Imam Bukhari  Al Shafi’i - Page 04

Monday, 23 November 2009 16:08 Advanced - Books

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 e 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 e 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 e Muntasib (attributed). But their statement is weak and ineffective and even incorrect, as clarified earlier. Even if we take him as Mujtahid e Muntasib then still he will not be excluded from the group of Shafi’iyah. Labeling Imam Bukhari to be Mujtahid e 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 e 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 e Mustaqil after the Four Imams! If this kind of ill-bred person takes the Urdu translators of books “Mishkaat” or “Bukhari” as Mujtahid e 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” 1^st 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 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 Imam. 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 in 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 pamphles”.
(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 e 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 e Mustaqil, and he is (indeed) not (a Mujtahid e Mustaqil). But yes, some contemporary writers called him Mujtahid e Muntasib (Jurist attributed to) Imam Shafi 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 e 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 e 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 opnion 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 follower of Shafi’i school even if he disagreed with Imam Shafi’i in some matters. Therefore, the allegation of Adam-Taqleed (Non-Conformation of Shafi’i) over Imam Bukhari is incorrect, false and deception.