PART THREE
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]
Answer:
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)]
Answer:
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.
Benefit:
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)]
Answer:
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.
Benefit:
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:
Is
this the accordance of hadeeth or opposition to it?
Related Articles:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.