KR

More from al-Bahr: weak hadiths can be used as evidence for the principles of Usul al-Fiqh.

In this work by the late Sh. Khalil Mulla Khatir (رحمه الله), in the course of defending acting on weak hadiths, he makes the very odd claim that a weak hadith is one that most likely is correctly attributed to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم (i.e. with ghalabat al-zann). Now, I would assume he acknowledges that while some sahih (or hasan) hadiths might reach the level of certainty in their attribution (qat'i al-thubut), he would agree that they are also only reach the level of ghalabat al zann. In that case, we can assume that the difference between an authentic hadith and a weak hadith for him is only one of degree, that is: the degree of ghalabat al zann produced by one is higher than the other. This creates a rather strange dilemma. If we accept his claim that weak hadiths by default produce ghalabat al zann of authenticity, then weak hadiths should all be a hujjah (except those that contradict something stronger), because there is agreement of the Usuliyyin to that acting on ghalabat al zann is binding. In other words, if you believe that it is most likely that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said or did something, your ijtihad must necessarily take it into account, whether that means acting on its apparent meaning, or interpreting it in a fashion that brings it in line with other evidences. As far as I'm aware, no one has ever made such a claim concerning the hujjiyah of weak hadiths,* and I can only presume the author himself is not arguing that all weak hadiths be treated generally as a hujjah. This betrays the author's very poor understanding of what classical scholars meant by acting on weak hadiths, particularly in fada'il al-a'mal. This is not to mention that it raises the question of what exactly he thinks a weak hadith is and what makes it weak? *Unless someone attempts to latch on to stray statements from here or there that have been misunderstood or misquoted, or are just plain errors by muqallids who have erred in trying to explain the position of the imam(s) they are making taqlid of.

This is an attack on the hujjiyah of Ijma disguised as a defense of it. Al-Bahr seems to imply that all the Ulama accepted Ijma on the basis of weak hadiths. Perhaps he is unaware that Usul al-Fiqh require qat'i evidence to establish. Perhaps he is also unaware that some Usulis rejected these hadiths being the basis of the Hujjiyah of Ijma. Perhaps he is also unaware that those who did use these hadiths tried to argue that they collectively reach the level of tawatur (therefore, being qat'i al-thubut). It seems al-Bahr is determined to weaken all the foundations of the Shari'a if need be in order to have his cake and eat it too.

هذه زيادة في القاعدة المشهورة: الحديث الضعيف يعمل به في فضائل الأعمال وفي أصول الفقه 🤔

From what has been shared, this is defence of Awwamah - masquerading as an objective assessment of Awwamah and Yusufi - is a masterpiece in gaslighting and both-siding. It is terrible.

Another recent entry into the playing field on this topic is this book.

In his book on weak hadith however, when it comes time to explain what Muslim means by الستارة في ناقليه in the introduction to his Sahih, he gives the fanciful explanation that he means mastur in the sense of (العدل الظاهر خفي الباطن). Aside from the fact that this is an absurd understanding of Muslim's intent that has no scholarly precedent, it even contradicts his own meticulous explanation of the term which he references!

In his book on weak hadith however, when it comes time to explain what Muslim means by الستارة في ناقليه in the introduction to his Sahih, he gives the fanciful explanation that he means mastur in the sense of العدل الظاهر خفي الباطن! Aside from the fact that this is an absurd understanding of Muslim's intent

Sh Awwamah's discussion from Dirasat al Kashif explaining that mastur is frequently used by early scholars in the sense of praise for a person's character and do does not indicate any weakness, not in the istilahi sense used by later scholars indicating adalah fil zahir while his batin adalah is unknown.

Ironically, Sh Awwamah managed to even misquote himself in this book.

For the record, I respect Sh Awwamah for his excellent tahqiq work, and the vast learning he displays in his own writings (though I would not call him an Allamah). I have personally witnessed on multiple occasions Sh Hatim praise his works and recommend them in spite of having very fundamental differences with him (the issue of using weak hadith is just one of those differences... even more problematic is the notion that each madhab should be seen as existing in a silo with its own unique methodology of hadith criticism that is above critique). With that said, his book on the issue of weak hadiths is objectively terrible. He has misunderstood or misrepresented almost every single scholar he quotes in the book as has been meticulously demonstrated by Sh Zakariyya al Yusufi in his book: الجواب اللطيف على كتاب الشيخ محمد عوامة حكم العمل بالحديث الضعيف https://alasadiah.com/ar/qQKloAb I highly recommend those who are interested in the topic read Sh Awwamah's book and then read Yusufi's book. While doing so, try to compare his critique of each point with the original. As for the book by ARK, I will reserve final judgement on whether it is even worth reading until I have completed it.

Debate is raging in Hadith circles over who is worse on the issue of weak hadith: Ahmad Raza Khan or Muhammad Awwamah. My personal view is that they are terrible in equal measure, though this can vary on the specifics. Whatever the case, the comparison is warranted. Whether they like it or not, this is a despair for both the pro-ARK crowd and the pro-Awwamah crowd.

Watered Down Studies and The Role of Ulama in Society A student once transferred in to Dar Ul Uloom Deoband for his Dawrah al Hadith year. Because he had done his earlier studies elsewhere, they required him to pass exams in the various subjects before he could sit with the final year students in Deoband. He was shocked at how simple the exam on Sharh Al Aqaid Nasafiyyah was. It literally consisted of a few questions on miracles. This is just one example of dozens that we have witnessed. Over the past several decades, the madaris have been operating like soup kitchens, feeding and clothing the poorest rung of society. The same phenomenon is occurring in Egypt and other Arab countries. It is therefore no surprise that we see atheism continue to spread and we see so called Muftis and Allamas and Pirs not able to answer simple questions on Creed. The majority of the popular speakers are not actual ulama, they have tens of millions of followers, their speeches are littered with mistakes. For Barelvis, see the errors by Irfan Shah, Kokab Noorani Okarvi, Ilyas Qadri etc for Deobandis, see Ilyas Ghumman, Tariq Masood, Tariq Jameel. It is these types of people who provide ammo to the likes of Engineer Mirza. Third rate low IQ atheists like Richard Dawkins and Noah Yuval Harari are having their books becoming popular in the Muslim world. Alongside the decline in the rational sciences, the same is true for other fields. Just check all the laughable fatawa given regarding Fiqh, Hadith, Tafsir, Tassawuf and other topics from “Dar al Ifta” boards across the world. Everything is watered down. There are still promising students and graduates at every institute but they are the exception to the rule. There are ulama who still teach properly in the subcontinent but they are not well known to the masses. If a scholar has studied the Dars Nizami curriculum properly and has studied a work such as Sharh al Aqaid properly, he should have no issue dealing with any objections to Islam. But the reality is that most madrasahs focus on quantity over quality. They are mass producing “Molvis” who will barely be qualified to lead the prayers in a small village. A real aalim is (similar to the gentleman scholars in various ancient civilizations) a public intellectual. He is the voice of reason and guidance for his society in all affairs. Sadly most of our scholarly class is out of touch both with Islamic knowledge and “Dunyawi” knowledge.

Lynching someone for alleged blasphemy is one of the few outlets left for insignificant men to feel like they’re being big guys in a world where their identity is politically irrelevant. It’s the highest form of riya’ around today for a third world Muslim male, as it’s never actually done out of fanatical love for the Prophet ﷺ. ‎Not a single male among them would enforce it if the perpetrator was a city official who can hold back the welfare benefits to his 12 cousins. In that case all the excuses would come pouring in, all of a sudden they’ll transform into nuanced qadis and demand fair trial and investigation. Disgusting form of stolen valor and false attribution of “faith”.

General Ayub Khan and Mufti Muhammad Shafi Uthmani This above clip is a classic example of how out of touch the scholarly class in Pakistan is. Maulana Khadim Rizwi represented the Barelwi crowd, but you’ll find similar statements coming from Deobandi ulama as well. This is why the great Mufti Muhammad Shafi (the father of Mufti Taqi) once told the Pakistani dictator Ayub Khan that “The scholarly class/maulvis are not ready to take over politically. If they did the country would be in even more chaos.” As mentioned previously and seen recently with continued abuse of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, Pakistani society has deep issues that need to be resolved. The ulama have to first fulfill their role in re-educating the masses. Otherwise the extremists will continue their nonsense and more of the sensible awaam will be drawn to idiots like Javed Ghamidi and Engineer Mirza. The watering down of madaris (more on this later) and turning them into soup kitchens, blind conformity to their own manhaj/tariqah, and lack of knowledge of real life, has played a big role in the scholarly class of Pakistan becoming (with a few rare exceptions) a caricature of what scholars should be. Instead of gentleman scholars who act as public intellectuals, Pakistan’s scholarly class relies on emotions and slogans. This is a symptom found in Ikhwani circles as well. All these folk would do well to actually learn history and understand how nations were actually run. Simply getting into power and saying that “Islam will fix everything”, doesn’t help when they have no clue how to organize a society or actually practically implement Sharia. It’s all well and good using the names of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, Salahuddin Ayyubi, or the Ottomans or Aurangzeb etc. But the ulama should first study what exactly made these and other pious predecessors so great.

How a Jewish German woman in NY became America's first major crime boss in 1859 | The Times of Israel https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-a-jewish-german-woman-in-ny-became-americas-first-major-crime-boss-in-1859/