Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq Al Athari in his “Maqalat” answered claims of many Deobandi like Dr Khalid Mahmud that Ahlul Hadith are revilers of Imams. And Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq answered showing examples from many Hanafi scholars, their revilements of Imams and results of blind Taqlid, and their Ta’assub.

Almost all quotes from scholars below come from “Maqalat” of Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq Al-Athari, or his book “Asbab Ikhtilaf Fuqahah”.

Revilement of Sahabah by some Ahnaf

Look O reader what many main Hanafi book say about Wail ibn Hujr, Mu’awiyah, Abu Hurayrah and Anas ibn Malik, may Allah be pleased with them.

The Prophet (saw) invoked for some benediction on Wail ibn Hujr and his children, but some Ahnaf could not stand that he narrated Ahadith of Raful Yadayn (raising hands in the prayer) in last years of Prophet’s life, and the last time he saw him doing this was nine month before the Prophet’s death, showing this action was late and was not in the beginning of Islam.

In “Jami’ul Masanid” of Khawarzimi v 1 p 358 it is said about this Sahabi : “A’rabi (Bedouin), he did not know the laws of Islam

Muhammad ‘Abid Sindhi in his ”Mawahib Latifah” and Abdul Hay Al-Luknawi in his “Ta’liqul Mumajad” both regretted these kinds of sayings.

Judging with a witness and an oath (Yamin) is the view of the majority of scholars Malik, Ash-Shafi’i and Ahmad and majority of people of Islam as said by An-Nawawi in his Sharh Muslim, and there are many authentic Ahadith about that.

But in the famous Hanafi book of Fiqh “Sharh Wiqayah”, Kitab Da’wa p 205 it is said about this topic :

And for us it is an innovation and the first who judged with that is Mu’awiyah

Look at this, not only they reject authentic Ahadith claiming they oppose the Quran, but they will reach the level to call this an innovation even if a Sahabi did it.

And this is not all, they will attribute shamefully ignorance to those who say this as in “Nur ul Anwar”, chapter Mabhath ul Ahliyah p 300 it is written after quoting types of ignorance, that would not be forgiven on judgment day :

As the ignorance of Shafi’i in permitting judgment with a witness and an oath (Yamin)…and first who judged with that is Mu’awiyah

Mulla Jewan after saying this, added : “We said as said by our ancestors (Ahnaf), because we would not dare to say that”

In “Tawdih ma’a Tawshih” p 477 there is about same topic :

“ It is mentioned in Mabsut that judging with a witness and an oath (Yamin) is an innovation and the first who judged by that was Mu’awiyah”

Abu Hurayrah and Anas ibn Malik are among most narrating Ahadith, and some of their Ahadith did not suit some Muqallid people, so they invented a rule and went to the extremity of saying these two Sahabi were Ghayr Faqih.

It is written in “Usul Shashi”: “The second category of narrators is those who are well known for their memory and integrity and not for their Ijtihad and Fatawa like Abu Hurayrah and Anas ibn Malik. If a narration is reported from people like these two and it is authentic according to you and the narration is according to analogy (Qias), there is no fear to act upon it, but if it opposes qias, then acting upon qiyas is better… Basing upon this, our companions (Ahnaf) rejected the Hadith of Abu Hurayrah on Musarrah against qias.

As for the difference in number of narrators, we affirm that the condition to act upon Khabar Ahad is that it does not oppose the Quran and the Sunnah Mashurah, the Prophet (saw) said that there will be a lot of Hadith after me, confront them with the Book of Allah, if they are according (to it) accept them, if they are against reject them” End of “Usul Ash-Shashi”

So one can see how without any shame these great Sahabah are called Ghayr Faqih, Allah’s help is sought from this injustice.

As for the Hadith of confronting Ahadith to the Quran, it is fabricated, and yet it is found in many books of Hanafi Usul ul Fiqh. And some even attributed it to “Sahih Al-Bukhari”.

Ali ibn Muhammad Al-Bazdawi (d 682) said: The Prophet (saw) said:

“There would be after me a lot of Hadith attributed to me, confront them to the Book of Allah, if they are according to it, accept it, if they are against reject them” (“Usul Al-Bazdawi”, Bab Bayan Qismul Inqita’)

This narration is also found in “Tawdih” of ‘Ubaydullah ibn Mas’ud (d 747), author also of Sharh Wiqayah.

In the Sharh of this book “Sharh Tawdih” by Mas’ud At-Taftazani (d 792), this Hadith is attributed to “Sahih Al-Bukhari”, and he also affirmed that Yahya ibn Ma’in said this Hadith is fabricated by the heretics (zanadiqah).

’Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari (d 730 )said in Sharh of “Usul Bazdawi” that Imam Al-Bukhari quoted this Hadith and he is the specialist of this field, and this is enough for it being authentic, and that is why the criticism of others is not taken into account (“Kashf ul Asrar” vol 3 p 10 )

The same is said in “Fusul Hawashi Sharh Usul Shashi” p 288.

In “Hashiyah Tawdih” it is said that Marjani Al-Hanafi got astonished to see the Hanafi people of Usul (At-Taftazani, Al-Bukhari, Fusul Hawashi) attributing this to “Sahih Al-Bukhari” while it is not inside (and Al-Bazdawi, ‘Ubaydullah ibn Mas’ud and Ash-Shashi quoted it without attributing it to “Sahih Al-Bukhari”).

The Marfu Hadith of confronting Ahadith to the Quran is fabricated, see “Madkhal” of Al-Bayhaqi, As-Suyuti in “Miftah Al Jannah” p 39, “Muwafiqat” of Ash-Shatibi vol 2 p 18, ibn Qayim in “As-Sawaiq Al-Mursalah” vol 2 p 437.

Hafiz Qassim ibn Qutlubaghah said in his Takhrij of “Usul ul Bazdawi” that all the chains of the Ahadith in this meaning are weak.

So this Hadith and others in this meaning is the work of heretics (Zanadiqah) as told by Ibn Ma’in. yet Ahnaf to reject authentic Ahadith use this fabricated Hadith and they justify by it their false rule that Khabar Ahad cannot restrict the Quran, while they restrict the Quran with weak narrations and even Qias like the case of doing Wudhu with Nabidh and others.

As for Ghayr Faqih, ibn Hummam Al-Hanafi said that Abu Hurayrah and Anas ibn Malik are Mujtahid and Sahabah came to them for Fatawa, see “Fath Al-Qadir” vol 2 p 141.

And ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari Al-Hanafi also said that Abu Hurayrah is Mujtahid : “ We do not accept that Abu Hurayrah was not Faqih, rather he was Faqih and among the conditions of Ijtihad, there was none he did not possess. And he was giving Fatawa among the Sahabah”. (“Kashf ul Asrar” p 703)

And this is also said by author of “Fawatih Rahmoot Sharh Muthalam Thubut”.

Note: In “Nur ul Anwar” it is said that Ahadith of Ghayr Faqih Sahabi like Abu Hurayrah and Anas ibn Malik being rejected if it opposes Qias is the Madhab of ‘Isa ibn Abban and the majority of Mutakhiroon chose it, while Al-Karkhi rejected it, a group followed him. Yet majority of Mutakhiroon have accepted this falsehood.

Note: An-Neylwi Al-Mamati also quoted this rule in his “Nidae Haqq” to object to a Hadith, and when Sarfraz Safdar Khan Hayati in his “Taskeen Sudoor” rejected this rule, then An-Neylwi showed and quoted Hanafi books to show that it is rule of majority of Ahnaf, and he did not invent it.

Note: Anwar Shah Kashmiri also rejected this false rule, and even said that such words should be taken out of Hanafi books.

Note : Jamil Sakrodwi, teacher at Darul ‘Ulum Deoband, in his “ Ajmalul Hawashi ‘ala Usul Shashi” did not mention the weakness of the Hadith of confronting Ahadith to the Quran, while it is fabricated, an invention of heretics, rather he used it as a prove to reject Khabar Ahad told to be against Quran.

Revilement of Imams by some Ahnaf

“ Yusuf ibn Musa Al Multi AL Hanafi said : “One who reads in book of Bukhari, he will become an heretic (Zindiq)” ( man Nathara fi Kitabi Bukhari Tazandaqa) (“Shazratu Zahab” v 7 p 40 and “Abnau ul Ghumar bi Abnail Umar” of ibn Hajar v 4 p 348)

Also see what Muhammad ibn Musa Al Bulasaghuni said : “If I had power, I would take Jiziyah from Shaf’iyah” (“Mizan ul I’tidal” of Az-Zahabi v 4 p 52)

And ‘Isa ibn Abi Bakr ibn Ayub Al-Hanafi was asked why he was Hanafi while all his family was Shafii, and he answered : “ Don’t you want a Muslim to be in the family?” (“Fawaid Al-Bahiyah” p 152-153)

Muhibuddin Muhammad ibn Muhammad d 789 was a Hanafi scholar. It is said about him in “Shazratuz Zahab” p 310 that he was doing diminishing and reviling Ash-Sahfi’i and he was considering that as worship.

Ahnaf and Shafii not praying behing each other, not marrying and even fighting

Imam Safkudri of Ahnaf is famous for his fatwa of Ahnaf women not marrying Shawafi men, but Ahnaf men can marry Shafi women, see “al-Bazaziyah”, “Fath ul Qadir”, “Bahr ur Raiq”.

One can even see in chapter prayer behind other Madhab that is after behind innovators in book like “Bahr ur Raiq”, that how many Hanafi scholars said it was Makruh to pray behind Shawafi and some even said Makruh Tahrimi, meaning prayer behind Shawafi is sinful. What is worse is in these books, they even quote some Hanafi scholars doing Takfir of Shawafi because of their saying : “I am believer Insha Allah”.

Abu Layth As-Samarqandi said: “Following a Shafi’i in prayer is only permissible when he is not Muta’ssib, about Eman he does not say “I am a believer insha Allah”, …whatever comes out of his body more than Sabilayn (other than two parts like blood, vomit) then he makes Wudhu, if impurity fell in water greater than Qultayn (two qullas), he does not Wudhu with this water, he does not do Raful Yadayn after and before Ruku’..” (“Fatawa Nawazil” p 48-49)

Except the last conditions, all others are mentioned in “Qadhi Khan” v 1 p 91, “Radul Muhtar” v 1 p 563, “Alamagiri” v 1 p 84, “Tatar Khaniyah” v 1 p 652, look at “Fath ul Qadir” for this mention v 1 p 313.

Al-Luknawi also mentioned in his “At-Ta’liaqat As-Sunniyat ‘ala Al-Fawaid Al Bahiyah” that Amir ‘Itqani also thinks that if a Hanafi prays behind a Shafi’i, then the prayer of the Hanafi is void (batil) behind the Shafii because of Raful Yadayn of the Shafi’i Imam, and Al-Luknawi answered him in the best way.

In “Al-Bada’i As-Sana’I”, it is also said that Raf Yadayn is leading to Fasad and is Makruh Tahrimi (meaning the person doing this will be a sinner) v 1 p 548 and also in “Sharh Munyah” as quoted in “Fayd ul Bari” v 2 p 257.

Shah Waliullah mentioned that Salaf had differences about impurity, conditions of the prayer, yet they all prayed behind each other.

Imam Ahmad whose position is that the man who received Hijamah or whose blood comes out, his Wudhu is broken, was asked about someone whose nose ran and blood came out and he prayed without doing Wudhu and Imam Ahmad answered : Would I not pray behind Sayd ibn Musayyab? (“Hujjatullah Al-Balighah” v 1 p 159 about difference of this community)

So Sayd ibn Musayyab, for him blood coming out of the body does not break the Wudhu, and Imam Ahmad did not see any dislike in praying behind the like of him, even if he disagrees.

While for the same reason, all these Hanafi Fuqaha tell that the prayer behind Shawafi’ is Makruh Tanzihi (disliked) and some even said Makruh Tahrimi (meaning doing it is a sin).

So we can see who the real revilers of the Imams are, they would forbid or dislike to pray behind such scholars as Ash-Shafi’i and they dare to tell that Ahlul Hadith revile the great Imams.

These differences among different schools of thought reached the point of having four Musalah in the Haram of Makkah, and it is forbidden in Hanafi Fiqh to hold two congregational prayers in the same mosque, but yet these people because of their Ta’assub in Taqlid left their Madhab and Taqlid of it on this point.

‘Allamah Ali Qari wrote: “If every Madhab has his Imam, as it is in our times, then the best is to follow the one that is according to his, whether he prays first or after, according to what all the Muslims have considered as good (Istahsana) and the majority of the believers acted according to it from the people of the two Haram, Al-Quds, Egypt and Sham, and there is no consideration to those who opposed this among them.” (Rad ul Muhtar v 1 p 564)

Some even like Ash-Shami went on to compare Masjidul Haram as a Mosque of streets, enabling by this way repetitions of second, third and four congregational prayer, he wrote: “Like the mosque of Makkah and Madinah, it does not have a fix Jama’ah, so it does not suit the description of the mosque of Mahallah, rather it is like the mosque of the street, and it has preceded that there is no Kirahah in repeating the Jama’ah in it by consensus” (Rad ul Muhtar v 1 p 553)

But it is not hidden to anybody that Masjidul Haram does have regular Imam, so it is never in the ruling of Mosque of streets, also the habitants of Makkah and Madinah close to it go regulary to these mosques.

And what about many mosques in Syria and Egypt? Are they also mosques of the streets?

Ash-Sha’rani quoted from his Shaykh Ali Khawwas that he heard stories from Shafiyah and Ahnaf doing breaking their fast before the time in day to strengthen themselves for debate with each others. (“Al-Mizan Al-Kubra” v 1 p 42)

And Anwar Shah Kashmiri also quoted that in some Hanafi books there is a chapter called : “If a Hanafi does a debate (Munazarah) with a Shafi’i in Ramadan, and he thinks the fast will weaken him, then breaking it is permissible for him” and Kashmiri criticized such Fatawa from some Ahnaf. (“Fayd ul Bari” v 2 p 196, Bab Fadlu Salatil Fajr fi Jama’ah)

So the matter did not stop from changing Allah’s rules on breaking the fast and others, it went to the extremity of killing each other, burning others houses.

’Allamah Yaqut Al-Hamawi narrated some events of the region of Ray: “There were fights between Ahnaf and Shawafi’, and Shawafi’ even being less always became victorious, and Hanafie of Rustaq were coming in help of their fellows but it did not change anything. And this went to the extremity that only those who hided their Madhab or those who transferred their homes, would survive. If they did not do that, none would have survived.” (“Mu’jam Al-Buldan” v 3 p 117)

About the region of Asbahan, Al-Hamawi wrote: “At this time and before that in Asbahan and cities close to it, destruction extended between Shafiyah and Hanafiyah because of lot of disputes and Ta’assub. They fought continuously and when one party was winning over the other, it was destroying and burning its homes, and they did not feel any shame doing that” ( Mu’jam Buldan v 1 p 209)

Muqalidun bigotery against Ahle Hadith

So yesterday, Ahnaf fought with Shawafi’, and nowadays in India, they are fighting Ahlul Hadith who agree in the Usul ul Fiqh of Imam Ash-Shafi’I, and in many matters of the prayer also agree with this great Imam.

In the last century, in order to stop any other Fiqh propagating in India, many Ahnaf performed Takfir of Ahlul Hadith and ordered to expel them from the mosques. Two famous books have been written on this topic by Ahnaf:

Intizamul Masajid bi Ikhraj Ahle Fitan wal Mafasid” of Muhammad Ludhiyanvi in which he said that Ahlul Hadith were apostates, he asked that they should be killed and no Tawbah should be accepted from them. And this book is full of lies.

Jami’ Shawahid fi Ikhrajil Wahabiyin minal Masajid” written by Wasi Ahmad Soorti in 1883 H, and having signatures of many Ahnaf from Ludhyanah, Deoband, Gangooh, Pani Pat, Rampur and others.

Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, Mahmud Hasan, Muhammad Ya’qub Nanotwi and others signed the part quoted below of “Jami’ Shawahid” as told by Nadheer Ahmad Rehmani in his book ” Ahle Hadeeth or Siyasat” :

“ When the creed of this group is against the majority, then it being innovator is clear, like Tajsim (anthropomorphism), making permissible more than four wives, making Taqiyah permissible, attributing bad words of perversion and disbelief on the Salaf, then in matters of the prayer and marriage, and slaughtering, there must be precaution from them like precaution with Rawafid”

Allah’s help is sought from such lies.

Now that last book contained many lies against Ahlul Hadith, and because of it, Shaykh Nadhir Hussain Ad-Dehlawi was arrested and close to be beaten by the Sharif of Makkah that was opposed at that time to Wahabiyah and movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdil Wahab.

Many Ahnaaf could not stand teachings of Hadith and propagation of rulings of Malik, Shafi’i, Ahmad, and others in the Indian sub-continent. So to protect their Fiqh, they could answer in scientific manners to Allamah Nadheer Hussain Dehlawi, but more and more people were coming in Dehli to learn Hadith from him.

So they thought the best way to stop spread of Ahlul Hadith was to arrest one of their main leader, and when Allamah Nadhir Hussain came to Hajj, some Ahnaf , among them Imdadullah Makki, Rahmatullah Hindi, Abdel Qadir Badayooni son of Fadl Rasool Badayooni, wrote to the Sharif, and Allamah Nadhir Hussain was put in jail and asked about his creed. And he was only freed because of British demand.

And if some people say that Ahlul Hadith were created by British, then why was Shaykh Nadhir Hussain many years after put in jail for one year by British government?

See Shaykh Nadhir Ahmad Rehmani’s book “Ahlul Hadith or Syasat” where he tells that Imdadullah Makki was also among people plotting against Shaykh Nadhir Hussain Ad-Dehlawi, and how he gathered with Bralwi thinking Abdel Qadir Badayooni for the same purpose: Targeting the head of the Ahlul Hadith.

So Ahnaf violently opposed Ahlul Hadith, showing how their respect difference and other Imam’s views. When Shaykh ‘Abdullah Ghaznawi returned to Afghanistan after learning Hadith in Delhi from Shaykh Nazir Hussain Ad-Dehlawi, some Ahnaf burnt his house, and he had to flee back to India. And these matters went on even under recent Taliban’s rule, many Madaris of Ahlul Hadith were burnt by Deobandiyah.

Shaykh Rashid Rida said : « A Hanafi from Afghanistan heard another reciting Fatihah, and he was next to him in the Saf, so he hit him in the chest until he fell down and he was almost killed, and it has reached me that some would break the finger of the praying person raising it in Tashahoud” (Muqaddimah Al-Mughni p 12, 13)

And the violence of these Muta’assib Hanafi did not stop to attacking opponents, even if some of their great scholars were to act in some matters on Hadith and another jurist’s Madhab, they would beat him and attack him like the case of the great Hanafi Muhadith Abul Hasan Al-Kabir.

This event as been quoted by Badi’udin Shah Ar-Rashidi As-Sindhi in his Risalah called in English “The position of the hands in the Salah of the Prophet saw”:

Shaykh Abul Hassan Kabeer is known for his trials he was put to for his belief in putting hands upon chest. Muhammad Abid Sindhee in his book “ Tarajimu Shuyukh” states that the shaykh performed this action based upon hadeeth and whilst going into, coming out of rukoo and going up for third rak’ah, he would do raful Yadayn and place his hands upon his chest. In his time shaykh Abu Tayyib Sindhee would debate with Abul Hassan, but could provide no answer when the proofs were given to him.

So he went and complained to the Qaadhi of Madeenah who arrested Abul hassan. When the Qadhi heard proofs he realized this man was a specialist in the various branches of religion and it was befitting to release him. It remained like this for many years for the shaykh. Then a time came when a Qadhi was appointed who was a Hanafi blind follower and it was no long before a complaint was made to him concerning the shaykh’s views. Abul Hassan was summoned and ordered to stop Raful yadayn and to place the hands below Navel. However shaykh Abul Hassan merely answered he would not obey this order. Therefore the shaykh was imprisoned for six days in a drak place which was extremely uncomfortable. Thereafter the people of Madeenah began to come to the noble shaykh and advise him to accept what the Qadhi was saying so he could be freed. The shaykh replied he would not perform any action that was not authentically proven from the Prophet saw and he would not abandon that which was proven. Thereafter, the shaykh took an oath that he would continue to do this. After this, many people went to the Qadhi to request the release of the shaykh. The Qadhi reluctantly allowed this, but vowed that if ever he saw the shaykh putting his hands upon his chest he would putt him back in prison.

The shaykh was eventually released and thereafter he would cover himself with a cloth and put his hands upon his chest whilst in prayer. Later when the news of the death of the Qadhi reached him, the shaykh, who was praying, flung the cloth away and placed his hands upon his chest openly.” End of this Risalah’s quote.

An example of Ta’assub in last century is Zahid Al Kawthari, this man attacked Ash-Shafii, Malik, Ahmad and many Imams from the Salaf, and yet I don’t know any Hanafi scholar who criticized him, rather like his student Abu Ghuddah, they are full of praise. And Yusuf Binnori Ad-Deobandi also praised him a lot in his introduction to “Maqalat Al-Kawthari” with lot of praise.

Kawthari and some Deobandis attacks on Imams of Salaf

Zahid Kawthari said in his Maqalat ( p 330 Said Company Karachi, p 404 Maktabah Azhariyah) also introduced by Yusuf Binnori, about “Kitab At-Tawhid” of Ibn Khuzaymah :

“ And its author Ibn Khuzaymah called it “ Kitab At-Tawhid” and it is for Muhaqiq of the people of knowledge “Kitab Shirk””

Same is said in “Tanib” p 29 published in Beirut 1981. And his “Tanib” has been translated in Urdu by Deobandiyah.

So this is a collective failure of Ahnaf not to criticize such statements, rather to introduce these kinds of books, and print them and recommend them, while even the student of Al-Kawthari, Ahamd Al-Ghumari wrote a book calling his teacher Al-Kawthari of being a liar.

And it is not hidden from any student of knowledge, that according to Madhab of the majority of scholars, a Muhadith calling to innovation, his narrations are rejected.

Habibur Rahman, principal of Darul ‘Ulum Deoband said in his notes of “Jalalayn” that Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah was misguided and a misguiding others ( Dhal wa Mudhil).

So like Kawthari calling to the creed of the Salaf, leaving blind Taqlid, fighting grave worship and innovations, all of this is misguidance.

Muhammad Hasan Sanbhuli in his explanation of ‘”Aqaid An-Nasafi” compared Ibn Taymiyah, ibnul Qayim, Ash-Shawkani, ibn Hazm and Dawood Az-Zahiri to dogs.

So one can see how these people stand difference about Taqlid and other matters. For them the Fiqh of their Imam is a law that cannot be abandoned.

This is why Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ Ad-Deobandi wrote in his “Ma’ariful Quran” v 3 p 364:

“The Tahqiq of ‘Allamah Abdur Rauf al-Manawi, the Sharih of “Jami’ As-Saghir” is that the different schools of the Fuqaha of this community have the same level as the different laws of Prophets in precedent times (before Islam), despite being different, they were all Allah’s Ahkam”

All different laws before send to Prophets were all revelation from Allah, and one abrogated the other, but are differences in Ijtihadi matters of jurists from Allah?

Shaykh Irshadul Haqq said: This is a great lie, Allah said in the Quran: “If it was from other than Allah, they would find in it a lot of ikhtilaf

So all differences do not come from Allah, some Mujtahid are right and some are wrong, and Allah will give double recompense to those who were right and a single recompense to the one who made erred.

And Ahlul Hadith respected these differences based on Dalil, as in matters of reading the Fatihah behind the Imam. Ahlul Hadith from India favor the position of Imam Ash-Shafi’i and Al-Bukhari that the follower of the Imam should read Al-Fatihah behind the Imam in all cases, whether the Imam reads loudly or silently.

Yet, Ahlul Hadith do not say that those who based on Ijtihad do not read behind Imam, that there prayers are void (Batil).

Hafiz Muhammad Gondahlwi, said in introduction of his book: “Khayr ul Kalam fi Wujub Qira’ah Khalfil Imam” p 33:

“Our view (about) the Fatihah behind the Imam is that because of being a furu’i and ikhtilafi, an Ijtihadi issue, whoever does extreme research and thinks that the Fatihah is not obligatory (Fardh), whether in loud or Silent prayer, and he acts on his research, then his prayer is not void (batil)”

While some Hanafi said that one who reads Surah Al-Fatihah behind the Imam, his teeth should be broken and sand should be put in his mouth.

Hussain ibn ‘Ali Saghnani (d 711) said in “ Nihayah sharh Hidayah” as quoted in “ Imam ul Kalam” p 40 of Abdul Hay Al-Luknawi about the one who reads behind Imam :

“And from ‘Abdullah Al-Balkhi, he said that his mouth should be filled with sand (Turab), and it has been said that it is Mustahab to break his teeth”

Al-Haskafi said in “Dur ul Mukhtar” v 1 p 544-555 :

“In “Durarul Bihar” from “Mabsut Khawahir”, it is added that it ( prayer) is Fasid and he becomes a Fasiq”

For this purpose some Hanafi even invented some Ahadith, like the Hadith: “One who reads behind the Imam, his mouth will be filled with fire” mentioned by ibn Tahir in his “Tazkirah” and he said : “There is in it Mamun ibn Ahmad Al-Harawi, Dajjal, narrates fabrications”

Abdul Hay Al-Luknawi said in his “Ta’liqul Mumajad ‘ala Muwatta Muhammad” p 99 :

“And the author of “Nihayah” and others mentioned it in marfu’ way with words : “There will be Jamrah (burning stone) in his mouth” and there is no basis for it (la Asla lahu)”

And this Mamun ibn Ahmad Al-Harawi also narrated the Hadith : “One who does Raful Yadayn in prayer, there is no prayer for him”, as mentioned by Ibn Tahir in his “ Tazkiratul Mawdoo’ah” p 87, as taken from Sisila Da’eefah N 568 and 569.

See all of this shows who the real revilers of Imams are, and people instead of attacking Ahlul Hadith should look in their books, who called Sahabah ghayr Faqih, who called Imam Ash-Shafi’i an ignorant, who disliked or forbade to pray behind Shawafi’ and even did their Takfir and forbade Nikah with them, who attacked Al-Bukhari saying reading his book is an heresy, who attacked many other Muhadith accusing them of Tajsim, and how Shawafi’ and Ahnaf killed each other without any shame as mentioned by Al-Hamawi.

When the story of different Madhab is like this, how do Muqalid dare to attack Ahlul Hadith and accuse them of disrespect of Imams?

Gangohi’s attack on Al-Bukhari

Shaykh Abdur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri wrote in his book “Tahqiq ul Kalam fi Wujub Qiarat Khalf al Imam” p 96 of second vol

“Imam Al-Bukhari wrote in his Juz Qiraat (about narration of Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari: “When the Imam recites, remain silent): “Sulayman did not mention in this addition his listening from Qatadah, nor Qatadah from Yunus ibn Jubayr”

Imam Al-Bukhari wrote this because Sulayman At-Taymi and Qatadah are both Mudalis. Qatadah being Mudalis has been mentioned earlier (in the book). As for Sulayman At-Taymi, Hafiz ibn Hajar wrote in his “Tabaqat Al Mudalisin”:

“Sulayman ibn Tarkhan Taymi Tabii, famous from the little Tabi’i of Basrah, he was Fadil, An-Nasai and other attributed Tadlis to him”

‘Allamah Al-Halabi (Al-Hanafi) affirmed that Sulyaman At-Taymi was a Mudalis in his book “Kitab Tabiin fi Asma Al Mudalisin” as mentioned in “Zafar Al-Amani” p 219.

Hafiz Az-Zahabi said in “Mizan”: “Sulayman ibn Tarkhan At-Taymi Al-Basri Al-Qasyi…it has been said he did Tadlis from Al-Hasan and others…”

So Sulayman Taymi being a Mudalis is known among Muhadiths, but it is strange that Maulana Rasheed Ahmad Sahib Gangohi was not aware of that and he wrote in his “Hidayatul Mu’tadi”: “Imam Al-Bukhari could not find any defect in this narration, because of Madhabi Ta’asub, he wrote in his “Juzz Qiraat” that it is not known whether Sulayman heard this narration from Qatadah or not. This is very strange because Sulayman At-Taymi is not a Mudalis nor Mutawaham, and despite this Imam Al-Bukhari doubts about his listening because he reports with “‘An” (from). Ma’az Allah, if this is doubt, then one can doubt about all narrations of “Sahih Al-Bukhari” reported with “‘An”. La Hawla Wa La Quwata ila Billahi”

Dear readers, what a pity and what a lesson to take, Maulana Mamduh did not know about Sulayman At-Taymi being a Mudalis, and with this what a revilement of Sultan Al-Muhadithin Imam Al-Bukhari! Reflect O People of intelligence!” End of Al-Mubarakpuri’s words.

It should be known that Tadlis is when someone hides the narrator from whom he heard and quotes from the narrator above. Like someone can hear this from Zayd who heard this from Amr, and the person directly says: from Amr, without mentioning his Shaykh Zayd.

Narrations of Mudalis are weak except if they mention clearly that they heard, and if they say “from (’An) so and so”, their narrations are weak.

Secondly, what a scandal to call Imam Al-Bukhari a Muta’asib, this attack is well known among Ahnaaf, they accuse Al-Imam Bukhari of being a Ash-Shafii and only reporting Hadith to strengthen his Madhab, and he would leave Sahih Hadeeth when it opposes his Madhab, he would weaken unjustly Sahih Hadith for his Madhab

And this is false, Imam Al-Bukhari makes his own Tahqiq (research) and only brings narration that are authentic according to his conditions and makes judgment on them.

Even Gangohi in his sharh of Al-Bukhari mentioned about Hadith of praying Zuhr late when it is hot, that name given to chapter was a refutation of Ash-Shafii who does not agree with praying Zuhr late in summer and makes Tawil of this Hadith.

And in many issues Imam al-Bukhari did contradict Imam Ash-Shafi’i. He was a Mujtahid Mutlaq, having no Madhab. He devoted his life in search of Hadith, to preserve the Sunnah and record it. And there is Ijma of this Ummah on his book being the most authentic after the Quran.

Muhammad ‘Awammah’s attacks on Muhadiths

In his book “Athar ul Al-Hadeeth Ash-Shareef”, Muhammad ‘Awammah p 105-106 attacked the Muhadiths saying (as mentioned in “Asbab Ikhtilaf Fuqaha” of Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq Al-Athari):

“Imam Al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim and other Muhadiths in matters of difference would make an opinion by Ijtihad or by Ittiba of an Imam and then they would gather in their books the proofs of their Madhab of Fiqh. Thus there are influences of preferences of Fiqh on Hadeeth

Anwar Shah Al-Kashmiri said the same in his “Fasl ul Khitab” p 69 and 107, and Muhammad ‘Awaamah said that the words of Al-Kashmiri are golden words (as mentioned in “Asbab Ikhtilaf Fuqaha”)

While the Muhadiths were sincere and gathered in their books Ahadith that would be on their conditions, and not that they would put Ahadith to promote one Mujtahid (obviously sign is that Muhadiths were Ash-Shafi’i and were strengthening and weakening Ahadith to defend Ash-Shafi’i) rather than another…

Did any of the Salaf accuse Al-Bukhari and Muslim of gathering Ahadith that suit their opinion, and leave similar Hadith with same strength that would oppose their views?

Ameen Okarvi and Habibullah Daerwi’s attacks on Al-Bukhari and other Muhadiths

Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay mentioned in his magazine “Al-Hadith” that Amin Okarvi said about Ahmad ibn Sa’eed Darimi in “ Masoodi Firqe ke I’tiradhat ke Jawabat” p 41-42 and “ Tajliyat Safdar” published by Jam’iyat Isha’at Ulumil Hanfiyah v 2 p 348 :

The narrator is Ahmad ibn Sa’eed Darimi, who was a innovator from the Mujassimah sect

While none of Muhadith ever said that, and he is a narrator from Al-Bukhari and Muslim, agreed upon to be trustworthy.

So Amin Okarvi is on the same way of Zahid Al Kawthari for calling people Mujasim without quoting this criticism from Salaf. Where all Salaf guilty of remaining silent to Mujasim, rather praising them?

Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay in his book “Nasr ul Bari fi Takhrij Juzz Qiara’ah” of Imam Al-Bukhari, mentioned in the introduction what Amin Okarvi Ad-Deobandi Al-Hayati said about Imam al-Bukhari.

This Deobandi wrote in his Tahqiq of “Juzz Qira’ah” in introduction p 12 that : “The Imam and teacher of Imam Al-Bukhari, Abul Hafs Al-Kabir sent a message to Imam Al-Bukhari to teach Hadith but not to give Fatwa”

He mentioned the reason for this on the same page quoting from the “Mabsut” of As-Sarkhasi Al-Hanafi v 30 p 298 claiming that Imam al-Bukhari said: “That if two baby drink milk from same goat, their Nikah will be forbidden”

Imam Al-Luknawi Al-Hanafi denied this story told by As-Sarkhasi to be true, knowing the great Fiqh of Imam Al-Bukhari in his “Fawaid Al Bahiyah p 188.

And there is no Isnad from As-Sarkhasi to Abu Hafs Kabir despite more than a century between them. So is this not a revilement of Emir Al Mouminin fil Hadith, gathering baseless lies against him.

Anwar Shah Kashmiri in his introduction of “Fayd Al Bari”, and Zakariyah Al-Kandahlwi in his introduction of “Lami’ Durari”, both said that Imam Al-Bukhari was a Mujtahid and denied him being a Muqalid of Imam Ash-Shafi’i.

And another student of Sarfraz Safdar Khan, Habibullah Daerwi follows the same path. In his book “Tawdih ul Kalam par ek Nazar”, this Deobandi scholar violently attacked many Muhadith, as Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay showed in his magazine “Al-Hadith”.

About Al-Bayhaqi, he said p 136: “O dear readers, in this quote Hazrat Imam Al-Bayhaqi committed a terrible treachery”

About Ad-Daraqutni, he said in the same book p 306: “By which Ad-Daraqutni’s partisanship and bias is clear

About the Hafiz, the Imam Abu ‘Ala Nisapuri, Daerwi dared to say p 304 of the same book: “Abu ‘Ala Hafiz is an unjust (Zalim)

Ahmad Said Al-Multani’s attack on Al-Bukhari

Ahmad Said Al-Multani Ad-Deobandi Al-Mamati wrote a book called “Quran Muqaddas or Bukhari Muhadath” in which he reviled Imam Bukhari in many places.

This Mamati Deobandi is actually in jail as some of the Ahlul Hadith did a case against him in GujranWala.

Ahmad Said Al-Multani said that the Prophet (saw) gave prophesy of Abu Hanifah and called him the lamp of Ummah, while this Hadith is a pure fabrication.

Al-Multani said p 1 that Ad-Daraqutni weakened Al-Bukhari and declared him to be Muta’asib, and Multani Deobandi did not give any reference showing this is a pure lie. (Same as Al-Kawthari weakening Abu Ash-Shaykh with lies in his “Taneeb ul Khateeb” that is translated by Deobandis in Pakistan without any shame)

Then Al-Multani said p 22: “Al-Bukhari relied totally on cursed narrators and mentioned the mother of humanity, Hawa to be among people of treachery.”

And he called other narrators of Bukhari of being cursed (La’nati)

Then Al-Multani p 14 reviled Imam Az-Zuhri saying that neither Al-Bukhari had knowledge of the Quran nor Az-Zuhri

P 34, he accused Az-Zuhri of being a Shi’a and Al-Bukhari narrated from Az-Zuhri who was Shi’a…

P 17, Al-Multani declared Hisham ibn ‘Urwah to be a “Kazzab”, without any quote from Imams of jarh and Ta’dil.

About Bukhari, p 15 Al-Multani wrote: “Can Imam Al-Bukhari be freed from this crime?”

Then p 54, he accused Al-Bukhari of not leaving any efforts to diminish the reputation of the Sahabah.

And this book of Ahmad Said Al-Multani came at the same time as some Hadith rejecters Parwezis wrote book against Imam Al-Bukhari under name “Islam ka Mujrim”.

So these Muqalids of Ahlur Ray are in fact similar to Parwezis, Parwezis attack Al-Bukhari to reject the Sunnah, Deobandis attack Al-Bukhari to protect their Madhab. Both do not act on the Sunnah, Parwezis only act on Quran and Deobandis only on Hanafi Fiqh. Their aim is the same: to declare the Sunnah to be Zanni (speculative) and the work of biased Muta’asib Muhadiths.

Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami’s attacks on Muhadiths

Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami said the same in his book written against Shaykh Albani, p 77-79, (as quoted in “Rad ‘ala A’zami” of Al-Halabi and Al-Hilali v 2 p 24):

“I do not know what is the sin of the Hadith of Nabidh (doing wudu with Nabidh when lacking water) so that none of the lords (Arbab) of Hadith declared it to be Hasan, so what about declaring it to be authentic…this is another example to show that they turn to their Ray (opinion) for declaring authentic and weakening…”End of Al-A’zami’s words.

Refutation: At-Tahawi also declared Ahadith of Wudhu with Nabidh to be weak and rejected this opinion. Abu Yusuf also rejected the view of doing Wudhu with Nabidh, and Muhammad ibnul Hasan Shaybani said to do Wudhu with Nabidh and also Tayamum (for security)…so he wasn’t convinced hundred pour cent of the authenticity of these Ahadith…

So we can ask At-Tahawi, Abu Yusuf what is the crime of Hadith of Wudhu with Nabidh not to be Hasan so one can act on it, and At-Tahawi and Abu Yusuf both follow their Ray (opinion) in declaring Ahadith authentic and weak, and they do not base on Ilm ur Rijal (knowledge of narrators) and knowledge of Hadith, but they built an opinion then declare Hadith authentic or weak in accordance to their opinion and not Tahqiq (research).

This is the state of Al-A’zami, attacking the greatest of Muhadith, who spent their life to gather the Sunnah and who authenticated or weakened Ajadith based upon their neutral research. They are not like Al-A’zami who is well-known for his fraud in publishing “Musnad Al-Humaydi” in which he did a shameful treachery to support his Hanafi Madhab.

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household and his companions and those who follow them.

Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan