The False Principle of Ameen Okarvi in Classifying Hadith Authenticity

Master Amin Okara was a debater of the Deoband school. He had a particular habit of just asking questions from others without considering his own statements.

Amin Okara’s argument with Ahl al-Hadith (Ahl al-Sunnah) was that you people call a hadith authentic or weak, so prove from Allah and the Messenger ﷺ that this hadith is authentic or weak.

Now obviously, this is a wrong question, and this question is asked from Ahl al-Hadith (Ahl al-Sunnah) because Ahl al-Hadith say that the two principles of Ahl al-Hadith are:

اَطِیْعُوا اللّٰهَ وَ اَطِیْعُوا الرَّسُوْلَ

In fact, this is the meaning of the hadith in which it is said, “O people! I have left among you two things. If you hold fast to them firmly, you will never go astray. One of them is the Book of Allah and the other is the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).”

First of all, the Deobandi scholars also accept this hadith and have adorned their books with it. For details, see Amin Okaraavi’s book:

Ashraf Ali Thanvi Deobandi also wrote:

“Allah and the Messenger صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم have explained all matters of religion to the servants in the Quran and Hadith; now it is not correct to bring out any new matter in religion. Such a new matter is called Bid’ah (innovation). Bid’ah is a great sin.”

Explaining the principles of Ahl al-Hadith, the Ahl al-Hadith scholar Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai حفظہ اللہ quoted the statement of Ahl al-Hadith scholar Hafiz Abdullah Ghazipuri رحمہ اللہ as follows:

It should be noted that the fundamental principle of our religion is only to follow the Book and Sunnah. No one should think that Ahl al-Hadith reject the consensus of the Ummah and legal analogy. Because when these two are proven from the Book and Sunnah, then accepting the Book and Sunnah means accepting them as well.”

While Deobandi Mufti Rashid Ahmad Ludhianvi wrote:

“For the follower (Muqallid), the statement of the Imam is authoritative, not the four proofs.”

The four proofs refer to the Quran, Sunnah, consensus, and analogy.

Mufti Rashid Ahmad Ludhianvi Deobandi wrote elsewhere:

“For the follower, only the statement of the Imam is authoritative.”

After Ameen Okaraavi’s demand from Ahl-e-Hadith that a hadith should be authenticated or declared weak only by the command of Allah and the Messenger صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم, a question can also be posed to the Deobandis: How many principles do you have, and how do you declare a hadith authentic or weak? For this, a statement of Ameen Okaraavi is quoted, in which Okaraavi’s conversation, according to him, took place with another Deobandi. Accordingly, Okaraavi wrote:

One day, a gentleman came who was the headmaster of a high school. He said that non-followers of any particular school of thought initially keep saying that the Hanafis have no Hadith, and if we present any Hadith, they immediately create a commotion saying it is weak or fabricated. So how can one determine whether a Hadith is authentic or weak, and by what evidence is it established that such and such Hadith is authentic and such and such is false? I said that non-followers do not have the right at all to call any Hadith authentic or weak. He asked why? I said their claim is that we only accept the words of Allah and the Messenger as evidence; the words of any follower are not evidence at all. He said exactly, that is their claim. They say this in speeches and also write it on walls. The two principles of Ahl al-Hadith:

The command of God, the command of the Messenger. I said, they also say that following any follower of the Ummah is shirk (polytheism). They said, absolutely. I said, then why don’t they hold themselves accountable to their own claim? They asked, how? I said, the hadith which they consider authentic, they should prove its authenticity from the command of Allah and the Messenger, and the hadith which they consider weak, they should prove its weakness from the command of Allah and the Messenger. They said, Allah and the Messenger have neither declared any hadith authentic nor weak. I said, then they should neither call any hadith authentic nor weak. They said, this is exactly according to their principle, and if they deviate from this principle, then they are not Ahl al-Hadith anymore. They said, their argument is finished. Now they will not be able to call any hadith authentic or weak in front of us. After all, how will we know whether this hadith is authentic or weak? I said, when we present a hadith, we will clearly say, brother, this hadith has been declared authentic by Allah and the Messenger ﷺ and not weak. Yes! If nothing is found from Allah and the Messenger here, then according to Mu’adh, the Mujtahid has the right to ijtihad. Now it will be seen that if all four Imams acted upon this hadith, then we will declare this hadith authentic and applicable by the “proof of consensus” (daleel ijma‘). And if none of the four Imams acted upon this hadith, then by the proof of consensus, we will declare it abandoned in practice (matruk al-‘amal). And if there is disagreement among the four Imams regarding acting upon this hadith, then we will take the decision from our Imam because our Imam’s declaration is known to all, supporters and opponents alike, that اذا صح الحدیث فهو مذهبی، when a hadith is proven authentic by evidence in my view, I adopt it as my religion. So when my Imam’s practice is in accordance with this hadith, then in my view this hadith is authentic, and if my Imam does not act upon any hadith, then surely he has abandoned it based on some evidence, so in my view this hadith is abandoned based on the same evidence that my Imam has. And with the non-muqallid, speak plainly that your calling any hadith authentic or weak is as wrong according to your principles as it is according to mine, because although I accept four proofs, neither God nor the Messenger commands me to follow you, nor is there consensus, nor are you a Mujtahid. So why should I abandon the imitation of the Mujtahid A‘zam of the best generations and follow you? And why should I abandon the manna and quails of the best generations and accept the rotten garlic and onions of the fifteenth century? They said, your statement is absolutely principled. Now, God willing, we will not accept any baseless talk.

Okaraavi’s statement that “I accept four arguments” is a clear contradiction of the Deobandi “Mufti” Rashid Ahmad Ludhianvi’s statement.

Although Okaraavi’s mentioned statement contains falsehood, since it is not my subject at the moment, it is therefore ignored.

In Okaraavi’s mentioned statement, the Deobandi words are also:

“Now they will neither be able to call any Hadith authentic before us nor weak.”

Instead of commenting on this, I will quote Okaraavi’s statement himself, which he wrote against an Ahl-e-Hadith, and now, due to the occasion, it is attached to the Deobandi. Thus, Ameen Okaraavi wrote:

“If by ‘our’ you only mean husband and wife, then perhaps your statement is correct.”

Because Okaraavi’s false principle is not at all correct according to the Deobandis. The Imam of Aal-e-Deoband, Sarfaraz Safdar, wrote:

“In view of the science of Hadith, it is never correct to use it as evidence. Although Imam Abu Laith is a great jurist, in the science of narration and Hadith, reference should be made to the respected Muhammad Thain Karam. Therefore, their presented narration will be checked against the books of Asma al-Rijal because this is the discipline that protects Hadith.”

Sarfaraz Safdar further said:

“Undoubtedly, Imam Muhammad bin Abidin Shami (died 1252 AH) holds a very high position in jurisprudence, but in the science of Hadith and narration, only the words of the Muhaddithin are acceptable, who are the recognized Imams of Jarh wa Ta’dil.”

Principally, Okaraavi’s principle has been completely invalidated by Sarfaraz Safdar’s statements; however, some examples are also cited against Okaraavi’s false principle:

① The Hadith of six (6) fasts of Shawwal:

This hadith is considered authentic by countless members of the Deoband family, because these people continuously describe the virtue of these fasts in their books and pamphlets. For this, you can see:

and the book of Muhammad Ibrahim Sadiq Abadi:

The Deoband “Muftis” Habib ur Rahman Ludhianvi, Tablighi Jamaat members Muhammad Zakariya Kandhlawi, and Ibn Abidin Shami, etc., have also declared the fasts of Shawwal as recommended.

For details, see the weekly Khatm-e-Nubuwwat

And from Amin Okaraavi, who obtained “Anwarat” from Mahmood Alam Safdar Deobandi, it is written:

“A list of some mutawatir narrations is given below.”

After that, under number (21), it is written:

“The six fasts of Shawwal”

Dear readers! Mahmood Alam Safdar Deobandi accepted the hadith about the six fasts of Shawwal as so authentic that he included it among the mutawatir (widely transmitted) hadiths, but despite this, this hadith is not considered authentic by all Deobandis. According to some, this hadith is also weak, and the six fasts of Shawwal are not recommended but rather disliked. They claim that according to Imam Abu Hanifa, these fasts are disliked. For this, you can see the book of Mufti Zaroli Khan Deobandi of the Deoband family:

“Ahsan al-Maqal fi Karahiyat-e-Sawm Sitta Shawwal” meaning the investigation of the dislike of fasting six days of Shawwal.

Sarfaraz Safdar has written:

“Imam Malik considers the six fasts of Shawwal disliked (which are proven by authentic hadith).”

Warning:

The words in brackets are also by Sarfaraz Safdar.

Dear readers! This hadith is often considered authentic by Deobandis, as the references have already been cited. Now the question is, on what principle did Sarfaraz Safdar and others declare this hadith authentic? If viewed according to Okaraavi’s principle, then neither Allah Almighty has declared this hadith authentic nor has the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) declared it authentic. And among the four Imams, according to Sarfaraz Safdar and Zaroli Deobandi, “Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) and Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him)” did not act upon this hadith. Therefore, Okaraavi’s third and fourth arguments are also invalid. Hence, for those Deobandis who have declared this hadith authentic, Okaraavi’s principle is false, as was made clear from Sarfaraz Safdar’s statements at the beginning. However, according to Okaraavi, such Deobandis have gone beyond the four evidences, and Okaraavi’s close associate Abdul Haq Naqshbandi Deobandi wrote:

There are four Shariah evidences.

① The Holy Quran.

② The Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

③ The consensus of the Ummah.

④ Qiyas Mujtahid.

These four evidences are called the principles of jurisprudence.

It is further written:

“When it becomes clear and evident that a follower is bound to remain within the scope of the four evidences in light of his jurisprudence and principles of jurisprudence. And if he goes beyond them, he ceases to be a follower.”

Sarfaraz Safdar Deobandi was a great scholar of Aal-e-Deoband; due to the false principles of Okara, he left the circle of Taqlid and became a non-follower. Regarding non-followers, Okara wrote:

“The greater the non-follower, the greater the blasphemer and disrespectful he will be.”

Ashraf Ali Thanvi Deobandi said:

“It is certain that Imam Azam is a non-follower.”

② The Hadith permitting Muzara’at:

Sheikh-ul-Islam Muhammad Taqi Usmani of Aal-e-Deoband has written:

“Muzara’at (sharecropping) is considered impermissible according to Imam Abu Hanifa, but the Hanafi jurists have abandoned the Imam’s stance and have declared sharecropping with a fixed share of the produce permissible. These examples pertain to issues where all the later Hanafi jurists agreed to depart from the Imam’s opinion. There are many such examples in which some jurists individually opposed Imam Abu Hanifa’s opinion due to a particular hadith.”

Now it is clear that neither Allah Almighty has declared the hadith permitting sharecropping as authentic, nor has the Messenger ﷺ declared it authentic. According to Taqi Usmani, among the four Imams, Imam Abu Hanifa’s practice is not in accordance with this hadith. Therefore, Okaraavi’s third and fourth arguments are also invalid, and for those Hanafi jurists who considered this hadith authentic, Okaraavi’s principle is false, indeed based on falsehood. It is actually a good thing that those jurists passed away before Okaraavi; otherwise, the Okaraavi faction would neither have stopped them from considering the sharecropping hadith authentic nor refrained from mocking them by calling them non-followers (ghair muqallid) and so on!

③ The Hadith of Aqiqah:

Ghulam Rasool Saeedi Barelvi has written:

“The virtues and recommendation of Aqiqah have been mentioned in authentic hadiths, but apparently these hadiths did not reach Imam Abu Hanifa and the two Sahibs, because they forbade performing Aqiqah.

In the Muwatta attributed to Muhammad bin Hasan Shibani, it is written:

“Muhammad (bin Hasan Shaybani) said that regarding Aqiqah, we have learned that it was practiced in the pre-Islamic era and was continued in the early period of Islam. Then sacrifice abrogated every slaughter, and the fasts of the month of Ramadan abrogated all the fasts that were before it.”

Muhammad bin Hasan Shaybani further said:

“Aqiqah should be done neither on behalf of a boy nor on behalf of a girl.”

Ameen Okarawee has written:

“Imam Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him), Imam Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him), Imam Hasan (may Allah have mercy on him), Imam Zafar (may Allah have mercy on him) all swore strong oaths and stated that every statement of ours is transmitted from the Imam Sahib.”

Dear readers! The Ahl-e-Deoband also consider the Ahadith of Aqiqah authentic, but according to Okarawee’s principle, the Ahl-e-Deoband cannot call the Ahadith of Aqiqah authentic either!

Therefore, Okarawee’s principle is invalid, indeed it is based on falsehood.

④ The Hadith about pouring water on the head due to intense heat during fasting:

Abdul Shakoor Lakhnawi has written:

“The Prophet ﷺ once poured water over his head while fasting due to thirst or extreme heat

.

Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) used to wet his clothes and wrap them around his body.

According to Imam Abu Hanifa, these actions are disliked, but the fatwa is not based on their opinion 12

.

(

, the cases in which fasting is not invalidated)

This hadith has been accepted as authentic by the Deobandis, rejecting Imam Abu Hanifa’s opinion, but this hadith cannot be proven authentic according to Okaraavi’s principle in any way, because neither Allah nor the Messenger have declared it authentic, nor is there consensus on its authenticity according to Okaraavi’s principle, since Imam Abu Hanifa’s opinion contradicts this hadith. Therefore, it is proven that Okaraavi’s principle is false and even based on falsehood.

⑤ The Hadith about the prohibition of every intoxicating thing:

Taqi Usmani has written:

“Except for wine made from grapes, consuming other intoxicating substances in such small amounts that do not cause intoxication is permissible according to Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, for gaining strength. However, the Hanafi jurists have abandoned Imam Abu Hanifa’s opinion on this issue and adopted the majority opinion. These examples pertain to those issues in which all the later Hanafi jurists agreed to abandon Imam Sahib’s opinion.”

Note:

According to Taqi Usmani, the Hanafi jurists abandoned these issues of Imam Sahib due to authentic and explicit ahadith. The ahadith that Taqi Usmani considers authentic and explicit cannot be proven authentic in any way according to Okarawi’s principle; therefore, Okarawi’s principle is invalid and rather based on falsehood.

Also, Khair Muhammad Jalandhari Deobandi, about whom Amin Okarawi wrote:

“His Eminence Maulana Khair Muhammad Sahib Jalandhari, may Allah sanctify his secret, holds a distinguished position. This bouquet of his sacred writings is in your hands.”

Okaraavi further said:

“After the Tafseer of the Quran, there is a treatise on the principles of Hadith called Khair al-Usul. The principles of Hadith have been so tightly confined in this treatise that Khair al-Usul is truly the best of speech, a masterpiece of intellect and heart.”

And in Khair al-Usul, Khair Muhammad Jalandhari wrote:

“The first category consists of those books in which all the hadiths are authentic. Such as Muwatta Imam Malik, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Ibn Hibban, Sahih Hakim, Mukhtarah Zia al-Maqdisi, Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, Sahih Abi Awana, Sahih Ibn Sakan, Muntahi Ibn Jarud.”

The hadiths that Khair Muhammad Jalandhari has called authentic cannot be considered authentic in any way according to Okaraavi’s principles; therefore, Okaraavi’s principle is invalid and is based on falsehood.

Abu Bakr Ghazpuri Deobandi, whom the Aal Deoband call “Raees al-Muhaqqiqeen,” wrote:

“For the authenticity of any hadith, it is sufficient that it is present in Sahih Bukhari.”

According to Ghaz Yepuri’s statement as well, Okaraavi’s principle is invalid, rather it is based on falsehood. Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi Deobandi wrote:

“The Ahadith of Jahr Ameen and Raf’ Yadain, etc., are authentic.”

And the same Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi said:

“(For so many) years, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم remained in my heart, and I never spoke a word without asking him.”

But according to Okaraavi’s principle, even Gangohi’s statement is proven wrong, therefore Okaraavi’s principle is invalid, rather it is based on falsehood.

Many more such examples can be given, as Taqi Usmani has also written:

“In many issues, the Hanafi scholars have issued fatwas contrary to the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa,”

The Ahadith which the Hanafi scholars considered authentic and issued fatwas against Imam Abu Hanifa’s opinion cannot in any way be proven authentic according to Okaraavi’s principle.

Therefore, it is proven that the Okara principle is invalid in every respect, and thus Okara, by establishing a false principle, has paved the way for the denial of many authentic hadiths.

If any Deobandi Okara supporter speaks against any Ahl-e-Hadith (Ahl-e-Sunnat), then the Ahl-e-Hadith (Ahl-e-Sunnat) brother should say to such a Deobandi:

First, according to the Okara principle, prove the authenticity of the hadiths mentioned in my article. Also, how can it be determined whether the statements attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa are authentic or weak? And if the Deobandi presents any philosophy, then, God willing, he will fail in that as well, because there are four opinions of Imam Abu Hanifa regarding the last time of Zuhr prayer and the first time of Asr prayer.

And Imam Abu Hanifa’s second opinion is the same as that of the three Imams and the two Sahaba. Imam Tahawi (may Allah have mercy on him) adopted it, and Sahib Dar Mukhtar wrote that nowadays people act according to this opinion and fatwas are issued on it.

But the practice of the Deobandis is not based on Imam Abu Hanifa’s latter statement but on the former statement, and their claim is that “we have preferred the first statement based on the ‘strength of evidence.'”

Okaraavi himself invalidated his own principle in this matter. He abandoned the collective opinion of the four Imams, the two Sahihs, and the statements of Imam Tahawi, etc., and called the “strength of evidence” something unknown!

Note:

For further commentary on Okaraavi’s invalid principle, see

Master Amin Okaraavi, according to his fabricated invalid principle, could neither call the statements attributed to his Imam authentic nor weak; to avoid this difficulty, Okaraavi said something which reminded me of the beloved Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ hadith whose last words are:

“He spoke the truth, but he himself is a great liar.”

Thus, Amin Okaraavi openly said:

“Remember this one thing that just as a hadith belongs to the Prophet of Allah ﷺ, but it is the muhaddithin (scholars of hadith) who classify it as authentic or weak. The Prophet of Allah ﷺ never said that a hadith is authentic or weak. Similarly, regarding the sayings of the Imams, no one says that the muhaddithin have become rulers over the Prophet ﷺ to decide who can call a hadith of Bukhari authentic or weak; they explain it based on rules. Likewise, which saying is authentic, which is trustworthy, and which is not trustworthy, the Imams of Usul (principles) used to explain.”

Okaraavi further said:

“Just as the Usuli scholars classify hadith as authentic or weak based on rules, similarly the Usuli scholars explain which sayings are authentic and which sayings are weak.”

Dear readers! I conclude here by giving an example. If a Ahl-e-Hadith person presents a hadith from Imam Tahawi’s book and says that Imam Tahawi has declared it authentic, and some mischievous Deobandi, ignoring the difference between Shariah rulings and principles of Hadith, presents another statement of Imam Tahawi against the Ahl-e-Hadith and says to accept that as well, otherwise prove the hadith authentic from the Prophet ﷺ, then such a Deobandi should prove the statements attributed to his own Imam as authentic or weak from his own Imam. Because the founder of the Deobandis, Muhammad Qasim Nanotvi, said:

“Secondly, I am a follower of Imam Abu Hanifa, therefore whatever statement you present against me as opposition must be from the Imam himself. It will not be a proof against me if you say that Al-Shami wrote this or Sahib Dar Mukhtar said that, I am not their follower.”