The Reality of Personal Taqlid in the Light of the Principles of Ahl-e-Deoband
According to Ahl-e-Deoband, taqlid is only performed in ijtihadi matters. Accordingly, Master Amin Okaraavi wrote: “Taqlid is only performed in ijtihadi matters.”
According to Ahl-e-Deoband, it is not permissible to perform taqlid of anyone except the four Imams (Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal), and there is consensus on this.
Thus, Saeed Ahmad Palanpuri Deobandi wrote: “Hence, in the fourth century, the entire Muslim Ummah reached consensus on personal taqlid of these four Imams, and taqlid of anyone else was declared impermissible.”
Muhammad Bilal Deobandi has quoted his Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Humam as follows:
Consensus was established on the point that taqlid of anyone other than the four Imams is not permissible.
According to the Deobandi scholars, only the imitation of Imam Abu Hanifa among these four Imams should be followed, because regarding the areas where Hanafis are in majority, Sarfaraz Khan Safdar has written:
“And in those areas, the majority are Hanafis and Hanafi jurisprudence. It is evident that if any issue arises there which is not explicitly stated, and if a person deviates from the jurisprudence of Imam Abu Hanifa, then the jurisprudence of the other noble Imams is not applicable there. The only consequence of this would be that he would act arbitrarily and reject the very foundation of Shariah. He would bid farewell to Islam itself. If following Imam Abu Hanifa is not obligatory for such a person, then how will his Islam remain safe? And it is established that at the time of ignorance, it is obligatory by the clear text of the Quran for such an ignorant person to refer to the knowledgeable.”
That is, if any ijtihadi issue arises for the scholars of the Deoband school, they too would be considered ignorant.
Sarfaraz Safdar further wrote:
“And the meaning of personal taqlid (imitation) is that one keeps a single personality and entity in view and constantly adheres to and obeys it.”
Muhammad Taqi Usmani Deobandi wrote:
“And the second case is that for taqlid, one mujtahid scholar is chosen, and in every issue, his opinion is followed; this is called ‘personal taqlid.'”
Taqi Usmani Sahib further wrote:
“Later, under a strong administrative expediency, only ‘personal taqlid’ among the two mentioned types of taqlid was adopted for practice, and it was issued as a fatwa that now people should only practice ‘personal taqlid.’ Instead of following different Imams at different times, one mujtahid should be appointed and his madhhab should be followed.”
Rashid Ahmad Gangohi Deobandi wrote:
“The first case is called personal taqlid, where a single person follows one individual and resolves all religious necessities through him.”
Muhammad Qasim Nanotvi Deobandi said:
“Secondly, I am a follower of Imam Abu Hanifa, so whatever statement you present in opposition to me must be from the Imam himself. It will not be a valid argument against me that Shami wrote this or Sahib Dar Mukhtar said this, as I am not their follower.”
Okaraavi said:
“We are followers of Imam Abu Hanifa, not Shah Waliullah.”
Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi Deobandi wrote:
“Therefore, the only remedy for this self-will was to bind the self to act upon the fatwa of one expert in Shariah, and this is called personal taqlid.”
Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Deobandi has written:
“And the person who is a follower of a particular Imam should not do this that in one issue he follows one Imam and in another issue someone else, because this action will make religion a toy.”
Zaroli Khan Deobandi has written:
“We will accept the statement of Abu Hanifa because we are Hanafi, not Yousafi.”
Mahmood Hasan Sahib has also written:
“But except for the statement of the Imam or someone else, it is far from reason to establish proof upon us.”
Mahmood Hasan Deobandi has written elsewhere:
“We are followers of Imam Abu Hanifa, not followers of all Hanafis.”
Master Ameen Okaraavi has written:
“In explicit issues, we say the Messenger of Allah said such and such, and in ijtihadi issues, we say Abu Hanifa said.”
From the mentioned references of Aal-e-Deoband, it has become as clear as daylight that according to them, only those statements of Imam Abu Hanifa which he deduced through Ijtihad are acceptable and obligatory for a person. Accepting the Ijtihad of anyone other than Imam Abu Hanifa is not considered Taqlid (blind following) by them, because if accepting the Ijtihad of anyone other than Imam Abu Hanifa is called Taqlid, then they would become deniers of Ijma (consensus). Regarding Ijma, Master Amin Okaraavi has written: “Opposing the consensus of the Ummah is hell-bound according to the explicit text of the Book and Sunnah.”
Master Amin Okaraavi further wrote:
“The Holy Prophet ﷺ has declared the one who deviates from the decisions based on Ijma as a devil and destined for hell (Mishkat).”
Whereas the scholars of Aal-e-Deoband have also performed Ijtihad.
Accordingly, Ashraf Ali Thanvi Deobandi has written:
“This does not mean that after four hundred years no one has had the intellect capable of ijtihad. Because there is no evidence established for this. Moreover, it cannot be absolutely true because in every era thousands of such new details arise for which no ruling has been transmitted from the Imams Mujtahideen, and the scholars themselves perform ijtihad and provide answers. So if the door of ijtihad is completely closed and now no one’s intellect can be capable of ijtihad, then will the answers to such new issues not be found in Shariah? Or will a new prophet descend from the sky to answer these issues? If this is the case, then God forbid that the Qadianis hear this; if this reaches their ears, they will add another argument to the list of proofs of the Messiah’s prophethood. Then what will be the meaning of this verse اليوم أكملت لكم دينكم, which indicates that the religion has been completed? If the door of ijtihad is completely closed, then how can the completion of Shariah be accepted? Because it is evident that there are many issues whose answers are neither mentioned in the books of Fiqh nor transmitted from the Imams Mujtahideen.”
Answers to New Issues
A few days ago, a question was asked whether prayer can be performed on an airplane or not. Now, if ijtihad after four hundred years is absolutely not permissible, then there is no answer to this issue in Shariah. In earlier times, there were no airplanes, and the jurists neither knew about it nor was there any ruling written. Now we ourselves perform ijtihad and answer such new issues.
Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi has written with reference to Shirani:
“There will be many such issues that are found and exist which are not mentioned in the great treasury of present Hanafi fiqh.”
Sarfaraz Safdar has also written:
“Besides this, here and there there will be my own deductions and ijtihads as well.”
Now it is obvious that Deobandis will not become followers of these scholars by accepting their ijtihad, because according to them, following anyone other than the four Imams is against consensus. Similarly, if Ahl-e-Hadith scholars perform ijtihad and the Ahl-e-Hadith public accepts them, this will not be considered imitation either, and it is not strange for Ahl-e-Hadith scholars to perform ijtihad, because Deobandi scholars also perform ijtihad, as has been cited from Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Sarfaraz Safdar, and others. Since the discussion is about the ijtihad of Deobandi scholars, here is a Deobandi joke as well. Abdul Rasheed Arshad Deobandi wrote about Anwar Shah Kashmiri Deobandi: “In this context, a joke came to mind which is appropriate here, and that is that once Hazrat Shah Sahib, may Allah have mercy on him, in a debate between Hazrat Mamduh and an Ahl-e-Hadith scholar, was asked by the Ahl-e-Hadith scholar: ‘Are you a follower of Abu Hanifa?’ He replied, ‘No. I am myself a mujtahid and act upon my own research.'”
Warning:
Sometimes, the Deobandis say that everyone should perform Ijtihad, as it is written in Hidayah: “Then if the direction of the Qiblah becomes doubtful for the one praying, and there is no one present to ask about the direction of the Qiblah, then he should perform Ijtihad.”
According to the Deobandis, accepting the Quran, Hadith, and Ijma is not considered Taqlid, as has been clarified earlier from the statement of Okaraavi. The Deobandi Imam Sarfaraz Safdar has written:
“In the principles of religion, beliefs, and explicit rulings, neither is Ijtihad permissible nor is it correct to rely solely on the Imams; Taqlid is only permissible in those matters where the texts of the Holy Quran, Hadith, and statements of the noble Companions do not explicitly provide clarity. In such matters, the need for Ijtihad will arise, and it is desirable to accept the Ijtihad of the Mujtahid.”
Sarfaraz Safdar further wrote:
By the grace of Allah, it has been stated that imitation (taqlid) in beliefs and principles of religion is neither permissible nor correct, and imitation is not permissible in matters that are against the texts of the Holy Quran, explicit and authentic hadiths, and the consensus of the Ummah. Imitation is permissible in those emerging issues which are neither explicitly proven by the Holy Quran nor by explicit authentic hadiths, nor by the sayings of the noble Companions. Moreover, the Imams whom the followers imitate are by no means considered infallible by them. Rather, this statement is explicitly mentioned in all the fundamental books of jurisprudence المجتہد تخطی و یصیب.
Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Hammam of the Deoband family wrote:
“Issue: Imitation means acting upon the statement of a person without evidence, whose statement is not among the four evidences. Therefore, referring to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and consensus is not considered imitation.”
Note:
The translation of the Arabic text has been quoted.
According to Muhammad Taqi Usmani Deobandi: “The famous Hanafi scholar Abdul Ghani Nablusi” has written:
“Actually, the need for Taqlid arises in those issues in which there has been a difference among scholars.”
Also, Ilyas Faisal Deobandi has written:
“In matters established by the Quran, Sunnah, and consensus, analogy does not apply.”
According to the principles of the Deobandis, accepting consensus is not Taqlid. Further clarification is presented from the words of Master Amin Okaraavi, who wrote: “The authenticity of the authors of the six authentic books is established by the consensus of the Ummah.”
Now it is obvious that these hadith scholars were born after the death of Imam Abu Hanifa, so it is proven that accepting Ijma (consensus) is not the imitation of Imam Abu Hanifa. Regarding Ijma, Jameel Ahmad Deobandi has written: All these hadiths indicate that this Ummah is collectively infallible from error, meaning the entire Ummah cannot agree upon error and misguidance. And since this is the case, accepting Ijma and its being a proof is established.
Master Amin Okaraavi said:
“Ijma of the Ummah is something that we consider infallible.”
Amin Okaraavi wrote:
“Ijma is infallible.”
Whereas the statement of Sarfaraz Safdar regarding the Ijtihad of Imams Mujtahideen has already passed that there is a possibility of error in their Ijtihad, and Taqi Usmani Sahib has also written: “And the belief of all the followers regarding the Imams Mujtahideen is that there is a possibility of error in every Ijtihad of theirs.”
Now it has become clear according to the principles of Ahl-e-Deoband that accepting the Quran, Hadith, and Ijma is not Taqlid (blind imitation), rather Taqlid is only and only accepting the statement of Imam Abu Hanifa in which there is a possibility of error. Also, in some issues where there are Ahadith present in the light of the principles of Ahl-e-Deoband, even if they are conflicting, for example, the issue of raising the hands (Raf’ al-Yadain) and reciting behind the Imam (Qira’at Khalf al-Imam), Taqlid will not be done in these either, because Munir Ahmad Munir Deobandi has written:
“Those issues whose evidences are conflicting, such as raising the hands, reciting behind the Imam, etc., have Ahadith both affirming and negating, and the Muhaddithin have established chapters in Hadith books for both types and have narrated both kinds of Ahadith.”
The issue of raising the hands has also been counted among the conflicting established issues by Master Amin Okaraavi. See
Sarfaraz Safdar has written:
“In the issue of abandoning raising the hands, the Hanafis do not do Taqlid, rather they follow authentic and explicit Ahadith.”
Sarfaraz Safdar Sahib further wrote:
“Although the raising of hands (Raf’ al-Yadain) is also the practice of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and in the matter of imitation, to mention the Hanafi practice of not raising hands, which is completely unrelated, and to try to convince his followers that the Hanafis imitate the abandonment of raising hands and act upon weak hadith is the height of bias. What could be more biased than this? Or is it possible? Secondly, it was the scholarly and ethical duty of Hazrat Mian Sahib that he should not even mention the established issue of abandoning raising hands as an example in the discussion of imitation because imitation occurs in non-established issues, and this is a matter proven by authentic hadith.”
Ashraf Ali Thanwi said:
“The rest, raising hands and saying Ameen, these are not acts of non-imitation.”
Muhammad Yousuf Ludhianvi Deobandi wrote:
“Raising hands and not raising hands are both permissible according to the consensus of the Ummah.”
Although Ladhaniwi’s statement about abandoning the raising of hands is completely wrong, necessarily we say that when you consider this issue to be consensus-based, then consensus is infallible in your view, and imitation occurs in ijtihadi issues where there is a possibility of error. Thus, it is also proven that the issue of raising hands is not a matter of imitation.
From the aforementioned passage, it is proven that the issue which some Deobandi scholars consider to be a conflicting text (mansusah muta’aridah), in this issue, the leader of the Deoband group, Sarfaraz Khan Safdar, has completely denied imitation and has excluded those who imitate in this matter from the Hanafis. In short, the issue which they consider to be conflicting text, they do not imitate in that either.
The issue of raising hands or abandoning raising hands is not a matter of imitation according to the principles of the Deoband group. One proof of this is that Amin Okaraavi Deobandi wrote:
“Imam Bukhari is a follower of Imam Shafi’i.”
And regarding the issue of raising the hands, according to Okaraavi, Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, differs from Imam Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him. See
Dear readers! Observe another example of this:
Sarfaraz Safdar Deobandi has written addressing the Ahl al-Hadith:
From this statement, it is understood that the verses and hadiths which they present as evidence in the context of the recitations behind the Imam are not, according to them, definitive and conclusive proof for their claim; otherwise, they would not have called this issue one of ijtihad (independent reasoning), because ijtihad occurs where there is no explicitness. Their calling this issue one of ijtihad is clear evidence that they do not have any explicit and clear proof. That is why this issue is considered ijtihadi by them. Therefore, accusing the Hanafis of abandoning the verses and hadiths is completely baseless, because according to them, the Hanafis have not abandoned the proofs and hadiths. Rather, they have abandoned the meaning and interpretation which these gentlemen adopt in their ijtihadi manner. On the contrary, the Hanafis, based on definitive, explicit, and authentic hadiths, prescribe the duty of following the recitations behind the Imam (Tark al-Qira’at Khalf al-Imam) to the follower.
In the mentioned statement, Sarfaraz Safdar Sahib has also refused to recognize the issue of reciting behind the Imam as an ijtihadi matter and has claimed adherence to definitive, explicit, and authentic hadiths. It has been clearly stated that according to the Deoband scholars, taqlid (imitation) is only done in those statements of Imam Abu Hanifa which relate to ijtihad.
Muhammad Taqi Usmani Sahib has also written:
“In the definitive rulings of the Quran and Sunnah, the taqlid of any Imam is not considered necessary.”
The issue of reciting behind the Imam is not a matter of taqlid according to the principles of the Deoband scholars. One proof of this is that according to Okaraavi, Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) was a follower of Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him).
And regarding the issue of reciting behind the Imam, according to Okaraavi, Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) differed with Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him). See
Dear readers! It is also necessary to inform you that according to the principles of Ahl-e-Deoband, no matter how reputable a person may be, any statement of theirs that is not proven with an authentic chain of narration will not be accepted. For example, if Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, a hadith scholar about whom Hakim al-Islam Qari Muhammad Tayyib of Ahl-e-Deoband wrote: “In any case, Imam Bukhari’s memory, his precision, and his piety and righteousness are as clear as the sun. The whole world knows this.”
If Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, also narrates a statement of a Tabi’i without a chain of narration, Sarfaraz Safdar Sahib rejects it like this: “Imam Bukhari did not transmit any chain of narration for their effect in his argument, and an unsupported statement cannot be a proof.”
.
Also see
Faqir Allah Deobandi wrote:
“And no unsupported statement is worthy of acceptance.”
Similarly, if a Tabi’i like Hasan Basri, may Allah have mercy on him, narrates a statement of a Sahabi, may Allah be pleased with him, with whom he has no proven meeting, then Sarfaraz Safdar and his associates do not accept it. For details, see
Dear readers! Badr al-Din Ayni is a great Imam of the Hanafi school. Sarfaraz Sahib has honored him with titles such as “high-ranking Hanafi jurist, muhaddith, and Sheikh al-Islam.”
The same Badr al-Din Ayni wrote in his book
that Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, adopted eleven rak’ahs of Taraweeh prayer. Master Amin Okara rejected this opinion and another opinion, saying:
“Both of these opinions are completely without chain (of narration).”
Now my question to the Deoband scholars is: name one issue in which Imam Bukhari followed Imam Shafi’i, and the Deoband scholars followed Imam Abu Hanifa, and that issue is neither in the Quran, nor in Hadith, nor is there consensus on it, and Imam Abu Hanifa has a correct chain of narration for such a statement related to Ijtihad, and the Deoband scholars admit that there is a possibility of error in that statement. The Deoband scholars act upon that statement, and the Ahl al-Hadith reject that statement. Present it, so that it becomes clear which issue they call personal taqlid (imitation)!
I have demanded only one issue, whereas Sarfaraz Safdar has written: “The issues in which the followers have practiced taqlid are countless.”
Ameen Okaraavi has written:
“The number of ijtihadi issues is one million two hundred ninety thousand.”
However, the ten examples of imitation that Ahl al-Hadith condemn are as follows:
◈ It is narrated from Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
((إن المتبايعين بالخيار في بيعهما ما لم يتفرقا أو يكون البيع خيارا))
The seller and the buyer have the option of return in their transaction, as long as both have not physically separated or exchanged possession of the item. (Nafi says) Ibn Umar or Allah, when they wanted to buy a preferred item, would physically separate from their (selling) partner.
The Hanafi scholars do not accept this issue, while Imam Shafi’i and the great Muhaddithin accept and practice this issue due to these authentic hadiths.
Mahmood Hasan Deobandi said:
((يترجح مذهبه و قال : الحق والإنصاف أن الترجيح للشافعي في هذه المسئلة و نحن مقلدون يجب علينا تقليد إمامنا أبي حنيفة والله أعلم))
That is: The doctrine of (Imam Shafi’i) is dominant. And (Mahmood Hasan) said: The truth and justice is that in this matter (Imam Shafi’i has preference and we are followers; it is obligatory for us to follow our Imam Abu Hanifa, and Allah knows best).
Consider! How, abandoning truth and justice, the supposed Imam’s following has been embraced wholeheartedly. Mahmood Hasan Sahib clearly declares:
“But except for the statement of the Imam, it is far from reason to establish proof upon us from anyone else.”
On page 298 of the authentic book of the Deobandis “Humein Baday Musalman” under the third number in Mahmood Hasan’s books, it is written: “Number 3 Taqreer Tirmandi in Arabic language, this Taqreer Tirmidhi Sharif has been published as a marginal note and is widely accepted.”
Regarding the compiler of this Taqreer, Sarfaraz Safdar Sahib has written:
“The compiler of Tirmidhi’s Taqreer is Hazrat Maulana Nizamuddin Sahib Kairanvi.”
◈A hadith according to which if followers pray behind an imam who is performing a voluntary (nafl) prayer, and the followers themselves are praying the obligatory (fard) prayer, then the followers’ prayer will be completely valid. When the Hanafi scholar Imam Mulla Ali Qari could not find a suitable answer to this, he humbly wrote ’’وعلى قواعد مذهبنا مشکل جدًا‘‘, meaning that according to the principles of our school of thought, this hadith is very difficult.
During the time of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, a woman used to insult the Prophet ﷺ, and her husband killed her. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said:
’’ألا اشهدوا أن دمها هدر‘‘ Listen! Bear witness that the blood of this woman is wasted.
From this hadith and other evidences, it is established that one who insults the Prophet ﷺ is liable to be killed. This is the doctrine of Imam Shafi’i and the noble hadith scholars, while according to the Hanafis, the responsibility of the blasphemer against the Messenger remains. See
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:
’’و أما أبو حنيفة و أصحابه فقالوا : لا ينتقض العهد بالسب ولا يقتل الذمي بذلك لكن يعزر على إظهار ذلك .‘‘
Abu Hanifa and his companions (students and followers) said: Insulting (the Prophet ﷺ) does not break the covenant (responsibility) and the dhimmi will not be killed for this reason, but if he does this act openly, he will be subject to discretionary punishment… etc.
On this delicate issue, Ibn Najim Hanafi wrote:
’’نعم نفس المؤمن تميل إلى قول المخالف في مسئلة السب لكن اتباعنا للمذهب واجب‘‘
Indeed, in the matter of insult, the heart of the believer inclines towards the opinion of our opponents, but for us, following our madhhab (school of thought) is obligatory.
Husain Ahmad Madani Tandwi writes:
“An incident occurred when once three scholars (Hanafi, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) went together to a Maliki and asked him why he performs Irsal (raising hands). He replied: I am a follower of Imam Malik; ask him for the evidence. If I knew the evidence, why would I follow blindly? So those people became silent.”
Irsal: Praying without raising hands
Silent: Quiet
Now see why those people became silent? Is there no authentic hadith about praying with hands folded? Certainly, there is, but they knew that if they forced this follower to accept the hadith, they themselves would have to accept other hadiths.
In an authentic hadith it is mentioned:
((من أدرك من الصبح ركعة قبل أن تطلع الشمس فقد أدرك الصبح))
Whoever prays one rak’ah of Fajr before sunrise, he has certainly prayed the Fajr prayer.
The Hanafi jurisprudence is contrary to this authentic hadith. “Mufti” Rashid Ahmad Ludhianvi Deobandi discussed this issue and wrote: “In short, this issue is still in need of research. Our fatwa and practice will remain according to the statement of the Imam, may Allah have mercy on him, because we are followers of the Imam, and for a follower, the statement of the Imam is a proof, not the four evidences; it is the duty of the Mujtahid to deduce from them.”
Discussing the same hadith, Taqi Usmani said: “The hadith is completely against the Hanafi chapter; various Hanafi scholars have exerted great effort to respond to it, but the truth is that no satisfactory answer has been given. This is why this hadith is considered problematic for the Hanafi school.”
While discussing this hadith, Taqi Usmani further said:
“And regarding the distinction between Fajr and Asr, the Hanafis do not have any explicit text, only analogy, and that too is not strong.”
◈It is proven from authentic hadith that if the funeral is of a man, the imam should stand in front of the head of the deceased, and if the funeral is of a woman, the imam should stand in the middle of the deceased, that is, in the center.
But due to analogy, by interpreting the hadith in a way that is not considered valid even by Jameel Ahmad Sakroodhvi (a teacher at Darul Uloom Deoband), this fatwa was issued that whether the funeral is of a man or a woman, the imam should stand opposite the chest of the deceased.
For details see
And furthermore, the injustice is that Muhammad bin “Mufti” Muhammad Ibrahim Sadiq Abadi Deobandi has named this analogical and baseless fatwa as Sunnah. See
◈In authentic hadith, it is stated that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade praying on a skin of a wild animal.
Note:
This book is preferred by Muhammad and Lais Ansari Deobandi. See
While in the book compiled by Syed Mushtaq Ali Shah Deobandi, it is written about dog skin:
“I say that after tanning, when the (dog’s) skin becomes pure, what is the objection to making a prayer mat or a saddle from it?”
The Prophet ﷺ and the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, performed the prostration of forgetfulness (sajdat as-sahw) in such a way that after completing the prayer and only the salam remained, they performed two prostrations of forgetfulness and then gave salam.
See
But according to the Deobandi school, the method of sajdat as-sahw is that after reciting Tashahhud, one turns salam to one side, then performs two prostrations. After that, Tashahhud and the remaining Durood and supplication are recited, and then salam is given.
See
It is narrated from Sayyiduna Abu Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, that “Indeed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade the price of a dog.”
But contrary to this, it is written in Fatawa Alamgiri that ’’إذا ذبح کلبه و باع لحمه جاز.‘‘
It is permissible to slaughter one’s own dog and sell its meat.
◈It is written in the most authentic books of Hanafi jurisprudence principles:
“The hadith with Misra’ta is only from Hazrat Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him), and since Hazrat Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) was not a jurist, this narration of his is abandoned due to being contrary to analogy.”
See
Warning:
Some Deobandis have also rejected this absurd principle.
See خزائن السنن (جلد دوم ص 107، تالیف عبدالقدوس قارن دیوبندی)
And the Ahl al-Hadith who imitate such absurd types are condemned, and they are taunted as non-followers, while Sarfaraz Safdar himself has written:
“In these noble verses, the imitation that is refuted is the kind of imitation that goes against the command of Allah Almighty and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. What doubt can there be about such imitation being forbidden, polytheistic, blameworthy, and reprehensible? And among the people of Islam and knowledge, who permits such imitation? And who considers such imitators as Muslims and on the right path?”
Sarfaraz Safdar Sahib further wrote:
“If any unfortunate and stubborn imitator decides in his heart that even if evidence from the Quran and Hadith is established against the statement of my Imam, I will not abandon my religion, then he is a polytheist. We say لا شك في, but who, while being sane and conscious, intends or acts in such a way or will do so?”
Dear readers! Several examples have already been mentioned above where the truth was rejected despite acknowledgment, and references have been made to Noor al-Anwar and Usool Shashi that some Hanafis rejected the Hadith of Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) merely on the basis of speculation, calling him a non-jurist. This action of those Hanafis has also been criticized and rejected by some from the Deoband group. Despite this, to say “Who follows such imitation?” is very strange. According to Ashraf Ali Thanwi, this filthy practice is often found among imitators. Thus, Thanwi Sahib said:
“Most followers, even the elite, are so rigid that if they come across a verse or hadith contrary to the statement of a Mujtahid, their hearts do not feel relief or joy; rather, initially, there is rejection in the heart, followed by thoughts of interpretation, no matter how far-fetched, even if there is a stronger opposing argument. Moreover, the Mujtahid’s argument in this matter may be nothing but conjecture, and even the Mujtahid himself may not hold that interpretation firmly in his heart, but for the support of the religion, they consider interpretation necessary. The heart does not accept abandoning the statement of the Mujtahid and acting upon a clear, authentic hadith. In some disputed issues, such as saying ‘Ameen’ aloud, there arises conflict and strife, and this was not prevalent in the first three centuries. Rather, people would investigate the issue as they wished, even though it is narrated that there is consensus that it is not permissible to abandon the four madhhabs and create a fifth newly invented religion—that is, it is not permissible to act upon an issue that contradicts all four madhhabs, because the truth lies within these four. However, there is no proof for this either, because the people of apparent meaning (Ahl al-Zahir) have existed in every era, and it is not that all of them were misguided and separated from this consensus. Secondly, even if consensus were established on personal imitation, there has never been consensus.”
And regarding such followers, the Hanafi scholar Allama Sadr al-Din Ali ibn Ali ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi wrote:
’’فإنـه مـتـى اعـتـقـد أنه يجب على الناس اتباع واحد بعينه من هذه الأئمة رضي الله عنهم أجمعين دون الآخرين فقد جعله بمنزلة النبي صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم ، و ذلك كفر .‘‘
So when he holds the belief that it is obligatory for people to follow one of these Imams, may Allah be pleased with them all, then that person has made that Imam the deputy of the Prophet, and this is disbelief.
Apart from personal imitation, some scholars use the word imitation in different senses; for example, according to Imam Shafi’i and Allama Tahawi, accepting the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is called imitation. Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi calls accepting Hadith imitation, for example, he says: ’’فذهب قوم إلى هذا الحدیث فقلد وہ‘‘ So a people followed this (Marfu’) Hadith, thus they imitated it.
On the previous pages, detailed excerpts from the books of the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi’is, and Hanbalis have been presented showing that accepting the words of the Prophet ﷺ (i.e., Hadith) is not imitation (taqlid). Therefore, it is incorrect for Allama Tahawi to use the term taqlid for Hadith. It is an established fact about Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, that he accepted Hadith. So, would it now be correct to say that Imam Abu Hanifa was not an ijtihad scholar but rather an imitator (muqallid)? When he accepted Hadith and did not become an imitator, then how can another person become an imitator by accepting Hadith?
Imam Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, says: ’’ولا يقلد أحد دون رسول الله صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم‘‘ And one should not imitate anyone except the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Here, the word taqlid is used metaphorically. The meaning of Imam Shafi’i’s statement is that except for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, one should not accept anyone’s words without evidence.
According to Hafiz Khateeb Baghdadi and Hafiz Ibn Abdul Barr, a layperson asking a mufti is called Taqlid (imitation). For details, see the issue of Taqlid in religion
.
So it is stated that according to the Deobandis, these two types of statements are also not called Taqlid, because all trustworthy Imams Mujtahids also accepted Hadith, and the Deobandis declare that a Mujtahid is not a follower (Muqallid), rather Taqlid is for the ignorant.
Sarfaraz Safdar Sahib wrote:
“And Taqlid is only for the ignorant.”
Ameen Okaraavi Deobandi wrote:
“A person who possesses the capability of Ijtihad, for him Ijtihad is obligatory, and Taqlid is forbidden.”
And similarly, a layperson asking a Mufti is also not called Taqlid (imitation), otherwise all Deobandis would become followers of their scholars, whereas the Deobandis have declared that imitation of anyone other than the four Imams is not permissible and is against the congregation. Therefore, it is proven that the use of the word Taqlid by the mentioned scholars is metaphorical. Likewise, if a Mufti gives a ruling based on his Ijtihad, as Thanvi Sahib used to say, accepting it is also not Taqlid. And in the highly authentic book of the Deobandis, Fatawa Alamgiri, it is written:
’’أجمع الفقهاء على أن المفتي يجب أن يكون من أهل الاجتهاد‘‘
Meaning, the consensus of the jurists is that the Mufti must be among those qualified in Ijtihad.
Warning:
To understand the reality of the issue of Taqlid in religion, the book “The Issue of Taqlid in Religion” by Hafiz Zubair Ali Zaee (may Allah protect him) and the article published on Taqlid in Al-Hadith issue numbers 75-76 are extremely beneficial to study.
From several statements of Al-Deoband, it is clear that Taqlid (imitation) means imposing the personal opinion of a particular Imam Abu Hanifa upon oneself, whereas in the Risalah Qafila of Elias Ghuman, there is a hadith written which contradicts this claim of his. Accordingly, Muhammad Yousuf, the “Shaheed and Mufti” of Al-Deoband, has written:
There is a hadith of the Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ which provides complete guidance in resolving these difficulties:
عن علي قال قلت يا رسول الله صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم ان نزل بنا امر ليس فيه بيان امر ولا و لا نهى فما تامرنى قال شاوروا فيه الفقهاء والعابدين ولا تمضوا فيه راى خاصة. رواه الطبرانى فى الاوسط ورجاله موثقون من اهل الصحيح.
Translation: Hazrat Ali رضي الله عنه said: “I asked, O Messenger of Allah ﷺ! If a matter arises in which you have neither given a statement nor refrained from giving one, then what do you command should be done?”
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
“Consult the jurists and worshippers and then decide; do not involve personal opinion.”
From this noble hadith, not only the importance but also the obligation of collective consultative decisions has been established, along with the qualifications required for this group:
◈ They should be knowledgeable enough to have deep understanding of the religion.
◈ They should be righteous, pious, and devoted in worship.
In this hadith, personal opinion is prohibited and consultation is commanded. Taking advice is not imitation. Allah Almighty has commanded His beloved Prophet ﷺ to take consultation under (وشاورهم في الأمرح), so can it be that, God forbid, Allah commanded His Prophet ﷺ to imitate? Whereas Thanvi Sahib said:
“Thus, from شاور ھم فی الامر it is only proven that rulers should consult the subjects; where is it proven that they must necessarily act upon their advice?”
Thanvi Sahib further said:
’’And we have a hadith from Barirah (may Allah be pleased with her) as evidence that it is not necessary to act upon someone’s advice, even if it is the advice of the Prophet himself.’’
Important Note:
There is a severe disagreement among the scholars of Ahl-e-Deoband regarding Taqlid (imitation). According to some, Taqlid of Imam Abu Hanifa is obligatory, and one who abandons Taqlid cannot remain a Muslim, as has already been quoted from Sarfaraz Safdar at the beginning. On the other hand, their “Hakim al-Ummah” Thanvi said: “There will be no accountability on the Day of Judgment for abandoning Taqlid.”
Elsewhere he said: “If there is accountability on the Day of Judgment for abandoning Taqlid, then it is not because of opposing any definitive ruling.”
