Were the Noble Hadith Scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, Followers (Muqallid)?
الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلاة والسّلام على رسوله الأمين و على آله و صحبه أجمعين ، أما بعد :
Followers adopt various methods to prove their baseless imitation. To satisfy the general public, they fabricate many things, one of which is that the authors and compilers of Hadith books were also “followers” (Muqallid). Some say even more than this, but for now, our discussion is limited to the Hadith scholars.
◈ The advocate of the Deobandi school of thought, Hanafi, spokesperson of Islam, debater of Islam, and the highly titled Amin Okaraavi Sahib wrote: “Although the books of Hadith available today are either written by Mujtahids or Muqallids, mentioned in Tabaqat Hanafiya, Tabaqat Malikiya, Tabaqat Shafi’iya, and Tabaqat Hanabila, there is not a single authentic book of Hadith that declares accepting Ijma (consensus) and Ijtihad (independent reasoning) as forbidden or shirk (polytheism). Nor does it prohibit accepting Fiqh. Only one authentic reference could be presented about its author that کان لا يجتهد و لا يقلد that he was neither capable of Ijtihad nor did he follow Taqlid (imitation), therefore he was a non-Muqallid.”
(Tajalliyat Safdar J p. 113, published Multan, Majmua Rasail 13.3)
◈ Mufti Ahmad Mumtaz Sahib, “Raees Darul Ifta Jamia Khulafa-e-Rashideen Karachi,” wrote: For this reason, even the Hadith scholars themselves, may Allah have mercy on them, follow the Mujtahids, may Allah have mercy on them, in these last two matters. Consequently, as a result of this Taqlid, the mention of the Hadith scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, is found only in four types of books:
❀ Tabaqat Hanafiya
❀ Tabaqat Malikiya
❀ Tabaqat Shafi’iya
❀ Tabaqat Hanabila
No book named Tabaqat Ghair Muqallideen has ever been written by any Muslim historian or hadith scholar about the conditions of the Muhadditheen.
(Asli Chehra p7)
From these two excerpts, it can be easily understood that there is an attempt to portray all the authors of hadith books as Muqallideen (followers). Okaraavi Sahib had written that the Muhadditheen are either Mujtahideen or Muqallideen, but while quoting him, Mufti Ahmad Mumtaz Sahib went a step further and tried to depict all the Muhadditheen as Muqallideen.
In any case, it is true that the mention of the Muhaddithin is found in these four classes, but it is absolutely incorrect to say that this is the result of imitation. That is, that the Muhaddithin were imitators. However, it is the result of these imitators being afflicted with imitation that, upon seeing the mention in the four classes, they assume that the Muhaddithin were imitators. Then what is this a result of? If we say something, it is possible that prejudice may prevent our points from being accepted, so we present a major reason from the books of the Deobandi scholars, hoping that this might open a path to acknowledging the truth. Please observe:
Their “Sheikh al-Hadith al-Muhaddith al-Kabir” Zakariya Kandhlawi Sahib states: “Here is an issue whether the Ahl al-Hadith and the Imams of Hadith were followers (Muqallid) or non-followers (Ghair Muqallid). And if they were followers, then whose following did they adhere to? There is a difference of opinion among scholars on this. The point is that when a person is great, everyone wants him to join their group because there is a lot of attraction and pull, and everyone tries to draw him towards themselves.”
(Taqreer Bukhari 52/1, Published by Dar al-Isha’at Karachi, Second Edition Vol 1 p.41)
What is the reason for mentioning four categories? There are other reasons as well, but a few points become clear from Zakariya Sahib’s speech:
❀This is the result of these Muhaddithin being great personalities.
❀Everyone wants great personalities to join their party.
❀There is a lot of “attraction and pull” in proving great people as their own.
Due to this attraction and pull, everyone seems to be drawing towards their own side; for example, the Hanafis say that they were Hanafi, the Shafi’is say they were Shafi’i, and the Malikis and Hanbalis also try to prove their own. One major reason for the emergence of the four schools is this attraction and pull. Although many hadith scholars were divided into these schools due to their discipleship (being students), and there is no shortage of such hadith scholars who have been mentioned in the respective schools of two, three, or even all four schools. If the reason is discipleship and benefit, then there is no objection to these attributions being given on the basis of discipleship, but attempts to prove hadith scholars as mere followers (muqallid) beyond this are absolutely unacceptable.
Since the “Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah” Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Sahib has written about the followers (muqallidin):
“That is, if they are ignorant, then they should follow the scholars, and imitation (taqlid) is only for the ignorant who are unaware of the evidences of rulings.”
Consider what is written: “And imitation is only for the ignorant?” Were (God forbid) the great Muhaddithin ignorant? And were they unaware of the evidences for the rulings? The great memorisers who sacrificed their entire lives for the Ahadith of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, who extracted rulings from every Hadith in the form of chapters and translations—were these Muhaddithin ignorant? If not, and certainly not, then calling the Muhaddithin imitators is also incorrect. To say about them that they too practiced imitation is certainly wrong, and this statement strengthens the position of the Hadith deniers. Even if it is just a slip, because they will immediately say on this basis that imitation is only for the ignorant, and since the Muhaddithin also imitated, therefore they were ignorant! Now what credibility is there in the Ahadith collected by these ignorant people? If the imitators reflect on the consequences and outcomes of such statements, they would never dare to call the Muhaddithin imitators. May Allah grant success and mercy.
One of them, “Al-Muhaddith Al-Kabir, Allama” Abdul Rasheed Nomani Sahib, after quoting the opinions of various scholars under the title of the sects of the authors of “Al-Usul Al-Sitta” (the six principles), that is, the six principles (known as Kutub al-Sitta and among the common people: Sahih Sitta), writes:
فانظر إلى هذا التجاذب الذي وقع بين هؤلاء الاعلام فتارة يعدون احدهم شافعيا وتارة حنبليا و اخرى مجتهدا و هذا كله عندي تخرص و تكلم من غیر برهان فلو كان احد من هؤلاء شافعيا او حنبليا لا طبق العلماء على نقله و لما اختلفوا هذا الاختلاف كما اطبقوا على كون الطحاوي حنفيا و البيهقى شافعیا و عیاض مالکيا و ابن الجوزی حنبلیا ، سوى الامام ابی داؤد فانه قد تفقه على الامام احمد و مسائله عن احمد بن حنبل معروف مطبوع .
Look at this tug of war that took place among the great scholars; sometimes they count one of them as Shafi’i, sometimes Hanbali, and sometimes again as a Mujtahid. In my view, all these are mere conjectures and baseless statements. If any of them were truly Shafi’i or Hanbali, the scholars would have unanimously agreed on this and would not have differed on this matter. Just as they agreed on Tahawi being Hanafi, Bayhaqi being Shafi’i, Qadi Iyad being Maliki, and Ibn al-Jawzi being Hanbali. Except for Imam Abu Dawood, who studied jurisprudence under Imam Ahmad, and his issues from Imam Ahmad are well-known and published.
This is a statement by Naumani Sahib from which the following points clearly emerge:
❀ Calling the authors of Kutub al-Sittah Hanbali or Shafi’i is a “tug of war,” guesswork, and baseless talk; there is no evidence.
❀ These are fabricated (self-made) statements and baseless, unproven claims made through guesswork and conjecture.
❀ Some call a Muhaddith Shafi’i, some Hanbali, and some declare him a Mujtahid.
❀ None of them are Shafi’i, Hanbali, etc.; if they were, scholars would have unanimously agreed on this.
❀ There is disagreement among scholars about these Muhaddiths being Hanbali or Shafi’i; there is no consensus.
Their “Grand Mufti of Pakistan,” Rafi Usmani Sahib, writes:
“The opinions of scholars differ regarding the jurisprudential schools of these six Imams of Hadith, because none of them explicitly declared their own school. Accordingly, some scholars believe that all of them are absolute Imams and Mujtahids, and none of them are followers (Muqallid). Others believe that none of them were Mujtahids and their school is that of the generality of the Muhaddithin; they are neither followers nor Mujtahids. Some have provided detailed explanations, and even within these explanations, there is disagreement.”
The hadith scholars themselves did not explicitly clarify, and how could they, since the imitative sects did not even exist at that time. So people used it as a testing ground; whoever understood something, they expressed it. Some saw a few hadiths in support of one imitative sect and against another, and counted that sect as correct; others looked at different chapters and hadiths and declared another sect as correct. The followers accepted these statements so readily as if that was the intended and desired purpose. Let us see how, according to Zakariya Kandhlawi Sahib, people stretched the matter and, according to Naumani Sahib, how they made “absurd” assumptions. As an example, we will quote some statements about a few of these hadith scholars:
Sayyid al-Muhaddithin Imam Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, the first “most authentic book after the Book of Allah,” the great author of Sahih al-Bukhari Sharif, consider the opinions of various people about him:
🌸 Anwar Shah Kashmiri Sahib says:
واعلم أن البخارى مجتهد لاريب فيه و ما اشتهر أنه شافعى فلموا فقته اياه في المسائل المشهورة .
Etc. Know that Imam Bukhari was a Mujtahid, there is no doubt in this, and the reason it became famous that he was Shafi’i is due to his agreement with Imam Shafi’i in famous issues.
Ibrahim bin Abdul Latif bin Muhammad Hashim Thathwi Sahib writes:
و اما الامام البخارى، فقد ذكر التاج السبكي في طبقاته انه ای البخاری شافعي المذهب و تعقبه العلامة نفيس الدين سليمان بن ابراهيم … فقال البخارى مجتهد براسه كأبي حنيفة والشافعي و مالك و احمد.
As for Imam Bukhari, Taj al-Subki mentioned him in his Tabaqat (Shafi’iyyah) that he was Shafi’i. Allama Nafees al-Din Suleiman bin Ibrahim … followed Subki and said: Bukhari himself was a Mujtahid like Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i, Malik, and Ahmad.
Zakariya Kandhlawi Sahib says in his special terminology:
“The essence is that Imam Bukhari was firmly a Mujtahid.”
🌸Abdul Rasheed Nomani Sahib writes:
و عندى ان البخارى و ابا داؤد ايضا كبقية الائمة المذكورين ليسا مقلدين لواحد بعينه ولا من الائمة المجتهدين على الاطلاق.
In my view, Imam Bukhari and Imam Abu Dawood are like the other mentioned Imams; neither were strict followers of any one Imam nor were they absolutely among the Mujtahid Imams.
🌸Mufti Rafi Usmani Sahib says:
“The opinion of Hazrat Maulana Al-Imam Al-Hafiz Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri, may Allah have mercy on him, based on some evidences, is that Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, is undoubtedly a Mujtahid Mutlaq, and his book is a witness to that.”
His “Imam Ahl al-Sunnah” and “Muhaddith Azam Pakistan,” Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Sahib, writes:
“And similarly, Imam Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari is counted among the Shafi’i Tabaqat. Hazrat Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, is a great scholar whose era included years of the parts of ‘Raf’ al-Yadain’ and parts of the Qur’an where there were two conflicting issues from the opposing party, yet the train of thought continued. But see the miracle of Allah’s power that even Hazrat Imam Bukhari was proven to be a follower (Muqallid).”
Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Sahib, observing the behavior of Subki, declared Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, a follower of Imam Shafi’i, whereas Anwar Shah Kashmiri Sahib states:
و ما اشتهر أنه شافعى فلموافقته إياه فى المسائل المشهورة وإلا فموافقته للامام الأعظم ليس أقل مما وافق فيه الشافعي فعده شافعيا باعتبار الطبقة ليس باولى من عده حنفيا .
The famous notion that Imam Bukhari is Shafi’i is due to the fact that in many issues he agrees with Imam Shafi’i, whereas his agreement with Imam Azam (Abu Hanifa) is no less than his agreement with Shafi’i. From the perspective of the school of thought, considering him Shafi’i is not preferable to considering him Hanafi.
Another great muhaddith, Zakariya Sahib, says:
But since Imam Bukhari is more displeased with the Hanafis, it is prominently apparent that he is Shafi’i, although Imam Bukhari is as much, if not more, displeased with the Shafi’is as he is with the Hanafis.
Sarfaraz Sahib became happy just by seeing the mention of Imam Bukhari in Tabaqat, started scolding Ahl-e-Hadith, then declared the great Muhaddith Imam Bukhari as a follower of Shafi’i school and called it “a miracle of Allah Almighty’s power.” Whereas this is merely a miracle of Sarfaraz Sahib’s love for imitation. If only he had thought a little, he would have realized that in his own book he has also written, “That is, if they are ignorant, then follow the scholars, and imitation is only for the ignorant.”
Then he himself writes Imam Bukhari as a “follower” in the very same book! Is this not equivalent to calling a great Muhaddith ignorant? Is this not a disparagement and insult to the Muhadditheen?
Then according to Kashmiri Sahib, Imam Bukhari agreed more with Abu Hanifa than with Shafi’i, and according to Zikr Ya Sahib, Imam Bukhari is more displeased with the Hanafis than with the Shafi’is. When the matter is such, calling him a Shafi’i follower can only be a miracle of imitation, not justice and fairness?
The great purpose of Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, is to present the authentic hadiths of the Prophet ﷺ, and he accomplished that. However, among the followers, some stand up and say that he was more displeased with the Hanafi school, others say that he was more in agreement with the Hanafis and more displeased with the Shafi’is! Naumani Sahib rightly said that these are mere conjectures and assumptions, and speaking without evidence is baseless talk. Now see the clarity of Kashmiri Sahib: Imam Bukhari is a Mujtahid, and Naumani Sahib says that Imam Bukhari is not a follower. But ignoring the words of their elders, someone speaks in confusion and contradiction:
“Imam Bukhari is a blindly imitative seeker”
إنا لله و إنا إليه راجعون
Imam Abu Dawood Sulayman bin Al-Ash’ath Al-Sijistani, may Allah have mercy on him
Various statements are found about him as well; mentioning all would cause excessive length. For brevity, we will present the sayings of two personalities among the followers, which will be sufficient material for those who understand. So listen to what Karya Kandhlawi Sahib says:
“My opinion regarding Abu Dawood is that he is a staunch scholar. Accordingly, the Hanbalis have also included him in the ranks of the Hanbali scholars. Along with this, Imam Abu Dawood has dedicated a chapter in his book on البول قائما and has justified its permissibility, which is the belief of the Hanbalis, although it is disliked according to other Imams. Similarly, ablution by wiping over socks is considered abrogated by everyone except the Hanbalis. For this reason, Imam Abu Dawood placed the chapter on abandoning ablution first and then mentioned this chapter, and later emphasized it further under the title of التشديد في ذلك. As for the hadith in which the Prophet ultimately abandoned ablution by wiping over the socks, Imam Abu Dawood interpreted it as relating to a specific incident.”
Mufti Saeed Ahmad Palanpuri, Hadith teacher at Darul Uloom Deoband, writes:
In the writer’s humble opinion, this last statement is correct because some translations of the Sunan agree with Imam Ahmad, while others contradict him. A few examples are presented below:
Regarding the marriage of a virgin who has reached puberty, does the guardian have the authority of compulsion (Wilayat al-Ijbar) or not? The Hanafis deny this; according to them, the permission of the virgin herself is a condition for the validity of the marriage. However, the three Imams state that as long as she is a virgin, even if she has reached puberty, the guardian does have the authority of compulsion. That is, the permission of the virgin is not a condition for the validity of the marriage. Imam Abu Dawood, may Allah have mercy on him, has dedicated a chapter in his Sunan regarding this issue: باب فی البكريزوجها ابوها، ولا يستامرها and he has narrated a hadith from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, that a virgin girl came to the Prophet’s presence and complained that her father had married her off against her will. In response, the Mercy to the Worlds, peace be upon him, granted the girl the choice to keep or annul the marriage.
🌸Allama Kashmiri, may Allah have mercy on him, says about this chapter:
غرضه موافقة العراقيين ، و كذا يفهم من صنيع البخارى
“The Imam’s purpose with this chapter is to align with the Hanafi school. This is also evident from the style of Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him.”
◈ Does ablution break by touching a woman on the seventeenth? According to the Hanafis, it does not break; according to the Hanbalis and Shafi’is, it does break.
The Imam has placed the first chapter on this topic:
باب الوضوء من مس الذکر اور ثانیاً He says: باب الرخصة في ذلك The Imam’s arrangement of chapters indicates that he supports the Hanafi position.
◈ Does ablution remain or break by eating something cooked on fire? The opinion of the four Imams is that ablution remains.
The Imam has placed the first chapter related to this issue: باب في ترك الوضوء ممامست النار and then says:
باب التشديد في ذلك From this, it can be inferred that according to the Imam, the obligation of wudu is stronger. Hazrat Maulana Zakariya Sahib, may Allah have mercy on him, presented this example in support of the Imam Sahib being Hanbali, but you have observed that this chapter is actually against Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him. Then how can this chapter be evidence of the Imam Sahib being Hanbali? Rather, this chapter is against the majority!
“A handful is a sample of a heap; these few examples have been presented, and many translations in the Sunan will be found against the madhhab of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him. Therefore, it is more correct to consider the Imam Sahib as a Mujtahid affiliated rather than calling him Hanbali or a strict Jalili.”
See, Zakariya Kandhlawi Sahib judged Imam Sahib as a staunch or extremist Hanbali after looking at just one or two chapters. Then, as an example, the chapter he presented from Sunan Abi Dawood is actually contrary to the stance of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him. According to Palanpuri Sahib: How can this be evidence of their Hanbali, or rather extremist Hanbali, identity? In any case, it can be inferred from this that by looking at just a few chapters, people made assumptions and estimates, and whoever understood it in their own way accepted it, even though in Sunan Abi Dawood there are also some chapters that support and strengthen the Hanafi school of thought. If this is the criterion for being Hanbali, then why do people not label them as Hanafi on their own? Similarly, a few chapters may support the Maliki school, so why are they not called “Maliki”? Taj al-Sikki has already mentioned them in Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyyah.
Severe Distress from Excessive Dream Interpretations
Imam Muslim bin al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Makki, may Allah have mercy on him, is the author of Sahih Muslim. After Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim holds a high status, and all its hadiths are authentic. Consider some opinions about the Imam:
Sheikh al-Islam Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, a follower of the Deobandi school, writes:
و أما مسلم والترمذى والنسائى و ابن ماجة و ابن خزيمة و أبو يعلى والبزار و نحوهم ، فهم على مذهب أهل الحديث .
Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu Ya’la, Bazzar, and other such Imams of hadith were adherents of the Ahl al-Hadith creed; they were not followers of any particular scholar among the ulema, nor were they among the Mujtahid Imams in any absolute sense.
🌸Mufti Rafi Usmani says:
“And regarding Imam Muslim and Ibn Majah, Hazrat Shah Sahib’s statement is that their creed could not be ascertained. It is commonly believed that they were Shafi’i, based on the commentaries of Sahih Muslim, which mostly align with the Shafi’i school, but this basis is not correct because the commentaries were not established by Imam Muslim himself; they were established by later people.”
Consider Mufti Sahib’s words! How many kinds of assumptions have been made by those who speculate? They have assumed his sect from the chapters and translations of his book. However, those chapters and translations were not established by Imam Muslim himself but are the efforts of later people, so how weak and fragile is this foundation. Attempts to prove the hadith scholars as followers are almost based on these very weak foundations. What importance can such assumptions based on such weak foundations have?
🌸 Zakariya Kandhlawi Sahib writes:
“Now, as for Imam Muslim, some have declared him Shafi’i and most have declared him Maliki.”
🌸 Mufti Irshad Qasmi Sahib writes:
“Imam Muslim is at the forefront of Fath, that he was of the Ahl al-Hadith sect. He was not a follower of anyone.”
🌸 Abdur Rashid Naumani Sahib writes:
و لعل الصواب فى هذا الباب ما نقله الشيخ طاهر الجزائري في توجيه النظر إلى اصول الاثر عن بعض الفضلاء و نصه :وقد سئل بعض البارعين في علم الاثر عن مذاهب المحدثين مرارا بذلك المعنى المشهور عند الجمهور فاجاب عماسئل عنه بجواب يوضح حقيقة الحال … اما البخاری و ابوداؤد فاما مان في الفقه و كانا من اهل الاجتهاد ، و اما مسلم والترمذى و النسائی و ابن ماجة و ابن خزيمة و ابو يعلى و البزار و نحوهم فهم على مذهب اهل الحديث ليسوا مقلدين لواحد من العلماء ولا هم من الائمة المجتهدين بل يميلون إلى قول ائمة الحديث کالشافعی و احمد و اسحاق و ابي عبيد. إلخ
It is hoped that the correct statement in this chapter is what Sheikh Tahir al-Jaza’iri has quoted from some scholars in “Tawjīh al-Naẓar ilā Uṣūl al-Athar,” whose wording is as follows: Some experts in the science of Hadith were asked several times about the (jurisprudential) schools of the Muhaddithin, in the sense of what is commonly known among the majority. They gave an answer to this question that clarifies the “actual reality.” As for Bukhari and Abu Dawood, both are Imams in jurisprudence and both are among the Mujtahids. As for Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu Ya’la, and thousands of other such noble Muhaddithin, they follow the creed of Ahl al-Hadith; they are not strict followers of any one scholar among the Ulama, nor are they among the Mujtahid Imams. Rather, these people incline towards the sayings of the Imams of Hadith such as Shafi’i, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu Ubaid, and other similar Muhaddithin.
The Creed of the Muhaddithin is Non-Taqleed
It is clear from this statement that not only Imam Muslim but also other well-known hadith scholars such as Imam Tirmidhi, Imam Nasa’i, Imam Ibn Majah, Imam Ibn Khuzaymah, Imam Abu Ya’la, and Imam Al-Bazzar, may Allah have mercy on them, were followers of the Ahl al-Hadith school of thought. None of these Imams were followers of any one Imam; they did not practice taqlid (imitation). This also makes it clear that the most famous books of hadith, such as Sahih Muslim, Sunan Tirmidhi, Sunan Nasa’i, Sunan Ibn Majah, Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, Musnad Abu Ya’la, and Musnad Al-Bazzar, are not books authored and compiled by individual Imams but are collections compiled by the Ahl al-Hadith. Their clear purpose is the adherence to the Quran and Sunnah, not the support, defense, or clarification of the school of any particular Imam. Therefore, while studying these books, one does not at all feel that they are written according to any specific taqlidi (imitation-based) school, and only those things from the Quran, hadith, and reports are collected which are sources for the ijtihad (independent reasoning) of a particular Imam. Whereas, during the study of fiqh books, this feeling is encountered at every step, whether they are the fiqh books of the Shafi’is and Hanbalis or those of the Malikis and Hanafis.
This is the reason why all jurisprudential schools benefit indiscriminately from the books of Hadith, and these books hold a credible and established status among all. If these hadith scholars were also afflicted with a blindly imitative mindset and adhered to imitative thinking, then these books would have become, like the books of jurisprudence, separate books specific to particular schools, and in them, one would repeatedly find statements such as “this hadith is our proof” and “this hadith is the proof of our opponent (enemy).” Just as there is an abundance of such divisions in some books of jurisprudence. In short, Okarvi Sahib’s demand was that for even one authentic book of Hadith, only that authentic reference should be presented regarding its author that ’’کان لا يجتهد ولا يقلد‘‘ “neither had the capability of ijtihad nor was he a follower (muqallid).” As we have presented, no one can say about any one of the above-mentioned Hadith books that it is not an authentic book at all. And regarding their authors, we have already presented references from Sheikh Tahir al-Jazairi, then from the followers’ Sheikh al-Islam Shabbir Ahmad Usmani Sahib and their Imam Ahl al-Sunnah, the great hadith scholar of Pakistan Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Sahib, their great hadith scholar Abdul Rashid Nu’mani Sahib, and Mufti Irshad Qasmi, in whose books it is explicitly stated that ’’ليسوا مقلدين لواحد من العلماء ولا هم من ائمة المجتهدین‘‘ neither were followers of any one Imam nor were they among the mujtahids. Thus, Amin Okarvi and his admirers’ desired wish has been fulfilled. I do not think that any follower associated with the Deobandi school of thought would call these volumes unauthentic and unreliable. ’’لعل الله يحدث بعد ذلك امرا‘‘
Classes of the Followers?
Okaraavi Sahib and, following him, Mufti Mumtaz Sahib also stated that until today, no one has written a book titled “Classes of the Non-Followers.” We ask, has any Muslim hadith scholar or historian ever written a book titled “Classes of the Followers”?
Okaraavi Sahib is no longer alive. Mufti Ahmad Mumtaz and other admirers of Okaraavi, please tell us, have you ever thoroughly studied the existing books titled “Classes”? Have you conducted a research review of them? Even if you glance over them superficially, it will become clear that there are many hadith scholars mentioned in various classes. The same hadith scholar might be mentioned in the Shafi’i classes as well as in the Hanbali or Maliki classes. Merely being mentioned in these classes does not necessarily mean that the person is a follower, nor does it mean that he is a follower according to the principles and conditions established by you followers.
Since in these categories, the mention of hadith scholars has also come up in relation to discipleship, such as someone being a student of Imam Malik or the chain of discipleship reaching him, similarly someone being a student of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal or Shafi’i or the chain of discipleship reaching them. How did mere study and discipleship necessarily lead to being a follower? Do not go far; take Imam Tahawi, who is known as Hanafi and indeed is, but is he a blindly imitative follower? Absolutely not. Because it is Imam Tahawi himself who (it is said) stated: ’’لا يقلد الاعصبي أو غبي‘‘ that imitation is done either by a bigot or a fool! And this saying of his had become a proverb in Egypt.
Is a hadith scholar like Imam Tahawi a follower? According to his own statement, is he a bigot or a fool? We cannot even imagine that you, O Prophet, are a fool! But those who call him a follower should think that according to his statement, that is exactly the case. Whereas Abdul Qadir al-Rafi’i al-Kali wrote:
’’و قد نقل أبو بكر القفال و أبو علي والقاضي حسين من الشافعية أنهم قالوا لسنا مقلدين للشافعى بل وافق رأينا رأيه ، وهو الظاهر من حال الامام أبي جعفر الطحاوي في أخذه بمذهب أبي حنيفة و احتجاجه له و انتصاره لاقوالہ‘‘
And he narrated that among the Shawaafi’, Abu Bakr al-Qaffal, Abu Ali, and Qadi Husayn said: We are not followers of Imam Shafi’i, but our opinion coincided with his opinion. And this is what appears from the condition of Imam Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi that his not adopting Abu Hanifa’s madhhab as his own, and considering it a proof and supporting it, was not imitation (taqlid), rather his opinion was in agreement with Abu Hanifa’s opinion.
See, Abu Bakr al-Qaffal, Abu Ali, and Qazi Hussain are Shafi’i, but according to Rafi’i, they say we are not followers of Shafi’i, meaning their opinion was based on research. It was derived from evidence, not imitation, nor did they like to be called followers, and according to Rafi’i, this was also the case with Imam Tahawi being Hanafi.
🌸Mufti Saeed Ahmad Palanpuri Sahib writes:
“And Allama Qasim wrote in another treatise that by the grace of Allah, I say the same thing that Imam Tahawi, may Allah have mercy on him (17), said to Ibn Harbawiyah: لا يقدد الأعصبي اوغبي (Imitation is done either by a bigot or a private individual!)”
Yes, Ibn Qutlu Bugha was Hanafi but not a follower. It is understood that merely belonging to the Hanafi school does not necessarily mean one is a follower. Similarly, being mentioned in any school does not necessarily mean one is a follower.
Allama Zaili was a well-known Hanafi but he himself says:
’’فالمقلد ذهل والمقلد جهل‘‘
A follower is heedless; a follower is ignorant.
In this way, Allama Aini was also Hanafi; he said: So the follower (muqallid) errs and the follower commits ignorance, and all troubles are due to imitation (taqlid).
Despite this, merely calling them a follower because they are Hanafi is invalid according to their own statement. This is equivalent to proving them far from the truth.
Similarly, Allama Ibn Abdul Barr, who established a chapter on the corruption of imitation in his famous book “Jami’ Bayan al-‘Ilm” and refuted it. People are eager to prove him a Maliki follower as well. Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, a well-known opponent of imitation who invalidated imitation for many reasons in “I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in,” and dismantled the so-called arguments for imitation, yet many people are stuck trying to prove him a follower of Jannali.
Now, those scholars who are clearly followers are condemned twice; people cannot find peace without calling them followers as well. As for other scholars, the followers have been given free rein to do whatever they please. However, being pleased by their classes and considering the mentioned hadith scholars and scholars among them as followers is merely a misconception. It has no connection with reality. If they want to show some excellence, they should find books named “Tabaqat al-Muqallidin” (Classes of the Followers), otherwise, who listens to their quarrels and baseless arguments!
🌿(27 / Dhu al-Hijjah 1451 / December 2009)
