MtffNI
iii i
Ml in hm
by
Maulana Habib ur Rahman Azami
Www.Ahlehaq.Com
ZAM ZAM PUBLISHERS
Tahqiq Ahl e Haclirh
Tahqiq Ahl ul Hadith
bismillah ir rahman ir rahlm
1 A Novel Definition of Hadith
At the beginning of his lecture, the speaker stated
that the word "Hadith'' means "the word of Allah and
the word of his Rasul."
Comment on this:
Mawlana Habib ur Rahman points out that this is an
entirely novel definition of Hadith. Up to this time, the
accepted definition among the scholars of Islam, both
muqallid and ghair muqallid, has always been: "The
word, action, or taqrir, of the Messenger of Allah
salallahu alaihi wa sallam ." (Here the word taqrir
means selection, confirmation, or approval of some
action.") He quotes a well-known ghair muqallid writer
Nawab Hasan Khan:
"Hadith dar istilah mash 'hur qawl o fi'l o taqrir e rasul
ast - alaihis salat o salam. "
"The accepted meaning of hadith is the word action
or taqrir of the Messenger - alaihis salat o salam."
Then, after referring to a less common definition which
includes the word of a sahabi or tabi'i, he says, "O
sawab awwal ast. "
Tahqiq Mil e lladith
And the correct one is the first." (Mask ul Khitam p.
A very well-known ghair rnuqallid writer of that time,
Maulana Thana ullah Amritsrari, after distinguishing
between Hadlth and Qur'an, has also written:
"In accordance with accepted principles, the Ahl ul
Hadith understand Hadith to be secondary to Qur'an,
and, to resolve any question, after looking in the Holy
Qur'an, look first in the Hadith." (Ahl ul Hadlth ka
Madhhab p. 79)
2 Citing a Counterfeit Hadith as Evidence
I he speaker then put forward a claim that the name
Ahl ul Hadith derives from the time of the Messenger
of Allah salallahu alaihi wa sallarn himself, and that
this name was accepted by the Sahabah kiram. In
support of the first statement he quotes this hadith:
On the Day of Qiyamah the Ahl ul Hadith will
come with their inkwells. Allah Almighty will say to
them, "You are the Ahl ul Hadith. Now enter Paradise."
Comment:
In point of fact this hadith is counterfeit. Certainly the
speaker would not be knowingly quoting a counterfeit
hadith, so clearly he is not aware of its status. At the
same time, this raises a question. If those ulamaa of
today who do not accept the principle of taqlid are
not in fact able to distinguish between genuine and
I.ilu|i(| Mil c Madith
counterfeit hadTth, then how much right can they have
io derive masa'il directly from hadith?
It is not only muqallid Ularnaa (DhahabT, Khatib, and
SuyutT) who classify this hadith as counterfeit. Ghair
muqallid ularnaa have also included it under this
heading. (See Al Fawa'id ul Majmu'ah by Allamah
Shawkani, p. 30)
The verdict of muqallid ularnaa on this hadith is to be
found in Mawzu'ah on p. 112
Khatib has said that this hadith is counterfeit in
Al Mizan (Raqqi) has said that this hadith was falsely
attributed to Tibrani."
3. The Actual Meaning of "Ahl ul HadTth"
Even if for the sake of argument.this hadith was not
counterfeit, still it would not support the speaker's
claim. The term as'hab ul hadith that is used here
does not refer to people who abandon taqlJd and claim
to be practising direct on HadTth. What it refers to, is
those scholars who specialise in the writing down and
teaching of HadTth. This is clearly proved by the words
"bi aydihim ulmahabir." Coming forward with inkwells
in their hands can only refer to people whose
occupation is writing. This is also proved by the fact
that this counterfeit hadTth is also found with these
words:
Tahqiq Ahl e Hadith
Allah Almighty will gather together the people of
hadith and ilm." ( La'ali Masnu'ah p. 13)
When the "as'hab ul hadith" are here referred to
together with the ahl ul 'ilm, then clearly "as'hab ul
hadith refers to the scholars of hadith and to those
who record them and teach them.
The third proof is in the remaining words of this hadith
which for some reason the speaker leaves out in his
quotation,
That is to say, Allah Almighty will send the as'hab ul
hadith to Paradise saying to them, "you read an great
amount of durud on my Messenger."
This again points clearly to those who write and read
hadith because every time they read the name of the
Messenger of Allah they will write or say "sallallahu
alaihi wa sallam." From this it is clear that the reason
for their being given a place in Paradise is not
abandoning taqlid, but reciting a great amount of
durud. The speaker would also be aware of whether
reciting durud in great amounts was a practice of
muqallidin or ghair muqallidin.
The sense in which M. Habib ur Rahman takes the
term as'hab ul hadith is also evident from what Imam
Dhahhabi says, because he has classified this hadith
under the heading
Tahqiq Ahl e 1 1 ad it h
"Summoning of the Ulamaa with their Inkwells."
(See Dhahhabi: Al Mizan.)
4 The Meaning of the Sahabah Being Ahl ul
Hadith
To support his contention that the Sahabah raziyallahu
'anhum regarded themselves as "ahl ul hadith 1 '. the
speaker presents several quotations. However, in all
these quotations the term as'hab ul hadfth in fact
means those people who reported hadith, or
memorised them or taught them, or wrote them down.
In none of them can it be understood to mean those
people who do not follow any imam, or claim to act
directly on the basis of hadith.
In one place he quotes Abu Hurairah raziyallahu anhu
as saying that he was "ahl ul hadith. " Unfortunately,
he does not quote the full background to this,
otherwise it would be quite clear that Abu Hurairah
raziyallahu 'anhu meant by this. The reference that
the speaker quotes is from Tarikh Khatib and
Tadhkirah. Here a dream seen by Abu Bak-r bin Abi
Dawud is described:
During the time when Abu Bak-r bin Abi Dawud
was engaged in writing down the hadith of Abu
Hurairah raziyallahu 'anhu, he saw Abu Hurairah
raziyallahu 'anhu in a dream. He had a thick
beard, a wheaten complexion, and was wearing
coarse cloth. Abu Bak-r says. "When I saw him, I
I :iln|i*| Alii C ll;i(lith
said to him, I like you very much." He replied, 1
am the first sahib ul hadlth in the world."
It the definition of Sahib ul Hadith that the speaker
puts forward is valid, then we woutd have to accept
lhat there was no Sahabi before Abu Hurairah who
practised on Hadith. Clearly the speaker would not
be so bold as to say this, so it must mean something
other than what he has taken it to mean. Here it clearly
means a person who is engaged in reporting and
memorising hadith. There can be no doubt that among
the Sahabah, Abu Hurairah raziyallahu 'anhu was
foremost both in his dedication to memorising hadith,
and in the number of hadith that he transmitted. This
point is also clearly confirmed by the fact that this
dioam is reported at a time when the person who saw
it was engaged in writing down hadith, and not in
relation to some person turning rejecting taqlJd, or
trying to practise directly on a Hadith.
5 Citing First a Counterfeit Hadith and then a
Dream
Then the point remains that this quotation from Abu
Hurairah raziyallahu 'anhu was not something that he
said during his lifetime. It was something that was said
in a dream seen by someone several hundred years
after he died Now if a scholar has to resort to a
counterfeit hadith, and then to words said in a dream,
to make his case, then clearly the evidence at his
disposal cannot be very strong.
6 Further Citations
Tnhqiti Ah I € Hadith
The speaker then refers to a number of Tabi'in and
quotes the phrase:
applied to them.
Comment:
Here again he is claiming that they were "Ahl ul Hadith"
in the sense that he uses. Again this is not valid. The
phrase
refers to their having an honoured and leading position
as rnuhaddithin and as transmitters of hadith, and
the term "as'hab ul hadith" or u ahl ul hadith 1 ' means
simply rnuhaddithin or transmitters of hadith. The
speaker of the book from which he is quoting himself
writes:
(AJLoi j <Jai?u jgj xjytJl 4i*l j Cj-U*Ji Jjai ja \JJt b US' ^3 U^Ti J3)
"In this book we have spoken of the fail of the hadith,
and of the ahl ul hadith, who have specialised in
memorising and recording them." (p 134)
In this book there are also hundreds of other instances
that prove this point. Among them is a section on "the
as'hab ul hadith as the khalifahs of the Messenger of
Allah sallallahu alaihi wa saliarn." Under this heading
the speaker quotes this hadith:
Huzur sallallahu alaihi wa sallam was asked,
"Who are your successors?" He said. Those
I nhqiq Ahl e Hadith 3
people who will come after me and will report
my hadith and my sunnah, and teach it to the
people. "(p. 31)
I lure it is perfectly clear that as'hab ul hadith refers to
the people who report and teach hadith. Another
section is called "Huzur sallallahu alaihi wa sallam
leaving instructions that the as'hab ul hadith are to
be received with honour." Under this heading, this
hadith is quoted:
Some young people will come from different
parts of the world to learn hadith. Treat them
well. (p. 21)
I i om this it is clear that students of hadith are "as'hab
til hadith." Here also Abu Sa'id Khudri raziyallahu
'anhu is quoted, and The speaker uses that quotation
on p. 3 of his lecture. However, he has not presented
the full quotation.
"When he saw them he said, "Welcome!" and
said, "Huzur sallallahu alaihi wa sallam told us
to make a place for you in our gatherings, and
to teach and explain his hadith to you. You are
his successors and the ahl ul hadith (i.e.
muhaddithin) after us"
Another section is entitled, "Dreams of the Salihin
about the as'hab ul hadith. Under this heading one
dream is as follows:
A certain person was studying hadith, and died
I.iik|H| Ahl e Hadith
while still studying. Abu B*k-rah bin B*k-rawi
saw him in a dream. He asked him, "What
happened?" He said, "I was forgiven." He
asked, "What was the reason?" He said,
"Because I was studying hadith." (p. 111) j
Here again the person studying hadith is categorised
under the heading "as'hab ul hadith." Other similar
dreams are recounted. These examples are only a
handful out of a sack.
On top of this, M. Muhammad Sahib Junagad'hi, who
is ghair muqallid, in translating this book himself
translates "as'hab ul hadith" as "students of hadith"
or as "people with a knowledge of hadith". In one place
he translates ,
as "a student of hadith", and in another place "as'hab
ul hadith" is translated as "scholars of hadTth" (p. 33)
or as "muhaddithin". On p. 38 "ahl ul hadith" is
translated as "muhaddithin", and on p 24 as'hab ul
hadith is also translated as "muhaddithin."
This is part of a general tendency in Ahl-e-hadith
writers. When the phrase "as'hab ul hadith" is used
as a term of honour, they translate it as "the Ahl ul
HadTth," but, whenever some evil is referred to, they
translate it as "students of hadith", or else use some
roundabout expression like "such people."
Thus M. Muhammad Junagad'hi translates •
i ili<|l<| Mil <• Hadith 10
a« There are no people better than the A/7/-e-
hth "I lowever, on p. 33 he translates
i jx«~±\ *Jl£ \jjn*j wA?T wjA^J* U* ^yut
«* "lee how these students of hadith have become
. i.diipi.-d "
In II if « '.,11110 way, in Sharfu As'habi'l Hadith, whenever
Hi" ImAn of the "ashab ul hadith, or their being abdals
In montioned, he translates it as "the Ahl-e-hadith" or
Hie Jamd'ah of the Ahl-e-Hadith: (see p 18,32,34,
•t< ) I lowever, the statement of Imam A'mash
Ift translated as, "there are no people in the world
whim' than these people." According to his rule he
•hould translate it as, " there are no people in the
win Id worse than the Ahl-e-Hadith. n
'•■mil.irly, another statement of Imam A'mash;
(d^J^Jl w>b^i J* ifdUjl c^T uJTl J cJlS* jl Jji)
II translated as "If I had dogs, I would set them on
theie people." (p. 104) By his rule it should read, "If I
had dogs I would set them on the Ahl ul Hadith"
Similarly,
ftifth jt-J- Jlii ,*4»^jj £*jJ&%}\ ^bw>l ^\ j*s> j) Jl\ *U*P Jii)
It translated as, " Ubaidullah bin Umar, on seeing the
puihing and jostling of people like these, said, "You
vo torn learning to pieces ""(p. 94).
My his rule it should read, "Ubaidullah bin 'Umar, on
T;th(|i(| Ably lladith 11_
seeing the pushing and jostling of the Ahl-e-Hadith,
said. "You have torn learning to pieces(1) and
destroyed the light of knowledge. If Sayyidina 'Umar
was here he would have punished us severely (2).""
-
(Note: Here only the translation of As'hab ul Hadilh
has been corrected. Apart from this, to translate
"shanittum" (1)as "you have torn to pieces," and
"awja'na zarban" (2) as "he would have punished us
severely" is a somewhat original translation. A correct
translation would be "you have disfigured," and "he
would have hit us hard."
Similarly
is translated as "I heard Laith bin Sa'd, on seeing the
behaviour of people like this, say "You are more in
need of a little bit of manners and actual practice than
of a great amount of knowledge."" (p. 94), whereas
he should have translated it as "I heard Laith bin Sa'd,
on seeing the behaviour of the Ahl-e-hadlth, say "You
are more in need of a little bit of manners and actual
practice than of a great amount of knowledge.'"
Abu Bak-r bin Uthman says
M. Muhammad Sb. translates this as, "The As'hab ul
Hadlth are very bad people, indeed they are insane."
(p. 110) whereas he should have said, ""The Ahl-e-
In In I hi Ahl c llsulilli 12
M/» are the worst of people, "
In lln :..iiik! way
In Iniii'.lated as "his dog used to used to attack us",
(B 107) but should have been translated. ""Imam
A'mir.hV. dog used to used to attack the Ahl-e-Hadith",
< hi p 55 M Muhammad translates wa ahluhu as "the
Ahl v Hndith" but then translates
■I "lihu'bah is referring to those people who hear a
• hili but do not practise on it." (p. 84) This is a
iplfti.'ly wrong translation. He should have written,
" Wh.il :,hu bah means is that the ahl ul hadith do put
IntQ practice what they hear."
(In those passages where the "ahl ul hadith" are
«m fii'ly criticised presumably refer to the people of
tlu >i timo who used to come regularly to attend public
lii-.-.tm:. on hadith without actual! 'y bringing religion
•ni. i their lives. This needs to be c/iecked.)
In Hying to establish that the Sahabah were Ahl-e-
h.uldh, the speaker also refers to Tarikh Baghdad and
wiitrs that here Abdullah bin Abbas raziyallahu 'anhu
wm described as being Ahl-e-hadith. (p. 5)
« Infortunately, he has not quoted the actual passage,
• •iln'iwise it would be quite clear in what sense
AIk lull, ih bin Abbas is described as being ahl ul hadith.
I hit is the passage in question:
Tahqiq Ahl e Hadith ^3
"There are three as'hab ulhadith Abdullah bin Abbas
in his time, Sha'bi in his time and ThawrT in his time."
If we were to take the term ahl ul hadith to mean what
the speaker says it means, then this means that from
the time of Abdullah bin Abbas right up to the time of
Sufyan Thawri, there were only three Ahl-e-Hadlth .
In this case his statement on page 5 that all the
Sahabah and Tabi'Tn were Ahl-e-Hadfth has to be
wrong.
In this connection he also says that "Imam Sha'bi says
that all the Sahabah were Ahl-e-Hadith. (p. 5) Here
he gives Tadhkirat ul Huffadh v.1 p. 72as a reference.
However, there is no such passage either on this page,
or in the next 20 pages.
He also says that all the lands that the Sahabah
raziyallahu 'anhum conquered, the people there, after
coming into Islam, followed the madhhab of the Ahl-
e-Hadith. (p. 5) One question that immediately arises
is how does this prove that the Sahabah were Ahl-e-
Hadith? Why then has this been put under the heading
of "Sahabah Kiram"? Are the new Muslims of the
places conquered by the Sahabah also to be regarded
as Sahabah?
Secondly, this statement is nowhere to be found in
the book that has been quoted in support of this
contention. A passage has been quoted, but it has
been distorted, and he has also not had the courage
to translate it. If he did, it would become clear that,
even after careful tailoring, the most that can be
derived from this passage is that, at the time the book
laluiUj Ahl i Hadith 1£
was written, all the Muslims of Rum, Jazirah, Syria,
and the borders of Azerbaijan were Ahl ul Hadith.
Nowhere is there any mention of what time is referred
to, whether it was from the time of accepting Islam
and the conquests of the Sahabah, or whether it was
at some later period. (1)
(1) There is no mention whatever in In Usui ud Din of
either the word Sahabah or of their conquering any
country. However regardless of this, quoting the name
of this book, he repeatedly states that from the time
the sahabah conquered these countries, their people
have been Ahl-e-Hadith. Thus on page 10 he says.
"On the authority of Usui ud Din you 'nave already
been informed that right from the time the Khilafat of
Uthman, when Ifriqiyah was conquered by Sahabah
and Tabi'Tn, the people of that region have been
following the madhab of the Ahl-e-Hadith." In fact in
Usui ud Din there is no mention of the Khilafat of
Uthman, nor of the conquest of Ifriqiyah, nor of the
people there being Ahl e- Hadith from that time.
jjtfj pUjl }J tfj Ijjjp&J f jjll JJ*J>J< £>\j ^ iW)
"Bring your proofs if what you say is true."
Secondly, the passage in Usui ud Din is not as he
quotes. He has made amendments to it. The original
passage is as follows:
the text as quoted is:
Tahqiq Ahl e Hadith 15
In quoting these words the speaker has added the
word "kanu" after "kulluhum" and the phrase "min ahlis
sunnah" after
"ala madhhabi ahl ul hadith'' has disappeared. If these
adjustments had not been made to the text, then it
would simply establish that the people of these pfaces
at the time of writing were "ahl ul hadith", but not that
they had been "ahl ul hadith"pr\or to that. The original
passage was written in the 5th century Hijri. So what
is established from this is that in the 5th century, the
people of these frontier areas were "ahl ul hadith'\
Secondly, it becomes clear that by "ahl ul hadith" what
is meant is that they were ahl us sunnah, not that
they were ghair muqallid.
Also, if before quoting this passage the speaker had
looked more carefully to see under what heading this
passage occurs, he would have seen that the point at
issue was to establish that the people of Thawr were
Sunni, not Rafizi, Khariji, Mu'tazilah, and so on. The
chapter heading is :
(Ji*** 1 >^ a - uJi J* 1 &P* 3 J)
"Establishing that the people of Thawr are from the
Ahl us Sunnah"
7 The Tabi'in and Atibba'ut Tabi'In
In maintaining that the Tabi'in and Atibba'ut Tabi'In
were Ahl ul Hadith, he has written;
"Sufyan bin Aymlnah has legally been counted among
hih(|iq Ahl e Hadith 16
Ihe Ahlul HadTth." (p. 6), and in support of this quotes
Tarikh Baghdad? v. 9 p 79. Unfortunately, on this page
this passage is not to be found. However, on his page
there is a story of the "ahl ul hadith" stealing shoes.
Ihe passage is as follows:
\ - - c/- 7 - w * J w^ • -J
Ihe ahl ul hadfth stole the shoes of AbuZaid, so after
that, whenever the as'hab us shu'araa or the as'hab
ul arablyah or the as'hab ul akhbar came, he would
throw his clothes down without checking on them, and
when the as'hab ul hadith came, he would gather them
and keep them in front of him. (Tarikh Baghdad v. 9
'p.79)
What is actually referred to here are the students of
different classes - Arab poets, arabic language,
iikhbar, and hadith.
Ihe point then is that when Ibn 'Aymtnah, or anyone
else is referred to as ahl ul hadith, it means that he
was a person who had studied Hadith and was working
in that field, as I have explained earlier.
7 The Four Imams
After this the speaker tries to maintain that the four
Imams were "ahl-e-hadith" like himself. First of all he
refers to Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah, and quotes
the following passage from Usui ud Din:
Tahqiq A hi c Hadilh 17
The passage quoted is correct, but the translation he
has made is shows a considerable lack of integrity.
The translation he presents is
"The principles of Abu Hanifah in respect of
Aqa'id and the prohibition of taqlfd (following
another scholar) are the same as those of the
Ahl ul Hadfth/(Usul U d Din p. 6)
Scholars may take note how in translating "kalam" he
has simply added "and the prohibition of taqlfd" He
does not seem to have understood that the subject of
the book "Usui ud Din" is Aqa'id Kalamiyah. At the
beginning of the book the author has counted and
listed 15 principles of Aqa'id Kalamiyah, and in this
list there is no mention whatsoever of "prohibiting
taqlid" Therefore in adding "and the prohibition of
taqlid. " what is the speaker doing other than ascribing
his own views to the author he is quoting? At the
beginning of the book he author has set out the
principles of the as'hab ul hadtth on Aqa'id in outline,
and then in detail in the rest of the book. If the speaker
here was asked to search the book and find something
to say that prohibition of taqlid was one of these
principles, he would not be able to do so. Indeed why
should there be any mention of this here? The thing
that he is talking about is taqlid in questions relating
to particulars of religion, and the subject of the book
is basic tenets.
As well as this it should be understood that when the
author of Usui ud Din refers to as'hab ul hadith or ahl
ul hadith, he is not referring to people who do not
h>lu|i<| Ahl e Hiulilli 18
accept taqlid. In several places he quotes the followers
imuqailidin) of Imam Shafii' as examples of as'hab ul
hadhh or ahl ul hadfth. For example on page 204 he
refers to Abdullah bin Sa'id and Karabisi as
imitakallimin of the ahl ul hadith. and they are both
nuiqallidin of Imam Shafi'I. (see Tabaqat ush
Shafi'fyah.) In Lisan ul Mlzan, Hafiz Ibn Hajr has
referred to both as being "Shafi'i fuqahaa."
In this context the speaker has also quoted this
statement of Ibn Ayminah, "In the first place it was
Abu Hanifah himself who made me Ahl ul Hadith."
This again means "The first person who made me a
muhaddith was Abu HanTfah himself."
The quotation is taken from Tarikh Khalqan (v. 1 p.
211) The actual Arabic text uses the word "muhaddith",
and the speaker has translated it into Urdu as "Ahl-e-
HadTth." So, instead of rewriting this statement and
giving it his own meaning, he should have explained
that it mean that Abu HanTfah was a muhaddith, and
used to train other people (even people like Sufyan
bin Ayminah) to become muhaddithm.
After this, in a similar manner, passages are presented
relating to the remaining Imams. There is then no need
to go into discussing each one separately. However,
there is one question that needs to be asked. When
all the four Imams were muhaddithin, and based all
their judgements and decisions on Hadith, - in other
words were doing what the speaker says should be
done - then what is the need for establishing another
group to come along and do the same thing? Are those
lahqiq Ahl e I lad it li ^9
people who came after them, and accepted and
followed their system, not Ahl-e-HadTth already'? So,
if they are. and most certainly they are, then what
does establishing another group achieve other than
tafriq baynal muslimm (creating division between the
Mulims) ?
Another question that needs to be asked is this. When
the term ahl ul hadith is used about the four imams,
the speaker quotes it and puts great stress on it.
However when the same term is used about the
fuqahaa, ahl-e-fiqh, or imams of fiq'h, no mention is
made of it. For example in Usui ud Din on p. 312, a
few lines before the passage he has quoted is this
statement:
■
"and after them the imams of the Ummah, such as
Awza'i and Malik and ThawrT and Shafii' and ibn Thawr
and Ahmad bin Hanbal "
He also refers to the hadith:
"One section from my followers will always have the
help of Allah with them." When Imam Ahmad bin
Hanbal being asked who this group was, he said, "
The Ahl-ul-Hadith."(p.7) Here the speaker has failed
to take note of what is written in the most sahih Kitab
after the Kitabullah, (that is to say Bukhari Sharif)
otherwise he would have seen that the heading under
Tnh(|U| AhU Mild i 111 20^
which this hadith is placed is
"One section of my Ummah will always stand up on
the l.uth, and those are the ahl ul Urn" (See BukharT
v 2 p 1 08)
7 Muhammad bin Abd ul Wahhab
Aftei this the speaker quotes the words of Shaikh
Muhammad bin Abd ul Wahhab Najdi "The sign of
ih«' Ahl ul Bid ah is that they speak ill of the Ahl ul
I /, !<////; " The point that needs to be noted here is that
.it the same time as saying this, he was himself a
ll.inb.ili As noted by the ghai/ muqallid write* and
Iciilci, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Sahib, in "Misk ul
M.ikhiim "(p 14) "mash'hur or muqarar an as! keh
i-.lhin h.mhnli madh'hab and o dtoik-i dai hanQbilah
WiKfi .n;t " "It is well known and clearly established that
he lollowed the Hanbali madh'hab, and he is also
iHi'iied in as such by the Hanbalis "
Furthermore, by Ahl ul Hadith he means all the Ahl
us Sunnah. Thus Maulama Yusuf Jaipur? "(in Haqiqat
ul Fiqh p. 11) quotes a passage from the same book
ih.it is quoted here (i.e. Ghunyat ut Talibin)
the ahl us sunnah, and they have only one name,
that Is aht ul hadith:
I 1 1 im this it is clear that the speakers own mentor uses
thf term ahl ul hadith to mean ahl us sunnah. The
\|)r.ih'i has even quoted this statement. However,
h» has left out the words "ahl us sunnah" from the
Iah(|i(| Ahl e Hnclith 21
beginning of the sentence.
7 Afghanistan
The speaker then takes great pleasure in quoting a
passage from "Farishtah"\o the effect that one of the
scholars in the circle of Imam Ghazzali. Abu Tayyib
Suhail (this should actually be Sahl) bin Muhammad
Sulaiman Sa'luki, was Ahl ul Hadith. However if we
look at Sa'mani 's "Insab" or SabkT's Tabaqat" (v. 3 p.
169) we will see that Abu Tayyib was a muqallid of
the Shafi'i school. He is referred to here as Ahl ul
Hadith in the sense that the Malikis and Shafis are
referred to as Ahl ul Hadith. (See the Muqaddamah
of Ibn Khaldun p. 374, 375) In the region of Khurasan,
when people use the term Ahl ul Hadith, they mean
specifically the Shafi'i school, and nothing else, as
ibn Islah and Sabki have pointed out:
"This is in the terminology of the people of Khurasan.
When they refer to the Ahl ul Hadith they mean the
Shafi'is." {Tabaqat of Sabki v. 3 p. 258)
(JLaJLSJI jJ. *iytf c^o^Ji Ja» jlki lit)
"When they refer to the Ahl ul Hadith they do not
mean anything other than Shafi'is." (Tabaqat of Sabki
v. 3 p. 259)
After this, the following assertion is put forward:
"The appointment of an Ahl ul Hadith 'alim as
ambassador may date from the time when Sultan
Mahmoud Ghaznawi, as a result of the company of
hih(|H| Mil i ll:ulil h 22^
the famous Ahl ul Hadith scholar Qaffal Ma'uni, had
.lundoned the Hanafi madhhab:\p.Q)
I here are a number of points to be noted here.
I Qaffal Maun? has been described as Ahl ul
I ladtth In point of fact he was a very strict Shafi'i.
ee tabaqat Shafi'iyah v.3 p. 198.)
This related to a story about Qaffal Maruni,
which is known to be fictitious. He repeats it
even though both in terms of reason and
documentary evidence, it is clearly false. For
detail on thi£ is to be found in booklets by Mulla
All Qari and Mulla Abd un Nabi GangohT.
Mawlana H^bib ur Rahman also refers to his
own booklet on the subject, "Makha'il ul ifti'al
l ala salawat H qaffal".
3 He says that Sultan Mahmoud Ghaznawi
became disaffected with Hanafi fiqh. This is
contradicted by the fact that Mas'ud bin
Shaibah arid Abd ul Qadir Quraishi have
included Sultan Mahmud among the Hanafi
Fuqahaa, and also for a long time a book by
the Sultan e ntitled "Tafrvcf was well known and
widely circulated. As well as this, right to the
end of the S ultan's rule, his Qazi ul Qaza (Chief
Justice) Abtf Muhammad Nasihi was Hanafi.
This is reported in "Jawahir Maziyah."
4 If appointirgj an "Ahl ul Hadith' 1 as ambassador
is an indication of dissatisfaction with Hanafi
lahqiq Ahl e Hadith 23
fiqh, then what about the fact that 23 years after
this, in 412 A. H. he appointed Abu Muhammad
Nasih? ( who was his Qazi ul Qaza. as Amir of
Hajj, and that it was through the agency of this
HanafT elder, that he re-established the Hajj?
(Because of the violence and depradations of
the Qaramatah - a sect of the Shi'ah - the Hajj
had been stopped for many years.) Is this then
not a public announcement of the superiority
of the Hanaf? madhhab? The surprising thing
is that this is reported in the very same history
(Farishtah, v.1, p. 46) from which the speaker
has quoted.
7 Hindustan
The same thing also applies to the speaker's
contention that at the time of BasharT, the majority of
the population of Mansurah in Sindh was Ahl ul Hadith.
What Ibn Khaldun says makes it clear that the Shafi'i
were referred to as Ahl ul Hadith. So he still has to
produce evidence to show that they were ghair
muqallid, and not Shafil
7 The Distribution of the Schools
The natural spread of the four schools of Fiqh into
different parts of the world is dismissed
contemptuously by the speaker as "mulki batwarah"
(sharing out countries). One answer to that would be
to quote the ayat
"Go die of your own rage."
lulw|M| Mil e lladith 24
A point to note here is that Qaffal. Kabir Shashi.
"AhdAn Martini, and Abu 'Awanah Isfra'ini are people
ho quotes as leading figures of the Ahl ul Hadith. So
how can we explain the efforts that they made to
•itnhlish taqlid of the Shafi'i madhhab?
7 Government Force
rhe speaker follows certain of his predecessors in
iilleging that taqlid was established at sword-point.
However, simply repeating what a person's teachers
have said is not proof of anything Neither the speaker
noi his predecessors have yet put forward any
evidence that any government anywhere forced
.niyone or even told anyone that they had to become
I l.inafi or Malik?
I he only madhhab that has been spread at sword-
point is the speaker's own madhhab of the Ahl ul
Hadith. He himself states.
"Yusuf bin 'Abd ul Mu'min, then after him, his
son Ya'qub, fully supported the Ahl ul HadTth
madhhab The Khalrfah (Ya'qub) gave orders to
abandon fiqh and not follow any imam." (p. 11)
According to the speaker, Yusuf and his son Ya'qub
were "Ahl ul Hadith."
:>n these North African kings used their royal power
to ban taqlid. Indeed, on page 11 he also states that
Yusuf placed his sword in front of people and said
I;,h.|i<| Ahl c Hadith
25
that everything other than the Holy Quran and the
Sunan of Abu Dawud was invalid. In other words, he
threatened people with a sword to get them to accept
this. On this same page he also refers to giving
presents, in otherwords using financial inducements,
to spread the Ahl ul Hadith madhhab. He then states
that this is the reason for the Ulamaa of that region
being strict Ahl ul Hadith, and as an example quotes
the name of Imam Ibn Jazm.
In this matter M. Habib ur Rahman fully agrees with
the speaker. Similarly, every person in India who has
seen the way in which people changed their madhab
as a result of the inducements and intimidation of
Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan, and then seen the
repetition of those events in Ivleo and Banaras, will
also have to agree.
7 "Madhhab? 'Asabivat"
Under this heading the speaker says,
"If a follower of one madhhab leaves his
madhhab and joins another, then he became
liable to punishment."
Then, under the heading of "Persecution of the Ahl ul
Hadith", he says that one person left the Hanafi
madhhab and started to do rafa' yadain and qira'at
khalfa'l imam. He was then lashed publicly.
Here the speaker claims that this is the Hanaff ruling
I aili 4|i4| Mil V lliulilh 26
on this matlm At the same time, one of his own party,
Mnwlani Muhammad Junagadhi in "Aqidah
Muhamtmdt", quoting the Sharh of Durr-e-Mukhtar
winch is generality known as Sharni, says that the
I Unafi mini' i r. ;as follows:
"If a person today makes his salat in
accordance with one madhhab (say Hanafi -
that is witfhout saying amin audibly, or raising
his hands before rukO\ or reciting Surah Fatihah
behind the imam) and then,, the following day,
makes it irri accordance with another madhhab
(say Shafii'i - saying amin audibly, raising his
hands before ruku', and reciting Surah Fatihah
behind the? imam), it is not prohibited for him to
do so."
So, the question then arises which one of the two is
correct, himself or Mawlana Muhammad.
In point of fact, there the speaker is misquoting and
misrepresenting his source. In the first place, the
passage on
which he quotes iis from the commentary on the sharh
of Sham?. What Allama ShamT himself wrote, he has
simply ignored. For the benefit of the reader, what
Sham? himself saays is that a person who leaves, say,
the Hanaf? macdhhab and takes up the Shafi'i
madhhab, will noDt be punished for doing so if he is
not doing it for scome reason that is prohibited or not
■cceptable in ShharT'ah, such as carnal appetite or
lahqiq Ahl e Hadith 27
some worldly motive, but is doing it because he has
the capacity for ijtihad, and as a result of his ijtihad
he has come to the conclusion that a certain view is
correct, and has therefore adopted it Such a person
is in no way punishable
The conclusion of this is that the Hanafi fuqahaa have
not defined leaving one madhhab for another as a
punishable offence out of 'asabiyat. This applies only
to a person who is doing this out of carnal desire or
for some corrupt motive, and is therefore making a
mockery of the madhhabs. All this is made quite clear
in the place from which he is quoting. The same will
apply to a person who changes from Shafil to Hanafi
for these motives, and this is also made clear in the
same place.
It would be interesting to know from which ayat of the
Holy Qura'n or which hadith the speaker derives
permission for misrepresentation like this.
15 "Persecution of the Ahl ul Hadith"
Under this heading the speaker says:
"Abu Hafs Hanaf? prohibited the compliler of
the Hadith of the Messenger, Imam BukharT,
from giving fatwa in Bukhara, and then had him
expelled him from the city." (p. 12)
In the incident in question, accusing Abu Hafs of
having him expelled from the city is blatant false
I i( Im|ii| Mil v llmlilh 28
|( . ii'..ili< hi .iimI lo quote Jnwnhn M,i. iv.ih in support
i Hun Is blatant false attribution All it says in this
I,,,. I is Hi. it Abu Hafs said to lm£m Bukhari that he
ihould not cjive fatwa because that was not his field.
, i mir was said by way of advice, and he had the right
1,, nny this because in terms of age Imam Bukhari
wJ I like his son, and in terms of learning, they were
Companions in the same class.) Further on what is
t iIimI hi Jnwdhir MazTyah is thai ImSm BukhSd did
, IM i .n « « »'pt this advice, and continued giving fatwas,
UM lil someone asked a fatwa and the answer he gave
WiiH wiong. The error was extremely clear. As a result
th# people there forced him to leave. It had nothing to
do with Abu Hafs.
I uither (p. 15) on the same accusation is repeated
together with this he says that the fatwa that Imam
ijkhlrl gave was not wrong, and that Abu Hafs Kab ir
| M \ I.iIm.'Iy ascribed it to him In support of this he
quotes hawa'id Buhaiyah. However, this book does
not lay what he says. On the contrary it says exactly
whit is said in Jawahir Maziyah. This is what each of
Ih0s*> books say, together with translation:
4ij p\3 ii JJ>1 £ 1 JlSj J1S& y\ olfd jJb Jjur _j
U^ O^ ji\± ijL j\ 5L5, jl ja b^i j_-^ je. Ji-, j*.
(v£ j^v j> »j* y-'j *J* j^ £**:&
Muhammad bin Isma'TI Bukhari came to
Tahqiq Ahl i Ihnlilli 29
Bukhara during the time of Abu Hafs Kabir. and
began to give fatawa. Abu Hafs then told him
not to do so, saying to him that he was not his
field. He did not stop doing so, until he was
asked about two children who had drunk the
milk of the same sheep or cow, and he gave a
fatwa of hurmat beteween them. (i.e. he said
that they cannot marry each other.) The result
of this was that the people united against him
and expelled him from Bukhara. (Jawihir v.1
p. 7, quoted in Fawa 'id p. 18)
There is also more to this issue. In Nishapur there
was an alim named Muhammad bin Yahya DhahIT,
who was what the speaker would term a great and
famous scholar of the Ahl ul Hadlth. A dispute arose
between him and Imam Bukhari over some question.
As a result he became extremely hostile to Imam
Bukhari, and even started calling him a bid'atl, and
announced that whoever went to him should not come
into his company, and that as long as he was there,
Imam Bukhari could not stay in Nishapur. Imam
Bukhari became afraid of what might happen, so he
left there and went to Bukhara. (The full details of this
are to be found in the Preface to Fat'h ul Ban - the
very famous commentary on Sahih Bukhari by ibn
Hajr, who is regarded by the ghair muqallidin as
completely reliable - see Muqaddamah to Fat'h ul Bar!
p. 579) However, even there Muhammad bin Yahya
did not leave him in peace. The details of this are
recorded by historians like Shams ud Din Dhahabi,
who was also a hafiz of hadlth. In Siyar A'lam un
Nubalaa he writes that DhahIT wrote complaints
Iwh<|ltj Mil v lliulilli 30
milt Imdm Bukhari to the governor and to the
i hnl.ir. dI Uukhara. The governor became enraged
i made up his mind to take very harsh action against
in, im Bukhfiri. However, the son of Abu Hafs Kabir
1 1 mi ih Muli.wnmad bin Hafs was told about this, and
••cretly took Imam Bukhari to a hospice .in
lukhara (See Fawaid Yahiyah p. 19.)
Mi. prison who asked Imam Bukhari the fatwa and
lliiui '.lined up the people against him was himself
nun i>l the Ahl ul Hadith of Nishapur (Muqaddamah
') on the other hand, it was the son of Abu Hafs
r il'n (wliuin Hie speaker accuses of forcing Imam
liukliAri to leave Bukhara) who risked his own life to
..v Im.nii fkikhari and bring him to the safety of a
he .pur in Bukhara. It would seem fairly clear that
the motive behind misrepresenting this whole incident
.lull the blame for it from someone who is taken
l»v ihtj Ahl ul Hadith as one of their predecessors and
mile .i I l.inafi.
/ A Contradiction
' in p;ic)< ' U the speaker says: "It was in the 4th century
Unit tuqlid was born." However, on page 12 he refers
to a person who attacked Imam Shafi'i as being a
follower of the Malik? school, and he also refers to the
I " •!.< hi lie accuses of expelling Imam Bukhari from
the city as a Hahafi. Then on p. 13 he says, "This is a
1 1 1. ill example of the treatment of the As'hab ul Hadith
by Ihe propagators of TaqlTd."
Since Imam Shafi'i died in 204 A.H. this would mean
Tahqiq Ahl c Hiulith 31
that taqltd was already present in the second century.
Clearly one or other of his statements is not quite right.
7 Ibn Taymiyah
Under the heading of "Persecution of the Ahl ul
Hadith", Ibn Taymiyah is described as "Imam of the
Ahl ul Hadith," whereas Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan
has referred to him as a follower {muqallid) of Imam
Ahmad bin Hanbal. (See Misk ul Makhtum p. 4.)
Similarly he has described Imam M (?) as a leader
of the Ahl ul Hadith, whereas he was in fact Shaft'?.
This is made clear by Imam DhahabT in Tadhkirat ul
Huffadh on p. 280 of vol.1 . He refers to Hafidh Abd ul
GhanT MuqaddasT as "openly Ahl ul HadTth" when in
fact Imam DhahabT has clearly stated on p. 160 of v. 4
of Tadhkirah that he was HanbalT. Similarly he counts
Sultan ul Awliyaa, Shaykh Nizam ud Din Dehlawi as
belonging to the Ash'hab ul Hadith (in his sense),
whereas in the very place in Tarikh Farishtah that he
has quoted as a reference, it is stated that an
opponent of the Shaykh said to him that he was a
"muqallid", and the Shaykh did not deny this. Also in
Tarikh Farishtah on p. 597 of v. 2 it says that he "had
full recall and full expertise in the Fiqh of Abu Hanifah,
Tafsir, Hadith, Usui, and Kalam."
Similarly it is not right for him to quote the name of
Mawlana Isma'TI Shahid, because he did not approve
of leaving taqltd. In Sirat ul Mustaqlm he writes, "amma
ittiba' madhihib 'arba'ah kih ra'ij dartamam ahl e islam
ast bihtar o khub ast - anyway, following the four
I ntH|iq All! c Hsnlilli 3^
m tiilthabs, as is the universal practice of the people
1 IftlAm, 18 right and proper."
I It (Hi«r is it light to quote Mirza Madhhar Jan e Janan
ill being Ahl ul Hadith. He was a strict Hanafi. Witn
i. ml to the one or two points where his practice
w*ft < < 'i ill. ii y to that of Hanaf? Fiqh, his Khalifah Shah
i ihulim 'All said, "az intiqal dar mas'alah juz'i khilaf
Hthhnb lazim narni ayad - disagreement in a
phi Ik i i I. ii mns'alah does not amount to opposition to
'if medhhab." Mirza Sahib has himself written the
•Nina thing (see Maktub 12 p. 102). Mirza Sahib was
H Iht view that it was good (but not in any way
obligatory) for the muqtadi in silent salat (dhuhr, asr)
II - imid SOrah Fatihah behind the Imam. However, he
was no concerned about the necessity for following
id" llnn.ifl madhhab that he would himself act as
mi (in lliur, .ivoiding where possible any occasion for
«• tin.) i uiiii.iiy to the Hanafi madhhab." (Maqamat
P 110)
/ "Sectarian Conflict"
I htn, under the heading of "sectarian conflict," the
uptaHtf talks about fights between the followers of
Ihfi '""i different madhhabs.
In Hill matter the speaker is not paying the same
■Utntlon to the state of affairs in his own house. It
hould not be forgotten how many sects and sectarian
•ii putt! have arisen out of the Ahl-e-Hadith
*/<Mimnl in century and a half during which it has
been In existence.
I iiliqi q Ah I v Hatlith 33
During the time this speech was made, the Ahl-e-
Hadith in India were divided into two parties, one under
the leadership of Maulwi Abd ill Wahab Sadry
Dehlawi, and the other under Maulwi Thana ullah, to
which the speaker belonged. The first party
announced publicly that anyone following the other
party would die the death of jahilfyah. Referring to
this first party the speaker, on p. 28 says:
"After making a claim to khilafat, and thus
making himself a stateless monarch, he has
given a fatwa that whoever does not declare
his allegiance to him and send his zakat to him
in full will die the death of jahiliyah"
The first party also regards the second party as mal'Cin
(under a curse). The speaker himself say that if
anyone claims imamat, but is not in a position to
establish the Sharf ah or to maintain it, then he is
cursed, (p. 28
7 False Accusations
In this matter the speaker has also resorted to taking
the mistakes of writers and presenting them as
accusations. For example the writer of Hidayah
mistakenly says that Imam Malik regarded muta' as
permissible. He has presented this as the writer
making a false accusation against Imam Malik. Al
iyadhu billah. If this kind of error is inexcusable, then
why is it that in his translation of Ibn Shaybah's book
Kitab ur Radd a'la Abi HanJfah, in those places where
Tahqiq Ahl e I hid it h 34
the writer has misrepresented the view of Imam Abu
Hanifah, he has not written that in this place Ibn Abi
Shaybah has falsely accused Imam Abu Hanifah.
For example, Ibn Abi Shaybah says that according to
Imam Abu Hanifah the time for Isha' extends only up
to midnight. (Kitab ur Radd p. 30 and in his translation,
p. 29.) In the speaker's terminology, this is a "patently
false accusation." The actual view of the Imam is that
the time for Isha 1 extends up to subh us sadiq (see
Sharah ui Ma' ani ul AtharvA p. 94, 95.) Similarly, he
says that according to IAH it is permissible for the
mawali of the Banu Hashim to eat from sadaqah (Kitab
ur Radd p. 38 and in his translation, p. 35.) This is in
fact not so. (seeTahawT v.1. p. 301.) There are many
other examples, but for the sake of keeping things
short, they can be passed over
The speaker has also presented many valid
statements as false accusations. For example the
writer of Hidayah says that according to Imam Shafi'I,
playing chess is not prohibited. This is quite true.
However, the speaker does not seem to know the
Shafi'I view, and presents this as a false accusation.
Allama Ibn Hajr Makki Shafi'I in zawajir writes:
"So, as long as the objective is to develop the ability
to think and calculate, then there is no reason for not
permitting them, as for example chess." (v.2. p. 168)
In the same way, he makes a great display of
indignation at a footnote to Sunan Nisa I when there
Tnh(|i>l Mil f Hadith 35
is no cause for this. According to his translation, the
footnote in question describes those Wahhabis "who
consider it permissible to kill our men and take our
women prisoner" as Kharijis. Now, if the party he
himself follows are not like this, then why should he
take offence at this comment?
Also, if there are no ghair muqallids today who take
this attitude, this does not in itself prove that at the
time this footnote was written there were no Wahhabis
who did take this attitude. So, until it is proved that
there were no such people, this footnote cannot be
called a false accusation. Is the speaker not aware of
Muhammad bin Abd ul Wahhab Najdl going to war
against Muslims, and creating widespread bloodshed
and misery? Is it then not possible that at that time
there may also have been some Wahhabis like this in
Hindustan?
7 The Ahl-e-Hadith Maslak
After all these anecdotes, the speaker starts to explain
the maslak of the Ahl ul Hadith. He starts from the hadith
Which he translates as " Follow my practice and that
of the Khulafaa-e-Rashidin." (p. 16) Further on he
explains that the meaning of "the practice of the
Khulafaa-e-Rashidin" is that when they disagreed on
some point, they acted according to the Hadith of the
Messenger salallahu alaihi wa sallam. What he means
to say is that the term Sunnnah applies only to the
Messenger of Allah salallahu alaihi wa sallam, and
Tahqiq Ahl e lladith 36
only his sunnah can be followed, and that the sunnah
of the Khulafa-e-RashidTn is not sunnah, and that this
hadith does not contain an instruction to follow their
sunnah. All it contains is an instruction to act on hadith,
as was the practice of the Khulafa-e-RashidTn.
This gives rise to a question. Are we to understand
that of the thousands and thousands of Sahabah of
the Messenger of Allah salallahu alaihi wa sallam, only
four used act on the basis of Hadith, and that none of
the rest used to do so? Are we also to understand, al
iyadhu billah, that the Messenger of Allah salallahu
alaihi wa sallam. saw them in this light, and for this
reason selected these four as people to be followed?
If this is not what he means, then what does he
consider to be the reason for selecting particularly
these four Sahabis?
Then another question arises. On what basis does
the speaker select "acting on hadith" as being the
meaning of "the practice of the Khulafa-e-RashidTn"?
If he says that this is established from their lives, then
the point still remains that there were a great many
more things to be found in their lives. For example
Sayyidina Abu Bak-r SiddTq raziyallahu g anhu said in
relation to kalalah
"In my opinion it means the person who has neither
father or son living." This he said simply on the basis
of his opinion, not any hadTth. Sayyidina Umar
raziyallahu 'anhu instructed SharTh: "where you do not
find an ayatof theQur'an or a hadith about a question,
T aluiig Alii v lladith _£L
then see what decision the pious make, and give your
decision on that basis." He said that to resolve a
question, analogy (qiyas) with some other similar
question could be used, (see Hafiz Ibn ul Qayyim -
Alam ul Muqiln - v.1, p. 29,30.) Again, Hazrrat Umar
Faruq did not take it on himself to contradict anything
that Sayyidina Abu Bak-r Siddiq decided. Thus in the
question of kalalah he simply followed Sayyidina Abu
Bak-r Siddiq. (Alam ul Muqiln -V.1, p. 73.) Indeed it
was his practice that if he did not find a mas'alah in
the Kitab and Sunnah, and Sayyidina Abu Bakr had
made a decision about it. then he considered that
decision as binding on himself. [Alam ul MQqi'm -V.1,
p 22) Similarly Sayyidina UthmanGhani ruled simply
on the basis of his own opinion that a woman who is
divorced by her husband when he is on his deathbed
remains his heir. (Alam ul Muqiln - v.1, p. 76.)
Sayyidina All ruled, simply on the basis of h.s own
opinion that a woman slave who was umm ul walad
could not be sold. (Alam ul Muqiln - v.1 , p. 73.)
These examples demonstrate that it was the practice
of the Khulafaa ur RashidTn in masa'il for which they
did not find any ayat or hadith, to give fatwas and
judgements on the basis of their own opinion. It was
also their practice to decide on one issue on the basis
of analogy with another issue. For further detail on
this, see Alam ul Muqiln - v.1 , pp. 21-80.
Then it was also the practice of the Khulafaa ur
RashidTn that together with following the practice of
the Messenger of Allah, they also regarded the
practice of their predecessors as something to be
Tahqiq Ahl e lluclit h 38
accepted and followed even where it was not the same
as the practice of the Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa
sallam. Thus Sayyidrna 'Umar raziallahu anhu said,
" aa
"If I appoint someone as my successor, I am doing
what someone better than myself did, that is to say
Abu Bak-r, and if I leave you to decide for yourselves,
then I am doing what someone betterthan myself did,
that is to say the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi
wa sallam." Imam NawwawT say the outcome of this
is that to appoint a khalifah (in the manner of Abu
Bak-r ) and to not appoint a khalifah (in the manner of
the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam.)
are both legitimate. (Nawwawi - Sharh Muslim v 1,
p. 129)
Now, according to the speaker the practice of the Ahl
ul Hadith is:
"Compared to the hadith of the Messenger, we do not
regard the word of even the greatest of the great as
having the weight of even the wing of a gnat."
(Khutbah-e-sadaratp. 20)
However Sayyidina Umar who despite being one of
the Khulafaa ur Rashidin and following in the footsteps
of the Messenger of Allah, still regarded the decisions
of Sayyidina Abu Bak-r Siddlq as something that was
to be followed. Therefore, by leaving this practice of
Sayyidina Umar, the Ahl e Hadith are leaving the
hadith:
Tahqiq A hi c Hadith
39
-My sunnah and the sunnah of the khulafaa urrash.dm
are binding on you."
Furthermore according to the speaker's own
statements, the Khulafaa ur Rashidln regarded the
practice of their predecessors as sunnah. Thus in one
place he writes that Sayyidina AIT raziyallahu anhu
described the penalty for drinking wine that was se
by Sayyidina Umar raziyallahu anhu (i.e. 80 strokes)
as sunnah, even though this was different to the
practice during the time of the Messenger of A lah_
Similarly, by remaining silent on the matter, the third
KhalTfah Sayyidina Uthman raziyallahu anhu indicated
his own approval of this, (see Khutbah e Sadarat p. 1 8)
However it appears that the Ahl e Hadith, far from
regarding this as sunnah, do not consider it to be worth
as much as the wing of a gnat. Al lyadhu biltah.
After this a point we need to consider is that when
the practice of the Khulafaa e Rasidin was that in every
matter they gave precedence to the words and actions
of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam.
then it necessarily follows that there was no
contradiction between their practice and the sunnah
of the Messenger of Allah. In this case, on the issue
of istikhlaf (appointing a successor), what reason is
there to regard the sunnah of the Messenger and the
sunnah of the Khulafaa e Rashidln as being
incompatible or contradictory? (See Khutbah e
Sadarat p. 18)
Tahqiq Ahl e Ihulith 40
Also, in the question of three talaqs, and the question
of tamattu' in hajj, the Ahl e Hadlth do not say that in
the fatwa that Sayyidina 'Umar raziyallahu anhu gave,
he gave priority to the word and action of the
Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa satlam. If they
are to say that this was not always their practice, then
this amounts to saying that in some matters they gave
preference to their own statements and actions over
the statements and actions of the Messenger
sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. Now to say such a thing
about the Khulafaa e Rashidin is a very serious attack
on them.
Furthermore, by saying this, it necessarily follows that
the Messenger of Allah has given two contradictory
orders. Together making with his own sunnah
obligatory, he has made the sunnah of the Khulafaa e
Rashidin obligatory and, according to them, the latter
in certain places contradicts the former. Whatever
anyone may wish to say, we regard the person of the
Messenger of Allah as being above any such thing.
Then another point arises. In the statement
"My sunnah and the sunnah of the Khulafaa ur
Rashidin are binding on you", there are no provisos
We then do not have the right to place our own
provisos and limitations on it. To do this would amount
to giving priority to one's own word over the word of
the Messenger of Allah.
However, on page 19 of his Khutbah e Sadarat the
Tahqiq Ahl c Hadifh 41_
speaker says; "Wherever the Khulafaa ur Rashidln
did something tor political reasons, or because of
some temporary need, it is not binding on us to follow
that." So. on the one hand the Messenger of Allah
has givewn an unqualified instruction that we should
follow his sunnah and the sunnah of the Khulafaa ur
Rashidm. Then on the other hand, the speaker is
adding a proviso that if what they did was for some
political reason or some temporary necessity, then we
do not have to follow it. At the same time he is
maintaining that we should act only on the basis of
what is clearly stated in the Qur'an and the HadTth.
Another question arises. If the Khulafaa ur Rashidln
did something for some "political reason or temporary
necessity", then why should that mean that we not
have to follow it? Was it then contrary to the word or
action of the Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa sallam?
If it was, then this would mean that it was not their
practice to act on the basis of HadTth, and that to give
priority to the word and action of the Messenger was
not their way. Alternatively, if it as not contrary to this,
then it necessarily follows that we are bound to follow
them.
The person most frequently cited by the Jama'at Ahl
e HadTth as an authority, and as representing their
viewpoint, is Hafiz Ibn Qayyim. It is instructive to see
what he has said about this hadTth, In A'lam ul Muqi'in
on p. 226, he writes:
Tahqiq Ahl c Hadith 42
4^1 jail U J_jl^j»Juij JbrljJU l^iP w ^uu, J-b ^>l .r*"^/ 9 ^'.**
diJi JlT *)h j ^A <u$ ^i~J jr* >-Uj ^J Jlj a*% oji->j
"The Messenger of Allah has referred to the sunnah
of the Khulafaa ur Rashidin along with his own sunnah.
and has instructed that it should be followed in the
same way as his own sunnah. and in this has even
gone so far as to use the expression of holding on to
it with the back teeth. This sunnah of the Khulafaa
includes their fatwas and those practices which they
established for the Ummah, even where there is no
prior instruction from the Messenger of Allah
concerning them; otherwise whatever they did simply
comes under the sunnah of the Messenger sallallahu
alsihi wa sallam himself."
7 Qiyas and lima'
Under this heading the speaker says, "We do not reject
qiyas and ijma' What we say is that the hadith of
the Messenger should be the basis of analogy this
rule is something that people have completely
abandoned." (p. 21)
This is another piece of boldly presented
misinformation. Since when has any hanafi or muqallid
abandoned this principle? Where has anyone said that
the hadith of the Messenger should not be made the
basis of analogy? In the HanafT books of Usui
(principles) it is clearly stated that the only qiyas that
Tahgig Ahl c Hadith . £L
is acceptable is that which is based on the Qura'n
and Sunnah.
(Nur ul Anwar p.4)
After this there remains the issue of haml un nadhir
•alan nadhir. ( ) This does not contradict the principle
of making the hadith the basis of analogy, nor is it
something whose validity can be denied Imam
(Mzny), the pupil of Imam Shafi'I, has stated:
,J*j ls»ji J (fi-j *M M J*) & J J-J r** &' ^
"From the time of the Messenger of Allah right up to
today the fuqahaa have made use of qiyas in all the
ahkam of religion and they agree unanimously
that the nadhir (equivalent) of haqq is haqq and the
nadhir of batil is batil" (Alam ul Muqmin V.1 p. 74)
Consider this point. In the light of the hadith, in an
exchange of barley for barley, no difference in amount
is permitted. Now if someone applies the same thing
to millet, will this not be haml un nadhir 'alan nadhir?
If it is, and it most certainly is, then where is the
contradiction between hamlun nadhir 'alan nadhir and
making the hadith the basis of analogy?
On this topic the speaker has quoted Shah Waliyullah
Dehlawi. However it is clear from the way that they
Tahqiq Ahl e Ikidith 44
are quoted that the speaker had not in fact taken the
trouble to understand what Shah Waliyullah was
actually saying.
Shortly before quoting the examples of haml tin nadhfr
'alan nadhir that the speaker quotes, Shah Waliyullah
explains that Hanafi Fiqh is not based on the academic
proofs that are presented in Hidayah and other similar
books. These arguments are given simply for the
purpose of intellectual stimulation (Hujjatullah il
Balighah p. 128)
Thus, without taking any account of the context, the
speaker has treated these arguments as being their
basis in Fiqh of the masa'il in question, and then set
about raising objections to them. Even then, carried
away by the heat of his arguments he does not even
take care to stick to the truth On the contrary, he
constructs a mas'alah of his own and then attributes
it to the Hanafiyah.
A) On page 12 he says:
"A person hires a woman for the purpose of
fornication. After this the woman takes the sum
agreed. In effect, this is an invalid hire agreement,
and the basis of the hire agreement is a prohibited
action. However a rule has been made: "A fair wage
is fair.".... therefore it is legitimate for that woman to
take the wage."
Tahqiq Mil y Htidith 45
Readers should know that this is blatant false
accusation and false attribution. All of our fuqahaa
have written that if a woman is hired for fornication,
then the wage she takes for this is haram. Allamah
Aini Hanafi writes in Sharh Bukhari:
£*** ij* 3 UjJi if tr -H) >r* j- j** *& y* ^
"Any wages for fornication is not legitimate, because
it is given in return for an action that is prohibited,
Allah Almighty has prohibited fornication. There is
ijma on this, and no one at all among Muslims has
disputed this." (v.5 p.611)
Similarly Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri writes in his
commentary on Tirmidhi concerning the wage of a
harlot that it is
"haram according to all."(p.402)
In short, for the speaker to say:
•The Hanafis, on the basis of "ajr ul mithl tayyib" have
said that the wages of a harlot are halal, even though
it is clear from the hadith
'the mahr of a harlot is haram'
that it is haram."
is a plain lie. The Hanafis have also said that it is
haram and have said so on the basis of that same
Tahqiq Ahl e Fliidith 46
hadlth. In both of the books referred to above, under
the heading of this hadlth, the wage of a harlot has
been declared haram. Then, in Bada'J we find
"The hiring of slave girls for fornication is not
permissible, because it is payment for sin it
is reported that the Messenger of Allah has prohibited
the mahr of a harlot, and the mahr of a harlot is a
term for the wages of fornication."
This should be enough to make clear that what the
speaker has said is less than honest. Even MaulwT
Abd ur Rahman Mubarakpuri (of the Ahl e Hadlth)
has also had to admit that:
"on this question there is ijma' of the whole urnrnah.
There has not been any disagreement." (Sharh
Tirmidhi)
On this issue the speaker has also given Allarnah
Shami as a reference. Again, this is patent false
attribution. In Sham? there is no mention whatsoever
of "Paying a woman a wage for fornication".
Looking to Their Own House
It is however interesting to note that Hafiz Abdullah
Sahib Ghazi, ahl e hadlth, has written:
Tahqiq Ahl c Hadith £L
"A prostitute has earned money through fornication,
and then repented of it. In this case her money
becomes legitimate and pure, both for herself and for
all Muslims." (Fatawa Hafiz Abdullah Sahib Gazipun.
23 Rabi' ul Akhir 1329, quoted in Gata'ul Watin)
B) The speaker quotes this mas'alah:
"If an imam who is musafir (on journey) does not make
qasr but performs the whole salat, then the salat oj
Muqtadis who are muqim (not on journey) is not valid,
because for the last two rak'ats the salat of the imam
was nafal."
Up to this point what he writes is correct. However
the reasoning on which he claims this is based - the
strong cannot be based on the weak", seems to be
something he has made up for himself. He has not
quoted any book of Hanafi Fiqh as a reference.
Even if he did quote some reference, it would not make
any difference, because, as Shah Waliyullah has
stated, Hanafi Fiqh is not founded on academic proofs
of the kind quoted in Hidayah and so on.
In actual fact the basis the reason for the mutaqadis
salat in the above instance being invalid is that the
salat of a person performing his faraz salat is not valid
behind an imam who is making nafal salat. This is
established from precisely the hadith that the speaker
quotes. However, he has also quoted part of this
hadith.
Tahqiq Ahl v liaiiith 48
The full incident is as follows. Maa'z raziyallayu anhu
used to join in Isha salat behind the Messenger of
Allah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, and then go to his
own quarter and lead the 'Isha salat there. He used
to read very long rak'ats. When complaints about this
were made in the court of the Messenger sallallahu
alaihi wa sallam, he said to him
ibj i; gaixj! Ulj^w -Uiljl Ul
"You should either make your salat with me, or, if you
make it with your people, then shorten your rak'ats."
Hafiz Ibn Taymiyah, who the speaker has called the
"imam of the Ahl e Hadith", writes that this hadith
proves that it is not valid for a person to make his farz
salat behind an imam who is making nafl,
"because it (the hadith) shows that if he (Ma'az
raziyallu anhu) made his salat behind him (the
Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), then
he would not be able to act as imam." (See Sham! v.
1 p. 407)
So it established from this that a person performing
farz salat cannot follow an imam who is making nafl.
Then, in the previous mas'alah, for a musafir the last
two rak'ats are nafl, and for the person following him
they are farz, Therefore, in the light of this hadith of
Ma'az, the salat of the muqtadi (the person following)
will not be valid.
In quoting this hadith the speaker has not quoted it in
full, and then then also made some additions to it. He
Tahgig Ahl c Hadith £9_
then presents it, saying that the Hanafl scholars,
contrary to this hadith, have derived their ruling from
a principle of their own making In point of fact, the
situation is exactly the opposite. In precisely the way
that the accepted imam of the Ahl e Hadith has
explained, the Hanafl scholars have based their ruling
on this very hadith.
In quoting this hadith, the speaker has said that Ma'az
raziyallahu anhu "used to make his farz 'Isha with the
Messenger of Allah sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam." The
word farz he has himself added , Hafidh ibn Taymiyah
has explained at this point,
j^ ^l-j up i/i ju= ^Ji £• a^. jit £ji\ a\ ^
"Know that the salat that he was making with the
Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam was
nafl"
Imam Qutrubi, whom the speaker also counts as being
of the "Ahl ul Hadith," has also said the same thing
(see Shami v.1 p. 407)
(A person can join a jamat and pray with the niyah of
nafl, either after he has already made his faraz, or
before making his faraz elsewhere. The latter is what
Harat Maa'z raziyallahu anhu was in fact doing. The
Messenger of Allah told him to either make his farz
with him i.e. not act as imam in his local masjid, or, if
he did act as imam, to shorten his rak'ats. In short, in
accordance with his own priciple of referring directly
to hadith, the speaker quoted this hadith, but at the
same time completely misunderstood its meaning.)
I ;ilu|i(| Ahl v Hadith 50
B) The third example the speaker gives is this
"A person reads his fajr salat so late that after the
first rak'at the sun rises, and he then reads the second
rak'at His salat becomes invalid. "(p 22)
This mas'alah is also in itself correct However, the
reasoning he gives is wrong. The HanafT jurists have
most certainly not arrived at this verdict on the basis
of a principle that "the deficient cannot be added to
the complete." They have said that something whose
completion is obligatory cannot be fulfilled by
something that is deficient. Furthermore, this point,
as Shah Waliyullah has made clear, is simply
intellectualisation. It is not the actual basis of the
mas'alah. On the contrary, this mas'alah is also based
on a hadith.
From the hadith that the speaker has quoted it would
appear that salat performed like this at the time of the
rising of the sun is still valid. However there are a
large number of other hadith in which making the salat
at the time of sunrise has been prohibited. Now only
two alternatives remain - either to give priority to the
first hadith or to give priority to the others. So, Imam
Shaft 1 ?, on the basis of his own understanding and
ijtihad, has given priority to the first. Imam Abu
Hanifah, on the basis of his understanding and ijtihad,
has given priority to the second. He has therefore
concluded that salat made in this way is not valid.
Anyway, both Imam Shafi'i and Imam Abu Haifah have
based their decisions only on hadith. For further detail
see Sharh Ma'ani ul AtharvA, p. 232-234).
laliqiq Alii C Hadith 51_
7 " No Ijma' OtherThantheljma of the Sahabah"
After the subject of Qiyas, what the speaker has said
about Ijma" is as follows:
"Essentially the ijma that is authoritative is the ijma'
of the sahabah kiram." (p. 24)
Readers should note this point. What he has said is
that the ijma' of the tabiln. the taba' tabiln. or other
mujtahidin has no authority. Only the ijma' of the
sahabah kiram is authoritative. In short, he does not
accept any ijma' other than that of the sahabah.
7 An Answer to Objections
Finally it has occurred to the speaker that the
passages which he has quoted to establish the
existence of "Ahl ul Hadith." for the most part refer to
compilers of hadith. To strengthen his own
interpretation of the term, he makes the following
statement:
"In the same way, in the passages in the text of Usui ud
Din, and those referring to Imam Shafi'i and Imam Ahmad,
the term 'madhhab of the Ahl ul Hadith' is clearly used."
What he means to say is that the term Ahl ul Hadith
does not only mean a complier of Hadith, but also
refers to a madhhab called Ahl ul Hadith. So clearly
he does not deny that the term Ahl ul Hadith is used
to refer to those who compile hadith. What then
remains is the question of whether there was any
madhhab called Ahl ul Hadith, and then the validity of
Tiih(|iq A hi e Hadith 52
his reference to Usui ud Din.
As far as this reference is concerned, the earlier
discussion of these passages will have made it quite
clear that they in no way support his interpretation
Then come the passages referring to Imam Shafi'T
and Imam Ahmad On this point a question arises. If
both these Imams were Ahl ul Hadith, then the people
who follow their madhab and accept their madhhab
are also Ahl ul Hadith. In this case why does the
speaker exclude them from the Ahl ul Hadith?
Furthermore, if their madhhab is already Ahl ul Hadith ,
then what need is there to establish another
madhhab? Establishing a madhhab distinct from the
madhhab of these two personages can only mean one
of two things. Either they were not Ahl ul Hadith, or
else the madhhab of the speaker is not Ahl ul Hadith.
After this he quotes a passage from Qazi Ayyaz.
However, rather than strengthening his case it
damages it. He states that what Imam Ahmad has
said referring to the firqah najiyah means that the
firqah najfyah is the ahl us sunnah waljama'ah - that
is to say, by the phrase "ahl ul hadith" Imam Ahmad
means the ahl us sunnah waljama ah. Therefore what
the speaker represents on p.7&8 - that the passages
he quotes here refer specifically to what he regards
as the "Ahl ul Hadith" - is simply not correct. They
refer to the whole ahl us sunnah waljama'ah.
Someone may object that after the phrase "the ahl us
sunnah wal jama'ah", Qazi Ayyaz has written
Tahqin Mil c llatlith JlL
•and those follow the way of the ahl ul hadith" Now
the answer to this is that if the word "and" here is to
be read as 'atf mughair 'alal mughaar, (i.e. joining
two things that are different to each other) then the
speaker should announce publicly that the ahl ul
hadith and those who follow them are not part of the
ahl us sunnah waljamaah However, if he is not willing
to make this announcement, then he will have to
accept that here the "and" is 'atftafsM, (i.e. adding
more information about the previous thing) and that
the ma Wand the ma'tufilaihi (the thing that is added
and the thing to which it is added) both refer to the
same group of people, and that is the group of the ahl
us sunnah wa'l jama'ah.
After this he says that
•Hafiz Nawwawi ShafiT" in his Sharh Muslim in
several places refers to five different madhhabs,
saying that 'in our Shafi'T madhhab this is like this', 'in
the MalikT madhhab like this', 'in the Hanafi madhhab
like this', in the Hanbali madhhab like this,' and then
separately states the madhhab of the Ahl ul Hadith. -
see v.1, p73, and v.2 p. 32."
Then, right next to what he has said here, he says:
"Those people who practice qira'at behind the imam
and refa'yadain before ruku have always been called
ahl ul hadith." (p. 24, 25)
It is clear that Imam Shafi'T and his followers, and (in
Tahqiq Ahl c lladith 54
the opinion of those who refer to themselves Ahl e
Hadith*), Imam Ahmad and his followers, all practiced
on qira'at khalfat imam and rata' yadain 'indal ruk'u.
Therefore they were all Ahl ul Hadith.
[*See Molwi Muhammad AIT Sahib Mi'awT's booklet
Al Qawlu Muhallan bi Kulli Iain and Mawlana Abd ur
Rahman Mubarakpuri s booklet Tahqiq ul Kalam parti]
The speaker then needs to explain why it is that Hafidh
Nawwawi has spoken of "the ahl ul hadith" as
something distinct from both of them.
Indeed in the pages of Sharah Muslim referred to
above Hafidh Nawwawi has himself referred to the
"ahl ul hadith" as distinct from Imam Ahmad, Imam
Shafi'i, Imam ThawrT, and Imam Malik. From this it is
clear that these personages were not ahl ul hadith. It
therefore follows inescapably that when the speaker
refers to them on p. 6 and 7 as being ahl ul hadith, he
is mistaken.
7 An A nswer to O b jections turns into a
Confirmation of Obje ctions
If the speaker things carefully he will see that instead
of answering objections he has in fact confirmed them
because
firstly, he cannot deny that the term Ahl ul Hadith is
used to refer to those who transmit Hadith.
secondly, in quoting the passage from Qadi Ayyaz he
Tahqiq Ahl f Hutlith 55^
has established that the term Ahl ul Hadith is also
used in the sense of Ahl us Sunnah wal Jama'ah.
thirdly having said that '"the term ahl ul hadith has
always been used to refer to all those who practice
on qiraat khalfal imam and rafa yadain 'mdalruku ,
he has established, at the very least, that every Shafi i
can be called ahl ul hadith.
Therefore, to establish the existence of what he calls
the Ahl ul Hadith, he still has to produce valid evidence
to show that in each of the passages he has quoted,
the term ahl ul hadith does not have one of these
three meanings.
7 Who is Meant Bv "Ahl e Hadith"?
Basically these days the term Ahl ul Hadith is used to
refer to those people who, in spite of simply being
ordinary individuals (i.e. do not have the qualifications
to be a mujtahid), do not accept the need to follow
one of the Imams. What Maulana Habib ur Rahman
is saying is that this use of the term is entirely novel,
and that such Ahl ul Hadith have never existed until
very recent times.
The persons of earlier times whom that the speaker
has presented as being Ahl ul Hadith were either ahl
ul hadith in the sense of transmitting hadith or
specialising in the study and teaching of hadith, or
ahl ul hadith in the sense of following the Shafi i or
Maliki madhhab.or ahl ul hadith in the sense of being
ahl us sunnah wal jama ah. The term ahl ul hadith is
I ;ih(|ii| Ahl c Hadith 55
used in these three senses. This we have established
above. Indeed it is also established from the speakers
own explanations. Thus his efforts to establish his
point have so far produced no result.
It still remains for him to produce from the books of
the mutaqaddirnin (the scholars of the early period)
any passage in which an 'amrni ghair muqallid (an
unqualified person who does not follow any imam) is
referred to as ahl ul hadith.
And that concludes what we had to say, and all praise
is for Allah. Lord of All the Worlds, and his mercy and
peace remain always on His Messenger, the Trusted,
the Teller of Truth, and on his Household, and his
Companions, and his followers until the Day of
Reckoning.
( Original booklet written Dhi'l Hijjah 1362 A. K - Dec
1943 G.C.)
wUj*J1 Jjj
Til hq ii| Ahl c lladith 57
Appendix
Summary
of a lecture
given by
Maulana Muhammad Abd us Shukur
The day before Maulana Habib ur Rahman's talk. Maulana
Muhammad Abd us Shukur had given a talk oil the same
issue. Because of his ill-health this talk was ver\ short, but
at the same time very illuminating. What he said was
afterwards misrepresented by his opponents, so M. Ilabib
ur Rahman included a brief summary of what he actually
said as a conclusion to the written text of his own talk.
1 ) The speaker started by quoting this a\at o\' the Holy
Qur'Sn:
those who.
if We establish their position in the land.
will establish the Salat, and give the Zakit,
and order what is good,
and prohibit what is wrong,
and Allah Almighty knows
the outcome of all affairs.
or alternatively
the outcome of all affairs rests with Allah.
2) After reciting this ayat he said that the subject of his
talk would be the status of the Sahabah and the
Tuh(|i(| Mil e llaclith 58
importance of the SaJat. even though the purpose of
the gathering was to answer line objections raised b\
ghuir nutijalUdin against ihc leading scholars of the
Hanafi School. Unfortunately, as the organisers of this
I lanafi Conference had not given him an\ information
about them, he did not know what these objections
were. Indeed- he had not received even the text ofthe
khutbah Sadaral ofthe Ah] e Jladiih Conference,
Therefore he was not in a position to give any kind of
detailed talk on thai subject.
2) In this ayaL the listener can hear for himself how well
and how fittingly the merits ofthe sahahah kiram. and
particularly ofthe muhajirin have been described In
particular he shed light on a rather fine point: Why is
it that the merits and the achievements ofthe sahabah.
and particularly ofthe muhajirin and ansar have been
spoken of with such attention thai, from looking at
the pages ofthe Holy Quran it almost seems as if
one major objective ofthe revelation ofthe Holy
Qur'an was to establish in the hearts of muslims a
firmly grounded conviction ofthe saintliness, purity,
and elevated standing ofthe muhajirin and ansar?
He then explained this point so well in the light o\'
several aval ofthe Holy Qur'an. that people's hearts
spontaneously began to exclaim
lilldhi darrakum wa 'alaihi ajrakum. *• Allah is the
one who enabled you to do this, and he is the one
who will reward you for it."
After that, the way in which he explained the benefits
and the importance of the Salat was again an
unexpected delight for all muslims.
2) Explaining the fadiUti (merits) of the mnhajirirt
l;ih(|K| Mil c lladith 59_
rhhumutluhi uktihim from this ayat. he said that had %mai
(sinlcssncss) not been a exclusive characteristic of
nuhuwwuf (prophethood). then this a\at would certainly
ha\ e provided good grounds fo 1 asserting that the muhajmn
wem mu'silm (sinless) -especially with regard to those who
succeeded lo the office ofkhilclfal. during the time of that
khilclfat. After this, by \\a> of confirmation, he read a lew
passages of the peerless book of Shah Wall) ullah muhaddith
Dehlawi, "Izdlut itl Khufd", among them being die
following passage:
Bu ctz majhian "uqumu, a/ft. wa amaru wa nahaw" umtst
kih har chch 02 mumukkinin dor uyyt'un-htumkin-e-iyshun
aziyn uhwcih dln'ihir shawad hamuli mu (uddhihi khwcihad
bud shew 'an.
Included in the meaning of "<u/umu. utu, wu amaru wa
nuhuw " is thai, during the period of their lamkin whatever
actions the mumakkinin will do that come under these
headings, will all be dependable in terms of shari ah.
As well as this, he read out the passage in which Shaikh
Waliyullah muhaddith Dehlawi describes the ludifat of the
muhajmn that is being defined by this Quranic ayat about
the muhujirin as being "the shade of "ismul " (i.e. the shade
of the ismat of the Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa sallam.
rather than ismat itself)
2) In the connection with of this he referred to the twenty
rak'ats oftarawih. He said that the clear logical consequence
of abandoning taqlid i.s that those who do so will have to
deny the fadilat of the muhajlrin which is established from
this quranie ayat. The ghair rmujaltidtn say that the twenty
ntk'ctl of lar&wih is a hid'ah (innovation), even though
during the time of the khilu/ut of 'Umar radiulluhu 'unlw
the twenty rak'ats oftarawih was organised on a regular
basis, and this was done was by his order, or at the very
least, took place with his full knowledge. The ghair
muqallidin also accept that he knowing about it. So, if this
Tahqiq Ahl c 1 1 ml it li gO
thinti was a hid 'ah and was undesirable, then il is not
possible thai I 'mar radivallahu anhtt. who in the time of
his tumkiih w as the besi of this \ erj /amcS c/A of muhtijirin.
should riol Stop this undesirable practice, and instead, let it
continue.
Ihen. in the course of this, he spoke of lac/lfdas being a
Minntfh muiuwaiinth. pointing out its immense benefits.
and shed some light on the damage that comes from
abandoning laqltd. I le also said that nearly twenty years
previously, in Darbhangah, he gave a talk on this same ayat.
and in the course of it, the topic of tarawih also came up.
although here, from beginning to end, the actual talk was
in reply to the rawafi (f (niud/i dmaxm ShTah). I lowever,
some ghair nntcjallidin were present at the talk. They then
attributed some completely false and unfounded statements
to me, which they printed in the ahl e hadith newspapers,
and I had to answer in "an Sajm ". It is quite possible that
on this occasion also, they will resort to the same kind of
misrepresentation.
What he said about tarawih was in itself a magnificent
lecture. That the twenty rak'ats of tanhvih was sunmih.
and that the people who say that twenty rak cits is a hid 'ah
do not actually understand what is swvialu was all made
clear as daylight. In reference to [his. he also gave a quotation
from "Minhclj us Swmah" by Shaykh ul Islam Allamah
ibn Taymiyyah, where he sets out accurately researched
answers to the objection of the leading Imam by the Shi'ah
Shaikh Il-l-y that tarawih is a bid 'ah and thai Umar
radiyalldhn 'anhu was the originator of this bid' ah.
That is a summary of Maulana's talk. Throughout the whole
talk, not a single harsh word was used. There was nothing
that any person could take as grounds for complaint. This
particular characteristic of both his speaking and his writing
is something that is acknowledged today all over India.
Tahqiq
Ahl ill Hadith
Investigating the Credentials of the
" Ahl ul Hadith M
by
Maulana Hablb ur Rahman Azaml
" This learning is your religion
Take care from whom you
learn it "
ZAM ZAM PUBLISHERS
2, Shah Zeb Centre, Near Muqadas Masjid,
Urdu Bazar, Karachi. Pakistan. Post Code: 74200
Phone (021) 7760374, Tel/Fax: (021) 7725673,
Email : zamzam@sat.net.pk
Tahqiq Ahl ul Hadith
Hv Maulana Habib ur Rahman Azami
m
Translated bv: Abd ur Rahman O'Beirne
Sole Distributors:
Al Farooq International
la Atkinson Street
Leicester
LE5 3QA
United Kingdom
Tel: 00-44-0116 253 7640
Fax:00-44-0116 262 8655
E-Mail: alfarooq@onetel.net.uk
All Rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying.
recording, or otherwise, without the prior
written consent of the publishers, except for
passages for preview purposes.
ZAM ZAM PUBLISHER
KARACHI-PAKISTAN
0092- 21 -7725673
I uh(|i<| \ lil e 1 1 £1(1 it li
The A ii Ih or
Maulana I labib ur Rahman 'A/ami was a \ erj well known
and reputable scholar of the Indian subcontinent, whose
reputation extended well heyond its boundaries into Uie
Arab world, lie was born in I 31 9 A.H. and passed awa\ in
1413 A.M. (1992). He was an acknowledged authority on
Tafsir. Fiqh, and Hadith.
Maulana Elabib ur Rahman was born in the town of Man
Nath Bhanjan in the district of Azamgarh (U.R) India. I lis
whole life was spent in study and teaching. Like the great
scholars of the past, he led a very simple and unpretentious
life, spending most of his life in his home town, and teach-
ing lladith literature to students from all over the world.
There he founded a number of institutions, among ihem
Madrasah Mirqat ul "Ulum, Jami'ah Miftah ul "Ulum. and
the Islamic Institute for Higher Studies.
lie studied under a number of prominent IJIamaa of the
last century, including Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri,
Mufti h Aziz ur Rahman Deobandi. and Maulana 'Abd ul
(ihaffar. the disciple of Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi.
Many students have benefited from his learning, one of
whom was Maulana Manzur Nu'mani. Several prominent
scholars of the Arab world have also been given Vijazah by
him. They include Shaikh Abdul Fattah Abu Gkuddah,
Shaikh Isma'il al Ansari (Dar ul Ifia Riyad) Shaikh
Hammad al Ansari (islamic University Madinah) Shaikh
Subhi SamarnTi (Baghdad). Dr fc Abd us Sattar Abu
(Jhuddah (Kuwait), and Dr Bashshar fc Awud Ma'ruf
(Baghdad).
Tahqiq Ahl c lladith
This Book
This book explains the meaning of the term "Ahl ul lladith.''
This term is used in many books dating from different pe-
riods. At present there are certain parties who claim that it
refers to people who do not follow an> of the four schools
offiqh, and derive legal judgements directly from lladith.
Basically the purpose behind this claim is to establish thai
this view was to be found among scholars of Islam since
the earliest times.
The author, who has spent his whole life teaching Hadith,
and is very familiar with the literature referring to it, shows
that this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. This
term has only been used in this sense within the last two
centuries, since the start of the movement which at present
uses this name. Prior to that, the term was used in several
different senses, but never in this sense.
This is an important issue. The Muslim world is not going
to easily accept the views of any group unless they have at
least some claim to be able to trace their origins to the
early days of Islam. If it is not able to do so. then this means
that their teachings are an innovation, and "every innova-
tion is error and every error.../ 1 (al Hadith). In these times,
when people are greatly inclined to take their religion from
rumour among their fellows, rather than lessons by teach-
ers, and when fellowship has taken the place of study, it is
very easy to circulate confused ideas and misrepresenta-
tions. This translation of a booklet by a very reputable
teacher should be useful for dispelling one misrepresenta-
tion that has now become quite widespread.
lahqiq A hi c Hadith
Ik has written several works on Hadith. One of them is a
critique of the works of Shaikh Ahmad Muhammad Shfikir.
.1 well-known recent scholar of Hadith. He has also edited
and brought out several manuscripts of Hadith from pri-
vate collections. Among them are .// Musatwuf ol Imam
Abd ur Razzaq ( 1 1 vols): Mmnadul Humaidi (2 vols), [he
Siman of Sa'id ibn Mansiir; Intiqu* at Tttrhih b\ ihn I la jar;
Al Maidlib al A/iyah hi Zawd'id al Masdnid ulh
lhamdniyah by Ibn. Ilajar (4 vols): the KashJ al Asidr an
/.await id Musnadal Bazzdr of Haithami; Al Mu Banna! h\
ibn Abi Shaibah; Kildb ath ThiqSl by ibn Shahin. and Fat 7/
al Mughith by Imam Sakhawi.
Mis own writings include:
• Al H&wi li Rijal ai Tah&wi which traces the rijal (per-
sonalities) mentioned in Imam Tahawi's Ma'c'mi al
Uhar and Mushkil al Alhar.
Al llhafah as Saiyah hi Dhikri Muhaddiflu al
llanaj'iyah
I hese two works have still to be published.
Published works include:
• Susrai al Hadith on the indispensibility of the I ladilh.
and refuting the arguments of those who try to reject
the Hadith
• :i van al Hujjaj listing the famous Ulamaa who have
performed I lajj and Ziyarah
• Rak 'al al Tarimih
• Shdri ' flaijh/i
• Da.slkdr AM e Sharf establishing that the real criteria
for nobility is lawful earning in accordance with the
Slniri'ah. and not the standards of nobility prescribed
b) the colonial powers or the traditional Muslim ar-
istocracy.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11