This excerpt is taken from the book compiled by Hakim Ajmal Khan Sahib "Recognize Jamaat-e-Islami" .
Hazrat Maulana Abu al-Wafa Sanaullah Amritsari:
Reference: From Akhbar Ahl-e-Hadith dated 14 September 1945
, the address to Maulana Maududi began, which continued until
Reference: 30 November 1945
. The viewers of Ahl-e-Hadith liked this series and requested that it be compiled into a book form. Accordingly, this article is presented in the form of this magazine. Our prevailing opinion regarding Maulana Maududi is that, like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan or Maulvi Abdullah Chakralvi, you are not a denier of the Prophetic Hadith. However, while researching Hadith, you abandon the methodology and criticism approach of the Muhaddithin and adopt another method. The viewers will observe the evidence of this in these pages.
Reference: Safar al-Muzaffar 1365 AH, January 1946 CE
The collective belief of Muslims from the beginning has been that along with the Holy Quran, the Prophetic Hadith "الائمۃ من القریش" is also a legal proof. The establishment of the first Caliphate was based on the Hadith "نحن معاشر الانبیاء لا نورث ما ترکنا صدقۃ". After the Caliphate was established, the first important issue that arose was the inheritance of Bani Al-Hilal, in which the claimant was Khatoon-e-Jannat (Mother of the Believers) may Allah be pleased with her, and the Rashidun Caliphate was the defendant. This issue was also decided based on a Hadith whose words are:
Reference: (Bukhari:6730, Usool al-Kulayni)
. After that, the third important issue that came before the Caliph of the Muslims was the army of Usama, which was also decided under the authority of a Hadith.After that, in every era, the authenticity of Hadith remained established. The difference was that in some groups, narrations prevailed, while in others, deduction prevailed. The result was that two groups emerged in the Muslim Ummah: the Muhaddithin (Hadith scholars) and the Faqihs (jurists). May Allah have mercy on them, the authenticity of Hadith continued to be inherited in the Muslim Ummah. Until the birth of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in the city of Aligarh, India. He raised a fiery voice regarding Hadith, meaning he said that the Holy Quran alone is sufficient as a legal proof. Hadith is not necessary. At the same time, he also acknowledged that Sahih Bukhari is the highest and most authentic among narrations. After that, this voice reached Lahore. Maulvi Abdullah Chakralvi accepted it and made great efforts to spread this idea. After Lahore, this voice reached Amritsar. Here too, a group of a few people emerged who named themselves the Muslim Ummah and adopted the sufficiency of the Quran as their motto. Among all these groups, there is much disagreement regarding the reasons for the non-authenticity of Hadith. Our discussion today is not about these disagreements because several of our treatises (Itteba-e-Rasool, Daleel-ul-Furqan, Hadith-e-Nabawi aur Taqlid-e-Shakhsi, Burhan-ul-Hadith, etc.) have been published on this subject.
❀ In the last era, Maulana Maududi Sahib took up the pen, who, from the early classes, are somewhat stronger in the reduction of Hadith as evidence. He has very truthfully acknowledged the knowledge of Hadith as obligatory at one point. See
Reference: (Tafheemaat: p. 316)
but at the same time, when he came to the field of research, he created such doubts about Hadith which he himself considered unsolvable and published them as such. I have called these doubts "unsolvable" in his view because he did not answer these doubts. The first doubt he raised was regarding the status of Asma al-Rijal (the names of narrators). His words on this matter are as follows.
Reference: (Maslak-e-I'tidal: p. 314 and Quran aur Sunnat-e-Rasool: p. 388 and Tarjuman al-Quran)
❀ The acknowledged services of the Muhaddithin, may Allah have mercy on them. It is also agreed that the material they provided for the critique of Hadith is very useful in the research of the reports and traditions of the first century. The issue is not with their words but only to what extent it is correct to trust them entirely. After all, they were human beings. They could not go beyond the limits that Allah has naturally set for human knowledge. Their work was not free from the inherent flaws that remain in human actions.
Reference: (Tafheemaat: p.319)
The opinion that Maulana Maududi Sahib expressed about the Muhaddithin in this excerpt has been similarly expressed by the late Maulana Haali in his Musaddas as follows:
There was a group who were the knowledge of the Prophet | They exposed every fabricator
Left no flaw of hidden falsehood | Tightened the rhyme of every claimant
They made criticism and modification the law | Did not allow any false spell to prevail
The summary of the person's doubt is that one cannot be certain about a narrator's reliability just because a particular hadith scholar has described him in a certain way. This is because there are many narrators whom some hadith scholars have called weak, while others have called them trustworthy. Similarly, some have spoken well of these narrators, and others have spoken ill. Therefore, one cannot be certain about a narrator in any one way as we understand him.
I say that you do not need to go far to decide this matter. Rather, for deciding this, the existence of you and me alone is sufficient as an example. There are those who speak well of both of us and those who speak ill as well. This is not a new thing.
The late Ustad Ghalib has beautifully said:
Ghalib, do not be offended if a preacher calls you bad! | Is there anyone whom everyone calls good?
So, in such a case, can an arbitrator or a benefactor make a decision in our favor and establish the correct opinion about who we are or not? Move a little further. There is a great deal of disagreement among scholars regarding the opinions attributed to Maulana Ismail Shaheed, may Allah have mercy on him, and Hazrat Shah Waliullah. Have you ever made a decision considering these opinions or not? Move a little further. The disagreement within the Ummah regarding Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (رضی اللہ عنہ) and Sayyiduna Umar (رضی اللہ عنہ) is also not hidden from you—whether they were the best of the Ummah or (as some ignorant people claim) Pharaoh and Haman.
(Hayat al-Quloob Shia) Have you ever made a decision about such a great disagreement or not? Surely you must have. What are the reasons for this decision? The narrators of hadith can also be judged based on these reasons. Accordingly, the Muhaddithin have established principles regarding this. That is why Maulana Haali’s statement about the Muhaddithin is correct:
The office of narrators and chains of transmission! | Their witnesses are completely free
Their favor was not only upon the people of faith | They were leaders of every nation and community in it
Those who today excel in liberty | Tell us since when have they become liberal
Reference: Ahl-e-Hadith: 14 September 1945
❀ Maulana Maududi Sahib has written this episode with great pride and boast, considering this method of critique or his capability as a special distinction. The truth is that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan of Aligarh did not attack the science of Hadith in this manner either. I will quote his original text and draw the attention of my viewers in general and especially those admirers who believe that Hadith is obligatory to act upon. They should read these passages carefully and think whether the cupbearer has not mixed something in the wine.
The author wrote this after the discussion of Asma al-Rijal (which has been mentioned earlier).
The second important thing:
The chain of transmission is that the hadith scholars have tried to investigate each hadith to determine whether every narrator from whom a person narrates was his contemporary, whether they actually met, and if they did meet, whether the narrator personally heard this specific hadith or heard it from someone else without citing the source. They have conducted this investigation to the extent that humans are capable, but it is not necessary that in every investigation of every narration, all these matters were precisely known to them. It is quite possible that a narration they consider to have an unbroken chain is actually broken, and they might not have known that an unknown narrator, who was not trustworthy, was omitted in between. Similarly, it is also possible that narrations which are mursal, mu‘allal, or munqati‘ and are therefore considered weak in terms of reliability, may have come from trustworthy narrators and be completely authentic. These and many other such matters mean that the science of chains of transmission and criticism and evaluation cannot be considered entirely accurate. This material remains reliable to the extent that it can be used and appropriately considered in the research of the Prophetic Sunnah and the reports of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), but it is not sufficient to rely on it completely.
Reference: (Tafheemaat: pp. 323-324)
Maulana Maududi Sahib!
If a Chief Judge (Session Judge), based on the testimony of two or three men in a murder case, after having examined it, orders Qisas (retribution) against the murderer or, upon finding the required evidence of theft, orders the punishment of cutting off the hand, will your created possibilities prevail over these cases and other such serious cases or not? If you yourself were appointed to the position of Chief Judge, would you give Islamic punishments to any thief, adulterer, or murderer, or would you create the same doubt over every testimony? I think, if you create this doubt over every testimony, you will soon be dismissed from this position by the higher government.
Maulana! The examples I have presented are Shariah cases. In these, the required number of witnesses has also been prescribed by the Holy Quran, and there is a command to implement it. Based on these Quranic texts, the Hadith scholars, may Allah be pleased with them all, have deduced their rules of narration. The possibilities you have created are the kind that poets have also mentioned, who say:
The Messenger became a rival, this was no news! | All the affairs of the world are based on trust
But you know:
Poetry is one thing, and oratory is another. Here, the hadith scholars have set a condition for the narrations of contemporaries that they must have met each other; if there is proof of their meeting in any narration, it suffices for all the narrations. The technical term they use for proof of meeting is [أخبرنا حدّثنا]. If these words are found in one narration, they suffice for the rest. An example of this can be found in the explanation of Ilm al-Ma'ani (the science of meanings). A poet attributes the verbs throughout the entire qasida to time and the heavens, for example:
أشاب الصغیر وافنی الکبیر | کر الغداۃ ومر العشی
Throughout the entire qasida, such attributions are made to time, but at the end, a couplet is also found:
وقیّل اللہ للشمس اطلعی
That is, Allah commands the sun to rise. The author of "Sahib-e-Matool" expresses his opinion as follows: if the last couplet were not there, the poet would have been called a materialist. This one couplet, or rather one word, saved the poet from the accusation of materialism. To give an example in Urdu as well, it will be useful. Maulana Hali was a Muslim and a monotheistic Muslim, yet he attributes actions to time, which is the method of materialists. He says:
What if the government turned away from you | There was nothing of yours in that rent
Who can do anything against the turning of time | Sometimes it is Bahman here, sometimes it is Dara there
One who makes such attributions is also considered a believer in God, protected from materialism, because in each couplet of the same musaddas, he mentions God's name like this:
There is no kingdom after all but God's | What is today ours will be someone else's tomorrow
This is the principle of Kalam (Islamic theology) which is accepted and considered valid by every nation, every group, and indeed every scholar. You have dismissed it as weak. You have referred to connected and disconnected hadith.
Maulana! You must have had the opportunity to go to worldly courts, or you must have heard incidents where in a Shariah court, a person testifies that Zaid gave something to Amr. The court asks, how do you know this? He says, the money was given in front of me. Another witness testifies that he heard this from someone. As a judge, you decide whether these testimonies are the same in Shariah terms or if there is some difference. I await your answer. May Allah reward you.
❀ The Muhaddithin (hadith scholars) have derived the rules and regulations of narrations from the Holy Quran itself. Then they examined each hadith according to these rules. Maulana Hali (may Allah have mercy on him) has written absolutely correctly in favor of the Muhaddithin.
How easy it is to travel in this passion! | In this desire, the seas and lands were crossed!
It is heard from the treasurer of knowledge and religion, that human! | He went and took news and effect from him!
❀ So your statement that "the knowledge of isnad (chains of narration) and jarh wa ta'dil (criticism and accreditation) cannot be considered entirely correct" means that the courts of the world, whether tyrannical or Shariah-based, are completely unreliable. Their decisions are not worthy of being considered correct. Therefore, in the future, you should also start a series of articles stating that the decision of any court in the world is not trustworthy. But merely saying this will not be sufficient. Rather, a new law of evidence must be proposed. On which this couplet will be applicable.
We will not follow Qais nor Farhad | We will invent a new style of madness
Finally, your statement that one should seek help from it and give it due consideration but not rely on it completely is not without surprise. What is the remaining part, the absence of which has led to the discrediting of this series of hadith scholars? If that part is what you have described as the characteristic of the Mujtahids, then its mention along with the answer is as follows.
Reference: (Ahl-e-Hadith: 21 September 45 AH)
I'tizal (Detachment):
When we carefully read Maulana Maududi's criticism, it involuntarily comes out that Maulana's sect is not moderation but "I'tizal" (detachment). By I'tizal, we do not mean the source from which the Mu'tazila sect is derived. Rather, in the original sense, I'tizal means separation. The meaning of this word is separation. We observe that the respected person generally follows Mirza Sahib Qadiani in his writings. [The simile is in following Qadiani, not in the Qadiani religion itself] That is, just as Mirza Sahib Qadiani does not adhere to the technical terms of any art in his writings, similarly our addressee Maulana Maududi Sahib also does not adhere to the previous terminologies. Rather, he says in effect:
We will bring dust from the beloved's street | We will build our own sanctuary!
Today we present proof of this claim, Maulana Sahib writes:
The special subject of the Muhaddithin, may Allah have mercy on them, was the investigation of reports and traditions in terms of narration. Therefore, they predominantly adopted a narrative perspective and mostly considered the authenticity of narrations based on the chains of transmission and the reliability of the narrators. As for the juristic perspective, it was somewhat unrelated to their specific subject, so it often remained hidden from their view. They rarely examined narrations from that standpoint. For this reason, it often happened that they declared a narration authentic even though its meaning was not very reliable, and they considered another narration of sound meaning to be of little reliability. There is no opportunity here to explain this aspect in detail with examples. However, those who observe matters of Shariah are not unaware that the Muhaddith perspective has often conflicted with the juristic perspective, and the noble Muhaddithin, even with authentic hadiths, have not maintained the balance and moderation in deriving rulings and issues that the jurist mujtahids have maintained.
Reference: (Tafheemaat: pp. 23-24)
This excerpt:
It informs us of two things. One is that jurisprudence (Fiqh) and Hadith are two separate things; the corollary of this is that the juristic perspective and the hadith scholar’s perspective are also different. At this point, the respected Maulana should have provided his comprehensive and inclusive definition of jurisprudence as he sees it. If, in his view, the correct definition is the same as that given by the esteemed jurists themselves, then we do not find it contrary to the hadith scholar’s method. That definition, in the words of the author of Tazkirah, is [هو العلم بالاحكام الشرعية العلمية من أدلتها التفصيلية] (meaning) the knowledge of issues derived from the Quran and Hadith is the knowledge of jurisprudence.
According to this definition, let us study Sahih Bukhari, and in this study, let us gather the hadith scholars of Madrasa Deoband, Madrasa Rahmaniya Delhi, Madrasa Lehria Sarai, and Madrasa Umarabad, etc., and trouble them to tell us after reflection whether Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, collected the hadiths merely on the basis of chains of narration (isnad) or whether he also employed a juristic perspective in them. We present one or two examples from the praised Imam’s "Sahih." When the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, passed away, his armor was pawned. Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, has narrated this hadith approximately twenty to twenty-two times. If his perspective had been only on the isnad, narrating it once would have sufficed. Then this multiplicity of narration arose from a juristic point of view. Imam Bukhari’s method shows that the praised Imam was not only a hadith scholar and jurist himself but also a jurist for his students [جزاہ اللہ عنا وعن سائر الطالبین]. Yes, there is no doubt that the chain of narration is the soul of the hadith; indeed, in the terminology of hadith scholars, the chain of narration is the hadith. It is stated in the introduction of Sahih Muslim that if the chain of narration were not necessary, anyone could say whatever they wished. At this point, I recall a couplet by the late Hazrat Abu al-Ustad Maulana Zu al-Faqar Ali (translator of Hamasa), which he said in the definition of the knowledge of hadith.
العلم ما كان فيه قال حدثنا! | وما سوى ذاك وسواس الشياطين
Translation: Solid knowledge is that which has a chain of narration; the rest is doubtful.
But this does not mean that the hadith scholars were devoid of a juristic perspective. It would not be inappropriate to briefly clarify that jurisprudence and the juristic perspective are of two types. Hazrat Shah Waliullah Qudus Sirruh has clearly written about this, stating:
One type of jurisprudence is that which is derived from the Quran and Hadith. The other is that the later jurists considered the sayings of the earlier jurists as the basis and began to extract issues from them. The collection of such issues is jurisprudence of the "second type."
When I read Sahih Bukhari, I find that the original perspective of the praised author is based on the Quran and Hadith, but occasionally, by presenting the sayings of the Companions, the Successors, etc., he also derives rulings, which according to him and all hadith scholars, the legal proof is jurisprudence of the first type, and jurisprudence of the second type along with its sources is not a binding legal proof but rather a convincing proof in their view. This is because their principle is [قول الصحابی لیس بحجة]. Yes, the path of moderation should not be abandoned, so I cannot refrain from saying that among the hadith scholars there are also those whose main purpose is merely to collect narrations. Juristic deduction is beyond their objective. But they are not strangers or outsiders to it. An example of this is Sahih Muslim before us, who presents the same hadith with different chains of narration. The interesting thing is that in some chains there is such a subtle difference that it should be called the difference between a waw and a fa. The third book before us is Sahih Tirmidhi. Its method is unique; it does not set out deductive translations like Imam Bukhari, but generally at the end of each chapter, it narrates the sayings of the jurists of Islam, with the purpose of compiling a treasury of knowledge for students. (جزاہم اللہ عنّا)، Similarly, in other hadith books, we find both hadith and juristic perspectives. This is jurisprudence according to its definition, which we have quoted from the book "Tawdhih." If there is any modern definition of jurisprudence in the view of Maududi Sahib, we are eager to hear it. You have also written this sentence in the same excerpt:
A narration has been declared authentic by them (the hadith scholars, may Allah have mercy on them) even though in terms of meaning it is not very reliable (reference mentioned).
We admit our lack of knowledge and say that we do not understand what you mean by "in terms of meaning." Is it a literal translation or something else? And what is an example of a hadith which is authentic according to the hadith scholars in terms of chain but not reliable according to the jurists in terms of meaning? To relieve you, I myself present a hadith which some jurists have ignored by calling it analogy (qiyas). Its content is that if a person buys a cow or buffalo that is musra'ah [i.e., a cow or buffalo whose milk is stopped beforehand for sale], and finds that its milk is less and wants to return it, he should give one sa' of grain or dates along with it. They say this hadith is against analogy. The hadith scholar replies that this is not technical analogy but your personal opinion which conflicts with one meaning of the hadith. Now I want to take Maulana Maududi and the viewers to a higher level. So viewers, listen carefully.
Hadith scholars, through the chain of narration, take the text of the hadith as if they reach the court of the Prophet. In this respect, it is as if they hear the words of the hadith from the blessed tongue of the Prophet himself. Therefore, they do not care whether our understanding or analogy is against or in favor of the text of the hadith; by the agreement of tongue and heart, they say "We hear and we obey." At that time, this phrase is on their tongue.
While being Mustafa’s words | Do not look at anyone’s speech and actions
When the original is found, what is the use of the copy | Here, what is the role of doubt and error
Reference: Ahl al-Hadith 28 September 45 AH
We are pleased that Maulana Maududi has clearly stated his belief and sect in the following words. He says: From this discussion, it has become clear that just as those who completely reject hadith are in error, similarly those who rely solely on narrations for benefiting from hadith are not free from error either. The true sect lies between these two, and this is the same sect that the Imams Mujtahideen have adopted.
❀ In the jurisprudence of Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, you frequently see issues based on mursal, muttasil, and munqati hadiths. Or where a weak chain hadith is accepted instead of a strong chain hadith. Or where the hadiths say one thing, and Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, and his companions say something else.
❀ The same is true for Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him. Although the Akhbari viewpoint is more dominant over him, still his jurisprudence forced him to issue rulings against hadiths that hadith scholars consider authentic in many issues. Laith bin Saad extracted about seventy (70) such issues from his jurisprudence. The situation of Imam Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, is not much different from this.
Reference: (Tafheemaat pp. 323-324)
Maulana Maududi did not consider the main point; he made a slip. The main point is that Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, does not consider a Mursal Hadith weak. The argument of other Muhaddithin is that in a Mursal Hadith, when the name of the Sahabi is omitted, the chain of narration becomes disconnected. This raises the doubt that no other narrator besides the Sahabi has been omitted. Therefore, this chain is considered invalid. Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, and his followers say that when a Tabi'i narrates from the Prophet ﷺ leaving out the Sahabi, it is a sign of his great confidence. Hence, it should not be considered a defect in the chain. Maulana Maududi has a point worth considering; if he reflects on it, he will decide it himself. He has already said that the efforts of the Muhaddithin who wrote good or bad opinions about narrators are commendable, but they were not free from human error. It is possible that they made mistakes regarding these narrators.
On this basis, I draw your attention to the fact that when you mention the possibility of error regarding the explicit opinion of the hadith scholars, if that hadith scholar does not even mention the name of a narrator, as happens in the case of a Mursal hadith, then this possibility becomes a double possibility. Or not. This is the reason why hadith scholars do not accept Mursal hadiths. However, Imam Abu Hanifa considers them reliable. These differences are essentially a fundamental disagreement. To give you an example, some scholars consider the implied opposite meaning as evidence, while others do not. What is meant by the implied opposite meaning? When a noun or verb is restricted by a description and a ruling is made. Some scholars do not apply the ruling when the description is absent, while others still do. For example, the noble verse [وَ رَبَآئِبُکُمُ الّٰتِیۡ فِیۡ حُجُوۡرِکُمۡ] "Your stepdaughters who are in your guardianship are forbidden to you."
Reference: An-Nisa:23
Some senior scholars, taking the opposite meaning as evidence, issued a fatwa permitting marriage with a young girl. (See Tafseer Ma'alim, etc.) However, the majority of scholars hold the view that it is not permissible because the opposite meaning is not considered proof according to them. So this is a fundamental difference of opinion. Similarly, whether a Marsool (a hadith without a companion in the chain) is considered proof or not is also a fundamental difference. It is not that Imam Abu Hanifa did not consider a chain necessary for the authenticity of a hadith, nor that he did not regard the chain as sufficient. Likewise, Imam Shafi'i and Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on them, did not consider any hadith authentic without a chain. If Maulana Maududi insists on this, then he should provide us with a few hadiths as examples which these scholars accepted as authentic not based on the chain but from a juristic perspective.
أولئك آبائي فجئني بمثلهم | إذا جمعتنا يا جرير المجامع
You have mentioned seventy (70) issues of Laith bin Saad. If you present them, we will also consider them. We will tell whether they are derived from Hadith or are rejected, but all this will happen when the mentioned issues are presented. It is not hearsay. Imam Malik's Rahmatullah Alaih Muwatta is before us and you, open it and give references to those issues.
Our stance is: the statement has come, come forward | If you have claimed, then show something
Reference: Ahl-e-Hadith 5 October 1945
❀ Maulana Maududi did not openly deny the authority of Hadith; rather, we consider him an open denier of Hadith and say so. That is why in the first episode of this series, we explicitly wrote about him that Maulana Maududi, with great honesty, at one point accepted the knowledge of Hadith as binding.
Reference: (Tafheemaat: p. 316), (Ahl-e-Hadith 14 September 1945, p. 3)
❀ Since their doubts empower the deniers of Hadith, and this empowerment leads to strong denial, therefore this is a metaphorical attribution of the same kind as the words of the Noble Verse:
[کَمَاۤ اَخۡرَجَ اَبَوَیۡکُمۡ مِّنَ الۡجَنَّۃِ]
Reference: (Al-A'raf:27)
So repel him with what is better. We have said that the doubts of Mawlana Maududi cause the empowerment of the deniers of Hadith. We present the proof below. He states:God forbid, this does not mean at all that these people considered any Hadith as authentic and then deviated from it. No, rather the main issue was that for them the authenticity of a Hadith was not solely dependent on the chains of narration. Besides the chains, there was also a criterion by which they examined the Hadith, and whichever Hadith they were convinced was closer to the truth, they accepted it, even if it was weak from a purely traditionalist point of view.
Reference: (Tafheemaat p. 323)
❀ The summary of this excerpt is that the schools of thought of the Muhaddithin (Hadith scholars) and Mujtahidin (jurists) are different. Some hadiths are considered weak in terms of chain of narration by the Muhaddithin, but the Mujtahidin, from the perspective of jurisprudence, regard those as stronger and act upon them. The opposite is also true: some hadiths are considered authentic in terms of chain of narration by the Muhaddithin, but the Mujtahidin reject them as incorrect from the perspective of jurisprudence. Further explanation of this is found in the following excerpt.
What is this second criterion? We have already hinted at it several times before. The person whom Allah grants the blessing of deep understanding (fiqh) develops a special taste through profound study of the Quran and the Seerah of the Prophet ﷺ, and gains such insight that they can discern even the most subtle characteristics of the essence. Their view, as a whole, is on the entire system of the true Shariah, and they recognize the nature of this system. Then, when details come before them, their taste tells them which things are compatible with the temperament and nature of Islam and which are not. When they look at narrations, this same criterion becomes the standard for acceptance or rejection. The temperament of Islam is exactly the temperament of the Prophet ﷺ himself. The person who understands the temperament of Islam and has deeply studied the Book and Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ extensively becomes so familiar with the temperament of the Prophet ﷺ that upon seeing narrations, their insight automatically tells them which statement or action could be that of the Master (the Prophet ﷺ) and which is closer to the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ. Not only that, but in matters where they find nothing in the Quran or Sunnah, they can also say that if such and such issue had arisen before the Prophet ﷺ, he would have decided it in such and such a way. This is because their soul becomes immersed in the Muhammadan spirit, and their insight becomes united with the insight of the Noble Prophet ﷺ. Their mind is shaped in the mold of Islam, and they see and think exactly as Islam wants to be seen and thought. After reaching this stage, a person is not much dependent on chains of narration; they do take help from chains, but their decision is not based on them. Sometimes they even accept a poor, weak, disconnected, and criticized hadith because their insight sees the sparkle of a diamond inside that fallen stone. And sometimes they reject a sound, uninterrupted, accepted hadith that is neither weak nor anomalous because the meaning contained in that golden cup does not seem appropriate to the nature of Islam and the temperament of the Prophet ﷺ.
Reference: (Tafheemaat: pp. 325-326)
From the abundance of words in this excerpt, Mirza Ghalib's couplet spontaneously comes to mind:
If I meet, I will take the tongue of the advisor on the Day of Judgment | This is a strange thing for the length of the argument
Keeping both these excerpts in mind, we generally ask the scholars of Hadith and specifically the notable figures among the Ahl al-Hadith whether there is any principle or rule in the books of Hadith methodology that corresponds to these meanings. If there is, please inform us. Otherwise, we will ask Maulana Maududi where he found this "invaluable essence" and also question where such a collection of Hadith, which appeared separately due to the sectarian differences of the Mujtahids, can be found? Is it in the printed books of the Rampur library or in the handwritten books of Bankipur? We are seekers of this. If it is found that it is in the nest of the phoenix, then we will also try to reach there. Because our passion is the same as that which Maulana Hali, may Allah have mercy on him, attributed to the Hadith scholars;
The treasure house of knowledge and religion for which human was given | He went and took news and effect from it
Observe Maulana Maududi's eloquence, as he himself refutes both of the above quotations. His words on this matter are:
❀ Since this matter is entirely subjective and does not come under any fixed rule, nor can it, therefore there was room for disagreement before, there is room now, and there will be in the future as well. For this reason, there have been many differences in details among the Imams who are Mujtahids. Moreover, it is not such a thing that one person's taste will necessarily be entirely in accordance with another person's taste. This is why the Imams of the same school have differed from each other on many issues. The differences found in the sayings of Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, and his companions are a clear example of this.
Reference: (Tafheemaat: p. 324)
The reason we said that this excerpt is a refutation of the first two excerpts is that it shows that the differences of opinion among the Mujtahids cannot be resolved in any way. Because these differences are based on their own personal tastes. Therefore, neither a Hanafi can say to a Shafi'i nor a Shafi'i to a Hanafi that your particular issue is wrong. Because the other will respond by saying that the sound taste of my Imam is what I have adopted. This difference in taste is essentially the meaning of this couplet,
I approve of Majnun, and Layla too | Each has their own view, each their own choice
From Maulana Maududi's excerpts, it appears that the statement of the author of Hidayah that in many issues the traditions are "هو حُجّة على الشافعي" (a proof against the Shafi'i) is not correct. Because the tastes of both Mujtahids are different, so how can one tradition be a proof against the other? Rather, the meaning of this couplet applies,
Neither does he accept me, nor I the advisors | No one accepts anyone else's word!
Reference: Ahl-e-Hadith, 12 October 1945
❀ It has already been mentioned that according to Maulana Maududi, every Imam and jurist had a different taste, especially the four Imams, may Allah have mercy on them, each had a completely distinct taste. Every Imam issued a fatwa according to his own taste. Maulana further states:
It is also not necessary that every mujtahid's taste is always correct in every issue. After all, a human being is a collection of weaknesses. Even the highest-ranking mujtahid can make mistakes and does make them. For this reason, the Imams of ijtihad have always been cautious and have always guided their followers not to place complete trust in them, but to continue researching themselves, and when any Sunnah is proven against our statement, reject our statement and follow the Sunnah.
Imam Abu Yusuf, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
[لا يحل لأحد أن يقول مقالتنا حتى يعلم من أين قلنا] It is not permissible for a person to adopt our statement unless he knows on what evidence we have based that statement.
Reference: Al-Madkhal ila al-Sunan al-Kubra: p.210 no.262
Imam Zafar, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
[إنما نأخذ بالرأي ما لم نجد الأثر فإذا جاء الأثر تركنا الرأي وأخذنا بالأثر] We adopt an opinion only when we do not find evidence; then when evidence is found, we abandon the opinion and adopt the evidence.
Reference: Al-Faqih wal-Mutafaqqih - Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi: Vol.1 p.510
Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
[إنما أنا بشر أخطئ وأصيب فانظروا في رأيي فكلما وافق الكتاب والسنة فخذوه وكلما لم يوافق الكتاب والسنة فاتركوه] I am also a human being; I make mistakes and sometimes speak correctly. Therefore, judge my opinion by the Book and Sunnah; take what agrees with the Book and Sunnah, and leave what does not.
Reference: Jami' Bayan al-'Ilm wa Fadlih: Vol.1 p.775 No.1435
Imam Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) stated:
[فاضربوا بقولي عرض الحائطِ، فلا قول لي مع رسول اللَّه صلى الله عليه وسلم] Throw my statement against the wall, for no statement of mine is valid compared to the saying of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Reference: Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya - Dar Ibn Kathir: Vol.11 p.18
In short, all the Imams unanimously say that if the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ becomes clear to a person regarding any issue, then it is forbidden for him to follow the opinion of any other person, no matter how highly ranked that person may be.
Reference: (Tafheemaat: pp. 324-326)
❀ When I read this excerpt carefully, according to my limited understanding, I concluded that while writing this saying, the book "Miyar-ul-Haq" (authored by Hazrat Maulana Shams-ul-Ulama Nazir Hussain, known as Mian Sahib, may Allah have mercy on him) must have been in Maulana Maududi's view. Because this article is essentially a summary of Miyar-ul-Haq. And the summary of this excerpt is these couplets.
What should I tell you what Hadith is | It is a pearl from the rank of Mustafa
Sufi and scholar, wise in religion!! | Kept picking grains from it
Who brought it from Baba! | Whoever found it, found it here
Though Ghous, Qutb, and leader are | They too are beggars at this door
When the original is found, what is the need for a copy | Here, what is the role of doubt and error
While the words of Mustafa are present | Do not look at anyone's speech or actions
This is the very doctrine that the pure Ahl al-Hadith have upheld and, by the grace of Allah, continue to uphold to this day. Therefore, in the light of this excerpt, the Ahl al-Hadith embrace you while reciting these couplets.
The night has few regrets, but many in the heart
Make peace, the fight has already happened
Maulana, with your permission, I would like to ask one thing before we conclude. We have read in your earlier excerpts that there was a difference of opinion among the jurists and hadith scholars regarding the school of thought. Some hadith scholars would consider certain narrations weak (or fabricated) from the perspective of isnad, but the jurists would regard them as authentic from a juristic perspective and act upon them. At this point, acknowledging my lack of knowledge, I ask: you have mentioned that the tastes of the four Mujtahids were different. You also stated that it was not necessary for every ruling of theirs to be correct because they themselves used to say that our rulings should be accepted after verifying them against the pure Sunnah. Jazak Allah.
O time, may you be blessed for you have made our time happy
So I ask, how did the pure Sunnah reach us? Was it through chains of narration or through the sound judgment of the Mujtahids? You consider the sound judgment of the Mujtahids as dependent on the pure Sunnah, but what exactly is the pure Sunnah and what is the means by which it has come to us? So please resolve this knot as soon as possible. A
The decision of the heart revolves only around this answer
In short, it has been agreed between you and us that you consider fiqh issues as [محتاج الی القرآن والسنۃ]. However, there is a disagreement (may this also be removed) that the source of knowledge for hadiths, according to us, is only the chains of narration (isnads). Whereas according to you, the ijtihadi intuition is also a source of knowledge.
Therefore, the burden of proof for this advantage lies on you. If I say that you yourself have already contradicted your previous claim in this excerpt, it would probably not be wrong.
Our second disagreement with you is that on one hand you emphasize acting upon hadiths (may Allah reward you), but on the other hand, you also say that full trust cannot be placed in them. So, our disagreement in logical terminology is that we believe in a necessary, absolute premise, whereas you combine it with a possible, general negation. Regarding this, the scholars and students of the Arab madaris who can decide, those who have good opinion of Hazrat Maulana Maududi will maintain their good opinion and fairly judge this disagreement between us, and we will be pleased to hear their decision.
You blame that idol which is my fault
Certainly not! Speak with some justice, it seems like God!
Reference: 19 October 1945
The seventh installment is especially noteworthy for the scholars of Ahl al-Hadith because it clearly reveals Maulana Maududi's belief that he considers Hadith as the interpretation of the Quran [جزاہ اللہ خیر الجزاء]. Despite this, why have we added this installment? Our purpose is to answer this question in this issue. First, listen to the Maulana's belief in his own words.
The Holy Quran is sufficient for guidance. It contains the true knowledge by the light of which a person can walk on the straight path, and it has explained all the principles upon which Allah's beloved religion is established. However, to benefit from this knowledge, two things are necessary: first, the seeker of knowledge must have a pure intention to benefit and be familiar with the fundamentals necessary to understand the Quran. Second, there must be an expert teacher who explains the points of the Book of Allah, conveys the correct meanings and interpretations of the verses, demonstrates the rulings by practicing them himself, and implements the laws in practical life, establishing their detailed code. The first thing relates to the individual's own self. As for the second, Allah Himself has arranged it. The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, was sent along with the Book for this very purpose, to fulfill the need for such an expert. What he taught and conveyed as a teacher is also from God in the same way. It is not correct to call it "other than the Quran." Whoever denies this need and claims that the Quran alone is sufficient to understand and act upon without the scholarly and practical guidance of the Prophet, peace be upon him, is essentially saying that the revelation of the Quran alone was sufficient. Allah [نعوذ باللہ] would not have sent the Messenger along with it in vain.
Reference: (Tafhimat: p. 338)
Dear viewers! In the words of Maulana Maududi, the deniers of Hadith will look at this statement with astonishment and listen with ears of wonder. He has said:
Allah Almighty did not perform this act in vain that He also sent the Messenger along with it نعوذ باللہ.
The deniers of Hadith will respond that the meaning of Messenger is "the one who delivers the message," and the birth of the Messenger is implicitly indicated in the Quran. How can the meaning of one be different from the other? How could it be possible that the message is delivered but the messenger is not? Well, this will be your mutual dialogue with the people of the Quran. We present our sincere thoughts regarding what we have understood from your point. The meaning of your excerpt is understood and is that the Quran is the text, like the rhyme of a poem, and the Prophetic Hadiths are its explanation, like the commentary of a scholar. Therefore, both cannot be separated from each other. Absolutely true. [Jazak Allah] you have spoken well, but [قد بقى فى الخبايا في الزوايا] much still remains hidden.
First: This is a verse from the Holy Quran.
[وَ اَخَوٰتُکُمۡ مِّنَ الرَّضَاعَۃِ] Your milk-sisters are forbidden to you.
Reference: An-Nisa:23
The interpretation of this verse is very clear that if a boy suckles from a woman’s daughter, she becomes his sister and is therefore forbidden to him. However, the girl’s real maternal aunt should not be forbidden to the boy due to this suckling according to the interpretation of the verse, although according to the Hadith she is forbidden.
By this analogy, if a girl suckles together with a boy, then that girl will come under the interpretation of this verse in relation to the infant, but why would the boy’s father, uncle (paternal uncle), and maternal uncle be forbidden to that girl? Because the interpretation includes only what the text’s wording can bear. For example, I present the phrase "kafiyah" meaning "a word with a singular meaning." Sharh Jami explained this phrase by making "singular" nominative and genitive without hesitation, but when he wanted to explain it in the accusative (mansub) case, he hesitated because there is no sign of accusative on it. Therefore, this third construction was included with apology. No apology was made for the genitive and nominative because the text could bear both these constructions.
In short, if the text can bear it, the explanation can expand it. Explanation cannot include a different category. [فإنهم لعلهم دقيق]
The above-mentioned relationships are forbidden under an authentic Hadith. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: [يحرم من الرضاعة ما يحرم من النسب] The prohibition of milk kinship is established like that of blood kinship.
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith: 2645
Say, is this Hadith an interpretation of the aforementioned verse or a new ruling? Between the two, you will be rewarded.
Second: The Noble Verse:
[وَ اَنۡ تَجۡمَعُوۡا بَیۡنَ الۡاُخۡتَیۡنِ] That is, it is forbidden to marry two sisters at the same time.
Reference: An-Nisa:23
صدق اللہ۔Your question of consideration is that the word sister does not include paternal or maternal aunts. The hadith states that it is not permissible to marry a girl and her paternal aunt together, similarly, it is not permissible to marry a girl and her maternal aunt together. Is this an interpretation of this verse or a new ruling?
Third: The Noble Verse:
[اَلزَّانِیَۃُ وَ الزَّانِیۡ] This verse prescribes the punishment of one hundred lashes (severe whipping) for the adulterous man and woman.
Reference: Surah An-Nur:2
The hadith states that if a man and woman have married once, and then commit adultery, their punishment is stoning (rajm). Is this an interpretation of this verse or a new ruling?
Fourth: The Noble Verse:
[وَ السَّارِقُ وَ السَّارِقَۃُ فَاقۡطَعُوۡۤا اَیۡدِیَہُمَا] That is, whether the thief is a man or a woman, cut off their hand.
Reference: Al-Ma'idah:38
The nisab (minimum value) for theft mentioned in the hadiths is an item worth a quarter of a dinar or ten dirhams. How can this imprisonment be included in the interpretation of this verse? Because the verse is general, whether the theft is of money or rupees, whether it is one dinar or a hundred dinars.
We have given a few examples. If all examples were written in detail, it would become quite a thick book. But by the command of Khair al-Kalam, "less but meaningful," we suffice with a few examples, quoting the late Mirza Ghalib:
Do not make the letter so long, Ghalib, write it briefly
I am full of longing, presenting the tale of separation's woes
You have done very well in silencing the questioner who denies hadith by explaining hadith as the interpretation of the Holy Quran. In response to our examples, accept the hadith as a positive legal ruling yourself! So that we also get a chance to speak.
Who says that there will be separation between us?
Some enemy must have spread this rumor
Reference: Ahl-e-Hadith 26 October 1945
Now we quote that excerpt which clearly shows what the sect of Maulana Moosuf is. The meaning of this excerpt is that he does not consider every action of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as a wajib-ul-amal (obligatory practice) sunnah, and also, regarding the terminologies used by the scholars of Ahl al-Hadith related to sunnah and bid'ah, Maulana Moosuf is not bound by them either. Furthermore, he does not establish any terminology on his own. Accordingly, the following excerpt from the treatise "Tarjuman al-Qur'an" is worth noting. Readers should read carefully. He states:
I consider the meanings of terms such as Uswah (model), Sunnah, and Bid'ah, which are generally prevalent among you (jurists and muhaddithin), to be incorrect and a cause of distortion in religion. Your belief that the Prophet ﷺ had a long beard, and that keeping a beard of the same length is the Sunnah of the Prophet or his model, implies that you consider the habits of the Prophet exactly as the Sunnah for which the Prophet ﷺ and other Prophets were sent to establish and maintain. But in my view, not only is this not the correct definition of Sunnah, but I also hold the belief that declaring such things as Sunnah and then insisting on following them is a severe kind of bid'ah and a dangerous distortion of religion. This has already shown very bad consequences before and there is a risk of such consequences appearing in the future as well.
Reference: Tarjuman al-Qur'an, Volume 26, Issue 403-605, page 274, May-June 45 AH
❀ The words that Hadith scholars use regarding these terms are found in the books of Usul (principles). Uswah refers to the prophetic practice. This word also appears in the Holy Quran. Thus, it is stated:
[لَقَدۡ کَانَ لَکُمۡ فِیۡ رَسُوۡلِ اللّٰہِ اُسۡوَۃٌ حَسَنَۃٌ] For this reason, the Companions used to ask the Pure Wives what the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to do at home. The Wives would say: [كان في مهنة أهله] The Prophet used to be engaged in serving the household.
Reference: Bukhari:676
The purpose of the Companions' question was that they too might do the same work in their homes that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did, so that the exemplary conduct (Uswah Hasana) would be fully followed. The definition of Bid'ah (innovation) according to Hadith scholars is also as it appears in the Hadith.
[من أحدث في أمرنا هذا ليس منه فهو رد] Whoever introduces into this matter of ours (Islam) something that does not belong to it, it is rejected.
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith: 2697
Thus, this is Bid'ah. Uswah and Sunnah are the same thing. Their summary is:
[ما فعل رسول الله صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم]
Maulana Maududi should have expressed displeasure over these terms and presented his own terminology, but he did what a poet once did. The poet said this couplet in favor of a Maulvi Sahib with whom he had some conflict.
The preacher is called the people of the city and the country
Our opinion is that he is not a human
Meaning, the poet says: people call the Maulvi Sahib an angel. We also say the same about him that he is not a human. As for what he actually is, that is in the poet's heart.
Similarly, Maududi Sahib did a great thing by not revealing his stance regarding these terms. If he had revealed it, we would have considered it. Now you remain safe under this couplet.
Ungufta nadar dakse ba to kar!
You have warned us in a very angry tone of bad consequences under these terms; what else can we say in response except this,
O adviser, at least understand in your heart that we
Are very ignorant, but can we be more ignorant than you?
When Maulana Maududi Sahib expressed the faults in these terms that were in his mind, we will also respond to him or accept it. For the time being, we consider these faults to be childish nonsense.
Several years ago, there was an Islamic gathering in Agra where preachers of various sects were present, including Sunnis and Shias. There were also Ahl-e-Hadith like me. In my speech, I gently encouraged the love of following the Sunnah. Do what the Prophet (peace be upon him) did without hesitation, and do not do what he did not do. Since I had a dislike for prevalent innovations, it slipped out of my mouth that if the Prophet (peace be upon him) made a Taziya (mourning procession), then make it; if he did not, then leave it. The Shia group was also present at this gathering. One of their powerful preachers was there. How could he remain silent after hearing this principle? After me, he came on the stage. He praised the Prophet (peace be upon him) greatly and exaggerated, concluding by saying, "How is it possible that we do only what such a Prophet did?"
The meaning was that the obligation to follow the Sunnah should be lifted from us. Rather, we should be left free to incorporate any ritual we want into the religion. Upon hearing this, I recited with a loud voice that Allah Almighty has said:
[اَیَحۡسَبُ الۡاِنۡسَانُ اَنۡ یُّتۡرَکَ سُدًی]
Reference: Surah Al-Qiyamah:36
Now I will explain the opinion that Maulana Maududi Sahib has expressed in the mentioned excerpt. In fact, this is the Hanafi school of thought. It is written in the books of Usul like "Noor al-Anwar" and others that the actions of the Prophet are of two (2) types.
Sunan al-Huda and Sunan al-Zawaid.
Sunan al-Huda: These are actions that are of the nature of worship and carry reward.
Sunan al-Zawaid: These are actions that are not intended as worship but are done out of habit. Accordingly, among them are the following prophetic actions. After praying the Sunnah prayers of the morning, lying down slightly on the right side. Sitting down briefly when rising from the second and fourth rak'ah, which is called "Jalsat al-Istirahah" (resting sitting). Going to the Eid al-Fitr prayer after eating something. And going to the Eid al-Adha prayer without eating. Many such prophetic actions are considered Sunan al-Zawaid according to the Hanafi school, while the Muhaddithin consider all these as Sunan al-Huda. From the practice of the Companions, it is evident that they did not leave any action as much as possible. It is narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that when he reached a place between Mecca and Medina, he would relieve himself and sit down to urinate. When asked, he said: I saw the Prophet (peace be upon him) sitting here.
To me, Majnun is beloved, Layla is beloved to herself
Each has their own sight, each has their own preference
We do not object to Maulana Maududi's sect; rather, we are pleased that he clearly stated his sect, although he did not mention which group this sect belongs to. Perhaps it is not remembered, but if you carefully read the Holy Quran, it becomes clear that the noble verse: [قُلۡ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ تُحِبُّوۡنَ اللّٰہَ فَاتَّبِعُوۡنِیۡ] is very broad in meaning and includes all kinds of prophetic actions. It does not allow any distinction between the Sunnah of guidance and additional narrations but loudly proclaims:
When you become a servant of love, abandon lineage, O Jam'i
For in this path, so-and-so son of so-and-so is of no consequence
Reference: Ahl al-Hadith 2 November 45 AH
There is no doubt that the word Taqlid (imitation) in the sense of 'known' is neither in the Quran nor in the Hadith; rather, it is a technical term used by scholars of Usul (principles). Since the discussion of Taqlid began in India, the definition and explanation of this word have been published more than enough. The summary of all these explanations is that Taqlid is [أخذ قول غير النبي من غير معرفة دليله]
Reference: (Muslim al-Thubut)
and other Usul books carry this definition. The meaning is accepting a Shariah ruling from someone other than a Prophet without knowing its evidence; this is Taqlid. For example, if two people go to a scholar to ask about the ruling on reciting Al-Fatiha behind the Imam—whether it is obligatory or forbidden—and the scholar says it is obligatory or forbidden, then the person who believes only in that statement is a follower (Muqallid) of that Mufti. But if they ask for the evidence of the fatwa and the Mufti presents a verse or Hadith as evidence for his fatwa, then that person is not a follower (non-Muqallid). Whether the fatwa is about the obligation or prohibition of Al-Fatiha, it does not matter. Since the command of God and the Messenger contains evidence within itself, the author of
Reference: (Muslim al-Thubut)
explicitly said:[فالرجوع إلى الرسول ليس بتقليد] Referring to the Messenger is not Taqlid.
Because the statement of the Messenger does not depend on any other statement; rather, it is an example of this case.
After this preamble, Maulana Maududi's fatwa is worth hearing. He says:
In Islam, in fact, imitation (taqlid) is only of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and no one else. And even the imitation of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, is on the basis that whatever you say is by the permission and command of Allah. Otherwise, in reality, the one who is to be obeyed and obeyed is none other than Allah Almighty. The reality of following the Imams is only that these Imams examined the commands of Allah and the Messenger. They found out from the Quranic verses and the Sunnah of the Prophet which way a Muslim should follow in worship and transactions. And from the principles of Shariah, they deduced detailed rulings. Therefore, they themselves are neither commanders nor prohibitors. Nor are they to be obeyed and followed in themselves. Rather, for the knowledgeable, they can be a reliable source of knowledge. A person who does not have mature insight into the divine rulings and the prophetic Sunnah and is not capable of deducing detailed rulings from the principles himself has no option but to follow the method taught by whichever scholar or Imam he trusts among them. If a person follows them in this capacity, then there is no room for objection. But if a person considers them as commanders and prohibitors in themselves or obeys them in a manner that is only permissible in obedience to the real commander and prohibitor, that is, if he considers deviation from the method prescribed by any of the Imams as equivalent to deviation from the religion itself, and if even when he finds any issue of theirs contrary to a proven explicit Quranic verse, he insists on following his Imam, then this is undoubtedly shirk.
Reference: Tarjuman al-Quran, Ramadan and Shawwal 63 AH, p. 86
❀ In this excerpt, if Maulana Sahib is not mistaken, then there is certainly a slip or forgetfulness that he has left out the meanings of taqlid as understood in the terminology of the scholars of principles (usul). Or he has forgotten it. No one can be a follower of the Messenger in that sense because taqlid in that sense means ignorance from the heart. Thus, Hujjat al-Islam Imam Ghazali, may Allah have mercy on him, writes in the book "Al-Mustasfa" that [التقلید لیس في شیئ من العلم] taqlid is not a degree of knowledge. So, a person who hears the words of the Messenger, peace be upon him, and accepts them has acquired the knowledge of the original proof. How can he be a follower (mukallid)? Maulana Sahib has made a slip because he did not consider that according to the scholars of principles, taqlid is a degree of ignorance, and according to the philosophers, it is a degree of lack of habit. [فافهم فإنہ دقیق]
In short, following the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, is obligatory and compulsory; taqlid is not obligatory or compulsory, and calling their following taqlid is not permissible. Otherwise, it would follow that the Rightly Guided Caliphs and other Companions, may Allah be pleased with them all, were all followers (mukallids). If that were so, why would a great Sufi like Maulana Rumi write this couplet in praise of a follower?
The follower is like a sick child!
Although he has subtle arguments and proofs!
(A follower is like a sick child, even if many proofs and arguments are presented)
Reference: (Masnavi)
Several years ago, I had a discussion about Taqlid (imitation) with my respected friend Maulvi Murtaza Hasan Sahib Deobandi, which was published in the newspapers "Ahl-e-Hadith" and "Al-Adl" in Gujranwala. [This article was later published as a booklet titled "Tanqeed al-Taqleed"]
The author introduced a new idea here that the very first non-follower (ghair muqallid) was Satan, who asked God for proof regarding the prostration to Adam. Even at that time, I was surprised to hear that our interlocutor, who takes pride in his books of principles, was so unaware that he called Satan a non-follower by saying he asked God for proof. They do not consider that what could be a greater proof than God's command. At a gathering in Amritsar, in Deobandi style, Maulvi Khair Muhammad Sahib Jalandhari also expressed the same point in response to me, which surprised me even more. Finally, I was comforted by Imam Ghazali's statement that imitation (taqlid) is not the rank of knowledge.
Maulana Maududi has correctly stated the position of the mujtahid scholars that they are not the originators of rulings but the conveyors of rulings. However, making the ignorant layman a follower of the issues declared by these mujtahids is a matter worthy of consideration.
Because this means or results in the questioner necessarily designating one imam as obligatory to follow. Whereas this is not a religious issue; the truth is that an ignorant person should ask every learned person he addresses about the issue. Accordingly,
Reference: "Radd al-Muhtar" "Shami"
records the statement of Sheikh Ibn Hummam, may Allah have mercy on him, that[In the time of the predecessors, the custom was that an ordinary person could ask a fatwa from any mufti of his city he wished.]
In our opinion, there is a difference between these two questions. The words of one question are: "Maulvi Sahib! What is the ruling of Allah and the Messenger regarding such and such issue?" The words of the other question are: "Maulvi Sahib! What is the fatwa of the Hanafi school regarding such and such issue?" The Maulana should clarify which of these two questions' wording he considers correct and which incorrect. We consider the wording of the latter question incorrect because the questioner has already assumed the Hanafi jurisprudence as the obligatory school to follow, whereas this is not the reality. The actual obligatory school to follow is the command of Allah and the Messenger, as stated: [اِتَّبِعُوۡا مَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ اِلَیۡکُمۡ مِّنۡ رَّبِّکُمۡ وَ لَا تَتَّبِعُوۡا مِنۡ دُوۡنِہٖۤ اَوۡلِیَآءَ]
We would give Maulana Maududi a friendly advice, and probably he would have no complaint, to consult the book "Miyar al-Haqq" authored by Maulana Nazir Hussain Sahib Dehlvi and "Al-Irshad" authored by Maulvi Abu Yahya Sahib Shahjahanpuri regarding the issue of taqlid and non-taqlid, and the matter will become very clear to him. For now, I will suffice with this on the subject.
Listen to my great story when you have time
Reference: Ahl-e-Hadith 9 November 45 AH
