Rules for Muslim Women working outside:

Rules for Muslim Women working outside:

The basic principle is that a woman should remain at home, and not go out except for necessary purposes. Allaah says:

“And stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves like that of the times of ignorance”

[al-Ahzaab 33:33].

Although this is addressed to the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), it also applies to the believing women. It is only addressed to the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) because of their honour and status with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and because they are examples for the believing women.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Woman is ‘awrah, and if she goes out, the shaytaan raises his hopes (of misguiding her). She is never closer to Allaah than when she stays in her house.”
Narrated by Ibn Hibbaan and Ibn Khuzaymah; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Shaheehah, no. 2688.

And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning a woman’s prayer in the mosque: “Their houses are better for them.” Narrated by Abu Dawood (567) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

Secondly:

It is permissible for a woman to go out of her house for work, but that is subject to certain conditions. If they are met, it is permissible for her to go out. They are:

-That she needs to work in order to acquire the money she needs, in case no one else supports her financially.

-There is important need of the community, like in the fields of medicine, teaching, etc.

-The work should be suited to the nature of woman, such as medicine, nursing, teaching, sewing, and so on.

-The work should be in a place that is only for women, and there should be no mixing with non-mahram men.

-Whilst at work she should observe complete shar’i hijab. She should avoid interaction with males as much as possible and if unavoidable, then she should speak with modesty and only to the extent necessary, avoiding softness in voice. Casual interaction with male colleagues is strictly prohibited.

-Her work should not lead to her travelling without a mahram (distance of more than 48 miles or 77 Kms).

-Her going out to work should not involve committing any haraam action, such as being alone with the driver, or wearing perfume where non-mahrams can smell it.

-That should not lead to her neglecting things that are more essential for her, such as looking after her house, husband and children.

No compromise in matters of Deen:

No compromise in matters of Deen:

"If you obey the majority of those on earth, they will make you lose the path of Allah. They follow nothing but whims, and they do nothing but make conjectures."
 -Qur'an 6:116

So Muslims need not worry too much about 'public opinion' as the kuffar will never like or approve of the Muslims following Shari'a.
They will continue to make demands from us to keep diluting our Deen till nothing is left of it!

"...The shaytans inspire their friends to dispute with you. If you obeyed them you would then be idolaters." 6:121

So these kuffar will keep disputing with us regarding the different aspects of Islam. And if we obey them we will loose our Emaan itself and become mushrik like them.

Allah clearly warns us the consequences of diluting our Deen to appease others:
 " And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, "Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the [only] guidance." If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allah no protector or helper." 2:120.
Their religion may be Christianity or Judaism or secularism-athiesm or whatever! They will try their utmost to make us adopt it by force if necessary. The history of colonialism and the current era neo-colonial projects and the media war against Islam all testify to it.

Ottoman Muslim Women During the Advent of Western Feminism

Ottoman Women During the Advent of Western Feminism

by Zara Huda Faris

“As to women, as many, if not more than men, are to be seen in the streets [i.e. going about their daily activities, etc] […] I think I never saw a country where women may enjoy so much liberty, and free from all reproach, as in Turkey […] The Turks in their conduct towards our sex are an example to all other nations; […] and I repeat it, sir, I think no women have so much liberty, safe from apprehension, as the Turkish – and I think them in their manner of living, capable of being the happiest creatures breathing.”
– Lady Elizabeth Craven, A Journey Through the Crimea to Constantinople, 1789[i]

Lady Elizabeth Craven, 18^th century travel writer, playwright and author, made these observations about the women of the Ottoman Caliphate (an Islamic state) in 1789, before the advent of feminism in Europe and three years before Mary Wollstonecraft would publish A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), the 300-page appeal that would become the foundation stone and herald of modern feminism.
The observations of Lady Elizabeth Craven and others, along with records of court proceedings, financial dealings and political documents, reveal that women of the Ottoman Caliphate actually experienced greater liberty and protection than their post-enlightenment Western counterparts, and notably without the need for feminism. 

Yet, today, feminists strive to convince Muslim women of the exact opposite: that Muslim women have always suffered because of Islam and, in a strange twist of thought, advocate feminism as the solution to the problems of the Muslim world.

Note:

[i] Elizabeth Craven (Baroness), A Journey Through the Crimea to Constantinople: In a Series of Letters from the Right Honourable Elizabeth Lady Craven to His Serene Highness The Margrave of Brandebourg, Anspach, and Bareith, London.

Extract from https://zarafaris.com/2013/08/03/ottoman-women-during-the-advent-of-european-feminism

Health care during Mughal rule in India:

Health care during Mughal rule in India:

Public hospitals were established during Mughal period. Jahangir (son of Akbar) stated in his autobiography that on his accession to the throne, he ordered the establishment of hospitals in large cities at government expense [1].

Although the supply of local physicians was not plentiful, the local physicians were able to deal with normal problems. As early as 1616, they knew the important characteristics of the bubonic plague and suggested suitable preventive measures [2].

The use of medicines had been fairly well developed among the Hindus, but dissection was considered to be irreligious. The Muslims, who did not have this restriction, performed a number of operations.
As Elphinstone pointed out, “their surgery is as remarkable as their medicine, especially when we recollect their ignorance of anatomy. They cut for the kidney stone disease (Pathri), couched for the cataract, and extracted the foetus from the womb, and their early works enunciate no less than one hundred and twenty-seven surgical works” (3).

During the Mughal period it seems that health and medical facilities were good and people enjoyed decent health as reported by many foreign travellers [4].

References:
1] Saran P. The provincial government of the Mughals. Allahabad, India: Kitabistan; 1941.
[2] Khan Mutamid, Nama Iqbal. quoted In: Edwardes SM, Garrett HLO, editors. Mughal Rule in India. Delhi: Chand; 1956. p. 279.
[3] Quoted in Chopra PN. Some aspects of society and culture during the Mughal age; 1955 152 [Agra, n. 10].
[4] John Fryer, A new account of East India and Persia, ed. by William Crooke (3 vols.; London, 1909–1915); Edward F. Oaten, European travellers in India (London, 1909); and other works in the Hakluyt series.

(Extracts from http://www.casereportswomenshealth.com/article/S2214-9112(14)00003-4/pdf)

Feminism Vs Religion

Feminism Vs religion:

(Extract from Ustadh Daniel Haqiqatjou's article on feminism https://muslimskeptic.com/2017/09/19/grave-implications-feminist-islam/ )

Women who identify as feminists are far less likely to be religious than the general female population.[1] In the general population, about 7 out of 10 women say they are affiliated with an organized religion like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. Among feminist women, however, only 1 out of 10 report any such affiliation.[2]

But does this indicate a trend of women leaving faith due to feminism? Other statistics support this contention. For example, between 1993 and 2013, the number of nonreligious women tripled in the US.[3] Nonreligious people in general increased in this time range, but what is particularly telling is that the growth of the nonreligious women demographic outpaced the overall increase. In 1993, 16 percent of atheists and agnostics were women, but within 20 years, that number nearly tripled to 43 percent.[4]Analysts contend that it is the spread of feminist and secular ideology through mass media and increasingly the internet and social media that is responsible for these jumps in non-religiosity.[5]

Notes-

[1] Aune, Kristin. “Much Less Religious, A Little More Spiritual.” Feminist Review, vol. 97, no. 1, Mar. 2011, pp. 32–55., link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Ffr.2010.33. Accessed 16 Aug. 2017.

[2] Aune, Kristin. “Why Feminists Are Less Religious.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 29 Mar. 2011, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/29/why-feminists-less-religious-survey. Accessed 16 Aug. 2017.

[3] Marcotte, Amanda. “America Is Losing Religion: Why More and More Women Are Embracing Non-Belief.” Alternet, 14 May 2015, www.alternet.org/belief/america-losing-religion-why-more-and-more-women-are-embracing-non-belief. Accessed 16 Aug. 2017.

[4] “2015 State of Atheism in America.” Barna Group, 24 Mar. 2015, www.barna.com/research/2015-state-of-atheism-in-america/. Accessed 16 Aug. 2017.

[5] Aune, Kristin. “Why Feminists Are Less Religious.”

Impact of Increasing women in work-force on family system:

Impact of Increasing women in work-force on family system:

All else being equal, women entering the workforce en masse is a disaster for the family institution. This is in large part because of the preferences of women. Women don’t want to marry men who earn less than they do. A variety of peer-reviewed research establishes this point. For example, consider the 2017 paper “When Work Disappears: Manufacturing Decline and the Falling Marriage-Market Value of Men.” Researchers found that when men lose jobs, fertility and marriage rates plummet. Meanwhile births out of wedlock and the percentage of singe family homes blows up. They found the opposite to be true as well. When men are employed and are earning more than women, marriage and fertility rates go up and single family homes decrease. Other research  ( https://ifstudies.org/blog/better-educated-women-still-prefer-higher-earning-husbands ) corroborates the conclusion that women’s preferences for husbands that out-earn them underlies this dynamic.

This has become an embarrassment for feminists. The numbers don’t lie. Female career advancement negatively impacts marriages which increases single motherhood, and single motherhood leads to higher crime rates, drug rates, unemployment rates, and other social ills. Even if feminists don’t like it, facts are facts. And given the facts, then through basic causal reasoning we can conclude that female career advancement is a bad thing for society.

 What could be more fulfilling than climbing the corporate ladder? This is the rhetorical question women are fed over and over again. The indoctrination runs so deep that even many of those women who make a commitment to raising their children full time nonetheless experience crippling self doubt. “What am I missing in the corporate world?”

This modern cultural emphasis on “career” is toxic for families but is absolutely deadly when the emphasis is on women to pursue corporate careers at the expense of getting married, having children, and raising those children.

Muslims are in the best position to understand all this since a man’s role as breadwinner is legislated within the Sharia. Of course, this does not foreclose the possibility of some women working in different capacities, but for Muslim civilization, these were exceptional instances that proved the rule.

-Extracts from Ustadh Daniel Haqiqatjou's article https://muslimskeptic.com/2019/01/07/islam-is-the-solution-america-needs/

Women get more share in Inheritance under Shari'a law:

Women get more share in Inheritance under Shari'a law:

If you view only one aspect of the bigger picture of the shariah, which is sometimed presented incorrectly, you will miss the wisdom that it holds as an integrated whole.

In Islamic law of inheritance, Women get less than men in only 4 situations, equal in 20 situations and more than men in 14 situations!

And remember that all the financial needs of women have to be borne by their male relatives at every stage of her life.
And if her male relatives do not support her, she can claim it through law.

If she doesn't have any male relatives to support, it's the responsibility of the Muslim society and the government to support her and her kids.

Apart from this, she gets Mehr during marriage, which is totally her's.

She also has right to own property or any wealth independently and she can do business if she wants. She can dispose of her wealth in any manner she likes.

Even if the husband is poor and his wife is rich, it's still the responsibility of the husband to take care of her and their children's needs and he cannot force her to support or share in family expenses.

And all these economic rights were given to women by Islam since more than 1440 years.

Why was there no need for an enlightenment in Islamic world:

On Islamic philosophy, intellectual freedom in the medieval Muslim world,  the continuing philosophical tradition in the Muslim world and why there was no need for an 'enlightenment' in Islamic world:
(Extracts from an interview with Professor Peter Adamson, who is a professor of late ancient and Arabic philosophy at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. His primary areas of interest are late ancient philosophy and Arabic philosophy, and is the author of books including The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy and Philosophy in the Islamic World. He is also the host of the weekly podcast 'History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps'.)

   "In general, there was very little intellectual persecution in the Islamic world.
There was a lot more openness and freedom for intellectual debate in the Islamic world than in the Latin medieval world because there was no Church. There was no one who had authority to come along and say, ‘you can’t say that.’ Although there are some exceptions to this rule, generally speaking, it doesn’t really make much sense to think that the way that books were written in the Islamic world had to do with avoiding persecution, because there was so little persecution to be avoided.

When you say there was no Church, weren’t there religious leaders fulfilling that role?

There were religious scholars but they were independent of political institutions. They were the people you would consult if you wanted to know the answer to a question and they were involved in the law. But they couldn’t necessarily have ordered soldiers to come down and arrest you and execute you.

We’ve talked about philosophers in the early medieval period. There was this amazing flourishing of ideas in the Islamic world. Was that something that got closed off, or is it a continuing tradition?

It’s a continuing tradition. That’s why I wanted to mention the Rāzī because he, in a way, stands at the beginning of that later tradition, as a conduit through which people respond to earlier figures like Avicenna. Avicenna really became the main figure for subsequent generations. If you move ahead to philosophy in the Safavid period, there was a really important figure called Mulla Ṣadrā. He was contemporary with early modern thinkers, dying in 1640.

You have to remember that the Arabic to Latin Translation Movement happened around 1200, and Fakhruddin Al-Razi lived all the way out in Central Asia and Persia. So, he lived too late for his works to be translated into Latin. This contributes to the illusion and myth that philosophy in the Islamic world ended with Averroes, because he was the last figure whose works were translated into Latin. But really what happened is that, especially in the eastern part of the Islamic Empire, there was a continuing production of philosophical and philosophically-informed theological works which went on century after century, all the way up to the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 19th century.

Even in otherwise very good introductions to the history of philosophy, you’ll see this idea that philosophy in the Islamic world dies after Averroes, that it all becomes mysticism or whatever. This is complete nonsense. Just in terms of the number of texts, there were many more philosophical works after that period than before. But they’re very badly studied—and the main reason is that they had no influence on European culture. Specialists in the field have only started looking at them recently.

(Answering Why the Islamic world didn’t have an 'Enlightenment'?):

People often think that there was this break or collapse of Islamic philosophy. In a way, the contrast with Europe is not so much that it collapsed but that it didn’t. You didn’t have an Enlightenment where they made a big show of setting aside everything that came from the scholastic traditions, and starting from scratch (not that they really did this in Europe either, but they pretended to).

In the Islamic tradition they kept working on what were often very technical areas of Avicennan philosophy, trying to negotiate between Avicennan philosophy and Islam. They were innovative; they made progress in logic, metaphysics, psychology, and so on. But they didn’t have a real restart as happened in modern Europe. The result of that is that when the colonialist period happened, you had a confrontation between a very longstanding intellectual culture—that came from the period we’ve been talking about—and a new wave of ideas from Europe. They clashed and then more intellectual developments grew out of that, like, for example, radical Islam and Salafism which have been inspired, in part, by European philosophy. Whether they would admit that or not is another matter.

Source: https://fivebooks.com/best-books/peter-adamson-philosophy-islamic-world/?utm_content=buffereb0c0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Sahih Hadith against Leaving from the taraweeh before the Imam finishes

Leaving from the taraweeh before the Imam finishes:

It is noticed that some of the people during taraweeh prayers leave after imam finishes 8 rakats, thinking that sunnah is only 8 rakats or due to other reasons.
This is against saheeh hadith (given below) and also against the fatwas of Shaikhs Bin Baaz, Jibreen, Munajjid etc.

However, If someone wants to pray only 8 rakats then they should go to a Masjid where taraweeh of only 8 rakats is prayed.

It is proven from the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that he encouraged praying Taraweeh in congregation and he said:
“Whoever stays with the imam until he leaves, (the reward of) qiyaam al-layl will be written for him.”

Narrated and classed as saheeh by al-Tirmidhi (806); also narrated by Abu Dawood (1375), al-Nasaa’i (1605), and Ibn Maajah (1327). Also classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi. 

This reward will not be attained by anyone but the one who prays with the imam until he has finished all the prayers.

*The one who only prays some of the prayer and then leaves is not entitled to the reward promised in this hadeeth, which is that of spending a night in prayer (qiyaam layl). 

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: 

If a person prays in Ramadan with someone who prays twenty-three rak‘ahs, but he only prays eleven and does not complete the prayer with the imam, is this action of his in accordance with the Sunnah? 

*He replied: The Sunnah is to complete the prayer with the imam, even if he prays twenty-three rak ‘ahs, because the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever stands (in prayer) with the imam until he finishes, Allah will record for him (the reward of) spending a night in prayer.” According to another report: “… The rest of that night.” 

It is better for one who is praying behind an imam to stay with him until he finishes, whether he prays eleven rak‘ahs or thirteen or twenty three or whatever. That is preferable, to follow the imam until he finishes.
End quote from Majmoo‘ Fataawa Ibn Baaz, 11/325 

Shaykh Ibn Jibreen (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

Praying qiyaam in Ramadan is attained by praying part of the night, such as half of it or one third of it, whether that is by praying eleven rak‘ahs or twenty-three. Qiyaam is attained by praying behind the neighbourhood imam until he finishes, even if he finishes within one hour. 

Taken from:
https://islamqa .info/en/153247

Apart from loosing the rewards of qiyaam layl the brothers who leave the rows of the Masjid after 8 rakats become a cause of unnecessary disturbance to the congregation and a fitna for the other people with a weak determination and poor knowledge of the Deen, causing them to leave as well considering that it's okay to leave when one wants instead of forcing one's nafs to complete the taraweeh!

So if someone thinks that taraweeh is only 8 rakaats, then let him go to Masjid where only 8 rakaats are offered by the imam.
May Allah guide us all.

FUQAHAA HAVE THE MOST CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF QURAN & HADITH:

FUQAHAA HAVE THE MOST CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF QURAN & HADITH:

By Moulana Muhammad Abbasoomar.

"Some contemporaries, who degrade the Fiqh of the four Imams and their followers, actually do so because they view legitimate “difference of opinion” as evil. This is the reason for which they keep harping on the fact that we need to follow the Quran and Sunnah and not any of the Schools of Fiqh. This is an analysis of their claim.

My Honourable Teacher, Al-Muhaddith, Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwamah (may Allah protect him) responds to this with the following:

“Firstly, this implies that the Imams of the four Madhahib (Schools of Fiqh) were not following the Quran and Sunnah!"

Secondly, this can only be said in ignorance of the reality we are faced with; tell me in the name of Allah! Up to how many “schools” have they resulted in? After Muslims lived within the four schools for centuries? Where is the logic behind their claim? (I.e. They have created unlimited schools of thought)

Lastly, I will explain further that following the Quran and Sunnah actually leads us to legitimate difference of opinion.” 
(Atharul Hadithi Shareef, fi ikhtilafil A-immatil Fuqaha, pg.77) (The deeper the knowledge, the stronger the opinion)

A VALUABLE LESSON:

Shaykh ‘Awwamah (may Allah protect him) has included the following incident in his glorious book “Atharul Hadith”.

“Sayyiduna ‘Urwah ibn Zubair – a Tabi’e- (rahimahullah) once objected to Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas -a sahabi- (radiyallahu ‘anhuma): “You have been misleading the people!”

Ibn ‘Abbas (radiyallahu’anhuma) asked for the reason, to which ‘Urwah replied: “When a person dons his Ihram for Haj or ‘Umrah and after arriving in Makkah performs the tawaf only, you state that he is now free of his ihram. Whereas Sayyiduna ‘Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (radiyallahu’anhuma) actually opposed this view!” (They said he will not be halal until he performs the saee and halaq or qasr)

Ibn ‘Abbas responded: “Are the two of them (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyallahu’anhuma) preferred to you over what is in the Quran and Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam)?”

‘Urwah replied: “Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (radiyallahu’anhuma) had more knowledge/ understanding of the Quran and Sunnah than me and you put together!”
(Al-Mu’jamul Awsat of Tabarani, Hadith:21)

In a narration of Musnad Ahmad Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma) responded to ‘Urwah’s objection by saying: “I am quoting a Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam) to you, and you quote Abu Bakr and ‘Umar?!”

‘Urwah replied: “They followed Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam) more than you, and they knew more about him than you know”
(Musnad Ahmad, vol.1, pg.252)

The narrator; Ibn Abi Mulaikah (rahimahullah) comments: “Urwah defeated him.” (Won the argument)

Shaykh ‘Awwamah (may Allah protect him) explains:

“…’Urwah is actually saying to Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas: “By us taking the view of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna ‘Umar (radiyallahu’anhuma) we aren’t disregarding the way of the sunnah. In fact we find ourselves with two options; that which Ibn ‘Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma) witnessed (and understood) from Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) and what Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (radiyallahu anhuma) witnessed/ understood. We then preferred their view because they were most knowledgeable regarding the sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam).”
(Atharul Hadithi Shareef, fi ikhtilafil A-immatil Fuqaha, pg. 108)

Imam Sufyan Thawri (rahimahullah) said:
نسلم ما سمعنا، ونكل ما لا نعلم إلى عالمه، ونتهم رأينا لرأيهم
“We follow what we know, and hand over what we do not know to those who do know. We will even question our understanding in favour of theirs”
(Al-Intiqa, pg.265, 266)

THE REALITY OF "FIQHUS SUNNAH"

Shaykh (may Allah protect him) writes further: “And this is our response to those who ask us to abandon the Fiqh of Imams: Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafi’e and Ahmad (rahimahumullah) and to rather take –what they label as- “Fiqhus-Sunnah” or “Fiqhul-Quran was-Sunnah”

We say to them: “We are not prepared to accept you all as alternatives to those Imams, for they were undoubtedly more knowledgeable than you all regarding the sunnah. In fact there is no comparison between you all and them in knowledge.

It is actually our eagerness to follow the way of Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam) that leads us to follow what these great Imams had understood (and presented to the ummah) as the sunnah!” (Atharul Hadithi Shareef, fi ikhtilafil A-immatil Fuqaha, pgs. 108-109.)

THE TRUE MEANING OF FIQH OF ABU HANIFA ETC:

The word fiqh actually translates as: understanding.

Shaykh ‘Awwamah writes: “Therefore, when we say “Fiqh of Abu Hanifah, Fiqh of Shafi’e and so on, the actual meaning of this is: the understanding of Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Shafi’e. (I.e. Their research in to matters of deen)

The question that arises is: Their understanding of what?

It is their understanding of none other than the Quran and Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam)

The reason for this is that “Fiqh” in fact means: understanding.”

DON'T BE FOOLED!

“In light of the above, we can now realize a widespread grave mistake which nobody seems to pay attention to, or even rectify; when certain people label their “understanding” as “Fiqhus Sunnah” or Fiqhus Sunnah wal Kitab”

This term literally translates as: “the understanding of the Quran and Sunnah”. In this case it is the understanding of some unknown, or under qualified person. It is his understanding which he seeks to legitimise by attributing it to the Quran and Sunnah. This is done to give the impression that they are presenting before the people the “original authentic source” of knowledge (whereas it is merely their distorted understanding). In this manner they deter others from the Fiqh of the Imams; Abu Hanifah, Shafi’e, Malik and Ahmad (rahimahumullah).

They even boldly venture to say: “People! Do you want “Fiqh of Muhammad sallallahu’alaihi wasallam” or “Fiqh of Abu Hanifah and Shafi’ie”?

One of them had the audacity to ask before leading the salah; “Should I perform the salah of Muhammad (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam) or the salah of Abu Hanifah”!!

This is all the consequence of them attributing their Fiqh/understanding to the Quran and sunnah, and the fiqh/understanding of Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Shafi’e to Abu Hanifah and Shafi’e, not to the Quran and Sunnah.

In so doing, they have separated the correct understanding of the Quran and Sunnah (the understanding of legitimate scholars) which in reality was the most appropriate explanation of the Quran and Hadith. They severed this and then produced a new understanding which they attribute to the Quran and Sunnah!” (Atharul Hadith, pgs.134-135)

THEY TRULY DID KNOW BETTER:

Imam Malik (rahimahullah) said:
سلموا للأئمة ولا تجادلوهم، فلو كنا كلما جاءنا رجل أجدل من رجل اتبعناه: لخفنا أن نقع في رد ما جاء به جبريل عليه السلام

“Submit to the Imams and don’t argue with them, for if we were to make a habit of following every more convincing debater, I fear we may end up refuting what Angel Jibreel brought from the skies”. (Atharul Hadith, pg.117)

Imam Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah (rahimahullah) said:
التسليم للفقهاء سلامة في الدين

“In conceding to the Fuqaha (Jurists), is the security for our deen” (Atharul Hadith, pg.117)

Imam Sufyan Thawri (rahimahullah) said:
نسلم ما سمعنا، ونكل ما لا نعلم إلى عالمه، ونتهم رأينا لرأيهم

“We follow what we know, and hand over what we do not know to those who do know. We will even question our understanding in favour of theirs”. 
(Al-Intiqa, pg.265, 266)

THESE QUOTATIONS ARE SO GLARING IN THE CURRENT CONDITIONS:

So the next time someone confronts us with arguments like the ones discussed above, we shouldn’t be moved. In fact, these last three quotations are sufficient in response!

May Allah Ta’ala keep us under the shadows of our Imams which ultimately lead us to the shadow of Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam). Ameen.

~Al Miftah website