Prayer Without a Head Cover
Definition of Sunnah:
Jhangvi Sahib, instead of giving evidence against praying without a head covering, first discusses the definition of Sunnah. It is unclear what relation the definition of Sunnah has with the issue under discussion. Nevertheless, he states that whatever the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) always did is Sunnah; whatever he did and then abandoned or did once and did not do again is not Sunnah.
The Response:
Firstly: Undoubtedly, the Hanafi position is that Sunnah is only that which is proven to be continuous. And even in this continuity, their stance is that the act must be as an act of worship. Accordingly, Maulana Zafar Ahmad Thanvi states that
(( لكن المواظبة لا تفيد السنية الا اذا كانت على سبيل العبادة وأما اذا كانت على سبيل العادة فتفيد الاستحباب والندب لا السنية كلبس الثوب والاكل باليمين ومواظبة النبي عل على التيامن كانت من قبيل الثاني فلا تفيد السنية كذا في شرح الوقاية ))
meaning continuity alone is not proof of an act being Sunnah unless that act is done as an act of worship. If any act was always done by the Prophet ﷺ as a habit, then it is mustahabb (recommended) and mandub (encouraged) but not Sunnah. For example, the Prophet ﷺ always wore clothes, always ate with his right hand, and always started ablution from the right side; all these acts are mustahabb but not Sunnah.
This passage is found in
.
From this, it is established that according to the Jhangvi group, even those acts which the Prophet ﷺ always did are not Sunnah. Rather, according to them, for an act to be considered Sunnah, it must first be approved by the jurists; what they declare Sunnah is Sunnah, and what they exclude from Sunnah is excluded. اناللہ وانا الیہ راجعون ‘ For example, according to Hanafi jurists, both Taraweeh and Adhan are Sunnah. Although the Prophet ﷺ did not always perform Taraweeh, and he never once called the Adhan in his lifetime. Conversely, Tahajjud and Duha prayers were always performed by the Prophet ﷺ, yet according to the Hanafis, these are not Sunnah for the Ummah but Nafl (voluntary). See Tuhfat al-Akhiyar pp. 22-23, Musnad H, Majmu’ah Rasa’il Lakhnawi 4/262.
Secondly: We ask, what is your evidence that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ eating with his right hand and starting ablution from the right side were habits and not acts of worship? These are all false excuses and ways to reject Sunnah.
Thirdly: According to Deobandi scholars, the Sunnahs of prayer are twenty-four (24) in number (Namaz Masnoon p. 310), and according to Barelvi scholars, they are twenty-six (26) (Namaz Ki Sab Se Bari Kitab p. 475). Therefore, according to Jhangvi’s position, for each of these numbers, a correct, connected, elevated hadith must be proven that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ always performed them until his last prayer, never abandoned them, and performed these acts as worship, not as habit. If Jhangvi can prove such hadiths for these twenty-four Sunnahs of prayer, then we will accept that Sunnah is only that which the Prophet always did, as Jhangvi has defined. But dear readers, remember that despite the combined efforts of all the Maraji (religious authorities) worldwide, they cannot provide such proof.
Fourthly: Any act proven from the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in whatever state or manner, whether done once or multiple times in his life, is Sunnah Khair al-Anam (the best of mankind’s Sunnah), provided it is not abrogated. We indicate the following Sunnahs which the Prophet ﷺ performed only once, yet the entire Ummah considers these acts Sunnah:
(1) The Prophet ﷺ migrated only once.
(2) The Prophet ﷺ personally built the mosque only once.
(3) The Prophet ﷺ traveled a long distance only once for preaching, to Ta’if.
(4) The Prophet ﷺ prayed inside the Ka’bah only once.
(5) The Prophet ﷺ sent a delegation for preaching only once, which resulted in the tragic incident of Bir Ma’una.
(6) The Prophet ﷺ led the prophets in prayer only once on the night of Mi’raj; so when Jesus (peace be upon him) descends and Imam Mahdi leads him in prayer,
will Imam Mahdi’s act be considered non-Sunnah?
(7) The Prophet ﷺ dug the trench only once; so is making trenches in jihad now non-Sunnah?
(8) According to Maulana Usmani, the solar eclipse occurred only once and the eclipse prayer was performed only once,
.
(9) The Prophet ﷺ visited his mother’s grave only once; so is visiting parents’ graves now impermissible?
(10) The Prophet ﷺ performed Hajj only once; so is performing Hajj in the same manner now non-Sunnah?
The Ten Complete Vows
We have compiled this list briefly; if we research these issues and gather their calamities and troubles, we could write a booklet twice the size of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith. In short, Jhangvi should clarify regarding these mentioned issues whether they are Sunnah or forbidden, unlawful, and innovations. Alongside this, Jhangvi should also prove with Quranic verses or connected, elevated Hadith that the actions performed once by the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم are unnecessary to follow and deviate from the path of the believers. Furthermore, that the obedience to the Prophet ﷺ and the exemplary conduct of the Beloved Prophet ﷺ in the verses is specific to those actions which he ﷺ performed continuously and consistently without abandonment.
Dear readers, remember that despite the combined strenuous efforts of the Marji’ah scholars worldwide, they cannot present any clear and explicit evidence on this matter.
My dear brothers! If Jhangvi’s group’s claim is accepted, faith in prophethood will be lost. Every selfish and innovator will reject the sayings and actions of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم by saying that these are only one or two incidents and therefore not Sunnah or actionable.
Jhangvi’s Objection:
Then you would call urinating while standing a Sunnah. Because in the Hadith it is mentioned that the Prophet urinated while standing.
Bukhari pp. 336, 36, 35 and there is not a single Hadith in Bukhari about urinating while sitting. Interestingly, there is no Hadith about urinating while sitting in Sahih Muslim either, but there is one about doing it while standing.
The Prophet ﷺ prayed while holding a baby.
The Prophet ﷺ unlocked the door during prayer (Abu Dawood). You consider all these actions Sunnah. How many times have you practiced these Sunnahs? Look brother, even if you have done these actions, they are still not Sunnah. This is what we say: not every action of the Prophet ﷺ is Sunnah. For example, he rinsed his mouth during ablution, and after ablution, he kissed his wife. These are not called Sunnah. Both actions belong to the Prophet ﷺ; one is Sunnah, the other is not. Similarly, reciting praise in prayer is Sunnah, but holding a baby is not Sunnah, although he did both. You also admit this. If both were Sunnah as you previously claimed, then all those Ahl al-Hadith who come to the mosque without holding a baby are among the neglecters of Sunnah, and those who do not kiss their wives after ablution are also among the neglecters of Sunnah.
Muhammadi:
Firstly: Either your memory is weak or you are deliberately misrepresenting. Because you first defined Sunnah as something that you have always done; an act done once or twice cannot be called Sunnah. But in the examples you presented, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم practiced two of them throughout his life: one is lifting the child while praying, because it contains the word “always,” which implies continuity; the second is kissing the wife. Can you prove with clear and explicit evidence that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم kissed his wife only once? If not, then certainly not. According to your stated definition, kissing the wife is also proven Sunnah. As for your claim that the original hadith says why the wife is not kissed after ablution, I ask: Did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم kiss his wife regularly after ablution without interruption, or did it happen only occasionally?
You deny continuity, but if you say it happened occasionally, then what objection do you have to it? Have you never kissed your wife in the state of ablution? If you say never immediately after ablution, then I ask: which word in the hadith means that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم kissed his wife immediately after ablution?
Secondly: We have already responded in detail to the hadith about sitting while urinating from Bukhari and others, and by the grace of Allah, we have provided proof from Bukhari itself. As for the matter that standing while urinating is the act of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم but not Sunnah, the real issue is that when the sayings of the Hanafis are claimed to be without chain by the Ahl al-Hadith, they feel great discomfort. To alleviate this discomfort, they mock the Sunnah to calm their hearts and find solace in these disgraceful acts.
Dear readers, this is not a joke with us but a mockery of the actions of the Messenger ﷺ, and God willing, they will be questioned about this on the Day of Judgment.
Dear brothers! In explaining this hadith, the great scholars of hadith and Hanafi jurists have given multiple interpretations. Listen to them as well. Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani says: But all these interpretations are weak and unlikely. Only two interpretations are better: one is that you had pain in your knee at that time, making sitting difficult, supported by a narration from Hakim and Bayhaqi. Although this narration is weak in chain. The second interpretation is that you urinated standing to show permissibility.
In this statement, he has rejected the other interpretations by considering these two better. Then he himself calls the first interpretation’s narration weak and attributes it to a cause. As for the second, there is no evidence at all. Therefore, the writer, due to insight, says that urinating standing due to excuse is permissible. Because there is no authentic hadith forbidding urinating standing. Maulana Usmani has acknowledged this fact in Dars Tirmidhi. If Jhangvi Sahib makes the excuse worse by asking to show the word “excuse” in the hadith, then we tell this blind follower that the hadith explicitly states that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم urinated standing on a stone.
In short, the stone is a strong indication of excuse because there is dirt on the stone.
Thirdly: Regarding lifting the child while praying, it is stated that the author of Dar al-Mukhtar called it disliked. Ibn Abidin, following up, says: “How can it be disliked when the hadith of lifting the child while praying is present in Bukhari and Muslim?” The strange answer given is that this hadith is abrogated, which is a rejected claim because the hadith claimed to be abrogated is from before Hijrah, and the hadith of lifting the child while praying is after Hijrah and is in Al-Bada’i. It is not disliked because the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had no other way in this matter; there was no one to protect Ummamah رضي الله عنها, or this act was done by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to explain permissibility. Such an act is not disliked even in our time if someone among us needs it; without need, it is disliked. Ibn Ameer al-Hajj has discussed this in detail in Hilya and then said that this prophetic act was to explain permissibility, and this is the correct and moderate approach (free from excess and deficiency), as Nawawi said.
In short, this act of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was out of necessity, and out of necessity, it remains Sunnah today. Your follower brother Maulvi Ghulam Rasool Saeedi Hanafi Barelvi, commentator of Sahih Muslim, says that in the circumstances in which this act was transmitted from the Prophet ﷺ, it is Sunnah in the light of those circumstances.
As for your claim that Ahl al-Hadith do not bring children to the mosque, brother, we do bring them and, when necessary, hold them in our laps, etc. But please check your own household. Your trusted book Dar al-Mukhtar states:
((لا يفسد ماء البئر ولا الثوب بانتفاضه ولا بعضه ما لم ير ريقه ولا صلاة حاملة ولو كبيرا ))
(If a dog falls into a well, its water will not become impure, nor will the purity of clothes be lost from its splashes until its saliva touches them, and praying while lifting it will not invalidate the prayer, even if the dog is large.)
Ibn Humam writes in the commentary of Hidayah:
((لو صلى حامل فارة حية جازت ))
Meaning, if a live rat is lifted and prayer is performed, it is permissible.
When we come to the mosque, following the example of the Prophet, we bring children along with us. So when you come to the mosque, do you follow the English custom of bringing rats and dogs along to adopt your jurisprudential issue?
Everyone has their own perspective, everyone has their own preference.
Everyone has their own destiny, everyone has their own preference.
Regarding the issue of unlocking the door during prayer, the answer is that in this very hadith, Hazrat Urwah bin Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him) states that (( ان الباب فی القبلة )), meaning the door of Hazrat Aisha’s (may Allah be pleased with her) chamber faced the Qiblah.
And in the narration of Nasai, it is explicitly mentioned that (( یصلی تطوعا )), meaning she was performing a voluntary prayer. Nasai 141 / Chapter on walking before the Imam facing the Qiblah… In these circumstances, when Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) knocked, the Prophet (peace be upon him) unlocked the door. It should be noted that Hazrat Aisha’s chamber was small. Maulana Usmani states: Hazrat Aisha’s chamber was also small, and continuous walking inside it was apparently not possible. Therefore, it is evident that the Prophet (peace be upon him) must have taken one and a half steps to open the door and then returned to his place, and such walking does not invalidate the prayer.
The narrowness of the chamber is also evident from this hadith in Bukhari where Hazrat Aisha says that when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) performed the Tahajjud prayer, I used to rest on the bed in front of him, and when he prostrated, he would press my feet, so I would pull them in.
Obviously, this was necessary due to the narrowness of the chamber. In short, if even today someone is performing a voluntary prayer in a small place and his wife or others knock, then taking one step and a half towards the Qiblah to unlock the door is Sunnah. But these self-appointed jurists do not understand this simple matter and, looking at it with a biased eye, criticize the Ahl al-Hadith.
Proof of Praying Bareheaded
It is narrated from Hazrat Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) that one day he was praying while wrapping one cloth around his body, and another cloth was placed nearby. When he finished the prayer, someone said, “You are praying in only one cloth, while another cloth is with you.” He said, “I want ignorant and foolish people like you to see me. (( رایت النبیﷺ یصلی کذا )) I have seen the Prophet ﷺ praying in the same way.”
Hazrat Umar bin Salmah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that ((انه رای النبی ﷺ يصلى في ثوب واحد في بيت ام سلمة قد القى طرفيه على عاتقيه ), meaning he saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم praying in one cloth at the house of Umm Salmah (may Allah be pleased with her), and he had placed both edges of the cloth on his shoulders.
also contains the words of Mutawashsha, whose meaning is that the opposite edges of the sheet were placed on the shoulders.
Hanafi: Brother!
Proving the turban from this hadith is forcing the issue; it is not necessary to show the word “bare head.” If there is one cloth, then the head is certainly covered. If a person wraps himself well inside a large sheet, then the head is also covered and the body as well. (p.39)
Muhammadi:
If you refuse to accept, we have no cure for that. Brother, the nakedness of the head is clear from this hadith, but you deny it and then argue that a large sheet… etc. Just as the hadith mentions one sheet, it also describes the manner of wrapping it, that its edges were thrown over the shoulders from opposite directions. Then in Bukhari, in the chapter on the contract of marriage on the judgment, Hazrat Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) prayed.
((قد عقده من قبل قفاه وثيابه موضوعة على المشجب ))
Meaning the waistcloth was tied on the saddle.
Now, take this manner and style and drape the cloth over the body and then over the head and show it? This is why your conscience was also blaming you while writing the mentioned text, which is clearly evident from your words “not necessary.” In these words, you admit the possibility of the head being naked.
Hanafi: Brother!
If there is no other cloth, one can pray in one cloth; this was explained by the Prophet (peace be upon him) to permit it.
Muhammadi:
First, you denied it, now you justify the statement.
The writer of these words states: The act which the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم has deemed permissible by his own action, who are you to oppose it? Those who write books against it and your jurists who call it disliked? As mentioned in
, praying bareheaded is disliked.
Hanafi: Brother!
You have already accepted that a one-time occurrence does not become Sunnah—Sunnah is continuous, not occasional. If praying in one garment is Sunnah, then in your mosques this Sunnah is being slaughtered. Announce today that whoever prays wearing six garments is a heretic, because you have prayed in one garment.
Muhammadi
My memory ماشاء اللہ is fine, but you have a habit of lying frequently. When did I ever tell you that an act done once is not Sunnah? As for your calling it an emergency to lighten the burden on your heart, that is also pointless. Which word in the hadith means emergency?
As for your saying that this Sunnah is being slaughtered in our mosques, what else can we say except لعنت اللہ علی الکاذبین? Who would put into this ignorant heart that this hadith mentions the least of the clothing conditions, not the most? Keep this in mind and listen carefully to what we say: one who declares prayer invalid because of one piece of clothing is an innovator. Brother! Your jurists have declared praying bareheaded as disliked (makruh). Do you have any Shariah evidence for this dislike?
Hanafi:
The Holy Prophet ﷺ would not even respond to the greeting of a man with an uncovered head (Mishkat). When he performed masah (wiping over the head), he would slightly lift the blessed turban with one hand and perform masah with the other. He did not prefer to remain uncovered for so long as to remove the turban and place it down before performing masah, while his followers always prayed with uncovered heads. They often roam the streets and markets bareheaded and are called Ahl-e-Hadith. They call everyone else apostates and sinners (لعنت اللہ علی الکاذ بین ). How could the Prophet ﷺ possibly approve of this?
False Accusations Against the Messenger of Allah ﷺ
Muhammadi:
Firstly: We have examined Mishkat and there is no such hadith in it as you mentioned. Regarding the second hadith you mentioned, it is requested to provide its reference because we have not found any such hadith. I strongly suspect that you have lied about this as well. In short, by telling these lies, you have added two more false accusations against the Prophet ﷺ in the accusations of the Ahl-e-Deoband, so remember that you will go alone to the grave.
Secondly: In Mishkat, in the book of clothing, there is a narration with references from Tirmidhi and Abu Dawood that
((مر رجل وعليه ثوبان إحمران فسلم على النبي فلم يرد عليه ))
meaning a man passed by wearing red-colored clothes and greeted the Prophet ﷺ, but the Prophet ﷺ did not respond to his greeting.
See, in this hadith, the reason for ignoring the greeting is stated to be the wearing of red clothes. But the author of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith has become so accustomed to lying that he also altered the text of this narration by blindly following others. He is indeed a ماشاء اللہ scholar but his heart is full of misguidance; he takes the name of Islam but his conscience does not rebuke him even when he lies about the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. In short, this lie has been attributed to the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. May Allah grant you the ability to avoid this.
Thirdly: This hadith has been declared weak by Allama Albani رحمه الله عليه in
and Hafiz Ibn Hajar has also declared it weak in Fath al-Bari.
The reason for its weakness is that Abu Yahya al-Qattat is a narrator in its chain.
and this is a weak hadith.
Is Prayer Invalid Without Covering the Head?
The Hanafi jurists have written that praying with an uncovered head is disliked (makruh), but at the same time, they have explicitly stated that if a person prays with humility and an uncovered head, their prayer is valid. Allama Halabi, in Sharh Munyah, states:
(ولا باس به اذا فعله تذللا و خشوعا)
If it is due to humility and devotion, then it is not disliked (makruh).
The same has been said by Sahib Dar Mukhtar, and in its commentary, Ibn Abidin states وهو حسن meaning this is a very good point.
This has been relied upon by the commentator of Kanz al-Daqa’iq, Allama Ibn Najim Hanafi.
Research of Ahl al-Hadith Scholars
We felt the need to write a separate and distinct article titled “Research of Ahl al-Hadith Scholars” because our contemporary has quoted a fatwa of Maulana Ismail Salafi, may Allah have mercy on him, from ‘Fatawa Ulama-e-Hadith
‘. We acknowledge that Maulana, may Allah have mercy on him, held the view that prayer should be performed bareheaded as a habit or fashion, but he himself admitted at the beginning of this detailed fatwa that since the head is not unanimously considered part of the awrah (parts to be covered), if at any time the prayer is performed bareheaded, the prayer will unanimously be valid.
Do our friends agree with this research? If not, certainly not, because the Hanafi school considers it disliked (makruh), and its permission is only granted due to necessity. As the author of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith himself wrote in response to the first part of your question about whether the prayer is valid or not: If a person prays bareheaded out of compulsion, meaning he has no cloth or there is some discomfort in the head, then the prayer will be valid.
Now see, Maulana Salafi, may Allah have mercy on him, gives a fatwa of absolute permissibility without any restriction of necessity, whereas the author of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith imposes the restriction of necessity, even though prayer sitting down is permissible due to necessity, and even praying while lying down is allowed; a person can perform prayer without ablution by wiping over his socks. In short, there is a vast difference between fatwas for general circumstances and those for necessity, yet our kind Maulana Salafi, may Allah have mercy on him, is being cited in support. It is regrettable that in the fifteenth century there are scholars who have become authors but do not understand the difference between absolute and conditional rulings and are challenging Ahl al-Hadith. It should be noted that we can present fatwas from many scholars permitting prayer bareheaded, but this is outside our topic and cannot be a proof against the opposing party. However, the fatwa they have quoted is binding on them due to its authentication. Hopefully, they will retract from the disliked ruling and issue a fatwa of permissibility.
A Question for the Followers of the Scholars
The Hanafi jurists have declared praying without covering the head as disliked (makruh), as has been explained in detail. It is stated in the principles of jurisprudence that makruh is something established by a speculative (zanni) evidence, meaning it is proven by an authentic, connected, raised (mursal) hadith, but there is no prohibition of it in the Book of Allah.
In light of this principle, the conclusion is drawn that there is no Quranic verse prohibiting praying without covering the head; however, there is a hadith.
The question is: From which companion is that hadith narrated, and in which book of hadith does it exist that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم forbade praying without covering the head? Believe me, even if all the Deobandi scholars of the world make a strenuous effort, they cannot show us any such authentic, connected, raised hadith. If they do show it, I swear by Allah that without any excuse or pretext, we will adopt it as our course of action and forbid praying without covering the head. انشاء الله
Why is there silence after all?
It is such a straightforward matter that you people consider praying bareheaded as disliked and do not accept its permissibility except in cases of necessity. Just as the author of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith could not present any authentic Marfu’ hadith on this, the question arises as to why you do not present a hadith that clearly means this, indicating that you have no evidence at all. Yes, the author of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith did this: he fabricated a hadith himself and attributed it to the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. This worst act of yours itself is proof that you have no evidence on this matter. Otherwise, you would not have needed to fabricate a hadith.
The author of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith’s semantic distortion in the Quran
He states that if one prays bareheaded out of laziness, then this resembles the Jews. The Quran mentions about the Jews that when they stood for prayer, they stood lazily
((اذا قاموا الى الصلوة قامو ا كسالى))
The answer:-
Firstly:- Before proceeding further, let us first observe the words of the Quran and their translation. The divine command is that
(ان المنافقين يخدعون الله وهو عادههم واذا قاموا الى الصلوة قاموا كسالى برآء ون الناس ولا يذكرون الله الا قليلا)
Maulana Mahmood Hasan Deobandi interprets these divine words as follows:
Indeed, the hypocrites try to deceive Allah, but He will deceive them, and when they stand for prayer, they stand lazily, showing off to the people and not remembering Allah except a little.
Dear readers, from this translation alone you will clearly understand that here the hypocrites are being mentioned, but our Jhangvi Sahib is so ignorant of Quranic knowledge that he is making people believe this is about the Jews. In other words, replacing the word hypocrites with Jews is his slander against Allah Almighty and a distortion of the meaning of the Quran.
Secondly:- Imam Raghib, while explaining the word Kasal in Mufradat, wrote that it means laziness and sluggishness in a matter where laziness is not appropriate.
Keeping this meaning in mind, the Quranic words imply that the hypocrites who come to pray do so only to deceive so that the common people consider them Muslims, that they are also our Muslim brothers, whereas their prayer is merely performing a few units as a burden. Due to reluctance and lack of enthusiasm, they mention Allah very little. Tell me, does this condition have any relation to praying bareheaded?
How can the heaviness of the heart causing less remembrance, which relates to the heart and tongue, be compared to praying bareheaded, which relates to the human body and not the tongue? But who will instill this simple fact into Jhangvi Sahib’s non-jurisprudential mind?
Thirdly:- In short, if it is accepted that here there is a prohibition of praying bareheaded and that this act belongs to the Jews, then tell me, what relation did the Hanafi jurists who humbly issued a fatwa permitting praying bareheaded have with the Jews?
Is Worshipping Bareheaded a Symbol of Christianity?
It is stated that resemblance to Christians is inevitable. You must have seen Christians worshipping; they all worship bareheaded.
Answer:-
Firstly: We have no friendship with Christianity; those who are friends will know how they worship. There is a church in our village, but I have never had the opportunity to see their worship. Yes, sometimes on Christmas Day they worship, and from the sound, it is clear that they do so with music. Just as some self-proclaimed Muslims worship with gatherings of dance and song. Those who worship with music in the subcontinent (such as Qawwali) have a connection with Hanafi jurisprudence; in fact, they call themselves trustworthy Hanafi followers, and you consider this a conspiracy against Hanafi thought. In short, you cannot see the beam in your own eye, but even a speck in someone else’s eye bothers you.
Secondly: Partial similarity does not necessarily imply imitation of disbelievers. For example, no one who believes in shared use of the word ‘worship’ claims imitation.
Thirdly: It is incumbent upon the second party to prove with evidence and arguments that worshipping with an uncovered head is a symbol of disbelievers.
Fourthly: Please clarify whether the jurists who have permitted praying with an uncovered head fall under the category of those imitating disbelievers or not?
