Category Archives: Principles of Fiqh

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’ 

The Deviancies of Qabr Pujaris/Ahle Shirk/Barelwis/Nazimites regarding the Concept of Bid’ah

After  Shirk  (polytheism),  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  did  not  condemn  any other  thing  more  than  he  did  of  Bid’ah  and  the  Ahle Bid’ah.  This  is  the  reality  that  Bid’ah,  changes  the  pattern and  principles  of  Deen.  Thereafter  there  remains  no differentiation  between  original  and  fake,  Haqq  and  baatil. The  Qur`an-e-Hakeem  spells  out  clearly  that  in  principle there  are  two  ways  in  which  the  Deen  is  destroyed;  (1). Suppressing  the  Haqq  and  (2).  Mixing  of  Haqq  and  baatil. It  is  in  this  mixing  and  entangling  of  the  Haqq  and  baatil that  people  replace  the  Deen  of  Allaah  Ta`ala  with  their own  whims  and  desires.  Every  person  makes  a  part  of  the Deen  whatever  his  desires  dictate  to  him,  and  he  excludes from  the  Deen  whatever  he  wishes.  It  will  no  longer remain  the  Deen  of  Allaah  Ta`ala,  rather  it  will  become  a child’s play (Naudhubillah!).

This  point  must  also  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  decision  of whether  any  act  is  deserving  of  Thawaab  (reward)  or worthy  of  Athaab  (punishment),  is  exclusively  that  of Allaah  Ta`ala.  The  duty  of  reaching  this  information  to  the people  and  the  masses  was  that  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  For  a  person  to make  a  thing  worthy  of  Thawaab  or  Athaab,  according  to his  wishes,  is  like  as  though  he  is  doing  the  work  of Divinity  (Naudhubillah!).  Allaah  Ta`ala  had  made  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) an  excellent  and  perfect  example  for  us  to  follow.  He  had also  given  us  the  Command  to  follow  him.  He  did  not leave  us  to  follow  our  own  whims  and  fancies.  In  this regard Allaah Ta`ala says:

Indeed  for  you  in  Rasulullaah  is  an  excellent  example, for  that  person  who  desires  Allaah  and  the  Aakhiraat (Hereafter)  and  who  remembers  Allaah  abundantly.” [Surah Ahzaab, Para 21, Ruku 2]

In  this  Aayat,  Allaah  Ta`ala  had  made  the  perfect  human, Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  the  perfect  example  for  us  to  follow.  He  has advised  us  that  peace  and  success  in  every  sphere  of  our lives  lies  in  following  him  and  by  following  in  his footsteps,  we  will  save  ourselves  from  all  types  of  worries and grieves. In another Aayat, Allaah Ta`ala says:

Say  (O  Nabi  –  sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)!  If  you  love  Allaah,  then  follow  me, (then)  Allaah  will  love  you  and  He  will  forgive  you  your sins.” [Surah Aale Imraan, Para 3, Ruku 4]

This  Aayat  is  clear  proof  that  if  any  person  or  group  today, claims  to  love  their  Creator,  then  it  is  imperative  that  they follow in the footsteps of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Sunnat  is  the  name  of  this  following  of  Nabi’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) excellent example,  guidance  and  history.  Bid’ah  is  the  opposite  of this.

Hadhrat  Jaabir  Bin  Abdullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) says  that  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) mentioned in  a  loud  voice  at  a  Jumu’ah  gathering,  in  the  presence  of thousands of people:

Amma Ba`ad!  Indeed  the  best  of  Speech  is  the  Kitaab  of Allaah!  And  the  best  of  Hadya  (Example  and  Guide)  is the  Hadya  of  Muhammadur  Rasulullaah.  The  worst  of things  is  innovations  and  every  Bid’ah  is  deviation.” [Muslim, page 285, vol.1 / Mishkaat, page 27, vol.1]

In  this  Hadith,  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) mentioned  his  Guidance  and  Seerat (teachings)  in  opposition  to  Bid’ah,  and  he  made  this  very clear  that  whatever  is  innovated  that  is  contrary  to  his Seerat,  is  Bid’ah  and  that  every  Bid’ah  is  deviation.  Here also  we  learn  that  every  innovation  is  not  necessarily  evil, otherwise  the  worldly  inventions  would  also  fall  in  this category.  In  fact  only  those  innovations  are  evil  that  are contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the  Kitaabullaah  and  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  Therefore  those  things  that  are  not  contrary  to  the teachings  of  the  Qur`an  and  Sunnah  are  not  necessarily evil  innovations  and  deviation.  Allaah  Ta`ala  is  not  pleased with  deviation,  it  for  this  reason  that  he  sent  so  many Ambiyaa  and  Kitaabs  and  Scriptures  in  order  to  combat deviation.  In  this  narration  stated  in  Nisai,  the  following words also appear:

And  all  deviation  is  in  The  Fire.”  [Nisai,  page  179, vol.1]

It  is  for  this  reason  that  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said  that  the  Ahle Bid’ah  are  deserving  of  the  curse  of  the  entire  universe.  He prevented  from  rendering  their  praises  and  honouring them.  He  used  to  say  that  all  their  Ibaadat  is  useless,  until such  a  time  that  they  refrain  from  their  Bid’ah.  He  also used  to  say  that  the  Ahle  Bid’ah  are  deprived  from  making Tawbah. May  Allaah  Ta`ala  save  us  from  this  and  from  all other types of sin.

Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) reports that Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

Madinah  is  Haram  (sanctified)  from  (the  place)  ‘Ayr’  to (the  place)  ‘Thaur’.    Hence  whoever  innovates  anything (in  the  Deen)  in  between  these  places,  or  grants  refuge  to an  innovator  (Bid`ati),  then  upon  him    is  the  curse  of Allaah,  His  Angels  and  the  entire  mankind.  No  ‘Sarf  ‘or ‘Adl’  (Fardh  or  Nafl  Ibaadat)  will  be  accepted  from him.”  [Mishkaat,  page  238,  vol.1  /  Bukhaari,  page  1084, vol. 2 / Muslim, page 144, vol.1]

In  this  Hadith  the  limits  of  the  Haram  for  Madinah  are  only mentioned  as  a  form  of  warning  and  reprimand,  it  is  NOT as  a  reservation  or  limited,  in  that  Bid’ah  is  only  evil  and bad  in  Madinah  and  not  outside!  That  thing  which  is  evil and  a  Bid’ah  will  be  so  in  all  places  and  times.  Yes,  the evil  and  sin  of  a  Bid’ah  will  be  intensified  owing  to  the honour  of  a  place  or  sanctity  of  the  time.  What  can  be  a more  severe  statement  and  warning  for  the  dishonour  and disgrace  of  the  Bid`ati  than  the  words  which  emanated from  the  blessed  lips  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)?  These  narrations  are sufficient  to  show  the  abomination  and  evil  of  Bid’ah.  We will  mention  a  few  more  narrations  merely  as  further testification and for perusal:

“Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Bin  Abbaas  (radhiyallahu anhu)  reports  from  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam): ‘Allaah  has  refused  to  accept  the  deeds  of  a  Bid`ati,  until he refrains from his Bid’ah.’” [Ibn Majah, page 6]

Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) reports: 

Whoever  innovates  anything  in  it  (Madinah  Shareef)  or he  grants  refuge  to  a  Bid`ati,  upon  him  is  the  curse  of Allaah,  His  angels  and  all  of  mankind.  Neither  will  ‘Sarf’ or  ‘Adl’  (Nafl  or  Fardh  acts)  be  accepted  from  him.” [Bukhaari, page 251, vol.1]

Bid’ah,  wherever  it  occurs  is  still  a  Bid’ah.  However,  if  it is  perpetrated  in  Madinah,  which  is  a  sanctified  place,  then the  gravity  of  the  act  is  much  worse  and  the  sin  will  be greater.

Hadhrat  Ebrahim  Bin  Maisara  (rahmatullahi  alaih)  reports that  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

Whoever  grants  respect  and  honour  to  a  Bid`ati,  indeed he  has  aided  in  the  destruction  of  Islaam.”  [Mishkaat, page 31, vol. 1]

It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  Sahaabah  had  a  great  deal  of dislike  for  Bid’ah.  Once  someone  brought  the  salaams  of another  person  to  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Bin  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu),  who commented:

It  has  reached  me  that  this  person  (who  sent  the salaams)  has  innovated  something  in  the  Deen.  If  indeed (this  is  true  and)  he  has  innovated  (something  in  the Deen),  then  do  not  convey  my  salaams  to  him.”     [Tirmidhi,  page  38,  vol.2  /  Daarmi,  page  59  /  Abu Dawood,  page  278,  vol.2  /  Ibn  Majah,  page  304  / Mishkaat, page 23, vol.1]

Hadhrat Ibn Mas`ood (radhiyallahu anhu) states:

To  be  moderate  in  a  Sunnat  is  better  than  to  strive  in  a Bid’ah.” [Mustadrak, page 103, vol. 1]

Hadhrat Anas Bin Maalik (radhiyallahu anhu) reports that Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

Indeed  Allaah  has  closed  all  the  doors  of  Tawbah  for the Bid`ati.” [Majma`us Zawaahid, page 189, vol.1]

From  these  narrations  we  note  that  Bid’ah  is  such  an  evil and  detestable  thing  that  any  sensible  person  would  do whatever  he  can  in  his  ability  to  combat  it.  An  effect  of  it is  that  it  prevents  one  from  seeking  repentance  from  Allaah Ta`ala.  From  a  logical  point  of  view  this  also  makes  sense that  if  a  person  carries  out  a  Bid’ah  act  and  he  deems  it worthy  of  Thawaab,  then  why  will  he  make  Tawbah  for  it? Tawbah  is  made  for  sins  and  evil  and  not  for  ‘good’  acts. Nobody  performs  Salaat  and  keeps  fast  and  thereafter  says:

O Allaah! Forgive my Salaat and fast.”

Bid`ati  has  closed  the  doors  of  Tawbah  upon  himself  by his thinking that his act is worthy of reward.

Hadhrat Aisha (radhiyallahu anha) reports that Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

Whoever  innovates  in  this  matter  of  ours (the  Deen),  that which  is  not  in  it,  indeed  it  is  rejected.”  [Bukhaari,  page 371,  vol.1  /  Muslim,  page  77,  vol.2  /  Abu  Dawood,  page 279, vol.2 / Ibn Majah, page 3]

It  is  important  that  we  clarify  and  explain  the  words  “in this  matter  of  ours”,  so  that  there  is  no  misunderstanding.   Haafidh Ibn Rajab Hambali (rahmatullah alayh) states:

All  those  things  that  a  person  innovates  into  the  Deen, which  Allaah  and  His  Rasul  has  not  given  permission  to, does  not  have  any  part  of  the  Deen.”  [Jaamiul  Uloom  Wal Hakam, page 42]

He  intended  saying  that  not  all  innovations  are  rejected, only  those  that  have  something  to  do  with  the  Deen. He also  states  that  in  some  narrations  the  word  ‘Deen’  appears in the place of “in this matter of ours”:

And  in  the  words  of  some  of  the  narrations,  it  appears: ‘He  who  innovates  in  this  Deen  of  ours,  which  is  not from it, indeed it is rejected’”. [page 42]

If  in  some  narrations  made  by  the  blessed  tongue  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) the  words  “this  Deen  of  ours”  comes  in  place  of  “In  this matter of ours”, what further clarification is needed?

Haafidh  Ibn  Hajar  (rahmatullah  alayh)  mentions  regarding “In this matter of ours”:

It  means:  The  matter  of  Deen”  [Fathul  Baari,  page  321, vol.5]

That  is,  whoever  innovates  any  new  thing  in  this  Deen  of ours, it is rejected.

Allaamah Taftaazaani (rahmatullah alayh) writes: 

Indeed  this  (sentence)  means  whoever  makes  in  the  Deen whatever  is  not  part  of  it……”  [Sharhul  Maqaasid,  page 271, vol.2]

Allaamah Azeezi (rahmatullah alayh) states: 

Whoever  innovates  in  this  matter  of  ours,  that  is,  in  the Deen of Islaam.” [As-Siraajul Muneer, page 320, vol.3]

From  all  these  citations,  this  much  is  very  clear  that  not  all innovations  are  evil  and  rejected.  Only  those  innovations which  are  deemed  as  part  of  the  Deen  or  are  left  out  of the  Deen.  This  is  not  only  restricted  to  the  commentaries of  the  commentators  of  Hadith,  but  according  to  Ibn  Rajab, it  is  actually  the  words  that  appears  in  some  narrations. These  narrations  are  proof  that  whatever  innovations  in  the Deen  the  people  have  initiated,  all  of  them  are  rejected  and evil.
Hence,  Moulana  Kharram  Ali  Saheb  Hanafi,  translator  of ‘Mushaariqil Anwaar’ writes:

As  many  Bid`ahs  the  people  have  innovated  that  are contrary  to  the  Shariah,  according  to  this  Hadith,  are  all rejected.  There  is  no  need  to  elaborate  on  the  issue.  For example,  to  build  around  the  graves,  to  put  a  dome  there, to  illuminate  it,  to  make  Ta`ziyah,  to  celebrate  the occasions  of  the  pious  people,  to  make  “minnats”  by  using the  names  of  the  Auliyaa,  to  place  flags  as  signs,  etc.    –  all such  actions  are  completely  contrary  to  the  Shariah.  There is  no  basis  for  them  in  the  Qur`aan,  Sunnah,  Ijma`  or Qiyaas.”  [Page.  10]

The Akaabireen Ulama of Deoband
From  this  Hadith  (quoted  above),  even  the  Ulama  of  the Deoband  have  understood  the  words  “in  this  matter  of ours”,  to  mean  ‘The  Deen’.  Hadhrat  Moulana  Khaleel Ahmed  Sahaaranpuri  (rahmatullahi  alaih)  writes:  “The words  ‘Fi  Amrina  Haza’  refers  to  the  Deen.”  [Bazlool Majhood, page 195]

Hadhrat  Sheikhul  Islaam  Moulana  Shabbir  Ahmed Uthmaani (rahmatullah alayh) writes: 

The  meaning  of  ‘Amrid  deen’  is  as  the  Ulama  have  stated and  explained.”  [Fathul  Mulhim,  page  407,  vol.2]

The belief of the Ulama of the Barelwi 

The  Tafseer  of  this  Hadith  has  also  been  interpreted  as “Amr-e-Deen”,  by  the  Barelwi  Ulama

A  famous  Barelwi Aalim,  Molvi  Mohammed  Saalih  Saheb  writes: 

The meaning  of  the  word  ‘Amr’  (in  the  Hadith)  is  Amr-e-Deen. The  object  is  this  that  the  matters  of  Deen,  be  they  Ibadaat or  Muaamalaat  (dealings),  which  the  Shariah  has  specified and  clarified,  to  add  to  or  subtract  from  them  is  a  rejected act.”  [Tuhfatul  Ahbaab  fi  Tahqeeq  Ithaal-e-Thawaab,  page 117]

Molvi  Abdus  Samee’ Raam  Puri  writes: 

This Hadith  is  from  the  Saheehain.  That  is,  whoever  has  taken into  the  Deen,  such  things  which  are  not  a  part  of  the Deen,  i.e.  it  is  contrary  to  Qur`aan  and  Sunnah  —  such things are rejected.” [Anwaar-e-Saati`a, page 33]

The  leader  of  the  opposite  party,  Ahmed  Raza  Khan   Barelwi writes,  in  trying  to  legalise  (make  Halaal)  tobacco  :

Remains  (this  contention)  that  it  is  a  Bid’ah.  This  is  not  a harmful  thing  that  there  is  Bid’ah  in  food  and  drink.  This  is not  part  of  the  Deen.  Therefore  to  classify  it  as  Haraam will  be  a  difficult  task.”  [Ahkaam-e-Shariah,  vol.3,  page 168]

Now  you  have  heard  it  from  the  leader  of  the  opposition, that  Bid’ah  are  those  rejected  actions  which  are  done whilst  understanding  them  to  be  a  part  of  the  Deen.  Those things  which  are  not  a  part  of  (or  connected  to)  the  Deen, to  classify  them  as  Haraam  will  be  a  difficult  task.

The  definition  of  Bid`ah  according  to  the  Ulama  of Lexicography

The  respected  readers  have  reached  this  conclusion  that whatever  is  not  authenticated  from  the  Qur`an,  Hadith, Ijma  or  Shar`i  Qiyaas,  or  the  action  is  contrary  to  the example  set  by  Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  lifestyle  and  exemplar, and  such  actions  are  introduced  into  the  Deen,  then  such actions are certainly classified as Bid’ah.

Now  you  should  take  cognisance  of  the  definition  of Bid’ah as made by the Ulama of lexicography:

The  famous  Imaam  of  lexicography,  Abul  Fatah  Naasir  Ibn Abdus  Sayed  Mutraazi  Al-Hanafi  (rahmatullah  alayh) writes:

Al-Bid’ah  is  a  noun  which  is  derived  from  the  word ‘Ibtidaa`-ul  -Amr’,  when  an  act  is  innovated  or  initiated. Just  like  the  word  ‘Ar-Raf`at’  which  is  derived  from  the word  ‘Irtifaa`’,  and  also  the  word  ‘Khalfat’  which  is derived  from  the  word  ‘Ikhtilaaf’.  But  now  (the  word ‘Bid’ah’)  has  been  taken  to  mean  anything  which  adds  or subtracts  from  the  matters  of  Deen.”  [Maghrib,  vol.1,  page 30]

Allaamah Fairuz Abaadi (rahmatullahi alaih) writes:

Bid’ah,  with  a  kasrah  on  the  baa,  (means)  innovation  in Deen  after  it  has  been  perfected.  Or  it  refers  to  those actions  or  desires  which  were  innovated  (into  the  Deen) after the demise of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).” [Qaamoos, page 4, vol.2]

Imaam Raaghib Asfahaani (rahmatullahi alaih) writes:

Bid’ah  in  the  Madhab  is  a  word  used  for  those  actions and  speech  which  are  not  in  conformity  with  the  Shariah, its  example  and  principles.”  [Mufradaatul  Qur`aan,  page 37]

Imaam  Muhammad  Bin  Abi  Bakr  Bin  Abdil  Qaadir  Raazi, writes:

Al-Bid’ah  –  innovation  in  the  Deen  after  its  perfection.” [Mukhtaarus Sihaah, page 280]

Allaamah  Abul  Fadhl  Muhammad  Bin  Umar  Jamaal  Al-Qurashi (rahmatullah alayh) writes:

Bid’ah  are  those  new  and  innovated  actions  and  customs which  are  introduced  into  the  Deen  after  its  perfection.” [Siraah, vol.2, page 301]

The  famous  Urdu  dictionary,  ‘Fairoozul  Looghaat’,  states:

“1:    Bid’ah:  To  innovate  a  new  action  or  custom  into  the Deen.  A  new  way,  mode  or  culture

2:  Hardness, oppression

3.    To  fight,  cause  corruption,  evil.”  [page 194]

Al-Bid’ah:  To  innovate  a  thing  without  an  example.  A new  custom  in  the  Deen.  Such  beliefs  or  actions  whose source  is  not  found  in  the  first  three  eras,  which  were classified  as  being  the  best.”  [Misbaahul  Lughaat,  page 27]

Imaam  Nawawi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  the  literal definition of Bid’ah as follows:

Any  such  action  which  is  innovated  without  having  a former  base.”

The Shar`i meaning of Bid`ah Haafidh  Badruddeen  Aini  Hanafi  (rahmatullah  alayh) states:

Al-Bid’ah  are  actually  innovations  of  actions  which  were not  prevalent  during  the  time  of  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).”  [Umdatul Qaari, page 356, vol. 5]

Haafidh Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) states:  “Bid’ah  actually  refers  to  those  actions  which  are innovated  without  them  having  a  previous  example. According  to  the  Shariah  it  is  referred  to  as  the  opposite  of the  Sunnah,  which  is  rejected.”  [Fathul  Baari,  page  219, vol. 4]

Allaamah  Murtadha  Zubaidi  Hanafi  (rahmatullah  alayh) states:

“(The  meaning  of  the  Hadith)  ‘All  innovations  are  Bid’ah’ refers  to  all  those  things  which  are  contrary  to  the principals  of  the  Shariah  and  are  not  in  conformity  with the Sunnah.” [Taajul Uroos, vol. 5, page 271]

Haafidh Ibn Rajab (rahmatullah alayh) states:

The  object  of  (the  word)  Bid’ah  is  all  those  things  which are  innovated  and  they  have  no  source  in  the  Shariah which  can  prove  them.  However  those  things  (innovations) which  have  some  source  in  the  Shariah,  which  can  prove them,  they  are  not  regarded  as  ‘Bid’ah’  although  they  will be  termed  as  ‘Bid’ah’  according  to  the  literal  definition.” [Jaamiul Uloom wal Hikam, page 193]

Allaamah  Mu`een  Bin  Safi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  has described  Bid’ah  in  the  very  same  words  in  “Sharah Arbaeen Nawawi”.

Haafidh Ibn Katheer states:

The  meaning  of  ‘Badee-us-Samaawaati’  is  that  Allaah Ta`ala  ad  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth  with  His Perfect  Power  without  there  being  any  previous  example or  model.  In  the  dictionary,  every  new  thing  is  called  a Bid’ah  and  Bid’ah  is  divided  into  two  types:  (1)  Bid’ah-e-Shar`i,  regarding  which  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said:  ‘Every  new  thing  is a  Bid’ah  and  every  innovation  (Bid’ah)  is  deviation.’  (2) Sometimes  Bid’ah  is  literal,  just  like  when  Hadhrat  Umar  (radhiyallahu anhu) gathered  the  people  for  Taraaweeh  Salaat,  he  said:  ‘This is a good Bid’ah.’”

He writes further:

And  similarly,  ever  word  and  action  which  was  not  done before,  is  classified  as  a  Bid’ah  by  the  Arabs.”  [Tafseer, page 161]

Allaamah  Abu  Is`haaq  Gharnaati  (rahmatullah  alayh) defines Bid’ah-e-Shar`i as follows:

This  is  such  a  method  which  is  introduced  into  the  Deen which  is  similar  to  the  Shariah  and  whose  following introduces  excesses  into  the  Ibaadat  of  Allaah  Ta`ala.” [Al-I`tisaam, page 30], vol.1]

Molvi  Abdus  Samee`,  reports  that  the  Fuqahaa (rahmatullahi  alaihim)  have  extracted  the  following meaning  for  Bid`ah-e-Sayyia,  which  he  quotes  for Allaamah  Shaami  (rahmatullah  alayh)  and  other Muhaqqiqeen:

(Bid`ah  is  such  a  thing)  Which  is  invented  contrary  to  the Haqq  that  Nabi  ρ  had  taught.  Or  it  is  such  an  action  or condition  which  (whilst  resembling  the  Shariah)  appears  to be  a  good  action  and  it  is  included  into  the  Deen  and  made part  of  the  Siraatul  Mustaqeem.”  [Anwaarus  Saati`a,  page 46]

This  exact  same  text  is  quoted  for  the  definition  of  Bid`ah-e-Sayyia  and  Bid`ah-e-Shariah  in  reputable  Hanafi  Fiqh Kitaabs such as Bahrur Raa`iq, Durrul Mukhtaar, etc.

Moulana  Sakhaawat  Ali  Saheb  Al-Hanafi  Jonpuri (rahmatullah alayh) writes:

Bid`ah  comprises  all  such  actions,  whether  they  be regarding  Aqeedah  of  the  Deen  or  harm  or  benefit  for  the Aakhirat  (Hereafter),  which  were  not  authenticated  or practiced  by  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) or  the  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam  (radhiyallahu anhuma)” [Risaalat Taqwa, page 9]

The  famous  Muhaqqiq  Aalim  Molvi  Muhammad  Saalih Saheb, from the opposition camp writes:

The  Shar`i  definition  of  Bid`ah  refers  to  those  things which  are  regarded  as  being  part  of  the  Deen  but  have  no Shar`i  proof  to  back  them  up.  Neither  from  the  Qur`aan Majeed  nor  the  Ahaadith,  nor  the  Ijma`  of  the Mujtahiddeen  nor  from  Qiyaas.”  [Tuhfatul  Ahbaab,  page 98]

The Akaabireen of the Ulama-e-Deoband

The  Akaabireen  of  the  Ulama  of  Deoband  totally  follow and  rely  on  the  research  of  the  Salf-e-Saaliheen  with  regard to  Ittibaa-e-Sunnat.  As  with  other  Masaa`il,  they  follow the  definition  of  Bid`ah  of  the  Salf.    In  this  regard, Moulana Kareem Bakhsh Saheb, writes:

According  to  the  definition  of  the  Shariah,  Bid`ah  are  all such  actions  of  the  Deen  which  the  majority  of  the  Ahle Haqq  of  the  first  three  eras  have  not  accepted.  Or  it  was regarded  as  being  contrary  to  the  Deen  during  these  pure eras.  Or  it  is  such  acts  which  were  initiated  after  these eras  and  they  are  such  acts  which  are  not  necessary  yet are  regarded  as  being  necessary,  alternatively  they  are necessary  acts  which  are  not  regarded  as  being necessary.” [Haqeeqatul Imaan, page 38]

Hadhrat  Moulana  Shabbir  Ahmad  Saheb  (rahmatullah alayh) writes:

Bid`ah  is  a  term  referred  to  all  such  acts  which  are  not found  in  the  Qur`aan  Majeed,  Sunnat  or  those  eras  which have  been  testified  to  as  being  the  best.  It  is  those  acts which  are  regarded  as  being  part  of  Deen  and  (thought  to be) liable for reward.” [Hamaail Shareef, page 702]

Hadhrat Allaamah Mufti (rahmatullah alayh) states:

Kifaayatullaah Saheb “Bid`ah  are  all  those  acts  which  are  not  established  from the  origins  of  the  Shariah.  That  is,  they  are  not  found  in  the Qur`aan  Majeed,  the  Sunnat  and  they  were  not  practiced by  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  the  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam  (radhiyallahu anhum)  or  the  Taabieen (rahmatullah alauhim).  And  they  are  such  acts  which  are practiced  or  omitted  regarding  them  to  be  a  part  of  the Shariah.” [Taleemul Islaam, part 4, page 27]

Beloved  readers!  You  have  ascertained  from  all  the  above discussion  the  strong  viewpoints  and  concrete  views  of  not only  the  Ulama  of  Deoband,  but  also  those  of  Barelwis  and other  Ulama  who  are  accepted  and  respected  by  both  these groups,  that  Bid`ah  are  all  those  actions,  beliefs  or conditions  which  are  contrary  to  the  Qur`an  Majeed, Sunnat  or  Qiyaas-e-Shar`i.  You  have  also  read  the  text from  Allaamah  Ibn  Katheer  (rahmatullah  alayh)  that  “All those  words  and  actions  which  are  not  established  from the Sahaabah are Bid`ah.”

Keeping  all  the  above  in  mind,  now  reflect  upon  the following words of Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan:

To  stipulate  the  condition  of  it  being  of  a  Deeni  nature  is only  from  their  side.  This  (view)  is  contrary  to  the authentic  Ahaadith,  statements  of  the  Ulama  and  Fuqahaa and  the  Muhadditheen.  It  is  stated  in  the  Hadith:  ‘All innovations  are  Bid`ah’.  There  is  no  conditions  stated here  of  it  (innovations)  being  of  a  Deeni  or  fundamental nature.  Also,  we  have  quoted  the  texts  of  Ash`atul  Lam`aat and  Mirqaat.  There  is  no  condition  placed  of  it  being  of  a Deeni nature.” [Jaa`al Haqq Wa Zahaqal Baatil, page 212]

He states further:

From  these  two  texts  (Ash`atul  Lam`aat  and  Mirqaat)  we neither  see  the  condition  of  it  being  of  a  Deeni  nature  nor does  it  refer  to  the  era  of  the  Sahaabah.    Whatever  the  act may  be,  whether  it  is  of  a  Deeni  or  fundamental  nature, whether  it  was  initiated  after  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  either  during  the  era of  the  Sahaabah  or  after  them,  is  termed  a  Bid`ah.”  [Jaa`al Haqq, page 206]

This  claim  of  Mufti  Saheb  is  based  on  pure  ignorance, because  firstly,  we  have  cited  the  complete  texts  which define  that  the  Shar`i  Bid`ah  which  is  accursed  and rejected  does  have  the  stipulation  and  condition  of  it being  of  a  Deeni  nature.  In  fact,  one  narration  even  has the words, “Fi Deenina” (in our Deen).

Secondly,  even  if  we  assume  that  the  texts  of  Ash`atul Lam`aat  and  Mirqaat  do  not  stipulate  the  condition  of  it being  of  a  Deeni  nature  and  it  does  not  mention  the  era  of the  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (ridhwanallahu anhum),  this  does  not  exclude  the  fact that  it  is  mentioned  in  any  other  text.   

Let  us  show  Mufti Saheb  the  condition  of  it  being  of  a  Deeni  nature  in Ash`atul  Lam`aat  and  Mirqaat.  The  narration  of  Hadhrat Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  where  he  did  not  reply  to  the  Salaam  of  a Bid`ati  was  cited  previously.  In  commentary  of  the  words “Balaghani  Qad  Ahdatha”  in  this  narration,  Allaamah Mullah Ali Qaari (rahmatullah alayh) states:

That  is,  he  has  innovated  and  started  a  new  thing  in  the Deen,  which  is  not  of  it.”  [Mirqaat,  page  23,  vol.1]  Sheikh  Abdul  Haqq  Muhaddith  Dehlwi  (rahmatullahi alaihi)  states  on  page  102,  vol.  1  of  Ash`atul  Lam`aat    that the innovations are of a Deeni nature.

There  we  see  the  condition  of  the  innovations  being  of  a Deeni  nature  coming  from  the  texts  of  Ash`atul  Lam`aat and  Mirqaat.    Now  we  need  to  ask  Mufti  Saheb,  as  to  who is  to  stipulate  the  condition  of  it  being  of  a  Deeni  from their  side  and  who  is  contradicting  the  authentic  Ahaadith and  the  statements  of  the  UlamaFuqahaa  and Muhadditheen?   Similarly,  he  should  refer  to  the commentary  of  these  two  personalities  of  the  narrations  of “(binding)  Upon  you  is  my  Sunnat  and  the  Sunnat  of  the Khulafaa-e-Raashideen”  and  “That  upon  which  I  am  and my  Companions”.  Judging  from  their  commentaries  is  the actions  of  the  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam  (radhiyallahu anhuma) Sunnat  or  Bid`ah?  The text  of  Ash`atul  Lam`aat  has  been  previously  mentioned that  the  Ijtihaad  and  Qiyaas  of  the  Khulafaa-e-Raashideen are  also  regarded  as  part  of  the  Sunnat.  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar Khaan  is  now  clandestinely  implying  that  the  actions  of  the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (radhiyallahu anhum) were also Bid`ah.

It  is  strange  and  perplexing  that  our  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  mentioned  the actions  of  the  Khulafaa-e-Raashideen  as  being  Sunnat  and he  has  made  the  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (alayhim ar ridhwan)  a  model  of emulation  and  he  has  advised  the  Ummat  to  follow  in  their footsteps,  and  yet  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  states:  “ either  during  the  era  of  the  Sahaabah  or  after  them,  is termed a Bid`ah.”

Thirdly,  the  statement  of  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  that: “To  stipulate  the  condition  of  it  being  of  a  Deeni  nature  is only  from  their  side.  This  (view)  is  contrary  to  the authentic  Ahaadith,  statements  of  the  Ulama  and  Fuqahaa and  the  Muhadditheen”  is  a  great  slander  and  a  blatant  lie! It  will  not  be  found  in  the  statements  of  any  reputable ImaamFaqeehMuhaddith  or  Aalim  wherein  the definition  of  an  evil  Bid`ah  or  a  Bid`ah-e-Shar`i  precludes the condition of it being of a Deeni nature.

The  text  from  Imaam  Maalik’s  Al-I`tisaam  has  been quoted  where  he  states  the  condition:  “Innovation  in Islaam”.  The  texts  of  other  UlamaFuqahaa  and Muhadditheen also quoted, bear similar import.  

The  same  applies  for  the  definitions  of  Bid`ah  which  have been  quoted  from  the  dictionaries.  It  has  also  been explained  that  the  meaning  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  words:  “All innovations  are  Bid`ah”,  clearly  indicate  and  imply Bid`ah-e-Shar`i  in  the  explanation  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  who  referred to  it  regarding  the  Kitaab  and  Sunnat.  It  has  also  been stated  whilst  quoting  the  texts  of  Allaamah  Ibn  Katheer and  Zubaidi  (rahmatullah  alayhima)  that  it  refers  to  Shar`i Bid`ah  and  not  Bid`ah  in  the  literal  sense.  It  is  now unnecessary  that  we  quote  anything  further,  nevertheless, for  the  benefit  of  Mufti  Saheb,  we  will  mention  a  few others:

Hadhrat  Ibn  Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu)  states  in  commenting  on  the  Aayat: “Fa Laa Taq`udu Ma`ahum…”: “Included  under  this  Aayat  are  all  those  innovations  in  the Deen  and  every  Bid`ah  until  the  Day  of  Qiyaamah.” [Khaazin, page 509, vol.1]

Mufti  Saheb  must  now  muster  the  courage  to  ask  this master  of  Tafseer  and  high-ranking  Sahaabi:    “Why  have you  added  this  condition  of  ‘In  the  Deen’  from  your  side? Bid`ah refers to every new thing, be it Deeni or worldly.

Hadhrat Hassaan Taabiee (rahmatullah alayh) states:

No  nation  innovates  a  Bid`ah  in  their  Deen,  except  that Allaah  Ta`ala  deprives  them  (removes  from  them)  one Sunnat  equal  to  it,  whereto  they  will  never  return  until  the Day of Qiyaamah.” [Daarmi page 26, Mishkaat, page 31]

Hadhrat  Hassaan  (rahmatullah  alayh)  also  adds  the condition  of  “In  their  Deen”.  He  compares  Sunnat  to Bid`ah  implying  that  if  Sunnat  is  a  Deeni  work,  then Bid`ah  is  also  a  term  attributed  to  a  Deeni  work.  In  fact, Hadhrat Ghadeef Bin Haarith reports from Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam):

“He  says  that  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said:  ‘No  nation  innovates  a Bid`ah,  except  that  a  Sunnat  equal  to  it  is  removed  from them.  To  hold  on  fast  to  a  Sunnat  is  better  than innovating  a  Bid`ah.”  [Musnad  Ahmad,  page  105,  vol.4, Mishkaat, page 31]

Our  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  has  also  compared  Sunnat  to  Bid`ah.  If  a Sunnat  is  a  Deeni  work,  then  Bid`ah  is  also  a  Deeni  work. If  Bid`ah  refers  to  a  worldly  matter,  as  Mufti  Saheb deviously  avers,  then  this  comparison  would  not  be  valid. Hence,  why  would  a  Sunnat  be  lifted  away  with  the innovation of a Bid`ah?

Allaamah  Sa`adud  Deen  Taftaazaani  (rahmatullah  alayh) states:

Indeed  an  accursed  Bid`ah  is  that  innovation  in  the  Deen which  was  not  prevalent  in  the  era  of  the  Sahaabah  or Taabieen  and  it  has  no  Shar`i  proof  to  substantiate  it.” [Sharhul Maqaasid, page 271, vol.2]

Allaamah  Abdul  Azeez  Farhaarwi  (rahmatullah  alayh),  in refuting Bid`ah, states:

It  (Bid`ah)  are  all  those  things  which  have  been innovated  into  the  Deen  after  the  era  of  the  Sahaabah, without having Shar`i basis.” [Bazaas, page 21]

This  much  becomes  evidently  clear  that  the  Bid`ah  which is  rebuked  is  —  not  according  to  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan every  new  Deeni  or  worldly  thing  —  in  fact,  it  is  every innovation  in  the  Deen.  This  is  the  Bid`ah  which  is Haraam.  As  for  those  Bid`ahs  of  things  which  are  of  a worldly  nature,  to  establish  them  as  being  Haraam  would be,  in  the  words  of  Mufti  Khaan  Saheb  Barelwi,  a  difficult issue.

As  you  note,  since  the  time  of  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) right  upto  Molvi  Ahmad  Raza  Khaan   Barelwi,  everyone  defined  a  Bid`ah  to  be  an  innovation  in the  Deen.  But  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  Saheb  avers  that that  condition  of  it  being  of  a  Deeni  nature  is  incorrect. Subhaanallaah!

The  crux  is  that  an  accursed  Bid`ah  is  only  those  things which  are  deemed  liable  for  Thawaab  and  regarded  as  part of  the  Deen.  There  is  consensus  amongst  the  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (radhiyallahu anhuma),  the  Taabieen  and  Salf-Saaliheen  (rahmatullahi alayhim)  on  the  censuring  of  this.  In  this  regard,  Allaamah Shaatbi (rahmatullah alayh) states:

The  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (radhiyallahu anhuma),  Taabieen,  Tabe-Taabieen  and other  Salf-e-Saaliheen  (rahmatullah  alayhim)  unanimously rebuke  and  censure  this  type  of  Bid`ah.”  [Al-I`tisaam, page 181, vol.1]

The  condition  of  it  being  of  a  Deeni  nature  is  present. Worldly  matters  are  definitely  not  included  in  such Bid`ahs.  In  fact,  this  much  may  even  be  said  that  this (worldly  matters)  cannot  even  be  classified  as  being Makrooh,  leave  alone  Haraam.  If  you  do  not  accept  our statement,  then  take  note  of  what  Sheikhul  Islaam,  Ibn Daqeequl Eid (rahmatullah alayh) states:

If  we  consider  those  innovations  which  are  of  a  worldly nature,  then  they  are  not  equal  or  comparable  to  those innovations  which  are  of  a  Deeni  nature.  It  is  as  though those  innovations  which  are  related  to  worldly  matters  are not  Makrooh,  in  fact,  it  can  safely  be  claimed  that  many  of them  are  not  in  the  least  bit  Makrooh.  When  we  consider those  innovations  which  are  related  to  corollary  Deeni matters,  they  are  not  equal  or  comparable  to  those innovations  which  are  related  to  principles  of  belief (Aqaa`id).” [Ahkaamul Ahkaam, page 51, vol.1]

Understand  this  text  well  and  you  will  note  that  there  are Bid`ahs  in  beliefs  and  in  actions.  There  are  Bid`ahs  in worldly  matters  and  Deeni  matters.  However,  the innovations  in  worldly  matters  are  neither  Haraam  nor accursed.  In  fact,  they  cannot  even  be  classified  as Makrooh.  Those  who  include  worldly  matters  under  the definition  of  Bid`ah  are  plain  ignorant.  We  do  not  say  this.   Consider this statement of the author of Anwaar-e-Saati`a:

From  amongst  the  ignoramuses  are  those  who  include everything  which  was  not  prevalent  during  the  era  of  the Sahaabah  as  being  an  accursed  Bid`ah,  even  though  there is  no  proof  for  its  being  a  detestable  act.  They  (the ignoramuses)  back  their  claim  with  the  words  of  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam): ‘Save  yourselves  from  new  innovations’.  These  ignorant ones  do  not  understand  that  this  Hadith  refers  to  the inclusion  of  innovations  in  the  Deen  of  those  things  which are not a part of it.” [Page 34]

Refer  to  all  the  above  citations,  and  then  reflect  at  the intellectual  research  of  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan.  He states:

Nowadays,  many  a  things  that  are  in  existence  and  have been  invented  were  unheard  of  during  the  best  of  eras,  and without  which  life  would  be  difficult.  Every  person  is constrained  to  use  them.  Trains,  motorcars,  aeroplanes, ships,  horse  and  trailer,  etc.,  etc.  And  then  we  have  letters, envelopes,  telephones,  radio,  loudspeakers,  etc.  All  these things  and  their  usage  are  Bid`ah.  Yet,  persons  from  every sector  of  the  community  make  use  of  them.  Tell  us,  will  the Deobandis  and  Wahhabis  manage  to  pass  through  life without  these  Bid`ah-e-Hasanas?  Definitely  not!”  [Jaa`al Haqq, page 211]

The  definitions  of  Bid`ah-e-Hasana  and  Bid`ah-e-Sayyia will  follow  later  on.  But,  after  reflection  of  the  above quotation,  Mufti  Saheb  must  hide  his  face  in  his  collar  and take  proper  stock  of  himself  and  confess  as  to  whose  claim it  is  that  every  new  invention  is  a  Bid`ah.  Is  it  his  claim  or that of the Deobandis and Wahhabis?

Beloved  readers!  Consider  well  what  meaning  Mufti Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  extracts  from  the  Hadith  “Whoever innovates  into  this  matter  (Deen)  of  ours  which  is  not  of it, is rejected.” He states:

That  person  who  innovates  into  this  Deen  of  ours  any belief  which  is  contrary  to  the  Deen  is  rejected.  We  have taken  the  meaning  of  (the  Arabic  word)  “Ma”  to  be Aqaa`id  (beliefs)  because  Deen  is  another  word  for Aqaa`id.  Actions  are  corollaries.”  [Jaa`al  Haqq,  page 204/5]

Mufti  Saheb  must  be  asked  as  to  why  he  had  on  his  own side  and  contrary  to  the  authentic  Ahaadith  and  the statements  of  the  UlamaFuqahaa  and  Muhadditheen included  the  condition  of  Deen?  Since,  according  to  his own  words,  this  condition  of  Deen  was  not  made  in Ash`atul  Lam`aat  and  Mirqaat.  Explain  to  us  this  also  your statement  that  “Deen  is  another  word  for  Aqaa`id.  Actions are  corollaries”.  Without  doubt,  Salaat,  fasting,  Hajj, ZakaatJihaad,  etc.  are  corollaries  as  far  as  Aqaa`id  is concerned.  But  each  one  on  their  place  also  forms  an integral  part  of  Islaam  and  are  amongst  the  principles  of the  Deen.  In  the  Qur`an  Majeed  and  the  Ahaadith,  the word  Deen  is  clearly  applied  to  matters  such  as  Salaat, Jihaad,  etc.  Many  other  examples  can  also  be  cited  in substantiation  of  our  point,  but  we  will  suffice  on  this.  The crux  of  the  matter  is  that  whether  it  be  regarding  Aqaa`id or  actions,  Bid`ah  can  be  found  in  all  of  them.

The fabrication of Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan

Mufti  Saheb  has  restricted  the  word  “Ma”  to  Aqaa`id  only. He  says  in  this  regard:  “It  has  been  established  that  Bid`ah refers  to  Aqeedah”  [Jaa`al  Haqq,  page  205]. He  states further  on: 
The  severe  warnings  that  appears  in  the Ahaadith  for  Bid`ah  and  the  Bid`atees  refers  only  to Bid`ah-e-Aqeedah.  It  appears  in  a  Hadith  that  the  person who  honours  the  Bid`ati  has  assisted  in  the  destruction  of Deen.  It  appears  in  the  Fatwa  regarding  the  perpetrator  of a  Bid`ah-e-I`tiqaadia  in  Fataawa  Rasheedia,  vol.  1, Kitaabul  Bid`aat,  page  90,  that  the  Bid`ah  wherein  severe warning  has  been  given  against  is  with  regard  to  those Bid`ahs  in  Aqaa`id.  Like  that  of  the  Bid`ah  of  the Rawaafidh and Khawaarij.” [Jaa`al Haqq, page 205]

Without  doubt,  the  severe  warning  has  been  given  for Bid`ahs  regarding  Aqaa`id,  but  Mufti  Saheb  must  show  us whether  the  issue  concerning  Ilm-e-GhaibHaazir-o-Naazir  and  Mukhtaar-e-Kul  are  all  Masaa`il  of  Aqaa`id  or not?  Has  severe  warnings  been  given  for  such  matters  or not?  Such  beliefs  were  never  present  during  the  best  of eras.  How  can  it  be  that  severe  warning  has  been  given  for Bid`ah  relating  to  Aqaa`id  but  with  regard  to  corollary  and other  Masaa`il,  the  term  Bid`ah  does  not  even  apply  and  no warning  has  been  given  for  them?  References  have  been sufficiently  cited  which  show  that  Bid`ah  applies  to beliefs  and  actions.  The  citations  of  Hafiz  Ibn  Katheer, Allaamah  Shaami  and  other  Muhaqqiqeen  etc.  have  the conditions of beliefs, actions and conditions.

Hafiz Ibn Rajab states:

Whoever  innovates  a  thing  and  relates  it  to  the  Deen, whilst  it  is  not  a  part  of  the  Deen,  then  this  is  clear deviation.  The  Deen  is  free  from  such  innovations.  It  is irrelevant  whether  this  innovation  relates  to  beliefs, actions  or  statements.  As  for  the  statements  of  some  of  the Salf  which  are  amongst  the  good  innovations.  Such (statements)  fall  under  the  category  of  Bid`ah  literally  and not  in  terms  of  the  Shariah.”  [Jaamiul  Uloom  Wal  Hikam, page 193]

Sheikh  Abdul  Haqq  Muhaddith  Dehlwi  (rahmatullah alayh)  states  on  page  94  of  Maktoobaat  that  whatever changes  that  are  contrary  to  the  Sunnat  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  are  a deviated  Bid`ah  and  rejected.  From  this  we  ascertain  that every  new  thing,  be  it  Deeni  or  Dunyawi,  is  not  necessarily rejected.  The  second  thing  that  can  be  gleaned  from  his text  is  that  it  is  necessary  to  follow  the  Sunnat  in  so  far  as IbaadaatAadaat  and  beliefs.  To  oppose  this  is  a  Bid`ah and  rejected.  The  third  thing  from  this  text  is  that  the words  “Every  innovation  is  deviation”  does  not  included every  new  thing,  as  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  has indicated.  In  fact,  according  to  the  words  of  Hadhrat Sheikh  Saheb  (rahmatullah  alayh)  the  import  of  the Hadith  is  Bid`ah-e-Shar`i.    The  fourth  thing  is  that  a Bid`ati  is  deprived  of  the  Noor  of  Wilaayat.  The  Noor  of Wilaayat  is  only  attained  by  following  the  Sunnat  of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  a Bid`ati  is  completely  deprived  thereof.

A doubt and its clarification

It  is  possible  that  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  Saheb  may aver:  “I  did  not  mean  that  the  condition  of  Deen  does  not appear  in  this  Hadith,  I  meant  that  the  issue  of  a  Deeni thing has been placed by them.” 

An  answer  to  this  is  that  both  these  conditions  are  present in  the  above-mentioned  citations.  The  condition  of  Deen and  that  of  action.  This  has  come  to  light  (from  the  above discussions)  that  any  new  innovation  in  the  Deen,  whether it  be  in  relation  to  beliefs  or  actions,  is  rejected  and  baatil.   The  Hadith  “Whoever  innovates  into  this  matter  (Deen) of ours which is not of it, is rejected” is general. 

The  word  “Ma”  includes  beliefs,  actions,  statements  and desires,  as  has  been  borne  out  by  the  discussion.  Therefore to  limit  it  only  to  Aqaa`id  (beliefs)  as  has  Mufti  Ahmad Yaar  Khaan,  is  baatil.  In  fact,  in  another  context,  this Hadith  clearly  includes  the  word  “Amal”  (action).  Hadhrat Aisha (radhiyallahu anha) reports that Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

Whoever  carries  out  an  action  which  is  not  from  our matter  (Deen),  it  is  rejected.”  [Bukhari,  page  1092,  vol.  2  / Muslim, page 77, vol. 1 / Masnad Ahmad, page 140, vol.6]

From  this  authentic  narration  we  can  clearly  see  that Bid`ah  is  not  only  relating  to  beliefs,  in  fact,  it  relates  also to  actions.  It  is  apparent  from  the  words  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  that  for whatever  work  there  is  no  authentication  and  there  is  no seal on it, then that action is rejected and baatil.

Note  what  emanates  from  the  words  of  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar Khaan. He states:

“The  Shar`i  meaning  of  Bid`ah  is  those  beliefs  and  actions which  were  not  present  in  the  external  form  during  the  era of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  .  They  were  innovated  later  on.  The  result  is  this that  Bid`ah-e-Shar`i  is  of  two  types:  Bid`ah-e-I`tiqaadi  and Bid`ah-e-Amali.” [Jaa`al Haqq, page 204]

This  then  is  exactly  what  we  have  been  saying  all  along, that  there  are  two  types  of  Bid`ahBid`ah-e-I`tiqaadi and  Bid`ah-e-Amali.  Warnings  have  been  sounded  against both  of  them  (in  the  Ahaadith).  There  is  a  difference however  that  the  warnings  against  Bid`ah-e-I`tiqaadi  are more  severe.  But  the  fact  still  remains  that  warnings  do exist  for  both  of  them.

Another  glaring  error  of  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan

He states: 

If  we  assume  that  the  condition  for  a  Deeni  work  exists for  Bid`ah,  then  a  Deeni  work  will  be  defined  as  that action  wherein  one  anticipates  reward…..Also  whatever worldly  action  a  person  does  with  good  intentions,  he  also received  reward  for  it…..Therefore  every  worldly  act  of  a Muslim  is  a  Deeni  one  also.  Now  tell  us,  is  it  a  Bid`ah  to feed  Pilou  (rice  dish)  to  someone  with  a  good  intention  or not?”  [Jaa`al  Haqq,  page  212]

The  wisdom  behind  specifying  Palou  is  better  known  to Mufti  Saheb  himself.  The  secret  as  to  why  he  is  advocating and  encouraging  the  feeding  of  Palou  is  known  to  him. Why  did  he  not  specify  general  eating?  Mufti  Saheb  must tell  us  if  he  ever  came  across  the  word  “Mubaah” (permissible)  in  any  Fiqh  Kitaab?  If  he  does  not  have  any other  Kitaab  at  his  disposal  then  he  should  refer  at  least  to Khulaasaa-e-Keidaani.    If  he  does  not  have  access  to  this, then  at  least  he  should  refer  to  Anwaar-e-Saatia,  wherefrom he  took  random  excerpts  and  compiled  his  Jaa`al  Haqq. Therein it is stated:

And  some  Mubaah  (permissibilities),  that  is,  there  doing warrants  neither  reward  nor  punishment.”  [Anwaar-e-Saatia, page 47]

There  are  some  actions  of  the  Muslim  which  warrants  no reward  or  punishment.  In  fact,  Mufti  Saheb  has  himself  in substantiation  of  a  certain  matter  clearly  stated  that  in Mubaah  there  is  no  relation  with  reward  [see  Jaa`al  Haqq, page  305]. 

What  more  proof  does  Mufti  Saheb  need  over this??

A basic error of the Ahle Bid`ah

Other  Ahle  Bid`ah,  especially  Molvi  Abdus  Samee`  and Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan,  are  guilty  of  the  error  of claiming  that  the  import  of  the  words  “Laisa  Minhu”  (is not  from  it)  are  those  beliefs  and  actions  which  are contrary  to  the  Sunnat  and  the  Deen.  They  take  the meaning  of  ‘being  contrary’  to  be  whatever  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  has  not issued  an  explicit  prohibition  against.  They  aver  that  all those  matters  whereupon  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  remained  silent  are  not regarded  as  an  innovation  or  Bid`ah.  And  even  if  it  can  be categorized  as  a  Bid`ah  then  it  would  be  a  Bid`ah-e-Hasana

In  this  regard,  Molvi  Abdus  Samee`  states:

Thus  all  the  Ahle  Islaam  must  know  that  whatever  the commentators  have  written  under  the  Hadith  ‘Whoever carries  out  an  action  which  is  not  from  our  matter (Deen)’,  does  not  mean  to  exclude  everything  that  is contrary  to  the  Kitaab  and  Sunnat.  Everything  is  not  bad. The  clear  meaning  of  this  is  that  whatever  the  Qur`aan  and Hadith  have  explicitly  prohibited  is  evil.  Those  things regarding  which  an  explicit  prohibition  exists,  their innovation is rejected.”  [Anwaarus Saatia, page 37]

Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan states: “If  actions  are  included  then  the  import  of    ‘which  is  not from  our  matter  (Deen)’  are  those  actions  which  are contrary  to  the  Qur`aan  and  Sunnat.”  [Jaa`al  Haqq,  page 213]

ANSWER: This  is  the  clear  exposition  and  import  of  this  ignorant  and inane  error:    Firstly,  the  words  of  the  Hadith  had  just passed  now,  where  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  states,  “Whoever  carries  out  an action  which  is  not  from  our  matter  (Deen)”,  that  is,  those things  which  have  not  been  established  from  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) are rejected.  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  did  not  say  that  those  things  are  rejected which  have  been  prohibited  by  him.  There  is  a  massive difference between the two.

Secondly,  those  things  which  have  the  explicit  prohibition of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  are  forbidden.  So  how  can  these  things  even  be considered  as  innovations  and  inventions?  Why  would  it then  be  necessary  to  differentiate  between  Bid`ah  and innovations,  whereas  Bid`ah  and  innovations  are  separate entities  from  prohibitions,  as  has  been  established  from  the authentic narrations and the consensus of the Ummat.

Thirdly,  if  Bid`ah  and  innovations  are  those  things  which have  been  explicitly  prohibited  in  the  Ahaadith,  then  how come  there  are  two  types  of  Bid`ahs  –  Hasanah  and Sayyia?  Can  it  ever  be  possible  that  after  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had  issued an  explicit  prohibition  on  a  certain  thing,  there  still  remains the  possibility  of  it  being  Hasan  (good)?  After  an  explicit prohibition,  could  not  the  Ulama  of  the  Ummat  understand that  the  lowest  degree  of  a  prohibition  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  is Karaahat  (detestment).  How  then  could  they  formulate rulings  of  Waajib,  permissible,  HaraamMakrooh  and Mubaah  for  Bid`ah?  [See  Sharah  of  Muslim  by  Nawawi, page 285, vol.1]

Fourthly,  to  aver  that  the  exclusion  of  those  things  which have  not  been  prohibited  in  the  Qur`an  Majeed  and Sunnat  and  that  these  things  are  not  bad  is  also  an  ignorant and  baseless  claim.  It  is  also  in  clear  contradiction  of  the Muhadditheen-e-E`zaam and Fuqahaa-e-Kiraam (rahmatullahi  alaihim).  The  Ulama  have  written  that  just  as one  gains  proximity  and  the  Pleasure  of  Allaah  Ta`ala  by practicing  on  the  necessary  Commands,  so  too  does  he attain  this  by  obeying  Allaah  Ta`ala  regarding  on  those things  where  there  is  lenience  on  the  Shariah.  And  also, just  as  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  doing  a  certain  act  is  Sunnat,  his abstaining  from  an  act  is  also  a  Sunnat.  Hence,  to  leave out  an  act  which  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  left  out  is  a  Sunnat  and  to  oppose that act would be a Bid`ah

Hadhrat  Mullah  Ali  Qaari  and  Sheikh  Abdul  Haqq  Dehlwi (rahmatullah alayhim) present a Hadith thus:

Just  as  Allaah  Ta`ala  loves  that  his  Commands  be obeyed,  He  also  loves  that  His  leniencies  be  adhered  to.” [Mirqaat,  page  15,  vol.2  /  Ash`atul  Lam`aat,  page  128, vol.1]

Also,  Mullah  Ali  Qaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in commentary of the first Hadith in Mishkaat:

Just  as  one  follows  in  a  certain  action,  so  too  does  one follow  in  the  non-execution  of  an  act.  So  if  one  is  punctual on  an  act  which  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  did  not  do,  he  is  a  Bid`ati.” [Mirqaat, page 41, vol.1]

At  this  juncture  Sheikh  Muhaddith  Abdul  Haqq  Dehlwi (rahmatullahi alaihi) states:

Just  as  how  to  follow  an  act  is  Waajib,  similarly,  to  leave out  an  act  (which  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  left  out)  is  also  included  as subservience.  So  whoever  is  punctual  on  an  act  which  Nabi ρ  did  not  do  is  a  Bid`ati.  This  is  what  the  Muhadditheen have mentioned.” [Ash`atul Lam`aat, page 20, vol.1]

The  very  same  explanation  is  also  mentioned  in  Mazaahire-Haqq on page 19, vol.1.

It  is  stated  in  the  Sharah  of  Musnad  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah (rahmatullahi alaihi):

Ittibaa`  (following)  –  just  as  it  exists  in  an  action  it  also exists  in  not  carrying  out  an  action.  Hence,  if  a  person practices  with  regularity  on  an  action  which  Nabi  ρ  did not  do,  he  would  be  regarded  as  a  Bid`ati.  The  reason being  that  Nabi  ρ  said:  ‘The  person  who  carries  out  an action which is not amongst our matters, is rejected’.”

Imaam  Allamah  Sayyid  Jamaaluddin  Muhaddith (rahmatullahi alayh) states:

To  leave  out  those  things  which  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  left  out  is  a Sunnat  just  as  to  do  an  action  which  Nabi  ρρρρ  did  is  a Sunnat.”  [Al-Junnah,  page  143]

From  the  above  it  is  established  that  it  is  a  Sunnat  to  leave out  those  acts  which  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  left  out,  notwithstanding  the ability  and  reasons  for  its  execution  being  present  during that  era,  just  as  it  is  a  Sunnat  to  carry  out  that  act  which Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) carried  out.  The  person  who  does  not  practice  on this  Sunnat  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  is,  according  to  the  Muhadditheen,  a Bid`ati.  This  is  exactly  what  we  are  saying  –  that  all  the acts  which  are  perpetrated  by  the  Ahle  Bid`ah  were possible  to  have  been  carried  out  during  the  time  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), i.e.  if  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  the  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (radhiyallahu anhum)  wished  to  do these  acts  they  could  have  done  so,  but  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  did  not carry  them  out.  For  us  to  leave  out  these  acts  is  also  an  act of  Sunnat  and  to  oppose  this  (i.e.  to  carry  them  out)  is  a Bid`ah.

Hadhrat  Ibn  Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) cautioned  against  making  Saja` (speak  in  rhyming  tones)  during  dua,  because  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not make Saja`. [Bukhari, page 938, vol.2]

Hadhrat Abdullaah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) mentions:

Your  raising  the  hands  more  than  what  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  raised  his is  a  Bid`ah,  that  is  above  the  chest.”  [Musnad  Ahmad, page 6, vol.2]

Hadhrat  Ammarah (radhiyallahu anhu)  severely  reprimanded  Bishr  Bin Marwaan  when  he  saw  the  latter  lifting  his  hands  whilst  on the Mimbar. He said:

May  Allaah  Ta`ala  destroy  these  two  hands.  I  never  saw Nabi  ρ  lifting  his  hands  except  to  lift  his  forefinger.” [Muslim, page 287, vol.1]

You  will  note  that  three  very  high-ranking  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam   displayed  such  resentment  at  acts  which  were not  carried  out  by  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  Hadhrat  Ibn  Abbaas  (radhiyallahu anhu) prohibited  the  making  of  Saja`  during  dua  based  solely on  the  fact  that  it  was  never  done  by  Nabi  ρρρρ  or  his Companions.  Although  dua  is  such  an  effective  and important  act  of  Ibaadat,  but  the  making  of  Saja`  in  dua was  discouraged  merely  because  neither  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) nor  his Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (alayhim ar ridhwan)  did  it.    Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) stated  the  act  of  lifting  the  hands  higher  than  the  chest when  making  dua  as  being  a  Bid`ah  simply  because  when Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  made  dua  he  did  not  lift  his  hands  higher  than his  Mubarak  chest.  Hadhrat  Ammarah (radhiyallahu anhu) cursed  Bishr  Bin Marwaan  because  he  exceeded  in  the  lifting  of  his  hands whilst on the Mimbar more than what Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would.

Consider  well  how  these  pious  personalities  regarded  even the  slightest  change  in  the  Sunnah  practice  as  being Bid`ah,  and  they  prohibited  from  it. 

Allaamah  Sayyidud Deen Kaashghazi Hanafi (rahmatullah alayh) states:

To  perform  more  than  8  Rakaats  (Nafl  Salaat)  at  night and  more  than  4  Rakaats  during  the  day  is  Makrooh  by consensus.” [Muniyatul Musallah, page 102]

It  is  mentioned  in  Nahrul  Faa`iq  that  it  is  Makrooh-e-Tahrimi.  The  Ulama  of  the  Ahnaaf  have  stated  the  reason for  this  to  be  the  non-existence  of  any  narration  to corroborate  it.  Allaamah  Alaa`ud  Deen  Abu  Bakr  Bin Mas`ood  Al-Kaasaani  Hanafi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states, whilst substantiating from other Fuqahaa:

  “It  is  Makrooh  because  to  exceed  upon  this  has  not  been seen from Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).” [Badaa`i Wa Sanaa`i, page 295, vol.1]

The author of Hidaaya writes:

The  proof  for  its  prohibition  is  that  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did  not  exceed this  (amount  of  Rakaats).  If  it  was  not  Makrooh  then  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would  have  increased  on  this  to  demonstrate  the permissibility.” [Page 127, vol.1]

It  is  stated  in  Fataawa  KabeeriDurrul  Mukhtaar, Fataawa  AjeebFataawa  Ebrahim  Shaahi  and  Kanzul Ubbaad:

It  is  Makrooh  to  make  dua  in  Ramadhaan  at  the  time  of making  Khatam  of  Qur`aan,  in  such  a  way  that  dua  is made  in  a  gathering  and  collectively.  This  is  so  because  it has  never  been  reported  such  from  Nabi  ρρρρ  or  his Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)” [From Junna, page 142]

You  may  have  noticed  that  the  Fuqahaa-e-Kiraam (rahmatullah  alayhim)  have  made  the  non-action  of  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  the  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (alayhim ar ridhwaan)  as  a  proof  (for  omitting  of  an act). Hereunder are a few more examples:

Imaamul  Muhaqqiq  Al  Mudaqqiq  Ali  Bin  Abi  Bakr Hanafi, the author of Hidaaya states:

It  is  Makrooh  to  increase  more  than  two  Rakaats  of  Nafl (Sunnat)  Salaat  of  Fajr  after  dawn  sets  in,  because  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did  not  increase  on  this,  notwithstanding  his  love  for Salaat.” [Hidaaya, page 70, vol.1]

As  you  may see  that  the  Ulama  have  extracted  the  ruling  of Karaahat  (detestment)  for  an  act  which  was  not  carried  out by  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  Besides  this  view  of  the  author  of  Hidayah, there  is  no  other  proof  for  the  omission  of  Nafl  Salaat  other than  the  two  Rakaats  Sunnat  at  the  time  of  Fajr.  If  the Hadith  “There  is  no  Salaat  after  the  rising  of  Dawn except  two  Rakaats”  which  appears  in  Nisbur  Ra`ya  on page  255,  vol.1,  is  proven  to  be  authentic,  then  it  will  be  a case  of  Noorun  Ala  Noor  (light  on  light),  where  the statement  and  action  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) both  substantiate  one another.

At another juncture the Author of Hidaaya states:

There  is  no  Khubah  on  the  occasion  of  Kusoof  (solar eclipse),  because  it  has  not  been  reported  such  from  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).” [Hidaayah, page 156, vol.1]

Notice  that  the  author  of  Hidaaya  reports  a  non-action by  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  as  a  proof  in  the  Shariah.  He  does  not  mention that Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) prohibited it, hence it is a forbidden act.

He states in another place:

There  is  no  Nafl  Salaat  prior  to  the  Eid  Salaat,  because Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did  not  do  so,  notwithstanding  his  love  for  Salaat. Then  it  is  said  (by  some)  that  this  prohibition  only  applies to  the  Eid-Gah.  It  is  also  said  that  this  (prohibition) applies  to  both  the  Eid-Gah  and  out  of  the  Eid-Gah, because  Nabi  ρ  neither  performed  (Nafl)  Salaat  at  the  EidGah or out of the Eid-Gah.” [Page 153, vol.1]

You  have  noticed  (again)  that  the  author  of  Hidaaya  has proven  the  impermissibility  of  an  action  due  to  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  not executing  the  act.  To  present  a  Hadith  that  clearly  prohibits the  performance  of  Nafl  Salaat  prior  to  Eid  Salaat  at  the Eid-Gah  or  out,  will  be  a  difficult  task.   

According  to  the author  of  Anwaarus  Saati`a  and  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan, such  an  act  should  not  be  Makrooh  or  incorrect,  because there is no explicit prohibition reported from Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)!.

Allamah  Ebrahim  Halbi  Hanafi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  has stated  that  Salaat-e-Raghaaib  (special  Salaat  performed during  the  month  of  Rajab)  is  Makrooh  and  a  Bid`ah  based on the following:

Because  indeed  it  has  not  been  reported  such  (that  they performed  such  a  Salaat)  from  the  Sahaabah,  Taabieen  or those following them.” [Kabeeri, page 433]
The  famous  Hanafi  Imaam  Ahmad  Bin  Muhammad,  who is  one  of  the  most  senior  of  the  Fuqahaa,  states  regarding his research of a particular Mas`alah:

It  is  a  Bid`ah  because  it  has  not  been  reported  such from the Sahaabah or the Taabieen.” [Al-Waaqi`aat]

Which  Muslim  is  unaware  of  one  of  the  most  authentic Hanafi  Fiqh  Kitaabs,  Fatawaa  Aalimgiri  and  Muheet? Therein it is clearly written:

The  recitation  of  Surah  Kaafiroon  until  the  end continuously  is  Makrooh,  because  it  is  a  Bid`ah  and  it has  not  been  reported  from  the  Sahaabah  or  the Taabieen.” [Aalimgiri, page 264, vol.4]

There  is  no  authentic  narration  which  has  been  reported wherein  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  has  prohibited  the  performance  of  Salaat-e Raghaaib  or  the  prohibition  of  the  recitation  of  Surah Kaafiroon  until  the  end  continuously. 

However  the  Ulama of  the  Ahnaaf  have  stated  it  as  being  Makrooh  and  a Bid`ah.  As  a  proof  they  have  only  cited  this  much  that such  acts  are  not  reported  from  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  the  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam   or  the  Taabieen  (rahmatullahi  alaihim). Even  though  an  explicit  prohibition  does  not  exist  for these  acts. 

According  to  the  self-made  and  fabricated principle  of  Molvi  Abdus  Samee`  and  Co.  Such  acts  are  not supposed  to  be  Bid`ah  or  Makrooh,  because  there  exists  no explicit  prohibition  on  them  by  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) . 

Now  people  such  as Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  profess  to  accept  the  Fuqahaa  of the  Ahnaaf  and  they  are  supposed  to  be  Hanafis themselves, yet they practice differently. 

From  the  above  texts  we  note  that  the  Fuqaha  regard  an  act as  being  a  Bid`ah  merely  on  the  basis  that  it  was  not practiced  by  the  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam  or  the  Tabieen (rahmatullahi  alaihim). 

In  Bahaar-e-Shariat,  vol.  4,  page 32,  it  is  stated  that  the  act  of  some  people  who  perform Nafl  Salaat  in  congregation  on  the  night  of  Baraat  is Makrooh  and  a  Bid`ah.  The  Hadith  which  is  presented  by some  in  substantiation  of  this  act  is  classified  as  Maudooh (fabricated)  by  the  Muhadditheen.

The  difference  between  Bid`ah-e-Hasan  and  Bid`ah-eSayyia

It  is  imperative  that  we  differentiate  and  explain  Bid`ah-e-Hasana  and  Bid`ah-e-Sayyia  so  as  to  clarify  the  issue  with those  who  are  unaware  of  the  difference  and  so  that  they are not left in trepidation regarding the two.

There  are  two  types  of  Bid`ah  –  lexicographic  Bid`ah  and Shar`i  Bid`ah.  Lexicographic  Bid`ah  is  the  term  given  to all  things  which  are  newly  invented,  which  came  into being  after  the  demise  of  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .  This  includes  Ibaadat  and Aadat  (habitual  things).  These  are  divided  into  five categories:  Waajib,  Mandoob,  Haraam,  Makrooh  and Mubaah.

Shar`i  Bid`ah  includes  all  those  innovations  which  came into  being  after  the  three  best  eras  and  upon  which  there  is no  consent  from  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  by  way  of  word,  action,  clearly  or by  indication.  This  is  that  Bid`ah  which  is  classified  under Bid`ah-e-DhalaalahBid`ah-e-Qabeehah  and  Bid`ah-e-Sayyia.  The  Ulama  have  dilated  upon  this.

Bid`ah  is  of  two  types:  one  is  a  lexicographic  Bid`ah  and the  other  is  a  Shar`i  Bid`ah.  Lexicographically,  Bid`ah  is every  new  invention  which  includes  Ibaadaat  and  Aadaat. This  Bid`ah  is  further  divided  into  five  categories.  The second  type  is  that  Bid`ah  which  increases  (or  decreases) in  any  revealed  Deeni  matter  after  the  passing  of  the  three best  era.  This  increase  is  devoid  of  consent  from  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). There  is  no  consent  from  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) on  these  actions,  neither by  way  of  word,  action,  explicit  or  by  indication.  This  is the  meaning  of  Bid`ah-e-Dhalaalat”  [Tarweejul  Jinaan  / Junna page 161]

For  a  more  detailed  explanation  on  Bid`ah-e-Hasana  and Bid`ah-e-Sayyia  refer  to  Irshaadus  Saari,  vol.3,  page  344, Umdatul  Qaari,  page  356,  vol.5,  Nawawi  Sharh  Muslim, page 285, vol.1 and  Mudkhal, page 257, vol.2.

Haafidh Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) writes:

The  crux  of  the  matter  is  this  that  if    Bid`ah  has  an acceptable  proof  in  the  Shariah,  then  it  would  be  classified as  a  Bid`ah-e-Hasana.  If  the  Bid`ah  has  an  unacceptable proof  then  it  would  be  classified  as  Bid`ah-e-Qabeehah. Otherwise  it  would  be  Mubaah.  Bid`ah  is  divided  into  five categories.”  [Fathul  Baari,  page  219,  vol.4]

A  similar  explanation  is  given  in  Allamah  Aini’s  Umdatul Qaari. Refer to page 356, vol.5.

Now  this  much  remains  to  be  explained,  that  what  is acceptable  in  the  Shariah  and  what  is  unacceptable  in  the Shariah. Hadhrat Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullahi alaihi) states:

Bid`ah  is  of  two  types.  That  Bid`ah  which  contradicts  the Kitaab  (Qur`aan  Majeed),  Sunnah,  Ijma  or  Athar  of  a Sahaabi.  This  is  Bid`ah-e-Dhalaalah.  That  Bid`ah  which does  not  contradict  anything  of  these,  this  is  a  Hasan Bid`ah,  in  accordance  to  the  words  of  Hadhrat  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu): ‘This  is  a  good  Bid`ah’”  [Minhaajus  Sunnah,  page  128, vol.2]

The  entire  discussion  on  the  above  has  already  been  placed before  the  readers,  that  just  as  there  exists  opposition  to words,  there  exists  opposition  to  action  as  well.  That  action which  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) left  out  notwithstanding  the  conditions  and ability  being  in  existence  during  his  era  and  that  the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (radhiyallahu anhum)  and  Taabieen  also  left  out  is undoubtedly  a  Bid`ah  and  deviation.  This  is  so  because  it  is in  contradiction  to  the  KitaabSunnatIjma  of  the  best  of eras  and  Qiyaas.  If  there  exists  a  little  proof  for  it,  then sometimes  it  may  be  a  good  action,  whereupon  reward  is due  and  sometimes  it  is  merely  a  permissible  action  which warrants neither reward nor sin.

The  summary  of  the  discussion  of  Qiyaas  in  Majaalis-e-Abrar  and  the  above-mentioned  texts,  results  in  the definition  of  Bid`ah-e-Hasan  and  Bid`ah-e-Sayyia  is  as follows:

Bid`ah-e-Hasan  is  that  action  whose  prevention  was removed  after  the  demise  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .  Or  its  conditions  and ability  of  execution  came  into  existence  after  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .  Some proof  for  its  execution  can  be  found  in  Kitaabullaah, SunnatIjma  or  Qiyaas.  This  is  known  as  Bid`ah-e-Hasana  or  in  other  words  it  is  also  regarded  as lexicographic  Bid`ah,  which  is  not  rejected  or  accursed. The  texts  of  Allaamah  Ibn  Rajab  etc.  has  already  been quoted which adds more light on the subject. 

As  for  that  action,  which  could  have  been  executed  during the  era  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) but  he  did  not  carry  it  out  and  the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (ridhwaanallahu anhum),  Taabieen  and  Tabe  Taabieen, notwithstanding  their  extreme  love  and  affection  for  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  also  did  not  carry  out  this  action,  then  such  actions  are called  Bid`ah-e-QabeehaBid`ah-e-Sayyia  and  Bid`ah-e-Shar`iah.    Besides  this,  the  Ijtihaad  of  a  non-Mujtahid, especially  in  our  times,  is  definitely  not  classified  as Bid`ah-e-Hasana.  In  this  regard  the  Fuqahaa-e-Kiraam (rahmatullah alayhim) have stated:

It  is  stated  in  Nisaabul  Fiqh  that  Bid`ah-e-Hasana  are those  actions  which  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahiddeen  have classified  as  Bid`ah-e-Hasana.  If  any  person  in  our  era classifies  anything  as  Bid`ah-e-Hasana  then  this  is contrary  to  the  Haqq,  because  it  is  stated  in  Musaffa  that all  Bid`ah  in  our  era  are  deviation.”  [Fatawaa  Jaamiur Riwaayat and Junna, page 60]

From  this  text  we  clearly  see  that  Bid`ah-e-Hasana  is  only that  which  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahiddeen  have  classified  as such.  Ijtihaad  and  Qiyaas  are  only  permissible  in  those issues  and  Masaa`il  regarding  which  no  Qur`anic  or Ahaadith  texts  exist,  and  the  conditions  and  possibility  of their  execution  did  not  exist  during  the  time  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the  best  of  eras,  in  fact,  it  (conditions  and  possibilities  of execution)  came  into  existence  only  after  these  eras.  If  any person  in  this  present  age  classifies  any  new  action  as  a Bid`ah-e-Hasana,  then  his  claim  would  be  totally  rejected and discounted. This  is  that  Bid`ah  regarding  which  Mujaddid  Alfe  Thaani (rahmatullah alayh) stated: 

How  can  those  things  which  are  rejected  ever  be regarded  as  Hasan  and  good?”  [Maktoobaat,  part  3,  page 72]

The claim of Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan

Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  has  classified  all  Bid`ah-e-Sayyia  as  Bid`ah-e-Hasana  and  has  quoted  as  proof Mirqaat  and  Ash`atul  Lam`aat.  He  proudly  avers:  “No Deobandi,  Ghair  Muqallid  or  Shirk  and  Bid`ah perpetrator,  in  the  entire  world,  can  ever  define  these  four things  (Bid`ah,  Shirk,  Deen  and  Ibaadat)  in  such  a  way  so as  to  save  his  creed.  Today  also,  we  make  an  open challenge  to  all  Deobandis  and  Ghair  Muqallids  that  they present  such  a  clear  and  authentic  definition  which classifies  Mehfil-e-Meelaad  as  Haraam.”  [Jaa`al  Haqq, page 213]

It  has  already  been  explained  that  it  is  a  Sunnat  to  do  an  act or  leave  out  that  act  which  was  accordingly  done  in  the best  of  eras,  notwithstanding  the  conditions  and  possibility of  their  execution  existing  during  that  time.  To  oppose  a Sunnat  is  a  Bid`ah  and  deviation.  Mufti  Saheb  must  tell us  who  during  the  best  of  eras  celebrated  Meelad?  The definition  of  Bid`ah  has  been  given  in  detail  in  this  treatise and  the  definitions  of  ShirkIbaadat  and  Deen  have  all been given in other Kitaabs

A  glance  at  the  proofs  which  have  been  cited  to substantiate  and  give  permissibility  to  the  various Bid’ahs

Some  persons  of  the  Ahle  Bid’ah,  specifically  Mufti Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan,  write  after  quoting  the  Aayaat,  “O You  who  believe!  Ask  not  about  things  which  …”  and “Say  (O  Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  ‘I  find  not  in  that  which  has  been revealed  to  me  anything  forbidden…”,  “Allaah  Ta`ala also  states,  ‘Say  (O  Muhammad  sallallaahu alayhi wasallam!)  ‘Who  has  forbidden  the adornment  with  clothes  given  by  Allaah,  which  He  has produced  for  His  slaves,  and  Tayyibaat  (Halaal)  of  food..’. From  these  Aayaat  we  ascertain  that  if  there  is  no  proof for  a  thing  being  Haraam,  then  it  is  Halaal  and  not Haraam.  These  people  establish  Haraam  by  it…”  [Jaa-al Haqq, page 219]

These  Aayaat  can  certainly  not  be  used  to  prove  bid’ah  as is  being  done  by  the  Ahle  Bid’ah.  It  is  clearly  incorrect  to extract  permissibility  for  the  evil  acts  from  such  Aayaat.

Is there initial permissibility in a thing? Most  of  the  perpetrators  of  bid’ah  incorrectly  clutch  at these  Aayaat  as  proof  for  their  innovations  and  aver  that since  there  is  initial  permissibility  of  all  things,  hence  their actions  are  also  permissible.  Based  on  this  erroneous assumption  of  theirs  they  base  many/all  of  their  bid’ahs.

Molvi  Abdus  Samee  Saheb,  cites  a  few  Ahaadith  and writes  that  from  these  Ahaadith  the  Ulama  have  extracted  a great  principle,  that  there  is  initial  permissibility  in  all things. [Anwaarus Saat`ia, page 36]

Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  Saheb  writes,  “What  do  those who  label  every  bid’ah  as  Haraam  have  to  say  about  the general  rule  which  states,  ‘The  original  (ruling)  of  every thing,  is  permissibility.’”  He  states  further,  citing  from Shaami,  “The  preferred  view  is  that  the  original  (ruling)  is permissibility  according  to  the  majority  amongst  the Hanafis and Shaafis.” [Jaa-al Haqq, page 318]


According  to  some  Muhaqqiqeen  there  is  no  general  ruling for  this. It  should  also  be  taken  into  consideration  that every  bid’ah  is  not  Haraam,  some  are  Makrooh.  We  have to  firstly  see  what  the  meaning  of  initial  permissibility entails,  and  what  light  is  shed  thereupon  by  the  Ahaadith. We should  also  see  if  this  ruling  is  unanimous  amongst  the Fuqahaa  or  if  any  differences  exist  amongst  them.  Also, which  group  leans  to  the  preferred  view.  Or  whether  this difference existed in former times or only in recent.

We  will  firstly  list  the  narration  of  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu),  “Rasulullaah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  ‘Issues  are  divided  into three  parts;  one  is  that  which  is  clearly  on  the  truth,  you should  follow  it;  second  is  that  whose  deviation  is  clear, save  yourself  from  it;  and  lastly  is  that  wherein  there  is doubt,  that  you  should  entrust  to  Allaah.”  [Ahmad  / Mishkaat, vol. 1, page 31]

From  the  last  portion  of  this  Hadith  we  glean  that  if  there  is doubt  or  uncertainty  in  an  unclear  matter,  then  such  issues should  be  entrusted  unto  Allaah  Ta`ala  and  we  should maintain  silence  on  it.  It  should  not  be  that  we  legitimise the  issue. 

Allaamah  Tayyibi  Al-Hanafi  (rahmatullah  alayh) [passed  away  743  A.H.]  stated,  “As  for  that  thing  whose ruling  is  not  known  in  the  Shariah,  no  comment  should  be made  on  it  and  it  should  be  entrusted  to  Allaah.”   Hadhrat  Sheikh  Abdul  Haqq  Saheb  (rahmatullah  alayh) states  in  commentary  of  “And  entrust  it  unto  Allaah Ta`ala”,  “Then  you  must  pass  the  matter  to  Allaah  Ta`ala, and  not  comment  on  it.”  [Ash-`atul  Lam`aat,  vol.  1,  page 97]

From  this  Hadith  and  commentaries  thereof,  we  realise that  no  comment  be  made  on  such  issues  regarding which  there  is  no  Shar`i  ruling.  Such  matters  must  be entrusted  unto  Allaah  Ta`ala  and  we  should  not  understand it to be permissible and give a ruling as such. 

The  narration  of  Hadhrat  Abu  Tha`laba  Al-Khushni (rahmatullah  alayh)  [passed  away  75  A.H.]  also  indicate towards  this  maintaining  of  silence  (reservation).  He states  that  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “Allaah  Ta`ala  had  specified certain  Faraaidh,  so  do  not  destroy  them.  He  has  made certain  things  Haraam,  so  do  not  betray  them.  He  has specified  certain  limits,  so  do  not  transgress  them.  Certain things,  without  having  forgotten,  Allaah  Ta`ala  has maintained  silence  regarding  them,  so  do  not  discuss them.” [Daar Qutni / Mishkaat, vol. 1, page 32]

This  narration  also  indicates  towards  maintaining  of silence  (tawaqquf  –  reservation),  as  is  apparent.  The famous,  Imaam  Allamah  Alauddeen  Muhammad  bin  Ali Al-Khaskafi  Al-Hanafi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  [passed  away 1088  A.H.]  writes,  “The  correct  and  triumphant  view  is that  the  original  ruling  in  all  things  is  tawaqquf.”  [Durrul Mukhtaar, vol. 1, page 20]

In  the  commentary  of  Durrul  MukhtaarTawaali`ul Anwaar,  it  is  stated  at  this  juncture,  “In  support  of  that view  which  has  the  strongest  proofs,  it  is  that  there  is tawaqquf  in  the  initial  (ruling)  of  all  things.  Therefore  the permissibility  of  permissible  things  is  not  known,  except through the statement or action of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam.” 

Also  at  this  juncture,  a  similar  comment  is  stated  in Tahtaawi, in the footnote of Durrul Mukhtaar.

It is stated  in  Ta`liqaat-e-Sharah  Manaar,  “Our companions  have  stated  that  the  initial  (ruling)  in  this matter  is  tawaqquf…This  is  the  most  correct  view  in  my opinion  in  this  chapter,  because  in  those  matters  which  the Shariah  has  maintained  silence,  the  most  cautious  and safest  avenue  is  to  practice  tawaqquf.  This  is  also  the math-hab  (way)  of  Hadhrat  Abu  Bakr,  Umar,  Uthmaan and  other  senior  Sahaabah  (radhiallahu  anhum  ajmaeen). The  correct  view  is  that  the  initial  ruling  of  Hurmat (impermissibility)  is  applicable  to  all  actions.  This  is  the view  of  Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu),  the  Ahle  Bait  and  the  Ahle  Kufa. This  is  also  the  view  of  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  (rahmatullah alayh).” [Extracted from Al-Junna, page 165]

Now  consider  this  text.  The  view  of  many  senior  Sahaabah   is  that  tawaqquf  be  exercised  as  an  original  ruling  in matters  wherein  the  Shariah  has  maintained  silence  and then  according  to  other  great  Sahaabah,  like  Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and  also  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  (rahmatullah  alayh),  the initial ruling is to be regarded to be one of Hurmat.

Sheikh  Ahmad  Mullah  Jeeyoon  Al-Hanafi  (rahmatullah alayh)  [passed  away  1130  A.H.]  writes,  “The  initial  ruling in  things  is  permissibility,  as  is  the  view  of  one  group. However,  the  jamhoor  (majority)  are  opposed  to  this  view. They  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  initial  ruling  in  anything   is  Hurmat.  Imaam  Shaafi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  that there  is  nevertheless,  Hurmat,  initially  in  any  thing.” [Tafseer Ahmadi, page 6]

The  famous  Muhaqqiq  Aalim  Muhibbullaah  Bahaari  Al-Hanafi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  [passed  away  1109  A.H.] writes,  “Ibaahat  (permissibility)  is  a  Shar`i  ruling  and  it  is a  proclamation  for  the  Shariah  where  the  choice  to  do  or not  to  do  has  been  granted  (by  the  Shariah).” [Musallimuth Thuboot, page 45]

Allamah  Ibn  Rushd  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states,  “Mubaah  is the  choice  to  do  or  not  to  do.”  [Hidaayatul  Mujtahid,  vol. 1, page 4]

Mullah  Mubeen  states  in  the  commentary  of  Musallim, “Mubaah  is  in  reality  the  Shariah’s  way  of  granting  the choice between executing and not executing an action.”

Imaam  Muhammad  bin  Muhammad  Ghazaali  (rahmatullah alayh)  [passed  away  505  A.H.]  writes,  “The  definition  of Mubaah  is  that  there  is  permission  from  Allaah  Ta`ala  to carry  out  an  action  or  to  abandon  it.  This  excludes  any censure  or  praise  for  the  one  who  executes  it  and  censure or  praise  for  the  one  who  does  not  execute  it.”  [Al-Mustasfa, vol. 1, page 66]

From  all  the  above  text  we  see  that  Mubaah  is  also  a  Shar`i hukm  which  gives  one  the  choice  to  carry  out  or  abandon an  act.  No  act  is  granted  the  status  of  being  Mubaah without  the  express  statement  or  action  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Although  some  have  stated  that  the  initial  ruling  in  a  thing is  Ibaahat,  the  majority  oppose  this  view.  The  express view  of  Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu),  the  Ahle  Bait,  the  Fuqahaa  and Muhadditheen  of  Kufa  (rahmatullah  alayhim),  especially Imaams  Abu  Hanifah  and  Shaafi  (rahmatullah  alayhima)  is that  there  is  initially  Hurmat  in  a  thing.  The  rest  of  the majority  opine  that  (at  least)  there  is  Tawaqquf

In  fact,  the author  of  Durrul  Mukhtaar  has  explicitly  stated,  “The  most authentic  view  of  the  Ahle  Sunnah  is  that  there  is  tawaqquf (as  the  initial  ruling)  in  all  things,  and  the  ruling  of Ibaahat  is  the  view  of  the  Mu`tazilahs.”  [Durrul  Mukhtaar, vol. 1, page 345]
Mufti  Saheb  should  have  asked  the  meaning  of  this  text from  someone  else,  at  least.  He  should  contemplate  over the  fact  that  whose  view  is  it  that  there  is  initially  Ibaahat in  things.  Since  there  is  no  consensus  on  the  asl,  how then  will  be  permissible  to  open  the  doors  of  Qiyaas  and base  the  perpetrations  of  bid’ah  thereupon?  As  for those  Ulama  who  opine  for  Ibaahat,  they  also  differentiate between  factors  of  material  and  spiritual.  Mullah Muhibbullah  Saheb  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in  his  great and  in-depth  work,  “However,  as  for  the  difference  of opinion  that  exists  amongst  the  Ahle  Sunnat  Wal  Jamaat that  there  is  Ibaahat  in  the  initial  of  everything  and  action, as  is  the  view  of  the  majority  of  Hanafis  and  Shaafi’is,  or whether  there  is  prohibition  (in  the  initial  of  every  action), as  other  Ulama  opine,  the  conciliatory  path  between  these views  is  as  Imaam  Sadrul  Islaam  has  stated  that  there  is initial  Ibaahat  in  material  and  monetary  issues,  but  in spiritual  matters,  precaution  and  prohibition  is  the  Initial (ruling).”  [Musallimuth  Thuboot,  page  22]

From  this  text  we  realise  that  the  difference  of  opinion between  the  Ahle  Sunnat  Wal  Jamaat  is  not  restricted  to only  Ibaahat  and  Tawaqquf,  it  extends  to  the  difference between  Ibaahat  and  precaution/  prohibition.  If  the  one group  opine  that  the  initial  ruling  in  things  is  Ibaahat,  then the  other  say  there  is  prohibition.  Imaam  Sadrul  Islaam, clears  this  mist  for  us  and  explains  that  the  Ibaahat  is  in matters  pertaining  to  wealth  and  material  things,  whereas the  prohibition  and  precaution  apply  to  matters  pertaining to the spiritual self.

Secondly,  as  for  those  who  opine  that  the  asl  in  everything is  Ibaahat,  we  gather  that  their  import  in  this  view  is  that this  applies  to  matters  of  habit  and  external  issues  and  not to matters of Ibaadat

They  accept  this  view  insofar  as  social  etiquette  is concerned  and  not  to  Ibaadaat.  If  this  was  not  the  case, then  every  person  could  them  initiate  new  acts  of  Ibaadat and  rule  that  it  would  be  permissible.  For  example,  let  us assume  that  some  bid’ah-loving  person  decides  to introduce  a  sixth  Salaat  for  the  day,  and  also  that  in  every Rakaat  of  this  Salaat  he  says  there  should  be  two  rukus  and four  sajdahs  each.  So  now,  do  we  grant  acceptability  to  this new  idea  based  on  the  view  that  there  is  Ibaahat  in  every asl?  In  short,  to  extend  and  apply  this  rule  of  Ibaahat  in  asl to acts of Ibaadat is sheer ignorance.

Allamah  Abu  Is`haq  Shaatbi  Gharnaati  (rahmatullah  alayh) [passed  away  790  A.H.]  writes,  “It  is  incorrect  to  aver  that in  acts  of  Ibaadat  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion.  (It cannot  be  argued  whether)  There  is  in  (an  act  of  Ibaadat) asl  Ibaahat  or  asl  prohibition.  The  reason  being  that  in acts  of  Ibaadat,  The  Shaari’  had  stipulated  and  decreed them.  If  we  assume  that  a  person  introduces  a  sixth  Salaat (for  the  day),  then  we  cannot  say  that  based  on  the  asl  of acts  being  permissible,  this  is  also  acceptable,  and  that  a sane  person  has  the  right  to  introduce  such  (things  in  the Shariah).  This  will  be  absolutely  baatil.”  [Al-I`tisaam,  vol. 1, page 301]

Allamah  Abdur  Rahmaan  bin  Ahmad  bin  Rajab  AlHambali  (rahmatullah  alayh)  [passed  away  795  A.H.] writes,  “If  any  person  adds  to  a  Mashroo’  (Shar`i prescribed)  act  that  which  is  not  Mashroo’,  will  be rejected.  There  will  be  no  reward  for  this  addition  and sometimes  it  so  happens  that  because  of  this  addition  the actual  act  is  nullified.  For  example,  if  a  person  adds  a rakaat  to  a  Salaat.  Sometimes  it  so  happens  that  the  act  in itself  is  not  rendered  baatil,  like  if  a  person  makes  wudhu four  times  (in  succession),  however,  there  will  be  no reward for this.” [Jaamiul Uloom wal Hikam, page 43]

From  this  we  understand  that  if  the  commission  or omission  of  any  act  is  prescribed  in  the  Shariah,  then  to add  or  subtract  to  it  according  to  one’s  own  whims  and fancies  is  rejected.  Sometimes,  due  to  this  addition  the actual  act  is  rendered  completely  null  and  void.  Besides being  rejected,  there  is  no  reward  for  such  additions  or subtractions.  This  is  not  regarded  as  a  means  of  gaining proximity or as an ibaadat

Thirdly,  this  difference  between  the  Fuqahaa  regarding  asl Ibaahattawaqquf  or  prohibition  in  things  refers  to  matters which  existed  before  the  advent  and  coming  of  the  Shariah. That is, before Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was sent with the Message.

One  group  opine  Ibaahat  in  all  things  and  the  other precaution  or  Tawaqquf  (excluding  of  course  kufr,  which has  remained  Haraam  through  all  ages).  In  other  words  this difference  of  opinion  is  regarding  matters  which  prevailed prior  to  the  advent  of  the  Shariah  and  not  after.  After  the Shariah  had  been  established  this  question  does  not  even arise  as  to  whether  there  is  Ibaahat,  prohibition,  precaution or  Tawaqquf,  because  every  act  should  remain  and  is within  the  confines  of  the  Shariah.  There  is  absolutely  no scope  to  increase  or  decrease  in  any  Shar`i  ruling.  Hence, the  issue  of  Ibaahat-e-asli  does  not  benefit  the  pernicious intentions  of  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  Saheb  and  others.

Allamah  Abdul  Ali  Bahrul  Uloom  Al-Hanafi  (rahmatullah alayh)  [passed  away  1225  A.H.]  writes,  “By  studying  the statements  of  the  Ulama-e-Kiraam  we  realise  that  this difference  pertains  to  the  time  prior  to  the  advent  of  the Shariah.”

After  discussing  this  mas`alah  in  detail,  he  states  further, “After  researching  this  matter  we  realise  that  this difference  pertains  to  the  era  of  fitrah  (initial  stages), where  due  to  the  shortcomings  of  the  former  peoples  the Shariah  was  declining.  The  result  was  that  those  people who  came  after  the  Shariah  was  totally  destroyed,  where they  had  no  realisation  of  the  laws  and  rules  of  the Shariah,  this  ignorance  created  a  reason  that  every  action was  regarded  as  being  (initially)  permissible.  That  is,  they would  not  be  punished  because  of  executing  the  act  or  for abandoning  it,  as  is  the  ruling  with  all  Mubaah  acts.  This is  the  maslak  of  the  majority  Hanafis  and  Shaafis…And this  issue  (i.e.  the  view  of  Ibaahat-e-asliya  refers  to  the  era prior  to  our  Shariah,  which  was  the  era  of  fitrah.  There was  no  real  harm  in  this,  and  it  excluded  kufr,  which remained  Haraam  in  all  eras  and  times.”  [Fawaatihur Rahmoot, vol. 1, page 49, 50]

It  is  apparent  from  this  text  that  the  preferred  view  of  the majority  Hanafis  and  Shaafis  is  that  Ibaahat-e-Asli regards  the  era  prior  to  the  advent  of  the  Shariah.  They most  certainly  do  not  opine  this  view  to  be  applicable,  after the  Shariah  had  been  revealed.  This  is  clear  and  apparent as  is  gleaned  from  many  Kitaabs,  like  Badaaius  Sanaa’i, that  this  difference  existed  regarding  the  era  prior  to  the Shariah.  The  specific  words,  “prior  to  the  Shariah”  and  “prior  to Nabuwwat” are to be taken into account.

Summary:  Ibaahat-e-Asli  being  applicable  to  all  things  is not  the  unanimous  view  of  the  Fuqaha-e-kiraam,  in  fact according  to  the  author  of  Durrul  Mukhtaar  this  is  the view  of  the  Mu’tazilahs,  and  not  the  Ahle  Sunnah.  Many Ulama  amongst  the  Ahle  Sunnah  have  opted  for  Tawaqquf ,  precaution  and  Hurmat.  And  this  also  is  not  applicable  to Ibaadaat,  only  to  Ma’mulaat.  Also  the  view  of  Ibaahat-e-Asli  only  refers  to  the  era  prior  to  the  Shariah  and  not  after.   Therefore  to  use  this  as  a  proof  to  substantiate  the  vile perpetrations  of  bid’ah,  as  is  being  done  by  the  likes  of Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  Saheb  etc.  is  treason  to  the  Deen of Islaam. May Allah Ta`ala save every Muslim from this. 

Proving  a  bid’ah  with  the  Hadith 

He  who  initiates  a virtuous act…”, and its reply:

Many  bid’ah  lovers  quote  this  Hadith  in  substantiation  of their  vile  perpetrations,  therefore  it  is  appropriate  that  we proffer  a  suitable  reply.  The  words  of  the  Hadith  are  as follows:  “Whoever  initiates  in  Islaam  a  virtuous  act,  and  it is  carried  out  after  him  (his  demise),  then  it  is  recorded  for him  the  reward  of  the  executers,  without  their  rewards being  diminished  in  the  least.”  [Muslim  Shareef,  vol.  2, page 341]


It  is  absolutely  baatil  and  spurious  to  use  this  Hadith  to substantiate  bid’ahFirstly,  it  is  apparent  from  the narrations  of  Hadhrat  Abu  Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu)  –see  Mishkaat  vol.  1 page  30—Hadhrat  Abdullaah  ibn  Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu( –see  Mishkaat vol.1  page  30—and  Hadhrat  Ghadeef  bin  Haarith  Ath Thamaali (radhiyallahu anhu)  —see  Mishkaat  vol.1  page  31—that  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said  “He  who  holds  on  fast  to  my  Sunnat…”  and  he  said “he  who  holds  on  fast  to  a  good  act”,  these  narrations indicate  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Ummat  to  tread  the Sunnah and hold on fast to it. 

Secondly,  it  is  also  narrated  in  the  same  narration, “Whosoever  makes  a  call  to  guidance”,  [Muslim  Shareef, vol.  2  page  341  /  Ibn  Majah  page19  /  Majmaus  Zawaaid vol.  1  page  168].  Through  another  chain,  this  same narration  goes  as  follows, 

Whoever  livens  a  Sunnat  from amongst  my  Sunnats,  which  has  died  after  me…”  [Ibn Majah  page  19  /  Tirmidhi  vol.  2  page  92  /  Mishkaat  vol.  1 page 30].

In  another  narration  it  is  stated,  “Whosoever  livens  a Sunnat  from  amongst  my  Sunnats,  and  the  people  practice upon it…”  [Ibn Majah page 19]

In  another  narration,  “That  person  who  treads  a  good path…” [Ibn Majah page 19]

In  another  narration  it  is  stated,  “Whoever  teaches someone  knowledge,  then  for  him  is  the  reward  of  the  one who  practices  it,  without  any  decrease  in  the  reward  of  the executer.” [Ibn Majah, page 21]

All  these  narrations  are  explanations  and  clarifications  of the  one  brief  narration,  that  the  import  is  not  to  initiate an  act,  rather  to  call  towards  it,  educate  regarding  it, enliven  it,  practice  upon  it  and  to  call  others  towards practicing  it.  To  take  the  meaning  of  this  narration  as initiating  a  Sunnat,  is  incorrect,  and  is  in  contrary  to  these narrations. 

And  thirdly,  the  import  of  this  Hadith  is  that  the  thing which  has  proof  in  the  Shariah,  be  it  dalaalatun  (direct)  or ishaaratan  (indirect),  then  there  would  be  reward  in  its implementation.  And  also,  this  should  be  such  an  act whose  causative  factor  and  proposer  was  not  present during  the  Khairul  Quroon  and  only  came  into  existence thereafter.  

It  should  also  be  such  that  it  falls  within  the  ambit  of  the four  proofs  of  the  Shariah  (Adillah-e-Arba`a).  The condition  of  the  act  being  hasana  (good)  is  also  coupled with  the  narration  and  according  to  the  Ahle  Sunnat  Wal Jamaat,  no  act  can  be  classified  as  either  good  or  bad, unless  it  is  established  so  by  the  Shariah.  The  Shariah has  cut  bid’ah  in  its  roots,  so  wherefrom  can  its  goodness and  benefit  be  established?  In  essence  to  prove  bid’ah  with this  narration  is  crass  ignorance  and  an  open  rebellious  act against  the  Shariah.

Yet Another  error  of  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  Saheb and his ilk

Most  of  the  Ahle  Bid’ah  quote  one  Hadith  in  substantiation of  their  accretions,  just  as  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  had done.  He  writes,  “Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  ‘Whatever  the  Muslims regard  as  good,  Allah  Ta`ala  also  regards  as  good.’”  [Jaaal Haqq, page 301]

Keeping  this  narration  in  front  of  him,  he  says  with reference  to  all  bid’ahs  that  since  the  general  Muslim public  regard  them  as  good,  therefore  Allaah  Ta`ala  also regards  them  likewise,  therefore  there  will  be  no punishment  or  sin  in  executing  them.

There  are  a  number  of  necessary  pointers  to  consider  in  the discussion  of  this  Hadith.  The  first  point is  that  although some  Fuqahaa  have  classified  this  Hadith  as  Marfoo’,  it  is not  so.  In  fact,  it  is  Mouqoof  on  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn Mas`ood  (radhiyallahu anhu).  In  this  regard,  Allamah  Jamaaluddeen  Az Zaila’ee  Al-Hanafi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  [passed  away761 A.H.]  writes,  “I  have  not  found  it  except  to  be  Mouqoof  on Ibn Mas`ood (radhiyallahu anhu).” [Nasbur Ra`ya, vol. 4, page 133]

The  famous  Muhaddith  Allamah  Imaam  Silaahuddeen  Abu Saeed  Alaa`i  (rahmatullah  alayh)  [passed  away741  A.H.] states,  “I  have  not  found  it  (this  Hadith)  Marfoo’  in  any  of the  Hadith  kitaabs  nor  with  a  weak  sanad,  even  after  a detailed  and  exhaustive  search  and  questioning.  However it  is  Mouqoof  on  the  statement  of  Ibn  Mas`ood  (radhiyallahu anhu).”  [Fathul Mulhim, vol. 2, page 409]

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  statement  of  a  Sahaabi, especially  one  of  the  calibre  of  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn Mas`ood  (radhiyallahu anhu),  is  very  reliable  and  weighty.  However,  insofar as  the  categorisation  of  the  Ahaadith  is  concerned  and  in Usool-e-Hadith,  the  difference  between  marfoo’  and Mouqoof,  is  something  which  we  cannot  simply  ignore. The  status  of  a  marfoo’  Hadith  from  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  is  certainly  not the  statement  of  any  Sahaabi,  albeit  (the  latter)  correct.

Haafidh  Ibn  Katheer  (rahmatullah  alayh),  mentions  after citing  this  Mouqoof  statement  of  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn Mas`ood  (radhiyallahu anhu),  “(Its)  sanad  is  Saheeh.”  [Bidaya  wan  Nihaya, vol. 10, page 328]

The  second  point  is  what  exactly  is  meant  by  ‘Muslims’? If  the  alif  and  laam  in  the  word  ‘Muslimoon’  were  for  jins (to  denote  the  entire  Ummat),  then  every  one  of  the  73 sects  of  this  Ummat  will  be  successful,  because  each  one of  them  believes  their  actions  and  deeds  to  be  good,  and  it would  also  conflict  with  the  Hadith  of  “that  upon  which  I and  my  Companions  are.”  If  the  alif  and  laam  were  to denote  istighraak,  that  whatever  the  entire  Ummat  regard as  good  then  Allaah  Ta`ala  also  regards  that  as  good,  this would  imply  Ijma  of  the  Ummat.  What  doubt  is  there  in Ijma  of  the  Ummat  being  good??  This  view  would  not  suit the  Ahle  Bid’ah,  because  their  bid’ahs  were  not  present during  the  Khairul  Quroon,  hence  there  is  no  complete consensus  of  the  Muslim  Ummah.  And  if  alif  and  laam were  to  denote  one  special  group  amongst  the  Ummat,  who if  they  deem  an  act  to  be  good  then  Allaah  Ta`ala  also regards  it  good,  then  this  group  has  to  be  of  a  high  calibre. In  that  case,  according  to  the  Hadith  of  “that  upon  which  I and  my  Companions  are”,  this  would  refer  to  the  Sahaabah.  In  this  case,  it  would  be  correct,  because  whatever  the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhuma) regarded  as  good,  was  indeed  good.  If  we view  this  narration  of  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas`ood (radhoyallahu anhu)   in conjunction  with  other  narrations  of  his,  we  will  note  that by the use of the ‘Muslimoon’ he refers to the Sahaabah.

Imaam  Abu  Dawood  Tayaalisi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  [passed away  204  A.H.]  has  reported  this  narration  in  the  following words, 

Indeed  Allaah  Ta`ala  looked  into  the  hearts  of  His servants  and  in  accordance  to  His  knowledge  He  chose Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  sent  him  with  His  Message,  then  He looked  into  the  hearts  the  people  after  him  and  He  chose for  him  his  Companions,  and  made  them  helpers  in  His Deen  and  the  ambassadors  of  His  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .  Whatever  the Muslims  deem  good,  it  is  good  in  the  Sight  of  Allaah Ta`ala,  and  whatever  they  deem  evil  is  likewise  according to  Allaah  Ta`ala.”  [Tayaalisi,  page  33] (More  or  less  the  same  words  appear  in  Musnad  Ahmad  / Zaila’i, vol. 4, page 13 / Diraayat, page 306]

Imaam  Abu  Abdullaah  Al-Haakim  (rahmatullah  alayh) [passed  away  405  A.H.],  reports  this  narration  with  an authentic  sanad  (authenticated  by  both  Imaam  Haakim  and Allamah  Dhahabi),  in  the  following  way,  “Whatever  the Muslims  see  as  good,  it  is  in  the  Sight  of  Allaah  good  and whatever  the  Muslims  see  as  evil,  it  is  in  the  Sight  of Allaah  evil,  and  the  entire  group  of  Sahaabah  appointed Abu  Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu)  as  Khalifah  (since  they  deemed  it  as  good, hence  Allaah  Ta`ala  regarded  it  likewise).”  [Al Mustadrak, vol. 3, page 78]

From  these  narrations  we  see  that  according  to  Hadhrat Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas`ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  the  word  ‘Muslimoon’  refers to  the  Sahaabah (ridhwanallahu anhum).  In  fact,  it  clearly  specifies  that  it  refers to the Sahaabah.

“It  is  reported  that  Ibn  Mas`ood  (radhiyallahu anhu)  said,  ‘Whosoever wishes  to  follow  the  Sunnat,  then  he  should  follow  in  the footsteps  of  those  who  had  passed  away,  because  those who  are  still  alive  are  not  immune  from  fitnahs.  They (those  whom  you  should  follow)  are  the  Companions  of Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  who  were  the  most  virtuous  of  this Ummat.  Their  hearts  were  the  most  pure,  their  knowledge most  deep  and  they  were  most  informal  (free  from excesses  and  pomp).  Allaah  Ta`ala  had  chosen  them  to be  the  companions  of  His  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam(  and  to  establish  His Deen.  Recognise  their  virtue,  follow  in  their  footsteps  and hold  on,  to  the  best  of  your  ability,  to  their  character  and way  of  life.  They  were  Straight  Guided  Path.”  [Mishkaat, vol. 1, page 32]

This  narration  is  explicit  in  the  fact  that  Hadhrat  Abdullaah Ibn  Mas`ood  (radhiyallahu anhu) regards  the  word  ‘Muslimoon’  to  mean  the Sahaabah.  On  the  one  hand,  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn Mas`ood (radhiyallahu anhu) emphasised  and  encouraged  following  in  the footsteps  of  the  Sahaabah  and  warned  against  innovating acts contrary to their way.

Follow  in  our  footsteps,  and  do  not  innovate  because you  have  been  sufficed  (with  the  perfect  Deen).”  [Al I’tisaam, vol. 1, page 54]

On  the  other  hand,  he  ejected  from  the  Masjid  some persons  who  had  innovated  a  loud  Thikr  program  there (this  narration  will  appear  in  detail,  later  on,  In sha Allah Ta’ala).  On  that  occasion,  he  did  not  categorise  the  action of  these  people  under  the  narration  of  “that  which  the Muslims  see  as  good…”,  because  it  conflicted  with  the way of the Sahaabah.

The  third  point is  that  since  it  has  now  been  established that  the  word  ‘Muslimoon’  in  this  narration  refers  to  the Sahaabah (alayhim ar ridhwan) ,  and  that  whatever  they  deem  as  good,  Allaah Ta`ala  also  regards  as  good  and  whatever  they  deem  evil, Allaah  Ta`ala  also  regards  likewise.  There  can  be  no difference  from  the  Ahle  Bid’ah  that  most  if  not  all,  the innovations  which  they  so  rigidly  adhere  to,  are  not established  from  the  Sahaabah.  If  these  actions  were  any good  in  their  opinion,  then  they  would  most  certainly  not have  passed  them  by,  and  if  they  were  not  evil  in  their opinion,  then  they  would  certainly  not  have  omitted  their execution.  Their  knowledge  was  also  very  deep  and expansive, and they also had profound love for Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). 

They  had  great  fear  for  Allaah  Ta`ala  and  immense concern  for  the  Aakhirah.  Hence,  if  they  deemed  an  act  to be  evil  and  they  did  not  carry  it  out,  then  certainly  that thing  is  evil  and  detested  in  the  Sight  of  Allah  Ta`ala.  This narration  is  in  fact  a  strong  proof  against  the  perpetration of  bid’ah,  and  not  one  in  their  favour!  This  will  be discerned  by  those  whom  Allaah  Ta`ala  had  bestowed  the good fortune to understand and follow the Sunnah.

It  is  a  bid’ah  for  anyone  to  specify  (their  own)  time and conditions in acts of Ibaadat

It  is  not  necessary  that  a  thing  which  is  evil  from  its inception  only  be  termed  a  bid’ah.  In  fact,  to  add conditions,  to  change  the  form  or  stipulate  a  specific  time for  any  important  act  of  obedience  and  Ibaadat  which  the Shariah  has  left  general,  is  also  regarded  as  a  bid’ah  in Shar`i  terminology.  This  is  detested  in  Islamic  Shariah.

Hadhrat  Abu  Hurairah  τ  [passed  away  58  A.H.]  reports from  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  “Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said,  ‘Do  not  specify  the  nights  of Jumuah  for  Qiyaam  (Nafl  Salaats)  over  the  other  nights and  do  not  specify  the  day  of  Jumuah  for  (optional)  fasting over  the  other  days,  unless  it  falls  in  the  normal  fasting (pattern)  of  any  of  you.’”  [Muslim  Shareef,  vol.  1,  page 361]

From  this  narration  we  realise  that  the  day  of  Jumuah enjoys  special  virtue  owing  to  the  Salaat  of  Jumuah,  so because  of  this  virtue  it  is  not  permissible  to  specify  the nights of Jumuah for extra Salaat or the day for fasting.

Allamah  Abu  Is`haq  Shaatbi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  writes,  in refuting  and  contesting  bid’ah,  “And  it  is  the  making incumbent  of  the  specific  manner  and  form  of  these bid’ahs,  like  the  manner  of  having  a  congregational session  where  Thikr  is  made  in  unison…and  amongst  them (bid’ahs)  is  the  stipulating  of  specific  times  for  certain  acts of  Ibaadat,  whose  specification  is  not  made  by  the Shariah.” [Al-I’tisaam, vol. 1, page 34]

At  another  juncture  he  states,  “If  the  Shariah  has encouraged  a  certain  act,  like  Thikrullaah,  and  then  a certain  segment  of  the  Ummah  decides  to  specify  this Thikrullaah  to  be  made  in  congregation  and  recited  in unison,  or  they  stipulate  a  special  and  specific  time  for  its execution,  then  this  encouragement  of  the  Shariah  in  no way  can  be  used  to  prove  this  stipulation  and  specification, in  fact,  this  (stipulating  of  conditions)  is  contrary  to  the Shariah.” [Al-I’tisaam, vol. 1, page 335]

Haafidh  Ibn  Daqeequl  Eid  writes,  “These  stipulations  of time,  condition,  manner  or  method  require  a  definite  proof that  will  make  it  being  Mustahab  in  that  way.  This  is  the correct path.” 

Further  he  states,  “Because  certainly  to  rule  its  being Mustahab  in  this  particular  fashion  requires  a  specific proof from the Shariah, which is imperative.”

He  states  further  in  refutation  of  a  Shiah  celebration,  “That third  Eid  which  the  Rawaafidh  have  initiated  which  they call  Eid-e-Ghadeer,  the  congregating  for  it,  establishing  it as  a  sign  of  the  Deen  and  holding  it  on  a  specific  time  in  a particular  manner,  are  all  not  established  in  the  Shariah. And  closer  to  this,  if  there  is  any  form  of  ibaadat  which  is established  in  the  Shariah  to  be  performed  in  a  specific way,  and  if  some  people  initiate  some  changes  therein  and include  this  as  an  integral  part  of  it,  then  this  will  be grossly  incorrect,  because  in  acts  of  ibaadat,  the prescribed  manner  should  be  in  force,  and  without  it (changes)  being  sourced  from  the  foundation  (i.e.  from Nabi  ρ  and  the  Sahaabah  τ),  it  will  not  be  acceptable.” [Ahkaamul Ahkaam, vol. 1, page 51]

Whilst  explaining  regarding  people  gathering  in  the  Masjid and  making  Thikr  in  a  specific  manner  and  form,  the author  of  Majaalisul  Abraar,  quoted  a  narration  of  Hadhrat Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  (which  will  be  cited  later  in  its  context, In sha-Allaah  Ta`ala),  he  states,  “This  is  what  every  person should  be  called  (i.e.  a  bid’ati)  who  introduces  into physical  acts  of  ibaadat  such  things  which  were  not present  during  the  time  of  the  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum).”  [Majaalisul Abraar, page 133]

The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  Deen  is  altered  with  this change  in  (original)  form,  and  this  is  what  is  known  as Tahreef-e-Deen.  Hadhrat  Shah  Waliullaah  Saheb,  in discussing  Tahreef-e-Deen  states,  “And  amongst  the reasons  is  that  doggedness  is  maintained.  The  reality  of  it is  that  such  difficult  ibaadat  are  opted  from  which  the Shariah  has  not  given  a  ruling.  For  example,  if  a  person keeps  continuous  fast,  remains  constantly  in  Qiyaam  or abandons  marriage.  Or  a  person  remains  so  firm  and steadfast  on  Sunnat  and  Mustahab  acts  as  is  done  to Waajib  acts…when  such  a  dogmatic  and  severe  person becomes  the  teacher  or  leader  of  a  group  or  nation,  then the  people  (his  students  or  followers)  begin  to  think  that his  (dogged  and  severe)  actions  are  part  of  and encouraged  by  the  Shariah.  This  was  the  ailment  suffered by  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Sufis.”  [Hujjatullaah lil Baalighah,  vol.  1, page 120]

This  is  the  reason  why  the  divine  laws  were  not  left  to  the discretion  of  man.  He  has  been  made  subservient  in matters  of  ibaadaat  and  muamalaat,  and  also  in  matters  of leadership  and  government,  so  that  his  whims,  desires  and fancies  have  no  play  in  the  Deen  of  Allaah  Ta`ala. 

Allamah Ibn  Khaldun  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states,  “The  Shariah  of Islaam  has  come  for  his  purpose  that  all  conditions  of  man, (be  they)  ibaadat  or  muamalaat,  even  governmental administration,  which  is  a  natural  social  issue,  are  all firmly  in  line  with  (and  in  accordance  to)  the  Deen.  Man has  been  encouraged  to  keep  in  line  with  the  Deen  so  that all  his  matters  be  governed  by  the  Deen.”  [Muqaddamah, page  190]

The  famous  Faqeeh,  Abu  Hanifah  II,  Allamah  Zainul Abideen  ibn  Nujaim  Al-Misri  Al-Hanafi  (rahmatullah alayh)   writes,  “Because  the  Thikr of  Allaah  Ta’ala,  when  it  is  specified  for  a  particular  time and  not  in  any  other  time,  or  a  condition  is  specified  for the  Thikr  (which  is  not  stipulated  in  the  Deen),  then  this  is not  part  of  the  Shariah,  because  the  Shariah  has  not  made these  stipulations  and  conditions,  hence  it  is  contrary  to the Shariah.” [Bahrur Raa`iq, vol. 2, page 159]

Allamah  is  telling  us  that  even  a  meritorious  act  like Thikrullaah,  which  is  a  great  ibaadat,  but  if  the  Shariah  has not  limited  it  to  a  specific  time  or  stipulated  that  it  be recited  loudly  or  softly,  or  individually  or  in  unison,  or  in any  specific  and  particular  manner,  then  to  specify  these limitations  and  conditions  is  contrary  to  the  Shariah.  This is,  in  fact,  changing  the  Shariah  (Tahreef-e-Deen),  because the Shariah has not stipulated it such. 

Hadhrat  Mujaddid  Alf  Thaani  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states, “It  is  the  habit  of  this  faqeer  not  to  stipulate  any  particular day  over  others  unless  it  is  granted  preference  by  Shaari’, like  Jumuah  and  Ramadhaan  are  given  preference  by Shaari’.” [Maktoobaat, part 4, page 67]

From  this  discussion  it  is  crystal  clear  that  if  the  Shariah has  not  specified  a  certain  night  or  day  for  an  ibaadat,  or  it has  not  specified  any  Thikr  to  be  performed  in  a  particular manner  or  condition,  then  it  will  be  an  act  of  bid’ah  to specify any of this which is not done by the Shariah.

The  ruling  regarding  the  specification  of  any particular  condition  or  manner  which  was  specified by the Sahaabah (alayhim ar ridhwan)

People  may  present  the  most  advanced  philosophical views,  great  observations,  flowery  poetry,  etc.,  etc.  but  the thing  which  not  every  person  can  present  all  the  time,  is perfect  obedience  and  following  of  the  Rasul  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  In  the  heat of  the  moment,  it  will  be  simple  for  a  person  to  offer  his life,  but  it  is  virtually  impossible  for  a  person  to  follow  the Sunnat  of  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  tread  the  Straight  Path  his entire  life,  without  flinching,  in  every  condition  and  state. This  is  the  most  difficult  test.  The  entire  group  of  Sahaabah  have  alighted  successfully  from  this  daunting  task  of perfect  obedience.  The  Sahaabah  have  demonstrated  the perfect  life  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  to  the  entire  Ummat,  in  excellent form.  They  have  shown  every  aspect  of  his  perfect lifestyle, for mankind to follow.

Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas’ood  (radhiyallahu anhu): 

The  crux  of  a narration  of  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  ibn  Mas’ood  (radhiyallahu anhu)  is  that  once he  passed  a  group  of  persons  who  were  sitting  in  the Masjid  and  engaged  in  congregational  Thikr.  One  of  them was  saying,  “Recite  Allaahu  Akbar  100  times”,  the complying  group  all  then  engaged  in  reciting  the  Takbeer using  some  pebbles.  Thereafter  he  would  say,  “Recite  Laa Ilaaha  Illallaahu  100  times”,  and  they  would  all  recite  100 times  Tahleel.  Finally  he  would  say,  “Recite Subhaanallaah  100  times”,  and  they  would  all  comply. Hadhrat  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  asked  them,  “What  are  you reciting  using  these  pebbles?”  To  which  they  replied,  “We are  reciting  Takbeer,  Tahleel  and  Tasbeeh.”  He exclaimed,  “Count  your  sins  on  these  pebbles!  I  take responsibility  that  none  of  your  good  deeds  are  destroyed. Woe  unto  you,  O  Ummat  of  Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .  How  swift  are you  paving  your  destruction.  The  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhuma)  are  still many  amongst  you,  and  the  blessed  clothing  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  has not  yet  even  decayed  or  his  utensils  broken…and  you people  have  opened  the  doors  of  destruction  (and  bid’ah).” [Musnad Daarimi, page 38 – with an authentic sanad]

Allamah  Qaadhi  Ibrahim  Saheb  (rahmatullah  alayh), reports  Hadhrat  Ibn  Mas’ood’s (radhiyallahu anhu)  narrations  in  the following  words,  “I  am  Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas’ood!  I  take  an oath  on  that  Being  besides  Whom  there  is  no  deity,  you have  indeed  brought  a  dark  bid’ah  or  are  you  more learned  than  the  Companions  of  Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam?”  [Majaalis Abraar, page 133]

Sheikhul  Islaam,  Ibn  Daqeeq  (rahmatullah  alayh),  reports his  narrations  as  follows,  “He  (Ibn  Mas’ood  radhiyallahu anhu)  said,  ‘When you  see  them,  then  inform  me.’  He  (reporter  of  the narration)  said,  ‘I  informed  him.’  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) came with  a  cloth  covering  his  head.  He  said,  ‘Whosoever recognises  me,  knows  me  and  for  those  who  do  not,  I  am Abdullaah  ibn  Mas’ood.  Do  you  people  think  that  you  are more  learned  than  Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  his  Sahaabah…??

You  have  indeed  come  up  with  a  great  bid’ah  or  have  you exceeded  the  Sahaabah (ridhwanallahu  anhum) of  Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  in  virtue?’  Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu) anhu  criticised  this  act  in  the  strongest  and  severest terms,  notwithstanding  the  great  significance  of Thikrullaah.” [Ahkaamul Ahkaam, vol. 1, page 52]

The  objective  of  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  to demonstrate  that,  although  these  forms  of  Thikr  were  very virtuous  and  recommended  in  the  Deen,  this  particular form  and  manner  which  these  people  were  practicing  was alien  to  the  way  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  the  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum). 

This  form and  manner  of  recitation  was  in  fact  innovated  by  these people,  hence  it  was  a  deviated  bid’ah.  It  was,  according  to him  a  ‘dark  bid’ah’  and  a  ‘great  bid’ah’. 

According  to Imaam  Ibn  Daqeequl  Eid  (rahmatullah  alayh),  this particular  form  was  not  amongst  the  accepted  forms  of Thikr known to Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu).
The  opposite  party  (Ahle Shirk Wal  Bid’ah Qabr Pujaris)  also  accept  this  narration (as  being  authentic). 

Molvi  Abdus  Samee’    writes, “Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  has  censured  a  group  of  people making  loud  Thikr,  and  labelled  their  act  a  bid’ah.  This narration  is  listed  in  the  Books  of  Fiqh  and  Hadith.” [Anwaarus Saati’a, page 24]

He  states  elsewhere,  “The  word  ص  appears  in  the narration,  which  refers  to  a  story-teller  who  used  to narrate  stories  in  the  evenings.  During  his  story-telling session  he  would  tell  the  people  to  say  such  and  such (incite  them  to  chorus?).  This  incident  reached  the  ears  of Abdullaah  ibn  Mas’ood,  who  went  there.  He  chastised this  person  and  told  him  that  he  had  initiated  a  bid’ah.  It  is clear  that  this  chastisement  was  not  due  to  the  new  manner initiated,  but  rather  because  of  his  telling  stories  in congregation although Thikrullaah would also occasionally  take  place  there.  The  Sahaabah  would  eject such  person  from  the  Masjid,  who  would  narrate  baseless stories therein.” Anwaarus Saati’a, page 38]

In  principle,  Molvi  Samee’   had  accepted  this narration  as  being  authentic.  However,  his  interpretation that  Hadhrat  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  had  ejected  them  from  the Masjid  because  of  their  story-telling,  and  his  proving  this using  the  word  ص    as  a  basis,  is  baatil  and  weak.   

Firstly, the  narration  which  led  him  off  the  track  is  the  following one,  “A  story-teller,  who  used  to  sit  at  nights  and  tell  the people,  ‘Say  this  and  say  that.’”  [Ahkaamul  Ahkaam,  vol. 1, page 52]

This  narration  and  its  wording  make  it  crystal  clear  that this  story-teller  used  to  incite  the  people,  and  he  would show  them  this  manner  of  saying  such  and  such.  This narration  in  no  way,  not  even  by  indication,  suggests  that futile  and  useless  narrations  were  being  spoken  there,  and that  these  people  would  engage  in  Thikrullaah  in  between the  talks.  However,  this  much  is  established  from  this narration  that  whatever  this  person  would  incite  the  others to say, they would comply.

Secondly,  we  have  established  from  an  authentic  narration in  Musnad  Daarimi  that  he  would  instruct  the  congregation to  recite  100  times  each  TakbeerTahleel  and  Tasbeeh,  and that  they  would  comply.  It  was  this  congregational  form  of Thikr  which  disturbed  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu), which  he  subsequently  labelled  a  dark  and  deviated  bid’ah. The  statement  of  the  author  of  Anwaarus  Saati’a,  “It  is clear  that  this  chastisement  was  not  due  to  the  new  manner initiated,”  is  his  own  concocted  understanding  and  not even  worth  any  consideration.  The  following  appears  in Musnad  Daarmi,  “He  (Hadhrat  Ibn  Mas’ood  (radhiyallahu anhu) came  and stood  by  them,  and  asked,  ‘What  is  this  I  see  you  people doing?’  They  replied,  ‘O  Abu  Abdur  Rahmaan  (this  was his  title),  we  are  counting  on  these  pebbles  (the  recitation of)  Takbeer,  Tahleel  and  Tasbeeh.’  To  this  he  said,  ‘You are counting your sins!’” [Musnad Daarimi, page 8]

Consider  the  actual  situation!  Can  the  author  of  Anwaarus Saati’a,  in  an  unbiased  reply,  say  that  Hadhrat  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu  anhu)  labelled  the  story-telling  a  great  bid’ah or  the  congregational  recitation  of  TakbeerTahleel  and Tasbeeh?  Was  he  opposed  to  this  new-fangled  manner  or to  the  listening  of  stories?  Was  not  Hadhrat  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) referring  to  their  congregational  recitation  of  Takbeer, Tahleel  and  Tasbeeh  when  he  told  them  that  they  should count  their  sins  on  those  pebbles,  and  then  he  labelled  their actions  as  a  great  bid’ah?  Or  was  he  referring  to  them counting  their  stories  on  the  pebbles? 

In  short,  this interpretation  of  the  author  of  Anwaarus  Saati’a  is  plain drivel  and  rejected.  The  comments  of  Sheikhul  Islaam  Ibn Daqeequl  Eid  (rahmatullah  alayh)  and  Qaadhi  Ibrahim (rahmatullah  alayh)  indicate  clearly  that  Hadhrat  Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  objected  to  the  congregational  manner  of  this Thikr  program  and  it  was  this  which  he  labelled  a  great  and dark bid’ah.

Thirdly,  the  word  ص  in  the  Arabic  dictionary  refers  to  a person  who  delivers  sermons.  It  is  a  general  term  referring to  good  or  bad  sermons.  Yes,  the  generally-accepted meaning  of  this  word  is  ‘story-teller’,  be  it  good  or  bad stories.  It  is  strange  reasoning  to  specify  the  meaning  of ص  as  only  story-teller  and  that  too,  one  who  narrates untrue  stories.  Had  the  author  of  Anwaarus  Saati’a  only considered the words from the Qur`aan Majeed, etc.,  then  he  would  not  have  faulted  so  badly.

Hadhrat  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  and  the  audible  (loud) recitation of Durood Shareef in the Masjid.

The  recitation  of  Durood  Shareef  is  a  great  and  virtuous  act of  Ibaadat,  but  recited  individually  and  softly.  The  famous Faqeeh,  Allamah  Muhammad  bin  Muhammad  Al Khawaarzami,  famously  known  as  Bazaazi  Al-Hanafi (rahmatullah  alayh)  [passed  away  827  A.H.],  the  author  of Bazaaziya,  discussing  loud  Thikr,  states,  “From  Fataawa Qaadhi  (it  is  established  that)  it  (loud  Thikr)  is  Haraam,  as authenticated  by  (the  narration  of)  Ibn  Mas’ood  τ,  when  he ejected  a  group  of  people  from  the  Masjid  who  were reciting  Tahleel  and  Durood  Shareef  upon  Nabi  ρ,  loudly. He  said  to  them,  ‘I  do  not  regard  you  except  as Mubtadi’een  (bid’atis).’”  [Shaami,  vol.  2,  page  350  / Fataawa Bazaaziya, vol. 3, page 375]

Just  look  at  the  change  of  scenario  today  —  The  person who  does  not  join  in  the  loud  recitation  of  Durood  Shareef in  the  Masjid  is  ejected  by  the  Ahle  Bid’ah

On  the contrary,  Hadhrat  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) had  ejected  the  group  of loud  Thikr-makers  from  the  Masjid  and  told  them  that  in his  opinion  they  are  bid’atis.  The  group  of  detractors should take heed and lesson from this authentic narration.

Our  noble  readers  have  just  read  and  noted  the  valued opinion  and  verdict  of  Hadhrat  Ibn  Mas’ood  (radhiyallahu anhu).  Now  take  a look-see  at  what the Qabr Pujari fanatic Molvi  Muhammad  Umar   Icharwee  says,  “The  Wahaabis  and  Deobandis  claim  that it is  bid’ah  to  recite  Durood  Shareef  loudly  in congregation  after  Salaat  and  they  decry  the  reciters thereof.  The  Durood  Shareef  is  necessarily  recited  loudly after  the  Fardh  Salaat  in  the  Musaajid  of  the  Ahnaaf.  You should  now  take  stock  of  your  actions  and  classify  yourself as  a  Wahaabi  or  a  Hanafi.”  [Miqyaas  Hanafiyat,  page 219]

Molvi  Muhammad  Umar,  keeping  the  fear  of  Allaah Ta`ala,  the  reality  of  the  grave  and  Aakhirah  in  front  of him,  must  consider  the  decision  of  Hadhrat  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) and  decide  whether  he  is  a  Sunni  or  Bid’ati

Do  only  the Deobandis  say  that  loud  recitation  of  Durood  Shareef  in the  Masjid  is  a  bid’ah  or  does  Hadhrat  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) also say  the  same?  Let  him  come  to  his  senses  and  reply  fairly. Mere lip-service alone does not make one a Hanafi.

This  narration  is  also  authentic  according  to  the  Qabr Pujari group.  Molvi  Abdus  Samee’   writes,  “It  is  stated  in Hamawi  from  Fataawa  Qaadhi,  ‘Loud  thikr  is  Haraam.  It has  indeed  been  authenticated  from  Ibn  Mas’ood  τ  that  he heard  about  a  group  who  were  congregating  in  the  Masjid to  recite  Tahleel  and  Durood  upon  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  in  a  loud  voice. He  went  to  them  and  said,  ‘This  was  not  done  during  the era  of  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .  I  do  not  see  you  except  as  Mubtadieen.’  He continued  chastising  them  until  he  ejected  them  from  the Masjid.  It  is  established  from  the  narrations  that  Hadhrat Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  did  not  merely  eject  these  people because  of  their  innovation,  but  also  due  to  the  fact  that they  performed  Thikr  loudly,  which  was  contrary  to  the manner  shown  by  Rasulullaah  ρ.  And  this  is  exactly  what we  are  saying  that  the  innovation  which  is  contrary  to  a Shar`i  prescribed  way  is  prohibited.”  [Anwaarus  Saati’a, page 38-39]

In  short,  Allamah  Qaadhi,  Imaam  Bazaazi,  Allamah Shaami  and  Allamah  Hamawi  (rahmatullah  alayhim),  each one  of  these  great  personalities  have  authenticated  this narration  of  Hadhrat  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu).  Even  the  author  of Anwaarus  Saati`a  has  reported  it  so.  If  Imaam  Suyuti (rahmatullah  alayh)  was  unaware  of  the  sanad  of  this narration,  as  is  reported  in  Sabaahatul  Fikr,  page  68,  then this  does  not  mean  that  this  narration  is  not  authentic.  As for  the  view  of  the  author  of  Tafseer  Roohul  Bayaan  that this  narration  is  a  lie  and  concoction,  his  opinion  is  not even  worth  considering.  He  classifies  weak  and  concocted narrations  as  authentic  and  authentic  Ahaadith  as  weak. Besides  that,  the  classification  of  Ahaadith  is  not  his  au fait.  This  is  the  speciality  and  job  of  the  Muhadditheen  and Fuqahaa.  The  author  of  Roohul  Bayaan  is  a  Mufassir  with a  sufi  disposition.  He  has  included  everything,  be  it authenticated  or  not,  in  his  work  [See  Ikseer,  page  82].

And  that  which  he  has  said  that  this  (censure  and prohibition)  was  not  due  to  the  innovated  method,  is incorrect,  because  the  very  words  of  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  negates this  view,  “This  was  not  done  during  the  era  of  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .” This  statement  of  his  is  clear  nass  proof  that  this  innovated method  of  Thikr  recitation  was  not  prevalent  during  the  era of  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  He  did  not  say  that  this  specific  method  was prohibited.  Leaving  aside  this  established  proof  from Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas’ood  (radhiyallahu amhu),  the  prohibition  of  loud Thikr  which  appears  in  the  Qur`aan  Majeed  and  Ahaadith, as  quoted  by  the  author  of  Anwaarus  Saati’a,  page  38, “And  call  unto  your  Rabb  with  humility  and  softly” (Aayat),  and  “Have  mercy  on  your  souls,  verily  you  are not  calling  one  who  is  deaf  or  absent”  (Hadith),  he  states, “Some  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu an  understood  from  this  that  loud  Thikr  is prohibited.  Based  on  this,  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas’ood prevented people (from making loud Thikr)…

Whatever  else  his  view  may  be,  the  author  of  Anwaarus Saati’a  has  conceded  that  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhoyallahu anhu) regarded  the  loud  recitation  of  Thikr  and  Durood  Shareef as  being  contrary  to  the  way  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  If  only  the  Ahle Bid’ah  take  some  lesson  from  this. 

As  for  the  statement  of Hadhrat  Abu  Waail  Taabi’ee  (rahmatullah  alayh),  which  is extracted  from  Imaam  Ahmad’s  Kitaab  Az-Zuhd,  wherein he  says,  “These  people  thought  that  Abdullaah  Ibn Mas’ood rashiyallagu anhu  prohibited  from  making  Thikr.  I  would sometimes  go  and  sit  in  the  company  of  Hadhrat  Abdullaah Ibn  Mas’ood  radhiyallahu anhu,  and  used  to  find  him  engaged  in  Thikr.”
This  is  most  certainly  not  a  proof  or  reply  to  Hadhrat  Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  preventing  from  loud  Thikr.  The  bone  of contention  here  is  not  whether  Thikr  is  permissible  or not.  The  recitation  of  Thikrullaah  is  established  from  the Qur`an  Majeed,  authentic  Ahaadith  and  Ijma  of  the Ummah.  It  is  a  great  act  of  ibaadat  and  obedience.  The question  is  whether  this  form  of  congregational  Thikr, and  that  too,  made  loudly  in  a  Masjid,  and  to  recite  Durood Shareef  in  this  particular  fashion  —  Is  all  this  established from  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) or  has  he forbidden  this  and  labelled  it  a  bid’ah?  It  is  clearly discerned  from  these  Ahaadith  that  such  acts  are  bid’ah and  the  perpetrators  thereof  are  bid’atees

This  was  so intolerable  to  the  Sahaabi  that  he  ejected  these  people  from the  Masjid.  The  opposition  should  state  fairly  if  we  are Wahaabis  because  of  our  revulsion  to  loud  Thikr  and Durood  in  the  Masjid,  or  is  Hadhrat  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  also  to share  in  this  fatwa  of  theirs?  They  should  consider  well their  stance.

The  status  of  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  in Nabi’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) opinion

It  is  a  fact  beyond  question  and  reproach  that,  after  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) , the  best  of  this  Ummat  are  the  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum).  They  are  the guides  of  this  Ummat.  However,  there  are  some  amongst them  who  are  more  superior  to  the  others,  and  Hadhrat Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) is  amongst  the  senior  Sahaabah.  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  held  him  in  such  high  esteem  that  he  said,  “That which  Ibn  Mas’ood  likes  for  you,  I  also  like  for  you  and  am pleased  with  it.”  [Mustadrak,  vol.  3,  page  319]

He  also  said,  “That  thing  which  Ibn  Mas’ood  does  not  like for  you,  I  also  dislike  it  for  you.”  [Al-Isti`aab,  vol.  1,  page 359]

Imaam  Nawawi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  stated  that  Hadhrat Ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  even  more  learned  and  knowledgeable in  the  Qur`aan  Majeed  (Tafseer)  than  the  Khulafaa-e-Raashideen. [Sharh Muslim, vol. 2, page 293]

You  can  now  see  for  yourself  who  is  the  most  senior mufassir  amongst  the  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhuma),  and  also  upon  whom Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had  the  greatest  reliance.  He  is  the  same  one  who has  called  the  perpetrators  of  loud  Thikr  and  Durood  in  the Masjid  bid’atees,  and  he  disliked  their  action.  Since  he  did not  like  this  act  of  theirs,  then  according  to  the  words  of the  Hadith,  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  also  dislikes  such  deeds.  Whosoever desires  may  now  follow  in  his  footsteps,  or  whoever  else he wishes.

Making  loud  Thikr  in  total  isolation  or  in  order  to  teach others,  is  another  matter  altogether.

Hadhrat Abdullaah bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)
Hadhrat  Mujaahid  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  that  he  and Hadhrat  Urwah  bin  Zubair (radhiyallahu anhu) entered  the  Masjid,  when Abdullaah  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  sitting  by  the  room  of  Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) and  the  people  were  performing  Salaatud  Duhaa  in  the Masjid.  We  asked  him  regarding  their  Salaat,  to  which  he replied,  ‘(It  is  a)  Bid’ah’.”  [Bukhaari,  vol.  1,  page  238  / Muslim, vol. 1, page 409]

The  (validity)  of  Salaatul  Chaasht  (Duhaa)  has  been reported  from  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  via  numerous  Sahaabah (ridhwanallahu anhum),  through authentic  asaaneed.  However  during  the  era  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  this Salaat  was  not  performed  in  congregational  form  or especially  in  the  Masjid.  It  would  be  performed  wherever one  was.  This  is  a  Nafl  Salaat,  and  it  is  more  virtuous  to perform  Nafl  Salaat  in  the  home  than  Masjid.  When Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Umar  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  saw  the  people  performing this  Salaat  in  the  Masjid  and  also  in  this  particular fashion,  he  called  it  a  bid’ah.  In  commenting  on  this narration,  Imaam  Nawawi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states,  “The meaning  of  this  (Ibn  Umar’s  statement)  is  because  of  their making  it  apparent  in  the  Masjid  and  in  congregation.  This is  a  bid’ah,  not  that  the  Salaatud  Duhaa  itself  is  bid’ah.” [Sharah Muslim, vol. 1, page 409]

The  virtue  of  Tahajjud  Salaat  has  been  greatly  emphasised in  the  Ahaadith.  It  has  also  been  reported  in  authentic Ahaadith  that  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  performed  Tahajjud  Salaat  in congregation.  However,  if  even  this  act  is  exceeded beyond  the  necessary  then  it  is  Makrooh.  In  this  regard, Mujaddid  Alf  Thaani  (rahmatullah  alayh),  in  refuting  a certain  group,  states,  “They  perform  Tahajjud  Salaat  in congregation,  where  people  from  all  sides  gather  to perform  it  with  specific  purpose  and  intent.  This  act  is Makrooh,  to  the  level  of  Tahreemi.  One  group  of  the Fuqahaa  have  said  that  the  condition  of  calling  to  and making  special  arrangements  for  congregation  (for  Nafl Salaat)  is  Makrooh.  They  have  also  stated  that  the congregational  Nafl  Salaat  be  performed  in  one  corner  of the  Masjid.  They  have  also  stipulated  that  the congregation  of  more  than  three  persons  (for  such  Salaats) is Makrooh.” [Maktoobaat, part 3, page 10]

Imaam  Ibn  Daqeequl  Eid  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states,  “Can you  not  see  that  Ibn  Umar  (radhiallahu  anhu)  mentioned regarding  Salaatud  Duhaa  that  it  is  bid’ah,  because  in  his opinion  its  proof  was  not  established,  and  he  did  not  deem it  as  being  classified  as  a  regular  Salaat,  which  is  specific to  a  certain  time.  Similarly,  he  regarded  the  Qunoot  which was  being  recited  in  his  era  by  the  people  as  a  bid’ah, because  he  did  not  deem  it  as  being  classified  as  a  dua. Similarly,  it  is  reported  by  Tirmidhi  from  Abdullaah  bin Maghfal  (radhiyallahu anhu)  who  told  his  son  to  save  himself  from  innovation regarding  the  loud  recitation  of  Bismillah,  as  he  did  not deem  it  as  being  sufficiently  proven.”  [Ahkamul  Ahkaam, vol.1, page 53]

It  is  well  known  that  Salaat  itself,  Qunoot  and  the recitation  of  Bismillah  are  most  virtuous,  but  since  it  was not  proven  to  be  executed  in  a  specific  manner,  time  or form,  personalities  such  as  Hadhrat  Ibn  Umar  and  Ibn Maghfal (radhiyallahu anhu) labelled  them  as  bid’ah  and  exhorted  abstention from them (in these unproven forms).  Although  it  is  Sunnat  to  make  Musaafaha  (shake  hands) and  Muaanaqah  (embrace),  but  since  its  execution  is  not established  after  every  Salaat  and  specifically  after  Jumuah Salaat,  it  will  be  bid’ah  to  do  it  on  these  occasions.  This occasion  for  Musaafaha  has  been  refuted  in  many  kitaabs, like  Ar-Tarsheeh  of  Allamah  Teebi,  MultaqitIdaahul MutaalibKhulaasatul  FiqhKaafiFataawa  Ebrahim ShaamiNaasiriHaashiyatul  MasaabihMajaalisul AbraarMadkhalFataawa  Ibn  Hajar,  etc.  [See  Al-Junna, page 130 – 146]

Allamah  Teebi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states,  “Musaafaha after  Salaat  is  Makrooh,  under  all  conditions,  because  it  is amongst  the  sunnats  of  the  Rawaafidh.  This  is  also  the ruling regarding Muaanaqah.” [Al-Junna, page 130]

As  for  Imaam  Nawawi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  who  stated  in Kitaabul  Athkaar  that  this  Musaafaha  is  fine,  has  erred. Mullah  Ali  Qaari  and  Ibn  Ameer  Al-Haaj  (rahmatullah alayhima)  have  refuted  this  view  of  Imaam  Nawawi (rahmatullah  alayh)  and  established  that  this  practice  is bid’ah.  Allamah  Shaatbi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states,  “There is  no  proof  in  the  Shariah  which  indicates  towards  these specific  times  (for  Musaafaha).  In  fact,  it  is  Makrooh.” [Al-I’tisaam, vol. 1, page 280]

From  these  texts  we  establish  that  a  specific  issue cannot  be  proven  using  a  general  ruling,  until  a  specific exception  can  be  found  to  establish  it.  No  one  has  the right  in  the  Shariah  to  make  khaas  an  aam  proof,  in accordance  to  his  own  fancy.  To  make  a  Mutlaq  into Muqayyid  or  aam  (general)  into  khaas  (specific)  (without Shar`i  evidence)  are  all  what  are  regarded  as  alteration  in the  Deen.  This  is  what  Imaam  Gharnaati  (rahmatullah alayh)  has  to  say,  “To  make  Mutlaq  (general)  into Muqayyid  (specific),  when  this  taqyeed  (making  Muqayyid) has  not  been  established  in  the  Shariah  is  to  introduce one’s  own  opinion  in  the  Deen.”  [Al-I’tisaam,  vol.  1,  page 284]

When  there  is  ample  proof  from  the  Shariah  which  is present  (to  prove  an  issue),  and  then  for  one  to  make Qiyaas  (on  this  same  issue)  is  a  great  disservice  to  the Deen.  This  crime  is  aggravated  especially  when  the  person making  this  ijtihaad  or  Qiyaas  is  not  even  qualified  to  do so. Allaah  Ta`ala  states: 

And  do  not  speak  what  your  tongues blurt  (that)  this  is  Halaal  and  this  is  Haraam,  that  you fabricate lies against Allaah.” [Surah An-Nahl]

Haafidh  Ibn  Katheer  (rahmatullah  alayh)  writes  in commentary  of  this  Aayat,  “And  included  in  this  (Aayat)  is every  person  who  innovates  a  bid’ah,  without substantiating  with  Shar`i  proof,  or  he  makes  Halaal something  which  Allaah  Ta`ala  had  made  Haraam  or  he makes  Haraam  a  thing  which  Allaah  Ta`ala  had  made Halaal,  merely  to  suit  his  own  whims  and  fancies.” [Tafseer Ibn Katheer, vol. 2, page 590]

Allamah  Aaloosi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  writes  in  the  Tafseer of  this  Aayat  that  the  view  of  Imaam  Askari  (rahmatullah alayh)  is  quite  correct  that  you  should  not  declare  anything as  Halaal  or  Haraam  which  is  not  established  from  Allaah Ta`ala  or  His  Rasul (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  otherwise  you  will  become  a fabricator  against  Allaah  Ta`ala.  “Because  the  basis  of Halaal  and  Haraam  lies  only  with  the  Order  of  Allaah Ta`ala.” [Roohul Ma’aani, vol. 14, page 248]
This  then  is  the  condition  of  our  present-day  bid’atis,  in that  they  hasten  to  prove  everything  with  their  deficient intellect.  They  waylay  and  mislead  themselves  and  their followers  by  making  concocted  interpretations  of  nusoos-e-qat’I  (clear  categorical  text)  and  authentic  Ahaadith. They  aim  to  destroy  the  Sunnah  with  their  bid’ah.  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said,  “Soon  your  matters  will  be  turned  around  by  some men,  after  me,  they  will  annihilate  the  Sunnat  with bid’ah.” [Ibn Majah, page 211]

This  is  the  ailment  of  the  Ahlush-Shirk Wal Bid’ah Qabr Pujaris  that  they  give  vent to  their  desires  and  intellect  in  every  issue.  They  ask, “What  is  wrong  with  this??”  “What  sin  or  fault  is  there  in this??”  “What  harm  is  there  in  this??”  “This  is  also permissible!”  “This  is  Mustahab!”  “This  is  worthy  of Thawaab”,  etc.,  etc.  They  have  not  understood  the  reality. A  thing  may  be  permissible,  but  it  becomes  impermissible by  attaching  conditions  to  it.  Just  see,  to  recite  Qur`an Majeed  is  rewarding,  but  we  are  prohibited  from performing  it  in  ruku  and  Sajdah  [see  Muslim  Shareef,  vol. 1, page 191]

It  is  permissible  to  make  Nikah  with  a  Ghair-Mahram woman,  but  on  the  condition  that  one  is  not  already married  to  her  sister,  aunt  or  niece.  It  is  permissible  for  a man  to  cohabitate  with  his  wife,  on  condition  that  she  is not  menstruating.  Wheat, Rice  etc.  is  Halaal  to  consume,  but becomes  Haraam  if  it  is  stolen.  How  much  more  must  we continue  in  explaining  this  rule??  In  short,  the  Ahle  Bid’ah make  this  principle  and  fatal  error  of  establishing specific  acts  by  using  general  rulings.

An error of the author of Anwaarus Saati’a

Molvi  Abdus  Samee’  cites  from  Zurqaani,  Ibn  Abi Shaiba,  Abdur  Razzaaq,  Fat-hul  Baari,  etc.,  and  states  that it  has  been  established  from  authentic  sources  that  Hadhrat Abdullaah  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  has  labelled  Chaasht  Salaat  as  a bid’ah-e-hasana,  hence  his  refutation  (of  this  Salaat)  will not  benefit  those  who  prevent  it.  He  states  further,  “Hence those  who  claim  bid’ah  have  been  proven  and  those  who prevent have been refuted.” [Page 40]

It  appears  however  that  the moron author  of  Anwaarus  Saati’a  has not  reflected  over  the  matter,  because  then  he  would  not have  blundered  so.  The  narration  of  Hadhrat  Mujaahid (rahmatullah  alayh)  which  is  reported  in  Bukhaari  and Muslim  Shareef,  does  not  deal  with  question  as  to  whether Chaasht  Salaat  is  bid’ah  or  Sunnah bid’ah-e-hasana  or bid’ah-e-sayyi’a.  This  much  is  mentioned  therein  that  the questioners  enquired  from  Hadhrat  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  regarding the  Salaat  which  the  people  were  performing  in congregation  in  the  Masjid.  They  wanted  to  know  about the  status  and  ruling  regarding  the  manner  of  performance. I  reply  to  this  question,  Hadhrat  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  said  that  it  is  a bid’ah.  He  did  not  add  the  definition  of  ‘hasana’  to  his statement.  When  one  merely  uses  the  term  ‘bid’ah’, then  bid’ah-e-sayyi’a  is  meant.  Yes,  if  he  mentioned  that the  actual  Chaasht  Salaat  was  a  bid’ah-e-hasana,  then  this would  have  been  a  different  matter  altogether.  In  short, confirmation  is  one  thing  and  refutation  another.  In  the end,  the  author  of  Anwaarus  Saati’a  concedes,  “And  some Ulama  have  opined  that  he  did  not  object  to  the  Salaat itself,  because  according  to  him  it  was  a  good  bid’ah  and virtuous.    How  could  he  object  to  it?  In  fact,  if  he  did object,  then  it  was  because  the  people  had  gathered  in  the Masjid  to  perform  this  Salaat,  with  the  same  etiquette  as they  would  for  a  Fardh  Salaat,  and  this  is  contrary  to  the norm.” [Anwaarus Saati’a, page 40]

This  much  we  can  say  is  that  if  the  Shariah  has  not stipulated  any  specific  manner  and  form  for  an  act  of ibaadat,  and  the  Shariah  has  left  it  general,  then  it  is  a bid’ah to grant undue consideration to it. Hadhrat  Naafi’  (rahmatullah  alayh)  [passed  away  117 A.H.]  narrates,  “A  man  sneezed  nearby  Ibn  Umar  (radhiyallahu anhu)  and said,  ‘Alhamdulillahi  wa  Salaamu  ala  Rasulillaah.’  Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) commented,  ‘I  also  accept  ‘Alhamdulillaah’  (that all  praise  is  due  to  Allaah  Ta`ala)  and  ‘Salaam  ala Rasulillaah’  (Peace  upon  Rasulullaah sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  but  this  is  not the  way  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  taught  us.  On  this  occasion  (of  sneezing) he  taught  us  to  say,  ‘Alhamdulillaahi  ala  kulli  Haal.’” [Tirmidhi,  vol.  2,  page  98  /  Mishkaat  Shareef,  vol.  2,  page 406]

It  is  established  from  authentic  Ahaadith  that  the  one  who sneezes  should  say,  “Alhamdulillaah”.  The  Ahaadith  do not  advocate  that  salaam  also  be  conveyed  to  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  on  this  occasion.  Ask  Hadhrat  Ibn  Umar  (radhiyallahu anhu) why  he prevented  the  recitation  of  Durood  and  salaam  and  what difficulty  did  the  words  ‘Salaam  ala  Rasulillaah’  cause  to him?  Is  it  a  sin  to  send  salaam  to  Rasulullaah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ?  Only  the ‘Wahaabis’  prevent  from  Durood  and  salaam  on  such inappropriate  occasions,  have  you  now  joined  their  ranks? He  was  a  staunch  follower  of  Rasulullaah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .  He  was  well aware  of  the  occasions  when  to  recite  ThikrDurood  and salaam.  This  is  the  reason  why  he  prevented  from  it  (since the occasion did not call for it).

Molvi  Abdus  Samee’ (mis)interprets  this  narration  of  Ibn Umar (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) thus,  “It  is  stated  in  Kitaabuz  Zabaa’i  in  Durrul Mukhtaar,  ‘On  two  occasions  it  (Durood)  is  not  uttered;  at the  time  of  sneezing  and  slaughtering.’  Hence  the  salaam upon  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  was  mentioned  on  an  occasion  of  prohibition. Why  then  would  he  not  prohibit  on  this  appropriate occasion?  Even  we  would  prevent  from  a  prohibited thing.” [Anwaarus Saati’a, page 152]


In  passing,  let  us  consider  the  status  of  this  narration (quoted  in  the  text  above)  –  (Ahmad Raza Khaan states that  this  Hadith  unauthentic).  We  are  saying  that  the prohibition  of  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was  not  because  of  this  narration (that  Durood  is  prohibited  on  two  occasions),  because  he did  not  say  that  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  prevented  from  the  mentioning  of his  blessed  name  on  the  occasion  of  sneezing,  therefore  he is  reproaching  this  person.  In  fact,  he  stated  expressly  that Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  taught  them  that  on  this  occasion  one  should  only say, ‘Alhamdulillaah’.  He  deemed  it  impermissible  to  add anything  extra  to  what  was  taught  by  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  This narration  proves  that  it  is  impermissible  to  add anything  extra  to  any  issue  which  is  established  is  the Shariah.  Hadhrat  Ibn  Umar  (radhiyallahu anhu) did  not  object  to  this person’s  statement  because  of  the  Hadith,  “On  two occasions  it  (Durood)  is  not  uttered..”  as  is  claimed  by  Abdus Samee’ Rampuri.

A person  once  sneezed  nearby  Hadhrat  Saalim  bin  Ubaid (radhiyallahu anhu) and  said,  “Assalaamualaikum.”  Saalim  said  to  him,  “On you  and  your  mother.”  The  man  was  affronted,  and Hadhrat  Saalim  commented,  “Indeed  I  do  not  say  except what  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said  (i.e.  on  the  occasion  of  sneezing).”   [Tirmidhi  Shareef,  vol.  2,  page  98  /  Abu  Dawood,  vol.  2, page  320  /  Mishkaat,  vol.  2,  page  406  /  Muwaariduz Zamaan, page 479]

Abdus  Samee`,  made  an  appropriate comment  after  citing  this  narration  by  stating,  “The objection  was  made  due  to  the  fact  that  this  person  veered away  from  the  specific  Shar`i  stipulated  words  of ‘Alhamdulillah’  and  recited  something  else  in  its  place. This  was  an  innovation  and  changing  the  Deen.” [Anwaarus  Saatia,  page  152]

This  is  precisely  what  we  are  saying  that  whatever  the pristine  Shariah  has  kept  in  place  should  remain  so. Neither  should  Mutlaq  be  made  Muqayyid  nor  vice  versa. Aam  should  not  be  made  Khaas  nor  Khaas  Aam.  That which  has  not  been  decreed  as  congregational  should  not be  executed  thus  and  that  which  the  Shariah  has  not ordered  to  be  made  audibly  should  not  be  recited  audibly. That  which  has  not  been  specified  to  a  special  time  should not  be  done  so,  because  this  will  constitute  a  change  and alteration  in  the  Shariah.  In  other  words  this  is  a  bid’ah, from which the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama’ah is pure.

Hadhrat  Mujaahid  (rahmatullah  alayh)  [passed  away 102AH]  said  that  once  he  entered  a  Masjid  together  with Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  in  order  to  perform  Salaat. The  Athaan  had  already  been  given.  A  person  began making  Tathweeb  (i.e.  calling  out  ‘Salaat,  Salaat’,  thereby calling  the  people  to  Salaat).  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallah anhu)  commented,  ‘Are  you  mad?  Was  the  call  to  Salaat  which was  incorporated  in  the  Athaan  insufficient?’.  Hadhrat  Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  said  to  Mujaahid  (rahmatullah  alayh),  ‘Take  me away  from  here,  surely  this  is  a  bid’ah.’  [Abu  Dawood, vol.1, page 79]

Hadhrat  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu amhu)  left  that  Masjid  and  did  not  perform Salaat  there.  It  is  reported  in  another  narration  that  he  said, ‘Take  me  away  from  this  innovation.’  He  did  not  perform his Salaat there. [Tirmidhi Shareef, vol.1, page 28]

Towards  the  end  of  his  life,  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Umar’s (radhiyallahu anhu)  sight  was  failing,  hence  he  said  to  his  guide  to  take  him away  from  there.  You  have  noticed  how  much  of detestation  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  had  for  bid’ah that  he  did  not  even  remain  behind  in  the  Masjid,  where  it was  being  perpetrated,  to  perform  his  Salaat.  In  today’s time,  we  would  offer  many  excuses  and  reasons  for  staying on,  whereas  these  luminaries  were  the  stars  of  this  Ummat and  the  actual  fountainheads  of  this  Ummat.  Imaam Nawawi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in  Sharh  Muhazzab, “It  has  been  reported  that  Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  once  saw  a  Muatthin  making  Tathweeb  in  Esha  Salaat,  and  he  exclaimed, ‘Remove  this  bida’ti  from  the  Masjid!’  A  similar  incident  is reported  about  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu).”  [Bahrur  Raa`iq,  page  261, vol. 1]

Allamah  Gharnaati  (rahmatullah  alayh)  writes  that amongst  the  acts  of  innovations  (bid’ahs)  which  the  Salf-e-Saaliheen  have  rejected  is  Tathweeb.  [Al-I’tisaam,  page 114, vol. 2]

That  Tathweeb  which  is  mentioned  in  the  Kitaabs  of  Fiqh refers  to  making  those  occupied  in  (intense  Deeni)  issues, like  the  Qaadhi,  etc.  aware  of  the  impending  Salaat.  It  does not  refer  to  recitation  of  any  Durood  Shareef  or  to  the  loud repetition  of  the  words  of  the  Muath-thin.

Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)

The  following  narration  has  been  reported  regarding Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  (passed  away  40  A.H.),  “A  man  intended  to perform  some  (naflSalaat  on  the  day  of  Eid,  prior  to  the Eid  Salaat  (at  the  Eid  Gah).  Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  prevented  him. The  man  said,  ‘O  Ameerul  Mumineen,  I  am  indeed  aware that  Allaah  Ta`ala  does  not  punish  for  (performing) Salaat!  Hadhrat  Ali  (radhiyallahu anhu)  retorted  by  saying,  ‘And  indeed  I  am aware  that  Allaah  Ta`ala  does  not  reward  for  any  action unless  it  was  executed  by  Rasulullaah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  or  which  He  has ordained  or  encouraged.  (Therefore)  Your  Salaat  is  futile and  futility  is  Haraam.  It  is  very  possible  that  Allaah Ta`ala  will  punish  you  for  it,  because  you  have  acted contrary  to  (the  Sunnat  of)  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .’”  [Sharah Majma’  Bahrain,  also  in  Junna,  page  165  /  Nazmul Bayaan, page 73]

Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  has  demonstrated  that  since  the  performance of  (NaflSalaat  prior  to  the  Eid  Salaat  was  not  reported from  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), neither  has  he   (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) encouraged  this  by  word  or action,  hence  its  execution  is  an  act  of  ‘abath  (futility), which  is  Haraam.  It  is  also  very  possible  that  Allaah  Ta`ala punishes  for  the  act  of  even  Salaat,  which  is  the  most  dear act  of  Ibaadat  to  Him,  if  it  is  done  contrary  to  the  way  and action  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  and  which  he  has  also  never  advocated  or encouraged.  We  shudder  to  imagine  what  sort  of  fatwas and  epithets  the  muftis  of  today  would  hurl  upon  Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) for  having  prevented  an  act  of  Salaat!  May  Allaah Ta`ala save us all.

The  author  of  Anwaarus  Saati’a  accepts  this  narration  in principle,  but  he  fathoms  an  interpretation  for  it.  In  this regard  he  writes,  “It  is  apparent  that  this  prevention  was not  solely  based  on  the  fact  that  such  a  Salaat  at  this  time was  not  reported  from  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  and  that  if  it  is  not  reported then  it  is  branded  a  bid’ah  as  the  people  of  the  opposite camp  aver.  In  fact,  the  prevention  of  Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)   was  a strong  proof,  which  the  Ulama  of  Ahnaaf  adhere  to,  that there  is  a  clear  prohibition  in  this  regard  by  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)   .  It  is stated  in  Sharah  Majma’  that  it  has  been  reported  that indeed  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  ‘There  is  no  Salaat  on  the  days  of  Eid, before  the  Imaam.’  This  is  precisely  our  claim,  that innovation  of  such  a  thing  is  prohibited  which  is  in  clear conflict  to  an  order  or  prohibition  of  the  Shariah.” [Anwaarus Saati’a, page 39]

The  author  of  Anwaarus  Saati`a  has  at  least  conceded  to  the fact  that  Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  had  prevented  a  man  from performing  Nafl  Salaat  prior  to  the  Eid  Salaat.  However, his  proving  that  this  prevention  of  Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  due  to the  narration  reported  in  Sharah  Majma’,  where  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) forbade  the  performance,  is  incorrect.  The  question  here  is not  what  the  proof  of  the  Ahnaaf  is  for  not  performing  Nafl Salaat  prior  to  Eid  Salaat  or  whether  this  prohibition  is owing  to  Nabi’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  explicit  prohibition  or  his  non-execution of  it,  or  also  whether  this  narration  is  authentic  or  not.  The point  here  is  that  Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu),  upon  preventing  the  man from  performing  the  Salaat,  specifically  mentioned  his proof  and  reasoning.  The  author  if  Anwaarus  Saati’a  has  not pondered  and  reflected  upon  this  issue  properly.  Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  only  stated  this,  in  negating  the  man’s  action,  “And indeed  I  am  aware  that  Allaah  Ta`ala  does  not  reward  for any  action  unless  it  was  executed  by  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) or which He has ordained or encouraged.” 

This  statement  of  Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  is  in  absolutely  no  need  of further  dilation  or  analysis.  This  statement  is  a  clear  and unambiguous  proof  that  Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  had  prevented  the man  from  performing  Salaat,  because  in  his  opinion  such an  act  (Nafl  Salaat  prior  to  Eid  Salaat)  was  not  reported from  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) , or  that  there  was  no  clear  encouragement  for it  by  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) . 

The  ‘logic’  of  the  author  of  Anwaarus  Saati’a is  indeed  astounding!  He  has  not  considered  the  matter properly  and  opted  to  use  the  proof  of  the  ‘neighbour instead  of  the  one  in  the  house’.

Hadhrat Abdullaah Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu)

Hadhrat  Abdullaah  Ibn  Abbaas  (radhiyallahu anhu)  once  saw  Hadhrat  Ta`oos Taabi’e  (rahmatullah  alayh)  performing  Salaat  after  Asr Salaat  and  prevented  him.  (This  narration  clearly  states  that this  was  only  a  two  rakaat  Salaat).  Hadhrat  Ta’oos (rahmatullah  alayh)  presented  some  interpretation  for  the prohibition  of  Salaat  after  Asr.  Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu)  retorted sternly,  “I  do  not  know  whether  there  is  punishment  or reward  (for  such  a  Salaat),  because  Allaah  Ta`ala  states, ‘It  is  not  appropriate  for  a  believing  man  or  woman, when  Allaah  and  His  Rasul  have  decreed  a  matter,  that they have a choice in it.’” [Mustadrak, page 110, vol. 1]

In  this  narration,  although  Hadhrat  Ibn  Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu)  prevented and  cautioned  Hadhrat  Taa’oos  (rahmatullah  alayh)  based on  the  prohibition  of  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  nevertheless  as  mentioned previously,  just  as  it  is  sinful  to  oppose  the  prohibition  of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  so  too  is  there  no  reward  for  acting  contrary  to  the Sunnat  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  In  fact,  that  too  is  a  sin.  You  have noticed  here  that  Hadhrat  Ibn  Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu)  had  said  that Hadhrat  Taa’oos  (rahmatullah  alayh)  is  to  be  liable  for punishment  for  acting  contrary  to  the  Sunnat.  

Hadhrat Sa’eed bin Musayyib (radhiyallahu anhu)
In  this  regard  there  appears  a  narration  of  a  man  who normally  performed  two  Rakaats  after  the  Asr  Salaat asking  Hadhrat  Sa’eed  bin  Musayyib (radhiyallahu anhu),  “O  Abu Muhammad!  Will  Allaah  Ta`ala  punish  me  for  my  (this) Salaat?  He  replied,  ‘No,  but  He  will  punish  you  for  acting contrary to the Sunnat.’” [Musnad Daarimi, page 62]

Here,  Hadhrat  Sa’eed  bin  Musayyib (radhiyallahu anhu) makes  clear  that whilst  Allaah  Ta`ala  will  not  punish  for  the  performance  of any  Salaat,  owing  to  it  being  a  great  act  of  ibaadat, nevertheless,  He  will  most  certainly  punish  for  its execution  which  is  contrary  to  the  Sunnat  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam.

Hadhrat Uthmaan bin Abil ‘Aas (radhiyallahu anhu)

Someone  once  invited  Hadhrat  Uthmaan  bin  Abil  ‘Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) [passed  away  55  A.H.]  to  a  circumcision  ceremony, which  he  clearly  turned  down.  When  he  was  asked  the reason  for  refusing  this  invitation,  he  replied  in  no uncertain  terms,  “Indeed  we  never  attended  circumcisions (ceremonies)  during  the  era  of  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  neither  were we invited to such.” [Musnad Ahmad, page 217, vol. 4]

Hadhrat  Uthmaan  Bin  Abil  ‘Aas  (radhiyallahu anhu) also  employs  the  same ruling  that  since  it  was  not  the  custom  to  celebrate  and offer  meals  for  circumcision;  hence  he  did  not  participate in  such  activities.  He  did  not  say  that  his  non-participation is  due  to  the  fact  that  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  forbade  such  participation. You  have  seen  that  great  Sahaabah  like  Hadhrat Abdullaah  Ibn  Mas’ood,  Hadhrat  Ibn  Umar,  Hadhrat  Ali, Hadhrat  Uthmaan  bin  Abil  ‘Aas  (radhoyallahu anhum),  etc.  forbade participation  and  execution  of  great  acts  of  Ibaadat  like SalaatZikr,  etc.  to  be  performed  in  a  specific  manner  and form  with  regularity  due  to  the  fact  that  this  was  not  the manner  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  neither  were  such  acts  encouraged  by him,  nor  were  they  enacted  during  his  noble  era.  Therefore such  acts  are  branded  as  bid’ah.  This  is  not  just  a  common bid’ah,  it  is  a  great,  dark  and  deviant  bid’ah.  May  Allah Ta`ala save us. 

According  to  Allaah  Ta`ala  and  His  Rasul (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  only  those  acts of  Ibaadat  are  acceptable  which  are  executed  with  sincerity and  in  accordance  to  the  Sunnah,  even  though  such  acts may  be  small.  However,  those  acts  are  regarded  as  futile even  though  they  display  a  mountainous  façade  and  are carried  out  without  sincerity  or  in  imitation  of  the  Sunnah. Such  acts  are  devoid  of  life  and  soul.  Hadhrat  Aa’ishah (radhiyallahu anhu) once  mentioned  that  Hadhrat  Abdurrahman  bin  Abu  Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) did  not  have  any  children.  Someone  in  the  household commented  that  if  a  child  is  born  to  him  then  they  will slaughter  a  camel  (for  Aqeeqah).  Hadhrat  Aa’ishah (radhiyallahu anhu)  said, “No,  the  Sunnat  practice  is  more  virtuous,  where  two goats/sheep  are  slaughtered  for  a  boy  and  one  for  a  girl.” [Mustadrak,  page  238,  vol.4]

If  one  compares  the  value  and  meat  derived  from  a  camel to  that  of  two  goats/sheep,  then  the  difference  is  apparent, notwithstanding  this,  Hadhrat  Aa’ishah (radhiyallahu anhu)  gave  preference to  that  which  is  Sunnat.  In  other  words,  the  value  of  a Sunnat  far  outweighs  any  perceived  worldly  benefit. Nevertheless,  the  majority  have  also  consented  to  the slaughtering  of  a  cow  or  camel  for  Aqeeqah.

Some Aqli proofs in refutation of Bid`ah

Every  government  has  formulated  a  set  of  rules  to  govern its  subjects  and  all  aspects  of  their  lives.  Obedience  to these  rules  and  laws  are  necessary  upon  all  subjects  and  no government  tolerates  disobedience.  If  a  citizen  of  Pakistan has  to  decide  to  introduce  the  use  of  British,  Indian  or  any other  country’s  currency,  then  the  government  of  Pakistan will  haul  him  to  court  and  file  a  case  against  him.  If  a Pakistani  soldier  has  to  report  for  duty  in  an  American  or any  other  country’s  uniform,  then  his  fate  is  known  to  all. Leave  alone  this  soldier  donning  the  uniform  of  a  foreign country,  even  if  he  wears  the  uniform  of  a  train  or  bus conductor, we all know what his fate will be. 

In  essence  whatever  uniform  is  stipulated  by  the  governing body  of  any  sector,  becomes  necessary  for  all  the employees  in  that  department  to  dress  accordingly.  A person  travelling  on  a  train  cannot  use  any  other  ticket besides  the  stipulated  train  ticket  as  his  pass  and  he  cannot gain  entry  if  the  price  is  20  rupees  with  a  10  rupee  ticket.  If the  relevant  authorities  will  take  objection  to  such impudence,  what  anger  will  there  not  be  if  the  Path  of Allaah  Ta`ala  and  His  Rasul (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  is  substituted  and  altered? Allaah  Ta`ala  has  set  a  certain  standard  for  our  deeds  and measure  for  our  actions.  He  has  given  us  the  model  to follow  in  our  lives,  which  is  none  other  than  the  lifestyle  of our  beloved  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  The  Sahaabah  radhiyallahu anhum),  Tabieen  and  Tabe Tabieen  (rahmatullah  alayhim)  were  paragons  of  this model.  Every  other  way  and  means  which  conflicts  with the  ‘uniform’  and  pattern  shown  to  us  by  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  is rejected and an anti-thesis to our success and salvation.

In  summary,  no  government  has  left  its  subjects  to  follow their  desires  and  fancies  in  matters  decreed  by  the  state, just  as  we  do  not  allow  our  workers  and  servants  to  act  as they  please,  whilst  in  our  employ,  so  too  will  any  act  which conflicts  to  the  Deen  and  the  Sunnat  not  be  accepted  from us.

This  brief  outline  is  sufficient  for  us  to  understand  the correct  position  and  difference  between  the  Sunnat  and bid`ah.  Yes,  as  for  those  who  will  not  accept,  volumes upon  volumes  will  not  be  sufficient  (to  convince  them).  If the  Sunnat  (which  includes  the  statements  and  actions  of Nabi sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  is  kept  in  its  pristine  purity,  then  it  will  remain that  invaluable  gem,  whose  worth  will  never  be  exceeded by this entire world and whatever it contains. 

Is  there  any  benefit  in  bid’ah  which  is  substantiated by proofs??

There  may  be  in  this  world  such  a  thing  which, notwithstanding  its  harms,  does  not  contain  any  benefit. The  Qur`an  Majeed  mentioned  regarding  great  evils  of alcohol  and  gambling,  “There  is  in  both  of  them  great  sin and (some) benefit for man.” [Surah Baqarah, Ruku 27]

We  accept  that  there  is  sin  in  these  acts,  but  in  the  same verse,  Allaah  Ta`ala  also  states  their  having  some  benefits. However,  these  little  benefits  do  not  outweigh  the  great harms  they  present,  and  these  harms  render  such  acts Haraam  and  impermissible  for  all  time.  In  fact,  they  are amongst the greatest of harms. 

Whenever  any  group  had  introduced  even  the  worst  of bid`ahs,  even  they  had  extolled  some  or  the  other  benefit  or goodness  for  it.  They  may  have  also  presented  some  or  the other  proofs  in  the  name  of  love  for  Allaah  Ta`ala,  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) or  some  pious  personality  or  the  other.  By  the  use  of  some well-known  personality  they  have  indulged  many  people  in this practice.

Even  the  Arab  Mushriks  had  substantiated  their  totally  evil act  of  idol-worship  by  averring  that  it  was  a  means  of gaining  proximity  to  Allaah  Ta`ala.  In  this  regard,  Allaah Ta`ala  states  in  the  Qur`an  Majeed,  “We  (the  Mushriks) do  not  worship  them  (idols)  except  that  they  bring  us closer to Allaah.” [Surah Zumar, Ruku 1]

At  another  juncture,  Allaah  Ta`ala  says  that  the Mushrikeen  say,  “These  (their  idols)  are  our  intercessors by  Allaah.”  [Surah  Yunus,  Ruku  2]

See,  even  the  Mushrikeen  have  satiated  their  conscience and  substantiated  their  vile  act  of  idol  worship  with  some ‘valid’  proof.  And  then  these  same  Mushrikeen,  in  the name  of  the  creed  of  Ibraheem (alayhissalaam),  have  introduced  the  utterly vile  and  lewd  innovation  of  making  Tawaaf  of  the  Kaabah Shareef  whilst  totally  naked.  Even  their  womenfolk  would make  Tawaaf  with  only  a  scant  piece  of  cloth,  barely covering their private parts.

An  excuse  is  even  cited  by  them  for  this  extremely  vile  act, that  since  they  commit  countless  sins  in  their  normal clothing,  how  then  can  they  make  Tawaaf  of  Allaah Ta`ala’s  Pure  House  in  those  same  clothing??  They  also aver  that  by  donning  clothing,  they  resemble  worldly people  and  that  this  is  unsuitable  for  one  making  Tawaaf, since  it  conflicts  with  the  honour  and  sanctity  of  Allaah Ta`ala’s  House.  We  note  in  no  uncertain  terms  what  Allaah Ta`ala  and  His  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) say  regarding  this  warped ‘Tasawwuf’  of  the  Mushrikeen.  We  also  know  that  after the  occasion  of  the  Conquest  of  Makkah  in  8  A.H.  on  the occasion  of  Hajj,  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  proclaimed  that  no  one  is  allowed to make Tawaaf naked. [Bukhaari, vol. 1, page 220]

This  is  how  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  terminated  a  bid’ah  which  lasted centuries.

Hadhrat  Umar  bin  Abdil  Azeez  (rahmatullah  alayh)  has mentioned,  “Amma  Ba`ad,  I  advise  you  with  fear  for Allaah  Ta’ala,  moderation  in  executing  deeds,  following the  Sunnat  of  His  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  abandoning  that  which  the innovators  introduced  after  the  Sunnat.  What  a  felony  is  it not  to  introduce  a  bid`ah  in  the  presence  of  a  Sunnat? Hold  on  firmly  to  the  Sunnat,  because  it  is  a  protection  and fortress  for  you,  by  the  order  of  Allaah  Ta`ala.  Know!  No nation  introduces  any  bid`ah  except  that  a  proof  (against) or  experience  of  it  has  passed  before.  Indeed  the  Sunnat was  introduced  by  such  a  personality  who  discerned  its opposite  factors,  considered  them  and  opted  against  them. You  should  also  content  yourself  with  those  things  which the  nation  (Sahaabah)  were  pleased  with,  because  they were  aware  and  had  insight.  They  stayed  away  from bid’ah.  They  were  on  the  highest  pedestal.  Therefore  if  you believe  that  guidance  lies  in  that  which  you  practice,  then it  implies  that  you  have  surpassed  them  in  excellence.” [Abu Dawood, page 277, vol. 2]

Hadhrat  Umar  bin  Abdul  Azeez  (rahmatullah  alayh)  makes abundantly  clear  that  the  Sunnat  is  that  Path  which  was demonstrated  to  us  by  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  his  Sahaabah.  That which  conflicts  the  Sunnat,  which  is  bid’ah,  had  also passed  their  gazes  and  attentions,  but  they  opted  not  to practice  upon  it.  Whatever  proofs  the  Ahle  Bid’ah  present to  substantiate  their  innovations,  had  also  existed  during those  eras,  but  none  of  those  in  that  illustrious  era  had  ever opted  to  practice  these  accretions.  How  is  it  that  today,  we substantiate  bid’ah  practices  with  those  proofs  which  were never  opted  for  during  that  era,  notwithstanding  those personalities  being  aware  of  them?  We  should  like  for ourselves  that  which  they  preferred.  They  were  the virtuous  ones  who  were  rightly  guided.  If  these  innovations are  koshered  and  accepted  today,  then  it  implies  that  we are  more  pious,  intelligent  and  rightly  guided  than  those personalities (i.e. Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah).

Allaamah  Shaatbi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states,  “You  will  not find  any  innovator  who  lays  claim  to  being  connected  to the  Deen,  but  he  will  present  some  or  the  other  Shar`i ‘proof’  to  substantiate  his  act,  and  in  this  way  will  he concoct  according  to  his  desires  and  whims.”  [Al-I`tisaam, vol. 1, page 171]

Hadhrat  Mujaddid  Alf  Thaani  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states, “Because  every  bid`atee  (innovator)  and  deviate substantiates  his  concocted  belief  from  the  Kitaab  and Sunnah,  in  accordance  to  his  concocted  desire.” [Maktoobaat, part three, page 8, Maktoob 193]

From  these  texts  we  establish  that  every  innovator  and deviate  who  lays  claim  to  being  connected  to  the  Deen-e-Islaam,  takes  consolation  in  proving  and  substantiating  his innovation  with  some  spurious  proof  which  he  concocts from  the  Shariah.  However,  his  misuse  of  the  Qur`an Majeed  and  Sunnah  to  mislead  the  masses  is  a  crime. Neither  is  his  understanding  correct  nor  is  the  proof  which he  fraudulently  presents.  These  very  same  proofs  which  he presents  were  there  and  available  to  the  Sahaabah, Tabieen  and  Tabe  Tabieen  (rahmatullah  alayhim  ajmaeen), but  none  of  them  ever  practiced  that  which  these  deviates do.  These  customs  were  never  practiced  by  these luminaries.  How  then  can  their  baatil  beliefs  and  evil innovations be accepted and established today?

Hadhrat  Umar  bin  Abdul  Azeez  (rahmatullah  alayh), mentioned  the  following  in  refutation  of  those  who  denied the  existence  of  taqdeer,  “They  (the  Sahaabah  τ,  Tabieen and  Salf-e-Saaliheen),  have  also  recited  these  Aayaat which  you  recite,  but  they  have  understood  its  meaning and  import  whilst  you  have  not.  Notwithstanding  their recitation  of  all  these  Aayaat,  they  accepted  the  concept  of taqdeer.” [Abu Dawood, vol.2, page 278]

The  import  of  this  statement  is  crystal  clear  in  that  if  the meaning  of  these  Aayaat  which  they  present  to  substantiate their  negation  of  Taqdeer  is  as  they  claim,  then  these  very Aayaat  were  also  available  to  the  personalities  of  the  best of  eras.  How  then  is  it  possible  that  they  did  not  understand the  meaning  to  be  such?  Can  it  be  said  that  you  are  on Haqq and they (Sahaabah , etc.) on baatil?

Hadhrat  Shah  Abdul  Azeez  Muhaddith  Dehlwi (rahmatullah  alayh)  [passed  away  1239  A.H.]  stated,  “The yardstick  and  criterion  for  differentiating  between  Haqq and  baatil  is  the  understanding,  logic  and  comprehension of  the  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum)  and  Tabieen  (rahmatullah  alayhim). Whatever  this  group  deduced  and  understood  from  the  acts and  statements  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  as  long  as  it  cannot  be disproved,  is  waajibul  qubool  (necessary  to  follow)…If  a bid`atee  has  adopted  any  understanding  which  is  contrary to  that  found  in  the  best  of  eras,  then  this  understanding  of his  needs  to  be  inspected.  If  his  specific  understanding  is  in conflict  with  a  Qat`i  (absolute)  proof  from  nusoos  or  Ijma, then  this  bid`atee  will  be  classified  as  a  kaafir.  If  this understanding  of  the  bid`atee  is  in  conflict  with  a  zanni proof,  which  is  close  to  certainty,  like  Akhbaar-e-Mashhoor  or  Ijma-e-Urfi,  then  such  a  bid`atee  will  be classified  as  a  deviate  and  not  kaafir.”  [Fataawa  Azeezi, vol. 1, page 156]

The  following  salient  points  are  deduced  from  the  above texts:

1. A bid`atee  or  deviate  does  not  merely  make  a  claim without  presenting  some  or  the  other  proof  to substantiate.

2. The  proof  that  they  present  is  not  merely  based  on logic,  but  they  present  from  Qur`an  and  Ahaadith.

3. However,  their  understanding  of  the  Qur`an Majeed  and  Ahaadith  is  flawed.

4. The  reason  is  that  the  very  same  Qur`an  Majeed and  Ahaadith  which  they  present  as  proof,  was  also available  to  the  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum),  Tabieen  and  Salf-e-Saliheen  (rahmatullah  alayhim)  and  none  of  them understood  or  interpreted  as  the  people  of  Bid`ah do.

5.  The  proper  and  authentic  interpretation  of  the Qur`an  Majeed  and  Ahaadith  is  that  which  the Sahaabah  and  Tabieen  (rahmatullah  alayhim) presented.

5. If  the  proof  presented  by  the  Bid`atee  is  contrary  to Daleel-e-Qat’i,  then  he  is  a  kaafir,  but  if  it contradicts  Daleel-e-Zanni,  then  he  is  a  bid`atee and  deviate.  In  fact,  Shah  Waliullah  (rahmatullah alayh)  states  that  if  a  person  is  unfamiliar  with  the language  in  which  the  Qur`an  Majeed  was revealed  or  similarly  if  he  is  not  au  fait  with  the Tafseer  of  Rasulullaah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  the  Sahaabah  and Tabieen  (rahmatullah  alayhim),  then  it  is  Haraam for  such  a  person  to  even  delve  into  the  science  of tafseer,  in  the  first  place.  He  states,  “I  am  of  the  view  that  it  is  Haraam  for  that  person  to  delve  into the  science  of  Tafseer  if  he  is  unfamiliar  with  the language  in  which  the  Qur`aan  Majeed  was revealed,  and  if  he  is  unwary  of  the  concepts  of Shaan-e-Nuzool,  naasikh  and  mansookh,  which were  all  reported  from  Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  the  Sahaabah  and Tabieen  (rahmatullah  alayhim).”  [Hujjatullah Baalighah, vol. 1, page 172]

The  support  which  the  Ahle  Bid`ah  eke  out  for  their practices,  is  not  only  not  to  be  found  in  Tafseer  or  the  lives of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah (alayhim ar ridhwan), it contradicts all this.

Even  if  they  do  present  anything  from  the  tafseer  or Sunnah,  then  it  is  either  concocted  or  some  very  rare  and unique  report,  which  they  found  somewhere.  If  they  do present  some  authentic  or  reliable  Tafseer  or  statement, then  its  meaning  and  import  is  misunderstood  by  them,  and presented  falsely.

Imaam  Suyooti  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states,  “The  various sects  amongst  the  Ahle  Bid`ah  who  have  based  their spurious  beliefs  on  their  weak  and  whimsical understanding  of  the  Qur`an  Majeed,  do  not  find  a corresponding  view  amongst  those  of  the  Sahaabah, Tabieen and Salf-e-Saaliheen (rahmatullah alayhim).” “The  summary  of  this  is  that  whoever  chooses  the  opposite view  of  that  which  is  presented  by  the  Sahaabah and Tabieen  (rahmatullah  alayhim)  is  in  grave  error,  in  fact  he is  a  bid’ati,  because  the  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) and  Tabieen (rahmatullah  alayhim)  understood  the  Tafseer  of  the Qur`an  Majeed  and  its  meanings  best.  They  have understood  it  as  it  ought  to  be,  just  as  it  was  revealed  to Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .” [Tafseer Itqaan, vol.2, page 178]

This  is  a  sign  of  an  erroneous  creed  which  is  based  on  false and  unsubstantiated  narrations.  If  the  Ahle-Bid’ah understood  only  this  principle,  they  would  have  saved themselves from the evil in which they wallow.

What  is  to  be  done  if  there  is  doubt  as  to  whether  a thing is Sunnah or Bid’ah??

All  praise  is  due  to  Allaah  Ta`ala  that  in  the  aforegoing para’s  the  reality  and  difference  between  Sunnah  and Bid’ah  was  clarified.  However  if  we  assume  that  a  doubt does  surface  regarding  an  issue  and  the  laymen  cannot distinguish  between  Sunnah  and  Bid’ah  then  the  obvious and  safest  path  would  be  to  abandon  this  act  and  not approach  it.  If  there  is  a  doubt  as  to  whether  a  thing  is bid’ahSunnahMustahab  or  permissible  then  the  safest path  is  to  abandon  it  altogether.  There  is  consensus amongst  the  Ulama  that  this  is  the  safest  path  to  tread.  In this  regard  Hadhrat  Wabista  bin  Ma’bad (radhiyallahu anhu)  reports  from Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  “A  sin  is  that  which  agitates  your  nafs  and places  your  heart  in  doubt.  Even  though  people  (even ‘muftis’)  give  you  a  ruling.”  [Ahmed/Darmi/Mishkaat, vol.1, page 242]

Hadhrat  Attiyah  Assa’di (radhiyallahu anhu)  states,  “Rasulullaah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said, ‘None  of  you  will  ever  reach  the  state  of  piety,  until  such time  that  he  abandons  those  things  in  which  there  is  no harm,  because  then  he  will  become  a  means  to  those  things in  which  there  is  harm.’”  [Tirmidhi  /  Ibn  Majah  / Mishkaat, vol. 1, page 242]

Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said  to  Hadhrat  Mua’dh  when  he  deputed  him  as  a governor  to  Yemen,  “…  Without  having  knowledge,  you should  never  make  any  decision  or  ruling.  If  you  are presented  with  any  issue  wherein  there  is  doubt,  then  do not  decide  until  the  matter  becomes  clear  or  you  have written to me.” [Ibn Majah, page 6]

Hadhrat  Nu`maan  bin  Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) [passed  away  64  A.H.] reports  that  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “Halaal  is  clear  and  Haraam  is clear.  Between  these  two  there  are  things  which  are doubtful,  of  which  many  people  are  unaware.    The  person who  saves  himself  from  these  doubtful  things  has  saved  his Deen  and  honour  and  whosoever  indulges  in  them,  then  (it is  as  if)  he  has  indulged  in  Haraam.  Just  like  the  animal that  grazes  on  the  edge  of  the  pasture,  soon  it  will trespass.”  [Bukhaari,  vol.  1,  page  13  /  Ibn  Majah,  page 296]

It  is  crystal  clear  from  these  narrations  that  the  only saviour  of  one’s  Imaan  and  honour  insofar  as  matters  of doubt  are  concerned  is  to  abandon  them  and  not  involve oneself  in  them.  One  should  not  destroy  one’s  everlasting existence  by  indulging  in  doubtful  acts.  One  should especially  save  oneself  from  indulging  in  acts  which  lead to  kufrbid`ah  and  deviation.  In  fact,  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  has  expressly stated  that  one  should  avoid  doubtful  things.  In  this  regard, Hadhrat  Hasan  bin  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  [passed  away  50  A.H.]  stated  that Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said,  “Leave  that  in  which  there  is  doubt  for  that wherein  there  is  no  doubt,  because  in  goodness  there  is contentment  and  in  evil,  doubt.”  [Mustadrak,  vol.  2,  page 12]

This  Hadith  also  makes  it  abundantly  clear  that  it  is necessary  to  abandon  all  such  things  wherein  there  is doubt. 

The  entire  life  of  our  beloved  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  is  before  us, wherein  there  is  not  the  slightest  scope  of  doubt  (i.e. everything  is  clear).  Following  the  Sunnah  lifestyle  is sufficient  to  grant  us  peace  ad  contentment.  Acting  to  its contrary leads to darkness and deviation.

It  is  clearly  stated  in  one  Hadith  that  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  loved beginning  things  from  his  right.  With  regard  to  this, Hadhrat  Abdullaah  ibn  Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu)  said,  “None  of  you should  leave  any  portion  of  his  Salaat  for  shaitaan.  Upon completing  your  Salaat  on  your  left,  do  not  make  it  binding upon  yourself  to  turn  around  (only)  to  the  right,  because  I witnessed  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  also  turning  to  his  left  side.” [Agreed Upon Mishkaat, vol. 1, page 78]

In  commenting  on  this  Hadith,  the  famous  Muhaqqiq, Allamah  Muhammad  Taahir  Hanafi  (rahmatullah  alayh) [passed  away  986  A.H.]  stated,  “That  person  who  insists upon  a  Mandoob  or  Mustahab  act  such  that  he  makes  it binding  and  never  wavers  from  it,  then  it  is  as  though shaitaan  has  placed  him  on  the  road  of  deviation.  What  is the  condition  of  that  person  who  persists  on  bid`ah  and evil.” [Majma`ul Bahaar, vol. 244]

The  same  views  are  shared  by  Allamah  Teebi  Al-Hanafi [passed  away  743  A.H.]  in  the  Sharh  of  Mishkaat  and Hadhrat  Mullah  Ali  Qaari  (rahmatullah  alayhima)  in Mirkaat  [page  353,  vol.  2],  which  clearly  proves  that whosoever  persists  on  Mandoob  or  Mustahab,  such that  they  never  practice  against  it,  are  under  shaitaan’s influence,  and  he  shares  a  part  of  their  deed.  Allamah Barkali  Al-Hanafi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  [passed  away  981 A.H.]  writes,  “Know  that  to  execute  an  act  of  Bid`ah  is worse  than  omitting  a  Sunnah.  The  proof  is  that  the Fuqahaa  (rahmatullah  alayh)  have  stated  that  if  a  doubt occurs  between  any  act  being  either  Sunnah  or  Bid`ah, then it is necessary to omit such an act.

It  is  stated  in  Fatawa  Aalamgiri,  “That  which  hangs between  (being)  Sunnah  or  Bid`ah  must  be  abandoned.” [Aalamgiri, vol. 1, page 179]

Allamah  Shaami  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states,  “If  any  issue hinges  between  being  (either)  Sunnah  or  bid`ah,  then  to abandon  a  Sunnah  is  preferable  to  executing  a  bid`ah.” [Shaami, vol. 1, page 200]

Qaadhi  Ebrahim  Saheb  Al-Hanafi  (rahmatullah  alayh) states,  “That  thing  in  which  there  is  a  doubt  between  it being  either  a  Sunnah  or  bid`ah,  should  be  abandoned, because  it  is  necessary  to  abandon  bid`ah  and  it  is  not incumbent  to  practice  upon  a  Sunnah.”  [Nafaaisul  Azhaar, Tarjuma Majaalisul Abraar, page 129]

In  fact,  Allamah  Ibn  Nujaim  Al-Hanafi  (rahmatullah  alayh) writes,  “It  is  necessary  to  abandon  that  Waajib  act,  just  as is  with  a  Sunnah,  if  there  appears  a  doubt  between  it  and  a bid`ah.” [Bahrur Raa`iq, vol. 2, page 165]

This  text  makes  it  abundantly  clear  that  if  by  executing  an act  from  the  angle  of  it  being  a  Sunnah,  but  a  bid’ah necessarily  results  from  it,  then  it  becomes  necessary  to abandon  that  act  altogether.  That  Sunnah  will  be  omitted because  it  gives  rise  to  a  bid’ah.  Leave  alone  Sunnah  acts, if  this  applies  to  even  Waajib  acts,  then  they  too  should  be abandoned.  This  is  done  so  as  not  to  spread  and  propagate a  bid’ahBid`ahs  are  so  abhorred  in  Islam  that  they  are  not be  offered  any  leeway  at  all.  In  order  to  prevent  a  bid’ah from  being  propagated  and  spread,  SunnahMustahab and even Waajib acts are sacrificed!

O  readers!  If  you  understand  properly  the  meaning  of obedience  to  Allaah  Ta`ala  and  if  you  love  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  then there  is  only  one  path  to  follow  —  that  is  the  Sunnah  of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  and  to  tread  the  footsteps  of  the  Sahaabah, Tabieen  and  Tabe  Tabieen  (rahmatullah  alayhim). 

Adopt those  beliefs  and  practices  which  they  adhered  to.  It  should not  be  that  you  are  as  the  words  of  Hadhrat  Abdullaah  ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  state  (which  in  reality  are  the  words  of  Nabi  sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), that  you  gather  in  the  Masjid  and  are  deprived  of  Imaan, “Such  a  time  will  dawn  on  people  where  they  will  gather  in the  Musaajid,  whilst  they  are  devoid  of  Imaan.” [Mustadrak, vol. 4, page 443]

This  is  that  very  same  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) who  walked  out  of  a Masjid  because  they  practiced  tathweeb.  In  summary,  even the  smallest  of  acts  is  beneficial  if  executed  with  sincerity and  in  accordance  to  the  Sunnah.  On  the  other  hand,  even the  greatest  of  deeds  which  is  carried  out  whilst  the  heart accommodates  shirk  and  bid’ah,  means  nothing  in  the Sight of Allaah Ta`ala.

May  Allaah  Ta`ala  grant  us  all  sincerity  of  intentions  and proper following of the Sunnah. Aameen!