Contents > Chapter 12: The Deobandi’s Understanding of Taqleed > Extreme Taqleed of the Deobandis: 2: Understanding Hadeeth in Accordance with the Madhhab


Extreme Taqleed of the Deobandis

2: Understanding Hadeeth in Accordance with the Madhhab

Whilst the Deobandis claim that in matters in which the Qur’aan and Hadeeth are clear there is no Qiyas or Ijtihad[1], their actions are totally contradictory to this.

Moulana Zakariyah says in his autobiography, Aap Beti, “…as I have already mentioned that my father’s teaching methods were completely unique. He taught the whole of Mishkat without translations. He did, however, give translations of Hadeeth when asked to do so and by way of testing, he himself used to ask for the translations of Hadeeth. It was a crime for any student to look up translations in Mazahir-Haqq (the school). But it was necessary to look up Tahawi and Hidaya, and to take out the Hadeeth appearing in Mishkat from the Sihaah Kitabs. It was also necessary to judge the Hadeeth and indicate whether they were in favor of the Hanafee Madhhab or against. Should a Hadeeth appear to be against the Hanafees, it was my duty to provide the argument of the Hanafees as well as the answer to that specific Hadeeth. I cannot remember not providing any Hanafee arguments for any mas’alah because I had the opportunity of checking Hidaya and its commentaries...”[2]


Here we see the attitude of the author of Fazaail-e-Aamaal that instead of checking whether the “Deobandi version of the Hanafee Madhhab” is in accordance with the saying, actions and approvals of Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam), he scrutinizes which Hadeeth opposes his Madhhab. Furthermore, he shamelessly admits that he is good at refuting the words of the most truthful Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) that oppose his Madhhab.

[1] See, “The Sharee’ah Role of Taqleed” – by Jamiatul Ulama of South Africa.

[2] Aap Beti, Moulana Zakariyah (p.29) This is similar to what Abu al-Hasan al-Karkhi said, ‘Every Ayah, which is in disagreement with what our people say (followers of the Hanafee Madhhab) is either under Naskh (overruled) or must be altered in meaning (to satisfy what Hanafees say). The same is for every Hadeeth (in opposition of what Hanafees say); it is either under Naskh or must be altered.’ [al-Karkhi, Risalah al-Karkhi , Cairo; al-Maktaba al-Arabiya, p.84-85]