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).

SALAFIS – DECEITFUL LIARS

Question: The Salafis claim that the followers of Mathhabs are not of the Ahlus Sunnah. Only Salafis are the Ahlus Sunnah because they follow the Salaf of the first three noble eras of Islam. Is this claim valid?

Answer (by Mujlisul Ulama):

Their claim is satanic bunkum. Salafis are deceitful in claiming that they follow the Salaf of the first three ages of Islam. Their Imaam is Ibn Taimiyyah who came about 6 centuries after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Whatever he had interpreted, they follow. Thus, they are liars.

Furthermore, they practice taqiyah similar to the Shiahs. The doctrine of speaking holy lies (taqiyah) of the Shiahs religiously orders them to con-ceal their true beliefs of kufr to beguile Muslims. In like manner, Salafis con-ceal their deviant identity by labelling themselves ‘salafi’, and worse, by prof-fering the blatant LIE of them being Hambalis. Although they generally follow the Fiqh of the Hambali Math-hab, they are not Hambalis just as the Mu’tazilis are not Hanafis merely because they follow Hanafi Fiqh in the rituals of the Shariah.

The gap between Salafis and the Sala-fus Saaliheen is about 4 centuries. Their first Imaam is Ibn Taimiyyah. Between Ibn Taimiyyah and Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) there is a gap of almost 6 centuries while the gap between Imaam Abu Hanifah and Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is 80 years. Thus, he flourished during the Khairul Quroon. Only the followers of the Four Math-habs are the true followers of the Salafus Saali-heen.

20 RAK’AT TARAWEEH IN THE LIGHT OF EVIDENCES

By: Mufti Muhammad Nadeem uddin Qasmi

Ramadan is the month of blessings. It is time to start fixing and adjusting our schedule accordingly. During the month, special evening prayers in Ramadan are known as taraweeh.

What are benefits of it?

There are many benefits of it.

• The Prophet (may Allah peace and blessings be upon him) said whoever stood in Ramadan (in worship) with Iman and to seek reward, all his past sins are forgiven (Muslim, vol,1, p 259)

• Abu Dhar (May Allah be well pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said “whoever stands with the Imam until he finishes, it is equivalent to spend the whole night in prayer” (Tirmidhi 809)

What is place of Taraweeh in shari’ah?

Taraweeh is a emphasized Sunnah not fardh for all in Ramadan according to hadiths.

• Sayyida Aisha (May Allah be well pleased with her) related: After these nights (23, 25, and 27) the congregation grew to a very large number on the 29th night. The Masjid of prophet had filled to capacity, but the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) didn’t came out because of the fear that taraweeh would become compulsory upon you (Bukhari, vol,1 pg 269)

• Allama Shaami writes: Taraweeh is Sunnah Mua’kkadah on both men and women (Al Durrul Mukhtar, vol 1 pg 520)

How many Rak’ats?

It is an accepted fact among the authentic scholars of Islam that the Taraweeh prayer is 20 Rak’ats. The practice of 20 rak’at of Taraweeh continued throughout the era of the sahaba, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali (may Allah be well pleased with them), and remained unaltered in the entire world untill today, this form of worship has been passed down from generation to generation, and safeguarded to this day. This is still practiced in the holiest masjids of Islam in Makkah, Madinah and Masjid al-Aqsa. Besides this, many evidences are proven that the number of taraweeh is 20 Rak’ats.

Ahadith:

1. Ibn Abbas reports that the Prophet Muhammad (May Allah peace and blessings be upon him) used to perform 20 Rak’ats and 3 wire in Ramadan (Musannaf ibn Abi Shaibah, vol,2 pg 284, Mujamul kabeer lit Tibrani, vol 5 pg 433, Sunan e Kubra lil Bayhaqi, vol 2 pg 495)

2. It is reported by Hazrat Jabir bin Abdullah that the Prophet Muhammad (May Allah peace and blessings be upon him) came out in a Ramadan night and performed 24 Rakats (including ‘Isha Salah) and 3 witr (Tarikh e Jurhani lishmi, pg 317)

Practices of Khulafa Rashideen

1. Hadhrat ‘Umar (may Allah be well pleased with him) commanded a person to perform 20 Rak’ats for people. (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah, vol 1 ,pg 483)

2. It is reported on the authority of Sa’ib ibn Yazid that in the era of Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be well pleased with him), people used to offer 20 Rak’ats taraweeh, and in era of ‘Uthman, they would support themselves with a staff because of the long Rak’ats (Sunan kubra lil Bayhaqi, vol 2, pg 496)

3. Ubayy ibn K’ab (may Allah be well pleased with him) reports that ‘Umar (may Allah be well pleased with him) instructed him saying that if he leads the Salah, it will be better. Thereafter, he said “perform twenty Rakats for the people” (Atharul Sunan pg 255)

4. This is reported by Hasan that ‘Umar gathered the people behind the Ubayy ibn Ka’b (may Allah be well pleased with him) in the month of Ramadan, then they used to perform twenty Rak’ats (Abu Dawood vol 1,pg 203)

5. It is reported by Hasan bin Ali that ‘Ali commanded the Qurra (Huffaz) to perform 20 Rak’ats (Musnad Al Imam Zayd 158,159)

6. Sayyidna ‘Ali would state: May Allah enlighten the grave of ‘Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) just as he has enlightened our masjid for us (Due to the fact of establishing the 20 Rak’ats for the Ummah. (Minhajus Sunnah, vol 2,pg 224)

The Prophet Muhammad (May Allah Peace and blessings be upon him) gave advise about khulafa’s action and said: “After me, you will see much differences, in such a condition, it is compulsory upon you that you hold firmly to my Sunnah and the rightly guided path of khulafa rashideen (Mishkatul Masabih pg 30)

• On another place, the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah peace and blessings be upon him) stated: I don’t know how long I will remain amongst you, after me, follow Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be well pleased with them). (Mishkat pg 560)

Practices of the Sahaabah

1. Abdullah ibn Mas’úd used to perform twenty Rak’ats (Tuhfatul Ahwazi, vol 2, pg 75)

2. This is reported by Yazid ibn Khusaifah from Sa’ib ibn Yazid that all the people used to perform twenty Rak’ats of taraweeh in the month of Ramadan during the era of Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be well pleased with him) (Sunanul Kubra lil Bayhaqi, vol 2, pg 496)

3: Ubayy ibn K’ab (may Allah be well pleased with him) used to perform in Madinah 20 Rak’ats (Musannaf ibn Abi Shaibah, vol 2, pg 224, Musnad Ahmad, vol 2, pg 424)

4. Yazid ibn Ruman reports that people used to perform 23 Rakats (Muatta Imam Malik, pg 98)

It was nature of Sahaaba that without order and permission of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) they wouldn’t create innovative practices in Deen. Ahle sunnah wal jama’at are the ones who are satisfied and content with the practices of Sahaba.

Practices of Tabí’een

1. ‘Ata (Rahimahullah) says “I found the people that they used to perform 23 Rakats consisting of witr (Musannaf ibn e abi Shaiba, vol 5, pg 224)

2 Ibraheem Nakha’i (Rahimahullah) says “that people perform five tarwiha (5 breaks) in Ramazan” (Kitabul Athaar Abi Yusuf, pg 41)

3. It is reported on the authority of Shutayr ibn Shakal (Rahimahullah) that he used to perform in Ramadan 20+3 witr (Musannaf ibn Abi Shaibah, vol 5 , pg 222)

4. Abu’l Khusaib (Rahimahullah) said that Suwa’id ibn Ghaflah used to perform 5 tarwiha in 20 Rak’ats (Al Sunanul Kubra lil Bayhaqi, vol 2 ,496)

Sayings of Ulama

1. Imam Ghazali writes: Taraweeh is twenty Rak’ats, its method is well known, and it is Sunnah Mua’kkadah (Ihya ul uloom, vol. 1 pg 139)

2. Sayyid ‘Abdul Qadir Jilani writes: Taraweeh is a Sunnah of Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and it comprises of twenty Rakats (Ghunyatut Talibeen pg 464)

3. Imam Ibn Qudama Hambali states: “according to Imam Ahmad Rahimahullah, the most acceptable view is of twenty Rak’ats.” (Al-Mughni ,vol. 1,pg 802)

4. Ibn Taymiyah writes: “it has been accepted that Ubayy ibn Ka’b used to lead the Salah for the people by performing twenty Rak’ats in Ramadan and three Rakats witr. Accordingly, most of the ‘Ulama regarded twenty Rak’ats as Sunnah because Ubayy ibn Ka’b used to lead the congregation of Muhajirin and Ansar and none of them rejected his act (Fatawa ibn Taymiyah, vol. 23, pg 112)

Consensus (ijma) of the Sahaaba

1. Mulla Ali Qari states that the Sahaaba have made consensus on the practice of twenty Rak’ats of taraweeh.(Mirqat, vol.3 pg 194)

2: Ibn Qudama has stated the same in Al-Mughni  (Al-Mughni, vol.1, pg 803)

3. Majority of ‘Ulama are in agreement of that narration reported by Ali and ‘Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhum) (Tirmidhi, vol 1, pg 166)

4. Allama Kasaani also reports the consensus of Sahaba on performing 20 Rak’ats (Badaius’ Sanai vol 1, pg 644)

5. Asad bin ‘Amr related from Qadi Imam Abu Yusuf: I asked Imam Abu Hanifa about the matter of taraweeh and what ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) had done in this respect. Imam Abu Hanifa (Rahimahullah) replied: “20 Rak’ats taraweeh is Sunnah Mua’kkadah, ‘Umar didn’t establish this form from his own nor was he one to create innovation in this Deen. (Maraqiul Falaah, pg 334)

6. In the time of Ibn Taymiyah when the Rawafidh (Shia’) put the blame upon Hadhrat ‘Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) for creating the innovated practice of 20 Rak’ats. Ibn Taymiyah responded to this allegation by writing in defense of Hadhrat ‘Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) by establishing 20 Rak’ats of taraweeh, had it been deemed to adopt a bad practice, then Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu Anhu) would have put an end to this in his khilafat, however, in his khilafat, he too would offer 20 Rak’ats taraweeh prayer in Kufah (Fatawa ibn Taymiyah)

In Short, there are many evidences to prove that 20 Rak’ats trawih are Sunnah Mu’akkadah.

The Sect of Ghayr Muqallideen

They say that the taraweeh prayer is eight Rak’ats. Usually, the narration of Hazrat Aisha (Radhiyallahu Anha) is used to support the view of 8 Rak’ats as sufficient by them:

Abu Salma related that he asked Aisha (Radhiyallahu Anha): “How was the prayer of the Prophet in Ramadan? She replied: “The Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) would not pray more than 11 Rak’ats in Ramadan or outside of it.”(Sahih Bukhari, vol 1, pg 154).

Answering this narration:

In this narration, the words clearly state that the prayer of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) throughout the whole year in or out side of Ramadan would be no more than 11 Rak’ats. Therefore, this Hadith is in respect of Tahajjud and taraweeh is not prayed out of Ramadan.

Opinions of Ulama about this Narration

The scholars of the ummah answered the supporting proof the narration of Hadhrat Aisha (Radhiyallahu Anhu), it is in respect of Tahajjud prayer.

1. Allama Abu Bakr ibn Arabi writes: The 11 Rak’ats narration related by Aisha (Radhiyallahu Anha) refers to the Qiyamul Layl (Tahajjud) of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. (Arizatul Ahwadhi Sharh Tirmidhi, vol 4, pg 19)

2. Ibn Hajar Asqalani also refers to this narration as referring to Tahajjud with witr (Fathul Bari sharh Bukhari, vol. 3 pg 328)

3. Qadhi ‘Iyadh Maliki has taken all of the narrations of Hadhrat Aisha (Radhiyallahu Anha) as referring to the Tahajjud prayer of the Prophet (Sharh Muslim Nawawi, vol 1, pg 253)

4. Qadhi Muhammad Shawkani (who himself was a Ghayr Muqallid) writes: The narration of Aisha (Radhiyallahu Anha) referring to the 11 Rak’ats in and outside of Ramadan is in respect of Tahajjud. (Naylul Awtar, vol 3, pg 39)

5. Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlawi states: The narration of Aisha (Radhiyallahu Anha) is in regards to Tahajjud. (Fatawa Aziziyah pg 125)

If we assume that eight Rak’ats of taraweeh are correct, then it means that the entire ummah and big scholars of Islam were deviated for all these centuries by performing twenty Rak’ats without any sharí proof. It is impossible to happen.

It has been proven that the 20 Rak’ats taraweeh is Sunnah Mua’kkadah of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)

In the end, we pray for Allah to accept this, May Allah Grant them Tawfeeq. AAMEEN.

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%.

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).