The Status of Fiqh in Religion
He states that just as the objection of the deniers of Hadith against Hadith is incorrect, similarly your question against Fiqh is also incorrect. Because just as Hadith is the explanation of the Holy Quran, in the same way Fiqh is the explanation and clarification of the Quran and Hadith. When the Prophet ﷺ explains the Quran in his own words, it is called Hadith, and when an Imam Faqih, Mujtahid explains the Quran and Hadith in his own words, it is called Fiqh. Fiqh is not something new apart from the Quran and Hadith.
The Answer:-
Firstly:-
We have already stated that whatever the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said or did in matters of religion was through revelation from Allah Almighty, which is referred to as non-recited revelation.
Further, listen to the divine command:
لَا تُحَرِّكْ بِهِ لِسَانَكَ لِتَعْجَلَ بِهِ (16) إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا جَمْعَهُ وَقُرْآنَهُ (17) فَإِذَا قَرَأْنَاهُ فَاتَّبِعْ قُرْآنَهُ (18) ثُمَّ إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا بَيَانَهُ
Do not move your tongue with it to hasten its recitation. Indeed, upon Us is its collection and its recitation. So when We have recited it, then follow its recitation.
Then, it is Our responsibility to explain it.
This verse is evidence that Allah Almighty took upon Himself the responsibility of teaching the knowledge and understanding of the Quran to Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. Further, listen:
وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ
Indeed, We have sent down to you the Reminder (Quran) so that you may explain to the people what has been sent down to them, and that they might reflect.
From this verse, it is also understood that the right to interpret and explain the Quran was granted by Allah Almighty to Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and at the time of the Quran’s revelation, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was responsible for explaining difficult and ambiguous parts for the blessed Ummah, as indicated by the words لتبین.
Now you have equated the jurisprudence of an Imam and Mujtahid exactly with the Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, saying that when the Prophet ﷺ interprets the revelation, it is Hadith, and when an Imam interprets the Quran and Hadith, it is jurisprudence. The writer asks: Did revelation descend upon the Mujtahids that you equate their interpretation exactly with the prophetic interpretation? Then what is the fault of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani when you have accepted revelation for the Mujtahids themselves?
Secondly:-
The explanation and interpretation of the Prophet, in other words, his sayings, actions, and fatwas are unconditional. By unconditional, it is meant that in matters of religion, the prophetic interpretation is the absolute truth, in which there is no possibility of error. Because of this, it is necessary and obligatory to accept all the sayings and actions of the Prophet, and this is the most important duty among all obligations. Deviation from this is rebellion against the religion and the community and is pure disbelief. Whereas in the sayings and ijtihads of mujtahids, even the Hanafis themselves accept the possibility of both correctness and error. While the Prophet ﷺ is infallible in the propagation of religion, its dissemination, and indeed in all religious matters, then how can the prophetic interpretation and the mujtahid’s explanation be the same?
Your respected teacher, Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Sahib Safdar, states that blind imitation of a particular mujtahid, considering his statement as absolutely correct and not allowing for any error or mistake, is imitation leading to polytheism.
Thirdly:-
If the interpretation of a Mujtahid is exactly like the Prophetic interpretationﷺ, then why do you not follow imitation in beliefs and principles? As your respected teacher has explicitly stated that we do not consider imitation in principles and beliefs to be permissible or correct.
The question arises whether you also consider the sayings of the Messenger and the example of the Beloved صلى الله عليه وسلم to be invalid in principles and beliefs? If not, certainly not, then how did this become exactly the same? It is clear that you have gone astray and caused the public to be misled. It would be better to stop this; this is our brotherly advice.
What is meant by Tafsir (Interpretation)?
It is stated that just as not every single hadith can be proven from a verse of the Quran, yet it can serve as an interpretation of the Quran, similarly, not every detail of jurisprudence is explicitly proven from the Quran and Hadith, yet they can be considered explanations of them. Explanation is always more extensive than what is being explained. For example, if someone asks, “What is the Quran?” then consider the question carefully: “What is the Quran?” The explainer will interpret it by saying that it is a book revealed by Allah to Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم; this book is undoubtedly and unquestionably true. So, see, the word being explained is “Quran,” and many words are added merely to clarify the matter. Often, examples must also be given for further clarification. If someone says, “Show me every single word in the explanation that corresponds exactly to the word being explained,” that would be unreasonable. Therefore, just as it is unreasonable to demand proof of every single hadith from the Quran, similarly, demanding proof of every single jurisprudential detail from the Hadith is a great lack of intellect.
Answer:-
Firstly:-
The meaning of Tashreeh (explanation) is to elaborate and clarify the matter. See Ilmi Urdu Lughat, p. 316. Kam Raghib states that
(شرح المشكل من الكلام بسطة واظهار ما يخفى من معانيه )
meaning Tashreeh refers to the detailed explanation of difficult parts of speech and the expression of hidden meanings.
We have already stated that in matters of religion, Allah has given the right of explanation to Muhammad ﷺ. If you have any such verse or authentic hadith in which Allah has given the right of explanation and clarification of religion to Imam Abu Hanifa, then please present it.
Secondly:-
It has become clear above that Tafsir is not the name of something extra, but rather the explanation of something hidden. Then the argument you have made in support of your stance is sheer ignorance. Brother, we have already quoted Surah An-Nahl, verse 44, which mentions the revelation of the Quran to Muhammad (peace be upon him). And to confirm its authenticity, study Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 1, which is from the Divine speech. In short, these things are proven from the Quran, yet you call them extra. Oh, your knowledge of the Quran and Hadith!
Thirdly:-
As for your statement that not all hadiths are proven by the Quran, I would say that you, like the deniers of hadith, should first reject the unwritten revelation and then raise this objection. If you believe that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, received revelation besides the Quran, then certainly do not harbor such enmity towards the Ahl al-Hadith that you deny the realities of the Shariah as well.
You have the right to oppose us, and this right cannot be taken away from you, but for God’s sake, do not spoil the appearance of the religion with your hatred and prejudice against us; this causes the public to be misled, and on the Day of Judgment, you will have to face humiliation. May Allah grant you the ability to act righteously.
Fourthly:
The things that are an addition to the Book of Allah in Hadith, is accepting them and acting upon them considered obedience to the Messenger or not? If it is indeed included, then this obedience is actually obedience to Allah, as stated
(مَنْ يُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ )
meaning whoever obeys the Messenger of Allah, has obeyed Allah.
So can you show any verse from the Quran which states that obedience to Imam Abu Hanifa in such matters is obligatory and necessary, which has no proof in the Quran and Hadith, and deviation from it is disbelief because this obedience is rebellion against divine obedience? If you have no proof of this, certainly not, then all your aforementioned writings are false and rejected.
The reason for Ahl al-Hadith’s displeasure with Fiqh
First, we quote the objection from Ahl al-Hadith that since there is disagreement in jurisprudence, it is not practical to follow it. Then the response is written: My brother! Perhaps you have taken the contract for theft; this question is from the deniers of Hadith. They said that we do not accept Hadith because there is disagreement in Hadith. The Shia say that we do not accept the Companions because there is disagreement among the Companions. The priest founder said that we do not accept the Quran because there is disagreement in the readings of the Quran. And sir! Your statement is that jurisprudence is not accepted because there is disagreement in its issues. So this is not your new whim, rather this same objection is from the priests against the Quran, from the Pervezis against Hadith, from the Shia against the Companions, and from the deniers of jurisprudence against jurisprudence. In fact, I will say one more thing to you: there is also disagreement in the definition of authentic Hadith, so why do you not leave the authentic? If disagreement can be a reason to abandon something, then there should be no blame on those who abandon the Quran, Hadith, and the Companions as well.
Answer:
Firstly:-
Christians do not consider the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم truthful in his claim, the deniers of Hadith do not accept the sayings of the Messenger as proof, and the Shia believe in the apostasy of the general companions. The author wants to convince that they are not deniers because of these differences, but rather this is clear evidence of their ignorance and lack of knowledge about these sects.
Secondly:
The author of Tuhfa Ahl-e-Hadith had the right; first, he defines disagreement, then proves disagreement among them. So we would also write a response to him, but the author of Tuhfa Ahl-e-Hadith considered it safe to confuse the main discussion by involving irrelevant matters and mixing topics to achieve his purpose. Believe me, the author takes the name of priests and deniers of Hadith, but the reality is that his own beliefs are based on those confused thoughts and ideas. Later, he himself writes in his responsibility that “there is considerable disagreement in the sacred Ahadith.”
Those who accuse us of theft! Reflect on your own condition and see from whom your lineage descends. Anyway, let us listen to the research on disagreement. For contradiction in any discourse, unity in eight things is necessary:
(1) Subject (2) Predicate (3) Place (4) Condition (5) Time (6) Relation (7) Part of the whole (8) Potential and actual aspects.
If two propositions agree but differ in affirmation and negation, i.e., the presence or absence of a ruling, and also differ in quality in the affirmative proposition and quantity in the restricted one, then they will be called contradictory. This is a well-known maxim of logicians:
Dar tanaquz hasht o hadat shart dal
Wahdat mauzu o mahmul o makan
Wahdat shart o izafat juz o kul
Quwwat o fi‘l ast dar akhir zaman
Keep these conditions in mind, combine the entire progeny of Deobandism, take the services of Hadith deniers and priests, and also vomit on Shia, and search for contradictions in the Quran and Hadith. This writer, despite his lack of resources and knowledge, will prove that there is absolutely no disagreement between the two. ان شاء الر حمٰن Briefly, here it is stated that the Quran claims:
وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا
Meaning, if this Quran were from anyone other than Allah, there would be found in it many contradictions.
Now, whoever believes in disagreement between the Quran and Hadith is certainly a denier of this decisive verse or considers Islam to be from someone other than Allah.
Thirdly:
Your statement that there is absolutely no difference among the jurists, mujtahids, and in Hanafi jurisprudence is a clear proof of your ignorance and a result of insufficient knowledge of the books of jurisprudence. The people of opinion (Ahl al-Ra’y) have even fabricated a tradition to conceal their differences, which is ( اختلاف امتی رحمۃ) meaning “The difference in my Ummah is a mercy.” See Sabeel al-Rashad, mentioned in
.
However, this tradition is false and fabricated; it has no authentic chain of narration, not even a weak one, but rather it is completely fabricated.
Unfortunately, those who fabricated this tradition did not have enough awareness to realize that if difference in the Ummah is a mercy from Allah, then does agreement cause Allah’s wrath? اناللہ وانا الیہ راجعون
In short, there is a tremendous difference among the Hanafi jurists and mujtahids. For brevity, we quote the authentic scholar Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, the author of “Tuhfat Ahl al-Hadith,” who says:
The claim of the non-followers (ghair muqallideen) that there is much difference in jurisprudence but none in hadith is completely wrong. Perhaps these people have not even seen Mishkat and have only heard the name of hadith. There is so much contradiction in hadith that it is a matter of observation. This statement is mere deception. Whoever wishes may see that even the hadiths of Bukhari contradict each other, and this is the reason for the difference among jurists and mujtahids. Allahu Akbar! What a wrong statement it is; it is like throwing dust on the sun. Thus, it is clear that the difference among jurists is due to the difference in hadith.
Now, your Imam Rabbani says that there is tremendous difference in hadith. Call it plagiarism from priests or borrowing from the deniers of hadith, or pure Shi’ism — it is your discretion. If we say it, there will be complaints. In any case, Imam Rabbani has openly acknowledged the nature of difference in hadith and also admitted that there is difference in issues among Hanafi jurists. Then he gave the lame excuse that since there is difference in hadith, therefore there is difference among jurists, meaning that the hadiths are the cause of jurists’ differences, implying that there is contradiction in the words of the Prophet.
However, the cause of difference among jurists and mujtahids is not the difference in texts but rather the absence of authentic hadith, ignorance of abrogation, and other reasons; it is not that there is difference in the texts themselves.
Dear readers, read any book written on Taqlid (imitation). When the followers explain the benefits of Taqlid, one of the benefits they mention is that since some verses of the Quran are clear and some are ambiguous, some are abrogating and some abrogated, and similarly there is tremendous difference in hadith, therefore hold on to an Imam or mujtahid who will free you from all these matters. There is no need to bring evidence from outside. The author of “Tuhfat Ahl al-Hadith” himself, after trying to prove contradictions in some hadiths from his confused heart, says:
“Hundreds of such hadiths can be presented, in which there is considerable contradiction and conflict. Then, to resolve these contradictions, the invitation to follow Imam Abu Hanifa is given.”
Now, honestly say, is pointing out contradictions in hadith the act of the deniers of hadith? Or was it started by the people of opinion? And you have provided a platform for the deniers of hadith, while the followers of Parwez are as familiar with hadith knowledge as an ignorant person is with the alphabet.
Maulana Ismail Salafi (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
“These people generally acquire Islamic knowledge from encyclopedias. They consider learning the history of the Quran and the biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him) from Mr. Nichols as the highest research. Most of them have not acquired Islamic knowledge from Islamic sources but have learned Islamic sciences through European orientalists and the English language. Those whose reliance in the translation of the Quran Aziz is on Mr. William Muir, if they deny hadith, who will stop them and how?”
In short, this stance arose from the scattered thoughts of the followers, and its purpose was to conceal the difference in jurisprudence and to invite the masses to Taqlid. But unfortunately, the author here denies it. Yet, a few pages later, he strongly supports and endorses it and invites the masses to Taqlid. But here, the thief scolds the towel, and they are attacking us saying this question belongs to priests, deniers of hadith, and Shi’a. What greater lie can there be in the world?
The books of Hanafi jurisprudence have not disappeared from the world; they are present. Refer to them, and you will find Maulana Gangohi’s word-by-word endorsement. A few examples are presented for your consideration:
(1)
states (عن ابي حنيفة هو طاهر) meaning according to Imam Abu Hanifa, used water for ablution is pure. Then on the same page, it states (وقال ابو حنيفة …. هو نجس) meaning Imam Abu Hanifa’s fatwa is that used water for ablution is impure.
(2)
states (عن ابي حنيفة نجساسة غليظة) meaning used water for ablution is a filthy impurity like urine and feces. On the same page, it states (هو قوله نجاسة خفيفة) meaning according to Imam Abu Hanifa, it is not a filthy impurity.
(3)
states (عندابی حنفية كلاهما نجسان) meaning if a janabi (one in a state of major ritual impurity) enters a well, his ghusl (ritual bath) is not removed; rather, both the well and the janabi become impure. On the same page, it states (ان الرجل طاهر) meaning the janabi becomes pure, and his ghusl is removed.
(4)
states (لایجوز المسح على الجوربين عندا بی حنیفة) meaning wiping over socks is not permissible according to Imam Abu Hanifa. On the same page, it states (انه رجع الى قولهما) meaning wiping over socks is permissible; this is Imam Abu Hanifa’s fatwa.
(5)
states ( فاذا جف على الثوب اجزا فيه الفرن) meaning when semen dries on clothes, scratching it off purifies the clothes. On the same page, it states ( وعن ابي حنيفة انه لا يطهر ) meaning in the mentioned case, the clothes will not be purified.
(6)
states (واخر وقتها عند ابي حنيفة اذا صار ظل كل شئ مثلیہ) meaning according to Imam Abu Hanifa, the time for Zuhr lasts until the shadow of everything becomes twice its length. On the same page, it states (اذا صار الظل مثله وهو رواية عن أبي حنيفة ) meaning in one narration, Imam Abu Hanifa’s statement is that the last time for Zuhr is until the shadow equals the length of the object.
(7)
states (واول وقت العصر الخ ) meaning when the shadow becomes twice the length, the time for Asr begins. On the same page, it states (واول وقت العصر ) meaning when the shadow becomes equal to the length, the time for Asr begins.
(8)
states (ثم الشفق هو البياض الذي في الافق بعد الحمرة عند ابي حنيفة) meaning according to Imam Abu Hanifa, the time for Maghrib lasts until the twilight disappears. Twilight is the whiteness that appears on the edges of the sky after the redness disappears. On the same page, it states (هو الحمرة وهو رواية عن ابي حنيفة ) meaning twilight refers to the redness.
(9)
states ( يكره ان يقيم على غير وضوء) meaning saying Iqamah without ablution is disliked. On the same page, it states (یروی انه لا تكره الاقامة ايضاً) meaning saying Iqamah without ablution is not disliked.
(10)
states (فان اقتصر على احدهما جاز. عند ابي حنيفة) meaning if in prostration only the nose touches the ground and the forehead does not, it is still permissible. On the same page, it states (لایجوز ) meaning this is not permissible. تلك عشرة كاملة
These ten issues have been quoted from the authentic Hanafi jurisprudence book Hidayah (about which the preface of Hidayah by Azla Lakhnawi states that it is like the Quran), and all these statements are attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa. Now say with faith whether there is contradiction among them or not.
Is the difference in jurisprudence like the different readings of the Quran?
He says that
there is truly no difference in jurisprudence; it only appears to you. For example, there are two types of Quranic recitations: rare (shadh) and mutawatir (mass-transmitted). The rare recitations are not called the Quran; only the mutawatir recitations are called the Quran. Priests always object to the rare recitations of the Holy Quran, and we respond by saying that what you present are rare recitations, not the Quran. Similarly, there are two types of hadiths: authentic (sahih) and non-authentic (ghair sahih). Both types of narrations are recorded in books. Those who deny hadith pick non-authentic hadiths to object to Muslims, and we respond by saying object to the authentic hadith. What you are objecting to is not the statement of the Prophet ﷺ. Mixing non-authentic hadiths with authentic ones and then claiming that there is contradiction or abrogation between two hadiths due to lack of knowledge of nasikh and mansukh is wrong.
Similarly, the statements of Hanafi jurisprudence are also of two types: those that are authoritative (mufti ba qawwal) and those that are not. The authoritative statements are called Hanafi jurisprudence; there is no contradiction or conflict among them. This contradiction is just like what priests see in the Quran and what hadith deniers see in the hadiths; it only appears to you in jurisprudence.
Answer:
Firstly:-
Undoubtedly, rare and weak readings are not legally authoritative, because rare readings are not the Quran and weak hadiths are not the sayings of the Prophet. To insist on this point is because you have a habit of denying.
Secondly:-
We have stated many times that priests and hadith deniers are fundamentally deniers of the Quran and Hadith, and neither will priests accept Islam nor will hadith deniers adopt authentic hadiths as their course of action. However, we neither deny the usefulness of jurisprudence nor call it entirely invalid. Yes, there is a difference between us and you regarding the definition of jurisprudence. You consider the chapters of legal stratagems (abwab al-hiyal) in Hanafi jurisprudence books as jurisprudence, while we call understanding in the Quran, Hadith, and religion jurisprudence. The great muhaddithun used to and still do derive rulings from the Quran, Hadith, and the practices of the noble companions, whereas the group of followers (muqallideen) derive rulings from the principles and general rules of their Imams. Details are available in (Hujjatullah, chapter on the difference between Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl al-Ra’y).
Thirdly:-
Your claim of eliminating the differences in jurisprudence by dividing into Mufti Bah and Ghair Mufti Bah is fundamentally false because the statements you call Ghair Mufti Bah are, in any case, the fatwas of the Hanafi jurists مجتہدین فی المذاہب or the authorities of preference, etc., who are considered Mufti by them; denying this is mere stubbornness. Moreover, rejecting the statement of any مجتہد فی المذہب merely by calling it Ghair Mufti Bah is a lack of intellect and understanding. Did they not derive this issue from the principles and fundamentals of Imam Abu Hanifa? Then what were they مجتہد فی المذ ہب? Like you, collectors of the ripe and unripe and blind followers.
Raw and Cooked Matters in Hanafi Jurisprudence
It is stated that the word Mufti Bah is derived from Fati, which means a strong, powerful young man. So, Mufti Bah Aqwal means strong statements, your statements; non-Mufti Bah would be weak statements, my friend! Whenever you object, you object to weak statements and keep pursuing them. This is something Allah Almighty has also said that in My Holy Book there are two types of verses: Muhkamat and Mutashabihat. He commanded to follow the Muhkamat and not to pursue the Mutashabihat. He said that whoever has a crooked heart will follow them. My brother! You have only found rare statements and non-Mufti Bah statements to object to, which we do not even consider Hanafi jurisprudence. If you want to object, then try objecting to the true jurisprudence.
Answer:-
Firstly:-
The explanation you gave about non-Mufti statements is incomplete. Then, by giving examples from the ambiguous verses of the Quran, you said that we do not accept non-Mufti statements as Hanafi jurisprudence. So, do you accept the ambiguous verses of the Quran as divine speech and Quranic verses or not? If you do not accept the ambiguous verses as Quran, then this is such a major declaration of disbelief; if you die without this, you will go straight to Hell without any reckoning. If you accept the ambiguous verses as Quran, then what is the meaning of the example!
Secondly:
The explanation you have given for the term Mufti Bah is probably done in imitation of Master Amin. See
, whereas this definition is incorrect. Allama Shami states that
(و مشتقه من الفتى وهو الشاب القوى وسميت به لان المفتى يقوي السائل بحواب حادثته)
meaning the word fatwa is derived from fati, which means the strong one whom they call, and it is named fatwa because the Mufti gives strength to the questioner in response to the incident that has befallen him.
Keeping this definition in mind, the meaning of Mufti Bah becomes clear that the fatwa of the Mufti is called Mufti Bah. It is a separate matter whether that fatwa is wrong or right. Our position is also supported by the Hanafi classes of issues; they say that the fatwa will be on the absolute statement of the Imam, then Qazi Abu Yusuf, then Imam Muhammad, then on the statement of Zafar Hasan. If Imam Abu Hanifa is on one side and on the other side are Qazi Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad, then مجتہد فی المذ ہب has the authority to give fatwa to whomever he wishes.
The question arises that when you give fatwa on the absolute statement of the Imam, then the rest of the Mujtahids, especially Imam Muhammad and Qazi Abu Yusuf’s statements, will be considered weak; and when the Mufti gives fatwa on the fatwas of Imam Muhammad and Qazi Abu Yusuf, then the statements of Imam Abu Hanifa will be considered weak, whom you have declared invalid by calling them unreliable. When some statements of your three Imams themselves are declared invalid, then why do you promote and invite towards their statements in which falsehood has already been mixed?
Thirdly:-
Your statement that Ahl al-Hadith always object to non-Mufti opinions, which according to you are not Hanafi fiqh at all, brother, calm down and consider carefully that if our objections are not even about Hanafi fiqh, then what exactly are you responding to? Moreover, Haqiqat al-Fiqh is an extremely difficult book for the Hanafis; your only objection to it is that certain references are incorrect.
(whose reality will be revealed later) but you did not have the courage or boldness to say that certain opinions in it are not Mufti opinions. Your approach shows that you merely tried to evade the issue temporarily, otherwise the objections of Ahl al-Hadith have their own basis, for which you do not have answers anyway.
Fourthly:-
Hanafis have written that the following books among Hanafi fiqh books are unreliable, containing weak and fabricated statements. For example: (1) Jami’ al-Rumuz (2) Sharh Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya by Abi al-Makarim (3) Fatawa Ibrahim Shahi (4) Books of Najm al-Din Zahdi (5) Al-Siraj al-Wahaj Sharh Mukhtasar Quduri (6) Al-Ahkam al-Fakhr al-Din Rumi (7) Fatawa Sufiya (8) Fatawa Ibn Najm al-Din (9) Fatawa Turi (10) Khulasat Kaydani) Introduction of Umdat al-Ri’ayah p. 12. Make every effort and diligence to tell us which Ahl al-Hadith have selected statements from these books to refute the Hanafis. The writer says with full certainty that you will not be able to give even one example of this. Whenever we have raised objections, it has been on your authentic fiqh books and their cited statements. If even in these authentic books there are unreliable narrations, then please explain what is the proof of the authenticity of the mufti’s statements in your authentic books.
Who has the right to distinguish between mufti and non-mufti statements? Did the three great Hanafi Imams make this distinction, or was it made by later scholars? If the Imams themselves made this distinction, then why were these rejected statements collected? And if this distinction was made by later scholars, then they became greater mujtahids than your three great Imams, who by their intellectual capacity distinguished that such and such Imam’s statement is mufti and such and such is non-mufti. Then why do you not abandon the elders and follow these later scholars?
In reality, the terms mufti and non-mufti are those of later scholars who established this principle to act according to their own desires in the fatwas of their Imams.
Fifthly:-
Even if your statement is accepted, there is still no objection; because later, by the grace of Allah, we have taken a brief look at Hanafi jurisprudence and have also quoted the mufti for every opinion and ruling. What is your opinion regarding them?
