Q. I have read in Aqeedatut Tahaawi and also in Mullah Ali Qaari’s commentary of Fiqhul Akbar that the Ahlus Sunnah perform Salaat behind a man even if he is a faajir (immoral). However, I do not perform Salaat behind these deviant Salafis in prison because Az-Zabeedi’ Al-Hanafi said that Salaat behind the Ahl-e-Hawa is Laa Ya jooz (not permissible).
Please explain the conflict between our Hanafi Scholars on this issue.
A. What you have read in Aqeedatut Tahaawi and Fiqhul Akbar is correct. That is the belief and practice of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. It is the official position.
Regarding Az-Zabeedi’s statement, firstly, it does not say that Salaat behind the Ahle-Bid’ah is invalid. It says: ‘La tajooz’ which does not mean ‘invalid’. The statement says that one should not perform Salaat behind them. Secondly, his advice is in conflict with the Jamhoor Fuqaha of the Ahnaaf.. Thus, we do not make amal on the obscure and rare opinion. Whilst we do not intentionally seek out a Bid’ati to follow in Salaat, nevertheless if we are in a situation where the Imaam is from among the Ahl-e-Hawa (people of nafsaani desire/deviates), then we do not perform our Salaat alone. We join the Jamaat. In Musjdul Haraam in Makkah, and in Musjidun Nabawi in Madinah, the Imaams are generally Salafi. We join the Jamaat and perform Salaat behind them, and this is in accord with the Aqeedah stated in all our kutub of Aqeedah as you are aware. Thus, you may not utilize AzZabeedi’s version to cancel the clear-cut ruling of the Jamhoor Fuqaha of the Ahnaaf. Salafis (Wahhaabis) are astray, but they are Muslims. We perform Salaat even behind them. However, if a Salafi who makes masah on ordinary socks leads the Salaat, and if we are aware of it, then we repeat the Salaat we had performed behind him, not because we believe him to be a
kaafir, but because his wudhu is not valid.
Q. Salafis propagate that it is kufr to make ta’weel (to interpret) the allegorical Qur’aanic verses whereas according to the Ahlus Sunnah it is permissible and sometimes even necessary to resort to ta’weel. I find it difficult to appropriately interpret certain aayat.
A. You are not qualified to resort to Ta’weel. If you do not understand anything, seek guidance from the Ulama and do not distort any meaning with unqualified interpretation.
This can be dangerous for Imaan. Even the Muqallideen Ulama do not resort to Ta’weel. We merely narrate the Ta’weelaat (interpretations) of the senior Ulama of bygone times. The Arabic text which you have quoted in your question No.5, clearly instructs you to refer to the Ulama who understand these issues.
Q. I am a follower of the Shaafi’ Math-hab. However, for certain reasons I am inclining to the Hanafi Mathhab. Please offer some advice.
A. You will be justified to come over to the Hanafi Mathhab, only if you lack expert guidance in the Shaafi’ Mathhab of which you are a follower. You may adopt the Hanafi
Math-hab only for a genuine Deeni reason, not for any worldly reason. If it is to gain sound knowledge for the purpose of practising, then your adoption of the Hanafi Mathhab will be correct. In fact, Imaam Tahaawi too was at one stage a Shaafi’. Later he accepted the Hanafi Math-hab.

Q. Regarding Taqdeer, I have read that the Taqdeer which does not change is called Taqdeer Mubram (Conformed Taqdeer). But Taqdeer Muallaq (Impending Taqdeer) Can change with Dua. Could you expound these concepts?
A. Even Taqdeer Muallaq is an integral part of the allembracing, eternal Taqdeer of Allah Azza Wa Jal. The Mubram-Muallaq exposition is a weak attempt to logically explain what is inexplicable due to its eternal dimension. In other words, in eternity Allah Ta’ala has always been aware that a certain act a million years hence will be changed and substituted with another decree. Brother, this is an issue which should not be probed in depth. The more you probe it, the more intricate and difficult it becomes. Created minds cannever encompass the eternal meanings of eternal issues – issues related to the Zaat and Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala. You tread dangerous ground when you attempt to enter into this minefield. Neither can we explain such issues satisfactorily, nor will we understand these issues in entirety even after entering Jannat.

Q. Why are there so much difference among the Scholars on these issues of Aqeedah?
A. All the finer and subtle transcendental issues pertaining to Aqeedah, Allah’s Zaat and Sifaat – issues on which the Qur’aan, the Ahaadith and the Aathaar of the Sahaabah are silent, are products of the human mind. Thus, the opinions of the Scholars on such issues are essentially the products of their minds, not the products of Wahi. Differences are therefore natural and logical. Thus, the principle is always to find a reconciliation between the conflicting statements of the senior Scholars of the valid  Mathhabs.



The Hanafi Madh-hab is the first among the four schools of thought. The Madhhab was developed very early and it had numerous followers from the pious predecessors (Salaf). Imam Abu Hanifa, himself a Tabi’i, had a panel of forty of his students where issues were discussed and the results compiled. This was the first Fiqh Academy in history. Imam Abu Hanifa was the first to compile juristic verdicts into different chapters. [See for example: Al-Khawarizmi, Jami’ al-Masaneed 1/34 and Al-Makki, Manaqib Abi Hanifa 2/131]

In this brief article, we will give a few examples of such pious predecessors who expressed their affiliations and adhered to the Hanafi Madhhab.
Hafidh Ibn Hajar said in the biography of Shu’ayb ibn Is-haq ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman ad-Dimashqi al-Umawi (118-189 H), a narrator in both Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim: “He narrated from his father and Abu Hanifa and he adopted his Madhhab (Tamadhhaba lahu).” [Tahdhib at-Tahdhib 4/347-348]
After quoting this saying, Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwama adds: “So, adhering to Madhhab is something ancient (Qadeem).” [Annotations on Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba 20/7]

Another example of those following the Hanafi Madhhab is Waqi’ ibn al-Jarrah (127-196 H). He was among the teachers of Imam Ash-Shafi’i and from the narrators of both Al-Bukhari and Muslim in their respective Sahihs. Imam Yahya ibn Ma’īn said about him: “I have not seen the like of Waki’ and he would give Fatwa according to the opinions of Abu Hanifa.” [Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Al-Intiqa 211]

Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan (120-198 H), the master and authority in Hadith criticism was a staunch follower of the Hanafi Madhhab. He said: “We do not lie in front of Allah. We have not heard any better opinions than that of Abu Hanifa and we have adopted most of his opinions.” [Al-Khatib, Tarikh Baghdad 15/474]

There are many such examples. Citing all these will be difficult in this brief article. Only in Sahih al-Bukhari, the number of students of Imam Abu Hanifa and those adhering to his Madh-hab rose to one hundred and fifteen narrators. Shaykh Mufid ar-Rahman compiled an entire book of four hundred and seventy-nine pages on these Hanafi narrators in Sahih al-Bukhari which he entitled “Al-Warda al-Haadira fi Ahadith Talaamidh al-Imam al-‘Adham wa Ahadith ‘Ulama al-Ahnaf fi al-Jami’ as-Sahih lil Imam al-Bukhari”.
The Madh-hab of Imam Abu Hanifa thus started spreading during the time of the pious predecessors and was accepted from this blessed early era of Islam. So, there is no reason why people of this age cannot make the Taqlid of Imam Abu Hanifa. The criticism usually facing the Hanafi followers in the name of the Salaf in recent days are thus baseless.



The wayward Salafis who have lost the Straight Path of the Sunnah, thus deviating into error manifest, contend that the four raka’ts Sunnat Salaat which Hanafis perform before the Jumuah Khutbah have no basis in the Sunnah. In this brief treatise, we have, Alhamdulillah, scuppered the fallacy of their baseless arguments.

Ibn Taimiyyah, the imam of the Salafis, appeared on the scene more than six centuries after the Sahaabah. During these six or more centuries, the Ummah had not lost the knowledge and practice of the Ibaadaat taught by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Sahaabah had imparted this knowledge to their Students, the Taa-bieen who in turn transmitted this knowledge to their Students, the illustrious Aimmah Mujtahideen among whom the foremost was Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh).

Ibaadat is not fixed by Qiyaas (analogical reasoning). Ibaadat is by the direct ta’leem of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah. It is therefore preposterous to assume that all the great personalities of Islam during the Taabieen and Tab-e-Taabieen ages, centuries before Ibn Taimiyyah, were unaware of the raka’ts which accompany every Salaat.

The moron Salafis are in effect implying that for more than six centuries since the time of the Sahaabah, the Ummah was unaware of the details of the Ibaadat of Jumuah Salaat, and a chap such as Ibn Taimiyyah popping up many centuries after the Sahaabah, unearthed the correct ibaadat form which had been lost after the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The morons who claim that Imaam Abu Hanifah had erred in this mas’alah are implying that the great Sahaabi Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) who had commanded the four raka’ts and on whose authority the Ahnaaf act, had in fact erred. In other words, Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu), in terms of the Salafi implication did not have the proper knowledge of Jumuah Salaat. This is the ludicrous and logical conclusion of the claim of the moron Salafis.

The case of the Hanafi Math-hab regarding the four raka’ts Sunnatul Muakkadah before the Jumuah Khutbah, rests on a formidable array of Saheeh (Authentic) Hadith narrations. That the Salafis and their neo-Salafi stooges – fall-outs from the Math-habs – remain unaware of the Hanafi evidences despite their 14 century existence, testifies for the jahaalat of the deviates.

Presenting the evidence for one’s view is inadequate for establishing rectitude and the truth. There is an imperative need to rationally neutralize the arguments of the adversary as well. Minus this, the basis for one’s claim is superficial, lacking in veracity.

Whilst the Salafis present Ahaadith for their contention that the four raka’ts before the Khutbah are not Sunnah, they miserably fail to counter and neutralize the Dalaa-il of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh). The unbiased Muslim in search of Haqq will not fail to understand the firmness and strength of the Hanafi Math-hab on this issue if he studies the Dalaa-il which are presented here.

(1) Abdur Razzaaq narrates from Thauri who narrates from Ataa’ Bin As-Saaib, who narrates from Abu Abdur Rahmaan As-Sulami who said:

‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) used to instruct us to perform four raka’ts before Jumuah and four raka’ts after Jumuah.”

(Musannaf Abdur Razzaaq)

Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah and a Refutation of the Madaakhilah


Islaam is a perfect Deen. Allaah Ta`aalaa states this in the Qur’aan Kareem:


الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِيْنَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِيْ وَرَضِيْتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِيْناً

{“On this day I have perfected your Deen, completed My Favour upon you and chosen for you Islaam as your Deen.”} [Soorah al-Maa’idah, 5:3]

When something is perfect, there can be no alterations to it: no additions or subtractions, as additions and subtractions are only necessary when something is imperfect, in order to make it better. Allaah Ta`aalaa revealed a Perfect Deen and it is impossible for anyone to “improve it”.

Furthermore, Allaah Ta`aalaa also promised to protect this Deen, and this promise is repeated several times in the Qur’aan Kareem:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

{“Verily, We revealed Adh-Dhikr (the Qur’aan Kareem) and We are its Protectors.”} [Soorah al-Hijr, 15:9]

And Allaah Ta`aalaa says:

يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَيَأْبَى اللَّهُ إِلَّا أَنْ يُتِمَّ نُورَهُ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ

{“They (the Kuffaar and Munaafiqeen) desire to extinguish the Noor of Allaah (the Deen of Islaam) with their mouths, but Allaah refuses except to perfect His Noor even though the Kaafiroon detest it.”} [Soorah at-Tawbah, 9:32]

And Allaah Ta`aalaa says:

يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَاللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ


{“They (the Kuffaar and Munaafiqeen) desire to extinguish the Noor of Allaah (the Deen of Islaam) with their mouths, but Allaah shall perfect His Noor even though the Kaafiroon detest it.”} [Soorah as-Saff, 61:8]
Allaah Ta`aalaa gave this Perfect Deen to Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم, and it is perfect from every imaginable aspect, be it in terms of the `Aqeedah of Islaam, or the Sharee`ah of Islaam, or the Akhlaaq, Mu`aamalaat (business dealings) and Mu`aasharaat (social etiquettes) taught by Islaam, or the aspect of Tasawwuf/Tazkiyah/Sulook. Every single aspect of this Deen was perfect in the very lifetime of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم, and Sahaabah-e-Kiraam رضوان الله عليهم inherited this Perfect Deen from Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم, and they were the best of heirs, protecting and preserving every aspect of the Deen with their lives and their wealth.

From Sahaabah-e-Kiraam رضوان الله عليهم, it then passed down to their students: the Taabi`een, and they were shining stars. The Taabi`een passed this Deen on to their students: the Atbaa`-ut-Taabi`een (the followers of the Taabi`een). This entire era of Sahaabah-e-Kiraam, Taabi`een and Atbaa`-ut-Taabi`een is known as the Khayr-ul-Quroon (Best of Times), and they were known as the Salaf-us-Saaliheen (The Pious Predecessors). The `Ulamaa who lived in this era dedicated their entire lives to the protection and imparting of this Deen.

The Atbaa`-ut-Taabi`een passed the Deen on to their students, who passed it on to their Students, and so on and so forth, down the 1,440 years of Islaam until it reached us today. At no point in this glorious History of Islaam was the Deen ever “lost”. No part of the Deen was ever “lost”, not even what people would consider “minute”, let alone the most important part, which was the `Aqeedah (Beliefs) of Islaam.

The idea that Islaam has been lost for a thousand years only to emerge when some “Imaam” emerges from some pit is a ridiculous Shi`a belief which no Muslim would ever pay heed to. Yet, the Salafis peddle a similar belief when they attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of people and have them believe that after the time of the Salaf, the entire Ummah lost the true `Aqeedah and it only re-emerged with Imaam  ibn Taymiyyah. Then, after Imaam ibn Taymiyyah passed away it was again lost until Muhammad  ibn `Abdil Wahhaab an-Najdi brought back the “true `Aqeedah of the Salaf”.

The false ideas peddled by the Salafis resulted and continue to result in argumentation, fights and confusion the world over, and it prompted one brother to request a clarification on these issues, and that is what we will attempt to do in this brief Kitaab, In Shaa Allaah.

A Salafi by the name of Abu Iyaad Amjad Rafiq, who is a Madkhali living in Birmingham, wrote a series of articles on, a very well-known Madkhali Salafi website, and in these articles he shamelessly attacks the Ash`ari and Maatureedi Madhaahib of `Aqeedah which have been followed by the Muslim Ummah for over a thousand years. This is no surprise, because according to many Salafis, the Ash`aris and Maatureedis are in fact Kuffaar and are in the same category as the Raafidhah. There are explicit texts from their scholars unequivocally proclaiming this, thus no one should dismiss this as an exaggeration. Later in this Kitaab, we shall present some of these statements, In Shaa Allaah.

The brother has requested clarification on some of the issues posed by the Salafis and by Abu Iyaad in particular, in these articles of his.

Time is very short and most people are too busy to invest much of it into reading very lengthy refutations, thus we intend to keep this rebuttal concise and avoid dragging it out unnecessarily, so that people may be able to read, understand and benefit, In Shaa Allaah.

In this book, we will briefly discuss the following issues:

  1. Who are the Madkhalis?
  2. Answering the Brother’s Questions
  3. Refuting a Baatil Article
  4. A Brief Biography of Imaam al-Ash`ari
  5. A Brief Biography of Imaam al-Maatureedi
  6. The Praises of the `Ulamaa for Imaam al-Ash`ari and Imaam al-Maatureedi
  7. The Vast Majority of the Ummah were Ash`aris or Maatureedis
  8. The Anthropomorphism (Tajseem) of the Salafis
  9. The Salaf Were Not Mujassimah (Anthropomorphists)
  10. The Contradictions of the Heads of Salafiyyah
  11. Conclusion


May Allaah Ta`aalaa make this effort a means of benefit to us and to all of those who read it, and may Allaah Ta`aalaa accept it,

آمين يا رب العالمين

Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah and a Refutation of the Madaakhilah_booklet

Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah and a Refutation of the Madaakhilah