Causes of Fabrication of Hadith and the Scholars of Deoband

Reasons for Fabrication of Hadith

There are multiple reasons for the fabrication of hadiths, which the scholars of hadith have discussed in detail. One of these reasons is imitation. When imitators declared personal statements as religion and sect instead of the Quran and Hadith, hadiths were fabricated to strengthen and support their statements. Imam Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him, states in his explanation of Muslim:

(استجاز بعض فقهاء أهل الرأى نسبة الحكم الذي دل عليه القياس الجلي إلى رسول ا نسية قولية فيقولون في ذلك قال رسول الله له كذا ولهذا ترى كتبهم مشحونة بأحاديث تشهد متونها بانها موضوعة تشبة فتاوى الفقهاء ولانهم لا يقيمون لها سندا)

The people of opinion have permitted attributing a ruling, which is deduced by analogy, to the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. They say that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said such things. If you examine the books of jurisprudence, you will find that they are filled with narrations whose texts testify to being fabricated. These texts are included in these books because they resemble the fatwas of the jurists. However, they do not even find a chain of transmission for them.

Maulana Abdul Ha’i Lakhnawi, a deceased Hanafi scholar, openly admitted that (السادس قوم حملهم على الوضع التعصب المذهبي والتجمد التقليدي كما وضع مامون الهروى حديث من رفع يديه في الركوع فلا صلوة له  ووضع حديث من قرأ خلف الامام فلا صلوة له وضع ايضا حديثا في ذم الشافعي و حديثا في منقبة أبي حنيفة)

The sixth group that fabricated the traditions consists of those who were raised by religious fanaticism and imitative rigidity, such as Mamoon Harawi, who fabricated traditions like “Whoever performs the act of wiping over the hands, his prayer is invalid,” “Whoever recites behind the Imam, his prayer is invalid,” similarly, he fabricated traditions criticizing Imam Shafi’i and praising Abu Hanifa.

What Maulana Lucknowi (may Allah have mercy on him) said is entirely based on justice. Imitative bias and in support and endorsement of the sayings of the jurists and the opinions of the narrators, their followers have fabricated numerous narrations. Even today, these people do not hesitate to fabricate hadiths. Maulvi Ismail Jhungvi, author of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith, also fabricated two hadiths, and in fact, their elders have even fabricated verses themselves. Maulvi Mahmood Hasan Khan Hanafi Deobandi was the Sheikh al-Hadith of Darul Uloom Deoband. The Hanafi school remembers him by the title Sheikh al-Hind. He wrote a reply titled “Adillah Kamila” to an advertisement by the well-known Salafi scholar Hazrat Maulana Abu Saeed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi (may Allah have mercy on him), in which he fabricated a line of Arabic text himself and made it appear as a verse of the Holy Quran to prove the obligation of taqlid (imitation). The reply “Adillah Kamila” was answered by Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi (who was an employee of Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan and later apostatized and became Qadiani) under the title “Misbah al-Adillah,” in which Amrohi criticized Hazrat Sheikh al-Hind. However, Maulvi Mahmood Hasan Khan wrote with great certainty and confidence instead of embarrassment and correction. This is why the following statement was made:

(فان تنازعتم في شئى فردوه إلى الله والرسول والى اولى الأمر منكم )

And it is obvious that the meaning of Awliya al-Amr (those in authority) in this verse, apart from the noble Prophets (peace be upon them), are others. So, see in this verse it is clearly evident that the noble Prophets and all Awliya al-Amr are obligatory to follow. You have the verse

(فردوه إلى الله والرسول ان كنتم تومنون بالله واليوم الآخر)

So you have seen, and you still did not realize that the same Quran in which this verse exists, the aforementioned objectionable verse is also present in the same Quran. It is not surprising that, as usual, you consider both verses contradictory and issue a fatwa that one is abrogating and the other abrogated.

If we comment on this from our side, perhaps Jhangvi Sahib will get upset, so we quote the commentary of Maulana Amir Usmani Deobandi, which he wrote on Maulana Azad Rahmani’s book. Maulana Usmani says that Maulana Rahmani is surprised, and rightly so, as to which Quran it is from which Hazrat Sheikh al-Hind, with great certainty and confidence, declared a collection of words as a Quranic verse that is not found anywhere in the thirty parts. Tajalli Deoband November 1962, page 62 and page 61 write that it cannot be called a writing error because Hazrat Sheikh al-Hind’s argument is also based on this added piece, and the presence of the verse in this added form in the Quran is stated with emphasis. The deduction of the obligatory following of the Auliya al-Amr is also made from this, and the wonder is that the purpose for which the original verse was revealed, their added phrases and their argument have completely reversed it.

Similarly, Jhangvi Sahib’s spiritual guide and the imam of the art of sophistry, Maulvi Master Muhammad Amin Okara writes that Allah Almighty says:
يا ايها الذين امنوا قيل لهم‘ كفوايديكم واقيموالصلوۃ‘ O you who believe, keep your hands to yourselves when you pray.
From this verse also, some people have taken the prohibition of raising the hands during prayer as evidence.

Read this passage carefully: it absolutely cannot be called a scribe’s error because Hazrat Safdar Sahib is also translating these words. In short, as far as our knowledge goes, the Deoband group themselves have fabricated these two verses. Anyway, let us come to the main topic and calmly consider our requests and study the traditions fabricated by the Hanafi followers.

The First Distortion in Abu Dawood

Sunan Abi Dawood is counted among the Sihah Sittah. It contains narrations with authentic, good, weak, and disconnected chains of transmission. Imam Abu Dawood, under the chapter of Qunoot in Witr, while presenting the Shafi’i argument, narrated from a weak chain that

(ان عمر بن الخطاب رضى الله عنه جمع الناس على أبي بن كعب فكان يصلي لهم عشرين ليلة ولا يقنت الا في النصف الباقي فاذا كانت العشر الا واخر تخلف فصلى في بيته فكانوا يقولون ابق أبي)

Meaning, Umar Farooq (may Allah be pleased with him) gathered the people around Ubayy ibn Ka’b (may Allah be pleased with him), and he used to lead them in prayer for twenty nights, but he would recite the Qunoot in the latter half; when the last ten days of the last third remained, he would pray at his home, and people would say that Ubayy had fled.

Beginning of the Distortion

Maulvi Mahmood Hasan Khan Hanafi Deobandi was the first to initiate this alteration and while publishing Sunan Abi Dawood, he left the text in Abu Dawood as “Ashreen Laylat” (twenty nights), but in the margin, he wrote the symbol of abrogation with the word “Ruk’atah” (units of prayer).

Due to this change, instead of twenty nights, the meaning becomes twenty units (rak’ahs), and the purpose of this alteration was to provide evidence for the number of rak’ahs in Taraweeh prayer.

The Extreme of the Alteration

When Maulvi Fakhr al-Hasan Gangohi Hanafi Deobandi published Abu Dawood with his correction, he removed “Ishreen Laylata” from the text and changed it to “Ishreen Raka’ata,” however, he clarified the version of “Laylata” in the margin.

And now the version being published has “Raka’ata” in the text, but the clarification of the version has also been deleted, although before Maulvi Mahmood Hasan Khan’s alteration, all the published versions contained the words “Ishreen Laylata” and there was no reference to any other version. Similarly, all the handwritten manuscripts of Abu Dawood also have the words “Ishreen Laylata,” but some people changed it and used it as evidence for twenty raka’ats of Taraweeh.

Layla or Raka’ah

The internal evidence of the narration indicates that the words “Laylat” are correct, and “Ruk’atah” is a distortion. Firstly: Imam Abu Dawood mentioned it under the chapter of Qunoot, not in the chapters of Taraweeh. Secondly: Hazrat Abi bin Ka’b did not stand in prayer during the last ten nights, which proves that it is “Laylat” and not “Ruk’atah.” Thirdly: Imam Bayhaqi

quoted the words “Ishreen Laylah” from Abu Dawood.

Testimony of the Scholars

Allama Zailai Hanafi in

, Ibn Najim Hanafi in

, Ibn Hammam in

, Allama Halabi in

, and Mufti Ahmad Yar Hanafi Barelvi in

have all quoted it from Abu Dawood, and all of them, while quoting the words “Ishreen Laylah,” have declared this narration weak. Similarly, Ibn Turkmani in

explicitly stated that this narration is weak and disconnected.

Hanafi Commentators

Mulla Ali al-Qari Hanafi, who passed away in 1410 AH, mentioned this narration from Abu Dawood with the words “twenty rak’ahs” in

and Maulvi Qutb al-Din Dehlavi Hanafi in

.

Second alteration in Abu Dawood

Imam Abu Dawood criticized the narration reported from Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ood (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the non-raising of hands, saying that

هذا حديث مختصر من حديث طويل وليس هو بصحيح على هذا اللفظ

meaning this is an abbreviation of a long hadith and it is not correct in the sense that the hands were not raised again.

This criticism of Imam Abu Dawood has been cited by Sahib

, Allama Ibn Abdul Barr

, Hafiz Ibn Hajar

, and Allama Shawkani

. The great Muhaddith Azmi Abadi has explicitly stated

that he has two authentic and reliable handwritten manuscripts in which this criticism is present, but how unfortunate it is that when the great Muhaddith of the Deobandi school of thought, Maulvi Fakhr al-Hasan Gangohi, published Abu Dawood with his correction, he removed this criticism from the text.

Testimony of the Household

Although in the correction by Maulvi Mahmood Hasan Khan, from which the Abu Dawood manuscript was published, on page 116 of volume one, in the margin, a manuscript symbol was given and it was written that this phrase is also present in one manuscript, then the entire mentioned phrase was copied.

Third alteration in Abu Dawood

In Sunan Abi Dawood, page 120, volume 1, Imam Abu Dawood had titled a chapter من رای القراة اذا لم يجهر, but when Maulvi Mahmood Hasan Khan Hanafi Deobandi published “Abu Dawood” with his correction, he changed it to chapter من كره القرأة الفاتحة الكتاب اذا جهر الامام, although no manuscript had this title.

Scholars know that the great Muhaddith Abadi, may Allah have mercy on him, when explaining the text of Sunan Abu Dawood in Awn al-Ma’bood, mentions the differences in manuscripts. If any manuscript had this chapter title established by the Deobandis’ Sheikh al-Hind, the author of Awn al-Ma’bood would have mentioned it, but the great Muhaddith Abadi passed over it silently, which clearly indicates that no manuscript had this chapter title. However, Sheikh al-Hind mentions it. اناللہ وانا الیہ راجعون This is all being done in support of the Hanafi school, according to whom reciting Surah Al-Fatiha is disliked.

Alteration in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah

The author Ibn Abi Shaybah is an excellent repository of Hadith and traditions. Its publication has been honored by multiple institutions. First, it was published from Multan with the commentary of Maulana Abdul Tawwab; later, from Hyderabad Deccan, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Academy published its first volume in 1386 AH. Afterwards, Al-Dar Al-Salafiyyah Bombay published it in fifteen volumes.

In the author’s work, there was a Hadith narrated with the chain of حد ثنا وكيع عن موسى بن عمیر عن علقمة بن وائل بن حجر عن ابی‘ that states:

رايت النبي موضع بيمينه على شماله في الصلاة

Meaning: I saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم placing the right hand over the left hand during prayer.

The famous Deobandi Muhaddith Maulana Habib-ur-Rahman Sahib Al-A’zami also published the first three or four volumes of the author’s work in 1984. (The response has been fully published.) On page 351 of volume two, printed by Matabi’ Al-Rashid Madinah Al-Munawwarah 1984, this Hadith is also present with the same wording. However, when the Deobandis published it from Idarat al-Quran wal-Uloom al-Islamiyyah Karachi in 1986, they altered the text of the Hadith by adding (taht al-sirrah). This addition changed the meaning of the Hadith to: “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم placed his hands below the navel during prayer.” انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون

This is explicitly dishonest. This Hadith is found in about a dozen Hadith books, and none of them include the addition (taht al-sirrah). The manuscript from which this addition is claimed is acknowledged even by the Deobandi scholars to be weak and defective. For details, refer to the author’s book Din al-Haqq, p. 220, vol. 1.

Alteration in Musnad Hamidi

In Musnad Hamidi, a hadith narrated from Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is as follows:

((رایت رسول الله لك اذا افتتح الصلوة رفع يديه حذو منكبيه واذا اراد ان يركع و بعد ما يرفع راسه من الركوع ولا يرفع بين السجدين ))

Meaning: I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ when he started the prayer, he would raise his hands up to the level of his shoulders, and when he intended to bow and when he raised his head from bowing, he would raise his hands, but he would not raise his hands between the two prostrations. The manuscript of Musnad Hamidi clearly shows this narration in this manner. Furthermore, the narration in Musnad Hamidi with the chain “Hadathana Sufyan qala hadathana az-Zuhri” is also narrated, and with the same chain and the same wording, this hadith is also present

. However, the most unfortunate thing is that when the famous Deobandi hadith scholar Maulvi Habib ur Rahman Azmi published Musnad Hamidi, he altered the text, which turned this hadith from evidence for raising the hands to evidence against raising the hands. You may also observe. ((رایت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم اذا افتح الصلوة رفع يديه حذو منكبيه واذا اراد ان يركع وبعد ما يرفع راسه من الركوع فلا يرفع ولا بين السجدين )) (مسند حمیدی ص 277 ج 2)

The Miracle of Divine Power

But Allah Almighty has taken the responsibility of protecting His religion. He caused such an intervention through His power in the case of the Deobandi Muhaddith that despite this distortion, it could not become evidence for Deoband. That is, the link of Imam Sufyan between Imam Hamidi and Zahri was lost, which was later discovered in the suspended book “Illa Azmi” because even in the error chart at the end of the book, this mistake was not corrected.

In short, the Deobandi scholars used this narration as evidence but claimed that the link of Sufyan was omitted unintentionally (Noor al-Sabah, p. 59). Following this, the researcher of the era, Maulana Irshad-ul-Haq Asri, may Allah preserve him, said that if due to the mistake of the person joining the letters, the words of Sufyan can be omitted, then why is it impossible for the scribe to make a mistake in mentioning some words here.

To escape this objection, when the Deobandis published Musnad Hamidi twice from Gujranwala, they corrected the chain of narration by inserting the link of Imam Sufyan in between. انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون (It means that the publisher of Maktaba Hanafiya committed distortion upon distortion.)

We mention this anecdote relevant to the topic, whose detail is as follows: A person from the Barelvi school of thought came to the humble writer and said that I have come to know that in Musnad Hamidi there is a correct, raised, connected chain narration of a hadith about not raising the hands. Upon his question, I involuntarily laughed. He asked why I laughed. I said I remembered a joke, which is: “In a village, a man claimed to be a Sayyid. While in the same village, a real Sayyid also lived. He filed a case of insult to the Sayyids against the fake Sayyid, and the fake Sayyid was summoned to court. Both parties appeared in court. The judge asked the defendant to provide evidence of his Sayyid status. On the next date, he presented a witness. The witness testified that indeed this man is a Sayyid. The judge asked how he knew he was a Sayyid. The witness replied, ‘Sir, he became a Sayyid right before our eyes.'” After telling this joke, I said that we know very well that this hadith was fabricated right before our eyes. Upon this reply, he bowed his head in embarrassment.

Alteration in Ibn Majah

Some have counted Sunan Ibn Majah among the Sahih Sittah. It is a textbook and commonly used book; it contains authentic, weak, and even fabricated narrations. It includes a narration transmitted from Hazrat Jabir رضي الله عنه:

‘‘من كان له امام فقرأة الامام له قرأة ’’

Whoever is the imam (in prayer), the imam’s recitation is his recitation.

The Hanafi school uses this narration to argue for abandoning recitation behind the imam.

The scholars of Ahl al-Hadith responded that in its chain, Jabir al-Ju’fi is a liar narrator.

Instead of accepting the truth, the Hanafis altered Sunan Ibn Majah itself.

The original chain was like this

((حدثنا على بن محمد ثنا عبيدالله بن موسى عن الحسن بن صالح عن جابر عن ابي الزبير عن جابر))

It was changed to جابر و عن ابی الزبیر (Jabir wa ‘an Abi al-Zubair); the addition of the letter “و” (wa) between Jabir and Abi al-Zubair was made to give the impression that Jabir al-Ju’fi is not unique in narrating it, but his trustworthy follower Abi al-Zubair is also present, who is a fellow student of Jabir al-Ju’fi, and both narrate from Hazrat Jabir رضي الله عنه. انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون
Whereas the scholars know that if there was a “و” (wa) in Ibn Majah and both Jabir al-Ju’fi and Abi al-Zubair were fellow students, then instead of جابر و عن ابی الزبیر (Jabir wa ‘an Abi al-Zubair), it would have been جابر وابی الزبیر (Jabir wa Abi al-Zubair). The purpose of these remarks is to show that the one who added the letter “و” (wa) is not only a traitor and dishonest but also ignorant and inexperienced.

The Chain of Narration of Ibn Majah in the Justice of the Muhaddithin

This narration has been narrated by many other respected Muhaddithin besides Ibn Majah. But all of them have narrated جابر عن ابی الزبیر (Jabir ‘an Abi al-Zubair) only. See

Testimony of the Household

Even the Hanafi scholars have narrated this tradition from Jabir on the authority of Abi al-Zubair; see

. Furthermore, Maulana Abdul Haq Lakhnawi Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) has also transmitted from Ibn Majah through Jabir on the authority of Abi al-Zubair. Imam al-Kalam, p. 187, and Al-Ta’liq al-Mumajjid, p. 96; Allama Zailai Hanafi has also narrated in Nasb al-Rayah, vol. 2, p. 7, from Jabir on the authority of Abi al-Zubair without the letter waw, which is living proof that the addition of the waw in Ibn Majah is the dishonesty and distortion of Diabna, and they have tampered with the chain of narration and tried to make a fabricated tradition attributed to the Prophet believable. انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون

Distortion in Abu Awana

Imam Abu Awana narrated in his Musnad under the title رفع اليدين في افتتاح الصلاة قبل التكبير بحذا منكبيه والركوع ولرفع راسه من الركوع وانه لا يرفع بين السجدتين‘‘ a Marfu’ hadith of Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).

((رایت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم اذا فتح اصلاة رفع يديه حتى يحاذى بهما وقال بعضهم حذو منكبيه واذا اراد ان يركع وبعد ما يرفع راسه من الركوع ولا يرفعهما وقال بعضهم ولا يرفع بين السجدتين والمعنى واحد))

That is, I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ when he started the prayer, he would raise both hands until they were level with each other; some narrators said he raised them to shoulder level. And when he intended to bow and after rising from bowing, he would raise his hands, and sometimes he would not raise his hands. Some narrators have said that he did not raise his hands between the two prostrations, and their meaning is the same. But it is very sad that when the Hanafis published Musnad Abu Awana, they deliberately changed the letter waw in من الركوع ولا يرفعھما. Musnad Abu Awana, p. 90, vol. 2; after that, this hadith was used as evidence for not raising the hands. Noor al-Sabah, page 53.

Comment without comment:

Firstly: Imam Abu Awana mentioned this hadith in the chapter of raising the hands.

Secondly: To understand the text of the hadith, consider its words carefully to determine whether (ولا یرفعهما) relates to what precedes as a reward or if it relates to the following sentence. In fact, Imam Abu Awana has described the difference among narrators regarding the manner of raising the hands, where some have said ’’حتی یھازی بھما‘‘ and others have said ’’حذو منکبیہ‘‘. Similarly, the same intention is present later, where some have said “ولا يرفعهما ‘‘” and others have said “’’ولا يرفع بين السجدتین‘‘“. This is also supported by the Imam’s words “والمعنی واحد” (and the meaning is one), indicating that whether it is said ’’ ولا يرفعهما‘‘ or ’’ولا یرفع بين السجدتين‘‘, there is no essential difference in meaning. The question is, if ’’ولا یر فعهما‘‘ is the reward for what precedes, as the Deobandis say, then after that, by mentioning some in ’’ وقال بعضهم ولا يرفع بين السجدتين والمعنی واحد‘‘, which sentence is being referred to for the indication of difference and dispute? And what are the two words here that it is said the meaning is one? If there are not two words here, then what is the meaning of saying the meaning is one?

Thirdly: Imam Abu Awana narrated this hadith through the chain of Abdullah bin Ayyub, Sa’dan bin Nasr, and Shu’aib bin Amr Ghair Hum, which clearly means that from Sufyan, through Abdullah Sa’dan and Shu’aib, etc., this hadith is narrated in these words. Now see how any hadith comes through their chain in other hadith books. Accordingly,

contains the same hadith through Sa’dan from Sufyan, with the words as follows:
((ان رسول الله من كان اذا افتتح الصلاة رفع يديه حتى يحاذى منكبيه واذا اراد ان . يركع و بعد ما يرفع من الركوع ولا يرفع بين السجدتين )) Compare these words with the authentic narration of Abu Awana; here there is no mention of disagreement among the narrators, meaning that in Sa’dan’s narration, the words of ’’ حتى يحاذی منکبیہ اور ولا يرفع بين السجدتین ‘‘ are present. This method is also clear evidence that ’’ولا یرفعهما ‘‘ refers merely to mentioning the disagreement among narrators.

Then, Imam Abu Awana narrated this hadith through the chain of Sufyan bin Uyaynah, and Sufyan’s narration is present in ( صحیح مسلم ص 168 ج 1 ). The words are ” ولا يرفعهما بين السجدتین”. In short, this sentence relates to the subsequent phrase, but the advocates of Khunfiyyah altered it in Musnad Abu Awana and used it as evidence for not raising hands. انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون

Distortion in Sahih Muslim

Malik Sirajuddin & Sons published Sahih Muslim in 1376 AH based on the research of Maulvi Muhammad Idris Kandhlawi and others from Deobandi. To support Hanafi jurisprudence, the following chain of narration was deliberately fabricated as part of a planned scheme.

((حدثني عبيد الله بن معاذ العنبری قال تا ابی قال نا محمد بن عمرو الليثي عن عمرو بن مسلم بن عمارة عن بن اكيمه الليثى قال سمعت سعيد بن المسيب يقول سمعت ام سلمة زوج النبي الخ ))

Whereas the correct chain of narration of the hadith is as follows.

(حدثني عبيد الله بن معاذ العنبري قال نا ابي قال نا محمد بن عمرو الليثي عن عمر ابن مسلم بن عمار بن اكيمة الليثى قال سمعت سعيد بن المسيب يقول سمعت ام سلمة زوج النبي )

This same narration (Abu Dawood p. 30 vol. 2, Tirmidhi with Tahfah p. 365 vol. 2, Nasa’i Mujtaba p. 194 vol. 2, Ibn Majah p. 234, Baihaqi p. 266 vol. 9, Al-Muhalli by Ibn Hazm p. 3 vol. 6, and Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar p. 334 vol. 2, etc.) is narrated from the chain of Sahih Muslim, and in all of these, there is definitely no intermediary of Ibn Akimah al-Laithi after Umar ibn Muslim ibn Ammar.

Reason for Distortion

In Jami` at-Tirmidhi with Tuhfat, page 254, volume 1, there is a hadith narrated from Hazrat Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) from which the second party derives the argument for abandoning recitation behind the Imam.

However, in its chain of narration, Ibn Akimta al-Laithi is a narrator. The alteration in Sahih Muslim was made so that Ibn Akimta al-Laithi would be considered a narrator of Sahih Muslim. Scholars are requested to study Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s compilation “Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 410, volume 7” where he mentions that Ibn Akimta al-Laithi is a narrator of the Sunan al-Arba‘ah but not of Sahih Muslim; if he were part of this chain, he would have mentioned it. Furthermore, if he were part of the chain, it would have been narrated as ‘an ‘Imara ibn Akimta al-Laithi’ or ‘an Ibn Akimta al-Laithi’, but here it is ‘an Ibn Akimta al-Laithi’, which proves that the one who altered the narration is not only a traitor but also inexperienced and ignorant.

Alteration in Mustadrak al-Hakim

In Mustadrak Hakim, from the chain of Aban bin Yazid from Qatadah from Zararah bin Awfa from Saad bin Hisham, there is a narration from Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) regarding the number of Witr rak’ahs, which is textually anomalous.

The words of this hadith were:

((عن عائشة قالت كان رسول الله ہوتر بثلاث لا يقعد الا في آخر هن ))

That is, the Mother of the Believers, Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray three rak’ahs of Witr and would not sit except at the end. However, when the Hanafis published Mustadrak Hakim, they changed ’’لا یقعد‘‘ to ’’لا يسلم‘‘. With this alteration, these people achieved two objectives with one arrow.
(1) According to the Hanafis, there is Tashahhud in the second rak’ah of Witr, whereas this narration negated Tashahhud; therefore, these faithful people changed the words and distorted the meaning of the text to contradict their own narration.
(2) According to the Hanafis, since there should be no Salam in the middle of Witr, for this purpose they changed ’’ لا يقعد‘‘ to “لا یسلم‘‘,” which negated the Salam in the second rak’ah of Witr prayer. Thus, by altering the text of the narration, these people supported the Hanafi position. انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون

Testimony of the Muhaddithin

Imam Bayhaqi has narrated this hadith in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra (p. 28, vol. 3) with the chain from Al-Mustadrak, whose words are ’’ لا يقعد‘‘. Allama Zahmi in Talkhees Mustadrak (p. 304, vol. 1), Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (p. 385, vol. 2) and Talkhees al-Habeer (p. 15, vol. 2) have quoted it from Al-Mustadrak and have narrated the words exactly as ’’لا يقعد‘‘.

Testimony of the Hanafis

Allama Naimvi Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) has quoted it from Al-Mustadrak in Asar al-Sunan (p. 206) but has stated the words as ’’ لا یقعد‘‘ and in his marginal note on Ta’leeq al-Ta’leeq he clarified that Imam Bayhaqi said in Ma’rifat al-Sunan that the narration of Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) is in the manner of Aban with the words ’’لا یقعد‘‘. Therefore, the correct words in this narration are ’’لا یقعد‘‘ instead of ’’لا یسلم‘‘.

Note: Zaraqim was mistaken in Deen al-Haqq (p. 235) by attributing the aforementioned phrase to Maulvi Faiz Ahmad Sahib. Readers should correct this.

Distortion in Musnad Ahmad

Hanafis published Musnad Ahmad from Hyderabad Deccan. As usual, these people also altered and diluted it. The well-known proverb is that “a thief may escape by stealing, but not by deception.” The same thing happened here; the mentioned alterations were made for some purpose or reason, but this praise was rendered meaningless, or perhaps there is some purpose behind it that the writer could not understand. Anyway, let us observe the words of the hadith.

Hazrat Amr bin Murrah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that a person came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said that he has recited the Kalima, prays, gives Zakat, and fasts. The Prophet ﷺ said:

(( من مات على هذا كان مع النبين والصديقين والشهداء يوم القيمة هكذا و نصب تحقه حنفيه اصبعيه ))

Whoever dies upon these deeds will be on the Day of Judgment in the company and companionship of the Prophets, the truthful, and the martyrs, showing his two fingers upright like this. Al-Hadith: Hafiz Ibn Kathir has narrated this hadith with chain of narration from Musnad Ahmad in his Tafsir (p. 523 vol. 1). Similarly, Allama Suyuti has narrated it in Dur al-Manthur (p. 182 vol. 2), and Allama Haithami has narrated it in Majma’ al-Zawa’id (p. 46 vol. 1 and p. 150 vol. 8) from Musnad Ahmad. Further discussion on this hadith is in the writer’s Takhrij Muhammadiya Pocket Book (unpublished). But alas, the sole custodians of the Prophetic knowledge ﷺ have excluded this narration from Musnad Ahmad.

اناللہ واناالیہ راجعون

Chapter Two

The False Storm of Sahib Hidayah

In the words of the Prophet, the most fearless and bold in distortion is Sahib Hidayah; he carves and adds to the prophetic words for his specific purposes and then uses these carved and added words as evidence to defame the opposing party, which is his usual method and practice.
(1) Sahib Hidayah states in the book Al-Hajj, chapter on Hajj on behalf of others, that (( وبذلك تشهد الاخبار الواردة فى الباب كحديث الخثعمية فانه قال فيه حجى عن ابيك و اعتمری ))

Meaning, the hadiths narrated in this regard, such as the Nuthamiyah hadith, testify to this, where the Prophet (peace be upon him) told him to perform Hajj and Umrah on behalf of his father.
This hadith

is also found in the four Sunan, but in no narration does the word ” و اعتمری “ appear.
Allama Zailai Hanafi states:

((هذا وهم من المصنف فان حديث الخثعمية ليس فيه ذكرالاعتمار ))

Meaning, this is the author’s misconception because the Nuthamiyah hadith does not mention Umrah. Hafiz Ibn Hajar states:

(( ولم أرفى شى من طريق الخثعمية الأمر بالاعتمار فالظاهر انه انتقال من المصنف))

Meaning, in the hadith of Hazrat Nuthamiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), there is no mention of the command to perform Umrah; evidently, this is a self-invented word by the author of Hidayah.

Hidayah states in the book Al-Ilahiyyah, chapter on published issues:

((لقوله عليه السلام في ذلك الحديث فاعلمهم ان لهم ما للمسلمين وعليهم ما على المسلمين))

Meaning, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Make them understand that what is for the Muslims is for them, and what is upon the Muslims is upon them.”

However, the narration to which Sahib Hidayah referred does not contain these words. Allama Zailai Hanafi states that he does not know the hadith to which the author of Hidayah referred; no narration with this meaning has passed above, but the hadith of Hazrat Mu’adh (may Allah be pleased with him) in the book of Zakat and that of Barirah (may Allah be pleased with her) in the book of Seerah have passed, and none of them contain these words.

.
In the book As-Sawm, chapter on what necessitates Qada and Kaffarah, the hadith about intercourse during fasting is brought as Kaffarah, at the end of which these words are also mentioned: ’’ولا یجزی احدا بعدك‘‘ meaning “After you, no one else is permitted.”

Although the Kaffarah hadith

and many hadith books contain it, none of them have the words ’’ولا یجزی احدا بعدك‘‘ . Allama Zailai Hanafi states: ’’لم اجده في شي من طرق الحديث‘‘

meaning these words absolutely do not exist in the chains of the hadith; Hafiz Ibn Hajar also states the same.

But Sahib Hidayah, while fabricating these words, writes at the end: “وهو حجة على الشافعی‘‘” first added these words to the text of the hadith himself, then used it as evidence to refute Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him), claiming it is proof against him; “اللہ اکبر“.
In the book At-Talaq, chapter on Zihar, he writes: “لقوله عليه السلام واقع في ظهار قبل الكفار استغفر الله‘‘” meaning the Prophet (peace be upon him) told the man who had committed Zihar with his wife and then had intercourse before paying Kaffarah to seek forgiveness from Allah.

This hadith is found in the four Sunan and many hadith books, and due to evidence, it is considered Hasan; indeed, Allama Albani declared it Sahih.

However, no book commands seeking forgiveness. This is an addition by Sahib Hidayah himself. Hafiz Ibn Hajar states: (( لم اجده في شي من طرقه ذكر الاستغفار)) meaning these words do not exist in the chains of the hadith.

In the book Al-Iman, while refuting Imam Shafi’i, he states that even if someone swears unintentionally, Kaffarah is required, giving as evidence: ((لقوله ﷺ جدهن جدا وهزلهن جدا النكاح والطلاق واليمين )) meaning intention and joking have the same ruling in three matters: marriage, divorce, and oath.

This hadith is narrated in Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah (Talaq), and Tirmidhi (An-Nikah), but in all of them, the word “Raj’ah” is used instead of “Yamin” (oath), so it seems Sahib Hidayah changed “Raj’ah” to “Yamin” for his own benefit. Allama Zailai

, Ibn Hammam

, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar

have refuted Sahib Hidayah.
In the book Al-Buyu’, chapter on published issues, while narrating a weak hadith about trading dogs, he states:

((ولنا عليه الصلاة والسلام نهى عن بيع الكلب الأكلب صيدا او ما شية))

Meaning our evidence is the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) prohibition of buying and selling dogs except hunting dogs and dogs used for guarding animals.

However, this narration is found in Sunan Tirmidhi, chapter “ما جاء في كراهية ثمن الكلب والسنور‘‘,” but it does not contain the words “aw mashiyyah (herd dog).”
Allama Zailai

and Ibn Hammam

have called it weak in their own style. Hafiz Ibn Hajar states: (( لم اجده بهذا اللفظ)) meaning he did not find this narration with these words.

In the book Adab al-Qadi, a hadith is mentioned: ((انما بنيت المساجد لذکر الله تعالى والحكم)) meaning the Prophet (peace be upon him) said that mosques are built only for the remembrance of Allah and for making decisions.

This collection of words is not found in any hadith book; if the order of words is ignored, the hadith is present in Sahih Muslim, but the words ’’ وللحكم ‘‘ are not there.

Hafiz Zailai states: ((غریب بهذا اللفظ واخرجه مسلم ليس فيه الحكم))

This narration is weak. Muslim narrated it, but the words ’’اللحکم‘‘ (Qada) are not present. Hafiz Ibn Hajar said the same.

Allama Ibn Hammam has similarly criticized it. (فتح القدیر ص 370 ج 6)
Maulana Muhammad Junagadhi (may Allah have mercy on him) states: Actually, Sahib Hidayah had two tasks here: one, to refute the Shafi’i school that it is disliked for the Qadi to sit in the mosque for judgment; second, to prove his own school that the Qadi openly sits in the mosque for judgments. The learned author read one word in a hadith that served both purposes. The Shafi’i school was refuted, the Hanafi school prevailed, and the banner of victory was raised. Although lying on the Prophet (peace be upon him) is a grave sin, the protection of the school of thought is such a strange thing that it does not allow anyone else to be respected except the one whose school is followed.

In the book Al-Karahiyyah, chapter on sale, he states that according to Imam Abu Hanifah, selling the sacred land (Ard Haram) is disliked, then gives as evidence: ((لانبی حنفية قوله عليه السلام الا ان مكة حرام لا تباع رباعها ولا تورث)) meaning Imam Abu Hanifah’s evidence is the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) statement that Mecca is sacred and neither its houses should be sold nor given as inheritance.

First, look at the meaning of this hadith; it refers not to the land but to the house, as Ibn Hammam clarified in Fath al-Qadeer with reference to Qamus. Secondly, the author added the word ’’لاتورث‘‘ himself in the text of the narration, although it is not present in any narration. Hafiz Ibn Hajar strongly refuted this addition.

Note that even without this word, the narration is weak and defective. For details, see

.
At the mentioned page, it is stated that renting out the sacred land is not permissible; the evidence given is: (( لقوله عليه السلام من اجرارض مكة فكانما أكل الربا)) meaning the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) statement that whoever rents out the land of Mecca has consumed usury.

First: No authentic narration contains these words.
Second: In fabricated and weak narrations where this collection of words is found, instead of ’’ اكل الربا‘‘, the words ’’كل النار‘‘ are present.

But Sahib Hidayah altered the text of the narration, changing ”نار“ to ”ربا“. اناللہ وانا الیہ راجعون۔
In کتاب الصلوۃ باب ما يفسد الصوم, while representing his school, he gives as evidence for praying in the desert (jungle) with seventeen rows: (( لقوله عليه السلام اذا صلى احدكم فى الصحرا فليجعل بين يديه سترة )) meaning the Prophet (peace be upon him) said that when any of you prays in the jungle, he should keep seventeen rows in front of him.

This hadith is narrated from many companions, but none contain the words ’’فی الصحرا‘‘. Ibn Hammam in Fath al-Qadeer p. 354 vol. 1 and Zailai

have called this word strange. Hafiz Ibn Hajar states: ‘لم أره بقيد الصحرا‘‘ meaning there is no restriction of desert in the prophetic hadith.

Ten Complete Deceptions

These ten deceptions have been quoted with references from the book (Daryaat Muhammadi) of the late Salafi scholar Maulana Muhammad Sahib Juna Garhi. Besides these, the author has mentioned many other examples; discerning readers may refer to them. However, our task is not to cover all but to highlight a handful from the many.

One by the Hanafis Following the Footsteps of Hidayah

Now let us listen to examples of other Hanafi researchers’ additions and modifications in the words of the Prophetic Hadith. Allama Ibn Humam, Mashallah, is the commentator of Hidayah. The Hanafis consider him an absolute investigator and a Mujtahid in the school of thought; his expertise in Hadith is also claimed. After discussing the recommendation of offering two rak’ahs of Nafl prayer after Sa’i, he states that when one finishes Sa’i, it is recommended to offer two rak’ahs of Nafl prayer. Then, citing its evidence, he says: ((روى المطلب بن ابي وداعة قال رايت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حين فرغ من سعيه جاء حتى اذا حاذى الركن فصلى ركعتين في حاشية المطاف وليس بينه وبين الطائفين احد ))

Meaning, Mubarak bin Abi Wada’ah (RA) narrates that he saw the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) after finishing Sa’i between Safa and Marwah, coming to the House of Allah and offering two rak’ahs of prayer at the edge of the Mataf; there was no one between him and those performing Tawaf. This narration has been reported by Ahmad, Ibn Majah, and Ibn Hibban.

Undoubtedly, this Hadith is present in Musnad Ahmad, p. 399, vol. 6; Abu Dawood, p. 160, vol. 2 (2008); Nasa’i, p. 34, vol. 2; Ibn Majah (2958); Ibn Hibban (Mawared) 415; and Baihaqi, p. 273, vol. 2, etc. However, this narration relates not to offering two rak’ahs after finishing Sa’i but rather after finishing Tawaf. The words of the Hadith are ’’حين فرغ من سبعہ‘‘, but Allama Ibn Humam, by a superficial act of imitation, changed ’’سبعہ ‘‘ to “Sa’iyah” (Sa’i), which distorted the meaning of the Hadith and provided an excuse to perform Nafl prayers after Sa’i instead of Tawaf.
In Hanafi Fiqh books, a narration is presented with these words:

((ثلث من اخلاق النبوة تعجيل الافطار وتاخير السحور ووضع الكف على الكف تحت السرة ))

Meaning, three things are from the habits of Prophethood: hastening to break the fast, delaying the pre-dawn meal (Suhoor), and placing the right hand below the left hand under the navel during prayer.

Whereas the words ’’وضع الكف على الكف تحت السرة‘‘ are absolutely not in this narration.

In short, the addition of ’’ تحت السره ‘‘ was made by the Hanafi jurists themselves in the text of the narration. Allama Ibn Najim acknowledged in Al-Bahr that the words they mentioned are absolutely not found in the Hadith books.
(3) Sheikh Abdul Haq Dehlavi was a well-known advocate and supporter of negation. These gentlemen remember him with the title of Muhaddith. He is also the commentator of the famous Hadith book Mishkat. He mentioned a Hadith with these words: ((قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من صلى على ميت في المسجد فلا اجر له)) meaning that whoever offers the funeral prayer in the mosque over the deceased will have no reward or recompense.

He also translated it into Persian, although regardless of the chain’s authenticity, the words

are absolutely not present in this narration; rather, the words are

.

Maulvi Sir Faraz Khan Safdar is a renowned and eminent scholar of the Deobandi school of thought, who is also titled Sheikh al-Hadith. He is active in refuting Wahhabism and is intensely hostile towards it. Spiritually, Maulvi Ismail, the author of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith, is his respected father. Regarding the position on washing the private parts and putting water in the nose during Ghusl Janabat, he represents the stance of Imam Abu Hanifa and says that

there is a narration: (الصعيد الطيب وضوء المسلم الى ان قال فاذا وحدت الماء فامسه جلد وشعرك الخ )

However, the words ’’و شعرک‘‘ are not present in Abu Dawood at all, while Maulana’s primary argument is based on these words.
Hazrat Maulana Irshad al-Haq Asri (may Allah preserve him) says that Maulana Sahib earlier on page 89 also argued from ’’تحت كل شعرة جنابة‘‘ that every hair is under the state of Janabat, and since there are hairs inside the nose as well, the effect of Janabat applies there too. From this argument, you may understand that the addition of “wa sha’rak” in the mentioned Al-Sadr narration also supports this and the purpose is that one of the proofs for the obligation of putting water in the nose is this. انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون 

Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Sahib’s student Rashid and a well-known member of Maulvi Ismail’s gang is Hafiz Habibullah Dervi, who is a symbol of enmity towards Sunnah and hostility towards Ahl al-Hadith. Before going into the details of his tampering, a brief introduction is necessary. The summary of the detail is that

there is a narration from Hazrat Malik bin Hawarith (RA) mentioning the raising of hands between prostrations. This narration is weak in terms of chain, but due to a copying error in some history, it was distorted, making it appear authentic at first glance because in the chain, Imam Qatadah was narrated by Imam Saeed bin Abi ‘Aroobah, but the copyist mistakenly wrote Sha’bah instead of Saeed. The principle of Hadith is that when Imam Sha’bah narrates from Imam Qatadah, his tadlis (concealment) ends. The scholars of Ahl al-Hadith have repeatedly responded that Sha’bah is a copying error, citing that Hafiz Ibn Hajar has transmitted this narration from Sunan Nasa’i with Saeed bin Abi ‘Aroobah in it

, and in Musnad Imam Ahmad, p. 436, vol. 3, it is also Saeed.

This fact was also acknowledged by the great Muhaddith Maulana Anwar Shah Sahib (may Allah have mercy on him).

In response, Dervi Sahib says that Allama Kashmiri’s good opinion about Hafiz Ibn Hajar is not correct because just as Sha’bah is present in Nasa’i, it is also present in Sahih Abu Awana. It is evident that the mention of Sha’bah is neither wrong in Nasa’i nor in Sahih Abu Awana, but Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s suspicion and Allama Kashmiri’s opinion are baseless.

However, this is incorrect because there is no such narration in Abu Awana mentioning raising hands between prostrations with a chain including Imam Sha’bah narrating from Qatadah.

جو ماشاء اللہ

In short, the mention of raising the hands between the two prostrations in the method of Imam Sha’bah, attributed to Abu Awana Darwi, is a fabricated lie.

Chapter Three

The innovators, Deobandis and Barelvis, take pride in being Hanafi. In terms of homeland, these people are Iraqi, and Iraq is the land of tribulation, as the truthful informer صلى الله عليه وسلم has informed. Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar رضي الله عنه narrates that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم prayed the Fajr prayer, then moved and came upon a group of people and said: O Allah, bless our Medina, bless our Mudd and Sa’ (measures), bless our Sham and Yemen. A person said: O Messenger of Allah ﷺ, (pray for) Iraq? He صلى الله عليه وسلم remained silent and then said: O Allah, bless our Medina, bless our Mudd and Sa’, O Allah bless our Haram and bless our Sham and Yemen. (Upon this, the person said,) “والعراق یا رسول الله‘‘  O Messenger of Allah, also pray for Iraq.” The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ((من ثم يطلع قرن الشيطان وتهيج الفتن )) From there, the horn of Satan will rise, and tribulations and corruption will be born.

All the narrators of this hadith are trustworthy, says Allama Haithami Hanafi.

This narration is established from Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar رضي الله عنه through multiple chains. See,

This hadith is also narrated from Hazrat Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه, whose narrators have been declared trustworthy by Allama Mundhiri.

Exactly as predicted by Mukhabir Sadiq (peace be upon him), seditions and corruptions originated from the land of Iraq. The century of Satan rose from here. So if you take a cursory glance at the books of Rijal and Tiraajim, you will have no choice but to accept that ninety percent of the great deceivers and fabricators of hadith belonged to this land. Hazrat Abdullah bin Amr (may Allah be pleased with him) says: ((ان من العراق قوما يكذبون و يسخرون)) Indeed, there are some people in Iraq who lie and mock the religion.

The followers of the followers (Taba’ Tabi’in) also realized from their experience the nature of the people of Iraq. Imam Tawus says:
((اذا حدثك العراقي مائة حديث فاطرح تسعه و تسعين )) When an Iraqi transmits a monotheistic narration, discard ninety-five of them.
Imam Hisham bin Urwah says: ((اذا حدثك العراقي بالف حديث فالق تسعمائة و تسعين و كن من الباقي في شك )) That is, if an Iraqi transmits a thousand hadiths, discard nine hundred ninety (990) of them, and remain doubtful about the remaining ten. Imam Al-Muhaddithin Imam Zahri says: (( ان في حديث أهل الكوفة دغلا كثير ))

Meaning, there is a great deal of deceit, trickery, and fraud in the hadiths of the people of Kufa. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) says: ((ليس لحديث اهل الكوفة نور)) Meaning, there is no light in the narrations of the people of Kufa.

Leave aside the statements of these Imams; we present the spiritual progeny of the people of Kufa as proof of our claim, who, disregarding the fear of Allah, fabricated hadiths.

Maulvi Ismail has written a book called Tuhfa Ahl-e-Hadith of less than one hundred pages. On one page, he has fabricated several traditions. He writes: The Holy Prophet ﷺ does not even respond to the greeting of a man with an uncovered head. (Mishkat) When he performs wiping (Masah), he lifts the blessed turban slightly with one hand and performs wiping with the other hand. The Prophet ﷺ does not like to remain uncovered for so long as to remove the turban and place it down.

Commentary Without Commentary:

These two narrations were fabricated by Maulvi Abu Bilal Ismail; not only are they absent in Mishkat, but there is no such narration in the entire collection of hadith. On Sunday, October 17, 1999, at 7:30 AM, the writer of these lines visited Maulvi Ismail and introduced himself, saying that the servant of the book “Tuhfa Ahl-e-Hadith” has written a reply and could not find these hadiths; kindly show me these two narrations. Upon hearing this demand, Maulvi Ismail’s face turned pale. It became impossible for him to speak due to embarrassment and shame. Finally, he bowed his head and said that perhaps he had written something he heard somewhere, so at that moment he could not recall the reference. The writer then said that it is regrettable that you have written mere hearsay hadith in the book, and that too as evidence against an opponent ((كفى بالمرء كذب ان يحدث بكل ماسمع)) (Muslim). In response, Maulvi Ismail said, “Okay, what have you written about it?” The writer said that what he wrote is a bitter truth. However, our sincere advice is that you should confess and write to us that you yourself fabricated these narrations, which I will accept. Maulvi Ismail said, “You will publish an advertisement and defame me.” The writer promised not to publish any advertisement but said he would publish his confession in reply to “Tuhfa Ahl-e-Hadith.” Maulvi Ismail asked, “Is your intention only to defame and not to reform?” The writer replied that you have also caused disruption in the name of reform; otherwise, you could have said that Ahl-e-Hadith are like Shia. Maulvi Ismail said, “You Ahl-e-Hadith people are not like Shia.” However, he added that he had some urgent work to attend to and asked to come another day, promising to investigate those narrations and show them. The writer said he would not come himself but would send someone. Maulvi Ismail promised to meet on Sunday morning, October 25, 1999, after which the writer returned. As planned, the writer sent his nephew, Hakim Usman Abdul Rahman, who is a good Hanafi Deobandi and a worshipper at the same mosque where Maulvi Ismail leads prayers. However, Maulvi Ismail did not show these narrations to Hakim Usman Abdul Rahman but said to tell his uncle to publish the book, and he would write a reply. In short, Maulvi Ismail could not show these narrations because they do not exist at all in hadith books, and oral narrations are not considered proof. Even today, using our firm faith and God-given insight, we claim that this is Maulvi Ismail’s slander against the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. May Allah grant him the ability to repent.

Maulvi Muhammad Amin Safdar Okaravi Hanafi:

He is an active worker and prominent figure of the Mubtadiyeen Diobandi party. He is the author of several books refuting Ahl al-Hadith and is a master of the art of sophistry. Among the contentious issues, he has also written a booklet on the issue of Ameen, in which he states: Hazrat Abdullah bin Masood (may Allah be pleased with him) said that when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said Allahu Akbar, he would remain silent for a short while, and when he said ولا الضالین, he would remain silent for a short while, and when he stood for the second rak’ah, he would not remain silent but would say بلکہ الحمد للہ رب العالمین.

However, no such hadith is established from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم; this is Maulvi Amin Okaravi’s chest gazette.

Maulvi Habib ur Rahman Hanafi Deobandi Siddiqi Kandhlawi

He is the son of the renowned Deobandi scholar Mufti Ashfaq ur Rehman Kandhlawi (may Allah have mercy on him) and the author of several books, whose titles bear his epithets such as Expert Historian, Researcher and Critic, Sheikh al-Quran, and Imam al-Hadith, etc. In some treatises, he has also severely criticized the Ahl al-Hadith. He wrote a treatise on Fatiha Khalaf al-Imam in which he states that Imam Baihaqi narrated from Hazrat Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said (من ادرك الركوع مع الإمام فقد ادرك الركعة )

Whoever found rukoo’ with the Imam, he has completed a rak’ah.

However, this hadith with these words is not found in Baihaqi, nor anywhere in the entire hadith corpus.

Maulvi Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri:

Maulvi Muhammad Manwar Shah Kashmiri, a final investigator of the Deobandi circle, author of numerous books, and Sheikh al-Hadith of Darul Uloom Deoband, also wrote various treatises refuting Ahl al-Hadith on different issues. His eloquent lecture on Sunan Tirmidhi, published under the name ‘Urf al-Thazi’, in its chapter ما جاء فی تعجیل العصر‘, while advocating a certain sect, states: ((منها ما في ابي داؤد عن على ان وقت الاشراق من جانب طلوع الشمس بعد العصر )) Although these words are neither found in Abu Dawood nor in any other book of hadith. Hazrat Muhaddith Mubarakpuri states that (( قلت حديث على هذا بهذا اللفظ ليس في أبي داود البتة ولا في كتاب من كتب الحديث فعليه ان يثبت أولا كونه في أبي داود اوفى كتاب آخر من كتب الحديث بهذا اللفظ المذكور)) I say that with these words, there is no narration from Hazrat Ali Murtaza (may Allah be pleased with him) in Abu Dawood, nor does it exist in any book of hadith. Therefore, it is incumbent upon him to first establish these words from Abu Dawood or from any of the books of hadith.

In the recent past, he was a renowned Hanafi preacher and scholar. Undoubtedly, he was knowledgeable and loved monotheism. He was counted among the leaders of the sectarian party. He is the author of numerous books and journals in refutation of Ahl al-Hadith. He wrote a treatise on the issue of raising the hands (Raf’ al-Yadain) titled “Az al-Taharrin,” in which he established a continuous narration, stating: ((اخذ اهل الكوفة الصلوة عن ابراهيم النخعى و اخذ ابراهيم النخعي عن اسود بن يزيد عن أبي بكر الصديق عن النبي وهذا اخذ. عن جبریل وهو احد عن الله تبا رك وتعالى و ابراهيم النخعى لم يكن يرفع يديه الا في أول تكبير من الصلوة ثم لا يعود ))

This hadith is not found in any book.

Hafiz Habibullah Dervi:

His city is Hayat, from the Deobandi party’s Safdari group. He is Kauthari Al-Mashrab in the science of Hadith narration. He has written a book titled نور الصباح فی ترک رفع اليدين بعد الافتتاح’ on the issue of raising the hands during prayer. In it, he states that Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa learned the prayer without raising the hands from his teacher Hammad and others, who learned from Hazrat Ibrahim Nakha’i, who learned from Hazrat Aswad and Alqama, who learned from Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud, who learned from the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, who learned from Angel Jibreel عليه السلام, and Angel Jibreel received it from Allah Almighty. Therefore, Allah Almighty’s command is not to raise the hands during prayer.

This narration, Mashallah, is the invention of Darwi Sahib, which is absolutely not found in the books of Hadith.

Maulana Mahmood Hasan Khan Sahib:

They are counted among the elders of the Deoband family. Maulana Qasim Ali Nanotvi was a student of Shahid and the principal of Darul Uloom Deoband. Opposition to Ahl al-Hadith was deeply ingrained in his heart. He has a book on various Fiqh issues called “ایضاح الادلہ “, in which he writes: (( قول عبد الله بن مسعود رفع رسول الله مي فرفعنا وترك فتركنا ))

That is, the saying of Abdullah bin Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم used to raise his hands, so we also did. When he stopped, we also stopped. This fabricated narration is present in the famous Hanafi Fiqh book

. If any Hanafi follower and denier of Sunnah cannot prove its existence from the books of Hadith—similarly, Allama Husam al-Din Hanafi, who died in 714 AH, in his commentary on Hidayah, fabricated the following Hadith: ((عن عبد الله بن الزبير انه رأى رجلا يرفع يديه في الصلوة عند الركوع وعند الرفع فقال لا تفعل فان هذا شي فعله رسول الله ثم تركه ))

Hazrat Abdullah bin Zubair saw a person raising his hands while going into Ruku’ and while rising from Ruku’, so he said: Do not do this because the Prophet did this first and then abandoned it.

Allama Qasani Hanafi, who died in 585 AH, in his high-ranking book ‘بدائع‘‘ states: ((روی انهﷺ رای بعض اصحابه يرفعون أيديهم عند الركوع وعند الرفع الراس من الركوع فقال مالي اراكم رافعی ایدیکم کا نها از تاب خیل شمس اسکوافی الصلوة‘))

That is, it is narrated that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم saw some companions raising their hands while going into Ruku’ and while rising from Ruku’, so he said: What is wrong with me that I see you waving your hands like the tails of rebellious horses? Be calm in prayer. All of this is a flood of falsehood and lies. These people, disregarding the fear of Allah, have fabricated these hadiths boldly, without fear of the reckoning on the Day of Judgment.

Maulvi Ahmad Ali Saharanpuri:

He is counted among the innovators of Dioband and the commentators of Bukhari. Some Ahl al-Hadith criticized him for being overly passionate and having Murji’ah tendencies. He wrote a treatise on the issue of reciting Al-Fatiha behind the Imam (Al-Daleel Al-Qawi) in which he distorted the meaning of the hadith by quoting the following words: (( لا يقرأن احد منكم شيأ من القرآن اذا جهرت بالقرآن وقال الدارقطني رجاله كلهم ثقات الدليل القوى ۲۸) )

whereas the original words were “Al-Ayyam Al-Quran” between ’’ اذا جهرت القرأة‘‘. The exact wording was: (اذا جهرت بالقرأة الا بام القرآن)

However, the distinguished researcher of Dioband digested this contradictory phrase and used it as a basis to argue against reciting Al-Fatiha behind the Imam. There is no limit to this excess, distortion, and dishonesty.

Mulla Ali Qari Hanafi, commentator of Mishkat:

Mufti Azam of Al-Diyana, Mulla Ali Al-Qari Hanafi, representing his school of thought, wrote: ((وفيه حديث صريح أخرجه الدار قطني عن ابن عمر ان النبي له قال اذا صليت في اهلك ثم ادركت فصلها الا الفجر والمغرب )) meaning there is an explicit hadith in this regard narrated by Dar Qutni from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: When you pray at home, then if you join the congregation, pray again, except for the Fajr and Maghrib prayers

. Dar Qutni, let alone, cannot prove any Hanafi offspring from the entire collection of hadith.

Allama Haskafi Sahib in Dur Mukhtar:

He is counted among the few Hanafi jurists whose narrations are trusted. He is the commentator of Tanweer al-Absar; Maulvi Ismail himself takes pride in his book Dar Mukhtar, calling it the composition of Medina. A man of such stature was also engaged in fabricating hadiths, and at least when narrating fabricated and invented traditions, his conscience did not serve him well. We briefly point out a few narrations. (((۱) ان آدم افتخر بي وانا افتخر برجل من امتی اسمه نعمان و کنیته ابو حنيفة هو سراج امتى )) meaning the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said that Adam عليه السلام was proud of me, and I am proud of one of my followers whose name is Nu’man and his kunyah is Abu Hanifa, who is the shining lamp of my Ummah –

. At the same place, another falsehood is attributed that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ((ان سائر الانبياء يفتخرون بي وانا افتخر أبي حنيفة من احبه فقد احبنى ومن ابغضه فقد أبغضني )) meaning all the prophets are proud of me, and I am proud of Abu Hanifa; whoever loves him loves me, and whoever hates him hates me. (Dar Mukhtar) All these are fabricated and falsehoods.

Mulla Jiwan Usooli Hanafi:

He is the author of the Hanafi jurisprudence textbook ’’نور الانوار‘‘. In it, he narrates a hadith in these words: ((اشار عليه السلام بقوله الخمر لهم كا الخل لنا والخنزير لهم كالشاة لنا )), meaning that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم indicated in his statement that for them, alcohol is like vinegar for us, and for them, the pig is like a goat for us.

This is also a pure slander on the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم; no Abu Bazl or Abu Mughalatah can establish this narration.

Allama Ibn Humam:

The city of Hanafi jurists includes those whom Abu Bilal and others call muqallid mujtahids within the school of thought. The esteemed Ibn Humam, in the proof of the permissibility of wiping over the neck, states that Tirmidhi narrated from Hazrat Wa’il bin Hujr: ((ثم مسح على راسه ثلاثا و ظاهرا ذنيه ثلاثا و ظاهر رقبته )) meaning that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ wiped the blessed head three times, and three times wiped the outer part of the ears, and similarly wiped the neck three times.

Such a collection of words is not found in Tirmidhi, let alone the entire Hadith collections. This is authored by the mujtahid of the school, Mawlawi Ismail (Ibn Humam).

Sahib Hidayah:

He is counted among the Hanafi jurists who are a source of pride for all followers; he has narrated so many fabricated and contrived traditions that if we count them, they would make up forty collections of forty each, but our intention is not to enumerate them, only to indicate that he is also counted among the fabricators. Accordingly, while advocating for his own school, he says: (( لقوله عليه السلام من صلى خلف عالم تقى فكانما صلى خلف النبي )) meaning the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: Whoever prays following a pious scholar has prayed behind the Prophet.

There is absolutely no existence of this in the entire collection of hadith. This statement by the author of Hidayah was fabricated without fear of Allah. Hafiz Ibn Hajar has said in

“لم اجد‘‘ ” Mulla Ali al-Qari Hanafi said in (Fabrications 121) “’لا اصل لہ‘” Allama Zaili Hanafi wrote

“gharib” (strange), Allama Albani recorded ’’لا اصل لہ کہا ہے‘‘ as weak in hadith number 573, Allama Fatni said ’ الم اقف علیہ بھذا الفظ‘ in Tadhkirah 40.

Forty Jewels of Hanafi Jurisprudence

In the first chapter of this writing, we have presented ten such deceptions by the Hanafi Deobandis that they have committed in the books of Hadith. In the second chapter, we have described fifty such betrayals in which they have altered and added to the words of the Prophet in order to uphold their sect. In the third chapter, we have highlighted fifteen such narrations of the Hanafi Deobandis and the senior Hanafis, which they have fabricated on their own and falsely attributed to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.