Allamah Zafar Ahmad al-Uthmani’s Comprehensive Reply to the Objectors of Taqlid

[SeekerOfGuidance]

The following is a translated essay extracted from Allamah Zafar Ahmad al-Uthmani’s Qawaid fi Ulum al-Hadith, part of the general introduction to I’la al-Sunan. (A 20 volume compendium of the Hadith proofs for the Hanafi Madhab. For some information regarding this magnificent work see here)

Allamah Zafar Ahmad al-Uthmani’s Comprehensive Reply to the Objectors of Taqlid

It is known from the practice of Umar that he would, when anyone narrated to him [something] that he did not recognise from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), say to him: “Do you have with you one who will corroborate you? If not I will punish you.” Al-Dhahabi said: “In this is evidence that when a report is narrated by two trustworthy narrators, it is stronger and weightier than what one [narrator] is alone in [narrating]. In this is encouragement of multiplying the paths of hadith, in order that it rises from the degree of uncertainty to the degree of certainty, since one [narrator] may have forgotten or erred, and that is nearly impossible for two trustworthy [narrators] that none opposes.” (Tadhkirat al-Huffaz 1:6)

I say: Hence, there is no reason therefore to say that Abu Hanifah performed Qiyas excessively in his madhhab only because he was present at a time before the codification of hadith, and had he lived till [the period when] the hadiths of the Shariah were codified, and after the huffaz travelled to collect them from the cities and borders, and he obtained them, he would have accepted them and abandoned every analogy he made, because we say: Had the Imam obtained them, he would not accept from them except what was widespread in the time of the four caliphs, and all that was widespread of hadith in their time, none of it escaped him, as he had encompassed the knowledge of Hijaz and Medina and the Iraqis, proven by the great number of his teachers, and his being the most learned of people in his time by the testimony of the Imams* as was previously mentioned; and all exceptions are anomalous (shadhdh) or from that which is not obligatory to act upon.

If we conceded that some hadiths which must be acted upon in the Shari„ah were hidden to him, we say: Muhammad, Abu Yusuf, Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl, Ibn al-Mubarak, al-Hasan ibn Ziyad and others of his companions lived until the time hadith was codified; and then al-Tahawi, al-Karkhi, al-Hakim the author of al-Kafi, Abd al-Baqi ibn Qani, al-Mustaghfiri, Ibn al-Sharqi, al-Zaylai and others from the huffaz of the Hanafis and the critics of hadith from them came later after there had been complete scrutiny of prophetic hadith; and they comprehended its authentic and its weak [reports], and its well-known and its singular [reports].

Hence, every analogy from the analogies of Abu Hanifah which he held in opposition to hadith, his companions like Muhammad, Abu Yusuf, Zufar and al-Hasan left it, and they disagreed with their teacher in half of his madhhab, and the madhhab of the Hanafis is the sum of the opinions of the Imam, and these disciples of his. Then the hadith-scholars of the Hanafis after them gave preference in some issues to the opinion of al-Shafi’i, and in some of them to the opinion of Malik, and in some of them to the opinion of Ahmad, and they issued fatwa according to what was preponderant according to them based on the evidence; and all of this is the madhhab of Abu Hanifah, due to it being consistent with his method and his principles on which he premised his madhhab, from which is his preference of [scriptural] text even if weak over analogy. So there does not remain, and all praise is to Allah, in our madhhab an opinion contrary to hadith except we have with us another hadith supporting us, and that which we apparently oppose, it has with us an interpretation which we do not oppose; and all the Imams and their companions would do likewise. No one can claim to act on all hadiths in their entirety, and all only act on some of them and leave some of them, either because it is weak according to them or contrary to the text [of the Qur’an] or well-known or mass-transmitted report, or due to it being anomalous or defective or abrogated or interpreted according to a meaning most people have not comprehended, and the like of this.

As for those who condemn taqlid, it is not possible for them to act on hadith according to their principle at all, because acting on it is not possible except by imitating some of the ulama in that “this hadith is sahih,” and “this is da’if,” and “this is obligatory to act upon,” and “this is not obligatory to act upon, but it is permissible or desirable or impermissible to adopt,” and this, as you see, is all taqlid in rulings, since a hadith being obligatory to adopt or vice versa, or impermissible to adopt or vice versa, is definitely from the rulings. This is why the jurists mentioned the discussion of the Sunnah, its acceptance and its rejection, its adoption and its abandonment, and the rulings of the narrators in [the books of] jurisprudence and its principles, due it being from the subject of laws. These people reject taqlid, Qiyas and ijtihad completely in rulings, so why do they do taqlid of the hadith-scholars in this? And why do they make their opinion and their ijtihad in authenticating hadiths and weakening them a proof?**

And we have already explained many times that the authenticity and weakness of a hadith, and the trustworthiness and weakness of a narrator, all depend on the taste of a hadith-scholar, his opinion and his judgement. This is why ijtihad developed amongst them in this; thus, one weakens a hadith and another authenticates it, and one weakens a man and another declares him trustworthy. This is nothing besides differences in opinion. So understand, and do not haste in rejecting a reliable Imam to whose eminence the ummah have bowed, and whose greatness and excellence the imams have recognised. Allah has charge of your guidance.

...

Ibn al-Qayyim said in I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in (2:247) in answer to the proofs of the muqallids: “Your statement that the companions of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) conquered lands, and the people were new to Islam, and they would issue them fatwas and did not say to them you must seek knowledge of the truth of this fatwa from the evidence, its answer is that they did not issue fatwas to them using their opinions, and they only transmitted to them what their Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, did or commanded, so what they issued fatwa upon is the ruling and is the proof, and they said to them: “This is the teaching of our Prophet to us, and it is our teaching to you,” and this, what they informed them of, was proof itself, and that is the ruling, since the speech of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the ruling and is the proof of the ruling and likewise the Qur’an, and the people at that time would be eager to know what their Prophet said or did or commanded, and the Sahabah only conveyed this to them.”

I say: the unpleasantness and bitter arbitrariness in this absolute [statement] is not hidden, and were we to concede this, it entails that the statements and fatwas of the Sahabah were all hadiths traced [to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)] due to your saying that “what they issued fatwa upon is the ruling and is the proof,” so there is no blame on the Hanafis when they adopt in an issue the opinion of Ibn Mas’ud and his fatwa and they leave a hadith traced [to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)] due to your admission that the fatwa of a Sahabi is the ruling and is the proof; and when two hadiths contradict, a preference is acted upon, so if Qiyas gives preference or something else gives preference, making the opinion of a Sahabi equal to the report traced [to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)], then it should be permissible according to you to accept the opinion of a Sahabi, and it is not permissible for you to condemn one who does this. So, understand, assemblies of those who denounce taqlid!

Furthermore, since the Sahabah (Allah be pleased with them) would not issue fatwa to people based on their opinions, and they would only convey to them what their Prophet said, did or commanded, who told you that the Tabi’in would issue fatwa to people based on their opinions? Why is a similar claim not possible for their fatwas as well, that they would only convey to them what the Sahabah said, did and commanded and likewise, the successors of the Tabi’in, that they only conveyed to their companions what the Tabi’in said, did and commanded, and so on?

If you say: “Then why is it that their fatwas conflict with hadiths the hadith-scholars narrated?” We say: “Then why is it that the fatwas of the Sahabah conflict with hadiths traced [to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)] which these [scholars] also narrate?” And none will deny this except one who argues with falsehood and turns a blind eye to the truth. Hence, whatever is your answer is our answer.

According to me, although this statement of Ibn al-Qayyim is not accurate in absolute terms, due to proofs established contrary to it and that the Sahabah would issue fatwas in some issues using their judgement and people did not ask them for evidence which is the very essence of taqlid, however, it is accurate with respect to the majority [of their fatwas], since the majority of the statements and fatwas of the Sahabah was by way of transmission from the statement of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) or his practice or his command. Since this is so, it is permissible for a mujtahid to give preference to the fatwa of a Sahabi over a clear [report] traced [to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)] sometimes when it is likely according to him that the fatwa of the Sahabi was based on transmission not opinion.

[Having said] this, I do not intend by this speech to refute Ibn al-Qayyim (Allah have mercy on him) – Allah forbid! – for he is greater than one like us criticising him, for by Allah that we became the dust on his shoes will elevate our rank; rather, I only wished by it to refute those who use his answers as proof to condemn taqlid, so their eyes are opened and they reflect on how useful the speech of their leader is. And Allah is sought for help.

Moreover, whoever contemplates on our previous words and studies our book I’la al-Sunan, he knows, if Allah Almighty wills, that we are not from the muqallids Ibn al-Qayyim condemned, rather we only do taqlid of our Imam, Abu Hanifah, and his disciples, due to our knowledge that they were the most pursuant of people of the Qur‟an and Sunnah, and that they had principles in hadith just as the hadith-scholars have principles in hadith, so there is no blame on us if we oppose them in accepting some hadiths and acting upon them and not acting upon other [hadiths], because the basis of the principles of both groups is ijtihad, and there is no tenacity in different ijtihads.

Our scholars would sometimes leave the opinions of their Imam for the opinions of his disciples when it conflicted with the texts, and examples of this are many in the various madhhabs, which all who have analysed them will know, and sometimes they would issue fatwa according the opinion of Imams, from whom is the equal of our Imam or equals of his disciples, when they saw the strength of proof was with them, and the like of this. We are not, with praise to Allah, rigid in [following] the opinion of the founder of the madhhab by mere favouritism; rather we do taqlid of him upon insight, us and those who follow us. Glory be to Allah, we are not from the idolaters.

It is not possible Ibn al-Qayyim deviated from such taqlid, since it is necessary for everyone, rather there is no safety in religion without it. This is what Ibn al-Qayyim called “adherence” (mutaba’ah) and “obedience to the command.” Hence, the words are different while the meaning is the same.

Our expressions are many and your beauty is one

And all are pointing to that [same] beauty

And one who leaves this taqlid, and denounces adherence to the Salaf, and considers himself a mujtahid or hadith-scholar and realises in himself that he is able to derive laws and answers to questions from the Qur’an and hadith in this time, then he has removed the noose of Islam from his neck or has almost removed [it], for I swear by Allah, we have not seen a group missing religion as an arrow misses its target except this group that denies taqlid of the Salaf, condemning its adherents. One of our leaders spoke the truth when he said after a long experience that, “Abandoning taqlid is the very basis of apostasy and heresy with respect to the common people.” I say: With respect to the ulama also, for [a scholar that is] scrupulous, pious, and fearful of Allah, loving of Him and His Messenger, and expending his full effort to seek the truth from the ulama is like red sulphur today: it is not found except rarely. And most of them, when they abandon taqlid, they begin to follow concessions and follow the passions of their souls, and adopt their desires as their gods, and most of them don’t abandon taqlid except to argue with the muqallids, and create corruption amongst the Muslims, and make the common people heretics and apostates, for it is known that leaving taqlid with respect to them is the very basis of apostasy and heresy.

Qawa’id fi ‘Ulum al-Hadith, pp. 454-463

* As an example of one of numerous authoritative testimonies from his contemporaries: Makki ibn Ibrahim al-Tamimi (126 – 215 H), a famous hadith master from the Salaf and a teacher of al-Bukhari who included his narrations in his Sahih, said with respect to Imam Abu Hanifah: “He was the most learned of the people of his time.”

**Footnote from Allamah Zafar Ahmad al-Uthmani:
By this the statement of those who say that Allah Almighty made the report of a truthful person a proof, and the testimony of a righteous person a proof, and the one following proof is not a muqallid, is refuted, because authenticating hadith and weakening it is not purely from the category of reporting, rather its pivot is on the judgement of the hadith-scholar and his opinion. Ibn Abi Hatim transmitted in the book al-‘Ilal (1:10) with his chain to Ibn Mahdi, he said: “Knowledge of hadith is inspiration.” Ibn Numayr said: “He spoke the truth. If you said to him: From where did you postulate [a particular opinion on hadith]? He would have no answer.” And he transmitted with his chain to Ahmad ibn Salih, he said: “Knowledge of hadith is equivalent to knowledge of gold and brass, since the precious metal is only known by its experts, and the one knowledgeable in this will not have any proof when he is asked: How did you postulate that this is good quality or bad quality?” He [Ibn Abi Hatim] said: “I heard my father say: Knowledge of hadith is like a bezel the price of which is a hundred dinar, and another with the same colour the price of which is ten dirham.” I [Allamah Zafar Ahmad al-Uthmani] say: Just as the hadith-scholars know the chains of the hadiths and their wordings, similarly the jurists know their meanings and they are more aware of them than the hadith-scholars, so it is not permissible for a hadith-scholar to dispute the jurist in the meanings, just as it is not permissible for him to dispute a hadith-scholar in the chain and the text of the hadith, unless they combine jurisprudence and hadith like the four Imams and their companions that are followed in Islam.

Taken from al-Din al-Qayyim found here.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

**Footnote from Allamah Zafar Ahmad al-Uthmani:

By this the statement of those who say that Allah Almighty made the report of a truthful person a proof, and the testimony of a righteous person a proof, and the one following proof is not a muqallid, is refuted, because authenticating hadith and weakening it is not purely from the category of reporting, rather its pivot is on the judgement of the hadith-scholar and his opinion.

Ibn Abi Hatim transmitted in the book al-‘Ilal (1:10) with his chain to Ibn Mahdi, he said: “Knowledge of hadith is inspiration.”

Ibn Numayr said: “He spoke the truth. If you said to him: From where did you postulate [a particular opinion on hadith]? He would have no answer.”

And he transmitted with his chain to Ahmad ibn Salih, he said: “Knowledge of hadith is equivalent to knowledge of gold and brass, since the precious metal is only known by its experts, and the one knowledgeable in this will not have any proof when he is asked: How did you postulate that this is good quality or bad quality?”

He [Ibn Abi Hatim] said: “I heard my father say: Knowledge of hadith is like a bezel the price of which is a hundred dinar, and another with the same colour the price of which is ten dirham.”

I [Allamah Zafar Ahmad al-Uthmani] say: Just as the hadith-scholars know the chains of the hadiths and their wordings, similarly the jurists know their meanings and they are more aware of them than the hadith-scholars, so it is not permissible for a hadith-scholar to dispute the jurist in the meanings, just as it is not permissible for him to dispute a hadith-scholar in the chain and the text of the hadith, unless they combine jurisprudence and hadith like the four Imams and their companions that are followed in Islam.

The above quotes emphasize the point that the process of grading a Hadith requires human judgement on the part of the compiler of the Hadith, which is not free from the possibility of error. Mawlana Habib Ahmad al-Kiranawi mentions this point on a few occassions in his exhaustive refutation of Ibn al-qayyim's I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in:

"We impore you by Allah, assembly of abandonders of taqlid! Do you know that you err in authenticating and weakening hadith, criticising and accrediting narrators, understanding the indication [of texts] and the manner of reconciling between conflicting haidths and preferring some of them over others or not? If you say: “No,” then you have claimed infallibility ('ismah) for yourselves, and if you say: “Yes,” then who has informed you that you have not erred in that which you claimed, of the authenticity of the hadith and its indicaton being in opposition to what the mujtahid opined and it not being abrogated and stronger than what the mujtahid adduced as proof for it? If you say: “None informed us but ourselves,” we say: “The mujtahid opposes you in this and says: 'You have erred,' so how can we accept your opinion and leave his opinion when he is more learned than you?”

When you say, “Do not accept the opinion of anyone without proof,” and you have no proof with you that you have not erred besides your opinion, so if we imitated you in your statement, “Do not accept the opinion of anyone without proof,” it would be necessary for us to reject your statement, “This decree was hidden to the mujtahid and we are correct in this ruling,” and if we accepted your opinion on the accuracy of your opinion and the inaccuracy of the mujtahid without proof it would necessitate for us leaving your statement, “Do not accept the opinion of anyone without proof,” so what means is there for us to follow you while you contradict yourself in your statements? And what means is there for us to refer the matter to Allah and the Messenger and seek judgement from them?

It is clear that your principles require completely forsaking the religion, and leads us to pure deviation and absolute heresy, and Allah and His Messenger are free from them so they are free from your principles which lead to them. The rules premised on them are rules of desire and deviation, and are not the rules of Allah and the Messenger, so there is no safety, nor any recourse, but to taqlid, in which we take refuge. Allah guide us and you...

Just as the possibility of error exists in taking from a mujtahid, it similarly exists in taking from narrators and [accepting] the accreditation and authentication of the hadith-scholars because most of the narrators are not mujtahids and they transmit hadith using a meaning which they understood from his speech so there is a possibility of error in accepting [what they narrate], and added to this is the possibility of lying and inaccuracy; moreover, those who declared the narrators trustworthy and accredited them, they did not experience them for themselves as is apparent from their declaring those they did not meet trustworthy, rather most of their assessments of trustworthiness are based on assumptions and opinions which are not free from error; moreover, those who declare hadiths sahih and hasan, the basis of these assessments is mere assumpotion which are also not free from error. With these possibilities, how is it sound to definitely consider hadith from the speech of an infallible and definitely [consider] the speech of a jurist to be from his own speech due to the possibility of error in ijtihad, while the possibility of error in hadith is more than its possibility in the speech of a mujtahid due to the small number of intermediaries between the mujtahid and the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and their frequency between the one who extracts hadith and the one who authenticates it, and the nearness of the time of the mujtahid to Allah‟s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his sharp understanding and his sound mind..."

[Zahed]

This is very interesting:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...ih)&highlight=

[SeekerOfGuidance]

A CONVERSATION ON TAQLEED
by Hazrat Moulana Zafar Ahmad Saheb Uthmaani
(Rahmatullahi Alaih)

A nephew (sister’s son) of our Hazrat Moulana Khaleel Ahmad Saheb (Quddisa Sirruhu) graduated from Mazaahir-e-Uloom Saharanpur and went to Aligarh where he served as assistant to a doctor. This doctor saheb was a Salafi. He thus endeavoured to convert his assistant to Salafism. Towards this end he encouraged the assistant to study the kitaabs of this sect.

For a period of three years he studied the books of this sect. Eventually he became a Salafi/Ghair Muqallid.

After three years he came to meet Hazrat Moulana (Rahmatullahi Alaih) [his uncle] in Saharanpur and immediately upon his arrival he blankly said: “I am not a Hanafi anymore. I have joined the ranks of the Ahl-e-Hadeeth.” [Ahl-e-Hadeeth is the misnomer used by Indo-Pak Salafis.]

Hazrat Moulana was deeply hurt. He told the Ulama of Mazaahir-e-Uloom to explain to their pupil and clear his doubts. He [the nephew spoke with Mazaahir-e-Uloom’s Ulama for three days, but he remained firm on his newly-found dogma.

Coincidentally during that time this bandah [Hazrat Allaamah Zafar Ahmad Saheb Rahmatullahi alaih] came to meet Hazrat in Saharanpur from Thanabawan. Hazrat was very happy and he said: “You have come at a very opportune time. This pupil of yours has turned his back to reality and has joined the Ahl-e-Hadeeth. Mazaahir-e-Uloom Ulama have been explaining to him for three days, but he is firm over his belief. You should also explain to him.”

While we were discussing this he [the nephew of Hazrat Moulana Khaleel Ahmad Saheb who had reneged from the Hanafi Math-hab] came to meet me. I told him to meet me after Isha. After giving his word and departing Hazrat Moulana commented: “He has been studying the books of the Ahl-e-Hadeeth for three years. He therefore has a broad view of the issues. In your conversation with him you will have to bear this in mind.” I replied: “Insha Allah, I will bear that in mind. Hazrat should assist with du’aas.”

Accordingly, he came to me as promised after Isha. The following conversation took place:

(Moulana) Zafar: Tell me my son, what ideology do you currently subscribe to?

Pupil: Practice on Saheeh Ahadeeth.

(Moulana) Zafar: Practice on only Saheeh Ahadeeth! Not practice on the Qur’aan?

Pupil: Hazrat! Practice on the Qur’aan is first and foremost. Thereafter practice on Saheeh Ahadeeth.

(Moulana) Zafar: If that is your ideology then you would have firstly stated, “Practice on the Qur’aan” and then you would have mentioned “practice on the Hadeeth.”

Pupil: It being obvious, I did not see any need to mention it.

(Moulana) Zafar: You’re trying to cover up. As a matter of fact, the Ahl-e-Hadeeth do not apply the Qur’aan. On the other hand, the golden rule of the Hanafiyyah is to look firstly at the Qur’aan and then the Hadeeth. We give preference to the Hadeeth which we find in consonance with the explicit declaration of the Qur’aan, and we give suitable interpretations to the other Ahadeeth [which outwardly do not conform to the explicit declaration of the Qur’aan].

Now let me tell you about the well-known Masaail in regard to which we and the Ahl-e-Hadeeth have conflicting views. We firstly looked at the Qur’aan, giving preference to those Ahadeeth which we found in consonance with the explicit texts of the Qur’aan.


Qiraat Khalfal Imam

Consider the mas-alah of Qiraat Khalfal Imam. Here, as well, we firstly looked at the Qur’aan. In Surah A’raaf Allah Ta’ala declares:

“When the Qur’aan is recited, then listen to it attentively and maintain silence. You can then hope for mercy to come down on you.”

This clearly evinces that there should be no Qiraat simultaneously with the Imam’s Qiraat. Rather, one should listen to the Qur’aan and maintain silence.

That the Aayat was revealed in regard to reciting behind the Imam is a fact unanimously agreed upon as stated by Imam Ahmad Bin Hambal (Rahmatullahi Alaih). (Those Ulama who aver that it is connected to the Khutbah of Jumu’ah, what they intend is that the Khutbah has the same ruling. This is their obvious purport as the Aayat is Makki and in Makkah there was neither Jumu’ah nor Khutbah.—Zafar)

Then we took a look at the Ahadeeth. No Hadeeth states: “When the Imam recites, you should also recite.” But we do find: “When the Imam says, ‘Allahu Akbar’ then you should also say, ‘Allahu Akbar’. When he makes Ruku’ then make Ruku’. When he says, ‘Sami’allahu Liman Hamidah’ then say, ‘Rabbana Lakal Hamd’. When he makes Sajdah then you should also make Sajdah.”

But no where is there: “When he recites (makes Qiraat) then you should also recite.” In fact, if there is anything, it is: “When he recites then you should maintain silence.” Imam Muslim, Imam Ahmad and numerous other Muhadditheen have authenticated this Hadeeth [i.e. they have declared it to be Saheeh]. The Hanafiyyah have endorsed this Hadeeth and have taken the other Ahadeeth [on Qiraat Khalfal Imam] to have other appropriate purports.


Aameen

Even regarding the Mas-alah of Aameen the Hanafiyyah firstly looked at the Qur’aan. In view of Aameen being a du’aa, as Imam Bukhari has documented in his Saheeh, we looked at what the Qur’aan says about du’aa. We found this declaration of Allah Ta’ala: “Call unto your Rabb humbly and silently.” Thus we gave preference in this Mas-alah to the narration of Shu’bah in which it is said: “He [Rasoolullah Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam] recited Surah Faatihah and after completing it he said, ‘Aameen’ and he lowered his voice with it.” That is, he said it softly. This Hadeeth appears in Tirmithi.


Raf’ul Yadain

We have even looked at the Qur’aan firstly in regard to raising the hands (rafa’ yadain) in Salaah. We found these commands of Allah Ta’ala:

“Stand before Allah in silence.”
“And those who have khushoo’ in their Salaah.”

The first Aayat states that we should stand in the presence of Allah Ta’ala silently and with tranquility. The second Aayat states that those who have khushoo’ in their Salaah are successful. Khushoo’ means nothing other than tranquility.

Next we looked at the Ahadeeth. There is a narration in Saheeh Muslim in which is mentioned that the Sahaabah would lift their hands in Salaah at the time of Salaam and say: “Salaam to so-and-so, Salaam to so-and-so.” Reprimanding them Rasoolullah (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “What is the matter? Why are you raising your hands like how horses raise their tails? Be tranquil in Salaah!”

We learn from this Hadeeth that to raise the hands even during Salaam is in violation of tranquility, whereas the time of Salaam falls within Salaah, and also out of Salaah. [In other words, the position of Salaam is such that in some aspects it falls within the Salaah and in some aspects it is considered to be upon the termination of the Salaah]. Thus, how can it be proper to raise the hands at the time of Ruku’, when Ruku’ falls only within the Salaah?

Yes, it is proper to raise the hands at the time of Takbeer-e-Tahreemah in view of it [Takbeer-e-Tahreemah] not being a part or rukn [constituent] of Salaah. In fact, it is a shart [precondition] of Salaah. Hence the Hanafiyyah have favoured those narrations which advocate abstention from lifting of the hands at the time of Ruku’.

In like manner one can judge the other Masaa’il. The Hanafiyyah firstly look at the Qur’aan and then the Ahadeeth. The Hanafiyyah then give preference to those [Ahadeeth] which are in consonance or close to the explicit declaration of the Qur’aan.

Pupil: Really, I did not reflect over this point. Nevertheless, the doubt still remains of the Hanafiyyah’s practice being in conflict to Saheeh Ahadeeth in certain Masaail?

(Moulana) Zafar: My Dear Son! Firstly define Saheeh Hadeeth. But, remember; do not make anyone’s taqleed in your definition.

After listening to this the pupil was silent for a while. He was perspiring. He then said: “It is all fitting into place now. Truly, without making Taqleed it is not possible to call any Hadeeth ‘Saheeh’. Further, how is it possible for taqleed of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmithi and others to be permissible, whilst taqleed of Imam Abu Haneefah, Imam Maalik and Imam Shaafi’i is claimed to be impermissible. I henceforth repent from plodding the path of the Ahl-e-Hadeeth and I opt for the Hanafi Math-hab.

(Moulana) Zafar: You have understood very quickly! I am happy. Nevertheless, I wish to expand on this. Those who reject and criticise Taqleed cannot say whether a Hadeeth is Saheeh, or Dha’eef or Hasan without making Taqleed.


Ittiba’-e-Hujjat is Taqleed

The excuse they present is that Allah Ta’ala has declared the report of an honest person and the testimony of a reliable person to be Hujjat [Shar’i proof]. “This [acceptance of the verdicts of the Ulama in the field of Hadeeth categorization], is therefore not taqleed, but Ittiba’ of Hujjat [obedience to Shar’i proofs].”

My response is that, declaring a Hadeeth to be Saheeh or Dha’eef is not merely a report. In fact, the roots of it lie in the presumption and deduction (zann and ijtihaad) of the Muhaddith.

Sometimes the narrators of the chain are all thiqah [reliable], however the Hadeeth is mu’allal [flawed]. And the illat [flaw] can only be detected by experts in Hadeeth, not by just any Muhaddith.

Ibn Abi Haatim has reported in Kitaabul Ilal that Abdur Rahmaan Bin Mahdi said: “Recognition of [the authenticity of] a Hadeeth is inspirational.” Ibn Numair further added: “That is absolutely true! If you ask the Muhaddith: ‘What is your basis (for saying that the Hadeeth is Saheeh or Mu’allal)?’ he will not be able to answer.”

Ahmad Bin Saalih states; “Recognition of Hadeeth is just like recognising gold from brass. A gem-dealer recognises a true gem. If you question an appraiser: ‘Why do you say that this [stone] is pure and this one is false?’ He will not be able to furnish you with proof.” [In former times, the instruments utilised nowadays by gemmologists were not available and hence gems were recognised through natural perception and flair.]

This proves that the Aimmah of Hadeeth saying in regard to any Hadeeth, “Saheeh” or “Mu’allal” is not just a matter of reporting. In fact, these statements of theirs are the products of their zann and Ijtihaad. Thus, to rely on their statements here is precisely Taqleed.

Allaamah Ibnul Qayyim’s averment that this is not taqleed in the Ahkaam is not correct because it is waajib in the Shariah to apply a Hadeeth-e-Saheeh, it is not obligatory to apply a Dha’eef Hadeeth and it is haraam to apply a Mowdhu’ Hadeeth. This is Taqleed of the Ahkaam per se. It is not Taqleed of non-Ahkaam. It is precisely for this reason that the Fuqaha discuss in the Science of Usool-e-Fiqh the Sunnah and principles governing its acceptance and rejection.

Calling this Ittiba’ and not Taqleed, as Allaamah Ibnul Qayyim has averred, is a mere spin of words. The reality is the same.


Taqleed in Qiraat

My Dear Son! Is it waajib to recite the Qur’aan correctly or not? Of course it is waajib! And to recite incorrectly is haraam. Now tell me whether you can recite the Qur’aan correctly without Taqleed of the Imams of Qiraat? One can never! And this is also Taqleed in Ahkaam.

Similarly, recognising the Hadeeth and sifting out Saheeh from Dha’eef is also waajib. And here too there is no alternative other than to make Taqleed of the Aimmah. What audacity do the Ahl-e-Hadeeth [and the Salafis] have in rejecting Taqleed!!!


The Criterion

Furthermore, you should take note of the fact that, the Muhadditheen did not formulate the principles of judging a Hadeeth to be Saheeh or Dha’eef on the basis of Divine Revelation. That formulation was the product of their zann and ijtihaad. Our Fuqaha have likewise formulated principles of the authenticity and weakness of Ahadeeth, which are mentioned in the chapter of The Sunnah in Usoolul Fiqh. It is therefore possible that a certain Hadeeth is Saheeh on the standards of the Muhadditheen, but Dha’eef on our standards. Or it could be Saheeh on our standards and Dha’eef on the standards of the Muhadditheen. To initiate argumentation in this regard is therefore an error. The dalaail should be studied; whose principles are strong on the basis of dalaail?


The True Rejecters and Followers of Hadeeth

In conclusion, I must point out that no one follows the Hadeeth on par to the Hanafiyyah. The Hanafiyyah even accept Mursal and Munqati’ Ahadeeth of the Khairul Quroon to be hujjat, whereas the Ahl-e-Hadeeth reject such Hadeeth. The volume of Maraaseel and Maqaatee’ is no less than Marfoo’ Ahadeeth. In fact, it is slightly more. Thus, these people [the votaries of abandonment of Taqleed] omit half of all Ahadeeth!!!

Furthermore, they only select Saheeh or Hasan Ahadeeth from the Marfoo’aat and they reject the Dha’eef narrations. But according to the Hanafiyyah a Dha’eef Hadeeth deserves precedence in contrast to Qiyaas. [What this means is that where no Saheeh or Hasan Hadeeth is available on any issue, the Hanafiyyah do not discard Dha’eef Ahadeeth and come to intellectual deductions. The Dha’eef Hadeeth is employed provided that it is not in conflict with any established tenet and practice of the Deen.]

In fact, even the statement of a Sahaabi and the statement of a senior Taabi’i are given priority [by the Ahnaaf] over Qiyaas. Now you tell me who practices on Hadeeth and who discards the Hadeeth?


The Sanad is Not the Only Determinant for Saheeh Hadeeth

The question of the Hanafiyyah omitting Saheeh Ahadeeth in certain Masaail has been addressed earlier. The Ahadeeth which the Hanafiyyah have employed are Saheeh according to their standards, regardless of them being Dha’eef in the opinion of the Muhadditheen. According to the Hanafiyyah the condition for the authenticity of a Hadeeth is not restricted to its sanad [chain of narrators]. In fact, there are other conditions as well which are mentioned in Usool-e-Fiqh and we have also set them out in the introduction of I’laaus Sunan. In the second part of the Introduction of I’laaus Sunan we have furthermore elaborately discussed Taqleed and Ijtihaad…

Pupil: Al-Hamdulillah, my eyes have now opened and I have been set free from the deception and fallacy of the Ahl-e-Hadeeth.

Wal Hamdu Lillaahi Rabbil Aalameen


( Al-Balaagh Monthly, Karachi—Shawwaal 1387H)


Source:
Title: Taqleed and Salafism
Compiled by: Jamiah Maseehiyyah Ashrafiyyah
Editing: Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng
Edition: 2nd—Ramadhaan 1430/September 2009
Publisher: Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng
South Africa

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Mawlana Habib Ahmad al-Kiranawi in al-Din al-Qayyim demonstrates the reality that those who claim to be free from taqleed are deceived, and are in fact stronger in taqleed than others. They are blind to the fact that they are following blindly!

"In the worst of generations, a misguided group arose, insulting the Imams and criticising taqlid, and calling people to abandon it, although most of their invectives and all of their proofs are based on imitation (taqlid) of those who came before them, since when they say, “In such and such an issue, Abu Hanifah opposed a sahih (authentic) hadith,” and you ask, “How do you know it is a sahih hadith?” they reply, “Hafiz [ibn Hajar al-„Asqalani] in Fath [al-Bari] authenticated it and so-and-so and so-and-so authenticated it.” Do they not understand that since it is not permissible for them to imitate Abu Hanifah, how can it be permissible for them to imitate the likes of Ibn Hajar? Since you prohibit taqlid, why is it necessary for Abu Hanifah to do taqlid of Ibn Hajar and his likes in authenticating that which they authenticated and weakening that which they weakened? Why is it necessary for him to understand the hadith, assuming it is authentic, that which Ibn Hajar and others understood from it?

Therefore, these people are in reality stronger in imitation than the muqallids, because the muqallids only consider it necessary for a non-mujtahid to imitate a mujtahid, and these people consider it necessary for the mujtahid to imitate themselves by imitating those that they imitate even if he is a non-mujtahid. Moreover, they call people to abandon taqlid of the mujtahid Imams and deem it necessary to imitate them in authenticating what they authenticate and weakening what they weaken and understanding what they understand and saying what they say and permitting what they permit and prohibiting what they prohibit, in imitation of their predecessors, and cursing those they curse and praising those they praise. Although the ignorance of these people and their misguidance reach such a degree that their opinions and deeds are self-contradicting, since they criticise something in others and prefer something worse than it for themselves and prohibit something for others and deem something uglier necessary, such that any sane person will have no doubt about their ignorance and misguidance, their misgivings and deceptions, however, they have misled those who are unaware and have spread amongst them, and thus we saw fit to expose their deceptions."

[Aftab Siddiqui-India]

Mawlana Habib Ahmad al-Kiranawi in al-Din al-Qayyim demonstrates the reality that those who claim to be free from taqleed are deceived, and are in fact stronger in taqleed than others. They follow so blindly that they fail to even recognise that they are following blindly!

"In the worst of generations, a misguided group arose, insulting the Imams and criticising taqlid, and calling people to abandon it, although most of their invectives and all of their proofs are based on imitation (taqlid) of those who came before them, since when they say, “In such and such an issue, Abu Hanifah opposed a sahih (authentic) hadith,” and you ask, “How do you know it is a sahih hadith?” they reply, “Hafiz [ibn Hajar al-„Asqalani] in Fath [al-Bari] authenticated it and so-and-so and so-and-so authenticated it.” Do they not understand that since it is not permissible for them to imitate Abu Hanifah, how can it be permissible for them to imitate the likes of Ibn Hajar? Since you prohibit taqlid, why is it necessary for Abu Hanifah to do taqlid of Ibn Hajar and his likes in authenticating that which they authenticated and weakening that which they weakened? Why is it necessary for him to understand the hadith, assuming it is authentic, that which Ibn Hajar and others understood from it?

Therefore, these people are in reality stronger in imitation than the muqallids, because the muqallids only consider it necessary for a non-mujtahid to imitate a mujtahid, and these people consider it necessary for the mujtahid to imitate themselves by imitating those that they imitate even if he is a non-mujtahid. Moreover, they call people to abandon taqlid of the mujtahid Imams and deem it necessary to imitate them in authenticating what they authenticate and weakening what they weaken and understanding what they understand and saying what they say and permitting what they permit and prohibiting what they prohibit, in imitation of their predecessors, and cursing those they curse and praising those they praise. Although the ignorance of these people and their misguidance reach such a degree that their opinions and deeds are self-contradicting, since they criticise something in others and prefer something worse than it for themselves and prohibit something for others and deem something uglier necessary, such that any sane person will have no doubt about their ignorance and misguidance, their misgivings and deceptions, however, they have misled those who are unaware and have spread amongst them, and thus we saw fit to expose their deceptions."

brother,Mujaddid Alf Thānī (rah) & Shah waliuallah muhadith dhelvi (rah),, both this buzurg got dream from prophet that this four madhab are correct & haq (truth) in ilmo kalam & jurisprudence are more towards imaam abu hanifa (rah).. I will translate entire stuff inshallah..

[SeekerOfGuidance]

brother,Mujaddid Alf Thānī (rah) & Shah waliuallah muhadith dhelvi (rah),, both this buzurg got dream from prophet that this four madhab are correct & haq (truth) in ilmo kalam & jurisprudence are more towards imaam abu hanifa (rah).. I will translate entire stuff inshallah..

What was the gist of their message?

[bint_azam]

very beneficial thread. Please keep adding, especially the sources, as I would like to read the original books and articles fully as well, for greater benefit.

[Aftab Siddiqui-India]

What was the gist of their message?

I am not getting time to translate will do inshallah.. the gist of their writings was that Both Mujatahid alfe thani (rah) & Shah waliuallah muhaditth delhvi (rah) says,i got kashf (manifestation in dream) that Prophet said to me that this 4 madhab are correct & haq in ilmo kalam are more towards Imaam abu hanifa (rah) & matter of jurisprudence was also more towards Imaam abu hanifa (rah),,& there are very few masail (jurisprudence) in which in which its is difficult to say haq (truth) is towards whom..

Please note,there should be no objection that if one is haq the other would be batil..(its same like deducing the direction of qibla by a traveler in out places.If four prayed towards four direction through "tahiyya" (hukm on traveler to ponder to decide qibla)..Its obvious only one of four is towards qibla,but the salat of other 3 cannot be termed as batil (as they too are on haq)..

BUt, will translate the entire stuff, if you know urdu it is written in book "hadith aur ahle hadith" in the initial pages.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Maulana Habib al-Kiranwi in al-Din al-Qayyim:

"...if we were to choose taqlid of any of the hadith-scholars, it would be difficult for us to choose who we would do taqlid of because they differ in the principles of criticism and authentication, identification of defects, and criticising and accrediting [narrators]. Furthermore, were we to select one of them by ourselves, it would entail that the religion of Allah is subservient to our wishes, choices and desires and it would also be difficult for us to reconcile between two contradictory [narrations] and specify a possible interpretation and even after specifying an interpretation, it cannot be said that he was right, rather the possibility of error from him is more likely than the possibility of error from a well-versed, expert and skilled mujtahid.

...If you say: “The hadith is sahih and the indication is clear,” we say: “How do we know that the hadith is sahih?” If you say: “The narrators are trustworthy,” we say: “How do we know that the narrators are trustworthy?” If you say: “So-and-so and so-and-so declared him trustworthy,” we say: “How is it known that they were right in declaring [them] reliable, and if conceded, how do we know that they did not err in narrating since the trustworthy individual sometimes errs in narration?” If you say: “So-and-so and so-and-so declared the hadith sahih,” we say: “How do we know that they were right in authenticating [it]? And if conceded, how do we know that it indicates [an opinion that is] in opposition to the mujtahid? It is possible it has an interpretation according to the mujtahid other than what you construe it to be, and if conceded, how do we know that it is acted upon, since it is possible that it is abrogated or overruled by stronger evidence? In such [a circumstance], where is the means for the muqallid to declare the mujtahid wrong and pass judgement about him that this specific decree is hidden to him?”