Pakistan Ahle Hadith site attacking Hanafi Ulema

[Ali_Hasnain]

I accidentally came across the following website recently while looking for some info on Imam Muhammad ibn Zahid al-Kawthari [RA]. It is affiliated with some Islamic university in Pakistan. It has a whole horde of articles attacking Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi Saahib [RA], Qadi Yusuf an-Nabhani [RA], etc. etc. It has not even spared Imam Ibn Attullah as-Sikandari wal Audhi Billah. One articles goes as far as claiming that Al-Hidaya contains forged narrations. I was wondering if any refutation of the points mentioned on the site are up. Jazak Allah khayr. The site is:

http://www.umm-ul-qura.org/info/user....asp?art_id=56

[not known]

I accidentally came across the following website recently while looking for some info on Imam Muhammad ibn Zahid al-Kawthari [RA]. It is affiliated with some Islamic university in Pakistan. It has a whole horde of articles attacking Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi Saahib [RA], Qadi Yusuf an-Nabhani [RA], etc. etc. It has not even spared Imam Ibn Attullah as-Sikandari wal Audhi Billah. One articles goes as far as claiming that Al-Hidaya contains forged narrations. I was wondering if any refutation of the points mentioned on the site are up. Jazak Allah khayr. The site is:

http://www.umm-ul-qura.org/info/user....asp?art_id=56

*yawn*

they will attack even sahabas

[Ali_Hasnain]

*yawn*

they will attack even sahabas

And even Prophets [AS]:

Qadi 'Iyad clearly said that Prophets can err in the matters related to the world, and the same for judging between people.

[Amir_khattab]

Article from the website above-

''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.



Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan''

[maneatinglizard]

Maybe the reason Ahlul Hadith are accused of disrespecting the Imams is the they do disrespect them?

And this was quite funny:

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)”

So I take it that they believe that, since I haven't done any "extreme research," my praver is batil (I seek refuge with Allah from any of my prayers being batil)?