Author: Ghulam Mustafa Zaheer Amrpuri
The love for Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) necessitates obedience to them. In his first sermon, Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
"Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. If I disobey Allah and His Messenger, then you owe me no obedience."
(As-Seerah by Ibn Hisham, vol. 6, p. 82; hasan chain)
It is our duty to adhere to the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) while avoiding both extremism and negligence. We must show respect and reverence for him within the bounds of Shariah, as beautifully stated by Hafiz Dhahabi (673-748 AH):
"Exaggeration and excessive praise are forbidden, but respect and reverence are obligatory. When there is confusion between exaggeration and reverence, a scholar should refrain and seek clarification from a more knowledgeable person until the truth becomes clear. Then he should act accordingly, otherwise, silence is better. Sufficient respect has been established through numerous hadiths, and avoiding the excessive behavior that Christians exhibited towards Jesus, raising him from prophethood to divinity and violating the status of the Lord, is also enough. Excessive praise of the Prophet (peace be upon him) leads to disrespect towards Allah. We ask Allah to protect us with piety and to keep our love for the Prophet (peace be upon him) as He pleases."
(Mizan al-I'tidal by Dhahabi, vol. 2, p. 650)
The "Grave Worshipers" have gone to extremes. They have replaced the Sunnah with innovations. One such significant innovation is that people kiss their thumbs upon hearing the name of the Prophet (peace be upon him). There is no evidence for this practice. Had it been a virtuous act or a form of respect for the Prophet (peace be upon him) according to Shariah, the Companions and great scholars would have certainly practiced it. They were the foremost in honoring the Prophet (peace be upon him). There is no authentic evidence from any credible Imam justifying or recommending this act; hence, it is not part of the religion, but rather a violation of it.
Evidence 1:
A narration from Musnad al-Firdaws by al-Dailami regarding Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) states:
"When he heard the call of the muezzin saying 'Ashhadu anna Muhammadur Rasoolullah,' he said this and kissed the inner sides of his two index fingers and wiped his eyes. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, 'Whoever does what my beloved has done, my intercession will be obligatory for him.'"
(Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah by al-Sakhawi, p. 384)
Commentary:
A narration from Khidr (peace be upon him) states:
"Whoever says upon hearing the muezzin say 'Ashhadu anna Muhammadur Rasoolullah,' 'Welcome to my beloved and the delight of my eyes, Muhammad, son of Abdullah (peace be upon him),' then kisses his thumbs and places them on his eyes, will never suffer from eye ailments."
(Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah by al-Sakhawi, p. 386)
Commentary:
This narration is also weak and invalid due to a broken chain and unknown narrators. Hafiz al-Sakhawi remarked:
"It has a chain with unknown narrators and discontinuity."
Innovators often debate that a narration with an unknown narrator is not necessarily weak. We say that the ignorance of the narrators was pointed out by Hafiz al-Sakhawi; present the chain. Regarding unknown narrators, Imam Shafi'i stated:
"We (the hadith scholars) do not accept the narration of an unknown narrator, nor do we accept the narration of one whose truthfulness and piety we do not know."
(Ikhtilaf al-Hadith by al-Shafi'i, p. 13; Ma'rifat al-Sunan wal-Athar by al-Bayhaqi, vol. 1, p. 12)
Additionally, religion is based on connected narrations. One of the fundamental conditions for an authentic hadith is a connected chain. We are dealing with people who are more concerned with their innovations than the principles of hadith scholars.
Scholarly Opinions on These Narrations:
❀ Hafiz al-Sakhawi (831-902 AH) stated:
"None of these marfoo' (attributed to the Prophet) narrations are authentic."
(Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah, p. 385)
❀ Mulla Ali Qari Hanafi (d. 1014 AH) wrote:
"None of the marfoo' narrations in this regard are authentic."
(Al-Mawdu'at al-Kubra, p. 210)
❀ Ibn Abidin Hanafi (1198-1252 AH) quoted:
"None of these marfoo' narrations are authentic."
(Radd al-Muhtar by Ibn Abidin, vol. 1, p. 293)
We say that the authenticity or weakness of these narrations can only be determined after their chains are presented. Otherwise, innovators must acknowledge that their "religion" is without chains.
Clarification:
❀ Mulla Ali Qari stated:
"If it is proven to reach Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), then this is sufficient evidence for acting upon it."
(Al-Mawdu'at al-Kubra, p. 210)
Commentary:
First, the chain should be presented, followed by the authentication of the narrators. What value does a single Mulla's statement have?
(Ja'al Haqq by Naeemi, vol. 1, p. 398)
Commentary:
We are commanded to follow the Quran and Hadith. Only those who lack evidence from the Quran and Hadith cite references from corrupted and altered books. Please provide evidence for this from your alleged Imam Abu Hanifa or any trustworthy Muslim with an authentic chain.
Additionally, Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi Barelvi wrote:
"Even if we accept that this hadith is weak, weak hadiths are considered in the virtues of deeds."
(Ja'al Haqq, vol. 1, p. 401)
Our demand is for a chain. Furthermore, this issue concerns the legal rulings on whether it is necessary to kiss the thumbs upon hearing the blessed name of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the adhan, not about virtues.
Remember, dear readers, religion is based on "authentic" narrations, and virtues are also part of religion.
❀ Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH) wrote:
"I did not consider that weak, because the narration of a weak narrator and one who does not narrate are equal."
(Al-Thiqat by Ibn Hibban, vol. 9, p. 159)
He also wrote:
"It is as if the narration of the weak and the non-existent are equal in ruling."
(Al-Majruhin by Ibn Hibban, vol. 1, p. 328, biography of Sa'id bin Ziyad)
❀ Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (773-852 AH) wrote:
"There is no difference in acting upon a hadith in rulings or virtues, as both are part of the Shariah."
(Tabyīn al-'Ajab by Ibn Hajar, p. 2)
No one considers a "weak" hadith as part of the religion!
Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi Gujrati Barelvi wrote:
"Declaring this as haram is sheer ignorance. Until there is clear evidence of prohibition, it cannot be prohibited. The consensus of Muslims on considering something recommended is sufficient for its recommendation, but specific evidence is required for its disapproval."
(Ja'al Haqq, vol. 1, p. 399)
There is no trustworthy Muslim who has considered it recommended with an authentic chain. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Furthermore, it seems that Naeemi himself does not trust the narrations he has mentioned, as he presents people's baseless actions. We consider this act a bid'ah (innovation) because there is no Shariah evidence for it. Therefore, saying that there is no clear evidence of prohibition and hence it should not be considered impermissible and a bid'ah is "sheer ignorance." This argument is the last resort of those who innovate in religion. Acts of worship and religious rulings are established by the permission and approval of Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him), not by looking at prohibitions. Accepting the argument based on ignorance that there is no prohibition, so it is permissible, would make every innovative practice a part of the religion. If someone gives the adhan before Eid al-Fitr, and there is no explicit prohibition, should it then be considered recommended?
❀ Allama Abu Shama (599-665 AH) said:
"Whoever does something thinking it is prescribed, while it is not, is an exaggerator in his religion, an innovator, and one who speaks untruths about Allah, whether with the tongue of his speech or the tongue of his state."
(Al-Ba'ith 'ala Inkar al-Bida' wal-Hawadith, pp. 20-21)
The love for Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) necessitates obedience to them. In his first sermon, Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
"Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. If I disobey Allah and His Messenger, then you owe me no obedience."
(As-Seerah by Ibn Hisham, vol. 6, p. 82; hasan chain)
It is our duty to adhere to the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) while avoiding both extremism and negligence. We must show respect and reverence for him within the bounds of Shariah, as beautifully stated by Hafiz Dhahabi (673-748 AH):
"Exaggeration and excessive praise are forbidden, but respect and reverence are obligatory. When there is confusion between exaggeration and reverence, a scholar should refrain and seek clarification from a more knowledgeable person until the truth becomes clear. Then he should act accordingly, otherwise, silence is better. Sufficient respect has been established through numerous hadiths, and avoiding the excessive behavior that Christians exhibited towards Jesus, raising him from prophethood to divinity and violating the status of the Lord, is also enough. Excessive praise of the Prophet (peace be upon him) leads to disrespect towards Allah. We ask Allah to protect us with piety and to keep our love for the Prophet (peace be upon him) as He pleases."
(Mizan al-I'tidal by Dhahabi, vol. 2, p. 650)
The "Grave Worshipers" have gone to extremes. They have replaced the Sunnah with innovations. One such significant innovation is that people kiss their thumbs upon hearing the name of the Prophet (peace be upon him). There is no evidence for this practice. Had it been a virtuous act or a form of respect for the Prophet (peace be upon him) according to Shariah, the Companions and great scholars would have certainly practiced it. They were the foremost in honoring the Prophet (peace be upon him). There is no authentic evidence from any credible Imam justifying or recommending this act; hence, it is not part of the religion, but rather a violation of it.
Evidence Presented by Innovators for This Practice
Evidence 1:
A narration from Musnad al-Firdaws by al-Dailami regarding Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) states:
"When he heard the call of the muezzin saying 'Ashhadu anna Muhammadur Rasoolullah,' he said this and kissed the inner sides of his two index fingers and wiped his eyes. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, 'Whoever does what my beloved has done, my intercession will be obligatory for him.'"
(Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah by al-Sakhawi, p. 384)
Commentary:
- This narration is rejected and invalid due to the absence of a chain of narration. Those who claim its authenticity must provide the chain along with the authentication of the narrators and the continuity of the chain. Innovators often avoid chains of narration.
- Furthermore, Hafiz al-Sakhawi (831-902 AH) commented on this narration: "It is not authentic." Some innovators argue that "not authentic" does not necessarily mean "not good," which is their own interpretation. We require the chain of narration, which the innovators fail to provide.
A narration from Khidr (peace be upon him) states:
"Whoever says upon hearing the muezzin say 'Ashhadu anna Muhammadur Rasoolullah,' 'Welcome to my beloved and the delight of my eyes, Muhammad, son of Abdullah (peace be upon him),' then kisses his thumbs and places them on his eyes, will never suffer from eye ailments."
(Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah by al-Sakhawi, p. 386)
Commentary:
This narration is also weak and invalid due to a broken chain and unknown narrators. Hafiz al-Sakhawi remarked:
"It has a chain with unknown narrators and discontinuity."
Innovators often debate that a narration with an unknown narrator is not necessarily weak. We say that the ignorance of the narrators was pointed out by Hafiz al-Sakhawi; present the chain. Regarding unknown narrators, Imam Shafi'i stated:
"We (the hadith scholars) do not accept the narration of an unknown narrator, nor do we accept the narration of one whose truthfulness and piety we do not know."
(Ikhtilaf al-Hadith by al-Shafi'i, p. 13; Ma'rifat al-Sunan wal-Athar by al-Bayhaqi, vol. 1, p. 12)
Additionally, religion is based on connected narrations. One of the fundamental conditions for an authentic hadith is a connected chain. We are dealing with people who are more concerned with their innovations than the principles of hadith scholars.
Scholarly Opinions on These Narrations:
❀ Hafiz al-Sakhawi (831-902 AH) stated:
"None of these marfoo' (attributed to the Prophet) narrations are authentic."
(Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah, p. 385)
❀ Mulla Ali Qari Hanafi (d. 1014 AH) wrote:
"None of the marfoo' narrations in this regard are authentic."
(Al-Mawdu'at al-Kubra, p. 210)
❀ Ibn Abidin Hanafi (1198-1252 AH) quoted:
"None of these marfoo' narrations are authentic."
(Radd al-Muhtar by Ibn Abidin, vol. 1, p. 293)
We say that the authenticity or weakness of these narrations can only be determined after their chains are presented. Otherwise, innovators must acknowledge that their "religion" is without chains.
Clarification:
❀ Mulla Ali Qari stated:
"If it is proven to reach Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), then this is sufficient evidence for acting upon it."
(Al-Mawdu'at al-Kubra, p. 210)
Commentary:
First, the chain should be presented, followed by the authentication of the narrators. What value does a single Mulla's statement have?
- Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi Barelvi (1324-1391 AH) wrote regarding the "Gospel of Barnabas":
(Ja'al Haqq by Naeemi, vol. 1, p. 398)
Commentary:
We are commanded to follow the Quran and Hadith. Only those who lack evidence from the Quran and Hadith cite references from corrupted and altered books. Please provide evidence for this from your alleged Imam Abu Hanifa or any trustworthy Muslim with an authentic chain.
Additionally, Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi Barelvi wrote:
"Even if we accept that this hadith is weak, weak hadiths are considered in the virtues of deeds."
(Ja'al Haqq, vol. 1, p. 401)
Our demand is for a chain. Furthermore, this issue concerns the legal rulings on whether it is necessary to kiss the thumbs upon hearing the blessed name of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the adhan, not about virtues.
Remember, dear readers, religion is based on "authentic" narrations, and virtues are also part of religion.
❀ Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH) wrote:
"I did not consider that weak, because the narration of a weak narrator and one who does not narrate are equal."
(Al-Thiqat by Ibn Hibban, vol. 9, p. 159)
He also wrote:
"It is as if the narration of the weak and the non-existent are equal in ruling."
(Al-Majruhin by Ibn Hibban, vol. 1, p. 328, biography of Sa'id bin Ziyad)
❀ Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (773-852 AH) wrote:
"There is no difference in acting upon a hadith in rulings or virtues, as both are part of the Shariah."
(Tabyīn al-'Ajab by Ibn Hajar, p. 2)
No one considers a "weak" hadith as part of the religion!
Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi Gujrati Barelvi wrote:
"Declaring this as haram is sheer ignorance. Until there is clear evidence of prohibition, it cannot be prohibited. The consensus of Muslims on considering something recommended is sufficient for its recommendation, but specific evidence is required for its disapproval."
(Ja'al Haqq, vol. 1, p. 399)
There is no trustworthy Muslim who has considered it recommended with an authentic chain. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Furthermore, it seems that Naeemi himself does not trust the narrations he has mentioned, as he presents people's baseless actions. We consider this act a bid'ah (innovation) because there is no Shariah evidence for it. Therefore, saying that there is no clear evidence of prohibition and hence it should not be considered impermissible and a bid'ah is "sheer ignorance." This argument is the last resort of those who innovate in religion. Acts of worship and religious rulings are established by the permission and approval of Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him), not by looking at prohibitions. Accepting the argument based on ignorance that there is no prohibition, so it is permissible, would make every innovative practice a part of the religion. If someone gives the adhan before Eid al-Fitr, and there is no explicit prohibition, should it then be considered recommended?
❀ Allama Abu Shama (599-665 AH) said:
"Whoever does something thinking it is prescribed, while it is not, is an exaggerator in his religion, an innovator, and one who speaks untruths about Allah, whether with the tongue of his speech or the tongue of his state."
(Al-Ba'ith 'ala Inkar al-Bida' wal-Hawadith, pp. 20-21)