By: Ibn Jalal Din Hafizullah
"Taqlid is to accept the saying of a specific person without knowing the evidence or meaning behind it, and to reject everything else, or to continue following that person even when his error is clear to you, fearing to oppose him despite knowing the fallacy of his statement. Such action is prohibited in the religion of Allah, the Exalted."
[Jami' Bayan al-Ilm wa Fadlih: 787/2]
◈ Allama Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ishaq bin Khawaz, Abu Abdullah Misri Maliki says:
"Taqlid, in the terminology of Shariah, means to follow a statement for which the proponent has no evidence. This practice is prohibited in Islamic law."
[Jami' Bayan al-Ilm wa Fadlih: 992/2]
↰ It is evident that taqlid is forbidden and against Shariah. It is not the practice of the believers to consider human opinions as evidence in matters of beliefs and actions in contrast to revelation and religion. The consensus among scholars and intellectuals is that taqlid is forbidden and prohibited. Both the Quran and Hadith disapprove of it, and taqlid is another name for misguidance and ignorance.
"There is no difference of opinion among the scholars that a muqallid (follower) is completely ignorant."
[Jami' Bayan al-Ilm wa Fadlih: 992/2]
◈ Sheikh al-Islam Thani, Allama Ibn Qayyim (691-751 AH) states:
"Scholars unanimously agree that taqlid is not knowledge (it is ignorance)."
[Ilam al-Muwaqqi'in 'an Rabb al-Alamin: 169/2]
◈ He also states:
"All Muslims agree that taqlid is not knowledge (but rather ignorance)."
[Ilam al-Muwaqqi'in 'an Rabb al-Alamin: 215/2]
◈ Allama Ibn Qayyim describes the evils of taqlid in these words:
"However, the fanatics have reversed the matter and looked at the Sunnah; whatever agreed with their statements, they accepted, and whatever contradicted it, they devised ways to reject it or negate its implications. If something similar or even weaker in the chain and meaning came and supported their view, they accepted it, refused to reject it, and used it to confront their opponents. They affirmed and firmly argued using that chain and its implications. If the same chain or a stronger one with similar or clearer implications came in contradiction to their views, they rejected it and did not accept it. We will mention some examples of this, God willing, when discussing the pitfalls of taqlid, its corruption, and the difference between taqlid and ittiba (following the evidence)."
[Ilam al-Muwaqqi'in: 60/1]
◈ Sheikh Izz al-Din Ibn Abd al-Salam (577-660 AH) states:
"It is astonishing that the muqallid jurists are so rigid; they cling to their imam's weak stance, even when the weakness is evident and they cannot counter it. Despite this, they continue to follow their imam, rejecting the clear evidence from the Quran, Sunnah, and sound analogies that oppose their imam's view. They cling to their imam's stance, fabricate invalid interpretations, and distort the clear meanings of the Quran and Hadith to defend their muqallid. We have seen them gather in academic discussions; if someone presents a view contrary to what they have accustomed themselves to, they are shocked, without relying on any evidence but rather on the ingrained habit of following their imam, thinking the truth is confined to their imam's school of thought. If they truly reflected, they would be more astonished by their imam's stance than by the views of others. Engaging in debates with such people is a waste, leading to discord and enmity without yielding any benefit. I have never seen any of them abandon their imam's school even when the truth appeared clearer in another's view; instead, they obstinately adhere to it, knowing its weakness. It is better not to debate with those who, when unable to defend their imam's position, say: 'Perhaps my imam had access to evidence that I did not discover or comprehend.' They fail to realize that their opponents can use the same excuse, and the opponent's clear evidence and arguments often outweigh theirs. Glory be to Allah, how many have been blinded by taqlid to the extent that they are driven to such positions. May Allah guide us to follow the truth wherever it is found and on whosoever's tongue it appears. How far is this from the discussions and consultations of the pious predecessors in rulings and their eagerness to follow the truth when it appeared on the opponent's tongue!"
[Qawa'id al-Ahkam fi Masalih al-Anam: 135/2]
Ashraf Ali Thanvi (1863-1943) describes the harms of taqlid as:
"The harm of taqlid is that most of the common followers, and even some of the distinguished ones, become so rigid that if they hear any verse or hadith contrary to the opinion of their mujtahid, it does not find acceptance in their hearts. Instead, they immediately react with rejection, then look for some interpretation, no matter how far-fetched, even if it is in opposition to stronger evidence or if the only basis for the mujtahid's position is analogy. Even if their hearts do not accept such an interpretation, they consider it necessary for the defense of their madhhab. Their hearts do not incline towards abandoning the mujtahid's opinion in favor of acting upon a clear and authentic hadith."
[Tazkirat al-Rashid: 131/1]
Shah Waliullah Dehlawi (1114-1176 AH) writes:
"If a hadith from the infallible Prophet (peace be upon him) reaches us with an acceptable chain of narration that contradicts the opinion of our imam, and we abandon the hadith and follow conjecture instead, then who is more unjust than us, and what will be our excuse on the Day when people stand before the Lord of the worlds?"
[Hujjat Allah al-Baligha: 156/1]
It is established from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he performed Witr while mounted, as narrated:
"The Prophet (peace be upon him) would perform his prayers on his mount while traveling, facing whichever direction it was pointed. He would gesture for his night prayers except the obligatory ones, and he would perform Witr on his mount."
[Sahih al-Bukhari: 136/1, Hadith: 1000, Sahih Muslim: 244/1, Hadith: 700]
"I was with Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) on the way to Makkah. When I feared the approach of dawn, I dismounted and performed Witr, then caught up with him. He asked, 'Where were you?' I said, 'I feared dawn, so I dismounted and performed Witr.' Abdullah replied, 'Do you not have in the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) a good example?' I said, 'By Allah, indeed!' He said, 'The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) used to perform Witr on his camel.'"
[Sahih al-Bukhari: 136/1, Hadith: 900; Sahih Muslim: 244/1, Hadith: 36/700]
◈ Nafi Tabi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates:
"Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) used to pray on his mount and perform Witr on it, stating that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did so as well."
[Sahih al-Bukhari 1095, Sahih Muslim: 700]
"The Prophet (peace be upon him) would perform Witr on his mount."
[Al-Sunan al-Kubra lil-Bayhaqi: 6/2, and its chain is authentic]
Performing Witr on a Mount and the Sahabi of the Prophet Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both):
◈ Jareer bin Hazim (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates:
"I asked Nafi (the freed slave of Ibn Umar, may Allah have mercy on him), 'Did Ibn Umar perform Witr on his mount?' He replied, 'Does Witr have superiority over other voluntary prayers? By Allah, he used to perform Witr on it.'"
[Al-Sunan al-Kubra lil-Bayhaqi: 6/2, and its chain is authentic]
◈ Imam Abdullah bin Dinar Tabi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates:
"Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) used to perform Witr on his mount."
[Al-Sunan al-Kubra al-Nasai: 456/1, Tahdhib al-Athar lil-Tabari: 542/1, and its chain is authentic]
◈ The great Tabi'i, Imam Salim (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates:
"Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) would pray at night and perform Witr on his camel without concern for its direction."
[Musnad Ahmad: 105/2, and its chain is authentic]
Performing Witr on a Mount and the Jurists of the Ummah:
◈ The great Tabi'i, Faqih of the Ummah, Imam Hasan al-Basri (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 100 AH) is mentioned:
"He saw no harm in a person performing Witr on their mount."
[Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: 98/2, and its chain is hasan]
◈ Imam Musa bin Uqba (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates:
"I saw Salim bin Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah have mercy on him) performing Witr on his mount."
[Musnad Ahmad: 105/2, and its chain is hasan]
◈ The esteemed Tabi'i and renowned jurist, Nafi' Mawla Ibn Umar (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 117 AH) is mentioned by his son:
"His father (Nafi' may Allah have mercy on him) used to perform Witr on a camel."
[Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: 97/2, and its chain is authentic]
◈ Faqih of Iraq, Imam Abu Abdullah, Sufyan bin Saeed Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him) (97-161 AH) states:
"I prefer performing Witr on the ground, but whichever way it is performed, it is permissible."
[Tahdhib al-Athar lil-Tabari: 545/1, and its chain is authentic]
◈ Imam Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) considered performing Witr on a mount to be permissible. Imam Tirmidhi (may Allah have mercy on him) states:
"Some scholars from among the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and others followed this practice, considering it permissible for a person to perform Witr on their mount. This is the view of Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ahmad, and Ishaq."
[Sunan al-Tirmidhi, under Hadith: 472]
◈ Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) (164-241 AH), is mentioned by his son Abu Fadl Salih (may Allah have mercy on him):
"I asked my father: 'Can a person perform Witr on their camel?' He replied: 'Yes, indeed the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed Witr on his camel.'"
[Masa'il Ahmad by his son Abu Fadl Salih: 257/2, No. 859]
◈ Imam Ishaq bin Rahwayh (may Allah have mercy on him) (238-161 AH) states:
"In travel, performing Witr on a mount is the Sunnah of the Prophet."
[Masa'il Ahmad wa Ishaq bin Rahwayh lil-Kawsaj: 650/2, No. 297]
◈ The renowned Imam, Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Abdur Rahman bin Fadl bin Bahram al-Darimi (may Allah have mercy on him) (181-255 AH), when he narrated the hadith about performing Witr on a mount, was asked: 'Do you act upon it?' He replied: 'Yes.'"
[Sunan al-Darimi: 991/2]
◈ Imam Ahl al-Sunnah, Chief of the Exegetes, Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him) (224-310 AH), after mentioning the differences of opinion and evidences regarding performing Witr on a mount, states:
"The correct view regarding performing Witr on a mount is the opinion of those who allow it, for several reasons: one of them being the authentic narrations from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he used to do so, and he is the leader to be followed."
[Tahdhib al-Athar lil-Tabari: 545/5]
◈ Imam al-A'imma, Ibn Khuzaymah (may Allah have mercy on him) (223-311 AH) titles the hadith of Ibn Umar:
"Chapter: The Permissibility of Performing Witr on a Mount."
[Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah: 249/2]
◈ Imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) (242-319 AH) affirms its permissibility, writing:
"Regarding performing Witr on a mount, it is established that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to perform Witr on a mount."
[Al-Awsat fi al-Sunan wal-Ijma' wal-Ikhtilaf: 201/5]
◈ Allama Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) (631-676 AH) titles it as:
"Chapter: The Permissibility of Performing Witr Sitting and on a Mount While Traveling."
[Khilasat al-Ahkam fi Muhimmat al-Sunan wa Qawa'id al-Islam: 562/1]
Performing Witr on a Mount and Hanafi Jurisprudence:
Despite this authentic and established Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the practice of the Companions, the understanding of the Imams of the religion, and the jurists of the Ummah, the Hanafi school of thought has the following verdict on performing Witr on a mount:
"Performing Witr on a mount is not permissible."
[Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah, known as Fatawa Alamgiri: 111/1, Al-Binayah Sharh al-Hidayah by al-Ayni: 477/2, Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq by Ibn Nujaym: 41/2]
The Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and Hanafi Interpretations:
Respected readers have seen from authentic hadiths that performing Witr on a mount is the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The esteemed Companion Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) practiced it, considering it the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Imams of the religion and the jurists of the Ummah have affirmed it as the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
However, the Hanafis have not been blessed with the honor of accepting this authentic and established Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Instead, they have sacrificed it on the altar of their so-called jurisprudence, offering strange interpretations and misleading claims. Let us now critically examine these false interpretations.
"As for Ibn Umar, my response is that he was among those who did not differentiate between Witr and night prayers (Tahajjud), and he used the term Witr for all. It is possible that what he mentioned about performing Witr on a mount was referring to the night prayer (Tahajjud)."
[Faydh al-Bari: 194/3]
↰ Allama Zayla'i Hanafi (d. 762 AH) and Allama Ayni Hanafi (d. 855 AH) aptly said:
"The follower ignores facts and is ignorant."
[Nasb al-Rayah lil-Zayla'i: 219/1, 228/3, Al-Binayah Sharh al-Hidayah by al-Ayni: 317/1]
Upon seeing this statement about the understanding of Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), we must reluctantly state that Shah Sahib has displayed enmity towards knowledge and intellect in this matter. These hadiths clearly indicate that Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) neither considered Witr and Tahajjud to be the same nor counted them as one before his student, Saeed bin Yasar Tabi'i. Rather, his intent was entirely the technical term of Witr. This can be understood with minimal reflection by anyone with even the slightest sense.
Saeed bin Yasar (may Allah have mercy on him) explained to Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) upon his inquiry:
"I feared the break of dawn, so I dismounted and performed Witr."
When so little time remains that there is a fear of dawn breaking, can the full Tahajjud prayer be performed? Would any sensible person pay heed to such nonsense?
Let us now explain this matter further with the guidance of the hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
A man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) while he was delivering a sermon and asked: "How is the night prayer (Tahajjud) to be performed?" The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Two by two, and when you fear dawn, perform one Witr."
[Sahih al-Bukhari: 473, Sahih Muslim: 749]
↰ According to the Prophet (peace be upon him), when dawn is near, only the technical Witr is performed. What other hadith can we regretfully oppose now! In this hadith, the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself commanded the performance of one Witr. However, the Hanafis refuse to accept even this. Can anyone say, after hearing the latter hadith, that performing Witr near the time of dawn refers to performing Tahajjud? This hadith was also narrated by Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) from the Prophet (peace be upon him). How could he then mistake the technical Witr of Saeed bin Yasar for Tahajjud? Even someone with minimal awareness would not fall into such an error of understanding.
↰ Secondly, in the first hadith we cited, Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) specifically mentioned both Tahajjud and Witr separately, clarifying that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to perform both Tahajjud and Witr on a mount. Can anyone still use the excuse that Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) referred to both Tahajjud and Witr as Witr?
↰ Thirdly, in the third narration we cited, Nafi' Tabi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) stated about Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he used to perform Witr on his mount. Could anyone claim that Nafi' Tabi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) also referred to Tahajjud as Witr?
↰ Fourthly, the early scholars of the Hanafis acknowledged that the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed technical Witr on his mount. In the following objection, you will see Imam Tahawi Hanafi's acknowledgment. Taking Tahajjud instead of Witr performed on the mount is a purely Kashmiri innovation. To the best of our knowledge, no Muslim before them has done this.
↰ Fifthly, Saeed bin Yasar Tabi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) did not object when he heard this hadith from Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), nor did he say: "I performed Witr, while according to the hadith you narrated, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not perform Witr on a mount but rather performed the Tahajjud prayer." Additionally, the understanding of the Imams of the religion and the jurists of the Ummah adds to this. Imams such as Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Ishaq bin Rahwayh, Imam Ibn Khuzaymah, and others (may Allah have mercy on them), as well as Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him), have also classified the Witr of the Prophet (peace be upon him) on a mount under "باب الوتر على الدابة" (Chapter: Performing Witr on a Mount), confirming that it refers to the technical Witr. Anwar Shah Kashmiri himself acknowledged the ijtihad and jurisprudence of Imam Bukhari when he wrote:
"Imam Bukhari was not a follower of the Hanafis or Shafi'is."
[Al-Arf al-Shadhi: 106/1]
In other words, the Witr mentioned in these hadiths is the technical Witr; this is the verdict of the jurists of the Ummah. It is not the case that we are doing so in opposition to the Hanafis. When the scholars of hadith placed jurisprudential headings on hadiths, they all understood these hadiths as referring to the technical Witr.
↰ Despite the clarity of this fact, followers of taqlid resort to invalid interpretations of clear hadiths, as they must uphold the "لایجوز" (not permissible) of their imam, even if they must adopt the manner of the rejecters of hadith. We shall question those who oppose the hadith, just as Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) questioned Saeed bin Yasar Tabi'i for not performing Witr on a mount:
"Do you not have in the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) a good example?"
The difference is that Saeed bin Yasar Tabi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) acted as he did due to not knowing the hadith, but our Hanafi brothers not only know the hadith well but also engage in such tactics to prevent others from following this Sunnah, which severely undermines the understanding of the Companions and the jurisprudence of the jurists of the Ummah. We earnestly appeal to the just to reflect!
"It is possible that what Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him) about performing Witr on a mount was before it was emphasized, and after its abrogation, he emphasized it."
[Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar: 430/1]
↰ On Imam Tahawi's claim of abrogation, the commentator of Sahih Bukhari, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) (773-852 AH), comments:
"However, Imam Tahawi frequently claims abrogation based on mere possibility."
[Fath al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari: 478/9]
When one's jurisprudential stance opposes the hadith and no answer can be formed, resorting to the tool of abrogation indiscriminately to reject hadiths—where is the justice in that? Firstly, the matter of the obligation of Witr prayer is nothing more than an assumption; the legal evidences indicate that Witr prayer remains voluntary. Secondly, let anyone ask the Hanafis when the emphasis on Witr prayer occurred? Until solid evidence is presented proving which matter occurred first and which later, the claim of abrogation remains rejected.
Imam Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) (384-458 AH) refutes the claim that performing Witr on a mount is abrogated, stating:
"It is not permissible to claim abrogation of what we narrated about this with the narrations emphasizing Witr, in the absence of any date or reason indicating abrogation."
[Ma'rifat al-Sunan wa al-Athar: 448/3]
"The narrations about emphasizing Witr, if authentic, indicate that this was at the very beginning when the Prophet (peace be upon him) legislated Witr. He performed it on a mount after legislating and informing his Ummah about it, so how can this be considered abrogated by a later action?"
[Ma'rifat al-Sunan wa al-Athar: 447/3]
People of reason, do justice! Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), who narrated the Prophet's (peace be upon him) performance of Witr on a mount to the Ummah, himself continued performing Witr on a mount after the Prophet's death and recommended it to others as the Sunnah. If performing Witr on a mount had been abrogated, why didn't he know? Before Imam Tahawi Hanafi, for over three hundred years, no Imam or jurist claimed that performing Witr on a mount was abrogated. Furthermore, Imam Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him), a renowned scholar, firmly refuted this claim.
Allama Abd al-Hayy Hanafi also refuted Imam Tahawi's claim of abrogation, writing:
"Imam Tahawi's claim of abrogation is clearly invalid, as abrogation cannot be established by possibility alone without knowing this through explicit evidence from the Quran and Sunnah."
[Al-Ta'liq al-Mumajjad 'ala Muwatta Malik: 133]
Warning:
If someone claims that it is narrated about Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both):
"He would perform (optional) prayers on his mount and then perform Witr on the ground, and he would say that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did the same."
[Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar by al-Tahawi: 429/1, with a sound chain of narration]
Then, it is absolutely permissible and correct to do so. Performing Witr either on a mount or on the ground are both valid options. Presenting this practice of Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) as an argument against performing Witr on a mount is nothing but deception, as we have already presented multiple authentic narrations from his various students proving that he performed Witr on his mount.
If anyone still has any doubts, they should consider this narration. Nafi' (may Allah have mercy on him) states:
"Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) would sometimes perform Witr on his mount and sometimes after dismounting."
[Tahdhib al-Athar by al-Tabari: 541/1, Sunan al-Daraqutni: 339/2, with a sound chain of narration]
This shows that Sayyiduna Ibn Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with them both) practice of dismounting to perform Witr does not indicate that he considered performing Witr on a mount as impermissible, because it is also proven from him that he performed Witr on his mount. This indicates that he considered both options permissible in light of the Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) (242-319 AH) states:
"Sayyiduna Ibn Umar's (may Allah be pleased with them both) dismounting to perform Witr is a proof of its permissibility. Whoever wishes may perform Witr on a mount, and whoever wishes may dismount and perform it on the ground; both ways are valid. Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) performed Witr both ways. We have a narration that Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) would sometimes perform Witr on his mount and sometimes dismount. Performing Witr on a mount is permissible based on the authentic Hadith that the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed Witr on his mount. This also indicates that Witr is a voluntary prayer, contrary to the opinion of those who deviated from the scholars and opposed the Sunnah, claiming that Witr is obligatory."
[Al-Awsat fi al-Sunan wal-Ijma' wal-Ikhtilaf: 247/5]
Imam Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him) comments on this issue:
"As for what is narrated from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he would pray optional prayers on his mount at night and when intending to perform Witr, he would dismount and perform it on the ground, there is no evidence in this for those who claim that Ibn Umar did so because he considered performing Witr on a mount as impermissible or viewed Witr as obligatory like other prescribed prayers. It is more plausible that he dismounted by choice, seeking additional virtue, not because he deemed it obligatory. This would be the conclusion even if no contrary reports existed from him, but in fact, there are multiple narrations from him indicating otherwise."
[Tahdhib al-Athar: 541/1]
Imam Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentions regarding Sayyiduna Ibn Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with them both) practice of dismounting to perform Witr:
"We have mentioned that ... Sayyiduna Ali and Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them all) performed Witr on a mount after the Prophet's (peace be upon him) demise. The fact that Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) dismounted to perform Witr does not nullify the permissibility of performing Witr on a mount."
[Ma'rifat al-Sunan wal-Athar: 448/3]
Imam Tahawi Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) comments on Sayyiduna Ibn Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with them both) practice:
"His performing Witr on the ground does not negate that he also performed Witr on his mount. Then Salim, Nafi', and Abu al-Khabbab came and narrated that he would perform Witr on his mount."
[Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar: 430/1]
Commentator of Bukhari, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) (773-852 AH) states:
"Imam Tahawi mentioned that the Kufis said Witr should not be performed on a mount, and this is against the established Sunnah. Some of them used the narration of Mujahid, who saw Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) dismount and perform Witr, as evidence, but this does not contradict his performing Witr on a mount, because there is no dispute that performing Witr on the ground is preferred."
[Fath al-Bari: 488/2]
Objection 3:
Taqi Usmani Deobandi states:
"Imam Tahawi says that it is agreed that performing Witr sitting (while one has the ability to stand) is not permissible, which implies that performing Witr on a mount is even more impermissible, because performing prayer on a mount not only lacks standing but also the Sunnah posture of facing the Qiblah and sitting."
[Taqrir Tirmidhi: 224/1]
↰ The question here is, "What is greater, the intellect or the clear evidence?" This is the kind of opinion that the scholars of Hadith criticize. This analogy, which contradicts the clear and authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him), is not suitable for a Muslim. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed Witr on a mount, what objection remains? Was the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) prayer on a mount valid or invalid? If it was valid, then what is the justification for such analogical reasoning?
Objection 4:
The commentator of Hidayah, Ibn al-Humam Hanafi writes:
"This is a specific incident; it does not have general applicability. It is possible that the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed Witr on his mount due to an excuse, and it is agreed that obligatory prayers can be performed on a mount in the case of mud, rain, or similar excuses."
[Fath al-Qadir: 371/1]
↰ The narrator of the Hadith, the esteemed Companion Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), is teaching after the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) demise that performing Witr on a mount is a permissible example to follow, while Ibn al-Humam declares it a specific incident and considers performing Witr on a mount as impermissible. According to the understanding of the Imams of Hadith, this is a Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him), whereas the Hanafis declare performing Witr on a mount as impermissible without any Shari evidence. Because of this, the scholars of Hadith consider them to be in opposition to the Sunnah. Did no one among the Companions, the Followers (Tabi'in), and the Imams of the religion understand that this was a specific incident? Only Ibn al-Humam conceived this?
This is the dreadful end of taqlid, that the followers must go to such lengths to defend the baseless positions of their Imams, resulting in nothing but opposition to the Sunnah. May Allah grant us the ability to abandon taqlid and bias and to act upon the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Example 2: Taqlid and the Offspring of an Animal’s Stomach
❀ Sayyiduna Abu Saeed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:
"The slaughtering of the mother suffices as the slaughtering of the offspring in its womb."
[Musnad Ahmad: 39/3, Sunan al-Daraqutni: 274/4, al-Sunan al-Kubra by Bayhaqi: 335/9, with a sound chain]
↰ The narrator of this hadith, Yunus bin Abi Ishaq al-Sabi'i, is a narrator of Sahih Muslim and is considered reliable by the majority of Hadith scholars. There is no established accusation of tadlis (concealing narrators) against him. Regarding him, Imam Yahya ibn Ma'in [Sualat Ibn al-Junaid: 430], Imam Ajli [Tarikh al-Thiqat: 486], and Imam Ibn Sa’d [al-Tabaqat al-Kubra: 344/6] (may Allah have mercy on them) described him as reliable. Imam Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi (may Allah have mercy on him) [al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil by Ibn Abi Hatim: 244/9, with an authentic chain] said about him, "There is nothing wrong with him." Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) (ibid) described him as "truthful." Imam Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him) [al-Thiqat: 650/7] and Imam Ibn Shahin (may Allah have mercy on him) [al-Thiqat: 1621] included him among the reliable narrators.
◈ Imam Ibn Adi (may Allah have mercy on him) states:
"He has narrated Hasan (good) grade Hadiths."
[Al-Kamil fi Dhu'afa al-Rijal: 179/7]
◈ Hafiz al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) states:
"He is a Hasan Hadith narrator."
[Siyar A'lam al-Nubala: 27/7]
◈ He also declares him reliable.
[Man Takallam Fihi wa Huwa Muwaththaq: 393]
The other narrator of this Hadith, Abu Waddak Jabir bin Nauf al-Bakali, is also reliable.
About him:
◈ Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) states:
"I did not find anyone who considered him weak, and Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) used his Hadith as evidence."
[Talkhis al-Habir: 157/4, Hadith: 2009]
◈ This Hadith has been declared "authentic" by Imam Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him).
[Sahih Ibn Hibban: 5889]
◈ Hafiz Mundhiri (may Allah have mercy on him) graded its chain as "Hasan."
[Mukhtasar al-Sunan: 120/4]
◈ Hafiz Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) also declared this Hadith "authentic."
[Al-Majmu: 562/2]
◈ He further states:
"This is a Hasan Hadith."
[Tahdhib al-Asma wal-Lughat: 111/3]
◈ Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him), quoting Imam al-Ghazali, writes:
"He said it is an authentic Hadith, following his Imam (Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni) in this."
[Talkhis al-Habir: 157/4]
◈ Allama Ibn Daqiq al-Eid (may Allah have mercy on him) also declared it "authentic."
◈ Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) himself states:
"This is a strong corroboration."
[Ibid]
↰ This authentic Hadith establishes that if a goat, cow, camel, etc., is slaughtered, the fetus in its womb is also considered slaughtered, and its consumption is permissible. This is a consensus issue among the people of truth.
On the contrary:
According to Imam Abu Hanifa and his followers, eating such a fetus is forbidden. They believe that the fetus does not become slaughtered by the mother being slaughtered and is therefore impermissible to eat.
[Al-Mabsut by al-Sarakhsi: 6/12, Al-Hidayah by al-Marghinani: 351/4, Bada'i' al-Sana'i' by al-Kasani: 421/5, Al-Nutaf fi al-Fatawa by al-Saadi: 228/1, Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq by Ibn Nujaym: 195/8, Majma' al-Anhur fi Sharh Multaqa al-Abhar by Shaykhzadeh: 512/2, Radd al-Muhtar 'ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar: 304/6]
↰ This stance is contrary to authentic Hadiths, the consensus of the Ummah, and the understanding of the Hadith scholars. It is baseless and without evidence, as:
◈ Imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) (242-319 AH) states:
"It has not been narrated from any of the Companions, the Followers (Tabi'in), or other scholars that the fetus (of a halal animal) cannot be eaten without a separate slaughter. This is only narrated from Abu Hanifa, and I do not think his students agreed with him on this issue."
[Nasb al-Rayah by al-Zayla'i al-Hanafi: 192/4]
◈ Imam Ibn Abdul Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) (368-463 AH) states:
"The statement of Abu Hanifa and Zufar has no basis in the Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him), nor in the statements of the Companions, nor in the stance of the majority of scholars."
[Al-Istidhkar: 265/5]
◈ Sheikh al-Islam Thani, Allama Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (may Allah have mercy on him) (691-751 AH) states:
"The authentic, explicit, and definitive Sunnah that the slaughtering of the mother suffices as the slaughtering of the fetus was rejected by arguing that it contradicts principles, one of which is the prohibition of carrion. Those who make such statements should be told that the same entity (the Prophet, peace be upon him) who conveyed the prohibition of carrion also made the aforementioned fetuses permissible. Even if it were assumed that they were carrion, they would be exceptions just like fish and locusts are exceptions from the prohibition of carrion. Moreover, the fetuses are not carrion because they are parts of the mother, and the slaughter covers all parts of the mother. There is no need for every part to be slaughtered separately. The fetus is a part of the mother, and this is what the sound principles indicate, even if we did not have the Sunnah declaring it permissible. Now that we do have the Sunnah that aligns with sound reasoning and principles, how can rejecting it be permissible?"
[I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in 'an Rabb al-'Alamin: 334/2]
◈ Allama Abu Muhammad, Ibn Qudamah, al-Maqdisi (may Allah have mercy on him) (541-620 AH) states:
"This is the consensus of the Companions and those who came after them, so we cannot rely on anything contrary to this. The fetus is connected to its mother by nature, nourished by her nourishment, so its slaughter is her slaughter, just like her other organs. Additionally, the method of slaughter in animals varies according to possibility and capability, as evidenced by the differing methods for hunted animals that can be captured alive, those that fall into wells, etc. The fetus cannot be slaughtered in any way other than the slaughter of its mother, so the slaughter of the mother suffices for it."
[Al-Mughni: 401/9]
◈ He also quotes Imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him), stating:
"People (the Companions, the Followers, and the scholars) considered it permissible. We do not know anyone who opposed what they said until al-Nu'man (Abu Hanifa) came and said, 'It is not permissible because the slaughtering of one life does not suffice for two lives.'"
[Al-Mughni: 401/9]
◈ Allama Abd al-Hayy Lakhnawi Hanafi, discussing this issue, states:
"In summary, the statement of the one whose opinion aligns with the Hadith is stronger."
[Al-Ta'liq al-Mumajjad 'ala al-Muwatta' by Muhammad: 287]
↰ Some Hanafi followers attempted to align this authentic Hadith with their baseless position by suggesting that:
In this Hadith, ذكاةُ امه should be read as ذكاةَ امه (in the accusative case), which would mean that the fetus should be slaughtered like its mother.
This is a rejected and false interpretation, contrary to the unanimous understanding of the Companions, the Followers, and the Hadith scholars. The Hadith is also very clear in its meaning.
◈ The renowned linguist, Allama Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) (631-676 AH), refutes this false interpretation, stating:
"The famous narration is with the word ذكاةُ امه in the nominative case. However, some people read it in the accusative case, using it as evidence for Abu Hanifa’s followers, arguing that the fetus is not permissible except with its own slaughter. They say the original expression is كذكاةِ امه, meaning the fetus should be slaughtered like its mother. The كاف (like) was removed, resulting in the accusative case. But this interpretation is entirely baseless. Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi and others have also narrated it with the word in the nominative case. The best understanding of the nominative case is that ذكاةُ الجنين is the predicate brought forward, and ذكاةُ امه is the subject, giving us the meaning: 'The slaughter of the fetus is its mother’s slaughter,' similar to the poet’s expression: بنونا بنو ابنائنا ('Our sons are the sons of our sons'), etc. This is because the predicate conveys the intended meaning, which is only achieved through our mentioned interpretation. If the accusative reading were correct, the interpretation would be: 'The slaughter of the fetus occurs at the time of its mother’s slaughter.' Their interpretation as كذكاةِ امه is not accepted by grammarians and is considered an error, as accusative occurs by omitting the حرف (preposition) in certain recognized instances among Kufians, contingent upon a condition that is not present here."
[Tahdhib al-Asma wal-Lughat: 112/3]
◈ Allama Zayla'i Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 762 AH), refuting some people's interpretations, writes:
"In his summary, Allama Mundhiri (may Allah have mercy on him) stated that some people narrated this Hadith with the word ذكاة in the second occurrence being in the accusative case ذكاةُ ام الجنين ذكاة امه for a specific purpose, to necessitate a separate slaughter when the fetus emerges, and to render the mother’s slaughter insufficient. But this is a baseless action. The Hadith is in the nominative case, as preserved from the Imams of Hadith. Some Hadith scholars refuted this by citing the phrase in the Hadith: فان ذكاته ذكاة امه ('Indeed, its slaughter is the slaughter of its mother'), because these words indicate permissibility without an independent slaughter."
[Nasb al-Rayah: 191/4, 192]
◈ Allama Abd al-Hayy Lakhnawi Hanafi has also refuted it in this manner:
"This view is questionable because the nominative form is what is preserved from the Imams of Hadith. Allama Mundhiri (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly stated this."
[Al-Ta'liq al-Mumajjad 'ala al-Muwatta' by Muhammad: 287]
Warning:
Some people have presented a statement of Imam Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, the Tabi’i, contrary to the authentic and explicit Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the consensus of the Ummah on this matter:
"One slaughter does not suffice for two lives, meaning if the mother is slaughtered, the fetus is not permissible to eat until it is slaughtered separately."
[Kitab al-Athar by Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybani, p. 186]
However, this statement from Imam Ibrahim al-Nakha’i is not established because:
"The Hadith of Hammad is only accepted if narrated by his early students, i.e., Shu’bah, Sufyan al-Thawri, and Hisham al-Dastawa’i. Those other than them narrated from him after his confusion."
[Majma' al-Zawa'id: 119/1]
It has been established that until Imam Abu Hanifa’s time, all the Companions, Followers, and scholars considered, in light of the authentic Hadith, that the fetus is slaughtered along with the slaughter of its mother. However, Imam Abu Hanifa did not have access to this Hadith and thus gave an opinion based on his reasoning. What was required was to uphold the consensus of the Companions and Followers and act upon the Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him). But alas, taqlid has led to establishing a new religion in opposition to the Divine religion.
May Allah grant us the ability to act upon the Quran and Sunnah and protect us from the illness of taqlid. Ameen!
What is Taqlid?
◈ Imam of Andalusia, Hafiz Ibn Abdul Barr (368-463 AH) defines taqlid as follows:والتقليد أن تقول بقوله، وأنت لا تعرف وجه القول، ولا معناه، وتأبى من سواه، او أن يتبين لك خطأه، فتتبعه مهابة خلافه، وانت قد بان لك فساد قوله، وهذا محرم القول به فى دين الله سبحانه وتعالى.
"Taqlid is to accept the saying of a specific person without knowing the evidence or meaning behind it, and to reject everything else, or to continue following that person even when his error is clear to you, fearing to oppose him despite knowing the fallacy of his statement. Such action is prohibited in the religion of Allah, the Exalted."
[Jami' Bayan al-Ilm wa Fadlih: 787/2]
◈ Allama Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ishaq bin Khawaz, Abu Abdullah Misri Maliki says:
التقليد، معناه فى الشرع الرجوع إلى قول لا حجة لقائله عليه، وهذا ممنوع فى الشريعة.
"Taqlid, in the terminology of Shariah, means to follow a statement for which the proponent has no evidence. This practice is prohibited in Islamic law."
[Jami' Bayan al-Ilm wa Fadlih: 992/2]
↰ It is evident that taqlid is forbidden and against Shariah. It is not the practice of the believers to consider human opinions as evidence in matters of beliefs and actions in contrast to revelation and religion. The consensus among scholars and intellectuals is that taqlid is forbidden and prohibited. Both the Quran and Hadith disapprove of it, and taqlid is another name for misguidance and ignorance.
Taqlid is Ignorance:
◈ Hafiz Ibn Abdul Barr (368-463 AH) states about those who engage in taqlid:والمقلد لا علم له، ولم يختلفوا فى ذلك.
"There is no difference of opinion among the scholars that a muqallid (follower) is completely ignorant."
[Jami' Bayan al-Ilm wa Fadlih: 992/2]
◈ Sheikh al-Islam Thani, Allama Ibn Qayyim (691-751 AH) states:
والتقليد ليس بعلم باتفاق أهل العلم.
"Scholars unanimously agree that taqlid is not knowledge (it is ignorance)."
[Ilam al-Muwaqqi'in 'an Rabb al-Alamin: 169/2]
◈ He also states:
فأنه ليس علما باتفاق الناس
"All Muslims agree that taqlid is not knowledge (but rather ignorance)."
[Ilam al-Muwaqqi'in 'an Rabb al-Alamin: 215/2]
The Evils of Taqlid:
Taqlid is an evil entity that constantly breeds more evils. It led to the killing of Prophets (peace be upon them), the denial of their prophethood, and the rejection of their invitations. This very taqlid turned people into rebels against the religion of Allah, inspired them to invent religions in opposition to the religion of Allah, made them opponents of the consensus of the Ummah, enemies of the truth, and alienated them from the pious predecessors and the Imams of the religion. This taqlid has stripped humanity of the adornment of knowledge and reason and, by scattering the unity of the Ummah, has sown seeds of enmity and discord among Muslims everywhere.◈ Allama Ibn Qayyim describes the evils of taqlid in these words:
وأما المتعصبون فإنهم عكسوا القضية، ونظروا فى السنة، فما وافق أقوالهم منها قبلوه، وما خالفها تحيلوا فى رده أو رد دلالته، وإذا جاء نظير ذلك أو أضعف منه سندا ودلالة، وكان يوافق قولهم قبلوه، ولم يستجيزوا رده، واعترضوا به على منازعيهم، وأشاحوا وقرروا الاحتجاج بذلك السند ودلالته، فإذا جاء ذلك الشنذ بعينه أو أقوى منه، ودلالته كدلالة ذلك أو أقوى منه فى خلاف قولهم، دفعوه ولم يقبلوه، وسنذكر من هذا إن شاء الله طرفا، عند ذكر غائلة التقليد وفساده، والفرق بينه وبين الاتباع.
"However, the fanatics have reversed the matter and looked at the Sunnah; whatever agreed with their statements, they accepted, and whatever contradicted it, they devised ways to reject it or negate its implications. If something similar or even weaker in the chain and meaning came and supported their view, they accepted it, refused to reject it, and used it to confront their opponents. They affirmed and firmly argued using that chain and its implications. If the same chain or a stronger one with similar or clearer implications came in contradiction to their views, they rejected it and did not accept it. We will mention some examples of this, God willing, when discussing the pitfalls of taqlid, its corruption, and the difference between taqlid and ittiba (following the evidence)."
[Ilam al-Muwaqqi'in: 60/1]
◈ Sheikh Izz al-Din Ibn Abd al-Salam (577-660 AH) states:
ومن العجب العجيب أن الفقهاء المقلدين يقف أحدهم على ضعف مأخذ إمامه، بحيث لا يجد لضعفه مدفعاً، ومع هذا يقلده فيه، ويترك من شهد الكتاب والسنة والأقيسة الصحيحة لمذهبه، جموداً على تقليد إمامه، بل يتحيل لدفع ظواهر الكتاب والسنة، ويتأولها بالتأويلات البعيدة الباطلة، نضالاً عن مقلده، وقد رأيناهم يجتمعون في المجالس، فإذا ذكر لأحدهم خلاف ما وطن نفسه عليه تعجب منه غاية التعجب، من غير استرواح إلى دليل، بل لما ألفه من تقليد إمامه، حتى ظن أن الحق منحصر في مذهب إمامه، ولو تدبره لكان تعجبه من مذهب إمامه أولى من تعجبه من مذهب غيره، فالبحث مع هؤلاء ضائع، مفضٍ إلى التقاطع والتدابر من غير فائدة يجديها، وما رأيت أحداً منهم رجع عن مذهب إمامه إذا ظهر له الحق في غيره، بل يصر عليه مع علمه بضعفه وبعده!! فالأولى ترك البحث مع هؤلاء الذين إذا عجز أحدهم عن تمشية مذهب إمامه قال: لعل إمامي وقف على دليل لم أقف عليه ولم أهتد إليه، ولا يعلم هذا المسكين أن هذا مقابلٌ بمثله، ويَفضُل لخصمه ما ذكره من الدليل الواضح والبرهان اللائح، فسبحان الله ما أكثر من أعمى التقليد بصره، حتى حمله على مثل ما ذكرته، وفقنا الله لاتباع الحق أينما كان وعلى لسان من ظهر، وأين هذا من مناظرة السلف ومشاورتهم في الأحكام، ومسارعتهم إلى اتباع الحق إذا ظهر على لسان الخصم.
"It is astonishing that the muqallid jurists are so rigid; they cling to their imam's weak stance, even when the weakness is evident and they cannot counter it. Despite this, they continue to follow their imam, rejecting the clear evidence from the Quran, Sunnah, and sound analogies that oppose their imam's view. They cling to their imam's stance, fabricate invalid interpretations, and distort the clear meanings of the Quran and Hadith to defend their muqallid. We have seen them gather in academic discussions; if someone presents a view contrary to what they have accustomed themselves to, they are shocked, without relying on any evidence but rather on the ingrained habit of following their imam, thinking the truth is confined to their imam's school of thought. If they truly reflected, they would be more astonished by their imam's stance than by the views of others. Engaging in debates with such people is a waste, leading to discord and enmity without yielding any benefit. I have never seen any of them abandon their imam's school even when the truth appeared clearer in another's view; instead, they obstinately adhere to it, knowing its weakness. It is better not to debate with those who, when unable to defend their imam's position, say: 'Perhaps my imam had access to evidence that I did not discover or comprehend.' They fail to realize that their opponents can use the same excuse, and the opponent's clear evidence and arguments often outweigh theirs. Glory be to Allah, how many have been blinded by taqlid to the extent that they are driven to such positions. May Allah guide us to follow the truth wherever it is found and on whosoever's tongue it appears. How far is this from the discussions and consultations of the pious predecessors in rulings and their eagerness to follow the truth when it appeared on the opponent's tongue!"
[Qawa'id al-Ahkam fi Masalih al-Anam: 135/2]
Ashraf Ali Thanvi (1863-1943) describes the harms of taqlid as:
"The harm of taqlid is that most of the common followers, and even some of the distinguished ones, become so rigid that if they hear any verse or hadith contrary to the opinion of their mujtahid, it does not find acceptance in their hearts. Instead, they immediately react with rejection, then look for some interpretation, no matter how far-fetched, even if it is in opposition to stronger evidence or if the only basis for the mujtahid's position is analogy. Even if their hearts do not accept such an interpretation, they consider it necessary for the defense of their madhhab. Their hearts do not incline towards abandoning the mujtahid's opinion in favor of acting upon a clear and authentic hadith."
[Tazkirat al-Rashid: 131/1]
Shah Waliullah Dehlawi (1114-1176 AH) writes:
فإن بلغنا حديث من الرسول المعصوم، الذى فرض الله علينا طاعته، بسند صالح يدل على خلاف مذهبه، وتركنا حديثة، واتبعنا ذلك التخمين، فمن أظلم منا، وما عذرنا يؤم يقوم الناس لرب العالمين؟
"If a hadith from the infallible Prophet (peace be upon him) reaches us with an acceptable chain of narration that contradicts the opinion of our imam, and we abandon the hadith and follow conjecture instead, then who is more unjust than us, and what will be our excuse on the Day when people stand before the Lord of the worlds?"
[Hujjat Allah al-Baligha: 156/1]
Two Examples of Rejecting Hadith Due to Taqlid:
Now, we will present two examples demonstrating how followers of taqlid reject hadiths that oppose their imam's school of thought and engage in far-fetched and absurd interpretations.Example 1: Taqlid and Performing Witr on a Mount
Performing Witr on a Mount and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him):It is established from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he performed Witr while mounted, as narrated:
- Sahabi Jaleel, Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) states:
كان النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم يصلي فى السفر على راحلته، حيث توجهت به، يؤمي إيماء، صلاة الليل، إلا الفرائض، ويوتر على راحلته.
"The Prophet (peace be upon him) would perform his prayers on his mount while traveling, facing whichever direction it was pointed. He would gesture for his night prayers except the obligatory ones, and he would perform Witr on his mount."
[Sahih al-Bukhari: 136/1, Hadith: 1000, Sahih Muslim: 244/1, Hadith: 700]
- The great Tabi'i, Saeed bin Yasar (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates:
كنت أسير مع عبد الله بن عمر بطريق مكة، فقال سعيد: فلما خژيت الصبح نزلت، فاوترت، ثم لحقته، فقال عبدالله بن عمر: اين كنت؟، فقلت: خشيت الصبح، فنزلت، فأوترت، فقال عبد الله: أليس لك فى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أسوة حسنة؟ فقلت: بلى، والله! قال: فإن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يوتر على البعير.
"I was with Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) on the way to Makkah. When I feared the approach of dawn, I dismounted and performed Witr, then caught up with him. He asked, 'Where were you?' I said, 'I feared dawn, so I dismounted and performed Witr.' Abdullah replied, 'Do you not have in the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) a good example?' I said, 'By Allah, indeed!' He said, 'The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) used to perform Witr on his camel.'"
[Sahih al-Bukhari: 136/1, Hadith: 900; Sahih Muslim: 244/1, Hadith: 36/700]
◈ Nafi Tabi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates:
كان ابن عمر رضي الله عنه يصلي على راحلته، ويوتر عليها، ويخبر أن النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يفعله.
"Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) used to pray on his mount and perform Witr on it, stating that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did so as well."
[Sahih al-Bukhari 1095, Sahih Muslim: 700]
- Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) states:
إن النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يوتر علٰي راحلته.
"The Prophet (peace be upon him) would perform Witr on his mount."
[Al-Sunan al-Kubra lil-Bayhaqi: 6/2, and its chain is authentic]
Performing Witr on a Mount and the Sahabi of the Prophet Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both):
◈ Jareer bin Hazim (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates:
قلت لنافع: اكان ابن عمر يوتر على الراحلة؟ قال: وهل للوتر فضيلة على سائر التطوع؟ إي، والله! لقذ كان يوتر عليها.
"I asked Nafi (the freed slave of Ibn Umar, may Allah have mercy on him), 'Did Ibn Umar perform Witr on his mount?' He replied, 'Does Witr have superiority over other voluntary prayers? By Allah, he used to perform Witr on it.'"
[Al-Sunan al-Kubra lil-Bayhaqi: 6/2, and its chain is authentic]
◈ Imam Abdullah bin Dinar Tabi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates:
وكان ابن عمر يفعل ذللك.
"Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) used to perform Witr on his mount."
[Al-Sunan al-Kubra al-Nasai: 456/1, Tahdhib al-Athar lil-Tabari: 542/1, and its chain is authentic]
◈ The great Tabi'i, Imam Salim (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates:
إن عبد الله كان يصلي فى الليل، ويوتر راكبا على بعيره، لا يبالي حيث وجهه.
"Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) would pray at night and perform Witr on his camel without concern for its direction."
[Musnad Ahmad: 105/2, and its chain is authentic]
Performing Witr on a Mount and the Jurists of the Ummah:
◈ The great Tabi'i, Faqih of the Ummah, Imam Hasan al-Basri (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 100 AH) is mentioned:
كان الحسن لا يرى بأسا أن يوتر الرجل على راحلته.
"He saw no harm in a person performing Witr on their mount."
[Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: 98/2, and its chain is hasan]
◈ Imam Musa bin Uqba (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates:
وقذ رايت انا سالما يصنع ذلك.
"I saw Salim bin Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah have mercy on him) performing Witr on his mount."
[Musnad Ahmad: 105/2, and its chain is hasan]
◈ The esteemed Tabi'i and renowned jurist, Nafi' Mawla Ibn Umar (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 117 AH) is mentioned by his son:
إن أباه كان يوتر على البعير.
"His father (Nafi' may Allah have mercy on him) used to perform Witr on a camel."
[Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: 97/2, and its chain is authentic]
◈ Faqih of Iraq, Imam Abu Abdullah, Sufyan bin Saeed Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him) (97-161 AH) states:
أعجب إلى أن يوتر على الأرض، وأي ذلك فعل، أجرأه.
"I prefer performing Witr on the ground, but whichever way it is performed, it is permissible."
[Tahdhib al-Athar lil-Tabari: 545/1, and its chain is authentic]
◈ Imam Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) considered performing Witr on a mount to be permissible. Imam Tirmidhi (may Allah have mercy on him) states:
وقد ذهب بعض أهل العلم من أصحاب النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم وغيرهم إلى هذا، ورأوا أن يوتر الرجل على راحلته، وبه يقول الشافعي وأحمد وإسحاق.
"Some scholars from among the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and others followed this practice, considering it permissible for a person to perform Witr on their mount. This is the view of Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ahmad, and Ishaq."
[Sunan al-Tirmidhi, under Hadith: 472]
◈ Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) (164-241 AH), is mentioned by his son Abu Fadl Salih (may Allah have mercy on him):
سألت أبى: يوتر الرجل على بعيره؟ قال: نعم، قد أوتر النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم على بعيره.
"I asked my father: 'Can a person perform Witr on their camel?' He replied: 'Yes, indeed the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed Witr on his camel.'"
[Masa'il Ahmad by his son Abu Fadl Salih: 257/2, No. 859]
◈ Imam Ishaq bin Rahwayh (may Allah have mercy on him) (238-161 AH) states:
السنة الوتر على الراحلة فى السفر.
"In travel, performing Witr on a mount is the Sunnah of the Prophet."
[Masa'il Ahmad wa Ishaq bin Rahwayh lil-Kawsaj: 650/2, No. 297]
◈ The renowned Imam, Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Abdur Rahman bin Fadl bin Bahram al-Darimi (may Allah have mercy on him) (181-255 AH), when he narrated the hadith about performing Witr on a mount, was asked: 'Do you act upon it?' He replied: 'Yes.'"
[Sunan al-Darimi: 991/2]
◈ Imam Ahl al-Sunnah, Chief of the Exegetes, Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him) (224-310 AH), after mentioning the differences of opinion and evidences regarding performing Witr on a mount, states:
والصواب من القول فى الوتر راكبا، قول من أجازه، لمعان: أحدها صحة الخبر الوارد عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه كان يفعل ذلك، وهو الإمام المقتدى به.
"The correct view regarding performing Witr on a mount is the opinion of those who allow it, for several reasons: one of them being the authentic narrations from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he used to do so, and he is the leader to be followed."
[Tahdhib al-Athar lil-Tabari: 545/5]
◈ Imam al-A'imma, Ibn Khuzaymah (may Allah have mercy on him) (223-311 AH) titles the hadith of Ibn Umar:
باب إباحة الوتر على الراحلة.
"Chapter: The Permissibility of Performing Witr on a Mount."
[Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah: 249/2]
◈ Imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) (242-319 AH) affirms its permissibility, writing:
ذكر الوتر على الراحلة، ثبت أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يوتر على الراحلة.
"Regarding performing Witr on a mount, it is established that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to perform Witr on a mount."
[Al-Awsat fi al-Sunan wal-Ijma' wal-Ikhtilaf: 201/5]
◈ Allama Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) (631-676 AH) titles it as:
باب جواز الوتر جالسا، وعلى الراحلة فى السفر
"Chapter: The Permissibility of Performing Witr Sitting and on a Mount While Traveling."
[Khilasat al-Ahkam fi Muhimmat al-Sunan wa Qawa'id al-Islam: 562/1]
Performing Witr on a Mount and Hanafi Jurisprudence:
Despite this authentic and established Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the practice of the Companions, the understanding of the Imams of the religion, and the jurists of the Ummah, the Hanafi school of thought has the following verdict on performing Witr on a mount:
ولا يجور ان يوتر علٰي راحلته.
"Performing Witr on a mount is not permissible."
[Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah, known as Fatawa Alamgiri: 111/1, Al-Binayah Sharh al-Hidayah by al-Ayni: 477/2, Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq by Ibn Nujaym: 41/2]
The Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and Hanafi Interpretations:
Respected readers have seen from authentic hadiths that performing Witr on a mount is the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The esteemed Companion Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) practiced it, considering it the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Imams of the religion and the jurists of the Ummah have affirmed it as the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
However, the Hanafis have not been blessed with the honor of accepting this authentic and established Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Instead, they have sacrificed it on the altar of their so-called jurisprudence, offering strange interpretations and misleading claims. Let us now critically examine these false interpretations.
Interpretation 1:
◈ The Sheikh al-Hadith of Darul Uloom Deoband, Anwar Shah Kashmiri Deobandi (1875-1933), writes:اما ابن عمر، فالجواب عندي انهٔ ممن لم يكن يفرق بين الوتر وصلاة الليل، وكان يطلق الوتر على المجموع، فيمكن أن يكون ما ذكره من وترم على الدابة، هي صلاة الليل.
"As for Ibn Umar, my response is that he was among those who did not differentiate between Witr and night prayers (Tahajjud), and he used the term Witr for all. It is possible that what he mentioned about performing Witr on a mount was referring to the night prayer (Tahajjud)."
[Faydh al-Bari: 194/3]
↰ Allama Zayla'i Hanafi (d. 762 AH) and Allama Ayni Hanafi (d. 855 AH) aptly said:
المقلد ذهل، والمقلدجهل.
"The follower ignores facts and is ignorant."
[Nasb al-Rayah lil-Zayla'i: 219/1, 228/3, Al-Binayah Sharh al-Hidayah by al-Ayni: 317/1]
Upon seeing this statement about the understanding of Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), we must reluctantly state that Shah Sahib has displayed enmity towards knowledge and intellect in this matter. These hadiths clearly indicate that Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) neither considered Witr and Tahajjud to be the same nor counted them as one before his student, Saeed bin Yasar Tabi'i. Rather, his intent was entirely the technical term of Witr. This can be understood with minimal reflection by anyone with even the slightest sense.
Saeed bin Yasar (may Allah have mercy on him) explained to Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) upon his inquiry:
خشيت الصبح، فنزلت، فاوترت
"I feared the break of dawn, so I dismounted and performed Witr."
When so little time remains that there is a fear of dawn breaking, can the full Tahajjud prayer be performed? Would any sensible person pay heed to such nonsense?
Let us now explain this matter further with the guidance of the hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
A man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) while he was delivering a sermon and asked: "How is the night prayer (Tahajjud) to be performed?" The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Two by two, and when you fear dawn, perform one Witr."
[Sahih al-Bukhari: 473, Sahih Muslim: 749]
↰ According to the Prophet (peace be upon him), when dawn is near, only the technical Witr is performed. What other hadith can we regretfully oppose now! In this hadith, the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself commanded the performance of one Witr. However, the Hanafis refuse to accept even this. Can anyone say, after hearing the latter hadith, that performing Witr near the time of dawn refers to performing Tahajjud? This hadith was also narrated by Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) from the Prophet (peace be upon him). How could he then mistake the technical Witr of Saeed bin Yasar for Tahajjud? Even someone with minimal awareness would not fall into such an error of understanding.
↰ Secondly, in the first hadith we cited, Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) specifically mentioned both Tahajjud and Witr separately, clarifying that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to perform both Tahajjud and Witr on a mount. Can anyone still use the excuse that Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) referred to both Tahajjud and Witr as Witr?
↰ Thirdly, in the third narration we cited, Nafi' Tabi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) stated about Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he used to perform Witr on his mount. Could anyone claim that Nafi' Tabi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) also referred to Tahajjud as Witr?
↰ Fourthly, the early scholars of the Hanafis acknowledged that the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed technical Witr on his mount. In the following objection, you will see Imam Tahawi Hanafi's acknowledgment. Taking Tahajjud instead of Witr performed on the mount is a purely Kashmiri innovation. To the best of our knowledge, no Muslim before them has done this.
↰ Fifthly, Saeed bin Yasar Tabi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) did not object when he heard this hadith from Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), nor did he say: "I performed Witr, while according to the hadith you narrated, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not perform Witr on a mount but rather performed the Tahajjud prayer." Additionally, the understanding of the Imams of the religion and the jurists of the Ummah adds to this. Imams such as Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Ishaq bin Rahwayh, Imam Ibn Khuzaymah, and others (may Allah have mercy on them), as well as Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him), have also classified the Witr of the Prophet (peace be upon him) on a mount under "باب الوتر على الدابة" (Chapter: Performing Witr on a Mount), confirming that it refers to the technical Witr. Anwar Shah Kashmiri himself acknowledged the ijtihad and jurisprudence of Imam Bukhari when he wrote:
فانه ليس بمقلد للاحناف والشافعية
"Imam Bukhari was not a follower of the Hanafis or Shafi'is."
[Al-Arf al-Shadhi: 106/1]
In other words, the Witr mentioned in these hadiths is the technical Witr; this is the verdict of the jurists of the Ummah. It is not the case that we are doing so in opposition to the Hanafis. When the scholars of hadith placed jurisprudential headings on hadiths, they all understood these hadiths as referring to the technical Witr.
↰ Despite the clarity of this fact, followers of taqlid resort to invalid interpretations of clear hadiths, as they must uphold the "لایجوز" (not permissible) of their imam, even if they must adopt the manner of the rejecters of hadith. We shall question those who oppose the hadith, just as Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) questioned Saeed bin Yasar Tabi'i for not performing Witr on a mount:
أما لك فى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أسوة حسنة.
"Do you not have in the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) a good example?"
The difference is that Saeed bin Yasar Tabi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) acted as he did due to not knowing the hadith, but our Hanafi brothers not only know the hadith well but also engage in such tactics to prevent others from following this Sunnah, which severely undermines the understanding of the Companions and the jurisprudence of the jurists of the Ummah. We earnestly appeal to the just to reflect!
Objection 2:
Imam Tahawi Hanafi writes:فيجوز أن يكون ما روى ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من وتره على الراحلة كان ذلك منهٔ قبل تأكيدم اياه، ثم آكدهٔ من بعد نسخ ذلك.
"It is possible that what Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him) about performing Witr on a mount was before it was emphasized, and after its abrogation, he emphasized it."
[Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar: 430/1]
↰ On Imam Tahawi's claim of abrogation, the commentator of Sahih Bukhari, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) (773-852 AH), comments:
لكنه يكثر من ادعاء النسخ بالاحتمال.
"However, Imam Tahawi frequently claims abrogation based on mere possibility."
[Fath al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari: 478/9]
When one's jurisprudential stance opposes the hadith and no answer can be formed, resorting to the tool of abrogation indiscriminately to reject hadiths—where is the justice in that? Firstly, the matter of the obligation of Witr prayer is nothing more than an assumption; the legal evidences indicate that Witr prayer remains voluntary. Secondly, let anyone ask the Hanafis when the emphasis on Witr prayer occurred? Until solid evidence is presented proving which matter occurred first and which later, the claim of abrogation remains rejected.
Imam Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) (384-458 AH) refutes the claim that performing Witr on a mount is abrogated, stating:
ولا يجوز دعوي النسخ فيما روينا فى ذلك، بما روي فى تأكيد الوتر، من غير تاريخ، ولا سبب يدل على النسخ.
"It is not permissible to claim abrogation of what we narrated about this with the narrations emphasizing Witr, in the absence of any date or reason indicating abrogation."
[Ma'rifat al-Sunan wa al-Athar: 448/3]
وما روي فى تاكيد الوتر يدل على انه اول ما شرع النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم الوتر، وإنما صلاها على الراحلة، بعد ما شرعها، وأخبر أمته بأمرهم بها، إن ثبت الحديث عنه، فكيف يكون ذلك ناسخا لما صنع فيها بعدة؟
"The narrations about emphasizing Witr, if authentic, indicate that this was at the very beginning when the Prophet (peace be upon him) legislated Witr. He performed it on a mount after legislating and informing his Ummah about it, so how can this be considered abrogated by a later action?"
[Ma'rifat al-Sunan wa al-Athar: 447/3]
People of reason, do justice! Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), who narrated the Prophet's (peace be upon him) performance of Witr on a mount to the Ummah, himself continued performing Witr on a mount after the Prophet's death and recommended it to others as the Sunnah. If performing Witr on a mount had been abrogated, why didn't he know? Before Imam Tahawi Hanafi, for over three hundred years, no Imam or jurist claimed that performing Witr on a mount was abrogated. Furthermore, Imam Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him), a renowned scholar, firmly refuted this claim.
Allama Abd al-Hayy Hanafi also refuted Imam Tahawi's claim of abrogation, writing:
وفيه نظر لا يخفى، إذ لا سبيل إلى إثبات النسخ بالاختمال ما لم يعلم ذلك بنص وارد فى ذلك.
"Imam Tahawi's claim of abrogation is clearly invalid, as abrogation cannot be established by possibility alone without knowing this through explicit evidence from the Quran and Sunnah."
[Al-Ta'liq al-Mumajjad 'ala Muwatta Malik: 133]
Warning:
If someone claims that it is narrated about Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both):
إنه كان يصلي على راحلته، ويوتر بالأرض، ويزعم أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يفعل ذلك.
"He would perform (optional) prayers on his mount and then perform Witr on the ground, and he would say that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did the same."
[Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar by al-Tahawi: 429/1, with a sound chain of narration]
Then, it is absolutely permissible and correct to do so. Performing Witr either on a mount or on the ground are both valid options. Presenting this practice of Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) as an argument against performing Witr on a mount is nothing but deception, as we have already presented multiple authentic narrations from his various students proving that he performed Witr on his mount.
If anyone still has any doubts, they should consider this narration. Nafi' (may Allah have mercy on him) states:
إن ابن عمر كان ربما أوتر على راحلته، وربما نزل.
"Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) would sometimes perform Witr on his mount and sometimes after dismounting."
[Tahdhib al-Athar by al-Tabari: 541/1, Sunan al-Daraqutni: 339/2, with a sound chain of narration]
This shows that Sayyiduna Ibn Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with them both) practice of dismounting to perform Witr does not indicate that he considered performing Witr on a mount as impermissible, because it is also proven from him that he performed Witr on his mount. This indicates that he considered both options permissible in light of the Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) (242-319 AH) states:
أما نزول ابن عمر عن راحلته حتي أوتر بالأرض، فمن المباح، إن شاء الذى يصلي الوتر صلى على الراحلة، وإن شاء صلى على الأرض، أى ذلك فعل يجزيه، وقد فعل ابن عمر الفعلين جميعا، روينا عن ابن عمر أنه كان ربما أوتر على راحلته، وربما نزل، والوتر على الراحلة جائز، للثابت عن النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه أوتر على الراحلة، ويدل ذلك على أن الوتر تطوع خلاف قول من شذ عن أهل العلم، وخالف السنة، فزعم أن الوتر فرض.
"Sayyiduna Ibn Umar's (may Allah be pleased with them both) dismounting to perform Witr is a proof of its permissibility. Whoever wishes may perform Witr on a mount, and whoever wishes may dismount and perform it on the ground; both ways are valid. Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) performed Witr both ways. We have a narration that Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) would sometimes perform Witr on his mount and sometimes dismount. Performing Witr on a mount is permissible based on the authentic Hadith that the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed Witr on his mount. This also indicates that Witr is a voluntary prayer, contrary to the opinion of those who deviated from the scholars and opposed the Sunnah, claiming that Witr is obligatory."
[Al-Awsat fi al-Sunan wal-Ijma' wal-Ikhtilaf: 247/5]
Imam Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him) comments on this issue:
وأما ما روي فى ذلك عن ابن عمر، أنه كان يصلي التطوع على راحلته بالليل، فإذا أراد أن يوتر نزل، فأؤتر على الأرض، فإنه لا حجة فيه لمحتج بان ابن عمر كان يفعل ذلك من اجل انه كان لا يرى جائز اللمرء ان يوتر راكبا، و انهٔ كان يرى ان الوتر فرض كسائر الصلوات المكتوبات، وذلك أنه جائز أن يكون نزوله للوتر إلى الأرض كان اختيارا منه ذلك لنفسه، وطلبا للفضل لا على أن ذلك كان عنده الواجب عليه الذى لا يجوز غيره، هذا لو لم يكن ورد عن ابن عمر بخلاف ذلك خبر، فكيف والأخبار عنه بخلاف ذلك من الفعل متظاهرة ؟
"As for what is narrated from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he would pray optional prayers on his mount at night and when intending to perform Witr, he would dismount and perform it on the ground, there is no evidence in this for those who claim that Ibn Umar did so because he considered performing Witr on a mount as impermissible or viewed Witr as obligatory like other prescribed prayers. It is more plausible that he dismounted by choice, seeking additional virtue, not because he deemed it obligatory. This would be the conclusion even if no contrary reports existed from him, but in fact, there are multiple narrations from him indicating otherwise."
[Tahdhib al-Athar: 541/1]
Imam Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentions regarding Sayyiduna Ibn Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with them both) practice of dismounting to perform Witr:
وقد ذكرنا . . . وتر على وابن عمر على الراحلة، بعد وفاة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ونزول ابن عمر لوتره لا يرفع جوازه على الراحلة .
"We have mentioned that ... Sayyiduna Ali and Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them all) performed Witr on a mount after the Prophet's (peace be upon him) demise. The fact that Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) dismounted to perform Witr does not nullify the permissibility of performing Witr on a mount."
[Ma'rifat al-Sunan wal-Athar: 448/3]
Imam Tahawi Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) comments on Sayyiduna Ibn Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with them both) practice:
ووتره على الأرض فيما لا ينفي أن يكون قد كان يوتر على الراحلة أيضا، ثم جاء سالم ونافع وأبو الخباب، فأخبروا عنه أنه كان يوتر على راحلته.
"His performing Witr on the ground does not negate that he also performed Witr on his mount. Then Salim, Nafi', and Abu al-Khabbab came and narrated that he would perform Witr on his mount."
[Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar: 430/1]
Commentator of Bukhari, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) (773-852 AH) states:
قال الطحاوي : ذكر عن الكوفيين أن الوتر لا يصلى على الراحلة، وهو خلاف السنة الثابتة، واستدل بعضهم برواية مجاهد أنه رأى ابن عمر نزل فأوتر، وليس ذلك بمعارض، لكونه أوتر على الراحلة، لأنه لا نزاع أن صلاته على الأرض أفضل.
"Imam Tahawi mentioned that the Kufis said Witr should not be performed on a mount, and this is against the established Sunnah. Some of them used the narration of Mujahid, who saw Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) dismount and perform Witr, as evidence, but this does not contradict his performing Witr on a mount, because there is no dispute that performing Witr on the ground is preferred."
[Fath al-Bari: 488/2]
Objection 3:
Taqi Usmani Deobandi states:
"Imam Tahawi says that it is agreed that performing Witr sitting (while one has the ability to stand) is not permissible, which implies that performing Witr on a mount is even more impermissible, because performing prayer on a mount not only lacks standing but also the Sunnah posture of facing the Qiblah and sitting."
[Taqrir Tirmidhi: 224/1]
↰ The question here is, "What is greater, the intellect or the clear evidence?" This is the kind of opinion that the scholars of Hadith criticize. This analogy, which contradicts the clear and authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him), is not suitable for a Muslim. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed Witr on a mount, what objection remains? Was the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) prayer on a mount valid or invalid? If it was valid, then what is the justification for such analogical reasoning?
Objection 4:
The commentator of Hidayah, Ibn al-Humam Hanafi writes:
إنه واقعة حال، لا عموم لها، فيجوز كون ذلك لعذر، والاتفاق على أن الفرض يصلى على الدابة لعذر الطين والمطر ونحوه.
"This is a specific incident; it does not have general applicability. It is possible that the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed Witr on his mount due to an excuse, and it is agreed that obligatory prayers can be performed on a mount in the case of mud, rain, or similar excuses."
[Fath al-Qadir: 371/1]
↰ The narrator of the Hadith, the esteemed Companion Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), is teaching after the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) demise that performing Witr on a mount is a permissible example to follow, while Ibn al-Humam declares it a specific incident and considers performing Witr on a mount as impermissible. According to the understanding of the Imams of Hadith, this is a Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him), whereas the Hanafis declare performing Witr on a mount as impermissible without any Shari evidence. Because of this, the scholars of Hadith consider them to be in opposition to the Sunnah. Did no one among the Companions, the Followers (Tabi'in), and the Imams of the religion understand that this was a specific incident? Only Ibn al-Humam conceived this?
This is the dreadful end of taqlid, that the followers must go to such lengths to defend the baseless positions of their Imams, resulting in nothing but opposition to the Sunnah. May Allah grant us the ability to abandon taqlid and bias and to act upon the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Example 2: Taqlid and the Offspring of an Animal’s Stomach
❀ Sayyiduna Abu Saeed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:
ذكاه الجنين ذكاة أمره
"The slaughtering of the mother suffices as the slaughtering of the offspring in its womb."
[Musnad Ahmad: 39/3, Sunan al-Daraqutni: 274/4, al-Sunan al-Kubra by Bayhaqi: 335/9, with a sound chain]
↰ The narrator of this hadith, Yunus bin Abi Ishaq al-Sabi'i, is a narrator of Sahih Muslim and is considered reliable by the majority of Hadith scholars. There is no established accusation of tadlis (concealing narrators) against him. Regarding him, Imam Yahya ibn Ma'in [Sualat Ibn al-Junaid: 430], Imam Ajli [Tarikh al-Thiqat: 486], and Imam Ibn Sa’d [al-Tabaqat al-Kubra: 344/6] (may Allah have mercy on them) described him as reliable. Imam Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi (may Allah have mercy on him) [al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil by Ibn Abi Hatim: 244/9, with an authentic chain] said about him, "There is nothing wrong with him." Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) (ibid) described him as "truthful." Imam Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him) [al-Thiqat: 650/7] and Imam Ibn Shahin (may Allah have mercy on him) [al-Thiqat: 1621] included him among the reliable narrators.
◈ Imam Ibn Adi (may Allah have mercy on him) states:
له احاديث حسان
"He has narrated Hasan (good) grade Hadiths."
[Al-Kamil fi Dhu'afa al-Rijal: 179/7]
◈ Hafiz al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) states:
وهو حسن الحديث
"He is a Hasan Hadith narrator."
[Siyar A'lam al-Nubala: 27/7]
◈ He also declares him reliable.
[Man Takallam Fihi wa Huwa Muwaththaq: 393]
The other narrator of this Hadith, Abu Waddak Jabir bin Nauf al-Bakali, is also reliable.
About him:
◈ Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) states:
فلم أر من ضعفه، وقد احتج به مسلم.
"I did not find anyone who considered him weak, and Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) used his Hadith as evidence."
[Talkhis al-Habir: 157/4, Hadith: 2009]
◈ This Hadith has been declared "authentic" by Imam Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him).
[Sahih Ibn Hibban: 5889]
◈ Hafiz Mundhiri (may Allah have mercy on him) graded its chain as "Hasan."
[Mukhtasar al-Sunan: 120/4]
◈ Hafiz Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) also declared this Hadith "authentic."
[Al-Majmu: 562/2]
◈ He further states:
و هو حديث حسن
"This is a Hasan Hadith."
[Tahdhib al-Asma wal-Lughat: 111/3]
◈ Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him), quoting Imam al-Ghazali, writes:
فقال: هو حديث صحيح، وتبع فى ذلك إمامة (إمام الحرمين الجويني)
"He said it is an authentic Hadith, following his Imam (Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni) in this."
[Talkhis al-Habir: 157/4]
◈ Allama Ibn Daqiq al-Eid (may Allah have mercy on him) also declared it "authentic."
◈ Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) himself states:
هذه متابعة قوية.
"This is a strong corroboration."
[Ibid]
↰ This authentic Hadith establishes that if a goat, cow, camel, etc., is slaughtered, the fetus in its womb is also considered slaughtered, and its consumption is permissible. This is a consensus issue among the people of truth.
On the contrary:
According to Imam Abu Hanifa and his followers, eating such a fetus is forbidden. They believe that the fetus does not become slaughtered by the mother being slaughtered and is therefore impermissible to eat.
[Al-Mabsut by al-Sarakhsi: 6/12, Al-Hidayah by al-Marghinani: 351/4, Bada'i' al-Sana'i' by al-Kasani: 421/5, Al-Nutaf fi al-Fatawa by al-Saadi: 228/1, Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq by Ibn Nujaym: 195/8, Majma' al-Anhur fi Sharh Multaqa al-Abhar by Shaykhzadeh: 512/2, Radd al-Muhtar 'ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar: 304/6]
↰ This stance is contrary to authentic Hadiths, the consensus of the Ummah, and the understanding of the Hadith scholars. It is baseless and without evidence, as:
◈ Imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) (242-319 AH) states:
لم يرو عن أحد من أحد من الصحابة والتابعين وسائر العلماء أن الجنين لا يؤكل، إلا باستئناف الذكاة فيه، إلا ما روي عن أبى حنيفة، ولا احسبب اصحابه وافقوه عليه .
"It has not been narrated from any of the Companions, the Followers (Tabi'in), or other scholars that the fetus (of a halal animal) cannot be eaten without a separate slaughter. This is only narrated from Abu Hanifa, and I do not think his students agreed with him on this issue."
[Nasb al-Rayah by al-Zayla'i al-Hanafi: 192/4]
◈ Imam Ibn Abdul Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) (368-463 AH) states:
وأما قول أبى حنيفة وزفر، فليس له فى حديث النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولا فى قول أصحابه، ولا فى قول الجمهور أصل.
"The statement of Abu Hanifa and Zufar has no basis in the Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him), nor in the statements of the Companions, nor in the stance of the majority of scholars."
[Al-Istidhkar: 265/5]
◈ Sheikh al-Islam Thani, Allama Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (may Allah have mercy on him) (691-751 AH) states:
رد السنة الصحيحة الصريحة المحكمة بأن ذكاة الجنين ذكاة أمه، بأنها خلاف الأصول، وهو تحريم الميتة، فيقال : الذى جاء على لسانه تحريم الميتة هو الذى أباح الأجنة المذكورة، فلو قدر أنها ميتة لكان استثناؤها بمنزلة استثناء السمك والجراد من الميتة، فكيف وليست بميتة ؟ فإنها جزء من أجزاء الام، والذكاة قد أتت على جميع أجزائها، . فلا يحتاج أن يفرد كل جزء منها بذكاة، والجنين تابع للأم، جزء منها، فهذا هو مقتضى الأصول الصحيحة، ولو لم ترد السنة بالإباحة، فكيف وقد وردت بالاباحة الموافقة للقياس والاصول؟
"The authentic, explicit, and definitive Sunnah that the slaughtering of the mother suffices as the slaughtering of the fetus was rejected by arguing that it contradicts principles, one of which is the prohibition of carrion. Those who make such statements should be told that the same entity (the Prophet, peace be upon him) who conveyed the prohibition of carrion also made the aforementioned fetuses permissible. Even if it were assumed that they were carrion, they would be exceptions just like fish and locusts are exceptions from the prohibition of carrion. Moreover, the fetuses are not carrion because they are parts of the mother, and the slaughter covers all parts of the mother. There is no need for every part to be slaughtered separately. The fetus is a part of the mother, and this is what the sound principles indicate, even if we did not have the Sunnah declaring it permissible. Now that we do have the Sunnah that aligns with sound reasoning and principles, how can rejecting it be permissible?"
[I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in 'an Rabb al-'Alamin: 334/2]
◈ Allama Abu Muhammad, Ibn Qudamah, al-Maqdisi (may Allah have mercy on him) (541-620 AH) states:
ولأن هذا إجماع الصحابة ومن بعدهم، فلا يعول على ما خالفه، ولأن الجنين متصل بها اتصال خلقة، يتغذى بغذائها، فتكون ذكاته ذكاتها، كأعضائها، ولأن الذكاة فى الحيوان تختلف على حسب الإمكان فيه والقدرة، بدليل الصيد الممتنع والمقدور عليه والمتردية، والجنين لا يتوصل إلى ذبحه بأكثر من ذبح أمه، فيكون ذكاة له.
"This is the consensus of the Companions and those who came after them, so we cannot rely on anything contrary to this. The fetus is connected to its mother by nature, nourished by her nourishment, so its slaughter is her slaughter, just like her other organs. Additionally, the method of slaughter in animals varies according to possibility and capability, as evidenced by the differing methods for hunted animals that can be captured alive, those that fall into wells, etc. The fetus cannot be slaughtered in any way other than the slaughter of its mother, so the slaughter of the mother suffices for it."
[Al-Mughni: 401/9]
◈ He also quotes Imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him), stating:
كان الناس على إباحته، لا نعلم أحدا منهم خالف ما قالوا إلى أن جاء النغمان، فقال: لا يحل، لأن ذكاة نفس لا تكون ذكاة نفسين.
"People (the Companions, the Followers, and the scholars) considered it permissible. We do not know anyone who opposed what they said until al-Nu'man (Abu Hanifa) came and said, 'It is not permissible because the slaughtering of one life does not suffice for two lives.'"
[Al-Mughni: 401/9]
◈ Allama Abd al-Hayy Lakhnawi Hanafi, discussing this issue, states:
وبالجملة، فقول من قال بموافقة الحديث أقوى.
"In summary, the statement of the one whose opinion aligns with the Hadith is stronger."
[Al-Ta'liq al-Mumajjad 'ala al-Muwatta' by Muhammad: 287]
↰ Some Hanafi followers attempted to align this authentic Hadith with their baseless position by suggesting that:
In this Hadith, ذكاةُ امه should be read as ذكاةَ امه (in the accusative case), which would mean that the fetus should be slaughtered like its mother.
This is a rejected and false interpretation, contrary to the unanimous understanding of the Companions, the Followers, and the Hadith scholars. The Hadith is also very clear in its meaning.
◈ The renowned linguist, Allama Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) (631-676 AH), refutes this false interpretation, stating:
والرواية المشهورة : ذكاة أمه، برفع ذكاة، وبعض الناس ينصبها، ويجعلها بالنصب دليلا لأصحاب أبى حنيفة، رحمه الله تعالى، فى أنه لا يحل إلا بذكاة، ويقولون : تقديره كذكاة أمه، حذفت الكاف، فانتصب، وهذا ليس بشيء، لأن الرواية المعروفة بالرفع. وكذا نقله الإمام أبو سليمان الخطابي وغيره، وتقديره على الرفع يحتمل أوجها، أحسنها أن ”ذكاة الجنين“ خبر مقدم، و ”ذكاة أمه“ مبتدأ، والتقدير : ذكاة ام الجنين ذكاة له كقول الشاعر : بنونا بنو ابنائنا، ونظائره، وذلك لأن الخبر ما حصلت به الفائدة، ولا تحصل إلا بما ذكرناه، وأما رواية النصب على تقدير صحتها، فتقديرها ”ذكاة الجنين حاصلة وقت ذكاة أمه“، وأما قولهم : تقديره ”كذكاة أمه“، فلا يصح عند النحويين بل هو لحن، وإنما جاء النصب بإسقاط الحرف فى مواضع معروفة عند الكوفيين بشرط ليس موجودا ههنا.
"The famous narration is with the word ذكاةُ امه in the nominative case. However, some people read it in the accusative case, using it as evidence for Abu Hanifa’s followers, arguing that the fetus is not permissible except with its own slaughter. They say the original expression is كذكاةِ امه, meaning the fetus should be slaughtered like its mother. The كاف (like) was removed, resulting in the accusative case. But this interpretation is entirely baseless. Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi and others have also narrated it with the word in the nominative case. The best understanding of the nominative case is that ذكاةُ الجنين is the predicate brought forward, and ذكاةُ امه is the subject, giving us the meaning: 'The slaughter of the fetus is its mother’s slaughter,' similar to the poet’s expression: بنونا بنو ابنائنا ('Our sons are the sons of our sons'), etc. This is because the predicate conveys the intended meaning, which is only achieved through our mentioned interpretation. If the accusative reading were correct, the interpretation would be: 'The slaughter of the fetus occurs at the time of its mother’s slaughter.' Their interpretation as كذكاةِ امه is not accepted by grammarians and is considered an error, as accusative occurs by omitting the حرف (preposition) in certain recognized instances among Kufians, contingent upon a condition that is not present here."
[Tahdhib al-Asma wal-Lughat: 112/3]
◈ Allama Zayla'i Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 762 AH), refuting some people's interpretations, writes:
وقال المنذري فى مختصره : وقد روى هذا الحديث بعضهم لغرض له : ”ذكاة الجنين ذكاة أمه“، بنصب ”ذكاة“ الثانية، لتوجب ابتداء الذكاة فيه إذا خرج، ولا يكتفى بذكاة أمه، وليس بشيء، وإنما هو بالرفع، كما هو المحفوظ عن أئمة هذا الشأن، وأبطله بعضهم بقوله : ”فان ذكاتهٔ ذكاة امه“، لانهٔ تعليل لاباحته، من غير احداث ذكاة.
"In his summary, Allama Mundhiri (may Allah have mercy on him) stated that some people narrated this Hadith with the word ذكاة in the second occurrence being in the accusative case ذكاةُ ام الجنين ذكاة امه for a specific purpose, to necessitate a separate slaughter when the fetus emerges, and to render the mother’s slaughter insufficient. But this is a baseless action. The Hadith is in the nominative case, as preserved from the Imams of Hadith. Some Hadith scholars refuted this by citing the phrase in the Hadith: فان ذكاته ذكاة امه ('Indeed, its slaughter is the slaughter of its mother'), because these words indicate permissibility without an independent slaughter."
[Nasb al-Rayah: 191/4, 192]
◈ Allama Abd al-Hayy Lakhnawi Hanafi has also refuted it in this manner:
وفيه نظر، فإن المحفوظ عن أئمة الشأن الرفع، صرح به المنذري.
"This view is questionable because the nominative form is what is preserved from the Imams of Hadith. Allama Mundhiri (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly stated this."
[Al-Ta'liq al-Mumajjad 'ala al-Muwatta' by Muhammad: 287]
Warning:
Some people have presented a statement of Imam Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, the Tabi’i, contrary to the authentic and explicit Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the consensus of the Ummah on this matter:
لا يكون ذكاة نفس ذكاة نفسين، يغني أن الجنين إذا ذبحت أمة لم يؤكل حتى يدرك ذكاته.
"One slaughter does not suffice for two lives, meaning if the mother is slaughtered, the fetus is not permissible to eat until it is slaughtered separately."
[Kitab al-Athar by Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybani, p. 186]
However, this statement from Imam Ibrahim al-Nakha’i is not established because:
- The author of the book, Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybani, is considered "abandoned" and a "liar" among the Hadith scholars.
- His teacher is also considered unreliable and not trustworthy by consensus among Hadith scholars.
- Hammad bin Abi Sulayman is considered a "confused" narrator. Imam Abu Hanifa is not among those who narrated from Hammad before his confusion, as Hafiz al-Haythami states:
ولم يقبل من حديث حماد إلا ما رواه عنه القدماء، شعبة وسفيان الثوري والدستوائي، ومن عدا هؤلاء رووا عنه بعد الاختلاط.
"The Hadith of Hammad is only accepted if narrated by his early students, i.e., Shu’bah, Sufyan al-Thawri, and Hisham al-Dastawa’i. Those other than them narrated from him after his confusion."
[Majma' al-Zawa'id: 119/1]
It has been established that until Imam Abu Hanifa’s time, all the Companions, Followers, and scholars considered, in light of the authentic Hadith, that the fetus is slaughtered along with the slaughter of its mother. However, Imam Abu Hanifa did not have access to this Hadith and thus gave an opinion based on his reasoning. What was required was to uphold the consensus of the Companions and Followers and act upon the Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him). But alas, taqlid has led to establishing a new religion in opposition to the Divine religion.
May Allah grant us the ability to act upon the Quran and Sunnah and protect us from the illness of taqlid. Ameen!
Last edited: