Category Archives: Quranists/ Hadith Rejectors

The Hadith of Hadhrat Musa (Alayhissalaam) Punching Malakul Maut

By Mujlisul Ulama

Narrated Abu Huraira (Radhiyallahu Anhu): The angel of death was sent to Musa (alayhissalaam) and when he went to him, Musa (alayhissalaam) slapped him severely, spoiling one of his eyes. The angel went back to his Lord, and said, “You sent me to a slave who does not want to die.” Allah restored his eye and said, “Go back and tell him (i.e. Musa alayhissalaam) to place his hand over the back of an ox, for he will be allowed to live for a number of years equal to the number of hairs coming under his hand.” (So the angel came to him and told him the same). Then Musa (alayhissalaam) asked, “O my Lord! What will be then?” He said, “Death will be then.” He (Musa alayhissalaam) said, “(Let it be) now.” He asked Allah that He bring him near the Sacred Land at a distance of a stone’s throw. Allah’s Messenger ﷺ said, “Were I there I would show you the grave of Musa (alayhissalaam) by the way near the red sand hill.” [Sahih Bukhari]

The acceptance of this Hadith as authentic by the greatest authorities of Hadith negates the slightest shad­ow of doubt regarding the authenticity of the Hadith which is nowadays being subjected to blasphemous ridi­cule and criticism. The authenticity of the Hadith is established and has been upheld by all authorities of Ahadith. For the past fourteen hundred years, ijma’ (Consensus of the Ummah) has existed on the authenti­city of this Hadith – on the fact that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did make this statement. Who then are those in this belated age to reject and ridicule this authentic Hadith – the sacred utterance of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? Only those whose hearts have become sealed to the Noor of Hidayah can venture to undertake the peril of mocking and ridiculing the authentic and sacred words of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Hadhrat Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh), the great authority of the Shafi Math-hab, states in his Sharhul Muslim (Commentary of the Saheeh of Imaam Muslim):

“AI-Maazari said: ‘Verily, some atheists have refuted this Hadith and have rejected its probability. They say that how is it permissible for Musa to break the eye of Malakul Maut?”

This self-same argument which the mulaahidah (atheists) of Imaam Nawawi’s time advanced is today being propounded by some people who align themse­lves with the people of knowledge. Thus, in considering their reason or intelligence to be the standard for the acceptance of a hadith, they have grouped themselves together with the mulaahidah  mentioned by Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh).

Since this Hadith has been reliably attributed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and there is not the slightest vestige of doubt in its authenticity, the question of its refutation does not occur to men grounded in Knowledge and Imaan. If logic conflicts with the sacred utterance of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayh wasallam), we shall and must necessarily abandon such logic as defective and crooked and uphold the correct­ness and validity of the Hadith. Every statement of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was made on inspiration and revelation from Allah Ta’ala, hence the Qur’aan Shareef declares categorically:

“He [Muhammad] does not speak by his desire. It [his talk] is nothing but Wahi which is revealed.”

Hence, those who deny the validity and correctness of the proven and sacred words of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) do so at the peril of their Imaan.

In their rejection of this Saheeh Hadith they present another utterly fallacious argument. They cite the Qur’­aanic ayat:

“They [i.e.the Angels] do not disobey Allah regard­ing that which He has commanded them. And, they do as they are commanded.”

This ayat is cited by the rejectors of the Hadith as their proof. It is indeed unworthy of men of knowledge to resort to such baseless ways of argumentation. This fallacious arguments mirrors the lack of understanding of the rejectors of the Hadith and their inability to argue their case on the basis of the Shariah. Firstly, this ayat does not remotely refer to the Hadith or the subject of the Hadith in question. There is no relationship between the ayat cited and the Hadith which is being rejected and subjected to ridicule by some Sheikhs. The Malaaikah (Angels) being in perpetual obedience to Allah Ta’ala is not refuted or doubted. The Hadith pert­aining to Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) and Malakul Maut in no way negates the obedience of the Malaaikah stated in the Qur’aanic verse.

There is absolutely no contradiction between the Hadith in question and the Qur’aanic verse cited by the rejectors. In returning to Allah Ta’ala after being expelled by Musaa (alayhis salaam), Malakul Maut did not disobey Allah Ta’ala because his (Malakul Maut’s) return was not due to disobedience, but was occasioned by helplessness. Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) rendered him helpless. This may seem surprising to the logic of those who have rejected the authenticity of the Hadith without having the slightest Shar’i evidence. But, to people of firm Imaan there is nothing surprising in Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) having rendered Malakul Maut helpless on this occasion. It should be well understood that the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) are the chosen representatives and messengers of Allah Ta’ala. They have a superior rank than the Malaaikah.

The Sajdah which all Malaaikah made to Nabi Aadam (alayhis salaam) is indicative of the superiority of the Ambiya over the Malaaikah. In fact, it is the unanimous belief of the Ahl-e-Sunnah Wal jama’ah that the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) are sup­erior in rank to the Angels. This fact is known to Malakul Maut and all the Malaaikah. Therefore, assuming that Malakul Maut had the power to retaliate when Musa (alayhis salaam) struck him, it is inconceivable that he would have retaliated and acted in opposition to the wishes of his superior, viz., Musa (alayhis salaam) in this case. Should Malakul Maut have acted in retaliation or take the soul of Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) contrary to his wishes, he would have been acting in contravent­ion of the command which is stated in the ayat: “They do not disobey Allah.”, because it is Allah’s Command that Malakul Maut takes the soul of the Ambiya (alayh­imus salaam) with their permission. Hence, when Mala­kul Maut returned to Allah Ta’ala, he did so in obed­ience to the Divine Command since he was under the impression that Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) refused to die at that time.

The authorities of the Shariah have also said that on that particular occasion, Malakul Maut visited Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) in human form. He appeared unannounced and did not introduce himself. Musaa (alayhis salaam) mistook him for an intruder about to attack him, hence he acted in self-defence. But, when Malakul Maut returned the second time he revealed his identity, hence Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) readily submitted inspite of the fact that Allah Ta’ala granted Musaa (alayhis salaam) the choice of remaining alive for as many years as he wished.

Allah Ta’ala has bestowed tremendous power to Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam). In one hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)-said:

“Verily, mankind will be in a swoon [of death on the Day of Qiyaamah after the Trumpet has been sounded]. will be the first to be revived [when the Trumpet is sounded the second time]. Then suddenly I will observe Musaa [alayhis salaam] holding onto the side of the Arsh [Throne of Allah]. I do not know if he was among those who had passed out [into non-existence when the Trumpet was sounded the first time] and was revived before me or was he among those who have been saved [from the destruction wrought by the Trumpet].”

Those who are holding up the Throne of Allah Ta’ala are Malaaikah of colossal power. Their size and power as described by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) boggle the human mind. Yet Musa (alayhis salaam) on the Day of Qiyaamah will be in that group of mighty Angels holding aloft the Arsh of Allah Ta’ala. This in itself indicates the enormous power which Allah Ta’ala has bestowed to Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam). Lest the rejectors ridicule this Hadith as well, we furnish here­under the proof of its authenticity. Imaam Muslim (rahmatullah alayh) records this Hadith in his Saheeh with five Sanads.

We have, by the grace of Allah Ta’ala explained the proof and the subject matter of the Hadith which has been ridiculed and rejected in some quarters. Muslims who have been thrown into doubt should now under­stand that the Hadith is Saheeh (authentic) and has been accepted as such by the Ummah and all authorit­ies of the Shariah for the past fourteen centuries. The rejection of the Hadith presented by some Sheikhs is thus baseless and without substance. And, upon us is but to deliver the clear message: 

They follow nothing but baseless opinion,and they do nothing but conjecture. [Qur’an]


Hadith & Sunnah Explains the Qur’an

“Praise be to Allah who revealed to His servant the Book and placed therein no crookedness. He has made it straight in order that He may warn of a terrible punishment from him and that He may give glad tidings to the believers who work righteous deeds that they shall have a great reward wherein they shall abide forever. Further, that He may warn those who claim that Allah has begotten a son.” [Sûrah al-Kahf: 1-4]

May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon His Messenger who said: “I was given the Qur’ân and something else like it. I fear lest a man will sit contentedly reclining and say: ‘You must follow this Qur’ân. Whatever you find therein permissible, permit it, and whatever you find therein prohibited, forbid it.’ Nay, for indeed whatever Allah’s Messenger has prohibited, it is as if Allah has prohibited it.”   [Musnad Ahmad 17174]

It is one of Allah’s blessings upon humanity that He has preserved among them His revealed words without allowing any corruption to alter them. This may indeed be Allah’s greatest blessing upon humanity as a whole, since His Book provides them with a way to properly govern their lives and resolve their disputes.

The Qur’ân came to humanity after all the previous revealed scriptures had either been lost or, like the Torah and the Gospel, corrupted. Allah speaks about how people had corrupted the scriptures, saying: “Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: ‘This is from Allah’ to gain from it a paltry  price. So woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they gain from it.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 79]

If the Qur’ân is Allah’s greatest blessing upon humanity, it follows that knowledge of the commentary and interpretation of the Qur’ân is the greatest of all knowledge, since it is the knowledge that gives humanity a correct understanding of what Allah is saying to them. This is why scholars throughout history have given this field of study so much attention and have written so extensively about it.

The commentary of the Qur’ân began at the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Indeed, the Prophet (peace be upon him) is the primary source for explaining Allah’s Book. He explained the meanings of the Qur’ân’s verses by his words and by his deeds.

In this short treatise, we shall investigate this prophetic commentary of the Qur’ân. This investigation will be organized into the following chapters:

Chapter One: Special qualities of the Qur’ân
Chapter Two: Muslim efforts in  interpreting the Qur’ân
Chapter Three: How the Prophet  conveyed the Qur’ân
Chapter Four: The commentary  of the Companions
Chapter Five: How the Sunnah explains the Qur’ân

Special Qualities of the Qur’ân

Without a doubt, the most salient feature of the Qur’ân is that it is Allah’s word. Allah says: “It is indeed a mighty Book. Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it. It is revelation from one who is wise and worthy of praise.” [Sûrah Fussilat: 41-42]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The Qur’ân has the distinction over all other speech that Allah has over His Creation.” [Sunan al-Dârimî 3399]

It is sufficient that the Qur’ân is the speech of Allah. It needs no other special distinction after that. However, I feel that it is necessary for the purpose of this treatise for me to point out three more remarkable qualities of Allah’s Book.

1. The first of these distinctive features is that the Qur’ân has been perfectly preserved. Allah says: “Indeed, We have revealed the Remembrance, and indeed We shall be its protector.” [Sûrah al-Hijr: 9]

Since the time it was revealed, Allah has preserved the Qur’ân in the hearts of the people and in writing. It had  been committed to memory by the Companions and by every generation that came after them. The care paid by the Muslims in accurately recording and memorizing the Qur’ân has been phenomenal. Every letter and vowel mark indicating every mode of reciting the Qur’ân has been preserved without the least addition or subtraction.

Al-Qurtubî and some other scholars of Qur’ânic commentary mention an interesting story regarding the preservation of the Qur’ân:

The Caliph al-Ma`mûn used to convene intellectual gatherings. One of these meetings was attended by a man wearing beautiful clothing, possessing a handsome face, and followed by a sweet fragrance. He spoke in a most eloquent manner. When the meeting was adjourned, al-Ma’mûn summoned this man and asked him: “Are you from the Israelites?” He replied that he was. Al-Ma’mûn said: “Accept Islam and I shall arrange good things for you.” Al-Ma’mûn made him a number of promises.

The man merely replied “My religion and the religion of my forefathers” and went away.

A year later, he returned as a Muslim. He spoke about matters of Islamic Law in a most proficient manner. When the meeting was adjourned, al-Ma’mûn again summoned him and said: “Are you not the man who was with us before?” He replied that he was. Al-Ma’mûn then asked him what had prompted him to accept Islam.

He replied: “When I left your presence, I wished to put these religions to the test. And you indeed regard me a man of keen intellect. So I turned my attention to the Torah. I produced three copies of it, each time adding and deleting some things from it. Then I took these copies to the place of prayer and they were purchased from me.

“I then turned my attention to the Qur’ân and drafted thre  copies of it, each time adding and deleting some things from it. Then I took these copies to the copyists and they skimmed through them. When they found the additions and deletions that I had made, they threw them aside and did not purchase them. So I came to know that this is a protected book, and this is the reason that I accepted Islam.”

2. The second distinctive feature is that the Qur’ân is complete and comprehensive. Allah says about the Qur’ân that it is “…a detailed exposition of all things” [Sûrah Yûsuf: 111]

There is no matter that humanity needs to know about in their religion or their worldly life without the Qur’ân discussing it. It does so by mentioning it directly, or by providing a general principle that covers it, or by referring to another source like the Sunnah, juristic consensus, or juristic analogy.

In this way, every issue of this world and the next that concerns people individually or collectively is dealt with, from matters of faith and morality to social, political, and economic concerns. It is all found in the Qur’ân. If it is not mentioned specifically, then it is covered as part of something broader.

The Qur’ân provides the essential teachings of faith and law and embraces in its comprehensiveness all the affairs of human life.

3. The third distinctive feature is that the Qur’ân is the absolute, indisputable truth. Allah says: “This is the Book wherein there is no doubt, a guide for those who fear Allah.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 2]

Whatever the Qur’ân says about the past, present, and future is true. It is absolutely impossible for the Qur’ân to be in contradiction with the actualities of the world, whether the historical events of the past or the scientific discoveries of the future.

We assert without the  least hesitation on the basis of our faith in Allah that everything the Qur’ân says about the nations of the past, the happenings of the future, the stories of the Prophets, the physical realities of the universe, and the human soul are all true. For this reason, we know that it is impossible for science to come with a fact that contradicts with the Qur’ân. Whoever claims that there is a scientific fact that contradicts with the Qur’ân is either misunderstanding the Qur’ân or the scientific concepts in question.

Such a contradiction is impossible, because the one who revealed the Qur’ân is the one who created the universe and everything within it. It is not possible that Allah will say anything about His Creation except the absolute truth. Allah says: “Should He who created not know? And He is the knower of subtleties, the All-Aware.” [Sûrah  al-Mulk:14]

Just as we can be sure that what the Qur’an informs us about is undoubtedly true, we can be equally sure that what the Qur’ân legislates for us is undoubtedly just. Allah says: “The word of your Lord is fulfilled in truth and justice.” [Sûrah al-An`âm: 115]  This means that it is true in what it informs us of and just in what it legislates for us.

The blessing of the Qur’an
The Qur’ân is the criterion and the scale of reference for all disputes and disagreements in matters of  religion. We can appreciate the great blessing that Allah has given us in preserving the Qur’ân up to our time. It is the greatest of blessings bestowed upon the Muslims, and indeed upon all humanity.

We can show our thanks for this blessing by allowing the Qur’ân to govern our lives, our families, and our societies. The Qur’ân should be referred to in all of our affairs. If we fail to do so, we will be showing ingratitude for this greatest of blessings. The punishment for this ingratitude is a painful one indeed. It is that the Qur’ân will be taken away from us and not a trace of it will be left on Earth.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Islam will be obliterated just like a stain is washed out of a  garment. Fasting, prayer, the pilgrimage rites, and charity will be unknown. Allah’s Book will be lifted up on a night so that not even a verse of it will remain on Earth.” [Sunan Ibn Mâjah (4049)] 

The Qur’ân shall be removed from the hearts of men and from the pages on which it is written because it will cease to be acted upon and benefited from.

Out of respect for His words, Allah will lift it away from those who ignore it and deny it the recognition that it deserves.

Muslim Efforts in Interpreting the Qur’ân

The Qur’ân was revealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions learned it from him. They, in turn, taught it to the Muslims who came after them. The Muslims showed the Qur’ân the utmost care and concern. This is no more evident than in the care that they showed in the interpretation of the Qur’ân.

The efforts  of the  Companions in interpreting  and explaining the  Qur’ân

The Companions were very concerned with the correct understanding of the Qur’ân. Some of them became well known for their knowledge in this area, having devoted their lives to this endeavor. The following Companions are the most notable among them:

`Abd Allah b.`Abbâs (radhiyallahu anhi). He was known as Hibr al-Ummah (Scribe of the Muslim Nation) and Tarjumân al-Qur’ân (Interpretor of the Qur’ân). He was the foremost of all the commentators of the Qur’ân. The Prophet (peace be upon him) had made the following supplication on his behalf: “O Allah, give him understanding of the religion and teach him the interpretation of the Qur’ân.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî  (143)]

Numerous statements regarding the commentary and interpretation of Qur’ânic verses have been related from him. He was one of the four people who had compiled the entire Qur’ân together during the Prophet’s lifetime and he was one of the most important reciters of the Qur’ân from among the Companions.

`Abd Allah b. Mas`ûd (radhiyallahu anhu). The Prophet (peace be upon him) had said: “Take the Qur’ân from four people: Ibn Mas`ûd, Mu`âdh bin Jabal, Ubayy bin Ka`b, and Sâlim the ward of Abû Hudhayfah.” [Sahîh Muslim (2464)]

`Abd Allah bin Mas`ûd (radhiyallahu anhu) said: “I  swear by Allah; indeed I have taken from the lips of Allah’s Messenger over seventy chapters of the Qur’ân. And by Allah, the  Companions know that I am among the most knowledgeable among them concerning Allah’s book, though I am not the best of them.”

The person who related this statement of Ibn Mas`ûd (radhiyallahu anhu) follows it with the following comment: “I sat in study circles and listened to what the people were saying and never heard anyone respond by saying anything to the contrary.”

`Abd Allah b. Mas`ûd (radhiyallahu anhu) also said, “I swear by Allah besides whom there is no other God; no verse of Allah’s Book has been revealed except that I know the circumstances in which it was revealed. If I had known anyone else more knowledgeable about Allah’s Book than me who could be reached by camel, I would have mounted a camel and gone to him.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (5002)]

Other Companions who made significant contributions to Qur’ânic commentary were`Alî bin Abi’ Talib, Ubayy bin Ka`b, and `Abd  Allah bin `Umar (radhiyallahu anhuma).

In his Muwatta’, Mâlik narrates that Ibn `Umar devoted eight years to the study of Sûrah al-Baqarah, the first and longest chapter of the Qur’ân. [Al-Muwatta’ (477)]. When he completed it, he offered a camel in sacrifice to Allah as a token of gratitude.

He had studied both the words and the meanings of Sûrah al-Baqarah, committing its understanding to memory along with its recitation. It takes an average student today a few weeks to a month to commit Sûrah al-Baqarah to memory, whereas Ibn `Umar, the eminent Companion, took eight years to do so, because he committed to his knowledge along with the words of the Qur’ân the meaning and proper understanding of the text.

The efforts of the Successors in interpreting and explaining the  Qur’ân

The Successors, those who learned from the Companions, acquired from them the knowledge of Qur’ânic commentary. Among their number were some of the greatest scholars in the field, like Mujâhid bin Jâbir al-Makkî, about whom Sufayan al-Thawrî said: “If you get the commentary of the Qur’ân from Mujâhid, it will be enough for you.” [Refer to Tafsîr Ibn Kathîr (1/6)]

There is nothing at all surprising about this, since Mujâhid (rahimahullah) was a student of none other than Ibn `Abbâs. He said: “I read the Qur’ân to Ibn `Abbâs three times from beginning to end, stopping upon each verse.” [Tabaqât Ibn Sa`d (2/395)]

Among the many other Successors who were known for the commentary of the Qur’ân were Qatadah, `Ikrimah, al-Suddî (rahimahumullah).

The written compilation of the commentary of the Qur’ân

Thereafter, eminent scholars committed the commentary of the Qur’ân to writing. Thousands of commentaries on the Qur’ân were written employing a variety of approaches. Specialists in the Arabic language wrote commentaries examining the language, grammar, and linguistic style of the Qur’ân. Scholars of Islamic Law wrote books focusing on the verses of the Qur’ân that deal with legal rulings and what they indicate and the differences of opinion among  jurists  regarding these indications. Scholars of hadîth wrote books wherein they collected together the various narrations that discuss the meanings of the verses of the Qur’ân. 

Specialists in every field lent their particular expertise to the body of literature known as Qur’ânic  commentary. There can be no doubt that these books vary widely in their quality and value. Indeed, some commentaries were written merely to advance the particular ideas of their authors with little regard for objectivity.

There have been scholars of Islamic Law who interpreted verses of the Qur’ân to support their own legal opinions as well  as their preferences among the legal verdicts of other jurists.

There have also been a number of scientifically minded people, especially in recent years, who have tried to make the Qur’ân indicate scientific ideas that it simply does not indicate. This is the case with Tantâwî’s commentary al-Jawâhir. This  book contains everything save  Qur’ânic commentary. It is more a  book of astronomy, physics, biology, and geology and contains virtually  nothing of Qur’ânic commentary.

This is a common tendency among advocates of an idea referred to as “the scientific miracle of the Qur’ân”. Some of the proponents of this idea have gone to extremes in distorting the interpretation of certain verses to indicate meanings that are simply not being indicated by those verses. They do so hoping to demonstrate that the Qur’ân anticipated certain modern scientific discoveries – and even some unproven hypotheses.

How the  Prophet (peace be upon him) Conveyed  the Qur’ân

These differences that exist in the interpretation of the Qur’ân make it necessary for a Muslim who sincerely wishes to know the true meaning of Allah’s Book to go back to the original source and unadulterated well-spring of this knowledge. This source is none other than the Prophet’s authentic Sunnah. This is the best source for the proper understanding of the Qur’ân, because the Prophet (peace be upon him) was the one commanded by Allah to communicate the Qur’ân to us.

Allah says the following in this regard:

“Your duty is but to convey the Message.” [Sûrah al-Shûrâ: 48]

“Do not move your tongue in haste with it. Indeed, it is upon Us to bring it together and recite it. So when We recite it, follow attentively its recitation. Then it is upon Us to expound it.” [Sûrah al-Qiyâmah:16-19]

“O Messenger! Convey what has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not do so, you will not have conveyed His Message.” [Sûrah al-Mâ’idah: 67]

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) was commanded to convey the Message and to explain it. What exactly, we may ask, does this entail? It actually entails quite a number of things, which can be enumerated as follows:

1. Conveyance of the words of the Qur’ân

It was the duty of the Prophet (peace be upon him) to convey the words of the Qur’ân exactly as they were revealed to him without any alteration, addition, or omission.

Allah says: “Indeed, Allah conferred a great blessing upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves reciting unto them His signs, purifying them, and teaching them the Book and the Wisdom, while before that they had been in manifest error.” [Sûrah Al `Imrân: 164] 

The statement “reciting unto them His signs” refers to the actual words of the Qur’ân.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) showed the utmost care and concern for conveying the words of the Qur’ân. Ibn `Abbâs (radhiyallahu anhu), while explaining the meaning of the verses of Sûrah al-Qiyâmah quoted above, shows us just how concerned the Prophet (peace be upon him) was:

“Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) used to be seriously taxed when receiving revelation and he would follow along with it by moving his lips, so Allah revealed: ‘Do not move your tongue in haste with it. Indeed, it is upon Us to bring it together and recite  it.’ – meaning ‘We will bring it together in your heart and then you should recite it’ – ‘So when We recite it, follow attentively its recitation.’ – meaning:  ‘Listen and be silent, and then it will be upon Us that you will be able to recite it.’ 

Thereafter, Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) would listen when the angel Gabriel came to him. Then when Gabriel departed, he would recite it just as it was recited to him.”

This faithful communication of the words of the Qur’ân was part of what Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) was commanded by his Lord to convey to humanity. There is no doubt that he conveyed the words of the Qur’ân to us accurately and completely and that he did not conceal anything that was revealed to him.

If the Prophet (peace be upon him) were to have concealed any verse of the Qur’ân, it would have been: “And recall when you said to the one who had received Allah’s favor and your favor: Retain your wife (in marriage) and fear Allah.’ And you were hiding in your heart what Allah was about to make manifest. You were fearing the people, but it is more fitting that you should fear Allah.”
[Sûrah al-Ahzâb: 37]

This verse censures Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) in the sharpest manner. Nevertheless, Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) had to dutifully recited this verse to the people, both within prayer and outside of it.

He would also have had reason to conceal “He (the Prophet) frowned and turned away when the blind man approached him. And what could tell you but that perhaps he might become purified or that he might receive admonition and that the admonition might benefit him? As for the one who regards himself as self-sufficient, he is the one to whom you give your attention, though it is not upon you if he does not become purified. But as for him who came to you earnestly and with humility, of him you were unmindful.” [Sûrah `Abasa: 1-10]

Though these verses rebuke the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the harshest of terms, he recited them to the people just as they were revealed to him.

Allah chose Muhammad (peace be upon him) for His Message above all humanity, and Allah says:

“Allah best knows with whom to entrust His Message.” [Sûrah al-An`âm:124] 

He chose a man whom He knew would not conceal anything that was revealed to him, even those verses that scolded and censured him. Allah chose a man who would convey those verses just as faithfully as the verses that praised him.

He would recite to the people Allah’s praises for him, like “He is upon a most exalted standard of conduct.” [Sûrah al-Qalam: 4]  and “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe upon the unbelievers and merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and in prostration seeking Allah’s favor and His pleasure.” [Sûrah al-Fath: 29] Yet with equal ease he would recite the verses that scolded him and censured him.

2. Conveyance of the meaning of  the Qur’ân

Though he took great care to convey the words of the Qur’ân faithfully, he did not suffice with that. He made equally certain to explain to the people the meaning of those words. In fact, the task of explaining the meaning of Allah’s book is cited in the Qur’ân itself as being part of the Prophet’s duty. This is why Allah says: “Then it is upon Us to expound it.” [Sûrah al-Qiyâmah: 19]  after saying “Do not move your tongue in haste with it. Indeed, it is upon Us to bring it together and recite it.” Allah is saying here that it is upon Him to explain to His Messenger (peace be upon him) the meaning of what He is revealing to him of the Qur’ân’s words.

After Allah says: “Indeed, Allah conferred a great blessing upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves reciting unto them His signs…” He immediately  follows it by saying “…purifying them…” [Sûrah Al `Imrân: 164]  This purification means that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) developed the character of his Companions upon the teachings of the Qur’ân. The Qur’ân was transformed within their personalities from a mere written word into a practical and vital expression of life in the real world.

It has been said about the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that each of them was like a Qur’ân walking on the Earth. This is not hard to accept, for when `Â’ishah (radhiyallahu anha), the Prophet’s wife, was asked to describe her husband’s character, she said  to her questioner: “Do you read the Qur’ân?” When her questioner responded in the affirmative, she said: “The character of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was the Qur’ân.” [Sahîh Muslim (746)]

When Allah speaks about the Prophet (peace be upon him) purifying those to whom he came, he is talking about how the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught them proper beliefs, lofty moral values, nobility of conduct, and what they needed to prepare them for the role of leading humanity which was required of them.

After saying all of this, Allah continues by saying: “…and teaching them the Book and the Wisdom”. This begs us to ask the question: What is the book being referred to and what is meant by “the Wisdom”?

The famous jurist, al-Shâfî`î (rahimahullah), provides the following answer to this question:

Allah says: “And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes of Allah’s signs and of the Wisdom. Truly Allah is the Subtle, the All-Aware.” [Sûrah al-Ahzâb: 34]

Allah makes reference to His Book which is the Qur’ân. He also mentions the Wisdom, which, according to what I have heard from those whose knowledge of the Qur’ân I am pleased with, refers to the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger.” [al-Risâlah, pp.77-78]

Therefore, we must consider closely Allah’s statement: “Indeed, Allah conferred a great blessing upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves reciting unto them His signs, purifying them, and teaching them the Book and the Wisdom, while before that they had been in manifest error.” [Sûrah Al `Imrân: 164]

When we do so, we can see that it starts off by stating how Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) conveyed to his Companions the words of the Qur’ân. Then, once they had committed these words to memory, he would take them to the next level by “teaching them the Book”, explaining to them the meaning of those words. He would go even further by “purifying them”, shaping their personalities and conduct in accordance with the Qur’ân’s teachings.

One of the students of the Companions spoke about how he learned from them, saying: “Those among the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who taught us the Qur’ân told us that they used to learn ten verses at a time from Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him). They would not take from him another ten until after they learned the knowledge that those verses contained and how to put what they learned into practice.” [Musannaf  Ibn  Abî  Shaybah   (29929)]

The duty of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was to convey the text of the Qur’ân along with its meaning. Indeed, it was a duty that he carried out most admirably.

The Commentary of the Companions

The Prophet’s Companions were for the most part Arabs. They knew the Arabic language instinctively. By merely hearing Arabic speech, they knew exactly what the speaker intended. Likewise, the unbelievers of Makkah knew the Arabic language and knew in general terms what the Qur’ân was saying. 

Allah says: “Truly it is revelation from the Lord of All the Worlds, brought down by the Trustworthy Spirit (Gabriel) to your heart – so you could give admonition – in the clear Arabic tongue.” [Sûrah al-Shu`arâ’: 192-195]

Allah says: “And we never sent a Messenger with other than the language of his people.” [Sûrah  Ibrâhîm: 4]

The Arabs – even the unbelievers among them – understood in general what the Qur’ân was saying to them. This is why so many of them rejected it when it spoke contrary to their vain desires and vested interests.

They likewise understood the meaning of the Arabic declaration “Lâ ilâha illâ Allah” (There is no God but Allah). So when they heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) say “O people! Say that there is no god but Allah”, they fully appreciated that it meant there was to be no worship meted out to anyone besides Allah alone and that only Allah deserves to be worshipped. This is why they rejected it so decisively, saying: “Has he made the gods into one God? This is something strange indeed!” [Sûrah Sâd: 5]

The leaders of the polytheists like Abû Jahl and Abû Lahab knew the Arabic language and what it means. By contrast, many Muslims today – and indeed for many generations – declare “Lâ ilâha illâ Allah” without understanding its true meaning the way those pagans of old understood it. Many Muslims today assume that the statement “There is no god but Allah” simply means that there is no Creator and Provider apart from Allah. This is only part of its meaning. However, its true meaning – the one that the pagans of Makkah so violently rejected – is that Allah alone must receive our worship.

The Companions were Arabs of their day and understood the Arabic language. They understood most of what the Qur’ân was saying merely by having the Prophet (peace be upon him) recite it to them.  

Likewise, the Arabs of today understand a reasonable portion of the Qur’ân without having to refer back to books of commentary. When the Qur’ân discusses things like Paradise, Hell, the Messengers, and matters of inheritance, an Arab understands immediately what is being said. The Companions who lived at the time the Qur’ân was being revealed, likewise understood much more than that.

Reasons why the Companions differed in their understanding of the Qur’ân

The Companions understood the Qur’ân better than anyone else. In spite of this, they differed among themselves in their understanding of the Qur’ân for various reasons. This is why they would go to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and ask him about matters they needed to have clarified and He would explain these matters to them.

Among the reasons for their disagreements were the following:

1. Varying degrees of intellectual ability and insightfulness.
Allah bestows upon His servants varying degrees of reason and intelligence. Some people are blessed to be geniuses and others have lesser intellectual powers bestowed upon them.

All of the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) enjoyed a certain minimum degree of knowledge of the Qur’ân. However, beyond this common knowledge, many Companions had much more, and to varying degrees.

`Alî (radhiyallahu anhu) was once asked: “Do you know anything of the revelation besides what is in Allah’s Book?”

He replied: “I swear by Him who cleaves the seed open and creates life, I know nothing save an understanding of the Qur’ân that Allah bestows upon a man and what is written on that scroll.” He pointed to a scroll that he had hanging from his sword.

His questioner asked him what was written on the scroll. He replied: “Matters of blood money and of freeing a slave and the ruling that a Muslim should not be killed in retribution for the death of an unbeliever.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3047)]

`Alî (radhiyallahu anhu) had said: “…an understanding of the Qur’ân that Allah bestows upon a man…”, indicating that some of the Companions were blessed with more of an understanding than others.

Ibn `Abbâs (radhiyallahu anhu) had once placed for the Prophet (peace be upon him) water for him to use for purification. The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked: “Who is it that placed this here?”

The people informed him that it was Ibn `Abbâs (radhiyallahu anhu) who had done so. At that time, Ibn`Abbâs (radhiyallahu anhu) was a pre-pubescent boy. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was impressed with the boy’s knowledge, intelligence, and good manners and made the following supplication to Allah on his behalf: “O Allah, give him understanding of the religion and teach him the interpretation of the Qur’ân.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (143)]

Ibn`Abbâs (radhiyallahu anhu) enjoyed an unsurpassable knowledge of the Qur’ân. Many stories and narrations have reached us about the excellence of his knowledge. Perhaps one of the most amazing of these is what took place between him and a Khârijite named Nâfi`bin al-Azraq al-Khârijî.

Nâfi`bin al-Azraq had asked Ibn `Abbâs (radhiyallahu anhu) a series of questions about the Qur’ân. Each time Ibn `Abbâs (radhiyallahu anhu) gave him an answer, Nâfi` would challenge him by saying: “Do the Arabs know this in their language?” Ibn`Abbâs (radhiyallahu anhu) would say “Yes, they do” then go on to prove it by citing from memory literary precedents from verses of Arabic poetry. This showed how extensive and remarkable his knowledge was.

The Companions had different degrees of knowledge and consequently disagreed in their understanding of the meanings of many verses. Sometimes a Companion would even misunderstand what a certain verse was speaking about, as we shall discuss shortly.

2. Differences in their understanding of the Arabic language.
Though they were Arabs, some of them had a more extensive vocabulary and a deeper knowledge of the subtleties of the Arabic language than others.

For instance,`Umar bin Al-Khattâb (radhiyallahu anhu) recited from the Qur’ân: “And we split open the Earth and produce therein corn and grapes and herbs and olives and dates and enclosed gardens with lofty trees and fruits and abb.” [Sûrah `Abasa: 26-31] Then he said, regarding the last verse:  “We know what fruits are but what is abb?” Then he thought to himself and said: “By Allah, this is indeed burdensome, O `Umar!” [Tafsîr  al-Tabarî (30/59-61). The word abb is an Arabic word referring to plants that are used as fodder for livestock].

Abû Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) also asked about the same verse and lamented: “What land could shelter me and what sky could shade me if I were to dare say about Allah’s Book what I do not know?” [Musannaf Ibn Abî Shaybah (30103)]

This shows that the Companions differed in their knowledge of the Arabic language. They likewise disagreed in their understanding of the intended meaning of certain verses. For instance, when `Adî bin Hâtim heard the verse “…so eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct to you from the black thread of dawn…” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 187], he understood it to mean actual threads of cloth. So when he went to sleep that evening, he placed a black thread and a white thread beneath his pillow. When he woke up to take his morning meal before starting his fast, he placed those threads beside him and continued to look at them while he ate until the sky became bright enough for him to distinguish the black thread from the white thread.

Later on that day, he went to Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) and informed him of what he had done. The Prophet (peace be upon him) explained to him the meaning of the black thread and the white thread referred to in the verse, saying: “That only refers to the blackness of the night and the whiteness of the day. So if the light of dawn becomes visible to you, stop eating.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (1916)]

This shows how the Companions could differ in understanding the intended meaning of Allah’s words. In the Arabic language, it is possible to understand the black thread and the white thread to mean actual cotton threads. The language also allows for these phrases to indicate night and day. `Adî had understood the first meaning, so the Prophet (peace be upon him) explained to him that the second meaning was actually intended. There is no doubt that the other Companions did not understand the verse in the way that Adî had understood it, since they did not do what he had done.

3. Differences in their knowledge of historical events, happenings, and other types of knowledge that contribute to the understanding of the Qur’ân.
Al-Mughîrah bin Shu`bah (radhiyallahu anhu) relates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had sent him to the Christians of Najrân to call them to Islam and to teach them. One of the things that al-Mughîrah (radhiyallahu anhu) informed them about was the verse of the Qur’ân describing what the people exclaimed when they saw Mary carrying a child: “O sister of Haroon, Your father was not a man of evil nor your mother an unchaste woman!” [Sûrah Maryam: 28]

When the Christians of Najrân heard this verse, they objected: “O Mughîrah, how can you call her ‘the sister of Aaron when many centuries had passed between her time and that of Aaron?”

Al-Mughîrah (radhiyallahu anhu) was confused and did not know what to say, so he returned to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and asked him about it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: “They used to call each other by the names of their Prophets and the names of the pious people who came before them.”   

The Prophet (peace be upon him) solved the problem that al-Mughîrah (radhiyallahu anhu) had in understanding the Qur’ân. The Haroon (peace be upon him) being referred to was not the brother of Musa (peace be upon him) but another Haroon. This was something common, because the Jews used to give their children the names of the prophets and other pious people of aforetime, and Musa and Haroon were among those names.

Had al-Mughîrah (radhiyallahu anhu) known this fact, he would not have had to ask the Prophet (peace be upon him) about it. However, when the Christians brought the matter to his attention, he had no answer for them and he had to return to the Prophet (peace be upon him) for the answer.

How the  Sunnah Explains the  Qur’ân

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) explained in his Sunnah everything of the Qur’ân that needed to be explained. The question is: Does this mean that he explained all of the Qur’ân or only part of it?

Scholars have differed on this matter. Some, like al-Suyûtî, have expressed the opinion that he had to explain very little of the Qur’ân. Their opinion is based on the hadîth where`Â’ishah (radhiyallahu anha) supposedly said: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) did not explain anything of the Qur’ân with his opinion save for a few verses.” [Majma`al-Zawa’id  (6/303)] 

However, this hadîth is unauthentic on account of its defective chain of transmission. One of its narrators is Ja`far al Zubayrî, a weak narrator whose hadîth cannot be relied upon.

Other scholars claim that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) explained the Qur’ân in its entirety. They mean that he explained all of the Qur’ân that could possibly need explanation, since there are verses of the Qur’ân that require no explanation at all.

Ibn`Abbâs (radhiyallahu anhu) said: “The explanation of the Qur’ân has four aspects to  it. The first aspect comprises what is known by the Arabs by virtue of their language. When it is recited to the Arabs, they understand it. Then there are the explanations that no one is excused for not knowing. This includes the explanation of the verses related to Islamic legal injunctions and beliefs that people need to know. Then there are the explanations that are known only to scholars. These are subtle meanings that most people do not grasp. Then there are matters whose explanation is known only to Allah. These are the four aspects of the explanation of the Qur’ân.” [Tafsîr al-Tabarî]

In short, Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) explained in his Sunnah everything of the Qur’ân that needed explaining. The Sunnah is, in essence, the commentary of the Qur’ân, and it explains the Qur’ân in four ways:

1. Verbal (textual) explanation of the Qur’ân  

This is where the Prophet (peace be upon him) explains the Qur’ân by stating what it means. This is quite common in the Sunnah. Scholars have produced volumous works devoted to compiling these statements together, such as the commentaries of the Qur’ân compiled by `Abd bin Humayd, Ibn Mardawayh, Ibn Abî Hâtim, and al-Tabarî. The scholar al-Suyûtî compiled a great deal of these hadîth together in his work al-Durr al-Manthûr fî Tafsîr al-Ma’thûr.

Many compilations of the Sunnah contain chapters devoted to the explanation of the Qur’ân. For example, an entire volume of Ibn Athîr’s encyclopedic compilation of six major Sunnah books entitled Jâmi` al-`Usûl is devoted to statements related from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that explain the Qur’ân. The six Sunnah books that he brings together are Sahîh al-Bukhârî, Sahîh Muslim, Sunan Abî  Dâwûd,  Sunan al-Tirmidhî, Sunan al-Nasâ’î, and Muwatta’ Mâlik. In fact, the volume of his encyclopedia devoted to Qur’ânic commentary does not contain all the hadîth that explain verses of the Qur’ân. Some of those hadîth can be found under various other relevant categories and they amount to roughly another full volume of material.

The Prophet (peace be upon him), therefore, explained a great deal of the Qur’ân. The following examples are merely illustrative:

1. Allah says: “So whoever among you is sick or suffers from an ailment on his scalp must expiate by fasting, charity, or sacrifice.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 196] The phrase “fasting, charity, or sacrifice” requires further explanation. How much fasting or charity is needed and what kind of sacrifice is meant?

The Companion named Ka`b bin `Ajazah narrates the following:

I had an ailment on my scalp and I was brought to Allah’s Messenger with lice crawling on my face. He said: “I did not imagine that the effort expended by you would reach the level that I have seen. Can you find a sheep?”

I said to him: “No.”

Then the verse was revealed to “…expiate by fasting, charity, or sacrifice”.

He said: “Fast for three days or feed six poor people a half sâ`(A sâ` is a traditional measure of capacity roughly equivalent to the volume of four full double-handfuls of an average man when both of his hands are placed together to form a scoop. [al-Nawawî,  al-Majmû`]) of food each.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (1815)]

In this way the Prophet (peace be upon him) explained the verse.

2. Allah says “On a day that some of your Lord’s signs shall arrive, a soul shall not benefit from its faith had it not believed from afore or had earned some good from its faith.” [Sûrah al-An`âm: 158]

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) explained that the time being referred to is when the Sun will rise from the West. He said: “The Hour will not arrive until the Sun rises from the west. And when it rises from the west, all of humanity will believe. So on that day  ‘…a soul shall not benefit from its faith had it not believed from  afore or had earned some  good from its faith’.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (4636)]

3.`Uqba bin `Âmir narrates the following:

I heard Allah’s Messenger while he was preaching behind the pulpit quote the verse: “And they prepared for them of what might you were capable of.” Then he said: “Indeed, might here means firepower. Indeed, might here means firepower. Indeed might here means firepower.” [Sahîh Muslim (1917)]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) explained that the “might” being referred to in the verse was the power of ranged weapons. In their day, this would mean arrows and spears. Today, it would apply to guns, missiles, and military aircraft.

4. The Prophet (peace be  upon  him) said: “No one will be put to the reckoning on the Day of Judgment save one who is doomed.”

To this `Â’ishah said: “O Messenger of Allah, didn’t Allah say: ‘And as for him who is given his book in his right hand, he will be given an easy reckoning.’?”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: “This is but a presentation of deeds. No one who has his account discussed on the Day of Judgment will be spared from punishment.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî  (6537)]

In this way, the Prophet (peace be upon him) explained what the Qur’ân meant by an “easy reckoning” on the Day of Judgment. An easy reckoning was a mere enumeration of a person’s deeds and sins without those sins being discussed.

5. Allah says: “Allah makes firm those who believe with a firm statement in the life of this world and in the Hereafter.”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) explained this verse, saying: “When the believer is seated in his grave, he will be approached and he will testify that there is no god besides Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. This is the meaning of His saying ‘Allah makes firm those who believe with a firm statement in the life of this world and in the Hereafter’.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî  (1369)]

2. Prophetic statements derived from meanings found in the Qur’ân 

Sometimes the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him) come with details and elaborations upon meanings expressed in the Qur’ân. This is more subtle than what we have just finished discussing. Here we have to first look at a statement made by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and then find the verse of the Qur’ân to which it relates. Ibn Kathîr pays considerable attention to this approach in his commentary of the Qur’ân.

Some examples of this are as follows:

1. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “A worshipper is closest to his Lord when he is prostrating.” [Sahîh Muslim (482)]

In the Qur’ân, there is a verse that indicates this meaning. Allah says: “Nay, do not obey him. Rather prostrate and draw close (to Allah).” [Sûrah al-`Alaq: 19]

2. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “When a man enters his house and invokes Allah’s name upon entering and upon partaking of food, Satan says (to his own kind): ‘You have no lodging here tonight and no  dinner.’ When he enters his house without invoking Allah’s name upon entering, Satan says (to his own kind): ‘You have found lodgings for the night.’ When he fails to invoke Allah’s name upon partaking of his food, Satan says: ‘You have found lodgings for the night and your dinner.’” [Sahîh Muslim (2018)]

The verse of the Qur’ân that indicates this meaning is as follows: “Deter whomever you are able from among them with your words and descend upon them with your steeds and your foot soldiers and share in their wealth, their progeny, and their provision.” [Sûrah al-Isrâ’: 64] One way that Satan can share in our wealth is by eating, drinking, and lodging with us when we forget to invoke Allah’s name.

3. During the Battle of the Confederate Tribes, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “They kept us from the middle prayer – the `Asr prayer – so may Allah fill their homes and their graves with fire.”

It is as if this hadîth is a direct explanation of the verse: “Safeguard your prayers and (especially) the middle prayer.”  [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 238]

There is actually another verse of the Qur’ân that indicates that the middle prayer is the `Asr prayer. Allah says: “O you who believe! Let those whom your right hands possess and those who have yet to reach maturity seek your permission three times (before entering) at the time before the dawn prayer, when you take off your clothing in the afternoon, and after the night prayer.” [Sûrah al-Nûr: 58]

It could be that the Prophet (peace be upon him) understood from this verse of the Qur’ân that the `Asr prayer was the middle prayer, since this verse indicates that the times of prayer are reckoned to start at dawn and end at night, since Allah begins by mentioning the dawn prayer and ends by mentioning the night prayer. In this way the afternoon prayer – the `Asr prayer – becomes the middle prayer.

This verse is the reason why many scholars of Islamic Law and scholars of Hadîth start with the dawn prayer when they discuss the times of prayer in their writings.

4. The people of Banû Salamah were a group of the Ansâr who lived in a distant neighborhood of Madinah. When they wished to move their homes closer to the Prophet’s Mosque, Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said to them: “O Banû Salamah! Your homes record your traces.”   [Sahîh Muslim (665)]

He meant by this that they should remain in their neighborhood and not think of relocating. It seems that the Prophet (peace be upon him) disliked the idea of any area of Madinah becoming vacant. He wanted to have righteous people spread throughout the land and not have them all concentrated in the vicinity of the mosque.

It could be that the Prophet (peace be upon him) understood what he said to them from Allah’s words: “Indeed We shall restore life to the dead and We record what they send before them and the traces they leave behind.”   [Sûrah YâSîn: 12] These traces that they leave behind include their going to the mosque and their returning from it.

5. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “No one should touch the Qur’ân except in a state of purity.”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) may have derived this ruling from the following verses of the Qur’ân: “Indeed it is a noble Qur’ân, in a book well guarded which none shall touch save those who are purified; a revelation from the Lord of all the worlds.” [Sûrah al-Wâqi`ah: 77-80]

From these verses that describe the Qur’ân, scholars have derived the ruling that it is unlawful for a person to touch the Qur’ân except in a state of ritual purity.

3. Explanation of the context in which particular verses were revealed

A person who knows the context in which a particular verse of the Qur’ân was revealed is better equipped to understand what that verse means than someone who does not. We have many examples where the Sunnah provides us with this information:
1. We have the following account related by `Urwah bin Zubayr:

I asked `Â’ishah (radhiyallahu anha) the following question: “Have you considered where Allah says: ‘Verily Mount Safâ and Mount Marwah are among the rites of Allah. So for those who make the greater or lesser pilgrimage to the House, there is no sin upon him to compass round them.’ [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 158] For by Allah! There is no sin upon anyone for not compassing round Safâ and Marwah.”

`Â’ishah replied: “How wrong is what you have said, my nephew. If it were how you have interpreted it, then it would have read: ‘there is no sin upon him to not compass round them.’

Nevertheless, it was revealed for the inhabitants of Madinah. Before they had accepted Islam, they used to dedicate their pilgrimage to the false god Manât whom they used to worship at al-Mushallal. Those who did so considered it objectionable to then compass round al-Safâ and Marwah. So when they accepted Islam, they asked Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) about it, saying: ‘O Messenger of Allah! We used to find it objectionable to compass round the area between al-Safâ and Marwah.’ So Allah revealed the verse: ‘Verily Mount Safâ and Mount Marwah are among the rites of Allah…’”

Then `Â’ishah (radhiyallahu anha) said: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) established the practice of traversing the ground between the two mountains, so no one is allowed to discard the practice of traversing between them.”

I then informed Abû  Bakr bin `Abd  al-Rahmân of this and he said to me: “There is something else that I have heard as well. For indeed I have from those possessing knowledge say that all the people – besides those mentioned by Â’ishah (radhiyallahu anha) who used to dedicate their pilgrimage to Manât – used to compass the ground between al-Safâ and Marwah. So when Allah mentioned compassing round the House without making mention of al-Safâ and Marwah in the Qur’ân, they said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! We used to compass the ground between al-Safâ and Marwah, but Allah has revealed compassing round the House without mentioning al-Safâ. So is there something wrong if we compass round them?’ So Allah revealed the verse: ‘Verily Mount Safâ and Mount Marwah are among the  rites of  Allah…’”

Then Abû Bakr bin `Abd al-Rahmân said: “I hear that this verse was revealed to both these groups of people; to those who objected to compassing between al-Safâ and Marwah in the days of ignorance as well as to those who used to do so and then thought it objectionable after accepting Islam because Allah mentioned compassing round the House without mentioning al-Safâ.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî  (1643)]

From this account, we know that the verse was revealed in two different contexts. The first was to tell the inhabitants of Madinah to compass the ground between Mount al-Safâ and Mount Marwah in contrast to what they used to do before Islam when they dedicated their pilgrimage to  Manât.

The second context was to tell the rest of the Muslims that they should continue to perform the circuits between al-Safâ and Marwah, even though they used to do so in the days of ignorance before Islam, since doing so is in fact one of the rites prescribed by Allah and not a custom from paganism.

By knowing the context in which this verse was revealed, we get a complete understanding of what the verse means.

2. Allah says: “It is no sin on you if you seek the bounty of your Lord. Then when you pour down from Mount `Arafât, celebrate the praises of your Lord at the sacred monument.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 198]

What does it mean in this verse to “seek the bounty of your Lord”? It could mean to pray to Allah, or to glorify him, or to seek His blessings. Indeed, the verse embraces these meanings.  However, the phrase “to seek the bounty of your Lord” is also used to mean commerce and the pursuit of business.

Ibn `Abbâs (radhiyallahu anhu) relates to us the context in which this verse was revealed:

`Ukâz, Mujannah, and Dhû al-Majâz were markets that were held in the times of ignorance. For this reason, people feared that it might be sinful to engage in trade during the season of pilgrimage. So Allah revealed the verse: “It is no sin on you if you seek the bounty of your Lord” about the pilgrimage season. [Sahîh al-Bukhârî  (4519)]

From this account, we know that the verse is telling us that it is not a sin to engage in commerce during the pilgrimage.

3. Allah says: “There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety. It is more worthy of your observing prayer therein. In it are men who love to be purified and Allah loves those who make themselves pure.”  [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 108]

What does this verse mean by “men who love to be purified?” Abû Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu) discusses the context of this verse, informing us that it was revealed about the people of Qubâ’. He says: “They used to clean their private parts with water after going to relieve themselves.” [Sunan Abî Dâwûd  (45)]

4. Allah says: “On the day that they will be dragged into the Fire on their faces (hearing): ‘Taste ye the touch of Hell.’ Indeed We have created all things in decreed measure.” [Sûrah al-Qamar: 48-49]

Muslims of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al Jamâ`ah use these verses as proof of Allah’s divine decree and that everything that happens is by Allah’ decree. However, there are those who dispute this interpretation, saying that the verse means that Allah created everything in due proportion and suitable for its place and time.

Now, there is nothing preventing this from being one aspect of the verse’s meaning. At the same time, the verse conveys the meaning that everything occurs by Allah’s decree.

This is clear from the context in which the verse was revealed. Abû Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu) relates:

That the pagan tribesmen of Quraysh came to Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) and started to dispute with him about divine decree, so the verse was revealed: “On the day that they will be dragged into the Fire on their faces (hearing): ‘Taste ye the touch of Hell.’ Indeed We have created all things in decreed measure.” [Sûrah al-Qamar: 48-49] [Sahîh Muslim (2656)]

4. Explanation of the Qur’ân by way of practical example

A contemporary Muslim scholar, when asked about the commentary of the Qur’ân, made the astute observation that “the best commentary that exists on the Qur’ân is the biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him), because the Prophet’s life – through his sayings, actions, and tacit approvals – was a practical expression of the Qur’ân.”

This is why `Â’ishah (radhiyallahu anha), when asked to describe her husband’s character, said: “The character of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was the Qur’ân.” [Sahîh Muslim  (746)]

Likewise, Jâbir (radhiyallahu anhu) said, while describing how the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed pilgrimage, said: “Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) was with us and the Qur’ân was being revealed to him. He knew its meaning, and whatever he did, we followed him in doing it.” [Sahîh al-Bukharî  (1651)]

Jâbir (radhiyallahu anhu) was here speaking generally about the pilgrimage and all other matters.

The following are a few examples of how the Prophet’s practice explains the Qur’ân:

1.  The prayer of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is an excellent example. He commanded his followers: “Pray as you’ve seen me praying.” [Sahîh al-Bukharî  (631)]

In this way, all of the Prophet’s prayers are an explanation for Allah’s words in the Qur’ân: “Establish prayer.”  

2. His pilgrimage is another good example. The Prophet (peace be upon him) performed the pilgrimage and carried out all of its rites. He commanded his followers, saying: “Take from me your pilgrimage rites.” [Sahîh Muslim (1777)]

Everything that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did on his pilgrimage came as an explanation of Allah’s words: “Pilgrimage to the House is a duty that people owe to Allah.”  [Sûrah Al `Imrân: 97] 

3. In the same way, the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught the people how to fast by his own practical example. His actions explained to them how to understand the verse: “Fasting has been prescribed for you…” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 183]

4, The Prophet (peace be  upon him) showed us the various rates that must be paid for Zakâh, and in doing so provided us a practical  explanation of the verse: “And pay the Zakâh.”   [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 43]

5. A more specific example is the explanation of the verse: “Establish prayer at the Sun’s decline until the darkness of the night, and the morning recitation, for the morning recitation is witnessed.” [Sûrah al-Isrâ’: 78]

This verse gives the time-frame for the five daily prayers.

A person has asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) about the times of prayer and the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not tell him anything. Then he performed the dawn prayer with the people at the crack of dawn when it was still so dark that people could hardly make out one another’s features. He prayed the noon prayer with them just as the Sun began to decline from its zenith so that someone commented: “It is still high noon.” He led the afternoon prayer while the Sun was still quite high in the sky. He prayed the sunset prayer as soon as the Sun had dipped below the horizon. He performed the night prayer as soon as the red glow of dusk faded from the sky.

On the next day, the Prophet (peace be upon him) delayed the morning prayer so long that someone commented after the prayer was finished that the Sun  was practically rising. Then he delayed the noon prayer until it was almost the time he had performed the afternoon prayer on the previous day. He prayed the afternoon prayer so late that after the prayer was finished, someone commented that the Sun’s color had turned red. Then he delayed the sunset prayer until the ruddy glow of sunset had almost faded from the sky. Then he delayed the night prayer until a third of the night had passed.

On the following day, he summoned the questioner and said: “The times for the prayers are between the times that I prayed them.” [Sahîh Muslim  (614)]

6. In the Qur’ân, Allah describes the circuits that the pilgrims perform between Safâ’ and Marwah by saying: “Verily Mount Safâ and Mount Marwah are among the rites of Allah. So for those who make the greater or lesser pilgrimage to the House, there is no sin upon him to compass round them.” [Sûrah  al-Baqarah: 158] 

This verse shows us that performing this act is not prohibited. It also gives an indication that it is not obligatory to do so. However, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed this rite during his pilgrimage, he demonstrated its obligatory nature. This is why  `Â’ishah (radhiyallahu anha) said: “Allah will never accept as complete a greater or lesser pilgrimage from a person who does not walk the circuits between Safâ’ and Marwah.” [Sahîh al-Bukharî  (1790)]

From these examples, we can see that all of the Prophet’s words and deeds were an explanation of the Qur’ân. The great jurist al-Shâfi`î (rahimahullah) observed: “Every ruling that Allah’s Messenger gave came from his understanding of the Qur’ân.” [Refer to al-Itqân (2/467)]

We need to know that the Qur’ân and Sunnah are inseparable and that it is impossible for us to understand the Qur’ân except in light of the Sunnah.

May Allah grant us understanding of His Book and bless us to act according to it. And may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon our prophet Muhammad  and upon the Prophet’s family and Companions.


by Hakimul Islam Hadhrat Maulana Qari Mohammed Tayyib (rahimahullah)

EVEN a more signal measure for the divine safeguarding of the Qur’an and the Traditions is the fact that God Himself has forewarned us clearly regarding various types of such saboteurs, the devious ways in which they shall operate, laying a network of deceits and lies to waylay the believers, and their pernicious intentions so that lovers of truth in the Ummah should remain wide-awake to the designs of these people and the clever stratagems of such people should not lead the Ummah astray by their one-sided activities.

THE TWO classes we have discussed so far (in other articles) are those which have raised dissension within the Ummah by openly negating the authority of the Hadith or by distorting its text. But we have been apprised of another kind also which, while acknowledging the text of the Hadith, distorted its meaning. We have been told about these subtle distorters of the Hadith also. Ostensibly admitting both the Qur’an and the Hadith, such people, nonetheless, regard themselves free to interpret them considering their reason to be the sole arbiter in determining signification and thus, exercising their own reason and personal endeavour to tamper with the meaning of the Qur’an and the traditions in such a way as to develop a schismatic spirit in the Immah.

The Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) therefore said:

The Jews underwent divisions into seventy-one sects and the Christians into seventy-two. And so shall my Ummah fission off into seventy-three sects; all of them but one shall be marked for Hell.

This splitting up into different sects has occurred not because of the denial of the Qur’an and the Hadith but under the cover of affirmation, giving rise to seventy-two sects on doctrinal basis. This is exactly the specious type of interpretation characteristic of the Jews and the Christians which led to seventy-two false sects among them and because of which the real tenets of the Pentateuch and the New Testament gradually got lost.

They change words from the context and forget a part of that. (Qur’an, 5:13).

Just as God has told mankind how He would protect the Qur’an and the Hadith by saying He would keep sending different kinds of people who would salvage the religion in times of critical juncture such as the mujaddids,  just rulers and those divinely succoured, similarly He has informed of various kinds of men who disingenuously tamper with, misappropriate or ruthlessly assail God’s guardianship, some being imposters, others liars, and yet others hankerers after loaves and fishes and satiates; some will deny the wording of Qur’anic exposition (Hadith) and some its  meanings and implications.

Others will question its validity, throw ironic remarks and innuendos on its historicity and yet others will hold the Qur’an itself to be a spurious and fabricated document and try to draw people away from Islam. Thus, some will deny the Qur’an and some, its exposition. And actually these imposters and miscreants waylay the Qur’an and the Hadith in every possible way as regards to words and meanings, canons and principles.

As I have already said, the exposition is an essential adjunct of the Qur’an without which the Book of God cannot be sustained at all. These evil-minded persons denied the exposition of the Qur’an in a number of ways in order to sabotage it in furtherance of their nefarious designs. But thanks to the indefatigable endeavours of the scholars and the muhaddithin who discharged the duty of preserving the Qur’an by preserving the Ahadith, by devising scientific methods and techniques, and by making use of these very methods and modus operandi utterly smashed their machinations in respect of the denial of the Traditions, setting at naught all their insidious stratagems with cogent arguments and sound logic.

One cannot but marvel at the elaborate arrangements made by the Divine Being that while it created these sacred means and agents (memorizers and muhaddithin) who preserved the Qur’an and the Hadith, it informed beforehand of the enemies of Hadith, and their stratagems and various ways of denying the Tradition so that the savants of the Qur’an and Hadith should remain aware of their designs and craftiness, and should not get entangled in the meshes of their cunning and deception, falsehood and chicanery. In other words, this too was a part of divine guardianship of the Qur’an and Hadith that the friends of the two primary bases of religion should be alerted beforehand of these clever enemies thereof.

The upshot was that anyone who tried to strike at the twin foundations of the true faith, the Qur’an and the Hadith, fell into the pit which he had dug and suffered ignominious defeat. Those classes which negated the Qur’an and the Hadith arose for a limited period and then fell in such a way that no trace of their existence was left at all. But the Qur’an and the Hadith are still as resplendent as ever. The same fate which befell the distorters and fabricators of the Hadith shall befall its negators also who expose it to ridicule.

Hadith Matn Criticism – A Closed, Haraam and Kufr Enterprise

[Majlisul Ulama]


“Verily, those  who dispute  in  Our Aayaat  without  any  proof having come  to them, in  their hearts there  is nothing but a pride  (whose  objective)  they  will  not  attain. Therefore  seek refuge  with  Allah. Verily,  He  is The  Hearer, The  See-er ”   (Aayat  56 Surah  Al Mu’min)

Some  jaahil  groveling  in  his  quagmire  of  jahl-e-murakkab (compound  ignorance), cunningly  in  an  article  peddles  the  haraam  view  that “criticism  of  Hadith  is  not  a  new  enterprise.”  In  this  statement  he  subtly  implies  that  every  modernist  Tom,  Dick  and  Harry  moron  has  the  right  to  submit  the  Ahaadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  to  the  vagaries  of  his  wildly  fluctuating  nafs  in  whose  grip  labours  his  brains.

The  moron  seeks  to  acquit  himself  as  an  authority  of  the  Shariah  by  disgorging  some facts  which  he  has  gleaned  from  some  academic  kutub.    His  jahaalat  constrains  him  to drive  a  wedge  between  the  Qur’aan  and  the  Ahaadith  of  Nabi-e-Kareem  (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam).  Whilst  the  buffoon  concedes  that  there  does  exist  a  concept  such  as  ‘Sunnah’,  he  perpetrates  the  kufr  of  denying  that  Allah  Ta’ala  has  defined  the  Sunnah.  This  is  indeed  a  subtle  rejection  of  the  Qur’aan  itself,  for  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal  states  in  His  Kalaam:

“Verily, for  you  (O  Muslimeen!)  there  is  in  Rasulullah  a  Beautiful  Uswah  (lifestyle), for    him  who  has  hope  in  Allah  and  the  Last  Day.”

Then  Allah  Ta’ala  states  a  dozen  times  “Obey  Allah  and  obey  the  Rasool.”  The  theme  of  strict  obedience  to  the   Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is  a  solid, conspicuous  thread  permeating  the  entire  Qur’aan  Majeed.  Allah  Ta’ala  warns  of  severe  punishment –  the  punishment  of  the  Fire  –  deprivation  from  Jannah  for  those  who  do  not    obey  His  Commands  and  Prohibitions, viz.,  His  Shariah.  The  absolute  severity  of  the  Divine  Warnings  mentioning  of  the  roasting  bodies  in  Hell  fire;  being  cast  upside  in  Jahannam;  being  force-fed  boiling  water  and  the  thorns  of  Zaqqoom  in  Jahannam,  etc.,  etc.,  totally  preclude  the  slightest  ambiguity  in  the  Sunnah,  that  Sunnah  which  the  Ummah  has  to  follow  meticulously  to  secure  Najaat  (Salvation)  in  the  Aakhirah.

Most  assuredly,  Allah  Ta’ala  after  having  imposed  the  Sunnah  lifestyle  on  us  and  after  issuing  dire  warnings  and  threats  of  the  severest  consequences  for  disobedience,  did  not  leave  us  to  dwell  and  grope  in  the  darkness  of nafsaani  vacillation  in  the  endeavour  to  discover  the  Sunnah.  The  Sunnah  is  not  a  concept  which  is  the  consequence  of  our  discovery,  its  not  a  discovery  developing  from  the  application  of  man’s  opinion  bogged  down  and  contaminated  by  a  variety  of    inimical  forces.  The  Sunnah  is  the  lifestyle  created  by  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal  for  His  Makhlooq,  and  defined  meticulously  by  the  practical  example  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  his  noble  Sahaabah,  hence  he  declared:

“Honour  my  Sahaabah,  for  verily,  they  are  the  best  of  you;  then  those  who  followed  them (the  Taabieen),  then  those  who  followed  them  (Tab-e-Taabieen).  Then  after  them  kithb (falsehood  and  lies,  especially  modernist  lies  disgorged  by  morons)  will  prevail.”

The  Qur ‘aan-e-Hakeem  does  not  deal  with  modernist  fiction.  It  expounds  incumbent facts  for  us  to  compulsorily  adopt  in  practical  life  in  the  precise  way  exemplified  by Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  his  illustrious  Sahaabah.  The  Sunnah  is  not  a stupid  conundrum  which  has  been  left  for  extrapolating  concepts  of  life  in  kufr evolutionary  style  in  the  way  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  have  mutilated  and  transmogrified the  Shariahs  of  Nabi  Musa  (alayhis  salaam)  and  Nabi  Isa  (alayhis  salaam).  There  is  no ambivalence  in  the  Sunnah.  The  attempt  to  convey  the    devilish  idea  that  the  Sunnah  is  a  riddle  to  be  solved  by  the  brains  of  the  modernist  juhala  by  way  of  submitting  the Ahaadith  to  their  personal  opinion  is  kufr.  Such  ‘believers’  are  zindeeqs.  They  seek  to scuttle  Islam  in  subtle  and  cunning  ways  by  retaining  the  name  ‘Islam’  for  the  hotch  potch  of  which  is  the  quotient  of  their  wild  conjecturing. 

There  is  no  ambiguity  and  no  conundrum  in  the  Sunnah.  Allah  Ta’ala  did  not  command us  to  submit  to  a  conundrum    or  to  a  concept  stricken  with  ambiguity  and  darkness,  then threaten  us  with  the  severest  punishment  for  acts  which  are  in  conflict  of  the  Sunnah despite  our  unawareness  of  what  that  Sunnah  actually  is.

THE QUR’AAN AND THE SUNNAH The  modernist  jaahil  concedes  that  the  Qur’aan  unequivocally  proclaims  that  whatever Muhammad  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  spoke  was  divine  inspiration – Wahi  from  Allah Ta’ala.  How  then  can  his  Sunnah  be  an  ambiguity  consigned  to  posterity  for  unraveling?  What  then  was  the  purpose  of  the  Rasool?  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  did  not  indulge  in  mental  gymnastics,  riddles  and  crossward  puzzles.  The  Sunnah  is  a  serious  way  of  life  ordained  for  the  Ummah  by  Allah  Ta’ala.  It  is  inconceivable  that  the  definition  of  the  Sunnah  was  left  for  the  pastime  hobby  of  modernist  morons  who  mushroom  in  this age  in  close  proximity  to  Qiyaamah.  What  does  the  jaahil  seek  to  achieve  by  engaging  on  a  topic  which  has  already  been  solved  and  settled  many  centuries  ago? What  sinister  plot  does  the  moron  conceal  with  his  satanic  attempt  to  fault  Bukhaari  Shareef,  etc.  in  this  age  in  which  the  Ummah  should  be  concerned  with  only  the    practical  Sunnah  lifestyle  as  it has  been  reliably  transmitted  to  us  down  the  long  corridor  of  Islam’s  history  by  means  of authentic  narration  and      practice  of  the  Sahaabah?

There  is  absolutely  no  scope  for  adjusting  and  reinterpreting  the  Shariah  which  has  come down  to  us  most  reliably  from  the  Sahaabah  and  Taabieen.  The  focus  of  these  modernist morons  is  on  the  production  of  a  new  ‘shariah’ – Yahood  and  Nasara  style,  hence  the  devious  and  pernicious  idea  of  the  validity  of  criticizing  the  Ahaadith  on  which  the  entire edifice  of  the  Shariah  is  structured.  In  fact,  without  Ahaadith  there  is  no  Qur’aan.  The  very  authenticity  and  immutability  of  the  Qur’aan  are  firmly  based  on  Ahaadith.  There  is  absolutely  no  other  avenue  for  corroborating  the  Qur’aan’s  authenticity  other  than  Ahaadith.

The  attempt  to  impugn  the  lofty  status  of  the  Ahaadith  by  citing  differences  of  Ulama  is contemptible  and  satanic.  The  authorities  – the  true  Ulama  of  bygone  times  were  not  like these  modernist  juhhaal.  They  were  qualified  in  all  sciences  of  the  Shariah.  It  is  ludicrous and  laughable  that  modernist  morons  of  this  age  are  seeking  to  arrogate  to  themselves  the  authority  of  the  Ulama,  Fuqaha,  Muhadditheen  and  Mufassireen  who  were  the  Heirs  of the  Ambiya  occupying  the  highest  station  in  the  concept  of Waraathat-e-Ambiya.

The  sole  repositories  of  the  highest  degree  of  Shar’i  Authority  were  the  Sahaabah, Taabieen  and  Tab-e-Taabieen.  This  was  a  demarcation  enacted  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  himself,  hence  it  is  the  divine  demarcation  which  excludes  all  conflicting  concepts,  views  and  theories  which  developed  beyond  the  boundaries  of  this  sacred demarcation.  Making  explicit  reference  to  this  fact,  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  branded  all  post Khairul  Quroon  ‘religious’  innovations  and  ideas  as  Kithb (falsehood)  which  are  the  effects  of  simaanah  (obesity). 

It  is  indeed  the  epitome  of  jahaalat  to  assault  the  Ahaadith  with  stray  opinions  of  scholars  who  had  appeared  on  the  scene  6,  7,  8  and  10  centuries  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  No  one  is  the  Muqallid  of  Imaam  Suyuti  (rahmatullah alayh).  Hence,  if  there  is  some  anomaly  in  a  view  of  Imaam  Suyuti,  it  may  not  be  imposed  on  the  Ummah  as  a  valid  opinion  despite  its  glaring  conflict  with  the  Opinion  which  has  flourished  in  the  Ummah  since  the  epoch  of Khairul  Quroon,  for  this  is  the  boundary  cast  in  solid  divine  Rock  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Consider  the  following  stupidity  attributed  to  Ibn  Qayyim  and  trumpeted  by  the  modernist  jaahil  in  his  abortive  bid  to  substantiate  his  baseless  idea  of  meddling  and  fiddling  in  the  Ahaadith  with  the  objective  of  scuttling  the  Shariah:

“Ibn  Qayyim  said  ahadith  that  says:  “He  who  loves,  keeps  chaste  and  dies,  does  a martyr”  are  forged.  Even  if  the  narrators’  chain  was  as  bright  as  the  sun.,  he  said  it  would still  be  wrong.”  

Undoubtedly  there  is  something  drastically  wrong  with  the  brains  of  the  one  who  had  propounded  this  ludicrous,  irrational  and  haraam  view.  The  very  authenticity  of  the  Qur’aan  is  established  on  the  basis  of  such  Ahaadith  whose  narrators’  chains  are  as  “bright  as  the  sun”.  This  innovated  theory  attributed  to  Ibn  Qayyim  in  the  belated  age  of  several  centuries  after  Khairul  Quroon  is  pure  ghutha  (rubbish)  which  the  modernist  juhhaal  find  most  palatable.

THE  ISNAAD AND THE MATAN The  fundamental  basis  of  authenticity  of  Hadith  is  the Isnaad,  not  the  Matan.  Thus, regardless  of  perceived  irrationality  and  apparent  contraction  in  Hadith  narrations,  these  elements  will    never  be  factors  for  the  rejection  or  denigration  of  a  Hadith  whose  authenticity  is  corroborated  by  a  Chain  of  Narrators,  “bright  as  the  sun”.    Reason  and  rationality  are  relative  concepts.  What  may  appear  unreasonable  to    someone,  may  be  reasonable  to  another.  Ahaadith  with  Isnaads  “as  bright  as  the  sun”  are  in  entirety  independent  of  the  test  of  rationality.  All  the  raka’ts  of  Salaat  are  based  on  Ahaadith  whose  authenticity  is  “as  bright  as  the  sun”.  No  one  may  tamper  with  these  raka’ts  or  doubt  their  correctness  on  the  basis  of  rationality,  moreover  if  such  rationality  is  an  aberration  of  the  modernist  juhhaal  who  proliferate  Muslim  society  of  this  age.

Relative  to  the  Authorities    who  flourished  during  Khairul  Quroon,  the  likes  of  Ibn  Qayyim  recede  into  the  realm  of  oblivion.  It  is  laughable  to  even  cite  Ibn  Qayyim  or  any post  Khairul  Quroon  Scholar  in  negation  of  the  entrenched  beliefs,  practices  and  concepts which  had  existed  during  that  early  era  in  which  the  Divinely  Sealed  Shariah  was  delivered  to  the  Ummah.

Expounding  his  jahaalah,  the  modernist  Ghabi  says:

“It  is  clear  from  these  and  other  verses,  and  there  is  no  doubt,  that  Muhammad  (s)  is, for  us,  an  exemplar  and  a  model.  Nor  should  there  be  doubt  that  rejecting  his  Sunnah  is  a  grave  error.  No  wonder,  then,  that  it  is  generally  accepted  among  most  Muslims  that  his  Sunnah  is  the  second  most  important  source  of  legislation  and  guidance.”

This  moron  with  his  smattering  of  ‘academic’  knowledge’,  suffering  from  the  disease  of oblique  mental  vision,  just  does  not  know  what  he  has  blurted  out.  Alternatively,  his disgorgement  is  a  subtle  stunt  to  dislodge  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah,  hence  the  ghutha of  the  “secondary  nature”  of  the  Sunnah  which  according  to  the  Qur’aan  is  the  primary  and only  way  of  life  for  Muslims.  The  Sunnah  embodied  in  the  Ahaadith  being  the  second source  of  legislation  should  not  be  confused  with  the  Sunnah  which  has  been  ordained  to  be  the  practical  lifestyle  of  the  Ummah.  The  Sunnah  which  is  confirmed  and  corroborated  by  either  the  First  or  the  Second  or  the  Third  or  the  Fourth  Source  of  legislation  is  the only  Sunnah  for  practical  implementation – implementation  which  is  Waajib.  Nothing detracts  from  the  incumbency  and  the  imperative  importance  of  any  Sunnah  act  confirmed  by  any  one  of  the  Four  Sources  of  legislation.  What  has  been  confirmed  as  the  Sunnah  in Khairul  Quroon,  is  the  Sunnah    whose  practical  adoption  the  Qur’aan  commands  regardless  of  the  status  of  the  confirmatory  source.

The  averment  that  rejection  of  the  Sunnah  is  “a  grave  error”  is  grossly  erroneous.  Rejection  of  Sunnah  is  kufrkufr  which  expels  the  rejector  from  the  fold  of  Islam.  Observance  of  the  Sunnah  is  commanded  by    the  Qur’aan.  In  this  Sunnah  there  is  no  ambiguity,  and  this  Sunnah  is  not  subservient  to  the  reasoning  process  of  the  dumb  modernist  juhhaal.

The  modernist  ghabi  peddling  his  haraam  kufr  wares,  seeks    assistance  from  a  Scholar  who  is  in  relation  to  the  Sahaabah  and  Taabieen  a  veritable  non- entity.  Thus  he  says:

“Jalal  al-Din  Suyuti’s  statement  on  matn  criticism  is  now  axiomatic:  “If  you  encounter  a  hadith  contrary  to  reason,  or  principles,  then  you  should  know  that  it  is  forged.”

This  statement  carries  absolutely  no  weight – it  is  devoid  of  Shar’i  substance  in  the  face  of  a  Hadith  whose  authenticity  is  based  on  a  Chain  “as  bright  as  the  sun”.  It  is  a  forgery  attributed  to  Imaam  Suyuti  (rahmatullah  alayh).  The  moron  or  whoever  has  schooled  him  in  his  lamentable  smattering  of  hadith  knowledge,  has  torn  the  principle  from  its  context. The  manner  in  which  the  jaahil  has  presented  Imaam  Suyuti’s  statement  has  been  deliberately  or  ignorantly  calculated  to  convey  the  spurious  notion  that  this  statement  is  a general  principle  for  scrutiny  and  acceptance  of  Hadith  narrations  when  in  fact  this  idea  is baseless – a  figment  of  the  moron’s  hallucination.  The  axiom  mentioned  by  the  moron  has  applicability  only  if  the  narration’s  chain  is  of  a  dubious  nature  or  uncorroborated  by  the  requisite  evidence  for  establishing  authenticity.  In  such  an  event,  the  narration  will  not  be  entertained  even  in  the  domain  of  Fadhaaila  domain  which  allows  room  for  Dhaeef Ahaadith.  Furthermore,  the  moron  did  not  even  understand  what  he  has  read  or  heard about  the  alleged  ‘axiom’.  The  aforementioned  statement  has  been  torn  from  its  context  by the  moron  who  has  failed  to  understand  either  the  statement  or  the  context.

The  statement  mentioned  above  applies  to  such  Maudhoo’  (Fabricated)  narrations  which cannot   be  interpreted  to  reconcile  with  the  Shariah.  It  does  not  even  apply  to  Maudhoo’ in  general. 

The  ghabi  has  attempted  to  pass  himself  off  as  an  authority  by  citing  the  name  of Imaam  Suyuti  (rahmatullah  alayh)  to  impress  other  juhhaal  of  his  ilk.  He  has  attributed  a calumny  against  Imaam  Suyuti.  Imaam  Suyuti’s  statement  does  not  mean  what  the  jaahil  is bandying  out.

It  is  indeed  the  height  of  ghabaawah  to  even  suggest    the  rejection  of  a  Hadith  of  the  Mutawaatir  class  on  the  basis  of  a  moron’s  reasoning  or  simply  because  the matan  of  the  Hadith  militates  against  the  density  of  the  moron’s  brains. Every  jaahil  will  find  almost  every  juz’i  mas’alah of  every  Shar’i  Institution  to  be  in  conflict  with  his  defective reasoning.  Innumerable  ahkaam of  Hajj  will  be  found  to  be  in  conflict  with  ‘reason’ – the  reason  of  ghabis.  Must  we  then  reject  all  these  ahkaam  substantiated  by  Ahaadith  simply  because  morons  perceive  a  conflict  with  their  reasoning  process?  The  ghabaawah  of  the modernist  juhhaal  is  indeed  axiomatic.

WHAT IS THE SUNNAH? Flaunting  his  jahaalah ,  the  moron  asks: 

“After  that  acknowledgement,  however,  it  gets  tricky.  The  question  that  follows  is:  how  do  we  know  what  his  Sunnah  is.”  

The  Imaan  of  this  moron  appears  to  have  been  extinguished  hence  this    ludicrous  question  bordering  on kufr.  Every  Muslim  is  aware  that  the  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  has  been  acquired  from  the  Sahaabah  who  had  transmitted  it  to  Taabieen  who  in  turn transmitted  it  to  the  Tab-e-Taabieen  who  in  turn  transmitted  it  to  the  succeeding  generation,  and  so  on  by  way  of  reliable  transmission  the  Sunnah  has  reached  us  intact,  and  so  shall  it  be  transmitted  intact  until  the  Day  of  Qiyaamah  from  generation  to  generation.

Nothing  of  the  Sunnah  has  been  omitted  in  the  process  of  transmission.  He  who  ventures such  a  kufr  claim  of  the  Sunnah  being  imperfect  or  incomplete  or  that  part  of  it  has  been lost  in  the  transmission  process  is  in  abnegation  of  the  Qur’aan.  Allah  Ta’ala  Himself  has undertaken  the  responsibility  of  safeguarding  this  Deen  of  Islam.  It  will  remain  in  its pristine  purity  until  Qiyaamah  regardless  of  the  deviation,  baatil,  bid’ah  and  kufr  which modernist  morons  and  other  types  of  juhhaal  innovate  from  time  to  time.  Thus  the  Sunnah has  been  extant  since  the  time  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Islam  is  the final  DeenNubuwwat  has  been  terminated.  No  new  code  of  life  will  be  revealed.  This  pre-supposes  the  perpetual  existence  of  the  original  Sunnah  and  Shariah  in  their  pristine  purity.  The  attempt  to  cloak  the  Sunnah  with  ambiguity  is  underlined  with  a  satanic  motive,  and  that  motive  is  to  disfigure  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  to  accommodate  the  concepts  of  kufr  of  the  modernist  juhhaal  such  as  the  moron  who  deems  himself  qualified  enough  to  masquerade  as  an  ‘authority’  on  Hadith.

The  moron  further  exhibits  his  gross  ignorance  by  saying  that   the  Ahaadith  merely  “contain  clues  of  what  the  Sunnah  was,  but  they  are  not  the  Sunnah” To  him  the  Sunnah  “was”.  It  is  something  antique,  no  longer  in  existence.  The  Ahaadith  are  not  mere  clues  of  the  Sunnah.  The  entire  structure  of  the  Sunnah  is  the  Qur’aan  and  the  Ahaadith.  There  is  no  other  source  of  the  Sunnah  other  than  the  Qur’aan  and  Ahaadith.  That  certain  Ahaadith  do  not  form  part  of  practical  Sunnah  notwithstanding  their  authenticity,  does  not  detract from  the  fact  that  the  foundation  of  the  Sunnah  is  the  Ahaadith..  Only  a  moron  has  the  audacity  and  who  is    sufficiently  stupid  to  believe  that  in  the  Ahaadith  are  only  ‘clues’  of  the  Sunnah.  We  wonder  if  the  jaahil  possesses  adequate  expertise  in  the  Sunnah  style  of  Istinja.

The  Ahaadith  do  not  provide  only  a  ‘glimpse’  of  the  Sunnah  as  the  moron  alleges.  It provides  the  whole  of  the  Sunnah,  hence  the  Qur’aan  commands:  “Obey  Allah  and  obey  the  Rasool.”   The  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is  preserved  in  the minutest  detail  in  the  Ahaadith,  and  all  the  Ahaadith  which  constitute  the  Sunnah  have  already  been  authenticated  and  documented.  Ijtihaad  in  the  field  of  Hadith  is  a  closed  book.  There  remains  not  the  slightest  scope  for  revision  and  revisiting  the  Ahaadith  to structure  a  new  ‘sunnah’  to  conform  to  the  brains  of  modernist  morons.  The  Sunnah remains  unadulterated.  It  exists  as  it  had  existed  during  the  age  of  the  Sahaabah,  albeit very  little  of  it  is  being  practically  implemented  by  Muslims  of  this  era.  But  the  Sunnah  is  not  hidden.

Disgorging  another  figment  of  his  satanic  hallucination,  the  Ghabi  says: “……the  Qur’ an has  been  protected  by  Allah;  the  ahadith  have  not.”  Here  the  moron  implies  that  Allah’s Shariah  is  the  victim  of    change,  interpolation  and    disfigurement  in  the  way  the  Shariahs  of  previous  Ambiya had  suffered  at  the  hands  of  their  respective  followers.  The  averment  is  a  veiled  rejection  of  the  Finality  of  Nubuwwat    and  of  the  Qur’aan’s  proclamation  of  the completion  and  perfection  of  this  Deen  of  Islam.  In  the  Qur’aan,  Allah  Ta’ala  declares:

“This  Day  have  I  perfected  for  you  your  Deen,  and  I  have  completed  for  you  My  Bounty (of  the  Perfect  Deen),  and  have  chosen  for  you  Islam  as    (your)  Deen.”   (Aayat  4,  Al-Maaidah)

On  what  basis  does  the  jaahil claim  that  the  Ahaadith  on  which  the  edifice  of  the  Shariah  has  been  raised  are  not  protected  by  Allah  Ta’ala?  The  Divine  Protection  of  the “Thikr”  mentioned  in  the  Qur’aan  brings  within  its  purview  the  whole  of  the  immutable  Deen  whose  perfection  and  completion  Allah  Ta’ala  has  announced  in  the  Qur’aan.  The  protection  is  not  confined  to  the  text  of  the  Qur’aan  Majeed.  Allah’s  promised  Protection  extends  over  the  entire  Deen  which  He  says  He  has  completed  and  perfected.  But  the  jaahil  with  vermiculated  brains  speculates  that  the  Ahaadith  on  which  is  based  the authenticity  of  the  Qur’aan  and  which  constitute  the  bulwark  of  the  Shariah  have  remained  unprotected  to  be  fodder  for  the  corrupt  interpretations  of  the  modernist  juhhaal.

If  the  Ahaadith  did  not  enjoy  Divine  Protection,  then  today there  would  have  been  no Qur’aan  and  no  immutable  Shariah.  The  compilation  of  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  during  the  age  of  the  Sahaabah  was  a  sacred  Task  accomplished  on  the  foundation  of  Ahaadith. Narrations  which  do  not  form  part  of  the  Shariah  should  not  be  cynically  and  deceptively confused  with  the  Protected  Ahaadith  which  constitute  not  only  the  foundation,  but  also the  super  edifice  of  the  Shariah.  For  the  protection  of  the  text  of  the  Qur’aan,  Allah  Ta’ala  has  created  the  Institution  of  the  Huffaaz.  For  the  protection  of  the  Shariah,  Allah  Ta’ala  has  created  the  Institution  of  the  Ulama.  This  Institution  is  divided  into  several  categories.  For  the  protection  of  the  Ahaadith,  Allah  Ta’ala  has  created  the  Jamaat  of  the  Muhadditheen.    After  the  accomplishment  of  their  sacred  Task  of  compiling  the  Ahaadith, the  Institution  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  terminated  since  the  objective  had  been  achieved.  Hence,    after  the  era  of  the  Muhadditheen,  we  no  longer  find  Ulama  of  the Muhadditheen  calibre.  The  ‘muhadditheen’  of  later  centuries  were  not  Muhadditheen  in  the meaning  of  the  Institution  as  it  existed  in  the  era  of  Khairul  Quroon. Thus,  the  averment  that  the  Ahaadith  has  been  left  unprotected  is  kufr.  It  is  a  plot  of  the  modernist  juhhaal  plot  to  introduce  and  innovate  kufr  views  and  ideas  into  Islam.  The  motive  underlying  this  stupid  averment  of  kufr  is  to  leave  open  a  window  through  which  baatil  and  kufr  could  be introduced  by  stealth.

Regardless  of  the  classification  of  Ahaadith  by  the  Muhadditheen  of  the  post Aimmah Mujtahideen  era,  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah,  were  already  well  defined  and  entrenched  in  the  Ummah,  long  before  the  appearance  of  the  Muhadditheen.  The  Sunnah  as  it  was  handed  to  the  Ummah  by  the  Sahaabah  to  the  Taabieen  is  independent  of  and  not  in  need of  the  Hadith  classification  science  of  the  later  Muhadditheen.  The  Sahaabah  and  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  did  not  need    Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  and  Imaam Muslim  (rahmatullah  alayh)  for  establishing  the  Edifice  of  the  Sunnah  with  its  concomitant  Shariah.  The  Muhadditheen  could  not  and  did  not  discard  any  aspect  of  the  inherited  Sunnah  on  the  basis  of  their  classification  of  Ahaadith.  On  the  contrary,  they  would  make amal  on  (practically  implement)  the  inherited  Sunnah  even  it appeared  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  text  of  any  Hadith  which  they  had  classified  Saheeh.

The  Sunnah  is  not  subservient  to  the  Science  formulated  by  the  later  Muhadditheen.  The modernist  Juhhaal  are  making  baboons  and  donkeys  of  themselves  with  their  stupid  attempts  of  shoving  their  ludicrous  snouts  into  this  sacred  Domain.  The  Domain  of  Hadith  does  not  admit  any  dalliance  with  the  stupidities  of  morons  who  attempt  to  project  themselves  as  authorities  of  the  Shariah.  The  moron’s  superficial  mention  of  the  Hadith  classes  is  simply  an  exercise  to  flaunt  ‘expertise’  in  the  Science  of  Hadith.  But  the  moron  is  bankrupt  in  this  sphere.

The  modernist  zindeeq  moron  avers:  “An  examination  of  these  classifications  is  sufficient  indication  that  hadith  criticism  is  not  new.  Indeed  hadith  criticism  has  existed  from  the  time  the  first  ahadith  were  narrated.”

The  Ghabi  has  only  exhibited  his  scandalous  jahaalat  by  this  stupid  averment.  Criticism  of  Hadith  is  tantamount  to     criticism  of  the  Qur’aan.  There  never  existed  a  ‘science’  called  ‘Hadith  Criticism’.  The  Authorities  of  the  Shariah  did  not  indulge  in  the  kufr  act  of  criticizing  Ahaadith.  The  consequence  of  criticizing  Ahaadith  was  execution  in the  early  days.  Hadith  classification  is  not  Hadith  criticism.  Rejection  of  a  Hadith  due  to  its  spurious  chain  of  narration    or  lack  of  a  viable  chain  or  on  the  basis  of  any  other  principle  of  the  Muhadditheen,  is  not  to  be  confused  with  Hadith  criticism.  The  examination  of  the  chains  of  narration  by  the  Muhadditheen  was  for  establishing  the  authenticity  of  the  Ahaadith,  not  for  criticizing  the  Matan  (the  body  or  the  actual narration). The  Task  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  Hadith  Compilation,  not  Hadith interpretation  and  not  formulation  of  masaail  on  the  basis  of  Ahaadith.  That  was  a function  superbly  and  adequately  executed  by  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  centuries prior  to  the  age  of  the  Muhadditheen.

Therefore,  it  is  not  permissible  to  wrought  any  change  in  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  on  the  basis  of  any  interpretation  of  the  much  later  Ulama  such  as  Imaam  Suyuti,  Ibn  Qayyim,  Shawkaani,  etc.  if  such  interpretation  conflicts  with  the    Sunnah  and  Shariah  which  have  been  handed  down  to  the  Ummah  from  the  era  of  Khairul  Quroon. These  later  Ulama,  comparatively  speaking,  are  non-entities  in  relation  to  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Aimmah  Muijtahideen  and  the  Fuqaha  Mutaqaddimeen.  Furthermore,  these  illustrious  later  Ulama  were  not  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah  and  Shariah  expounded    and  practised  by the  Mutaqaddimeen  Authorities.  But  the  juhhaal of  these  times  bamboozle  the  ignorant and  the  unwary  by  citing  statements  of  these  Ulama  totally  out  of  context,  as  well  as  on  the basis  of  their  extremely  deficient  understanding  of    what  they  read  in  the  kutub.  The  Domain  of  Hadith  is  for  these  juhhaal foreign  territory.  It  is  dangerous  and  forbidden  for them  to  even  contemplate  traversing  the  Valleys  of  Ahaadith.  The  domain  for  the modernist  moron  is  the  pre-Maktab  class,  for  he  is  still  donning  the  diapers  of  infants.  If  he  has  any  idea  of  the  meaning  of  Imaan,  then  he  should  not  destroy  the  Treasure  with  reckless  disgorgement  of  kufr.

There  did  not  exist  any  Hadith  Criticism  branch  of  Knowledge  in  Islam.  To  say  that  “criticism  of  hadith  is  not  a  new  enterprise’  is  to  advertise  jahljahl  murakkab (compound ignorance)  or  jahaalat  piled  on  top  of  jahaalat – ignorance  consisting  of  multiple  of  layers.  Hadith  criticism  is  haraam.  It  is  kufr.  It  is  not  a  permissible  enterprise.  Criticism  of  the  Isnaad  is  not  criticism  of  the  Hadith.

The  moron  attempts  to  extravasate  capital  for  his  kufr  idea  from  the  rejection  of narrations  by  the  Muhadditheen.  In  the  rejection  of  narrations  by  Imaam  Bukhaari  and  other  Muhadditheen  there  is no  support  for  the  corrupt  view  of  the  jaahil.  The  setting  aside  of  narrations  was  determined  by  the  status  of  the  Isnaad  (chain  of  narration),  not  by  the Matan  as  the  moron  abortively  attempt  to  convey.  Matan  was  a  Scrutiny  of  the  principle  invoked  in  exceptional  cases  in  the  absence  of  a  viable  Isnaad.

Commenting  on  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  methodology  of  Hadith  Compilation,  the  moron avers:

“It  is  said  that  he  (Imaam  Bukhaari)  had  collected  more  than  600,000  ahadith.  However, only  3,500  appear  in  his  collection;  he  rejected  the  rest  as  not  fulfilling  his  criteria  for authenticity.  For  him,  every  hadith  was  fake  until  it  was  proven  authentic.”

The  setting  aside  of  Ahaadith    which  did  not  conform  to  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  criteria  is  not a  daleel  for  such  narrations    being  fake  and  fabrications.  Many  other  Muhadditheen  had accepted  and  compiled     numerous  Ahaadith  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  Imaam Bukhaari’s  Compendium.  Furthermore,  he  had  set  aside  the  narrations  in  terms  of  his criteria  applicable  to  the Isnaad.  But,  his  acceptance  and  setting  aside  of  Ahaadith  did  not adversely  affect  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  which  were  in  existence  and  practically implemented  by  even  Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh),  not  in  terms  of  his Hadith Compilation,  but  according  to  the  Inherited  Sunnah  and  Shariah.  The  objective  of  Hadith  collection  was  not  to  effect  change  in  the  Sunnah  and  Shariah..  On  the  contrary,  the  plot  of  the  modernist juhhaal  underlying  their  stupid  ‘hadith  criticism’  exercises is  to  scuttle  the  Sunnah  and  to  undermine  the  Shariah.

The  averment  that  Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  believed  every  Hadith  to  be ‘fake’  is  a  dastardly  slander  hurled  at  this  great  Authority  of  Hadith.  Truly,  we  are  living in  the  age  of Juhhaal.  The  density  of  the  brains  of  these  morons  is  indeed  shocking.  This  moron  believes  that  he  is  on  the  pedestal  of  Imaam  Bukhaari.  He  hallucinates  that  he  is  an  authority  of  Hadith  hence  capable  of  submitting  any  Hadith  to  the  scrutiny  of  his  nafs  and  stercoraceous  skull  to  enable  him  to  disgorge  his  skullduggery.  Thus  he  says: “….it  is  very  instructive  to  examine  (historical)  matn  criticism  before  we  ignorant  people decide  to  do  our  own.”   Here  His  jahaalat  boggles  the  imagination.

Here  we  have  a  modernist  moron  deficient  in  even  the  Sunnah  methodology  of  Istinja, believing  that  a  superficial  reading  and   ‘examination  of  matn  criticism’  qualifies  him  to be  a  Bukhaari  or  a  Muslim  or  a  Nisaai’,  etc.  We  must  concede  that  nothing  by  way  of  naseehat  is  capable  of  penetrating  the  layer  of  density  in  which  the  brains  of  a  modernist Juhhaal  is  ensconced.

In  his  endeavour  to  find  room  for  his  haraam  enterprise  of  hadith  criticism,  the  moron says:

“Bukhari’s  hadith  that  Adam’s  height  was  60  cubits  was  criticized  by  Ibn  Hajar,  arguing that  archeological  measurements  of  homes  of  ancient  people  show  they  were  not  abnormally  tall.”  

But  archeological  measurements  show  that  ancient  animals  were  extremely  massive.  Whilst  morons  are  swift  in  their  acknowledgement  of  the  ‘correctness’  of  the  huge  size  of  extinct  animals  such  as  dinosaurs,  they  react  with  kufr  at  the  size  of  Hadhrat  Aadam (alayhis  salaam)  stated  in  the  Saheeh  Hadith.  The  existence  and  massive  size  of  dinosaurs and  other  ‘pre-historic’  animals  of  huge  sizes  established  by  archeological  discoveries, dubious  calculations  and  spurious  theories  of  conjecture  and  guesswork  are  accepted  by the  modernist  juhhaal  as  if  these  are  effects  of  divine  revelation  (Wahi),  but  the  height  of  Hadhrat  Aadam  (alayhis  salaam)  substantiated  by  Wahi  is  not  only  frowned  on,  but  rejected  by  the  modernist  Zanaadiqah.  Whatever  the  western  atheists  excrete  into  their  mouths,  the  modernist  morons  ingest  it  with  relish.  This  confirms  their  kufr.

It  is  quite  logical – a  rationality  which  even  a  child  of  discernment  will  comprehend  that  to  ride  and  rein  in  huge  animals  of  the  massive  size  of  dinosaurs,  the  people  had  to  be  of  proportionate  size.  The  people  who  had  lived  in  that  age  of  huge  animals  must themselves  have  been  huge.  A  miniature  modernist  moron  of  this  age  would  not  have  been  able  to  sit  on  a  dinosaur  or  a  horse  of  that  size.  In  fact,  he  would  drown  in  the  animal’s  urine,  and  the  ton  of  faeces  let  out  with  force  would  annihilate  him  in  the  way  lava  is  shot  out  by  an  erupting  volcano.

The  moron,  in  citing  Ibn  Hajar,  has  either  perpetrated  chicanery  or  has  genuinely  stated  what  he  has  stupidly  understood  from  his  excessively  deficient  ‘research’  of  the  writings  of  moron  professors  of  universities,  or  from  some  crash  course  administered  by  his  ilk.  Ibn  Hajar  has  NOT  faulted  the  authenticity  of  Hadith  whose  Isnaad  is  beyond  the  slightest  vestige  of  reproach.  The  Hadith  in  question  is  of  the  highest  degree  of  Authenticity.  It  is  narrated  by  Bukhaari,  Muslim  and  all  Authorities  of  Hadith.  None  of  the illustrious  Muhadditheen  or  any  of  the  noble  Fuqaha  of  any  age,  had  ever  criticized  the  Hadith,  whether  Sanad  or  Matan.

The  criticism  of  Zindeeqs,  non-entities,  juhhaal  and  modernist  morons  is  of  no significance  and  no  consequence.  One  such  total  non-entity  is  Ibn  Khaldun  and  another  hardcore  modernist  murtad,  Fareed   Wajdi.  Commenting  on  Ibn  Khaldun’s  stupidity, Allamah  Anwar  Shah  Kashmiri  (rahmatullah  alayh)  said:  “What  has  constrained  this person  to  refute  a  Saheeh  Hadith  (which  is  Saheeh)  to  the  Nation  (i.e.  the  illustrious Conglomerate  of  Muhadditheen)…….What  would  be  appropriate  is  that  these  types  of  (kufr)  arguments  should  be  criticized  with  the  Saheeh  Hadith,  not  the  other  way  around,  i.e.  to  mutilate  the  Hadith  (with  arguments  of  kufr).”

Contrary  to  what  the  miserable  modernist  jaahil  has  peddled,  Ibn  Hajar  did  NOT  fault  the  authenticity  of  the  Hadith.  He  did  not  criticize  the  Sanad NOR  the  Matan  of  the  Hadith.  He  had  voiced  his  own  lack  of  understanding  in  the  light  of    the  spurious  archeological  facts.  It  is  indeed  surprising  that  an  authority  of  Ibn  Hajr’s  calibre  being  baffled  by  the  ambiguity  generated  by  archeological  facts  which  in  reality  are  the  effects of  conjecture  which  spawned  ambiguity  in  Ibn  Hajar’s  understanding  of  the  Hadith.

Ibn  Hajar  had  failed  to  understand  the  Hadith  in  the  light  of  archeological  discoveries  of  the  size  of  the  houses  which  were  assumed  to  be  the  homes  of  the  Thamud  nation.  This  is  not  the  occasion  to  present  a  detailed  refutation  of  the  spurious  nature  of  archeology.  It  will  suffice  to  say  that  a  Hadith  whose  authenticity  is  corroborated  by  Ijma’  of  the  Muhadditheen  can never  be  criticized  if  the  meaning  of  the  text  cannot  be  understood.  Or  if  its  meaning  appears  to  be  in  conflict  with  defective  human  reasoning.  When  a  fact  is  declared  Saheeh  by  the  Qur’aan  or  the  Hadith,  no  other  evidence  in  negation  will  be  acceptable.

Despite  Ibn  Hajar  having  accepted  the  authenticity  of  the  Hadith  in  question,  and  also  the  text  of  the  Hadith,    the  ambiguity  in  his  mind based  on  what  the  archeologists  say  is  corrupt,  spurious  and  mardood.  The  Hadith  of  Imaam  Bukhaari  on  this  issue  stands  while  the  trepidation  of  Ibn  Hajar,  which  is  bereft  of  Shar’i  daleel  must  necessarily  be  dismissed.

The  inability  of  an  Aalim  a  thousand  years  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  to understand  the  meaning  of  the  Hadith,  is  not  a  basis  for  justifying  criticism  of  the  Hadith  or  of  the  Shariah  by  modernist  morons.  Be  that  as  it  may.  Hadith  of  this  type  does  not  form  part  of  the  practical  Sunnah,  observance  of  which  is  compulsory  according  to  the  Qur’aan.  Whether  Hadhrat  Aadam  (alayhis  salaam)  was  60  cubits  tall  or  10 cubits,  is  not  Sanad  nor  the  Sunnah.  The  Sunnah  is  to  maintain  silence  on  such  issues  of  ambiguity.  Since  neither  the Matan  of  this  Hadith  has  been  criticized  by  any  Authority  of  the  Shariah,  the  moron  has  only  displayed  his  gross  jahaalat by  having introduced  this  Hadith in  defence  of  his  kufr  concept  of  hadith  criticism.

In  another  abortive  attempt  to  peddle  his  kufr,  the  moron  says: “Another  hadith  in  Bukhari  that  the  Qur’anic  verse  ‘And  if  two  parties  of  believers  fall  into  fighting,  make  peace  between  them’  refers  to  the  conflict  between  the  Companions  and  Abdullah  ibn Ubayy  was  criticized  by  Ibn  Battal  who  said  Ibn  Ubayy  had  not  embraced  Islam  at  the time.”

A  minor  historical  discrepancy  or  error  of  this  nature  does  not  detract  from  the  validity and  enduring  nature  of  the  Sunnah.  The  occasion  of  the  revelation  of  the  specific Qur’aanic  verse  is  irrelevant  in  the  context  of  the  observance  of  the  Sunnah.  The  Sunnah, when  two  groups  of  the  Muslimineen  fight/dispute,    remains  static  and  immutable.  The  historical  error  or  the  ambiguity  of  the  occasion  of  the  revelation  does  not  result  in  any  change  of  the  Sunnah  command  of  resolving  mutual  disputes.  Regardless  of  when  the  aayat  was  revealed  or  who  the  disputing  parties  were  at  the  time  of  the  revelation,  the Sunnah  stated  in  the  aayat  remains  unchanged.  The  ambiguity  of  the  occasion  cannot  be  presented  as  a  basis  for  justifying  hadith  criticism  by  morons  more  than  14  centuries  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).

IBRAAHEEM, THE SON OF RASULULLAH (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)
Selecting  another  Hadith  for  baseless  criticism,  the  moron  avers: “Al-Nawawi,  Ibn  Abdul Barr  and  Ibn  Al-Athir  severely  criticized  the  hadith  that  if  Ibrahim,  son  of  Muhammad  had  lived,  he  would  have  been  a  nabi.  Shawkani  listed  it  as  a  forged  hadith.”

Notwithstanding  the  status  of  Imaam  Nawawi  and  Ibn  Abdul  Barr,  their  criticism  is  misplaced  and  utterly  baseless.  In  fact  their  decrepit  view   pertaining  to  this  Hadith  has  been  severely  castigated  by  the  Authorities  of  the  Shariah.  The  errors  of   even  the  greatest Aalim  are  set  aside  and  rejected.  Those  who  establish  the  errors  of  seniors  as  their  basis for  argument  display  their  lack  or  destruction  of  Imaan

Allamah Abdul  Wahhaab Sha’raani  (rahmatullah  alayh)  said:  “He  who  takes  to  the  obscurities  (and  errors)  of  the Ulama,  has  made  his  exit  from  Islam.” 

The  errors,  especially  the  glaring  errors  such  as  the error  of  Imaam  Nawawi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  and  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  (rahmatullah  alayh)  relevant  to  this  particular  Hadith,  are  to  be  incumbently  set  aside  and  discarded.  Only  a  moron  bereft  of  Imaan  justifies  an  argument  on  the  basis  of  such  baseless  views  structured  on  pure  error.

Commenting  on  this  glaring  error,  Mullah  Ali  Qaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in Mirqaatul  Mafaateeh: 

“Of  the  established  rules  in  Usool  is  that  the  Mauqoof  of  a  Sahaabi,  when  it  cannot  be  attributed  to  opinion,  is  in  the  category  of  Mar’foo’.  Thus  the rejection  of  Nawawi  similar  to  that  of  Ibnul  Barr,  is  either  on  account  of  them  both  being  uninformed  (on  this  issue)  or  due  to  their  inability  to  effect  (a  suitable)  ta’weel  (interpretation).  And  Allah  knows  best.”

Allaamah  As-Sindhi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in Kifaayatul  Haajat  fi Sharhi  Sunan Abu  Maajah:

“Such  a  statement  (which  is  mentioned  in  this  specific  Hadith)  is  not  the effect  of  opinion.  Verily  a  Jamaat  of  Sahaabah  has  maintained  it.  However,  rejection  of  the  Hadith  of Anas  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  by  Ibn Abdul Barr…………..(this  view  of  Ibnul Barr)  is  not  a  necessary  corollary  of  the  aforementioned  Hadith.”  (We  have  omitted  the view  of  Ibnul  Barr  at  this  juncture – the  author). “It  appears  that  Nawawi  had  followed  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  (in  his  baseless  view).  This  is indeed  strange  (ludicrous)  in  view  of  it  (this  Hadith)  being  narrated  by  three  Sahaabah. He  (Ibn  Hajr)  said  in  Al-Fath:  ‘It  is  probable  that  he  (Nawawi)  did  not  remember  the narration  from  three  Sahaabah,  hence  he  rejected  it.”

In  simple  terms,  the  above  means:

➡ A  Hadith  whose  Isnaad terminates  at  a  Sahaabi,  is  termed  Mauqoof.  If  the  content matter  of  the  Hadith  is  not  the  opinion  of  the  Sahaabi,  then  according  to  the  established  principles  of  Hadith,  the  narration  is  in  the  class  of Marfoo’.

Marfoo’  is  a  Hadith  whose Isnaad  links  up  with  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).

➡ The  particular  Hadith  in  question  states  that  if    Ibraaheem  (Rasulullah’s  son  who had  died  in  infancy)  had  lived,  he  would  have  been  a  Nabi.  This  statement  made  by  at  least  three  Sahaabah    cannot  be  attributed  to  the  opinion  of  the  Sahaabah.  It  is  similar  to  Rasulullah’s  statement  reported  in  a  Saheeh  Hadith:  “If  there  had  to  be  a  Nabi  after  me,  it would  be  Umar.”

➡ Imaam  Nawawi  in  all  probability  was  unaware  of  the  Hadith  attributed  to  three Sahaabah  or  he  had  forgotten  this  fact,  hence  he  simply  latched  on  to  the  view  of  Ibn Abdul  Barr  who  had  preceded  him.

➡ Imaam  Nawawi  had  not  presented  a  single  basis  or  evidence  for  arbitrarily  saying that  the  Hadith  is  ‘baatil’.

➡ Ibn  Abdul  Barr’s view  is  likewise  spurious  which  the  Authorities  have  highlighted.

These  modernist  juhhaal are  quick  to  selectively  cite  views  of  tenth  century  Ulama  –  views  which  appeal  to  their  nafs.  They  swiftly  adopt  views  which  developed  a  thousand  years  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  while  rejecting  the  decrees  of  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen.  They  adopt  an  eerie  silence  regarding  the  orthodox  views  of  even  the  tenth  century  Scholars,  but  project  some  seemingly  ‘liberal’  aspects  of  these  Ulama  in  the  nefarious  attempt  to  eke  out  support  for  their  vile  opinions  of  kufr

The  ‘liberal’  views  which  the  modernist  morons  cite  appear  ‘liberal’  when  presented  deceptively  beyond  the  confines  of  their  respective  contexts.

Ulama  such  as  Ibn  Hajar  and  Imaam  Suyuti  were  extremely  orthodox  and  at  one  with  the  Fuqaha  of  the  Khairul  Quroon. They  were  staunch  Muqallideen  of  the  Aimmah Mujtahideen.  They  were  not  aberrations,  deviates  and  morons  as  are  the  modernist  juhhaal.  If  a  view  here  and  there  of  these  great  Ulama  appears  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  entrenched  Sunnah  practice  of  the  Sahaabah  and  Taabieen,  the  solution  is  to  posit  a  suitable  interpretation  for  attaining  reconciliation.  The  isolated  view  of  conflict  of  some  10th  Century  Ulama  is  never  a  basis  for  the  kufr  fabrications  of  modernist  morons.  These  miserable  morons  have  no  licence  to  quote  Imaam  Suyuti,  etc.  They  are  too  stupid  and  dense  in  the  brains  to  understand  what  these  illustrious  Ulama  said.

That  there  were  and  are  forged  narrations  is  not  denied.  But    such  forgeries  have  already been  sifted  out  and  labelled  by  the  Muhadditheen.  It  is  important  to  understand  that  nothing  of  the  forged  narrations  form  part  of  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah.  There  is  not  a  single  forged  hadith  which  constitutes  a mustadal  for  the  masaail  of  the  Shariah  formulated  by  the  Fuqha-e-Mutaqaddimeen.  The  job  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  to  sift  out  the  forgeries.  It  never  was  their  function  to  formulate  the  Shariah  and  to  establish  the  Sunnah. This  obligation  was  executed  par  excellence  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  and  the  Sahaabah.  The  Muhadditheen  were  cast  in  a  completely  different  role.

Different  interpretations  of  Ahaadith  on  abstract  issues  do  not  create  latitude  in  the Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  for  intrusion  and  interpolation  by  modernist  morons.  The  Sunnah and  the  Shariah  are  immutably  static.  The  accommodation  of    future  and  new  developments  into  the  fabric  of  the  Sunnah  and  Shariah  is  likewise  a  static  exercise  since  such    incorporation  is  effected  on  the  basis  of  static  Usool  which  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  had  formulated  in  the  light  of  the  Qur’aan  and  Sunnah.  Thus  the  latitude  and  free  play  which  the  modernist  jaahil  searches  for  are  not  to  be  found  within  the  framework  of  the  Islam  which  Allah  Ta’ala  had  completed  and  perfected  during  the  very  lifetime  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  thereby  leaving  absolutely  no  scope  for  moronist  interference.  With  regard  to  these  modernist juhhaal,  the  Qur’aan  advises  us:

When  they  (the  Mu’mineen)  hear  laghw  (the  rubbish  and  nonsense  of  morons),  they turn  away  from  it,  and  they  say:  ‘For  us  are  our  deeds  and  for  you  are  your  deeds.  Salaam  on  you.  We  do  not  follow  the  jaahileen  (modernist  morons).

The  aim  of  the  aforegoing    brief  discussion  is  merely    to  highlight  the  ignorance  of  the modernist who  has  set  himself  up  as  a  ‘authority’  on  Hadith.  The  purpose  of  this article  is  not  to  present  a  detailed refutation  of  the  moron’s    spurious  arguments    pertaining to  the  several  Ahaadith  which  have  been  assailed  by  another  moron professor-– a  university in  his  writings  from  whence  the  local  moron  has  lapped  up  his  bunkum.

THE AIM OF THE MORON’S ESSAY The  plot  of  the  modernist juhhaal  is  to  scuttle  the  14  century  Shariah  of  Islam  and  to substitute  it  with  a  Yahood-Nasaara  type  concocted    religion  which  could  be  paraded under  the  name  of  ‘Islam’.  The  first  step  in  this  pernicious  plot  is  to  fault  and  denigrate the  Ahaadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam). To  achieve  this  goal,  the  morons of  our  age  have  latched  on  to  some  rare  criticism  by  some  recognized  Ulama  who  appeared  on  the  scene  many  centuries  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).

Warning  us  to  be  on  guard  against  these juhhaals Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:

“Verily,  I  have  been  given  the  Qur’aan  and  a  likeness  with  it.  Soon  will  there  be  an  obese man  reclining  on  his  couch  saying:  “Adhere  to  this  Kitaab  (the  Qur’aan).  Whatever  you find  halaal  in  it,  regard  it  to  be  halaal.  Whatever  you  find  haraam  in  it,  regard  it  to  be haraam.”  (Then  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  added):  “Verily,  whatever  the Rasool  has  made  haraam  is  just  as  what  Allah has  made  haraam.”

This  Hadith  warns  us  of  the  likes  of  these  modernist  morons  whose  satanic  mission  it  is  to  debunk  the  Ahaadith  which  do  not  find  favour  with  their  western  kuffaar  orientalist masters.

The  morons  aim  to  arrogate  the  right  of  criticizing  Ahaadith  to  themselves,  arguing  that  the  rare  criticism  of  some  Ulama  as  well  as  their  personal  reasoning  are  evidence  for  the validity  of    their  stupid  kufr  theory  of  hadith  criticism.  But  criticizing  Hadith  is  like  criticizing  the  Qur’aan.  The  rare  and  obscure  views  of  a  couple  of  6th,  7th,  8th, and  9th  century  Ulama  have  to  be  dismissed  as  baseless  and  unauthorized.  In  the  face  of  the  rulings  and  views  of  the  Mutaqaddimeen  Muhadditheen  such  as  Imaam  Bukhaari,  Imaam Muslim  and  the  many  others  of  the  Khairul  Quroon era,  the  opinions  of  the  stragglers  who  appeared    hundreds  of  years  later,  have  absolutely  no  footing  and  no  significance.  It  is  gross  stupidity  to  cite  a  view  of  Imaam  Nawawi  or  of  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  or  of  the  deviate  Ibn Qayyim  in  either  negation  of  or  to  fault  the  narrations  of  the  Sihaah  Sittah.  It  is  indeed laughable  to  present  the  criticism  of  Shawkaani  or  of  Ibn  Qayyim  to  attack  the  authenticity  of  the  Ahaadith  of  Bukhaari.

The  views  of  Ulama  of  the  8th  and  9th centuries,  if  in  conflict  with  the  entrenched  views  of  the  Ulama  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  era,  have  to  be  incumbently  discounted  and  set  aside  as  errors.  The  rulings  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  era  are  authenticated  by  the  Qur’aan.  Qur’aanic  command  is  to  obey  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  He  said:  “The  best  of  eras  is  my  era,  then  the  next  era,  then  the  next  era…..” (i.e.  the  age  of  the  Sahaabah, Taabieen  and  Tab-e-Taabieen).  The  Hadith  continues: “Then  after  them  will  be  people who  will  (make  haste)  to  bear  testimony  whilst  they  are  not  called  on  to  testify;  they  will betray  trust  and  cannot  be  trusted;  they  will  pledge  and  not  fulfil  their  pledges…….Then will  come  people  who  will  love  obesity.” (That  is:  they  will  become  fat,  lazy  and  stupid with  their  indulgence  in  luxuries).

In  another  Hadith,  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: “Honour  my  Sahaabah, for  verily,  they  are  your  noblest;  then  those  after  them;  then  those  after  them.  Thereafter kithb  (falsehood/lies)  will  become  prevalent.”

All  of  these  modernist  juhhaal are  among  the  progeny  of  the  obese  liars  mentioned  by Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Their  first  hurdle  in    the  execution  of  their  nefarious  conspiracy  of  scuttling  the  Divine  Shariah,  is  to  denigrate  and  negate  the  primary  basis  of  the  Shariah,  which  is  the  Ahaadith  on  which  the  Edifice  of  the  Sunnah  is  structured.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  moron  has  disgorged  his  article  of  hadith  criticism.  If  a  window    to  criticize  the  Ahaadith  is  opened  through  which  these  modernist  obese  liars  could  slink,  they  will  wrought  villainy  and  destruction  to  the  Deen.  But  Allah  Ta’ala  has  established  the  Institution  of  the  Ulama-e-Haqq  to  take  care  of  these  obese  liars  and morons  masquerading  as  Muslims  and  wellwishers  of  the  Ummah.  They  are  miserable  sewer  rats  gnawing  at  the  foundations  of  Islam.

Since  the  demarcation  for  the  Divine  Haqq  is  Khairul  Quroon,  we  are  not  interested  in  the tafarrudaat,  errors  and  obscurities  of  Ulama  who    flourished  many  centuries  after  the  termination  of  Khairul  Quroon.  The  Authority  of  the  Shariah  and  the  authentic Shariah  and  Sunnah  are  what  had  existed  in  the  Three  Golden  Ages  of  Islam  specifically  demarcated  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Regardless  of  the  lofty  status  of  any  Aalim  who  existed  a  couple  of  centuries  after  the  Golden  Epoch,  any  view  of  his  which  conflicts  with  the  view  of  the  Sahaabah,  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  and  Muhadditheen  of  that  epoch  will  be  buried,  albeit  with  decorum.  It  shall  be  interpreted as  a  slip  or  genuine  error  of  the  Aalim.  Every  good  horse  also  slips.  No  man  is  beyond  commission  of  error –  in  fact  numerous  errors.

It  is  indeed  stupid,  in  fact  treacherous,  to  cite  Imaam  Nawawi  or  Ibn  Abdul  Barr,  and Ibn  Qayyim  who  has  no  rank  in relation  to  the  former  two  authorities,  in  negation  of  any Islamic  ruling  or  practice  which  had  existed  during  the  age  of  the  Sahaabah  or  the Taabieen.  We  are  not  the  muqallideen  of  Imaam  Nawawi  or  of  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  or  of  Shawkaani  or  of  Ibn  Qayyim.  We  are  the  Muqallideen  of  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  era.  The  moron  may  bamboozle  other  modernist  morons  with  these names  and  chicanery.  He  may  perhaps  succeed  with  his  skullduggery  in  the  ranks  of  his  likes.  But  for  those  of  true  Ilm, to  cite  feather-weights  and  non-weights  as  ‘authorities  with  the  power  of  abrogation’  is  ludicrous  and  laughable.  The  morons  simply  make  a  laughing  stock  of  themselves  when  they  disgorge  absolute  rubbish  which  they  attempt  to  pass  off  as  products  of  academic  study.

When  a  view  on  Hadith,  which  developed  300  years  after  Imaam  Bukhaari,  clashes  with    Bukhaari’s  authentication,  the  Deen  and  Intelligence  will  summarily  refute  that  view  as baatil.  That  belated  view  may  not  be  presented  in  negation    of  Imaam  Bukhaari’s accreditation  of  Ahaadith.  Why  did  this  later  view  not  exist  during  the  age  of  Khairul  Quroon?  Why  was  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  accreditation  valid  and  accepted  by  all authorities  during  the  300  year  gap  between  him  and  Imaam  Nawawi?  It  is  indeed  ridiculous  to  reject  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  accreditation  and  authentication  on  the  basis  of  a  baseless  view  which  developed  three  centuries  after  him.  Imaam  Nawawi’s  view  of  the  specific  Hadith  being  baatil,  It  is  an  arbitrary  opinion  unsubstantiated  by  any  evidence.  He  presents  no  daleel for  his  view.  Relative  to  Imaam    Bukhaari  and  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  of  the  Khairul  Quroon,  Ulama  who  appeared  many  centuries  thereafter  hold no  rank.  All  of  them  were  the  Muqallideen  of  one  of  the  Four  Mathhabs.  Their  isolated  and  decrepit  views  cannot  denigrate  the  Shariah  as  it  was  known  and  taught  by  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen.

Consider  the  statement  of  Ibn  Qayyim:  he  says  that  even  if  the  Isnaad  is  as  bright  as  the sun,  the  Hadith  is  not  acceptable.  We  are  constrained  to  say  that  something  had  gone  drastically  wrong  with  his  intellectual  grasp  at  the  time  when  he  was  blabbering  this gutha.  The  bedrock  of  Hadith  Autenticity  is  its  Isnaad, not  its Matan.  Regardless  of  how irrational  the  content  matter  of  the  Hadith  may  appear  to  modernist  morons,  if  the  Isnaad  is  Saheeh,  then  that  Hadith  is  authentic  whether  it  forms  part  of  the  Sunnah  or  not.  And,  rejection  of  a  Hadith  whose  Isnaad  is  as  bright  as  the  sun, is  not  tantamount  to  kufr.  It is in  reality  kufr.  The Asaaneed  of  Ahaadith  Mutawaatarah  and  Mashhoorah  are  in  fact  “as  bright  as  the  sun.”  They  are  in  the  category  of  Qur’aanic  aayaat.  Ibn  Qayyim  had  indeed  uttered  a  heinous  notriety  by  unthinkably    blurting  out  such  ghutha.

The  sinister  aim  for  propagating  the  haraam  theory  of  hadith  criticism,  and  citing  the  rarities  and  obscurities  of  some  10th century  Ulama  in  an  abortive  attempt  to  justify  the haraam  exercise,  is  to  arrogate  for  themselves  (i.e.  for  the  modernist  juhhaal)  the  right  to  submit  to  their  corrupt  opinion  any  Hadith  appearing  in  Sihaah  Sittah,  then  on  the  basis  of  their  understanding  heavily  contaminated  by  the  indoctrination  of  western  education,  they  desire  to  re-classify  the  Ahaadith  which  were  authenticated  by  the  Muhadditheen  and  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  of  the  noble Khairul  Quroon  era.  Thus,  if  a  modernist  moron  reasons  that  the  Hadith  on  which  is  based,  for  example,  the  Shariah’s  ruling  that  a  grandson  does  not  inherit  his  deceased  father’s  share  in  the  estate  of  his  father  (the grandson’s  grandfather)  since  the  father  (the  grandson’s  father)  had  pre-deceased  his  father,  is  unreasonable,  then  the  Hadith  may  be  excised  and  deposited  in  the  dirt  bin  to  enable  the juhhaal  to  issue  a  new  ruling  allowing  the  grandson  to  inherit  in  this  case.

Or,  if  a  modernist  moron  understands  in  terms  of  his    kufr  westernized  reasoning process  that  the  Hadith  on  which  is  based  the  ruling  that  the  father  has  the  right  to  have  his  minor  daughter  married,  is  irrational,  then  he  is  allowed  to  ‘attack’  the  Hadith  in  the  manner  in  which  Al-Ismaaili  or  Imaam  Nawawi  or  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  or  Shawkaani  had  ‘attacked’  some  Ahaadith.    In  short,  the  modernist  ignoramuses  indoctrinated  by  the  orientalist  enemies  of  Islam,  are  striving  to  arrogate    to  themselves  the  right  to  freely  criticize  just  any  Hadith  which  they  believe  is  in  conflict  with  western  rationalism.

In  fact,  the  ultimate  kufr  plot  is  to  subject  even  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  to  the  same  treatment  of  kufr  criticism.  This  process  has  already  been  subtly  and  devilishly  initiated.  Qur’aanic  verses  which  explicitly  declare  the  superiority  of  men  and  the  subservience  of  women,  especially  the  aayat  which  allows  for  the  grossly  disobedient  wife  to  be  beaten, are  being  subjected  to    interpretation  which  is  baseless  and  kufr.  The  initial  stage  is  to interpret  away  such  Qur’aanic  verses  which  do  not  conform  to  the  rationalism  of  the western  kuffaar.  The  next  phase  to  excise  these  aayat  from  the  Qur’aan  in  the  way  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  have    mutilated  the  Tauraah  and  the  Injeel.  But,  as  far  as  the  Qur’aan  and  even  the  Ahaadith  are  concerned,  they  will  miserably  fail.  Allah  Ta’ala  Himself  has  undertaken  the  responsibility  of  guarding  this  Deen – every  aspect  of  it.

The  first  move  in  the  kufr  process  of  transmogrifying  or  destroying  the  Shariah  is  the pernicious  creation  of  a  vast  chasm  between  the  Qur’aan  and  the  Ahaadith.  Thus,  the modernist  moron  says:  ‘the  Qur’an  has  been  protected  by  Allah;  the  ahadith  have  not.”  

The  moron’s  brains  have  become  vermiculated  with  this  shaitaani  waswasah.  The  Hadith is  what  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  said  and  did,  hence  the  Qur’aan  says: “He (Muhammad)  does  not  speak  of  (his)  desire.  It  (i.e. whatever  he  says)  is  Wahi  which  is  revealed  to  him.”

Again  the  Qur’aan  says:    “Whatever  the  Rasool  gives  you,  accept  it  (resolutely),  and  whatever  he  forbids  you  of,  abstain  from  it.”

This,  in  fact,  is  Hadith  on  which  has  been  raised  the  superstructure  of  the  Sunnah.

What  is  truly  mind  boggling  is  the  naked  and  stupid  audacity  of  these  juhhaal  to  equate themselves  to  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  and  the  noble  Muhadditheen.  They  seek  to elevate  themselves  to  the  pedestal  of  Imaam  Bukhaari,  Imaam  Muslim,  etc.  Truly,  brains have  gone  haywire. 

While  the  “hadith  criticism  enterprise”  of  these  modernist  morons  is  pure  kufr  designed to  undermine  and  scuttle  the  Shariah,  the  enterprise  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  to  safeguard the  Shariah  for  posterity  by  compiling  and  codifying  the  Mustadallaat  of  the  Ahkaam  of the  Shariah.  The  obligation  of  the  early  Muhadditheen  was  merely  to  sift  out  fabrications and  to  compile  the  authentic  Ahaadith.  The  aim  was  to  safe guard  and  preserve  in  book form  the  authentic  Ahaadith  on  which  the  entire  Edifice  of  the  Shariah  has  been  constructed.

The  objective  of  the  modernist  desire  for  hadith  criticism  is  to  dismantle  the  Shariah.  On the  contrary,  the  purpose  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  to  solidify  and  safeguard  the  Foundation  of  the  Shariah  which  the  authentic  Ahaadith  constitute.  The  two  objectives  are  thus  self  repellant.  The  one  is  the  antithesis  of  the  other.

This  brings  us  to  the  Compilation  of  Saheeh  Bukhaari.

Demonstrating  his  gross  ignorance,  the  moron  says:

“It  is  said  that  he  (Imaam Bukhaari)  had  collected  more  than  600,000  ahadith. However,  only  3,500  appear  in  his collection;  he  rejected  the  rest    as  not  fulfilling  his  criteria  for  authenticity.  For  him  every hadith  was  fake  until  it  was  proven  authentic.”

The  moron  has  lapped  up  this  rubbish  vomit  from  the  writings  of  another  moron  Professor  of  Moronism  of  some  maloon orientalist  university  in  Calcutta,  India.  It  is  indeed  a  vile  slander  to  accuse  that  Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  had  considered  every  Hadith  ‘fake’  prior  to  his  personal  scrutiny.  It  is  also  downright  stupid  to  claim  that  the  597,000  Ahaadith  which  do  not  form  part  of  Saheeh  Bukhaari  are    forgeries  and  unauthentic,  hence  Imaam  Bukhaari  did  not  include  them  in  his  Kitaab.

Bukhaari  Shareef  is  a  compendium  or  a  comprehensive  summary  of  a  vast  work  which  is  the  600,000  Ahaadith.  The  objective  of  compiling  this  Saheeh  was  not  to  encompass  all  the  authentic  Ahaadith.  The  objective  was  to  safeguard  the  Foundation  of  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  covering  all  branches  of  the  Deen.  Commenting  on  Imaam  Bukhaari’s system  of  compilation,  Al-Ismaaili  (died  371  Hijri)  said: “I  have  heard  from  those  who n arrate  from  him  that  he  had  said:  “I  have  not  recorded  in  this  Kitaab  except  (Ahaadith  which  are)  Saheeh,  and  I  have  left  out  the  majority  of  the  Saheeh  (narrations).”  Thus, whatever  he  (Imaam  Bukhaari)  has  recorded  is  Saheeh.  Its  authenticity  is  categorical.  Whatever  he  has  left  out  is  not  because  he  has  negated  (their authenticity) …………..He  sufficed  with  a  small  quantity  from  a  large  quantity  (of  authentic  Ahaadith).”  (Taghleequt Ta’leeq)

In  Muqaddamah  fi  Usooli’ l deen it  is  mentioned:  “The  Saheeh  Ahaadith  are  not  confined to  the  Saheeh  of  Bukhaari  and  the  Saheeh  of  Muslim  nor  do  these  two  Kitaabs  encompass all  the  Saheeh  Ahaadith.  On  the  contrary,  these  two  Kitaabs  are  restricted  to  Saheeh Ahaadith.  Furthermore,  such  narrations  which  are  authentic    to  them  on  the  basis  of  their criteria,  (all  of  them)  have  not  been  included  by  them  in  their  two  Kitaabs,  leave  alone  that  which  (is  Saheeh)  according  to  other  (Muhadditheen).

Bukhaari  said:  “I  have  not  recorded  in  this  Kitaab  except  what  is  Saheeh,  and  I  have  left  out  numerous  of  the  Sihaah  (authentic  narrations).”  Muslim  said:  “What  I  have  recorded  in  this  Kitaab  (Saheeh  Muslim)  from  the  Ahaadith  are  Saheeh.  I  do  not  claim  that  whatever  I  have  left  out  is  Dhaeef  (Weak/unreliable).”

Al-Haakim  Abu  Abdullah  An- Naisaapuri  compiled  a  Kitaab  which  he  named Al-Mustadrak  (The  Emmender), in  which  is  recorded  authentic  narrations  which  Bukhaari  and  Muslim  have  left  out  (from  their  Compendiums).  Some  of  the  narrations  (recorded  in  this  Kitaab,  i.e.  Al-Mustadrak)  are  on  the  basis  of  the  criteria  of  Shaikhain  (i.e.  Imaam Bukhaari  and  Imaam  Muslim);  some  are  on  the  criteria  of  one  of  them,  and  some  (of  the recorded  authentic  Ahaadith  herein)  are  not  on  the  basis  of  their  criteria.

The  criticism  of  the  (existence  of)  paucity  of  Saheeh  Ahaadith  has  been  refuted  by  the fact  that  Imaam  Bukhaari  and  Imaam  Muslim  did  not  claim  that  there  are  no  other  Saheeh  Ahaadith  besides  what  they  have  recorded  in  their  two  Kitaabs.”

“Al-Haazmi  said:  ‘It  is    thus  clear  that  the  intention  of  Imaam  Bukhaari  was  to  compile  a brief  summary  in  Hadith.  He  did  not  contemplate  encompassment  (of  all  the  Saheeh  Ahaadith),  neither  regarding  the  narrators  nor  regarding  the  Hadith.  There  remains  a  huge  portion  of    Saheeh  Ahaadith  not  recorded  in  the  two  Saheeh  Kitaabs.”  (Al-Imaam  Ibn Maajah  Wa  Sunnanunu)

Innumerable  Saheeh  Ahaadith    not  to  be  found  in  Bukhaari  Shareef  are  record  in numerous  other  authentic  Hadith  Kutub  such  as  Mustadrakul  Haakim, Saheeh  Ibn Khuzaimah,  Saheeh  Ibn  Hibbaan, Al-Mukhtaaratu  lil  Muqaddisi,  Saheeh  Abi  Uwaanah, Al-Saheeh  Ibnus  Sakan,  Muntaqi  libnul  Jaarood,  Abu  Dawood,  Ad-Daaruqutni, Saheeh  Abi  Bakr  Al-Ismaaili, Al-Saheeh  Burqaani,  Saheeh  Abi  Nu’aim Al-Isbihaani, Musnad  Imaam  Ahmad,  Musnad  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah,  At Taqaaseem  Wal  Anwaa’,  and  many  more  Saheeh  Hadith  kutub.

The  moron’s  claim  that  Imaam  Bukhaari  had  abandoned  597,000  Ahaadith  because  he regarded  them  as  ‘fakes  and  forgeries’,  is  manifestly  and  slanderously  false.

The  local  moron  who  has  written  his  silly  article  on  hadith  criticism,  has  simply regurgitated  what  he  has  lapped  up  from  a  book  written  by  a  moron  professor  on  the subject  of  Hadith  literature.  The  poor  moron  professor,  a  product  of  the  western orientalist  enemies  of  Islam,    clearly  lacks  understanding of  the  Shariah  in  general,  and  of    the  sanctity  and  status  of    Ahaadith  in  particular.  He  has  treated  Hadith  as  if  it  is simply  another  secular  topic  to  be  rendered  subservient  to  personal  whim  and  fancy.  He does  not  have  the  haziest  idea  of  the  prime  importance  and  significance  of  the  Sihaah Sittah.  He  believes  that  any  modernist  jaahil  qualification and  kaafir  orientalist  have  the  necessary  to  dissect  and  reject  any  Hadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) which  does  not  conform  to  the  reasoning  of  brains  colonized  by  westernism.  The  (Chain  of  Narration)  Isnaad  of  the  most  authentic  Hadith  on  par  with  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  is  of  no  significance  to  these  westernized  morons  if  in  their    opinion  the  Hadith  happens  to be  in  conflict  with  their  defective  reasoning,  or  if  in  their  opinion  of  kufr  the  Hadith  promises  massive  thawaab  for  acts  of  ibaadat.  What  do  those  wallowing  in  najaasat  and  janaabat  know  and  understand  of  the  value  of  ibaadat  or  the  value  one  Tasbeeh  of  Subhaanallaah  whose  effulgence  can  fill  the  space  between  the  earth  and  the  heaven?  Their  brains  and  hearts  are  bogged  in  the  quagmire  of  materialism  and nafsaaniyat.  In  the  words  of  the  Qur’aan: They  are  more  astray  than  the  dumb  animals. They  eat  and excrete  like  animals,  yet  they  deem  themselves  qualified  to  elevate  themselves  to  the  lofty  Pedestals  occupied  by  the  Sahaabah,  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  and  the Muhadditheen  of  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  calibre. 

It  should  be  clearly  understood  that  Hadith  criticism  is  haraam.  It  is  kufr.  It  has  been  designed  by  the  western  orientalist  enemies  of  Islam  to  undermine  and  dismantle  the  more  than  14  Century  Shariah  of  Islam  about  which  the  Qur’aan  declares:

“This  Day  have  I  (Allah  Ta’ala)  perfected  for  you  your  Deen, and  completed  for  you  My Bounty,  and  chosen  for  you  Islam  as  your  Deen.”

Salaam  on  those  who  follow  the  Hidaayat  of  Islam!

The Anti-Sunnah Menace

[Mujlisul Ulama]


Since the time immemorial – right from the time when Iblees establised himself among the progeny of Aadam (alayhissalaam) – the Haq (truth) – Islam – has been confronted with the satanic menace of the ‘worshippers of desire’ to give full and unrestricted ex­pression_to the desires of the lowly nafs (the carnal self of man).

When they discovered that Islam denied the fulfill ment of their baneful hopes by placing limitations on the demands of their desires they initiated the processes of their defective and stagnated “thinking” so as to batter and buffet the pure and simple teachings of Islam in a fruitless attempt to propagate human opinion and lowly desire as the Deen of Allah. But never have they succeeded nor will they ever succeed in this nefarious trade of theirs — the trade of bargaining away the Pleasure of Allah for the miserable crumbs of material comfort, worldly gain and self-expression. It is about this evil trade of men who garb themselves with the raiments of Deen that Allah Ta’ala says:

“They purchase Dhalaalah (error manifest which leads one astray) by giving in exchange the Guidance (of Allah), and (they purchase) punishment by giving in exchange Maghfirat (the Forgiveness of Allah).”

Those who have gone astray — far from the Path of the Deen — attempt to subvert the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) by the deployment of their ill-gotten and stag­nated systems of “logic” which they very erroneously dub as REASON. It is about their distortion and baseless opin­ions and disfigurement of the pure Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) that Allah Ta’ala states in the Holy Quran: “and, they intend to extinguish the Noor (Light) of Allah with their mouths, But Allah will complete His Noor even though the unbelievers detest it.”

Although this Quranic verse was primarily revealed as a rebuff to the satanic attempts of the unbelievers to destroy the Deen, the general import of the verse would render it (the verse) equally applicable to the modernist, anti-Sunnah brigands abounding in our society today. For too long now have they been allowed to tamper and defile the Shariah.

For too long now have Muslims watched idly the plunder of the Sunnah committed by the enemies of the Sunnah. Mus­lims who treasure their Imaan, who value their Deen — Muslims in whose hearts there blazes the flame of Love for the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) must be fully aware of their sacred responsibilities. To permit the trumpetings of the irreligious modernists is tantamount to the condonation of the modernists’. practice of spitting venom and mocking at the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). The modernist, no matter how loud he trumpets his fictitious concern for the Deen, is basically and essentially an enemy of the Shariah, for he mocks at the Fountainhead of the Shariah, viz., at Rasulullali (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).

The villainous modernist who hypo­critically boasts of his non-existent “love” for Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) is the very same one who insults and mocks at the way Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) dressed; at the way Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) ate; at the way Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) sat and slept; at the way in which Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)  maintained his natu­ral appearance; yes, the modernist enemy of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) mocks and jeers at each and every statement and teaching of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) which cannot be compre­hended by his (the modernist’s) mind which is bogged down by the opinions and teachings of his western and aetheist masters at whose feet he grovelled to obtain the indoctrination of the material theories of irreligiosity.

Every puny little mind of the modernist and anti-Sunnah camp anchored in a quagmire of mental confusion, intellec­tual retrogression and split loyalties deems himself fully qualified to voice himself as an authority in the Deen — as one versified in Islamic Law, yet the lamentable truth is that the misguided “genius” and the “intellectual lumina­ries” of our modernist anti-Sunnah mob do not possess suf­ficient ability or the necessary qualifications to even recite the Holy Quran properly or to even perform Salaat correct­ly. The present plunder and pillage committed against the Shariah by the modernist is a direct result of the disease of pride and the disease of desiring show and recognition.

Their worldly qualifications in the branches of atheistic “sciences” and mundane occupations have proven hopeless­ly inadequate to install them into positions of prominence in the community. Hence, the prime motive for the mad rush of the modernists Kufr-mongers to clamber onto the Platforms of Islamic recognition which can propel one into prominence, is the desire for self-assertion — the desire for self-aggrandizement. This inordinate desire for recognition as leaders of the community has plunged the anti-Sunnah elements in a drunken stupor of tearing apart the structure of the Shariah as propounded by Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).

In the process of endeavouring to assert their inordinate egos at the expense of the Shariah and at the peril of their Imaan, the modernists are leading astray many innocent and unwary Muslim youth who unfortunately are pot equipped with sufficient Islamic Knowledge to ward off the vile snares of deception laid by the anti-Sunnah clique. It is therefore imperative that all Muslims who have at heart the love of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) awake and be on guard against the traps arranged by the modernists under the cloak of Islam. Their glib talk of “brotherhood” and “unity” should deceive no one. They are the greatest enemies of Islamic brotherhood and Islamic unity. They prefer to be united with the Kuffaar, for the ways and the habits — the culture and the system of life of the Kuffaar are more appealing to them than the pure and simple way of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). Abject inferiority of the mind which they have inherited from the alien cultures of the Kuffaar makes them feel ashamed of every way of the Deen — of every Sunnah prac­tice of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)  which is out of step with the “mo­dernity” of the Kuffaar.

Down the long corridor of time these anti-religious —anti-Islamic — forces have continuously raised their ugly heads in the form of Fir-oun, Namrood, Shaddaad, Abu Jahl, Musaylima Kazzaab, Abu Sina, Faarabi, Mirza Qadiani, Attaturk, and the multitudes of dajjaals and shayateen whose present manifestation is the anti-Sunnah brigade of the modernists. There is many a sincere Muslim who advo­cates “tolerance” towards the anti-Sunnah modernists. But, they should be told that tolerance is for those who are not astray; for those who drift unconsciously from the Path, but quickly return, regretting and repenting; for those who break the Law because of human folly and weaknecs; for those who humble themselves and seek the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala by following or trying to follow the Sunnah; tolerance is not for those who set themselves up as the arbiters of the Ummah’s destiny despite their ignorance of the Shariah, despite their total inability, despite their quali­fications. Tolerance is not for those who use the Deen for the fulfilment of their lowly desires of pride and aggran­dizement and in the process destroy the teachings of Rasu­lullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). They are the enemies of the Sunnah. They are the ones who must, as an Islamic necessity, be exposed in the interests of the innocent Muslims who are liable to be caught up in the pernicious plots of the modernists.

WAS THE SALAAT A PRACTICE “INVENTED” IN ‘ABBASID ERA?? – A Response to the Deviant Contention

There exists quite a fantastic assertion amongst some that claim a Qur’an-centric approach that the ritual prayer was never prescribed by the Qur’an in any form whatsoever nor did the Prophet ever teach such a prayer.
Some others ascribe the ritual Salaah as prayed today as a later invented practice with Persian Zoroastrian influence which did not take canon until 787 CE. (approximately 150 years after the death of the Prophet).

They allege:
“The later Persian Imams built upon this tale and formulated the current Namaaz. They received strong support from the Persian Zoroastrian mother of (Abbasid) Khalifa Haroon Rasheed, Khaizran (d. 789 CE). Haroon’s Zoroastrian viziers, the Baramika, were only too happy to join hands with the royal mother, Khaizran. So, it was she in concert with others who “canonized” Namaaz according to the desires of the Criminal Imams in (787 CE). Her main philosopher was Imam Al-Khalil bin Ahmad Shikoh, the first ever compiler of Arabic to Persian dictionary, Al-‘Ain”  [1]
The term ‘salaat’ is henceforth variously rendered by them in a manner which completely departs from any reference to ritual prayer and new meanings are pinned to well established Arabic words and phrases of the Qur’an which deal with verses which are traditionally understood as referring to prayer.
Despite there being no Qur’anic support for such baseless claims, there is also absolutely no historical proof that a mass invention of ritual prayer ever took place which introduced this practice into Muslim thought. The latter claim will remain the focus of the remainder of the article.

Such an assertion would require one to accept that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) never offered such a ritual prayer as part of God’s ordained religion nor did the earliest Muslims to whom the Prophet preached the Qur’an. Furthermore, for one to accept the stupid assertion, one would need to concede the possibility of a mass conspiracy which introduced this practice en masse from the late 8th century onwards which subsequently erased any record of the invention from all recorded history.

It is well appreciated by academic scholarship, that there exists a dearth of Muslim sources in the first centuries of Islam. To make use of later Muslim sources to challenge the assertion above would easily be dismissible on the grounds that the late Muslim sources only reflected the later change.
However, what is less well known and seldom appreciated is the existence of relevant earlier Non-Muslim sources which exist within decades of the end of the Prophet’s ministry which would strongly refute any assertions of a late invented practice. These Non-Muslim sources are much earlier than the Muslim sources and were not always complimentary to the conquering Arabs who were oft seen by them as aggressors, oppressors, marred with vice and referred to as ‘Saracens’.  [2]

In fact, the criticism against ‘Muhammad’s’ conquerors at times was so intense in some early writings within Non-Muslim sources, that there would be no perceivable reason or interest for them to have attributed any Godly ritual to their aggressors whom they called the ‘Saracens’ (the Arab Muslims).

However, despite such a vitriolic portrayal of the conquering Muslims, an early polemic Christian source in the form of a Coptic homily written within approximately a decade of the Prophet’s death (640’s CE) whilst strongly remaining critical of both the Jews and the ‘Saracens’ (Arab Muslims), confirms that they both fasted and prayed. This is despite the fact that the homily deemed other acts of the Saracens as ‘ungodly’.  This source is much earlier than the Muslim sources and the unfounded assertions which place the ‘alleged’ invented practice of prayer as canonised around 787 CE.

The date of the Non-Muslim source (c. 640s CE) is within the time period after the Prophet’s death where arguably many of the Prophet’s closest contemporaries would still have been alive.

“As for us, my loved ones, let us fast and pray without cease, and observe the commandments of the Lord so that the blessing of all our Fathers who have pleased Him may come down upon us. Let us not fast like the God-killing Jews, nor fast like the Saracens who are oppressors, who give themselves up to prostitution, massacre and lead into captivity the sons of men, saying: “We both fast and pray.[3]
Given that both fasting and praying was a revered act of worship for the Christians, there would have been no credible interest to invent such a claim on behalf of the ‘Saracens’ if it was not in fact an assertion made by the earliest Muslims and a practice they engaged in.


There is clear evidence in the earliest Non-Muslim sources within approximately a decade of the Prophetic ministry which confirms that the earliest Muslims both prayed and fasted. There would be absolutely no perceivable interest for aggressed Christians to invent such Godly rituals and attribute them to the ‘Saracens’ (Arab Muslims) who they saw as oppressors.
There is absolutely no credible academic warrant or historical proof for the belief that ritual prayer was invented by later generations of Muslims in the late 8th century.

Furthermore, given the strong controversy amongst the earliest Muslims on many political and theological matters which has even given rise to much sectarian bloodshed, the requirement to fast and pray has always remained a bedrock belief amongst all practicing Muslims.


[1] AHMED, SHABBIR, Islam: The True History and False Beliefs, The Imamist Conspiracy of Namaaz, Page 146

[2] Whilst mainly carrying a negative nuance, the meaning of the term ‘Saracens’ has changed over a period of time. However, in the context of 7-8th century, it most likely referred to the new Muslims of Arabia. An 8th century polemical work by St. John Damascene, a Syrian monk and priest (born 600’s CE) is known to criticise the ‘Saracens’ as following a Prophet named Muhammad.

“…They are also called Saracens, which is derived from the destitute of Sara, because of what Hagar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’

DAMASCENE. ST. JOHN, Derived from a Translation by Rev. G.N. Warwick of the The Patristic Society, The Fount of Knowledge, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Page 40.

Highlights marked in bold red are my own insertions. They have no bearing on the original text other than they emphasise relevance to the topic at hand. These are merely illustrations and have solely been utilised for educational and explanatory purposes.
[3] HOYLAND. R. G, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam), Homily on the Child Saints of Babylon (640’s)

Difference between Hadith Narrations & the Gospels

Some Christian apologists when trying to describe the Gospels to the Muslims, claim that the Gospels are much like the Hadiths, and the Hadith-Rejectors too hold the same opinion as the Christians in this matter and deem Ahadith barrations to be unreliable, in that the Gospels were written-collected by men, and are based on the sayings-teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa Maseeh alayhissalaam) just as the Hadiths are with the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Now indeed there are some similarities between the two, but the similarities all come to an end after what we have already posted above, because there are also many differences between the two, and these differences are very important.

The main difference between the Hadiths and the Gospels is that in regards to the Hadiths, we know who actually collected the Hadiths, and we know who passed them on, and we know who actually made the original statement that was passed on. So for example person A said something, then person B heard it and he decided to pass it on and tell other persons C-D-E, and then they passed it on to others and so forth. Basically throughout the chain of transmission of the hadith, we know who is who, we know who is passing the story, and we know from where the original story came from, there is a complete line of transmission.

This is very crucial, because it means the reports are not anonymous, the reports are coming from people we know, names and persons we can identify, we know where they lived, when they were born, when they died and so forth. Again this is very important because if you know the person, you also know if they’re reliable or unreliable, for example someone who is reporting the Hadith, a person in the chain, could have been known as a liar, as someone unreliable, someone who would make things up, and therefore we know if he is passing or narrating a Hadith that we can question the authenticity. Vice versa the person narrating the Hadith can also be known as a truthful person, someone reliable etc, and therefore we know the Hadith he passing is reliant, or it’s highly likely that it is reliant.

In the case of the Gospels, we have none of this, we literally don’t know who was passing the stories, they’re all anonymous. Even the supposed collectors Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, were not Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John! The Gospel accounts are all anonymous accounts written-collected by persons-authors we don’t actually know, and they are narrating stories-incidents from people we don’t know either, the entire chain of transmission in the Gospels is unknown and anonymous.

Basically in the Gospel account we have the source as Jesus, and then we have person A-B-C-D-E passing on the stories-teachings of Jesus, but we have no idea who these sources A-B-C-D-E are, whether they’re reliable people and so forth, we literally know nothing about them. The only person who we can say with some confidence who we know about was Paul, and yet he barely wrote anything about the life-sayings-teachings of Jesus, and oddly enough in his own writings we can see that he was at odds with the actual disciples of Jesus and their beliefs, in fact he abolished the Law and taught exactly the opposite of Jesus’ teachings.

So when it comes to the Gospel of Mark, and we read all these stories and sayings of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam), we are reading accounts that have been passed by people we don’t know, and they were collected in a book called Mark by an author we don’t know either, though there is much speculation about who the exact author is. On the other hand when it comes to the Hadiths, when we read a story about the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), we know exactly who passed on the story and who narrated it, we have a complete line of transmission of the people who heard the saying, and who passed the saying, and who it got passed to, and we know whether these people are sound people or not.

All of this is obviously crucial, let us give an example, let’s say you heard a news story, and it’s a very big news story but there is no source, you’re not likely going to believe it are you? Especially in this day and age when there are all kind of sources-websites on the internet that sometimes report some very crazy stories, which you then find out are false, but most times you yourself know to doubt and not believe certain news stories coming from certain organizations-websites because you know they’re not reliable. And you’re also aware of organizations-websites-persons that are reliable, and so you can trust what they’re saying because you know who they are etc. So it’s very important to know your source, if you don’t know your source then as you can see you have some big issues.

Now take the same simple logic and apply it to the Gospels and Hadiths (for some strange reason people often don’t like to use this simple logic, acting like we’re dealing with some other realm), it’s important to know our sources, who we’re dealing with, who’s passing on the story, whether the person passing is it is a reliable person, or an unreliable person.

In conclusion, the Hadiths are a far more reliable and trustworthy collection of sayings-teachings than the Gospels, to put it simple, in news terms, nobody would ever accept the Gospel as a source of information because it has no sources, all of its sources comes from anonymous sources, basically people we don’t know, and that my friends is not a proper source of information you can get anything from, let alone the actual teachings of God.


There is no appropriate comparison between the Muslim’s authentic Hadith and the Christian Gospels when it comes to their authenticity. Let no Muslim be fooled by this. The only similarity that one can point out between the two is that they both speak about the lives of a certain individual. I would say that the major difference between the two is the reliability of their preservation. Muslims don’t believe that those who transmitted or collected the Hadith were inspired by God like how Christians believe for their Gospel authors. And hence there can be errors and mistakes in Hadith and we don’t rule out that. And also there are ways to solve this problem and this is in no way a threat to the reliability that we have in authentic Hadith as a whole (isnad and matn). But for the Christian Gospels we should expect to not find any errors since those who transmitted them are supposed to be directly ‘inspired’ by God. But sadly we have numerous errors in Gospels and in Bible as a whole.

Related Reading: Difference between Ahadith Narrations & Historical Reports