Dog’s Saliva on Utensils
Hazrat Abu Huraira (RA) narrates that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
((اذا ولغ الكلب في اناء احدكم فليرقه ثم ليغسله سبع مرار ))
When a dog licks the utensil of any one of you, it is necessary to wash it seven times (the utensil).
Molvi Anwar Khurshid Deobandi has cited this hadith to argue that water with little quantity is impure.
However, in the same hadith, the Prophetic command to wash the dog’s licked utensil seven times is present. But the Hanafi scholars, while disregarding this Prophetic command, say that washing three times is obligatory, necessary, and sufficient. In Hidayah it is stated:
((وسور الكلب نجس ويغسل الاناء من ولوغه ثلاث ))
Meaning, the dog’s saliva is impure and when it licks the utensil, it should be washed three times.
Treatment with Forbidden Substances
Hazrat Tariq bin Suwaid Al-Juhani (may Allah be pleased with him) asked the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم about wine. The Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade him and disliked making wine for medicinal purposes and said that this is not medicine, it is a disease.
From this hadith, the author of “Hadith aur Ahl-e-Hadith” argued on the impurity of wine on page 154, but from the same hadith, this issue is established that using forbidden things for healing purposes is not permissible because they do not contain healing but are themselves diseases. However, in Hanafi jurisprudence it is clearly written that:
((لو أن مريضا أشار اليه الطبيب بشرب الخمر روى عن جماعة من ائمة بلخ انه ينظر ان كان يعلم يقينا أنه يصح حل له التناول ))
If a doctor advises a patient to drink wine, then according to the narrations from the Imams of Balkh, if this treatment is certain, then drinking wine is permissible.
((سال النبي عن الحمر فنهاه وكره ان يضعها للدواء فقال انه ليس بداوء ولكنه داء ))
After that, it is clear that if a Muslim doctor advises the use of blood, urine, or carrion and there is no alternative to them, then it is permissible to use them. Also, read further than this:
((فقد ثبت ذلك في المشاهير من غير انكار والذي رعف فلا يرقا دمه فاراد ان يكتب بدمه على جبهة شيئا من القرآن قال ابو بكر الا سكاف يجوز))
That is, this issue is established from the authorities without any objection that if someone’s nosebleed does not stop and he wants to write something from the Quran on his forehead with blood, then Abu Bakr As-Saqaf said this is permissible.
In Fatawa Qazi Khan, it is written further that:
(( قيل لو كتب بالبول قال لو كان فيه شفاء لا باس به ))
It has been said that if it is written with urine, then it has been stated that if there is healing in it, then there is no harm.
Ibn Anjeem, elevating his jurisprudence to its peak, has, Masha Allah, also recorded its proof that
:وكذا اختار صاحب الهدايه في التجنيس فقال اذا صال الدم من انف انسان يكتب فاتحة الكتاب بالدم على جبهته وانفه يجوز ذلك لاستشفاء والمعالجة ولو كتب بالبول ان علم ان فيه شفاء لا بأس بذلك لكن لم ينقل و هذا لان الحرمة ساقطة عند الاستشفاء الا ترى أن العطشان يجوز له شرب الخمر والجائع يحل له أكل الميته the author of Hidayah has chosen in Tajnis that it is permissible to treat with an impure substance. He said that if a person has a runny nose and writes Surah Al-Fatiha on his forehead and nose with blood, it is permissible for seeking healing, and if it is certain that writing with urine will bring healing, then writing with urine is also permissible, but this is not transmitted. The reason is that the prohibition is lifted for the sake of seeking healing, just as eating carrion and drinking wine is not forbidden for a hungry and thirsty person.
This fatwa is also transmitted in Fatawa Sirajiya p. 75, etc. In short, the Hanafi scholars prove the impurity of wine from the mentioned ahadith but believe in treatment with forbidden things, although the fundamental point of the hadith is that there is no healing in forbidden things; rather, they themselves are the disease. But these trustees of jurisprudence have not only disregarded this hadith but have also dismissed the greatness of the Quran casually. اناللہ وانا الیہ راجعون
Then the argument they have presented is even stranger: the issue of ignorance and prohibition that carrion is permissible for the distressed is proven by definitive text, but there is no argument at all for the dismissal of the greatness of the Quran?
The Issue of Sour Belching
A weak narration is reported from Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her)
in which the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:
((من اصابه في او رعاف او فلس او مزى فلينصرف فليتوضاء ))The Hadith
Whoever experiences vomiting during prayer, or a nosebleed occurs, or sour belching happens, should separate from the prayer and perform ablution again.
From this narration, the innovators of Diabna have argued that ablution is broken by the discharge of blood, claiming that nosebleed is blood and it flows.
However, in the same hadith, the word “fals” appears, which the innovators of Diabna, Anwar Khurshid, has interpreted to mean ‘a mouthful of vomit.’
Although in the hadith, the word قنیی (Qunayy) is separately mentioned for vomiting, which means “they vomited,” and further فلس (Fals) is defined. The reason for this misunderstanding is that according to the Hanafi school, if vomiting comes out fully from the mouth, it breaks wudu (ablution), otherwise it does not. To escape this objection, they have distorted the meaning of the hadith. Let us show you its meaning from the lexicons of the Imams.
Allama Fayoumi states:
((فلس خرج من بطنه طعام او شراب الى الفم و سواء القاء أو أعاد إلى بطنه اذا كان مل الفم أو دونه فاذا غلب فهو قي ))
Meaning, Fals is said when food or water comes from the stomach towards the mouth, whether it is vomiting or not, and returns back to the stomach, whether it comes out fully from the mouth or not. When this thing predominates, i.e., the food comes out of the mouth, it is called vomiting.
In short, when water or food comes out from the stomach to the throat and then returns back to the stomach, it is called Fals in the Arabic language. Allama Ibn Manzur writes that
((الفلس ان يبلغ الطعام إلى الحلق من الحلق أودونه ثم يرجع إلى الجوف))
The meaning of “Fals” is that the food comes up from the stomach to the throat, whether the throat becomes full or not, and then returns back to the stomach.
This is the meaning of “Fals” as written in authoritative lexicons such as Majma’ Bihar al-Anwar, p. 318, vol. 4, and Taj al-‘Arus, p. 221, vol. 4, etc., whose authors include followers of the Hanafi school of thought. The summary is that the Hanafi school accepts that bleeding breaks wudu according to this hadith, but they do not accept that vomiting (Fals) breaks wudu. Even though both are mentioned in the same hadith.
The issue of breaking the fast due to vomiting
The author of Hadith and Ahl al-Hadith on page 191 quotes from Sunan Tirmidhi:
((عن ابي الدرداء ان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قاء فتوضاء ))
That is, Hazrat Abu Darda (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم vomited and performed ablution. From this hadith, the innovators of Deenah argue that ablution is broken due to vomiting. However, in this narration,
فاء فتوضاء the words were only narrated by Tirmidhi; other Imams of Hadith narrated the words فاء فافطر. Musnad Ahmad page 195 volume 1, Abu Dawood page 324 volume 1, Darimi page 14 volume 2, Dar Qutni page 158 volume 1, Tahawi page 404 volume 1, Ibn Hibban and Mustadrak Hakim page 426 volume 1, and Baihaqi page 220 volume 1, etc. Moreover, Imam Tirmidhi himself mentioned the words فاء فافطر in the book of fasting.
The meaning of these words is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم vomited and broke his fast, but how unfortunate it is that the Hanafi scholars accept the words of this narration regarding the letters فاء فتوضاء as proof for ablution, yet they do not accept the words فاء فافطر in the same narration as proof that vomiting breaks the fast.
Imam Tahawi says:
(وليس في هذين الحديثين دليل على ان القى كان مفطرا له انما فيه انه قاء فاقطر بعد ذلك)
Meaning, there is no proof in this for the breaking of the fast due to vomiting because it only states that he vomited and then broke his fast.
But they do not accept that he vomited and then performed ablution. Is there any limit to this injustice that for themselves and others they have different standards?
The prescribed number of loosening in Istinja
The author of Hadith and Ahl al-Hadith has narrated from Sunan Dar Qutni, page 54, volume 1, from Hazrat Sulaiman Farsi (may Allah be pleased with him) the Prophetic saying that
((امرنا صلى الله عليه وسلم ان لا تستقبل ولا نستدبرها ))The Hadith
The Prophet ﷺ commanded that we should neither face the Qibla nor turn our back towards it.
From this hadith, the innovators of Diabna have deduced that one should neither face the Qibla nor turn their back towards it while urinating or defecating. However, the author of “Hadith and Ahl al-Hadith” did not even mention the opposing part; furthermore, in bad faith, he cited Sunan Dar Qutni instead of the hadith which is also present in Tirmidhi, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, and Sahih Muslim, so that if any Urdu reader wishes to verify, they cannot ascertain the actual situation. Now let us observe this opposing part:
Hazrat Sulaiman (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم forbade us from facing the Qibla or turning our back towards it while urinating or defecating, and from performing istinja (cleaning) with the right hand.
((او ان نستنجى باقل من ثلثة احجار او ان تستنحى برجيع او بعظم ))
It is forbidden to perform istinja (cleaning oneself after relieving) with less than three stones or with cow dung and bones.
This hadith is evidence that it is not permissible to perform istinja with less than three stones, and that the minimum is three, which is Sunnah. In fact, in the narration of Musnad Ahmad, these words are also present:
((ولا نکتفی بدون ثلاثة احجار ))
Meaning that less than three stones are not sufficient for istinja.
Not only that, but in the narration quoted by the author in “Hadith and Ahl al-Hadith,” these words are also present: ((ولا نستكفى بدون ثلاثة احجار )) meaning that less than three stones are not sufficient for istinja.
But the innovator Hanafis rebel against this part and say that it is not Sunnah. It is stated in Hidayah ((و ليس فيه عدد . عدد مسنون )) that the number of loosening in istinja is not Sunnah.
You see, they quote the same hadith to establish an argument against the opponent, but they refuse to believe in the rest of the hadith, rather following the footsteps of the people of Musa, they swallow different words.
انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون
The issue of praying with shoes on
The author of “Hadith aur Ahl-e-Hadith” has narrated on page 233 from Sunan Abu Dawood, page 95, volume 1, that Hazrat Abu Saeed Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was leading the companions in prayer when suddenly he took off his shoes and placed them on the left side. When the companions saw this, they also took off their shoes and placed them on the left side. After finishing the prayer, the Prophet (peace be upon him) asked what made them take off their shoes. The companions replied that they saw him take off his shoes, so they also took them off. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said that Jibra’il (Gabriel) came and informed him that there was impurity on the shoes. The innovators of Diyabnah use this as evidence that cleanliness of clothes, etc., is a condition for prayer.
But dear readers will be surprised that the innovators did not quote the opposing part of the narration. The next words of the hadith are:
(اذا جاء احدكم الى المسجد فلينظر فان راى في نعليه قذرا او اذى فليمسه وليصل فيهما )
“When any of you enters the mosque, he should look at his shoes; if there is any impurity on them, he should rub it off on the ground and then pray in them.”
These words of the Prophetic hadith are clear evidence that praying in shoes is permissible without any dislike, but the position of the innovators of Diyabnah is that praying with shoes is against etiquette.
Maulana Taqi Usmani states that the requirement of etiquette is that shoes should be taken off before praying; accordingly, our jurists have clarified this.
The meaning of this writing is clear that praying with shoes on is against etiquette, but it has not been considered that the one who stated this is the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Are you all teaching him manners? Then I say, consider that from this hadith it is proven that if due to some mistake the worshiper did not realize that his clothes, etc., were impure, then there is no need to repeat the prayer. Because the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not make the prayer performed with those shoes invalid. However, our kind ones avoid this objection by saying that the reason could be that the impurity was slight, which is excusable.
But here, it will not work with “it might be.” Present a clear argument. Moreover, when you have admitted that the impurity was minor and did not invalidate the validity of the prayer, then how are you establishing an argument against the opponent? Because you have used taking off the shoes as evidence, but here you have admitted that even if they were not taken off, it would still not invalidate the prayer. These are the ones who claim exclusive authority over jurisprudence without any external participation, arguing against the opponent with evidence they themselves do not believe in. And these are the ones who claim to be the inheritors of the Prophetic knowledge but distort the text of the hadith to derive their intended meaning.
The Issue of Qadha (Making up Missed Prayers) in Mosques
The author (Hadith and Ahl al-Hadith, page 237) has quoted a hadith from
which proves that the cleanliness of the place is a condition for the validity of the prayer. But in the same hadith, the Prophetic words are:
((انما هي لذكر الله والصلوة وقرأة القرآن))
Meaning, mosques are solely and exclusively for the remembrance of Allah, prayer, and recitation of the Quran.
This proves that no other work is permissible in mosques except for what has been mentioned. However, the Hanafis are not willing to accept this prophetic command and in fact deny it, because according to the Hanafis, making decisions in mosques is permissible. Under Chapter Two, Number 7, we have already stated that the author of Hidayah has added the word “and judgment” in support of his stance.
Then consider which Ahl al-Hadith scholar has issued the fatwa that urinating in mosques is permissible, when the author, the hadith scholar, and the Ahl al-Hadith are quoting the Bedouin hadith against us to defame us.
Maulvi Anwar Khurshid has passed away and his matter has been left to Allah. I am confident that if he were questioned about this misrepresentation, he would be left without an answer. InshaAllah.
Admission as well as Denial
The researcher of Diyabnah has narrated from
the hadith of Hazrat Abdullah bin Masood (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet ﷺ combined two prayers in Muzdalifah and ‘‘صلى الفجر قبل میقاتھا ’’ and prayed the Fajr prayer before its time.
The words of this hadith ‘‘قبل وقتها’’ mean that once during Hajj in Muzdalifah, you prayed the prayer in a state of philosophy (in my opinion).
See, the innovators of Diabneh use this hadith from Sur Ma as an argument against the opponent, but they say the meaning of ‘‘قبل وقتھا’’ is “phals” and “ghuls,” meaning darkness. Now ask these claimants of knowledge and virtue in which dictionary ” قبل وقتھا“ means “ghuls” and “ghuls” means darkness.
Believe me, even if all the innovators of Diabneh in the whole world gather together, they still cannot prove this meaning. Listen, “قبل وقتها” means “before time,” whereas “ghuls” means the darkness at the time of dawn when the morning light has mixed with it. For this, refer to the lexicons and the expressions of the Imams of Hadith
. For brevity, another reference is quoted here; Allama Al-Fatni Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
(( غلس هو الظلمة آخر الليل اختلطت بضوء الصباح )) means “ghuls” is the darkness of the last part of the night in which the morning light has mixed.
And this time is agreed upon by both parties as the time of Fajr prayer; therefore, this is not ’’قبل و فتھا‘‘. For more details, see Deen-ul-Haq. In short, the Hanafis use the hadith of Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) as evidence against the opponent, but these very people, instead of believing in it, interpret it away.
Burying the Dead at Disliked Times
It is narrated from Hazrat Uqbah bin Amir (RA) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade praying and burying the dead at three times.
The author quotes this hadith in
to prove the prohibition of praying at sunrise, zenith, and sunset, but in the same hadith, the prophetic words are also present that ((ان تقبر فيهن موتانا )) meaning that we are forbidden from burying the dead at these three times. However, it is a great injustice that the innovators are not willing to accept this part of the prophetic statement.
Maulana Taqi Usmani states that as far as burial is concerned, it is valid even at disliked times according to us. And the hadith in this chapter ’’او نقبر فيهن موتانا‘‘ refers to the funeral prayer.
Although ’’ نقبر ‘‘ is derived from the grave. Allama Iftani explains its meaning as
((او نقبر فیهن ای ندفن من قبره ))
meaning it signifies burial. Allama Nawawi has called the meaning of it as the funeral prayer weak
. For further details, refer to
. Anyway, we do not need witnesses for this because Maulvi Anwar Khurshid himself has interpreted it as “burying”
.
Similarly, Maulvi Abid ur Rahman Siddiqi Kandhlawi Hanafi Deobandi has said that it means preventing the burial of the dead
.
In summary, Diabna uses this hadith to argue against praying at disliked times, but they deny the second part of the same hadith about not burying the dead.
These are the Ahl al-Sunnah who claim to follow the Sunnah but in reality harbor enmity towards it.
Double Takbeer
The beginner Diabani’s Sher Bahadur has established the second Takbeer by narrating the hadith of Hazrat Abu Mahzoorah (may Allah be pleased with him) from Sunan Arba’ah and Darimi (Hadith and Ahl al-Hadith 262). However, in the same hadith, the double Adhan is also established, but how unfortunate it is that half of the hadith was accepted for the purpose of slaughtering with the throat cut, while the other half was discarded due to blind imitation. اناللہ وانا الیہ راجعون۔
For a detailed discussion on this issue, refer to Deen-ul-Haq.
Issue of Raising the Hands
The researcher of the innovators has cited the hadith of Hazrat Wail bin Hujr (may Allah be pleased with him) from
and the hadith of Hazrat Malik bin Hawairith (may Allah be pleased with him) from
and presented it in the context of raising the hands during Takbeer-e-Tahrima, proving that the hands should be raised up to the ears at the time of Takbeer-e-Tahrima. However, both these hadiths mention raising the hands while going into Ruku and while rising from Ruku. This has been digested by Maulvi Anwar Khurshid Taqleed-e-Hath Ki Safai. In short, all the innovators of the Hanafi school argue from these two hadiths in favor of raising the hands, but they merely reject the latter part by blind imitation.
Reciting the Praise Loudly
The Holy Prophet ﷺ used to recite ((اللهم باعد بینی وبین خطایای)) silently (in a low voice) after Takbeer-e-Tahrima.
Contrary to the example of the Beloved Prophet ﷺ, the Hanafi position is that ( سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك ) is superior, higher, and better to recite. All the raised (marfoo’) narrations cited in this regard are weak and defective. However, it is established that these words were recited by Hazrat Umar Farooq (may Allah be pleased with him). Our addressee, Maulvi Anwar Khurshid, has also proven from this narration that ’’سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك‘‘ is recited instead of ’’اللهم باعد بینی‘‘.
But it is very regrettable that this narration also contains these words (( كان يجهر بهولاء الكلمات)), meaning that Hazrat Umar Farooq (may Allah be pleased with him) used to recite these words aloud.
Yet it is very unfortunate that the innovators do not accept even the first part of this narration but, while blindly following ’’کان یجھر‘‘, say that a stopped (mauqoof) narration is not proof against a raised (marfoo’) narration. But who would dare to question these claimants of knowledge and virtue by asking: O respected one, if reciting aloud is against the raised hadith, then is reciting “Subhanak” in accordance with the raised narration? If both are contradictory, then accepting one for the sake of meaning and rejecting the other due to imitation, and using the excuse that it opposes the raised narration, is nothing but trickery. In short, Diabna has accepted half of this narration which agrees with the doctrine of Ahl-e-Iwan, and does not accept the other half which contradicts their doctrine, while using it as proof against the opposing side.
Walking During Prayer
The issue of Surah Al-Fatiha in prayer is a monumental issue, in which thousands of debates have taken place and dozens of books have been published by both parties. The beginners of the Qira’at Khalaf Al-Imam also present the narration of Hazrat Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه that:
When he reached the mosque, the Prophet ﷺ had already gone into Ruku (bowing), so Hazrat Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه went into Ruku before joining the row, then while still in the state of Ruku, he joined the row walking. Upon this, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said ((زادك الله حرصا ولا تعد )), meaning “May Allah reward you with goodness and make you eager to do so again.”
From this narration, Diabneh argues that if a person meets the Imam while he is in rukoo (bowing), then that will count as a rak’ah
. However, this hadith does not mention at all that Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) counted that rak’ah; moreover, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not approve of Hazrat Abu Bakr’s action, which is why he forbade doing so in the future. Anyway, what we want to discuss is walking during the prayer instead of reciting Surah Al-Fatiha behind the Imam, because the same narration also mentions that when Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) entered the mosque, he joined the row while walking in the state of rukoo.
. However, the Hanafis say that this is disliked (makruh). If one walks three or four steps or more, the prayer will become invalid.
. The Hanafi ruling is explicitly contradictory and opposed to this hadith, but how unfortunate it is that the Hanafis use this hadith to prove the rak’ah by meeting the Imam in rukoo, yet they reject the other part of this narration.
Recitation in the Last Two Rak’ahs of Prayer
It is narrated from Hazrat Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said:
(( وان لم تزد على ام القرآن اجزات وان زدت فهو خير ))
That is, if a worshiper does not recite more than Surah Al-Fatiha, it will be sufficient; if he recites more, it will be better. Hafiz Ibn Hajar has clarified
and Allama Aini Hanafi has explained
that this is not only the ruling of Hazrat Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) but it is also a Marfu‘ Hukm (a ruling attributed to the Prophet). Based on this hadith, some scholars of Ahl al-Hadith hold the position that it is better if in the last Rak‘ah of the prayer, more than Surah Al-Fatiha is recited. Criticizing this position, the renowned researcher of the innovators of Diabna
quotes the hadith of Hazrat Abu Qatada (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to recite Surah Al-Fatiha and two other Surahs in the first two Rak‘ahs of the Zuhr prayer, and in the last two Rak‘ahs, he would recite only Surah Al-Fatiha.
Later, deriving a conclusion from this narration, he says that contrary to these hadiths and reports, the non-followers (ghair muqallideen) say that in a four Rak‘ah prayer, it is permissible to recite another Surah besides Surah Al-Fatiha in the last two Rak‘ahs as well. (p. 366)
But we say that the innovators’ criticism of the Salafi scholars based on this hadith is against their own position and creed because if this narration proves the prohibition of reciting more than Al-Fatiha, then from the same narration the recitation of Al-Fatiha in the last Rak‘ahs is also established. However, the innovators of Diabna do not accept this because according to them, only standing (Qiyam) is obligatory in the last Rak‘ah. Maulvi Anwar Khurshid himself writes:
“If someone stands silently in the second two Rak‘ahs or even one Rak‘ah of the obligatory prayer, his prayer will still be valid.”
But this position is negated by the mentioned hadith. Yet it is a great injustice that the part of the narration which establishes proof against the opponent is declared ineffective by them for their own benefit, even though they themselves do not act upon it but use it as evidence against the opponent. انا للہ واہ الیہ راجعون
Example of the Imam Saying Tasmi’ and Tahmeed
The innovators of Diyabnah
present a narration from Hazrat Abu Humaid Al-Sa’di (may Allah be pleased with him) which, besides being contrary to authentic hadith, has a weak chain of narration. Because in its chain is ‘Isa bin Abdullah Al-‘Umari, whom Imam Ali bin Madini has called unknown.
No authentic endorsement from any muhaddith has been transmitted for him. Hafiz Ibn Hajar has called it acceptable in (Taqreeb 27), meaning in the case of following, otherwise it is a weak hadith as Hafiz Sahib clarified in the introduction of Taqreeb. However, here there is no follower (mutaabi’) present. Allama Albani has declared this narration weak.
But the innovators have used it as evidence and proof, presenting it regarding the absence of the sitting rest (jalsa istirahah), and said that from the mentioned ahadith and reports it is established that after completing the second prostration of the first and third rak‘ah, standing up straight without sitting is Sunnah.
But you will be surprised that in the same narration these words also appear:
((ثم رفع راسه يعنى من الركوع فقال سمع الله لمن حمده اللهم ربنا لك الحمد ورفع يديه ))
Meaning, while raising the head from ruku’, ’’ سمع اللہ لمن حمده اللهم ربنا لك الحمد‘‘ was said and the raising of the hands was done.
The author (Hadith aur Ahl-e-Hadith), knowing these words to be against his stance, dishonestly omitted them because they mention raising the hands while rising from ruku’ and the Imam saying ’’اللهم ربنا لك الحمد‘‘. The Hanafi position is that the Imam only says Tasmi‘.
Dear readers, observe the manipulations of Diyabnah: first, they abandoned the authentic hadith of Hazrat Abu Humaid Al-Sa’di (may Allah be pleased with him) which mentions the sitting rest
and chose the weak narration; second, their trick was to delete the part opposing their view. In summary, the innovators of Diyabnah accept one part of this hadith to suit their purpose while rejecting the other part, and claim to be Ahl al-Sunnah.
Example of Modification of Members
There is a long hadith narrated from Hazrat Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) in which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم taught a Bedouin the method of prayer and also commanded to sit calmly between the two prostrations, saying:
((ثم اسجد حتى تطمئن ساجدا ثم ارفع حتى تطمئن جالسا ثم اسجد حتى تطمئن ساعدا )) The hadith
Meaning: Then prostrate until you find tranquility in prostration, then raise your head from prostration and sit until you find calmness in sitting, then prostrate until you become content in prostration.
In Musnad Ahmad p. 340 vol. 4 and Ibn Hibban Hadith number 1784, etc., this hadith is narrated from Rifa’ah bin Rafi’ (may Allah be pleased with him) through the chain of Muhammad bin Amr, in which the manner of sitting at the mentioned place is also described as
meaning when sitting between the two prostrations, sit on your left thigh. In short, here the manner of sitting between the two prostrations is explained.
.
However, the innovators have a unique approach that they interpret these words as referring to sitting during Tashahhud, and the author (Hadith and Ahl al-Hadith) writes that when sitting in Tashahhud, sit on your left foot.
Later, explaining this action, he said that this is proof of not leaving the Sunnah. انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون۔
Whereas no Muhaddith has explicitly stated that this sitting is during Tashahhud; all say that this manner is for sitting between the two prostrations.
Anyway, we have a more interesting point to present, which is that in the same hadith, the command to straighten the limbs was also issued by the prophetic tongue ﷺ, and the one who does not do so was instructed three times by the Prophet ﷺ:
((ارجع فصل فانك لم تصل))
Go back and pray again because you have not prayed.
But the innovators say that if someone deliberately does not straighten the limbs, then the obligatory prayer will be invalid.
And his prayer will not be invalid.
Imam Akmal ad-Din al-Baburqi, deceased, in the commentary of Hidayah states:
(( الاختلاف تظهر في حق جواز الصلاة بدونه ))
Meaning, from this difference, it is established that prayer is valid even without straightening the limbs.
In summary, those who make this hadith a proof and argument themselves practically deny the other part of it.
Enmity in Ahl al-Hadith is the denial of the Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ
In the well-known book written against the Ahl al-Hadith by the innovators of Deoband
( واللفظ للمسلم), this hadith is mentioned:
(( عن زيد بن ارقم قال كنا تتكلم في الصلوة يكلم الرجل صاحبه و هو الى جنبه في الصلوة حتى نزلت و قوم و الله قنتين فامرنا بالسكوت و نهينا عن الكلام))
Hazrat Zaid bin Arqam (may Allah be pleased with him) says that we used to talk during prayer; one person would talk to another who was beside him during the prayer. This continued until this verse was revealed: “Stand humbly before Allah” (i.e., stand with humility before Allah), and we were commanded to remain silent and forbidden from talking. From this hadith, the innovators of Deoband derive the prohibition of talking during prayer, which is undoubtedly correct and true—that one should not talk or speak during prayer because it invalidates the prayer. But dear readers, you will be surprised that the innovators of Deoband accept this only and solely in their refutation of the Ahl al-Hadith; otherwise, these people have discarded this hadith from their lives. The detail of this summary is that this hadith is clear evidence and conclusive proof that the original state of prayer is silence. And loud recitation in prayer will only be done where it is proven by text. But today the entire Deobandi group, ignoring this hadith, out of enmity towards Ahl al-Hadith and hostility towards the Sunnah, commonly object that: slow recitation of praise and seeking refuge (Ta’awwudh) from the Quran and Sunnah, the follower saying Takbir slowly, the salutations, the glorifications in bowing and prostration, etc., are not proven.
You have seen that the innovators accept the prohibition of talking during prayer, but out of enmity towards the Sunnah and hostility towards Ahl al-Hadith, by denying ’’ فامرنا بالسکوت‘‘, they are ruining their Hereafter by denying authentic hadith on a communal level.
Number of Rak’ahs in Witr Prayer
The scholars of Deoband hold the position that Witr is wajib (obligatory). While giving evidence for this, Maulvi Anwar Khurshid writes that
(( عن أبي أيوب الانصارى قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الوتر حق واجب على كل مسلم))
Hazrat Abu Ayyub Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said Witr is haq (right), it is wajib (obligatory) on every Muslim.
From this narration, the innovators of Deoband derive the argument that Witr prayer is wajib.
Commentary: Firstly, this narration with these exact words is definitely not found in Musnad Ahmad, Ibn Hibban, or Musnad Tayalisi; without doubt, the word wajib in the chain of narration was attributed to these books by Hafiz Ibn Hajar, but this is a distortion because
attributes it only to Dar Qutni, and this is correct.
Secondly: There was a mistake in the narrator Ibn Hassan saying the word wajib, as Imam Dar Qutni clarified later in the same narration.
Secondly: The complete hadith is as follows:
((الوتر حق على كل مسلم من احب ان يوتر بخمس فليفعل ومن احب ان يوتر بثلاث فليفعل ومن احب ان يوتر بواحد فليفعل ))
Meaning, Witr is wajib and established on every Muslim. Whoever prefers to pray five (rak’ahs), let him do so; and whoever prefers to pray three, let him do so; and whoever prefers to pray only one Witr, let him do so.
Dear readers! You must have understood well the distortion by the chief innovator of Deoband, why the full text of the narration was not quoted. This is because from this hadith, both five and one Witr are established, and this was against the Deobandi deviant sect. For this, Anwar Khurshid found this trick that he quoted only half of the hadith text and then cited references from untranslated books so that if any Urdu reader wanted to research it, he would not grasp the reality. اناللہ وانا الیہ راجعون۔
Dear readers! You have seen that the innovators of Deoband accept one part of this narration and use it to argue that Witr is wajib, but the other part of the same narration is hidden by the sleight of hand of the imitators and they are not willing to accept it, yet they claim to be Ahl al-Sunnah and inheritors of the Prophetic sciences.
Recommended Recitation in Witr Prayer
The recommended Quranic recitation in Witr prayer is that the person praying recites ’’ سبح اسم ربك الأعلى‘‘ in the first rak’ah, ’’ قل یا یھا الكفرون‘‘ in the second rak’ah, and ’’ قل هو الله احد‘‘ in the third rak’ah. There are numerous hadiths on this, which the innovator Diabna’s scholar of the era, Maulvi Anwar Khurshid, recorded and concluded that Witr consists of three rak’ahs.
Although their reasoning is questionable, these hadiths are against their sect. They say that if a person acts upon these hadiths and recites the recommended Quranic passages, the Hanafis consider it disliked (makruh) because it is not permissible to designate certain Surahs specifically for recitation in prayer.
Then, after reading the arguments they have quoted, one feels pity for their miserable state and also involuntarily laughs that these people are jurists. In summary, the Hanafis accept these hadiths as authentic and use them as evidence, but they reject the other issue proven by the narrations, which is the fundamental spirit of these hadiths, merely due to personal bias, and claim to be Ahl al-Sunnah. فانا اللہ۔۔۔۔
Talking after reciting the Sunnah of Fajr
Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said:
(ان النبي ﷺ كان اذا صلى سنة الفجر فان كنت مستيقظة حدثنى والا اضطحع حتى يؤذن بالصلوة )
That is, when the Prophet ﷺ would finish reciting the Sunnah of Fajr, if I was awake, he would talk to me; otherwise, he would lie down until he was informed about the prayer.
This narration is presented by the Deobandi scholars to prove that lying on the right side after reciting the Sunnah of Fajr اضطحع is not Sunnah.
However, what is proven from this hadith is that talking after the Sunnah of Fajr and before the obligatory prayer is permissible without any dislike, but the innovators of Dioband deny this. Some Hanafi jurists say that talking after the Sunnah of Fajr invalidates the Sunnah of Fajr. The majority of Hanafi jurists hold that the Sunnah of Fajr is not invalidated, but the reward is affected.
Sahib Dar Mukhtar writes:
((ولو تكلم بين السنة والفرض لا يسقطها ولكن ينقص ثوابها ))
That is, if there is conversation between the Sunnah of Fajr and the obligatory prayer, the Sunnahs will not become invalid; however, their reward will be diminished.
This is the same position that Allama Ibn Najim Hanafi stated in Kanz al-Daqa’iq’s commentary on Bahr al-Ra’iq 2/49 regarding the Hanafi view.
In short, they accept half of this hadith but refuse to accept the part about speaking, saying that it is not permissible; even if someone speaks, the reward will be diminished. اناللہ وانا الیہ راجعون
Suppose a person performs the morning Sunnahs at home and his wife is awake, and following the example of the Prophet ﷺ, he talks to his life partner about joys and sorrows or any matter. The Hanafis say that his reward has been diminished. The question is, does following the example of the Beloved ﷺ also cause a reduction in the reward of a good deed?
Time for making up a missed prayer
The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم forbade praying after the Fajr prayer until the sun rises and after the Asr prayer until the sun sets. This hadith is narrated from several companions, for example:
(1) Hazrat Abu Huraira رضي الله عنه.
(2) Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas رضي الله عنه.
(3) Hazrat Abu Saeed Al-Khudri رضي الله عنه.
The innovators of Diabna use these ahadith to argue that if the Sunnah of Fajr is missed, then its qada (make-up) cannot be prayed before sunrise. The reason for this argument is that these ahadith and reports establish that no prayer is permissible after the Fajr prayer until sunrise and after the Asr prayer until sunset.
But you will be surprised that they forbid the Sunnah of Fajr before sunrise by saying no prayer is permissible, yet they forget all their jurisprudence regarding other qada prayers and say:
((ولا باس بان يصلى في هذين الوقتين الفوائت ))
Meaning, there is no harm in praying qada prayers during these two disliked times.
In short, if Zaid misses the Sunnah of Fajr, they forbid him from praying it before sunrise based on this hadith, but if Zaid performs the qada prayer of Isha before sunrise or before sunset, they permit it. Thus, they accept the hadith for the sake of literal meaning but reject it if it contradicts their purpose. Furthermore, they claim that we are pure Ahl al-Sunnah. انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون
Making Up Missed Sunnah Prayers
From numerous authentic hadiths, it is established from the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم that missed Sunnah prayers must be made up. There is no opportunity here for detailed discussion; let us point out one such hadith which proves this issue. However, the innovators of Diabna, despite using this hadith as evidence, do not accept this matter. Accordingly, the researcher Maulvi Anwar Khurshid of the innovators of Diabna, while arguing against performing extra rak’ahs of Nafl before Maghrib prayer, writes that
((عن جابر قال سالنا نساء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم هل رأتين رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يصلى الركعتين قبل المغرب فقلن لا غير ان ام سلمة قالت صلاهما عندى مرة فسالته ما هذه الصلوة فقال نسيت الركعتين قبل العصر فصليتهما الان))
Hazrat Jabir رضي الله عنه says that we asked the pure wives of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم whether they had seen the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم perform two rak’ahs of Nafl prayer before Maghrib prayer? They said no, except that Hazrat Umm Salamah رضي الله عنها said that once he performed two rak’ahs at my place, and I asked him whose prayer it was. He said that he had forgotten to perform two rak’ahs before Asr, so he was now performing them.
Although this narration is weak in terms of chain of transmission because Yahya ibn Abi al-Hajjaj al-Ahtami, a narrator in the chain, is considered weak. Taqreeb 374, and his Sheikh Isa ibn Sinan al-Hadari is also weak. Taqreeb 271. However, the innovators of Diyabna use it as evidence. But those who deny the Qada (making up) of Sunnah prayers, based on this hadith which proves that Sunnah prayers also have Qada, clearly say that only Witr and obligatory prayers require Qada, and no others. Whereas this hadith establishes the issue of Qada for Sunnah prayers. In short, they accept half of it to suit their purpose but reject the other half.
Refutation of the Trick of Prayer as a Judge and the Expiation of Prayer
A long hadith is narrated from Hazrat Anas رضي الله عنه in which the words are prophetic:
((من نسي عن صلوة فليصلها اذا ذكرها لا كفارة لها الا ذلك ))
Meaning, if a person forgets to pray, he should pray when he remembers; other than that, there is no expiation for it.
From this hadith, the beginners (mubtadi’in) argue for the obligation of making up (qada) the missed prayer.
But you will be surprised that from this hadith the issue is also established that if a prayer is missed for some reason, its only expiation is to pray it; there is no other expiation for making up the prayer. However, these beginners do not accept this issue and also accept a financial expiation for making up the prayer.
Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar states that if a sane and adult person has some prayers remaining and dies in that state, the jurists, by analogy with fasting, have prescribed fidya (compensation) for him.
Then the detail of how this fidya is paid is somewhat as follows: one sa’ of wheat for one obligatory prayer and half a sa’ of wheat for the Witr prayer, which will be paid from one-third of the deceased’s estate; if, hypothetically, the inheritance is not sufficient, then wheat equivalent to the amount of the few prayers should be given to a poor person, and then the poor person should give sadaqah on behalf of one of the deceased’s heirs. Similarly, the wheat should be circulated several times until the fidya for all the deceased’s missed prayers is completed.
In summary, the beginners accept this hadith as proof of the obligation of qada but deny the expiation (fidya). انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون
Although this issue is present in the hadith they use as evidence, due to imitation, they accept half and deny the other half.
Note: For a detailed discussion on this issue, see the author’s book Deen-ul-Haq Part Two, which has passed the writing stage. May Allah enable its publication as well. Abu Suhaib, 21 Sha’ban al-Mu’azzam 1420 AH
Reciting Sunnahs While Traveling
Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that I accompanied the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He (peace be upon him) did not pray more than two rak’ahs while traveling.
From this hadith, the innovators of Diabna derive the obligation of shortening the prayer.
However, this same hadith also establishes that performing nawafil (voluntary prayers), commonly known as Sunnahs, was not the practice of the Prophet ﷺ while traveling. Although the innovators of Diabna hold the position that nawafil rawatib (Sunnahs) should be prayed, Hadith and Ahl al-Hadith p.738. In short, the strange condition of the innovators is that they use this hadith as evidence for matters of principle, but deny this hadith in matters of taqlid (imitation).
Surah Al-Fatiha in Funeral Prayer
Hazrat Abi Imamah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that
((السنة في الصلوة على الجنازة ان يقرأ في التكبيرة الا ولى بام القرآن مخافة ثم يكبر ثلثا والتسليم عند الاخرة))
That is, the Sunnah in the funeral prayer is that after the first Takbir, Surah Al-Fatiha is recited slowly, then three Takbirs are said, after which the Salam is given. The innovators of Diabna use this hadith as evidence for reciting the funeral prayer slowly.
But you will be surprised that from the same hadith it is proven that reciting Surah Al-Fatiha in the funeral prayer is also the practice of the Prophet (peace be upon him). However, it is very regrettable that the innovators use it as evidence for reciting the funeral prayer slowly, but they also deny the other issue proven from the same hadith. When asked about their claim, they lie and say they are Ahl al-Sunnah.
