Al-Daleel Al-Mahmood ‘ala Nasr Al-Ma’bood
Deobandi and Barelvi gentlemen claim, according to their own understanding, that they follow the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah, Ijma, and Ijtihad, whereas their actions are against these four. They only and solely imitate their self-made elders = Mullahs and Pirs, and nothing else!
In this brief article, a few statements and actions of these gentlemen have been collected in which they opposed the “Adillah Arba’ah” (Quran, Hadith, Ijma, and Ijtihad).
The Islamic Shariah ruling regarding non-Muslim Dhimmis (such as Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc.) who insult the sacred honor of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is that they should be killed. See Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah al-Shami’s famous book Al-Saarim al-Maslul ‘ala Shatim al-Rasul, etc. Whereas the Hanafi jurisprudence (Fiqh Ahl al-Ra’y) ruling is that the fundamental rights of such a person will be preserved, and their responsibility will not be nullified. See
etc.
Although some Hanafi “scholars” have issued a discretionary ruling for the killing of a dhimmi who openly insults and abuses, as mentioned in some of the above sources. However, there have also been “jurists” who advocated for punishments other than killing. Sheikh Muhammad Akram wrote in “Rood al-Kawthar” about an incident involving an insulter of the Prophet, stating, “There arose a disagreement among the scholars; some said that the legal punishment for insulting the Prophet is death. Others said that punishments other than killing can also be given, and they cited the fatwa of Imam Azam that if a dhimmi insults the Prophet, breaking the covenant and exemption are not permissible.”
On this extremely delicate issue, a Hanafi jurist Ibn Najim writes:
“نعم، نفس المؤمن تميل إلى قول المخالف في مسئلة السبّ لكن اتباعنا للمذهب واجب”
Yes! The heart of a believer leans towards the opposing view (Shafi’i, Ahl al-Hadith, etc.) regarding the issue of insult, but it is obligatory for us to follow our (Taqlidi) school of thought (Taqlid).
We ask, who has imposed upon you the blind following of this imitative sect over the Book and Sunnah? Because of which you have even abandoned the path of the believers??
هاتوا برهانكم ان كنتم صادقين ! :
In Mahmood Hasan Deobandi’s dictated ” التقرير للترمذی” it is written regarding the issue of Beej Khiyar that
’’ الحق والإنصاف أن الترجيح للشافعي في هذه المسئلة و نحن مقلدون يجب علينا تقليد إمامنا أبي حنيفة ، والله أعلم “
The truth and justice is that in this matter (Imam) Shafi’i has preference and we are followers; it is obligatory upon us to follow our Imam Abu Hanifa.
واللہ اعلم
ان شاء اللہ On the Day of Judgment, Imam Abu Hanifa will disassociate himself from such extreme followers who have, without any evidence, made blind imitation of him obligatory and compulsory.
ياليت قومى يعلمون
Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi clearly writes without any embellishment that ’’
A follower does not have the right to derive rulings contrary to the opinion of a Mujtahid from the Book and Sunnah and act upon them.
And a follower (muqallid) is not permitted to independently derive rulings from the Book and Sunnah contrary to the opinion of the Mujtahid and act upon them.
(Translation of Daftar Awwal, Part Five, Vol. 2, p. 770, Letter No. 6 28)
In another manuscript, this phrase is stated as: “A follower is not qualified to derive rulings from the Book and Sunnah contrary to the opinion of the Mujtahid and act upon them.”
Regarding the issue of raising the hand in supplication (raf’ al-sibahah), the same follower, Sirhindi Sahib, writes: “When authentic narrations have established the prohibition of raising the hand, and a fatwa has been issued on its dislike, and the pointing and prohibition are considered the apparent principle of the companions, then it is not appropriate for us followers to act contrary to the hadiths by daring to raise the hand. And despite the fatwas of the learned Mujtahids, to commit what is forbidden, disliked, and prohibited is not permissible.”
The authentic narrations refer to the documented names of imitation-based jurists. These are the same Sufi Sheikh Sarhindi about whom Shah Jahan’s Jahangiri Tuzuk writes that at that time it was reported to me that a cunning person named Sheikh Ahmad had spread a web of deceit in Hind, trapping many naive and ignorant people close to him… He wrote letters full of nonsense and absurdities to his disciples and followers, compiling them under the name of Maktubat (letters). Therefore, this collection contains many frivolous and worthless statements that have reached the level of disbelief and heresy… He appears to be foolish and unintelligent, as well as extremely arrogant and self-conceited. I considered it appropriate to keep him imprisoned for a few days for his reformation.
Aamir Usmani Deobandi, editor of Tajalli Deoband, was asked, “Answer from the Hadith of the Prophet.” That Deobandi gentleman openly wrote that “Such demands are often made by questioners; this is actually a result of unfamiliarity with the principle that followers (Muqallideen) do not need references from Hadith and Quran, but rather need the decisions and fatwas of the Imams of Fiqh,” etc.
Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi Badauni Sahib writes that
“Because the evidence of the Hanafis is not these narrations; their evidence is only the statement of the Imam, and the narrations are only to support the statement of the Imam.”
He also writes that “Our evidence is not these narrations. Our main evidence is the statement of Imam Azam Abu Hanifa (may Allah be pleased with him). We present these verses and hadiths to support the issues. The hadiths or verses are the evidence for Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah be pleased with him)…” etc.
Qazi Muhammad Zahid al-Husayni Hayati Deobandi Sahib writes:
“Although the final argument for every follower is the statement of the Mujtahid… Now if a person claims to be a follower of Imam Abu Hanifa and at the same time demands the Quran and Sunnah as evidence along with or separate from the statement of Imam Abu Hanifa, then in other words, he does not believe in the reasoning of his Imam and guide.”
Hussain Ahmad Tandwi Deobandi Sahib “states”:
“And there is no follower except the Imam Sahib. A follower is one whose statement is accepted without evidence.”
In the same book, Tandwi Sahib has narrated an incident of a Maliki scholar that “Once three scholars (Hanafi, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) went together to a Maliki and asked him why he follows (taqlid). He replied that I am a follower of Imam Malik; ask him for evidence. If I knew the evidence, why would I follow? So those people remained silent.”
Tasleem means to pray by raising the hands.
These few references are presented as examples, a handful from a heap, to prove that the followers do not consider the Quran and Hadith as the primary evidence but only claim to follow their alleged Imam. It is another matter that when the Imam’s statement goes against their selfish desires, for example, the issue of payment for teaching the Quran, in such cases, they abandon the Imam’s statement and follow the so-called later scholars’ opinions!
It is also worth remembering here that Barelvi and Deobandi people claim to follow an Imam, but they are not followers of Imam Abu Hanifa; rather, they are only followers of their self-made elders (Ahbar, Rahban, Pirs, Maulvis) and nothing more!
Now, as promised, the objections of Deobandis, Barelvis, and others against the Quran, Sunnah, Ijma, and Ijtihad are presented so that ordinary Muslims can recognize these people and protect themselves from their evil:
The Holy Quran and the Followers of Taqlid
In the Holy Quran it is stated that
(اِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُوْنَ نَجَسٌ فَلَا یَقْرَبُوا الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هٰذَاۚ)
Indeed, the polytheists are impure (unclean). After this year, they should not even come near the Sacred Mosque.
From this noble verse, Caliph Umar ibn Abdul Aziz and others deduced that disbelievers cannot enter the Sacred Mosque, etc.
(Tafsir Qurtubi, Vol. 8, p. 104; Tafsir Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Vol. 10, p. 74) etc.
Whereas according to the Hanafis, it is permissible for disbelievers (Ahl adh-Dhimmah) to enter the Sacred Mosque.
See
In the Holy Quran it is stated:
(وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ)
And We ordained for them in it: a life for a life.
Contrary to this, the Hanafi ruling is that if a person drowns a minor child or the like in water and kills him, there is no Qisas (retribution) on that killer.
Similarly, according to them, if a person kills his slave, he will not be killed in return.
In the Holy Quran it is stated:
(لَّا یَمَسُّهٗۤ اِلَّا الْمُطَهَّرُوْنَ)
Only the purified touch it (i.e., the Quran).
Contrary to this verse, the fatwa of the followers of blind imitation is that it is permissible to write Surah Al-Fatiha with urine.
The Holy Quran states that (unmarried fornicator male and female should be given one hundred lashes as punishment
Whereas in Hanafi jurisprudence, there is no prescribed punishment for committing adultery with a rented woman.
It is proven from the Holy Quran that only Allah is the Reliever of difficulties. For example, it is stated:
(اَمَّنْ یُّجِیْبُ الْمُضْطَرَّ اِذَا دَعَاهُ وَ یَكْشِفُ السُّوْٓءَ وَ یَجْعَلُكُمْ خُلَفَآءَ الْاَرْضِؕ-ءَاِلٰهٌ مَّعَ اللّٰهِؕ-قَلِیْلًا مَّا تَذَكَّرُوْنَ)
Is there anyone who listens to the call of the distressed and removes the difficulty and makes you inheritors of the earth? Is there any god with Allah? You are indeed in a manifest error.
Contrary to this verse, the belief of Deobandis and Barelvis is that such and such creature is also a reliever of difficulties. The polytheistic beliefs of the Barelvis are known to the common people. Listen to the beliefs of the Deobandis with reference: Haji Imdadullah Makki Sahib, addressing the Prophet ﷺ, writes in “Nalah Imdad-e-Ghareeb” that
O Messenger of the Greatness, it is a cry for help; O Muhammad Mustafa ﷺ, it is a cry for help.
May your help be with me, O Prophet ﷺ, my condition has worsened, this is a plea
I am caught in severe difficulty these days
O my Reliever of difficulties, this is a plea
The same author
and
write
“That the Guide of the world is the Reliever of difficulties”
In this regard, the interpretations of Tandvi Sahib have no standing in the scholarly world, فليتنبه Sufi Abdul Hameed Swati Hayati Deobandi writes:
“O Allah, for the sake of the honor of Hazrat Khawaja Mushkil Kusha, the Chief of Saints, Pir Dastgir Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Usman”
At the end of story 43 in “Fazail-e-Durood” (by Zakariya Sahib) it is written that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
“I am Muhammad bin Abdullah, the Master of the Quran (ﷺ). Your father was a great sinner but he used to send abundant salutations upon me. When this calamity befell him, his plea reached me, and I respond to the plea of every person who sends abundant salutations upon me.”
This brief article does not allow for detailed explanation. Interested readers should study books like Al-Qawl al-Baligh and others. It is in the Holy Quran that
(وَ لَیْسَ عَلَیْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ فِیْمَاۤ اَخْطَاْتُمْ بِهٖۙ-وَ لٰـكِنْ مَّا تَعَمَّدَتْ قُلُوْبُكُمْؕ)
And there is no blame upon you for what you mistakenly do, but [only] for what your hearts intended.
Similarly, it is stated that one who is compelled has no sin upon him (Holy Quran
). On the contrary, the Hanafi school says that forced divorce takes place. See Nasr al-Ma’bud. The Holy Quran has declared interest (usury) forbidden.
Whereas the Hanafi jurisprudence holds that taking interest in the land of war (Dar al-Harb) is permissible.
It is in the Holy Quran that
(فَاَمَّا الَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا فَزَادَتْهُمْ اِیْمَانًا)
So those who believe increase in faith.
Contrarily, the Hanafi jurisprudence decision is that faith neither increases nor decreases.
The Holy Quran states:
﴿فَاقْرَءُوْا مَا تَیَسَّرَ مِنَ الْقُرْاٰنِؕ ﴾
So recite what is easy from the Quran.
From this noble verse, it is established that reciting the Quran (i.e., Surah Al-Fatiha by the evidence of mutawatir hadiths) in prayer is obligatory. Also see
and others.
On the contrary, the fatwa of the Hanafis, etc., is that if a person (Imam or individual) deliberately does not recite Surah Al-Fatiha in the last rak’ahs of the obligatory prayer but stands silently or recites tasbih, then his prayer is completely valid and perfect.
See
and the Deobandi book
and others.
For detailed discussion, refer to the author’s book “الکواکب الدریہ فی وجوب الفاتحہ خلف الامام في الجهرية”
etc.
The Holy Quran states:
(فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا مَاءً فَتَيَمَّمُوا صَعِيدًا طَيِّبَا)
So if you do not find water, then perform tayammum with clean earth.
In contrast, it is written in Hidayah that one should perform ablution with date syrup (nabidh) if water is not available.
For the ridiculous fatwas of the Hanafis regarding Tamim, refer to the famous book
. For refuting the Barelvi and Deobandi propaganda related to Haqiqat al-Fiqh, study the book “Zameer ka Buhran” by Maulana Muhammad Rais Nadvi, a teacher at Jamiat Salafiyah Banaras
.
The Holy Quran has commanded:
(وَثِيَابَكَ فَطَهِّرُ)
And to keep your garments clean.
Whereas
etc. have written that if there is dirt equivalent to one dirham, then the prayer is valid. Also see Sheikh Abu Muhammad Aminullah Al-Bashawri’s “التحقیق السديد في مسئله التقليد”
. Sheikh Aminullah, may Allah preserve him, is a trustworthy scholar and researcher of the Ahl al-Hadith group. May Allah reward him well. This book of his is an extremely excellent book in the Pashto language. I do not have time, I wish someone would translate it into Urdu and publish it.
[This book: “The Reality of Taqlid” has been translated into Urdu by Haider Farooqi and published. والحمد للہ]
The ruling about alcohol in the Holy Quran is:
(فاجتنبوه)
So avoid it.
(Therefore, it is proven that drinking alcohol is not permissible in any condition.) In contrast, the Hanafi Fiqh Mufti gives this fatwa that drinking alcohol is permissible for a thirsty person.
The Quran’s verdict is:
(لَّا یَعْلَمُ مَنْ فِی السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الْاَرْضِ الْغَیْبَ اِلَّا اللّٰهُؕ)
None knows the unseen except Allah, in the heavens and the earth.
On the contrary, the decision of the Barelvis and Deobandis is that certain creatures also know the unseen. The belief of the Barelvis is well known to ordinary Muslims. For the beliefs of the Deobandis, studying القول البلیغ etc. is useful. Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib wrote about “Abdullah Khan” that “His condition was such that if there was a pregnancy in someone’s house and they came to take an amulet, he would say whether it would be a girl or a boy in your house. And whatever he predicted would come true.”
In short, these imitation-following Deobandis and Barelvis have opposed the clear verses of the Holy Quran in numerous places.
Authentic Hadith and the Imitation-following People
It is narrated from Sayyiduna Anas (RA) that
“من السنة إذا تزوج الرجل البكر على الثيب أقام عندها سبعًا وقسم وإذا تزوّج الثيب أقام عندها ثلاثا ثم قسم ”
The Sunnah is that when a man who already has a wife marries a second time to a virgin, he should spend seven nights with her and then alternate turns. But if he marries a woman who was previously married (her husband died or she was divorced, etc.), he should spend three nights with her and then alternate turns.
While Mulla Marghinani Hanafi said:
” والقديمة والجديدة سواء “
Meaning the old wife and the new (married) wife both have equal rights in turns.
It is narrated from Umm al-Mu’minin Aisha (RA) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
(( من مات وعليه صيام، صام عنه ولیه ))
Whoever dies and still has fasting (such as vows) remaining, his guardian should fast on his behalf.
While in Al-Hidayah it is stated that ” ولا يصوم عنه الولى “
(صحیح بخاری ج ۱ص ۲۶۲ ، وصحیح مسلم ج ۱ص ۳۶۲)
The guardian should not fast on behalf of the deceased.
It is narrated from Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Zaid (RA) that
’’ خرج النبي لا يستسقى فتوجه إلى القبلة يدعو وحوّل ردائه ثم صلى ركعتين يجهر فيهما بالقراءة‘‘
The Prophet ﷺ went out for Istisqa (prayer for rain), then he faced the Qibla while making supplication, and he turned his cloak inside out. Then he prayed long Rak’ahs. In them, he was reciting aloud.
In another narration of Sahih Bukhari and others, it is stated that
” ثم صلّی لنا رکعتین “
Then he taught us to pray long Rak’ahs. Contrary to this, it is written in Al-Hidayah that
’’ لیس فی الاستسقاء صلوة مسنونة في جماعة “
(Imam Abu Hanifa said:) The congregational prayer at the time of Istisqa is not Sunnah.
It is narrated from Aisha Siddiqah رضي الله عنها that
’’ان الشمس خسفت على عهد رسول الله ﷺ فبعث مناديا : الصلوة جامعة، فتقدم فصلّى أربع ركعات في ركعتين وأربع سجدات “
During the blessed time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, at the time of a solar eclipse, he ordered through the caller to gather for prayer. Then he proceeded to pray long Rak’ahs and performed four prostrations; in each Rak’ah, he recited aloud.
Contrary to this, it is written in Al-Hidayah that
”إذا انكسفت الشمس صلى الإمام بالناس ركعتين كهيئاة النافلة في كل ركعة ركوع واحد‘‘
The prayer for the solar eclipse is led by the Imam in two rak’ahs, similar to the form of a voluntary prayer. In each rak’ah, one bowing (ruku) is performed.
It is narrated from Sayyiduna Amr bin Umayyah al-Damri رضي الله عنه that
“رایت النبيء يمسح على عمامته وخفيه”
I saw the Prophet ﷺ wiping over the ‘imamah and the socks.
Whereas in Hidayah it is stated that
“ولا يجوز المسح على العمامة”
And wiping over the turban is not permissible.
It is narrated from Sayyiduna Anas رضي الله عنه that
“ان النبي ﷺ سئل عن الخمر : تتخذ خلا ؟ فقال : لا”
Indeed, the Prophet ﷺ was asked whether vinegar made from wine (khamr) is permissible, and he said: No.
Whereas in Hidayah it is stated that when wine turns into vinegar, it becomes permissible whether it happens naturally or by adding something else to make it vinegar.
“ولا یکرہ تخلیلھا”
And making vinegar from wine (khamr) is not disliked.
It is narrated from Amir al-Mu’minin Ali رضي الله عنه that in his manuscript this statement was present:
“لا يقتل مسلم بكافر”
A Muslim shall not be killed in retaliation for a disbeliever.
In Sunan Abu Dawood and others, this hadith is explicitly attributed to the Prophet ﷺ and its chain of narration is authentic. In contrast, it is written in Hidayah that
’’ والمسلم بالذمي ‘‘
And a Muslim will be killed in place of a Zoroastrian.
It is narrated from Sayyiduna Abu Mas’ud رضي الله عنه that
’’ان رسول اللہ ﷺ نھی عن ثمن الكلب “
Indeed, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade the price of a dog.
Rather, in the hadith, the price of a dog is called impure.
Contrary to this, it is written in Hidayah that
’’يجوز بيع الكلب والفهد والسباع‘‘
The sale of dogs, leopards, and wild beasts is permissible.
According to Hanafi jurisprudence, if a person slaughters his dog and sells its meat, it is permissible.
In the hadith of Sayyiduna Abu Mahdhurah رضي الله عنه, it is mentioned that the Prophet ﷺ taught him the combined adhan.
Tarjee’ means that four times Allahu Akbar, four times Kalima Shahadat, etc. In contrast, in Hidayah it is written that
” ولا ترجیع فیه “
meaning: There is no tarjee’ in the Adhan.
It is narrated from Sayyidna Ubada bin As-Samit (RA) that
’’سمعت رسول الله ﷺ ينهى عن بيع الذهب بالذهب والتمر بالتمر إلا سواء بسواء عيناً بعين، فمن زاد أو ازداد فقد أربى “
I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbidding selling gold for gold and dates for dates except when both things are equal and exchanged hand to hand; whoever gives more or asks for more has engaged in usury.
In the narration of Sayyidna Abu Saeed (RA) it is stated that
” الآخذو المعطي فيه سواء‘‘
The giver and the receiver are both equal.
Whereas in Hidayah it is written that
”یجوز التمرة بالتمرتين “
(Muhammad bin Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani said:)
It is permissible to sell one date for two dates.
It is authentically reported that the Prophet ﷺ used to recite ”رب اغفر لي“ twice between the two prostrations.
See
etc.
Against this, in the famous book of apparent narrations “الجامع الصغیر” it is narrated from Imam Abu Hanifa that و كذلك بين السجدتين يسكت and similarly he will remain silent between the two prostrations (will not recite any supplication).
Regarding this statement, Abdul Hai Lakhnawi (Hanafi) writes in Safinat al-Nafi’ al-Kabir:
“هذا مخالف لما جاء فى الأخبار الصحاح من زيادة الأدعية في القومة وبين السجدتين”
This statement contradicts authentic hadiths which prove the recitation of supplications during the pause and between the two prostrations. (Also)
It is established by mutawatir hadiths that Madinah Munawwarah is “حرم“.
See
. Contrary to this, the Hanafi jurisprudence ruling is that Madinah is not a sanctuary (haram):
“لا حرم للمدينة عندنا”
According to us (i.e., the Hanafis), Madinah is not a sanctuary.
In short, numerous such examples become clear and apparent from the study and comparison of Hanafi fiqh books and hadith books. For details, refer to the books like I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in etc.
Consensus and the Respected Followers
It is agreed upon that Taqlid (imitation) means ignorance, and the one who imitates is not a scholar (that is, he is ignorant).
See
Zaili Hanafi! has written that “فالمقلد ذهل والمقلد جهل”
Therefore, the one who imitates makes mistakes and commits ignorance.
Ayni Hanafi! has also admitted that “فالمقلد ذهل والمقلد جهل وآفة كل شيء من التقلید”
Therefore, the one who imitates makes mistakes and is ignorant, and all troubles are due to imitation.
From these two statements, two things are understood:
➊ The one who imitates is ignorant.
➋ The fact that certain scholars are associated with negative or similar terms does not mean, God forbid, that they were mere followers (muqallids). Rather, it only means that their method of reasoning and principles were similar to those of Imam Abu Hanifa and others. This is also proven from Shah Waliullah Dehlawi Al-Hanafi’s Al-Insaf and other works. Contrary to this consensus, those Deobandi and Barelvi individuals who claim to be followers consider themselves scholars. Where are the ignorant and where are the scholars? And some even say that they are scholars compared to you!!
There is a consensus among the Companions that wiping over socks is permissible.
Wiping over socks was done by Sayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abu Mas’ud (Ibn Mas’ud), Bara’ ibn Azib, Anas ibn Malik, the two Imams Sahl ibn Sa’d and Amr ibn Hurayth (may Allah be pleased with them), and this is also narrated from Umar ibn al-Khattab and Ibn Abbas.
Imam Ishaq bin Rahwayh said that there is no disagreement among them (the Companions) on this issue.
Also see Manjaniq al-Gharb by Hafiz Abu Muhammad bin Hazm and his famous book Al-Muhalla, etc.
Imam Abu Hanifa, in the early part of his life, believed in wiping over khuffain (well-fitting socks) worn by students (socks with shoes) and leather socks (those socks whose lower part is made of leather) and denied wiping over ordinary socks. In his later years, he withdrew from his earlier position and accepted wiping over ordinary socks, and this is the opinion of the Mufti as well.
Contrary to the consensus of the Companions, the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa, and the Mufti’s opinion, the present-day Deobandi and Barelvi scholars strongly deny the permissibility of wiping over socks.
None of the Companions were Hanafi, Shafi’i, Deobandi, or Barelvi.
On the contrary, nowadays people identify themselves as Hanafi, Shafi’i, Deobandi, Barelvi, etc.
Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Zubair (RA) and his followers used to say Ameen aloud in such a way that it would cause noise in the mosque. See Sahih Bukhari, Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, and others.
No Sahabi ever denied or criticized Abdullah (RA), therefore it is established that there is consensus among the Sahaba on the permissibility of saying Ameen aloud. On the contrary, the followers of Deobandism and Barelvism have strong enmity, jealousy, and hatred towards saying Ameen aloud.
There is no explicit or implicit evidence from any Sahabi for personal imitation; rather, Sayyiduna Muadh bin Jabal and others forbade absolute imitation.
Contrary to this, the Deobandi and Barelvi groups believe in the obligation of personal imitation.
It is narrated from Amir al-Mu’minin Umar (RA) and others (the Sahaba) that it is necessary to recite Surah Al-Fatiha in all rak’ahs of prayer. (See Fiqh Umar and others)
Contrary to this, the fatwa of Deobandi and Barelvi groups is that if in the last rak’ahs one deliberately does not recite Surah Al-Fatiha or even any part of the Quran and remains completely silent, the prayer is still completely valid and permissible!
The justification of only one rak’ah of Witr is established from Amir al-Mu’minin Sayyiduna Uthman, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, Muawiyah, and others. (See Sahih Bukhari, etc.) There is no opposition among the Companions regarding the permissibility of one rak’ah of Witr.
On the contrary, Deobandi and Barelvi scholars strongly deny the permissibility of one rak’ah of Witr.
All the Companions held the belief of Tawhid and Sunnah. Sayyiduna Umar (RA) kissed the Black Stone because the Prophet ﷺ kissed it. None of the Companions believed that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and Ali (RA) and others are problem solvers. On the contrary, Barelvi and Deobandi scholars consider Sayyiduna Ali (RA) and others as problem solvers.
See the same topic
There is consensus among the Companions that one who commits the act of the people of Lot should be killed.
Contrary to this, the Hanafi Fiqh ruling is that there is no hadd (fixed punishment) for a person who commits the act of the people of Lot.
See
It is a separate matter that a Hanafi Imam may impose some punishment on a person as a political measure.
It is established from numerous companions that faith can increase and decrease.
See
, etc.
There is no opposition from the companions and righteous predecessors on this issue. On the contrary, the belief of the followers of taqlid (imitation) is that faith neither increases nor decreases.
إنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون
In short, there are countless examples of this kind.
Opposition of the Followers of Taqlid to Ijtihad
A Shami Hanafi has written that “After the fourth century Hijri, the chain of ijtihad has been broken. 551/1”
The author of Dur Mukhtar writes that
“و قد ذكروا أن المجتهد المطلق قد فقد”
And he mentioned that the absolute mujtahid has become lost. (Vol. 15) The followers of taqlid have, in their own opinion, closed the door of ijtihad and started saying:
“Our example is like a blind person whose support is only his cane; if he does not walk with the cane, he will fall into a ditch. That is us.”
In the following chapter and subsequent chapters, there is mention of those followers of taqlid and the fatwas of the Rightly Guided Caliphs which these people oppose. It is as clear as the sun that all four Rightly Guided Caliphs were also powerful mujtahids. رضی اللہ عنہم اجمعین
The First Caliph Abu Bakr (RA) and the Followers of Taqlid
It is established from the Commander of the Faithful, the Rightly Guided Caliph Abu Bakr As-Siddiq (RA), that he used to raise his hands before and after the bowing (ruku).
Also see
Nothing contrary to this is established from Abu Bakr (RA), and from the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as well, the raising of hands before and after bowing is established with mutawatir ahadith.
See
and others
Contrary to these mutawatir hadiths and the practice of Siddiqi, Deobandi and Barelvi scholars strongly deny raising the hands (raf’ al-yadain). In fact, some extremists among them have even declared those who raise their hands as disbelievers. See Muhammad Ashiq Ilahi Merathi Deobandi’s ‘
‘.
Here, as a note of gratitude, it is mentioned that Merathi Sahib wrote about such (so-called) Hanafis that “this was a very grave mistake, a great misguidance” (ibid).
Siddiq Akbar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) fatwa is that the one who commits the act of the people of Lot should be killed.
Warning:
In this article, Fiqh Abi Bakr, Fiqh Umar, Fiqh Uthman, and Fiqh Ali (may Allah be pleased with them all) refer to the Urdu translations published by Idara Maarif-e-Islami Lahore.
On the other hand, the Hanafis do not consider the punishment (hudood) applicable to one who commits the act of the people of Lot.
According to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), offering sacrifice (qurbani) is Sunnah, not obligatory.
While the Hanafis consider sacrifice (Qurbani) obligatory. See
It is said that the rightly guided Imam Abu Bakr (RA) used to say and perform twelve Takbirs in the two Eids, seven in the first Rak’ah and five in the second Rak’ah.
See
Whereas the Hanafis only say and perform six Takbirs. See
Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (RA) was an advocate of one Rak’ah Witr.
See
Whereas both the Deobandi sect and the Barelvi sect reject one Rak’ah Witr.
See
etc.
Here, as a joke, it is mentioned that Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri Anibithvi Deobandi wrote in refutation of the innovator Maulvi of Anwar Saati’a that “I say: One rak’ah of Witr is present in the authentic hadiths, and Abdullah bin Umar and Ibn Abbas and other companions are its narrators, and the madhhab of Malik, Shafi’i, and Ahmad is based on it. To criticize this is to criticize all of them. So what is the status of faith?” etc.
Siddiq (RA) was in favor of wiping over the turban; see
. On the contrary, the Ahl-e-Taqleed deny wiping over the turban.
See
.
Abu Bakr (RA) issued a fatwa that an unmarried adulterer should be flogged and exiled for one year. See Sunan Tirmidhi
.
Whereas, completely opposite to this, the Hanafi scholars do not accept exile.
See
.
Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) believed that the covenant of a non-Muslim dhimmi would be broken if he showed disrespect to the sacred status of رحمۃ للعالمین. See Al-Muhalla
Whereas according to Imam Abu Hanifa, such a person’s covenant is neither broken nor will he be killed. See the same topic (first page of Al-Zail Al-Mahmood)
It is narrated in Fatawa Shami that
“واما أبو حنيفة وأصحابه فقالوا لا ينتقض العهد بالسب ولا يقتل الذمى بذلك لكن يعزر على اظهار ذلك”
And Abu Hanifa and his students hold that the covenant is not broken by cursing and insulting, nor will the dhimmi be killed for this reason. However, if he openly expresses cursing and insulting, then a discretionary punishment (ta’zir) will be applied. (Radd al-Satar ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar Vol 3, p. 305) 9: A fish that dies in water by itself or without being caught is called Altafiya. Abu Bakr (RA) believed that Altafiya is permissible to eat.
Whereas in Hanafi Fiqh, eating Altafiya is disliked (makruh).
Here, as a warning, it is stated that the references to Hadith and traditions made by the author of Hidayah to protect his imitative sect are not proven upon investigation. Presenting any other evidence against the Fatwa of Siddiqi is wrong in every respect.
The honorable Sayyiduna Sahib al-Rasool ﷺ and the first Caliph Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه issued the fatwa that a female apostate (a woman who has apostatized) should be killed.
See
Whereas the completely opposite Hanafi scholars have issued the fatwa that the female apostate should not be killed.
There are other examples of this kind as well.
For example, see
etc.
The Second Caliph Sayyiduna Umar رضي الله عنه and the Imitative Sectarians
The martyr of the Mihrab, Sayyiduna Umar رضي الله عنه, issued the fatwa that the wife of a missing person should wait for four years. See
and others.
Whereas the Hanafi fatwa is the opposite.
It is written in Bahishti Zewar that “then that woman cannot enter into a second marriage. Rather, she should wait, hoping he might return, and if so much time passes that the husband’s age reaches ninety years, then a ruling will be made that he must have died.”
When the Hanafis got stuck on this fatwa, they began issuing fatwas based on Imam Malik’s opinion. They started using the trick of Najasa (impurity). Leaving the imitation of one, they entered into the imitation of another, committing the sin of blending and wishful thinking, and did not even mention the name of Sayyidna Umar (RA) so that the issue of imitation might not end.
Sayyidna Umar (RA) was strongly against the prevalent practice of Halala; rather, he was in favor of punishment.
Whereas the Hanafis are proponents and practitioners of Halala.
Sayyiduna Janab Umar (RA) considered a marriage without a guardian (wali) to be invalid and rejected, and he used to punish those who did so with lashes.
Whereas according to the Hanafi school, the presence of a guardian is not a condition for the validity of the marriage of a “pubescent virgin,” and the contract will be valid.
Sayyiduna Janab Umar (RA) considered marriage performed during the state of Ihram to be invalid.
Whereas according to the Hanafi school, marriage during the state of Ihram is permissible.
Sayyiduna Janab Umar (RA) believed in a two-year period for suckling (rada’ah).
Whereas according to the Hanafi and Deobandi scholars, its duration is two and a half years.
Benefit:
The author of Tafsir Usmani, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani Deobandi Sahib, writes in his Tafsir that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, who is fully aware of the conditions of his followers, will bear witness to their truthfulness and justice.
Hazrat Sayyiduna Umar رضي الله عنه was not in favor of divorce given under compulsion.
According to the Hanafi school, this divorce is considered valid.
Hazrat Sayyiduna Umar رضي الله عنه was neither in favor of selling waqf property nor gifting it.
Whereas according to Imam Abu Hanifa, it is permissible to sell waqf and to revoke it.
Hazrat Sayyiduna Umar رضي الله عنه considered the eating of “Sandha” (called Samsara in Pashto) permissible. It is a type of terrestrial animal.
Whereas the Hanafi school considers it disliked (makruh), and there is even a view of prohibition.
Hazrat Sayyiduna Umar رضي الله عنه ordered that in the last two rak’ahs of the four-rak’ah prayer (Ruba’i), Surah Al-Fatiha should be recited.
Whereas Deobandi in “Bahishti Zewar” has written that “If in the last two rak’ahs الحمد is not recited but instead سبحان اللہ سبحان اللہ is said three times, it is also correct, but reciting الحمد is better, and if nothing is recited and one stands silently, there is no harm, the prayer is valid.”
Hazrat Sayyiduna Umar (RA) was of the opinion that when the shadow of everything becomes equal to itself, it is the time for Asr prayer.
However, all the Deobandi and Barelvi elders of our area pray Asr after the time of Dhuhr prayer’s shadow becomes twice its length. Also see
etc.
Many other fatwas of Hazrat Sayyiduna Umar (RA) are also opposed by the followers.
Caliph Thalith Sayyiduna Uthman (RA) and the Followers
The honorable Caliph, the martyred oppressed Sayyiduna Uthman (RA), held the fatwa that Madinah is a sanctuary (haram).
For opposition, see
According to Sayyiduna Uthman (RA), one should neither contract their own marriage nor that of another while in the state of Ihram.
For Hanafi opposition, see
The Ottoman fatwa regarding Mafqood al-Khabir is that his wife should wait for four years, after which she can marry another.
etc.
For Hanafi opposition, see
Hazrat Syedna Usman رضي الله عنه was a proponent and practitioner of twelve Takbeers in the two Eid prayers.
See
etc.
For Hanafi opposition, see the same topic
Hazrat Syedna Usman رضي الله عنه was a proponent of combining two prayers (Dhuhr + Asr and Maghrib + Isha) during travel.
Whereas Deobandi and Barelvi scholars strongly deny this. The Ottoman fatwa regarding apostates is that they should be killed.
Whereas Hanafi scholars oppose this fatwa.
See
Hazrat Syedna Usman رضي الله عنه was a proponent and practitioner of one Rak’ah Witr.
While the Al-Deoband and Al-Barelvi generally deny it.
See
Regarding sacrifice, the Ottoman jurisprudence holds that it is Sunnah, not obligatory.
Whereas the opponents of Ottoman jurisprudence consider it obligatory.
See the same topic
Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه believed in the permissibility (halal status) of the Taafiyah.
Whereas the followers of Taqlid oppose this.
See
The punishment of Caliph Rashid Amir al-Mu’minin Uthman رضي الله عنه for a person committing the act of the people of Lot is that he should be killed. See
, etc., and there is consensus of the Sahabah on this. (Also)
For Hanafi opposition, see
There are many more such examples. For instance, see
and the issue of alcohol, etc.
The Fourth Caliph Sayyiduna Ali رضي الله عنه and the Followers of Taqlid Sect
At the end of Nasr al-Ma’bud, the Commander of the Faithful, the Rightly Guided Caliph, Sayyiduna Ali (RA), has stated that none of the four traditional schools of jurisprudence and the four Silsilas (chains) conform to his madhhab. Now, some Alawi fatwas and their imitative oppositions are presented.
Sayyiduna Ali (RA) was in favor of wiping over socks.
Whereas the Al-Dewband and Al-Barelvi groups completely deny this.
See the same topic:
Consensus and the followers
Sayyiduna Ali (RA) believed that Medina is a sanctuary (haram).
Whereas the followers of Taqlid are against the sanctity of Medina.
See the same topic:
Authentic Hadith and the followers of Taqlid
Sayyiduna Ali (RA) was in favor of supplication between the two prostrations.
Whereas the apparent narration in Al-Jami’ al-Saghir issues a fatwa against it. See the same topic Authentic Hadith and the followers of Taqlid
Sayyiduna Ali (RA) believed that Witr is Sunnah. See
Whereas the Hanafis consider Witr obligatory.
See
Hazrat Sayyiduna Ali (RA) was in favor of twelve Takbeerat on the two Eids. See
while the Taqlid sect opposes this.
See the same topic:
Caliph Abu Bakr (RA) and the followers of Taqlid
Here, as a caution, it is stated that what has been narrated against this in the Shia book Musnad Zaid is rejected on many grounds:
The primary narrator of this Musnad, Amr bin Khalid al-Wasiti, is a liar according to Tadhhib al-Tahdhib and others, and also according to the author’s book “A Research Study on the Number of Rak’ahs of Qiyam in Ramadan.”
The second narrator, Abdul Aziz bin Ishaq, was an extremist Shia and weak.
Presenting the fabricated book of Zaydi Shias against Ahl al-Sunnah is rejected. Etc.
Hazrat Sayyiduna Ali (RA) was also in favor of the permissibility of repeating the funeral prayer.
Whereas Deobandi and Barelvi scholars, based on some minor jurisprudential points, strongly deny and oppose repeating the funeral prayer.
Hazrat Sayyiduna Ali (RA) issued a fatwa that the responsibility of the blasphemer of the Prophet (SAW) is broken.
Whereas in this matter, Imam Abu Hanifa and his companions’ stance is completely opposite.
See the same subject:
His Eminence Sayyiduna Ali (RA) used to advocate and practice combining the two prayers during travel.
Whereas Barelvis and Vedio Band are opposed to this.
His Eminence Sayyiduna Ali (RA) issued a fatwa that disbelievers cannot enter the Haram of Makkah.
Whereas the Hanafis are against this Haidari fatwa.
See the same subject:
The Holy Quran and the followers of Taqlid
His Eminence [Sayyiduna] Ali (RA) believed that on the day of Eid, the path towards the Eidgah for prayer should be accompanied by saying Takbeers.
Whereas Imam Abu Hanifa’s fatwa is contrary to this. See Nasr Al-Ma’bood
In short, there are many more such fatwas which both Deobandi and Barelvi oppose, for example see
, etc.
Here, as a caution, it is stated that some opinions in Fiqh Ali and others are not established, for example references to Musnad Zaid, etc. I have only written those sayings of the Rightly Guided Caliphs which are (generally) in accordance with the Book and Sunnah or are established and well-known from them. The writer has omitted weak and rejected statements with unreliable chains of narration.
For example, on page 290 of Fiqh Ali, it is written that “There is a narration regarding a rat falling into a well that in such a case, forty Dols should be taken out.” I did not find this narration.
It is a different matter that in the reliable Hanafi book Al-Hidayah, it is written that if a rat falls into a well, twenty to thirty Dols should be taken out.
And if a pigeon falls, then forty to sixty Dols should be taken out.
Also see
Explanation of the well, etc.
Only the scholars of “Fiqh Sharif” from Deobandi or Barelvi groups can understand the wisdom behind this that if a rat falls, then Dols, but if a halal bird like a pigeon falls, then forty!?
These few examples of the Rightly Guided Caliphs are presented so that all Muslims may know that Barelvi and Deobandi groups are not only opposed to the Quran, Hadith, and consensus but are also completely against the Mujtahid companions and others, especially the Rightly Guided Caliphs.
وما علينا إلا البلاغ
(7 Shawwal 1418 AH corresponding to 5 February 1998 CE)
