Salafi Research Institute SRI
by
Abu Khuzaimah Ansari
Ahmad Shamil in an article attempted to prove Shaykh Irshad al-Haq distorted the words of as-Samarqandi in his article Did as-Samarqandi say rafay yadain nullifies salah? (Irshad ul Haq Athari’s tahreef) on Hanafiyya wordpress and Darul Tahqiq copying them, published it on their site. I did not expect this level of presentation for this unwarranted allegation of tahrif, and even they know it’s not tahrif.
Ahmad Shamil’s scathing allegation is that Shaykh Irshad distorted as-Samarqandi’s words and put words into his mouth while he in turn was quoting Imam Abu Hanifah! So, merely on account of this, Ahmad Shamil echoes this charge.
Firstly
You can clearly read Shaykh Irshad saying, “Faqih Abu Layth as-Samarqandi has clearly written…” because as-Samarqandi did write this in his book. Shaykh Irshad chose the words “has clearly written” opposed to “he clearly said”. So, Shaykh Irshad was very precise in what he was implying. However, the brother missed this point because he was too busy juggling the word “Tahreef”.
Secondly
He says, “Also one must note that as-Samarqani quoted it saying روى عن which is “sighah al-tamreedh” and a way to point towards weakness of the narration.” So, if as-Samarqandi alluded to its weakness it means he was in doubt of its attribution to Imam Abu Hanifah. However as-Samarqandi is the one who transmitted it to the world and the readers. So, If Shaykh Irshad al-Haq was also aware of this sighah, it would be natural for him to say “Faqih Abu Layth as-Samarqandi has clearly written.” So, is this your appreciation of Shaykh Irshad al-Haq for not attributing this statement to Imam Abu Hanifah and giving him the benefit of doubt?
Thirdly
He says, “In his work Irshad al Haqq Athari in asserting that scholars of the four established schools of Islamic fiqh have gone to extremes in issues of furoo’..” Shaykh Irshad summarised as-Samarqandi’s speech and you clearly see this from the Urdu summary of the Arabic. Ahmad Shamil clearly knew this, this is clear like the day, yet he wanted to pass this off as a tahrif of the Shaykh. This is common when quoting lengthy passages as the point is to usually convey the intended meaning or comprehension. Surely as Muslims we should know better.
Fourthly
This is clearly a view which as-Samarqandi believed in. He first says, “Qalu” as in they say, meaning the elders and authorities of the Hanafi madhhab and that this is their view and by default also his. He mentions these scenarios and reasons in which the Hanafis can pray behind the Shafi’s. He then proceeds to mention raising the hands also nullifies the prayer, the only difference this time is that he mentions it through Makhul from Imam Abu Hanifah. So the question is, did as-Samarqandi hold this view? Yes, of course he did. What is the problem then when Shaykh Irshad said, “Faqih Abu Layth as-Samarqandi has clearly written.”
Fifthly
He says, “What he has done here is to put into the mouth of a seasoned Hanafi jurist what he merely stated as a report from Imam Abu Hanifa through Makhul an-Nasafi.” This is a very poor line or argument to begin with. It would make more sense to have said this was Imam Abu Hanifah’s view because he is “the most seasoned Hanafi jurist” and it would further support and strengthen Shaykhs Irshad’s view and the point he was trying to make. Why would he settle for a lesser point. Obviously this does not make sense.
Sixthly
We are not concerned with what other Hanafi scholars have had to say about his issue, as this is an internal matter for the Ahnaf to deal with. He said, “Shaykh al-Lucknawi has mentioned the names of multiple renowned jurists who have not accepted that word.” This is besides the point and what al-Lucknowi or others said. This is a matter for your house to resolve. In fact, al-Lucknowi offered a detailed discussion in as-Si’ayah fi Kashf ma-fi Sharh al-Wiqayah (2/150-151), (Deoband: Maktabah Shaykh ul-Hindh, Faisal Publications, 1427H).
He does refute this incident in his al-Fawa’id al-Bahiyyah fee Tarajim al-Hanafiyyah (1/401 under no. 244) (Riyadh/ Cairo: Dar Ibn al-Qayyim/Dar Ibn Affan, 1441/2020) and alludes to it elsewhere under Makhul’s entry in detail. (al-Fawa’id al-Bahiyyah (2/197 no.479).
And did the brother not read in al-Fawa’id al-Bahiyyah fee Tarajim al-Hanafiyyah how Amir Katib al-Itqani attributed this view to Imam Abu Hanifah from Makhul (1/194 no.90). So, it was your own scholars who continued to use this report for centuries even until Amir Katib’s time. So, a sharp exit through al-Lucknowi is not as honourable as you might want to think.
The contention was a Hanafi jurist and mufti held this view, the view of raising hands nullifies the salah and thus the salah of the Hanafi behind the Shafi’ is null and void, this was the point. It would be pointless to even share books which Hanafi scholars wrote advocating raising hands in prayer. This is not the discussion brother.
To then conclude, Shaykh Athari summarised as-Samarqandi’s words and mentioned the issue of the prayer being invalid if the hands were raised. As-Samarqandi held this view himself as he mentions it with the discussion when a Hanafi can pray behind a Shafi’ and that before him al-Makhul attributed this view to Imam Abu Hanifah.
Let us take a moment here and ask, was it not as-Samarqandi’s work which mentioned the following while transmitting from Ibn Abbas RadhiAllahu Anhuma,
There will light be after the Prophet and his kunyah will be Abu Hanifah and he will revive the religion of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam. Anas RadhiAllahu Anhu said Allah’s Messenger Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam said, there will be a man at the end of times with the kunyah Abu Hanifah who will revive the religion of Allah and my sunnah… (an-Nawazil (p.378) (Hyderabad: Matba’a Shams al-Islamiyyah, 1355H/1936).
Whether this addition is not from the author or if someone else added it, it has remained in his book, read and seen since its publication, and this edition was published around 1936, i.e for almost 90 years. Is this not a distortion of the religion?
Honest and sincere advice would be to rectify your own house before accusing others of distortion!
