Fiqh of Allama Waheed uz Zaman and the Scholars of Ahl-e-Hadith
Undoubtedly, Allama Waheed uz Zaman was a learned person. By translating the Holy Quran and the authentic five collections of Hadith, he rendered excellent service. However, scholars of Ahl al-Hadith did not look favorably upon his personal ijtihads and the compilation of his fiqh books from the beginning.
He himself states that:
“A friend of mine wrote to me that since you authored the book Hidayat al-Mahdi, a major group of Ahl al-Hadith, such as Maulvi Shams al-Haq (may Allah have mercy on him), Azeem Abadi, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Lahori, Maulvi Abdullah Ghazipuri, Maulvi Faqir Allah Punjabi, Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari, and others, have become displeased with you, and the general belief of Ahl al-Hadith has turned away from you.”
For further details, refer to
.
In short, in the latter part of his life, Allama Waheed uz Zaman diverged from the creed of the majority of the great Muhaddithin on certain theological and partial issues. Thus, in one of his last works, Hidayat al-Mahdi, he expressed beliefs that are absolutely not in accordance with the creed of the Muhaddithin. For example, he states:
(وحكى عن ابن تيمية انه ينزل كما انا انزل من المنبر )
That is, a narration is attributed to Imam Ibn Taymiyyah that Allah’s descent from the Throne is like me descending from the pulpit.
However, no Ahl al-Hadith scholar accepts any metaphorical description of the descent from the Throne. Moreover, this is a complete falsehood attributed to Imam Ibn Taymiyyah. The details of this are given in Hayat Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, pages 793 to 898, by Maulana Ataullah Hanif (may Allah have mercy on him), and also by our Shaykh Maulana Muhammad Yahya Gondalvi in ‘Aqeedah Ahl al-Hadith’, p. 217. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah himself states that whoever says that Allah’s descent is like my descent is a wicked misleader who denies Allah’s attributes.
In short, according to Maulana Ubaidullah Afif (may Allah preserve him), Allama Waheed uz Zaman was a repository of knowledge. His translations are authentic, but in fiqh he lacked the ability to distinguish between correct, weak, and false.
The above example alone is sufficient.
Our brother Abu Bilal’s spiritual guide and the master of sophistry, Maulvi Muhammad Amin Safdar Okara, writes:
“Nawab Waheed uz Zaman wrote books such as Hidayat al-Mahdi, Nazl al-Abrar, and Kanz al-Haqaiq, etc., but the fate of these books is such that God forbid even the enemies’ books meet such a fate. Neither the non-muqtadi madaris accepted them to include any of these books in their curriculum, nor did the non-muqtadi muftis accept them to use in their fatwas, nor did the non-muqtadi public accept them. They burn with jealousy over these books more than over the books of Mirza Qadiani and Swami Dayanand.”
Master Amin’s statement is one hundred percent correct. Indeed, these books are not accepted by us. This is why no Ahl al-Hadith publisher has published Waheed uz Zaman’s works after their initial publication. They are published by Deobandis or Barelvis. If we were satisfied with them, we would have published them extensively, but that never happened. However, our Jhangvi Sahib is such a frivolous person that he quotes phrases from non-accepted books to raise objections, whereas honesty demands that it is futile and pointless to criticize someone based on something that is not accepted by anyone. But Jhangvi Sahib’s intention is not to invite Ahl al-Hadith to reflect but rather to spread hatred against Ahl al-Hadith. For this reason, he uses every legitimate and illegitimate means. Then, regarding those non-accepted books to which he has attributed issues, all of them are lies and fabrications, and their meanings have been distorted to a Judaic extent.
The details of which are as follows.
First False Accusation
One can say “O Ali, friend of the Messenger of Allah.”
And this is the belief of the Shia.
Answer:
Firstly:-
There is no phrase in Hidayat al-Mahdi that means it is permissible to call upon “O Ali” or “friend of the Messenger of Allah” for seeking help. Rather, Allama Waheed al-Zaman states that
(فان قالوا بانه حاضر في كل مكان وانه يسمع نداء كل من ناداه في السمٰوٰت والارض فهم مشركون خارجون عن دائرة الاسلام بلاشك )
If someone says that Ali and Muhammad Mustafa ﷺ are present everywhere and they hear the calls, whether the caller is on earth or in the heavens, then such people are undoubtedly polytheists and outside the fold of Islam.
See what Waheed al-Zaman is saying and what our Jhangvi Sahib is claiming…
They have neither shame nor modesty.
انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون
Secondly:-
Let us tell you whose belief the Shia follow?
Your Sheikh al-Islam Shabbir Ahmad Usmani states that yes, if someone seeks help from a beloved servant merely as a means of Allah’s mercy and considers it not independent, then seeking help from them outwardly is permissible.
Ask all the innovators, whether Shia or Barelvi, they supplicate at shrines and call upon them considering the help as not independent. Neither do the Shia call Hazrat Ali their Lord, nor do the Barelvis call Ali Hajveri God.
Second False Accusation
It is stated that there is no consensus on the preference of the two Sheikhs,
and this is also the belief of the Shia.
Answer:-
Firstly:-
Waheed al-Zaman states that there is no definite consensus on this, rather it is speculative.
But Jhangvi Sahib completely denies this, which is outright false.
As far as Waheed al-Zaman’s own belief is concerned, he states that Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) is superior to those companions whose deaths occurred after the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). And whether Abu Bakr is superior to those companions who passed away during the lifetime of the Prophet (PBUH), such as Hazrat Hamza (RA), Saeed bin Muadh, and others, there is a difference of opinion.
Is this the same position of the Shia?
Secondly:-
Many prominent Ahl al-Sunnah scholars did not believe in the preference of the two Sheikhs. Imam Nasai, whose Sunan is included among the six authentic collections, even wrote an entire book on this subject which has been published.
Third False Accusation
It is stated that mentioning the Rightly Guided Caliphs in the sermon is an innovation.
And this is also the belief of the Shia.
Answer:-
This is all false. There is no such phrase in the mentioned page of “Hidayat al-Mahdi”.
Fourth False Accusation
Later scholars can be superior to the Companions.
And this is the position of the Shia.
Answer:-
Firstly:-
There is no such statement on the mentioned page. However, on
, Waheed al-Zaman states that
in knowledge and understanding, the knowledge and understanding of later scholars influenced by the Companions can increase. In the end, he says that
(والمحقق ان الصحابي له من فضيلة الصحبة مالا يحصل للولى)
That is, the researched statement is that the Companion has the virtue of companionship with the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم which no Wali (saint) possesses. (End)
In short, Waheed al-Zaman did not speak at all about being greater than the greatness of the Companion, rather he says that the knowledge and understanding of later scholars can increase beyond the Imams of the Companions. This is the position of the Hanafis. If you ask in faith whether Imam Abu Hanifa is superior in jurisprudence and ijtihad or the Imams among the Companions? Surely the answer will be that Abu Hanifa was superior in jurisprudence and ijtihad to the general Companions. The evidence for this is found in the books of Usul al-Fiqh where it is stated that Abu Huraira and Hazrat Jabir bin Samra were not jurists, whereas according to the Hanafis, Abu Hanifa is the most juristic of people.
Indeed, Imam Abu Hanifa himself says that he cannot abandon his opinion in comparison to the narrations of Hazrat Abu Huraira, Hazrat Anas, and Hazrat Jabir.
It is clear that Imam Abu Hanifa considered himself more juristic and knowledgeable compared to these Companions. Otherwise, what is the meaning of insisting on his fatwa against their narrations?
Secondly:-
The former caretaker of Dar al-Uloom Arabia Khafiya in Narang Mandi, Qari Muhammad Hanif Hanafi Deobandi, holds the position that the commonly known belief among Ahl al-Sunnah that after the Prophets, Abu Bakr is the most virtuous, he does not agree with this. Rather, in terms of status, even today someone can be superior to him.
The original fatwa is preserved with us; if Jhangvi Sahib wishes to see it, we will gladly show it. (ان شاء اللہ ) Qari Sahib currently resides in Jalo Mor (Lahore).
Fifth False Accusation
It is stated that with you, sodomy with one’s wife is permissible
. The Shia belief is also the same.
Answer:-
Firstly:-
There is no such phrase in Hidayat wal Mahdi that implies that sodomy with one’s wife is permissible.
لعنت اللہ علی الکازبین
Secondly:-
Allama Waheed uz Zaman states that
(قالت الحنابلة في الدبر مثله وعندنا لايكون حكم الوطى في الدبر كحكم الوطى في الحيض لان حرمة الاخير قطعية بخلاف حرمة الاول فانها ظنية)
Meaning, according to the Hanbalis, intercourse in the anus is like intercourse during menstruation, and according to us, it is not so. Because the prohibition of intercourse in the vagina is established by definitive text, whereas the prohibition of intercourse in the anus is established by hadith. (End)
The translation of Bukhari, Book of Tafsir, chapter “Women are a tilth for you,” states that penetration should be in the vagina, not the anus. Most scholars have taken this verse to mean this. Some have said that ‘ani’ and ‘ain’ mean “wherever you want,” and they have permitted intercourse in the anus, but this opinion is weak.
Sixth False Accusation
They say that you also believe in Mut’ah.
And this is the belief of the Shia.
Answer:-
Firstly:-
There is no such statement in Hadiyat al-Mahdi that means Mut’ah is permissible. This is an outright slander by Jhangvi Sahib.
Secondly:-
Allama Waheed al-Zaman, in the translation of Sunan Ibn Majah, under the book النکاح باب النھی عن انكاح المتعہ, states that Mut’ah marriage is a marriage for a fixed period, such as one day, two days, one week, one month, one year, or three years. This marriage was permissible in the early Islam, then it became forbidden, then permissible again, then forbidden again, and then it remained forbidden until the Day of Judgment.
He further states that as for Mut’ah marriage, it was permissible before the Battle of Khyber, then forbidden after the Battle of Khyber, then permissible again at the conquest of Mecca, i.e., on the Day of Utas, then three days later it became forbidden forever. Only the Rawafid differ on this.
They have written the same in the translation of
under the benefit section.
Seventh False Accusation
Listen even more! The non-muqlid scholar Waheed uz Zaman has written that we are the followers of Ali.
Now tell me, are the Shia and we one, or are the Shia and you one? Judge with a calm heart. And seek guidance from Allah Almighty.
Answer:-
Firstly:-
We have also pondered calmly and we seek guidance from Allah.
Secondly:-
Undoubtedly, Allama Waheed uz Zaman has written that
(أهل الحديث هم شيعة على يحبون أهل بيت رسول الله ﷺ )
meaning Ahl al-Hadith are the group of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) who love the Ahl al-Bayt of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم.
(End)
But here he did not speak about the Rafidah, rather he used the term Shia of Ali in contrast to the Kharijites. And this is definitely not Rafidism because we consider Sayyiduna Ali Murtaza (may Allah be pleased with him) as rightful in the wars and the group of Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) as mistaken, and we consider the Kharijites as disbelievers and include ourselves in the group of Sayyiduna Ali Murtaza against them. If this is Rafidism, then are all Ahl al-Sunnah Rafidah? Because love for Sayyiduna Ali Murtaza is part of faith. Because Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) states that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم made a covenant with me that
(ان لا يحبني الامومن ولا يبغضني الامنافق )
meaning no one will love me except a believer and no one will harbor hatred for me except a hypocrite.
(End)
Thirdly:-
Contrary to this reality, Jhangvi Sahib insists that Waheed uz Zaman used the term Shia in contrast to Ahl al-Sunnah and that the group of Ahl al-Hadith is a faction of Rafidah. Whereas on the same page 100 of
, he wrote that we love the wives of the Prophet ﷺ; they are all the mothers of the believers. And we have faith in this just as they were the wives of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in this world, so they will be the wives of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the Hereafter as well, and Hazrat Khadijah (may Allah be pleased with her) and Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) were greater and more exalted than the other wives.
(End)
Now Jhangvi Sahib should tell us, are the Shia like this?
Our claim is that you have slandered Allama Waheed uz Zaman by falsely attributing all these matters to him. His reputation is free from these absurdities. Come engage in a written dialogue with me and I accept as arbitrator my respected teacher Maulana Muhammad Yahya Sahib Gondalvi, may Allah preserve him.
You may appoint any author you wish from your side, the third party will be a Muslim umpire, and in case of disagreement among the arbitrators, his decision will be final. If the arbitrator rules in your favor, I will give a cash reward of one hundred rupees per issue from my side; otherwise, fear Allah and be afraid of the severe warning of لعنتہ اللہ علی الکاذبین. But dear readers, watch that Jhangvi will accept death but will never agree to dialogue as a man of the field because his heart testifies to his lies.
Eighth False Accusation
He states that Nawab Noor-ul-Hassan Khan, a non-Muqallid, writes that the saying of a Sahabi is not a proof.
And this is also the belief of the Shia.
Answer:-
Jhangvi Sahib has attributed this statement to them in an absolute manner to make it appear that just as, in general, the sayings of the Sahaba are not proof according to the Shia, similarly, according to Ahl al-Hadith, the saying of a Sahabi is also not proof. Whereas this is outright falsehood. Nawab Sahib never said this. This is a blatant slander and a distortion of their speech in a Judaic manner. Listen, the position of Ahl al-Hadith is absolutely not like this.
Secondly:-
Nawab Sahib, while explaining the punishment for a sodomite, said that it is narrated mursal from Hazrat Ibn Abbas (RA) in Sunan al-Arba‘ah and Musnad Ahmad that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم stated that both the doer and the receiver should be killed. Then he mentions the disagreement of the jurists and says that some have stated different punishments for which there is no hadith evidence, and the ijtihad of a Sahabi is not proof.
The purpose of his statement is that in contrast to a mursal hadith, the saying of a Sahabi is not proof. But Jhangvi Sahib, ignoring the context, distorted the meaning of his phrase. Whereas the Hanafi position is also the same.
Allama Ibn Hummam says that
(ان قول الصحابي حجة مالم ينفه شيئ من السنة )
That is, the saying of a Sahabi is proof unless something from the Sunnah negates it (end).
The same has been stated by Maulana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi
, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi
, Maulvi Zafar Ahmad Thanvi
, Mulla Ali al-Qari
in the old edition, and Jhangvi Sahib’s respected teacher Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar
also agrees. In short, if this is the belief of the Shia, then well, besides your elders, Maulana Safdar also holds this belief. Find some excuse for the ignorance of those elders.
Bread Baking
They say that you also deny consensus. The Shia also deny consensus.
Answer: –
Firstly: –
Our contemporary has not presented any reference for its proof to which we can refer.
Secondly: –
As far as the stance of Ahl al-Hadith is concerned, it is clear and explicit that neither consensus nor analogy can be against the Quran and Sunnah. According to us, consensus is the third degree of gathering, and we do believe in it provided that the consensus is established, not just verbal agreement, and the consensus of a few jurists is not considered consensus. On the contrary, you claim that we believe in consensus, but in the world, no one denies consensus more than you do. There is consensus of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) on non-following (taqlid).
See this.
No Companion was in favor of taqlid. You cannot prove even one example with an authentic chain on this. But how regrettable it is that you are in favor of the obligation of taqlid against this consensus. In fact, you have based your religion itself against this consensus. In short, we do believe in consensus, but certainly, there is a difference between our conditions of consensus and those of the Hanafi school.
