Letters to the Editor

Q. Maulana Riaz-ur-Rahman Rashadi and YMD have been instrumental in arousing interest about Islam in me. I think most of the Editorials by Syed Iqbal Zaheer are truly amazing. A few months ago there was a seminar held by Deobandi scholars in Bangalore regarding Ahl-e-hadith Jama‘ah.

YMD

It is unfortunate that both sides have come to war of slogans and accusations with each other. This must be strongly discouraged. And one of the ways would be to boycott the meetings of both. 

Q. I attended this program. My family follows the Hanafi School of law. I had great respect for Deobandi scholars because YMD keeps praising them.

YMD

This magazine has not praised them. It has approved of the school – known as the Deobandi School – as a well-balanced institution of thought. It does not laud – or even approve – of every scholar who attributes himself to this school. Every scholar has to be judged on his own. 

Q. But during the speeches some of the respectable scholars made the following comments: – Qur’an and hadith literature is there for the understanding of scholars only, not for the common man. 

YMD

Such a statement is impossible of a scholar. Perhaps what they would have said is that not everyone may read the Qur’an and hadith and begin to (1) interpret them, (2) work out laws, or (3) criticize renowned scholars of the past or present. This is widely noted these days and hence the warning. 

Q. How do you know the translation of Qur’an which you are reading is correct? 

YMD

Correct. There are several translations that contain errors. A common man needs to consult scholars before choosing to read a translation or commentary. A French translation rendered verse 187 of Surah al-Baqarah as: “They (your wives) are your pants and you are their pants!” A second example, Sale has rendered the verse “…sufficient are We as reckoners” (Anbiya’, 47) as: “and there will be sufficient accountants with us”. Should the people not be warned against erroneous translations?

Q. Bukhari’s collection available now is very different from the original collection done by Bukhari. 

YMD

No scholar has ever stated that. Therefore, there is every possibility of a misunderstanding. Have you recorded the speeches? Or, do you have a transcription? If yes, please send us a copy. 

Q. If you put your head into hadith literature, you will end up in a mental hospital.

YMD

Once again, they might have meant those who think that they can work out the law by simply reading hadith literature. It should be read for admonition purposes and not for working out legal rulings.

Q. Your work is to earn a livelihood and take care of your business and children. Don’t touch Islamic books.

YMD

How can scholars say such a thing when they themselves turn out hundreds of books every year for the common people?

Q. You can recite double the amount of Qur’an and get more rewards in the limited time you have for the Holy Qur’an. Don’t waste time with translation and commentaries. 

YMD

Are you sure those were scholars who addressed the meeting? Check their credentials. 

Q. The Ahl-e-Hadith people are the creation of the British, during Independence struggle. Keep away from them. 

YMD

The Ahl al-Hadith have been there before the British became British. Yet, it is being suspected that the new division into Hanafis, Salafis, Deobandis, Ikhwanis and so on, has neo-colonial hands behind it. 

Q. Only four schools of Law are legally accepted. Anyone who does not belong to any one of the four schools is not a proper Muslim. 

YMD

That is not correct. A Mujtahid need not belong to a school of law. 

Q. Nobody is allowed to sometimes switch over from say Hanafi maslak to Shafi maslak. For example, in Prayers etc. 

YMD

That is true. Can a man marry one woman according to one school of law, and then marry another following another second school of law, and treat them both in respect of their maintenance rights in accordance with the respective schools of law? There has to be consistency. 

Q. Just looking at the face of a scholar is ‘ibadat.

YMD

False. Even a hadith is reported to this effect. But it is fabricated. 

Q. They quoted a few ahadith in which our beloved Prophet (saws) is supposed to have prophesied the coming of Imam Abu Hanifah, which according to your book ‘Fake Pearl’ is fake. How is it that these scholars are not aware of the hadith being fake? 

YMD

The hadith that you have referred to as in “Fake Pearls”, numbered 54/143 says, “Abu Hanifah is the lamp of my Ummah.” This of course is fabricated. But, there are other trustworthy reports (in Bukhari, Muslim and others) that are applicable to Imam Abu Hanifah. One of them says that the Prophet placed his hand upon Salman al-Farsi and said, “If Faith was in Plaeiades (group of stars), it would be brought down by men issuing from him (i.e., Salman) or a man from them.” (Another report uses the word “knowledge” in place of “Faith”). Now, since Abu Hanifah is generally acknowledged as the most prominent scholar of Persian origin, the hadith is said to be applicable to him. Although, some have identified others.

So, it is possible that this is the hadith they were referring to. 

Q. They spoke negatively about the Ahl-e-Hadith. 

YMD

They were paying them in their own coins. One of them says “Tit”, so the other one says “Tat”. Ignore them both. 

Q. I would like to congratulate YMD for calling Ahl-e-Hadith the fifth school of thought. Why can’t these scholars from Deoband also have such a balanced opinion?

YMD

It is, in fact, a Deobandi opinion. 

Q. Further, their claim of the Imams being infallible is also wrong according to the hadith which informs us that all the children of Adam (as) will commit error. It is like Shiah’s claiming infallibility of their ten imams. 

YMD

We do not know of any Sunni scholar who claims that the Imams were infallible. 

Q. Why only four, what about other great Imams like Awzaa’ee, Zaydee, Laythee, Thawree, Dhahiree, Jareeree etc.? Can’t one follow them? 

YMD

No, one cannot. Where will he find their codification? Their schools have died down a natural death, along with them and, their works. 

Q. Finally why shouldn’t I take, sometimes the opinion of Imam Shafe‘i though in most other matters I would follow Hanafi Fiqh. 

YMD

Instead of asking, “Why not…” you should ask yourself, “Why should I…” Is the Hanafi or Shafe`i law incomplete that you have to seek the help of the other? Or, are you looking for ways to escape from the obligations of one by switching on to another?

The upshot is, if your research leads you to the unchallenged conclusion that a certain Imam’s ruling is closer to the Qur’an and Sunnah than another’s, then you could do so. In fact, you are religiously bound to do so. That is what we meant when we said above that a Mujtahid need not follow any Imam. But, if no such research has been conducted, then, the question that will arise is, on what basis are you switching from Madh-hab to Madh-hab?

Q.Umm-ul-Mumineen, Aishah, is reported to have said that when two ways (both halaal) to do a thing was available to our beloved Prophet (saws) he would choose the easier one. 

YMD

First of all, she was speaking of ordinary things that one goes about doing in life e.g., if the Prophet could go by a camel, he wouldn’t go the distance on foot. If he could pray with the shoes on because they were clean, he would do so. He wouldn’t remove them. In other words he followed nature’s course. It can be observed in the cosmos that nature follows the easiest course.

We must also understand that in legal matters the Prophet himself was the best judge about any two ways being allowable (or “halaal” as you put it). For example, washing of the feet is part of ablution. But, he as a Prophet knew what was allowable within Wudu and what was not. So he said, “Woe unto the heels against the Fire” meaning, they must be carefully washed. He didn’t take the “easy way out” and wash your feet as best as you can, since allowing them do that was the easier of the two ways.

Now, if we did not have the hadith about the heel, and were to literally apply ‘A’isha’s observed rule, we would have ended neglecting the heel. Many people do not seem to understand the true meaning of the hadith and commit errors. One good example is that of trimming off hair from two or three parts of the head with tiny scissors (manufactured for trimming moustaches) – after the Sa`ee of Hajj or ‘Umrah. This is not the “Qasr” that Allah has spoken of in the Qur’an. Indeed, it is no “Qasr” (shortening) in common understanding either. If you asked somebody to shorten his nails, and he clipped from two ends of nail, you will say, “You have shortened it.” But, many people who clip their hair from 2-3 places, have ‘A’isha’s statement in mind.

Thus, in our case, we cannot be sure of the legality of two options, as to which one is legal. One of them might not be so. In such a case, either we do some research and work it out ourselves, presenting an opinion that cannot be questioned by anyone, any time, anywhere, or we follow one of the schools of law.

Now, if it is said that after all, every one of the four schools is true and right, so we can choose between this and that, then the question will be: what is the basis of your choice? Is it knowledge, evidences and scholarly proofs, or, alternatively, it is just the question of ease. The former is approved. The latter, which is another way of following base desires, is not approved.

What shall we call a man who chooses “the easiest of the rulings” from the four or five schools of law, collects together all such rulings, and offers us a new “School of Law”? Is he an opportunist or not? Would you like to follow his School?

Take an example from the secular law. None of the two laws: British or American is incomplete. (Or, so they claim). But no one can say he will accept most of the British laws but in certain matters will follow the American law, arguing, “After all, both are complete!”

Let us give you another example. Let us say there is a case in the Saudi court involving two multinational companies. The dispute between the two involves billions of dollars. Now, one of them cannot say to the court, “We shall accept the standard Hanbali Law of the land in most matters, but when it comes to this or that clause, we shall follow the Hanafi Law.” Will the court accept it?

It is thus a matter of principles. 

Q. Lastly, the scholars made comments like: 

– Anybody criticizing Abu Hanifa (Nu’maan, ibn Thabit) is like a dog barking at the moon. Is it not true that an old woman once criticized Umar (ra) on the topic of Mahr.

YMD

No, the old woman did not criticize ‘Umar. She disagreed with him, and had good reasons to do so. She presented her evidence and ‘Umar said gallantly, “If not for this woman, ‘Umar would have been destroyed.”

Yet, we cannot take the incident too far. ‘Umar expressed a thought that might have occurred to him at that moment. It was not a well-considered legal opinion that he and his team had discussed in every detail before he appeared on the pulpit to announce. In contrast, the opinions expressed by the Muslim Jurists are well-considered and well-discussed ones. Some of them have been discussed over centuries. So, today, people cannot be allowed to say, “Imam Abu Haneefah was right” and “Imam Shafe`i was wrong.” Or, worse, someone to say, “The Fuqaha’ missed on some hadith, or were poor in hadith, or followed their personal idiosyncrasies” etc.

Thus, although it is a crude way of criticizing the critic, but in substance the example of the moon (though not of the dog) is fittingly correct. Abu Hanifah was not, and is not above criticism. But an upstart who does not understand ABC of Fiqh cannot be allowed to criticize Abu Hanifah, Ibn Taimiyyah, or other scholars of that stature. Indeed, as pointed out above, they cannot be criticized at all. They can be differed with. That is, a Mujtahid may differ with one of the Imams and state his own opinion for other scholars to evaluate his claim. But if schoolboys start to criticize Einstein in astrophysics, then, the crude example might come to mind, (although the dog has to still stay out). 

Q. Imam Abu Hanifa himself never branded those having other opinions as infidels or heretics, then why are the present day scholars doing that? Nothing has done more harm to Islam than mutual denunciation of holders of different opinions. The Holy Qur’an tells: “O ye who believe! Let not some men among you laugh at others: it may be that the (latter) are better than the (former)” (Surah Hujurat: 11). The companions had differences in opinion but they did not call others as infidels or heretics nor should we.

R. K.,
Bangalore

YMD

You will do well to send this piece to both the warring parties.

As regards the quarrel and physical abuse that you have written about (and which we have dropped), it was unfortunate but not worthy of mention.