29 Arguments of Ahl al-Hadith on Disputed Issues

Chapter Three: Are Ahl-e-Hadith outside the fold of Ahl-e-Sunnat?

Jhangvi Sahib has pointed out a few issues and written that besides these, there are many other issues in which Ahl al-Sunnah and non-muqlid Ahl al-Hadith differ significantly. How did Ahl al-Sunnah and Ahl al-Hadith become names for the same thing when Hadith and Sunnah are not the same? As has been indicated or explicitly stated, how can Ahl al-Sunnah and Ahl al-Hadith be the same?

Answer: Firstly:

From this statement, it is clear that Jhangvi Sahib considers Hadith and Sunnah to be two contradictory words. However, this is not correct.

Let us first understand the meanings and implications of these words.

The literal meaning of Sunnah is ‘method’, ‘way’, whether good or bad.

And in the Shariah terminology, Sunnah means the way of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. Hazrat Anas رضي الله عنه narrates that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

((من رغب عن سنتي فليس منى ))

Meaning, whoever turns away from my way is not from me. Al-Hadith:

In this Hadith, the word ‘Sunnah’ is explained by Maulana Saharanpuri in the commentary of Bukhari p. 758 as ‘way’.

Dear readers, now that you have understood the meaning of Sunnah, let us also understand the meaning of the word Hadith. The literal meaning of Hadith is ‘speech’ or ‘talk’. In Shariah terminology, it applies to both the Quran and Hadith. As previously mentioned, to shed light on what Hadith means in terminology, Maulana Abdul Rashid Hanafi Deobandi states that:

Referring to the sayings, actions, and states of the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام as Hadith is not a self-invented term but is derived from the Quran itself.

From this explanation, it is understood that the meaning of Sunnah is found within Hadith. Although the word Hadith is broader and more expansive than Sunnah. For example, the Takbir al-Tahreemah can be described by both Hadith and Sunnah, whereas the Hadiths about the punishment of the grave cannot be described as Sunnah. Similarly, the entire person of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم can be called Hadith but not Sunnah. The recommended supplication for breaking the fast can be called both Hadith and Sunnah, while the exalted statements of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم about the events of the Hereafter are called Hadith but not Sunnah. In summary, the word Hadith is broader than Sunnah and includes the meaning of Sunnah within it. Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani Hanafi Deobandi states that:

Some think that Sunnah refers only to the actions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and that Hadiths are not included in it. But as previously mentioned, in common usage, there is no difference between Hadith and Sunnah. In summary:

When it is established that the word Hadith contains the meaning of Sunnah, it automatically proves that Ahl al-Hadith are Ahl al-Sunnah.

Allama Nawawi رضي الله عنه states:

(قال القاضی عیاض انما اراد احمد اهل السنة والجماعة ومن يعتقد مذهب أهل الحديث )

Meaning, Qadi Iyad said that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s reference to Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah means the group that follows the school of Ahl al-Hadith both practically and doctrinally.

Maulana Mufti Kifayatullah Hanafi Deobandi states that:

Ahl al-Hadith are Muslims and are included within Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah.

The non-muqlids whose views are mentioned in the question are, in principle, included within Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah.

From these statements, it is proven that Ahl al-Hadith are included within Ahl al-Sunnah.

The Disagreement of the Early Diabani Scholars with Ahl al-Hadith

Jhangvi Sahib has also pointed out some issues that Ahl al-Sunnah accept, while Ahl al-Hadith reject them. These are as follows:
(1) The issue of Taqlid (imitation)
(2) Three divorces in one sitting
(3) Respect for the Awliya (saints)
(4) The Companions are the standard of truth
(5) The actions of the Companions are also Sunnah
(6) The first Adhan of Jumu’ah
(7) Collective supplication after prayer
(8) Fiqh
(9) Punishment in the grave
(10) The life of the Prophet ﷺ
(11) Twenty and eight Taraweeh
(12) Visiting the Prophet’s shrine
(13) Sama‘ at the grave
(14) Sacrifice of a buffalo
(15) Sacrifice of a horse
(16) Reciting from the Mushaf during prayer
(17) Reciting while in a state of Janabah (major impurity)
(18) The incident of divorce on the wife for adultery with a well-mannered person
(19) The sanctity of the Prophet’s shrine
(20) Reciting the funeral prayer slowly
(21) Counting the Ruku‘ as a Rakat
(22) Not folding hands during Qunoot
(23) Not acting upon abrogated Ahadith
(24) Performing Nawafil after the Maghrib Adhan
(25) Standing humbly in prayer
(22) Difference in prayer between men and women
(27) An immature person cannot be an Imam
(28) Al-Fatiha is part of the Qur’an
(29) There is a difference between Tahajjud and Taraweeh.

Jhangvi Sahib claims that these are the issues of Ahl al-Sunnah, while the stance of Ahl al-Hadith is the opposite.

Answer: Firstly:
Brother, you have wrongly attributed some of these issues to us. For example, issues number 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 19, 20, 23, 25, 28, etc., we do not hold the position you have stated, and you have made these accusations fearlessly despite the warning of لعنت اللہ علی الکاذبین.
Similarly, issues number 1, 7, 26, 10, etc., are reprehensible innovations. Among the remaining issues, some are proven by texts, and in some, even the innovators themselves differ among the Ummah. Details will follow.

Secondly:
Most of these issues are partial and subsidiary. Can a group or person be declared outside Ahl al-Sunnah due to partial and subsidiary differences? Absolutely not. This is your excessiveness! Because even among the Companions, there were differences of opinion on some partial issues. The style of your book indicates that you have indeed researched some disputed issues, but you have not studied the general teachings of Islam and its source, the Qur’an and Hadith, and the fatwas of the sacred group of its trustworthy Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). Otherwise, by presenting these issues, you would not issue a fatwa declaring anyone outside Ahl al-Sunnah. In any case, let us present a research review of the issues you have mentioned. May Allah grant you the righteous habit of accepting the truth.

Is Taqlid a Sign of Ahl al-Sunnah?

The detailed explanation of the issue of Taqlid has already been given, and there we have explicitly stated that it is not only us who have declared Taqlid as shirk, but many Hanafi scholars also say the same. Here, we only want to state that a denier of Taqlid is not outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah because this is an innovation of the fourth century. Obviously, something that was invented hundreds of years after the completion of the religion cannot be a part or component of the religion and faith.

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib says that
Being Hanafi or Shafi’i is not a part of faith; otherwise, the Companions and the Followers would have to be considered non-believers.

Maulana Mufti Kifayatullah Hanafi Deobandi says that
Simply abandoning Taqlid does not affect Islam, nor does it expel a person from Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama’ah.

It should be noted that the religion of Ahl al-Sunnah predates the four Imams; therefore, how did their Taqlid become a symbol and distinguishing issue of Ahl al-Sunnah? Imam Ibn Taymiyyah says:

( ومن اهل السنة والجماعة مذهب قديم معروف قبل أن يخلق الله أبا حنيفة ومالكا و الشافعي وأحمد فانه مذهب الصحابة الذين تلقوه عن نبيهم ومن خالف ذلك كان مبتدعا عند اهل السنة والجماعة)

That is, Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama’ah is an ancient and well-known religion that existed even before the birth of Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, etc. It was the religion of the Companions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. They learned that religion from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. And whoever acts against it is considered an innovator by Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama’ah.

Finally, we ask Jhangvi Sahib whether Imam Abu Hanifa was included in Ahl al-Sunnah or not. If you say that he was included in Ahl al-Sunnah, then we say that he was a non-muqallid (non-follower of Taqlid). If despite not performing Taqlid he is not outside Ahl al-Sunnah, then why are the Ahl al-Hadith considered outside? Please clearly explain the reason for this difference.

Is considering three divorces in one sitting as three separate divorces a symbol of Ahl al-Sunnah?

Firstly:
The innovators of Deoband admit that giving three divorces in one sitting is forbidden and an innovation. This ruling is present in all their commonly used jurisprudence books. Probably Jhangvi also admits this, but for the satisfaction and reassurance of the esteemed readers, we quote a few statements to make the truth clear.
Maulana Taqi Usmani Deobandi states that
Is it permissible to pronounce three divorces at once or not? The stance of Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik is that it is forbidden and an innovation.

The innovator’s Mufti Khair al-Madaris says that an innovative divorce is giving three divorces in one purity or in one sitting.

In Hidayah it is stated that

(وطلاق البدعة ان يطلقها ثلاثا بكلمة واحدة أو ثلاثا في طهر واحد فاذا فعل ذلك وقع الطلاق وكان عاصياً )

And an innovative divorce is that one gives three divorces with the same word or gives three in one purity. When someone does this, he becomes sinful and the divorce takes effect.

When you understand that three divorces in one sitting is an innovation, now listen that the religion of the Ahl al-Sunnah rejects innovation.

states that

(اهل السنة والجماعة وهم الذين طريقتهم طريقة الرسول واصحابه دون اهل البدع )

Meaning, the Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama’ah are those whose method is in accordance with the way of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and his noble companions, not according to the method of the innovators.

Hazrat Ali Murtaza رضي الله عنه says that

((اهل السنة المتمسكون بماسنه الله ورسوله وان قلوا واما اهل البدعة فالمخالفون لامر الله و كتابه ورسوله العاملون برأيهم واهوائهم وان كثروا ))

Meaning, the Ahl al-Sunnah are those who adopt the method prescribed by Allah Almighty and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, no matter how few they may be in number. And the innovators are those who act upon their own opinion and desires contrary to Allah Almighty, His Book, and His Messenger ﷺ, no matter how many they may be.

From these statements, it is proven that no group or person is expelled from Ahl al-Sunnah due to denial of innovation; rather, the true Ahl al-Sunnah are those who reject innovation. Therefore, according to this principle, you are from Ahl al-Sunnah… and by the grace of Allah, we have proven to be the original, pure, and genuine Sunni.
Secondly:-
Hazrat Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه narrates that

((كان الطلاق على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وابى بكروسنتين من خلافة عمر طلاق الثالث واحدة الحديث ))

Meaning, during the blessed time of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and throughout the caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq رضي الله عنه and the caliphate of Hazrat Umar Farooq رضي الله عنه, three divorces were counted as one for two years.

Based on this authentic, connected, and elevated hadith, Hazrat Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه also held the ruling that three divorces given at once count as only one.

Imam Akramah

, Imam Tawus

, Imam Ata bin Abi Rabah

, Imam Ata bin Sayyar

, Imam Jabir bin Zaid

, Imam Amr bin Dinar

, and many other Tabi‘in considered three divorces in one sitting as one revocable divorce.
Maulana Mufti Kifayatullah Hanafi Deobandi states that
Some scholars indeed hold that it is one revocable divorce, and this is the religion adopted by the Ahl al-Hadith gentlemen, and it is narrated from Hazrat Ibn Abbas, Tawus, Akramah, Ibn Ishaq. Therefore, it is not correct to call any Ahl al-Hadith person a disbeliever because of this ruling, nor are they worthy of boycott or mosque tax.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam Ibn Qayyim, Allama Rashid Rida Misri

, and Sheikh Jamaluddin Qasmi (may Allah have mercy on him) also supported the Ahl al-Hadith position.
Mr. Jhangvi should clarify whether all these people are outside Ahl al-Sunnah?

Are the sayings of the Imams infallible?

Jhangvi Sahib states that Ahl-e-Sunnat respect the Awliya-e-Karam, whereas non-following Imams unnecessarily criticize the Awliya-e-Karam.

Answer: Firstly: –
From the best of generations until now, among the scholars there have been some partial differences on certain issues. Both parties have pointed out flaws in each other’s arguments and have considered their own arguments correct and true.
This is an undeniable fact, like denying the existence of the sun at noon. Take any religious jurisprudence and you will see that they present their arguments by quoting the sayings of other great scholars of religion and commenting on them academically. This is not against etiquette or respect, nor does it mean that all Imams were disrespectful, because they differed with those before them, some more, some less. The difference between Imam Muhammad and Qazi Abu Yusuf with Imam Abu Hanifa is an undeniable fact. Were these people disrespectful and rude? Certainly not. Because no one’s knowledge is equal, nor is everyone’s intellect and understanding the same.
However, while differing in opinion, the respect and etiquette towards the Imams of religion should not be abandoned because they are our predecessors, servants of religion, and devotees of the Sunnah, whose hearts were illuminated with the knowledge of the Quran. Alongside this, all the Imams are our benefactors. Their scholarly efforts cannot be ignored. Yet, despite this, the Imams were not infallible from error. After all, they were human beings. They were not Allah Almighty or the Prophet.
This is the religion of Ahl-e-Hadith. This is what we invite to. With full certainty and conviction, it is stated that whenever all the researching scholars of Ahl-e-Hadith differed with any Imam’s statement, they kept it within scholarly limits. Insulting and cursing to soothe one’s heart is the behavior of innovators and misguided people. Good manners, guarding one’s tongue is the characteristic of a believer and the motto of scholars. Jhangvi Sahib is unnecessarily angry and suspicious of us. Otherwise, believe me, Ahl-e-Hadith is free from these accusations. Accordingly, Mufti Khair-ul-Madaris (Multan) openly admits this fact that the scholars of Ahl-e-Hadith are not disrespectful to the pious predecessors and Imams of religion.

Secondly: –
The reality is that the innovators of religion are actually disrespectful and rude to the Awliya and elders. Maulvi Muhammad Hasan Sanbali Hanafi (who is a special student of Maulana Qasim Ali Nanotvi) wrote a commentary on the famous textbook Sharh Aqeedat named Nazm-ul-Faraid. In this commentary, at one point, he mentions great scholars like Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam Ibn Qayyim, Imam Shawkani, Imam Ibn Hazm, such great masters and distinguished Mujahids in this way:

وخلفاء هذه المللة اربعة ابن تيمية وابن القيم والشوكاني فيقولون ثلثة رابعهم كلبهم واذا انضم اليهم ابن حزم وداؤد الظاهري بان صار واستة ويقولون خمسة سادسهم كلبهم رجما بالغيب وخاتم المكلبين مثله كمثل الكلب أن تحمل عليه يلهث وتتركه يلهث

I do not have the courage to translate this passage. Just know that Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam Ibn Qayyim, Imam Ibn Hazm, Imam Dawood, Imam Shawkani, and their devotees were called dogs.
Are those who use such vile language also the custodians of etiquette and respect?

Are the Companions not the standard of truth?

Jhangvi Sahib has also left a slander that the non-followers do not consider the Companions as the standard of truth.

Whereas this is a lie and slander. The guidance is from the Founder.

اٰمِنُوْا كَمَاۤ اٰمَنَ النَّاسُ

Meaning, bring faith as the people (the Companions) brought faith (2:13).
In this verse, the word “people” refers to the sacred group of the Companions. Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf, may Allah preserve him, says that
there is a standard and criterion for faith. Now faith will only be valid if it is like the faith of the Companions.

From this, it is proven that differing from the Companions in beliefs and faith is not permissible. It should also be noted that according to us, the interpretation of the texts by the Companions is also a proof.
Hafiz Sanaullah Zahidi, may Allah preserve him, says that

ولذلك اختار جمهور المحدثين ترجيع تفسير الصحابي للحديث على تفسير غيره من المتاخرين لانه شاهد موارد النصوص واجتهاده في فهم النصوص اصوب من اجتهاد المتاخرين من فقهاء التابعين ومن بعد هم كما في تفسير ابن عمر البيعان بالخيار والحنفية خالفوافي هذه الصورة

And for this reason, according to the majority of the great Muhaddithin, the interpretation of a Companion is preferred over the interpretation of later scholars because the Companions are eyewitnesses to the revelation of the texts. And in understanding the texts, the ijtihad of the Companions is more correct and true than that of later jurists, the Tabi‘in, and those after them, as exemplified by the interpretation of the hadith of Bai‘ al-Khiyar by Hazrat Ibn Umar (RA). The Hanafis have differed in this case.

However, if in any matter the statement of a Companion contradicts a Marfoo‘ hadith, then the Companion’s statement is not a proof. This is also the principle of the Hanafis. Allama Ibn Hummam says that

ان قول الصحابي حجة فيجب تقليده عندنا اذالم ينفه شئ آخر من السنة

Meaning, according to us, the statement of a Companion is a proof unless something from the Sunnah negates it.

Mulla Ali al-Qari has quoted this passage from Fath al-Qadeer in

and remained silent.
Maulana Zafar Ahmad Thanvi, Hanafi Deobandi, says that

قول الصحابي حجة عندنا اذالم يخالفه مرفوع

Meaning, the statement of a Companion is a proof for us as long as it does not contradict a Marfoo‘ hadith.

Maulana has also mentioned this principle in

. At one place he says that

ولا حجة في قول الصحابى فى معارضة المرفوع لاسيما اذا كانت المسالة مختلفا فيها بين الصحابة

Meaning, when the statement of a Companion contradicts a Marfoo‘ hadith, it is not a proof, especially when the issue is one on which the Companions differed.

From these statements of the Deobandi scholars, it is proven that in matters where the Companions differed or where the fatwas of the Companions contradict or oppose a Marfoo‘ hadith, the statements of the Companions are not a Shariah proof. As for the consensus of the Companions, it is a proof for us. For details, see Allama Ibn Hazm’s book

. From this entire explanation, it is proven that Jhangvi Sahib has misrepresented. Otherwise, the Ahl-e-Hadith consider and regard the Companions as the standard of truth.

Is the second call to Friday prayer an Ottoman innovation?

Jhangvi Sahib has also made a false claim that according to Ahl al-Sunnah, the sayings of the Companions are considered Sunnah, whereas Ahl al-Hadith call the second Adhan of Friday an Ottoman innovation.

Answer:- Firstly:-
Dear readers in the issue of Taqlid, under the title ‘The talk of the author of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith’, it has been proven from Imam Abu Hanifa that all his knowledge was based on opinion and analogy. Whereas Ahl al-Hadith, instead of opinion and analogy, make the Quran, Sunnah, and sayings of the Companions the guideline of their life and seek solutions to issues from them and continue to do so. In this case, with what face is Jhangvi Sahib accusing us?
Secondly:-
If a person is considered outside Ahl al-Sunnah for calling the Ottoman Adhan an innovation, then Jhangvi should listen carefully that the one who called it an innovation is Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (RA). The author

in the book Al-Salat, chapter on the Friday Adhan, Hafiz Ibn Hajar has narrated this tradition in

and remained silent on it.
And Akbar Diyanah admits that Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s silence in Fath al-Bari is a sign of the authenticity of the tradition. See

Jhangvi Sahib should have the courage and publish the announcement that Abdullah bin Umar (RA) is outside Ahl al-Sunnah.
Well done, you have done it and stuck to it.
Thirdly:-
From the above speech, it has been proven that this issue was disputed among the Companions. And it has already been stated that when there is a difference of opinion among the Companions on an issue, their sayings are not binding. Therefore, the statement of Hazrat Uthman (RA) was not binding. But you will be surprised that the Hanafis still made it applicable. Whereas in the very tradition in which it is proven that Hazrat Uthman Ghani (RA) gave the second Adhan, it is explicitly stated that during the blessed life of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, and during the caliphate of Sayyiduna Siddiq Akbar (RA) and Umar Farooq (RA), only one Adhan was given.

Fourthly:-
If Jhangvi finds this false excuse that the practice of the Rightly Guided Caliphs is included in Sunnah and there is an authentic hadith on it, the details cannot be discussed here

, but here, to silence Jhangvi, we present an example of Hazrat Uthman Ghani (RA) that it is authentically narrated that he prayed the full prayer instead of shortening it during the Hajj journey.

But the Hanafis say the opposite, that if a traveler deliberately prays the full prayer instead of shortening it, his prayer becomes invalid and it is obligatory for him to pray again.

Jhangvi Sahib, if you also call the sayings of the Companions Sunnah, then why do you call this Ottoman practice invalid?

Is collective supplication after prayer a symbol of Ahl al-Sunnah?

Jhangvi Sahib writes that Ahl-e-Sunnat raise their hands and make dua after prayer, whereas the non-followers, Ahl-e-Hadith, do not make dua and consider it an innovation.

Answer: Firstly, there is no authentic and continuous hadith proving that after obligatory prayers, a collective dua is made in front of the Imam and the followers say Ameen.
The great Muhaddith of Deoband, Allama Ka Shumiri, states that

وليعلم أن الدعاء المعمول في زماننا من الدعا بعد الفريضة رافعين أيديهم على هيئة الكذائية لم تكن المواظبة عليه في عهده عليه السلام

It should be known that in our time, the practice of making dua after obligatory prayers, where the Imam and followers raise their hands together and say Ameen, was not observed during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

Sheikh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlavi says that

اما این دعائه که آئمه مساجد بعد از سلام میکنند و مقتدیاں آمین آمین میکویند چنانچه الان در دیار عرب و عجم متعارف هست از عادت پیغمبر خدا نه بود و درین باب هیچ حدیث ثابت نه شده

The dua that Imams of mosques make after the salam and the followers say Ameen, as is customary in Arab and non-Arab countries, was not the habit of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. And there is no authentic hadith established in this regard.

Maulana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi states:
This method currently prevalent, where the Imam after salam raises hands and makes dua and the followers say Ameen, was not present during the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. As Ibn Qayyim has clarified in Zad al-Ma’ad.

All these statements are from the scholars of Deoband, proving that the prevalent dua is not established from the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ. Dear readers, once you have understood this reality well, now listen that dua is an act of worship, and acts of worship are fundamentally prohibited to be innovated. Their manner and form cannot be determined arbitrarily. The author has explained this in detail in Deen-ul-Haq, Volume 2. If Jhangvi does not trust our research, he should study the book authored by his respected teacher Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Sahib Safdar, “راہ سنت,” in which this principle and rule have been explained.
Secondly:
By calling it an innovation, you are declaring us outside the fold of Ahl-e-Sunnat. Whereas among many great Imams who call it an innovation, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah says:

That is, the Imam and followers making collective dua after prayer is an innovation. It was not present during the blessed time of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم.

The contemporary Deobandi jurist, Grand Mufti Hazrat Mufti Rashid Ahmad Sahib, says that the custom of making dua together with the Imam, whether silently or aloud, is an innovation born out of lack of knowledge and abundance of ignorance.

Allama Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri Hanafi Deobandi (may Allah have mercy on him) in

, Mufti Muhammad Shafi Sahib Deobandi in

, and Maulana Abul Qasim Rafiq Dilawi in

have called the Imam making dua after obligatory prayers and the followers saying Ameen together an innovation.
If Jhangvi has the courage, he should publish a declaration expelling these mentioned Deoband elders from Ahl-e-Sunnat. If Jhangvi Sahib is ready, prepare the draft of the declaration; we are ready to provide funds for its publication. ان شاء اللہ But dear readers, remember that Jhangvi calls Ahl-e-Hadith outside the fold of Ahl-e-Sunnat for not practicing this innovation and presents the book as a gift, but he will never give such a gift to his own elders. Why? Because the scale of justice is that the opponent is to be criticized, and when it comes to one’s own elders, silence is maintained.
Shame on such honesty, wonder at such fear of Allah, and what can be said about such cunning, deceit, and dishonesty.

Are Ahl al-Hadith Deniers of Fiqh?

Jhangvi Sahib states that Ahl al-Sunnah are believers in fiqh while the non-followers of madhhab among Ahl al-Hadith deny fiqh.

Answer: Firstly:-
First of all, it is necessary to understand what is meant by fiqh? Linguists say that

(الفقه فهم الشئ قال ابن فارس وكل علم لشى فهو فقه )

meaning fiqh is the understanding of something. Ibn Faris said that the knowledge of anything is called fiqh.

In the terminology of Shariah, fiqh means the Quran and Sunnah. Hazrat Zaid bin Thabit (RA) narrates that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

((نضر الله امراسمع مقالتی فبلغها قرب حامل فقه غير فقيه ورب حامل فقه إلى من هو افقه منه ))

May Allah keep happy and content the person who hears my words and conveys them to others, for it sometimes happens that the one who takes up fiqh is not a faqih, and often those who take up fiqh take it to someone more learned than themselves.

This hadith is also narrated from Hazrat Jubair bin Mut’im (RA).

Reflect on this hadith that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم referred to his statement as fiqh. In essence, the Quran and Sunnah and their understanding is fiqh. Hazrat Amir Muawiyah narrates that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

(من يرد الله به خيرا يفقه في الدين)

Meaning, Allah bestows the understanding of religion on whom He intends good for.

From this it is understood that fiqh is actually the understanding of religion which is not from anyone but is granted by Allah, and that is the Quran and Hadith. The statements of the narrators (of hadith) are the result of scholars’ intellectual efforts. Therefore, their fatwas are not fiqh but opinions and analogies.
Dear readers, once you have understood this well, now consider who among the kalima reciters denies that Allah grants scholars the understanding of religion.
Secondly:-
Probably Jhangvi Sahib means by fiqh the established Hanafi fiqh books. However, Ahl al-Hadith do not deny them because they are fiqh but rather because they are based on the sayings of non-infallible followers. Just as Hanafi people deny Ja’fari fiqh, Hanbali fiqh, Shafi’i fiqh, Maliki fiqh, etc., can we say that Hanafis deny fiqh because they do not accept the fiqh of multiple jurists?

Are Ahl al-Hadith Deniers of the Punishment of the Grave?

Jhangvi Sahib states that Ahl al-Sunnah believe in punishment and reward in the grave, whereas the present non-following Ahl al-Hadith do not believe in it.

Answer: Firstly:-
I am surprised what to write in response? After all, what arguments has Jhangvi presented that I should refute? When the entire matter is based on suspicion, lying, slander, and misrepresentation, then only لعنت الله علی الكاذبين would have sufficed in response. There are numerous Quranic verses and mutawatir hadiths as proof of punishment in the grave. How can any Ahl al-Hadith deny this? It should be clear to Jhangvi Sahib that one who denies punishment in the grave is of evil creed, unfortunate, the worst innovator, and outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah. Until he abandons this evil belief, it is not permissible to deal with him as a Muslim. And if he dies, it is not permissible to perform his funeral prayer.
Secondly:-
Jhangvi’s writing shows that he only refers to the present scholars of Ahl al-Hadith regarding this belief. The phrase “deceased scholars of Ahl al-Hadith” is an acknowledgment that they believed in punishment in the grave. Therefore, there is no need to provide evidence from the entire group of respected muhaddithin about this. As for the present-day scholars of Ahl al-Hadith, first of all, we invite the honorable readers to reflect and say that they can ask any knowledgeable local Ahl al-Hadith scholar for reassurance. Jhangvi Sahib should study the work of our respected teacher, Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Yahya Sahib Gondalvi, may Allah preserve him, titled ”

.” ان شاء اللہ All his doubts and suspicions will be removed. However, stubbornness is an incurable disease; for that, Jhangvi Sahib should at least recite على الصبح لاحول ولاقوة الا بالله العلى العظيم‘ ten times daily. ان شاء اللہ This elixir will bring healing.
If anything remains lacking, then Jhangvi Sahib should also remember اذا حدث کذب (A hypocrite, when he speaks, lies) once or twice a day. This will surely bring ان شاء اللہ healing.

Do the innovators of Deoband believe in the Ahl al-Sunnah concept of the life of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم?

Jhangvi Sahib states that Ahl al-Sunnah believe in the life of the Prophet ﷺ while the non-followers do not.

Answer: Firstly:-
It is necessary to first understand the stance of the innovator Ayan Diya Banna regarding the life of the Prophet ﷺ so that the matter can be understood easily. The Deobandi Sheikh al-Hadith Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani states that the life of the Prophet is not only spiritual, which is common to all martyrs, but also physical, and it is of the worldly life type, indeed stronger for many reasons.

Maulana Qasim Ali Nanoo Tawi states that
The Prophets, peace be upon them, are considered alive in terms of their worldly bodies.

There is absolutely no belief established from any verse of the Quran or any authentic, continuous, and connected hadith, nor from the companions of the Prophet ﷺ, regarding such a life; this belief is due to the impression of the Deobandi innovators from the Barelvi sect and no valid evidence has been proven for it.
Secondly:-
Your respected teacher Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Sahib Safdar has tried to prove in

that the scholars of Ahl al-Hadith believe in the life of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Jhangvi Sahib, please clarify explicitly whether Safdar Sahib is wrong or you are?

The Belief in the Life of the Prophets and the Quran

Regarding death, under the general principle, the prophets are included just like ordinary humans. Because Allah Almighty has not exempted anyone else from this principle except Himself.

كُلُّ مَنْ عَلَیْهَا فَانٍ(26)وَّ یَبْقٰى وَجْهُ رَبِّكَ ذُو الْجَلٰلِ وَ الْاِكْرَامِ

Everyone upon it [the earth] will perish. And there will remain the Face of your Lord, Owner of Majesty and Honor.
Everlasting life belongs only to Allah Almighty; all others are perishable. Moreover, Allah Almighty has declared the death of all prophets in the Quran under a general rule.

General Declaration:

مَا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ

That is, Jesus was only a messenger of Allah; messengers before him passed away.

وَ مَا مُحَمَّدٌ اِلَّا رَسُوْلٌۚ-قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُؕ

Muhammad (peace be upon him) is only a messenger of Allah; messengers before him have passed away.
From these two verses, it is clear that all the messengers who came before Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) lived their natural lives and passed away. All of them drank the cup of death. However, Jesus was taken up alive to the heavens. Near the Day of Judgment, he will descend to this world, and after completing the remainder of his life, death will come to him as well, and he too will pass away.

Mention of the Death of Some Prophets:

Besides this general announcement, Allah Almighty has specifically mentioned the death of the Prophets, peace be upon them, as He said about Prophet Yaqub, peace be upon him:

أَمۡ كُنتُمۡ شُهَدَآءَ إِذۡ حَضَرَ يَعۡقُوبَ ٱلۡمَوۡتُ

Were you present when Yaqub died?
About Prophet Yusuf, peace be upon him, He said:

حَتَّىٰ إِذَا هَلَكَ

Meaning, when Yusuf, peace be upon him, passed away. About Prophet Sulaiman, peace be upon him, He said:

فَلَمَّا قَضَيْنَا عَلَيْهِ الْمَوْتَ مَا دَلَّهُمْ عَلَىٰ مَوْتِهِ إِلَّا دَابَّةُ الْأَرْضِ

When We caused him to die, none of the jinn knew of his death except the insects of the earth. About Prophet Isa, peace be upon him, He said:

وَالسَّلَامُ عَلَيَّ يَوْمَ وُلِدتُّ وَيَوْمَ أَمُوتُ

Peace be upon me the day I was born and the day I die.

وَإِن مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلَّا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ

Before the death of the Messiah, every People of the Book will believe in him.
Prophet Ibrahim said:

وَالَّذِي يُمِيتُنِي ثُمَّ يُحْيِينِ

It is Allah who will cause me to die and then bring me back to life.

The Death of the Seal of the Prophets, Master of the Messengers, Muhammad, peace be upon him:-

Allah Almighty mentioned the death of the common prophets along with the mention of the Holy Prophet ﷺ that he too will pass away.

وَمَا جَعَلْنَا لِبَشَرٍ مِّن قَبْلِكَ الْخُلْدَ ۖ أَفَإِن مِّتَّ فَهُمُ الْخَالِدُونَ (34) كُلُّ نَفْسٍ ذَائِقَةُ الْمَوْتِ

And We did not make for any man before you immortality; so if you die – would they be eternal?
Every soul will taste death.
In this verse, the death of the Prophet ﷺ and all humans is mentioned together, indicating that just as ordinary people die, you too will die. The necessary detail of this is explained in these words:

أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَىٰ أَعْقَابِكُمْ ۚ وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَىٰ عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ اللَّهَ شَيْئًا

So if you die or are killed, then will you turn back on your heels? And he who turns back on his heels will not harm Allah at all.

إِنَّكَ مَيِّتٌ وَإِنَّهُم مَّيِّتُونَ

Indeed, you (O Prophet ﷺ) will die, and indeed, they will die.
Allah Almighty made the Holy Prophet ﷺ declare with His sacred tongue that

قُلْ إِنَّ صَلَاتِي وَنُسُكِي وَمَحْيَايَ وَمَمَاتِي لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ

Say, “Indeed, my prayer, my rites of sacrifice, my living and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the worlds.”
These verses clearly indicate regarding the Holy Prophet ﷺ that death will come to you ﷺ as well, and you ﷺ are not exempt from this compared to other humans.

Death Has Come

Then the time came when, exactly as per those divine commands, the time of death also arrived for you, صلى الله عليه وسلم. From which no living soul can escape. Only a few days had passed since you, peace be upon him, returned from حجتہ الوداع, when your health began to deteriorate. Treatment was given, but the illness worsened. Fainting spells kept occurring, and finally, the last moment of borrowed life arrived, the details of which are narrated by Umm al-Mu’minin Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, who said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was resting his head on my lap. Nearby, there was a bowl of water. You ﷺ would dip your hand in the water and then wipe your face with that hand, saying:

(لا اله الا الله ان للموت سكرات )

Indeed, there are hardships in death. In this state, when your ﷺ hand was raised, you were saying:

((في الرفيق الأعلى ))

In this praise, your ﷺ blessed soul was taken, and the hand lowered.

Within moments, the news of your صلى الله عليه وسلم death spread throughout Medina. The city was thrown into chaos, as if darkness had enveloped the entire Medina. Hazrat Anas رضي الله عنه, describing this scene, said that the city of Medina was bright on the day the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم arrived, but on the day of your صلى الله عليه وسلم passing, everything in Medina was dark.

Sayedna Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA)’s Sermon and the Consensus of the Companions :-

This was all a state of shock. The overwhelming devotion, love, and emotions were such that even a strong and brave man like Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA) said that whoever says that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ has passed away, I will cut off his neck. (اللہ اکبر)
Meanwhile, Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) reached the blessed body of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, removed the cloth from his radiant face, tears flowing from his eyes. He bent towards the radiant face and kissed it. The pain of separation was such that he said:

(لا يجمع الله عليك موتتين ابدا اما الموة التي كتب الله عليك فقدمتها )

Allah Almighty will not combine two deaths upon you. The death that Allah had decreed for you صلى الله عليه وسلم has occurred.
Then Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA) was still talking to the companions when Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) said, “Umar, please sit down,” but Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA) refused to sit. Then Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) began to deliver a sermon.
The companions left Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA) and came towards Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA). Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) said:

(من كان منكم يعبد محمدافان محمد اقدمات ومن كان يعبد الله عزوجل فان الله حي لا يموت قال الله عز و جل )

(وما محمد الرسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل الى الشاكرين )

Whoever among you worships Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, then Muhammad ﷺ has certainly passed away, and whoever worships Allah, then Allah Almighty is surely alive and will never die. Then he recited this verse: “Muhammad is not but a messenger; indeed, messengers before him have passed away.” After this sermon of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA), everyone was convinced that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم had passed away. And on every tongue was the verse:

(وما محمد الارسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل )

Not a single companion denied the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم; rather, all accepted it. Indeed, all the elders and juniors of the companions unanimously agreed on the passing of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. Narrated from the Aqeedah of Ahl al-Hadith, from the honorable teacher.

The Status of Siddiq Akbar (May Allah be pleased with him):-

Where can I find the courage of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA), who, despite his immense reverence and love for the Prophet ﷺ, expressed the truth openly before all the Companions without any compromise or concern for the sensitivity of the time, and through his strong faith and mastery of prophetic knowledge, united the Companions in consensus over the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Undoubtedly, Siddiq Akbar (RA) subordinated emotions, love, and intense devotion to the Quran and Sunnah.

By Allah’s grace, Siddiq Akbar (RA) boosted the morale of the bereaved Ummah at a time when the Companions were unable to bear the mountain of grief.

Siddiq Akbar (RA) guided the bereaved Ummah at a time when a fearless, bold, and Quran and Sunnah-filled heart like his was desperately needed. Siddiq Akbar (RA) shattered the belief of Hayat al-Nabi (the life of the Prophet), and strengthened the belief in Wafat al-Nabi Allah (the death of the Prophet of Allah) with the iron bars of the Quran and Sunnah, so that all the Companions testified to his spiritual insight and trustworthiness in prophetic knowledge, and the future innovators could not break the arguments he presented. Siddiq Akbar irrigated the religion of his Master ﷺ so well that no storm of disbelief, polytheism, or innovation could uproot this plant from its roots. He will remain with his Master ﷺ in Paradise just as he was with his Master ﷺ in this world. There is no greater happiness for them than this.

Attempt to change the reality:-
Dear readers, they are left speechless in rejecting these clear texts and the consensus of the Companions on the basis of fabricated narrations by the Jhungvi gang of liars and deceivers like Sadi. When asked about their claim, they say they are Ahl al-Sunnah, without shame or modesty.

(انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون)

The Hayati group of Deoband claims to be Hanafi.

Maulana Ismail Salafi (may Allah have mercy on him) once addressed them and said that such delusions cannot even be rightly called beliefs. There is no mention of this in the books of Aqeedah (such as Sharh Aqeedah Nasafi, Aqeedah Tahawiyyah, Sharh al-Aqeedah al-Asfahaniyyah, Aqeedah Sabuniyyah, etc.), even though the entire content of the books of Aqeedah is considered as established belief. According to the explicit statements of the theologians and the Ash’aris and Maturidis, definite proofs are required for Aqeedah. The hadiths about the life of the Prophets, depending on the narrator, are even weaker than Ahad reports.

Is Eight Rak’ahs Taraweeh Not the Belief of Ahl al-Sunnah?

Jhangvi Sahib states that among Ahl al-Sunnah, no one believes in less than Taraweeh, while non-followers believe in eight.

Answer: Firstly:-
Eight rak’ah prayer of Taraweeh is proven from the authentic Sunnah. The Companions practiced it. Imam Malik adopted it. Numerous Hanafi elders have accepted eight rak’ahs as Sunnah (details follow). So, are all these outside Ahl al-Sunnah? Please clarify.

Secondly:-
From authentic hadiths, eight rak’ah Taraweeh prayer is established. Imam Abu Sulaymah asked Hazrat Aisha:

(كيف كانت صلوة رسول الله له في رمضان فقالت ما كان يزيد في رمضان ولا في غيره على احدى عشرة ركعة )

(The hadith)

Meaning: How was the prayer of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم in Ramadan? Hazrat Aisha رضي الله عنها replied that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not pray more than eleven rak’ahs in Ramadan or outside Ramadan. (The hadith)

Hazrat Jabir narrates:

(صلى بناء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في شهر رمضان ثمان ركعات و اوتر)

Meaning: We prayed eight rak’ahs of Taraweeh in congregation with the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم in Ramadan, and also Witr. The hadith.

Allama Haithami states that the chain of narration of Tabarani is Hasan (good).

And Jhangvi Sahib’s respected teacher Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar says that if Allama Haithami was not capable of judging authenticity and weakness, then who else was?

This hadith mentions the Sunnah of the speech (address) and also specifies the number eight.

Thirdly:-
Besides the aforementioned Marfu’ hadiths, this was also practiced during the caliphate of Hazrat Umar Farooq رضي الله عنه. Imam Saib ibn Yazid narrates:

(امر عمر بن الخطاب ابی بن كعب وتميما الدارى ان يقوم للناس باحدى عشرة ركعة )

Meaning: Hazrat Umar Farooq رضي الله عنه ordered Hazrat Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Tamim al-Dari رضي الله عنهما to lead the people in eleven rak’ahs of Qiyam Ramadan. The hadith.

This passage was summarized by Ibn Najim

and Abi Abideen

and then they remained silent on it.
Allama Tahtawi states that

(ان النبي ﷺ لم يصليها عشرين بل ثمانيا )

Meaning, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not pray twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh but performed eight rak’ahs.

Allama Ibn Abideen states that

(ان مقتضى الدليل كون المسنون منها ثمانية )

Meaning, from the perspective of evidence, eight rak’ahs of Taraweeh prayer is Sunnah and the rest are recommended (mustahabb).

Mulla Ali al-Qari Hanafi states that

(ان التراويح فى الأصل أحدى عشرة ركعة فعله رسول الله له فيكون سنة فالعشرون مستحبا)

Meaning, originally Taraweeh prayer along with Witr is eleven rak’ahs and twenty rak’ahs are recommended.

Nawab Qutbuddin Hanafi states that
During the time of Hazrat Umar, it was never proven that the Messenger ﷺ prayed eleven rak’ahs or that there was an intention of imitation on some nights to pray eleven rak’ahs.

Sheikh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlawi Hanafi states that

(وكان بعض السلف في عهد عمر بن عبد العزيز يصلون باحدى عشرة ركعة قصد التشبيه برسول الله )

Meaning, during the time of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, some of the Salaf used to pray eleven rak’ahs of Taraweeh in imitation of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Allama Aini Hanafi states that

(وقيل احدى وعشرة ركعة وهو اختيار مالك لنفسه واختيار ابو بكر بن العربي )

Meaning, some say that Taraweeh is eleven rak’ahs and this is what Imam Malik preferred for himself. Ibn al-Arabi also adopted this.

Mufti Kifayatullah Sahib Hanafi Deobandi’s deputy Mufti Maulana Habib al-Mursaleen Hanafi Deobandi states that
The hadith of Jabir رضي الله عنه about Taraweeh is authentic. Therefore, eight rak’ahs of Taraweeh is the true Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Note:
Maulana later retracted this fatwa for some expediency.
Hazrat Mufti Kifayatullah Sahib states that
From most narrations, it is established that the Prophet prayed eight rak’ahs (Taraweeh).

He further states that Hazrat Abi bin Ka’b and Tamim Dari were ordered by Hazrat Umar رضي الله عنه to pray eleven rak’ahs.

Jhangvi Sahib clarifies whether the mentioned persons were part of Ahl al-Sunnah or not, especially Hazrat Umar Farooq رضي الله عنه, who ordered to pray eight rak’ahs. It should be noted that the narration presented by the Hanafi school that twenty rak’ahs were prayed during the time of Hazrat Umar Farooq is a disconnected chain (isnad munqati). For details see

Is there a difference between Taraweeh and Tahajjud?

Jhangvi Sahib states that
Among Ahl al-Sunnah, Tahajjud and Taraweeh are two separate prayers, whereas among non-followers of the Madhhab, Ahl al-Hadith consider Tahajjud and Taraweeh to be the same.

Earlier, a hadith was narrated in which Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was asked by Hazrat Abu Salamah about the prayer of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم during Ramadan. In response, Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said that the Prophet ﷺ did not pray more than eleven rak’ahs in Ramadan or outside Ramadan.

From Hazrat Aisha’s (may Allah be pleased with her) answer, it is proven that she considered Tahajjud and Taraweeh to be the same. Otherwise, it would be necessary to conclude that Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) gave a wrong answer to the questioner, which is false. Moreover, Imam Bukhari, Imam Baihaqi

, Allama Zailai Hanafi

, Allama Ibn Hammam Hanafi

, Allama Hasan bin Ammar al-Sharnbulali Hanafi

, Allama Ibn Najim Hanafi

, and others have mentioned this narration under the chapters of Taraweeh and have accepted that this hadith relates to the prayer of Taraweeh and that Hazrat Aisha considered Tahajjud and Taraweeh to be the same.
Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri (may Allah have mercy on him), Hanafi Deobandi, states that
There is no option but to accept that the Prophet ﷺ’s Taraweeh was eight rak’ahs and it has not been proven from any narration that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم prayed Tahajjud and Taraweeh separately in Ramadan. In the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, there was no difference in the rak’ahs of Taraweeh and Tahajjud; rather, the difference was in the description and the time.

This matter has been elaborated in detail by Hazrat Shah Sahib

, stating that Taraweeh and Tahajjud are the same. For his wording and its explanation and commentary, see

. In fact, Hazrat Maulana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi has adopted the same position in

. Jhangvi should have the courage to publish a notice declaring these great Deoband scholars as outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah.

Do Ahl al-Hadith consider visiting the Prophet’s grave, peace be upon him, to be forbidden?

Jhangvi, disregarding shame and modesty, writes with full certainty and misrepresentation that Ahl al-Sunnah consider visiting the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) shrine as a virtuous act, while non-muqlid Ahl al-Hadith declare it forbidden.

Answer: – Firstly:-
Jhangvi has attributed to Ahl al-Hadith that they consider visiting this sacred shrine as forbidden. We say this is a misrepresentation. Jhangvi and his companions and advisors, who gave many valuable suggestions in the compilation of this book and greatly supported the author, should all together make every effort to provide proof of this claim, otherwise they should fear the warning of (لعنة الله على الكاذبين ).
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah says:

(وان كان المسافر الى مسجده يزور قبره ﷺ بل هذا من افضل الاعمال الصالحة )

Meaning, if a traveler goes towards the Prophet’s Mosque, he should visit the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) grave; indeed, this is among the best righteous deeds.

Secondly:-
Yes, according to Ahl al-Hadith, traveling specifically for visiting the pure grave is not permissible; rather, the intention in travel should be to visit the Prophet’s Mosque. Upon reaching there, visiting the Prophet’s grave is recommended and a good deed. There are mutawatir ahadith on this. For example, Hazrat Abu Saeed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:
(لا تشد الرحال الا الى ثلثة مساجد المسجد الحرام ومسجد الاقصى ومسجدى) (Hadith)
Meaning, one should not travel with the intention of reward except towards three mosques: the House of Allah (Kaaba), the Mosque of al-Aqsa, and my mosque (i.e., the Prophet’s Mosque).

The Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) understood this hadith generally. When Hazrat Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) returned from Ta’if, the narrator of the hadith “La Tashudd al-Rihal” Hazrat Basrah bin Abi Basrah al-Ghifari (may Allah be pleased with him) asked where he had come from. When Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) told him, Basrah said:
(لو لقيتك من قبل ان تاتيه لم تأته قلت له ولم ؟ قال اني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول لا تعمل المطى الا الى ثلثة مساجد المسجد الحرام ومسجدى ومسجدبيت المقدس ) (Hadith)
If you had met me before going to Ta’if, you would not have gone there. I (Abu Hurairah) asked why? He said that I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: No travel should be undertaken except towards three mosques: one is the Sacred Mosque (Masjid al-Haram), the second is my mosque, and the third is the Mosque of al-Quds (Jerusalem).
(Hadith)

Allama al-Albani has declared its chain authentic,

From this authentic hadith, it is understood that the Companions considered the hadith “La Tashudd al-Rihal” as general, which proves that traveling for visiting any place other than these three mosques for extra reward is not permissible. From this entire explanation, it is established that according to Ahl al-Hadith, visiting the Prophet’s shrine (peace be upon him) is recommended and a good deed. However, when traveling, the intention should be to visit the Prophet’s Mosque, and upon arrival, one should visit the Prophet’s shrine as well.
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
When entering Medina before or after Hajj, come to the Prophet’s Mosque and pray there; the reward of one prayer there is more than a thousand prayers, as per the hadith. Do not travel except towards the Prophet’s Mosque, the Sacred Mosque, and al-Aqsa Mosque, as narrated from Hazrat Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) in

…
Then send blessings upon the Prophet (peace be upon him) and greet his companions (Abu Bakr and Umar) because the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
Whoever sends blessings upon me, Allah returns my soul to me and I respond to him. Abu Dawood
When Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar entered the Prophet’s Mosque, he would say:

(السلام عليك يارسول الله‘ السلام عليك يا ابابكر‘ السلام عليك يا ابت):

Then he would return. All the Companions used to do the same.

Maulana Muhammad Bashir Sahab Suhwani (may Allah have mercy on him) says:

(لانزاع في نفس مشروعية زيارة قبر نبينا ﷺ واماما نسب إلى شيخ السلام ابن تيمية من القول بعدم مشروعية زيارة قبر نبينا ﷺ فافتراء )

Meaning, there is absolutely no dispute in visiting the pure grave of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the Shariah manner, and the claim against Allama Ibn Taymiyyah that he considered visiting the Prophet’s grave as impermissible is a mere false accusation.

From this explanation, it is clear that there is no disagreement regarding the visitation itself, but the difference lies in the intention of travel. However, Jhangvi Sahib misrepresents without any shame. We challenge him to provide proof of what he has written; otherwise, remember that misrepresentation is not befitting of a believer but is a sign of hypocrisy واذا احدث كذب اللہ. May He grant understanding and guidance. آمین

Do the deceased hear?

Jhangvi Sahib states that Ahl al-Sunnah believe in sending salutations and peace upon the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم at the grave (sama‘ ‘ind al-qabr), whereas the non-followers deny it.

Answer:
Firstly:
Prove from the books of Aqeedah and others that the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah is that the salutations and peace sent upon the Prophet ﷺ at his grave are heard by the Prophet ﷺ directly and without any intermediary? Then present a text from the Holy Quran or an authentic, explicit, elevated, and connected Hadith which means that the salutations sent at the Prophet’s grave are regularly heard by him ﷺ. If you show such a verse from the Quran or prove such a Prophetic Hadith, we are ready to accept it; otherwise, fear Allah in calling corrupt beliefs the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah.
Secondly:
The Divine command is:

اِنَّ اللّٰهَ یُسْمِـعُ مَنْ یَّشَآءُۚ-وَ مَاۤ اَنْتَ بِمُسْمِـعٍ مَّنْ فِی الْقُبُوْرِ

Allah Almighty makes whom He wills hear, and you cannot make those in the graves hear. (35:22)

اِنَّكَ لَا تُسْمِــعُ الْمَوْتٰى وَ لَا تُسْمِــعُ الصُّمَّ الدُّعَآءَ اِذَا وَلَّوْا مُدْبِرِیْنَ

You cannot make the dead hear, nor the deaf when they turn their backs. (27:80)
A verse with the same meaning is also present in

.
These Quranic verses testify that a person who has passed away and entered the Barzakh realm is not capable of hearing anything from the people of this world.
Thirdly:
The issue of hearing the dead (sama‘ al-mawta) has been disputed from the time of the Companions until now, which has been acknowledged by Maulana Ghulamullah Sahib

, Mufti Muhammad Shafi Sahib

, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani Sahib

, and Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi

, and there are many evidences on this matter. The question is:
If the Companions, especially Umm al-Mu’minin Hazrat Aisha رضي الله عنها

, denied sama‘ al-mawta, were they then outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah?
Jhangvi should clarify this with full confidence along with his group (Nasrat al-Uloom).
Fourthly:
The Hanafi scholars are proponents of the denial of sama‘. As is explicitly stated in Fath al-Qadeer and Fatawa Shami, if one is unable to understand the Arabic text, then

should be consulted, where Hazrat Maulana Kifayatullah Sahib denied sama‘ al-mawta and explained that this is also the Hanafi position, quoting the text from Fatawa Shami.
For further reassurance and satisfaction, also glance at

, where Sheikh al-Quran Maulana Ghulamullah Khan Sahib Deobandi (may Allah have mercy on him) proved that Maulana Rashid Ahmad Sahib Gangohi, Maulana Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri, and Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani were all proponents of the denial of sama‘. If Jhangvi dares, he should issue a fatwa declaring these Deobandi scholars outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah and get this fatwa confirmed by Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Sahib Safdar, then we will accept that indeed Maulana Kifayatullah Sahib, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi Sahib, Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani Sahib, etc., were outside Ahl al-Sunnah and entered into the misguided sect due to their denial of sama‘ al-mawta.

Is the sacrifice of a buffalo and a horse permissible?

Jhangvi Sahib states that Ahl-e-Sunnat consider the sacrifice of a buffalo permissible, while non-following Ahl-e-Hadith consider it forbidden. Ahl-e-Sunnat consider the sacrifice of a horse forbidden, while non-following Ahl-e-Hadith consider it permissible.

Answer:- Firstly:-
Regarding the difference of opinion among Ahl-e-Hadith on the sacrifice of a buffalo, a detailed discussion under the heading of buffalo sacrifice is coming, and the discussion on the permissibility of horse sacrifice in the context of the religion of Ahl-e-Madina and Ahl-e-Hadith is coming ahead under the heading “Permissibility and Prohibition of Horse” ان شاء اللہ. These two issues should be seen from there.
Secondly:-
In my life, I have not seen anyone more false than Jhangvi. Apparently, Jhangvi considers it permissible to lie against Ahl-e-Hadith. Because of this, he shamelessly commits falsehood, slander, and misrepresentation without any sense of shame or modesty. Our challenge is that no Ahl-e-Hadith has issued a fatwa permitting the sacrifice of a horse. If Jhangvi’s statement is true, then he should have the courage to make a desperate effort along with his companions to show a fatwa from any Ahl-e-Hadith mufti; otherwise, he should fear Allah, correct his condition, and stop opposing the people of truth.
For Jhangvi’s information, it is narrated from Hazrat Asma (may Allah be pleased with her)

(نحرنا على عهد رسول الله ﷺ فا كلناه )

There could have been confusion that the sacrifice of a horse is permissible. But all the commentators of Hadith have interpreted its meaning as “الذبح“. If you do not believe this, then study Allama Shawkani’s works

and

by Al-Tawwab Siddiq al-Hasan Khan Muhaddith Kanauji.
The strong evidence that the scholars of Ahl-e-Hadith interpret “نحر” here as “(لذبح” is that the scholars of Ahl-e-Hadith do not consider the sacrifice of a horse permissible. Among the scholars of Ahl-e-Hadith, the most inexperienced Salafi, Allama Waheed al-Zaman, has also interpreted it as slaughter.

The purpose of these remarks is that this was the position where a Salafi could have had the doubt that the sacrifice of a horse is permissible, but the commentators of Hadith interpreted it as slaughter and rejected that possibility. But unfortunately, Jhangvi has become so addicted to lying that it has become his blessed habit. May Allah grant him understanding and guidance and enable him to abandon the evil habit of lying and slander. We can only offer humble prayers; changing Jhangvi’s bad habit is beyond our capability.

The Issue of Reciting the Quran from the Mushaf during Prayer

Jhangvi Sahib states that Ahl al-Sunnah consider it permissible to recite the Quran in prayer by looking at the Mushaf, whereas the non-followers consider it incorrect.

Answer: – Firstly:-
Jhangvi Sahib wrote on page 53 of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith that Ahl al-Sunnah consider the Companions of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with them) as the standard of truth. The issue under discussion was the practice of the Mother of the Believers, Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her).

(ان عائشةؓ كانت تقرأ في المصحف وهي تصلى )

That is, Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) used to recite the Quran in prayer by looking at the Mushaf (Quran).

It is in Sahih Bukhari that

That is, Hazrat Aisha’s servant Dhakwan used to lead her prayer by looking at the Quran.

Imam Abu Bakr bin Abi Maliyka states that

(ان عائشه اعتقت غلامالها عن دبر فكان يؤمها في رمضان في المصحف )

That is, Hazrat Aisha had a servant whom she later freed, and he used to lead her prayer in Ramadan by looking at the Mushaf (Quran).

Hafiz Ibn Hajar states that the chain of narration of this report is authentic.

Imam Ibn Thahab al-Zuhri (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about the ruling on leading prayer by looking at the Quran.

(قال ما زالوا يفعلون ذلك منذ كان الاسلام كان خيارنا يقرون في المصاحف )

That is, from the beginning of Islam, scholars used to lead prayer by looking at the Quran, who were better than us.

Imam Saad, Imam Saeed bin Musayyib, Imam Hasan al-Basri, Imam Muhammad bin Sirin, Imam Yahya bin Saeed Ansari, Imam Malik, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on them all) all agreed on its permissibility. For details see

Jhangvi should clarify whether the group of Companions and Tabi‘in mentioned above, the jurists of Medina, and the best of the Ummah such as Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Imam Malik are included in Ahl al-Sunnah or excluded? If Jhangvi counts them among the pillars of Ahl al-Sunnah, then why does he consider Ahl al-Hadith outside?
From all this detail, it is clear that Jhangvi’s exclusion of Ahl al-Hadith from Ahl al-Sunnah due to disagreement on this issue is due to his ignorance.
Secondly:-
Just as Mukhtar bin Ubaid Thaqafi claimed prophethood under the guise of love for Ahl al-Bayt, whose details are explained by Allama Shahrastani in

, the Shia have made cursing and insulting the Companions their slogan in the name of love for Ali Murtaza, similarly the Hanafis have shown enmity towards the Quran under the guise of jurisprudence.
Consider two examples: Allama Zain bin Najim Hanafi, who died in 971 AH, writes that

(ولو نظر المصلى الى المصحف وقرأمنه فسدت صلاته لا الى فرج امراة بشهوة لان الاول تعليم وتعلم فيها لا الثاني )

And if a person prays while looking at the Quran and recites from it, his prayer will become invalid, but if a man looks at a woman’s private parts out of desire, his prayer will not be invalid because recitation relates to teaching and learning, whereas looking at private parts is not teaching.

From this worst and filthy example, dear readers can themselves estimate the extent of respect and reverence for the Quran in the hearts of Hanafi jurists.
Oh, the group that claims to be the custodians of respect and reverence and the champions of jurisprudence holds that looking at a woman’s private parts out of desire does not invalidate prayer, but reciting the Quran from the Mushaf is considered impermissible, forbidden, and invalidates the prayer.
In this regard, consider another shameful and worst issue of Hanafi jurisprudence:
It is written in Fatawa Qazi Khan:

(والذي رعف فلاير قادمه فاراد ان يكتب بدمه على جبهته شيئا من القرآن قال ابوبكر الاسكاف يجوز قيل لوكتب بالبول قال لوكان فيه شفاء لا باس به )

That is, if someone’s nosebleed does not stop and he wants to write something from the Quran on his forehead with the blood, Abu Bakr al-Skaf said it is permissible. If he writes with urine, then if it has healing properties, there is no harm.

This same ruling has been prevalent in Hanafi jurisprudence books from the fourth century to the twelfth century, such as

.
Moreover, it is written in Fatawa Alamgiri that

(فقد ثبت ذلك في المشاهير من غير انكار )

That is, among the scholars, this ruling is undoubtedly established.

From Alamgiri’s statement, it is proven that this is the unanimous ruling of Hanafi jurists.
The well-known translator of the Barelvi school of thought, Maulvi Ghulam Rasool Saeedi, openly refuted these juristic rulings and wrote that
I say that the faith of the one who writes Surah Al-Fatiha with blood or urine is in danger. Even if a person is more certain than daylight that this act will cure him, it is better for him to die than to dare to write Surah Al-Fatiha with blood or urine. May Allah forgive those jurists who, due to their habit of nitpicking and extracting minutiae, uttered this vile statement and did not have much respect and reverence for the Quran in their hearts.

Praising Saeedi Sahib’s courageous and bold stance, Abdul Majeed Sharqpuri from Bristol, UK, says that in one book of jurisprudence (no brother, almost half a dozen Abu Shayb books) it is written that writing Surah Al-Fatiha with blood or urine for treatment is permissible. I asked many scholars about this, but since this was written by great jurists, all remained silent on this issue. Allama Saeedi broke this stagnation for the first time.

Similarly, regarding reciting from the Mushaf in prayer, we say: brother, the private parts are a human organ, but the Quran is the Word of Allah. Therefore, rejecting this false and rejected ruling and repenting from calling prayer invalid, accept the permissibility of reciting from the Mushaf in prayer by accepting the Companions as the standard of truth, and do not blindly follow jurists assuming them infallible; accept their correct statements and reject their incorrect ones.
In short, just as Saeedi Sahib broke the aforementioned stagnation and spoke the truth, you should also have the courage and review the entire Hanafi jurisprudence, separating the good from the bad and collecting provisions for your Hereafter. May Allah grant you success. If you are not so brave and courageous, then completely abandon Hanafi jurisprudence and adopt the Quran and Sunnah. I assure you that this is the highway to Paradise.

Can a Jinn Recite the Quran?

Jhangvi Sahib states that according to Ahl al-Sunnah, a janabi (in a state of major ritual impurity) woman cannot recite the Holy Quran. According to non-muqallid Ahl al-Hadith, she can.

Answer: Firstly:-
From Jhangvi Sahib’s statement, it appears that according to Khafee, a janabi man can recite the Quran; otherwise, why specify only the woman?
Secondly:-
Even the innovators themselves allow a janabi and a haidhah (menstruating woman) to recite hadith, tafsir, and all kinds of dhikr and adhkar.

In fact, if the Quran is recited with the intention of dua (supplication), it is permissible. Maulana Thanvi states that the detail regarding the janabi and haidhah is that reciting the Quran with the intention of recitation is not permissible, but with the intention of dua it is permissible.

In short, even according to the Deobandi branch of the Hanafi school, this intention of dua allows reciting the Quran, which is present in all the commonly used Hanafi fiqh books, for example see

Then read the evidence cited for this. Maulana Lakhnawi states that

(لان الفاظ القرآن تتغير عن القرآنية باختلاف النية )

because the words of the Quran change due to the difference in intention.

انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون In other words, according to these custodians of fiqh, if Surah Al-Fatiha is recited with the intention of dua, it is permissible, but if recited with the intention of tilawah (recitation), it is not permissible because the words of Surah Al-Fatiha change.
Thirdly:-
How much recitation is impermissible for janabi and haidhah? According to the narration of Imam Karkhi, it is absolutely not permissible. Sahib Hidayah, Allama Nasafi, and Ibn Najim have adopted this view, and Sahib Bada’i said:

( وعليه عامة المشائخ )

The second narration is from Imam Tahawi, who allowed reciting less than a verse, which Fakhr al-Islam Bazdawi adopted, and Sahib Khulasah said ( وعليه الفتوىٰ ) meaning the fatwa is on this.

The innovators use the evidence that prohibits recitation to prove absolute prohibition. This is why Sahib Hidayah quoted the narration and said it is proof for Tahawi.

Jhangvi Sahib should clarify whether Imam Tahawi is from Ahl al-Sunnah or not?
Fourthly:-
According to Ibn Abbas (RA), Saeed bin Jubair, Saeed bin Musayyib, Imam Rabi’ bin Abdul Rahman, Imam Malik, Imam Bukhari, Imam Tabari, all Ibn Mundhir, and Imam Dawood, recitation is absolutely permissible.

Jhangvi should also decide whether all these Imams are included in Ahl al-Sunnah or excluded?
Fifthly:-
All the narrations used to prove the prohibition of recitation are weak and defective, and none of them reach the level of hasan. For details,

consult these.
Nevertheless, we say that our research shows that out of respect and etiquette, reciting the Quran in the state of janabat or menstruation is not permissible, whether it is one verse or less or more.
This is the position adopted by Muhaddith Mubarakpuri in

and also the view of Hafiz Abdullah Ropari (may Allah have mercy on him).

Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA) considered reciting the Quran in the state of janabat as disliked.

has authenticated this narration. In short, the precautionary approach is that janabi and haidhah should not recite the Quran.
Sixthly:-
If it is said that some Ahl al-Hadith scholars have issued fatwas permitting it, then we say that since this issue differs from the best of generations (Khair al-Qurun), and among the companions, the followers, and the noble elders of the Ummah, some accept it and some consider it disliked, then on the basis of this partial and subsidiary difference, whom will Jhangvi exclude from Ahl al-Sunnah and thereby show the limits of his knowledge and understanding?
Seventhly:-
Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) has given a very well-reasoned commentary on the Hanafi position in

. He says that those who say janabi and haidhah can recite an ayah or part of an ayah have no evidence from Quran, Sunnah, consensus of the Ummah, or sound intellect. Because an ayah or part of an ayah is undoubtedly Quran, and there is no difference between reciting the whole Quran or part of it. It is astonishing that these people prohibit recitation absolutely but allow one or two verses.

No Hanafi disciple has been able to answer Imam Ibn Hazm. Besides the earlier books, we have also examined the efforts of later scholars and even A’la al-Sunan, but no Hanafi has the courage to touch this dangerous issue. It is a different matter that the Jhangvi group can call Imam Ibn Hazm a Zahiri (literalist) and vent their anger, but they cannot solve this knot: how can a small amount of something be halal and permissible if its prohibition or dislike is established?

Does a woman become forbidden if she commits adultery while being chaste?

Jhangvi Sahib states that among Ahl-e-Sunnat, immoral relations with the mother-in-law make the wife unlawful, whereas among Ahl-e-Hadith, the wife does not become unlawful.

Answer: Firstly:-
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to understand the stance of the Hanafi jurists. The Hanafis say that the Quran has declared marriage with the father’s wife as unlawful, and the true meaning of marriage is intercourse. That is, do not have intercourse with the women with whom your fathers have had intercourse. The conclusion is that the father’s concubine is unlawful for the son. Whether the father had lawful or unlawful intercourse with her, the original cause of prohibition is intercourse, not marriage; the prohibition established in a valid marriage is also due to intercourse, not the marriage contract itself. To affirm prohibition, it is more in line with the Book to restrict it to lawful intercourse.

They have applied the same analogy regarding the mother-in-law, but who will explain to these custodians of jurisprudence that the Hanafi principle is that the combination of literal and metaphorical meanings is not permissible.

Whereas taking the mentioned verse to mean unlawful intercourse is metaphorical and lawful intercourse is literal. Combining these two is invalid according to the Hanafis. In short, the literal meaning is intended, which is lawful intercourse, and the metaphorical (unlawful intercourse) is not included.
Hazrat Maulana Qazi Sanaullah Panipati Hanafi, who died in 1225 AH, states that
In my view, the correct understanding is that in this verse, marriage means the contract, not intercourse. Because intercourse with the father’s wife is forbidden for the son whether or not the father actually had intercourse with her. The prohibition of marriage with the mother or daughter of the spouse is not unanimous but disputed. Therefore, it is preferable to interpret the verse in the sense of contract.

Secondly:-
Even if it is accepted that the generality in the verse is metaphorical (which is absolutely wrong), it still proves that the daughter and mother of the woman with whom the man (or his father) had intercourse are forbidden to him. Whereas the innovators’ position is that if the mother-in-law is touched with lust, the marriage becomes invalid.
As Ashraf Ali Thanwi has explicitly stated

, there is no difference between intentional and unintentional touching in this regard.

Even if the man wakes up and mistakenly touches his daughter or mother-in-law, his wife becomes unlawful for him.

Here, we invite the people of reason and intellect to ponder: Suppose the man wakes up fully aroused, and his wife Bushra is resting on his right side. The man wakes the woman for intercourse, but in that state of lust, his hand touches his breastfeeding daughter, Hamida. Based on this small incident, the Deobandis say the wife has become unlawful.
Those who call marriage intercourse! Who can imagine intercourse with his own daughter except a shameless and dishonorable person? Yet the custodians of jurisprudence have declared the man’s wife unlawful. The joke is that if the mother-in-law is kissed and embraced with lust but ejaculation occurs in that state, the marriage is not invalid.
Mufti Rashid Ahmad Deobandi says:
For the prohibition of affinity by kissing and embracing, the condition is that ejaculation does not occur. If ejaculation occurs without intercourse, the prohibition of affinity is not established.

This is stated in Dar al-Mukhtar as a fatwa, meaning this Mufti’s opinion.

Dear readers, you have observed how those who call marriage intercourse have deviated and rebelled using their own argument. There are many examples in this regard. Discerning readers should study Zameer ka Buhran p.317 and Haqiqat Allah p.165.
Thirdly:-
The mother-in-law is like a mother. Committing adultery with her is extreme shamelessness and dishonor, and the one who does so is a vile, wicked, and immoral man, and one who insists on it is not a Muslim. But the question is, if this act happened unintentionally or by mistake, does the wife become unlawful for the man or not? Imam Bukhari

narrates a related fatwa of Hazrat Ibn Abbas (RA) that the wife does not become unlawful. Imam Bayhaqi has transmitted this with an authentic chain that

(عن ابن عباسؓ في رجل غشىام امرأة قال تخطى حرمتين ولا تحرم عليه امرأته )

Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas (RA) said about a person who committed adultery with his wife’s mother: He broke two prohibitions, but his wife did not become unlawful for him.

(السنن الكبرىٰ للبیھقی ص 168 ج 7 ‘و تغلیق التعليق ص 404 ج 4 والمحلی لا بن حزم ص 209 ج 9)

Hafiz Ibn Hajar

and Maulvi Saharanpuri Hanafi Deobandi

have declared its chain authentic. This is also the stance of the Madhhab of Imam Zahiri, Imam Yahya bin Ya’mar, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Abi Sulayman, and in one narration Imam Malik.

Indeed, Hafiz Ibn Hajar considered it the position of the majority and quoted Allama Ibn Abdul Barr that all the learned scholars agree on this.

From this detail, it is clear that this is not only the belief of Ahl-e-Hadith but also that Ibn Abbas (RA) among the Companions held this view. And among the four schools that Jhangvi considers obligatory to follow, Imam Shafi’i also holds this position. This proves that according to Jhangvi’s own principle, this issue is not unanimous or agreed upon among the Ahl-e-Haqq but is disputed. Declaring Ahl-e-Hadith outside Ahl-e-Sunnat due to this issue is essentially declaring Imam Shafi’i and Ibn Abbas (RA) outside as well. Therefore, Jhangvi should have the courage to retract his slogan of considering the Companions as the criterion of truth and explicitly declare the mentioned elders as disbelievers.

Is it obligatory to demolish the Prophet’s (ﷺ) shrine?

Jhangvi writes that among the Ahl al-Sunnah, the Prophet’s (ﷺ) shrine is the most respected place, whereas among the non-followers, it is considered an innovation and demolishing it is obligatory.

Answer: – Firstly:-
According to Ahl al-Hadith, all graves are respected, and the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is the leader of the Prophets and the Seal of the Prophets; even disrespecting him is disbelief, and its perpetrator is an apostate and must be killed.
Secondly:-
Urf al-Jadi has been examined, and nowhere does it say that demolishing the Prophet’s (ﷺ) shrine is obligatory. This is an outright lie by Jhangvi, a sixteen-annas falsehood, and a hundred percent deception. May a thousand curses be upon the liars of Deoband.

Who is the blasphemer of the Prophet (ﷺ)?

Considering the occasion, we find it necessary to quote a few statements of the elders of Jhangvi to reveal the true and detestable face of the Deobandis.
Maulvi Muhammad Qasim Nanotvi Deobandi writes that
First, the meaning of Khatam an-Nabiyyin (Seal of the Prophets) should be understood so that there is no delay in understanding the answer. So, in the opinion of the common people, the Seal of the Prophets means that the time of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم is after the time of the previous prophets and that he is the last prophet. But the people of understanding will realize that precedence or delay in time does not inherently carry any superiority.

In this rejected statement, not only is the Prophethood of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم as the Seal of the Prophets denied, but also his excellence as the Seal of the Prophets is denied. Whereas the Messenger of Allah ﷺ himself has stated that being the last prophet is a reason for his excellence.
Hazrat Abu Huraira رضي الله عنه narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said that I have superiority over the prophets for six reasons, one of which is (و ختم ہی النبیون ) ‘Prophethood has ended with me.’

But Nanotvi denied this reason for excellence in the aforementioned statement. The inevitable consequence of this vile belief was that Nanotvi denied the finality of Prophethood. Accordingly, he writes that even if, hypothetically, there was another prophet in your time, your status as the Seal would remain intact.

Even if, hypothetically, after the prophetic era, another prophet arises, still the finality in Muhammad would not be affected.

In short, Nanotvi opened the backdoor for the Mirzaiyyah by denying the finality of Prophethood. Today, the Mirzaiyyah openly use Nanotvi’s aforementioned statements as proof. For example, the well-known Mirzai debater Abdul Rahman Khadim Wakeel Gujrat in

, Maulvi Allah Ditta Jalandhari in

, Qazi Muhammad Nazir in

, Maulvi Jalaluddin Shamsh in

, Mirza Mahmood Ahmad in

, Mirza Bashir Ahmad in

, Mirza Tahir Ahmad in

, and Maulvi Muhammad Sadiq in

, the Mirzaiyyah have tried in vain to mislead the public by using Nanotvi’s statement as evidence. Not only that, but the joint personality of the innovator Deobandis and Barelvis, Mulla Ali al-Qari, wrote in Mawaḍi‘ Kabir that

(اذا المعنى انه لاياتي نبي بعده ينسخ ملته )

meaning the Seal of the Prophets means that after you صلى الله عليه وسلم there will be no prophet who will abrogate your nation (religion).

This is the same meaning that Sayyid Ahmad Tahtawi Hanafi, who died in 1231 AH, gave in the margin of Dar al-Mukhtar.

He states that
The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah also clarify that in the era of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم no prophet with a new Shariah can appear, and his prophethood is universal, and any prophet contemporary with him will follow the Shariah of Muhammad.

Dear readers, the last three statements are from Muslim personalities of both Deobandi and Barelvi factions, which necessarily implies that the germs of denial of the finality of Prophethood existed among the former scholars of both factions. Observe another insolence of these two factions. Maulvi Abdul Sami‘ Rapuri Barelvi wrote in Anwar Sati‘ah that
And the spectacle is that the companions of the Milad gathering do not claim that the presence of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم is in all places, pure or impure, religious or non-religious assemblies. The presence of the Angel of Death and Iblis is found in even more places, pure and impure, in disbelief and belief. According to your argument, all these hadith narrators and jurists should be considered more polytheistic than the founders of the Milad Sharif gatherings.

Refuting this, Maulvi Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri Deobandi writes that
One should consider that after observing the state of Satan and the Angel of Death, to prove the pride of the scholar of the world by contradicting definite texts with mere corrupt conjecture is not polytheism, then what is part of faith?

Here both factions are debating whether the knowledge of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was less or more than that of the accursed Satan. Whoever has even a little love and respect for the Messenger ﷺ would never make such an impure comparison. Why does no one raise the question whether my mother was a prostitute or not? Or whether my mother was purer than a prostitute or not? Or whether Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi and Maulvi Qasim Nanotvi had more knowledge than a dog or pig or not? Or whether Maulvi Naeemuddin Muradabadi Barelvi and Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi had more knowledge than a dog or not? Or whether Maulvi Hashmat Ali Barelvi and Mahmood Hasan Khan Deobandi had more faith than Pharaoh or not? Or whether Maulvi Ahmad Yar Gujrani Barelvi and Hussain Ahmad Madani Deobandi had more knowledge than a mouse or cat or not?
It is astonishing for both factions that they compared the knowledge of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم with such an accursed one. One faction tries to prove it extensive, the other denies it. This is the example of their love for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and passion for Mustafa ﷺ.
Dear readers! These were the joint blasphemies of the Barelvis and Deobandis. Now observe some specific to the Deobandi sect. Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Deobandi states that the attribute Rahmat al-‘Alamin (Mercy to the Worlds) is not exclusive to the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم but other saints, prophets, scholars, and founders are also causes of mercy to the world.

Whereas the attribute Rahmat al-‘Alamin belongs solely to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and no saint, spiritual guide, or Maulvi shares or participates in this attribute. This is such an insolence that even the innovator Deobandis accept it as Muslim. The detail of this summary is that when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani published his revelation “و ما ارسلناك الارحمة للعالمين”

and convinced himself of it, the entire Ummah except the deceased and the innovators of Deoband declared it blasphemy to consider him the Prophet. See

Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi writes that
If it is accepted according to Zaid that knowledge of the unseen is attributed to your sacred self, then it is necessary to inquire whether this unseen means some unseen or all unseen. If some unseen knowledge is meant, then what is the distinction of the Prophet? Such knowledge of the unseen is possessed by Zaid, Amr, indeed every child and madman, indeed all animals and beasts as well.

استغفر الله معاذ اللہ

This detestable and faith-breaking statement is also mentioned in

. This statement is so distressing and contrary to the love of the Prophet that a person like Mirza Tahir Ahmad, who holds vile beliefs, commented on it saying:
Provide proof, and indeed if a wrong and corrupt belief is proven wrong, do so, but do not insult. Comparing the Prophet ﷺ to a madman and all animals is such an insult that it causes one to shudder.

The elders of Jhangvi have such blasphemies that if detailed, the matter would become lengthy, so I am content with a few points. If there is any honor in Jhangvi, they should write a response. We conclude this discussion with the statement of one opponent.
Maulvi Hakim Abul Ala Muhammad Amjad Ali Hanafi Barelvi (special student of Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan) writes that the Ghair Muqallideen (non-followers) are also a branch of Wahhabism; the few things that Wahhabism has recently said against Allah Almighty and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم are not proven against the Ghair Muqallideen.

Maulvi Ahmad Saeed Zammi Hanafi Barelvi writes that the so-called Ahl al-Hadith Ghair Muqallideen are also of the same sect as those Wahhabis, although no insulting statements are proven against them.

These two statements are from extremist and bigoted Barelvi Maulvis. الحمد للہ Our elders have strongly refuted shirk and innovations but have not used an offensive tone. Rather, they have refuted with due respect and courtesy. All this is by the grace of Allah.

وهو على كل شئ

The Method of Funeral Prayer

Jhangvi Sahib states that Ahl al-Sunnah perform the funeral prayer quietly, while non-followers of Ahl al-Hadith recite it aloud.

Answer: Firstly:-
A detailed discussion on this is forthcoming. According to Ahl al-Hadith as well, it is preferable to recite the funeral prayer quietly. This is also the stance of the innovators of Diyabna. See

. Mufti Kifayatullah Sahib states that there is no harm in reciting it aloud.

Secondly:-
Some texts indicate, by way of indication (Isharat al-Nass), that reciting the funeral prayer aloud is established. Details regarding the differences among Ahl al-Hadith will follow. Moreover, it is established from Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas that the funeral prayer was recited aloud.

Jhangvi, who raises the slogan of the standard of truth for the Sahabah, should clarify explicitly whether Ibn Abbas is included among Ahl al-Sunnah or not.

The Rakah of Ruku

Jhangvi Sahib writes that Ahl-e-Sunnat count the rak’ah joined in ruku, while the non-followers say that it is not a rak’ah.

Answer: – Firstly:-

clearly states that joining in ruku does not make a rak’ah. This was also the position of Imam Bukhari, Hazrat Abu Hurairah (RA),

, etc.
Jhangvi should clarify whether these are isolated individuals or from the Ummah of Ahl-e-Sunnat?
Secondly:
Standing (Qiyam) and recitation (Qira’ah) in prayer are also obligatory according to you, and if joining in ruku does not fulfill either of these, then on what basis do you count its rak’ah and thereby nullify the obligation of standing and recitation?

Issue of folding hands during Qawmah

Jhangvi Sahib states that among the Ahl-e-Sunnat community, the hands are left open, whereas among the non-following Ahl-e-Hadith community of Sindh, the hands are folded.

Answer: Firstly:-
This issue is of Ijtihadi and subsidiary nature; details will come later in the discussion of differences among Ahl-e-Hadith.
Secondly:-
In a narration from Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Muhammad, and Qazi Abu Yusuf, there is an instruction to fold the hands in the Qawmah position. Maulana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) states that

(لا مضائقة في اختياره بعد ظهور موافقة للاصول )

meaning, there is no harm or difficulty in adopting the opinion transmitted from our Imams regarding folding the hands after Ruku because it is according to our Hanafi principles.

فماكان جوابكم فهو جوابنا

Is it permissible according to Ahl-e-Hadith to act upon an abrogated ruling?

Jhangvi Sahib states that Ahl al-Sunnah do not act upon abrogated hadiths, whereas non-followers consider acting upon them as a great jihad.

Answer: Firstly: –
In response, we consider only ” لعنت الله على الكاذبين ” sufficient.
But for a bigoted, ignorant, and stubborn person like Jhangvi, further we say: prove from any Ahl al-Hadith scholar that it is permissible to act upon an abrogated ruling. If you prove this, we will accept that there is some truth in your statement. If you cannot prove it—and surely you will not be able to—then Jhangvi and his followers should clarify what lying and slander are called in the Deobandi lexicon and what a fabricator and liar are called in the jurisprudence of Taqlid.
Secondly: –
A detailed discussion on abrogating and abrogated texts will follow, but here we want to say that no individual of the Ummah can declare any verse or Prophetic hadith abrogated based on opinion, conjecture, or guesswork. Rather, to declare any legal ruling abrogated, a clear text is necessary. Keeping this in mind, the Jhangvi group should try their best to point out even one issue where a legal ruling is abrogated by a specific text but Ahl al-Hadith act upon the abrogated ruling. I swear by the Owner of my life that not only the Deobandi group of Hanafis but even if all Hanafi sects and groups in the world gather and try their utmost, they will not find a single example. However, their mouths cannot be shut. Allah Almighty has given them tongues, and Satan has incited them against the people of truth, due to which the Jhangvi group has become miles away from justice and fairness and has adopted falsehood and slander as their religion and slogan.
May Allah grant them the ability to abandon such evil acts as lying and such cursed habits as slander. O Allah, we are Your weak and helpless servants; by Your grace, we can only pray well for the Jhangvi group. You are the One who grants open-heartedness.

The Legitimacy of Two Sunnah Prayers Before Maghrib Prayer

Jhangvi Sahib states that Ahl-e-Sunnat do not offer Nafl prayers after Maghrib Azan, whereas non-followers, although generally enemies of Nafl prayers, do offer them here.

Answer:- Firstly:-
There is a saying, “The thief creates a commotion, calling others thieves.” Following this, Jhangvi Sahib has labeled Ahl-e-Hadith as enemies of Nafl prayers. However, enmity towards Nafl prayers is proven by his own statement because the beloved Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم instructed to offer Nafl prayers before Maghrib prayer.

And Hazrat Anas رضي الله عنه narrates that the Companions were so consistent in these Nafl prayers that if a newcomer entered the Prophet’s Mosque, he would think that the Maghrib congregation had already taken place.

But the Hanafis, showing enmity towards these Nafl prayers, have called the Nafl before Maghrib prayer as Makruh (disliked).

Secondly:- It is established that noble Companions such as Hazrat Anas, Hazrat Abdur Rahman bin Awf رضي الله عنهم, Hazrat Abi bin Ka’b رضي الله عنه, Hazrat Abu Ayyub Ansari رضي الله عنه, Hazrat Abu Darda رضي الله عنه, Hazrat Jabir bin Abdullah رضي الله عنه, Hazrat Abu Musa رضي الله عنه, Hazrat Abu Burzah رضي الله عنه, and others used to offer these Nafl prayers.
It is also established from the Tabi‘een. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Ishaq, Imam Ibn Hazm, and many Shafi‘i scholars also agree with this.

When Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked about some people denying this,

(و تبسم كالمتعجب ممن ينكر ذلك )

meaning he smiled with surprise and astonishment at the deniers.

The deceased Ummah should clarify regarding the mentioned Imams and Companions whether they are from Ahl-e-Sunnat or not?

The State of Standing in Prayer

Jhangvi Sahib states that Ahl-e-Sunnat stand in prayer with humility, whereas non-followers stand with arrogance.

Answer: – Firstly:-
What does Jhangvi Sahib mean by arrogance? If bodily tension is meant, then this is required by Shariah, and standing in prayer lazily is a sign of hypocrisy. It is stated that

وَإِذَا قَامُوا إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ قَامُوا كُسَالَىٰ

And when they stand for prayer, they stand lazily (Shah Rafiuddin).
Secondly:-
If by arrogance you mean your rebellion, as you have clarified by contrasting it with humility, then this is your exaggeration and indeed falsehood and slander. Because no Ahl-e-Hadith has issued a fatwa permitting standing in prayer with pride and arrogance. The writer states that not only Muftis but even the most ignorant and unlearned have never said to stand in prayer with rebellion. If Jhangvi is truthful in his statement, then he should provide evidence; otherwise, he should fear Allah. He should adopt piety and fear of Allah as his motto, which is the characteristic of the learned. As far as humility in prayer is concerned, the Divine command is:

قَدْ أَفْلَحَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ (1) الَّذِينَ هُمْ فِي صَلَاتِهِمْ خَاشِعُونَ

Indeed, the believers have succeeded who are humble in their prayers. (12-23)
Sheikh-ul-Hadith Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Abduh Al-Falah (may Allah have mercy on him) explains this verse by saying that the literal meaning of humility (khushu’) is to bow down in fear before someone and to adopt humility and meekness. It relates both to the heart and the outward limbs. Therefore, adopting humility in prayer means that fear and awe should prevail in the heart and the limbs should be calm. One should not look around, play with clothes or beard, nor crack fingers, because looking around is considered a part of Satan’s influence. And in a hadith, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم saw a person playing with his beard during prayer. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said that if there was humility in his heart, it would have affected his limbs as well. This humility is the essence of prayer, and many scholars have declared it obligatory, meaning if it is not present in prayer, then the prayer is invalid.

See also

Map of Hanafi Prayer :-

Allama Damiri, in his famous book

published in Egypt, has depicted the Hanafi prayer through the narration of Qazi Qaffal. Let us observe.

Sultan Mahmud was of the Hanafi school of thought. However, he had a passion for listening to Hadith. Once, he organized a gathering of scholars to find out which school’s prayer was in accordance with the Sunnah of the Prophet. For leading the prayer, the greatest scholar of that time, Qazi Qaffal Marwazi, was chosen. The prayer performed by the Qazi according to the Hanafi method was as follows.

The Qazi had a dyed dog skin brought and wore a part of it soiled with impurity. Instead of pure water, he performed ablution with tamarind wine without reciting بسم اللہ and without proper repentance. Standing facing the Qibla, instead of saying Takbir al-Ihram اللہ اکبر, he said in Persian, “God is the Greatest,” and folded his hands. Without reciting Surah Al-Fatiha, he recited the Persian translation of the Quranic verse “Mudhamatan,” then went into Ruku (bowing). While going down and coming up, he recited three Tasbihs and went into prostration without standing upright. He performed the second prostration without calmness, as if someone was hitting him. In Tashahhud, without reciting Durood Sharif, he ended the prayer with Salam and left the prayer, saying, “O King, this is the Hanafi prayer.” Seeing such a prayer, the king became angry and said, “Who can pray like this?” The Qazi replied, “O King, these are authentic Hanafi books. Bring the books.” When the books were brought, Qazi Qaffal Marwazi proved the method of this prayer exactly from the Hanafi books. Even today, if someone from Jhangvi wants to know the method of the Hanafi prayer mentioned, they should study the books of Fiqh or come to us; we will show them this method from their own Fiqh books. ان شاء اللہ

Is there a difference between men’s and women’s prayer in Islam?

Jhangvi Sahib states that among Ahl al-Sunnah there is a difference in the way men and women perform Salah, whereas among the non-followers (Ghair Muqallideen) there is no difference in the Salah of men and women.

Answer: – Firstly:-
There is an authentic Hadith in which the Messenger of Allah said:

(صلوا کما رایتمونی اصلی )

Meaning: Pray as you have seen me praying.

This Hadith is general; the worshipper, whether man or woman, who claims that there is a difference in the Salah of men and women, should provide evidence for it.
Secondly:-
According to the Hanafis, there is a difference in the manner of Salah between men and women in approximately 22 places. Jhangvi Sahib should have the courage to present one authentic, connected, and elevated Hadith for each of these places, then we will accept that indeed the difference in the manner of Salah between men and women is the position of the Ahl al-Sunnah religion. Otherwise, who accepts mere verbal claims?
And to declare the baseless statements and sayings of jurists as Shariah is not the religion of Ahl al-Sunnah. The Shariah is only what Allah and His beloved Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم have explained.

The Issue of a Child Leading Prayer

Jhangvi Sahib states that among Ahl al-Sunnah, a minor cannot be an Imam, whereas among non-followers, a minor can be an Imam.

Answer: Firstly: –
When a minor child is well-versed in the issues of prayer and can perform the prayer correctly in the prescribed Sunnah manner, and can recite the letters of the Qur’an according to the proper rules of Tajweed, then his Imamat is completely permissible. Denying this is mere imitative stubbornness. The Imamat of a child is proven by authentic Hadith. During the life of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, Hazrat Amr bin Salmah was appointed as an Imam among his people, even though he was seven years old at that time.

Those who accept the Imamat of a child include Imam Hasan Basri رضي الله عنه, Imam Ishaq bin Rahwayh رضي الله عنه, Imam Bukhari رضي الله عنه, Imam Shafi’i رضي الله عنه, and others.

Jhangvi should clarify whether these Imams are from Ahl al-Sunnah or not?
Secondly: –
Jhangvi has denied the Imamat of a minor child outright. However, according to all Hanafis of Mawarannahr and the scholars of Balkh, a child can lead in Nawafil (supererogatory prayers).

In fact, according to the Hanafis, especially the Deobandis, if a minor child leads in Fard (obligatory) prayers for other minor children, it is permissible.

Thirdly: –
The real issue is not the Imamat of the child, but the actual difference is whether a Muqtadi (follower) can perform Fard prayers behind a Mu’allaq (a person whose prayer is suspended due to some defect) or not? The issue of a child’s Imamat is essentially a branch and part of this issue. Jhangvi Sahib has fallen into or caused confusion due to lack of knowledge. Because if a child is worthy of Imamat, then his Imamat is unanimously correct and he can be an Imam. Since according to the Hanafis, prayer is not obligatory on a minor, they hesitate in following him. Jhangvi Sahib should carefully study

, and in the case of following a Muqtanil (one whose prayer is suspended), Fard prayers become valid, the details of which the writer has presented in

. Jhangvi Sahib should also study this.
If there is any reasonable answer to these authentic and explicit Ahadith, please provide it; otherwise, remove the blind imitation and act under the shade of mercy upon the Qur’an and Hadith. May Allah grant success.

Is Surah Al-Fatiha not a part of the Quran?

Jhangvi Sahib states that according to Ahl-e-Sunnat, Surah Al-Fatiha is included in the Holy Quran, whereas according to the non-followers, Surah Al-Fatiha is not part of the Quran.

Answer: Firstly:-
No Ahl-e-Hadith scholar has ever claimed that Surah Al-Fatiha is not part of the Quran. This is your exaggeration. We reject such nonsense. On behalf of the entire Ahl-e-Hadith community, we deny this and demand Jhangvi to prove his claim from a Salafi. Otherwise, he should fear the severe warning of لعنتہ اللہ علی الکاذبین and apologize in writing to the Ahl-e-Hadith community.
The entire Ummah, past and present, agrees that Surah Al-Fatiha is part of the Quran. Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) says:

( سميت ام الكتاب لانه يبدء بكتابها في المصاحف وبيده بقرء لها في الصلوٰة )

Meaning, the name “Al-Fatiha” was given because the writing of the Quran begins with it, and also because the recitation in prayer starts with it.

The same is stated by Imam Ibn Jarir (may Allah have mercy on him)

and Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him)

. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself declared Surah Al-Fatiha as the great Surah of the Quran.

Sheikh-ul-Islam Maulana Sanaullah Amritsari (may Allah have mercy on him) says that the seven oft-repeated verses (Sab’ al-Mathani) are Surah Al-Fatiha and it is part of the Quran.

Allama Hafiz Muhammad Ibrahim Mir Sialkoti (may Allah have mercy on him)

, Maulana Muhammad Abduh (may Allah have mercy on him)

, Maulana Abdul Sattar

, Maulana Muhammad Sadiq Khalil

, Allama Abdul Rahman Kilani

, Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf

have all declared Surah Al-Fatiha as part of the Quran.
If the statements of these Ahl-e-Hadith scholars do not satisfy Jhangvi, then he can ask any Ahl-e-Hadith scholar whether Surah Al-Fatiha is part of the Quran or not. All Ahl-e-Hadith will first recite اعوذ باللہ to Jhangvi and then declare Surah Al-Fatiha as the most excellent part of the Quran. However, do not ask any emotional Mujahid; he might grab you by the collar and not ask for proof which you definitely do not have, and drag you into the market, beat you with two or three shoes, and say that the Mushrik lied and this is his punishment.
Secondly:-
If Jhangvi had ever looked into his own conscience, he would never have committed such mischief.
Listen to what the Sheikh-ul-Hind of Deoband, Maulvi Mahmood al-Hasan Khan, writes:
“Some verses and sentences have been added to the words of Allah and Hadith by a misguided sect.”

Maulvi Anwar Shah al-Shamiri wrote:
“In my view, the researched fact is that there has been a verbal distortion in the Quran.”

Jhangvi should clarify whether these two great scholars are from Deobandi Ahl-e-Sunnat or are they the worst innovators and the most misleading people of the Ummah?
If we respond, there will be complaints.

ام الکتاب

Is there a difference between Tahajjud and Taraweeh?

Jhangvi Sahib states that among Ahl al-Sunnah, Tahajjud and Taraweeh are two separate prayers, whereas among the non-followers of a particular school within Ahl al-Hadith, Tahajjud and Taraweeh are considered the same.

Answer: Firstly:
Hazrat Aisha (RA) did not believe in a distinction between Taraweeh and Qiyam al-Layl. When Abu Salamah asked her, she replied:

((ما كان يزيد في رمضان ولا في غير رمضان على احدى عشرة ركعة ))

Meaning, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not pray more than eleven rak’ahs in Ramadan or outside Ramadan.

Imam Bukhari (RA) and Imam Muhammad (RA) have dedicated chapters on Qiyam Ramadan and Taraweeh in

. Maulana Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi Hanafi wrote:

Meaning, Qiyam Ramadan and Taraweeh are the same thing.

Imam Bayhaqi mentioned it in

under the chapter “Reported on the Number of Rak’ahs of Qiyam in the Month of Ramadan.”

Secondly:
Numerous scholars have presented the aforementioned narration as a counter to the fabricated and rejected narration of twenty rak’ahs. For example:
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Besides Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA) and many righteous predecessors, Deoband’s Sheikh al-Hadith Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri also considered Taraweeh and Tahajjud to be the same.

For details, refer to

.

Let Jhangvi leave others aside and clarify regarding Anwar Shah Sahib whether he is included among Ahl al-Sunnah or not?

Is one Rak’ah of Witr not authentic?

Jhangvi Sahib states that among Ahl al-Sunnah, Witr is three rak’ahs, whereas according to the non-followers of the Ahl al-Hadith, Witr is one rak’ah.

Answer: – Firstly:-
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said that the night prayer is two rak’ahs. When any of you fears the dawn, he should pray صلى ركعة واحدة one rak’ah of Witr. Al-Hadith

In another hadith, He said:

(الوتر ركعة من أخر الليل)

Meaning Witr is one rak’ah at the end of the night. Al-Hadith

In a third hadith, He said:

((يااهل القرآن او تروا فان الله وتريحب الوتر))

O reciters! Pray Witr because Allah is Witr and He loves Witr.

Hazrat Aisha رضي الله عنها said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray one rak’ah of Witr.

Secondly:-

I, the writer, have established from the Rightly Guided Caliphs and approximately 22 Sahabah رضي الله عنهم that one rak’ah Witr is proven. Besides them, the three Imams, Imam Malik رضي الله عنه, Imam Shafi’i رضي الله عنه, and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal رضي الله عنه, also hold the view of one rak’ah Witr.

The Barelvi author of Anwar Saati’ah also objected to one rak’ah Witr. In response, Maulvi Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri Haqqi Deobandi said:
“One rak’ah Witr is present in the Sahih Ahadith. Abdullah ibn Umar رضي الله عنه and Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه and other Sahabah are its affirmers, and Malik, Shafi’i, and Ahmad hold that madhhab. To criticize this is to criticize all of them. So tell me, where is the place of faith when one blindly supports the Imams Mujtahideen, the Sahabah, and the Ahadith? What else can this writing be except ignorance معاذ اللہ منها?”

In light of this explicit statement by Allama Saharanpuri Hafiz, Jhangvi should clarify where the place of his faith is?
Chapter Four

Is there a difference in the Hadiths?

The deniers of Sunnah have also left behind a claim that there is a strong disagreement in the hadiths.
Look! On page 303 of Dawa Islam, our Jhungvi Sahib, while agreeing with them, tries to prove disagreement in hadith and then invites to taqlid (imitation) to resolve the disagreement.

Even if Jhungvi Sahib’s statement is accepted, at most it would mean that one should derive and benefit from the Imams of the Deen. Their scholarly services should not be ignored. But unfortunately, Jhungvi Sahib is proving the taqlid of Imam Abu Hanifa from this, whereas hadith was not Imam Abu Hanifa’s field. He did not render any notable service in this regard for resolving disagreements for which Jhungvi Sahib invites his taqlid. This field belonged to the Muhaddithin (scholars of hadith), and they performed valuable services in this regard. Whether it was difficult hadith or abrogating and abrogated (Nasikh wa Mansukh), they explained everything clearly. The Hanafis also derived these issues from them, but instead of gratitude, they insulted them by calling them petty shopkeepers. We invite Jhungvi Sahib to reflect and ask: can you prove from Imam Abu Hanifa the solution to those hadiths you have pointed out as having disagreement? Certainly not! Then how can you claim from any mouth that if you adopt taqlid, these issues will already be resolved for you?
Anyway, let us come to those hadiths which Jhungvi Sahib has pointed out.

Hadiths on the Permissibility and Sanctity of Guwah

It is stated that the Companions ate goha (a type of lizard) in front of you, and in Abu Dawood there is a hadith in which you صلى الله عليه وسلم forbade it.

Answer: Firstly:
Undoubtedly, the hadith of prohibition is narrated from Hazrat Abdur Rahman bin Shibl رضي الله عنه.

Allama Khattabi, Allama Mundhiri, Imam Bayhaqi, and Ibn Jauzi have criticized this hadith. However, Hafiz Ibn Hajar has classified its chain as Hasan. Kamani ‘Awn also agrees, and this is the correct and accurate view. But prohibition does not establish impermissibility because numerous authentic hadiths state that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said that he eats it and does not declare it haram.

No fatwa has been transmitted from any Companion declaring goha haram, rather Imam Nawawi claimed consensus on the permissibility of goha.

Secondly:
For contradiction, it is necessary that the hadiths be equal in authenticity.
The hadiths indicating permissibility are narrated from Hazrat Umar رضي الله عنه, Hazrat Abu Saeed رضي الله عنه, Hazrat Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه, Hazrat Khalid bin Walid رضي الله عنه, Hazrat Yazid bin Al-Asam, Hazrat Sulayman رضي الله عنه, Hazrat Abu Hurairah رضي الله عنه, Hazrat Khuzaymah رضي الله عنه, and other noble Companions.

Most of these hadiths are agreed upon by Bukhari and Muslim. Whereas the hadith narrated from Abdur Rahman bin Shibl رضي الله عنه has a problematic chain because its narrator Dhamdam bin Zura’ah is disputed. Imam Ibn Ma’in authenticated it, but Abu Hatim weakened it.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar says it is doubtful and approximate; therefore, it cannot compete with the numerous authentic hadiths of permissibility. Hence, it is explained that permissibility remains intact and the prohibition is understood as a disliked (makruh) recommendation.
Thirdly:
Some among the Hanafis consider goha permissible. Imam Tahawi states that

(فثبت بتصحيح هذه الآثار أنه لاباس باكل الضب وهو القول عندنا )

meaning from these authentic hadiths it is established that there is no harm in eating goha. And in our view, this is the most accurate opinion.

Maulana Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi, quoting Allama Aini, says that

(الاصح أن الكراهة عند اصحابنا تنزيهية لاتحريمية للاحاديث الصحيحة انه ليس بحرام)

meaning according to our scholars, the correct view is that goha is makruh tanzeeh (disliked in a mild sense), not makruh tahrimi (disliked in a prohibitive sense), because its permissibility is stated in authentic hadiths.

In fact, Maulana Zafar Ahmad Thanawi claimed that

(ان اكثر الحنفية قبل الغيني على ان الكراهة فيه للتنزيه وهو المعروف عنهم )

meaning before Allama Aini, most Hanafis considered goha makruh tanzeeh, and this was the common view among them.

Later, he clarified that the original source of dislike is from the school, which is why some Hanafis called it tanzeeh and others makruh tahrimi.

In short, among Hanafi jurists, there is a difference regarding the permissibility or prohibition of goha.
Maulana Mahmood al-Hasan Khan Sahib Hanafi Deobandi states that there is a difference regarding dhab (goha). Among the Hanafis, it is not haram; there are narrations for prohibition as well as for tanzeeh (mild dislike).

Dear readers! When you have understood well that even among the Hanafis there is disagreement on this issue, then how can Jhangvi Sahib claim that the blessing of taqlid (imitation) is that a person gains knowledge of abrogated and abrogating texts and thus the solution to differences is found? If taqlid alone was the solution to eliminate differences, then why is there disagreement among the Hanafis?
Dear readers! You will be surprised that if the Jhangvi group, trusting their clerics, declare it makruh tahrimi or accept Zafar Ahmad Thanawi’s view and declare goha haram and reject the hadiths of permissibility without evidence

, they still remain followers of Imam Abu Hanifa and their taqlid does not change at all. But if the muhaddithin (hadith scholars) prove the reconciliation or other harmonization of these conflicting hadiths, then they still accuse it of being a difference.

The Issue of Wudu Being Broken by Cooked Food

Jhangvi Sahib states that ablution is broken by something cooked on fire. (Hadith) Your practice is also against this (Hadith).

Answer: – Firstly:-
Hazrat Jabir (RA) is the narrator that

Meaning, regarding the matter of something cooked on fire, the last command issued from the Prophethood was to leave ablution.

Hazrat Abu Hurairah (RA) is the narrator that

Meaning, I observed that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to perform ablution after eating pieces of cheese (which is a cooked item), but later he saw that the Prophet ﷺ ate goat meat and did not perform ablution again.

In the mentioned narration, the present tense verb form clearly indicates that at one time the Prophet ﷺ used to perform ablution after eating cooked items, which he later abandoned.
Jhangvi Sahib states that a hadith on which the rightly guided caliphs did not act is abrogated.

And in the matter under discussion, the practice of the rightly guided caliphs was not to perform ablution after eating something cooked on fire.

Secondly:-
You abandoned the hadiths due to differences and adopted taqlid (imitation), stating that referring to hadith is not the duty of a muqallid (follower).

And you made taqlid the solution to these differences. But Jhangvi Sahib himself admits that in the matter under discussion there are three opinions even among the Hanafis.
(1) The command to perform ablution after eating something cooked on fire is abrogated.

(2) This command is recommended (mustahabb).

(3) This refers to linguistic ablution, not ablution for prayer.

Rather, Maulana Zafar Ahmad Thanvi had rejected linguistic ablution, but on his margin Maulana Taqi Usmani wrote a refutation.

It is clear that these three opinions are strongly contradictory to each other. No reconciliation can be established among them. Whereas according to Jhangvi, there should not have been any difference of opinion among the muqallids in this matter because all these persons were muqallids.

فماکان جوا بکم فھو جو ابنا

Prohibition of Alcohol

Jhangvi Sahib states that the drinking of alcohol by the Companions is proven by a hadith for a certain period. Later prohibition is also proven by hadith.

Answer: Firstly: –
There is a consensus of the Ummah on the prohibition and forbiddance of khamr (alcohol), and it is forbidden by the clear text of the Qur’an.
Secondly: –
There is also a consensus of the Ummah that khamr (alcohol) was initially permissible and later Allah Almighty declared it forbidden. Hazrat Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (RA) narrates that once I went to some people from the Ansar and Muhajireen, and they said, “Come, we will feed you and give you wine to drink.” At that time, wine was not yet forbidden. So I went with them to a garden where the head meat of a camel was roasted and a skin of wine was kept. I ate meat with them and drank wine. Then the discussion about Muhajireen and Ansar came up. I said the Muhajireen are better than the Ansar. One person took a piece of liver and hit me with it, injuring my nose. I came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and narrated the incident, then Allah Almighty revealed these verses because of me:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْخَمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالْأَنْصَابُ وَالْأَزْلَامُ رِجْسٌ مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

Meaning: O you who believe! Indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful.

From this clear and authentic hadith, it is proven that for a period, alcohol was permissible. Later, Allah Almighty declared it forbidden. It is unclear what difference of opinion Jhangvi Sahib has in this because all commonly accepted books of principles clearly state that there is no difference in nasikh and mansukh (abrogator and abrogated). Yet, despite claims of knowledge and virtue, the Jhangvi group tries to prove a difference. Whereas for a difference to exist, the permissibility and prohibition would have to remain simultaneously, but this small fact does not enter the minds of these claimants of knowledge and virtue. Moreover, the jurists also make some statements, but from their objections, it is clear that they have not even touched the understanding of religion. Their malice and prejudice have further blinded them from intellect and understanding, making them an example of فی طغیانہم.
Thirdly: –
Contrary to these Shariah texts, according to the Hanafi school, only grape wine is haram; other intoxicating drinks are neither haram nor impure according to them.
Maulvi Ghulam Rasool Saeedi Hanafi Barelvi writes that:
According to the three Imams (Imam Shafi’i, Imam Malik, and Imam Ahmad), every intoxicating drink is haram whether in large or small quantity. According to Imam Abu Hanifa, khamr is absolutely haram, and other intoxicating drinks are haram only in the quantity that causes intoxication; in lesser quantities, they are neither haram nor impure, and drinking them is permissible.

Sahib Dar al-Mukhtar states:

(والجلال منها اربعة انواع نبيذ التمر والزبيب ان طبخ ادنى طبخة يحل شربه وأن اشتد وهذا اذا شرب منه بلا لهو وطرب مالم يسكر والثاني الخليطان والثالثة نبيذ العسل والتين والبرد والشعير طبخ اولا والرابع المثلث )

Meaning: Four types of wine are halal: Nabidh of dates and Munqi when slightly fermented; second, mixed Nabidh; third, Nabidh of honey and figs, etc.; and fourth, the third part of grape juice whose two-thirds have evaporated. All these types are halal provided they are consumed with the intention of strength and not for amusement or play.

Repetition of Wiping the Head

Jhangvi Sahib states that wiping the head three times (Abu Dawood) and wiping once.

Answer: Firstly:-
There are authentic explicit hadiths for wiping once which are agreed upon by Bukhari and Muslim, while the hadith of wiping three times is of Hasan grade, and some scholars have even criticized it. According to Maulana Taqi Usmani, the narration of wiping three times is rare.

If the innovators do not accept this narration as authentic, then why object?
Secondly:-
There is no contradiction between the two but rather harmony. The hadith of wiping once is mutawatir, which establishes that wiping once is Sunnah and wiping three times is permissible.
The great Muhaddith Abadi states that

التحقيق في هذا الباب ان احاديث المسح مرة واحدة أكثر واصح واثبت من احاديث تثليث المسح وان كان حديث التثليث ايضاً صحيحا من بعض الطرق لكنه لا يساويها فى القوة فالمسح مرة واحد ة هو المختار والتثليث لاباس به )

Meaning, at this point the investigator’s view is that the hadiths of wiping once are more numerous and stronger in authenticity and proof than the hadith of wiping three times. Although the hadith of three times is also authentic due to multiple chains, its strength of authenticity is not equal to theirs; therefore, wiping once is preferred and there is no harm in wiping three times.

Maulana Usmani states that
Even if, hypothetically, the narration of the three times by Hazrat Uthman (RA) is accepted as authentic, it can still be understood as permitting it. Accordingly, some Hanafi scholars have considered the tripling permissible.

Ruling on Nawafil after Asr Prayer

Jhangvi Sahib states that after Asr prayer, you used to offer Nawafil, but the Hadith forbids offering Nawafil after Asr.

Answer: Firstly:-
Among the Ummah, this issue is disputed. Approximately eight different positions exist. Even among the followers of Taqlid, there is disagreement on this issue.
For details, refer to

.
If Taqlid could end the disagreement, then why do the followers of the four Imams differ on this issue under discussion?
Secondly:-
There is absolutely no disagreement in the Ahadith; it is only assumed. If Jhangvi Sahib had removed the Taqlidi blindfold from his eyes and studied the Hadith, he would not have seen any disagreement. In any case, listen to our requests calmly. It should be clear that the preferred time for Asr prayer is unanimously not a disliked time; otherwise, no one could pray the unique Asr prayer after the congregation of Asr.
Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani Hanafi Deobandi quotes Imam Tahawi that at that time there is no inherent dislike, as evidenced by the fact that Fajr and Asr prayers on the same day are permissible without dislike.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم used to pray two Rak’ahs Nawafil after Asr prayer at that time.
Hazrat Aisha says:

((ماترك النبي ﷺ السجدتين بعد العصر عندی قط ))

Meaning, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم never abandoned the two Rak’ahs Nawafil after Asr prayer in my presence.

From this Hadith, it is understood that Nawafil were offered immediately after Asr prayer, and the Ahadith that forbid it are related to the condition of the sun’s state changing. Hazrat Ali Murtaza رضي الله عنه narrates:

(نهى رسول الله ﷺ عن صلاة بعد العصر الا ان تكون الشمس بيضاء نقية مرتفعة )

Meaning, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم forbade praying after Asr prayer when the sun is shining brightly and high.

Imam Abu Dawud remained silent on this Hadith, and according to the senior Deoband scholars, a narration on which Abu Dawud remains silent is at least of Hasan grade.

While Hafiz Ibn Hajar in

, Allama Ibn Hazm in

, Hafiz Iraqi, and Allama Nasiruddin al-Albani in

have declared its chain authentic.
In short, this Hadith is authentic, Marfu’, and Mutasil, whose clear meaning is that Nawafil and the like are permissible without dislike after Asr prayer as long as the sun remains high and its condition does not change. The Ahadith that prohibit Nawafil after Asr prayer absolutely are interpreted in light of this Hadith because it is an established principle that the absolute is interpreted in light of the restricted.
Dear readers, once you understand this well, now listen that the Ahadith which prove that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ always prayed two Rak’ahs after Asr are to be understood as referring to immediately after Asr prayer. So there is no objection.
Thirdly:-
Even according to the Hanafi school, there is absolutely no contradiction between these two narrations. The only difference is that the Hanafis, out of enmity towards Nawafil, have attributed it specifically to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

The great Muhaddithin have rejected this as baseless and mere verbal expenditure and have established its agreement with the Hadith of Hazrat Ali Murtaza رضي الله عنه. As Imam Abu Dawud, Imam Nasa’i, Imam Ibn Khuzaymah, and others have explicitly clarified in their books through chapter headings.
Our challenge to Jhangvi Sahib is that he prove from any authentic, explicit, Marfu’, Mutasil Hadith that the Prophet ﷺ delayed the two Rak’ahs after Asr prayer so much that the sun’s condition changed. If Jhangvi proves such a Hadith, we will accept that indeed Jhangvi’s statement is truthful and he is sincere in his claim. But Jhangvi and the entire world of innovators cannot provide such proof, which proves that these people make false claims.

Number of times to wash the Wudu limbs

Jhangvi Sahib says that rinsing the mouth and nose once is mentioned in one hadith, and thrice in another hadith.

Answer:- Firstly:-
There is absolutely no contradiction in these ahadith. The enmity of Ahl-e-Hadith has completely destroyed the trustworthiness, honesty, piety, and fear of Allah in the Jhangvi group, and their hatred, prejudice, and stubbornness have blinded them from reason and understanding, due to which these people have become يحمل اسفار but have not been able to adorn the ranks of انما یخشی الله من عباده العلماء. We respectfully request the Jhangvi group that hadith is not your expertise, and the objections mentioned above also prove that you have not even smelled the knowledge of hadith. Therefore, it is better that you prove from any Muslim personality that there is a contradiction in these ahadith. Let us give you more concession: prove from great scholars of Deoband like Allama Naimvi, Allama Kashmiri, Maulana Banuri, and Zafar Ahmad Thanvi that there is a contradiction in the narrations regarding the number of times for wudu. If you prove it, we will prove the agreement. If you cannot prove it, you certainly will not be able to prove it, which implies that either you are completely ignorant or you have lied.
Secondly:-
One narration proves the obligation of rinsing, which establishes permissibility, and the narration mentioning three times is within the limits of the Sunnah number. Therefore, no objection.

Time for Fajr Prayer

It is stated that praying the Fajr prayer in the light or in the darkness, both hadiths have been narrated.

Answer: Firstly:-
Praying the Fajr prayer in the darkness was the practice of the Prophet ﷺ. As narrated by

. Hazrat Abi Masood narrates that
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم prayed the Fajr prayer in the light only once following Jibreel, and after that until his death, he did not pray the Fajr prayer in the light.

From this, it is proven that praying once in the light was only to indicate permissibility. However, his usual practice was to pray in the darkness.
Allama Zailai Hanafi quotes Imam Hazmi as saying that
Undoubtedly, the Prophet ﷺ always prayed the Fajr prayer in the darkness until he passed away.

Contrary to this fact, Jhangvi Sahib claims that it is proven that the Prophet ﷺ prayed the Fajr prayer in the light. However, this is a sheer, outright lie. Jhangvi should have the courage to prove his claim, otherwise, he should fear the severe warning of the curse of Allah upon liars.
Secondly:-
According to Akabar Deobandi, if worshippers gather, then praying the Fajr prayer in the darkness is preferable, superior, and more appropriate.

Thirdly:-
Here, the hadith narrated from Hazrat Rafi bin Khadij is not mentioned because you have made a contradiction between the practical and verbal hadiths, while the narration of Rafi is verbal. Moreover, there is absolutely no contradiction between verbal and practical hadiths. See

.

Jhangvi Following in the Footsteps of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani

He says that look, these are different kinds of hadiths coming, hundreds of such hadiths can be presented in which there is considerable contradiction and opposition.

Answer: Firstly:-
There is no contradiction or opposition in them as has been written in detail. If further narrations were pointed out besides these, we would also respond to them.
Secondly: –
Calling hadiths contradictory is actually the noise of the deniers of hadith and the Qadianism, and Jhangvi is an imitator of these people. Let us observe the sayings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani.
(1) Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib was also deceived by this that he presents contradictory hadiths before everyone; the same deception befell his elder, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Sahib.

(2) Besides this, there is so much contradiction among these hadiths that if you search for a hadith contrary to one, you will immediately find it.

(3) God has informed me that all these hadiths which (Ahl-e-Hadith present against Mirza) (Abu Suhaib) are contaminated with either verbal or semantic distortion or are fabricated altogether, and the person who has been appointed as a judge has the authority to accept from the store of hadiths whichever pile he wishes with knowledge from God and reject whichever pile he wishes with knowledge from God.

(2) The scholars of the opponents have no excuse regarding me except this absurd excuse that they do not like me with the collection of a heap of fresh and dry hadiths they have gathered, whereas they should have disliked these hadiths with me.

(5) How much difference is there in these five hadiths: in some hadiths there is mention of Buraq, in some it is that Jibra’il took the hand and took away, in some it is written as wakefulness and in some as a dream, in some it is written that I was lying in Hamra, and in some it is written that I was in the Kaaba Mosque, in some it is written that only Jibra’il came, in some it is written that three men came, in some it is written that after Adam, Jesus and Yahya were seen, in some it is written that after Adam, Idris was seen, in some it is written that Jesus was seen in the second heaven and Moses in the sixth heaven, in some it is written that first Moses was seen then Jesus, and in some it is written that Abraham was seen in the seventh heaven, and in some it is written that Moses was seen in the seventh heaven and Abraham in the sixth; in short, there is so much difference that many pages would be needed to write it in detail.

It should be noted that the author has discussed all the objections of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani in detail in his book (Uloom al-Hadith wa Mirza), in which the mentioned objection has also been examined scientifically and research-wise. Therefore, there is no need to repeat it here. May Allah Almighty grant a means for the printing and publication of this book. آمین یاالہ العلمین
(6) To explain how much contradiction and opposition is found in some hadiths, a whole treatise is needed.

(7) (ومع ذالك فيها اختلاف كثيرة ومنافات كبيرة ولاجل ذلك افترقت الامة وتشاجرت الملة فمنهم حنبلى وشافعى ومالكي وحنفى وحزب المتشيعين )
And along with this, there is a great deal of difference in hadiths and they are strongly contradictory among themselves, and because of them, there is discord in the Ummah and the fabric of the community is torn; from them are the Hanbali, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi, and Shia groups.

(8) Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani’s son and his second successor Mirza Mahmood Ahmad says in his Friday sermon dated 4 July 1924 that
Hazrat Messiah Promised (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) used to say that the books of hadith are like the peddler’s box from which the peddler takes out whatever he wants. Similarly, take out whatever you want from them. In reality, this is the correct thing and it is the Prophet’s own task to tell which hadith is the result of hand and foot and which is the true speech of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Maulvi Nooruddin, the first successor of Mirza Qadiani, also narrated this tradition with slightly different words from Mirza.

Conclusion:-
Firstly, Mirza clearly and openly says that there is difference in hadiths and they are like the peddler’s box.
(Phrases number 1,2,5,6,7,8)
Secondly:-
To remove this difference and to make hadiths a guideline, Mirza says follow me.

(1) Similarly, Jhangvi says that there is contradiction and opposition in hadiths.
(2) The solution to these differences is to follow Imam Abu Hanifa رضي الله عنه.

The Fundamental Stone of the Debate :-

Dear readers, the reality is that there is absolutely no contradiction in the authentic ahadith. Self-interest and bias are used to create the impression of disagreement. One party says that since there is disagreement in the ahadith, therefore they are not obligatory to act upon, and it is necessary to accept the statement of the Imam. The other party also says the same, but the difference is that one group, under the guise of taqlid (imitation), calls Islamic teachings incomplete and deficient, while the other distorts Islamic teachings under the pretext of false prophethood.

Both Parties in the Guise of Hypocrisy :.

In reality, both parties are deniers of hadith. For this, they have sought the aforementioned false pretext, and the narrations that these gentlemen accept are not considered the exemplary model of the Beloved but are used to support their stance, which serves their purpose of satisfying the general public. In other words, instead of considering hadith as the standard of truth, they regard the sayings of the Imams as the standard of truth, against which they measure the hadith according to their own views.

See Mirza’s statement number 3:
Maulana Muhammad Rasool Khan Deobandi says that
Ahl al-Hadith and we share this much that they also read the Quran and hadith, and so do we. But the difference is that we read hadith so that the intention behind the sayings of the Imam may become clear to us, meaning we use hadith to support the sayings of the jurists.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has said something similar:
We do not even present that level of support

. So both parties use hadith. But the real foundation is not hadith but their self-constructed theories. Moreover, the way these gentlemen use hadith is also noteworthy. Both are known for fabricating hadith. Jhangvi himself fabricated two narrations in this small booklet. Similarly, Mirza was also bold and daring in fabricating hadith. For details, see the author’s advertisement “Ten Slanders of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani against the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم,” which is published in the author’s works “Hayat Isa عليه السلام” and “Sadaqat Mirza” in a debate that never took place

.

Furthermore, like Mirza, the Deobandis also argue using fabricated and fabricated narrations without their conscience blaming them. Thus, Jhangvi Sahib says that under the commentary on the verse “Yawm Tabeedh Wujuh” (the Day when faces will be brightened), the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said that those whose faces will shine on the Day of Judgment will be the Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama’ah.

Undoubtedly, this narration

is present

, but it is fabricated and forged, as Imam Dar Qutni explicitly stated. For details, see

.

If Jhangvi Sahib had even the slightest knowledge of hadith, he would not have used fabricated and forged narrations for argumentation. If he had to use them, he should have declared them fabricated. Concealing knowledge is not the motto of the scholars and Ahl al-Sunnah but of the innovators.