Yes, We Do Have Witnesses Regarding the False Distortion of the Extremist’s In Sunan Abee Dawood- Shaikh ul-Hadeeth Sultaan Mahmood Jalaalpooree
26 f 07 at 2:06 am (Answers, Fiqh, Groups and sects, Hadeeth)
Ahlul Hadeeth – An Attributive Name and Consensus By Shaikh Zubair Alee Za’ee
20 f 07 at 1:04 am (Answers, In Defense of Ahlul Hadeeth, Manhaj)
The Opinion of the hanafee scholars Regarding Ahlul Hadeeth- Imaam Sayyid Badee ud deen Shah ar-Raashidee as-Sindhee
19 f 07 at 1:15 am (Groups and sects, In Defense of Ahlul Hadeeth)
Answering the Lies on Imaam al-Albanee -The Issue of placing the hands on the Chest al-Jawaab ar-Rabbaanee Raf al-Kaadhibah Anil Imaam al-Albaanee
18 f 07 at 6:30 pm (Answers, Fiqh)
al-Jawaab ar-Rabbaanee Raf al-Kaadhibah Anil Imaam al-Albaanee
Al-Allamah Abdullah Ghaznawi
17 f 07 at 1:50 am (Seerah / Biographies)
Taraajim Ulama Ahlul Hadeeth
Al-Allamah Abdullah Ghaznawi
By Al – Allamah Ibraheem Meer Sialkoti
Translated by: Abu Handhala
His name:
He was the Al- Allamah, the Mujahid, the caller of Tawheed and Sunnah Muhammad Abdullah Ghaznawi bin Muhammad rahimullah.
His Birth:
He was born in a pious family of Ghazni, Afghanistan. His father and grandfather were named Muhammad and they were known for their taqwa and righteousness in the area where they lived.
His Education:
His main teacher was Shaykh Habeebullah Qandaharee who was renowned for piety and knowledge in Ghazni. Shaykh Abdullah Ghaznawi read hadith books under his tutelage. It was he who advised Shaykh Abdullah Ghaznawi to read “Taqwiyatul Eemaan” of Shah Ismaeel Shaheed Rahimullah. This book had a profound effect on him and motivated him to raise the call for tawheed and uproot shirk in his area. Upon reading hadith books especially Saheeh Bukharee, he rejected the hanafi fiqh in issues which were against authentic ahadeeth. Then onwards he started praying in accordance with the Sunnah in that he started performing raful yadain regularly and offered prayer at its correct timings found in hadeeth books, contrary to the Hanafi timings which were a bit late.
His Dawah Of Tawheed And Exile:
Most of his daroos and speeches revolved around Tawheed and the rejection of shirk, innovation and the blind following of madhabs. Hence, the majority of the people in his hometown and scholars went against him and started creating problems and hurdles in his dawah. Some people made complaints to the ruler of Kabul Dost Muhammad Khan. The prominent scholars who asked the ruler to punish him were Khan Mullah Durrani, Mullah Mashki and Mullah Nasrullah Lobani. All of them were staunch blind followers of the Hanafi madhab. Resultantly, the ameer of Kabul asked the Shaykh to leave his area.
The Shaykh then left his home in Ghazni and traveled to many areas like Sawat, Hazara, Punjab, and finally reached Delhi. Upon reaching Delhi he found the Muhaddith of the era, the imam of Dawah Tahweed and Sunnah, Shaykh-ul-Qul Allamah Syed Mian Nazeer Hussain Muhadith Dhelwee rahimullah. He read under him for some years and completed his studies and got an ijaazah of teaching hadith from him. During his stay in Delhi, he was known for his taqwa and khushoo in prayer. Referring to him, Syed Mian Nazeer Hussain Dhelwee said, “Abdullah got the knowledge of hadith from us and he taught us how to pray.” This is because once he was praying in a mosque and suddenly a part of the ceiling collapsed, however, it didn’t disrupt his prayer and when he was asked about this his reply was that he wasn’t aware of what was happening in his surroundings.
In 1857, he traveled to Punjab and stayed there for a few years before going back to Daira Ismaeel Khan thinking that ameer of Kabul might change his verdict. However, in a few days the ameer of Kabul sent him a letter asking him to leave the area. So he traveled to another location known as Nawa which was also under the control of the same ameer. The ameer didn’t let him stay there either so he left the area and migrated to mountains of Yagistan and started calling the local people to tawheed. The scholars of Nawa didn’t like this so they attacked the Shaykh’s house with an army . They burnt his home, caused injuries to the muwahideen and tried to kill the Shaykh. Nevertheless, some local people and those who accepted his call defended him. They let the Shaykh move from the area with his family. This was the most difficult period in his life. He traveled through the mountains with his family and wherever he stopped he would call the people towards tawheed. However, the blind followers always created problems for him.
In the mean time, the ruler of Kabul passed away and his son Sher Ali Khan became the ruler. Shaykh thought that the situation may have changed so he returned to his hometown Ghazni. The same scholars again forwarded their complaints to the new ameer. The ameer ordered the Shaykh to leave. Fortunately, a rebellion caused Sher Ali to flee from Kabul to Harat and afterwards Muhammad Afzal took control of Kabul. The scholars didn’t stop from their venomous attacks on the Shaykh and asked the new ameer to punish him. So the Shaykh and his sons got arrested by the warlord Muhammad Omar Khan. However, Omar Khan was very impressed by the manners and the upholding of Shariah by the Shaykh and his sons. So he asked the Shaykh as to why these people were against him and the Shaykh replied by saying, “How can I stop myself from calling people towards tawheed and sunnah. This impressed the warlord and he wrote a letter to the ameer of Kabul saying that, “I arrested this man and fulfilled your order. He seems to me to be a pious and upright man and detests dunya. What is your order now?”
The ameer asked the warlord to send the Shaykh to Kabul. So he sent him to Kabul with armed men. Mulla Mashki and Mulla Nasrullah who were primarily responsible for the exile of the Shaykh asked the ameer to punish him as his kufr was established and that there was no need to do new research. So the ameer and scholars issued a command for him to be flogged. The Shaykh and his sons were ruthlessly beaten in public and the ruler’s men would beat him by whips. They were made to sit on a donkey and sent around the streets of Kabul. The ameer then put him and his family in prison where they spent two years.
In due time, Afzal Khan died and Azam Khan took over as the ameer of Kabul. He released the Shaykh but forced him to move to Peshawer. His two students accompanied him in this journey.
Shaykh stayed in Peshawer for quite some time and then moved to Amritsar where he
spent the rest of his life teaching ahaadith.
His Death:
He died in Rabiul Awwal 1298H and was buried in Amritsar.
His Sons:
He left behind twelve sons and most of them contributed significantly towards the Dawah of Ahlul Hadeeth especially his son Shaykh Dawood Ghaznawi who organized Dawah Ahlul Hadeeth in India and then Pakistan. His sons Shaykh Abdul Jabbar and Shaykh Muhammad were prominent scholars of their time.
Allaamah Muhammad Basheer Sehsawaanee
14 f 07 at 4:56 pm (Seerah / Biographies)
Taraajim Ulama Ahlul Hadeeth
Allaamah Muhammad Basheer Sehsawaanee
1250H-1326H (1834ce – 1908ce)
By Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari
He is Muhammad Basheer bin Hakeem Muhammad Badr ud deen Sehsawaanee
He is not in need of any introduction, he is the renowned scholar, the muhaddith, the jurist, the debater, the treacher, the muftee, the admonisher and speaker
Born in 1250h in Sehsawaan but due to his fathers work who was a doctor in his early years he resided in Lucknow and this is where he received his early education on the guidance of his father. He was just 10 years old when his father died, thereafter he retuned to his native area of Sehsawaan with his mother
In Sehsawaan he began to study under Shaikh Sayyid Ameer Hussain and later returned to Lucknow and studied with the Scholars of Farangi Mahal especially Shaikh Hidaaytullah Raampooree.
He then travelled to Allaamah Imaam Sayyid Muhammad Nadheer Hussain Muhaddith Dehlawee with whom he studied hadeeth, fiqh and tafseer and also obtained chains for ahadeeth. He also obtained (isnaad) chains of hadeeth from Allaamah Shaikh Hussain bin Muhsin Ansaari al-Yemanee.
For a period of time he remained a professor of Arabic and Faarsee in an Agra College and in the evenings he would teach Quraan and Hadeeth and conduct lessons at his house. Later at the request of Allaamah Shaikh Nawaab Siddeeque Hasan Khaan in 1295H/1878ce he was appointed as a teacher in Madrassah Shaah Jahaaniyyah in Bhopaal and he remained here for sometime.
Later he moved to Dhelee and taught in the many Ahlul Hadeeth institutions.
The Allaamah was a excellent debator and very sharp Alhamdulillah. When the disbeliever the hanafee Mirzaa Ghulam Qadiyaanee challenged Allaamah Sayyid Nadheer Hussain Dehlawee for a debate however as Allaamah Nadheer Hussain was occupied due to some circumstances so he asked Allaamah Sehsawaanee to have a written debate with Mirzaa Qaadiyaanee Hanafee. Hence this took place and the debate was concerning the living of the Messiah, when Mirzaa Qaadiyaanee was unable to answer and counteract the evidence of Allaamah Sehsawaanee, he said he had to go to the train station to pick up his father in law, Mirzaa Ghulam Qadiyyanee hanafee never set foot in Dhelee again.
Allaamah Sehsawaanee was an exceptional orator, he gave circles in explanation of the Quraan for years in Dhelee and many scholars of that time would sit in these circles.
From his well known Students
Shaikh Ahmadullaah Muhaddith Partaabghadhee
Shaikh Abu Sa’eed Sharf ud Dehlawee
Shaikh Muhammad Ismaa’eel Ansaari Sehsawaanee
Shaikh Sayyid Iqtidaar Ahmad Sehsawaanee
His works include
Siyanatal Eemaan Aan Waswasah ash-Shaikh Dahlaan
al-Burhaan al-A’ajaab Fee Fareedhah Umm al-Kitaa
Ayaam an-Nahr
Al-Qaul al-Mahmood Fee Radd Jawaaz as-Sood
Risaalah Fee Ithbaat al-Ba’eeyah al-Maraujah
Risaalah Mukhtasar al-Qaul al-Muhkam Fee Ziyaaratal Qabr al-Habeeb al-Mukarram
Risaalah al-Qaul al-Mansoor
Itmaam al-Hajjah A’la Man Awjab az-Ziyaarah Kal-Hajjah al-Ma’aroof bah as-Sa’ee al-Mashkoor
Al-Haq as-Sareeh Fee Hayaat al-Maseeh
A’laam al-Ahbaar Wal-Ehlaam Ann Deen Endal Islaam
The Shaikh whilst in Dehlee fell ill and passed away in 1326H/1908ce, he is buried next to Allaamah Sayyid Ahmed Nadheer Hussain, his teacher in the graveyard in Shaideepoorah
The Correct Saying In the Issue of Taraaweeh (its not 20 but 8) al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalutut Taraaweeh
13 f 07 at 9:36 pm (Answers, Fiqh)
alqaulassaheeh.pdf
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalutut Taraaweeh
The Decision of the Hanafee Fuqahaa’ on the Issue of Haadhir – Naadhir
13 f 07 at 4:26 pm (Aqeedah)
The Decision of the Hanafee Fuqahaa’ on the Issue of Haadhir – Naadhir
Abu Hibbaan and Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari
(i.e. the Messenger of Allaah 
(sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) is with us and has the knowledge of the Unseen)
Shaykh Hasan ibn Mansoor al-Ma’roof Biqaadeekhaan (d.592H) writes that: “A man did nikaah with a woman without any witnesses and at the time of the nikaah he said to the woman “We make Allaah and his Messenger our witnesses.” The fuqahaa‘ (Islaamic jurisprudents) have said that this statement of the man is disbelief (kufr), because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen whereas he didn’t have the knowledge of the unseen when he was alive so how would he then have it after his death.” [Fatawaa Qaadee Khaan (p. 883) ]
Al-’Allaamah ’Abdur-Rasheed Abul-Fattaah Zaheerud-Deen al-Lululghee (d.540H) writes that: “A man without witnesses married a woman (and the witnesses were not present). Addressing the woman he said “I am doing nikaah with you whilst making Allaah and his Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) my witnesses,” then that individual will become a kaafir (disbeliever), because he came to the belief that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) has the knowledge of the unseen, because the one who doesn’t have knowledge then how can he become a witness. The person who has this ’aqeedah that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen and he is present and with us then he is a kaafir.” [Fataawaa Walu al-Jeeyah wa Kadha Beeree Haashiyah Ishbah]
Shaykh Aboo Haneefah at-Thasnee Zaynul-’Aabideen Ibn Najeem al-Misree (d.970H) says: “If anyone takes Allaah and Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) as witnesses for nikaah then from the start, that person will become a kaafir because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) knows the knowledge of the unseen.” [Bahrur-Raqiaq (5/16)]
Sultaan Aalamgeer (d.1118), the Islamic Constitution, Law and Principles which he set out in India with the help of five hundred fuqahaa‘. In it, it has the explanation, “That a man did nikaah without any witnesses and he said “I make Allaah and his Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) my witnesses,” or he says “I make Allaah’s Messenger my witness,” or he says “I make Allaah and his Angels my witnesses.” then such an individual will become a kaafir. If he says I make the Angels on my right and left sides (kiraaman-kaatibeen) as my witnesses then he will not be a kaafir (Because both these Angels are present with us but the nikaah (marriage) will be invalid.” [Fataawaa Alamgeer (2/412)]
In the famous and well-known Hanafee Fiqh book Fataawaa Tataarkhaniyyah it is written, “The one who makes Allaah and his Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) as witnesses for nikaah, then his nikaah will be invalid and the individual will become a kaafir because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen.”
It is written in the well-known Fataawaa Jawahir Ikhlaaqiyyah “That if someone understood that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen then he becomes a kaafir and if this ’aqeedah is held about someone else, then how can the individual remain a Muslim?”
All these Hanafee Fuqahaa‘ have clarified that the individual who holds the ’aqeedah that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen or he was present with us then he commits an act of disbelief (kufr).
Imaam Abee Ibn Abee Bakr (d.593H), the author of Hidaayah in his book Tajnees (p.297).
Al-’Allaamah Taahir Ibn Ahmad (d.542H) in Khulaasatul-Fataawaa (4/354).
Imaam ’Abdur-Rahmaan (d.561H) in Fusool Eemadiyyah (p. 64).
Imaam Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Khawarzamee al-Mashoor Bil-Bazaazee (d.827H) in Fataawaa Bazzaziyyah (p. 325).
Al-Muhaddith al-’Allaamah Badrud Deen al-’Aynee (d.855H) in Umdatul-Qaaree (11/520).
Al-Haafidh Ibnul-Hammaam Muhammad Ibn ’Abdul-Waahid (d.861H) in Masaayarah M’a al-Masamarah (2/88) printed in Egypt.
Al-Muhaddith ’Alee Ibn Sultaan, commonly known as Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree (d.1014H) in Sharh Fiqhul-Akbar (p. 185).
Al-’Allaamah Ibn ’Aabideen al-Hanafee (d.970H) in Shaamee (2/306).
Thanaa‘ullaah Pani Patee (d.1225H) in Maalaa ba’d Mun (p. 176).
And other Hanafee Fuqahaa‘ have clarified that the individual who holds the ’aqeedah that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen or he was present with us then he commits an act of disbelief (kufr).
Eating from the deceased’s house on the third, seventh, fourteenth and on other days according to the Ahnaaf [Plural of Hanafee]
13 f 07 at 4:14 pm (Groups and sects, Innovations)
Eating from the deceased’s house on the third, seventh, fourteenth and on other days according to the Ahnaaf [Plural of Hanafee]
Comp. Abu Hibbaan & Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari
First published 1999
’Abdullaah Ibn Ja’far says, when the news of the death of Ja’far (radiyallaahu ’anhu) reached the Messenger of Allaah he said:- “Prepare food for the House of Ja’far because a thing has come to them that has preoccupied them.” [Aboo Daawood (2/59), at-Tirmidhee (2/173), al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak (1/372), Imaam al-Haakim said this hadeeth is Saheeh and adh-Dhahabee agreed in his checking and Imaam Ibn Sakeen has also said it is Saheeh.] Imaam Shaaf’iee (d.204H) – rahimahullaah - has said: “That I prefer or like for the relatives of the deceased that on the day of the death they prepare so much food for the household that it will last them the day and night so that they are satisfied because this is the Sunnah and it is good, and this is the action of the people of Good before and after us, because when the news of the death of Ja’far reached the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) he said prepare food for the House of Ja’far because that thing has come to them that has preoccupied them.” [Kitaabul-Umm (1/317)] Jareer Ibn ’Abdullaah (radiyallaahu ’anhu) (d.51H) said: “We (i.e. the Companions) would consider it a form of lamenting and mourning to gather at the deceased’s house to eat from there” [Related by Ibn Majaah (1/513), Naylul-Awtaar (4/97) and in Muntaqal-Akhbaar (p. 221)]
With another wording it says
“That we would consider it a form of mourning to gather at the deceased’s house and to prepare food after the burial” [Related by Ahmad (11/125-126)] It has come in authentic narrations that crying on the deceased loudly, lamenting and mourning are actions of the people before Islaam and according to the majority of the Salafus-Saaliheen it is unlawful [Imaam Nawawee says there is ijmaa’ (consensus) on it in his Sharh Saheeh Muslim (1/303)] and the same is understood for eating from the deceased’s house,
This narration is narrated via two chains,
Al-’Allaamah al-Haythamee writes about one of them that it is Saheeh according to the conditions of al-Bukhaaree and he writes about the other one that is Saheeh according to the conditions of Muslim. [Refer to Majma’uz-Zawaa‘id of al-Haythamee] Al-Haafidh Ibn Humaam (d.861H) writes: “Its chain of narration is Saheeh.” [Fathul-Qadeer (1/473)] Al-’Allaamah al-Halabee writes: “The chain of narration is Saheeh.” [Kabeeree (p. 609)] Al-’Allaamah Ibn Ameer al-Haaj al-Maalikee (d.737H) writes : “Preparing the food of the deceased and the gathering of the people, then there is no mention of this but it is an innovation and disliked.” [al-Madkhal (3/275) ] And he writes: “Some people have introduced this innovation that on the third day they prepare food at the deceased’s house and this is a norm amongst and within them.” [al-Madkhal (3/275) ] Imaam Ibn Hajar al-Makkee ash-Shaafi’ee was questioned: “What is the hukm (Ruling) on the food that is prepared in the deceased’s house for the fuqaraa‘ [The poor, destitute] on the third and the seventh day”?
He replies
“All the things mentioned in the question all in all of them are prohibited innovations (bida’ mamnoo’ah).” [Fataawaa Kubraa (2/7)]
Al-’Allaamah Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Mabnajee al-Hanbalee (d.777H) [Tasleetatul-Masaa‘ib (p. 99)]
Imaam Shamsud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbalee (d.682H) and [Sharh Miqna’ Lil-Kabeer (2/426)]
Imaam Muwaffiqud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbalee (d.620H) write:-
“The food that is prepared for the people by the deceased’s family is (makrooh) because by this the family is further pushed into trouble and unnecessary pre-occupation and also there is mushabbahah (resembling) the polytheists and the people of ignorance.” [ al-Mughnee (2/413)]
Al-’Allaamah Ibn ’Aabideen ash-Shaamee (d.970H) writes:-
“That this is our madhhab [Meaning the Hanafees] (way) and that of the Shaafi’iyyah and the Hanaabilah.” [Shaamee (1/841)]
ACCORDING TO THE AHNAAF:
As fuqahaa‘ (scholars of Islaamic jurisprudence) from other methodologies have rejected this innovation likewise and in fact even more the fuqahaa‘ of the Ahnaaf have done so.
Al-’Allaamah Taahir Ibn Muhammad al-Hanafee (d.542H) writes:-
“To feast from the house of the deceased up until three days is not permissible, because feasting is done only at times of happiness.” [Khulasal-Fataawaa (2/342)]
Imaam Qadhee Khan writes:
“In the days of calamity [Loss of a close relative for example] feasting is disliked (makrooh), because the acts that are done during the times of happiness are not appropriate at times of sadness.” [Fataawaa Tataar Khaaniyyah (4/781)]
Likewise the same is said in Fataawaa Siraajiyyah [Fatawaa Siraajiyyah (p. 75)]
Al-Haafidh Ibnul-Hummaam (d.861H) writes:
“Preparing food in the house of the deceased is makrooh (disliked), because feasting is at times of happiness, not sadness and this is a very bad and detestable innovation.” [Fathul-Qadeer (1/473)]Al-’Allaamah Qahsataanee writes: “In those days, preparing food in the deceased’s house and eating the food is makrooh (disliked) as has been mentioned in Hayrul-Fataawaa.” [Jaami’ur-Ramooz (3/443)] It says in Fataawaa Alamgeeree [Of Sultaan Alamgeer (d.1118H) compiler of Fataawaa Alamgeeree]
“Preparing food in the deceased’s house up until three days is makrooh.” [Fataawaa Alamgeeree (1/167)] (as has been mentioned in Tataar Khaaniyyah)
And Imaam Haafidhud-Deen Ibn Shihaab Kardaree Hanafee writes:-
“For three days feasting is disliked (makrooh) and so is the food because feasting is at the times of happiness and preparing food on the first, second and third is also makrooh and likewise after a week (seven days) and at the times of ’Eed and also related to this is the taking of food to the graves seasonally is also makrooh. Gathering the reciters and pious for reciting the Qur’ân and after this calling people to eat food is makrooh. Preparing food for the recitation of Soorah’s al-An’aam and al-Ikhlaas is also makrooh and the final word is that preparing food after or for the recitation of the Qur’ân is makrooh.” [Fataawaa Bazzaaziyyah (4/81)] The same thing on this Subject is mentioned in Shaamee [Shaamee (1/841)] Al-’Allaamah Hisaamud-Deen ’Alee Muttaqee [Author of Kanzul-’Ummaal] (d.975H) Whilst refuting innovation and the people of innovation says:
“The ijtimaa’ (gathering) on the third day specifically is neither fard, waajib, sunnah nor mustahab, neither is there any worldly benefit in it. Nor it is advisable but rather it is an accusation, reviling and blame on the Salaf because they did not mention it but even more dangerous than this is upon the (accusation, blame) Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) because he did not mention the rights of the deceased and the worst of all is the blame on Allaah because he did not complete the Sharee’ah (And therefore the Religion is dependent on our innovations) whereas Allaah says:
“This day I have perfected your Religion for you, completed my favour upon you and chosen for you Islaam as your Religion.” [Sooratul-Maa‘idah [5:3] [From Tahfeemul- Masaa‘il (p. 172)] Imaam Nawawee (d.676H) writes in Sharhul-Minhaaj: “That gathering at the grave on the third day and distributing roses (flowers) and incense and feeding the people within specific days i.e. the third, fifth, ninth, tenth, twentieth, fortieth, sixth month and after a year, then all in all these actions are prohibited innovations (Bida’ mamnoo’ah)” [From Anwaarus-Sati‘a]
Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree (d.1014H) whilst mentioning the narration of ’Aasim Ibn Kulayb also writes:
“That our madhhab’s (Hanafee) fuqahaa‘ have proven the point that preparing food in the deceased’s house on the first day, third day and after a week is makrooh.” [Mirqaat (5/482)]
For further information see:
1) ’Abdul-Hayy Lucknaawee’s Majmoo’a Fataawaa (3/76-77)
2) Shaykh ’Abdul Haqq ad-Dahlawee’s (d.1052H)
(a) Madaarijun-Nabuwwah (1/421)
(b) Safarus-Sa’aadat (p. 273)
(c) Isha’atul-Lamahaat (1/745)
3) Qaadee Thanaa‘ullaah Panee Patee’s (d.1225H) Wasiyyah Nama (p. 191)
4) Shaah Waliyyullah Muhaddith Dahlawee’s (d.1176H)
(a) Tafheemaat (2/247)
(b) Wasiyyah Nama (p. 13)
5) Makhdoom Jahaniyyah Jahah Ghast’s (d.800H) ad-Daarul-Manzoom (p. 783)
6) Muiudeen Barkalee Naqshbandee al-Hanafee’s (d.981H) Tareeqah Muhammadee (last page)
And it goes on
OBJECTIONS FROM THE OPPOSITION
FIRST OBJECTION:
They say that eating from the deceased’s house is not impermissible or Makrooh because in Mishkaat al –Masabeeh [(2/544)] a narration comes that when the Messenger if Allaah finished burying a person (Astaqbah da’ee imra’ah) A messenger from the deceased’s wife to the Messenger of Allaah to give him an invitation to eat. Al-’Allaamah al-Halabee [In Kabeeree (p. 609) and Sagheeree (p. 300)] and Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree [In Mirqaat (5/482)] (d.1014H) writes: “This hadeeth is a proof for the command for eating from the deceased’s house and it is correct, otherwise the Messenger of Allaah would never have ate.” [See also Anwaarus-Sati’a (p. 109)]
THE ANSWER:
The reasoning from this hadeeth is not correct.
Firstly: the Word (imra’ah) is either a doubt by the author of Mishkaat or a scribes mistake because the proper word is (imra’atin) that a woman’s messenger came to give an invitation to the Messenger of Allaah rather than the messenger of the deceased’s wife. This narration is also found in:
[1] Aboo Daawood (2/117)
[2] Mushkilul-Aathaar (2/132)
[3] Ma’atasir (p. 169)
[4] Sharh Ma’aaniyyul-Aathaar (2/320)
[5] ad-Daaraqutnee (2/545)
[6] Musnad Ahmad (5/293)
[7] Sunanul-Kubraa (6/97)
[10] ’Uqoodul-Jawaahiril-Muneefah (2/62)
[11] Hasaa‘isul-Kubraa (2/103)
[12] Mustadarakul-Haakim (4/234)
[13] al-Muhallaa of Ibn Hazm (7/415)
[14] ’Awnul Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Aboo Daawood (3/249)
[15] Bahdhal Majhood Fee Haal Abee Daawood (4/239)
All these books mention the word (imra’atin) and this is the correct wording.
Secondly, some people who have accepted the wording as (imra’ah) have given the following answer:
[1] Some have said that this incident is specific with Messenger of Allaah
[2] And others have said other things, but they try to prove this point by ta‘weel trying to legislate eating from the deceased’s house.
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi (d.1920CE) has answered this by saying the woman had invited the Messenger of Allaah previously and by the will of Allaah the husband died and the eating at the deceased’s house by the Messenger of Allaah was not on the basis of death but rather on the basis of promise. So we find that Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi refutes the position of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah Halabee. This also clarifies the position of Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi as he was not in favour in eating from the deceased’s house. [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/194-197)]
Thirdly, those who rely on the word (imra’ah) and the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree’s position, then let them not be fooled because Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree himself retracted from this position and adopted the correct position and he writes clearly
“Eating from the deceased’s house is disliked (makrooh) and an innovation.” [Sharh Naqayah (1/40) ]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi after answering the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah al-Halabee he writes:
“If Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and Halabee saw the customs and tradition about today they would have most definitely pronounced a ruling. And there is no doubt that legislating its permissibility will open the doors for the rejected Shaytaan and it will put the lazy Muslims into a lot of trouble and we pray to Allaah that he keeps us upon the straight path.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/197)]
SECOND OBJECTION
When the Messenger of Allaah’s son Ibraaheem died, Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu) on the third day gathered some dates, milk and wheat food and placed them in front of the Messenger of Allaah and he recited Soorah’s Faatihah and Ikhlaas and made supplication and said to Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu), “Divide this amongst the people so that the reward from this reaches my beloved Ibraaheem.”
So from this they try to prove two things [i] preparing food on the third and [ii] making supplication over the food place in front. They say this narration was mentioned by Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree in his book Awzajundee.
ANSWER:
Mawlaanaa ’Abdul-Hayy al-Lucknaawee writes:
“Neither is this book Awzajundee a writing of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree, nor is this narration authentic or reliable rather it is mawdoo’ (fabricated) and baatil and it cannot be relied upon. There is no trace of this narration in any of the books of hadeeth.” [Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (2/74)]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi says about the Faatihah recitation on Thursdays that, “These are detestable, shameful, ignorant and baatil acts and it is necessary to remove them.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (1/10)]
This narration is narrated via two chains,
Al-’Allaamah al-Haythamee writes about one of them that it is Saheeh according to the conditions of al-Bukhaaree and he writes about the other one that is Saheeh according to the conditions of Muslim. [Refer to Majma’uz-Zawaa‘id of al-Haythamee] Al-Haafidh Ibn Humaam (d.861H) writes: “Its chain of narration is Saheeh.” [Fathul-Qadeer (1/473)] Al-’Allaamah al-Halabee writes: “The chain of narration is Saheeh.” [Kabeeree (p. 609)] Al-’Allaamah Ibn Ameer al-Haaj al-Maalikee (d.737H) writes : “Preparing the food of the deceased and the gathering of the people, then there is no mention of this but it is an innovation and disliked.” [al-Madkhal (3/275) ] And he writes: “Some people have introduced this innovation that on the third day they prepare food at the deceased’s house and this is a norm amongst and within them.” [al-Madkhal (3/275) ] Imaam Ibn Hajar al-Makkee ash-Shaafi’ee was questioned: “What is the hukm (Ruling) on the food that is prepared in the deceased’s house for the fuqaraa‘ [The poor, destitute] on the third and the seventh day”?
He replies
“All the things mentioned in the question all in all of them are prohibited innovations (bida’ mamnoo’ah).” [Fataawaa Kubraa (2/7)]
Al-’Allaamah Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Mabnajee al-Hanbalee (d.777H) [Tasleetatul-Masaa‘ib (p. 99)]
Imaam Shamsud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbalee (d.682H) and [Sharh Miqna’ Lil-Kabeer (2/426)]
Imaam Muwaffiqud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbalee (d.620H) write:-
“The food that is prepared for the people by the deceased’s family is (makrooh) because by this the family is further pushed into trouble and unnecessary pre-occupation and also there is mushabbahah (resembling) the polytheists and the people of ignorance.” [ al-Mughnee (2/413)]
Al-’Allaamah Ibn ’Aabideen ash-Shaamee (d.970H) writes:-
“That this is our madhhab [Meaning the Hanafees] (way) and that of the Shaafi’iyyah and the Hanaabilah.” [Shaamee (1/841)]
ACCORDING TO THE AHNAAF:
As fuqahaa‘ (scholars of Islaamic jurisprudence) from other methodologies have rejected this innovation likewise and in fact even more the fuqahaa‘ of the Ahnaaf have done so.
Al-’Allaamah Taahir Ibn Muhammad al-Hanafee (d.542H) writes:-
“To feast from the house of the deceased up until three days is not permissible, because feasting is done only at times of happiness.” [Khulasal-Fataawaa (2/342)]
Imaam Qadhee Khan writes:
“In the days of calamity [Loss of a close relative for example] feasting is disliked (makrooh), because the acts that are done during the times of happiness are not appropriate at times of sadness.” [Fataawaa Tataar Khaaniyyah (4/781)]
Likewise the same is said in Fataawaa Siraajiyyah [Fatawaa Siraajiyyah (p. 75)]
Al-Haafidh Ibnul-Hummaam (d.861H) writes:
“Preparing food in the house of the deceased is makrooh (disliked), because feasting is at times of happiness, not sadness and this is a very bad and detestable innovation.” [Fathul-Qadeer (1/473)]Al-’Allaamah Qahsataanee writes: “In those days, preparing food in the deceased’s house and eating the food is makrooh (disliked) as has been mentioned in Hayrul-Fataawaa.” [Jaami’ur-Ramooz (3/443)] It says in Fataawaa Alamgeeree [Of Sultaan Alamgeer (d.1118H) compiler of Fataawaa Alamgeeree]
“Preparing food in the deceased’s house up until three days is makrooh.” [Fataawaa Alamgeeree (1/167)] (as has been mentioned in Tataar Khaaniyyah)
And Imaam Haafidhud-Deen Ibn Shihaab Kardaree Hanafee writes:-
“For three days feasting is disliked (makrooh) and so is the food because feasting is at the times of happiness and preparing food on the first, second and third is also makrooh and likewise after a week (seven days) and at the times of ’Eed and also related to this is the taking of food to the graves seasonally is also makrooh. Gathering the reciters and pious for reciting the Qur’ân and after this calling people to eat food is makrooh. Preparing food for the recitation of Soorah’s al-An’aam and al-Ikhlaas is also makrooh and the final word is that preparing food after or for the recitation of the Qur’ân is makrooh.” [Fataawaa Bazzaaziyyah (4/81)] The same thing on this Subject is mentioned in Shaamee [Shaamee (1/841)] Al-’Allaamah Hisaamud-Deen ’Alee Muttaqee [Author of Kanzul-’Ummaal] (d.975H) Whilst refuting innovation and the people of innovation says:
“The ijtimaa’ (gathering) on the third day specifically is neither fard, waajib, sunnah nor mustahab, neither is there any worldly benefit in it. Nor it is advisable but rather it is an accusation, reviling and blame on the Salaf because they did not mention it but even more dangerous than this is upon the (accusation, blame) Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) because he did not mention the rights of the deceased and the worst of all is the blame on Allaah because he did not complete the Sharee’ah (And therefore the Religion is dependent on our innovations) whereas Allaah says:
“This day I have perfected your Religion for you, completed my favour upon you and chosen for you Islaam as your Religion.” [Sooratul-Maa‘idah [5:3] [From Tahfeemul- Masaa‘il (p. 172)] Imaam Nawawee (d.676H) writes in Sharhul-Minhaaj: “That gathering at the grave on the third day and distributing roses (flowers) and incense and feeding the people within specific days i.e. the third, fifth, ninth, tenth, twentieth, fortieth, sixth month and after a year, then all in all these actions are prohibited innovations (Bida’ mamnoo’ah)” [From Anwaarus-Sati‘a]
Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree (d.1014H) whilst mentioning the narration of ’Aasim Ibn Kulayb also writes:
“That our madhhab’s (Hanafee) fuqahaa‘ have proven the point that preparing food in the deceased’s house on the first day, third day and after a week is makrooh.” [Mirqaat (5/482)]
For further information see:
1) ’Abdul-Hayy Lucknaawee’s Majmoo’a Fataawaa (3/76-77)
2) Shaykh ’Abdul Haqq ad-Dahlawee’s (d.1052H)
(a) Madaarijun-Nabuwwah (1/421)
(b) Safarus-Sa’aadat (p. 273)
(c) Isha’atul-Lamahaat (1/745)
3) Qaadee Thanaa‘ullaah Panee Patee’s (d.1225H) Wasiyyah Nama (p. 191)
4) Shaah Waliyyullah Muhaddith Dahlawee’s (d.1176H)
(a) Tafheemaat (2/247)
(b) Wasiyyah Nama (p. 13)
5) Makhdoom Jahaniyyah Jahah Ghast’s (d.800H) ad-Daarul-Manzoom (p. 783)
6) Muiudeen Barkalee Naqshbandee al-Hanafee’s (d.981H) Tareeqah Muhammadee (last page)
And it goes on
OBJECTIONS FROM THE OPPOSITION
FIRST OBJECTION:
They say that eating from the deceased’s house is not impermissible or Makrooh because in Mishkaat al –Masabeeh [(2/544)] a narration comes that when the Messenger if Allaah finished burying a person (Astaqbah da’ee imra’ah) A messenger from the deceased’s wife to the Messenger of Allaah to give him an invitation to eat. Al-’Allaamah al-Halabee [In Kabeeree (p. 609) and Sagheeree (p. 300)] and Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree [In Mirqaat (5/482)] (d.1014H) writes: “This hadeeth is a proof for the command for eating from the deceased’s house and it is correct, otherwise the Messenger of Allaah would never have ate.” [See also Anwaarus-Sati’a (p. 109)]
THE ANSWER:
The reasoning from this hadeeth is not correct.
Firstly: the Word (imra’ah) is either a doubt by the author of Mishkaat or a scribes mistake because the proper word is (imra’atin) that a woman’s messenger came to give an invitation to the Messenger of Allaah rather than the messenger of the deceased’s wife. This narration is also found in:
[1] Aboo Daawood (2/117)
[2] Mushkilul-Aathaar (2/132)
[3] Ma’atasir (p. 169)
[4] Sharh Ma’aaniyyul-Aathaar (2/320)
[5] ad-Daaraqutnee (2/545)
[6] Musnad Ahmad (5/293)
[7] Sunanul-Kubraa (6/97)
[10] ’Uqoodul-Jawaahiril-Muneefah (2/62)
[11] Hasaa‘isul-Kubraa (2/103)
[12] Mustadarakul-Haakim (4/234)
[13] al-Muhallaa of Ibn Hazm (7/415)
[14] ’Awnul Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Aboo Daawood (3/249)
[15] Bahdhal Majhood Fee Haal Abee Daawood (4/239)
All these books mention the word (imra’atin) and this is the correct wording.
Secondly, some people who have accepted the wording as (imra’ah) have given the following answer:
[1] Some have said that this incident is specific with Messenger of Allaah
[2] And others have said other things, but they try to prove this point by ta‘weel trying to legislate eating from the deceased’s house.
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi (d.1920CE) has answered this by saying the woman had invited the Messenger of Allaah previously and by the will of Allaah the husband died and the eating at the deceased’s house by the Messenger of Allaah was not on the basis of death but rather on the basis of promise. So we find that Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi refutes the position of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah Halabee. This also clarifies the position of Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi as he was not in favour in eating from the deceased’s house. [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/194-197)]
Thirdly, those who rely on the word (imra’ah) and the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree’s position, then let them not be fooled because Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree himself retracted from this position and adopted the correct position and he writes clearly
“Eating from the deceased’s house is disliked (makrooh) and an innovation.” [Sharh Naqayah (1/40) ]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi after answering the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah al-Halabee he writes:
“If Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and Halabee saw the customs and tradition about today they would have most definitely pronounced a ruling. And there is no doubt that legislating its permissibility will open the doors for the rejected Shaytaan and it will put the lazy Muslims into a lot of trouble and we pray to Allaah that he keeps us upon the straight path.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/197)]
SECOND OBJECTION
When the Messenger of Allaah’s son Ibraaheem died, Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu) on the third day gathered some dates, milk and wheat food and placed them in front of the Messenger of Allaah and he recited Soorah’s Faatihah and Ikhlaas and made supplication and said to Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu), “Divide this amongst the people so that the reward from this reaches my beloved Ibraaheem.”
So from this they try to prove two things [i] preparing food on the third and [ii] making supplication over the food place in front. They say this narration was mentioned by Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree in his book Awzajundee.
ANSWER:
Mawlaanaa ’Abdul-Hayy al-Lucknaawee writes:
“Neither is this book Awzajundee a writing of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree, nor is this narration authentic or reliable rather it is mawdoo’ (fabricated) and baatil and it cannot be relied upon. There is no trace of this narration in any of the books of hadeeth.” [Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (2/74)]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi says about the Faatihah recitation on Thursdays that, “These are detestable, shameful, ignorant and baatil acts and it is necessary to remove them.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (1/10)]
Imaam Shamsud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbalee (d.682H) and [Sharh Miqna’ Lil-Kabeer (2/426)]
Imaam Muwaffiqud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbalee (d.620H) write:-
“The food that is prepared for the people by the deceased’s family is (makrooh) because by this the family is further pushed into trouble and unnecessary pre-occupation and also there is mushabbahah (resembling) the polytheists and the people of ignorance.” [ al-Mughnee (2/413)]
Al-’Allaamah Ibn ’Aabideen ash-Shaamee (d.970H) writes:-
“That this is our madhhab [Meaning the Hanafees] (way) and that of the Shaafi’iyyah and the Hanaabilah.” [Shaamee (1/841)]
ACCORDING TO THE AHNAAF:
As fuqahaa‘ (scholars of Islaamic jurisprudence) from other methodologies have rejected this innovation likewise and in fact even more the fuqahaa‘ of the Ahnaaf have done so.
Al-’Allaamah Taahir Ibn Muhammad al-Hanafee (d.542H) writes:-
“To feast from the house of the deceased up until three days is not permissible, because feasting is done only at times of happiness.” [Khulasal-Fataawaa (2/342)]
Imaam Qadhee Khan writes:
“In the days of calamity [Loss of a close relative for example] feasting is disliked (makrooh), because the acts that are done during the times of happiness are not appropriate at times of sadness.” [Fataawaa Tataar Khaaniyyah (4/781)]
Likewise the same is said in Fataawaa Siraajiyyah [Fatawaa Siraajiyyah (p. 75)]
Al-Haafidh Ibnul-Hummaam (d.861H) writes:
“Preparing food in the house of the deceased is makrooh (disliked), because feasting is at times of happiness, not sadness and this is a very bad and detestable innovation.” [Fathul-Qadeer (1/473)]Al-’Allaamah Qahsataanee writes: “In those days, preparing food in the deceased’s house and eating the food is makrooh (disliked) as has been mentioned in Hayrul-Fataawaa.” [Jaami’ur-Ramooz (3/443)] It says in Fataawaa Alamgeeree [Of Sultaan Alamgeer (d.1118H) compiler of Fataawaa Alamgeeree]
“Preparing food in the deceased’s house up until three days is makrooh.” [Fataawaa Alamgeeree (1/167)] (as has been mentioned in Tataar Khaaniyyah)
And Imaam Haafidhud-Deen Ibn Shihaab Kardaree Hanafee writes:-
“For three days feasting is disliked (makrooh) and so is the food because feasting is at the times of happiness and preparing food on the first, second and third is also makrooh and likewise after a week (seven days) and at the times of ’Eed and also related to this is the taking of food to the graves seasonally is also makrooh. Gathering the reciters and pious for reciting the Qur’ân and after this calling people to eat food is makrooh. Preparing food for the recitation of Soorah’s al-An’aam and al-Ikhlaas is also makrooh and the final word is that preparing food after or for the recitation of the Qur’ân is makrooh.” [Fataawaa Bazzaaziyyah (4/81)] The same thing on this Subject is mentioned in Shaamee [Shaamee (1/841)] Al-’Allaamah Hisaamud-Deen ’Alee Muttaqee [Author of Kanzul-’Ummaal] (d.975H) Whilst refuting innovation and the people of innovation says:
“The ijtimaa’ (gathering) on the third day specifically is neither fard, waajib, sunnah nor mustahab, neither is there any worldly benefit in it. Nor it is advisable but rather it is an accusation, reviling and blame on the Salaf because they did not mention it but even more dangerous than this is upon the (accusation, blame) Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) because he did not mention the rights of the deceased and the worst of all is the blame on Allaah because he did not complete the Sharee’ah (And therefore the Religion is dependent on our innovations) whereas Allaah says:
“This day I have perfected your Religion for you, completed my favour upon you and chosen for you Islaam as your Religion.” [Sooratul-Maa‘idah [5:3] [From Tahfeemul- Masaa‘il (p. 172)] Imaam Nawawee (d.676H) writes in Sharhul-Minhaaj: “That gathering at the grave on the third day and distributing roses (flowers) and incense and feeding the people within specific days i.e. the third, fifth, ninth, tenth, twentieth, fortieth, sixth month and after a year, then all in all these actions are prohibited innovations (Bida’ mamnoo’ah)” [From Anwaarus-Sati‘a]
Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree (d.1014H) whilst mentioning the narration of ’Aasim Ibn Kulayb also writes:
“That our madhhab’s (Hanafee) fuqahaa‘ have proven the point that preparing food in the deceased’s house on the first day, third day and after a week is makrooh.” [Mirqaat (5/482)]
For further information see:
1) ’Abdul-Hayy Lucknaawee’s Majmoo’a Fataawaa (3/76-77)
2) Shaykh ’Abdul Haqq ad-Dahlawee’s (d.1052H)
(a) Madaarijun-Nabuwwah (1/421)
(b) Safarus-Sa’aadat (p. 273)
(c) Isha’atul-Lamahaat (1/745)
3) Qaadee Thanaa‘ullaah Panee Patee’s (d.1225H) Wasiyyah Nama (p. 191)
4) Shaah Waliyyullah Muhaddith Dahlawee’s (d.1176H)
(a) Tafheemaat (2/247)
(b) Wasiyyah Nama (p. 13)
5) Makhdoom Jahaniyyah Jahah Ghast’s (d.800H) ad-Daarul-Manzoom (p. 783)
6) Muiudeen Barkalee Naqshbandee al-Hanafee’s (d.981H) Tareeqah Muhammadee (last page)
And it goes on
OBJECTIONS FROM THE OPPOSITION
FIRST OBJECTION:
They say that eating from the deceased’s house is not impermissible or Makrooh because in Mishkaat al –Masabeeh [(2/544)] a narration comes that when the Messenger if Allaah finished burying a person (Astaqbah da’ee imra’ah) A messenger from the deceased’s wife to the Messenger of Allaah to give him an invitation to eat. Al-’Allaamah al-Halabee [In Kabeeree (p. 609) and Sagheeree (p. 300)] and Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree [In Mirqaat (5/482)] (d.1014H) writes: “This hadeeth is a proof for the command for eating from the deceased’s house and it is correct, otherwise the Messenger of Allaah would never have ate.” [See also Anwaarus-Sati’a (p. 109)]
THE ANSWER:
The reasoning from this hadeeth is not correct.
Firstly: the Word (imra’ah) is either a doubt by the author of Mishkaat or a scribes mistake because the proper word is (imra’atin) that a woman’s messenger came to give an invitation to the Messenger of Allaah rather than the messenger of the deceased’s wife. This narration is also found in:
[1] Aboo Daawood (2/117)
[2] Mushkilul-Aathaar (2/132)
[3] Ma’atasir (p. 169)
[4] Sharh Ma’aaniyyul-Aathaar (2/320)
[5] ad-Daaraqutnee (2/545)
[6] Musnad Ahmad (5/293)
[7] Sunanul-Kubraa (6/97)
[10] ’Uqoodul-Jawaahiril-Muneefah (2/62)
[11] Hasaa‘isul-Kubraa (2/103)
[12] Mustadarakul-Haakim (4/234)
[13] al-Muhallaa of Ibn Hazm (7/415)
[14] ’Awnul Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Aboo Daawood (3/249)
[15] Bahdhal Majhood Fee Haal Abee Daawood (4/239)
All these books mention the word (imra’atin) and this is the correct wording.
Secondly, some people who have accepted the wording as (imra’ah) have given the following answer:
[1] Some have said that this incident is specific with Messenger of Allaah
[2] And others have said other things, but they try to prove this point by ta‘weel trying to legislate eating from the deceased’s house.
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi (d.1920CE) has answered this by saying the woman had invited the Messenger of Allaah previously and by the will of Allaah the husband died and the eating at the deceased’s house by the Messenger of Allaah was not on the basis of death but rather on the basis of promise. So we find that Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi refutes the position of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah Halabee. This also clarifies the position of Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi as he was not in favour in eating from the deceased’s house. [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/194-197)]
Thirdly, those who rely on the word (imra’ah) and the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree’s position, then let them not be fooled because Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree himself retracted from this position and adopted the correct position and he writes clearly
“Eating from the deceased’s house is disliked (makrooh) and an innovation.” [Sharh Naqayah (1/40) ]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi after answering the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah al-Halabee he writes:
“If Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and Halabee saw the customs and tradition about today they would have most definitely pronounced a ruling. And there is no doubt that legislating its permissibility will open the doors for the rejected Shaytaan and it will put the lazy Muslims into a lot of trouble and we pray to Allaah that he keeps us upon the straight path.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/197)]
SECOND OBJECTION
When the Messenger of Allaah’s son Ibraaheem died, Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu) on the third day gathered some dates, milk and wheat food and placed them in front of the Messenger of Allaah and he recited Soorah’s Faatihah and Ikhlaas and made supplication and said to Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu), “Divide this amongst the people so that the reward from this reaches my beloved Ibraaheem.”
So from this they try to prove two things [i] preparing food on the third and [ii] making supplication over the food place in front. They say this narration was mentioned by Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree in his book Awzajundee.
ANSWER:
Mawlaanaa ’Abdul-Hayy al-Lucknaawee writes:
“Neither is this book Awzajundee a writing of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree, nor is this narration authentic or reliable rather it is mawdoo’ (fabricated) and baatil and it cannot be relied upon. There is no trace of this narration in any of the books of hadeeth.” [Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (2/74)]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi says about the Faatihah recitation on Thursdays that, “These are detestable, shameful, ignorant and baatil acts and it is necessary to remove them.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (1/10)]
ACCORDING TO THE AHNAAF:
As fuqahaa‘ (scholars of Islaamic jurisprudence) from other methodologies have rejected this innovation likewise and in fact even more the fuqahaa‘ of the Ahnaaf have done so.
Al-’Allaamah Taahir Ibn Muhammad al-Hanafee (d.542H) writes:-
“To feast from the house of the deceased up until three days is not permissible, because feasting is done only at times of happiness.” [Khulasal-Fataawaa (2/342)]
Imaam Qadhee Khan writes:
“In the days of calamity [Loss of a close relative for example] feasting is disliked (makrooh), because the acts that are done during the times of happiness are not appropriate at times of sadness.” [Fataawaa Tataar Khaaniyyah (4/781)]
Likewise the same is said in Fataawaa Siraajiyyah [Fatawaa Siraajiyyah (p. 75)]
Al-Haafidh Ibnul-Hummaam (d.861H) writes:
“Preparing food in the house of the deceased is makrooh (disliked), because feasting is at times of happiness, not sadness and this is a very bad and detestable innovation.” [Fathul-Qadeer (1/473)]Al-’Allaamah Qahsataanee writes: “In those days, preparing food in the deceased’s house and eating the food is makrooh (disliked) as has been mentioned in Hayrul-Fataawaa.” [Jaami’ur-Ramooz (3/443)] It says in Fataawaa Alamgeeree [Of Sultaan Alamgeer (d.1118H) compiler of Fataawaa Alamgeeree]
“Preparing food in the deceased’s house up until three days is makrooh.” [Fataawaa Alamgeeree (1/167)] (as has been mentioned in Tataar Khaaniyyah)
And Imaam Haafidhud-Deen Ibn Shihaab Kardaree Hanafee writes:-
“For three days feasting is disliked (makrooh) and so is the food because feasting is at the times of happiness and preparing food on the first, second and third is also makrooh and likewise after a week (seven days) and at the times of ’Eed and also related to this is the taking of food to the graves seasonally is also makrooh. Gathering the reciters and pious for reciting the Qur’ân and after this calling people to eat food is makrooh. Preparing food for the recitation of Soorah’s al-An’aam and al-Ikhlaas is also makrooh and the final word is that preparing food after or for the recitation of the Qur’ân is makrooh.” [Fataawaa Bazzaaziyyah (4/81)] The same thing on this Subject is mentioned in Shaamee [Shaamee (1/841)] Al-’Allaamah Hisaamud-Deen ’Alee Muttaqee [Author of Kanzul-’Ummaal] (d.975H) Whilst refuting innovation and the people of innovation says:
“The ijtimaa’ (gathering) on the third day specifically is neither fard, waajib, sunnah nor mustahab, neither is there any worldly benefit in it. Nor it is advisable but rather it is an accusation, reviling and blame on the Salaf because they did not mention it but even more dangerous than this is upon the (accusation, blame) Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) because he did not mention the rights of the deceased and the worst of all is the blame on Allaah because he did not complete the Sharee’ah (And therefore the Religion is dependent on our innovations) whereas Allaah says:
“This day I have perfected your Religion for you, completed my favour upon you and chosen for you Islaam as your Religion.” [Sooratul-Maa‘idah [5:3] [From Tahfeemul- Masaa‘il (p. 172)] Imaam Nawawee (d.676H) writes in Sharhul-Minhaaj: “That gathering at the grave on the third day and distributing roses (flowers) and incense and feeding the people within specific days i.e. the third, fifth, ninth, tenth, twentieth, fortieth, sixth month and after a year, then all in all these actions are prohibited innovations (Bida’ mamnoo’ah)” [From Anwaarus-Sati‘a]
Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree (d.1014H) whilst mentioning the narration of ’Aasim Ibn Kulayb also writes:
“That our madhhab’s (Hanafee) fuqahaa‘ have proven the point that preparing food in the deceased’s house on the first day, third day and after a week is makrooh.” [Mirqaat (5/482)]
For further information see:
1) ’Abdul-Hayy Lucknaawee’s Majmoo’a Fataawaa (3/76-77)
2) Shaykh ’Abdul Haqq ad-Dahlawee’s (d.1052H)
(a) Madaarijun-Nabuwwah (1/421)
(b) Safarus-Sa’aadat (p. 273)
(c) Isha’atul-Lamahaat (1/745)
3) Qaadee Thanaa‘ullaah Panee Patee’s (d.1225H) Wasiyyah Nama (p. 191)
4) Shaah Waliyyullah Muhaddith Dahlawee’s (d.1176H)
(a) Tafheemaat (2/247)
(b) Wasiyyah Nama (p. 13)
5) Makhdoom Jahaniyyah Jahah Ghast’s (d.800H) ad-Daarul-Manzoom (p. 783)
6) Muiudeen Barkalee Naqshbandee al-Hanafee’s (d.981H) Tareeqah Muhammadee (last page)
And it goes on
OBJECTIONS FROM THE OPPOSITION
FIRST OBJECTION:
They say that eating from the deceased’s house is not impermissible or Makrooh because in Mishkaat al –Masabeeh [(2/544)] a narration comes that when the Messenger if Allaah finished burying a person (Astaqbah da’ee imra’ah) A messenger from the deceased’s wife to the Messenger of Allaah to give him an invitation to eat. Al-’Allaamah al-Halabee [In Kabeeree (p. 609) and Sagheeree (p. 300)] and Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree [In Mirqaat (5/482)] (d.1014H) writes: “This hadeeth is a proof for the command for eating from the deceased’s house and it is correct, otherwise the Messenger of Allaah would never have ate.” [See also Anwaarus-Sati’a (p. 109)]
THE ANSWER:
The reasoning from this hadeeth is not correct.
Firstly: the Word (imra’ah) is either a doubt by the author of Mishkaat or a scribes mistake because the proper word is (imra’atin) that a woman’s messenger came to give an invitation to the Messenger of Allaah rather than the messenger of the deceased’s wife. This narration is also found in:
[1] Aboo Daawood (2/117)
[2] Mushkilul-Aathaar (2/132)
[3] Ma’atasir (p. 169)
[4] Sharh Ma’aaniyyul-Aathaar (2/320)
[5] ad-Daaraqutnee (2/545)
[6] Musnad Ahmad (5/293)
[7] Sunanul-Kubraa (6/97)
[10] ’Uqoodul-Jawaahiril-Muneefah (2/62)
[11] Hasaa‘isul-Kubraa (2/103)
[12] Mustadarakul-Haakim (4/234)
[13] al-Muhallaa of Ibn Hazm (7/415)
[14] ’Awnul Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Aboo Daawood (3/249)
[15] Bahdhal Majhood Fee Haal Abee Daawood (4/239)
All these books mention the word (imra’atin) and this is the correct wording.
Secondly, some people who have accepted the wording as (imra’ah) have given the following answer:
[1] Some have said that this incident is specific with Messenger of Allaah
[2] And others have said other things, but they try to prove this point by ta‘weel trying to legislate eating from the deceased’s house.
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi (d.1920CE) has answered this by saying the woman had invited the Messenger of Allaah previously and by the will of Allaah the husband died and the eating at the deceased’s house by the Messenger of Allaah was not on the basis of death but rather on the basis of promise. So we find that Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi refutes the position of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah Halabee. This also clarifies the position of Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi as he was not in favour in eating from the deceased’s house. [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/194-197)]
Thirdly, those who rely on the word (imra’ah) and the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree’s position, then let them not be fooled because Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree himself retracted from this position and adopted the correct position and he writes clearly
“Eating from the deceased’s house is disliked (makrooh) and an innovation.” [Sharh Naqayah (1/40) ]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi after answering the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah al-Halabee he writes:
“If Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and Halabee saw the customs and tradition about today they would have most definitely pronounced a ruling. And there is no doubt that legislating its permissibility will open the doors for the rejected Shaytaan and it will put the lazy Muslims into a lot of trouble and we pray to Allaah that he keeps us upon the straight path.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/197)]
SECOND OBJECTION
When the Messenger of Allaah’s son Ibraaheem died, Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu) on the third day gathered some dates, milk and wheat food and placed them in front of the Messenger of Allaah and he recited Soorah’s Faatihah and Ikhlaas and made supplication and said to Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu), “Divide this amongst the people so that the reward from this reaches my beloved Ibraaheem.”
So from this they try to prove two things [i] preparing food on the third and [ii] making supplication over the food place in front. They say this narration was mentioned by Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree in his book Awzajundee.
ANSWER:
Mawlaanaa ’Abdul-Hayy al-Lucknaawee writes:
“Neither is this book Awzajundee a writing of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree, nor is this narration authentic or reliable rather it is mawdoo’ (fabricated) and baatil and it cannot be relied upon. There is no trace of this narration in any of the books of hadeeth.” [Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (2/74)]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi says about the Faatihah recitation on Thursdays that, “These are detestable, shameful, ignorant and baatil acts and it is necessary to remove them.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (1/10)]
“Preparing food in the deceased’s house up until three days is makrooh.” [Fataawaa Alamgeeree (1/167)] (as has been mentioned in Tataar Khaaniyyah)
And Imaam Haafidhud-Deen Ibn Shihaab Kardaree Hanafee writes:-
“For three days feasting is disliked (makrooh) and so is the food because feasting is at the times of happiness and preparing food on the first, second and third is also makrooh and likewise after a week (seven days) and at the times of ’Eed and also related to this is the taking of food to the graves seasonally is also makrooh. Gathering the reciters and pious for reciting the Qur’ân and after this calling people to eat food is makrooh. Preparing food for the recitation of Soorah’s al-An’aam and al-Ikhlaas is also makrooh and the final word is that preparing food after or for the recitation of the Qur’ân is makrooh.” [Fataawaa Bazzaaziyyah (4/81)] The same thing on this Subject is mentioned in Shaamee [Shaamee (1/841)] Al-’Allaamah Hisaamud-Deen ’Alee Muttaqee [Author of Kanzul-’Ummaal] (d.975H) Whilst refuting innovation and the people of innovation says:
“The ijtimaa’ (gathering) on the third day specifically is neither fard, waajib, sunnah nor mustahab, neither is there any worldly benefit in it. Nor it is advisable but rather it is an accusation, reviling and blame on the Salaf because they did not mention it but even more dangerous than this is upon the (accusation, blame) Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) because he did not mention the rights of the deceased and the worst of all is the blame on Allaah because he did not complete the Sharee’ah (And therefore the Religion is dependent on our innovations) whereas Allaah says:
“This day I have perfected your Religion for you, completed my favour upon you and chosen for you Islaam as your Religion.” [Sooratul-Maa‘idah [5:3] [From Tahfeemul- Masaa‘il (p. 172)] Imaam Nawawee (d.676H) writes in Sharhul-Minhaaj: “That gathering at the grave on the third day and distributing roses (flowers) and incense and feeding the people within specific days i.e. the third, fifth, ninth, tenth, twentieth, fortieth, sixth month and after a year, then all in all these actions are prohibited innovations (Bida’ mamnoo’ah)” [From Anwaarus-Sati‘a]
Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree (d.1014H) whilst mentioning the narration of ’Aasim Ibn Kulayb also writes:
“That our madhhab’s (Hanafee) fuqahaa‘ have proven the point that preparing food in the deceased’s house on the first day, third day and after a week is makrooh.” [Mirqaat (5/482)]
For further information see:
1) ’Abdul-Hayy Lucknaawee’s Majmoo’a Fataawaa (3/76-77)
2) Shaykh ’Abdul Haqq ad-Dahlawee’s (d.1052H)
(a) Madaarijun-Nabuwwah (1/421)
(b) Safarus-Sa’aadat (p. 273)
(c) Isha’atul-Lamahaat (1/745)
3) Qaadee Thanaa‘ullaah Panee Patee’s (d.1225H) Wasiyyah Nama (p. 191)
4) Shaah Waliyyullah Muhaddith Dahlawee’s (d.1176H)
(a) Tafheemaat (2/247)
(b) Wasiyyah Nama (p. 13)
5) Makhdoom Jahaniyyah Jahah Ghast’s (d.800H) ad-Daarul-Manzoom (p. 783)
6) Muiudeen Barkalee Naqshbandee al-Hanafee’s (d.981H) Tareeqah Muhammadee (last page)
And it goes on
OBJECTIONS FROM THE OPPOSITION
FIRST OBJECTION:
They say that eating from the deceased’s house is not impermissible or Makrooh because in Mishkaat al –Masabeeh [(2/544)] a narration comes that when the Messenger if Allaah finished burying a person (Astaqbah da’ee imra’ah) A messenger from the deceased’s wife to the Messenger of Allaah to give him an invitation to eat. Al-’Allaamah al-Halabee [In Kabeeree (p. 609) and Sagheeree (p. 300)] and Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree [In Mirqaat (5/482)] (d.1014H) writes: “This hadeeth is a proof for the command for eating from the deceased’s house and it is correct, otherwise the Messenger of Allaah would never have ate.” [See also Anwaarus-Sati’a (p. 109)]
THE ANSWER:
The reasoning from this hadeeth is not correct.
Firstly: the Word (imra’ah) is either a doubt by the author of Mishkaat or a scribes mistake because the proper word is (imra’atin) that a woman’s messenger came to give an invitation to the Messenger of Allaah rather than the messenger of the deceased’s wife. This narration is also found in:
[1] Aboo Daawood (2/117)
[2] Mushkilul-Aathaar (2/132)
[3] Ma’atasir (p. 169)
[4] Sharh Ma’aaniyyul-Aathaar (2/320)
[5] ad-Daaraqutnee (2/545)
[6] Musnad Ahmad (5/293)
[7] Sunanul-Kubraa (6/97)
[10] ’Uqoodul-Jawaahiril-Muneefah (2/62)
[11] Hasaa‘isul-Kubraa (2/103)
[12] Mustadarakul-Haakim (4/234)
[13] al-Muhallaa of Ibn Hazm (7/415)
[14] ’Awnul Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Aboo Daawood (3/249)
[15] Bahdhal Majhood Fee Haal Abee Daawood (4/239)
All these books mention the word (imra’atin) and this is the correct wording.
Secondly, some people who have accepted the wording as (imra’ah) have given the following answer:
[1] Some have said that this incident is specific with Messenger of Allaah
[2] And others have said other things, but they try to prove this point by ta‘weel trying to legislate eating from the deceased’s house.
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi (d.1920CE) has answered this by saying the woman had invited the Messenger of Allaah previously and by the will of Allaah the husband died and the eating at the deceased’s house by the Messenger of Allaah was not on the basis of death but rather on the basis of promise. So we find that Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi refutes the position of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah Halabee. This also clarifies the position of Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi as he was not in favour in eating from the deceased’s house. [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/194-197)]
Thirdly, those who rely on the word (imra’ah) and the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree’s position, then let them not be fooled because Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree himself retracted from this position and adopted the correct position and he writes clearly
“Eating from the deceased’s house is disliked (makrooh) and an innovation.” [Sharh Naqayah (1/40) ]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi after answering the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah al-Halabee he writes:
“If Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and Halabee saw the customs and tradition about today they would have most definitely pronounced a ruling. And there is no doubt that legislating its permissibility will open the doors for the rejected Shaytaan and it will put the lazy Muslims into a lot of trouble and we pray to Allaah that he keeps us upon the straight path.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/197)]
SECOND OBJECTION
When the Messenger of Allaah’s son Ibraaheem died, Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu) on the third day gathered some dates, milk and wheat food and placed them in front of the Messenger of Allaah and he recited Soorah’s Faatihah and Ikhlaas and made supplication and said to Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu), “Divide this amongst the people so that the reward from this reaches my beloved Ibraaheem.”
So from this they try to prove two things [i] preparing food on the third and [ii] making supplication over the food place in front. They say this narration was mentioned by Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree in his book Awzajundee.
ANSWER:
Mawlaanaa ’Abdul-Hayy al-Lucknaawee writes:
“Neither is this book Awzajundee a writing of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree, nor is this narration authentic or reliable rather it is mawdoo’ (fabricated) and baatil and it cannot be relied upon. There is no trace of this narration in any of the books of hadeeth.” [Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (2/74)]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi says about the Faatihah recitation on Thursdays that, “These are detestable, shameful, ignorant and baatil acts and it is necessary to remove them.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (1/10)]
Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree (d.1014H) whilst mentioning the narration of ’Aasim Ibn Kulayb also writes:
“That our madhhab’s (Hanafee) fuqahaa‘ have proven the point that preparing food in the deceased’s house on the first day, third day and after a week is makrooh.” [Mirqaat (5/482)]
For further information see:
1) ’Abdul-Hayy Lucknaawee’s Majmoo’a Fataawaa (3/76-77)
2) Shaykh ’Abdul Haqq ad-Dahlawee’s (d.1052H)
(a) Madaarijun-Nabuwwah (1/421)
(b) Safarus-Sa’aadat (p. 273)
(c) Isha’atul-Lamahaat (1/745)
3) Qaadee Thanaa‘ullaah Panee Patee’s (d.1225H) Wasiyyah Nama (p. 191)
4) Shaah Waliyyullah Muhaddith Dahlawee’s (d.1176H)
(a) Tafheemaat (2/247)
(b) Wasiyyah Nama (p. 13)
5) Makhdoom Jahaniyyah Jahah Ghast’s (d.800H) ad-Daarul-Manzoom (p. 783)
6) Muiudeen Barkalee Naqshbandee al-Hanafee’s (d.981H) Tareeqah Muhammadee (last page)
And it goes on
OBJECTIONS FROM THE OPPOSITION
FIRST OBJECTION:
They say that eating from the deceased’s house is not impermissible or Makrooh because in Mishkaat al –Masabeeh [(2/544)] a narration comes that when the Messenger if Allaah finished burying a person (Astaqbah da’ee imra’ah) A messenger from the deceased’s wife to the Messenger of Allaah to give him an invitation to eat. Al-’Allaamah al-Halabee [In Kabeeree (p. 609) and Sagheeree (p. 300)] and Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree [In Mirqaat (5/482)] (d.1014H) writes: “This hadeeth is a proof for the command for eating from the deceased’s house and it is correct, otherwise the Messenger of Allaah would never have ate.” [See also Anwaarus-Sati’a (p. 109)]
THE ANSWER:
The reasoning from this hadeeth is not correct.
Firstly: the Word (imra’ah) is either a doubt by the author of Mishkaat or a scribes mistake because the proper word is (imra’atin) that a woman’s messenger came to give an invitation to the Messenger of Allaah rather than the messenger of the deceased’s wife. This narration is also found in:
[1] Aboo Daawood (2/117)
[2] Mushkilul-Aathaar (2/132)
[3] Ma’atasir (p. 169)
[4] Sharh Ma’aaniyyul-Aathaar (2/320)
[5] ad-Daaraqutnee (2/545)
[6] Musnad Ahmad (5/293)
[7] Sunanul-Kubraa (6/97)
[10] ’Uqoodul-Jawaahiril-Muneefah (2/62)
[11] Hasaa‘isul-Kubraa (2/103)
[12] Mustadarakul-Haakim (4/234)
[13] al-Muhallaa of Ibn Hazm (7/415)
[14] ’Awnul Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Aboo Daawood (3/249)
[15] Bahdhal Majhood Fee Haal Abee Daawood (4/239)
All these books mention the word (imra’atin) and this is the correct wording.
Secondly, some people who have accepted the wording as (imra’ah) have given the following answer:
[1] Some have said that this incident is specific with Messenger of Allaah
[2] And others have said other things, but they try to prove this point by ta‘weel trying to legislate eating from the deceased’s house.
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi (d.1920CE) has answered this by saying the woman had invited the Messenger of Allaah previously and by the will of Allaah the husband died and the eating at the deceased’s house by the Messenger of Allaah was not on the basis of death but rather on the basis of promise. So we find that Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi refutes the position of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah Halabee. This also clarifies the position of Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi as he was not in favour in eating from the deceased’s house. [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/194-197)]
Thirdly, those who rely on the word (imra’ah) and the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree’s position, then let them not be fooled because Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree himself retracted from this position and adopted the correct position and he writes clearly
“Eating from the deceased’s house is disliked (makrooh) and an innovation.” [Sharh Naqayah (1/40) ]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi after answering the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah al-Halabee he writes:
“If Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and Halabee saw the customs and tradition about today they would have most definitely pronounced a ruling. And there is no doubt that legislating its permissibility will open the doors for the rejected Shaytaan and it will put the lazy Muslims into a lot of trouble and we pray to Allaah that he keeps us upon the straight path.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/197)]
SECOND OBJECTION
When the Messenger of Allaah’s son Ibraaheem died, Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu) on the third day gathered some dates, milk and wheat food and placed them in front of the Messenger of Allaah and he recited Soorah’s Faatihah and Ikhlaas and made supplication and said to Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu), “Divide this amongst the people so that the reward from this reaches my beloved Ibraaheem.”
So from this they try to prove two things [i] preparing food on the third and [ii] making supplication over the food place in front. They say this narration was mentioned by Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree in his book Awzajundee.
ANSWER:
Mawlaanaa ’Abdul-Hayy al-Lucknaawee writes:
“Neither is this book Awzajundee a writing of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree, nor is this narration authentic or reliable rather it is mawdoo’ (fabricated) and baatil and it cannot be relied upon. There is no trace of this narration in any of the books of hadeeth.” [Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (2/74)]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi says about the Faatihah recitation on Thursdays that, “These are detestable, shameful, ignorant and baatil acts and it is necessary to remove them.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (1/10)]
finished burying a person (Astaqbah da’ee imra’ah) A messenger from the deceased’s wife to the Messenger of Allaah to give him an invitation to eat. Al-’Allaamah al-Halabee [In Kabeeree (p. 609) and Sagheeree (p. 300)] and Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree [In Mirqaat (5/482)] (d.1014H) writes: “This hadeeth is a proof for the command for eating from the deceased’s house and it is correct, otherwise the Messenger of Allaah would never have ate.” [See also Anwaarus-Sati’a (p. 109)]
THE ANSWER:
The reasoning from this hadeeth is not correct.
Firstly: the Word (imra’ah) is either a doubt by the author of Mishkaat or a scribes mistake because the proper word is (imra’atin) that a woman’s messenger came to give an invitation to the Messenger of Allaah rather than the messenger of the deceased’s wife. This narration is also found in:
[1] Aboo Daawood (2/117)
[2] Mushkilul-Aathaar (2/132)
[3] Ma’atasir (p. 169)
[4] Sharh Ma’aaniyyul-Aathaar (2/320)
[5] ad-Daaraqutnee (2/545)
[6] Musnad Ahmad (5/293)
[7] Sunanul-Kubraa (6/97)
[10] ’Uqoodul-Jawaahiril-Muneefah (2/62)
[11] Hasaa‘isul-Kubraa (2/103)
[12] Mustadarakul-Haakim (4/234)
[13] al-Muhallaa of Ibn Hazm (7/415)
[14] ’Awnul Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Aboo Daawood (3/249)
[15] Bahdhal Majhood Fee Haal Abee Daawood (4/239)
All these books mention the word (imra’atin) and this is the correct wording.
Secondly, some people who have accepted the wording as (imra’ah) have given the following answer:
[1] Some have said that this incident is specific with Messenger of Allaah
[2] And others have said other things, but they try to prove this point by ta‘weel trying to legislate eating from the deceased’s house.
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi (d.1920CE) has answered this by saying the woman had invited the Messenger of Allaah previously and by the will of Allaah the husband died and the eating at the deceased’s house by the Messenger of Allaah was not on the basis of death but rather on the basis of promise. So we find that Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi refutes the position of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah Halabee. This also clarifies the position of Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi as he was not in favour in eating from the deceased’s house. [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/194-197)]
Thirdly, those who rely on the word (imra’ah) and the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree’s position, then let them not be fooled because Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree himself retracted from this position and adopted the correct position and he writes clearly
“Eating from the deceased’s house is disliked (makrooh) and an innovation.” [Sharh Naqayah (1/40) ]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi after answering the understanding of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and al-’Allaamah al-Halabee he writes:
“If Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree and Halabee saw the customs and tradition about today they would have most definitely pronounced a ruling. And there is no doubt that legislating its permissibility will open the doors for the rejected Shaytaan and it will put the lazy Muslims into a lot of trouble and we pray to Allaah that he keeps us upon the straight path.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (3/197)]
SECOND OBJECTION
When the Messenger of Allaah’s son Ibraaheem died, Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu) on the third day gathered some dates, milk and wheat food and placed them in front of the Messenger of Allaah and he recited Soorah’s Faatihah and Ikhlaas and made supplication and said to Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu), “Divide this amongst the people so that the reward from this reaches my beloved Ibraaheem.”
So from this they try to prove two things [i] preparing food on the third and [ii] making supplication over the food place in front. They say this narration was mentioned by Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree in his book Awzajundee.
ANSWER:
Mawlaanaa ’Abdul-Hayy al-Lucknaawee writes:
“Neither is this book Awzajundee a writing of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree, nor is this narration authentic or reliable rather it is mawdoo’ (fabricated) and baatil and it cannot be relied upon. There is no trace of this narration in any of the books of hadeeth.” [Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (2/74)]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi says about the Faatihah recitation on Thursdays that, “These are detestable, shameful, ignorant and baatil acts and it is necessary to remove them.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (1/10)]
SECOND OBJECTION
When the Messenger of Allaah’s son Ibraaheem died, Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu) on the third day gathered some dates, milk and wheat food and placed them in front of the Messenger of Allaah and he recited Soorah’s Faatihah and Ikhlaas and made supplication and said to Aboo Dharr al-Ghafaaree (radiyallaahu ’anhu), “Divide this amongst the people so that the reward from this reaches my beloved Ibraaheem.”
So from this they try to prove two things [i] preparing food on the third and [ii] making supplication over the food place in front. They say this narration was mentioned by Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree in his book Awzajundee.
ANSWER:
Mawlaanaa ’Abdul-Hayy al-Lucknaawee writes:
“Neither is this book Awzajundee a writing of Mullaa ’Alee Qaaree, nor is this narration authentic or reliable rather it is mawdoo’ (fabricated) and baatil and it cannot be relied upon. There is no trace of this narration in any of the books of hadeeth.” [Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (2/74)]
Ahmad Ridaa Khaan Bareilwi says about the Faatihah recitation on Thursdays that, “These are detestable, shameful, ignorant and baatil acts and it is necessary to remove them.” [Ahkaamush-Sharee’ah (1/10)]
The Statements of the Deobandee Hanafee Scholars on Jamaat ut-Tableegh
13 f 07 at 4:06 pm (Groups and sects)
The Statements of the Deobandee Hanafee Scholars on Jamaat ut-Tableegh
Comp. Abu Hibbaan and Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari
Since the establishment of Jamaat ut-Tableegh the scholars of Ahlus sunnah Wal-Jaamah have pointed out and highlighted their mistakes according to their aims and objectives, their way’s method and Manhaj. However the words of the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Hadeeth was and is never taken even after they highlighted the mistakes of Jamaat ut-Tableegh evidently from the book and the authentic sunnah. The most ironic thing of this whole disagreement with Jamaat ut-Tableegh is that the points raised by Ahlus-Sunnah Wa Ahlul-Hadeeth are exactly the same to those that their own leaders, the deobandee hanafees raised themselves, for example
1. The method of Jamaat ut-Tableegh is not in accordance with the Qur’aan, Sunnah or the understanding of the Pious Predecessors.
2. Their abandonement of rectifying the beliefs of the general masses
3. Concentrating on the prayer and leaving the fundamental creed of Tawhed (oneness of Allaah). Also saying the work of tableegh is of the greatest importance.
4. Speaking without knowledge, normal people give the lectures and sermons who lack knowledge
5. and believing the method of Jamaat ut-Tableegh is the only method of rectification and that it is complete.
The Statements Of the Deobandee Hanafee Scholars
Maulana Ehtishaam al-Hasan Khandelvi was a very very close friend of Maulana Muhammad Ilyaas (the founder of Jamaat ut-Tableegh) from childhood to oldage. Maulana Ehtishaam al-Hasan wrote a book called, “Zindagee Kee Siraat-e-Mustaqeem” (The straight Path of Life) at the end of which he included a very small treatise entitled, “An Important Note”, in this he wrote,
“The tableegh of the present Nizaam ud deen (Delhi- the headquarters of the Tableeghi Jamaat) according to my knowledge and understanding it is neither according to the Qur’aan nor to the method of Hazrat Mujaddid Alf Thanee, Hazreat Shaah Waleeullaah Muhaddith Dehlawee or according to the scholars of the truth. So the scholars who participate in this tableegh, their first responsibility should be to conform this effort according to the Qur’aan, Hadeeth, to the way of the Scholars of the Salaf (Predecessors) and the scholars of the truth.”
So another deobandi hanafee scholar attempted to answer this. Mahmood Hasan Gangohee (Not THEE Mualana Mahmood al-Hasan or Shaikh ul-Hindh) said,
“To this day i had been assuming that he (Maulana Ehtishaam al-Hasan) remained in Khandelah because of his bad health and and due to which he abandoned his presence in Nizaam ud deen and did not participate in the work of tableegh, however from this ‘Important Note’ I found out the reason for him not participating was because acording to him the work of tableegh is not necessary rather it is destroying the religion.” (Chashmah Aftaab (pg.7)
The author of Chashmah Aftaab, Qamar ud deen Mazaahiree writes in his foreword,
“Maulana Ehtishaam ul-Hasan is from the founders of this movement and very recently he has strongly refuted Jamaat ut-Tableegh and said it is a group that calls to misguidance.” (Chashmah Aftaab (pg.3)
Maulana Muhammad Zakariyyah admitted this and at the same time he mentions the internal feud of the tableeghee’s and deobandee’s. he says,
“However even I am hearing that some of the represenatatives (khulafaa) and Hawaas of Maulana Thanwee do not like Jamaat ut-Tableegh.” (Chashmah Aftaab (pg.11)
The representative (khaleef) of Khaleel Ahmad Saharanpooree and a close worker with the founder of Jamaat ut-Tableegh Muhammad Ilyaas and his son Maulana Yoosuf, the deobandee scholar Abdur Raheem Shaah said,
“The work that is for the people of knowledge, the general people want to do. Yet not only are they unaware of the religion but they are also not seen in good terms because of their ignorances and bad deeds in the community. Then consider the following, “When the leader of a nation becomes bad then he only teaches a path of destruction to his people.” (Usool Dawat Wat-Tableegh (pg.3)
He further said,
“I (Abdur-Raheem) swear by Allaah and say this tableegh I am doing is only due to a necessity and so I am excused by the people because since these youth have started their open sermons for which they do not have permision according to the sharee’ah and they have exceeded the bounds in regards to its virtue (ie tableegh). Also they have openly hidden other aspects of the religion and after constant reminders by the superiors they were not stopped, then in these situations the people with responsibility should make this open and public.” (Usool Dawat Wat-Tableegh (pg.52)
Maulana Abdur-Raheem Shaah writes,
“Considering the innovation (non-Sunnah) to be the sunnah is a blameworthy act of the creedal aspect. I fall short in understanding how is it correct to rectify some actions (of the people) and yet turn a blind eye to defects in their beliefs as the correct beliefs are the means of salvation, and not the actions.” (Usool Dawat Wat-Tableegh (pg.64)
The famous deobandee scholar Manzoor Ahmad Nu’maanee raises an objection on Jamaat ut-Tableegh, he say,
“This mistake is quite common, that in general gatherings people are encouraged to deliver lectures who are not worthy to do so. Sometimes these very same people are not even fully aware of the associated issues and so whilst speaking they do not even realise the limits of their knowledge. So this is the reality of this and these mistakes occur frequently so it is upon the superiors to think and reflect upon this.” (Tadhkirratudh-Dhafar (pg.244)
Abul Hasan Alee Nadwee said, “One of the disatisfactions the Maulana (Ashraf Alee Thanwee) had, was how will these people (ie Jamaat ut-Tableegh call the people to the importance of tableegh without knowledge. So when (the nephew of the maulana) Dhafar Ahmad (Thanwee) informed him that the speakers who deliver these lectures only speak about the issues they have been ordered to speak about and they do not speak about anything other than this, so he (Maulana Ashraf Alee) became satisfied.” (Deenee Dawat (pg.126).
The biographer of Maulana Dhafar Ahmad Thanwee, Maulana Abdush-Shakoor Tirmidhee said,
“And we are seeing more commonly the people who travel for tableegh do not have knowledge and due to this the speakers, speak about of all kinds of issues whilst mentioning stories and folk tales and in doing so most of them exceed the limits of theie knowledge.” (Tadhkirratudh-Dhafar (pg.242)
Maulana Dhafar Ahmad Thanwee himslef said,
“The present method of Jamaat ut-Tableegh in cultivating the people upon the knowledge of Islaam and of the various sciences, is totally neglected.” (Tadhkirratudh-Dhafar (pg.252)
He further said,
“The tableegh of the defective person is unreliable.” (Tadhkirratudh-Dhafar (pg.253).
Bare in mind Maulana Dhafar Ahmad Thanwee addressed an individual who does tableegh according to the way of Jamaat ut-Tableegh as defective.
Abdush-Shakoor Tirmidhee writes,
“Maulana (Dhafar Ahmad) did not at anytime consider joining and working with Jamaat ut-Tableegh sufficient.” (Tadhkirratudh-Dhafar (pg.241)
Another teacher of Daar al-Uloom Deoband said,
“From the time I familiarised myself with their method of tableegh (ie of Jamaat ut-Tableegh’s), I was never satisfied with it.” (Tanbeehaat (pg.12)
al-Allaamah Abu Tayyib Muhammad Ataaullaah Haneef Bhojiyaanee
13 f 07 at 5:00 am (Seerah / Biographies)
Taraajim Ulama Ahlul Hadeeth
al-Allaamah ash-Shaikh
Abu Tayyib Muhammad Ataaullaah Haneef Bhojiyaanee
By Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari
First published 1st Ramadhaan 1428 / 12th September 2007
This is a series of biographies of the Scholars of Ahlul Hadeeth. They have been summarised in order to facilitate availability to readers, however what follows (soon Inshallaah) will be detailed biographies.
The Statements of the Scholars in praise of him
Shaikh Aasim Abdullah al-Qaryootee said, “Defender of the Sunnah, al-Muhaddith, al-Faqeeh, the worshipper, the pious and righteous, al-Imaam al-Allaamah Abu Tayyib Muhammad Ataaullaah Haneef bin Mian Sadr ud deen Hussain al-Bhojiyaanee”
Shaikh Zubair Alee Za’ee said in his book on Jarh Wat-Ta’deel titled Anwaar as-Sabeel, “I Heard ash-Shaikh al-Imaam Abu Muhammad Badee ud deen Raashdee (say) Thiqah (trustworthy), hujjah (evidence), Imaam, pious, righteous and a faqeeh.”
Abaa al-Qaasim Muhibbullaah Shaah ar-Raashidee said, “My Shaikh is thiqah from amongst the Thiqaat (trustworthy from amongst the trustworthy ones), teacher, there are few people like him in this era.”
What status of this Imaam and his level of trustworthiness as affirmed by the thiqat of the Balad (trustworthy one of the country) Allaamah Muhibullaah who said (thiqah minath-thiqaat) in comparison to the thiqah(ness) of the one from Birmingham.
Shaikh Aasim al-Qaryootee also said “he was from the Major scholars of Ahlul Hadeeth of Pakistaan.”
He Shaikh Qaryootee also said, “Many scholars of the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia have praised from the likes of Shaikh Hammaad al-Ansaari and Shaikh Doctor Muhammad Amaan (al-Jamee).”
Fadheelatush-Shaikh Saaleh al-Luhaydaan Chief justice of Saudia Arabia said, “Al-Allaamah al-Ustaad Muhammad Ataaullaah.”
Shaikh Zubair Alee Za’ee also said, “narrated to me Abu al-Waleed Khaalid bin Fathee al-Filasteenee who said, “Informed me Abdul-Hameed al-A’raaqee that I heard Salman ask Shaikh Badee ud deen ar-Raashidee concerning Ataaullaah Haneef, he said (ie Badee ud deen), “a man Allaah granted knowledge and action and good manners.”
He was born in the village of Bhojiyaan in the district of Amritsar in India in the year 1908ce
His Teachers
He received his early education from Abdul Kareem Bhojiyaanee and from the likes of the established Ahlul Hadeeth scholars of the local vicinity, the renowned and learned Shaikh Faidhullaah Khaan and his son the esteemed Shaikh Abdur Rahmaan Bhojiyanee whom he studied books of hadeeth like Buloogh al-Maraam, Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh and books of Sarf and Nahw. Both teachers had great impact on him and his education as the Shaikh affirmed himself
He then travelled to Delhi in the year 1924ce and studied with ash-Shaikh al-Allaamah Abdul Jabbaar Khandailwee one of the foremost students of al-Imaam al-Allaamah al-Hujjah, the hadeeth master, Abdur Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree, with him he studied the 6 books of hadeeth and Jalalain, he also got Ijaazah from the Shaikh for the 6 books and Muwatta Imaam Maalik.
Whilst in Delhee he also studied with yet another hadeeth master and scholar, the Allaamah the Imaam Abu Saeed Sharf ud deen Dehlwee (from the teachers of Imaam Badee ud deen Shah Raashidee as-Sindhee) books such as Muwatta Imaam Maalik and Sharh Nukhbatul Fikr.
Thereafter the Imaams quest and thirst for knowledge was not quenched and he immediately travelled to Ghondlanawla a district of Gujranwala in Pakistaan and studied with another Hadeeth Master, the Haafidh the Imaam al-Allaamah Muhammad Muhaddith Ghondalwee with whom he studied numerous books on various sciences and subjects.
Also included from amongst his teachers were Shaikh Amanullaah, Shaikh Ataaullaah Lakhwee and the Imaam the Muhaddith Abu Turaab Muhammad Abdul-Tawaab al-Multaanee. From these Shaikhs he attained many ijaazahs an chains reaching back to the Messenger of Allaah (Sallaallahu Alayhee Wasalam) via Imaam Shawkaanee and Shaikh Shaah Waleeullaah Dehlawee and others.
Until 1932ce his travelling to and forth from various shaikhs in search for knowledge, he continued this jorney until he returned his home village of Bhojiyaan where he started to teach in the madrassah of his esteemed teacher Shaikh Abdur Rahmaan by his request.
Up until 1947ce he remained in India engaging in various dawah activities, in teaching and admonishing the people in his sermons and lectures and campaigning heavily in the expulsion of the British from India. He then migrated to Pakistan and began his work and dawah efforts in spreading the message of adhering Quraan and Sunnah with a strong emphasis on Tawheed and Aqeedah.
In Pakistan he established a book shop Maktabah Salafiyyah in Lahore where he began to buy and sell books and later publish. The Shaikh had a great interest in books especially old books that were hard to find so much so that he would sacrifice is own personal needs in order to acquire books whether new or old, hence over the years he accumulated many books and this became his treasure which he would later republish or re edit.
In 1980-1981 he established another institute Daar ad-Dawah as-Salafiyyah which had 4 functions, one was for scholarly research on books, editing and publishing them, a week magazine al-E’itisaam which the Shaikh started in 1949 and, a library and classes teaching children Quraan.
Other than this his participation and positions he held were numerous and extensive in terms of his teaching posts and many of the teaching institutes he established.
His Students
The Shaikh had hundreds of students, some of them,
Shaikh ul-Hadeeth Muhammad Ishaaq
Shaikh Azeez ur Rahmaan Lakhwee
Shaikh Muhammad Yahyaa Azeez Meer Muhammadee
Qadhee Muhammad Aslam Fairozpooree
Shaikh Sayyid Abu Bakr Ghaznawee
Shaikh Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel Salafee
Shaikh Muhammad Yoonus Atharee
Shaikh Ma’een ud deen Lakhwee
Shaikh Muhammad Ishaaq Bhatti
Shaikh Haafidh Salaah ud deen Yoosuf
Shaikh Muhammad Suliamaan Ansaari
Shaikh Muhammad Saadiq Khaleel
Shaikh Saif ur Rahmaan al-Falaah
Shaikh ul-Hadeeth Muhammad Alee Jaanbaaz
Shaikh Muhammad Sulaimaan Bhojiyaanee
Shaikh Khudaa Baksh Bhojiyaanee
Shaikh Basheer Ahmad Bhojiyaanee
his son Shaikh Ahmad Shaakir
and many many more
Shaikh Dr. Aasim Abdullaah al-Qaryootee said, “those who were honoured by having Ijaazah (for books of hadeeth) from the Shaikh were,
Shaikh Alee Hasan Abdul Hameed al-Halabee and
Dr Masaa’id ar-Raashid
And myself (meaning Shaikh al-Qaryootee)
The Shaikhs had numerous works, his explanations, his notes, introductions, those he republished, his articles in many of magazines and newspapers.
His works
His well known work is his explanation of Sunan an-Nasaa’ee known as,
Ta’leeqaat as-Salafiyyah A’la Sunan an-Nasaa’ee
Faidh al-Wadood Fee Ta’leeq A’la Sunan Abee Dawood 2 parts
Checking of Itihaaf an-Nabiyyah Feemaa Yahtaaj Ilayhee al-Muhaddith Wal-Fiqiyyah of Shaah Waleeullaah Dehlaweenots
Notes on Juzz Qiraa’h Khalf al-Imaam of Imaam Bukhaari
Notes of Ibn Hajr’s Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen
A biography of Imaam Shawkaanee
A book on Dua
Unpublished notes on Buloogh al-Maraam
A refutation of grave worship
Rad’a al-Anaam Aan Muhdathaat A’ashir al-Muharram al-Haraam
Checking an notes to Tanqeeh ur-Ruwaah Fe Takhreej Ahadeeth al-Mishkaat
Unpublished Al-Iktifaa Bi-Tafseer al-Istiwaa Laa Bit-Ta’weel al-Istiwaa
Checking and notes on al-Itibaa of Qaadhee Ibn Abil Izz al-Hanafee for the first time
Notes on Usool at-Tafseer of Ibn Taymiyyah
Notes to Akmal al-Bayaan
His work on al-Eeqaaf Fee Asbaab al-Ikhtilaf of Muhammad Hayat Sindhee
Notes on the biographies of Abu Haneefah, Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyyah
A detailed treatise in defence of Musnad Imam Ahmad
His introduction to, “The Position of Jaamaat Islaami on Hadeeth” of Allaamah Ismaa’eel Salafee
The Events of Karbala
Notes on al-Fauz al-Kabeer Fee Usool ast-Tafseer, letters and al-Balaaqg al-Mubeen of Shaah Waleeullaah Dehlawee
And many many more.
The Shaikh the Imaam al-Allaamah died in 1987ce in Lahore in Pakistaan. May Allaah reward the Shaikh for his work and service to this ummah and may he grant him a high rank and status on the day of judgement. Ameen
