Category Archives: Modernists

Modernists’ & their Primary Conspiracy against Islam

By Mujlisul Ulama

“Those who dispute in the aayaat of Allah after it has been accepted, their disputation is utterly baseless by their Rabb. For them there is a severe punishment.” [Surah Shuraa, aayat 16]

“None but those who have become kaafir dispute in the aayaat of Allah. Therefore, do not allow their (arrogant) strutting in cities to deceive you.” [Sura Mu’min, aayat 4]

“But before them the nation of Nooh had denied (the Deen), and many groups after them. And, every group plotted to grab (and neutralize) him (their Nabi), and they disputed (with him) with falsehood to subvert with it the Haqq (of the Deen), Then (suddenly) I apprehended them. Behold! How (terrible) was My punishment.” [Surah Mu’min, aayat 5]

Islam is today encircled by a variety of enemy forces — human and jinn shayaateen. The conspiracy of the combined forces of Shaitaan-in-Chief (Iblees) is to destroy Islam and its Ummah. Towards this end, he has harnessed his forces and positioned them o­n a wide variety of fronts.

In this o­nslaught against Islam, the least potent or the weakest is the enemy o­n the political front. In fact, the political ascendancy of the kuffaar and their domination of the lands of Islam are not really part of the conspiracy of Shaitaan. Rather, this phenomenon is part of the Athaab of Allah Ta’ala. Thus, the threat is not the political domination of the kuffaar and the punishment they are meting out to Muslims. They are simply a manifestation of Allah’s Punishment o­n us.


We have o­n the o­ne side the menace of the Christian missionaries who have made huge inroads in the Ummah with their kufr which they have succeeded to implant in numerous backward and remote Muslim regions. But this too is not the primary enemy. These overt enemies while constituting a threat, are not as great a menace to Islam as the enemy which lurks within the Ummah. The most poisonous and lethal enemy for Islam in this century consists of the munaafiqeen and murtaddeen who are concealing within the folds of the Ummah.


The Munaafiqeen (Hypocrites) and the Murtaddeen (Apostates — those who have reneged from Islam, albeit covertly) — are classified by the eternal Shariah of Allah Ta’ala as Mulhideen. They are such notorious villains who proclaim themselves to be Muslim, in fact authorities of Islam while they cannot even recite the Qur’aan Majeed properly nor are versified with the eleme ntary rules of Tahaarat and Salaat. They advertise themselves as being the ‘intelligentsia’ while they grovel in abject jahaalat  (ignorance). They profess to be Muslim while at heart they are kaafir.

These Mulhideen and apostates are the products of kuffaar universities. They have studied under kuffaar or apostate professors and have acquired scrap degrees in a secular branch of kufr learning called ‘Islamic Studies’. o­n the procurement of their scrap Ph.D degrees doled out by kuffaar masters wallowing in constant impurity – spiritual, ceremonial and physical najaasat — they believe in their jahaalat  that they have superseded the illustrious Sahaabah and Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen in the various branches of Shar’i Uloom. These Mulhideen are the greatest enemies of Islam and the Ummah, not Mr.Bush and Mr.Blair. The latter two fellows will soon disappear from the scene by an Act of Allah Azza Wa Jal Who has dispatched them to fulfill a specific purpose.


On the contrary, the main enemies, the apostates from within, like rats are gnawing at the foundations of Islam. Their methodology inherited from their kuffaar and zindeeq university masters is to create confusion in the minds of ignorant people with the idea that the Immutable Shariah of Allah Ta’ala is not Islam. The massive falsehood which these apostates are working o­n to confuse, deviate and mislead unwary Muslims is that the Shariah with its Qur’aanic and Sunnah Fiqh is a centuries later product — an accretion — which has no origin in the Qur’aan and Sunnah.


The disputation of these Mulhideen and Munaafiqeen come squarely within the scope of the Qur’aanic aayat:

“Those who dispute in the aayaat (Shariah) of Allah after the acquisition of acceptance (for this Shariah), their disputation is false (baatil, baseless), and for them there is a severe Athaab (the Punishment of Hell-Fire.”

They are the fuel of Jahannum. About these apostates Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan that they and stones will be the fuel of Jahannum wherein they will be scorched and scalded everlastingly with no hope of escape. They are worse than outright kuffaar who are waging a political war against the nations of Islam. These enemies from within are the worst kind of spiritual vermin leaching o­nthe Body of Islam.

Deep in their hearts they do understand their apostasy. But since they suffer from incorrigible nifaaq, they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge what they conceal in their breasts. It is this guilty conscience of apostasy which has constrained o­ne such miserable apostate to moan that the penalty for irtidaad (apostasy) is not death, and that the death penalty for kufr and irtidaad has been introduced by the later Fuqaha. His ignorance is staggering and mind-boggling. His stark ignorance of this acknowledged Divine Decree testifies to his own jahaalat, irtidaad and kufr.


The aayat cited at the beginning, explicitly clarifies that the criterion of immutability is the Acceptance of the Shariah by the Ummah. Whoever denies any aspect of the Shariah after it has been accepted by the Ummah and after it has been operative in the Ummah for fourteen centuries since the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), is a murtadd for whom the aayat announces Allah’s “severe punishment”. It is simple logic to understand this Qur’aanic criterion for recognizing the Haqq —the Shariah of Allah Ta’ala. The Qur’aan clearly states “after its acceptance”. Disputing in the Deen and denying the realities of Islam and the transcendental truths of the Immutable Shariahafter these have been accepted by the Ummah is clearcut kufr which renders the denier a confirmed and a confounded apostate, for which the prescribed Shar’i punishment is a disgraceful execution —the ultimate penalty which the apostate denies in vindication of his own apostasy.


The colossal stupidity of the apostates who pretend to be Muslims is conspicuously displayed by their denial of the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) while at the same time acknowledging that there are five compulsory Salaats every day. They deny the Ahaadith, but acknowledge the number of raka’ts of Salaat. They acknowledge what they term “the basic rituals of Islam”, but they deny the very Ahaadih o­n the basis of which all these “basic rituals of Islam” are structured. The Qur’aan Majeed is silent o­n the details of these rituals —details which so far the apostates overtly accept and even profess to follow.

Their colossal stupidity and mental derangement are vividly portrayed by the fact that they claim that the text of the Qur’aan, not its meanings, is sacred and immutable while in the same breath they deny the Ahaadith o­n which is based the authenticity of the Qur’aan itself. Minus Ahaadith, there is no Qur’aan. The Qur’aan was not revealed to these apostates nor to anyone else besides the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The momentous endeavour to compile the Qur’aan into its present Book form was the sacred task of the Sahaabah who had established the authenticity of each aayat by means of Saheeh Ahaadith. They did not compile the Qur’aan in its existing form as a consequence of Wahi having come to them.


It is precisely for this reason that the Qur’aan repeatedly commands the Ummah to follow the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In fact, these apostates portraying themselves with Muslim hues, have no alternative other than to turn to the Fuqaha and the Fiqh they left for posterity in order to glean the rules and the methodology for the “basic rituals of Islam”. They cannot acquire these innumerable masaail from the Qur’aan. They are too stupid to understand the science of Hadith which is Wahi in another form, hence wholly incapable of deducting any masaail from the sacred compilations of Hadith. They are therefore, forced to gain the elementary rules of the “basic rituals of Islam” from simple text books which the Ulama whom they despise have compiled for Madrasah kids.


The writings of the apostates, the mulhideen and zindeeqs, are restricted to a clamour — making much noise. They blabber a lot, but their blabbering is devoid of substance. They simply lump together vocabulary to impress and confuse unwary and ignorant people. But anyone who possesses some degree of intelligence will not fail to discern the utter barrenness of their statements. They are adept in o­nly o­ne art, viz., shouting claims. They make vociferous claims which are products of their stupid opinions. But every claim they put forward lacks in entirety in evidence of the Shariah.


One jaahil belonging to the clan of apostates and munaafiqeen makes the claim that a striking feature of contemporary Muslim society is its failure to have kept up with the contemporary world. This ridiculous claim is a manifest assertion of his ignorance. What precisely is meant by this stupid claim?

Let it be known that the ills and woes of contemporary Muslim society are the consequences of having kept abreast with the contemporary world. If Muslims had remained anchored to the Sunnah of Rasulullah’s Camel Age, they would still have been the masters and rulers of the world which they had dominated and reigned during the epoch of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen. But the curse of ‘having kept up with contemporary society’ has utterly ruined the Ummah.

Who precisely is the “contemporary society” the apostate has mentioned? It is no other the kuffaar society. This society whom the apostates desire the Muslim Ummah to emulate and follow is the society of the kuffaar, the western kuffaar to be precise. On the contrary, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) warned the Ummah o­n the very issue of ‘keeping up’ with the kuffaar, especially the western kuffaar —the Yahood and Nasaaraa. The Qur’aan and the Sunnah repeatedly warn the Ummah against what the apostates of this age are propagating. Hence, in o­ne Hadith Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)said:

“Whoever emulates a people, is of them.”

The apostates irrationally attempt to explain to their kuffaar masters and to the ignorant masses that the cause of the Ummah’s present humiliation and fall from their former pedestal of glory is to be attributed to Muslims lagging behind the west in the secular spheres of life. Then they descend to the to the falsity of claiming that the cause of this lagging behind is the Ulama who teach the masses about the events which will transpire below the earth in the grave and above the heavens in Jannat.

But, any person with a decent degree of pure Aql will understand that the Sahaabah rose to their pedestal of glory and brought the world at their feet in subjugation to Islam when they propagated the things which transpire beyond the grave and above the heavens. It was when they had eliminated hubb-e-dunya (love of this material world) and inculcated in themselves an aversion for the pleasures and wealth of the world, that Allah Ta’ala elevated them to the heights to which history testifies.


When the Ummah abandoned this spiritual Path of the Sahaabah and vied with the kuffaar in an attempt to “keep up” with their products and concepts of kufr, fisq and fujoor as the apostates are propagating, Allah Ta’ala cast them from the pinnacles of glory into the depths of humiliation to lick the boots of the kuffaar as the apostates are presently doing.


Westernized Muslims, apostates, zindeeqs, mulhids and munaafiqs who are all awed and enamoured by the technological advancement of their kuffaar masters and leaders fail to understand why they (i.e. the conglomeration of mulhideen) are unable to attain similar strides of progress in the fields in which the kuffaar excel. They emulate the kuffaar 100% in every aspect of their lives to the extent of having jettisoned Imaan from their hearts and embracing kufr and irtidaad. In order to gain the advancement in the secular spheres which the kuffaar have achieved, the apostates sulking within the Ummah have accepted every rule and law in the book of kufr. They are the victims of mental colonization imposed o­n their brains by their western kuffaar masters. They live like these kuffaar. They dress like them. They devour haraam like them. They believe like them. They imitate and ape the kuffaar in every aspect and sphere of life. But inspite of all their efforts in the realm of emulation of the kuffaar they fail miserably to reach the technological heights of advancement attained by their masters. They remain the slaves of these western masters, licking their vomit and their boots.


When they feel hopelessly lost in the mire of confusion unable to fathom the cause of their rot and backwardness, shaitaan in the plot to divert them from reality and to keep them anchored and rooted in their mire of spiritual mess and in the morass of immorality — western immorality — in which they grovel, whispers into their spiritually darkened andcorroded hearts that the cause of their decadence and retrogression is the Ulama whom these apostates slander and accuse of fostering ‘fossilization’ and the ‘backwardness’ in which these very apostates are sinking deeper by the day.


The absurdity of their contention will be manifest to any unbiased Muslim who cares to examine even superficially this fallacious claim. The Ummah, by far and large, has cast off the sacred Fetters of the Shariah and the Sunnah. Muslims by the millions have plunged headlong into the abyss of kuffaar emulation and have sold their souls to shaitaan to become the slaves of the west. While retaining their Muslim names, they have abandoned their Muslim identity. Secular universities and other institutions which are the bastions of western liberalism, apostasy, kufr, fisq and fujoor, flourish in all the Muslim lands. Modernism and liberalism with all their concomitant consequences of vice and immorality have overrun the Muslim world.

The World of Islam is today ruled and held in the captivity of kufr and crass materialism by apostates who are all products of western secular institutions. The Hosnis, Gaddaafis, Musharrafs and the like are all members of the breed of apostates spawned by western kuffaar institutions. They are at the helm of Muslim affairs, not the Ulama, not the orthodox Madaaris, not the Mashaaikh of the Khaanqahs. The masses inhabiting Muslim countries all have the outward appearances of kuffaar. Thus, the Muslim inhabitants of Pakistan by far and large look like Hindus. The Muslim inhabitants of Palestine, almost all of them, are in appearance replicas of the Yahood of Israel. The Muslims in western countries look like the Yahood and Nasaaraa of those lands. Not o­nly do they look like them, they live and die like these kuffaar.

The field of the Ulama is severely confined and their influence is curtailed. Their platform is restricted to the Musaajid which are frequented o­n a daily basis by about 10% of the Ummah, Fridays and Eid Days excluded. Even those Muslims who are not kaafir at heart, and who subscribe to the orthodox doctrines and rituals of Islam as propagated by the Ulama of the Camel Age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), in their practical life have adopted the lifestyle of the western kuffaar. So while they do not unite with the apostates in their apostasy, they are at o­ne with them in practical life.

How can any fair-minded Muslim now blame the Ulama for the retrogression of the Ummah when almost the entire Ummah is desperately slogging to keep pace with the western kuffaar in material progress. In wealth, the Muslims are the wealthiest. In the love of the world with its material pleasures and comforts, their love is second to none. In the establishment of western institutions of learning such as universities and colleges, there is a proliferation of such accursed appendages of shaitaan in all the Muslim lands. In armaments, every Muslim country has a gigantic stockpile of surplus of an array of sophisticated weaponry which they acquire from their western masters. Their lagging behind in production of weapons, computers and the paraphernalia which accompany technological advancement despite having kept abreast in the establishment of westernized institutions of technological learning, is a mystery for them. By what line of logic can any fair-minded person attribute this gross failure of the westernized apostates to the preachings of the Ulama who confine themselves to the propagation of morality which most Muslims hardly bother about?

In which way does the propagation of the Ulama retard the technological progress of the Ummah? Assuming that the Ulama teach opposition to scientific study and the study of technology, how did such teaching affect and retard the worldly progress of Muslims, when more than 90% of the Ummah follow the lifestyle and the calling of the West in defiance of the ta’leem and naseehat of the Ulama?

Consider the example of Turkey which has been held in the steel grip of its kuffaar rulers since the time the Khilaafate was dismantled and the Empire of Islam dismembered and devoured by the kuffaar. Did the Ulama from that time have any grip o­n the masses? Did orthodoxy or kufr materialism preponderate Turkish society or did the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) govern the lives of the Turkish masses? In fact, with the dismantling of the Khilaafate was ushered in the process of the dismantling of the Deen with all its orthodox institutions. The process of modernization in total emulation of the western kuffaar is the state religion to this day. The Deen and its Ulama representatives had absolutely no say in that unfortunate miserable land of Islam.

Islam was outlawed and even today the law has banned Madrasah ta’leem, yet they call themselves Muslims notwithstanding their flagrant flaunting of apostasy. Turkey has followed the western path in a way that has superseded even the communist USSR and other backward western nations such as Spain, Portugal and Greek. Has Turkey become a world power? Has its materialist kufr technological ideology achieved for it the glory of the old orthodox Ulama influenced Ottoman Empire? Similar transformation has occurred in every Muslim land. Apostasy has dominated and is dominating. Materialism is the goal of almost 100% of the inhabitants of the Muslim lands. Western education and technology are being pursued by Muslims in all lands of Islam. But, by the day they are retrogressing. In which way are the Ulama responsible for this corrupt state of affairs? What role did the Ulama play in holding back a people who are in hot pursuit of all and everything that western technology and science have to offer? No reasonable person will concur with the absurdities which the mouths of the apostates gorge out in their venomous outpourings against the Deen of Allah Ta’ala.


Now just view the undermentioned bunkum of o­ne apostate:

“What it implies is that Muslims are behind in their understanding of Islam and operationalising its principles in the contemporary world today.”

We reiterate that these apostates and zindeeqs blow a lot of hot air signifying absolutely nothing. In plain and simple terms, they speak bunkum, to put it respectfully. The aforementioned sentence consists of words with a meaningless equation. Let the apostate spell out the meaning of this stupid, empty theory devoid of substance. In which way are they behind in their understanding, and in which way has this type of understanding contributed to the backwardness and humiliation of the Ummah. The apostate need to offer a rational explanation for the bunkum he has gorged out from his throat. Consider the example of this type of apostate who has totally aligned himself with westernism and whatever goodness in his opinion westernism stands for. They follow the west and so have their progenitors in this race of emulation done for more than half a century. Yet, we see no progress inspite of their ascendancy to the helm of the political affairs in every land of Islam. Apostates are holding the reigns of political power in all Muslim countries. Apostates in control of Muslim affairs have established western institutions and opened up the way for the avalanche of every evil accompanying western material and technological advancement. But what are we witnessing? Despite the glut of immorality, filth, lesbianism, homosexuality, rape, plunder, murder, robberies, etc., etc. the worldly progress and the technological successes and advancements of these immoral kuffaar nations have continued unabated while the Muslim nations who have plunged madly after their western masters aping them in all walks of life, including technology, are lagging far behind their western masters. What is the mystery in this? What is the secret of kuffaar material success and what is the underlying cause for the gross failure and abject humiliation of the Muslim people who have made the western kuffaar their masters and guides? o­nly those men can answer these questions about whom Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan-e-Kareem:

Only the Men of intelligence take lesson (and can understand).”

Men of kufr, irtidaad and nifaaq — mulhideen — can never fathom this mystery. How is it possible for these apostates to understand this contradiction and mystery when apostasy blights the intelligence and blinds the spiritual senses? How can these human shayaateen ever comprehend the cause of their own backwardness and retrogression despite their western Ph.D degrees when Allah Ta’ala has cast a veil o­n their aql in consequence of their irtidaad and kufr? For them, the Qur’aan declares the “severe punishment of Allah” because they dispute about the Shariah of the Qur’aan with the motive of rejecting Allah’s Deen.

They are like the people of Nooh (alayhis salaam) mentioned in the second aayat at the beginning of this discussion, and like the people of the other Ambiya (alayhimus salaam). They all had disputed in the Deen of Allah Ta’ala, hence His Athaab overtook them. The very first step in the System of Divine Punishment is the imposition of the domination of their kuffaar masters who will maintain them under their boots of grinding oppression and in disgrace. This is the Sunnah of Allah to which the Qur’aan testifies.

The Qur’aan Majeed declaring Mr. Trump and his alliance as a manifestation of Allah’s Athaab,  in Surah Bani Israaeel:

“We had declared with clarity to Bani Israaeel in the Kitaab: ‘Most certainly, you will spread 
corruption o­n earth twice, and most certainly you embark o­n great rebellion. (Aayat 4)

Then when the first Prediction (of Allah) materialized, We sent against you, Our servants (like Nebucanazzer, Mr.Trump and 
Netanyahu) who are powerful in warfare. Then they fanned out (overran) the centres of the 
cities. And that was a promise decreed.” (Aayat 5)

Then when the second prediction 
materialized (Allah sent other people of war against you) to disfigure your faces and to 
penetrate the Musjid (Al-Aqsa) as they had penetrated it the first time, and they utterly devastated every place they overran.”  (Aayat 7)


The apostate contends that the closure of the doors of Ijtihaad has had a devastating effect o­n Muslim development. This is an old grouse of the disgruntled fraternity of modernists and apostates. It is a monotonous theme they sing without ever having managed to explain just how the ‘closing of the doors of Ijtihaad’ has retarded Muslim development. The apostate stating his grouse in a paper of fisq, cites the examples of the penalty for apostasy and stoning to death for adultery. But he miserably fails to explain just how these rulings which the Ulama have ‘fossilized’ in consequence of having closed the doors of Ijtihaad have retarded Muslim development and had a devastating effect o­n it.

How many adulterers had been stoned to death in the time since the closure of the doors of Ijtihaad? And, how many apostates have been executed since that time? If there were a handful of such executions, how did these devastate the Ummah and retard its technological progress and prevent it from gaining political ascendancy and domination?

In the last sixty years since the process of independence of Muslim countries was initiated and the West had succeeded in its scheme of installing apostates and modernist fussaaq and fujjaar to govern all the lands of Islam, howmany people had been executed for apostasy and stoned for adultery in the Muslim lands? o­ne, two, three or none? Can the humiliation of the Ummah and the abject corruption, impotency and decadence of these lands and their people be sensibly attributed to this ‘fossilization’ of Fiqhi Laws?

The lands of Islam under the sway of apostates and fussaaq modernists have produced innumerable technocrats, scientists, nuclear physicists, engineers, doctors, lawyers, technicians, etc., etc. University education fostering apostasy, liberalism and spawning immorality abound in the Muslim world. o­nly a small minority of the o­ne and half billion Muslims o­n earth engage in advanced ‘fossilized’ Madrasah education which rigidly keep the doors of Ijtihaad shut and prevent the infiltration of the apostates and mulhideen into the domain of the Shariah, and this small minority is confined to regions such as Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. All over the Muslim world the system of Islamic education has been ‘revolutionized’ and the syllabi of the apostates operate in the so-called Islamic universities. But why do we see no technological progress akin to western advancement in the Muslim lands held in subjugation under the yoke of apostasy, kufr, fisq and fujoor of the apostate rulers and their myriads of supporters? What role did the closing of the doors of Ijtihaad play in this backwardness and impotency of the apostate-dominated Muslim lands?

“Do not let the arrogant strutting 
of the kuffaar in the cities deceive you. (Their material prosperity) is slight benefit (for them). Then their abode will be Jahannum. Indeed, it is an evil  abode.” (Qur’aan)

The task of levelling accusations and slander against the Ulama is simple. Lumping together vocabulary to produce meaningless contentions is an easy exercise for those bereft of wisdom and aql. But the apostates lack in entirety in the ability to back up their fallacies with rational and intelligent argument.

Qur’aanic Purdah – A Refutation of the Modernists’ Anti-Islamic Views

Note: In this age of closer proximity to the Day of Qiyamah, we are witnessing emergence of  modernists so-called “sunni shaykhs” and “molvis” who are implementing their own deviated opinions in the names of Islam and the Shari’ah. The worrying aspect is that such people are emerging from historically reputed educational institutions like Al-Azhar which has now deviated drastically from Siraat Mustaqeem, sadly this tumour of modernism is also spreading to other institutions  as well, may Allah Ta’ala by His Mercy save the students of the Deen from the tentacles of the modernists.

Nearly a decade ago, one of the modernist “Shaykh” of Al-Azhar named Muhammad Sayyid al-Tantawi had claimed that “niqab has nothing to do with Islam”, taking this as their “trump card”, the modernists have began to criticize the Islamic institution of Hijab and started issuing their shaytani pamphlets to deviate the laymen. It should be borne in mind that their will be many such modernists who will again and again proclaim such statements in the future, it is important to refute their silly arguments. The following article will refute one such pamphlet regarding the Niqab issue disgorged by a modernist:

By Mujlisul Ulama

Question: Shaikh Tantawi of the Al-Azhar university in Egypt has criticized the Niqaab and has urged that it be banned. Please comment.

Answer: Modernists and liberal so-called sheikhs are propagating against many teachings of Islam. We have answered the type of ignorance which Tantawi propagates in our booklet, Qur’aanic Purdah which refutes the baseless contention that Hijaab is a mere `custom’. The ignorant sheikh has lost the road.

Qur’aanic Purdah

By Mujlisul Ulama

A pamphlet, titled IS PURDAH ISLAMIC?, authored by a modernist group (A. Kays & Associates), is replete with kufr and baatil in that the views expressed are in diametric conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah. The pamphlet seeks to impress unwary and ignorant people with its so-called ‘research’ approach. But, only like-thinking modernists and ignoramuses will perhaps be influenced by the drivel written in the pamphlet in the name of research.

The very first paragraph of the pamphlet demonstrates the shallowness of the ‘research’ of deviate modernists who lack in entirety in the Shar’i conception of Imaan. Displaying gross ignorance, the authors of the pamphlet allege:

“IN THE FIRST PLACE the word Purdah is not Arabic (the language of the Holy Qur’aan). The Arabic alphabet has no ‘p’. Purdah is of Persian origin and it has many meanings:….”

This presentation is an attempt to befuddle the minds of people who are unable to think for themselves. If a term is not of Arabic origin, it does not follow that the concept or the teaching/practice which the term denotes is not Islamic – is not Qur’aanic. The conclusion which the modernist authors desire people to draw from their puerile observation is that the Islamic institution of Purdah/Hijaab is in actual fact not Islamic – not Qur’aanic – because the word Purdah is not Arabic. This conclusion is absurd.

NAMAAZ is not of Arabic origin. Nowhere in the Qur’aan does the word, NAMAAZ, appear. But it will be stupid and absurd to claim that the institution of Salaat is not Islamic – not Qur’aanic – because the term, NAMAAZ, is Persian. Only ignoramuses can venture such absurd conclusions.

Then the modernist authors seek to peddle the idea that the Fuqaha of Islam have designated the face-veil as PURDAH. In other words, it is their claim that Purdah as used by the authorities of Islam means the face-veil. This allegation is fallacious. Purdah does not refer to the face-covering. The face-veil is known as NIQAAB, not Purdah.

PURDAH is an Islamic concept. It is the Institution of modesty, antipromiscuity, anti-nudity and anti-vulgarity. It is the Islamic Institution which brings within its purview all acts and teachings pertaining to hayaa (modesty, shame and respect). The face-veil is simply one item of Purdah, just as dress is an item of Purdah. In the context of the Shariah’s order, PURDAH is applicable to both males and females.

The literal meanings (with which the modernists wish to impress) are of no significance and of no consequence. Of importance and significance are the Shar’i meanings and expositions attached to the term used to denote the Institution of Islam. Thus, the literal meaning of Namaaz is of no importance. The Shar’i meaning denoted by the Persian term, NAMAAZ, is of significance to the Ummah. Similarly, the literal meanings of the Persian term, PURDAH, are not our concern. Our concern is the Institution of Islam regardless of what word is used to denote it – whether a Persian, Chinese, English or Latin term. Different nations have different words to describe the Institutions of Islam. It never follows from the non-Arabic terms that the institutions these terms represent are not Qur’aanic or not Islamic. We should be concerned with meanings, not the words used to convey the meanings.

The Kays group says in its pamphlet:

“THE TERM generally indicated a woman in a veil, from head to toe, the face being covered.”

This statement is false. People who understand the meaning of Purdah never refer to a woman in a veil as ‘purdah’. While a woman in veil and cloak will be said to be observing purdah or hijaab, the term itself does not indicate a woman with veil as claimed by Mr. Kays and company.

Purdah as understood by its proponents (i.e. the authorities of the Shariah) means the Islamic practice of separation of the sexes. Every act of such segregation comes within the scope of Purdah or Hijaab. Thus when a man lowers his gaze when a shameless woman without veil comes in his presence, it will be said that he is observing purdah. When a man comes to a home and the females withdraw into seclusion, it will be said that they are observing purdah whether they are donning cloak and veil or seductive garments. Their act of segregating themselves from the males is called purdah, i.e. this particular act is part of purdah or an item in the Islamic concept of Purdah.

The Kays group states:

“PURDAH-NASHEEN means a veiled woman or one who stays behind a curtain or does not come out of the house.”

The Urdu/Persian word ‘nasheen’ means sitting. Purdah Nasheen women means women who live in Purdah, i.e. secluded from males. A woman who observes all Islamic demands of modesty and decorum in both dress and conduct, living in separation from ghair mahrams, will be described as a purdah nasheen woman even if she does not wear the cloak and veil in her state of separation and even if she wears revealing and seductive garments in privacy for the sake of her husband. On the contrary, a woman who wears a face-veil, but wanders around the streets and drives about in cars (i.e. she herself drives), is not a purdah nasheen woman. In a town in Kenya, women in droves prowl the streets after Maghrib. All of them wear a face-veil. A stranger will wonder at these ‘purdah nasheen’ females roaming the streets immediately after the Maghrib Athaan. For the benefit of the Kays group, these so-called ‘purdah nasheen’ females are all prostitutes plying their vile trade. Such women can never be termed purdah nasheen solely on account of wearing a niqaab (face-veil). Again we shall emphasise that while the veil is an item of purdah, it is not PURDAH itself nor is a woman with a niqaab necessarily purdah nasheen. The Urdu dictionary, Firozul Lughaat defines purdah nasheen as follows: a female who conceals (herself); a female who sits in purdah; a chaste woman; a (morally) pure woman. It does not mean a woman with a veil. If a woman donning a niqaab does not subscribe to the Shar’i institution of Purdah/Hijaab, she will not be described as a purdah nasheen lady of Islam.

The modernist writers of the pamphlet further claim:

“PURDAH is often confused with HIJAAB which is an Arabic word used in the Holy Qur’aan in several places.”

The confusion lies in the thinking of Kays and his associates. His allegation is tantamount to the claim:

“Namaaz/Prayer is often confused with Salaat which is an Arabic word used in the Holy Qur’aan in several places.”

If by Namaaz we refer to the Islamic Institution of Salaat – i.e. Salaat as taught by the Qur’aan and Sunnah – it will be absurd to claim that there exists confusion in using these words for Salaat. Similarly, if by the word PURDAH we mean the Islamic Institution of Hijaab, no confusion whatever is implied. Crooked thinking and oblique mental vision conjecture the idea of confusion.

In an attempt to impress ignorant people with their so-called ‘research’, the group presents a definition of Raaghib. Thus is it said by this group:

“The great Arab linguist, Raaghib, says it means a kind of obstruction/impediment which prevents the reaching of one thing to another, concurred by lexicologist Ibn Faras (Ref. Taaj and Muheet).”

The attempt to deny the Shar’i validity of the Niqaab (face-veil) by trying to sound academic, is futile and stupid. Instead of Raaghib’s definition of ‘al-hijaab’ being any substantiation for the baseless claim of the Kays group, it on the contrary provides proof for the Shar’i command of Niqaab. Raaghib’s definition applies aptly to the Niqaab because the Niqaab is in fact an “obstruction/impediment which prevents” the lustful gazes of men “reaching” the face of the woman donning the Niqaab. The Shariah imposes the Niqaab precisely to create the obstruction or the impediment so necessary for the maintenance of moral purity of both man and woman.

Undoubtedly, Purdah and Hijaab is one and the same thing. In the same way that Namaaz and Salaat is the same thing, Purdah and Hijaab is the same thing. It matters not that the terms Namaaz and Purdah are not Arabic. The teachings and demands of Purdah are identical with the teachings and demands of Hijaab. Insha’Allah, this will be substantiated with conclusive Shar’i evidence.

Since Kays and his associates are labouring under a gross misconception regarding the meaning of Purdah, they can ignorantly mock:

“They somehow misinterpret the Qur’aanic term to mean a Ninja-style veil, though the Holy Qur’aan does not say this, nor implies it even indirectly!”

(An implication is an indirect reference. Therefore to say: “nor implies it even indirectly!” is both superfluous and inaccurate.)

The reference of the above statement is to “Indo-Pak preachers”. By claiming that ‘Indo-Pak preachers’ propagate the incumbency of the Niqaab, Kays and his associates have displayed stark ignorance of the reality. The Niqaab is not restricted to India and Pakistan. The entire Arab World, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Turkey and most Muslim countries have adopted the Niqaab since the very inception of Islam in their lands. To this day innumerable Muslim ladies of almost every nation on earth don the Niqaab. It is only the modernist, immoral pseudo-Muslim women aping every style of the kuffaar West, who have renounced the veil. It is indeed a great travesty of the truth to aver that the veil is the invention of the ‘Indo-Pak preachers’. The Niqaab is the introduction and command of Islam – the command of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah of which Kays and his associates are wholly ignorant notwithstanding their childish research.

In a smattering outline of the ‘history of the veil’, the pamphlet claims that the following communities also had adopted the Veil of Virtue and Modesty:

The elites and priests of  the Assyrians.
➡ The Greeks.
➡ The Zoroastrians of Persia.
➡ The Jews.
➡The pre-Islam Arabs.
➡ Some castes in India among the  Hindus.
➡ Christians.
➡ Some Christian sects to this day wear the veil.

The modernists, in their ignorance, have failed to understand that the VEIL which formed part of the culture of all these and other communities was in fact a remnant of the Islamic Culture which they had inherited from their respective Ambiyaa (alayhimus salaam).

Allah Ta’ala has sent a Nabi or Rasool to every community. Man was not created and left like the beasts of the jungle to be nourishment for some other species of creation. Man was despatched to earth to prepare himself for the Aakhirah. Hence, a Rasool was sent to guide every nation to the Path of Jannat. In this regard the Qur’aan Majeed says:

“For every nation was a Rasool.”   (Aayat 47, Surah Yunus)

Whatever goodness and virtue are observed in non-Muslim communities, even in pagans, were inherited from the Shariahs of the Ambiyaa which were sent to the various nations of the world. Highly civilized nations such as the Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, etc., were not left to shaitaan and the vagaries of the nafs. A Nabi came to every nation. The rites of Hajj practised by the pre-Islamic Arabs were not the products of their paganism. They had inherited the rituals of Hajj from their ancestor, Hadhrat Ibraaheem (alayhis salaam). In the course of time, they drifted from the Path of Islam and corrupted all the acts of Ibaadat and the Beliefs which they had initially acquired from Hadhrat Ibraaheem and Hadhrat Ismaa’eel (alayhimas salaam).

That all civilized communities had the veil for their womenfolk, is indicative of this practice being a unanimous demand of civilized culture – culture which was brought and taught by the Ambiyaa (alayhimus salaam). On the contrary, nudity, semi-nudity, immodesty, female exhibition and the like are acts of shaitaan. Such acts of immodesty are the hallmark of uncivilized communities of savages and barbarians.

In Surah Ahzaab, aayat 59, Allah Ta’ala announces the command of Hijaab/Purdah pertaining to the covering of the entire body, including the head and face. Thus, Allah Ta’ala says:

“O Nabi! Tell your wives, your daughters and the women of the Mu’mineen that they draw over themselves their jalaabeeb (outer-cloaks or shawls)….”  

Kays and company defines the jilbaab as follows:

“The jilbaab was a fairly large piece of cloth draped around the neck and over the shoulders, hanging on the back as a showpiece, or to wrap around the  whole body.”

This description of the jilbaab is misleading and erroneous. Tafseer Mazhari describes the jilbaab as follows:

“It is a sheet (or shawl) which a woman wraps around her, ontop of her dress and head-scarf (khimaar)…. Ibn Abbaas and Abu Ubaidah (radhiyallahu anhuma) said: ‘The women of the Mu’mineen were commanded to conceal their heads and their faces with the jalaabeeb, except  one eye.”  

Tafseer Ibn Katheer states in its description of the jilbaab:

“Jilbaab is the shawl over the head-scarf (khimaar). This has been stated by Ibn Mas’ud, Ubaidah, Qataadah, Hasan Basri, Saeed Bin Jubair, Ibraaheem Nakh’ai, Ataa Khuraasani and others.

Ali Bin Ali Talhah narrates that Ibn Abbaas said: Allah ordered the women of the Mu’mineen that when they emerge from their home for a need, they should cover their faces from ontop of their heads with the jalaabeeb and leave exposed one eye.

Muhammad Bin Sireen said: I asked Ubaidah Salmaani about Allah’s statement (viz. they should hang over themselves their jalaabeeb). He then (practically demonstrated) by concealing his face and head, and exposing his left eye.”  

Tafseer Abi Sa-ood defines the jilbaab as follows:

“Al-jilbaab: Is a cloth bigger than the khimaar (head-scarf) smaller than the ridaa’ (shawl). A woman covers her with it from ontop of the head.

It is said that it is the shawl. It is every garment with which women conceal their faces and their bodies when they emerge (from their homes) for needs.

Sadi said that it conceals her one eye, and her face.”  

Commenting on the aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab, Abu Bakr Jassaas says:

“Since it was the practice of the Arab women to leave their faces open like slave-girls, and this would invite the gazes of men, Allah and His Rasool ordered them (women) to hang down (irkhaa’) the jalaabeeb over them when they intend to emerge for their needs.

Ibn Abbaas and Ubaidah Salmaani said that it covers a woman so much that only her one eye remains exposed to enable her to see.”

All other authoritative books of Tafseer describe the jilbaab and the method of donning it in the same way as mentioned above, i.e. the jilbaab was worn from ontop of the head and covered the face as well.

None of the great and illustrious Mufassireen whose references we have cited was among the ‘Indo-Pak preachers’. The authorities from whose works we present our proofs are all Sahaabah, Taabieen and other great authorities of the Shariah.

The encyclopaedic LISAANUL ARAB of Ibn Manthur Jamaluddin  Muhammad al-Ansaari defines Jilbaab as follows:

“Jilbaab is bigger than the khimaar (the long head-scarf) smaller than the ridaa’ (the outer shawl). The woman conceals with it her head and breast.”  

These definitions presented by the authorities of the Shariah are adequate for understanding that the jilbaab is not a garment worn from the neck downwards. Even if it was worn in this fashion prior to the command issued for the observance of PURDAH/HIJAAB (i.e. to conceal the head and face), aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab ordered women to conceal their heads and faces with their jalaabeeb henceforth. Their style of wearing the jilbaab beyond the home precincts was changed by this aayat of Surah Ahzaab. There is unanimity of the Shar’i authorities on this issue.

It should be further understood that the Arab Muslim ladies (i.e. the Sahaabiyyah or female Sahaabah) were accustomed to don a khimaar and a ridaa’. Khimaar is a big, long head scarf. Ridaa’ is the big sheet which is wrapped around the body. When they ventured out of their homes (i.e. even prior to the revelation of the PURDAH aayat of Surah Ahzaab), their hair, head, breasts and body were well covered. The command to ‘hang over them’ their jalaabeeb will be meaningless, if the purpose was merely to cover the hair. The order would have been redundant since the khimaar already took care of the hair and head. The ridaa’ took care of the body. But for greater and complete PURDAH with a view to thwart the evil and lustful gazes of the fussaaq and munaafiqeen, the command was issued to conceal the face with the jilbaab. And on this score there is copious evidence and the authoritative ruling of the Sahaabah and Fuqaha in general.

In Saheeh Muslim, the jilbaab is described as such a big garment which could be wrapped around two women.

The garment which normally covered the bosoms of the women was the large head-scarf (ornhi) which extended from over the head, down over the bosoms until the waist and even lower down. The Qur’aan Majeed mentions the khimaar distinct from the jilbaab. Thus, in aayat 31 of Surah Noor, the Qur’aan declares:

“They should put their khumur (plural of khimaar) over their bosoms….”  

With regard to the jilbaab, aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab commands that they ‘hang their jilbaabs OVER them’. The head is part of ‘them’ and it is the point from which ‘hanging’ of the jilbaab is instructed. Its function is apart from the function of the khimaar. Its primary function is to conceal the FACE while the primary function of the khimaar is to conceal the head and the bosom. After the command was received, ladies would cover their faces in varying degrees depending on circumstances. Some covered their faces completely exposing only one eye to enable them to see. This was the standard way in which the jilbaab was donned. At times both eyes were exposed while some say that the greater part of the face was covered. But there is unanimity among the authorities of the Shariah that the purpose of the jilbaab was to conceal the FACE from the lustful and shaitaani gazes of the fusaaq and munaafiqeen and to distinguish the chaste females of Islam from slave-girls and prostitutes.

The following extract from our article, ISLAMIC HIJAAB (PURDAH), further explains the JILBAAB:

She must be properly and thoroughly covered in a loose outer-cloak which totally conceals her entire body including her face. In the following aayat, the Qur’aan Shareef commands this Hijaab:

“O Nabi! Say to your wives, your daughters and the women of the Believers that they draw over them their jilbaabs (outer-cloaks). That (covering with the jilbaabs) is the least (requirement) so that they be recognized (as respectable and honourable ladies) and not be molested (by evil men)”. [Surah Ahzaab, aayat 59]

A jilbaab is an outer sheet or cloak which during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was large enough to conceal two women. The way in which the ladies during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah wore the jilbaab covered them from head to feet including the face. The term yudneena – (they should lower or draw down) appearing in the above aayat orders that the cloak be drawn over from above and lowered in such a way as to conceal the face as well. Covering the face outside the home precincts was the standard and normal practice of the womenfolk during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In this regard Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) narrates:

“During the occasion of Hajjatul Wida when people passed near to us, we (the ladies) would draw the jilbaab over the head and the face. When they (the people) departed from us, we would open our faces”. (Abu Dawood)

Imam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) mentions in Ihyaaul Uloom:

“Women emerged (during the time of Nabi (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam) with niqaabs on their faces”.  

Niqaab is a cloth which conceals the face and not a transparent veil. In a Hadith in Abu Dawood an incident is described in which a young man was martyred. His mother, wearing a jilbaab fully covering her face came into the battlefield to enquire about her son. With face fully covered she appeared in the presence of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Some people were surprised to observe that the lady donned face-covering even during an emergency and on such a grave occasion. When she learnt of their surprise, the mother of the slain Sahaabi said:

“My son is lost, but my shame and modesty are not lost”.  

In Durrul Mukhtaar, the authoritative Islamic Law Book, the following verdict of the Shariah is recorded:

“Young women are compulsorily prohibited from revealing their faces in the presence of men”.  

These narrations are sufficient to indicate that it is an Islamic demand of compulsion for women to conceal their faces when circumstances compel them to leave the home boundaries. This practice of concealing the face was not a later introduction, but existed from the very time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Certain narrations which indicate that, women appeared in the presence of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) should not be misconstrued and understood to have been the normal practice. Such narrations pertain to either incidents prior to the revelation of the Law of Hijaab or to special circumstances which were exceptional cases and not the normal rule.

From the aforegoing discussion it should be abundantly clear that Purdah or Hijaab does not mean ‘niqaab’ or the face-veil. The Niqaab is rather an item of Hijaab/Purdah.

Regarding the Niqaab, Kays and company state:

“Niqaab or Burqa means the same, but the Holy Qur’aan does not use these words.”

It is surprising for so-called ‘research scholars’ to speak such drivel in a bid to refute the fourteen century practice of the Ummah. Of what significance is the non-appearance of these terms in the Holy Qur’aan? Does it mean that a practice is invalid and unsubstantiated simply because direct reference to it is not made in the Qur’aan Majeed? Any such conclusion is obviously not only Islamically absurd, but it is downright stupid. The number of Salaat raka’ts is not mentioned anywhere in the Qur’aan and so is a myriad of other Shar’i laws. Will it be sensible for anyone to conclude that the laws of Islam which are not mentioned in the Qur’aan have no validity simply because they do not appear in the Qur’aan Majeed? We need not dwell further on this self-evident absurdity and fallacy which the modernists are attempting to propagate.

Secondly, it is erroneous to claim that niqaab and burqa mean the same thing. The “Indo-Pak preachers” never made this claim. Niqaab refers to only the veil which conceals the face while burqa is the outer-garment or the jilbaab. The niqaab forms part of the burqa. In the early days, i.e. during the age of the Sahaabah, the jilbaab or the loose sheet served the purpose of covering the entire body as well as the face. The present day burqa is a more convenient form of jilbaab. The face-covering (niqaab) is a separate item attached to the outer-garb or sometimes it is  apart. Thus, the niqaab is part of the burqa, but it is never the burqa.

Although the words, niqaab and burqa are not in the Qur’aan Majeed, both these terms are Arabic and are mentioned in numerous Kitaabs of the Ulama of Islam many centuries before the era of the “Indo-Pak preachers”. The ladies of Arabia referred to their outer-garment (i.e. their  Purdah dress – their jilbaab) as ‘BURQA’. Thus, LISAANUL ARAB states:

“Al-Burqa: It is well-known to the women of Arabia.”  

Niqaab too is defined as “the cloth concealing the face of the woman”. These meanings could be ascertained from any Arabic dictionary. Both these terms are Arabic and not ‘fabrications’ of the “Indo-Pak preachers” as Kays & Co. would like Muslims to believe.

Undoubtedly, the “Indo-Pak preachers” borrowed the same Arabic terms to describe the outer-garb and the face-cloth which Muslim ladies had adopted. Any Urdu dictionary will describe burqa as:

“a kind of mantle or veil covering the whole body from head to foot.”  

On the other hand, niqaab is defined as only a veil. Since its function is to veil only the face.

Regardless of the non-appearance of these terms in the Qur’aan or whether niqaab and burqa mean the same thing, it cannot be cited in negation of the concealment of the female’s face in public because aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab, the Ahaadith and the permanent practice of the Sahaabi ladies and of the Ummah down the long corridor of Islam’s fourteen century history bear evidence with the greatest clarity that it is Waajib for the female to conceal her face in public. The exercise to refute the validity of face-concealment by attempting to sidetrack the minds of unwary and ignorant people by the employment of fallacious arguments centring around words, is stupid and futile.

The pamphlet of the modernists asks:

“If the face was to be covered why the command not to look at it?”

Firstly, modernist logic cannot be employed to refute and negate the commands of Allah Ta’ala. Regardless of how logical an argument may appear, it cannot be cited to negate any teaching of the Shariah. The Qur’aan, the Sunnah and the Tawaaruth of the Ummah very clearly uphold the practice of concealing the face. This irrefutable practice of the Ummah cannot be negated and proclaimed invalid simply because some deviates in this belated century present their logical understanding. The clear-cut ahkaam of the Shariah cannot be abrogated by an implied conclusion extracted by modernists who have absolutely no footing, no grounding and no standing in the firmament of Shar’i Uloom.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah had greater and the proper understanding of the aayat in which Allah Ta’ala commands men to cast down their gaze. Despite their knowledge and understanding of the aayat, their womenfolk concealed their faces in public. And, they did not come up with the stupid doubts of kufr emanating from the modernists of our day.

Secondly, the instruction to ‘cast down the gaze’ is not restricted to viewing the faces of females. The Mufassireen, commenting on this aayat state that the prohibition to stare applies to all things which are unlawful to look at. Thus, a man should cast down his gaze even for young lads on account of the fitnah of being attracted to unnatural acts. Looking at any part of the satr of either man or woman is haraam. The thighs of males so much exposed in these immoral times also come within the scope of this prohibition to stare.

Thirdly, it is quite possible that inspite of having their faces concealed with a jilbaab to which a niqaab has not been fitted, the woman’s face may become momentarily exposed due to her movements. On such occasion, the man should lower his gaze.

Fourthly, when a man passes by a woman, he should lower his gaze even if her face is concealed. It is an act of misconduct and despicable to stare at a woman even if she is completely covered in her burqa. It is still necessary to cast down the gaze. It is indeed rude to stare at females even if they are covered in their jilbaabs with their faces concealed.

There is, therefore, absolutely no valid argument for the denouncers of Islamic Purdah in the verse instructing men to cast down their gaze. There is no conflict between this aayat and the Niqaab.

The aayat ordering down-casting of the gaze is not restricted to only Muslim women. Non-Muslim women do not wear the jilbaab. Muslim men will always have to cross paths with them in all times and in all lands. There is thus an imperative and a great need to cast down the gaze.

In a futile attempt to deny the Shar’i command for the woman to conceal her face in public, Kays & Associates say in their pamphlet of baatil:

“When the Hadith says, look properly at the prospective bride before proposing as it develops affection, but how does one see if the Command was to cover the face.”

“Research scholars” should display at least rudimentary understanding of the subject matter they desire to dilate. The Shariah allows a woman to expose any part of her aurah or satr for a valid need. If any part of her body requires medical treatment, then it is permissible for her to reveal that part. There are exceptions to all the rules of the Shariah. Opening up the face for the valid reason of marriage is lawful. This is a specific ruling of the Shariah in which there is no dispute. A specific situation or concession cannot be cited as a basis for the negation of the law itself. A woman is allowed to reveal her face, not only for allowing a prospective groom to see her, but also when she has to appear in front of the Qaadhi. But these concessions do not cancel the general prohibition. The Qur’aanic aayat commanding  concealment of the face (i.e. verse 59 of Surah Ahzaab) remains intact notwithstanding the concessions applicable to certain cases and situations. It is, therefore, childish to wonder: ‘how does one see….”

Kays & Associates display stark ignorance of the Shariah in the following statements appearing in their baatil pamphlet:

“The Holy Prophet (S) asked some women on Pilgrimage NOT to cover their faces and hands, even then they covered it when strange men passed by. It seems that the Commands on modesty had inspired a fashion, thinking that it was far better to incline towards more modesty than less.”

For their baseless conclusions which they raise on the grounds of Ahaadith which they have not quoted, they tender the following Kitaabs: Muatta-e-Imaam Maalik, Abu Dawood and Tirmizi. Let us now refer to Muatta-e-Imaam Maalik to ascertain the worth of the conclusions of the modernist group. The following Hadith narration appears in Muatta-e-Imaam Maalik:

“Naafi’ narrates that Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said: The woman in ihraam should not place a niqaab on her face nor wear gloves.”

The instruction stated by Hadhrat Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) is for women in the state of ihraam. It does not apply for those who are not in ihraam. It is quite evident from this instruction that it was the practice of the Sahaabiyyah (ladies) to conceal their faces under normal and daily circumstances, hence the need to issue an express directive prohibiting wearing of the Niqaab during ihraam. One of the compulsory conditions of ihraam for ladies is that the cloth should not touch their faces. The usual niqaab cannot be donned without it touching the face, hence the prohibition. In the same way as it is forbidden for men in ihraam to cover their heads, so is it prohibited for women to cover their faces in ihraam in such a way which allows the niqaab cloth to touch their faces.

Another Hadith also in Muatta-e-Maalik:

“Faatimah Bint Munthir said: We would cover our faces in the state of ihraam when we accompanied Asmaa Bint Abi Bakr (radhiyallahu anhuma) and she would not object.”

They would don a face-veil in such a way which prevented the cloth from touching the face. The cloth would overhang on a protuberance placed on the head. This narration too substantiates that it was the normal practice of the ladies during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah to conceal their faces in public from the lustful gazes of men. Faatimah Bint Munthir mentioned that they did this in the company of the Sahaabiyyah, Hadhrat Asmaa (radhiyallahu anha), in substantiation of their practice of concealing their faces even during the state of ihraam. This is how strongly the ladies of Islam felt about the imperative need to conceal their faces in public.

Let us now study  the Hadith in Abu Dawood. Mujaahid narrates:

“Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) said: Travellers (on mounts) would pass by us whilst we were in the state of ihraam together with Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). When they came near to us, we would hang our jilbaab over our face. When they would pass (and be at a distance) we  would open (our faces).”

Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) states the Islamic practice on donning the niqaab with great clarity. It is abundantly clear from the attitude displayed by Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) and the other ladies with her that it was the practice for women to conceal their face, hence they considered it incumbent to do so even during the state of ihraam when it is not permissible to allow the niqaab cloth to touch the face. Thus, if the niqaab is worn in such a way by the muhrimah that it does not touch her face, there is no penalty since the Ihraam Prohibitions have not been violated.

On the occasion when Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) and other ladies of Rasulullah’s (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) House were on Hajj, Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam) had accompanied them. They would cover their faces inspite of being in ihraam when men would approach, but Nabi-e-Kareem (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) never reprimanded them or even requested them to refrain from the act of concealing their faces as Mr. Kays would like us to believe.

Let us now study a little the Hadith on this subject in Tirmizi:

In a Hadith narrated by Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) enumerating the prohibitions of Ihraam, he states that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“The woman in ihraam should not wear a niqaab nor gloves.”

In this narration it is clearly stated that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade the donning of the niqaab during the state of ihraam. The prohibition is directed by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) exclusively to women in ihraam. This is categorically stated in the Arabic text of the Hadith. This prohibition further substantiates that it was the practice of the females in the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to wear a niqaab. It is therefore, silly, to say the least, to ascribe the practice of the Sahaabi ladies concealing their faces to some ‘fashion’ inspired by the Qur’aanic command to adopt Modesty and Purdah. If we accept for a brief moment that the ladies derived the inspiration for greater modesty from the Qur’aanic command, then no one has the right to denounce such holy inspiration, least of all modernists who are extremely ill-equipped in matters pertaining to Shar’i Uloom. When Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not prohibit women from wearing the niqaab when they were not in ihraam, when he did not prohibit them from concealing their faces in a particular manner even during the state of ihraam and when he did not forbid them from concealing their faces with their jalaabeeb, how can the modernists of Kays & Associate’s ilk arrogate such a right to themselves?

In a Hadith appearing in Bukhaari Shareef, Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) enumerating  the prohibitions of ihraam, said:

“Women should not wear the burqa (i.e. during ihraam).”

The burqa (or the jilbaab) entailed concealment of the face. In the context of the Hadith, her statement means that the burqa should not be worn in such a manner which allows the cloth of the niqaab to touch the face. In fact, in a narration mentioned earlier in this article, Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) explicitly says that they would hang their jalaabeeb from over their heads to conceal their faces when male travellers would approach. And, this was during ihraam.

From all the aforegoing Ahaadith it will be seen that the view expressed by Kays is a figment of his imagination. His claim that the practice of concealing the face in vogue during the time of the Sahaabah was simply a ‘fashion’ of “some women”, is ridiculous. It is false to claim that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had asked “some women NOT to cover their faces and hands….” This was specially meant for the state of ihraam, and even then they were not prohibited from concealing their faces in a way which prevented the cloth from touching the face. The Ahaadith of Hadhrat Aishah and Hadhrat Asmaa and of others bear ample testimony to this fact.

The attempt to induce people to swallow the falsehood that the niqaab, burqa and jilbaab are the creations of the ‘Indo-Pak preachers’, viz. The ULAMA-E-HAQQ of the last two centuries, is despicable. This fallacious supposition completely ignores that the institution of Purdah along with its items such as the burqa and niqaab, were in force during the age of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and were the direct product of the Qur’aanic Commands.

Kays and his associates claim:

“The word HIJAAB has been used as a misnomer for a garment.”

He then goes on to present a meaningless discussion totally unrelated to the topic. In the first instance, the word Hijaab is not used for a garment. Hijaab is used to signify an institution, viz., the Islamic institution of separation between men and women. There are various dimensions of Hijaab applicable to both males and females. Just as women have to adopt hijaab so too do men have to.

Words are immaterial. The meanings are of importance. Whether Qur’aanic or Islamic Salaat is called Namaaz, Prayer, or Dua, etc., is of no significance. If by these non-Arabic terms the proper Shar’i meaning of Salaat (i.e. Qiyaam, Qira’t, Ruku, Sujood, etc.) is conveyed, there is absolutely no Shar’i proscription in the utilization of such terms. Similarly, it is of no significance if alien terms are used to denote the Qur’aanic or Shar’i concept of male-female seclusion/separation. Whether the term is hijaab, purdah, niqaab, veil, face-cloth or pyjamas, it is of no significance as long as these terms convey the Qur’aanic meaning of the Hijaab verses and the Sunnah way of women observing modesty, viz., concealing their faces in public, remaining indoors, etc., etc. Mr. Kays is simply attempting to bamboozle the minds of unwary people by putting up an ‘academic’ front and discussing words. This is a plain attempt to sidetrack the issue and to pull wool over the eyes of unsuspecting people.

The claim of the ‘INDO-PAK PREACHERS’, i.e. of the Ulama-e-Haqq of India and Pakistan in this age is that the system of Hijaab they are advocating is the precise code of Modesty and purity of conduct which the Qur’aan and Sunnah command. This lofty code of Hijaab – Qur’aanic and Sunnah HIJAAB or PURDAH commands that:

➡ Women conceal their faces in public whether with a burqa, niqaab, jilbaab, outer-cloak or a blanket made of jute-sackcloth.

➡ Women remain within the precincts of the home and emerge only when necessary.

These are the main constituents of Hijaab which brings within its purview a host of acts and rules pertaining to Haya (shame and modesty) and moral purity.

All four Math-habs unanimously rule that during ihraam it becomes incumbent on women to conceal their faces from males. However, there is some difference of opinion regarding the manner of concealment.

This difference is explained as follows in BAZLUL MAJHOOD:

“….Verily, they (the Fuqaha) differ as to when it becomes necessary (to conceal the face) because of Hijaab for strangers (i.e. ghair mahrams). According to the Hanafiyyah and Shafi’iyyah it is obligatory to ensure that nothing of the (niqaab) cloth touches the face. It (the niqaab) should be kept at a distance from the face by means of some protuberance. The Hanaabilah and Maalikiyyah say that it does not matter even if the cloth of the ghitaa (i.e. niqaab) touches the face because of need.”

The entire world of Islam – all the authorities, right from the time of the Sahaabah, speak of Hijaab and Niqaab, but the modernist deviates lacking in Shar’i Uloom very audaciously put forward  their untenable baatil and fallacies.

Mr. Kays, in his pamphlet of baatil and confusion, embarks on a little discussion regarding the principles of Hadith. It is clear from his claims that the smattering of information he has gleaned about this branch of Islamic Knowledge amply displays his ignorance of Usool-e-Hadith. Infants should not attempt to swim in the deep waters of oceans. The comments of Kays on the categories of Ahaadith have illustrated his lack of understanding of the subject of Usoolul Hadith. He has seen somewhere that a certain Hadith is described by the authorities as ‘Mursal’ for example. He then concludes that such a Hadith is literally speaking ‘defective’, ‘weak’, hence ‘rejected’. He fails to understand that the terms given to Ahaadith narrations by the Muhadditheen are technical in import. It does not follow that Mursal narrations or Dhaeef narrations or Ahaadith categorized as AAHAAD are rejected, and the ‘rational’ law cannot be based on such an ‘Hadith’ as he claims.

He very ignorantly says: “This so-called Hadith is recorded by Abu Dawood (Sunan) who himself says it is Mursal.” This statement demonstrates that Kays does not understand even the definition of Hadith, hence he stupidly labels the narration, ‘so-called Hadith’. One qualified in the science of Usoolul Hadith, will not commit such a childish blunder which leaves us aghast in view of its emanation from one who professes to be a ‘research scholar’.

He further claims that it is the rule of the Muhadditheen and Fuqaha that if a Hadith does not belong to the Mutawaatir category, it can be discounted. This is utterly baseless.

Let it be understood that in the first instance, the science of the Principles of Hadith, unlike Usoolul Fiqh and Fiqh, is not binding on the Aimmah Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha who acquired their Ilm from the Sahaabah and the Students of the Sahaabah.

The conditions and principles of Hadith formulated by Imaam Bukhaari (rahmatullah alayh), for example, 200 years after the Sahaabah cannot be cited as a basis for the rejection of a fatwa issued by the Students of the Sahaabah or by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen such as Imaam Abu Hanifah and Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayhima) who appeared long before the dawn of the age of the Muhadditheen. When a Mujtahid cites a Hadith in substantiation of his Fatwa, it automatically implies that the Hadith which is his basis, is an authentic Hadith in which there is no vestige of doubt irrespective of the category to which a Muhaddith had assigned to it a century or two later.

In the presence of Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen such as Hammaad,  Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Maalik and numerous others of the Taabieen age, Imaam Bukhaari and the many Muhadditheen of his age and thereafter are all infants.

Coming back to the question of the acceptability or rejection of a Mursal Hadith, let it be known that according to the Ahnaaf (Hanafis) and Maalikis, a Mursal Hadith is acceptable for Hujjat (for a firm basis on which to base Shar’i Law) without reservation. In fact, they assert that the ‘irsaal’ in the Hadith indicates the perfection of the authenticity. They have their proofs for their claim. This is not the occasion to elaborate. According to Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayh) if the Mursal narration is bolstered in some other way, it will be accepted even if it has been categorized as Dhaeef.

For the benefit of Mr. Kays and his associates, he should be informed that regardless of the classification of the narrations, all the Ahaadith in the following Kitaabs are SAHEEH: Muatta Imaam Maalik, Saheeh Bukhaari, Saheeh Muslim, Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan, Saheeh Haakim, Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah and many others.

For his further information the Muhadditheen assert that all the Ahaadith in the undermentioned books are worthy of Ihtijaaj (i.e. to cite as a basis for a ruling) inspite of the fact that some of the narrations in these Kitaabs are classified as Hasan and Dhaeef. These Books of Hadith are: Sunan Abi Dawood, Jaami’, Tirmizi, Sunan Nisaai, Musnad Ahmad, etc.

The above have been mentioned  by way of sample. Only deviates and those plodding the Path to Jahannum will venture to pick up a few scattered pebbles from the multi-faceted science of Hadith Principles and throw them at the illustrious Aimmah Mujtahideen and Fuqaha who were in entirety independent of the presentations of Imaam Bukhaari and other Muhadditheen two centuries later.

Lest the thrust of our rebuttal of the baatil pamphlet be forgotten, we should at this juncture repeat that:

➡ The incumbency of the NIQAAB (face-cloth for concealing the female’s face in public) is the product of aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab.

➡ This incumbency is supported by the general practice of the ladies of the age of Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam), of the ladies of the Taabieen age, of the ladies of the Tab-e-Taabieen age and of the ladies of the Ummah down Islam’s long passage of 14  centuries.

A Shar’i Practice which is upheld and supported by such a mass of solid proof can never be discounted by the oblique logic of the liberals and modernists of this age – liberals who hold no pedestal in the firmament of Shar’i Uloom.

Kays claims in his pamphlet that “rational law cannot be based on Mursal and Aahaad narrations which are to be discounted and rejected”. This he claims to be “the Rule of Law of the Muhaddith and Jurist”. He later cites a narration in which it is mentioned that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) stated that the male thigh is part of the aurah (i.e. part of the body which has to be compulsorily concealed). This particular Hadith has been variously classified by the Muhadditheen. Some say that it is Maudhoo’, some say Dhaeef, some say it is Hasan, etc. The Hadith appears in Abu Dawood, Bukhaari, Tirmizi and other Kitaabs. Inspite of its classification, the great Fuqaha, long before Imaam Bukhaari and the classification of the Hadith by the later Muhadditheen, utilized it as the basis for formulating the Waajib law of the male’s Satr. It is thus haraam to expose the thigh. This severe ruling has been issued on the basis of this Hadith which Kays asks Muslims to discount and reject.

The above is but one example of the formulation of LAW on the basis of Ahaadith which have been classified in the ‘weak’ category by the later Muhadditheen. It is indeed silly and irrational to seek to negate the Shariah formulated by the Sahaabah and Taabieen by bringing the Hadith classification of the later Muhadditheen in conflict with the system of the Fuqaha who had no need for the Hadith classification of the later Muhadditheen.

While these modernists have no respect for the Muhadditheen and do not accept the science of Hadith classification of the Muhadditheen, they only seek to extract support for their baatil views from whichever principle the Muhadditheen had formulated. If a principle of the later Muhadditheen seemingly conflicts with the verdicts of the Fuqaha, they will quickly and gleefully cite it in an attempt to reject the Faqih’s fatwa. It is for this reason that their statements and arguments are replete with contradictions.

Kays and his associates say that the Hadith pertaining to the ‘aurah’ is an Ahaad Hadith. In his definition of Aahaad Hadith, Kays says:

“….that if an Hadith is Ahaad (a single report) and not Mutawaatir (not repeated by other reliable recorders) then it is not an undisputed statement and can therefore be discounted.”

Far from discounting the ‘aurah’ Hadith, the Jurists have made it their strongest basis for declaring the thigh to be part of the aurah.

Kays has also failed to understand the meaning of Khabr-e-Waahid or Hadith known as Aahaad. He has defined it wrongly. Aahaad Ahaadith are classified into different categories. One category pertains to number of narrators in each epoch. With regard to this factor, this type of Hadith is divided into three kinds: Mash’hoor, Azeez and Ghareeb. This is not the occasion to go into detailed definitions of each kind of classification. It suffices to say that:

➡ All Aahaad narrations are not the effects of single reporters.

➡ It is not a principle that Ahaad cannot constitute a basis for the formulation of Ahkaam (the  ‘rational’ law stated by Kays).

This brief explanation on Hadith categories has been presented merely to show that Kays & Associates have no proper understanding of the branch of knowledge known as Usoolul Hadith.  

They are therefore  not competent to speak on this subject. As far as the Laws of the Shariah are concerned, the criterion is the verdict promulgated by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen, not the classification of Hadith by the later Muhadditheen. When a Hadith is authentic by the Fuqaha, it becomes irrefutable evidence for the Law. The task of setting out the Shariah in a systematic form was entrusted to the Fuqaha whose age commenced with the age of the Sahaabah. 

The Students of the Sahaabah were the Fuqaha and the Mujtahideen of the first epoch. The Ahkaam which have been transmitted on the authority of the Fuqaha, long before the age of the Muhadditheen, constitute the Shariah.

In Ainul Hidaayah appears the following:

“The Ulama of the Taabieen era accepted a narration when its authenticity is established by them. Imaam Shaafi has stated this in his Risaalah. Ibn Abdul Barr said that this order (referring to a particular narration) is Mash’hoor according to the Ulama-e-Taareekh and Ma’roof according to the Aimmah among the Fuqaha. Thus it resembles Mutawaatir. Since it resembles the category of Mutawaatir, there is no need for a sanad.”

The following appears in Raddul Mukhtaar:

“When the Mujtahid deducts (a law) on the basis of a Hadith, it in fact is evidence for the authenticity of the Hadith.”  

Among the abundant nonsense contained in the pamphlet, we shall quote one more claim of drivel:

“What the Holy Prophet of Islam had done for the emancipation of womankind was mercilessly undone when the Khilaafat (rule by consultation) was seized for the father-to-son kingship of the Umayyads, assisted by their sponsored scholars.”

Mr. Kays is unable to decide who had “re-enslaved” womankind – the Umayyads who were all Arabs and closely related to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or the “Indo-Pak preachers”? In this nonsensical slander we shall only discuss briefly at this juncture, Mr. Kays definition of khilaafat. He has defined khilaafat as “rule by consultation”.

In the same way as he has sucked many of his contentions from his thumb, so too has he sucked this one. Khilaafat does not mean rule by consultation. Khalifah means a representative or a successor. The Khalifah is the Representative of Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam) who in turn was the Khalifah of Allah Ta’ala on earth. While shura (consultation) is Sunnah in all affairs, the rule of the Khalifah is distinctly autocratic – subject to Divinely imposed Laws. 

He governs according to the Shariah, hence he is the Representative of Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam). The Khalifah is not obligated to follow the decision of any consultative assembly as the juhhaal modernists enamoured by the kufr concepts of western democracy would like us to believe. The decision of the Khalifah is final and absolute whether it conforms or conflicts with the unanimous decision of all the citizens in the land.

Mr. Kays should make a bit deeper ‘research’ to ascertain the literal as well as Shar’i meanings of Khalifah and Khilaafat. If he does, he will feel ashamed of advertising the nonsense which clutters his so-called ‘research’ pamphlet. May Allah Ta’ala guide the Ummah and protect the Imaan of the unwary from the ravages of shaitaaniyat.

Mr. Kays states in his pamphlet:

“Every thinking Muslim accepts the Holy Qur’aan as the only source of Divine Laws.”

Does the modernist wish the Ummah to accept that the countless millions of Muslims, the world over, from the inception of Islam down to this day, were not thinking Muslims on account of their allegiance to the views and verdicts of the illustrious Fuqaha, Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and Mufassireen, the first group of whom acquired their Ilm of the Deen from the Sahaabah? Does the modernist think that Muslims can accept that the great authorities of Islam from the age of the Sahaabah were not ‘thinking Muslims’ because they never propagated the lewd and libertine opinions which the kufr-mongering modernists inherited from their kufr masters and tutors at kuffaar universities? Does the modernist think that only he and his ilk are ‘thinking Muslims’ and those who devoted their lives to the pursuit of Qur’aanic and Hadith Ilm were not ‘thinking Muslims’?

Let the modernists understand that all thinking Muslims refute the contention that “the Holy Qur’aan is the only source of the Divine Laws

Mr. Kays and company, in their pamphlet of baatil, had attempted to disprove the rulings of the Fuqaha by presenting some Hadith classifications. They contend that a law cannot be formulated on the basis of a mursal narration. Then they presented the argument of Aahaad narrations, etc. Now, let them prove their contention from the Qur’aan, the “only source of Divine Laws”. Where in the Qur’aan does it say that “rational law” cannot be based on a mursal Hadith?

While the Ulama-e-Haqq cite the Qur’aan, Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah in support of the VEIL and Separation between men and women (i.e. HIJAAB/PURDAH), the modernist, in his pamphlet cites Lady Sukaynah, a great grand-daughter of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Where in the Qur’aan does it say that the act or views of a great grand-daughter of the Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), many decades after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), constitute Divine laws? How come the views of the Lady have suddenly become transformed into Divine Law? Those who claim that the Qur’aan is the only source of Divine Law should desist from hiding behind the skirts of historical ladies when they are in a tight corner lacking in ability to present proofs from the “only source of Divine Laws”.

Those who claim that the Qur’aan is the only source of Divine Law, should confine themselves to only Qur’aanic verses. They have no right to cite Ahaadith. They have no right to cite any of the Fuqaha. Just as their citation of the bible or gita in substantiation of their arguments will be baseless and rejected, so too their arguments on the basis of Hadith, etc., are MARDOOD (accursed and rejected).

The Ummah believes in the Qur’aan, the Hadith and abide by the expositions of the Fuqaha who gained their knowledge from Rasulullah’s (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) Students. We are, therefore, entitled to bring into operation all Shar’i arguments in defence of the Haqq of Islam. 

On the other hand, the mulhideen and the zindeeqs – the modernists – donning external masks of Islam, have no right to cite any basis whatever other than what they have stupidly opined to be “the only source of Divine Laws”. May Allah Ta’ala protect Muslims from the villainy of Ilhaad.

Mr. Kays and his ilk should state unequivocally if they believe that Fajr has two raka’ts, Zuhr four, Asr four, Maghrib three and Ishaa four raka’ts. They must let the Muslim community know if they believe that 2½% Zakaat is Fardh every year. And, what are their beliefs about:

➡Burying the dead? Can we  cremate?
➡ Is it required of  Muslims to drape the body with Masnoon Kafan as everyone does this day?
➡ Does nocturnal emission of semen obligate ghusl-e-janaabat? ➡ Putting on Ihraam garb for Hajj?
➡ Observing the numerous rules of Hajj, Salaat and other acts of Ibaadat?

Yes, in short, what are your beliefs pertaining to the numerous beliefs and practices of Islam to which the Ummah subscribe?

If you accept the validity of the aforementioned enumerated acts of Islam, then on what basis? You believe that the Qur’aan is “the only source of Divine Laws”. Where in the Qur’aan is the number of raka’ts mentioned? Where is it said in the Qur’aan that every raka’t has one ruku’ and two sajdah? Where is it said in the Qur’aan that Surah Faatihah should be recited in every raka’t and At-tahiyaat be recited in a sitting after every two raka’ts? Where do the myriad of other Shar’i rules exist in the Qur’aan – “the only source of Divine Laws” in the opinion of the modernist?

Nowhere in the Qur’aan will Mr.  Kays and his associates find any reference for all the masaail of the Shariah, yet we are sure that even if he and his ilk reject the myriad of Islamic rules, they at least will ostensibly say that Five Salaat are fardh every day. If they do believe in this Pillar of Islam, let them show us where in the  Qur’aan  it  appears  that  Fajr, Zuhr, Asr, Maghrib and Ishaa are fardh Salaat. And, where in the Qur’aan does it say that Salaat is the NAMAAZ which every Muslim accepts?

Truly, these modernists are trapped in the quagmire of their own baatil and dhalaal. They are unable to distinguish day and night and right from left, hence their ‘research’ is a concoction of confusion, contradictions, absurdities, kufr and baatil.

In an absurd attempt to reject the Shariah of the Qur’aan, Kays presents this drivel:

“What we find today in some Kitaabs is mainly the result of deep penetration by the Zanaadeeq (Persian convert hypocrites) and the king sponsored scholars.”

What a disgusting conclusion for a ‘research scholar’ professing to be a Muslim? Which Kitaabs are you referring to, Mr. Kays? Enumerate the Kitaabs. Which Persian hypocrites are you speaking of? Let the Muslim community know of your inner thoughts concealed in ambiguity. Mention the ‘hypocrites’ you have in mind and state the names of their kitaabs so that the community can judge them and their kitaabs in the mirror of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

Is Kays & Associates perhaps referring to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and his companions? Or to Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi, Imaam Ibn Hambal (rahmatullah alayhim) and to the other countless Fuqaha of Islam whose thousands of Kitaabs are extant today? There are not only “some Kitaabs” as mentioned by Kays. There are thousands of Kitaabs authored by the greatest Fuqaha and Ulama of Islam. Kays should mention the “some Kitaabs” to which he has made reference.

Does Kays perhaps know and understand the sources from whence the vast treasure of Islamic knowledge has been acquired? Does he realise who were the fountain-heads of this Knowledge which is today to be found in thousands of Kitaabs? Does he know who the Shuyookh (Ustaadhs) of Imaam Abu Hanifah were? Most certainly not the “Persian convert hypocrites” whom he has imagined.

To enlighten him and others we shall outline the Avenues of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s Uloom. Once Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) speaking about the authorities from whom he obtained his Ilm said: 

“I acquired the Knowledge of Ibn Umar (who was a senior Sahaabi) from the Ashaab of Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). I acquired the Ilm of Ibn Mas’oud (radhiyallahu anhu) from the Ashaab of Ibn Mas’oud (among the most senior Sahaabah). I acquired the Ilm of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) from the Ashaab of Hadhrat Ali (a very senior Sahaabi). I acquired the Ilm of Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) from the Ashaab of Hadhrat Anas. I acquired the Ilm of Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) from the Ashaab of Abu Hurairah (a very senior Sahaabi).”

These five top-ranking Sahaabah, viz. Hadhrat Ibn Umar, Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Ibn Mas’oud, Hadhrat Anas and Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhum) were the Fountain-heads of the Qur’aanic and Hadith Knowledge of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh).

At this juncture there is no need for us to enumerate the very lengthy list of the names of the illustrious Muhadditheen, Mufassireen and Fuqaha (not Persian convert hypocrites) among the Taabieen who had acquired their knowledge from the aforementioned five senior Sahaabah. The numerous Fuqaha, Muhadditheen and Mufassireen among the Taabieen were the Ustaadhs of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh).

The same holds good for Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh). The golden chain of his Ilm is closely linked to the Sahaabah. Thus, the knowledge which today exists in the innumerable Kitaabs of the four Math-habs of Islam is the authentic Ilm of the Sahaabah. The concoction of the “Persian convert hypocrites” is a fabricated figment in the minds of Kays and his associates.

Kays & associates should understand that they cannot befuddle and misguide the community by making stupid and sweeping claims which they cannever hope to substantiate with sound evidence. 

To say that what exists of Islam today is only the supposedly few kitaabs supposedly authored by imaginary “Persian convert hypocrites” is tantamount to claiming that Islam had died with the rise of the Ummayad Empire and for the past thirteen and a half centuries this Deen was hidden, mutilated and battered beyond recognition like Christianity, and that today in this age of kufr and evil some modernists who cannot even perform Salaat properly or who lack the correct knowledge of the rules of Tahaarat, have suddenly stumbled on the true Islam and gained the qualifications for correctly elaborating the Qur’aanic meanings.

Alas! These modernists cannot make even proper tilaawat of the Qur’aan. What do they understand of its meanings! May Allah Ta’ala save Muslims from the calamity of shaitaani modernism.


The ludicrousness of the modernist argument is dumbfounding. They seek to deny the validity of the Shariah by citing and distorting practices of individuals who have no rank in the firmament of Islamic Knowledge.

On the specific issue of PURDAH, the modernists in their attempt to scuttle the Qur’aan and Sunnah, cite the attitude and manner of Lady Sukaynah, the grand-daughter of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). In the first instance, the mulhideen have slandered this Lady by alleging that she did not observe PURDAH. Secondly, assuming that she was not in favour of PURDAH, her practice and view are of no significance as far as the Shariah is concerned. According to Mr. Kays she was 9 years old on the occasion of the episode of Karbala.

It is clear that she is not a Sahaabiyyah. Even if the modernists can present any of her statements (which they did not) to conflict with Qur’aanic PURDAH, it will be summarily rejected since the views of individuals carry no Shar’i weight if in conflict with the Qur’aan, Sunnah and the Ijmaa’ of the Ummah regardless of their noble birth and regardless of their family ties to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Now let Mr. Kays and his group cite Lady Sukaynah’s statements and inform us of the category her words occupy in the classification of the Muhadditheen. Kays was quick to embark on a puerile explanation of Hadith classification of the Muhadditheen. Now let him state Lady Sukaynah’s narration and its classification. Let him present the sanad of her riwaayaat and the class thereof, whether Saheeh, Dhaeef, Maudhoo’, etc., etc.

How can Mr. Kays expect the Ummah to be so stupid as to swallow unknown historical data of dubious origin and distortion in a bid to abrogate the Qur’aan, Sunnah and the authoritative rulings of the Fuqaha – the Students of the Sahaabah? Lady Sukaynah and other ladies of history have no ranking in Shar’i Uloom.

Their words and actions cannot be cited in abrogation of the Shariah. While the Ulama cite the Qur’aan, the Sunnah, the Sahaabah, the Fuqaha among the Taabieen and the unanimous practices of the Ummah, modernist deviates come up with the feeble, ambiguous and misinterpreted statements and actions of ladies who are unknown in Ilmi circles of the Shariah despite their noble linage.

Men who lack understanding in the application of Shar’i Law, in its Sources and operation should stick to their worldly occupations of monetary pursuit and not dabble in things beyond their mental capabilities.

The pamphlet of Kays & Associates is in entirety bereft of any Shar’i proof for their contentions of baatil. The modernist group has tendered only their personal opinion and a distorted version of the actions of an historical lady whose statements and acts do not constitute the Law of the Shariah. For people (the modernists) of such baseless opinion, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Verily, the people of opinion are the enemies of the Sunnah.”

Criticizing the Noble Predecessors

By Mujlisul Ulama

“It is indeed sheer stupidity to criticize any of the Mutaqaddimeen servants of the Deen. (The Mutaqaddimeen are the illustrious Fuqaha of the first two centuries of the Islamic era.) Such criticism is like finding fault with superbably baked bread. It is very simple to criticize. But to render the services of the Mutaqaddimeen is entirely another matter. If anyone should attempt to do what they had presented, he will then understand the reality (of his stupidity and the reality of their yeoman services). Today, when a slight problem pertaining to a new development arises, not even one aspect of it can be solved satisfactorily. But the illustrious predecessors had solved and formulated tens of thousands of masaa’il.”

The dearth of true Ilm-e-Deen, the shallowness in understanding and the superficiality of academic knowledge in this age bear testimony to what Hakimul Ummat (rahmatullah alayh) says above. In the endeavour to formulate a fatwa on any new development nowadays, ‘academies’ are established; national and international conferences are organized; millions of dollars are squandered in traveling, hotel expenses, etc. and in setting up these futile ‘fiqh academies’ and conferences of ostentation. Scholars from different countries jet in to participate in the conferences of mockery and futility.

Five star hotel accommodation is arranged for the ‘delegates’ and ‘scholars’. Their only function at the conferences is to present a ‘paper’ on a mas’alah and to ostentatiously ‘discuss’ the issue for a day or two. Much of the time is squandered in devouring ‘20 course’ meals, welcoming speeches and sight-seeing. All this at public expense at a time when the Ummah is wallowing in grinding poverty and misery. Yet these Ulama of the world find the leisure and pleasure for such academies and conferences of futility and show.

After all the noise, then too they fail to issue a proper ruling based on the Principles of the Shariah. They mouth their personal opinions and issue their ‘fatwa’ as if it is part of Wahi (Divine Revelation).

Regardless of any modern or new development, be it in any sphere of life, thorough research by some Ulama-e-Haqq in the privacy of their Madaaris, homes or libraries is adequate for the formulation of the correct Rulings based strictly on the Principles of the Shariah as expounded and employed by the illustrious Fuqaha of the Khairul Quroon era.

Inspite of the modern day ‘scholars’ of the ‘academies’ and ‘conferences’ having set themselves up as Mujtahideen, not a single one of them is independent of the works of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen. Every scholar and Aalim is totally reliant on the Kutub of the Mathaahib, even the Salafis who have an inveterate aversion for the Salf-e-Saaliheen, the Exponents of Taqleed. No one and no scholar can speak on any new development in Shar’i terms without being constrained to make reference to the Works of our illustrious Predecessors, the Aimmah Mujtahideen.

Simple issues such as banking, modern medical practices, test-tube babies, abortion, so-called Muslim Personal law issues, etc., remain insoluble inspite of years of discussion, conferences. The more they deliberate, the more intractable become the issues. The true Ulama have departed from the world and the Janaazah of Ilm is on the move to the Qabrustaan. Today is the age of the Juhala (Ignoramuses). According to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) a time will dawn on us when the ignorant will turn to the ignoramuses for the acquisition of fataawa (rulings on Shar’i matters). The muftis of ignorance will be astray and lead others astray into deviation (dhalaal). An example of such jahaalah is the ‘fatwas’ emerging from places like Egypt. Riba, deeming Hijab as non-Islamic origin (we will post an article later this week In Sha Allah), baatil and kufr are all declared permissible on the basis of fallacious interpretation.

Can a Hadith be Rejected on the Excuse that “It Contradicts ‘Intellect’/‘Reason’ or the Principles of Sharī‘ah”??

Can I Reject a Ḥadīth because I feel that it contradicts ‘Intellect’/‘Reason’ or the Principles of Sharī‘ah?

By Mufti Muadh Chati


Bismillāhir Raḥmānir Raḥīm,

Indeed, the Aḥādīth of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam hold a sacred place in the hearts of Muslims. The Aḥādīth are considered a primary source of Sharī‘ah and contain essential commands and advices that construct the edifice of Sharī‘ah.

Allah the Almighty says:

ﻟَﻘَﺪْ ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﻟَﻜُﻢْ ﻓِﻲْ ﺭَﺳُﻮْﻝِ ﺍﻟﻠﻪِ ﺃُﺳْﻮَﺓٌ ﺣَﺴَﻨَﺔٌ ﻟِﻤَﻦْ ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﻳَﺮْﺟُﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻪَ ﻭَﺍﻟْﻴَﻮْﻡَ ﺍﻵﺧِﺮَ ﻭَﺫَﻛَﺮَ ﺍﻟﻠﻪَ ﻛَﺜِﻴْﺮًﺍ

“There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah the most excellent example for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often”

[Surah Al-Aḥzāb, verse 21]]

Allah the Almighty says:

ﻭَﻣَﺎ ﻳَﻨْﻄِﻖُ ﻋَﻦِ ﺍﻟْﻬَﻮَﻯ ﺇِﻥْ ﻫُﻮَ ﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﻭَﺣْﻲٌ ﻳُﻮْﺣَﻰ


“He (the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) does not speak through his own inclination; it is but a [divinely] revealed revelation”

[Surah Al-Najm, verse 3-4]

Recently, claims have been made by reformists that it is permissible to reject a noble Ḥadīth if one feels that it contradicts one’s intellect or one feels that it contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah.

For example, these reformists have claimed that a narration found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī that purports that one wing of a fly contains an illness while the other contains a cure contradicts the intellect. This is despite the fact that it does not contradict the intellect at all, in fact, many modern-day cures contain remnants of the disease itself, as is the case with anti-venom; it is made using venom.

Some reformists have claimed that the narration narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī that purports that Mūsā ‘Alayh al-Salām placed his clothes on a stone that ran away, contradicts the principles of Sharī‘ah as it involves an unclothed Prophet running after his clothes. This is despite the fact that this does not contradict the principles of Sharī‘ah at all, in fact, the Qur’ān informs us of the story of Ādam ‘Alayh al-Salām and Hawā ‘Alayhā al-Salām, which contains similar elements to this narration.

Other reformists have claimed that a narration narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī that purports that the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam was temporarily affected by black magic that had been casted by his enemies contradicts the principles of Sharī‘ah as it involves a Prophet being affected by black magic. This is despite the fact that the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam was a human being, and thus, he experienced many of the difficulties that a human being goes through, such as illnesses and the pangs of death.

These claims of rejecting Aḥādīth on the assumption that they contradict the intellect or the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah are claimed to be validated by statements of the scholars of the past such as Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH).

In the coming article, we intend to discuss two issues:

1) Can a narration be labelled as a fabrication if I feel that it is contradictory to intellect/reason?

2) Can a narration be labelled as a fabrication if I feel that it contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah?

Note: In order to gain a better grasp of this article, readers are advised to read the entire article.

Can a narration be labelled as a fabrication if I feel that it is contradictory to ‘intellect’/‘reason’?

The Role of the Intellect/Reason in Sharī‘ah

An intellectual person is able to comprehend that his eyes, ears, nose, and other limbs have limitations. Human beings do not have the ability to see in the dark, nor do they have the ability to hear certain sound frequencies, and nor are they are able to smell certain odors. It then makes sense to state that if all the faculties of our body are confined by boundaries, then our intellect must also have a limit.

If this is coupled with the fact that we have been obliged to follow the commandments of the noble Sharī‘ah, whatever they may be, we are able to deduce that we are required to follow the commandments of Sharī‘ah regardless of whether they fall within the limitations of our intellect or outside of the limitations of our intellect.

If the Sharī‘ah were to be based exactly in accordance to our intellect, there would be no aspect of faith/belief (Ῑmān ) and the Sharī‘ah would inevitably serve the dictates of our innate self (nafs). The Sharī‘ah was sent in order to free each individual from the grasps of his innate self (nafs), it was not sent to become subservient to the innate self (nafs).

Imām Al-Bazdawī Raḥimahullah (d.482 AH) writes:

ﻭَﺃَﻥَّ ﺍﻟْﻌَﻘْﻞَ ﻟَﺎ ﻳَﻨْﻔَﻚُّ ﻋَﻦِ ﺍﻟْﻬَﻮَﻯ ﻓَﻠَﺎ ﻳَﺼْﻠُﺢُ ﺣُﺠَّﺔً ﺑِﻨَﻔْﺴِﻪِ ﺑِﺤَﺎﻝٍ
“And the intellect/reason is not free from desires (hawā ), thus it alone can never serve as evidence”

[Imām Al-Bazdawī Raḥimahullah, ‘Uṣūl al-Bazdawī’, (Karachi: Mīr Muḥammad Kutub Khānāh, n.a), pg.323]

We are required to follow the commandments and dictates of Allah and His Messenger Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam; this is regardless of whether their commandments gain the support of our feeble intellect or the support of capricious scientific research.

As ‘Allāmah al-Qurṭubī Raḥimahullah (d.671 AH) explains:

ﺇِﻥَّ ﺍﻟﻠﻪَ ﺳُﺒْﺤَﺎﻧَﻪُ ﻟَﻢْ ﻳَﺒْﻦِ ﺃُﻣُﻮْﺭَ ﺍﻟﺪِّﻳْﻦِ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﻋُﻘُﻮْﻝِ ﺍﻟْﻌِﺒَﺎﺩِ ﻭَﻟَﻢْ ﻳَﻌِﺪْ ﻭَﻟَﻢْ ﻳُﻮْﻋِﺪْ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﻣَﺎ ﺗَﺤْﺘَﻤِﻠُﻪُ ﻋُﻘُﻮْﻟُﻬُﻢْ ﻭَﻳُﺪْﺭِﻛُﻮْﻧَﻬَﺎ ﺑِﺄَﻓْﻬَﺎﻣِﻬِﻢْ ﺑَﻞْ ﻭَﻋَﺪَ ﻭَﺃَﻭْﻋَﺪَ ﺑِﻤَﺸِﻴْﺌَﺘِﻪِ ﻭَﺇِﺭَﺍﺩَﺗِﻪِ ﻭَﺃَﻣَﺮَ ﻭَﻧَﻬَﻰ ﺑِﺤِﻜْﻤَﺘِﻪِ ﻭَﻟَﻮْ ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﻛُﻠَّﻤَﺎ ﻟَﺎ ﺗُﺪْﺭِﻛُﻪُ ﺍﻟْﻌُﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻣَﺮْﺩُﻭْﺩًﺍ ﻟَﻜَﺎﻥَ ﺃَﻛْﺜَﺮَ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺮَﺍﺋِﻊِ ﻣُﺴْﺘَﺤِﻴْﻠًﺎ

“Indeed, Allah, The Exalted, did not base the matters of Dīn upon the intellect of the servants, and He did not promise or warn in accordance to what their intellects expect and understand, rather, he promised and warned according to His liking, and He commanded and prohibited with His wisdom. And if everything that the intellect does not comprehend were to be rejected, then the majority of the Sharī‘ah would be made redundant”

[‘Allāmah al-Qurṭubī, ‘Kitāb al-Tadhkirah bi-Aḥwāl al-Mawtā wa-Umūr al-Ākhirah’, (Riyad: Dār al-Minhāj, 1431 AH), pg.644, v.2]

The same applies to scientific discoveries; they are dependent upon research and investigations, the findings of which may change from time to time. Our Sharī‘ah is neither dependent nor confined by the discoveries of the modern-age. As ‘Allāmah Khaṭtābī Raḥimahullah (d.388 AH) explains:

ﻭَﻟَﻴْﺲَ ﺑِﻨَﺎ ﺣَﺎﺟَﺔٌ ﻣَﻊَ ﻗَﻮْﻝِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺳُﻮْﻝِ ﺻَﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺎﺩِﻕُ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺼْﺪُﻭْﻕُ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻱْ ﻳَﺄْﺗِﻴْﻪِ ﺍﻟْﻮَﺣْﻲُ ﺑِﺄَﺳْﺮَﺍﺭِ ﺍﻟْﻐَﻴْﺐِ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟْﺈِﺳْﺘِﺸْﻬَﺎﺩِ ﺑِﺄَﻗَﺎﻭِﻳْﻞِ ﺃَﻫْﻞِ ﺍﻟﻄِّﺐِّ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻳْﻦَ ﺇِﻧَّﻤَﺎ ﻭَﺻَﻠُﻮْﺍ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﻣَﺎ ﻭَﺻَﻠُﻮْﺍ ﺇِﻟَﻴْﻪِ ﻣِﻦْ ﻋِﻠْﻤِﻪِ ﺑِﻤُﻘَﺪَّﻣَﺎﺕِ ﺍﻟﺘَّﺠَﺎﺭِﺏِ ﻭَﺍﻟْﺈِﻣْﺘِﺤَﺎﻥِ ﻭَﻣِﻦْ ﻗَﻮْﻝِ ﺃُﺳْﺘَﺎﺫِﻫِﻢْ ﺑِﻘُﺮَﺍﻁَ ﻓِﻲْ ﺃَﻭَّﻝِ ﻛِﺘَﺎﺑِﻪِ : ﺍﻟﺘَّﺠْﺮِﺑَﺔُ ﺧَﻄَﺮٌ


“We have no need to present with the statement of the Prophet Sallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam – the truthful, the accepted, the one to whom the revelation brought secrets of the unseen – as support, the statements of doctors, who have only acquired what they have acquired from their knowledge through experimentation and investigation, and in the words of one of their peers, Hippocrates, at the start of his book (titled Aphorisms): ‘experimentum periculosum’ (experiments are deceitful)”

[‘Allāmah Khaṭtābī, ‘A‘lām al-Ḥadīth’, (Makah: Jami‘ah Ummul Qurā, 1406 AH), pg.1126 v.3]

It is our belief that because our intellect is limited, that which benefits us can only be determined by our Creator – Whose knowledge is limitless.
Imām al-Shāṭibī Raḥimahullah (d.790 AH) writes:

ﻗَﺪْ ﻋُﻠِﻢَ ﺑِﺎﻟﺘِّﺠَﺎﺭِﺏِ ﻭَﺍﻟْﺨِﺒْﺮَﺓِ ﺍﻟﺴَّﺎﺭِﻳَﺔِ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟْﻌَﺎﻟَﻢِ ﻣِﻦْ ﺃَﻭَّﻝِ ﺍﻟﺪُّﻧْﻴَﺎ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟْﻴَﻮْﻡِ ﺃَﻥَّ ﺍﻟْﻌُﻘُﻮْﻝَ ﻏَﻴْﺮُ ﻣُﺴْﺘَﻘِﻠَّﺔٍ ﺑِﻤَﺼَﺎﻟِﺤِﻬَﺎ ﺍﺳْﺘِﺠْﻠَﺎﺑًﺎ ﻟَﻬَﺎ ﺃَﻭْ ﻣَﻔَﺎﺳِﺪِﻫَﺎ ﺍﺳْﺘِﺪْﻓَﺎﻋًﺎ ﻟَﻬَﺎ


“Indeed, it has been known through experience and normative understanding in the universe, from the beginning of the world until today, that the intellect is not independent in knowing that which is beneficial for it; so that it may acquire it, or [in knowing] that which is harmful for it; so that it may refrain from it”

[Imām al-Shāṭibī, ‘Al ‘Itiṣām Bi al-Kitāb wa’l- Sunnah’, (n.a: Maktabah al-Tawḥīd, n.a), pg.57, v.1]

Shāh Waliullah al-Muḥaddith al-Dehlawī Raḥimahullah (d.1176 AH) writes:

ﺍﻟﻨَّﺒِﻲُّ ﺻَﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﺃَﻭْﺛَﻖُ ﻋِﻨْﺪَﻧَﺎ ﻣِﻦْ ﻋُﻘُﻮْﻟِﻨَﺎ


“The Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam is more reliable to us than our intellect”

[Shāh Waliullah al-Muḥaddith al-Dehlawī, ‘Hujjatullah al-Bāligah’, (Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 2005), pg.30, v.1]

Of course, this is not to say that the human intellect and reason have no place in Sharī‘ah. It is possible for a person to recognise the existence and greatness of Allah the Almighty through his intellect and reason.

Scholars including the likes of Ibn Abī al-Dunyā Raḥimahullah (d.281 AH), Ibn Ḥibbān Raḥimahullah (d.354 AH), al-Ghazālī Raḥimahullah (d.505 AH), Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH), Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī Raḥimahullah (d.606 AH), and Imām al-Shāṭibī Raḥimahullah (d.790 AH) have written on the incredible gift from Allah, that is, the human intellect and reason.

However, the human intellect has its limits, it cannot be used to supersede and override the indisputable commands of Allah and the authentic commands of His Messenger Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam. Accordingly, our approach to the human intellect and reason should be balanced.
The Malikī scholar, Zayn al-Dīn Ibn al-Munayyir Raḥimahullah (d.695 AH) said:

ﻣَﻦْ ﺯَﻋَﻢَ ﺃَﻥَّ ﺍﻟْﺄَﺣْﻜَﺎﻡَ ﻛُﻠَّﻬَﺎ ﺗَﻌَﺒُّﺪِﻳَّﺔٌ ﻟَﺎ ﻣَﺠَﺎﻝَ ﻟِﻠْﻘِﻴَﺎﺱِ ﻓِﻴْﻬَﺎ ﺃَﻟْﺤَﻘَﻪُ ﺑِﺠُﺤُﻮْﺩِ ﺍﻟْﺠَﺒْﺮِﻳَّﺔِ ﻭَﻣَﻦْ ﺯَﻋَﻢَ ﺃَﻧَّﻬَﺎ ﻗِﻴَﺎﺳِﻴَّﺔٌ ﻣَﺤْﻀَﺔٌ ﺃَﻟْﺤَﻘَﻪُ ﺑِﺘَﻬَﻮُّﺭِ ﺍﻟْﻤُﻌْﺘَﺰِﻟَﺔِ ﻭَﺍﻟْﺤَﻖُّ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟﺘَّﻮَﺳُّﻂِ ” ﻭَﻛَﺎﻥَ ﺑَﻴْﻦَ ﺫَﻟِﻚَ ﻗَﻮَﺍﻣًﺎ”


“If one considers the rulings [of Sharī‘ah] to be entirely literal in which there is no scope for intellectual reasoning, then this shall lead him to the denial perpetrated by the al-Jabariyyah sect (a deviant sect), and if one considers them (the rulings of Sharī‘ah) to be completely [based upon] intellectual reason, then this shall lead him to the mistakes perpetrated by the al-Mu‘tazilah sect (a deviant sect), and the correct [approach] is a middle-path/moderation; [Allah the Almighty says], ‘And they are steadfast in the middle [path]’”

[‘Allāmah al-Zarkashī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ’, (Cairo: Wuzārah al-Awqāf, 1992), pg.27, v.5]

A balanced approach towards human intellect and reason in Sharī‘ah may be understood with a parable presented by a renowned scholar. Consider three individuals leaving their homes with the intention of climbing a steep mountain. Each of the three individuals possesses a horse. The first individual considers a horse a critical asset, thus he rides his horse from his home until he reaches the mountain, after reaching the mountain; he begins to climb the steep mountain while riding his horse, almost immediately, both the horse and the rider fall of the mountain. The second individual considers a horse a useless asset, accordingly, instead of riding the horse, he begins to walk from his home towards the mountain, however, when he reaches the mountain, he is too exhausted to climb the mountain. The third individual has a balanced approach towards the horse, he knows that while the horse has its capabilities, it also has its limitations, thus he rides the horse until he reaches the mountain, he then dismounts from the horse and begins to climb the mountain on foot. He succeeds in climbing the mountain.

The third individual succeeds in climbing the mountain because he used his horse at the correct juncture and left his horse at the correct juncture, while the first individual relied entirely upon his horse, such that he used his horse at an incorrect juncture, and the second individual did not valorize his horse at all.

We cannot reject the tenets of our religion and the authentic Aḥādīth if we ‘feel’ that they contradict our reasoning or intellect.

The irresolute/fickle morals, ethics, opinions, and beliefs of the modern society cannot be made a standard for the resolute and firm principles of Islām. The modern society considers correct today what it considered incorrect yesterday and it will consider correct tomorrow what it considers incorrect today. Similarly, the modern society considers absurd today what it considered comprehensible yesterday and it will consider comprehensible tomorrow what is considers absurd today.

Can I use my Intellect/Reason to reject Aḥādīth?

Recently, we have seen a wave of attacks hurled at the noble Aḥādīth of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam. Individuals claiming to be championing a supposed ‘voice of reason’ have forced their intellect and reasoning onto the noble Prophetic narrations, thus rejecting narrations that supposedly contradict their intellect and reasoning.

Using the statements of Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) and others, these individuals are claiming that it is possible for every individual to reject Aḥādīth.
In explaining what is meant by the notion of when a text of Ḥadīth contradicts intellect, modernists and Islamic reformists take great pleasure in quoting the statement of Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH):

ﻭَﻛُﻞُّ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﺭَﺃَﻳْﺘَﻪُ ﻳُﺨَﺎﻟِﻒُ ﺍﻟْﻌُﻘُﻮْﻝَ ﺃَﻭْ ﻳُﻨَﺎﻗِﺾُ ﺍﻟْﺄُﺻُﻮْﻝَ ﻓَﺎﻋْﻠَﻢْ ﺃَﻧَّﻪُ ﻣَﻮْﺿُﻮْﻉٌ ﻓَﻠَﺎ ﺗَﺘَﻜَﻠَّﻒْ ﺍﻋْﺘِﺒَﺎﺭَﻩُ


“And every Ḥadīth that you see contradicting the intellect or breaking the principles [of Sharī‘ah], then know that it is fabricated, so do not exert yourself in considering it”

[Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al Mawḍū’āt Minal Aḥādīth Al Marfū’āt’, (Riyāḍ: Aḍwā Al Salaf, 1997), pg.151, v.1]

‘Allāmah Sakhāwī Raḥimahullah (d.904 AH) explains:

ﺍﻟﺮِّﻛَّﺔُ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟْﻤَﻌْﻨَﻰ ﻛَﺄَﻥْ ﻳَﻜُﻮْﻥَ ﻣُﺨَﺎﻟِﻔًﺎ ﻟِﻠْﻌَﻘْﻞِ ﺿَﺮُﻭْﺭَﺓً ﺃَﻭْ ﺍﺳْﺘِﺪْﻟَﺎﻟًﺎ ﻭَﻟَﺎ ﻳَﻘْﺒَﻞُ ﺍﻟﺘَّﺄْﻭِﻳْﻞَ ﺑِﺤَﺎﻝٍ ﻧَﺤْﻮَ ﺍﻟْﺈِﺧْﺒَﺎﺭِ ﻋَﻦِ ﺍﻟْﺠَﻤْﻊِ ﺑَﻴْﻦَ ﺍﻟﻀِّﺪَّﻳْﻦِ ﻭَﻋَﻦْ ﻧَﻔْﻲِ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺎﻧِﻊِ ﻭَﻗِﺪَﻡِ ﺍﻟْﺄَﺟْﺴَﺎﻡِ


“Feebleness in the meaning, such as it being contradictory to the intellect logically or calculatedly, and it does not accept reconciliation in any way, such as a narration that informs of two opposites coming together or it rejects a creator or it informs that the bodies are pre-eternal (all of which contradict the intellect)”

[‘Allāmah Sakhāwī Raḥimahullah, ‘Fatḥ al-Mugīth’, (Riyad: Dār al-Minhāj, 1436 AH), pg.128, v.2]

‘Allāmah Suyūṭī Raḥimahullah explains:

ﺃَﻥْ ﻳَﻜُﻮْﻥَ ﻣُﺨَﺎﻟِﻔًﺎ ﻟِﻠْﻌَﻘْﻞِ ﺑِﺤَﻴْﺚُ ﻟَﺎ ﻳَﻘْﺒَﻞُ ﺍﻟﺘَّﺄْﻭِﻳْﻞَ


“…that it contradicts the intellect in a manner that it cannot be reconciled

[‘Allāmah Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī Raḥimahullah, ‘Tadrīb al-Rāwī’, (Riyāḍ: Dār al-Minhāj, 2016), pg.434, v.3] [Also see: al-Biqa‘ī Raḥimahullah, ‘al-Nukat al-Wafiyyah’, (Riyad: Maktabah al-Rushd), pg.578, v.1] [Also see: Ibn al-Mulaqqin, ‘Al-Muqni‘’, (Makah: Jami‘ah Ummul Qurā, 1403 AH), pg.114]

It is clear from the quotes above that when Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) mentioned that a Ḥadīth may be labeled as fabricated if it contradicts the intellect, he was not referring to Aḥādīth that contradict the understandings and morals of the fickle modern-day society, rather, he was referring to Aḥādīth that contradict basic logic. For example, if the words of a supposed Ḥadīth were to claim that Allah does not exist, or that 1 + 1 = 3, then this supposed Ḥadīth would be rejected.

[See: Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah (may Allah preserve him), ‘Footnotes upon Tadrīb al-Rāwī’, (Riyāḍ: Dār al-Minhāj, 2016), pg.434, v.3] [Khalīl Mullā Khāṭir, ‘Al-Isabah Fī Ṣiḥhati Ḥadīth al-Dhubābah’, (Jeddah: Dār al-Qiblah, 1405 AH), pg.99]

This is supported by the fact that Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) mentions this statement after quoting a fabricated narration that claims that Allah the Almighty created Himself (this is logically impossible as the created cannot be a creator). Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) also precedes the above-mentioned statement with the words:

ﻟِﺄَﻥَّ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺴْﺘَﺤِﻴْﻞَ ﻟَﻮْ ﺻَﺪَﺭَ ﻋَﻦِ ﺍﻟﺜِّﻘَﺎﺕِ ﺭُﺩَّ


“…because if a logically impossible (Mustahil – such as a supposed narration claiming that Allah does not exist) statement were to be made by reliable narrators, it would be rejected”

[Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al Mawḍū’āt Minal Aḥādīth Al Marfū’āt’, (Riyāḍ: Aḍwā Al Salaf, 1997), pg.150, v.1]

As for when a Ḥadīth heralds a meaning of miracles or other concepts that the intellect cannot comprehend or fathom, then such a Ḥadīth cannot be impetuously rejected.

It is for this reason that a leading scholar of Ḥadīth of our time, Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah, may Allah preserve him, explains:

ﺍﻟْﻌَﻘْﻞُ ﺍﻟﺴَّﻠِﻴْﻢُ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺮْﻋِﻲُ ﺍﻟْﺨَﺎﻟِﻲْ ﻣِﻦْ ﺷَﻮَﺍﺋِﺐِ ﺍﻟْﻬَﻮَﻯ ﻭَﺍﻟْﺈِﻧْﺤِﺮَﺍﻑِ ﻭﻟﻮﺛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺤﺪﺓ ﻭَﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﺍﻟﺪِّﻳْﻦُ ﺃُﻟْﻌُﻮْﺑَﺔً ﻟِﻜُﻞِّ ﺫِﻱْ ﻫَﻮًﻯ ﻭَﺿَﻠَﺎﻟَﺔٍ ﺗَﺤْﺖَ ﺷِﻌَﺎﺭِ ﺍﻟﺘَّﻤَﺴُّﻚِ ﺑِﻤِﺜْﻞِ ﻫَﺬِﻩِ ﺍﻟﻨُّﺼُﻮْﺹِ ﻭَﻧَﺤْﻦُ ﻧَﻌِﻴْﺶُ ﻫَﺬِﻩِ ﺍﻟْﻤَﻔَﺎﻫِﻴْﻢَ ﺍﻟْﺂﻥَ !!


“The type of intellect (that is considered in assessing a Ḥadīth) is one that is sound, bound by Sharī‘ah, and free from the clamours of desire and heresy and the contamination of the modern society and the atheistic environment, otherwise, the Dīn would become a play for every deviant and misguided person under [the pretense] of holding firm to such statements (that mention that intellect plays a role in Ḥadīth), and we are now living in the time of such thoughts!”

[Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah (may Allah preserve him), ‘Footnotes upon Tadrīb al-Rāwī’, (Riyad: Dār al-Minhāj, 2016), pg.559, v.2]

To reiterate, the irresolute/fickle morals, ethics, opinions, and beliefs of the modern society cannot be made a standard for the resolute and firm principles of Islām. The modern society considers correct today what it considered incorrect yesterday and it will consider correct tomorrow what it considers incorrect today. Similarly, the modern society considers absurd today what it considered comprehensible yesterday and it will consider comprehensible tomorrow what is considers absurd today.

Can a narration be labeled as a fabrication if I feel that it contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah?

We have acquired our Aḥādīth through chains of narrations. These chains of narrations were rigorously scrutinized by the Ḥadīth scholars of the past who analysed the intricate details of a chain of narration in order to deduce whether a narration is sound, apocryphal, or fabricated. At times, masterful Ḥadīth scholars of the past scrutinised a narration based upon the fact that the text of the narration contradicts a fundamental and bonafide principle of Sharī‘ah. However, this was a delicate task, undertaken by a privileged few, as performing this daunting task required one to have profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and an incredible grasp on Ḥadīth. It was in no way permitted for the laity.

Islamic reformists have made an attempt to allow the layman to also engage in criticism of a narration based upon whether its text is in conformity with the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah or not. This is despite the fact that a layman does not even have basic knowledge of Sharī‘ah, never mind the delicate and complex knowledge required to make such precarious decisions.

Modernists and Islāmic reformists take great pleasure in quoting statements of scholars such as Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH), Al-Ḥāfiẓ Al Ya‘murī Raḥimahullah (d.734 AH); et al. who have mentioned that if a narration contradicts the principles and objectives of Islām, then it may be rejected even if the chain of narration is sound.

However, what they fail to realize is that the early scholars who ruled certain Aḥādīth to be fabricated based upon the text of the Ḥadīth contradicting the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah did so through
profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and an incredible grasp on Ḥadīth.

If an individual wishes to assess whether a coin is genuine or counterfeit, he ensures to take it to a specialist, within seconds the specialist would be able to determine whether or not the coin is genuine due to his profound knowledge of coins. In the same manner, beyond their meticulous examination of the chains of narration, some of the early scholars of Ḥadīth were
gifted with an ability to deduce whether a narration is authentic by looking at the text of the narration due to their profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and an incredible grasp on Ḥadīth . Profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah in this context means that the knowledge of Sharī‘ah and the sciences of Ḥadīth were embedded and ingrained within them such that they could at will recite hundreds of thousands of Aḥādīth with their chains of narration from memory.

We shall soon demonstrate this with examples from the lives of some of these scholars of Ḥadīth.

When Ibn Al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) said:

ﻭَﺍﻋْﻠَﻢْ ﺃَﻥَّ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚَ ﺍﻟْﻤُﻨَﻜَﺮَ ﻳَﻘْﺸَﻌِﺮُّ ﻟَﻪُ ﺟِﻠْﺪُ ﺍﻟﻄَّﺎﻟِﺐِ ﻟِﻠْﻌِﻠْﻢِ ﻭَﻳَﻨْﻔَﺮُّ ﻣِﻨْﻪُ ﻗَﻠْﺒُﻪُ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟْﻐَﺎﻟِﺐِ


“And know! That a rejected Ḥadīth, the skin of a seeker of noble knowledge trembles from it, and, in most cases, his heart turns away from it”

[Ibn Al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Mawḍū’āt Min al-Aḥādīth al-Marfū’āt’, (Riyāḍ: Aḍwā Al Salaf, 1997), pg.146, v.1]

The scholars of the sciences of Ḥadīth stepped in to explain that this is definitely not for everyone. Thus, Imām Al-Biqā’ī Raḥimahullah (d.885 AH) relates in his Al-Nukat al-Wafiyyah , the majority of which is taken from Ḥafiẓ Ibn Ḥajar Raḥimahullah (d.882 AH)’s lectures delivered on Al-Tabṣirah wa’l-Tadhkirah , with regards to the statement of Ibn Al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) recorded above:

ﺍﻟﻄَّﺎﻟِﺐُ ﻟِﻠْﻌِﻠْﻢِ ﺃَﻱْ ﺍﻟْﻜَﺜِﻴْﺮُ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺨَﺎﻟَﻄَﺔِ ﻟِﺄﻧْﻔَﺎﺱِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺳُﻮْﻝِ ﺻَﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺘَﻤَﻜِّﻦُ ﻣِﻦَ ﺍﻟﺴَّﻨَﺪِ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺪِﻳْﺪُ ﺍﻟْﻤُﻤَﺎﺭَﺳَﺔِ ﻟِﻠﺸَّﺮِﻳْﻌَﺔِ ﺍﻟْﻌَﺎﺭِﻑُ ﺑِﺎﻟْﻤَﻘْﺒُﻮْﻝِ ﻣِﻦَ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺮْﺩُﻭْﺩِ ﻟَﺎ ﻛُﻞُّ ﻃَﺎﻟِﺐٍ


“‘Seeker of noble knowledge’ – i.e. [Ibn Al-Jawzi is referring to] one who has perpetually engrossed himself with the breaths (Aḥādīth) of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam, and he is an expert in the chains of narration, and he has extraordinary mastery with the principles of Sharī‘ah, and he is able to distinguish accepted from unaccepted, not every seeker [of noble knowledge]

[Al-Biqā’ī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Nukat al-Wafiyyah’, (Riyad: Maktabah al-Rushd, 2007), pg.578 v.1] [Shaykh Aḥmad Ma‘bad ‘Abd al-Karīm, ‘Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-‘Irāqī wa-Atharuhu Fil Sunnah’, (Riyad: Aḍwā al-Salaf, 2004), pg.1999 v.5]

Effectively, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar Raḥimahullah (d.882 AH) ruled out the possibility for those who do not have profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah to use Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH)’s statement as a conduit to reject Aḥādīth. We shall soon explain what we mean by profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah in this context.

‘Allāmah Sakhāwī Raḥimahullah (d.904 AH) explains the statement of Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) as follows:

ﻭَﻋَﻨَﻰ ﺑِﺬَﻟِﻚَ ﺍﻟْﻤُﻤَﺎﺭِﺱَ ﻟِﺄَﻟْﻔَﺎﻅِ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺮْﻉِ ﺍﻟْﺨَﺒِﻴْﺮَ ﺑِﻬَﺎ ﻭَﺑِﺮَﻭْﻧَﻘِﻬَﺎ ﻭَﺑَﻬْﺠَﺘِﻬَﺎ


“And he (Ibn al-Jawzī) intends by this (a seeker of sacred knowledge): one who is perpetually engrossed in the texts of Sharī‘ah, and he has profound knowledge of them (the texts of Sharī‘ah) and their essence and objectives”

[‘Allāmah Sakhāwī Raḥimahullah, ‘Fatḥ al-Mugīth’, (Riyad: Dār al-Minhāj, 1436 AH), pg.128, v.2]

Ibn al-‘Ajamī Raḥimahullah (d.1086 AH) comments under the statement of Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH):

ﻃَﺎﻟِﺐُ ﺍﻟْﻌِﻠْﻢِ : ﺍﻟْﻤُﻤَﺎﺭِﺱُ ﻟِﺄَﻟْﻔَﺎﻅِ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺮْﻉِ ﺣَﺘَّﻰ ﻳَﺤْﺼُﻞَ ﻣَﻠَﻜَﺔً ﻗَﻮِﻳَّﺔً ﻭَﻫِﻤَّﺔً ﺭَﺍﺳِﺨَﺔً ﻳُﻔَﺮِّﻕُ ﺑِﻬَﺎ ﺑَﻴْﻦَ ﺍﻟْﻤَﻮْﺿُﻮْﻉِ ﻭَﻏَﻴْﺮِﻩِ


“Seeker of knowledge: i.e. one who is perpetually engrossed in the texts of Sharī‘ah such that he has achieved an incredible ability and firm prowess such that he may distinguish with it between fabricated and non-fabricated”

[Ibn al-‘Ajamī, Footnotes upon Tadrīb al-Rāwī, (Riyad: Dār al-Minhāj, 2016), pg.432, v.3]

After establishing that criticism of a narration based upon the text of the narration was reserved for those who had deeply profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and an incredible grasp on Ḥadīth, let us demonstrate what denotes profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and an incredible grasp of Ḥadīth through the lives of the scholars who heralded this quality.

The Benchmark for Profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and an incredible grasp on Ḥadīth through the lives of the scholars of the past

Imām Al-Layth Ibn Sa’d Raḥimahullah (d.175 AH)

ﻗِﻴْﻞَ ﻟِﻠَّﻠﻴْﺚِ ﺃَﻣْﺘَﻊَ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﺑِﻚَ ﺇِﻧَّﺎ ﻧَﺴْﻤَﻊُ ﻣِﻨْﻚَ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚَ ﻟَﻴْﺲَ ﻓِﻲْ ﻛُﺘُﺒِﻚَ ﻓَﻘَﺎﻝَ ﺃَﻭَﻛُﻞُّ ﻣَﺎ ﻓِﻲْ ﺻَﺪْﺭِﻱْ ﻓِﻲْ ﻛُﺘُﺒِﻲْ؟ ﻟَﻮْ ﻛَﺘَﺒْﺖُ ﻣَﺎ ﻓِﻲْ ﺻَﺪْﺭِﻱْ ﻣَﺎ ﻭَﺳِﻌَﻪُ ﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺮْﻛَﺐُ


“It was said to Layth ibn Sa’d, ‘May Allah reward you, indeed we hear from you Aḥādīth that are not in your books’, so he responded, ‘Is everything that is in my heart in my books? If I were to write everything that is in my memory, then it would not fit inside this ship’”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah Al Risālah, 1985), pg.153 v.8]

Imām Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn Raḥimahullah (233 AH)
Muḥammad ibn Naṣr al-Ṭabarī Raḥimahullah said:

ﺩَﺧَﻠْﺖُ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﻳَﺤْﻴَﻰ ﺑْﻦِ ﻣَﻌِﻴْﻦ ﻓَﻮَﺟَﺪْﺕُ ﻋِﻨْﺪَﻩُ ﻛَﺬَﺍ ﻭَﻛَﺬَﺍ ﺳِﻔْﻄًﺎ ﻳَﻌْﻨِﻲْ ﺩَﻓَﺎﺗِﺮًﺍ ﻭَﺳَﻤِﻌْﺘُﻪُ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻗَﺪْ ﻛَﺘَﺒْﺖُ ﺑِﻴَﺪَﻱَّ ﺃَﻟْﻒَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ


“I visited Yaḥyā ibn Ma’īn and found by him such and such amounts of parchments, i.e. books, and I heard him say, ‘Indeed, I have written with these two hands of mine, a million narrations”

[Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī Raḥimahullah, ‘Taḥdhīb al-Kamāl’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1992), pg.548, v.31]

Imām Isḥāq Ibn Rāhwayh Raḥimahullah (d.238 AH)
Abū Dāwūd al-Khaffāf Raḥimahullah said:

ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﺇِﺳْﺤَﺎﻕَ ﺑْﻦَ ﺭَﺍﻫْﻮِﻳْﻪ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻟَﻜَﺄَﻧِّﻲْ ﺃَﻧْﻈُﺮُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﻣِﺌَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻓِﻲْ ﻛُﺘُﺒِﻲْ ﻭَﺛَﻠَﺎﺛِﻴْﻦَ ﺃَﻟْﻔًﺎ ﺃَﺳْﺮُﺩُﻫَﺎ


“I heard Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh say, ‘Indeed, it is as though I am looking at 100,000 narrations in my books and 30,000 [narrations] I am able to recite”

Al-Khaffāf then states:

ﻭَﺃَﻣْﻠَﻰ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻨَﺎ ﺇِﺳْﺤَﺎﻕَ ﺃَﺣَﺪَ ﻋَﺸَﺮَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻣِﻦْ ﺣِﻔْﻈِﻪِ ﺛُﻢَّ ﻗَﺮَﺃَﻫَﺎ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻨَﺎ ﻓَﻤَﺎ ﺯَﺍﺩَ ﺣَﺮْﻓًﺎ ﻭَﻟَﺎ ﻧَﻘْﺺَ ﺣَﺮْﻓًﺎ


“Isḥāq dictated 11,000 narrations to us from his memory, he then read them out to us [again] without adding or removing a single letter”

Abū Yazīd Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā ibn Khālid Raḥimahullah said:

ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﺇِﺳْﺤَﺎﻕَ ﺑْﻦَ ﺇِﺑْﺮَﺍﻫِﻴْﻢَ ﺍﻟْﺤَﻨْﻈَﻠِﻲَّ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻓِﻲْ ﺳَﻨَﺔِ ﺛَﻤَﺎﻥِ ﻭَّﺛَﻠَﺎﺛِﻴْﻦَ ﻭَﻣِﺎﺋَﺘَﻴْﻦِ ” ﺃَﻋْﺮِﻑُ ﻣَﻜَﺎﻥَ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻛَﺄَﻧِّﻲْ ﺃَﻧْﻈُﺮُ ﺇِﻟَﻴْﻬَﺎ ﻭَﺃَﺣْﻔَﻆُ ﻣِﻨْﻬَﺎ ﺳَﺒْﻌِﻴْﻦَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻣِﻦْ ﻇَﻬْﺮِ ﻗَﻠْﺒِﻲْ ﺻَﺤِﻴْﺤَﺔٍ ﻭَﺃَﺣْﻔَﻆُ ﺃَﺭْﺑَﻌَﺔَ ﺁﻟَﺎﻑِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻣُﺰَﻭَّﺭَﺓٍ ﻓَﻘِﻴْﻞَ ﻣَﺎ ﻣَﻌْﻨَﻰ ﺣِﻔْﻆِ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺰَﻭَّﺭَﺓِ؟ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺇِﺫَﺍ ﻣَﺮَّ ﺑِﻲْ ﻣِﻨْﻬَﺎ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٌ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟْﺄَﺣَﺎﺩِﻳْﺚِ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺤِﻴْﺤَﺔِ ﻓَﻠَﻴْﺘُﻪُ ﻣِﻨْﻬَﺎ ﻓَﻠْﻴًﺎ


“I heard Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm al-Hanẓalī (Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh) say in the year 238 AH, ‘I know the locations of 100,000 narrations (this number includes Aḥādīth with different chains of narration as well as the statements of the Ṣaḥābah) as though I am looking at them, and I have memorized 70,000 narrations from them that are authentic and they are in the crevices of my heart, and I know 4000 fabricated narrations’, it was asked of him, ‘What do you mean by memorising fabricated narrations?’ He replied, ‘When I come across a [fabricated] narration from [my tomes of] authentic narrations, then I swiftly remove it”

[Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Jāmi‘ Li Akhlāq al-Rāwī wa-Ādāb al-Sāmi‘’, (Beirut: Dār al-Garb al-Islāmī, 2001), pg.381, v.2]

Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal Raḥimahullah (d.242 AH)

A contemporary of Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d.242 AH), Abū Zur’ah al-Rāzī Raḥimahullah:

ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﺍﺑْﻦُ ﺣَﻨْﺒَﻞَ ﻳَﺤْﻔَﻆُ ﺃَﻟْﻒَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ


“[Aḥmad] ibn Ḥanbal had memorized a million narrations (this number includes Aḥādīth with different chains of narration and the statements of the Ṣaḥābah)”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.187 v.11] [Ibn al-Jawzī, Manāqib al-Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal’, (Giza: Dār Hijr, n.a), pg.73]

Imām al-Bukhārī Raḥimahullah (d.256 AH)

Muḥammad ibn Khamīrwayh Raḥimahullah said:

ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﻣُﺤَﻤَّﺪَ ﺑْﻦَ ﺇِﺳْﻤَﺎﻋِﻴْﻞَ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ” ﺃَﺣْﻔَﻆُ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺔَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﺻَﺤِﻴْﺢٍ ﻭَﺃَﺣْﻔَﻆُ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺘَﻲْ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻏَﻴْﺮِ ﺻَﺤِﻴْﺢٍ


I heard Muḥammad ibn Ismā’īl say, ‘I have memorized 100,000 authentic narrations (this number includes Aḥādīth with different chains of narration and the statements of the Ṣaḥābah), and I have memorized 200,000 inauthentic narrations’”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.415 v.12]

‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Asim al-Baykandī Raḥimahullah states:

ﻗَﺪِﻡَ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻨَﺎ ﻣُﺤَﻤَّﺪُ ﺑْﻦُ ﺇِﺳْﻤَﺎﻋِﻴْﻞَ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﻓَﺎﺟْﺘَﻤَﻌْﻨَﺎ ﻋِﻨْﺪَﻩُ ﻓَﻘَﺎﻝَ ﺑَﻌْﻀُﻨَﺎ ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﺇِﺳْﺤَﺎﻕَ ﺑْﻦَ ﺭَﺍﻫْﻮِﻳْﻪ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻛَﺄَﻧِّﻲْ ﺃَﻧْﻈُﺮُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺳَﺒْﻌِﻴْﻦَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻣِﻦْ ﻛِﺘَﺎﺑِﻲْ ﻓَﻘَﺎﻝَ ﻣُﺤَﻤَّﺪُ ﺑْﻦُ ﺇِﺳْﻤَﺎﻋِﻴْﻞَ ﺃَﻭْ ﺗَﻌْﺠَﺐُ ﻣِﻦْ ﻫَﺬَﺍ؟ ! ﻟَﻌَﻞَّ ﻓِﻲْ ﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺍﻟﺰَّﻣَﺎﻥِ ﻣَﻦْ ﻳَﻨْﻈُﺮُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺘَﻲْ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻣِﻦْ ﻛِﺘَﺎﺑِﻪِ ﻭَﺇِﻧَّﻤَﺎ ﻋَﻨَﻰ ﺑِﻪِ ﻧَﻔْﺴَﻪُ


“Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘īl came to us, so we gathered by him, then some of us said, ‘I heard Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh say, “It is as though I am looking at 70,000 narrations from my books”’, so Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘īl said, ‘Are you amazed by this?! It is possible that there is someone in this age who is looking at 200,000 narrations in his book’ – referring to himself”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.416 v.12]

Imām Muslim ibn Ḥajjāj Raḥimahullah (d.261 AH)

Al-Husayn ibn Muḥammad al-Māsarjisī states:

ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﻣُﺴْﻠِﻤًﺎ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﺻَﻨَّﻔْﺖُ ﻫَﺬَﺍ ” ﺍﻟْﻤُﺴْﻨَﺪَ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺤِﻴْﺢَ ” ﻣِﻦْ ﺛَﻠَﺎﺙِ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻣَﺴْﻤُﻮْﻋَﺔٍ


“I heard Muslim [ibn al-Ḥajjāj] say, ‘I wrote this ‘al-Musnad al-Ṣaḥīḥ’ from 300,000 narrations [that I have] heard’”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.565 v.12]

Imām Abū Zur‘ah al-Rāzī Raḥimahullah (d.264 AH)

Abū ‘Abdillah ibn Mandah relates from Abul ‘Abbas Muḥammad ibn Ja‘far ibn Ḥamkawayh that he said:

ﺳُﺌِﻞَ ﺃَﺑُﻮْ ﺯُﺭْﻋَﺔَ ﻋَﻦْ ﺭَﺟُﻞٍ ﺣَﻠَﻒَ ﺑِﺎﻟﻄَّﻠَﺎﻕِ ﺃَﻥَّ ﺃَﺑَﺎ ﺯُﺭْﻋَﺔَ ﻳَﺤْﻔَﻆُ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺘَﻲْ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻫَﻞْ ﺣَﻨَﺚَ؟ ﻓَﻘَﺎﻝَ ﻟَﺎ ﺛُﻢَّ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺃَﺑُﻮْ ﺯُﺭْﻋَﺔَ ﺃَﺣْﻔَﻆُ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺘَﻲْ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻛَﻤَﺎ ﻳَﺤْﻔَﻆُ ﺍﻟْﺈِﻧْﺴَﺎﻥُ ” ﻗُﻞْ ﻫُﻮَ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﺃَﺣَﺪٌ ”


“Abū Zur‘ah was asked about a man who has taken an oath that his wife shall be divorced if it is untrue that Abū Zur‘ah has memorized 200,000 narrations, that will his divorce take place? So he replied, ‘I have memorized 200,000 narrations like how a person has memorized Qul Huwallahu Aḥad (Surah Ikhlās)”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.68 v.13] [See: ‘Allamah Tāj al-Subkī, ‘Ṭabqāt al-Shāf‘iyyah’, (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, n.a), pg.65, v.1]

Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal Raḥimahullah (d.241 AH) said:

ﺻَﺢَّ ﻣِﻦَ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﺳَﺒْﻊُ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻭَﻛَﺴْﺮٌ ﻭَﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺍﻟْﻔَﺘَﻰ ﻳَﻌْﻨِﻲْ ﺃَﺑَﺎ ﺯُﺭْﻋَﺔَ ﻗَﺪْ ﺣَﻔِﻆَ ﺳِﺖَّ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒٍ


“700,000 Aḥādīth (this number includes Aḥādīth with different chains of narration as well as the statements of the Ṣaḥābah) and a little more from the Aḥādīth are authentic, and this youngster (Abū Zur‘ah) has memorized 600,000 Aḥādīth”

[Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī Raḥimahullah, ‘Tārīkh Baghdād’, (Beirut: Dār al-Garb al-Islāmī, 2001), pg.41, v.12]

Imām Abū Dāwūd Raḥimahullah (d.275 AH)

Al-Fallās Raḥimahullah states:

ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﺃَﺑَﺎ ﺩَﺍﻭُﺩَ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﺃَﺳْﺮُﺩُ ﺛَﻠَﺎﺛِﻴْﻦَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻭَﻟَﺎ ﻓَﺨْﺮَ ﻭَﻓِﻲْ ﺻَﺪْﺭِﻱْ ﺍﺛْﻨَﺎ ﻋَﺸَﺮَ ﺃَﻟْﻔًﺎ ﻟِﻌُﺜْﻤَﺎﻥَ ﺍﻟْﺒَﺮِّﻱْ ﻣَﺎ ﺳَﺄَﻟَﻨِﻲْ ﻋَﻨْﻬَﺎ ﺃَﺣَﺪٌ ﻣِﻦْ ﺃَﻫْﻞِ ﺍﻟْﺒَﺼْﺮَﺓِ ﻓَﺨَﺮَﺟْﺖُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺃَﺻْﺒَﻬَﺎﻥَ ﻓَﺒَﺜَﺜْﺘُﻬَﺎ ﻓِﻴْﻬِﻢْ


“I heard Abū Dāwūd say, ‘I [can] recite 30,000 narrations and there is no arrogance [in this] and in my heart there are 12,000 narrations of ‘Uthmān Al Birrī that none from the people of Baṣrah have asked me about, so I went to Aṣbahān and I narrated these narrations to them”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.383 v.9]

Abū Bakr ibn Dāsah Raḥimahullah states that he heard Abū Dāwūd Raḥimahullah (d.275 AH) say:

ﻛَﺘَﺒْﺖُ ﻋَﻦْ ﺭَﺳُﻮْﻝِ ﺍﻟﻠﻪِ ﺻَﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﺧَﻤْﺲَ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﺍﻧْﺘَﺨَﺒْﺖُ ﻣِﻨْﻬَﺎ ﻣَﺎ ﺿَﻤَﻨْﺘُﻪُ ﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺍﻟْﻜِﺘَﺎﺏِ ﻳَﻌْﻨِﻲْ ﻛِﺘَﺎﺏَ ” ﺍﻟﺴُّﻨَﻦِ”


“I have written 500,000 narrations of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam, and I extracted from them that which I have placed in this book, i.e. the Sunan”

[Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī Raḥimahullah, ‘Tārikh Baghdād’, (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 2001), pg.78, v.10]

Abū ‘Imrān Aḥmad ibn Naṣr al-Khaffāf (d.299 AH)

Al-Ḥākim Raḥimahullah said:

ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺒْﻐِﻲُّ ﻏَﻴْﺮَ ﻣَﺮَّﺓٍ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻛُﻨَّﺎ ﻧَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﺇِﻥَّ ﺃَﺑَﺎ ﻋِﻤْﺮَﺍﻥَ ﻳَﻔِﻲْ ﺑِﻤُﺬَﺍﻛَﺮَﺓِ ﻣِﺌَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ


“I heard Al-Ṣabghī say more than once, ‘We used to say that Abū ‘Imrān can recite 100,000 narrations’”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.561 v.13]

Abū Muḥammad ‘Abdān (d.306 AH)

Abū ‘Alī al-Ḥāfiẓ Raḥimahullah said:
ﻓَﺄَﻣَّﺎ ﻋَﺒْﺪَﺍﻥُ ﻓَﻜَﺎﻥَ ﻳَﺤْﻔَﻆُ ﻣِﺌَﺔَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ


“As for ‘Abdan, he had memorized 100,000 narrations (this number includes Aḥādīth with different chains of narration and the statements of the Ṣaḥābah)”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.169 v.14]

Imām Ali ibn Umar al-Daruqutnī Raḥimahullah (d.385 AH)

Abū Bakr al-Birqānī Raḥimahullah states:

ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﺍﻟﺪَّﺍﺭِﻗُﻄْﻨِﻲُّ ﻳُﻤْﻠِﻲْ ﻋَﻠَﻲَّ ﺍﻟْﻌِﻠَﻞَ ﻣِﻦْ ﺣِﻔْﻈِﻪِ


“Al Daruqutnī dictated ‘Al ‘Ilal’ to me from his memory”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.454 v.16]

The book ‘Al ‘Ilal’ contains well over 15,000 narrations.

A corollary principle understood from the above examples is that it is not possible to issue a ruling upon a narration simply based upon the basis that its text contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah until one has memorized equivalent to that which the scholars mentioned above had memorized; this would be a minimum of 100,000 Aḥādīth with their chains of narration. Only then could one claim that he has the right to deduce whether a narration is fabricated simply by looking at the text of the narration.

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Daqīq al-‘Ῑd Raḥimahullah (d.702 AH) writes:

ﻭَﻛَﺜِﻴْﺮًﺍ ﻣَّﺎ ﻳَﺤْﻜُﻤُﻮْﻥَ ﺑِﺬَﻟِﻚَ – ﺃَﻱْ ﺑِﺎﻟْﻮَﺿْﻊِ – ﺑِﺎِﻋْﺘِﺒَﺎﺭِ ﺃُﻣُﻮْﺭٍ ﺗَﺮْﺟِﻊُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺮْﻭِﻱِّ ﻭَﺃَﻟْﻔَﺎﻅِ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﻭَﺣَﺎﺻِﻠُﻪُ ﻳَﺮْﺟِﻊُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺃَﻧَّﻪُ ﺣَﺼَﻠَﺖْ ﻟَﻬُﻢْ ﻟِﻜَﺜْﺮَﺓِ ﻣُﺤَﺎﻭَﻟَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻔَﺎﻅِ ﺍﻟﻨَّﺒِﻲِّ ﺻَﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﻫَﻴْﺌَﺔٌ ﻧَﻔْﺴَﺎﻧِﻴَّﺔٌ ﻭَﻣَﻠَﻜَﺔٌ ﻗَﻮِﻳَّﺔٌ ﻳَﻌْﺮِﻓُﻮْﻥَ ﺑِﻬَﺎ ﻣَﺎ ﻳَﺠُﻮْﺯُ ﺃَﻥْ ﻳَﻜُﻮْﻥَ ﻣِﻦْ ﺃَﻟْﻔَﺎﻅِ ﺍﻟﻨُّﺒُﻮَّﺓِ ﻭَﻣَﺎ ﻟَﺎ ﻳَﺠُﻮْﺯُ


“And many times, they (the early scholars of Ḥadīth) issue this ruling, i.e. of fabrication, in consideration of matters related to the texts of the narration and the words of the narration, and the conclusion of this returns to the fact that due to perpetual engrossment with the words of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam, they have acquired an innate nature and extraordinary ability through which they are able to recognise that which could be the Prophetic word and that which cannot”

[Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Daqīq al-‘Ῑd, ‘Al-Iqtirāḥ’, (Jordan: Dār al-‘Ulūm Lin Nashr wal-Tawzī’, 2007), pg.311-312] [‘Allāmah Sakhāwī Raḥimahullah, ‘Fatḥ al-Mugīth’, (Riyad: Dār al-Minhāj, 1436 AH), pg.128, v.2]

Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī Raḥimahullah (d.748 AH) has also echoed these sentiments in his abridgement of Al-Iqtirah, Al-Mūqiẓah ; he explains that recognizing whether a Ḥadīth contradicts the principles of Sharī‘ah (Al Qawā’id) is reserved for those who have rigorously acquainted themselves with the Aḥādīth of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam such that their expertise in Ḥadīth is like the expertise of a certified gemologist in gemstones.

[Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Mūqiẓah’, (Beirut: Dār al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyyah, 1405 AH), pg.37] [Also see the parable presented by: Ḥāfiẓ al-Mughlaṭāy, ‘Iṣlāḥ Kitāb Ibn Ṣalāḥ’, (Cairo: Al-Maktabah al-Islāmiyyah, 2007), pg.143]

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī Raḥimahullah (d.795 AH) writes while commentating upon a narration:

ﻭَﺇِﻧَّﻤَﺎ ﺗُﺤْﻤَﻞُ ﻣِﺜْﻞُ ﻫَﺬِﻩِ ﺍﻟْﺄَﺣَﺎﺩِﻳْﺚِ – ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﺗَﻘْﺪِﻳْﺮِ ﺻِﺤَّﺘِﻪِ – ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﻣَﻌْﺮِﻓَﺔِ ﺃَﺋِﻤَﺔِ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﺍﻟْﺠَﻬَﺎﺑِﺬَﺓِ ﺍﻟﻨُّﻘَّﺎﺩِ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻳْﻦَ ﻛَﺜُﺮَﺕْ ﻣُﻤَﺎﺭَﺳَﺘَﻬُﻢْ ﻟِﻜَﻠَﺎﻡِ ﺍﻟﻨَّﺒِﻲِّ ﺻَﻠَﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﻭَﻛَﻠَﺎﻡِ ﻏَﻴْﺮِﻩِ ﻭَﻟِﺤَﺎﻝِ ﺭُﻭَﺍﺓِ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﻭَﻧَﻘْﻠَﺔِ ﺍﻟْﺄَﺧْﺒَﺎﺭِ ﻭَﻣَﻌْﺮِﻓَﺘِﻬِﻢْ ﺑِﺼِﺪْﻗِﻬِﻢْ ﻭَﻛَﺬِﺑِﻬِﻢْ ﻭَﺣِﻔْﻈِﻬِﻢْ ﻭَﺿَﺒْﻄِﻬِﻢْ ﻓَﺈِﻥَّ ﻫَﺆُﻟَﺎﺀِ ﻟَﻬُﻢْ ﻧَﻘْﺪٌ ﺧَﺎﺹٌّ ﻳَﺨْﺘَﺼُّﻮْﻥَ ﺑِﻤَﻌْﺮِﻓَﺘِﻪِ ﻛَﻤَﺎ ﻳَﺨْﺘَﺺُّ ﺍﻟﺼَّﻴْﺮَﻓِﻲُّ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺎﺫِﻕُ ﺑِﻤَﻌْﺮِﻓَﺔِ ﺍﻟﻨُّﻘُﻮْﺩِ ﺟَﻴِّﺪِﻫَﺎ ﻭَﺭَﺩِﻳْﺌِﻬَﺎ


“And indeed, narrations such as this – if authentic – are based upon the knowledge of the meticulous and assiduous Imāms of the Prophetic narration, whose engagement with the narrations of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam and the narrations of others (such as the Ṣaḥābah and Tābi‘ūn) is intense, as well as their engagement with the status of the narrators of Ḥadīth and the recorders of the narrations, as well as their knowledge of the truthfulness and untruthfulness [of the narrators of Ḥadīth], and the memory and recollection [of the narrators of Ḥadīth], for indeed, these [Imāms] have a specialised method of criticism that only they are capable of, just as a certified money-exchanger specialises in the knowledge of coins; in recognizing the reliable [coins] from the counterfeit [coins]”

[Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī Raḥimahullah, ‘Jāmi‘al-‘Ulūm wal-Ḥikam’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1999), pg.105, v.2] [Also see: Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir, ‘Footnotes on Ṣaḥiḥ Ibn Ḥibbān’, (Egypt: Dār al-Ma‘ārif), pg.221, v.1]

It was for this reason that Ḥāfiẓ Al-‘Alā’ī Raḥimahullah (d.761 AH) said:

ﺍﻟْﺤُﻜْﻢُ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﺑِﻜَﻮْﻧِﻪِ ﻣَﻮْﺿُﻮْﻋًﺎ ﻣِﻦَ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺘَﺄَﺧِّﺮِﻳْﻦَ ﻋَﺴِﺮٌ ﺟِﺪًّﺍ ﻟِﺄَﻥَّ ﺫَﻟِﻚَ ﻟَﺎ ﻳَﺘَﺄَﺗَّﻰ ﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﺑَﻌْﺪَ ﺟَﻤْﻊِ ﺍﻟﻄُّﺮُﻕِ ﻭَﻛَﺜْﺮَﺓِ ﺍﻟﺘَّﻔْﺘِﻴْﺶِ … ﻭَﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺑِﺨِﻠَﺎﻑِ ﺍﻟْﺄَﺋِﻤَّﺔِ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺘَﻘَﺪِّﻣِﻴْﻦَ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻳْﻦَ ﻣَﻨَﺤَﻬُﻢُ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﺍﻟﺘَّﺒَﺤُّﺮَ ﻓِﻲْ ﻋِﻠْﻢِ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﻭَﺍﻟﺘَّﻮَﺳُّﻊِ ﻓِﻲْ ﺣِﻔْﻈِﻪِ ﻛَﺸُﻌْﺒَﺔَ ﻭَﻳَﺤْﻴَﻰ ﺑْﻦِ ﺳَﻌِﻴْﺪِ ﺍﻟْﻘَﻄَّﺎﻥِ ﻭَﻋَﺒْﺪِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺣْﻤَﻦِ ﺑْﻦِ ﻣَﻬْﺪِﻱْ ﻭَﻧَﺤْﻮِﻫِﻢْ ﺛُﻢَّ ﺃَﺻْﺤَﺎﺑِﻬِﻢْ ﻣِﺜْﻞِ ﺃَﺣْﻤَﺪَ ﺑِﻦْ ﺣَﻨْﺒَﻞَ ﻭَﻋَﻠِﻲِّ ﺑْﻦِ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺪِﻳْﻨِﻲِّ ﻭَﻳَﺤْﻴَﻰ ﺑْﻦِ ﻣَﻌِﻴْﻦَ ﻭَﺇِﺳْﺤَﺎﻕِ ﺑْﻦِ ﺭَﺍﻫْﻮِﻳْﻪ ﻭَﻃَﺎﺋِﻔَﺘِﻬِﻢْ ﺛُﻢَّ ﺃَﺻْﺤَﺎﺑِﻬِﻢْ ﻣِﺜْﻞِ ﺍﻟْﺒُﺨَﺎﺭِﻱِّ ﻭَﻣُﺴْﻠِﻢٍ ﻭَﺃَﺑِﻲْ ﺩَﺍﻭُﺩَ ﻭَﺍﻟﺘَّﺮْﻣِﺬِﻱِّ ﻭَﺍﻟﻨَّﺴَﺎﺋِﻲِّ ﻭَﻛَﺬَﻟِﻚَ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺯَﻣَﻦِ ﺍﻟﺪَّﺍﺭِﻗُﻄْﻨِﻲِّ ﻭَﺍﻟْﺒَﻴْﻬَﻘِﻲِّ ﻣِﻤَّﻦْ ﻟَﻢْ ﻳَﺠِﻴْﺊ ﺑَﻌْﺪَﻫُﻢْ ﻣُﺴَﺎﻭٍ ﻟَﻬُﻢْ ﺑَﻞْ ﻭَﻟَﺎ ﻣُﻘَﺎﺭِﺏٍ


“To rule a narration as fabricated is extremely difficult for the later scholars, as such a ruling cannot be placed except after gathering all of the chains of narration and after extensive investigation…and this is in contrast to the earlier scholars, those whom Allah blessed with profound knowledge of the field of Ḥadīth and vastness in memorising [the narrations], such as Shu‘bah, Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd Al Qaṭtān, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī, and others like them, then their companions, such as Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī, Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn, Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh, and their group, then their companions, such as Al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, Tirmidhī, like this until the age of Al-Daruquṭnī and Al-Bayhaqī, who were from amongst those whom none came after them that were capable of equaling them or coming close to them”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al-‘Alā’ī, ‘Al-Naqd al-Ṣarīḥ Limā U’turiḍa ‘Alayh Min Aḥādīth al-Maṣābīḥ – Majmū’ Rasā’il Ḥāfiẓ Al-‘Alā’ī’, (Cairo: Al-Fārūq al-Ḥadīthiyyah, 2013), pg.72, v.4] [See: ‘Allāmah Badr al-Dīn al-Zarkashī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Nukat ‘Alā Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ’, (Riyad: Aḍwā al-Salaf, 1998), pg.267, v.2]

The early scholars – who were afforded this privilege of being able to deduce whether a narration is fabricated or not by looking at its text due to their
profound knowledge of Sharī’ah – had not only memorised hundreds of thousands of Aḥādīth, they had even memorized the wordings of the chain of narration. Consider the following example:

ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺧَﻠْﻒُ ‏( ﺑْﻦُ ﺳَﺎﻟِﻢٍ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺨْﺮَﻣِﻲُّ ‏) ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﺳُﻔْﻴَﺎﻥَ ﺑْﻦَ ﻋُﻴَﻴْﻨَﺔَ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻧَﺎ ﻋَﻤْﺮُﻭ ﺑْﻦُ ﺩِﻳْﻨَﺎﺭٍ ﻳُﺮِﻳْﺪُ ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ﻋَﻤْﺮٌﻭ ﺑْﻦُ ﺩِﻳْﻨَﺎﺭٍ ﻓَﺈِﺫَﺍ ﻗِﻴْﻞَ ﻟﺨَﻠَﻒ ﻗُﻞْ ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ﻋَﻤْﺮٌﻭ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﻟَﺎ ﺃَﻗُﻮْﻝُ ﻟِﺄَﻧِّﻲْ ﻟَﻢْ ﺃَﺳْﻤَﻊْ ﻣِﻦْ ﻗَﻮْﻟِﻪِ ” ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ” ﺛَﻠَﺎﺛَﺔَ ﺃَﺣْﺮُﻑٍ ﻟِﻜَﺜْﺮَﺓِ ﺍﻟﺰِّﺣَﺎﻡِ ﻭَﻫِﻲَ ﺡَ ﺩَّ ﺙَ


“Khalaf (Sālim al-Mukharrimī) said, ‘I heard Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah say, ‘To us ‘Amr ibn Dīnār’, intending by this ‘Narrated to us ‘Amr ibn Dīnār’, thus when it was asked of him (i.e of Khalaf), ‘[Why don’t you] say, “Narrated to us ‘Amr”’, he replied, ‘I will not say [that] for indeed I did not hear from his (Sufyān ibn ‘Uyanah’s) statement ‘Narrated to us’ three letters; ﺡ ﺩ ﺙ (which translates to: Narrated) due to a loud noise”

[Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Kifāyah Fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah’, (n.a: Dār al-Hudā, 2003), v.1, pg.242]

The dedication and engrossment of the scholars of the past in memorizing and narrating Aḥādīth may be understood from the story of Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān al-Bāgandī Raḥimahullah (d.312 AH). ‘Umar ibn Aḥmad al-Wā‘iẓ Raḥimahullah states:

ﻗَﺎﻡَ ﺃَﺑُﻮْ ﺑَﻜْﺮٍ ﺍﻟْﺒَﺎﻏَﻨْﺪِﻱُّ ﻟِﻴُﺼَﻠِّﻲَ ﻓَﻜَﺒَّﺮَ ﺛُﻢَّ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ﻣُﺤَﻤَّﺪُ ﺑْﻦُ ﺳُﻠَﻴْﻤَﺎﻥَ ﻟُﻮَﻳْﻦُ ﻓَﺴَﺒَّﺤْﻨَﺎ ﺑِﻪِ ﻓَﻘَﺎﻝَ ” ﺑِﺴْﻢِ ﺍﻟﻠﻪِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺣْﻤَﻦِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺣِﻴْﻢِ ﺍﻟْﺤَﻤْﺪُ ﻟِﻠﻪِ ﺭَﺏِّ ﺍﻟْﻌَﺎﻟَﻤِﻴْﻦَ ”


“Abū Bakr al-Bāgandī stood up to perform Salah, he read aloud the Takbīr, then said, ‘Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān Luwayn has narrated to us’, so we began to recite the Tasbīḥ (in order to alert him of the mistake), and so he began to read, ‘Bismillāhir Raḥmānir Raḥīm Alḥamdulillāhi Rabbil ‘Ālamīn’”

[Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī Raḥimahullah, ‘Tārikh Baghdād’, (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 2001), pg.345, v.4]

It was through this incredible engrossment with Ḥadīth that these few eminent scholars of the past developed profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and its principles. Their entire days and nights were dedicated to Aḥādīth.
In conclusion, the notion of issuing a ruling on a narration based upon when the text of the narration is contradicting a principle of Sharī‘ah was a privilege reserved only for a few selected scholars of Islām, whose knowledge of Sharī‘ah was of the caliber that we have demonstrated above.

Was it easy for the scholars of the past to deduce whether a narration contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah?

Even during the age of these privileged scholars of Islām , to issue a ruling of fabrication upon the authenticity of a narration because it contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah was not an easy task.

The authoritative scholar, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajr al-‘Asqalānī Raḥimahullah (d.882 AH), writes:

ﻭَﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺍﻟْﻔَﻦُّ ﺃَﻏْﻤَﺾُ ﺃَﻧْﻮَﺍﻉِ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﻭَﺃَﺩَﻗِّﻬَﺎ ﻣَﺴْﻠَﻜًﺎ ﻭَﻟَﺎ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻡُ ﺑِﻪِ ﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﻣَﻦْ ﻣَﻨَﺤَﻪُ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﺗَﻌَﺎﻟَﻰ ﻓَﻬْﻤًﺎ ﻏَﺎﻳِﺼًﺎ ﻭَﺍﻃِّﻠَﺎﻋًﺎ ﺣَﺎﻭِﻳًﺎ ﻭَﺇِﺩْﺭَﺍﻛًﺎ ﻟِﻤَﺮَﺍﺗِﺐِ ﺍﻟﺮُّﻭَﺍﺓِ ﻭَﻣَﻌْﺮِﻓَﺔٍ ﺛَﺎﻗِﺒَﺔٍ ﻭَﻟِﻬَﺬَﺍ ﻟَﻢْ ﻳَﺘَﻜَﻠَّﻢْ ﻓِﻴْﻪِ ﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﺃَﻓْﺮَﺍﺩُ ﺃَﺋِﻤَّﺔِ ﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺄْﻥِ ﻭَﺣُﺬَّﺍﻗِﻬِﻢْ ﻭَﺇِﻟَﻴْﻬِﻢُ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺮْﺟَﻊُ ﻓِﻲْ ﺫَﻟِﻚَ ﻟِﻤَﺎ ﺟَﻌَﻞَ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻓِﻴْﻬِﻢْ ﻣِﻦْ ﻣَﻌْﺮِﻓَﺔِ ﺫَﻟِﻚَ ﻭَﺍﻟْﺈِﻃِّﻠَﺎﻉِ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﻏَﻮَﺍﻣِﻀِﻪِ ﺩُﻭْﻥَ ﻏَﻴْﺮِﻫِﻢْ ﻣِﻤَّﻦْ ﻟَﻢْ ﻳُﻤَﺎﺭِﺱْ ﺫَﻟِﻚَ


“And this field (the field of Al ‘Ilal) is the most complex of the fields of Ḥadīth, and the most delicate to approach, and none have stood up to it except those whom Allah the Almighty blessed with a deep understanding, encompassing research, knowledge of the categories of narrations, and a sagacious intellect. It is for this reason that none spoke in this [field] except a few of the scholars of Ḥadīth and its most intelligent personalities, and reliance is upon them in this field, due to that which Allah had given to them from the knowledge of this [field] and research upon its intricacies, none besides them from amongst those who have not acquired this”

[Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajr Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Nukat ‘Alā Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ’, (Ajman: Maktabah al-Furqān, 2003), pg.187, v.2]

There are examples of early scholars who criticized the text of a narration based upon their understanding of the narration (as they felt that it contradicted the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah) but were then refuted by other early scholars of their caliber who understood the correct meaning of the Ḥadīth and found no qualms in its connotations.

[See: Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar Raḥimahullah, ‘ Lisān al-Mīzān ’, (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāir al-Islāmiyyah, 2002), pg.180, v.4 – entry: Sulayman ibn Harim]

[See: Ḥāfiẓ al-Zayla‘ī Raḥimahullah, ‘ Naṣb al-Rāyah ’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Rayyān, 1997), pg.174, v.4]

[See: Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘ Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā ’, (Beirut: Mu’assash al-Risalah, 1984), pg.98, v.16]

[See: Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘ Mīzān Al I’tidāl ’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah,), pg.101, v.2 – entry: Zayd ibn Wahab]

[See: Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar Raḥimahullah, ‘ Lisān al-Mīzān ’, (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāir al-Islāmiyyah, 2002), pg.222, v.1 – entry: Abān ibn Sufyān]

[See: Al-Jawraqānī Raḥimahullah, ‘ Al-Abāṭīl wal-Manākīr wal-Ṣiḥāḥ wal-Mashāhīr ’, (India: Idarah al-Buhuth, 1983), pg.80, v.1]

[See: ‘Allamah Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi Rahimahullah, ‘Al-Nukat ‘Ala Ibn al-Salah ’, (Riyad: Adwa al-Salaf, 1998), pg.270, v.2]

[See: Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar Raḥimahullah, ‘ Fatḥ al-Bārī ’, (Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Ṣalafiyyah), pg.16, v.7]

[See: Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar Raḥimahullah, ‘ Fatḥ al-Bārī ’, (Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Ṣalafiyyah), pg.401, v.13]

Accordingly, memorization of Aḥādīth alone is not enough; rather, one is also required to have an expert understanding of the teachings of Sharī‘ah and the Aḥādīth that he has memorised.

‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī Raḥimahullah (d.234 AH) said:

ﺍﻟﺘَّﻔًﻘُّﻪُ ﻓِﻲْ ﻣَﻌَﺎﻧِﻲ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﻧِﺼْﻒُ ﺍﻟْﻌِﻠْﻢِ


“Understanding of the meanings of Ḥadīth is half of knowledge”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah Al Risālah, 1985), v.11, pg.48]

In conclusion, determining whether a Ḥadīth contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah was solely reserved for those illustrious scholars of the past whose knowledge of Sharī‘ah was so profound, that they could at will recite hundreds of thousands of Aḥādīth with their chain of narration; the likes of Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal Raḥimahullah (d.241 AH), Imām Al-Bukhārī Raḥimahullah (d.256 AH), et al. These scholars were also blessed with an incredible understanding of the Aḥādīth that they had memorized.

As for the guidelines presented by the likes of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah Raḥimahullah (d.751 AH) in his Al-Manār al-Munīf and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi Raḥimahullah (d.606 AH) in his Al-Maḥṣūl for recognizing a fabricated narration, then these guidelines are no different to Fiqh Maxims ( Al-Qawaid al-Fiqhiyyah ), in the sense that a narration cannot be labeled a fabrication simply based upon these guidelines just as a Fatwa cannot be issued based upon Fiqh Maxims ( Al-Qawāid al-Fiqhiyyah ), rather, the rulings of the expert scholars of the past must be followed.

Thus, a claim that a certain Ḥadīth should be rejected because it contradicts the principles and objectives of Islām may be refuted with the question; exactly how many Aḥādīth have you memorized with their chains of narration for you to claim that you have knowledge of the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah?


Above, we have demonstrated the role of the intellect/reason in Sharī‘ah and the role of the intellect/reason in the noble Aḥādīth. We have shown that the scholars did not at all permit rejecting Aḥādīth that herald an element of miracles.

We have also shown that criticising the authenticity of a narration based upon the fact that the text of the narration contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah such that it cannot be the Prophet word was an incredibly delicate task, which only a select few privileged scholars were able to do. We are required to follow their rulings.

Indeed, the scholars of Ḥadīth emphasized incredible precaution before labeling a narration as a fabrication [See: Jālāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Baḥr al-Ladhī Zakhar’, (Madinah: Maktabah al-Ghurabā al-Athariyyah, 1999), pg.874-876, v.2]. This precaution was burgeoned when the chain of narration contained reliable narrators, in such a case – when the narrators of the narration are all reliable – only the elite scholars of the past could criticize the authenticity of the narration. [See: Ḥātim al-‘Awnī, ‘Sharḥ Mūqiẓah al-Dhahabī’, (Riyad: Dār Ibn al-Jawzī, 1427 AH), pg.62: Fa Innanā La Naḥkum ‘Alayhi Bil Waḍ‘i Illā Bi Qarā’in Qawiyyah Jiddan ] .

We end with a quote from the Yemeni scholar, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Yaḥyā al-Mu‘allimī Raḥimahullah (d.1386 AH), who said:

ﻭَﺍﻟْﺤَﻖُّ ﺃَﻧَّﻪُ ﻟَﻢْ ﻳَﻜُﻦْ ﻓِﻲ ﻋُﻠَﻤَﺎﺀِ ﺍﻟْﺄُﻣَّﺔِ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺮْﺿِﻴِّﻴْﻦَ ﻣَﻦْ ﻳَﺮُﺩُّ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺜًﺎ ﺑَﻠَﻐَﻪُ ﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﻟِﻌُﺬْﺭٍ ﻳَﺤْﺘَﻤِﻠُﻪُ ﻟَﻪُ ﺃَﻛْﺜَﺮُ ﺃَﻫْﻞِ ﺍﻟْﻌِﻠْﻢِ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﺍﻟْﺄَﻗَﻞِّ


“And indeed, the reality is that there was none from the accepted scholars of the past who labelled a narration that reached him as a fabrication except that he did so due to a reason that, at the very least, the majority of the scholars would accept [as a valid reason]”

[Shaykh ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Yaḥyā al-Mu‘allimī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Anwār al-Kāshifah’, (Makah: Dār ‘Alam Al-Fawā’id, 1434 AH), pg.17]

Every individual must ask himself; if the illustrious scholars of the past – who were of the calibre that we have demonstrated above (i.e. hundreds of thousands of Aḥādīth flowed at their fingertips) and whose days and nights were spent in the sciences of the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth – have authenticated a Ḥadīth, how can a person in this day and age claim that the Ḥadīth is fabricated? Only if an individual has memorised the number of Aḥādīth that they had memorised could one come even close to making such a claim.

These perspicacious and astute scholars, the likes of Imām Al-Bukhari Raḥimahullah (d.256 AH) and Imām Muslim Raḥimahullah (d.261 AH), did not simply dedicate a portion of their life to the field of Ḥadīth; they dedicated their entire lives to the field of Ḥadīth. Indeed, a person’s Ῑmān remains protected by relying on the deductions and rulings of these meticulous and accepted scholars of the past. Following the ramblings and isolated opinions of the iconoclasts of today can only lead to misguidance.

May Allah guide us and protect us.


Refuting the Modernist Contention: “Jurisprudence is Incompatible with Modern Age”

By Mujlisul Ulama

Some of the Western-educated clogmatize that Islamic jurisprudence does not fit in with our modern age. But, they do not give any specific reasons for such an allegation. Had they said that some particular principle or principles are not adaptable to our era for one reason or another, their claim might possess some merit, as it would then have been possible to discuss and show the error of their contentions. But, to stop at saying that the whole body of Islamic jurisprudence is unfit for our times, without giving any valid reason, is a statement entirely unacceptable to any logical and rational mind. Yet, having known that the exponents of such notions are, relative to Islamic jurisprudence, the most ignorant among the educated, one cannot escape the conclusion that their views are predicated upon ignorance and prevarication.

The adaptability of jurisprudence should be decided on the grounds of the intrinsic sufficiency of its principles. There is not a single one of even the lesser principles of Islamic jurisprudence that may be substantiated as unfit or irrelevant, and a perusal of the more salient principles reveals to what extent some Muslims have been carried down the dark alleyways of deviation by their own- ig­norance. Islamic jurisprudence in­scribed unconditional equality between people. The Quran says:

“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is The who is) the most righteous of you.” [Qur’an 49:13]

And Rasulullah (sallahu­alaihi-wasallam) said: “Peo­ple are equal (on the same footing) like the dents of a comb; no Arab has an advan­tage over a non-Arab except by virtue of righteousness and piety.”

This principle of equality was inscribed thir­teen centuries ago, whereas the man-made laws in which our ignorant friends take pride did not acknowledge -such equality until late in the eighteenth century! Even today, most European coun­tries and the United States impose debilitating restric­tions on their application of this principle.

There is also the outstan­ding principle of liberty (freedom) which had been established since the early days as an integral part of Islamic jurisprudence. Under it, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, and freedom and expression are well recognized and even enjoined by many Qur’anic verses, from which we may cite a part:

Say, ‘Behold all that is in the heavens and on earth’.”

“… and none will grasp the message except men of un­derstanding.” 

“Let there be no compulsion in Religion.”

“Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong.” 

The principle of liberty (freedom) with its three divisions was not recognized by man-made laws until the French Revolution, though the ignorant deny the Islamic jurisprudence the virtue of such precedents and at­tribute it all to European law.

Absolute justice is one of the basic principles of Islamic jurisprudence. The Quran says:

“.. And when ye judge between man and man, that ye judge with justice.” 

“..Stand out firmly for justice…” 

“. . . Stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice.”

This principle was also registered by Islamic jurisprudence from its very inception and was not recognized by man-made laws till the last decades of the eighteenth century.

Such are the three preemi­nent principles on which modern law is founded, and which our jurisprudence had firmly established more than eleven centuries ago. How then can it be said that man­made laws are “relevant” to our modern age while Islamic jurisprudence, which advocates the same prin­ciples and framework, is not?

Again, Islam had enjoined application of the principle of mutual consultation from the time the Revelation was sent down. God says:

“…who conduct their af­fairs by mutual con­sultation.”

“… and consult them in affairs (of moment).” 

Therefore, Islamic jurisprudence preceded man-made law about eleven centuries in establishing this ideal — except in the case of England, where it was recognized ten centuries after Islam. But the Euro­pean law did not introduce a novelty when it provided for parliamentary representation (as an example of applying the principle of mutual con­sultation); they merely took their impetus from where Islamic jurisprudence ended.

Further, Islam since its early revelation, had restricted the powers of the chief of state, characterizing him as duty bound to repre­sent the public and responsi­ble for his wrong actions. Ac­cordingly, both the rulers and the ruled are equal before its provisions. Because the first are limited in their actions by these provisions they have no ine­quitable advantages over the latter. Both are on the same footing in accordance with the principle of equality.

Since Islamic jurisprudence comprised all these principles eleven cen­turies in advance of Euro­pean law, how can it be alleg­ed that this jurisprudence is incompatible with our pre­sent age?!

Besides, Islamic jurisprudence prohibited the drinking of alcohol and per­mitted divorce. God declares:

“O ye who believe, in­toxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones and (divination by) arrows are an abomination of Satan’s han­d i work : eschew such (abomination) that-ye may prosper.” 

“A divorce is only permissi­ble twice: after that, the par­ties should either holdtogether on equitable terms or separate with kindness.”

Man-made legislation never recognized the benefits accruing from the permission of divorce and prohibition of intoxicants ex­cept in the course of the pre­sent century. Some of these laws completely prohibit in­toxicants, others impose par­tial prohibition on them. How, then, could these laws deriving from jurisprudence be considered fit while jurisprudence itself is con­sidered unfit?

Islamic jurisprudence is the first system of legislation that established viably the theories of social coopera­tion and social solidarity. God says:

“…Help ye one another in -righteousness and piety. But help ye not one another in sin and rancor.” 

“.. and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him whois deprived.”

“Of their goods take alms, that so thou mightest purify and sanctify them.” 

“Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds), for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth), for those in bondageand in debt, in the cause of God, and for the wayfarer: (Thus is it) ordained by God, and God is full of knowledge and wisdom. 

“What God has bestowed on His Apostle (and taken away) from the people of thetownships, belongs to God, to His Apostle and to kindred and orphans, the needy and the wayfarer, in order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you.” 

The two above-mentioned concepts have been known by our jurisprudence for more than thirteen centuries, whereas the non-Muslim world was hardly aware of them till the present cent­ury, and they are yet but partially applied therein.

Islamic jurisprudence prohibits monopolistic prac­tices, exploitation of authori­ty, bribery and corruption. The Prophet has said, “The monopolizer is surely a sinner.‘ And Allah says:

“And do not eat up your property among yourselves for vanities, nor use it as bait for the judges, with intent that ye may eat up wrongfully and knowingly a little of (other) people’s property.”

These lofty ideas were not accredited by man-made laws except very lately.

Islamic jurisprudence strongly prohibits the com­mission of felonies and shameful vices whether in public or in secret, sinning and harassment beyond all bounds. God says:

“Say: My Lord hath indeed forbidden shameful deeds, whether open or secret, sins and trespasses against truth at reason.”  

At the same time, jurisprudence approves of exhortation to good deeds, enforcing what is right and forbidding what is wrong. 

“Let there arise out of a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong.”

Such principles as these, long embodied in Islamic jurisprudence, are the ideal that humanity searches for and dreams of achieving. How could the one code of legislation whose principles enshrine the very ideal which contemporary humankind earnestly seeks fail to be relevant to our era? If- we peer into the humanitarian, social and legal conventions prevailing in our age and of which people are proud, we find each and every one of these principles included in the best possible manner in the Islamic jurisprudence.

From the above, it becomes evident that the allegation that Islamic jurisprudence is inap­propriate for these times is an assumption founded on and caused by profound ig­norance of that jurisprudence, and has no support in fact. The only ex­cuse one may seek for the ex­ponents of this charge is that they have been taught that old laws and legislation were based on obsolete principles which are unacceptable to our modern age. They have taken this ambiguous state­ment for a general rule, applicable also to Islamic jurisprudence, which they consider to be an “old” law and an “old” legislation. They have never attempted to appreciate’ the substantial difference between Islamic jurisprudence and man-made law.

ﻣﻌﺘﺰﻟﮧ ﺍﻭﺭ ﮨﻢ

ﻣﻌﺘﺰﻟﮧ ﺗﺎﺭﯾﺦ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﯽ ﮐﺎ ﻭﮦ ﮔﺮﻭﮦ ﮨﮯ ﺟﻮ ﺁﺝ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﺎً ﺍﭼﮭﯽ ﺷﮩﺮﺕ ﮐﺎ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ. ﻣﮕﺮ ﺫﺭﺍ ﺩﻗﺖ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺳﮯ ﺩﯾﮑﮭﯿﺌﮯ ﺗﻮ ﮨﻤﯿﮟ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻗﺪﺭ ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺱ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﻟﮕﺘﯽ ﮨﮯ. ﺳﻮﭼﯿﺌﮯ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﻌﺘﺰﻟﮧ ﺍﺗﻨﮯ ﮨﯽ ﺑﺮﮮ ﺗﮭﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺴﮯ ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﯾﮏ ﻋﺮﺻﮯ ﺗﮏ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﯿﺖ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺭﮨﯽ؟ ﮐﯿﺴﮯ ﺧﻠﯿﻔﮧ ﻣﺎﻣﻮﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺧﻼﻓﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺳﺮﮐﺎﺭﯼ ﻓﮑﺮ ﮐﺎ ﺩﺭﺟﮧ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﮨﻮﮔﯿﺎ؟ ﺁﺧﺮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺗﻮ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺭﮨﯽ ﮨﻮﮔﯽ؟ ﯾﮧ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻣﺎﻧﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﻭﮦ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﯾﮩﻮﺩﯼ ﺍﯾﺠﻨﭧ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺗﮭﮯ. ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻓﮑﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺧﺎﻣﯿﺎﮞ ﭼﺎﮨﮯ ﺟﺘﻨﯽ ﮨﻮﮞ ﻣﮕﺮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻧﯿﮏ ﻧﯿﺘﯽ ﭘﺮ ﺷﮏ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ. ﮨﻮﺍ ﮐﭽﮫ ﯾﻮﮞ ﮐﮧ ﺧﻼﻓﺖ ﮐﮯ ﻏﯿﺮﻣﻌﻤﻮﻟﯽ ﭘﮭﯿﻼﺅ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺟﺐ ﺳﺎﺩﮦ ﻣﺰﺍﺝ ﻋﺮﺑﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﺳﺎﻣﻨﺎ ﺍﯾﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺭﻭﻣﻦ ﺗﮩﺬﯾﺒﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﮨﻮﺍ ﺗﻮ ﻭﮦ ﻭﮦ ﺳﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﭨﮭﺎﺋﮯ ﺟﺎﻧﮯ ﻟﮕﮯ ﺟﻮ ﭘﮩﻠﮯ ﮐﺒﮭﯽ ﭘﯿﺪﺍ ﮨﯽ ﻧﮧ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ. ﻓﻠﺴﻔﮧ ﺟﺒﺮ ﻭ ﻗﺪﺭ، ﻣﺴﺌﻠﮧ ﻧﻘﻞ ﻭ ﻋﻘﻞ، ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺧﺪﺍﻭﻧﺪﯼ ﻋﯿﻦ ﺫﺍﺕ ﮨﯿﮟ ﯾﺎ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﺍﻣﺜﺎﻝ، ﮐﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﯾﺎ ﻻﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ، ﺧﺪﺍ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﯾﺎ ﻻﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ، ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺷﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺧﺪﺍﺋﯽ ﺍﻧﺼﺎﻑ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺳﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﺳﻮﺍﻻﺕ ﻣﺴﻠﻢ ﺍﺫﮨﺎﻥ ﮐﻮ ﻣﺘﺎﺛﺮ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﻟﮕﮯ. ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺱ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺱ ﻭﻗﺖ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺬﮨﺒﯽ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻥ ﻣﺘﻔﺮﻕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺧﺎﻃﺮ ﺧﻮﺍﮦ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺩﮮ ﺳﮑﮯ . ﻧﺌﯽ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﻧﺴﻞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺍﭼﮭﯽ ﺧﺎﺻﯽ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺍﻥ ﮔﺮﯾﮏ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺭﻭﻣﻦ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﺩﺭﺟﮯ ﻣﺘﺎﺛﺮ ﮨﻮﺋﯽ ﮐﮧ ﻣﺬﮨﺐ ﺳﮯ ﮨﯽ ﺑﺪﻇﻦ ﮨﻮﮔﺌﮯ. ﮐﭽﮫ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺩ ﻣﯿﮟ ﭘﻨﺎﮦ ﮈﮬﻮﻧﮉﮬﯽ ﺗﻮ ﮐﭽﮫ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﺖ ﮐﯽ ﻣﻮﺷﮕﺎﻓﯿﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﺯﯾﺮ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﻟﮕﮯ.
ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺕ ﺗﮭﯽ ﮐﮧ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﭽﮫ ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﻟﻮﮒ ﭘﯿﺪﺍ ﮨﻮﮞ ﺟﻮ ﻋﻘﻠﯽ ﻭ ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﺳﻄﺢ ﭘﺮ ﺍﻥ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺩﮮ ﺳﮑﯿﮟ. ﻟﮩٰﺬﺍ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﮐﭽﮫ ﻓﻼﺳﻔﮧ ﭘﯿﺪﺍ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﺟﻨﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﯾﻮﻧﺎﻧﯽ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﮯ ﮐﮯ ﺯﯾﺮ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ ﮐﯽ ﻣﮕﺮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺍﺫﮨﺎﻥ ﭘﺮ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﮧ ﺍﺱ ﺩﺭﺟﮯ ﺣﺎﻭﯼ ﺗﮭﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎﻭﺵ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻭﮦ ﺩﯾﻦ ﮐﮯ ﮐﺌﯽ ﻗﻄﻌﯽ ﺍﺣﮑﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﻭ ﺁﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﺎ ﺍﻧﮑﺎﺭ ﮐﺮ ﺑﯿﭩﮭﮯ . ﭘﮭﺮ ﺍﺳﯽ ﻣﻘﺼﺪ ﮐﻮ ﻟﮯ ﮐﺮ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﯼ ﺻﺪﯼ ﺣﺠﺮﮦ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﯾﮏ ﻧﯿﺎ ﮔﺮﻭﮦ ﺳﺎﻣﻨﮯ ﺁﯾﺎ ﺟﻨﮩﯿﮟ ﺗﺎﺭﯾﺦ ﻣﯿﮟ ‘ﻣﻌﺘﺰﻟﮧ’ ﮐﮯ ﻧﺎﻡ ﺳﮯ ﺟﺎﻧﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ. ﯾﮩﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﮑﻼﻡ ﮐﺎ ﺑﺎﻗﺎﻋﺪﮦ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﮨﻮﺍ. ﻣﻌﺘﺰﻟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻨﺴﻠﮏ ﻣﺘﮑﻠﻤﯿﻦ ﻧﮯ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺳﮯ ﺁﺋﮯ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮨﯽ ﮐﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﭘﺮ ﻣﻮﺛﺮ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﮐﯿﺎ. ﻣﻌﺘﺰﻟﮧ ﻧﮯ ﻧﮧ ﺻﺮﻑ ﻏﯿﺮﻣﺴﻠﻢ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﮯ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻮﺛﺮ ﺗﺮﯾﻦ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺩﯾﺎ ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﺍﻥ ﺳﯿﺎﺳﯽ ﺳﻮﺍﻻﺕ ﮐﮯ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺩﯾﺌﮯ ﺟﻮ ﺍﺱ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻋﻮﺍﻡ ﮐﯽ ﺩﻝ ﮐﯽ ﺁﻭﺍﺯ ﺗﮭﮯ. ﻣﻌﺘﺰﻟﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﺳﯽ ‘ﺭﯾﺸﻨﻠﺴﭧ ﺍﭘﺮﻭﭺ’ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﯿﺰﯼ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﯿﺖ ﻋﻄﺎ ﮐﯽ . ﮨﻤﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﮨﻮﺗﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﭼﺎﮨﯿﺌﮯ ﮐﮧ ﯾﮧ ﺍﯾﮏ ﻭﻗﺖ ﮐﯽ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺕ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﮍﯼ ﺧﺪﻣﺖ ﺗﮭﯽ ﺟﻮ ﺍﺱ ﮔﺮﻭﮦ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﯼ. ﺍﻟﻤﯿﮧ ﯾﮧ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮐﮧ ﻭﮦ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮨﯽ ﮐﯽ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﭘﺮ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺩﯾﺘﮯ ﺩﯾﺘﮯ ﺍﯾﺴﺎ ﺑﮩﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻗﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺳﻨﺖ ﮐﻮ ﮐﺴﻮﭨﯽ ﺭﮐﮭﻨﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺠﺎﺋﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮨﯽ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﯿﺎﻧﮧ ﺍﺻﻮﻟﻮﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﮐﯽ ﺑﻨﯿﺎﺩ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﭨﮭﺎﻧﮯ ﻟﮕﮯ. ﮔﻮﯾﺎ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻧﯿﺖ ﺧﺎﻟﺺ ﺗﮭﯽ، ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﻃﺮﺯ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻋﻤﺪﮦ ﺗﮭﺎ، ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﯽ ﻓﺴﻠﻔﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﯾﻒ ﺗﮭﺎ ﻣﮕﺮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻋﻘﻞ ﮐﻮ ﻧﻘﻞ ﭘﺮ ﺣﮑﻢ ﺑﻨﺎﻧﺎ ﺍﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺍﻋﺘﺪﺍﻝ ﺳﮯ ﮨﭩﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ. ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽﮧ ﺍﺷﻌﺮﯼ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﺎﺗﺮﯾﺪﯼ ﻓﮑﺮ ﺳﮯ ﻭﺍﺑﺴﺘﮧ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻥ ﭘﺮ ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﺗﻨﻘﯿﺪ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﻼﺧﺮ ﻏﻠﺒﮧ ﭘﺎﯾﺎ. ﺍﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺁﺝ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﺖ ﺍﮨﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﮧ ﮐﮯ ﻧﺎﻡ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻮﺳﻮﻡ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ.
ﺳﻤﺠﮭﻨﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻣﻌﺘﺰﻟﮧ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﮐﻮ ﺍﺳﻮﻗﺖ ﺩﺭﭘﯿﺶ ﭼﯿﻠﻨﺠﺰ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻮﺛﺮ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺩﮮ ﮐﺮ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺧﺪﻣﺖ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﯼ ﺗﮭﯽ. ﻣﮕﺮ ﻭﮦ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﺧﺎﻣﯿﺎﮞ ﺩﯾﮑﮭﻨﮯ ﺳﮯ ﻗﺎﺻﺮ ﺭﮨﮯ. ﯾﮩﺎﮞ ﺗﮏ ﮐﮧ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺘﯽ ﻓﮑﺮ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻥ ﭘﺮ ﺩﻭﺑﺎﺭﮦ ﻏﻠﺒﮧ ﭘﺎﯾﺎ. ﮔﻮ ﯾﮧ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺘﯽ ﻓﮑﺮ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﺱ ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﺍﺭﺗﻘﺎﺀ ﺳﮯ ﻻﺷﻌﻮﺭﯼ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺮ ﻓﯿﻀﯿﺎﺏ ﮨﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺩﯾﻦ ﮐﯽ ﺑﮩﺘﺮ ﺳﻤﺠﮫ ﺗﮏ ﭘﮩﻨﭻ ﺳﮑﯽ . ﺁﺝ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﮐﻮ ﻓﮑﺮﯼ ﺳﻄﺢ ﭘﺮ ﻧﯿﺎ ﻣﻌﺮﮐﮧ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﭼﯿﻠﻨﺠﺰ ﺩﺭﭘﯿﺶ ﮨﯿﮟ. ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺩ ﺳﻤﯿﺖ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﻣﻐﺮﺑﯽ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﻣﺴﻠﻢ ﻧﻮﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺫﮨﺎﻥ ﮐﻮ ﮨﻼ ﺭﮐﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ . ﮨﻤﺎﺭﺍ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺘﯽ ﻣﺬﮨﺒﯽ ﻃﺒﻘﮧ ﻧﮧ ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻣﻮﺛﺮ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺩﮮ ﭘﺎ ﺭﮨﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻧﮧ ﮨﯽ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﺫﮨﻦ ﮐﻮ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﮐﺮ ﺳﮑﺎ ﮨﮯ. ﻓﺮﻗﮧ ﭘﺮﺳﺘﯽ، ﺍﮐﺎﺑﺮ ﭘﺮﺳﺘﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﺟﻤﻮﺩ ﻧﮯ ﺩﯾﻦ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺩﮦ ﺍﺣﮑﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﮐﻮ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻣﺸﮑﻞ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮨﮯ. ﺩﯾﻦ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺭﺧﺼﺘﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﻋﻮﺍﻡ ﮐﻮ ﻻﻋﻠﻢ ﺭﮐﮭﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻧﻮﺍﻓﻞ ﻭ ﺳﻨﺘﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﻓﻀﺎﺋﻞ ﮐﮯ ﺑﯿﺎﻥ ﺳﮯ ﻓﺮﺽ ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﺑﻨﺎ ﮐﺮ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ. ﯾﮧ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﺟﯿﺴﮯ ﮐﺌﯽ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻧﺌﯽ ﻧﺴﻞ ﮐﻮ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺘﯽ ﻣﺬﮨﺒﯽ ﺳﻤﺠﮫ ﺳﮯ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻟﮯ ﮔﺌﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ. ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺑﺎﺭ ﭘﮭﺮ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﻭﮦ ﮔﺮﻭﮦ ﺑﺮﺁﻣﺪ ﮨﻮ ﺭﮨﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺟﻨﮑﯽ ﮐﻮﺷﺶ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﮦ ﺍﻥ ﻣﻐﺮﺑﯽ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻮﺛﺮ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺩﮮ ﺳﮑﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺩﯾﻨﯽ ﺳﻤﺠﮫ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺧﺎﻣﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﺩﻭﺭ ﮐﺮﯾﮟ. ﺍﻥ ﮔﺮﻭﮨﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﮧ ﻣﺴﻠﻢ ﻓﻼﺳﻔﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺟﻮ ﺩﯾﻦ ﮐﮯ ﻗﻄﻌﯽ ﺍﺣﮑﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺟﺪﺍﮔﺎﻧﮧ ﺗﺸﺮﯾﺢ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﺮﮨﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ. ﯾﮧ ﮔﺮﻭﮦ ﮐﺒﮭﯽ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺗﮏ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﭘﮩﻨﭻ ﺳﮑﺘﮯ ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺁﭖ ﻣﺮ ﺟﺎﺋﯿﮟ ﮔﮯ. ﺍﻥ ﮨﯽ ﮔﺮﻭﮨﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻌﺘﺰﻟﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺳﮯ ‘ﺭﯾﺸﻨﻠﺴﭧ ﺍﭘﺮﻭﭺ’ ﻭﺍﻟﮯ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺑﺮﺁﻣﺪ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺟﻮ ﻣﻐﺮﺑﯽ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻮﺛﺮ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺗﻮ ﺩﮮ ﺭﮨﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺳﮑﮯ ﻧﺘﯿﺠﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﻧﺴﻞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﯿﺖ ﭘﺎﺭﮨﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﻣﮕﺮ ﺍﺱ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﺧﺎﻣﯿﺎﮞ ﺩﯾﮑﮭﻨﮯ ﺳﮯ ﻗﺎﺻﺮ ﮨﯿﮟ . ﮨﻤﺎﺭﮮ ﻧﺰﺩﯾﮏ ﯾﮧ ‘ﻣﻮﮈﺭﻧﯿﺴﭧ’ ﻣﺨﻠﺺ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﻋﻠﻢ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺧﻼﺹ ﺩﻝ ﺳﮯ ﺩﯾﻦ ﮐﯽ ﺧﺪﻣﺖ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﭼﺎﮨﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ. ﻣﮕﺮ ﺑﮩﺮﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻓﮑﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺻﻮﻟﯽ ﺳﻘﻢ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﮨﮯ. ﺟﺲ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺩﺭﺍﮎ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﮨﮯ ﮐﺌﯽ ﺩﮨﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺑﻌﺪ ﮨﻮ. ﮨﻢ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﭼﺎﮨﯿﺌﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﮮ ﮐﻮ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﺩﺷﻤﻦ ﻧﮧ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﯿﮟ ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﺍﺱ ﮐﺸﻤﮑﺶ ﮐﻮ ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﺍﺭﺗﻘﺎﺀ ﮐﯽ ﮐﮍﯾﺎﮞ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﯿﮟ. ﮨﻤﺎﺭﺍ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﮐﻞ ﭘﮭﺮ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺘﯽ ﻓﮑﺮ ﮨﯽ ﻏﺎﻟﺐ ﮨﻮﮔﯽ ﻣﮕﺮ ﺍﺱ ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﻭ ﻓﮑﺮﯼ ﭨﮑﺮﺍﺅ ﺳﮯ ﺑﮩﺖ ﮐﭽﮫ ﺳﯿﮑﮫ ﮐﺮ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺷﺎﺋﺪ ﮐﺎﻓﯽ ﮐﭽﮫ ﺍﭘﻨﺎ ﮐﺮ.
ﻋﻈﯿﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤٰﻦ ﻋﺜﻤﺎﻧﯽ

The Challenges of Modernity

[By (Dr S.M. Yusuf) (Karachi University)]

IN our own day the so-called modernity, the protagonists of which keep a sinister silence on its full and proper definition, is but the same old challenge to the Sunnah in a new garb with the difference that this time it is accompanied by a fanfare of scientific achievement and industrial and technological power. Anyway, modernity is presented as a self-evident inescapable fact destined to reign supreme in the mid-twentieth century. In the circumstances it would appear to be a generous concession indeed that religion is allowed to survive: only it is called upon to adjust itself to the new demands of the age. The method suggested for such adjustment is no other than sloughing off the old forms and revaluing the values arbitrarily according to the exigencies of modernity itself. No surprise that the brunt of the attack is directed at the Sunnah — the repository of forms and institutions. It makes little difference if the allegiance to the Sunnah is retained so long as it is regarded as a mere carton package for graded values unwittingly a Christian missionary adviser on Modern Islam once let the cat out of the bag when he complained with amusing, rather exasperating, pathos that the Muslims were more devoted to Islam than to Allah! Modernity is at war with the dimensional Islam — its practices and institutions. If only the sanctity of such practices as cutting the hand of the thief and stoning the married adulterer is undermined, a general inward abhorrence of theft and adultery can conveniently be tolerated. The Turks may remain staunch Muslims with the permission of modernity only if the State is secular and the Shariah replaced with a conglomeration of Swiss and other codes. To clinch the issue, let us only ask ourselves the simple question whether our sense of abhorrence at theft and adultery has increased or decreased since the giving up of the Sunnah form of punishment designed to foster the same erroneously when in fact

A typical example of the adjustment of Islam to modernity is provided by what has come to be known as the Fatwa of Tunis (by al-Shaikh Muhammad al-Mahiri, ex-Mufti of Safaqis dated the 19th February, 1960 — vide the text thereof in Die Welt des Islams, N.S., Vol. VII, pp. 54-7) . Basically, the argument runs thus: Attach yourself only to the value of sparing extra hardship as deduced from the privilege of the traveller not to keep the fast, then apply the value quite widely in the case of industrial and other workers until the institution of fasting rests at the sweet will of those willing and allowed to declare  themselves as idlers. It is highly significant, indeed, that Shah Wali Allah repeatedly proffers the self-same example in order to make the difference between maslahah and lillah and to forewarn against the attempts to writhe out of the concrete form of the Sunnah and run after the ethereal spirit of the Book.

Shah Wali Allah’s vision was almost prophetic in his grasp of the mentality of the modernists in Islam. If hard work (e.g. agriculture and smithery) were compared to the hardship of the journey, then declares Shah Wali Allah, obedience to God would be nullified. And if every fatigue and hardship were considered to be harmful and worthy of elimination, then there would be no test at all of submission to the will of God.

In conclusion, it will be appreciated that the history of the development of jurisprudence in Islam is characterised by an honest search for the Sunnah, which is to be contrasted with the modernist exasperation with the Sunnah: The Muslim jurists were eager to make life conform to Islam while the modernist is at pains to make Islam conform to modernity. The moment the structure of the Sunnah topples down, Islam with its pure spirit and much-vaunted values will be dead and buried under the debris.