Ibn Majah

Benefits and Issues:
➊
Some people, when they want to sell a milk-giving animal, stop milking it two or three days beforehand. As a result, a large amount of milk accumulates in the udders, and seeing the large udders, the buyer assumes that this cow, buffalo, goat, or she-camel gives a lot of milk.
In this way, he buys it at a higher price.
This is a kind of deception.
And giving deception is haram (forbidden).

➋
A period of three days has been set to annul this sale, because the deception is not apparent after milking on the first day.
On the second day, if the milk is less, one might think it is due to a change in environment or a difference in fodder.
When on the third day the milk is still less, it means that the milk was indeed withheld, and thus deception was committed.

➌
The instruction to give a sa‘ (a specific measure) of dates at the time of return is on moral grounds, so that if the seller feels displeased at the annulment of the transaction, it may be compensated to some extent.
This is not the price of the milk that was used during the three days.
If the buyer drank the milk, he also fed the animal fodder and took care of its essential needs.

➍
Some individuals have tried to prove this hadith as impracticable by declaring it contrary to juristic principles.
They say:
When something has been used, its substitute can either be something of the same kind and quantity, or its price, whereas dates are neither the same as milk nor its price, because the amount of milk varies, and the price for every quantity cannot be a sa‘ of dates.
The reality is that juristic principles are derived from the texts of the Qur’an and Hadith; the texts are not to be judged by juristic principles, because the Qur’an and Hadith are the statements of Allah and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), while juristic principles are the result of human intellectual effort. Moreover, this hadith is not even contrary to juristic principles. Its clarification is that there can be disagreement over the amount of milk the buyer used.
The buyer will claim a lesser amount, while the seller will claim a greater amount.
When it is difficult to determine the exact amount, how can its equivalent or price be determined? To resolve this dispute, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) set an average amount: whether the milk is less or more, a sa‘ of dates should be taken, and any shortfall or excess from the actual amount should be overlooked.
Thus, this is itself a law that was established for these specific circumstances.
It is not correct to analogize it with general laws for general situations.

➎
It is said that if a jurist narrator reports a hadith that is contrary to analogy (qiyas), his narration will be accepted, but if a non-jurist Companion narrates a hadith contrary to analogy, it will not be accepted.
This principle is also questionable, because the authenticity of a hadith depends on the memory and reliability of the narrator, not on his jurisprudential understanding or power of deduction. Moreover, this hadith is not narrated only by Abu Hurayrah (radi Allahu anhu), whom some have reprehensibly tried to label as a non-jurist, but the same hadith is also narrated by Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud (radi Allahu anhu), who is unanimously recognized as a jurist.
And it is said that the Hanafi school of jurisprudence is based on the fatwas of Ibn Mas‘ud (radi Allahu anhu). See: (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Sales, Chapter: The prohibition for the seller not to withhold the milking of camels, cows, and sheep, Hadith: 2149)

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has stated an issue regarding an animal whose milk has been withheld, that whether the animal is one or more, in exchange for the milk only one sa‘ (approx. 2.75–3 liters) of dates must be returned along with it. A separate sa‘ is not to be given for each animal, because one sa‘ of dates is not the actual compensation for the milk, as sometimes the milk from one animal can be worth more than a sa‘ of dates. Therefore, the sa‘ of dates is only to resolve the dispute. In this, the number of animals, whether few or many, is the same. Some scholars have taken the position that a sa‘ must be returned for each animal.
(2)
Imam Ibn Hazm rahimahullah has taken the position that the buyer must return both the milk and a sa‘ full of dates. Merely giving dates will not suffice. This position of Ibn Hazm is questionable and contrary to the majority of scholars. (Fath al-Bari: 4/486)

Benefits and Issues:
Relevance between the Chapter and the Hadith:
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah indicated in the chapter heading that it is prohibited for the seller to store milk in the udders of camels, goats, and cows, and further added, “in the udder of every living creature.” However, the hadith he presented is narrated with the words “camel and goat.” Therefore, the relevance between the chapter heading and the hadith is as follows: Milk is stored in the udders and sold so that the buyer perceives the animal as healthy. When it is prohibited to store milk in the udders of lawful animals such as goats, cows, and she-camels—even though they are lawful—then how can it be permissible to sell any other living creature in this manner? Storing milk in the udders and selling the animal deceives the buyer. Thus, the connection between the chapter heading and the hadith is established here.

Benefit:
The Hanafis have considered the above hadith to be contrary to analogy (qiyas) and have slandered the jurist of the Ummah, Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu, by claiming he was not a jurist. However, Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has also narrated this same hadith in [صحيح البخاري، كتاب البيوع، رقم الحديث : 2149] from Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu, who, according to the Hanafis, holds a high juristic rank.
In reality, the issue is not about being a jurist or not; we will discuss further whether Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu was non-juristic or whether it is those Hanafi scholars who promote this erroneous view. The real point is simply that this hadith, known as the hadith of musarrat, is contrary to the Hanafi school, and it is clearly written in the Usul Karakhi, pages 15–16, that any verse of the Noble Qur’an that is against the Hanafi madhhab will be considered abrogated, and any hadith that is contrary will require interpretation.
Therefore, this absurd principle exists in the Usul Karakhi, and in adherence to this principle, the Hanafi scholars did not even consider the status of the Companion. «انا لله وانا اليه راجعون»
In Usul Shashi with Ahsan al-Hawashi, it is clearly written: «ثم أعلم أن رواية غير الفقيه انما لا يقبل عنه مخالفة القياس» [اصول شاشي مع احسن الحواشي، ص76]
“That is, know that the narration of a non-jurist will not be accepted if it contradicts analogy (qiyas).”

Respected readers! It can be observed that the narration of Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu is not being accepted solely because it is contrary to their school, and furthermore, in defense of their school, a Companion of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is being labeled as non-jurist. What does this mean? Whereas the above hadith from Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu, which is recorded in Sahih Bukhari, is immediately followed by the narration of musarrat from that Companion whom the Hanafis consider a jurist. In Ahsan al-Hawashi, it is written regarding Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu: «انه معروف بالفقه والاجتهاد» [احسن الحواشي۔ ص 76]
“Indeed, Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu is renowned for his jurisprudence and ijtihad.”
Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu was by no means non-juristic, nor is it befitting for any Muslim to address a Companion with such titles... Remember, if analogy (qiyas) and ijtihad are contrary to the texts (nusus), they will never be accepted, because analogy and ijtihad are subordinate to the texts. The texts are never subordinate to analogy and ijtihad. There are countless issues in the Shari‘ah that apparently seem contrary to analogy and reason; are the Hanafis prepared to abandon all such ahadith?

For example: Ibn Abd narrates from his father that he said: «رأيت على بن أبى طالب أنه يمسح على ظهور قدميه، يقول : لو لا أني رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يمسح ظهورهما، لظننت أن بطونهما أحق» [مسند حميدي، ج1، ص26، ذم الكلام وأهله، ج2، ص205]
“Sayyiduna Ali radi Allahu anhu would wipe over the top of his feet and would say: If I had not seen the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam doing so, I would have thought that wiping underneath is more deserving.”
This hadith clearly refutes analogy, for it is obvious that one would wipe where there is a greater likelihood of impurity, but this hadith is clearly against analogy. Now, will the Hanafis consider Amir al-Mu’minin Ali radi Allahu anhu a jurist or a non-jurist?
Upon reflection, it becomes clear that the hadith of Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu is entirely in accordance with analogy, and furthermore, the hadith he narrated does not even require analogy because it is narrated with an authentic chain and is a marfu‘ hadith.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah, refuting the Hanafis, has clearly written: «وقد أخذ بظاهر هذا الحديث جمهور أهل العلم وأفتي به و ابن مسعود وأبوهريرة ولا يخالف لهم من الصحابة وقال به من التابعين ومن بعدهم من لا يحصي عدده . . .» [فتح الباري، ج4، ص458]
“And indeed, the majority and the people of knowledge have given fatwa according to the apparent meaning of this hadith, and it is narrated from Sayyiduna Ibn Mas‘ud and Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhuma, and no opposition from any Companion is established, nor from the Tabi‘in or those after them (i.e., no one has opposed this hadith), whose enumeration is not possible.”
From the explicit statement of Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah, it is clear that no Companion opposed Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu; if this hadith were not authentic, some Companion would certainly have opposed him. But in light of the evidence, we find nothing of the sort, nor did any Companion consider his hadith (the hadith of musarrat) abrogated, nor did they transmit any statement of preference or lack thereof. All these excuses are the lot of the Hanafis.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah says: «وتعقب بان حديث المصراة اصح منه باتفاق فكيف يقدم المرجوح على الراجح» [فتح الباري، ج4، ص459]
“The objection is that the hadith of musarrat is, by consensus, an absolutely authentic hadith. Then how (and why) should the less preferred be given precedence over the preferred? (i.e., when the hadith is authentic, the discussion of preference is pointless)”
Furthermore, Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah, refuting the Hanafis, writes:
«ومنهم من قال هو خبر واحد لا يفيد إلا الظن، وهو مخالف لقياس الأصول المقطوع به فلا يلزم العمل به، وتعقب بأن التوقف فى خبر الواحد انما هو فى مخالفة الأصول لا فى مخالفة قياس الأصول، وهذا الخبر انما خالف قياس الاصول بدليل أن الأصول الكتاب والسنة والاجماع والقياس، والكتاب والسنة فى الحقيقة هما الأصل، والأخران مردودان إليهما، فالسنة اصل والقياس فرع فكيف يرد الأصل بالفرع ؟ بل الحديث الصحيح أصل بنفسه فكيف يقال أن الأصل يخالف نفسه» [فتح الباري، ج5، ص314]
“(Those who do not accept the hadith of musarrat) among them (make the excuse that) this hadith is solitary (khabar wahid) and is also contrary to the principles of analogy, so how can it be acted upon? The point is that the hadith of musarrat is contrary to the principles (that the Hanafis have invented), not contrary to the real principles of analogy (which are truly principles), and this report that (the hadith of musarrat is contrary to analogy) is itself contrary to the principles of analogy, because the real principles are the Qur’an, Sunnah, consensus, and (those principles that are counted among the principles in accordance with these). (Remember) the Qur’an and hadith are, in reality, the foundation, and all other principles are referred back to them. Thus, the Sunnah is the foundation and analogy is a branch. Then how can the foundation be referred back to the branch? So the hadith (of musarrat) is, in itself, absolutely authentic; then how can it be said that the foundation is contrary to itself (its own principle)?”
From these excerpts of Hafiz Sahib rahimahullah, it becomes manifest that the hadith of musarrat is authentic in chain and narrated with a reliable chain; this hadith should not be judged by analogy because it is sufficient to establish this issue. The hadith of musarrat is not narrated only from Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu, but other Companions have also narrated this hadith.
Imam Tirmidhi rahimahullah says:
«وفي الباب عن أنس ورجل من أصحاب النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم» [جامع ترمذي مع التحفة، ج2، ص244، نزهة الالباب فى قول الترمذي وفي الباب، ج4، ص1952]
“In this chapter, there are narrations from other Companions besides Anas radi Allahu anhu.”
Muhaddith Abdul Rahman Mubarakpuri rahimahullah says:
The narration of Sayyiduna Anas radi Allahu anhu has been extracted by Abu Ya‘la al-Mawsili, and the narration of «رجل من اصحاب النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم» has been extracted by Imam Ahmad rahimahullah with an authentic chain. And in this chapter, there is also a hadith from Sayyiduna Ibn Umar radi Allahu anhu, which has been extracted by Abu Dawud and Tabarani, and the hadith of Amr ibn ‘Awf al-Muzani has been extracted by Imam Bayhaqi in “al-Khilafiyyat,” as mentioned in Fath al-Bari. [تحفة الأحوذي، ج2، ص244]
Furthermore, this narration has also been transmitted by Imam Tabarani in his renowned work al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, and after mentioning this hadith, ‘Allamah Haythami rahimahullah said that its narrators are trustworthy. See: [مجمع الزوائد للهيثمي، ج4، ص108]
Imam Dhahabi rahimahullah, in refutation of the Hanafis, says:
“Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu was the most proficient in memorization, transmission, and explanation of hadith. He narrated the hadith of musarrat in the very words of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to act upon it, for this foundation is itself a foundation.” [سير اعلام النبلاء للذهبي، ج3، ص512]
‘Allamah Jamal al-Din Qasimi rahimahullah, in defense of the hadith of musarrat, protests against the Hanafis, saying:
«ان منن ردّ حديث ابي هريرة رضى الله عنه المصراة، المتفق عليه، لانه لم يكن كابن مسود وغيره من فقهاء الصحابة، فلا يؤخذ بما رواه مخالفًا للقياس، فقد آذي قائله به نفسه، وفي حكايته غنيّ عن تكلّف الرد عليه، ولا قول لأحد مع قول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كائنًا من كان، وأيا كان، وممن كان وإذا جاء نهر الله، بطل نهر معقل، وأين القياس وإن كان جليًا من السنة المطهرة ؟ إنما يصار إليه عند فقد الأصل من الكتاب والخبر، لا مع وجود واحد منهما»
“Whoever rejected the agreed-upon hadith of Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu regarding musarrat on the grounds that he was not among the jurist Companions like Ibn Mas‘ud and others, and thus nothing should be taken from him that is contrary to analogy, has only subjected himself to hardship. The very contrived rejection of this hadith is sufficient to illustrate this. For, in the face of the statement of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, no one’s statement is acceptable, regardless of who said it, why, or where. There is a proverb: «إذا جاء نهر الله بطل نهر معقل» (Majma‘ al-Amthal by al-Maydani, p. 58, i.e., when Allah’s canal arrives, Ma‘qil’s canal is nullified). So what is analogy in comparison to the purified Sunnah, no matter how clear it may be? It is only to be referred to when there is no foundation for it in the Book or Sunnah, not when either of them exists.” [قواعد التحديث، ص98]
Therefore, the scholars have completely defended the hadith of musarrat. For example, Imam Ibn al-Qayyim rahimahullah has answered many objections and doubts raised against the hadith of musarrat. He says that it is a grave error of the Hanafis that they opposed a clear hadith due to analogy. The interpretations presented by the Hanafis—that this hadith is “speculative,” a solitary report, contrary to analogy, contrary to principles, that Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu was non-juristic—he refutes all these doubts, saying:
«قال أنصار الحديث : كل ما ذكرتموه خطأ، والحديث موافق الأصول الشريعة وقواعدها ولو خالفها لكان أصلًا بنفسه، كلا أن غيره أصل بنفسه وأصول الشرع لا يضرب بعضها ببعض، بل يجب اتباعها كلها ويقر كل منها على أصله و موضعه فانها كلها من عندالله الذى أتقن شرعه و خلقه ما عدا هذا فهوا الخطاء الصريح ...» [اعلامه الموقيني ج2۔ ص221۔ مجموءالفتاوي لشيخ الا سلام ابن تيميه ج20، ص556]
Answers to These Arguments:
The people of hadith say that all you have stated is erroneous. The hadith is in accordance with the Shari‘ah’s principles, rules, and sound reason. Even if, hypothetically, what you say were true, we would still say that this hadith itself is a Shari‘ah principle. After all, the Shari‘ah principles are not of your own making. They are stated in the hadith and Qur’an, so if this hadith is authentic, it must be accepted as a principle. It is impossible for the Shari‘ah’s principles to contradict one another. The same is true for the Book of Allah. Both are fully obligatory to follow. Each foundation and branch is right in its own place. To pit one against the other is absolutely forbidden. All are from Allah, and Allah is free from error and forgetfulness. Error is what is outside the Qur’an and hadith, not what is within them. Now listen to the detailed refutation of your erroneous principles and branches. May Allah grant you success in goodness.

First Argument:
The first reason you have stated—we ask you, what is your evidence for it? That only these two reasons (deficiency of attribute or defect) are grounds for returning an item. There is no other reason? By Allah, you cannot present even the smallest evidence for this. When you are unable, let us tell you that besides the defect of lacking an attribute, there are many other things that can render a sale invalid. For example, if there is alteration or deception, the item will be returned, even if there is no deficiency in attribute or defect. This is an even greater reason for rejection than defect. Sometimes the seller describes his item by word, sometimes by action, so if an attribute contrary to this is revealed, it is certainly deception, fraud, and alteration, so the buyer has the option, after this is revealed, to return the item and annul the sale if he wishes. Even if this ruling were not in the Shari‘ah, sound analogy would still require it, and justice and fairness would demand it. The buyer purchased the item trusting the seller’s word; if he had known of the deception at the time, he would never have bought it. To make such a sale binding with deception and fraud is to oppress the buyer, from which Allah’s religion is certainly free. The evidence for this is the statement of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam that if someone buys an item from those bringing goods to market before they reach the market and know the market price, then when they arrive and learn the price and find they have suffered a loss, they have the option to return their goods. See, there is no defect, no deficiency in attribute, yet the return is ordered, solely due to deception, fraud, and trickery. So your statement that only these two reasons are grounds for returning a sale is utterly false and baseless.

Second Argument:
The second argument you have stated, that “profit is for the one who bears liability,” is indeed narrated in the hadith, but the ruling in the hadith about the animal with stored milk is even more authentic than this hadith. So what is the reason that you accept one hadith but not the more authentic one? The second answer is that the word “kharaj” in the hadith refers to produce, such as the profit from a slave or the rent from an animal, etc., but the offspring from a slave woman or the milk from an animal is not called “kharaj” at all. Thus, there is no contradiction between the two hadiths for you to pit one against the other and, for the sake of your own school, engage in refuting the words of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. The third answer is that even if you accept the analogy to produce, we say that the profit which was not present at the time of sale but accrued after the buyer took possession is one thing, and the thing that was present at the time of sale and was part of the contract is another. How can you equate the two?

Fourth Answer:
Who whispered in your ear that the one sa‘ (measure) is compensation for the milk produced after the sale? Not at all! Rather, it is compensation for the milk that was present in the animal’s udder at the time of the sale. Thus, making the buyer responsible for it is itself in accordance with analogy.

Third Argument:
As for your third argument, that milk should be exchanged for milk, consider this: In this case, equivalence and similarity are impossible. The milk in the udder is preserved; the milk that has been extracted is not. So how wise is it to claim equivalence and similarity between a preserved thing and a non-preserved thing? You should understand this yourself, provided your intellect has not been entirely lost in opposing the Shari‘ah. If the Shari‘ah were to require giving non-preserved milk in exchange for preserved milk, it would be entirely contrary to justice, fairness, and reason, and it would be oppression upon the seller, which the Shari‘ah dislikes. If only those who pride themselves on their intellect would consider: How can one accurately estimate the milk present at the time of sale and that which increases moment by moment after? When it cannot be done, then to say “give an equal amount of milk” is mere guesswork. Equivalence is impossible, and any excess or deficiency falls under usury (riba), because equivalence cannot be maintained. Now, if it is said that the milk should be estimated, the problem only increases. One person would estimate one amount, another something else. There would be endless disputes among Muslims. May every part of us be sacrificed for the command of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, who established a law to erase all such disputes so that neither party could object.

The fifth answer is that there is a special wisdom in giving dates in exchange for milk. Just as milk was a staple food for the people of Madinah, so were dates. Thus, one was given in exchange for the other. Another reason is that just as milk is measured by volume, so are dates. How can our intellects comprehend the wisdoms of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam? If you reflect, you will see that if grain were given, it would be a hardship for the seller—when would he clean it, grind it, bake it, and eat it? Therefore, the Shari‘ah prescribed dates, which, like milk, can be consumed without difficulty. Thus, dates are closest to milk. If someone objects, “What if dates are not a staple food in a certain place?” we say, although some consider dates necessary, others give the fatwa that whatever is the staple food of the people there should be given, so that the objective is easily fulfilled, just as the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam named five types of grains for zakat al-fitr so that people everywhere could give their local staple. This is in accordance with the principles and rules of the Shari‘ah, and it is neither an unusual nor an unsupported specification, so the objection is baseless.
Their fifth objection was incidental, and its answers have already been given. So, all praise is due to Allah!

Answers to These Arguments:
Ibn al-Qayyim rahimahullah, in I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in, has given several arguments against the blameworthy principles of the Hanafis and has considered their baseless and incoherent principles to be weaker than a spider’s web. In reality, all these principles that are used to reject authentic and explicit ahadith have arisen from prejudice and envy, and these fabricated principles have been invented. Otherwise, there is no room for such baseless principles in Islam.
Respected Abdul Qadir Habibullah al-Sindi hafizahullah (Tanzil al-Madinah al-Nabawiyyah al-Sharifah), in his book Difa‘ ‘an Abi Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu, writes:
«فقلت هكذا رد حافظ على الحنفية فى رد حديث أبى هريرة المرفوع وأثر ابن مسعود ولموقوف عليه ولم يكن القياس الجلي أو الخفي عند ابن مسعود ولا عند الصحابة جميعًا وانما هو اصطلاح جديد قال به من قال من أصحاب الرأي متاثرين بما جاءهم من منطق اليونان، وفلسفهم الطاغية المادية» [دفاع عن أبى هريرة، ص102]
“I (Habibullah) say: In the same way, Hafiz rahimahullah refuted the Hanafis, both through the marfu‘ hadith of Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu and the athar of Ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu, which is mawquf upon him. According to Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu, neither clear nor hidden analogy had any status, nor did it for the other Companions. In reality, this terminology (by which the hadith of Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu is being rejected) is a new terminology invented by the people of opinion, influenced by Greek philosophy and materialistic tyrants...”
There is no doubt in this matter that all these terminologies—discussion of speculation (zann), not deriving evidence from solitary reports, the narrator being a jurist, etc.—are all inventions of the Hanafis and later prejudiced scholars, for which there is no evidence from the Salaf. As for the jurisprudence of Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah, the scholars are well aware that many scholars have strongly disagreed with his rulings. Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah rahimahullah (d. 235 AH) mentioned in his book “al-Musannaf” one hundred and twenty-four issues in which the madhhab of Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah is proven to be contrary to hadith. The status of Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah is his own, but in knowledge, asceticism, piety, and scrupulousness, he can never compare to a Companion of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. The jurisprudence and memory of Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu are like a shining moon; he is the Companion for whom the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam made supplication, as mentioned by Imam Hakim rahimahullah in al-Mustadrak.
Therefore, one should refrain from disrespecting a Companion of the Messenger of Allah. If a Shari‘ah issue is beyond your understanding, instead of rejecting or interpreting it, you should submit your understanding to it. This is the hadith of musarrat; if we were to mention those issues of the Hanafis that are in no way in accordance with sound reason or any Shari‘ah requirement, then we would be blamed, and in their defense, such excuses and pretexts would be used that have neither head nor tail. Yet those who mention such issues will be considered jurists...
‘Allamah Jundi, regarding the famous Qadi Khan, says as per Hazrat Anwar Shah: “His status is even higher than the author of al-Hidayah.” [فيض الباري : 186/1]
Now, just look at the jurisprudence and religious service of Qadi Khan Sahib: «رجل قال لامرأته ان لم يكن فرجي أحسن من فرجك فأنتِ طالق، وقالت المرأة ان لم يكن فرجي أحسن من فرجك فجاريتي حرة، قال للشيخ الامام أبوبكر محمد بن الفضل رحمه الله ان كان قائمين عند المقالة برّت المرأة، وحنث الزوج وإن كانا قاعدين بر الزوج وحنثت المرأة لأن فرجها حالة القيام أحسن من فرج الزوج والأمر على العكس حالة القعود» [قاضي خان : 421/1، باب التعليق]
Let the scholars consider what jurisprudence of Qadi Khan Sahib is displayed in this issue—is this a solution to religious matters or an attempt to make Islam a plaything for children? Listen further: «رجل تزوج امرأة وطلقها من ساعة فجاءت بولد على تمام ستة أشهر من وقت النكا ح كان الولد ولده عندنا خلفًا لزفر» [قاضي خان : 315/1]
Hanafi scholars try to establish such issues by force, but a person of realistic temperament and just thinking will never be satisfied with such excuses.
There are countless such issues; space does not permit, otherwise we would mention them here. The condition of the narrator being a jurist was promoted by Qadi ‘Isa ibn Aban, and with this sharpest knife, even the narrations of the Companions were slaughtered, and these principles became a constant threat to the ahadith. Those who created such dangers and fueled this fire include Bishr Marisi (d. 328 AH), Qadi ‘Isa ibn Aban (d. 221 AH), and Qadi Bishr ibn Walid al-Kindi. Bishr Marisi is the same person who debated Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Kinani on the creation of the Qur’an in the court of Ma’mun.

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal rahimahullah reveals about them, which is astonishing: «اخبرت عن يحييٰ بن ايوب قال كنت اسمع الناس يتكلمون فى المريسي فكرهت ان أقدم عليه حتي اسمع كلامه لأقول فيه بعلم فأتيته فإذا هو يكثر الصلاة على عيسيٰ بن مريم عليهما السلام فقلت له انك تكثر الصلاة على عيسيٰ عليه السلام . فأهل ذالك هو ولا أراك تصلي على نبينا ونبينا أفضل منه ؟ فقال لي ذالك كان مشغولًا بالمرأة والمشط والنساء» [كتاب السنة، ج1، ص 30]
“Yahya ibn Ayyub said: People used to talk about Bishr Marisi. I did not consider it appropriate to act without personal knowledge. I saw that he used to send much salutation upon Sayyiduna Masih alayhis salam. I said: Indeed, Sayyiduna Masih alayhis salam is worthy of salutation, but the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is superior to him. He (Bishr) said: ‘He (the Prophet) was only occupied with mirrors, combs, and women.’” Consider what should be said about a person with such beliefs and views. Is this not heresy? The fact of his being a heretic is also mentioned in [الفوائد البهية، صفحه 26، الجواهر الضيئة، ج1، ص 164].
Imam Dhahabi rahimahullah says: «بشر بن غياث المريسي مبتدع ضال لا ينبغي ان يروي عنه تفقه على ابي يوسف فبرع و اتقن علم الكلام ثم جرد القول بخلق القرآن و قال قتيبة بشر المرسي كافر» [ميزان الاعتدال۔ ج1۔ ص150]
“That is, Bishr Marisi is an innovator and misguided; his narration is not valid. He studied fiqh with Imam Abu Yusuf. After gaining expertise, he became a proponent of the creation of the Qur’an, and Qutaybah said: Marisi is a disbeliever.”
Respected readers! Consider the state of the jurisprudence of those elders who set the condition of the narrator being a jurist. If someone is himself a heretic, how can his principles be authoritative? Yet, despite this, these people are considered reliable by the Hanafis, because their school is strengthened by them.
Hafiz Dhahabi rahimahullah narrates a lesson-filled incident, writing:
“Once, we were sitting in the Jami‘ Mansur when a young Hanafi from Khurasan came and asked about musarrat (the animal with stored milk, whose narrator is Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu). The respondent answered him by citing the hadith of musarrat from Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu. The Hanafi youth said: ‘The hadith of Abu Hurayrah is not accepted.’ Qadi Abu Tayyib said: He had not even finished his statement when a large snake fell from the mosque ceiling, and people fled. The people told him: Repent, repent! So the youth said: I repent, and the snake disappeared without a trace.” [تاريخ الاسلام للذهبي، ج4، ص354، سير اعلام النبلاء، ج2، ص619]
After mentioning this incident, Hafiz Dhahabi rahimahullah says regarding its authenticity: «اسنادها أئمة» “That is, all the narrators in the chain are imams.”
There are many lessons in the above incident. Those who call Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu non-juristic should take heed from this incident. Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu was a jurist, and his status and rank were lofty. He was extremely careful and truthful in narrating the blessed ahadith. The later scholars who imposed false conditions have been excellently refuted by the author of Dirasat al-Labib, who says:

➊ The jurisprudence of the narrator has no effect on the bearing and truthfulness of the narration.
➋ Among the Companions, it is impossible that they would make such a mistake in narrating by meaning that the purpose of the hadith would be lost.
➌ Those who strove to preserve the words of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam—how could they err in conveying the meaning?
➍ They were people of the language; how could there be any possibility of error in conveying the meaning? Then, a wise person like Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu, to whom even jurist Companions would refer when needed.
➎ The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam prayed for his memory, as a result of which Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu said: After that, I never forgot.
➏ Those who know the characteristics of the narrators of the Sahihayn know that even the least among them could not misinterpret the statement of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.
➐ Finally, the author of Dirasat al-Labib says: «ولهذا قال شيخ الحنفية صاحب الكشف والتحقيق فى التحقيق : ولم ينقل عن أحد من السلف اشتراط الفقه من الراوي فثبت انه قول مستحدث بمثل هذا لا ينسب إلى أبى حنيفة رحمه الله» [دراسات اللبيب، ص315۔ 316]
Shaykh Ibn Humam, who is a Hanafi and a researcher, and the author of Kashf and Karamat, says: The condition of the narrator being a jurist is not transmitted from any of the early Imams. Therefore, it is clear that this is a fabricated principle; such a thing cannot be attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah. In reality, the conditions regarding the narrator’s jurisprudence were invented by later people; there is not even a trace of it among the early generations.
Furthermore, when we reflect and investigate, it becomes clear that the “hadith of musarrat” is authentic in every respect. The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: The best among you is the one who repays a loan in the best manner. Now, if someone buys a milking animal and returns it, he should give a sa‘ of dates in place of the milk he used.
If we reflect, dates are given in place of milk so that the milk used is compensated in the best way, because dates are more beneficial to the human body than milk.

The Benefits of Milk and Dates in Light of Modern Research:
Milk has six benefits proven by medical science:
Vitamin A
Vitamin D
Vitamin E
Vitamin K
Vitamin B
Vitamin C
① Growing skin
② Healing bones and teeth
③ Muscles
④ Weight loss
⑤ Less stress
⑥ Healthy body
These are the six benefits of milk; now see the benefits of dates.
Health Benefits of Consuming Dates:
① Dates are cholesterol-free and contain very little fat. Dates are rich in vitamins and minerals.
② They are rich in protein, dietary fiber, and abundant in B1, B2, B3, and B5, as well as vitamins A1 and C.
③ They help improve the digestive system, as they contain both soluble and insoluble fiber and various types of amino acids.
④ Dates are an excellent energy source because they contain natural sugars, glucose, sucrose, and fructose. Dates are very low in calories and extremely suitable for health.
⑤ Dates are rich in potassium and low in sodium. This helps regulate a healthy nervous system. Research has revealed that a certain amount of potassium can reduce the risk of stroke. Dates also help reduce LDL cholesterol levels.
⑥ Dates have high iron content and are very useful in treating anemia. Patients can eat many dates for good health. Dates contain fluorine, which slows the process of tooth decay.
⑦ They also help people suffering from constipation. Soaking dates overnight and consuming them with water increases their benefits.
⑧ They help enhance sexual ability. Soak a handful of dates in goat’s milk overnight, grind them in the morning, mix with milk, honey, and cardamom powder, and drink.
⑨ Dates help in weight gain and are beneficial for those who are very thin.
⑩ Treatment for stomach cancer. The best thing is that they have no adverse effects on the body and are completely natural, far better than medicines. They also help improve eyesight and reduce night blindness.
Furthermore, research by doctors in the Department of Pharmacology at Berlin University, after extensive research on the use of dates, has concluded that if pregnant women consume dates daily, it has a positive effect on all the organs of the pregnant woman and also strengthens the child. Women who consume dates during pregnancy will have fewer complications and reduced risks during childbirth. (Science and Our World) Dr. Shireen Ijaz of Baqai Medical University told journalists that she experimented with feeding dates to eighty (80) mothers, with positive results. The Baqai Medical team would go door to door daily and feed them seven dates. She said this experiment was named the “Date Project.” When the child was born, it weighed 8 kilograms more than the previous child. She said research also shows that a child whose mother ate dates is protected from hypertension and diabetes after reaching the age of 40.
Research on the Nutritional Content of 100 Grams of Dates:
Nutrient Amount Nutrient Amount
Calories 319 Calcium 15 mg
Proteins 9.3 g Phosphorus 30 mg
Fat 0.8 g Iron 3.1 mg
Starch 38.2 g Thiamine 0.7 mg
Fiber 1.7 g Riboflavin 0.5 mg
Ash 1.1 g Niacin 0.6 mg
Vitamin C 6 mg [سنت نبوي صلى الله عليه وسلم جديد سائنسي تحقيقات كي روشني ميں، ج3، ص281]

All praise is due to Allah; the conclusion of all this discussion is that the hadith of musarrat is absolutely authentic, and the Companion Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu, who is its narrator, was of the highest caliber of jurist. In the light of the ahadith, we will crush every principle that was invented to slander a Companion of the Messenger and to reject the hadith of the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. In sha Allah.
Respected readers! We have tried in our writing to prove that the hadith of musarrat is authentic in every respect. The demand of faith is that when the command of Allah and His Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam comes, we should accept it without any argument or dispute; therein lies the pleasure of Allah and the secret of success in the Hereafter.
For further information on the hadith of musarrat, refer to these books: [سير اعلام النبلاء، ج2، ص619 فتح الباري، ج4، ص 360 361 عون المعبود، ج2، ص284 تحفة الأحوذي، ج2، ص 244 245], [مصنف عبدالرزاق، ج7، ص235 اعلام الموقعين، ج2، ص284 كتاب الام للشافي، ج7، ص172، شرح نووي، ج2، ص5 كنز العمال للهندي، رقم 9976، المحلي لابن حزم، ج9، ص67 المغني لابن قدامة، ج34، ص135 مختصر المزني، ج2، ص184، حجة الله البالغة، ج2، ص111 التعليقات السلفية على النسائي، ج2، ص207، اتحاف السامع للشيخ أبى الحارث ناحر بن سعيد بن مبارك]

Hadith Commentary:
Whether it is a slave-girl or a donkey, one sa‘ (a specific measure) should not be given in exchange for their milk.
And the Hanbalis (Hanabilah) have not made it obligatory to give a sa‘ in exchange for the milk of a donkey.
However, regarding the slave-girl, they have differed, and the majority of the scholars, the Companions, the Followers (Tabi‘in), and the Mujtahids have acted upon the hadith of the chapter, that in such a case, the buyer may, if he wishes, return the animal and give one sa‘ of dates as compensation for the milk.
Whether the milk is much or little. And Abu Hanifah acted upon analogy (qiyas) and opposed this authentic hadith, and says that Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu was not a jurist (faqih).
Therefore, his narration cannot be accepted if it is against analogy (qiyas).
And this is blatant obstinacy.
Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu transmitted the ruling from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and the interesting thing is that from Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu, whom the Hanafis consider an Imam in jurisprudence and ijtihad, the same is transmitted.
And perhaps, to reproach the Hanafis, Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has, after this, transmitted the narration of Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu, and the Hanafis themselves, in many places, have abandoned clear analogy (qiyas jali) in favor of hadith, such as in ablution (wudu) with nabidh (date-infused water) and in laughter (qahqah) during prayer—so why do they not abandon it here?
And Imam Ibn al-Qayyim has shed full light on the pros and cons of this issue and has sufficiently refuted the Hanafis.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
This issue is famous by the name of "Musarrat."
In the blessed era of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), when people wanted to sell an animal, they would refrain from milking it for a day or two so that the milk would accumulate in its udders and appear to be more. However, when the buyer would observe this condition after taking the animal home, he would become distressed.
On this basis, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) decreed that if a cow, goat, or she-camel is sold after withholding its milk in this manner, the buyer has the option: if he wishes, he may be content with it as is, or if he wishes, he may return it and give a sa‘ (a measure) of dates along with it so that the dispute may be resolved. However, observe the marvels of blind imitation and rigidity: principles were invented to reject authentic ahadith. Thus, a principle was established that a hadith should not be accepted if its narrator is not a jurist (faqih) and it is in every way contrary to analogy (qiyas).
The aforementioned hadith of Sahih al-Bukhari was also sacrificed to this self-made principle, and its acceptance was refused.
According to them, Abu Hurayrah (radi Allahu anhu), who is the narrator of this hadith, is not a jurist, and this hadith is contrary to analogy.
Similarly, Anas (radi Allahu anhu) is also, according to them, not a jurist, and a narration of his in Sahih al-Bukhari was rejected.
It is mentioned in the hadith that some people came to Madinah, but its climate did not suit them and their bellies became swollen.
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) permitted them to drink the milk and urine of camels.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith: 238)
In this principle of theirs, there is not only an aspect of disrespect towards many of the noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum) who were endowed with knowledge and ijtihad, but the reality is that there is no evidence of this principle from Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah); rather, it is the view of ‘Isa ibn Aban, which many of the later scholars followed.
For details, see the footnotes on the discussion of the Sunnah in Usul al-Shashi.
‘Allamah al-Karkhi raised his voice against this principle, stating that the jurisprudence (fiqh) of the narrator has no effect on the authenticity of the narration; rather, the authenticity of the narration depends on the narrator being upright (‘adl) and precise (dabit).
These individuals, by giving preference to analogy over the narration reported by Abu Hurayrah (radi Allahu anhu), have made themselves a target of criticism and reproach.
Abu Hurayrah (radi Allahu anhu) was more knowledgeable in hadith than all the other Companions (radi Allahu anhum), and was even famous by the title "Narrator of Islam." Moreover, he merely transmitted a ruling from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), which in itself is obligatory to follow.
And Allah is the One whose help is sought.

(2)
The corroborating narrations (mutaba‘at) mentioned by Imam al-Bukhari (rahimahullah) have been narrated with connected chains in Muslim and others.
(Sahih Muslim, al-Buyu‘, Hadith: 3831 (1524); and al-Mu‘jam al-Awsat by al-Tabarani: 7/249, Dar al-Haramayn, Cairo edition)
In some narrations, instead of "dates," the word "food" (ta‘am) is used.
(Sahih Muslim, al-Buyu‘, Hadith: 3832 (1524))
Imam al-Bukhari (rahimahullah) has considered the narrations with "food" (ta‘am) as less preferred (marjuh).
(Fath al-Bari: 4/450)

Hadith Commentary:
Vocabulary of the Hadith:
Muṣarrāh:
Taṣriyyah means to withhold,
to block,
so the meaning here is that the milk of a milking animal is withheld in its udders so that the udders appear full, making the buyer think that this animal gives a lot of milk,
and thus he buys it.

Benefits and Issues:
According to Imam Malik,
Imam Shafi‘i,
Imam Ahmad,
Imam Abu Yusuf, and the majority of scholars,
taṣriyyah is considered deception and a defect,
therefore the buyer has the right to annul the transaction, and according to Imam Ahmad
and Imam Shafi‘i, in the case of returning the animal, a sāʻ of dates must be returned.
According to Imam Malik, a sāʻ of the local grain must be given, and this is also one opinion of Shafi‘i.
And according to Imam Abu Yusuf, the price of the milk that was extracted must be paid.
According to Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Muhammad, taṣriyyah is not a defect,
therefore the sale cannot be annulled,
however, the buyer may reduce the price of the animal.
The question arises: if taṣriyyah is not a defect, then why allow a reduction in price? Mawlana Anwar Shah has interpreted this hadith as being based on integrity, that taṣriyyah is deception,
therefore, the seller’s religious duty is that if the buyer wishes to return the animal, he should accept its return,
and Mawlana Zafar Ahmad Usmani has left this to the discretion of the ruler of the time,
and Taqi Usmani has left the return of the sāʻ to the ruler of the time, but has accepted the return of the animal as a legal principle, and has also accepted that this hadith is not contrary to sound legal principles as the Hanafis claim,
because taṣriyyah is deception.
Therefore, the buyer should be given the option.
(Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim: vol. 1, pp. 343–345)

Hadith Commentary:

Benefits and Issues:
➊ By milking the animal for three days, the actual condition becomes clear.
➋ Therefore, the Shari'ah has granted a respite of three days.
➌ If certainty is achieved earlier, it may be returned before that.

Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues: In the general narration, there is an instruction to return a sa‘ (measure) of dates, and in some narrations, there is mention of food (grain), but wheat is excluded. Therefore, either, according to the general narration, preference will be given to dates, as is the position of the three Imams, or it will have to be understood that what is meant is the predominant staple food of each region; it is not necessary that it be dates or wheat, as is the second opinion of Imam Malik.

The specification of the sa‘ (measure) by the Shari‘ah is because the milk withheld in the udders is unknown in quantity; it is not known how much it was. In this way, there could have been disagreement between the parties. Therefore, the Shari‘ah specified the amount in order to eliminate disagreement.

Explanation:
1:
The command to return one sa‘ (a specific measure) of dates has been given so that it serves as compensation for the milk obtained from the animal. This is because some of the milk is a new thing that has come into the buyer’s ownership, and some of the milk is what he actually purchased. Now, since it is difficult for the buyer to distinguish how much milk was already present (at the time of purchase) and how much is newly produced, due to this indistinguishability, it was not possible to return the exact amount or its price. Therefore, the Lawgiver (Shari‘) prescribed one sa‘ as a fixed amount, so that no dispute or quarrel arises between the seller and the buyer. Thus, the compensation for the milk obtained by the buyer is fulfilled, regardless of whether the amount of milk was less or more.

Benefits and Issues:
Benefit:
The commands of the Messenger ﷺ are obligatory to follow without any questioning or objection.
It is not befitting for any Muslim to reject them based on his own opinion or conjecture and estimation.

(1) "Abu al-Qasim" was the kunyah (agnomen) of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), either due to his eldest son Qasim, or because he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) would distribute knowledge and wealth by Allah’s command. The one who distributes is also called "Qasim." Among the Arabs, the use of kunyah was common. When someone was to be shown respect, they would be addressed by their kunyah.

(2) "For three days" — because within this period, the true nature of the milk becomes apparent and any deception becomes clear.

(3) "Not of wheat" — because at that time, wheat was very expensive among the Arabs. Rarely would anyone possess even a small amount, just as dates are in our region nowadays. Therefore, the negation of wheat is according to that region, not according to our region where wheat is the staple food. Rather, here wheat will be given. And Allah knows best.

Takhrij:
«أخرجه البخاري، البيوع، باب إن شاء رد المصراة، حديث:2151، ومسلم، البيوع، باب حكم بيع المصراة، حديث:1524.»©Explanation:
➊ The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered the return of one sa‘ (a measure) of dates so that it would serve as compensation for the milk obtained from that animal, because some of the milk was produced after the buyer had taken ownership, and some of the milk was included in the sale. Now, since it is difficult for the buyer to distinguish how much milk was purchased and how much is newly produced, due to this indistinguishability, it was not possible to return the milk or its price. Therefore, the Lawgiver (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) fixed one sa‘ so that no dispute or quarrel would arise between the seller and the buyer. The compensation for the milk obtained by the buyer would thus be fulfilled, regardless of whether the amount of milk was little or much. (Mulla Ali Qari, referencing Mirqat)

➋ The majority of the scholars have adhered to the apparent meaning of the hadith, and the noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum) and the eminent Followers (rahimahumullah) also issued fatwas accordingly, and no opposition from any Companion has been established. However, most of the Hanafis have opposed them in this matter. But they have not been able to present anything that would benefit them. And they have adopted great severity in this, to the extent that they have made this very issue the criterion by which they judge others—(and that criterion is) who honors their Imam by agreeing with him and who dishonors their Imam by opposing him—even to the point that they have criticized a great Companion, Abu Hurairah (radi Allahu anhu), for lack of understanding and lack of jurisprudential insight merely because he narrated this hadith. They considered him non-jurisprudent and devoid of discernment, even though Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud (radi Allahu anhu) not only narrated this report but also issued such a fatwa, and the Hanafis themselves do not dispute his being a jurist. So, to Allah alone is the complaint.