Validity of Salaat
al-Muftarid Khalf al-Mutanaffil
(The Prayer of a person
praying Fard behind the one praying Nafl is valid)
PART ONE
The Hadeeth of Mu’aadh
Proof # 1:
عَنْ جَابِرٍ قَالَ: كَانَ مُعَاذٌ، يُصَلِّي مَعَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
ثُمَّ يَأْتِي فَيَؤُمُّ قَوْمَهُ، فَصَلَّى لَيْلَةً مَعَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى
اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْعِشَاءَ ثُمَّ أَتَى قَوْمَهُ فَأَمَّهُمْ
فَافْتَتَحَ بِسُورَةِ الْبَقَرَةِ فَانْحَرَفَ رَجُلٌ فَسَلَّمَ ثُمَّ صَلَّى
وَحْدَهُ وَانْصَرَفَ فَقَالُوا لَهُ: أَنَافَقْتَ؟ يَا فُلَانُ، قَالَ: لَا.
وَاللهِ وَلَآتِيَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
فَلَأُخْبِرَنَّهُ. فَأَتَى رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
فَقَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، إِنَّا أَصْحَابُ نَوَاضِحَ نَعْمَلُ بِالنَّهَارِ
وَإِنَّ مُعَاذًا صَلَّى مَعَكَ الْعِشَاءَ، ثُمَّ أَتَى فَافْتَتَحَ بِسُورَةِ
الْبَقَرَةِ فَأَقْبَلَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَى
مُعَاذٍ فَقَالَ: «يَا مُعَاذُ أَفَتَّانٌ أَنْتَ؟ اقْرَأْ بِكَذَا وَاقْرَأْ
بِكَذَا»
Jaabir (radiallah anhu)
reported that: “Mu'aadh bin Jabal (radiallah anhu)
used to pray with the Apostle (peace be upon him), then come and lead his
people in prayer. One night he prayed the Isha prayer with the Apostle of Allah
(peace be upon him). He then came to his people and led them in prayer
beginning with Surat al-Baqarah. A man turned aside, pronounced the tasleem
(salutation for concluding the prayer), then prayed alone and departed. The
people said to him: Have you become a hypocrite, so and so? He said: I swear by
Allah that I have not, but I will certainly go to Allah's Messenger (peace be
upon him) and will inform (him) about this. He then came to the Messenger of
Allah (peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, we look after camels
used for watering and work by day. Mu'aadh prayed the Isha prayer with you. He
then came and began with Surat al-Baqarah. Allah's Messenger (peace be upon
him) then turned to Mu'aadh and said: ‘Are you there to (put the people) to
trial? Recite such and recite such (and such a surah)’”.
[Saheeh al-Bukhaari (1/97 H.
700), Saheeh Muslim (1/187 H. 465) and the wording is that of Muslim]
Imaam Tirmidhi (D. 279) said
under this hadeeth:
«هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ
صَحِيحٌ»، " وَالعَمَلُ عَلَى هَذَا عِنْدَ أَصْحَابِنَا الشَّافِعِيِّ،
وَأَحْمَدَ، وَإِسْحَاقَ، قَالُوا: إِذَا أَمَّ الرَّجُلُ القَوْمَ فِي
المَكْتُوبَةِ وَقَدْ كَانَ صَلَّاهَا قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ صَلَاةَ مَنْ ائْتَمَّ
بِهِ جَائِزَةٌ، وَاحْتَجُّوا بِحَدِيثِ جَابِرٍ فِي قِصَّةِ مُعَاذٍ، وَهُوَ
حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحٌ وَقَدْ رُوِيَ مِنْ غَيْرِ وَجْهٍ عَنْ جَابِرٍ "
“This hadeeth is Hasan Saheeh; and
this is what our companions have acted upon, among them are: (Imaam)
Ash-Shaafi’ee, (Imaam) Ahmed (bin Hanbal), and (Imaam) Ishaaq (bin Rahwayh).
They said that if a person leads a people in the obligatory prayer and he has
already prayed the same prayer before, then the prayer of the people following
him is valid; and they (A’immah) took evidence from the hadeeth of Jaabir
concerning the incidence of Mu’aadh, and it is a Saheeh Hadeeth, and it is also
narrated through other routes from Jaabir”
[Sunan Tirmidhi (under H. 583)]
The Tabweeb of Muhadditheen on this
Hadeeth:
Now let’s also observe how the
Muhadditheen have titled their chapters with regard to this hadeeth. This will
prove what the Muhadditheen understood from this hadeeth.
1-
Imaam Tirmidhi titled the
chapter (in which he added this hadeeth) as follows:
بَابُ مَا جَاءَ فِي
الَّذِي يُصَلِّي الفَرِيضَةَ ثُمَّ يَؤُمُّ النَّاسَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ
“Chapter
on what is narrated concerning the one who prays the obligatory prayer, then
leads (other) people after that”
2-
Imaam ul-A’immah Ibn Khuzaymah
(D. 311) titled the chapter as follows:
باب اباحة ائتمام
المصلي فريضة بالمصلي نافلة، ضد قول من زعم من العراقيين أنه غير جائز أن يأتم
المصلي فريضة بالمصلي نافلة
“Chapter on the permissibility of
one praying Fard being led by the one praying Naafil, as opposed to those
Iraaqi people who claim that it is not permissible for a person praying Fard to
pray behind the one praying Naafil”
[Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah (3/64,
Baab: 130)]
3-
Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said:
ذكر الاباحة لمن صلي
جماعة فرضه أن يؤم قوما بتلك الصلواة.
“Mention of the permissibility for
one who has prayed his Fard payer in congregation that he goes and leads (his)
people in that same prayer.”
[Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan (6/163 H.
2406)]
4-
Imaam Abu Dawood (D. 275)
writes:
باب امامة من صلي بقوم
وقد صلي تلك الصلوة
“Chapter on the one leading a people
in prayer who has already prayed that prayer”
[Sunan Abu Dawood (H. 599)]
5-
Imaam Ad-Daaraqutni (D. 358)
titles the chapter like this:
باب ذكر صلاة المفترض
خلف المتنفل
“Chapter mentioning the prayer of
one praying Fard behind the one praying Naafil”
[Sunan ad-Daaraqutni (1/281)]
6-
Imaam Bayhaqi (D. 458) titles
these narrations as follows:
باب الفريضة خلف من
يصلي النافلة
“Chapter on Fard prayer behind the
one who is praying Naafil”
[Al-Sunan al-Kubra lil Bayhaqi
(3/85)]
7-
Haafidh Nawawi (D. 676) writes:
باب صحة صلاة المفترض
خلف المتنفل
“Chapter on the correctness of the
prayer of one praying Fard behind the one praying Naafil”
[Khulaasah al-Ahkaam by Nawawi
(2/697)]
8-
Imaam Nasaa’ee writes:
باب اختلاف نية الإمام
والمأموم
“Chapter on the difference in
intention of the Imaam and the Follower”
Allaamah Sindhi al-Hanafi
explains this saying of Imaam Nasaa’ee saying:
يريد اقتداء المفترض
بالمتنفل
“He (i.e. Nasaa’ee) means the prayer
of one praying Fard behind the one praying Naafil”
[Haashiah as-Sindhi Ala
an-Nasaa’ee (2/102)]
It is established that
Muhadditheen know their narrations better than the Muqallideen.
Dear Readers! As you can see,
Muhadditheen are trying to prove the validity of the prayer of one praying Fard
behind the one praying Naafil from this hadeeth. You’ve read the comments of
Imaam Tirmidhi; now let’s also have a look at the words of Haafidh Nawawi:
فِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ
جَوَازُ صَلَاةِ الْمُفْتَرِضِ خَلْفَ الْمُتَنَفِّلِ لِأَنَّ مُعَاذًا كَانَ
يُصَلِّي الْفَرِيضَةَ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
فَيَسْقُطُ فَرْضُهُ ثُمَّ يُصَلِّي مَرَّةً ثَانِيَةً بقومه هي له تطوع ولهم
فَرِيضَةٌ وَقَدْ جَاءَ هَكَذَا مُصَرَّحًا بِهِ فِي غَيْرِ مُسْلِمٍ
“This hadeeth contains the permissibility
of the prayer of one praying Fard behind the one praying Naafil because Mu’aadh
used to pray the Fard prayer behind the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him)
so the obligation (of prayer) is elevated from him, then he would go and pray
for the second time with his people; this will become supererogatory for him
and obligatory for them; and this has been narrated explicitly in (books) other
than Muslim”
[Sharh an-Nawawi Ala Muslim
(1/187)]
Haafidh Baghawi writes:
وَفِيهِ جَوَازُ صَلاةِ
الْمُفْتَرِضِ خَلْفَ الْمُتْنَفِلِ، لأَنَّ مُعَاذًا كَانَ يُؤَدِّي فَرْضَهُ
مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، ثُمَّ يَرْجِعُ إِلَى
قَوْمِهِ، فَيَؤُمُّهُمْ، هِيَ لَهُ نَافِلَةٌ، وَلَهُمْ فَرِيضَةٌ.
“And it contains the permissibility
of the prayer of one praying Fard behind the one praying Naafil, because
Mu’aadh used to pray his Fard prayer with the Messenger of Allaah (peace be
upon him) then he would return to his people and lead them; this would become
supererogatory for him and obligatory for them”
[Sharh us-Sunnah by Al-Baghawi
(3/73)]
Haafidh Ibn Hazm (D. 456)
writes:
وَجَائِزٌ صَلَاةُ
الْفَرْضِ خَلْفَ الْمُتَنَفِّلِ: وَالْمُتَنَفِّلِ خَلْفَ مَنْ يُصَلِّي
الْفَرْضَ، وَصَلَاةُ فَرْضٍ خَلْفَ مَنْ يُصَلِّي صَلَاةَ فَرْضٍ أُخْرَى، كُلُّ
ذَلِكَ حَسَنٌ، وَسُنَّةٌ
“The prayer of one praying Fard
behind the one praying Naafil, and the prayer of one praying Naafil behind the
one praying Fard, and the prayer of one praying Fard behind the one praying
some other Fard prayer is permissible; all of that is good and Sunnah”
[Al-Muhalla by Ibn Hazm (4/223,
Mas’ala 494)]
Ibn Hazm further writes:
مَا نَعْلَمُ لِمَنْ
ذَكَرْنَا مِنْ الصَّحَابَةِ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ - مُخَالِفًا أَصْلًا،
وَهُمْ يُعَظِّمُونَ هَذَا إذَا وَافَقَ تَقْلِيدَهُمْ! وَقَوْلُنَا هَذَا: هُوَ
قَوْلُ الْأَوْزَاعِيِّ، وَالشَّافِعِيِّ، وَأَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ، وَأَبِي
سُلَيْمَانَ، وَجُمْهُورِ أَصْحَابِ الْحَدِيثِ
“We do not know of any opposition of
the Sahaabah that we have mentioned. When this (i.e. no difference of Sahaabah)
goes in accordance to the Taqleed of Muqallideen then they present it as
something very great (while they do not see it here)! This saying of ours is
also the saying of (Imaam) Al-Awzaa’ee, (Imaam) Ash-Shaafi’ee, (Imaam) Ahmed
bin Hanbal, Abu Sulemaan, and the Majority of the People of Hadeeth”
[Al-Muhalla by Ibn Hazm (4/236)]
Haafidh Ibn Hajar writes:
واستدلال بهذا الحديث
علي صحة اقتداء المفترض بالمتنفل بناء علي أن معاذ كان ينوي بالأولي الفرض بالثاني
النفل.
“The
evidence of the correctness of the prayer of one praying Fard behind the one
praying Naafil is taken from this hadeeth because Mu’aadh used to make the
intention of Fard in the first prayer and the intention of Nafl in the second
prayer.”
[Fath al-Baari (2/195)]
Testimony from the House:
Allaamah Sindhi al-Hanafi
writes:
فدلالة هذا الحديث علي
جواز اقتداء المفترض بالمتنفل واضحة والجواب عنه مشكل جدا وأجابوا بما لا يتم.
“This hadeeth clearly indicates the
permissibility of a Muftarid’s prayer behind a Mutanaffil; and it is very difficult
to answer (i.e. refute) it; they (i.e. Ahnaaf) have (tried to) answer it with
deficient answers”
[Haashiah as-Sindhi Ala
an-Nasaa’ee (2/103)]
Look how clearly one of the
Hanafi elders, Allaamah Sindhi Hanafi is saying that this hadeeth clearly proves
the Maslak of Ahl al-Hadeeth and that it is very difficult to answer it, yet
some people have put themselves into this difficulty and have taken support of
many Ta’weelaat.
The indigence of Ahnaaf:
The condition of Ahnaaf in this
issue is such that leave aside Saheeh, clear, and Marfoo narration they do not
even have any Da’eef or Mawdoo narration. That is why, confirming the “I won’t
believe” behavior, Ahnaaf simply decided to attack the Saheeh ahaadeeth with
Ta’weelaat; and the interesting thing is that Ibn al-Turkamaani al-Hanafi, who
would not leave any chance of refuting Imaam Bayhaqi and making Ta’weel of
narrations, also observed silence on the hadeeth of Mu’aadh without making any
Ta’weel.
[See, Al-Jawaahir al-Naqi
(3/58)]
The saying of “Hakeem ul-Ummah”
of Aal-e-Deoband, Ashraf Ali Thaanvi Deobandi is worth mentioning here. He
said:
"اکثر مقلدین
عوام بلکہ خواص اس قدر جامد ہو جاتے ہیں
کہ اگر قولِ مجتہد کے خلاف کوئی آیت یا حدیث کان میں پڑتی ہے، ان کے قلب میں
انشراح و انبساط نہیں رہتا، بلکہ اول استنکار قلب میں پیدا ہوتا ہے پھر تاویل کی
فکر ہوتی ہے خواہ کتنی ہی بعید ہو اور خواہ دوسری دلیل قوی اس کے معارض ہو بلکہ
مجتہد کی دلیل اس مسئلہ میں بجز قیاس کی کچھ بھی نہ ہو بلکہ خود اپنے دل میں اس
تاویل کی وقعت نہ ہو مگر نصرتِ مذہب کے لیے تاویل ضروری سمجھتے ہیں، دل یہ نہیں
مانتا کہ قولِ مجتہد کو چھوڑ کر حدیث صحیح پر عمل کریں۔"
“Sometimes many
Muqallid Awaam, in fact Khawaas (i.e. ‘Scholars’), become so stubborn that if
they hear of any verse or hadeeth against the saying of Mujtahid, their hearts
cease to remain calm and relaxed, in fact the first thing that comes in their
heart is rejection, then they worry about its Ta’weel no matter how fat-fetched
it may be, and no matter the other stronger evidence is contradictory to it, in
fact, no matter even if the evidence of Mujtahid in that issue be nothing more
than Qiyaas; in fact even their hearts would not agree to accept that ta’weel,
but they consider this ta’weel to be necessary for the aid of their Madhab;
their heart does not accept that they should follow a hadeeth leaving the
saying of Mujtahid”
[Tadhkirat ur-Rasheed (131)]
Dear Readers, you imagine
yourself that how, exactly in accordance to the saying of Thaanvi, the stubborn
Muqallideen are doing so many Ta’weelaat in a Saheeh and Clear hadeeth based
only on one Qiyaas (i.e. a strong one being dominated by a weak one); but they
are not ready to accept.
Objections on the Hadeeth of Mu’aadh and
their Answer:
Besides this hadeeth, there are
many other ahaadeeth which are a clear proof in this issue, which will be
mentioned later; however, we shall first observe the lame objections made on
this hadeeth of the Prophet. As Haafidh Ibn Hazm says:
واعترضوا في حديث معاذ
بأشياء نذكرها، وان كنا غانين عن ذالك بحديث أبي بكرة و جابر، لكن نصر الحق فضيلة،
وقمع الباطل وسيلة الي الله تعالى.
“And they have objected on the
hadeeth of Mu’aadh with several things which we are going to mention; although
we are in no need of answering these objections due to the hadeeth of Abu
Bakrah and Jaabir (narrated on this issue), but (we’ll still answer each one of
them due to the fact that) aiding the truth is a virtue and refuting the Baatil
is a way of getting closer to Allaah the Most High”
[Al-Muhalla by Ibn Hazm (4/229)]
Objection # 1:
The Famous Muqallid, Muhammad
Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Deobandi writes:
“There are many answers to this
narration; three of which are given by Tahaawi and the remaining are given by
others, the first answer is that Imaam Tahaawi said,
لو ثبت أن معاذا فعله في عهد رسول الله
صلي الله عليه وسلم لم يكن في ذالك دليل علي أنه بأمر رسول الله صلي الله عليه
وسلم... الخ
,
which means that this act of Mu’aadh was through his own opinion, not as a
command of the Prophet (peace be upon him)”
[Khazaain al-Sunan (2/203)]
Answer:
The objection of Imaam Tahaawi
is that even if it is proven that Mu’aadh did this in the lifetime of Allaah’s
Messenger (peace be upon him), it does not still contain the evidence that he
did this with the command of Allaah’s Messenger (peace be upon him). There are
many answers to this objection:
1- To say that Sayyidunah Mu’aadh did this without the command of
Allaah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) is Baatil and rejected because there is
no proof for it, because this is also not proven that Mu’aadh did this on his
own and he did not have any evidence.
2- The command of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is not necessary
for the permissibility of something; in fact the Prophet’s observance of
silence on an issue after coming to know about it is also an evidence of
permissibility which, in Istalaah, is called “Taqreer”.
Zafar Ahmed
Thaanvi Deobandi writes:
وعلي المتسدل باثبات علم النبي صلي
الله عليه وسلم بفعل معاذ.
“It is
necessary for the one taking evidence from this hadeeth to prove that the
Prophet (peace be upon him) was aware of the action of Mu’aadh”
[I’laa
us-Sunan (3/1359)]
So here we go
Sir, the narration of Saheeh Muslim explicitly says:
وَإِنَّ
مُعَاذًا صَلَّى مَعَكَ الْعِشَاءَ، ثُمَّ أَتَى فَافْتَتَحَ بِسُورَةِ
الْبَقَرَةِ
“(The person who complained, said, O Prophet) Mu'aadh
prayed the Isha prayer with you. He then came and began with Surat al-Baqarah.”
[Saheeh Muslim
(465)]
This is clear
evidence that the Prophet had come to know about this incidence that Mu’aadh
has adopted this way; despite this, he just ordered him to be light in
recitation and he did not stop him.
3- The mosque of tribe Banu Salamah, in which Mu’aadh used to go
and lead the prayer, consisted of thirty companions who pledged allegiance in
Aqabah and forty five companions who participated in Badr as mentioned by
Haafidh Ibn Hazm; among them were: Jaabir bin Abdullah, his father Abdullah,
Ka’b bin Maalik, Hubaab bin Mundhir, Uqbah bin Aamir, and Mu’aadh bin Mu’awwidh
radiallah anhum. Is it possible that this action took place in front of all
these Sahaabah and yet they did not object to it if it was against the Sunnah?
Absolutely Not! In fact this is the Ijmaa of Sahaabah proving that the action
of Mu’aadh (radiallah anhu) was correct. There is no refusal or opposition of
this act narrated from any Companion.
Haafidh Ibn
Hajar writes while narrating from Haafidh Ibn Hazm that:
ولا يحفظ عن غيرهم من الصحابة امتناع
ذلك، بل قال معهم الجواز عمر وابن عمر وابو الدرداء وأنس وغيرهم.
“No opposition
of any other Companion is preserved on this; in fact its permissibility in
accordance to them is narrated from Umar, Ibn Umar, Abu ad-Darda, and Anas etc”
[Fath al-Baari
(2/196)]
Haafidh Ibn
Hajar further writes:
انهم لا يختلفون في أن رأى الصحابي
اذا لم يخالفه غيره حجة.
“They (i.e. Muqallideen)
would agree with us on the issue that an opinion of a Sahaabi is Hujjah when it
is not opposed by others.”
[Fath al-Baari
(2/196)]
Objection # 2:
As for the
objection of Khaleel Ahmed Sahaaranpoori Deobandi in “Bazl al-Majhood Sharh Abi
Dawood” that the silence of Sahaabah is not reliable, because the Prophet
(peace be upon him) rebuked Mu’aadh (radiallah anhu) and said:
لا تكن
فتانا، اما أن تصلي معي، واما أن تخفف علي قومك. (مسن الإمام أحمد ٥/٧٤)
“O Mu’aadh do not infuriate the
people, either you pray with me, or be light on your people” [Musnad Ahmed]
[I’laa
us-Sunan (3/1360-1361)]
Answer:
1-
These words
are not proven from the Prophet (peace be upon him) with an authentic chain
because the meeting of Mu’aadh bin Rifaa’ah is not proven from “Rajul min Bani
Salamah”, nor is his meeting proven from the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Haafidh Ibn
Hazm writes:
ان هذا خبر لا يصح، لأنه منقطع، لأن
معاذ بن رفاعة لم يدرك النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم، ولا أدرك هذا الذي شكا الي رسول
الله صلي الله عليه وسلم بمعاذ.
“This report is
not authentic because it is Munqati (disconnected); Mu’aadh bin Rifaa’ah
neither met the Prophet (peace be upon him) nor did he meat the person who
complained about Mu’aadh to the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him)”
[Al-Muhalla by
Ibn Hazm (4/230)]
Haafidh Mizzi
writes:
عن رجل من بني سلمة يقال له سليم قصة
معاذ بن جبل في الصلوة مرسل.
“The story of
Mu’aadh concerning the Prayer narrated from a man of Banu Salamah is Mursal”
[Tahdheeb
al-Kamaal (18/171)]
Haafidh Noor
ud-Deen al-Haythami also said the same thing in Majma az-Zawaaid [2/73]
Moreover,
Haafidh Ibn Hajar writes:
وهذا مرسل لأن معاذ بن رفاعة لم
يدركه.
“And this is
Mursal as Mu’aadh bin Rifaa’ah did not meet him”
[Fath al-Baari
(2/194)]
Therefore,
taking evidence from this is Baatil.
2-
The words of
this narration contain Ihtimaal (possibilities). Although the claim of Ahnaaf
is still not proven from this narration, Imaam Tahaawi has taken it to mean
that the Prophet prohibited him from doing one of the two things; whereas
Haafidh Ibn Hazm and Haafidh Ibn Hajar etc have explained that it only refers
to the “lightening of Qira’at”; therefore how can the clear and authentic
narrations of the Muhadditheen and A’immah be left for these doubtful and
unproven words?
Objection # 3:
Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan Safdar
Deobandi writes under the Answer # 2 of the hadeeth of Mu’aadh that:
“Imaam Tahaawi writes in Vol. 1 &
P. 199 that:
فقد يجوز أن يكون يصلي مع النبي صلي
الله عليه وسلم نافلة ثم يأتي قومه فيصلي بهم الفريضة
It is possible that he would pray Nafl
with the Prophet then come and pray Fard with his people”
[Khazaain al-Sunan (2/203)]
Answer:
1- It is not permissible to take evidence from possibilities,
because the words of Saheeh Muslim clearly say that the person complaining to
the Prophet (peace be upon him) came to him and said:
وَإِنَّ
مُعَاذًا صَلَّى مَعَكَ الْعِشَاءَ، ثُمَّ أَتَى فَافْتَتَحَ بِسُورَةِ الْبَقَرَةِ
Mu'aadh prayed the Isha prayer with you. He then came and began with Surat
al-Baqarah.”
[Saheeh Muslim
(465)]
Therefore, it
is proven from the explicit words of Saheeh Muslim that Sayyidunah Mu’aadh
(radiallah anhu) used to pray the Fard with the Prophet (peace be upon him)
while Nafl with his people.
2- Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah names the chapter in which he added this hadeeth
of Mu’aadh as follows:
باب ذكر البيان أن معاذا كان يصلي مع
النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم فريضة لا تطوعا كما ادعي بعض العراقين.
“Chapter
mentioning that Mu’aadh used to pray Fard with the Prophet, not Nafl, as some
people of Iraaq have claimed”
[Saheeh Ibn
Khuzaymah (3/65, Chapter: 131)]
3- Imaam Ibn Hibbaan titles his chapter on the same hadeeth as
follows:
ذكر الخبر المدحض قول من زعم أن معاذا
كان يصلي بالقوم فرضه لا نفله.
“Mention of the
report in refutation to the saying of one who claims that Mu’aadh used to pray
Fard with his people, not Nafl”
[Saheeh Ibn
Hibbaan (6/163)]
4- Haafidh Baghawi writes:
لأن معاذا كان يؤدي فرضه مع رسول
الله.
“Because
Mu’aadh used to pray his Fard with the Messenger of Allaah”
[Sharh
us-Sunnah (3/73)]
Muhadditheen
know their narrations better than the Muqallideen.
5- In the narrations of Sunan al-Kubra of Bayhaqi and others, the
hadeeth of Sayyidunah Mu’aadh (radiallah anhu) also contain the following
words:
فيصلي
بهم تلك الصلاة، هي له نافلة ولهم فريضة.
“Thus he would pray with them (i.e. his people) that same
prayer; it would be Nafl for him and Fard for them”
[Al-Sunan
al-Kubra lil Bayhaqi (3/86), Al-Umm by ash-Shaafi’ee (1/173), Sunan
ad-Daaraqutni (1/374), Sharh Ma’aani al-Athaar (1/409), Chain Saheeh]
Ibn Jurayj,
who is agreed upon to be Thiqah Haafidh, has affirmed his hearing in the chain
of this narration. The other narrators not mentioning these words do not mean
that they do not exist; the addition of a “Thiqah Haafidh” is accepted because
this is not against the Thiqaat.
Haafidh Ibn
Hajar explains this very conclusively saying:
وَتَعْلِيلُ الطَّحَاوِيِّ لَهُ بَان
بن عُيَيْنَةَ سَاقَهُ عَنْ عَمْرٍو أَتَمَّ مِنْ سِيَاقِ بن جُرَيْجٍ وَلَمْ
يَذْكُرْ هَذِهِ الزِّيَادَةَ لَيْسَ بِقَادِحٍ فِي صِحَّته لِأَن بن جريج أسن
وَأجل من بن عُيَيْنَةَ وَأَقْدَمُ أَخْذًا عَنْ عَمْرٍو مِنْهُ وَلَوْ لَمْ
يَكُنْ كَذَلِكَ فَهِيَ زِيَادَةٌ مِنْ ثِقَةٍ حَافِظٍ لَيْسَتْ مُنَافِيَةً
لِرِوَايَةِ مَنْ هُوَ أَحْفَظُ مِنْهُ وَلَا أَكْثَرُ عَدَدًا فَلَا مَعْنَى
لِلتَّوَقُّفِ فِي الْحُكْمِ بِصِحَّتِهَا
“And the
reasoning of Tahaawi that Ibn Uyaynah did not mention these words from Amr bin
Deenaar as Ibn Jurayj has mentioned, and he did not mention this addition; is
not harmful to the authenticity of this narration because Ibn Jurayj was elder
than Ibn Uyaynah and he was more exalted than Ibn Uyaynah; plus Ibn Jurayj
learned from Amr even before Ibn Uyaynah; and even if it were not the case then
this is still an addition from a Thiqah Haafidh narrator which is not against
the narration of someone who is a bigger Haafidh than him nor more in number
than him; thus there is no point of rejecting its authenticity”
[Fath al-Baari
(2/196)]
As for the
claim of Tahaawi that this part is a Mudraj from Ibn Jurayj, then Haafidh Ibn
Hajar refutes this claim saying:
وَأَمَّا رَدُّ الطَّحَاوِيِّ لَهَا
بِاحْتِمَالِ أَنْ تَكُونَ مُدْرَجَةٌ فَجَوَابُهُ أَنَّ الْأَصْلَ عَدَمُ
الْإِدْرَاجِ حَتَّى يَثْبُتَ التَّفْصِيلُ فَمَهْمَا كَانَ مَضْمُومًا إِلَى
الْحَدِيثِ فَهُوَ مِنْهُ وَلَا سِيَّمَا إِذَا رُوِيَ مِنْ وَجْهَيْنِ وَالْأَمْرُ
هُنَا كَذَلِكَ فَإِنَّ الشَّافِعِيَّ أَخْرَجَهَا مِنْ وَجْهٍ آخَرَ عَنْ جَابِرٍ
مُتَابِعًا لِعَمْرِو بْنِ دِينَارٍ عَنْهُ
“As for the
rejection of this narration by Tahaawi due to the possibility that it could be
a Mudraj, then the answer to it is that the default in any given narration is
absence of Idraaj until the details prove otherwise; so until it is proven to
be Mudraj from evidence, it would be considered a part of that hadeeth;
especially so when it is also narrated likewise through another route; and this
is also the case here for verily Ash-Shaafi’ee has also narrated it through
another route from Jaabir as a Mutaabi’ah in narrating from Amr bin Deenaar”
[Fath al-Baari
(2/196)]
Thus, the
addition ((It would be Nafl for him and Fard for them)) is absolutely
authentic.
6- The Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) has said:
صَلاَةٌ
فِي مَسْجِدِي هَذَا أَفْضَلُ مِنْ أَلْفِ صَلاَةٍ فِيمَا سِوَاهُ إِلاَّ الْمَسْجِدَ
الْحَرَامَ
“Offering prayer in my mosque (Masjid Nabawi) is better
than one thousand prayers elsewhere, save for the prayers offered in al-Masjid
al-Haram.”
[Bukhaari
(1190), Muslim (1394)]
It is agreed
upon that the prayer referred here is the Obligatory Prayer, because the
Supererogatory prayers are; in fact, better to be prayed at home.
So would a
Noble Companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) abandon the reward of
praying one thousand prayers in Masjid al-Nabawi behind the Prophet and get the
reward of just one prayer in his own mosque? Certainly Not!
Haafidh Ibn
Hazm writes:
فليت شعري، الي من كان يؤخر معاذ صلاة
فرضه حتي يصليها معه راغبا أن يصليها مع رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم؟ ألا ان هذا
هو الضلال المبين، قد نزه الله تعالي معاذا عنه عند كل ذي مسكة عقل.
“If only I knew,
who – more virtuous – could it be that Mu’aadh would delay his Fard prayer to
pray with him instead of praying with the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon
him)? This is indeed a clear misguidance; Allaah the Most High had protected
Mu’aadh from such thing according to every person having sound mind”
[Al-Muhalla
(4/231)]
7- Is it permissible according to Ahnaaf that a man, who has not
yet offered his Isha prayer, that he, should make the intention of Nafl behind
the Obligatory Isha prayer of the Imaam? The answer could never be in
affirmative; certainly this is not correct; so then why do you attribute such
wrong thing to Mu’aadh (radiallah anhu)?
Objection # 4:
Zafar Ahmed Thaanvi Deobandi writes:
ولو سلم أنها زيادة ثقة فلا شك أنها
ليست من كلام رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم ولا من كلام معاذ، هذا ظاهر جدا،
فيحتمل أن تكون من كلام ابن جريج أو من قول ابن دينار أو من قول جابر، فمن أى
هؤلاء الثلاثة كان فليس فيه دليل علي حقيقة فعل معاذ، لأنهم لم يحكوا ذلك عنه،
انما قالوا قولا علي عندهم كذلك، وقد يجوز أن يكون في الحقيقة بخلافه، كذا قاله
العيني نقلا عن الطحاوي.
“And even if it is accepted that it is
an addition of a Thiqah narrator then certainly these are not the words of
Allaah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) nor are they the words of Mu’aadh, this
is clearly evident; therefore there is a possibility that it could be from the
words of Ibn Jurayj or from the words of Ibn Deenaar or from the words of
Jaabir, so of whichever these three the words are, it does not contain the
evidence that this was actually the practice of Mu’aadh, because they did not
narrate these words from Mu’aadh; rather they only said whatever they thought;
it is possible that the reality might be opposite to this, this is what Aynee
has narrated from Al-Tahaawi”
[I’laa us-Sunan (3/1359-1360)]
Answer:
1- Although Ahnaaf said up to the point that it is “possible” that
these words could be of Jaabir, but we say that this is not a possibility
rather these words are certainly the words of the Prophet’s Companion,
Sayyidunah Jaabir (radiallah anhu). Declaring them to be Mudraj based only on
“possibility” or attributing them to Ibn Jurayj or Ibn Deenaar is not correct,
because a clear and solid proof is necessary to declare something Mudraj.
Haafidh Ibn
Hajar writes:
الإدراج لا يثبت بمجرد الدعوي والاحتمال.
“Idraaj can not
be proven merely based on claims and possibilities”
[Fath al-Baari
(2/91, 3/96)]
2- A Narrator knows his narration better than any other person.
Muhammad
Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Deobandi writes:
“The narrator
of hadeeth, especially when it is a companion, knows the meaning of his
narration better than others”
[Ahsan
ul-Kalaam by Safdar (1/268)]
Similarly,
Aynee al-Hanafi has also said the same thing
[Umdat
ul-Qaari (4/16)]
Therefore,
even if it is accepted that Jaabir said these words based on his opinion
(whereas this is not the case, because Jaabir himself used to pray behind
Mu’aadh), then so what? Based on this Usool, the opinion and understanding of a
Prophet’s Companion takes preference over the possibilities of Ahnaaf,
walhamdulillah!
Zafar Ahmed
Thaanvi Deobandi writes:
فالموقوف عندنا حجة
“Thus a Mawqoof
narration (i.e. saying of a Sahaabi) is Hujjah according to us”
[I’laa
us-Sunan (3/1101)]
When the
saying of a Sahaabi is hujjah, then why don’t you accept it here; while it is
not even against the narration of any other Sahaabi?
A Joke:
Anwar Shaah Kaashmiree Deobandi
writes:
ولوجدان يحكم بأنه مدرج، لأن في
اسناده ابن جريج ومذهبه جواز اقتداء المفترض خلف المتنفل.
“My instinct rules that this is Mudraj
because its chain contains Ibn Jurayj and his Madhab is to allow the Salaat of
a Muftarid behind a Mutanaffil (therefore, he added these words to support his
Madhab)”
[Faydh ul-Baari (2/226-227)]
Look how daring this Deobandi individual
is; in order to make Ta’weel of the words of hadeeth going against his Taqleed;
he did not even hesitate to attack an agreed upon Thiqah narrator with his Jarh
saying that he tried to make the hadeeth in accordance to his Madhab. Whereas,
upon pondering a little, we come to know that the attempt to change the hadeeth
was not done by Ibn Jurayj, rather it is actually a practice of the Muqallideen
that they try to judge authentic narrations on the scale of their minds and
instincts. As Ashraf Ali Thaanvi said above: “if they hear of any verse or hadeeth
against the saying of Mujtahid…”
Moreover, as confessed by
Kaashmiree, this was the Madhab of Ibn Jurayj, so this gives even more strength
to our saying, because even Muqallideen agree that a narrator knows his
narration better than others.
Objection # 5:
Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan Safdar
Deobandi Hayaati writes under the Answer # 3 that:
“Imaam Tahaawi writes in P. 199 of
Vol.1 that:
لاحتمل أن
يكون ذلك من رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم في وقت ما كانت الفريضة تصلي مرتين،
فذلك قد كان يفعل في أول الاسلام حتي نهي عنه النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم.
It is possible that this
permissibility from the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) was at the time
when the Fard prayers used to be performed twice, as this was something used to
be done in the beginning of Islaam, then the Prophet (peace be upon him)
forbade that.”
[Khazaain al-Sunan (2/204)]
Answer:
1- Ahnaaf finally agreed that Sayyidunah Mu’aadh prayed the Fard
behind the Prophet, but now they have presented another new proof-less claim.
2- The claim that Sahaabah Karaam used to pray one obligatory
prayer twice is a lie and an accusation, because the narration that is
presented in this regard in reference to Tahaawi (1/221) is severely weak,
because:
a. It contains Qataadah who is a Mudallis; Aynee al-Hanafi writes: “Certainly
Qataadah is a Mudallis, evidence cannot be taken from his ‘An’ana until the
proof of his sama is found.”
[Umdat ul-Qaari (1/261)]
[Umdat ul-Qaari (1/261)]
b. The meeting and hearing of Khaalid bin Ayman is not proven from
the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him); those who claim otherwise must
provide proof. Therefore, taking evidence from this is rejected.
As for Tahaawi taking evidence
from the Marfoo narration of Ibn Umar which says: “The
Messenger of Allaah forbade from offering one obligatory prayer twice a day”
(Abu Dawood: 579, Nasaa’ee: 861, Tahaawi: 660 etc, Chain Hasan) that the
Sahaabah Karaam used to do this before and later the Prophet forbade them
because: “Prohibition always comes after permissibility”; then the answer to it
is that it is not necessary that the act from which the Prophet forbids, must
have been permissible before and Sahaabah must have been doing it before.
To give an example, Abdullah bin
Yazeed Al-Ansaari (radiallah anhu) narrates:
نهي النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم عن النهبي والمثلة.
“The
Prophet forbade robbery (taking away what belongs to others without their
permission), and also forbade mutilation (or maiming) of bodies.”
[Saheeh Bukhaari (5516)]
So does this mean that before
this prohibition of the Prophet, it was permissible in Islaam to rob and
disfigure the bodies; and Sahaabah also used to do this before? Na’uzubillah!
These things have never been permissible in any era.
Therefore, whoever claims that
in the beginning of Islaam, Sahaabah used to pray the Fard prayers twice a day
must provide authentic and clear proof.
Objection # 6:
Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan Safdar
Deobandi Hayaati writes under the Answer # 4 that:
“Qaadhi Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi says in
Vol. 2 P. 66 of Aaridat al-Ahwadhi that Hadhrat Mu’aadh used to pray the
morning prayer with him, then would lead the night prayer to his people;
meaning, the prayer which he would pray with the Prophet was separate, and the
prayer which he would lead the people in was some other prayer”
[Khazaain al-Sunan (2/204)]
Answer:
This is an extremely useless
objection from Safdar, because the narration of Saheeh Muslim contains the
clear words:
«أَنَّ
مُعَاذَ بْنَ جَبَلٍ كَانَ يُصَلِّي مَعَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ
وَسَلَّمَ الْعِشَاءَ الْآخِرَةَ، ثُمَّ يَرْجِعُ إِلَى قَوْمِهِ، فَيُصَلِّي
بِهِمْ تِلْكَ الصَّلَاةَ»
“Mu'aadh
bin Jabal offered the Isha prayer with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon
him) and then returned to his people and then led them in this (same) prayer.”
[Saheeh Muslim (465)]
Even if Qaadhi Ibn al-Arabi has mistakenly
said this, then why is Safdar Sahab narrating it despite knowing it is a
mistake? Can he “sincerely” say that it is a reliable answer according to him?
If the answer is in negation then it is clearly evident that the blameworthy
Taqleed and the rejection of Prophet’s Ahaadeeth have forced him to do that.
Objection # 7:
Safdar Deobandi further writes:
“Some Hanafi Fuqaha have answered that
the reality is that the passage is like this:
فَصَلَّى لَيْلَةً مَعَ النَّبِيِّ
صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْعِشَاءَ
In this, the word ‘Ishaa’ refers to
Ishaa al-Uula i.e. Maghrib prayer as the narration of Tirmidhi contains the
clarification of Maghrib while in the narration:
«أَنَّ
مُعَاذَ بْنَ جَبَلٍ كَانَ يُصَلِّي مَعَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ
وَسَلَّمَ الْعِشَاءَ الْآخِرَةَ، ثُمَّ يَرْجِعُ إِلَى قَوْمِهِ، فَيُصَلِّي
بِهِمْ تِلْكَ الصَّلَاةَ»
Ishaa is meant to be the actual Ishaa
prayer; and the meaning of ‘Tilk as-Salaat’ is the salaat similar to it in
length of the recitation etc… (al-Ma’aarif: 5/104) and not that they (both) are
the same prayers”
[Khazaain al-Sunan (2/204-205),
also see Haashiah Faydh ul-Baari (2/229)]
Answer:
Readers! See what kind of
objections Taqleed has forced these Muqallideen to make which are not even
accepted according to them. Sarfaraz Safdar has himself proven a few pages
before that the word Maghrib in the hadeeth of Mu’aadh is not correct, it is
defective; now read his confession in his own words:
“Benefit: The word Maghrib is
Ma’lool (defective). It is said in Al-Urf ash-Shazi: 255 that Al-Bayhaqi said
in al-Ma’rifah as-Sunnah wal Athaar that the word Maghrib is defective due to
the presence of the word Ishaa in all the other narrations. And
al-Mubaarakpooree writes in Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi: 1/404 that in the narration of
Saheeh Muslim, the words of ‘Isha al-Akhirah’ are found”
[Khazaain al-Sunan (2/202)]
We ask Safdar Sahab that, what
this “Benefit” is for? And hasn’t this “Benefit” given any “Benefit” to
Safdar Sahab? If we should not call this sheer Ta’assub and Blind Taqleed then
what else is this called?
When the word Maghrib itself is
Ma’lool then the above mentioned claim automatically becomes rejected.
As for the claim that “Tilk
as-Salaat” does not refer to the Isha prayer, rather it refers to the prayer
similar to it in length of the recitation then this is the peak of uselessness,
and the height of foolishness. How is this possible that Sayyidunah Mu’aadh would
lead the prayer exactly in accordance to the way of the Prophet (peace be upon
him) and recite in the same length as the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon
him) would recite, and still the Prophet rebukes him saying:
«أَتُرِيدُ
أَنْ تَكُونَ فَتَّانًا يَا مُعَاذُ؟ إِذَا أَمَمْتَ النَّاسَ فَاقْرَأْ
بِالشَّمْسِ وَضُحَاهَا، وَسَبِّحِ اسْمَ رَبِّكَ الْأَعْلَى، وَاقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ
رَبِّكَ، وَاللَّيْلِ إِذَا يَغْشَى»
“O
Mu'aadh, do you want to become a person putting (people) to trial? When you
lead people in prayer, recite: ‘By the Sun and its morning brightness’ (Surah
xci), ‘Glorify the name of thy most high Lord’ (Surah lxxxvi) and ‘Read in the
name of Lord’ (Surah xcvi), and ‘By the night when it spreads’ (Surah xcii).”
[Saheeh Muslim (465)]
Is it that the Prophet himself
would make lengthy recitations, and rebuke Mu’aadh for the same action
declaring it a trial? How strange!
In any case, the narration of
Saheeh Muslim mentions that Sayyidunah Mu’aadh would pray Ishaa al-Akhirah and
then lead his people in the same prayer; therefore, this ta’weel is Baatil.
After mentioning the Ta’weelaat
of Ahnaaf on the hadeeth of Mu’aadh, Haafidh Nawawi said:
وكل هذه التأويلات
دعاوي لا أصل لها فلا يترك ظاهر الحديث بها.
“All these Ta’weelaat are claims
which have no basis, thus the Zaahir (apparent meaning) of Hadeeth cannot be
left for them”
[Sharh Al-Nawawi Ala Muslim
(1/187)]
With the blessing of Allaah, we
have answered all the objections and Ta’weelaat made up to this day on the
hadeeth of Mu’aadh. If any person still has any doubt or Ta’weel in his mind,
let him not confine it to himself, rather he should inform us of it so that we
can analyze it fairly.
Instead of giving worthless
answers and thinking useless Ta’weelaat of Authentic Ahaadeeth, we pray to
Allaah that may He grant us the ability to act upon them and make our lives
dedicated to the defense of Hadeeth and make this act a way of success for us
in the hereafter.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.