Tag Archives: blind following

Muhadditheen Did Not To Taqleed Part 1

Author: Abu al-Asjad Muhammad Siddeeque Raza

Translator: Raza Hassan

Muqallideen use many different tactics to prove their unproven Taqleed. They concoct many things to satisfy the people, one of which includes that the writers and collectors of the books of ahadeeth were Muqallid. The people who have extended tongues say many other things too, but right now, our discussion is restricted to the Muhadditheen.

1-   Ameen Okaarvi from the Deobandi School of thought titled “Wakeel-e-Ahnaaf, Tarjumaan ul-Islaam, Munaazir-e-Islaam” and has been given many other titles, writes:

“Whereas, all the books of ahadeeth that we have today, are either written by Mujtahideen or by Muqallideen, who are mentioned in Tabaqaat Hanafiyyah, Tabaqaat Maalikiyyah, Tabaqaat Shaafi’eeyyah, and Tabaqaat Hanaabilah…. There does not exist a single reliable book of hadeeth in which believing in Ijmaa and Ijtihaad is considered to be Haraam & Shirk; or believing in Fiqh has been prohibited. Not even one reliable reference can be presented concerning its compiler that he was neither able to do Ijtihaad nor did he do Taqleed, that’s why he was a Ghayr Muqallid.” [Tajalliyaat Safdar: 1/113; Published in Multan, Majmoo’ah Rasaail: 3/13]

2-   Mufti Ahmed Mumtaaz Saahib “Ra’ees Daar ul-Ifta Jaami’ah Khulafa Raashideen, Karachi” writes:

“This is why in these two last issues, Muhadditheen – rahimahumullah also do the Taqleed of Mujtahideen – rahimahumullah. Therefore, it is due to this taqleed that the mention of Muhadditheen (rahimahumullah) is only found in 4 types of books: (1) Tabaqaat Hanafiyyah, (2) Tabaqaat Maalikiyyah, (3) Tabaqaat Shaafi’eeyyah, (4) Tabaqaat Hanaabilah. No Muhaddith or a Historian has ever written a book named ‘Tabaqaat Ghayr Muqallideen’ in biographies of Muhadditheen” [Asli Chehra, P. 7]

It can easily be understood from these two quotes that they have tried to prove the authors of all the books of ahadeeth to be Muqallid.

Okaarvi Sahab had only written that the Muhadditheen are either Mujtahideen or Muqallideen, but while copying him, Mufti Ahmed Sahab, went even more ahead and tried to prove all the Muhadditheen to be Muqallid.

Anyway, this is correct that the mention of Muhadditheen is only found in these 4 tabaqaat, however, this is not correct at all that it is the result of the same Taqleed – meaning, they [the tabaqaat] are the cause of Muhadditheen being Muqallid.

On the contrary, it is the result of these Muqallideen being engaged in Taqleed that upon seeing the mention [of Muhadditheen] in these 4 tabaqaat, they think that the Muhadditheen were Muqallid.

So what is the actual reason for the existence of these tabaqaat? If we say something from our own selves then it is possible that ta’assub might come in the way of accepting our remarks. Therefore, we will present a “big” reason for it from the books of “Major Deobandi Scholars” themselves. It is possible that they might accept the reality then. See below:

1-   Their “Shaikh ul-Hadeeth, al-Muhaddith al-Kabeer” Zakariyyah Kaandhalwi writes:

“An issue here is that: Were Ahl ul-Hadeeth and Aimmah Muhadditheen Muqallid or Ghayr Muqallid? And if they were Muqallid then who did they do Taqleed of? There is a difference of opinion in it among the Scholars. And the thing is that a person who is big [respected/Major Scholar], everyone wants that he should join his party, because he has too much value & attraction, and everyone tries to pull him towards himself….” [Taqreer Bukhaari: 1/52, Published in Daarul Aha’at Karachi]

So what is the reason that the mention of Muhadditheen is found in 4 Tabaqaat? It has many other reasons, but the reasons that are made clear from the statement of Zakariyyah Sahab are as follows:

i-     It is the result of Muhadditheen being big [great] personalities

ii-   Everyone wants that the big [great] personalities should join his party

iii- There is “attraction” in proving big personalities to be theirs.

Because of this attraction, everyone seems to pull big personalities towards them. For example: Hanafis say that so-and-so was a Hanafi, Shaafi’ees say that he was a Shaafi’ee, Maalikis and Hanbalis also try to prove him to be theirs. A big reason that these 4 Tabaqaat came into existence is this “Attraction”. What is more is that many of the Muhadditheen have been added in these 4 Tabaqaat merely because of studentship also. Moreover, we do not also lack the amount of Muhadditheen who have been added in 2 to 3, in fact in all 4 Tabaqaat at the same time. If the reason is only to indicate their being the student or to indicate that they gained benefits from those Imaams, then there does not seem anything wrong in it. But above that reason, the attempt to prove Muhadditheen to be Muqallid is absolutely intolerable.

The “Imaam Ahl-e-Sunnat” of Muqallideen, Sarfaraz Khan Safdar writes: “If one is a Jaahil (ignorant), he should do taqleed of Scholars. And Taqleed is only for a Jaahil who is unaware of the proofs of Ahkaam….” [Al-Kalaam ul-Mufeed: P. 234]

Notice what he wrote: “And Taqleed is only for a Jaahil”! Were, (Na’oozubillah), the noble Muhadditheen Jaahil? And were they not aware of the Proofs of Ahkaam? Those who dedicated their whole lives in service of ahadeeth, possessing great memories, extracting Masaail from each hadeeth by naming chapters and Tarajim were Jaahil? If not, and certainly not, then it is also not correct to call Muhadditheen Muqallid. And it is akin to strengthening the claims of Munkireen (Rejecters of) Hadeeth, though unknowingly. Because on this claim, they would immediately say that “Taqleed is only for a Jaahil” and Muhadditheen also used to do Taqleed, therefore they were Jaahil! Now how can we trust the ahadeeth collected by these Jaahils?

If Muqallideen had paid attention to the consequences of their claims, then they would not have dared to call Muhadditheen Muqallid. May Allaah give them the ability [to speak truth]!

2-   Another one of their “Muhaddith al-Kabeer, Allaamah” Abdur Rasheed Nu’maani, after narrating the opinions of different people of knowledge concerning the Madhaahib of the authors of Sihaah Sittah, writes:

“فانظر الي هذا التجاذب الذي وقع بين هولاء العلام فتارة يعدون احدهم شافعيا و تارة حنبليا و اخري مجتهدا وهذا كله عندي تخرص وتكلم من غير برهان فلو كان احد من هولاء شافعيا او حنبليا لا طبق العلماء علي نقله ولما اختلفوا هذا الختلاف كما اطبقوا علي كون الطحاوي حنفيا و البيهقي شافعيا و عياض مالكيا وابن الجوزي حنبليا، سوي الامام ابي داود فانه قد تفقه علي الامام احمد و مسائله عن احمد بن حنبل معروف مطبوع”

“Look at this force of attraction which occurred between these big Scholars. They count one of them to be Shaafi’ee, sometimes Hanbali, and after sometimes Mujtahid. According to me, all these are merely pointless, and sayings without evidence. If anyone of them had been Shaafi’ee or Hanbali then the Scholars would have agreed upon narrating it and they would never have fallen into such difference, as they agreed upon Tahaawi being a Hanafi, Bayhaqi being a Shaafi’ee, Eyaadh being a Maaliki, and Ibn al-Jawzee being a Hanbali, except Imaam Abu Dawood as he learned fiqh from Imaam Ahmed and his Masaail from Ahmed bin Hanbal are famous and published” [Ma Tamassu Ilaihi al-Haajjah Liman Yutaali’ Sunan Ibn Majah: P. 26]

This was the statement of Nu’maani Deobandi, which makes the following points clear:

  • Calling the authors of Kutub as-Sittah to be Hanbali or Shaafi’ee is “Tajaazub” (act of pulling towards oneself), pointless, and rubbish, which have no daleel.
  • These are “Takharrus” made up, fabricated, and sayings made up from minds, without any evidence & Burhaan.
  • Someone calls a Muhaddith to be Shaafi’ee; some call him Hanbali, while some declare him to be Mujtahid.
  • No one of them is Shaafi’ee, Hanbali etc. If they were, then the Scholars would have agreed upon narrating it.
  • The Scholars are differed upon these Muhadditheen being Hanbali, Shaafi’ee etc. They are not agreed upon.

3-   Their “Mufti A’dham Pakistan” Rafee’ Uthmaani writes:

“The opinions of the Scholars are different as to what is the Fiqhi Madhab of these six Aimmah of hadeeth; because none of them ever confirmed their Madhab. Therefore, some Scholars opine that all these were absolute (Mutlaq) Aimmah & Mujtahideen; they were not the Muqallid of anyone. While some say that none of them was Mujtahid and their Madhab was that of other common Muhadditheen which are neither Muqallid nor Mujtahid. And some have gone into details, and then there is difference in that detail as well.” [Dars-e-Muslim: P. 71-72]

Muhadditheen did not confirm it themselves. Of course how would they have done so when the Taqleedi Madhaahib had not yet come into existence! Thus people made it their blank book, and wrote whatever came in their minds. Some even counted a Muhaddith from their Madhab if they merely saw some of his ahadeeth in accordance to their Madhab and in opposition to the other Madhaahib; while some declared him to be from another Madhab by looking at other Chapters and Ahadeeth. And Muqallideen took these sayings so seriously as if these are the actual facts and realities. Let’s come and see how people “pulled each other” as per the saying of Zakariyah Kandhalwi, and how they “made up” guesses, as per the saying of Nu’maani Sahab. We will, in example, mention their sayings concerning some of the Muhadditheen:

1) Sayyid ul-Muhadditheen Imaam Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari – rahimahullah

 

First, we will observe the opinions of people concerning the author of “The Most authentic book after the Book of Allaah” Saheeh Bukhaari, which is Imaam Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari (rahimahullah):

1: Anwar Shaah Kashmiri writes: “Know that Imaam Bukhaari was a Mujtahid, there is no doubt in that. And what became famous that he was a Shaafi’ee then it was only because of his accordance to Imaam Shaafi’ee in the famous Masaail [not otherwise]” [Faydh ul-Baari: 1/58].

2: Ibraaheem bin Abdul Lateef bin Muhammad Haashim Thathwi writes: “As for Imaam Bukhaari then Taaj as-Subki has mentioned him in his Tabaqaat (Shaafi’eeyyah) that he was a Shaafi’ee. Allaamah Nafees ud-Deen Sulemaan bin Ibraaheem refuted him and said: ‘Bukhaari himself was a Mujtahid like Abu Haneefah, Shaafi’ee, Maalik, and Ahmed’” [Sahq al-Aghbiya with reference from Ma Tamassu Ilaihi al-Haajjah: P. 26]

3: Zakariyyah Kandhalwi says in his special terminology: “[Chakki ka Paat yeh hai ke] Fact of the matter is that Imaam Bukhaari was strongly a Mujtahid.” [Taqreer Bukhaari: P. 52]

4: Abdur Rasheed Nu’maani writes: “According to me, Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Abu Dawood as well are like the other Aimmah mentioned above. They were neither the Muqallid of a specific Imaam nor were they absolute Mujtahids” [Maa Tamassu Ilaihi al-Haajjah: P. 27]

5: Mufti Rafee’ Uthmaani says: “The opinion of Hadhrat Maulaana al-Imaam al-Haafidh Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri, based on some proofs, is that Imaam Bukhaari was without any doubt a Mujtahid Mutlaq, and his book is the just witness of this fact” [Dars-e-Muslim: P. 72]

6: Their “Imaam Ahl-e-Sunnat” and “Muhaddith A’dham Pakistan” Sarfaraz Khan Safdar writes: “And similarly Imaam Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari is counted among Tabaqaat Shaafi’eeyyah… Hadhrat Imaam Bukhaari is the one upon whose two booklets: Juzz Rafa al-Yadain & Juzz al-Qira’at, the opposing party run their car of two Ikhtilaafi Masaail. But look at the wonder of Allaah’s nature that even Imaam Bukhaari is proven to be a Muqallid” [al-Kalaam ul-Mufeed: P. 128]

Looking at the practice of Subki, Sarfaraz Khan Safdar declared Imaam Bukhaari to be the Muqallid of Imaam Shaafi’ee. Whereas, Anwar Shah Kashmiri writes:

“And what became famous about Imaam Bukhaari that he was a Shaafi’ee was only because of his accordance with Imaam Shaafi’ee in the famous Masaail. Otherwise, his accordance with Imaam A’dham (Abu Haneefah) as well, is no less than his accordance with Shaafi’ee… Counting him among the Shaafi’ees as per the Tabaqah is no better than counting him among the Hanafis.” [Faydh ul-Baari: 1/58]

Another one of their “Muhaddith Kabeer” Zakariyyah sahab said: “Since Imaam Bukhaari is angrier with Hanafiyyah that’s why it becomes apparent that he is a Shaafi’ee. Whereas, as much Imaam Bukhaari is angry with Hanafiyyah, about the same in fact even more, he is opposed to the Shaafi’eeyyah” [Taqreer Bukhaari: 1/52]

Sarfaraz Sahab became Happy merely upon seeing the name of Imaam Bukhaari in Tabaqaat. He then started screaming upon Ahl ul-Hadeeth and declared it “a wonder of Allaah’s nature” by declaring a huge Muhaddith like Imaam Bukhaari to be a Shaafi’ee Muqallid; whereas, this is only the wonder of Sarfaraz Sahib’s love for “Taqleed”. He should have at least thought that he himself has written in his book that: “If one is a Jaahil, he should do taqleed of Scholars, and Taqleed is only for a Jaahil” [Al-Kalaam ul-Mufeed: P. 234]. Then he himself writes Imaam Bukhaari to be a “Muqallid” right in the same book! Is this not equal to declaring a huge Muhaddith to be a Jaahil? Is this not an insult of Muhadditheen?

And then as per the saying of Kashmiri Sahib, he has accorded Imaam Abu Haneefah more than Imaam Shaafi’ee; and as per the saying of Zakariyyah Sahib “As much Imaam Bukhaari is angry with Hanafiyyah, even more than that he is against Shaafi’ees”. When this is the matter then declaring him to be a Shaafi’ee Muqallid can only be the wonder of Taqleed, not of justice and fairness!

The noble purpose of Imaam Bukhaari (rahimahullah) was to present the Saheeh ahadeeth of the Prophet (peace be upon him) which he did, but someone amongst the Muqallideen comes and says that he is more angry with Ahnaaf, someone says that he accorded Ahnaaf more and was angry with Shawaafi’. [What nonsense is this]!! Nu’maani Sahib said the truth that these are mere Fabrications, assumptions, and claims without proofs.

Now as you can see, Kashmiri Sahib affirmed that: “Imaam Bukhaari is a Mujtahid” and Nu’maani sahib, that: “Imaam Bukhaari is not a Muqallid”, but while ignoring the sayings of their Akaabir (elders), someone says in “Takharrus & Tajaazub”: “Imaam Bukhaari, the Taqleedi Hayaati Samaa’ee” [See, Mahnamah “Qaaflah”, Vol 3 Shumara # 3, P. 14-15].

Inna Lillaahi Wa Inna Ilaihi Raaj’oon!

2) Imaam Abu Dawood Sulemaan bin al-Asha’th as-Sijistaani (rahimahullah)

 

There are different opinions found concerning him as well. Mentioning all of them would cause too much length to the article. To make it short we will mention the opinions of two personalities of “Muqallideen”, and it itself will contain a lot of contents for those who understand.

So listen, Zakariyyah Kaandhalwi writes:

“My opinion concerning Abu Dawood is that he was a firm Hanbali. Therefore, Hanaabilah have also added him in the Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah; and with that, he has proven the permissibility of urinating while standing by naming a chapter in his book ‘Al-Baul Qaa’iman’ which is the Madhab of Hanaabilah, whereas, it is Makrooh according to the other A’immah…. Similarly, (the issue of) performing wudoo upon eating the food touched by fire is Mansookh according to everyone, except Hanaabilah, this is why, Imaam Abu Dawood has mentioned this Baab (Chapter) after giving precedent to the chapter of Tark-e-Wudoo and has emphasized it even more ahead with the title ‘At-Tashdeed fi Dhaalik’ and the hadeeth which says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) abandoned (Tark) performing ablution upon that which touched fire at the end (of his age), Imaam Abu Dawood interpreted it to be related to a restricted incident.” [Taqreer Bukhaari: 1/52].

“Mufti” Sa’eed Ahmed Paalanpoori, the teacher of Hadeeth in Daarul Uloom Deoband, writes:

“According to the insignificant opinion of the Author (which is Paalanpoori himself), this last opinion is correct, because taraajim (Chapters) of the Sunan (Abi Dawood), where, accord with Imaam Ahmed, at the same time, some are also against him. Some of its examples are as follows:

 

  1. 1.    Concerning the Virgin Adult (Baalighah) Woman, does the Wali (Guardian) has the authority of compelling her or not? Ahnaaf refuse it, according to them, her (the woman’s) agreement is a condition for the Nikaah to be valid; but the A’immah Thalathah (the three other Imaams) say that as long as she is virgin – though a Baalighah (Adult) – still the wali has the authority to compel her (to do Nikaah); meaning, her agreement is not a condition for the Nikaah to be valid… Imaam Abu Dawood has brought a chapter concerning this issue in his Sunan named: ‘Chapter: On the virgin girl whose father marries her without her permission’ and then he narrates the hadeeth of Ibn Abbaas (radiallah anhu) that: A virgin girl came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, upon which the Mercy for all Man-kind (peace be upon him) gave the girl permission to keep or not to keep her Nikaah. [Bazl al-Majhood: 3/26]

 

Allaamah Kaashmiree said concerning this chapter: ‘The purpose of Imaam Sahab with this chapter is to accord the Ahnaaf (Iraaqis) and this is also assumed from the approach of Imaam Bukhaari’

 

  1. 2.    Does touching the ‘private part’ invalidate Wudoo or not? The wudoo is not invalidated according to the Ahnaaf, whereas, it is invalidated according to the Shawaafi’ and Hanaabilah [Bidaayat al-Mujtahid: 1/39, al-Minhal: 2/196]

Imaam Sahab (Abu Dawood) brings the first chapter on this issue by the name: ‘Chapter on one performing wudoo upon touching the penis’, and then he names the other chapter: ‘Chapter on permissibility concerning that’. The order of (naming the chapters) by Imaam Sahab denotes that he is favoring the view of Ahnaaf.

 

  1. 3.    Does eating the food touched by fire invalidate wudoo or not? The opinion of A’immah Arba’ah (the four Imaams) is that the wudoo remains [al-Manhal: 2/213]. The first chapter that Imaam Abu Dawood brought concerning this issue is: ‘Chapter on the abandonment of performing wudoo from that which touched the fire’, and then after that, he says: ‘Chapter: At-Tashdeed fi Dhaalik (meaning, on the wudoo being necessary upon eating the food touched by fire)’, from which this can be deduced that according to Imaam Abu Dawood, the obligation of performing wudoo is raajih (the more correct view)… Hadhrat Maulaana Zakariyyah Sahab rahmatullah alaih has presented the same example in proving him a Hanbali, but as you saw, this chapter is in fact against Imaam Ahmed rahmatullah alaih. Then how can this chapter be a proof of Imaam Sahab (Abu Dawood) being a Hanbali?! Rather this chapter is against the Jumhoor!

 

These were a few examples I presented, otherwise, there are many Taraajim (Chapters) in the Sunan which can be found against the Madhab of Imaam Ahmed (rahimahullah). That is why, instead of considering Imaam Sahab (Abu Dawood) to be a Hanbali or a strict Hanbali, it is more correct to consider him a Mujtahid.” End Quote of Paalanpoori [Hayaat Abu Dawood with reference to the translation of Sunan Abu Dawood: 1/30-32]

Did you see, how by looking at only one or two chapters, Zakariyyah Sahab considered Imaam Sahab (Abu Dawood) to be a firm or strict Hanbali, and then the chapter he presented from Sunan Abi Dawood as an example, the same chapter came out to be against the view of Imaam Ahmed (rahimahullah), as per the saying of Paalanpoori “How can this be the proof of him being a Hanbali or a Mutashaddid Hanbali?” Anyway, we can imagine from this that by looking at a few chapters like this, people have tried to make guesses and assumptions, and whatever anyone could understood, they made him such. Whereas, we can even find some chapters in Sunan Abu Dawood which support & strengthen Hanafi Madhab; if this is the measure of considering him a Hanbali, then why don’t the people declare him a “Hanafi”? Similarly, even Maaliki Madhab can get some support from some of the chapters, then why is he not declared a “Maaliki”? In fact Taaj as-Subki did bring his name in Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi’eeyyah!!

3) Imaam Muslim bin al-Hajjaaj al-Qushayri (rahimahullah)

 

Imaam Muslim is the author of Saheeh Muslim. Saheeh Muslim is second in status after Saheeh Bukhaari, and all its narrations are authentic. Listen to some opinions concerning Imaam Muslim:

  1. The “Shaikh ul-Islaam” of Deobandi Muqallideen, Shabbeer Ahmed Uthmaani writes:

“As for Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasaa’ee, Ibn Maajah, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu Ya’la, Bazzaar, and the other Muhadditheen like them, then they were upon the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth. They neither were the Muqallid of a specific Scholar among the Scholars, nor were they Mutlaq A’immah Mujtahideen” [Fath ul-Mulhim: 1/281]

  1. “Mufti” Rafee’ Uthmaani writes:

“The opinion of Shaah Sahab (Anwar Shah Kaashmiree) concerning Muslim and Ibn Maajah is that we could not find about their Madhab. And their being Shaafi’ee is famous based on the chapters of Saheeh Muslim, which mostly are in accordance to the Shaafi’ee Madhab, but this base is not correct, because the taraajim (chapters) (of Saheeh Muslim) were not named by Imaam Muslim himself, rather they are named by the people after him” [Dars Muslim: P. 72-73]

Pay attention to the statement of “Mufti” Sahab and see what kind of guesses the guessers have made? They are assuming his “Madhab” from the names of Chapters of his book, whereas, those chapters were not even named by Imaam Muslim himself, rather it is an effort of the late-comers, therefore, this base is extremely weak and groundless. All the attempts of declaring Muhadditheen to be Muqallideen are based mostly on these weak bases. So how much importance the guesses made on such weak bases would hold?

  1. Zakariyyah Kaandhalwi writes:

“As for Hadhrat Imaam Muslim, some have declared him Shaafi’ee, while most of them have declared him Maaliki” [Taqreer Bukhaari: 1/52]

  1. “Mufti” Irshaad Qaasmi writes:

“Imaam Muslim…. It is written in the Muqaddimah of Fath (al-Baari) that he was upon the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth. He was not the Muqallid of anyone.” [Irshaad Usool ul-Hadeeth: P. 166]

  1. Abdur Rasheed Nu’maani writes:

“ولعل الصواب في هذا الباب ما نقله الشيخ طاهر الجزائري في “توجيه النظر الي اصول الاثر” عن بعض الفضلاء ونصه: (وقد سئل بعض البارعين في علم الاثر عن مذاهب المحدثين مرارا بذالك المعني المشهور عند الجمهور فاجاب عما سئل عنه بجواب يوضع حقيقة الحال… اما البخاري و ابو داؤد فاما مان في الفقه وكانا من اهل الاجتهاد، واما مسلم والترمذي والنسائي وابن ماجة وابن خزيمة وابو يعلي والبزار ونحوهم فهم علي مذهب اهل الحديث ليسوا مقلدين لواحد من العلماء ولا هم من الائمة المجتهدين بل يميلون الي قول ائمة الحديث كالشافعي و احمد و اسحاق وابي عبيدة….” الخ

“I think the correct opinion in this issue is that which Ash-Shaikh Taahir al-Jazaairi narrated in ‘Tojeeh un-Nadher Ila Usool al-Athar’ from some Fudala which is that: The experts in the field of Ilm ul-Hadeeth are asked many times about the (Fiqhi) Madhaahib of Muhadditheen in the meaning which is famous according to the Jumhoor, so they answered this question posed to them with an answer which clarifies the actual condition…. As for Bukhaari and Abu Dawood then they are Imaams in the field of Fiqh and they both are from the people of Ijtihaad (Mujtahids), and as for Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasaa’ee, Ibn Maajah, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu Ya’la, Bazzaar, and other similar Muhadditheen then they were upon the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth. They were neither the Muqallideen of a specific Scholar among the Scholars, nor were they from the A’immah Mujtahideen; rather they were mild towards the opinions of Imaams of Hadeeth such as Shaafi’ee, Ahmed, Ishaaq, Abu Ubaydah and the similar Muhadditheen” [Maa Tamassu Ilaihi al-Haajjah P. 26]

The Madhab of Muhadditheen: ‘Adm-e-Taqleed

It became clear from this statement that not only Imaam Muslim but all the other famous Muhadditheen such as: Imaam Tirmidhi, Imaam Nasaa’ee, Imaam Ibn Maajah, Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah, Imaam Abu Ya’la, and Imaam Bazzaar rahimahumullah were also upon the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth. They were not the Muqallideen of any one Imaam among the A’immah – they did not do Taqleed. This also makes clear that the famous books of ahadeeth such as Saheeh Muslim, Sunan Tirmidhi, Sunan Nasaa’ee, Sunan Ibn Maajah, Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah, Musnad Abi Ya’la, and Musnad al-Bazzaar etc were not compiled and author by Muqallideen but by Ahl ul-Hadeeth; whose purpose and ambition was only to follow Qur’aan and Hadeeth and not to favor, support, or explain any Madhab attributed to any Imaam. This is why, with the study of these books, one does not feel or realize even a little that it is written in accordance to a specific Taqleedi Madhab and neither does the reader feel that only those of the verses of Qur’aan, ahadeeth, and Athaar are compiled in these books which are the outcome of the Ijtahaadaat of a Specific Imaam. Whereas on the contrary, this thing is frequently realized with the study of the books of Fiqh in every step, no matter if they are the books of Fiqh of Shawaafi and Hanaabilah, or Maalikis and Ahnaaf.

This is the reason why all the Fiqhi Madhaahib take benefit from the books of ahadeeth without any distinction, and these books hold reliable and established status among all of them. If these Muhadditheen would also have been affected with Taqleed and had they taken under consideration the Taqleedi thought and methodology then these books of ahadeeth would also have been divided and would have become the books of specific Madhaahib just like the books of Fiqh, and we would also have found in these books the arguments that this hadeeth is our Daleel and that hadeeth is the daleel of our enemy, as this kind of division is found frequently in the books of Fiqh.

In short, Okaarvi Deobandi had demanded that “Not even one reliable reference can be presented concerning its compilers that he was neither able to do Ijtihaad nor did he do Taqleed” as passed above; thus no one can say about any book mentioned above that it is unreliable. And concerning its compilers, we have already presented the references of Shaikh Taahir al-Jazaairi, then the “Shaikh ul-Islaam” of Muqallideen Shabbeer Ahmed Uthmaani, then their “Imaam Ahl Sunnat Muhaddith A’dham Pakistan” Sarfaraz Khan Safdar; their “Muhaddith al-Kabeer” Abdur Rasheed al-Nu’maani, and “Mufti” Irshaad Qaasmi from their books; which contain the clarification that “they were neither the Muqallideen of any one Scholar among the Scholars, nor were they A’immah Mujtahideen”. As if, this fulfilled the exact mouth spoken demand of Ameen Okaarvi and his followers; I don’t think that any person related to the Deobandi School of Thought would consider these references to be “unreliable” or non-trustworthy.

Tabaqaat al-Muqallideen?

Okaarvi and, in his imitation, Mufti Mumtaaz as well, said that there has not been till today a book written with the name “Tabaqaat Ghayr Muqallideen”. We say to them, did any Muslim Muhaddith or Historian ever also write a book named “Tabaqaat al-Muqallideen”?

Okaarvi is not alive today, but we ask “Mufti” Ahmed Mumtaaz and the lovers of Okaarvi to tell us that have you ever studied a book of “Tabaqaat” attentively? Have you ever done their Tahqeeqi observation? Even if you have a cursory look on them, it will become clear that there are many Muhadditheen which are mentioned in several different Tabaqaat (at the same time). One same Muhaddith is mentioned in Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi’eeyyah and in Tabaqaat Hanaabilah or Maalikiyyah as well. Merely the mention of someone in these Tabaqaat does not necessitate his being a Muqallid; and neither does it, by any chance, necessitate his being a Muqallid according to your conditions and principles of being a Muqallid.

The Muhadditheen have also been added in these Tabaqaat because of their being student of a specific Imaam like someone is a student of Imaam Maalik, or his Silsilah (chain) of teachers goes back to Imaam Maalik; similarly, the students of Imaam Ahmed or Imaam Shaafi’ee are mentioned in the related Tabaqah because of their being his students, or because their Silsilah (chain) of teachers goes back to them. How does just being a student necessitate his being a Muqallid? Don’t go far let’s for example take Imaam Tahaawi who is famous as being a “Hanafi” and is actually a Hanafi, but not a Taqleedi or Muqallid Hanafi!!! Since it is this same Imaam Tahaawi (it is said) who said that: “No one does Taqleed except the one who is Muta’assib or stupid” and this saying of his had become a famous adage in Egypt. [Lisaan al-Meezaan: 1/280]

Is a Muhaddith like Imaam Tahaawi a Muqallid? Is he, by his own saying, a Muta’assib or Stupid person? We cannot even imagine that he would be a Ghabi/stupid! But those who consider him a Muqallid should think that he is really such a person (Muta’assib and Stupid) according to their opinion.

In fact, Abdul Qaadir Ar-Raafi’ee al-Hanafi has written:

“وقد نقل ابو بكر القفال وابو علي والقاضي حسين من الشافعية انهم قالوا لسنا مقلدين للشافعي بل وافق راينا رايه، وهو الظاهر من حال الامام ابي جعفر الطحاوي في اخذه بمذهب ابي حنيفة واحتجاجه له وانتصاره لاقواله”

“And he narrated from Abu Bakr al-Qaffaal, Abu Ali, and Qaadhi Husayn from the Shaafi’eeyyah that they said: ‘We are not the Muqallideen of Shaafi’ee, but our opinion accords with his (Shaafi’ee’s) opinion’, and this is also apparent from the condition of Imaam Abu Ja’far at-Tahaawi that his adoption to the Madhab of Abu Haneefah, and his Ihtijaaj for him, and his support for his Aqwaal was not in his Taqleed (rather his opinion matched with the opinion of Abu Haneefah)” [Taqreeraat ar-Raafi’ee: 1/11]

See, Though Abu Bakr al-Qaffaal, Abu Ali, and Qaadhi Hussayn are Shaafi’ees, but as per the saying of Raafi’ee, they said, we are not the Muqallids of Shaafi’ee, meaning, their opinion was based on Tahqeeq, extracted from the Dalaail, and not due to Taqleed, and neither did they like for them to be called “Muqallid” and as per the saying of Raafi’ee, same is the condition for Imaam Tahaawi being a Hanafi.

“Mufti” Sa’eed Ahmed Paalanpoori writes:

“And Allaamah Qaasim (Ibn Qatlubagha) has written in another risaalah that: I say, with the blessing of Allaah, the same as what Imaam Tahaawi had said to Ibn Harbawiyyah that ‘No one does Taqleed except a Muta’assib or Stupid person!’” [Aap Fatwa Kaise Dain? P. 82]

Yes, Ibn Qatlubagha was a Hanafi, but not a Muqallid. This proves that merely belonging to the Hanafi Tabaqah does not necessitate that he must be a Muqallid? Similarly, the mention of someone’s name in any of the Tabaqah does not necessitate his being a Muqallid.

Allaamah Zayla’ee was a Famous Hanafi, but he himself says: “A Muqallid is negligent and a Muqallid is ignorant” [Nasb ur-Rayaa: 1/287]

Similarly, Allaamah Aynee was also a Hanafi, he himself said: “Thus Muqallid commits mistakes, and Muqallid acts ignorant, and taqleed is the cause of every calamity”. [See, al-Binaayah fi Sharh al-Hidaayah: 1/317]

In spite of that, merely because of his being a Hanafi, declaring him a Muqallid is Baatil from his own saying. This is equal to proving him a double-faced person!

Similarly, Allaamah Ibn Abdil Barr who brings the chapter of “Trials of Taqleed” in his famous book “Jaami Bayaan al-Ilm”, people are also often busy in proving him a Maaliki Muqallid.

A staunch opposer of Taqleed like Ibn al-Qayyim, who has proven Taqleed to be Baatil, based on many reasons, and refuted the so-called Dalaail for the permissibility of Taqleed in his book “I’laam al-Mawqa’een”, but there are many people who still consider him a Hanbali Muqallid.

Now, those People of Knowledge from whom the condemnation of taqleed is clearly proven, people do not sit calmly without declaring them to be Muqallid as well, so (if they can declare them to be Muqallid) then they must have the free license to declare all the other Muhadditheen to be Muqallideen.

Let them do whatever comes in their heart, but their happiness upon seeing “Tabaqaat” and the names of Muhadditheen and Scholars in these Tabaqaat, and declaring them to be Muqallid because of that, is mere an assumption. It has nothing to do with the reality. If they want to prove something then they should discover and bring a book named “Tabaqaat al-Muqallideen”! Otherwise, who wants to listen to their “Assumptions” “Takharrus” and “Speeches without any evidences”?

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Fiqh, Muqallid, Taqleed

An-Nabbahanni said in Jami Karamat ul Awliya

An-Nabbahanni said in Jami Karamat ul Awliya (v 2 o 396):

“Our Shaykh Ali Al-‘Umari Ash-Shazili At-Trabulsi, the most famous of Awliya of that time and the one having the most Karamat and Khawariq ul ‘Adat…and among his Karamat, may Allah be pleased with him, is what Al-Haaj Ibrahim mentioned (before) said: I came one day to the Hamam (public bath) with our SHaykh ‘Ali Al-‘Umari and with us there was his Khadim (servant) Muhammad Ad-Dubbusi At-Trabusli, et he is the brother of one the wives of the Shaykh, and there was no other than us in the Hammam. He said: I saw from the Shaykh a Karamat among most amazing Khawariq ‘Adat and most rare, and it is that he became angry on his Khadim, this Muhammad, and desired to punish him, and the Shaykh took his own Ihlil, meaning penis with his both hands below his Izar and it became very long until it exceeded his shoulders and became longer than him, and he started to beat his Khadim mentioned, and the Khadim was shouting because of the intensity of the pain, and he did this many times then left him, and the penis returned to his first size, and I understood that the Khadim indeed did something deserving punishment, and he punished him with this amazing form, and when Haaj Ibrahim narrated this to me, he narrated this in the presence of the Shaykh, and the Shaykh was aware. The Shaykh said to me: Do not trust him but check (before), then he took my hand by force and put it on the place of his penis, and I did not feel anything, as if he was not a man at all…”

And Ahsraf Ali Thanvi summarized this book and it was translated into Urdu by one of his student. Despite such falsehood, Nabbahani is a good Sufi for Thanvi…

http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4786

Leave a comment

Filed under Ashraf Ali Thanvi

Ashraf Alee Thanvee & Aqeedah Of Deoband – Built Upon Concocted Lies!!!

Ashraf Alee Thanvee & Aqeedah Of Deoband – Built Upon Concocted Lies!!!

After mentioning who the Walee Of Allaah is according to Shaykh Abd al-Qaadir rahimahullaah one should beware of those who concoct lies upon the Shaykh and have deviated far away from his path. (check here)

Ashraf Alee Thanvee says in his book Malfoozaath Volume 3

# Malfooz Number 41- Para 2

….The third affair of strangeness is that a desciple (mureed) of Hadhrath Ghaws-al-Aadham ( referring to Shaykh Abd al Qaadir Jeelaanee rahimahullah which means Very Great Helper – This is why they invoke him in the times of need not just at his grave but anywhere, everywhere! Other Awliyaa and Saaliheen and Ambiyaa are considered just helpers but he is considered the greatest aider in the times of distress) narrated a strange incident which is quite astonishing which most probably I have come across in some book of Shaykh Abd-al-Haq Muhaddith Dehlavi.

That once Hadhrath Ghaws-al-Aadham rahimahullah woke up in accordance with his mundane schedule for Salaah at-Thahajjud and stepped out of his monasterial hermitage (Khaankhaah) and this khaadim (desciple) aswell got together with him. After walking for a while they reached a town and soon afterwards entered a house in which there was a congregation and those people stood up after seeing him and he (the Shaykh rahimahullah) seated himself in a position while the desciple also seated himself in a corner.

From a nearby chamber there could be heard a patient’s groaning voice and after sometime this voice disappeared and four people exited (the chamber) with a janaazah and accompanied with them was an old person and this janaazah was placed in front of Hazrath (Shaykh Abd al-Qaadir) and he offered janaazah prayer soon after that congregation took the janaazah and left. The Shaykh got back to his previous position.

When the congregation had left, soon after a person who was a Christian appeared. Hadhrath pulled out the cross hanging on his neck and broke its chain and made him recite the Kalimah and then addressed the congregation that he (this new muslim) is (now) such and such headed back to his hermitage.

After reaching his place he became busy in Salaah at-Thahajjud. After the night passed, this mureed (desciple) questioned Hadhrath as to what the issue was concerning the incident the previous night. Hadhrath said, that the maqaam to which we had been was a town named Mawsil and that congregation was the jamaah of Abdaal ( A soofee terminology; their belief is that all the affairs of this universe are governed by Abdaal who are human beings and whenever one of them dies, there is a replacement and their number remains fixed) and that ailing person was one of them and they communicated to me spiritually (baathinee – soofees believe their saints have super natural ways to communicate that are far above general human abilities) that he shall be dying very soon and they requested him to be replaced. This is why I had been there and when he died then I requested Allaah to appoint someone in his place. Then there was an Order from Allaah that in Rome, a Christian is immersed in worshipping the cross, so he should be appointed as a replacement for the dead person.

Then I asked (Allaah) as to how should his appearance here be requested? He then appeared in a strange abnormal miraculous way and immediately he was converted to a Muslim and placed on the position of abdaal and the message was conveyed that no one should be proud of one’s class/elegance and everything is restricted to My (Allaah’s) Fadhl.

Source: http://salaf-us-saalih.com/2010/12/07/ashraf-alee-thanvee-aqeedah-of-deoband/

Leave a comment

Filed under Aqeedah, Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Shirk

Ashraf Ali Thanvi – Muraaqabah At The Graves

Presence Of Graves Of The Ambiyaa alaihim us salaam In India

Some of the noble ones (buzurg) received kashf (hidden ghayb) that even in India also there are shrines (graves) of certain ambiyaa alaihim us salaam and there is a place after Ambaala (name of a place) there is an enclosure and in it there are these graves/shrines. The signs of these graves have not remained intact of all these graves but for some of them the signs still remain. Maulana Rafee uddeen once visited that place and some students aswell accompanied him and maulana became a MURAAQIB ( Devotee of the grave who medidates at the grave to receive hidden knowledge from the souls and enguages in communication with the dead souls) there and I did not hear from the Mawlaana directly but he mentioned it to his soofi-desciple (mureed) named Hussaini , and this mureed (follower of a peer – soofee shaykh) mentioned it to the son-in law of the Maulana and his son-in-law mentioned it to me that Maulana described the kayfiyah (state) of receiving kashf (hidden ghayb) – the souls of those noble ones (those alleged Prophets) enguaged in a spiritual connection with the Maulana and he met them and it came to be known that from among them one noble person’s name was Khidr or Khidhr and one other was his son (named) Ibraaheem and he informed that his era was Karnaa. With a rigorous research it was found that there was a King Karan (Raja Karan) who lived there and passed away approximately 2000 years from now.

[Ashraf Alee Thanvi in Malfoozaath – Malfooz number 403 Volume 5 page 355]

[Note:- Raja Karna is the one mentioned in the hindu religious scriptures, whose city is very close to Ambala]

Conclusion:-
1. Deobandee maulvees become Muraaqib at the graves (known or maj’hool).

2. Receive Kashf from the graves by enguaging in discussion with the dead souls.

3. Dead souls give the living deobandees knowledge of unseen.

4. Through Kashf deobandees come to know things that only Prophets were able to know through revelation. Like names of the Prophets that neither Allaah nor His Messenger Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam have informed us, their location of graves, etc.

5. Deobandee maulvees dont have any shame to declare a Prophet named Ibrahim during the time of Raja Karna without any evidence from either the Qur’aan or the Sunnah but by way of Kashf!!!

Source: http://salaf-us-saalih.com/2010/12/07/ashraf-alee-thanvee-aqeedah-of-deoband/

Leave a comment

Filed under Ashraf Ali Thanvi

Taqleed – Shaikh Zubair Ali Zai [Part 2]

Urdu lecture by Shaykh Al-Hafidh Zubayr Ali Zai rahimahullah with English subtitles

Leave a comment

Filed under Taqleed

Salaf us-Saliheen Were Not Muqallids WITH PROOFS

Bismillahir rahmaanir Raheem,

Were the Salaf us saliheen muqallideen? Did they do taqleed? Did they blindly follow one imam like the modern day muqallideen Deobandi Sufis and Barelvi Sufis claim?

Today are times of Great Fitnah, specially when we have so many deviants sects and each and every one of these deviant sect claims to be upon Quran and Sunnah. Amongst them is a group of innovators that is of the view that we have to blindly follow One imam out of the 4 imams instead of Quran and Sunnah. They even go to the level of saying that that the doors of Ijtihad have been closed about a 1000 years ago and every scholar, mufassir, muhaddith, faqeeh, imam and historian etc, that has come after the doors of Ijtihad were closed, he has done taqleed of one of the four Imams.

And these are the same people who also say that

“And Taqleed is only for a Jaahil, who is unfamiliar with ahkaam and Dalaail”

[Al-Kalaam ul-Mufeed fi Ithbaat ut-Taqleed: Pg 234 by Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Deobandi]

According to that statement from the same sect, all the great scholars of this Ummah that have came after Imam Ahmed Bin Hanbal, they were Jaahil (Na Audhubillahi min Dhaalik). In reality they are the ones that are the Jaahil.

In Another attempt to deceive their public, they say:
The Rejection of Taqleed-e-Shakhsi started in the era of Queen Victoria. Before this there was no Rejection (of taqleed e shakhsi) infact Every one used to do taqleed-e-Shakhsi”

[Tajalliyaat-e-Safdar Vol 2 Pg 410 by Amin Okarvi Deobandi]

Their hate for the People of Quran and Sunnah is also very obvious with titles such as “Wahabi/Ghair Muqallid/La Madhab”. All these lies are only due to their hate towards the followers of Quran and Sunnah upon the Manhaj of the Salaf us Saaliheen i.e Ahlul hadeeth. No wonder Ahmed Bin Sanaan Al Waasiti (Died 259 Hijri) said that:

“There is not an Innovator in this world that does not hate the Ahlul hadeeth”

[Ma’arifatu Uloom Al-hadeeth of Haakim Pg 4 with Authentic Chain]

In this article inshaAllah we will share with you 100 references from the Salaf us Saliheen that Indeed they were not Muqallideen as the Blind followers of today claim.

Note: This tahqeeq of 100 references doesn’t mean at all that the Scholars who haven’t been mentioned in this tahqeeq, used to do taqleed, in fact there is the Ijmaa of Khayr ul-Quroon on the prohibition of taqleed.

[See: Ar-Radd Ala Man Akhlad Ilal Ard: Pg 131-132]

This article is a translation of an Article by Shaykh Zubair Ali zai and it has been translated by brother Raza Hasan. May Allah reward them and every one involved in this great work for the sake of Allah, Ameen.

Allaah Subhanahu Wa ta’ala said:

Say: “Are those who know equal to those who know not? [Al-Zumar: 9]”

From this Ayah, we come to know that there are two kinds of People on Earth:
1. The Scholars (There are many types of Scholars based on their levels, and it also includes students of knowledge)

2. The Awaam – Common Public (There are many types of Awaam, and they also include illiterate, non-knowledgeable people).
The ruling for the Awaam is that they should ask from the People of Dhikr (knowledge). [See: Surah Nahal: 43]

   Asking scholars about any issue of Islam is not taqleed. See: Muntaha al-Wusool by Ibn al-Haajib al- Nahwi (Pg 218-219) and the book: Deen main taqleed ka mas’ala (Pg 16).
If asking from the Scholars were taqleed then the awaam of Deobandis and Brailwis would be considered the muqallideen of their present Deobandi and Brailwi Scholars, and they would never have called themselves Hanafi, Maatureedi, or Naqshbandi etc. Everyone would have been something else such as: Some would be Sarfarazi, some would be Ameeni, some Taqwi, while some Ghumni (!) whereas no one holds such an opinion. Therefore, declaring Mutlaq Asking to be taqleed would be wrong and Baatil.

Taqleed is not permissible for the Scholars, rather it is necessary for them to follow Quran, Sunnah and Ijma through their sayings and actions as much as they can, and if they do not find a mas’ala in Adillah Thalathah (The Three Proofs) then Ijtihaad (e.g. taking evidence from the agreed upon and ghayr Mukhtalifah Athaar of Salaf as-Saaliheen and Qiyaas Saheeh etc) is permissible.

Haafidh Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimhullah) said: “..Muqallid is not counted among the Ulama (Scholars), as is (proven) from the Ittifaaq (Consensus) of Scholars, therefore, he is not included in these dalail (The proven Fadhaail from the verses and ahadeeth)”[I’laam al-Mawqa’een Vol 2 Pg 200]

We come to know from the meaning of this saying that a Scholar can never be a Muqallid.
Haafidh Ibn Abdul Barr al-Andalusi (rahimahullah) said: “And they (the Scholars) said: And a Muqallid does not have any knowledge (Jaahil), and there is no difference of them (Scholars) in it.”[Jaami Bayaan ul-Ilm Vol 2 Pg 231, Chapter: Fasaad ut-Taqleed]

This Ijmaa also proves that a Scholar cannot be a Muqallid. In fact it is written in the Haashiah of the Hanafi book al-Hidayah that: “….What they meant from Jaahil is Muqallid because they have mentioned it against Mujtahid.” [Hidayah: Pg 132 Hashiah 6, Kitaab Adab al-Qaadhi]

After this introduction, in this tahqeeqi article, we are going to mention hundred (100) references of Scholars, regarding whom it is proven that they did not use to do taqleed:

#1 Sayyidunah Abdullah bin Mas’ood (radiallah anhu) said: “Do not do the taqleed of men in your deen” [Al-Sunan al-Kubra by Bayhaqi: 2/10, Chain Saheeh]

Sayyidunah Abdullah bin Mas’ood also said: “Either become an Aalim (Scholars) or a Muta’allim (Student of knowledge), but in between both of them, do not become a Muqallid (Imma’atan)”

[Jaami Bayaan al- Ilm: 1/71,72 H. 108, Chain Hasan]

One of the meaning of Imma’atan is also Muqallid. [See: Taaj ul-Uroos Vol 11 Pg 4, Mu’jam ul-Wasiyat (Pg 26), and Al-Qamoos ul-Waheed of Deobandis (Pg 134)
According to Abdullah bin Mas’ood (radiallah anhu) there are three types of people:

a. Aalim
b. Student of Knowledge
c. Muqallid

He prohibited people from becoming a Muqallid, and ordered them to become an Aalim or a Student.

# 2 Sayyidunah Mu’aadh bin Jabal (radiallah anhu) said: “Even if an Aalim in upon guidance, do not do his taqleed in your deen.”[Jaami Bayaan al-Ilm: 2/222 H. 955, Chain Hasan]

Note: The clear permissibility of taqleed, either from the sayings or from the actions, is not proven from a single Sahaabi (Companion) from among all the Sahaabah. On the contrary Haafidh Ibn Hazam al-Andalusi said:
It is the proven Ijmaa of all the Sahaabah from beginning till the end, and all the taabi’een from beginning till the end that accepting all the sayings of a person from amongst them or from the people before them is prohibited and impermissible.

[Al-Nabazat ul-Kaafiyah by Ibn Hazam Pg 71, Ar-Radd ala man Akhlad ilal ard lil Suyooti Pg 131-132, Deen Main Taqleed ka mas’ala Pg 34-35]

#3 Imaam Maalik bin Anas al-Madani (rahimahullah) (D: 179 H) – Imaam Daarul Hijrah, was a very big Mujtahid. Tahaawi Hanafi said regarding the Aimmah Arba’ah (The four Imaams – Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi’ee, and Imaam Ahmed) that:“they are Ghayr Muqallideen” [Haashiah al-Tahawi Ala ad-Durr ul-Mukhtaar Vol 1 Pg 51]

A Hanafi named, Muhammad Hussain has written that: “Aimmah Arba’ah all were Ghayr Muqallid” [Mu’ayyin ul-Fiqh Pg 88]

Master Ameen Okarvi Deobandi said: “Ijtihaad is waajib upon a Mujtahid, and taqleed of a mujtahid like him is Haraam upon him” [Tajalliyaat Safdar Vol 3 Pg 430]

Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Gakhrawi Deobandi said: “And Taqleed is only for a Jaahil, who is unfamiliar with ahkaam and Dalaail, or does not have the ability to prefer and reconcile between the contradictions of Proofs [Al-Kalaam ul-Mufeed fi Ithbaat ut-Taqleed: Pg 234]

#4 Imaam Ismaa’eel bin Yahya al-Muzani (rahimahullah) said: “I pronounce that Imaam Shaafi’ee has prohibited from doing his or anyone else’s taqleed, so that they (every person) can take his deen under consideration and be careful for themselves.” [Mukhtasir ul-Muzani: Pg 1]

Imaam Shaafi’ee said: “Wala Tuqallidooni (And do not do my taqleed)”  [Adaab ush-Shaafi’ee wa Manqibuhu by Ibn Abi Haatim Pg 51, Chain Hasan]

#5 One of the famous Imaams of Ahl us-Sunnah, and a Mujtahid, Imaam Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Hanbal (rahimahullah) said to his student Imaam Abu Dawood As-Sijistaani (rahimahullah) regarding Imaam Awzaa’ee and Imaam Maalik, that: “Do not do the taqleed of anyone of them in your deen” [Masaail Abu Dawood: Pg 277]

Benefit: Allaamah Nawawi (rahimahullah) said: “For verily a Mujtahid does not do the taqleed of a Mujtahid” [Sharh Saheeh Muslim Vol 1 Pg 210 Under H. 21]

Ibn al-Tarkamaani (Hanafi) said: “For verily a Mujtahid does not do the taqleed of a Mujtahid” [Al-Johar al-Naqi Ala Sunan al-Kubra lil Bayhaqi Vol 6 Pg 210]

Note: In order to increase their numbers, some people have mentioned several Scholars in Tabaqaat Maalikiyyah, Tabaqaat al-Hanafiyyah, Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi’eeyyah, and Tabaqaat al-Hanbaliyyah, which is not a proof of those Scholars being Muqallideen.

For example:

Imaam Ahmed bin Hanbal (rahimahullah) has been mentioned in Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi’eeah by Al-Subki (Vol 1 Pg 199)

Imaam Shaafi’ee has been mentioned in Tabaqaat al-Maalikiyyah (Al-Dibaaj al-Madhab: Pg 326 T. 437), and also in Tabaqaat al-Hanabilah (1/280).

Was Imaam Ahmed the Muqallid of Imaam Shafi’ee, and was Imaam Shaafi’ee the Muqallid of Imaam Maalik and Imaam Ahmed?!

NO!

So we come to know that a scholar’s name being mentioned in one of these tabaqaat does not mean that he is a Muqallid. Moreover, See: Tanqeed as-Sadeed Birisaalah Ijtihaad wa Taqleed by Shaikh al-Imaam Abu Muhammad Badee’ ud-Deen Shaah Raashidee as-Sindee (rahimahullah) [Pg 33-37]

#6 The saying of Tahaawi Hanafi has passed before regarding Imaam Abu Haneefah Nu’maan bin Thaabit al-Koofi al-Kabuli (rahimahullah) that he was a Ghayr Muqallid. See: # 3 above.

Ashraf Ali Thanwi Deobandi said: “Imaam Abu Haneefah being a Ghayr Muqallid is undoubtedly true.

[Majalis Hakeem ul-Ummat Pg 345, Malfodhaat Hakeem ul-Ummat Vol 24 Pg 332]

Imaam Abu Haneefah said to his student Qaadhi Abu Yoosuf: “Do not write all of what I say, for today I may have an opinion and change it tomorrow, and I may have an opinion tomorrow and change it the day after.” [Taareekh Yahya Ibn Ma’een, by Ad-Dauri Vol 2 Pg 607 T. 2461, Chain Saheeh]
Benefit: Shaikh ul-Islaam Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah and Haafidh Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahumullah) both said that Imaam Abu Haneefah had prohibited from doing his taqleed.

[See: Majmoo’ Fatawaa Ibn Taymiyyah 10/20, 211; I’laam al-Mawqa’een: 2/200, 207, 211, 228, and Ar-Radd ala man Akhlad Ilal ard lil Suyooti: Pg 132]

It is also written in the books of those who call themselves Hanafi that Imaam Abu Haneefah prohibited from doing his Taqleed.

[Muqaddimah Umdat ur-Ri’aayah fi Hal Sharh ul-Wiqayah: Pg 9, Lamhaat un-Nadhar fi Seerat ul-Imaam Zafar by Kawthari: Pg 21, Hujjatullah al-Balaghah: 1/157]

#7 Imaam Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin al-Futooh bin Abdullah al-Humaydi al-Azdi al-Andalusi al-Athari adh-Dhaahiri (rahimahullah) narrated from his teacher Abu Muhammad Ali bin Ahmed famous as: Ibn Hazam, regarding Shaykh ul-Islaam Abu Abdur Rehmaan Baqi bin Makhlad bin Yazeed al-Qurtubi (rahimahullah) that:

“He used to choose (the best from Quran and Sunnah), and did not use to do the taqleed of anyone.” [Juzwat ul-Maqtabas fi Dhikr Walat ul-Andalus Pg 168, Taareekh Dimashq by Ibn Asaakir: 10/279]
This saying of Haafidh Ibn Hazam is also present in Kitaab as-Sillat by Ibn Bashkawal (1/108 T. 284), and Haafidh Dhahabi said regarding Baqi bin Makhlad that:

“And he was a Mujtahid, did not use to do the taqleed of anyone, rather he used to give fatawaa based on athaar (hadeeth and athar).” [Taareekh ul-Islaam: Vol 20 Pg 313]

Benefit: Haafidh Abu Sa’eed Abdul Kareem bin Muhammad bin Mansoor al-Tameemi as-Sama’ani (rahimahullah) said:

“Al-Athari…. This is an attribution towards Athar, meaning the seeking of hadeeth and its ittiba [Al-Ansaab: 1/84]
Haafidh Sama’ani (rahimahullah) said: “Adh-Dhaahiri…… This is an attribution towards the people of Dhaahir and this is a group which is upon the way of Dawood bin Ali Asbahani Dhaahiri, these people follow the nusoos according to their literal meanings, and they are a lot in number [Al-Ansaab: Vol 4 Pg 99]
Haafidh Sama’ani (rahimahullah) said: “As-Salafi…… This is an attribution, as I have heard, towards the Salaf and to follow their Madhab” [Al-Ansaab: 3/273]
This proves that Saheeh ul-Aqeedah Muslimeen have many attributive names and titles, therefore, Salafi, Dhahiri, Athari, Ahl al-Hadeeth, and Ahl Sunnah, all are the attributive names of those Saheeh ul-Aqeedah Muslims who follow Quraan, Hadeeth and Ijmaa, and do not do the taqleed of anyone. Walhamdulillah.

#8 Haafidh Dhahabi (rahimahullah) said regarding Imaam Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Wahab bin Muslim al-Fahri al-Misri (rahimahullah) that: “He is Thiqah, Hujjah, Haafidh, Mujtahid, he did not use to do the taqleed of anyone, he was a man of Ibaadah nad righteousness.” [Tahdkirat ul-Huffaadh: 1/305 T. 283]

#9 Haafidh Dhahabi said regarding Abu Ali al-Hassan bin Moosa al-Ashayb al- Baghdaadi Qaadhi Mawsal (rahimahullah) that:

“He is among the treasures of Knowledge, and did not use to do taqleed of anyone.” [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula: Vol 6 Pg 560]

#10 Haafidh Dhahabi said regarding Abu Muhammad al-Qaasim bin Muhammad bin Qaasim bin Muhammad bin Yasaar al-Biyaani al-Qurtubi al-Andalusi (rahimahullah) that:

“He adopted the companionship of (Muhammad bin Abdullah) Ibn Abdul Hakam (Ibn A’yan bin Layth al-Misri), until he became an expert in Fiqh, and became an Imaam Mujtahid , he did not use to do taqleed of anyone, he is the author of the book ‘Al-Aydhaah fi ar-Radd Ala al-Muqallideen’ [Tadhkirat ul-Huffaadh: 2/648 T. 671]

This book of his in refutation of the Muqallideen is also mentioned by the following Scholars:

a. Al-Humaydi al-Andalusi adh-Dhaahiri [Juzwat ul-Maqtabas: 1/118]

b. Abdul Wahhab bin Ali bin Abdul Kaafi as-Subki [Tabaqaat ash- Shaafi’eeah al-Kubra: 1/530]

c. Salaah ud-Deen Khaleel bin Aybak as-Safdi [Al-Waafi bil Wafiyaat 24/116]

d. Jalaal ud-Deen Suyooti [Tabaqaat ul-Huffaadh Pg 288 T. 647]

Note: According to our knowledge, in the period of tadween hadeeth (until fifth century hijri) in fact until eighth century hijri, no Thiqah and Sudooq Saheeh ul-Aqeedah Scholar ever wrote a book in defense of taqleed such as: Kitaab ad-Difaa Anil Muqallideen, Kitaab Jawaaz at-Taqleed, Kitaab Wujoob ut-Taqleed, or a book with similar meanings, and if anyone differs with this tahqeeq, then just mention at least one such reference!!

#11 Haafidh Dhahabi said regarding Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ibraaheem bin al-Mundhir al-Nisaaburi, Shaikh ul-Haram (rahimahullah) that:

“He was a Mujtahid, never did taqleed of anyone.” [Tadhkirat ul-Huffaadh: 3/782 T. 775, Taareekh ul-Islaam: 23/568]

Allaamah Nawawi ash-Shaafi’ee said: “He never followed a specified madhab, and neither did he hold any ta’assub for anyone, as is the habit of those who differ, rather he was the follow of Authentic Sunnah and the (follower of) Daleel when became apparent, no matter who has the daleel; but despite this, our Companions have mentioned him among the Ashaab of Shaafi’eeah..”[Tahdheeb al-Asmaa wal Laughaat: Vol 2 Pg 197]

After mentioning an excerpt from the saying of Nawawi, Haafidh Dhahabi (rahimahullah) said: “the following of one specified madhab is only adopted by one who is unable to seek the knowledge, as our the many “Scholars” of our time, or the one who is Muta’assub” [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula: Vol 14, Pg 491]

From these references, we come to know two things:

1. The taqleed of a Madhab is only done by one who is Muta’assub or Jaahil.

2. The people with taqleedi madhaahib have mentioned many Scholars among their tabaqaat, whereas these Scholars are not proven to be Muqallideen, rather they were against taqleed, therefore, there is no trust on the books of tabaqaat of muqallideen.

#12 Haafidh Dhahabi said regarding Abu Ali al-Hassan bin Sa’d bin Idrees al- Kitami al-Qurtubi (rahimahullah) (Sudooq Hasan ul-Hadeeth) that:

“And he was an Allamah Mujtahid, never did taqleed of anyone, and was mild towards the sayings of Ash-Shaafi’ee.” [Tadhkirat ul-Huffaadh: 3/870 T. 840]

#13 Ibn al-Fardi said regarding the Qaadhi of Ameer (Khaleefah) Hishaam bin Abdur Rahmaan bin Mu’aawiyah al-Andalusi, whose name is Qaadhi Abu Muhammad Mus’ab bin Imraan al-Qurtubi that:

“He never did taqleed of any madhab, he used to judge by what he considered to be authentic, and he was pious and virtuous man.” [Tareekh Ulama al-Andalus Vol 1 Pg 189, Second Nuskha: Vol 2 Pg 133, al- Maktabah Shaamilah]

Moreover, see Taareekh Qudhaat ul-Andalus (Vol 1 Pg 47, 142), and AMaghrib fi Hali al-Maghrib by Ibn Sa’eed al-Maghribi (1/32)

#14 Haafidh Dhahabi said regarding Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jareer bin Yazeed al-Tabari as-Sunni (rahimahullah) that: “He was a Mujtahid, and never did taqleed of anyone” [Al-‘Abar fi Khabar min Ghabar Vol 1 Pg 460]

Ibn al-Khalkaan The Historian wrote: “He was from the Mujtahid Aimmah (Imaams), and never did taqleed of anyone” [Wafiyaat al-A’yaan: 4/191 T. 570]

#15 Haafidh Dhahabi said regarding Sudooq Hasan ul-Hadeeth: Qaadhi Abu Bakr Ahmed bin Kaamil bin Khalf bin Shajrah al-Baghdaadi (rahimahullah) that:

“He used to choose (the most authentic opinion) for himself, and did not use to do anyone’s taqleed.” [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula: 15/545, Taareekh ul-Islaam: 25/435]
#16 Haafidh Dhahabi said regarding Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Dawood bin Ali adh-Dhaahiri (rahimahullah) that:

“He used to practice Ijtihaad, and never did taqleed of anyone.” [Siyar A’lam al-Nabula: 13/109]
#17 Haafidh Dhahabi said regarding Abu Thawr Ibraaheem bin Khaalid al- Kalbi al-Baghdaadi al-Faqeeh (rahimahullah) that: “And he became an expert in knowledge and did not do taqleed of anyone” [Al-‘Abar fi Khabar min Ghabar: 1/339]

#18 Shaikh ul-Islaam Haafidh Ibn Taymiyyah ash-Shaami (rahimahullah) was asked:

“Were Bukhaari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Nasaa’ee, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawood at-Tiyaalsi, Daarimi, Bazzaar, Daraqutni, Bayhaqi, Ibn Khuzaymah, and Abu Ya’la were among the Mujtahideen, who never did taqleed of any Imaam among the Aimmah, or were they Muqallideen?
So Haafidh Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) replied:

“Praise be to Allah the Lord of Al-Alameen, As for Bukhaari and Abu Dawood, they were the Imaams from the people of Ijtihaad in Fiqh (Meaning Mujtahid Mutlaq), and Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasaa’ee, Ibn Majah, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu Ya’la, Bazzaar, and all the other people like them are upon the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth, (who) neither were the Muqallid of a specified Imaam, and nor were they from the Mujtahid Mutlaq Imaams” [Majmoo’ Fatawaa Ibn Taymiyyah: Vol 20, Pg 39-40]
From this tahqeeq and testimony, we come to know about four things:

1. According to Haafidh Ibn Taymiyyah, Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Abu Dawood were Mujtahid Mutlaq, therefore declaring them Hanafi, Shaafi’ee, Maaliki, or Hanafi is wrong.

2. Imaam Muslim, Imaam Tirmidhi, Imaam Nasaa’ee, and others were upon the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth, and they were not the Muqallid of anyone, therefore writing them in the books of tabaqaat is wrong.

3. No one from the Muhadditheen was Muqallid.

4. There are two levels of Mujtahideen:
a. Mujtahid Mutlaq
b. Normal Mujtahid

From this great saying of Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah), it gets proven that Imaam Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari (rahimahullah) was not a Muqallid but a Mujtahid.
Haafidh Dhahabi said regarding Imaam Bukhaari that: “And he is Imaam, Haafidh, Hujjah, The Leader in Fiqh and Hadeeth, with righteousness, Uluhiyyat, and deen, he is the Mujtahid of the people of earth”

[Al-Kaashif fi Ma’rifat man Lahu Riwayat fi al-Kutub as-Sittah: Vol 3 Pg 18 T. 4790]

It is written in the Muqaddimah of Faydh ul-Baari: “Know that Bukhaari was a Mujtahid, and there is no doubt in that” [Muqaddimah Faydh ul-Baari: Vol 1 Pg 58]

Saleemullah Khan Deobandi said: “Bukhaari is a Mujtahid Mutlaq” [Muqaddimah Fadhal ul-Baari: Vol 1 Pg 36]

The principle regarding the Mujtahid is that he does not do taqleed. Allaamah Nawawi Shaafi’ee said: “For verily a Mujtahid does not taqleed of a Mujtahid” [Sharh Saheeh Muslim: Vol 1 Pg 210 Under H.21, See: Saying # 5]

#19 Haafidh Ibn Taymiyyah said regarding Imaam Abul Hussain Muslim bin al-Hajjaaj bin Muslim al-Nisaburi al-Qushayri (rahimahullah) that:

“He was upon the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth, and he was not the Muqallid of a Specified Imaam.” [See: Saying #18]

Imaam Muslim said: “And we have explained Hadeeth and the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth” [Muqaddimah Saheeh Muslim, Pub. Darussalam: Pg 6]
Note: It is not proven from a single reliable Imaam that Imaam Muslim was a Muqallid.

#20 Haafidh Ibn Taymiyyah said regarding Imaam Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaaq bin Khuzaymah al-Nisaburi (rahimahullah) that:

“He was upon the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth, and he was not the Muqallid of a Specified Imaam.” [See: Saying #18]

Abdul Wahhab bin Ali bin Abdul Kaafi as-Subki said: “I say: Muhammad Bin Nasr (Al-Marwazi) Muhammad bin Jareer (bin Yazeed at-Tabari), Muhammad (bin Ishaaq) bin Khuzaymah, and Muhammad (bin Ibraahem) bin al-Mundhir all four were such from our companions that they reached to the level of Absolute (Mutlaq) Ijtihaad, and this did not exclude them from Ashaab ash-Shaafi’ee, they used to do takhreej on his Usool, and choose his Madhab, because their Ijtihaad accorded with him (Imaam Shaafi’ee). In fact after them, our sincere companions such as Abu Ali and others claimed that their opinions have accorded with Imaam A’dham (Imaam Shaafi’ee) therefore they followed him, and got attributed to him (Imaam Shaafi’ee), not that they were his Muqallideen. [Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi’eeah al-Kubra: Vol 2 Pg 78, Tarjumah: Ibn al-Mundhir]

From this confession of As-Subki, it has become clear that according to him Muhammad bin Nasr al-Marwazi, Muhammad bin Jareer at-Tabari, Muhammad bin Ishaaq bin Khuzaymah, Muhammad bin Ibraaheem bin al-Mundhir, and Abu Ali did not do taqleed.
Benefit: Just like Hanafis call Imaam Abu Haneefah as Imaam ul-A’dham to exaggerate , similarly, Shaafi’ees also call Imaam Shaafi’ee as Imaam ul-A’dham, for example:

Taaj ud-Deen Abdul Wahhab bin Taqi ud-Deen as-Subki said: “Muhammad (bin Idrees) ash-Shaafi’ee: He is our Imaam, he Al-Imaam al-A’dham…” [Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi’eeah al-Kubra: Vol 1 Pg 225]

Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Salamah al-Qalyoobi said regarding Imaam Shaafi’ee that: “He is Imaam al-A’dham” [Haashiah al-Qalyoobi Ala Sharh Jalaal ud-Deen al-Muhalla Ala Minhaaj ut-Taalibeen: Vol 1 Pg 10, Ash-Shamilah]

Qastalaani (Shaafi’ee) called Imaam Maalik as “Imaam al-A’dham” [Irshaad us-Saari li Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhaari: Vol 5 Pg 307 H. 3300, Vol 10 Pg 107 H. 6962]

Qastalaani said regarding Imaam Ahmed bin Hanbal that: “He is Imaam al-A’dham” [Irshaad as-Saari Vol 5 Pg 35 H. 5105]

Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani called the Khaleefah of Muslims as “Al-Imaam al-A’dham” [Fath ul-Baari: 3/112 H. 7138]

Now it is upon the Muqallideen to decide who among them is the true Imaam al-A’dham?!!

Abu Ishaaq al-Shiraazi said regarding some people that: “And the correct is what is the Madhab of our Muhaqqiq Companions that they are not the followers of the Shaafi’ee Madhab due to taqleed, rather they saw that in ijtihaad and fiqh, his way is more strong.” [Al-Majmu Sharh al-Madhahib: Vol 1 Pg 43]

After this Nawawi said: “Abu Ali al-Sanji said a similar thing: We followed ash-Shaafi’ee while leaving others because we found his opinion to be more preferable and authentic, and we are not his Muqallid” [al-Majmu: 1/43]

This proves that the titles of Shaafi’ee, Maaliki, Hanafi, or Hanbali beside the names of Scholars does not mean at all that they are his Muqallideen, but rather correct is that they are not Muqallideen, it’s only that their Ijtihaad accorded with the Ijtihaad of that Imaam who they are attributed to. Moreover see: # 95 (below)

#21 Qaadhi Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Umar bin Ismaa’eel ad-Dawoodi said regarding Imaam Abu Hafs Umar bin Ahmed bin Uthmaan famous as Ibn Shaaheen al-Baghdaadi (rahimahullah) that:

“He did not knew (taqleedi) Fiqh, neither more nor less (meaning he did not give any heed to this taqleedi fiqh). When the madhaahib of Fuqaha such as Imaam Shaafi’ee etc were mentioned to him, he used to say: ‘I belong to Muhammadi Madhab’”[Taareekh Baghdaad: Vol 11 Pg 267 T.6028, Chain Saheeh]

According to saying #18 (above), Ibn Taymiyyah rahmahullah declared the following great Muslim Scholars of this Ummah(from #22 to #27) to be ghair muqallideen/Ahlul Hadeeth.

#22 The Author of Sunan Abu Dawood, Imaam Abu Dawood Sijistaani Sulemaan bin Asha’th (rahimahullah).

#23 The Author of Sunan Tirmidhi, Imaam Abu Eesa Muhammad bin Eesa bin Soorah at-Tirmidhi (rahimahullah) 

#24 The author of Sunan Nasaa’ee, Imaam Ahmed bin Shu’ayb an-Nasaa’ee (rahimahullah) 

#25 The author of Sunan Ibn Majah, Imaam Muhammad bin Yazeed Ibn Majah al-Qazwayni (rahimahullah)

#26 Imaam Abu Ya’la Ahmed bin Ali bin al-Muthanna al-Mawsali (rahimahullah)

#27 Abu Bakr Ahmed bin Amr bin Abdul Khaaliq al-Bazzar al-Basri (Sudooq Hasan ul-Hadeeth) (rahimahullah) 

#28 Haafidh Abu Muhammad Ali bin Ahmed bin Sa’eed bin Hazam al-Andalusi al-Qurtubi (rahimahullah) said regarding taqleed that:

And Taqleed is Haraam…. An Aami (Layperson) and an Aalim (Scholar) are equal in this regard, and ijtihaad is necessary upon each one of them according to their ability.[AL-Nabzat ul-Kaafiyah fi Ahkaam Usool ud-Deen Pg 70-71]

Moreover, See: Al-Ahkaam by Ibn Hazam, and Al-Muhalla fi Sharh al-Mujallah bil Hujjaj wal athaar.Haafidh Ibn Hazam said in his book related to creed that: “May Allah save us from the taqleed, which came into existence after the praiseworthy Quroon Thalatha (the three best generations). Ameen”[Ar-Risaalah al-Bahirah: Vol 1 Pg 5, Ash-Shamilah]

#29 Haafidh Ibn Abdul Barr, in his famous book “Jaami Bayan al-Ilm” brought up a chapter named: “Baab Fasaad ut-Taqleed wal Fard Bayn at-Taqleed wal Ittibaa (Chapter on the aberrance of Taqleed, and the difference between Taqleed and Ittiba)”[Jaami Bayaan al-Ilm: Vol 2 Pg 218]

It is not proven that Haafidh Ibn Abdul Barr was a Muqallid. In fact Haafidh Dhahabi has said: “Thus verily he is among those who reached the level of Aimmah Mujtahideen” [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula: 18/157]

And it is know even to common people that a Mujtahid is not a Muqallid. [See # 5]
Haafidh Ibn Abdul Barr himself has said that: “There is no difference between a Muqallid(scholar) and an Animal” [Jaami Bayaan al-Ilm: Vol 2 Pg 228]

We already know that a muqallid is a Jaahil as well So in other words the muqallid scholars of today like deoband and barelvi are Jaahil as well as animals.

Note: In some occasions, Haafidh Ibn Abdul Barr, and Khateeb Baghdaadi etc have permitted for an Aami (Layperson) to do Taqleed of an Aalim (Scholar), whose meaning is only that a layperson can act upon a mas’ala by asking it from a Scholar. We say the same thing, that it is necessary for a Layperson to act upon a mas’ala after asking it from a Scholars who is Saheeh ul-Aqeedah and upon Quran and Sunnah, but calling it taqleed is wrong. It is a famous issue of Usool al-Fiqh that: A layman turning towards a Mufti is not taqleed.

See: [Muslim ath-Thabut Pg 289, and Deen Main Taqleed ka Mas’ala Pg 8-11]

#30 Ameer ul-Mu’mineen Khaleefah Abu Yoosuf Ya’qoob bin Yoosuf bin Abdul Mu’min bin Ali al-Qaysi Al-Kaumi al-Maraqashi adh-Dhaahiri al-Maghribi (rahimahullah) established the laws of Sharee’ah in his caliphate, raised the flag of Jihaad, established the boundaries with Justice and fairness, and established justice in his kingdom, Ibn Al-Khalqaan said regarding him that:

“He was a righteous King, who used to act upon the pure Sharee’ah, he used to advice others to do good with courage and without any fear, and used to stop them from doing bad, he used to lead the people in five daily prayers, used to wear normal clothes, whether it be a woman or a weak person he used to stop for them and give them their
rights, he willed that he be buried near the street (meaning Close), so that the people passing by could pray for my forgiveness” [Wafiyaat al-A’yaan: Vol 2 Pg 10]

Regarding this righteous and Saheeh ul-Aqeedah Caliph, Imaam Ibn al-Khalqaan further said:

And he ordered for the books of Furoo’ of Fiqh to be abstained, and said that the Scholars should only give Fatawaa based on Quraan and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and not do taqeed of anyone among the Mutaqaddimeen Mujtahideen (The former Mujtahids), rather give decisions based on their Ijtihaad, Istinbaat, according to Quraan, Hadeeth, Ijmaa, and Qiyaas” [Taareekh Ibn Khalqaan: Wafiyaat al-A’yaan: Vol 7 Pg 11]

The exact same Minhaaj, Maslak, and Da’wah is what the Ahl ul-Hadeeth proclaim.

Alhamdulillah!
Those who say that Ahl ul-Hadeeth only originated during the period of British Rule, should read this statement, with their eyes wide opened, of the caliph of Sixth Century who did not do anyone’s taqleed, so that they could know the truth. Haafidh Dhahabi wrote about this Reighteous caliph that he(the caliph) said regarding a Muqallid that:

Follow Quraan and Sunan Abu Dawood, otherwise, this sword is present” [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula: 21/314]

Haafidh Dhahabi further said: “And during his period, the position of Righteous people and Saaliheen was rasied high, and similarly, the status of Ahl ul-Hadeeth was raised High with him, and he used to have them make dua for him, during his period the knowledge of furoo’ (meaning taqleedi fiqh) vanished, and Fuqaha (meaning the so called taqleedi fuqaha) started fearing him. After separating the books of ahadeeth, he ordered for the books of (taqleedi) Madhab to be burned, therefore, the books: Al-Mudawwanah, Kitaab Ibn Yunus, Nawadir Ibn Abi Zayd, Tahdheeb al-Bardaa’ee, and Al-Waadihah of Ibn Habeeb were all burnt throughout the country.

Mahiy ud-Deen Abdul Waahid bin Ali al-Marakshi said in his book ‘Al-Mu’jab’ (Pg 354) that: ‘I was in Faas (a city) when I saw that tons of books were brought and then burnt.’”[Taareekh al-Islaam: Vol 42 Pg 216]

O Allah! Grant the highest rank in Jannah to this great Caliph and Ameer ul-Mu’mineen, and forgive our sins, and grant us the leadership of such a Saheeh ul-Aqeedah, Mujaahid Leader.

Ameen!

#31 Jalaal ud-Deen Suyooti said:

“After them, came the people who walked in their way and held firm to the guidance, for example: Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattaan, Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdi, Bishr bin al-Mufadhdhal, Khaalid bin al-Haarith, Abdur Razzaq (bin Hammaz as-Sana’ani), Wakee (bin al-Jarrah), Yahya bin Aadam, Humayd bin Abdur Rahmaan ar-Rawasi, Waleed bin Muslim, (Abdullah bin az-Zubayr) al-Humaydi, (Muhammad bin Idrees) Ash-Shaafi’ee, (Abdullah) Ibn al-Mubaarak, Hafs bin Ghiyaath, Yahya bin Zikriya bin Abi Zaaidah, Abu Dawood at-Tiyaalsi, Muhammad bin Abi Adee, Muhammad bin Ja’far, Yahya bin Yahya al-Nisaburi, Yazeed bin Zuray’, Isma’eel bin Ulayh, Abdul Waarith bin Sa’eed, Abdus-Samad bin Abdul Waarith bin Sa’eed, Wahb bin Jareer, Azhar bin Sa’d, Affaan bin Muslim, Bishr bin Umar, Abu Aasim al-Nabeel, Mu’tamar bin Sulemaan, Nadar bin Shameel, Muslim bin Ibraheem, Hajjaj bin Minhaal, Abu Aamir al-Uqdi, Abdul Wahhab ath-Thaqafi, Faryaabi, Wuhayb bin Khaalid, Abdullah bin Numayr, and others. No one among them did taqleed of the Imaam before them.”[Ar-Raad Ala man Akhlad Ilal ard: Pg 136-137]

We come to know that the teacher of Imaam Ahmed, Imaam Ali bin al-Madeeni, and Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een etc, The reliable, Muttaqan, Haafidh, Imaam, Imaam Abu Sa’eed Yahya bin Sa’eed bin Farookh al-Qattaan al-Basar (rahimahullah) was not a Muqallid.
Benefit: Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattaan said regarding Imaam Sulemaan bin Tarkhaan at-Taymee (rahimahullah – taabi’ee) that:

“He is among the Ahl ul-Hadeeth according to us”

[See: Musnad Ali bin al-Ja’d: 1354, Chain Saheeh, Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 4/125, Chain Saheeh]

According to the saying #31, Imam Jalal ud din Suyuti declared that the following great scholars of this Ummah (from #32 to #66) did not do taqleed.

#32 Thiqah Thabat Haafidh The expert in the Rijaal and Hadeeth, Imaam Abu Sa’eed Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdi al-Basari (rahimahullah) 

33) Thiqah Thabat Aabid, Imaam Abu Ismaa’eel Bishr bin al-Mufaddal bin Laahaq ar-Raqaashi al-Basari (rahimahullah)

34) Thiqah Thabat Imaam Abu Uthmaan Khaalid bin al-Haarith bin Ubayd bin Muslim al-Hujaymi al-Basari (rahimahullah) 

35) Thiqah wa Sudooq according to the Jumhoor, Imaam Abdur Razaaq bin Hammam as-Sana’ani al-Yameni (rahimahullah) 

36) Thiqah Haafidh Aabid Imaam Abu Sufyaan Wakee’ bin al-Jarraah bin Mulayh ar-Rawasi al-Koofi (rahimahullah) 

37) Thiqah Haafidh Faadhil Abu Zakariyyah Yahya bin Aadam bin Sulemaan al-Koofi (rahimahullah) 

38) Thiqah Imaam Abu Awf Humayd bin Abdur Rahmaan bin Humayd ar-Rawasi al-Koofi rahimahullah

39) Thiqah Truthful and Mudallis Imaam Abul Abbaas Waleed bin Muslim al-Qurashi ad-Dimashqi (rahimahullah)

40) The Teacher of Imaam Bukhaari: Thiqah Haafidh Faqeeh, Imaam Abu Bakr Abdullah bin Zubayr bin Eesa al-Humaydi al-Makki (rahimahullah)

41) Thiqah Thabat Faqeeh Scholar Imaam Abdullah bin al-Mubaarak al-Marwazi (rahimahullah) 

42) Thiqah and truthful Faqeeh, Imaam Abu Umar Hafs bin Ghiyaath bin Talq bin Mu’aawiyah al-Koofi al-Qaadhi (rahimahullah)

Note: Hafs bin Ghiyaath (rahimahullah) said: “I used to sit with Abu Haneefah. One day I saw him giving five different Fatawaa on the same issue, when I saw this, I left him, and started paying attention to the hadeeth[Taareekh Baghdaad: Vol 13 Pg 425, Chain Saheeh]

The narrator of this chain from Ibraaheem bin Sa’eed al-Johri is, ‘Abu Bakr Ahmed bin Ja’far bin Muhamad bin Salm’ and he is Thiqah.

[See: Al-Tankeel Bima Fee Ta’neeb al-Kawthari min al-Abateel: 1/103 T. 13]
Abdullah bin Ahmed ibn Hanbal (As-Sunnah: 316) and Ahmed bin Yahya bin Uthman (Kitaab al-Ma’rifah wat Taareekh: 2/789) both have done the Mutaab’iah of Abu Bakr, meaning they both have narrated this narration from Imaam Ibraaheem bin Sa’eed al-Johri (rahimahullah).

We come to know that Imaam Hafs bin Ghiyaath al-Koofi left the madhab of Ahl ur-Raaye, and adopted the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth. (rahimahullah)

43) Thiqah Mutaqan Imaam Abu Sa’eed Yahya bin Zakariyyah Ibn Abi Zaaidah al-Hamdaani al-Koofi (rahimahullah)

44) Thiqah and Sudooq, Haafidh Abu Dawood bin Dawood bin al-Jarood at- Tiyaalsi al-Basari (rahimahullah)

45) Thiqah Thabat Imaam Abul Waleed Hishaam bin Abdul Malik al-Baahli at-Tiyaalsi al-Basari (rahimahullah)

46) Thiqah Imaam Abu Amr Muhammad bin Ibraaheem bin Abi Adee al-Basari (rahimahullah) 

47) Thiqah and Sudooq according to Jumhoor, Imaam Muhammad bin Ja’far al-Hudhali al-Basari famous as: Andhar (rahimahullah) 

48) Thiqah Thabat Imaam Abu Zakariyyah Yahya bin Yahya bin Bakr bin Abdur Rahmaan al-Tameemi al-Nisaburi (rahimahullah) 

49) Thiqa Thabat Imaam Abu Mu’aawiyah Yazeed bin Zuray al-Basari (rahimahullah)

50) Thiqah Haafidh Imaam Abu Bishr Ismaa’eel bin Ibraaheem bin Miqsam al-Asdi al-Basari (rahimahullah)

51) Thiqah Thabat Sunni Imaam Abu Ubaydah Abdul Waarith bin Sa’eed bin Dhakwaan al-Anbari al-Tanoori al-Basari (rahimahullah)

52) Thiqah and Sudooq Imaam Abu Sahl Abdul Samad bin Abdul Waarith bin Sa’eed al-Basari (rahimahullah)

53) Thiqah Imaam Abul Abbas Wahb bin Jareer bin Haazim bin Zayd al-Basari al-Azdi (rahimahullah) 

54) Thiqah Imaam Abu Bakr Azhar bin Sa’eed as-Samaan al-Baahili al-Basari (rahimahullah)

55) Thiqah Thabat Imaam Abu Uthmaan Affan bin Muslim bin Abdullah al-Baahli as-Saffaar al-Basari (rahimahullah)

56) Thiqah Imaam Abu Muhammad Bishr bin Umar bin al-Hakam al-Zahraani al-Azdi al-Basari (rahimahullah)

57) Thiqah Thabat Imaam Abu Aasim Dahhaak bin Makhlad bin Muslim ash-Shaybaani al-Nabeel al-Basari (rahimahullah)

58) Thiqah Imaam Abu Muhammad Mu’tamar bin Sulemaan bin Tarkhaan al-Taymee al-Basari (rahimahullah)

59) Thiqah Thabat Imaam Abul Hassan Nadar bin Shumayl al-Maazni al-Basari al-Nahwi (rahimahullah)

60) Thiqah Imaam Abu Amr Muslim bin Ibraaheem al-Azdi al-Faraheedi al-Basari (rahimahullah)

61) Thiqah Faadhil Imaam Abu Muhammad Hajjaaj bin Minhaal al-Anmaati as-Sulami al-Basari (rahimahullah)

62) Thiqah Imaam Abu Aamir Abdul Malik bin Amr al-Qaysi al-Uqdi (rahimahullah)

63) Thiqah and Sudooq Imaam Abu Muhammad Abdul Wahhab bin Abdul Majeed bin as-Salt ath-Thaqafi al-Basari (rahimahullah)

64) Thiqah and Sudooq Imaam Muhammad bin Yoosuf bin Waaqid al-Dabi al-Faryaabi (rahimahullah)

Note: Imaam Faryaabi said regarding himself and his companions that: “And we were the group of Ahl al-Hadeeth” [Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 1/60, Chain Saheeh]
65) Thiqah and Sudooq Imaam Abu Bakr Wuhayb bin Khaalid bin Ajlaan al-Baahli al-Basari (rahimahullah) 

Note: In the original, it is written as: Wahab bin Khaalid, which is a mistake of either Kaatib or Naasikh, and if it is not a mistake then in this tabaqa, Abu Khaalid Wahab bin Khaalid al-Humayri al-Hamsi is Thiqah. [See:Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb: 7474]

66) The Thiqah Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah, Imaam Abu Hishaam Abdullah bin Numayr al-Koofi al-Hamdaani (rahimahullah)
67) Jalaal ud-Deen Abdur Rahmaan bin Abi Bakr as-Suyooti further said:

“Then after them came others like them such as: Ahmed bin Hanbal, Ishaaq bin Rahwayh, Abu Thawr, Abu Ubayd, Abu Khaythama, Abu Ayyub al-Haashmi, Abu Ishaaq al-Fazaari, Makhlad bin al-Hussain, Muhammad bin Yahya al-Dhahli, Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah, Uthmaan bin Abi Shaybah, Sa’eed bin Mansoor, Qutaybah, Musaddad, Fadal bin Dukayn, Muhammad bin al-Muthanna, Bandaar, Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Numayr, Muhammad bin al-‘Alaa, Hassan bin Muhammad al-Za’faraani, Suleman bin Harb, Aarim and others. No one among them did taqleed of anyone, they saw their people and observed them, therefore, if they had seen the space for the taqleed of anyone in their deen, then they would have done the taqleed of one of them!”[Ar-Raad Ala Man Akhlad Ilal Ard: Pg 137]

From this clarification of Suyooti, we come to know that The Thiqah Imaam Abu Muhammad Ishaaq bin Ibraaheem bin Makhlad al-Hanzali al-Marwazi, famous as: Ibn Rahwayh (rahimahullah) was not a Muqallid.

Regarding him (Imaam Ishaaq bin Rahwayh), Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani (rahimahullah) said: “He is a Mujtahid, and a companion of Ahmed bin Hanbal”[Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb: 332]

According to saying #67, Imam Jalal ud din Suyuti declared that the following great scholars of this ummah (from#68 to #86) did not do taqleed.

68) Thiqah Faadhil Imaam Abu Ubayd al-Qaasim bin Salaam al-Baghdaadi (rahimahullah)

69) Thiqah Thabat Imaam Abu Khaythamah Zuhayr bin Harb bin Shaddad al-Nisaa’ee al-Baghdaadi (rahimahullah)

70) Thiqah Jaleel ul-Qadr Imaam Abu Ayyoob Sulemaan bin Dawood bin Dawood bin Ali al-Haashmi al-Faqeeh Al-Baghdaadi (rahimahullah)

71) Thiqah Haafidh Imaam Abu Ishaaq Ibraaheem bin Muhammad bin al-Haarith al-Fazaari (rahimahullah)

72) Thiqah Faadhil Imaam Abu Muhammad Makhlad bin al-Hussain al-Muhalbi al-Basari (rahimahullah)

73) Thiqah Haafidh Imaam Muhammad bin Yahya bin Abdullah bin Khaalid adh-Dhahli al-Nisaburi (rahimahullah)

74) Thiqah Haafidh Imaam Abu Bakr Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abi Shaybah Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan al-Waasiti al-Koofi (rahimahullah)

75) Thiqah Haafidh Imaam Abul Hasan Uthmaan bin Abi Shaybah al-Absi al-Koofi (rahimahullah)

76) Thiqah Author, Imaam Abu Uthman Sa’eed bin Mansoor bin Shu’bah al –Khuraasaani al-Makki (rahimahullah)

77) Thiqah Thabat Sunni Imaam Abu Rajaa Qutaybah bin Sa’eed bin Jameel ath-Thaqafi al-Baghlaani (rahimahullah) 

Imaam Qutaybah bin Sa’eed said: “When you see someone who loves the Ahl ul-Hadeeth such as: Yahya Ibn Sa’eed al-Qattaan, Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdi, Ahmed bin Hanbal, Ishaaq bin Rahwayh, and he mentioned other people, then this man is on the Sunnah, and the one who is against him, then know that he is a Bid’ati” [Sharf Ashaab ul-Hadeeth by Khateeb: 143, Chain Saheeh]

Imaam Yahya al-Qattaan, Imaam Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdi, Imaam Ahmed, Imaam Ishaaq bin Rahwayh, all these people never did taqleed of anyone. [See:# 31, 32, 5, 67]
78) Thiqah Haafidh Imaam Abul Hassan Musaddad bin Musarhad bin Musarbal bin Mastoor al-Asdi al-Basari (rahimahullah)

79) Thiqah Thabat Imaam Abu Nu’aym al-Fadal bin Dukayn: Amr bin Hamaad at-Taymee al-Malaa’ee al-Koofi (rahimahullah)

80) Thiqah Thabat Imaam Abu Moosa Muhammad bin Al-Muthanna bin Ubayd al-Basari al-Anzi (rahimahullah) 

81) Thiqah and Sudooq Imaam Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Bashaar bin Uthmaan al-Abdi al-Basari: Bandaar (rahimahullah)

82) Thiqah Haafidh Faadhil Imaam Abu Abdur Rahmaan Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Numayr al-Hamdaani al-Koofi (rahimahullah)

83) Thiqah Haafidh Imaam Abu Kurayb Muhammad bin al-‘Alaa bin Kurayb al-Hamdaani al-Koofi (rahimahullah)

84) Thiqah Imaam Abu Ali al-Hassan bin Muhammad bin as-Sabaah al-Za’faraani al-Baghdaadi – The Companion of Imaam Shaafi’ee rahimahullah.

85) Thiqah Imaam Haafidh Sulemaan bin Harb al-Azdi al-Basari al-Waashihi (rahimahullah)

86) Thiqah and Sudooq Imaam Abu al-Nu’maan Muhammad bin al-Fadal as-Sadoosi al-Basari: Aarim (rahimahullah)

Regarding Abul Nu’maan, Haafidh Dhahabi said: “His memory got deteriorated before his death, but he did not narrate anything (in this condition)”[Al-Kaashif: Vol 3 Pg 79 T. 5197]

Therefore, we come to know that the objection of deterioration upon Imaam Abul Nu’maan is wrong and rejected.

87) Jalaal ud-Deen Suyooti (probably narrated fromHaafidh Ibn Hazam) that:

“In the old or the new era, I have not found any Scholar permitting taqleed or commanding people to do it. Similarly; Ibn Wahab, Ibn al-Majishoon, Mugheerah bin Abi Haazim, Matraf, and (Uthmaan bin Eesaa) Ibn Kananah did not do the taqleed of their Teacher (Imaam) Maalik in every thing, rather they opposed him in many occasions, and adopted other sayings while leaving his saying.”[Ar-Radd Ala Man Akhlad Ilal Ard: Pg 137]

So we come to know that (The Truthful Imaam) Abu Marwaan Abdul Malik bin Abdul Azeez bin Abdullah bin Abi Salamah al-Maajishoon al-Qurashi at-Taymee al-Madani (rahimahullah) did not do taqleed according to Suyooti.

Note: In the original Manuscript, it is written as Mugheerah bin Abi Haazim, whereas the correct thing is Mugheerah “AND” Ibn Abi Haazim, as is proven from Jawaami’ as-Seerah by Ibn Hazam (1/326, Ash-Shaamilah).

Mugheerah is meant to be Ibn Abdur Rahmaan al-Makhzoomi, and Ibn Abi Haazim is meant to be Abdul Azeez.

88) Sadooq Faqeeh Mugheerah bin Abdur Rahmaan bin al-Haarith bin Abdullah bin Ayyaash al-Makhzoomi al-Madani (rahimahullah) [See # 87]

89) Sadooq Faqeeh Abdul Azeez bin Abi Haazim al-Madani (rahimahullah) [See # 87]

90) Thiqah Imaam Abu Mus’ab Matraf bin Abdullah bin Matraf al-Yasaari al-Madani the son of the sister of Imaam Maalik (rahimahumallah) [See # 87]

91) Haafidh Ibn Hazam al-Andalusi (rahimahullah) said:

Then the students of Imaam Shaafi’ee, were Mujtahideen and Ghayr Muqallid such as: Abu Ya’qoob al-Buwayti, and Ismaa’eel bin Yahya al-Muzani.”

[Jawami as-Seerah Vol 1 Pg 333, Shaamilah]

We come to know that according to Ibn Hazam, Abu Ya’qoob Yoosuf binYahya al-Misri al-Buyooti, the companion of Imaam Shaafi’ee (rahimahullah) was a Ghayr Muqallid.
92) Thiqah Imaam Faqeeh Abu Ibraaheem Ismaa’eel bin Yahya bin Ismaa’eel
al-Muzani al-Misri (rahimahullah) was a Ghayr Muqallid as said by Ibn Hazam. [See: Saying # 91]

Abu Ali Ahmed bin Ali bin al-Hassan bin Shu’ayb bin Ziyaad al-Madaaini (Hasan ul-Hadeeth and Thiqah according to the Jumhoor) narrated from his teacher Imaam Muzani (rahimahullah) that:

“The one who makes the decision of taqleed, it is said to him: ‘Do you have proof for this decision of yours?’, If he says: ‘Yes’, then he has invalidated taqleed because this decision is based on Daleel (proof) not based on taqleed, and if he says: ‘No’, then it is said to him: ‘Why did you make the blood flow, made the private parts halaal, and wasted the Wealth? Allah had made all this Haraam upon you but you made it Halaal without any Daleel…’”[AL-Faqeeh al-Mutafaqqah: 2/69- 70, Chain Hasan]

In this long discussion, Imaam Muzani Rahimahullah has, very beautifully and with good manners, proven taqleed to be Baatil.
93) Haafidh Dhahabi and Haafidh Khaleel bin Aybak as-Safdi both said regarding Allaamah Abu Muhammad Abdul Azeem bin Abdullah bin Abi al-Hujjaaj ibn ash-Shaykh al-Balwi (rahimahullah) that:

“And he had special masaail, he never did taqleed of anyone of them”[Taareekh al-Islaam: Vol 49 Pg 226, AL-Waafi bil Wafiyaat: Vol 19 Pg 12]
94) Suyooti narrated from Haafidh Ibn Hazam that:
“And at the end, those whom we have met, Our Teacher Abu Umar al-Talmanki never did taqleed of anyone, and in some masaail, he has given the fatwa upon the saying of Imaam Shaafi’ee, and now Muhammad bin Awf does not do taqleed of anyone, and in some masaail he has given the fatwa upon the saying of Imaam Shaafi’ee”[Ar-Radd Ala Man Akhlad Ilal Ard: Pg 138]

It gets proven that thiqah Imaam Haafidh Abu Umar Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Ma’afri al-Andalusi al-Talmanki (rahimahullah) did not anyone’s taqleed according to Haafidh Ibn Hazam.

Haafidh Dhahabi said regarding Imaam Talmanki that: “He is an Imaam Muhaqqiq Muhaddith al-Haafidh Al-Athari…” [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula:17/567] Moreover see: Saying # 7

95) Many Hanafi, and non-Hanafi Fuqaha have narrated from Abu Bakr al-Qaffaal, Abu Alil, and Qaadhi Hussain that they said:

We are not the Muqallideen of ash-Shaafi’ee, instead our opinion accords with his opinion.”

[See: Al-Naafi al-Kabeer Liman Yutaali’ al-Jaami al-Sagheer by Abdul Hay al-Lakhnawi: Pg 7, Taqreeraat ar-Raafa’ee:Vol 1 Pg 11, al-Taqreer wal Tahbeer: Vol 3 Pg 453]

We come to know that according these Scholars, Allaamah Abu Bakr Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Abdullah al-Qaffaal al-Marwazi al-Khurasaani ash-Shaafi’ee (rahimahullah) was not among the Muqallideen.

96) From the previous reference, we come to know that Qaadhi Abu Ali Hussain al-Marwazi ash-Shaafi’ee (rahimahullah) was not among the Muqallideen. [See # 95]

97) Abu Ali al-Hassan (al-Hussain) bin Muhammad bin Shu’ayb al-Sanji al- Marwazi ash-Shaafi’ee (rahimahullah) was not among the Muqallideen.[See # 95]
We come to know that the Scholars who are called ash-Shaafi’ee, are not Muqallideen according to their own announcement and testimony.

Moreover see: Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi’eeah al-Kubra lil Subki (Vol 2 Pg 78 Tarjumah: Muhammad bin Ibraaheem bin al-Mundhir al-Nisaburi) and Saying # 11.

98) Shaikh ul-Islaam Haafidh Taqi ud-Deen Abul Abbaas Ahmed bin Abdul Haleem al-Harraani famously known as: Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

I only take from the Madhab of Ahmed, that which I am aware of, I do not do his Taqleed” [I’laam al-Mawqa’een by Ibn al-Qayyim: Vol 2 Pg 241-242]

Haafidh Ibn Taymiyyah said: “And if someone says that it is waajib upon the Awaam (Layman) to do the taqleed of so-and-so, then this is not the saying of a Muslim.”[Majmoo’ Fatawaa Ibn Taymiyyah: Vol 22 Pg 249]
And said: “And it is not obligatory upon any Muslim to do the taqleed of one specified Scholar among the Scholars in everything. Beside The Messneger of Allah (peace be upon him), it is not obligatory upon anyone to follow the madhab of a specified person, it is not obligatory upon any Muslim to follow in everything.”[Majmoo Fatawaa Ibn Taymiyyah: Vol 20 Pg 209]

Regarding Haafidh Ibn Taymiyyah, his student Haafidh Dhahabi said:“He is the Mujtahid Mufassir” [Tadhkirat ul-Huffaadh: Vol 4 Pg 1496 H. 1175]

99) Haafidh Ibn Qayyim al-Jazwziyyah (rahimahullah) wrote an excellent book in the refutation of Taqleed, named: “I’laam al-Mawqa’een An Rabb al-Alameen”, and said:

And this Bid’ah (i.e. Taqleed) came into existence in fourth century Hijri, whose condemnation is done by the The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) through his (sacred) Tongue.[I’laam al-Mawqa’een: Vol 2 Pg 208]

According to the Ahl ul-Hadeeth, we should follow the Qur’aan, Hadeeth, and Ijmaa in light of the Agreed upon Understanding of the Salaf as-Saaliheen, and Taqleed is not permissible.

Note: Since Haafidh Ibn al-Qayyim was also the supporter and the practicer of this Madhab(Ahlul hadeeth), therefore, Dhafar Ahned Thaanvi Deobandi said in his special Deobandi Style that: “we saw that the father of this type of sect (Ahl ul-Hadeeth) is Ibn al-Qayyim.”[I’laa us-Sunan: Vol 20 Pg 8, Topic: Ad-Deen al-Qayyim]
Moreover, see the introduction before the Saying # 1.

100) Haafidh Abu Abdullah Shams ud-Deen Muhammad bin Ahmed bin Uthmaan adh-Dhahabi (rahimahullah) has opposed taqleed openly in several places, and said:

And Every Imaam’s saying can be taken and rejected, except the saying of Imaam ul-Muttaqeen as-Saadiq al-Masdooq al-Ameen al-Ma’soom (Muhammad – Peace and blessing be upon him), May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. Thus By Allaah! Amaze is upon the Scholar who does the taqleed of a Specified Imaam in his Deen, in every saying of his, despite having the knowledge that the authentic ahadeeth refute the madhab of his Imaam. Wala quwwata Illa Billah”[Tadhkirat ul-Huffaadh: Vol 1 Pg 16, Tarjumah: Sayyidunah Abdullah bin Mas’ood (radiallah anhu)]

Haafidh Dhahabi writing“(La Hawla) Wala Quwwata Illa Billah” at the end is a proof that according to him taqleed is a satanic work, Therefore we pray to Allah that May He always save us from ths Satanic Work. Ameen!

[See: Saying # 11]

We, according to our Claim and the condition of the word Taqleed, have mentioned the references of 100 (hundred) Top Scholars of this Ummah from the Salafs, who did not do taqleed or were against Taqleed.

According to our knowledge, it is not proven from a single Thiqah and Sudooq Saheeh ul-Aqeedah Reliable Imaam that he permitted or made waajib the so-called taqleed, and no man on earth can give the reference of a reliable Imaam on the wujoob of taqleed.
Note again: This tahqeeq of 100 references doesn’t mean at all that the Scholars who haven’t been mentioned in this tahqeeq, used to do taqleed, in fact there is the Ijmaa of Khayr ul-Quroon on the prohibition of taqleed.[See: Ar-Radd Ala Man Akhlad Ilal Ard: Pg 131-132]

There are many other Scholars who clearly have prohibited from Taqleed and have refuted it. For example:

1) Jalaal ud-Deen Suyooti has written a book inrefutation of taqleed named: “Ar-Radd Ala Man Akhlad Ilal Ard Wa Jahala Annal Ijtihaad fi Kulli Asrin Fardh”, and in this book he brought a chapter named: “Fasaad ut-Taqleed (Abberrance of Taqleed)”, and in it, he narrated from Ibn Hazam that: “Taqleed is Haraam” [Pg 131]
Suyooti said in another book: “It is obligatory to say that the one who attributes himself to an Imaam other than the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and based on this attribution, he befriends and based on this he holds animosity then he is a Bid’ati, and is out of Ahl us-Sunnah wal Jama’ah, whether it (the attribution) be in Furoo or Usool” [al-Kanz al-Madfoon wal falaq al-Mahshoon: Pg 149]
2) Zayla’ee Hanafi (rah) said: “Thus Muqallid is on Mistake, and Muqallid acts ignorant.” [Nasb ur-Rayaa: Vol 1 Pg 219] 
3) Aynee Hanafi (rah) said: “Thus Muqallid is on Mistake, and Muqallid acts ignorant, and the aberrance of everything is in taqleed.” [Al-Binayah Sharh ul-Hidayah Vol 1 Pg 317]

4) Tahaawi Hanafi (rah) said: “Only the one who is a fool and muta’assub does taqleed” [Lisaan al-Mizaan: 1/280]
5) Abu Hafs Ibn al-Mulqan (rah) said: “And usually these things take place due to taqleed, and we are free from this (Taqleed) with the praise and help of Allaah”

[Al-Badar al-Muneer fi Takhreej al-Ahadeeth wal Athaar al-Waaqi’ah fil Sharh al-Kabeer: Vol 1 Pg 293]

6) Abu Zayd Qaadhi Ubaydullah ad-Daboosi Al-Hanafi (rah) said: “The summary of taqleed is that a Muqallid makes himself an animal and one of the four-footed…. If a Muqallid made himself Animal because he does not have any mind and understanding, then he needs to get himself cured”[Taqweem al-Adillah fi Usool ul-Fiqh Pg 390]
7) Ash-Shaykh al-Aalim al-Kabeer Muhammad Faakhir bin Muhammad Yahya bin Muhammad Ameen al-Abbaasi as-Salafi Ilaahbaadi (rahimahullah) did not use to do taqleed, rather he would take masaail from Quran and Sunnah and do Ijtihaad himself.[See: Nazhat ul-Khawatir: Vol 6 Pg 350 T. 636]
He (rahimahullah) said: “It is not permissible to do the taqleed of a specified Madhab according to the Jumhoor, rather Ijtihaad is waajib… The bid’ah of taqleed originated in fourth century Hijri” [Risalah Nijaatiyah: Pg 41-42]

An Aalim would do Ijtihaad from Quran, Sunnah, Ijmaa, and Athaar Salaf as-Saaliheen, whereas the Ijtihaad of an Aami (Layperson) is to follow the masaail by asking them from a Saheeh ul-Aqeedah Scholar who acts upon Quran and Sunnah (and not a anothr Muqallid), and this is not taqleed.
8) Abu Bakr or Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ahmed bin Abdullah al- Uroof: Ibn Khawaz Mandaaz al-Basari al-Maaliki said:

“The meaning of taqleed in Sharee’ah is to act upon the saying of a person upon which there is no daleel, and doing this is prohibited in Sharee’ah, and Ittibaa is what is proven with Daleel.”[Jaami Bayaan al-Ilm: Vol 2 Pg 231]

Note: This saying is narrated by Haafidh Ibn Abdul Barr and did not oppose it, therefore we come to know that it is not among the Shaadh sayings of Ibn Khuwayz Mandaad. Moreover see: Lisaan al-Mizaan (Vol 5 Pg 292)
9) Among the Contemporaries, The famous Scholar from Yamen, Shaikh Muqbil bin Haadee al-Wadaa’ee (rahimahullah) said: “Taqleed is Haraam, it is not permissible for any Muslim to do Taqleed (of anyone) in the deen of Allaah.”[Tuhfat ul-Mujeeb Ala As’ilat ul-Haazirah wal Ghareeb: Pg 205]

10) The Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Shaikh Abdul Azeez bin Abdullah bin Baaz (rahimahullah) said: “I am not Muta’assub with the praise of Allaah, but I give judgment based on Kitaab-o-Sunnat, the bases for my fatawaa are upon ‘Allaah said’ and ‘The Messenger of Allah said’ and I do not do taqleed of Hanabilah or others.”[Al-Iqna’ Pg 92] 

11) Ibn al-Jawzee was also against Taqleed, see: Al-Mushkil min Hadeeth as-Saheehayn (Vol 1 Pg 833)

The Peer of Brailwiyah, Sultaan Baahu said: “….Taqleed is bayjamee’ati and trouble, in fact the people of taqleed are Jaahil and worse than animals” [Tawfeeq al-Hidayat: Pg 20]
Sultaan Baahu further said: “Ahl-Tawheed are the people of guidance, and blessing. And the Ahl-Taqleed (The people of Taqleed) are the people of this world, the people of blame, and Mushrik” [Tawfeeq al-Hidayat: Pg 167]
On the contrary to the above mentioned 100 references of Scholars, and the other additional references, Deobandi and Brailwi Scholars say that Taqleed is Obligatory (Waajib), and the Scholars of the previous centuries were all Muqallid!!!

The following are the four references of these people of Taqleed, with their refutation:

1) Muhammad Qaasim Nanotwi Deobandi said:

“I am the Muqallid of Imaam Abu Haneefah, so therefore whatever saying you present against me should be the saying of my Imaam. The sayings of Shaami, Saahib Durr Mukhtaar etc will not be Hujjah for me, I am not their Muqallid.” [Sawaanih Qaasmi: Vol 2 Pg 22]
2) Mahmood ul-Hassan Deobandi said:

“…The truth and justice in this topic is to give preference to Ash-Shafi’i but we are Muqalid and the Taqlid of our Imam Abu Hanifah is obligatory (Wajib) upon us. Allah knows best”” [Taqreer Tirmidhi: Pg36]
3) Ahmed Raza Khaan Braylwi wrote an article:
“The Fatwa will always be Mutlaqan on the saying of Imaam Abu Haneefah”

While lying regarding Taqleed and deceiving the people, Ahmed Raza Khan said:

“Specially on the issue of taqleed, the Aimmah Scholars and Awliyaa Aarifeen of 11 hundred years will be, ma’adh allah, considered Mushrik in their Madhab”[Fatawaa Rizwiyah: Vol 11 Pg 387]

4) Ahmed Yaar Na’eemi Brailwi said:
“Our dalail (proofs) are not these narrations, the real proof of ours is the saying of our Imaam A’dham Abu Haneefah radiallah anhu” [Jaa ul-Haqq: Vol 2 Pg 91]
We say that you have no proof whatsoever for the permissibility of taqleed from the Thiqah and Saheeh ul-Aqeedah Scholars of 11 hundred years either from their sayings or from their actions. It’s a challenge from me to the whole Aale-Deoband and Ale-Braylee to present at least 10 references against these 100 references of Scholars in which it is said that it is obligatory upon the Muslims (whether Scholar or a Layperson) to do the taqleed of one among the Four Imaams (Imaam Abu Haneefah, Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi’ee, Imaam Ahmed), and the taqleed of the other three is haraam, and that it is not permissible for a Muqallid to follow Quraan and Hadeeth while leaving the saying of his Imaam. If it is, then give the reference! And if there is no such proof, and certainly there isn’t any, in fact my above mentioned references have broken down the idol of taqleed into small pieces and destroyed it completely. Therefore, do not try to establish the false influence of 11 hundred years of Scholars. The Ijmaa of the Salaf as-Saaliheen of Khayr ul-Quroon and the refutation of taqleed by the Jumhoor Salaf of the later time is a proof that this issue is absolutely against the Salaf as-Saaliheen.

If you consider the so-called taqleed to be waajib then that would necessitate the rejection of Quraan, Sunnah, Ijmaa (as seen today in Deobandi and barelvis), and the refutation of the Scholars of 14 hundred years, which is Baatil.

Wama Alaina Illal Balagha.

All these 100 Proofs prove that the Salaf us Saliheen were not muqallideen & they Did not do taqleed of any one & also refutes the the modern muqallideen taqleedi sufi Deobandis & barelvis claims.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Muqallid, Salaf, Taqleed

Taqleed – Shaikh Zubair Ali Zai [Part 1]

Lecture by Ash-Shaykh Al-Hafidh Zubayr Ali Zai

Leave a comment

Filed under Taqleed