Saturday, June 29, 2013

Salaat al-Muftarid Khalf al-Mutanaffil - Part Three - (Analysis of the Proofs of Ahnaaf)

Examining the Proofs of Ahnaaf

Proof # 1:

عَنْ أَبِي أُمَامَةَ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: " الْإِمَامُ ضَامِنٌ وَالْمُؤَذِّنُ مُؤْتَمَنٌ "

Abu Umaamah narrated that the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) said: “The Imaam is a Dhaamin (guarantor) and the Mu’adhdhin is in a position of trust.”
[Musnad Ahmed (5/260), Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer by al-Tabaraani (8/286 H. 8097), Chain Saheeh]


1-    This hadeeth does not even contain a hint of the invalidity of the prayer of Muftarid behind a Mutanaffil. The narrations that we took evidence from are absolutely clear in their meaning. In fact the famous and major Muhadditheen and some Hanafi Scholars have also confessed to their explicitness. Taking evidence from ambiguous narrations leaving such clear narrations aside is not something an impartial person would do. Presenting the Ishaarat un-Nass (necessary intendment) or Dalaalat un-Nass (logical extension of meaning) against the Ibaarat un-Nass (plain meaning of text) is an open violation of Usool and is an outcome of ignorance from the Usool of Istidlaal.

2-    The  confession of the permissibility of Salaat al-Muftarid Khalf al-Mutanaffil is done from the hadeeth of Mu’aadh, Jaabir, and Abu Bakrah by the great A’immah and Muhadditheen and also by the elders of Ahnaaf themselves. However, unfortunately this deduction from this hadeeth did not come in anyone’s mind except the later Taqleed lovers. Whereas, deducting issues from hadeeth is the job of Muhadditheen not the Muqallideen.

Readers! Now you do justice! Several Muhadditheen have mentioned this hadeeth in their books but none of them deducted this issue from this hadeeth. See:

Sunan Tirmidhi (207), Sunan Abu Dawood (517), Sunan al-Kubra lil Bayhaqi (1/430, 3/127, 1/425, 426, 431), Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah (5131, 5132), Al-Umm by ash-Shaafi’ee (1/128), Sharh us-Sunnah by Haafidh Baghawi (2/280) and also see: Sharh Mishkaat by Mulla Ali Qaari Hanafi (1/427)

None of these Muhadditheen took evidence from this hadeeth for the invalidity of the prayer of Muftarid behind a Mutanaffil; whereas, a numerous number of Muhadditheen have taken evidence from our Daleel i.e. the hadeeths of Mu’aadh and Jaabir to prove the permissibility of the prayer of Muftarid behind a Mutanaffil, as we have mentioned before.

What right does the people – who have worn the collar of Taqleed-e-Shakhsi on their necks considering themselves unable to understand Qur’aan and Sunnah – have that they should extract a ruling from Hadeeth which was not even extracted by their early A’immah?

Imaam Tahaawi Hanafi has also tried his best to prove the Hanafi Madhab on this issue in Sharh Ma’aani al-Athaar, but this narration was not even presented by him. It is obvious that this ruling is not deducted from this hadeeth; otherwise Imaam Tahaawi had a deeper insight of Ahaadeeth and Athaar than today’s Muqallideen.

3-    In Sunan ad-Daaraqutni (1214), the meaning of this narration is also mentioned. It says:

«الْإِمَامُ ضَامِنٌ فَمَا صَنَعَ فَاصْنَعُوا».
“The Imaam is a guarantor, so do what he does”

Imaam Abu Haatim said after narrating this hadeeth:

هَذَا تَصْحِيحٌ لِمَنْ قَالَ بِالْقِرَاءَةِ خَلْفَ الْإِمَامِ
“This hadeeth authenticates the saying of one who holds the opinion of reciting behind the Imaam”

[Sunan ad-Daaraqutni (1/321)]

As per the indications of Muhadditheen, instead of becoming a proof for Ahnaaf, it – instead – became a collar of their necks. If someone still persuades then this would be nothing but stubbornness.

4-    By the words “Al-Imaamu Dhaaminun (The Imaam is guarantor/responsible)” taking the meaning of responsibility as in the equality of the prayer of Imaam and Muqtadi, or the fard of Imaam and Nafl of Muqtadi – is not only against the affirmations of Muhadditheen, but it is also contrary to the other Principles of Fiqh Hanafi. On this issue, the Ahnaaf only take support of this one Faasid Analogy saying that the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) declared Imaam a Dhaamin, and a person can only become someone’s Dhaamin when he dominates him, or at least equates him, because an inferior thing cannot take a superior thing under its responsibility.

No doubt that this Qiyaas is Baatil and void because of being against the Saheeh and clear texts of ahaadeeth.

Now upon pondering, you’d know that Ahnaaf themselves have opposed their so-called Usool on this issue at many places, for example, in Hanafi Fiqh:

a.     A Slave can lead a free person in prayer.
b.     A Faasiq (one who repeatedly commits sins) can lead a righteous person in prayer and so on.
[See, Qadoori (P. 29)]
Whereas, the Qiyaas demands that in these conditions also, the Imaam should not become a “Dhaamin” because of being an inferior.

Proof # 2:

Zafar Ahmed Thaanvi writes while giving the proof:

عن أنس رضي الله عنه أن النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم قال: انما جعل الامام ليؤتم به، فلا تختلفوا عليه. أخرجه البخاري ومسلم (زيلعي).
Anas (radiallah anhu) narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The Imaam is (appointed) to be followed, so do not differ from him” Narrated by Bukhaari and Muslim (Zayla’ee).

احتج به أصحابنا علي المنع من اقتداء المفترض بالمتنفل قالوا: واختلاف النية داخل في ذالك.
“Our companions took evidence from this hadeeth for the prohibition of a Muftarid following a Mutanaffil (in prayer); they said: The difference in Niyyah (intention) is also included in that (command)”

[I’laa us-Sunan by Zafar Ahmed Thaanvi (3/1355-1356)]


1-    We could not find the words of “So do not differ from him” from the narration of Sayyidunah Anas (radiallah anhu) in Saheeh Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim; rather these words are present in the narration of Sayyidunah Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu). Therefore, it is necessary to correct this mistake.

2-    Just as before, this narration does not as well prove the claim of Ahnaaf at all. On the contrary, a total opposite case comes out once you read the complete hadeeth. The complete words of hadeeth are as follows:

عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ: خَرَّ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَنْ فَرَسٍ، فَجُحِشَ، فَصَلَّى لَنَا قَاعِدًا فَصَلَّيْنَا مَعَهُ قُعُودًا، ثُمَّ انْصَرَفَ، فَقَالَ: "إِنَّمَا جُعِلَ الإِمَامُ لِيُؤْتَمَّ بِهِ، فَإِذَا كَبَّرَ فَكَبِّرُوا، وَإِذَا رَكَعَ فَارْكَعُوا، وَإِذَا رَفَعَ فَارْفَعُوا، وَإِذَا قَالَ: سَمِعَ اللَّهُ لِمَنْ حَمِدَهُ، فَقُولُوا: رَبَّنَا لَكَ الحَمْدُ، وَإِذَا سَجَدَ فَاسْجُدُوا " وفي رواية: فَإِذَا صَلَّى قَائِمًا، فَصَلُّوا قِيَامًا وفي رواية أخري: وَإِذَا صَلَّى قَاعِدًا، فَصَلُّوا قُعُودًا أَجْمَعُونَ
Anas bin Maalik (radiallah anhu) narrated: Allaah's Apostle (peace be upon him) fell from a horse and got injured so he led the prayer sitting and we also prayed sitting. When he completed the prayer he said, “The Imam is to be followed; if he says Takbeer then say Takbeer, bow if he bows; raise your heads when he raises his head, when he says, 'Sami`a Allaahu liman Hamidah say, 'Rabbana laka l-Hamd', and prostrate when he prostrates.” In another narration it adds: “When he prays standing, you should also pray standing” and another narration says: “And when he prays sitting, all of you should pray sitting”
[Saheeh Bukhaari (732-733), Saheeh Muslim (411)]

It is apparent that the purpose and intention of this blessed saying of Allaah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) was to make the Sahaabah aware that Imaam is to be followed i.e. if he prays standing then you should also pray standing, and if he prays sitting then you should also pray sitting. Similarly, following the Imaam in other physical acts of the prayer is also necessary. Therefore, there is no proof of the prohibition of Salaat al-Muftarid Khalf al-Mutanaffil in this hadeeth. Presenting such ambiguities against the clear ahaadeeth is similar to persecuting the justice.


During the Maradh al-Maut (the disease in which he died) of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Abu Bakr’s performing the prayer standing in leadership of the Prophet while he was sitting; and similarly after the death of the Prophet, the Sahaabah performing their prayers standing while the Imaam was sitting, explains that this commandment is either Mansookh (Abrogated) or its not meant to be obligatory.

3-    This narration is mentioned in abundance by the A’immah and Muhadditheen in their books, but the opportunity of this deduction only came to the Deobandis. See:

Bukhaari (734), Muslim (414), Ibn Maajah (864), Nasaa’ee (832, 1200), Abu Awaanah (2/110), Ad-Daarimi (1/286), Al-Bayhaqi (3/79), Al-Baghawi (852), Abu Dawood (604), Ibn Abi Shaybah (2/326), Ahmed bin Hanbal (2/341), Al-Humaydee (958), Abdur Razzaaq (4082), Ibn Hibbaan (2107), Ibn Khuzaymah (1613) and many others.

Not one of these Muhaddith or Imaam ever took out this issue from this hadeeth. What position the saying of Taqleed lovers hold against such vast number of Muhadditheen?

4-    The words “Fala Takhtalifoo (So do not differ from him)” does not refer to the difference of intentions rather it refers to the apparent difference, as is also clarified in this very hadeeth with clear words that “bow when he bows, raise your heads when he raises his head from rukoo, prostrate when he prostrates”. There is not even a hint of the difference of intention.

5-    If this hadeeth also refers to the difference of intention, then it will make the prayer of a person praying Nafl behind an Imaam praying Fard to be invalid as well. Whereas, no one holds such opinion.

As for the saying of Zafar Ahmed Thaanvi Deobandi that:

واقتداء المتنفل بالمفترض ليس من الاختلاف علي الامام.
“And the prayer of a Mutanaffil in leadership of a Muftarid is not considered differing from the Imaam”
[I’laa us-Sunan (3/1356)]

So we say then the prayer of Muftarid behind a Mutanaffil is also not considered differing from the Imaam.

He further writes:

أو نقول: ان مفاد قوله: لا تختلفوا عليه المنع من ذالك أيضا ولكن جوزناه بنص آخر في ذلك خاصة.
“Or we will say in answer to this objection that: ‘Do not differ from him’ also forbids from the prayer of a Mutanaffil behind a Muftarid, but we declared it permissible due to the other Khaas evidence.”
[I’laa us-Sunan (3/1256)]


If, as per your saying, “Do not differ from him” refers to the difference of intention, and this difference includes both the prayer of a Muftarid behind a Mutanaffil as well as the prayer of a Mutanaffil behind a Muftarid. In spite of this, you excluded the prayer of a Mutanaffil behind a Muftarid based on some other evidence, then even we, as per the affirmations of Muhadditheen, have excluded the prayer of a Muftarid behind a Mutanaffil based on the other Saheeh and clear evidences.

Now the result comes out to be the same that the difference referred to in the mentioned narration is not meant to be the difference of intention at all, otherwise the following conditions will also become Baatil due to this difference:

a.     The prayer of a traveler behind a resident.
b.     The prayer of a resident behind a traveler.
c.      And the prayer of a Masbooq (the one who missed some rak’ahs) and others.


Readers! You saw that on one side there are the Saheeh and clear ahaadeeth, the actions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) and his Sahaabah, the affirmations of Muhadditheen in great numbers, and the confession of some Hanafi elders; while on the other side, leave aside Saheeh, there is not even a single clear Da’eef Daleel but still the Ahnaaf are persistent on this; they become culprits of altering the meanings of texts by doing all sorts of Baatil Ta’weelaat in them; and they clearly deny the Faqaahat of Muhadditheen; moreover, in order to satisfy themselves and their Blind Muqallideen, they present narrations which have nothing to do with the actual issue at the farthest, because these poor people are totally deprived of proofs and often times Allaah the Most High also makes them confess the truth from their tongues. Therefore, Anwaar Khursheed – the graduate of Jaami’ah Ashrafiyyah Lahore, writes in his worthless and rubbish book “Ghayr Muqallideen Imaam Bukhaari ki Adaalat main (which means: ‘Ghayr Muqallideen in the court of Imaam Bukhaari’)” that:

“Whereas, we do not even claim that the proof of every issue is found in Hadeeth”
[P. 5]

See how clearly this Deobandi individual is confessing that the proof of every issue of Fiqh Hanafi is not found in Hadeeth.

We ask this person that when the complete Fiqh of yours is not proven from hadeeth, then why do you try so hard to prove these issues by doing far-fetched Ta’weelaat of the hadeeth and alteration of the texts!!?

Readers! We have finished analyzing all the proofs of ahnaaf presented, to this date, on the prohibition of a Muftarid’s prayer behind a Mutanaffil. Now its time for you to decide that:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.