refuting nooruddin on imam azam's supposed "mistake"

[abu Hasan]

a brother sent me the clip and tagged: "tahir 2.0"

===
https://youtube.com/shorts/M_7TFkrelJA?si=hvgFnNfH3D9ncMik

ignorance written all on his stupid face. apparently he has been studying hanafi madh'hab for 25 years and the oh so cheesy: "i have come across only one case where abu hanifah got it wrong.." so full of himself.

this clown gives the impression as if he is some authority on the hanafi madh'hab or that he has extensive reading of the madh'hab. he can prove us wrong by starting lessons on uqud al-durriyyah by tomorrow to demonstrate his proficiency - or even better translate it with explanations from other texts where necessary to prove his merit. else it is just hot air.

i would dare him to translate "ajlaa al-iylam" (as it is in arabic) but it is far higher than his pay-grade; given the quality of this student who doesn't have basic manners, one would think he is not fortunate to have sat with a proper teacher. anyway, he can mention which books of usul he has read - how many commentaries on manar he has perused or whether he has even peeked into ashbaah.

we must read the tafsir of verse 188 of surah aal imran and fear Allah. nas'alu Allah al aafiyah.

reading fatawa ridawiyyah, especially the first five volumes will be an eye-opener to anyone who deludes himself of being a 'faqih' or 'mufti'. after mufti fazl subhan hafizahullah was mentioned recently, i searched for his videos and found some very good videos. those who would like to get a taste of ajlaa al iylaam should watch the mufti course hazrat has conducted 13 yrs ago.

entire playlist:

---
alahazrat, imam ahmad rida khan with his encyclopedic knowledge of hanafi fiqh - mentions the slips of ulama and imams with utmost respect - and when he has to correct or add to it, he does so without being derisive or bigging up himself. this is the adab necessary to benefit from elders.

 

[abu Hasan]

in the video NR (nooruddin rashid) says:

i've been studying the hanafi madh'hab for almost 25 years. i've only come across one ruling where abu hanifah got it wrong because of not knowing a hadith. abu hanifah at other times, we as hanafis believe that he got it wrong, because the opinion is not his, we go with the sahibayn, but that is for other considerations.

but only one situation i have come across - abu hanifah, he said it's makruh, for a fasting person to take a cold shower - well cold bath, back in the day, or wrap himself with a cold garment.

he said it is makruh, he didn't go terribly wrong, he didn't say it breaks your fast or anything; but he did make a mistake. hanafi madh'hab said, there is a hadith of the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, where he was fasting and he wrapped himself in a wet garment.​

---
any serious student of fiqh and hadith can see that he has made multiple mistakes here and the most glaring of which is the crux of his argument: nooruddin should be able to produce the hadith which says the Prophet ﷺ "wrapped himself in a wet garmet whilst fasting".

questions for nooruddin:

1. according to nooruddin: "there is a hadith of the Prophet ﷺ where he was fasting and he wrapped himself in a wet garment."
which hanafi book mentions this hadith?

2. which is this hadith and who is the rawi/narrator of this hadith?

3. mention the narrations related to this issue from various hadith books.

---

4. which hanafi imam said that abu hanifah made a mistake here - or "got it wrong" because he did not know the hadith?

5. is this is the only case where imam abu hanifah - or mujtahid in general - gives a fatwa that apparently goes against a hadith?

6. are there reasons when a mujtahid imam - abu hanifah included - does not act upon a hadith even if they know it? if so, what are they?

7. for the "faqih" nooruddin: did imam abu hanifah rule this makruh because he did not know the hadith? or was there any other reason?

8. for the "25-year madh'hab knowledge" of nooruddin: what do hanafi works mention about this issue and the reason that imam abu hanifah ruled it makruh?

9. did abu hanifah say that it is makruh in a certain case or absolutely taking a shower/bath is makruh?

10. what is the rationale for those who rule it non-makruh?

11. what has this to do with a hadith of bukhari? and what did commentators shafiyi and hanafi say about this?

12. there is a relation between the ta'liq of bukhari and imam abu hanifah's opinion in this matter. what is it?

---

13. when there is a difference of opinion between imam abu hanifah and his saHibayn - what is the process of tarjih?

14. bonus question: can you give us a flow chart on the process of tarjih and how to act in such cases where the imams differ?

=====​

 

[abu Hasan]

someone tag him. if he doesn't reply in 2 days, we know that he should be attending beginner's classes and not doling out fatawa. he is unqualified to issue fatawa.

 

[Aqdas]

someone tag him. if he doesn't reply in 2 days, we know that he should be attending beginner's classes and not doling out fatawa. he is unqualified to issue fatawa.

I posted it as a comment on his clip.

 

[abu Hasan]

i forgot to mention the most important question (and am adding a few corollaries):

15. how or why exactly is it an error?

16. if you say because it "contradicts" the hadith, is every opinion of a mujtahid that is apparently against a hadith - even a sahih hadith - deemed an error? if not, why not? (corollary of #5 and #6)

17. irrespective of the difference of opinion - how can YOU judge which is an error and which is not? what is the basis?

the above question may go a mile above his silly head, so i will give a hint: every mujtahid is muSib or mukhTi' - can be right or wrong. when there are two opinions, what is the right approach to describe it? the statement: "we are right, but it is possible we could be wrong; the other party is wrong, but there is a possibility that they can be right". in such a scenario, how do you describe a "wrong" with such certainty?

18. please explain or list the reasons abu hanifah "got it wrong". (corollary to 7-11).

 

[AbdalQadir]

how can YOU judge which is an error and which is not?

at least keller stayed in his limits as a white convert with no knowledge of urdu, and only judged native subcontinental urdu speakers on urdu content! i wish he would also issue an intellectual discourse proffering a lexical critique on the different poetic styles of zauq, ghalib, mir, and iqbal! and he did a great favor on Ala Hazrat and his followers by introducing them to the magnificent world of Hanafi scholarship of Ibn Abidin & Radd Al-Muhtar; and Alauddin Haskafi & Durr Al-Mukhtar! even he didn't go as far as passing judgment on Imam Abu Hanifah himself, even though as an english speaking uber-enlightened western convert, it's his birthright to do so, much more than this guy!

 

[abu Hasan]

I posted it as a comment on his clip.

perhaps just me - but comments seem to be turned off
looks like NR will look the other way as if nothing happened. brush away the lint on his british suit.

--
in fact, his fatawa should be used to teach how not to issue fatwa - and the factual and reasoning flaws in them and how to avoid them.

 

[abu Hasan]

looks like mister nooruddin either has no answers or ignored our retort. unfortunately, this is the behaviour of most speakers and teachers and masters of our time. they will say anything they like, but will be offended if they are corrected. they will give you lessons on adab - though they do not know the basic adab of learning is to accept one's mistake and correct oneself when pointed out.

wa billahi't tawfiq.
----

1. according to nooruddin: "there is a hadith of the Prophet ﷺ where he was fasting and he wrapped himself in a wet garment."
which hanafi book mentions this hadith?

there is no such hadith. no hanafi book mentions this hadith.

---
2. which is this hadith and who is the rawi/narrator of this hadith?

however, there is an athar - a statement about a sahabi; as for the hadith from the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam mentioned in this specific issue, it is a hadith in which the sahabi is not named. keep reading.

---
3. mention the narrations related to this issue from various hadith books.

in sahih bukhari, as an introduction to the hadith that "it is permissible to bath during fasting", imam bukhari mentions the following aathaar without isnad (i.e. ta'aliqan):

chapter: a fasting person taking a bath

ibn umar raDi'Allahu anhuma soaked a garment and put it upon himself whilst he was fasting.

sha'abi entered a public bath [Hammam] and he was fasting [implying he entered for a bath]

ibn Abbas raDi'Allahu anhuma said: there is no harm in tasting from the pot or other [vessels]

hasan [al-basri] said: there is no harm in washing the mouth [maD'maDah] or seeking to cool down for a fasting person

ibn mas'ud raDi'Allahu anhu said: when one of you is fasting, then let him oil his hair and comb it.

anas raDi'Allahu anhu said: i have a tub [for water] in which i enter when i am fasting

ibn umar raDi'Allahu anhuma would brush his teeth with the twig [miswak] in the morning and evening.

ibn sirin said: there is no harm in using a moist twig [siwak]; he was told: 'but it has a taste' and he replied: water also has a taste and you wash your mouth with it.

anas raDi'Allahu, hasan [al-baSri] and ibrahim [al-nakha'yi] did not find anything wrong in a fasting person using kohl in his eyes.

---
​

the hadith however of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam in this issue is a hadith in abu dawud, musnad ahmad and muwatta of imam malik.

all narrations are through malik from sumayy, a slave of abu bakr ibn abdul rahman from abu bakr ibn abdu'l rahman reporting from an un-named saHabi. [including those of abu dawud and ahmad].

hadith of abu dawud: 2365; musnad ahmad 15903, 23467, 23649; and muwatta malik, 807.

un-named Sahabi says: i saw the Messenger of Allah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam commanded the people to not fast during a journey in the year of Victory saying: "strengthen yourselves against your enemies" but RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam fasted himself.

abu bakr said: he who told me [i.e. the sahabi] said: i saw the Messenger of Allah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam in araj* pour water on his [blessed] head and he was fasting; he did so either due to intense thirst or heat.

[araj is a place between makkah and madinah; ibn Hajar has said it is close to madinah]​

====
so our friend mixed it up. wrapping in wet garment is an athar of sahabi; pouring water on head to cool oneself in fasting is a hadith wherein sahabi is not named. this would be a common slip which any of us could make - but it became serious because he so confidently labelled it as imam abu hanifah's mistake.

claiming that imam abu hanifah did NOT know this hadith and therefore ruled it makruh, is a contradiction in itself. if abu hanifah did not know the hadith, then why would he be deemed in error for ruling it makruh? it would be an error or a mistake if one deliberately ignored it! other questions are related to this, and we will come to them one by one. in sha'Allah.

---
another small tidbit about the above hadith, not related to our issue per se, but information that is good to know. ibn Hajar mentions this under hadith of umm dardaa' #1945 in his commentary about the fast itself. he says that earlier he thought that the fast was in ramadan, but upon further examination it appears that the fast was not in ramadan and therefore was a supererogatory fast.

he mentions that the fast was in days of intense heat and ramadan so he assumed it was the ghazwah of fat'H; but abdullah ibn rawaHah was martyred in mu'tah before the year of victory [mentioned in the hadith].

however, many sahabah had fasted in ramadan, on their way to makkah in the Campaign of Victory and ibn rawaHah was obviously not present in that journey - therefore the hadith of umm darda'a is a different journey and not in ramaDan (becasue of another hadith of ibn umar where he says we fasted in the battles of badr and victory - in the battle of badr abu dardaa had not become muslim, hence it was not that journey; and the victory was post ibn rawaHah, hence it was not that journey either.)

 

[abu Hasan]

4. which hanafi imam said that abu hanifah made a mistake here - or "got it wrong" because he did not know the hadith?

i have not come across any. but if nooruddin has, he can share. and i doubt he will find any because the premise is itself flawed. no hadith - hence no comment on imam abu hanifah making the mistake due to not knowing the hadith.

however, the issue of cooling oneself in fasting IS found in hanafi works and we will talk about that. in sha'Allah.

---
5. is this is the only case where imam abu hanifah - or mujtahid in general - gives a fatwa that apparently goes against a hadith?

no, there are numerous cases where a mujtahid imam does not act upon the hadith - even if it is sahih and KNOWN to them.

---
6. are there reasons when a mujtahid imam - abu hanifah included - does not act upon a hadith even if they know it? if so, what are they?
yes. in sha'Allah in another post, we will see a examples of reasons a mujtahid imam leaves a sahih narrated hadith (even if he KNOWS it) and acts contrary to it.

---
7. for the "faqih" nooruddin: did imam abu hanifah rule this makruh because he did not know the hadith? or was there any other reason?

no. imam abu hanifah ruled it makruh because such an action is indicative of showing tiredness or expressing discomfort (ضجر) in an act of obligatory worship. hence he said that it was makruh.

----
8. for the "25-year madh'hab knowledge" of nooruddin: what do hanafi works mention about this issue and the reason that imam abu hanifah ruled it makruh?

see next post.

----
9. did abu hanifah say that it is makruh in a certain case or absolutely taking a shower/bath is makruh?

taking an obligatory bath is not makruh. such as a junub prior to suHur time, or a woman who ended her menses prior to suHur time - but ghusl on them is farD for prayer. there is no harm in taking a ghusl - rather, it is obligatory for them to take a bath and haram to remain without ghusl until the prayer time passes (as they have effectively missed an obligatory prayer.

the sahih hadith of bukhari vide sayyidah ayesha raDi'Allahu anhaa is explicit proof for taking an obligatory bath. and this was said in context of a hadith or fatwa of abu hurayrah wherein he said that "anyone who is unclean (i.e. requires obligatory bath) should not fast". hadith imams debate that could be an earlier hukm, but the latest and abrogating hukm is hadith of ayeshah raDi'Allahu anhaa where she mentions that the Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam would take the obligatory bath after suHur time and then fast.

bukhari:

=====

10. what is the rationale for those who rule it non-makruh?

concerning "cooling off" by pouring water on their head or wrapping in a wet garment, fuqaha - including hanafi fuqaha rule that it is not makruh as it is proven by the hadith and the athar of the sahabah.

proofs for this and #8 will be mentioned in the next post.

 

[abu Hasan]

8. what do hanafi works mention about this issue and the reason that imam abu hanifah ruled it makruh?
10. what is the rationale for those who rule it non-makruh?
----
the same hadith in abu dawud is mentioned in mishkhat # 2011; and allamah ali qari explaining it says [vol.4 p.442 ]

ibn malak has said: this proves that it is not dislikable for a fasting person to pour water on his head - or dip oneself in water [as in a pool or stream] even if one feels the coolness in his inside [or in his belly].

ibn humam said: if one applies kohl [while fasting], it does not break his fast, irrespective of whether he feels its taste in his throat or not.
firstly because that which is found in the throat is a trace that has entered through the pores [masam] - and that which breaks the fast is when it enters through openings [manfadh, manafidh] through which something can enter and exit, not the pores which are found all over the body - for concurrence with those who deemed it permissible [to dip in water] even when one feels the coolness in their insides shall not break the fast.

however, imam abu hanifah raHimahullah deemed it disliked [makruh] - i mean entering a water source or wrapping oneself in a wet cloth - because this appears to show weariness in an action of worship - not because he deemed it close to breaking the fast. [end of citation from ibn humam]

[ali qari:] because the imam attributed the action of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam as his expression of his frailty [in the Presence of Almighty] and humility when one experiences pain - and to demonstrate the wisdom in repelling harm by using means [asbab], and to seek help in fulfilling the obligation of being the slave [ubudiyyah] of the Lord of all Lords [rabb al-arbab]; and an indication that he shares some human traits with his vouchsafed followers [ummah] and inclining towards them and making it easy for them.

the gist of this is that the imam's opinion is that it is slightly disliked [makruh tanzihi] and foregoing a better option [khilaf awla]. and the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam did so to legislate its permissiblity by exhibiting fraility - as a mercy to the weak among his followers.
​

---
notice that ali al-qari and ibn humam have both said that the reason for makruh was that doing so looks as if one is tired or weary of carrying out an act of worship. and ali qari's explanation implictly indicates that the imam was aware of the hadith.

as for the 9th question, it is proven that imam abu hanifah knew that it is permissible to bath while fasting. because, imam abu yusuf has narrated the hadith of sayyidah ayesha raDi'Allahu anha from him: kitab al-aathar of imam abu yusuf, p.181

824. from abu hanifah from Hammad from ibrahim al-nakha'yi that abu hurayrah raDi'Allahu anhu would give fatwa that a person in the state of ritual impurity (junub) reached the fajr time, his fast would be invalid. this reached sayyidah aayisha raDiAllahu anhaa and she said: "may Allah have mercy on abu hurayrah. he does not know that the Messenger of Allah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam would come for fajr [prayer] and water would be dripping from his head [after having taken a bath] from ritual impurity, and then he would complete his fast. this reached abu hurayrah raDi'Allahu anhu and he said: she is more knowledgeable than me. and he changed his stance.

825. from abu hanifah from ibrahim ibn Muhammad that it reached him that when ibn mas'ud raDi'Allahu anhu heard about this, he said: "what has ritual impurity got to do with fasting?"​

=====

in maraqi'l falaH:

it is not dislikable to wash the mouth or wash the nose - even outside wuDu; and to take a bath or to wrap oneself in a cloth soaked in water with the intention to cool down and to ward off the heat - this is the mufta bih [relied-upon] position. and this is the opinion of abu yusuf because the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam poured water on his head and he was fasting, due to thirst or due to heat - abu dawud reported the hadith; and ibn umar would soak a cloth and wrap it around him while he was fasting. because these actions are supportive and help in worship and will alleviate a natural weariness; but abu hanifah disliked it for it appears to show weariness in carrying out an act of worship.​

----
taHtawi in his marginalia:

and he was replied that it was an expression of one's physical frailty and human weakness..​

===
radd al-muHtaar, cites maraqi'l falah: vol.3 p.399-400

====
fatawa qaDi khan, 1/182 says the same:

===
in tuhfatu'l fuqaha, vol.1 p.368

abu hanifah relied upon sha'abi's ruling; abu yusuf leaned towards hasan al-basri's ruling.​

anyone with a cursory knowledge of hanafi fiqh knows that sha'abi was among imam abu hanifah's teachers and among one of the senior tabiyis. earlier we have seen the athar that sha'abi entering the hammam [see bukhari's ta'aliq].

----
in its sharh, kasani in bada'iy says: badayiy al-sanaiyiy 2/638.

....because this is not except to ward off the discomfort of heat - it is not disliked, as it is similar to [a fasting person] taking the shade.
and abu hanifah said that in it is a display of weariness from an act of worship and showing unwillingness to bear difficulty [in worship], whereas the action of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was in a special circumstance - that one would be compelled to break the fast due to the extreme heat; and thus ibn umar also did raDi'Allahu anhuma - in a similar situation, and there is nothing to say about that. ​

imam abu hanifah's position was one of taqwa - and that did not ignore the special case of necessity. in case of extreme heat or excessive thirst that may drive a person to break their fast, it is better to cool down in a manner that does not break the fast. the ruling of dislikability was only when one does so when it is tolerable.

----

 

[abu Hasan]

correction: the hadith is not mursal.
it is just that the sahabi was not named. the error is corrected in the posts below.

----
the tabiyi who narrates from the sahabi is abu bakr ibn abdul rahman ibn al Harith ibn hisham ibn al-mughirah ibn abdullah ibn umar ibn makhzum al-qurashi al-makhzumi al-madani.

he is among the senior and prominent tabiyis and among the 'seven jurists of madinah' fuqaha al-saba'a. he is a thiqah narrator. therefore his not mentioning the sahabi's name does not render it a mursal.

the seven are:
sayid ibn al-musayyib
urwah ibn zubayr
qasim ibn muhammad
kharijah ibn zayd
abu bakr ibn abdul rahman ibn harith ibn hisham
sulayman ibn yasar
ubaydullah ibn abdullah ibn utbah ibn mas'uud

except sulayman, all are children of sahabah.

as said by abuz zanad in a couplet cited by sakhawi in his fat'h al-mughith 4/110:

sakhawi says that these seven luminaries are so great that if their names are written and placed in provisions or food, there will be barakh in it and it will be safe from harm such as decay or insects.

 

[abu Hasan]

when a narrator in the chain is not named, even if other narrators are trustworthy (thiqah) such as: "i heard from a reliable person", some deemed it mursal and some deemed it munqatiy, based on factors; but the prevalent opinion is that it is munqatiy because not knowing a narrator's name is as good as missing him altogether, that is a break in the chain.

however, this does not apply to cases where a sahabi is unnamed; because every sahabi is a adul/trustworthy and upright; so his/her identity does not matter. such a hadith is deemed connected (muttaSil) as bukhari cites his shaykh al-Humaydi: "if all narrators are thiqah/trustworthy in the chain reaching until a sahabi, it is hujjah/usable evidence - even if the sahabi is not named."

however, bayhaqi in his sunan has labeled those reports from tabiyis where the sahabi is not named as 'mursal'; this is not correct [tadrib al-rawi; also, ibn hajar has said: "bayhaqi termed it mursal, but it is not as not knowing the identity of the sahabi does not have any effect on the chain." cited by sh. ahmad shakir in sharh alfiyat suyuti fi'l mustalah, p.16-17]

when junior sahabis - even though they are sahabah - such as muhammad ibn abu bakr al siddiq raDi'Allahu anhuma narrate from RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam directly, such a narration is also considered mursal. because they were so small and minors at the time, that their report would be on the basis of other senior sahabah, not a first hand report. or those sahabah who became muslims in the later years, but they narrate events from the early days of islam - because they did not witness those events and therefore, they must have heard from other sahabah.

 

[abu Hasan]

nooruddin cop out:

 

[abu Hasan]

so nooruddin clean forgot the main reason of his 'slip' - that he had found one mistake which imam azam apparently made due to not knowing the hadith. sub'HanAllah! and the low life thinks he will gain barakah in fiqh?

he ostentatiously 'thanked' me - but shameless fellow! he must seek forgiveness for disrespecting imam azam and trying to praise himself.

so our friend mixed it up. wrapping in wet garment is an athar of sahabi; pouring water on head to cool oneself in fasting is a hadith wherein sahabi is not named. this would be a common slip which any of us could make - but it became serious because he so confidently labelled it as imam abu hanifah's mistake.

this is what i wrote. it was not the mix up per se. but you used it to glorify yourself.