Arguments for Following Imam Abu Hanifa

The reality of the term Imam Azam:

It is said that we call Imam Sahib the Greatest Imam, but compared to the Imams, we do not call Imam Sahib the Greatest Imam, nor do we call him the Greatest Imam compared to the Companions, let alone, God forbid, call him the Greatest Imam compared to the Prophet ﷺ.
If the Greatest Imam is only Muhammad ﷺ and it is a sin to use the term ‘Greatest’ for anyone else, then Farooq-e-Azam would also only be Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. According to you, Hazrat Umar would not be Farooq-e-Azam. Siddiq Akbar Abu Bakr would not be Siddiq Akbar; Siddiq Akbar would only be the Prophet ﷺ. Quaid-e-Azam would also be Muhammad ﷺ. Munazir-e-Azam would not be Sahib; Munazir-e-Azam would be Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Khateeb-e-Azam would not be Sheikhupuri Sahib; it would only be Muhammad ﷺ. Peeran-e-Peer would not be Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani; Peeran-e-Peer would be Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Sheikh-ul-Kul fi al-Kul Nadheer Dehlvi Sahib would not be Sheikh-ul-Kul fi al-Kul; it would be Prophet Muhammad Mustafa ﷺ.

When God takes away intellect, foolishness inevitably comes.
Your misguidance inevitably comes upon the Imams.

Answer:

Firstly:
The word “Imam” is a common term used for the noble Prophets, peace be upon them, and for every follower. The lexicons have explicitly stated that whoever is followed or adhered to is called an Imam, whether in speech or action.

Allah Almighty has also used the word Imamat in the sense of Prophethood. The divine command is:

إِنِّي جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَامًا

According to the majority of the noble commentators, Imamat here means Prophethood. While you all call Imam Abu Hanifa the absolute Great Imam, which shows that you consider him more honorable and superior than the noble Prophets and Companions. Because “Azam” is a superlative adjective meaning the most honorable or the greatest elder. However, you deny this reality, although some extremist followers hold this same position and view. Imam Ali ibn Jarir says:

تركت بالكوفة قوما يدعمون أن أبا حنيفة اعلم من رسول الله ﷺ

That is, I abandoned the people of Kufa because some of them held the belief that Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah protect us) possessed more knowledge and understanding than the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ. This narration is authentic in terms of its chain of transmission. For details, see

Secondly:
Even if your statement is accepted as correct, it is still wrong. What right do you have, as a blind follower, to declare any of the Imams of the religion as the greatest Imam and the rest as inferior? And by what measure have you judged that Imam Abu Hanifa was greater than the other Imams? Whereas the reality is completely the opposite. Imam Abdullah bin Mubarak, Imam Sufyan Thawri, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Bukhari, and many other Imams were superior to Imam Abu Hanifa in knowledge and virtue. According to Imam Yahya bin Adam, Imam Sufyan Thawri, Imam Shareek bin Abdullah, and Hasan bin Saleh.

ادركنا أبا حنيفة وما يعرف بشى من الفقه ما نعرفه الاب الخصومات

Meaning, Abu Hanifa was familiar and knowledgeable in jurisprudence. We only know that he was familiar with disputes.

Then perhaps you remember, or maybe you do not, that Imam Muhammad acknowledged in a debate with Imam Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, that the great scholar of the Quran, Sunnah, and the practices of the Companions was not Imam Abu Hanifa but rather Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him.

Thirdly:
The term “Imam Azam” (The Greatest Imam) was coined in the fourth century Hijri. Before the fourth century, no one used the term “Imam Azam” for Abu Hanifa, and you cannot present a single example against this. Then this title was promoted through propaganda so that later non-Hanafis also began to use it unconsciously.

Fourthly:
The words “Munazir” (debater) and “Khatib” (orator) are not common between the Ummah and the Prophets, peace be upon them, that you are giving their examples as the greatest debater and the greatest orator, Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Whereas, on the contrary, the word “Imam” is common. Furthermore, it is evident that Hafiz Abdul Qadir Rupdri, may Allah have mercy on him, was the greatest debater of the Ahl al-Hadith of his time and Sheikhupuri was the greatest orator. But the limitation to the words of Sheikhupuri is the proof. From this, it is established that we do not call these elders the greatest debater and orator in comparison to the entire Ummah. Moreover, after their death, this title ceases to be attached.

Fifthly:
You are so intoxicated with imitation that you do not even realize what I am saying. The title “Siddiq” for Hazrat Abu Bakr became famous throughout the entire Ummah after the event of Mi’raj, and indeed the Prophet himself صلى الله عليه وسلم used the word “Siddiq” for him with his noble tongue.

The word Siddiq is a form of exaggeration. There is no need for the suffix Akbar with it. But these matters of knowledge and understanding cannot be obtained by mere imitation. You can enroll in any Ahl-e-Hadith madrasa. Farooq means one who distinguishes between truth and falsehood. When the Prophet ﷺ prayed for the acceptance of Umar’s faith and Allah Almighty honored that prayer, it was Umar who openly declared Islam in Mecca, which created a clear distinction between disbelief and Islam. For this reason, he came to be called Farooq.

There is no disagreement regarding this naming. If there were any objection or impropriety in it, a prohibition would have been revealed in the Quran, but that did not happen, which proves that you have argued incorrectly. Instead of giving the real answer, you have tried to waste time by filling in irrelevant details. The original objection still stands that you people call Imam Abu Hanifa the Great Imam, which hurts the hearts of Muslims because it implies an element of insult. Especially when a large part of the Ummah disagrees with this. Our sincere advice is to abandon this.

◈ Imam Abu Hanifa and the Science of Hadith:

A long narration is reported from Qazi Abu Yusuf, the summary of which is that Imam Abu Hanifa said: When I intended to acquire knowledge, I saw that apart from Fiqh, all other sciences involve great difficulties in acquiring and are ultimately useless. Moreover, all sciences have defects. Even (seeking refuge in Allah) the same is true for Tafsir and Hadith. Therefore, I decided not to acquire any knowledge other than Fiqh. Regarding the knowledge of Hadith, he said:

(لا حاجة لي في هذا)

I have no need to acquire the knowledge of Hadith. Hence, I only acquired the knowledge of Fiqh.

Imam Sahib’s statement is evidence that he did not study the science of Hadith at all. Rather, he focused on Fiqh and excelled in it. Hazrat Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi says that

وكان ابو حنيفة” الزمهم بمذهب ابراهيم وأقرانه لا يجاوزه الاماشاء الله وكان عظيم الشان فى التخريج على مذهبه دقيق النظر في وجوه التخريجات مقبلا على الفروع اتم اقبال وان شئت أن تعلم حقيقة ما قلنا فلخص أقوال ابراهيم وأقرانه من كتاب الآثار لمحمد رحمه الله وجامع عبد الرزاق ومصنف ابي بكر بن أبي شيبه ثم قاسة بمذهبه تجده لا يفارق تلك المحجة الافى مواضع يسير فهو فى تلك اليسيرة أيضاً لا يخرج عماذهب اليه فقهاء الكوفة

meaning Imam Abu Hanifa adhered strictly to the school of Ibrahim al-Nakha’i and the scholars of his time. He rarely deviated from them. He held a high status in the derivation of Ibrahim al-Nakha’i’s school and was meticulous in the reasons for derivation. He paid full attention and dedication to the branches of Fiqh. If you seek the truth and verification of my statement, then examine the sayings of Ibrahim al-Nakha’i and his contemporary scholars in the book Al-Athmar by Imam Muhammad, the collection of Abdul Razzaq, and the compiler Ibn Abi Shaybah. Then compare them with the school of Imam Abu Hanifa, and you will find almost no difference in this method. Only in a few places, and even in those few places, Imam Abu Hanifa does not depart from the school of other jurists.

There is no need for any commentary on this statement as it clearly serves its purpose that Imam Abu Hanifa focused all his attention on deriving issues based on the principles of Ibrahim al-Nakha’i. This explicitly proves that he did not pay attention to the science of Hadith. This is why no narration from Imam Abu Hanifa is found in the well-known Hadith books, especially the Sahih Sitta. However, some narrations are found in third and fourth-tier books. But even among these, most are weak, disconnected, or incomplete narrations. In fact, in many places, the teachers of the Imam are also dishonest narrators. The necessary details of this have been recorded by the author in Din al-Haqq, pages 61 and 62, volume 1.

In some places, the Imam narrates from ambiguous narrators, for example, by saying ’’عن رجل یا عمن‘‘ Hadith, and then presenting the narration. For example, see the book Al-Athar by Imam Abu Yusuf on pages 5, 6, 45, 46, 50, 63, 68, 92, 93, 80, 84, and 91, where the number of Marfu’ narrations is so few that even if the chains are considered, they are not many. Imam Ibn Hibban states that the total number of Musnad narrations of Imam Abu Hanifa worldwide is only one hundred and thirty, and among these, he made mistakes in one hundred and twenty-two. He altered some chains and changed the text of others.

Al Saud and the Innovators of Deoband

Our contemporary, in Tuhfa Ahl-e-Hadith pages 83 to 84, has tried to convince that Al Saud are also in agreement with us. Then, after attempting to prove differences in some partial and subsidiary issues according to his own opinion, he states: now tell me, are they yours or ours? Come, try another way; you also go to the Imam of the Kaaba, I will also go. I will say that I am a follower of Imam Azam Abu Hanifa. You say that whoever follows any of the four Imams is a polytheist and misguided. Following any one of the four Imams is outright misguidance. Then we will see whose hand the Imam of the Kaaba kisses and whom he strikes with his shoe. Then we will see whether the Saudis are with you or with us. انتھی بلفظم

Answer:

Firstly: Let us proceed with the expenses being your responsibility because you have issued the invitation. Let us consider the Imam of the Kaaba as the arbitrator. The humble servant will point out the corrupt beliefs and false ideologies of the elders of Deoband. Then witness the miracle of Divine Power and see what decision they issue regarding you.

Secondly: It is not only we who have called imitation (taqlid) polytheism (shirk), but many scholars have explicitly stated that it is shirk. Let others be aside; your respected teachers Maulana Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan Safdar and Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi, etc., have also called it shirk, as has been mentioned earlier.

Thirdly:
Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi obtained a fatwa in 1324 AH from the scholars of the Two Holy Mosques declaring you a disbeliever, which was also published under the name Husam al-Haramayn. The response has been printed multiple times and is available in the market. What is your opinion about it? Is it authentic or not? If you say it is not authentic, then how can we accept that by accepting today’s fatwa, you will abandon your corrupt beliefs?

Fourthly: We will also say to the Imams of the Kaaba and the Prophet’s Mosque that as long as the Saudis were poor, the elders of the Deobandis used to issue fatwas declaring all of you as sinners, wicked, and ignorant, etc. Now, since Allah Almighty has opened the treasures of the earth for them, today’s Deobandis have donned the guise of hypocrisy to collect zakat, ushr, fitrana, and sadaqat. Otherwise, these people secretly adhere to your strictness.

Maulvi Anwar Shah Kashmiri says that

(اما محمد بن عبدالوهاب التجدى فكانه رجلا بليدا قليل العلم فكان يتسارع إلى الحكم بالكفر)

Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab Najdi was a very foolish and ignorant person and was very quick to declare Muslims as disbelievers.

◄… Maulvi Hussain Ahmad Madani writes that

❀ Friends! Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab Najdi appeared in the early 13th century from Najd, Arabia, and since he held false ideas and corrupt beliefs… he was a cruel, rebellious, bloodthirsty, and sinful person.

❀ Najdi and his followers’ belief so far is that the life of the Prophets, peace be upon them, lasted only as long as they were in this world. After that, they and other believers are equal in death. If there is life after death, then that life is the life of Barzakh and is established for the common people. Some believe in the preservation of the Prophet’s body but without the soul.

❀ This sect considers visiting the beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, attending the noble threshold, and observing the pure shrine as an innovation and forbidden. They consider traveling with this intention prohibited and forbidden.

(لا تشددا الرحال الا الى ثلثة مساجد)

Their argument is that some among them equate the journey for visitation, God forbid, to the level of adultery. If they go to the Prophet’s Mosque, they do not recite salutations and peace upon the noble person of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, nor do they turn towards that direction to supplicate, etc.

❀ Wahhabis consider the inner spiritual practices and actions of the Sufis such as muraqabah (meditation), dhikr (remembrance), fikr (reflection), waradat (spiritual inspirations), mashkhiyyat (spiritual states), connecting the heart with the sheikh, fana (annihilation), baqa (subsistence), khalwat (seclusion), and other such practices as futile, vain, innovations, and misguidance. They label the sayings and actions of these elders as shirk (polytheism) and consider joining these spiritual orders as reprehensible and even worse than that.

❀ Wahhabis consider following any particular Imam as shirk in the message and use words like Wahiyah Khabeesah (curse be upon the liars, Abu Saheeb) in the honor of the Four Imams and their followers. Due to this, in issues, this group has become opposed to Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. Thus, the non-followers of India are also followers of this despicable sect. Although Wahhabis of Najd and Arabia claim to be Hanbali at the time of expression, their practical implementation in all matters is not according to the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him. Rather, according to their understanding, if they consider a hadith contrary to their jurisprudence, they abandon that jurisprudence. Their language towards the great scholars of the non-followers of the Ummah is also disrespectful; using offensive language has become a norm.

❀ For example, in verses like علی العرش استوی, the Wahhabi sect proves istiwa (establishment) in the apparent and directions, etc., which necessitates the affirmation of corporeality, etc. In (لعنتہ اللہ علی الکاذبین ابو صھیب)
على هذا القياس مسئله ندا رسول اللہﷺ, Wahhabis absolutely forbid it.

In short, there are numerous such statements in which Madani Sahib, disregarding the fear of Allah, has lied and slandered the people of the Arabian lands, labeling them as sinners and wicked. Maulvi Khalil Ahmad Anbethvi has also expressed similar views

. And, MashaAllah, this is the book whose endorsers include Maulvi Mahmood Hasan Khan, Maulvi Ahmad Hasan Amrohi, Maulvi Aziz-ur-Rahman, Mufti Kifayatullah Dehlvi, Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Maulvi Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, and Habib-ur-Rahman Deobandi, among others. The innovators of Diabna publish this book under the common title of the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama’ah, printed by Dar al-Isha’at opposite Maulvi Musafir Khana Karachi No. 1.

However, it seems our contemporary is eager to receive charity from there, which is why, contrary to our elders, he challenges us to seek justice from the Imam of the Kaaba.

Brother, when we reveal the whole truth, surely the hypocrites will be struck. By the grace of Allah, we will remain safe. (ان شاء اللہ)

◈Publication of Tafseer Usmani:

It is stated that Tafseer Usmani is the tafseer of Maulana Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani Deobandi. Shah Fahd printed it and distributed it worldwide. If it were yours, you would distribute your tafseer. Deobandi’s tafseer was never distributed.

Answer:

Firstly: The Al Saud have published numerous books of Ahl al-Hadith scholars and distributed them free of cost in the millions. If a list is made, it would be lengthy. It suffices to say that the tafseer “Ahsan al-Bayan” by Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf, may Allah protect him, was commissioned by the Saudis and distributed free of cost in the millions.

Secondly: Undoubtedly, the people of Saudi Arabia published Tafseer Uthmani. But when the scholars of Ahl al-Hadith clarified that in this Tafseer, some severe false and incorrect beliefs were presented, especially in the attributes of Allah Almighty, involving interpretation and distortion, and it is written at the very beginning that
“This noble verse shows that it is absolutely not permissible to seek help in reality from anyone other than His Pure Self. However, if someone seeks help from a beloved servant merely as a means of Allah’s mercy and considers it not independent, then this apparent seeking of help from him is permissible, as this help is actually seeking help from the Truth, Allah Almighty.”

In this statement, seeking help from anyone other than Allah is declared permissible and correct, which is a backdoor to shirk. In short, after this clarification, the people of Saudi Arabia divided the distribution of Tafseer Uthmani. Now, if its publication is done by the Saudis, then we will agree. But this is never possible. ان شاء اللہ

◈First Proof of Taqlid:

In the Holy Quran

فاسئلو الاهل الذكر ان كنتم لا تعلمون

If you do not know, then ask those who have knowledge.
Accepting after asking is called Taqlid (imitation).

Answer:

Firstly: You, Mashallah, are a preacher and Imam, and people ask you questions. Are they your followers (Muqallid)? If you say that since I give fatwas according to Hanafi jurisprudence, therefore they are followers of Imam Abu Hanifa, then the answer is: provide evidence that the questioner gives fatwas based on the statement of Imam Abu Hanifa. Because in the verse under discussion, there is no word that means that the Mufti gives fatwas based on the statement of Imam Abu Hanifa.

Secondly: A common person asks you whether Hazrat Maulana Allah is one or many. You answer that Allah is only one. Or a common person asks you whether worship should be done only to Allah or can it be done to others as well or not? You answer that worship is specifically done only to Allah. He accepts your statement. Tell me, is this imitation (taqlid) or not? If you say that this is indeed imitation, then what is being said is pure falsehood because even in beliefs you do not advocate imitation. Your respected teacher states that in the fundamentals of religion, beliefs, and explicit rulings, neither is ijtihad permissible nor is it correct to rely solely on the imitation of the Imams.

Thirdly: When the inquirer asks the Mufti for a ruling of Shariah, the Mufti will respond in the inquiry with answers from the Quran and Sunnah, which are legal evidences. Accepting something without evidence is not called Taqlid (imitation), as we have previously explained that Taqlid means accepting someone’s statement without evidence. But the Mufti is conveying legal evidence, and the inquirer acts upon it after being satisfied, so this is following evidence, not Taqlid. However, Jhangvi Sahib calls this Taqlid, even though the Imams of Usul have explicitly stated that a layperson does not have a madhhab (school of thought). And referring to the Mufti is not Taqlid.

(فالرجوع الى النبى اوالى الاجماع ليس منه وكذا العامي الى المفتى والقاضي إلى العدول)

That is, accepting the words of the Prophet ﷺ, acting upon consensus, a layperson referring to a scholar, or a judge trusting the testimony of witnesses is not Taqlid.

Fourthly: The divine command is:

فَاسْأَلِ الَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِكَ

(Meaning: O Muhammad ﷺ) ask those who read the previous (revealed) scriptures.
So, does this mean, God forbid, that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم is also commanded to imitate the People of the Book? Far from it. It is clear that calling asking a form of imitation is itself incorrect.

Fifthly: Let us explain to you the meaning and interpretation of the mentioned verse.

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ إِلَّا رِجَالًا نُّوحِي إِلَيْهِمْ ۚ فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ ‎﴿٤٣﴾‏ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالزُّبُرِ ۗ وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ ‎﴿٤٤﴾‏

“And We sent before you only men to whom We revealed [Our message]. So ask the knowledgeable if you do not know. They bring clear signs and evident matters. And We have revealed to you the reminder so that you may make clear to the people what has been sent down to them and that they might give thought.”

From these verses, it is understood that the addressees of this verse are the deniers of the prophethood of Muhammad, and the people of knowledge refer to the People of the Book. The deniers are being invited to reflect that if you are unaware of the fact that a messenger is a human being, then inquire from the People of the Book, for they will inform you that a prophet is indeed a human being. Then, in the next verse, while describing the position of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, it is stated that We have sent down the Book to you so that you may explain to the people, and those to whom it was revealed should reflect and ponder over it.

The brothers claim that these verses mention the imitation of scholars, whereas the command is to think and ponder, while imitation is merely blind faith and good opinion, in which there is no place for reflection or contemplation.

◈The second proof of imitation:

In another place it is said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ

“O you who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger and the Mujtahids.”

Our Beneficent has interpreted اولی الامر as Mujtahideen, supporting this with the argument that in the Holy Quran وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ refers to the people of Istinbat (those who deduce rulings).

Answer:

Firstly: ’’أُولِي الْأَمْرِ‘‘ ولی الامر is the plural of Wali, meaning to appoint someone as the ruler or king of a region. However, our contemporary denies this. Then he outright lied that it has been used in this sense in the Quran. Whereas

, أُولِي الْأَمْرِ has been interpreted as king by Abdul Qadir, as ruler by Sardar Shah Rafiuddin, and as rulers by Maulvi Mahmood Hasan Deobandi. Yet Jhangvi Sahib is so shameless that he does not hesitate to distort meanings in the Quran.

Secondly: You have not quoted the entire verse. The following words are divine:

فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ

If there is a dispute among you concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and His Messenger.

The meaning of these words is that obedience to the ruler is not required in sin. Rather, only in what is good and right should one follow him, which is essentially obedience to Allah and His Messenger. As the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

ومن يطع الأمير فقد اطاعني

“Whoever obeys the leader has obeyed me.”

To distinguish between sin and good, there is no alternative but to refer to the texts. This is ijtihad (independent reasoning), not taqlid (blind imitation). In short, if anything is established from this verse, it is the invalidity of taqlid and the encouragement of ijtihad.

◈ Is the word taqlid (imitation) in the Quran?

First, the objection is quoted that the word taqlid is not in the Quran. Then the answer is written that the word janazah (funeral) is not in the Quran either. So, the funeral is of no benefit; they will bury you without a funeral, do not worry.

The answer:

Firstly: The question was very reasonable that if indeed Allah Almighty has declared following Imam Abu Hanifa as obligatory and compulsory, then is the word “following” (taqlid) present in the Quran or not.
Instead of giving the real answer, Jhangvi Sahib engaged in a futile argument that the word “funeral” (janaza) is also not in the Quran. Whereas the Divine command is:

وَلَا تُصَلِّ عَلَىٰ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُم مَّاتَ أَبَدًا

The word “tasil” refers to the funeral prayer. All translators have given this meaning. No commentator, hadith scholar, or jurist disagrees on this. It means there is consensus of the blessed Ummah on this; the only denial is from Jhangvi Sahib.
Then the word “funeral” (janaza) is present in many ahadith.

But the word “taqlid” (following) is not found in any hadith.

Secondly: Look at the malice within, they say they will bury you without a funeral prayer, do not worry. اِانا للہ وانا اليه راجعون
It appears that our contemporary is not only as bigoted but also a thousand times more ignorant. He does not know that the funeral prayer of a believer is obligatory. The Hanafi jurists have also declared his denial as disbelief because it is a denial of consensus.

From this, it is also clear that there is consensus of the Ummah on the obligation of the funeral prayer. Even if, hypothetically, there were no other evidence, consensus alone would have sufficed. But here there is explicit text, as we have already quoted, yet Jhangvi Sahib has such intense hatred for Ahl al-Hadith that he denies it.

◈Taqlid and Hazrat Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlawi

There are different phases in the life of Hazrat Shah Sahib. During these phases, he authored numerous works. The portion related to Sufism contains material that strongly supports the Barelvi school, which nowadays Barelvi scholars also cite against the Deobandi school of thought as a point of argument.
Undoubtedly, Shah Sahib’s inclination is towards the Hanafi school in some places. However, he is strongly opposed to rigidity. The current revivalist movement of the Hadith school began with Hazrat Shah Sahib, who was nurtured by Hazrat Mian Nazir Hussain Muhaddith Dehlavi and his students.
In the era when Hazrat Shah Sahib raised his voice against blind imitation (taqlid), the manner and thought with which he presented it is a blessing. He openly refutes imitation and rigidity in some places. For example, under the title “The Behavior of the Followers,” we have already quoted Hazrat Shah Sahib’s words from Fawz al-Kabir. It is also a fact that he believed in division in imitation, but this was a necessity of the time and circumstances. Otherwise, Shah Sahib was a strong opponent of rigidity. The discussions in the chapters of Hujjatullah al-Baligha, such as Al-Kalam ‘ala al-Farq bayn Ahl al-Hadith wa al-Maray and Al-Kalam ‘ala Hal al-Nas Qabl al-Mi’ah al-Rabi’ah, are noteworthy and support our position.

◈ Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani

Hazrat Shah Sahib believes in the increase and decrease of faith. He considers deeds to be a part of faith.

Similarly, he does not believe in allegorical interpretation of the attributes of Allah Almighty; rather, he has counted those who believe in allegorical interpretation among the misguided sects. Ghaniyah p. 192 He identifies the people of innovation by the fact that they call Ahl al-Hadith liars and backbite them.

The most important point is that he has included the Hanafis among the misguided sects, labeling them as Murji’ah and Jahmiyyah.

But our Jhungvi Sahib, while mentioning some partial issues, ultimately insists that if a person becomes non-Muqallid (non-following of a particular school) just by raising the hands (Raf’ al-Yadain), then all Ahl al-Hadith are non-Muqallid Shia Rafidis.

Whereas the Shia believe in Taqlid (following a religious authority) and consider it necessary, obligatory, and essential.

As for the matter of raising the hands, they do it at multiple places even more. Therefore, there is no commonality in this regard. While Sheikh Abdul Qadir and our prayer share the Sunnah method of raising the hands. Whereas Makhool Nafsi has narrated from Imam Abu Hanifa that whoever raises the hands while bowing and when rising from bowing, his prayer becomes invalid.

Although some Hanafis have denied its authenticity.

But their practice is based on this only, that the beginner Mu’een Diabna was more strict about this Sunnah than perhaps any other. Whereas this is the continuous Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

◈Imitation of the Companions

It is stated that some Companions were Mujtahids and some were non-Mujtahids. So, the other noble Companions used to imitate the Mujtahid Companions. During the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, in Yemen, the imitation of Hazrat Mu’adh was personal. Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi states in his book Al-Insaf that the noble Companions spread out in different cities. In every city, there was imitation of some Companion or the other. In Mecca, it was the imitation of Hazrat Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه, in Medina of Hazrat Zaid bin Thabit رضي الله عنه, in Kufa of Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud رضي الله عنه, and in Basra of Hazrat Anas رضي الله عنه.

Answer:

Firstly: All this is falsehood and fabrication and a self-invented story by the author. Our challenge is that he cannot prove the imitation of these noble Companions from any authentic and reliable chain of narration. The writer is astonishingly bold and daring in fabricating lies against God and the Messenger and in slandering the Companions.

Secondly: It is authentically narrated from Hazrat Abdullah bin Masood (RA) with a sound chain that

لا يقلدن احدكم …. رجلا

meaning no person should imitate anyone in religion.

Haishami states that its narrators are those of Sahih.

Hazrat Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi states that

وقد صح اجماع الصحابة كلهم أولهم عن اخرهم واجماع التابعين أولهم عن آخرهم واجماع تبع التابعين أولهم عن أخرهم على الامتناع والمنع من ان يقصد احد الى قول انسان منهم أو ممن قبلهم فياخذه كله

Meaning, without any doubt, all the noble Sahabah, great Tabi‘in, and Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in have reached consensus from beginning to end that no person should follow all the statements of any scholar among themselves or from the predecessors.
But contrary to this reality, Jhangvi Sahib says that the Sahabah used to imitate each other. انا للہ وانا اليه راجعون

If people used to imitate these noble Sahabah, then why do you all imitate Imam Abu Hanifa instead of imitating the Sahabah? And why do you forbid the imitation of the Sahabah? As Ibn Hummam explicitly stated in “Al-Tahrir.”

How cruel it is that you say that Hazrat Anas (RA) was followed in Basra. But your eminent scholar and foul-mouthed Kauthari writes nonsense about Hazrat Anas (RA) saying

وقد انفرد برواية الرضخ انس” في عهد هرمه کانفراده برواية شرب ابوال الابل في رواية قتادة . ومن رأى أبي حنيفة أن الصحابة رضى الله عنهم مع كونهم عدولا ليسوا بمعصومين من مثل قلة الضبط الناشئة من لامية اوكبر السن

That is, in narrating this tradition, Hazrat Anas (RA) is unique, who due to old age and illiteracy had weak memory. In this way, he is also unique in the tradition of drinking camel urine. Abu Hanifa’s principle is that the Companions are not infallible; due to illiteracy or old age and weak memory, errors can occur in narrations from them. Also, Anas (RA) was not a jurist, and narrations from non-jurist but weak-memoried Companions are to be rejected in comparison to those from jurists.

See, Kauthari has used the excuse of Anas’s old age and illiteracy to reject the Marfu’ hadiths narrated from him. And by calling him non-jurist, he has expressed his inner malice.

The purpose of these remarks is that Jhangvi Sahib, due to his imitation of his elders, secretly holds the belief that Hazrat Anas (RA) was non-jurist, illiterate, and due to old age, his narrations were weak and unreliable. (معاذ اللہ) But here, only for the sake of meaning, they are calling him a jurist of Basra to prove their imitation.

◈Issues of Imitation among Ahl al-Hadith:

Our respected brother also complains that Ahl al-Hadith imitate in some non-explicit issues but do not admit it. Then, emotionally, he says that for the non-explicit issues, we give blessings to the elders from whom we take them, while the non-followers insult the elders from whom they take issues. That is the only difference. After that, he has pointed out about twenty issues.

The Answer:

Firstly:
Far be it from us to insult any elder; this is your pure slander.

Secondly:
Friend, you are very selfish that you only pray for forgiveness for those from whom you take issues. Whereas the Quran instructs to pray for forgiveness for all deceased believers.

Thirdly: If taking and benefiting from others is imitation, then Imam Abu Hanifa was also an imitator of Ibrahim Nakha’i. As we have already quoted from the words of Hazrat Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi that Imam Abu Hanifa used to derive issues based on the principles and rules of Ibrahim Nakha’i and did not go beyond his sayings.

Fourthly:
It is also a misrepresentation that we only remember those from whom we take issues with prayers for goodness. Imam Abu Hanifa sought knowledge from Jabir Ja’fari, and there are narrations from him as well

.

But about this same Jabir, he himself says that he never saw anyone more deceitful than him.

When your leader is in this condition, your status will inevitably be inferior.
Listen even more carefully that the greatest benefactors of the Ummah are the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ. Yet some of them have been called unorthodox (foolish).
Fifthly: For us, the real proofs are the Quran and Hadith, but we do not consider it permissible to deviate from the understanding and meanings of the Quran and Sunnah as understood by the pious predecessors. Hazrat Hafiz Abdullah Ropari (may Allah have mercy on him) states that a person who prefers his own opinion over that of the Salaf is not from Ahl al-Hadith.

In short, we follow the methodology of the Companions in principles and branches of Islamic jurisprudence. Whatever is not found in the Quran and Sunnah, we derive from the practices of the Companions. In non-explicit issues, we adhere to the views of the first four rightly guided Caliphs. However, we reject rigidity. We make decisions considering the opinions of the jurists of the entire blessed Ummah. The difference between us and you is that you deduce issues based on the principles of Imam Abu Hanifa and seek solutions by analogy, whereas we do not consider the entire blessed Ummah as inheritors of Imam Abu Hanifa. In any case, let us write an organized response to the issues you have presented; please review them.

◈Permissibility of Buffalo:

Our brother complains that buffalo is not explicitly declared halal in the Quran and Hadith, and non-followers imitate but do not accept it?

Answer:

Firstly:
It is a pure false accusation on us that we follow anyone in the permissibility or prohibition. If you have the courage, then provide proof that Ahl al-Hadith consider buffalo permissible by following a certain Imam. The reference should be from a verified Ahl al-Hadith scholar and must be authentic. Because you are accustomed to lying frequently.

Secondly:
The rule in Shariah regarding permissibility and prohibition is that the prohibited has been specified, and the permissible has not been detailed. The Divine command is:

وَقَدْ فَصَّلَ لَكُم مَّا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ

And the prohibited things have been explained in detail.
Regarding animals, the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم gave this principle:

كل ذي ناب من السباع فاكله حرام

Every predatory animal with fangs is forbidden to eat.

Hazrat Ibn Abbas (RA) narrates that

نهى رسول الله عن كل ذي ناب من السباع وكل ذي مخلب من الطير

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade eating every predatory animal with fangs and every bird that hunts with claws. In the light of this prophetic statement, every wise and understanding person can see whether the buffalo is a predatory animal or not. If it is not a predatory animal, then certainly it is not. Therefore, by the prophetic command and the directive, it is proven to be halal. What is there to imitate in this?

Thirdly:
Ibn Abbas (RA) says:

فما احل هو حلال مما حرم فهو حرام وما سكت عنه فهو عفو

That which Allah Almighty has declared lawful is lawful, and that which He has declared unlawful is unlawful, and that about which He has remained silent is pardoned. In Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah, there is a Marfu‘ hadith from Hazrat Salman Farsi that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

وما سكت عنه فهو مما عفا عنه

Sheikh Albani and Gondalvi have classified this hadith as Hasan, from which it is clear that the Shariah has remained silent about something because it is in the original ruling of the state. Nowhere in the Shariah is there a ruling declaring buffalo unlawful, which shows that buffalo is lawful. However, Jhangvi is unaware of this principle, which is why he accuses Ahl al-Hadith of blind imitation.

Fourthly:
Can you prove with an authentic chain from Imam Abu Hanifa that he explicitly mentioned the buffalo by name and clarified its permissibility?

◈Division of Sunnahs and Obligations:

Under this, they present the same old Ram story that division is not proven from the hadith of Sunnah and obligations, whereas it is proven from fiqh. And this is imitation.

Ra Qam has already responded to this in detail and has proven it with authentic hadith.

◈ Raising hands in Qunoot:

They say that Ahl al-Hadith raise their hands in Dua during Witr. They imitate Imam Shafi’i. This issue is not in hadith.

The answer:

Firstly:
You have not read the hadith; you only studied for one year, otherwise there is hadith on this. Hazrat Anas (RA) says:

فلقد رايت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في صلاة الغداة رفع يديه فدعا عليهم

I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ raise his hands in the morning prayer and supplicate against the enemies of Islam.
Al-Albani has declared its chain of narration authentic.

This hadith is indeed about the Qunoot Nazilah, but it also includes the Qunoot of Witr.
Sayyiduna Umar Farooq رضي الله عنه, Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه, Abdullah bin Masood رضي الله عنه, and Abu Hurairah رضي الله عنه used to raise their hands in the Qunoot of Witr.

Secondly:
Those who reject this Sunnah of Mustafa ﷺ and rebel against the companions, please clarify what proof you have for saying Takbeer and raising the hands, then folding the hands again to supplicate for strength. Here, a Marfoo’ hadith is required because we have presented an authentic, connected Marfoo’ hadith.

◈Issue of Triple Talaq:

It is stated that in the issue of Talaq, they follow Ibn Taymiyyah.

Answer:

Firstly:
May Allah curse the liars.

Secondly:
We have the evidence of the Quran and Hadith regarding the three divorces given at once being considered as one. The details have been explained by the author in Deen-ul-Haq Part Two. Here, for the sake of brevity, it is stated that throughout the blessed life of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, during the entire caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq رضي الله عنه, and for the first two years of the caliphate of Farooq, three divorces given in one sitting were counted as one revocable divorce. This is testified by the authentic, continuous, and connected Hadith of Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas.

When Hazrat Rukana gave three divorces to his wife in one sitting, the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم declared it as only one revocable divorce.

Secondly:
You also clarify a little about which people you follow regarding halala. If you consider carefully, in this bad custom you imitate the disbelievers of Arabia. Hazrat Uqbah bin Amir (RA) narrates that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “Shall I tell you about a borrowed bull?” The companions asked, “Why not, O Messenger of Allah?” Then you صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

هو المحلل لعن الله المحلل والمحلل له

“The one who performs halala, may Allah’s curse be upon the one who did halala and the one who caused it.”

Contrary to this prophetic statement, the Hanafi position is that if halala is done with the intention that the woman becomes lawful for her former husband, then the one who performs it will receive reward for this intention.

◈ Reading Thanaa and Ta’awwudh Slowly:

It is stated that in prayer, the praise and seeking refuge should be recited softly. This is a jurisprudential issue, and non-followers imitate the scholars of jurisprudence in this matter.

Answer:

Firstly:
We have a complaint against you that you do not object after studying yourself, but rather you vomit the words of Master Muhammad Amin Safdar. However, you do not mention his name.

Secondly: If you read the books of Hadith and the exemplary life of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم with the spirit of love for the Sunnah instead of books of Fiqh, then surely you would not make such a frivolous claim. Hazrat Abu Huraira رضي الله عنه narrates that كان رسول الله يسكت بين التكبير وبين القرأة اسكانة قال احسبه قال هنية فقلت بابی و امی یارسول الله اسكاتك بين التكبيرو بين القراة ما تقول قال اقول اللهم باعد بيني وبين خطاياي كما باعدت بين المشرق والمغرب اللهم تقنى من الخطايا كما ينقى الثوب الابيض من الدنس اللهم اغسل خطاياي بالماء والثلج والبرد
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would remain silent for a short while between Takbir al-Tahrima and the recitation. Abu Zur’ah says that I think Abu Huraira said, “O Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, may my parents be sacrificed for you, what do you recite during the silence between Takbir al-Tahrima and the recitation?” He صلى الله عليه وسلم said that I recite

اللهم باعد بینی و بین خطایای کما باعدت بين المشرق والمغرب اللهم نقني من الخطايا كما ينقى الثوب الابيض من الدنس اللهم اغسل خطاياي بالماء والثلج والبرد

In another Hadith, it is narrated by Hazrat Anas رضي الله عنه that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم would begin the recitation in prayer with الحمد للہ رب العلمین.

From these two authentic Marfu’ Ahadith, it is established that before the recitation, it is Sunnah to recite the praise and seeking refuge quietly, not aloud.

Thirdly:
What is the evidence for Hanafi followers who recite the evil eye? Can you present any mursal hadith for this? Certainly not. We invite you to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ. May Allah grant you success.

◈ Why does the Imam say the Takbeerat at the time of transition loudly, but the follower does not? :

In this regard, Jhangvi Sahib mentioned Takbeer al-Tahreemah and Salaam, stating that their division is not proven by hadith that the Imam says it loudly and the follower softly. Rather, this is a matter of fiqh.

Answer:

Firstly:
Prayer is remembrance.

وَأَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ لِذِكْرِي

And establish prayer for My remembrance. (20:14) And the essence of remembrance is concealment. The Divine command is:

ادْعُوا رَبَّكُمْ تَضَرُّعًا وَخُفْيَةً

“Call upon your Lord humbly and secretly.”

Prayer is specifically a form of dhikr (remembrance), and in it, there is a legal ruling of being silent (ikhfa). There is an authentic explicit hadith regarding this. For details, see Part One, Chapter Four of this book under the title (16) Enmity of the Ahl al-Hadith regarding the denial of the Hadith of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Dear readers, once you have understood this well, then wherever and for whatever place loud recitation is established, it should be recited aloud; otherwise, the original state remains silent (ikhfa). It is proven by mutawatir hadiths that the Imam says the Takbir al-Tahrima, the Salam, and other Takbirs of transition aloud. Denying this is done merely out of stubbornness and prejudice, and this is an incurable disease. In short, the hadith mentions the Imam saying the Takbirs and Tahmeed aloud.

Whereas it is not established that the follower (Muqtadi) should say the Takbirs loudly; the entire Ummah of Muhammad has, generation after generation, practiced the follower saying them softly. The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم instructed Sayyiduna Abu Bakr Siddiq رضي الله عنه to lead the prayer during his illness. When the congregation stood, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ himself came and sat on the arm of Abu Bakr Siddiq رضي الله عنه and led the prayer. However, the voice of the Messenger ﷺ was not loud, which necessitated the need for a caller (Makkir), and Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه became the caller and began to say the Takbirs of transition loudly. It is mentioned in Bukhari that وابو بكر يسمع الناس التكبير

باب من اسمع الناس تکبیر الامام, meaning that Abu Bakr was making the people hear the Takbir of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.
If both the Imam and the follower were obligated to say the Takbirs loudly, then Sayyiduna Abu Bakr would not have needed to become the caller.

Secondly:
The Imam says the Takbeers and other phrases aloud for the followers so that they may follow, as the hadith states that an Imam is appointed so that he is fully followed; when he says Takbeer, you should also say Takbeer.

This hadith is proof that the Imam should say the Takbeers aloud, while you provide evidence for the followers saying them aloud.

Thirdly:
When the follower recites the Takbirs, Tahmeed, and other supplications of the prayer aloud, a dispute will arise. And this is unanimously considered impermissible.
Hazrat Imran bin Husain رضي الله عنه narrates that
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم led the Zuhr prayer (then after the prayer) said, “Who among you recited سَبِّحِ اسْمَ رَبِّكَ الْأَعْلَى behind me?” A person said, “I did, and my intention was only for reward.” Then the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,

قد علمت ان بعضكم خالجنيها

“I thought someone among you was snatching the Qur’an from me.”

In this statement, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم forbade the follower from reciting aloud.

As Imam Nawawi has explained

, as well as Allama Ibn Abdul Barr

, and Allama Shawkani

have explicitly stated.

Allama Muhammad Tahir Fitni, may Allah have mercy on him, Hanafi Al-Tuni, 986 AH, states that

خلج جهر خلفه قارى فقال خالجنيها اى نازعنيها كانه ينزعها من لسانه ولا يدل على منع القراة لانه انما انكر الجهر بل فيه انهم كانوا يقرؤونها خلفه

means the benefit of the bay’ah (pledge) is that the reciter recited loudly behind you. So the Prophet (peace be upon him) said (خالجنيها), meaning he was arguing with me as if he was snatching the words of the Quran from my tongue. These words do not indicate a prohibition on the Prophet’s recitation behind the Imam. Because the Prophet (peace be upon him) objected to that person reciting loudly, which proves that the Companions used to recite the Quran behind the Prophet (peace be upon him).

So, from this Hadith it is proven that the duty of the follower is to recite the prayers’ remembrances quietly, but if there is evidence of raising a particular remembrance loudly, then that is a separate matter.

Fourthly:
What do you mean by fiqh? If fiqh means jurisprudence of the religion, then no one denies it, rather the original scholars of the Ummah are the Muhaddithin. If by fiqh you mean the sayings of the narrators and the texts and commentaries of Hanafi fiqh, then tell me, which came first: this fiqh or the obligation of prayer? And did the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم explain and clarify its invocations and pillars properly or not?
If you say that prayer was made obligatory later and its full details were not explained by the beloved of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, and the texts and commentaries of Hanafi fiqh came before that, then this is such a big lie that even Satan would be ashamed to utter it. If you admit that indeed the obligation of prayer came first and the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم gave its full explanation, then all your claims become false and rejected. Because you have clearly admitted that even before the birth of Abu Hanifa, the blessed Ummah was performing prayer, and this method of prayer was well known among the blessed Ummah. The Tabi‘un learned it from the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in, and the Tabi‘in learned this method of prayer from the Companions. Now it is up to your discretion to say from whom the Companions learned prayer? From Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم or from your jurists? If you say that there is no proof of these matters from hadith, then it means that until the compilation of Hanafi fiqh, the religion was incomplete and its completion happened after the compilation of Hanafi fiqh.

Fifthly:
You are Hanafi or a follower of Imam Abu Hanifa. Clarify explicitly where Imam Abu Hanifa has stated these issues? Do not mention the names of later jurists here, but explicitly present the statement of Imam Abu Hanifa. If you present the statement of Imam Abu Hanifa with an authentic chain of narration, we will reward you one hundred rupees for your rightful effort. If you cannot present it, and certainly you will not be able to, then with what face do you take the name of Fiqh?

◈ The Imam’s greeting is loud and the follower’s is soft:

It is stated that the Imam says the greeting loudly. The follower says it in a soft voice. This is a matter of Fiqh, not Hadith.

The answer:

Firstly: You are accustomed to misrepresentation, otherwise this issue is proven not by fiqh but by hadith. Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that I used to know the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ completion of prayer by the loud voices of people saying Allahu Akbar.

Hazrat Ibn Abbas was a child and used to stand in the last row, where he could not hear the Prophet’s ﷺ salam. After the salam, when the companions together said Allahu Akbar, he would know that the Prophet ﷺ had turned away from salam (Fath al-Bari). From this, it is proven that the companions used to say salam softly following the Prophet’s ﷺ lead. In short, this issue is established by hadith and the continuous practice (tawatur) of the blessed Ummah, passed down generation after generation. In other words, there is a consensus (ijma) of the Ummah on this. Moreover, this practice existed before the compilation of Hanafi fiqh, even before the birth of Imam Abu Hanifa, as it was the custom of the blessed Ummah. Therefore, you prove that before the compilation of Hanafi fiqh, Muslims used to act contrary to today’s practice. If you cannot prove it, and certainly you cannot, then with what face do you even mention fiqh?

Secondly:
There is a hadith regarding the Imam saying the Takbirs of transition (Tashahhud) aloud.

The wisdom behind this is that the follower (Muqtadi) follows the Imam by imitating him; if the Imam says the Salam quietly, how will the follower know that the Imam has turned the Salam? Especially since the worshipper, following the example of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, keeps his gaze fixed on the index finger of the right hand during Tashahhud.

From this, it is clear that the follower, instead of looking ahead at the Imam during Tashahhud, should keep his gaze fixed on the finger while raising the index finger, as this is Sunnah. Regarding Salam, the Shariah ruling is that when the Imam says Salam, you should also turn Salam. As Utban bin Malik رضي الله عنه narrates that (صلينا مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلمنا حين سلم )

Meaning: We prayed with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and we turned Salam when he turned Salam.
If the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم had turned Salam quietly and secretly, how did the Companions (among whom were pious and worshipful people like Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq) know that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had turned Salam? This makes it clear that the Imam will say Salam aloud, and this is the Sunnah method. However, the follower will say Salam quietly, as there is no Shariah evidence for saying it aloud.

Thirdly:
This method has been continuously passed down generation after generation with consensus and widespread transmission in the blessed Ummah. Prove disagreement in this, and then prove agreement due to imitation of Abu Hanifa; that is one thing. Otherwise, who listens to your claim alone?

Fourthly:
According to you, if after sitting for Tashahhud, the worshipper deliberately performs an act invalidating the prayer instead of turning the Salam, for example, speaks or passes wind, will his prayer still be valid? Provide proof for this.

◈Tasbihs of Ruku (Bowing):

It is stated that the tasbihs of ruku and sujood should be recited slowly; this is a matter of jurisprudence, not a hadith.

Answer:

Firstly:
Hazrat Anas (RA) says that among the people behind whom I have prayed after the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, the prayer most similar to the prayer of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was that of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him), and we estimated the tasbihats (glorifications) in his rukoo and sajdahs to be ten tasbihats.

This proves that the Prophet Muhammad used to say the tasbihats in rukoo and sajdah slowly, and this was practiced in the best of generations. If they were to be said aloud, then Hazrat Anas would have said “estimated” instead of saying we counted ten tasbihats.

Secondly:
You must prove that there is no mutawatir (mass-transmitted) practice of this among the Ummah of the past. If you cannot prove this, then how can you even claim to speak of fiqh?

Thirdly:
Tell us what proof do you have that prayer is valid without the tasbihats in rukoo and sajdah according to you?

◈ Congregational Sunnah prayers are for the obligatory ones:

They say that Sunnahs are performed individually. Congregation is only for obligatory prayers. This issue belongs to Fiqh, not Hadith.

Answer:

Firstly:
There are so many hadiths on this that if we start writing them, it will become lengthy. However, Mr. Jhangvi has sworn by denying the sun in the afternoon. Anyway, briefly, the twelve Sunnahs that we pray along with the five daily prayers are actually Nafl prayers. As explained in the authentic hadith.

Regarding these, the practice of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was to perform them at home. Umm al-Mu’minin, the truthful one of the universe, Hazrat Aisha رضي الله عنها, is the narrator of:

كان يصلي في بيتى قبل الظهر اربعاً ثم يخرج فيصلي بالناس ثم يدخل فيصلى ركعتين وكان يصلي بالناس المغرب ثم يدخل فيصلى ركعتين ويصلي بالناس العشاء ويدخل بيتي فيصلي ركعتين وكان يصلى من الليل تسع ركعات فيهن الوتر و كان بصلى ليلا طويلا قالما وليلا طويلا قاعدا وكان اذا قرا وهو قائم ركع وسجد وهو قائم و ذا قرأ قاعدا ركع وسجدو هو قاعدو كان اذا طلع الفجر صلى رکعتین

Meaning, before Dhuhr, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would pray four rak’ahs (Nafl) at my house, then go outside and lead the people in the obligatory prayer, then come back home and pray two rak’ahs (Nafl), then pray Maghrib with the people, then come home and pray two rak’ahs (Nafl), then pray Isha with the people, then come to my house and pray two rak’ahs (Nafl), and at night he would pray nine rak’ahs, including Witr, standing for a long time, then sitting and reciting, then standing and reciting, performing bowing and prostration while standing, and when reciting while sitting, bowing and prostration were also done sitting. When dawn broke, he would pray two rak’ahs (Nafl).

From this hadith, it is established that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم performed the obligatory prayers in congregation and prayed the Sunnahs individually at home.

Secondly:
In numerous hadiths, the words Salat Fajr, Salat Zuhr, Salat Asr, Salat Maghrib, Salat Isha have been mentioned regarding congregational prayer. For example, just look at the incident of the Gabriel’s Imamat.
Our claim is that these words are only said for the obligatory prayers, which is supported by the phrase (صلى قبل الظهر اربعا) in many hadiths, and in the Gabriel’s Imamat as well, the words (صلی بی الظهر) etc. are used.

Therefore, prove by any Shariah evidence that these words are common to both Nafl and Fard prayers. For example, if someone offers four rak’ahs of Nafl at Zuhr time, then are the words (صلوة الظهر) etc. said for those Nafl prayers in the Quran and Sunnah? If you prove this, you will be given a well-deserved reward. It is a separate matter that Jhangvi Sahib was deprived of the reward. What if Qasim Nanotvi, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, and Mahmood Hasan Khan were alive today, they would also not be able to present this proof. When this matter reached the stage of proof, now listen that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم commanded Hazrat Malik bin Hawairith رضي الله عنه that

(فاذا حضرت الصلوة فليوذن احدكم ثم ليومكم اكبركم)

Meaning, when the time of prayer comes, one of you should call the Adhan and the eldest should lead the prayer.

Thirdly:
From the hadith of Hazrat Malik bin Hawairith (may Allah be pleased with him), it is also proven that the congregational prayer should be held with the call to prayer (Adhan) for the obligatory prayers. While you prove that it is also permissible to hold congregational prayers for Nawafil with the Adhan.

◈ Evidence for saying Ameen aloud:

He states that the follower saying Ameen aloud in Fajr, Maghrib, and Isha prayers, and not saying it aloud in Dhuhr and Asr prayers, is not an issue of hadith.

Answer:

Firstly:
Here the author has abandoned the claim that this is a matter of jurisprudence, while in fact they are proving that Ahl al-Hadith are also followers (Muqallid), but instead of providing evidence for imitation, they are demanding proof of the practice of Ahl al-Hadith.

Secondly:
Describing the act of saying Ameen, the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said that when the Imam says Ameen, you should also say Ameen.

From this, it is established that in audible prayers, Ameen should be said aloud, and in silent prayers, it should be said silently. The reason is that if the Imam says Ameen quietly, how will the follower know that the Imam has said Ameen? Obviously, this situation can only occur in audible prayers.

Thirdly:
Imam Muhammad narrates that Imam Abu Hanifa’s opinion is that the Imam should neither say Ameen loudly nor quietly (اف لکم )

This is the same opinion that Allama Khwarazmi Hanafi has quoted from Allama Sarkhasi’s Mabsut.

See Tafseel Deen-ul-Haq p. 314 vol. 1 for its proof.

◈If the Ta’awwudh (seeking refuge) or Thanaa (praise) is omitted:

It is stated that if a person omits the Ta’awwudh or Thanaa, will his prayer be valid or not? This issue is of Fiqh, not Hadith.

Answer:

Firstly:
In a long hadith, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم asked a companion, “O my nephew, when you pray, how do you recite?” He replied:

اقرء بفاتحة الكتاب واسال الله الجنة واعوذ به من النار واني لا ادرى مادندنتك ولادندنة معاذ فقال النبي لانى و معاذ حول هاتين

“I recite Surah Al-Fatiha, ask Allah for Paradise, and seek refuge from Hellfire. I do not know what you, peace be upon you, recite and what Mu’adh recites?” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
“Mu’adh and I also keep revolving around Paradise and Hellfire.”

Its chain of narration is authentic. And a weak narration in Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه also explicitly limits to Surah Al-Fatiha.

This hadith testifies that if the praise (thana) is omitted, the prayer is still valid.
Secondly:
The Hanafi position is that when the follower (masbuq) stands to complete the remaining prayer, he should recite the praise (thana) and seeking refuge (ta’awwudh).

What evidence do you have for this practice that the follower recites the praise in the remaining rak’ahs?

◈The manner of sitting between the two prostrations:

It is stated where the hands should be placed between the two prostrations. This issue is not proven from Hadith. It is proven from Fiqh.

Answer:

Firstly:
Did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ not teach the method of sitting in prayer? If he did teach, then certainly he taught it, so this objection is baseless.

Secondly:
You claim that Hanafi Fiqh is the essence of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and in it, it is stated to sit like in Tashahhud.

The question is whether this is in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah or against it? If you say it is in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah, then your objection itself is proven baseless by your own words. And if you say it is not derived from the Qur’an and Sunnah, then your claim that Hanafi Fiqh is the essence of the Qur’an and Sunnah is invalid.

Thirdly:
The companion who hurriedly performed the prayer was told by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم about the manner of sitting between the two prostrations, saying:

فاقعد على فخذك اليسرى

Meaning, sit on the left thigh between the two prostrations.

Contrary to this Prophetic statement, the Hanafis hold the position that one should sit with both feet placed to the right side on the heels.

Please present any clear evidence from the Quran and Sunnah on this matter.

Fourthly:
This claim is against your established principles because according to both parties, the manner of placing the hands is like that in Tashahhud, and who is more ignorant and foolish than the one who objects to the opponent on a matter that applies to himself? As for the objection that this is imitation, brother, this is not imitation but conformity in matters of consensus. Instead of writing and compiling, first gain experience in the formal sciences.

◈ Opening the hands after Ruku:

It is stated that in Qunoot, the hands are left down; this issue is not from Hadith, in this matter, non-Muqtalids follow the jurists.

Answer:

Firstly:
We have already stated that there is a difference between conformity and imitation. Conformity in a principle is not called imitation. When multiple verses of the Qur’an were revealed in accordance with the opinion of Hazrat Umar Farooq, did Allah Almighty also imitate Umar Farooq? –لا حول ولا قوة الا باللہ العلی العظیم۔ Instead of writing, consult a good physician for your treatment and simultaneously recite the Wazifa of La Hawla and also pray for an increase in knowledge. InshaAllah, this elixir will bring healing.

Secondly:
When the Prophet of Allah went from the standing position to the bowing position, he would open his folded hands and raise them, then go into bowing, as is proven from the hadith of Ibn Umar.

and the hadith of Hazrat Wail bin Hujrah

. Now it is established that the hands are opened in the standing position. There is no hadith proving that the hands are folded after bowing during the standing position. Therefore, it is established that it is Sunnah to let the hands hang down during the standing after bowing (Qawmah).

◈Conditions of Prayer:

It is stated that the conditions of prayer of the non-followers (ghair muqallideen) are not derived from hadith. They follow the conditions of prayer according to the Hanafis.

Answer:

Firstly:
What do you mean by the conditions of prayer? If it is what the Hanafi school states, then at your earliest convenience study the work of your esteemed teacher, Sufi Abdul Hamid Swati

, where he has explained the conditions of prayer from the Quran and hadith. If his evidences are correct, then your objection is baseless.

Secondly:
Among the conditions of prayer, the Hanafis have included purification of the body, purification of clothes, purification of the place, covering of the woman, facing the Qibla, and intention. Now you clearly state which of these is not mentioned in the Quran and Hadith? However, I am fully confident that you cannot claim anything in this regard. Although the constitution and law of Islam is that actions depend on intention, as mentioned in the Hadith. (انما الاعمال بالنيات)

If by your intention you mean the commonly known method of making intention verbally among the general public, then no Ahl al-Hadith scholar agrees with this; rather, all consider it a clear innovation. Because the beginning of the prayer was performed by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم اللہ اکبر without uttering any self-invented words. The entire method by which the beloved Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم performed the prayer is essentially the pillars of the prayer. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم emphasized to Hazrat Malik bin Huwayrith رضي الله عنه regarding the prayer and said:

(صلوا کما رایتمونی اصلی)

Pray as you have seen me praying.

From this, it is clear that whoever deliberately does not pray according to the method of the Prophet ﷺ, his prayer is invalid. For example, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used to conclude the prayer with salam; now if someone deliberately passes wind instead of saying salam, then his prayer is nullified.

◈Are the Ahl al-Hadith followers of Ibn Hajar? :

They say that in Asma al-Rijal, the non-followers imitate Imam Ibn Hajar.

Answer:

Firstly:
The answer to this is sufficient in لعنت اللہ علی الکاذبین.

Secondly: You probably have not studied the books of Rijal by Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, nor do you claim to have done so. Brother, he has compiled the statements of the Imams of Jarh wa Ta’dil in Tahdhib and Lisan, and he has narrated evidences regarding the trustworthiness and weakness of narrators. Accepting these comes under the category of testimony. The definition of imitation is not limited to this.

Thirdly:
The basis of Jarh wa Ta’dil is on perceptible matters, i.e., what is heard and observed, not on conjecture, independent reasoning, or estimation.

Fourthly:
Almost all the followers address Ahl al-Hadith as non-followers. Mr. Jhangvi should clarify whether the senior scholars of Deoband are liars for calling Ahl al-Hadith non-followers, or is it you?

◈ The Obligation of Fasting and Sacrifice:

They say that fasting is obligatory, sacrifice is obligatory, but these words are not found in the hadith. They imitate the Hanafis.

Answer:

Firstly:
The obligation of fasting is clearly stated in the Holy Quran. (يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الصِّيَامُ) and here the meaning of the books is only and only obligation. Tell me, can any Ahl al-Hadith follow Hanafi jurisprudence leaving the Quran?

Secondly:
Probably you have not even read Mishkat, otherwise the hadith states that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said that the blessed month of Ramadan has arrived.

(فرض الله عليكم صيامه)

Allah Almighty has made fasting during it obligatory upon you.

Moreover, the obligation of fasting is proven from the Quran; you should first read the translation of the Holy Quran after enrolling in any Ahl al-Hadith madrasa.

Thirdly:
According to Ahl al-Hadith and the majority of the Ummah, sacrifice (Qurbani) is Sunnah. This is also the statement of Imam Muhammad and Muhawi; for details see

Therefore, attributing the obligation of sacrifice to Ahl al-Hadith is a misrepresentation, and convincing others of it by following the Hanafis is a double falsehood.

◈The order of the funeral prayer:

It is stated that the sequence arranged by non-followers of taqlid in the funeral prayer is not found in the authentic Hadith. That is, after the first Takbeer, praising Allah, seeking protection, saying Bismillah, Al-Fatiha, the next Surah, after the second Takbeer, sending blessings upon Ibrahim (Durood Ibrahim), and after the third Takbeer, gathering twelve or thirteen supplications together—this method of funeral prayer is not established by any authentic Hadith.

Answer:

Firstly:
There is only a difference in reciting Surah Al-Fatiha; in all other matters, there is agreement. The Hanafi school also considers it permissible to recite more than one supplication.

Similarly, the sequence is not disputed between the parties because it is supported by Hadith. Hazrat Abu Imamah Sahl bin Hunayf narrates that the Sunnah method in funeral prayer is to first say Takbeer, then recite Surah Al-Fatiha, then send blessings upon the Prophet ﷺ, and after the blessings, sincerely pray for forgiveness for the deceased. Then, softly turn the head to the right side and say Salam, and the Quranic recitation is only done after the first Takbeer.

This Hadith is also briefly narrated in Sunan an-Nasa’i p. 228 vol. 1, which states that the Sunnah is to recite Surah Al-Fatiha silently, then say three Takbeers, and with the last Takbeer, turn the head in Salam. The chain of this Hadith is authentic, and from it, the sequence of the funeral prayer is established. As for combining Surah Al-Fatiha with another Surah, this is also proven from the Sunnah.
As in the authentic Hadith of Hazrat Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه.

Secondly:
Please clarify the position of the Hanafis that if the funeral prayer is not performed on a deceased person, then as long as there is a belief that the body has not decomposed, it is permissible to perform the funeral prayer. After that, it is not. What evidence do you have from the Quran and Sunnah for this? Furthermore, the mosque where you are the preacher has its founder, the respected Hafiz Abdul Shakoor, may Allah have mercy on him, buried in the courtyard of the mosque by the Deobandi people, and around his grave, a wall has been built with a marble plaque bearing his name, date of death, etc. What is your evidence for this? If not from the Quran and Sunnah, then at least present some statement from your Imam Abu Hanifa permitting this. It appears that you are not even a follower but are only misleading the public.

Thirdly:
Reciting praise (thana) in the funeral prayer is not the stance of any Ahl-e-Hadith scholar. In short, attributing this issue to Ahl-e-Hadith is a lie. Then calling it taqlid (blind following) is a double lie. May Allah Almighty grant you the ability to repent from the bad habit of lying and writing lies.

Fourthly:
The real purpose of Jhangvi Sahib’s objection is the frequent recitation of supplications in the funeral prayer, whereas this is proven from the hadith. Hazrat Yazid bin Rukana رضي الله عنه narrates that when the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم led the funeral prayer, he would make this supplication (ثم يدعو ما شاء الله ان يدعو). Then the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم would make those supplications in the funeral prayer which are pleasing to Allah.

Allama Albani has accepted this hadith as authentic.

Besides this hadith, the narration of Hazrat Awf رضي الله عنه is also evidence for this, in which he states that he led the funeral prayer following the Prophet ﷺ and memorized this supplication from his prayer. فحفظت من دعائه

This hadith is exactly like the phrase of Jhangvi Sahib, who calls supplications after the prayer an innovation

Whereas the innovators raise their hands after the obligatory prayer and make many supplications, but they all consider it “du’a” (supplication), no ignorant person calls it “du’aat” (supplications)! Why? The word du’a is a verbal noun which is also used in the plural form, and in the hadith of Hazrat Awf رضي الله عنه the words (من دعائه) indicate the plural meaning. If Jhangvi Sahib’s heart does not accept this reality, then there are thousands of excuses.

Chapter Eleven

Lies of the Ahl al-Hadith Scholars or Jhangvi’s Fallacies

Definition of Lie:

The author of Tuhfa Ahl-e-Hadith has mentioned nineteen lies attributed to Hakim Muhammad Sadiq Sialkoti (may Allah have mercy on him) and Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Jaipuri (may Allah have mercy on him) (the truth of which will be explained in detail later), stating that they lied. To keep the matter brief, it is necessary to first define lying so that understanding becomes easier. It should be noted that knowledge is essential in the definition of lying. That is, knowingly making a false statement or giving false information is called lying. In the well-known lexicon Al-Munjid, it is stated:

(كذب أخبر عن الشي بخلاف ما هو مع العلم به)

According to this definition, if Zaid saw Jhangvi in the mosque and five minutes later Umar asked Zaid about Jhangvi’s whereabouts, and Zaid said he was in the mosque, although Jhangvi had left the mosque and gone to the market in the first minute, then Zaid is not a liar because he did not know that Jhangvi had left the mosque. Similarly, if someone says something contrary to the facts by mistake or error, it will not be called a lie. Otherwise, words like mistake and error would be meaningless and useless.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم once led the prayer and ended it after two rak’ahs instead of four. Hazrat Zulaydin رضي الله عنه said, O Messenger of Allah ﷺ

انسيت ام قصرت الصلوة .

meaning, have you forgotten or is the prayer incomplete?
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم replied

لم انس ولم تقصر

meaning, neither have I forgotten nor is the prayer incomplete. Then Hazrat Zulaydin رضي الله عنه said,

بلی قد نسبت

No, rather you have forgotten. Upon this, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم asked the other companions. They confirmed Zulaydin’s statement. Then he صلى الله عليه وسلم led the prayer for more than two rak’ahs.

Now, Jhangvi Sahib will probably create an uproar over this as well that (نعوذ باللہ) the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم

لم انسى ولم تقصی

(“Neither have I forgotten nor is the prayer incomplete”)
lied. But we will tell this ignorant person that this is not a lie but a slip.
In reality, Jhangvi himself is a liar and a fabricator.
Jhangvi Sahib has pointed out ten lies in the book Haqiqat al-Fiqh by the author. Before going into details, let us have a brief introduction to “Haqiqat al-Fiqh.” Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Jaipuri (may Allah have mercy on him) authored a comprehensive book in response to Shafiyyat, which contains an introduction, refutation of Taqlid, and other important discussions. It has two parts (chapters). One part discusses the rejected issues of Hanafi fiqh, and the other mentions some fatwas in accordance with the Quran and Hadith. The author has properly cited the references of parts one and two on page 137 of Haqiqat al-Fiqh, and these references are all translations of Hanafi fiqh. Furthermore, the author has committed that on every page margin of the book, it is written that the books mentioned in fiqh refer to their translations.
Jhangvi Sahib himself is well aware of this fact. Therefore, he says that all these are lies. The original text of the book should be presented. Non-following scholars will never be able to present the original text.

See, the author of “Haqiqat al-Fiqh” attributes the references he presents to translations of Hanafi fiqh books. However, Mr. Jhangvi demands the text of the book itself. This clearly shows that Mr. Jhangvi is also well aware of the fact that the author has quoted phrases from translations of fiqh books.

In short, this is Mr. Jhangvi’s cunning, deceit, and trickery that instead of the references presented by the author, he demands the text of the book. Whereas this claim was never made by “Haqiqat al-Fiqh,” so why demand it? If there is any error in these translations, then the responsibility does not lie with the late Maulana Jaipuri but with those who translated Hanafi fiqh poorly. In any case, let us now sequentially examine the phrases on which Mr. Jhangvi has objections.

The Lies of the Author of Haqiqat al-Fiqh or the Misconceptions of Jhangvi

(1) The hadith about folding hands below the navel is weak. The reference given is Hidayah.

Brother Maulana J. Puri has given its reference from Ain al-Hidayah as detailed on this page of “Haqiqat al-Fiqh,” and it is available in Ibadat in Hidayah, translation of Hidayah, page 350, volume 1, published by Nawal Kishwar 1896. Additionally, it is narrated from Ibn Hammam in Al-Fath al-Qadeer p. 249 vol. 1 and from Allama Talbi

quoting Allama Nawawi that

(اتفقوا على تضعيفه)

meaning the scholars of hadith are unanimous on the weakness of the narration about folding hands below the navel.

(2) The narration about folding hands on the chest is authentic. The reference given is Hidayah.

Brother, this reference is also from Ain al-Hidayah, and this text is available in Ain al-Hidayah p. 350 vol. 1, also in Noor al-Hidayah, translation and commentary of Waqayah p. 93, published by Majidi Kanpur 1914.

(3) Instead of ( سبحانك اللهم ), (اللهم باعد بینی ) is more correct. The reference given is Sharh Waqayah.

Brother, this passage “Haqiqat al-Fiqh” page 193 cites the statement of Ibn Hammam with reference to Noor al-Hidayah Tarjuma Sharh Waqayah page 94, Majidi edition Kanpur 1914, which undoubtedly exists on the mentioned page of Tarjuma Sharh Waqayah. Besides, this narration from Ibn Hammam is also authentic. Thus, in the commentary of Hidayah, he states that

(وهو اصح الكل لانه متفق عليه )

meaning اللهم باعد بینی‘s hadith on this matter is the most authentic of all because it is a hadith from Bukhari and Muslim.

(4) The narrations about leaving Fatiha behind the Imam are weak. The reference given is Sharh Waqayah.

Brother, this reference is found in Noor al-Hidayah Tarjuma Sharh Waqayah pages 108,109, Majidi edition Kanpur 1914. Moreover, Maulana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote in Al-Ta’leeq al-Majid page 99 and Imam al-Kalam page 212 that all the narrations cited to prohibit reciting Fatiha behind the Imam are baseless and incorrect.
Okay, please present one hadith on this matter.

(5) (اذا كبر الامام فكبروا ) This hadith is weak. The reference given is Sharh Waqayah.

Brother, this reference is from Noor al-Hidayah, translation of Sharh Waqayah, and this text is also present on page 110 of its edition.

(6) Ameen is the seal of acceptance. The reference given is Hidayah.

Dear brother, this reference is also from Ain al-Hidayah, translation of Hidayah, and this text is present on page 364, volume 1, edition Noor Kashshar 1896. Moreover, this is the meaning of a Prophetic hadith narrated from Hazrat Abu Zuhair (RA) in Sunan Abi Dawood, p. 135, volume 1.

(7) The follower should say Ameen after hearing the Imam say Ameen. The reference given is Dur Mukhtar.

Brother, this reference is from Ghayat al-Awtar, translation of Dur Mukhtar, and this text is present on page 229, volume 1, edition Noor Kashshar 1900, fourth edition.

(8) The hadiths regarding raising the hands are strong against making comparisons. Reference is Hidayah.

Brother, this reference is from Ain al-Hidayah, translation of Hidayah, and this text is present on page 389, volume 1, edition Noor Kashshar 1896.

(9) The hadiths about raising the hands (Raf’ al-Yadain) are weak. The reference given is Sharh wa Qaya.

Brother, this reference is from Noor al-Hidayah, translation of Sharh wa Qaya, and this text is found on page 102 of the Majidi edition, Kanpur, 1914.

(10) It is not permissible to argue (dispute) with someone who raises their hands. Reference: Hidayah

Brother, this reference is exactly from Al-Bidayah, translation of Hidayah, and this text is found on page 389, volume 1, Nawal Kishwar edition, 1896.

◈Those are ten complete falsehoods:

These are ten lies that the author of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith has deliberately spoken. Our claim is that the references stated by Hazrat Maulana Hafiz Muhammad Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him) are correct and authentic. And Jhangvi Sahib’s denial of them is merely a temporary refutation and a futile, useless attempt to cover the truth.

◈Illusions in Salat al-Rasool:

Our Jhungvi Sahib has also cast a critical eye on the books of Hazrat Maulana Hakim Muhammad Sadiq Sialkoti (may Allah have mercy on him) and has tried to corner him by targeting some of his references. Hazrat Hakim Sahib (may Allah have mercy on him) was the author of several books. However, nowhere did he commit any slander against the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. Whereas Jhungvi Sahib has authored only this one book, consisting of 98 small-sized pages, in which he fabricated two hadiths himself and told many lies. He cannot see the beam in his own eye but is bothered by the speck in others’ eyes. In any case, let us examine the truth of the references whose authenticity Jhungvi Sahib has questioned.

(1) On page 131, he wrote “Adhan” and cited Bukhari and Muslim, whereas this narration is not in Bukhari. This is an accusation against Bukhari.

The answer:

Firstly: The point is that Hazrat Hakim Sahib has clarified the words of the Adhan. The intention was not to narrate a Hadith. Probably due to a writing error, Bukhari and Muslim were mentioned at the end. This is why in the Haqqah manuscript only the words of the Adhan are present. There is no reference. If Hakim Sahib’s intention was to write the words of the Adhan in the light of Hadith, then he would have first clarified the narrator of the Hadith, which is not the case.

Secondly:
Even if this is not accepted as a writing error, there is no problem because these words of the Adhan are meaningfully established from Bukhari. Hazrat Anas (RA) is the narrator that
Hazrat Bilal was instructed to say the words of the Adhan twice and the Iqamah once.

In the light of this Hadith, the words of the Adhan are exactly as Hazrat Hakim Sahib has recorded.

(2) Page 161. Both hands are raised up to the shoulders. The reference given is Bukhari and Muslim for the purification. These words are not in Bukhari.

Answer:

Firstly:
The hadith about raising hands up to the shoulders is narrated by Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (RA) and is found in Bukhari, page 102, volume 1, and Muslim, page 168, volume 1. The hadith about raising hands up to the ears is narrated by Hazrat Malik bin Hawairith (RA) and is found in Muslim, page 168, volume 1, and Abu Awana, page 94, volume 2.

Secondly:
If your point is that the narration about raising hands up to the ears is not in Bukhari, then brother, this is not the fault of Hakim Sahib but rather the author of Mishkat. The author of Mishkat has quoted the hadith of Hazrat Malik bin Hawairith (RA) in Mishkat, page 75, and attributed the words (حتى يحاذی بهما فروع اذنيه) to Bukhari and Muslim. Probably, Hakim Sahib, trusting Mishkat, cited Bukhari as the reference. If this is false, then the one who said it is (معاذ اللہ), the author of Mishkat. However, we will consider it a misunderstanding.

(3) On page 179 – a narration is written under Qira’at Masnun with the reference of Muwatta Imam Malik, which is also false.

Answer:

Firstly:
This hadith is present in Sunan Abu Dawood (814) and Bayhaqi, p. 388, vol. 2. Also, in Tabarani Kabir, p. 365, vol. 12, there is a supporting narration from Ibn Umar.

Secondly:
Brother, if this is false, then the responsibility lies with Sahih Mishkat because they have cited Muwatta Imam Malik on this in Makhloota, p. 82. In fact, Mulla Ali al-Qari attributed it to Muwatta Imam Malik in Mirqat, p. 308, vol. 2. Before calling Hakim Sahib a liar, issue a fatwa against these two elders because Hakim Sahib trusted them. However, we do not call anyone a liar; rather, due to human weaknesses, we interpret it as inadvertence, forgetfulness, or misconception.

(4) On page 135 – four times the call to prayer with “Allahu Akbar” is written and Muslim is cited as the reference, whereas this is false.

Answer:

Firstly:
Undoubtedly, in Sahih Muslim, “Allahu Akbar” is not mentioned four times, but in Sunan Abu Dawood with ‘Awn, p. 191, vol. 1, “Allahu Akbar” is mentioned four times.

Secondly:
If this is a lie, then it belongs to the author of Mishkat because he has quoted Allahu Akbar four times in Mishkat p. 63 with reference to Sahih Muslim. But we say that the one who calls it a lie is himself lying. Because this is the misconception of the author of Mishkat, and Hakim Sahib made a mistake due to his trust in Mishkat.

(5) On page 134 – he wrote the word لا یستبدر and gave a reference to Bukhari and Muslim. Whereas both books have falsehood.

Answer:

Firstly: This narration is present in Abu Dawood Ma’a ‘Awn p. 205 vol. 1 and Bayhaqi p. 395 vol. 1. This is a slip, not a lie, and probably they got this misconception from Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s compilation Bulugh al-Maram p. 14. Where he quoted this narration from Abu Dawood and said (واصله في الصحيحينن ), meaning the original of this narration is in Bukhari and Muslim. Undoubtedly, this narration in its original form is present in Bukhari p. 88 vol. 1 and Muslim p. 196 vol. 1.

Secondly:
Hazrat Hakim Sahib has explained the meaning of the words of لا یستبدر that during the Adhan, at the time of (حى على الصلوة) and (حی علی الفلاح), the neck should be turned right and left but should not spin around.

Whereas in the narration of Bukhari and Muslim, there is mention of turning the face right and left, and in the narration of Abu Dawood, there is negation of this. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, reconciling these, said that spinning refers to turning the head and neck, and the negation is about turning the whole body.

In short, the meaning explained by Hakim Sahib is found in the narrations of Bukhari and Muslim, however, quoting the words of لا یستبدر was his slip. Calling such assumptions lies can only be done by a scholar and a knowledgeable person like you; no wise and sensible person would call it a lie. If this is a lie, then the author of Sadaiyah has told hundreds of such lies; think of some way to defend them. You have quoted the words of the Prophetic Hadith (قاربوا بينهما) with reference to Abu Dawood p. 1397.

Although in Abu Dawood there are the words (بینھا). So is this your lie? No, my brother, this is your mistake. Similarly, the owner of Sabil al-Rasool also has this misconception, not a lie.

◈Misconceptions in Sabil al-Rasool

(1) They narrate the hadith as follows:

افضل الاعمال الصلواة في أول وقتها

The reference is Bukhari, this is a blatant lie.

Answer:

Firstly:
This hadith is narrated from Hazrat Umm Farwah (RA) in Musnad Ahmad p. 374 vol. 6, Abu Dawood with ‘Awn p. 163 vol. 1, and Tirmidhi with Tuhfat p. 154 vol. 1, and Dar Qutni p. 247 vol. 1 with an authentic chain. Hakim, Dhahabi, and Allama Albani have declared it authentic.

Secondly:
In meaning, this hadith is present in Bukhari and Muslim. Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud (RA) says that

سالت رسول الله الى العمل افضل قال الصلوة لوقتها

Meaning, I asked the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) which deed is the best. He (peace be upon him) replied: To perform prayer at its appointed time.

The meaning of لوقتها is the earliest time. As the words اول وقتها also appear in the same hadith.

This narration has been declared authentic by Hakim and Dhahabi.
The use of فی اول لوقتها instead of لوقتها is either an author’s slip or a writing error. However, no one can call it a lie because in the chains of this very hadith the words فی اول لوقتها are also present and the meaning of لوقتها is also the first time. So there is no objection.

(r) A narration related to triple talaq has been written with a reference to Bukhari, which is not found in Bukhari.

Answer:

Firstly: This hadith is narrated in Sahih Muslim from Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (RA) that during the time of the Prophet Muhammad, the caliphate of Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA), and the caliphate of Umar Farooq (RA), three divorces given at once within two years were considered one revocable divorce.

Secondly:
Writing Sahih Bukhari instead of Sahih Muslim is a slip. Whether it is the author’s mistake or a transcription error. Your respected teacher Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar, in Sama’ al-Mawti p. 69, 1984 edition, quoted verse 188 of Surah Al-A’raf but referenced verse 23 of Surah Al-Anfal, so is this a lie or a slip? Whichever you choose, that is our answer from Maulana Sialkoti (may Allah have mercy on him).

(3) Similarly, in the translation of the narration about triple talaq, the word “once” has been added, which is a blatant black-and-white lie.

Answer:

Firstly:
Maulana Sialkoti (may Allah have mercy on him), while quoting the hadith from Mishkat, only recorded the translation that the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم mocked giving three divorces at once along with the Quran. And He was angry about this act.

Our brother objects that the word “all at once” is an addition on its own and is a black-and-white lie. However, this very objection is a fabricated lie. Because the context of Maulana’s phrase implies that he used this word in the sense of simultaneously, and such words exist in the hadith

طلق امراته ثلاث تطليقات جميع

Maulana Qutbuddin Hanafi, in the explanation of this hadith, states that
Divorce was given to his wife three divorces at once.

Maulana Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi interprets these words as
Three divorces all at once.

Mulla Ali al-Qari, in the explanation of this hadith, states that

(ولذا انكر على المطلق بالثلاث دفعة واحدة )

Meaning, for this very reason, the Messenger of Allah rejected the three divorces given all at once.

If this black-and-white lie is to be believed, then the ones speaking it are not only Maulana Sialkoti but also your elders like Maulvi Qutbuddin Sheikh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi and commentators of Hadith such as Mulla Ali Al-Qari. However, we say that this is neither Maulana Sialkoti’s lie nor anyone else’s. Rather, you have committed misrepresentation and lying out of malice and prejudice. May Allah grant you the ability to do good. Ameen.

Secondly:
We have already stated that on page 24 of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith, you have made a semantic distortion in the words حاذوا بین المناكب, حاذوا بالاعناق, and قاربوا بينها, etc. We also quoted the statements of lexicographers and Hadith commentators in your rebuttal; tell us what you think about this dishonesty and blatant lie.

(4) You say that behind the Imam, the recitation of Al-Fatiha, which is mentioned in the Fajr incident, references Ibn Majah and Muwatta Imam Malik as well, although this is a lie. This Hadith is not in those books.

Answer:

Firstly:-
This hadith is narrated from Hazrat Ubada bin Samit (RA) that one day the Prophet ﷺ led the Fajr prayer and after finishing asked if you pray behind the Imam? The followers replied yes, O Prophet, we do pray. He ﷺ said, do not recite anything other than Surah Al-Fatiha.(الحدیث)

However, the objector has an objection that the reference of Ibn Majah and Muwatta has also been given for this hadith, whereas this is not the case. Brother, this is a slip, not a lie. We have already explained the definition of lying that deliberately giving false information is called lying; suspicion is not called lying. When this Prophetic hadith was present in more than a dozen hadith books, what need did the scholar have to lie and mention Ibn Majah and Muwatta? Inevitably, it was a slip on their part.

Secondly:
You yourself have written lies in the book to your heart’s content. All the objections you have regarding Haqiqat al-Fiqh are entirely false accusations and lies. In this way, you have misrepresented all the statements of Allama Waheed al-Zaman. The details have already passed; please state what your opinion is regarding them.

A statement of Maulana Muhammad Hussain Batalvi (may Allah have mercy on him)

He states that Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi’s regret over abandoning Taqlid and sorrow over his past life is nothing but sorrow. After that, Jhangvi Sahib has quoted a passage from the file of Ishaat-us-Sunnah 1888, which says that from twenty-five years of experience, we have come to know that those who, out of ignorance, become Mujtahids and abandon absolute Taqlid, eventually bid farewell to Islam. Some of them become Christians, some become non-religious, who cannot live without any religion or faith, and disobedience and rebellion against the Shariah rulings are the least miracle of this freedom. He further writes that abandoning Taqlid out of ignorance is a major reason for the religious becoming irreligious. He further writes that one should fear abandoning Taqlid.

Answer:

Firstly:
This writing is from the year 1888. Maulana passed away in 1920. Naza’at al-Khawatir, p. 428, vol. 8. After this writing, Maulana lived for almost 32 years and refuted Taqlid with full certainty and conviction. He wrote numerous articles against Taqlid, which are evidenced by the files of Ishaat al-Sunnah. However, Jhangvi Sahib, while misleadingly twisting facts, claims that he expressed regret over his past life. Whereas, by the grace of Allah, he remained engaged in the propagation of the methodology of the Muhadditheen until his last moments and never accepted Khafiyyat or Taqlid even for a minute. In short, from the dealings of his life itself, Jhangvi Sahib’s falsehood becomes clear that the author of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith has misrepresented his statements by coloring them incorrectly, selectively quoting, and acting dishonestly.

Secondly:
Let us explain to you the full text of Maulana Batalvi, may Allah have mercy on him, its meaning and background. A person wrote a letter to the late Maulana Batalvi in which he advised that the current Torah and Gospel are obligatory for Muslims just as the Holy Quran is, and that Muslims should break the restriction that actions must only be based on the Quran, Hadith, and Islamic books, and should give such breadth to abandoning Taqlid (imitation) and Ijtihad (independent reasoning) that there remains no adherence to the Quran and Hadith.

In response to this correspondence, the late Maulana Batalvi has elaborately explained the Shariah status of the Torah and the Gospel. He has affirmed the alteration and distortion in them and established the legitimacy and authority of only the Quran and Hadith. It is a well-reasoned and scholarly article consisting of two hundred and fifty (250) pages and is worth studying. At the beginning and end of it, regarding the correspondent who, like misguided mujtahids, claims to abandon Taqlid, Maulana Batalvi spoke in the manner that Jhangvi Sahib has quoted and unjustly attributed it to Ahl al-Hadith, while many sentences from the middle and from the front and back have been omitted. Before the mentioned excerpt, the late Maulana Batalvi said:
At this point, I cannot refrain from stating that such unrestricted and free ijtihads and thoughts, as have been manifested in this correspondence, are the result of abandoning Taqlid, which occurs despite ignorance. And among the ignorant or very little knowledgeable, it is akin to a semi-cleric, a danger that arises from faith.

In this statement, it is clear that Maulana Batalvi, may Allah have mercy on him, is not addressing the Ahl al-Hadith. The Ahl al-Hadith invite to abandoning taqlid (imitation) for the superiority of the Quran and Hadith, not to deny their validity altogether. As the aforementioned correspondent advised such misguidance, and regarding such misguided ignorant mujtahids, Maulana, may Allah have mercy on him, adopted that style of address, not for the absolute supporters of abandoning taqlid. Because Maulana Batalvi himself always promoted and strongly advocated abandoning taqlid. Accordingly, at this point, after our quoted excerpt and before the excerpt quoted by Jhangvi Sahib, he states that the issue of abandoning taqlid is correct and encouragement for it is found abundantly in the writings of the Salaf and Khalaf.

However, the true place of this issue is for those who possess insight. For these people, specifically in those matters in which they have insight, abandoning taqlid is permissible and even necessary. But for those who have no knowledge of the Quran and Hadith, who are merely unfamiliar with Arabic and literary sciences (which serve the Quran and Hadith), who only read Urdu and Persian translations or hear from others, or who know broken Arabic and declare themselves mujtahids and abandon taqlid in every matter, nothing but misguidance can be expected from abandoning taqlid for them.

It is also clear from this statement that the Ahl al-Hadith before Maulana Marhoom are not those scholars who, by the grace of Allah, have complete understanding of the Quran, Hadith, and Arabic sciences, and who consider adherence to the methodology and approach of the Companions, the Tabi‘in, and the jurists and muhaddith scholars necessary in the understanding and interpretation of the Quran and Hadith, rather than independent reasoning. Their common people also do not become mujtahids themselves but seek guidance in the Quran and Hadith from their scholars. However, it is certain that on occasions of such advice, he would also warn the bearers of the Ahl al-Hadith school of thought that beware, due to your abandonment of taqlid (imitation), you do not develop the neglect of the Quran, Hadith, and the sciences of the Salaf that has come upon many so-called claimants of knowledge and research, which has rendered them completely inactive, misguided, and deprived of the Quran and Hadith. This warning does not mean that under the pretext of abandoning taqlid they have become misguided and indifferent to religion, as Jhangvi Sahib wants to make people believe, although the last part of the quoted statement is noteworthy. Rather, those among the Ahl al-Hadith who, out of ignorance or lack of knowledge, claim absolute abandonment of taqlid should fear these consequences and should not perform ijtihad in matters about which they have no knowledge or information from the Quran and Hadith. The cure for ignorance is asking questions and following the scholars. For them, freedom and independent ijtihad are absolutely not permissible.

Tell me! Where and when is there a lamentation for abandoning Taqlid (imitation) in this? What has been said here is only that a person who does not have direct knowledge of the Quran and Hadith should refer to authentic scholars and seek religious guidance from them. He should not perform Ijtihad (independent reasoning) himself. If a person, despite being completely ignorant, considers seeking religious guidance from scholars as futile and useless, then according to Maulana Batalvi, this is absolute abandonment of Taqlid, with which Maulana Batalvi was warning the Ahl-e-Hadith. Abandoning Taqlid is one thing, and absolute abandonment of Taqlid is another. Maulana has strongly affirmed abandoning Taqlid; however, he has warned against absolute abandonment of Taqlid.