A Brief Review of Some Arguments Against Permissibility
Although many points have already been discussed regarding the impermissibility in the context of removing doubts and objections, due to its importance, here are a few more points for your consideration:
(1) In the Holy Quran, four types of livestock (بہیمۃ الانعام) are mentioned: sheep, camel, cow, and buffalo is not among these four. The ruling regarding sacrifice is that it must be from the livestock mentioned. Therefore, the sacrifice of a buffalo is not permissible. However, in the matter of zakat, the ruling for buffalo is the same as that for a cow. … It should be noted that some issues have two aspects from the perspective of precaution, and one must act with precaution.
The mother of the believing woman, Sawda (may Allah be pleased with her), had a slave girl named Zam’ah. During the pre-Islamic era, Utbah bin Abi Waqqas committed adultery with her. A boy was born who was raised by his mother. The adulterer died and bequeathed to his brother Saad bin Abi Waqqas that the boy of Zam’ah’s slave girl was his son and that he should take custody of him. At the time of the conquest of Mecca, Saad bin Abi Waqqas took the boy and said, “This is my nephew.” Zam’ah’s son said, “This is my father’s son, so he is my brother, and I will take him.”
The case was presented before the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), who said:
” الولد للفراش وللعاهر الحجر ” (Mishkat, Bab al-La’an, Chapter One)
Meaning, the child belongs to the husband of the wife, and the adulterer is to be stoned. That is, he is unsuccessful and his punishment is stoning.
The child was given to Sawda’s brother, who also became the brother of Sawda (may Allah be pleased with her). But Sawda was instructed to observe hijab from him because his appearance resembled that of the adulterer, which caused suspicion that he was from the adulterer’s seed. In this matter, regarding appearance, the command was to observe hijab, and regarding the household in which he was born, he was made the son of that household. Thus, precaution was observed in both aspects. The same applies to the matter of the buffalo; here too, precaution must be observed in both aspects. It is precautionary to pay zakat on it, and precautionary not to sacrifice it. Therefore, the sacrifice of a buffalo is not permissible. Some have written that “الجاموس نوع من البقر” meaning “the buffalo is a type of cow,” which may be correct in terms of zakat, but otherwise, it is clear that the buffalo is a different species.
Abdullah Amritsari, Rawalpindi (4 / Dhu al-Hijjah 1383 AH, 17 April 1964 CE)
Review:
(1) The entire issue of the obligation of Zakat on buffalo and the permissibility of its sacrifice depends solely on whether it is of the cattle species or not. Both Zakat and sacrifice are acts of worship. Now, if it is of the cattle species, then its ruling is like that of a cow, whether it concerns Zakat or sacrifice. And if the buffalo is not of the cattle species, then its ruling is not like that of a cow, whether it concerns Zakat or sacrifice. Therefore, differentiating between Zakat and sacrifice, i.e., considering the buffalo as of the cattle species for Zakat but denying it for sacrifice, requires evidence and is unacceptable until evidence is presented.
(2) The buffalo is a type of cattle species, as has been narrated by the consensus of linguists, jurists, and fatwa scholars. Therefore, excluding it from the cattle species requires authentic evidence.
(3) If a buffalo is not a type of cow but a different species, then how can it be correct to consider it as a type of cow for the purposes of Zakat? In other words, limiting the validity of “نوع من البقر” (a type of cattle) only to the chapter of Zakat and not to the chapter of sacrifice requires a conclusive proof, because it has already been established by consensus that both the buffalo and the cow are of the same species and share identical rulings.
(4) In this two-dimensional precaution, the apparent concern in the invalidity of sacrifice is that if the buffalo is not considered among the cattle (beheemat al-an’am), then there will be no sacrifice. In the obligation of zakat, this view is considered that if the buffalo is also among the cattle, then it will only be considered wealth in the way of Allah and will also have a reward.
However, along with the buffalo and cow being of the same genus and ruling, this aspect should not be overlooked that in the mentioned precaution, the issue of sacrifice is, according to the strongest opinion, at most a confirmed Sunnah, whereas zakat is unquestionably obligatory. Therefore, more concern is needed about a person not committing the error of declaring something obligatory without evidence when it is not, as this is the right of the Lawgiver. And Allah knows best.
(5) The precaution mentioned in the incident of Zimmah’s slave girl committing adultery apparently does not correspond to the nature of the subject under discussion, because the similarity between cow and buffalo and the identical ruling for both is very clear and certain among the scholars of the Ummah, whereas the nature of the incident of Zimmah’s slave girl is different. Similarly, here the matter is entirely about worship, and there it is otherwise.
(6) Even if it is accepted as an example of two-dimensional precaution, despite the decision in the case of Zama’s slave girl declaring the brother as the legitimate heir, the order given by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to Mai Suda to observe hijab, based on the similarity to the adulterer’s brother Saad, is not definitive and certain as a precaution but rather probable, because the incident is narrated in an authentic hadith of Sunan an-Nasa’i as follows:
عن عبد الله بن الزبير ، قال: كانت لزمعة جارية يطؤها هو ، وكان يظن باخر يقع عليها ، فجاءت بولد شبه الذى كان يظن به ، فمات زمعة وهى حبلى ، فذكرت ذلك سودة لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: الولد للفراش ، واحتجبي منه يا سودة فليس لك بأخ
Abdullah bin Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that Zama had a slave girl with whom he used to have intimacy, and there was suspicion about someone else also being with her. When the child was born, he resembled the person suspected, and the slave girl was still pregnant when Zama passed away. Eventually, the matter was presented before the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, who said: “The child belongs to the owner of the bed, and you must observe hijab from Suda, because he is not your brother.”
Thus, this narration explicitly states that the child is not Suda’s brother, and in such a case, the Prophet’s ﷺ order to Suda to observe hijab is not a precaution but an obligation.
Regarding this, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) states:
وعلى هذا فيتعين تأويله وإذا ثبتت هذه الزيادة تعين تأويل نفي الأخوة عن سودة
And on this basis, its interpretation is established, and when this addition is confirmed, the negation of brotherhood with Suda becomes certain.
Moreover, the Muhaddithin have provided other explanations as well. In summary, there are possibilities in the matter, and the issue of precaution is not definitive. And Allah knows best.
(7) Some have written that “الجاموس نوع من البقر” meaning buffalo is a type of cow, which can also be correct in the context of this Zakat. This expression indicates that those who call buffalo a type of cow are rare or exceptional people! However, this is not the case; rather, there is consensus among all lexicographers on this matter. Similarly, the scholars and jurists of the four schools of thought and other scholars of the Ummah have also explicitly stated that buffalo is a type of cow. And Allah knows best.
A buffalo is not included under cattle or small cattle in the strict or customary sense; rather, it is opposed to both absolute cattle and absolute small cattle in every way. The expert in the principles of jurisprudence, Sahib Noor al-Anwar Malajion, may Allah have mercy on him, writes in his renowned book Tafsir Ahmadi (pp. 401-402):
لا ینبغى أن أن يتوهم أنه (الجاموس) داخل فى البقر ، لأنه حينئذ لا يظهر وجه إدخال الجاموس فى البقر وذكر المعز على حدة من الضأن على أن البقر مغاير للجاموس إطلاقا كما أن الضأن مغاير للمعز كذلك . وإنما لم يذكر لفظ الغنم مع أنه كان عاما لهما وكان أخصر فى البيان زيادة رد على الكفار المعتقدين حرمتهما ، وأما أصناف الإبل من البخت والعراب فإنما هي داخلة تحت الإبل المطلقة لأنها من أصنافها فلا احتياج إلى ذكرها على حدة فتأمل
The learned exegete, through this tafsir, removes the misconception of all those who consider the buffalo as a type of cow and thus include it under cows, and also dispels the misconception that since camels are included under the category of camels (bakht and arab), why is the buffalo not considered under cows. In this tafsir, the learned usuli Malajion, may Allah have mercy on him, explains that Allah Almighty has counted only eight animals of sacrifice and offering: two camels, two cows, two sheep, and two goats (because) these are the only four types of cattle. Then, due to people’s misconception, if the buffalo is considered a type of cow and counted as a sacrificial animal, then the total number of male and female animals would be ten, whereas Allah Almighty has counted only eight animals in total. It becomes clear that this misconception is completely wrong and invalid. The second reason for the invalidity of this misconception is that Allah Almighty has explicitly mentioned two types of sheep (sheep and goat) separately and counted both as sacrificial animals. If the buffalo were also a type of cow, then it would have been explicitly mentioned separately, and the number of sacrificial animals would have been counted as ten pairs, but Allah Almighty has not counted it. Therefore, it is clear that counting it as a sacrificial animal is an addition to the Book of Allah, which is entirely false and incorrect.
Review:
(1) Mulla Joon Rahimahullah (1130 AH corresponding to 1718 AD) has this tafsir which is against the alteration of the Salaf, because before this tafsir no transmitted tafsir like this was done, therefore it cannot be considered reliable.
(2) Contrary to this, among the Salaf mufassireen, Imam Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Laith bin Abi Sulaym that buffalo is among the eight spouses.
And this was also narrated from Ibn Abi Hatim by Imam Suyuti.
Similarly, Allama Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan Rahimahullah also narrated this in his tafsir.
(3) From Mulla Joon’s tafsir it appears that buffalo was present and known in Hijaz at the time of the revelation of the Quran during the time of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, whereas this is not the case.
(4) Mulla Joon has not mentioned any authentic narration from the Salaf regarding what he wrote about this.
(5) It has already been mentioned in previous pages, with reference to the Imams of Tafsir, that the context of the verses is not to explain the rules of sacrifice related to the mentioned animals, but rather to refute the disbelief of the polytheists. Therefore, these animals are related to their false beliefs, and since the buffalo was not present at all, there is no question of mentioning its name.
(6) From this interpretation, the necessary implication arises for the Salaf of the Ummah, the Tabi‘un, the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in, the four Imams, and generally other prominent Islamic scholars, while the matter is devoid of evidence and proof.
(7) According to the scholars of Arabic language, scholars of Tafsir, and scholars of Hadith and Fiqh, there is no difference between buffalo and cow; rather, there is unity of genus, and the buffalo is a type of cow, as detailed explanations have already been given.
(8) The bull is also a type of goat and is included within it.
(9) Just as Bukhati and Arab are breeds of camels, similarly, the buffalo is also a type of cow. The evidence for both comes from scholars, lexicons, tafsir, hadith, and fiqh explanations, as well as the consensus of the Ummah. The texts of the Quran and Sunnah mention camels including Bukhati and Arab, but do not mention buffalo or others. Therefore, the distinction between buffalo and Bukhati, etc., is baseless.
(10) The fundamental references for the Ahmadiyya exegeses by Mulla Jawan Amethi Hanafi are: Tafsir Baydawi (Anwar al-Tanzeel wa Asrar al-Taweel), Tafsir Nasafi (Madarik al-Tanzeel wa Haqa’iq al-Taweel), Tafsir Abu Saud (Irshad al-Aql al-Salim ila Mazaya al-Kitab al-Karim), Tajweed Zamakhshari (Al-Kashaf ‘an Haqa’iq Ghawamid al-Tanzeel), Tafsir Ghori, Tafsir Kashfi, and Tafsir Zahid, etc., as they have explained in the preface.
Apart from these, no benefit has been taken from the authentic and widely accepted traditional exegeses of the Salaf, such as Tafsir Tabari (Jami’ al-Bayan ‘an Ta’wil Ay al-Qur’an), Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim (Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim), Tafsir Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him (Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim), Tafsir Baghawi (Ma’alim al-Tanzeel fi Tafsir al-Qur’an), and the comprehensive book of verses of rulings, Tafsir Qurtubi (Al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an), etc.?!
(11) Who were the Malajioon? What were their beliefs and ideologies?
It seems appropriate here to briefly shed light on the biography, beliefs, and methodology of the author of Tafseer Al-Ahmadiyyah, the Malajioon, may Allah have mercy on him, which will help in understanding the approach of his Tafseer:
He was a jurist, fundamental exegete, Allama Ahmad bin Abu Saeed bin Abdullah bin Abdul Razzaq Ibn Khasa Khuda Hanafi Salihi Amethi, may Allah have mercy on him. He was famous as Sheikh Jiwan or Malajioon. He was born on 25 Sha’ban 1047 AH corresponding to 1637 in Amethi. Besides Amethi, he also served in teaching positions in Ajmer, Delhi, etc. For many years, he stayed in the army of Sultan Alamgir, son of Shah Jahan, in the Deccan. Similarly, he resided for a long time in Lahore. He traveled several times to the Holy Hijaz, Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah, and attained the honor of performing Hajj to the House of Allah. He had an extraordinary memory.
Among your famous works are: Al-Taghyirat al-Ahmadiyyah fi Bayan al-Ayat al-Shar’iyyah, Nur al-Anwar fi Sharh al-Manar, Ishraq al-Absar fi Takhrij Ahadith Nur al-Anwar, Manaqib al-Awliya fi Akhbar al-Mashaikh, and Adab Ahmadi, etc.
You passed away on 9th Dhu al-Qi’dah 1637 AH corresponding to 1718 AD in Delhi, and were buried beside Mir Muhammad Shafi Dehlavi. After fifty days, your body was transferred to Amethi and buried in your madrasa.
Creed and Methodology: From the writings and biography of Ahmad Malajioon in his books, it is evident that in terms of creed and methodology, he was a biased Hanafi, Sufi Jahmi, Maturidi, Qaburi, Chishti, and superstitious.
Accordingly, on the pages of Nuzhat al-Khawatir, in his biography, referring to his book Manaqib al-Awliya, it is written:
وقرأت فاتحة الفراغ لما بلغت اثنتين وعشرين سنة ، ثم تصديت للدرس والإفادة ، وأخذت الطريقة الجشتية عن الشيخ الأستاذ محمد صادق الستركهي ، ولما بلغت الأربعين رحلت إلى دهلي ، وأجمير ، واعتراني العشق فى هذا الزمان فأنشأت فى تلك الحالة مزدوجة على نهج المثنوي المعنوي يحمل خمسة وعشرين ألفا من الأبيات ، وأنشأت ديوان شعر كديوان الحافظ فيه خمسة الاف بيت ، ولما سافرت إلى الحجاز أنشأت قصيدة على نهج البردة فيها مائتان وعشرون بيتا بالعربية ، ولما وصلت إلى بندر سورت شرحت تلك القصيدة واعتراني العشق مرة ثانية فأنشأت تسعا وعشرين قصيدة بالعربية
When I turned twenty-two years old, I completed my leisure time, then began teaching and studying, and took the Chishti order from Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq Satrakhi. When I turned forty, I traveled to Delhi and Ajmer, and during that time, I was overwhelmed by love. In the state of love, I wrote a collection of twenty-five thousand couplets based on the style of Masnavi, and also wrote another Diwan of five thousand couplets. When I went to Hijaz, I wrote a Qasida of 220 couplets in Arabic on the style of Burda (Busiri), and upon reaching Bandar Surat, I explained this Qasida. Then, for the second time, love overtook me, and I wrote 29 Qasidas in Arabic! ! ! ! !
Similarly, in his biography it is mentioned:
وصلت إليه الخرقة من الشيخ ليس بن عبد الرزاق القادري صحبة السيد قادري بن ضياء الله البلكرامي
In the company of Sayyid Qadri bin Ziaullah Bilgrami, the Khirqah (a torn piece of cloth given by a Sufi master to his disciple after a long period) of Sheikh Lais bin Abdul Razzaq Qadri reached him.
Similarly, in the preface of his Tafsir, he wrote:
طفقت اتفحص تلك الايات واتجسسها فى القعدة والقيامات ، فلم أجد عليها ظفرا ولم أقف منها أثرا ، فأمرت بلسان الالهام ، لا كوهم من الأوهام ، أن استنبطها بعون الله تعالى وتوفيقه ، واستخرجها بهداية طريقه
I searched for these verses and remained seated and standing in pursuit of them, but I found no success nor any trace. Consequently, through the language of inspiration, I was commanded, which was no illusion or conjecture, that with Allah’s help, success, and guidance, I should deduce and extract them! !
On these bases and in light of other writings, Allama Shamsuddin Afghani (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in “Juhud Ulama al-Hanafiyyah fi Ibtal Aqā’id al-Qaburiyyah”:
وقال الملاجيون الهندي الحنفي الجهمي الصوفي الخرافي (1130):
ومن ههنا علم أن البقرة المنذورة للأولياء كما هو الرسم فى زماننا ، حلال طيب ، لأنه لم يذكر اسم غير الله عليها وقت الذبح ، وإن كانوا ينذرونها له ﴿ [أي لغير الله] ﴾ . . . .
Malajioon, a Hindi Hanafi Jahmi Sufi superstitious (1130 AH), said:
It is understood that the cow offered as a vow for the saints, as is the custom of our time, is halal and good, because at the time of slaughter, the name of anyone other than Allah was not taken upon it, although those people considered that vow for someone other than Allah.
And in the footnote, he summarizes:
قلت: كان مع علمه حنفيا متعصبا ، وجهميا جلدا ماتريديا صلبا صوفيا قبوريا خرافيا قحا
I say: Despite his knowledge, Malajioon was a biased Hanafi, strict Jahmi, staunch Maturidi, committed Sufi, Qaburi, and superstitious.
(12) This is the reality of Ahmad Malajion Hanafi, the author of Tafsirat Ahmadiyah and Noor al-Anwar, etc. So how can the interpretation and statement of Malajion Hanafi, without evidence and authenticity, be considered reliable when it goes against the consensus of the scholars of language, the construction of the majority of early commentators, and the jurisprudence and understanding of the scholars of the Ummah?
(13) Ignoring the unanimous interpretation and explanation of the Ummah’s Quranic commentators and scholars of various disciplines, only the baseless statement of Malajion is being used as evidence, which is under consideration.
(14) This aspect is also extremely astonishing and surprising that the former Sheikh of Jamia Dar al-Hadith al-Athariya Mau and Mufti Maulana Faiz-ur-Rahman Faiz, may Allah have mercy on him, in the issue of the sacrifice of a buffalo, in his treatise “Aina-e-Tahqiq” and “Fuqaha-e-Faiz,” completely ignored hundreds of authentic sources and references of scholars of language, transmitted tafsirs of the Salaf, explanations of hadiths, jurisprudence, ijtihad, and fatwas, and instead relied solely on the opinion of disbelievers and disreputable people like Malajioon.
In this regard, for a mujtahid, the expected excuses could be: lack of access to references and shortage of time, etc., and this in itself is not an ijtihadi error of the respected Maulana, may Allah have mercy on him, for which, according to the promise of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, he will still be deserving of a reward. And Allah knows best.
The Obligation of Zakat on Buffalo: An Analogical Ruling and Juridical Error:
The obligation of zakat and the nisab (minimum amount for zakat) on buffalo is not mentioned anywhere in the Quran and Hadith. Rather, Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) gave this ruling by analogy with the cow. The truth is that Imam Malik’s analogical ruling is not correct; rather, like some of his other analogical rulings, he made a mistake in this matter as well. Because the buffalo is a distinct beast of burden and has no relation or connection to the cow, it is not correct to establish zakat and nisab on the buffalo by analogy with the cow’s zakat and nisab.
Review:
(1) It has been mentioned repeatedly that the buffalo is not analogous to the cow. Rather, it is a foreign species of the genus of cows, and Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) did not give the ruling of zakat on buffalo based on analogy, but because the buffalo is also a cow. See:
قال مالك: وكذلك البقر والجواميس ، تجمع فى الصدقة على ربهما وقال: إنما هي يقر كلها
Imam Malik says: Similarly, zakat on cows and buffaloes will be collected from their owners, and he says: These are all cows.
Therefore, saying “the buffalo is an analogy to the cow” is not correct. Allama Ibn Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), in refuting those who consider the obligation of zakat on buffalo to be based on analogy, says:
واحتجوا أيضا بإيجاب الزكاة فى الجواميس وأنه إنما وجب ذلك قياسا على البقر ، . . . وهذا شغب فاسد لأن الجواميس نوع من أنواع البقر ، وقد جاء النص بإيجاب الزكاة فى البقر
And to present the evidence for zakat on buffalo as being based on analogy with the cow is a very bad thing, because buffaloes are a type of cow, and there is explicit evidence for the obligation of zakat on cows.
(2) The issue of zakat on buffaloes is not only that of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, but it was also the case with Imam Hasan al-Basri, Caliph Umar ibn Abdul Aziz before him, and after him with Shafi’i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and all the scholars of the Ummah. As has been mentioned on previous pages, there are statements from them, and indeed there is consensus of the Ummah on the similarity of the ruling for cows and buffaloes.
(3) It is not correct to call it an ijtihadi error or mistake of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, because this is not only Imam Malik’s opinion or fatwa but a matter of scholarly consensus as narrated from the pious. And the consensus of the Ummah is protected and preserved by Allah. Therefore, to call it a qiyas-based fatwa or an ijtihadi mistake of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, is in fact an ijtihadi error and mistake of Allama Faizur Rahman Faiz, may Allah have mercy on him, and for this too he deserves a reward from Allah, ان شاء اللہ واللہ اعلم
هذا ما عندی واللہ اعلم ، وصلی اللہ وسلم على نبينا محمد وعلی آلہ وصحبہ اجمعین
