Ahlul hadeeth, ahlul athar, taa'ifatul mansura, salaf as salih, ahlul sunnah wal jama'ah. All these names mean the same thing and are synonyms of each other.
A much needed lecture for the people of the subcontinent. But some people calling themselves ahlul hadith in Bangladesh celebrate eid based on saudi and not the moon and they also claim that 30 rakah taraweeh is bidah. Ustadh adnan please clear this confusion
Imam malik did not want his muwatta the standardised hadith book due to the fact you can not confine the whole sharia according to one book there are people living throughout the world with different approaches within ahlus sunnnah so this idea was not only impractical rather against the ethos of sharia ,still I think ustad adnan is a person of knowledge but everything must ne put into perspective
so since hadith and sunnah is the same thing, basically everything the prophet Muhammad saw did for example, tahajjud every night, sorry if I'm wrong if he didn't read tahhhjud for some reason, and the sunnah prayers after the fard and before, fasting every Mondays and Thursdays , now are those a must we have to do?, since that beleving in hadith is important
Bro Adnan regarding the masalah on Qabd on your chest. If we are to see which Athar of Sahabi is most authentic. Then it is Madhab of Imam Malik on this he left the hands hang on to their sides as Abdullah ibn zubair r.a did it as well. So why don't we take this opinion. As this is the amal of most of Ahle Madinah and proven from Abdullah ibn Zubair r.a
I dont get what adnan was talking about when he sayin hanafi is not closer to sunnah then the other 3 school of thought then how did imam abu hanafia rh give rulings you have to knw about the sunnah
It's just propaganda from what I understand. First of all hadith isn't equal to sunnah, hence Imam Malik considered the action of madinah to represent sunnah even though it's not a hadith. Secondly, Abu Hanifa had a more critical approach to hadith and didn't just accept everything literally as if the isnaad system is infallible. So if anything Abu Hanifa had stricter conditions on hadith than the rest, but people don't like that so they claim he simply was ignorant of hadith lol, and that if he had heard of this hadith then he would've made a different fatwa, whereas probably he knew of the hadith but rejected it.
I think it's because of a large no of books that are ascribed to imam abu hanifa rehmullah one has to wonder when hanafi expect even durre mukhtar and fatawa alamgiri to be considered as books of hanafi law
Ignore all the partisan nonsense you’ve received as replies to your comment. The ahlul Hadith like Br Adnan respect Imam Abu Hanifa just like any other major scholars. Br Adnan was referring to the fact that the school of Imam Abu Hanifa uses a slightly different methodology to arrive at its rulings. Therefore it is common for the 3 other schools to have very similar rulings but the Hanafi school has a slightly different approach. Their approach is still intended to be based on daleel (evidence) but it can sometimes lead to different conclusions - it is too lengthy of a topic to go into here but you can delve into deeper in your own time if you want. Some quick examples include things like, combining the prayer and the timing of Asr. All three other schools agree (predominantly) on these relatively minor issues of fiqh. The Hanafi school sometimes using the same evidence can come to a different conclusion. Allah knows best. The schools are not “sects” - we should strive to be part of Ahlus Sunnah in aqeedah and in fiqh. And when it comes to fiqh it involves taking from all of these great imams. However we do not blindly follow and if we disagree with one particular conclusion when there is stronger evidence to the contrary, we should follow the evidence InshaAllah.
The wahabi movement of India were labelled Ahl e Hadith by the British upon their (wahabi's) request The world Ahl e Hadith or Ahlul Hadith found in earlier texts refers to the Muhadditheen not the current day ahle hadith (sect)
Where is your evidence of this? ahlul hadith like you said was used in early texts it was used to describe people who follow quran and sunnah not muhaditheen only.
How did people gain the knowledge of reading and understanding and how was it known that hadith is needed and if it was known then why the need for chains..why was it not written directly from Muhammad pbuh..the timespan between Muhammad pbuh and the written hadith is too vast..the Koran was not even complete whilst the prophet was alive..so where was the full knowledge..the pray was not explained until after the mirage..so where did the knowledge of how to study or interpret the Koran come from..how did people memorise the Koran during the prophets life when the Koran was not complete in one place..I am a Muslim..but this period has always confused me..
Salam brother, thank you for the question. I recommend two important works to answer your questions. The author is the same person. He is M. M. al-Azami and the works are as follows: 1. History of the Quranic Text: From Revelation to Compilation (2nd edition). 2. Early Hadith Studies. All your questions are directly addressed in these two works. Please study them carefully. Best wishes. Wassalam.
@@MrAdnanRashid this is a recent human being..what do we have from the time of the prophet that hadiths were ordered by the prophet to be written..without verification from the prophet the hadiths don't really have a statute..it's just blind belief..nothing was written until the 1st century after the prophets death..so there is confusion..a big time line has been missed..but thank you for your answer and I know there will be no real answer ..it's all assumptions written and collaborated by men to make it seem authentic..Allah said he made the Koran simple..but the me have made it difficult..I don't see any stories of any of the companions passing islamic teachings anywhere in history..
(My understanding from a mixture of speeches from Barelvi Ulema and Ahle-Hadith Alim Meraj Rabani). Wahabism rose from Najad. Some people like ismael dehlvi got impressed by the movement and the wahabism began to spread in the sub-continent. Those people who honestly left tasawuf and accepted the aqaid of Ibnul wahab najdi are called Ahlul Hadith in the sub-continent. But there are some people who want to play on both sides i.e tasawuf and wahabism, are called deobandis. Deobandis act like Wahabi when they sit with the Ahlul Hadith. But they act like Sufis when they sit with Barelvis. They usually act like a bridge for a Barelvi to convert to Ahle Hadith. Allah knows best!
and what if sombody follows Sufism, is academic and follows Muhadditheen view and doesnt ascribe to 3,11,40 bidaat, innovations etc? does that mean he still has to be salafi/ahlulhadith/wahabbi brand to be rightly guided?
Don't follow a sheikh blindly Always check it with Quran, Sunnah and the Salaf Stop worrying about labels, Allah isn't going to ask what label u subscribe to
