Who is following in the footsteps of the Hadith deniers?
Our contemporaries, the defenders appointed by the early Ahl al-Hadith, quote this objection that if the Quran and Hadith are complete without fiqh, then what is the need for fiqh? Then they write the answer to this question that this question is from the deniers of Hadith, which they asked Muslims regarding the Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him): Is the Quran complete without the Noble Hadith or not? If the Quran is complete, then the Hadith is the speech of creation and is also not free from doubt, and Allah Almighty has not taken the responsibility of its preservation. So, in the presence of the command of Allah, why should the command of the Prophet be denied? Why accept the speech of creation in the presence of the speech of the Creator? Why accept speculative Hadith or solitary reports when there is a certain Book? Why accept unpreserved Hadith, which was written centuries after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, when there is preserved speech?
Answer:-
Firstly:-
Okay, this means that whoever says that the religion of Islam is complete and perfect, this claim is extracted from the deniers of Hadith, اناللہ وانا الیہ راجعون. Respected sir, confusing the topic is not befitting of scholars; if only you had read the Quran, you would have known that the claim of the completion of religion has been made by the Creator of the universe in the Quran, where it is stated
الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا
“Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen Islam as your religion.” (5:3)
Imam Raghib states in Mufradat that
( تمام الشئ انتهاؤه الى حد لا يحتاج الى شيء خارج عنه والناقص ما يحتاج الى شئ خارج عنه )
meaning the entirety of something is when it reaches such a state that it does not need anything outside of itself, and something that needs something outside of itself is called incomplete.
Religion consists of the Quran and Hadith, and the claim of its fulfillment has been made by the Lord Almighty. Now, if you consider the Quran and Hadith to be dependent on Hanafi jurisprudence externally, then in other words, you have declared the Quran and Hadith incomplete. It was your moral duty to answer this question, but you have confused the public by mixing topics and have deceived yourself, and apparently, you have found your safety in this very act.
Secondly:-
The deniers of Hadith practically give the right to interpret religion to Abdullah Chakralvi, Ghulam Ahmad Parvez, etc. You follow Hanafi jurisprudence? They outright deny Hadith. You, under the pretext of the sayings of Mujtahids, are outright deniers. Reflect on how deep your connection is.
Maulana Mahmood Hasan Khan, former Sheikh al-Hadith of Darul Uloom Deoband, while expressing his views on Hadith al-Bay’an bil-Khiyar
, that is, both the seller and the buyer have the option to keep the sale valid or annul it until they separate, states in his dictated speech:
( فالحاصل أن مسئلة الخيار من مهمات المسائل وخالف ابو حنيفة فيه الجمهور وكثير من الناس من المتقدمين والمتاخرين صنفوا رسائل في ترديد مذهبه في هذه المسئلة ورجع مولانا الشاه ولی الله المحدث دهلوی قدس سره في رسائل مذهب الشافعى من جهة الاحاديث والنصوص وكذلك قال شيخنا مدظله يترجع مذهبه وقال الحق والانصاف ان الترجيح للشافعي في هذه المسئلة ونحن مقلدون يجب علينا تقليد أمامنا أبي حنيفة )
The gist of the matter is that sale with option (Bay’ bil-Khiyar) is among the most important issues. In this matter, Imam Abu Hanifa opposed the majority of the scholars. Most of the earlier and later scholars wrote treatises refuting Imam Abu Hanifa’s position on this issue. Hazrat Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlawi preferred the school of Imam Shafi’i based on Ahadith and texts. Our Sheikh Mahmood Hasan Khan Sahib states that justice and fairness demand that Imam Shafi’i’s school is preferable on this issue. Since we are followers of Imam Abu Hanifa, it is obligatory upon us to follow our Imam Abu Hanifa. (End)
As for the Hadith lessons you conduct, their purpose is not attachment to the Sunnah but rather to collect evidence for jurisprudence through interpretation and distortions, which was openly admitted by Maulana Muhammad Rasool Khan Hanafi Deobandi once during a speech on the topic of Taqlid at the annual session of Anjuman Khuddam al-Millat Deoband, later published in the Risalah Qasim al-Uloom Deoband. His words are that Ahl al-Hadith and we both read the Quran and Hadith, but the difference is that we read Hadith so that the intention behind the sayings of the Imams, which we do not know, becomes clear to us; that is, we use Hadith to support the sayings of the jurists.
Thirdly :-
Chakralvi completely denies Hadith, and in our community, a denier of Hadith is at least misguided and godless, and one who mocks it is a confirmed disbeliever. Because without Hadith, religion remains incomplete. The correct understanding of the Quran is only through Hadith, and this position was granted by Allah Almighty Himself to Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. Study Maulana Abdul Rahman Marhoom Kilani’s “Aina-e-Parveziyat,” Maulana Abdul Rauf Jhand Nagri’s “Siyanat al-Hadith,” and Maulana Ismail Salafi Rahimahullah’s “Hujjat al-Hadith.” InshaAllah Ar-Rahman, the doubts that the deniers of Hadith have planted in your heart will be dispelled.
Our advice under “الدین نصیحتہ” is that you first gain proficiency in Islamic sciences, then study the books of innovators so that you do not fall into misguidance. Here, briefly to remove your misconceptions: the Quranic verse (انا له لحافظون) also reached us through the same means which, according to you, are not preserved. So what is the proof that someone added to this verse on their own? Moreover, this verse takes responsibility for the protection of the Quran, and the Quran is, by consensus of the scholars, a name for both the arrangement and meaning. Therefore, this verse also takes responsibility for the protection of the words of the Quran and the meanings of the Furqan.
And the protection of the meanings of the Quran has been through Hadith. As for your claim that Hadith is the speech of creation in general, this is also your mistake because among the Ahadith there is divine speech, which is termed Hadith Qudsi, and the speech of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, although the words are prophetic, their meaning was given by Allah Almighty. The divine command is:
(وَمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَى )
Meaning, the Prophet does not speak from his own desire, but only what is revealed to him. (463-53)
Maulana Usmani (who is your trusted Quranic commentator
) states in the commentary of this verse that whatever you say in the matter of religion is according to the revelation sent by Allah Almighty and His command. The revelation that is recited is called the Quran, and that which is not recited is called Hadith.
As for your calling Hadith speculative, this too is proof of your error. The word “Zann” is used in Arabic and Urdu. But in Urdu, it is used in the sense of doubt or suspicion, and this usage has caused confusion for our contemporaries. In Arabic, this word is never used in this sense without evidence. Imam Raghib says:
(الظن اسم لما يحمل عن امارة ومتى قويت ادت الى العلم ومتى ضعفت جداً لم يتجاوز حد التوهم)
Meaning, the conclusion drawn from the signs of something is called Zann. When these signs are strong, it reaches the level of knowledge, but when very weak, it does not go beyond suspicion or doubt.
This is why when the conclusion is strong, it means knowledge and certainty.
The divine command is:
(الَّذِيْنَ يَظُنُّونَ أَنَّهُمْ مُلقُوا رَبِّهِمْ )
Meaning, those who are certain that they will meet their Lord.
Imam Raghib has also quoted about eight to ten verses in which the word “ظن” is used in the sense of knowledge and certainty, but our kind ones have opposed it by contrasting it with “la rayba” (no doubt), making it mean doubt and suspicion, and are eager to label Hadith as a book of illusions. Then this ignorant statement is published under the name “Tuhfa” and presented as a gift to the people of Hadith, inviting them to think. Finally, defending the deniers of Hadith, he says:
Hadith was written centuries later. It is not clear what Maulana means by this phrase? If he means that Hadith was not written at all during the blessed time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, then this is such a big lie that no religious person can accept it because Hadith were also recorded in writing during the era of the Prophet.
For details, study Maulana Taqi Usmani’s
.
If by this phrase you mean compilation and arrangement, then brother, scholars of religion still do this today. Has it not happened that in recent times, two modern collections of Hadith named “اعلاء السنن” and “اثار السنن” were published by the Deobandi school of thought? So does anyone have the right to call them useless and worthless just because of their late compilation? Use your intellect and understand what you are saying. The sayings of the Companions, the statements of the Tabi‘in, the conquests of the Ummah, and all religious services were compiled later. Should all of these be denied because they are later productions? Ignoring the interaction of the best centuries entirely, what service to religion and nation can you provide? Be clear that the deniers of Hadith are outright deniers of the authority of Hadith. After this stance, the discussions about the chain of narration and compilation of Hadith have no connection with the main issue or at most are secondary discussions.
Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ismail Salafi Rahimahullah, complaining about this very thing, writes that the entire camp of Hadith opponents has always tried to confuse and mix topics. Their claim is that the sayings, actions, and ijtihads of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم are not legally binding; he may convey God’s message (the Quran) but has no right to explain it, and if he acts upon it, that action is not binding on the Ummah; their discretion is limited to themselves, and we are not obliged to follow them. Obviously, this negates the question of the chain of narration. Even those who spoke directly to the Prophet were not legally required to accept it. Therefore, even if these Hadith collections reach us through continuous transmission, they are not legally binding as the sayings of the Messenger. The only legal proof is the words of the message, i.e., the Quran. Similarly, if the Prophet had compiled a collection of Hadith in his lifetime and it was in our hands today like the Quran, we would not consider it legally binding unless it was in accordance with the Quran. Moreover, if its meaning was not in accordance with the Quran according to our understanding and knowledge, we would prefer the Quran, and the meaning that our intellect considers Quranic would be preferred over that established Hadith collection. After this belief, the discussion about the times of the chain or compilation or the capacity of memorizing Hadith is completely useless or at least a secondary discussion. It can be discussed as a subsidiary argument but cannot be given the status of a primary argument for denying Hadith.
