By A. Faizur Rahman
The Darul Uloom Deoband and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board are in the news again for the wrong reasons — the former for issuing another misogynist fatwa, and the latter for supporting the former’s obscurantism. The misfeasance in question this time is the pronouncement that talaq uttered by a Muslim husband in a drunken state is valid. This nonsensical ruling has once again exposed the medieval bias of some Muslim clerics.
This fatwa is not just bad in law but also bad in theology, as it is not based on the Quran, the locus classicus of Islam. The Deoband muftis have been honest enough to concede that their recent articulation is grounded in the Hanafi law. It is common knowledge among Muslims that the Hanafi fiqh contains many provisions that are repugnant to reason. For instance, according to Al-Marghinani’s Hedaya, one of the most celebrated treatises of Hanafi legal thought, the wife of a missing or absconding husband can remarry only after a minimum of 90 years have elapsed from the day of his birth.
Not surprisingly, on the issue of divorce by a drunken husband, the Hedaya and other Hanafi books, including the oft-cited Al Radd al Muhtar of Ibn Abideen, state that if the liquor consumed has reached the prohibited level of intoxication [which is again a subjective issue] then the talaq uttered in such a state shall be held valid. It may be pointed out here that Ibn Abbas and Caliph Usman were of the view that talaq under the influence of drink was not effective because of the incapacity of the drunken person to exercise reason [see Bukhari]. But Hanafi jurists of the medieval period, in a weak attempt to bypass this opinion, justified their ruling, claiming that it was only aimed at discouraging the use of liquor. The question is, should the dissuasion of alcoholism be at the cost of a marriage where in most cases the affected party is the hapless wife and her innocent children?
The Deoband fatwa is also flawed because of its inherent presumption that the pronouncement of three talaqs in one sitting breaks the marital tie instantaneously. This practice finds no support in the Quran which should be the basis of any Islamic legal formulation. It is astonishing that this fact is ignored by many sectarian schools of thought.
It must be understood that the philosophy of the Quran revolves around the principles of natural justice, fairness and equity, and hence, any law that contravenes or abridges the rights arising out of these standards of ethics shall be void. But the continued intransigent refusal of some narrow-minded ulema to see reason makes it imperative to analyse the procedure of talaq mentioned in the Quran to expose the illegitimacy of their fatwas.
The Quran has dealt with the issue of talaq at length in three major chapters, namely, Al-Baqara, Al-Nisa and Al-Talaq.
Four steps are necessary before the first talaq, as laid down in Surah 4: 34-35.
As a first step, when there is marital discord, the Quran advises the husband to reason [fa’izu hunna] with his wife through discussions. If differences persist, then as a next step, the parties are asked to sexually distance themselves [wahjuru hunna] from each other in the hope that temporary physical separation may encourage them to unite.
If even this fails the husband is instructed, as a third step, to once again explain [wazribu hunna] to his wife the seriousness of the situation and try to bring about a reconciliation. For instance, in pursuance of wazribu hunna, the husband may not be wrong in pointing out to his wife that if they do not resolve their differences soon enough, their dispute may go beyond the confines of their house and become a subject of gossip, which may not be in the interest of both parties. This would be true, because, if the dispute still remains unresolved, as a fourth step, the Quran requires the matter to be placed before two arbiters, one from the family of each spouse, for resolution. It may be noted here that the word wazribu hunna [derived from the triliteral Arabic root Zaraba] does not mean “to beat” the wife, as explained in most translations of the Quran. The context of the verse does not support this meaning.
AS LAID DOWN in Surahs 2:228-232 and 65:1-4, it is only after the failure of the aforementioned four attempts at reconciliation that the Quran allows the first talaq to be pronounced, followed by a waiting period called the iddat. Not more than two divorces can be pronounced within this period, the duration of which is three monthly courses [2:228-229]. For women who have passed the age of menstruation the period of iddat is three months, and in the case of pregnant women it is till the termination of pregnancy [65:4].
And if the parties are unable to unite during the period of iddat as envisaged by verse 2:228, the final irrevocable talaq can be pronounced, but only after the expiry of the iddat [2:231]. Once the final talaq has been invoked the marital bond is severed and the parties cease to be of any relation to each other. However, even after the period of iddat has lapsed, the Quran offers the contending parties a chance to reunite, provided the final talaq has not been pronounced. It says, “When you divorce women and they complete their term [iddat], do not prevent them from marrying their husbands if they mutually agree on equitable terms” [2:232]. In other words, after the expiry of iddat, as per verses 2:231 and 232, the parties are given the options of remarriage or permanent separation — the separation being the third and the final irrevocable talaq to be pronounced in the presence of two witnesses [65:2].
Only after four serious attempts at reconciliation is a Muslim husband permitted to divorce his wife once, or twice within the period of iddat to resume conjugal relations without having to undergo the procedure of remarriage. After the expiry of iddat he can either re-contract the marriage on fresh and mutually agreeable terms or irrevocably divorce her by pronouncing the third and the final talaq within a reasonable period of time. However, to emphasise the sanctity of marriage and the enormity of breaking it for frivolous reasons, the Quran warns that once the parties choose to separate after the expiry of the iddat, they cannot entertain hopes of marrying again unless the wife takes another husband and the second husband divorces her [2:230]. It is understood here that a divorce may result only if the new husband has serious differences with his wife, and in the rare event of such differences cropping up, he is required to follow the Quranic procedure of divorce as discussed earlier. The extreme unlikelihood of this happening serves as a severe deterrent against arbitrary divorce.
But unfortunately, this Quranic injunction [of 2:230] has been abominably circumvented by some ulema to overcome the impracticality of instant triple talaq law of the Hanafi school. To help the victims of this law they set up a pliable person who marries the divorced wife, consummates the marriage overnight and divorces her the next day so that the original husband can remarry her in accordance with 2:230. This outrageousness which an innocent woman [and also her angry or drunk husband] is subjected to for the ruthlessness of an un-Islamic and inhuman law is known as Halala.
It would have been more appropriate if they had called it Harama. Although many ulema have outlawed this disgraceful practice, it still prevails clandestinely among some followers of the Hanafi sect.
THE DEOBAND fatwa legitimising instant talaq under the influence of alcohol goes against the very spirit of the procedure of divorce laid down in the Quran, which is to give the parties maximum time and opportunity for reconciliation. The Prophet when he was informed about a man who gave three divorces at a time was so enraged that he said, “Are you playing with the Book of Allah who is Great and Glorious while I am still amongst you?” [See Mishkat-ul-Masabih.]
In the absence of any initiative from Muslim theologians to abolish it, courts in India are forced to uphold the validity of triple talaq on the principle of stare decisis, declaring the practice to be “good in law though bad in theology”. The precedent cited is the Privy Council judgment in the case of Aga Mohammad Jaffer vs Koolsom Beebee [(1897) 25 Cal. 9, 18, 24, IA. 196, 204], wherein it was held that it would be wrong for the courts to put their own construction on the Quran in opposition to the express ruling of commentators of “such antiquity and high authority”.
A Muslim husband is not entitled under the Quranic law to pronounce even one talaq without having first exhausted the four reconciliation attempts mentioned in 4:34-35. Triple talaq pronounced in one sitting either in a state of sobriety or inebriety has no legal validity and it does not break the marriage.
A. Faizur Rahman is a Chennai-based freelance journalist and a student of comparative study of religions
Source: http://www.covert.co.in/cover.htm1st to 15th February, 2009
MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW BOARD BETRAYS WORD, SPIRIT OF QURAN
By Arif Mohammed Khan
Source: http://www.covert.co.in/cover.htm1st to 15th February, 2009
In 1985-86 the All India Muslim Personal Law Board spearheaded a protest movement against the Supreme Court judgment in the Shah Bano case. The board dubbed the judgment “interference in religion” and a threat to the special identity of the community. They achieved significant success when Government succumbed to their pressure and enacted a new law called Muslim Women [Protection of Rights on Divorce] Act 1986. After tasting victory, the Personal Law Board started behaving for all practical purposes as the sole spokesman of the Muslim community. As a body of professional clerics from madrasas they revived the demands to set up a parallel judiciary and called for the appointment of kazis to administer Muslim law.
In May 2001, they published a “Compendium of Islamic Laws” providing section-wise codification of Muslim Personal Law for the “benefit of the practitioners of the modern law, judges, scholars and students”. Clearly, the purpose of this publication is to ensure that the judges of the Indian courts decide personal law cases as per their exposition, as, according to the Muslim Personal Law Board, the interpretation of Muslim law is their exclusive prerogative and any new interpretation by the courts amounts to interference in religion.
I have taken some provisions from the Compendium, particularly on the subjects of “Equality in Marriage” and “General Principles of Divorce”, to compare them with the provisions of the Quran, the Magna Carta of Islam. Since the Compendium claims to be a compilation of “Islamic Laws”, it is only right to test the veracity of the claim on the touchstone of the Quran.
To begin with the Compendium, in Part 1, Chapter 7, under the title of “Equality in Marriage [Kafaayat]” it is said:
Section 117: Regard shall be had in respect of descent among the Arabs, especially Quraish and those non-Arab families who have preserved descent. People in the rest of the non-Arab Muslim world are mutually equal. On the basis of this principle a girl can get terminated her marriage to a non-equal contracted by her guardian and a guardian has the right to terminate the marriage of an adult woman to a non-equal.
The Compendium divides Muslims into three categories on the ground of race: 1. Muslims of Arab origin; 2. Muslims of Indian origin who have preserved their descent; and 3. other Muslims who are equal among themselves but do not enjoy parity with Muslims falling in the first two categories.
NOW LOOK what the Quran says on the question of descent and honour. It says:
“O mankind! We created you from a single [pair] of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other [not that you may despise each other]. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is [he who is] the most righteous of you [49.13].”
The Quran emphatically lays down that all mankind has descended from one male and one female; the tribes and nations are merely source of identity, but honour belongs to the righteous. Does this verse leave any scope for categorisation on racial grounds?
There is a famous Prophetic declaration made after entering Mecca in 630. It said: “O people of Quraysh, surely Allah has abolished from you all arrogance of ignorance and pride in ancestry. Mankind is descended from Adam and Adam was made from clay.”
There is another beautiful tradition of the Prophet saying: “Your Rabb [Lord God] is one and your Abb [father] is one.”
These are not mere pious declarations, but practical realities of Prophetic life. Imam Zainul Abideen summarised them pithily in his letter addressed to the Umvi ruler Abdul Malik. It is reported that the Imam, who was a great-grandson of the Prophet, had married a freed slave woman and later got his daughter married to a freed slave. This news aroused the racial arrogance of Abdul Malik who denounced the Imam for marrying his daughter to a former slave. Imam wrote to him saying that “The Prophet had married a slave girl after freeing her and gave his first cousin Zainab in marriage to the former slave Zaid to put an end to racial arrogance. If I wish to follow the lofty example of the Prophet, you have no cause to begrudge it.”
IN PART 2, Chapter 2, on the General Principles of Divorce [talaq] the Compendium says:
Section 5[b]: For the effectiveness of talaq it is, in principle, necessary that the man pronouncing it should be in his senses. This demands that a talaq pronounced in an inebriated condition should not be effective. However if a person has unlawfully consumed an intoxicant by his own liking and habit, his talaq will become effective by way of punishment. But if a person has consumed any intoxicant as a treatment, or under compulsion or strong pressure or in ignorance, and pronounces talaq in that state, it will not be effective.
Section 6: If a person under compulsion or duress pronounces talaq it will be valid if it is verbal, but not otherwise.
Section 7: A talaq pronounced in jest [hazl] also becomes effective.
Chapter 4: Express [sareeh] Talaq, Rule of Express [sareeh] Talaq
Section 15: The rule of expressing talaq is that it will effect a divorce without intention.
Chapter 5: Symbolic Expressions
Section 27: If a man uses for his wife symbolic expressions of divorce, a talaq will be effective by these words if he intended it, or if there is some context pointing out to a divorce.
It is clear from the provisions that, according to the Personal Law Board, divorce becomes effective when pronounced, 1. under an inebriated condition; 2. under compulsion or threat; 3. in jest; or 4. even through the medium of symbols. All these eventualities raise questions about the intention of the man pronouncing the divorce. To take care of these doubts the learned ulema of the Personal Law Board have clarified that the pronouncement of talaq is sufficient to make it effective even in the absence of intention. The whole emphasis, it appears, is on making talaq easy and simple for the man, without bothering about its disastrous impact on the wife and children.
NOW LET US see what the Quran says about action devoid of intention, compulsion and saying in God’s name something that separates people instead of bringing them together.
“Allah will not call you to account for that which is unintentional in your oaths, but He will call you to account for that which your hearts have earned [2.225].
“Allah accepts the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards; to them will Allah turn in mercy [4.17].
“And make not Allah’s [name] an excuse in your oaths against doing good or acting rightly or making peace between persons [2.224].”
The Quran specifically lays down that pronouncements made without intention are beyond scrutiny and actions done in ignorance deserve pardon.
There is a prophetic tradition that says that “the reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended”. The Quran and Hadith both hold intention important to decide culpability, but the ulema of the Board have declared pronouncement without intention enough ground to separate man and wife.
The Quran does not recognise any irregular pronouncement of divorce. Before the Prophet, Arabs used to divorce their wives by saying that your back is to me like my mother’s back. The Quran banned it and said: “If any men among you divorce their wives by zihar [calling them mothers] that cannot be allowed: none can be their mothers except those who gave them birth [58.2].”
IN ISLAMIC morality, divorce is the “most odious amongst permissible” and this option can be exercised only as a last resort, when every other possibility of keeping the marriage intact has failed. The Quran lays down the procedure in detail and, unlike the Compendium of the Board, recognises neither instant divorce nor a divorce pronounced under compulsion or inebriation.
The Quran says: “O Prophet! When you divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods and count [accurately] their prescribed periods: and fear Allah your Lord: and turn them not out of their houses nor shall they leave except if they are guilty of some open lewdness. Those are the limits set by Allah, and any who transgresses the limits of Allah does verily wrong his [own] soul. You know not if perchance Allah will bring about thereafter some new situation [65.1].”
The Quran repeatedly asserts that “no change can there be in the words of Allah [10.64]”. It means that for any rule or law, to be Islamic, it must be consistent with the provisions of the Quran. Once this position is accepted it will become easy to make the distinction between “Quranic laws” that release mankind “from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them [7.157]” and the “cleric laws” that “mislead [men] by their appetites unchecked by knowledge
I desperately need help to save my marriage.
I had married secretly my 2nd wife nearly one year back
Few weeks back we had major differences and we both decided to get separated. However at later stage I decided not to divorce my 2nd wife and made desperate attempts to save the marriage. However my 2nd wife was adamant on separation and forced me that I must divorce her and pay her meher and maintenance amount for 3 months and get out of her life as we used to have heated arguments on trivial matters. I agreed reluctantly for her happiness if that’s what she wants as I wasn’t prepared to divorce her and made desperate attempts for reconciliation. My 2nd wife threatened to inform my 1st wife incase if I don’t divorce her and told me that she is probably under sehar (black magic or jadu) and she told me I must divorce her so she can get out of that sehar spell and she seemed mentally unstable and literally hated me as she thought perhaps my daughter had done it which isn’t true as my daughter doesn’t know i have 2nd wofe but she had seen my sms and my daughter had called her out of curiosity. I subsequently reluctantly sent her mobile text message nearly one week back to her sister and wrote 3 times on the sms that I divorce her in 3 sentences. She told me that by sending this sms in accordance to shariat it is considered as divorce, which I had disputed as I sent it under duress so that the sehar effect can get nullified to give her some piece of mind as this is what she thought wrongly. i was somewhat mentally unstable during the moment I sen her SMS.
Thereafter my 2nd wife told me to make divorce deed and so both I and she could sign it. I didn’t want to do it and she threatened me if I don’t do it then she will send papers to my 1st wife home or to my office so reluctantly did it and signed on divorce deed 4 days back under duress as was scared she would inform my 1st wife and felt very hurt. I felt my 2nd wife was mentally unstable when that happened. In the divorce deed there was a clause which stated as follows below:
“That three Talaqs have been pronounced by the First Party to the Second Party, which will become effective immediately.”
However I never pronounced this verbally and nor was this mentioned 3 times in the divorce deed that I have divorced her. The only 3 sentences of divorce I mentioned was by sms as mentioned above and that too was signed under duress threat from my 2nd wife that she will inform my 1st wife incase I don’t agree to divorce her.
I met her 2 days back and now both me and my 2nd wife are considering reconciliation, based on the above is the divorce valid in the eyes of Allah? Is it possible for reconciliation at this stage of waiting period. Can she become my lawful wife in accordance to quran?
I saw website http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_751_800/talaqthe_divorce_issue.htm stating it is possible to reconcile and halala is not required provided we reconcile during waiting period. All the maulvis which have quran and their urdu translations say that reconciliation is not possible for me and insist hala is necessary. Can you please help me. Is there anyone in Karachi who has authority on this subject as i am desperate to save my marriage.
Please let me know the correct Islamic position as I will only act in accordance to sharia.
It would be great if i can personally speak to you.
Please help me.
DRUNKEN TALAQ: HOW SOME FATWAS DISTORT ISLAM AND OPPRESS WOMEN BY A. FAIZUR RAHMAN MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW BOARD BETRAYS WORD, SPIRIT OF QURAN BY ARIF MOHAMMED KHAN The Darul Uloom Deoband and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board are in the news again for the wrong reasons — the former for issuing another misogynist fatwa, and the latter for supporting the former’s obscurantism.
Extracts from “ Bayan Talbees Al Muftari Muhammad Zahid Al Kawthari aw Radul Kawthari ‘ala Kawthari” of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Sidiq Al Ghumari. Slander of Kawthari against Khateeb Al Baghdadi and Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani Kawthari said p 188 of his Taneeb : “ The strangeness from these pious pure is taking easy the matter of Qazf ( slandering) Shani’ in which one can not think of bringing proves, with their knowledge of Allah’s hukm for Qazf, and this is only because of their little religion and lack of intelligence”
Then he accused in his majalis Hafiz ibn Hajar of following prostitutes and once he followed one and when she uncovered face then she was an old woman. Also he accused Khateeb of drinking wine p 11 of Taneeb quoting from strange book : “ Mu’jamul Adibaa”. He also quoted a long story in his Taneeb p 12 from Sibtu ibnul Jawzi from his book “ Al Miratu Zamani fi Tarikh A’yani” telling that Khateeb was doing homosexuality and pedophilia with boys. Ghumari said : this story is nothing except a lie, that one rejects from first time, and they do not remain except in books of the Ustaz ( Al Kawthari) witnessing of his Qazf shameless…Is there a majnoon reaching his level of junoon making himself famous for fisq…he makes his nafs enter in rooms of liars, expanding fahishah among believers… it is not suitable for anyone believing in Allah and in last Day to attack the honor of any Muslim like that, what about Imam from Aimah of muslimeen ?” Kawthari and Anas ibnu Malik Ghumari said that when Kawthari could not find any defect in hadeeth of saheehayn that Prophet saw ordered people from Akl and Uraynah to drink urine of camels, then to defend his madhab, he went on to say that Anas ibn Malik lost memory when he became old, so he weakened the narration. Kawthari said p 107 from his Nukat : “ Then Abu Haneefah, if he was considering Sahabah ‘Adil, but he did not claim their being protected from mistakes from which human can not be protected…as little memory, and forgetting because of Umiyati ( not reading) or being old, and there is no doubt that Anas ibn Malik lived a long life among Sahabah, and there is nothing forbidding that some problems/gaps occurred to his memory, as it is the case of human” In narration of Tirmidhi, Anas ibn Malik told this to Hajjaj after this one asked what was the most severe punishment given by the Prophet saw, so Al Kawthari said that if Anas has his senses, then he would not help this Thalim. And Ghumari answered all these doubts Now in all narrations of Bukhari and Muslim, Anas ibn Malik told that without mentioning that to Hajjaj, so there is nothing preventing he narrated this hadeeth before when young, and also when he was old at time of Hajjaj. Secondly, one should not hide knowledge, so if Hajjaj misuses this knowledge, then Anas is not responsible. Thirdly how many old people do not lose memory, especially for Anas, for whom Prophet saw made du’a for his long age and chidren as in Adab Mufrad of Bukhari and otherts, declared saheeh by Ibn Hajar in Fath. Also some ghulat from Hanafiyah mentioned that Abu Haneefah met Anas ibn Malik and listened from him in old age. Ghumari said : “ And this is nothing except playing with the religion, and a war with Hujjah Nasi’ah, and with Daleel Qati’ maqbool, and pure rejection of the Sunnah of Rasoolillah saw” Then Ghumari said : “ I swear by Allah, without being Hanith, that if Allah sent Prophet saw again and he told him that Abu haneefah was mistaken, then you would make kufr of it, and you would reject his risalah, as you are rejecting now the sharee’ah and the Sunnah with this shameful game” Another Ta’n in Anas, in Nukat of Kawthari p 77, where Kawthari rejected the hadeeth from Saheehayn from Anas that Prophet saw freed Safiyah, and married her, and made her freedom the Sidaq ( Mahr). Kawthari said : “ When Anas did not know whether Prophet saw gave her Mahr, then he said : He made her nafs as Mahr, this is why Abu tayib At tabari, ibnul Murabit said that the saying of Anas is from himself” Ghumari answered : this means he ( Anas) lied on the Prophet saw by imputing this hukm ghareeb to him, this kind of precipitation ( without knowledge) make someone loses ‘Adalah and thiqah from narrations, then Malediction on Thalimeen” Then Ghumari said that in Ihqaqul Haqq Kawthari criticized this Abu tayib Tabari. And he concluded about Kawthari : “ This man is not except majnoon from madness of ta’asub, he deserves to have pity on him or to be treated” Ta’n of Kawthari on Ibn “Abbas and Abu Hurayrah Kawthari said p 197 of his Nukat about the hadith reported by Ibn Abi Shaybah from ‘Ata that Mu’awiyah prayed one witr, and he was criticized for that, and ibn Abbas was asked about that and he said : he reached the Sunnah” Kawthari answered : “ If this is saheeh from Ibn Abbas then it is considered as Taqiyah, as he was fighting him under flag of Ali” Ghumari said : meaning he would lie on the Prophet saw on the Sharee’ah and religion, that Mu’awiah reached the Sunnah, and he was not believing that, rather he was thinking Sunnah is opposing this, and it is what Abu Haneefah thinks about three witr, and he tells people contrary to what he knows and he narrates from the Prophet saw and attributes him what he did not do ! Then Ghumari said : Look at this criminal with little religion… While Kawthari said himself about such actions, imputing Taqiyah to Sahabah in his notes on “ Ath Thuyul” p 186 is breaking pillars of religion, where he said : “ And considering this from what is permitted ( by Syasiyah politics) without daleel is opening the doors of destroying pillars of religion” Kawthari said in his Nukat p 150 about hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah in both Saheehayn that Prophet saw said : One should not forbid his neighbor to put piece of wood in his wall, then Abu Hurayrah said : why do I see you turning away from this ?, By Allah I will beat it on your shoulders” Kawthari said : “ Abu Hurayrah was getting close to Marwan during his imarah in Medinah, and ibn Juwaini considered this saying of Abu Hurayrah as during the days of Marwan” Then he said after : His saying : “why do I see you turning away from this” shows that people to whom Abu Hurayrah talked were not seeing this wajib, and they are from Sahabah and Tabieen, and it is far that these matters remain hidden from them, and the silence of one who remained silent towards the saying of the one who leans to Marwan ( meaning Abu Hurayrah) does not mean they agreed with him, and sometimes the Ameer can be severe from mandoob when he sees people turning away from it, then Abu Hurayrah’s words are from this kind” Then Ghumari answered : meaning he ( Abu Hurayrah) did tashaddud in mandoob matters, and attributed to the Prophet saw what he did not say, and lied on him… May Allah’s curse be on this taqleed that leads to such levels. And he ( Kawthari) rejected the Sunnah of Ish’ar of camels for Hajj because Ibn Abbas, Aishah, Miswar ibn makhramah were only to report this from the Prophet saw, and he thought that tafarud ( being alone) from these is not enough to establish this Sunnah that Abu Haneefah did not like, as they are not amen in reporting this when it contradicts opinion of Abu Haneefah. He said p 26 of his Nukat : and only a little group did report hadeeth of Ish’ar. Ibn Abbas reported it and the words of hadeeth are what we mentioned, and Msiwar ibnul makhramah narrated this, and in his hadeeth there is mention of Ish’ar without mention of expression used, then Miswar even if we do not make inkar of his Fadl and Fiqh, but he was born two years after Hijrah, and Aishah narrated this” Ghumari answered : Meaning they are not enough and not maqbool, their narrations are mardood, it will not be a hujjah on Abi Haneefah, and it is not correct to accuse him of opposing Sunnah with this. Ta'n on Malik About Imam Malik, Kawthari said p 116 of Taneeb : “ The big Qudama of Malikiyah have three opinions towards such sayings of Malik” and after mentioning them he said : “ And it is clear from that that these sayings, if they are proven from what is attributed to him ( Malik), then the one who says that is a Mujrim ( criminal) and how is the criminal made taqleed in his crimes ?” Then Ghumari quoted that Kawthari said in Taneeb p 27 that Imam Malik was making mistakes in Arabic while speaking from narration of Asma’I, then on p 54 of Taneeb, Kawthari told that this Asma’I was accused of lying when it came to narrations of Asma’I blaming Abu Haneefah. Ghumari said : “ Then Asma’I is Kazzab when he quotes on Abu Haneefah and his companions, and thiqah when he narrates about Malik ” Then Kawthari said in p 172 of his Nukat : This hadeeth that was reported by Malik, then it is declared saheeh for those who consider Malik to be thabit” Ghumari answered : meaning Malik would be mukhtalaf in being Thiqah and Thabat, and one who turns to think he is thiqah, then he takes daleel from that, and the one not, then no. This is the muntaha of disrespect, and little shame showing his little religion rather lack of religion. We ask Allah protection from the misguidance of taqleed, By Allah it is a great test and a great calamity…similar to this disrespectful criminal towards Islam. Ta’n on Shafii Kawthari made fun of Imam Shafii on p 23 and after for his having two sayings, then he mentioned a lie that a student traveled to take ilm from Shafii and when he came back, and a man asked him : is there a doubt about Allah ?, and the student answered : there are about this two sayings of Shafii.!!! Kawthari denied Imam Shafii to be a Qureyshi, he declared saheeh the fabrication that a man of this Ummah named Muhammad ibn Idrees would be more harmful than Shaytan. On p 28, he accused Imam Shafii of rejecting half of the Sunnah, and they are hadeeth mursal. Ta’n on Ahmad Kawthari said p 141 on his Taneeb : “ And there are not few among Fuqahah who did not agree to put sayings of Ahmad among sayings of Fuqahah as he is a muhadith ghayr Faqih for them” Kawthari and Mursal Kawthari said in Ihqaqul Haqq p 28 : “ And opposition of Athar is lazim for the one who rejects Mursal acted upon, and it is half of the Sunnah, and rejection of mursal is an innovation that started after 200 years” He said in introduction of Nasb Ar rayah p 27 : “ There is no doubt that neglecting to take from mursal, especially mursal from kibar tabieen is leaving half of the Sunnah” He blamed Shafii in his Ihqaqul haqq p 27 : “ And Abu Haneefah was not permitting eating flesh of the animal on which tasmiyah was left on purpose, nor nikah of a man with the daughter created from his water ( in zinah), and he was not leaving action on mutawatir Sunnah, nor maraseel that were acted by the Fuqahah of this Ummah before 200 years until it was rejected” Ghumari said : Then he rejected many mursal, and affirmed they are not hujjah. He rejected the mursal of ‘Ata : That Prophet saw was giving Khutbah and he said to people to sit, and Abullah ibn Masood heard this while he was on the door, he sat and he said : O Abdallah, enter” He ( Kawthari) said in his Nukat p 201 : “ And in all cases, this is a mursal khabar, Ata did irsal, and the khabar is not salih except with Muttasil sanad exempted from all defection” And he rejected the mursal of Sha’bi that Prophet saw did rajam of a jew and woman jew, and he said in p 10 of his Nukat after rejecting all agreed upon hadeeth on this topic : “ and the last khabar is mursal” On p 28 he rejected mursal of Hilal ibn Yasaf. On p 54 he rejected mursal of Zuhri about return or woman to his kafir husband after he becomes muslim with first nikah. on p 84, he rejected mursal of Hassan : “ one who kills his slave we will kill him…” saying : “ Hassan did irsal, and kalam on his mursal is known, and Taylasi added Samurah after Hassan, so it would be Muttasil for ibnul Madini, but majority of Ahlul Ilm despair of narration of Hassan from Samurah, and Shubah and ibn Ma’een said : Hassan did not listen from Samurah” Ghumari said about Mursal : “ That is Hujjah for Abi Haneefah and its rejection is an innovation that started after 200 H” Kawthari rejected mursal of ibn Musayab about approximation of dates p 101. P 133, Kawthari rejected the mursal of Sha’bi about killing of the one who insults Prophet saw saying : “ As for two khabar here, the first is mursal and second, meaning hadith ibn Umar, being mawqoof, it is majhool, so it is not Hujjah” Kawthari rejected Mursal of Muhammad ibn Baqir on p 155 saying : First hadith is mursal’ He rejected Mursal of Mujahid and Tawoos on cutting hand of thief with gift from one who was stolen, he said p 163 : “ These two hadeeth are mursal with ikhtilaf in words and meaning” He rejected the mursal of Sa’eed ibn Yassar in Muwatta that Prophet saw prayed witr on camel, and he commented p 165 : “ As you see it is mursal". He rejected the hadith of Qays ibn Amr that is mawsool in Qadha of Sunnah of Fajr after Salah Subh as some narrators narrated it in a mursal way, and he also rejected mursal of ‘Ata on this topic and he said p 178 : “ Although the hadith of Qays ibn Amr is reported by Abu Dawood with this sanad” then he said : “ And Abdu Rabihi and Yahya son of Sa’eed narrated this hadeeth in a mursal way” and he said after : “ And the hadeeth of ‘Ata is mursal” He rejected hadith forbidding prayer between graves with many weak reasons among them : the khabar of Hassan is mursal. And he said on p 180 : "The khabar of Amr ibn Yahya from Hakim and Tirmidhi is ma’lool because of irsal of Thawri” And he rejected the hadeeth about raising voice for Ameen because Alqamah ibn Wail did not listen from his father, so the hadith is mursal. He rejected the hadith of ibn Abi Laylah about Qadha of Sunnah of Thuhr on saying p 214 : “I say : the first is mursal” And he rejected the hadith of Abu Hurayrah reported in Muwatta and two Saheeh from many way : If one finds his property in a man that becomes muflis, then he is more rightful” and he said p 238 : “ Malik narrated in a mursal way” And he did not consider that it is mawsool, not mursal in two saheeh, so irsal would be a reason of weakening even if other do report it mawsool. And he rejected the hadith : There is no right for the ‘irq Thalim, saying in Ihqaqul Haqq p 48 : “ Reported by Nassai, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood and others, some narrating it mawsool way and other mursal, and narrators of Muwatta agreed to narrate it in a mursal way, and it is not salih to take daleel from it on the base of Shafii because of the Sanad” Ghumari answered : And you are Hanafi, and Abu Haneefah is not muqalid of Shafii in leaving ihtijaj from mursal, what do you have with base of Shafii, maybe Abu Haneefah was shafii when he rejected these mursal that are narrated in your books”Kawthari and Majhool. He said in his Nukat p 11 : “and similar is what happened for Ibn Jareer, rather there is majhool in it, so we do not take ihtijaj from it” P 254 he said : “ the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah in ibn Hazm, its sanad is majhool” On p 257 : And Aktal narrator from Suwaid is majhool” Ghumari said : From the greatest strangeness, and shocking action ghareeb, the extreme disrespect, the end of treachery in heart of realities, and destruction of Sharee’ah’s existence, what bring curse on one who does it, he made the ibham ( not knowing who it was) of questioner to the Prophet saw from Majhool, whose narration is not accepted, and whose khabar is not taken as prove. He said p 57 of his Nukat in trying to weaken the agreed upon hadeeth from a group of Sahabah : “ A man came to the Prophet saw and said : I cut hair before sacrifice, and he said : Do sacrifice there is no haraj ( problem), he said : I did sacrifice before rami ( stoning), and he said : do rami there is no haraj” Kawthari said : “ I say : These people asking in these narrations are majhool, and in narrations recorded in Saheeh and Sunnan, there is no mention of any famous Sahabi” Ghumari said : This is the worst of disrespect, a crime, little shame, a little religion…mockery of religion, belittling Sharee’ah of Saydil Mursaleen, this is by Allah the greatest daleel that the heart of the man saying this is free from Iman, and he is a shaytan send to play with religion, and this is greatest prove on truth on what we said many times, that he is prepared for kufr of Nabi saw and rejecting his sayings if it leads to mistake of Abu Haneefah. And this is, as you can see breaking ijma of muslim intelligences…because the intelligence necessarily decides that there is no entering of ibham of questioner and ignorance of them in narrations, because they are not narrators…” And Kawthari himself said p 129 : “ I say, in first hadith there is a sahabi majhool, nut jahl of Sahabi is not defective for jumhoor” Ghumari said : the questioner can be Abu Bakr or Ali or Salman or Abu Zar or their similar from big Sahabah. This is by Allah, a great Buhtan, and Fujoor after all fujoor, and this cannot come from except someone Allah blinded his heart, and destroyed his vision …” Then Kawthari did ihtijaj for his madhab with majhool narrators Ghumari said : “Majhool is hujjah when it is in accordance with the opinion of Abu Haneefah, Nabi of A’jam and Prophet of ghulatul Mubtadi’ah” Kawthari to justify his madhab that woman doing apostasy is not killed brought on p 227 of his Nukat a narration of Tabarni in Kabeer and there is one narrator above makhool that is Ibn Abi Talha Al Ya’muri. Ghumari said : “The shaykh of Makhool in this lie to the Prophet saw is majhool, we do not know who he is. But when it is in support the opinion of Abu Haneefah…then it is maqbool, although there is also in the sanad weakness” Halabi said : Fazari, he is Muhammad ibn Ubaydillah Al Arzami : matrook. Kawthari said in his taneeb p 142 : “ Muhammad, meaning ibnul Hassan, said that Abu Haneefah told him, that a man told him from Muhammad ibnul Hanafiyah : “‘Aqeeqah was in Jahiliyah, and when Islam came it was finished” Muhammad said : we take from this and this is the saying of Abu Haneefah” Ghumari said that Kawthari mocked Shafii and criticized him for saying : “ A thiqah reported me that”, while his Imam worshiped ( Ma’bood) said : “ A man narrated us” and Kawthari said about term of Shafii that narrator remains majhool despite Imam Shafii saying he was thiqah. Majhool Tabieen Kawthari said in Ihqaqul Haqq p 34 : “ And from kibar Tabieen, if a thiqah narrates from them without jarh, then he is maqbool for narrations” And Kawthari weakened many kibar from Tabieen as Ikrimah mawla ibn Abbas. About the hadeeth that Prophet saw retruned his daughter to Abil ‘As after two years with first nikah, because of Ikrimah, and he said : “ And Ikrimah, kalam on him is a lot” And he rejected hadeeth of the Tabi AberRahman ibn Mas’ood about approximation, and he said p 101 : “ And third hadith, there is AberRahman ibn Mas’ood, and he is majhool, Dhahabi said : he is not known” So here there is no jarh on this bid Tabii, then why weakening him ? He rejected hadeeth of Bishr ibn Mihjan Dayli, from his father about one praying nafl being one praying fardh, and he said p 79 : “ This Bishr has been mentioned by Ibn Hibban in “ Thiqat” with his rule on tawtheeq of majaheel, and ibn Qattan said : his condition is not known” Why Kawthari does not follow his rule about kibar tabieen not being majrooh ? And he rejected the hadith if Abu Umayr Abullah ibn Anas Tabii about praying Salatl Idd second day and he said p 89 : “ Abu Umayr Abdullah ibn Anas, Ibn Hibban mentioned him his Thiqat according to his known methodology, but Ibn Abdil barr said : Majhool, we do not take prove from him” He rejected the hadeeth of Simak from Qaboos ibnul Mukhariq and they are both Tabii from Lubabah bintul Harith about thrwing water on urine of youn boyes and washing for urine of girls. Kawthari said : “ Qaboos is ony declared thiqah by ibn Hibban according to his method of tawtheeq of majaheel, when no jarh reached him, and this is ghayah of tasahul ( being easy)” And Ghumari gave many other exemples of kibar Tabieen that were weakened by Kawthari, while Aimah said they were majhool, so if there were no jarh, Kawthari should have declared them saheeh. P 84, 86, 150, 139, 143, 10, 123, 221, 28, 210, 217, 220, 222, 254, 257, 119, 197, 172, 173, 200, 184, 197, 201 on his nukat for more examples But these hadeeth where against his madhab, so there is no other rule, his rule is only for majhool tabii that report according to Abu Haneefah… And Ghumari showed many other rules of Kawthari and he changes them when it suits him, also him having two judgements of same narrators, wether it is for him or against him... Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd in his Risalah : " Tahreefu Nusus" also present in his book " Ar Rudood" showed many tahreefat of Abu Ghuddah Al Kawthari, leader of ikhwan al Muslimeen in Syriyah. In p 134 of Manar Al Muneef with Ta'leeq of Abi Ghuddah, Abu Ghuddah quoted from Haythami : " Ibn 'Adi and others declared him thiqah, and other narrators are narrators of two saheeh" While Haytami said : " Ibn 'Adi and others declared him thiqah, but there is weakness in him, and other narrators are narrators of two saheeh" Why did he erase : "but there is weakness in him" ( fihi Da'fun) ? Except to show that Ibnul Qayem was wrong in weakening this hadeeth, and Haytami said contrary to him, so Abu Ghuddah was the same as his teacher, except that he used other tactics, as he was living in Saudia and was head of ikhwan. Bakr Abu Zayd mentionned many other clear tahreefat, omitting words from people of jarh and ta'deel so to decieve readers... Also some Ta'n on Imam Bukhari, as many ghulat from Ahnaf do... And Allamah Abu Zayd mentionned many tahreefat of Ali Sabooni, and some known tahreefat of Deobandi, Athami, Mahmoodul hassan, and others May Allah protect us from the fitanh of Kawthariyah
Also you will find in Durul Mukhtar in introduction that Haskafi Al Hanafi claimed that when Prophet Issa aley salam will come back he will judge with Hanafi fiqh...He also quoted the fabricated hadeeth that ABu Haneefah will be lamp of this Ummah and Muhammad ibn Idris will be more harmful than Shaytan...So I do not think that ghulu of Ahnaaf is found in any other Madhab...When Ibn Humam who was a Muhaqiq and he started to differ from madhab, then Ahnaf criticised him.For instance Ibn Humam said like Shawafi that if a Zimmi insluts the Prophet (saw) then he should be killed while Hanafi Madhab says that his Thimah is not broken so he should not be killed...and in Bahru Raiq it is written from Qassim Qutlubagha that the heart of Moumin can lean to saying of Shawafi, but we do not take the views of our shaykh Ibn Humam that oppose the Madhab, as following it is Wajib...So Mouqalid Ahnaf criticised Ibn Humam, Shah Waliullah, Luknawi and all Muahaqiq Ahnaf that ruled with hadeeth and left on some occasions their MAdhab.These are words of Mahmdudul Hassan Deobandi in taqrir tirmidhi, published by Maktabah Rahmaniya lahore, p 49, The book taqreer tirmidhi is in the beginning of Sunnan tirmidhi published by this deobandi maktabah and they have after the taqreer sunnan tirmidhi with other sharh from Anwar Shah Kashmiri and other. But in the Taqreer it is said in chapter Buyu' on the subject on khyar majalis " What is obtained is that the topic of khyar is among important topics and Abu Hanifa contradicted in it the majority and a lot of people from the first and later generations, they wrote rasail in refutation of his ( Abu Hanifa)'s madhab on this topic and maulana Shah Waliullah Muhadith gave tarjih in his rasail to the madhab of Shafi'i taking evidence from the ahadith and Nusus, and the same our shaykh ( Maybe Nanotwi ?) gave tarjih to his madhab and said the truth and justice in this topic is to give preference to Shafi'i and we are muqalid and it is wajib upn us the taqleed of our Imam Abu Hanifa. Allah knows best" So deobandi are on thulm and batil, that is contrary to Haqq and Justice. Opposing Allah's law, and nowdays they try to say we only make taqleed in matters where there is no daleel but we do not oppose Nusus ( which by the way is not taqleed as taqleed is accepting the saying of Imam without prove), we have hadeeth and you have also hadeeth, we give tarjih to some and you give to other, but here they don't have any daleel and there da'wah is only a lie for Awwam un Nass. Imam Abu Hanifah said when the hadith is saheeh it is my madhab, and they say we are muqalid, his saying is Hujjah for us, Quran and Hadith are not Hujjah for us. So these people are ennemies of Imam Abu Hanifah, ennemies of Saheeh hadith and ennemies of Islam.So Mahmudul hassan Deobandi was shaykhul Hadeeth at darul Ulum deoband, so even if a hadeeth is saheeh, he will not rule by it, as hujjah for him is saying of Abu Haneefah and not saheeh Hadeeth.
Dear Sultan Sahab,
Every Muslim of Indo-Pak should be grateful to your website and specially you for bringing up these controversial matters for an healthy discussion and it is a must before the Emergence Of Maseeha and Mahdi [for bringing whole World under the banner of Islam] that Muslims should be united and read yourself as to how united we are:
War within the Sunni Islam
Shaykh Irshadul Haqq Al Atharee in His Maqalat answered claims of many Deobandi like Dr Khalid Mahmood that Ahlul Hadeeth are gustakh of Aimah. And shaykh Irshadul Haqq answered showing examples from many Hanafi scholars, their gustakhi of AImah and results of
Blind Following and Prejudice.Many of quotes are taken from books of Irshadul Haqq like his Maqalat, and also other books of shaykh Irshadul Haqq, as well as other scholars. Revilement of Sahabah by some Ahnaaf [Deobandis and Barelvis in Indo-Pak]Prophet saw made du’a for Barakkah for Wail ibn Hujr and his Awlad, but some Ahnaaf could not stand that he narrated ahadeeth of Raful yadayn in last years of Prophet’s life. In Jami’ul Masaneed of Khawarzimi v 1 p 358 it is said about this Sahabi : “ A’rabi ( Bedouin) he did not know laws of Islam” Muhammad ‘Abid Sindhi in his ”Mawahib Lateefah” and Abdel Hay Luknawee in his “Taleequl Mumajad” both regretted these kinds of sayings. Judging with a witness and a Yameen is the madhab of majority of scholars Malik, Shafii and Ahmad and majority of Ahle Islam as said by Nawawi in his sharh Muslim, and there are Saheeh Hadeeth about that. In Sharh Wiqayah, Kitab Da’wa p 205 it is said about this topic : “ And for us it is an innovation and first who judged with that is Mu’awiyah” In Nurul Anwar, Mabhathul Ahliyah p 300 it is written after quoting types of ignorance, that would not be forgiven on judgment day : “ As the ignorance of Shafii in permitting judgment with a witness and a Yameen…and first who judged with that is Mu’awiyah” Mulla Jioun after saying this, added : “ We said as said by our ancestors ( Ahnaaf), because we would not dare to say that” In Tawdeeh ma’a Tawsheeh p 477 there is about same topic : “ It is mentioned in Mabsoot that Qadhau with a witness and a Yameen is a bid’ah and first who judged by that was Mu’awiyah” Abu Hurayrah and Anas ibn Malik are among most narrating Ahadeeth, and some of their ahadeeth did not suit some muqalidoon, so they invented a rule and went to the extremity of saying these two Sahabi were ghayr Faqeeh. It is written in Usul Shashi “ The second category of narrators is those who are well known for their hifz and adalah and not for their ijtihad and fatawas like Abu Hurayrah and Anas ibn Malik. If a narration is reported from persons like these two and it is sahih according to you and the narration is according to qias, there is no fear to act upon, but if it opposes qias, then acting upon qias is better… Basing upon this, our companions ( Ahnafs) rejected the hadith of Abu Hurayrah on Musarah against qias. As for the ikhtilaf in number of narrators, we affirm that the shart to act upon khabar ahad is that it does not opposes Quran and the Sunnah mashurah, the Prophet saw claimed that there will be a lot of hadith after me, check them with the Book of Allah, if they are according accept them, if they are against reject them” Note : The fabricated hadeeth of confronting Ahadeeth to the Quran is found in many books of Hanafi Usul. And some even attributed it to Saheeh Bukhari. Ali ibn Muhammad Bazdawi d 682 said : The Prophet saw said : “ There would be a lot of hadith after me attributed to me, check them to the Book of Allah, if they are according to it accept it, if they are against reject them” ( Usul Bazdawi, Bab Bayan qismul Inqita’) This narration is also found in “Tawdeeh” by Ubaydullah ibn Mass’ud d 747, author also of Sharh Wiqayah. In the Sharh of this book “Sharh Tawdeeh” by Mas’ud Taftazani d 792, this hadith is attributed to Sahih Bukhari, and he also affirmed that Yahya ibn Main said this hadith is fabricated by the zanadiqah. Abdel Aziz Bukhari d 730 said in Sharh of Usul Bazdawi that Imam Bukhari quoted this hadith and he is the specialist of this field, and this is enough for it being sahih, and that is why the critic of others is not taken into account ( Kashf Asrar vol 3 p 10 ) The same is said in Fusul Hawashi Sharh Usul Shashi p 288 In Hashiyah Tawdeeh it is said that Marjani Hanafi got astonished to see hanafi people of Usul (Taftazani, Bukhari, Fusul Hawashi) attributing this to sahih Bukhari while it is not inside ( and Bazdawi, Tawdeeh and Usul Shashi quoted it without attributing it to sahih Bukhari). The Marfu hadith of confronting Ahadeeth to the Quran is fabricated, see madkhal de Bayhaqi, Suyuti in Miftah Al Jannah p 39, Muwafiqat Shatibi vol 2 p 18, ibn Qayem in Sawaiq Mursalah vol 2 p 437. Hafiz Qassim ibn Qutlubaghah said in his takhrij of Usul Bazdawi that all the Asaneed of ahadeeth in this meaning are weak. In Fawatih Rahmoot it is said that Abdel Haqq said this hadeeth is fabricated. So this hadeeth and others in this meaning is the work of Zanadiqah as told by Ibn Ma’een. As for ghayr faqih, ibn Hummam said that Abu Hurayarh and Anas ibn Malik are Mujtahid and Sahabas came to them for fatawa see Fath Qadir vol 2 p 141 And Abdel Aziz Bukhari also claimed that Abu Hurayra 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 fatawas among sahabas”. Kashf Asrar p 703 And this is also said by author of Fawatih Rahmoot Sharh Muthalam Thuboot. Note : In Nurul Anwar it is said that Ahadeeth of ghayr Faqeeh Sahabi like Abu Hurayrah and Anas ibn Malik being rejected if it opposes Qias is the madhab of Issa ibn Abban and majority of Mutakhiroon chose it, while Karkhi rejected it, a group followed him. Yet majority of Mutakhiroon have accepted this Batil rule. Note : Neylwi Mamati also to reject a hadeeth also quoted this rule in his Nidae Haqq, and when Sarfraz Khan Hayati in his “Taskeen Sudoor” rejected this rule, then Neylwi showed and quoted Hanafi books to show that it is rule of majority of Ahnaaf, and it does not come from Neylwi. Note : Anwar Shah Kashmiri also rejected this false rule, and even said that such words should be taken out of Hanafi books. Note : Jameel Sakrodwi, teacher at Darul Ulum Deoband, in his “ Ajmalul Hawashi ‘ala Usul Shashee” did not mention the weakness of hadeeth confronting Ahadeeth to the Quran, while it is fabricated, an invention of Zanadiqah, rather he used it as a prove to reject khabar Ahad told to be against Quran. Revilement of Aimah by some Ahnnaf “ Yussuf ibn Moosa Al Multi AL Hanafi said : “ One who reads in book of Bukhari, he will become Zindeeq” ( 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 Mussa Al Bulasaghooni said : “ If I had power, I would take Jiziyah from Shaf’iyah” ( Meezanul I’tidal of Dhahabi v 4 p 52) And Issa ibn Abi Bakr ibn Ayoob Al Hanafi was asked why he was Hanafi while all his family was Shafii, and he answered : “ Don’t you want there is a Muslim in the family ?” ( Fawaid Bahiyah p 152-153) Muhibudeen Muhammad ibn Muhammad d 789 was a Hanafi scholar. It is said about him in “ Shazratu Zahab” p 310 that he was doing tanqees and Tawheen of Sahfii and was considering that as worship. Imam Safkudri of Ahnaaf is famous for his fatwa of Ahnaaf daughters not marrying Shawafi, but Ahnaaf can marry Shafi girls, see Bazaziyah, Fath Qadeer, Bahr ur Raiq. One can even see in chapter prayer behind other madhaib that is after behind innovators, that how many Hanafi scholars said it was makrooh to pray behing Shawafi and some even said Makrooh tahrimi, meaning prayer behing Shawafi is batil. What is worse is in these books, they even quote some Hanafi scholars doing takfeer of Shawafi because of their saying : “ I am believer Insha Allah”. Abu Layth Samarqandi said : “ Following Shafii in prayer is only permissible when he is not Muta’sib, about Emaan he does not say “ I am Moumin insha Allah”, …whatever comes out of his body more than Sabilayn ( like blood) then he makes Wudhu, if Najasah fell in water greater than Qultain, he does not wudhu with this water, he does not do Raful Yadayn after and before Ruku’..” ( Fatawa Nawazil p 48-49) Except last conditions, all others are mentioned in Qadee Khan v 1 p 91, Radul Mukhtar v 1 p 563, Alamagiri v 1 p 84, Tatar Khaniyah v 1 p 652, look at fathul Qadeer for this mention v 1 p 313. Luknawi also mentioned in his Ta’liaqat Sunniyat ‘al Fawaid Al Bahiyah that Amir Itqani also thinks that if a Hanafi prays behind a Shafii, then salah of the Hanafi is batil behind the Shafii because of Raful Yadayn of the Shafii Imam, and Luknawee answered him in the best way. In Bada’I Sana’I, it is also said that Raf Yadayn is Mawjibu Fasad and Makrooh Tahrimi, v 1 p 548 and also in Sharh Munyah as quoted in Faydul Baree v 2 p 257. Shah Waliullah mentioned that Salaf had ikhtilaf in Najasah, conditions of Salah, 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 Musayab ? As quoted in Hujjatullah Balighah v 1 p 159 about Ikhtilaf of this Ummah. So Sayd ibn Musayab, for him blood coming out of the body does not break the wudhu, and Imam Ahmad did not see any Kirahah in praying behind the like of him. While for the same reason, all these Hanafi fuqahas tell that Salah behind them is makrooh Tanzeehi and some even said Tahrimi. So this is the result : dividing the Ummah in different groups, fighting each other, weakening the Ummah, making it an easy prey for Kuffar. These differences reach point of having four Musalah in Haram Shareef of Makkah, and it is forbidden in Hanafi fiqh that there be two Jama’ah in same mosque, but yet these people because of their Ta’asub in Taqleed left their Madhab and Tqleed of it on this point. Some even like Shamee went on to compare Masjidul Haram as a Mosque of streets, enabling by this way repetitions of second Jama’ah, third and four, but it is not hidden to anybody that Masjidul Haram does have regular Imam, so it is neverin hukm of Masjid of streets. And what about many mosques in Shaam and Misr. Sha’rani quoted from his shaykh Ali Khawas that he heard stories from Shafiyah and Ahnaaf doing Iftar before time in day to strengthen themselves for debate with opponents. ( Mizan 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 Munazarah with a Shafii in Ramadan, and he thinks that Sawm will weaken him, then Iftar is permissible for him” and Kashmiri criticized such fatawa from some Ahnaaf. ( 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 Iftar and others, it went to the extremity of killing each other, burning others houses. Allamah Yaqoot Al Hamawi narrated some events of Ray : “ There were fights between Ahnaaf and Shawafi’, and Shawafi even being less always became ghalib, and Hanafi 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. If they did not do that, no one would survive” ( Mu’jam Buldan v 3 p 117) About Asbahan Al Hamawi writes : “ At this time and before that in Asbahan and cities close to it, Kharab extended between Shafiyah and Hanafiyah because of lot of Fitan and Ta’asub. They fought continuously and when one party was ghalib on others, it was destroying and burning other’s homes, and they did not feel any shame doing that” ( Mu’jam Buldan v 1 p 209) Nowadays, in Afghanistan and paksitan’s border to it, a lot of Ahlul Hadeeth Madaris and Masajeed were burned by Deobandi Muta’asib. See some photos brought by Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay at end of his Risalah “ Bid’ati ke piche Namaz” about a Mosque destroyed in Butgram some years ago by local Deobandis and they even claimed it in newspapers. So yesterday it was against Shawafi, and in these places, as there is no Shafii, so they attack Ahlul Hadeeth, and it is well known that generally Ahlul Hadeeth of Indo-Pak take many Usul of fiqh from Shafii, and many famous masail like Qiraah Khalful Imam and Rafu yadayn, putting hands on chests, saying Ameen loudly. It has came to me from mutawatir reports from Afganee students of knowledge that many Taliban rulers were forbidding teachings of books other than Ahnaaf, even beating those doing Raful Yadayn. I heard shaykh Shafeequ Rahman Madni teacher at Jamiyah Lahore Islamiyah, also known as Jamiyah Rehmaniyah in garden town Lahore, saying he went at Taliban’s time in Afghanistan, and the Taliban delegate told him not to do Raful Yadayn in the Masjid, or to pray in a house not in the Masjid. So these people cannot stand ikhtilaf. And this Ta’asub was not specific to Afghanistan, but in India there were two books written by Ahnaaf doing takfeer of Ahlul Hadeeth and telling to expel them from Masajeed. “ Intizamul Masajeed bi Ikhraj Ahle fitan wal Mafaseed” of Muhammad Ludhiyanvi in which he said that Ahlul Hadeeth 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 Wahabiyeen minal Masajeed” written by Wasee Ahmad Soorti in 1883 H, and having signatures of many Ahnaaf from Ludhyanah, Deoband, Gangooh, Pani Pat, Rampoor and others. Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, Mahmood Hassan, Muhammad Ya’qoob Nanotwi and others signed this part of Jami’ Shawahid as told by Nadheer Ahmad Rehmani in his book " Ahle Hadeeth or Siyasat" : “ When the Aqaid of this Jama’at are against Jumhoor, then being Bid’ati is clear, and like Tajseem, Tahleel of more than four wives, tajweez of Taqiyah, saying bad words of fisq and Kufr on Salaf, then in matters of Namaz and Nikah, and Zabeehah there must be Ihtiyat from them like Ihtiyat with Rawafeed” Allah’s help is sought from lies. Now that last book had many lies against Ahlul Hadeeth, and because of it, Nadheer Hussain Dehlawi was arrested and close to be beaten by the Shareef of Makkah that was opposed at that time to Wahabiyah and Tahreek of Muhammad ibn Abdil Wahab. Many Ahnaaf could not stand teachings of hadeeth and propagation of masail of Malik, Shafii, Ahmad, Thawree, Layth or Awzaee 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 hadeeth from him. So they thought the best way to stop spread of Ahlul Hadeeth was to arrest one of their main leader, and when Allamah Nadheer Hussain came to Hajj, some Ahnaaf , among them Imdadullah Makki, Rahmatullah Hindi, Abdel Qadir Badayooni son of Fadl Rasool Badayooni, wrote to the Shareef, and Allamah Nadheer 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 Hadeeth were created by British, then why was Nadheer Hussain then put in jail for one year by british government ? See Maulana Nadheer Ahmad Rehmani’s book “ Ahlul Hadeeth or Syasat” where he tells that Imdadullah Makki was also among people plotting against Nadheer Hussain Dehlawi, and how he gathered with Bralwi thinking Abdel Qadir Badayooni for same purpose : Targeting head of Ahlul Hadeeth. And nowadays people expect flowers from Ahlul Hadeeth, that they will not show people what Imdadullah Makki wrote in his books from Shirkiyat and Khurafat. And Allah’s help is sought from Thulm of these Ahnaaf. Many Ahnaaf did not even leave their own Ahnaaf who followed saheeh ahadeeth and left their madhab, like Abul Hassan Kabeer. 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. This event as been quoted by Badi’udeen Shah Rashidi Sindhee in his risalah called in english “ The position of the hands in the Salah of the Prophet saw” So The Hanafi Qadhi could not stand Imam Shafii’ view in the Salah. An example of Ta’asub in last century is Zahid Al Kawthari, this man mocked Shafii, Malik, Ahmad and many Aimah from 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 Yussuf Binnori Deobandi also praised him a lot in his introduction to “Maqalat Kawthari” with lot of praise. Ta'n on Malik as quoted by Ghumari About Imam Malik, Kawthari said p 116 of Taneeb : “ The big Qudama of Malikiyah have three opinions towards such sayings of Malik” and after mentioning them he said : “ And it is clear from that that these sayings, if they are proven from what is attributed to him ( Malik), then the one who says that is a Mujrim ( criminal) and how is the criminal made Taqleed in his crimes ?” Ta’n on Shafii Kawthari made fun of Imam Shafii on p 23 and after for his having two sayings, then he mentioned a lie that a student traveled to take ilm from Shafii and when he came back, and a man asked him : is there a doubt about Allah ?, and the student answered : there are about this two sayings of Shafii.!!! Kawthari is also famous for his authentification of fabricated hadeeth that Shafii will be more harmful than SHaytan for this Ummah. Ta’n on Ahmad Kawthari said p 141 on his Taneeb : “ And there are not few among Fuqahah who did not agree to put sayings of Ahmad among sayings of Fuqahah as he is a muhadith ghayr Faqih for them” Zahid Kawthari said in his Maqalat ( p 330 Said Company Karachi, p 404 Maktabah Azhariyah) also introduced by Yussuf Binnori, about kitab Tawheed of Ibn Khuzaymah : “ And its author Ibn Khuzaymah called it “ Kitab Tawheed” and it is for Muhaqiq of Ahle Ilm Kitab Shirk” Same is said in Taneeb p 29 published in Beyroot 1981. And his Taneeb has been translated in urdu by Sarfraz Khan Safdar. So this is a collective failure of Ahnaaf not to criticize such statements, rather to introduce these kinds of books, and print them and recommend them. And it is not hidden from any student of knowledge, that according to Madhab of Jumhoor, a Muhadith calling to innovation is majrooh and his narrations are not accepted. It is written in Faydh Subhani Sharh Urdu Muntakhabul Husami v 1 p 364 ed Meezan, translated and explained by Jameel Ahmad Sakrodwi, teacher at Darul Ulum Deoband : “ As for Sahib of Hawa, then Madhab Mukhtar is that narrations of those who took his Khawaish Nafs as deen ( Intahala al hawa) and called people to it, are not accepted, because Muhajatu and call to Hawa is a cause calling to Taqawwul ( iftira as translated in urdu) so he is not trusted for hadeeth of Rasoolillahi Saw” And the Sharih agreed with that, and said that because of trying to prove wrong Aqaid and calling to it, then narrations are not accepted. So if Ibn Khuzaymah was a caller to shirk or innovations, then his narrations would be mardood, according to Hanafi rules. And Ibn Khuzaymah is agreed upon to be thiqah, so telling his book was book of shirk is rejecting all what scholars of hadeeth said about him, and also a blame to Salaf for not criticizing it, and remaining silent of so-called imaginary shirk. And how many others did Kawthari accused in his Maqalat and his Ta’neeb to be Mujasim or leaning to Tajseem like Abu Shaykh, while no Salaf said that about them. And Allah’s help is sought from Thulm of these Ahnaaf on Muhaditheen… And Ameen Okarvee, student of Sarfraz Khan, 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 Uloomil Hanfiyah v 2 p 348 : “ The narrator is Ahmad ibn Sa’eed Darimi, who was a Bid’ati from Mujassimah Firqah” While none of Muhadithoon ever said that, and he is a narrator from Bukhari and Muslim, agreed upon to be thiqah. So Ameen Okarvee is on same way of Zahid Al Kawthari for calling people Mujasim without quoting this jarh from Salaf. Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay in his book Nasrul Baree fi Takhreej Juzz Qiaraat of Imam Bukharee, mentionned in the introduction what Ameen Okarvee Deobandi Hayati said about Imam Bukhari. This Deobandi wrote in his tahqeeq of Juzz Qiraat in introduction p 12 that : " The Imam and teacher of Imam Bukharee, Abul Hafs Kabeer sent a message to Imam Bukharee to teach Hadeeth and not to give fatwa" He mentionned the reason for this on the same page quoting from Mabsoot of Sarkhasi Hanafee v 30 p 298 : " That if two baby drink milk from same goat, their Nikah will be forbidden" Imam Luknawi denied this story told by Sarkhasee to be true, knowing the great fiqh of Imam Bukharee in his Fawaid Al Baheeyah p 188. And there is no Sanad from Sarkhasi to Abu Hafs Kabeert despite more than a century between them. So is this not a revilement and gustakhi against Emir Al Moumineen fil Hadeeth. Anwar Shah Kashmiri in his introduction of Fayd Al Bari, and Zakariyah Kandahlwi in his introduction of Lami’ Durari, both said that Imam Bukhari was a Mujtahid and denied him being a muqalid of Imam Shafii. Know brother that Nadheer Hussain Dehlawi in his book “ Mi’yarul Haqq” praised Imam Abu Haneefah, and Thanaullh Amritsari while studying at Darul Ulum Deoband ( he also studied Bukhari from Mahmoodul Hassan Deobandi) answered some claims of Ahlul Hadeeth being disrespectful towards their Imam, and he quoted them what Nadheer Hussain Dehlawi wrote about Imam Abu Haneefah, so they could not say answer, as quoted in Tarikh Ahlil Hadeeth of Mir Muhamadi Sioalkoti. One can look at shaykh Ata’ullah Bhujiyani’s Ta’leeqat on urdu translation of “ Hayat Abi Haneefah” of Abu Zur’ah Missri, and when Abu Zur’ah Missri mentioned some criticism of some Muhadithoon on Abi Haneefah and defended Abu Haneefah, shaykh Bhujiyani also defended Abu Haneefah and said he might have some excuses for what Muhadith criticized him with and his conditions on Khabar Ahad and others… Now if some Ahlul Hadeeth quote words of Bukhari from his Tareekh, or from his kitabul Heel from Saheeh Bukhari, or other scholars like Humaydi, ibn Abi Shaybah, Ali ibn Madeeni on khiyar Majilis as quoted in Nassai, Wakee’ as quoted in Tirmidhi about Halalah and Ish’ar of camels, then they would do the same if it was another Imam, and they do it to rectify some mistakes, so people do not blindly follow their Imam, not because of any hate of Abu Haneefah. Rather Ahlul Hadeeth love every Imam and do istifadah from them, and take their words if they see according to daleel. Nadheer Hussain Dehlawi always prayed in Jami’ Masjid of Dehli behind Hanafi, so Ahlul Hadeeth only had to separate when they were expelled by Ahnaaf from their mosques. People can look in books of Kibar Ahlul Hadeeth like Nawab Sideeq Hassan Khan, Abder Rahman Mubarakpoori, Abdel Haqq ‘Atheemabadee or others if they do find any gustakhi on Abu Haneefah. And yet many people call them La Madhabi, Zindeeq, Shi’a’s little brothers, and many other names. This is the same as some’s takfeer of Shawafi’ and mockery of Aimah, yet they did not find any Shafii so they attacked the people they saw against their Madhab… Al Hamdulilah, some Ahnaaf like Mufti Kifayatullah said in his fatawa that Ahlul Hadeeth were from Ahle Sunnah, eating their Zabeehah, Nikah with them all of that is saheeh, and by leaving Taqleed one is not expelled from Ahle Sunnah wal Jama’ah. See Kifayatul Mufti v 1 p 325. Answer N 370. Allamah Abdel Hay Luknawi, despite having differences with Allamah Basheer Sahsawani and writings books refuting him on Ziyarah of Qabr Nabawi, then when Allamah Basheer came to Farang Mahali, he was received with honors by Abel Hay Luknawi and remained many days here. But yet, some minors like Ameen Okarvee, Habeebullah Daerwi and others called in Pakistan Kawthari Mashrab people, are still insulting Ahlul Hadeeth, attacking Imam Bukhari, saying Ahlul Hadeeth are not Sunnis in the same way of Zahid AL Kawthari. About Muhammad ibn Abdil Wahab, there are two fatawas in “ Fatawah Rasheediyah” published by Makatabah Rehmaniyah in Lahore, and they praise Muhammad ibn Abdil Wahab saying he had ‘umdah ‘Aqeedah, was a pious man, was Hamabli and also ‘Amil bil Hadeeth, he was fighting shirk and bid’ah. Sarfraz Khan in his “ Taskeen Sudoor” p 266 ed sep 2004 said about Muhammad ibn Abdil Wahab : “ And he was a caller of Tawheed and Sunnah, and he mad some ‘Awami mistakes in Waqti Masalahat, and this is why he was badnam, and Buzurg like Allamah Shamee and Hadhrat Madni were not protected from being Mutaathir ( by his bad reputation), but the right position is that of Allamah Aloosi and Hadhrat Gangohi” But yet some Ahnaaf, inspired by the late Kawthari still insult scholars of Najd, mock them, call them misguided… As Salah wa Salam ‘ala Nabi saw So is same violence of Ahnaaf against anything that opposes their Madhab. They do tafseeq, revile, do takfeer, beat, put in jail and all that opposes their madhab. May Allah save us from Blind Taqleed
Habibur Rahman principal of Darul Ulum Deoband said in his Hashiyah of “ Jalalayn” that Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyah was misguided and a misguiding others ( Dhal wa Mudhil). So like Kawthari calling to ‘Aqeedah of Salaf, leaving Blind Taqleed, fighting shirk and innovations, all of this is misguidance. Muhammad Hassan Sanbhuli in his sharh of ‘Aqaid Nassafi compared Ibn Taymiyah, ibnul Qayem, Shawkani, ibn Hazm and Dawood Thahiri to dogs. So one can see how these people stand ikhtilaf in Taqleed, and other matters. For them Fiqh of their Imam is a law that cannot be abandoned. This is why Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ Deobandi wrote in his ‘Ma’ariful Quran” v 3 p 364 : “ The different Masalik of Fuqahah of this Ummah have same level as in precedent time different Sharai’ of Prophets before Islam, despite being different, they were all Allah’s hukm” All different laws before send to Prophets were all Wahee from Allah, and one abrogated the other, but are differences in Ijtihadat of Fuqahah 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 ikhtilaf do not come from Allah, some are right and some are wrong, and Allah will give double recompense to those who were right and one recompense to the one who made erred. And Ahlul Hadeeth respected these ikhtilaf based on daleel, as in matters of Qiraat Khalful Imam. Ahlul Hadeeth from India favor the position of Imam Shafii and Bukhari that Muqtadi should read Fatihah behind Imam in all cases, whether Imam reads loudly or silently. Yet, Ahlul Hadeeth do not say that those who based on Ijtihad do not read behind Imam, that there prayers are Batil. Muhammad Gondahlwi, who was also teacher of Shaykh Rabi’ Al Madkhalee, said in introduction of his book : “ Khayrul Kalam fi Wujub Qira’ah Khalfil Imam” p 33 : “ Our Maslak is that Fatihah Khalful Imam is because of being a furu’I and ikhtilafi, an Ijtihadi masalah. One who does extreme tahqeeq and thinks that Faihah is not fardh, whether in Jahri or Sirri prayer, and he acts on his tahqeeq, then his prayer is not batil” While some Hanafi said that one who reads Fatihah behind Imam, his teeth should be broken and mud should be put in his mouth. Hussain ibn ‘Ali Saghnani d 711 said in “ Nihayah sharh Hidayah” as quoted in “ Imamul Kalam” p 40 of Abdel Hay Luknawi about the one who reads behind Imam : “And from Abdallah Al Balkhi, he said that his mouth should be filled with mud ( turab), and it has been said that it is Mustahab to break his teeth” Haskafi said in Durul Mukhtar v 1 p 544-555 : “ In Durarul Bihar from Mabsoot Khawahir, it is added that it ( prayer) is fasid and he becomes a Fasiq” For this purpose some Hanafi even invented some ahadeeth. Like the hadeeth “ 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 Mamoon ibn Ahmad Al Harawi, Dajjal, narrates fabrications” Abdel Hay Luknawi said in his “Ta’liqul Mumajad ‘ala Muwatta Muhammad” p 99 : “ And Sahib Nihayah and others mentioned it in marfoo’ way with words : “ There will be Jamrah ( burning stone) in his mouth” and there is no basis for it ( la Asla lahu)” And this Mamoon ibn Ahmad Al Harawi also narrated the hadeeth : “ 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. This is consequence of Ta’asub and Blind Taqleed.In "Hadeeth" of august, shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay has shown somes lies of Habeebullah Daerwi Hayati Deobandi as well as some of his revilments of Aimah. Daerwi said about Imam Bukhari in his Nur Sabah p 154: " Hadhrat Imam Bukhari ki be cheni ( lack of calm)" About Khateeb Baghdadee , Daerwi said in his " Tawdeeuhul Kalam par ek nadhar" p 153 : " Khateeb Baghdadi is a strange man" About Bayhaqi, he said in his nadhar on Tawdeehul Kalam p 136 : " O dear readers, in this quote Hadhrat Imam Bayhaqi did a zabardast Khiyanat" About Hafiz Daraqutni, he said in the same book p 306 : " By which Daraqutni's partisanship and biasness is clear" About Al Hafiz, Al Imam Abu 'Ala Nisapoori, Daerwi dares to say p 304 of the same book : " Abu 'Ala hafiz is a Thalim ( unjust)" So when will these ghulat Muqalid will stop their violence and revilments of Aimah ? It is well-known that Muqalid do not rely on Muhadith they sometimes accuse of being Shafii, or tell to be Muta'asib and others, as if these people did not fear Allah, and only Ahnaf were non biased people.
DRUNKEN TALAQ: HOW SOME FATWAS DISTORT ISLAM
Ijtihaad and Taqleed by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-'Uthaymin (d. 1421 AH) says in his 'Al-Usool min 'Ilimil Usool' (pp97-104),
'Definition of Ijtihaad:
linguistically ijtihaad means: to expend efforts in order to reach some difficult matter. Technically it means: expending efforts to arrive at a Sharee'ah ruling. And the Mujtahid is the one who expends efforts for this purpose.
Conditions for Ijtihaad:
Being a mujtahid has conditions, from them:-
That he knows the Sharee'ah proofs which he needs in his ijtihaad - such as the verses and ahaadeeth pertaining to rulings.
That he knows what relates to the authenticty or weakness of a hadeeth, such as having knowledge of the isnaad and it's narrators and other than this.
That he knows the abrogated and the abrogating, and the places where there is ijmaa - such that he does not give a ruling according to something that has been abrogated, nor give a ruling that opposes the (authentically related) ijmaa.
That he knows from the proofs that which causes the rulings to vary, such as takhsees (particularisation), or taqyeed (restriction), or it's like. So he does not give a judgement which is contrary to this.
That he knows the Arabic language and usul al-fiqh, and what relates to the meanings and indications of particular wordings - such as the general, the particular, the absolute and unrestricted, the restricted, the unclarified, and the clarified, and it's like - in order that he gives rulings in accordance with what this demands.
That he has the ability to extract rulings from the evidences.
And ijtihaad may be split up, such that it may be undertaken in one particular branch of knowledge, or in one particular issue.
What is essential for the Mujtahid:
It is essential that the Mujtahid strives in expending his efforts to arrive at knowledge of the truth, and to give rulings in accordance to what is apparent to him. If he is correct, then he has two rewards: one for his ijtihaad, and the other for arriving at the truth - since arriving at the truth means that it is manifested and acted upon. If, however, he is mistaken, then he has a single reward, and his error is forgiven him, as he (SAW) said, "when a judge judges and strives and is correct, then he has two rewards. If he judges and strives and errs, then he has a single reward." If the ruling is not clear to him, then he must withold - and in such a case, taqleed is permissible for him, due to necessity.
Taqleed - it's definition:
Linguistically, taqleed means: Placing something around the neck, which encircles the neck. Technically it means: Following he whose sayings is not a proof (hujjah).
Exlcuded from our saying, "following he whose saying is not a proof" is: following the Prophet (SAW), following the ijmaa and also following the saying of the sahaabee - for those who consider the saying of a single sahaabee to be a proof. So following any of these is not called taqleed, since there is a proof for doing so. However this type of following is sometimes referred to as taqleed in a very metaphorical and loose sense.
The Place of Taqleed:
Taqleed is done in two cases:
1) when the muqallid is an 'aamee (a common person) who does not have the ability to aquire knowledge of the sharee'ah ruling by himself. So taqleed is obligatory upon him, due to the saying of Allaah - The Most High, "ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." So he does taqleed of one whom he considers to be a person of knowledge and piety. If there are two such people who are equal in his view, then he chooses any one of them.
2) The mujtahid when he encounters a new situation, for which an immediate solution is required, but it is not possible for him to research into this matter. So in this case he is permitted to perform taqleed.
Some stipulate as a condition for the permissibility of taqleed, that the matter is not from the fundamentals of the deen - those matters which must be held as aqueedah - since matters of aqueedah require certainty, whereas taqleed only amounts to dhann (knowledge which is not certain).
However the correct saying in this matter is that this is not a condition, due to the generality of his - the Most High's - saying, "ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." And this verse is in the context of affirming the Messengership - which is from the fundamentals of the deen. And also because the common person cannot acquire knowledge of the sharee'ah rulings with it's proofs by himself. So if he is unable to arrive at the truth by himself, then nothing remains for him except taqleed, due to the saying of Allaah - the most High, "fear Allaah as much as you can"
Types of Taqleed:
Taqleed is of two types: general and specific.
1) The general type: that a person sticks to a particular madhhab (school of thought), accepting it's concessions and non-concessions, in all matters of the deen.
The scholars have differed about such a state. So some amongst the late-comers have reported that this is obligatory upon him, due to his inability to perform ijtihaad. Others report it as being forbidden for him, due to its being a case of necessitating unrestricted following of other than the Prophet (SAW).
Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah said,
"The saying that it is obligatory, causes obedience to other than the Prophet (SAW) in every matter of command and pohibition, and this is in opposition to the ijmaa'. And the allowance of it contains what it contains."
He also said,
"He who sticks to a particular madhhab, and then acts in opposition to it - without making taqleed of another scholar who has given him a ruling, nor does he use an evidence as a proof which necessitates acting in opposition to his madhhab, nor does he have an acceptable Sharee'ah excuse which allows him to do what he has done - then such a person is a follower of his desires, doing what is haraam - without a Sharee'ah excuse - and this is evil and sinful.
However, if there becomes clear to him, something which necessitates preference to one saying to another - either due to detailed proofs if he knows and understands them, or because he holds one of two people to be more knowledgeable about this matter and having more piety with regards to what he says - and so he leaves the saying of that one for the saying of the other one, then this is permissible, rather, it is obligatory. And there is a text from Imaam Ahmad about this."
2) The particular type of taqleed is that he accepts a saying about a particular matter. This is permissible if such a person is unable to arrive at knowledge of the by ijtihaad - whether he is unable to in reality, or he is able, but with great difficulty.
Fatwaa of a Muqallid:
Allaah - the Most High - said, "Ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." And the Ahludh Dhikr are the Ahlul Ilm (the people of knowledge), whereas the muqallid is not a person of knowledge who is followed - rather he himself is a follower of someone else.
Ibn Abdul Barr (d.463) and others have said,
"the people are united in ijmaa that the muqallid is not counted as being from the Ahlul Ilm, and that knowledge is the realisation of guidance along with it's proof."
Ibn al-Qayyim said,
" And it is as Abu Umar (ibn Abdul Barr) said: Indeed, the people do not differ about the fact that knowledge is the realisation attained from proof, but without proof, it is only taqleed."
Ibn al-Qayyim then quotes,
"There are three sayings about the permissibility of giving fatwaa based upon taqleed:
1) It is not permissible to give fatwaa based upon taqleed, because it is not knowledge; since issuing a fatwaa without knowledge is forbidden. This is the saying of most of the Hanbalee scholars and the majority of the Shaafi'iyyah.
2) That it is permissible with regards to himself, but it is not permissible to give a fatwaa to others based upon taqleed.
3) That it is permissible when there is a need for it, and there is no mujtahid scholar. And this is the most correct of the sayings and is what is acted upon."'
Shaykh al-Albaanee says in his, 'The Hadeeth is a Proof in itself' after mentioning the statements of the Imaams on Taqleed as found in the introduction to 'The Prophets Prayer Described' brings a chapter heading, "Taqleed for whoever cannot search for proofs by himself"
'"Some may ask: "Not everyone has the ability to be a Person of Knowledge, as explained before?" We say: yes indeed. No one disputes this fact. Allaah said, "So ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know." (16:43) and, "ask the knowledgeable about it" (25:59). The Prophet (SAW), for those who issued fatwa without knowledge: "Could not they have asked if they did know? The cure for the confused one is to ask." However, we did not mention all of the above evidence to show who can and who cannot be a scholar. Our research is with regards to those few who are considered to be People of Knowledge....Taqleed is upon the common person and the ignorant one. The scholars, who can search for the evidence, are excluded from this group. They are the ones whose responsibility is not to do Taqleed. Rather, their responsibility is to perform Ijtihaad. The following saying by ibn Abdul Barr explains this matter further, "All these rules are for the common folk, they are the ones who have to perform Taqleed of their scholars when needed. They are not capable of understanding or comprehending evidence or knowledge. Knowledge has grades, one cannot attain the topmost grade unless he goes via the base...Scholars do not differ with regards to the common folk having to follow their scholars..." However, I believe that to generalise about the common folk by saying that they all must perform taqleed is invalid. Taqleed is to follow others without evidence. Many intelligent people can clearly understand evidence if it is presented to them. Who can deny that a common person can understand the evidence contained in the hadeeth, "Tayammum is one strike (of the hands on the dust) for the face and hands"? Even people lacking intelligence can understand this hadeeth. Therefore, the truth is that we must say that Taqleed is allowed for whosoever cannot search for or understand the evidence, ibn al-Qayyim also was of this opinion. Even scholars are forced to do Taqleed sometimes, when a scholar cannot find a text from Allaah or His Messenger, but only sayings of more knowledgeable scholars."
1. He is Abu Abdullaah Muhammad ibn Saalih ibn Muhammad ibn Uthaymeen al-Wuhaibee at-Tameemee, born 27th Ramadaan 1347 in 'Unayzah, Saudia Arabia. He memorised the Qur'aan during early life and then studied under two of the students of Shaykh Abd ar-Rahmaan as-Sa'dee, later on going to study under the Shaykh himself. He studied Tawheed, tafseer, hadeeth, fiqh, usul al-fiqh, al-faraa'id (inheritance), nahw (grammar) and sarf (morphology). Then he studied under the scholar Abd al-Azeez bin Baaz. He is one of the foremost shaykhs of Ahlus Sunnah today, and has written around 40 books.
2. 'Jaami Bayaan al-Ilm' (2/119). And Allaamah al-Fulaanee says in his, 'Eeqaadh Hamam Oolil Absaar' (pg. 25), "....ilm refers only to what is in Allaah's Book, and the Sunnah of Allaah's Messenger (SAW) and the ijmaa and what is gained by qiyaas upon these sources....It does not refer to what the muqallids and the people of party spirit regard as ilm - in thei restricting ilm to refer to that which is written in the books of the opinions of the madhaahib - even though some of that clashes with the Prophetic ahaadeeth.."
ash-Shaatibee says in 'al-Muwaafiqaat' (4/293), "the muqallid is not an aalim." And it occurs in the books of the Hanafees that the ignorant one is not allowed to take the post of Qadee (judge). And ibn al-Hammaan explains the ignorant one to be the Muqallid in 'Fath al-Qadeer' (5/456) and likewise ibn Wazeer in 'Rawdah al-Baasim' (1/36).
3. 'I'laam al-Muwaqqi'een' (1/7)
4. Imaaam ash-Shafi'ee said in his 'Risalah' (pg.39): "It is not permissible for anyone to ever to say about anything that it is halaal or haraam except upon knowledge. And this knowledge is what is related in the Book, or the Sunnah or Ijmaa or Qiyaas."
5. pp's 83+ of the English translation by The Daar of Islamic Heritage. This whole section is important and should be read thoroughly as it clears up many misconceptions and doubts.
Courtesy: Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid
If a man divorces his wife three times with one word, such as saying, “You are thrice divorced”, the majority of scholars are of the view that the woman is indeed thrice divorced and becomes forbidden for her husband until she has been married to another man in a serious marriage in which the new husband has intercourse with her and they only separate as a result of death or divorce, not a tahleel marriage (i.e., a marriage of convenience aimed at making it permissible for her to remarry her former husband).
They quoted as evidence for that the fact that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) counted such a divorce as being three and judged among people accordingly.
Other scholars were of the view that this is to be regarded as a single divorce, and the husband may take her back so long as the ‘iddah has not yet ended. If the ‘iddah has ended then she may marry him with a new marriage contract. They quoted as evidence for that the report narrated in Saheeh Muslim from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: “At the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), the time of Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) and the first two years of the caliphate of ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him), a threefold divorce was counted as one. ‘Umar said: “People are being hasty with regard to a matter in which they should not rush. Let us count it as three and judge between people accordingly .” According to another report narrated by Muslim: Abu’l-Sahba’ said to Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with them): “Was not three counted as one at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the time of Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) and the first three years of the time of ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him)?” He said: “Yes,”
They also quote as evidence the report narrated by Imam Ahmad in al-Musnad with a jayyid isnaad from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him), that Abu Rakaanah divorced his wife by saying “I divorce you thrice”, then he regretted it, so the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) returned her to him with one word and said, “This is only one (divorce).” This hadeeth and the one before it are to be understood as referring to divorcing by saying “I divorce you thrice”, in order to reconcile these two hadeeths and the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“The divorce is twice” [al-Baqarah 2:229]
“And if he has divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she has married another husband. Then, if the other husband divorces her, it is no sin on both of them that they reunite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allaah. These are the limits of Allaah, which He makes plain for the people who have knowledge” [al-Baqarah 2:230]
This was the view of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) according to a saheeh report narrated from him; according to the other report narrated from him he shared the view of the majority. The view that they should be regarded as one divorce was narrated from ‘Ali, ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf and al-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwaam (may Allaah be pleased with them).
This was also the view of a number of the Taabi’een, Muhammad ibn Ishaaq the author of al-Seerah, and a number of the earlier and later scholars. It was also the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on them). This is also my view, because that is following all of the texts, and because it is also more merciful and kind to the Muslims. Fataawa Islamiyyah, 3/281, 282.
It seems that the qaadi was also of this view, which is that the threefold divorce counts as one divorce. Based on this there is nothing wrong with taking her back.
But after the ‘iddah is over you cannot take her back, rather you have to make a new marriage contract with her.
With regard to taking her back after the ‘iddah is over – i.e., after three menstrual cycles – this is not valid, because once a woman’s ‘iddah is completed she becomes a “stranger” for her husband and she is not permissible for him except with a new marriage contract. Fataawa Islamiyyah, 3/293
Shaykh Ibn Baaz was asked about a man whose wife treats him badly and insults him, so he divorced her at a moment of anger. He replied:
If you uttered the words of divorce at a moment of intense anger and without realizing it, and you could not control yourself, because of her bad words and insults etc., and you did that at a moment of intense anger and without realizing it, and she acknowledges that, or you have a witness of good character, then divorce has not taken place, because the shar’i evidence indicates that divorce does not take place if the words are spoken at a moment of intense anger – and if it is accompanied by not realizing what is happening then the ruling applies even more so.
For example, Ahmad, Abu Dawood and Ibn Maajah narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is no divorce and no manumission in the event of ighlaaq.” The majority of scholars said that ighlaaq means compulsion or anger, i.e., intense anger. For his anger made him unaware of what he was saying, so he is like one who is unconscious, insane or drunk, because of the intensity of his anger. So divorce does not take place in this instance. If he does not realize what he is doing and cannot control his words or actions because of the intensity of his anger, then divorce does not take place.
Anger may be of three types:
1 – When a person is angry and is no longer aware of what he is doing. This is likened to the insane, so divorce does not take place according to all scholars.
2 – Where a person is very angry but is still aware of what is going on, but his anger is so intense that it makes him say the words of divorce. In this case too, divorce does not take place according to the correct scholarly opinion.
3 – The ordinary type of anger which is not very intense. In this case, divorce takes place, according to all the scholars.
From Fataawa al-Talaaq, pp. 19-21, compiled by Dr. ‘Abd-Allaah al-Tayyaar and Muhammad al-Moosa.
What the Shaykh mentioned about the second type of anger is also the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on them both). Ibn al-Qayyim wrote an essay on that entitled Ighaathat al-Lahfaan fi Hukm Talaaq al-Ghadbaan, in which he said the following:
Anger is of three types:
1 – That which is not so intense as to affect a person’s mind or rational thinking; he knows what he is saying and what he means. There is no dispute that in this case divorce, manumission and contracts are valid.
2 – Where his anger reaches such a limit that he no longer knows what he is doing or saying. There is no dispute that in this situation divorce does not take place. If his anger is so intense that he does not know what he is saying, there is no doubt that none of his words should be implemented in this case. The words of the mukallif (adult of sound mind) are only to be implemented if he knows what he is saying and what it means, and if the speaker really means that.
3 – The kind of anger that falls between the two categories mentioned above, where the anger goes beyond the ordinary level but not so far as to make him behave like a madman. This is an area of scholarly differences of opinion. The shar’i evidence indicates that divorce, manumission and contracts in such cases are not valid, and this is a kind of ighlaaq as the imams explained.
From Mataalib Ooli al-Nuha, 5/323; see also Zaad al-Ma’aad, 5/215.
HOW SOME FATWAS DISTORT ISLAM AND OPPRESS WOMEN BY A. FAIZUR RAHMAN
Brouhaha over a fatwa Yoginder Sikand July 21, 2005
The fatwa issued by a mufti of the Deoband madrasa dissolving the marriage of Imrana, mother of five, for having been allegedly raped by her father-in-law has, predictably, set off a major controversy.
Several Muslims have voiced their opposition to the fatwa, arguing that it is not in accordance with Islamic law or shariah as they understand it. This points to the deeply contested nature of the shariah, there being considerable diversity of opinion as to precisely what it mandates on a range of issues.
While the ambiguity of the shariah might lend itself to theological anarchy on occasion, it also allows for alternate, more progressive interpretations to be articulated that can challenge what, to critics, are regressive and obscurantist prescriptions. This is precisely what seems to be happening as a fall-out of the Imrana controversy.
Given the strong sectarian divisions within the broader Muslim fold, it is not surprising that there is no consensus among the ulama of different sects as to the 'Islamicity' of the fatwa. Most Deobandi ulama and their rivals, the Barelvis, both adherents of the Hanafi Sunni school of jurisprudence, probably believe that the fatwa is in accordance with their version of Islam because this is what is prescribed in the books of classical Hanafi law.
The fatwa is based in a ruling by Imam Abu Hanifa, putative founder of the Hanafi school, that when a woman has sex after marriage with her husband she becomes the mother of all his children and so cannot marry his son, even though that son may be from a previous marriage.
The ruling includes the possibility that a daughter-in-law and her father-in-law may have an illegal sexual relationship, in which case also her marriage to the man's son would be invalid. It is on the basis of this argument that the Deoband mufti issued his fatwa annulling Imrana's marriage to her husband.The fatwa has been critiqued by several Muslim scholars for its literalist reading of Hanafi prescriptions, without taking into account the particular context surrounding the case. For instance, Yawar Baig, a Bangalore-based Islamic scholar, writes that Abu Hanifa's ruling applies to a case of consensual sex, and not of rape. Hence, he says, Imrana cannot be punished for having been raped, and to do so would be to go against the intention of Abu Hanifa's ruling.
Similarly, a Deobandi scholar, a close friend of mine, who chooses to remain anonymous for fear of being hounded by his fellow Deobandis, tells me that by punishing the victim the fatwa defies the basic 'intention' (maqsad) of the shariah, which is 'justice' (adl), and hence cannot be considered Islamically valid.
He is bitterly critical of the 'blind following' (taqlid) of the Hanafi school on the part of most Deobandis, even in cases where Hanafi jurisprudence departs from the clear prescriptions or the underlying spirit of the Quran, as is clearly evident in this particular fatwa. The books of Hanafi jurisprudence, he says, were written centuries after the death of the Prophet, and are based on the opinions of Hanafi ulama, and are not necessarily in accordance with the Quran on every issue. Hence, he says, to place Hanafi jurisprudence over the Quran, as this fatwa appears to have done, has 'no justification at all'.
He insists that 'half-baked mullahs' with no understanding of social reality and contemporary demands should desist from issuing fatwas, and argues the need for ijtihad, or creative reinterpretation of Islamic jurisprudence in order to meet contemporary concerns. He laments that most of his fellow Hanafis, Deobandis and Barelvis, are loath to accept the need for ijithad, although ijithad is entirely in accordance with the commandments of Prophet Muhammad.Notable ulama belonging to the Ahl-i-Hadith sect as well as some Shia scholars have argued that the fatwa has no sanction in the Quran or in the sayings attributed to the Prophet. Other scholars have pointed out that the fatwa does not receive support from the three other schools of Sunni jurisprudence, the Shafi, Hanbali and Maliki, which are regarded by the Hanafis as equally 'orthodox' in matters of belief.
According to the Shafi school, for instance, an act, such as rape, that is forbidden (haram) cannot establish or nullify something that is pure (halal), such as marriage. Critics of the fatwa have argued that no matter what the Hanafi position on the matter is, there is no harm if Imrana be allowed to resort to the equally 'orthodox' Shafi school for redress.
Resorting to another school of Sunni jurisprudence on a particular issue, they argue, would not constitute a radical innovation. After all, it was at the suggestion of the renowned Deobandi scholar, Ashraf Ali Thanvi, that the Muslim Dissolution of Marriage Act of 1939 was passed that bypassed the Hanafi rule that apostasy annuls a marriage in order to prevent Muslim women seeking a divorce from abandoning Islam.
The Act, which received the approval of most Indian Hanafi scholars, allowed a Muslim woman to obtain a judicial divorce on grounds permitted by the Maliki school without having to convert to another religion. There is thus no reason, critics of the fatwa argue, that in the Imrana case help cannot be sought from another school of Sunni law if it will help secure justice for her. Whether or not the Deobandis, strictly wedded to the Hanafi school, will concede this just demand remains to be seen.While the opposition to the fatwa on the part of numerous Muslims is heartening to note, it is possible that, despite this, the controversy faces the risk of being turned into a communal issue, with Hindutva spokesmen using it in order to attack Muslim Personal Law.
Presenting themselves as 'saviours' of 'oppressed' Muslim women, they conveniently overlook their supporters' role in the mass murder and rape of Muslim women and the Muslim women left widowed and destitute in one pogrom after another. The controversy is also being sensationalised all out of proportion by the 'mainstream' press, ever on the prowl for stories of the 'oppressed' Muslim woman, who is used as a foil to 'prove' to the world how 'modern' the Hindu woman is in contrast.
It is striking how mild, in comparison, the indignation of the press is to similar or worse stories of oppressed 'Hindu' women, to sati deaths, dowry-killings, girl child sacrifices to appease bloodthirsty goddesses, 'low' caste women killed or raped by 'upper' caste goons or spouses being killed by caste panchayats for daring to marry outside their caste.
In the brouhaha that the press, obdurate mullahs, Hindutva-walas and 'secular' politicians are all so taken up with, Imrana, like the hapless Gudiya and Shah Bano before her, risks being turned into a pawn in a larger, murky political game. And just as Shah Bano and Gudiya have long since been forgotten, Imrana and her plight might soon vanish from our conscience.Yoginder Sikand has written several articles on Islam and Muslims in contemporary India. The views expressed are his own.
DRUNKEN TALAQ: HOW SOME FATWAS DISTORT ISLAM AND OPPRESS WOMEN BY A. FAIZUR RAHMAN MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW BOARD BETRAYS WORD, SPIRIT OF QURAN BY ARIF MOHAMMED KHAN
Talaq-i-Bid'ah means innovated (or sinful) form of Divorce. It is defined as a divorce which is pronounced thrice in one sitting when the wife is in the state of purity (tuhr), i.e., when man says: "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you." The Hanafis believe that though this form of divorce is sinful and innovative, it is nevertheless valid and divorce will take place. According to the Hanafis when triple divorce is pronounced, the wife will become totally alienated from the husband and he cannot remarry her. She becomes haram (totally prohibited) for him. Neither can he take her back nor can he go for fresh nikah with her. He can go for nikah with her only after she marries another person and that person divorces her on account of marital conflict or she becomes a widow.
According to Maulana 'Umar Ahmad 'Usmani this is the position of not only Abu Hanifa but also of Imam Malik and Shafi'i. Imam Shafi'i says this form of divorce is perfectly valid. It is not innovation (bid'ah). It is quite proper on the part of the husband to pronounce such a divorce. No husband can be prevented from adopting a valid course. Even Imam Ahmad Hanbal's position is the same as that of Imam Hanifa and Imam Malik. Thus it 'seems that all major founders of four schools of jurisprudence accept the validity of triple divorce.'
But Imam Taymiyyah has proved that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal had retracted from his earlier position of accepting the validity of triple divorce and in a later period he used to say that when I reflected on the Qur'anic position I came to the conclusion that it permits only raj'i Talaq, i.e., divorce in which the wife can be taken back. He then took the position that even if someone pronounces triple divorce it should be treated as one only. The husband thus will have the right to take his wife back within the 'iddah period or go for nikah if the 'iddah period has expired. Imam Ahmad's companions and disciples also adopted this position. Many companions of the Noble Prophet like Ibn Abbas, Hazrat Ali, etc. also were of this opinion. Some have quoted companions like Abdullah bin Mas'ud, Abdur Rahman bin'Auf and Zuber bin al-Awwam also adopting this position. Ahl-e-Hadith also are of this opinion, i.e., that triple divorce is not valid. The Ithna 'Asharis (i.e., twelve Shi'as) and Imamiyas believe that if three divorces are pronounced together, even one divorce does not take place, let alone three. Even some Hanafi jurists like Hajjaj bin Artat and Muhammad Ibn Muqatil believe that if one pronounces three divorces, no divorce will take place.
Maulana 'Usmani tells us that according to Muhammad Muqatil one of the two opinions of Imam Hanifa was that only one divorce will take place if three divorces are pronounced. Similarly according to Imam Tilmisani Imam Malik also held the opinion that only one divorce takes place if three divorces are pronounced. Usmani also quotes from Hafiz Ibn Hajar's Fath al-Bari to the effect that many eminent jurists held that if one pronounces three divorces, only one take place.
From among the 'ulama of later period, Sheikh Shaltut, who was Sheikh al-Azhar, writes in his Fatwa that if one gives three divorces, only one divorce Talaq-i-raj'i will take place and the husband will have the right to take his wife back by saying so or by having sexual contact with her. Another prominent 'Alim 'Allama Rashid Rida' in his Tafsir al-Manar (Vol. IX, p. 683) has expressed a similar opinion. Another contemporary eminent, Arab 'Alim Shaikh Jamal al-Din al-Qasim has discussed this problem at great length in his book al-Istinas and has concluded that triple divorce has no validity and it should be treated as one divorce only. Quoting all these authorities Maulana 'Usmani says that triple divorce is not in keeping with the rulings of the Qur'an.
After quoting all these authorities Maulana 'Usmani discusses the whole issue in the light of the Noble Qur'an. He refers to the Qur'anic verse 2: 229-30, which begins with Al-talaqu marratan, i.e., divorce may be pronounced twice. He says the word marratan implies a gap between two pronouncements (all Hanafi jurists accept this), which means there should be a large enough time-gap between the two pronouncements of divorce. Marratan (twice) itself carries this sense. When we say "I went to your house twice but you were not there" cannot mean one went to his house twice in one go but after some reasonable gap of time. Once he went, he was not there, then again he went, he was not there. Thus the act of going had to be accomplished in two different periods of time. 'Usmani then quotes other verses of the Qur'an where the word marratan occurs and explains that everywhere it implies a gap of time in between.
The question is despite triple divorce being sinful, innovative and against the Qur'an will it occur if someone pronounces triple divorce? The second question is did anyone make such mistake (of pronouncing triple divorce) in Prophet's (pbuh) time and did he accept it as triple divorce? Or did he take it to be one divorce only? Lastly, when would the practice of triple divorce start again?
In the Qur'an, nikah is described as misaqan ghaliza, i.e., strong bond and has explained how and with whom one can enter into this strong bond and this strong bond cannot be dissolved without proper reason and method. It certainly cannot be dissolved whimsically. A man has to pass through different stages to bring about reconciliation either by persuading his wife to behave properly, or by appointing arbitrators as per Qur'anic injunctions (4:35). If all this fail only then recourse can be taken to divorce. Thus, according to the Qur'an, divorce is not an arbitrary and whimsical thing. The method prescribed by the Qur'an for divorce is that one can give divorce twice only, i.e., on two different occasions and then either he has to keep the woman with kindness or leave her with benevolence. In pre-Islamic Arab society they used to pronounce divorce even one thousand times and keep the sword of divorce hanging on her head. The Qur'an disallowed it and permitted pronouncement of divorce only twice. The Maulana says that even giving divorce in three periods of purity (pronouncing divorce once in every period of purity thrice is also not proved by the Qur'an and is thus prohibited. Once talaq is pronounced once, it takes place and woman goes out of marital bond at once and is now free to marry other man after completing the period of 'iddah. Why then pronounce talaq more than once? For what reason? Repeating the word more than once is just absurd, says the Maulana. Talaq should not be pronounced more than once in any case.
He then takes up the second question-whether anyone had divorced thrice in the Prophet's period? And did he accept it? He then quotes from Sahih Muslim, Imam Abu Da'ud, etc., to show that during the Noble Prophet's time, during Hazrat Abu Bakr's time and for two years during Hazrat 'Umar's time three divorces given at a time were taken as one divorce only. But after two years of his Khilafat period Hazrat 'Umar again enforced it (i.e., triple divorce) as people were misusing it and there were several complaints.
Maulana 'Usmani quotes from Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal that once Rukanah pronounced three divorces against his wife but later he was very sorry for it. When the Prophet (pbuh) asked him, How did you divorce your wife? Rukanah replied that he had pronounced three divorces. The Prophet asked, Did you pronounce it in one sitting? When he said, Yes, the Noble Prophet said, Treat it as one divorce only and if you want you can take your wife back. And Rukanah took his wife back.
This hadith of the Prophet narrated by Ibn Abbas is found in Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Da'ud and other authentic collections of Hadith literature. No one has questioned its authenticity pertaining to marriage, divorce, inheritance or custody of children. In certain respects his views on the treatment of women differs radically from other traditional jurists. Also he bases his views entirely on the Qur'an and hadith, nothing else and comes to entirely different conclusions from many other noted traditional jurists. The Maulana has written his magnum opus Fiqh al-Qur'an in eight volumes. The book which is written in Urdu is a veritable treasure of Islamic jurisprudence though it is written in a traditional style and full of repetitions.
Maulana 'Usmani points out that Hazrat 'Umar had enforced triple divorce as triple divorce and it had become law. It is within the power of the caliph of the time to enforce certain ordinances in view of the prevailing situation, or to meet some crisis situation and no one can question it. It is, therefore, possible that Ibn Abbas might have given a fatwa accepting triple divorce after Hazrat 'Umar enforced the ordinance. The original hadith, accepting three divorces as one, therefore, is not affected, maintains 'Umar Ahmad 'Usmani. Thus it is proved by this hadith that during the time of the Noble Prophet triple divorce, if pronounced by someone, was accepted as one divorce only.
Then the Maulana takes up the third question- when did the triple divorce begin to be accepted as three divorces? It is well know that Hazrat 'Umar, after the initial two years of his Khilafat, had enforced triple divorce as triple divorce and no one will be permitted to take his wife back after pronouncing three divorces in one go. To substantiate his point the Maulana refers to the noted Egyptian historian Muhammad Husain Haykal's book 'Umar al-Farouq in which the author says that 'Umar made such an ijtihad (interpretation) in what is well established Qur'anic injunction in 2: 229-30 (Divorce is twice … which we have discussed in detail above) that until today we are opposing him in this matter. The Qur'an requires all attempts for reconciliation before a divorce (4:35)
Then Maulana 'Umar Ahmad further quotes from Haykal's book to show why Hazrat 'Umar was constrained to enforce triple divorce despite the Qur'anic injunction contrary to it. Muhammad Haykal says that when the Arabs conquered Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc., the women prisoners from these regions were brought to Mecca and Medina. These women were very attractive and charming and the Arabs were captivated by their charm and wanted to marry them. But these women insisted on the men giving irreconcilable divorce to their former wives. To satisfy them they would pronounce triple divorce and pretend to having divorced their wives for good.
1. Maulana 'Umar Ahmad 'Usmani and Women's Rights in The Qur'an, Women and Modern Society, Asghar Ali Engineer, Select Books, India, 1999
Courtesy: Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D. President Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc. 7102 W. Shefford Lane Louisville, KY 40242-6462, U.S.A.
Triple talaq: counter–perspective BY YOGINDER SIKAND July 2004
The recent meeting of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) at Kanpur had raised considerable expectations that the ulema associated with it, who exercise a powerful influence on Muslim opinion, would finally declare the obnoxious practice of triple talaq in one sitting to be null and void and therefore illegal. This, however, was not to be. In fact, it so transpires that the question of banning the practice of triple talaq was not even on the agenda of the ulema gathered at Kanpur. Leading Deobandi and Barelvi scholars, whose schools represent the majority among the Indian ulema, see the practice as Islamically valid and as an integral part of the Shari’ah. Hence, they insist, the practice cannot be scrapped, as that would allegedly be tantamount to interfering with divinely revealed laws. This opinion appears to be widely shared among the ulema associated with the AIMPLB, which explains the refusal of the Board to ban the practice despite considerable public pressure to do so.
The argument that the practice of triple talaq in one sitting is an integral part of the Shari’ah is hotly contested by a minority among the ulema, such as those belonging to the Ahl–i–Hadith, among the Sunnis, as well as by the Shi’as. This clearly points to the diversity of understandings of what precisely constitutes the Shari’ah, and to elements of human effort in the construction of notions of the Shari’ah itself, a fact that the conservative ulema themselves are reluctant to acknowledge. The refusal of the AIMPLB to ban the practice of triple talaq clearly suggests that one can hardly expect the ulema associated with the Board to take any bold steps in the future that might threaten to undermine the patriarchy that is sought to be provided with a suitable ‘Islamic’ gloss. The Deobandi ulema who dominate the Board are carefully groomed in a tradition of extreme patriarchy, as is evident from even a cursory reading of the fatwas and writings of their leading scholars. Hope for reform, therefore, lies in the writings and arguments of Islamic scholars from other schools of Islamic thought and jurisprudence.
One such school is the Ahl–i–Hadith, representing a small minority among Indian Muslims. In contrast to the Deobandis and the Barelvis, the Ahl–i–Hadith insist that Muslims need not be bound by the jurisprudential precedent of the early ulema, but, instead, should rely solely on the Koran and the genuine (sahih) prophetic traditions. They are rigid scripturalists and extreme literalists, sharing much in common with the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. Although their position on a range of issues is thoroughly reactionary and obscurantist (leading Ahl–i–Hadith scholars are on record as hailing the Wahhabi rulers of Saudi Arabia as representing the only ‘true’ Islamic regime in the world), on the question of triple talaq they adopt a somewhat progressive stance, declaring the practice as unequivocally illegal.
The Mumbai–based Maulana Mukhtar Ahmad Nadvi is a leading Indian Ahl–i–Hadith scholar. In his recently published Urdu book titled Talaq: Kitab-o Sunnat Ki Roshni Mein Tafsili Jai’za (‘Divorce: A Detailed Study in the Light of the Koran and the Prophetic Practice’), he writes that the practice of triple talaq was sternly condemned by the Prophet himself. The Prophet, he says, declared divorce to be the ‘most hateful’ of things allowed by God. He argues that Islam lays great stress on harmonious conjugal relations, and quotes a Hadith, or saying of the Prophet, in which Muhammad is said to have told his followers that the best among them was he who was best for, or towards, his wife.
He then goes on to describe the method of divorce laid down in the Koran and enforced by the Prophet. In case a dispute arises between husband and wife, Nadvi writes, they should first try to solve it through dialogue. If this does not work, the Koran instructs them to appoint one arbiter each from the family of the husband and the wife, who can try and resolve their differences. Only when this fails should they take the drastic measure of divorce.
In the Prophet’s time, Nadvi explains, divorce took the form of the husband uttering the word talaq three times, spaced over three consecutive menstrual cycles of the wife. During this period, the husband was to abstain from sexual intercourse with his wife, but was to keep her in the house and provide for her. In this way, the husband was given adequate time to seriously reconsider his decision to divorce. The first two talaqs could be revoked by the husband, but if the third talaq was pronounced during or at the end of the third menstrual cycle, the divorce was considered final and irrevocable. If the husband had sexual intercourse with his wife before uttering the third talaq in the third menstrual cycle, the previous talaqs were nullified.
Likewise, if he uttered the talaq at a time when his wife was menstruating, it would not be considered valid. In this regard, Nadvi relates that on one occasion a companion of the Prophet gave talaq to his wife while she was in menstruation. On learning of this, the Prophet ordered the man to take back his wife, and did not recognise the talaq. Nadvi also writes that at the time of the Prophet if a man uttered the word talaq more than once in one sitting, it was considered as just a single talaq.
This being the method of divorce at the time of the Prophet, it is considered to be in accordance with his sunnat, or practice, and hence is called talaq–i–sunnat. Since Muslims consider the prophetic practice a normative model for them to follow, Nadvi says, this is the method of divorce that they should adopt. No other method of divorce, he writes, can be considered binding, as that would be a violation of the sunnat. Nadvi devotes considerable attention to the practice of triple talaq in one sitting, arguing that it has no sanction in the Koran and in the traditions of the Prophet. Being, in Islamic legal parlance, a bida’at, or wrongful innovation, it is not part of the Prophet’s sunnat and hence cannot be considered as sanctioned in accordance with the Shari’ah.
In this regard, Nadvi refers to a saying of the prophet in which he strongly condemned all forms of bida’at, suggesting that those who created innovations in the faith were accursed by God. Since the practice of triple talaq in one sitting is a bida’at, he argues that those who practise or sanction it actually do so in violation of God’s will and hence are condemnable in God’s eyes. In fact, he stresses, the Prophet explicitly condemned the practice of triple talaq. He writes that once, when the Prophet heard that one of his companions, or sahaba, had sought to divorce his wife in this way, he was enraged and sternly admonished him, saying, "What, shall God’s book be played around with and I am present among you?"
Nadvi refers to another Hadith, according to which Rukana, a companion of the Prophet, once pronounced three talaqs in one sitting but later repented. He approached the Prophet for help and the Prophet told him that the three talaqs he had given amounted to only a single talaq and therefore he could go back to his wife if he wanted to. To bolster his argument about the illegality of three talaqs in one sitting, Nadvi further adds that not a single instance is reported of such a form of talaq being accepted by the Prophet as constituting a final, irrevocable divorce.
The talaq–i–sunnat method, Nadvi writes, was followed in the Prophet’s time, and this was continued under his successor and the first Caliph of the Sunnis, Abu Bakr. The second Sunni Caliph, ‘Umar, too, followed this rule, but in the third year of his reign he is said to have modified it and to have made three talaqs in one sitting as legally binding and as constituting an irrevocable divorce. If the couple divorced in this fashion wanted to reunite they could only do so by resorting to what is called halala: the woman would have to marry another man, this marriage would have to be consummated, the woman would have to take a divorce from her second husband and only then could she remarry her first husband. The ulema who continue to insist on the legality of this method of talaq, and who also sanction the practice of halala, rely essentially on this decision of ‘Umar.
As a Sunni, Nadvi does not challenge ‘Umar’s decision directly, but in order to argue that this method of divorce has no sanction in Islam he insists that this innovation was simply ‘Umar’s own personal opinion, or ijtihad, which cannot be held to supersede or overrule the explicit commandments of the Koran and the Prophet on divorce. He argues that ‘Umar intended this modification to be only a temporary measure, and simply as a means to address a novel situation that had arisen in his time when men were misusing their prerogative to divorce their wives.
It was, he writes, in order to stop men from abusing their right to talaq that ‘Umar decided to make three talaqs in one sitting a final, irrevocable divorce. By doing so, he intended to warn men of the grave consequences of the break-up of their families if they misused their right to divorce. ‘Umar’s ruling was thus intended to protect women rather than harass them although today this ruling is being used precisely to serve the latter purpose. Nadvi insists that this constitutes a flagrant violation of Islam and here quotes the Prophet as imploring for God’s wrath on those men who misuse their right to divorce.
Nadvi opposes the view of many traditionalist scholars who claim that ‘Umar’s decision was unanimously agreed upon by all the sahaba, or companions, of the Prophet present. He insists that ‘Umar’s decision does not constitute an ‘ijma, or collective consensus, of the sahaba, which is evoked as a principal source of law by the ulema. He cites the instances of several leading sahaba who dissented from ‘Umar’s decision in this regard, including, and most importantly, ‘Ali, the fourth Caliph of the Sunnis and the first Shi’a Imam, ‘Abdullah ibn Abbas, Zubair ibn Awam and ‘Abd ur–Rahman ibn Awf. Following them, several of their followers, too, differed with ‘Umar on this issue. In fact, Nadvi writes, there has never been any ‘ijma on three talaqs in one sitting as constituting a final, irrevocable divorce.
Numerous ulema down the ages to the present day have opposed this position, strongly criticising those ulema who hold the contrary opinion for upholding what they consider as a bida’at. Nadvi writes that among those who dissented from ‘Umar’s decision of considering three talaqs in one sitting as constituting a final divorce were such leading Islamic jurisprudents as Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, founder of the Hanbali school of Sunni jurisprudence, several followers of Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa, founders of the Maliki and Hanafi schools of jurisprudence respectively, the influential scripturalist reformist Ibn Taimiyah and his disciple Imam Ibn Qayyim al–Jawziya.
Having thus proved the absence of any ‘ijma on ‘Umar’s decision, Nadvi writes that Muslims must accept the sunnat of the Prophet and the practice of Abu Bakr rather than ‘Umar’s opinion on the matter of talaq. The Prophet’s sunnat, and not that of his Caliphs, has normative authority for Muslims, and if any of the Caliphs departed from the Prophet’s tradition, Muslims must follow the Prophet and not the Caliphs in this regard. Furthermore, as the first Caliph of the Sunnis, Abu Bakr had more authority than ‘Umar, and so his practice in the matter of talaq, which was identical to that of the Prophet, must be followed, instead of ‘Umar’s opinion.
Umar’s ijtihad cannot be considered, Nadvi stresses, as constituting a permanent modification of the Shari’ah, which cannot be changed. The only unchangeable sources of law, he says, are the Koran and the genuine Hadith, and both these set out the sunnat method of talaq, which, therefore, must be strictly adhered to. Since ‘Umar’s opinion on talaq departs from the Koran and the genuine Hadith, it cannot be accepted as a legally binding decision. Furthermore, Nadvi writes that since it is argued by those who defend ‘Umar’s rule that it was intended as a punishment (ta’zir) for erring husbands, one must raise the question as to whether this decision has proved to be adequate or suitable for the purpose. Since it is today being used largely to harass hapless wives instead of punishing oppressive husbands, it does not serve its original purpose at all and hence must be banned, Nadvi insists.
The conservative ulema, Nadvi observes, depart from the sunnat of the Prophet not only on the issue of triple talaq but also on a range of other issues related to talaq that impinge on the rights of Muslim women. Thus, he notes, many ulema (and these include most Barelvis and Deobandis) insist that talaq uttered by the husband while drunk or while asleep, in a fit of anger or while under coercion, is binding. This, Nadvi insists, is completely at odds with the teachings of the Prophet. He writes that talaq given under coercion has no recognition or validity, for the Koran explicitly lays down that there can be ‘no coercion in religion’. Just as if a person is forced to utter ‘words of infidelity’ (kalimat-i kufr) he is not considered to have become a disbeliever, or if a non-Muslim is forced to utter the Islamic creed of confession he is not considered a Muslim, so, too, if a man is coerced into pronouncing talaq, it has no validity in law.
Similarly, Nadvi writes, if a person pronounces talaq in a state of drunkenness or insanity, it is not to be considered valid, for he is at that time not in possession of his senses. To back his argument, he refers to a Koranic verse which warns people not to pray while drunk, and to worship only when they know what they are saying. This implies, he says, that God does not regard a drunken man’s utterances of any value. Similarly, using the same logic, Nadvi opposes the argument of those ulema who claim that talaq uttered in a fit of anger, when the man does not know the consequences of what he is saying, is binding.
On the question of halala, too, Nadvi stiffly opposes the Deobandi and the Barelvi ulema. He writes that the practice is abominable, and goes so far as to equate it with adultery (zina). He says that it has no sanction whatsoever in Islam, quoting the Prophet as having invoked God’s anger on those who engaged in the practice. He adds that there is an urgent need to promote popular awareness about halala and its seriously deleterious consequences, especially for hapless women who are sometimes subjected to this practice.
The practice of talaq–i–bida’at and the associated practice of halala, Nadvi writes, are sought to be legitimised by influential sections of the ulema by evoking the notion of jurisprudential precedent. They claim that since the founders of the schools of Sunni jurisprudence and several of their followers upheld these practices, they cannot be rescinded. This, indeed, is the position taken by most Deobandi and Barelvi ulema in India today. Nadvi stiffly opposes this argument, arguing that the founding Imams of the four schools never claimed infallibility for themselves. Indeed, he adds, they went so far as to insist that if any of their opinions violated the Koran and the genuine Hadith, they were to be rejected, and the latter were to be followed in their place.
Since the practice of accepting triple talaq in one sitting as constituting a final divorce and the associated practice of halala violate the Koran and the genuine Hadith, Nadvi says, those who claim to be faithful adherents of the established schools of jurisprudence, and this includes the Deobandis and the Barelvis, must follow the position of the Koran and the genuine Hadith in this regard if they are to be considered true followers of their Imams. To refuse to do so, Nadvi asserts, is absolutely forbidden (haram). Those who continue to uphold the practice of triple talaq in one sitting and justify halala are thus, he says, ‘grave sinners’ (sakht gunehgar) in God’s eyes. Leading ulema in several Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, Sudan and Syria have outlawed triple talaq in one sitting and halala on Islamic grounds, and Nadvi insists that there is no reason why the Indian ulema should not do the same.
Another Indian Ahl–i–Hadith scholar who has written on the vexed issue of triple talaq in one sitting is the Kuwait-based Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq Zahid. In his Ahl-i–Hadith Aur Ulema-i Harimayn Ka Ittefaqi Ra’i (‘The Consensual Opinion of the Ahl–i–Hadith and the Ulema of the Holy Cities’), Zahid makes much the same arguments as Nadvi. He adds that ‘Umar’s opinion has no legal status since ‘Umar himself later revoked it. On the question of the alleged ‘ijma of the sahaba on ‘Umar’s ruling, he follows Nadvi in dismissing this claim, and goes so far as to label it ‘baseless propaganda’. He writes that even the conservative ulema who claim an ‘ijma of the sahaba on ‘Umar’s opinion agree that prior to ‘Umar there existed an ‘ijma on Abu Bakr’s opposition to triple talaq in one sitting and on his insistence on the talaq-i sunnat method. The ‘ijma of the sahaba in Abu Bakr’s time has more legitimacy than the alleged ‘ijma in Umar’s time, says Zahid, for the Sunnis believe Abu Bakr to have been superior to ‘Umar. Hence, the ‘command’ (hukm) of ‘Umar cannot be held to overrule the ‘ijma of the sahaba in Abu Bakr’s time on the matter of divorce, especially since it was identical to the Prophet’s own opinion.
Likewise, Zahid, adds, the fourth Caliph of the Sunnis, Hazrat ‘Ali, did not accept ‘Umar’s ruling on triple talaq, and hence the alleged ‘ijma cannot be said to have been accepted after ‘Umar as well. In actual fact, says Zahid, ‘Umar’s decision was his own personal ijtihad, not a legal order based on the Shari’ah. The ijtihad of a person is not binding on anyone else and has no validity if it goes against the explicit commandments of the Koran and the genuine Hadith. Furthermore, a person’s ijtihad cannot be regarded as permanently binding, for a rule derived from ijtihad changes with change of time or place (zaman-o makan), and lacks permanent status, unlike the Koran and the sunnat of the Prophet. For these reasons, Zahid writes, the ruling of ‘Umar has no legal binding. Instead of following it, Muslims must follow the method of divorce laid down in the Koran and enjoined upon by the Prophet.
The Ahl-i Hadith are not alone in their opposition to the stance of many Deobandi and Barelvi ulema and the AIMPLB on the question of the practice of triple talaq in one sitting. Numerous Muslim reformers have lent their voice to the demand that the practice be outlawed. Yet, blind adherence to the established schools of jurisprudence as well as deeply entrenched patriarchy continue to pose a major hurdle in coaxing the conservative ulema to agree to ban the practice. As the refusal of the AIMPLB to condemn the practice suggests, the conservative ulema seem to be in no mood to listen to the voice of reason or even to arguments that insist that their own position on the issue has no legitimacy in Islam itself.
(Yoginder Sikand is head, Centre for Studies on Indian Muslims, Hamdard University, New Delhi).
Thanks very much indeed for your compliments. May God bless you! The venom in the debates on NewAgeIslam.com has surprised me as much as it has shocked you. This is merely indicative of the venom in the community. Our sojourn in the land of pointlessness. It probably explains why we are gradually becoming irrelevant to the world, even as it tries hard to destroy us and our faith by using people from within us. (Sultan Shaheen) (The hidden hypocrite in defence of exposed THIEF Jamshed Basha)
@ Sultan Shaheen....the hidden Hypocrite
The real ring Master ...Editor NewageIslam.com.....You are an hypocrite par excellence ...you sit over the venom spitting stolen article by Jamshed Basha for months and when you see the hits to NewageIslam.com is dwindling due to your own dirty habit of posting messages under different names came to be known by all, you suddenly decide to post the stolen article by Jamshed Basha...and further promote your actual profession of a ring master ...to excite passions and then enjoy the mudslinging, name callings, then from time to time you blow the whistle, and pretend to play the role of good God fearing Muslim ...come out in the open and this time under your real Name Sultan Shaheen and shout at the top of your voice hey! Hey! All you Muslims don’t fight don’t fight.....Your character reminds me of the Mean and scheming Bullies when I was in Junior School who use to cook stories and make even friends fight, and then try to become good in the eyes of the school administration by pretending to be the good guy, You are like Muslims who run a liquor shop and never forget to remind Muslims that consumption of liquor is prohibited in Islam, But here you are forgetting that unlike the School administration, Allah swt Knows all that transpires in the heart of one’s heart and Hypocrites are ones whom Allah swt look down upon and has reserved a special place in hell for them.
You claim to be a good Muslim...and sometime back, like an Idiot or an Ignorant fool, you called for abrogation or declaring obsolete certain verses from the Holy Quran Nauzbillah’ (Lanat Bhejtin Hun Mai tumhare jaise Musalmano pe jo Quran ki AYAT me hee fer badal ki soch sakte hain)
Earlier you ridiculed and chided about the Babri Masjid demolition ...yet you have the face of calling yourself a Muslim.....Shame on you sultan Shaheen for vacillating between Faith and Ignorance all for vested interests.
Ps: Allah swt is hidden from our vision the Prophet pbuh Introduced us to the Supreme Being, and we took his word for it, The same Prophet Pbuh Introduced us to the gift of ‘IMAMAT’ from the supreme being and again we took his word for it. Only those unfortunate among us do not see the truth, whose vision is either blocked by the devil or those who are too concerned and engrossed in their worldly profits, such as Sultan Shaheen and other hypocrites. Who really have no faith to call as their own they, just pretend from time to time, as it suits their purpose.