AHNAF - AHL RAY

Imam Nu'aym ibn Hammad is an Imam of the Sunnah, known for his refutation of the Jahmiyah, and
he died when in prison about the case of Khalq Al-Quran beatened by Mutazili Abbasi rulers with
scholars like ibn Abi Duwad Hanafi Mutazili undertaking this.

Hafiz ibn Kathir discussing Allah's Istiwa (ascension) on the throne said in Surah A'raf Ayat 54 as
translated by Darussalam:

"Indeed, we assert and affirm what the Imams said, such as Nu'aym ibn Hammad Al-Khuza'i, the
teacher of Imam Al-Bukhari: "Whoever likens Allah with His creation will has committed Kufr. Whoever
denies what Allah has described Hiself with, will have committed Kufr. Certainly, there is no
resemblance (of Allah with the creation) in what Allah and His Messenger (saw) have described Him
with. Whoever attests to Allah's attributes that the plain Ayat and the authentic Hadith have mentioned,
in the manner that suits Allah's majesty, all the while rejecting shortcomings from Him, will have taken
the path of guidance"

Yet Habibullah Daerwi attacked this great Imam with injustice and Ta'asub, talbis and lies.

When Hafiz Qasim from GujranWala wrote a risalah “Hidayah ‘Awam ki ‘Adalat mein” showing the
many baseless narrations of the Hanafi book of fiqh “Al-Hidayah”, this angered the ghali Muta’asib
Deobandi Habibullah Daerwi, student of Sarfraz Safdar Khan. He wrote a risalah in answer “Hidayah
‘Ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” but instead of defending Hidayah, he went over scholarly difference and
started showing mistakes of other scholars, and he attributed many mistakes to Imam Al-Bukhari in his
“Sahih”, to which Shaykh Irshadul Haqq Al-Athari answered in his risalah “Imam Bukhari par ba’dh
I’tiradhat ka Jaizah”.

Here are Irshadul Haqq Athari’s answer to the attacks of Daerwi on Nu’aym ibn Hammad. The
translation of Shaykh Irshadul Haqq has been adapted and slightly sumarised. The terms Daerwi
Sahib or Janab Daerwi have only been translated by Daerwi, also the words Hadhrat have been
omited, as these terms are specific to urdu and english readers are not used to them.

“The 17th objection to Imam Bukhari from Habibullah Daerwi is:

“Imam Bukhari based himself (Ihtijaj) in two places of his Sahih Bukhari on Nu’aym ibn Hammad Al-
Marwazi (Bukhari v 1 p 56-543) while this narrator is very weak until that he used to fabricate false
Ahadith” (“Hidayah ‘Ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 103-104)

To relax the zeal of his heart, he went on to say: “He was a big liar, cunning and plotter”

Who is Nu’aym ibn Hammad and how is he and what did Daerwi did and said about him?

The details of this are first ‘Allamah Abdul Qadir Qurshi, a famous Hanafi scholar in his well-known
book “Jawahir Al-Madhiyah fi Tabaqat Al-Hanafiyah” mentioned him and said he was a student of Abu
Hanifah and he presented him as being Hanafi, and he did not mention any words of Jarh on him,
rather mentioned him as “Al-Imam Al-Kabir” (the great Imam), so he mentioned him with this great title
and also mentioned the Tawthiq of Imam Ahmad. (Al-Jawahir Al-Madhiyah v 2 p 402)

And likewise Shaykhul Hadith Maulana Zakariyah Kandhalwi (Marhum) also wrote in a place of the
introduction of “Lami’ Ad-Durari”: “The hanafi scholars among the teachers of Al-Bukhari and the
teachers of his teachers are many as it is not hidden for those who are experts in books of Rijal”

Then when he mentioned Imam ‘Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak, Imam Yahya Al-Qattan, Imam Abu ‘Asim
An –Nabil and others, he also mentioned Nu’aym ibn Hammad among the Hanafi teachers of al-
Bukhari, and he gave the reference of “Al-Jawahir Al-Madhiyah”, see his introduction p 64.
So Nu’aym ibn Hammad is Hanafi according to these great scholars, rather is thiqah and “Al-Imam Al-
Kabir”…if they (Daerwi and his pro-Kawthari colleagues) do not agree with them, they should also
reject what ‘Allamah Qurshi did by saying that a group of Muhadith were Hanafi because of them
being students of Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Muhammad, and Qadhi Abu Yussuf, and they should not
make them (Muhadith) Hanafi and put laymen in error (so to show importance of Hanafi madhab).

Nu’aym ibn Hammad and the Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil

Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal, Yahya ibn Ma’in, Al-‘Ijli declared Nu’aym ibn Hammad to be thiqah. Imam
Abu Hatim said: “His position is that of Sidq”, and ibn Hibban also declared him to be thiqah and said
that he erred sometimes and had wahm. Imam Ad-Daraqutni said: “An Imam in Sunnah and having a
lot of wahm (Kathir al-Wahm)”. Maslamah ibn Qasim said: “He is Saduq but commits many mistakes”.
But Imam Nasa’i declared him to be weak. Imam Abu Dawud said that he had twenty baseless
Ahadith. There is also a saying from ibn Ma’in saying “He is nothing”. Abul Fath Al-Azadi said that
Nu’aym ibn Hammad would invent false Ahadith to support the Sunnah and Ad-Dulabi also said that
some people say that Nu’aym used to fabricate false Ahadith to strengthen the Sunnah and used to
narrate some stories to diminish the status of Imam Abu Hanifah and they would all be lies. (Tahzib v
10 p 459-461, Mizan v 4 p 269, Al Kamil of ibn ‘Adi v 7 p 2486 and the introduction of Fath Al-Bari p
447 and others)

Imam ibn ‘Adi mentioned approximately nine Ahadith of Nu’aym ibn Hammad and criticised them, and
then said: “And the majority of what was objected to him is what I have mentioned, and I hope that the
rest of his Hadith are Mustaqim (right).”

Accordibg to Hafiz ibn Hajar, the most authentic of saying is that he is “Saduq and makes a lot of
mistakes” (Taqrib 359), and after mentioning all the sayings, he said: “The ‘Adalat and Sadaqat of
Nu’aym ibn Hammad is established, but errors (Awham) are famous in his Ahadith. Imam Daraqutni
said that he is an Imam of the Sunnah and Kathir Al-Wahm and Abu Ahmad Hakim said: He opposes
sometimes on some Ahadith, and it has preceded that Ibn ‘Adi gathered the Ahadith in which he had
wahm. And this the correct saying about him.” (Tahzib v 10 p 463)

Daerwi tried to declare Nu’aym ibn Hammad as a liar relying on the quotes of Imam ad-Dulabi and al-
Azadi, but it is regretful that he gave the reference of Tahzib and saw the Jarh but he did not see the
answer to this that is present in Tahzib, so he took this lightly and digested it (as he could not answer):
“Ibn ‘Adi accused him (Ad-Dulabi) of being a liar, and this is far from Ad-Dulabi that he should be
accused of lying, and this is only from the teacher from whom he quoted this, as he (the teacher of
Dulabi) is unknown and accused of lying, and likewise the one from which Al-Azadi quoted saying
“they said”, there is no Hujjah in this because of lack of knowledge of the one who said that” (Tahzib v
10 p 463)

And in the same manner, he wrote in the introduction of Fath Al-Bari: “And ibn ‘Adi answered to this
(Jarh on Nu’aym ibn Hammad) by saying that Ad-Dulabi is Muta’asib against him (Nu’aym) because
he (Nu’aym) was harsh on the Ahlur-Ray, and this is correct”

So this Jarh is not accepted as Ad-Dulabi is a Muta’asib Hanafi, and such jarh of Muta’asib people is
not accepted. Without doubt, Hafiz ibn Hajar defended Ad-Dulabi, but what should be paid attention to
is that Ad-Dulabi mentioned the jarh saying: “And other than him (Ghayruhu)”, and who is this “other
than him”? And if this jarh was established from a reliable Muhadith, then Ad-Dulabi would not hesitate
to mention his name. So there is something that needs to remain under curtains. And if this person
was not reliable, justice was not to mention it, or he should have been named, so the blame would not
be on him. So because of this partisanship and unjust attitude, ibn ‘Adi accused him of being a liar.

Hafiz Az-Zahabi said: “He (Ad-Dulabi) was the first to accuse Nu’aym of being a liar” (Tazkirah v 2 p
321) And Hafiz ibn Hajar mentioned that he was a ghali Muta’asib Hanafi in “Lisan Al-Mizan” v 5 p 41-
42, and he mentioned that ibn Yunus said that Ad-Dulabi is weak and Imam Ad-Daraqutni said that
Muhadith spoke against him when later they became aware of his reality (Takalamu fihi lama
Tabayana min Amrihi Al-Akhir). So the conclusion is that Ad-Dulabi is himself weak and Mutakalam fihi
(criticised), secondly this only comes from his Ta’asub, thirdly this (jarh) is quoted from an unknown,
so it is not worth looking at it.
And likewise, what Al-Azadi mentioned is also with words “they said”, so the person who said this is
unknown as said by Hafiz ibn Hajar. Secondly Abul Fath Al-Azadi Muhammad ibnal Husayn Al-
Mawsuli is himself weak. ‘Abdul Qadir Al-Armawi said that the people of Mawsul, meaning his
compatriots declared him to be weak, they did not take him into account. Khatib Al-Baghdadi said his
Hadith has Manakir. Hafiz Az-Zahabi said he declared in his book “Ad-Du’afa” a group of people of
being weak without prove while Muhadith declare them to be thiqah. Imam Barqani also declared him
to be weak. (Lisan v 5 p 136, Tarikh Baghdad v 5 p 139, Sayr v 16 p 348, Mizan v 3 p 46 also v 1 p 4)

Hafiz ibn Hajar wrote about Ahmad ibn Shu’ayb in answer to the jarh of Al-Azadi that his saying is not
taken into account as he (Al-Azadi) is himself weak. (Muqadimmah Fath Al-Bari p 386) And likewise
about Khaytahm ibn ‘Arak, he declared Al-Azadi to be weak (Muqadimmah p 400)

To comfort Daerwi we add that Maulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmani (Marhum) clarified in “Anha As-Sakan”
(named by some people as “Qawaid fi Ulum al-Hadith”) that if the criticiser is himself criticised (Jarih is
majruh) then his jarh has no value as “Al-Azadi because he had harshness upon his tongue” (Qawaid
p 177). Then he (Zafar Uthmani) mentioned that Hafiz ibn Hajar declared him (Al-Azadi) to be weak,
so when he is weak, how can his jarh be reliable?

Sahih Bukhari and Nu’aym ibn Hammad

Hafiz ibn Hajar said that Imam Bukhari took Nu’aym ibn Hammad’s narrations maqrunan (meaning
attached to others meaning as Mutaba’ah, to follow), his words are : “Al-Bukhari narrated from him
maqrunan” (Tahzib v 10 p 458). And this has also been said by ‘Allamah Al-Munziri in At-Targhib wa
tarhib v 4 p 579, ‘Allamah Az-Zahabi in “Sayr ‘Alam An-Nubala vol 10 p 596, “Al-Kashif” v 3 p 307 and
“Diwan Ad-Du’afah” p 319 and ‘Allamah Al-Khazraji in “Khulasah” p 246.

But Daerwi thinks that Imam Bukhari in his Sahih Bukhari (v 1 p 56-543) did Ihtijaj in two places (with
Nu’aym ibn Hammad) and what Hafiz Ibn Hajar wrote in “Tahzib” has been rejected by himself in the
introduction to “Fath Al-Bari”. So he (Darewi) wrote: “The meeting between Imam Bukhari and Nu’aym
ibn Hammad is proven, but Imam Bukhari did ihtijaj with him in two places and others of his narrations
are Mu’allaq (without isnad). ‘Allamah Anwar Shah Kasmiri said in “Faydh Al-Bari” v 4 p 74 that some
scholars said that Nu’aym ibn Hammad is only a narrator in mu’allaq form, but this isnad refutes them,
as it is musnad here. Moreover Imam Hakim clearly said in his in “Mustadrak” kitab Al-Jana’iz that
Imam Bukhari did ihtijaj with Nu’aym ibn Hammad. So the trick (Hilah) of those scholars who counted
Nu’aym among narrators of Ta’liqat did not work. We have made jarh of him in another place. Then ibn
Jawzi counted this narration of Bukhari among fabricated narrations.” (“Hidayah ‘Ulema ki ‘Adalat
mein” p 104-105)

For the sake of being concise, we have not mentioned the quotes from Muqaddimah “Fath Al-Bari” or
“Faydh Al-Bari”, but we remained sufficient of the translation of Daerwi. We will refute his
misunderstandings in the same order (he presented them).

In the so quoted pages of Sahih Bukhari, the first hadith is in Kitab As-Salah, chapter “The virtue of
facing the Qiblah” (Fadl Istiqbal Al-Qiblah), in which Imam Bukhari mentioned the hadith of Anas with
three isnad:

The first Sanad: ‘Amr ibn ‘Abbas said, ibn Al-Mahdi narrated to us, Mansur narrated to us from
Maymun ibn Syah from Anas

The second sanad: Nu’aym narrated to us, he said ibn Al-Muabarak narrated to us from Humayd At-
Tawil from Anas

The third sanad: Ibn Abi Maryam said: Yahya informed us: Humayd narrated to us: Anas narrated to
us and ‘Ali ibn Abdillah said: Khalid ibn Al-Harith narrated to us, he said: Humayd said: Maymun ibn
Syah asked Anas ibn Malik

Now justice is required, the narration of Nu’aym ibn Hammad that Imam Bukhari narrated in second
position, is it by way of Ihtijaj or way of Mutaba’ah (following others)?
Ibn Hajar said the same in “Tahzib”: “Al-Bukhari narrated from him Maqrunan” which has been
translated by Daerwi himself: “Maqrunan meaning Mutaba’atan, meaning he did not do Ihtijaj with
him.” (“Hidayah Ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 104)

So it is clear that the first hadith of the chapter is for Ihtijaj and the second for Mutaba’ah, and the third
supports the second in form of Mutaba’ah, but it is regretful that Daerwi with his little understanding
declared the second narration to be for Ihtijaj.

As for the second narration (of Nu’aym), then it is in Kitab Al-Manaqib, chapter “Al-Qisamah fil
Jahiliyah”, in which Imam Bukhari mentioned six narrations and the fifth is: Nu’aym ibn Hammad
narrated to us: Hushaym ibn Hasin from ‘Amr ibn Maymun, and it is not marfu’ but the saying of ‘Amr
ibn Maymun Al-Adawi Al-Makhdarami mentioning a story at time of Jahiliyah. Without any doubt Imam
Bukhari mentioned it in a Mawsul way, but it is not to prove a shari’ masalah nor for Ihtijaj.

Imam Bukhari mentioned in this chapter and the precedent “Chapter: the days of Jahiliyah” different
narrations and events that are related to the time of Jahiliyah. Before this narration of Nu’aym, Imam
Sahib (Bukhari) narrated a quote from ibn Abbas that the Sa’i between Safa and Marwah is not a
Sunnah but since the time of Jahiliyah. The words are: “The Sa’i in the middle of the valley between
Safa and marwah is a not a Sunnah, the people of Jahiliyah would do it.” And the aim of Imam Bukhari
is not to prove that Sa’i between Safa and Marwah is Sunnah or not, but the aim is to show that Sa’i
existed at the time of Jahiliyah, this is since the time of Hajirah, aleyha Salam. The ruling of Sa’i has
preceded in Kitab Al-Hajj, chapter: the obligation of (Sa’i) between Safa and Marwah.

And this is the meaning of this fifth narration (that of Nu’aym), it is related to the time of Jahiliyah, and
the aim is not for Ihtijaj for a shar’i masalah. If Daerwi considered this as Ihtijaj, then it is purely the
invention of his chest. As for the authenticity of the report, then it is authentic without doubt.

Whatever Hafiz ibn Hajar wrote in Muqaddimah “Fath Al-Bari” is absolutely not different from what he
said in “Tahzib”. His words are: “He did not narrate from him in the “Sahih” except in one or two
places” (Muqaddimah p 447) So it is mentioned here about taking narrations in a Mawsul form not for
Ihtijaj, as it is the Wahm (error) of Daerwi. The narration (of Nu’aym) that is under “Bab Al-Qisamah fil
Jahiliyah”, Hafiz ibn Hajar wrote about it: “And very rarely Imam Bukhari narrates from him in a Mawsul
way, rather his habit is to mention from him in Ta’liq way.” (“Fath Al-Bari v 7 p 160) (What he wrote) in
Muqaddimah “Fath Al-Bari” about one or two places (of Nu’aym’s narrations), it is for Mawsul
narrations, not for Ihtijaj or Istidlal, and in what he wrote in “Tahzib” and what many experts of this field
wrote, there is absolutely no contradiction in the words of Hafiz ibn Hajar, this is only the wrong
conclusion of Daerwi and the result of his little understanding.

And likewise the refutation of ‘Allamah Kashmiri (Marhum) of those scholars who thought that Imam
Bukhari only mentioned narrations of Nu’aym in Ta’liq form, this saying is absolutely not opposing our
claim (that Bukhari did not narrate from Nu’aym for Ihtijaj).

Now remains the saying of Imam Hakim that Imam Bukhari did Ihtijaj with Nu’aym ibn Hammad, then it
is without doubt an error of Imam Hakim. Despite the efforts (of Daerwi), the two narrations he claimed
that Imam Bukhari reported them fir Ihtijaj, you came to know their reality. The empty claim of Imam
Hakim cannot prove anything. And there are many such errors in “Al-Mustadrak”. We have, thanks to
Allah, many such narrations in our mind, but avoiding them, we will suffice by the words of Daerwi
himself: “Imam Hakim commits many mistakes. He has made many errors in “Mustadrak”. Sometimes
he declares some weak and fabricated narrations to be on the conditions of the two Shaykh (Bukhari
and Muslim). This is why ‘Allamah Az-Zahabi made these mistakes apparent in “Talkhis Al-
Mustadrak”. Sometimes ‘Allamah Az-Zahabi gets tried in mentioning his mistakes and becomes angry
and addresses to Imam Hakim: “Do you not fear Allah, O author, to mention such false things?”. Mina
is a narrator who is Rafidhi and liar according to the Muhadith, and Imam Hakim claims that Mina
reached the Prophet (saw) and he also heard from the Prophet (saw). Imam Zahabi said that no
human said this except Hakim, while he (Mina) is a Tabi’i and his ‘Adalat is dropped (Saqit), and Imam
Abu Hatim said he is a kazzab, he lies, and ibn Ma’in said he is not thiqah, O author, don’t you have
any shame to bring such lies with such isnad in your Mustadrak ‘ala Shaykhayn.” (Talkhis v 3 p 160)
And Hafiz ibn Hajar wrote in “Taqrib” that Mina is Matruk Al-Hadith (abandoned in Hadith), and he is
accused of rafd, and Abu Hatim declared him to be a liar, and Hakim committed such a mistake that
he declared him to be a Sahabi.” (“Nur As-Sibah” p 62-64)
O readers! Make justice! When Imam Hakim commits such mistakes in narrators and Hadith, how can
we rely on his saying opposing all other Muhadith that Imam Bukhari did Ihtijaj with Nu’aym?

The dishonesty of Daerwi

‘Allamah Kashmiri considered Nu’aym ibn Hammad as a narrator of Sahih Bukhari and never did he
declare him to be weak, a liar or fabricator and others. But it is regretful that Daerwi dared to quote
from him to prove that Nu’aym is weak and that his narration (in sahih Bukhari) is fabricated. So he
quoted from “Faydh Al-Bari”: “Qad takallamna fi Nu’aym ibn Hammad haza thumma Inna ibn Al-Jawzi
adkhala hazal hadith fil Mawdu’at” (“Faydh Al-Bari” v 4 p 74, “Hidayah ‘Ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 105):
(which was translated by Daerwi as) we have have made jarh on Nu’aym in another place then ibn
Jawzi mentioned this narration of Bukhari among fabricated narrations.”

While ‘Allamah Kashmiri wrote about Nu’aym ibn Hammad: “This isnad is also strong (Qawwi) and it
contains Nu’aym ibn Hammad and he is from men of Bukhari, and the most just that has been said on
him is that he is Saduq makes many mistakes, and ibn ‘Adi gathered his mistakes and said that the
rest of his Hadith are Mustaqim (straight)-Taqrib” (“Nayl Al-Firqadayn” p 60)

And this has also been said by his student and son in law Ahmad Radha Shah Bajnori quoting from
‘Allamah Kashmiri: “He said (meaning Kashmiri) that Nu’aym ibn Hammad is a narrator of Bukhari, so
it is not so simple to make him dropped…Shah Sahib in his risalah “Nayl Al-Firqadayn” also mentioned
a narration of Tahawi about leaving Raful yadayn containing Nu’aym ibn Hammad and he said that the
narration is strong and he Nu’aym in this narration is a narrator of Bukhari, and the lost Mu’tadil view
on him is that he is Saduq.” (“Anwar ul Bari” v 7 p 45 as quoted in “Lamhat” v 1 p 24-25)

From these two quotes, this matter is clearly proven that according to ‘Allamah Kashmiri Nu’aym ibn
Hammad is “Saduq yahimu Kathiran”. So Daerwi translating the precedent portion of Faydh Al-Bari as
“we have have made jarh on Nu’aym in another place” is totally false and is contrary to the desire and
opinion of Kashmiri. If “Takalamna” (literally: we have spoken on Nu’aym) means we have made jarh,
so we will request Daerwi to wake up and have the courage to show this from the works of ‘Allamah
Kashmiri (which are appreciatively more than twelve) that he did jarh on Nu’aym. Else admit that this
translation of the quote is contrary to the intended meaning of ‘Allamah Kashmiri and is in any way
false.

And this is not all! Look at the limit of injustice, it has also been tried to give the impression from the
quote of Kashmiri that ibn Jawzi declared this narration of Sahih Bukhari as fabricated (and Kashmiri
approved that). Inna Lillahi wa Inna ilayhi raji’un.

While the reality is that ‘Allamah Kashmiri defended Nu’aym ibn Hammad and this narration of Sahih
Bukhari. Neither did he perform jarh of Nu’aym nor did he declare the narration to be fabricated. Look
at the summary of his words, whose translation has been quoted before by Daerwi: “Some said that is
only a narrator of Bukhari in ta’liqat, not in Masanid, but this narration refutes them, rather Imam
Hakim claimed that Imam Bukhari did Ihtijaj with Nu’aym and we have spoken on him in another place
and ibn Jawzi gathered this hadith with Mawdu’at”

And look at the words that Daerwi neglected: “And likewise for two hadith of Sahih Muslim. And the
authors of the “Tabaqat” have clearly said that ibn al-Jawzi rides on quick riding camels and he makes
too many mistakes, and I saw another problem (Musibah) and it is that he rejects authentic Ahadith
that oppose his intelligence and that he dislikes as the hadith of the chapter…and As-Suyuti clarified in
Al-Alali Al-Masnu’ah that ibn Al-Jawzi is extreme in judging (a hadith) to be fabricated to the point that
his harshness became famous as the easiness (tasahul) of Al-Hakim in authenticating became
famous. Hence they did not take into account the jarh of ibn Al-Jawzi and the tashih of Al-Hakim
except what is proven according to themselves.” (Faydh Al-Bari v 4 p 74)

Tell us if in this quote, ‘Allamah Kashmiri declared Nu’aym to be weak or declared his narration to be
fabricated or whether he defended Nu’aym and the narration he reported? If Nu’aym was weak and his
narration fabricated (according to Kashmiri) what was the aim of declaring him a narrator of Sahih
Bukhari, telling that his narration is authentic and telling ibn Al-Jawzi to be Mutashaddid. And the ‘Aqli
objection to this narration (of Nu’aym), Allamah Kashmiri also answered to it and Maulana Badr Alam
also defended against this objection in notes. And if Daerwi had criticised this narration from the
ma’nawi point of view, then we would have answered and we would have translated ‘Allammah
Kashmiri’s words. But when the objection was only on Nu’aym ibn Hammad, we sufficed quoting about
him.

So one can see how by tricks Daerwi tried to alter the view of ‘Allamah Kashmiri, and tried to weaken
Nu’aym quoting from him and what level of dishonesty he displayed.

And this is not all, rather in another place in “Faydh Al-Bari”, he answered to a jarh of Abu Nu’aym on
Nu’aym ibn Hammad, and also named the topic: “The answer on what is objected to Nu’aym ibn
Hammad”, he wrote in answer to the jarh on Nu’aym: “It has been said he is a narrator of the Ta’liqat
of Al-Bukhari, and I searched for this and found marfu’ narrations as well in two places, and the tanbih
on this has preceded. And this Nu’aym ibn Hammad used to give false testimony in the Sunnah and in
the defects of Abu Hanifah as in his “Tazkirah” and despite this Al-Bukhari narrated a lot from him in
“Khalq Af’al Al-‘Ibad” so it is obligatory upon us to make a tawil for Al-Bukhari, and we say that the
meaning of “Tazwir” for the Sunnah means to support the Sunnah and likewise for the case of Abu
Hanifah, he would rejoice with it (narrating) not that he would lie himself, and except (this Tawil) the
zahir (words) is very harsh.” (“Faydh Al-Bari v 4 p 145)

So one can see how ‘Allamah Kashmiri did takaluf in defending Nu’aym. Can one say that after this,
‘Allamah Kashmiri did jarh on Nu’aym? If Daerwi does not agree with the Tawil of Kashmiri, then at
least he should not put him in t he rank of those who weaken Nu’aym.

A jarh on the Hadith of Nu’aym ibn Hammad

Daerwi wrote on Nu’aym ibn Hammad: “Nu’aym invented a Hadith that the Prophet (saw) said: “My
community will be divided into seventy and some sects, and the greatest fitnah for my community
among these sects will be a group that will make qiyas with their Ray in matters, they will make the
haram halal and the halal haram…” This is the narration that ghayr Muqallid sing with zeal to condemn
Hanafi fiqh.” (“Hidayah ‘Ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 106-109)

There is no doubt that Imam ibn ‘Adi in his “Kamil” counted this Hadith among Munakarat of Nu’aym,
and it has also been said that the four Mutabi’ (narrators of same level that support Nu’aym) also took
this narration from Nu’aym. ‘Allamah Zahabi quoted this from Imam ibn ‘Adi about the mention of
Ahmad ibn ‘AbdirRahman ibn Wahb, and Suwayd ibn Sa’id (Mizan v 1 p 113, v 3 p 249). But in the
mention of Nu’aym, he (Zahabi) himself wrote about these four Mutaaba’at: “I say: these four, it is not
permissible according to their habit to agree on falsehood, so if there is a mistake, it comes from ‘Isa
ibn Yunus.”

So Imam Az-Zahabi does not agree with the view of Imam ibn ‘Adi (that mistake comes from Nu’aym).
Then Daerwi himself made it clear that Imam ibn Ma’in said on this Hadith: “It has not basis”, and
despite this he said: “Nu’aym is thiqah, and he mixed this Hadith, and he had doubt in this Hadith.”
(“Hidayah ‘ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 107) Muhadith Duhaym and Abu Zur’ah also told that the mistake
came from Nu’aym, but they do not say that he is a liar or fabricator. Imam ibn ‘Adi judges this Hadith
to be Munkar, but he did not say on its basis that Nu’aym is a liar and else, rather except for some
narrations, he tells his other narrations are Mustaqim (straight, right).

The conclusion is that even if this narration is declared to be Munkar, this does not lead to Nu’aym
being a liar or being dropped, a thiqah and Saduq narrator narrating some munkar narrations does not
make him dropped from being Thiqah, and the detail of this can be seen in “Raf’ wa Takmil” (of
Luknawi) p 143, p 150, but when some human become stubborn and leave rules, then the cure is
difficult.

To consolate Daerwi, we will moreover inform him that Ghayr Muqallid are not the only one to sing this
narration with zeal, rather a cutter Muqallid and your teacher Maulana Sarfraz Sahib Safdar narrated it
with great reliance and furthermore quoted Al-Hakim Zahabi declaring it authentic. So he wrote in
refutation of the Bralwiyah: “People who perform Qiyas in the presence of Shar’i Dalail are the greatest
criminals in the sight of Allah (Ta’ala), especially when they are not capable of Ijtihad and tafaquh in
true meaning. ‘Awf ibn Malik narrated that the Prophet (saw) said that my community will divide in
seventy and some sects and the one that will do greatest iftiraq will be people who judge matters with
Ray, they make halal haram and haram halal, Mustadrak v 4 p 430, and Al-Hakim and Az-Zahabi said
it is upon their conditions (meaning Al-Bukhari and Muslim)…and this the state of the innovators of our
times, they run to prove everything with their little intelligence. They perform tawil of Qat’i Nusus and
authentic Ahadith, they become themselves misguided and misguide others.” (“Rah Sunnat” p 134)

So look the respected teacher of Daerwi based himself on this Hadith, and he quoted Imam Hakim
and ‘Allamah Az-Zahabi saying that it is authentic on the conditions of Imam Bukhari and Imam
Muslim, and he makes clear with it in a convincing way the misguidance of innovators, So Daerwi
should also blame his respected teacher, why are Ahlul Hadith only deserving this punishment?

And this is very strange saying that the leader (Aqa) of the ghayr Muqalidin Nu’aym ibn Hammad also
to strengthen the Sunnah and to blame Ray would invent false narrations (“Hidayah ‘ulema ki ‘Adalat
mein” p 109) while ‘Allamah Qurshi Hanafi and Maulana Kandhalwi also declared Nu’aym ibn
Hammad to be Hanafi. Tell us, is Nu’aym ibn Hammad the leader of Hanafi Muqalidin or the leader of
Ghayr Muqalidin? For Ahlul hadith every scholar is respectable, we only accept the Prophet (saw) to
be Ma’sum, and we do not like Jamid Muqalid when we find a narration or saying against our aim try to
escape from it without reason. And the hatred and ‘Inad shown on Sahabah like Abu Hurayarh,
Mu’awiyah, Wail, Wabisah ibn Ma’bad until scholars like ibn Hajar, we are aware of it, and the same is
shown on Nu’aym ibn Hammad without reason, at the end he is a human, he made some mistakes,
but it is not that he is a liar as it is tried to present him.

The Kalam of ibn Ma’in and Imam Ahmad.

The quotes have preceded that Imam Ahmad and Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in declared Nu’aym ibn
Hammad to be Thiqah, rather Imam Yahya said that he is thiqah and Saduq, and “I know him more
than anybody else, he used to be my companion in Basrah” (“Tahzib” v 10 p 459 and others) but
Darewi wrote: “Imam Yahya had good opinion of Nu’aym and this is why he declared him to be thiqah,
then it (good opinion) disappeared, Salih Al-Asadi said he heard Yahya ibn Ma’in saying that Nu’aym
is nothing in Hadith” (“Hidayah ‘ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 108, “Tahzib” v 10 p 461)

Furthermore he wrote: “Although Imam Ahmad declared him to be thiqah but later he blamed him, it is
said in “Tahzib” v 1 p 459 that Nu’aym narrates from ghayr thiqah narrators.” (same p 111)

But the weakness is absolutely not proven with these two things. First of all the words of Imam Yahya:
“Laysa fil hadith bi Shayin” is not clear is mentioning weakness. Maulana Zafar Ahmad ‘Uthmani
(Marhum) wrote that “Laysa bi Shayin” is generally used to mean that the narrator narrates few Hadith
and sometimes Imam Yahya with these words would point to the weakness of one particular Hadith.
(“Qawaid” p 417) and sometimes it also means a jarh.

But when there is from one Imam Jarh and Ta’dil and it is not possible to know which is the last of his
saying, so in this case the preference would be to the Ta’dil and the jarh would be considered for a
specific cause, as said in “Ar-Raf’ wat Takmil” p 172, 173 and “Qawaid” p 329-330. So that’s why
when Daerwi tells this is the last saying of Imam ibn Ma’in, this is without prove, and saying it is
opposing the tawthiq of Nu’aym is a sign of ignorance of rules. What is to be pointed at is that Imam
ibn Ma’in defends Nu’aym despite the Qil and Qal of others, so from where can it be proved that this
saying is his last?

And likewise telling that the words attributed to Imam Ahmad: “he narrates from ghayr thiqah” means a
blame is a pure invention of Daerwi. If narrating from ghayr Thiqah is a blame then did not Imam Abu
Hanifah took narrations from Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayash, Jabir Ju’fi, Jarah ibn Manhal, Muhammad ibn Saib
Al-Kalbi, ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd, Nasr ibn Thurayf and others liars, abandoned and weak narrators? Did
Imam Ahmad himself not take from ‘Amir ibn Salih, Muhammad ibn Qasim Asadi, ‘Amr ibn Harun Al-
Balkhi, ‘Ali ibn ‘Asim Al-Wasiti, Nasr ibn Bab, Tulayd ibn Salman, Husayn ibn Hasan Al-Ashqar and
other weak narrators? (“As-Sarim Al-Munki” p 19) Imam Sufyan Thawri took from more than eighty
narrators that ibn Mahdi and others declared to be weak (“Mizan” v 1 p 381) also see “Tahzib” v 3 p
50, and there are very few Muhadith that are said to only narrate from thiqah, else all other Muhadith
should be criticised (for Daerwi) as they narrated from weak narrators, and if not then why only
Nu’aym ibn Hammad is the only targeted?

The wrong understanding of Daerwi

And we have said all of this supposing Imam Ahmad said this, else the reality is that this (fake)
“blame” does not come from Imam Ahmad but from Imam Ibn Ma’in. here are the words of “Tahzib” v
10 p 459: “I heard Ahmad and Yahya ibn Ma’in saying that Nu’aym is famous for searching (Hadith)
then he blamed him for narrating from ghayr thiqah”

And Daerwi made the referred by the article “he” Imam Ahmad which is totally false, and the referred
is ibn Ma’in as he is the closest as it is the rule in grammar, and then Hafiz ibn Hajar mentioned this
from ibn ‘Adi, who himself said in “Kamil ibn ‘Adi” v 7 p 2482 clearly: “Then Yahya blamed him and
said he narrates from ghayr Thiqat”, and this quote has also been quoted from ‘Allamah Zahabi in
“Sayr” v 10 p 597 and here also there is “Yahya blamed him”, and Daerwi making Ahmad the author of
this quote is Daerwi’s lack of information and not understanding the quote of “Tahzib”

Imam Abu Hanifah and Nu’aym ibn Hammad

Daerwi wrote quoting from “Tarikh Baghdad” and others that Imam Abu Hanifah was a strong
opponent of the Jahmiyah. Then he said that Jahmiyah to take revenge made a Jahmi become
student of Nuh Al-Jami’ (student of Abu Hanifah) and Imam Abdullah ibn Mubarak (student of Imam
A’zam) so he could make Taqiyah and stay with them then attack their reputation. This jahmi was
Nu’aym ibn Hammad. It is written in “Mizan Al-I’tidal” v 4 p 264 that Nu’aym himself said: “I was a
jahmi but when I searched for hadith, I came to know that the matter of Jahmiyah leads to Ta’til”. He
himself acknowledged that he was a Jahmi, although his abandon (ruju’) is also established from the
same quote, but this abandon (ruju’) is not proven, because the enemy of a sect loves the opponent of
this sect, and does not display animosity. If Nu’aym was an enemy of the Jahmiyah, then he would
have loved Imam Sahib but he propagated hatred against Imam Sahib. ‘Abbas ibn Mus’ab said that
Nu’aym ibn Hammad gathered books against Muhammad ibn Al-Hassan and his shaykh Imam Abu
Hanifah and against Jahmiyah” so we know from this that his aim was to attack the reputation of the
enemy of Jahmiyah Imam A’zam and others.” (“Hidayah ‘ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 112-116)

We have summarised the words of Daerwi carefully and showed his charge sheet. Pay attention: all
this operation, is this not purely in defence of Abu Hanifah? Nu’aym ibn Hammad did not say anything
about Imam ‘Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak, “student of Imam A’zam”, but he gathered books against Imam
Abu Hanifah and Ahlur-Ray. If this is his crime, then ‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak declared Nuh Al-Jami’to
be a liar and fabricator, inventor of false narrations. There is no deserving to be quoted mention of any
Muhadith making tawthiq of Nuh. Imam Hakim and Imam ibn Hibban went to the point of saying that
Nuh Al-Jami’ gathered everything except Sidq, and we seek refuge from Allah from treachery.
(“Tahzib” v 8 p 488) and likewise Imam ‘Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak in later time performed jarh on Imam
Abu Hanifah and stopped mentioning his narrations, as mentioned with authentic sanad in “Al-Jarh wa
Ta’dil” of Ibn Abi Hatim p 450 v 4 Q1, “Al-Majruhin” of ibn Hibban v 3 p 71, “Al-Intiqa” of ibn Abdil Barr
p 151, “Tarikh Baghdad” v 13 p 416 and others. So was Imam Ibn Al-Mubarak doing taqiyah as well to
stay with Imam Sahib, and he would praise him and describe him with good attributes then later
oppose him?

Was Nu’aym a Jahmi?

The limit of injustice is that Nu’aym clearly said he was a Jahmi then he repented from it, but Daerwi
said his “this abandon (ruju’) is not proven”. So if his first saying is relied, what justice is to deny the
second? ‘Allamah Az-Zahabi said: “He was harsh on the Jahmiyah” (“Mizan” v 4 p 268) “he wrote
books against the Jahmiyah” (“Mizan” v 4 p 268) rather wrote thirteen books refuting them (“As-Sayr” v
10 p 599). His companion of travel rather student Imam Ibn Ma’in also said about Nu’aym: “Sahib As-
Sunnah” and Imam Ad-Daraqutni said: “Imam fi Sunnah” (“As-Sayr” v 10 p 608) (“Tarikh Baghdad” v
13 p 306 and others) But what a regret that to defend Imam Abu Hanifah, Nu’aym is being declared to
be Jahmi, a liar and fabricator without any shame and great disgust. Inna Lillahi wa inna ilahi Raji’un.

Moreover Nu’aym ibn Hammad did not wrote books against Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Muhammad
accusing them of being Jahmi, but he refuted them because of them using Qias and Ray to much to
establish Masail, and Nu’aym ibn Hammad is not alone in this action, other Muhadith also in this topic
wrote books against Imam Abu Hanifah, so may Allah forgive, does it mean they were all Jahmi?

A story against Imam Abu Hanifah

Imam Bukhari narrated in his “At-Tarikh As-Saghir” p 171 a narration from Nu’aym ibn Hammad that
Abu Ishaq Al-Fazari informed him that he was with Sufyan Ath-Thawri when the news of the death of
Abu Hanifah reached him, and he said: “All praise to Allah, it is a good matter that he died, he was
breaking the chains of Islam one by one, there has not been anyone more ill-omened than him.”

And Daerwi made Nu’aym ibn Hammad a criminal because of this. Daerwi wrote: “This is a lie. This
shows that what jarh Muhadith Dulabi and Abul Fath Al-Azadi did was correct. Maulana Mir
Muhammad Ibrahim Sialkoti proved him to be a liar in “Tarikh Ahle hadith” (“Hidayah ‘ulema ki ‘Adalat
mein” p 116-117)

While it has preceded that Muhadith Al-Azadi is majruh himself and he is weak and Muhadith Dulabi is
a victim of Ta’asub rather Imam ibn ‘Adi who quoted this from Dulabi, himself accused Dulabi of lying.
And Maulan Sialkoti (Marhum) also did jarh on Nu’aym basing on these sayings.

While in fact Nu’aym is innocent and he is not alone in narrating such reports. Imam ‘Abdullah ibn
Ahmad mentioned this saying with little difference with another sanad: “Muhammad ibn Harun
narrated to us, Abu Salih narrated to us, he said I heard Al-Fazari saying: “Al-Awza’i and Sufyan used
to say that there has not been born in Islam anyone more ill-omened that Abu Hanifah.”

Abu Salih Mahbub ibn Musa Al-Fara narrated this from Al-Fazari. Hafiz ibn Hajar said that he (Abu
Salih) is Saduq. (“Taqrib” p 329)

And the one narrating from Abu Salih is Muhammad ibn Harun Abu Nushayt, and he is also Saduq
(“Taqrib” p 320).

So it is absolutely not correct to do jarh on Nu’aym ibn Hammad basing on this story. And the words of
Imam Sufyan Thawri being unsatisfied (with Abu Hanifah) at time of Imam Abu Hanifah’s death are
narrated with many ways. (“Tarikh Baghdad” v 13 p 423) And the detail of it is not possible here, and
humiliating and attacking Imam Abu Hanifah is not intended here (Na’uzubillah) but the aim is to show
that Nu’aym is not alone in reporting this story. So the Kalam of Dulabi Muta’asib hanafi and his
different followers on Nu’aym ibn Hammad is without any reason and totally false.

Another fraud of Daerwi

It has been quoted earlier that Hafiz ibn Hajar said about Nu’aym “Saduq yukhti Kathiran” and said
that this saying of ibn ‘Adi is the most just, so except for some few narrations (that are approximately
nine) all the rest of his Ahadith are mustaqim, and this saying has also been said to be correct by
‘Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri, but how can Daerwi agree with them? He wrote: “Nu’aym would
commit many mistakes. Hafiz Sahib in “Talkhis Al-Habir” v 3 p 90 mentioned a Hadith and said: “The
sanad contains Nu’aym ibn Hammad, meaning he is a famous weak (narrator)” so telling his name is
enough, so Nu’aym in any case does not deserve that be taken for Ihtijaj in “Sahih Bukhari”” (“Hidayah
‘ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 118°

What a regret that the position of Hafiz ibn Hajar is clear in “Taqrib” “Tahzib” and “Muqaddimah Fath
al-Bari” and that his non-vague view is neglected but the saying in “Talkhis Al-Habir” is with vague
words is taken that “he is a famous weak (narrator)”

So to consulate him, we will present him what his respected teacher wrote, Maulana Muhammad
Sarfraz Khan Sahib Safdar wrote: “It has been quoted from Hafiz ibn Hajar that he said : “I am not
satisfied with any of my work because I wrote them in the beginning, and I could not find a companion
to write it, that’s why there remained some mistakes (Saqam) in some places. Yes about “Fath Al-
Bari”, its introduction, “Mushtabah”, “Tahzib” and “Lisan Al-Mizan” I am satisfied” and it is written in
another place that he praised “Fath Al-Bari”, “Ta’liq”, “Nukhbah” (“Badr At-Tali’”), so this shows that
Hafiz except some books was not satisfied with the others and did not rely on them.” (“Ahsanul Kalam”
v 1 p 203)

We request Daerwi to read the words of his teacher and to tell us whether “Talkhis Al-Habir” is
mentioned in these books? When your teacher except these works does not rely on the books of Hafiz
ibn Hajar, so why the half and vague quote of “Talkhis Al-Habir” contrary to the clear view in
“Muqaddimah Fath Al-Bari”, “Tahzib” can be reliable? So if the tricks and frauds of Daerwi work in his
group, yet the people of knowledge and intelligence are not ready to accept them.

End of Shaykh Irshad ul Athari's words. Shaykh Irshadul Haqq Al-Athari also answered some other
lies of Daweri on Nu'aym ibn Hammad, but yet the topic has been treated enough

May Allah send Salah wa Salam upon the Prophet (saw), his household, companions and their
followers.

Translated and adapted by Ali Hassan Khan

Zahid Al-Kawthari’s lie about Imam Abu Ash-Shaykh.

Shaykh Shams Al-Afghani said in his “Maturidiyah” vol 2 p 258 :

“Al-Imam Abu ‘Ubayd Al-Qasim ibn Salam (d224) said, and he is from the Kibar of Ahnaf according to
the Kawthariyah (see “Fiqh Ahlil ‘Iraq” p 64), about the Ahadith of attributes like seeing (Allah), (His)
laugh, and putting (His) foot on the hell and others… :

“These Ahadith are authentic, the people of Hadith have carried them from each other, and they are
for us the truth about which we do not doubt, but if we are asked: how does He put His foot? How
does He laugh? We answer: We do not make Tafsir of it and we did not hear anyone making a Tafsir
of it (meaning we do not explain with another meaning other than the literal meaning and we do not
resort to Tawil (extrapolation) to a metaphorical meaning).” “

Shaykh Shams mentioned that this has been narrated by Ad-Daraqutni in Kitab “As-Sifat” p 68-69 with
an authentic Isnad, also by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab “Asma wa Sifat” p 355 with an Isnad including the
Imam Abu Ash-Shaykh ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Asbahani (d 369).

Then Shaykh Shams said: “Al-Kawthari could not find any defect in the narrators of this Isnad except
that he criticized this Imam (Abu Ash-Shaykh) Al-Asbahani, and he said:

“He is Mutakalam fihi (spoken about, criticized)” and “Hafiz Abu Ahmad Al-‘Asal from his country
weakened him, and he is leaning towards Tajsim (anthropomorphism)”

See “Tanib” of Al-Kawthari p 102, “Tabdid Az-Zulam” p 180, and his notes on “Asma wa Sifat” p 242,
355, 428.

And he said: “The Tawthiq (declaring a narrator to be trustworthy) of people similar to Abu Ash-
Shaykh, Abu Nu’aym, Al-Bayhaqi and Al-Khatib are not accepted because of their strong Ta’assub
(partisanship) and as someone who lacks something cannot give it, and they are among those people
that base on the narrations of liars knowing them to be liars, see “At-Tarhib” p 303, 334.”

I say: As for his saying: “He is Mutakalam fihi” despite being a lie in itself, is not a Jarh, how many
Imams of Islam have been spoken about and among their head is Imam Abu Hanifah, and how many
individuals in “Al-Mizan”, “Al- Lisan” have been spoken about (Mutakalam fihim) and Az-Zahabi has a
book entitled: “Zikr Asma man Tukulima fihi wa he Muwathaq” (Mention of the names of those that
have been spoken about and they are trustworthy)

As for his saying that Al-‘Asal weakened him, then it is a clear lie, and I have personally made efforts
to search and look into details, and I could not find it, and some great scholars before me tired
themselves in trying to find this like the Zahabi of our times ‘Allamah Al-Mu’allimi, the Muhadith Al-
Albani, Shaykh Sulayman As-Sani’, Shaykh Muhammad Nasif, they could not find the weakening of
Al-‘Asal of him.
And Al-Kawthari hided the reference (of his quote), rather Shaykh Sulayman As-Sanee’ met Al-
Kawthari many times and asked him for the reference of this saying and he could not obtain any
answer. And all of these scholars agree that Al-Kawthari invents lies and deceives, see “Tankil” p 22-
24, and the introduction of Al-Albani p 7, and “Tankil” vol 1 p 308-309, and the introduction of the
verification of Shaykh Radhaullah Al-Mubarakpuri on the book “Al-‘Azamah” of Abu Ash-Shaykh p 94-
97, and this is from one angle.

As for the other angle, certainly the Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil and people of this field and of great
knowledge have agreed on declaring Abu Ash-Shaykh as trustworthy, and that he is among Thiqat
(trustworthy narrators) reliable and great Hufaz of great precision, sources of veracity, Musnid and
pious, see “Al-Ansab” vol 4/285, “Al-Lubab” vol 1 p 404, “As-Sayr” vol 16 p 278-279, “Al-‘Ibr” vol 2 p
132, “Tazkiratul Hufaz” vol 3 p 945-946, see the introduction of Radhaullah Al-Mubarakpuri of the book
“Al-Azamah” of Abu Ash-Shaykh 78-79, 94-97.

From the third angle: Abu Shaykh is definitively not mentioned in the books of weak narrators, neither
in those spoken about while they are trustworthy, we cannot find his mention in “Al-Mizan”, neither in
“Al-Lisan” and neither in “Zikr Asma man Tukulima fihi wa he Muwathaq” (Mention of the names of
those that have been spoken about and they are trustworthy) despite that people like Abu Shihab Az-
Zuhri, Hamad ibn Salamah, ‘Ali ibn Ja’d and others are mentioned in it (meaning they have been
criticised wrongfully).

And all of this, and similar to this, shows the lies of Al-Kawthari, his treachery and his falling off from
religious integrity and trust. How can it be true for the adventitious al- Binnori Ad-Deobandi Al-Kawthari
to praise Al-Kawthari with lies and false testimony?

(he said in his introduction of Al-Maqalat that Al-Kawthari is precautious, he is careful in quoting and
precise…do you find in him any slip (in quoting)?...and they could not find any gap in him whether
about narrating or understanding …You will not find any hardness to his sword, nor any defect to his
generosity…”)

As for his saying: “he is leaning towards Tajsim (anthropomorphism)” then these are the thoughts of
the Jahmiyah, their reality, and their leader is al-Kawthari. Except this Abu Ash-Shaykh is Salafi in
creed and among the Imams of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. Az-Zahabi said: “A person of the Sunnah
and imitation (Itba’) if only he would not have filled his books with very weak narrations” see “As-Sayr”
vol 1- p 279, see the details on the introduction of “Al-‘Azamah” of Shaykh Radhaullah Al-Mubarakpuri.
And this is not surprising from Al-Kawthari as he, according to his filthy inherited habit, accused many
Imams of Islam of idolatry, disbelief, polytheism, so what about Tajsim (anthropomorphism)? And this
has preceded in vol 1 p 344-359.

As for his saying: “The tawthiq (declaring a narrator to be trustworthy) of people similar to Abu Ash-
Shaykh…is not accepted” then it is not accepted, because the Imams of Islam have indeed accepted
his sayings in Jarh wa Ta’dil, and these sayings are spread in the middle of books of Jarh and Ta’dil,
rather Abu Ash-Shaykh is from greatest of Imams of Jarh wa Ta’dil, this is why Az-Zahabi mentioned
him in “Zikr man Yu’tamadu Qawluhu fi Jarh wa Ta’dil” (Mention of those whose saying are relied upon
in Jarh wa Ta’dil) p 195 and likewise As-Sakhawi in “Al-Mutakalimun fi Rijal” (the speakers on
narrators) p 104 and these two are in “Arba’u Rasail fi ‘Ulum Al-Hadith” (four essays on the knowledge
of Hadith) and they are all with the verification of Abu Ghuddah Al-Kawthari, and he remained silent on
(these sayings of Az-Zahabi and As-Sakhawi), and As-Sakhawi also mentioned him among Imams of
Jarh wa Ta’dil in “I’lan bi Tawbikh” p 346, see also “’Ilm At-Tarikh indal Muslimin” of the orientalist
Frantz Rosenthal and its translation into Arabic by Dr Salih Ahmad ‘Ali p 714, and this contains a
lesson for Al-Kawthariyah, Al-Deobandiyah and Al-Ghuddiyah.

And if the Jahmiyah and their leaders do not accept the Tawthiq of the Imams of Islam like Abu Ash-
Shaykh, Abu Nu’aym and Al-Khatib, while the Imams of Jarh wa Ta’dil from Ahlus Sunnah rely on their
sayings, what harm can they bring to the Ahlus Sunnah?....

And what is shocking from Al-Kawthari here is that he mentions a criticism of Al-’Asal on Abu Ash-
Shaykh, with the forgery of Al-Kawthari, but Al-Kawthari in another place criticises the religion of Hafiz
Al-‘Asal and his creed and counts him among the Mujassimah and Mushabihah (anthropomorphist),
see Al-Kawthari’s introduction of “Asma wa Sifat” of Al-Bayhqaqi. It is said to the likes of Al-Kawthari:
“if they hear the truth they hide it, and if they hear evil they spread it and if they do not hear it, they lie”

This is why you will see that Al-Kawthari criticises Abu Ash-Shaykh but in other places he relies on his
saying and bases himself on it because of his soul’s desire. See the “Tanib” of Al-Kawthari p 86-87,
and this is a disgraceful contradiction and clear Idhtirab.

As for his saying “their strong Ta’assub (partisanship)” then Al-Kawthari has a greater share in it, and
deserves more this until he was called Majnun Abi Hanifah (the crazy about Abu Hanifah) as it has
preceded on vol 1 p 400-401…

As for Abu Ash-Shaykh none (of the scholars) said he was Muta’asib, so what about him having strong
Ta’assub.

As for his claim that they base on the narration of liars with their knowledge that they are liars, then
this is a matter accepted for the Imams of Muslims without Hujjah, and this is Al-Kawthari, and despite
this Al-Kawthariyah describe him with integrity in religion and trust and reliability on quoting, see what
has preceded vol 1 p 374, Glory to Allah (SubhanAllah) how lies have been cheap! Rather Al-Kawthari
is the one who bases himself on liars with his knowledge that it is a lie, see what will come vol 3 p608.”

End of Shaykh Shams Al-Afghani’s words

Shaykh Al-Mu'alimi mentioned in his Tankil vol 1 p 309 that he wrote to some people of knowledge
about the issue of the reference of Al-Kawthari about Hafiz Al-'Asal weakening Abu Ash-SHaykh, and
he did not obtain any answer except that one of them met Kawthari.

And Shaykh Al-Albani said that Shaykh Al-Mu'alimi did not mention the result of this meeting with Al-
Kawthari, so Shaykh Al-Albani wrote to Shaykh Muhammad Nasif about this and Shaykh Nasif wrote
to Shaykh Sulayman As-Sani', member of the Majlis Shura at Makkah Mukarammah and former
director of the Maktabah Al-Haram Al-Makki.

And Shaykh As-Sani' wrote in answer as indicated by Shaykh Al-Albani in his notes on "Tali'ah" of
Shaykh Al-Mu'alimi:

"My answer about this is that I met Al-Kawthari many times in his house in Egypt at this time and
asked him about this, and I could not obtain any result from him, and if he was truthful in what he
attributed to Abu Ahmad Al-'Asal, he would have made it clear at the time of my answer to him, and
what is apparent for me is that the person (Al-Kawthari) invents lies and misleads, and as Shaykh
‘AbdurRahman made it clear in "At-Tali'ah" and in "At-Tankil"..." end of Shaykh Albani’s words.

Also it sheds full lights on the reliability of Abu Ghuddah and Yusuf Al-Binnori.

What reliability is to praise and recommend such a liar?

And it is difficult that the so many lies of Al-Kawthari were hidden to them, as book “At-Tankil” was
very popular among people of science.

Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Siddiq Al-Ghumari although he was a student of Al-Kawthari, he could not
stand the attacks of Al-Kawthari on the Salaf and his treacheries, so he wrote the book “Bayan Talbis
Al-Mouftari Muhammad Zahid Al-Kawthari, Aw Radul Kawthari ‘ala Al-Kawthari”.

And he showed in it that Zahid Al-Kawthari attacked the other Imams like Ahmad, Ash-Shafi’i and
Malik, and here are quotes:

About Imam Malik, Al-Kawthari said p 116 of “At-Tanib” : “The great elders of the Malikiyah have three
opinions towards such sayings of Malik” and after mentioning them he said : “And it is clear from that
that these sayings, if they are proven to be attributed to him (Malik), then the one who says that is a
criminal (Mujrim) and how is the criminal made taqleed in his crimes?”
Al-Kawthari made fun of Imam Shafi'i on p 23 (Tr: Ihqaq ul Haqq p 40) and after for Ash-Shafi’i having
two sayings in many issues, then he mentioned a lie that a student traveled to take knowledge from
Ash-Shafi’i and when he came back, and a man asked him: “Is there a doubt about Allah?” and the
student answered: “There are about this two sayings of Shafi’i.”

Al-Kawthari said about Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal p 141 on his “At-Tanib” : “And there are not few
among Jurists who did not agree to put sayings of Ahmad among sayings of Jurists as he is a
Muhadith Ghayr Faqih for them”

Yet Al-Ghumari could not stand these revilments of great Imams, but Ahnaf like Abu Ghuddah, the
Deobandiyah see no problem in these crimes, rather recommend his book, and help is sough from
Allah.

Al-Kawthari’s unjust attacks on Muhadith because they criticised Imam Abu Hanifah or narrated
criticism of Imam Abu Hanifah

The information below is taken from "Tankil" of Al-Mu'allimi.

Al-Mu’allimi in his “At-Tankil” v 1 p 373 quoted from “Tarikh Baghdad” v 13 p 386 from the way of
Ibrahim ibn Sa’id Al-Johari then from the way of ‘Amr ibn ‘Ali (ibn Bahr Abu Hafs Al-Falas) both of
them saying: I heard Mu’az ibn Mu’az saying: I heard Sufyan Ath-Thawri saying: “Abu Hanifah was
requested to repent (Istitabah) twice from Kufr (else being killed).”

Al-Kawthari tried to weaken this authentic narration saying that ‘Amr ibn ‘Ali ibn Bahr Abu Hafs Al-
Falas “had strong Ta’assub and strong opposition to the people of Kufah”

Al-Mu’allimi replied: “I do not know him to be Muta’assib, and if this was known then this would not be
a defect (in accepting) his narration with what is established from his being Thiqqah and Amanah, and
this story (of Abu Hanifah) is famous rather Mutawatir and true.”

Shaykh Albani wrote in notes about Hafiz Al-Falas: “He is from Thiqah and Thabat Hufaz, Az-Zahabi
put him in his “Tazkirah” and described him by his saying: “…Al-Hafiz Al-Imam Ath-Thabat one of the
great personalities…” and Al-Hafiz said in “At-Taqrib”: “Thiqah Hafiz”.

So this is the state of Al-Kawthari, instead of accepting the truth, that his Imam is a human that can
make mistakes, he started attacking great Imams and Hufaz accusing them of being Muta’asib, being
Mujassim…

Al-Kawthari attacked Imam Al-Bukhari and after quoting from Imam Bukhari’s Tarikh about Abu
Hanifah “Sakatu ‘anhu” (and the word Sakatu ‘Anhu is among strongest jarh, meaning they (Ahlul
Hadith) abandoned him) and Imam Bukhari said the same for Abu Hanifah’s Ray, meaning they
abandoned it.

Al-Kawthari attacked the Emir Al-Muminin in Hadith: “The one who turns away from him (Abu Hanifah)
is either a Khariji praising similar to ‘Imran ibn Hatan and Hurayz ibn ‘Uthman or Mu’tazili believing in
the state between two states”

Al-Mu’allimi answered this that Ahlul Hadith agreed that these two people are among most truthful
people in narrating. Al-Bukhari in his “Tarikh” mention that Hurayz abandoned his belief of Khawarij,
and Al-Bukhari did not do Ihtijaj with ‘Imran, he only came in Mutaba’ah in one Hadith only (meaning
for strengthening and not for justifying a point).

Yet Al-Kawthari inferred that Imam Bukhari was a Khariji praising other Khariji…Al-Mu’allimi quoted
from the Hafiz Al-Khafaf that whoever said anything against Imam Al-Bukhari then there are thousands
and thousands of curses from me on him.

And Al-Kawthari said that the reason of abandoning Abu Hanifah is not mentioned by Al-Bukhari, so
one cannot accept this Jarh, while many Hufaz have mentioned clearly reasons, bad memory, mixing
and committing to many errors
And what is funny is that Al-Kawthari weakened Muhammad ibn Isma’il Abu Isma’il At-Tirmidhi (not the
author of the Sunnan) because of the saying of ibn Abi Hatim: “They spoke against him” and Al-
Mu’allimi said that ibn Abi Hatim did not mention who where these people and what was the reason for
speaking against him, while An-Nassai, Maslamah, Ad-Daraqutni and others declared him to be
Thiqah. Shaykh Albani said that Az-Zahabi said in “Tazkirah”: Hafiz Kabir Thiqah, Khatib said he is
Mutqin…And Hafiz ibn Hajar said in “At-Taqrib”: Thiqah Hafiz and the words of ibn Abi Hatim are not
detailed.”

And Abu Isma’il At-Tirmidhi is among narrators in “Tarikh Baghdad” narrating from Sufyan and Al-
Awza’i that there has not been born in Islam more harmful than Abu Hanifah and he is also narrator of
the narration of Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak saying that whoever look at the book of Hyal (tricks) of Abu
Hanifah will make Halal what Allah made Haram.

So to defend his Imam, Al-Kawthari had no shame in attacking great Hufaz. For Abu Hanifah saying
“they abandoned him” is not detailed and for Abu Isma’il At-Tirmidhi “they spoke against him” is
enough to reject his narration against Abu Hanifah.

One can see the only aim of Al-Kawthari is to defend his Imam, whether it leads to attack Al-Bukhari
and others, and play with the religion.

The same for Ahmad ibn Al-Hassan ibn Jundub Abul Hasan At-Tirmidhi (other than the author of the
Sunnan) who is a companion of Imam Ahmad, and he quoted a narration from Ahmad against Abu
Hanifah and Al-Kawthari rejected it saying that “his Ta’assub for ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad was not little…”

So Al-Kawthari did not find anything in these Hufaz, so he invented from himself that they were
Muta’assib, and even a Muta’assib would not invent a lie from his teacher.

Same for Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Al-Hajjaj Abu Bakr Al-Marwazi who narrated in "Tarikh Baghdad"
from Imam Ahmad that he said: “Abu Hanifah is worse for Muslims than ‘Amr ibn Ubayd because he
had companions”

And Al-Kawthari could not find any defect so he attacked Al-Marwazi saying Al-Marwazi’s creed is that
the Prophet (saw) will sit next to Allah in Maqam Al-Mahmud and he accused Al-Marwazi of being a
Mujassim.

Al-Kawthari criticized ibn Al-Madini for him under compulsion saying words of ibn Abi Duwad during
Fitnah of Khalq Al-Quran. And this is also because this great Hafiz declared Abu Hanifah to commit
many mistakes.

Al-Kawthari attacked Ad-Daraqutni saying he had a bad creed, he accused Abu Ash-Shaykh of
leaning towards Tajsim (anthropomorphism), the same for Nu’aym ibn Hammad and Sa’id ibn ‘Uthman
Ad-Darimi, Ibn Khuzaymah and many others. He accused Hafiz Al-‘Uqayli of being “Al-Muta’assib Al-
Khasir (the loser)”

Al-Kawthari criticized the creed of ibn Abi Hatim, accused ibn Battah Al-Akbari of being among
Hashawiyah. He quoted the insult of the misguided Asbagh ibn Khalil insulting the great book of
Hadith of “Al-Musannaf”.

About Da’laj ibn Ahmad As-Sijzi who has been declared to be Thiqah by Al-Khatib, Ad-Daraqutni, Az-
Zahabi inscribed him in his “Tazkirah” and Al-Kawthari accused him of having creed of Tashbih and
being a Muta’assib.

Abul Qasim Al-Baghawi is agreed upon to be thiqah and Kawthari accused him of lying because this
agreed upon Imam narrated a narration saying Abu Hanifah was saying that the Qur’an is created.

Al-Kawthari attacked the great Imam Al-Humaydi of being Muta’assib and Mudhtarib.

The same for Zakariya ibn Yahya As-Saji, while he is not Muta’asib.
He attacked Hafiz ibn ‘Adi of being far from Fiqh and Arabic language and having a long tongue on
Abu Hanifah and his students.

He attacked the student of ibn ‘Adi, ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Sayar Al-Farhiani also called
“Farhazani”. There is a narration with him in Tarikh Baghdad that Imams were cursing Abu Fulan on
the Minbar of Damascus and Al-Harhyani said it is Abu Hanifah (meaning the cursed one).

Al-Kawthari could not find a defect so he attacked the creed of Al-Farhyani and called him to be a
“Khabith (filthy)” while Az-Zahabi said about him in “Tazkirah”: Al-Hafiz Al-Imam Ath-Thiqah”

He accused Muhammad ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Ibrahim Abu Bakr Ash-Shafi’i of being Muta’assib, and that
he narrated from liars and Majhul to attack Abu Hanifah, while Mu’allimi answered to this that there is
only one narrator that some told to be liars, other Thiqah and two Majhul, all others narrations in
“Tarikh” of Khatib from him are from famous Thiqah, and this Imam is not known with Ta’assub.

Al-Kawthari rejected a narration of the Hafiz Abdul Mumin Khalf Abu Ya’la At-Tamimi An-Nasafi
criticizing Hassan ibn Zyad Al-Lului Al-Hanafi saying “he is not trusted in it because he was a Zahiri
having a long tongue against the people of Qiyas”

And Al-Mu’alimi refuted this saying that is someone is thiqah then his narration is accepted, and
opposition of Madhab does not lead to reject one’s narration, and this is against rules.

Al-Kawthari is someone playing with the religion of Allah, in the same book “Tanib” he declared
Muhammad ibn Abi Shaybah to be a liar, and in the same book he criticised the Hafiz Muhammad ibn
‘Abdillah ibn Sulayman Al-Hadhrami saying that Muhammad ibn Abi Shaybah spoke against him.

While Al-Mu’alimi has proven that Muhammad ibn Abi Shaybah is not a liar, and he is Thiqah.

Shaykh Rais Nadwi in his vol 5 of "Lamhat" said that Imam Al-Bukhari v 1 p 240, narrated from
AburRahman ibn Shaybah who is thiqah and narrator of Al-Bukhari from Muhammad ibn Maslamah,
the companion of Malik declaring Imam Abu Hanifah to be a Dajjal among Dajjals.

Now Zahid Al-Kawthari tried to say Muhammad ibn Maslamah is Majhul while he has been declared
thiqah by many like Abu Hatim Ar-Razi and others...one can see “Intiqa” of ibn Abdil Barr for details.

Al-Kawthari altering the words of scholars of Jarh wa Ta’dil

In his “Tali’ah At-Tankil”, Al-Mu’alimi mentioned some examples of Zahid Al-Kawthari’s alterations of
words of Imams of Jarh and ta’dil, and I will quote some

About Ahmad ibn Kamil, Kawthari said p 43: “Ad-Daraqutni said about him: “sometimes he narrates
what he does not have” as mentioned by Al-Khatib”

While the saying of Ad-Daraqutni in “Tarikh Baghdad” is “sometimes he narrates what he does not
have in his book”

And this addition removes any kind of blame, because not having a Hadith in his book does not
prevent having it in his memory.

About Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Hukaymi, Al-Kawthari said p 114: “Al-Barqani said: there are Manakir
in his Hadith”

While the words of Al-Barqani as in “Tarikh Baghdad” and “Lisan” are: “Thiqah except that he narrates
Manakir” and the difference is clear because what Al-Kawthari quoted showed to be a Jarh and that
the author was responsible of these Manakir, so he altered the saying to deceive people. While saying
someone is Thiqah but narrates Manakir does not mean he is responsible of these Manakir but he was
lax in quoting them.
So the lies, treacheries and misguidance of Al-Kawthari are clear, this man is a Jahmi accusing Salaf
of Tajsim, he is a Muta’asib Hanafi accusing Imams of Hadith of being Muta’asib in their weakening
and criticizing Abu Hanifah.

And despite all these lies and attacks of Al-Kawthari on the Salaf, one will see that Deobandiyah and
Abu Ghuddah praise him and recommend his works accusing Salaf of Tajsim…so they have a share
in his crimes…

Al-Kawthari on the fabricated Hadith about Abu Hanifah being the lamp of this community.

‘Allamah ‘AbdurRahman ibn Yahya Al-Mu’alimi wrote in his Tankil v 1 p 446 :

“Muhammad ibn Sa’id Al-Boriqi, in “Tarikh Baghdad” v 13/335 from his way: “Sulayman ibn Jabir ibn
Sulayman ibn Yasir ibn Jabir narrated to us: Bishr ibn Yahya narrated to us, he said: Fadl ibn Musa
As-Sinani informed us from Muhammad ibn ‘Amr from Abi Salamah from Abu Hurayrah from the
Messenger of Allah (saw):

“Verily there will be a person in my Ummah, is name will be An-Nu’man and his Kuniyah will be Abu
Hanifah and he is the lamp of my community, he is the lamp of my community”

Al-Khatib said: “This is a fabricated Hadith, Al-Boriqi is alone is narrating it, and we have detailed his
condition in what has preceded” meaning his mention that is in “Tarikh” v 5 p 308-309 and there is
there from Hamwah As-Shuhaymi: “Muhammad ibn Sa’id Al-Boriqi is a liar…” and from Hakim: “This
al-Boriqi had indeed fabricated so many Manakir from trustworthy narrators that we cannot count and
he propagated his narrations…: There will be a man in my community that will be called Abu Hanifah
and he is the lamp of my community” and this is how he narrated it in land of Khurasan and then he
narrated it in ‘Iraq with his Isnad and he added: “And there will be a man in my community called
Muhammad ibn Idris and his Fitnah will be more harmful than that of Iblis” and Al-Khatib mentioned
other from his Manakir.

The Ustaz (Al-Kawthari) said p 30 (of his “Tanib Al-Khatib”): “Al-Badr Al-‘Ayni gathered its ways in his
“Tarikh Al-Kabir” and it is difficult to judge it to be fabricated with the presence of these so many ways
and he said: “And this Hadith as you can see has been narrated from many ways and with close Matn
and many narrators from the Prophet (saw) and this shows that it has a basis, even if some Muhadith
rather their majority reject this and some declare it to be fabricated, and sometimes this is due to the
effect of Ta’assub, and the narrators of this Hadith are in majority scholars, and they are from the best
of all communities, and it is not suitable to their condition to invent a lie on the Prophet (saw) on
purpose”

And Al-Kawthari added the words: “A scholar who struggled during all his life and he dies in prison and
then his knowledge propagates in countries of all corners in the east and west, and half of the
Muhamadiyah community follow him in his Fiqh rather the third in successive centuries, despite facing
dispute from jurists, Muhadiths and authors showing animosity towards him, his greatness grew so it is
not far that the Prophet (saw) would inform of him…”

I say: …I followed the narrations of this Hadith in “Manaqib Abi Hanifah” and others and I saw that it is
based on a group:

The first is Al-Boriqi, and you have known his condition, and he narrated from a Majhul from a similar
one from As-Sinani with this Sanad…

Secondly: Abu ‘Ali Ahmad ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Khalid Al-Juwaybari Al-Harawi and he is famous for
fabricating and his matter is known and he has four ways:

First from As-Sinani with this Isnad

Second from Ibn Yahya Al-Mu’alim from Humayd from Anas
Third from ibn Yahya from Aban from Anas
Fourth from Abdullah ibn Ma’dan from Anas
And the narrator from him (Al-Juwaybari) in some of these narrations is Mamun ibn Ahmad As-Sulami
and he is similar to him in being famous for clearly lying.

Thirdly: Abul Ma’ali ibn Muhajir…he is Majhul. And it has been narrated from Muhammad ibn Yazid Al-
Mustamli and he is accused (of lying) from a Majhul from his similar from Abul Ma’ali from Aban from
Anas.

And An-Nadhari narrated with three Isnads all containing Majhul narrators up to Abul Ma’ali from Aban
from Anas.

Fourth: Abu ‘Ali Al-Hasan ibn Muhammad Ar-Razi, and he is accused (of lying) and sayings related to
him have preceded in the mention of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Salt n° 34, and An-Nadhari narrated
from his way with a Sanad whose narrators are all Majhul up to ‘Abdullah ibn Mughafal from ‘Ali ibn
Abi Talib, his saying.

Fifth: An-Nadhari, ibn Sam’ani said about him: “Al-Khiuwi with the name Abul Qasim Yunus ibn Tahir
ibn Muhammad ibn Yunus ibn Khiuw An-Nadhari Al-Khiuwi from the people of Balkh, named as
Shaykh Al-Islam” and he did not mention any Tawthiq nor Jarh, Allah knows best about him.

And some of the precedent narrations are from him, and he added with a Sanad whose narrators are
all Majhul from Aban from Anas;

And a Sanad whose narrators are all Majhul from Abu Hudbah from Anas

And a Sanad whose narrators are all Majhul from Musa At-Tawil from Thabit from Anas

And a Sanad whose narrators are all Majhul from Hammad from a man from Nafi’ from ibn ‘Umar

And a Sanad whose narrators are all Majhul from Abu Qatadah Al-Harani from Ja’far ibn Muhammad
from Juwaybir from Ad-Dahak from ibn ‘Abbas

And this is all I came to know, and the first four narrators, you came to know (their conditions), as for
the fifth and he is An-Nadhari and Allah knows best about him, and anyway there are between people
non Arab Majhul Muta’asib people, and there is no novelty that they get close to Allah (‘Azza wa Jalla)
with many narrations containing all Majhul, and Aban, Abu Hudbah and Musa At-Tawil are all
destroyed (in Jarh wa Ta’dil) and despite this I see them innocent from this Hadith, else it would have
become famous in their times.

What is the matter that there is no mention of this before its fabrication by Al-Juwaybari in the third
century?

And Abu Qatadah Al-Harani became Fasid at the end and despite this I consider him free of this and
Hammad who narrates from him from a man from Nafi’ from ibn ‘Umar, I do not known who he is, and
it is possible that he is Hammad ibn Abi Hanifah, because it has been said that he narrated from Malik
from Nafi’ from ibn ‘Umar, and some Majhul heard this and invented a Sanad up to him with this
Sanad, and An-Nadhari had shame to say from Malik from Nafi’ from ibn ‘Umar, as it would have been
the worst of mistakes, so he named a person instead of Malik!

And this is the status of Dajjal people, one of them invents many Isnad for one Hadith in order to
deceive ignorant people, and one of them invents it and another steals it and invents an Isnad from
himself, and this is the status of ignorant Muta’assib to get close (to Allah) with fabrication and stealing
and invention of Isnads.

Abul ‘Abbas Al-Qurtubi said: “Some jurists (Fuqaha) of Ahlur-Ray have given themselves permission
to attribute the ruling that is shown by Qiyas to the Messenger of Allah (saw)…that is why you will see
their books full of Ahadith whose Matn witness that they are fabricated because of their resemblance
to the Fatawa of Fuqaha…and because they do not give any Isnad for it.”

And ibn As-Salah hinted at this: “And likewise the people of Fiqh who gave themselves permission to
attribute what the Qiyas shows to the Prophet (saw).”
Reflect on what we explained and what Al-‘Ayni said. And then compare the many ways with authentic
Isnads about the story of Abu Hanifah requested twice to repent from Kufr else he would be killed, and
the majority of these ways have successive men famous between being a Thiqah Muhadith and a
Thiqah Hafiz or famous Imam.

Look at what Al-‘Ayni and Al-Kawthari said (about this authentic story of Abu Hanifah requested to
repentance twice) as if the Imams of Hadith and its men, Fuqahah of other Madhab can invent any
kind of lie for Al-‘Ayni and Al-Kawthari, even if they are famous with being Imam, Thiqah, Sidq, Taqwa
contrary to their companions of Ahlur-Ray as if there was not among them and their donkeys and dogs
but Sidq.

And despite this he accuses people who oppose him of Ta’assub and following their desire until the
Ustaz (Al-Kawthari) repeats his saying: “May Allah protect us from the followers of desire, we ask Allah
the protection, we ask Allah safety” and he is more deserving this (description)…” End of Al-Mu’allmi’s
words

Al-Fazari is among narrators in “Tarkh Baghdad” of words of Al-Awza’i and Sufyan Ath-Thawri in which
they attacked Abu Hanifah with very strong words.

Al-Kawthari said Al-Fazari was an enemy of Imam Abu Hanifah because his brother died in fighting
rulers because of the Fatwa of Abu Hanifah, and ibn Sa’d and ibn Qutaybah and ibn Nadeem
weakened him saying he committed many mistakes.

First the animosity if established does not cause the rejection of narration because a thiqah narrator
does not lie.

Al-Mu’alimi said that ibn Qutaybah and ibn Nadeem are not people specialists of narrators, ibn
Qutaybah is scholar of language, literature, as for ibn Nadeem he is a Rafidi knowing names of books
and he took his words from ibn Sa’d.

And ibn Sa’d is Muhammad ibn Sa’d ibn Mani’ the writer of Al-Waqidi, and he is not such a specialist
in narrators to accept his criticism of agreed upon Thiqah, and he was in most of his sayings following
his weak and unreliable teacher Al-Waqidi.

Hafiz ibn Hajar said in introduction of “Fath Al-Bari” about ‘AbudrRahman ibn Shurayh: “Ibn Sa’d did
Shuzuz (opposed more reliable people) in saying Munkar Al-Hadith, and none looks at Ibn Sa’d in this
because he relies mainly on Al-Waqidi and he is unreliable”

About Muharib ibn Dathar, Ibn Hajar said: “Ibn Sa’d said: “they do not do Ihtijaj with him” rather they all
did Ihtijaj with him…but Ibn Sa’d does Taqlid of Al-Waqidi”

And same for other narrators

What is funny is that when ibn Madini said Abu Hanifah narrated 50 Hadith and erred in them, Al-
Kawthari objected to that saying he did not give examples of mistakes so we would need to answer
him, and this is a Jarh ghayr Mufassar (not explained).

When Abu Dawud said Abu Hanifah erred in half of Hadith he narrated, and Al-Kawthari said that it is
not worth being answered as he did not mention in which Hadith he erred and what kind of mistake it
is.

Yet for Al-Fazari, Al-Kawthari takes from ibn Sa’d and ibn Qutaybah whose sayings are not taken into
account when opposing Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil, and they did not quote any example of mistakes.

Ibn Ma’in said about him: Thiaqh Thiaqh

Abu Hatim said: Thiqah Mamun Al-Imam

An-Nasa’i said: Thiqah Mamun one of the Imams

Al-Bukhari and Muslim both did Ihtijaj with him in their Sahih

Ibn Al-Mubarak said: I did not see a man more Faqih than Abu Ishaq Al-Fazari

Abdullah ibn Dawud Al-Khuraybi said: The saying of Abu Ishaq is more beloved to me than the saying
of Ibrahim An-Nakh’i.

And likewise Ibn ‘Uyaynah, Ash-Shafi’i and others praised him.

So declaring such a Thiaqh Imam to be weak because of the Shaz saying of ibn Sa’d, then it is the
Ta’assub of Al-Kawthari, specially when ibn Sa’d also declared Abu Hanifah to be weak in Hadith, and
yet Al-Kawthari does not accept this.

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household and companions and their
followers.

Some Ghali Muta’asib Ahnaf of Indo-Pak claim that the Ahlul Hadith of their country are a new sect,
having no precedent, are created by British, and many other lies.

Now either these people are extremely ignorant or great liars who want to deceive laymen.

The term Ahlul Hadith is not only used for scholars of Hadith and Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil, and about
a school of creed, but also for a group of scholars who had different rules from the Ahlur-Ray Ahnaf on
the role of Khabar Ahad compared to the Holy Quran, Qias, and others.

Imam At-Tirmidhi’s use of the words of Ahlul Hadith

Now the term Ahlul Hadith has been used many times by Imam At-Tirmidhi in his Sunnan. It has used
a lot about narrators and knowledge of Jarh and Ta’dil. Like on the tenth Hadith, Imam At-Tirmidhi
said: “Ibn La’ihah is weak according to Ahlul Hadith. Yahya ibn Qattan and others weakened him
because of his memory.” And this expression is used in great quatity: This narrator is Thiqah for Ahlul
Hadith, this one is weak, this Hadith is weak for Ahlul Hadith.

Secondly, Imam At-Tirmidhi also used the term “Ahlul Hadith” to show the creed of the Salaf. Imam At-
Tirmidhi narrated in the chapter: “What is narrated about the Khulud (staying forever) of people of
Paradise and Hell” a Hadith mentioning the vision of Allah and Allah putting His foot in the hell, and
them Imam Tirmidhi wrote:

“This Hadith is Hassan Sahih, and it has been reported from the Prophet (saw) a lot of narrations
similar to this mentioning the topic of the vision of Allah, that people will see Allah, and the mention of
the Foot and matters similar, and the Madhab of people of knowledge from Imams like Sufyan Ath-
Thawri, Malik ibn Anas, ibn Al-Mubarak, ibn ‘Uyaynah, Waki’ and others is that they mention these
matters and they say: “These Ahadith are narrated, and we believe in them and it is not said “How?”
and this is what is chosen by Ahlul Hadith, that these matters should be narrated as they came, and
there should be belief in them, and there should not be any Tafsir (other than literal meaning) and one
should not cast any doubt, and it should not be asked: “How?”

So here Ahlul Hadith refer to the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah as explained by Imam At-Tirmidhi in his
“Sunnan” in the chapters related to Zakat, “« Bab ma Jaa fi Fadl Sadaqah“ (What is narrated about the
virtues of Zakat):

“More than one person of knowledge said on this Hadith and similar narrations about the Attributes,
the Nuzul of the Lord (Tabarakka wa Ta’ala) every night towards the heaven of this world, they said:
These narrations are established, and we should believe in them and not have any doubt, and not say:
“How” and this is narrated from Malik, Sufiyan ibn ‘Uyaynah and ‘Abdullah ibnul Mubarak, and they
said concerning these Ahadith: “Quote them without (asking and mentioning) “How” and this is the
saying of the people of knowledge among the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. As for the Jahmiyah, they
rejected these narrations and said that it is Tashbih (establishing a similarity between Allah and His
creation). Allah (‘Azza wa Jalla) has indeed mentioned in many places of His Book the hand (Al-Yad),
the hearing (As-Sam’), the sight (al-Basar) and the Jahmiyah interpolated these verses and explained
them (did its Tafsir) contrary to what the people of knowledge have explained (did Tafsir), and they
(Jahmiyah) said: “Allah did not create Adam with His hand” et they said: “The meaning of hand is the
power”. And Ishaq ibn Ibrahim said: “Tashbih is only when we say that the hand is like my hand or
similar to it, or hearing is like my hearing or similar to it, so if someone says: He hears like I hear or
similarly to my hearing, this is Tashbih (establishing a similarity between Allah and the creation), and if
we say as Allah (Ta’ala) said: a hand, hearing and seeing, and we do not say “How” and we do not
say: “Like my hearing or similar to it” this is not Tashibh.”

So here Ahlul Hadith means Ahlus Sunnah and it opposes the people of Kalam Jahmiyah, Mu’tazilah
and those who followed them Kullabiyah, Ash’ariyah and Maturidiyah.

Note: Some Neo-Jahmi said that Imam At-Tirmidhi negated any Tafsir in his first quote by saying:
”These matters should be narrated as they came, and there should be belief in them, and there should
not be any Tafsir”, and these neo-Jahmi said that his creed and that of the Salaf is that of Tafwid,
which means the Salaf read these words but did not give them any meaning and left the meaning to
Allah.

Yet one can clearly see in the second quote that Imam At-Tirmidhi affirms that the Salaf did a Tafsir,
and the Jahmiyah opposed the Tafsir of the Salaf. He said: “And the Jahmiyah interpolated these
verses and explained them (did its Tafsir) contrary to what the people of knowledge have explained
(did Tafsir)”.

Also by putting the hand with the attributes of seeing and hearing makes it clear that the Salaf had the
same belief on these attributes, so if they did not believe in the meaning of hand, this would mean they
also did not believe in the meaning of hearing and seeing, and only Allah knows the meaning of
hearing and seeing. And the quotes Imam At-Tirmidhi mentioned from Ishaq ibn Ibrahim ibn
Rahawayah makes it clear that believing that Allah has a hand is not Tashbih, and Tashbih is only to
say like my hand. So Imam Ishaq did not say one should believe in the word "hand" and leave its
meaning to Allah. So the second quote of the “Sunnan” of At-Tirmidhi make it clear that the Tafisr he
negated in the first quote was the Tafsir other that the litteral meaning, and it is never the ridiculous
creed of Tafwid.

We understand from this that here Ahlul Hadith means the creed of the Salaf. Likewise Imam Sabuni
entitled one of his work on creed: “’Aqidatu Salaf wa Ashabil Hadith”

And Imam At-Tirmidhi also used the term Ahlul Hadith for a group of people that hve opinions in Fiqh.
In the chapter: “What is narrated about Tamattu’”, Imam Tirmidhi writes:

‫قاحسإو دمحأو يعفاشلا لوق وهو جحلا يف ةرمعلاب عتمتلا نوراتخي ثيدحلا لهأو‬

“And Ahlul Hadith preferred the Tamatu’ of ‘Umrah in Hajj and this is the saying of Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad
and Ishaq.”

And in many chapters, when mentioning the opinions of scholars, Imam At-Tirmidhi mentioned the
term “Our companions” and he also mentioned a group by “Ahlul Kufah”.

Like the chapter of the person who forgets the prayer. He mentioned the view of Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad
and Ishaq that they chose the opinion of ‘Ali that the man forgetting the prayer should pray it whenever
he reminds, and Imam At-Tirmidhi mentioned that the people of Kufah chose the saying of Abu Bakrah
that he who slept and woke up at time of ghurub Shams did not pray but after the Ghurub of he sun,
then Imam At-Tirmidh wrote: “As for our companions, they preferred the saying of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib”
Imam At-Tirmidhi mentioned the Hadith of the Prophet (saw) that the one who reached one rak’ah of
Fajr before Tulu’ of the Sun, then he has caught the Fajr prayer and the one who reached one rak’ah
of ‘Asr before Ghurub of the sun has reached the prayer of ‘Asr. He then wrote: “This Hadith is Hassan
Sahih, and by this say our companions, and Ash-Shafi’i, and Ahmad and Ishaq”

About the two Saktah (silences) in the prayer, Imam At-Tirmidhi wrote: “And this is the saying or more
than one person of knowledge, they consider recommended for the Imam to make Saktah after the
beginning of the prayer and after finishing the Qira’ah, this is the view of Ahmad, and Ishaq and our
companions”

In the chapter about the man who married ten women then became Muslim, Imam At-Tirmidhi wrote:
“And the action is upon the Hadith of Ghaylan for our companions, among them Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad
and Ishaq”

After mentioning a Hadith about the invocation at the beginning of the prayer, Imam At-Tirmidhi wrote:
“And the action is upon this (hadith) for Ash-Shafi’i and our companions” then Imam At-Timridhi
mentioned a different view of Ahmad.

So one can clearly see that in these quotes about preferences of Fiqh, Imam at-Tirmidhi mentions the
views of his companions, and Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad and Ishaq are included in his companions, and that
people of Kufah are mentioned separately. And in chapter of Tammatu’, At-Tirmidhi clearly mention
the preference of Ahlul Hadith as a school of though.

So it shows the weakness of the claim of people that Ahlul Hadith only refers to Imams of Jarh and
Ta’dil and knowledge of Hadith or to a school of creed.

Rather Ahlul Hadith is a school of Fiqh with had different rules from Ahlur-Ray.

Shah Waliullah naming a group of though Ahlul Hadith opposing Ahlur-Ray

Shah Waliullah mentionned in his book “Insaf fi Bayan Sabab Al-Ikhtilaf” a chapter entitled “The
reasons for difference between Ashabul Hadith and Ashabul Ray”

And there is a similar chapter in his book “Hujjatullah Al-Balighah”.

As for Insaf, it has been translated in english by Taha in London.

It is written p 77: “The position of the Madhab of (Imam) Ahmad in relation to the madhab of (Imam)
Shafi’i is like the madhab of (Imam) Abu Yusuf and (Imam) Muhammad (to the madhab of Abu
Hanifa). Despite that his madhab was not recorded with the madhab of Shafi’i during the (time of)
recording like the madhab of those two was recorded together with the madhb of Abu Hanifa.”

So according to Shah Waliullah the Madhab of Ahmad is close to that of Ash-Shafi’i and they could
have been recorded together and nowadays there could have been a madhab called Shafi’i including
Hambalis. So it shows that the division of Ahlul Hadith between Shafi’i and Hambalis is artificial, and
there difference in Usul and Furu are like Abu Yusuf and Muhammad’s differences with Abu Hanifah.

Then Shah Waliullah says further on the same page: “As for the madhab of Shafi’i, of all madhahib it
has had more frequently mujtahid mutlaq and mujtahid fil Madhab. Among all the madhahib it is the
most principled, scholastic and abounding in interpretation of the Quran and explanation of Ahadith. It
is the most sound in chains of authorities and narration…

As for Bukhari, although he was affiliated to Shafi’i and agreed with him in most of (the principles of)
fiqh, he disagreed with him in many things. (But) what he did on his own is not considered as part of
Shafi’i madhab. As for Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi, both of them were mujtahids affiliated to Ahmad
(ibn Hambal) and Ishaq, and similarly we think of Ibn Majah and Al-Darimi, and Allah knows best.

It should also be known to him (the one involved in fiqh) that the subject matter of Shafi’i’s madhab
consists of Ahadith and athar (and which) are recorded, well-known and used (as original sources).
This kind (of distinction) is not found in any other madhab. Among the constituents of his madhab his
Kitab Al-Muwatta (of Imam Malik). Although it was earlier than Shafi’i, he based his madhab on it.
(Likewise are) Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and the books of Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi, ibn Majah
and al-Darimi, then the musnad of Shafi’i, Sunan Nasa’i, Sunan Daraqutni, Sunan of Baihaqi and
Sharh al-Sunnah of Baghawi.

As for Muslim and Abul ‘Abbas Al’Asamm (d 246/860Ad) the compiler of musnad al-Shafi’i and (kitab)
al-Umm, and those mentionned by us after him, are devoted to the madhab of Shafi’i, and they all
adhere to the same principles. And if you take note of what we have mentionned it will become clear to
you that whoever opposes the madhab of Shafi’i will be deprived from the office of Al-Ijtihad Al-Mutlaq.
(It is also worth noting) that the science of Hadith has declined to benefit the one who does not try to
study under Shafi’i and his companions” End of Shah Waliyullah’s words

Here are some comments

1) Imam Bukhari is not a Shafi’i and As-Subki and others falsely attributed him to Ash-Shafi’i’s
madhab, as said by Anwar Shah Kashmiri, and he is a Mujtahid Mutlaq. Zakariyah Kandhalwi in his
introduction of Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi’s sharh of Bukhari also mentionned that Imam Bukhari is a
mujtahid mutlaq. People falsely think he is Shafi’i because of agrement in famous opinions for which
Imam Bukhari wrote special books like “Juzz Qira’ah Khalf Al-Imam” and “Juzz Raful yadayn”.

Yet Shah Waliyullah is right that Imam Bukhari and other Muhadith agree with the principles of Fiqh of
Imam Shafi’i. They are Muhaqiq scholars and after checking they saw the rules of Imam Ash-Shafi’i as
stronger. Just like Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn Al-Hassan saw Imam Abu Hanifa’s rules as
stronger. So they did not make taqlid of him, but their Usul were similar and they had little difference in
Usul of Fiqh, hence little difference in Fiqh.

And it is not that Muhadith were Muqalid of Ash-Shafi’i and they quoted and authenticated Ahadith
with Ta’asub, rather Al-Bukhari, Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi followed Hadith. And At-Tirmidhi mentionned
Ash-Shafi’i among his companions as well as Ahmad and Ishaq.

2) Instead of saying Ash-Shafi’i based his madhab on Malik, Ahmad has little difference with Shafi’i,
Muhadith are affiliated to Shafi’i’s madhab and principles of fiqh and affiliated to Ahmad and Ishaq, it is
more exact to say that Muhadith adhere to the Madhab of Ahlul Hadith whose Imam are Malik, Shafi’i,
Ahmad and Ishaq, and there principles of fiqh are that of Ahlul Hadith.

Witness of Ahnaf’s Kibar that Ahlul Hadith is a school of thought

All quotes below are taken from the book “Tahrik Azadi Fikr” of Isma’il As-Salafi, except for one from
Hafiz ibn ul Qayim that his from Isma’il As-Salafi’s book “Hujjiyat Hadith” and some quotes from the
english version of Ibn Taymiya’s book “Sihatu Madhab Ahlil Madinah”.

Mulla Katib Chalpi quoted in his ‘Kashf Az-Zunun” p 89 (ed Egypt) Imam ‘Ala Ud-Din Al-Hanafi from
his book “Mizan Al-Usul”:

“And the majority of works in the field of Usul Al-Fiqh belong to Ahlul I’tizal (Mutazilah) who oppose us
in Usul (creed) and (belong) to the Ahlul Hadith who oppose us in Furu’ (Fiqh), and there is no reliance
on their works.”

So ‘Alaudin Al-Hanafi named a group called Ahlul Hadith opposing Ahnaf in Furu’, meaning in usul ul-
Fiqh and Fiqh, and its shows that rules or Ahnaf in Usul Al-Fiqh are different from Ahlul Hadith. And
this group is not a new invented one by British, but a well-known group to scholars.

‘Allamah Al-Bazdawi Al-Hanafi wrote in his Usul about Khabar Ahad: “Some Ahlul Hadith say that
(Khabar Ahad) leads to knowledge of Yaqin (certitude).”

Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari Al-Hanafi commentator of Usul Al-Bazdawi wrote in his “Kashf Al-Asrar”:

“The majority of Ashabul Hadith opted for the view that the Akhbar that are judged to be authentic by
their experts leads to knowledge of Yaqin (certitude)”
So it shows that Ahnaf differ with Ahlul Hadith about Khabar Ahad leading to Yaqin.

Also on Khabar Mursal, Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari criticized Ahlul Hadith for their rejection of Mursal
Hadith saying:

“They called themselves Ashabul Hadith, attached themselves to the defense of Hadith and action
upon it, then they rejected what is from its stronger category (meaning Mursal)”

Also about the permissibility of Ijtihad for Prophets, it is written in another place in “Kashf Al-Asrar”:
“And this is reported from Abu Yusuf from our companions, and this is the madhab of Malik, Ash-
Shafi’i, and the majority of Ahlul Hadith”

So one can see that in Usul Fiqh there is a school called Ahlul Hadith. What ignorance and lies
brought by Ghali Muta’asib Ahnaf that Ahlul Hadith is a new sect invented by British, having no
precedent, while Kibar of Ahnaf say that Ahul Hadith oppose them in usul ul-Fiqh, on Khabar Ahad,
Mursal and other issues.

Ibn Khaldun and Sahrastani naming the two groups Ahlul Hadith and Ahlur-Ray

Ibn Khaldun wrote in his “Muqadimmah” p 389 ed Egypt: “And Fiqh is divided in two ways: the way of
Ahlur-Ray and Qiyas and they are Ahlul ‘Iraq and the way of Ahlul Hadith and they are Ahlul Hijaz, and
Hadith was little in Ahlul ‘Iraq as we have explained before, so they performed a lot of Qias and
became experts in it, this is why they are called Ahlur-Ray, and the leader of their group upon which
and around whose companions a Madhab was built is Abu Hanifah.

Shahrastani wrote in his “Milal wa Nihal”: “Then the Mujtahid among the Imams of the community are
restrained into two categories and there is no third:Ashabul Hadith and Ashabur-Ray.

Ashabul Hadith are the people of Hijaz, the companions of Malik ibn Anas, the companions of
Muhammad ibn Idris Ash-Shafi’i, the companions of Sufyan Ath-Thawri, the companions of Ahmad ibn
Hambal, the companions of Dawud ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad Al-Asbahani, and they were only named
Ashabul Hadith because of their care to obtain Ahadith and transmit the narrations and build the
Ahkam on the clear texts and they do not turn to Qias Al-Jali or Khafi when they find a narration…

As for the Ashabur-Ray, they are the people of ‘Iraq, and they are the companions of Abu Hanifah An-
Nu’man ibn Thabit and among his companions are Muhammad ibn Al-Hassan, Abu Yussuf Ya’qub ibn
Muhammad Al-Qadhi, Zufar ibn Huzayl, Al-Hassan ibn Zyad Al-Lului, ibn Sama’ah, ‘Afiyah Al-Qadhi,
Abu Muti’ Al-Balkhi and Bishr Al-Marisi. And they were only named Ashabur-Ray because of their care
to obtain a form of Qias and the meaning extracted from rulings and basing their formulations on them,
and sometimes they will favour the Qias Al-Jali over the Ahad narrations” end of Sharastani’s words.

Witness of Shafi’i scholars about the existence of Ahlul Hadith school and Madhab.

Imam An-Nawawi wrote in Sharh Sahih Muslim about Tayamum: “The obligatory actions (of
Tayamum) are wiping the face and the two hands, and this is the Madhab of ‘Ata, Makhul, Al’Awza’I,
Ahmad, Ishaq, ibn Munzir and the majority of Ashabul Hadith”

Imam An-Nawawi wrote in the chapter of Musaqat: “And this is the saying of Malik, Ath-Thawri, Al-
Layth, Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad and all Fuqaha Al-Muhadithin”

On Muzara’ah, Imam An-Nawawi wrote: “And this is the saying of Ibn Abi Laylah, Abu Yussuf,
Muhammad and all people of Kufah, and the Fuqaha Al-Muhadithin and Ahmad and ibn Khuzaymah.”

About Shuf’ah, An-Nawawi wrote: “Al-Hakam, Ath-Thawri, Abu ‘Ubaydah and a group of Ahlul Hadith
said he cannot take it…And the second (opinion) is that it is obligatory and this is the saying of Ahmad,
Abu Thawr and Ashabul Hadith”

Hafiz ibn Hajar wrote about wiping face and two hands in Tayamum: “And this is the view of Ahmad,
Ishaq, ibn Jarir, ibn Munzir, ibn Khuzaymah and Abu Jahm and others reported it from Malik, and Al-
Khatabbi reported it from Ashabul Hadith.”
So One can see that Nawawi and ibn Hajar both attribute a saying in Fiqh to Ahlul Hadith. So this
group exists.

Imam Az-Zahabi wrote in his Tazkiratul Hufaz about Baqi ibn Makhlad: “They opposed Baqi with
Ta’asub because of his manifesting the madhab of Ahlul Athar, and the Emir of Andalus Muhammad
ibn AbdirRahman Al-Mardani defended him, transferred his books (in another place) and told Baqi to
propagate his knowledge.”

So Hafiz Az-Zahabi talked about a Madhab named as that of Ahlul Athar. What a shame for people
calling this madhab a creation of British, what ignorance or Talbis!…This is the state of Muta’asib
people! And nowadays Muta’asub Muqalid oppose scholars like Baqi ibn Makhlad. Ta’asub Madhabi,
what a filthy disease!

Hafiz Az-Zahabi wrote about Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad ibn Abi Nasr Al-Humaydi: “He was pious,
thiqah, Imam in Hadith and its defects, a muhaqiq in knowledge of verification and his Usul were on
the madhab of Ashabul Hadith agreeing with the Book and the Sunnah.”

So for Imam Az-Zahabi, there is a madhab of Ashabul hadith that has Usul ul-Fiqh.

Hafiz As-Suyuti quoted in his Sawn Al-Mantiq p 47 from As-Sam’ani (d489H) in his “Al Intisar li Ahlil
Hadith”: “Two groups use to criticise Ashabul Hadith: Ahlul Kalam and Ahlur-Ray”

Ibn Taymiyah and Ibnul Qayim mentioning Ahlul Hadith

Shaykh Al-Islam writes about Ahlul Hadith in Qawaid An-Nuraniyah: “Ahlul Hadith took about the
matter of drinks from the saying of the people of Madinah and all the people of the cities agreeing with
the Sunnah Al-Mustafidah from the Prophet (saw) and his companions on the forbiddance.,, And on
the topic of foods they took from the saying of people of Kufah because of the authenticity of the
Sunnan from the Prophet (saw) about the forbiddance of every wild beasts with fangs and every bird
with talons and the forbiddance of the flesh of donkeys”

And likewise in many places of this book, Ibn Taymiyah mentioned the preferences in Fiqh of Ahlul
Hadith.

Ibn Taymiyah writes in Naqd Al-Mantiq” : “The Fuqahah of Hadith are more knowledgeable than other
Fuqahah, their Sufiyah are more following the Messenger that Sufiyah of other groups, and their rulers
are more knowledgeable about the Prophetic politics (Syasiyah) than rulers of others, and their laymen
have more right to allegiance (Wilayah) to the Messenger than others”

Shaykh Isma’il As-Salafi quoted in his book “Hujjiyat Hadith” Hafiz Ibnul Qayim saying in his “Sawa’iq
Al-Mursalah”: “Everybody knows that the Ahlul Hadith are the most truthful of all groups as said by Ibn
Al-Mubarak: “I found the religion to the Ahlul Hadith, the Kalam to the Mutazilah, the lies to the
Rawafid and the tricks (Hyal) with Ahlur-Ray””

So both Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Qayim Al-Jawziyah mentioned the Ahlul Hadith and their qualities.

Shaykh Al-Islam ibn Taymiyah mentioned in his Risalah “Sihatu Madhab Ahlil Madinah” that he been
translated in English under the name: “The Madinan Way” that the school of the people of Madinah is
stronger that of the people of Kufah. And he mentioned many examples to show this. But he also puts
Imam Shafi’i under the school of Madinah, and tells that Layth ibn Sa’d and Al-Awza’i were close to
this school. So it shows that this school is that of Ahlul Hadith.

He said p 33 of English translation: “Ash-Shafi’i was known for his efforts to follow the Book and the
Sunna and his earnest striving to refute those who opposed that. He followed the school of the people
of Hijaz…Then Ash-Shafi’i went to Egypt and wrote his new book and in his speech and writing he
was ascribed to the school of the people of Madina such as Malik. He used to say: “Some of our
companions” meaning the people of Madina or some of the men of knowledge of Malik or Malik
himself…Ash-Shafi’i was one of the companions of Malik and he was known as one of his
companions. He chose to live in Egypt at that time because they followed the school of the people of
Madina and those Egyptians who had a similar position, such as Al-Layth ibn Sa’d and his like. Some
of the people of the west followed the school of those men and some of them followed the school of al-
Awza’i and the people of Syria. The school of the people of Syria and Egypt are close, but the people
of Madina are considered better by all.

Since Ash-Shafi’i was a man who sought knowledge and saw proofs in sound hadiths and other
things, he had to follow them, even if it was in opposition to the position of his Madinan companions.
Therefore he undertook what his opinion demanded of him and he composed a dictation on the
questions of ibn Al-Qasim and displayed some divergence from Malik in certain things. Ash-Shafi’i was
good in what he did and undertook what he had to…Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ash-Shaybani were
the followers of Abu Hanifa and they were particularly connected to him, as Ash-Shafi’i was particularly
connected to Malik, but their disagreement with Abu Hanifa is close to Ash-Shafi’i’s disagreement with
Malik.” End of ibn Taymiyah’s words

So one can see according to Ibn Taymiyah Ash-Shafi’i’s madhab, and Shah Waliullah said that
Ahmad’s madhab is close to that of Shafi’i like difference between Abu Hanifah and his students. So
the matter of having Maliki, Shafi’i and Hambali madhab is a matter of students recording madhab
together or separately. Yet Malik, Shafi’i, Ahmad, Layth, Al-Awza’i had same rules and were upon the
same school: Ahlul Hadith.

Then in the same risalah, Ibn Taymiyah mentions in some places the view of Ahlul Hadith agreeing
with that of the people of Madinah.

He said p 43 on a matter of transaction: “The people of Madina and the people of Hadith differ from
them (people of Kufa) in respect of all that”

Also on p44: “That is what the people of Madina and the people of Hadith believe.”

On p 36 Shaykh Al-Islam mentions the Fuqaha of Hadith, and they are Ahlul Hadith:

“It is known that the school of the people of Madina, in respect of drinks, is more rigorous than the
school of the Kufans. The people of Madinah and all other cities and the fuqaha of Hadith make every
intoxicant unlawful. So every intoxicant is considered to be wine and is therefore unlawful. If a lot of it
makes one intoxicated, then a little of it is unlawful. The people of Madina do not argue about that,
neither their earlier nor their later people, no matter whether the drink is from dates, grains, honey,
horses’ milk or anything else.

The Kufans, however, only consider wine to be that which becomes fermented from pressed grapes. If
it is cooked before it becomes strong so that two-third evaporates, then they consider it to be lawful.
The nabidh of dates and raisins is unlawful for them when it intoxicate if it is fresh, but if is cooked, the
least amount of cooking makes it lawful, even if it still intoxicates!” end of Ibn Taymiyah's words

So one can clearly see that the school of Ahlul Hadith exists, the Fuqahah Al-Mahaditheen’s madhab
has rules different from Ahnaf.

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, his companions and their
followers

Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq Al Athari in his “Maqalat” answered claims of many Deobandi like Dr Khalid
Mahmud that Ahlul Hadith are revilers of Imams. And Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq answered showing
examples from many Hanafi scholars, their revilements of Imams and results of blind Taqlid, and their
Ta’assub.

Almost all quotes from scholars below come from “Maqalat” of Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq Al-Athari, or his
book “Asbab Ikhtilaf Fuqahah”.

Revilement of Sahabah by some Ahnaf

Look O reader what many main Hanafi book say about Wail ibn Hujr, Mu’awiyah, Abu Hurayrah and
Anas ibn Malik, may Allah be pleased with them.

The Prophet (saw) invoked for some benediction on Wail ibn Hujr and his children, but some Ahnaf
could not stand that he narrated Ahadith of Raful Yadayn (raising hands in the prayer) in last years of
Prophet’s life, and the last time he saw him doing this was nine month before the Prophet’s death,
showing this action was late and was not in the beginning of Islam.

In “Jami’ul Masanid” of Khawarzimi v 1 p 358 it is said about this Sahabi : “A’rabi (Bedouin), he did not
know the laws of Islam”

Muhammad ‘Abid Sindhi in his ”Mawahib Latifah” and Abdul Hay Al-Luknawi in his “Ta’liqul Mumajad”
both regretted these kinds of sayings.

Judging with a witness and an oath (Yamin) is the view of the majority of scholars Malik, Ash-Shafi’i
and Ahmad and majority of people of Islam as said by An-Nawawi in his Sharh Muslim, and there are
many authentic Ahadith about that.

But in the famous Hanafi book of Fiqh “Sharh Wiqayah”, Kitab Da’wa p 205 it is said about this topic :

“ And for us it is an innovation and the first who judged with that is Mu’awiyah”
Look at this, not only they reject authentic Ahadith claiming they oppose the Quran, but they will reach
the level to call this an innovation even if a Sahabi did it.

And this is not all, they will attribute shamefully ignorance to those who say this as in “Nur ul Anwar”,
chapter Mabhath ul Ahliyah p 300 it is written after quoting types of ignorance, that would not be
forgiven on judgment day :

“ As the ignorance of Shafi’i in permitting judgment with a witness and an oath (Yamin)…and first who
judged with that is Mu’awiyah”

Mulla Jioun after saying this, added : “We said as said by our ancestors ( Ahnaf), because we would
not dare to say that”

In “Tawdih ma’a Tawshih” p 477 there is about same topic :

“ It is mentioned in Mabsut that judging with a witness and an oath (Yamin) is an innovation and the
first who judged by that was Mu’awiyah”
Abu Hurayrah and Anas ibn Malik are among most narrating Ahadith, and some of their Ahadith did
not suit some Muqallid people, so they invented a rule and went to the extremity of saying these two
Sahabi were Ghayr Faqih.

It is written in “Usul Shashi”: “The second category of narrators is those who are well known for their
memory and integrity and not for their Ijtihad and Fatawa like Abu Hurayrah and Anas ibn Malik. If a
narration is reported from people like these two and it is authentic according to you and the narration is
according to analogy (Qias), there is no fear to act upon it, but if it opposes qias, then acting upon qias
is better… Basing upon this, our companions (Ahnaf) rejected the Hadith of Abu Hurayrah on
Musarrah against qias.

As for the difference in number of narrators, we affirm that the condition to act upon Khabar Ahad is
that it does not oppose the Quran and the Sunnah Mashurah, the Prophet (saw) said that there will be
a lot of Hadith after me, confront them with the Book of Allah, if they are according (to it) accept them,
if they are against reject them” End of “Usul Ash-Shashi”

So one can see how without any shame these great Sahabah are called Ghayr Faqih, Allah’s help is
sought from this injustice.

As for the Hadith of confronting Ahadith to the Quran, it is fabricated, and yet it is found in many books
of Hanafi Usul ul Fiqh. And some even attributed it to “Sahih Al-Bukhari”.
Ali ibn Muhammad Al-Bazdawi (d 682) said: The Prophet (saw) said:

“There would be after me a lot of Hadith attributed to me, confront them to the Book of Allah, if they
are according to it, accept it, if they are against reject them” (“Usul Al-Bazdawi”, Bab Bayan Qismul
Inqita’)

This narration is also found in “Tawdih” of ‘Ubaydullah ibn Mas’ud (d 747), author also of Sharh
Wiqayah.

In the Sharh of this book “Sharh Tawdih” by Mas’ud At-Taftazani (d 792), this Hadith is attributed to
“Sahih Al-Bukhari”, and he also affirmed that Yahya ibn Ma’in said this Hadith is fabricated by the
heretics (zanadiqah).

’Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari (d 730 )said in Sharh of “Usul Bazdawi” that Imam Al-Bukhari quoted this
Hadith and he is the specialist of this field, and this is enough for it being authentic, and that is why the
criticism of others is not taken into account (“Kashf ul Asrar” vol 3 p 10 )

The same is said in “Fusul Hawashi Sharh Usul Shashi” p 288.

In “Hashiyah Tawdih” it is said that Marjani Al-Hanafi got astonished to see the Hanafi people of Usul
(At-Taftazani, Al-Bukhari, Fusul Hawashi) attributing this to “Sahih Al-Bukhari” while it is not inside
(and Al-Bazdawi, ‘Ubaydullah ibn Mas’ud and Ash-Shashi quoted it without attributing it to “Sahih Al-
Bukhari”).

The Marfu Hadith of confronting Ahadith to the Quran is fabricated, see “Madkhal” of Al-Bayhaqi, As-
Suyuti in “Miftah Al Jannah” p 39, “Muwafiqat” of Ash-Shatibi vol 2 p 18, ibn Qayim in “As-Sawaiq Al-
Mursalah” vol 2 p 437.

Hafiz Qassim ibn Qutlubaghah said in his Takhrij of “Usul ul Bazdawi” that all the chains of the Ahadith
in this meaning are weak.

So this Hadith and others in this meaning is the work of heretics (Zanadiqah) as told by Ibn Ma’in. yet
Ahnaf to reject authentic Ahadith use this fabricated Hadith and they justify by it their false rule that
Khabar Ahad cannot restrict the Quran, while they restrict the Quran with weak narrations and even
Qias like the case of doing Wudhu with Nabidh and others.

As for Ghayr Faqih, ibn Hummam Al-Hanafi said that Abu Hurayrah and Anas ibn Malik are Mujtahid
and Sahabah came to them for Fatawa, see “Fath Al-Qadir” vol 2 p 141.

And ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari Al-Hanafi also said that Abu Hurayrah is Mujtahid : “ We do not accept that
Abu Hurayrah was not Faqih, rather he was Faqih and among the conditions of Ijtihad, there was none
he did not possess. And he was giving Fatawa among the Sahabah”. (“Kashf ul Asrar” p 703)

And this is also said by author of “Fawatih Rahmoot Sharh Muthalam Thubut”.

Note: In “Nur ul Anwar” it is said that Ahadith of Ghayr Faqih Sahabi like Abu Hurayrah and Anas ibn
Malik being rejected if it opposes Qias is the Madhab of ‘Isa ibn Abban and the majority of
Mutakhiroon chose it, while Al-Karkhi rejected it, a group followed him. Yet majority of Mutakhiroon
have accepted this falsehood.

Note: An-Neylwi Al-Mamati also quoted this rule in his “Nidae Haqq” to object to a Hadith, and when
Sarfraz Safdar Khan Hayati in his “Taskeen Sudoor” rejected this rule, then An-Neylwi showed and
quoted Hanafi books to show that it is rule of majority of Ahnaf, and he did not invent it.

Note: Anwar Shah Kashmiri also rejected this false rule, and even said that such words should be
taken out of Hanafi books.
Note : Jamil Sakrodwi, teacher at Darul ‘Ulum Deoband, in his “ Ajmalul Hawashi ‘ala Usul Shashi” did
not mention the weakness of the Hadith of confronting Ahadith to the Quran, while it is fabricated, an
invention of heretics, rather he used it as a prove to reject Khabar Ahad told to be against Quran.
Revilement of Imams by some Ahnaf

“ Yusuf ibn Musa Al Multi AL Hanafi said : “One who reads in book of Bukhari, he will become an
heretic (Zindiq)” ( man Nathara fi Kitabi Bukhari Tazandaqa) (“Shazratu Zahab” v 7 p 40 and “Abnau ul
Ghumar bi Abnail Umar” of ibn Hajar v 4 p 348)

Also see what Muhammad ibn Musa Al Bulasaghuni said : “If I had power, I would take Jiziyah from
Shaf’iyah” (“Mizan ul I’tidal” of Az-Zahabi v 4 p 52)

And ‘Isa ibn Abi Bakr ibn Ayub Al-Hanafi was asked why he was Hanafi while all his family was Shafii,
and he answered : “ Don’t you want a Muslim to be in the family?” (“Fawaid Al-Bahiyah” p 152-153)

Muhibuddin Muhammad ibn Muhammad d 789 was a Hanafi scholar. It is said about him in “Shazratuz
Zahab” p 310 that he was doing diminishing and reviling Ash-Sahfi’i and he was considering that as
worship.

Imam Safkudri of Ahnaf is famous for his fatwa of Ahnaf women not marrying Shawafi men, but Ahnaf
men can marry Shafi women, see “al-Bazaziyah”, “Fath ul Qadir”, “Bahr ur Raiq”.

One can even see in chapter prayer behind other Madhab that is after behind innovators in book like
"Bahr ur Raiq", that how many Hanafi scholars said it was Makruh to pray behind Shawafi and some
even said Makruh Tahrimi, meaning prayer behind Shawafi is sinful. What is worse is in these books,
they even quote some Hanafi scholars doing Takfir of Shawafi because of their saying : “I am believer
Insha Allah”.

Abu Layth As-Samarqandi said: “Following a Shafi’i in prayer is only permissible when he is not
Muta’ssib, about Eman he does not say “I am a believer insha Allah”, …whatever comes out of his
body more than Sabilayn (other than two parts like blood, vomit) then he makes Wudhu, if impurity fell
in water greater than Qultayn (two qullas), he does not Wudhu with this water, he does not do Raful
Yadayn after and before Ruku’..” (“Fatawa Nawazil” p 48-49)

Except the last conditions, all others are mentioned in “Qadhi Khan” v 1 p 91, “Radul Muhtar” v 1 p
563, “Alamagiri” v 1 p 84, “Tatar Khaniyah” v 1 p 652, look at “Fath ul Qadir” for this mention v 1 p 313.

Al-Luknawi also mentioned in his “At-Ta’liaqat As-Sunniyat ‘ala Al-Fawaid Al Bahiyah” that Amir ‘Itqani
also thinks that if a Hanafi prays behind a Shafi’i, then the prayer of the Hanafi is void (batil) behind the
Shafii because of Raful Yadayn of the Shafi’i Imam, and Al-Luknawi answered him in the best way.

In “Al-Bada’i As-Sana’I”, it is also said that Raf Yadayn is leading to Fasad and is Makruh Tahrimi
(meaning the person doing this will be a sinner) v 1 p 548 and also in “Sharh Munyah” as quoted in
“Fayd ul Bari” v 2 p 257.

Shah Waliullah mentioned that Salaf had differences about impurity, conditions of the prayer, yet they
all prayed behind each other.

Imam Ahmad whose position is that the man who received Hijamah or whose blood comes out, his
Wudhu is broken, was asked about someone whose nose ran and blood came out and he prayed
without doing Wudhu and Imam Ahmad answered : Would I not pray behind Sayd ibn Musayyab?
(“Hujjatullah Al-Balighah” v 1 p 159 about difference of this community)

So Sayd ibn Musayyab, for him blood coming out of the body does not break the Wudhu, and Imam
Ahmad did not see any dislike in praying behind the like of him, even if he disagrees.

While for the same reason, all these Hanafi Fuqaha tell that the prayer behind Shawafi’ is Makruh
Tanzihi (disliked) and some even said Makruh Tahrimi (meaning doing it is a sin).
So we can see who the real revilers of the Imams are, they would forbid or dislike to pray behind such
scholars as Ash-Shafi’i and they dare to tell that Ahlul Hadith revile the great Imams.

These differences among different schools of thought reached the point of having four Musalah in the
Haram of Makkah, and it is forbidden in Hanafi Fiqh to hold two congregational prayers in the same
mosque, but yet these people because of their Ta’assub in Taqlid left their Madhab and Taqlid of it on
this point.

'Allamah Ali Qari wrote: “If every Madhab has his Imam, as it is in our times, then the best is to follow
the one that is according to his, whether he prays first or after, according to what all the Muslims have
considered as good (Istahsana) and the majority of the believers acted according to it from the people
of the two Haram, Al-Quds, Egypt and Sham, and there is no consideration to those who opposed this
among them.” (Rad ul Muhtar v 1 p 564)

Some even like Ash-Shami went on to compare Masjidul Haram as a Mosque of streets, enabling by
this way repetitions of second, third and four congregational prayer, he wrote: "Like the mosque of
Makkah and Madinah, it does not have a fix Jama’ah, so it does not suit the description of the mosque
of Mahallah, rather it is like the mosque of the street, and it has preceded that there is no Kirahah in
repeating the Jama’ah in it by consensus” (Rad ul Muhtar v 1 p 553)

But it is not hidden to anybody that Masjidul Haram does have regular Imam, so it is never in the ruling
of Mosque of streets, also the habitants of Makkah and Madinah close to it go regulary to these
mosques.

And what about many mosques in Syria and Egypt? Are they also mosques of the streets?

Ash-Sha’rani quoted from his Shaykh Ali Khawwas that he heard stories from Shafiyah and Ahnaf
doing breaking their fast before the time in day to strengthen themselves for debate with each others.
(“Al-Mizan Al-Kubra” v 1 p 42)

And Anwar Shah Kashmiri also quoted that in some Hanafi books there is a chapter called : “If a
Hanafi does a debate (Munazarah) with a Shafi’i in Ramadan, and he thinks the fast will weaken him,
then breaking it is permissible for him” and Kashmiri criticized such Fatawa from some Ahnaf. (“Fayd
ul Bari” v 2 p 196, Bab Fadlu Salatil Fajr fi Jama’ah)

So the matter did not stop from changing Allah’s rules on breaking the fast and others, it went to the
extremity of killing each other, burning others houses.
’Allamah Yaqut Al-Hamawi narrated some events of the region of Ray: “There were fights between
Ahnaf and Shawafi’, and Shawafi’ even being less always became victorious, and Hanafie of Rustaq
were coming in help of their fellows but it did not change anything. And this went to the extremity that
only those who hided their Madhab or those who transferred their homes, would survive. If they did not
do that, none would have survived.” (“Mu’jam Al-Buldan” v 3 p 117)

About the region of Asbahan, Al-Hamawi wrote: “At this time and before that in Asbahan and cities
close to it, destruction extended between Shafiyah and Hanafiyah because of lot of disputes and
Ta’assub. They fought continuously and when one party was winning over the other, it was destroying
and burning its homes, and they did not feel any shame doing that” ( Mu’jam Buldan v 1 p 209)

So yesterday, Ahnaf fought with Shawafi’, and nowadays in India, they are fighting Ahlul Hadith who
agree in the Usul ul Fiqh of Imam Ash-Shafi’I, and in many matters of the prayer also agree with this
great Imam.

In the last century, in order to stop any other Fiqh propagating in India, many Ahnaf performed Takfir
of Ahlul Hadith and ordered to expel them from the mosques. Two famous books have been written on
this topic by Ahnaf:

“ Intizamul Masajid bi Ikhraj Ahle Fitan wal Mafasid” of Muhammad Ludhiyanvi in which he said that
Ahlul Hadith were apostates, he asked that they should be killed and no Tawbah should be accepted
from them. And this book is full of lies.
“ Jami’ Shawahid fi Ikhrajil Wahabiyin minal Masajid” written by Wasi Ahmad Soorti in 1883 H, and
having signatures of many Ahnaf from Ludhyanah, Deoband, Gangooh, Pani Pat, Rampur and others.

Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, Mahmud Hasan, Muhammad Ya’qub Nanotwi and others signed the part
quoted below of “Jami’ Shawahid” as told by Nadheer Ahmad Rehmani in his book " Ahle Hadeeth or
Siyasat" :

“ When the creed of this group is against the majority, then it being innovator is clear, like Tajsim
(anthropomorphism), making permissible more than four wives, making Taqiyah permissible,
attributing bad words of perversion and disbelief on the Salaf, then in matters of the prayer and
marriage, and slaughtering, there must be precaution from them like precaution with Rawafid”

Allah’s help is sought from such lies.

Now that last book contained many lies against Ahlul Hadith, and because of it, Shaykh Nadhir
Hussain Ad-Dehlawi was arrested and close to be beaten by the Sharif of Makkah that was opposed
at that time to Wahabiyah and movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdil Wahab.

Many Ahnaaf could not stand teachings of Hadith and propagation of rulings of Malik, Shafi’i, Ahmad,
and others in the Indian sub-continent. So to protect their Fiqh, they could answer in scientific manners
to Allamah Nadheer Hussain Dehlawi, but more and more people were coming in Dehli to learn Hadith
from him.

So they thought the best way to stop spread of Ahlul Hadith was to arrest one of their main leader, and
when Allamah Nadhir Hussain came to Hajj, some Ahnaf , among them Imdadullah Makki,
Rahmatullah Hindi, Abdel Qadir Badayooni son of Fadl Rasool Badayooni, wrote to the Sharif, and
Allamah Nadhir Hussain was put in jail and asked about his creed. And he was only freed because of
British demand.

And if some people say that Ahlul Hadith were created by British, then why was Shaykh Nadhir
Hussain many years after put in jail for one year by British government?

See Shaykh Nadhir Ahmad Rehmani’s book “Ahlul Hadith or Syasat” where he tells that Imdadullah
Makki was also among people plotting against Shaykh Nadhir Hussain Ad-Dehlawi, and how he
gathered with Bralwi thinking Abdel Qadir Badayooni for the same purpose: Targeting the head of the
Ahlul Hadith.

So Ahnaf violently opposed Ahlul Hadith, showing how their respect difference and other Imam’s
views. When Shaykh ‘Abdullah Ghaznawi returned to Afghanistan after learning Hadith in Delhi from
Shaykh Nazir Hussain Ad-Dehlawi, some Ahnaf burnt his house, and he had to flee back to India. And
these matters went on even under recent Taliban’s rule, many Madaris of Ahlul Hadith were burnt by
Deobandiyah.

Shaykh Rashid Rida said : « A Hanafi from Afghanistan heard another reciting Fatihah, and he was
next to him in the Saf, so he hit him in the chest until he fell down and he was almost killed, and it has
reached me that some would break the finger of the praying person raising it in Tashahoud”
(Muqaddimah Al-Mughni p 12, 13)

And the violence of these Muta’assib Hanafi did not stop to attacking opponents, even if some of their
great scholars were to act in some matters on Hadith and another jurist’s Madhab, they would beat
him and attack him like the case of the great Hanafi Muhadith Abul Hasan Al-Kabir.
This event as been quoted by Badi’udin Shah Ar-Rashidi As-Sindhi in his Risalah called in English
“The position of the hands in the Salah of the Prophet saw”:

Shaykh Abul Hassan Kabeer is known for his trials he was put to for his belief in putting hands upon
chest. Muhammad Abid Sindhee in his book “ Tarajimu Shuyukh” states that the shaykh performed
this action based upon hadeeth and whilst going into, coming out of rukoo and going up for third
rak’ah, he would do raful Yadayn and place his hands upon his chest. In his time shaykh Abu Tayyib
Sindhee would debate with Abul Hassan, but could provide no answer when the proofs were given to
him.
So he went and complained to the Qaadhi of Madeenah who arrested Abul hassan. When the Qadhi
heard proofs he realized this man was a specialist in the various branches of religion and it was
befitting to release him. It remained like this for many years for the shaykh. Then a time came when a
Qadhi was appointed who was a Hanafi blind follower and it was no long before a complaint was made
to him concerning the shaykh’s views. Abul Hassan was summoned and ordered to stop Raful yadayn
and to place the hands below Navel. However shaykh Abul Hassan merely answered he would not
obey this order. Therefore the shaykh was imprisoned for six days in a drak place which was
extremely uncomfortable. Thereafter the people of Madeenah began to come to the noble shaykh and
advise him to accept what the Qadhi was saying so he could be freed. The shaykh replied he would
not perform any action that was not authentically proven from the Prophet saw and he would not
abandon that which was proven. Thereafter, the shaykh took an oath that he would continue to do this.
After this, many people went to the Qadhi to request the release of the shaykh. The Qadhi reluctantly
allowed this, but vowed that if ever he saw the shaykh putting his hands upon his chest he would putt
him back in prison.

The shaykh was eventually released and thereafter he would cover himself with a cloth and put his
hands upon his chest whilst in prayer. Later when the news of the death of the Qadhi reached him, the
shaykh, who was praying, flung the cloth away and placed his hands upon his chest openly.” End of
this Risalah’s quote.

An example of Ta’assub in last century is Zahid Al Kawthari, this man attacked Ash-Shafii, Malik,
Ahmad and many Imams from the Salaf, and yet I don’t know any Hanafi scholar who criticized him,
rather like his student Abu Ghuddah, they are full of praise. And Yusuf Binnori Ad-Deobandi also
praised him a lot in his introduction to “Maqalat Al-Kawthari” with lot of praise.

Zahid Kawthari said in his Maqalat ( p 330 Said Company Karachi, p 404 Maktabah Azhariyah) also
introduced by Yusuf Binnori, about “Kitab At-Tawhid” of Ibn Khuzaymah :

“ And its author Ibn Khuzaymah called it “ Kitab At-Tawhid” and it is for Muhaqiq of the people of
knowledge “Kitab Shirk””

Same is said in “Tanib” p 29 published in Beirut 1981. And his “Tanib” has been translated in Urdu by
Deobandiyah.

So this is a collective failure of Ahnaf not to criticize such statements, rather to introduce these kinds of
books, and print them and recommend them, while even the student of Al-Kawthari, Ahamd Al-
Ghumari wrote a book calling his teacher Al-Kawthari of being a liar.

And it is not hidden from any student of knowledge, that according to Madhab of the majority of
scholars, a Muhadith calling to innovation, his narrations are rejected.

Yet many Deobandi instead of criticizing Al-Kawthari follow his footsteps like Amin Okarvi, student of
Sarfraz Safdar Khan.

Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay mentioned in his magazine “Al-Hadith” that Amin Okarvi said about Ahmad ibn
Sa’eed Darimi in “ Masoodi Firqe ke I’tiradhat ke Jawabat” p 41-42 and “ Tajliyat Safdar” published by
Jam’iyat Isha’at Ulumil Hanfiyah v 2 p 348 :

“The narrator is Ahmad ibn Sa’eed Darimi, who was a innovator from the Mujassimah sect”

While none of Muhadith ever said that, and he is a narrator from Al-Bukhari and Muslim, agreed upon
to be trustworthy.

So Amin Okarvi is on the same way of Zahid Al Kawthari for calling people Mujasim without quoting
this criticism from Salaf. Where all Salaf guilty of remaining silent to Mujasim, rather praising them?

Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay in his book “Nasr ul Bari fi Takhrij Juzz Qiara’ah” of Imam Al-Bukhari,
mentioned in the introduction what Amin Okarvi Ad-Deobandi Al-Hayati said about Imam al-Bukhari.
This Deobandi wrote in his Tahqiq of “Juzz Qira’ah” in introduction p 12 that : "The Imam and teacher
of Imam Al-Bukhari, Abul Hafs Al-Kabir sent a message to Imam Al-Bukhari to teach Hadith but not to
give Fatwa"

He mentioned the reason for this on the same page quoting from the “Mabsut” of As-Sarkhasi Al-
Hanafi v 30 p 298 claiming that Imam al-Bukhari said: "That if two baby drink milk from same goat,
their Nikah will be forbidden"

Imam Al-Luknawi Al-Hanafi denied this story told by As-Sarkhasi to be true, knowing the great Fiqh of
Imam Al-Bukhari in his “Fawaid Al Bahiyah p 188.

And there is no Isnad from As-Sarkhasi to Abu Hafs Kabir despite more than a century between them.
So is this not a revilement of Emir Al Mouminin fil Hadith, gathering baseless lies against him.

Anwar Shah Kashmiri in his introduction of “Fayd Al Bari”, and Zakariyah Al-Kandahlwi in his
introduction of “Lami’ Durari”, both said that Imam Al-Bukhari was a Mujtahid and denied him being a
Muqalid of Imam Ash-Shafi’i.

And another student of Sarfraz Safdar Khan, Habibullah Daerwi follows the same path. In his book
“Tawdih ul Kalam par ek Nazar”, this Deobandi scholar violently attacked many Muhadith, as Shaykh
Zubayr Ali Zay showed in his magazine “Al-Hadith”.

About Al-Bayhaqi, he said p 136: "O dear readers, in this quote Hazrat Imam Al-Bayhaqi committed a
terrible treachery"

About Ad-Daraqutni, he said in the same book p 306: "By which Ad-Daraqutni's partisanship and bias
is clear"

About the Hafiz, the Imam Abu 'Ala Nisapuri, Daerwi dared to say p 304 of the same book: "Abu 'Ala
Hafiz is an unjust (Zalim)"
And the revilements of scholars opposing Deobandiyah do not stop here.
Habibur Rahman, principal of Darul ‘Ulum Deoband said in his notes of “Jalalayn” that Shaykh ul Islam
Ibn Taymiyah was misguided and a misguiding others ( Dhal wa Mudhil).

So like Kawthari calling to the creed of the Salaf, leaving blind Taqlid, fighting grave worship and
innovations, all of this is misguidance.

Muhammad Hasan Sanbhuli in his explanation of ‘”Aqaid An-Nasafi” compared Ibn Taymiyah, ibnul
Qayim, Ash-Shawkani, ibn Hazm and Dawood Az-Zahiri to dogs.

So one can see how these people stand difference about Taqlid and other matters. For them the Fiqh
of their Imam is a law that cannot be abandoned.

This is why Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ Ad-Deobandi wrote in his “Ma’ariful Quran” v 3 p 364:

“The Tahqiq of 'Allamah Abdur Rauf al-Manawi, the Sharih of "Jami' As-Saghir" is that the different
schools of the Fuqaha of this community have the same level as the different laws of Prophets in
precedent times (before Islam), despite being different, they were all Allah’s Ahkam”

All different laws before send to Prophets were all revelation from Allah, and one abrogated the other,
but are differences in Ijtihadi matters of jurists from Allah?

Shaykh Irshadul Haqq said: This is a great lie, Allah said in the Quran: “If it was from other than Allah,
they would find in it a lot of ikhtilaf”

So all differences do not come from Allah, some Mujtahid are right and some are wrong, and Allah will
give double recompense to those who were right and a single recompense to the one who made
erred.
And Ahlul Hadith respected these differences based on Dalil, as in matters of reading the Fatihah
behind the Imam. Ahlul Hadith from India favor the position of Imam Ash-Shafi’i and Al-Bukhari that
the follower of the Imam should read Al-Fatihah behind the Imam in all cases, whether the Imam reads
loudly or silently.

Yet, Ahlul Hadith do not say that those who based on Ijtihad do not read behind Imam, that there
prayers are void (Batil).

Hafiz Muhammad Gondahlwi, said in introduction of his book: “Khayr ul Kalam fi Wujub Qira’ah Khalfil
Imam” p 33:

“Our view (about) the Fatihah behind the Imam is that because of being a furu’i and ikhtilafi, an Ijtihadi
issue, whoever does extreme research and thinks that the Fatihah is not obligatory (Fardh), whether in
loud or Silent prayer, and he acts on his research, then his prayer is not void (batil)”

While some Hanafi said that one who reads Surah Al-Fatihah behind the Imam, his teeth should be
broken and sand should be put in his mouth.

Hussain ibn ‘Ali Saghnani (d 711) said in “ Nihayah sharh Hidayah” as quoted in “ Imam ul Kalam” p
40 of Abdul Hay Al-Luknawi about the one who reads behind Imam :

“And from ‘Abdullah Al-Balkhi, he said that his mouth should be filled with sand (Turab), and it has
been said that it is Mustahab to break his teeth”

Al-Haskafi said in “Dur ul Mukhtar” v 1 p 544-555 :

“In “Durarul Bihar” from “Mabsut Khawahir”, it is added that it ( prayer) is Fasid and he becomes a
Fasiq”

For this purpose some Hanafi even invented some Ahadith, like the Hadith: “One who reads behind
the Imam, his mouth will be filled with fire” mentioned by ibn Tahir in his “Tazkirah” and he said :
“There is in it Mamun ibn Ahmad Al-Harawi, Dajjal, narrates fabrications”

Abdul Hay Al-Luknawi said in his “Ta’liqul Mumajad ‘ala Muwatta Muhammad” p 99 :

“And the author of “Nihayah” and others mentioned it in marfu’ way with words : “There will be Jamrah
(burning stone) in his mouth” and there is no basis for it (la Asla lahu)”

And this Mamun ibn Ahmad Al-Harawi also narrated the Hadith : “One who does Raful Yadayn in
prayer, there is no prayer for him”, as mentioned by Ibn Tahir in his “ Tazkiratul Mawdoo’ah” p 87, as
taken from Sisila Da’eefah N 568 and 569.

See all of this shows who the real revilers of Imams are, and people instead of attacking Ahlul Hadith
should look in their books, who called Sahabah ghayr Faqih, who called Imam Ash-Shafi’i an ignorant,
who disliked or forbade to pray behind Shawafi’ and even did their Takfir and forbade Nikah with them,
who attacked Al-Bukhari saying reading his book is an heresy, who attacked many other Muhadith
accusing them of Tajsim, and how Shawafi’ and Ahnaf killed each other without any shame as
mentioned by Al-Hamawi.

When the story of different Madhab is like this, how do Muqalid dare to attack Ahlul Hadith and accuse
them of disrespect of Imams?

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household and his companions and those
who follow them.
Some fabricated Ahadith in “A-Hidayah” and some other books of Hanafi Fiqh.

The five first examples are based and adapted from the book of Shaykh Irshad Ul Haqq Al-Athari
“Ahadith Hidayah”, as well as the introduction.

Introduction

‘Allamah Al-Luknawi wrote in his “An-Nafi’ Al-Kabir”:

“What we have mentioned in this grading of books, this is according to issues of Fiqh, as for the
Prophetic Ahadith narrated in them, then how many books of Fiqh on which Fuqaha base themselves
are filled with fabricated Ahadith, specially the Fatawa? And it has been made clear to us after looking
a lot that their authors even if they were complete, but in quoting narrations, they were lenient
(Mutasahil).”

Mulla Ali Qari said in his “Al-Mawdu’at Al-Kabir” and “Al-Masnu’” p 125:

“The quotes of “An-Nihayah” and other explanations of “Al-Hidayah” are not reliable, because they are
not Muhadith, and they have not attributed the Ahadith to any reference.”

Abu Ghuddah also approved this saying of Mulla Ali Qari in his Hashiyah of “Masnu’” p 157 and said p
55: “And what is acted upon in this chapter is the saying of the Muhadith and not of the Fuqaha
despite their great status”

‘Allamah Luknawi also said in his introduction of “Umdatu Ra’yah” p 12-13 after approving the words of
Mulla Ali Qari:

“How many Ahadith in reliable books (of Fiqh) are fabricated and different (from how they appear in
books of Hadith)?”

He said furthermore in “Rad’ Al-Ikhwan” p 57:

“Do you not see the author of “Al-Hidayah”, despite being from most noble of Hanafiyah, he
incorporated in it Gharib and weak narrations on which one does not rely, as it is been made evident in
the Takhrij of its Ahadith by Az-Zeyla’i and ibn Hajar”

‘Abdul Qadir Al-Qurshi wrote in his “Kitab Al-Jami’” published with “Jawahir Al-Madhiyah” p 440 v 2:

“And there have been a lot of errors in the book “Al-Hidayah” and “Al-Khulasa” and others that I have
mentioned, and I have made them clear in my book “Al-‘Inayah bi Ma’rifah Ahadith Al-Hidayah”…”

Some examples are quoted below:

First example:

In the chapters of Imamah, Al-Marghinani quoted: “because of his saying (saw): “He who prays behind
a pious, it is as if he prayed behind a Prophet.””

As-Sarkhasi before him also quoted this in his “Al-Mabsut”

(As-Sarkhasi is the Hanafi sholar who quoted without Isnad the story of Abu Hafs Al-Kabir and Imam
Al-Bukhari in which Abu Hafs forbade Imam Bukhari to give Fatwa, which is a pure lie…and these lies
are even quoted by some Deobandi like Ameen Okarvi)

Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in his “Ad-Dirayah” p 168: “I could not find it.”

Mulla ‘Ali Qari said in his “Al-Mawdu’at” p 121 and “Al-Masnu’” p 152: “It has no basis”
Ibn Humam wrote in “Fath Al-Qadir” v 1 p 246: “Allah knows best about this Hadith”

Al-‘Ayni wrote in his “Al-Binayah” v 2 p 331: “This Hadith is Gharib, it is not in books of Hadith”

Tahir Al-Fitni said in “Majma’ Al-Bihar” v 3 p 511: “I could not find it with these words”

Al-Luknawi said in his “Hashiyah Hidayah”: “As for the words of the mentioned Hadith in books, it is
not found rather some Muhadith said it is fabricated”

Al-Luknawi thought: “As for me, it is taken from the Hadith: “The scholars of my Ummah are like the
Prophets of Bani Israil””

But this one also as said by Al-Luknawi is not found in books, and he quoted As-Sakhawi and Mulla Ali
Qari for this.

Second example:

Al-Marghinani attributed this to the Prophet (saw): “He who leaves the four (rak’ah) before Az-Zuhr, my
intercession will not reach him”

Az-Zeyla’i said: “Very Gharib”

Ibn Hajar said: “I could not find it”

Al-‘Ayni said: “It has no basis”

Third example:

About raising hands (before and after Ruku’), Al-Marghinani said: “And what is narrated about raising
(hands) is considered at the beginning, this is said so by ibn Az-Zubayr”

Muhammad ibn Mahmud said in his commentary “’Al-‘Inayah”:

“He (ibn Zubayr) saw a man praying in Masjid al-Haram and raising his hands in prayer before and
after raising his head from Ruku’, and when he completed his prayer, he said to him: “Do not do this,
because this was something done by the Prophet (saw), then he abandoned it”

Al-‘Ayni said in his explanation of “Al-Bukhari”, “Umdatul Qari”:

“And what the opposite side base upon is considered as (being an action of) the beginning of Islam,
then it was abrogated by the proof that ‘Abdullah ibn Zubayr saw a man…”

Mahmud ul Hasan Deobandi also pointed at this narration in his “Idah ul-Adillah”

While Az-Zayla’i wrote according to his Istilah (terminology): “Gharib”

Ibn Hajar wrote: “I could not find it”

Al-Luknawi in his “Ta’liq ul-Mumajjad” said: “If the Sanad of the Athar of ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn Az-Zubayr
is not found in reliable books of Hadith, how can we take it into account basing only on good opinion
on those who quoted it, with the prove of the contrary from them (meaning ibn ‘Abbas and ibn Az-
Zubayr) with many Isnads”

Shah Isma’il said in “Tanvir ul-‘Aynayn”: “Its basis is not found for Muhadiths”

Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq Al-Athari said there is no surprise to see that the author of Al-Hidayah” and its
commentators based on these kinds of narrations, but the surprise comes from al-‘Ayni as he wrote
an explanation of “Sahih Al-Bukhari", and rejects its Hadith on the basis of a fabricated Hadith without
basis.
Fourth example:

Al-Marghinani to justify his Fiqh quoted the Hadith: “He (saw) sat on a cushion of silk”

It is said on “Nasb Ar-Rayah”: “Very Gharib”

Al-‘Ayni said: “This is not proven from the Prophet (saw) at all, and none among specialists quoted it
neither with an authentic Sanad nor weak”

While there is a Hadith in “Sahih Al-Bukhari” of Huzayfah saying: “He (saw) forbade wearing silk and
Dibaj and to sit on it”

Az-Zayla’i wrote: “The Hadith of Huzayfah is difficult for the Madhab (Hanafi) (to be answered).”

Fifth example:

In “Al-Hidayah” there is a Hadith: “Three matters, being serious or joking makes it final, Nikah, Talaq
and Yameen (oath)”

In Hanafi Fiqh, if one by joking makes an oath should fulfill it contrary to the Shafi’i Madhab. And Al-
Marghinani quoted this Hadith to justify his Madhab.

While the words “Yameen” are not in this Hadith as said in “Nasb Ar-Rayah”, “Talkhis”, “Al-Binayah”.

‘Allamah Ash-Shami wrote in “Rad Al-Muhtar”: “This Hadith is famous without words “al-Yameen” and
it is also wrong on the Ma’anwi consideration (according to the meaning)…”

Dawud Arshad mentioned in his “Tuhfat ul Ahnaf” that this Hadith is in the “Sunnan” of Abu Dawud, ibn
Majah and At-Tirmidhi with words “Raj’ah” (return from divorce) instead of “Yameen” (oath).

Then Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq Al-Athari showed that the state of Al-Kasani is the same as al-
Marghinani.

Al-Kasani quoted in his “Bada’i As-Sana’i” a Hadith without Isnad from ibn Mas’ud: “The Prophet (saw)
raised his hands and we raised them, and then he abandoned and we abandoned”

And this has been quoted by many Ahnaf even Mahmud hasan Deobandi in his “Idah Al-Adillah” and
in many books of Hanafi Fiqh like “Al-Kifayah”, “Al-Kafi”, “An-Nihayah”.

Al-Kasani went to the extreme of quoting without Isnad from ibn ‘Abbas saying that the ten Sahabah
promised of paradise were only raising hands in the beginning of the prayer.

So this shows the state of these books, how to justify their Madhab they quote Ahadith without Sanad.

Shaykh Dawud Arshad in his book “Tuhfat ul Ahnaf” mentioned other examples of Hidayah, some of
them are quoted below taken and adapted from his words:

Sixth example:

Al-Marghinani quoted the Hadith: “The Hadith of Al-Khat’amiyah” as he (saw) said: “Perform Hajj and
‘Umrah”

While this Hadith is in the “Sahih” of Al-Bukhari and Muslim without the words of performing ‘Umrah

Az-Zayla’i said: “This is an error of the author because the Hadith of Al-Khat’amiyah does not contain
the mention of performing ‘Umrah”

Ibn Hajar said: “I could not see in the ways (of the Hadith of Al-Khat’amiyah) the mention of doing
‘Umrah, and what is clear is that it is a mistake in quoting from the author”
Seventh example:

Al-Marghinani quoted a Hadith: “And our proof (Hanafi) is that the Prophet (saw) forbade selling dogs
except the dogs of hunt and Mashiyah (for looking after beasts)”

While this Hadith is in “Sunnan At-Tirmidhi” without the words “Mashiyah”, and none among ibn
Humam, Zeyla’i, ibn Hajar could find these words.

Eight example:

Al-Marghinani in the chapter of “Adab Al-Qadhi” quoted the Hadith: “The mosque are only built for the
remembrance of Allah (Ta’ala) and for (giving) judgments”

This Hadith is in “Sahih Muslim” but without words “judgments” as said by Az-Zeyla’i.

Muhammad Al-Junaghri accused the author of “Al-Hidayah” of inventing this Hadith for his Madhab
and refuting the Shafi’i Madhab.

Ninth example:

In the chapter of the prayer, Al-Marghinani quoted the Hadith: “Because of his (saw) saying: when one
of you prays in the desert, then he should put a Sutrah in front of him”

And none among Ibn Humam, Zeyla’i or Ibn Hajar found words “in the desert”.

And this addition also suits the Hanafi Madhab.

Tenth example:

About the Kaffarah (compensation) of having a sexual relation while fasting in Ramadan, Al-
Marghinani quoted the Hadith of the Prophet (saw) telling the person to fast and feed poor people, but
the man said there was not anyone poorer than him, and the Prophet (saw) gave him dates, and then
Al-Marghinani added these words in the Hadith: “And this will not suffice anyone after you”

But Ibn Hajar said this addition is not present in the ways of this Hadith, but Al-Marghinani had the
courage then to say: “And this is a proof over Ash-Shafi’i” while this addition does not exist.

So these are ten examples, Shaykh Irshadul Haqq quoted others as well as Shaykh Dawud Arshad,
but this will be enough to show that Al-Marghinani quoted many Ahadith that no Muhadith could found,
also he added words in famous Ahadith or changed some words, and these additions suit his Madhab.
And despite all these fabricated Ahadith, Ahnaf exaggerate about “Al-Hidayah”

Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq Al-Athari wrote that Muhammad Haneef Gangohi wrote in his “Zafar Al-
Muhasilin” the poem about Hidayah saying:

“Al-Hidayah is like the Quran

It has abrogated what was written before it in books of religious law (Shar’)”

And Haneef Gangohi said it is not an exaggeration but the manifestation of the truth.

These Ahnaf did not stop at saying books of Fiqh, but Shar’ showing their extreme exaggeration, so it
shows they consider their Fiqh to be like a revealed Shari’ah, and that Abu Hanifah should be followed
like a Prophet.

And this poem is written on many published versions by Deobandis in Pakistan.

Then Shaykh Irshad Ul Haqq mentioned that some Ahnaf like Qasim Qutlubagha and Kashmiri even
consider Qadhi Khan higher that Hidayah, so one can see Hidayah dit not even abrogate Qadhi Khan,
what about abrogating books of Fiqh like Al-Umm of Ash-Shafi’i and others.
Now Shaykh Muhammad Al-Junaghri and Dawud Arshad accused Al-Marghinani of fabricating
Ahadith for his Madhab, and Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq like Az-Zeyla’i and others considered it as errors.

People who accuse Al-Marghinani of fabricating base on the fact that the additions support the Hanafi
Madhab, and Abul ‘Abbas Al-Qurtubi said: “Some jurists (Fuqaha) of Ahlur-Ray have given themselves
permission to attribute the ruling that is shown by Qiyas to the Messenger of Allah (saw)…that is why
you will see their books full of Ahadith whose Matn witness that they are fabricated because of their
resemblance to the Fatawa of Fuqaha…and because they do not give any Isnad for it.”

It is possible that Al-Marghinani found these narrations in some Hanafi books and their authors
invented these lies like they invented the Hadith of Imam Abu Hanifah being the lamp of this
community, or many Hadith about saying he who prays behind the Imam should have mouth filled with
fire or he who raised his hands in prayer there is no prayer.

If he gave the Isnad, people would know who the liars are, all blame would be removed from Al-
Marghinani. People could say these additions favouring the Hanafi madhab does not come from Al-
Marghinani.

This is why Muhadith who quoted fabricated Ahadith gave Isnad, and by giving the Isnad, they are free
from any responsibility.

But not giving any Isnad, and quoting Ahadith that suit one’s Madhab, then it would lead to
accusations and give strength to the saying of Abul ‘Abbas Al-Qurtubi, that Ahlur Ray fabricate Hadith
as words suit their Madhab and there is no Sanad.

Yet these might be errors and show that Al-Marghinani is not reliable in quoting Ahadith, as said by Al-
Luknawi and other Hanafi scholars.

Allah knows best.

Recent time Deobandi scholars

In recent times, Sarfraz Safdar Khan Deobandi also in his "Khazain Sunnan" p 90 added some words
in a Hadith that suit his Madhab.

He quoted a Hadith from the “Sunnan” of Abu Dawud: “When you find water, then put it on your skin
and hair (Sha’raka)”

And Ahnaf do not see washing mouth and nose as an obligation in Wudhu, but for Ghusl they consider
it obligatory, and Sarfraz Khan quoted the narration above to justify that washing nose is obligatory in
Ghusl as there are hair in it.

So the added words “Sha’raka” have been added to justify the Hanafi Madhab.

When Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq wrote about this addition in his “Maulana Safdar apni Aine mein”, then
the son of Sarfraz Khan agreed that it is a mistake in his “Wa Wela” and it will be corrected in the next
edition.

So now are these additions genuine mistakes or forgery for the Madhab?

Mahmud ul Hasan Deobandi added an Ayah to the Quran to justify Taqlid Shaksi (Taqlid of an
individual) which was not changed even 30 years later in the second edition.

Ameen Okarvi, student of Sarfraz Khan also changed a verse in the Quran to prove that one should
not raise hands in the prayer.

Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami when publishing his “Musnad Humaydi” omitted to tell there was a
difference in the manuscript of the library of Az-Zahiriyah in Damascus that was in his hand and he
published the mistaken version of the Indian manuscript abour Raful Yadayn, as the Indian manuscript
had words denying raising hands before and after Ruku’ and was suiting the Hanafi Madhab, while the
manuscript of Az-Zahiriyah was affirming raising hands before and after Ruku’, and the manuscript of
Az-Zahiriyah is the correct as former scholars like Abu Nu’aym quoted it in this way from Al-Humaydi.
Al-A’zami could at least tell the difference in the manuscripts.

So these matters give strength to the saying of Abul ‘Abbas Al-Qurtubi about Ahlur-Ray fabricating
Ahadith for their madhab.

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, his companions and those who
follow them.

Tahrif of the Quran by Mahmud ul Hasan Deobandi

Allah (Ta’ala) said in verse 59 of Surah An-Nisa:

‫ن ﻛُﻨْﺘُﻢْ ﺗُ ْﺆﻣِﻨُﻮنَ ﺑِﺎﻟﻠﱠﮫِ وَا ْﻟﯿَﻮْمِ اﻟْﺂﺧِﺮِ ﯾَﺎ أَﯾﱡﮭَﺎ اﻟﱠﺬِﯾﻦَ آﻣَﻨُﻮا‬
ْ ِ‫أَﻃِﯿﻌُﻮا اﻟﻠﱠﮫَ وَأَﻃِﯿﻌُﻮا اﻟﺮﱠﺳُﻮلَ وَأُوﻟِﻲ اﻟْﺄَﻣْﺮِ ﻣِﻨْﻜُﻢْ ﻓَﺈِنْ ﺗَﻨَﺎزَﻋْﺘُﻢْ ﻓِﻲ ﺷَﻲْءٍ ﻓَﺮُدﱡوهُ إِﻟَﻰ اﻟﻠﱠﮫِ وَاﻟﺮﱠﺳُﻮلِ إ‬
ُ‫ذَﻟِﻚَ ﺧَﯿْﺮٌ وَأَﺣْﺴَﻦ‬

“O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad (saw)), and those of you (Muslims)
who are in authority (Ulul ‘Amr). (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and
His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day, that is better and more suitable for final
determination.”

This verse made it clears that one should obey Allah, His Messenger and those in authority, and this
includes rulers and scholars. But the obedience to rulers and scholars is in matters agreed upon, and
in matters of difference, the believers should refer to Allah and His Messenger, and this means that
one should not obey a ruler in disobedience to Allah and His Prophet, neither a scholar whose saying
opposes Quran and Hadith.

So in this verse Allah has clearly separated obedience to rulers and scholars from the obedience to
Allah and to His Prophet, and has made two levels:

First level: Allah and His Prophet who should be referred to in matters of disagreement. And this is the
final authority for Muslims one cannot oppose, and referring to them constitutes belief in Allah and in
the Last Day.

Second level: Rulers and scholars who should be obeyed if there is no disagreement.

This verse is clear that in matters of disagreements, we should refer to the Quran and the Sunnah.
Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Al-Battalwi quoted this verse to show that Taqlid Shakhsi (Taqlid of only
one particular scholar) is void, and he also asked ten questions to the Deobandiyah in the form of a
challenge.

The Deobandi scholar who answered him was Mahmud ul Hasan Deobandi, he first wrote “Adillah Al-
Kamilah” and then “Idah ul Adillah” to answer this challenge to his group.

“Idah ul Adillah” was first published in 1299.

In the second edition published by Asghar Husayn in 1330, Mahmud ul Hasan wrote:

“As obedience to rulers under orders is considered as obedience to rulers superior, likewise the
obedience to the noble Prophets and preponderantly (obedience) to those in authority (Ulul Amr) will
be considered as obedience to Allah by itself. And considering those who obey the Prophets and
different people of authority (Ulul Amr) as being outside the obedience to Allah will be like some
people lacking of reason considering those who obey the orders of rulers under orders as being
outside the obedience to superior rulers
This is why Allah revealed “If you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His
Messenger and to those among you (Muslims) in authority (Ulul Amr)” and it is clear that in this verse
“those in authority” (Ulul Amr) are nothing but other than the Messengers. This verse makes it clear
that that obedience to the Messengers and preponderantly to those in authority (Ulul Amr) is
obligatory.

You (Ahlul Hadith) have seen this verse: “Refer it to Allah and to His Messenger if you believe in Allah
and in the Last day” but you did not know that in the same Quran in which this verse is, there is also
the verse that Ahqar (most despised: meaning himself, a terminology used by Sufi to describe
themselves) presented.

It is not surprising that as usual you have considered these two verses as contradictory and you have
given the Fatwa that one abrogated the other. Mujtahid Sahib, I am saying that hoping to make void
Taqlid in matters of difference (with this verse) is similar to the story of a hungry man would say two
and two Rotis (Indian breads) make four” End of Mahmud ul Hasan’s words.

Click on the link below to see the scan of this second edition, and this book is present in Maktabah
Rehmaniyah, Model Town Lahore, which is the library of Jamiyah Rehmaniyah.

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/19668720/321350036.jpg

So the words “And to Ulul Amr” have been added by Mahmud ul Hasan to show that in matters of
disagreement, one should also refer to the scholars, and their obedience is like the obedience to the
Prophets, while Allah ordered to obey scholars, but in matters of disagreements the final verdict is that
of Allah and His Messenger.

While Allah gave us a clear message and differentiated between the obedience to the scholars and
rulers and the obedience to Allah and to His Messenger, and conditioned the first one by the final
authority that is Allah and the Messenger, the people of Taqlid have made obedience to scholars to
the same level as obedience to the Messengers, and as they could not find any verse of the Quran for
this, they invented one.

So not only they opposed Allah’s differentiation between Messengers and rulers/scholars, but they
invented their own religion in which obedience to human beings who make mistakes is on the same
level as obedience to Prophets who receive revelation from Allah.

Some Deobandi answered that it was a mistake from Mahmud ul Hasan and not an alteration like in
the magazine “Furqan” of April 2000, Luknaw, p 33: “When this mistake happened, he (Mahmud ul
Hasan) was not Shaykh ul Hind, only a teacher since 9 years”.

And he brought other doubts saying how could he do that, when there were a lot of Hufaz (Quran
memorizers) in every town?

One should know that when this book was first published in 1299 H, at that time Mahmud ul Hasan
had already taught the “Sunnan” of At-Tirmidhi since 6 years, the “Sahih” of Al-Bukhari since 4 years.
He was 30 years old. So after teaching such great books, he had a lot of knowledge. If he had not,
why did he accept the challenge from a great scholar of Ahlul Hadith, he should have left this matter to
his elders?

And it was Mahmud ul Hasan’s routine to read his books to his teacher Qasim An-Nanotwi who was a
memorizer of the Quran.

And An-Nanotwi’son, Muhammad Ahmad was in charge of publishing the first edition.

1000 copies must have been published first time, and there might be so many readers. And there is a
great probability that the Deoabandi elders (Gangohi, Thanvi, Kasmiri, Ahmad Husayn…) had read
this answer to a great scholar of the Ahlul Hadith, as it came to a challenge to the Deobandi group, so
it is difficult for them not to have read this answer to this challenge to their group.
30 years later, the second edition came and Mahmud ul Hasan was 60 years old, at that time he was
called Shaykhul Hind by the Deobandiyah. Asghar Husayn published the second edition, and he is
from the Deobandi major scholars. He wrote a biography of Mahmud ul Hasan and was very close to
him.
At the end of second edition, from which the extracts were given, there are words of Asghar Husayn:
“This precious book, whose great value is known only from people of knowledge, was only published
once in 1299…and some pages of the first edition were not well printed and it lost its beauty…Some
companions felt the need and asked the Ahqar (himself) to obtain recompense for its publication. And
the person (himself) took it with happiness to publish Hazrat Ustad’s Fuyudh Ilmiyah (lights of
knowledge), and I corrected the old manuscript carefully and with a lot of efforts…and because of my
defective understanding, I could not understand some ( sentences), so I took help from the Author
himself and corrected it…” End of Asghar Husayn’s words.

So 30 years later, 1000 people must have read this book, maybe much more, Deobandi major
scholars must have had a look, Asghar Husayn checked it and corrected the mistakes, and despite all
of this, this mistake in quoting the verse of the Quran was not removed, so it is much more than an
error.

Rather, the verse 59 of Surah An-Nisa was:

“Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad (saw)), and those of you (Muslims) who are in
authority (Ulul ‘Amr). (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His
Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day”

And Mahmud ul Hasan quoted this verse as such: “(And) If you differ in anything amongst yourselves,
refer it to Allah and to His Messenger and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority (Ulul ‘Amr)”
And he claimed this verse to be different from this one: “Refer it to Allah and to His Messenger, if you
believe in Allah and in the Last day”

While the verse is the same one, and one can see Mahmud ul Hasan carefully quoted them so to
make them appear as two verses. In the first one he quoted the parts of the beginning “If you differ in
anything then refer…” and in the second he quoted the end of the verse “if you believe in Allah and
Last day” so his aim was to prove that there are two verses: One tells to refer to Allah and to His
Prophet and to those in authority in matters of disagreements, and the other tells to refer to Allah and
to His Prophet, so one verse is to be understood with the other.

While there is no verse that tells to refer to those in authority in matters of differences. And Mahmud ul
Hasan in both cases did not quote the verse fully, while in such matters one should have quoted full
verses.

And these matters are about obedience to Allah and His Messenger, they are matters relating to the
creed of Muslims and submission to Allah and His Messenger. So these verses are among
fundamentals of the Muslim creed, how is it possible to err in quoting them?

So the topic is clear, and this error remaining in the book thirty years after is clear that it is a deliberate
alteration in the Quran, and specifically when the proof is being established with the added parts.

And the disease of blind Taqlid, Ta’asub has lead its people to the level of competing with the Jews
and the Christians in their alteration of the Books of Allah. Shaytan has made their evils actions look
beautiful to them, and they legislated a religion for which Allah did not send any revelation.

Prisoners of their desire, blinded by their love of Imam Abu Hanifah, they want to put their Imams to
the same level of the Prophet (saw).

This is why Mahmud ul Hasan wrote in his “Taqrir Tirmidhi” in the chapter of transactions:

"What is obtained is that the topic of Khyar is among important topics and Abu Hanifah contradicted in
it the majority and a lot of people from the first and later generations, they wrote Rasail in refutation of
his (Abu Hanifa)'s Madhab on this topic and Maulana Shah Waliyullah Muhadith gave preference in
his writings to the Madhab of Ash-Shafi'i taking evidence from the Ahadith and Nusus (religious texts),
and likewise our Shaykh gave preference to his Madhab and said the truth and justice in this topic is to
give preference to Ash-Shafi'i and we are Muqalid and the Taqlid of our Imam Abu Hanifa is obligatory
upon us. Allah knows best"

Tahrif of the Quran by Ameen Okarvi

Allah (Ta’ala) said in the verse 77 of Surah An-Nisa:

ً‫أَﻟَﻢْ ﺗَﺮَ إِﻟَﻰ اﻟﱠﺬِﯾﻦَ ﻗِﯿﻞَ ﻟَﮭُﻢْ ﻛُﻔﱡﻮا أَﯾْﺪِﯾَﻜُﻢْ وَأَﻗِﯿﻤُﻮا اﻟﺼﱠﻠَﺎةَ وَآﺗُﻮا اﻟﺰﱠﻛَﺎةَ ﻓَﻠَﻤﱠﺎ ﻛُﺘِﺐَ ﻋََﻠﯿْﮭِﻢُ اﻟْﻘِﺘَﺎلُ إِذَا ﻓَﺮِﯾﻖٌ ﻣِﻨْﮭُ ْﻢ ﯾَﺨْﺸَ ْﻮنَ اﻟﻨﱠﺎسَ ﻛَﺨَﺸْﯿَﺔِ اﻟﻠﱠﮫِ أَوْ أَﺷَﺪﱠ ﺧَﺸْﯿَﺔ‬
ْ‫ﺖَ ﻋَﻠَﯿْﻨَﺎ اﻟْﻘِﺘَﺎلَ ﻟَﻮْﻟَﺎ أَﺧﱠﺮْﺗَﻨَﺎ إِﻟَﻰ أَﺟَﻞٍ ﻗَﺮِﯾﺐٍ ﻗُﻞْ ﻣَﺘَﺎعُ اﻟﺪﱡﻧْﯿَﺎ ﻗَﻠِﯿﻞٌ وَاﻟْﺂﺧِﺮَةُ ﺧَﯿْﺮٌ ﻟِﻤَﻦِ اﺗﱠﻘَﻰ وَﻟَﺎ ﺗُﻈْﻠَﻤُﻮنَ ﻓَﺘِﯿﻠًﺎوَﻗَﺎﻟُﻮا رَﺑﱠﻨَﺎ ﻟِﻢَ ﻛَﺘَﺒ‬

Muhsin Khan: “Have You not seen those who were told to hold back their hands (from fighting) and
perform As-Salât (Iqâmat as Salât), and give Zakât, but when the fighting was ordained for them,
behold! a section of them fear men as they fear Allâh or even more. they say: "Our Lord! why have
You ordained for us fighting? would that You had granted us respite for a short period?" say: "Short is
the enjoyment of This world. the Hereafter is (far) better for Him who fears Allâh, and You shall not be
dealt with unjustly even equ to the Fatilâ (a scalish thread In the long slit of a date¬stone).”

Ameen Okarvi is a highly respected person among the Deobandiyah, he is the student of one of their
greatest Muhadith, Sarfraz Safdar Khan. And he is one of their famous debater and his writings are
popular among Deobandiyah.

The matter of raising hands before and after Ruku’ is in the two “Sahih” of Al-Bukhari and Muslim,
Ahnaf did not have proofs of same level. Shah Waliyullah and many other Hanafi scholars said that
the Ahadith of raising hands are stronger and much more than that of not doing it. So in debates
between Ahnaf and Ahlul Hadith, the laymen because of the respect every Muslim has for the two
Sahih tended to favour raising hands, and to prevent people raising hands before and after Ruku’,
Ameen Okarvi invented a proof stronger than the two “Sahih”, he distorted the speech of Allah to
refute the two “Sahih”.

Click on the link below to see a scan of his book, as given by Dr Abu Jabir Ad-Dimanwi from Karachi in
his book “Tahrif Quran and Hadith”

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17902368/294698548.jpg

Ameen Okarvi presented this verse as such in his book “Tahqiq Masalah Raful Yadayn” p 5-6: “O
believers, hold your hands while you pray"

The verse was revealed about the Muslims of weak faith and Ameen Okarvi added the part “O
believers” to prove that the order concerns the believers. His purpose was to show that the order to
hold hands means that the believers should not raise hands before and after Ruku’ in the prayer.

Secondly the translation is also a pure alteration of the Quran, one cannot translate like Ameen
Okarvi. It cannot be "O believers, hold your hands while you pray" and the first sentence “Hold your
hands” cannot be in the grammatical position of “Hal”, meaning describing the condition of the praying
person, even an beginner in Arabic would not translate this as Ameen Okarvi. The order to hold hand
is in imperative form and cannot be a description of the state of prayer, rather there are two orders:
hold hands and to pray.

Anyone can open any translation of the Quran whether in Urdu and English and none will see such a
falsehood and lie upon Allah

Yusuf Ali: “Hast thou not turned Thy vision to those who were told to hold back their hands (from fight)
but establish regular prayers and spend in regular charity?”

Pickthall: “Hast thou not seen those unto whom it was said: Withhold your hands, establish worship
and pay the poordue…”

Shakir: “Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands, and keep up prayer and
pay the poor-rate…”
Muhammad Asad: “Art thou not aware of those who have been told, "Curb your hands, and be
constant in prayer, and render the purifying dues"?

Muhammad Asad wrote in note to “Curb your hands”: “from unrighteous violence, to which man so
often inclines. The fact that most people have to be told to refrain from violence is contrasted, in the
next sentence, with the unwillingness on the part of many of them to expose themselves to physical
danger in a righteous cause.”

Even the Deobandi English translation of the Quran clarifies that the order of holding hands is from
fighting.

In the English translation of “Ma’arif ul Quran” of Mufti Muhammad Shafii, with revision of his son Taqi
Uthmani it is written:

“Have you not seen those to whom it was said: ”Hold your hands (from fighting) and be steadfast in
Salah, and pay Zakah…”

In his commentary, he writes: “Verse 77 beginning with the words “Have you not seen those to whom
it was said: ”Hold your hands (from fighting)”was revealed in a particular background. Before their
migration from Makkah, Muslims were regularly persecuted by disbelievers. Harassed Muslims used
to visit the Holy Prophet (saw) complaining to him about the high-handed treatment meted out to them
and asking for his permission to fight back in self-defence and put an end to the Kafir reign or terror.
He advised patience holding them back from direct confrontation on the plea that he has not been
commanded to fight, in fact, he told them he has been commanded to stay patient, forgo and forgive.
He also told them to continue observing the instruction of salah and Zakah, already given to them,
consistently and devotedly. He impressed upon them the virtues of the present pattern of their
behaviour, even though the odds were against them, for the simple reason that, unless man is
conditioned to fight against his own evil desires in obedience to the command of Allah and is also
used to bearing physical pain and financial sacrifice, he finds joining Jihad and sacrificing his life a
very difficult proposition. This was an advise the Muslims had accepted.

But when they emigrated from Makkah to Madinah, and Jihad was enjoined upon them, they should
have been pleased with it, as it was something that has answered their own prayers. But there were
some infirm Muslims around who started fearing the prospect of fight against the disbelievers as one
would fear the punishment of Allah, rather more than this. Caught in that peevish state of mind, they
started pining for a little more respite, a possible postponement of the command to fight to some later
day which may have given them so more time to live and to enjoy. Thereupon these verses were
revealed. (Ruh Al-Ma’ani).” End of “Ma’ariful Quran”’s quote.

So one can see that the order of holding hands was from fighting, and not to hold hands in the prayer.
And Ameen Okarvi like Mahmud ul Hasan before him did not quote the verse fully so people would
have seen that the order of holding hands is related to fight and has nothing to do with raising hands in
the prayer. But Ameen Okarvi’s aim was to lie upon Allah and deceive laymen.

Shaykh Salahdin Yusuf wrote in his “Tafsir” on the verse 77 of Surah An-Nisa about this Tahrif of
Ameen Okarvi:

"While the verse of the noble Quran as it is can be seen, has no relation from far or close to the topic
of raising hands (before and after Ruku’), but the Taqlid Al-Jumud (blind Taqlid) made its author make
a Ma'nawi and Lafzi Tahrif (in meaning and words) of the Quran"
So one can see the ugliness of blind Taqlid, not only it led to the division of Muslims, forbidding them
from marrying between each others, praying behind each others, physical fights and killings, but also
some of their authors fabricated Ahadith for their Madhab, and did not stop to lying on the Prophet
(saw), but the Shaytan managed to deceive them to the level of lying upon Allah and committing this
great crime without any shame, remorse and fear of Allah.

For what matters did he sell his soul and followed the Jews and Christians in altering the speech of
Allah?

Tahrif of “Musnad Humaydi” by Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami

Most of the facts below are taken from “Noor ul ‘Aynayn” of Shaykh Zubayr ‘Ali Zai, and most of scans
from Dr Abu Jabir Dimanwi’s book “Quran or Hadith mein Tahrif”.

In the manuscript of the library of Zahiriyah in Damascus of “Musnad Humaydi”, there is the narration
from Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah from Az-Zuhri from Salim ibn Abdillah from his father ‘Abdallah ibn ‘Umar
who said: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands to shoulders level when he started the
prayer, and when he desired to do Ruku’, and after he raised his head from Ruku’, and he (saw) would
not raise them in the two Sajdah”
‫لاق هيبأ نع هللا دبع نب ملاس ينربخأ لاق يرهزلا انث لاق نايفس انث لاق يديمحلا انثدح‬: ‫هللا لوسر تيأر‬
‫عوكرلا نم هسأر عفري ام دعبو عكري نأ دارأ اذإو هيبكنم وذح هيدي عفر ةالصلا حتتفأ اذإ ملس و هيلع هللا ىلص‬
‫نيتدجسلا نيب عفري الو‬
See the scan of the first lines of manuscript of Zahiriyah where on can read that the negation of raising
hands is between the two Sajdah and not for before and after the Ruku’.

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17902368/279989459.jpg

In the Indian manuscript, it is written: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands to
shoulders level when he started the prayer. And when he desired to do Ruku’, and after he raised his
head from Ruku’, he (saw) would not raise them, nor in the two Sajdah”
‫لاق هيبأ نع هللا دبع نب ملاس ينربخأ لاق يرهزلا انث لاق نايفس انث لاق يديمحلا انثدح‬: ‫هللا لوسر تيأر‬
‫عوكرلا نم هسأر عفري ام دعبو عكري نأ دارأ اذإو هيبكنم وذح هيدي عفر ةالصلا حتتفأ اذإ ملس و هيلع هللا ىلص‬
‫نيتدجسلا نيب الو عفري الف‬
So in the manuscript of Zahiriyah, raising hands before and after Ruku’ is affirmed and raising them
between the two Sajdah is negated, while in the Indian manuscript, raising hands is denied before and
after Ruku’ as well as between the two Sajdah.

And Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami published the Indian manuscript that contained an error of copyist,
and he failed to mention that the version of Zahiriyah was different and affirmed raising hands before
and after Ruku’ and did not deny it, while he had both manuscripts.

Instead of this, he dared to claim that this narration denied raising hands before and after Ruku’ and
none of the Salaf weakened it. How could they weaken it as this Hadith did not exist in this form?

Al-A’zami wrote in the notes on this Hadith:

"Al-Bukhari has narrated the Asl of this Hadith from the way of Tariq ibn Yunus from Az-Zuhri. As for
the narration of Sufyan from him (Az-Zuhri), then Ahmad narrated in his “Musnad” and Abu Dawud
from Ahmad in his “Sunnan” but the narration of Ahmad from Sufyan opposes the narration of the
author (Al-Humaydi) from him (Sufyan).

In “Musnad Ahmad”: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands until it reached his
shoulders when he started the prayer, and when he desired to do Ruku' and after he raised his head
from Ruku' and Sufyan said once: "when he raised his head from Ruku'" and most of times he said:
"after he raised his head from Ruku'", and he would not raise (hands) between the two Sajdah" (vol 2
p 8)

And there is in it affirmation of raising (hands) before and after Ruku’ and negation in the two Sajdah,
while in the narration of Al-Humaydi there is negation of both (raising hands) in Ruku' and after raising
from it and in the two Sajdah and none of the Muhadith criticised this narration of Al-Humaydi" end of
Al-A'zami's words

Maulana Tasin Deobandi who is the son of law of Yusuf Al-Binnori added a note to this edition of Al-
A'zami:

"Note: In the Manuscript of “Musnad al-Humaydi” that is in Maktbah Zahiriyah, the Hadith has the
same words as in “Musnad Ahmad”, that Maulana A'zami mentioned in his notes, his words are: "He
said: "I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands until it reached his shoulders when he
started the prayer, and when he desired to do Ruku' and after he raised his head from Ruku', and he
would not raise (hands) between the two Sajdah" End of Tasin’s words
See the scan provided by Dr Dimanwi in his book “Tahrif Quran or Hadith mein” (In the first edition, Al-
A’zami even dropped ibn Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah in the Sanad, then in the second one he corrected this)

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/19668720/321654210.jpg

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/19668720/321654208.jpg

So Maulana Tasin of Karachi corrected this in the copy of his library, and why did Al-A'zami not
mention at least that there was a difference in the manuscript and the manuscript of Az-Zahiriyah was
conform to the narration of Imam Ahmad? So people would have seen that the Indian manuscript
contained an error made by its copyist and the manuscript of Zahiriyah is correct as it agrees with
other narrations from ibn ‘Uyaynah from Az-Zuhri like that of Imam Ahmad.

And copyists do make mistakes so we do not blame them as they are human, but Habib ur Rahman
Al-A’zami because of his Ta’asub failed even to mention any difference, and published the version of
the Indian Manuscript that had a clear error

What is strange is that in some places, Al-A’zami said that the Indian manuscript contained an error
and that of Zahiriyah was correct, like v 1 p 15 in the notes.

Why did Al-A’zami closed his eyes on this mistake, and the proofs of the Indian contained an error are
many:
The Nuskhah of Az-Zahiriyah is older than the Indian so more reliable

None of the Salaf quoted this Hadith, neither the students of Al-Humaydi like Imam Al-Bukhari, while
he wrote a book on the topic of raising hands before and after Ruku’, and he answered in it many
narrations of the opponents, why would he not mention this narration of his teacher?

Moreover, the scholars who have written books of “Zawaid” containing Ahadith that are not in the
“Sahih” and “Sunnan” did not mention this one, showing it has the same words of those in the “Sahih”
with affirmation of raising hands. Neither ibn Hajar mentioned it in “Matalib Al-‘Aliyah” neither Al-Bosiri.

And Hanafis scholars like Anwar Shah Al-Kashmiri, Shabir Ahmad Al-Uthmani, and An-Nimawi had
the Indian manuscript of Al-Humaydi, and none of them brought this narration to support the Hanafi
Madhab, neither earlier Hanafis Muhadith like At-Tahawi, ibn Turkmani, ibn Humam and others,
showing it is a recent fabrication, an error from a copyist that Habib ur Rahman shamefully printed
without even telling difference in manuscripts and favouring the correct one.

Also Husayn Asad Saleem Ad-Darani published “Musnad Al-Humaydi” and he also brought the
narration affirming raising hands before and after Ruku’ according to the manuscript of Zahiriyah.

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/19668720/321579734.jpg

Abu Nu’aym mentions this narration of Al-Humaydi in his “Mustakhraj” on “Sahih Muslim”

This narration with the same Sanad is found in the “Al-Musnad Al-Mustakhraj ‘ala Sahih Al-Imam
Muslim” of Abu Nua’ym Al-Asbahani vol 2 p 12 with affirmation of raising hands in conformity with the
manuscript of Zahiriyah.

A “Mustakhraj” on a book gathers different Isnad for the Ahadith of this book, and this “Mustakhraj” of
Abu Nu’aym is on “Sahih Muslim”, and there is no Hadith in “Sahih Muslim” denying raising hands
before and after Ruku’, there are only narrations affirming it. So for Abu Nu’aym the narration of Al-
Humaydi is to support the narration in Sahih Muslim.

See a scan of the published “Mustakhraj” of Abu Nua’yim by Dar ul Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyah,

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/19668720/321579719.jpg

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17902368/279989460.jpg
‫انث ملسم وبأ انث قوراف انثدحو ح يديمحلا انث ىسوم نب رشب انث نسحلا نب دمحأ نب دمحم يلع وبأ انثدح‬
‫نب دمحم نب رفعج انثدحو ةبيش يبأ نب ركب وبأ انث مانغ نب ديبع انث يحلطلا ركب وبأ انثدحو ح يبنعقلا‬
‫ريهز انث ىنثملا نب يلع نب دمحأ انث ميهاربإ نب دمحم انثدحو ح ديمحلا دبع نب ىيحي انث نيصح وبأ انث ورمع‬
‫وبأ انثدحو ح ةبيتق انث يبايرفلا انث رفعج نب دلخم يلع وبأ انثدحو ح ليئارسإ يبأ نب قاحسإو برح نب‬
‫دبع انث فاوصلا يلع وبأ انثدحو شيرحلا نب ديزو دالخ نب ركب وبأو ةبيش يبأ نب نامثع انث نادبع نب دمحم‬
‫هيبأ نع هللا دبع نبا ملاس ينربخأ يرهزلا انث ةنييع نب نايفس انث اولاق يبأ ينثدح لبنح نب دمحأ نب هللا‬
‫ام دعيو عكري نأ دارأ اذإو هيبكنم وذح هيدي عفر ةالصلا حتتفا اذإ ) ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص ( هللا لوسر تيأر لاق‬
‫يديمحلل ظفللا نيتدجسلا نيب عفري الو عوكرلا نم هسأر عفري‬

Abu Nu’aym wrote:

“Abu ‘Ali Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Al-Hasan narrated to us: Bishr ibn Musa narrated to us: al-
Humaydi narrated to us (then Abu Nu’aym wrote the letter Ha meaning that he will quote different
other Isnad of the same Hadith)

Farooq narrated to us, Abu Muslim narrated to us, Al-Qa’nabi narrated to us (Letter Ha)

Abu Bakr At-Talhi narrated to us: Ubayd ibn Ghanam narrated to us: Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah
narrated to us and Ja’far ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Amr narrated to us: Abu Hasin narrated to us: Yahya ibn
Abdul Hameed narrated to us (Ha)

Muhammad ibn Ibrahim narrated to us: Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Muthanna narrated to us, Zuhayr ibn
Harb and Ishaq ibn Abi Israil narrated to us (Ha)

Abu ‘Ali Makhlad ibn Ja’far narrated to us; Al-Faryabi narrated to us: Qutaybah narrated to us (Ha)

Abu Muhammad ibn ‘Abdan narrated to us: ‘Uthman ibn Abi Shaybah and Abu Bakr ibn Khallad and
Zayd ibn Al-Harish narrated to us and Abu ‘Ali As-Sawaf narrated to us: ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn
Hambal narrated to us: my father narrated to me:

They said: Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah narrated to us: Az-Zuhri narrated to us: Salim ibn ‘Abdillah informed
me from his father, he said: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands to shoulders level in
the beginning of the prayer, and when he intended to do Ruku’, and when raising his head from Ruku’,
and he (saw) was not raising them in the two Sajdah” AND THE WORDS ARE THAT OF AL-
HUMAYDI.” End of Abu Nu’aym’s words.

Look at the end, after quoting all these different Isnads of the same Hadith, Abu Nu’aym mentioned
the text (Matn) of the Hadith and said the words are that of Al-Humaydi, as there are little differences
in the words. So it is clear that all these narrators mentioned from ibn ‘Uyaynah from Az-Zuhri from
Salim and from his father ‘Abdillah ibn ‘Umar the same Hadith about the Prophet (saw) raising hands
before and after Ruku’ and not raising hands in the two Sajdah.

So even if not raising hands before and after Ruku’ was in all manuscript of Al-Humaydi, it would be
weak and Shaz, as it opposes this great group of trustworthy people from ibn ‘Uyaynah. But yet, Al-
Humaydi narrated it as in “Sahih Muslim” and others.
So this is a definitive proof that Al-Humaydi brought this Hadith with affirmation and not negation of
raising hands before and after Ruku’.
A similar narration in “Musnad Abu ‘Awanah”

Also Abu ‘Awanah in his “Musnad” brought a narration affirming raising hands before and after Ruku’
and denying it in the two Sajdah and said that Ash-Shafi’i, Abu Dawud from Ali ibn Al-Madini and Al-
Humaydi narrated a similar Hadith.

In “Musnad of Abu ‘Awanah” we read:

“Chapter of raising hands when staring the prayer, before the Takbeer, to shoulders level and when
doing Ruku’ and raising the head from Ruku’ and that one should not raise (hands) in the two Sajdah:
‘Abdullah ibn Ayun Al-Makhrami and Sa’dan ibn Nasr and Shu’ayb ibn ‘Amr in the last two, they said:
Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah narrated to us from Az-Zuhri from Salim from his father (‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar), he
said:

I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands until they reached them (shoulders) and some
said: to shoulders level when he started the prayer, and when he desired to do Ruku’ and after he
raised his head from Ruku’, and he did not raise them and some said he did not raise them between
two Sajdah, and the meaning is the same.
Ar-Rabi’ ibn Sulyman narrated to us from Ash-Shafi’i from ibn ‘Uyaynah similarly: and he was not
doing this in the two Sajdah.

Abu Dawud narrated to us, he said: ‘Ali narrated to us, he said: Sufyan narrated to us: Az-Zhuri
narrated to us: Salim informed me from his father, he said: I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw)
similarly.

As-Saigh narrated to us in Makkah, he said: Al-Humaydi narrated to us, he said: Sufyan narrated to us
from Az-Zuhri, he said: Salim informed me from his father, he said: I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw)
similarly.” End of Abu ‘Awanah’s words.

‫ال هنأو عوكرلا نم هسأر عفرلو عوكرللو هيبكنم ءاذحب ريبكتلا لبق ةالصلا حاتتفا يف نيديلا عفر نايب‬
‫ نيتدجسلا نيب عفري‬- *

‫نع ةنييع نب نايفس انث اولاق نيرخآ يف ورمع نب بيعشو رصن نب نادعسو يمرخملا بويأ نب هللا دبع انثدح‬
‫امهب يذاحي ىتح هيدي عفر ةالصلا حتتفا اذإ ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص هللا لوسر تيأر لاق هيبأ نع ملاس نع يرهزلا‬
‫نيب عفري الو مهضعب لاقو امهعفري الو عوكرلا نم هسأر عفري ام دعبو عكري نأدارأ اذإو هيبكنم وذح مهضعب لاقو‬
‫دحاو ىنعملاو نيتدجسلا‬

‫نيتدجسلا نيب كلذ لعفي الو هوحنب ةنييع نبا نع يعفاشلا نع ناميلس نب عيبرلا انثدح‬

‫هللا ىلص هللا لوسر تيأر لاق هيبأ نع ملاس ينربخأ يرهزلا انث نايفس انث لاق يلع انأ انث لاق دواد وبأ ينثدح‬
‫مب ملسو هيلع‬

‫نع ملاس ينربخأ لاق يرهزلا نع نايفس انث لاق يديمحلا انث لاق ةكمب غئاصلا انثدح‬
‫هلثم ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص هللا لوسر تيأر لاق هيبأ‬

Click below to see the scan of the manuscript of Madinah University:

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17902368/279990718.jpg

Click below to see the scan of the manuscript of the library of Shaykh Ihsanullah Rashidi Pir Jandha in
Sindh:

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/19668720/321579750.jpg

But when the Ahnaf of “Ma’arif Al-Uthmaniyah” from Hyderabad first published the “Musnad” of Abu
‘Awannah, the narration appeared without a “Waow”, meaning “and”.

I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands until they reached them (shoulders) and some
said: to shoulders level when he started the prayer, and when he desired to do Ruku’ and after he
raised his head from Ruku’, (“Waow” meaning “and” disappeared here) he did not raise themand some
said he did not raise them between two Sajdah, and the meaning is the same.
Here is how it appeared in the “Musnad” published by “Ma’arif Al-‘Uthmaniyah”:

‫نع ةنييع نب نايفس انث اولاق نيرخآ يف ورمع نب بيعشو رصن نب نادعسو يمرخملا بويأ نب هللا دبع انثدح‬
‫امهب يذاحي ىتح هيدي عفر ةالصلا حتتفا اذإ ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص هللا لوسر تيأر لاق هيبأ نع ملاس نع يرهزلا‬
‫نيب عفري الو مهضعب لاقو امهعفري ال عوكرلا نم هسأر عفري ام دعبو عكري نأدارأ اذإو هيبكنم وذح مهضعب لاقو‬
‫دحاو ىنعملاو نيتدجسلا‬
See scans of “Ma’arif Al-‘Uthmaniyah”’:
http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17902368/279991051.jpg

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17902368/279991041.jpg

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17902368/279991039.jpg

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17902368/279991043.jpg

And they relied on a manuscript in the library Khuda Baksh Khan in India, so either this manuscript
contains an error of copyist or the publisher dropped it accidentally, Allah knows best.

If the “Waow” meaning “And” disappears here, the negation of raising hands can be linked to what
comes earlier and it is before and after Ruku’, and if there is a “Waow” as in the manuscript of
Madinah and Sindh, then the negation is definitively for what comes after.

Musnad Abu ‘Awanah is a Mustakhraj on Sahih Muslim

‘Arif ibn Ayman Ad-Dimasqi in his published version of “Musbad Abi Awanah” by “Darul Ma’rifah”
mentioned in his introduction that the “Musnad” of Abu ‘Awanah was a “Mustakhraj” on Sahih Muslim,
meaning it brought many other Isnad to the narrations of “Sahih Muslim” and he Az-Zahabi saying
about Abu ‘Awanah in his “Syar” (v 14 p 418): “The author of “Al-Musnad As-Sahih” for which he did a
Takhrij on “Sahih Muslim” and he added some other narrations at the end of the chapters”

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17902368/279991828.jpg

So this narration whether it has a “Waow” as in the manuscript of Madinah and Sindh or does not have
it as “Ma’arif” published it, in both ways the negation cannot be for raising hands before and after
Ruku’ as it is a Mustakhraj on “Sahih Muslim” and there is no narration in “Sahih Muslim” denying
raising hands before and after Ruku’.

There cannot be any narration in the Musnad of Abu ‘Awanah denying raising hands before and after
Ruku’, and the words that are in the manuscript of Madinah and Sindh are definitively correct.

And Abu ‘Awanah like Abu Nu’aym also brought the narration of Al-Humaydi to support the narration
of “Sahih Muslim” as they both quoted it in their “Mustakhraj” on “Sahih Muslim”.

A discussion of Abu Awanah’s words: the meaning is the same

Yet even if the “Waow” is dropped, then one cannot for sure say that the negations is for what comes
before, as the publisher from India did not put any coma, so one can still read the negation for what
comes after:

He did not raise them and some said he did not raise them between two Sajdah, and the meaning is
the same.
This is why Ayman ibn 'Arif Ad-Dimashqi put a coma before the sentence “he did not raise them” in his
Tahqiq of the published version by “Darul Ma'rifah Beirut”, clearly showing that the negation is for what
comes after.

And he did not have any manuscript for the second volume of Abu Awanah’s “Musnad” in which this
narration is, but he relied on the previous published editions that are all based on the Indian published
edition. He had just found the third volume’s manuscript and published it for the first time, while he
took all other volumes from previous publications.

And the reason for the negation for being after is that Abu ‘Awanah mentioned difference between
narrators, as there are three narrators reporting from Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah: ‘Abdullah ibn Ayun Al-
Makhrami, Sa’dan ibn Nasr and Shu’ayb ibn ‘Amr
And in the beginning some narrators said: “until they reached them (shoulders)” and some others said:
“to shoulders level” so Abu ‘Awanah is mentioning a difference of words among narrators, and this is
what he did at the end.

Some narrators said at the end: “And he did not raise them” and some said “He did not raise them
between the two Sajdah” and after mentioning this difference Abu ‘Awanah clarified that the meaning
is the same.

If Abu Awanah negated raising hands before and after Ruku’ and also between the two Sajdah, how
can he say that the meaning is the same? Raising hand before and after Ruku’ is different from raising
hands between the two Sajdah, and Abu Awanah made it clear by saying “The meaning is the same”
that there is only a difference in words but they carry the same meaning.
So Ayman ibn ‘Arif seeing the context clearly put a coma in the right place, so the reader does not
understand the wrong meaning.

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17902368/279991822.jpg

This Hadith is under chapter of raising hands before and after Ruku’

Moreover, Abu ‘Awanah brought this Hadith as the first one of the chapter:

“Chapter of raising hands when staring the prayer, before the Takbeer, to shoulders level and when
doing Ruku’ and raising the head from Ruku’ and that one should not raise (hands) in the two Sajdah”

So this narration could not deny raising hands before and after Ruku’, Abu ‘Awanah would have
quoted it in another chapter if so, as in the next chapter about doing Takbeer before raising hands, he
brought narrations showing that one should do Takbeer first and then raise hands. So for different
topics, Abu ‘Awanah makes different chapters, and scholars usually do this as At-Tirmidhi and Abu
Dawud also separated between the chapter of raising hands and the one of not raising hands.

And Abu ‘Awanah has no such chapter of not raising the hands as it is a “Mustakhraj” on “Sahih
Muslim”.
Ash-Shafi’i’s similar narration to that of Abu ‘Awanah and Al-Humaydi

Furthermore, Abu ‘Awanah mentioned that Ash-Shafi’i had a similar narration, as well as Al-Humaydi:

‫نيتدجسلا نيب كلذ لعفي الو هوحنب ةنييع نبا نع يعفاشلا نع ناميلس نب عيبرلا انثدح‬

‫هيبأ نع ملاس ينربخأ لاق يرهزلا نع نايفس انث لاق يديمحلا انث لاق ةكمب غئاصلا انثدح‬
‫هلثم ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص هللا لوسر تيأر لاق‬

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/19668720/321579748.jpg

And Imam Ash-Shafi’i never narrated a Hadith that denied raising hands before and after Ruku’, rather
in his “Umm” he mentioned this same Hadith from ibn ‘Uyaynah with affirmation and not negation:

‫لاق هيبأ نع هللا دبع نب ملاس نع يرهزلا نع ةنييع نب نايفس انربخأ لاق يعفاشلا انربخأ لاق عيبرلا انربخأ‬
‫دعبو عكري نأ دارأ اذإو هيبكنم يذاحت ىتح هيدي عفري ةالصلا حتتفا اذإ ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص هللا لوسر تيأر‬
‫نيتدجسلا نيب عفري الو عوكرلا نم هسأر عفري ام‬

So this Hadith of Ash-Shafi’i is told to be similar to the first one of the chapter and to that of Al-
Humaydi.

Also Imam Al-Bayhaqi narrated the narration of Ash-Shafi’i in his “Ma’rifah Sunnan wal Athar”

‫عوكرلا نم سأرلا عفرو عوكرلاو حاتتفالا دنع نيديلا عفر باب‬

‫لاق سابعلا وبأ انثدح اولاق نسحلا نب دمحأ ركب وبأو قاحسإ يبأ نب ايركز وبأو ظفاحلا هللا دبع وبأ انربخأ‬
‫لوسر تيأر لاق هيبأ نع ملاس نع يرهزلا نع نايفس انربخأ لاق يعفاشلا انربخأ لاق ناميلس نب عيبرلا انربخأ‬
‫هسأر عفري امدعبو عكري نأ دارأ اذإو هيبكنم يذاحي ىتح هيدي عفري ةالصلا حتتفا اذإ ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص هللا‬
‫نيتدجسلا نيب عفري الو عوكرلا نم‬

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/19668720/321579721.jpg

Definition of Taqlid

Ibn Humam said in his Tahrir as quoted from Shawkani in his “Irshad ul Fuhul”: “Taqlid is acting on the
action of someone whose saying is not among Hujjah without prove.”

Also in “Muthalam uth Thubut” p 289 it is said that following Quran, Hadith, Ijma’, Qadhi making
judgment based on testimony of witness, laymen coming to a scholar is not Taqlid.

Imam Ash-Shawkani said that accepting narrations of narrators is also not Taqlid, because there are
proofs that justify accepting narrations from trustworthy narrators of this community. It is like accepting
their testimony. There is no Taqlid in Khabar, only in Fatwa. So it is the right of human beings to tell
this one informed me of such and such and we should accept his narration if the conditions are met,
yet for saying this matter is Wajib or Haram, then it is the right of Allah, and humans can only say this
with a proof, so accepting the Fatwa without Dalil is Taqlid, and accepting the narration or testimony of
someone is not Taqlid.

Imam Ash-Shafi’i used word Taqlid for following the Prophet (saw), but as explained by Shafi’i
scholars, he did not mean the Istilahi meaning of Taqlid, but accepting his saying without questions as
said by Ar-Ruwiyani in al Bahr (“Bahr ul Muhit” v 6 p 271) as quoted by Ash-Shawkani.
Deobandis and Taqlid Shaksi
Deobandis declare Taqlid Shaksi obligatory, meaning people should only follow one scholar, and they
even make it obligatory on the scholar other than Mujtahid. So for them it is forbidden for the layman to
ask different scholars of different Madhab, also a scholar cannot act on the Quran and Hadith, but he
should take a Madhab of one of the four famous Imams and should not leave it, even if it opposes
Quran, Sunnah and other Imams acted upon it.

These are words of Mahmud ul Hasan Deobandi in his “Taqrir At-Tirmidhi”, published by Maktabah
Rahmaniya Lahore, p 49. This edition is in the beginning of “Sunnan At-Tirmidhi” with “Urf ush-Shazi”
of Anwar Shah Kashmiri.

In the “Taqrir Ut T-Tirmidhi”, it is said in chapter of transactions (Buyu') on the subject on Khyar ul
Majlis

“What is obtained is that the topic of khyar is among important topics and Abu Hanifah contradicted in
it the majority and a lot of people from the first and later generations, they wrote rasail in refutation of
his (Abu Hanifah) Madhab on this topic and Maulana Shah Waliyullah Muhadith gave preference
(Tarjih) in his Rasail to the Madhab of Ash-Shafi'i taking evidence from the Ahadith and Nusus, and
the same our Shaykh gave preference (Tarjih) to his Madhab and said the truth and justice in this topic
is to give preference to Ash-Shafi'i and we are Muqalid and the Taqlid of our Imam Abu Hanifah is
obligatory (Wajib) upon us. Allah knows best”

Shaykh Zubayr ali Zay p 26-27 of his Risalah “Deen me taqleed ka masalah” quoted more Deobandis
saying that the Hujjah for the Muqalid is the saying of his Imam and not Quran and Hadith.

There is an authentic Hadith in the two “Sahih” saying that the one who catches one Rak’ah of the
prayer of Subh before the rising (Tulu’) of the sun, he has caught the prayer of Subh, and Mufti Rashid
Ahmad Al-Ludhiyanvi said in this topic :

“With this our fatwa and action will remain on the saying of Imam (rahimahullah Ta’ala), because we
are Muqalid of Imam (rahimahullah Ta’ala) and for the Muqalid the saying of (his) Imam is Hujjah and
not the four Adilah (proofs), and taking a proof (istidlal) with them (four Adilah : Quran, Hadith, Ijma,
Qias) is the Wazifah (action) of the Mujtahid”(“Irshad ul Qari ila Sahih ul Bukhari” p 412)
In the same book p 288, Ludhiyanvi said : “People of innovation leave Hanafi Fiqh doing Istidlal with
Quran and Hadith, and to consulate earths we use this methodology (doing istidlal with Quran and
Hadith), else for the Muqalid only the saying of (his) Imam is Hujjah”

In his “Ahsanul Fatawa” v 3 p 50, he added : “We have written this detailed explanation Tabaru’an,
else turning to the Hadith is not the action (Wazifah) of the Muqalid”

Qadhi Zahid Al-Husayni Deobandi said in introduction of the book “Wafa Imam Abu Hanifah” of Abdul
Qayum Haqqani”:

“While for the Muqalid the final proof is the saying of the Mujtahid as said in “Muthalam uth-Thubut” :
“As for the Muqalid, his base is the saying of the Mujtahid”“

Mahmud ul Hasan Deobandi asked Ahlul Hadith : “You ask us a proof (Dalil) for the obligation of
Taqlid, and we ask you a proof for the obligation of Itba’ Muhammadi and the obligation of Itba’
Qurani”(“Adilah Kamilah” p 75)

Hanafi scholars rejecting Taqlid Shaksi

Contrary to the Deobandi, many Hanafi scholars rejected Taqlid Shaksi for the layman and scholars.
They clearly said that the layman has no Madhab, and a scholar can leave his Madhab if he sees
stronger proofs with another Madhab and judge with Hadith. The quotes below are taken from
“Haqiqat ul Fiqh” of Maulana Jepuri, who quoted in most cases from ”Mi’yar ul Haqq” of Allamah
Nadhir Husayn Ad-Dehlawi.

Allamah Al-Bahari said in his “Muthalam uth-Thubut”:

“Then there is no Wajib except what Allah (Ta’ala) has made Wajib, and the Hukm belongs to Him,
and He did not make Wajib on anybody to take a particular Madhab from men among Imams, making
it Wajib is a Tashri’ (legislation) of a new law”

In “’Iqd ul Farid” Mulla Hasan Ash-Shurunbulali Al-Hanafi said:

“We conclude from what we said, it is not compulsory for the human being to make Iltizam (sticking) to
a particular Madhab”

Ibn Humam Al-Hanafi said in his “Fath ul Qadir”:

“There is no proof for the obligation of following one particular Mujtahid by making his soul Lazim to
this saying or that saying, rather the proof necessitates action upon the saying of (any) Mujtahid in
what he needs because of saying of Allah : “Ask the people of knowledge if you do not know”

He said in his “Tahrir”:

“And there is no Wajib except what Allah and His Prophet (saw) have made Wajib, and Allah and His
Prophet (saw) did not make Wajib upon anybody among people to take a Madhab among Madhab of
people from Imams and he makes Taqlid of them in his religion in all what occurs to him and he leaves
other (Imams)”

Maulana Abdul ‘Ali Bahr Al Ulum in his Sharh of “Musalam Ath-Thubut” wrote :

“Al-‘Iraqi said, there is consensus on the fact that he who becomes Muslim, then it is upon him to
make Taqlid of whoever he wants among scholars without any blame, and there is consensus of
Sahabah that one who sought a Fatwa from Abu Bakr and Umar, the two emir al Muminin, then he can
seek the Fatwa from Abu Hurayrah and Mu’az ibn Jabal and others without any blame”

In his Sharh of “Tahrir”, Maulana Bahr ul Ulum wrote :

“Know that Taklif (religious charge) from the Legislator is nothing but action on the Fatwa of a
Mujtahid, and singling out one Mujtahid for action on his fatwa without other Mujtahid, this is Tahakum
( judging) and it is not considered ( la Yultafatu ilayhi), rather it is a Taghayur (alteration) of the Hukm
of the Legislator without any proof (Burhan).”
Mulla Ali Qari said in “Kitab Shar’ Aynul Ilm” :

“And it is known that Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) did not make Taklif upon anybody to be Hanafi, or
Maliki, or Shafi’i or Hanbali, rather he made Taklif upon acting on the Sunnah”

Allamah At-Tahtawi Al-Hanafi said in “Qawl us Sadid”

“Know that Allah did not made Taklif upon anyone among his slaves of being Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i or
Hanbali, and He made Wajib knowledge of religion with which Sayduna Muhammad (saw) was sent
and to act on his Shari’ah”

Mirza Mazhar Jan Jannan, considered by the Deobandis as a Naqshabandi saint said, as in his
“Kalimat ut Taybah”, in “Maktubat Mirza Mazhar Jan Jannan” :

“Following (Ittiba’) the Prophet (saw) is Wajib upon every individual, and among Imams, none of their
Ittiba’ is Wajib”

Mulla ‘Abid As-Sindhi al-Hanafi said in “Tawali’ ul Anwar Hashiyah Dur ul Mukhtar”

“And the obligation of the Taqlid of a particular Madhab, there is no proof (to justify it) neither from
Naql (religious texts) nor from ‘Aql (Qiyas and others)” (as quoted in “Irshad ila Sabil ir Rashad”)

Mulla Jiyoun said in his “Tafsir Ahmadi”:

“It is permissible from him to make Intiqal (change) from one Madhab to another, as it is quoted from a
lot of Awliya, and it is permissible for him to act in a case on a Madhab and in another (case) on
another Madhab, as it is the Madhab of the Sufis”

Qadhi Thanaullah Pani Pati said in his “Tafsir ul Mazhari”:

“I say about acting on Hadith, the condition is that any of four Imams did act on it”

Said Ismail Shah, great son of Shah Waliyullah, said in his book “Tanwirul ‘Aynayn”:

“People have made Ghulu (exaggeration) in Taqlid and Ta’assub in making iItizam to Taqlid to one
particular individual, until they forbade Ijtihad in a case, and forbade Taqlid of other than their Imam in
some cases, and this is a serious disease that destroyed Shi’ah and these people are also close to
destruction”

Ahmad As-Sirhindi said in his “Makutbat” v 2 p 23:

“Our Peers did not taught us Bid’ah (innovation), they did not put us in the misguidance of their Taqlid,
They (our peers) did not told us anything except the Sunnah of the Messenger (saw), and except
Ittiba’ of the Messenger, they did not taught us anything”

End of the quotes from “Haqiqat ul Fiqh”

Allamah ibn ‘Abidin Ash-Shaami said in “Rad ul Muhtar” explanation of “Dur ul Mukhtar”, also called
“Fatawa Shaami”, edition Dar Ihya Turathil Arabi

In vol 1 p 130 , Chapter : Taqlid of inferior is permissible in presence of superior.

“Know that it is mentioned in Tahrir (of Ibn Humam) and its explanation the permissibility of Taqlid of
the inferior (Mafdul) in presence of the superior (Fadil)….

Then they (scholars) mentioned about Iltizam to one particular Madhab as (the Madhab of) Abu
Hanifah or Ash-Shafi’i, it has been said it is Lazim (necessary) for him (to make iltizam), and it has
been said it is not Lazim for him, and this is more authentic.
And it has been propagated that the ‘Aami (layman) has no Madhab

When you know this it becomes evident for you that what is mentioned by An-Nasafi about the
obligation of believing that his Madhab is right and has possibility of mistake, is based on the fact that
Taqlid of the inferior is not permissible and Iltizam of his Madhab is Lazim for him (according to An-
Nassafi) and this is not for the ‘Aami (layman).

I saw in the end of Fatawa Fiqhyah of Ibn Hajar (Al-Haytami) affirming some of that: he was asked
about the saying of An-Nasafi mentioned and he claimed that the Shafi’i Imams said the same. Then
he said this is for the weak, the one for whom there is Taqlid of more knowledgeable without other.
And what is more authentic is that he has choice of Taqlid of whoever he wants even inferior if he
thinks so, then he cannot know definitively or with Zann, that he is right. Rather for the Muqalid, he
should believe that what his Imam said, it is possible to be right. Ibn Hajar said: Then I saw the
Muhaqiq ibn Humam affirming what supports this where he said in his Sharh Hidayah that if the ‘Aami
(layman) takes what comes in his heart as being right, that is better, and based on this, if he asks two
Mujtahids and difference occurs to him, the best is to take what his heart leans to from them. And for
me even if he does not take from the saying his hearts leans to, it is permissible, because his leaning
and not leaning are same. And what is Wajib for him is the Taqlid of a Mujtahid and he did that.” End
of Ash-Shaami’s words

In the chapter: “Ruling of Taqlid and returning from it (Ruju’s ‘anhu)”, p 163, about the Muqalid who
follows a particular Madhab and changes sometimes:

“If one prays one day according to a Madhab and he wants to pray another day according to another,
then he is not prevented from that…the conclusion is what we mentioned that there is no Iltizam for
the human being to a particular Madhab and that it is permissible to act on what opposes what he
acted on his Madhab, making Taqlid of other than his Imam taking his (other Imam) conditions…”

Also in chapter “When the Hadith is authentic this is my Madhab”, ibn ‘Abidin clearly said that one is
still Hanafi when he follows an authentic Hadith from other than his Imam and Madhab, and he said
this is for people of Nadhar knowing abrogated Hadith. So there is no condition of being a Mujtahid
Mutlaq for a Muhadith to act on a Hadith. Any Muhadith who has knowledge of Nasikh and Mansukh
can act on a Hadith opposing his Imam, contrary to what Muta’assib scholars say by adding from
themselves this condition of Ijtihad Mutlaq.

Allamah Fulani quoted in his “Iqadh ul Himam”:

In “Bahr Ur Raiq” it is said : “Taqlid of any Mujtahid he desires is permissible, and if he takes a
Madhab like nowadays, then he has right to make Intiqal (change)”

And the Shaykh of our Massaykh, Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi said (about that) : What he (ibn
Nujaym told) is what upon which there is justified by the Book and the Sunnah and the saying of the
best scholars from old time and those following them, and there is no value to the saying opposing
this, and every saying that opposes the Book, the Sunnah, the saying of the scholars that are Sudur of
the religion, then it is rejected, and I don’t think there is in him (the one opposing the Book, Sunnah
and ancient scholars) except lack of knowledge and a lot of Ta’assub, and Allah gives Tawfiq to what
He loves and is satisfied with.”

The Shaykh of our Mashaykh, The Muhaqiq Abul Hasan As Sindhi in his Hashiyah of “Fath ul Qadir”
on his saying (of ibn Humam) that the ruling for the layman is the Fatwa of a Mufti, extended that
Ta’ayyun (distingishing) of a particular Madhab is not for the layman, because of his lack of guidance
to what is better …The Wajib upon him is to take the saying of a scholar he trusts in the religion,
because of His saying : “Ask people of Zikr (knowledge) if you do not know” and similar to this has
been said in “Bahr” after he quoted from Al-Muhit long extracts extending (on subject), and we know
from this that the Madhab of the layman is the Fatwa of his Mufti without condition of a Madhab, and
this has been said in “Fath ul Qadir” : The ruling for the layman is the Fatwa of his Mufti.”

Al-Fulani quoted elsewhere in book :

”The Shaykh of our Mashaykh, Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi said : It is Lazim for the Muslim to makes
efforts in order to know the meanings of the Quran and to follows Ahadith, and to understands their
meanings, and to take the Ahkam from them, and if he cannot do that then he should do Taqlid of the
scholars without Iltizam to a Madhab because it resembles the fact of taking him as a Prophet…and
the Iltizam to a particular (Madhab) that people of our time have invented, and they do not consider
that it is not permissible for anyone to make Intiqal from one Madhab to another, then this is great
ignorance, innovation, … We see them leaving some authentic Hadiths that are not abrogated and
they are sticking to their Madhab without Isnad, Ina Lillahi wa Ina Ilahi Raji’un. “

After these quotes of Al-Fulani, we can see that Abu Bakr Al-Jassas Al-Hanafi in his book “Usul al-
Jassas” even forbade Taqlid for anyone. In the chapter called: “The saying about the obligation of
Nadhar and blame of Taqlid”, he mentioned a dialogue with a Muqalid, he said:

“It is said to him (Muqalid): Tell us about your saying that Taqlid is obligatory, do you know whether
this Madhab (of obligation of Taqlid) is authentic or not?

If he says: I do not know its authenticity, then he has decided on his belief (of obligation of Taqlid) with
falsehood, because it is not permissible for anybody to believe in the authenticity of something and he
does not know whether it is authentic or false.

If he says: I know its authenticity, then it is said to him: with proof (Dalil) or without proof?

And if he says: I know with proof, then it is said to him: How do you know its authenticity? If he says I
know with proof, it is said to him: you have left Taqlid and came to Nadhar.”

Allamah Al-Jassas wrote further:

“It is said to him what is the proof (of Taqlid)? If he claims a Nass (text) or Ittifaq (of scholars), then I do
not find it. If he turns to Taqlid (to justify Taqlid) and says: “My Hujjah in proving Taqlid is itself” then he
said falsehood, because a point cannot be a proof for itself…

It is said to him: If it is permissible for him (to be on error), you are not free of being on falsehood in
your Taqlid of him, you believe in his Madhab and you are not upon knowledge about the authenticity
of your saying and the falsehood of your opponent’s saying.

Allah forbade this in His saying “And follow not that of which you have no knowledge” (Isra 36)

And He said “[Shaytan (Satan)] commands you only what is evil and Fahsha (sinful), and that you
should say against Allah what you know not” (Baqarah 169)
…

If one out of stupidity were to say: I say about (the obligation of) Taqlid following the Salaf, they have
ordered us to make Ittiba’ and warned us against innovation and following Ray, it is said to him: you
have done approximation on what the Salaf said (Zann, you have not said their Madhab, but done an
estimation), because they used Nadhar and Ray in their matters. Nobody denies this except someone
extremely ignorant and stupid.

Let’s say, we agree to your claim about the Salaf, tell us from where do you establish the obligation of
the Taqlid of the Salaf in what you mentioned?

If he says: I know they do not gather upon error, then it is said to him: From where did you establish
the authenticity of the Kitab, and he won’t have any solution except to return to establish Nadhar and
proofs from reason (‘Uqul)… and one who is on this way, he does not say with Taqlid, because he
said with the Taqlid of the Salaf on what they have made Ijma’ upon, because there is a proof on the
authenticity of their Ijma’, this is from what is not followed except with proof, and in this there is the
establishment of Nadhar and destruction of Taqlid, upon whose authenticity there is no proof

Allah insisted upon (the use of) the reason (‘Uqul) and the denial of Taqlid and the establishment of
Nadhar, as he gave clear texts in His Book ordering Nadhar and Istidlal: “Fa’tabiru ya Ulil Absar ”
(Ponder O people of intelligence), and I’tibar (pondering) is Nadhar and Istidlal.
And He said: “O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad), and those of
you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah
and His Messenger), if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for
final determination. “(Nisa 59)

And He said: “Do they not then think deeply in the Qur'an, or are their hearts locked up (from
understanding it)? “(Muhammad (saw) 24)

And His Saying: “Do they not then consider the Qur'an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah,
they would surely have found therein much contradictions “(Nisa 82)

And He said: “Have they not travelled through the land, and have they hearts wherewith to understand
and ears wherewith to hear? Verily, it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts which are in
the breasts that grow blind “(Hajj 46)

And He said: “Or have they taken for worship (other) aliha (gods) besides Him? Say: "Bring your
proof:” This (the Qur'an) is the Reminder for those with me and the Reminder for those before me. But
most of them know not the Truth, so they are averse” (Anbiyah 24)

End of Al-Jassas’ words. The Ayat of the Quran have been quoted fully while Al-Jassas only quoted
some parts.
Shafi’i scholars

Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali wrote in his “Mustasfa”, edition Muasisah Al-Risalah vol 2 p 367 and after:

“If there is only one Mufti in the country, then it is obligatory for the layman to turn to him. If there is a
group, then he should ask whoever he wants, and it is not Lazim for him to turn to the most
knowledgeable, like it happened at the time of Sahabah when laymen were asking superior and
inferior, and they were not prevented from asking a Fatwa to other than Abu Bakr, Umar and other
than the rightly guided caliphs.

Some people said that turning to the superior is obligatory, and if they are equal, then he has the
choice (to turn to whomever he wants). And this opposes the Ijma’ of the Sahabah that they were not
preventing (anyone) to ask a Fatwa to superior over inferior, rather it is only obligatory for him to turn
to the one he knows with knowledge and integrity…

Yes, if two Muftis differ in a verdict, if they are equal, then he comes back to them and says: “Your
Fatwa oppose each other and you are equal for me, what should I do?”

If they both give him choice, then he chooses, and if they agree on one point out of precaution, or
agree to turn to one position, then he does that. And if they remain upon difference, then there
remains nothing but choosing, there is no way to negate the ruling, and no one is prior to other,
because the Imams are like stars, whoever you follow you will be guided.

If one of them is superior and has more knowledge in his (layman) belief, then Qadhi (Al-Baqilani)
chose that he also has choice, because the inferior is also from the people of Ijtihad even if he is
alone, same if there is someone with him, increase of value does not have any effect.

And the best for me is that it is Lazim for him to make ittiba’ of the superior. Whoever thinks that Ash-
Shafi’i and his Madhab are right in most cases, then he should not take the Madhab opposing it with
desire”

Al-Ghazali further wrote:

And it is not for layman to take in every matter what is better according to him, so he makes it larger
(meaning he takes with desire what is easier), but this is Tarjih (giving preference) as Tarjih between
two contradictory proofs for the Mufti, as he follows his Zann (opinion) in Tarjih, the same here.
Even if the Mujtahid is right, but error is possible with Ghaflah from a decisive proof or with verdict
before complete Ijtihad and looking in deep. And error of more knowledgeable is further, but not
impossible.

And in this Tahqiq (verification), we believe that there is a secret for Allah in making his slaves return
to their Zann (opinion) so they are not following and leaning to their Hawa (desire), left like are left
walking animals without their having rope of Taklif (religious charge), so they turn from one side to
another…

We did not stop from being Qadir to attach them with a rule (choosing with Zann), and this is better
than their choosing and leaning (with desire) like animals and children.

And when we are not capable (to choose) in the contradiction between two Muftis and their being
equal, or when two proofs (dalil) oppose each other, then this (referring to Zann) is necessary…

It is not for him (layman) to contradict Zann with desire, this is what is authentic for us…”
End of Al-Ghazali’s words

So one can see that Al-Ghazali does not consider sticking to one Madhab as obligatory, rather he
believes that the layman should follow his Zann when two Muftis differ, and only if he believes one to
be more knowledgeable like if he believes Ash-Shafi’i to be more knowledgeable, then the best for Al-
Ghazali is that the layman should take Ash-Shafi’i’s Madhab and not oppose it with desire.

Lets have a look now at Al-Amidi’s saying in his “Ihkam” v 3 p 256, chapter Taqlid, Masalah number 8:

“Has he (the layman) the right to make Ittiba’ of another Mujtahid in another ruling. There is difference
(of opinions) in this, some forbade this, some allowed it, and this is the truth considering the Ijma that
happened with the Sahabah in permitting the layman to ask the Fatwa to all scholars in a case. And it
has not been said from any of Salaf that they prevented the layman from this. If this was forbidden
then why did Sahabah omit its prevention and remained silent from objecting to it?

If the layman restricts to a particular Madhab, like the Madhab of Ash-Shafi’i or Abu Hanifah or other
than them, (and) he says : I am upon his Madhab and makes Iltizam to it, then has he got right to
return (from it) and take another’s saying in a case among cases?

There is difference (of opinions) in this. Some people gave him the permission considering that his
Iltizam to one Madhab is not Lazim for him, and other forbade that because his making it Lazim makes
it Lazim for him…

The chosen view for me is to make the distinction (Tafsil) : If he acted on any topic on the first
Madhab, then he cannot make Taqlid of another, and if action on it did not happen yet, there is nothing
preventing him to do Ittiba’ of another in this” End of Al-Amidi’s words

So his words are clear, there is Ijma of Sahabah not preventing people to go to different Muftis in
different topics, also if one takes a Madhab, and he did not act on it yet, there is nothing preventing
him to change. Yet if he acted upon it, like he did a matter according to a Madhab, he cannot cancel it
according to another, yet for the future case, he can take the opinion of another Madhab.

Imam Ash-Shawkani said in “Irshad ul Fuhul” in his Maslah number six in chapter of Taqlid:

“The people who made Taqlid permissible then differed whether the layman should make Iltizam to a
particular Madhab in all cases. A group said that it lazim for him and Ilkiya gave preference to that, and
others said it is not Lazim for him, and ibn Burhan (as quoted in “Bahr Al-Muhit of Az-Zarkashi) and
An-Nawawi gave preference to this, and they took the proof from the fact that the Sahabah did not
object to the layman doing Taqlid of some in (some) matters and of others (among the Sahabah) in
some (other matters)…

Then if layman makes iltizam of one particular Madhab, then they differed whether he can oppose his
Imam in some cases and take the saying of someone else. It has been said it is permissible and it has
been said it is not…
And it has been said that if it is after the occurrence of an event in which he made Taqlid, then Intiqal
is not permissible, else it is permissible (for future cases) and Imam ul Haramayn chose that (in his
“Burhan” v 2 p 1344)

And it has been that if his thought leans towards the fact that another Imam’s Madhab is stronger in
this case than his Imam, then it is permissible (to change), else it is not and this has been said by Al-
Qaduri Al-Hanafi (“Kawkab Al-Munir” v 4 p 575)

And it has been said that if the Madhab he wants to make intiqal to breaks the ruling, then it is not
permissible, else it is permissible, this has been chosen by Ibn Abdis Salam (in his “Qawaid” v 2 p
157),

And it has been said that it is permissible if his chest is convinced and if he does not desire to play,
and it is not breaking the ruling on him, and this has been chosen by ibn Daqiq ul ‘Id.

And Al-Amidi and ibn Hajib have claimed agreement (Ittifaq) on fact that it is permissible before action
not after, and they have been answered that there is difference in what they claim to be agreed upon.

And if the Muqalid chooses from all Madhabs what is easier for him, then Abu Ishaq AL- Marwazi said
he his a Fasiq and ibn Abi Hubayrah said he is not Fasiq (“Kawkab Al-Munir” v 4 p 579 and “Jam’ ul
Jawami’” v 2 p 400)…

Ibn Abdis Salam said that we should look at the action he did, if it was from forbidden things whose
forbiddance is famous then he is sinner, else not. (“Qawaid” v 2 p 157)”

In Masalah number five Imam Ash-Shawkani wrote :

“If there is difference in the Fatwa he receives from scholars of his time, then it has been said he has
the choice, he takes what he wants ( see “Kawkab Al-Munir” v 4 p 570 and “Sharh Tanqih ul Fusul” p
442), and this has been said by the majority of the companions of Ash-Shafi’i and it has been declared
authentic by Abu Ishaq Al-Shirazi (in his Lam’ p 72), Khatib Al- Baghdadi, ibn Dhabagh, Qadhi and Al-
Amidi (in his “Ihkam” v 4 p 241). They have taken the proof from the Ijma of the Sahabah on the
absence of objection to the action on the saying of the inferior in the presence of the superior…

And it has been said from Ar-Ruwiyani that he takes from the first he asked to.

And it has been said that he makes action on the narration instead of Ray, this has been told by Ar-
Rafi’i.

And it has been said that he should make Ijtihad to know what he takes in matters of difference, this
has been told by ibn Sam’ani.

And it has been said that if it is in rights of Allah he takes the easiest and if it is in rights of slaves, then
he takes the difficult one, this has been told by Ustaz Abu Mansur

And it has been said that he asks both of them that differed about their proofs if his intelligence can
understand this, then he takes the preponderant proof among them, and if his reason cannot do this,
then he takes what is reliable for him. This has been said by Al-Ka’bi (see all these sayings in “Bahr Al
Muhit” v 6 p 313, “Sifat uf Fatwa” p 80, “Mankhul” p 483, “Mukhtasar ibn Hajib” v 2 p 309, “Jam’ ul
Jawami’” v 2 p 395…)"

Note: All notes in brackets are from the Muhaqiq of “Irshad ul Fuhul”, Muhammad Subhi ibn Hassan
Al-Hallaq, edition Dar ibn Kathir.

So one can see that the majority of Shafi’i scholars allow the layman to ask to different scholars, and
they claimed an Ijma that the Sahabah did not restrict laymen to one Mujtahid only, rather the laymen
could ask any scholar they would like. Also if the layman chooses a Madhab, then the majority of
scholars liek Al-Amidi, An-Nawawi, Ibn Daqiq Al-'Id and others allow change and some put some
conditions.
More to come Insha Allah

May Allah send Salah and Salam upon the Prophet (saw), his household, companions and those who
follow them

Complied by Ali Hassan Khan

This article is based on an article in the magazine “Al-Hadith” n 16 of shaykh Zubayr Ai Zay, and all
references are from him.

To remain concise, I have not quoted the words of Jarh in “Lisan Al-Mizan” that Shaykh Zubayr
declared to have a weak Sanad.

So I only mentionned some Jarh that have an authentic Sanad according to Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay

Hafiz ibn Hajar said in his “Lisan Al-Mizan” v 2 p 208: “Al-Hasan ibn Zyad Al-Lului Al-Kufi from ibn
Jurayj and others, he learned Fiqh from Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy upon him, and Ahmad ibn
Abi Maryam and ‘’Abbas Ad-Dawri narrated from Yahya ibn Ma’in: liar (Kazzab)…”

The saying of Ahmad ibn Abi Maryam is in “Kamil” v 2 p 731 of ibn ‘Adi an its Sanad is authentic.

The saying of Ad-Dawri is authentic in “Tarikh ibn Ma’in” 1765, see “Du’afa” of Al-‘Uqayli vol 1 p 227
and “Tarikh Baghdad” v 7 p 316 with a Hasan Isnad.

Hafiz ibn Hajar said in his “Lisan Al-Mizan” v 2 p 208: “Abu Hatim said: “He is not thiqah nor Mamun.”

The sanad is authentic, see “Jarh wa Ta’dil” v 3 p 15, also “’Ilal” of ibn Abi Hatim v 2 p 432.

Hafiz ibn Hajar wrote said in his “Lisan Al-Mizan” v 2 p 208: “Ad-Daraqutni said: weak Matruk.”

The sanad is authentic in ‘Tarikh Badhdad” v 7 p 317 with words: “Kazzab Kufi Matruk Al-Hadith” and
“Sawalat” of Al-Barqani 88.

Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay could not find the Sanad of words quoted by Ibn Hajar, meaning “Weak
Matruk” but his words in “Tarikh Baghdad” are stronger.

Hafiz ibn Hajar said in his “Lisan Al-Mizan” v 2 p 208: “Muhammad ibn Rafi’ An-Nisapori said: “Hasan
ibn Zyad would raise his head before the Imam and he would do Sajdah before the Imam”

The Sanad of this is authentic, see “Du’afa” of Al-‘Uqayli vol 1 p 227-228, also “Akhbar Al-Qudhat” of
Waki’ ibn Khalf v 3 p 189.

Hafiz ibn Hajar said in his “Lisan Al-Mizan” v 2 p 208: “Abu Dawud said from Al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali Al-
Halwani: “I saw Al-Lului kissing a boy while he was in Sajdah”

The Sanad is authentic, see “Tarikh Baghdad” v 7 p 316.

Hafiz ibn Hajar said in his “Lisan Al-Mizan” v 2 p 209: “Yazid ibn Harun was asked: what do you say
about Al-Lului, and he answered: Is he a Muslim?Ya’la ibn ‘Ubayd said: fear from Al-Lului”

And Zubayr Ali Zay authenticated these two narrations.

Hafiz ibn Hajar said in his “Lisan Al-Mizan” v 2 p 209: “Ya’qub ibn Sufyan, Al-‘Uqayli and As-Saji said:
Kazzab. An-Nasa’i said: he is neither Thiqah nor Mamun”

The saying of Ya’qub ibn Sufyan is authentic, see “Kitab Ma’rifat At-Tarikh” v 3 p 56.
The saying of Al-‘Uqayli was not found by Zubayr Ali Zay but he said Al-‘Uqayli mentioned him in his
“Dua’afa”

And the saying of As-Saji also was not found.

The saying of an-Nasai is in his book “Kitab Ad-Du’afa wal Matrukin” 156, and he said in “Tabaqat” p
266 and p 310 of another edition: “Hasan ibn Zyad al-Lului Kazzab Khabith (filthy liar)”

Then ibn Hajar said that Abu Awanah in his “Mustakhraj” and Al-Hakim in his “Mustadrak” narrated
from him and he was declared Thiqah by Maslamah ibn Qasim.

So Ibn Ma’in, Abu Hatim, Ad-Daraqutni, Abu Rafi’ An-Nisapori, Hasan ibn ‘Ali Al-Halwani, Yazid ibn
Harun, Ya’la ibn ‘Ubayd, Ya’qub ibn Sufyan, Al-‘Uqayli, An-Nasa’i have clearly weakened Al-Lului and
many of the them told him to be a liar.

Then Zubayr Ali Zay mentioned other scholars who authentically weakened him

Ishaq ibn Isma’il said to Imam Waki’: Nowadays the Sunnah is in drought, and Waki’ said: “How do
you want that not to happen when Hasan Al-Lului and Hammad ibn Abi Hanifah became Qadhi”

This is narrated by Al-‘Uqayli in his “Du’afa” v 1 p 228 with an authentic Isnad.

Al-Juzjani said in his ‘Ahwal Ar-Rijal” p 76-77: “Asad ibn ‘Amr, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan
and Al-Lului, Allah saved (us) from them”

Ibn Al-Jawzi mentioned him in his “Du’afa wal Matrukin” v 1 p 202.

Ibn Al-Athir said in his “Ghayat An-Nihayah” v 1 p 213 : “He is weak in narration, more than one
declared him to be a liar”

Az-Zahabi said in “Al-‘Ibr” v 1 p 270: “People of six books did not narrate from him because of his
weakness”

Ibn ‘Adi said in his “Kamil” v 2 p 732: “And he is weak”

Hafiz Sam’ani said in his ‘Ansab” v 5 p 146: “People spoke against him, and he is nothing in Hadith”

Ibn Shahin mentioned him in his “Tarikh Asma Ad-Du’afa wal Kazabin” n 118.

Hafiz Al-Haythami said in his “Majma’ Az-Zawaid”: “And there is in it (Sanad) Al-Hasan ibn Zyad Al-
Lului and he is Matruk”

And contrary to all of these Hufaz, the author of “Sirat Mansur Hallaj”, Zafar Ahmad Thanvi Uthmani
declared Hasan ibn Zyad Al-Lului to be Thiqah in his “I’la As-Sunnan” v 3 p 27.

Zubayr Ali Zay said: “By this quote, the status of the book “I’la As-Sunnan” of Zafar Ahmad Thanvi
becomes clear, how these people try to make lie truth and day night. On one side a great group of
noble Muhadith declare Hasan ibn Zyad Al-Lului to be a liar and Matruk, on the other side Zafar
Ahmad Thanvi Deobandi tried to declare him Thiqah by failure, Subhan Allah”

Then Shaykh Zubayr mentioned that Zafar Thanvi Sahib mentioned the saying of Yahya ibn Adam: “I
did not see someone more Faqih than Al-Hasan ibn Zyad” and this quote is unreliable. This is narrated
by Qadhi Husayn ibn ‘Ali As-Sumayr in his book “Akhbar Abi Hanifah wa Ashabihi” and two of its
narrators Muhammad ibn Mansur and Muhammad ibn Ubaydillah Al-Hamdani are not known to be
Thiqah, and the teacher of As-Sumayr, Ahmad ibn Muhammad As-Sarafi is criticized, see “Tarikh
Baghdad” v 5 p 69.
So this shows the clear Ta’asub of these Deobandis and insha Allah more will come from falsehood of
Zafar Thanvi in his “Qawaid Ulum il Hadith” in which he attacked many muhadith declaring them to be
Muta’asib in the same way as the Dajjal Al-Kawthari. Thanvi attacked great Imams such as Nu’aym
ibn Hammad with words of Dulabi, while Thanvi did not have courage to answer the refutation of Ad-
Dulabi by ibn Hajar and others. This is the cowardice of these people, they cannot answer and just fool
people. Insha Allah more extracts will come from the book “Inam Zukan” of Shaykh Badi’udin Shah
Rashidi, book refuting “Qawaid Ulum il hadith “ of Zafar Thanvi.

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, Companions and those who
follow them.

These extracts are taken from "Sayf Muhammadi" of Shaykh Junagri, "Haqiqatu Fiqh" of Shaykh
Jepuri, "Zafar Al-Mubin fi Rad Aghlat Muqalidin" of Abul Hasan As-Silakoti, student of Imam Nadheer
Husayn Ad-Dehlawi.

Ghulu (exaggeration) about Hanafi Fiqh

“The book “Durul Mukhtar” was written by the Prophet’s tongue” (Muqadimah Durul Mukhtar)

“In a dream the Prophet saw put his tongue in the mouth of the writer, and then I started to write this
book” (Muqadimah Durul Mukhtar)

“The Isnad of the book “Durul Mukhtar” goes back to Allah by the way of the Prophet (saw)”
(Muqadimah Durul Mukhtar)

“May the curse of Allah be on those who make Rad (refutation) of Abu Hanifah”
(Muqadimah Durul Mukhtar)

“When The Prophet ’Isa will come back he will follow the Madhab of Abu Hanifah”
(Muqadimah Durul Mukhtar)

“Khidr spent 30 years to learn knowledge from Abu Hanifa, then Al-Qushayri learnt from Khidr during 3
years and he wrote more than 1000 books and put them in a box in the sea. When Isa (aley salam)
will take these books and act upon them.” (Muqadimah Durul Mukhtar)

In the introduction of “Dur ul Mukhtar” there is the fabricated Hadith that the Prophet would have said
that Abu Hanifah is the lamp of his community.
Comment: Such Ta’assub is unacceptable in Islam and rejecting such claims is obligatory. This is
clear that many of these Ahnaf consider the views of Abu Hanifah as a religion revealed by Allah…La
Hawla wala Quwatta ila Billah

Fatawa in Hanafi books related to Zina, intercourse and similar issues

“If someone pays a woman to do Zina, there is no Hadd” (prescribed punishment)”

(Durul Mukhtar, kitab Hudud, Fatawa Hhaniyah misr vol 3 p 508, Kanz Daqaiq ed Deoband p 180, and
this fatwa is attributed to Abu Hanifa while his two students say there is Hadd)
”If he pays a woman to do Zina (fornication) or Wati (intercourse) if he says I will give you so much
dirham or she says give me so much, there is no Hadd” (Alamgiri, vol 2 p 168)

”If the Khalifah or the Imam or the king does Zina there is no Hadd” (Durul Mukhtar, Kitab Hudud)

Comment: This is a clear restriction (Takhsis) of the Quran, while Ahnaf reject restriction of the Quran
with Khabar Ahad. So it shows like Hafiz ibnul Qayim said in his “I’lam” that Ahnaf’s rule is self-
contradictory, they reject Takhsis of the Quran with authentic Hadith of the two Sahih and others while
they do it with weak Hadith and even Qiyas.
How can Ahnaf take the king and prostitute out of the saying of the Quran? Do they have a Mutawatir
Hadith or Mashur?

“The salary of the prostitute is Halal” (Chalpi Shar Wiqayah)

“If someone does Jima (intercourse) with an animal or with a dead or a young girl and there is no inzal
(ejaculation), then Ghusl is not obligatory” (Durul Mukhtar Kitab Taharah, Masail Ghusl, also Alamgiri,
Kitab Taharah)

“If someone does sodomy with a woman who fasts or a man who fasts, their fast is not broken
(Hidayah, Kitab Sawm)

“If a young boy of 10 does Jima with an adolescent Woman, there is no Ghusl” (Alamgiri, Kitab
Taharah)

“If someone enters is penis in his Dubur (Anus), then Ghusl is not obligatory” (Durul Mukhtar, Kitab
Taharah Masail Ghusl)

“If a man in his Dubur (Anus) or a woman in her vagina enters the penis of the dead, or his finger, or
something in wood, there is no Ghusl” (Hidayah Kitab Taharah)

“If someone enters the penis of an animal in her vagina or Dubur (Anus), the Ghusl is not obligatory
(Durul Mukhtar Kitab Taharah Masail Ghusl)

“If a woman enters the penis of a boy without desire in her vagina or Dubur (Anus), the Ghusl is not
obligatory” (Durul Mukhtar, Kitab Taharah Masail Ghusl)

“After doing Jima’ (intercourse) with a young girl, it is not necessary to clean his penis” (Durul Mukhtar
Kitab Taharah Masail Ghusl)

“If someone does Jima with a virgin and the curtain is not broken, Ghusl is not obligatory” (Durul
Mukhtar Kitab, Taharah Masail Ghusl)

“If someone does Wati (intercourse) in the Dubur (Anus) of an animal or in his ran and there is no Inzal
(ejaculation), then Ghusl is not obligatory.” (Hidayah, Kitab Taharah)

“If the adolescent woman does Wati (intercourse) with a young boy or with an insane, then the woman
has no Hadd” (Durul Mukhtar, Kitab Hudud)

“If someone does Wati (intercourse) with a non adolescent woman, or with a dead or an animal, there
is no Hadd” (Durul Mukhtar, Kitab Hudud)

“The one who enters his penis in the vagina or anus of the hermaphrodite, there is no Ghusl (Durul
Mukhatr, Kitab Taharah, Masail Ghusl)

“If the hermaphrodite enters his penis in vagina of woman or her anus, there is no Ghusl for both of
them” (Alamgiri, Bab Taharah, Wajibat al ghusl)

“If someone does Zina with the salve of his child or great child, there is no Hadd” (Durul Mukhtar, Kitab
Hudud)

“If someone does Zina with the slave of grand father or grand mother, there is no Hadd” (Durul
Mukhtar Kitab Hudud)

“If someone has a slave in Rahn (security for loan) and he does Zina, there is no Hadd” (Durul
Mukhtar Kitab Hudud)

In “Hidayah”, it is written that there is no Hadd for the one who does Zina with the slave woman (of
another) he has in Rahn (guaranty) even if he knew that she is forbidden to him
If someone does Nikah with a Mahram for ever woman and consider it Halal, there is no Hadd” (Durul
Mukhtar, Kitab Hudud)

“The woman that are for ever forbidden, and he does Nikah and he even if he considers that Haram,
there is no Hadd” (Dur Mukhtar Kitab Hudud, and Alamgiri who attribute that to Imam Abu Hanifah)

“If he does Nikah with a woman and joins in Nikah his wife’s sister or mother, there is no Hadd”
(Alamgiri)

“If he does temporary marriage and he considers that Haram, there is no Hadd” (Alamgiri)

“If someone does Nikah with a woman who is married before, and he knows she has a husband and it
is Haram, there is no Hadd” (Fatawa Khaniya, Misr vol 3 p 508)

“There is no Hadd of Zina for the one who cannot speak, neither any Hadd for something else, even if
the witness are present and he admits with Isharah (sign) or by writing.“ (Alamgiri, Misr, vol 2 p 168)

“If someone kidnaps a slave, does Zina and his responsible for her price, there is no Hadd” (Durul
Mukhtar, Kitab Hudud)

“If someone gives permission to another to do Zina with his slave, there is no Hadd” (Alamgiri, vol 2 p
169)

“There is no Hadd for sodomy” (Durul Mukhtar, Kitab Hudud)

In “Hidayah” it is said: “If a woman claims that he married her with (false) witnesses and the judge
declares that he is her husband and he did not marry her. She can stay by him and if she wants to
leave him, he can do Jima (intercourse) with her according to Abu Hanifah.”

So according to Abu Hanifah if a woman lies and wins cases, she can have Jima’ with this man and
the judgment of the judge replaces Nikah.

In ‘Hidayah’ it is written that Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibnul Hasan Ash-Shaybani and Ash-Shafi’i said
that the marriage does not become true in Batin (reality).
Imam An-Nawawi says about the fact that the wrong judgment of a judge does not make Halal in Batin
(reality): “This Hadith is a prove for the Madhab of Ash-Shafii, Malik, Ahmad and the Majority of
scholars of Islam and the Fuqaha from different cities among Sahabah, Tabi’is and scholars after then,
that the judgment of the judge does not make Halal in Batin (reality) and does not make Halal the
Haram, and Abu Hanifah makes the privates part Halal with the judge's Judgment.” (Hadith 4450 of
“Sharh Muslim”)

Ahshraf Ali Thanvi, the Hakim Ummat of the Deobandis writes in “Imdad ul Fatawa” vol 2 p 310, that
the one who touches his wife's mother with desire his marriage is cancelled and his wife forbidden to
him

And there is no difference whether he said he did this with intention or not, as said in “Kifayatul Mufti”
vol 5 p 182.

Thanvi said in “Bahisti Zewar” part four, that if he wakes up and by mistake he touched his daughter or
wife's mother with desire, his wife is forbidden to him.

What is strange in this Fatwa is that if he touches his daughter and wife's mother with desire and there
is ejaculation, then his wife is not forbidden. So the ejaculator who does this on purpose is not
punished, while the one doing this by error is punished with divorce with his wife

In “Hidayah”, Kitab Nikah, Fasl fi Bayan Al Muharimat: “The one who is touched by a woman with
desire, her mother and daughters are forbidden for him (for Nikah) and Ash-Shafii said it does not
forbid, and on this is difference of his touching a woman with desire of his looking at her vagina or her
looking to his penis with desire, because touching and looking is not in the meaning of entering
(intercourse) so there is no link with Fasad (breaking) of fasting and Ihram and obligation of Ghusl, so
these two things (looking and touching) are not added to that.

And for us (Ahnaf) touching and looking is a cause calling to intercourse, so it takes its place (
Yuqamu Maqamahu) because of precaution (Ihtiyat), then touching with desire is that the penis
becomes big and strengthens, and this is authentic (meaning there is difference in Ahnaf for this), and
what is taken into account (there is also difference in that) for looking at entering of vagina and it does
not become true except when she lies down, and if he touches and then ejaculates then it has been
said it leads to forbiddance, and the authentic (another difference) is that it does not lead to, because
of his ejaculation he made it clear that he was not desiring intercourse, and on the same is for coming
to a woman from her anus”

Mufti Rashid Ahmad Deobandi says in “Ahasanul Fatawa”, vol 5 p 92. : “If without Jima (intercourse),
he ejaculates then the forbiddance is not established”

”The one who does watch the vagina of a woman in a mirror or in water, then the mother of this
woman is forbidden to him” (Durul Mukhtar, Kitab Nikah, Fasl fil Muharamat)

”If a man touches a woman and does not ejaculate, her mother his forbidden to him and if he
ejaculates her mother is not forbidden to him.” (Dur ul Mukhtar, Kitab Nikah, Fasl fil Muharamat)

”If while wakening, the hand of the man touches (with desire) his daughter, or the hand of the woman
touches his son, they (husband and wife) are forbidden to each other” (Durul Mukhtar, Kitab Nikah,
fasl fil Muharamat)

”Kissing with desire the mother of his wife makes his wife forbidden” (Durul Mukhtar, Kitab Nikah, Fasl
fil Muharamat)

”Touching with desire the mother of his wife makes his wife forbidden” (Durul Mukhtar, Kitab Nikah,
fasl fil Muharamat)

”Looking at the vagina of his daughter with desire makes his wife forbidden” (Durul Mukhtar, Kitab
Nikah, Fasl fil Muharamat)

”If in a drunk state he takes and kisses his daughter and she tells I am your daughter, his wife is
forbidden to him” ( Alamgiri, Kitab Nikah)

”If a man does Jima with a young girl (non virgin) and then divorces with her , then the daughter of this
woman his not Forbiden to him” (Dur Mukhtar, Kitab Nikah, Fasl fil Muharamat)

”Doing Jima’ with a girl of 7 or 8 years, then the mother of this girl is not forbidden to him” (Alamgiri,
Kitab Nikah)

Fatawa related to Riba

”If someone does Zina in Dar ul Harb (land of war) or in the land of revolted people, there is no Hadd.”
(Dur Mukhtar Kitab hudud)

”The Muslim can take Riba (usury) from a Kafir Harbi (disbeliever who is in state of war), in Dar ul
Harb (land of war) (Durul Mukhtar vol 4 p 209)

In “Hidayah”, Kitab Buyu’, Bab Riba, it is written that there is no problem in Riba (usury) between a
Muslim and Harbi (disbeliever in state of war) in Dar al Kufr (land of Kufr).

Also in Hidayah in Kitab Buyu’, Bab Riba, it is said that Riba is permissible between a man and his
slaves.
Comment: This is also a Takhsis of the Quran without Hadith

Fatawa related to alcohol

In “Hidayah” Kitab Ashribah: “If grape juice is cooked to 2/3 and 1/3 remains, it is Halal even if it is
strong.” Then he says the condition is for strength and not for games and lahw.”

As for Nabidh, it is said in “Hidayah” that if the Nabidh is made from Tamr (dried dates) or raisins and it
is lightly cooked, then it is correct to drink it as long as one is not drunk and it should not be for games
but for strength.

Then he says that the Mufsid (bringing corruption) is the bowl that makes drunk, and this one is Haram
according to us.

In “Fatawa Alamgiri”, it is said that if he drinks 9 bowls of Nabidh of Tamr and after the tenth he
becomes drunk, there is no Hadd, it is like that in “Sirajiyah”.

In “Sarh Wiqayah”, “Durul Mukhtar” and “Alamgiri” it is said that according to Abu Hanifah the drunk
(on Nabidh) who gets Hadd is the one who cannot distinguish between the sky and earth

(In Sahih Hadith, it is said that whatever intoxicate in great quantity, its small quantity is Haram)

Imam Qurtubi says that all Ahadith in this case make clear that everything that intoxicate is Khamr and
it makes Batil the Madhab of the Kufis that khamr is only the drink made from grapes and what is
cooked besides that is not Khamr

In “Durul Mukhtar” it is said that if a Muslim orders to sell Khamr or pig or to buy it, meaning he
delegates the Zimmi (Kafir living in the land of Islam and paying Zimmah) for that this is Sahih
according to the Imam but with a lot of Karahah

In “Hidayah”, Kitab Buyu’, Bab Bay’ Fasid, we ca read that If the Muslim orders the Christian to sell
Khamr or to buy it and he does it, it is permissible according to Abu Hanifah

Also it is said in this book that the one who transports wine for the Zimmi can ask a salary according to
Abu Hanifah

Ash-Shami said in “Rad ul Muhtar” that as Khamr is promised in paradise, some of it forms should be
Halal in this world so the person can know the taste and desire it, he means that we cannot desire
wine of paradise, without knowing taste of some forms of it

“The drunk who claims to have drunk after the smell of wine disappears does not receive any Hadd”
(Alamgiri, kitab Hudud, attributed to Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf)

“If the drunk man vomits after drinking wine, there is no Hadd” (Alamgiri, Kitab Hudud )

”The drunk who cannot speak does not receive Hadd, even if he admits” (Alamgiri, kitab Hudud )

Reading and holding the Quran in prayer

”If someone prays holding a dog in his hands, his prayer is not Fasid (invalid)” (Durul Mukhtar, Misr vol
1 p 153)

”If someone in prayer watches the private part of a woman, is prayer is not broken” (“Maraqi Al Falah”,
Misr vol 1 p 200)

”If someone watches at book of Fiqh during prayer, is prayer is not broken by Ijma (consensus)”
(Alamgiri vol,1 p 106)

”If someone prays and holds the Quran and reads from it, is prayer is Fasid (invalid)” (Durul Mukhtar
vol 1 p 641)

While in “Sahih Bukhari”, Aishah ordered her slave to lead women while he reading from some papers.
Yet Ahnaf say holding a dog, looking at private parts of woman does not break the prayer, but for the
Quran, it breaks, and one cannot understand this.
Different Fatawa

In “Hidayah” it is written that if in the last Tashahud, if he does on purpose Hadath (Gas, urine..) or
speaks or does an action that break prayer, his Salat is finish and he does not need to repeat it.
”The thief who cannot speak there is not Hadd” (Dur Mukhtar, Kitab Saraqat)

”The one who steals grass or wood, there is no Hadd” (Sharh Wiqayah, Kitab Saraqat)

”If he steals the door of the mosque, there is no Hadd” (Sharh Wiqayah, Kitab Saraqat)

”If he steals in Bayt ul mal there is no Hadd” (Sharh Wiqayah, Kitab Saraqah)

”If the Hanafi becomes a Shafi’i, he should receive Ta’zir (corporal punishment) (Alamgiri, Kitab
Hudud, Bab Fasl fi Ta’zir)

”If the Hanafi becomes a Shafi’I, his witness is not valid” (Durul Mukhtar)

“The skin of the dog and wolf does become pure by Zabh (Muniya p 49)”

Comment: So for Ahnaf, there is no need of Dabgh of the skin, one can just do Zabh of the dog and
wolf, and their skin will become pure

Hanafi conditions for leading prayer

If in the conditions of who should be Imam in the first cases there is equality, “then the one whose wife
is more beautiful” (Durul Mukhtar vol 1 p 412)
How can someone they check whose wife is the most beautiful? Do they need a miss beauty
competition?

“Then the one who has the biggest head and the smallest member” (Durul Mukhtar, vol 1 p 412)

At-Tahtawi said in his “Hashiyah ‘ala Maraqi Al-Falah” on this topic:

“His saying “The one who has the smallest member”, some of the Mashaykh explained this “The one
who has the smallest penis”, because the great size of it shows in most cases low morality...and
similar matters are not known in most cases except by information or narration, and this is rare, and
the same is said about the one having the most beautiful wife.”

‫ررحيو لصألا ةءاند ىلع ابلاغ لدي شحافلا هربك نأل اركذ رغصألاب خياشملا ضعب هرسف ) اوضع مهرغصأو ( هلوق‬
‫مدقتملا ةجوز نسحألا يف هلثم لاقيو ردان وهو رابخألا وأ عالطالاب الإ ابلاغ ملعي ال كلذ لثمو‬

Now, do Ahnaf need to tell in front of anyone whose penis is the smallest? What is this absolute
nonsense?

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, Companions and those who
follow them.

Deobandis and Kawthariyah in order to defend their Madhab attack the Muhadiths and declare them
to be biased and Muta’asib, so laymen do not leave Hanafi Madhab for another Imam whose proof is
stronger.
And this matter is very old among Ahnaf, Yusuf ibn Musa Al Multi AL Hanafi said : “One who reads in
book of Bukhari, he will become an heretic (Zindiq)” ( man Nathara fi Kitabi Bukhari Tazandaqa)
(“Shazratu Zahab” v 7 p 40 and “Abnau ul Ghumar bi Abnail Umar” of ibn Hajar v 4 p 348)

Gangohi’s attack on Al-Bukhari

Shaykh Abdur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri wrote in his book “Tahqiq ul Kalam fi Wujub Qiarat Khalf al
Imam” p 96 of second vol

“Imam Al-Bukhari wrote in his Juz Qiraat (about narration of Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari: “When the Imam
recites, remain silent): “Sulayman did not mention in this addition his listening from Qatadah, nor
Qatadah from Yunus ibn Jubayr”

Imam Al-Bukhari wrote this because Sulayman At-Taymi and Qatadah are both Mudalis. Qatadah
being Mudalis has been mentioned earlier (in the book). As for Sulayman At-Taymi, Hafiz ibn Hajar
wrote in his “Tabaqat Al Mudalisin”:

“Sulayman ibn Tarkhan Taymi Tabii, famous from the little Tabi’i of Basrah, he was Fadil, An-Nasai
and other attributed Tadlis to him”

‘Allamah Al-Halabi (Al-Hanafi) affirmed that Sulyaman At-Taymi was a Mudalis in his book “Kitab
Tabiin fi Asma Al Mudalisin” as mentioned in “Zafar Al-Amani” p 219.

Hafiz Az-Zahabi said in “Mizan”: “Sulayman ibn Tarkhan At-Taymi Al-Basri Al-Qasyi…it has been said
he did Tadlis from Al-Hasan and others…”

So Sulayman Taymi being a Mudalis is known among Muhadiths, but it is strange that Maulana
Rasheed Ahmad Sahib Gangohi was not aware of that and he wrote in his “Hidayatul Mu’tadi”: “Imam
Al-Bukhari could not find any defect in this narration, because of Madhabi Ta’asub, he wrote in his
“Juzz Qiraat” that it is not known whether Sulayman heard this narration from Qatadah or not. This is
very strange because Sulayman At-Taymi is not a Mudalis nor Mutawaham, and despite this Imam Al-
Bukhari doubts about his listening because he reports with “‘An” (from). Ma’az Allah, if this is doubt,
then one can doubt about all narrations of “Sahih Al-Bukhari” reported with “‘An”. La Hawla Wa La
Quwata ila Billahi”

Dear readers, what a pity and what a lesson to take, Maulana Mamduh did not know about Sulayman
At-Taymi being a Mudalis, and with this what a revilement of Sultan Al-Muhadithin Imam Al-Bukhari!
Reflect O People of intelligence!” End of Al-Mubarakpuri’s words.

It should be known that Tadlis is when someone hides the narrator from whom he heard and quotes
from the narrator above. Like someone can hear this from Zayd who heard this from Amr, and the
person directly says: from Amr, without mentioning his Shaykh Zayd.

Narrations of Mudalis are weak except if they mention clearly that they heard, and if they say “from
(’An) so and so”, their narrations are weak.

Secondly, what a scandal to call Imam Al-Bukhari a Muta’asib, this attack is well known among
Ahnaaf, they accuse Al-Imam Bukhari of being a Ash-Shafii and only reporting Hadith to strengthen his
Madhab, and he would leave Sahih Hadeeth when it opposes his Madhab, he would weaken unjustly
Sahih Hadith for his Madhab

And this is false, Imam Al-Bukhari makes his own Tahqiq (research) and only brings narration that are
authentic according to his conditions and makes judgment on them.

Even Gangohi in his sharh of Al-Bukhari mentioned about Hadith of praying Zuhr late when it is hot,
that name given to chapter was a refutation of Ash-Shafii who does not agree with praying Zuhr late in
summer and makes Tawil of this Hadith.
And in many issues Imam al-Bukhari did contradict Imam Ash-Shafi’i. He was a Mujtahid Mutlaq,
having no Madhab. He devoted his life in search of Hadith, to preserve the Sunnah and record it. And
there is Ijma of this Ummah on his book being the most authentic after the Quran.

Muhammad ‘Awammah’s attacks on Muhadiths

In his book “Athar ul Al-Hadeeth Ash-Shareef”, Muhammad ‘Awammah p 105-106 attacked the
Muhadiths saying (as mentioned in “Asbab Ikhtilaf Fuqaha” of Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq Al-Athari):

“Imam Al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim and other Muhadiths in matters of difference would make an opinion
by Ijtihad or by Ittiba of an Imam and then they would gather in their books the proofs of their Madhab
of Fiqh. Thus there are influences of preferences of Fiqh on Hadeeth”

Anwar Shah Al-Kashmiri said the same in his “Fasl ul Khitab” p 69 and 107, and Muhammad
‘Awaamah said that the words of Al-Kashmiri are golden words (as mentioned in “Asbab Ikhtilaf
Fuqaha”)

While the Muhadiths were sincere and gathered in their books Ahadith that would be on their
conditions, and not that they would put Ahadith to promote one Mujtahid (obviously sign is that
Muhadiths were Ash-Shafi’i and were strengthening and weakening Ahadith to defend Ash-Shafi’i)
rather than another…

Did any of the Salaf accuse Al-Bukhari and Muslim of gathering Ahadith that suit their opinion, and
leave similar Hadith with same strength that would oppose their views?

Ameen Okarvi and Habibullah Daerwi’s attacks on Al-Bukhari and other Muhadiths

Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay in his book “Nasr ul Bari fi Takhrij Juzz Qiara’ah” of Imam Al-Bukhari,
mentioned in the introduction what Ameen Okarvi Ad-Deobandi Al-Hayati said about Imam al-Bukhari.

This Deobandi, who is a student of Sarfraz Safdar Khan, wrote in his Tahqiq of “Juzz Qira’ah” in
introduction p 12 that: "The Imam and teacher of Imam Al-Bukhari, Abul Hafs Al-Kabir sent a message
to Imam Al-Bukhari to teach Hadith but not to give Fatwa"

He mentioned the reason for this on the same page quoting from the “Mabsut” of As-Sarkhasi Al-
Hanafi v 30 p 298 claiming that Imam al-Bukhari said: "That if two baby drink milk from same goat,
their Nikah will be forbidden"

Imam Al-Luknawi Al-Hanafi denied this story told by As-Sarkhasi to be true, knowing the great Fiqh of
Imam Al-Bukhari in his “Fawaid Al Bahiyah” p 188.

And there is no Isnad from As-Sarkhasi to Abu Hafs Kabir despite more than a century between them.
So is this not a revilement of Emir Al Mouminin fil Hadith, gathering baseless lies against him?

Anwar Shah Al-Kashmiri in his introduction of “Fayd Al Bari”, and Zakariyah Al-Kandahlwi in his
introduction of “Lami’ Durari”, both said that Imam Al-Bukhari was a Mujtahid and denied him being a
Muqalid of Imam Ash-Shafi’i.

And another student of Sarfraz Safdar Khan, Habibullah Daerwi follows the same path. In his book
“Tawdih ul Kalam par ek Nazar”, this Deobandi scholar violently attacked many Muhadiths, as Shaykh
Zubayr Ali Zay showed in his magazine “Al-Hadith”.

About Al-Bayhaqi, he said p 136: "O dear readers, in this quote Hazrat Imam Al-Bayhaqi committed a
terrible treachery"

About Ad-Daraqutni, he said in the same book p 306: "By which Ad-Daraqutni's partisanship and bias
is clear"
About the Hafiz, the Imam Abu 'Ala Nisapuri, Daerwi dared to say p 304 of the same book: "Abu 'Ala
Hafiz is an unjust (Zalim)"

Ahmad Said Al-Multani’s attack on Al-Bukhari

http://www.sirat-e-mustaqim.net/muha...ittihamat.html

Ahmad Said Al-Multani Ad-Deobandi Al-Mamati wrote a book called "Quran Muqaddas or Bukhari
Muhadath" in which he reviled Imam Bukhari in many places.

This Mamati Deobandi is actually in jail as some of the Ahlul Hadith did a case against him in
GujranWala.

Ahmad Said Al-Multani said that the Prophet (saw) gave prophesy of Abu Hanifah and called him the
lamp of Ummah, while this Hadith is a pure fabrication.

Al-Multani said p 1 that Ad-Daraqutni weakened Al-Bukhari and declared him to be Muta'asib, and
Multani Deobandi did not give any reference showing this is a pure lie. (Same as Al-Kawthari
weakening Abu Ash-Shaykh with lies in his “Taneeb ul Khateeb” that is translated by Deobandis in
Pakistanwithout any shame)

Then Al-Multani said p 22: “Al-Bukhari relied totally on cursed narrators and mentioned the mother of
humanity, Hawa to be among people of treachery.”

And he called other narrators of Bukhari of being cursed (La'nati)

Then Al-Multani p 14 reviled Imam Az-Zuhri saying that neither Al-Bukhari had knowledge of the
Quran nor Az-Zuhri

P 34, he accused Az-Zuhri of being a Shi'a and Al-Bukhari narrated from Az-Zuhri who was Shi'a...

P 17, Al-Multani declared Hisham ibn ‘Urwah to be a “Kazzab”, without any quote from Imams of jarh
and Ta'dil.

About Bukhari, p 15 Al-Multani wrote: “Can Imam Al-Bukhari be freed from this crime?”

Then p 54, he accused Al-Bukhari of not leaving any efforts to diminish the reputation of the Sahabah.

And this book of Ahmad Said Al-Multani came at the same time as some Hadith rejecters Parwezis
wrote book against Imam Al-Bukhari under name "Islam ka Mujrim".

So these Muqalids of Ahlur Ray are in fact similar to Parwezis, Parwezis attack Al-Bukhari to reject the
Sunnah, Deobandis attack Al-Bukhari to protect their Madhab. Both do not act on the Sunnah,
Parwezis only act on Quran and Deobandis only on Hanafi Fiqh. Their aim is the same: to declare the
Sunnah to be Zanni (speculative) and the work of biased Muta’asib Muhadiths.

Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami’s attacks on Muhadiths

Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami said the same in his book written against Shaykh Albani, p 77-79, (as
quoted in “Rad ‘ala A’zami” of Al-Halabi and Al-Hilali v 2 p 24):

“I do not know what is the sin of the Hadith of Nabidh (doing wudu with Nabidh when lacking water) so
that none of the lords (Arbab) of Hadith declared it to be Hasan, so what about declaring it to be
authentic…this is another example to show that they turn to their Ray (opinion) for declaring authentic
and weakening…”End of Al-A’zami’s words.

Refutation: At-Tahawi also declared Ahadith of Wudhu with Nabidh to be weak and rejected this
opinion. Abu Yusuf also rejected the view of doing Wudhu with Nabidh, and Muhammad ibnul Hasan
Shaybani said to do Wudhu with Nabidh and also Tayamum (for security)…so he wasn’t convinced
hundred pour cent of the authenticity of these Ahadith…
So we can ask At-Tahawi, Abu Yusuf what is the crime of Hadith of Wudhu with Nabidh not to be
Hasan so one can act on it, and At-Tahawi and Abu Yusuf both follow their Ray (opinion) in declaring
Ahadith authentic and weak, and they do not base on Ilm ur Rijal (knowledge of narrators) and
knowledge of Hadith, but they built an opinion then declare Hadith authentic or weak in accordance to
their opinion and not Tahqiq (research).

This is the state of Al-A’zami, attacking the greatest of Muhadith, who spent their life to gather the
Sunnah and who authenticated or weakened Ajadith based upon their neutral research. They are not
like Al-A’zami who is well-known for his fraud in publishing “Musnad Al-Humaydi” in which he did a
shameful treachery to support his Hanafi Madhab.

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, his companions and their
followers

Muhammad ‘Awamah and liar Al-Himani

About Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Sult Al-Mughalis Al-Himani, also known as Ahmad ibn Atiyah, read
the verdicts of Alhlul Hadith, as quoted by Shaykh Mu’alimi in his “Tankeel”

Ibn Adi said: “I have not seen in the liars someone having less Haya than him, he was Matruk
(abandoned).” (See “Al-Kamil” and also “Al-Lisan”)

Ibn Hibban said: “I knew he was fabricating Hadith”

Ad-Daraqutni said: “He was fabricating (Hadith)” (“Tarikh Baghdad” v 5 p 104)

Al-Hakim: “Ibn Sult narrates from Qa’nabi, Musaddad, ibn Abi Uwais and Bishr ibn Walid Ahadith he
fabricated”

Al-Barqani declared him to be Matruk

Az-Zahabi said about him “Kazzab” (great liar), “Fabricator”

And despite this, Al-Kawthari defended him, Qurshi mentioned him in his “Jawahir Al-Madhiyah”
among Hanafi great scholars, and of course Al-Qurshi did mention any of these words that ibn Hajar
and Zahabi will quote, and neither Qurshi could find anyone declaring him to be thiqah…

Also despite this, Muhammad ‘Awammah in his book “Athar ul Al-Hadeeth Ash-Shareef” (p 86)
mentioned a narration of this fabricator Al-Himani, in which Al-Amash said to Abu Hanifah that Fuqaha
are doctors and we (Muhadith) are pharmacists” (as mentioned in “Asbab Ikhtilaf Fuqaha” of shaykh
Irshad ul Haqq Al-Athari)

So it shows that these people have no shame to take from liars to justify that their Imam was the more
knowledgeable of all.

Weak and fabricated narrations quoted by Mahdi Hasan

The Deobandi Mufti Mahdi Hasan wrote a book called “Kashf ul Ghamah ‘an Siraj ul Ummah” in which
he tried to prove that Abu Hanifah was Thiqah and not weak, and he quoted many fabrications and
weak narrations. Shaykh Rais Nadwi replied to his book in his “Majmu’ah Maqalat par Salafi Tahqiqi
Jaizah”.

Below we will first have weak narration mentioned by Mahdi Hasan, then the answer will be taken and
adapted from Shaykh Rais Nadwi’s work.
Narration of Ibrahim ibn ‘Ikrimah

From Ibrahim ibn ‘Ikrimah: “I have not seen in my time someone more fearful, pious, worshiping, and
knowledgeable than Abu Hanifah” (“Kashf Al-Ghamah” p 46)

Answer: Mahdi Hasan did not mention the Isnad, but in “Tarikh” of Al-Khateeb v 13 p 347, we see that
Isnad contains ibn Sai’d and he is Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’id known as ibn ‘Uqdah who is a liar,
see “Lisan” v 1 p 363-266.

Narration of ‘Ali ibn ‘Asim

From ‘Ali ibn ‘Asim, he said: “If the intelligence of Abu Hanifah was weighted with the intelligence of
the people of the earth, then it would be superior” (“Kashf Al-Ghamah” p 46)

Answer: Mahdi Hasan did not mention the Isnad, but in “Tarikh” of Al-Khateeb v 13 p 363, we see that
the Isnad contains Muhammad ibn Shuja’ Ath-Thalaji who is a liar.

Narration of Wakee’

From Wakee’, he said: “Abu Hanifah had a great Amanah (trust), and he would favour the satisfaction
of Allah over anything, even if he was to face swords for Allah, he would face them” (“Kashf Al-
Ghamah” p 46-47)

Answer: Mahdi Hasan did not mention the Isnad, but in “Tarikh” of Al-Khateeb v 13 p 358, we see in
the Isnad Ahmad ibn Muflis who is a liar.

Narration of Abdullah ibn Dawud al-Wasiti:

“From ibn Dawud, he said: If you desire the narrations then Sufyan, and if you desire these deep
points, then Abu Hanifah” (“Kashf Al-Ghamah” p 47)

Answer: Mahdi Hasan did not mention Isnad, but in “Tarikh” of Khateeb v 13 p 344, and there is Abu
Muhammad Tamar in the Isnad, and Al-Bukhari said “Fihi Nazar”, Abu Hatim said “He is not strong
(Qawi), his Hadith contain Manakir”, Abu Ahmad Hakim said “he is not strong (Mateen) for them”, An-
Nasai said “weak”, Ibn Hibban said “Munkar ul Hadith Jiddan (very rejected in Hadith), he narrates
Manakir from famous narrators, it is not permissible to base on his narration”, Ad-Daraqutni said
“weak”.

Narration of ibn ul Mubarak

From Abdullah ibnul Mubarak, he said: “If Allah did not help me with Abu Hanifah and Sufyan Ath-
Thawri, I would have been like ordinary people” (Kashf Al-Ghamah p 47)

Answer: Mahdi Hasan did not mention Isnad, but in “Tarikh” of Al-Khateeb v 13 p 336-337, we see that
the Isnad contains Hamid ibn Adam who is a liar, see “Lisan ul Mizan” v 2 p 163)

Narration of Muhammad ibn Bishr

Mahdi Hasan quoted a narration of Muhammad ibn Bishr in which he said that when he would leave
Abu Hanifah and go to Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Ath-Thawri would say: “You are coming from the most
Faqih of this earth” (Kashf Al-Ghamah p 47)

Answer: Mahdi Hasan did not mention Isnad, but in “Tarikh” of Khateeb v 13 p 344, in the Isnad, there
is Jandal ibn Waliq Al-Kufi, and Muslim declared him to be “Matruk” (abandoned), Al-Bazar said: “He is
not strong”.

Also it is authentically narrated from Ath-Thawri that he criticized harshly Abu Hanifah, but these
people do not accept the authentic narrations, rather prefer these weak and fabricated stories.
Narration of Yazid ibn Harun

From Yazid ibn Harun, he said: I have reached people, but I have not seen anyone more intelligent
and pious than Abu Hanifah” (“Kashf Al-Ghamah” p 47)

Answer: Mahdi Hasan did not mention the Isnad, but in “Tarikh” of Al-Khateeb v 13 p 364, we see that
the Isnad contains Nuwayd Hariri, and none declared him to be Thiqah.

Narration of Sulayman

From Muhammad ibn Hafs from Al-Hasan from Sulayman, he said: “The end of time will not come until
knowledge becomes predominant, he said: the knowledge of Abu Hanifah” (“Kashf Al-Ghamah” p 48)

Answer: Mahdi Hasan did not mention the Isnad, but in “Tarikh” of Al-Khateeb v 13 p 336, this
narration comes with narrator Hasan ibn Sulayman and Mahdi Hasan altered this and made it “Al-
Hasan from Sulayman”, and Hasan ibn Sulayman is Munkar ul Hadith, see “Lisan ul Mizan” v 4 152
and there are other narrators whose mention has not been found by Shaykh Rais, so they are
unknown people.

Narration of Shaddad ibn Hakeem

From Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Balkhi, he said: I heard Shadad ibn Hakeem saying: “I have not seen
more knowledgeable than Abu Hanifah” (“Kashf Al-Ghamah” p 48)

Answer: Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Balkhi was drinking wine, see “Lisan” v 1 p 260.

Baseless narrations from Al-Awza’i and ibn ‘Uyaynah

Mahdi Hasan mentioned a story in which Al-Awza’i said to Abu Hanifah that “We are perfume seller
and you are doctors”, and also Ibn Uyanah saying that he did not see anyone praying more than Abu
Hanifah, and these sayings are quoted in “Mirqat” of Mulla Ali Qari without any isnad, while in many
authentic narrations Al-Awza’i and ibn ‘Uyaynah criticized Abu Hanifah.

Weak and fabricated narrations in “Hadith or Ahlul Hadith”

A Ghali Deobandi Muqalid, Anwar Khursheed wrote a book entitled “Hadith or Ahlul Hadith” in which
he brought many narrations to show the status of Abu Hanifah, and many of these narrations contains
liars and unknown narrators.

First there will be the narration quoted in “Hadith or Ahlul Hadith”, then the answer will be taken from
“Hadith or Ahlut Taqlid” of Shaykh Dawud Arshad who refuted this book.

Narration from Malik

“Hadith or Ahlul Hadith” p 28 quoting from “Akhbar Abu Hanifah wa Ashabihi” p 74:

“Abdullah ibnul Mubarak said that he was present in a sitting of Imam Malik, and a old man came, and
when he left Imam Malik said: “Do you know who he is?” and the people present replied they did not
know him and he said: “He is Abu Hanifah, he lives in ‘Iraq, if he tells you that these pillars are in gold,
they will be as such, he has received such a Tawfeeq in Fiqh that he finds no difficulty in this subject”

Answer: the narrator from ibnul Mubarak is Jubarah ibn Mughlis al-Himani, and Imam Yahya declared
him to be a liar (“Tahzib ul Kamal” v 1 p 436). And the next narrator is Ahmad Al-Himani and he is also
a liar as it has preceded.

Narration from Ash-Shafi’i

“Hadith or Ahlul Hadith” p 39 quoting from “Tarikh Baghdad” v 13 p 346:

“Ash-Shafi’i said: “Attach yourself to Abu Hanifah and his students, because people are dependant in
Fiqh to Abu Hanifah”

Answer: the narration contains the liar Ahmad Al-Hamani.

Also quoting from “Manaqib Abu Hanifah” of Al-Kurdari p 99 that Ash-Shafi’i said that he did not see
anyone more Faqih than Abu Hanifah.

Answer: This narration also comes from “Tarikh Baghdad” of Al-Khateeb v 13 p 346, and one of its
narrators, Zakariya ibn Abdur Rahman is Majhul.

Narration from ibn ‘Uyaynah

“Hadith or Ahlul Hadith” p 30 quoting from “Akhbar Abi Hanifah” of As-Sumayri p 76:

“The scholars were these: ibn ‘Abbas in his time, Imam Sha’bi in his time, Abu Hanifah in his time and
Sufyan Ath-Thawri in his time”

Answer: This narration contains Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Halwani who is Majhul

Narration from Yahya ibn Sa’id Al-Qattan

“Hadith or Ahlul Hadith” p 31 quoting from “Muqadimah Kitab ut Ta’lim” of Mas’ud ibn Shaybah:

“Yahya ibn Sa’id Al-Qattan said: “By Allah, Abu Hanifah is the most knowledgeable of what is said by
Allah and His Messenger”

Answer: There is no Isnad from Mas’ud ibn Shaybah to Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan, and Mas’ud ibn
Shaybah is Majhul as said by ibn Hajar in his “Lisan” v 2 p 26.

Narration from Abdullah ibn Dawud Al-Khuraybi

“Hadith or Ahlul Hadith” quoting from “Akhbar Abi Hanifah” of As-Sumayri p 79:

“Only two people attribute blame to Abu Hanifah: an ignorant who does not know the level of his
speech or a jealous who does not know his knowledge”

Answer: This narration contains Muhammad ibn Shuja’ Al-Baghdadi Al-Hanafi, and he was a Jahmi
who was saying that the speech of Allah is created, Imam Ahmad declared him to be an innovator, ibn
‘Adi said that he would fabricate narrations to attack Muhadiths. As-Saji said that he would fabricate
Ahadith to support his Madhab and reject Ahadith. See “Tahzib ul Kamal” v 6 p 344” and “Mizan ul
I’tidal” v 3 p 578

Conclusion:

The aim of these Muqalids is to propagate lies that their Imam Abu Hanifah was the most
knowledgeable of the Imams, that is why one should not act on Hadith even if other Imams did such.
So this is the deception of these Ghali Muqalids.

And majority of Ahlul Hadith criticized or weakened Abu Hanifah like Al-Awza’i, Ath-Thawri, Malik,
Ahmad ibn Hambal, Ali ibnul Madini, ibn ‘Uyaynah, al-Bukhari, Muslim and others but the Muqalid tried
to reject these sayings and said that these Muhadiths were biased.

And instead of following narrations of thiqah narrators about Abu Hanifah, they follow narrations of
liars and unknown people, propagate them among laymen so that none asks for daleel and blindly
follows their Imam, Allahul Musta’an…
Story of “BAYAZID AND THE SHAYKH”

Mathnawi, book 2, p 336-337, published by Darul Ishaat Karachi

“Bayazid, on his journey (to the Ka`ba), sought much to find some one that was the Khizr of his time.
He espied an old man with a stature (bent) like the new moon; he saw in him the majesty and (lofty)
speech of (holy) men;
His eyes sightless, and his heart (illumined) as the sun: like an elephant dreaming of Hindustan.
With closed eyes, asleep, he beholds a hundred delights; when he opens (his eyes), he sees not
those (delights)—oh, ('tis) wonderful!
Many a wonder is made manifest in sleep: in sleep the heart becomes a window.
One that is awake and dreams fair dreams, he is the knower (of God): smear your eyes with' his dust.
He (Biyazid) sat down before him and asked about his condition; he found him to be a dervish and
also a family man.
He (the old man) said, "Whither art thou bound, O Bayazid? To what place wouldst thou take the
baggage of travel in a strange land?
Bayazid answered, "I start for the Ka`ba at daybreak." Eh" cried the other, "what hast thou as
provisions for the road?
"I have two hundred silver dirhems," said he" look, (they are) tied fast in the corner of my cloak."
He said, "Make a circuit round me seven times, and reckon this (to be) better than the
circumambulation (of the Ka'ba) in the pilgrimage;
And lay those dirhems before me, O generous one. Know that thou hast made the greater pilgrimage
and that thy desire has been achieved;
(That) thou hast (also) performed the lesser pilgrimage and gained the life everlasting; (that) thou hast
become pure (saf and sped up (the Hill of) Purity (Safa).
By the truth of the Truth (God) whom thy soul hath seen, (I swear) that He hath chosen me above His
House.
Albeit the Ka`ba is the House of His religious service, my form too, in which I was created, is the
House of His inmost consciousness.
Never since God made the Ka'ba hath He gone into it, and none but the Living (God) hath ever gone
into this House (of mine).
When thou hast seen me, thou hast seen God: thou hast circled round the Ka'ba of Sincerity.
To serve me is to obey and glorify God: beware thou think not that God is separate from me.
Open thine eyes well and look on me, that thou mayst behold the Light of God in man."
Bayazid gave heed to those mystic sayings, and put them in his ear as a golden ring.
Through him (the old man), Bayazid came into an increase (of spiritual endowment): the adept at last
attained unto the end.”

Comment:

So for Rumi, doing Tawaf of the Sufi Shaykh is better than doing Tawaf of the Ka’bah, and the reason
told is that Allah is not present in the Ka’bah but in the Sufi Shaykh. Also in this story, it is told to obey
blindly the Sufi Shaykh as Allah is not separated from him.

While Prophets can make mistakes in judgments between people and Ijtihad and in matters of this
world, Sahabah can err and fight each other based on Ijtihad, but the Sufi Shaykh is free from
mistakes for these people, obeying him is obeying Allah…and many Sahabah refused to follow Ali ibn
Abi Talib in his fight against Mu’awiyah like Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas and ibn ‘Umar and they did not say
that following Ali was following Allah…Allahul Musta’an

Story “BAYAZID POSSESSED BY GOD”

Book 4 p 388 and after:

Story of Bayazid's—may God sanctify his spirit—saying, "Glory to me! How grand is my estate! " and
the objection raised by his disciples, and how he gave them an answer to this, not by the way of
speech but by the way of vision (immediate experience).

“That venerable dervish, Biyazid, came to his disciples, saying, Lo, I am God."
That master of the (mystic) sciences said plainly in drunken fashion, "Hark, there is no god but I, so
worship me."
When that ecstasy had passed, they said to him at dawn, "Thou saidest such and such, and this is
impiety."
He said, "This time, if I make a scandal, come on at once and dash knives into me.
God transcends the body, and I am with the body: ye must kill me when I say a thing like this."
When that (spiritual) freeman gave the injunction, each disciple made ready a knife.
Again he (Bayazid) became intoxicated by that potent flagon: those injunctions vanished from his
mind.
The Dessert came: his reason became distraught. The Dawn came: his candle became helpless.
Reason is like the prefect: when the sultan arrives, the help- less prefect creeps into a corner.
Reason is the shadow of God: God is the sun: what power hath the shadow to resist His sun?
When a genie prevails over (gains possession of) a man, the attributes of humanity disappear from the
man.
Whatsoever he says, that genie will (really) have said it: the one who belongs to this side will have
spoken from (the control of) the one who belongs to yonder side.
Since a genie hath this influence and rule, how (much more powerful) indeed must be the Creator of
that genie!
His (the possessed man's) "he" (personality) is gone: he has in sooth become the genie: the Turk,
without (receiving) Divine inspiration, has become a speaker of Arabic'.
When he comes to himself, he does not know a word (of Arabic). Inasmuch as a genie hath this
essence and quality,
Then how, pray, should the Lord of genie and man have inferiority to the genie?
If a pot-valiant fellow has drunk the blood of a fierce lion, you will say that the wine did it, not he;
And if he fashion words of old (pure) gold, you will say that the wine has spoken those words.
A wine hath this (power to excite) disturbance and com- motion: hath not the Light of God that virtue
and potency
To make you entirely empty of self, (so that) you should be laid low and He should make the Word
lofty (within you)?
Though the Qur'an is (dictated) from the lips of the Prophet —if any one says God did not speak it, he
is an infidel.
When the hums of selflessness took wing (and soared), Bayazid began (to repeat) those words.
The flood of bewilderment swept away his reason : he spoke more strongly than he had spoken at
first,
(Saying), "Within my mantle there is naught but God: how long wilt thou seek on the earth and in
heaven?"
All the disciples became frenzied and dashed their knives at his holy body.
Like the heretics of Girdakuh, every one was ruthlessly' stabbing his spiritual Director.
Every one who plunged a dagger into the Shaykh was reversely making a gash in his own body.
There was no mark (of a wound) on the body of that possessor of the (mystic) sciences, while those
disciples were wounded and drowned in blood.
Whoever aimed a blow at his throat saw his own throat cut, and died miserably;
And whoever inflicted a blow on his breast, his (own) breast was riven, and he became dead for ever;
And he that was acquainted with that (spiritual) emperor of high fortune, (and) his heart (courage) did
not consent to strike a heavy blow,
Half-knowledge tied his hand, (so that) he saved his life and only wounded himself.
Day broke, and the disciples were thinned: wails of lamentation arose from their house.
Thousands of men and women came to him (Bayazid), saying,
O thou in whose single shirt the two worlds are contained,
If this body of thine were a human body, it would have been destroyed, like a human body, by the
daggers."
A self-existent one encountered a selfless one in combat: the self-existent one drove a thorn into his
own eye (hurt himself).
O you who stab the selfless ones with the sword, you are stabbing your own body with it. Beware!
For the selfless one has passed away (in God) and is safe: he is dwelling in safety for ever.
His form has passed away and he has become a mirror:
naught is there but the form (image) of the face of another.
If you spit (at it), you spit at your own face; and if you strike at the mirror, you strike at yourself;
And if you see an ugly face (in that mirror), 'tis you, and if you see Jesus and Mary, 'tis you.
He is neither this nor that: he is simple (pure and free from attributes of self): he has placed your
image before you.
When the discourse reached this point, it closed its lips; when the pen reached this point, it broke to
pieces.
Close thy lips (0 my soul): though eloquence is at thy command, do not breathe a word—and God best
knoweth the right way.
O you who are drunken with the wine (of love), you are on the edge of the roof: sit down or (else)
descend, and peace be with you!
Every moment when you enjoy (union with the Beloved), deem that delightful moment to be the edge
of the roof.
Be trembling for (fear of losing) the delightful moment: conceal it like a treasure, do not divulge it.
Lest calamity suddenly befall (your) plighted love, take heed, go very fearfully into that place of
ambush.
The spirit's fear of loss at the moment of enjoyment is (the sign of its) departure (descent) from the
hidden roof-edge.
If you do not see the mysterious roof-edge, (yet) the spirit is seeing, for it is shuddering (with fear).”

Comment:

So for Rumi, Allah is speaking through the saint like the Jinn speaks through the human being. And
this is a clear call to Wahdatul Wujud.

Also why would Allah say on the tongue of the saint: “Within my mantle there is naught but God: how
long wilt thou seek on the earth and in heaven?"?

And this is a pure lie upon Allah, He is free from such falsehood.

For these Sufis, the saints disappear for some time and Allah is manifested into them, whatever they
say in such states is the speech of Allah.

What is this creed of saint being mirror, if one sees Isa (aley salam), it is him?

And Deobandis of Darul Ishaat propagate this pure Kufr under the name of Islam in the whole
world…La Hawla wala Quwwata ila Billah

Story praising Pharaoh

Book 1 p 133-134
Moses and Pharaoh were servants (worshippers) of Reality, (though) outwardly the former keeps the
way (is rightly guided), while the latter has lost the way.
In the daytime Moses was making lament (supplication) to God: at midnight Pharaoh would begin to
weep.
Saying, "0 God, what shackle is this on my neck? Were it not for the shackle, who would say 'I am I'?
By, that (will) whereby Thou hast made Moses to be illumined, by that (same will) Thou hast made me
to be darkened;
By that whereby Thou hast made Moses' face like the moon Thou hast made the moon of my soul to
be black-faced (eclipsed).
My star was not better than a moon (so that-it should be exempt from eclipse): since it has suffered
eclipse, what help have I?
If they beat drums in my honour (proclaiming me) as Lord and Sultan, ('tis like as when) the moon is
eclipsed and the people beat bowls (of metal).
They beat those bowls and raise a clamour: they put the moon to shame by their blows.
I, who am Pharaoh, oh, woe is me because of (what is being done by) the people: my (title of) '.My
supreme Lord' is (like) the blows on the bowl (since it proclaims my eclipse).
We (Moses and I) are fellow-servants (to Thee), but Thy axe is cleaving the sappy boughs in Thy
forest;
Then it makes one bough to be grafted, another bough to be left uncared for.
The bough has no power against the axe: no bough escaped from the power of the axe.
(I entreat Thee) by the truth of the might which belongs to Thy axe, do Thou graciously make these
crooked (perverse) actions (of ours) straight (righteous)."
Once more Pharaoh said to himself, "Oh, wonderful! Am not I (occupied) the whole night in (crying) '0
our Lord '?
In secret I am growing humble and harmonious: when I reach Moses, how am I becoming (so
different)?
The colour (gilt) of base gold is (laid on) in ten coats: how is it becoming black-faced in the presence of
the fire?
Is it not (true) that my heart (spirit) and body are under His control, (so that) at one moment He makes
me a kernel, at another moment a rind?
When He bids me be a cornfield, I become green; when He bids me be ugly, I become yellow.
At one moment He makes me a moon, at another black." How, indeed, is the action of God other than
this?
Before the (blows of the) bat of His decree, " Be, and it was," we are running, (like balls) in Space and
beyond'.
Since colourlessness (pure Unity) became the captive of colour (manifestation in the phenomenal
world), a Moses came into conflict with a Moses.
When you attain unto the colourlessness which you (originally) possessed, Moses and Pharaoh are at
peace (with each other). If it occurs to you to ask questions about this mystery, (I reply), how should
(the world of) colour be devoid of contradiction?
Inasmuch as oil has been formed (by God) from water, why have oil and water become opposites?
Since the rose springs from the thorn, and the thorn from the rose, why are both of them at war and
(engaged) in recrimination?
Or is this not (really) war? Is it for (the Divine) purpose,
(and is it) an artifice, like the bickering of those who sell asses? Or is it neither this nor that? Is it
bewilderment? The treasure must be sought and this (bewilderment) is the ruin (where it is hidden).
That which you imagine to be the treasure—through that vain imagination you are losing the treasure.
Know that fancies and opinions are like the state of cultivation: treasure is not (to be found) in
cultivated spots.
In the state of cultivation there is existence and strife (contrariety): the non-existent is ashamed of (all)
existent things.
It is not the case that the existent implored help against (sought to escape from) non-existence; nay,
('twas) the nonexistent (that) repelled the existent. Do not say, "I am fleeing from the non-existent";
nay, it is fleeing from you. Stop! (Do not fancy yourself to be fleeing.)
Outwardly it is calling you itself, but inwardly it is driving you away with the cudgel of rejection.
0 man of sound heart (mind), 'tis (a case of) reversed shoes': know that the rebelliousness of Pharaoh
was (really) from (caused by) Moses.

Comment: One can see that Rumi has no shame to praise the enemy of Allah Pharaoh, that in the
night Pharaoh would invoke Allah, in colourlessness Musa (aley salam) and Pharaoh are at peace, but
this only happened because Allah decided so. This is the creed of Jabariyah. Also this is the creed of
Batiniyah that in reality everyone is right, but we cannot understand this secret, that is why Rumi is
asking whether this is all an artifice.
Story telling that the Shaykh is above Kufr and has no bound
Book 2 p 393-394:
A certain man brought charges against a Shaykh, saying, " He is wicked and not on the path of
righteousness;
He is a wine-drinker and a hypocrite and a scoundrel: how should he be one to succour his disciples?"
One (of the disciples) said to him, "Observe respect: 'tis no light matter to think so ill of the great.
Far is it from him and far from those (saintly) qualities of his that his clear (spirit) should be darkened
by a flood (of sin).
Do not put such slander on the people of God! This is (mere) fancy on your part. Turn over (a new)
leaf.
This (which you say) is not (true); and (even) if it should be, 0 land-fowl, what harm (comes) to the Red
Sea from a carcase?
He (the Shaykh) is not less than the (statutory) two jugfuls or the small tank, so that a single drop (of
impurity) should be able to disqualify him (for religious purposes).
The fire is no damage to Abraham, (but) let any one who is a Nimrod beware of it!"
The fleshly soul is Nimrod, and the intellect and spirit are the Friend of God (Abraham): the spirit is
concerned with reality itself, and the fleshly soul with the proofs.
These indications of the way are for the traveller who at every moment becomes lost in the desert.
For them that have attained (to union with God) there is nothing (necessary) except the eye (of the
spirit) and the lamp (of intuitive faith): they have no concern with indications (to guide them) or with a
road (to travel by).
If the man that is united (with God) has mentioned some indication, he has mentioned (it) in order that
the dialecticians may understand (his meaning).
For a new-born child the father makes babbling sounds, though his intellect may make a survey of the
(whole) world.
The dignity of the master's learning is not diminished if he say that (the letter) alif has nothing (has no
diacritical mark).
For the sake of teaching that tongue-tied (child), one must go outside of one's own language
(customary manner of speech).
You must come into (adopt) his language, in order that he may learn knowledge and science from you.
All the people, then, are as his (the spiritual Teacher's) children: this (fact) is necessary for the Pir (to
bear in mind), when he gives (them) instruction.
Infidelity hash a fixed limit and range—know (this for sure); (but) the Shaykh and the light of the
Shaykh have no bound.
Before the infinite all that is finite is naught: everything except the Face of God is passing away.
Infidelity and faith do not exist in the place where he (the Shaykh) is, because he is the kernel, while
these twain are (only) colour and husk.
These fleeting things have become a veil over that Face, like a lantern concealed beneath a bowl.
So then, this bodily head is a screen to that (spiritual) head (source of mystic consciousness): before
that head this bodily head is an infidel.
Who is the infidel? One forgetful of the faith of the Shaykh. What is the dead? One ignorant of the
(spiritual) life of the Shavkh.
(Spiritual) life is naught but knowledge in (the time of) trial : the more knowledge one has, the more
(spiritual) life one has.
Our spirit is more than the spirit of animals. Wherefore? In respect that it has more knowledge.
Hence the spirit of the angels is more than our spirit, for it is exempt from (transcends) the common
sense;
And the spirit of mystical adepts is more than (that of) the angels. Cease from bewilderment (on this
subject)!
For that reason Adam is their object of worship: his spirit (spiritual life) is greater than their being.
Else, (why were they commanded to worship him?): it would not be at all a suitable thing to command
the superior to worship an inferior.
How can the justice and kindness of the Maker approve that a rose should fall down in worship before
a thorn?
Since the spirit (of the perfect saint) has become superior and has passed beyond the utmost limit
(reached by men and angels), the soul of all things has become obedient to it
Birds and fishes and Jinn and men—because it exceeds (them), and they are deficient (in comparison
with it).
The fish make needles for his (the saint's)) mantle: (they follow him as) threads follow needles.
Comment: Here Rumi is telling us that the Sufi Shaykh is above Kufr, and is in a state where Kufr does
not exist. Kufr and Haram are only colours for Rumi and the reality is different, and the Shaykh has
attained reality and the state of infinite, and the Shaykh has no bound, so he is above Eman and Kufr.
La Hawla wala Quwatta ila Billah.

Dirty pornographic stories from "Al-Mathnawi" translated by Ashraf Ali Thanvi

Ashraf Ali Thanvi translated this story and explained it after in his explanation of “Mathnawi” entitled
“Kaleed e Mathnawi” v 17-18 p 214 Daftar 5, this story reads:

“A slave woman lied a donkey on her

Because of the increase and intensity of desire
She made this male donkey used to intercourse
The donkey learned the intercourse of human beings
This woman who knew tricked used a stick
And she attached to the penis of the donkey in a certain manner
She linked this stick to the penis of the donkey
In a way that only half of the penis would penetrate
If the penis was to enter fully
This would break the vagina and intestines
The donkey was becoming thin and weak
And his mistress was worried why he was becoming weak
She showed this donkey to veterinary doctors
So to know why he was becoming weak
They could not find any disease
None could be aware of this secret
She started to inquire
And started to get ready for this…
When she started to spy the donkey
She saw that the slave woman was under and the donkey on her
She was looking this from hole in the door
So this old mistress liked this action
The donkey was doing intercourse with the slave woman
In the same way as men would do with women
She (mistress) felt jealous, she said when such is possible
Then I deserve this more because I am the owner of the donkey”
Click here to read this scan in Urdu

Ashraf Ali Thanvi also translated in his “Kaleed e Mathnawi” (v 19-20 p 628 Dafter 5) a shameful story
a slave woman who did Zina with a soldier in a tent, and a lion came in the camp, the soldier killed the
lion and he still had erection, and then came back to finish his zina. Then this slave woman went to a
king, the penis of the king started erection, suddenly a mouse entered the room and the erection of the
king stopped out of fear, seeing this the slave woman started to laugh, which angered the king so he
threatened the slave woman to tell the reason of her laugh, and she told the story of the soldier who
killed the lion and his penis was still in erection during the battle:

“The Khaleefah went to the slave woman for intercourse

He remembered her and his penis went into erection…
When he was between the legs of the woman
So destiny came and he heard noise of a mouse
His penis went to sleep, his desire went away…
The woman seeing this started to laugh
She remember the brave soldier who killed the lion
And his penis was still standing”

Can the Deobandis read such stories to their parents and children?

What a shame!!! And they claim this pornographic book is Ilhami!!!

Click here to read this scan in Urdu

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household and his companions and those
who follow them.

Most informations of this articles are taken from the book "Lamhat" of Shaykh Muhammad Rais Nadwi
in refutation of "Anwarul Bari" of Al-Bajnori.

Imam Ahmad naming Abu Hanifah as Abu Fulanah in his “Musnad”

It is written in “Musnad Ahmad” n 23077: “

‘Abdullah narrated to us: My father narrated to me: Ishaq ibn Yusuf narrated to us: Abu Fulanah
narrated to us, this is how my father narrated, he did not name him on purpose, and others narrated to
me and said: Abu Hanifah: from ‘Alqamah ibn Marthad from Sulayman ibn Buraydah from his father…”

Meaning that when Imam Ahmad narrated this narration containing Imam Abu Hanifah, he named him:
ABU FULANAH, and this was done on purpose, not a slip of the tongue, while other narrated to him
this Hadith while mentioning Abu Hanifah...

So it shows that Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal was seeing Imam Abu Hanifah as a weak narrator, and had
some criticism of him.

Hafiz Al-Haythami wrote in his “Majma uz-Zawaid” v 1 p 166 about this narration of Imam Ahmad: “It
(Isnad) contains a weak narrator, and because of his weakness, he was not named”

Al-Khawarzami mentioned this narration in his “Jami ul Masanid” v 1 p 121 via Imam Ahmad, but he
named the narrator as Abu Hanifah. Also Qadhi Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibnul Hasan mentioned
this narration from Abu Hanifah but not via Sulyaman ibn Buraydah from his father, but via Ishaq and
Mus’ab ibn Maqdam. Also Shu’ayb Al-Arnaut said that Abu Hanifah in narration of Imam Ahmad was
the famous Imam Abu Hanifah Nu’man ibn Thabit.

And Imam Al-Bukhari is a student of Imam Ahmad, and when he said about Imam Abu Hanifah:
"Sakatu 'Anhu", it includes his teachers...else he would say that some declared him to be Thiqah like
my teacher Ahmad. Also some teachers like Al-Humaydi were students of Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, ibnul
Mubarak…So Imam Al-Bukhari knew the verdicts of these Imams on Abu Hanifah.

Ibnul Mubarak’s criticism on Abu Hanifah

Qadhi ‘Iyad wrote in his “Tartibul Madarik” v 1 p 300 about Ibnul Mubarak: “He was in first place a
companion of Abu Hanifah, then he left him and returned from his Madhab. Ibn Wadah said: He
abandoned Abu Hanifah (his narrations) in his books and would not read (his Ahadith) to the people”

Ibn Hibban wrote in his “Thiqat” as mentioned in “Tankil” v1 p 386:

Umar ibn Muhammad Al-Bahiri: I heard Muhammad ibn Sahl ibn Askar: I heard Ibrahim ibn Shamas: I
saw Ibnul Mubarak at last reading a book to people and whenever the name of Abu Hanifah was
mentioned, he would say: “Idribu aley” and it was the last book he taught before his death”

Ibrahim ibn Shamas is Thiqah Saduq (“Tahzib” p 127)

Muhammad ibn Sahl ibn Askar is Thiqah (“Tahzib” v 9 p 207)

Umar ibn Muhammad Al-Bahiri is Thiqah (“Tazkiratul Hufaz” v 2 p 286)

Moreover, there are similar narrations in “Tarikh Baghdad” v 13 p 413-414

So Al-Khateeb is not alone in reporting these narrations and there are many such narrations.

Imam Al-Bukhari narrated in his “Tarikh Kabeer” (Tarjumah Sufyan Ath-Thawri v 4 p 92 and “Sagheer”
p 187:

“’Abdan said to us from Ibnul Mubarak: When you desired, you would see Sufyan praying. When you
desired, you would see him narrating. When you desired, you would see him in fiqh subtleties. As for
the Majlis I witnessed, there would be no Salah send on the Prophet (saw), meaning the Majlis of
Nu’man (Abu Hanifah)”

Abdan is a narrator of two Sahihayn, there are 110 of his narrations in “Sahih Al-Bukhari”.

Al-Khateeb in his “Tarikh Baghdad” (v 13 p 414) brought a similar narration from Ali ibn Ahmad ibn
Shaqeeq, another student of ibnul Mubarak, from ibnul Mubarak:
“I have never heard Salah on the Prophet (saw) in the Majlis of Abu Hanifah”

And Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Shaqeeq is a narrator of Al-Bukhari and others and a close student of ibnul
Mubarak.

Al-Khateeb brought a similar narration via Abu Dawud in v 5 p 311.

So Al-Bukhari and others narrated the same as what Al-Khateeb narrated from students of ibnul
Mubarak about their teacher Ibnul Mubarak.

Would all these narrators of Sahih Al-Bukhari and students of ibnul Mubarak gather and lie upon their
Shaykh Ibnul Mubarak?

Sufyan Ath-Thawri’s criticism of Abu Hanifah

Imam Al-Bukhari narrated in his “Tarikh Sagheer” p 174 from Nuyam ibn Hammad:

“Ibrahim ibn Muhammad Al-Fazari narrated to us: We were with Sufyan Ath-Thawri when we received
the news of the death of Abu Hanifah, and he said: “Al-Hamdulillah, The One who relieved the
Muslims from him, he was destroying the chains of Islam, one by one. None was born in Islam more
ill-omened than him”

Al-Fazari is narrators of the two Sahih. Nuaym ibn Hammad is narrator of Al-Bukhari

This narration of Sufyan Ath-Thawri was narrated by many other people

Al-Khateeb narrated in his “Tarikh” (v 13 p 423) from Abu ‘Asim Ad-Dahak ibn Makhlad An-Nabeel:

“I heard Sufyan Ath-Thawri saying in Makkah when Abu Hanifah was mentioned to him: “Al-
Hamdulilah, The One who saved us from what He tested a lot of people”, and with other words: “The
death of Abu Hanifah was mentioned to Sufyan Thawri and he did not invoke mercy on him or
anything else but said: “Al-Hamdulilah, The One who saved us from what He tested a lot of people”

Abu ‘Asim Ad-Dahak ibn Makhlad An-Nabeel is Thiqah and narrator of Sahihayn

Two narrators reported this from Abu ‘Asim: Imam Musadad and Abu Qilabah Ar-Riqashi, and they are
both Thiqah

Imam Abul Abbas Asam narrated this directly from Ar-Riqashi and via Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Waraq
from Musadad. And Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Waraq is Thiqah

Abul Abas Asam is a famous Thiqah Muhadith.

Two narrators narrated this from Asam: Abu Said Muhammad ibn Musa As-Sayrafi and Qadhi Abu
Bakr Ahmad ibnul Hasan and they are both Thiqah Muhadith (“Ibr” of Zahabi v 3 p 141, 143-144)

And Al-Khateeb narrated from these two

Al-Khateeb narrated in his “Tarikh” (v 13 p 507) from Muhammad ibn Yusuf ibn Waqid Faryabi:

“I heard Sufyan forbidding sitting in the Majlis of Abu Hanifah and the people of Ray”

Muhammad ibn Yusuf ibn Waqid is a student of Sufyan Thawri, and he is Thiqah and narrator of
Sahihayn

The narrator below Ahmad ibnul Hasan ibn Jundub Abul Hasan At-Tirmidhi is Thiqah Saduq (“Tahzib”,
“Tazkiratul Hufaz”)

The narrator below Muhammad ibn Abdillah Ibn Sulayman Al-Hadrami is Saduq (“Tahzib”, “Tazkiratul
Hufaz”)
The narrator below Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Nusayr Abu Muhammad is Thiqah Saduq

The narrator below is Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rizq Abul Hasan Al-Bazar, the teacher of Khateeb,
and he is Thiqah.

Abu Zur’ah Ad-Dimashqi wrote in his “Tarikh Dimashq” v 1 p 507:

“Muhammad ibn Abi Umar said: Sufyan said: None was born in Islam more dangerous than Abu
Hanifah”

Muhammad ibn Abi Umar is Thiqah (“Tahzib” and others)

So can anyone say that Al-Fazari, Nuaym ibn Hammad, Muhammad ibn Abi Umar and all other
narrators conspired and propagated lies on Abu Hanifah? Rather this is the truth and they narrated
with honesty the sayings of Imam Al-Thawri.

So many narrators of the two Sahih!!! So many thiqat students of Sufyan Ath-Thawri!!! And reported by
Al-Bukhari, Abu Zur’ah, Al-Khateeb via different chains!!!

Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah’s criticism of Abu Hanifah

Hafiz Ibn Abdil Barr wrote in his “Inqita” about Abu Hanifah:

“Among those who did Ta’n on him and Jarh of him is Abu Abdillah Muhammad ibn Ismail Al-Bukhari,
he said in his book “Dua’fa wal Matrukin”: Abu Hanifah Nu’man ibn Thabit Al-Kufi, Nuyam ibn Hammad
narrated to us: Yahya ibn Said and Mu’az ibn Mu’az narrated to us: they heard Sufyan Ath-Thawri
saying that it has been said that Abu Hanifah was requested to repent twice from Kufr. Nuaym
narrated from Al-Fazari: I was with Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah when the death of Abu Hanifah came and he
said: May Allah curse him, he was destroying Islam chain by chain, none was born in Islam more evil
than him”

The saying of Ibn ‘Uyaynah that Ibn Abdil Barr quoted from “Dua’afa” of Al-Bukhari is present in many
other books (“Tarikh Dimashq” of Abu Zur’ah v 1 p 507, “Tarikh Fasawi” v 2 p 783)

Al-Khateeb after mentioning the narration of Ath-Thawri at the death of Abu Hanifah, said that Al-
Humaydi narrated similarly from Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah.

Al-Khateeb and Ibn Abdil Barr mentioned other narrations of Ibn Uyaynah criticising Abu Hanifah.

So Humaydi, Al-Fazari both narrated these statements of Ibn Uyaynah

Imam Ali ibnul Madini’s criticism of Abu Hanifah

Ibn Abdil Barr narrated in his “Intiqa” p 149, Al-Khateeb in his “Tarikh” v 13 p 389, Abdullah ibn Ahmad
in his “As-Sunnah” v 1 p 216 that Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah narrated the Hadith of Khyar Majlis to Abu
Hanifah and he objected by saying: what if the two people are on a boat, how will they separate.
Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah said: “Have you ever heard worse than this”

The Hadith of Khyar Majlis tells that the contract between the seller and buyer will be definitive when
they separate.

Imam Al-Bayhaqi mentioned this story in his “Sunnan Al-Kubra” v 5 p 272, then added the words of Ali
ibnul Madini on Abu Hanifah concerning the topic of Khyar Majlis:

“Verily, Allah will ask him about what he said”

Imam Malik’s criticism of Abu Hanifah

There are many authentic narrations of Imam Malik criticising Abu Hanifah in “Kitab us Sunnah” of
Abdullah ibn Ahmad, but as bigots Ahnaf deny the authenticity of the book, then we will show them
that Muhammad ibn Maslamah, companion of Malik said the same.

Imam Al-Bukhari in his “Tarikh Kabeer” v 1 p 240, narrated from AburRahman ibn Shaybah who is
Thiqah and narrator of Al-Bukhari from Muhammad ibn Maslamah, the companion of Malik declaring
Abu Hanifah to be a Dajjal among Dajjals.

So how can people deny that Imam Malik and his companions were critical of Abu Hanifah?

Al-Humaydi and Al-Marwazi on Abu Hanifah

Imam Bukhari said : I asked Abdullah ibn Zubayr Al-Humaydi about Abu Hanifah and he said : A man
who has not with him Sunan of the Prophet (saw) nor from his companions in rites and others, how
can he be trusted in Ahkam of Allah in inheritance, Zakah, Salah and things of Islam(“Tarikh Sagheer”
p 156)

Imam Muhammad ibn Nasr Al-Marwazi in his “Qyam layl” said that Abu Hanifah does not allow Witr
except 3 and this is because of his little knowledge of Hadith and little sitting with scholars.

Al-Awzai, Ash-Shafi’i and others Imams considered Abu Hanifah to be misguided

Al-Khateeb narrated in his “Tarikh Baghdad” v 13 p 394-395 from Imam Abu Bakr Abdullah ibn
Sulayman ibnul Ash’at, son of the famous Imam Abu Dawud, addressing a group:

“What do you say about a topic on which agree Malik and his companions, Ash-Shafi’i and his
companions, Al-Awza’i and his companions, Al-Hasan ibn Salih and his companions, Sufyan Ath-
Thawri and his companions, Ahmad ibn Hambal and his companions?” They replied: “It is among most
authentic topic”. He said: “All of these agreed on the misguidance of Abu Hanifah”

Abdullah ibn Sulayman ibnul Ash’at is Thiqah. Az-Zahabi said in his “Sayr” v 13 p 233: “From the most
Thiqah of Hufaz”. See also “Kamil” of ibn ‘Adi, “Mizan ul Itidal” and others. Al-Kawthari tried to attack
this Imam, but Az-Zahabi refuted such matters long before.

The narrator from him is Imam Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Abdillah ibn Muhammad ibn Isma’il Al-Abhari
who is a famous Faqih and Thiqah Muhadith. (“Tartib ul Madarik” v 4 p 466-473, “Sayr” v 16 p 332-334
and others)

The narrator below and teacher of Khateeb is Imam Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Mukhalad Al-Waraq who is
Saduq Thiqah (Khateeb v 3 p 94-95)

Article of Abu Rumaysah on the weakness of Abu Hanifah in Hadith

We are reluctant to discuss this topic with regards to this great Imaam, but since Saqqaaf has made
the accusation we reply by saying: that fact that he was da`eef was the position of ibn al-Mubaarak,
ath-Thawree, ibn Ma`een in one of two sayings from him, Ahmad, Muslim, Nasaa`ee, ibn Adee, ibn
Sa`d, al-Uqailee, ibn Abee Haatim, ad-Daaruqutnee, al-Haakim, Abdul Haqq al-Ishbelee, adh-
Dhahabee, Bukhaaree, ibn al-Jawzee, ibn Shaheen, [al-Qurtobee, ibn Abdul Barr] and others.

Saqqaaf cuts up the words of al-Albaanee, here are his full words, "its isnaad is da`eef, its narrators
are trustworthy being the narrators of Bukhaaree, except Abu Haneefah for he, despite his excellence
in fiqh, the Imaams have declared him weak for his poor memorisation, and I have mentioned the
names of these Imaams in ‘ad-Da`eefah’…"

Al-Albaanee says in ad-Da`eefah [1/572] concerning an isnaad containing Abu Haneefah, "the
narrators of this isnaad are trustworthy and precise except Abu Haneefah who has been declared to
be weak due to his poor memorisation by Bukhaaree, Muslim, an-Nasaa`ee, ibn Adee and other
Imaams of Hadeeth. This is why ibn Hajr in ‘at-Taqreeb’ does not go beyond describing him as, ‘the
famous faqeeh’."
He says in ad-Da`eefah [1/662+], "I will mention here the texts from the Imaams, from those that are
authentic to them, so that the reader may be upon sure knowledge concerning this and not think that
this is some new ijtihaad from me for all that is done here is to follow the People of Knowledge
andspecialists in the field. Allaah the Mighty and Magnificent says, ‘ask the people of knowledge of
you do not know’ and He says, ‘ask about Him from any who are acquainted.’

Imaam Bukhaaree said in ‘Taareekh al-Kabeer’ [4/2/81], "they have remained silent about him."

Al-Haafidh ibn Katheer says in ‘Mukhatasar Uloom al-Hadeeth’ [pg. 118], "if al-Bukhaaree says about
a a man, ‘they have remained silent about him’ or ‘he has a problem’ then he is in the lowest and worst
levels with him - but he is mild in his use of terms of criticism so know this."

Al-Iraaqee said in his ‘Sharh al-Alfiyyah’, "al-Bukhaaree says this about those whose hadeeth is
abandoned." Refer to ‘ar-Raf` wa at-Takmeel’ [pg. 282-183]

Al-Marwazee says in ‘Masaa`il al-Imaam Ahmad’, "I asked: when is the hadeeth of a person
abandoned? He replied: when he more often than not makes mistakes."

So consider carefully since this saying of al-Bukhaaree is qualified criticism - contrary to what some
people think.

Imaam Muslim says in ‘al-Kunaa wal Asmaa’ [q. 31/1], "mudtarib al-hadeeth (confused and mixes up
hadeeth). He does not have many authentic hadeeth."

Imaam an-Nasaa`ee says at the end of ‘ad-Du`afaa wal Matrookeen’ [pg. 57], "he is not strong in
hadeeth and he makes many mistakes despite the fact that he only narrates a few narrations."

Ibn Adee says in ‘al-Kaamil’ [2/403], "he has some acceptable hadeeth but most of what he narrates
are mistakes, errors and incorrect additions in isnaads and texts and errors regarding peoples names -
most of what he narrates is like this. Out of all that he narrates, only ten odd ahaadeeth are authentic
and he has narrated around three hundred ahaadeeth including famous and strange ones - all of them
in this way. This is because he is not from the People of Hadeeth and hadeeth are not taken from one
such as this in the field of hadeeth."

Ibn Sa`d said in ‘at-Tabaqaat’ [6/256], "he is da`eef in hadeeth."

Al-Uqailee says in ‘ad-Du`afaa’ [pg. 432], "Abdullaah bin Ahmad narrated to us saying: I heard my
father (Imaam Ahmad) say: the hadeeth of Abu Haneefah are da`eef."

Ibn Abee Haatim said in ‘al-Jarh wat-Ta`deel’ [4/1/450], "Hajjaaj bin Hamzah narrated to us
saying:Abdaan ibn Uthmaan narrated to us saying: I heard ibn al-Mubaarak say: Abu Haneefah was
miskeen (poor) with regards hadeeth."

These two isnaads (of 6&7) are saheeh. I have checked them so that no one should think that perhaps
they are like some of the isnaads quoted in the biography of the Imaam in ‘Taareekh Baghdaad’.

Abu Hafs ibn Shaaheen said, "Abu Haneefah with regards to fiqh then no one can fault his knowledge
however he was not pleasing in hadeeth…" As is quoted at the end of ‘Taareekh al-Jarjaan’ [pg. 510-
511]

Ibn Hibbaan said, "…hadeeth was not his field. He reported one hundred and thirty musnad
ahaadeeth and no more, erring in one hundred and twenty either through reversing the isnaads or
changing the text without knowing. Therefore when his errors outweigh that which he is correct in it is
deserving to leave depending upon him in narrations."

Ad-Daaruqutnee says in his Sunan [pg. 132]…., "no one reports it from Musa ibn Abee Aa`ishah
except Abu Haneefah and al-Hasan ibn Umaarah andboth are da`eef."

Al-Haakim quotes in ‘Ma`rifah al-Ulum al-Hadeeth’ [pg. 256] amongst a group of narrators of the
Atbaa` at-Taabi`een and those who came after them - whose ahaadeeth are not accepted in the
Saheeh concluding by saying, "so all those we have mentioned are people well known for having
narrated - but are not counted as being amongst the reliable precise memorisers."

Al-Haafidh Abdul Haqq al-Ishbeelee mentions ‘al-Ahkaam al-Kubraa’ [q. 17/2], …."Abu Haneefah is
not used as a proof due to his weakness in hadeeth."

Ibn al-Jawzee mentions him in ‘Kitaab ad-Du`faah wal Matrookeen’ [3/163] mentioning the weakening
of the Imaams of him and from ath-Thawree that he said, "he is not trustworthy and precise." And from
an-Nadr ibn Shameel, "abandoned in hadeeth."

Adh-Dhahabee says in ‘ad-Du`afaah’, "an-Nu`maan, the Imaam, may Allaah have mercy upon him.
Ibn Adee said: most of what he narrates are mistakes, errors and additions and he has some
acceptable ahaadeeth. An-Nasaa`ee said: he is not strong in hadeeth, he makes many errors and
mistakes even though he does not narrate very much. Ibn Ma`een said: his hadeeth are not to be
recorded."

[Translators addition: al-Qurtobee said at the beginning of his tafseer [1/86], "…and Abu Haneefah
and he is da`eef."

Al-Haafidh al-Mubaarakfooree said in ‘Tuhfatul Ahwadhee’ [1/333], "…it is singularly narrated by

Imaam Abu Haneefah and he has weak memory as was made clear by al-Haafidh ibn Abdul Barr.
Allaah knows best,"]

Al-Albaanee says following his note on ibn Ma`een, "and the meaning of this report from ibn Ma`een is
that with him Abu Haneefah is one of the da`eef narrators. This clarifies for us that the declaration of
reliability of ibn Ma`een that al-Haafidh mentions in ‘at-Tahdheeb’ is not his only saying concerning
him. What is correct is that he had varying opinions about him - sometimes declaring him reliable and
at others declaring him weak as in this report. Sometimes he said, as is reported by ibn Mihriz in
‘Ma`rifah ar-Rijaal’ [1/6/2], ‘Abu Haneefah was alright and he had not used to lie’ and at other times,
‘Abu Haneefah was truthful in our view and he is not accused of lying.’

And there is no doubt in our view that Abu Haneefah was one of the truthful - but this is not enough for
his ahaadeeth to be accepted until there is added to this precision and memory - and that is not
established from him - may Allaah have mercy upon him, rather the opposite is established by the
witness of the ulemaa whom we have mentioned - and they are those whose witness if accepted, will
not lead the one who follows them astray - and that this is no way alters the position of Abu Haneefah
- may Allaah have mercy upon him - as regards to his deen, piety and fiqh…since how many scholars,
judges and pious people have had there memories criticised by the scholars of hadeeth and likewise
their lack of precision - but none of that is taken to be a criticism of their deen or trustworthy character.
And this is known to those who occupy themselves with the biographies of narrators - and the likes of
this are the Qaadee Muhammad ibn Adur Rahmaan ibn Abee Laylaa, the scholar Hammaad ibn Abe
Sulaymaan, the Qaadee Shareek ibn Abdullaah, andAbbaad ibn Katheer and others…."

He says in his ‘Prophets Prayer Described’ [pg.ix] , "…and this is the justification for why Abu
Haneefah has sometimes unintentionally contradicted the authentic ahaadeeth - and it is perfectly
acceptable reason for Allaah does not burden a soul with more than it can bear - it is not permissible
to insult him for it as some ignorant people have done. In fact, it is obligatory to respect him, for he is
one of the Imaams of the Muslims through whom this deen has been preserved and handed down to
us…"

Al-Albaanee concludes his discussion in ad-Da`eefah by saying, "so we conclude with the words of
adh-Dhahabee in ‘Siyar A`laam an-Nubulaa’ [5/288/1], ‘his being an Imaam in fiqh and its fine points is
accepted and there is no doubt in this…’"

So in conclusion we would like to say: The criticism levelled against Abu Haneefah is not with regards
his deen, or belief, or character or fiqh rather it was with regards his memorisation. So whosoever
wishes to reply to this then let him address this point and not divert from the issue. End of Abu
Rumaysah's words

Ibn Abdil Barr’s weakening of Abu Hanifah

Hafiz ibn Abdil Barr wrote in “Tamhid” v 11 p 48:

He said: “Whoever has an Imam, the recitation of the Imam is his recitation”. This Hadith has been
narrated by Jabir Ju’fi from Abu Zubayr from Jabir from the Prophet (saw), and Jabir Ju’fi is weak in
Hadith having a filthy Mazhab, none should base anything on him. Abu Hanifah narrated this Hadith
from Musa ibn Abi ‘Aishah from Abdullah ibn Shaddad ibnul Hadi from Jabir ibn Abdillah from the
Prophet (saw), and none mentioned this Hadith in a Musnad way (continuous chain) except Abu
Hanifah and he has bad memory (Say ul Hifz) for Ahlul Hadith, and he opposed Huffaz such as Sufyan
Ath-Thawri, Shu’bah, ibn ‘Uyaynah, Jariri and others who narrated from Musa ibn Abi ‘Aishah from
Abdullah ibn Shaddad in a Mursal way (meaning name of Sahabi is omitted)”

Ibn Abdil Barr told that Imam Abu Hanifah had bad memory (Say ul Hifz) for Ahlul Hadith...He did not
even say that Ahlul Hadith differ upon him...So with his great knowledge he clearly knew that Abu
Hanifah was not Thiqah for Ahlul Hadith.

Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali on Abu Hanifah not knowing Ahadith

Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali wrote in his “Al-Mankhul” about Abu Hanifah:

“He did not know the Ahadith this is why he would accept weak Ahadith and reject the authentic ones”

Also Al-Ghazali who is considered as a Hujjah (proof) for Sufis also criticised the Usul ul Fiqh of Abu
Hanifah declaring them contradictory in this book.

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his family, companions and those who follow
them.