Scholarly Refutation of the Accusation Against Ahl al-Hadith Regarding Abrogated Narrations
Source: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah, Vol. 3 – Principles, Authentication of Narrations, and Their Rulings – Page 250
❖ The Question:
In a speech, Ilyas Ghumman claimed:
◈ Ahl al-Hadith act upon abrogated (mansūkh) narrations.
◈ Deobandi scholars act upon abrogating (nāsikh) narrations.
◈ He stated that the muhaddithūn have arranged their Hadith collections by first placing abrogated narrations and later abrogating ones.
◈ As examples, he said:
— First come narrations of raising the hands (rafʿ al-yadayn) in prayer, then come those of not raising.
— First come recitation behind the Imam (fātiḥah khalfa al-imām), then come those of remaining silent.
From this, he concluded that Ahl al-Hadith act upon the abrogated, while Deobandis act upon the abrogating narrations.
So the question is:
Is this really the principle of the majority of the muhaddithūn?
And do Ahl al-Hadith truly act contrary to this principle while the Deobandis follow it?
❖ The Refutation: Ghumman’s Claim Is Baseless and Fabricated
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd:
The principle proposed by Ilyas Ghumman is false, invented, and contradicts the methodology of the scholars of Hadith.
Below are ten clear evidences that refute his claim:
1. Sunan Abi Dawud – Jahr (Loud) and Sirr (Silent) Basmala
◈ First Chapter:
باب من لم ير الجهر ببسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
(Sunan Abi Dawud, p. 122, before ḥadīth 782)
◈ Following Chapter:
باب من جهر بها
(p. 122, before ḥadīth 786)
→ According to Ghumman’s logic, silent Basmala would be abrogating, and loud Basmala would be abrogated.
Do they accept this conclusion?
Note: Imam al-Tirmidhi also followed this same sequence.
(Sunan al-Tirmidhi, pp. 67–68, before ḥadīth 244, 245)
2. Sunan al-Tirmidhi – Number of Rakʿahs in Witr
◈ First Chapter:
باب ما جاء في الوتر بثلاث
(p. 122, before ḥadīth 459)
◈ Second Chapter:
باب ما جاء في الوتر بركعة
(before ḥadīth 461)
→ Will Ghumman now say three rakʿahs of Witr are abrogated?
3. Sunan Ibn Mājah – Facing the Qiblah While Relieving Oneself
◈ First Chapter:
باب في النهي عن استقبال القبلة...
(p. 48, before ḥadīth 317)
◈ Following Chapter:
باب الرخصة في ذلك في الكنيف...
(p. 49, before ḥadīth 322)
→ Will he declare the prohibition to be abrogated?
4. Sunan al-Nasā’ī – Supplication in Rukūʿ
◈ First Chapter:
باب الذكر في الركوع
(p. 144, before ḥadīth 1047)
◈ Second Chapter:
باب الرخصة في ترك الذكر في الركوع
(p. 145, before ḥadīth 1054)
→ Is reciting tasbīḥ in rukūʿ now abrogated?
5. Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah – Placing Hands vs. Leaving Them
◈ First Chapter:
باب وضع اليمين على الشمال
(Vol. 1, p. 390, before ḥadīth 3933)
◈ Following Chapter:
باب من كان يرسل يديه في الصلاة
(Vol. 1, p. 391, before ḥadīth 3949)
→ Which one is abrogated? Let the Deobandi scholars decide.
6. Sunan al-Nasā’ī – Prayer After ʿAsr
◈ First Chapter:
باب النهي عن الصلاة بعد العصر
(p. 78, before ḥadīth 567)
◈ Following Chapter:
باب الرخصة في الصلاة بعد العصر
(p. 79, before ḥadīth 574)
→ Does Ghumman claim the prohibition is abrogated?
7. Sunan Abi Dawud – Number of Washes in Wudū’
◈ First Chapter:
باب الوضوء ثلاثا ثلاثا
(p. 29, before ḥadīth 135)
◈ Second Chapter:
باب الوضوء مرة مرة
(p. 30, before ḥadīth 138)
→ Are three washes now abrogated?
8. Sunan al-Nasā’ī – Tasbīḥ in Sujūd
◈ First Chapter:
باب عدد تسبيح في السجود
(p. 157, before ḥadīth 1136)
◈ Following Chapter:
باب الرخصة في ترك الذكر في السجود
(p. 157, before ḥadīth 1137)
→ Are tasbīḥāt in sujūd abrogated?
9. Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah – Jumuʿah in Villages
◈ First Chapter:
لا جمعة ولا تشريق إلا في مصر جامع
(Vol. 2, p. 101, before ḥadīth 5059)
◈ Following Chapter:
من كان يرى الجمعة في القرى وغيرها
(Vol. 2, pp. 101–102, before ḥadīth 5068)
→ Is the prohibition abrogated?
10. Number of Takbīrāt in Janāzah
◈ First Chapter:
من كبر أربعا
(Vol. 3, p. 299, before ḥadīth 11416)
◈ Following Chapter:
من كان يكبر على الجنازة خمسا
(Vol. 3, p. 302, before ḥadīth 11447)
→ Would Ghumman declare four takbīrs abrogated?
❖ Additional Examples:
◈ Sunan al-Nasā’ī – First narrates knees before hands (weak), then hands before knees.
(pp. 150–151, ḥadīths 1090–1092)
◈ Sunan Abi Dawud – Contradictory chapters on wudūʾ after eating cooked food.
(ḥadīths 187–195)
→ All of these prove that arrangement of chapters is not evidence of abrogation.
❖ Deobandi Practice on Abrogated Narrations
❀ Example 1: Delaying Fajr Prayer
◈ Ḥadīth:
ما صلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الصلاة لوقتها الآخر حتى قبضه الله
(Al-Mustadrak of al-Ḥākim 1/190, ḥadīth 682)
→ Deobandis pray Fajr late (in bright light), even though the earlier time is more established.
❀ Example 2: Fātiḥah Behind the Imam
◈ Ḥadīth:
وإذا قرأ فأنصتوا
(Sahih Muslim: 404, Dār al-Salām 905)
◈ But recitation behind the Imam is proven from Abu Hurayrah رضي الله عنه:
(Juzʾ al-Qirāʾah by al-Bukhārī: 153, Āthār al-Sunan: 358)
→ According to Hanafī principles, this narration should be abrogated, yet Deobandis use it as evidence.
❖ Were the Companions Acting on Abrogated Reports?
◈ ʿUmar, Abu Hurayrah, and ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit رضي الله عنهم used to recite Fātiḥah behind the Imam.
(Al-Kawākib al-Durriyyah: pp. 24–27)
◈ Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr رحمه الله said:
“There is consensus among scholars that the prayer of one who recites behind the Imam is valid.”
(Al-Istidhkār: 2/193, Al-Kawākib al-Durriyyah: p. 31)
→ Were they also acting upon abrogated narrations?
❖ Rafʿ al-Yadayn (Raising Hands) Is
Evidence:
➊ No authentic narration proves that the Prophet ﷺ ever abandoned Rafʿ al-Yadayn in any prayer.
➋ No authentic narration from any companion proves they abandoned it.
➌ ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Lakhnawī: The claim of abrogation is baseless.
(Al-Taʿlīq al-Mumajjad: p. 91)
➍ Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī: Rafʿ al-Yadayn is mutawātir (mass-transmitted) and not abrogated.
(Nayl al-Farqadayn: p. 22)
➎ Scholars like Abu al-Ḥasan al-Sindī, Badr ʿĀlam Mīrathī, and Shāh Walīullah al-Dihlawī agreed Rafʿ al-Yadayn is not abrogated.
➏ Ashraf ʿAlī Thānvī: “Rafʿ al-Yadayn is permissible.”
(Imdād al-Fatāwā: Vol. 1, p. 148, Question 208)
➐ Manẓūr Nuʿmānī: “Both methods (with and without) are permissible.”
(Maʿārif al-Ḥadīth: Vol. 3, p. 265)
→ Even Deobandi elders did not consider Rafʿ al-Yadayn abrogated.
✿ Conclusion:
The principle stated by Ilyas Ghumman, that the Hadith compilers placed abrogated narrations first and abrogating ones later, is completely false, baseless, and contradictory to the practice of the muhaddithūn.
His accusation against Ahl al-Hadith of acting upon abrogated reports is also a misrepresentation and clear falsehood.
Even Deobandi scholars themselves do not adhere to this so-called principle, which nullifies their own claim.
“To break your own principles is the worst form of intellectual suicide.”
