Imam Bukhari Shafi`i

Imam Bukhari Al Shafi’i
Writer: Maulana Noor Muhammad Tawakkali (Allah’s mercy be upon him).
Translator: Mumtaz Hussain Akhtar ul Qaadiri.
This humble self Tawakkali tells to the readers that in this treacherous era, sects
are in abundance and every sect claims the same i.e. “we are with the truth, rest all are
depraved”. Therefore if it is questioned that which one of them is Ahlus-Sunnah wal
Jamaa’ah? Then the answer would be that the Muqallidin (conformists, followers) of the
Four Imams. The Ghair-Muqallidin (Non-conformists, who do not follow Islamic school
of jurisprudence) get very perplexed because they consider Taqleed (the conformation) of
the great Jurists (Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi’i and Imam Ahmed Ibn
Hambal, may Allah be pleased with all of them) using very bad words especially Taqleed
(conformation) of Sayyeduna Imam Abu Hanifah Nu’maan bin Thabit (May Allah be
please with him) and keep on abusing the great Imam. These people are very dim because
this way they keep transferring their good deeds to Imam Sahib’s Register of Deeds,
There are other noble personalities also, whose good deeds are increasing in their
Register of Deeds after their deaths. Hence the deeds in the Register of Deeds of the Four
Mujtahidin (the Four Jurists) are still continued by Rawafid and Khawarij (Shia Heretics
and Wahabis the Expelled Ones) and Register of Deeds of Sufi Saints like Huzoor
Ghaus-e-Paak Sayyeduna Shaykh Abdul Qadir , Sheikh Akbar and Mansoor Hallaaj etc.
are continued too. Wish the Ghair-Muqallidin think over it. If it is only to become a
person who memorizes Ahadith by heart then why did the Compilers of Sihaah-e-Sitta
(The six most authentic books of the Ahadith) followed the school of Islamic
Jurisprudence? When Ghair-Muqallidin get unable to make a reasonable answer, in
confusion they sometimes say wrong things about noble personalities of the religion and
sometimes say that these Compilers, especially with reference to Imam Bukhari, was not
Shafi’i but was Mujtahid al Mustaqil (Independent Jurist) .This is why particularly the
discussion about Imam Bukhari being a shafi’i is written in these pages.
Some time ago some Ahnaaf scholar wrote contents about Imam Bukhari and his
“Sahih” in the newspaper “Ahl-e-Fiqah” Amritsar, Later it was compiled in a book
labeled as “Al-Jarah ‘Alal Bukhari”. In an answer to this, Molvi Haji Muhammad Abul
Qasim Banarsi published “Hal-e-Mushkilat-e-Bukhari”. Thus it is appropriately
understood that I’ll quote whatever is said by Molvi Dr. Sayed Umar Kareem
Azeemabadi about this discussion in the first converse and from Banarsi in consequent
converse and answer to them adorns as “I say”.
Al-Azeemabadi wrote:
In this era, the followers of Imam Bukhari “ONLY” have, on one hand, tried to
raise the status of his book over the Quran and have also made Imam Bukhari, Mujtahid
al Mutlaq (full Jurist) but he was actually true Muqallid (conformist, follower) of Shafi’i
school of Jurisprudence. And this can be proved by two ways. One, to prove it by saying
of an authoritative person, and second is to show the fact that he did not have enough
knowledge and skills to make an Independent Ijtihad, and so in this case he had no option
other than to follow a school of Islamic Jurisprudence.
Allama Qastalaani (851-923H/ 1448-1517 CE) writes in Sharah Bukhari,
volume 1, page 32, (Egypt Edition); it says:
“Taaj-ud-Din Subki (727-771 AH/1327-1370 CE) said that Abu ‘Aasim categorized
Bukhari amongst Shafi’is.”
Thus the above saying clearly proves that Imam Bukhari belonged to Shafi’i
Doctrine, and since these three (Imam Qastalaani, Taaj-ud-Din Subki, Abu ‘Aasim) are
amongst gracious Muhaddithin (Interpreters of the Ahadith) and scholars of the religion,
that is why their sayings cannot be seen with a cursory glance and these sayings are more
likely to be acceptable in this age because it is observed that these three above mentioned
individuals belonged to Shafi’i school of Jurisprudence as well.
(Al-Jarah Alal Bukhari, volume 1, page 4)
Al-Banarsi wrote:
Abu ‘Aasim is rare in this narration and your figuring out concerning to doctrine
of the three persons (Qastalaani, Taaj-ud-Din Subki, Abu ‘Aasim) is wrong. Because
Qastalaani and Subki are only Narrators and the detail is self-evident because narration of
the detail does not necessitate that it is correct near the narrators too. Now about Abu
‘Aasim, his saying is same as about Imam Ahmad Bin Hambal. The writer of ‘Tabqaat
ash-Shafi’iya’ counted Imam Ahmed bin Hambal amongst Shafi’i while the fact is that
Imam Ahmed is himself Mujtahid al Mustaqil (Independent Jurist). This would mean that
Hambali and Shafi’i schools are both one and the same, which is completely incorrect!
As a result, Imam Ahmad cannot be a Shafi’i; Imam Bukhari too can’t be either. Abu
‘Aasim said this only for peace in propositions otherwise Imam Bukhari was Mujtahid al
Mustaqil as Allama Ismail Ujlooni Shami Hanafi writes in “Al-Fawaaid ad-Daraari”:
“Imam Bukhari was a Mutahid al Mutlaq (full Mujtahid) and Sakhawi adopted it and said
that Imam Bukhari was Mujtahid al Mutlaq and Ibn Taymiyya also confirmed it that
Imam Bukhari was Imam of Jurisprudence and was among the people who were at the
status Ijtihaad (independent opinion).”
So, when Imam Bukhari is proved to be a Mujtahid al Mutlaq (full Mujtahid) then
it is self-evident that Mujtahid is not Muqallid (follower). Therefore, Imam Bukhari could
never be a Muqallid of Imam Shafi’i about which I made a detailed description in my
pamphlets “Ar-Reeh al-Qaiyum” page 3-4, “Al-‘Arjoon al-Qadeem” page 12-14. Hence
the two ways you used to prove that Imam Bukhari as a Muqallid (i.e. to take rulings
from an authoritative personality) could not be established. Hence it is clarified that he
was a Mujtahid al Mutlaq.
(Hal-e-Mushkilat-e-Bukhari, part first, page 28-29)
I say:
Qazi Abul ‘Aasim al-‘Abaadi was born on 357 Hijri and died on 458 Hijri.
Shaykhl ul Islam Taaj-ud-Din Subki writes about him:
“Abu ‘Aasim was a glorious Imam, learnt the doctrine by heart, was a sea that was
flowing with great knowledge.”
Imam Bukhari (Allah’s mercy be upon him) died on 256 Hijri. Now examine that
the elder who was born about 100 years after Imam Bukhari and was Shafi’i himself and
he learnt Shafi’i school of thought by heart and wrote in his book ‘Tabqaat’ about the
same matter that which of the Fuqaha (scholars) and Muhadditheen (Interpreters of
Ahadith) belonged to Shafi’iyah school of thought; counted Imam Bukhari in the
category of Shafi’iyah. And then afterwards supporting this elder very strongly, Banarsi
is labeling, in 14th century without any certification, this saying of this noble to be rare
and wrongly thinking them to be narrators only. Strange! Very Strange! Imam Subki
writes about Imam Bukhari:
“ Abu ‘Aasim al-‘Ibaadi said about Abu Abdullah (Imam Bukhari) in his book Tabqaatush-Shafi’iyah that Imam Bukhari got educated from al- Za’faraani and Abu Thaur and
al-Karabeesi, (I say) that Imam Bukhari learned jurisprudence from Imam Humaydi and
all of them are amongst the disciples of Imam Shafi’i.”
Imagine how Imam Subki is favouring Imam Abu ‘Aasim here as if saying that
Imam Bukhari, in reality, belonged to Shafi’i category as he learned jurisprudence from
Imam Humaydi (died on month of Shawwal, 219 Hijri); and Imam Za’faraani and Imam
Abu Thaur and Imam Karabeesi and Imam Humaydi all belonged to Shafi’i school of
thought and were disciples of Imam Shafi’i. At another place Imam Subki writes about
the teachers of Imam Bukhari:
“Imam Bukhari learned Ahadith (the traditions) and learned Fiqah (jurisprudence) from
Imam Humaydi in the holy city of Makkah.”
And while writing about Imam Humaydi it says:
“Imam Humaydi narrated Ahadith (the traditions) from Imam Shafi’i and also learnt
jurisprudence from him”.
Accordingly, it is clear that Imam Bukhari is disciple of Imam Humaydi with
reference to Shafi’i school of thought. Imam Taaj-ud-Din as-Subki Shafi’i (died on 771
Hijri) supported Imam ‘Aasim appropriately and Allama Qastalaani Shafi’i (died on 923
Hijri) quoted Imam Subki’s saying which concludes to become an absolute support.
Other than Shafi’iyah, great Hanafiyah Kasrullah Sawadhum also considers that Imam
Bukhari belonged to the Doctrine of Shafi’i. Similarly, Allama Azneeqi Hanafi, who was
in 8th century Hijri, counted Imam Bukhari in the category of Shafi’i in his book
“Madeenat-ul-Uloom” and Nawab Siddeeq Hasan Khan Bhopali (Ghair-Muqallid)
quoted the diction of Madeenat-ul-Uloom and wrote:
“We should talk about scholars of Shafi’iyah, after scholars of Hanafiyah, so that our
books become perfect and collective of both nobilities. And scholars of Shafi’iyah are of
two kinds, one are those who got opportunity to be close with Imam Shafi’i and second
are those scholars who came after them, the first sort belonged to Imam Khalid AlKhilaal Abu Ja’far Al-Baghdadi….. And from the second sort Muhammad bin Idrees
Abu Haatim Raazi and Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari and Muhammad bin Ali
Hakeemul Tirmidhi”
The saying of Banarsi that Imam Subki categorized Imam Ahmad bin Hambal
amongst Shafi’i in “Tabqaat” is incorrect. Perhaps Banarsi didn’t even see “Tabqaat”,
otherwise he would have not written so! Tajuddin Subki classified Imam Ahmad bin
Hambal into “first group” and his wordings are:
“First group” belong to those people who sat in the assembly of Imam Shafi’i together.”
Since Imam Ahmad bin Hambal was student of Imam Shafi’i, so he was assumed
amongst “first group” but at the same time clarified that he was Mujtahid al Mustaqil
(Independent Jurist) and possessor of doctrine. Hence the wordings of Imam Taaj Subki
are these:
Imam Tajuddin Subki classified Imam Bukhari into “second group” about which
he says this:
“The category of “second group” belonged to those who died after 200 Hijri and who
could not get the opportunity to be with Imam Shafi’i and those who followed only
method of Imam Shafi’i and sufficed to only those who saw Imam Shafi’i at hand and
applied approach of Imam Shafi’i, whose moon (of knowledge) appeared in between the
darkness of doubts.”
Thus, Imam Bukhari being from Shafi’i school of Jurisprudence is now proved.
Banarsi quoted Allama Ismail Ujlooni’s saying to prove Imam Bukhari as an
Mujtahid al Mustaqil (Independent Jurist) but this does not fulfil the objection of Banarsi
because there are two types of Mujtahid al Mutlaq (full Jurist). First is “Mujtahid al
Mustaqil (Independent)” and second is “Mujtahid al Muntasib (Attributed)” about which
Shah Wali Ullah (Allah’s mercy be upon him) says:
“And it should be acknowledged that Mujtahid al Mutlaq is one who comprehends the
five acquaintances….. Then this should be known that it is Mujtahid al Mustaqil and
sometimes Mujtahid who is related with Mujtahid al Mutalq (i.e. attributed). And
Mujtahid al Mustaqil is different from the other jurists in the following three matters as
these were found in Imam Shafi’i:
1: Those rules and regulations through which deduction of jurisprudence is done should
be acquired.
2: Second quality about Mujtahid al Mustaqil is that, he compiles the traditions and
narrations, and conveys their commands, and knows the source of jurisprudence in it, and
identifies the difference in it, and prefers certain over certain others, and appoints some of
the suppositions (to his doctrine), and about two third of this thing is found in the
knowledge of Imam Shafi’i as far as our knowledge is concerned. And Allah knows best.
3: Third quality in Mujtahid al Mustaqil is that, those issues which are not answered
already, meaning those which are witness to be satisfactory in the three ages, but creates
further division of those issues and answers them.
He should be having good command over these three points and he should be superior
and takes lead in the ground of competition in between those who are equal to him and be
the greatest individual in this field. After these three points, fourth one follows which is,
his acceptance should be revealed from the heaven, so that Mufassireen (the writers of
Quranic exegesis) and Muhaddithin (interpreters of the traditions) and Jurist and faction
of memorizers of the books of jurisprudence all bend down to his knowledge. And, his
acceptability and the attention of scholars (towards him) spreads to the whole realm of
the era to this extend that it penetrates into the depth of hearts. And Mujtahid al Muntasib
is a person who is follower of Mujtahud al Mustaqil such that he admits the first point
(mentioned above) and selects to adopt the way of his own in the second point. And
Mujtahid fil Madhab (Jurist of doctrine) is one who admits first and second points but to
the third point makes his own approach in resolving the issues.
(See also ‘Aqd al-Jaiyad with urdu translation, page 10)
Now it is to see that Allama ‘Ujlooni wrote about Imam Bukhari as Mujtahid, but
which type (of Mujtahid) did he mean? I say this very strongly that Allama ‘Ujlooni or
anyone else did not mean to write Imam Bukhari as Mujtahid al Mustaqil (Independent
Jurist).
Ibn Ziaad Shafi’i Yemeni contradicted with the statement of Allama Suyuti (died
on 911 Hijri) and writes his verdict like this:
“The inscription of Suyuti is that Ibn Jareer Tabari should not be counted as Shafi’i,
which is not admitted because Rafi’ said in the commentary of beginning of book of
Zakah that saying of Ibn Jareer alone could not be counted as doctrine even if he is not
categorized amongst the companions of Imam Shafi’i. And Nawawi said in “Tahzeeb”
that Abu ‘Aasim ‘Abaadi categorized Ibn Jareer amongst the Shafi’i Jurists and said that
this person is amongst our kindred scholars. He learnt Shafi’i school of thought from
Rabi’ Maraawi and Hasan Za’faraani. End of saying of Nawawi.”
And meaning of being related with Shafi’i is that (he) followed the way of Imam Shafi’i
in the search of Ijtihaad and evidences and about preferring certain over certain others,
and his Ijtihaad is agreeable to the Ijtihaad of Imam and if he went against on some
issues then didn’t care for the disagreement and didn’t went against Imam’s method
beside some matters and (this thing is not against in) remaining present in Shafi’i school
of thought. And Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari was also of the same sort because he is
counted in the category of Shafi’iyah and those, who counted him in the group of
Shafi’iyah, amongst them is Sheikh Taaj-ud-Din Subki because he said that Bukhari
learnt jurisprudence from Humaydi and Humaydi learnt jurisprudence from Imam Shafi’i.
And to include Imam Bukhari into Shafi’i, our teacher Allama took this declaration that
Taaj-ud-Din Subki mentioned in “Tabqaat-us-Shafi’iyah” and Nawawi’s saying, which
we quoted, is witness of this matter.
(Insaaf, with urdu translation, page 66-67)
Summary of the speech is that if we agree to take Imam Bukhari as Mujtahid who
is attributed to Imam Shafi’i, he still cannot be excluded from the Shafi’i school. But for
Imam Bukhari in being this kind of jurist is not due to some distinction, because there are
many such jurists in Shafi’i school of thought. Accordingly, Shah Wali Ullah Muhaddith
Dehlvi (Allah’s mercy be upon him) writes:
Some names are written with reference as the examples:
1. Imam Ibn al-Manzar:
Meaning: “Imam was Jurist”.
2. Imam Ibn Jazeemah:
Meaning: “Abu Bakr al-Salami Naishapoori was Mujtahid al Mutlaq”.
3. Imam Ibn Jareer at-Tabari:
Meaning: “Imam Jaleel was Mujtahid al Mutlaq”.
4. Abu al-Qasim Ibn Abi Ya’laa ad-Daboosi:
Meaning: “Was a star in doing Ijtihaad.”
5. Abu al-Faatih Taqi-ud-Din bin Qadeed al-‘Aeed:
Meaning: “Sheikh ul Islam, memorizer, ascetic, devotee, abstemious, was Mujtahid al
Mutlaq”.
6. Imam Ali bin Abdul Kaafi al-Subki:
Meaning: “Educator of the educators was amongst Mujtahidin”.
These all were Mujtahid al Muntasib (attributed, related), and none of them was
Mujtahid al Mustaqil (Independent). Hence Allama Suyuti wrote in “Sharah alTambiyah”:
“I do not know any of the companions of Imam Shafi’i who reached the status of
Mujtahid al Mustaqil except for Abu Ja’far ibn Jareer who was Shafi’i and became
Independent in doctrine later.
But Ibn Ziaad proved it that Ibn Jareer was too not Mujtahid al Mustaqil, as
mentioned earlier.
It is understood from the above explanation that Imam Bukhari was not Mujtahid
al Mustaqil (Independent) but was Mujtahid al Muntasib (related) within Shafi’i school.
And here it is also necessary to clarify this that scholars are not agreed about him being
Mujtahid al Muntasib (attributed to) Shafi’i Doctrine. Shaykh ul Islam Taaj-ud-Din Subki
explained in his “Tabqaat” that so and so elder was Mujtahid al Mutlaq (Full Mujtahid)
as it is comprehensible in the examples, but he didn’t write Imam Bukhari as Mujtahid,
his wordings about Imam Bukhari are:
“He is guide of Muslims, leader of Muhaddithin (interpreters of Ahadith), prelate of
faithful ones, reliable source of traditions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him), memorizer of the dispositions of the religion, Abu Abdullah Ja’afi the
aristocrat of Ja’af dynasty, meaning Imam Bukhari is compiler of authentic (traditions).”
This tells that Imam Bukhari’s popularity is in art of the traditions only. Imam
Yaaqut Hamoodi (died on 626 Hijri) writes about the charisma of Bukharaa:
“There are many people related to Bukhaara who are leaders of Muslims in different
aspects. Amongst them is leader of people of the traditions, Imam Abu Abdullah
Muhammad bin Ismail.”
We can’t quote further more references here, but, amongst them, the words of
Imam Taaj-ud-Din Subki bears great reputation. He is Shafi’i, his father was Mujtahid he
himself was Mujtahid and therefore Allama Jalaal-ud-Din Suyuti writes about his
personality:
“Chief Justice Sheikh ul Islam Taaj-ud-Din Subki once wrote a letter to the ruler of Syria
in which he wrote “I am Mujtahid al Mutlaq (Full Mujtahid) of today’s world, none can
deny this” and his saying about himself is accepted.”
When such person about whom Jalaal-ud-Din Suyuti and even the world
acknowledged as Mujtahid al Mutlaq and got the upper hand in a work of art amongst
scholars of Shafi’iyah, didn’t write Imam Bukhari as Mujtahid al Mutlaq; though
clarified some Shafi’i scholars, who were capable for such status, to be Mujtahidin. For
this reason this Shaykh’s saying is superior and carries no qualms in its authenticity. And
this Shaykh is not the only individual in this motto, but abundance of rest of the scholars
confirmed it to be truth.
Over here this point is also worthy of consideration that Imam Tirmidhi, who is
student of Imam Bukhari, in his (book) Jami’ where he identified doctrine of different
authorities, nowhere mentioned Imam Bukhari; but, however, mentioned him everywhere
in relation with Ahadith. Thus, it is now proved that Imam Bukhari being Mujtahid is a
weak and ineffective statement. Hence, there is no doubt about Imam Bukhari being a
follower of Imam Shafi’i and follower of Shafi’i school of thought.
Al-Banarsi wrote:
Imam Bukhari not being a Shafi’i
The third allegation on Imam (Bukhari), about being follower of Shafi’i school, is as silly
as calling night to a bright day which is the job of a crook-minded one. This is because
when it is confirmed about Imam being Mujtahid and also from the statements of
Hanafiyah, then how could he be a Muqallid (follower, conformist)? Mujtahid cannot
become a Muqallid (follower); Ijtihaad and Taqleed (conformation) both are opposite to
each other. And it can be understood easily that how can such a capable person be a
follower of a person (Imam Shafi’i) who is beneath him…..
Yes, if some student of Ibn Hanbaqah says
“The door of Ijtihaad is closed after (the Four) Imams; that’s why Imam Bukhari cannot
be Mujtahid al Mustaqil, thus can him only be follower.” This is statement like about a
man who works in a clinic. That’s because the Verifiers of Hanafiyah themselves didn’t
agree on this point. Mulla Abdul ‘Ulaa Bahr-ul-Uloom Hanafi contradicted forcefully in
“Fawaatah-ur-Rahmoot Sharah Muslim al-Saboot” and interpreted with Boo-al-Hoosi.
So it is understood that door
of Ijtihaad is open and will not close until the Day of Resurrection. Imam Bukhari being
Mujtahid al Mustaqil (Independent) and not Muqallid (follower) is brighter than the sun
and clearer that the passed yesterday.
(Hal-e-Mushkilat-e-Bukhari, Part 1, page 8-9)
I say:
Some contemporary writers wrote Imam Bukhari as Mujtahid al Muntasib
(attributed). But their statement is weak and ineffective and even incorrect, as clarified
earlier. Even if we take him as Mujtahid al Muntasib then still he will not be excluded
from the group of Shafi’iyah. Labeling Imam Bukhari to be Mujtahid al Mustaqil is
Banarsi’s and his assistants’ only invention out of the whole world. This is the outcome
of his ignorance. This helpless person got these hearsay words “Mujtahid can’t be
Muqallid (follower), rather these are opposite and contradicting to each other. The door
of Ijtihaad is closed after the Four Jurist” but he can’t understand this that which kind of
Mujtahid cannot be Muqallid? Which type of Ijtihaad is it for which Ijtihaad and Taqleed
(conformation) both goes opposite and contradicting to each other? If the door of Ijtihaad
is closed after the Four Jurists, then which kind of Ijtihaad is it (which is closed)? For this
reason he is saying Imam Bukhari being Mujtahid al Mustaqil is brighter than the sun and
writing Imam Shafi’i is lower in status to Imam Bukhari, and having philosophy that
there are and will be hundreds and thousands of Mujtahid al Mustaqil after the Four
Imams! If this kind of ill-bred person takes the Urdu translators of books “Mishkaat” or
“Bukhari” as Mujtahid al Mustaqil then what is the big deal? Anyway, it is not suitable
for us to answer this person one after another. We should rather try to make our life
pattern as good as similar to the great existence (Sunnah) of our Prophet (Peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him).
Now Maulana Molvi Abdullah Sahib Hanafi Khankahi Bihaari’s statement is
written and then, as programmed, its answer and later will be written answer to the
answer.
Al-Bihaari wrote:
Spectator! In “Shahna-e-Hind” 1st July, an article writer A’zam Gudhi, wrote a
statement under the title “Imam Bukhari aur Imam Abu Haneefah ka Muqaablah”
(meaning, the competition between Imam Bukhari and Imam Abu Hafeenah) in which
the worthy article writer did not put on inconsiderable business in falsely making his
Imam Bukhari to be the highest heaven according to his knowledge. Contrary to his
fictitious late jurist, (he) didn’t leave a little deficiency in disdaining and diminishing
Imam of high rank Hazrat Saiyudana Abu Haneefah.
(Al-Jarah ‘Alal Bukhari, part 1, page 87)
Al-Banarsi wrote:
Only Imam Bukhari is occurred to be a real Mujtahid throughout the world, who
actually deserves it, because his status is higher than the highest of the heaven. Besides
him, there are jurists with other names as well, but issue of Imam Bukhari being Mujtahid
is so self-evident that it does not require any verification. Proof of the sun is arrival of the
sun itself.
(Hal-e-Mushkilat-e-Bukhari, part 2-3, page 34)
I say:
Banarsi has written it already that the door of Ijtihaad is open and will not close
till the Day of Resurrection, which was meant that there will be continuous appearance of
other Mujtahidin similar to the Four Imams. But, over he said that only Imam Bukhari is
the real Mujtahid throughout the world, rest all are just nominal Mujtahid; what is the
assurance of this statement which is a herd of filth?
Al-Bihaari wrote:
The whole Islamic world knows this statement that Imam Bukhari is a follower of
Shafi’i school and the real reason for him to be a follower (Muqallid) is that he kept on
crying all the age in front of Allah for Ijtihaad and to become an arbitrator of
jurisprudence and kept on making noise of distress. But, the fact is same that he remained
to be a Muqallid (follower), then how could he be a Mujtahid instead of Muqallid?
(Al-Jarah Alal Bukhari, page 90)
Al-Banarasi wrote:
Calling Imam Bukhari a Muqallid (conformist) is same as calling black to white
and night to day. It is strange that the person who refutes Imam Shafi’i everywhere in his
book, still to be labeled him follower? The fact is that Imam Bukhari was not Muqallid
but was Mujtahid himself. I’ve talked about this matter in many pamphlets.
(Hal Mushkilat-e-Bukhari, part 2-3, page 35)
I say:
Banarsi writes at another place:
“Most of Imam Bukhari’s judicial issues are associated with Imam Shafi’i but he was not
follower of Shafi’i school. Rather, at some places, he clearly contradicted with Imam
Shafi’i. The allegation of Taqleed of Shafi’i school on him is incorrect, false and
deception, which I’ve analyzed in many of my pamphlets”.
(Hal Mushkilat-e-Bukhari, part 2-3, page 123)
It can be found in every two statement of Banarsi that according to him,
contradiction of Imam Bukhari with Imam Shafi’i in some matters is proving this fact
that Imam Bukhari was Mutahid al Mustaqil (Independent) and not a Muqallid of Shafi’i
school. Answer to this is that none, throughout the world, said Imam Bukhari to be
Mujtahid al Mustaqil, and he is (indeed) not (a Mujtahid al Mustaqil). But yes, some
contemporary writers called him Mujtahid al Muntasib (Jurist attributed to) Imam Shafi’i
which is weak, ineffective and even incorrect. By seeing the Sharah of chapters of
Bukhari Sharif, it can be known that Imam Bukhari tried to do Attributed Ijtihaad but that
was proved as ungrateful attempt. Even Imam Tirmidhi in his “Jami’”, while writing the
doctrine of jurists, did not mention his teacher Imam Bukhari’s name; but talked about
him in many places related to Ahadith. If we take Imam Bukhari as Mujtahid al Mutlaq
Muntasib attributed to Shafi’i jurisprudence, then still he cannot be excluded from the
category of Shafi’i, as explained earlier, and his contradiction with Imam Shafi’i in some
matter also cannot exclude him from category of Shafi’iyah. Consequently, Sheikh ul
Islam, Taaj-ud-Din Subki writes in the interpretation of Imam ibn al-Manzar:
“Our Spiritual Guide Zahabi said that ibn al-Manzar had excessive cognizance in Hadith
and disagreement and he was Mujtahid who didn’t follow conformation of anyone. I say
that all the Four Muhammads, meaning Muhammad bin Nasir, Muhammad bin Jareer,
Muhammad bin Khuzaimah and Muhammad bin Manzar, belonged to our companions of
Shafi’iyah and they reached the status to do full Ijtihaad (Mutlaq). And they being the
Mujtahid al Mutlaq did not exclude themselves from those companions of Imam Shafi’i
who used to extract issues in Shafi’i laws and used to follow the Doctrine of Shafi’i as
though their Ijtihaad became superior to the Ijtihaad of Imam Shafi’i. Moreover, some of
our genuine companions of Shafi’iyah, e.g. Abu Ali etc, claimed “our opinion and the
opinion of Imam Shafi’i both are same, that’s why we followed Imam Shafi’i and got
linked with Imam Shafi’i but we are not Muqallidin (conformists).” Thus, what
presumption you have about these four people who, if contradict with opinion of Imam
Shafi’i in some matter, but didn’t contradict in greater part of the matters with opinion of
Imam Shafi’i. Understand this very thoroughly and know this that these four are counted
amongst the category of Shafi’iyah, and are those who extract issues in the Shafi’i
regulations in most matter, and are followers of Shafi’i Doctrine.”
It is as clear as a bright day in this statement that Imam Bukhari was not even an
Attributed Jurist (Mujtahid Mutlaq Muntasib) otherwise Allama Subki would’ve written
“all five” instead of “all four”. Secondly, if he was Attributed Jurist (Mujtahid Mutlaq
Muntasib) then still he would be counted amongst the followers of Shafi’i school even if
he disagreed with Imam Shafi’i in some matters. Therefore, the allegation of AdamTaqleed (Non-Conformation of Shafi’i) over Imam Bukhari is incorrect, false and
deception.
So what if Banarsi has written many pamphlets about this topic. This ignoramus
stockless humble self (Tawakkali) has written a few pages by the grace of the Almighty;
consider them to be the answer to all of them (the pamphlets). If Banarsi or anyone of the
same nature somehow tries to proof Imam Bukhari to be Mujtahid al Mustaqil
(Independent Jurist) then he will never be able to do so. Banarsi is palpitating very much
for Imam Bukhari only due to his misapprehension. Come! Let’s take you to the trip of
“Bustan-e-Muhadditheen” (Persian book written by Maulana Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlvi);
you will see there as well that how some great Imams adorn the necklace of Taqleed
(following a school of fiqh) on their necks.
1. Imam Abu Daood Sulaiman bin Ash’ath Sajastani Sahib al-Sunan (died on 275
Hijri).
“There is a difference of opinion of scholars about his doctrine. Some say he was Shafi’i
and some say he was Hambali”.
2. Imam Abu Abdur Rahman Ahmad bin Shuaib Nisaai Sahib al-Sunan (died in 303
Hijri).
“He was a Shafi’i, his book “Manaasik” is the evidence about him”.
3. Imam Abdullah bin Mubarak, leader of the faithfuls in traditions (died in 181
Hijri).
“Abdullah bin Mubarak was leader of faithful people in (matters of) Ahadith. Primarily
he adopted the apprenticeship of Imam-e-Azam Abu Haneefah (May Allah be pleased
with him) and learnt jurisprudence from him. After the death of Imam-e-Azam (Allah’s
mercy be upon him), he learnt jurisprudence further by Imam Malik in Madeenah
Munawwarah. His Ijtihaad is the compendium of both jurisprudences. This is the reason
Ahnaaf count him in Hanafiyah category and Malikis count him in Malikiyah category.”
4. Imam Daarqutni Sahib al-Sunan (died on 385 Hijri).
“Imam Daarqutni compiler of al-Sunan, his name and family-tree is as follows: Ali, who
was son of Umar, who was son of Ahmad, who was son of Mahdi, who was son of
Mas’ood, who was son of Deenaar, who was son of Abdullah; his appellation was Abul
Hasan and his doctrine was Shafi’i.”
5. Imam Abu Bakr Baihaqi (died on 458 Hijri).
“Imam al-Haramain said about Imam Abu Bakr that there is no (follower of) Imam
Shafi’i on earth who is not grateful to Imam Shafi’i except for Imam Abu Bakr Baihaqi,
because Imam Shafi’i is grateful to him, who favoured and supported his (Imam Shafi’s)
doctrine through writings/compilations.”
6. Imam Abu Muhammad Hussain bin Muhammad Baghwi Sahib-e-Sharah alSunnah (died on 516 Hijri)
“Imam Abu Muhammad Hussain al-Baghwi, Sahib al-Sharah al-Sunnat, he is compiler of
all three acquaintances, and reached a higher rank in all of them; was an incomparable
Muhaddith and unmatched Mufassir, and was Imam in the Doctrine of Shafi’i school.”
So far it is an enough trip of “Bustaan” of Maulana Shah Abdul Aziz Sahib, allow
us to show you his father’s “Insaaf” now:
“The real book of Shafi’i school of thought is Muwatta, even if it is before Imam Shafi’i
but Imam Shafi’i laid the foundation of his school of thought by it, and likewise the
books of their school of thought are Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Abu Dawood,
Tirmidhi, Ibn-e-Maajah, Darimi; and then Masnad Shafi’i, Sunan Nisaai, Sunan
Daarqutni, Sunan Baihaqi and Baghwi’s Sharah al-Sunnah. Amongst them if Bukhari got
related with Imam Shafi’i and favoured him in many matter of jurisprudence, still
contradicted with him in many matters, and as a result those matters in which he
contradicted are not counted amongst the matters of Doctrine of Imam Shafi’i. And Abu
Dawood and Tirmidhi were Mujtahidin and related with Imam Ahmad or Ishaaq, and the
same way Ibn Maajah and Darimi are as well. And Allah knows best. And Muslim and
Abu Abbaas Asam compiled Masnad Shafi’i and Kitab ul Umm. And those people
(meaning Imam Nisaai, Imam Daarqutni, Imam Baihaqi and Imam Baghwi), about which
we’d mentioned them after Masnad Shafi’i, those people were followers in the Doctrine
of Shafi’i school and are stuck to it.
(Insaaf with Urdu translation Kashaaf, Page 79-80)
(Molwi Muhammad Ahsan Sahib Nanotwi did the translation of the Arabic
statement
as “those people
are separated from Doctrine of Shafi’i who accepted the policy of others except for his
policy.” This translation was not correct, that’s why I didn’t establish it. Tawakkali)
Thus according to Shah Abdul Aziz, Imam Muslim, Abu Abbas Asam, Imam
Nisaai, Imam Daarqutni, Imam Baihaqi and Imam Baghwi were just followers of Shafi’i
school of jurisprudence and didn’t possess the ability to do Ijtihaad. And Imam Bukhari
was Shafi’i. Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Ibn Maajah and Darimi were all Hambalis and had a
status to do Ijtihaad attributed (with their Mujtahid Mustaqil).
Viewers! You got late, also listen to the decision of a Mujtahid al Mutlaq
(Attributed):
Imam Bukhari (Tabqaat-ush-Shafi’iyah al-Kubra, part 2, page 1),
Imam Abu Dawood Sulaiman bin Ash’ab Sajistaani (Tabqaat, part 2, page 48),
Hafiz Abu Sa’eed Daarimi (Tabqaat, Part 2, page 53),
Imam Abu Abdur Rahmaan Nisaai (Tabqaat, part 2, page 83),
Imam Daarqutni (Tabqaat, part 2, page 310),
Imam Baihaqi (Tabqaat, part 3, page 3),
Imam Muhi al-Sunnah Baghwi (Tabqaat, part 4, page 214)
They were all followers of Imam Shafi’i who have great stand in the art of
Ahadith.
Now finish the speech Tawakkali! It is enough for those who prefer acceptance of
righteousness.