Category Archives: Imam Abu Hanifa

THE WORD “MAULANA” & THE BAATIL SALAFI CONTENTIONS

QUESTION:

A salafi claims that it is shirk to address anyone with the title, maulana. He claims that this word has become a title for scholars in only India and Pakistan. Since ‘Maulana’ means ‘Our Protector’, its usage is permissible for only Allah Ta’ala. Please comment.

ANSWER (By Mujlisul Ulama):

Salafis are stupid and arrogant, hence they speak drivel. The word maula has several meanings in Arabic. It means friend, protector, master, freed slave. The term maulanaa consists of two words: maula and naa which is a pronoun meaing our. Thus, maulana means ‘our friend’. The term is used as a title of respect for a learned person who is regarded as a ‘friend’ because he safeguards one’s Deen. He is also the protector of our Deen and Imaan by virtue of the Deeni Ta’leem he imparts.

Maulana Rumi (rahmatullah alayh) was not an Indian. This title existed centuries before it was adopted in India. There is no Shar’i prohibition to calling someone ‘our friend’ or ‘our protector’. Whilst Allah Ta’ala is the Sole source of our livelihood, it is not prohibited to say that we earn our livelihood from Zaid who has employed us. If the police protects a person against a robber, it is not prohibited to say that the police was our protector. Translated into Arabic, our friend will be maulana.

Besides personal opinion, Salafis have no Islamic evidence for his contention. No matter how logical and how nice a view may seem, it is essentially personal opinion if unsubstantiated by Shar’i proof. The use of maulana for Allah Ta’ala in the Qur’aan is not proof or a basis for saying that the term may not be used for a person. This is neither mentioned in the Qur’aan nor anywhere in the Hadith.

The word Rabb is used for Allah Ta’ala. However, it is permissible to use it for others as well, such as Rabb-ul-Maal (one who invests money); rabbika (your rabb meaning your master, i.e. a human master or king).

The kitaabs are replete with the word maula used for a slave-master. If slaves say that their master is maulana (our master), it will be perfectly permissible. All the books of Fiqh from the earliest age of Islam, including the Hadith, use maulaa for the master of slaves. There is no Shar’i prohibition to refer to a person as my maulaa or our maulaa.

To clinch this argument and to demolish the baseless claim of the article, is the following Hadith:

“Anas Bin Maalik (radhiyallahu anhu) was asked about a mas’alah. He responded: ‘Refer incumbently (for answers) to Maulana (Our Maulana) Al-Hasan. They asked him: ‘We ask you, O Abaa Humzah!, and you say: ‘Ask Maulana Al-Hasan.’ Then he said: ‘We have heard and he (Al-Hasan) has heard. We forgot, and he remembered.” (Musannaf Ibn Abu Shaybah).

Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) was a very senior Sahaabi. He was not an inhabitant of India and Pakistan. When even he used the term Maulana for a learned person, then there is no need to pursue this argument further.

Understanding the Statement: “The Hadith is my Math-hab”

Question:

Imaam Abu Hanifah as well as other Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen are reported to have said: “When the authenticity of a Hadith is confirmed, it is my Math-hab.” On the basis of this and similar statements, the Salafis contend that any mas’alah of the Math-habs which conflicts with a Saheeh Hadith should be abrogated. What is the response for this?

Answer (By Mujlisul Ulama):

Imaam Abu Hanifah was not speaking to moron Salafis, juhhaal in general and to duktoors basking in their extremely shallow and superficial textual knowledge. Imaam Abu Hanifah was addressing primarily his Students who were Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and Muhadditheen. Morons were not part of the audience Imaam A’zam was addressing when he issued his order.

The Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen such as Imaam Abu Yusuf, Imaam Muhammad, and others of this lofty calibre gave practical expression to the Command of their illustrious Ustaadh, Imaam Abu Hanifah. That era was the age when all the Ahaadith had not yet been compiled. Furthermore, there never was an Imaam nor a Sahaabi who had ever laid claim to have en-compassed all the Ahaadith.

Whilst Imaam Abu Hanifah was a Haafiz of more Ahaadith than Imaam Bukhaari, it was just logical that there were numerous more Ahaadith which did not reach him. Hence, it was imperative for him to issue the instruction to the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen of the time. Thus, when any of his illustrious Students acquired a Saheeh Hadith with which a Fatwa/view of Imaam Abu Hanifah conflicted, he would address the issue and formulate the correct Fatwa as commanded by Imaam Abu Hanifah.

The Kutub of the Ahnaaf bear considerable testimony to the many differences between Imaam Abu Hanifah and his two greatest Students, Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Muhammad. Dangling the chimera of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s statement, cited completely out of its context, for achieving the objective of Admut Taqleed, is stupid twaddle peddled by the moron Salafis and juhhaal modernists of the age. There is absolutely no substance in the question disgorged by the juhhaal Salafis. No one in this age has the right to review any mas’alah of the Math-hab in the light of the Ahaadith we have with us today. Any such attempt will be a shaitaani ploy to undermine the Shariah.

THE IMAAM & HIS MATH-HAB

Question: Someone, a sheikh, said that it is not incumbent to follow only one Imaam because even the great Imaams have made errors. Is his reasoning valid?

Answer (By Mujlisul Ulama):

His reasoning is deceptive. It is incumbent to follow one Math-hab 100%. It is not incumbent to follow 100% one Imaam of a Math-hab. The Math-hab has to be followed. Whilst it is accepted that all humans, even great Fuqaha and Imaams err, the official ruling of the Mathhab has to be followed. For example, if Imaam Hambal had erred (as this someone mentioned) on the issue of the oath, then the Fuqaha of the Hambali Math-hab would have set it aside. They would never issue a ruling on the basis of an error.

If Imaam Abu Hanifah for example had erred in a ruling, then there were thousands of Hanafi Fuqaha in all times to set the error aside. It is impossible to imagine that thousands of Fuqaha of the highest stand ing will enact Ijma’ (Consensus) on an error when they are aware of the Haqq.

A layman cannot say that a great Imaam has erred in his ruling. On what basis does he say that Imaam Hambal, for example, had erred? What the sheikh said is not binding. To understand if Imaam Hambal had erred, one has to look at the official position of the Hambali Mathab. If the Fatwa of the Hambali Math-hab is in conflict with what Imaam Hambal had said, then it will be understood that he had erred, hence the Hambali Fuqaha had unanimously set aside that particular view or error.

The official position of the Math-hab will always be correct. We do not go according to every view of Imaam Abu Hanifah, for example. And so is it with all the other Mathhabs. The ruling of the Jamhoor Fuqaha of the Math-hab is the official stance for prac tical implementation. This stance has been commanded by the Imaams to their Students. Thus, even if the er ror of the Imaam is set aside, we shall still be following his Math-hab 100%.

Brief Response to the Claim: “Imam Abu Hanifah was not a Muhaddith”

By Abdul Wahab Saleem

It’s appalling to hear that some believe that Abū Hanīfah was not a muḥaddith (traditionist). He has *at least* 15 different musnads which were all collected by al-Khawārizmī in the seventh century in his book Jāmi‘ al-Masānīd.

He wrote this book when he heard some comments from some ignorant people in his time in which they belittled Abū Hanīfah’s abilities in ḥadīth saying, ‘He barely reported any prophetic traditions.’ To correct this misconception he gathered 15 of the musnads which had collected Abū Hanīfah’s reports.

It should also be noted that Abū Hanīfah didn’t permit reporting a prophetic tradition by meaning as opposed to the majority of the scholars of ḥadīth. This did decrease the number of traditions he narrated as unless he could remember the words verbatim he wouldn’t permit himself to narrate, but despite that decrease, al-Khawārizmī was able to find and collect 15 different musnads tracing back to him during the seventh century!

THE FALLACY OF IMAAM ASH’ARI’S ALLEGED “RETRACTION”

By Mujlisul Ulama

The coprocreep echoing the ghutha (rubbish) of his Salafi mentors, claims that Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) had on his deathbed forsaken his mission of defending the Ahlus Sunnah, and had adopted the way of the deviates masquerading as Hanaabilah. Copro-Salafis are at pains to enlist Imaam Ash’ari as a supporter of their Hashwiyyah religion of vulgar anthropomorphism. In the parlance of our age, the Salafi Hashwiyyah are referred to as Copro-Salafis.

Several centuries after the initiation of the Mujassimah/Hashawi sect of copro-anthropomorphists, Ibn Taimiyyah in the 7th century of the Islamic era undertook the satanic task of reviving the anthropomorphism preached by his predecessors – Ibn Hamid, Abu Ya’la and Zaaghooni who have been exposed by Allaamah Ibnul Jauzi Al-Hambali for their beliefs of tajseem..

The first copro-anthropomorphist (Hashawi) who had attempted to portray Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) as a supporter of Taimiyyi tajseem was Ibn Taimiyyah himself. In history he was the very first copro-anthropomorphist to claim that Kitaabul Ibaanah, a kitaab allegedly authored by Imaam Ash’ari supported the math-hab of the copro-anthropomorphists. The attempt of the Copro-Salafis, inspired by Ibn Taimiyyah, has been to create the idea that Kitaabul Ibaanah was Imaam Ash’ari’s final book. Ibn Taimiyyah and his legion of Hashwis – the Copro-Salafis of our age – have latched on to Kitaabul Ibaanah to bolster their anthropomorphic math-hab despite the fact that Ibn Taimiyyah and the Copro-Salafis in general are in vehement criticism of Imaam Ash’ari.

As far as the book, Kitaabul Ibaanah is concerned, there appears this Copro-Hashawi, Ibn Taimiyyah, four centuries after Imaam Ash’ari to claim that this treatise was his last work whereas no one before Ibn Taimiyyah held the view that Kitaabul Ibaanah was Imaam Ash’ari’s final work. His final work was in fact Kitaabul Luma. There even exists sharp disagreement among Ash’aris regarding the author of Kitaabul Ibaanah. They are not agreed on authorship of the book, whether Imaam Ash’ari was at all its author.

There is a strong view that the Copro-Anthropomorphists (Hashawis) had fabricated this kitaab to create the impression that Imaam Ash’ari too was in support of their copro-beliefs. Nothing is furtherst from the truth than this contemptible fallacy and falsehood fabricated by Ibn Taimiyyah, the reviver of the Hashwiyyah religion in the 7th century. Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) was an implacable foe of anthropomorphism. If Kitaabul Ibaanah, assuming it is the work of Imaam Ash’ari, if it was his final kitaab, there would have been Ash’aris from amongst his close followers as well as contemporaries who would have confirmed this contention. But there is not a single Ash’ari who maintains that Kitaabul Ibaanah was his final work. It was the anthropomorphist reviver, Ibn Taimiyyah who had made this preposterous claim in the seventh century, four centuries after Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh).

The Math-hab of Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) is what is asserted in Kitaabul Luma and what the Ash’ari Ulama have propagated over the centuries. If Imaam Ash’ari had retracted his position at the end of his life as the Copro-Salafis and their Copro-Imaam claim, then surely such retraction would not have remained hidden for four centuries, and it would not have been left for an anthropomorphist 4 centuries later to proclaim the hallucinated retraction. Any retraction by Imaam Ash’ari would most assuredly have been adopted by at least a handful of Ash’aris, if not by the majority. But not a single Ash’ari has followed his Imaam in the supposed retraction hallucinated by Ibn Taimiyyah. There is absolutely no historical evidence to support the copro-contention of Ibn Taimiyya and his legion of Copro-Salafis. There is absolutely no support for the Hashwi doctrines which Ibn Taimiyyah and the Copro-Salafis propound.

Debunking Ibn Taimiyyah’s allegation pertaining to Kitaabul Ibaanah and the hallucinated retraction of Imaam Ash’ari, and even rejecting the claim of Imaam Ash’ari even being the author of the book, the following appears in the book, The Attributes of God:

“A number of scholars of the past and the present have rejected the idea that Kitaab al-Ibaana was written by Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari. Amongst them is a contemporary by the name ‘Isaa ibn `Abd Allah Maani` alHimyari. This is what he says in his book, Tashih al-Mafaahim: ‘As for Kitab al-Ibaana ascribed to Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari, may God show his mercy, there is debate about that (ascription) for a number of reasons:

First: Ibn Furak and others of the companions of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari did not mention this book as being one of his works. Likewise, the rest of his pupils have not mentioned it to our knowledge;

Second: There is much discrepancy between the [different] copies and there is conflict in their texts; something that confirms the Hashwiyya’s meddling with this book;

Third: There are expressions in Kitaab al-Ibaana that contradict the apparent meanings of the texts of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari that he mentions in his other books, especially Kitaab al-Luma’ `al-Saghir and al-Kabir, which is the last of what he wrote. Likewise, it contains expressions that contradict the words of his pupils and the Imaams of his madhhab while they are those who have transmitted the madhhab from him;

Fourth: Some of the Mutamaslifa (“Salaf-s”) attempted to attribute the ‘aqida of anthropomorphism (tajsim) to Imaam al-Ash’ari but they were not able to, and I knew that one of the students of an esteemed Islamic university undertook this task but failed.’”

The explanation pertaining to Kitaabul Ibaanah is in reality superfluous to the topic of our current Refutation of the coprocreep in view of the fact that the stupid diatribe of the Hashwi coprocreep is directed at the Ulama of Deoband and Imaam Maturidi.

Whether Kitaabul Ibaanah is the work of Imaam Ash’ari or not, or whether it was his first kitaab or his last kitaab, germane to the dispute between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Copro-Salafis, it is a peripheral factor which is not the determinant for any of the issues of dispute between the Ahl-e-Haqq (Imaam Maturidi and his followers) and the Ahl-e-Bid’ah and Baatil (the Copro-Salafis and their Imaam Ibn Taimiyyah).

Demolishing the Stupid Claim of “Saheeh Hadeeth” by the Ahle Hadees / Salafi Group

By Maulana Abu Huzaifa bin Adam

The foolish claims and statements made by the “Ahle Hadees” sect are many, but in this article we shall briefly refute just one.

Since the time of al-Albaani and his botched, miserably failed attempt at re-grading the Sihaah Sittah and other Kutub of Hadeeth, an attempt in which he ended up contradicting himself several times in the grading of just a single Hadeeth, sometimes declaring it to be Saheeh, other times declaring it to be Hasan, other times declaring it to be Dha`eef, Dha`eef Jiddan, etc., his ventures in the field of Hadeeth and Jarh wat-Ta`deel and the books written by him in those subjects, which in subsequent years were made available online, on websites, available for download as programs, and later on available as apps for mobile, led to the rise of Juhhaal in contemporary times who reject Ahaadeeth on the basis that, “It’s not in Saheeh Bukhaari”, or “It’s not a Saheeh Hadeeth” (and by that they mean it was not graded as Saheeh by al-Albaani, even if illustrious Muhaddithoon of the past had graded it to be Saheeh), and in this manner they reject great Kutub of Deen with contempt, averring: “It’s filled with Dha`eef Hadeeths”. Most of these people are not even aware of the meaning of those terms and have not even heard of Mustalahul Hadeeth or Jarh wat-Ta`deel. They are happy to blindly follow (make Taqleed of) al-Albaani whilst hypocritically condemning those who follow the Four Madhaahib of Haqq.

In this brief article, what we would like to clarify is: “Are all Dha`eef Ahaadeeth to be rejected? Are Dha`eef Ahaadeeth to be treated as Mawdhoo` (fabrications)? When can Dha`eef Ahaadeeth be accepted and quoted?”

We shall therefore be presenting some statements from the illustrious `Ulamaa of the past on this topic so that the readers may understand what the correct stance has been for over a thousand years.

Imaam `Ali al-Halabi said in Insaan-ul-`Uyoon fee Seeratil Ameenil Ma’moon: “It is not hidden that the (books) of biographies (history) encompasses that which is Saheeh, that which is Saqeem, that which is Dha`eef, that which is Mursal, that which is Munqati` and that which is Mu`dhal, but not that which is Mawdhoo` (fabricated). Imaam Ahmad and others from the A’immah had said: ‘When we narrate concerning Halaal and Haraam, we are strict (severe), but when we narrate concerning Fadhaa’il (virtues) and such matters, we are lenient.”

This statement is also narrated by al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi in al-Kifaayah.

Mulla `Ali al-Qaari رحمة الله عليه writes in al-Hazzhul Awfar fil Hajjil Akbar, after mentioning the Hadeeth: “The most virtuous of days is the Day of `Arafah. When it falls on the Day of Jumu`ah, then it is better than 70 Hajj.” (After quoting this, he says) “It is reported by Razeen. As for what the Muhadditheen have mentioned regarding the Isnaad of this Hadeeth, that it is Dha`eef, then, even if it is so, it does not harm the objective, because a Dha`eef Hadeeth is accepted when it comes to Fadhaa’il-ul-A`maal (the virtues of deeds), and this is so according to the majority of the `Ulamaa.

He also writes in “al-Mawdhoo`aat“, after mentioning the Hadeeth: “Masah (wiping) of the neck is a protection from shackles (i.e. from being shackled on the Day of Qiyaamah).” (He says) “A Dha`eef (Hadeeth) is acted upon when it comes to Fadhaa’il-ul-A`maal (virtues of deeds), and this is according to Ittifaaq (consensus). For this reason, our A’immah (of the Hanafi Madh-hab) have said that Masah of the neck is Mustahabb or Sunnah.”

Imaam as-Suyooti writes in at-Ta`zheem wal-Minnah fee Anna Abawayi Rasoolillaahi صلى الله عليه وسلم fil-Jannah: “I gave the Fatwaa that the Hadeeth mentioning that Allaah brought back to life the mother of (Rasoolullaah صلىالله عليه وسلم) is not Mawdhoo` despite what a group among the Huffaaz (of Hadeeth) had claimed; rather, it is from the category of Dha`eef, and there is permission to narrate (Dha`eef Ahaadeeth) when it comes to Fadhaa’il (virtues).”

Speaking on this same issue of the Hadeeth that mentions that the parents of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم were brought back to life and accepted Islaam, Imaam as-Suyooti رحمة الله عليه writes in al-Maqaamatus Sundusiyyah fin Nisbatish Shareefatil Mustafiyyah: “The people of `Ilm and Hadeeth, both in the times of old and now, they narrate this report and place it amongst the specialities and Mu`jizaat (of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم), and they count it as being from his Manaaqib (virtues) and honours, and they held that the Dhu`f (weakness) present in the Isnaad (of this Hadeeth) is forgiven, and that it is accepted to narrate that which is not Saheeh when it comes to Fadhaa’il and Manaaqib.”

Haafiz al-`Iraaqi رحمة الله عليه writes in Sharh Alfiyyatil Hadeeth: “As for those narrations which are not Mawdhoo` (i.e. those that are Dha`eef), then they (the `Ulamaa) have permitted leniency in its Isnaad and also narrating it without explaining its Dhu`f (weakness), when it is not with regards to issues of Ahkaam (rulings) or `Aqaa’id (beliefs), but rather in issues of encouraging people (to do good), warning them, admonishing them, stories, virtues of deeds, etc. As for when it is with regards to Ahkaam of the Sharee`ah such as Halaal and Haraam, or with regards to `Aqaa’id such as the Sifaat of Allaah Ta`aalaa, etc., then they did not permit leniency in that. From the `Ulamaa who explicitly mentioned this are `Abdur Rahmaan ibn Mahdi, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, `Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak and others.”

Imaam an-Nawawi writes in at-Taqreeb: “According to the people of Hadeeth (i.e. the Muhadditheen) it is permissible to have leniency with regards to the Asaaneed that are weak and to report that which is not Mawdhoo` (fabricated), and acting upon it without explaining its Dhu`f (weakness) when it is not (Ahaadeeth) pertaining to the Sifaat of Allaah or Ahkaam.”

Imaam al-Kamaal ibn al-Humaam رحمة الله عليه writes in Kitaab-ul-Janaa’iz in Fat’hul Qadeer: “Istihbaab (something being Mustahabb) is also established from that which is Dha`eef, but not from that which is Mawdhoo` (fabricated).”

Imaam an-Nawawi رحمة الله عليه writes in al-Adhkaar: “The Muhadditheen and the Fuqhaa have stated that it is permissible – in fact, Mustahabb – to make `amal (act) upon a Dha`eef Hadeeth when it comes to issues of Fadhaa’il (virtues), exhortations, warnings, as long as it is not Mawdhoo` (fabricated). As for when it comes to Ahkaam such as Halaal and Haraam, business, marriage, divorce, etc., then in such cases one does not act except upon a Hadeeth that is Saheeh or Hasan, unless it is out of precaution in one of those issues (i.e. if there is a Dha`eef Hadeeth urging caution regarding something, so one abstains as a precautionary measure).”

Imaam ibn Hajar al-Makki al-Haytami رحمة الله عليه writes in al-Fat’hul Mubeen: “The `Ulamaa have Ittifaaq (consensus) regarding the permissibility of acting upon Dha`eef Ahaadeeth when it comes to Fadhaa’il-ul-A`maal (the virtues of deeds), because if the Hadeeth is Saheeh in and of itself, then it has been given its right by us acting upon it, and if it is not (Saheeh) then too in practicing upon it no harm has ensued such as Halaalizing something which is Haraam or prohibiting something that is Halaal, nor the loss of any person’s Haqq.”

It is mentioned in al-Qowlul Badee` and elsewhere that the Madh-hab of Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه is that a Dha`eef Hadeeth is better than Ra’i (opinion) and Qiyaas (analogy), when a (Saheeh) Hadeeth is not found regarding that particular issue.

Imaam ibn Mahdi رحمة الله عليه said, as is narrated from him by Imaam al-Bayhaqi رحمة الله عليه in al-Madkhal: “When we narrate from Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم regarding Halaal and Haraam and the Ahkaam, then we are severe with regards to the Asaaneed (chains of narrations) and in criticising the Rijaal (narrators), but when we narrate regarding virtues, reward and punishment, then we are lenient regarding the Asaaneed and the Rijaal (narrators).”

The Muhaddithoon have also stated that when the Ummah has accepted a particular Dha`eef Hadeeth and acted upon it all the years (meaning, all the years the Fuqahaa had accepted a particular Hadeeth and acted upon it), then we will act upon that Hadeeth as though it is Saheeh (i.e. the fact that the Fuqahaa had accepted it all the years raises it to this level).

We shall suffice with this amount from the quotations of the A’immah. For those with some knowledge of the history of Islaam, they will know that the names of the A’immah we have mentioned above are not lightweights; these were all giants in the Deen.

This should be sufficient to debunk the ridiculous claim that if a Hadeeth is not found in Saheeh al-Bukhaari, it must be rejected. Many of these people are ignorant of even Masaa’il pertaining to Istinjaa, but they are bold in throwing forward their views when they are entirely devoid of any `Ilm of Deen, some of them being unable to read even a single word of Arabic. Thus, you will hear them making ridiculous statements such as, “The book‘Hayaatus Sahaabah’  must be rejected because it’s filled with Dha`eef Ahaadeeth.” Any person who has actually studied Hadeeth even to a minute extent would know how laughable their claims are.

We would like to end this article by listing some important points:

When it comes to the grading of Ahaadeeth, we follow the illustrious Muhadditheen of the past, not a person who passed away in 1999 like al-Albaani. The Ahaadeeth have already been graded long ago by such Muhadditheen whom Allaah Ta`aalaa has honoured and elevated, that for all the years of Islaam their Kutub have been taught and accepted by the entire Ummah at large.

It is the height of hypocrisy to condemn a person for following one of the Four Madhaahib of Haqq, and then blindly follow a man who passed away the other day. Addressing these people, we say: “Yes, you are making Taqleed of him regardless of your denial. When it comes to Hadeeth grading, why do you blindly believe that a Hadeeth is Saheeh, or Hasan, or Dha`eef, or Mawdhoo`, simply because he said so? Have you studied Hadeeth yourself, studied Mustalahul Hadeeth, Jarh wat-Ta`deel, `Ilm-ur-Rijaal, Usool-ul-Hadeeth, etc., and thereafter analysed the Asaaneed of those Hadeeth to know whether or not they are Saheeh? The majority of those who quote him today quote him from English translations because they are not even capable of reading the original Arabic texts.

The `Ulamaa have cited Ittifaaq (consensus) on the permissibility of quoting and acting upon Dha`eef Ahaadeeth when it comes to Fadhaa’il (virtues). Thus, to reject a Kitaab like Fadhaa’il-e-A`maal on the basis that, “It’s filled with weak Hadeeth”, is stupid. The author, Hadhrat Shaykh Zakariyya رحمة الله عليه, was an `Aalim with greater knowledge and understanding of Hadeeth than these “Ahle Hadees” would have even if they lived several times over.

May Allaah Ta`aalaa grant us the correct understanding, Aameen.

والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتم وأحكم

Islam, Killings, Barbarity and Justice

By Mujlisul Ulama

THE PURPOSE OF ISLAM

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) came with the mission of Islam for o­ne single purpose, viz. the salvation of mankind. This purpose was the guiding factor the forgiveness which was granted to the Mushrikeen o­n the day of the Conquest of Makkah.

Inspite of the oppression, persecution and torture which the Mushrikeen of Makkah had perpetrated o­n the Muslims for 13 years, everything was forgiven and forgotten when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his noble Sahaabah entered Makkah as victors. There was no vengeance, no molestation and no acrimony. There was no need to establish any truth commission or put anyone o­n trial for the horrendous atrocities which had been committed against the Muslims in the past.

Islam came for the everlasting salvation of mankind, hence its Message is directed to all human beings. It is this overriding objective of Islam which precluded the commission of acts of revenge when Makkah was conquered.

Thus the Jihad of Islam is to open up the path for the propagation of the Message of Salvation. Its aim is not to destroy humankind. The example of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah is adequate for the true Believers.

While it is of the imperative acts of non-Muslim conquerors to unleash horror and terror, rape and plunder o­n the vanquished foe, Islam follows an opposite direction. When the enemy is conquered and defeated in the battlefield, there is no wanton pillage and killing.

Muslims who indulge in such misdeeds are not ambassadors of Islam nor do they have an understanding of the goals and purpose of Islam. Islam can be presented to the kuffaar o­nly by the presentation of the example and character of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah. This was the original method of Tableegh and Da’wah. Large scale conversion to Islam in the conquered territories was a direct effect of the sterling character of the Sahaabah.

INDISCRIMINATE KILLINGS

Islam has come for the everlasting salavation of humankind — not merely for worldly success and safety. The true life is the existence in the Hereafter. Without Islam, this goal cannever be attained. Entire mankind is the target of Islam’s mission of Da’wat and Tableegh.

All people are the makhlooq  (creation) of Allah Ta’ala, and the message of the Qur’aan has been dispatched to earth for everyone’s benefit. But Islam cannot be presented to all people if they are alienated by atrocities which are unleashed in the name of Islam.

Indiscriminate killing of people in the name of Islam or Jihad is not advocated by the Shariah. Those who indulge in indiscriminate killing of Allah’s makhlooq are bereft of Imaani understanding and the maqsad [purpose] of Rasulullah’s mission.

While indiscriminate killing of people, including women and children, torture, rape, pillage and plunder are the usual acts of horror of the kuffaar, the followers of Islam are not allowed to emulate such tactics.

The torture in the prisons of Iraq, in Guantanamo Bay, in the prisons of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Russia and elsewhere are acts which are exclusive with those who have no true belief in Allah and the Aakhirah. If Muslims succeed in conquering these debaucherers, torturers, sadists and sub-human specimens of mankind, it will not be permissible to recipocrate with brutality as is the practice of the kuffaar.

Islam is an extremely lofty and celestial system of life. It has no room for the ways and tactics of kufr which are all spawned by shaitaan. All systems of Islam are divine. The demarcations of these lofty systems are clearly defined by the Shariah. Muslims are not permitted to transgress the limits of the Shariah regardless of the harm and hurt they had suffered at the hands of the savages and barbarians.

BARBARISM

It is the obligation of a conquering Muslim nation to eliminate the barabarism of the barbarians. The aim is not to eliminate the barbarians. The barbarians have to be transformed into human beings so that their everlasting salvation in the Aakhirah is assured. That was what Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had achieved. No nation had ever succeeded in transforming barbarians into human beings. This was the distinction of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Muslim May Not Reciprocate with Barbarity

In the Qur’aan Majeed Allah Ta’ala states:

“Do not let hatred for a community induce you to transgress (the limits) because they (the mushrikeen) had prevented you from Musjidul Haraam.” [Surah Ma’idah, aayat 2]

The Sahaabah were extremely annoyed and agitated when the Mushrikeen of Makkah had prevented them from performing Umrah in the year 6 A.H. The terms of the peace treaty of Hudaibiyyah were absolutely humiliating for the Muslims.

Besides this episode, there were several other incidents which had augmented the hatred for the Mushrikeen. Some Sahaabah were contemplating revenge. It was o­n this occasion that the aforementioned Qur’aanic verse was revealed.

THE LIMITS

In this aayat Allah Ta’ala forbids vengeance. He prohibits Muslims from compensating persecution with persecution, torture with torture, injustice with injustice. The aayat states with great clarity that Muslims should not allow their hatred for any community to cause them to transgress the limits of the Shariah.

Those who had persecuted and tortured Muslims were forgiven and accepted within the fold of Islam. Islam had come for their salvation in the Aakhirah. Their past misdeeds were not set up as a barrier for their entry into the fold of Islam. Islam does not propagate the concept of truth commissions and similar institutions. It acts in the best interests of mankind. There is nothing better for people than their everlasting salvation in the Hereafter.

JUSTICE

Islam is a Deen of justice and compassion. Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi (rahmatullah alayh) states in his Maaariful Qur’aan:

The Qur’aan Kareem teaches fairplay and justice for both friend and foe. All are equal in this respect. Regardless of how brutal your enemy was and how much he had persecuted you, it is your obligation to treat him with justice. Islam is unique in this. This is the speciality of Islam. It safeguards the rights of even enemies. Islam does not compensate injustice with injustice. It responds with justice.

Clarification on Imam Abu Hanifa’s Statement about the Faith of Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) and Iblees

The following is a response to a Shia Raafidhi’s slander post: “Faith of Abu Bakar and faith of satan are one: Abu Hanifa”.

Slave of Ahlubait quotes:

وحدثني إبراهيم بن سعيد نا أبو توبة عن أبي إسحاق الفزاري قال:

كان أبو حنيفة يقول: إيمان إبليس وإيمان أبي بكر الصديق رضي الله عنه واحد قال أبو بكر يا رب وقال إبليس يا رب

(Two chains) Abu Ishaq al Fazari says that Abu Hanifa use to say that faith of iblees and faith of Abu bakar are one. Abu Bakar said: o God. and Ibless said: o God”

The statement provided by Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) can be understood easily if one lets go of baseless preconceptions. Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) is not referring to the common terminological meaning of the term “faith”. Today, when Muslims refer to “faith” we often say that faith is driven by the heart, the tongue, and the actions of the limbs. According to this interpretation, it would mean that Iblees and Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) were at the same level in all of these, which is an opinion that cannot be ascribed to Imam Abu Hanifa except by a complete ignoramus.

The correct interpretation is that faith in this narration refers to “belief”. In other words, Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu)’s belief in Allah is at the same level of Iblees, who has a greater belief in Allah than all mankind and Jinn, since he witnessed things that nobody witness and was present at the creation of Adam (alayhissalaam), and so on and so forth.

One may argue, “Why would Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) use Iblees as an example, instead of Jibreel (alayhis salaam), or any other angel?” The answer may be to simply illustrate that belief does not necessitate good actions, or to demonstrate that belief is only rewarded with good actions accompanying it.

Twelvershia blog

Also Read: IMAM ABU HANIFA (RAHMATULLAH ALAYH) ON IMAAN (FAITH)