[russianstallian]

Good explanation. The full book is here: http://muqallideen.blogspot.in/2012/...-salafism.html

Chapter-9

REFUTING THE ALLEGATION THAT THE MUQALLIDIN REJECT OR DISCARD AHADITH:


Just as it is permissible to deduce Islamic laws through legal reasoning, similarly it is also permissible to subject a narration to rationale and to act in accordance with that rationale. This might entail specifying the sphere of the command (Ahkam) or placing it in one of several possibilities or restricting a general rule or acting on the inner meaning rather than the obvious meaning. This is not in conflict with the narrations nor does it amount to rejecting it. Such ijtihad is permissible and taqleed of such ijtihad too.


Imam Bukhari narrates in his Sahih from Ibn ‘Umar (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saws) said to the Companions after the battle of Ahzab: ‘None of you should offer ‘Asr before reaching Bani Qurayda.’ ‘Asr came while some companions were still on the way. They were split on the issue. Some said that they would offer prayer because this was not the purport of what the Prophet (saw) said – rather, he was emphasizing speed and haste in reaching there before ‘Asr. This incident was brought to the Prophet’s notice. He did not reprimand or criticize anyone. During this incident, some understood the actual meaning by their quwwat-e-ijtihadiyya (power to reason legally). The meaning that they understood was one of two possibilities and they performed the prayer. Huzur (saw) did not reprimand them saying, ‘Why did you discard the obvious meaning?’ Nor did he declare them to be rejecters of hadith.


To object to any masa’la saying that it is in conflict to the narrations depends on 3 things:

1. The meaning and purport of the juristic issue is properly understood by the objector.
2. Its evidence is known.
3. The Imam’s procedure of inference is known.


If any of these factors remain obscure to the objector, then his judgment will be erroneous. E.g. Imam Abu Hanifa’s statement that Salah al-Istisqa’ is not Sunna is well-known. The apparent meaning of this opinion seems to be in conflict with the narrations because it is mentioned there that the Prophet (saw) performed Istisqa’. But the meaning of the statement of the Imam is that it is not Sunna al-Muakkada. Once the Prophet (saw) performed prayer and supplicated for rain. On other occasions he just supplicated without performing this prayer. So, we find the following narration in Bukhari,
“Anas (ra) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) was delivering the sermon on the day of Friday (Juma’) when a man stood up and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Horses and goats have perished. Pray to Allah for rain.’ The Prophet of Allah stretched out his hands and made supplication.


The purport of the saying of Imam Abu Hanifa is further revealed by the following text of Hidaya, ‘We (Ahnaf) say that he (saw) did it on one occasion and omitted it on another. Therefore, it is not Sunna.’ ‘Awwalayn.


Once the correct meaning is understood, the question of opposition is dispelled. Similar is the case when the proof is obscure. For e.g. many ahadith are reported for one mas’ala. Now by merely looking at one of the narrations it will be wrong to aver that a Mujtahid has opposed the narration. The Mujtahid has drawn a ruling from the other hadith and presented a valid interpretation for this one. An example of this is the question of reciting Fatiha behind the Imam (Qira’h Fatiha Khalf al-Imam). The traditions in this regard differ.


Sometimes a single narration holds scope for several varying possibilities. The Mujtahid understands a certain possibility (within that hadith) to be stronger on the basis of his (power of) legal reasoning. He then makes an inference. This too is not in conflict with the hadith. An example of this is that it is reported that if a person passes in front of you while you are in prayer then you should ward him off. One meaning is that the literal meaning applies. The other possibility taking into account other principles and rules is that this hadith is by way of warning and a deterrent for passing in front of a Musalli.
If a Mujtahid prefers the second possibility then it cannot be argued that he has discarded the hadith. In fact his practice is precisely in keeping with the hadith.
Similarly if the procedure of inference is obscure then too the judgment of conflict will be erroneous. For e.g. Imam Abu Hanifa says that the period of breastfeeding extends till 2 ½ years. The proof which is the Qur’anic verse, “Its carrying and weaning…” is well-known but its popular explanation is exceptionally faulty. In ‘Madaarik’ the tafseer of “hamluhu” is reported from the Imam as “bil akuf” (with hands). By this explanation all objections are dispelled. The meaning of the ayat then is that after birth, the maximum period of the baby being carried around in the arms and its weaning is 30 months. There is no problem with this exegesis and the view of the Imam is easily substantiated.


In conclusion, judging a juristic issue to be in conflict with the traditions is the prerogative of a person who is well-versed in the traditions and also possesses keen insight with strong perception. A scholar with one attribute but not the other is not capable to proclaiming that the juristic decision is in violation of the narrations.


It is proven in hadith (1) that one does not qualify for being a Mujtahid just by being a Hafiz of Hadith. The unbiased reader can understand from this that when a traditionist can be ignorant to the details and procedure of inference then how can the illiterate of today fathom all the various ways which a Mujtahid employs in his deduction of issues. Indeed it is the most audacious stupidity to call the Muqallid a discarder or rejecter of traditions. May Allah reform their condition.
In this regard whenever experts have found any statement in conflict with a Shari’ proof they have omitted the statement at once. Examples of this are the issues of the prohibition of consuming even a small quantity of an intoxicant and farming on a profit-share basis (muzara’at). It is clear in the books of the Hanafis that in these two issues the view of Imam Abu Hanifa is discarded. The number of such discarded views probably does not even reach ten. Even then, it is unlawful to revile a Mujtahid because his error is unintentional. It is a juristic (ijtihadi) mistake and he will be rewarded for this too as is in the narrations. This we have said according to our knowledge. Otherwise it is quite possible that Imam Abu Hanifa had access to a narration that we are unaware of.


Ibn Taymiyya says in Raf’ al-Malaam ani’l ‘Aimmah al-‘Alaam that the forms of inferences from the traditions and Qur’anic verses are so many that no Mujtahid can be attacked for his inference. This book is worth a read.


Even if we were to assume that some narrations did not reach Imam Abu Hanifa we find Imams Muhammad, Abu Yusuf, Zufar ibn Hudayl, Ibn al-Mubarak, Hasan ibn Ziyad and other eminent students of Imam Abu Hanifa living in the era of the hadith compilation.
Following them came Imam Tahaawi, Karkhi, Haakim (author of Kaafi), ‘Abd al-Baqi ibn Qani’, Mustaghri, Ibn al-Sharqi, Zayla’i and other memorizers and critics of traditions among the Hanafis who flourished during the age of perfection of the standards of examining the narrations of the Prophet (saw). They were completely aware of the rigorously authenticated (sahih), weak (da’if), well-known (mashhur) and single-chained (aahad) narrations.Thus they omitted any analogical deduction of Imam Abu Hanifa that they perceived to be in conflict with the traditions.


Jurists of the caliber of Imam Muhammad ibn Hasan, Abu Yusuf, Zufar and Hasan differed (with the Imam) in a significant portion of his school. The Hanafi school of Law is based on the collective statements of Imam Abu Hanifa and these students and associates. (Muqaddima ‘Ila al-Sunan, Fawaaid-u-Shatta)
Notes and References-
(1) Hadrat Ibn Mas’ud(ra) narrated that the Prophet (saw) said, “May Allah keep that person happy and prosperous who listens to my traditions, retains it and passes it on to others. Indeed how many of those who pass on knowledge are not versed in it themselves and often a man passes on knowledge to one who understands it better than the one who delivered it.
Imam Shafi’, Bayhaqi in al-Madhkal, Ahmad, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah and Darimi who narrated this from Hadrat Zayd ibn Thabit (ra).
There is clarity in this hadith that some memorizers of hadith may not understand the meanings of the narrations or possess (deep) understanding of it.

[dgdhgjjgj]

[Avaboormavoro]

Assalamu alaykum

Jazakumullahu khair.

[Toscoropreark]