SurahBaqaraAya42

[A Gift To The Hanafis – In Reply To A Gift To The Ahlul Hadith – Shaikh Dawud Arshad] – Chapter One –:– The Reasons Why People Fabricate Ahadith

A Gift To The Hanafis – In Reply To “A Gift To The Ahlul Hadith”

Shaikh Dawud Arshad

Translated Abu Ubaydah
Translated, Checked & Additional Notes
Abu Hibban & Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari

Chapter One

The Reasons Why People Fabricate Ahadith

There are many reasons why people fabricate ahadith and the Muhadithin have explained in detail why people do this. One of the reasons for this is because of Taqlid. The Muqalidin take the sayings of individuals as their madhab and religion instead of the Quran and Hadith. By doing so they have attempted to strengthen and support the sayings of an individual by fabricating ahadith.

Imam Qurtubi said in the Sharh of Sahih Muslim,

“The Ahlur-Ra’i have said that it is allowed to attribute this ruling which indicates to Qiyas Jali (understanding of common sense) to the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). They say that the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) said this. If you look into the books of fiqh then you will come to realise that they are full of these type of narrations whereby the matan bears witness to it being fabricated. The matan have been put into these books so they can appear to be in favour of the fatawa of the fuqaha. Whilst (the reality) is that the matans don’t even have chains of narrations.” (Taken from al-Ba’ith ul Hathith pg no.80)

Mawlana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Hanafi openly acknowledged this by saying,

“The sixth group who fabricate ahadith are those who have bigoted partisanship towards their madhab and try to maintain taqlid as the status quo. Just as Ma’mun Harwi fabricated the narration that ‘whosoever performs rafyul yadayn his salah is invalid, whosoever recites behind the Imam his salah is invalid, similarly (he fabricated narrations) denouncing imam Shafi’i and praising the virtues of Abu Hanifa.” (al-Athar al-Marfu’ah fil akhbar al-mawdu’ah pg no.17)

The above saying of Mawlana Lakhnawi is based upon being completely fair and just. The Muqalidin have fabricated many narrations in order to support and assist the bigoted partisanship of Taqlid, the sayings of the fuqaha and opinions of people. Even today the same people are not afraid of fabricating ahadith. Molvi Isma’il Jhangawi the author of ‘A Gift To The Ahlul Hadith’ has also fabricated two ahadith, rather his own elders (scholarly elders, teachers) have made up ayat. Molvi Mahmud Hasan Khan Hanafi Deobandi was the Shaikhul hadith of Darul Ulum Deoband. The Hanafis remember him by the name of Shaikhul Hind. He replied to an advert (poster) of a renowned Salafi scholar Mawlana Abu Sa’id Muhamad Husain Batalwi, entitlteld ‘Adilah Kamilah’, in which he established the obligation of Taqlid by writing a line of text in Arabic from himself and making it the Quranic ayat proof to base (his argument on). Molvi Muhamad Ahsan Amrwahi (who was a student of Nawab Sidiq Hasan Khan and later became a murtad and a Qadiyani) wrote a reply to ‘Adilah Kamilah’ called ‘Misbahul Adilah’ in which Amrwahi caught out Shaikhul Hind. However Molvi Mahmud Hasan Khan instead of repenting, being embarrassed and rectifying himself he wrote with a lot of determination and confidence. This is why he said,

“And if you differ in anything then refer it back to Allah, and The Messenger and to those who are in command of you (Ulil Amr)” (T.N This is not in the Quran)

And it is apparent that the meaning of ‘Ulil Amr’ from this ayah is other than the noble Prophets (Alayhimusalam) so you can see that it is absolutely clear from this ayah that the Prophets and the words ‘Ulil Amr’ are obligatory to follow.

“ And refer it back to Allah and the Messenger if you believe in Allah and the day of Judgement.” 

So now you have seen this ayah and you still don’t know by now that the Quran in which this ayah is in, the previous mentioned ayah is in the same Quran that has the same conditions. It will not be strange if you counted the two ayat as being contradictory to each other and start to give fatwas that one is abrogating and the other one is abrogated.”

(Idah al-Adilah 93 published Deoband Book publishers Rahimiya, and 103 published by Jamal printing works publisher Dehli and pg no.97 published by Qasimi Deobandi publishers).

If we present our view on this then maybe Jhangawi will become upset, so that’s why I will present the view of Mawlana Amir Uthmani Deobandi who wrote the numbers on Mawlana Azad Rahmani’s book. Mawlana Uthmani said that,

“Mawlana Rahmani is shocked and bewildered that, which Quran contains those words which Shaikhul Hind wrote with determination and confidence and declared it to be the Quranic ayat which are not present in any of the thirty parts of the Quran.”

(Tajali Deoband November 1962 pg no.62)

And he writes on pg no.61 that it cannot be said that it is a mistake by the writer because the evidence of Shaikhul Hind is based on the extra part and he is explaining this extra part being present in the Quran considerably. He is also deducing the obligation of following (i.e. Taqlid) from this part and it is with great amazement and bewilderment that the extra phrase and it’s arguments have completely changed the purpose for which this ayah was originally revealed for. (Taken from Tawdihul Kalam pg no.255 vol no.1)

Similarly Jhangawi’s Pir, Murshid and Imam in the Art of misconception Molvi Master Muhamad Amin Okarwi writes that Allah said,

“O people of Iman, stop and hold your hands together when praying salah.” (T.N This is not in the Quran)
From this ayah some people have taken it as evidence to show the prohibition of doing Rafyul Yadan in salah. (Tahiqiq Mas’alah Rafyul Yadayn, pg no.6 1st publication)

Read this phrase and please read it again and you cannot say it is a mistake of the writer because Mawlana Safdar (Amin Okarwi) is also translating these words. Therefore in accordance to the information we have the people of Deoband fabricated these two ayats however let us go towards the original topic of discussion with an open heart and review our reports and points and examine the narrations which the Hanafi Muqalidin have fabricated.

The First Tahrif In Abu Dawud

Sunan Abi Dawud is part of the famous six books of hadith. This contains Sahih, Hasan, Da’if and Munqati’ types of chains of narrations. Imam Abu Dawud reported a Da’if narration under the chapter heading of al-Qunut fil Witr which the Shafi’is take as evidence.

Umar (Radi Allahu Anhu) collected the people to congregate behind Ubay Ibn Ka’b (Radi Allahu Anhu) and he lead them in salah for 20 nights however he recited the Qunut in the last half. When the last ten days were remaining then he used to pray salah in his own house and the people said that Ubay has run away.

(Abu Dawud with Awn pg no.538 vol no.1, and published by Muhamadi Dehli 1264 pg no.203 and published by Kanpur pg no.209 vol no.1, and published by Qadiri Dehili 1272 ph no.201 vol no.1)

The Beginning Of The Tahrif 

The first person who started this tahrif was Molvi Mahmud Hasan Khan Hanafi Deobandi. Whilst publishing Sunan Abi Dawud he left the words ’20 nights’ in the main text of the hadith however in the marginal notes he put the symbol indicating to another manuscript and wrote the word ‘rak’ah’. (Abu Dawud pg no.209 vol 1 published 1316)

This modification and changing of 20 nights gives the meaning to be 20 rak’ahs and the reason for this was to create a proof for establishing 20 rak’ah for tarawih.

Taking The Tahrif To An Extreme Level  

When Molvi Fakhrul Hasan Gangohi Hanafi Deobandi published Sunan Abi Dawud with his own authentication he took the words of ’20 nights’ out and changed it to ’20 rak’ahs’ however he clarified that the word ‘nights’ as being part of another manuscript in the marginal notes. (Sunan Abi Dawud pg no.202 vol no. 1 published in Karachi)

And the copy which is being published now only contains rak’ah however the clarification of another manuscript has also been removed, although before the tahrif of Mahmud Hasan Khan whichever manuscript was published it only contained the words ’20 nights’ there was no other mention of another manuscript. Similarly all the written manuscripts of Sunan Abi Dawud only contain the words ’20 nights’ however these people have changed it in order to create an evidence for doing tarawih with 20 rak’ahs.

Nights Or Rak’ahs? 

The interior part of the text gives us the evidence that the words ‘Nights’ are correct and ‘Rak’ah’ is a tahrif.

  • Firstly, Imam Abu Dawud put this narration under the chapter heading of Qunut and did not mention it under the chapter heading of Tarawih.
  • Secondly, Ubay Ibn Ka’b (Radi Allahu Anhu) did not perform Qiyam (Tarawih) in the last 10 nights and therefore establishes the fact that it is ‘Nights’ and not ‘Rak’ah’
  • Thirdly, Imam Bayhaqi, in his Sunan al-Kubra pg no.498 vol no.2, narrated from Abu Dawud with the words ’20 nights’.

Testimony From Your Own House

The following reported the narration from Abu Dawud and all of them used the words ’20 nights’ and declared the narration to be weak.

  • Zayla’I Hanafi Mulla Ali Qari Hanafi died 1410 in (Nasburayah pg no.126 vol no.2)
  • Ibn Nujaim Hanafi in (al-Bahru’raiq pg no.40 vol no.2)
  • Ibn Humam in (Fathul Qadir pg no.375 vol no.1)
  • Allamah Halabi in (Mustamli pg no.416)
  • Ahmad Yar Hanafi Barelwi in (Ja’ul Haq pg no.95 vol no.2)
  • Similarly Ibn Turkmani in (Jawhar an-Naqi pg no.498 vol no.2). He also clarified it to be weak and Munqati’.

Hanafi Commentators 

The following reported this narration from Abu Dawud with only the words ’20 nights’.

  • Mulla Ali Qari Hanafi died 1410 in (Mirqah pg no.184 vol no.3)
  • Shaikh Abdul Haq Muhadith Dehlawi Hanafi in (Ashatul Mu’ath pg no.581 vol no.1)
  • Molvi Qutbudin Dehlawi Hanafi in (Madhahir Haq pg no.416 vol no.1)

The Second Tahrif In Abu Dawud  

Imam Abu Dawud criticised (performed Jarh on) and said about the narration which mentions that Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (Radi Allahu Anh) negated Rafyul Yadayn that,

“This is a summarised form of a lengthy hadith and it is not authentic with these words – meaning that he did not do Rafyul Yadayn again” (Abu Dawud with Awn pg no.273 vol no.1 and Abu Dawud pg no.173 vol no.1 published in Halab 1952)

The following have cited this criticism (Jarh) of Imam Abu Dawud:

  • Author of (Mishkah pg no.77)
  • Ibn Abdul Bar in (at-Tamhid pg no.220 vol no.9)
  • Ibn Hajr in (at-Talkhis pg no.222 vol no.1)
  • Shawkani in (Naylil Awtar pg no.187 vol no.2)

The Muhadith Adhimabadi in his (Awnul Ma’bud Sharh Sunan Abi Dawud pg no.273 vol no.1) clarified that he has two authentic and credible handwritten manuscripts which have this Jarh present.
However it is great injustice that the Deobandi school of thought’s great Muhadith Molvi Fakhr ul Hasan Gangohi removed the Jarh when he published Abu Dawud with his own authentication. (Abu Dawud pg no.109)

Testimony From Your Own House   

However when Abu Dawud was published with the authentication of Molvi Mahmud Hasan Khan on pg no. 116 vol no.1 in the marginal notes he put a sign indicating to another manuscript that in another manuscript there is a text mentioning this Jarh and then he cites the whole Jarh in full.

The Third Tahrif In Abu Dawud    

In Sunan Abi Dawud pg no. 120 vol no.1 Imam Abu Dawud brought a chapter heading called ‘Whosoever recites loudly’. However when Mahmud Hasan Khan Hanafi Deobandi published Abu Dawud with his own authentication he changed the chapter heading to ‘Whosoever dislikes reading the fatiha al-Kitab when the Imam is loud’ whilst this chapter heading is not present in any manuscript copies. (See Abu Dawud with Awn pg no. 305 vol no.1)

The people of knowledge know that when the Muhadith Adhimabadi puts the text of Sunan Abi Dawud in the Sharh Awnul Ma’bud then he mentions the different manuscripts. If there was a chapter heading which the Deobandi’s Shaukhul Hind made in any of the manuscripts of then the author of Awnul Ma’bud would have mentioned it. However the Muahdith Adhimabadi did not mention it which absolutely clearly shows that no manuscript copy had this chapter heading mentioned in it. However Shakul Hind mentions it. Inna Lillahi wa Inna ilayhi Raji’un. This is all being done in order to strengthen the Hanafi madhab because according to them reciting the fatiha behind in the imam is makruh.

Tahrif In Musanaf Ibn Abi Shaybah    

Musanaf Ibn Abi Shaybah is an excellent book that contains hadith and Athar. A lot of people have had the honour of publishing it. Firstly it was published with the Ta’liq of Mawlana Abdutawab from Multan. Afterwards the first volume was published from Heydarabad Deccan by Mawlana Abulkalam Azad academy in 1386. Then it was published by ad-Darusalafiyah Mumbai in 15 volumes.

In the Musanaf there is a hadith,
from the chain of Hadathana Waki’ from Musa Ibn Umair from Alqamah Ibn Wa’il Ibn Hujr from Ubai,
which mentions that,
I saw the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) put his right hand over his left hand in salah.
(Musanaf Ibn Abi Shaybah pg no.390 vol no.1 published by Mumbai and Heydarabad Dakan)

A muhadith of Deoband Shahir Mawlana Habiburehman al-‘Adhami published the first three / four volumes of Musanaf Ibn Abi Shaybah in 1984 (which is now published in full). The above hadith is present with the same above words on page no.351 vol no. 2 published by ar-Rashid Madina Munawara 1984. However when the Deobandi group Idaratul Quran Darul Ulum Islamiya published it in 1986 from Karachi they did tahrif in the text of the hadith by adding the words ‘Tahtus Surah’. From this addition the meaning of the hadith changed to, ‘I saw the Prophet (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) put his right hand over his left hand below his navel in the salah’. Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un.

Whilst this is clear dishonesty and corruption. This hadith is found in around a dozen other books of hadith and none of them have the extra words ‘Tahtus Surah’. The manuscript which these extra words are cited to have been declared as being weak and Ma’lul by the Deobandi elders also. For details see the book Deen ul-Haq pg no. 220 vol no. 1 written by the humbled poor author.

Tahrif In Musnad Humaidi

There is a hadith which is narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar (Radi Allahu Anhu) in the Musnad of Humaidi. The words are as follows:
I saw the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) that when he started the salah he raised his hands up until his shoulders and when he wanted to go into ruku and raise his head up from ruku he did rafyul yadayn and did not perform rafyul yadayn between the two sajdas.
(Musnad Humaidi pg no.177 published by ahlul Hadith trust Karachi)

This narration is exactly like this in Dhahiriya manuscript copy of Musnad Humaidi. Apart from this the narration in Musnad Humaidi is also present in the following books with the chain Hadathana Sufyan Hadathana Zuhri with the above mentioned words.

  • Musnad Ahmad pg no. 8 vol no. 2
  • Abu Dawud pg no. 104 vol no.1
  • Nasa’I pg no.123 vol no. 1 (Mujtaba)
  • Sunan al-Kubra pg no.350 vol no.1

However it is a great injustice that when the Muhadith Shahir Malvi Habiburehman A’dhami published Musnad Humaidi then he changed the text. So instead of being a proof for Rafyul Yadayn it became a proof for not doing rafyul yadayn. See the following:

I saw the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) that when he started the salah he raised his hands up until his shoulders and when he wanted to go into ruku and raise his head up from ruku then he did not perform rafyul yadayn and not between the two sajdas.(Musnad Humaidi pg no. 277 vol no.2)

A Miracle Of The Power Of Allah

However Allah has taken it upon Himself to protect His religion. Through His power, He made the Deobandi Muhadith behave in such a way that even though he did tahrif it did not become a proof for the Deobandis. This was because in between Imam Humaidi and Zuhri there is Imam Sufyan who was dropped which was found out later on in the commentary of the book by ‘al’Athami’ because the chart of errors at the end of the book did not address this error.

Nevertheless the Deobandis made this a proof for themselves. However they would forgetfully mention the route through Sufyan (Nur ul-Isbah pg no.59) which the muhaqiq of our era Mawlana Irshad ul-haq al-Athari followed up on and said if the words ‘Hadathana Sufyan’ can be left out by the one who is joining the words then why is it not possible that the writer can make mistakes in mentioning some words. (A new effort on the overview of the issue of Rafyul Yadayn pg no.25)

In order to save themselves from this accusation when the Deobandis published Musnad Humadi the second time from Gujranwala they put Imam Sufyan in between the chain to make it authentic. Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Ilayhi Raji’un. (It seems like the publisher of Maktabah Hanafiya committed to making tahrif upon tahrif).

Benefit: We are mentioning the following as it is appropriate to the subject being discussed. The details of it is that, a “humble” person from the Barelwi school of thought came and said that I have come to know that there is a hadith which is authentic, marfu’ and comes in a connected chain in the Musnad of Humaidi which proves the negation of Rafyul Yadayn. The author started to laugh a lot when he heard this question, so the Barelwi man said, why are you laughing?, the author said that I remembered a benefit which is that, a man from a village claimed to be a ‘Sayid’, whilst there was a true Sayid residing in this village too. The true Sayid filed a complaint and court trial against the fake Sayid for acting disrespectfully, so the fake Sayid was summoned to court. The two parties entered the court and the judge asked the defendant to provide evidence of him being a Sayid so on the following summoning the fake Sayid brought a witness. The witness made a statement saying that this person is truly a Sayid so the judge asked how do you know that this person is Sayid. So the witness replied by saying, this person became a Sayid in front of me!

After mentioning this benefit I said that it is well known to us that this hadith was made in front of us. So based on this reply he lowered his head out of embarrassment.

Tahrif In Ibn Majah 

Some scholars have said that Sunan Ibn Majah is part of the Sahah Sittah. It is a popular and educational book. It contains Sahih, Da’if and even fabricated narrations. There is a narration mentioned by Jabir (Radi Allahu Anhu) in it that:

“Whosoever has an Imam (in the salah) then the recitation of the Imam is equivalent to the recitation of the one behind in the Imam.”
(Ibn Majah pg no.61)

The Hanafis use this narration as an evidence to show that one should not recite behind the imam. (Tadqiq al-Kalam pg no.195 vol no.1)

The Ahlul Hadith scholars have replied to this by saying that the narrator Jabir al-Ju’fi in this chain is a Liar. (Tahqiq al-Kalam pg no.134 vol no.2)

Instead of accepting the truth the Hanafis did tahrif in Sunan Ibn Majah.

The original chain of narration is like this:
Hadathana Ali Ibn Muhamad Thana Ubaidillah Ibn Musa An al-Hasan Ibn Salih An Jabir An Abi az-Zubair An Jabir

This was changed to:

Jabir wa Abi Zubair

The letter wow was put between Jabir and Abi Zubair for the purpose of showing and giving the impression that Jabir al-Ju’fi was not alone in narrating, rather his thiqah mutabi’ Abi Zubair is also present who is a contemporary of Jabir al-Ju’fi and they both narrated it from Jabir (Radi Allahu Anhu). Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Ilayhi Raji’un

Whilst the people of knowledge clearly know that if there was the letter wow in Ibn Majah and Jabir al-Ju’fi and Abi Zubair were both contemporaries then instead of Jabir wa an Abi Zubair it would be Jabir wa Abi Zubair. The purpose of stating this is that just as the individual who added the wow is treacherous and dishonest he is also ignorant and clumsy.

The Chain Of Ibn Majah According To The Fairness Of The Muhadithin

There are a great number of other Muhadithin who have narrated this narration apart from Ibn Majah. However they have all mentioned it with the chain:
Jabir An Abi Zubair

See Sunan Daraqutni pg no.331 vol. 1, Ibn Adi pg no.542 vol no.2 and Kitab al-Qira’ah pg no.158 and Musnad Ahmad no.339 vol no.3)

Testimony From Your Own House

The scholars of the ahnaf have also narrated this narration with the chain of Jabir from Abi Zubair. See Sharh Ma’anil Athar pg no.149 vol no.1) Also Mawlana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Hanafi also narrated this from Ibn Majah with the chain of Jabir from Abi Zubair. Imam ul-Kalam pg no.187 and at-Ta’liq al-Mujadid pg no.96, Allamah Zayla’I Hanafi also narrated it as Jabir An Abi Zubair without the wow in Nasburayah pg no.7 vol no.2 which is living proof that the additional wow put inside Ibn Majah is the dishonesty and tahrif of the Deobandis and have changed around a chain to try and make and raise a fabricated narration to be the saying of the Prophet (Sallalalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Ilayhi Wa Raji’un

Tahrif In The Musnad Of Abu Awanah 

Imam Abu Awanah has narrated a marfu hadith narrated by Abdullah Ibn Umar (Radi Allahu Anhu) under the chapter heading of,

Explanation Of Raising Both The Hands Up Tp The Shoulders At The Start Of The Salah Before The (First) Takbir And When Going Into Ruku’ And When Raising One’s Head From Ruku’ And That He Does Not Raise Them Between The Two Prostrations

Meaning that I saw The Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) that when he started the Salah he would raise both of his hands up until they were both aligned and adjacent to each other some narrators have said that he would raise both his hands up until they were adjacent to his shoulders and (during the times) when he would intend to go into Ruku’ and raise his head up from Ruku’, and he would not raise them both up and some narrators have said that he would not raise them both up between the two prostrations and they both have one meaning.   

(Manuscript form of Musnad Abu Awanah taken from Nurul Aynayn pg no.169)

However it is with great sadness that when the Ahnaf published the Musnad of Abu Awana they removed the ‘wow’ (and) from:

from Ruku’, and he would not perform Rafyul Yadayn

(Musnad Abu Awanah vol no.2 pg no.90. Afterwards they used this hadith as a proof to show the negation of Rafyul Yadayn. Nur ul-Isbah pg no.53) 

(T.N. by doing so the reader would be deceived into thinking that he (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) would not perform Rafyul Yadayn when going into Ruku’ and when raising his head up from Ruku’. “So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.” Quran 2:79)  

Overview On The Tahrif

1. Abu Awanah put this hadith under the chapter heading of performing Rafyul Yadayn.

2. To understand the text of this hadith you need to review and contemplate on the words. Such as what the words (And he did not raise both of them) is in reference to. Is this in reference to the words before it or the words that come after it. In reality just as Imam Abu Awanah has stated the differences mentioned by narrators on how Rafyul Yadayn was performed i.e. some have said until they were both aligned and adjacent to each other and some narrators have said he would raise both his hands up until they were adjacent to his shoulders. In the same way his real purpose is to also mention differences of wording by narrators later on such as some have said he would not raise them both up and others have said and he would not raise them between the two prostrations and the words of the Imam when he says and the meaning is one, i.e. that the intended meaning is that both wordings mean the exact same thing is supported whether you say he would not raise them both up or and he would not raise them between the two prostrations, they both mean the same thing and there is no difference. The question remains that if it is part of the words before just as the Deobandis claim then the what is the purpose in mentioning the words after it that some narrators have said and he would not raise them between the two prostrations and the meaning is one and referring to an apparent contradiction and difference. Also what are the two phrases here which are being classified as having one meaning? If there are no two phrases here then what is the purpose of mentioning that the meaning is one?

3. Imam Abu Awanah has narrated this hadith through the chain of Abdullah Ibn Ayub Sa’dan Ibn Nasr and Shu’ayb Ibn Amr etc. which clearly means that Abdullah Sa’dan and Shu’ayb etc. narrate this hadith from Sufyan with these words. Now if we look at other books of hadith where this hadith has been narrated from these narrators such as in Sunan al-Kubra of al-Bayhaqi vol no.2, pg no.69. This hadith is present through the chain of Sa’dan from Sufyan with the following words:

That the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) used to raise both his hands up up until they were adjacent with his shoulders when starting the salah and when he would intend in going into ruku’ and after rising up from ruku’. And he would not raise them between the two prostrations.

Now if we compare these words to the narration present in Sahih Abi Awanah then we can see that there is no difference of wording mentioned in this narration because the words transmitted by Sa’dan are 

until they were adjacent with his shoulders 

and he would not raise them between the two prostrations

This route also shows that the purpose of mentioning the other wording of he would not raise them both up is only to show the difference of wording by narrators. 

(An overview on the new effort of the issue of Rafyul Yadayn pg no.22)

4. Imam Abu Awanah narrated this hadith from the chain of Sufyan Ibn Uyaynah and Sufyan’s narration is present in Sahih Muslim vol no.1 pg no.168 which have the words:

And he would not raise them both up between the two prostrations

Therefore the words (And he would not raise them both up) are connected to the phrase after it (between the two prostrations). However the Hanafis have made tahrif in the Musnad of Abi Awanah and used it as a proof to negate performing Rafyul Yadayn. Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Ilayhi Raji’un

Tahrif In Sahih Muslim  

In 1376 Hijri Malak Sirajudin and Sons published Sahih Muslim with the tahqiq of Mawlana Muhamad Idris Kandahlawi Deobandi and other than him. There was a chain which was fabricated in it for the purpose of supporting the Hanafi madhab which was ill conceived. It is:

Ubaydullah ibn Mu’adh al-Anbari narrated to me he said my father informed us he said Muhamad bin Amr al-Laythi informed us from Amr bin Muslim bin Amara from bin Ukayma al-Laythi  he said I heard Sa’id bin Musayab saying I heard Um Salama the wife of the Prophet (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam)…to the end of the hadith. (Sahih Muslim vol no.2 pg no.168)

Whilst the correct chain of the hadith is as follows:

Ubaydullah ibn Mu’adh al-Anbari narrated to me he said my father informed us he said Muhamad bin Amr al-Laythi informed us from Umar ibn Muslim bin Amaar bin Ukayma al-Laythi he said I heard Sa’id Ibn Musayab saying I heard Um Salama the wife of the Prophet (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) (Sahih Muslim vol no.2 pg no.160)

This narration is present in the following books with the chain of Sahih Muslim:

Abu Dawud vol no.2 pg no.30

Tirmidhi in Tuhfatul Ahwadhi vol no.2 pg no.365

Nasa’i Mujtaba vol no.2 pg no.194

Ibn Majah pg no.234

Bayhaqi vol no.9 pg no.266

al-Muhalla of Ibn Hazm vol no.6 pg no.3

Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar vol no.2 pg no.334

and other than them.

There is definitely no connection of Ibn Ukayma al-Laythi after Umar Ibn Muslim Ibn Amar in all of them.

The Reason For the Tahrif  

In Tirmidhi with Tuhfatul Ahwadhi vol no.1 pg no.254 there is a hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah (Radi Allahu Anhu) which is an apparent evidence of not reciting behind the Imam for the other party (i.e. Hanafis). (Ahsanul kalam vol no.1 pg no.278)

However in this chain there is the narrator Ibn Ukaymah al-Laythi. The purpose for putting Ibn Ukaymah al-Laythi is to try and make him a narrator of Sahih Muslim. It is requested that the people of knowledge study Tahthib at-Tahthib of Ibn Hajr vol no.7 pg no.410 in which he mentions him as a narrator of the four sunan but not of Sahih Muslim. If he was part of the previously mentioned chain then Ibn Hajr would have mentioned him.

Additionally, if he was part of the chain then it would either be from Amara bin Ukayma al-Laythi or from Ibn Ukayma al-Laythi however here it is from bin Ukayma al-Laythi which establishes that where the person doing tahrif is a traitor they are also clumsy and ignorant.

Tahrif In The Mustadrak al-Hakim  

There is a hadith narrated by A’isha (Radi Allahu Anha) with the chain of Aban bin Yazid from Qatada from Zirara bin Awfa from Sa’d bin Hisham about the number of rak’at of witr which is [Shadh] due to it’s matn. (For details see Din ul-Haq vol no.1 pg no.434)

The wording of this hadith is:

A’isha (Radi Allahu Anha) said that the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) used to pray 3 rak’at of witr and did not sit down (T.N in the tashahud position in between each rak’ah) except at the end of them (T.N. i.e. only sat down in the last rak’ah). 

However when the Ahnaf published the Mustadrak of al-Hakim they changed “did not sit down” to “did not perform salam (T.N. i.e. conclude the prayer)”

From this tahrif those people killed 2 birds with one stone. 

  1. According to the Hanafis one should sit down in the tashahud position in the 2nd rak’ah whilst in this narration it negates this action therefore these so called “Honest and faithful” people changed the wording so that the meaning of those words would distort any refutation against them. 
  2. According to the Hanafis one should not perform salam (i.e. conclude the prayer) in the middle of the Witr prayer and therefore to support this they changed “did not sit down” to “did not perform salam” which negates the action of performing salam in the 2nd rak’ah of the prayer. By doing this tahrif in the matn of this narration those people supported the Hanafi madhab. Inna Lillahi wa Inna Ilayhi Raji’un 

The Testimony Of The Muhadithin  

Imam Bayhaqi narrated this same narration in (as-Sunan al-Kubra vol no.3 pg no.28) with the same chain of Mustadrak with the words “did not sit down”. 

The following also narrated the same narration from Mustadrak with the words of “did not sit down”:

Adh-Dhahabi in (Talkhis Mustadrak vol no.1 pg no.304)

Ibn Hajr in (Fathul Bari vol no.2 pg no.385) and (Talkhis ul-Habir vol no.2 pg no.15)

The Testimony Of The Hanafis  

Naymawi Hanafi narrated the same narration in (Athar as-Sunan pg no.206) from Mustadrak however he used the words “did not sit down” and it is clearly mentioned in the marginal notes and commentaries that Imam Bayhaqi said in Ma’rifatus Sunan wal-Athar that the narration of A’isha (Radi Allahu Anha) with the route of Aban has the words of “did not sit down”. Therefore the correct words in this narration is “did not sit down” and not “did not perform salam”. (Marginal notes of Athar as-Sunan pg no.206) 

Note: The author of this book made a mistake in (Din ul-Haq pg no.235) that the mentioned reference was attributed to Mawlana Fayz Ahmad. Therefore dear readers please correct this. 

Tahrif In The Musnad Of Ahmad  

The Hanafis published the Musnad of Ahmad from Hyderabad Deccan. As part of their routine habit, they also performed tahrif in this and they did it with pleasure. It is a well known saying that “the wolf may lose his teeth but never its nature” and this is what has happened here because the previously mentioned tahrifat were done with meaning and purpose to provide some support to the madhab but this tahrif has no purpose. Perhaps there is some sort of purpose in which the author of this book is unaware of. Nevertheless, let us look at the wording of the hadith. 

Amr Ibn Mura (Radi Allahu Anhu) narrates that a person came to the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) and said that I recite the testimony of faith, I pray my salah, I give zakah and I fast. So he (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) said, “Whichever person dies upon this then they will be in the company and fellowship of the Prophets, Siddiqs and martyrs on the day of judgement like this” and then he (Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) put his two fingers together. 

This hadith has also been narrated by Ibn Kathir in his (Tafsir vol no.1 pg no.523) with the chain of Musnad Ahmad. Likewise, as-Suyuti in (Dur Manthur vol no.2 pg no.182) and Haythami in (Majma az-Zawa’id vol no.1 pg no.46 and vol no.8 pg no.150) from Musnad Ahmad. There is an unpublished detailed study of this hadith with the Takhrij of the author at Muhamadiya pocket book. 

However it is with great sadness that they (i.e. the Hanafis) are the only ones working on the knowledge of the Prophet (Sallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) who removed this hadith from the Musnad of Ahmad. 

Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Ilayhi Raji’un

 

Check Also

300px-DargahAlahazrat

[Part 9] – The Anti Wahhabi, Salafi & Saudi Narrative from Barely – Ahmad Raza Khan on the British & Their Values

Compiled, Translated & Annotated Abu Hibban & Abu Khuzaimah Ansari   READ >>> PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART …

Untitled-1

[Part 8] – The Anti Wahhabi, Salafi & Saudi Narrative from Barely – Terror, Extremism & Jihad Against the British Rule in India – The Barelwi Ancestry and Lineage

Compiled, Translated & Annotated Abu Hibban & Abu Khuzaimah Ansari   READ >>> PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *