They worship idols.” The Muslim told him: We are Muslims. We worship God only.

He described the caliph’s home to him. The man went to that place and found an old clay house and an old man who was mending the wall. His clothes were full of mud. He went back to the mosque and told that Muslim that was making fun of him. “I asked you about your leader’s place and you sent me to a poor man mending his wall,” he said.

The young Muslim came with the stranger to that house and told him, “this is the Emir who is mending his wall.” The stranger said, “don’t make fun of me.” The Muslim swore by Allah and said, “This is our leader”. The stranger from Samarkand remembered the priests and how they were so proud that they did not easily talk to their people.

While the stranger still stood surprised, a woman came with her son and asked the Caliph to increase her share of grant from the treasury because she had many children. Suddenly, the son of the woman hit the Caliph’s son and hurt him. They fought over a small toy. The Caliph’s wife hurried towards her son and carried him away, shouting at the woman. The Caliph bandaged his son’s head, and went out to the woman and calmed her down and took the toy from his own son and gave it to the woman’s son. Then he told her to go to the Treasurer and say that he can increase her money.

The Caliph’s wife said, “her son hit your son and then you raise her money”. The Caliph told her, “you frightened her, and the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said that whoever frightens a Muslim Allah will frighten him on the Day of Resurrection.” He then went to complete the repair of his wall.

The young man from Samarkand was surprised at what he saw.  He dared and moved forward to ‘Umar ibn Abdul Aziz and said: You are the Emir of the Muslims?. The Caliph Omar answered, “Yes, and what’s your business?” The young man replied, “I have a complaint about Qutaybah ibn Muslim.”

The young man completed his story: Samarkand priests sent me and they told me that it’s from your traditions that when you conquer any country, you make them choose one from three things: invite them to Islam, ask them to pay tribute and in the event of their refusal of both the choices you give them the choice of war. The Caliph said: Yes, this is our custom, and every country has the right to choose among the three. The young man said, “Is it in your custom to start the assault by surprise?” The Caliph said: “It is not our custom to do so and Allah Almighty has ordered us not to do so, and our Prophet forbade us from being unjust.” The young man said, “Qutaybah ibn Muslim did not do what you say and his army attacked us by surprise.”

When the Caliph heard that Qutaybah did not make any suffer offer and it was not his habit to listen to only one side. He decided to write to the governor of Samarkand. He wrote a few lines, and ordered the young man to take it to the governor of Samarkand who will remove the injustice which has taken place there.

The young man returned from Damascus to Samarkand wondering about what a paper can do in front of the swords of Qutaybah ibn Muslim! When he arrived at Samarkand, he gave the paper to the priests who told him in return: take it to the Governor to do what’s written in it. The young man went to the governor and gave him the letter. The governor was surprised noticing the seal on the letter. He read the letter which contained the following: “To the governor of Samarkand, peace and mercy of God be upon you. Appoint a judge between the priests of Samarkand and Qutaybah ibn Muslim… put yourself in the place of Qutaiba.”

The Caliph didn’t want to distract Qutaiba from his duties and defence activity. The Governor could not do anything except obey what was written in the letter. He appointed a judge quickly. The judge selected a day to meet in the mosque and ordered the priests to be present during the meeting. He ordered the people as well to come in the presence of Qutaybah ibn Muslim. The judge did not like to hear the case in the absence of Qutayba who was at the time a very strong commander. He was the head of the most powerful army in the world at the time. Qutaybah had reached China continuing his  conquests. But the judge ordered him to return, and he did return after two days.

When the priests knew that Qutaybah has returned, they became very fearful. Qutaybah entered the mosque and put his sword and took off his shoes. The judge told him to sit next to his opponent. The priest stood up and said: Qutaybah ibn Muslim entered our country without warning us. He didn’t give us warning nor gave us the options of invitation to Islam or payment of tribute or war. Instead, he attacked us without warning. The judge turned to the commander Qutaybah ibn Muslim and asked him, “what do you say about this complaint.” Qutaiba said: “war is a trick. This country is a great obstacle to us and all those who were like it did not resist to pay tribute and did not want to enter Islam, and had we fought them, they would have killed more of us than we would have killed from them.” He continued, “And by the help of Allah and surprise, we defended Muslims from great harm and the history is witness to what I say. And all the countries beyond them became easy to conquer. Yes, we surprised them but rescued them and let they know about Islam.” The judge said: “Qutaybah! Did you invite them to Islam, tribute or war?” Qutaybah replied,  “no, we surprised them for what I told you before.” The judge said: “Qutaybah, you confessed and by this the court’s duty ends. Qutaybah, Allah supports this nation only by religion and by avoiding treachery, and setting up justice. We were out of our homes for jihad for Allah’s sake. We didn’t go out to conquor lands and occupy countries unjustly.”

Then the judge issued his ruling: “I rule that all armies of Muslims in this country should get out of this country and give it back to its people and give them the opportunity to prepare for war, and then make them choose between Islam, tribute or war. If they chose  war then we will fight. Muslims will get out of Samarkand without anything just as they entered and deliver the city to its people, and that is the application of the law of Almighty Allah and the Sunnah of our Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him”.

After this, Muslims started to leave the city. The judge came out in front of the priests. The priests did not believe what they were seeing. The people of Samarkand kept watching Muslims until they all went out of their city.

The young priest said, “what they did proves that their religion is the right. I witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger.” Now all the priests pronounced that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger and entered Islam.This is the story of the greatest court in the history. It made people of Samarkand satisfied with the rule of Islam and, as a result, people entered Islam in hordes. (References: Stories from the history, the story of Samarkand court by Sheikh Tantawi and Islam and international law by Sheikh Wahbeh al-Zuhili)

Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim on the Wahdatul Wujood concept of Fana (Annihilation) and Sukr (Spiritual Intoxication)

Why Hafiz Ibnul Qayyim?

Although the true Sufis have always gone to great lengths in condemning the charlatans who masquerade as Sufis, and have elaborated sufficiently on how the various spiritual concepts and states associated with the spiritual path conform with the Shariah, the writings of Hafiz Ibnul Qayyim are used here since he is unlikely to be branded a deviant, bidati, zindeeq, or labelled with some other epithet that is usually hurled indiscriminately at the Auliya by the members of the Salafi Sect.

Hafiz Ibnul Qayyim has written enough on the topic of fanaa to dispel much of the misconceptions associated with this particular spiritual state, which the Ulama-e-Soo utilise in order to denigrate the Auliya. These excerpts are just a few taken from his book Madarij al-Salikin, which shed much light on this matter:

The True Sufis Do Not Mean Annihilation of Existence of Everything Apart from Allah

Ibn al-Qayyim states in Madarij al-Salikin (vol. 1, p.154) that the true Sufis do not mean the annihilation of the existence of everything apart from Allah. They only mean the obliteration of the self from seeing and feeling everything apart from Allah:

“As to annihilation (fana) from seeing anything apart from He, this is a concept that the majority of the latter Sufis have called towards and which they consider the goal, and it is that on which Abu Isma‘il al-Ansari has based his book and made the third stage in each of his chapters.

They do not mean the annihilation of the existence of everything apart from Allah on the outward, but the obliteration of the self from seeing and feeling everything apart from Allah. Its true nature is the absence of one of them from everything apart from what he is witnessing, rather also his absence from seeing himself and his being. This is because he becomes absent from his worship on account of He who is worshiped, absent from his dhikr on account of He who he is remembering, absent from his love on account of his beloved, and absent from seeing himself on account of He who is being seen.”

Two Reasons for Fanaa Occurring

Ibnul Qayyim states that Fanaa occurs when the strength of the inspirations (warid) supersedes the capacity of the Saalik to withstand them:

“There are two reasons for this fana: one is the strength of the inspirations (warid) and weakness of the one receiving, and this is not criticism of the person [who is experiencing this]”

The True Sufi is Not Held Blameworthy for Words Uttered in a State of Spiritual Intoxication (Sukr )

Ibnul Qayyim continues to state that being overcome by a high spiritual state is due to the Saalik not being strong enough to be able to withstand such a state. However, the true Sufi cannot be held blameworthy for words uttered in that state:

“At times, a spiritual state such as this is called intoxication (sukr), annihilation (istilam), obliteration (muhw) and being in the state of union (jam‘a). They sometimes differentiate between the meanings of these terms and, at times, the prevalent meaning is the seeing of the heart its Beloved and the One it is remembering until he disappears into Him and becomes annihilated in Him and thinks he is in union with Him and that he has joined Him, rather he thinks he is He. This is similar to the story in which a man saw his beloved throw herself into water and so the lover threw himself behind her. The beloved said, “What made you throw yourself into the water?” The lover replied, “I lost myself in you and thought surely you were I.”

When his sense returns, he understands he was mistaken in that and that the realities are distinguished in themselves. Hence, the Cherisher (Rabb) is the Cherisher, the slave is the slave, and the Creator is separate from the creation, there is nothing from Himself in His creation, and nothing in Him from His creation.

However, at the time of sukr, muhw, istilam, fana and jam‘a this difference becomes absent, and at this time, those involved may say such things as have been narrated from Abu Yazid who said, “Glory be to myself,” or, “There is nothing in this jubbah except Allah.” Speech such as this would render the speaker a kafir if his mind were with him. However, on account of the absence of the faculty of differentiating and feeling, he is not held blameworthy…

Rather, the final outcome of such a person is to be excused — on account of his inability and weakness of heart and mind — from distinguishing and differentiating”

Only Some Were Afflicted By Shatahat (Words Uttered in Ecstasy)

In comparing the capacities of different people to absorb spiritual states, he draws attention to the fact that only some were overcome completely, and that the most perfect ones never lost control. These included the the Sahabahs (radhiyallahu anhum) who received the greatest spiritual effulgence through being in the presence of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) – yet they were never reported to have lost their senses, swooned, died, etc. as a result of spiritual emotions – the most that occurred to them was physically shaking with fear or shedding tears in abundance:

“This situation is also not necessarily that of all saliks but it comes to some of them. Those who have been afflicted include Abu Yazid and others like him. There are some who are not afflicted by it. Their situation is more perfect and strong. Indeed, the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) are the leaders of the ‘arifs, the imams of those who have reached [Allah] and are close [to Him], and the exemplars of the saliks. There was none among them who was afflicted by this in spite of the strength of their iradah, their passing of so many stages, and their seeing that which others did not see. They did not even have a whiff of its smell and nor did it pass their hearts. If this fana was perfect then they were more deserving of it and would have been the people of it, and they would have had from it that which others have not.”

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) – The Greatest Spiritual Strength

In order to draw attention to differing capacities of people, Ibnul Qayyim compares the reaction of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with that of Hadhrat Musa (alayhi wasallam) when both beheld the presence of Allah (azza wa jal):

“This was also not the case with our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and nor was his state. It is on account of this that on the night of Mi‘raj when he was taken and he saw that which he saw from that which Allah showed him from His great signs, this state did not come to him. Rather, he was as Allah Most High has described him in the verse, “The eye neither went wrong, nor did exceed the limit. He has indeed seen a part of the biggest signs of your Lord.” (53:17-18) He also said, “And We did not make the vision We showed to you, but a test for the people.” (17:60) Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “This is the vision that He showed the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) on the night he was taken…”

In spite of this, he came amongst them in the morn and his condition did not change, nor was he left senseless or unconscious, he informed them of the details of what he saw, he was not annihilated from his self and nor from seeing it. It is because of this that his situation was more perfect than Musa ibn ‘Imran (may Allah bless them both and grant them peace) when he fell senseless when his Cherisher revealed Himself to the mountain, turning it into rubble.”

Two extremes When Dealing with Shatahat of the Righteous

Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah accepts what has to be accepted, and rejects what has to rejected, using the Shariah as the standard, WITHOUT denigrating the Auliyah who uttered such statements.

There are two extreme groups when it comes to dealing with Shatahat  – those who denigrate and belittle the Auliyah on account of such statements, and those who latch onto the corrupt meanings of such statements in order to justify their deviant beliefs.

Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim in Madarij al-Salikin (vol. 2, p.39) refers to these two groups of fitnah:

“It is said that this and other words of ecstasy (shatahat) — the forgiveness of which is hoped through an abundance of good deeds, and which one is drawn deeply into due to perfect truthfulness (sidq), correct dealing, utmost sincerity and pure monotheism, and no human after the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is guaranteed fallibility — has forced two groups of people into fitnah:

The first group has been blinded from the goodness of this group, the gracefulness of their souls and the truthfulness of their dealings on account of these words of ecstasy. They consider them (the Sufis) invalid on account of these shatahat; they severely reject them and view them poorly in an absolute fashion. This is enmity and excessiveness.

If everyone who commits a mistake or errs were to be abandoned indiscriminately, and all of his good points were to be considered invalid, then all knowledge, crafts and wisdoms would be ruined and those who are distinguished for their knowledge in these matters would be without work.

The second group has been blinded by the goodness of the Community, the purity of their hearts, the correctness of their intentions and their good dealings from seeing the defects of their shatahat and their shortcomings; they have praised the shatahat and give them their approval. These people have also exceeded the limit and are extreme.

The third group are the people of justice and equity who give every man their due and treat people according to their ranks. They do not adjudicate he who is healthy as being ill and poorly, and nor consider healthy he who is ill and poorly. They, rather, accept that which should be accepted and refute that which should be refuted.”

At Times the Intended Meaning is Without Corruption

And again Ibn al-Qayyim writes in Madarij al-Salikin (vol. 3, p.330):

“At times they use a phrase used by a heretic and intend a meaning in which there is no corruption. This becomes a means of fitnah for two groups: the group that attributes the exoteric meaning of texts to them and then considers them to be innovators and astray; and the group that looks at what they aim and intend, and approves those texts and considers correct those alluded meanings. The seeker of truth accepts it from whoever has it and rejects that which opposes it regardless of who it is.”

When the Arifs Use Such Words, They Intend the Correct Meaning

Ibn al-Qayyim writes in Madarij al-Salikin (vol. 3, p.151):

“Be completely aware of ambiguous, obscure words that are in the nomenclature of the Community. They are indeed the root of difficulties, and the source of both the siddiq and the heretic. When a person who is weak in recognising and knowing Allah Most High hears the words ittisal (union), infisal (separation), musamarah (conversing), mukalamah (communion), and that nothing is in existence in reality except Allah, and that the existence of the worlds are thoughts and illusions like a shadow which exists on account of another, then he hears that which fills the ears with hulul (incarnationism), ittihad (unification) and shatahat (words of ecstasy).

When the ‘arifs, on the other hand, use these words and others like them, they intend the correct inherent meaning. But some err in understanding what they mean and attribute heresy and kufr to them.”

Differences between Najdi Wahhabiyyah and Egyptian Reformist Salafiyyah – a Brief Sketch

By brother Umar Rumi

Wahhabiyyah:

It is the movement of Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab, taking from Ibn Taymiyyah but focusing more on the issue of shirk and takfir and tabdi` rather than Ibn Taymiyyah’s philosophical and anthropomorphist issues.

Generally Hanbali in fiqh, not against taqlid, not against tasawwuf and in of itself (as neither was Ibn Taymiyyah).

Salafiyyah:

It actually starts as a progressist reformist modernist scientist positivist deist movement in Egypt with the infamous Rashid Rida, Muhammad Abduh, Jamaluddin al-Afghani.

It’s them to more properly be against taqlid as a concept (the old “we stagnated with shuruh of shuruh and don’t produce anything new), against tasawwuf in and of itself (buying the orientalist/

Kemalist “those pietistic inactive fatalistic parasites don’t contribute to society”), and revaluating a mix of post-mu`tazilah and Ibn Taymiyyah against the Ash`aris and Maturidis, depicted as responsible for the lack of intellectual and scientific progress in the Muslim world (“Imam Ghazali stopped the Islamic renaissance”)

So in and of itself wahhabis and salafis start off as quite different, but later on they kinda of intertwine when Egyptian reformist salafi/ikhwani engineers move to Saudi for job, when Albani (who formed himself on Rida’s al-Manar journal) went to teach in Saudi etc etc.
Still you can see the differences between Albani and Ibn Uthaymin in issues such as taqlid, fiqh methodology, tasawwuf etc).

The rest is history of them splitting in very different groups from madkhalis to s-jdis and all in between.

But those two main sources and their objectives should be kept in mind.

Wahhabis: Hanbali in fiqh, takfiri bloodsheddingkhawarij with an innovated definition of takfir and shirk.., but not necessarily with the anthropomorphic addenda (or rather, the latter wahhabis did have them, but I’m not sure about MIAW himself going that deep into Ibn Taymiyyah philosophy), not against taqlid and not against tasawwuf in itself.

Salafis: reformists hating on taqlid, on Ash`aris/Maturidis and on Sufis because those three parts “stopped the innate progress of Islam”. Ikhwanis and Albani are more on this side. From this mindset emerges among the others the “European renaissance was started in Andalusia”, the “scientific miracles of the Qur’an”, etc etc

THE HISTORY OF THE HANĀBILAH AND THE WAHHĀBIYYUN OF HIJĀZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They waged war against them and dessimated the Wahhabi cult.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WAHHABI ‘AQIDAH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SALAFI’ISM AND THE MUDHIELLEEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENT (By Mujlisul Ulama):

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

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

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

Who Are the Madkhalis??

[By Moulana Huzaifah Ibraaheem]

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

Madkhalis are a branch of the Salafis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

فإ الله المشتكى وهو مستعان

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

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

أأترك سنه حبيبي لهؤ لاء الحمقى؟

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salafi Double Standards

By Umar Rumi

Salafis’ on Moonsighting:

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

Salafis’ on Madhahib:

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

But then:

Salafis’ on Political system:

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

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

A Brief Discussion on How the Classical Fuqaha based their Opinions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COPROCREEP SALAFIS SEEK AID FROM MUQALLID MUFTIS

WOMEN LECTURING TO MEN?

Question

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

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

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

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

Answer by Mujlisul Ulama:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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