The Issue of Shaking Hands with One Hand
Jhangvi Sahib started with a lie:
Jhangvi has based his entire discourse on a fictional dialogue which is not true in reality. Perhaps he considers it a method of explanation and thus denies its falsehood, but still the fact remains that Mr. Jhangvi has not accurately conveyed the objections from the Ahl al-Hadith side. Although it was his right to correctly represent the opposing party’s stance and respond to their arguments with scholarly and research-based answers, he has recorded both the objections and the responses incorrectly. He states, “When you pray, you take off your cap from your head and throw it down, cross your right hand over your left elbow and fold your hands, and stand with your neck stretched and feet spread wide. These things I do not understand.” (Tohfa Ahl al-Hadith p. 1)
However, no Ahl al-Hadith begins the prayer in this manner. Prayer is performed with a bare head out of humility and submission. It is Sunnah to raise the hands up to the shoulders at the time of Takbir al-Tahrima, as narrated in the Marfu’ hadith of Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (RA).
This is the practice of the Ahl al-Hadith. It is Sunnah to keep one’s gaze at the place of prostration during prayer, as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said.
By Allah’s grace and mercy, this is the practice of the Ahl al-Hadith. But Jhangvi started with lies and slander. Similarly, in spreading the feet wide, Jhangvi has exaggerated and misrepresented. Details will follow.
Jhangvi’s confession along with the declaration of falsehood:
It is stated that your point is absolutely correct; if someone’s statement contradicts the Quran and Hadith, then it is indeed impractical, especially when the Hadith contradicts the authentic one and also conflicts with the Book of Allah.
Answer: Firstly: Undoubtedly, it is correct and true to declare the sayings of the Imams as impractical if they contradict the Quran and Hadith, but adding that they also contradict the Book of Allah is the doctrine of the Mu’tazila, which is rejected. The purpose of this rejected statement is that if the sayings of the Imams only oppose the Prophetic Hadith, then they will remain superior to that Hadith. However, if they oppose both the Hadith and the Quran, then they are indeed impractical.
Secondly: It is also noteworthy that it is not only opposing the Hadith but also conflicting with the Quran. But what is the evidence that if the Imam’s statement contradicts both the Quran and Hadith, then you will abandon it? Because it is written in Hanafi jurisprudence that:
(( فلعنة ربنا اعداد رمل على من رد قول أبي حنيفة ))
Meaning, may dust particles curse the person who rejects Abu Hanifa’s statement.
The person who says about the Imam that he can err is even more misguided than that.
The author of Usul al-Karkhi states that all the verses of the Quran and Hadith that oppose the sayings of our Imams are either abrogated or allegorical.
Elevated Hadiths about Shaking Hands with One Hand:
First Hadith: Hazrat Ubaidullah bin Basar (may Allah be pleased with him) says:
((ترون يدى هذه صافحت بها رسول الله وذكر الحديث ))
Meaning: You people see my hand; with this one hand, I have shaken hands with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. And the hadith is mentioned
This hadith is a clear proof of shaking hands with one hand.
Second Hadith: Hazrat Amr bin Al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that when Allah Almighty placed Islam in my heart, I came to the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and said:
((ابسط يمينك فلا بايعك فيبسط يمينه قال فقبضت يدى قال مالك يا عمرو قال قلت اردت ان اشترط قال تشرط بما ذا قلت ان يغفرلى قال اما علمت يا عمرو ان الاسلام يهدم ما كان قبله))
Meaning: O Messenger of Allah ﷺ, extend your right hand so that I may pledge allegiance to you. So the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم extended his right hand. I withdrew my hand. He said, “Amr, what has stopped you?” I said, “I want to make a condition.” He said, “What condition do you want to make?” I said, “That I be forgiven.” He said, “Do you not know that all the sins committed before accepting Islam are erased by Islam?”
Although this narration is about the pledge of allegiance (bay’ah) handshake, the pledge itself involves shaking hands. Hazrat Umaymah bint Ruqayyah (may Allah be pleased with her) says that many women came to pledge allegiance to Islam to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and when we requested to shake hands during the pledge, he said: ((انی لا اصافع النساء )) I do not shake hands with women.
Hafiz Ibn Abdul Barr, in explaining these words, says that ((دليل على انه كان يصافح الرجال عند البيعة وغيرها )) means these prophetic words are evidence that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ shook hands with men during the pledge and similar occasions.
After narrating several hadiths, Hafiz Ibn Abdul Barr says:
((في هذا ايضا دليل على ان المبايعة من شانها المصافحة ولم يختلف الآثار في ذلك))
Besides these issues, these hadiths prove that the pledge (bay’ah) involves shaking hands in its manner and method, and there is no difference in this matter in the prophetic traditions.
From these evidences, it is established that the manner and method of shaking hands during pledge and meeting are the same. Shaking hands with the right hand is present in the following hadiths:
(1) From Hazrat Abu Ghadiyah (may Allah be pleased with him).
(2) From Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).
(3) From Wathilah bin Al-Asqah (may Allah be pleased with him).
(4) From Jarir bin Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him).
(5) From Uthman bin Affan (may Allah be pleased with him).
Jhangvi Sahib’s First Objection
To say that yad means only one hand is wrong; rather, it is a generic noun and applies to both singular and plural. If you have taken the word yad to mean only one hand, then which word in the hadith does the right hand translate to?
Answer: Firstly: In such types of ahadith, it is wrong to take the word yad as a generic noun because the word yad is definite with the definite article “al” or is in an idafa (construct phrase), so the “al” and “lam” are for an external reference, and similarly for the idafa.
Secondly: You have considered the word yad as generic, which according to you applies to both singular and plural. Then on what basis did you take the plural instead of the singular, because in determining the meaning of words with shared meanings, context is necessary, which is not present here. Besides, this pretext also invalidates the claim that shaking hands with one hand is not Sunnah, because by considering it generic, you have accepted its use for the singular.
Second objection: Prove from any verse of the Holy Quran or hadith that shaking hands with the right hand is prescribed and shaking hands with the left hand is prohibited. (p.3)
Answer: Firstly: You admit that shaking hands with one hand is Sunnah.
Secondly: As for taking the one hand to mean the right hand, listen that there are legal evidences for this:
((يحب التيمن ما استطاع في شانه كله))
Meaning: In every matter, the Prophet ﷺ preferred the right hand as much as possible.
Jhangvi Sahib, prove from any authentic evidence in “Fi Shanah Kullah” that the left hand is meant instead of the right hand? If he cannot prove this, certainly he will not be able to, and shaking hands is included in “Kullah.”
Thirdly: In
from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and in
from Abu Ghadiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), there is explicit mention of the right hand.
Objections to Sahih Bukhari
After the mentioned objections, Jhangvi, mixing topics in between, has made Sahih Bukhari the subject of discussion. First, falsely quoting the objection that the hadith of shaking hands with both hands should be proven from Bukhari; then, under the pretext of this objection, they vent their frustration by saying that this issue is not present in Bukhari, whereas no one holds the view regarding Sahih Bukhari that Imam Bukhari collected all authentic hadiths in his Sahih. The implication from the words of the person concerned is that if a hadith is not in Bukhari, then it is not a hadith at all. This rumor was first spread by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani. See
. The Jhangvi group, blindly imitating Mirza, has embraced this. انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون۔
What is the stance of the scholars regarding Bukhari:
Maulana Sir Faraz Khan Safdar states: According to the principles of Hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are referred to as the two Sahihs, meaning that all the hadiths contained in them are authentic. This does not mean that no other hadith or hadith book is authentic, rather it means that the hadiths present in them are entirely authentic.
Hafiz Ibn al-Salah states:
((لم يستوعب الصحيح في صحيحهما ولا التز ما ذلك فقد روينا عن البخارى انه قال ما أدخلت فى كتاب الجامع الا ماسع وتركت من الصحاح الملال الطول ))
Meaning Imam Bukhari and Muslim did not commit to including all authentic hadiths in their books. Imam Bukhari himself said that he included only authentic hadiths in his book and due to length, he omitted many authentic hadiths.
Contrary to this fact, Jhungvi claims that such and such hadith is not in Bukhari and such and such issue is not mentioned in Bukhari, which proves that Jhungvi is either making this claim out of hatred and prejudice or is completely ignorant. The former is more likely because the current Hanafis have a notable allergy to Bukhari.
In any case, let us examine the reality of those issues which Jhungvi Sahib has pointed out as not being in Bukhari.
Placing Hands on the Chest
It is stated that placing hands on the chest.
Answer: Firstly: Is there any explicit mention in the Quran about placing hands on the chest or anywhere else? If yes, then provide the reference of that verse; if not, and certainly there is not, then the answer you give regarding the Quran should be considered as the reason for the absence of mention in Bukhari as well.
Secondly: In authentic hadith, there is mention of placing hands on the chest during prayer. Hazrat Wa’il bin Hujr (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates:
((صليت مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فوضع يده اليمنى على يده اليسري على صدره))
Meaning: I prayed behind the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and he placed his right hand over his left hand and tied them on his chest.
Hazrat Hulb al-Tai (may Allah be pleased with him) says that يضع هذه على صدره‘ meaning the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to place his hands on his chest during prayer.
Spreading the Feet Apart
Firstly: Its detail is coming later in its place that it is proven from Bukhari’s hadiths to keep the feet apart.
Secondly: According to the Hanafis, the worshiper should keep a distance of four fingers between his feet during Qiyam. It is written as Mustahabb in Namaz-e-Masnoon p. 310 and in the Fiqh book Fatawa Bazaziya.
Can you provide any evidence for this from the Quran and Sunnah? Absolutely not. All these are inventions of the Gazette and non-Arabs. This has no relation to the Arabic religion.
The manner of standing in prayer
Jhangvi Sahib has also left a remark that Ahl al-Hadith stand stiffly in prayer and this is not mentioned in Bukhari. A detailed answer to this is coming later under the heading “Difference between Ahl al-Hadith and the innovators of Deoband.” Here, in response to the Jhangvi group, we consider only لعنتہ اللہ علی الکاذبین sufficient.
Words of the Adhan
Jhangvi has also claimed that there is no Adhan of Ahl al-Hadith in Bukhari.
Answer: Firstly: What do you mean by Adhan? If you claim Adhan without Tarjee‘ (repetition), then it is present at the beginning of the Book of Adhan in Bukhari itself. If you deny Adhan without Tarjee‘, then the Adhan with Tarjee‘ was taught by the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم to Hazrat Abu Mahzur رضي الله عنه.
Secondly: Is there any clarification of the words of Adhan in the Quran? If yes, then Jhangvi should point out those verses; if not, and certainly not, then فماکان جو ا بکم فھو جو ا بنا
Thirdly: Forget Bukhari, can you prove Hanafi Adhan from the entire Sahih Sitta? Which includes two Takbirs and one Adhan and also contains the words ’’الصلوۃ خیر من النوم ‘‘. Let us give you more concession and show you only one Hadith from the entire collection of Ahadith which, according to the principles of Hadith, is at least of Hasan grade and which is unanimously declared Hasan by the Muhaddithin.
Dear readers! The sun may rise from the west and set in the east, but the Jhangvi group cannot prove any such Hadith for their practice.
Units of Prayer
Jhangvi has also claimed that in Bukhari, the number of obligatory and Sunnah rak’ahs for every prayer is not mentioned. (p.4)
Answer: – Firstly: Can the Jhangvi group prove from the Quran that there are five prayers, that such and such azan is at such and such time, and that this prayer has this many rak’ahs, with this many obligatory and the rest Sunnah? If not, and certainly not, then there is no place جوا بکم فھو جو ابنا۔.
Secondly:
contains a Marfu’ hadith from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioning the number of obligatory rak’ahs for Zuhr, Asr, Maghrib, and Isha prayers, and the number of rak’ahs. The Fajr prayer is mentioned in Bukhari, Book of Azan, chapter on recitation at dawn
, stating two rak’ahs are obligatory.
If your imitative mind is incapable of understanding these hadiths, then take a translated Bukhari and study it; if even then your mind does not understand this simple hadith, then frequently recite La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah, instead of writing, enroll in a primary school to learn Urdu, and pray to your true Master with humility, submission, and tender sighs for increased knowledge and to walk on the straight path. InshaAllah, this tried remedy will bring healing.
Thirdly: Sunnah of Fajr is two rak’ahs
.
Sunnah of Zuhr is six rak’ahs.
.
Sunnah of Maghrib is two rak’ahs.
.
Sunnah of Isha is two rak’ahs
.
Obligatory Acts, Necessary Acts, and Disliked Acts of Prayer
Jhangvi has also claimed that the mentioned matters are not stated in Bukhari.
The answer: Firstly, can the Jhangvi group prove that the Quran provides a detailed and sequential method of prayer and that the Quran states which acts in prayer are obligatory pillars, which are wajib, which are sunnah, which are mustahabb, and which acts are disliked in prayer? If so, please point out the verse.
Secondly: Just as the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم prayed, it is necessary and essential to perform the prayer in the same manner, and since the way of praying is established by Sunnah, going against it means the prayer is not valid. The evidence for this is the hadith in which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
(صلو كما رائيتموني اصلی”).
Meaning: Pray as you have seen me praying.
Thirdly: The Hanafi jurists classifying some pillars of prayer as fard (obligatory), some as wajib, some as sunnah, and some as mustahabb is the worst innovation.
If Jhangvi has the courage, let him prove from the Quran, Sunnah, and sayings of the Companions that some pillars of prayer are fard, some wajib, some sunnah, and some mustahabb. Otherwise, he should admit that our madhhab exceeds the Book and Sunnah.
Dear readers, the Jhangvi group cannot provide proof despite the combined strenuous efforts of all the opponents of Sunnah worldwide. Allahu Akbar. They invent innovations and then demand proof from us.
And if no proof exists, they blame us instead. This is called the thief blaming the police.
Funeral Prayer
Jhangvi has also claimed that the details of the funeral prayer you all perform are not in Bukhari. (p.4)
Firstly: Can the Jhangvi group prove the method of funeral prayer from the Quran?
Secondly: What do you mean by details? If you mean that the issues of the funeral prayer are not in Bukhari, then this is such a big lie that only Jhangvi can say it. Because Imam Bukhari, under the book Al-Jana’iz, has arranged about 98 chapters under different titles and recorded nearly one and a half hundred marfu’ (elevated) hadiths. If by details you mean that some issues of the funeral prayer are not in Bukhari, then when have we claimed that Imam Bukhari collected all authentic hadiths? Moreover, can you prove all the issues of the funeral prayer from your Hanafi jurisprudence through Imam Abu Hanifa? Giving you further concession, just prove one issue: where should the gaze be fixed while performing the funeral prayer?
Dear readers! Not only from Imam Abu Hanifa but from the entire Hanafi scholars’ opinions, this issue cannot be proven.
Method of Performing Eid Prayer
The method of performing Eid prayer is not in Bukhari. (p.4)
Answer: Firstly: Can you prove the method of performing Eid prayer from the Quran?
Secondly: In Sahih Bukhari, under the book Al-Eidayn, Imam Bukhari has recorded nearly fifty hadiths under 26 different headings explaining the method of Eid prayer.
Thirdly: If your point is that some issues of Eid prayer are not in Bukhari, then can you prove all issues of Eid prayer from Imam Abu Hanifa? If you can prove, then present the Imam’s statement about whether a person who prays Eid prayer in the Haram and then goes to a country where people are fasting should or should not pray Eid prayer with the people the next day?
The answer should be supported by an authentic reference.
Urinating While Sitting
Not in Bukhari. (p. 4)
Answer: Firstly: Can you prove from the Quran that urinating should be done sitting down?
Secondly: In Musnad Abi Hanifa, urinating while standing is narrated.
but not sitting down. فماکان جو ابکم ھو جو ابنا۔
Thirdly: Have you even read Bukhari or just glanced over it? In Bukhari, in the Book of Ablution, the chapter “One who urinates on the two stones” and the chapter “Dates in the houses,” there is clear and explicit evidence of urinating while sitting. But to understand this, one must not be a blind follower. Jhangvi studied the opinions of Hanafi jurists for seven or eight years, so he became familiar with the chapters of legal stratagems, but he only studied hadith for one year, so you understood nothing. A student might have been reading hadith hastily while the teacher and other students listened silently. Where the purpose was to refute Sahih hadith and defend the people of opinion, your Sheikh al-Hadith would say, “Wait.” Saying this, he would take out the register of refutations of hadith prepared through a lifetime of hard work and say, “Write, this is the Shafi’i evidence, this is the Maliki evidence, this is the Hanbali evidence,” while those against our madhhab are either abrogated or allegorical! The proof for this is written on page 11 of Usool al-Karafi that the verses of the Quran and the Prophetic commands علیہ التحیة والسلام that are against our madhhab are either abrogated or allegorical.
Thus, you spent a whole year of hadith study mocking the Sunnah instead of understanding it and learned the trick of dividing Sahih hadith into Hanbali, Shafi’i, and Maliki groups, and this is the effect of that dark training. Otherwise, Bukhari contains the narration of urinating while sitting.
Symbols on the Flag of the Jihadi Organization
Jhangvi Sahib says that you have made a sword on your flag and written the Kalima on it; neither of these two things is proven from Bukhari nor from any book in the world that the flag of the Prophet (peace be upon him) had both a sword and the Kalima. Rather, this is an innovation (bid’ah). If other people recite the Kalima loudly after prayer, they are innovators, but if you invent a new flag, you are not innovators—where is this justice?
Answer: Firstly: In which book of Hadith is the flag made by Harakat al-Ansar recorded? Then, the members of this jihadi organization tie a turban over their caps— in which book of Hadith is this mentioned? You wear a vest over your shirt— is this narrated in any book of Hadith?
Secondly: Brother, both parties agree on the definition of innovation (bid’ah) and its ruling. It is that any act introduced into religion which has no proof in the Shariah is an innovation. For details, see “Deen-ul-Haq,” Part Two.
Whereas the flag relates to identification matters, that this is the symbol and identity of such and such group, which has no relation to acts of worship. For example, in the organization, there are positions like Amir, Naib Amir, Nazim, Naib Nazim, District Amir, etc., which do not relate to religious rulings or acts of worship but are only organizational matters. Whereas reciting the Kalima after prayer is an addition to worship and is prohibited in acts of worship. This is why during the blessed time of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, the flag was not of one kind but of various kinds.
The Evidence for Shaking Hands with Both Hands
Jhangvi Sahib says that
Imam Bukhari has titled a chapter “Bab al-Musafahah” (Chapter of Handshaking). Under it, he brings a hadith about handshaking by hand, in which Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) says: that my hand was between the two hands of the Prophet (peace be upon him). کفی این کفیه –
Muhammadi: Brother, the hadith you presented does not mention handshaking at the time of meeting, rather it states that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) taught Tashahhud to Hazrat Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) while holding his hand between his two hands.
Maulana Abdul Hai Lakhnawi Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: And in Sahih Bukhari, the hadith narrated from Abdullah bin Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) is that ’’ علمنی رسول الله وكفى بين كفيه التشهد .. the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) taught me Tashahhud while my hand was between his two hands.
This does not mean the handshake done at the time of meeting, rather it is holding the hand in hand, like elders hold the hand of juniors while teaching something.
And if you interpret it as the handshake at the time of meeting, then obviously Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) shook with only one hand, as is proven from the word “kafi”.
Hanafi: Imam Bukhari brought this hadith under the chapter of handshaking, and “kafi” is a generic term used for both singular and plural, and here it means both hands of Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him).
Muhammadi: Imam Bukhari’s chapter “Bab al-Musafahah” refers to the literal meaning of handshaking because the lexicographers have explicitly stated that musafahah means to join the palm of one hand with the palm of another.
Imam Bukhari himself, after the mentioned chapter, explained it under the title “Bab al-Akhadh bil-Yadain” (Chapter of Taking with Two Hands), and your Allama Saharanpuri comments in his marginal notes:
(( ولما كان الاخذ باليد يجوز ان يقع من غير مصافحة افرده بهذا الباب كذا في الفتح والقسطلانی))
Meaning, as stated by Fath and Qastalani, when the intention was to hold the hand, it is possible that this was not the handshake (done at the time of meeting), and for this reason Imam Bukhari made this chapter.
As for your attempt to achieve your purpose by calling it a generic term, it has already been explained that this is incorrect; moreover, the word “kaf” is singular and cannot be taken as dual. Furthermore, even if it is accepted that “kafi” refers to both hands of Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him), then “between the two palms” would mean that both hands of Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) were between the two palms of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). In that case, it would not be a handshake because Ibn Mas’ud’s palm did not touch the palm of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). So, you yourselves do not believe in such a handshake.
Hanafi: Dear! You just extend your hand towards me. Put both hands forward, see, a handshake is happening; you have two hands but the hand coming between my two hands is only one, the other is outside. Similarly, I also have only one hand between your two hands. How does it necessarily mean that the companion gave only one hand?
The Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) were ready to sacrifice their lives at the mere gesture of the Prophet’s eyebrow; expecting them to offer one hand while the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave two hands is impossible. Even if we accept for a moment that the companion gave one hand, still the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is paramount for us. In many places when Ahl al-Sunnah present the sayings of the Companions, you immediately reject them saying the Companion’s statement is not authoritative, we do not accept it, for example in issues like Tarawih, divorce, etc.
Muhammadi: In this argument, you have called “kafi” a generic term and explained the mentioned situation of handshaking, but you made two mistakes: first, you made a singular word dual, and second, you ignored the attribute “bayn kafiyyah” (between two palms). Whether you take it as singular or dual, the words of the hadith require “bayn kafiyyah” (between two palms). But you are reversing the meaning and ignoring “bayn kafiyyah” after making a simile with singular. Then in this argument, you have not presented any support from the Quran, hadith, or sayings of lexicographers; you just emotionally said it is impossible that the Prophet (peace be upon him) shook hands with both hands and the companion with one hand.
Dear brother, it is agreed that the Companions respected the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) immensely, but this respect must also be proven and established by clear Shariah evidence that shaking with one hand is against respect. Your entire castle is built on air, having no connection with reality, and compared to the evidence, it is worthless. It is also rightly said that even if it is accepted that the companion shook with one hand, still the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is paramount for us. This is just your excuse. Because the books of principles clearly state that the action on which the Prophet (peace be upon him) remains silent is considered approved. But here the action of the companion is specific with the Prophet (peace be upon him); to reject it by calling it only the action of Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) is the work of followers like you. Then you accepted “kafli” as singular, which invalidates all your claims. As for the fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) shook hands with both hands, it has already been explained that this was not the handshake at the time of meeting.
Hanafi: Brother, Imam Bukhari made a chapter on the issue of Fatiha Khalf al-Imam
. When the issue of Fatiha comes, chapters are accepted. Why is the chapter denied here? Who was the author of Manun ببعض الكتاب وتكفرون ببعض ‘‘ Karwiyah? Also, when the issue of raising hands is abandoned and Ahl al-Sunnah present the narration of “Mast Ghuddan” (horses with raised tails), every non-following Wahhabi shouts that
see the chapter there, it is neither Imam Bukhari’s nor Muslim’s chapter but Imam Nawawi made it, and that too the chapter الامر بالسكون فی الصلوۃ about maintaining calm in prayer. Brother Sahib, you remember big chapters at that time, but when it comes to Imam Bukhari’s chapter against you, you immediately say we do not accept chapters.
Muhammadi: The issue will always be discussed. I advise you with good intention that you have written the Quranic verse incorrectly; the correct words are افتؤمنون. Do not keep busy making false statements against us; also recite the Quran, may Allah grant you success.
Jhangvi Sahib, please tell us whether the mentioned verse refers to the Book of Allah or Bukhari? If it is Bukhari, then you do not accept the chapter of Fatiha Khalf al-Imam (even though Imam Bukhari presented clear Marfu’ hadiths there), and here you do not even accept the chapter. Why are you so blind? As for us, we accept the chapter of handshaking but interpret it in the literal sense as Allama Saharanpuri’s statement has already been quoted. For your information, the divine statement is not about accepting the sayings of any Imam but about the Book of Allah. Therefore, your interpretation is subjective; in other words, you have slandered the Quran. Why do you have such a habit of lying?
We already know that the chapters in Muslim were arranged by Allama Nawawi, but your Rais al-Munazireen says that the chapters in Muslim were arranged by Imam Muslim himself. Madar al-Haqq p. 38 — you may call it ignorance or knowledge; we leave it to your choice.
It is true that while pointing out the flaw in your argument, we use the arrangement of Sahih Muslim as supportive evidence, but it is not true that our argument is only based on Allama Nawawi’s chapter arrangement because we refute your excuse by narrating detailed hadiths. For example,
contains a detailed hadith in which Hazrat Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that when we prayed with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), at the end of the prayer we used to say السلام علیکم ورحمۃ اللہ and also gesture with our hands. Seeing this, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: What is wrong with you? Why do you gesture with your hands like the tails of evil horses? When any of you finishes prayer, he should turn his face towards his brother and say only “As-Salamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah” verbally and not gesture with his hands. End.
This detailed hadith explains the brief hadith you presented, which forbids raising hands at the time of salam so that the hadith about forbidding raising hands while bowing and rising from bowing is related to this. Due to this clear and explicit hadith, the Deobandi Sheikh al-Hadith Maulana Mahmood Hasan Khan Deobandi says that answering with the narration of Azanab Khail is not just because it is about salam, where the Companions say that at the time of salam they also gestured with hands, but the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade it.
Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani Hanafi Deobandi Sheikh al-Hadith of Darul Uloom Karachi says: But the truth is that this hadith makes the Hanafi argument doubtful and weak. The reality is that the hadith is one and related to raising hands at salam because the narration of Ibn al-Qabtiyah (the narrator) specifies the time of salam. It is apparent and obvious that Hazrat Jabir’s hadith is about raising hands at salam. Both hadiths should not be considered separate as they have the same narrator and similar text. The detailed narration is from Ibn al-Qabtiyah and the other is brief and concise. Therefore, the concise narration should be interpreted in light of the detailed one. Perhaps this is why Hazrat Shah Sahib Noorullah did not mention this hadith among the Hanafi evidences.
From these two statements, the support for our position is clear and needs no explanation. It is evident that the narration presented by the Hanafi is brief, and the detailed hadith forbids raising hands at the end of prayer during salam, and it has no relation to raising hands while bowing or rising from bowing. Therefore, the Hanafi argument is against justice. But unfortunately, Hazrat Jhangvi Sahib shamelessly lies without any shame that the Ahl al-Hadith reject the Hanafi argument by loudly citing Allama Nawawi’s chapter arrangement, and worse, they hide the detailed hadith and ignore the statements of their elders while insulting Ahl al-Hadith. They have neither shame nor modesty.
Hanafi: Brother, to interpret “yad” as one hand is harmful for you because the hadith says المسلم من سلم المسلمون من لسانه ویدہ A Muslim is one from whose hand and tongue other Muslims are safe. So according to you, it would mean that one should not harm a Muslim with the right hand but can pick his pocket with the left hand or kill him with a knife, which would be permissible.
Muhammadi: SubhanAllah, my brother, when did we claim that the word “yad” is used for one hand in every place? Both parties agree that the meaning changes with context. Take this word “yad” itself: it is used in Surah Baqarah verse 237 to mean power of control and ownership; in Surah Al-Mujadalah verse 12 it means “before”; in Surah Yaseen verse 9 it means “in front”; and in Surah Baqarah verse 66 it means “present”. Will you interpret “yad” as two hands in all these places?
In Surah Maidah verse 38, the command is to cut off the hand of the thief. Will you interpret “yad” here as both hands of the thief? Have some fear of Allah. After death and burial in the soil, these sectarian divisions will not help.
When it is established that a common word’s meaning requires context, then provide evidence for interpreting singular “yad” as dual; otherwise, it remains in its original and established meaning. Without evidence, no one will allow you to make singular into dual. The hadith you presented with its meaning is rejected because in the narration of Hazrat Anas (may Allah be pleased with him), recorded by Ibn Hibban in Kitab al-Hadith (510) and Mutadarik Hakim 11/1 and Musnad Ahmad 154/3 with authentic chain, these words are also present:
((المومن من أمنه الناس ))
Meaning, a believer is one from whom people are safe.
Hakim, Wazhebi, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar
have declared it authentic, and Mazari
. Also, this hadith is narrated multiple times from the Companions.
It is obvious that if someone picks your pocket with the left hand or stabs you, you will not be safe. From this detail, it is clear that the word “yad” in the hadith you presented is used metaphorically to mean power, whether political, moral, or otherwise. In any case, another Muslim should be safe from you. It does not mean that you should not harm with tongue and hand but get news published in newspapers that he is a bad person, or file false theft cases through police to ruin someone’s reputation. All these fall under this hadith’s scope but require not being a blind follower to understand.
Hanafi: Brother, the Englishman says “Good morning” and then shakes one hand.
Muhammadi: Brother, what do you mean by Englishman? Because there are Muslims among the English, and if you mean Christians, then your statement is wrong because your point would be that whatever Christians do, we reject it. If they accept Allah or believe in prophethood or say do not lie, do not steal, then we reject all these things. By the way, you are a scholar; have you ever read the Divine Word? It clearly states:
(وقل يا هل الكتب تعالوا الى كلمة سواء بيننا وبينكم )
Meaning: O Prophet, say: O People of the Book, come to what is common between us and you!
This verse proves that some things are common between the People of the Book and Muslims. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to prove that shaking with one hand is purely a Christian practice and prove the negation of one-handed shaking from the Quran or hadith.
