Tuesday, 25 December 2012

"The Top of the Minaret is closer to Allah than it's Bottom" ?


"The top of the minaret is closer to Allah than its bottom"

ثم أكد المعارض دعواه في أن الله في كل مكان بقياس ضل به عن سواء السبيل
فقال ألا ترى أنه من صعد الجبل لا يقال له أنه أقرب إلى الله
فيقال لهذا المعارض المدعي ما لا علم له من أنبأك أن رأس الجبل ليس بأقرب إلى الله تعالى من أسفله لأنه من آمن بأن الله فوق عرشه فوق سماواته علم يقينا أن رأس الجبل أقرب إلى الله من أسفله وأن السماء السابعة أقرب إلى عرش الله تعالى من السادسة والسادسة أقرب إليه من الخامسة ثم كذلك إلى الأرض كذلك روى إسحاق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي عن ابن المبارك أنه قال رأس المنارة أقرب إلى الله من أسفله وصدق ابن المبارك لأن كل ما كان إلى السماء أقرب كان إلى الله أقرب وقرب الله إلى جميع خلقه أقصاهم وأدناهم واحد لا



^  Bassam Zawadi:

" Devastating Anti-Ashari Claim of Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak (d. 181 A.H.)
(OUCH, this is going to hurt the Asharis)

Please bear in mind who Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak is.
Moving on to the narration at hand....
'Uthman Ad-Daarimi in his refutation to Al-Marisi states:

ﮫﻠﻔﺳأ ﻦﻣ ﷲا ﻰﻟإ بﺮﻗأ ةرﺎﻨﻤﻟا سأر لﺎﻗ ﮫﻧأ كرﺎﺒﻤﻟا ﻦﺑا ﻦﻋ ﻲﻠﻈﻨﺤﻟا ﻢﯿھاﺮﺑإ ﻦﺑ قﺎﺤﺳإ ىور
Ishaq bin Ibraheem Al-Handhali narrated that Ibn Al-Mubarak said:

 The top of the minaret is closer to Allah than it's bottom.

The Isnad:
Ishaq bin Ibraheem Al-Handhali (d. 238 A.H.) (who is more famously known as Ishaq bin Rahawaih) was born in 161 A.H. and he used to report from Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak.
Ishaq's reliability needs no presentation.
'Uthman ad-Daarimi was born before 200 A.H. and he used to report from Ishaq.
Ad-Daarimi's reliability requires no presentation as well.

Conclusion: The isnad is saheeh.

The Matn:
 Do I really need to explain how this demonstrates how Ibn Al-Mubarak believed in the very literal 'Uluww of Allah?

He says that the top of the minaret is closer to Allah than the bottom. How much clearer could it get?
Even if he is wrong in making this claim, that doesn't matter.
You know why?

What matters is that this example of his (whether right or wrong) clearly demonstrates that he at least believed in the very literal 'Uluww of Allah.

The Shame & Deception of GF Haddad:
GF Haddad a few years ago came out with this book (which by the way has been addressed over here).
On page 213 of the book, under footnote no. 371 GF Haddad tries to paint 'Uthman ad-Daarimi as an  anthropomorphist.

Guess what?

He cites the statement of Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak as a proof of this alleged anthropomorphism. But what's the problem? The problem is that GF Haddad doesn't state that this is the statement of  Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak, rather he makes it out to be that this is the statement of ad-Daarimi!!!
What sheer dishonesty!!! He clearly didn't have the guts to label ibn Al-Mubarak as an  anthropomorphist.
I have attached a picture of GF Haddad's words. Clearly, you could see how he failed to mention that  those were the words of ibn Al-Mubarak!

Oh Asharis and Maturidis Bid ibn Al-Mubarak Farewell:
It really hurts deep down inside to see such a pillar of the Hanafi madhab utter such "blasphemous" and "anthropomorphic" words, doesn't it? It kills you deep down inside, right?

With what has been demonstrated in this post and demonstrated over here and here as well, you could kiss ibn Al-Mubarak good bye, since he is one radical "Wahhabi Hanafi"!

Devastating Anti-Ashari Claim of Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak (d. 181 A.H.)
(OUCH, this is going to hurt the Asharis)

Ibn al Mubarak rahimahullah's statement is to be understood according to his other statements regarding Allah's Elevation. His other statements point to a literal elevation/uluw and not metaphorical.

Ibn Al-Mubarak (d 181 H.) : Ali Ibn al-Hasan Ibn Shaqeeq reported: I asked Abdullah Ibn al-Mubarak: 
“How are we to know our Lord –Azza wa Jal-? ”
He replied: «He is over the seventh Heaven over His Throne. We do not say as the Jahmiyyah say: that He is here on the earth.» (8) Sahih.
In another narration he said: «That He is above the seventh Heaven, on the Throne, separate from His creation.» (9) Its grading: Hasan.
(8) “As-Sunnah “ by Abdullah bin Ahmad (1/111) with a sahih chain.
(9) Ar-Rad `Ala alJahmiyyah by Ad-Darimi (40) with a hasan chain. 

Read Full thread Here



^ Wahhabi/ Salafi Bassam Zawadi has demonstrated once again his “skills” in “authenticating” narrations. 

One wonders if he has studied this noble Science with any recognized scholar of Hadith, or is he self taught as per the methodology of the Albani’ite way of accepting and rejecting narrations?! Namely, being auto didactic!

Moving onto the sanad and matn that he presented with pomp and boastfulness from his Imam in creed, viz. Uthman al-Darimi:

Though the sanad appears flawless on the surface, there is indeed an illa (hidden defect) that was apparent to some of those who knew either Hadith, or were recognised as being representatives of the Ash’ari school in creed from centuries ago. Specifically speaking, the illa is centred on Ishaq’s preservation of narrations from Ibn al-Mubarak.

As for Uthman al-Darimi and his creed then this has been exemplified here:

Wahhabi Bassam may take note of Hafiz al-Dhahabi’s statement on al-Darimi in his Kitab al-Uluw (p. 194):

Wahhabi Bassam mentioned:
“ Ishaq bin Ibraheem Al-Handhali (d. 238 A.H.) (who is more famously known as Ishaq bin Rahawaih) was born in 161 A.H. and he used to report from Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak. Ishaq's reliability needs no presentation.”

He also mentioned a link to a biography of Imam Ibn al-Mubarak in his opening lines as well as mentioning in his heading that Ibn al-Mubarak passed away in the year 181 AH.
From chronological analysis there is no doubt that Ishaq ibn Rahawayh could have not only met Ibn al-Mubarak but also heard from him directly. 

But the question for the likes of ^Bassam Zawadi is

How old was Imam Ishaq when he heard what he is said to have narrated from Imam Ibn al-Mubarak, and how meticulous was he in what he heard?!

Let us try to provide an answer from someone that is an acknowledged Hafiz of
hadith, namely, Allama Shamsud-Din al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH), followed up by his Ash’arite pupil, Allama Tajud-Din al-Subki (d. 771 AH).

Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi mentioned a short biography of Imam Ishaq ibn Rahawayh in
his Ta’rikh al-Islam (4/276) as follows:

The crucial bit from the above note on Ibn Rahawayh are the last two lines which
mentioned that he was born in 161 AH, and then al-Dhahabi said:

“.., but then he abandoned relating from him because he wasn't proficient in taking from him, as is obligatory.”

The word – dictionaries. In the famous dictionary known as Mukhtar al-Sihah (p. 35) by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Razi (d. 666 AH), it mentioned it as follows:

This means that Ishaq did not hear specifically in the year 170 AH but in a time frame that is anything between 173 to 179 AH. Exactly how much time he spent with ibn al-Mubarak is not precisely specifiable from the words of al-Dhahabi, but it indicates that Ishaq ibn Rahawayh was aged possibly between 12 to 18 when he heard from ibn al-Mubarak. 
The narration from a person at that age is acceptable if he was precise in transmitting what he received, but in this specific instance, al- Dhahabi has clarified in a crystal clear manner that Ishaq himself abandoned narrating what he heard from Ibn al-Mubarak, as he was not proficient (mutqin) in what he was actually receiving from Ibn al-Mubarak at a youthful age in the early part of his career as a Muhaddith.

In the renowned Lane’s Lexicon (1/214) the word  several meanings from classical dictionaries as can be viewed below: on page 6 and 7 Here

Going by the indication in the Mukhtar al-Sihah that way of translating al-Dhahabi’s words would be as follows:

"And he heard from Abdullah bin Al-Mubarak in one of the years between 173 to 179, but then he abandoned relating from him because he was not proficient in taking from him, as is obligatory. He departed in Kalb al-'Ilm in the year (1)84 AH."

Additionally, al-Dhahabi’s Ash’arite pupil, Tajud-Din al-Subki has said very much the same in his notice on Ishaq ibn Rahawayh in his famous work on Shafi’i scholars till his age, known as, Tabaqat al-Shafiyya al-Kubra, as can be seen in the following link: Here

Quote from the opening lines of the last link:


The narration is not verified to be Sahih as it can not be established to be accurately preserved, especially when Imam Ishaq ibn Rahawayh himself  abandoned narrating from Imam Ibn al-Mubarak, due to not being proficient at  narrating something that he heard in his youth. Such a narration is Ghayr  Mahfuz.
Indeed, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh would transmit narrations more accurately from the students of Ibn al-Mubarak as can be seen from the Muqaddima to Sahih Muslim:


Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Hanzali narrated to us saying - I heard some of the companions of Abdullah (ibn al-Mubarak) say – Ibn al-Mubarak said, “What an excellent man is Baqiyya (ibn al Walid). If only he did not use the Kunya (agnomen) in place of their name, and the name in place of the nickname. In the past he narrated to us from Abu Sa’eed al-Wuhazi, and when we looked into this it was (referring to) Abdul Quddus.”

Even if the report from Imam Ibn al-Mubarak was sound then one may remind the
bona fide Salafi to take heed of the following words of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH) as recorded by the Hanbali Imam, Abdar Rahman Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) in his Kitab Akhbar al-Sifat (p. 137, Swartz edn, and the latter said it is also  recorded in Tabaqat al-Hanabila by Ibn Abi Ya’la, 1, 329, 5-7):

“Ahmed was once asked a question (regarding a point of law), and in response composed a legal brief (fatwa). Someone pointed out to him that the views which he had set forth (in his fatwa) did not accord with those of ibn al-Mubarak, to which he responded, The views of ibn al-Mubarak did not come down from heaven.’”

Ibn al-Jawzi has also said in the Akhbar al-Sifat (p. 203):
“It is astonishing that anyone should attempt to base the divine attributes on statements derived from the Followers (tabi’in); [furthermore, this saying] may not actually reflect their views though it may meet the criteria of sound transmission, for they may merely have been passing on what they had derived from the Ahl al-Kitab, as in the case of Wahb b. Munabbih.”

As for what he claimed regarding GF Haddad and the quote on p. 213 of his work
known as “ The Refutation of Him [Ibn Taymiyya] who attributes direction to Allah,” then what is noticeable is that these words do not appear to be his in full.

The corroboration for this claim can be found by looking at the following link which mentioned the quote from al-Darimi regarding the minaret etc:

The bottom of the last link stated that the quote from al-Darimi emanated from
the following source:

“Reproduced with permission from Shaykh M. Hisham Kabbani's The Repudiation of "Salafi" Innovations (Kazi, 1996) p. 86-89.”

Thus, it may be that GF Haddad merely relied on one of his Shuyukh known as Hisham Kabbani, when writing the footnote (no. 371) of his above named book, without going back and checking the actual source work by al-DarimiOne thing that was mentioned in the last link that the likes of Bassam Zawadi need to consider are other evidences that are associated to this matter when discussing the views of al-Darimi:

"According to the author the tall man is closer to Allah than the short one, and so is the one who flies a plane in comparison to those on the ground. The nearest to Him would then be the astronauts. 

However, this is contrary to the teaching of our religion, whereby Allah's servant is closest to Him when in prostrationand prostration is abasement not elevation. 

Allah explicitly equated prostration with proximity to Him when He ordered:
 "Prostrate and draw near" (96:19).

 And the Prophet revealed that no Muslim uses the Prophet Yunus' prayer:
la ilaha illa anta subhanaka inni kuntu min al-zalimin (21:87) except it is answered, yet Yunus spoke it in the belly of the whale, deep under the sea. 4

Furthermore, Wahhabi Bassam should hold off gloating and conceitedness in public with such absurd superciliousness until he rectifies with clarity the following point that emanated from this pen in the following link nearly three years back: Here

The pdf article in the last link mentioned the following on p. 2-3:

“One of ^Harris’s ilk posting under the name  Bassam Zawadi mentioned the narration from  Mujahid (ra) on the following link: Here

Al Waleed - Muhammad bin Amaar - Yahya -Shibil - Ibn Abi Najeeh - Mujahid said in regards to Allah's statement wa qarabnaahu najeeya (19:52): Between the fourth heaven (or he said) seventh heaven, and between the Throne there are 70,000 veils. These are veils of light and veils of darkness. Musa kept getting closer until there was between him (i.e. Musa) and Him (i.e. Allah) a single veil. 
So when he saw His (i.e. Allah) place and heard the chirping of the Pen [He said My Lord allow me to look at you].

The wording “fourth heaven” is found only in Tafsir al-Tabari as will be mentioned below and not in al-Azama of Abu al-Shaykh or later by al-Bayhaqi in his al-Asma wal Sifat. The translator of the Arabic wording also failed to mention that the above version stating:

“Between the fourth heaven (or he said) seventh heaven.” - Is found only in Tafsir al-Tabari without stating “He saw His place.”!

Besides this point the Arabic quote that Bassam provided doesn't mention anything about the Fourth Heaven but Seventh heaven alone (as highlighted above). Thus, it seems that either Bassam or someone he may have taken it from has mixed up part of al-Tabari’s wording with what is found in al-Azama of Abu al-Shaykh! If they did this by mistake one wonders why the person didn’t mention that al-Tabari’s version has no mention of the key word, “Makan”?!

 Will the likes of ^Harris accuse the likes of Bassam of tampering with the wording of the above narration or will they flatter themselves with excuses?”

As for Bassam Zawadi’s facetious proclamation:

Oh Asharis and Maturidis Bid ibn Al-Mubarak Farewell:
It really hurts deep down inside to see such a pillar of the Hanafi madhab utter such "blasphemous" and "anthropomorphic" words, doesn't it? It kills you deep down inside, right? With what has been demonstrated in this post and demonstrated over here and here as well, you could kiss ibn Al-Mubarak good bye, since he is one radical "Wahhabi Hanafi"!

The two links he gave in the last paragraph mentioned the following two
narrations from Ibn al-Mubarak:

Ali ibn al-Hasan said: 'I asked `Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, "How (kayf) do we know our Lord?"
He replied, "Above (fi) the seventh heaven on His Throne. We do not say what the Jahmis say:
He is here on earth" This was said to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal who then said "This is what we say as well".

And –

sh. Ibn Taimiayyah rahimahu Allah quoted:
ﻖﯿﻘﺷ ﻦﺑ ﻦﺴﺤﻟا ﻦﺑ ﻲﻠﻋ لﺎﻗو :ﺪﺒﻌﻟ ﺖﻠﻗ ﻦﺑ ﷲا لﺎﻗ ؟ﺎﻨﺑر فﺮﻌﻧ اذﺎﻤﺑ كرﺎﺒﻤﻟا :ﮫﻘﻠﺧ ﻦﻣ ﻦﺋﺎﺑ ﮫﺷﺮﻋ ﻰﻠﻋ ﮫﺗاﻮﻤﺳ قﻮﻓ ﮫﻧﺄﺑ .ﺖﻠﻗ لﺎﻗ ؟ﺪﺤﺑ : ﮫﻤﻠﻌﯾ ﺪﺤﺑ
ﻮھو ،ﮫﺟو ﺮﯿﻏ ﻦﻣ ﮫﻨﻋ ﺖﺑﺎﺛ كرﺎﺒﻤﻟا ﻦﺑا ﻦﻋ رﻮﮭﺸﻣ اﺬھو ،هﺮﯿﻏ ﺔﻤﺋﻷا ﻦﻣ ﺪﺣاو ﺮﯿﻏو ﮫﯾﻮھار ﻦﺑ قﺎﺤﺳإو ﻞﺒﻨﺣ ﻦﺑ ﺪﻤﺣأ ﻦﻋ ﺖﺑﺎﺛ ﺢﯿﺤﺻ ﺮﻈﻧ.
rough translation:
And Ali bin al Hasan bin Shaqiq said: I said to Abdullah bin al Mubarak how do we know our Lord? he said: That he is above the heavens upon His throne, separate from His creation. I said: with a limit? He said: with a limit that no one knows but Him.
And this is famous from Ibn Mubarak.... and it is ... correct confirmed from Ahmad bin Hanbal , Is-haq bin Rahwaih and other Imams.

In the first link, Bassam, bragged by stating:
“The Asharis are clearly bothered by this narration. GF Haddad said in his new book "The Refutation of him (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) who attributes direction to Allah":

Quote: "Al-Kawthari pointed out that nowhere in the Qur'an and Sunna are the terms "in the seventh heaven" applied to Allah Most High nor the term "on His Throne" other than exactly as the verse of istiwa' said and that that report from Ibn al-Mubarak is therefore munkar regardless of its chain."

Ha! Notice that they disregard this narration simply because they dont' agree with its meaning. Surely if they were able to attack the chain, they would have, but they couldn't.”


What is bizarre and astounding is how Bassam mentioned GF Haddad’s published
work ‘The Refutation of Him [Ibn Taymiyya] who attributes direction to Allah’

but  failed to quote the full reference and content of the actual footnote!!

Indeed, what GF Haddad quoted from al-Kawthari is found on p. 245, footnote no.

What Bassam failed to tell his readers is what was quoted before the verdict
of al-Kawthari! Namely, the clarification of the Ash’arite Hadith Master, Imam al-
Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH), regarding these narrations at hand!

Indeed, what was quoted by GF Haddad in the named footnote is identical to what he mentioned back in 2003, as can be seen in the following link which addressed the likes of Bassam from a retrospective angle:

Imam al-Bayhaqi said in al-Asma' wal-Sifat (Kawthari ed. p. 426-427; Hashidi ed.  2:334-336):
As for the report to which cling those who believe that Allah Most High has a direction, whereby `Ali ibn al-Hasan said: 'I asked `Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, "How (kayf) do we know our Lord?" He replied, "In the seventh heaven on His Throne." I said, "The Jahmiyya also say He is such." He said, "We do not mean it like the Jahmiyya. We mean He Himself (huwa huwa)." I said, "With a limit (bi-hadd)??" He said, "Yes, by Allah, with a limit!"' [Narrated mostly in anthropomorphist works: `Abd Allah ibn Ahmad's al-Sunna, `Uthman ibn Sa`id al-Darimi's al-Radd `ala al- Marisi and al-Radd `ala al-Jahmiyya, al-Dhahabi's al-`Uluw, and Ibn Taymiyya's Hamawiyya.] - `Abd Allah only meant by 'limit' the limit dictated by transmission (hadd al-sam`), namely, that the truthful report stated that {He established Himself on the Throne} (20:5), so He is on the Throne as He related. By saying this, he meant to belie the Jahmiyya who claimed that He is in every place. His other report confirms this, and Allah knows best.

From `Ali ibn al-Hasan ibn Shaqiq: 'I heard `Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak say, "We know our Lord to be above (fawq) seven heavens, [He established Himself over His Throne], distinct (ba'in) from His creation, and we do not say as the Jahmiyya said, that He is right here' - and he pointed to the ground (hahuna fil-ard)."' By the term 'distinct' he means, as he explained directly afterwards, to negate the claim [of intermixing (imtizaj)] of the Jahmiyya, NOT to suggest direction on the opposite side. He means what the Law said in absolute terms, and Allah knows best.
Al-Kawthari pointed out that nowhere in the Qur'an and Sunna are the terms "in the seventh heaven" applied to Allah Most High nor the term "on His Throne" other than exactly as the verse of istiwa' said and that that report from Ibn al-Mubarak is therefore munkar regardless of its chain.”

Thus, the answer to what Bassam brought forth from Imam ibn al-Mubarak has been provided by Imam al-Bayhaqi, and the reader may ponder over why Bassam deliberately left out mentioning these points when he surely saw it in the work he mentioned above when quoting just the verdict of al-Kawthari alone! Indeed, justice and fairness is rare. Wallahu a’lam.

Peace and blessings be upon our Master Muhammad صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم


Abul Hasan, London, UK
27th Dhul Hijja 1433 AH/12-11-12

(Edited by ADHM)


The closest that a servant is to his Lord is when he is in prostration.


" Allah (ta’ala) has not revealed to anyone closer to Him than Yunus in the belly of the whale in the darkness of the ocean"

From Imam al-Qurtubi's tafsir:

قال ابن العربي: أخبرني غير واحد من أصحابنا عن إمام الحرمين أبي المعالي عبد الملك بن عبد الله بن يوسف الجويني: أنه سئل عن الباري في جهة? فقال: لا، هو يتعالى عن ذلك. قيل له: ما الدليل عليه? قال: الدليل عليه قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: لا تفضلوني على يونس بن متى فقيل له: ما وجه الدليل في هذا الخبر? فقال: لا أقوله حتى يأخذ ضيفي هذا ألف دينار يقضي بها دينا. فقام رجلان فقالا: هي علينا. فقال لا يتبع بها اثنين؛ لأنه يشق عليه. فقال واحد: هي علي. فقال: إن يونس بن متى رمى بنفسه في البحر فالتقمه الحوت، فصار في قعر البحر في ظلمات ثلاث، ونادى "لا إله إلا أنت سبحانك إني كنت من الظالمين" [الأنبياء: 87] كما أخبر الله عنه، ولم يكن محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم حين جلس على الرفرف الأخضر وارتقى به صعدا، حتى انتهى به إلى موضع يسمع فيه صريف الأقلام، وناجاه ربه بما ناجاه به، وأوحى إليه ما أوحى بأقرب إلى الله تعالى من يونس في بطن الحوت في ظلمة البحر

Translation [Ibn Ahmad]:

Ibn Al-‘Arabi said: I have been informed by more than one of our colleagues about the incident pertaining to the Imam of the two Holy Mosques, Abi Al-Ma’ala ‘Abd Allah bin Yusuf Al-Juwayni, when he was asked about The Creator being in a direction. He said, No! He transcends that. It was then said to him: What is the proof for this? He said: The proof for this is the saying of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم): “Do not give preference to me over Yunus Bin Mata (عليه السلام).” Then it was said to him: What is the level of proof in this report? He said: I will not disclose it until my guest takes the following: 1000 dinars in order to repay outstanding loans. Two men then stood up and said: we will take up this task. He said: this task should not be undertaken by two, because they will split the financial obligation. Then an individual (amongst them) said: Then I will (personally) take up the task.

Thereafter, the Imam proceeded to narrate the hadith and he said: Yunus bin Mata flung himself into the ocean and the whale swallowed him up, and he was thereafter surrounded by three layers of darkness at the very bottom of the ocean. He cried out: “There is no god except You, be You glorified. No doubt I have been amongst the transgressors.” (Al-Ambiya, 87). This is as Allah (ta’ala) has reported it in the Qur’an. And Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was not present when (Yunus) sat in the green meadows and ascended high above them until he reached a place where he heard the squeaking of pens, and his Lord entrusted him with that which the lord entrusts. He thereafter sent revelation unto him (and) Allah (ta’ala) has not revealed to anyone closer to Him than Yunus in the belly of the whale in the darkness of the ocean.


What is an acceptable interpretation of the statement of Abdullah Ibn al-Mubarak related by Uthman al-Darimi in his refutation of al-Marisi:
روى إسحاق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي عن ابن المبارك أنه قال رأس المنارة أقرب إلى الله من أسفله
Ishaq bin Ibraheem Al-Handhali narrated that Ibn Al-Mubarak said: The top of the minaret is closer to Allah than it’s bottom.

Ishaq b. Rahuyah and Ibn al-Mubarak were great Imams and they both knew very well that the Prophet (upon him blessings and peace) said the closest the servant is to his Lord is in sujud (Bukhari and Muslim). 

Therefore, either this statement was never said or it is interpreted figuratively, e.g. minara to mean the human body and the top meaning the mind. 
Furthermore, it is known that ‘Uthman al-Darimi’s book is problematic and, finally, as 
Imam Ahmad said:

 “Ibn al-Mubarak did not descend from heaven.”


More info Here:





Wednesday, 28 November 2012



We often come across Ghayr Muqalideen/Wahabis saying that:

Imam ash-Shafi'i (rah) and other Imams said that when hadith is proven Sahih then that is my Madhab or When you find a Sahih hadith opposing my opinion then take the hadith and throw away my Qawl etc...

From such quotes of great scholars the
Ghayr Muqalideen/Wahabis/Salafis try to misguide innocent Muslims that this wording applies on all people whether layman i.e. even if a nincompoop like Wahabi sees some sahih hadith and starts acting "ON DHAHIR (APPARENT)" meaning of it then It is fine to reject the Qawl of Imam.

This is the biggest daleel rather Dajl which Wahabis use in order to fool innocent people.

Now here is Mawt-e-Wahabi Ba Zubaan-e-Nawawi (rah)

Explaining this quote from
Imam ash-Shafi'i (rah) Imam al-Nawawi (rah) said:
ما نقل عن الشافعي فيه قول على وفق الحديث: * وهذا الذى قاله الشافعي ليس معناه ان كل أحد رأى حديثا صحيحا قال هذا مذهب الشافعي وعمل بظاهره: وانما هذا فيمن له رتبة الاجتهاد في المذهب
Translation: That which is narrated by
Imam al-Shafi'i (rah) that: My opinion is that which corresponds to Hadith. (Imama al-Nawawi said): This which Imam al-Shafi'i (rah) said does not mean that whosoever sees some sahih hadith then starts saying that it is Madhab of Imam al-Shafi'i (rah) and thus starts following the "DHAHIR OF IT". However the reality is that this saying is about that person who has reached the stage of doing "IJTIHAD IN MADHAB"
[Majmua Sharh al Madhahib (1/64)]

So Shame on
Wahabiyyah who misuse the Aqwaal of great scholars in order to misguide people.

Although I have many more proofs but I want to keep it short and sweet so that many people can benefit from this small post.
Imam an-Nawawi (rah) regarding Imam ash-Shafi'i (rah) and other giants saying that “When you find a Sahih hadith then that is my madhab or when you see a Sahih hadith against my statement then throw away my statement”

Imam Nawawi (rah) said: “What Imam al-Shafi’i said: My Madhab is that which conforms to the hadith, this does not mean that everyone who sees a Sahih hadith should say “This is the madhhab of al-Shafiʿi, applying the purely apparent meaning of his statement. 

What he said most certainly applies only to such a person who has the rank of Ijtihad in the madhhab.
It is a condition for such a person that he be firmly convinced that either Imam Al-Shafiʿi was unaware of this hadith or he was unaware of its authenticity.

And this is possible only after having researched all the books of al-Shafiʿi and other similar books of the companions of al-Shafiʿi, those who took knowledge from him and others similar to them.
This is indeed a difficult condition to fulfill.

Few are those who measure up to this standard in our times [that is al-Nawawi’s times, a fortiori ours; amongst those who lived in Al-Nawawi’s century were al-Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, ibn al-Salah, al-Mundhiri, ibn ʿAbdus-Salam, Al-Qurtubi, ibn al-Qattan, al-iyaʼ al-Maqdisi, ibn Qudamah, and ibn Daqiq al-ʿId!].

What we have explained has been made conditional because Imam Al-Shafiʿi had abandoned acting purely on the external meaning of many proofs for criticism of the adith or its abrogation or specific circumstances or interpretation and so forth.
Shaykh Abu ʿAmr [ibn al-Șalah] said, It is no trivial matter to act according to the literal meaning of what Imam al-Shafiʿi said. For it is impermissible for every faqih let alone an ordinary person (ʿammi) to act independently with what he takes to be a proof from the hadith...Therefore, any Shafiʿi that finds a hadith that contradicts his school must examine whether he is absolutely accomplished in all the disciplines of ijtihad, or in that particular topic, or specific question. [If he is] then he has the right to apply it independently 
[Imam Muhayuddin Abi Zakriyah Yahya bin Sharaf an-Nawawi ash-Shafi’i in his great book, Al-Majmuʿ Shar Al-Muhadhab (1/64, Dar al Fikr, Beirut, Lebanon)]



Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH) said: 
“The difference found in the four Schools of Islamic law (Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki and Hanbali) in this nation is a huge blessing and an enormous virtue. It has a subtle hidden wisdom the intelligent are able to grasp, but the ignorant are blind of. I have even heard some of them say: ‘The Prophet (s) came with one law, so where did the four Madhabs come from?” (Jazeel al-Mawahib, p.4)

Imam al-Haramayn Abu al-Ma‘āli Abd al-Malik bin Yusuf al-Juwayni mous (419-478 AH) writes in his book Al-Burhan:“The expert scholars have agreed that the masses are obligated (‘alayhim) with following the schools of the (four) Imams who thoroughly investigated and researched, who compiled the chapters (of Fiqh) and mentioned the circumstances of the rulings.” (vol. 2, P. 1146)

Shaikh al-Islam Ahmad Ibn Hajr al-Haytami writes in Tuhfa al-Muhtaj fi Sharh al- Minhaj:“The claim the layman has no madh-hab is rejected, rather it is necessary (yalzamuhu) for him to do taqlīd of a recognised school. (As for the claim: scholars did not obligate following one school), that was before the codification of the schools and their establishment.” (Vol.12 p.491-Kitab al-Zakah)

Imam al-Nawawi writes in Al-Majmu‘ Sharh Al-Muhadhdhab:“The second view is it is obligatory (yalzamuhu) for him to follow one particular school, and that was the definitive position according to Imam Abul-Hassan (the father of Imam al-Haramayn Al-Juwayni). And this applies to everyone who has not reached the rank of ijtihād of the jurists and scholars of other disciplines. The reasoning for this ruling is that if it was permitted to follow any school one wished it would lead to hand-picking the dispensations of the schools, following one’s desires. He would be choosing between Halal and Haram, and obligatory and permissible. Ultimately that would lead to relinquishing oneself from the burden of responsibility. This is not the same as during the first generations, for the schools that were sufficient in terms of their rulings for newer issues, were neither codified nor widespread. Thus on this basis it is obligatory for a person to strive in choosing a madh-hab which alone he follows.” (vol.1 p. 93)

 Shaikh Salih al-Sunusi writes in Fath al-‘Alee al-Malik fil-Fatwa ‘ala madh-hab al-Imam Malik:“As for the scholar who has not reached the level of ijtihād and the non-scholar, they must do taqlīd of the Mujtahid… And the most correct view is that it is obligatory (wajib) to adhere to a particular school from the four schools…” (p.40-41, in Usul al-Fiqh)

Imam Sharani, an undisputed authority in the Shafi school writes in Al-Mizan al-Kubra:“…You (O student) have no excuse left for not doing taqlīd of any madh-hab you wish from the schools of the four Imams, for they are all paths to Heaven…” (p.55 vol.1)

Imām Shams al-Din Dhahabī (673-748 AH) writes in Siyar A‘lam al-Nubalā under Ibn Hazm Zāhirī’s comment:“I follow the truth and perform ijtihād, and I do not adhere to any madh-hab”, “I say: yes. Whoever has reached the level of ijtihād and a number of imāms have attested to this regarding him, it is not allowed for him to do taqlīd, just as it is not seeming at all for the beginner layman jurist who has committed the Qur’ān to memory or a great deal of it to perform ijtihād. How is he going to perform ijtihād? What will he say? On what will he base his opinions? How can he fly when his wings have not yet grown?” (Vol.18, Pg.191)

 In the famous twelve volume Maliki compendium of fatāwā, Al-Mi‘yar al-Mu‘rib an fatāwā ahl al-Ifriqiyya wa al-Andalus wa al-Maghrib, Imam Ahmad al-Wanshirisi records the Fatwa on taqlīd: “It is not permitted (lā yajoozu) for the follower of a scholar to choose the most pleasing to him of the schools and one that agrees the most with him. It is his duty to do taqlīd of the Imam whose school he believes to be right in comparison to the other schools.” (vol.11 p.163-164)

 The Hanbali scholar Imam ‘Ala al-Din al-Mardawi in his major Juristic compendium Al-Insaf, cites the statement of the famous scholar Imam Al-Wazir ibn Hubaira (died 560 ah):“Consensus has been established upon taqlīd of every one of the Four Schools and that the truth does not lie outside of them.”(Vol.11 p.169, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah).

Imam Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi states in Al-Bahr al-Muhit,“There has been established a consensus amongst the Muslims that the truth is restricted to these (four) schools. This being the case it is not permitted to act upon an opinion from other than them. Nor is it permitted for ijtihād to occur except within them (i.e. employing their principles that is the tools of interpretation).” (vol.6 p.209)

In the commentary of the Shafi text Jam‘ al-Jawami‘, Imam Al-Jalāl Shams al-Din al-Mahalli writes:“And the soundest position (wal-Asahh) is that it is obligatory (yajibu) for the non-scholar/layman and other than him of those (scholars) who have not reached the rank of ijtihād, adherence of one particular school from the madh-habs of the Mujtahid Imams (iltizam madh-hab Muayyan min madāhib al-Mujtahideen) that he believes to be preferable to another school or equal to it.” (Kitab al-ijtihād, p.93)

Imam Rajab al-Hanbali writes in his book: “Refutation of anyone who follows other than the four schools” [A title that emphatically exposes the deception of the Salafi claim that it is they who represent true Islam]:“…that is the Mujtahid, assuming his existence, his duty (Farduhu) is to follow what becomes apparent to him of the Truth. As for the non-Mujtahid his duty is taqlīd.” Elsewhere having indicated in the latter the rarity of the lofty status of ijtihād, he states: “As for all other people who have not reached this level (of ijtihād), it is not allowed (lā yasau‘hu) for them but to do taqlīd of these Four Imams and to submit to that which the rest of the Ummah submitted to.” (Majmoo‘ al-Rasail Ibn Rajab, vol.2 p. 626 and p.624 respectively).

In the famous commentary of the treatise of Imam Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani Al-Risalah, entitled “Al-Fawākih al-Dawāni,” Imam Ahmad al-Nafrawi (died 1126 ah) also confirms the Ijma of all the scholars that following one Imam is obligatory: “The consensus of the Muslims has been established upon the obligation (Wujub) of following one of the four Imams today; Abu anīfa, Malik, Shafi and Ahmad- May Allah be pleased with them… What we explained before, in terms of the obligation of following one of the four Imams, is in relation to those who do not possess the capability of performing ijtihād.” (vol.2 p.574, Bab Fi al-Ruyah wa al-Tathāub, 1997).


Is the Authenticity of a Hadīth Sufficient to Practice upon it?

By Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwamah

The advocates of this notion present their case as follows:

Allah has made it incumbent upon us to follow his beloved Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), so when a Hadīth has been authentically transmitted from him, it is necessary for us to practice on that Hadīth.
It does not behoove a Muslim to hesitate in practicing on an authentic Hadīth that reaches him. [1] 
Allah did not command anyone to follow any other human being, however knowledgeable he may be, as long as he is prone error.

In essence, this objection comprises of two parts:

Authenticity of the Hadīth is sufficient to practice upon it
We are commanded to follow the Messenger of Allah; Allah never commanded us to follow so and so

The answer to the first part of this objection is similar to that given in the previous chapter regarding the statement, When a Hadīth is authentic, it is my opinion.”
In brief, when we say that the authenticity of a Hadīth is sufficient for practice, it refers to when the Hadīth is suitable for practice, which requires both the text [Matn] and chain [Sanad] of the Hadīth to fulfil a number of conditions, among which are conditions pertaining to the science of Hadīth and juristic theory.

It is not sufficient to analyze the narrators in the chain by simply referring to Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb as some would wish. This is only the task of expert authorities of Hadīth, its related sciences, fundamentals and peripherals.

This distorted notion will lead to the destruction of the Sunnah, which they apparently want to assist, before the destruction of jurisprudence, not to mention the deviance it will cause.

[Consider this objection in light of the following statements of the great scholars of Hadīth:]

Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī mentions, “I hear Ahādīth, after which I examine what is suitable for practice and I practice on it, and I leave the remainder.”[2]
Ibn Abī Laylā mentions, “A person will never attain expertise in Hadīth until he takes [what is suitable] and leaves [what is not suitable] from the Hadīth corpus.”[3]
Abd Allah ibn Wahb mentions, “If it were not for [Imām] Mālik and al-Layth I would have been destroyed, as I used to think that everything transmitted from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) should be practiced upon.”[4]
Ibn ‘Uqda told a questioner, “Minimize your take of these Ahādīth, as they are not suitable except for those who understand their interpretation. Yahyā ibn Sulaymān reports from Ibn Wahb that he said, ‘I heard Mālik say, ‘Many of these Ahādīth can be a means of deviance. I have mentioned many Ahādīth that I wish I would be lashed twice instead of saying them.”[5]
Shaykh Ismā‘īl al-Ansārī [d. 1417 AH] explains, “This is in relation to those who misinterpret them.” Otherwise, guidance lies in the Sunnah of the Prophet. Allāh mentions, “follow him that you may be guided.”[6] 

However, when a person places something in the wrong place he deviates. It was for this reason that in many verses, Allāh labelled the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) as “wisdom” and wisdom is to place something in its appropriate place.

We learn from these statements that studying Hadīth under the jurists is a means of salvation from destruction, but unfortunately, this reality escapes the minds of the negligent.

Imām al-Tirmidhī after mentioning the Hadīth of Umm ‘Atiyyah that describes the washing of Zaynab, the daughter of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), presents a lengthy analysis and concludes with the following, “In a similar manner have the jurists opined, and they are more knowledgeable regarding the meaning of the Ahādīth.”[7]

In his book, al-Faqīh wa ‘l-Mutafaqqih, al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī [d. 463 AH] writes:

It should be understood that an abundance of writing and narrating Ahādīth will not make a person a jurist; he will only attain deep understanding by deducing its meaning and pondering over it.

Thereafter, he mentions the advice of Imām Mālik:
If you wish to benefit from Hadīth and that Allah uses you to benefit others, then minimize your take of Ahādīth and attain deep understanding.[8]

Once al-Mughīra al-Dhabbī was late in attending the gathering of Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī, so Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī asked him, “O Mughīra, why have you delayed?” He replied, “A shaykh- Hadīth narrator- came to us, so we wrote Ahādīth from him” Ibrahīm said, “I remember that we would never take Ahādīth except from he who can distinguish the Halāl mentioned therein from the Harām and vice versa. Undoubtedly, you will find a shaykh narrating Hadīth, but he will switch its Halāl for its Harām, and vice versa, without even realizing.” [9]

These are some statements concerning the importance of referring to the jurists when examining the Sunnah. We also learn that the matter is not as some claim, i.e. the authenticity of the Hadīth is a sufficient reason for necessitating practice.

There is another issue relating to this claim, and it is necessary to clarify its fallaciousness. 
Studying the lives of our predecessors from the Sahābah and those after them, we learn that they would not suffice on the transmission of the Hadīth to practice and apply it; rather, they would first examine if it were suitable for practice.

In this regard, al-Qādhī ‘Iyādh [d. 544 AH] writes:
Chapter on what has been transmitted from the predecessors and scholars pertaining to the necessity of referring to the practice of the people of Madīnah, and that it is an accepted form of evidence according to them even though it conflicts with the majority.

It has been related that ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) stood on the pulpit and said, “I warn by Allāh the person who narrates a Hadīth when practice is contrary to it.
Ibn al-Qāsim and Ibn Wahb said, “I have noticed that according to Imām Mālik the status of practice is higher than that of Hadīth.”

Imām Mālik said, “There were scholars from the Tābi‘ūn who would narrate Ahādīth, and when they were informed [of conflicting evidence] from others, they would say, “We are not oblivious to this; however, practice has been established contrary to it.”

Imām Mālik says, “I saw Muhammad ibn Abī Bakr ibn ‘Amr ibn Hazm when he was a judge, and his brother, ‘Abd Allah, knew many Ahādīth and he was a truthful person. When Muhammad would pass a ruling on a matter wherein the Hadīth is contrary to it, I would hear ‘Abd Allah scold him and say, “Is there not so and so Hadīth in this matter?” Muhammad would say, “Obviously.” ‘Abd Allah would say, “Then why do you not judge accordingly?” Muhammad would reply, “So where are the people in relation to it i.e. the consensus of the scholars of Madīnah?” He was alluding to the fact that the status of practice is higher than that of Hadīth.

Ibn Mu‘adhdhal said, “I heard a person ask Ibn Mājishūn, ‘Why do you narrate Ahādīth, after which you do not practice on it” He replied, “To show that we do not practice on it deliberately.”

Ibn Abī Zinād said, “’Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz would gather the jurists and ask them regarding the Sunnahs and rulings that are practiced on, and would establish them. He would also ask regarding what the people do not practice on, and would omit it even though it was transmitted via a reliable narrator.[10]

Taqī al-Din ibn Taymiyyah [d. 728 AH] writes, “Whichever Sunnah or Athar Imām Ahmad narrates and authenticates, terms Hasan, approves of its Sanad or records in one of his books and did not reject it and did not pass a ruling contrary it, then that is his madhhab. It is also opined that it is not.” [11]

It is important to highlight the words, “…did not refute nor did he pass a ruling contrary it” as this is explicit in that Imām Ahmad, as is the case with the other Imāms, will sometimes prefer a Hadīth that is not authentic over an authentic Hadīth, due to other factors that become apparent to him. We also learn that the authenticity of the Hadīth itself does not necessitate practice upon it.

The salient quality of a scholar is that he partakes of both fields: Hadīth and Fiqh. He should not override one above the other in his academic quest.

In this respect, Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī mentions, “Legal theory [al-Ra’y] is incomplete without Hadīth [al-Riwāya], and Hadīth is incomplete without legal theory.”[12]

Imām al-Khattābī [d. 388 AH] says:
In our time, I have seen the scholars divide into two groups: the partisans of Hadīth and Athar, and the partisans of Fiqh and legal theory. Each group is equal to its counterpart in regards to their need; they are dependent on one another in the acquisition of what they seek. This is because the status of Hadīth is that of the foundation, which is the base, and the status of Fiqh is that of a building, which serves as a branch for it; every building that lacks a solid foundation will inevitably collapse, and every foundation that is void of a building is deserted.[13]

Imām Ahmad [d. 241 AH] mentions:
If a person possesses books on the statements of the Messenger of Allah and the differences of the Sahābah and Tābī‘īn, he is not allowed to practice and pass rulings on whatever he wishes until he inquiries from the scholars which of those narrations are practiced upon, so that his practice may be correct.[14]

It is important to note the words, “…until he enquires from the scholars which of those narrations are practiced upon” as there is an indication therein that perhaps a person may consider a Hadīth authentic and pass a ruling based on its authenticity, and that the authenticity of the Hadīth is a sufficient reason for practice.

However, Imām Ahmad cautions that this sort of hastiness and haphazard method of passing verdicts is impermissible and that it is necessary to ask the people of knowledge, who are the people of Fiqh and understanding, “Should we practice on this particular Hadīth” and they will inform if the Hadīth is suitable for practice.

In the entry of Ibn Hazam in Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, under his statement, “I will follow the truth and exercise ijtihād, and I will not restrict myself to any madhhab

Hāfiż al-Dhahabī writes:
Yes, the one who has reached the rank of ijtihād and a group of Imāms testify to that is not allowed to make taqlīd.
Likewise, a novice and general jurist who memorizes the Qur’ān or a great portion of it cannot exercise ijtihād at all.
How is he supposed to exercise ijtihād?
What will he say?
What will be the premise of his conclusions? How will he fly when is yet to grow wings?
The third category is the accomplished, alert, insightful, traditionist jurist, who has memorized a mukhtasar on the peripheral laws and a book on the rules of juristic theory, and he has studied syntax and he has a share in the virtues, along with his memorization of the Book of Allah and his preoccupation with its commentary and his strong argumentation. This is the rank of the one who has reached restricted ijtihad and is capable of examining the evidences of the imams. Hence, whenever the truth is clear to him in an issue, and a source text is established therein, and one of the luminary Imams has acted upon it, like Abu Hanifah, for example, or Malik, al-Thawri, al-Awza’i, al-Shafi’i, Abu ‘Ubayd and Ishaq, he ought to follow the truth therein and not follow dispensations. He must be cautious. He does not have the option of taqlīd therein after the proof has been established for him…[15]

It is important to note the words, “…whenever the truth is clear to him in an issue, and a source text is established therein, and one of the luminary Imams has acted upon it” and his previous statement, “the one who practices upon an authentic narration which the luminary Imāms did not accept it, then no.”

Adhering to an opinion that no one has articulated is regarded as insanity in the sight of the intellects and scholars alike.

Imām Zufar [d. 158 AH] mentions: I do not debate someone until he admits, “I have erred.” Rather I debate him until he loses his sanity! It was asked, “How does he lose his sanity?” He replied, “He articulates an opinion no one has opined.” [16]

If you object:

What about the statement of Imām al-Subkī regarding the person who finds an authentic narration that no one has practiced upon, whether he is allowed to practice upon he Hadīth?

Imām al-Subkī states, “According to me, it is better that he follows the Hadīth, and he should assume that he is in front of the Prophet and he heard it directly from him. In such a situation, is it permissible for him to delay?
By the name of Allāh, never. Each person is responsible according to his understanding.[17]

Firstly, al-Subki clearly states that this is his personal opinion which means that other scholars differ with him in that it is necessary for an Imām to have practiced upon it, such al-Dhahabī whose statement just passed. This does not mean that the practice of the Imām is superior to the Hadīth without which the Hadīth cannot serve as evidence. Rather, it means that the practice of the Imām is proof that there is no consensus on not practicing upon that Hadīth, because if no one has practiced upon it, it shows that there is another Hadīth, which is preferred over this one. There are numerous statements from the Salaf, some of which has passed, that sometimes a Hadīth can be authentic but practice is not upon it.

Secondly, the words, “he should assume that he is in front of the Prophet and he heard it directly from him. In such a situation, is it permissible for him to delay?” are subtle and require deep understanding. This is regarding a person who heard only one Hadīth on the topic directly from the Messenger of Allāh (peace and blessings be upon him). However, in our situation, that is centuries later and with knowledge of two narrations on the topic, such as the narration of Zayd ibn ThābitMake wudū from what has touched the fire[18] and the narration of Ibn ‘Abbās,The Prophet partook of three morsels from meat and bread, after which he performed Salāt without renewing wudū” [19]

Each Sahābī has taken their respective narrations directly from the Prophet. Thus, it is not permissible for any of them to delay in their practice upon what they witnessed, just as al-Subkī mentioned.

However, those who came later and found both narrations will undoubtedly have to find factors that give preference to one narration above the other, such as the narration of Jābir, “the last action of the Prophet was to not make wudū from that which touched the fire.” [20]

Accordingly, the situation of the one who did not hear directly from the Prophet will differ from the situation of the one who “assumes he is in front in front of the Prophet and he heard it directly from him.”

 The one who will not practice upon one of the narrations will practice upon the other narration knowing that there are two narrations on the topic. As for the one who heard it directly, he will also practice upon one of the narrations but without knowledge of the other narration, due to which he will practice upon what he heard.

Thus, Ibn ‘Abbās witnessed the Messenger of Allāh (peace and blessings be upon him) partake three morsels of meat after which he performed Salāt without renewing his wudū.
When Abū Hurayrah narrated to him the Hadīth, “make wudū from what has touched the fire”,
Ibn ‘Abbās did not practice upon it, because of what he witnessed himself and giving preference over what he heard through an intermediary. It cannot be said to Ibn ‘Abbās, “assume that you are in front of the Prophet…” and it cannot be said, “How can you delay practicing upon what has reached you from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
This reminds us of another incident of Ibn ‘Abbās, which has a great lesson in the discussion at hand.

Imām Ahmad narrates:
‘Urwah ibn Zubayr told Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with them), “O Ibn ‘Abbās, you have led the people astray.” He asked, “O ‘Urayyah,[21] how is that?” He said, “You are giving the verdict that when the people make tawāf, they come out of ihram, whereas Abū Bakr and ‘Umar would make the talbiyah of Hajj and would remain in the state of ihram until the day of Nahr.”
Ibn ‘Abbās said, “Rather, you have gone astray by this. I tell you of the Hadīth of the Prophet and you are telling me about Abū Bakr and ‘Umar!” ‘Urwah said, “Undoubtedly, Abū Bakr and ‘Umar were more knowledgeable than you about the Prophet.” [22]

This is our answer to those who are calling for the abandonment of the jurisprudence of Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī, Ahmad, in lieu of the jurisprudence of the Sunnah and Qur’ān (Fiqh al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Kitāb) or whatever title it may have.

We will say that we are not happy with you as a substitute for them (i.e. the Imāms) as they were more knowledgeable about the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
Rather, it is incorrect to say “more knowledgeable” because there is no comparison between you and them in knowledge. Our zeal to adhere to the Sunnah has prompted us to practice according to their understanding of the blessed Sunnah.

Did Allah Commanded Us to Follow Anyone Besides His Messenger?

[As was mentioned above, this objection comprises of two parts.]

The second part of the objection is “We are commanded to follow the Messenger of Allah; Allah never commanded us to follow so and so.” We say to such a person that the implications of your statement is that the Imāms of Islām, who have impressed on the rigid adherence to the Sunnah and that leaving it academically or practically is crookedness, loss and deviation.

Moreover, the implications of your statement is that these Imāms were not upon guidance and the path of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) due to which you wish to follow the Prophet through a different path.

It seems as though you consider them as such, due to what you have heard from those who reject following the four madhhabs based on the verse of Qur’ān, “they have taken their priests and rabbis as gods besides Allāh.” 

Thereafter they mention the Hadīth of ‘Adī ibn Hātim wherein he told the Messenger of Allāh, “They do not worship them” and the Messenger of Allāh responded, “Why not? They made lawful for them the unlawful and made unlawful for them the lawful and the people followed them. That is their worship of them.”

Thus, they tell those who make taqlīd, “You have taken so and so as gods besides Allāh: they make lawful for you and unlawful!”
What a gross misinterpretation of the speech of Allāh. Undoubtedly, the Imāms of Islām attempted their utmost to establish the truth as they understood it from the Qur’ān and Sunnah. As for the priests and rabbis, they would interpolate the divine scriptures to secure their worldly objectives.

It is necessary to review the statements of the Imāms mentioned in the opening of the book, such as Imām Abū Hanīfah’s statement, “The abandonment of the Sunnah is deviance and acquiring knowledge without it is corruption.”

These Imāms adhered more strictly to the Sunnah than the minds of their supporters can fathom. They simply conveyed to the people the instructions and prohibitions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah), just as a mu’dhdhin repeats the Takbīrs of the Imām for the people in back rows during prayer.

If you ask:
I want to understand the rulings of my religion based on evidence and I fail to understand this particular ruling according to the view of Imām Abū Hanīf. However, I understand it according to the view of Imām al-Shāfi‘ī. Since, I am not content on practicing an action until I understand the evidence, is there leeway for me to practice on the Shāfi‘ī Madhhab?”

The answer is that the underlying cause of shifting from one madhhab to another is one of the following:
The tqalīd was due to certain circumstances that befell the muqallid. There is no problem with this.
One wishes to seek the concessions of the different madhhabs. This is impermissible.
Because of  research and ijtihād in a particular ruling: thus, it will be checked:
If the person in reference fulfils the relevant prerequisites for such a task i.e. giving preference between the evidences of the jurists, and is unprejudiced, then there is no objection with this. Rather, this is an object of pride for Islāmic jurisprudence and Muslim scholars. How can one object to this countless latter-day scholars, have done so, let alone early scholars, such as al-Nawawī, Ibn al-Salāh, al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salām et al. (may Allah have mercy on them all).
Even ‘Allāmah Zāhid al-Kawtharī, who despite being criticized as a fanatical adherent of the Hanafī madhhab, left the opinion of Imām Abū Hanīfah in an issue of Waqf, and chose the opinion of the majority because it was supported by authentic narrations and the practice of the Sahābah.

Similarly, in his voluminous work, I’lā’ al-Sunan, ‘Allāmah Zafar Ahmad al-‘Uthmānī has in many instances left the established view of the Hanafī madhhab, despite his strict adherence to the madhhab throughout his book.

However, if he lacks the necessary conditions and is bias in his research, as is the condition of these arrogant pseudo-scholars who violate the respect of the Salaf by claiming to ascribe to them, then this is deviation and disputation. This is what we disapprove of and give no scope for anyone to do, regardless of the labels and titles attached to his name.

We tell these deceived people that shifting from the Hanafī madhhab to the Shāfī‘ī madhhab in this issue will lead to shifting to the Mālikī madhhab, for example, in another issue, and to the Hanbalī madhhab in another issue, until he returns to Hanafī madhhab in a fourth issue or even opts for an opinion from an abandoned school of jurisprudence outside of the four madhhabs.

It was this type of shifting that ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz was referring to when he said, “Whoever makes his religion a matter of disputation, will constantly change his view.

Once a person by the name of Abū‘l-Juwayriyyah, who was accused of al-Irjā’ [postponement] came to Imām Mālik and said, “O Abū‘Abd Allah, listen to my view and let me argue with you over it.” Imām Mālik asked him, “And if you silence me?” he replied, “You will follow me.” Imām Mālik said, “If I silence you?” he said, “I will follow you.” Imām Mālik said, “And if a third person comes and silences us both.” He said, “We will follow him.” Imām Mālik said, “Allāh sent Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) with one religion and you wish to constantly shift. ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz said, “Whoever makes his religion a matter of disputation, will constantly shift his view.”[23]

Thus, the one who claims to follow evidence in a manner other than following the Imāms will eventually opt for an opinion no one ever adhered to without even realizing. Even worse, he will claim that he is assisting the Sunnah and spreading its message. This stance will pave the way to what proceeds it, which Imām Mālik beautifully notes:

Submit to the jurists and do not dispute with them. If we were to follow every person who was a better debater, we fear that we would eventually reject what Jibrā’īl brought. [24]

In addition, your claim of understanding the evidence of this ruling according to Imām al-Shāfi‘ī and not Imam Abū Hanīfah is similar to the condition of those scholars who left the madhhab of Imām al-Shāfi‘ī and practiced on what they considered to be authentic due the authenticity of the Hadīth in that regard. Rather, your claim is identical to their claim, and you have seen the consequences of that. Allah be pleased with Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah who said, “Submitting to the jurists is protection in religion.” [25]

It should be noted that Imām Mālik, Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah, and Ibn Wahb, concur on the necessity of referring to the jurists otherwise a person is in danger in his religion. It was for this reason that the scholars of Hadīth understood the value of Fiqh and the Fuqahā’, and they would encourage their students to engage in Fiqh and accompany the Imams of Fiqh.

A person came to Zuhayr Ibn Mu‘āwiyah, so Zuhayr asked him, “Where have you come from?”
He replied, “From Abū Hanīfah.”
Zuhayr said, “Your visit to Abū Hanīfah for one day is more beneficial for you than coming to me for one month.”[26]

In al-Hāwī, Imām al-Suyūtī [d. 911 AH] mentions:

The elders mention, “A Hadīth scholar without Fiqh is a like a pharmacist; he possesses the medicine but lacks the knowledge of what their used for; a jurist without Hadīth is like a physician; he understands the usage of the medicine but does not possess it[27]


[1] As we learn from the answer al-Shāfī‘ī gave to al-Humaydī when he asked if he was going to practice on a particular narration that he related. Al-Shafī‘ī responded, “Did you see me exit from a church with a crucifix on my neck due to which I would listen to Hadīth of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), yet not practice on it?”
[2] Ibn Rajab, Sharh ‘Ilal al-Tirmidhī, 413:1
[3] Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Jāmi‘ Bayān al-‘Ilm, 130:2
[4] Ibn Rajab, Sharh ‘Ilal al-Tirmidhī, 413:1
[5] Al-Khatīb, al-Faqīh wa ‘l-Mutafaqqih, 81:2
[6] Sūrat al-A‘rāf, verse 158
[7] Al-Tirmidhī, al-Sunan, 372:3
[8] Al-Khatīb, al-Faqīh wa ‘l-Mutafaqqih, 81:2
[9] A similar report is mentioned in al-Tamhīd of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, 29:1
[10] Al-Qādī ‘Iyād, Tartīb al-Madārik, 66:1
[11] Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Musawwadah, 530
[12] Al-Asfahānī, Hilyat al-Awliyā’, 325:4
[13] Al-Khattābī, Ma‘ālim al-Sunan, 3:1
[14] Ibn al-Qayyim, I’lām al-Muwaqqi‘īn, 44:1
[15] Al-Dhahabī, Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, 191:18
[16] Al-Saymarī, Akhbār Abī Hanīfah wa Ashābih, 110
[17] Al-Taqī al-Subkī, Ma‘ā Qawl al-Imām, 107
[18] Muslim, Sahīh Muslim, 282:1
[19] Ibid. 284:1
[20] Abū Dāwūd, al-Sunan, 241:1
[21] The diminutive of ‘Urwah
[22] Ahmad, al-Musnad, 252:1
[23] Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqā’, 33
[24] Al-Sha‘rānī, al-Mīzān al-Kubrā, 51:1
[25] Al-Qurashī, al-Jawāhir al-Mudīiyyah, 453:1
[26] Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqā’, 207
[27] Al-Suyūtī, al-Hāwī, 398:2

Muhammad `Awwāmah was born in Aleppo in Syria in 1940 (1358). He began his journey and quest for knowledge in 1953 (1373) when he regularly attended the lessons conducted by Shaykh Muhammad al-Salqīnī. In his early days as a student, he studied under Shaykh `Abdullāh Sirājuddīn. From 1958 (1378), he began studying under Shaykh `Abdul Fattāh Abū Ghudda. He eventually became known for his affiliation to these two illustrious and erudite scholars and he is regarded as their foremost student.


Once a young man came to me and asked me:

Why I did not follow Bukhari and Muslim only, he then told me to only follow them, rather than any Imam and not to be an innovator.

I answered him by showing him two Ahadith, and asked him to tell me what he understood by them?

One narration was from Bukhari and the other was from Muslim.

The young man was determined to prove that his interpretation was better than Imam Abu-Hanifah, and Imam Malik, because in their time there was no computer to compile a database of Ahadith. (Imam Google…lol)

The two Ahadith’s were:

1) Imam Bukhari says that Amar Bin Maymoon said that I saw a monkey who had just capulated with another monkey, and the other monkeys were stoning them, so I also started to throw stones at them. [Bukhari, chapter ‘Ayyamul-Jaheeliyeh’ by Imam Bukhari].

2) Anas (Radiall hu anhu) says: The Prophet (May Allah bless him and grant him peace) told Ali (Radiall hu anhu) to go and execute a Muslim man who was accused by the people of committing adultery with a slave girl. When Ali (Radiall hu anhu) found him he was bathing in a lake. He then called to him, when he came out of the lake he had no clothes on. Ali (Radiall hu anhu) saw that this person could not commit adultery as he was an eunuchap. Ali (Radiall hu anhu) then let him go. (Muslim Shareef, chapter ‘Tawbah’).

His answer was:
It is clear from this narration of Bukhari that animals should be married according to Islam, and if they commit adultery, they should be punished like humans to make their lives more civilized.
Also, from the second hadith, if someone is accused of committing adultery with a woman, he should be killed, but before killing him it should be checked whether he is a eunuch or not.

This is one example of the ijtihaad made by people who encourage others to pick up Muslim and Bukhari and ignore the Imams.

Differences between
al-Albani, Ibn ‘Uthaymin and Ibn Baz
In Fiqh and Aqida

This is a compilation in over 800 pages highlighting both the minor and major differences of opinion that came about from the neo-ijtihadic positions of the three most well known proponents of the modern day “Salafisect – namely, the three recent father figures of the movement:

Nasir al-Albani (d.1999),
‘Abd al-’Aziz ibn Baz (d.1999). 
 Muhammad ibn Salih al-’Uthaymin (d.2001)

All three were (and still are) held in high regard by most forms of contemporary “Salafism”, which itself is a movement that has copious subdivisions and rival factions  - with conflict ridden disunity  ubiquitously present amongst themselves.

They started out (and factions among them still continue) calling for the abandonment of the Four Sunni Schools of Islamic Law, namely, the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali Madhhabs; all of which emanated from the tangible time of the pious predecessors (al-Salaf al-Salihin), and continue to flourish vibrantly right up till this very day, all over the Muslim world, by the decree of Allah ta’ala. 

Indeed, most Sunni scholars and lay people are still attached to these acknowledged Madhhabs that have stood via the test of time.  Most scholars, especially, since the post-Salaf period have also been linked to the adherence of these recognised Sunni Madhhabs.

Their call to abandon taqlid, which is in reality the following of, and placing trust in the qualified scholarship of the leading and recognised Madhhabs (and not simply “blind following” of random or incompetent individuals), has lead them to use the slogan:

 “A return to the Qur’an and the ‘authentic’ Sunna”

 This catchphrase may sound alluring to the laity who have not generally had the intense training to comprehend how major scholars of the past and present came to derive rulings (ijtihad) from the Sources of the Shari’a (Qur’an, Sunna, Ijma’ and Qiyas), or the precise and nuanced methodology (Usul) utilised by the most elite of scholars (Mujtahid Imams).

 Indeed, a little thought would have lead the sound mind to conclude that all the Mujtahid Imams, and their leading followers, not only had full access to the Qur’an and Sunna over time, but also had the acknowledged, qualified scholarship, academic rigour, and piety to extract rulings from the named Sources of Shari’a.

The question is‘Was there ever a need to make an endeavour to try and reinvent the wheel, when more than 1200 years have passed since the inception of the leading Sunni Madhhabs with their affiliated scholarship, century after century?’
The opponents of the Sunni Madhhabs imprudently contend that this is not only a “good idea”, but something which is a must and an absolute necessity. Such a mentality thus leads to the blustering call to abandon taqlid of all the recognised Madhhabs.

The natural and thought provoking question that arises for the advocates of this incongruous call is

 ‘Why do the very authorities you look up to so much – without much analytical verification (tahqiq) on an individual basis – have such a colossal amount of divergence of opinion (ikhtilaf) between themselves, if they are the major references and authorities who promoted this very call of adhering to the “Qur’an and Sunna” in their time?!’

The work below is by proponents linked to Salafism and so it is to be regarded as being an accurate representation of where and why these three named authorities of theirs differed on many legal questions (masa’il) as well as some matters linked to Islamic beliefs (‘aqa’id).

The very fact that these individuals had such a great number of differences in extracting rulings from the Sources of the Shari’a should lead to alarm bells ringing in the inquisitive readers’ minds, for the simple reason that, it has never been possible to unite all Muslim scholars on just one specific, unified opinion, on every single legal question that has ever arisen in the past, or will be in need of answering in the future.

 This call to reject the Sunni Madhhabs and attempt to reformulate all opinions on the mantra of following the “strongest opinion” as propounded by contemporaries attached to “Salafismis thus not only a fallacy but an abysmal failure on their part, and it is in effect a call that was non-existent, even in the time of the pious Imams from the generation of the Salaf as-Salihin.

 Those who are keen to see how and why the major Imams of early times themselves came to derive legal rulings and what lead to agreement or disagreement may consult the work known as Bidayatul Mujtahid wa Nihaytul Muqtasid by Qadi ibn Rushd (d. 595 AH). 

The link provided for the Bidayatul-Mujtahid is to the English, printed edition.  One may wish to read the English rendition of the Bidayatul Mujtahid as uploaded in the public domain by others:

The work showing the vast array of differences between the three named, contemporary head-figures of “Salafism” is called -  al-Ijaz fi ba’dh ma Ikhtalafa fihi al-Albani wa ibn ‘Uthaymin wa ibn Baz

(A Brief Summary with regards to some of that in which al-Albani, ibn ‘Uthaymin, and ibn Baz differed).



Questions for any
la madh-habi 

Q: So you derive correctly from the Qur’an and the Sunnah for yourself right?
DIY: yes akheee, strictly Qur'an and Sunnah, the sources! 

Q: So how do you understand the hadeeth of the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam when he said “Pray as you have seen me pray?” – Have you seen the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wassallam pray? How do you know how the Prophet sal Allau alayhi wasallam prayed if you have not seen him?
DIY: The description is given in the hadeeth akheee, we take from the hadeeth to understand the Qur'an

Q: O.K, I agree, the description is within the Ahadeeth, however which Ahaadeeth and did you actually go and find these Ahaadeeth for yourself, or just you just simply pick up the book “Kayfiyyah Salat un-Nabi” i.e. How the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam prayed authored by ‘Abdul Azeez Bin ‘Abdullah Bin Baz and then make taqleed of it?
DIY: Akhee, I do not do taqleed of nobody, not even 'Abdullah b. Baz

Q: Do you understand ‘Arabic?
DIY: No but I try in sha Allah

Q: Then how do you go to the Ahaadeeth and determine which ahaadeeth are strong, good, weak and fabricated? Or is it a case of Simon says? or better yet – Albaani says? Which, needless to say, would again be taqleed.
DIY: Usul ul-Ahaadeeth Akhee, Bilal Philips wrote a book on the subject and again I do not follow any scholar akhee, just pure Qur'an and Sunnah 

Q: O.k, for arguments sake, its coming up to Salah and we have five minutes. We both agree that purification is a pre-requestite for Salah, and yet my taps are not working and my sink is blocked. The only water I have is a sink full of soapy water, a toilet that flushes and a bottle of diluted orange juice. Which one should I purify myself with and why and what is the evidence for that?
DIY: The ayah from Surat ul-Ma'idah tells us wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. We use clean water!

Q: The only problem is, the ayah from surat ul-Maa’idah that you have quoted does not desribe the wudu as I and and every Muslim knows it, including yourself. For example do you do wudu in the following order? Do you wash your face then your hands? or do you wash your hands then your face? or is there something we are misunderstood here? How do you know which order? How much time do we have left on the clock to decide these matters, hurry, there is six sittah to sort through! which would take somebody months to read, let alone study. Furthermore, do you when washing your hands do it up to the elbow all in the same action before washing the face? and thirdly, I do not see in the Arabic Qur’an the term wash your feet up to the ankles. What I see is the Arabic “wa-amsahuw bi-ru’usi-kum wa arjulakum” in which wa arjulakum litreally means “your legs”. Do you wash your whole legs before Salah? How is this ayah understood and why? What is the evidence? Remember, theres three minutes left to Salah…tick tock.
DIY: Erm, yes I can see why you see this as a dilema, Allah knows best Akhee, we just follow Qur'an and Sunnah and He be pleased with us in sha Allah, we cannot follow no man blindly like our forefathers and the mushrikeen did, it is haram

If you only knew that the four madh-habs have already compiled all of these answers that have left you be-dazzled and struggling to present the masaa’il to my questions sufficiently. You see all a Hanafi has to do is put the Qur’an and kitaab al-Athar down on the table and thats the evidences for his madh-hab right there. The same with the Maaliki, all he has to do is put put the Qur’an and al-Muwatta on the table and thats the evidences for his madh-hab right there. The same with the Shaafi, all he has to do is put the Qur’an and Umdat us-Saalik down on the table and thats the evidences for his madh-hab right there. The same with the Hanbali, all he has to do is place put the Qur’an and Umdat al-Ahkaam down on the table and thats the evidences for his madh-hab right there. What we would have done then is proven our evidences for our madh-hab that are strictly Qur’an and Sunnah, and since all four Imaams and their priciples in deriving from the Qur’an and the Sunnah are from the Salaf, we can also boast we are upon the Qur’an and the Sunnah AND the understanding of the first three generations. Can you boast that, or is your argument destroyed?
DIY: erm akhee ? I .. I ... will ask my teachers and get back to you!!

Today we have the Qur’an, tafaseer, multiple volumes of ahaadeeth and commentary at the click of a button. We are able to reference like never before. Now, your argument is taqleed is wrong and we should follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah by looking up the evidences for ourselves, yet how did the 4th century plus laymen find such evidences and practice them? As they did not have access to Shaykh ul-Islam google.com?
DIY: They would ask the people of knowledge akhee

Good answer, they would ask the people of knowledge, I agree a 100% with that. Your only problem now is explaining to me why these people of Knowledge was upon madh-habs and would teach the laymen the masaa’il from their madh-habs. Can you care to explain this fact.

For example Imaam Quduri was a Hanafi, Imaam Bukhaari was a Shaafi, Imaam Barbahaari was a Hanbali, Imaam Nawawi was a Shaafi, Qadi Iyad ibn Musa was a Maaliki, Shaykh Abd ul-Qaadir, Imaam Abdur Rahmaan ibn al-Jawzi, Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdasi, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Qayyum al-Jawzi, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali are Hanbalis and Ibn Katheer and Imaam Dhahabi are Shaafi. Can you at least explain why such great scholars did taqleed of the four Imaams? Whereas you claim their actions are wrong?

To conclude, this argument with you my brother, is it best to follow the Salaf and the early scholars who all compiled the masaa’il for each madh-hab and the 1400 years of scholarship and knowledge that has been passed unbroken, or is it better to follow somebody who popped his head up in the 11th century and claimed “hey, the true knowledge of Islam has been lost since the first three generations, follow me or be killed as a mushrik”?



Wahhabi say:

We only follow Qur’an and Sunnah directly” ?

(Edited by ADHM)