Insha` Allah here are answer to the deobandi risalah “Quran aur Hadith ke khalaf Ghayr

Muqalidin ke 50 Masail” of Maulana Mufti Sayd Mahdi Hassan Shah Jahan Puri mufti of Deoband,
taken from shaykh Ata Allah Daerwi's cds and with also regferences also.

He asked 50 questions to Ghayr Muqalideen, and these Muqalidoon call followers of Sunnah
Ghayr Muqallideen. As they cannot answer many of the fatawa in Hanafi fiqh, what they try to
do is to attack opponents.

1) He said an Imam of Ahle hadith in Dehli was giving fatwa that the income of prostitute is
halal if she makes tawbah.

Shaykh Ata Allah said if it is saheeh from this scholar, then this mistake is limited to this
scholar, it is not the Madhab of Ahle Hadith. Saying it is the madhab of ghayr Muqalideen is a
lie.

Deobandis are Muqallid of Abu Hanifa so sayings of Abu Hanifah is their madhab but Ahle hadith
are followers of the Prophet saw, so the mistake of one of scholar is not their mistake as their
link is with the Prophet saw, not with individuals. As for the scholars Ahle Hadith, then they
clearly say the income of prostitute is haram as in Fatawa Thanayah and Fatawa Ulema Ahle
hadith. Shyakh Thanullah Amritsari says the income of prostitue is haram even if she makes
tawbah.

Then the mufti of deoband said there is something similar attributed to Abu Hanifa, but it is for
income of prostitute. While in fact they make Taweel of Abu Hanifa’s words, they say as shaykh
‘Ata Allah quoted from a book of fatwa of Ahsraf Ali Thanvi “ Imdadul Fatawa” that what Abu
Hanifa said is halal is if a woman makes a contract to work for a man and there is condition of
doing zina, so the contract is fasid, but the income is for work and zina is only a condition.
They make distinction between a batil contract who is haram by itself and fasid contract who is
halal by itself then some descriptions or conditions are haram.

This taweel is against Hanafi books of fiqh, none of Hanafi books of fiqh made this taweel.
Shaykh Ata Allah quoted from Rad Al Mukhtar of Ibn Abidin p 46 : “ Wa fi Ghuraril Afkar ‘anil
Muhit, ma akhazathu Az-Zaniyatu in kana bi ‘aqdil Ijarati, fa halalun ‘inda Abi Hanifata li Ana
Ajr mithli fi ‘Ijaratil Fasidati Taybun, wa in kana Al kasabu Haraman wa haramun ‘indahuma”

“ In ( the book) Ghuraril Afkar from ( the book) Muheet, what the prostitute takes ( income) if
it is with contract of transaction, then it is halal for Abu Hanifah because the income similar in
the fasid transaction is pure, even if the work is haram, and it is haram for the two ( Abu Yusuf
and Muhammad ibn Hassan)”

And in Bahr ul Raiq it I said “ Wa inistajaraha lyaznia biha thuma A’ta Mahraha aw ma sharata
laha, la basa bi akhzihi li anahu fi Ijarati Fasiadatin fa yatibu lahu in kana Sababun Haraman”

« If he makes contract to make zina with her then he gives her income or what he made as
conditions there is no problem in taking it, because in fasid contract it is pure for him
( income) even if the sabab is Haram”

So ibn Nujaym said making contract for zina with her, not for work with conditions of doing
zina also. It makes the taweel of Ahsraf Ali Thanvi batil. The contract is for zina.

And even if this taweel is saheeh for the sake of argumentation, what is the difference,
someone goes to a prostitute and says you do this work for me ( ironing some clothes, wash
dishes) and I will give you so much money but you have to make zina, and someone who pays a
prostitute for zina. Both salaries are haram, whether it is clear or you use a way to make it
halal.

Why then accuse a Ahle hadith scholar for the fatwa of their Imam, which is in many ways
similar. Prostitutes have just to make zina a condition and not the reason of income. But the
man who will pay is intention is zina and not these tasks. This fatwa is just making incomes of
prostitutes halal by indirect ways.

This is why the two main students of Abu Hanifa said it is haram, and deobandis who are
muqalid of Abu Hanifah, what are they teaching in their madrassah, the saying of their Imam or
his students ?

We Ahle Hadith, AL Hamdulilah learn that it is haram, as there are hadith is Bukhari saying the
income of Baghyah slave is haram.

In hanafi fiqh, even if she makes not tawbah, then her income is halal wether she makes
contract of zina or contract of other with condition of zina, while the ahle hadith scholar is
said to say this only for after tawbah.

Why to attack others for a mistake of one of their scholars, while it is worse in your books ?

May Allah guide us all

2) The Deobandi said that for Ghayr Muqalideen the slaughtered animal of a kafir is halal and
he quoted books of Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan.

Shaykh 'Ata Allah said he looked in the tafseer of Siddiq Hassan Khan “Fathul Bayan fi Maqasidil
Quran” and Nawab said that the slaughter of Majus is haram because they are not Ahle Kitab
for majority, and only slaughter of Ahle Kitab is permissible. And as for mushrik and worshipers
of idols and for those not having books, then it is haram.

Then he says that Abu Thawr said that the slaughtered of all kafir is halal, but all scholars
made Rad of him.

So how can Nawab say in other book that slaugther of kafir is halal, while he says here clearly
that it is haram. The kafir adressed by Nawab in other books can only be Ahle kitab, not other
kafir

And the same as the first case, it is not the madhab of ghayr Muaqlideen, every body can look
in our books. This is a lie to make people hate the teachings of hadith and jail them in taqleed
of Abu Hanifah.

May Allah guide us all

3) He said the Madhab of Ahle hadith is that a man can marry how many women he wants, and
he attributes that to Nawab Sahib.

And this also a lie attributed to Nawab Sahib. What he said as said by shaykh Ata Allah is that
the Quran does not restrict women to four, this restriction is established by sunnah. Because
the Quran mentions one can marry one, or two, or three or four. And Mafhum Mukhalifah is
Hujjah for Shafi’I, Malik, Ahmad but not for Hanafi as said by shaykh ‘Asim Haddad in his
risalah “ Usul Fiqh par ek Nadhar” and Shawkani in Irshad Al Fuhul said it is Hujjah with some
conditions.

So here in the Quran, more than four are not said forbidden, it can be deduced by Mafhum
Mukhalifa, and it is not Hujjah by Ahnaf. And Nawab said that this Ayat shows that one can
marry one, two, three or four it does not forbid more than four, but the Sunnah forbids to
marry more than four.

So this is a pure lie on Nawab Sahib

May Allah guide us all

4) He said the Madhab of Ghayr Muqalideen is that all animal of earth that do not have blood
are Halal.
Shaykh Ata Allah reiterated that the fatwa of one scholar is not the Madhab of Ahle hadeeth.
This is his Ijtihad. The Ijtihad of Abu Hanifa is the madhab of Hanafis, but the saying of Nawab
sahib is not the madhab of Ahle Hadeeth.

And Shaykh Ata Allah asked daleel from Kitab wa Sunnah that these animals are Haram. If
Nawab sahib did not find any daleel forbidding these animals, then his ijtihad is that the
natural state of things is being Halal until there is a dalil of being Haram.

So Ahnaf should bring a daleel to probe him wrong.

Can any Ahnaf give one ?

As Salah wa Salam 'al Nabi saw

5) He said the Madhab of Ghayr Muqalideen is that the dead animal is pure and attributed that
to Nawab Sahib

Shaykh Ata Allah said a dead animal is haram, but not impure. ( Maybe except for the skin as
there is hadith of tanning before purifying it)

Extracts of Fiqh Sunnah

Volume 1, Page 7b: Bones, horns, claws, fur, feathers, and skin and so on of dead animals

All of these are considered pure. Concerning the bones of dead animals, az-Zuhri said, "I have
met some scholars of the preceeding generations who used such objects for combs and pots for
oil, and they did not see anything wrong in that." This is related by al-Bukhari. Said Ibn 'Abbas,
"The client of Maimunah was given a sheep as charity, and it died. The Messenger of Allah,
upon whom be peace, passed by it and said, 'Why do you not remove its skin, treat it and put it
to use?' She said, 'It is dead' (i.e., it has not been slaughtered properly). He said to her, 'Only
eating it is forbidden."' This is related by the group. Ibn Majah attributes the incident to
Maimunah and her client. Al-Bukhari and an-Nasa'i do not mention treating the skin. It is
reported from Ibn 'Abbas that he recited: "Say (O Muhammad): "In all that has been revealed to
me, I do not find anything forbidden to eat; if one wants to eat thereof, unless it be carrion, or
blood poured forth, or swine flesh..." (al-An'am 145). Then he said, "What is forbidden is its
meat. As for its skin, skin used for waterskins, teeth, bones, fur and wool, they are
permissible." This is narrated by Ibn Munzhir and Ibn Hatim. Similarly, its rennet and milk are
considered pure.

As for the skin it should be tanned for purifying it.

Volume 1, Page 15: Purifying the skin of dead animals

Tanning purifies the skin and the fur of a dead animal. This is based on the hadith of Ibn
'Abbas, in which the Prophet said, "If the animal's skin is tanned, it is purified." (Related by al-
Bukhari and Muslim.)
6) He said that Nawab Sahib said that declaring pig impure by the Ayat of Quran is not saheeh.

“ Say (O Muhammad saw): "I find not in that which has been inspired to me anything forbidden
to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be Maytatah (a dead animal) or blood poured
forth (by slaughtering or the like), or the flesh of swine (pork, etc.) for that surely is Rijs, or
impious (unlawful) meat (of an animal) which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah
(or has been slaughtered for idols, etc., or on which Allah's Name has not been mentioned
while slaughtering). But whosoever is forced by necessity without wilful disobedience, nor
transgressing due limits, (for him) certainly, your Lord is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful." ( 6 : 145
)

Shaykh Ata Allah said that majority of scholars use this ayat and say Rijs is impure. But he said
the word Rijs here means Haram not impure as Allah says

“O you who believe! Intoxicants (all kinds of alcoholic drinks), gambling, Al Ansaab( Idols), and
Al Azlaam (arrows for seeking luck or decision) are Rijs of Shaytaan's (Satan) handiwork. So
avoid (strictly all) that (abomination) in order that you may be successful” ( 5 : 90)

And shaykh Ata Allah said who says that touching idols or Azlam or cards of gambling
necessitates washing hands or if they touch clothes, then clothes should be washed. So these
two things are not impure and Rijs means Haram not Najas (impurity).

And scholars forbidding alcohol in perfume also use this Ayat showing Alcohol is impure, while
it is haram to drink or put in body and many Fuqahas rules alcohol to be pure as it will appear
later insha Allah.

So pig being Najas is not justified by this Ayat saying rijs.

Allah knows best

7) He said for Ghayr Muqalideen, every blood except of menstruation and post natal bleeding is
pure.

The same as before, Rijs means Haram in Quran not impure. And many scholars of Ahle
hadeeth say blood is impure, but those who say it is not then they are right, but Ghayr Muqalid
have no Imam to have a madhab except the Prophet saw.

In Fiqh as Sunnah : Al-Hassan said, "The Muslims always prayed, even while they were
bleeding." This was mentioned by al-Bukhari. It is confirmed that 'Umar prayed while his wound
was bleeding.

Shaykh Ata Allah mentioned a hadith in Abu Dawud and Bukhari Mu’alaq , a sahabi in Zat Al
Riqa’ was praying and received an arrow and went on praying. It is clear he was blleding and
went on praying. Also Abdallah ibn Awfa once spited in prayer in his cloth and there was blood
in it and he went on praying.

Also there an athar of ibn Abi Shaybah that Abdallah ibn Mas’ud slaughtered an animal and
when time of praying came he just prayed without changing clothes.

And shaykh Albani said it was saheeh and it shows that the blood of animals we can eat, there
blood are not najas.

As for human, then it is proven that Sahabah in fights prayed in their bleedings.
So it is for Ahanf to bring that blood is impure.

For case of pig, I wonder also why this mufti accused some ahle hadeeth scholar for saying pig
is pure, while their Imam says the same

"Pig is not najas ‘ayn", attributed to Abu Hanifah in Dur Mukhtar kitab Sayd

Maybe is it just to show Ahle hadeeth are bad to common people, even if their own fiqh says
the same and common people do not knoe dtails of their fiqh.

The Deobandi mufti said the madhab of ghayr Muaqlideen is that there is no Zakah on Mal
Tijarat and he attributes that to Nawab

First majority of Ahle hadeeth say there is zakah on trade materials. Trade materials is all
goods a man sells ( cars, clothes, …)

But there is no hadeeth from the Prophet saw saheeh on this topic.

In fiqh sunnah we have “The majority of scholars among the companions, the followers, the
generation after them, and the jurists who came subsequently held that zakah on merchandise
is compulsory. Abu Dawud and alBaihaqi relate that Samurah ibn Jundub reported: "The
Prophet, upon whom be peace, used to command us to pay sadaqah from [the goods] we had
for sale." Ad-Daraqutni and al-Baihaqi relate that Abu Zharr reported the Prophet, upon whom
be peace, saying: "There is sadaqah on camels, sheep, cows, and house furniture ( here
meaning is clothes as said by Albani, because there is no zakah on house amterials)." Ash-Shaf'i,
Ahmad, Abu 'Ubaid, ad-Daraqutni, al-Baihaqi, and 'Abd ur-Razzaq relate that Abu 'Amr ibn
Hammas reported from his father that he said: "I used to sell leather and containers. Once,
'Umar ibn al-Khattab passed by me and said: 'Pay the sadaqah due on your property.' I said: 'O
Commander of the Faithful, it is just leather.' He replied: 'Evaluate it and then pay its due
sadaqah.' ”

But these hadith are weak as shown by shaykh Albani in Tamam Al-Minah, and ibn Hazm
refuted all proves in his Muhallah vol 2 p 233-240, also Shawkani in Saylul Jarar vol 2 p 26-28.

So if Prophet saw sent Sahabah in markets to collect zakah on their goods after one year, there
would be an athar and as there is not then why balming ahle hadeeth, rather it is up to then to
show a daleel.

9) He said that Ghayr Muqalid only affirm riba in six issues and in other there is not.

In this topic, shaykh Ata Allah said that when changing things of same cateogorie, gold for gold,
silver for silver, Bur for bur, then it should be in same quantity and hand in hand, else it is
riba. And there are hadith in some categories mentioned gold, silver, sorgho, dates, and other,
and some fuqahas made qias to other things also like changing metal with metal, but other do
not see Qias.

So there is no daleel for other things having riba in changing them, so why accuse Ahle hadeeth
if they follow the fuqahahs that do not see qias in this topic, they do not oppose any Ayat of
the QUran or hadith or ijma’.

The name of the Deobandi risalah is “ 50 masail of ghayr Muqalid against Quran and haith”

And we ask this man to justify by these two sources that there is riba in other things, or any
Ijma’. As for qias if fuqahas do not agree on it being saheeh, why blaming Ahle hadeeth.

May Allah guide us all

10 ) He said the Madhab of ghayr Muqalideen is that Junubi can touch Quran

First the same, many Ahle Hadeeth declare it forbidden.

And there is a saheeh hadith in which the Prophet saw send a letter to Heraclius having Ayats
of the Quran. So if a kafir can touch the Quran, Muslim are superior.

And there are other hadith the Prophet saw saying to Abu Hurayra the believer does not
become impure in Bukhari and Muslim, ane the Prophet saw saying to Aishah your menses are
not in your hands

So all these hadeeth are clear, and in hadeeth forbidding they are all weak except one but it
contains words “ Tahir” and the believer does not become impure.

As for the Ayat in the Quran saying no one touches it except Mutaharoon, then it refers to
angels and Lawh ul Mahfooz.

See http://www.uh.edu/campus/msa/articles/zara.html
11) He said the Madhab of Ghayr Muqallideen is that there is no Zakah on jewels.

Majority of Ahle hadeeth say there is zakah on jewlery, except some like Nawab.

Imam Tirmidhi said in his sunnan that there is saheeh hadith established on this subject. Imam
Bukahri and Muslim did not bring any hadith on this subject.

In fiqh Sunnah we have “

Volume 3, Page 16a: Zakah on Jewelry

Scholars agree that no zakah has to be paid on diamonds, pearls, sapphires, rubies, corals,
chrysolite, or any kind of precious stones unless they are used for trade. There is, however,
disagreement over whether women's gold or silver jewelry is exempt. Abu Hanifah and Ibn
Hazm hold that zakah is compulsory on gold and silver jewelry provided they constitute a
nisab. Their view is based on the report of 'Amr ibn Shu'aib from his father from his
grandfather: "Two women with gold bracelets on their wrists came to the Prophet, upon whom
be peace. The Prophet said: 'Do you want Allah to make you wear bracelets of fire on the Day
of Judgment?' They answered: 'No.' He said: 'Then pay the zakah which is due on what you wear
on your wrists.' " ( Shaykh ALbani said ibn Hazm considers this hadeeth weak, and ALbani
considers it Hassan, so this is not ibn Hazm’s istidlal)

Malik, ash-Shaf'i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal hold that there is no zakah on women's jewelry
regardless of its value. Al-Baihaqi relates that Jabir ibn 'Abdullah was once asked if jewelry was
subject to zakah. He replied that it was not, even if its value exceeded one thousand dinars.
Al-Baihaqi also narrates the case of Asma': "Asma' bint Abu Bakr used to adorn her daughters
with gold. Although its value was around fifty thousand dinars, she did not pay zakah on it."

It is related in al-Muwatta' from 'Abdurrahman ibn al-Qasim from his father that 'Aishah used to
take care of her nieces, who were orphans under her protection, and adorned them with
jewelry without paying its zakah. Also in al-Muwatta' it is related that 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar used
to adorn his daughters and slave girls with gold without paying zakah.
So why to blame Ahle hadeeth where there are different hadeeth, and many Imam say the
same as them.

These people say to respect all Imam, but if Ahle hadeeth say the same as them then it is a
scandal.
This is the true face of these false claims of respect of Imam. They cannot answer their masail,
so they go on attacking Ahle hadeeth while many Imams said the same as them. Will they say
that to Imam Ahmad, Shafi’I or Trimidhi ?

May Allah guide us all

12) Ghayr Muqalideen do not declare alcohol impure

Volume 1, Page 12a: Alcohol

According to most scholars, alcohol is impure. Says Allah in the Qur'an, "Alcohol, games of
chance, idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork." Some scholars say
that it is pure, for they take the meaning of rajis in its abstract sense as describing alcohol and
whatever is related to it. This is not labeled as impure in a definite, sensory way. Says Allah,
"Stay away from the impurities of idols." Idols are impure in the abstract sense, and they are
considered impure if one touches them. The explanation of the preceding verse is that they are
a tool of Satan, for they cause enmity and hatred and keep people away from the
remembrance of Allah and prayer.

In Subul as-Salaam it says, "Their origin is pure and their being prohibited does not mean that
the object itself is impure. For example, hashish is prohibited but it is pure. But, something
impure is not necessarily prohibited. Every impure thing is prohibited, but not vice-versa. That
is because of the ruling that something impure cannot be touched under any circumstances. If
a ruling says that something is impure, it is also prohibited. This differs from a ruling that
something is prohibited. For example, it is forbidden to wear silk and gold, but they are
absolutely pure by consensus." If one understands that, then the prohibition of alcohol does not
necessarily entail its also being considered impure: it needs some other evidence to prove that
it is impure. If not, then we are left with the original position that it is pure. If one claims
other than that, he must substantiate it. End of Sayd Sabiq’s words

Shaykh Albani in Tamam Minah mentioned some names of Fuqahas that said Alcohol is pure,
Rabee’ah ibn Abi badi Rahman known as Rabee’ah Ar Rai, Layth ibn Sa’d Misri, Ismai’il ibn
Yahya al Muzani, sahibus Shafi’I.

So the Quran and hadeeth does not tell Khamr is najas. How can ahle hadeeth oppose Quran
and hadeeth in this case ?
Will these muta’sib muqalid make a scandal on Layth ibn Sa’d that Imam Shafi’I said to be
more Faqih than Malik. Never, but for Ahle hadeeth their crime is to teach Quran and Sunnah
and these people seem not to like the ahadeeth opposing their Imam.

May Allah protect us from the shirk of taqleed

aykh Ata Allah said Imam Malik said he can pay in the same thing that are being changed, like if
someone buys jewels of gold with gold, he can give more gold as there is portion of pay for the
work done to this gold to make jewels. Ibn Abdil Barr said Malik was mistaken in this.

But Ahle hadeeth say the same as all other Fuqahas who say it is forbidden

If one person or little said the same as Malik, then it is not the madhab of Ahle hadeeth, it is
the msitake of this scholar. What this deobandi should have done is to say this scholar of Ahle
hadeeth is mistaken, he should never say the ghayr Muqalideen say this.

May Allah guide us all

14 ) Ghayr Muaqlideen think that sperm is pure and the deobandi asked for saheeh daleel.

Shaykh Ata Allah said there is no daleel saying that sperm is impure from Kitab wa Sunnah, it is
haram to eat, but not impure, and there is no need for Ahle hadeeth to show a daleel, it is up
to this man who says this is against Kitab wa Sunnah to give daleel of his claim.

Then there is hadeeth showing sperm is pure, as in fiqh Sunnah

Some scholars say that sperm is impure, but apparently it is pure, for it is only recommended
to wash it off if it is still wet, and to scratch it off if it is dry. 'Aishah said : "I used to scratch
the sperm off the Messenger of Allah's clothes if it was dry, and wash it off if it was still wet."
(This is related by ad-Daraqutni, Abu 'Awanah and al-Bazzar).

So if sperm was najas it would be wajib to wash it even dry, because sratching does not remove
all sperm.

And human are made of sperm, and if there were to be made of impure thing, they would be
impure, while they are pure. Kafir are impure in metaphorical way, touching them does not
need to wash hands or clothes. They are not najas.

May Allah guide us all

16) He said Ghayr Muaqlideen say Jumu’ah can ne prayed by two.

This is the position of Nawab Sahib, and it is true and we challenge this deobandi muqalid or all
others to give a daleel it oppose Kitab wa Sunnah as he claims.

Can he give a daleel restricting the number of person for Jumu’ah to be saheeh.

See Fiqh As Sunnah

Volume 2, Page 133: The number of people required for al-Jumu'ah

There is no dispute among the scholars that a congregation is a necessary condition for the
validity of al-Jumu'ah. This is based on the hadith of Tariq ibn Shihab who reports that the
Prophet said: "Al-Jumu 'ah is an obligation ( wajib) upon every Muslim in the community."
However, the scholars do differ on how many people are required for al-Jumu'ah. There are
fifteen different opinions on this question and they are mentioned by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari.
The strongest opinion is that salatul Jumu'ah is valid if there are two or more people present
since the Prophet is reported to have said: "Two or more constitute a congregation."

Ash-Shaukani says: 'The other prayers are considered to be made in congregation if there are
two people present. The same applies to Jumu'ah salah, unless there is a reason for it to be
different. There is no evidence to show that [for the purpose of the congregation] its number
should be larger than that for the other prayers. 'Abdul Haqq says: 'There is no confirmed
hadith on the number of people needed for al-Jumu'ah.' Similarly, as-Suyuti holds: 'There is no
confirmed hadith which states a particular number [for the Jumu'ah salah].'" This is also the
opinion of at-Tabari, Dawud, an-Nakha'i, and Ibn Hazm.

We can easily see the methodology of this man, he should first establish the throne then sit on
it. First establish minimum number for Jumu'ah by Kitab or Sunnah then say Ahle hadeeth
oppose this.

So his rislalah is not sincere, he just tried to make common people hate Ahle hadeeth, without
having any daleel.

May Allah guide us all

15 ) He said the ghayr muqalideen say the Jumu’ah can be prayed before zawal.

First there is ikhtlaf in this among Ahle hadeeth, then praying before Zawal is true.

Now let's look at daleel, in fiqh sunnah

Volume 2, Page 132: The Time of the Salatul Jumu'ah

The majority of the companions and successors were of the opinion that the time of al-Jumu'ah
is the same as that of the zuhr. Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmizhi, and alBaihaqi
record from Anas that the Prophet sallallahu alehi wasallam would pray al-Jumu'ah when the
sun had passed its meridian. Ahmad and Muslim record that Salamah ibn al-Akua' said: "We
would pray salatul Jumu'ah with the Prophet when the sun had passed the meridian, and when
we returned [from the salah], we would be following our shadow." Al-Bukhari says: "The time of
al-Jumu'ah is when the sun passes its meridian." Similar narrations have been recorded from
'Umar, 'Ali, an-Nu'man ibn Bashir, and 'Umar ibn Harith. Ash-Shaf'i says: "The Prophet sallallahu
alehi wasallam, Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and the imams after them all prayed the Jumu'ah
when the sun had passed its zenith."

The scholars of the Hanbali school and Ishaq are of the opinion that the time for al-Jumu'ah is
from the beginning of the time for salatul 'id to the end of the time for the zuhr. They base
their opinion on Ahmad, Muslim, and an-Nasa'i who record from Jabir: "The Prophet would pray
alJumu'ah and then we would take our camels to rest until the sun passed its zenith." This
hadith clearly states that they prayed al-Jumu'ah before the sun passed the meridian. They
also cited as proof the hadith of 'Abdullah ibn Saidan as-Salmi who said: "We prayed al-Jumu'ah
with Abu Bakr, and his khutbah and salah were before noon. Then we prayed with 'Uthman and
his khutbah and salah lasted until after the sun had passed the meridian, and no one scolded
either for it." This is related by Ahmad, who cites it as a proof, and by ad-Daraqutni. Ahmad
adds: "And [something] similar to that has been related from ibn Mas'ud, Jabir, Sa'id, and
Mu'awiyyah. They all prayed before the sun passed the meridian and no one objected to what
they did, and that was the consensus.

The majority of the scholars, however, interpret the hadith of Jabir as implying that one should
pray the salah early in its time, when the sun has passed the meridian, and not wait until the
weather gets cool. The prayer and the resting of the camels was right after the sun passed the
meridian. As to the report from 'Abdullah ibn Saidan, these scholars consdier it weak. Ibn Hajar
writes about him: 'He is one of the major tabi'in [i.e., of the generation after the companions],
and his integrity is not well-established. 'Adi says: "He is somewhat majhul, i.e. unknown as a
trustworthy person." Bukhari observes. "His report is not to be trusted, especially when he is
contradicted by people who are more credible (qawi) than him as Ibn abi Shaibah relates from
Suwaid ibn Ghaflah that the later prayed with Abu Bakr and 'Umar after the sun had passed the
meridian and its chain is strong. "' end of Sayd Sabiq's words

Shaykh Albani said in Tamam Al Minah that the hadith of Suwaid ibn Ghaflah is saheeh but it is
for Thuhr, there is not mention at all to Jumu’ah, shaykh Albani quoted the hadeeth in Ibn Abi
Shaybah and there was mention of Thur being prayed after zawal and he said we prayed like
that with Abu Bakr and Umar. And the hadeeth of Suwaid ibn Ghaflah is put by ibn Abi Shaybah
in the chapter “ The one who prays Zuhr after Zawal and does not wait until it gets cold)”

As for 'Abdullah ibn Saidan, then four thiqah reported from him, ibn Hibban mentioned him in
thiqah, and ‘Ijli alsi in thiqah, and he is hssanul Hadeeth for ibn Rajab and others.
And shaykh Albani said the athars of Sahabah do not oppose each other and there is no need of
taweel of the saheeh hadeeth of Jabir, as the Prophet saw did both, so one can pray before
zawal or after.

But in this case Imam Ahmad also says one can pray before Zawal, will this deobandi who claim
to respect Imams make a risalah against Ahmad ibn hambal as he does against Ahle hadeeth.
This is their true face, behind respect of Imam, they are hiding their true face, their ghulu in
their Imam. They reject all ahadeeth opposing their Imam, and they have no shame to attack
Ahle hadeeth in matter they have daleel.

Salah wa Salam 'ala Nabi saw

17 ) He said that Ghayr Muaqlid say there is no difference in Salah Jumu’ah and other prayers,
and quoted Nawab Sahib, and asked for a prove.

Shaykh Ata Allah said that in the descriptions there is no difference between Salah Jumu’ah
and others, what the deobandi mentioned as ghusl, perfume, they are nor wajib nor it is
concerning description of prayer. There is no difference like in Salah ‘Idayn you have Raf
Yadayn in the beginning of two Rak’a, in salah Kusuf you have two ruku’ in one Rak’a. So this
was the meaning of Nawab Sahib and it is true.

He said women are exempted for Jumu’ah, but shaykh Ata Allah the Jama’ah is also not
obligatory for women, they can pray all 5 prayers at home, and that is even better.

He said Musafir are exempted for Jumu’ah, but this has nothing to do with the description of
prayer, and the musafir also prays two, so there is no difference in what the musafir prays and
what the person prays in Jumu’ah, so the saying of Nawab is true.

So what nonsense for this deobandi muftee !!!

18 ) He said that Ghayr Muqalideen say the Muslim in Darul Harb should pray Jumu’ah.

Darul Harb is country of kafir that do not have peace treaty with Muslim.

What is the daleel from Kitab wa Sunnah that Muslims who live in Darul Harb are exempted
from Jumu'ah.

Establish first the throne then sit on it.

This man should not have called his Risalah “ 50 masail fo ghayr Muqalideen against kitab wa
Sunnah” but “ 50 Masail of Ahle Hadeeth against Hanafi fiqh”
Maybe this man thinks Hanafi fiqh is Kitab wa Sunnah, and opposing his fiqh is opposing Quran
and Hadith.

Now, why Deobandi in India that has yet not peace treaty with Pakistan do pray Jumu’a. And in
wars before, did Deobandi stopped praying Jumu’ah.

What is this nonsense ?

19 ) He said for Sajdah Tilawah there is no need of conditions of Salah for ghayr Muaqlideen.

What is the daleel that Wudhu is a condition for Sajdah Tilawah ?

Shaykh Ata Allah asked for daleel, and said that a Sajdah is not a salah, why should there be
same conditions. Give us hadeeth, or atahr Sahabah ordering to do Whudhu before Sajdah
Tilawah. Someone is listening to Quran he can do sajdah when he ears Ayats of Sajdah even if
has not made ablutions

Give a daleel from Kitab wa Sunnah, then show Ahle hadeeth oppose it.

If deobandi establish it with qias, then there qias is not Kitab wa Sunnah.

This muqalid humiliated himself by writing this risalah.

Imam does not prevent this.

Every body agrees if the Imam makes a mistake he should do Sajdah sahw and muqtadi follow
him, but if muqtadi alone makes a mistake ( Like he sat down and started reciting Tashahud
while Imam and other stand or he stood and started reciting Fatihah while Imam was doing
Tashahud or other cases, if muqtadi is negligent and quick, he forgot and did not see Imam and
other followers doing something else), then majority of Fuqahas and Ahle hadeeth say he does
not need to make Sajdah Sahw alone after prayer, as he has an Imam.
But Shaykh Ata Allah said Imam Shawkani said the muqtdai should make sajdah sahw if he
makes mistake alone, and shaykh Ata Allah agreed saying the hadeeth exempting him from this
is weak and general hadeeth include all people forgetting, there is no need of hadeeth specific
to Muqtadi making mistake. The Prophet saw did never say the Muqtadi is prevented from
Sajdah Sahw if he made mistake alone, so the prescription for doing it encompasses all people
21 ) He said Ghayr Muqalid give permission for men to wear jewels of silver

Shaykh Ata Allah said in hadith gold has been forbidden for men, and silver not so men can
wear any kind of jewel in silver that has no resemblance to women like hear rings, and other
that have resemblence to women.

So it is up to the deobandi to show a daleel it is forbidden for men to wear ring of silver or
other things not resembling women’s jewels.

22) He said the Ghayr Muqalideen say the animal killed with guns is Halal if he dies before
slaughtering.

In Bukhari chapter of hunting and slaughtering we have this hadeeth

Volume 7, Book 67, Number 384:

Narrated Adi bin Hatim:

I asked the Prophet about the game killed by a Mi'rad (i.e. a sharp-edged piece of wood or a
piece of wood provided with a sharp piece of iron used for hunting). He said, "If the game is
killed with its sharp edge, eat of it, but if it is killed with its shaft, with a hit by its broad side
then the game is (unlawful to eat) for it has been beaten to death." I asked him about the
game killed by a trained hound. He said, "If the hound catches the game for you, eat of it, for
killing the game by the hound, is like its slaughtering. But if you see with your hound or hounds
another dog, and you are afraid that it might have shared in hunting the game with your hound
and killed it, then you should not eat of it, because you have mentioned Allah's name on
(sending) your hound only, but you have not mentioned it on some other hound

So bullets according to many Fuqahas pierce the body so the animal does not die with a blow.

And there is nothing here opposing Kitab Wa Sunnah. This is a matter of Ijtihad and if we make
a saheeh Qias, then it bullets does the same as these mi’rad, they tear the body and enter it,
so blood is expelled. It is not like a darb.
May Allah guide us all

23 ) He said the Ghayr Muqalideen say that the one who leaves the prayer on purpose, there is
no Qadha of it ( repetition) and the deobandi muftee asked for a daleel.

Shaykh Ata Allah gave many hadith saying about leaving salah being Kufr, and said the tariku
salah is kafir so only tawbah is needed when he re enters Islam.

But Majority of Ahle ahddeth scholar say leaving Salah is duna kufr as Imam Shawkani, Nadheer
Hussein Dehlawi, and others. Some like shaykh Abdallah Ropuri say it is kufr akbar.

But even if the leaving Salah is not kufr akbar, then the salah has a time, and a worship can
only be done in its time, nor before nor after. Can someone do Hajj in other month than Zul
Hijjah or syam in other than Ramadan. There is Qadha of Syam for some excuses like travel,
sickness, and menses, or other.

And there are daleel of Qadha for Salah for the one who forgets or sleeps or other things, but
there is no daleel for the one who leaves intentionally.

So a worship cannot be done out of its time, except for excuses, and there should be daleel for
these excuses. And for the one leaving on purpose, there is no daleel he should pray after its
time.

So how can Ahle hadeeth oppose Kitab wa Sunnah ?

It is again to the deobandi to establish that first the hukm of repeating prayer for the one
leaving on purpose is establish by Kitab wa Sunnah, then to prove that Ahle Hadeeth oppose
these two sources.

Now if Ahnaf do qias with prayer left without purpose, then it is not Kitab Wa Sunnah, and
scholars are entitled not to agree with them.

Again, this man thinks that Hanafi fiqh is Kitab wa Sunnah

For us the guidance of Hidayah is not like the Quran

24) For ghayr Muqalideen the urine of all animals is pure

See Fiqh as Sunnah

Volume 1, Page 11a: The urine and stools of animals that are permissible to eat

Both of these are considered impure. Ibn Mas'ud related that the Messenger of Allah, upon
whom be peace, went to answer the call of nature. He asked 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud to bring
three stones. 'Abdullah said, "I could not find three stones, so I found two stones and animal
dung and brought them to him. He took the two stones and threw away the dung saying, 'It is
impure."'

The hadith is related by al-Bukhari, Ibn Majah, and Ibn Khuzaimah. In one narration it states,
"It is impure. It is the stool of a donkey."
( words of Abu Alqama : This is daleel only for stools not urine of haram animal )

A little amount of it is pardoned though, as it is very difficult to completely protect one's self
from it. Al-Waleed ibn Muslim says, "I said to al-Auza'i, 'What about the urine of animals whose
meat is not eaten, like the mule, donkey and horse?' He said that they used to come into
contact with these during their battles, and that they did not wash it off their bodies or
clothes.

As for the urine and stools of animals whose meat is permissible, Malik, Ahmad and a group of
the Shaifiyyah says that it is pure. Commenting on the subject, Ibn Taimiyyah says, "None of
the companions held that it is impure. In fact, the statement that it is impure is of recent
origin and not from the early generations of the companions."

Said Anas, "A group of people from the tribes of Ukul or 'Uraina came to Madinah and became
ill in their stomach. The Prophet ordered them to get a milking she-camel and drink a mixture
of its milk and urine." This hadith is related by Ahmad, al-Bukhari and Muslim and points to a
camel's urine as being pure. Therefore, by analogy, other permissible animals' urine may also
be considered pure. Says Ibn al-Munzhir, "Those who claim that that was permissible only for
those people are incorrect. Specification is only confirmed by some specific proof." He also
says, "The scholars permit, without any objection, the sale of sheep's stools and the use of
camel's urine in their medicine, both in the past and in the present, again without any
objection. This shows that they are considered pure." Says ash-Shaukani, "Apparently, the urine
and stools of every living animal permissible to eat is pure." There is nothing to prove
otherwise. End of Sayd Sabiq’s words

So we see that many Fuqahas like Malik, Ahmad view urine of halal animal as pure, will this
person insult them as he tried to do with Ahle hadeeth. Can this man prove first that urine of
Halal animal is impure. The hadeeth of camel’s urine is clear and there can be no taweel of it.
If someone says it was only for medicine, then there are hadeeth saying there is no cure in
Haram things. So Urine of camels is Halal withouit any doubt.

As for Haram animals urine, then if some scholars said it was pure, this should be looked and
what are daleel saying there urine is impure. But will this deobandi muftee mistreat Awza'i who
said words showing purity of urine of horse, donkey and they are haram to eat.

There are daleel that Human urine is impure, but what are that forbiden animals is ?

May Allah guide us all

25 ) He said for ghayr Muqalideen all animals of sea dead or alive are Halal, and he brought a
hadeeth saying that two dead are Halal : fish and Jarad, and then he goes on to say that this
hadith restricts the hint of sea food mentioned permissible in the Quran, so the sea food in the
Quran is only fish.

In Fiqh Sunnah we have

Volume 1, Page 7: Dead animals of the sea and dead Jarad

Ibn 'Umar reported that the Messenger of Allah said, "Two types of dead animals and two types
of blood have been made lawful for us. The types of dead animals are seafood and Jarad. The
two types of blood are the (blood of the) liver and the spleen."

This is related by Ahmad, ash-Shaf'i, al-Baihaqi and adDaraqutni. The hadith is weak, but Imam
Ahmad says that it is authentic in mauqoof form. Abu Zar'ah and Abu Hatim have said the same.
Such a report has the implication of a marfu' hadith because a companion saying, "This was
allowed for us" or "This was forbidden for us" is like one of them saying, "We were ordered to
do this," or "We were forbidden to do this," and so on. (Such statements are considered marfu'
with respect to their regulations). And we have already mentioned the Prophet's statement
concerning the ocean, "Its water is pure and its 'dead animals' are allowable (to eat.)."

Allah Ta'ala says, And it is He Who has subjected the sea (to you) in order that you may eat
fresh meat from it.... (16:14)

The game of the sea is permitted to you and so is its food, a provision for you and for travellers
by sea.... (5:99 (96))

So Allah mentioned in the Quran that Sea food is halal, the hadith of Ahmad does not restrict
the Ayat of the Quran, sea food being only fish, since the hadith mentions only hukm for dead
animals, the hadith does not give any hukm for living sea food other than fish.

So other living sea food like prawns, shrimps, octopus and other is clearly halal and this hadith
can not make takhsis of it. This deobandi should learn Usul of fiqh. Using a hadith for dead
animal to restrict for living animals, what nonsense !!!

And there are other hadith saying the dead of the sea is Halal

See Fiqh Sunnah

Volume 1, Page 2: Sea water

Sea water's purity is based on the following hadith: Abu Hurairah related that a man asked the
Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, "O Messenger of Allah, we sail on the ocean and we
carry only a little water. If we use it for ablution, we will have to go thirsty. May we use sea
water for ablution?" Said the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, "Its (the sea) water is
pure and its dead (animals) are lawful (i.e., they can be eaten without any prescribed
slaughtering)." This hadith is related by "the five." At-Tirmizhi calls it hassan sahih, and al-
Bukhari says it is sahih

So here the Prophet saw gives the hukm for all dead animals of sea, and in hadith Ahmad he
gave hukm of dead fish being Haram, and as the hukm of living is the same why should the
hukm of dead being separate.

We can see clearly the ignorance of this deobandi muftee, using a hadith for dead animals to
say even living food of sea other than fish is haram.
He said for ghayr Muqalideen all animals of sea dead or alive are Halal, and he brought a
hadeeth saying that two dead are Halal : fish and Jarad, and then he goes on to say that this
hadith restricts the hunt of sea food mentioned permissible in the Quran, so the sea food in the
Quran is only fish.

So here the Prophet saw gives the hukm for all dead animals of sea, and in hadith Ahmad he
gave hukm of dead fish being Halal, and as the hukm of living is the same why should the hukm
of dead being separate.

The deobandi has no daleel to forbid living octopus, shrimps, prawns...

he only has a daleel for dead octopus and dead shrimps, as his takhsis is retricting dead animals
to fish.

We can see clearly the ignorance of this deobandi muftee, using a hadith for dead fish to say
even living food of sea other than fish is haram.

And the Ayat mentions all kinds of Sea food dead or alive and the hadith he tried to make
takhsis with only mentions dead fish, so if we follow is logic, how is living shrimps, octopus
Haram ?

If his takhsis was true, then all living sea food should be Halal and only dead fish dead would be
halal. Dead praws would be haram.

So this man does not follow hadith, rather he follows saying of Abu Hanifa and he tries to
interpret Quran and Hadith to give victory to his madhab

May Allah guide us all

May Allah guide us all

26) He said Ghayr Muqalideen say a man who has done zina with a woman can marry her
daughter, even if the daughter is born from his zina, he asked for a saheeh hadith and it is not
sufficient for ghayr Muqalid to say Imam Shafi’i or other say the same. He said the saying of
Razee or other is not enough for people acting on hadeeth.
In this point there are two cases.

First case : A man does zina with a woman and the woman had daughters from marriage
before, then zina does not make her daughters haram, and the deobandi seems to say zina
makes daughters of this woman haram.

This risalah was to point Masail of Ahle Hadeeth against Kitab wa Sunnah, and I challenge him
to bring any Ayat of Quran or hadeeth saying that doing zina forbids daughters of the woman.

Now if there is no daleel on this, then opposing the understanding of Abu Hanifa is not opposing
Kitab Wa Sunnah.

What is strange for Ahnaf is to forbid children of woman with who he did zina not being his
children but coming from former husband who died or gave her divorce, as it is not mentioned
in the Quran.

So they add forbiden women to the Quran with their Qias, as for saheeh hadeeth of Bukhari and
Muslim, like Khyar Majilis, Radha’at forbidding at 5 times, expelling non married zani one year,
then they reject these ahadith saying it is addition to Quran and not permissible with Khabar
ahad.

I can ask them why do you forbid these women ? Is this not an addition to the Quran ? Did Allah
say the woman with who you made zina, her children are haram to you ?

So you add to the Quran with Qias but not with Saheeh Hadith, then who prefers Qias to sunnah
?

Forbiding daughters of a woman with who a man did zina is giving zina the same status as
marriage. Allah mentionned married woman not with the one you do zina.

Doing Zina with a women does not give her same status as marrying her.

What is the daleel ?

Now if for Hanafi Qias, doing zina forbids children as marriage, then they are adding to Quran
with their Qias, and why balming Ahle Hadeeth if they disagree with their undertanding.
And there is no need of daleel showing that is permissible, since Quran and hadeeth do not
mention daughters of woman with one did zina so natural state is permissiblity as long as there
is no daleel forbiding. It is up to the deobandi to prove that doing zina with her gives makes
her daughters haram as in the case of amrrying her.

Second case :

The child comes from his zina, then majority of Fuqahas say it is not his child, and there is a
clear hadith forbiding inheritance to him.

So if Ahle Hadeeth oppose Abu Hanifa and others and say she is not the shari daughter of this
man, what is their crime, following majority of scholars and Imams like Shafi'i. Deobandi claim
to respect imam and by attacking Ahle Hadeeth they are attacking these Imams.

Abu Hanifa and other say the daughter of zina that comes from him is attributed to him, so the
Quran mentions forbidance of marrying his daughters and she is included in daughters.

And majority of Ahle hadeeth here are with majority of Fuqahas, is it serious to blame Ahle
hadeeth for being with majority of Fuqahas and saying the children of Zina is not his children,
and majority have a hadith for not attributing this child to the man.

Read this article of shaykh Munajjid on majority of Fuqahas saying child of Zina is not
attributed to the man and the hadeeth forbding the child of zina of getting inheritance.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&d ... 3591&dgn=4

So if this daughter is not his daughter according to the Shari'ah, then the original state is
permissiblity and there is no daleel forbiding him to marry her , and there is no need of daleel
showing it is permissible, as there are daleel showing she is not his daughter according to
Shari'ah, and if she is not then original state is permissiblity.

May Allah guide us all

Here is the daleel of majority of scholars saying the child of zina that comes from the man is
not his child according to the Shari'ah

The majority of scholars quoted as evidence that the illegitimate child should not be attributed
to the zaani the hadeeth narrated by Ahmad (7002), Abu Dawood (2265) and Ibn Maajah (2746)
from ‘Amr ibn Shu’ayb from his father from his grandfather who said: “The Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) ruled that whoever is born to a slave woman who was not
owned by his father, or (was born to) a free woman with whom (the father) committed zina,
then he cannot be attributed to him nor can he inherit, even if the one to whom he is
attributed claims him as a son. He is the child of fornication whether his mother was a free
woman or a slave.”

This hadeeth was classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, and by al-Arna’oot in
Tahqeeq al-Musnad. It was quoted as evidence by Ibn Muflih to support the view of the
majority

So if Ahle Hadeeth implement this hadeeth, what is their crime ?

They treat this child as not being his daughter.

May Allah guide us all

27) He said the madhab of ghayr Muqalideen is that masturbation is permissible for the non
married man, if he fears to do haram, it becomes mustahab or wajib. And he quoted from a
Ahle hadeeth scholar. And he said a lot of non sense that quoting this Imam is not good for Ahle
hadeeth, you should justify that with Hadeeth. If that is not in hadeeth, why do Ahle Hadeeth
do not criticise these fatawas and say they are wrong ?

First he lied again when he said this is the madhab of ghayr Muqalideen. Nawab Siddiq Hassan
Khan is not our Imam. He should only attribute that to his ijtihad. And many scholars from Ahle
hadeeth forbid that basing on the Ayat from Quran in Surah Muminun that whoever seeks other
than wives or slaves they are transgressors, and they say masturbation falls in other than wives
and slaves.

But if for Nawab Sahib this ayat refers to physical relation to other women than wives and
slaves, then when there is no daleel in an issue, then the asl is permissibility, why does he ask
for daleel. When there is no daleel scholar makes ijtihad and do Qias, and if in that they do not
find a daleel forbidding something, it is Halal.

As for asking why we do not clearly criticize Nawab, then look at Hanafi fatawas and all their
dirt cancelling hadd for many Zanis ( like doing zina with non pubere, slave in rahn and many
other), permitting Riba in Darul Harb, permitting drinking alcohol of other than grapes if the
man does not get drunk

Look at this for details

http://www.ahya.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2162

And for the case of Nawab, there are some Imams saying the same as mentioned by this
deobandi, and this is a matter of Ijtihad. It is not explicitly mentioned in kitab nor in Sunnah.

As for hanafi fiqh, then riba is forbidden in Quran and there is no permission for darul Harb,
every thing that makes someone drunk is haram as in hadith, and hadd of zina ofr all these
cases, where is the daleel, because Zina is mentioned in Quran and Hadith as being forbidden.
Why do you forgive had for these cases ?

Why do you noyt write risalah condemning all your books of Fiqh ?

If someone say about a man doing Zina with a woman having Daughter from another man
before, that the asl for forbiding daughters is sexual relation, and zina is a sexual relation so
the daughters should be forbiden, then the Asl in Quran is marriage and Dukhul. If someone
divorces before dukhul then the daughters are permissible for him but if he does dukhul then
they are forbiden.

So there are two conditions for forbiding wives' former children : Nikah and Dukhul.

So making Qias with zina is futile since there is only one condition and that is dukhul.

Is gettin married like doing Zina and has same consequence ?

Allah never said entering a woman without Nikah makes her daughter Haram. It is a clear case
of addition to Quran with Qias.

And Ahnaf should bring daleel for their Qias.

May Allah guide us all

29 ) He said that the goat is enough for one house even if there are 100 people in this house,
while there are seven shares for the cow and camel.

Shaykh Ata Allah said there is a hadith from the Prophet saw that there is one one goat for the
leader of the family for all his family. There is no limitation ofr number. If somone has four
wives and a lot of salves, and many children, then his sacrifice is four all his household.

As for mentionnening the cow and camel, it is somethong different. There is one part out of
seven with other people, this is not with his family members. If he takes one part out of seven
with others, then it is enough for all his family.

I wonder why this man brought the issue of cow and camel shared with other people with the
goat being enough for all family. Did he say that eevry member of the family should have one
part out of seven, I don't think so ? So why comparing these two things ?

Maybe he wanted to confuse ignorant people, but these are two different matters, a goat being
enough for all household and sharing camel anb cow with seven other people not from his
housold.

May Allah guide us all

31 ) He said for ghayr Muqalideen if Najassah comes in water, water remains pure except if
taste, colour or odour changes.

This is the madhab of majority of Fuqaha, look at Fiqh Sunnah

Volume 1, Page 3a: Water mixed with impure elements

We can divide this category into two sub-categories:

-1- The impure substance alters the taste, color or odor of the water. In this case, it can not be
used for purification. According to Ibn al-Munzhir and Ibn al-Mulaqqin, there is a consensus on
this point.

-2- The liquid is still considered water, meaning that the impure substance has not altered its
taste, color or odor. Such water is considered pure and may be used for purification. This is
based upon the following hadith: Abu Hurairah reported that a bedouin urinated in the mosque.
The people stood to get him (and stop him). The Prophet said, "Leave him and pour a bucket of
water or a container of water over his urine. You have been raised to be easy on the people,
not to be hard on them." This hadith is narrated by "the group," except for Muslim.

Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri asked the Prophet, "Can we make ablution from the well of Buda'ah (i.e.,
a well in Madinah)?" The Prophet, upon whom be peace, told him, "Water is pure and nothing
makes it impure."

This hadith is related by Ahmad, ash-Shaf'i, Abu Dawud, anNasa'i and at-Tirmizhi, who
classified it as hassan. Ahmad said, "This hadith is sahih and Yahya ibn Ma'een and Muhammad
ibn Hazm classified it as such."

This is also the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas, Abu Hurairah, al-Hassan al-Basri, Ibn al-Musayyab,
'Ikrimah, Ibn Abu Laila, al-Thauri, Dawud azh-Zhahiri, an-Nakha'i, Malik and others. Says al-
Ghazzali, "I wish ash-Shaf'i's opinion was like Malik's."

There is also a hadith from 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar in which the Messenger of Allah is reported to
have said, "If there are at least two buckets of water, it will not carry any impurity." This
hadith is related by the "five."

However, this hadith is mudhtarab in its chain of narrators and text. Ibn 'Abdul-Barr said in at-
Tamheed, "As to the opinion of ash-Shaf'i which is based on this hadith, it is weak on scrutiny
and is not confirmed by historical reports." End of Sayd Sabiq’s words

Shaykh Albani said about the two Qullah hadeeth that it is saheeh and not midtarib, so many
AHle hadeeth put condition if water is more than two Qullah then if impurity falls inside, and if
it does not change taste, colour or odour, then it is pure, if water is less than two Qullah, then
water is not pure if najassah falls inside.

But if someone does not put condition of two Qullah, then water does not get impure if
najassah falls inside and it does not change three things, then look at all people saying it
remains pure : Ibn 'Abbas, Abu Hurairah, al-Hassan al-Basri, Ibn al-Musayyab, 'Ikrimah, Ibn Abu
Laila, al-Thauri, Dawud azh-Zhahiri, an-Nakha'i, Malik
Would this deobandi attack these Fuqahas, or has his hatred of Ahle hadeeth made him blind ?

For scholars putting conditions of two Qullah for water remaining pure esxept if three sifats
change, then it is the opinion of Shafi’i and others

Not only there are hadeeth in this topic, but also fuqahas saying the same as Ahle Hadeeth, but
we see that for this man opposing Hanafi fiqh is opposing Kitab wa Sunnah.

Allahul Musta'anu

32 ) He said that for ghayr Muqalideen someone without Wudhu can touch the Quran, and he
said that it being the madhab of ibn Abbas, Dahhak, Hammad, Nakha’I is not enough for ghayr
Muqalideen, they should present hadeeth.

We follow hadeeth, but when there is no daleel, then our scholars make ijtihad and Qias, so we
are not people denying Qias.

Then this subject has been treated for the case of Junubi and Haidhah touching the Quran, and
daleel forbidding them are weak, Mutaharun in Quran refers to angels and it is for Lawh
Mahfuz.

And if se see the hadith of Abu Hurayara, the Prophet saw said the believer is not impure, and
the Prophet saw said to Aishah your Haydh are not in your hands.

So basing on these hadeeth, and as there is no daleel forbidding touching Quran for ghayr
Mutawadhi, then one can touch Quran.

But what is scandalous for this man is attacking Ahle Hadeeth for what ibn Abbas and many
others said.

And we can challenge this man to bring a saheeh hadith saying the one who has not wudhu can
touch the Quran, and show how Ahle hadeeth oppose kitab wa Sunnah.

May Allah protect us

33 ) He said for ghayr Muqalideen if someone prays with closes having impurities, then he is
sinner but his prayer is valid.

First the saying of Nawab is not the Madhab of all Ahle Hadeeth.

Then look at Fiqh Sunnah

Volume 1, Page 109c: Purity of the Body, Clothes and Place

Such objects should be clean of physical impurities as much as possible. If one can not remove
them, he may pray with the impurities present and does not have to repeat the prayer later.
Concerning bodily purity, Anas related that the Prophet upon whom be peace, said, "Stay clean
of urine, as the majority of punishment in the grave is due to it." This is related by ad-
Daraqutni, who said it is hassan.

Reported 'Ali, I used to have a great deal of prostatic fluid flowing, so I asked a man to ask the
Prophet about it (as I was shy to ask him, due to my relationship with him through his
daughter). He asked him and the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said, "Make ablution and wash
your penis." (Related by al-Bukhari and others.)

'Aishah also related that the Messenger of Allah said to women with a prolonged flow of blood,
"Wash the blood from yourself and pray . "
Concerning purity of clothing, we have the following: Says Allah, "And purify your raiment" (al-
Muddathir 4). Jabir ibn Sumrah reported that he heard a man ask the Prophet, "May I pray in
the same clothes that I had on during intercourse with my wife?" He said, "Yes, but if you see
some stains on it, you must wash it." This hadith is related by Ahmad and Ibn Majah. Its
narrators are trustworthy.

Reported Mu'awiyyah, "I asked Umm Habibah, 'Did the Prophet pray in the same clothes that he
wore when he had intercourse?' She said, 'Yes, if there were no stains on it."'(Related by
Ahmad, Abu Dawud, an-Nasa'i and Ibn Majah.)

Abu Sa'eed reported that the Prophet removed his shoes and the people behind him did
likewise. When he finished the prayer, he asked, "Why did you remove your shoes?" They said,
"We saw you remove yours." He said, "Gabriel came to me and informed me that there was
some filth on them. Therefore, when one of you comes to the mosque, he should turn his shoes
over and examine them. If one finds any dirt on them, he should rub them against the ground
and pray with them on." The hadith is related by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, al-Hakim, Ibn Hibban and
Ibn Khuzaimah. The latter grades it as sahih.

This hadith shows that if one enters the mosque (with his shoes on) and is unaware of some
impurity or has forgotten it, and he suddenly remembers it during the prayer, he must try to
remove it and proceed with the prayer. He does not have to repeat it later on.

Concerning the purity of the place where one is praying, Abu Hurairah said, "A bedouin stood
and urinated in the mosque. The people got up to grab him. The Prophet said, 'Leave him and
pour a container full of water over his urine. You have been raised to be easy on the people,
not to be hard on them." (Related by "the group," except for Muslim.)

Commenting on this subject, ash-Shaukani says, "If what has been produced of proof is firmly
established, then one would know that it is obligatory to have one's clothes free of impurities.
Whoever prays and has impurities on his clothing has left one of the obligations of the prayer.
But his prayer would not be voided."

In ar-Rauzhat an-Nadiyyah it states, "The majority of scholars are of the opinion that it is
obligatory to purify three things: the body, the clothes, and the place of prayer. Some are of
the opinion that this is a condition for the soundness of the prayer, and others say that it is just
a sunnah. The truth of the matter is that it is obligatory. Whoever intentionally prays with
impurities on his clothing has left one of the obligations (of the prayer), but the prayer is still
valid." end of Sabiq's words

So according to Shawkani and Nawab, there are hadeeth showing it is wajeeb to remove
impurities, and not doing it is a sin like urine, wadhi, and other, but there is no hadeeth
showing it cancels the prayer for them, and the hadeeth that the Prophet saw removed his
shoes, then for them it shows it is haram to pray with najassah and when the Prophet saw knew
it, he removed them, but it is not a daleel that it cancels the prayer for them.

And this hadeeth is also against Ahnaf. They use it for saying one should not pray with najassah
and we agree with them, but for them if after his prayer he saw najassah he should repeat his
prayer, and we see here the Prophet saw did not repeat the part of Prayer he saw prayed with
najassah.

So they believe in part of hadeeth and disbelieve in other part. They only use hadeeth to
justify their fiqh and when it opposes, they reject that.

So it shows at least, the one who did not know, then his prayer is valid.

As for the one who knew there was najas on his clothes and prayed, then according to
Shawkani and Nawab, there is no hadeeth sayibg his prayer is batil although it is haram

Allah knows best

34 ) He said for ghayr Mualideen, if blood comes out of the body, then it does not break wudhu
even if there is a lot.

This subject is the same as blood being pure, and we quoted daleel before, like Hassan saying
the Sahabah did not stop from praying in their battles while they had blood of their injuries.
This report is in Bukhari in mu’allaq form, and shaykh Albani said in Tamam al Minah that ibn
Hajar found a saheeh isnad and it is ibn Abi Shay]bah with saheeh isnad.

Then also shaykh Albani mentioned the hadeeth of a sahabi praying and being hurt with arrows
and he went on praying until end of prayer, and it is saheeh hadith ib Abu Dawud.

So if Wudhu was broken because of blood comong out, why did this Sahabi went on praying ?

We ask Hanafi a daleel from Kitab and Sunnah that bleeding ( except Nifas and haydh) breaks
wudhu.

May Allah guide us all

salam aleykum
Shaykh Albani mentionned in Tamam al Minah that in the hadith of Abu Dawud that is saheeh,
the sahabi praying recived three arrows.

Is it possible for someone recieving three arrows and not bleeding, and if what he did was
wrong and Wahy was coming to Prophet saw, then it should have been told if it was wrong.

Sahabah said that we used to do 'Azl while Wahy was coming to the Prophet saw, and they said
this that as Wahy did not forbid 'Azl, then it is permissible, althoug makruh.

So the same, if a sahabi prayed with blood and thw wahy did not come to prevent him, then it
is a prove.

And the undesrtanding of a sahabi is better or that of some later Fuqahas ?

May Allah guide us all

35 ) He said for ghayr Muqalideen, the musafir should only join prayer of four rak’a of resident
Imam after two Rak’a, and only pray two while Imam prayed four.

This saying of Nawab is his ijtihad, great majority of Ahle hadeeth say he should pray four
behing resident Imam, as one can see on fatwa Ahle hadeeth of shaykh Abdallah Ropuri.

Also see the prove of that in a fatwa of shaykh Munajid

Is it permissible for a traveller who prays behind an imam who offers the prayer in full to
shorten his prayer, i.e., to pray two rak’ahs with the imam, then when the imam stands up (for
the third rak’ah) to say the salaam and leave?.

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.

When the traveller prays behind a non-traveller, he has to offer the prayer in full, whether he
catches up with the entire prayer or just one rak’ah, or less. Al-Athram said: I asked Abu ‘Abd-
Allaah (i.e., Imam Ahmad) about the traveller: should he join in the tashahhud of residents? He
said: He should pray four rak’ahs. That was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbaas and a number
of the Taabi’een, and was also the view of al-Shaafa’i and Abu Haneefah.
The evidence for that is:

1 – The words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “The imam is
appointed to be followed, so do not differ from him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 722; Muslim,
4141.

2 – The report narrated by Ahmad from Ibn ‘Abbaas, that it was said to him: “Why does the
traveller pray two rak’ahs when he is alone and four when he follows an imam who is a
resident (non-traveller)?” He said: “That is the Sunnah” – meaning that it is the Sunnah of the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Classed as saheeh by al-
Albaani in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel, 571.

3 – This is what ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) did. Naafi’ said: When
Ibn ‘Umar prayed with the imam he would pray four rak’ahs and when he prayed on his own he
would pray two. Narrated by Muslim.

But we see that all salaf are not agreed on this, and Nawab is not clearly opposing Kitab wa
Sunnah, but sayings and actions of some sahabah. Now it should be looked if some sahabah did
disagree.

But Qasr in safar is wajib, the hadeeth saying it is only sunnah brought by Sayd Sabiq have been
weakned by shaykh Albani. The Prophet saw always did qasr ( reducing prayer) and we do not
have examples of Prophet saw praying four behind resident or his approving or some actions
like that. So Nawab is not opposing Hadeeth, and but understanding of some Sahabah. Now we
should look at his istidlal.

But it is not a clear cut topic in which there is a daleel from Quran or Hadeeth, and it is the
opinion of little from Ahle hadeeth.

May Allah guide us all

36 ) He said for ghayr Muqalideen, shaving head is opposing the Sunnah and the madhab of
Khawarij and he attributed that to Nawab.

Now there are saheeh hadith in which Prophet saw gave a sign of khawarij to come, that they
will have their heads shaved.
Now we should not say it is the madhab of Khawarij as Nawab said, but it is one of their signs,
and the Prophet saw only shaved his head on Hajj and it was not his Sunnah, rather his sunnah
is to have long hairs as in Bukhari, hair between hears and shoulders.

So always having head shaves is against the Sunnah, and a sign of the khawarij. It does not
imply that all people doing this are kahawarij, but it is better for them to avoid their
descriptions and follow sunnah.

So the saying of Nawab is not a clear mistake, he should have said sign of khawarij instead of
madhab, maybe he used the word madhab meaning signs.

Alah knows best

38 ) he quoted a Ahle hadeeth scholar saying that some Sahabah were fasiq and Mu’awiyah was
a baghi and did kabair.

And again this person has no shame to lie and attribute this as the madhab of ghayr
Muqalideen. Huge and great majority of Ahle Hadeeth do not say that, but this person has no
fairness, to defend his fiqh he is readly to lie on his opponenets.

Now some big Hanafi scholar say the same

Read this from Abu Khuzayma : “

Ibn Aabdieen ash-Shamee said, "Mu'waiya was a rebel (khaarijee)" (in Radd al-Mukhtaar)

And Nisfee said, "All the companions of Mu'awiya were rebellions (Khaarijees) (Aqaa'id an-
Nisfee (p.162)

and the next quote is a grave fear. I wonder why we curse the shee'ah, when the hanafees are
upto the same thing. the quote makes the blood boils and hairs stand. The quote is from the
book that is taught in all the hanafees madrassahs and institutions.

In this book it says, "Mu'awiya (Ra) was an innovator." (Tawdheeh p.2/260). and in its
explanation it says, "Mu'awiya was a khaarijee who rebelled against islaam and he was a killer
of companions. (Talweeh (2/260)

Finally an eminent hanafee scholar Maulana Abdul Hayy Lucknowee himself affirmed the
presence of shee'ahs in the hanafee madhab he said, "The hanafee jurists have also differed in
belief, some from amongst them are from the shee'ah raafidah. and some are from the
Mu'tazilah and some of them are from the murjiyyah."(ar-Raf'a wat-Takmeel pp.27-28).” end of
ABu Khuzayma's quote in forum before

So we do not say this is the belief of deobandi. The belief of some Hanafi scholars is not the
same as all Hanafi and nor of deobandi

So this deobandi Muftee should look at his home of crystal instead of throwing stones to
others.

And we Ahle hadeeth in all our Madrassah study Tahawiyah amd Wasitiyah, and it is clearly said
in Wasitiyah are Sahabah were mujtahid and none of them should be criticised.

So this is the Aqeedah of Ahle Hadeeth, not the saying of very little scholars, but this man had
no shame to take this saying as the madhab of ghayr Muqalideen and he will pay this crime on
judjement day if he does not make tawbah. This is a deobandi Muftee of Darul Ulum Deoband.

As for the case of Fasiq, then Shaykh Ata Allah mentioned that there was a hadeeth saying a
man was the Fasiq mentioned in Surah Hujurat “ When a Fasiq comes to with news, then check
it…”, but this hadeeth is weak so we do not say the sahabi who did that mistake was a Fasiq.

So compare words of this Ahle Hadeeth scholar with the words of some Hanafi scholars for
Mu’awiyah “ Khariji, innovator”.

So these mistakes are never the Madhab of Ahle Hadeeth

Ahle hadeeth do not belief Sahabah to be infallible, but their mistakes are based on Ijtihad and
they will recieve Thawab for their msiatkes.

May Allah guide us all

39 ) He said for ghayr Muqalideen, the salah of women without her complete sutar is saheeh in
front of other women and mahram. She only needs to wear hijab.

This seems to be a mistake of Nawab Sahib if these are hos words, but it is not the madhab of
Ahle hadeeth, there are a lot of hadeeth showing women should cover feet in salah, so what
about other Sutar.

This is portion of a fatwa of ibn Baz

According to the majority of scholars, the feet must be covered; some scholars allow
uncovering the feet but the majority say the opposite. Abu Dawud reported from Umm Salamah
(may Allaah be pleased with her) that she was asked about a woman who prayed in a khimaar
and qamees (dress or gown). She said, "There is nothing wrong with it if the dir’ (chemise)
covers her feet." In any case, it is better to cover the feet, to be on the safe side. As far as the
hands are concerned, there is more leeway: there is nothing wrong with either covering them
or uncovering them, although some scholars think that it is better to cover them. And Allaah is
the Source of strength.

Fataawa al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah, by Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, p. 57 (www.islam-qa.com)

So majority of Ahle hadeeth order feet to be covered.

40 ) He said for ghayr Muqalideen the purity of clothes is not a condition for Salah.

This subject has already been treated, for Nawab and Shawkani although it is haram to keep
impurities on his clothes, the prayer is not batil

41 ) He said for ghayr Muqalideen wearing a cloth under feet breaks wudhu

It was reported in a hadeeth narrated by Abu Dawood that Abu Hurayrah said: “Whilst a man
was praying with his izaar (lower garment) hanging below his ankles, the Messenger of Allaah
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Go and do wudoo’.”… He said, “He was
praying with his izaar hanging below his ankles, and Allaah does not accept the prayer of a man
who lets his izaar hang below his ankles. (Narrated by Abu Dawood, al-Salaah, 543. This was
classed as da’eef (weak) by al-Albaani in Da’eef Sunan Abi Dawood, no. 124).

With regard to the validity of prayer, Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen was asked about that and he said:
If the garment is hanging down below the ankles, then it is haraam, because the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Whatever part of the izaar (lower garment)
is hanging down below the ankles is in the Fire.” What the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) said concerning the izaar also applies to other types of clothing.

Based on this, a person has to lift his thobe (galabiyah) or other garments to be above his
ankles. If he prays in it when it is below his ankles, then there is a difference of opinion among
the scholars as to whether his prayer is valid.

Some of them think that his prayer is valid, because this man has done what is obligatory, i.e.,
covering his ‘awrah.

Some of them think that his prayer is not valid, because he has covered his ‘awrah with a
haraam garment. They say that one of the conditions of covering the ‘awrah is that the
garment worn should be permissible. So a man is in danger if he prays in a garment that comes
down below his ankles; he should fear Allaah and raise his garment so that it will be above his
ankles.

Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, part 12, p. 306

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (www.islam-qa.com)

So if for some Ahle hadeeth scholars this hadeeth of Abu Dawud is saheeh, then how are they
opposing Kitab wa Sunnah ?

42 ) He said for ghayr Muqalideen there is no kafarah for the one who eats on purpose in
Ramadan.

Shaykh Ata Allah said there is no saheeh hadeeth for kafarah for the one eating, there are only
weak hadeeth.

43 ) he mentioned an animal that Ghayr Muqalideen declare halal

Shaykh Ata Allah mentioned a hadith narrated by both al-Bukhari and Muslim, which states that
the Prophet (peace be on him) "forbade the eating of any wild animals with a canine tooth and
of any bird with talons."
So for this animal there was no daleel and it is up to this muftee to bring one.
45 ) He said that Ghayr Muaqlideen permits riba in darul Kufr

This is the madhab of Ahnaf. Look at Hidayah or other books of Hanafi fiqh

If one of Ahle hadeeth said the same, then this is not the madhab of Ahle Hadeeth, they
criticise Ahnaf for permitting riba in darul Kufr, which is an addition to Quran, and for Ahnaf it
is not permissible with Khabar Ahad, what about weak hadeeth.

46 ) He said that if someone does not read Bis Millahi before slaughtering the meat is halal, one
can recite after bis millahi and eat it.

Shaykh Ata Allah said one should recite bismillahi, but if one forgets it, as the man is a muslim,
the meat is halal.

In the Sahih of al-Bukhari we find a hadith narrated by 'Aisha, who said, Some people who had
recently become Muslims said to the Prophet (peace be on him), 'People bring us meat and we
do not know whether they have mentioned the name of Allah over it or not. Shall we eat of it
or not?' The Prophet (peace be on him) replied, 'Mention the name of Allah (over it) and eat."

So based on this hadeeth, someone forgetting to recite Bismallahi Allahu Akbar does not make
meat haram, one can read it before eating.

47 ) He said that for ghayr Muqalideen, if someone made a Nadhar when he was kafir, he
should fulfil it when he becomes Muslim.

If the Nadhar is also supported by Shari’ah like obeying parents, doing Hajj, praying then he
should fulfil his nadhar. And Mushrik of Makkah belived in Salah, Hajj or other things like I'tikaf

In a saheeh hadith, Umar said he made a nadhar of doing I’tikaf in times of Jahiliyah, and the
Prophet saw told him to fulfil it.

48 ) he said for ghayr Muqlideen, the Imam can pray nafilah and muqtadi pray their fardh
behind him

Then there is the hadith of Mu’az in saheeh when he prayed Isha behind the Prophet saw then
he went to be Imam in another Mosque, and he read surah Baqarah and a man finished prayer
alone, and protested to the Prophet saw, who then told Mu’az to read little surah.
Ahnaf say Mua’z prayed Nafilah behind the Prophet saw, and prayed Fardh in front of his
people, and who can think who prays only nafilah behind the Prophet saw in the Mosque of
Madinah having 1000 times more Thawab.

Ahnaf to justify their fiqh give this kind of explanation, else this hadeeth is clear Mua’z prayed
fardh behind the Prophet saw and then prayed Nafilah and people prayed fardh behind him.

49 ) He said the non baligh boy can make Imam of non Baligh

Narrated in Saheeh al-Bukhaari that ‘Amr ibn Salamah al-Jarami said: “My father came from
the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said that he had heard the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say, ‘When the time for prayer comes, let
the one among you who knows the most Qur’aan lead you in prayer.’ They looked and they did
not find anyone who knew more Qur’aan than me, so they made me lead them in prayer, and I
was a boy of six or seven years.” [Volume 5, Book 59, Number 595]

So the case is clear, and Wahy did not come to stop this, so it shows it is permissible. As Sahabi
saying we used to do ‘Azl while Wahy was coming showing Wahy did not forbid it, the same way
for this case.

Now if Ahnaf say that the Prophet saw did not know about that, it is ridiculous, as Allah would
not have let these people in mistakes. Allah knows best

And it is up to this muftee to show how this oppose Kitab wa Sunnah and where did Allah or His
Prophet saw forbade imamah of non baligh.

50 ) He said for ghayr Muqaliden the salah Idd is saheeh even if one prays it alone.

There is ikhtilaf among Fuqahas about it being wajib, Sunnah or nafilah, and many Ahle
hadeeth say like Ahnaf that salah ‘Idd is wajeeb, but for scholars saying it is nafilah, then
shaykh Ata Allah said there is no condition of number, if someone could not pray in Jama’ah,
like arriving late, then he can pray alone, and there are athar for this.

So this is the end of this, there seem to be two points either I missed or shaykh Ata Allah
missed, but it would be same kind of paper, criticising Ahle hadeeth for things having no
hadeeth and they are following many Imams in their fatawa, or even Ahle hadeeth having
daleel but Ahnaf differing with them on the meaning of these hadeeth, and opposing hanafi
fiqh is not opposing Kitab wa Sunnah
As for cases like prostitue's income, or riba permissible ind arul Kufr, then it is Hanafi madhab.

As for making a paper for issues on some Imam Shafi'i says the same ( case of marrying
daughter of zina), Imam Ahmad says the same ( Jumu'ah before Zawal), Imam Layth ibn Sa'd
said same ( Khamr being pure but haram), or ibn Abbas said the same ( no wudu for touching
Quran), then it just shows the reality of this deobandi muftee

He seems to oppose all these Imams and disrepeect them.

And the things criticised have nothing to do with the hoorble cases in Hanafi fiqh, how many
hudud not done for zina, how many hand not cuts, riba in darul Kufr, khamr other than grappes
halal until one gets not drunk, touching even accidently daughter or mother in law with desire
and wifr haram, if qadi says someone is your wife and she was not you can have intercourse
with her.

And what about Ahnaf opposing clear saheeh hadith like Madinah not Haram like Makkah, kafir
entering Makkah, Ahnaf forbdiing Shi'ar of camels while there are clear ahadith on this, Ahnaf
forbiding witr on camels while in saheeh bukhari we have the Prophet saw prayed on a camel
witr, Hanafi forbiding one witr and we have clear hadith on Prophet saw praying one witr,
ahnaf fordiding Jam' in prayer while there are clear hadeeth Prophet saw prayed one prayer at
the time of other.

And many other issue of their fiqh opposing saheeh hadith, like hadeeth Musarah, Khyar Majilis,
Radha'ah forbiding after 5, non married zani expelled one year, and there are hudnreds of
hadeeth like that

So because they cannot explain their fiqh and give daleel, nor jsutify why they reject many
saheeh hadeeth with false rules or with false interprtations, then they find nothing more
intelligent to write this kind of risalah, and by doing this he has just humilaited himself and
shown his weakness

May Allah guide us all