In recent times there has been a growth in the number of lay people who, influenced by a certain ideology, claim that the tarawih consists of only eight rak’ahs rather than the established twenty rak’ahs. There is, therefore, a need to discuss the tarawih prayer, which is a special type of salah (ritual prayer) only offered in Ramadan.

The practice of performing tarawih in eight rak’ahs is in total contrast to the practice of the Ummah throughout the ages. Given the fact that tarawih is an emphasized sunnah (sunnah muakkadah), this issue should not be treated lightly. A staunch approach in opposition to this baseless view needs to be adopted, including highlighting the abhorrence of opposing the view of the majority (jamhur) and the sin of habitually abandoning an emphasized sunnah.

Ijma’ of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them)

The issue of the tarawih consisting of twenty rak’ahs is one that the Companions (Sahabah) agreed upon by ijma’ (consensus). Hafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr stated, “The Companions had no dispute regarding this.” ‘Allamah Ibn Qudamah said, “The Companions made ijma’ upon this in the era of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him)” (Al-Mughni). Hafiz Abu Zur’ah Al-’Iraqi stated, “They (the ‘ulama) have considered the approval of the Companions [when Sayyiduna 'Umar did so] as ijma’“. Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari stated that that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) have made ijma’ on the practice of twenty rak’ahs. Ibn Hajar al-Haytami and many others have also claimed ijma’ of  the Companions on this issue.

Furthermore, there exists no view in the four madhhabs (i.e. the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence) that support the view that tarawih consists of eight rak’ahs. The Hanafis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis state tarawih consists of twenty rak’ahs while Imam Malik is of the view that it consists of thirty-six rak’ahs, and according to one report he considers it to consist of fourty-one rak’ahs. According to another report he had also approved twenty rak’ahs.  Some claim that Imam Malik also has a view supporting eleven rak’ahs but Mawlana Habib al-Rahman Al-A’zami has adequately refuted this claim in his book Rak’ate Tarawih.

From the above, we can deduce that almost all of the scholars of this Ummah held the opinion that tarawih does not consist of eight rak’ahs because throughout history all have adhered to one of the four madhabs, although there may have been certain individuals who renegaded in this regard. Mawlana Habib al-Rahman Al-A’zimi said in this regard, “From after the era of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) up to the end of the 13th century, you will not find any mention of people performing only eight rak’ahs [in tarawih]“. Mawlana has also proven that offering twenty rak’ahs has remained the practice of the Ummah up to the modern day.

The practice of the Companions and the Followers

Sayyiduna Sa’ib ibn Yazid reports that “the people would perform twenty rak’ahs in Ramadan during the era of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him)”. Others beside Sayyiduna Sa’ib ibn Yazid have also reported that the twenty rak’ahs were introduced by Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) such as Sayyiduna Yazid ibn Ruman, Sayyiduna Yahya ibn Sa’id Al-Ansari, Sayyiduna Ubay ibn Ka’b and Sayyiduna Muhammad ibn Ka’b Al-Qurazhi.

The following muhaddithin (hadith scholars) have accepted these reports, i.e. the reports of twenty rak’ahs from Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), to be authentic: Hafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Imam Al-Nawawi, Hafiz Al-’Iraqi, Imam Al-Subki, Imam Al-Suyuti and Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari.

Imam al-Bayhaqi has narrated from several chains that Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) also maintained the practice of twenty rak’ahs in tarawih. This has also been reported as the practice of Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him), Sayyiduna ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), Sayyiduna Ubay ibn Ka’b (may Allah be pleased with him), Shutayr ibn Shakl, Ibn Abi Mulaykah, Harith Al-Hamdani, ‘Ali ibn Rabi’ah, Abu ‘l-Bukhtari, Sayyid al-Tabi’in Sa’id ibn Jubayr, ‘Ata (he said: “I found the people performing twenty-three rak’ahs including witr.”), Sa’id ibn Abi ‘l-Hasan, ‘Imran Al-’Abdi and Suwayd ibn Ghaflah.

The practice of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)

In a narration it is stated that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) performed twenty rak’ahs in tarawih. The chain of this narration is weak. However, it is a well established principle in the sciences of Hadith and Fiqh that if a hadith possesses a weak chain but is supported by the general practice of the Ummah in the era of the Companions and the Followers (Tabi’in) then that hadith will be considered authentic.

Mawlana Habib al-Rahman Al-A’zimi has mentioned that this albeit weak narration is supported by the following points: (1) The fact that the general practice of the Muslims in the era of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) conformed to it, (2) this remained the practice even in the era of Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), (3) all of the four madhhabs concur with it and (4) the fact that the entire Ummah has been practicing upon it till this day. These are sufficient reasons to strengthen this narration and raise it to the level of authenticity. (Rak’ate Tarawih, pg. 60)

Interestingly, Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah, under the chapter of “The number of rak’ahs to be performed in Ramadan”, first quotes the practice of twenty rak’ahs from ten different Companions and Followers (Tabi’i) and thereafter cites the narration of twenty rak’ahs from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace). This probably means he was alluding to the strength of this narration.

Twenty rak’ahs were established by Sayyiduna ‘Umar

Those who prefer eight rak’ahs generally contest the fact that Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was the one who introduced the twenty rak’ahs and that it was in fact only eight rak’ahs that he had established. This claim is easily refutable in light of the quotations mentioned earlier. Furthermore, Imam Tirmidhi has stated the following in his Sunan: “And most of the ‘ulama have chosen twenty rak’ahs as has been reported from Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and other Companions besides these two.”

The fact that Imam Tirmidhi did not even mention eight rak’ahs from Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) or anyone else is a clear indication as to which is the proper view.  Moreover, some ‘ulama have reconciled this by stating that Sayyiduna ‘Umar had probably first introduced eight rak’ahs which thereafter became twenty. This then became the constant practice in his era as well as in the era of those who came after him.

On the other hand, Mawlana Habib al-Rahman Al-A’zimi and others have challenged the narration of eight rak’ahs from Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). Mawlana has classified it as weak due to idtirab (i.e., diverse conflict between the narrators). (Rak’ate Tarawih, pgs. 7-8)

The fact that the narration of eight rak’ahs was narrated by Imam Malik from Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and he (Imam Malik) still chose twenty, thirty-six or fourty-one rak’ahs further weakens this narration.  Another weakening factor for this narration is that there are no other references from the Companions and Followers which support this version of eight rak’ahs.

Sunnah of the rightly-guided caliphs

The fact that Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) approved of twenty rak’ahs and the other caliphs maintained this practice after him is sufficient to prove its importance. All of this is in light of the hadith in which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “You must then follow my sunnah and that of the rightly-guided caliphs” (Abu Dawud). The ‘ulama have ruled that the sunnah of the caliphs are also part of the emphasized sunnah in light of this particular hadith.

Hafiz Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali said: “The directive in this hadith to follow the caliphs is as incumbent as following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) himself. This becomes even more clear knowing that this was one of the last advices of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace).

The significance of the practices of Sayyiduna ‘Umar

The sunnah (practice) of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) enjoy an added significance and this is due to several narrations which support this:

(1) The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “Allah has placed truth upon ‘Umar’s tongue and heart.” (Abu Dawud)

(2) Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) would meticulously follow the practices of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and would say: “Indeed he (’Umar) was always correct in his affairs.”

(3) Sayyiduna ‘Abullah ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said while on oath: “The straight path is that which ‘Umar chose.”

(4) The caliph ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-’Aziz said in one of his addresses to the people: “Behold! Whatever the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and his two Companions (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) have implemented is a duty that we have to follow and adhere to in our religion.”

Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) said the following when asked concerning the tarawih and its introduction by Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him): “Tarawih is an emphasized sunnah. Sayyiduna ‘Umar did not introduce it from his own intellect, neither was it an innovation from his side. He surely did so because of having some knowledge about it from Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace).”

‘Allamah Al-Mawsili, after quoting the above from Imam Abu Hanifah, stated: “He (Sayyiduna ‘Umar) did so in the presence of a large group of Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), among them were the likes of Sayyiduna ‘Uthman , Sayyiduna ‘Ali,  Sayyiduna Ibn Mas’ud, Sayyiduna ‘Abbas, Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas, Sayyiduna Talhah, Sayyiduna Zubayr , Sayyiduna Mu’adh, Sayyiduna Ubayy and others among the muhajirun (emigrants) and ansar (helpers). None of them objected to him, rather they assisted him and concurred with him.”

Tarawih of the Two Noble Sanctuaries

In the Two Noble Sanctuaries of the noble city of Makkah and the illuminated city of Madinah up to this day since the time of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) twenty rak’ahs of tarawih has been performed in congregation. The Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), the Followers (i.e. those who came after the Companions), the Imams of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and the rest of the Ummah — with the exception of the so-called Ahl al-Hadith (or Salafis) of recent times — have been unanimous on performing twenty rak’ahs.

The Shi’ah resemblance

Those who hold the view that the tarawih consists of eight rak’ahs hold the same belief as the Shi’ah in this regard. It is an accepted fact among the true scholars of Islam that for centuries the tarawih prayer was and is an additional prayer in the month of Ramadan. The Shi’ahs reject the practice of praying tarawih altogether.  Similarly, the Ahl al-Hadith sect (or the Salafis) also reject there is an additional prayer in Ramadan. They believe that the tahajjud prayer which is performed during the latter portion of the night throughout the year was merely brought forward (i.e. to the earlier portion of the night) in Ramadan. Thus, in essence, there is no additional prayer in Ramadan according to their understanding.

Furthermore, to believe that the twenty rak’ahs is an innovation of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is to undermine the integrity of this great Companion and in fact all the Companions who were present in his time. Generally speaking, this is precisely what the aims of the Shi’ahs are since it is an act of virtue for them to undermine the integrity of the Companions.

Difference between tarawih and tahajjud

The claim is made that since the tahajjud prayer only consists of eight rak’ahs — which is also an incorrect claim as other hadiths suggest more rak’ahs — the same applies to tarawih. There are several differences between tarawih and tahajjud, some of which are as follows:

(1) Tarawih consists of twenty rak’ahs while tahajjud consists of only eight or maximum twelve.

(2) Tarawih is an emphasized sunnah while tahajjud is preferable (mustahab).

(3) Tarawih should be performed in congregation while tahajjud is performed individually only.

(4) Tarawih is only performed in the month of Ramadan while tahajjud is performed throughout the year.

(5) Tarawih is performed in the earlier part of the night while tahajjud is performed in the latter part of the night.

In addition to the above, there are several hadiths wherein the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) has specifically encouraged qiyam (standing for prayers) in Ramadan:

(1) Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah reported Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) as saying: “He who observed prayer at night during Ramadan, because of faith and seeking his reward [from Allah], his previous sins would be forgiven.” (Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim)

(2) The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “Allah has enjoined (fard) the fast of Ramadan, and standing for night prayers (i.e. tarawih) was made sunnah for you; so whoever fasts and stands for night prayers because of faith and seeking his reward [from Allah], he will be freed from his sins like on the day when his mother gave birth to him”. (Sunan al-Nasai; Al-Targhib, 2:105.)

(3) Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to exhort [his Companions] to pray [at night] during Ramadan without commanding them to observe it as an obligatory act, and say: “He who observed the night prayer in Ramadan because of faith and seeking his reward (from Allah), all his previous sins would be forgiven”. (Sahih Muslim)

The above-mentioned hadiths prove the fact that there is an additional prayer to be performed during the nights in the month of Ramadan. Furthermore, Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “Salah is a good action, so the one who can perform it excessively should do so.” Therefore, the more salah in this month the better.

Concluding remarks

It should also be borne in mind that the month of Ramadan is a month in which Muslims generally exert themselves in worship. Hence, this concept of performing twenty rak’ahs surely displays more exertion than eight. In fact, those who choose to perform only eight rak’ahs should examine their souls, it should not be that laziness in worship leads them to opt for lesser rak’ahs.

Lastly, the general advice of the ‘ulama is that whatever a person inculcates during Ramadan will remain with him throughout the year that follows. Ramadan serves as an opportunity to recharge one’s self if one is lacking spiritually and it also serves as a training platform for the believer. We abstain from the lawful (halal) during fasting in the day so that we can acquire the ability to shun the unlawful (haram) as well for the rest of the year.

On this note it is worth mentioning that the amount of obligatory salahs (including the Witr) that are performed daily are twenty. Therefore, one who sacrifices during the blessed month by offering these twenty rak’ahs of voluntary salah will — by the will of Allah — be punctual the rest of the year in that which is obligatory.

The masses should be cautioned against accepting such innovative views from people who claim to have knowledge but refuse to follow the way of the Companions and the Ummah in general. The issue of tarawih is one of many such erroneous views held by these deviant entities.  In fact, the masses are advised against arguing with such people. They should rather refer them to the ‘ulama.  And Allah knows best.

They [the fuqaha and the muhaddithun] have also explained that to lie about the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is one of the greatest of the major sins, rather some of the Shafi’is exaggerated and ruled it to be kufr. That is because sahih hadiths have been narrated with various wordings indicating what we mentioned. The most well-known of them has the wording: “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.” It has many routes such that it was said that it is from the mutawatir hadiths. I have expanded on this discussion in [a manner] not [requiring] further [explanation] to it in Zafar al-Amani fi l-Mukhtasar al-Mansub ila l-Jurjani in the discussion on mutawatir, Allah enable us to complete it as He enabled us to start it, and if Allah gives expanse in my life and assists in my ability, I will complete it after finishing writing up this treatise, if Allah (Exalted is He) wills.

‘Ali al-Qari al-Makki said in Kitab al-Mawdu’at:

Moreover, the meaning of that which the two shaykhs [i.e. Al-Bukhari and Muslim] and Al-Hakim transmitted from Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him), “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire,” is mutawatir and this form is almost mutawatir.

In [another] version from them and from al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah and al-Daraqutni, [they narrated] from Anas (Allah be pleased with him) that he said, “That the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said ‘Whoever deliberately lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire’ prevents me from narrating many hadiths to you.”

They have also [narrated] from ‘Ali (Allah be pleased with him) [that] he said: The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “Do not lie upon me, for whoever lies upon me, let him enter the Fire.”

The two shaykhs and al-Tirmidhi [narrated] from al-Mughirah ibn Shu’bah (Allah be pleased with him) [that] he said: I heard the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) say, “Lying upon me is not like lying upon another; whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Bukhari, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, ibn Majah and al-Daraqutni [narrated] from ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (Allah be pleased with them) [that] he said: I said to Zubayr [ibn 'Awwam], “I do not hear you narrating from Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as so-and-so and so-and-so narrate.” He said, “Certainly, I did not part from him since I accepted Islam, but I heard him say, ‘Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.’” Al-Daraqutni added, “By Allah he did not say ‘deliberately’ and you say ‘deliberately.’”

Al-Bukhari and al-Daraqutni [narrated] from Salamah ibn al-Akwa’ (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Bukhari, al-Tirmidhi, al-Daraqutni and al-Hakim in Al-Madkhal [narrated] from Ibn ‘Umar (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: He (upon him blessings and peace) said, “Narrate from me and do not lie upon me, for whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi who authenticated it and Ibn Majah [narrated] from Ibn Mas’ud (Allah be pleased with him) [that] he said: He (upon him blessings and peace) said, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad, al-Darimi and Ibn Majah [narrated] from Jabir (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: He (upon him blessings and peace) said, “Beware of excessive narration; whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Darimi and Ibn Majah [narrated] from Abu Qatadah (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: I heard him (upon him blessings and peace) say on this pulpit, “Beware of excessive narration; nothing should be said about me but reality and truth, and whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn Majah [narrated] from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said in marfu’ form, “Write not from me [anything] besides the Qur’an, and whoever wrote anything besides the Qur’an should erase it. Narrate from the Israelites and there is no harm. Narrate from me and do not lie upon me, for whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Abu Ya’la, al-’Uqayli and al-Tabrani in Al-Awsat [narrated] from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, or rejects something I commanded, let him occupy a house in Hell.”

Ahmad and Abu Ya’la [narrated] from ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me, he is in the Fire.”

Ahmad, al-Bazzar, Abu Ya’la, al-Daraqutni and al-Hakim in Al-Madkhal [narrated] from ‘Uthman (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) that he would say, “That I am not the most retentive from the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) regarding him does not prevent me from narrating from him, but [because] I bear witness that I heard him say, ‘Whoever ascribes a lie to me, let him occupy a house in the Fire.’”

Abu Ya’la and Al-Tabrani [narrated] from Talhah ibn ‘Ubayd Allah in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Bazzar, Abu Ya’la, al-Daraqutni and al-Hakim in Al-Madkhal [narrated] from Sa’id ibn Zayd ibn ‘Amr ibn Nufayl (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) that he (upon him blessings and peace) said, “Verily, lying upon me is not like lying upon another; whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad, Hannad in al-Zuhd, al-Bazzar, al-Tabrani and al-Hakim in al-Madkhal [narrated] from Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them) in marfu’ form, “Verily, a house in the Fire will be built for the one who lies upon me.”

Ahmad, al-Harith ibn Abi Usamah in his Musnad and al-Tabrani [narrated] from Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (Allah be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad, al-Bazzar, Abu Ya’la and al-Tabrani [narrated] from Khalid ibn ‘Arfatah in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately” and in [another] narration “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad, al-Harith ibn Abi Usamah, al-Bazzar, al-Tabrani and al-Hakim in al-Madkhal [narrated] from Yahya ibn Maymun al-Hadrami that Abu Musa al-Ghafiqi heard ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir al-Juhani (Allah be pleased with him) narrating hadiths from Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) on the pulpit, and Abu Musa (Allah be pleased with him) said, “Verily, this companion of yours has preserved [the hadiths] or is destroyed; indeed the last thing he (upon him blessings and peace) entrusted unto us was that he said, ‘Hold to the Book of Allah, and you will refer to a people who love to narrate from me, so whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire, and whoever preserves a thing, let him narrate it.’”

Ahmad, Abu Ya’la and al-Tabrani [narrated] from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir (Allah be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad, al-Bazzar and al-Tabrani [narrated] from Zayd ibn Arqam in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad [narrated] from Qays ibn Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately let him take [his] resting place in the Fire” or “a house in Hell.”

Al-Bazzar and al-’Uqayli in al-Du’afa’ [narrated] from ‘Imran ibn Husayn (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani [narrated] in al-Awsat from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) that a man wore a dress resembling the dress of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), then he came to a household in Madinah and said, “Verily, he (upon him blessings and peace) commanded me to survey whichever household I wish from the residents of Madinah.” They then prepared accommodation for him and sent a messenger to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and informed him. He said to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with them), “Go to him and if you find him, kill him, then burn him with fire, and if you find him and you have been spared this [task] [because he is already dead], and I do not believe but the two of you will be spared this [task], then burn him with Fire.” Thereupon, they came to him and found him having come out in the night to urinate, when a snake bit him and he died, so they burned him with fire. Then they returned to him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and informed him and he (upon him blessings and peace) said, “Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn ‘Adi in al-Kamil [narrated] from Buraydah (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: A suburb of Banu Layth was [situated] two miles away from Madinah. A man had proposed to one of them in Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic times) and they did not marry him [to her], so he came to them [putting] on a dress, saying, “Indeed Allah’s Messenger garbed me this [dress] and commanded me to rule over your properties and your blood.” Then he set forth and fell on that woman he proposed to [i.e. fornicated with her]. Thereupon, the people sent a messenger to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and he said, “He lied, the enemy of Allah!” Then he sent a man and said, “If you find him alive, strike his neck, and if you find him dead, burn him.” Then he found him, a snake having bit him and he died, so he burned him with fire. That is [a consequence of] his (upon him blessings and peace) statement, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani [narrated] from ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah (Allah be pleased with him) [that] he said: I went with my father to an in-law of ours from the Companions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) who accepted Islam, and I heard him say: I head Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) say “Give us rest by it, i.e. prayer, O Bilal.” I said, “Did you hear that from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace)?” He then became angry and began narrating to them that he (upon him blessings and peace) sent a man to an Arab suburb and when he came to them, he said, “He (upon him blessings and peace) commanded me to rule over your women however I wish.” Thereupon they said, “[We] hear and [we] obey the command of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace),” and they sent a man to him (upon him blessings and peace) and said, “Indeed so-and-so came to us and said that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) commanded me to rule over your women, so if it is from your command then [we] hear and [we] obey and if it is other than that, we wished to let you know.” Then he (upon him blessings and peace) became angry and sent a man from the Ansar, saying, “Go and kill him or burn him with fire.” He reached him and he had [already] died and was buried, so he ordered that [his body] be exhumed, then he burned him with fire. Then he [the in-law of 'Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah] said: Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire” and he said, “Do you think that I will lie upon the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) after this?”

Al-Tabrani in al-Awsat [narrated] from Zayd ibn Arqam and al-Bara’ ibn ‘Azib (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with them), elevating it [to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)], “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani [narrated] from Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani in al-Awsat [narrated] from Mu’adh ibn Jabal in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.” Al-Tabrani [narrated] from ‘Amr ibn Murrah al-Juhani with this wording; Al-Tabrani in al-Saghir [narrated] from Nabit ibn Sharit like so; al-Tabrani [narrated] from ‘Ammar ibn Yasir like so; he [narrated] from ‘Amr ibn ‘Abasah like so and [he narrated] from ‘Amr ibn Hurayth like so; he and al-Darimi [narrated] from Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) like so; he [narrated] from ‘Utaybah ibn Ghazwan like so; he and Ibn ‘Adi [narrated] from al-’Urs ibn ‘Amirah like so; he and al-Darimi [narrated] from Ya’la ibn Murrah like so; he and al-Bazzar [narrated] from Abu Malik al-Ashja’i from his father whose name was Tariq ibn Aysham like so; and he, Abu Nu’aym and al-Isma’ili in his Mu’jam [narrated] from Salman ibn Khalid al-Khuza’i in marfu’ form with the wording, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him occupy a house in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani [narrated] from ‘Amr ibn Dinar (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) that the children of Suhayb said to Suhayb, “O our father! The children of the Companions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) are narrating from their fathers,” and he said: I heard the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) say, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.” Al-Tabrani [narrated] from al-Sa’ib ibn Yazid with this wording and he [narrated] from Abu Umamah al-Bahili with the wording: “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire between the eyes of Hell.” He [narrated] from Abu Qursafah that he (upon him blessings and peace) said, “Narrate from me whatever you hear, and it is not permitted for a man to lie upon me, for whoever lies upon me” or he said “ascribes to me what I have not said, a house in Hell will be built for him, in which he will be thrown.” He [narrated] from Rafi’ ibn Khudayj in marfu’ form, “Do not lie upon me, for indeed lying upon me is not like lying upon another.” He [narrated] from Aws ibn Aws al-Thaqafi in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon his Prophet or his eyes [i.e. he invents a dream] or his parents [i.e. he falsely identifies his parents], he will never smell the fragrance of Paradise.” He [narrated] in al-Awsat from Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, “Do not lie upon me; indeed, the one who lies upon me is reckless.” He [narrated] in al-Awsat from Abu Khaldah [that] he said: I heard Maymun al-Kurdi while he was with Malik ibn Dinar (Allah be pleased with him), then Malik ibn Dinar said to him, “Why is it that the shaykh does not narrate from his father, for indeed your father saw the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and heard from him?” Thereupon, he said, “Our father would not narrate from him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) out of fear that he would add or subtract from his speech, and he said: I heard him (upon him blessings and peace) say, ‘Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.’” He [narrated] from Sa’d ibn al-Midhas from him (upon him blessings and peace), “Whoever knows something must not conceal it, and whoever lies upon me let him occupy a house in Hell.”

Abu Muhammad al-Ramahurmuzi [narrated] in Kitab al-Muhaddith al-Fasil from Malik ibn ‘Atahiyyah that he (upon him blessings and peace) instructed us in the Farewell Hajj, saying, “Hold to the Qur’an, and you will refer to groups who narrate from me, so whoever preserves a thing, let him narrate it, and whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani and al-Ramahurmuzi [narrated] from Rafi’ ibn Khudayj (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) passed by us one day while we were talking and he said, “What are you discussing?” They said, “That which we heard from you, O Messenger of Allah.” He said, “Talk, but whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn Sa’d and al-Tabrani [narrated] from al-Muqanna’ al-Tamimi [that] he said: I brought the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) the sadaqah of our camels when he ordered to [receive] it and take it [to the treasury]. I said, “Two she-camels amongst them are a gift for you,” so he ordered to separate the gift from the sadaqah. I stayed [some] days, and the people plunged [into talk] that he (upon him blessings and peace) will delegate Khalid ibn al-Walid to the slaves of Mudar to give sadaqah to them. I said, “By Allah our people have no money,” so I came to him (upon him blessings and peace) and said to him, “Indeed the people are plunged in such and such [talk],” so the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) raised his hands until the whiteness of his armpits could be seen, saying, “O Allah I never permitted them to lie upon me.” Al-Muqanna’ said, “Thereafter, I did not narrate from him (upon him blessings and peace) a hadith, except a tradition articulated in the Book or applied in the Sunnah. [That was the case of he who] lies upon him in [his] lifetime, so how [would it be] after his death?”

Al-Daraqutni [narrated] from Rafi’ ibn Khudayj (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: We were with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and a man came to him saying, “O Messenger of Allah! The people are narrating from you in such and such [a manner],” and he said, “I do not say except that which descends from heaven. Woe unto you! Do not lie upon me, for indeed a lie upon me is not like lying upon another.”

Al-Bazzar [narrated] from Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them) in marfu’ form, “From the greatest of falsehoods is he who attributes to his eyes what they did not see, and from the greatest of falsehoods is he who ascribes to me what I have not said.”

Al-’Uqayli [narrated] in Kitab al-Du’afa’ from Abu Kabshah al-Anmari (Allah be pleased with him), with the wording, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.” Al-’Uqayli [narrated] from Ghazwan (Allah be pleased with him) with this wording, and he and al-Tabrani in al-Afrad [narrated] from Abu Rafi’, “Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in Hell.”

Ibn ‘Asakir [narrated] in his Tarikh from Wathilah ibn al-Asqa’ (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him): I heard Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) say, “Verily, from the greatest of major sins is that a man ascribes [to me] what I have not said.” Ibn ‘Adi and al-Hakim in al-Madkhal [narrated] through another route from Wathilah ibn al-Asqa’ in marfu’ form, “Verily, from the greatest of falsehoods is he who ascribes to me what I have not said or attributes to his eyes in sleep what it had not seen.”

Al-Khatib in his Tarikh [narrated] from al-Nu’man ibn Bashir, and its wording is: “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani [narrated] from Usamah ibn Zayd (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) with the wording: “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Hakim [narrated] in al-Madkhal from Jabir ibn ‘Abdillah (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him), “The anger of Allah (Exalted is He) is severe on he who lies upon me deliberately.”

Al-Hakim [narrated] in al-Madkhal from Bahaz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, upon him is the curse of Allah, the Angels, and all humankind, and compulsory acts and voluntary acts will not be accepted from him.”

Al-Hakim [narrated] in al-Madkhal from Hudhayfah (Allah be pleased with him), “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Hakim [narrated] in al-Madkhal from ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) with the wording, “Whoever narrates from me a lie, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Bazzar and Ibn ‘Adi [narrated] from Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Three [men] will not smell the fragrance of Paradise: a man claiming another as his father, a man who lies upon his Prophet, and a man who lies upon his eyes.”

Ahmad, Hannad and al-Hakim in his Mustadrak [narrated] from Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him) with the wording: “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire” and in a wording “a house in Hell.”

Ibn Sa’id in his collection of the routes of this hadith [narrated] from Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) with the wording: “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Khatib [narrated] in al-Tarikh from Abu ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah (Allah be pleased with him) with the wording: “Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn ‘Adi [narrated] from Suhayb (Allah be pleased with him) and its wording is: “Whoever lies upon me, he will be charged on the Day of Resurrection with weaving together two barleycorns, and that is what prevents me from narrating.”

Al-Daraqutni [narrated it] in al-Afrad like so and al-Khatib in al-Tarikh [narrated] from Salman al-Farisi (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him); Ibn al-Jawzi and Hafiz Yusuf ibn Khalil in his collection of the paths of this hadith [narrated] from Abu Dharr like so, and Ibn Sa’id and others [narrated] from Hudhayfah ibn Usayd (Allah be pleased with him) like so.

Ibn ‘Adi [narrated] from Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him), “Whoever innovates a thing or shelters an innovator, upon him is the curse of Allah, the Angels, and all of humankind, and [also] upon whoever lies upon me deliberately.”

Ibn Qani’ in his Mu’jam [narrated] from Usamah ibn Zayd (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him), “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire” and that was [said] because he sent a man for a need and he lied upon him, whereupon he cursed him, and he was found dead, his insides split open, and the earth did not accept him.

Al-Daraqutni and Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] from ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with them), “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.” Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] through another route from ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with them) that he said one day to his companions, “Do you know what is the meaning of this hadith: ‘Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire’? A man was passionately in love with a woman, so he came to her people in the evening and said, ‘I am the emissary of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace). He sent me to you that I may be hosted in whichever house I wish.’ He waited while passing the night, and a man from amongst them came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said, ‘So-and-so came to us claiming that you commanded him to stay in whichever of our houses he wished.’ Thereupon, he said ‘He lied! Oh so-and-so, go with him and if Allah enables you, strike his neck and burn him with fire, and I do not believe but you will be spared this [task].’ Then, he [i.e. the man who lied] came out to perform wudu’ and a snake bit him and he died. When this [news] reached the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), he said, ‘He is in the Fire.’”

Ibn Qani’ in Mu’jam al-Sahabah and Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] from ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa  (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) with the wording: “Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.” They [narrated] from Yazid ibn Asad like so; al-Hakim [narrated] from ‘Affan ibn Habib (Allah be pleased with him) like so; and al-Jawzaqani and Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] from a man from the Companions (Allah be pleased with him) with the wording, “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him occupy [his place] between the eyes of Hell.”

Ibn Sa’id and others [narrated] from ‘A’ishah (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with her) with the wording: “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Daraqutni and Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] from Umm Ayman (Allah be pleased with her) and its wording is, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] from ‘Ali (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) and its wording is: “Whoever lies upon Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), he has indeed prepared his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] from Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with them): Al-’Abbas said, “O Messenger of Allah! If only we could make an elevated place for you from above which you speak to the people, so they can hear [you].” He said, “I will remain like this: their dust afflicting me, while they tread on my heels, until Allah relieves me from them, so whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn ‘Adi [narrated] from Shu’bah, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn Khalil [narrated] from Zayd ibn Thabit (Allah be pleased with him) like so; he [narrated] from Ka’b ibn Qutbah like so; he [narrated] from the father of Abu l-’Ashra’ like so; he and Abu Nu’aym [narrated] from ‘Abdullah ibn Zaghb like so.

Abu Nu’aym [narrated] from Jabir ibn Habis (Allah be pleased with him) with the wording: “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Hafiz al-Suyuti said: “More than a hundred Companions narrated this hadith and a multitude of the people of excellence gathered its paths to them. Ibn al-Jawzi transmitted from Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Isfara’ini that there is no hadith in the world that the ten promised paradise agreed upon besides the hadith, ‘Whoever lies upon me…’ Ibn al-Jawzi said: the narration of ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf (Allah be pleased with him) [one of the ten promised Paradise] has not occurred to me till now.” End

One of the subtleties that was mentioned in this regard is that which ‘Allamah Abu l-Qasim ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad al-Ghurani, the author of many works, said: Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Mu’addib narrated to us: Abu l-Muzaffar Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Husam al-Samarqandi narrated to us: he said: I heard al-Khadir and Ilyas say: We heard Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) say, “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.” Al-Dhahabi said: Abu ‘Amr ibn al-Salah dictated this hadith and said, “This occurred to us in a transcript from Al-Khadir and Ilyas.” Al-Dhahabi said, “I do not know who compiled this transcript.” [Here] ends the speech of Al-Qari in its entirety.

I say: it is established from these narrations that fabricating [something] about the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and attributing to him what he did not say is absolutely haram and a cause for being punished in the Fire, whether it is in regards to Halal and Haram or inducing hope and fear or anything else. Hence, the belief of some ignorant fabricators that lying upon him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to induce hope and fear is permissible because it is a lie for him not against him, is unacceptable.

Furthermore, it is established from the aforementioned narrations that just as lying upon him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) verbally and practically by attributing to him a statement he did not say and an action he did not perform is from the greatest of the major sins, similarly attributing a virtue or a rank to his purified essence whose existence is not established in the holy prophetic essence by verses or reliable hadiths is also from the greatest of the major sins. The admonishing preachers should, therefore, pay attention, and the story-tellers and the exhorting and reproving sermonisers should beware, since they attribute many things to the holy person whose existence has not been established therein and they think that in this is a great reward due to establishing a virtue for the holy essence and elevating its stature, yet they are unaware that the prophetic virtues established in the sahih hadiths dispose of the need for those flimsy falsehoods. By my life, his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) virtues are outside the limit of encompassment and enumeration, and his merits, by which he excels all creation, are very many without end, so what is the need to extol him using falsehoods? Rather, this is a cause for great sin and deviation from the Straight Path.

We ought to mention here some of the stories which are commonly narrated by most of the preachers of our age in their sermonic gatherings while believing them to be established facts, in spite of them being manufactured and fabricated:

From them is what they mention that when the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was taken by night in the Night of Mi’raj (Ascension) to the high heavens and reached the Lofty Throne, he intended to take off his shoes, considering His (Exalted is He) statement to our master Musa when He spoke to him, “So remove your shoes; verily, you are in the sacred valley of Tuwa” (Qur’an 20:12). He was then called from the Lofty Court: “O Muhammad! Do not remove your shoes as the Throne will take honour in your advent wearing shoes and will take it as pride and blessings before others.” So the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) ascended the Throne while the shoes were on his feet, and thus he was granted honour and loftiness.

This story was narrated by many composers of eulogistic poems while others incorporated [it] in their writings on the Sunnah. Most of the preachers in our age mention it in detail as well as in summary in their sermonic functions. Ahmad al-Muqri’ al-Maliki in his book Fath al-Muta’al fi Madhi Khayr al-Ni’al, and ‘Allamah Radi al-Din al-Qazwini and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Baqi al-Zurqani in Sharh al-Mawahib al-Laduniyyah, clarified that this story is fabricated in its entirety. May Allah uglify its fabricator! It is not established in a [single] narration from the [various] narrations of the Prophetic Mi’raj, despite the abundance of its paths, that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grand him peace) was in that [time] wearing shoes, and it is not established that he ascended the Throne, although he reached a place [where] “he drew nigh” to his Lord “and came down and was at a distance of two bow-lengths or nearer, and He revealed to His servant what He revealed.” (Qur’an 53:8-10). I have a detailed discussion on this point in my treatise Ghayat al-Maqal fima yata’allaqu bi l-Ni’al, so that should be studied.

From them is what the preachers mention that the Prophet was given knowledge of the first and the last (al-awwalin wa l-akhirin) in detail, and he was granted knowledge of all that has passed and all that is to come, universally (kulliyyan) and particularly (juz’iyyan), and that there is no difference between his knowledge and the knowledge of his Lord from the perspective of encompassment and inclusion, and the only difference is that the knowledge of Allah is everlasting and eternal in His very Essence without having been taught by another, as opposed to the knowledge of the Messenger, since he acquired it through being taught by his Lord. This is flowery speech and falsehood as clarified by Ibn Hajar al-Makki in al-Minah al-Makkiyyah Sharh al-Qasidat al-Hamziyyah and [by] other scholars of poetry. That which is established from the Qur’anic verses and the Prophetic hadiths is that encompassment, inclusion and knowledge of all ghayb is specific to the Honourable Truth [i.e. Allah], and this quality was not granted from the part of the Truth to any of creation. Yes, the sciences of our Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) are more excessive and abundant than the sciences of the rest of the Prophets and Messengers, and the teaching of his Lord to him of the unseen matters is more perfect relative to [His] teaching to others, so he is most perfect in knowledge and practice, and the chief of creation in rank and virtue.

From them is what the preachers mention that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) knew the whole Qur’an and recited it from the moment of his birth, and that the meaning of his statement “I am not a reader” in response to Jibril saying to him when revelation began, “Recite!” as was narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari and others, is: “I will not read by your command, as I know it and read it from before.” This is no doubt a fabrication, falsified by Qur’anic verses and Prophetic reports.

From them is what they mention that he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was not unlettered (ummi), rather he was able to write and recite by nature. This is a statement contravening the Qur’an and Sunnah and even the consensus (ijma’) of the ummah. It has no consideration, therefore, for the perspicacious.

From them is what they mention of the story of ‘Ukashah when commemorating the beauty of the Muhammadan character. This was transmitted by Abu Nu’aym in Hilyat al-Awliya’ from Ibn ‘Abbas [that] he said: When “When comes the Help of Allah, and Victory” (110:1) to the end of the surah, was revealed, Muhammad said, “O Jibril! My death has been announced.” Jibril said, “The Hereafter will be better for you than the present and verily your Lord will give unto you until you are content.” (93:4-5) Then Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) commanded Bilal to make a call for congregational prayer. The Muhajirun and Ansar then congregated in the mosque and he prayed with the people. He then ascended the pulpit and praised and glorified Allah, and he delivered a sermon that made the hearts fearful and the eyes tearful.

Then he said: “O people! What [kind] of prophet have I been to you?” They said, “Allah reward you greatly for the Prophet [you have been], for verily, you were to us like a compassionate father and a well-wishing kind brother. You transmitted the messages of Allah and you conveyed to us His revelation, and you called to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching. So, Allah reward you on our behalf the best that He rewards a prophet on behalf of his people.”

Then he said: “Assemblies of Muslims! I adjure you by Allah and by my right over you, whoever has a complaint against me, let him stand and take retaliation from me before the retaliation on the Day of Resurrection.” An old man called ‘Ukashah [who was] amongst the Muslims stood and walked passed the Muslims until he stood before the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said, “My father and my mother be sacrificed for you, O Messenger of Allah! Had you not adjured us more than once, I would not be one to offer any [complaint] against you. I was with you in battle, and when Allah gave us an opening and gave victory to His Prophet and we turned back, my she-camel drew parallel to your she-camel, so I descended from the she-camel and came close to you to kiss your thigh, but then you lifted a cane and hit my flank. I do not know if that was intentional on your part or you wanted to hit the she-camel.”

Thereupon, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “I seek refuge for you in the glory of Allah, that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) intentionally struck [you]. O Bilal! Go to the house of Fatimah and bring a long cane.” Bilal left the mosque with his hands on his head, saying aloud, “This is the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) offering retaliation upon himself!” Then he knocked on the door of Fatimah and said, “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace)! Give me a long cane.” Fatimah said, “O Bilal! What will my father do with the cane? This is not the season of Hajj or war.” He said, “How unaware you are of the plight of your father! Verily, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is entrusting the religion and departing the world and offering retaliation upon himself.” So Fatimah said, “And who is it that his soul has agreed to retaliating upon the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), O Bilal? Say to al-Hasan and al-Husayn to stand to this man and not let him take retaliation from the Messenger of Allah.”

Then, the Messenger of Allah gave the cane to ‘Ukashah. When Abu Bakr and ‘Umar saw that they said, “We are in front of you so take retaliation from us and do not take retaliation from Allah’s Messenger,” and the Messenger of Allah said to them, “Leave O Abu Bakr and you, O ‘Umar, for indeed Allah knows your place and your station.” ‘Ali stood and said, “O ‘Ukashah, in the life of this world, I was before Allah’s Messenger [i.e. in his service], and my soul does not agree with you hitting the Messenger of Allah; so this is my back and my belly, take retaliation from me and strike me a hundred strikes, and do not take retaliation from Allah’s Messenger.” Allah’s Messenger said, “O ‘Ali! Sit, for indeed Allah knows your station and your intention.” Then al-Hasan and al-Husayn stood and said, “O Ukashah do you not know that we are the grandchildren of the Messenger of Allah so retaliation upon us is like retaliation upon the Messenger of Allah?” He said to them, “Sit down O coolness of my eyes, Allah has not forgotten this station for you.”

Then, the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “O Ukashah! Strike if you are going to strike.” He said, “O Messenger of Allah! You struck me while I was uncovered.” Thereupon, he exposed his belly and the Muslims screamed out, crying, and said, “Do you believe ‘Ukasha is hitting the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace)?” When ‘Ukashah saw the whiteness of his belly, he said, “My father and mother be sacrificed for you! My soul does not agree to retaliate upon you.” The Prophet said to him, “Either you strike or you pardon.” He said “I pardon you, hoping that Allah will pardon me on the Day of Resurrection.” The Prophet said, “Whoever wishes to see my companion in the Garden, let him look at this [man].” The Muslims stood and began kissing between the eyes of ‘Ukashah and they said, “Blessed are you! Blessed are you! You have reached the Highest Ranks and the companionship of Allah’s Messenger.”

The hadith is mentioned in its entirety in Kitab al-Mawdu’at by Ibn al-Jawzi. Ibn al-Jawzi said, “This is mawdu’ and its inventor was ‘Abd al-Mun’im,” meaning, ‘Abd al-Mun’im ibn Idris ibn Sinan, the narrator from his father from Wahb from Ibn ‘Abbas and from him Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn al-Bara and from him Sulayman ibn Ahmad al-Tabrani and from him Abu Nu’aym. Al-Suyuti agreed with him in al-La’ali al-Masnu’ah fi l-Ahadith al-Mawdu’ah and Ibn ‘Arraq in Tanzih al-Shari’ah ‘an al-Ahadith al-Mawdu’ah and others.

Al-Dhahabi said in Mizan al-I’tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal:

‘Abd al-Mun’im ibn Idris al-Yamani, the famous story-teller, is not relied upon. More than one have abandoned his [narrations] and Ahmad ibn Hanbal clarified [this], saying, “He would lie upon Wahb ibn Munabbih”; Al-Bukhari said, “[He is] wasted in hadith (dhahib al-hadith)”; Al-’Uqayli said: Muhammad ibn al-Husayn al-Anmati narrated to us: ‘Abd al-Mun’im ibn Idris narrated to us from his father from Wahb from Ibn ‘Abbas from the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), “A fly does not fly between two [people] except by fate” and he [narrated] from his father from Wahb from Jabir and Ibn ‘Abbas a long account regarding the death of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and that he gave a cane to ‘Ukashah to retaliate upon him. Ibn Hibban said, “He would fabricate hadiths upon his father and on others and he died in 228 H in Baghdad.” End

[It is] also [mentioned] therein [i.e. Mizan al-I'tidal]:

Idris ibn Sinan al-San’ani, the grandson of Wahb ibn Munabbih, was weakened by Ibn ‘Adi, and al-Daraqutni said [about him], “[He is] abandoned” and his son ‘Abd al-Mun’im ibn Idris [narrated] from him. He was mentioned by Ibn Hibban in his Tarikh. End

[It is mentioned] in Lisan al-Mizan by Hafiz ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani in the biography of ‘Abd al-Mun’im:

Ibn Abi Hatim transmitted from Isma’il ibn ‘Abd al-Karim: Idris died while ‘Abd al-Mun’im was an infant, and the same was said by Ahmad when asked about him: “he did not hear a thing from his father.” ‘Abd al-Khaliq ibn Mansur said [narrating] from Ibn Ma’in that he is a wicked liar (kadhdhab khabith) and according to Abu Zur’ah “[he is] weak in hadith” and al-Fallas said, “[He is] abandoned; he took the books of his father and narrated them and did not hear a thing from his father”. Abu Ahmad al-Hakim said, “[He is] wasted in hadith” and Ibn al-Madini said, “He is not trustworthy; he took books and narrated them” and al-Nasa’i said, “He is not trustworthy” and al-Saji said, “He would buy biographical works (kutub al-sirah) and narrate them; he did not hear them from his father, not even a part of it.” End

From them is what they mention at the commemoration of the Prophetic birth that the light of Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was created from the light of Allah in the sense that His Holy Essence became a substance for his illuminated soul, and that He (Exalted is He) took a handful of His light and created from it his light. This is sophistic talk since the essence of our Lord (Glorified and Blessed is He) is transcendent beyond being a substance of [any] besides Him. Taking a handful of His light does not mean that a part of him was cut off and made into the light of His Prophet because the concomitant of that is divisibility (tajazzi) and other things that follow from that in His essence (Exalted is Him), Transcendent is Allah beyond that. That which brought them into this dark quandary is the outward [meaning] of the narration of ‘Abd al-Razzaq in his Musannaf from Jabir [that] he said: I said “O Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace)! My father and mother be sacrificed for you! Tell me of the first thing Allah created before all things.” He said, “O Jabir! Verily, Allah created the light of your Prophet from His light before all things, and He made that light turn by [His] Power wherever Allah wished, and at that time there was no Tablet and no Pen, no Garden and no Fire, no Angel and no Heaven, no earth and no sun and no moon, no jinni and no man.” The hadith is mentioned in its entirety in al-Mawahib al-Ludaniyyah and other [works].

They erred in understanding the Prophetic meaning and they do not know that the ascription (idafah) in his statement “from His light” is like the ascription in His (Exalted is He) statement in the story of the creation of Adam, “I breathed into him of My spirit” (15:29) and like His statement in the story of our master ‘Isa “a spirit from Him” (4:171) and like their statement, “The house of Allah” for the Ka’bah and mosques, and their statement, “The spirit of Allah” for ‘Isa etc. Al-Zurqani said in Sharh al-Mawahib in the commentary of his statement, “from His light”:

[This is] an ascription of ennoblement (idafat al-tashrif) and to notify that he is a wonderful creation and that he has a rank which has a certain relationship with the esteemed lordship according to the meaning of His (Exalted is He) statement “and He breathed into him from His spirit.” This is a rhetorical (bayaniyyah) [sentence], meaning: “from the light of His essence”, not in the sense that it is a substance for the creation of his light, rather in the sense of the [Divine] Will pertained to it without the mediation of anything when bringing it into existence. End.

He also said some pages before this:

As for what is mentioned that Allah took a handful of the light of His Face and cast a look at it so it perspired and dropped, so Allah created out of every drop a prophet, and that the handful was the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and he was like a brilliant star, and that the entire world was created out of it and he was existent before his parents were created and he memorised the Qur’an before Jibril came to him and things like these, Hafiz Abu l-’Abbas Ahmad ibn Taymiyah said in his Fatawa and Hafiz ibn Kathir quoted it in his Tarikh and agreed with him that all these things are fabricated lies about his speech by agreement of the people of knowledge. End

Note:

The primacy and the definite priority of the creation of the Muhammadan light are established in the narration of ‘Abd al-Razzaq. The hadith, “The first of what Allah created is my light” is famous amongst the story-tellers, although it is a hadith not established in this form, even though other [narrations] were narrated that agree with it in meaning. Al-Suyuti said in his commentary on Jami’ al-Tirmidhi called Qut al-Mughtadhi when commenting on the hadith, “Verily the first that Allah created is the Pen”:

Zayn al-’Arab said in Sharh al-Masabih: “This hadith is contradicted by that which was narrated that ‘the first that Allah created was the Intellect’, and ‘the first that Allah created was my light’, and ‘the first that Allah created was the Spirit’, and ‘the first that Allah created was the Throne.’ Its response is that the primacy of things is relative, so it is understood that each of what was mentioned was first in its [own] genus. Hence, the pen was created before all bodies, his (upon him blessings and peace) light was created before all lights, and the hadith of the Intellect is understood as the first that Allah created of subtle bodies is the Intellect, and from the dense [bodies] is the Throne, so there is no contradiction between any of them.” [Here] ends the statement of Zayn al-’Arab. I say: the hadith of Intellect is fabricated and the other three were not narrated with this wording so the interpretation is dispensable.

I say: similar to “the first that Allah created is my light” in not being established textually but having been transmitted in meaning, is that which is famous on the tongues of the story-tellers and the general and the elite of the hadith, “Were it not for you, I would not have created the celestial bodies”. ‘Ali al-Qari said in Tadhkirat al-Mawdu’at:

[Regarding] the hadith, “Were it not for you, I would not have created the celestial bodies,” al-’Asqalani said, “[It is] mawdu‘”, as [mentioned] in al-Khulasah. However, its meaning is correct, since al-Daylami narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas in marfu’ form: Jibril came to me and said: Allah said, “O Muhammad! Were it not for you, I would not have created the Garden and were it not for you I would not have created the Fire.” End

Al-Qastallani mentioned in al-Mawahib al-Laduniya and al-Zurqani in its commentary that al-Hakim transmitted in his Mustadrak from ‘Umar in marfu’ form that Adam saw the name “Muhammad” written on the throne and Allah said to Adam, “Were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created you.” Abu l-Shaykh in Tabaqat al-Asfahaniyyin and al-Hakim narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas: Allah revealed to ‘Isa, “Believe in Muhammad and command your people to believe in him for were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Adam or the Garden or the Fire and indeed I created the Throne on water and it shook, so I wrote on it: ‘No deity but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.’” ‘Amr ibn Aws is in its sanad and he is unknown. Al-Dhahabi said: According to al-Daylami from Ibn ‘Abbas who elevated it [to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)], “Jibril came to me and said: Indeed Allah says ‘Were it not for you, I would not create the Garden and were it not for you, I would not create the Fire.’”

Similar [is the narration] that has become famous on the tongues of story-tellers of the hadith, “I was a Prophet while Adam was between water and clay” and in a narration, “I was a Prophet and there was no Adam, no water and no clay,” because al-Sakhawi in al-Maqasid al-Hasanah, while explaining many of the hadiths which are common on the tongues, and al-Suyuti in al-Durar al-Muntashirah fi l-Akhbar al-Mushtahirah and others clarified that it is mawdu’ with this wording. Yes, it is established from al-Hakim in his Mustadrak and authenticated by Abu Nu’aym in Hilyat al-Awliya’ and al-Bukhari in his Tarikh and Ahmad in his Musnad from Maysarah al-Dabbi: I said, “O Messenger of Allah! When were you a Prophet?” He said, “While Adam was between spirit and body.” According to al-Bayhaqi and Ahmad, [they narrated] from the hadith of al-’Irbad ibn Sariyah in marfu’ form, “Verily I was the Seal of the Prophets by Allah while Adam was still in clay” and according to al-Tirmidhi, [he narrated] from Abu Hurayrah that they [i.e. the Companions] said, “O Messenger of Allah! When was prophethood incumbent upon you?” He said, “While Adam was between spirit and body.”

From them is what the preachers mention while commemorating the Muhammadan beauty that one night a needle dropped from the hand of ‘A’ishah and she lost it, and she searched for it and could not find it, so the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) laughed and the radiance of his teeth appeared, illuminating the chamber, and ‘A’ishah saw the needle with that light. Although this is mentioned in Ma’arij al-Nubuwwah and other biographical works that combine both wet and dry [i.e. sound and unsound reports] so none relies on everything that is in them besides a sleepy or drowsy person, it is, nonetheless, not established by narration or meaning.

From them is what they mention when commemorating the Muhammadan hearing that he hears the blessings of one who sends blessings on him without any mediation, though he is far. This is false and not established by any narration. Rather, its opposite is established. The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “One who sends blessings on me near my grave I hear it, and one who sends blessings on me from a distance, Allah appointed an Angel who conveys it me. It will suffice him for his world and hereafter [and] I will intercede for him on the Day of Judgment.” Al-Bayhaqi in Shu’ab al-Iman, Abu l-Shaykh in Kitab al-Thawab and al-’Uqayli in Kitab al-Du’afa’ transmitted it, and it has corroborative reports (shawahid) which were elaborated by al-Suyuti in al-La’ali al-Masnu’ah and Ibn ‘Arraq in Tanzih al-Shar’iah.

From them is what they mention that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) attends personally the gatherings commemorating his birth upon the mention of his birth, and they built on this [the practice of] standing (qiyam) when mentioning the birth in respect and honour. This is also a falsehood from the falsehoods, which is not established by any proof. The mere supposition and possibility [of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) attending] is outside the limit of this explanation.

Such stories as we mentioned are many. The preachers of the Muhammadan excellence and the Ahmadi birth (Allah bless him and grant him peace) evoke them, despite their fabrication and [despite] not being established, with the belief on their part that in mentioning the eminence of the Muhammadan stature is a great reward and an immense virtue, ignorant of the great sin due on one who lies upon the Prophet (upon him prayer and peace) in regards to a statement, an action or a beautiful or perfect description, as clear reports and authentic narrations prove.

In sum, it is necessary for every Muslim to be careful in these matters, and not mention anything except after revising it and verifying it from the reliable books of the reliable scholars, and not dare mention all that his nature concocts or is mentioned by all those who have passed before him if they are from those who gather the bad and the good (al-ghathth wa l-samin), and do not differentiate between north and south, because it is a great sin and immense treachery.

Al-Athar al-Marfu’ah fi l-Akhbar al-Mawdu’ah, pp.16-35 (From Majmu’ah Rasa’il al-Lakhnawi, volume 5, Edited by: Na’im Ashraf Nur Ahmad, Published by: Intisharat Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad Jami)

Did the eminent shaykh, the scholar of his time, Mawlawi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, say that the Creator (Exalted is He) has actually lied, and that the one who says this has not erred, or is this amongst the fabrications against him? Assuming the latter, how do you respond to what Al-Barelwi (Ahmad Rida Khan) mentioned that he has with him a photocopy of the respected shaykh’s fatwa?

Answer:

That which they attributed to the eminent and incomparable shaykh, the scholar of his time, the peerless of his age, Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, that he said that the Creator (Exalted is His Eminence) actually lied and that the one who says this has not erred, it is a fabrication about him (Allah Most High have mercy on him) and is from the lies concocted by the deceptive and lying devils (Allah confound them! How they are perverted!). His respected person is innocent of such heresy and disbelief. The fatwa of the shaykh that was printed and published in volume one of his Fatawa Rashidiyyah (p. 119) falsifies their [claim]. It is in Arabic and was verified and stamped with the seals of the ‘ulama of Makkah al-Mukarramah. A copy of this question [and answer] follows:

In Allah’s Name, the Ever Merciful, the Beneficent. We praise Him and send blessing on His noble Messenger. What is your view (your blessings last!) on Allah being described with the attribute of falsehood? And what is the ruling on the one who believes He lies? Provide us with an answer, and be rewarded.

Answer:

Allah (Exalted is He) is certainly transcendent beyond being described with falsehood, and no element of falsehood is found in His Speech, as Allah says, “Who is more truthful than Allah in speech?” (4:122) Whoever believes or professes that Allah lies, he is certainly an accursed disbeliever, and has opposed the Book, the Sunna and the Consensus of the Ummah.

Yes, the belief of the people of faith is: that which Allah foretold in the Qur’an, that Pharaoh, Haman and Abu Lahab are from the inhabitants of Hell, it is a decisive decision that He will not act contrary to, but Allah (Exalted is He) is Able to admit them into Paradise and is not incapable of this, but He will not do so by His choice.

Allah (Exalted is He!) said, “And if We had so willed, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the word from Me concerning evildoers took effect: that I will fill the Fire with the jinn and mankind together.” (32:12). It is evident from this verse that had Allah wished, He would have made everybody believers but He does not contradict what He says, and this is all by choice, not coercion. He is a Doer by choice, acting as He wills.

This is the belief of all the ‘ulama of this Ummah, as Al-Baydawi said under the explanation of His statement (Exalted is He), “If you forgive them…” (5:118) that “the absence of forgiveness for shirk is a consequence of His threat, but it is not intrinsically impossible.” Allah knows best the truth.

The lowly Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (may he be pardoned) wrote this.

A review of the endorsements of the ‘ulama of Al-Makkah al-Mukarramah, Allah increase its honour:

“All praise to the One Who is deserving of it, and from Him extends all help and guidance. That which ‘Allamah Rashid Ahmad said in reply as cited [above] is the truth from which there is no escape. Allah send blessings and peace on the Seal of the Prophets, his family and his companions.”

The servant of the Shari’ah, seeking tender grace, Muhammad Salih ibn al-Marhum Siddiq Kamal al-Hanafi (Allah support them), the present Mufti of Al-Makkah al-Mukarramah, ordered his signature.

The one hopeful of perfect attainment from His Lord, Muhammad Sa’id ibn Muhammad Babusayl at the Protected Makkah (Allah forgive him and his parents, and his teachers and all the Muslims) signed it.

Seeking pardon from the Giver of bestowals, Muhammad ‘Abid ibn al-Marhum Shaykh Husayn, Mufti of the Malikis at the Protected Land of Allah, [signed it].

“[After] sending blessing and peace; that which ‘Allamah Rashid Ahmad answered is sufficient and upon it is dependence, rather it is the truth from which there is no escape.”

Written by the lowly one, Khulf ibn Ibrahim, a servant of ifta (answering juristic problems) for Hanbalis, at the Noble Makkah.

A page from Al-Muhannad 'ala 'l-Mufannad

The response to what Al-Barelwi said that he has in his possession a copy of the fatwa of the deceased shaykh in photocopy form containing what he mentioned, it is from his inventions that he invented and forged by himself, as a slander against the shaykh (Allah sanctify his secret). Such lies and slanders are insignificant for him, for he is the teacher of teachers in this and all of them are dependent on him in his time, and indeed he is a distorting manipulator and a scheming imposter, sometimes creating outright forgeries. He is not less than the Masih al-Qadiyani, since the latter claims messengership manifestly and openly, and the former conceals [hopes of] being the mujaddid, and anathematises (yukaffiru) the ‘ulama of the Ummah, just as the Wahhabis, the followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, anathematise the Ummah (Allah Most High disgrace him as He disgraces them).

Question:

Do you believe in the possibility of the occurrence of falsehood in a speech from the Speech of the Master (Great and Glorious is His Transcendence). If not, what then is your opinion?

Answer:

We and our elders (Allah Most High have mercy on them) declare and are convinced that all speech that issued from the Creator (Great and Glorious is He) or will issue from Him is absolutely truthful, and it is certain that it concurs with reality. Undoubtedly, there is no trace of falsehood in any part of His (Exalted is He) Speech, nor any doubt about [the absence of] contravening reality [in His Speech]. Whoever believes contrary to this or conceives of a lie in any part of His Speech, is a disbeliever, apostate and heretic, and does not have even a trace of faith.

Question:

Have you ascribed the view of “imkan al-kadhib” (the possibility of lying) to some of the Ash’aris? If so, what is meant by this? And do you have a proof-text for this view from the reliable scholars? Explain the matter to us as it is.

Answer:

This began as a dispute between us and the Indian logicians and innovators about the capacity of the Maker (Transcendent is He) to act contrary to what He promised, informed, intended, etc. They said that acting contrary to these things is absent from Allah’s Ancient Power (qudrah qadimah), hypothetically impossible (mustahil aqlan), impossible to exist within His capacity, and it is necessary for Him [to act] in accordance with His promise, report, intent and knowledge. We said: such things are certainly capacitated, but their occurrence (wuqu’) is not possible, according to the Ahl al-Sunna wa l-Jama’a from the Ash’aris and Maturidis, textually and logically according to the Maturidis, and only textually according to the Ash’aris.

They objected that if the capacity of these things were possible, it would entail the possibility of falsehood and this is certainly not in His capacity and is intrinsically impossible (mustahil dhatan). We responded using a variety of answers from the kalam-scholars, of which was: even if the concomitance of the possibility of falsehood in acting contrary to the promise, reports etc. in His capacity is accepted, it too is not intrinsically impossible, rather, like oppression and impudence, it is intrinsically capacitated, but it is textually and logically impossible, or just textually, as more than one of the Imams have espoused.

When they saw these responses they caused corruption in the land and attributed to us [the position of] allowing imperfections (naqs) in relation to His Holiness (Blessed and Exalted is He), and they spread this accusation amongst the foolish and the ignorant to create enmity in the common people and to seek enjoyment and popularity amongst men. They reached the roads of the heavens in fabrication when they forged an image from themselves [expressing] the actuality (fi’liyyah) of falsehood without fearing the Knowing King. When Indians became aware of their scheming, they [i.e. the innovators] sought help from the noble ‘ulama of the two Sanctuaries because they know they are ignorant of their evil and the reality of the views of our ‘ulama.

Their likeness is but the likeness of the Mu’tazilah as compared with the Ahl al-Sunna wa l-Jama’a, since they [i.e. the Mu'tazilah] excluded rewarding the sinner (ithabat al-’asi) and punishing the obedient (‘iqab al-muti’) from the Ancient Power and made justice (‘adl) necessary for Allah’s essence. They called themselves “the advocates of justice and transcendence” and they attributed injustice, unconscientiousness and ugliness to the ‘ulama of Ahl al-Sunna wa l-Jama’a. So just as the predecessors of Ahl al-Sunna wa l-Jama’a did not mind their ignorance and did not permit incapacity in relation to Him (Transcendent and Exalted is He!) in the aforementioned injustice, and broadened the Ancient Power while also removing imperfections from His Noble Absolute Self, and perfecting the transcendence and sanctity of His Lofty Holiness, saying that, “Your understanding of the possibility of the capacity to punish the obedient and reward the sinner as an imperfection, is but the consequence of [following] despicable philosophers”; in the same way, we say to them, “Your understanding of the ability to act contrary to the promise, report and truth and the likes of them, as an imperfection, although their issuance (sudur) from Him (Exalted is He) is impossible, only textually, or rationally and textually, is but the misfortune of philosophy and logic and your adverse ignorance.”

They do what they do because of the absolute transcendence [of Allah], but they are unable to perfect the Power and broaden it. As for our predecessors, the Ahl al-Sunna wa l-Jama’a, they combined between the two matters, of widening the Power and perfecting transcendence for the Necessary (Transcendent and Exalted is He).

This is what we mentioned in Al-Barahin in summary-form, and here are some of the proof-texts in support of it from the relied upon books of the madhhab:

(1) It says in Sharh al-Mawaqif:

“All the Mu’tazilites and Kharijites make punishing the one who incurs a major sin necessary when he dies without repentance and they do not allow Allah to pardon him for two reasons:

“First, He (Exalted is He) made it a promise to punish major sins and informed [us] of this i.e. punishment because of it, so if He does not punish for a major sin and pardons, it would entail reneging on His threat and falsehood in His speech, which are impossible. The answer is, the conclusion of this [argument] is that punishment will [actually] occur, so where is the [intrinsic] necessity of punishment, on which is our discussion, since there is no doubt that non-necessity [of punishment] along with [its] occurrence does not entail reneging and falsehood? It cannot be said that it entails their possibility which is also impossible, because we say: its impossibility is prohibited. How so, when they are from the possibilities included in His (Exalted is He) Power?” End [quote from Sharh al-Mawaqif]

(2) In Sharh al-Maqasid by ‘Allamah al-Taftazani (Allah Most High have mercy on him) at the end of the discussion on Power, [he says]:

“The deniers of the inclusiveness of His Power are many groups; of them are Al-Nazzam and his [Mu'tazilite] followers who say that He does not have power over ignorance, falsehood and oppression and all ugly acts (qaba’ih), for if their creation were in His capacity, their issuance (sudur) from Him would be possible, and this concomitant (lazim) is false because it results in impudence (safah) if He knows the ugliness of this and its dispensability, and in ignorance if He is not knowing. The response is: we do not concede the ugliness of a thing in relation to Him, how [can we accept this] when He is in complete control of His kingdom? And if it [i.e. ugliness in relation to Him] is conceded, Power over it does not negate the impossibility of its issuance from Him, by consideration of the presence of disposal and the absence of need, even if it is possible (mumkinan).” End [quote from Sharh al-Maqasid], in summary-form.

(3) It says in al-Musayarah and its commentary Al-Musamarah by ‘Allamah al-Muhaqqiq Kamal ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi and his student Ibn Abi l-Sharif al-Maqdisi al-Shafi’i (Allah Most High have mercy on them), the text of which is:

“Then he i.e. the author of Al-’Umdah said, ‘Allah (Exalted is He) is not described with Power over oppression, impudence and falsehood because the impossible is not included in [His] Power, i.e. it is improper for it to pertain to them. According to the Mu’tazilah, He (Exalted is He) is Able over all that but does not do [them].’” End quote from Al-’Umda.

“It appears as though he altered that which he transmitted from the Mu’tazilah, since there is no doubt that the absence of power over what was mentioned, is the madhhab of the Mu’tazilah. As for its presence, i.e. power over what was mentioned, and then abstention from pertaining to them by choice, to the madhhab, i.e. it is to the madhhab of the Ash’aris, more fitting than it is to the madhhab of the Mu’tazilah. It is obvious that this more fitting [position] is also included in transcendence, since there is no doubt that abstention therefrom i.e. from those things mentioned of oppression, impudence and falsehood, is from the matter of transcendence, from that which does not befit the majesty of His Holiness (Exalted is He).

“Hence, it should be understood by the foregone premise, i.e. the intellect understands, which of the two views are more excessive in transcendence from indecencies: is it power over it, i.e. what was mentioned from the three matters, along with impossibility, i.e. His abstention from it by choosing that abstention; or its impossibility from Him because of the absence of power over it? It is incumbent to rely on the more inclusive of the two statements in transcendence, which is the statement more fitting to the madhhab of the Ash’aris.” End [quote from al-Musamarah].

(4) In Hawashi al-Kalnabwi ‘ala Sharh al-’Aqa’id al-Adudiyyah by Al-Muhaqqiq al-Dawwani (Allah Most High have mercy on them) [it is mentioned], the text of which is:

“In sum, lying being ugly in the uttered-speech (al-kalam al-lafzi), in the sense that it is an attribute of deficiency, is prohibited according to the Ash’aris. That is why Al-Sharif al-Muhaqqiq (al-Jurjani) said it is from the totality of the possibilities (mumkinat), and acquiring decisive knowledge of its non-occurrence in His speech by consensus of the scholars and the Prophets (upon them be peace) does not negate its intrinsic possibility like all decisive knowledge of normal occurrences (al-’ulum al-’adiya) and it does not negate what Imam al-Razi said,” to the end.

(5) In Tahrir al-Usul by the author of Fath al-Qadir, Imam ibn al-Humam, and its commentary by Ibn Amir al-Hajj (Allah Most High have mercy on them) [they say], the text of which is:

“Therefore - i.e. since whatever is conceived as a deficiency is impossible for Him - the decisiveness of the impossibility of attributing Him - i.e. Allah (Exalted is He) - with lying and the like of it (Transcendent is He beyond that) becomes apparent. Also, if His act being attributed with ugliness was possible, confidence in the integrity of His promise, the integrity of His speech besides it - i.e. [besides] His (Exalted is He) promise - and the integrity of His Prophets would disappear - i.e. in principle, His integrity would be uncertain.

“According to the Ash’aris, He (Exalted is He) is certainly not attributed with ugly acts, but they are not rationally impossible, like all of creation. [This is] just like all the sciences in which one of two opposites being the reality is certain, but the other is not impossible, if it were assumed that it is the reality; just like the certainty of Mecca and Baghdad - i.e. their existence - since their non-existence is not rationally impossible. Therefore - i.e. when the matter is such - confidence [in the integrity of His word] disappearing is not necessitated because the possibility of something rationally does not necessitate not having firm resolve of its non-existence.

“The running dispute regarding the rational impossibility and possibility of this applies to all deficiencies - is Allah’s power over it absent or is it, i.e. the deficiency, contained in it, i.e. His Power? He will certainly not do it, i.e. the absolutely decisive condition is the deficiency will not be performed,” to the end.

Similar [statements] to what we quoted from the madhhab of the Ash’aris were mentioned by Al-Qadi al-’Adud in Sharh Mukhtasar al-Usul and the commentators on it. Similar [statements] to it are found in Sharh al-Mawaqif and the marginalia to Al-Mawaqif by Al-Chalabi, and others. Similarly, ‘Allamah al-Qushji in Sharh al-Tajrid, Al-Qunawi and others explicated this. We avoided quoting their texts fearing prolixity and tedium. Allah has charge of right guidance and right direction.

Al-Muhannad ‘ala l-Mufannad ya’ni ‘Aqa’id ‘Ulama Ahl al-Sunnah Deoband, pp. 70-84

Endorsements

In a treatise endorsing the contents of Al-Muhannad, Shaykh Sayyid Ahmad ibn Isma’il al-Barzanji (d. 1337 H/1919 CE), Mufti of the Shafi’is in Madinah, wrote:

“After reading this satisfactory explanation and your comprehension of it with a sound and adequate understanding, you will know that that which the learned scholar Shaykh Khalil Ahmad mentioned in answers 23, 24 and 25 [of Al-Muhannad 'ala l-Mufannad], is a well-known opinion in many of the reliable widely-circulating books of the late kalam-scholars, like Al-Mawaqif, al-Maqasid, Shuruh al-Tajrid, Al-Musayarah etc. The upshot of the answers which Shaykh Khalil Ahmad mentioned in accordance with the said kalam-scholars, of Allah’s capacity to contradict [His] promise, warning and truthful statement in the uttered-speech (al-kalam al-lafzi), necessitates, according to them, an intrinsic possibility (al-imkan al-dhati) [of falsehood] while [having] resolve and certainty of its non-occurrence. This much does not necessitate kufr, obstinacy, or bid’ah in the religion, or corruption. How [can it necessitate these], when you are aware that the kalam-scholars we mentioned agree with it, as you have seen in the speech of al-Mawaqif and its commentary which we just quoted? Thus, Shaykh Khalil Ahmad does not come out of the domain of their speech.” (Quoted in al-Muhannad ‘ala l-Mufannad, pp. 119-20)

Shaykh Ahmad ibn Muhammad Kharyr al-Shinqiti al-Maliki al-Madani wrote in his endorsement:

“In regards to the issue of [Allah's] speech in section 25, I say: disagreement regarding this question is well-known. Discussion about such an issue should not be had with the innovators. As for the Ustadh (Shaykh Khalil Ahmad), he has undoubtedly quoted from the speech of the Ahl al-Sunnah, and whenever someone quotes from the speech of the Ahl al-Sunnah in whatever matter, he is on right guidance.” (Quoted in Al-Muhannad ‘ala l-Mufannad, p. 127)

Since al-Lakhnawi was one of those who endorsed Mawlana Qasim Nanotwi's Tahdhir al-Nas, I felt it would serve as a useful and comprehensive introduction to the subject from a recognised muhaddith and faqih.

The complex and rigorous nature of the analysis should also serve as a warning and example to those who make hasty conclusions in the science of hadith based on little knowledge and without a grounding in the principles of hadith.]

[Introduction]

Praise to the One Who created earths and heavens and divided them into seven strata, and thanks to the One Who made them inhabitable by jinn, men and Angels and others of the creatures. I bear testimony that there is no deity but He, Him Alone having no partner, transcendent beyond genus and directions, and I bear testimony that our master Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger, the chief of the sons of Adam, the best of creatures, Allah bless him, the most excellent of blessings and the purest of greetings, and his family and his companions.

To proceed:

The one whose only manual work is the acquisition of sins, and only profession is the perpetuation of misdeeds, the one hopeful of the pardon of his Lord, Possessor of Grace and Bestowals, Abu ‘l-Hasanat Muhammad ‘Abd al-Hayy, the Lakhnawi by homeland, the Hanafi by madhhab, the Ansari and Ayyubi by lineage, the son of the ocean, full of treasures, and the rain, pouring forth, Mawlana Hafiz Muhammad ‘Abd al-Halim (Allah admit him into the Abode of Bliss), says:

This is a beneficial treatise and a comprehensive work on the verification of the athar of Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with him and obviate from him every objection), which was cited in the explanation of His (Exalted is He) statement, “Allah is He who created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof” (65:12) as “Seven earths: In every earth is a prophet like your Prophet, an Adam like your Adam, a Nuh like your Nuh, an Ibrahim like your Ibrahim and an ‘Isa like your ‘Isa”. [The treatise] is called Zajr al-Nas ‘ala Inkari Athar ibn ‘Abbas (Reprimanding Men for Denying the Athar of Ibn ‘Abbas).

I adopted a moderate path in this [verification], avoiding the rejectionist position (ifrat) of one group and the excess (tafrit) of another group, since one group strove to negate the cited athar and ruled it to be weak and forged and similar [terms] which invalidate assertions, and another group inclined to strengthening it from the perspective of isnad and explained it with explanations leading to corruption. I was not satisfied, neither with this [group] nor with that [group]. Rather, I preferred a middle-path between them. Before this, I had written a treatise on this subject, which I called Al-Ayat al-Bayyinat ‘ala Wujud al-Anbiya’ fi l-Tabaqat (Clear Evidences on the Existence of Prophets in the Strata), and another which I called Dafi’ al-Waswas fi Athar ibn ‘Abbas (Repelling Whispers about the Athar of Ibn ‘Abbas) and both of them are in the Urdu language. This is a third treatise in Arabic, the language of the inhabitants of the Garden, arranged into two chapters in order to verify the objectives as two principles. I ask Allah to make it purely for His Noble Countenance. Verily, He is the Possessor of an All-Encompassing Grace.

Chapter One: On the citation of those who spoke against the cited athar along with what is against them

Know that the sons of the time have gone into excess in the rejection of the cited athar, and justified this in many ways, all of which are like scattered dust.

[Authentication of the Isnad]

Thus, some said: the sanad of this athar is defective (majruh) and those that are objectionable (maqduh) are amongst its narrators.

I say: its narrators are trustworthy in the correct view, and its sanad was authenticated (sahhaha) by a group of the scholars of authentication (arbab al-tashih), while a group of the scholars of assessment (arbab al-tarjih) remained silent about it. Thus, its rejection is not a sound opinion.

Hence, [it is mentioned] in the Mustadrak of Hafiz Abu ‘Abdullah al-Hakim:

Ahmad ibn Ya’qub al-Thaqafi narrated to us: ‘Ubayd ibn Ghannam narrated to us: ‘Ali ibn Hakim narrated to us: Sharik narrated to us: from ‘Ata: from Abu l-Duha: from Ibn ‘Abbas [that] he said in regards to His (Exalted is He) statement “and of the earth the like thereof”: “Seven earths: In every earth is a prophet like your Prophet, an Adam like your Adam, a Nuh like your Nuh, an Ibrahim like your Ibrahim and an ‘Isa like your ‘Isa.” This is a hadith with a sahih isnad.

‘Ubaydullah narrated to us: Ibrahim ibn al-Husayn narrated to us: Adam narrated to us: from Shu’bah: from ‘Amr ibn Murrah: from Abu l-Duha: from Ibn ‘Abbas [that] he said: “In every earth is the like of Ibrahim.” This hadith is [sahih] according to the criteria of Al-Bukhari and Muslim. End

[It is mentioned] in al-Durr al-Manthur of Al-Suyuti:

Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Hakim who authenticated it (sahhahahu), Al-Bayhaqi in Shu’ab al-Iman and in Kitab al-Asma wa l-Sifat, transmitted through the route of Abu-Duha from Ibn ‘Abbas [that he said]: “Seven earths: In every earth is a prophet like your Prophet, an Adam like your Adam, a Nuh like your Nuh, an Ibrahim like your Ibrahim and an ‘Isa like your ‘Isa.” Al-Bayhaqi said: its isnad is sahih, but at the same time it is shadh (isolated), as I do not know of one who followed up Abu l-Duha on this. End

[It is mentioned] in Ajwiba li ‘l-As’ilah by Al-Zurqani:

Questions 45 and 46: Does the earth have seven strata like the heaven, and are there creations of Allah therein? Answer: Allah said, “and of the earth the like thereof” and He said in another verse, “Do you not see how Allah created seven heavens in strata?” (71:15), so it is understood that it is the strata that are meant in the first verse, even if they are not mentioned [explicitly], so the likeness of the earth is in this [manner]. Ibn Hajr said: this is proven by what Ibn Jarir narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas who said in regards to “and of the earth the like thereof”, “in every earth is the like of Ibrahim and the like of whatever is on earth.” This is how he transmitted it in summary-form (mukhtasaran), and its isnad is sahih. Al-Hakim and Al-Bayhaqi transmitted it in extended-form (mutawwalan)  and its wording is “Seven earths: In every earth is a prophet like your Prophet, an Adam like your Adam, a Nuh like your Nuh, an Ibrahim like your Ibrahim and an ‘Isa like your ‘Isa.” Al-Bayhaqi said: Its isnad is sahih, although it is at the same time shadh. End

[It is mentioned] in the 16^th chapter of Akam al-Marjan fi Ahkam al-Jann by Qadi Badr al-Din al-Shibli al-Hanafi, the student of Al-Dhahabi and Al-Mizzi:

The majority of the ‘ulama, successors and predecessors, believed that there was never a messenger from the jinn. Ibn Jarir said: Ibn Humayd narrated to us: Yahya ibn Wadih narrated to us: ‘Ubayd ibn Sulayman narrated to us: he said: Al-Dahhak was asked about the jinn, whether [or not] there was a prophet amongst them before the mission of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)? He replied: Have you not heard the statement of Allah, “O ye assembly of jinn and humankind! Came there not unto you messengers of your own who recounted unto you My signs and warned you of the meeting of this day of yours?” (6:130), meaning by that messengers from mankind and messengers from the jinn. Ibn Hazm said: A prophet from mankind was never sent to the jinn before our Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and [before him] prophets would be sent to their people. He said: we know with certainty that they would warn [each other], so [the view] that prophets from themselves came to them is a sound [opinion].

I say: that which al-Dahhak said is proven by what Al-Hakim narrated, where he said: Ahmad ibn Ya’qub al-Thaqafi narrated to us: ‘Ubayd ibn Ghannam narrated to us: ‘Ali ibn Hakim narrated to us: Sharik narrated to us: from ‘Ata: from Abu l-Duha: from Ibn ‘Abbas [that] he said in regards to His (Exalted is He) statement “and of the earth the like thereof”: “Seven earths: In every earth is a prophet like your Prophet, an Adam like your Adam, a Nuh like your Nuh, an Ibrahim like your Ibrahim and an ‘Isa like your ‘Isa.” Our teacher Al-Dhahabi said its isnad is hasan. I say: it has a corroborative report (shahid). Al-Hakim said: ‘Abdullah ibn al-Hasan narrated to us: Ibrahim ibn al-Husayn narrated to us: Adam narrated to us: Shu’bah narrated to us: from ‘Amr ibn Murrah: from Abu l-Duha: from Ibn ‘Abbas [that] he said in regards to His (Exalted is He) statement, “He created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof”: “in every earth is the like of Ibrahim”. Our teacher, Al-Dhahabi said: this hadith is [sahih] according to the criteria of Al-Bukhari and Muslim, and its narrators are imams. End

[It is mentioned] in the tafsir of Al-’Imad ibn Kathir of His statement, “and of the earth the like thereof”:

I.e. seven also, as established in the two Sahihs, “Whoever usurps even one span of the land of somebody, his neck will be encircled with it down the seven earths.” Whoever interprets [it to mean] seven regions has missed the point, fallen into disputation and contradicted the Qur’an and hadith without support. Mention of the seven earths, and the distance between them and the density of each of them being five hundred years, has passed in Surah al-Hadid upon His statement, “He is the First and the Last”. This was what Ibn Mas’ud and others said.

Likewise, another hadith [mentions]: “The seven heavens: all that is therein and all that is between them, in respect to the footstool (kursi), is not but like a ring lying in the wilderness.” Ibn Jarir said: ‘Amr ibn ‘Ali narrated to us: Waki’ narrated to us: from Al-A’mash: from Ibrahim ibn Muhajir: from Mujahid: from Ibn ‘Abbas [that] he said in regards to His (Exalted is He) statement, “and of the earth the like thereof”, “Had I narrated to you its explanation, you would have disbelieved, and your disbelief is your denial of it.” Ibn Humayd narrated to us: Ya’qub ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d al-Qummi al-Ash’ari narrated to us: from Ja’far ibn Abi l-Mughirah al-Khuza’i: from Sa’id ibn Jubayr: he said: A man asked Ibn ‘Abbas [about the verse], “and of the earth the like thereof” and he said, “what will save you from disbelieving if I inform you?” Ibn Jarir said: ‘Amr ibn ‘Ali and Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna narrated to us: Muhammad ibn Ja’far narrated to us: Shu’bah narrated to us: from ‘Amr ibn Murrah: from Abu l-Duha: from Ibn ‘Abbas [that] he said in regards to this verse, “in every earth is the like of Ibrahim and the like of whatever is on the earth from creation.” Al-Bayhaqi narrated this athar from Ibn ‘Abbas in Kitab al-Asma wa l-Sifat in more detail than this narration; he said: Abu ‘Abdullah al-Hafiz narrated to us: Ahmad ibn Ya’qub narrated to us: ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Ghannam al-Nakha’i narrated to us: ‘Ali ibn Hakim narrated to us: Sharik narrated to us: from ‘Ata ibn al-Sa’ib: from Abu l-Duha: from Ibn ‘Abbas that he said, “‘and of the earth the like thereof’: seven earths, in every earth is a prophet like your Prophet, an Adam like your Adam, a Nuh like your Nuh, an Ibrahim like your Ibrahim and an ‘Isa like your ‘Isa.” Moreover, Al-Bayhaqi narrated it from the hadith of Shu’bah ibn ‘Amr ibn Murrah from Abu l-Duha from Ibn ‘Abbas [that] he said, “In every earth is the like of Ibrahim.” Then al-Bayhaqi said, “the isnad of this from ibn ‘Abbas is sahih, though it is at the same time shadh, I do not know of one who followed up Abu l-Duha on this, and Allah knows best.” End

[It is mentioned] in the tafsir of Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Shawkani called Fath al-Qadir:

“Allah is He who created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof” i.e. He created of the earth the like of them i.e. seven. The modality of the strata of the earth has been disputed. Al-Qurtubi said in his tafsir: they were differed over, according to two views: first, and this is the view of the majority, they are seven strata each above the other, and between each earth and the next earth is the distance that is between the heaven and the earth, and in every earth are inhabitants from Allah’s creation. Al-Dahhak said that they are layered one on top of the other without separation unlike the heavens. The first is sounder because the reports in Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa’i and others indicate this.

“The command descends between them” (65:12), the command is revelation. Mujahid said: the command descends from the seven heavens to the seven earths. Al-Hasan [al-Basri] said: between every heaven and earth.

‘Abd ibn Humayd and ibn al-Mundhir transmitted through the route of Sa’id ibn Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbas that a man asked him [about the verse], “Allah is He who created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof” and Ibn ‘Abbas said, “what will save you from disbelieving if I inform you?” Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Hakim and Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Shu’ab transmitted through the route of Abu l-Duha from Ibn ‘Abbas [that] he said in regards to His (Exalted is He) statement “and of the earth the like thereof”: “Seven earths: in every earth is a prophet like your prophet, an Adam like your Adam, a Nuh like your Nuh, an Ibrahim like your Ibrahim and an ‘Isa like your ‘Isa.” Al-Bayhaqi said: this isnad is sahih and it is shadh at the same time, I do not know of one who followed up Abu l-Duha on this. End

[It is mentioned] in Takhrij Ahadith Sharh al-Mawaqif by Al-Suyuti:

Al-Hakim narrated in Al-Mustadrak from Ibn ‘Abbas [that] he said in regards to His (Exalted is He) statement, “Allah is He who created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof”: “Seven earths: In every earth is a prophet like your Prophet, an Adam like your Adam, a Nuh like your Nuh, an Ibrahim like your Ibrahim and an ‘Isa like your ‘Isa” and he said “sahih“. End

[It is mentioned] in Fath al-Bari by Hafiz ibn Hajr al-’Asqalani:

Al-Dawudi said in regards to His (Exalted is He) statement, “and of the earth the like thereof”: “In it is an indication that the earths are one on top of the other, and it was transmitted from some scholastic theologians (mutakallimin) that the likeness is specifically in regards to number, and that the seven are juxtaposed [i.e. not separated by a large distance]; Ibn al-Tin related from some of them that the earth is one. He said: this is rejected by the Qur’an and Sunnah.

I say: probably this [the view that the earth is one] is the view of juxtaposition, for otherwise it will be in clear opposition [to the Qur'an and Sunnah]. The apparent view is proven by that which Ibn Jarir narrated through the route of Shu’bah from ‘Amr ibn Murrah from Abu l-Duha from Ibn ‘Abbas [that] he said with regards to His (Exalted is He) statement “and of the earth the like thereof”: “in every earth is the like of Ibrahim, and the like of whatever is on the earth of creation.” This is how he transmitted it in summary-form and its isnad is sahih. Al-Bayhaqi transmitted it through the route of ‘Ata from Abu l-Duha in extended-form and its wording is: “Seven earths: in every earth is an Adam like your Adam, a Nuh like your Nuh, an Ibrahim like your Ibrahim, an ‘Isa like your ‘Isa and a prophet like your Prophet.” Al-Bayhaqi said its isnad is sahih, although it is shadh. The apparent [meaning] of His (Exalted is He) statement, “and of the earth the like thereof,” refutes the view of the astronomers that there is no distance between one earth and another earth. Ahmad and Al-Tirmidhi narrated from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah in marfu’ form: “between one heaven and the [next] heaven is five hundred years and between one earth and the [next] earth is five hundred years.” Ishaq ibn Rahwayh and Al-Bazzar transmitted it from the hadith of Abu Dharr in like manner. End, in summary-form.

Ponder over the speech of these luminaries, and the strength of the cited athar will become clear to you. It has been narrated in summary-form and in extended-form and one corroborates the other and strongly supports it. As for the summary-form, Al-Hakim said about it, “this hadith is [sahih] according to the criteria of Al-Bukhari and Muslim,” and Al-Dhahabi agreed with him. Al-’Asqalani ruled that its isnad is sahih. Al-Zurqani and Al-Shibli remained silent about it. As for the extended-form, Al-Hakim ruled it to be sahih and Al-Dhahabi agreed with him, although he faulted it with being shadh, but you will soon learn that here this [i.e. being shadh] is not a faulty defect (‘illa); Al-Suyuti remained silent about it and Al-Dhahabi ruled it to be hasan, and Al-Shibli remained silent about as did Al-Suyuti in Laqat al-Marjan fi Akhbar al-Jann. Of that which attests to it being acceptable as proof is that Al-’Asqalani, Al-Shibli and Al-Suyuti mentioned it in the context of proof, so let that be understood.

[The Laxity of Al-Hakim]

If you say: a group of muhaddithin have clarified that the authentication (tashih) of Al-Hakim by himself is invalid because he is from the mutasahilin (those lax in authentication), since there are many da’if hadiths that he authenticated and many mawdu’ hadiths that he transmitted. I say: granted, but Al-Bayhaqi and Al-Dhahabi agreed with him in its authentication and they are sufficient for you as an example [to follow] and to have confidence [in its authenticity].

[The Difference between Sahih and Hasan]

If somebody argues: Al-Dhahabi did not authenticate it, he declared it hasan, and there is a difference between hasan and sahih. We say to him: this is a difference the late-scholars (muta’akhkhirin) were infatuated by. As for the early-scholars (mutaqaddimin), many of them did not distinguish between them as different grades, rather they generalised authentication (tashih), and this is the apparent practice of Al-Hakim in his books, as mentioned by Al-Suyuti in Tadrib al-Rawi Sharh Taqrib al-Nawawi and [as mentioned by] others in other [books]. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the authentication (tashih) of Al-Hakim and Al-Bayhaqi, and Al-Dhahabi declaring [it to be] hasan. In sum, Al-Hakim is not alone in ruling it to be sahih, such that this ruling upon it is dependent [solely] on him, rather others agreed with him and walked his path.

[The Confusion (ikhtilat) of 'Ata ibn al-Sa'ib]

If you say: how is the extended-form of the athar sahih when one of its narrators is ‘Ata ibn al-Sa’ib, and it is mentioned that he became confused (mukhtalitan) and, according to a transmission from Al-Nawawi in Sharh Sahih Muslim, Yahya ibn Ma’in mentioned that all who narrated from ‘Ata narrated from him in his state of confusion, except Shu’bah and Sufyan, and it is known to the experts of this field that whoever narrates from a confused [narrator] after his confusion, his narration is not proof, so how can the narration of Sharik from him be from that which is depended upon? I say: that which Al-Nawawi quoted from Yahya is only in accordance to what he [i.e. Yahya ibn Ma'in] discovered, for otherwise a group of the muhaddithin have mentioned in their books that [those] other than Shu’bah and Sufyan narrated from him before [his] confusion.

Hafiz ‘Abd al-Azim al-Mundhiri said in Kitab al-Targhib wa l-Tarhib:

‘Ata ibn al-Sa’ib al-Thaqafi: Ahmad said, “trustworthy and a pious man; those who heard from him in the early-period, [his narration] is authentic, and those who heard from him in the late-period, [his narration] is nothing, and the narrations of Shu’bah, Al-Thawri and Hammad ibn Zayd from him are good”. End

Hafiz ibn Hajr mentioned in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib and in the introduction to Fath al-Bari that amongst those who narrated from him before [his] confusion were Zuhayr, Za’idah, Shu’bah, Hammad ibn Zayd, Ayyub and others. Some of them transmitted from Tahdhib al-Kamal by Al-Mizzi [that] those who heard from him in the early period before he changed were Shu’bah, Sharik and Hammad. It is clear, therefore, that the confusion of Al-Sa’ib does not violate [the athar's] use as proof and, hereof, none of the muhaddithin faulted it, even Al-Dhahabi, who authored a book censuring the lax [authentications] of Al-Hakim; rather, all of them mentioned it in the context of proof, [based] on [the belief that] even if it is accepted [that] Sharik is not from the early narrators, there is still no defect according to these compilers, because the narration of Ibn Jarir in summary-form is a sahih corroborative report (shahid), and this hadith with the existence of a corroborative report becomes strong.

[Is it a Forgery by Al-Waqidi?]

If you say some of them mentioned from Hashiyat al-Madarik by Mulla Ilah Dad: “As for what is transmitted from Ibn ‘Abbas that ‘in every earth…,’ it is from the narration of Al-Waqidi, the liar, and the forger of hadith.” End. What is the response to this? I say: the paths which Ibn Hajar, Al-Shibli and Al-Suyuti transmitted and Al-Hakim, Al-Bayhaqi and Al-Dhahabi ruled to be sahih or hasan do not contain Al-Waqidi, so if he was in one path from amongst its paths, it does not harm what we were just discussing, because the weakness of one path from amongst its paths does not entail the unsoundness of its origin. Furthermore, in regards to Al-Waqidi, although a group of muhaddithin criticised him, he was declared trustworthy (thiqah) by a group of the verifiers like Ya’qub ibn Abi Shaybah, Abu Bakr al-Sana’i, Mus’ab al-Zubayri, Yazid ibn Harun and others, as elaborated by Fath al-Din Muhammad ibn Sayyid al-Nas in his book ‘Uyun al-Athar fi Funun al-Maghazi al-Siyar in a lengthy discussion.

[Acceptable and Unacceptable Types of Shadh Narrations]

If you say: how can the cited athar be sahih, despite being shadh, and shudhudh (isolation) negates its sihhah (authenticity) because [sihhah] has the condition of being free from shudhudh as the eminent [muhaddithin] explicated? I say: although many of the children of the time have been misled by this, it is invalid (ghayr mu’tabar) according to the scholars of the field, as it has been stipulated by them that not every shadh and munkar are unacceptable, rather from them are those that are acceptable. There are two types of shudhudh: unacceptable shududh which is the one whose absence is a condition for sihhah; and an acceptable shudhudh which does not negate sihhah. This is clear in what Zayn al-’Iraqi said in Sharh Alfiyat al-Hadith:

The people of knowledge have differed over the hadith which has the quality of shudhudh. Al-Shafi’i said, “Shadh is not that a trustworthy [narrator] narrates that which others did not narrate; shadh is that which a trustworthy [narrator] narrates in opposition to the people.” Abu Ya’la al-Khalili related a similar [statement] from a group of the people of Hijaz. Al-Hakim said, “it is a hadith in which a trustworthy [narrator] amongst trustworthy [narrators] is alone [in narrating] it (yatafarradu bihi).” Hence, al-Hakim did not make opposition of the people a condition.

Abu Ya’la al-Khalili said, “that which the huffaz (memorisers of hadith) are [agreed] upon is that shadh is that [narration] which does not have but one isnad in which one or two trustworthy [narrators] are isolated; so that which is not [narrated by a] trustworthy [narrator] is abandoned and unacceptable and that which is from a trustworthy [narrator], [judgement] about it is withheld and it is not used as proof.” Hence, Al-Khalili did not make the aloneness of a trustworthy [narrator] a condition in shadh, rather [he considered shadh to be] aloneness in general.

Ibn al-Salah refuted what Al-Hakim and Al-Khalili said about the sahih [narration in which] trustworthy [narrators] are alone [in narrating it]. Thus, Ibn al-Salah said, “As for that which Al-Shafi’i ruled to be shadh, there is no doubt that it is unacceptable shadh and as for that which we related from others, it is problematic in regards to what [was narrated] by a righteous and precise hafiz, like the hadith ‘actions are by intentions.’ Clearer than this on this [subject] is the hadith of ‘Abdullah ibn Dinar from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade selling and making a gift of the right of inheritance of a slave. ‘Abdullah ibn Dinar was alone in [narrating] it. [Similarly,] the hadith of Malik from Al-Zuhri from Anas that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) entered Makkah with a helmet on his head. Malik was alone in [narrating] it from Al-Zuhri. All of these were transmitted in the two Sahihs despite having only one isnad, in which a trustworthy [narrator] was alone in [narrating]. Muslim said ‘Al-Zuhri has seventy unique [narrations] which he narrated from the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), none shared with him in [narrating] it with good chains’”. He [i.e. Ibn al-Salah] continued, “So this and other [statements] we mentioned from the imams of hadith make clear to you that the issue here is not absolute, as Al-Khalili and Al-Hakim professed, rather the issue here is according to an elaboration we will explain. Thus, we say: when a narrator narrates something it is to be examined. If it opposes that which another, whose memory of that is better and [who is] more accurate, narrated, that which he was alone in [narrating] is shadh and rejected; and if it does not oppose that which others narrated, but it is a matter that he narrated that others did not narrate, and his proficiency (itqan) and accuracy (dabt) was certain apart from his aloneness in [narrating] it, and his aloneness in [narrating] it is not defective, [then it is sahih]; and if he is not from those whose memory and proficiency is certain for that which he was alone in [narrating], his aloneness in [narrating] it is a cause for its exclusion from the boundary of sahih; moreover, after that, it moves between varying levels, so if the one who is alone in [narrating] it is not far from the level of an acceptable and precise hafiz, his aloneness would be [a cause for it to be] deemed a hasan hadith, and if far from that, we reject that which he was alone in [narrating], and it is from the rejected [type of] shadh.” End

Al-Qadi Badr ibn Jama’ah mentioned in his Mukhtasar after transmitting the statement of Ibn al-Salah, “This is a brilliant elaboration.” End. [It is mentioned] in Im’an al-Nazr Sharh Nukhbat al-Fikar by Akram ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman, “Examining the sources for their use of [the terms] munkar and shadh reveals that [the terms] munkar and shadh do not imply that the hadith transmission is rejected.” End

Once this has been established for you, we say: that which we are [discussing] here does not have shudhudh, but because of Abu l-Duha Muslim ibn Sabih being alone in narrating it. He is trustworthy himself and his narration does not conflict with the narration of one stronger than him. Hence, the shudhudh here is not the rejected [type of] shudhudh that negates the authenticity [of the narration], rather it is acceptable. Hereof, Al-Dhahabi declared it hasan and Al-Bayhaqi and Al-Hakim authenticated it (sahhahahu). Why not, when had the shudhudh therein negated the authenticity, there would be a clear contradiction in Al-Bayhaqi ruling it to be sahih and shadh?

In sum, there is no doubt that the sanad of this cited athar is sahih or hasan, even if it is shadh. Whoever doubts this is ignorant of what the imams explicated and has opposed what many luminaries treaded upon. Why not, when the shudhudh that negates authenticity is not absolute, rather one category thereof, and that is the unacceptable shudhudh, not the acceptable [one], as Al-Suyuti said in Tadrib al-Rawi under the statement of Al-Nawawi in the definition of “sahih“, “without shudhudh or ‘illah (defect)”:

It was said: his intention behind shudhudh here is not clear. Three views were mentioned in regards to its categorisation: the opposition of a trustworthy [narrator] of one who is weightier [in narration]; generally, a trustworthy [narrator] being alone [in narrating a hadith]; generally, a narrator [trustworthy or not] being alone [in narrating a hadith]. Apparently he [i.e. Al-Nawawi] meant the first. End

Al-Sakhawi said in Fath al-Mughith bi Sharh Alfiyat al-Hadith in the discussion about sahih, that “they explained shudhudh whose absence is a condition here as the opposition of a narrator in his narration of one weightier than him, when explaining how to reconcile two narrations.” End

Thereby it is clear, [as] the clarity of the sun in the middle of the sky, that those who dispute the athar we are [discussing] here because of its shudhudh, have confused the unacceptable with the acceptable. Hence, his opinion is rejected and unacceptable, whoever he may be, because he opposes the testimony of clear evidence. Thus, one should look to what he said, not look to the one who said it.

[The Authenticity or Unauthenticity of Ibn 'Abbas's tafsir]

Hereof, the feeble-mindedness of what some of them say that the cited athar was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas in the tafsir of the verse, and they mention that the tafsir transmitted from Ibn ‘Abbas is unreliable because the tafsir of Ibn ‘Abbas narrated through the route of Abu Salih and Al-Kalbi and similar paths are certainly defective, should be clear to you; because all that was transmitted from him about the tafsir [of the Qur'an, was transmitted] through sahih and non-sahih paths, and you are aware that the paths of the athar we are [discussing] here are safe from defect and criticism, so must be acceptable and [sound for] use as proof.

[Its Absence from the Six Widely Circulating Books of Hadith]

Likewise the weakness of the one who says that the cited athar is not mentioned in the six circulating books so cannot be relied upon strongly at all, is clear. That is because the six books do not contain all sahih hadiths and authentication is not dependent on the clarification of the authors of the six [books]. Have you not seen the statement of Ibn Jama’ah in his Mukhtasar:

Al-Bukhari and Muslim did not exhaust all sahih [narrations] in their books. Moreover, it was said: ‘only a little escaped them’, and it was said: ‘rather, many of them escaped them, and only in the five sources did little escape [them]‘ and this [opinion] is more accurate. The meaning of ‘the five sources’ is: the books of Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi and Al-Nasa’i. Additions to them are known to be sahih by the authentication of a reliable imam in reliable books of Sunnah, not by the mere existence of it therein, unless its compiler makes sahih [narrations] a condition [for his compilation] like the book of Ibn Khuzaymah and Abu Bakr al-Barqani. End

[There are] many similar [statements] in the books of the famous imams.

[Summary Regarding the Objections to the Authenticity of the Hadith]

It may be summarised from all of this that the sanad of the athar is sahih or hasan and is not harmed by: Al-Hakim being from the mutasahilin; the confusion of one of its narrators; the criticism of some of its paths and its shudhudh; the weakness of some of the paths of the tafsir of Ibn ‘Abbas; and the absence of it transmission in the six books.

These are the six reasons which misled many of the ‘ulama in our time, and they believed them to be decisive proofs for the rejection of the disputed athar, and that which every one of them has [of fallacies] is clear to you. None of them should be paid any attention to, let alone any of them being a decisive proof or clear evidence.

[Objections to the Athar being Suitable for Proof]

There remain other reasons they substantiate for it being unsuitable for use as proof, and for those who know the paths of the hadith and have excelled [in their knowledge] of the books of Usul al-Fiqh and Hadith, [know that] all of these [reasons] are contested.

[Solitary Reports (akhbar al-ahad) in Creed ('aqidah)]

From these [reasons] is the statement of some of them that it [i.e. the athar] is from the solitary reports (akhbar al-ahad), and this kind [of report] is not acceptable in beliefs (bab al-i’tiqad). You know what this has [of fallacies]: if he means by the unacceptability of khabar al-ahad in matters of belief that it does not impart certainty and decisiveness, he is correct, but there is no need for certainty here, since those who use this athar as proof and use it to establish the existence of prophets in the strata of the earths, do not rule it to be decisive and certain such that its denier is a kafir, and its rejecter is an obstinate. How so, when a general belief is sufficient for belief in the Prophets, and there is no need for a detailed belief? This is for the highest stratum, so what is your opinion about those lower than it?

If he means that it has absolutely no consideration in matters of belief, and it is not used as proof, neither decisively nor speculatively, this is incorrect according to the scholars of assessment. How so, when the ‘ulama argued over the prophethood of Dhul Qarnayn, Khidar, Tubba’, Asiyah, Maryam and others, and every side substantiated probabilistic proofs and solitary reports in support of their claim? Rather, most of what Muslims believe with regards to the conditions of the Afterlife, of the details of the resurrection, the judgement, the scales, the bridge and other well-known points [of belief], they are not established but by solitary reports. Hence, if solitary reports were disregarded completely, belief in the aforementioned matters would be incorrect.

[Its Conflict with a Hadith]

From these [reasons] is the statement of some of them that the cited athar conflicts with what Abu Ya’la transmitted from Jabir that Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was asked about what is below the earth, and he said “water”; it was said “then, what is below water?” He said “darkness”; it was said “what is below the darkness?” He said “wind”; it was said “what is below the wind?” He said “soil”; it was said “what is below soil?” He said “knowledge of creatures discontinues at the knowledge of the Creator.” Thus, this marfu’ hadith confirms that the knowledge of what is below the soil is withheld from people, so how can the report of Ibn ‘Abbas be reliable? The invalidity of this [argument] is not hidden to you, since this marfu’ hadith, after [accepting] the authenticity of its sanad and its safety from defects, does not supply but [the information] that the knowledge of creation stops at what is beneath the soil, which is an expression about what is below the earths. This was explicated by the imams of Tafsir. Muhyi al-Sunnah al-Baghawi said in Ma’alim al-Tanzil:

Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Indeed the earths are on the back of a fish, and the fish is in the sea, and the sea is on a green rock, which is on the horn of a bull, and the bull is upon soil and what is below the soil is not known but to Allah.” End

In Jawahir al-Qur’an by Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr al-Razi:

The soil is wet earth which is below the dry earth, and from it [derives] His (Exalted is He) statement “and whatever is beneath the soil” (20:6), and the intent is: whatever is beneath the seventh earth. End

[It is mentioned] in Al-Durr al-Manthur under His (Exalted is He) statement, “and from the earth the like thereof”:

Ibn al-Mundhir transmitted from Ibn Jurayh [that] he said, “It reached me that the width of every earth is the distance of five hundred years, and I was told that the seventh earth is above the soil.” End

[It is mentioned] in Al-Tuhfat al-Saniyyah fi Ajwibat al-As’ilat al-Mardiyya by Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Latif al-Bashishi:

Ibn Abi Hatim transmitted from Ka’b that he was asked what is below this earth and he said “water” and [it was asked] “what is below water?” He said “earth” until he counted seven earths. It was said “what is below the seventh earth?” He said “a rock” and it was said “what is below the rock?” He said “an angel” and it was said “what is below the angel?” He said “a fish whose two sides are hanging from the throne” and it was said “what is below the fish?” and he said “wind and darkness and then knowledge stops.” End

Thus, these kinds of statements prove by the clearest indication that only knowledge below the seventh earth, rather what is below those things mentioned [above], is withheld from people, not the knowledge of what is between the earths, and the athar of Ibn ‘Abbas only gives information about what is between them, not about what is under them. Thus, the [apparent] contradiction is negated with certainty.

[Its Conflict with another Hadith]

From these [reasons] is their statement that it conflicts with the marfu’ hadith in the two Sahihs and other [books]: “Whoever usurps even one span of the land of somebody, his neck will be encircled with it down the seven earths,” because this shows that the lower earths follow this earth in [its] laws, and don’t have their own laws, while the athar which we are [discussing] here indicates that every earth has its own law and creation, and there is no doubt that this athar is lesser in status than that hadith, so the athar is rejected and the hadith is accepted. Its answer is that there is no manner of contradiction between them, because the cited hadith only shows what Allah prepared for one who usurps land on the Day of Recompense, and there is no manner of indication that there is no creation in the strata of the earths, or that all of them are connected, so where is the contradiction?

[Its Conflict with another Hadith]

From these [reasons] is their statement that it contradicts the marfu’ hadith of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr which is narrated in al-Mustadrak and other [books that] he said: Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “Verily [in regards to] the earths, between each earth and the one which follows it is the distance of five hundred years; the second is the prison of wind; the third of them is a stone of Jahannam; the fourth of them is the sulphur of Jahannam; by the One in Whose hand is my soul, therein are valleys of sulphur [and] had mountains been sent [there], they would melt; the fifth of them are the snakes of Jahannam, indeed their mouths are like valleys; and the sixth of them are the scorpions of Jahannam, indeed the least of the scorpions [in size] is like a mule; and the seventh of them is the fire of Jahnannam, and therein is Iblis, chained with iron; so when Allah wants to free him for whatever He wills, He frees him,” since this report informs [us] that in the strata of the earth are snakes, scorpions, winds etc. and the athar of Ibn ‘Abbas informs [us] that therein are accountable creatures and prophets, and there is a difference between them, and when they conflict, the marfu’ [narration] is adopted, and the non-marfu’ [narration] is abandoned.

It is rejected for two reasons: firstly, because contradiction between two hadiths is only realised when they are equal from the perspective of the sanads, and here [they are] not [equal], so there is no [actual conflict]. That is because the athar of Ibn ‘Abbas is sahih or hasan in sanad, and never will a defect be found therein if Allah wills, and those who ruled it be weak, like Al-Nur al-Halabi in Insan al-Hayawan, Al-Qastallani in Irshad al-Sari and Al-Zurqani in Sharh al-Muwatta’ were only misled because of the shudhudh, as is not hidden to one who has studied their statements and immersed himself in their words; and you already know that the shudhudh here is acceptable not rejected, so the ruling of weakness is premised on it not being free of shudhudh; nonetheless they [i.e. Al-Nur al-Halabi, Al-Qastallani and Al-Zurqani] are not from the scholars of authentication, such that they are relied upon in weakening and authentication, while those who authenticated it or declared it hasan like Al-Dhahabi, Al-Hakim, Al-Bayhaqi, etc, are from the scholars of authentication, so can any sane person prefer the statement of that group over this group? Of course not, by Allah. Rather, we bring them down to their levels and we fulfil their due. [This is] in contrast to the hadith of Ibn ‘Amr, since Abu l-Samh Darraj is in its [chain of] narration and he is disputed according to the scholars specialised in proof, as [mentioned] in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib by Hafiz ibn Hajr:

‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad said from his father, “his hadith is munkar“, Al-Darimi said [relating] from Ibn Ma’in, “[he is] trustworthy”, Al-Nasa’i said, “[he is] not strong”, Abu Hatim said, “[there is] weakness in his hadith” and Al-Daraqutni said, “[he is] abandoned”. End, in summary-form.

Hereof, they differed over its ruling, so Al-Hakim ruled it to be sahih, Al-Suyuti said in Takhrij Ahadith Sharh al-Mawaqif, “its sanad is hasan“, Al-Dhahabi ruled it to be munkar, as Al-Suyuti said in al-Durr al-Manthur: “Ibn Abi Hatim and Al-Hakim, who authenticated it, transmitted it and Al-Dhahabi disagreed with him, saying, ‘[it is] munkar.’”

Let not [the comment], “the cited athar is mawquf and the hadith of Ibn ‘Amr is marfu’ and in such a [situation], the marfu’ is given preference” deceive you, as you will come to know that the statement of Ibn ‘Abbas also has the ruling of marfu’.

Secondly, even if we accept that the hadith of Ibn ‘Amr is the same in strength as the athar of Ibn ‘Abbas or stronger than it, there is, nonetheless, no conflict in their meanings, since there is no negation of the existence of accountable individuals in the strata of the earths in the hadith of Ibn ‘Amr, such that it comes into conflict with what is established, rather, it is silent about it, so it is possible that there is a habitation of animals also in the strata below, and for accountable individuals and prophets too, and this is proven by the narration of Ibn Jarir in summary-form as has passed more than once.

[The Objection that it is Ambiguous]

From these [reasons] is the statement of some of them that the athar of Ibn ‘Abbas is ambiguous because it does not explain the manner in which Adam is compared with Adam, Nuh with Nuh etc. and whatever has that status is not accepted. The dimwittedness of this does not escape you because ambiguity (ijmal) is an expression about the hiddenness of meaning, whereby the objective is not realised except by the speaker [himself], as is stated in the mukhtasar [abbreviated] works of the science, and the existence of this meaning in what we are [discussing] here is rejected, because the meaning here is at the peak of clarity, as you will learn. Had only the absence of clarification from the Lawgiver necessitated ambiguity, most of the texts of the Qur’an and hadith would fall within the boundary of problematic passages (mu’dal).

[The Objection that the Phrase "Your Prophet" is Disbelief]

From these [reasons] is the statement of some of them that it is mentioned in the cited athar “a prophet like your Prophet” and the phrase “your Prophet” in respect to our Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is a word of disbelief because it implies he is not the prophet to the speaker, so how can an eminent Companion say this, rather none says this but a humiliated opponent. You can see its weakness and invalidity. My hair stood on end and my chest became perplexed when transmitting it in order to refute it, and were it not for fear of the time-wasting of the ignorant, silence about it would be lighter than refuting it. As for the clear knowledge of this ignorant needy-one, [it is] that this phrase was narrated in many of the books of hadith and the Companions did not see any problem in it, nor those less than them from the ‘ulama of the past and present. Thus, [it is narrated] in Sahih Muslim from Ibn Mas’ud [that] he said, “He who likes to meet Allah tomorrow as a Muslim, he should persevere in observing these prayers, when a call is announced for them, for Allah has laid down for your Prophet the paths of right guidance, and these [prayers] are among the paths of right guidance. If you were to pray in your houses as this man who stays away [from the mosque] and prays in his house, you would abandon the practice of your Prophet, and would go astray.” Hereof, [it was narrated] from ‘Umar [that] he said, “Know that your Prophet has said: Indeed Allah raises by this Book peoples and lowers others.” Hereof, [it was narrated] from Abu Hassan [that] he said, “It was said to Ibn ‘Abbas ‘this matter has spread amongst the people: one who circumambulates the Ka’bah, his circumambulation unties the umrah’; he said ‘[it is] the practice of your Prophet, even if you claim it.’” [It was narrated] in Hilyat al-Awliya’ from Mu’adh [that] he said, “Say not that I have a prayer-place in my house where I pray therein, for indeed if you do that you would have left the practice of your Prophet, and if you leave the practice of your Prophet, you would go astray.” There are many similar [pronouncements], which are famous in the books of reports, so to Allah we complain of the statements of the ignorant, talking of what the sky is ready to burst from and the earth split asunder and the mountains to fall down in ruins, and they think they are from the perfect ones, so upon them is their misfortune and the misfortune of those destroyed by them.

[Its Conflict with the Statement that the Strata are Connected]

From these [reasons] is the statement of some of them that the cited athar is contrary to what some of the perfect ones mention that the strata of the earth are connected not separate, so how is the existence of prophets imaginable therein? You can see that this statement is like the previous one in its invalidity. Does not the ignorant, foolish one know that the separation of the strata and there being between one and the other that which is between one sky and [the next] sky is the position that the majority of the imams of Islam have preferred and great scholars have ruled it to be sahih, and is what the Prophetic reports (upon their speaker the best of prayers and greetings) attest to? As for the statement of the one who says [the earths are] connected, it is rejected, and is not heeded, and the best excuse in his defence is that the reports did not reach him, for otherwise he would not have contradicted them.

If you say: when the strata of the earth are separate, through which path do the rays [of sunlight] reach the inhabitants of the lower strata? I say: there are two views about this: first, that they see the sky from every side of their earth and they gain light therefrom, and this is the statement of those who believe the earth to be flat; second, that Allah created for them a light that they see, and this is the statement of those who believe it to be spherical. Sulayman al-Jamal said this in Hawashi al-Jalalayn as did others. [It is mentioned] in Hawashi Tafsir al-Baydawi by Al-Shihab al-Khafaji:

His statement, “and of the earth the like thereof” in number, is an indication that the earth, like the heaven, has seven separate strata, and this is well-known in the sahih hadiths. It was said they are seven regions. This is not a matter from the immediate necessities of the religion (dururiyat al-din), such that the one who denies it or hesitates about it is anathematised (yukaffaru). That which we believe is that they are seven strata and they have inhabitants from His creation that Allah knows. End

That which would convey [this information] in this context from the statements of the great scholars has passed from us, so one should examine [them].

[The Statement of a Companion in which Ijtihad is not Possible is Equivalent to a Marfu' Hadith]

From these [reasons] is the statement of some of them that the cited athar is not marfu’ to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the statement of a Companion is not proof in such matters with resolve. This is clear sophistry and clear error, since the statement of a Companion in what cannot be deciphered by reason has the ruling of marfu’ and is a proof just like a marfu’ [narration] according to the experts of the science, as Hafiz ibn Hajar said in Sharh Nukhbat al-Fikar:

Whatever a Companion says in which there is no scope for ijtihad, nor does it pertain to a linguistic explanation, nor an uncommon exegesis, like giving information about the events of the past, like the start of creation and information about the Prophets, or the future, like the wars and tribulations before the Day of Resurrection, it is a statement that is equivalent in ruling to a marfu’ [narration]. It has the ruling of marfu’ because his relaying of that entails he was informed of it [himself] since there is no scope of ijtihad therein, and a Companion depends on none but the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace). End

He also said in Kitab al-Nukat ‘ala ibn Salah:

Whatever a Companions says in which there is no scope for ijtihad, like giving information of past events, like the beginning of creation and the stories of Prophets, and about future events, like wars and tribulations, and the description of the Garden and the Fire, and giving information about an action by which a specific reward or a specific punishment is acquired, it has the ruling of marfu’. End

Al-Zayn al-’Iraqi in Sharh Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, Abu Bakr ibn al-’Arabi in his Sharh, al-Fakhr al-Razi in al-Mahsul, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in his Sharh al-Muwatta’ and other [scholars] in their works expressed a similar [view]. Al-Suyuti discussed this at length in Tulu’ al-Thurayya bi Izhari ma kana Khafiyyan. Based on this [principle], the athar which we are [discussing] here, because it pertains to information about the Prophets and the beginning of creation and the like of that of which there is no scope for ijtihad therein, it is regarded as marfu’ not mawquf, so it is a proof without doubt.

Hereof, the statement of those who say that the tafsir of a Companion pertaining to the reason for revelation (sabab al-nuzul) is acceptable and it has the ruling of marfu’ without doubt, but [if] other than that, it is not so according to the scholars of the transmitted sciences, is false, and that is because it conflicts with what the reliable scholars explicated and the trustworthy scholars explained.

[The Difference between Hadith and Athar]

Likewise, the statement of those who say that the disputed athar is not a hadith is clearly invalid. This is because if he means by his statement “it is not a hadith” that it is not marfu’, then you know its invalidity and that it has the ruling of marfu’, and if he means that it is not called hadith in the usage of the scholars of the science, then besides it not being a substantive [objection] in opposition [to the athar], it is not [correct] according to the books of the science. Al-Suyuti said in Tadrib al-Rawi:

Al-Tibi said “Hadith is more inclusive than it being the statement of the Messenger (upon him blessings and peace), [as it includes the statements of] the companion and the successors, their actions and their approvals.” End

[Is it an Israelite Report?]

If you say: all that you have mentioned of the statement of a Companion in what cannot be deciphered by reason having the ruling of marfu’, it is not absolute, rather this is in regards to the statement of a Companion who does not take from the reports of the Israelites and their books; as for the statement of those whose habit this was, then this is not so, as explicated by Al-Zayn al-’Iraqi and Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani. I say: although this is famous in the books of the latter-day scholars, it is not accepted decisively by the verifiers. Consider the discussion of Al-Shams al-Sakhawi in Fath al-Mughith bi Sharh Alfiyat al-Hadith:

Ibn al-’Arabi said in Al-Qabs: “When a Companion uttered a statement, not necessitated by logic, then it is understood to be connected to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and the position of Malik and Abu Hanifah is that it is like the connected (musnad) [report].” End

This is apparent from Al-Shafi’i using the statement of ‘A’ishah, “prayer was prescribed in two cycles, two cycles (rak’atyn rak’atyn)” as proof in the jadid [late school], since he gave it the ruling of marfu’ as there is no scope for personal opinion therein. The clearest evidence is that Abu Hurayrah narrated to Ka’b al-Ahbar the hadith, “A group of Israelites were lost while none knew what they did.” So Ka’b said to him, “You heard this from Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace)?” He said “Yes.” He repeated that [i.e. the question] several times, and Abu Hurayrah said to him, “Do I read the Torah?” Al-Bukhari transmitted in Bad’ al-Khalq in his Sahih.

Our shaykh, Ibn Hajar, said, “In it is [an indication] that Abu Hurayrah did not take from the Ahl al-Kitab and, when a Companion like this gives information of that which there is no scope for personal opinion therein, the hadith has the ruling of marfu’.” End

This demands the restriction of the ruling of marfu’ to its issuance from those who did not take from the Ahl al-Kitab, and our shaykh clarified this in his discussion about the tafsir of a Companion, and his shaykh preceded him in this restriction.

I say: this [view] is questionable. It is farfetched that a Companion characterised by taking from the Ahl al-Kitab would allow relating something from the rulings of Shari’ah in which there is no scope for personal opinion, relying upon that [i.e. the previous scriptures] without citation, despite his knowledge of what has occurred therein [i.e. the previous scriptures] of change and distortion. Hence, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-’As called his manuscript Al-Nabawiyya al-Sadiqah to caution [people] from Al-Sahifah al-Yarmukiyyah which was [written] in order to confuse [people] about the Muhammadan Shari’ah. So, how farfetched it would be for them to [do] that. End

Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari said in Fath al-Baqi Sharh Alfiya al-’Iraqi:

Whatever is transmitted from a Companion and is mawquf upon him, the ruling of that which is not said from personal opinion is marfu’, since there is no place for ijtihad therein, even if taking from Ahl al-Kitab is possible, in good opinion of him. End

Even if we accept that the statement of a Companion does not always have the ruling of marfu’, rather only the statements of those who do not take from the Ahl al-Kitab; and as far as those who take from them are concerned, his speech does not have the ruling of marfu’ even if it is from that which is not deciphered through reason, then it still does not harm us, because Ibn ‘Abbas who narrated the disputed athar, was one of those who repudiated those who took from the Ahl al-Kitab, and would himself avoid the reports of the Ahl al-Kitab, as [mentioned] in Sahih al-Bukhari with his sanad from ‘Ikrimah from him, that he said, “How can you ask the Ahl al-Kitab about their books while you have Allah’s Book which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure and unadulterated form?”  He transmitted with his sanad from ‘Ubayd Allah that ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas said, “O group of Muslims! How can you ask the Ahl al-Kitab about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Beloved contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and unadulterated? Allah has told you that the Ahl al-Kitab have changed some of Allah’s Books, distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith [in reference to Qur'an 2:79]. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that which has been revealed to you.”

[It is mentioned] in Fath al-Mughith by Al-Sakhawi:

‘Umar forbade Ka’b from narrating from that which is [mentioned] in the previous books, saying: “you will certainly leave it, or I will place you in a land of monkeys.” Clearer than this is Ibn ‘Abbas’s prohibition of it even if it agrees with our Book; he said “we have no need for that.” Similarly Ibn Ma’sud and other Companions prohibited such [an act]. End

Hafiz ibn Hajar transmitted in Nata’ij al-Afkar bi Takhriji Ahadith al-Adhkar with his sanad from Ibn ‘Abbas [that] he said, “The talbiya of Musa was ‘I am here, I am here, your slave, and the son of you slave’ and the talbiya of ‘Isa was ‘I am here, I am here, your slave, the son of your slave-girl.’” Then he said:

This is mawquf with a hasan isnad. Al-Bazzar transmitted it in his Musnad and it appears that according to him it has the ruling of marfu’ because Ibn ‘Abbas did not speak from personal opinion and would denounce those who took from the Ahl al-Kitab, as Al-Bukhari transmitted from him. End

So it is clear that there is no doubt about the disputed athar being a proof with the ruling of marfu’, and the dissent of those who disagree, is removed and rejected. Thereby, the invalidity of the reliance of those who rely in this context on the statement of Ibn Kathir in Al-Bidayah in regard to this athar that “it is understood to have been taken from the Israelites if its transmission from Ibn ‘Abbas is sahih, and when this and similar [narrations] are not narrated from an infallible, and its sanad up to him is sahih, it is rejected upon its narrator” is clear.

It was transmitted from him by Al-Sakhawi in Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah and Al-Qastallani in Irshad al-Sari and others in other [works]. That [i.e. its clear invalidity] is because the supposition that the athar we are [discussing] here was taken from the Israelites did not come to the mind of any, as far as we know, besides Ibn Kathir, and he was imitated by those who imitated him, and it is only his supposition without relying on what is verified, and it is refuted by clear texts and shining proofs. Will a sane person reject the text of Al-Bukhari and accept the supposition of Ibn Kathir? From that which refutes him, also, is the statement of Al-Suyuti in Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an:

The Companions transmitted less from the Ahl al-Kitab than the Successors transmitted [from them]. When a Companion has resolve about what he said, how can it be claimed that he took it from the Ahl al-Kitab, when they forbade assenting to them? End

[Is the Matn Weak?]

From these [reasons] is the statement of some of them that even if the cited athar’s sanad is sahih, the authenticity of the sanad does not entail the authenticity of the matn, since the isnad is often authentic while there is shudhudh and defects in the matn that infringe on its authenticity and reliability, as Al-Qastallani mentioned in Irshad al-Sari and others in other [works]. Its response is that Ibn al-Salah said in his Muqaddimah after mentioning something similar to what is mentioned [above]:

However, when a reliable compiler from amongst them [i.e. the muhaddithin] restricts his comments to “the isnad is sahih” and does not mention any defect in it and does not object to it, the apparent ruling is it is sahih in itself, because the absence of a defect and an objection is the default. End

Al-’Iraqi said in Sharh al-Alfiyah after quoting this:

I say: similarly, if he restricts his comments to “the isnad is hasan“, and does not follow it up with a weakness, it too is ruled to be hasan. End

It is known that Al-Hakim restricted his comments in respect to the athar which we are [discussing] here to “sahih in isnad” and did not clarify any objectionable defect in it; and the reliance of the critics, Al-Dhahabi, restricted his comments to “hasan in isnad” and did not mention a critical defect; although Al-Bayhaqi mentioned a defect in regards to it, but it is from that which does not impinge on its soundness and authenticity as you know. It is clear, therefore, that the ruling, without uncertainty, is that both the matn and the sanad are authentic.

These are their [i.e. the objectors] statements in regards to rejecting the cited athar, and you know that not one of them is suitable for acceptance, and not one of them is a victorious statement. There are other statements which are more adequately called “superstitions” (khurafat); they are different to those mentioned. We will not waste time mentioning them, and refuting them.

Chapter Two: on the verification of the meaning in accordance to what the context indicates

Know that there is no doubt that earth has seven strata like the seven heavens and that between each of them and the next is the distance of five hundred years just as [the distance] between one heaven and [another] heaven. This is established in sahih hadiths, narrated in the reliable books, and is the outward [meaning] of His (Exalted is He) statement, “Allah is He who created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof”. This is the position of the generality of the fuqaha‘ and muhaddithun, and whoever opposes this or comes short [of accepting] all that is [mentioned] here, he is excused because the sahih reports did not reach him, or it reached him but he believed them to be inauthentic. In sum, his statement in this subject is unacceptable by reason and transmission.

[The Varying Opinions about the Creatures on the other Earths]

There is also no doubt that in every earth of these earths is a creation and a world. [This] was clarified by a group of verifiers, but of them were those who consigned its details to the knowledge of Allah (Exalted is He), like Al-Shihab al-Khufaji in Hawashi Tafsir al-Baydawi and Sayyid al-Jurjani in Sharh al-Mawaqif and Ibn Abi Jumrah in Sharh Mukhtasar Sahih al-Bukhari.

And of them are those who ruled that the strata below are abodes of the jinn according to what is mentioned in some reports, like Al-Shibli, Al-Zurqani, Al-Halabi and Al-Qastallani.

And of them are those who mentioned that every stratum has a different [intelligent] species, as in Bada’i al-Duhur and others. Wahb ibn Munabbih said:

When Allah created the earth, it was one stratum and He split it and transformed it into seven, as He did with the heavens, and made between one stratum and the [next] stratum the distance of five hundred years. The name of the highest stratum is Adim, the second Basit, the third Thaqil, the fourth Batikh, the fifth Janb, the sixth Masikah, the seventh Al-Thura. The inhabitants of the second earth are peoples called Al-Tamas and their food is from their flesh and their drink is from their blood. The inhabitants of the third are peoples whose faces are like the faces of the children of Adam, their mouths are like the mouths of dogs, their hands are like the hands of the children of Adam, their legs are like the legs of cows, and hair like the wool of sheep cover their bodies which [function] as clothing for them. The inhabitants of the fourth are peoples called Al-Hulham; they have no eyes or feet, but they have wings. The fifth of them are people like mules and they have tails, each tail is around three hundred cubits. The sixth of them are peoples called Al-Huthum and they have black bodies and have claws like the claws of predatory animals. The seventh contains the abode of Iblis and his armies. End, in summary form.

The verifiable truth in this subject that is closest to the truth, is to say: there is no doubt about the existence of creatures in all the strata as proven by the narrations, and as for its particular [type], which species they have and in which form and shape, that is consigned to the knowledge of Allah (Exalted is He), and the athar of Ibn ‘Abbas proves that there are Adams like our Adam and Prophets like our Prophet therein.

[Three Paths in the Explanation of the Athar of Ibn 'Abbas]

The ‘ulama differed in the explanation of this according to three paths:

[The Path of the Sufis]

First, it is understood as the World of Examples (‘alam al-mithal) which is an isthmus between the two worlds of the Unseen (ghayb) and the Seen (shahadah). This is the path of the purified Sufis and the people of perfection. Husayn al-Diyarbakri said in Kitab al-Khamis fi Ahwal Anfus Nafis

In al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah [it is mentioned] that when Allah created Adam who was the first human body, and made him the basis of the existence of all human bodies, an excess amount remained from the ripe part of his clay from which was created the palm tree, which is the sister of Adam and our paternal aunt, and the Law [i.e. the Qur'an and hadith] designated it as our aunt and compared it to a believer, since it has wonderful secrets unlike all other vegetation. After the creation of the palm, the amount of a sesame seed remained from the clay, so Allah created from that excess part an earth with expansive space. Allah created from the totality of its worlds, a world in our image. When a Gnostic perceives it, he sees himself therein. This was alluded to by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas in what was narrated from him in the hadith, “This ka’bah is one house from fourteen houses and indeed in every earth from the seven earths is a creation like us, so verily therein is an Ibn ‘Abbas like me.” This narration has been confirmed by the people of unveiling (kashf). End

An equivalent [passage] is found in [several] places of Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah. [It is mentioned] in Misbah al-Zalam fi Dhikri Mazal al-Hukama al-A’lam:

Know that the hadiths proving the [World of] Examples are abundant. From them is what was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas in the hadith, “the Ka’bah is one house from fourteen houses and indeed in every earth of the seven earths is a creation like us, so there is an Ibn ‘Abbas like me.” End

[The Path of Interpretation]

The second path is the path of interpretation (ta’wil), which is that it [i.e. the athar] is understood as every stratum from the earthly strata having a guide designated by the name of a Prophet in this stratum. Hence, in them is an Adam, Nuh, Ibrahim and Muhammad, and they are not prophets in reality, rather they take the laws from the Prophets in this stratum and they convey it to their people in their stratum, as Nur al-Halabi said in Insan al-’Uyun. Al-Suyuti said:

It is possible to interpret it so the meaning of these [prophets] is “warners” who would convey to the jinn [the message] from the prophets of man, and it is not farfetched to call each of them by the name of the Prophet from whom this speech he conveyed, i.e. then our Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would have a messenger from the jinn whose name is the same as his name, and perhaps the intent is his famous name, which is “Muhammad”, so consider. End

Al-Qastallani, Al-Zurqani and others mentioned something similar.

[The Weakness of the Second Path]

It is not hidden to the bright and intelligent person what this contains [of fallacies]:

Firstly, interpretation is only resorted to when understanding the speech in its apparent [meaning] will lead to a corrupt [meaning], and when it is not so, then the interpretation of the interpreter is rejected, and here the speech, understood on its apparent [meaning], does not lead to a corrupt [meaning], so the interpretation of the interpreter is not accepted.

Secondly, it is understood from this interpretation that the comparison mentioned in the athar, of Adam [being] like Adam and Nuh like Nuh is [only] in the name, and it is known that such a statement is empty of any substantial benefit.

Thirdly, the phrase “prophet like your Prophet” announces in the loudest voice that in every stratum is a prophet resembling the Chief of Prophets, and according to this path, his being a prophet is negated. Hence, this interpretation is absolutely rejected, and the view that the use of “prophet” here is by way of exaggeration and lenience [in the use of words] is a view rejected by rational and transmitted proofs.

[The Path of Verification]

The third path is the path of verification, which is that in every stratum of these strata was sent prophets to the creatures and they were prophets from the Real [i.e. Allah] to the creation in reality, not that they would warn and guide from the Prophets of this stratum. From these [prophets] are those that resemble Adam and from them are those that resemble Nuh and from them are those that resemble the Chief of the World, and this is the view that Al-Shibli and those who followed him preferred.

[Analysis of the Three Paths]

It is not hidden to one who has a grasp of the transmitted sciences that the path of interpretation from these three paths is rejected by reason and transmission because of what you know of what it contains of the three fallacies, although a group of the late-scholars (muta’khkhirin) were fond of it, and a group of muhaddithin considered it good. As for the first path, it is the purest of the three paths, but it is that which moderate minds cannot accept. Therefore, it is best to prefer the third path, for indeed it is the best and brightest [opinion].

This [path] is supported by the apparent [meaning] of the speech of Al-Jalal al-Mahalli, where he said in the explanation of Surah al-Talaq:

“And of the earth the like thereof” in number; “the command” the revelation “descends between them” between the heavens and the earth: Jibril descends with it from the seventh heaven. End

And likewise Al-Baghawi said in Ma’alim al-Tanzil:

“Allah is He who created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof” in number, the command descends between them by revelation from the seventh sky to the lowest earth. End

Hence, this exegesis proves that revelation is brought down by Jibril to the lower strata also and the apparent [meaning] of revelation (wahy) is the revelation of laws, particularly when it is connected to Jibril, although it [i.e. "revelation"] is used for other [meanings].

[The Comparison does not entail Exact Likeness]

If you say: when the existence of Prophets in the lower strata is the preferred [view], what then is the manner of the comparison of one of them with the Chief of the Prophets? I say: the first of them is like Adam in first-ness and the last of them is like the Seal of the Prophets in seal-ness.

If one replies that this necessitates the existence of one like our Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and it has been stipulated in the books of the Ahl al-Sunnah that his likeness in his special qualities is impossible for others with certainty. We say to him: No, it does not necessitate that, and it only necessitates that if the comparison is in all the qualities of perfection, or all the special qualities. His [exact] likeness is not necessary from the comparison, for it is enough to share even a single attribute, as is established in the science of similes (fann al-tashbih). Hence, the comparison here is only in the seal and in last-ness, not in other than that of the qualities of perfection.

[The Seal of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is Absolute]

If it is said: this necessitates that our Prophet is not the Seal of the Prophets with complete encompassment (istighraq), according to what is learnt from His (Exalted is He) statement “the Seal of the Prophets” (33:40), since the lam [i.e. the definite particle al] prefixed to it implies istighraq, and that is because “seal” is an expression about a prophet being after all the Prophets and, thereby, completing the incompleteness of prophethood and elevating the building [of prophethood]; so, if the seals are multiple, where is the seal? We say: the apparent [meaning] of the athar of Ibn ‘Abbas proves that Allah sent Prophets to the inhabitants of every earth and extended the series of prophethood in all of them just as in the highest stratum. It is acknowledged that every series must have a first and a last, since it is necessary that in every stratum there is a prophet who is the first of the prophets in that stratum and a prophet who is the last of the prophets in that stratum, and the rest are between them, just as in the highest stratum the first of them is Adam and the last of them is Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and the rest are between them. So the first of every stratum resembles the first of this stratum and the last of every stratum the last of this stratum and this comparison is only in first-ness and last-ness, not in anything else, so from this perspective, multiple seals result. However, the seal of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is actual in relation to all Prophets in all levels, in the sense that none will be given prophethood after him in any of the strata and the seal-ship of the seals from the other strata is limited to his stratum, so the multiplicity of seals does not harm the seal-ship of our Prophet by way of istighraq.

[The Inclusiveness of the Message of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)]

If you say: it is established that our Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the Seal of the Prophets in reality and that his message is general and inclusive of all accountable people and not restricted to time, place, or group of accountable people. According to this, it is not possible for there to be multiples seals, since the only possibilities are: either, the existence of the remainder of the seals was in his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) time or after him or before him. There is no means of [accepting] the first, because the only possibilities then are: either the remainder of the seals follow the Shari’ah of our Prophet or do not follow [it], and if they do not follow it, it entails that the Shari’ah of our Prophet is not inclusive, and if they follow [it], they are included in the group of the ummah, and prophethood does not remain for them. There is no means [of accepting] the second, because it entails our Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is not the Seal of the Prophets. There is no means [of accepting] the third, because they are then included amongst individual Prophets not individuals seals.

I say: there is no doubt of the invalidity of the second possibility, which is that the existence of the seals in those strata is after him, since it was narrated that there is no prophet after him, and it is established in its place that he is the Seal of the Prophets absolutely and totally. As for the first and third possibilities there is no proof indicating their invalidity, and that is because it is possible that the time of the last prophet of every stratum is not the same as the time of our seal (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and that it is before him. If it is before him there is no harm in our Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) being the seal for all of them and for other than them and their seal being limited to their stratum. If it is same there is also no restriction to the generality of the message of our Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) because they will then be prophets in relation to their people, seals in relation to the prophets of their stratum, and despite this, they will follow the inclusive Shari’ah of our Prophet. So their being prophets and seals does not affect the inclusiveness of the message of the master of the two worlds. Have you not seen what Al-Suyuti and others transmitted from Al-Subki that he said:

There is no a prophet but Allah took from him a covenant that if Muhammad were sent in his time, he would believe in him and help him and counsel his people to [do] that, and in [doing] that is a loftiness and greatness that is not hidden. In this [is an indication] that because of this, supposing they were existent in his time, he would be sent to them, and his prophethood and messengership would be inclusive of all the creation from the time of Adam to the Day of Resurrection, and all the Prophets and their nations would be from his ummah, and his statement, “I was sent to all the people” would not be restricted to the people from his time till the Day of Resurrection, rather it will include [all those before]. Hence, the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the Prophet of the Prophets (nabiyy al-anbiya), and if his time coincided with the time of Adam, Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa or ‘Isa, it would be necessary for them and their peoples to believe in him and help him, and on that Allah took from them a covenant. His command was dependent on meeting with him, so if he existed in their time, it would be necessary for them to follow him. For this [reason], ‘Isa will come at the end time with his Shari’ah, while he is a noble prophet himself, and nothing will be diminished from him. Similarly, had the the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) been sent in his time, or in the time of Musa, Ibrahim or Nuh, they would remain as Prophets and Messengers to their peoples and the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would be the Prophet over them and the Messenger to all of them. Hence, his prophethood and messengership are the most inclusive and greatest. End

[Conclusion]

If you wish for more clarification on what we mentioned whereby all traces of doubt will be removed, and all objections will be repelled, then listen: when Allah (Exalted is He) made a series of prophethood in every stratum for the guidance of their inhabitants, it is necessary that each of them had a first and a last [prophet], since an infinite series is absurd by rational and transmitted proofs. Hence, in the highest stratum, He made the first [Prophet] therein our master Adam and the last therein our master Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and He made him the Seal of Messengers and Prophets and He made his message general and inclusive. In the lower strata He also made for them a first and a last, so the first of every stratum resembles Adam, and this is the meaning of the statement of Ibn ‘Abbas “an Adam like your Adam”. The last prophet in every stratum, from the perspective that no prophet will come into existence after him, resembles the Seal of the Prophets (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and this is the meaning of his statement “a prophet like your Prophet”, meaning just as Allah made your Prophet a seal in this stratum, in the same way in every stratum is a prophet who is the seal of its prophets, so in being a seal, he resembles your Prophet. Hence, this comparison is only in being the seal, not in being the actual seal, since the plurality of actual seals is impossible, so the seal of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is actual and the seal of all seals besides him is relative. If the remainder of the seals passed away before the Seal of the Prophets there is no debate in principle. If their time was one with his time, it would be necessary for them [to follow him], since his messengership is general and his message is inclusive. And it is not possible they will come into existence after the Seal of the Prophets.

It is, therefore, clear that the athar of Ibn ‘Abbas is one that has no fault, neither in sanad nor in matn, and neither in form nor in meaning, and Allah is the Guardian of Success and from Him is guidance to the straight path. This is the last sentence in this place. It was completed on Wednesday 29^th Dhu l-Qa’dah from the months of the year 1292 after Hijrah (January, 1876 CE) in Makkah, the glorious (Allah increase it in glory and honour). All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and blessings be upon His Messenger, Muhammad, and his family and all his companions.

A copy of what the respected Mawlana Shaykh ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Mujaddidi al-Dahlawi, an inhabitant of Madinah, wrote, at the end of this treatise in verification and confirmation:

All praise to Allah, First and Last, and prayers and peace upon His Messenger, always and forever.

The emergence of comparable images in various places is something established rationally and by transmission. The law and reason do no reject it. It is decisive, and the unveiling (kashf) of the two imams of tariqah and shari’ah, of the wujudi (existential) and shuhudi (perceptive) [schools], Shaykh Muhyi al-Din Ibn al-’Arabi al-Andalusi al-Ta’i and Mujaddid al-Alf al-Thani Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Ahad al-Sirhindi, concur with them, as [mentioned] in Al-Futuhat and Al-Maktubat.

That which the learned and great scholar Mawlana Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hayy wrote is most adequate of acceptance.

Written by ‘Abd al-Ghani Abu Sa’id al-Mujaddidi al-Dahlawi (Allah pardon him by His subtle grace).

Majmu’ah Rasa’il al-Lakhnawi, Edited by Na’im Ashraf Nur Ahmad (publishers: Intisharat Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad Jam), vol. 1, pp. 395-423

All praise is to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and Salat wa Salam on the Messenger of Allah, and his family and Companions, all of them.

My noble shaykh ‘Allamah Muhammad Taqi Usmani (may Allah protect him).

Assalamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh,

May you be well throughout the year (kullu ‘aam wa antum bi khayr), may Allah accept your worship and may he return this ‘Id on you, us and all Muslims with prosperity and blessings. I hope you, your family and all of your loved ones are well and in good health. Likewise, I hope you will excuse [me] for delaying writing for I was preoccupied with studies and the affairs of my family. And it is Allah from whom aid is sought.

I sent you a letter and a card on the occasion of ‘Id al-Fitr, did they reach you?

I understood your indication and I hope for accordance (tawfiq); it is an honour to translate your book. However, I have been busy preparing for a PhD in copyright and among my most important references is your book Qadaya Fiqhiyyah Mu’asirah. I shall soon, Allah willing, translate some of your writings and will send you what I have translated then.

What does the shaykh, may Allah protect him, say regarding the Barelwi group, as this group is not found in our lands and I have not found a book in Arabic on them except a book by one of the ‘ulama of Najd. I found him unjust with those who are not Barelwi and so I have not relied on his judgment and what he has quoted. Hence, it is hoped their situation is explained, for people are among those who are in extreme love or extreme hatred. Allah is the one who guides to what is correct.

Wassalamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullah

Muhammad ‘Ali Muhammad Ahdash

Answer:

To the noble brother ‘Allamah Muhammad ‘Ali Muhammad Ahdash, may Allah Most High protect him and watch over him.

Assalamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh,

I did indeed receive your noble letter with much happiness and prayed for accordance and success for you, and that Allah Most High grants you the ability to complete your work as he likes and pleases him. You have asked regarding two issues:

The first is with regards to the Barelwi group, which is distinct from the majority of Muslims in some points of belief (‘aqaid) and innovated practices (al-a’mal al-mubtada’ah). Among their beliefs is that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) knew the unseen and was cognizant of everything that was and shall be (ma kana wa ma yakun), and that his noble soul has the right of disposal in terms of benefiting and harming people. Their imam, Shaykh Ahmad Rada Khan al-Barelwi circulated a fatwa of kufr against the ‘ulama of Deoband and even said that he who does not consider them a kafir is also a kafir. This was because they (the ‘ulama of Deoband) had criticized their beliefs and said: the knowledge of the unseen is a quality (sifah) of Allah Most High, no one is a partner with him in this. However, He Most High informed His messengers of that which he wished from the unseen. Among their bid’ah practices is that they celebrate certain festivals that are not established in the Qur’an and Sunnah and consider them to be preferable (mustahab), rather they treat them like those actions that are wajib by expressing extreme loath for those who do not join them. Likewise, they have contrived certain practices when someone dies such as the family of the dead person inviting people on the third, tenth and fortieth day after the passing of the deceased. Food is prepared for them and he who does not do this is severely reprimanded. And there are many other such innovations.

Discourse regarding this group is plenty. However, that which I have mentioned is a summary of their beliefs and practices. Among them are those who exceed the limit in this, talk nonsense and are bigoted, and those who in comparison to the others are balanced.

And Allah Most High is the most knowledgeable.

[Mufti] Muhammad Taqi Usmani (may Allah forgive him)

5/1/1426

Fatawa ‘Uthmani (Kitab al-Iman), vol. 1, p. 91

Also see: A call to Deobandi-Barelwi unity — Fatwas from two leading Deobandi institutes

“By Him in Whose hand is my soul, the Son of Maryam (peace be upon him) will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will break crosses, kill swine and abolish jizyah, and the wealth will pour forth to such a degree that none will accept it.” (Sahih Muslim)

His statement “the Son of Maryam will soon descend among you” to the end [of the narration]: [meaning,] among this ummah, since this address was to a part of the ummah of those who did not comprehend his descent.

The weak servant (Allah pardon him) says:

Know that when Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) intended to manifest the attribute of His grace (in’am) and vengeance (intiqam), He created the creation and put it into categories. Thus, he created the fountains of faith and guidance from a species other than man, and they are the Angels, and from the species of man, and they are the Prophets and Messengers (Allah’s blessings and His peace be on them all); and He created the mines of disbelief and deviance from a species other than man, and they are the devils, and from the species of man, and they are the lying imposters (al-dajjalun al-kadhdhabun) (the curse of Allah be upon them). Hence, the former are the masters of the felicitous, living in the abode of His bounty and grace, and the loci of the manifestation of His mercy and pleasure (Glorified and High is He); and the latter are the heads of the miserable, falling into the locus of His punishment and anger, and are the loci of the manifestation of His vengeance and wrath.

Hostility exists between the two groups and opposition occurs between the two parties, as is necessitated by the tension arising between the beautiful (jamaliyyah) and dominating (qahriyyah) attributes of Allah. The Angels of Allah are, thus, on one side and the devils on another side and the Friends of the Most Merciful are on one side and the imposters, the enemies of Allah, on another side, and they have not ceased to be engaged in war and aggression in every age, “and they shall continue to differ until Allah’s command comes and for this did He create them” (Qur’an 11:118-9). “Each does He supply, both these and those, from the bounty of thy Lord. And the bounty of thy Lord is not confined. See how He prefers one of them above another, and verily the Hereafter will be greater in degrees and greater in preferment” (Qur’an 17:20-1).

Of what is known with surety is that every time a lying imposter surfaces in this ummah, a man or a group from the inheritors of the Chief of the Prophets (Allah bless him and grant him peace) stands to repel his schemes, quell his deception and suppress his work, and Allah (Glorified and High is He) assists the truthful and forsakes the liar. This hostility between the Friends of the Most Merciful and the friends of the devil will continue until the head of disbelief will emerge from the east. He is the greatest imposter (al-dajjal al-a’zam) and the greatest enemy of Allah that every prophet warned his people about. The chain of lying imposters will be sealed by him and the levels of disbelief and deviance in the species of man will culminate in him, such that his disbelief will pass from his soul to his body and from his heart to his face until k-f-r will be written between his eyes. He will claim divinity despite the accursed being one-eyed. He will produce with him the likeness of heaven and hell. Seventy thousand of the Jews of Isfahan will follow him, shawls draped over them. He will set foot in every land except the two mosques, i.e. Makkah and Madinah. He will command the heaven and it will rain and the earth and it will bring forth vegetation. He will pass by ruins and say to it “bring out your treasures” and its treasures will follow him like worker bees [follow] the queen bee. He will order a man to be torn with a saw from the middle of his head until his legs part [from each other], then he will walk between the two parts and say to him “stand” and he will stand erect. There is no trial greater than this trial and by it the believers will be tried and shaken, a great shaking.

Thus, it appears outwardly that none will stand to resist the seal of the lying imposters besides the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers. He is the one [with regards to whom] Allah took the covenant of the Prophets to believe in him and assist him (Qur’an 3:81). Adam and those other than him will be under his standard on the Day of Resurrection; the Intimate (Khalil i.e. Ibrahim) and the Sacrifice (Dhabih i.e. Isma’il) prayed for him; the Messiah prophesized his coming and Musa will have no option if he was alive but to follow him. The levels of prophethood and messsengership culminate in him such that the traces of the seal of prophethood which is an attribute of [his] soul travels into his noble body, whereby the seal of prophethood is in between his shoulder blades, one of the signs of his authenticity transmitted from the ancients. He is the absolute servant of Allah who was sent with the truth to all of man, as a bringer of glad tidings and a warner (Qur’an 34:28). There, thus, remains not on the surface of the earth tent-dwellers, nor city-dwellers, but Allah admits him into his upright religion.

It would thus accord more with what is apparent to people that the pure self of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) will be a proof against the greatest enemy of Allah, and will defend his ummah. However, Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) elevated his rank and made the matter of the accursed imposter weaker than that he should stand to oppose him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and come out to duel him. And He extolled the stature of the blessed Muhammadan ummah whereby he perpetuated [the life of] the seal of the Prophets to the Children of Israel, our master ‘Isa (peace be upon him), who is called “the Spirit of Allah” due to the preponderance of the effects of life in him, [kept] living, upright, healthy and unsullied till now in his high and fortified fortress and [in] a place which is not the place of generation and corruption, until he will descend in the last of times ruling, not by the law of the Evangel, but by the law of the Seal of the Prophets (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and will stand as his representative to destroy his enemy and to manifest his religion over all religions and cut off the Jews, the followers of the imposter, and repel them, and extinguish the signs of the Christians, and rectify what they distorted of the true religion.

Of what is known with clarity is that the greatest of what our Prophet was attributed with and elevated by is absolute servitude to the Absolutely Worshipped. He is called the servant of Allah in His (Exalted is He) statement, “And when the servant of Allah stood up in prayer to Him, they crowded on him, almost stifling” (72:19). The usage of this special title is not conferred on any Prophet in the Qur’an besides Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace), personally, and ‘Isa (upon him be blessings and peace), relating from his [own] statement, “I am indeed the slave of Allah” (19:30). Hence, this is a subtle indication that ‘Isa (peace be upon him) has a specific connection to Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace) in the most well-known of his attributes and the most elite of his qualities of absolute servitude. Thus, the one who says “I am indeed the slave of Allah” in the cradle is more deserving from all the Prophets (upon them be blessing and peace) to be sent as a protector and representative in the Muhammadan presence to help his ummah and destroy his enemy, who disdains servitude and establishes divinity for himself. Refuge is [sought] from Allah.

From what increases the beauty of this correspondence, is [that] the Messiah (peace be upon him), despite his claim for himself of pure servitude, was one of those whom a great nation took as a god - Allah is greatly elevated above what the oppressors, the worshippers of the Messiah of guidance and the worshippers of the messiah of misguidance, say - and the miracles which issued from the accursed imposter as an evil feat (istidraj) of bringing the dead to life etc., since they accord with the form of the kind of miracles that occurred at the hand of the Messiah, and the great blessings that will occur after his (peace be upon him) descent by way of miracle, ‘Isa (peace be upon him) is more deserving of destroying the accursed from this perspective also.

This is an elaboration of some of what the teacher of our teachers, the distributer of the sciences and goodness [Shaykh Muhammad Qasim al-Nanautwi] (Allah illuminate his resting place), summarized in his Urdu book Ab Hayat.

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajr said in al-Fath, “The ‘ulama said: the wisdom behind the descent of ‘Isa (peace be upon him) and not any other Prophet is to confound the Jews in their belief that they killed him. Thus, Allah (Most High) manifests their lie and [demonstrates] that He is the One who curses [lit. kills] them. Or his descent was because of the nearness of his appointed [time of death] in order for him to be buried in the earth, since it is not [appropriate] for one created from dust to die in other than it. It was said that he supplicated to Allah when he saw the quality of Muhammad and his ummah to make him from amongst them, so Allah accepted his supplication and perpetuated him until he descended in the last of times as a renewer of the matter of Islam, so he will coincide with the emergence of the imposter and kill him. The first is more likely.”

Fath al-Mulhim, vol. 2, pp. 202-4

As the author so effectively displays, this brashness in passing judgment on great figures in Islamic history stems largely from a lack of precision in understanding the hadith sciences.  As in every science, the rules have certain conditions and nuances, and it is not enough to simply read a book on one's own and take a maxim like "jarh mufassar is given preference over ta'dil" and unleash one's pen on the imams. Rather, this is a complex field that requires training at the hands of a master.  As the old adage goes, 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.'

Due to the above, I felt that the following chapter would be particularly relevant to our context and would perhaps deter certain bold individuals from making their tongues and their pens a means of their own destruction.]

Warning Twenty-Five:

If jarh (narrator criticism) is issued due to partisanship, enmity, loathing, or the likes, then it is rejected, and only he who is rejected relies on it. In light of this, the statement of Imam Malik regarding Muhammad ibn Ishaq, the author of Al-Maghazi, that he is a dajjal from amongst the dajjals, was not accepted, since it is known that it stemmed from clear animosity.  Rather, they (the imams of jarh wa ta’dil) affirmed that he was hasan al-hadith (an acceptable narrator), and the imams of hadith used him as a proof.  I have dealt with this issue more thoroughly in my treatise, Imam al-Kalam fi ma Yata’allaqu bi ‘l-Qira’ah Khalf ‘l-Imam. Likewise, Al-Nasa’i’s censure of Ahmad ibn Salih al-Misri, Al-Thawri’s censure of Abu Hanifah al-Kufi, Ibn Ma’in’s censure of Al-Shaf’i, Ahmad’s censure of Al-Harith al-Muhasibi, and Ibn Mandah’s censure of Abu Nu’aym al-Asbahani are not accepted, due to the same reason.  There are many similar examples in the famous books of this discipline.

Hence, the scholars stated, “One’s criticism of a contemporary is not accepted.” That is, if it is without evidence, because being a contemporary often leads to personal animosity.

We should mention excerpts from the writings of the reviewers (nuqqad) of hadith, so as to quell the attacks of corrupt individuals, for indeed, many of them caused corruption in the religion, brought destruction on others and themselves through criticizing the imams of the religion, were misguided and misguided others through their defamation of the elders of the pious predecessors (salaf) and the greatest of the khalaf, due to their unawareness of the fundamental rules and principles compressed in the books of the religion.  A large group of the scholars of our time, although known for great virtues, have been afflicted with this calamity, and the masses, who are like livestock, emulated them in this regard; rather, they added a note to the lute and darkness to the gloom (i.e. they made the situation worse).  Since Allah had given them the tawfiq (ability) to study the books of history and rijal, but did not give them the tawfiq to delve deeply into and become acquainted with that with which the hadith critics paved the way, they became bold, hasty, neglectful, antagonistic, and unleashed criticism on the reliable imams and those whose greatness has been established, borrowing from what was published regarding them by their contemporaries and opponents, or their enemies and degraders, or those who opposed them due to obstinacy or bigotry.

So, the intelligent person should be wary of being duped and captivated by this recklessness, and from being amongst the, “Greatest losers in regard to their works; those whose effort goes astray in the life of this world, while they reckon they are doing good work.” (Qur’an 18:103)

Al-Dhahabi states in Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’regarding the great exegete, Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Hatim al-Baghdadi (d. 235 AH), “Ibn ‘Adi and Al-Daraqutni declared him trustworthy, and Abu Hafs al-Fallas mentioned him stating, ‘He is nothing.’  I say that this is from the speech of peers, which is not to be given any heed, for the man is reliable and a proof (hujjah). ”

He further states regarding the biography of Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani (d. 316 AH) in his book Tadhkirah al-Huffaz, after mentioning his being declared trustworthy (thiqah) by a group of reliable hadith scholars and his being weakened by Ibn Sa’id and others: “I say that it is not befitting to accept the statement of Ibn Sa’id regarding him, just as we do not give any consideration to his (Al-Sijistani’s) declaring Ibn Sa’id a liar, and likewise, the speech of Ibn Jarir against him is not given any heed, since there was clear enmity between them, so refrain from the speech of peers against one another.”

He states regarding the biography of ‘Affan al-Saffar in Al-Mizan, “The speech of contemporaries and peers requires deep reflection and careful deliberation.”

He states regarding the biography of Abu al-Zinad ‘Abdullah ibn Dhakwan, “Rabi’ah states regarding him, ‘He is not trustworthy,’ I say that Rabi’ah’s statement concerning him should not be given any regard, since there was clear enmity between them.”

He states regarding the biography of Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yahya, Abu ‘Abdullah, known as Ibn Mandah al-Asbahani, “Hafiz Abu Nu’aym used harsh language when criticizing him, due to some alienation between them, and he hurled accusations against him, so this is not given any consideration, due to major disputes between them, for Ibn Mandah also spoke against and abused Abu Nu’aym.”

He also states regarding the biography of Hafiz Abu Nu’aym Ahmad ibn ‘Abdullah al-Asfahani, “The speech of Ibn Mandah regarding Abu Nu’aym is dreadful, and I do not like relating it, nor do I accept the speech of either one of them regarding the other, and they are both agreeable according to me; I do not know them to have any fault greater than narrating fabricated hadiths while remaining silent about them.”

I read in the handwriting of Hafiz Yusuf ibn Ahmad al-Shirazi, “I read in the handwriting of Tahir al-Maqdisi, stating, ‘May Allah distress Abu Nu’aym for speaking against Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Mandah, while the people have reached a consensus regarding his status as an imam.’ I say the speech of peers against one another is not given any attention, especially if it becomes clear that it is a result of personal animosity, partisanship against a particular school of thought, or jealousy.  None is free of this trait except he whom Allah protects, and I do not know of any time in which the people of that time were safe from this trait save the prophets and the siddiqin, and if I wished to, I could fill many books expounding upon this topic.”

It is stated in Fath al-Mughith, “Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr dedicated an entire chapter to discussing the speech of contemporaries against one another in his Jami’, and I view that the criticism of the people of knowledge is not accepted except when it is manifest and clear, and if there is any sort of personal animosity attached to it, then it is preferable not to accept it.”

It is stated in Al-Taj al-Subki’s Tabaqat al-Shaf’iyyah, “It would behoove you, oh seeker, to tread the path of etiquette with the past imams and not to give consideration to the speech of some of them against others, except if they bring clear proof.  Subsequently, if you are able to give an alternate explanation or interpret the criticism in a more favorable way, then do so.  If not, then devote one page to what took place between them and move on, for you were not created for this.  Busy yourself with that which concerns you and leave that which does not.  A student of knowledge remains noble until he delves into that which occurred between the early scholars.  You must be beware of devoting your attention to the disputes that took place between Abu Hanifah and Sufiyan al-Thawri, Malik and Ibn Abi Dhi’b, Ahmad ibn Salih and Al-Nasa’i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Al-Harith al-Muhasibi, and so on, until the time of Al-’Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salam and Al-Taqi ibn al-Salah, because if you busied yourself with that, I fear for your destruction, for those men are the eminent imams, and their statements have proper interpretations, some of which we may not have understood, so we should be pleased with them and remain silent about what occurred between them, just as is done regarding the disputes that occurred amongst the Companions (sahabah), may Allah be pleased with them.”

It is also stated in the same book, “One must be wary of understanding the maxim ‘criticism (jarh) is given precedence over accreditation (ta’dil)‘ in the absolute sense.  Rather, the correct opinion is that for the one who’s status as an imam and integrity is established, and his acclaimers are many and his critics are few, and there is an inference (qarinah) indicating that the criticism stemmed from sectarian partisanship or the likes of it, this criticism is not given any heed.”

It also states, “We have informed you that a person’s criticism is not accepted, even if he explained it (i.e. jarh mufassir), if it is against one whose good deeds are far more prevalent than his sins, and those who praise him are far more prevalent than those who dispraise him, and those who vindicate and recommend him are far more prevalent than those who criticize him, if there is an indication that something drove the critic to defame this individual, such as sectarian partisanship, worldly competition, or another reason, as often occurs between peers.  Therefore, one should not entertain the speech of Al-Thawri against Abu Hanifah, Ibn Abi Dhi’b and others against Malik, Ibn Ma’in against Al-Shaf’i, Al-Nasa’i against Ahmad ibn Salih, etc.  If we gave preference to criticism over praise, than no imam would remain untouched, because there is no imam except that he has been criticized or attacked.”

It is stated in Ibn Hajr al-Makki’s Al-Khayrat al-Hisan fi Manaqib al-Nu’man, in the thirty-ninth chapter, answering what Al-Khatib related in his Tarikhfrom those who defame Abu Hanifah, “Know that his (Al-Khatib’s) only intention was to gather everything that was said regarding the man, as is the habit of historians, and he did not intend to belittle him (Abu Hanifah) or lower his status, as is evidenced by his first mentioning the speech in favor of him, along with his achievements, copiously, then following up with the speech of his defamers against him.

“Another evidence for this assertion is that the majority of the chains of narration he mentioned regarding the dispraise of Abu Hanifah are not free of criticized or unknown narrators, and by consensus, it is not permissible to impugn the honor of an ordinary Muslim through such narrations, let alone an imam of the Muslims.  If one assumes that the dispraise Al-Khatib mentioned is authentically related from those who stated it, it is still not given any consideration, for even if the criticism came from those who were not peers of the imam, they were merely following that which the imam’s enemies said or wrote before them, and likewise, the criticism is not entertained if it came from his peers, because, from what mentioned previously, the speech of peers against one another is not accepted, as was proclaimed by Hafiz al-Dhahabi and Hafiz ibn Hajr ['Asqalani].”

Additional Benefit:

The scholars have proclaimed that the speech of an individual against his contemporary is not accepted.  However, this rule is restricted to that criticism which is issued without proof or evidence and stems from bigotry or personal enmity.   Otherwise, it is accepted without doubt, and you should remember this rule, for it will benefit you in this world and the Hereafter.

Al-Lakhnawi, ‘Abd al-Hayy. Al-Raf’ Wa Al-Takmil. 8th ed. Beirut: Maktab Al-Matbu’at Al-Islamiyyah, 2004. Print.

When Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would deliver a sermon, his eyes became red, his voice rose, and his anger intensified, so it was as though he was warning against an army, saying, “The [enemy] has made a morning attack on you and an evening attack on you.” He would say: “The Hour and I have been sent like these two” and would join his forefinger and middle finger. And he would say: “As for what follows. The best of speech is the Book of Allah, and the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad. And the most evil of affairs are their innovations; and every bid’ah is misguidance.” He would further say: “I am dearer to a Muslim than his self. And one who left behind property, that is for his family. And he who left a debt or children, that is [given] to me and [their responsibility] is on me.” (Sahih Muslim)

[Those who Categorise Bid'ah into Good and Evil]

[In regards to] his statement “every bid’ah is misguidance”, ‘Ali al-Qari’ said: In al-Azhar it says, “This means every evil bid’ah is misguidance, due to his (upon him blessing and peace) statement ‘One who establishes a good practice (sunnatan hasana) in Islam, he will have its reward and the reward of those who practice it.’ Abu Bakr and ‘Umar collected the Qur’an, Zayd wrote it in the mushaf and it was reworked in the time of ‘Uthman.”

Al-Nawawi said: “Bid’ah is everything done without a prior example and, in the Shari’ah, it is an invention of that which did not exist in the era of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace). And his statement, ‘Every bid’ah is misguidance’ is a general [statement that is] qualified (‘amm makhsus).

Shaykh ‘Izz al-Din ibn ‘Abd al-Salam said at the end of Kitab al-Qawa’id: ‘Bid’ah is either obligatory (wajib) like learning Nahw to understand the words of Allah and His Messenger, the composition of Usul al-Fiqh and the discourse of narrator-criticism (al-jarh wa l-ta’dil); or prohibited (haram) like the path of the Jabariyyah, the Qadariyyah, the Murji’ah, the Mujassimah, and refuting these groups is from the obligatory bid’ahs because the protection of the Shari’ah from these bid’ahs is a communal obligation (fard kifayah); or recommended (mandub) like creating an endowment or [creating] schools, and every performance of a good deed not known in the early period, and like Tarawih i.e. in a general congregation, and the discourse of the minutiae of the Sufis; or disliked (makruh) like decorating mosques and adorning mushafs [meaning according to Shafi'is, as according to Hanafis it is permissible]; or permissible (mubah) like shaking hands after Subh and ‘Asr [i.e. also according to Shafi'is for otherwise according to Hanafis it is disliked], increasing delicacies in food and drink and making houses spacious, and extending [one's] sleeves. And some of these have been disputed [i.e. as we previously set forth].’

Al-Shafi’i said, ‘That which is invented from whatever conflicts with the Book, the Sunnah, the narration (athar) or ijma’, is misguidance, and that which is invented of good from whatever does not conflict with any of these, it is not blameworthy.’ ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) said about the standing [in prayer] during Ramadan ‘a wonderful bid’ah!’” This is the end of the statement of Shaykh [al-Nawawi] in Tahdhib al-Asma’ wa l-Lughat.

It was narrated from ibn Mas’ud: “Whatever the Muslims deem to be good is good according to Allah.” And in a marfu’ hadith [it states]: “My Ummah will not agree on misguidance.” [All] this was [mentioned] in [al-Qari's] Mirqat.

[Imam Al-Shatibi's Response to the Categorisers]

The Muhaqqiq [verifier] al-Shatibi, in the third chapter of the first volume of Kitab al-I’tisam, discussed the statement of Shaykh ‘Izz al-Din and his student al-Qarafi in categorising bid’ah, that “this is not indicated by a proof from the Shari’ah, neither from the texts of the Shari’ah nor from its principles, since if something from the Shari’ah proved the obligation, recommendation or permissibility [of an act] it would not then be a bid’ah. It would be an act included in the generality of actions that are prescribed, or those in which an option is given. Thus, combining in these matters between bid’ah and the evidences proving their obligation, recommendation or permissibility is a combination between two mutually exclusive things. As for the disliked (makruh) from the divisions and the prohibited (haram), it is conceded from one perspective that they are [divisions of] bid’ah, [but] not from another perspective, since if an evidence were to prove that an act is prohibited or disliked that would not substantiate it being a bid’ah, due to the possibility that it is a sin (ma’siyah) like murder, theft, drinking wine etc., so this [kind of] division is not considered in bid’ah; however, [the division of] disliked and prohibited [is acceptable in bid'ah] according to how it is cited in a particular topic. Hence, what al-Qarafi mentioned from the scholars regarding agreement on the condemnation of bid’ahs is correct, and the manner in which he divided it is incorrect.

“Astonishingly, he related agreement [on this division] despite having encountered opposition and despite his knowledge of what this entails in breaking ijma’. It appears as though he only followed in this division his teacher without deliberation, since ibn ‘Abd al-Salam, as is apparent from him, designated al-masalih al-mursalah (public interests lacking specific proofs) as bid’ahs, building on [the premise], and Allah knows best, that they are not included in their individual parts under specific texts, although it agrees with the principles of the Shari’ah. Hereof, he made the principles as the signifiers of them [i.e. al-masalih al-mursalah] being approved by designating them using the term “bid’ahs” and this is from the perspective of the absence of specific evidence on the issue and approval of them from the perspective of their inclusion under principles [of public interest]. And since he built [this] on [the premise] of depending on those principles, they are equal according to him to actions included under specific texts, and he became one of those expressing [the principle of] al-masalih al-mursalah, but he called them bid’ahs in phraseology just as ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) designated the gathering for standing [in prayer] during Ramadan in the mosque as a bid’ah, [the explanation of] which is to come if Allah (Most High) wills.

“As for al-Qarafi, he has no excuse in transmitting these divisions in a manner not intended by his teacher or [in a manner] intended by people, because he opposed everybody in that division. Thus, he became one who opposed ijma’.”

Al-Shatibi verified in this book of his all that pertains to the exposition of the definitions of bid’ah, its types, its rules and its being blameworthy deviance, and he removed every doubt the innovators attach to it in a manner not [requiring] any addition to it. So all praise belongs to Allah and all reward is from Him.

Verification of the Meaning of Bid’ah and its Definitions: A Brief Study

The weak servant (Allah pardon him) concluded from the words of our teachers and their instructions that:

The starting point in legal bid’ah (bid’ah shar’iyyah) is the statement of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), “he who innovates in this matter of ours what is not from it, is rejected.” The meaning of “matter” as they expressed it is that [bid'ah] is not used unconditionally except for matters invented in the religion, not for every matter that is invented. As such, the likes of increasing dishes, vehicles and other such things from permissible matters, are excluded. Rather, some of the formalities which people do not do in order to seek nearness [to Allah] and seek reward are also [excluded] from the definition of legal bid’ah (bid’ah shar’iyyah), although it is included in linguistic bid’ah (bid’ah lughwiyyah), since these acts are not carried out by those who carry them out while believing and intending them to be from the religion. Thus, they are not at all from inventions in the religion. Likewise, his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement “what is not from it” indicates that the matters which have a basis in the Book or his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) sunnah or from the example of the rightly guided caliphs, or from the normal activities of the generality of the predecessors (salaf) (Allah be pleased with them), or the valid legal judgement (al-ijtihad al-mu’tabar) with its preconditions based on the texts are not designated as innovations or legal bid’ah, since these sources are all from the religion textually (tansisan) or by inference (ta’lilan), as has been stipulated in its place.

[The Innovations of the Caliphs]

Al-Shatibi said, “From the speech of the rightly guided caliph ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-’Aziz (Allah have mercy on him) which the ‘ulama took an interest in and preserved and [which] would please Malik (Allah have mercy on him) much is that he said ‘Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the rulers after him introduced [many] practices (sunan). Adopting them is a confirmation of the Book of Allah and completion of obedience to Allah and strength in the religion of Allah. No one has [the right] to change and alter them or consider something contradicting them. He who acts upon them is guided and he who seeks assistance by means of them will be helped, and he who opposes them follows other than the way of the believers and Allah will turn him to that which he has turned and make him enter hell; and it is an evil resort [based on Qur'an 4:115].’ It is deserving that this [statement] be pleasing to them [i.e. the 'ulama], for it is a brief statement combining beautiful principles from the sunnah.

“From these [beautiful principles] is what we are [discussing] here because his statement ‘No one has [the right] to change and alter them or consider something contradicting them’ is decisive about the entire matter of innovation. His statement ‘He who acts upon them is guided…’ to the end of the statement, is praise for the adherent of the sunnah and condemnation of one who opposes it, using as a proof that which indicates this, that is Allah’s statement (Glorified is He) ‘And whoever acts hostilely to the Messenger after that guidance has become manifest to him, and follows other than the way of the believers, We will turn him to that to which he has (himself) turned and make him enter hell; and it is an evil resort.’ (4:115)

“From these [principles] is that which the rulers over the matter [of Islam] practiced after the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), it is a sunnah, containing no bid’ah at all, even if a specific text from the Book of Allah and the sunnah of His Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is unknown, since what proves it [being sunnah and not bid'ah] in general has been transmitted, that is the text of the hadith of al-’Irbad ibn Sariyah (Allah be pleased with him) where he said therein: ‘Adhere to my sunnah and the sunnah of the rightly guided Caliphs and cling to it with your molars. Be wary of newly-invented matters.’ Hence, he (upon him be peace), as you see, yoked together the sunnah of the righteous caliphs and his sunnah and [said] that part of adherence to his sunnah is adherence to their sunnah, that innovations are contrary to this and are not from them at all. [This is] because they (Allah be pleased with them), in what they practiced, were either following the sunnah of their Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) itself or following what they understood from his sunnah in general and the elaboration of the manner [of this understanding] is hidden to others. This kind of [action] is not an increase on [the sunnah], and its clarification is to come, by the power of Allah. [The clarification] of [which is]: Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Hakim transmitted from Yahya ibn Adam about the statement of the pious predecessors ‘the sunnah of Abu Bakr and Umar’ that the meaning of it is that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) died while he was on that sunnah and that the statement of another is not required along with the statement of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace). What he said is correct in itself for it is from that which the hadith of al-’Irbad (Allah be pleased with him) bears out. There is, therefore, no excess to what has been established in the Prophetic sunnah, but [since] it is feared that it may be abrogated by another sunnah, the ‘ulama depend on the consideration of the actions of the caliphs after him to know that that is the [sunnah] which the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) died upon and nothing abrogated it, because they would take the latest matter from his command.” [Here] ends [the quote from al-Shatibi].

[The Meaning of Legal Bid'ah]

The upshot is that legal bid’ah is an invented matter which does not have substantiation from the four sources of the religion, while believing it to be from the religion, and something in which one expects to be rewarded from Allah and gain good deeds. According to this, whatever the Lawgiver commanded as an obligation or recommendation of seeking knowledge, memorising it, spreading it, supporting the religion, defending it, purifying the souls and refining them, if its compliance in this age is dependent on acquiring the ways and means which the predecessors (salaf) could do without, due to reasons and states specific to them, like the composition of the sciences and compilation of books, building schools in specific ways etc. taking up these means is not from legal bid’ah. It is established in Usul al-Fiqh that that which an obligation is not completed except by means of it, it is itself obligatory and whatever something prescribed depends on, it too is prescribed, so it is a part of the religion by judgement, and is not from innovation in the religion of that which is not from it.

This is similar to a doctor instructing a patient to use a certain ointment which is not found in the market, so the patient took all of its ingredients without excess or shortage and proportioned it into a good standing ointment by himself. Preoccupation with the principles of proportioning and working the mind to [acquire] its methods, although it is not part of what the doctor explicitly instructed, it is nonetheless included in it by judgement, as is clear. Yes, if he increased in the mixture of the medicine or decreased from it, or changed the medicine for another medicine or changed the times of its use or freely chose its measurements, for example, in spite of the instruction of the doctor treating [him], then in this there is opposition to his instruction and interference in his job which is not for others to interfere in.

This is the condition of the laws of the Shari’ah: it is not permitted to add to them or decrease from them, or take them out of their times and limits, or restrict something general or generalise something restricted, or specify its modalities and modes by mere opinion and guesswork.

[The Etymology of Bid'ah]

The Muhaqqiq al-Shatibi said in al-I’tisam, “The root [meaning] of the root [letters] b-d-‘ is to invent something without a past precedent. Hereof is His statement, (Most High) ‘Originator (badi’) of the Heavens and earth. When He decrees a thing, He says unto it only: Be! and it is.’ (2:117, 6:101) i.e. their inventor without a past precedent, and His statement (Most High) ‘Say: I am no new thing (bid’) among the messengers (of Allah)’ (46:9) i.e. I was not the first to come with a message from Allah to [His] servants, rather many Messengers came before me. It is said ’such and such a person innovated a bid’ah’ i.e. he invented a method not preceded by one who preceded [him]; and it is said ‘this is a novel (badi’) matter’ in regards to something considered good which has no precedent in [its] goodness, so it is as though nothing that is similar to it or resembling it preceded it. From this meaning, bid’ah was called bid’ah. Thus, its extraction in order to practice it is an innovation (ibtida’), its mode is a bid’ah, and the action done in this way is called bid’ah. In this sense, the action which has no evidence in the Shari’ah is called bid’ah which is the generalised usage of a linguistically more restricted [meaning] in accordance with how it is mentioned by the power of Allah.” Then he said, “Bid’ah is, therefore, an invented method in the religion which resembles [the prescribed law of] the Shari’ah, by the performance of which is sought an excess in devotion to Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He).”

[Relative Bid'ah (al-bida' al-idafiyyah)]

Then he said in another place, “Often an action is originally licit but begins to take the course of bid’ah. The explanation of this is that an action that is recommended, for example, and a performer performs it in the privacy of his own [space] upon its first assignment of recommendation. If the performer restricts [himself] to this degree there is no harm and it takes its course [of recommendation] when he remains on this in his private [space] without persistently exhibiting it. Rather, when he exhibits it, he does not exhibit it as the ruling of the persistent acts like the regular sunnahs and the compulsory obligations. This, then, is sound and there is no problem in it. The basis of this is the recommendation of Allah’s Messenger of concealing supererogatory [prayers] and performing [them] within the houses. His statement, “The best of prayers is your prayer in your houses besides the prescribed [prayers]” limits exhibition [of prayer] to the obligations, as you see, even if this was in his mosque, in the Sacred Mosque or in the mosque of Jerusalem to [the extent that] they [i.e. the jurists] said that supererogatory [prayer] in the house is better than it is in one of these three mosques as is required by the outward [meaning] of the hadith. The sunnahs like the two Ids, the Eclipse Prayer (al-khusuf), the Rain Prayer (al-istisqa) and those resembling them take the course of the obligatory prayers in exhibition. The ruling of concealment remains in [prayers] besides these, and hereof the pious predecessors (Allah be pleased with them) persevered in the concealment of [good] deeds in what they were able as it was easy for them to follow [his] tradition and his practice (upon him be peace) because he is the example and the standard.”

He said, “The reason for innovation being included here is that all that Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) persisted in of supererogatory [prayers] and exhibited them in congregations, they are sunnah, so performing a supererogatory [prayer] which is not sunnah in the manner a sunnah is performed is removal of the supererogatory [prayer] from the place specified for it in the Shari’ah. Moreover, as a consequence of this, the laity and those who have no knowledge about it believe that it is a sunnah and this is a great iniquity, because believing of what is not a sunnah [to be a sunnah] and performing it to the degree a sunnah is performed is akin to changing the Shari’ah, just as if it is believed about an obligation that it is not an obligation or what is not an obligation that it is an obligation and then this is practiced in accordance with one’s belief, for indeed that is an iniquity. Thus, an action originally begins correctly, then its removal from its place by belief and practice is a kind of corruption of the laws of the Shari’ah.”

He said in another place, “Of the relative bid’ahs (al-bida’ al-idafiyya) which are close to actual [bid'ah] is that the origin of the [act of] worship is licit but it is removed from its original legislation without evidence, imagining that it remains upon its original [ruling] under the requirement of the evidence, and that [i.e. relative bid'ah] is by restricting the generality of these [rulings, based] on opinion or generalising its restriction. In sum, it is removed from its limit to [another] limit.”

He said, “From this [kind of bid'ah] is specifying virtuous days with various types of worship which have not been specifically legislated like specifying a certain day with such and such rak’ats or with such and such charity or a specific night with standing such and such rak’ats or completing the Qur’an in it or whatever resembles that, since that specification and acting upon it, when it is not because of the rule of expediency or by an objective the like of which is intended by those of intellect, free-time and activity, it is an excess legislation. There is no proof in support of it in saying that the virtue of this time is established over other than it so it is good to place rituals in it because we say: Is this goodness established on a sound basis or not? If it is established, then that is our opinion just as it is established in the standing of the nights of Ramadan and the fasting of the three days of every month and fasting Monday and Thursday, and if it is not established, then what are you relying on in this? The intellect does not deem [something] good or bad and the Shari’ah does not support it, so nothing remains but it being an innovation in that specification.”

[Implications of Tark (not doing something)]

He said in another place, “Here is a principle on this matter [of tark], may Allah benefit by it those who are just to themselves, which is that silence of the Lawgiver on the ruling of an issue or leaving something is of two types:

“One of them is that he remains silent about it or leaves it because there is no incentive to it, requiring it; [and there is] no necessitating [factor] due to which it was assigned and a cause for it being assigned did not occur. [This is] akin to the legal cases (nawazil) that occurred after the death of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) because they were non-existent. Moreover, he remained silent about them despite their coming into existence, as they only occurred [as legal cases] after that [i.e. his death]. Thus, the scholars of Shari’ah need to examine them and apply them in accordance with what is evident from the universals by which the religion was perfected. All that the pious predecessors deliberated on of that which is not from the Messenger of Allah’s (Allah bless him and grant him peace) practice, in a specific [manner] of which the meaning is intelligible, refers to this type. When the causes of this type occur, it is necessary to look into it and apply it in accordance with its principles if it is from the customs, or from the rituals which cannot be limited to what was transmitted, like the rules of forgetfulness (al-sahw wa l-nisyan) in the performance of rituals. There is no problem in this type because the principles of the Shari’ah are available and the underlying causes of these rules were not there in the age of revelation so silence about them specifically is not a ruling requiring permission to leave [the act] or anything else. Rather, when the cases are presented it is referred back to its principles and it will be found by means of them. None besides a mujtahid can find it and only the mujtahids characterised by knowledge of Usul al-Fiqh can find it.

“And the second type is that the Lawgiver is silent about a specific ruling or leaves a matter from the matters, and its necessitating factor that requires it is present, and its underlying cause in the age of revelation and in the time after it was existent and established, but an additional command to what is the general law in the likes of it was not specified therein and there was no decrease from it. Since the factor necessitating the legalisation of the specific rational ruling was existent and then it was not legislated and no attention was paid to its extraction, it would be clear that any excess to what is established here is a superfluous bid’ah and contrary to the intent of the Lawgiver, since it is understood that he intended to halt at what is defined [in the Shari'ah] with no addition to it and no subtraction from it.”

Then he said, “Indeed, here, silence over the ruling of the performance of an act or leaving [it] when the factor demanding it is present, is [equivalent to] the consensus of all who are silent that there is no excess to what was, since if that [excess] was suitable according to the Shari’ah or permissible they would have done it, and they would be more deserving of comprehending it and beating [us] in practicing it, because it is not correct that the legal cause was ineffective in the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the caliphs after him and then it came into effect . For this [reason] Malik said, ‘Do you believe people today are more desirous of good than those who have passed?’”

In sum, all good is in the sunnah and following the pious predecessors who are stars of guidance and signposts of integrity. “After the Truth what is there saving error? How then are ye turned away?” (10:32)

[The Hadith "Whatever the Muslims deem to be good is good according to Allah"]

[It is mentioned in Majalis al-Abrar:] [In the subject] of innovation, [according] to a learned scholar (fadil): It remains for us to verify [the narration] ‘whatever the Muslims deem to be good…’ to its end, since many people have become accustomed to adducing this narration as proof for the non-detestability of what they have become accustomed to of bid’ahs. This deduction is incorrect. The hadith is against them, not for them, because it is part of a hadith halted at ibn Mas’ud (mawquf ‘ala bni mas’ud), narrated by Ahmad, al-Bazzar, al-Tabrani and others as such: “Indeed Allah (Most High) looked at the hearts of the servants and chose Muhammad and sent him with His message. Then he looked at the hearts of the servants and chose for him companions and made them helpers and supporters of his religion, so whatever the Muslims deem to be good, it is good according to Allah, and whatever the Muslims deem to be bad, it is bad according to Allah.”

There is no doubt that the definite particle (lam) in “the Muslims” is not for the entirety of the genus, so it is not contrary to his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement “My nation will divide into 73 groups all of which are in the Fire except one” because every group from the Muslim nation believe its religious character is good, by which it is necessitated that no group of them will be in the Fire, and likewise some Muslims deem something good while others deem it bad, so it results in good being indistinguishable from bad.

Thus, [the definite particle] is either for particularity (‘ahd) and the particularised object (ma’hud) is what he mentioned in his statement “and chose for him companions”, in which case the intended meaning would be the Muslims from the Companions only; or for encompassment (istighraq) of the special features (khasa’is) of that genus so by Muslims is meant the people of sound judgement (ijtihad) who have perfected the attribute of Islam, turning the general (mutlaq) into the perfect (kamil) because the general in the absence of a qualifier turns into the perfect particular (fard kamil) which is the mujtahid [in this case], thus it becomes ‘whatever the Companions or the people of sound judgement deem to be good is good according to Allah and whatever the Companions or the people of sound judgement deem to be bad is bad according to Allah’; and it is possible that [the definite particle] is for actual encompassment so the meaning becomes ‘whatever all the Muslims deem to be good or bad is as such according to Allah’, and whatever is disputed, attention then is given to the three generations whose greatness has been corroborated [in the hadiths]. [End of quote from Majalis al-Abrar]

[Hafiz Al-Lakhnawi wrote after quoting the above:] The most obvious and correct of the three interpretations of the definite particle is the first interpretation as indicated by the fa (so) prefixed to “whatever the Muslims deem to be good.” The latter two interpretations would be considered if the speech was without fa or was with waw (and) as is commonly used on their tongues, and since [this is] not [the case, that is] not [considered].

A group have attributed this hadith to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said “Whatever the Muslims deem to be good is good according to Allah.” From them is Imam al-Razi in al-Tafsir al-Kabir and al-’Ayni in Sharh al-Hidayah and others from its commentators. However, ibn Nujaym said in al-Ashbah wa l-Naza’ir: Al-’Ala’i said, “I did not find a basis for it in marfu’ form in any of the books of hadiths or with a weak chain after lengthy research and much investigation and inquiry, and it is only one of the sayings of ibn Mas’ud halted at him (mawquf ‘alayhi).” [Here] ends a summarised [passage on the discussion of this narration] from Tuhfat al-Akhyar by al-Hafiz al-Lakhnawi.

And from what we transmitted to you about this narration you know that the supporters of bid’ahs adhering to it is not justified because it is a narration halted at ibn Mas’ud, and acting on the statement of a Companion and the obligation of practicing it is disputed. Furthermore, the purpose behind it [i.e. the statement] is: whatever they, either all the Muslims or the Companions in particular, agreed upon, is good, as you now from what has preceded. Preserve this for it is beneficial. Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) knows best.

[Conclusion]

By this account which we reviewed from the instructions of our praiseworthy teacher [Shaykh al-Hind Mawlana Mahmud al-Hasan] and others of the ‘ulama of this field (Allah have mercy on them), it [should] be clear to you, if Allah (Most High) wills, legal bid’ah in its entirety is evil and blameworthy and is not divided into good and bad, or obligatory, recommended and disliked, and other divisions. So his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement in the hadith of the chapter “every bid’ah is misguidance” is understood by us as general.

Those who specify it as evil bid’ah and divide bid’ah into types seem not to have been over particular about the use of this word and they shifted from the legal definition to the linguistic definition and construed it as legal, as the statement of al-Zurqani in Sharh al-Mawahib indicates where he said: “It is linguistically what is done without a past precedent and is used in the Shar’iah in this sense also. It divides into obligatory [bid'ah] like knowledge of the evidences of the dialectical theologians (mutakallimin) to refute the atheists and innovators; recommended, like compiling books, building schools and endowments; permissible, like expanding foods and drinks; prohibited, like errors produced in [the recitation of] the Qur’an; and disliked, like the effect of something the detestability of which is proven textually.” Al-Nawawi said, “the hadith is from the general [statement that is] qualified and this is not negated by its emphasis on ‘all’, because that does not prevent qualification as [in] His statement (Most High) ‘Destroying all things by commandment of its Lord’ (46:25).” And Allah (Glorified and High is He) knows best what is right.

Fath al-Mulhim, vol 5, pp. 328-336

Question:

What say the scholars of the faith and muftis of the firm Shari’ah about the following matter. For almost the past two years this difference is increasing day by day and the people associated with the elders of Deoband are being divided into two factions. Therefore, guide us by writing a detailed answer that is supported with proofs and with references to books to the following issues:

Is the Deobandi and Barelwi difference of a peripheral nature (furu’i) or of a fundamental (usuli) nature and in beliefs? One group says that the controversy is of a peripheral nature and that the hard stance taken by our scholars and elders of Deoband was temporary and momentary since both parties are from the Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama’ah, adhere to the Hanafi madhhab and to the beliefs elucidated by the Asha’ris and Maturidis, and in tariqah follow the right path.

They add that since anti-Islamic elements are rising, the Deobandis and Barelwis should unite and counter them. In light of past experiences, can such an alliance actually be successful? Is it permissible for Deobandis to move from their basic stance and positions in fiqh, and participate in [ceremonies of] ‘urs, mawlids, fatihah etc?

The other group says that the elders of Deoband’s difference with the Barelwis are not only of a peripheral nature but also of a fundamental nature (usuli) and in beliefs. For example differences relating to nur wa bashar, ‘ilm al-ghayb kulli, mukhtar al-kull, hadhir wa nadhir, prostrating in front of graves etc. are from the more important and main ones.

Their books also contain fatwas of kufr against the elders of Deoband. Therefore, before uniting with them, they should be asked to remove such fatwas of kufr from their books, disassociate themselves from them and rectify their beliefs.

The first group provides proofs for the permissibility of mawlid, ‘urs, etc. using some saying of the elders of Deoband such as Hakim al-Ummah Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi’s (may Allah mercy him) Haft Mas’alah and some statements from Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya (may Allah mercy them both).

The question is whether it is permissible to attend the Barelwis’ meetings of mawlid, ‘urs etc. if an expedience (maslahah) can be seen? Is it permissible to tolerate their actions due to an expedience and call to unite with them? Is this difference of a fundamental nature, one relating to beliefs or one of a peripheral nature? Are the Barelwis also from the Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama’ah?

Are the bid’ah of the Barlewis permissible and lawful in themselves according to Deobandi scholars? What is the reality of the pictures of the na’layn sharifayn (shoes of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)? Is it permissible to take blessings from them, to kiss them and place them over one’s head etc? These issues are spreading rapidly in Pakistan. It is the case until now that these people give importance to the fatwas issued by the ‘ulama of Deoband and it is hoped that they will refrain from doing anything that is contrary to the Shari’ah. Please elaborate, may you be rewarded.

With salam

Questioner: [Mawlana] Isma’il Badat
Madinah al-Munawwarah
18/10/1417

Answer:

With praise to Allah, and peace and blessing to the Prophet. The view of the second group is correct that the dispute between the Deobandis and Barlewis is not of a peripheral nature but of a fundamental nature and related to beliefs. The view of the first group is incorrect that the two groups only have differences that are of a peripheral nature, that both are from the Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama’ah, adhere to the Hanafi madhhab and the beliefs of the ‘Asha’ris and Maturidis and follow the right path in Tasawwuf because the Barelwis (Radakhanis) have made additions to the beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunnah and incorporated issues that are of a peripheral nature (furu’i) into being a part of the religion that really have no base in Hanafi fiqh. For example, they have added four fundamental issues into beliefs: The issues of nur wa bashr, complete ‘ilm al-ghayb, hadhir and nadhir and mukhtar al-kull. And in the issues (masa’il) that are of a peripheral nature (furu’i): calling those apart from Allah, prostrating in front of graves, circumambulating (tawaf) graves, making vows to those apart from Allah, presenting offerings to graves, mawlid, ta’ziyyah and many other things that they have created and which are evidently bid’ah. In Tasawwuf they have also mixed many un-Islamic elements like qawwali, ecstasy (wajd) and spiritual music (sima’) etc.

In addition, the statement of the first group that the hard stance of the Deobandi ‘ulama was temporary and momentary is also untrue; rather it is correct that Deobandiyyat is the name of holding tight to the Sunnah and rejecting bid’ah. The elders of Deoband have always practiced on the verse: “Now, proclaim what you are commanded to.” (15:94) They never showed softness in matters of religion. However, they have always avoided confrontation and encounters, and condemning others with kufr, and have always tried to improve the situation with gentleness and wisdom. Their followers should also adopt this method today.

The treatise Faysalah Haft Mas’alah was written before the Deobandi maslak took shape; to derive proof from it is incorrect. As far as such statements of Shaykh Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya Saharanpuri (may Allah have mercy on him) are concerned, we are unaware of them. It is also unlawful to attend the Barelwi gatherings of mawlid, ‘urs etc. due to any expediency and their impermissibility is mentioned in the verse: “They wish that you become flexible (in your faith), so that they should become flexible (in their hostile attitude),” (68:9) and this is indicated in the verse: “For you is your faith, and for me is mine.” (109:6)

Hakim al-Ummah Mawlana Thanawi (may Allah mercy him) wrote in Imdad al-Fatwa (5:302): “The evils of customary practices and bid’ah are not worthy of being overlooked.” The summary of the question and answer mentioned in 4:380 is that those who attend ‘urs and other bid’ah, and those who unnecessarily honour them and revere them conform to the hadith: “Whoever honours a person of bid’ah has helped in destroying Islam.”

As far as the matter of some bid’ah being lawful is concerned, it means that these matters are lawful per se such as remembering the holy birth of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) but fall into the category of bid’ah and become unlawful because of the strict adherence to certain conditions and stipulations.

As for the picture of the na’layn sharifayn, then there is no basis for this. Taking blessing from them, kissing them and putting them over one’s head has no foundation. Mawlana Thanawi has retracted from his treatise Nayl al-Shifa bi Na’l al-Mustafa in his Imdad al-Fatawa 4:378.

And Allah knows best; His knowledge is most perfect and solid.

Written by [Mufti] Sa’id Ahmad Palanpuri
Servant of Dar al-’Ulum Deoband
23/11/1417

This answer is correct:
[Mufti] Nizam al-Din, Mufti of Dar al-’Ulum Deoband
25/11/1417

[Mufti] Muhammad Zafir al-Din, Mufti of Dar al-’Ulum Deoband
25/11/1417

[A question of a similar strain as the above was also sent to the muftis of Mazahir al-'Ulum Saharanpur. For brevity's sake, the question has been omitted. The answer was as follows:]

Fatwa from Mazahir al-’Ulum Saharanpur

Answer:

The ‘ulama of Deoband who were mentioned in the above question, their students and khalifahs were all strong followers of the Sunnah and strongly opposed everything that falls into the circumference of bid ‘ah according to the principles of Shari ‘ah because the Noble Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) has said that every bid ‘ah is a deviation and it is because of this that they were meticulous in safeguarding the Ummah from this divergence.

Regarding this, their short and lengthy books are well known and famous; their refutations and fatwas are mentioned in Al-Barahin al-Qati’ah, Al-Muhannad ‘ala ‘l-Mufannad, Al-Shihab al-Thaqib, Imdad al-Fatawa and Islah al-Rusum. They have with much thinking and composure, while keeping their scholarly responsibilities in view, very openly and sternly refuted every bid’ah (that which is associated with beliefs and actions), and not just that of the Barelwis but rather in whichever region they came to know of them. This position of theirs was not temporary.

Bid’ah can never be a Sunnah, therefore its refutation also cannot be temporary. There is no permission in the Shari’ah to adopt a soft stance in refuting it. Millions of people repented from bid’ah and attached themselves to the Sunnah on account of the refutation of bid’ah that the elders of Deoband carried out and that firmness with which they opposed the people of bid’ah.

If anyone says today that there should be no strictness in refuting bid ‘ah or that, on account of some sort of expediency (maslahah), they should be adopted due to some allegorical interpretation (ta’wil), then such a person is not Deobandi even if he claims to have an attachment to the elders of Deoband. Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhalawi (may Allah sanctify his grave) was a very staunch Deobandi; he did not like even the slightest diversion from the maslak of his elders. His entire life and works bear witness to this. Anybody who attributes to him a soft stance in bid’ah is not true to his word.

The word “Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama’ah” is applied to the Ash’aris and the Maturidis. Ahmad Rada Khan Barelwi and his group are in no way connected to these groups. The beliefs that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had the knowledge of the complete unseen (‘ilm al-ghayb kulli) as held by Ahmad Rada Khan and that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was entrusted with all powers of disposition are not held by the Ash’aris and Maturidis, has not been mentioned by anyone in the books of ‘aqa’id, and is not mentioned in any way in their books. Both these issues are clearly against the Qur’an and hadiths; these have been created by the Barelwis. If anyone regards the Barelwi sect to be from among the Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama’ah, then this is his clear error.

We the undersigned want to make clear to all Muslims that even now we are strict in following the Deobandi maslak which came to us from our elders of the first generation; we do not allow any kind of softness in this regard. And Allah is the one who grants accordance (tawfiq).

[Mawlana] Muhammad ‘Aaqil, head of teachers
[Mawlana] Muhammad Salman, deputy nazim
[Mufti] Maqsud ‘Ali, mufti of the madrasah
[Mufti] ‘Abd al-Rahman, mufti of the madrasah

Stamped with the seal of the Dar al-Ifta of Mazahir al-’Ulum Saharanpur

Islah Mafahim par Tahqiqi Nazr, (Lahore; Madrasah Khuddam Ahl al-Sunnah, 2006) p.435-442.

Zuhayr ibn Harb and ‘Amr al-Naqid narrated to us, they said: Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah narrated to us.

Both of them [al-Khizami and ibn 'Uyaynah narrated] from ibn al-Zinad: from al-A’raj: from Abu Hurayrah, he said: Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said; and in the narration of Zuhayr: the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) conveyed; and ‘Amr said: narrating:

“People are subservient to Quraysh in this matter: the Muslims among them [being subservient] to the Muslims among them, and the disbelievers among them [being subservient] to the disbelievers among them.” (Sahih Muslim)

His statement “from Abu Hurayrah”: this hadith was transmitted by al-Bukhari in the beginning [chapters] of Kitab al-Manaqib (no. 3495) and it was also transmitted by Ahmad in his Musnad (2:243, 261, 395, 433).

His statement “People are subservient to Quraysh in this matter”: the ‘ulama adduced this as proof that Qurayshi [lineage] is a condition for the Imam, to the extent that some of them claimed ijma’ (consensus) on this. Hence, al-Nawawi (Allah have mercy on him) said, “These hadiths and those similar to them are clear proof that the caliphate is specific to Quraysh and its contraction is not permissible for any beside them, and on this ijma’ convened in the time of the Companions and also after them. So whoever disagrees in this [matter] amongst the heretics (ahl al-bid’ah), or alludes to a disagreement from other than them, he is confuted by the ijma’ of the Companions and the Successors, and those after them by the authentic hadiths.”

The weak servant (Allah pardon him) says:

Relating ijma’ on this matter calls for a re-evaluation, since the opposite of this was narrated from a number of Muslim scholars. The ‘ulama of Usul al-Fiqh (Legal Theory) and Kalam (Dialectical Theology) regard this condition to be from the conditions that are disputed. Here are some of the disagreements that have been transmitted in this regard:

(1) Hafiz [Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani] said in al-Fath (13:119), “In order to convey ijma’, it is necessary to interpret what has been transmitted from ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) on this, as Ahmad transmitted from ‘Umar with a chain whose narrators are trustworthy that he said, ‘If my appointed time [of death] reached me and Abu ‘Ubaydah were living, I would appoint him as caliph.’” He then narrated the hadith which includes [the statement], “‘And if my appointed time reaches me and Abu ‘Ubaydah is dead I would appoint Mu’adh ibn Jabal as caliph’ to the end of the hadith. Mu’adh ibn Jabal (Allah be pleased with him) is an Ansari with no [familial] connection to Quraysh.” This is a very strong proof that ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) did not believe Qurayshi [lineage] is a condition for the caliphate. As for what al-Hafiz followed this up with, by his statement, “And it is possible one may argue: probably the ijma’ on the conditionality of the caliph being Qurayshi occurred after ‘Umar or ‘Umar’s judgement changed,” it is as you see.

(2) All of the ‘ulama have related the statement of Dirar ibn ‘Amr al-Ghatafani, “There is no distinction at all between one being Qurayshi or an Ethiopian slave, and neither of them have any advantage and merit over the other,” as [mentioned] in Sharh al-Ashbah wa ‘l-Naza’ir by al-Hamawi (2:267). What was said about this by one of the ‘ulama that “the Muslims did not consider this opinion after the establishment of the hadith ‘the Imams are from Quraysh’ and its practice by the Muslims century after century and by consideration of this, ijma’ convened before a dispute occurred,” Hafiz [ibn Hajar] refuted this by his statement, “I say: practice of the view of Dirar [occurred] before those who undertook the caliphate from Kharijites against the Umayyads, like al-Qatri, existed … Likewise, non-Kharijites were called Amir al-Mu’minin from those who stood against al-Hajjaj, like ibn al-Ash’ath, then the caliphate was used [as a title] for all who stood in a region from the regions in whatever time, so the caliphate was designated [for an individual] while [he was] not from Quraysh, like Banu ‘Abbad and others in Andalusia, and like ‘Abd al-Mu’min and his descendents in all of the West [African] lands. They resembled the Kharijites in this, although they did not profess their opinions, nor adopt their views, rather they were from the Ahl al-Sunnah and called to it.” See Fath al-Bari, Kitab al-Ahkam (13:118, 119)

(3) The most enlightened teacher of our teachers [Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri] (Allah have mercy on him) said, “Yes, in Mawahib al-Rahman [it is mentioned] that it [i.e. Qurayshi lineage] is not a condition according to our Imam (i.e. Abu Hanifa (Allah have mercy on him)). Moreover, I do not know whether this is a narration from him or not?” See Fayd al-Bari (4:498). If this is authentic, it would appear the non-conditionality [of Qurayshi lineage] is a narration from Abu Hanifah.

(4) Ibn Khaldun transmitted in the Muqaddimah (p. 169, chapter 26) that one of those who said being Qurayshi is not a condition is Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (Allah Most High have mercy on him), but I saw in his book Tamhid al-Awa’il (p. 471-3) that he supports the view of the conditionality of being Qurayshi.

(5) Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni (Allah have mercy on him) said in his book Al-Irshad, “[One] of the conditions of imamate according to our [Shafi'i] scholars is that the imam [must] be Qurayshi, since Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, ‘The imams are from Quraysh’ and he said ‘Put Quraysh ahead and do not go ahead of it’. This is something that some people had disagreements about, and there is [legitimate] scope in it for this [other] interpretation.” See Kitab al-Irshad fi Usul al-I’tiqad by al-Juwayni (p. 427)

Imam al-Haramayn’s (Allah have mercy on him) reservation on this issue also becomes clear from his statement in his book Ghiyath al-Umam fi al-Tiyath al-Zulam (p. 82, published in Qatar) where he says, “The reason for this [i.e. the conditionality of Qurayshi lineage] is that knowledge is claimed by every extremist zealot, and when the splendour of kingship combines with little knowledge, no one can attribute to the king absence of knowledge; but lineage is something that one cannot have claim to, so those who are not related [to Quraysh] will not claim imamate. Thus, this is the reason for affirming the conditionality of lineage. We do not rationalise the need to establish a lineage for the imamate, but Allah specified this high position and lofty rank to the members of the Prophetic household. That is from the grace of Allah, He gives it to whomever He wills.”

(6) Some contemporaries have transmitted from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (Allah Most High have mercy on him) that he professed [the view] of the non-conditionality of Qurayshi [lineage] for the caliph. See the footnotes of Dr. ‘Abd al-Azim al-Dib on Ghiyath al-Umam by al-Juwayni p. 82. However, I did not find this in its most likely locations in Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah. And Allah knows best.

(7) ‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi said in his book Usul al-Din (p. 275), “Al-Ka’bi believed that the Qurayshi is more deserving of it than the one who is suited to it from the non-Qurayshi, but if they fear a civil war, its contraction is permissible for a non-[Qurayshi].” Thus, it appears Qurayshi [lineage] is not a necessary condition according to al-Ka’bi and is only a condition of preference (awlawiyyah). However ‘Allamah al-Baghdadi did not identify this al-Ka’bi and he is probably Abu l-Qasim al-Ka’bi from the leaders of the Mu’tazilah to whom the sect al-Ka’biyyah is affiliated, so if he is the one meant [here] his statement does not violate consensus because of his corrupt beliefs [which is so severe] that some of the ‘ulama anathematised him [kaffarahu], as [mentioned] in al-Ansab by al-Sam’ani (11:123).

(8) ‘Allamah Ibn Khaldun spoke in his Muqaddimah about this condition in a lengthy discussion and he opined that the conditionality of Qurayshi [lineage] for the caliph is a ruling justified by a rationale and this [rationale] is superior group feeling (al-’asabiyya al-ghaliba). He said in the 26^th chapter of his Muqaddimah (p. 170): “Once it is established that Qurayshi [lineage] as a condition [of the imamate] was intended to remove dissension with the help of [Qurayshi] group feeling and superiority, and [if] we know that the Lawgiver does not make special laws for any one generation, period, or nation, we [also] know that [Qurayshi lineage] is due only to competence. Thus, we have linked it up with [the condition of competence] and have established the underlying cause ['illa] included in the purpose behind Qurayshi [lineage], which is the existence of group feeling. Therefore, we consider it a condition for the person in charge of the affairs of the Muslims that he belong to people who possess a strong group feeling, superior to that of their contemporaries, so that they can force the others to follow them and the whole thing can be united for effective protection.”

(9) Al-Ubbi said, “Al Amidi said: as for the conditions that are disputed, they are six: First, Qurayshi [lineage] and in regards to this is what was set forth beforehand. Al-Amidi said: and the like of this is for the imam. If it were not for ijma’, there would be scope for reconsideration and rethinking this condition, because the hadiths are solitary reports (akhbar ahad) and do not supply certitude, while they do accept reinterpretation.”

As for the hadith of the chapter, and the hadith, “The imams are from Quraysh”, it is understood by those who do not make Qurayshi [lineage] a condition as a declarative statement (khabar) and not a condition for contracting the caliphate, just as in his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement, “This matter will remain in Quraysh, so long as two of them remain” (the compiler [Imam Muslim] transmitted it, as is to come, and al-Bukhari in [Kitab] al-Ahkam [on the authority] of Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him)); [also] as is to come in the hadith of Jabir ibn Samurah, “The religion will continue upright until the Hour has been established, or you have [been ruled] over by twelve Caliphs, all of them from Quraysh”; [also] as in the hadith of Abu Musa (Allah be pleased with him), “Verily this matter [of rule] shall [remain] in Quraysh so long as when they are asked for mercy, they show mercy, when they rule, they are just, and when they distribute, they are equitable, so whoever from them does not do this, then upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels and all of humankind, and compulsory acts and voluntary acts will not be accepted from him” (Ahmad, al-Bazzar and al-Tabrani narrated and the narrators of Ahmad are trustworthy as [mentioned] in Majma’ al-Zawa’id (5:193)); and as in the hadith of Abu Mas’ud al-Ansari, he said Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said to Quraysh, “Verily this matter [of rule] shall [remain] among you and you shall remain in charge of it, until you innovate actions [that deprives you of Allah's support], and when you do this, Allah shall impose upon you the worst of His creation which will tear you apart just as a stick is torn apart.”  (Ahmad and al-Tabrani narrated it and the narrators of Ahmad are the narrators of Sahih except al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith who is trustworthy as [mentioned] in Majma’ al-Zawa’id); and also it was narrated in the hadith of Anas (Allah be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “The imams are from Quraysh so long as they do three [things]: when they are asked for mercy, they show mercy; when they make a treaty, they keep [it]; and when they rule, they are just” (Al-Bazzar transmitted it in his Musnad as [mentioned] in Kashf al-Astar by al-Haythami (2:228)).

They adduce as proof His statement (Most High), “O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another” (Qur’an 49:13), since it is clear in negating superiority on the basis of lineage; and his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement, “There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab.” They also adduce as proof what is to come from the compiler in Bab Ta’at al-Umara from Umm al-Husayn (Allah be pleased with her) in marfu’ form: “If a maimed slave is appointed a commander over you ([the narrator said:] I think she said “a black slave”) who leads you according to the Book of Allah, then listen to him and obey,” because this proves the permissibility of an Ethiopian slave being a commander (amir). However, this proof is weak because, firstly, it is possible that the meaning of it is the commander of an army, not the caliph, as was interpreted as such by al-Nawawi and others; and, secondly, it is possible that the servant mentioned therein is related to Quraysh, because the freed-slaves of a people are from them, as interpreted as such by others; and, thirdly, it is possible that the meaning of it is a man who contracted the caliphate by his domination, not by the selection of the Ahl al-Hall wa ‘l-’Aqd (lit. those who untie and tie i.e. the leading scholars of the law), and the discussion [here] is about the criteria for selection, not domination.

Moreover, all of this is when one who is qualified for caliphate from Quraysh is present. As for when one who combines the qualities required is not found, then there is no dispute in the permissibility of contracting the caliphate for a non-Qurayshi, and I would think it is the same when the people have forsaken their lineages and it is not certain [whether] a man is from Quraysh or not. Furthermore, these conditions are only considered when the caliphate is contracted by the Ahl al-Hall wa ‘l-’Aqd. However, when a Muslim man becomes dominant and becomes imam by his dominance, then he assumes the rules of imamate even if these conditions are absent in him, and his regulations are executed and his appointments are sound, and following his judgement is permissible, as was clarified by the fuqaha (jurists). See for example Sharh al-Ashbah wa l-Nazair by al-Hamawi (2:267)

(Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim, vol. 3, pp. 231-234)