Question: A student mufti in an article comments as follows on the Ahaadith which appear in Hidaayah:

“In brief, there is no doubt that al-Hidaya contains narrations that are extremely weak and often untraceable. It was for this reason that scholars such as ‘Allamah al-Zayla’i penned books in locating, grading and consolidating those reports, like Nasb al-Raya. Furthermore, ‘Allamah Zayla’i, in many instances was compelled to throw the towel in as well, confessing his inability to locate some of those narrations. Thereafter, when Hafiz lbn Hajar wrote his abridgment of Nasb al-Raya, al-Dirayah, he located many reports that ‘Allamah Zayla’i failed to, but he as well was unsuccessful in numerous places. Shortly after, ‘Allamah Qasim ibn Qutlubugha wrote a book entitled, Munya al-Alma’, as a completion in locating further reports, and amazingly he found approximately forty such reports. Very important to note that ‘Allamah Qasim mentions that many people claim that Ali al-Marghinaani (Sahib al-Hidaya) mentioned reports that are not found, however many of these reports are found in the works of the early Mujathids, like lmam Muhammad in his al-Asl, with Asaaneed.

In the al-Jawahir wa al-Durar of ‘Allamah al-Sakhawi there is one place where Hafiz lbn Hajar was asked regarding such books of fiqh which contain reports that we cannot find nowadays or very weak narrations, so he replied that there are three possibilities: 1. it is authentic according to him 2. The books containing those narration were destroyed during the Tatar invasion. l can’t remember the third answer he wrote, but you get the point. Finally, you should read al-Ajwiba al-Fadila of ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Laknawi he addresses a similar issue.”


The character who wrote the rubbish regarding Hidaayah is a moron. In Islamic parlance such morons who pose as ‘muftis’ are termed ‘mufti maajin’. Shaami dubs deviates and morons of this ilk, Haatibul Lail (gatherer of wood in the darkness of the night). Without the slightest hesitation we can safely contend that shaitaan has colonized the brains of this moron who dared to write his khuraafaat against the illustrious Mujtahid, Saahib-e-Hidaayah. Before having embarked on his exercise of satanism, he should have supplicated for thorns to grow on his tongue. That would have been infinitely superior than the shaitaani drivel which he has uttered.

Allaamah Zayla-ee (rahmatullah alayh) is a peanut in comparison with Saahib-e-Hidaayah. His kitaab, Nasbur Raya, has no pedestal in relation to Hidaayah.

Be assured that every Hadith which Saahib-e-Hiddayah cites as the Mustadal for any mas’alah, is a confirmed Saheeh Hadith. The illustrious Fuqaha are not subservient to the Hadith classification science of the Muhadditheen. The Fuqaha were Muhadditheen in their own right, and the Muhadditheen were subservient to them in practical implementation of the ahkaam of the Shariah. It was not the other way around.

Moron ‘muftis’ are agents of Iblees. Shaitaan has harnessed them into his nefarious plot to dismantle the Deen with the aid of juhala who have suddenly become ‘muftis’. These jaahil ‘muftis’ suffering from the hallucination of being mujtahids lack the ability of even reciting correctly the texts of the kutub. They halaalize alcohol, carrion and riba with hollow and deceptive arguments by means of which they dupe the Toms, Dicks, Harrys, Jills, Janets, and Janes. They are the wolves leading the ignorant masses to Jahannam with their corrupt ‘academic’ expertise.

Allaamah Zayla-ee’s “throwing in of the towel” is a clear admission of his knock-out defeat, and lying ignominously sprawled at the illustrious and mubaarak feet of Saahib-e-Hidaayah. If Allaamah Zayla-ee had to be reborn, he would not reach the mubaarak toes of Saahib-e-Hidaayah. His inability to locate the sources of the Ahaadith which constitute the Mustadallaat of Hidaayah, speaks volumes for his mediocrity in the stupendous field of Ilm in which Saahib-e-Hidaayah excelled and operated.

This miserable mufti maajin is too darn stupid to understand that the appearance of a Hadith in Hidaayah is by itself the highest degree of authenticity. The fact that a Hadith found its way into Hidaayah, is clear testification for its authenticity. But stultified brains are incapable of comprehending this simple fact stated by the illustrious Fuqaha. He lacks understanding of the concept of Talaqqi bil Qubool. This fellow should concentrate on gaining better expertise in the masaa-il pertaining to the rudimentary acts of Istinja.

He has not yet set foot in the kindergarten of Ilm at the higher level, yet his jahl constrains him to wag his insolent and najis tongue against a Waarith-e-Nabi of the lofty status of Saahib-e-Hidaayah.

The inability of Ibn Hajar to locate the sources of the Ahaadith casts no aspersion on the integrity of Saahib-e-Hidaayah nor detracts from the authenticity of the Ahaadith of Hidaayah. On the contrary, it illustrates the deficiency if the research of Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh). It is a monstrous stupidity to fault a Hadith on the basis of one’s deficient research or inability to locate specific information. If an authority says that “I did not or I cannot locate it”, it does no flow from this confession of ‘throwing in the towel’ that the Ahaadith cited by Saahib-e-Hidaayah are Daheef or Maudhoo’. If Zayla-ee and Ibn Hajar did not succeed in discovering the sources of the Ahaadith which Saahib-e-Hidaayah had ascertained and confirmed centuries prior to their appearance, it will then be only a moron who will contend that th Ahaadith in Hidaayah are ‘weak’ or ‘fabricated’.

Both possibibilities postulated by Allaamah Sakhaawi fully vindicate the authenticity of the Ahaadith of Hidaayah, and explain the reasons for the gross inability of the later critics in locating the sources of the Ahaadith narrated in Hidaayah.

May Allah Ta’ala save the Ummah from the villainy and shaitaaniyat of these cardboard maajin ‘muftis’ who are today available two for a cent. They are churned out like sausages.

[Mujlisul Ulama]


‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Rashīd al-Nu‘mānī (d. 1420 H) writes:

That which our Fuqahā’ – may Allāh have mercy on them – cited of hadīths and narrations in their works without describing a sanad or a source, as al-Sarakhsī (d. 490 H) does in al-Mabsūt, al-Kāsānī (d. 587) in al-Badā’i‘ and al-Marghīnānī (d. 593 H) in al-Hidāyah, these are hadīths and narrations which they found in the books of our early Imāms like al-Imām al-A‘zam (d. 150) and his two students [Abū Yūsuf and Muhammad], Ibn al-Mubārak (d. 181 H), al-Hasan al-Lu‘lu’ī (d. 204 H), Ibn Shujā‘ al-Thaljī (d. 267 H), ‘Īsā ibn Abān (d. 221), al-Khassāf (d. 261 H), al-Tahāwī (d. 321 H), al-Karkhī (d. 340 H) and al-Jassās (d. 370 H) – may Allāh (Exalted is He) have mercy on them.

Then those who sourced al-Hidāyah, al-Khulāsah and so on appeared, and they searched for these narrations in the records [of hadīths] compiled after [the year] 200 by the scholars of hadīth, and when they did not find [them] in them, they assessed them to be ‘strange’.

Some hold a bad opinion about these Imāms of the Fuqahā’, and attribute to them little knowledge of hadīth, and far-removed are they from that! How many a suspended hadīth (ta‘līq) there is of al-Bukhārī in his Sahīh on which the like of Ibn Hajar said: ‘I did not find it’, so will that which is suspected of our Hanafī masters be suspected of al-Bukhārī?! Rather, al-Sarakhsī, al-Kāsānī and al-Marghīnānī relied in this subject on their Imāms who are recognised for [their] retention (hifz), trustworthiness (thiqah) and reliability (amānah), just as al-Baghawī relied in his Masābīh on the authors of the well-known collections.

The Hāfiz of his time, Qāsim ibn Qutlūbughā (802 – 879 H), said:

“The early ones from our [Hanafī] scholars – may Allāh have mercy on them – would dictate juristic rulings and their evidences from the prophetic hadīths with their chains, like Abū Yūsuf in Kitāb al-Kharāj and al-Amālī; Muhammad in Kitāb al-Asl and al-Siyar; and likewise al-Tahāwī, al-Khassāf, [al-Jassās] al-Rāzī, al-Karkhī except in the Mukhtasars. Then those who depended on the books of the early ones came and cited the hadīths in books without clarifying the chain or the source.” (Munyat al-Alma‘ī, p. 9)

Had we wished, we would have cited many examples for you from the examples of these hadīths which those that sourced them assessed them to be ‘strange,’ while they are found in the book al-Āthār, for example, but space does not allow it.” (Al-Imām Ibn Mājah wa Kitābuhu l-Sunan, pp. 73-4)


The hadīth master and faqīh, ‘Allāmah Qāsim ibn Qutlūbughā, compiled Munyat al-Alma‘ī as an index of hadīths which al-Zayla‘ī and/or Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī could not locate in their respective works on sourcing the hadīths of al-Hidāyah, but which upon further inspection have been found to have a source. Here are a few examples:

The author of al-Hidāyah quoted the hadīth, “When the sun deviates [from its midpoint], then offer the Jumu‘ah prayer with the people.” Hāfiz al-Zayla‘ī said: “Strange”, meaning he could not locate it. Hāfiz Qāsim ibn Qutlūbughā replied: “Rather, Ibn Sa‘d narrated it in al-Tabaqāt from the hadīth of Mus‘ab ibn ‘Umayr.” (Munyat al-Alma‘ī, p 31)

The author of al-Hidāyah quoted the hadīth, “When you see anything of these horrors, take recourse to Allāh with supplication.” Hāfiz al-Zayla‘ī said: “Strange with this wording.” ‘Allāmah Qāsim replied: “Muhammad ibn al-Hasan narrated it in al-Asl from the mursal of al-Hasan [al-Basrī].” (Munyat al-Alma‘ī, p 32)

The author of al-Hidāyah quoted the hadīth, “There is no marriage except with witnesses.” Hāfiz al-Zayla‘ī said: “Strange,” and Hāfiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Aqalānī said: “I have not seen it with this wording.” ‘Allāmah Qāsim replied: “Muhammad ibn al-Hasan mentioned it as what reached him, and al-Khatīb narrated it from the hadīth of ‘Alī.” (Munyat al-Alma‘ī, p 40, 60)

The author of al-Hidāyah mentions that Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib narrated that the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) ordered the freeing of umm al-walads (female slaves who bore their masters’ children) and that they are not to be sold. Hāfiz Ibn Hajar said: “I did not find it.” ‘Allāmah Qāsim replied: “Muhammad ibn al-Hasan narrated it in al-Asl.” (Munyat al-Alma‘ī, p 61)

It is mentioned in al-Hidāyah that ‘Alī (may Allāh be pleased with him) gave the decree that if a woman besides one’s wife is brought to him and he is informed that this woman is his wife and he has intercourse with her, then there is no punishment on him but he must give her dowry. Hāfiz Ibn Hajar said: “I did not find it.” ‘Allāmah Qāsim replied: “‘Abd al-Razzāq [al-San‘ānī] narrated it.” (Munyat al-Alma‘ī, p. 61)

Describing the rank of the author of al-Hidāyah in hadīth, Mawlānā Nu‘mānī wrote in a private letter to his student, Muftī ‘Abdul Mālik of Bangladesh:

It is to be noticed that al-Laknawī counted the author of al-Hidāyah from the group that are strangers to the knowledge of hadīth, and that is incorrect. How [can this be so] when the author of al-Hidāyah compiled a list of his teachers [in hadīth] from which al-Qurashī quoted in al-Jawāhir al-Mudiyyah in many places, and I quoted them in the footnotes of al-Dirāsāt…There are many beneficial points in the biographies of the teachers of the author of al-Hidāyah in al-Jawāhir. There is the chain of the author of al-Hidāyah and a mention of his reading of the two Sahīhs, Jāmi‘ al-Tirmidhī, Sharh Ma‘ānī al-Āthār of al-Tahāwī, the Masānīd of al-Khassāf and other [hadīth collections] to his teachers.

It is established that the author of al-Hidāyah only transmitted from the books of his predecessors from the muhaddithūn of the Hanafī Fuqahā’ as is clear from reading Munyat al-Alma‘ī. In al-Hidāyah there are hadīths from al-Asl of Imām Muhammad, and his Kitāb al-Āthār, and other books of the Imāms. [Some of] these books were not under the range of al-Zayla‘ī’s and Ibn Hajar’s reading.” (Al-Madkhal ilā ‘Ulūm al-Hadīth al-Sharīf, Markaz al-Da‘wat al-Islāmiyyah, p. 103)


Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūtī said:

“The hadīth which al-Rāfi‘ī cited, we did not find a sanad for it. Nor is it found in the books of hadīth available now. The late Huffāz say of the like of this, “It has no basis.” The scrupulous [of them] suffice with their statement, “We did not find it,” which is better. It has reached me that Hāfiz Ibn Hajar was asked about these hadīths which our Imāms and the Hanafī Imāms cite in Fiqh [works] drawing evidence from them and are not known in the books of hadīth, so he answered: “Many of the books of hadīth, or most of them, have been lost in the eastern lands due to civil wars. Perhaps those hadīths were transmitted in them and they have not reached us.” (Quoted in Al-Madkhal ilā ‘Ulūm al-Hadīth al-Sharīf, p. 93)

The Early Fuqaha Had Their Own Chains For The Hadith, Many Of Which May Not Have Reached Us

The jurist (faqih) may cite an evidence which is the evidence of the Imam himself, and it is reported in a hadith book of the later hadith scholars who came after the time of the Imams of the schools of law, such as the 4 Sunan, Masanid, Mujam works etc. The hadith scholar adjudges it to be weak based on its chain of narration, or perhaps even fabricated, thus it cannot be acted upon with this chain of narration.

However at the same time that this hadith has been reported by the Imam with his own specific chain of narration which is Sahih or can be relied upon, but this Sahih chain is not mentioned in the hadith collection you have in front of you.

So someone comes along in the twentieth century and analyses the hadith from the route of the muhaddithin in their books, and finds that the hadith cannot be relied upon, so he will hurry to criticize and find fault with the ruling in the madhab which is based on this hadith. But if he looks in the works of the Imams he will find that the very same hadith has reached us with a Sahih or Hasan chain of narration.

A Misunderstanding Which Leads To Harbouring Bad Opinion Of The Madhabs

The lack of comprehending the previous point has caused some to harbour a bad opinion of the madhahib for when they checked the hadith mentioned in the books they may see the scholars of hadith classifying many of the hadith as: ‘fabricated, weak or not known in a marfu form’.

Thus the they think that these ahadith are from the deductions of the Imam of the Madhab himself, which then leads to the doubt of: ‘How can we accept the leadership in religious matters and Ijtihad for someone who deduces from fabricated and weak narrations, and attributes to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) the statement which are actually the words of a companion (sahabi) of follower (tabiee)?’.

Example Of A Hanafi Ruling Which Has A Sahih Chain From The Imam But Was Only Discovered Later

An example to illustrate the above point is the following: Al-Marghinani mentions in al-Hidayah (4:139) with its commentary Fath al-Qadir the hadith:

“Ward off the legal punishments (hudud) due to doubts”.

He mentions that it is marfu, it was referenced by al-Zaylai in Nasb al-Rayah (3:333) in a mawquf form from Sayyidina Umar, Muadh ibn Jabal, Uqbah bin Amir, and in the chain of narration to them is Ibn Abi Farukh, and he is abandoned as a narrator, and from al-Zuhri, and he is follower (Tabi) whose words are not a proof.

Due to this weakness Ibn Hazm attacked these narrations in al-Muhalla, but the was refuted by Kamal Ibn al-Hummam in Fath al-Qadir, for he established for the hadith its meaning from another hadith mentioned in the two Sahih’s that:

“He (Allah bless him and give him peace) said to Maiz: perhaps you (only) kissed, perhaps you (only) touched, perhaps you (only) winked/signalled”.

The fine point Ibn al-Hummam is making here is that the first hadith which is supposedly weak is supported in meaning by this second hadith where the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is trying to ward off implementing the legal punishment. Thus Ibn al-Hummam established the authenticity of the first narration from the same meaning implicit in the second.

The Authentic Chain For This Hadith Found With Imam Abu Hanifah Although The Well Known Chains For It Are Weak, And Was Missed By Many Hadith Specialists

The hadith mentioned by al-Marghinani which al-Zaylai declared weak in marfu form is however narrated by Imam Abu Hanifah in his Musnad (p.32), its chain of narration being:

“From Miqasam from Ibn Abbas that he said: The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said…”.

Miqasam is trustoworthy (thiqah), he was declared trustworthy by Ahmad bin Salih al-Misri, al-Ijli, Yaqub bin Sufyan and al-Darqutni.

There is no other Sahih chain of narration for this hadith except this one of Imam Abu Hanifah. So from this example we learn that the Imams had their own specific chains of narrations which are not often referred to when referencing ahadith.

So look at this example and take note. The Hafidh of hadith al-Zaylai could not not find this Sahih chain, and Ibn al-Hummam who was a great hadith scholar himself did not abandon the position of his madhab just because he couldn’t find a Sahih chain for this narration, rather he tried to look and see if there was anything which could be used as a proof for the position of the Imam, he did not abandon the position of the madhab as some nowadays would have done, but rather stuck with the madhab and in the end was borne out as being correct, whilst the Hadith which Saahib al-Hidaya qouted which eluded ALL the later Muhaddithun (e.g. Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Hadi, 7th Century, branded it an outright fabrication) turned out to be completely Saheeh!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.