Akram Nadwi’s ‘al-Fiqh al-Islami’ – A reliable book on Hanafi fiqh?

Unfortunately, many unsuspecting Hanafis have purchased a book entitled ‘al-Fiqh al-Islami’ authored by Akram Nadwi, while believing it to be a reliable book on Hanafi Fiqh. Here’s what Mufti Husain Kadodia mentioned regarding  this book when asked what the best book on Hanafi fiqh is for a layperson to study:

If you are planning on studying on your own, then Behisti Zewar. While Nurul Idhah is a basic text, it isn’t that simple. What you could do is study it under the guidance of a scholar, if you cannot get him to teach it to you. The translation is good, the few small mistakes aren’t serious. I would advise staying away from Fiqh al-Islami.

See Mufti Kadodia’s comment here (see post #12 by Mufti Husain Kadodia, username: Husain):

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?36340-book-recommendations&p=307558&viewfull=1#post307558

As we have mentioned elsewhere, Mufti Husain Kadodia’s comment sums up Akram Nadwi’s approach to fiqh very well:

‘Shaykh Akram had sadly shown that not only is his approach to aqidah “Salafi”, his approach to fiqh is not far of from that as well.’

See here (Post #8 by Mufti Husain Kadodia, Username: Husain):

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?40270-Head-covering-for-men

We have also highlighted in the following links, a few of the weak positions he has attributed to the Hanafi school of thought within this book of his:

https://akramnadwi.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/akram-nadwis-strange-views-on-wearing-pig-hide-leather/

https://akramnadwi.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/akram-nadwis-strange-views-on-covering-the-head-in-salah/

Regarding the reliability of Akram Nadwi, it is sad to see that many people today, consider certain individuals to be knowledgeable and reliable for the wrong reasons. Especially so in the case of Akram Nadwi, as is beautifully articulated by Mufti Abu Hajira as follows:

I have 2 comments over all and would not really like to go too much into technicalities here.

1. I think us awaam are really twisted in understanding and recognizing Ahl ul Ilm. We get over awed by the voluminous works, ability of orration and recently an above average ability of referencing our information. I know among my own teachers a couple whose knowledge is like an ocean, yet what becomes apparent in person is mere casual words. It is only in a proper discussion, that their understanding of the deen gets displayed.

2. I have heard contentious remarks from my teachers about Sh. Akram Nadvi as well. ( a rule of thumb is: Do not attribute everyone from Nadwa to be a Deobandi .. search more..)

See the respected Mufti’s comments here (post #39 by Mufti Abu Hajira):

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?41649-Usul-al-Fiqh-Course-With-Shayk-Akram-Nadwi-in-London&p=350910&viewfull=1#post350910

In conclusion, it would be best to take Mufti Husain Kadodia’s advice, and stay away from this book. It would be wiser to rely upon the many more accurate, accepted books on Hanafi Fiqh.

Akram Nadwi’s Strange Views on Wearing Pig Hide/Leather

Akram Nadwi mentions in his book al-Fiqh al-Islami vol.1, pg.30 regarding wearing clothes made from pig hide/leather:

Purifying hide

‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas narrated that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: “If the animal’s skin is tanned, it is purified”.105 Ibn ‘Abbas also reported that a client of Maymunah was given a sheep as charity, and it died. The messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) passed by it and said: “Why did you not remove it’s skin, tan it, and then you would have benefited from it?” She said: “It is dead”. He said to her: “Only eating it is forbidden”.106

Based on these reports, scholars agree that tanning purifies the hide and the fur of any dead animal. However, they differ on whether tanning can purify the hide of a pig. Abu Yusuf holds that it can. Considering this view, boots, shoes, belts or anything else made of tanned pig’s hide are allowed.107

——–

105 – Muslim, k, al-hayd, b, taharat julud al-maytah bi al-dibagh.

106 – Ibid.

107 – See: al-Samarqandi, Tuhfat al-fuqaha’. 39.

The following is what the esteemed Mufti Husain Kadodia has mentioned regarding Akram Nadwi’s presenting this as the Hanafi verdict on this issue:

The view of permissibility has been classified as a weak view in the madhab, contrary to the reliable Mufta bihi position narrated in the books of Zahir ar-Riwayah directly from the imams of the madhab.

The book “Al-Fiqh al-Islami According to the Hanafi Madhhab” does seem to contain a number of weak positions and as such shouldn’t be relied upon to ascertain the correct view of the madhab.

Link (see post #3 by Mufti Husain Kadodia, username: Husain):

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?45180-Pig-leather-question&p=376028&viewfull=1#post376028

As we have mentioned elsewhere, Mufti Husain Kadodia’s comment sums it all up very well:

‘Shaykh Akram had sadly shown that not only is his approach to aqidah “Salafi”, his approach to fiqh is not far of from that as well.’

See here (Post #8 by Mufti Husain Kadodia, Username: Husain):

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?40270-Head-covering-for-men

Akram Nadwi’s Strange Views on Men Covering the Head in Salah

Akram Nadwi mentions in his book Fiqh al-Islami vol.1, pg.110 regarding men covering the head in Salah:

Covering the head for men

It is not a requirement of prayer that men cover their head with a cap or something similar. Safwaan ibn ‘Amr said “I have seen ‘Abdullaah ibn Busr (a Companion) more than fifty times, and never saw on his head any cap or turban, neither in the winter, nor in the summer.” 510 ‘Umar took off his cap and prayed beside it. 511 According to many ahadeeth of the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and narrations from the Companions and scholars of the early generations, prayer in a single cloth is valid and not disapproved of. 512 Mas’ood ibn Hiraash said: “’Umar lead the salaah in a single cloth; nothing was on him other than that cloth.” 513 ‘Ubaydullaah ibn Miqsam said: “I saw Jaabir ibn ‘Abdullaah praying in a single cloth. I asked him: ‘Do you pray in a single cloth while your other clothes are put beside you?’ Jaabir said: ‘Yes, because of someone stupid like you’.” 514 This is also the opinion of Aboo Haneefah, Aboo Yoosuf and Muhammad. 515 There is no evidence in the Sunnah or in the books of Imam Muhammad, al-Sarakhsee, al-Samarqandee, al-Kaasaanee, al-Marghinaanee and other experts of Hanafee Fiqh to suggest that it is required that men cover their heads while praying. Indeed, it is preferable to pray with the head bare provided that this is being done out of humility. 516
————————
510 Aboo Zur’ah, al-Taareekh, i. 214.
511 ‘Abd al-Razzaaq, al-Musannaf, ii. 15.
512 See: Ibn Abee Shaybah, al-Musannaf, i. 275-278.
513 Ibid., i. 276.
514 ‘Abd al-Razzaaq, al-Musannaf, i. 354.
515 al-Tahaawee, Sharh ma’aanee al-aathaar, i. 383.
516 See: al-Fataawaa al-hindiyyah, i. 106.

For which he was refuted on sunniforum by the esteemed scholar from South Africa – Mufti Husain Kadodia as follows:

There is a page about headcovering, Telling that it is better to pray salaah without headcovering.

The author discussed the issue of whether covering the head is a requirement for the validity of salah, yet presented it as the issue of whether the head should be covered or not.
Both are separate issues.

I have never heard any scholar (Hanafi or other) ever claim covering the head to be a condition for the validity of salah.
There is absolutely no difference of opinion on this. Every one agrees that it isn’t fard or wajib.

The issue is whether it is sunnah and would leaving it out be makruh.

The Hanafi books of fiqh clearly discuss the issue and classify it as makruh to perform salah bare-headed.
I discussed the level of its karahah here (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=318851&postcount=26):

“The Syrian Hanafi Faqih, Sh. Muhammad al-Hamid mentioned that the ruling here is Isa’ah إساءة . It is not as severe as Makruh Tahrimi, but more severe than Makruh Tanzihi. See al-Rudud 3/89.

The Ulama of Usul al-Fiqh, derived categories suitable for different rulings, however some ruling don’t exactly fit into a normal category.
eg. The 2 sunnah before Fajr. While it is technically a sunnah, its ruling is higher than sunnah mu’akkadah, but not as high as a wajib; thus one should perform it even while fajr jama’ah has commenced, qada of it is made if missed with the fard etc

The case here is similar. While it isn’t as bad a perpetrating a tahrimi action, it is worse than a tanzihi one. 

And Allah Ta’ala knows best”

As for the “proofs” put forward by Sh. Akram, they don’t hold much weight.

He mentions:
1- the incident of Abd Allah ibn Busr :anhu: and his not covering his head.
The narration is weak, plus the fact that they singled out this Sahabi is an indication that the general practice of the Sahabah :anhum: was to the contrary. That is why you will find hundreds of narrations of sahabah and tabi’in etc covering their heads and maybe one or two of them leaving it uncovered.
The narration also doesn’t mention anything about salah, just that whenever this certain narrator saw him, his head was uncovered. It is possible that he sued to cover his head during salah.

2- Umar :anhu: taking off his cap and praying beside it.
It is a weak narration.
Then, it doesn’t mention his taking of his cap, as claimed by sh. Akram, instead it mentions that a narrator saw him :anhu: performing salah using his topi as a sutrah, in front of him (not beside him, as mentioned by sh. Akram).

The narration doesn’t say that he performed salah bare-headed, it is very likely that his :anhu:’s head was covered with a shawl, turban etc neither does it say that he wasn’t wearing a cap. It is possible that he used a spare one as his sutrah.
To the contrary, there are clear sahih ahadith showing Sahabah :anhum: performing salah with there heads covered.

3- Narrations of performing salah with one sheet of cloth
The Hanafi fuqaha have clearly stated that this isn’t contrary to covering the head, as they used to wrap themselves in one sheet and cover the entire body with it, even the head. This is still normal in the mountainous areas of pakistan, where one wraps himself completely in a chadar.
In addition, this shows the salah to be valid, however it doesn’t mean it isn’t makruh when one doesn’t have more than one sheet.
The fuqaha have explained this to refer to the one who doesn’t own more than one sheet, thus you will find Sahabah :anhum: clearly rebuking others for performing salah with one sheet, when others were available.

They also explain the action of Hadhrat Jarir :anhu: to show permissiblity, and is not contrary to the act being makruh.
Jarir :anhu:’s action also shows that the norm in that day was to perform salah in more than one cloth and someone performing slaah in just one cloth was looked upon as strange.

4- No evidence in Hanafi books that covering the head is a requirement
Definitely, as it isn’t a requirement, but it is definitely makruh, as mentioned by the great Fuqaha of the madhab.

5- It is preferred to pray bare-headed, as long as it is out of humility

Incorrect. It is not preferable, as clearly stated by Allamah Tahtawi and others.

Also,it is important to note, what is meant by this mas’alah.

The fuqaha mention that performing salah bareheaded is makruh if done out of Takasul (laziness/negligence), Kufr if done out of istikhfaf (mocking), while some mention that if done out of humility, then it wouldn’t be makruh.(Hashiyah Ibn Abidin 1/641)

They then explain Takasul, to mean leaving it out due to finding it difficult or unimportant! This is makruh, without any ikhtilaf in the madhab.
Similarly leaving it out due to feeling hot is also makruh (Hashiyah Ibn Abidin 1/641, Fatawa Naqshabandiyyah etc)

The difference is regarding one, who like the big sufi’s who completely cast aside the world, wears shabby clothing etc, thus he finds more humility in salah, when his head is uncovered.
Some Ulama said that this would be better for him, while the stronger view is that it would be better for him to still cover his head.

This, discussion, has no place in a contemporary fiqh work, as it is left out today due to takasal, and not due to humility.

Shaykh Akram had sadly shown that not only is his approach to aqidah “Salafi”, his approach to fiqh is not far of from that as well.

Link (see post #8 by Mufti Husain kadodia, username: Husain):

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?40270-Head-covering-for-men

After everything mentioned by Mufti Husain Kadodia, there’s nothing much left to say. His concluding sentence sums everything up very nicely:

‘Shaykh Akram had sadly shown that not only is his approach to aqidah “Salafi”, his approach to fiqh is not far of from that as well.’

Akram Nadwi’s Strange Views on Segregation

Here is Akram Nadwi on the BBC documentary – ‘Divine Women’ (see from 6:55 – 8:30 in the video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkDA1PWyjLY&feature=related

In a recent interview between the BBC and Dr. Akram Nadwi, a scholar and an influential reasearch fellow of Oxford University. Some startling and somewhat shocking statements were made. Millions of people, both muslims and non muslims alike, would be taken-a-back by the new boundaries set on the discussion of segregation in Islam. Dr. Akram Nadwi claims that the early sources of Islam do not advocate or specify any notion of a ‘segregation of the sexes’. The BBC programme ‘Divine women’ aired a number of days ago, dealt a new blow to those seeking formulated assurances of segration in muslim communities. Bettany Hughes – the author, historian and presenter of ‘Divine women’, reveals the hidden history of women in religion. Primarily the programme, focused on the roles of women in religious circles who in many areas shaped, formed and in some cases were instrumental in the spread of its message. Secondly, the programme sought to highlight the defining female figures who helped make a ‘world religion’ become a ‘world religion’. It is in part 3 of the programme where the new claim made by Dr. Akram Nadwi, is unleashed on the millions of people both muslims and non-muslims. For the non muslim, he/she would see Islam as no alien to the idea of it being surrounded in controversies and headlines. But, the startling revelation is bound to make many within the islamic religious communities reel with disgust and anger.
In the Wikipedia page dedicated to the Dr, the following is attributed:

Nadwi says he does not advocate unrestricted mixing between the sexes, but acknowledges that Muslim societies and families often limit the potential of their girls and women. He compares this limitation to the “live burial” (i.e. female infanticide) practised in pre-Islamic Arabia. He attributes to the “decline of every aspect of Islam” an insecurity and weakness which leads to these restrictions on girls’ education and women’s rights

Although the quote is self-explanatory, in and of itself it is evident the very liberal and open attitude Dr. Akram Nadwi harbours. The idea of having a physical barrier erected to segregate the genders is non-existent in the scriptures of Islam, according to the scholar, who is apparently an authority on the subject of female scholars in Islam. As absurd and barbaric the claims may seem, these ideas are finding root in the up-coming ‘practicing’ muslims, not to mention in the islamic events organised within university campuses. Where the notion of a physical barrier to segregate the genders is fast becoming a thing of the past!.

I am in no way seeking to tarnish his pious name. Or, seeking to slander the reputable man. But, when it comes to the truth being highlighted and mentioned, i will not hold back in calling a spade a spade!

From the endless ulema and scholars of traditional leaning i have dealt with, learnt from, and had the good fortune of sitting with. They are all clear that despite the mother of the believers, Aisha (ra) being one the fundamental figures of spreading the islamic teachings. She taught behind a veil and the students (whom were male) would sit on the other side of the vial. This is a physical barrier which was in existent long before we had pseudo-scholars in the ummah trying to advocate the eradication of physical barriers! We have a set of standards set by the sharia, which is eternal and does not need to be ‘fine-tuned’ as it were, or changed to suit an era. It is the era and time in question which has to mould into the standards set by the sharia. It is suffice to say, the post 9/11 era has had a dramatic effect on the english speaking scholars of the western world. Those that think our way out of this turbulent times will only be viable if we forsake or even leave behind some of the principles by which we stand!

It is also appropriate to note, Dr. Akram Nadwi is also the person who famously said it is not a sunnah to wear a hat to cover the head whilst in prayers. That, it was an innovation imported from other cultures in which muslims once again threaded this idea into an act of piety. He is a man who seems to be the epitome of the word controversy. When a person seeks to undermine the sunnah by demeaning the practices of Islam. Wether that it is the subject of segregation of the sexes or the practices of the sunnah. One thing is for sure, the end of that individual would not be a very blissful one. As he or she may want it to be. When the doors to sin and evil are left open or in fact removed entirely, we will have situations like this arising: (Astagfirullah!)

Article taken from here: http://mybeliefs.co.uk/2012/04/26/dr-akram-nadwis-disastrous-mistake/

Akram Nadwi’s Strange ‘Salafi’ Views in ‘Aqida

Akram Nadwi – ‘salafi’ in ‘aqida

It has been confirmed that Akram Nadwi is ‘salafi’ in aqida and should be avoided atleast in matters pertaining to creed.

This is a link to a ‘salafi’ forum where they are praising and promoting his ‘aqida aswel as mocking Deobandis for being unaware of his ‘salafi’ nature in ‘aqida. In the link, there are mentioned quite a few of the the misguided and rejected things which were taught by him during his ‘aqida lessons, some ‘salafi’ who took notes during the course typed up the things he said (see link). These notes were also shown to another virtuous brother who attended the course, and he affirmed that nothing was out of place. The organisers of the event actually confirm in one of the comments that the things mentioned in the notes WERE indeed from Akram Nadwi.

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f15/notes-on-sheikh-akram-nadwis-aqeeda-course-11820/

Akram Nadwi’s statement (see above link):

‘We don’t need Ash’ari and Muturidi schools anymore.’

There are two huge fundamental flaws with this statement:

a) The approach of the Ash’aris, Maturidis, and the ‘true’ Atharis/fudhalā al-Hanābila (see below) are the same when there is no need to refute deviant sects. They all do tafwīdh of (designating to Allāh) the ma’nā (meaning) and the kayf (howness).

For a more detailed explanation of tafwidh and proof that this was indeed the way of ahl al-sunnah wa al-jamā’ah refer to Shaykh Sayf ibn Ali al-Asri’s book ‘Tafwīdh & the madhhab of the Salaf’ which contains 100+ quotes and can be downloaded from here (book is in Arabic):

http://ia600704.us.archive.org/3/items/QawlAlTamamBiIthbatiTafweedMadhhabanLilSalafAlKiram/QawlAlTamamBiIthbatAlTafweed_sayfAlAsri.pdf

For some background discussions on the book, see here:

http://www.marifah.net/forums/topic/3577-new-book-on-tafweed-and-the-madhhab-of-the-salaf/

b) There is a false school that uses ‘aql (intellect) today although not exactly like the mu’tazilites. They still need refuting by classical sunni theology.The things mentioned in the link have been confirmed to have come from Akram Nadwi. First of all, by the organisers of the course themselves, and then by another brother who attended the same course in East London.Anyone who has studied ‘aqida on a scholarly level would know that the ‘salafis’ of today are false claimants to the Athari/Hanbali school in ‘aqida. They follow ibn Taymiyya’s approach in ‘aqida which is not representative of the true Athari/Hanbali creed. For a more detailed explanation differentiating between the followers of ibn Taymiyya and the true adherants to this way, see the following explanation by Shaykh Abdur Rahman Sondalaani:

Authentic Hanbali ‘aqida vs. ‘Salafi’/Taymiyyan ‘aqida:

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi7lX_-81y4&feature=plcp

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNL7gUxCpXw&feature=plcp

3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVfBmAfiJZU&feature=plcp

4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI0Sutvhdno&feature=plcp

5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFukIfhi81k&feature=plcp

Finally, Akram Nadwi’s is not in line with the true Atharis/Hanbalis and he follows the same Taymiyyan way that the ‘salafis’ do as can be seen from the above mentioned notes. For example, his sayings (see notes in above link):

“If you can believe in Allah’s knowledge and say it is not like the creation, then why do you have a problem with Allah’s Hand, Love etc.”

When Asked about Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah), the Shaykh said that Ibn Taymiyya had the same ‘Aqeeda as the Salaf.

Ibn Taymiyya was one of the great defenders of the ‘Aqeedah of the Salaf.’

‘Read Ibn Taymiyya’s books. Very good.’

When asked during Q&A regarding point number 38 of Tahawiyya (Allah not having any parts and Limbs), the Shaykh explained this point as ‘Allah not having any parts that are similar to us (His creation). His Hands are not like our hands, etc.’

He also misrepresents the opinion of the Ash’aris regarding the affirmed attributes by saying things such as (see notes in above link):

When the Ash’aris make all these attributes into one or seven, they are limiting Allah.

‘We are not like those Ash’aris who limit the Attributes of Allah to seven or eight.’

The Sheikh criticised the Ash’aris for affirming some of Allah’s Attributes and not others, like Love of Allah, Hand of Allah. In relation to this the Shaykh said, ‘They run away from one problem to a bigger problem.’

He clearly doesn’t understand what is meant by the Ash’ari ‘Ulama regarding the affirmed attributes, and doesn’t even hesitate to go around misrepresenting their views. See here for an explanation of the affirmed attributes by Shaykh Abu Adam al-Naruji:

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/wahhabi-contention-asharis-contradict-themselves-by-affirming-seven-attributes-and-not-affirming-various-other-attributes/

Finally, this clears any previous doubt regarding his unreliable nature in ‘aqida and exposes his ‘salafi’ ‘aqida (see notes in above link):

When the shaykh was asked to recommend any Sharh (explanation) of Tahawiyya, he recommended Ibn Abil ‘Izz al-Hanafi’s explanation

See here for the verdicts of the Sunni ‘Ulama of the past (including Major Hanafi Imams) on ibn abil ‘Izz al-Hanafi:

http://marifah.net/articles/The%20Legal%20Prosecution%20of%20Ibn%20al-Izz%20al-Hanafi.pdf

Also, see here for a fatwa by Mufti Ismaeel Moosa warning people from using this commentary and mentioning it is a book from which ‘salafis’ take their ‘aqida:

http://www.fatwaa.com/?question=shar-al-aqidah-tahawiyyah-by-ibn-al-izz-al-hanafi

To conclude, the ‘aqida which Akram Nadwi is upon, is not true Athari ‘aqida, and the only people who will say that this is true Athari ‘aqida are ‘salafis’ and those who have no knowledge of these affairs. Akram Nadwi may be Hanafi in Fiqh [Quasi-Hanafi, since Akram Nadwi even holds some strange fiqhi views which will be mentioned on this blog if Allah permits], but he is without a doubt, ‘salafi’/Taymiyyan in ‘aqida.

If anyone is in doubt regarding Akram Nadwi actually having uttered these statements, then they should know that it has come to our attention that these statements were shown to him personally by someone, and he commented that the manner in which the notes were taken make him seem intolerent towards the Ash’aris and Maturidis, however he did not mention having been misquoted on anything. Also, tolerance towards ahlus sunnah is not what is being discussed here, the fact remains that he is not an Athari, but rather ‘salafi’/Taymiyyan in ‘aqida as has been shown above.

As things stand, people should be wary of taking knowledge from such an individual. Mufti Husain Kadodia from South Africa has also mentioned Akram Nadwi’s ‘salafi’ approach to ‘aqida on sunniforum (as we have mentioned elsewhere) as follows:

‘Shaykh Akram had sadly shown that not only is his approach to aqidah “Salafi”, his approach to fiqh is not far of from that as well.’

See here (Post #8 by Mufti Husain Kadodia, Username: Husain):

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?40270-Head-covering-for-men