Category Archives: Principles of Fiqh

Imam Abu Hanifa’s View on Six Fasts of Shawwal & the Mufta Bihi Position of the Hanafi Madh-hab

A  senior  Mufti  says  that  the  6  Shawwaal  Fasts  are  Makrooh.  He  cites  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  as  proof  for  this  view.  Please  comment.

Answer (Mujlisul Ulama): 
The  senior  Mufti  Sahib  is  short-sighted.  His  Ilm  is  superficial,  hence  he  could  muster  up  the  audacity  to  decry  a  practice  which  is entrenched  in  the  Math-hab  since  fourteen  centuries.  He  did  not  stop to  reflect  on  the  fact  that  it  is  the practice  of    all  our  Akaabireen  and  of  all Math-habs.

Secondly,  every  ruling  of  the Hanafi  Math-hab  is  not    necessarily  the  view  of  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah (Rahmatullah  alayh).  There  are  many  issues    on  which  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  has  a  contrary  view  to  the Mufta  Bihi  version  which  could  be  the  view  of  Imaam  Abu  Yusuf  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  or  of  Imaam  Muhammad  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  or  of  both.  For  example,  Aqeeqah, according  to  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah (Rahmatullah  alayh),  the  Qur’baani  has  displaced  Aqeeqah.  However,  this  is  not  the  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab.

Thirdly,  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  stated  the  Makrooh  view  for  the six  fasts  at  a  time  when  it  was  being  considered  Waajib.  

What is Mufta Bihi??

The literal meaning of Mufta bihi is ‘the view in which fatwaa is given on’.

Basically, in every Madh-hab we have countless Fuqaha. At times, those who reached the status of Ijtihaad within a Madh-hab differ from others. For example, in the Hanafi Madh-hab, we have an elite student of Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah be pleased with him) – (Imam Muhammad, for example) – differing with him. Since the student too is a Mujtahid, there are times when a Mufti will pass verdict in accordance to the view of that student. That view becomes the Mufta Bihi (the view upon which verdict is given). If the verdict is passed on the view of Imam Abu Hanifa, then that is Mufta Bihi.

On a side note, this proves that a Madh-hab is not the work of one individual, rather it is the combined effort of thousands of scholars.

Frameworks for issuing a ruling in the Hanafi Madh-hab

The Hanafi Fiqh is mainly based on the masā’il rendered to us by Imam Abu Hanifah and his two students, Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad (also known al-sāhibayn). What will the fatwa be based on in masā’il, wherein there is disagreement between Imam Abu Hanifah and his two students (Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad)?

There are two opinions expressed:

Opinion. 1
The opinion of Imam Abu Hanifah will ALWAYS be given preference over that of his two students. ’Allama Siraj al-Dīn writes in Fatāwa Sirajiyyah:

“The ruling unconditionally is given upon the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifah, then of sāhibayn (when both students have agreed upon something), then of Imam Abu Yusuf, then of Imam Muhammad, then Imam Zufar and then of Hasan bin Ziyad. It has been assumed that if a disagreement is between Imam Abu Hanifah on one side and the two students (together) on the other side, then the Mufti will have an option. HOWEVER, THE FIRST OPINION (of preference to Imam Abu Hanifah) IS MORE CORRECT.

Opinion. 2
The ruling is rendered upon the opinion of any (Imam Abu Hanifah or his students and not necessarily only upon that of Imam Abu Hanifah) as deemed appropriately (following the principles of Fiqh).

Response to the first opinion:

There are several masā’il wherein earlier jurists gave ruling upon the opinion of sāhibayn on the basis of their strong proofs. [Al-Hāwi al-Qudsi].

The fatwa was also sometimes given based on the opinion of the imam who was considered a greater authority than others in that particular area, such as, Imam Abu Yusuf in qadhā and shahadah, Imam Muhammad in inheritance (zawi al-arham) and Imam Zufar in 17 masā’il. [Radd al-Muhtār]

The opinion expressed by sāhibayn is, in fact, one of the opinions narrated by Imam Abu Hanifah himself. (Thus, the opinion of sahibayn does not also in any way contradict the taqleed of Imam Abu Hanifah) [Ibn ‘Abidin]

There are many fiqhi works which include disagreements in their books but have not clearly stated upon the opinion of whom is the ruling given. In such cases, what principle should be applied to give preference to one opinion over the other?

In principle, the fatwa must be given on that which is highlighted as ‘mufta bihi’ position (upon which fatwa is given) by accepted authorities (ashāb al-tarjih).

However, if no such expression is explicitly found in any of the reliable books, then the Mufti will consider many factors before rendering a fatwa on one of the valid opinions in the madh’hab: the difference in stage (tabaqah) among the jurists who may have differed in their preference, customary practice (‘urf), the state of the people, that which falls under the category of ‘need’, that which is the most practical for people, that which is stronger in proofs and other factors [Al-Durr al-Mukhtār].

And only Allah knows best
Mufti Hanif Patel


Elaboration of Naskh (Abrogation) – Its Terms & Conditions

[By Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ Usmani (rahmatullah alayh)]

Whenever  we  abrogate  a  verse  or  cause  it  to  be  forgotten,  We  bring  one  better  than  it  or  one  equal  to  it.  Do you  not  know  that  Allah  is  powerful  over  everything? Do  you  not  know  that  to  Allah  alone belongs  the  kingdom  of the  heavens  and  the  earth?  And,  you  have  none,  other than  Allah,  to  protect  or  help you.

[Surah Baqarah 106-107]

Verse  106  speaks  of  Allah  abrogating  certain  verses,  or  making  men  forget  certain  others.  The  first  phrase  of  the  verse,  thus  covers  all the  possible  forms  in  which  a  verse  of  the  Qur’an  can  be  abrogated. The  Arabic  word  in  the  text  is  Naskh,  which  has  two  lexical  meanings  –  (1) to  write,  and  (2)  to  abolish,  to  repeal.  According  to  the  consensus of  all  the  commentators,  the  word  has  been  employed  in  this  verse  in the  second  sense  —  that  is,  the  repeal  or  abrogation  of  an  injunction.  So,  in  the  terminology  of  the  Holy  Qur’an  and  the  Hadith,  Naskh  signifies  the  promulgation  of  an  injunction  in  place  of  another  —  whether  the  later  injunction  merely  consists  in  the  repeal  of  the  earlier  or,  substitutes  a  new  regulation  in  its  place.  The  other  form  of  Naskh  mentioned  in  this  verse  is  that  sometimes  Allah  made  the  Holy  Prophet   and  the  blessed  Companions  forget  a  certain  verse  altogether.  The  commentators  have  cited  several  instances  of  this  kind  of  Naskh,  and  the  purpose  in  such  cases  has  usually  been  to  repeal  a  certain  regulation.

The  Kinds  of  Abrogation

Making  laws  and  repealing  them  to  promulgate  new  ones  in  their  stead  is  a  regular  and  well-known  practice  in  human  governments  and institutions.  But  in  the  case  of  man-made  laws  abrogation  takes  place sometimes  because  the  law-makers  do  not  understand  the  situation  properly  while  making  a  certain  law,  and  have  to  change  it  when  they  realize  their  mistakes,  and  sometimes  because  when  a  law  is  promul- gated,  it  is  in  accord  with  the  prevailing  situation,  but  when  quite  unforeseen  changes  alter  the  situation,  the  law  too  has  to  be  changed.  But  these  two  forms  of  abrogation  are  out  of  the  question  in  the  case  of divine  injunctions.

There  is,  however,  a  third  form  too.  The  lawmaker  makes  a  law, knowing  fully  well  that  the  circumstances  are  going  to  change  in  such  a  way  that  the  law  will  no  longer  be  suitable  for  the  new  situation;  so, when  the  situation  changes  as  he  already  knew,  he  changes  the  law  too,  and  promulgates  a  new  one  which  he  had  thought  of  at  the  very  start.  For  example,  a  physician  prescribes  a  medicine  for  a  patient  in  view  of  his  present  conditions,  but  he  knows  that  when  the  patient  has  been  using  it  for  two  days,  his  condition  will  change  and  require  a  new medicine  —  with  this  realization,  he  prescribes  a  medicine  suitable  for  that  day,  but  two  days  later,  when  circumstances  have  changed,  he prescribes  a  new  one.  The  physician  can  easily  give  the  patient written  instructions  for  the  whole  course  of  the  treatment,  with  all  the  changes  in  the  medicines-duly  indicated.  But  this  would  be  putting  too  much  burden  on  the  already  feeble  patient,  and  there  would  also  be  the  danger  of  some  harm  through  a  possible  error  or misunderstanding. 

This  is  the  only  form  of  abrogation  which  can  occur,  and  has  been  occurring  in  divine  injunctions  and  in  divine  books.  Every  new  Shari’ah  and  every  new  revealed  Book  has  been  abrogating  many injunctions  of  the  earlier  Shari’ah  and  of  the  earlier  Book.  Similarly,  within  the  same  Shari’ah,  too,  it  has  always  happened  that  a  certain  law  was  in  force  for  a  time,  but  Divine  Wisdom  chose  to  abrogate  it  and  to  promulgate  another  in  its  place.  A  hadith  reported  by  Imam  Muslim  says:    “There  has  never  been  a  prophethood  which  did  not  abrogate  some  injunctions.”  This  is  a  principle  which  it  should  not  be  difficult  to  understand.  It  was  only  some  malicious  and  ignorant  Jews  who  confused  the  divine  abrogation  of  injunctions  with the  two  forms  of  the  repeal  of  man-made  laws,  and  began,  in  their  impudence,  to  taunt  the  Holy  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  in  reply  to  which,  as  we  have  said,  these  two  verses  were  revealed.  [Ibn Jarir, Ibn  Kathir]

As  for  the  Muslims,  it  was  probably  in  their  desire  to  avoid  giving  occasion  to  the  enemies  of  Islam  for  such  taunts  that  some  from  among the  Mu’tazilah  tried  to  explain  away  the  whole  question  of  Naskh.  Logically  speaking,  there  is  a  possibility  —  so  ran  their  argument  —  of  abrogation  in  the  case  of  divine  injunctions,  and  the  possibility  cannot  be  denied  on  any  rational  ground,  but  abrogation  has  not  actually  occurred  in  the  Holy  Qur’an,  and  there  is  no  verse  in  the  Holy  Book  which  abrogates  another  (Nasikh)  and  no  verse  which  has  been  abrogated  (Mansukh).  This  view  is  attributed  to  Abi  Muslim  al-Isfahani,  but  the  ‘Ulama’  in  general  have  always  rejected  this  opinion,  and  refuted  the  argument.  Thus,  we  read  in  Ruh  al-Ma’ani:

“The  people  belonging  to  all  the  Shari’ahs  are  unanimous  in accepting  the  validity  of  abrogation  and  its  actual  occurrence  both. Only  the  Jews  —  with  the  exception  of  their  ‘Isawiyyah  sect  have  denied  the  possibility  of  abrogation,  and  Abu  Muslim  al-Isfahani;  has  denied  its  occurrence, for  he  says  that  it  is  rationally  possible,  but  has  not  actually  taken  place.”

Imam  al-Qurtubi  says:

“It  is  essential  to  understand  the  question  of  abrogation,  and great  benefits  flow  from  such  an  understanding,  which  no scholar  can  dispense  with,  and  no  one  can  deny  abrogation  except  the  ignorant  and  the  dull-headed.”

In  this  connection,  al-Qurtubi has  related  a  very  illuminating incident.  The  fourth  Khalifah  Sayyidina  ‘AIi  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  saw  a  man  preaching  in  the  mosque.  He  asked  the  people  what  the  man  was doing.  On  being  told  that  he  was  preaching,  the  blessed  Khalifah  said:  “He  is  not  doing  anything  of  the  sort,  but  only  announcing  to  the  people  that  he  is  such  and  such  a  man  and  the  son  of  such  and  such, and  asking  them  to  recognize  and  remember  him.”  Calling  the  man  to  his  side,  he  asked:  “Do  you  know  the  injunctions  which  have  been  abrogated  and  those  which  have  abrogated  the  earlier  ones?”  When  he confessed  that  he  did  not,  the  Khalifah  turned  him  out  of  the  mosque, and  ordered  him  never  to  preach  there.

It  is  not  feasible  to  cite  here  all  the  sayings  of  the  blessed Companions  and  their  immediate  Successors  (Tabi’in) which  affirm  the  actual  occurrence  of  abrogation  in  the  case  of  injunctions  laid  down  by  the  Holy  Qur’an  and  the  Hadith.  Some  of  these  have  been  quoted,  along  with  the  evidence  for  the  authenticity  of  the  reports,  in  the  commentaries  of  Ibn  Jarir and  Ibn  Kathir etc.  and  in  Al-Durr al-Manthur. As  for  the  reports  less  strongly  authenticated,  they  are  just  innumerable.  That  is  why  there  has  always  been  a  total consensus  of  the  ‘Ulama  on  the  question  of  Naskh,  except  for  Abu Muslim  al-Isfahani  and  a  few  others  from  among  the  Mu’tazilah  who  have  denied  the  actual  occurrence  of  abrogation  —  but  Imam  Razi  has,  in  his  commentary, exposed  in  detail  the  hollowness  of  their  opinion.
The  Terminology  of  the  Naskh

It  is  also  essential  to  keep  in  mind  a  certain  distinction  in  the  use of  the  word  Naskh  as  a  technical  term  of  the  Shari’ah. The  technical  sense  of  the  word  implies  changing  an  injunction,  and  replacing  one injunction  by  another.  Now,  this  change  may  consist  in  repealing  an  injunction  altogether  and  replacing  it  by  another  (for  example,  fixing  the  Ka’bah  as  the  Qiblah  —  the  direction  towards  which  Muslims  turn  in  their  prayers  —  instead  of  the  Baytul-Maqdis); the  change  may  equally  consist  in  retaining  an  injunction  but  adding  certain  condition  and  provisions  to  it.  The  ‘Ulama  of  the  early  period  of  Islam  have used  the  word  Naskh  in  this  general  and  comprehensive  sense  which  includes  the  total  repeal  of  an  injunction  as  well  as  a  partial  change  in  an  injunction  with  the  addition  of  certain  conditions,  provisions  or exceptions.  That  is  why  the  ‘Ulama  of  the  earlier  period  have  indicated  some  five  hundred  verses  of  the  Holy  Qur’an  which,  according  to  them,  have  been  abrogated.

But,  according  to  the  ‘Ulama  of  a  later  period,  only  that  change  is  to  be  called  a  Naskh  which  cannot  in  any  way  be  brought  into  consonance  with  an  earlier  injunction.  Obviously,  this  approach  greatly  reduces  the  number  of  abrogated  verses.  For  example,  there are,  according  to  al-Suyuti,  only  twenty  such  verses.  Later  on,  Shah Waliullah,  seeking  to  bring  the  abrogated  injunctions  in  consonance  with  the  earlier  injunctions,  reduced  the  number  of  abrogated  verses  to  only  five  —  these  being  the  cases  where  later  injunctions  could  not  be  made  to  correspond  with  the  earlier  ones  without  far-fetched  interpretations.  This  effort  is  highly  commendable,  because  the  basic  postulate  behind  an  injunction  is  its  permanence,  while  abrogation  goes  against  this  postulate,  and  hence  it  is  not  proper  to  posit  abrogation  in  a  verse  laying  down  an  injunction  which  can,  in  some  justifiable  manner,  be  shown  to  be  still  valid.

But  this  effort  to  reduce  the  number  of  abrogated  verses  does  not,  and  cannot  in  the  least  imply  (as  the  ‘modernists’  have  been  all  too  impatient  to  believe.)  that  the  presence  of  abrogation  is  in  any  way  —  may  Allah  forgive  us  for  reproducing  a  blasphemy  —  a shortcoming  or  defect  in  the  Holy  Qur’an  or  Islam,  that  the  ‘Ulama  have  for  the  last  fourteen  hundred  years  been  trying  to  remove  it, that  the  ultimate  inspiration  came  to  Shah  Waliullah  whose  extraordinary  achievement  lies  in  having  reduced  the  number  of  abrogated  verses  to  five,  and  that  now  one  may  wait  for  a  few  geniuses  who  would  bring  the  number  down  to  zero.

To  adopt  such  an  approach  towards  the  question  of  “Naskh”  is  no  service  to  Islam  or  to  the  Holy  Qur’an (to  which  pretends  the  whole  tribe  of  self-styled  scholars,  researchers, “experts  in  Islamic  studies” and  “revivificateurs of  Islam.”),  nor  can  it  obliterate  the  profound  investigations  into  truth  of  the  matter  made  by  the  blessed  Companions,  their  Successors,  and  the  ‘Ulama  of  the  generations  that  followed  them  during  the  last  fourteen  hundred  years,  nor  can  it  stop  the  recriminations  of  the  enemies  of  Islam.  In  fact,  all  it  would  do  is  to  furnish  a  weapon  to  the  present-day  traducers  of  Islam  and  those  who  wish  to  rebel  against  Islam,  who  would  now  be  saying  that  what  the  ‘Ulama  of  the  Islamic  Ummah  have  been  maintaining  on  the  subject  for  the  last  fourteen  hundred  years  has  finally  proved  to  be  wrong. May  Allah  forbid  such  a  thing!  If  this  door  is  opened,  it  would  let  in  all  kinds  of  disorders,  and  all  the  injunctions  of  the  Shari’ah  would  come  under  suspicion.  Then,  is  there  any  guarantee  that  the  results  of  this  “modernistic”  research  would  not  turn  out  to  be  wrong  tomorrow! 

We  have  come  across  certain  recent  writings  in  which  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  revive  the  argument  of  Abu  Muslim  al-Isfahani.  Such  writers  begin  with  the  assumption  that  the  Arabic  word  ‘Ma’  in  verse  106  is  not  a  relative  or  adverbial  pronoun  signifying  “whenever”,  or  “whichever”  but  a  conjunction  implying  ‘if’  that  introduces  a  conditional  clause;  so,  they  translate  the  first  phrase  of  the  the  verse  not  as  “whichever   verse  We  abrogate”,  but  as   “if  We  abrogate  a  verse”,  and  say  that  the  statement   pertains  to  a  supposition  or  to  an  imaginary  situation  as  do  the  phrases  beginning  with  the  Arabic  word Laww  (if) —  for  example: “If  there  were  in  the  sky  and  the earth  another  god  beside  Allah” [21:22]  “If  the, All-Merciful  had  a  son” [43:81].  On  this  basis,  they  argue  that  abrogation  is  possible,  but  has  never  actually  occurred.  Such  writers,  we  are  afraid,  do  not  show  an  intimate  knowledge  of  Arabic  grammar,  for  there  is  a  great  deal  of  difference  between  a  condition  suggested  by  the  word  Ma  and  the  imaginary  situation  introduced  by  the conjunction  Laww.  Moreover,  it  is  on  the  basts  of  this  verse  itself  that the  blessed  Companions  have  affirmed  the  occurrence  of  abrogation,  and  have  even  cited  many  instances.  So  have  their  Successors  and  all  authentic  Commentators.  In  view  of  such  unanimity,  the  new-fangled  interpretation  cannot  be  acceptable.  Even  Shah  Waliullah, in  reducing  the  number  of  abrogated  verses,  has  never  thought  of denying  the  fact  of  abrogatim.  In  short,  all  the  authentic  and  authoritative  ‘Ulama,  from  the  days  of  the  blessed  Companions  down  to  our  own  day,  have  always  affirmed  not  only  the  possibility,  but  also  the  actual  occurrence  of  abrogation.  This  has  been  the  position  of  all  the  ‘Ulama  of  Deoband  too,  without  any  exception.

The Usul Of Talaqqi Bil Qubool – Ahaadith Authenticated By The Fuqaha

[Majlisul Ulama]

When the illustrious Fuqaha-e-Kiraam cite a Hadith as a Mustadal or adduce it in corroboration of  the view they expound, then the very citation of the Hadith is  the daleel for its saht (authenticity) regardless of any classification of the later  Muhadditheen. This is a well-known principle of Fiqh.

Mustadal (plural mustadallaat) is  the basis on which the Fuqaha  formulate a Shar’i hukm. Qur’aanicverses, Ahaadith, statements and  rulings of the Sahaabah and the  principles of Shar’i Qiyaas form  the Mustadallaat of the Fuqaha.  The Fuqaha do not operate  beyond the confines of these  Qur’aanic principles. Shaikh  Yusuf Bin Isma’eel An-Nibhaani  says in his Hujjatullaah Alal Aalameen:

“Whoever says that Sunnat is  only what is explicitly mentioned  in the Ahaadith, has in fact  rejected all the Math-habs of the  Mujtahideen. He has rejected Ijma’. The evil of his belief is not  hidden. We seek protection from  Allah Ta’ala (against such  deviation). 

It is mentioned in Al-Yaaqoot wal Jawaahir, and similarly it is  narrated in Al-Mizaanul  Khadriyyah (of Imaam Sha’raani)  that Shaikhul Islam Zakariyya (among the Shaafi’ Fuqaha) said:  ‘Alhamdulillaah, I  have searched for the proofs of the Mujtahideen  (i.e. for their  dalaa-il and mustadallaat). I have  not found even a single fara’ (a mas’alah which is not a principle) from among the Furoo’ of their Mathaahib except that it is  substantiated by a daleel, either  an Aayat from the Qur’aan or a  Hadith or an Athar (statement of  a Sahaabi) or Saheeh Qiyaas –  based on saheeh principles. ….All their statements are derived from  the rays of the Noor of the Shariah which is the foundation.  It is impossible to find a fara’ (of the Fuqaha) without a basis (in the Qur’aan and Sunnah).”

It should be clear to men of  knowledge that when a Muhaddith of the later eras  describing a Hadith says: “I do not recognize it.”, “I do not know it.”,  “There is no basis for it.”, “It is  weak.”, etc., he says so within the  limits of his knowledge and  investigation based on principles  which he or other Muhadditheen  have evolved. He never directs  such comments against the  Mustdallaat of the Fuqaha who  were the Asaatizah of the Asaatizah of the Muhadditheen.

On the contrary, it was the  practice of the Muhadditheen to set aside their own Saheeh  Ahaadith, if there was a conflict  with the practice (amal) and  ruling of the Fuqaha. Thus, they  would say:“The amal of the Ahl-e-Ilm is on this….”, and they would say this even if they had  classified the Ahaadith as weak (Dhaeef). Despite the Hadith  being Dhaeef  according to their classification, the Muhadditheen  would mention the amal of the Fuqaha.

Thus the Muhadditheen who had  compiled the Hadith books, would practise in accordance  with the Ahaadith which they themselves had classified as  Dhaeef because these ‘Dhaeef’ narrations constituted the  Mustadallaat of the Fuqaha. The principles and rules of Hadith  classification which the later Muhadditheen had formulated  did not apply to the Shariah’s laws or to the Hadith  mustadallaat of the Fuqaha-e-Mutaqaddimeen.

The Muhadditheen were not  among the Aimmah Mujtahideen.  They followed the Math-habs in  their practical life. They did not  formulate a different Math-hab  for themselves based on their  classification of Hadith.

In terms of this well-known principle of Talaqqi bil Qubool Hadith becomes valid for amal even if its isnaad is dhaeef. In this regard, Hafiz Ibn Hajar writes:

“One of the criteria for  acceptance of Hadith is the concurrence of the Ulama on  making amal (acting) on the Hadith. Such a Hadith (on which  there is the concurrence of the Fuqaha) will be incumbently accepted.”

In his Al-Ajwibatul Faadhilah,  Hadhrat Maulana Abdul Hayy, explaining the principle of Talaqqi Bil Qubool, says:

“Similarly (will a Hadith be  accepted) when the Ummah accepts a Dhaeef Hadith. (Ummahin this context does not include  the rank and file). According to  the authentic view such a Hadith  will be acted on. Allaamah  Muhaddith Faqeeh Shaikh Husain  Bin Muhsin Al-Ansaari Al-Yamani  was asked about the statement  of Imaam Tirmizi who says in his  Jaami’ when he narrates a Dhaeef Hadith:Amal (practical  adoption) on it is according to  the Ahl-e-Ilm (the Fuqaha).”  …….And it was also asked about  the established principle on  which there is the consensus of  the Muhadditheen that anything  other than a Saheeh or Hasan  Hadith will not be accepted in  the matter of (formulating)  ahkaam. But this Hadith (referringto a particular Hadith) is Dhaeef.  How is it then permissible for the  Ulama to act on it?

The Shaikh said in response: “MayAllah grant us and you taufeeq. A Dhaeef Hadith is one which lacks  a condition from among the  conditions of acceptance…..As-Suyuti said in Sharh Nazmid Durar (Al-Nahrul lazi Zakhar):  Qubool (Acceptance) is:

(1)  What the Ulama have  accorded Talaqqi bil Qubool i.e. the Fuqaha have accepted a  narration even though there is no  saheeh isnaad for it. Among the  group of Ulama who have narrated this is Ibn Abdul Barr.

(2)  Or it (the narration) has  become well-known to the Aimmah-e-Hadith. And As-Suyuti  has also said after mentioning  the Hadith: ‘Tirmizi said: ‘Amal  today is on this Hadith according  to the Ulama.’ With this  statement he indicated that a  Hadith is strengthened with the acceptance by the Fuqaha.”

Many authorities have explicitly  said that of the evidence for the authenticity of a Hadith is the  acceptance by the Ulama even if there is no reliable isnaad for it.  As-Suyuti has also said in Tadreebur Raawi: “Some of them  (the Authorities) said: ‘Hadith will  be accorded authenticity when  the People (i.e. the Fuqaha) have  accepted it as authentic even if  there is no saheeh isnaad for it.”  Ibn Abdul Barr said in Al-Istithkaar when it was narrated from Tirmizi that Bukhaari  authenticated the Hadith of the Ocean (that its water is pure),  while the Muhadditheen do not accredit this type of isnaad.  Nevertheless according to me the Hadith is Saheeh because the  Ulama have accorded it acceptance.”

It is mentioned in At-Tamheed:  ‘Jaabir narrated from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam):‘A  dinaar is twenty four qeeraat.’ About this Hadith, he said: ‘In  terms of the statement of the Ulama and their Ijma’ regarding  its meaning, it is independent of isnaad (i.e. it is authentic without an isnaad).

Regarding the practice of Talqeen to the mayyit (according to the Hambali Math-hab). “A Dhaeef  Hadith is narrated on this issue. At-Tabraani records in his  Mu’jam the Hadith of Abu Umaamah..…..This Hadith is not  substantiated. However, the continuity of practice in this  regard in all the lands and ages without any rejection suffices for its practical adoption.”

The Hanafi Muhaqqiq, Imaam Al-Kamaal Al-Humaam, says in  Fathul Qadeer (about the  weakness of a Hadith): “Among  the factors which authenticate  Hadith is the concurrence of the Ulama on its practice.”

Tirmizi said after narrating it:  ‘Hadithun Ghareebun’. (This Hadith is Ghareeb). But,  notwithstanding this, the amal  is on it according to the Ulama  among the Sahaabah of  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) and others besides  them (i.e. the Taabieen, etc.)’.

Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh)  said: “The fame of a Hadith in  Madinah makes it independent  of a saheeh sanad.”

Haafiz As-Sakhaawi says in Fathul Mugeeth:  ‘When the Ummah accepts a Dhaeef Hadith, then according to the authentic view it will be  adopted (for amal). So much so, that it will attain the status of  Mutawaatir, and it will abrogate  Maqtoo’ (Ahaadith). It is for this  reason that Imaam Shaafi’  (rahmatullah alayh) said about  (the particular) Hadith: “There is  no bequest for an heir”, verily,  the Muhadditheen have not  substantiated it (i.e. it is not  authentic in terms of their criteria). Nevertheless, the Ummah has  accorded it acceptance for  practical adoption. In fact, they  (the Fuqaha) have affirmed it to  be Naasikh (i.e. it is an abrogater)  for the Qur’aanic aayat regarding  wasiyyat (bequest).”

Allaamah Saalih Bin Mahdi Al-Muqbeeli said: “Saheeh Hadith in  the specific meaning of the  Muta-akh-khireen (the later  Muhadditheen from about the  age of Bukhaari and Muslim), is  that which has been narrated by  an uprighteous Haafiz who inturn narrates from a similar narrator  without a defect. Saheeh Hadith  in the general meaning according  to the Mutaqaddimeen (the  authorities of the early era)  among the Muhadditheen, all the  Fuqaha and Usooliyyeen, is a  narration on which there is  practical adoption (ma’mool  bihi).” Thus, when a Muhaddith  among the Muta-akh-khireen  says:‘This Hadith is not Saheeh.’,  then while it negates the special  and restricted meaning of the  term, it does not negate the  general meaning of authenticity  according to the Mutaqaddimeen,  all the Fuqaha and Usooliyyeen.  Therefore, at this juncture there  is the possibility of a Hadith  being of the Hasan or Dhaeef or  Ghair Ma’mool category. On  account of this possibility, it is incumbent to probe the Hadith. If it is established that it is Hasan  or Dhaeef Ma’mool bihi (i.e. it  has been practically adopted by  the Fuqaha), then it will be  accepted. And, if it is Dhaeef  Ghair Ma’mool bihi (i.e. it has not  been adopted for amal by the  Fuqaha), then it will not be  accepted.” (End of Maulana Abdul Hayy’s dissertation.)

It is clear that the classified  Hadith categories of the later Muhadditheen do not apply to  the narrations accepted and adopted by the Fuqaha who  went before them. It should be simple to understand that after  the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Islam did not disappear as  Judaism and Christianity had  disappeared with the departure of their respective Nabis. Not a single  mas’alah of the Shariah  was lost after the demise of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

When the Muhadditheen  appeared on the scene two  centuries later, they found Islam  intact. They followed the Islam  into which they were born, and  they continued practising the Ahkaam without interpolation,  deletion and alteration in the light of their classification of  Hadith. The masaa-il of the Shariah which the Sahaabah and  their illustrious Students, the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen had  evolved, were all based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah which did  not disappear. The Mujtahid Imaams were Muhadditheen of  the highest calibre. Only when a Hadith was Saheeh and beyond  reproach, would it constitute a valid Mustadal for extrapolation  of ahkaam. In the circles of Ilm it  is common knowledge that  acceptance of a Hadith as a Mustadal by the Fuqaha is the  daleel for the authenticity of that Hadith.

Any unbiased person with a little  understanding will readily understand that principles  formulated two centuries after  the age of the Fuqaha-e-Mutaqaddimeen cannot negate  the authenticity of the  narrations accredited by these  illustrious Fuqaha, who flourished in the age of the Sahaabah and  in close proximity to their era.

Maulana Abdul Hayy further says:  “Shaikh Ibraaheem Ath-Thabrahaiti Maaliki says in  Sharhul Arbaeen An-Nawwiyah: ‘The occasion for not adopting  Dhaeef Hadith in matters of Ahkaam, is when the Fuqaha have  not accepted it. If they have accepted it, then it is confirmed,  and it (the Dhaeef narration) becomes a proof which shall be  practically adopted in matters of ahkaam, etc. as Imaam Shaafi’  has said….. (This effectively debunks the enemies of Taqleed slandering Hanafi Dalaa’il to be based on weak Ahadith. They are NOT ‘weak’. They are solid GOLD.)

Haafiz Ibn Hajar says in Fathul  Baari: “None of the isnaad (of  narrations) is devoid of some  criticism. But on the whole the Hadith has a basis. In fact, Ash-Shaafi’ has explicitly stated in Al-Umm that the text of this  (Dhaeef) Hadith is Mutawaatir….” ……..

(Haafiz Bin Hajar commenting on  a certain Hadith said): ‘Bukhaari  said: “It is not Saheeh.” The  Compilers of the Four Sunan  narrated it, and Haakim narrated  it from the tareeq of Eesa Bin  Yoonus. Tirmizi said: ‘It is  Ghareeb.’ We do not recognize it  except from the narration of  ‘Eesa Bin Yoonus from Hishaam. I  (i.e. Imaam Tirmizi) asked Muhammad (i.e. Imaam Bukhaari) about  it. He said: ‘’I do not regard it to  be secure (i.e. its sanad).’ Ibn  Maajah and Haakim have narratedit from the avenue of Hafs Bin  Ghiyaath, and also from Hishaam.  Tirmizi said: ‘It has been narrated  in different ways from Abu  Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu). Its  isnaad is not saheeh.’ (However,  inspite of all this criticism), the  amal of the Ulama is on it. (i.e.  they have adopted it and the Ummah is practising accordingly).”

(Be it known that the Shariah as  we have it today, was transmitted down the long corridor of more than 14 centuries from the  Sahaabah. The Shariah  did not reach us from Imaam Bukhaari or from any of the other  Muhadditheen who appeared centuries after the Sahaabah. Thus the amal of the Fuqaha-e-Mutaqaddimeen override the  Hadith classifications of the Muhadditheen. Even if a Hadith is labelled ‘weak’ by the later Muhadditheen, it has absolutely  no effect on a Shar’i hukm which  was already Mutawaatir during  the age of the Sahaabah and Taabieen.)

Our Ustaadh, Allaamah Shaikh  Muhammad Badr-e-Aalam said in  the Ta’leeq (Annotation) on the  discussion of Imaamul Asr: “I  say: …..Verily, the Shaikh does  not intend with the aforegoing  discussion the abolition of the  application of Isnaad. How is  this possible? If it was not for  Isnaad, anyone would have said  whatever he desired. On the  contrary, the Shaikh intends to  convey that when a Hadith has  become authentic by way of  indications and it has become  obvious, then to discard it merely  on the basis of a weak narrator  is not correct. How can this be so  when continuity of practical  adoption of it is a stronger testification for its substantiation according to him?”

And, Shaikh Muhammad Yusuf  Binnuri said: “Verily, Shaikh Anwar (Hadhrat Anwar Shah Kashmiri)  would say: ‘The purpose of  Isnaad is to ensure that  something which is not Deen  does not creep into the Deen.  The purpose of Isnaad is not to  expunge from the Deen what has  been substantiated of it by the  practice (amal) of the Ahl-e-Isnaad (the Ulama whose Isnaad  links up with Rasulullah –  sallallahu alayhi wasallam)’”  –  End of Hadhrat Maulana Abdul Hayy’s dissertation

Wakee’ Bin Jarraah, the  renowned Muhaddith and expert in the field of examining  narrators said: “A Hadith which  is in circulation among the  Fuqaha is better than a Hadith in circulation among the Shuyookh of Hadith.”

In Shaami it is said: “When the  Mujtahid employs a Hadith as a  basis for formulation (of masaail), then (his istidlaal with it) is the accredition of that Hadith.”

In Imdaadul Fataawa, it is  mentioned: “Is the consensus of the Jamhoor not a sign for the  Hadith having a strong basis even if the factor of dhu’f (weakness)  has become attached to it by way of the sanad?”

In I’laaus Sunan, it is mentioned: “The fame (shuhrat)  of a mas’alah liberates us from (the need) of probing the asaneed.”

Ainul Hidaayah states: “Imaam  Shaafi’ has written in his Risaalah  that the Taabieen Ulama had  accepted it (referring to a  particular Hadith with no proven  isnaad) in view of the fact that it  was confirmed to them that it  was the instruction of Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Ibn  Abdul Barr said that this  instruction (referring to the  Hadith in question) is well-known  to the Ulama of history and the  Fuqaha, hence due to the resemblance with Mutawaatir, there is no need for its isnaad.”

Providing further insight on this  issue, Allaamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri explains in Fathul Baari:

“The Muhadditheen (i.e. the later  Hadith compilers) take into consideration only the state of  the isnaad. They do not consider Ta-aamul (uninterrupted practice  from generation to generation initiating from the age of the  Sahaabah). Hence, many a time a Hadith is authentic on the basis  of their criteria. However, they find that there is no amal on  that Saheeh Hadith. This  bewilders them. In this regard,  Tirmizi narrated in his Jaami’ two authentic narrations, valid for  practical adoption. Then he commented: ‘Verily, no one has  adopted it for amal. Inspite of the authenticity of the Isnaad no one is making amal on it.
In the same way the  Muhadditheen have classified as  Dhaeef a Hadith from the angle  of its Isnaad although the Hadith  is widely practised on it. (By the  Ummah) during their time. (i.e. it was ma’mool bihi). Thus there is  a disadvantage from a different  angle. It is therefore imperative  to consider Ta-aamul along with  the isnaad, for verily, the Shariah  revolves around Ta-aamul and  Tawaaruth.” (i.e. the permanent  practice from the time of the  Sahaabah.)

Let it be understood that the  Muhadditheen also have their  ‘math-habs’ in the science of Hadith classification. Different  Muhadditheen have their own  criteria. A Hadith which is dhaeef  to one Muhaddith, may be saheeh according to another one. There is considerable difference  of opinion on this issue. While  some Muhadditheen have  labelled these narrations dhaeef, others have described them as Saheeh.

It is a principle of the science of  Hadith that the cumulative effect  of a variety of narrations of  similar subject matter, but of variant versions in their  respective Isnaad, eliminates the  dhu’f (technical weakness), and  elevates the Hadith to a status of acceptable authenticity. 

Added to this, is the acceptance  of such weak narrations by the illustrious Fuqaha. This  acceptance (Talaqqi bil Qubool) is  the strongest evidence for the  authenticity of these Ahaadith.  The fact that the Fuqaha present  Ahaadith as Mustadallaat  or as corroboration, testifies  that their authenticity stems  from the era of the Sahaabah.  The immediate Asaatizah of the  first wrung of Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen in the Taabieen era. These Aimmah passed on their  Knowledge to their successors  who are the Leaders of the Math-habs, and from them this  knowledge pervaded the  successive ranks of Fuqaha.  These Fuqaha did not glean these Ahaadith or their Ilm in general  from kutub. Thus, this  Knowledge of Islam which we  have in our kutub of Fiqh in front  of us is not secondary and  tertiary acquired from book-study. It is the Ilm of Wahi which reached us via the noble Links in  an unbroken Golden Chain (Isnaad) which links up with  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

In ascertaining the saht  (authenticity) of Ahaadith which constitute the Mustadallaat of  the Ahkaam of Fiqh, we are  totally independent of the  Hadith Books of Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Muslim, etc., etc. The  presentation of a Hadith by the  Fuqaha is the strongest proof of  its authenticity. In the face of the accredition of the Fuqaha, the conflicting classification of the  Muhadditheen is devoid of  substance in the context of the  Ahkaam already formulated and finalized during the Khairul Quroon epoch.

In view of the clarity of the  exposition of the principle of Talaqqi bil Qubool by the  Authorities of the Shariah, the negation of the authenticity of  the Ahadith presented by the Fuqaha by the later day scholars is untenable. All attempts  made by some Ulama of the later  ages to assail the Ahadith & Dalaa’il of the 4 Math-habs are devoid of Shar’i substances. Their personal opinions have to be set aside as fallacious. The only motive underlying these  abortive attempts to dislodge the Dalaa’il of the 4 Math-habs is to extract support for their self-opinions with modernists leanings. The Fuqaha-e-Mutaqaddimeen had no such  agenda. They stated the  unadulterated Haqq to safeguard the pristine purity of the Sunnah.

We are dealing with a Hukm of  the Shariah which was concluded  by the illustrious Fuqaha long,  long before the age of the  Muhadditheen. There is,  therefore, no need to refer to  the later Muhadditheen for  ascertainment of the status of a Hadith which the Fuqaha had  authenticated by utilizing it as  their Mustadal or for  corroborating a fatwa which they  had issued. In short, these  Ahaadith authenticated by the Fuqaha are like GOLD.

The Concept of Sunnah & Bid’ah according to the Hanafi Madh-hab

[Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanawi (rahimahullah)]

The definition of Sunnat

Sunnat is not only that which has been established from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), in fact Sunnat is the predominant practice of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), be it in the form of a (clear) instruction or something  which is perceived (from his reactions). For example, Taraaweeh Salaat is classified as  Sunnat-e-Muakkadah, and ta’akkud (emphasis) implies  perpetuity. It is clear that there  was no perpetuity in this act (by  Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam),  rather it was a special temporary  act.  [Al-Ifaadhaat,  page 355, vol. 8]

A verbal declaration on any  matter from Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) is not sufficient  to render it a Sunnat, in fact,  that which was his predominant  practice is a Sunnat, and not his  occasional practices.  [Ibid. page  300, vol. 2]

Types of Sunnat

Sunnat (according to its general definition) is that which Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  carried out as a form of Ibaadat, besides this it would be classified  as a sunnan-e-zawaa’id (extra Sunnats). For example the hair-style of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was his personal habit  and not any act of Ibaadat, hence there is no doubt that keeping  this style of hair is preferable (for the Ummat), but to keep one’s hair in another way would not be classified as contrary to the Sunnat.  [Imdaadul  Fataawa,  page 224]

Sunnat is of two types – Sunnat-e-Ibaadat and Sunnat-e-‘Aadat.  The general usage of the word  ‘Sunnat’ would include only the  first type. Promises of reward  and encouragement to practice  implies to and refers to this type.  Practice on the second type  would be a source of blessings  and is a demonstration of one’s  love for Nabi (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam). This second type does  not form any essential part of  the Deen and if its practice  interferes with one’s Deen and  beliefs, then one should be  stopped therefrom.  [Ibid. page 229, vol. 4]

The ruling regarding Sunan-e-Zawaa’id  and mustahibbaat

The ruling regarding the ‘extra’  Sunnats (sunan-e-‘aadiya) and  the Mustahab acts is that their  performance warrants reward  and non-performance does not  attract sin. When one closely  studies the nusoos then it will be  noted that this is the ruling of  these two deeds before they are  performed, but after their  commencement, the ruling changes. One ruling will apply to  a specific application and another  is general, which is not specific  to its occasion of application. It is Makrooh to leave out and abandon that Mustahab act which has been made a perpetual habit, which one practices over a  period of time. This is borne out by a Hadith in Bukhaari Shareef which is reported by Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhuma) who reports from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that he said, “O Abdallah, don’t be like so and so, who used to stand up at nights (in Ibaadat) and then he abandoned it.” Nabi  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had  displayed distaste and karaahat at this attitude of this person who used to regularly perform Tahajjud Salaat and then abandoned it. It  is  clear  that  after  inculcating  as a habit a Mustahab act it  should not be abandoned. This is  Makrooh. [badaa’i,  page  150]

The definition of reviving a Sunnat

Shah Abdul Qadir Sahib  (rahmatullah  alayh) once said to  an Aalim (Molvi Ismail Sahib) to  stop making rafa’ yadain (lifting  hands in various postures of  Takbeer in Salaat) because it is a  cause for unnecessary fitnah.  Molvi Ismail said that if the fitnah of the masses is to be  taken into account what then  would happen to (the import of)  the Hadith, “He who holds fast to my Sunnat at a time of fasaad in the Ummah will receive the reward of 100  martyrs.” Upon hearing  this  reply, Shah Abdul Qadir  (rahmatullah  alayh) replied, “We thought that Ismail had become an Aalim, but he  does not understand the  meaning of even one Hadith. The application of this Hadith is when there is some act which is (being  generally practiced) contrary to the Sunnat practice, whereas the topic we are discussing (i.e. not making rafa’ yadain) is not contrary to the Sunnat, in fact it is another  Sunnat. Just as rafa’ yadain is a  Sunnat, so too is irsaal (not  making  rafa’ yadain)  is  a  Sunnat.”  [Bawaadirun Nawaadir,  page 469, vol. 2]

An  appropriate and excellent  explanation of Sunnat and bid’ah 

It should be realised that  whatever acts were innovated  after the passing of the Khairul  Quroon (best of eras) are  categorised into two types: one  is that whose initiative is new  and some ma’moor bihi (essential  ordered act of the Shariah) is  dependant upon it, where  without this (innovation) this  faculty of Deen will not function  effectively. For example, the  compilation and authoring of Deeni subject matter in book-form, the establishment of  Madrasahs and khanqahs, etc.  These things were not resent  during the era of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and their initiative is new, and some  essential part of the Deen  depends on (the initiation of)  these acts.

Everyone is well aware that it is an essential and necessary requirement upon every (Muslim) individual to protect and safeguard the Deen. One should  also remember that during the  best of  eras, such means (as  these innovations mentioned  above) did not exist, because  there was no need for it. That era  was permeating with blessings,  and the memories of the  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum)  was so excellent that when they  heard or observed Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) saying or doing  anything, it remained embedded  and etched in their minds. Their  understanding and intellect was  also such that there was no need  for formal classes wherein prescribed lessons in Deen needed to be taught.

Following those eras, others  followed wherein negligence and carelessness (in matters of Deen)  became the order of the day, memories were weaker, people of  deviated and personal views increased, etc., hence the Ulama  discerned the gradual  destruction of the edifices of the  Deen. The urgent need arose to  formulate methods to  administrate (and safeguard) the  structures of the Deen, together  with all its facets. In this regard  the Kitaabs of the Deen, Hadith,  Usool-e-Hadith, Usool-e-fiqh,  Aqaai’d, etc. needed to be compiled. Madrasah were  established in order to teach  these sciences of the Deen. In  similar vein, the mashaa’ikh saw  the need to establish khanqahs  to revive and nurture the desire  for nisbat and self-reformation.  Besides these, there was no  other means envisaged which would safeguard our Deen.

Hence these are such things  whose sabab (reasons  and  causes) are new, and these  sababs were not prevalent during  the khairul quroon. These are  also such matters upon which  the existence and preservation of  some essential Deeni matter  rests. Hence these things may  have the apparent hue and  definition of bid’ah, but in reality  they are not bid’ahs. In fact,  according to the ruling of Muqaddamatul Waajib Waajibun,  they are Waajib acts.

The second are category are  those things whose reason (sabab) is old. For example, the  sabab of  meelad, teeja, daswah,  etc. are all old. The reason for the  establishment of meelad is  expression of happiness at the  birth of Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam). This very sabab and  reason was prevalent and also  existent during the era of Nabi  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and  the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu  anhum), but it was never  celebrated by any of them. Can  we claim that, Nauthubillah, the  minds of the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) did not  discern this? If the sabab was  not present during their eras,  then at least we could have said  that they had no cause to do it. But since the reason for holding  meelad was also prevalent during  that time, and neither did Nabi  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) nor  his Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) ever hold or encourage  such activities, can we safely aver  that this is a bid’ah – in word,  definition and practically. Since  these innovations fall under the  scope of the Hadith, “Whosoever  innovates anything into our  Deen, is not from amongst us.” That is, it is impermissible to participate and hold such gatherings. This is the general  ruling to recognise and  distinguish between Sunnat and  bid’ah. All corollary rulings can be  deduced herefrom. [Wa’azus  suroor, page 27]

The differences between Sunnat  and bid’ah and the method in which to distinguish between the two

1. There is one other  extraordinary difference between  these two, and that is that the  proposers and advancers of the  former are (essentially) the elite  (Ulama) and the awaam (masses) are not included (as the  initiators), whereas the  advancers and initiators of the  latter are the masses (who are  like sheep). And it is also they who always participate and  spend therein. The celebrations  and initiation of meelad was  originated by a king. He was from  the awaam and this practice  remains perpetuated by the  awwaam. [As-suroor, page 27]

2. I will show one way to  recognise a bid’ah and that it is if  the act is not established from  the Qur’aan Majeed, Sunnat, Ijma  or Qiyaas, and the participants  deem it an act of the Shariah,  then know that this is a bid’ah.  After noting this definition,  observe that urs fatiha, regarding  any particular day as blessed and  auspicious to make isaal-e-tahwaab, etc., etc. are not  established from any source of  the Deen. Are these acts not also  regarded as part of the Deen? [Wa’az Taqweem, page 29]

3. Another yardstick in  recognising that a bid’ah is evil is  to observed whether more of its  participants are Ulama or the  masses. The Bid’ati leader will not  spend of his own wealth. Yes he  will be present at the meals. Such  functions are more frequented by  the ignoramuses. There is no  prestige and honour of the bid’ah  in the hearts of the Bid’ati Ulama.

Those things which we hold in  esteem and deem desirable, we participate therein, even if it  means spending from our wealth,  like qurbaani. And then also we  should observe the masses (who  attend these functions) — how  many of them are Deeni-conscious and how many are  not? Very few may be pious, but  they do little, and the majority  are faasiq and faajir (open sinners  and transgressors).  [Hasnul Azeez, page 330, vol.  2]

Innovations for Deen or innovations in Deen?

The reality of bid’ah is that it is  such an act which is done  thinking it to be part of the  Deen. If it is done thinking it to  be a treatment (for some  spiritual ailment), then how can it  be called a bid’ah? Hence, the  one is an innovation for the  (benefit of) Deen and the other is  an innovation in (to the  detriment of) the Deen. The innovation for the Deen would be  classified a Sunnat and the innovation in the Deen a bid’ah.  [Al-Faadhaat, page 308, vol. 2]

A person levelled an objection  saying that the (concept of)  times and timetable which we  have scheduled and prepared  were not practiced during the khairul quroon, hence this will be classified as a bid’ah.

If bid’ah is to be classified as these people understand it that whatever did  not exist during the khairul quroon is a bid’ah, then during the khairul quroon he was also not yet in existence, hence he should be classified a bid’ah.  These poor souls do not  understand the definition of bid’ah.

These time schedules and  tables are not part of any belief or ibaadat, hence their being or not being in the khairul quroon does not include it into the category of bid’ah. [Ibid. page 125, vol.2]

The necessity for any act to have  been present during the khairul quroon will be when the act is  one of Ibaadat. If the act is  merely one of administration or  regulation, then it will not be a  bid’ah (even if it was not existent  during the khairul quroon). One  such Hadith has been added in  Hayatul Muslimeen which was  taken from Shamaa’il Tirmidhi,  wherein regulation in the daily  life of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) has been reported.  This Hadith appears in the eighth  part. [Ibid. page 134, vol. 2]

To exceed the limits in a non-Shar’i or mandoob act, or to  make takhsees or  ta’yeen would  also be included as a bid’ah

It has been narrated by Hadhrat  Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) that Hadhrat Uthman bin Abi ‘Aas  (radhiyallahu anhu) was called to  the khatna (circumcision) of  someone, and he refused the invitation. When asked about it  he  replied that during the era of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) they would not attend a khatna neither were they called to it. This narration appears in Musnad Ahmad.

From this we realise that the  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) disliked the invitations to such  occasions which are not established from the Sunnat.  They even refused to attend such gatherings.

The secret to this is that an  invitation to any occasion places  some sort of importance or  significance to that which one is  invited to, because arrangements  are being prepared for it, and to  make special arrangements for  anything which the Shariah has  not, would be classified as an  innovation in the Deen. This is  the reason why when Hadhrat Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) saw  that the people were gathering in  the Musjid to perform their  Chaasht (Duhaa) Salaat, he  criticised them and labelled this a  bid’ah. Based on this, the  Fuqahaa have said that it is  Makrooh to make Nafl Salaat in congregation. To regard and  believe an unimportant  matter  to  be important and place great  emphasis upon it, or to become  dogmatic and rigidly practice on  such matters, such that one  regards and accommodates it to  the level of Faraa’idh  and  Waajibaat or even more, and then  to censure and criticise those  who do not participate therein,  are all contemptible acts. Theses  are the essences of bid’ah. Allaah Ta’ala has stated that those people who exceed the limits placed by Him are the oppressors. 

Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood  (radhiyallahu anhu) stated that it  is necessary upon every person  that he not allocate a part of his  Salaat to shaitaan, by always  turning to his right side after  Fardh Salaat (i.e. deeming this to  be necessary). He says that he  saw Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) sometimes turn to his  left side. [Bukhaari/Muslim]

Teebi, the commentator of  Mishkaat Shareef has stated that  it is proven from this Hadith that  the person who persists and is dogmatic on a Mustahab act,  such that he deems it necessary  and binding and never practices  to its contrary, then such a  person has apportioned a share  of his ibaadat to shaitaan (i.e. he  has lost the blessings of his  ibaadat). What then can be said  of that person who persists and  rigidly practices on bid’ah, un-Islamic and detestable acts?

The author of Majma’ has stated  that it is proven from this Hadith that a mandoob act also  becomes Makrooh when there is  a fear that it is elevated in rank.  This is the reason why the Hanafi Fuqahaa have stated that it is  Makrooh to stipulate fixed  Surahs for Salaats, regardless of  whether this is done believing it  to be part of the Shariah or rigidly in practice.  [Tareeqah  Meelad Shareef, page 7 and 11]

How a Mustahab becomes a bid’ah

I do not say that Mustahab is  bid’ah. To regard it as necessary  and binding is bid’ah. If anyone  regards a Mustahab act as  Waajib, then is this not bid’ah?  Necessary, obligatory and Waajib  all have the same meaning. [Husnul Azeez, page 676, vol.1]

To deem an un-obligatory act as  obligatory is a deviated bid’ah. To  censure and rebuke those who  oppose or do not practice it, merely confirms its bid’ah status.  [Imdaadul  fataawa, page  340, vol. 5 / page 306, vol. 5]

To regard the distribution of  sweetmeats as necessary is a  bid’ah. The Fuqahaa have written  that if there is fasaad in a  Mustahab act, then it becomes  necessary to abandon that  Mustahab act.  [Husnul Azeez, page 676, vol.1]

Is it not a bid’ah to regard a non-Waajib as a Waajib? Does this not fall under the scope of the  definition of bid’ah?  [Al-Ifaadhaat Yawmia, page 116, vol. 8, part 1]

The four types of bid’ah and  Sunnat, and the explanation of  bid’ah-e-hasana, bid’ah-e-sayyi’a, haqeeqiya and sooriya

“It is stated in Raddul Muhtaar,  ‘The Sunnats of wudhu: That  thing upon which Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and  the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, after  him, were constant upon are  Sunnat, otherwise it is Mandoob.  It is reported in Durrul Mukhtaar  under the discussion of intention  (Niyyat) that verbal statement is Mustahab, that is the preferred  opinion, and it is said that this is Sunnat, i.e. the Salaf preferred this or it is a Sunnat of our Ulama, since it is reported from neither  Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) nor the Tabieen…

“It is reported from Durrul  Mukhtaar: The Ahkaam of  Imaamat and the Mubtadi’u  (person who indulges in bid’ah),  that is (the one who) believes  contrary to the accepted (rulings)  of The Rasool, not in opposition  or resistance, rather with a type  of doubt…and Mandoob, like innovations similar to Madrasah…’”

From the above excerpts the following matters are clarified:

Firstly, there are numerous implications of Sunnat:

1. That which is reported from  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

2. That which is reported from  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, as is mentioned in  the ibaarat (text): “That thing  upon which Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) and the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, after him, were constant upon are Sunnat

3. That which is reported from  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahaabah  (radhiyallahu anhum) or the Taabieen, as is deduced from the  ibaarat: “since it is reported from  neither Nabi (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam), the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) nor the Tabieen”

4. That which is reported from  the Ulama,  as is deduced from the ibaarat: “or it is a Sunnat of our Ulama.”

A few meanings of bid’ah have also been deduced from this texts:

1. That which is not reported from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

2. That which is not reported  from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or his Khulafaa-e-Raashideen

3. That which is not reported  from Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam), his Sahaabah  (radhiyallahu anhum) or the  Tabieen

4.  That which is not reported  from the Ulama.  [Bawaadirun Nawaadir,  page  778]

In reality there is only type of Sunnat and bid’ah

This multitude is merely on the  apparent, otherwise in reality  there is only one definition of  Sunnat, and that is: It is the  practicable path in Deen as  stated after the former ibaarat.  All these meaning incorporate  the definition of Sunnat. The  meaning of bid’ah is: Belief in  that which is contrary to the  accepted (well-known practices  of) Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam), not in opposition or  resistance, rather with a type of  doubt. (The practice which  opposes the nass, if it is done  with doubt and uncertainty (misinformation/ignorance), then  it is bid’ah, otherwise it is  clearcut fisq and transgression,  without any doubt). Or in other  words, That which has been innovated contrary to the Haqq which has been established  from  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam), in respect of  knowledge, practice  or  conditions…As it is stated in  Durrul Mukhtaar, and this is the  true meaning for bid’ah, as borne  out by the statement of Nabi  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), ‘He who innovates anything in our Deen, is not from amongst us.’”  

Hence Sunnat-e-Haqeeqi and  Bid’ah-e-Haqeeqi cannot be  combined or united. However,  Bid’ah-e-Sooriya can be coupled  with Sunnat-e-Haqeeqi. In this  regard, the verbal intention for  Salaat is also called a Sunnat.  There are some things which may  be contrary to the Sunnat, hence  they are called bid’ah but  regarded as hasan (good/desirable). There are some  examples of a clear combination between some types of bid’ah  and Sunnat-e-Haqeeqi, and this  is borne out by the statement of  Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu  anhu) when he once said, “What a good bid’ah!”

At this juncture we realise also  that the bid’ah-e-hasana which  some personalities have negated  is restricted to just a difference  and altercation in words and  definitions, because those who  have negated it have defined  bid’ah in its haqeeqi sense,  whereas the claimants (to the  validity of bid’ah-e-hasana) have  defined it in its general sense.

The limits of sunan-e-‘Aadiyah  and sunan-e-‘Ibaadiya

One person once asked if the  rearing of sheep/goats is Sunnat  or not? The reply was that yes it  is a Sunnat, but it is a Sunnat-e-‘Aadiya and not a Sunnat-e-Ibaadiya, and the object of   Sunnat is Ibaadat. Nevertheless,  the practicing of Sunnat-e-‘Aadiya, if it is executed with love  and affection (for Nabi – sallallahu  alayhi wasallam), then it is also worthy of rewards. There must  not be extremity and  excessiveness in sunan-e-‘aadiya,  where it is brought to the level of  an ibaadat. Some people exhaust  all the energies in researching  these issues – how big was the  ‘asaa (stick) of Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam), how long his  turban was, etc., etc. If a true  lover of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) makes these enquiries  and his desire is the result of  pure love, then this is one thing,  but most people who are involved  in these types of issues are such  that they neglect the necessary requisites of the Deen and regard this as their main objective and aim. If this type of excessiveness continue then it will result in the destruction of  the Deen. Everything should be kept in its proper perspective.

The ruling regarding Sunnat-e-Ibaadat is that if there is a fear of  it causing fasaad in the beliefs of  the masses, then it becomes  Waajib to abandon a Mustahab  act. In this regard, it was the  blessed habit of Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) to regularly  recite Surahs Alif Laam Meem  Sajdah and Dahar for the Fajr on  Jumu’ahs, but Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) has decreed it Makrooh to recite these two Surahs (every) Friday Jumu’ah. For this reason many ignoramuses have levelled the criticism of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) acting contrary to the Sunnat.  [Al-Ifaadaat, page 98, vol. 19]

I ask: whatever food Nabi  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  partook of as a habit, will it be  classified as ‘aadatan (a habit) or  ibaatatan (an act of ibaabat)? It  is clear that it was eaten as ibaatatan. Hence, to imitate the  habits of Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) is not Waajib in the Shariah, neither is leaving them out sinful.

One has the choice of  appeasing the taste in matters of  habit. Some of the noble habits  of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are such that we will never be able to imitate or bear, therefore the Shariah has not made it incumbent to follow the  noble habit of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Yes, if someone has  the desire and good fortune of  being able to inculcate the noble  habits of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), then undoubtedly there is great virtue in that.  However, one does not have the  right to rebuke others for not  doing so.  [At-Tableegh, page 255, vol. 20]

The two types of Uswa’-e-Hasana (models/patterns of  Nabi – sallallahu alayhi wasallam) – verbal and practical

It is stated in the Qur’an Majeed,  “Indeed there is for you in the (lifestyle of the) Rasool of Allaah,  a beautiful model.” Allah Ta’ala is  indicating to us that He has placed an excellent example for us  to follow in the life of Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  What is the object of giving a  model? So that its likeliness may  be prepared. It is a further grace  of Allaah Ta’ala that there is no  difficulty and inhibition in this  model. Two types of model are  given – a practical and verbal  one. It is a pure mercy of Allaah  Ta’ala upon this Ummat that He has granted so much of latitude  and not the slightest bit of constriction.  

Objection: The examples set for  us by Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) is to be followed to  the letter. For example, Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  mostly partook of barley bread,  and he led a life of pure simplicity, where he never procured a home or kept (extra) money, whereas we neither eat like him nor suffer like him. We even don the best of clothing. We have lavish and spacious homes,  we save money,  etc. Yet the Ulama say that all  this is permissible. What is the  explanation to our following this  example and model of our  beloved Nabi (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)?

Reply: The answer to this is that  there are two types of models – qowli and fi’lee. Fi’lee  is  of  a  particular form and qowli falls  within the ambit of the Shariah.  It is impermissible to go beyond  it. However, there is much  latitude within it. We were shown  the limits of the deeds of  obedience, which should not be  exceeded. We have also been  granted latitude to manoeuvre as  much as is permissibly possible.  This is Waajib and obligatory. The ush-shaaq (lovers of Nabi –  sallallahu alayhi wasallam), have  taken the practical model and  noted what Nabi (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) ate, drank, how he led  his life, etc., etc. But for people  like us there is scope and latitude,  that we  can fulfil our needs  within the ambit of the Shariah. However, we also need to take note of the limits of the Shariah and not exceed them. In every act, we should take note of the  limits of the Shariah. As long as one remains within the limits of the Shariah, then it will be  deemed as also having followed  the model. [Huqooquz Zawjain, page 460]

The laws regarding leaving out  the sunan-e-‘aadiyah and sunan-e-ibaadiya and when they  become impermissible

The  sunan-e-‘aadiya, like simple  clothing, barley bread, and all other such habits of Nabi  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), if for  any reason due to them the  objective is lost (i.e. it interferes  with one’s ibaadat), then they  should be abandoned, because  the sunan-e-‘aadiya are not objectives in themselves.

In fact, there are even occasions where the sunan-e-ibaadat, are to be left out if they are the cause of some harm. For example, the Sunnat of Tahajjud is 8 rakaats, now if a person who gets up with difficulty and performs this eight Rakaats, but sleep overwhelms him such that he falls off to sleep and misses his Fajr Salaat with Jamaat, then to such a person it will be told that he only perform two Rakaats of Tahajjud and sleep away, so that he may awaken for Fajr in time. Since six to eight Rakaats are amongst the sunan-e-ibaadat for Tahajjud Salaat, but if a person exceeds this, then the  objective (other more important  ibaadat) is lost and it (this  excessiveness) should be abandoned.

This is the reason why if it is  known regarding the conditions  of a certain person, that if he  undertakes the journey of Hajj,  he will not be able to maintain  and be diligent in performing  Salaat, then he will be prevented  from going for Hajj. If there is an  overwhelming fear that even one  Fardh Salaat of a person will  become Qadha whilst on the  journey for a Nafl Hajj, then it will  not be permissible for him to  undertake that journey. When  the Hajj will be a cause for some Deeni harm, where another Fardh duty is neglected, then it is clear that instead of this Hajj  bringing  one closer to Allah Ta’ala, it takes him further away.

Another example is that if for  example a person has to eat  barley bread, which may cause his  stomach to pain. Then the love  which a person has for the  Sunnat of Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) will no longer remain  that, rather it may become a  dread, and there is a real fear  that (a person will think that) by  practicing upon an excellent  Sunnat causes stomach-ache.  Today, it is due to the mutashaddideen (those who  adhere doggedly to something),  that people have acquired a  dislike for and are being  distanced from the Sunnat and the Shariah

In summary, the sunan-e-‘aadiya  and ibaadiya are impermissible for that person to whom there may be harm caused to his (more important and primary) Deeni  duties.  [At-Tableegh,  page  74-8]
The two ways of following the Sunnat

The actions of Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) are categorised  into two classes – one is his acts  of ibaadat and the other is  regarding his noble habit (aadat).  The former requires following  and not necessarily the latter. If  anyone does imitate the latter,  then it will be a display of affection and love.

There is a soori (in form) and  haqeeqi (real) way of obedience.  To bring the actual instruction  into practice, without  considering the illat is ittibaa’  (obedience/following) in soorat  and to practice upon it taking the  sabab and illat into consideration  is ittibaa’ in haqeeqat

These two ways of ittibaa’ were  also found in the Sahaabah (radhyiallahu anhum). During the  course of the expedition of the  Bani Quraidha, when Nabi  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was  seeing a group of the Sahaabah  (radhiyallahu anhum) off, he said  to them, “Perform your ‘Asr  Salaat when you reach there.” It  so happened that after much  effort the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu  anhum) could not make it to  reach their destination before  Asr Salaat. The time for Asr entered whilst they were still on  their journey. This led to the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum)  breaking up into two groups –  the one group performed their  Salaat on time and said that the  object of Nabi’s (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) advice was that they  should perform their ‘Asr Salaat  at the destination if they reached  there on time, and not to  perform it (only) there regardless  of when they reached. The other  group said that they will follow  Nabi’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instruction to the letter and only perform their Salaat upon  reaching the destination. They  therefore performed their Salaat  upon reaching their destination  and not on the way. 

When Nabi (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) was informed of this occurrence, he accepted both  views. In this incident, the first  group made haqeeqi ittibaa’ and  the second soorat ittibaa’.

The definitions of bid’ah-e-hasana and bid’ah-e-sayyi’a

The comprehensive ruling  regarding this is that any matter  which is neither in part or whole  from the Deen, and it is forced  onto the Deen based on some flimsy doubt, then it is a bid’ah

The proof of this is in the  authentic Hadith, “He who  innovates something into our  Deen, which is not part of it, is  rejected.”  The words (from) and   (in) are clear indicatives, and a  haqeeqi bid’ah always remain a  bid’ah-e-sayyi’a. A bid’ah-e-hasana is a bid’ah in outer form  (definition) only. Its reality, owing  to some (Shar’i) factor it can be  classified a Sunnat.  [Imdaadul  fataawa, page 285, vol. 5]

Related Article: The Concept of Bid’ah – Between the Two Extremes

Principles of Deobandi Fiqhi Approach

[Hazrat Mufti Syed Abdush Shakoor Tirmizi (rahimahullah)
(Khalifa of Mawlana Zafar Ahmed Usmani and Mufti Mohammad Shafi’)]


Firstly it is essential to reiterate the fact vividly obvious to anyone who studies the works of senior Deobandi scholars. That is, their beliefs and practices conform completely with the teachings of Quran, hadith and hanafi fiqh. Their sulook and tasawwuf is also exactly according to the Sunnah. They are staunch hanafi and high caliber ahle-sunnah. Neither any of their beliefs is against Qur’an and hadith, nor any of their fiqh ruling against Hanafi fiqh.

Deobandiyat is not a separate maslak (route). In our day and age it is synonymous with maslak of Ahlus Sunnah wal jama’ah.

Few guiding principles:

If the following essential principles are kept in mind the Shari’ah ruling regarding all the contemporary bid’at/innovations will be easy to know:

First Principle:

Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala says:

ولا تسبوالذین یدعون من دون اللیسبو الل عدوا بغیر علم

Commenting under the heading, Hakeemul Ummat Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanavi (rahimahullah) said:

“The defamation of idols (gods) is per se a mubah (permissible) act. However, if it becomes a cause of a prohibited act, that is, denigration of Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala, it will become prohibited (منھی عن) and objectionable (قبیح).

This forms the proof of a fiqh ruling. That is, if a permissible act becomes the cause of a prohibited act that (mubah) act itself becomes haram.

[Bayanul Qur’an volume 1 page 119]

Second Principle

Although, numerous verses of Quran mention tawheed (Oneness of Allah Ta’ala), prophethood, negation of disbelief and polytheism and on various occasions’ infidels (kuffar) mocked at them and denigrated Allah and His Prophet (salallaahu alayhi wasallam). These incidents are well documented in various places. But there is no prohibition of discussing these things.

The reason for this variance is that the discussion of these subjects is essential (wajib) and required by Shariah. If some corruption happens secondary to their discussion even then they will not be abandoned.

This proves the second principle.

Both of these principles are treasure trove of knowledge. Orders and rulings regarding numerous peripheral issues can be found from them. In ‘Ruhul Ma’ani’ this difference has been documented from the answer of Abul-Mansoor (rahimahullah) with Ibn e Sireen (rahimahullahl agreeing  to it.

The net result of these two principles is that,

If a permissible act, and similarly mustebbat & Sunan za’idah become contaminated with prohibited acts, then it will be essential (wajib) to abandon that permissible act. In actions that are themselves essential (wajib) and required by Shari’ah if there is any contamination with prohibited acts then even they will not be abandoned. However, it will be necessary to rectify those wrong doings.

This is the very difference which if not kept in mind leads to propagation of innovations.

Third Principle

Allah Ta’ala says:

یاایھاالذین امنوالاتقولوا رعنا

From this order we come to know the ruling that if an individual’s own permissible act becomes a source/excuse for another individual to commit a prohibited action, then that act becomes impermissible for the first person (to start with).

For example, if a scholar’s act is used to justify an ignorant person’s prohibited action, then if that act is non essential it will become impermissible for the scholar also. [Bayanul Qur’an volume 1 page 57]

This is documented in ‘Durr mukhtar’ and its explanation ‘Raddul mukhtar’ under the discussion of “prostration of thankfulness:

وسجدۃ الشکر مستحبۃ بھ تی لکنھا تکر بعد الصلوۃ لان الجھلۃ یعتقدونھا سنۃ او واجبۃ وکل مباح یودی الیمکرو۔ وی الشرح: وحاصل ان ما لیس لھا سبب لا تکر ما لم یود علھا الی اعتقاد الجھلۃ سنیتھا کالتی یعلھا بعض الناس بعد الصلوۃ  [الشامی جلد 1 ص 731]

It is based on these principles derived from Qur’an, Hadith and ruling of Hanafi jurists, the Deobandi scholars have spoken regarding the contemporary rituals and polemic issues.

[Maqalat e Tirmizi  page 216-218, Darul Ishat, Karachi. 1426H]

Applications of these principles

Based on these well established principles they have said that appointing special dates and other specific requirements for rituals like mawlid shareef gatherings, customs of fathiha (esal-e-thawab),  third and tenth day (post-death) esal e thawab gatherings, etc. to be bid’at.
By fixing these specification and precise requirements belief of them being necessary was developing.  Even if the person performing them had correct beliefs the danger of corrupting the beliefs of less knowledgeable was arising.
It is an established fiqh principle that as important it is to save one’s self from a destruction essentially important is to save others from any loss. That is, as important it to preserve one’s own beliefs equally important is to save others beliefs also.
‘Allamah Shami (Ibn Abideen) rahimahullah has written this principle in the discussion of fixing recitation of particular Surah in Salah. That is, wherever there is possibility of distorting shari’ah rulings or misunderstanding of ignorants. He writes:

“واقول حاصل معنی کلام ھذا الشیخین بیان وج الکراۃ ی المداومۃ وھو انان رای ذالک حقا یکر حیث تغیر المشروع والا یکر من حیث ایھام الجاھل”
[شامی جلد 1 ص 508]

The reason to stop the general people is  تغیر المشروعand for elite is ایھام الجاھل.

A general principle established is that mubah should not exceed its limits (both in knowledge and practice) and mutlaq must not change from its itlaq, both in knowledge and practice and a muqqiyad must not change similarly. There are many verses and hadith to prove this. As this is an established principle I do not need to mention daleel. Just to remind forgetful I mention,
It is narrated in Muslim:
قال رسول الل صلی الل علی وسلم لا تختصوا لیلۃ الجمعۃ من بین اللیلی ولا تختصو یوم الجمعۃ لقیام من الایام الا ان یکون ی یصوم احدکم  (الحدیث)

As Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had mention numerous merits of jumu’ah day and salatul jumu’ah there was a possibility that some will decide himself to specially select them for praying and fasting. For this Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself negated this thinking and reiterated that only those things that he had mentioned in this regard are recommendable and a Sunnah. If some one exceeds them then it will not be acceptable.
Imam Nawawi (rahimahullah) explains this principle:
احتج ب العلماء علی کراھۃ ھذ الصلوۃ المبتدعۃ التی تسمی الرغائب قاتل الل “واضعھا” و مخترعھا قھا بدعۃ منکر من البدع الضلال و الجھال
[Maqalat e Tirmizi pg 219-20]

The most striking thing we see in these days is that a mubah is given so much significance that people will easily ignore a person who does not pray salah or fast or makes ghiyba or lies but if a observant Muslim does not perform mawlid he is chastised, looked down upon and called names.
Is it not exceeding the mubah from its limits?? 

The Authority of Hadeeth, Ijma’, Qiyaas etc and their rejection by the Deviant Sects [Part 2]

For Part 1, click here➡The Authority of Hadeeth, Ijma’, Qiyaas etc and their rejection by the Deviant Sects

The Difference between Hadeeth and Sunnah

The meaning of and 4 things that constitute Hadeeth

4 things make up Hadeeth

1. The Aqwaal (sayings) of Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

2. The Af’aal (actions) of Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

3. The Taqreer i.e if a Sahaabi did something in the presence of Nabi υ and he did not express displeasure or prevent him. (consent) of Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

4. The physical traits and habits of Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

The meaning of Sunnah

And  Sunnat  means:  At-Tareeqatul  Maslookah  fid  Deen  –  The followed path in Deen.

The  Nisbat  (link)  between  Hadeeth  and  Sunnah  is  Aam-Khaas  min Wajhin.

i.e.  they  are  similar  (Muttafiq)  in  one  way  and  different  (Muftariq) in two ways:

Maaddatul  Iftiraaq  (differences)  are  two:

1.  Those  Ahaadeeth  which  deal  with  the  Khaasiyaat (specialities)  of  the  Nabi  e.g.  marrying  more  than  4  wives. This  is  Hadeeth  but  not  Sunnah.

2.  Those  things  which  were  implemented  by  the  4  Khaleefahs. These  will  be  Sunnah  even  if  there  is  no  Hadeeth  in  support of  it  e.g.  the  2nd  Azaan  for  Jumu’ah  which  was  implemented by  Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu)

The Sunnats of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu):

Like  this,  there  are  3  Masaa’il  which  came  about  in  the  time  of  Ali  (radhiyallahu anhu) when  two  groups  of  Muslims  fight  against  each  other:

1. Regarding  those  who  are  killed:  will  they  go  to  Jannat  or Jahannum;

2. Will  the  goods  of  the  defeated  party  be  treated  as  Ghaneemat (spoils  of  war);

3. Will  the  captives  be  treated  as  slaves;

4.  The  answers  to  these  3  Masaa’il  were  stipulated  by  Ali  (radhiyallahu anhu). This is Sunnah even though there is no ‘Hadeeth’.

The  Battle  of  Jamal  was  fought  between  Ali  and  Aa’ishah’s (radhiyallahu anhuma) parties. Ali’s (radhiyallahu anhi)  group  was  victorious.  Questions  2  and  3  came  up.  Some Muslims  wanted  to  take  the  spoils  as  theirs.  Ali (radhiyallahu amhu) said:  “Which wretched  person  will  take  Aa’ishah (radhiyallahu anha)  as  a  slave?  There  is  no  booty, nor  any  slavery!”  So  all  the  prisoners  were  set  free  and  all  the  goods of the Shuhadaa (martyrs) was returned to their families.

Then  the  Battle  of  Siffeen  came  along  between  Ali  and Mu’aawaiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma).  Some  people  raised  the  first  question.  Ali  said: “ours and theirs are in Jannah

This  is  such  a  Mas’alah  that  no  one  could  have  solved  since  no Hadeeth  was  present,  nor  anything  similar  by  which  a  Shari’  analogy could have been extracted (Qiyaas).

Ignorant  people  (the noisy ‘La Madh-habi’s)  generally  make  a  huge  noise  about the  2nd  Azaan  and  the  Rak’ats  of  Taraweeh.  We  have  presented  the Sunnah  of  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) here  because  their  knowledge  has  not  yet  reached this  level.  When  they  come  to  know  about  this,  they  will  have  an extra Mas’alah to shout about.

The  basic  point  is  that  the  decrees  (Fatwahs)  and  rulings  of  the Khulafaa e Raashideen  are  accepted  as  Sunnah  by  the  Muslims  even if  perchance  there  is  no  Hadeeth  in  support  thereof.  This  has  always been  the  standpoint  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  till  the  emergence  of  this group. 

We  will  discuss  the  name  ‘Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jama’ah’  shortly In shaa’Allaah  –  suffice  for  now  that  we  are  Ahlus  Sunnah  not  Ahle Hadeeth.        

The  Similarity  between  Hadeeth  and  Sunnah (Maaddatul Ijtimaa’):

Those  Ahaadeeth  which  are  accepted  as  Ma’mool  Bihaa  (practiced upon)  and  are  not  Mansookh  (abrogated)  or  Khaas  (special)  are  also Sunnah.

We  accept  all  the  Ahaadeeth  in  this  category  and  we  practice  upon them. We also follow the Sunnah of the Sahaabah

Being  ‘Ahle  Hadeeth’  is  not  good  enough  for  two  reasons:

1.  Hadeeth  includes  Mansookh  and  Khaas  matters.  It  is  not correct  to  practice  on  this  even  though  it  is  Hadeeth.  e.g. Marrying  more  than  four  and  temporary  Nikaah  –  both  these are  Baatil.

2.  Hadeeth  does  not  cover  the  Sunnah  of  the  Khulafaa.  For  this reason  the  Salafis  are  in  Dhalaalat  (error).  We  have  been clearly  commanded  to  follow  the  Sunnat  of  the  Khulafaa  in Hadeeth  just  as  we  have  been  ordered  to  follow  the  Sunnah in the Qur’aan!   

The  ‘Ahle  Quraan’  rejects  Sunnah.  The  ‘Ahle  Hadeeth’  also  reject  it in practice yet when confronted, neither of them will admit to it. 

This  is  the  deception  of  the  Ghair  Muqallid/  Salafi/  Ahle  Hadeeth sect.

A Challenge:

We  place  a  challenge  to  all  the  self-styled  ‘Ahle  Hadeeth  –  present a  single  Hadeeth  where  we  have  been  commanded  to  follow  the Hadeeth. Hadeeth is a technical term, an academic classification.

In  the  Hadeeth,  we  have  been  ordered  to  follow  the  Sunnah:  The Sunnah  of  the  Rasul  everyone  accepts  –  we  have  been  clearly ordered  by  the  Rasul  himself,  in  a  Saheeh  Hadeeth  to  follow  the Sunnah of the Khulafa as well and this too, with no distinction!

In  our  discussion,  this  is  the  matter  that  separates  the  truth  from falsehood.  We  follow  Hadeeth  –  they  claim  to  follow  Hadeeth.  A claim  that  is  

a)  false  and  

b)  deceptive.

Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said: “You  must  follow  my  Sunnah and  the  Sunnah of  the  rightly guided  Khulafaa!  Hold  firmly  onto  it  and  grip  it  with  your teeth!”

In  another  Hadeeth  He  said:

Whoever  holds  on  to  my  Sunnah  during the time of evil…


I  am  leaving  behind  two  things.  You  will  never  go  astray  so long  as  you  hold  on  to  them:  The  Kitaab  of  Allaah  and  my Sunnah

There  are  great  virtues  for  memorizing  Hadeeth  and  passing  it  on  to others  –  But  we  have  been  ordered  to  follow  Sunnah.

The Sunnats of Abu Bakr (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam):

So  we  have  touched  on  the  Sunnah  of  the  other  Khulafaa. Sayyidinaa  Abu  Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) has  also  given  us  certain  Sunnahs.  In  fact  He was  the  first  to  present  certain  Sunnahs  (since  he  was  the  first Khaleefah). 

If  any  townspeople  collectively  leave  out  any  important  command of  Islaam  (e.g.  Zakaat),  the  Ameer  can  wage  Jihaad  against  them. When  one  group  refused  to  pay  Zakaat,  He  said:  “If  they  with  hold even  one  piece  of  string  which  they  used  to  pay  in  the  time  of Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  I  will  fight  them!”  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  did  not  understand  this verdict.  He  felt  that  there  were  more  pressing  matters  like  dealing with the renegades and the threat against Madinah itself. 

This  was  a  very  important  decision  taken  by  Abu  Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu).  The  entire stability of the Muslim nation depends on it. 

He  named  a  successor  (i.e.  Umar radhiyallahu anhu)  He  wrote  an  order  to  this  effect, and  then  told  Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu)  to  gather  the  Muslims  in  the  Masjid  and take Bay’at on Umar’s (radhiyallahu anhu) hand. The Sahaabah accepted this. 

These  were  two  Masaa’il  which  only  Abu  Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) could  have  enacted, because  this  was  the  era  of  the  Sahaabah.  They  were  people  of understanding  and  Ita’at  (obedience).  The  very  next  generation  was one  of  turmoil.  That  is  why  we  see  that  in  the  period  of  Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) and  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu),  non-Sahaabah  created  great  anarchy.  They  were  not prepared to accept the decisions of the Khaleefah

A  person  once  asked  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  why  the  first  2  eras  were  of  unity  and peace  while  the  2nd  two  were  of  turmoil  and  strife.  He  said: “Because  of  the  change  in  Ra’iyyat  (the  general  public)”  Abu  Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) led  people  like  Ali,  Uthmaan,  Abu  Ubaidah  and  the  others (radhiyallahu anhum).  The latter  period  saw  a  death  of  men.        
The name: Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah:

Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said  that  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  were  split  into  71 and  72  sects…  and  that  this  Ummat  will  be  split  into  73  –  all  of them  but  one  will  enter  Hell.  On  being  asked  who  they  were,  he said:  

Maa  Ana Alaihi  wa  Ashaabee” “Those who follow the path that I am on and my Sahaabah

My Path: this is the Sunnah

My  Sahaabah:  this  is  Al-Jamaa’ah.  From  this  comes  the  Ijmaa’ (consensus of the Mu’mineen)

Ibn Taymiyyah has supported this in “Minhaajus Sunnah” 

The  ‘Ahle  Hadeeth’  scholar  Nawaab  Waheeduz  Zamaan  in  “Nazlul Abraar”  has  also  affirmed  it.

The  group  who  are  on  Haqq  (truth)  and  that  will  gain  Najaat (salvation)  are  those  who  follow  the  Sunnah  and  accept  the  Ijmaa’ of  the  Ummat.

The 3 Usools of Deen:

The  3  principle  sources  of  Sharee’at  are:  The  Kitaab  of  Allaah;  the Sunnah; Ijmaa’.

The  fourth  Usool  is:  Qiyaas  (analogical  reasoning)  based  on  these three Usools.

The  Masaadirul  Asliyyah  (principle  sources)  are  3.  Qiyaas  is  the  4th (source) but it is not in the category of the first 3.

Qiyaas  is  Muzhir  (makes  apparent  the  hidden)  of  Sharee’at  not Muthbit  (proof  of  itself)  of  Sharee’at  i.e.  Qiyaas  is  a  means  of understanding  the  laws  of  Sharee’at  from  Qur’aan,  Sunnah  and Ijmaa’.  Qiyaas  is  not  used  to  create  laws  of  its  own  type  in  conflict of  the  3  UsoolsQiyaas  is  not  contradictory  to  them.  

Ijmaa’ is also linked to Qur’aan and Hadeeth 

These  are  now  the  4  Usools  of  Deen.  The  first  3  are  on  a  higher level.  Qiyaas  is  of  a  ‘lower’  level.  But  all  4  are  interlinked.  Deen  is the  command  of  Allaah  –  Allaah  is  the  Shaari’  (The  one  who revealed  Sharee’at).  This  Sharee’at  is  manifested  through  these Usools.  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) expounded  the  commands  of  Allah.  He conveyed  and  taught  them  to  us  in  full.  He  did  not  alter  them  in  any way  or  present  anything  on  his  own  account  [Na’oodhu  Billah].  The Sahaabah then conveyed this to us. 

Their  Ijmaa’  strengthened  the  foundation  of  Islaam  and  protected  it from  being  tampered.  They  did  not  alter  anything.  This  is  how  Deen was  established  on  a  firm  –  watertight  –  tamper-proof  foundation. The  A’immah  then  codified  it  to  its  finest  detail  through  Ijtihaad and  Qiyaas.  They  did  not  alter  Deen  or  present  anything  of  their own. This completed the matter. 

The  Shee’ahs  tried  to  alter  Deen.  The  Khawaarij  tried  to  alter  Deen. The Mu’tazilah tried.

Many  groups  have  come  and  gone.  ‘Kulluhum  fin  Naar’  –  All  are  in Hell. They are not part of us. 

Then  the  ‘Ahle  Qur’aan’;  ‘Ahle  Hadeeth’;  ‘Ghair  Muqallid’; ‘Salafi’;  ‘Maudoodi’  etc.  sprang  up.  They  changed  things.  They created  confusion.  Some  of  them  went  very  far  –  right  out  of  the fold  of  Islaam;  others  will  be  classed  as  Muslim  but  not  part  of  the Ahlus  Sunnah.  Some  on  something,  others  on  something  else… All of this is nothing but Dhalaalat (waywardness) and confusion.

We  have  a  straight,  clear  road.  Our  Deen  has  come  to  us  generation by  generation  from  the  best  of  people  from  every  age.  May  Allaah keep  us  on  this  and  raise  us  on  this.

All Ahaadeeth are linked to Qur’aan:

Hadhrat  Abdullaah  ibn  Mas’ood  (radhiyallahu anhu) once,  while  delivering  a  sermon, mentioned  a  Hadeeth  that  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  cursed  the  person  who lengthens  her  hair  by  joining  other  hair  to  hers  as  well  as  the  person who  carries  this  out.  He  also  cursed  the  tattooer  and  the  person  who gets  himself  tattooed…

After  the  sermon,  a  woman  said  to  him:  “You  narrate  Ahaadeeth about such matters that we find no mention of in the Qur’aan.” 

He  said  to  her:  “If  you  recited  the  Qur’aan,  you  would  have  foundTake  that  which  the  Rasul  gives  you  and  abstain  from  all  that  he has  prohibited  you’”  [Surah  Hashr].      

Ijmaa’  (consensus  of  opinion)  is  also  linked  to Hadeeth and Qur’aan

Ijmaa’  has  to  be  Mustanad  (based  on  something  in  Qur’aan  or Hadeeth).  The  question  then  arises  that  what  is  the  need  for  Ijmaa’ then, when the Qur’aan and Hadeeth are there??

The  answer  is  that  sometimes  the  Aayat  or  Hadeeth  only  makes Ishaarah  (an  indication)  to  the  matter.  Ijmaa’  makes  it  clear.  Ijmaa’ is a Hujjate Qat’i (a definite proof) in Deen.

Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  did  not  nominate  a  successor.  In  his  last  days,  He appointed  Abu  Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu)  as  the  Imaam  for  14  days!  After  his  demise, the  Ansaar  met  at  Saqeefah  Bani  Saa’idah.  They  proposed  two Ameers  –  one  from  the  Ansaar  and  one  from  the  Muhaajireen.  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  said  that  this  is  the  person  who  the  Rasul  of  Allaah  appointed  as Imaam  in  his  lifetime.  All  the  Sahaabah  then  took  Bay’at  to  him. This is the 1st Ijmaa’ of this Ummat.

Abu  Bakr’s (radhiyallahu anhi)  appointment  as  Imaam  was  an  Ishaarah  (indication). Umar’s (radhiyallahu anhu) understanding  this  as  appointment  as  Khaleefah  was Istidlaal  or  Qiyaas  (extracting  a  proof/  deeper  reasoning). Sahaabah’s unanimously accepting it was Ijmaa’.

Ijmaa’  is  a  Hujjate  Qat’i.  An  absolute  proof.  To  oppose  it  is Dhalaalat  (misguidance).  If  anyone  rejects  the  Khilaafat  of  Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu),  one  will  be  in  the  wrong.

Similar  is  the  case  with  20  Rak’ats  of  Taraweeh.

How Qiyaas is linked to the 3 Usools

The  example  of  Qiyaas  is  like  3  huge  pots  of  steaming  food.  A person cannot take this food out by hand. He needs a big spoon. 

Like  this,  you  have  Qur’aan,  Hadeeth  and  Ijmaa’.  To  extract  the Masaa’il  (laws)  of  Deen,  the  Imaams  use  Qiyaas.  Call  it  Qiyaas  or Ijtihaad,  it  is  the  same  thing.  The  Qiyaas  of  the  Imaams,  contrary  to the  propaganda  of  the  ‘Ahle  Hadeeth’  is  not  personal  opinion  or reasoning  in  the  matters  of  Deen.  The  Imaams  were  people  of Allaah and were far beyond such evil.

So  now  we  have  proven  these  four  Usools  of  Deen.  The  Madh-hab of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah is based on this.

Let  us  conclude  with  the  two  Aayats  that  we  began  with:

The  first  Aayah  (115  of  Surah  Nisaa)  has  been  discussed  in  detail in Part 1.

The  2nd  Aayah  is  from  (Surah  An-Nahl  Aayah  44) in Part 1

The proof of Qiyaas from Surah An-Nahl

The  Kuffaar  of  Makkah  objected  to  the  Risaalat  of  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). They  reasoned  that  if  Allaah  really  wanted  to  send  a  message,  He would  have  sent  an  angel  or  some  other  supernatural  being.  In  reply, this Aayat was revealed. 

Throughout  history,  Allaah  had  sent  messengers.  All  of  them  were human  men.  No  Nabi  was  a  female  and  no  angel  was  ever  sent  for this purpose.

Allaah  Says:

“…and  We have revealed  the  Reminder  (Qur’aan)  to  you,  so that  you  may  explain  to  the  people  all  that  has  been  revealed  to them, and so that they may reflect.

The  Qur’aan  is  Allaah’s  message  to  mankind.  Allaah  has  the  power to  do  anything  He  wills.  Yet  Allaah,  by  His  wisdom,  takes  the temperament  of  man  into  account.  For  this  reason,  Allaah  did  not send  the  Qur’aan  directly.  He  sent  it  with  His  Rasul (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  so  that  the Rasul (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) can  explain  it  to  them.  He  can  guide  them  and  assist  them. They can relate to the Nabi since the Nabi is a human among them. 

A  human  cannot  relate  to  an  Angel  or  to  any  other  supernatural being.  Allaah  took  man’s  weakness  into  account  and  sent  a  Nabi.  The actions and commands of the Nabi are an exposition of the Qur’aan. 

This  is  Hadeeth.  So  in  this  Aayah,  the  Hujjiyyat  of  the  Qur’aan  and Hadeeth  has  been  established.  Ijma’  has  not  been  mentioned  here. Ijmaa’ has been mentioned in the other Aayah.

Then  Allaah  says:  “…so  that  they  may  reflect” i.e.  so  that  they  may  ponder  on  the  deep  meanings  of  the  Qur’aan and  as  and  when  the  need  or  situation  arises,  they  may  seek guidance  from  the  Qur’aan  and  Hadeeth.  In  their  respective  periods, the  Khulafaae  Raashideen  extracted  guidance  in  this  way.  Then  in every  age,  the  Fuqahaa  have  extracted  and  will  extract  guidance  like this. 

Whenever  any  new  Mas’alah  arises,  the  Ulamaa  will  show  the  right path through Qur’aan and Sunnah

Daily  we  are  faced  with  new  questions  –  in  the  business  field,  in  the field  of  commerce  and  medicine.  As  technology  advances,  the Muslim  is  faced  with  new  conditions.  Hidaayat  (guidance)  through all of this is in Deen. The Ulamaa will show the way. 

The  work  of  the  Ulamaa  in  these  instances  is  through  Ijtihaad  and Qiyaas. There is no avoiding it. 

Here  the  big  question  arises  as  to  who  has  the  right  of  Ijtihaad  and Qiyaas.  Every  common  layman  will  not  have  the  right  to  voice  his feeling.  This  is  ‘self-opinion’,  which  is  Haraam  in  Deen.  This  is  a topic of its own.

The  last  part  off  this  verse  is  the  proof  for  Qiyaas. One  cannot  avoid  Qiyaas.  The  ‘Ghair  Muqallids’  of  our  belated  age are  allergic  to  the  word  Qiyaas.  But  just  as  in  the  Mas’alah  of Taqleed,  here  too  they  are  even  more  ‘guilty’  of  Qiyaas  than  us.  We follow  set  rules  in  Qiyaas.  They  are  free  thinkers  –  without studying  the  Usools  of  Qiyaas,  they  go  about  it.  They  have  thrown the  flood  gates  open.  All  and  sundry  are  allowed  to  decide  for themselves  what  they  wish.  They  bring  loads  of  the  strangest  types of Istimbaat (deductions) and Qiyaas.

The  safest  route  for  all  today  is  that  of  the  pious  people  gone  by. Every  new  matter  in  Deen  is  as  dangerous  as  it  is  misleading.  May Allaah protect all of us in these trying times. 

The Authority of Hadeeth, Ijma’, Qiyaas etc and their rejection by the Deviant Sects

[By Maulana Saeed Palanpuri d.b]

And  whoever  opposes  the  Rasul  after  the  guidance  has  become clear  to  him,  and  he  follows  a  way  contrary  to  that  of  the Mu’mineen,  we  shall  allow  him  to  do  what  he  is  doing  and  then enter  him  into  Jahannam.”  (Surah  An  Nisaa  115)  

“…And we have revealed  the  reminder (Qur’aan)  to  you  so  that you  may  explain  to  mankind  that  which  has  been  revealed  to them  and  so  that  they  may  reflect”   (Surah An Nahl 44)

This  is  an article on  the  Hujjiyyat  (proof/authority)  of HadeethIjmaa’  and  Qiyaas.  The  Ahlus  Sunnah  have  accepted  all three  as  proofs  in  Deen.  There  are  other  groups  however,  who  reject one  or  more  of  these.

In  the  first  Aayah  the  Hujjat  of  Qur’aan  has  been  mentioned together with that of Hadeeth and Ijmaa’.

In  the  second,  the  Hujjat  of  Hadeeth  has  been  mentioned  with  that  of Qiyaas.

Deen is one Sharee’at varies:

For  the  guidance  of  mankind,  Allaah  Ta’alah  revealed  to  them  His Deen and Sharee’at. These are two things: Deen and Sharee’at.

From  Aadam (alayhissalaam)  to  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  the  Deen  of  all  the  Ambiyaa  has remained  one.  This  Deen  is  Islaam. All  the  Ambiyaa  came  with Islaam.  The  Sharee’ats  of  the  Ambiyaa  varied  with  time.  So  all  of them  came  with  one  Deen  i.e.  Islaam  while  their  Sharee’ats  changed from  time  to  time.

Only this Ummat is Muslim:

Then  by  the  Fadhl  of  Allaah,  the  Ummat  of  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  has  been given  the  title  of  Muslim.  This  was  in  answer  to  the  Du’a  of Ibraaheem [(alayhissalaam  (Surah  Hajj)].  Muslim  means  ‘One  who  has  submitted to Allaah’.

Moosa  (alayhissalaam),  on  behalf  of  the  Jews  said:  “Innaa  Hudnaa  Ilaik”  –  (we have  turned  to  you)  and  they  were  thus  named  Yahood  (those  who turned to Allaah).

Eesa (alayhissalaam)  said  to  his  disciples:  “Man  Ansaaree  ilallaah”  –  (who  will assist  me  for  the  sake  of  Allaah?).  Those  who  responded  were  called Nasaara  (the  helpers).

Usool and Furoo’:

The  link  between  Deen  and  Sharee’at  is  one  of  Usool  and  Furoo’.   Deen  is  the  Asal  –  fundamental  element  or  basis. Sharee’at  is  its  Fara’  –  it  is  derived  from  the  Asal.

Ri’aayat (concession) in Deen and Sharee’at:

In  Sharee’at  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  Ri’aayat  (consideration) depending  on  the  age  [Zamaan]  or  circumstance  [Haal].  In  Deen there  is  no  Ri’aayat.  For  this  reason,  there  is  no  difference  in  Deen. From  the  inception,  Deen  has  remained  one.  The  Sharee’at  of  the different  Ambiyaa  has  varied  from  the  time  of  one  Nabi  to  another according  to  the  various  Ahwaal  (circumstances).


There  are  three  fundamentals  in  DeenTauheed  (the  oneness  of Allaah),  Risaalat  (believing  in  the  Messengers)  and  Ma’aad  (the belief  of  the  Aakhirat  (hereafter)).  This  was  found  in  the  Da’wat  of all  the  Ambiyaa.  There  is  no  concession  in  this.  Rejecting  even  part of this is Kufr. These are the Usools of Aqaa’id

Then  in  Sharee’at,  there  was  some  variation.  In  the  time  of  Aadam (alayhissalaam),  all  the  humans  were  his  children.  At  that  time,  it  was  permissible to  marry  one’s  sister  since  there  were  no  other  women  in  the  world. This  is  now  Haraam.  In  some  Sharee’at,  3  Salaats  were  Fardh,  now 5  are  Fardh.  This  is  called  Ri’aayat.  These  are  just  a  few  examples of  it.

Now, The Deviancies:

The Ahle Qur’aan:

Now  we  come  back  to  the  topic:  we  have  to  understand  the  Usools and  Daleels  (principles  and  proofs)  of  Deen  and  Sharee’at.  There  are 3  fundamental  sources  of  Islaam:  The  Qur’aan,  the  Hadeeth,  and Ijmaa’. 

The  Qur’aan  is  the  fountainhead  of  Deen  and  Sharee’at.  Rejecting the Qur’aan is Kufr. No one can reject it and claim to be a Muslim. 
The  first  group  we  will  deal  with  call  themselves  the  Ahle  Qur’aan. They  accept  the  Qur’aan  and  nothing  else.  They  reject  the  Hadeeth. Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  had  informed  us  about  this  group.  They  manifested for the first time in the very early period. 

Hadhrat  Miqdaam  ibn  Ma’dikarib  (radhiyallahu anhu) reports  that  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Listen!  I  have  been  given  the  Qur’aan  and  other  commands  like  it as  well.  Soon  you  will  find  an  obese,  carefree  person,  who  while reclining  on  his  couch  will  say:  ‘follow  the  Qur’aan  in  all  that  it declares  Halaal  and  Haraam’”  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam further  said:  “Listen!  All  that the  Rasul  has  declared  (of  Halaal  and  Haraam)  is  as  if  Allaah  has declared it so!” [Mishkaat no 163]

Hadhrat  Irbaadh  ibn  Saariyah (radhiyallahu anhu)  reports  that  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said: “Will  a  non-chalant  person  among  you,  while  laying  on  his  couch  say that  Allaah  has  only  revealed  the  Qur’aan?  Listen!  By  Allaah!  I have  given  orders,  and  I  have  advised,  and  I  have  prohibited  certain things.  These  are  like  the  Qur’aan  and  at  times  even  more!” [Mishkaat no. 164]

The  claim  of  these  people  is  erroneous-it  is  false.  These  people made  their  first  appearance  in  the  1st  century  in  the  time  of  the Sahaabah  and  Taabi’een.  They  are  still  present.  You  will  find  many thousands  in  Pakistan.  They  say  that  the  Qur’aan  alone  is  sufficient. They  call  themselves  ‘Ahle  Qur’aan’.  Even  the  name  is  deceptive. The  entire  Ummat  accepts  the  Qur’aan.  The  entire  Ummat  is  ‘Ahle Qur’aan’.  The  correct  name  for  this  group  is  Munkireen-e-  Hadeeth  – Rejectors  of  Hadeeth.  So  we  have  to  establish  the  Hujjat  (proof)  of Hadeeth

The Shee’ah – the greatest rejectors of Hadeeth:

Here  the  Shee’ah  come  in.  Generally  we  do  not  consider  them Munkireen  of  Hadeeth  whereas  they  are  on  top  of  the  list.  They reject  all  the  Hadeeth  of  the  Sunnis.  They  have  their  own  collections of  fabricated  Hadeeth.  They  believe  that  that  after  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), Khilaafat  and  Imaamat  was  transferred  to  Ali  (radhiyallahu anhu).  Then  to  Haasan  and then  to  Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma).  In  this  way,  there  are  12  Imaams.  These  Imaams used  to  receive  Wahy  (Divine  revelation).  This  Wahy  is  equal  to  the Qur’aan!  The  Wahy  of  the  Imaams  can  even  abrogate  that  of  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). These  are  their  beliefs.  They  do  not  call  the  Imaams as  Nabis,  but  they grant them all the authority of the Ambiyaa!! 

Their  most  important  book  on  Hadeeth  is  Al  Kaafi  of  Ya’qoob Kulaini.  10%  of  the  Kitaab  are  the  ‘sayings’  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  The  other 90%  are  the  Ahaadeeth  (saying)  of  the  Imaams.  These  are  but  a  few of their beliefs in brief.

These  two  groups  do  not  accept  Hadeeth  as  Hujjat  in  Deen.  The  rest of  the  Ummat  does.  Usools  of  Deen  and  other  Shar’i commandments  are  proven  from  Hadeeth  just  as  they  are  from Qur’aan.

The  Ahle Hadeeth  and  Inkaar  of  Ijmaa’ (consensus  of the believers): 

After  Hadeeth,  we  accept  Ijmaa’  as  Hujjat  in  Deen.  Just  as  one group  rejects  Hadeeth,  one  group  rejects  Ijmaa’.  This  is  a  more ‘recent’  group.  They  made  their  appearance  during  the  British  rule of  India  and  Arabia.  They  had  themselves  registered  with  the  British government  as  ‘Ahle  Hadeeth’.  Like  this  they  differentiated themselves from the ‘Ahle Qur’aan’.

What is the correct name for the Ahle Hadeeth: 

But this name is also deceptive. As with the other group they got stuck on level two and could not progress to the next. We call them ‘Ghair Muqallid’ but strangely both names do not fit. We are ‘As-haabul Hadeeth’ followers of Hadeeth and they are the staunchest of Muqallids. They fight tooth and nail against the Taqleed of our Imaams, yet they blindly and rigidly follow their own Imaams in all that is correct and incorrect.  

Some people call them ‘Ahluz Zaahir’ because their Ilm is very shallow and transparent. They do not like this name for themselves.  
That is why they had their name registered with the Kaafir government as ‘Ahle Hadeeth’. Then when the British-Saudi-American government came into existence, the lure of petrol-money was too strong. So the ‘Ahle Hadeeth’ aligned themselves with the Saud Najdis and changed their name to Salafi. Salafi means followers of the predecessors, but this name also does not fit! Their path is far off the way of the Salaf e Saaliheen.  

We cannot call them Ghair Muqallid because they are the worst Muqallids. We accept all the Imaams as being on Haqq. At times we even accept the Fiqh of the others. They blindly follow their Imaams and Ulamaa only. They consider all others as astray. 

We follow the rightly guided Imaams. They follow their own confused self-styled Imaams like Nasiruddeen Albaani.

Can they be called Laa Madh-habiyyah? 

Among the Arab Ulamaa, this sect is known as ‘Laa Madh-habiyyah’ – those who do not follow a correct Madh-hab. In Urdu this name cannot be used.  

Madh-hab in Arabic means School of thought (Maslak). In Urdu it means Deen or religion.  

So the Urdu meaning of Madh-hab cannot be taken since they are not Non-Muslim. They are Muslims but they do not follow any of the Imaams in Hidaayat.

The True Essence of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah: 

In Hadeeth we are told to follow the Sawaade A’zam [great multitude] of the Ummat. We are on this path. We are the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah.  

We follow the Qur’aan; then we follow the Sunnah, not just Hadeeth; and we follow the way of the Sahaabah and the Mu’mineen and their Ijmaa’ – this is ‘Al-Jamaa’ah’