The Wahhabi Imam Abu Haneefa!

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

http://www.umm-ul-qura.org/info/user_pages/page.asp?art_id=119

The quoted of this articles are taken from the book "Kalimah Go Mushrik"

Clarification of Ahnaf’s use of words:

Haram: This is something that is forbidden by Quran, or Hadith Mutawatir or Mashur, and his author is a sinner by doing this action.

Makruh Tahrimi: That is something that is like Haram in punishment, meaning his author is a sinner by doing this action. The only difference is that this forbiddance is established by Khabar Ahad. So for Ahnaf, wearing gold and silk for men, doing Nikah of Tahlil (for the purpose of making woman legal to the first husband) are Makruh Tahrimi as they are forbidden by Khabar Ahad and not by Quran or Hadith Mutawatir.

Makruh Tanzihi: This is the forbiddance whose author is not sinful, yet leaving this action will give reward, like eating and drinking standing or other actions.

When Ahnaf mention the word Makruh in an absolute way, then mean it is Makruh Tahrimi. Ibn Abidin said in his “Radul Muhtar”, Matlab fil Karahiyah At-Tahrimiyah wa Tanzihiyah:

“The Makruh in this chapter is of two types, one of them is the Makruh Tahrimi and it is the one intended when mentioned in an absolute way”

And this has also been mentioned in “Fathul Qadir” of ibnul Humam v 2 p 114.

So whenever Ahnaf say that for Imam Abu Hanifah, a matter is Makruh, it will mean it is Makruh Tahrimi, unless it is specified that it is Makruh Tanzihi. And also we see than many scholars

Muhammad ibnul Hasan Ash-Shaybani wrote in his “Kitab ul Athar”, Bab Tasneemul Qubur wa Tajsisuha:

“And we do not see that one should add more (mud on the grave) than what came from it, and we consider it Makruh to do Tajsis (plastering of the grave) or to coat it with clay or that a mosque should be established upon it or that something should be written on it, and using baked bricks to built on it or to be put inside the grave is Makruh, and we do not see any wrong in sprinkling water on it, and this is the saying of Abu Hanifah (rah)”

Mahmud Al-Alusi said in his “Ruh ul Ma’ani” v 15 p 238:

“There is consensus on the fact that among the greatest forbidden matters and cause of Shirk is to pray close to them (graves) and to take them as places of worship (mosques), or to build upon it, and it is obligatory to rush to destroy them (mosques built on graves) and to destroy the domes that are on the graves, as they are worse than the mosque of Dhirar, because they are built in disobedience to the Prophet (saw), and it is obligatory to remove the torches and lamps that are on graves, and it is not permissible to make a Waqf of them and vows upon them”

Mahmud Al-Alusi said about the story of Kahf and people who base on it to justify building on graves of saints:

“And people have taken this as a proof for permitting building on graves of saints and turning them into mosques and praying in them…This saying is pure falsehood, corruption and evil. Ahmad, Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasai, ibn Majah narrated from ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “May Allah curse the women visiting graves, those who make graves upon them and put lamps upon it”

Al-Marghinani said in his “Hidayah” v 2 p 100:

“And it is Makruh to use baked bricks and wood, because this enters in the ruling of building”

Ibnul Humam said in his “Fath ul Qadir”, explanation of “Al-Hidayah”:

“Abu Hanifah (rah) considered it Makruh to build on graves, even if they are not known with signs, and Abu Yusuf (rah) considered it Makruh to put any writing on it because of what Jabir, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated from the Prophet (saw): “Do not perform Tajsis (plastering) of graves, do not build over them, do not sit and write on them”

Ibnul Humam said about the Hadith of ‘Ali that the Prophet (saw) ordered him to level graves:

“This is because of what they used to do like elevating graves and building beautiful and elevated constructions over them”

‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad An-Nasafi sais in his “Kanz ud Daqaiq” v 2 p 194:

“They (graves) should not be elevated nor plastered”

Ibn Nujaym said in explanation in his “Bahr ur Raiq”:

“Because of the Hadith of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade to do Tajsis (plastering) of graves, to sit on them, to build over them and write on them”

Qadhi Khan said his “Fatawa” v 1 p 93:

“And graves should not be plastered because of what is reported from the Prophet (saw) that he forbade Tajsis (plastering), Tafdid (putting silver on it), building over the grave…because of what is narrated from Abu Hanifah (rah) that graves should not be plastered nor coated with clay, nor any construction should be elevated on it.”

It is written in “Fatawa Alamgiri” v 1 p 166:

“And the grave should be made convex from a hand span, and it should not be made in square form nor plastered, and there is no harm in sprinkling water on it, and it is Makruh to build on graves, to sit or sleep on them”

Al-Hasakafi said in his “Durul Mukhtar” v 1 p 125:

“And they (graves) should not be plastered because of its forbiddance (nahi)”

Ibn ‘Abidin said in his “Radul Muhtar” v 1 p 601:

“As for building on them (graves), I have not seen anyone allowing this”

Al-‘Ayni said in his “Binayah Sharh Hidayah”:

“And they should not be coated with gypsum, nor should there be any construction over it, because this is for solidification and beautification”

Al-Kasani said in his “Badai” v 1 p 372:

“It is narrated from the Prophet (saw) that he forbade that there should any resemblance between graves and populated areas, and baked bricks and wood are for populated areas.”

Qadhi Ibrahim Al-Halabi said in “Halabi Al-Kabeer” p 599:

“It is Makruh to do Tajsis (plastering) of graves, and to coat them with clay, and this is what the three Imams (Abu Hanifah and his two students Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibnul Hasan) said because of what Jabir narrated…and from Abu Hanifah, it is Makruh to build on them constructions like houses or domes or similar to them because of the precedent Hadith”

Siraj ud Din said in his “Fatawa Sirajiyah” p 24:

“It is Makruh to build on graves”

Abu Layth As-Samarqandi said in his “Fatawa Nawazil” p 82:

“It is Makruh to do Tajsis of graves, to coat them with clay, to build on them, to write on them or to mark them by putting a sign on them”

Ahmad ibn Muhammad Al-Qaduri said in his “Qaduri” p 60:

“And using baked bricks and wood is Makruh”

Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ali al-Haddad said in his “Jawahir An-Nayrah” v 1 p 133:

“It is Makruh to coat graves with clay and to do Tajsis (plastering) of them, to build on them, to write on them because of his (saw) saying: Do not do Tajsis of graves, do not build on them and do not sit on them”

‘Ubaydullah ibn Mas’ud said in his “Sharh Wiqayah” v 1 p 240:

“And using baked bricks and wood is Makruh”

At-Tahtawi wrote in his explanation of “Maraqi Al-Falah” p 335:

“The three (Abu Hanifah and his two students) said that they (graves) should not be plastered because of the saying of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade…And the forbiddance of the Prophet (saw) indicates that what they have mentioned is Makruh Tahrimi”

Sayid Murtadha Az-Zubaydi said in his “’Uqud Al-Jawahir Al-Munifah” v 1 p 103:

“The Bayan of the narration shows that it is Makruh to do Tajsis (plastering of graves)”

As-Sarkhasi wrote in his “Mabsut” v 2 p 62:

“He forbade doing Tajsis of graves”

Qadhi Ibrahim Al-Hanafi said in his “Majalis ul Abrar” p 129:

“And the domes built on graves, it is obligatory to destroy them because they have been built in disobedience and opposition to the Messenger (saw) , and every construction that is built in disobedience and opposition to the Messenger (saw) deserves more to be destroyed than the mosque of Dhirar.”

Ala ud Din As-Samarqandi said as mentioned in “Tuhfatul Fuqaha” v 1 p 400:

“The Sunnah concerning the grave is that it should be convex, not in a square form, it should not be coated with clay, nor plastered, and Abu Hanifah consider it Makruh to build on graves”

Hasan Ash-Shurunbulali wrote in “Nur ul Idah” p 153:

“And baked bricks and wood is Makruh…and it is forbidden (Haram) to built on graves for beatification and Makruh if it is for solidification after burial”

Qadhi Thanaullah PaniPati wrote in his “Ma la Buda Minhu” p 67:

“And what is done at graves of saints, building elevated constructions, illuminating lamps, and similar matters are Haram or Makruh”

Mulla Ali Qari wrote in his “Mirqat” v 1 p 414 about the Hadith mentioning innovation of misguidance:

“And this is what the Imams condemned like the building on graves and their Tajsis (plastering)”

So these quotations are clear that the Madhab of Abu Hanifah is that it is forbidden to plaster graves, to build domes on them.


May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, his companions and those who follow them

Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

http://www.umm-ul-qura.org/info/user_pages/page.asp?art_id=116

Words of the Mufti of Ahnaf of his time, Mahmud Al-Alusi

Imam Mahmud Al-Alusi said in his “Ruh ul-Ma’ani” in Tafsir of the verse “Seek Wasilah to Him” (Maidah: 35):

“This has the form of “Fa’ilatun” with the meaning of (the means) with one does Tawassul among actions of obedience and leaving sins… and Anbari and others narrated from Ibn Abbas that Wasilah means need (Hajah) and recited for him the poem of ‘Anzatu…(to justify meaning of Wasilah also comes for need) and then the meaning is “ask your hands by turning your attention towards Allah, because in His Hands are the keys of the heavens and earth, and do not ask your needs turning to other than Allah” …, and some explained “Wasilah”, as a level (Manzilah) in paradise, and this is not evident in this meaning because this is among the particularities of the Prophet (saw) based on what Muslim reported and others : “It is a level in paradise, Allah has made it for (only) one of His slave and I hope that it will be for me, so ask Wasilah for me” …

And some people took proof from this verse to legislate Istighathah (seeking assistance) from saints, making them Wasilah (intermediaries) between Allah and slaves, and swearing upon Allah with them by saying : “O Allah we swear upon you with so and so that you give us that” and some of them say to the absent or dead from pious slaves of Allah: “Ya Fulan (O so and so), invoke Allah that He gives us subsistence, this and that”, and they think that it is from the chapter of seeking Wasilah, and they tell that the Prophet (saw) : “When things are difficult for you, then go to the people of graves or seek help from the people of graves” (a fabricated narration), and all of this is far from the truth from great distances.

And Tahqiq of Kalam (verified speech) in this place is that Istighathah with creation, and making it a Wasilah in the meaning of asking Du’a to them, there is no doubt in its permissibility if the sought person is alive, and we do not restrict this to the case of the one being asked is superior, rather one can ask the superior and the inferior, and it has been authenticated that he (saw) asked Umar (to make du’a for him) when he sought for permission for Umrah: “ Do not forget your brother in your du’a” and he ordered him as well to seek Uwais AL Qarni so he seeks forgiveness for him, and he (saw) ordered the community to ask Wasilah (place in paradise) for him as it has just been mentioned and by they sending Sala upon him.

As for when the sought person is dead or absent, it is not hidden for scholars that it is not permissible and it is from innovations that none of the Salaf did…

And it did not come from any of the Sahabah - and they are among the most desiring people from creation to seek any good- that they asked the dead anything, rather it is authentically reported from Ibn Umar that he used to say when he entered prophetic chamber when making Ziyarah (visit of the grave): “As-Salam Aleyka Ya Rasula Allah, As-Salam Aleyka Ya Aba Bakrin, As Salam Aleyka Ya Abati” (Peace be upon you O messenger of Allah, peace be upon you O Abu Bakr, peace be upon you O my father), then he left and he did not add to that and he did not seek anything from the leader of the universe (saw) or from his two nobles companions lying next, and they are the most virtuous from what surface can ever gather and have the highest value from what all containing places can ever contain.

Yes Du’a near the noble presence and holy Garden (Rawdah), Sahabah used to invoke Allah here facing the Qiblah and it did not come from them that they would face the sacred grave during Du’a while it is better than ‘Arsh (Throne of Allah). The Imams differed whether to face it for sending Salam, according to Abu Hanifah, one should not face it but put it at his back and face the Qiblah, and some said that one should face (the grave) for Salam and then face the Qiblah and turn back (from grave) for Du’a, and the authentic view (of Abu Hanifah), what is depended upon, is that one should face (the grave) for Salam and for Du’a he should face the Qiblah and put the noble grave on his right or left.

If this is what is legislated for the Ziyarah (visit of the grave) of the leader of creation…so what about Ziyarah of others compared to his Ziyarah? Wherever it happens and what is added or is sought from the one visited, what is not the right of the leader of the creation (to have such things done, and yet none of the Salafi did such, showing it should not be done)?

As for swearing upon Allah with one of His creation such as saying: “Allah I swear upon You or I ask you with so and so (Fulan) that you fulfill my need, then (‘Izz) Ibn Abdis Salam permitted that for the Prophet (saw) because he is leader on sons of Adam, and this is not permissible to swear upon Allah with other (than him) from Prophets, angels, and saints as they are not from his level. And this has been quoted from him by Al-Manawi in his “Sharh Kabir” of “Jami us Saghir”, and the prove of it is what At-Tirmidhi narrated …(Hadith of the blind Man)

And among people, some forbade Tawassul with essence (Dhat) and swearing upon Allah with any of the creation at all and this is the view of Al Majd Ibn Taymiyah (in fact this is a mistake, it is not Al-Majd but At-Taqi, as said by Dr Shamsudin Al-Afghani in his “Juhud”) and he quoted this from Imam Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf and others from the great scholars, and he answered the Hadith that some part (as Mudhaf) is omitted and it is Du’a or Shafa’ah of Your Prophet (saw), so in making Wasilah with the Du’a (of the Prophet (saw)), this is permissible, rather recommended, and the proof on what is omitted is the saying at end of the Hadith: “Allah accept his Shafa’ah (intercession) for me” and also there is in the beginning what constitutes a proof for that (as the blind man came and sought the Prophet’s dua)

And Taj As-Subki insulted Al-Majd (in fact At Taqi Ibn Taymiyah), as he us used to and said : “And Tawassul is recommended, and likewise Istighathah with the Prophet (saw) to the Lord, and none of the Salaf or Khalaf denied this until Ibn Taymiyah came, and he denied this, and deviated from the right path and innovated….”

(Al-Alusi answered “And you know that Du’a reported in narrations from pure Ahlul Bayt (household of the Prophet (saw)) and others from Imams, there is not in them Tawassul with his noble essence (Dhat)…the one who claims a text, then he should present it”

As for what Abu Dawud reported in his “Sunnan” and others “That a man said to the Prophet (saw) : “We seek your Shafa’ah (intercession) to Allah and seek Allah’s Shafa’ah (intercession) to you” and the Prophet (saw) glorified Allah until it was seen in the faces of his Sahabah (that the Prophet (saw) was angry), and he said “May calamity be on you, do you know who Allah is? Allah’s intercession is not sought to anybody from His creation, the status of Allah is greater than that” then it is not a proof for our topic, as he denied his saying “seek Allah’s Shafa’ah (intercession) to you” and did not deny his saying: “We seek your Shafa’ah (intercession) to Allah”, because the meaning of Istishfa’ (seeking intercession) is seeking Du’a from him, and it does not mean swearing with it upon Allah.

If swearing had the meaning of Istishfa’ why did the Prophet (saw) denied what is contained in the second sentence and not in first? So based on this, the information is not satisfactory to stand as a proof, nor what is before for the one who claims permissibility of swearing with his essence (saw) alive and dead, and the same for essence of others among saint souls in an absolute way, making Qiyas (analogy) of him (saw) with all people of importance, although there is difference in strength and weakness. And this because what is in second sentence is seeking intercession and not swearing, and what is in the first sentence, it does not constitute a clear proof in subjects of difference,

And if we suppose it (that Istishfa in this Hadith means swearing upon Allah with essence of the Prophet) there is not (in this Hadith) but swearing with alive people and Tawassul with him, and making his (saw) state of life as his state of death in this topic needs a clear text and probably the clear text is contrary to this, as there is in “Sahih ul Bukhari” from Anas that ‘Umar ibnul Khattab when they faced drought, sought rain with Abbas and said : “O Allah we used to do Tawassul with Your Prophet (saw) and You gave us rain, and now we do Tawassul to You with the uncle of our Prophet, give us rain” and they were given rain. And if there was Tawassul with him (saw) after his death from this world, why did they turn to other? Rather they would have said : “O Allah we do tawassul with Your Prophet, give us rain”

And they are far away from turning from the Tawassul of Prophet (saw) to the Tawassul with his uncle Abbas…while they were the first forerunners, and they were more knowledgeable than us about Allah and His Prophet (saw), and the rights of Allah and His Prophet (saw), what is legislated in du’a and what is not legislated, and they were in time of huge need, they were seeking relief from difficulties and easiness of difficult, and descent of rain with all ways, this is clear proof that the legislated is what they did without others.

And what is mentioned in Qiyas of him with other saint souls with difference of status - (difference) that is denied by none except a hypocrite - this is from what is not possible to accept, and you came to know that for swearing with him (saw) unto his Lord alive or dead, there is no clear text to justify it, and it is not said that what is in the narration of Al-Bukhari constitutes a proof for authenticity of swearing with him (saw) alive and the same for other people.

As for first (information), the saying of Umar: “We used to do Tawassul with Your Prophet (saw)” and as for the second of his saying: “And now we do Tawassul with uncle of our Prophet (saw)” because it is said: this Tawassul is not from chapter of swearing rather it is from categories of seeking intercession, and this is to seek du’a from an individual and his Shafa’ah, and seeking from Allah that he accepts his du’a and Shafa’ah. And this is supported by the fact that Abbas was invoking and they were trusting his du’a until rain came.

And Al-Majd (At-Taqi) mentioned that there is Ijmal (general sense) and Ishtirak (different meanings) in (the word) Tawassul with an individual and Tawajjuh (turning) to him, according to the Istilah. The meaning in the language of the Sahabah is to seek from him Du’a and Shafa’ah, so the Tawassul and Tawajuh is in truth with his du’a and his Shafa’ah, and this is from what is not forbidden, as for what is in language of a lot of people, that meaning is to ask Allah with him, and to swear upon Him with him, this is the subject of dispute, and you have known the speech on it, and it has been put in swearing not legislated the saying of someone: “O Allah, I ask you with the status ( Jah) of so and so” because this is not proven from any of the Salaf that he invoked like that…

As for what the laymen mention from his (saw) saying: “If you have a need to Allah, ask with my status, because my status is great towards Allah” then none of the people of knowledge narrated it, and it does not exist in books of Hadith, and for what Al-Qushayri mentioned from Ma’ruf Al-Karkhi, that he said to his students: “If you have any need to Allah, then swear upon Him with me, because I am an intermediary between you and Him”, then there is no Sanad (chain of narrators) found for that on which Muhadith depend.

As for what is reported from Ibn Majah from Abu Said Al Khudri from the Prophet (saw) in the du’a after prayer: “O Allah, I ask you with right of the people who ask You (Sailiin)…” then there is Awfi in the Sanad and there is weakness in him…

And people have exceeded limits nowadays in swearing upon Allah, they swear upon Him with what is nothing and with what has no status in front of Allah. And worse than that, they seek from people of graves matters like cure for sick, wealth for poor, and finding lost things, and relief from all difficulty, and their devils inspired them this narration: “When you are invaded with troubles until end (go and seek help from people of graves)” and this Hadith is a lie on the Prophet (saw) by consensus of the people of knowledge of the science of Hadith, and none of the scholars narrated it, and nothing of that is found in reliable books of Hadith, and the Prophet (saw) forbade to take graves as mosques (places of worship) and cursed those doing that, so how can one imagine the order to do Istighathah (seeking assistance) and asking from its people (of graves) ? Subhanallah this is a great lie!

And it is quoted from Abu Yazid Al-Bastami: “Istighathah of creation by creation is like seeking help of a prisoner by a prisoner” and from words of As-Sajjad that “the needy asking to the needy is stupidity in his opinion and misguidance in his intelligence”, and from du’a of Musa (aley salam) “And to You we seek help” , and he (saw) said to Ibn Abbas: “When you seek help, then seek from Allah…” and He said: “You alone do we worship and from You alone do wee seek help” (Fatihah)

And after (saying) all this, I do not see any wrong in Tawassul to Allah with status (Jah) of the Prophet (saw) alive or dead, and what is meant by “Jah” returns to attributes from attributes of Allah… so the meaning of the saying of the one who say: “Allah, I do Tawassul with status of Your Prophet (saw) that you fulfill my need” will be: “Allah, make Your love for him as a Wasilah in fulfilling my need”. And there is no difference between this and your saying: “Allah, I do Tawassul with Your Mercy that you do this and that”, as the meaning is also: “Allah make your Mercy as a Wasilah for me in this action” and I do not see any wrong in swearing upon Allah with status of him (saw) in this meaning, and the kalam in Hurmah is same as kalam in Jah, and this does not come in tawassul and Iqsam with dhat at all.

Yes, the Tawassul with Jah (status) and Hurmah (dignity) did not come from any of the Sahabah. Maybe this is because they were fearing that people found in their minds something (confusing), as they left Tawassul with idols, and then pure Imams coming after them followed them (in not doing Tawassul with Jah). And the Prophet (saw) left the destruction of the Ka’bah and its building on the foundations of Ibrahim (aley salam) as people were close from time of Kufr as it is established in the “Sahih”.

And what we mentioned, it is only to prevent difficulty for people (who do Tawassul with Jah) and running away from the claim of their misguidance, as some people claim… and the best for us are reported du’a that come in the Book and the detailed Sunnah because it is not hidden for people of fairness that what Allah taught him, what the Messenger (saw) (taught), what the Sahabah did, and what people after them accepted fully is better, more complete, more beneficial and more secure…

They remain two points. First that the Tawassul with Jah of other than the Prophet (saw), there is no wrong in it if the one who is done Tawassul with is known for sure that he has a status in front of Allah, as the certainty in his piety and Wilayah , as for the one about whom there is no certainty for his right, then Tawassul is not done with his status…

Second, that people have increased in du’a to other than Allah from loved Awliay among dead and others, as “Ya Sayidi So and So (Fulan) Aghithni (help me)” and this is not from the permitted form Tawassul in anyway…a great number of scholars have considered that as Shirk…and I do not see anybody who says this except that he believes that the invoked alive absent or dead hidden knows the invisible or hears his saying and is powerful with his essence or with other to bring good and remove problems, and if not he would not have called him nor opened his mouth, and in this there is a great test from Allah…

There is no doubt that Istighathah from people of graves… is a matter that is obligatory to be avoided, and it is not suitable for people of intelligence to do that, and you should not be deceived if the seeker of help can have his need fulfilled and his matter asked being granted, because this is a test and trial (Fitnah) from Him (Azza wa Jalla), and Shaytan can take appearance of the one whose help was sought, and people can think that it is a Karamat (miracle) from the invoked, far away far away, it is only Shaytan who misguides him and deceives him, and he makes beautiful his desire, this is like Shaytan speaking in idols to misguide their worshipers. And the misguided people think that it is from the emanation of the soul of the invoked for help, or an angel in the form of the invoked as a Karamat for him, and this is very bad how they judge, because Tatawur and Zuhur (apparition of miracles) although they are possible, but not in cases like this after doing these kinds of sins, and we ask Allah with His Names to protect us from that.”

End of Al-Alusi’s words

One can see different things

1) Al-Alusi forbade Istishfa from people of graves, asking them Shafa’ah, as none of Salaf did that, and he said that the Hadith of seeking help from people of graves as a lie and opposing the Sahih Hadith about not taking graves as mosques (places of worship).

2) Al-Alusi denied Tawassul with Dhat, and he answered that there is nothing in Quran, Hadith, and practice of Sahabah to justify that.

3) He allowed Tawassul with Jah (status) in meaning of Allah’s love, and this is Tawassul with Allah’s attributes like saying Allah do this with Your Love for the Prophet (saw). He gave reason for allowing Tawassul with Jah, and it is not because Salaf did it, but later people did it and he did not want to say they were mistaken.

Yet one should not do this, as none understand with the status of someone that it means Allah’s love for someone, rather one should do Tawassul with Allah’s names and attributes and not use another word to refer to Allah’s attributes.

4) He agreed that the best invocations are those reported in the Quran, Sunnah, and told by Sahabah.

5) Invoking “Ya Ghaus Shayan Lillah” and other calls to saint are not Tawassul but shirk, and this sickness is done my many misguided people.

Anwar Shah Kashmiri being hesitant about Tawassul with essence

In “Faydul Bari”, Kitab Jihad, v 3 p 434, Anwar Shah Kashmiri wrote:

“Chapter: “One who seeks help with weak and saints”: Know that the Tawassul for the Salaf was not as it is practiced between us, because when they wanted to do Tawassul with someone, they went to the one they wanted to do Tawassul with, also with him, so he makes du’a for them, and they sought help from Allah, making du’a to Him, hoping His answer…

As for the Tawassul with names of saints, as it is known in our time, in which the one who is done Tawassul with is not aware of our Tawassul, rather his being alive is not a condition, and Tawassul is only done with mention of their names, thinking they have a status in front of Allah, and acceptation, so Allah will not make (du’a) vain with the mention of their names.

This matter, I do not like to enter it, nor do I claim any proof from the Salaf, nor do I object to it. Look at Shami (“Darul Muhtar” of ibn Abidin) for that.

As for His Saying: “Seek Wasilah to Him”, this, even if it necessitates seeking of intermediaries, there is no proof for Tawassul with only names, and Ibn Taymiyah went to its forbiddance, and the author of “Durul Mukhtar” allowed it, but he did not give any text from the Salaf.” End of Kashmiri’s words

Anwar Shah Kashmiri said in “Faydul Bari”, Abwabul Witr v 2 p 379:

“Allah we used to do Tawassul with our Prophet (saw)” : There is not in this (legislated Tawassul done with Abbas) the Tawassul known (nowadays), that is done secretly, until he has no perception at all (meaning the one who is done Tawassul with has no knowledge of that), rather there is in this the Tawassul of Salaf, and it is to come to a man of status in front of Allah, and he asks him to invoke Allah…as was done with Abbas, uncle of the Prophet (saw). If it was Tawassul of late scholars (mutaakhirun), then why did they need to go to Abbas with them, Tawassul with their Prophet (saw) after his death was sufficient for them, or with Abbas without his presence, and this kind of things is allowed for Mutakhirun, and Hafiz ibn Taymiyah forbade this, and I am hesitant (Mutraddidun) in this, because a text from the Imam (Abu Hanifah) came as quoted by Qaduri that swearing upon Allah without His Names is not permissible, and he took from negation of swearing negation of Tawassul, and if Tawassul is swearing, then the case is as said by Ibn Taymiyah, and if it is not swearing, it remains permissible.

As for taking (a proof) from his saying (saw): “You are given subsistence with your weak” then this is not justifying this, because it is not Tawassul, but the meaning is that Allah gives you your subsistence with the taking care of the weak and their being with them, not the Tawassul with tongue: “Allah give us subsistence with Wasilah of so and so”…

End of Kashmiri's words

Al-Kashmiri also elsewhere said that the Hadith of the blind man has been answered by Hafiz Ibn Taymiyah, so it is not a clear proof. So the greatest of the deobandi Muhadith could not find any clear proof from Hadith and the Salaf for Tawassul with essence, and he even claimed that there were words of Abu Hanifah in this topic seeming to be contrary to this. This is a lesson for people who give their own meanings to the verse "Seek Wasilah to Him" and other Ahadith.
Clear saying of Imam Abu Hanifah

Quotes below are taken from Shaykh Shams Af-Afghani's “Juhud Ulema Hanafiyah”:

Al-Hasakafi said in “Durul Mukhtar”, Fasl fil Bay’: “And in “Tatar Khaniyah”…, from Abu Yusuf from Abu Hanifah: “One should not invoke Allah except with Himself, and the Du’a permitted in it and prescribed is what is taken from His Saying : “And for Allah are beautiful Names, invoke with them” (A’raf, 180), and this saying is Makruh (forbidden): “Bi Haqq of Your Prophets or Nabi or Awliya…”

Ibn Abideen As Shamee said in explanation of “except with Himself” : “Meaning with His essence (dhat), His attributes and His names”

So if it is not restriction of Tawassul to Allah’s essence, attributes and Names then what is it?

Allamah Rustami Al-Hanafi said about words of Abu Hanifah quoted above: “Know that in this saying (of Abu Hanifah) there is restriction to Tawassul of Tawassul Ismi in du’a to Names of Allah and His attributes. And the condition of these Muqalids is that they leave the saying of their Imam, and follow their desire without knowledge…and our Shaykh (Ar-Ribati) Al-Fadil Al-Allamah Al-Adeeb, gathering rational knowledge and that of texts, one of the senior Hanafi in refuting Quburiyah, has some important words in taking a proof from this saying of Imam Abu Hanifah, and he quoted sayings of Hanafi scholars cutting the backs of the Quburiyah…” (“Tibyan” p 182 of Rustami, see also “Kawakib Ad-Duriyah fi Tahqiq Al-Wasilah Ash-Shar’iyah” p 125 of Ar-Ribati Al Hanafi”

About the Ayah “Seek Wasilah to Him”, Hanafi scholars said in Tafsir “Seek Qurbah (proximity) of Allah with actions of obedience and leaving sins”

Abu Layth Samarqandi, one of the big Hanafi scholar said about this Ayah : “Meaning seek Qurbah (proximity) and nobility with good deeds”

Abu Su’ud Al ‘Imadi al-Hanafi said in its Tafsir : “It is Fa’eelatun with meaning what we do Tawassul with to Allah from actions of obedience and leaving sins”

Also An-Nasafi mentioned in “Madariku Tanzil” that Tawassul as been used to “What we do Tawassul with to Allah with actions of good and leaving sins”

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his companions, his household and those who follow them

Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

http://www.umm-ul-qura.org/info/user_pages/page.asp?art_id=114

“Ayatul Bayinat” of Nu’man Al-Alusi

Adapted from “Ayatul Bayinat” of Nu’man Al-Alusi, son of Mahmud Al-Alusi Al-Hanafi author of “Ruh ul-Ma’ani”, with the notes of Shaykh Albani.

Allamah Hasakafi said in his “Durul Mukhtar Sharh Tanwir Al Absar” in the chapter of oath in beating, killing and others:

“…”And the matter that is specific to life” that is every action that brings pleasure, harm, sadness and joy like insulting or kissing “it will be restricted to it (life).” Then he detailed this: “If someone says “If I beat you or put clothes on you or talk to you or I come to you, or I kiss you, then these matters will be” all of them “restricted to life”. If the person puts the condition that he will divorce or free (a slave) after these actions, then doing this with the dead (beating him, kissing him…), will not be break his oath…”

Allamah At-Tahtawi says in the explanation: “His saying “Or talk to you”, then this is restricted to life, because the aim of speech is to make understand (Ifham), and death negates this, because the dead can neither hear nor understand. It has been reported that the Prophet (saw) said to the dead of the ditch of Badr: “Has the promise of Your Lord come true?” …

This has been answered that it is not established from the point of view of his meaning, else it is the “Sahih”. And this because Aishah (rad) rejected it with His saying (Ta’ala): “You cannot make hear the one who is in the grave” [ Fatir: 22] and “You cannot make dead hear” [ Naml: 80 ]…

And it is written in “Nahr” (of ibn Nujaym Al-Misri): “The best answer to it is that it is a miracle for him (saw)“” [“Hashiyah Tahtawi ‘ala Durul Mukhtar” vol 2 p 381-382]

(Shaykh Al-Albani said this Hadith is authentic as a group of Sahabah reported it and agreed with words of ibn ‘Umar)

’Allamah Ibn ‘Abidin said in his Sharh of “Durul Mukhtar” called “Rad Al Muhtar”:

“As for speech (Kalam), this is because the aim of it is to make understand (Ifham), and death negates this. And this is not opposed to what is narrated from his saying in the “Sahih” to the people of the ditch of Badr…Indeed our Mashaykh have answered that it is not proven from the point of view of the meaning, and this because ‘Aishah (rad) rejected it…”

(Shaykh Albani said this answer is false as the Hadith is authentic and Abul Hasan As-Sindi Al-Hanafi denied any weakness in this Hadith in his “Hashiyah ‘ala Sunnan Nassai”),

(Ibn ‘Abidin said after): “The Prophet only (saw) said this as a lesson for the living … or It is particular to him (saw) as a miracle. They also have difficulty what is in “Muslim”: “Verily, the dead hears the noise of shoes when they leave”, except that they restricted this to the beginning state of the grave when the body is put inside and before the questions (of the angels) in a way to gather between it and the two verses of the Quran… And the meaning of the first answer is that even if it is authentic according to the Isnad, it is Ma’lul (defective) in meaning with a defect showing it is not established from him (saw) and this is opposition to the Quran…This is the conclusion of what he (ibn Humam) mentioned in “Fath (ul Qadir)” here and in the chapter of funerals” [“Darul Muhtar » vol 3 p 180 ]

Allamah ‘Ayni in his “Kanz Daqaiq” in the chapter of oath said similarly that the speech after death will not break oath because:

“The aim of the speech is to make understand (Ifham) and death negates this.” [“Sharh Kanz Daqaiq” vol 1 p 225 ]

In “Hashiya Tahtawi ‘ala Maraqi ul Falah” of Tahtawi (explanation of the book of Shurunbulali Al-Hanafi), in the chapter “Prayer on the funeral” p 341:

“His saying “One should intend the dead with the people in the two salam”, then it has been clarified in “Az-Zahiriyah” that the dead should not be intended, and similarly has been said by Qadhi Khan. And in “Johirah”: He (ibn Nujaym) said in “Bahr”: “This is evident, because the dead is not addressed with the salam, as he is not qualified for Khitab (to be addressed)”. Some of the nobles said that there is observation upon this, because it is reported that he would send Salam on the people of graves, end of his words (“Johirah”). (Tahtawi But the meaning of it is Du’a (for the dead) and not Khitab (talking to them).”

In “Dur Al-Muhtar” (vol 1 p 817), Ibn ‘Abidin said similarly that the dead is not intended by the Salam.

End of quotes of “Ayatul Bayinat”

“Shifa us Sudur” and “Nida e Haqq” of Neylwi

Muhammad Husayn Neylwi Deobandi said in his book “Shifa Us Sudur fi Tahqiq ‘Adm Sima’ man fil Qubur” p 61

“Imam Abu Hanifah saw someone coming to graves of pious people giving them Salam and addressing to them and talking to them and saying: “O people of good, have you got any news, have you got any narration, I came to you… and called you and there is nothing in my question except du’a, did you understand or did you became absentminded (Ghafil)?” Abu Hanifah heard him saying this address (Khitab) to them, and he said: “ Did they answer you ?” he answered: “ No” and he said: “Suhqan and may your hand perish, how do you talk to bodies that can not answer, and they do not possess anything and do not hear any voice”, and he read (the verse): “And you cannot make those in graves to hear” (“Gharaib fi Tahqiq Al Mazhaib” as quoted from “Tafhim ul Masail” p 91 of Muhammad Bashir ud Din Al Qanuji)

I (Neylwi ) say: Our Imam Abu Hanifah Nu’man ibn Thabit clearly affirmed lack of hearing of dead…

Question: If you say this narration of Abu Hanifah is Shaz (contradicting more authentic saying), it is not narrated in book of Usul of Imam Muhammad like “Jami’ us Saghir”, “Jami’ ul Kabir”, “Sayr us Saghir”, “Sayr ul Kabir”, “Mabsut” and “Muhit”.

The answer: I say: the Muhaqiq Ibn Nujaym said in “Bahr ur Raiq Sharh Kanz Daqaiq” v 2 p 82-83 in chapter of Qadha of Fawait that if an issue is not mentioned in apparent (Zahir) narrations and is established in other narrations, then turning to them is what is chosen, end of his words.

I say: the same here, turning to this narration is the what is chosen, and if we accept that this narration is Shaz, then we say: Do people have an affirmative narration, even Shaz from Abu Hanifah establishing dead hearing, if not then no (this narration is not Shaz) rather the narration Al-Masturah mentioned showing dead cannot hear is clear, and a great group of our leading great complete and expert Shuyukh took a proof from it, may Allah have large Mercy on them.

Question: If you say that Shaykh of Shuyukh Maulana Al Muhadith Al Muhaqiq Al Faqih An Nabih Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi affirmed that the narration of Abu Hanifah in “Gharaib” is Shaz and not established, and the case is a matter of difference between the noble Sahabah, and the same for scholars after them.

Answer: Rather the Shaykh or our Shuyukh said in “Lataif ur Rasheediyah” and “Kokab Ad-Duri” clearly that the Madhab of The Imam is lack of hearing from dead, and the same is said by Maula Nidhar Muhammad Manzur An Nu’mani in “Sitah Dharuriyah” p 36, and Maula Siraj Ahmad Sahsawani in “ Sirajul Iman” p 21 and the Maula Mufti Azizu Rahman Ad-Deobandi in “Fatawa Dar ul Ulum Deoband” v 5-6 p 172 and Nawab Qutbudin Ad-Dehlawi in “Tafsir Jami ut Tafasir” and others that the Madhab of Imam Abu Hanifah is lack of hearing from dead. These great intelligences from scholars affirmed and proved with words leaving no doubts.

As for the saying of Shaykh Gangohi that this narration is shaz, and the matter is a matter of difference between the Sahabah, then it is his previous saying (Qawl Qadim). As for his most correct and verified saying is the one he preferred and the one we showed that Abu Hanifah opted for lack of hearing from dead, and this is the truth and most correct, and if you want confirmation of my saying then look at his Fatawa ordered in new way arranged by Shaykh Al Mufti Al A’zam of Pakistan Muhammad Shafi’ Ad-Deobandi.

And Molvi Muhammad Ibrahim Ad-Dehlawi said that dead hearing is not established in Hanafi Madhab (“Kashf ul Mughaltat” p 2) and the author of “Tafsir Mawahib ur Rahman” said in Tafsir of Surah Rum that Imam Abu Hanifah, his two students and all Hanafi Fuqaha and a great group from scholars said that dead do not hear. (“Mawahib ur Rahman” p 47)…” End of Neylwi’s words

Also on p 66 Neylwi said that Anwar Shah Kashmiri said: “We know from Imam Abu Hanifah not saying about Talqin (telling to recite Shahadah) after death that hearing of death is not from his Madhab, else he would not make extrapolation (Taweel) of the Hadith.” (“Urf Shazi” p 342)

Then Neylwi will quote many proves from the Fatawa of Abu Hanifah that clearly shows dead cannot hear, like Talqin to the dead, Karahah (forbiddance) of reading Quran on graves, what to say while burying, the topic of oath (masalah Yamin), Taslim in the prayer of Janazah.

Neylwi further quoted in his “Shifa” these Hanafi scholars:

Shihab ud Din Al-Khafaji Al-Hanafi said: “The Majority of our Mashaykh say that the dead does not hear” (“Khafaji ‘ala Baydawi” v 7 p 128)

Bashir Ahmad Al-Qanuji Al-Hanafi, student of Shah Muhammad Ishaq, son of daughter of Shah Abdel Azeez ibn Shah Waliullah said in his book “Tafhim ul Masail” p 45 that dead not hearing is agreed upon.

And he wrote this book in refutation of Fadl Rasul Al-Badayooni, the teacher of Ahmad Raza Khan Bralwi, who wrote a book refuting Shah Ishaq. Fadl Rasul tried to say that Ahnaf denied physical hearing from dead, not spiritual (Ruhani), and Bashir Ahmad answered him they denied both, else they would say it.

Also one should see that Fuqaha Ahnaf denied understanding (Ifham wa Tafhim) from the dead of the alive person’s speech, so there is no spiritual listening.

Khuram Ali Hanafi said in “Ghayat ul Awtar”, translation of “Durul Mukhtar” p 292 under explanation of Hadith: “Sleep like sleeping of married (‘uroos)”: the apparent meaning (Zahir) of this Hadith shows that the complete believer is detached from this world, like the sleeping man is detached from it, and he does not hear any speech (from the world), and generally we are people of Taqlid, and we did not reach level of ijtihad, and the Fuqaha of whom we make Taqlid, affirmed with clear sayings that dead has no understanding and no hearing (of this world)” end of his words.

Here are some quotations of v 3 of “Nida e Haqq” of Neylwi, which is a three volume book in refutation of “Taskin us Sudur” and “Sama Mawta”, both of Sarfraz Khan Safdar Hayati Deobandi.

Abdallah As-Samarqandi Al-Hanafi said in “Nahj”: “Istimdad (seeking help) from (people of) graves is Haram”

Abdur Rahman, author of “Tafsir Fath ur Rahman” said: “ Isti’anah (seeking help) from the dead is Makruh (Haram)”

Abul A’la Ismail Qurshi said in “Rawdat ul Hidayah”: “It is not permissible to do Istia’anah with Awliya and pious people after their death”

Shah Muhammad Ishaq in “Miatu Masai”l p 46 showed Fatawa from “Kafi”, “Fath ul Qadir”, “Kifayah” and others to prove that majority of Ahnaf deny listening from dead.

Muhammad Ibrahim Ad-Dehlawi said in “Kashf ul Mughaltat” p 16 that listening from dead is not established in Hanafi Madhab.

Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi was asked by Mufti Azizu Rahman about the contradiction between the verse: “You cannot make dead hear” and the Hadith of the Well of Badr, and Gangohi answered:

“The case of dead hearing is a matter of difference in the first generations, so there is no possibility of judgment, but with Taqlid, if one turns to his Mujtahid’s choice there is no problem. Then the view of Aisha Siddiqah is similar to the way of Imam Abu Hanifah … then the verse: “You cannot not make dead hear” is Qat’i Khas (certain and particular) and how can its Takhsis (particularization) with Zanni Akhbar Ahad of dead listening be permissible?

(Ahlul Hadith declare that Khabar Ahad are not Zanni (speculative), rather they bring certain knowledge when attached to signs, specially those of the Sahih. Also, even if some late Shafii and other scholars declared Khabar Ahad to be Zanni, yet they all accept to do Takhsis of the Quran with it)

Then there is an Isti’arah (comparison) in this verse, disbelievers are compared to dead and deaf, and the meaning of Wajah Tashbih is real in Musta’arah minhu, then it is clear that dead and deaf do not have ability to hear, this is why how can it be permissible to take the metaphorical meaning of absence of answer in Mushabah Bihi (dead), yes in Mushabah (Kufar) this meaning is true (Lack of answer). This is why according to rules, the correct position is lack of listening (from dead)…the conclusion is that the strongest Madhab is lack of Sama’ according to rules, so Taweel in Ahadith of (dead) listening is appropriate”

(“Lataif ur Rashidiyah”, published by Dar ul Ma’arif Gujran Wala p 15)

In comparison, we have Mushabah (compared one), Mushabah bihi (the one to whom we compare) and Wajah Tashbih (reason of resemblance). In the example: “Zayd is like a lion”, Zayd is the Mushabah, lion Mushabah bihi, and Wajah Tashbih is courage. So in the verse disbelievers are compared to dead and deaf, so disbelievers are Mushabah, dead and dead are Mushabah bihi and the Wajah Tashbih is not hearing. If we say that Wajah Tashbeeh is metaphoric and does not mean “not hearing” but means “not answering”, then it makes the comparison weak

Gangohi said in his Sharh of “Sahih ul Bukhari” entitled “Lami’ Ad-Durari” v 1 p 124-125 about the Hadith of the ditch of Badr:

“And the answer is that the meaning of listening is knowledge, as listening is one of his cause (Sabab), then with this explanation, the meaning of his words: “But they don’t answer” is they cannot answer when angels bring them my words, and because of the difficulty of the situation there are in.” (So Gangohi said that the dead of the ditch of Badr did not hear the Prophet (saw), rather angels transmitted to them the saying of the Prophet (saw). This explanation is weak, and real one is that this was a miracle granted to the Prophet (saw) to make his enemies hear, else this cannot happen)

In his Sharh of “Sunnan Tirmidhi” (“Kokab Ad Duri” v 1 p 219) about the same Hadith, Gangohi said:

“Aishah made Tafsir with that (knowledge) so it is not proof of hearing (from dead), and the apparent meaning is negation of hearing’, and it is the most authentic for us”

Mufti Azizu Rahman Uthmani Deobandi has many fatwa denying dead hearing.

He said: “The hearing of the dead is a matter of difference. Hanfiyah reject hearing from the dead, and this is also the Madhab of Aishah Siddiqah, and the verse of the Quran is a proof for that” (“Fatawa Darul Ulum” Tartib Zafir ud Din Deobandi v 5 p 441)

He said in “Fatawa Darul Ulum Azizu Fatawa Deoband” v 3 p 14: “The hearing of the dead (Sima’ mawta) is not established for Abu Hanifah”

And he said in v 3 p 96 of same book: “And it is clear that things that go over limits become forbidden, as the Ta’zim of graves nowadays until people put cloth on them, and these things are leading to shirk and are calling to shirk as it is seen, and hearing of the dead is not established, rather there is a Qat’i nass on absence of hearing…and the Hadith of Badr as been answered in “Fath” (of ibn Humam) and others and the Hadith of dead hearing shoes has been interpreted as being particular to the beginning when being put in the grave only”

Shabeer Ahmad Uthmani said in “Fath ul Mulhim” v 2 479:

“The Ahadith only establish hearing in some matters and in some times, so it is obligatory to limit hearing to things proven by texts (sam’), and we should not go over it, and this meaning has been given by Shaykh Anwar, that the rule ( Dhabit) is lack of hearing but exceptions in this chapter are many”

Mufti Kifayatullah said in his “Kifayat ul Mufti” v 4 p 39 in chapter of Janaiz:

“Question: Do dead people in their grave hear people calling them and do they answer?

Answer: Dead people in their grave do not hear people calling them nor do they answer

Question: Is Talqin of dead permissible after burying , what is the position of Ahle Sunnah and that of Mu’tazilah?

Answer: Hanfiyah do not say of Talqin of dead, because hearing is not established for them, people who say about hearing, then Talqin is useful according to them”

Nawab Qutb ud Din Ad-Dehlawi said in his Tafsir “Jami ut Tafasir” in Surah Al-Fatir: “You should know, that although some scholars differed on the hearing of the dead, but the Madhab of Imam A’zam and texts of Mashaykh is absence of hearing with the proof of the verse: “You cannot make dead hear”

Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ Deobandi said in his Fatawa “Imdad ul Muftiin” p 291-292:

“Tawassul with Buzurgan (saints) with this type is permissible, but addressing the grave with the belief of hearing of the dead, then it is not correct, and if it is only with level of possibility (that dead might hear it) then there is no problem, although precaution and avoiding is better”

And a little after he answered to another question: “The most just among sayings and most authentic and chosen view is that wherever listening from dead is established, then without doubt we can say with certitude (that the dead hear), and for general speech and adress, there is no rule that they must hear, but not listening also is not a must, if Allah wants He can make his hear, this situation is not like this life where hearing is common, hearing is a must, and this is the verification (Tahqiq)”

So for him, dead hearing is also a miracle, only when Allah wants, and not a common rule

Manzur Nu’mani said in “Sittah Dharuriyah” p 36: “Hadhrat Imam Abu Hanifah was a denier of hearing of dead (Sima mawta)…nowadays the people of innovation, though they claim to be Hanafi, because they affirm dead hearing, they have invented the saying that Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifah and Mashaykh Hanafiyah affirm hearing of the dead, and these affirmations are pure ignorance…, else the books of Hanfiyah are full of sayings (denying this)”

Abdul Hay Al-Luknawi affirmed in his “Majmu Fatawa” v 4 p 334: “Akthar (of our Fuqaha) affirm absence of hearing, this is why hearing of the dead is not established in “Fath ul Qadir”, “Mustalkhis”, “Kifayah” and “Durul Mukhtar” and many other Fatawa in chapters of Iman, it is clearly affirmed, so whoever wants to check can have a look, and it must be clear that it is the fatwa of the majority of our scholars, and it is appropriate for our times, because there is precaution in it”

Neylwi answered to some Hayati’s claim that Al-Luknawi in his “Sharh Wiqayah” did Taweel of Hadith and favored dead hearing, and Neylwi showed that his Muhaqaq Fatwa was with the majority of Ahnaf

Ahmad Sa’id Subhan ul Hind, Nazim ‘Ala Jami’ah Ulema Hind, said in his “Kashf ur Rahman” p 254: “Hadhrat Aishah took a proof with the verse “You cannot make dead hear” for dead not hearing and this is also the view of the majority of Mashaykh Hanafiyah”

Ahmadeen Bagwi said in ‘Daleel ul Mushrikin”: “And the truth is that one who rejects Istimdad (seeking help) on graves denied hearing, and one who affirmed it, affirmed (Istimdad), and Ahnaf are saying first (not hearing)”

Al-‘Ayni quoted in his Sharh of “Sahih ul Bukhari” that Abu Layth As-Samarqandi also denied dead hearing, saying as you cannot make dead hear, same way you cannot make disbelievers hear

Sayid Amir Ali said in his Tafsir “Mawahib ur Rahman” in Surah Rum after making clear that Abu Hanifah and Ahnaf deny dead hearing:

“People who are Hanafi nowadays and who go to the extremity of Takfir through Taqlid, it is very strange that they go to domes of saints and address to them their talks, Imam Abu Hanifah and all Imams of Ahnaf are totally opposed to this, and on this place they became certain Ghayr Muqalid…” (Meaning some Quburis are extreme Muqalid to the extent that they will do Takfir of the one not doing Taqlid and on this issue, they will leave Taqlid without any shame)

Neylwi quoted many Ahnaf interpreting the Hadith of Badr saying it was a miracle and it is particular to this event:

Ibn Humam in “Fath ul Qadir”, chapter Janaiz
Al-Khawarzami in “Kifayah Sharh Hidayah”
“‘Inayah Sharh Hidayah”
Sa’d Chalpi in “Hashiyah” of “‘Inayah”
Al-‘Ayni in “Sharh Kanz” in chapter of Yameen (oath)
Ibn Abidin Ash-Shami in chapter of Yameen
Abu Su’ud Al-Hanafi in “Hashiyah Mulla Miskin Sharh Kanz Daqaiq” in chapter of Yameen
Abdul Hakim Ad-Dimashqi in “Kashf Haqaiq sharh Kanz Daqaiq”
“Mustalkhis sharh Kanz Daqaiq”
Ash-Shurunbulali in “Maraqi Falah” in chapter of Janaiz
At-Tahtawi
The author of “Nahr Faiq”

And Neylwi quoted many other Hanafi scholars like Ibn Nujaym, Shashi and others denying dead hearing. And he attacked Sarfraz Safdar Khan for saying in his book “Sama Mowta” that the Madhab of majority of Ahnaf and Salaf is that the dead hear, even claiming that for Abu Hanifah without any proof except that Abu Hanifah said when the Hadith is authentic then it is my Madhab

So it is a shock to see Sarfraz Khan leaving all sayings of Ahnaf and lying to people about Hanafi Fuqaha’s position

Rasheed Ahmad Gangohee said: “The people who denied (hearing of dead people) among them Aishah, Ibn Abbas, and among them the Imam (Abu Hanifah) took proof from His Saying: “You cannot make dead people to listen” as He compared disbelievers with dead people in lack of listening, so it is known that dead do not listen, if not then the comparison (Tashbeeh) is not authentic…” ( Kokab Ad Duree p 139 Hijriyah, vol 2 p 197 Jadeed)

Muhammad Hussein Neylwi Deobandi said about the story of Uzayr in Surah Baqarah 259 where Allah made him to die for 100 years then resurrected him: “It is known from this…that Uzayr did not know anything in this long period, he did not see the sun raising nor disappearing, …nor storm nor cloud, he did not feel rain nor did he listen sound of thunder nor any natural sound, and he did not feel the passing of day and succeeding of nights, nor felt heart and cold, and if we say he felt it would lead to deny (Quran)” (“Shifa Us Sudur”)

Ghulamullah Khan Deobandi Mamati said in his Tafsir: “Allah made the Prophet Uzayr to die so he can be witness of how Allah brings back life to dead, and 100 years passed on him and he remained on the surface of earth without being in a grave, and when Allah resurrected him, He asked him how much did he remain there, and he answered with Zann (doubt) and approximation : I remained one day or part of a day, as he did not know that 100 years passed, and it is known from that this great Prophet did not have perception of difference of night and day, and he did not know the time changing in this period. If he knew this then he would make it clear he remained 100 years and would not have said: I remained one day or part of a day.

And it is known from this great event that dead do not hear, because the Prophet Uzayr (aley Salam) did not feel all changes that occurred in this period, and he did not know in these 100 years the night from the day, as he did not hear in this long period any sound from sounds that happened, despite that he was not in a grave but on surface of earth…as it is known from this important event that souls of Prophets are not in their saints body after their death, and that there death is real, and there life in grave is Barzakhi and not Duniyawi Nasawi (life of this world)” (“Jawahirul Quran” v 1 p 127)

Note: Neylwi despite some good sayings and being a sword for Quburis, has many big mistakes, as told by Dr Shams Al-Afghani in his “Juhud ul Ulema Al-Hanaifiyah”, and among them saying that Khabar Ahad are not taken in creed and rejecting some Ahadith with the rule of Ahnaf that narrations of Abu Hurayrah or others Ghayr Faqih Sahabah opposing Qias should not be taken and call to blind Taqlid.

Shaykh Albani mentioned in introduction of third edition of the book of Allamah Nu’man Alusi “Ayatul Bayyiniat fi ‘adm sama’ il Amwat inda Al Hanafiyati Sadat” the contradiction of the Hanafi Muhammad ‘Awammah on this topic

‘Awammah called to blind Taqlid of Imams in his book “ Atharul Hadith Ash Sareef” and accused the Salafis of having a bad opinions of the Imams, that they think they are more knowledgeable than them (by acting on Hadith), and he called not to act on Sahih Hadith but on the saying of the Imams

And the same man, when his Madhab opposes his desire, then he turns to Sahih Hadith, saying on p 37 that the Madhab of Ahnaf is that dead hears, because our Imam A’zam said: “When the Hadith is authentic, it is my Madhab”

So this shameless person said that acting on Hadith was bad thinking of Imams and imputing ignorance to them, and then he contradicts his Madhab for authentic Hadith

Also the Hayati Deobandis, with being Muqalid of Abu Hanifah deny the saying of their Madhab and Imam, because of the sayings of their Sufi Shuyukh, the same way they turned from the Aqeedah of their Imam and Salaf because of the science of Kalam and Maturidism

At the end, it is clear that real followers of Imams are not Muqalid, but those acting on Hadith. The Imams said to leave their saying when Hadeeth is authentic, and Muqalid said no, the Hadith might be abrogated or might have another meaning, we do not have the capacity of Ijtihad, we remain of Taqlid of our Imam. So they leave what is established with knowledge and that is the authentic Hadith, for Zann that this Hadith might be abrogated or the Imam might know another Hadith or other doubts.

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, Companions and those who follow them.

Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan.

[Mujib]

For the benefit of us Pashtuns/Afghans:

Wahhabism's goal is to rob us of our din, tradition, and culture. While its fighters are spreading havoc on the ground, killing innocents, bombing masjids and holy places, its missionaries are working to replace Afghanistan's pristine Islam with its corrupt beliefs. The first step is to separate Afghans from their scholars and elders by attacking them and accusing them of shirk and bid`a. "Your Mullah is wrong, your father is wrong, your family is wrong, your tribe is wrong. This is what So-and-so really said. This is what such-and-such really means." Once we are made to doubt, Wahhabism is presented to us as the truth that should replace our "backward Afghan Islam."

Wahhabis/"Salafis" have a particular animosity towards Hanafis and the Hanafi madhhab. Some of them even accuse Imam-i A`zam Abu Hanifa (ra) himself. Others, as part of their propaganda for Hanafis (Afghans/Pashtuns and others), present themselves as former Hanafis, or even as Hanafis. They use Afghan names to appeal to Afghans.

Alhamdulillah, we have Hanafi `ulama to tell us what the position of Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) and his madhhab is. Alhamdulillah, we know not to take the word of the detractors of the Hanafi madhhab.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

For the benefit of us Pashtuns/Afghans:

Wahhabism's goal is to rob us of our din, tradition, and culture. While its fighters are spreading havoc on the ground, killing innocents, bombing masjids and holy places, its missionaries are working to replace Afghanistan's pristine Islam with its corrupt beliefs. The first step is to separate Afghans from their scholars and elders by attacking them and accusing them of shirk and bid`a. "Your Mullah is wrong, your father is wrong, your family is wrong, your tribe is wrong. This is what So-and-so really said. This is what such-and-such really means." Once we are made to doubt, Wahhabism is presented to us as the truth that should replace our "backward Afghan Islam."

Wahhabis/"Salafis" have a particular animosity towards Hanafis and the Hanafi madhhab. Some of them even accuse Imam-i A`zam Abu Hanifa (ra) himself. Others, as part of their propaganda for Hanafis (Afghans/Pashtuns and others), present themselves as former Hanafis, or even as Hanafis. They use Afghan names to appeal to Afghans.

Alhamdulillah, we have Hanafi `ulama to tell us what the position of Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) and his madhhab is. Alhamdulillah, we know not to take the word of the detractors of the Hanafi madhhab.

Allow me to translate what Sufi is saying in simple language:

Mujib: I have no option other than resorting to stereotypes and propaganda because quotes and citations from classical Hanafi books revealing the truth is something we Sufis cannot refute. Therefore I am going to scare you by mentioning bombing masajid and other horrible and scary stuff to incite fear and distrust.

[Mujib]

From the article above:

Quotes below are taken from Shaykh Shams Af-Afghani's

Apparently this author was rebuked and refuted by his own school. The rebuke states that his nationality was actually Pakistani. More importantly, the rebuke states that what the author initially presented as a thesis was different from what was published. The published work attacked the scholars that the presented thesis praised, including claims made against Imam Abu Hanifa (ra).

This is a quote from the rebuke:

When the thesis came on sight after publication, there were numerous allegations against Abu Mansur Maturidi [Rahimahullah], several baseless quotations attributed towards him, and his followers, especially the Hanafi scholars were attempted to be defamed and slandered.

See, brothers and sisters, the propaganda at work. The article posted by Shamlawar presents itself as Hanafi friendly, claiming to quote Hanafi scholars, yet it relies on someone whose works have been exposed as anti-Hanafi (someone presented to us as "al-Afghani").

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

From the article above:



Apparently this author was rebuked and refuted by his own school. The rebuke states that his nationality was actually Pakistani. More importantly, the rebuke states that what the author initially presented as a thesis was different from what was published. The published work attacked the scholars that the presented thesis praised, including claims made against Imam Abu Hanifa (ra).

This is a quote from the rebuke:

When the thesis came on sight after publication, there were numerous allegations against Abu Mansur Maturidi [Rahimahullah], several baseless quotations attributed towards him, and his followers, especially the Hanafi scholars were attempted to be defamed and slandered.

See, brothers and sisters, the propaganda at work. The article posted by Shamlawar presents itself as Hanafi friendly, claiming to quote Hanafi scholars, yet it relies on someone whose works have been exposed as anti-Hanafi (someone presented to us as "al-Afghani").

Please post the original Arabic text if you have imaan in Allah and the day of judgement, you treacherous sufi!

http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_RefutationQuestion

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

DID SHAYKH SAALIH BIN ABDULLAH AL UBOOD REFUTE SHAYKH SHAMS UD DEEN AS SALAFI AL AFGHANI AND HIS BOOKS ON THE MATURUDIS AND GRAVE-WORSHIPPERS?

[Mujib]

Please post the original Arabic text if you have imaan in Allah and the day of judgement, you treacherous sufi!

Don't get emotional, good friend. We often regret later what we say in a state of emotion. Our speech carries more weight when we speak with adab.

You seem not to have read what you yourself just posted, as it says essentially the same thing.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Don't get emotional, good friend. We often regret later what we say in a state of emotion. Our speech carries more weight when we speak with adab.

You seem not to have read what you yourself just posted, as it says essentially the same thing.

I am not being emotional. After all, it is you who feels threatened and you feel obliged to resort to propaganda and slander.

I have read it, and I am very well aware of the treachury of Sufis trying to misrepresent the course of events because you are unable to refute the book of shaykh Shamsudeen so you make up all sorts of stories to discredit him as a person.

You must be a real fake Pashtun to call Shaykh Shamsudeen a Pakistani. He is from Kunar and he lived for a while in Peshawar. That does not make him a Pakistani.

In fact, he fought the communists in the frontlines while you Sufis were worshipping graves and stuffing yourself with halwa.

[Mujib]

Words of the Mufti of Ahnaf of his time, Mahmud Al-Alusi

Imam Mahmud Al-Alusi said in his “Ruh ul-Ma’ani”

Again, notice the attempt to appeal to Hanafis. Are Wahhabis/"Salafis" really fond of Imam Mahmud al-Alusi (rahimahullah)? Why is he, along with certain others, so commonly cited by them?

See: "Salafi" Tampering of Tafsir Ruh al-Ma`ani

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

The Shaykh did his masters and went on to do his doctorate. How is it possible that as you sufis claim, he the university and shaykh ubood did baraat from him while he was admitted to the doctorate program?

In fact his doctoral research is praised and celebrated around the world for breaking the back of Sufi graveworshippers who ascribe themselves to the noble and pure Hanafi school of law.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Again, notice the attempt to appeal to Hanafis. Are Wahhabis/"Salafis" really fond of Imam Mahmud al-Alusi (rahimahullah)? Why is he, along with certain others, so commonly cited by them?

See: "Salafi" Tampering of Tafsir Ruh al-Ma`ani

Thats just a lie often told by Sufis because you can't accept the fact that the shaykh you claim to be a follower of wrote a tafseer going exactly against the teachings of Sufis.

If we are going to talk about tampering books, then boy, I have a whole line-up of classic books you Sufis have tried to corrupt including prominent Hanafi scholars works such as that of Mullah Ali Qari al Hanafi.

[Badlun]

For the benefit of us Pashtuns/Afghans:

Wahhabism's goal is to rob us of our din, tradition, and culture. While its fighters are spreading havoc on the ground, killing innocents, bombing masjids and holy places, its missionaries are working to replace Afghanistan's pristine Islam with its corrupt beliefs. The first step is to separate Afghans from their scholars and elders by attacking them and accusing them of shirk and bid`a. "Your Mullah is wrong, your father is wrong, your family is wrong, your tribe is wrong. This is what So-and-so really said. This is what such-and-such really means." Once we are made to doubt, Wahhabism is presented to us as the truth that should replace our "backward Afghan Islam."

Wahhabis/"Salafis" have a particular animosity towards Hanafis and the Hanafi madhhab. Some of them even accuse Imam-i A`zam Abu Hanifa (ra) himself. Others, as part of their propaganda for Hanafis (Afghans/Pashtuns and others), present themselves as former Hanafis, or even as Hanafis. They use Afghan names to appeal to Afghans.

Alhamdulillah, we have Hanafi `ulama to tell us what the position of Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) and his madhhab is. Alhamdulillah, we know not to take the word of the detractors of the Hanafi madhhab.

In spite of the evil practices of Salafis/wahabis still 70% Muslims follow Hanafi school of thought in the world. The rest follow jafari, Maliki, Shafeyee and Hnabali. Only 1-2% in the millions of Muslims are Salafis or Wahabis.

But their influence on Hanafis like Taliban has really created serious problems for Pashtuns and Muslims at large. Wahhabism and Salafism is a curse, a menace and we must all struggle together to get rid of this evil.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

For the benefit of us Pashtuns/Afghans:

Wahhabism's goal is to rob us of our din, tradition, and culture. While its fighters are spreading havoc on the ground, killing innocents, bombing masjids and holy places, its missionaries are working to replace Afghanistan's pristine Islam with its corrupt beliefs. The first step is to separate Afghans from their scholars and elders by attacking them and accusing them of shirk and bid`a. "Your Mullah is wrong, your father is wrong, your family is wrong, your tribe is wrong. This is what So-and-so really said. This is what such-and-such really means." Once we are made to doubt, Wahhabism is presented to us as the truth that should replace our "backward Afghan Islam."

Wahhabis/"Salafis" have a particular animosity towards Hanafis and the Hanafi madhhab. Some of them even accuse Imam-i A`zam Abu Hanifa (ra) himself. Others, as part of their propaganda for Hanafis (Afghans/Pashtuns and others), present themselves as former Hanafis, or even as Hanafis. They use Afghan names to appeal to Afghans.

Alhamdulillah, we have Hanafi `ulama to tell us what the position of Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) and his madhhab is. Alhamdulillah, we know not to take the word of the detractors of the Hanafi madhhab.

Mujib,

Educate me.

Do you consider Hallaj Mansoor to have been a sufi?

The reason I bring him up and others like Rumi up in perhaps my ignorance is the nature of the language that their utilize.

Take the famous quote "Anna Al Haq" by Mansur

or Rumi's meandering of how God was not in edifices but in his heart.

Now those that can reach into the abstract may realize neither of said individuals was claiming divinity and perhaps Rumi's general point is not lost: standing in a building and bowing up and down means little if your heart is not toward God.

But my issue is this:

In the corpus of the hadith I have read, and in the Quranic text GREAT pains are taken by God and his Prophet to avoid the confusing terminology of the Gospels as we have received them. That is, there are not quotes that might confuse later generations as attributed to Jesus like:

"I and my Father are one"

That then have to be reinterpreted in the light of subsequent quotes:

"I and my Father are one and the disciples are one with us"
------------------------------------------------------------

Or take the language of the Prophet and his companions, it was very concrete in some ways and did not reach into the confusing abstract. How is it that Hallaj and Rumi can "ruminate" on being "the truth" and reaching the divine, and whirling dervishes can claim their dances are worship laden when there is not a single solid historical example of the Prophet and his companions acting this way?

Rather, the Quran took great pains to ever avoid this sort of confusing borderline pantheism.

The closest we have seen is Ayesha's hadith of how the Prophet was, and he defines why she says this, in his mannerisms and actions, a walking breathing Quran.

So my questions boil down to how these folks insert mysticism and mystic language when there is no solid example from the Prophet to validate this in his very own speech?

The first generation Muslims and even the subsequent lamb hearted ones like Zain e Abideen don't even use this sort of pantheistic language.

One of Islam's greatest accomplishments is reestablishing the strict monotheism that was lost on Christianity's rise alongside restablishing the brotherhood of man that the Jews had subverted...

Any info would be appreciated.