In recent articles, we spoke about a few issues where the Deobandi sect rejected so many positions of Abu Hanifa and Hanafis, for the sole purpose of supporting Ibn Taimia. Despite these previous articles, I am going to post a few more, as Deobandis are obsessed with the opinions of Ibn Taimia in each field of Islam.

Today I want to clarify a few issues which Deobandis are finding difficult to understand. As I have said on many occasions I excuse their weak understanding and inability to read the texts of the scholars. All of their misunderstanding is because they have no one who can teach them how to read and understand the texts. But I respect their consistency on one issue, it is their full support and clear understanding of ibn Taimia.

I want to display a few points from the position of Mufti Taqi Uthmani. Mufti Taqi quoted the following Hadeeth;

An-Nawwas b. Sam`an reported that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) made a mention of the Dajjal one day in the morning. He (ﷺ) sometimes described him to be insignificant and sometimes described (his turmoil) as very significant (and we felt) as if he were in the cluster of the date-palm trees. When we went to him (to the Holy Prophet) in the evening and he read (the signs of fear) in our faces, he (ﷺ) said:

What is the matter with you? We said: Allah’s Messenger, you made a mention of the Dajjal in the morning (sometimes describing him) to be insignificant and sometimes very important, until we began to think as if he were present in some (near) part of the cluster of the date-palm trees. Thereupon he (ﷺ) said: I harbor fear in regard to you in so many other things besides the Dajjal. If he comes forth while I am among you, I shall contend with him on your behalf, but if he comes forth while I am not amongst you, a man must contend on his own behalf and Allah would take care of every Muslim on my behalf (and safeguard him against his evil). He (Dajjal) would be a young man with twisted, contracted hair, and a blind eye. I compare him to `Abd-ul-`Uzza b. Qatan. He who amongst you would survive to see him should recite over him the opening verses of Sura Kahf (xviii). He would appear on the way between Syria and Iraq and would spread mischief right and left. O servant of Allah! adhere (to the path of Truth). We said: Allah’s Messenger, how long would he stay on the earth? He (ﷺ) said: For forty days, one day like a year and one day like a month and one day like a week and the rest of the days would be like your days. We said: Allah’s Messenger, would one day’s prayer suffice for the prayers of day equal to one year? Thereupon he (ﷺ) said: No, but you must make an estimate of time (and then observe prayer)…. (translation from Sunnah.com)

Brief comment on it;

1. Mufti Taqi translating “Shaam” as Syria is incorrect. It’s the same as translating “Arabian Peninsula ” as Oman. But Shaam is the name of an area that includes Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Syria and some parts of Southern Turkey.

2. Also, quoting this hadeeth to support his position about the time of isha is absurd. That’s because this hadeeth is referring to three specific situations: 1. When the length of the day is equivalent to one entire year. 2. When the length is one month. 3. When the length is one week. But in our current situation the length of the day is 24 hours. So this hadeeth is not applicable to our current situation. That’s why hanafis (I mean the real ones), don’t apply this hadeeth in our issue, and they’ve clearly explained this in the Hanafi books which I have referenced in my previous articles. Here is both Haskafi confirming it, and Ibn Abideen quoting it from a group of Hanafi scholars and then confirming that it is the authentic position of the Hanafi School.

Here is Shurunbulali who is also mentioning this very hadeeth (about dajjal) and confirming that it is NOT applicable in our case.

All of the above mentioned scholars and many more, clearly confirm that the Hadeeth of the Dajjal cannot be used in the scenario where there is only one time of prayer which is missing! It shows that Mufti Taqi (with all due respect) has very weak skills in Hanafi Usul and Hanafi Mustalah.

Even Kamal ibn Humam mentioned this hadeeth for the sole purpose of proving that there are only 5 prayers and not to prove that we can estimate the time of prayer in the Hanafi School.

I actually clarified this very issue and this very hadeeth in my initial article. That’s why expanding on it any further would be a worthless endeavour.

Mufti Taqi said;

The fuqahā’ had differed in regards to the ruling of ‘ishā’ in Bulghar and places similar to it where the shafaq does not disappear. A group of ‘ulamā’ held the position that in these places the obligation of ‘ishā’ is dropped and that is because the reason for the obligation is the time, and that is not found. This position is attributed to the ḥanafī scholars Shams al-A’immah al-Ḥalwānī and is preferred by al-Shurunbulālī as is mentioned in Radd al-Muḥtār 1/362 and al-Ḥalabī in Sharḥ al-Munyah 1/230.

Another group of ‘ulamā’ held position that ‘ishā’ is not dropped, rather it is obligatory upon them to pray ‘ishā’ by estimating (taqdīr) its time. The method of estimating is differed over, as it will come ahead. The opinion was chose by al-Burhān al-Kabīr, al-Muḥaqqiq Ibn al-Humām, his two students Ibn Amīr al-Ḥājj and al-Qāsim ibn al-Quṭlūbughā from the ḥanafīs. This is the same position held by the shāfi’īs as is found in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj 1/123 and preferred by al-Qarāfī from the mālikīs as is found in Ḥāshiyat al-Ṣāwī ‘alā al-Dardīr 1/225.

[From here we understood the following :

1. Halwani and shurunbulali say “no isha!”
2. Burhan, ibn humam, ibn qutlubgha and ibn Ameer Hajj support estimating on the way Shafei does.
3. If you want to understand how exactly these 4 hanafi scholars estimate then look at the following places : Mughnī al-Muḥtāj 1/123 and Ḥāshiyat al-Ṣāwī ‘alā al-Dardīr 1/225]

The understanding of Mufti Taqi is wrong, and there are a few issues concerning his post that require some comments;

1. It isn’t only ”Halwani and Shurunbulali” who hold this position but it is also Baqqali, Mulla Khisraw 885 Hijri (author of Durar al-Hukkam), Imam Nasafi 710 Hijri (Author of Kanz Daqaiq) , Marghinani 593 Hijri (author of Hidaya) , Halabi 956 hijri (Author of Multaqa al-Abhur) and many other top Hanafi Scholars.

2. Burhan, Ibn Humam and other Hanafis never said that we have to ”estimate”. They only said that there is Isha! So, they opposed the position of the first group who said that there is ”No Isha”. But Mufti Taqi is saying; ”They said there is Isha which has to be estimated as the Shafeis do”, it is a clear error in the reading of the Hanafi texts. There is NO Hanafi who said that you have to ”estimate” as Shafeis do. But once again as I said, I excuse deobandi scholars for being unable to understand our fiqhi and aqeedah texts.

3. We Hanafis have two opinions about Isha in summer times when the time does not enter. The first that there is no Isha prayer at all! The second is that there is Isha but it is Qadha. There is NO Hanafi who said that there is ”Isha” and that this Isha is Adha, but instead they all agreed that it is “Qadha”!

4. Mufti Taqi saying; ” If you want to understand how exactly these 4 hanafi scholars estimate then look at the following places : Mughnī al-Muḥtāj 1/123 and Ḥāshiyat al-Ṣāwī ‘alā al-Dardīr 1/225]” This is completely absurd! So, he is saying; If you want to pray according to ibn Humam and his hanafi students then read shafei text ”Mughni” and maliki text ”Hashiat Sawi”. Based on this idea, if you want to learn about God in Islam, then read the Gospel of John! But once again I excuse the statements of Deobandi scholars, because the colour-blind person cannot be punished for being unable to distinguish the red from blue!

 

Further Mufti Taqi says;

‘Allāmah Hārūn ibn Bahā’ al-Dīn al-Marjānī had written a work analysing this issue by the name of ‘Nāẓūrat al-Ḥaqq fī Fardhiyyat al-‘ishā’ wa in lam Yaghib al-Shafaq’.

In the Hanafi school we have a principle that scholars of the Hanafi Madhab are in several categories. Tahqeeq belongs to the scholars who are in the category of ”Muhaqqiq”, Takhreej belongs to the fuqaha on the level of ”Mukharrij” and so on. It is not permissible to pick an opinion of a random author and overthrow the opinion of Mujtahids based on this opinion. So, we have two problems in the comment of Mufti Taqi;

1.Marjani is not on the level of ”Tarjee” or any other categories of the fuqaha.

2.Marjani by himself supported the second opinion of Hanafis, then he clarified that estimating is an opinion of Shafeis.

It is quite sad that Mufti Taqi is unaware of these basics of principles of Fatwa in the Hanafi School.

Mufti Taqi further says;

The weak servant (may Allah forgive him) says: The opinion for the obligation of ‘ishā’ to remain in these places is preferred over the first opinion from the angle of evidence. Indeed the mass transmitted (mutawātir) and definitive evidences state the obligation of 5 ṡalāh every day and night. It is not possible to abrogate it or restrict it based on the fact that the sign of the time is a cause for the obligation of ṡalāh. What Muḥaqqiq Ibn al-Humām and al-Marjānī have mentioned in this regards is very strong it is suitable for one to take it. It is also the opinion preferred by Ibn Ᾱbidīn, he states in Radd al-Muḥtār 1/365 ‘’the opinion of the obligation (of ‘ishā’) is supported by that fact that a mujtahid Imam said likewise, and he is Imam al-Shāfi’ī as is narrated in al-Ḥilyah from al-Mutawallī’’. Likewise al-Țaḥṭāwī preferred it in his Sharḥ al-Durr 1/177, he stated ‘’the evidence of estimation (taqdīr) is clear’’.

It is once again another proof that Deobandis have no skills in being able to read Hanafi texts. Ibn Abideen and Tahtawi DID NOT prefer the opinion of ”estimating”. Ibn Abideen supported that Isha is present, and it is second opinion in hanafi school. Tahtawi has clearly mentioned that estimating in the method of of Shafeis is not applicable if there is only one prayer that is missing. But instead we only estimate according to the hadeeth of Dajjal not when there is only one time of prayer that is missing, but instead when the time of ALL prayers are missing. So according to Tahtawi it is applicable if the length of the day equals 48 hours; as Tahtawi clearly mentions ”two days” where the times of prayers are completely missing. So, once again another proof that deobandis having no skills in being able to understand Hanafi texts.

Method of estimating timings in these types of places

Further Mufti Taqi says; When it is established that specifying ‘ishā’ in these places will be based on estimation, then there are varying methods for estimation. The fuqahā’ have mentioned

As I said before, Hanafis confirmed that it is Qadha, so they don’t need to debate over the issue of ”The method of Estimating”.

Also, estimating and setting up a limits and measurements in the Hanafi school is not valid! It is clearly apparent that Deobandis are ignorant as I have explained this issue in the initial article. There are many more problematic issue in the article of Mufti Taqi, which I have ignored. Just read our initial article then read the article by the Mufti and you will see what I mean.

I didn’t want to comment too much on the article of Mufi Taqi because of what we have just seen in this article. He is very famous and respected, so I didn’t want any negative things which shows his weak ability coming out in these articles. But Deobandi mullas have forced my hand and made me comment as they have claimed that article was a ”Brilliant  response by Mufti Taqi”

But again I excuse them on this point too, because they cannot distinguish between the glass and the diamond.

Update;

We have decided to add a minor additional comment. When I said ”contemporary Muftis, Molanas and Ulema have no skill in reading manuals of Hanafi Jurisprudence”, the only reason for this is not just Arabic language but an inability to decipher the texts.  Here I want to give an example from the article of Mufti Taqi. The following text was used by Mufti Taqi to prove that, when we don’t have the time of Isha, as it is in the UK, France and some other parts of Europe in the summer then we estimate the time as Shafeis do. Now lets read the text solely based on arabic language without using any Fiqhiy skill;

Prophet PBUH said; ”Dajjal will stay for 40 days. His first day equals one year, and second day equals one month, and the third day equals one week, and the rest of the days are as a normal days”. Asnawi said; It will be the same ruling if the length will be two continuous days! Ramli said; We apply the same ruling in the case of Sun not setting for a long time in some location. quoted the summary from Halabi. I say; The same will be applied on any other ritual which is related to the time limits, such as fasting, paying zakat, Pilgrimage, and transactions which has a time limit. They have to wait until days starts, then should start estimating each single season of four season in terms of its length. That what is in the books of Shafeis, and we do accept it as estimating the times of the prayers on one way or on the other is accepted by consensus! this is from Halabi the author of ”commentary of Munyah”.

This is the actual text. To understand that he is talking about ”time not existing in two continuous days and above”, you don’t need any skills in Hanafi school. All that you need is Arabic language. Hope it helps the deobandis to stop accusing everyone about ignorance!!!