Loved this: the author clearly has a problem with Deobandi ulema in the U.K and I can understand why: they are unhinged when it comes to this idea of ‘forget everything else, marry the pious person…cos God wants you to’. I suspect it is just a way for their ‘scholars’ to score girls by brainwashing them into valuing a ‘scholar’ above all else. The quality of their actual ‘scholarship’ is another matter entirely.
For people who tell you to ‘marry for the deen’:
Jameelah Bint Salul complained to the Prophet about her husband. ‘By God! I do not dislike him for any fault in his character or faith, but I dislike his ugliness. By God! If I had no fear of God, I would have spat in his face when he came to see me. O Messenger of God! You see how beautiful I am and that Thabit is an ugly man. I don’t blame him for his faith and character, but I fear disbelief in Islam’. Muhammad then enquired, ‘Will you return the garden that he gave you?’ she answered, ‘Oh Messenger of God! If he asks for more, I am prepared to give him even more’. The Prophet said, ‘Not more, but return the garden’. Then he ordered that Thabit should accept the garden and the separation.
(BUKHARI)
This proves the following;
1) The Deobandis in the U.K have deliberately been misinterpreting the Hadith about a woman is married for four things beauty, piety, lineage, wealth for many years and they are manifest in their deception, since some physical attraction is a prerequisite before that hadith is applied. Even their own muftis have been forced to admit this in public.
Also, if that Hadith applies to ‘women’ and not ‘believing women’ then it is again not used in the way they try, i.e. marry pious but ugly girls your parents tell you to, but rather, out of Jewish, Christian and Muslims women, marry the pious (Muslim) one etc.
2) If the Hadith is from after the passages revealed about hijaab, it utterly refutes those who say that the face of a woman must be covered, for she tells the Prophet ‘YOU SEE how beautiful I am’. Although there is much other evidence for this, the Salfists and their lackeys the Deobandis will keep lying about this anyway so don’t waste your time with them about it because they will just refer you to some five – hundred page book called ‘Stuff We Just Made Up About Islam’, the sequel to their previous best-seller ‘Stuff We Made Up About God’.
Also, the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa (RA) regarding the non – necessity of veiling of the face is manifest even in Maliki scholars writings, such as ‘The Reliance of the Traveller’ (available in English translation with accompanying Arabic text by Nuh Hamim Keller, as is the Muwatta of Imam Muhammad, one of Abu Hanifas’ greatest students). Since the Deobandis claim to be Hanafis, their deception is again manifest. Although, since many of them do not respect the creed of Abu Hanifa, why bother with his fatwas?
3) It could be interpreted as giving women the right of unilateral divorce. Many scholars have interpreted it otherwise. Why?
Asharis: Assemble 
Firstly, please change the post title! It seems to imply that the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, was stupid for saying: “A woman is married for her deen, her wealth or her beauty. You must go for the one with deen, may your hands be in the dust! (if you fail to heed)” [Muslim].
Secondly, saying that those who uphold the primacy of religiosity when selecting a spouse are trying to “score girls” is ghiba and low manners. If you are going to criticize someone then do so properly by citing what they actually said and then offering your critique.
I really am sick and tired of people with severely limited understanding trying to put others right.
1) The Prophet is REPORTED to have said, not ‘he said’. Unless you believe all ahad are the words of the Prophet. And most hadith are narrated by meaning and not by wording. Please go and study about hadith, you don’t know what you are talking about. Or if you are Hanbali/Shafi, fine but don’t impose you’re hadith methodology on us.
2) He never (reportedly) told anyone to marry for the deen but rather to marry a woman who has deen. What marrying for the Deen means to the author was explained in the post. You did not understand it or read it.
3) If Deen is most important, why did he go against that and allow a divorce from a pious sahabah based on looks alone? Initiate your brain before commenting.
4) You don’t know what is ‘backbiting’ nor what is manners. Accusing people without knowing the definition of the crime is stupid. You cannot backbite an idea anyway.
5) You don’t even understand the article: every critique does not mandate a citation of a particular person. Nor does every criticism of a group need to name an individual. Your comment is as banal as someone criticising the concept of Communism and you demanding refrain due to ‘backbiting’ as well as the names and references of specific Communists.
In any case, you refuted your objection by using the hadith in exactly the manner described by the author for Deobandis and Salafis.
So you will suffice as a specific example of people telling you to marry for the Deen without knowing all of the hadith or fiqh related to the area. You are also a Deobandi anyway so the authors point is valid.
People can judge from their personal experience of the aforementioned groups whether they have been encouraged to ‘marry for the deen’ in the manner illustrated or not. It is not necessary for every person having an opinion different to yours to bring a double blind trial as evidence before stating it.
As for making ghiba of a non specific group of scholars, so what? If he named particular ones who DID do this to score girls then it would be backbiting. Which is why I said you don’t understand ghiba (like all Deobandis): you are actually telling the author to do it.
As for these guys sexual hygeine or lack thereof, there is no easy to prove it one easy or the other. He is free to express hours opinion and readers are free to refer it to their own experience. There are no ‘scientific studies’.
In my experience, the sexual morals of most Salafi and many Deobandi ‘scholars’ in the UK are repugnant. What of it?
Opinion is not backbiting. You would just like to censor countervailing views to your own.
You filthy apostate mmmclru may your back be broken!
Since the Deobandis claim to be Hanafis, their deception is again manifest.
How do the Deobandis deviate from traditional Hanafi methodology?
By not following it.
Compare their fatwas, all from their preferred scholars only to zahiri riwayat or the ‘official position’ if the school.
The beard, niqaab and punishments for homosexuality etc are good places to start. Or you can see a lot of the material on this site.
The most obvious proof is that despite claiming to be Hanafis, they follow and teach Shafi usool of hadith.
Why?
From my understanding, Hanafi scholars have not maintained the same positions throughout history anyway, ie What Abu Hanifa thought, what Shaybani, Abu Yusuf etc thought, and what later Hanafi scholars thought, doesn’t necessarily match up. Also didn’t all the schools eventually adopt Shafi methodology eventually? That’s certainly the picture I’ve gotten from studying the history.
I’m afraid your understanding is wrong. What you said is the same as ‘all of the Schools are Shafi’, since most of the differences of the schools came about due to their different usool of hadith. It also means that everyone else is dumb and came to different conclusions from Shafis while following the same methodology. It also means that there was no mustalah of hadith until Imam Shafi came along and many similar absurdities.
Also, what is the point of having an Imam or school like Abu Hanifa if even basic things like niqaab or hadith method was not sorted out till Deobandis came along? Please be realistic.
According to the Brelwi sect, Deobandis are not even Sunni, let alone Hanafi.
As a student of Deobandi establishments myself I can say that people who find Deobandism convincing rarely look beyond their sect for answers.
You are also wrong because not every Opinion In a madhab has the same weight and there is such a thing as ‘muatamat’ or ‘official stance of each madhab’ on an issue. So it is not allowed to follow the minority opinions from a madhab as Deobandis do. For example, a minority of Hanafis say mu’ta is allowed but that is not the official position. Deobandis play many such games.
But if you are affected by them it is often regrettably probably too late to start critical thinking. Please try our article ‘Blackmailed With Bukhari’.
People should marry those they fall in love with. In this day and age there should be some stance against the propagation of the normality of homosexuality if not some chastisement.
True say Hyde: The Last, true say!
FILTHY APOSTATE YOU ARE THE WORST OF MANKIND.
The information I’ve studied suggests that before Shafi’s methodology became prominent, the schools were quite different, but afterwards they all had to accept his methodology and most of the accompanying rulings, except on issues that are not clear within authentic hadeeth, in which case they followed the pre-existing rulings of their school.
Stop the innuendo and present this ‘information that you have studied’, especially from the mujtahids of the Malikis and Hanafis saying that they defer to Shafi mustalah.
You didn’t bother to read the article on hadith and continue to inflict this Deobandism on us: the issues which are ‘not clear on authentic hadith’ include how to pray fard salat, most issues of Creed, whether God rides goats and can your wife breast feed grown men in front of you.
Your point makes no sense historicaly or rationally. You also don’t have argument from authority (unless you are going to wheel out your Deobandis).
I suspect it amounts to ‘I studied Shafi mustalah of hadith so that’s the best one. Malik and Abu Hanifa were dumb and don’t know how to deal with hadith and neither did Salaf until Shafi came along with his five conditions’. You are welcome to this standard Salafi/Deobandi view but don’t present it as given.
Unless you studied Hanafi or Maliki mustalah of hadith or have some reference where the Hanafis (historically and today the biggest group) say ‘we defer to Shafi mustalah’ then stop spamming.
It is merely the opinion of latter day so called Hanafis (perhaps Deobandis in your case) – that does not make it the official position of the madhab.
Ask your teachers to show you how to pray one rakat from Sahih hadith only and why Bukhari and Ahmad narrated anal sex as being halal as Sahih.
Stop the innuendo and present this ‘information that you have studied’
I’ve read it in multiple places, both by people who disliked that it was the case, and those who were supportive. Even if it’s not 100% accurate, there must be a reason why the theory exists.
You didn’t bother to read the article on hadith and continue to inflict this Deobandism on us:
I haven’t said anything about Deobandism. My first comment was in response to one of your comments, not the article.
the issues which are ‘not clear on authentic hadith’ include how to pray fard salat, most issues of Creed, whether God rides goats and can your wife breast feed grown men in front of you.
Yes I agree.
Okay, thanks. It is just that I get a lot of people leading me up the garden path about Hanafi this and hadith that only to justify Deobandism by in the end reverting to argument from *selective* authority.
So apologies!
You are right that today, most people outside Turkey and Central Asia claiming to be Hanafi follow Shafi mustalah (which in turn is a bit similar to Hanbali mustalah). The simple reason for this is that they are stupid and Hanafis in name only – you will find multi volume books by Hanbalis and Salafis humiliating Hanafi madhab recently as these so called Hanafis accept so many hadith and then don’t follow them – and the Salafis have a good point thus against them.
Shafi mustalah, which is profoundly flawed from the Maliki and Hanafi perspective (so much so that the usool of fiqh that Shafis follow had to be borrowed from Mu’tazzila – ask any Shafi scholar) does not match with Hanafi madhab at all – it is a square peg in a round hole and is the main reason for the errors and confusions of both Deobandis and Brelwis, as they accept hadith which were rejected by Abu Hanifa etc and this means they are confused in aqidah, fiqh etc.
Most Shafis are Asharis (as are most Malikis but they are adamant on their hadith methodology so have not taken the Shafi way, even today) and most Asharis follow Shafi usool of hadith which takes about one hour to learn: all it is is ‘hadith meets ‘five conditions’ of Shafi (basically the same as Bukharis) then accept’. What if it clashes with Qur’an or reality? That is ‘at the back of the book’ but generally they will give some metaphorical or often outlandish explanation. As you already know.
So you have a point: today the most followed mustalah is Shafi and even historically this happened: the reason is that when Abu Hanifa was murdered, only those of his students who abandoned his censored teachings (by the Abbasi’s) were allowed to continue and this meant many of them accepting rejected hadith and to justify this they had to use Shafi mustalah (since Imam Shafi in fact had two madhabs – one as a disciple of Imam Muhammad and Malik which is the same as Hanafi madhab and one which he made when he moved to Egypt and compromised with Muhaditheen who were dominant there).
A second issue was when the Hanafi caliph Mumoon had Ahmad beaten for saying that the written or recited Qur’an was uncreated (Imam Ahmad was wrong BTW according to Sunnis anyway), the Hanbalis took revenge when the caliph died by taking control of government and perpetrating a genocide of dissenting Hanafis and Malikis (even Imam Tabari was stoned by them later).
Generally, Abbassis and leaders were on side of Muhaditheen and Hanbalis against Malikis and Hanafis (Mamoon was a rare exception).
Also, be careful; often when people claim to follow Shafi usool of hadith they really mean Hanbali or Ahl Al Hadith ‘usool’ of hadith.
So it is political. But the authorities of Hanafis and Malikis have always insisted and taught their usool of hadith and Maturidis (contrary to common belief, the biggest group in aqeeda) insist on it as do Imam Maturidi, Qadi Khan and all senior Hanafis to this day.
It is being taught still – If you would like to study Maliki or Hanafi Mustalah please let us know.
Also, majority following Shafi mustalah: even if it is true, so what? Majority is nothing in Islam and anyway, no ijmâ.
And then there are all the problematic hadith mentioned above and narrations such as Satanic Verses which people grade as ‘Sahih’. Nonsense.
It sounds like you’re saying that there are two kinds of “Hanafism”, one that follows Abu Hanifa’s methodology and one that follows the Shafi methodology while maintaining a Hanafi identity. Is there evidence to speculate that the Hanafis who stayed loyal to the original methodology fled to the margins of the Abbasid Caliphate to avoid persecution?
(so much so that the usool of fiqh that Shafis follow had to be borrowed from Mu’tazzila – ask any Shafi scholar)
I thought the Mutazilites didn’t really use Hadeeth.
It makes no sense to discuss with this people ortega. They should just come to Syria and we will take care for them.
Like you ‘took care’ of Assad? He’s still there…looks like all you are good at is making refugees.
Ortega don’t let them fool you with “hanafi usul”. They just use this to negate parts from the religion they don’t like. We know the hanafi scholars used to refuse ahadith which go against the principles which where outlined by the Abu Hanifa. We as hanafis accept this of course and follow it. But the hanafi scholars had reasons for their refusal of ahadith. They were masters in the science of fiqh and knew what is right and what not. Their motives for refusing something was not secular education like it is with these apostates.
When the Deobandis claim something they have an easy play with saying “they follow shafii usul” whatever this means. But what will they make with Ibn Humam, Sarakhsi, Ibn Abidin, Kawthari and so on? Will they say they also follow deobandi-shafii usul? All classical hanafi scholars said music is forbidden, beard is recommended, smoking is not good, niqab is recommended and sometimes obligatory etc.. Don’t fool the people here with deobandis. Deobandis might have some special opinions which are not fully hanafi but there were also hanafis before them saying NEARLY the same.
Who said beard etc is not recommended? We merely said it is not waajib. You just picked those names out of the internet: have you read a single text by any of them? Also, did you study any usool of hadith, Shafi or otherwise? Show us for example where it says that Al Kawthari followed Shafi in hadith?
Can you tell us who the classical Hanafi scholars are? In fact, do you even know what the ‘classical’ period means.
Niqaab is never ‘recommended’ in Hanafi fiqh – show the proof from Zahiri Riwayat.
And the same rule that allows it to be ‘sometimes obligatory’ I.e ruling of Caliph can be used to ban it as well! Forgot to mention that didn’t you?
It is great that you have managed to get yourself unblocked by making such dumb comments that we simply had to post them to show your stupidity.
We also know that you are the same guy from ‘sunnahmuakkadah’ posting under another name.
P.S. You are a takfiri ass-clown and you website sucks.
I am not very knowledgeable of fiqh. I only look into fatwas when I need something but I am not interested in learning the science of fiqh. I am not dependant on Deobandis for hanafi fatwas. I read from them and I respect them but I am not their blind follower. I do not agree with them on issues like smoking and maybe pants below ankles.
The field I am interested in is the islamic theology which is Tawhid and Takfir. I am 100% maturidi and I think that this school of thaught is better than the ashari or the hanbali/athari one. The creed of Imam Ahmad is sound but not ideal. The creed of Ibn Taymiyya is blasphemy and heresy (kufr). Imam Ahmad was not an anthropomorphist while Ibn Taymiyya and other hanbalis were. This is disbelief. Haitham Hamdan is a filthy infidel. He demonstrated it many times on the forums called “Ahlalhadeeth”.
Whoever does not believe in the one God Who is without place and body is an infidel who will be in hellfire for eternity even if he never heard about any Prophet of God. Whoever hears about our Prophet and does not accept him will be in hellfire forever whether he believed in the Tawhid or not.
I am not this Ibn Masud. I think you know my other identities. Ibn Masud was a very good guy. He was so polite but you made him sick of you.
Without going too much into details look at what Kawthari said about niqab. And I’m not saying that he followed non-hanafi usul. I say you use this just to negate what you don’t like.
Oh, you pick Kawthari above Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad and literally all of the senior Hanafis on issue of niqaab and I’M ‘picking’ to negate what I don’t like?!
And Al Kawthari never said Niqaab was necessary either. He also allowed the Emir to ban it to. So?
Oh, yes, you are the other mental guy! I got confused between the two crazies. Sorry!