Excerpted from: “Tuhfa-e-Hanafiyyah” by Maulana Abu Suhaib Dawood Arshad ḥafiẓahullāh
(A scholarly response to Tuhfa Ahl-e-Hadith by Deobandi scholar Abu Bilal Jhangvi)
❀ Is the Second Adhān of Jumuʿah an ʿUthmānī Innovation?
Jhangvi accuses Ahl-e-Hadith of labeling the second Adhān of Jumuʿah as a Bidʿah of ʿUthmān, while claiming that Ahl al-Sunnah consider the statements of the Companions as part of the Sunnah.
(Tuhfa Ahl-e-Hadith, p. 53)
① First Response: Understanding the Position of Ahl-e-Hadith
The author previously demonstrated under the chapter on Taqleed that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s knowledge was primarily based on opinion and analogy, whereas Ahl-e-Hadith base their lives on Qur’ān, Sunnah, and statements of the Ṣaḥābah, seeking solutions directly from these sources.
How, then, can Jhangvi accuse Ahl-e-Hadith of being misguided?
② Second Response: Calling the Second Adhān Bidʿah – From Whom?
If calling the second Adhān a Bidʿah excludes one from Ahl al-Sunnah, then let Jhangvi hear clearly: It was ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنه who called it a Bidʿah.
Reference: Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah, Vol. 2, p. 140 (Kitāb al-Ṣalāh, Bāb al-Adhān Yawm al-Jumuʿah)
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar recorded this narration in Fatḥ al-Bārī, Vol. 2, p. 315 and remained silent, which according to major Deobandi scholars indicates authenticity of the narration.
(See: Maʿārif al-Sunan, Vol. 1, p. 385; Dars-e-Tirmidhī, Vol. 1, p. 74; Qawāʿid fī ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth, p. 89)
So, should Jhangvi publish an announcement declaring Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنه outside Ahl al-Sunnah?
③ Third Response: A Matter of Ikhtilāf Among the Companions
This issue was a point of disagreement among the Ṣaḥābah. It is already established that disputed matters among the Companions are not binding evidence, hence the view of ʿUthmān رضي الله عنه is not definitive.
Interestingly, while the same ḥadīth that proves ʿUthmān introduced the second Adhān also confirms that during the Prophet ﷺ’s time, and the caliphates of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar, only one Adhān was given.
(See: Bukhārī, ḥadīth 912 – Bāb al-Adhān Yawm al-Jumuʿah)
④ Fourth Response: Consistency in Applying the Label “Sunnah”
If Jhangvi justifies the second Adhān as a Sunnah of the rightly-guided caliphs, then consider this:
ʿUthmān رضي الله عنه once prayed full (four) rakʿāt during Ḥajj travel instead of the shortened (qasr) two rakʿāt prayer, with authentic sanad.
(References: Bukhārī 1/147, Muslim 1/243, Nasā’ī 1/170)
However, Ḥanafīs declare that a traveler who prays full rakʿāt intentionally must repeat the prayer, as it becomes invalid.
(See: Aḥsan al-Fatāwā, Vol. 4, p. 77; Khayr al-Fatāwā, Vol. 2, p. 681; Dars-e-Tirmidhī, Vol. 2, p. 325; Fatḥ al-Qadīr, Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ, al-Baḥr al-Rā’iq, Fatāwā ʿĀlamgīrī, Fatāwā Shāmī)
If the act of a Caliph is considered Sunnah, then why is this act labeled as invalid?
❀ Post-Salāh Collective Duʿā – A Mark of Ahl al-Sunnah?
Jhangvi claims that Ahl al-Sunnah raise their hands and engage in duʿā’ after prayers, while Ahl-e-Hadith do not and consider it an innovation.
(Tuhfa Ahl-e-Hadith, p. 53)
Response:
There is no authentic marfūʿ ḥadīth proving the practice of collective duʿā’ after obligatory prayers, where the Imam leads and the congregation says “Āmīn.”
Deobandi scholar Allāmah Kāshmīrī writes:
“The type of duʿā’ common in our time after obligatory prayers, with raised hands and congregational participation, was not practiced continuously in the Prophet’s era.”
(ʿUrf al-Shadhī, Vol. 1, p. 86)
Shaikh ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Dihlawī states:
“This duʿā’ by Imāms and ‘Āmīn’ by followers was not a practice of the Prophet ﷺ and no reliable ḥadīth supports it.”
(Sharḥ Safar al-Saʿādah, p. 90)
Maulānā ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Lakhnawī writes:
“This method of duʿā’ with raised hands by Imām and congregational Āmīn after salām was not in the Prophet’s time.”
(Majmūʿah al-Fatāwā, Vol. 1, p. 232)
❖ Scholars Who Labeled This a Bidʿah:
✔ Imām Ibn Taymiyyah:
“The joint duʿā’ by Imām and congregation after salāh is a Bidʿah and not from the time of the Prophet ﷺ.”
(Majmūʿ Fatāwā, Vol. 22, p. 519)
✔ Muftī Rashīd Aḥmad (Deobandi):
“This practice is a Bidʿah resulting from ignorance.”
(Zubdat al-Kalimāt, cited in Aḥsan al-Fatāwā, Vol. 3, p. 67)
✔ Mawlānā Anwar Shāh Kāshmīrī, Muftī Muḥammad Shafīʿ, Mawlānā Abū al-Qāsim Rafiq Dillāwī – all considered collective post-salāh duʿā’ a Bidʿah.
If Jhangvi is sincere, let him publish an announcement declaring these senior Deobandi scholars outside Ahl al-Sunnah. If he’s willing, we’ll even fund the printing.
But dear readers, observe: when it comes to Ahl-e-Hadith, they’re quick to declare them outsiders over an innovation—but with their own scholars, silence prevails.
Such dishonesty and double standards are deeply regrettable.
