The Four Days of Qurbani and Ahl al-Hadith Scholars
Rab Nawaz Deobandi has written the names of the following scholars regarding issuing a fatwa or deriving rulings based on the three-day sacrifice tradition: Shawkani, Hafiz Abdullah Ropari, Maulana Aziz Zubaidi, Maulana Ali Muhammad Saeedi, Hafiz Abdul Mannan Norpuri, Sheikh Abdul Qahar and Abdul Sattar, Dr. Fazl Elahi, Ashraf Saleem Sahib, and Maulana Abu Suhaib Muhammad Dawood Arshad, among others.
Among these scholars, Hafiz Ropari, may Allah have mercy on him, responded to the objection of the hadith being disconnected and, quoting Shawkani, wrote: “Ibn Hibban has mentioned this hadith as connected and narrated it in his Sahih.” Also, Hafiz Sahib, citing Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim, has used the hadith and the traces of the pious predecessors as evidence for the permissibility of sacrifice on the thirteenth day.
According to the author of these lines (Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him), this hadith is weak with all its chains, while according to the aforementioned scholars, this hadith is authentic, has supporting evidence, or is acceptable due to the confirmation of traces, and therefore is worthy of being used as evidence. Hence, there is no fundamental disagreement between the two parties, but rather an ijtihadi (juristic) difference.
Rab Nawaz Deobandi has posed the question:
Now the question is, are the numerous narrations presenting the tradition of the days of Tashreeq weak for issuing fatwas and deriving rulings? And also clarify whether the meaning of “disconnected” is disconnected lineage or something else? Etc.
Answer:
The position adopted by the mentioned scholars, considering the traditions and reports, is rejected in our view, and this is their ijtihadi error. Secondly, they have accepted the mentioned narration as authentic and used it as evidence without presenting it against any authentic explicit proof, nor have they engaged in any double standard.
Second Aspect
It is authentically established with a sound chain of narration that Sayyiduna Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) ordered the recitation of eleven rak’ahs (Taraweeh).
The following scholars have declared this narration authentic and reliable for argument:
➊ Ayni Hanafi
➋ Zia al-Maqdisi
➌ Tahawi
Also, Naimwi wrote about it: “And its chain is authentic.”
In contrast to this authentic narration, the following narrations are presented by prominent followers:
➊ عن يحيى بن سعيد عن عمر بن الخطاب أنه امر رجلا ان يصلى بهم عشرين ركعة.
➋ عن الحسن ان عمر بن الخطاب جمع الناس على ابي بن كعب فكان يصلى بهم عشرين ركعة.
➌ عن ابي بن كعب ان عمر بن الخطاب امره ان يصلى بالليل فى رمضان فصلى بهم عشرين ركعة
➍ عن السائب بن يزيد ان عمر بن الخطاب جمع الناس فى رمضان على ابي بن كعب و تميم الدارى على احدى وعشرين ركعة.
All these references were presented by Master Amin Okarawee Deobandi in his research on the issue of Taraweeh.
The chain of narration of narration number 1 is broken.
The chain of narration of narration number 2 is also broken; moreover, in many manuscripts of Sunan Abu Dawood, instead of “twenty rak’ahs,” ”عشرين ليلة“ is written, and this text is the stronger one.
Ayni Hanafi also wrote about the chain of this narration from Hasan from Umar: There is a break in this narration because Hasan (Basri) did not meet Umar ibn al-Khattab.
The chain of narration of narration number 3 is also broken, as is evident from the footnote of Hadith number 78 in Athar al-Sunan.
The chain of narration of narration number 4 is weak due to Imam Abdul Razzaq being a “thiqah mudallis” (reliable but concealer), and it is also rejected because it contradicts Muwatta Imam Malik.
According to Amin Okarawee, presenting an anomalous narration is the work of a priest or a pandit, and the end of one who presents an anomalous narration is “disgrace.”
If the one who presents an anomalous narration ends in disgrace, then the one who presents a rejected narration against an authentic hadith will have his face and entire body blackened.
The author wrote in response to Okarawee and others’ approach and false policy:
“It is definitely not established with an authentic, continuous chain from Amir al-Mu’minin Sayyiduna Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that he prayed twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh. The narrations of Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Ansari and Yazid ibn Ruman are broken (this is also admitted by Hanafi and traditional scholars), and whatever else exists is neither the order of the Caliph nor the practice of the Caliph nor the practice of the people in front of the Caliph. The weak and broken narrations are presented only by the one who himself is weak and broken.”
The meaning of this statement is clear: whoever deliberately presents weak and broken narrations against an authentic hadith is himself weak and broken.
None of the aforementioned hadith scholars deliberately presented weak and broken narrations against the authentic hadith; rather, they considered a different hadith authentic in a different issue and argued from the Athar as well.
On the other hand, the famous innovator and extremist follower Master Okarawee presented weak and broken Athar against the authentic hadith, thereby proving his own weakness and obsolescence.
The words “weak and broken” (abandoned) used by the author in the above statement refer to “broken” meaning severely weak, i.e., abandoned.
Master Amin Okarawee was very advanced among those who mocked the blessed hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), for example: In an authentic hadith, it is mentioned that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “If a black dog passes in front, the prayer is broken.”
Mocking this hadith, the late Okarawee wrote:
“But you (peace be upon him) continued to lead the prayer while the female dog was playing in front, and there was also a she-ass, and you kept looking at their private parts.”
It should be remembered that this book was published with Okarawee’s signed permission and after his death with the confirmation of the Okarawee family, etc.
Therefore, it is wrong to consider this statement a mistake of that time.
It is established that Okarawee, besides being heretical, presented weak and broken narrations against authentic hadiths; therefore, the ruling of weak and broken (abandoned) in the above statement applies to Okarawee and other such heretics.
