KISSING THE THUMBS IN ADHAAN

by Aboo Uthmaan al-Kaashmiree Source :TROID Publications

There is not a single example from the Prophet’s life that by passed the Muslim Ummah. The act of worship such as the adhaan (call to Prayer) is done five times a day which was legislated ten years after the Hijrah (migration) and it was done in front of the Prophet in al-Madeenah, and in the books of ahaadeeth we have its history and the Mu‘adhdhin.  But it is not in a single narration that one should kiss his thumbs on hearing the adhaan, if we do want to kiss something then we might as well as kiss the  Mu‘adhdhin lips who utters the adhaan five times a day.  This action of kissing the thumbs on hearing the adhaan was never practiced during the time of the Salafus-Saalih.

THE PROOFS THEY USE TO PERMIT IT

The narration is that which is attributed to Aboo Bakr as- Siddeeq that when he heard the Mu‘adhdhin say “anna muhammadur rasoolah” he would kiss his thumbs and fingers (index) and then touch his eyes and the prophet said “Whoever does this like my beloved has done, then my intercession will be compulsory for him.” [1]

It has been narrated in al-Musnadul-Firdaws by ad-Daylamee by the way of:

a) Tadhkiratul-Mawdoo’aat (p. 36)

b) al-Mawdoo’aatul-Kabeer (p. 75)

c) Ahmad Yaar Khaan al-Bareilwi in Jaa‘ul-Haqq (p. 378) from al-Maqaasidul-Hasanah

d) Muhammad ’Umar in Maqyaas Khaafiyat (p. 603)

ANSWER:

1.      Al-’Allaamah Muhammad Taahir writes “Wa laa yasahh” - not Saheeh - in Tadhkiratul- Mawdoo’aat (p. 36)

2.      Mullaa ’Alee al-Qaaree from al-’Allaamah as-Sakhaawee that this narration is not Saheeh in al-Mawdoo’aatul-Kabeer (p. 75).

If the hadeeth is not Saheeh, then how can you act upon it? Ahmad Yaar Khaan Bareilwi quotes as-Sakhaawee that he said “Wa lam yasahh” and translates it as “Its level of authenticity does not reach a high level.” What Muhammad ’Umar did was even more strange, he mentions the hadeeth from Tadhkiratul-Mawdoo’aat and al-Mawdoo’aatul-Kabeer and doesn’t mention “Laa yasahh” deliberately.

AHMAD YAAR KHAAN BAREILWI’S MISTAKE:

He writes “Not reaching the level of Saheeh does not necessarily mean that it is Da’eef because the rating of Hasan is after Saheeh, and if this is Hasan then it is enough.” [2]

But he should know that when the Muhadditheen say “laa yasahh” mutlaq (absolutely) it means nothing else except that it is Da’eef. If it was Hasan they would have explained and said, ‘Laysa bis-saheeh, bal-hasanun’ (It is not Saheeh, rather it is Hasan.)

REMOVAL OF A DOUBT:

Mullaa ’Alee al-Qaaree says, “If this hadeeth is Saheeh up to Aboo Bakr (radiyallaahu ’anhu) then it is enough to act upon it because the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, “My Sunnah and the Sunnah of my rightly guided Caliphs is obligatory upon you.” [3] [4].  Ahmad Yaar Khaan [5] and Muhammad ’Umar [6] also use the same reasoning.

But this is Mullaa ’Alee al-Qaaree’s conscious, because if this hadeeth was mawqoof (stopped) up to Aboo Bakr (radiyallaahu ’anhu) then it would have been a proof but the narration that is attributed to Aboo Bakr (radiyallaahu ’anhu) is marfoo’ (raised) and its isnaad is not Saheeh all the way so then to say that the marfoo’ hadeeth is not Saheeh and the mawqoof is Saheeh then how is it enough to say that this is sufficient.

ACTING UPON  WEAK AHAADEETH

Ahmad Yaar Khaan writes “If it is accepted that this hadeeth is Da’eef, then in virtuous actions Da’eef hadeeth are enough.” [7].  This is also his incorrect understanding, that every Da’eef ahaadeeth is accepted in actions of virtue, this is totally wrong.

Imaam Qaadee Ibnul-’Arabee al-Maalikee (d.543H) – rahimahullaah - and others have said regarding Da’eef ahaadeeth  “Laa ya’mal bihi mutlaqan.” - it is absolutely incorrect to act upon them.” [8] And those who act upon it have conditions so Imaam Ibn Daqeeq al-’Eed (d.702H) – rahimahullaah – writes “Acting upon Da’eef ahaadeeth is conditioned.”   [9] What are those conditions, Imaam as-Sakhaawee (d.902H) writes by quoting his Shaykh, al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar, “Acting upon Da’eef ahaadeeth has three conditions,

1.      That all the Muhadditheen agree that the hadeeth is not extremely Da’eef, ie the hadeeth in which the narrators are not liars, who may be suspected or accused liars, or any such narrator who is munfarid (alone), who made a lot of mistakes then his Da’eef hadeeth will not be a normal Da’eef ahaadeeth.

2.      That the hadeeth is not present under baseless principles.

3. While acting one has the belief that the hadeeth is not proven from the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) so that something is not attributed to him that he did not say.” [10]

So we find that if anyone of the criteria above are missing, then in any circumstances the hadeeth does not need to be acted upon. Especially the third condition because that which is not proven from the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) and if one tries to attribute it to him and then to accept it as proven from him is a major crime indeed because it totally opposes the mutawaatir (concurrent) narration stating: “He who intentionally attributes a lie to me, then let him take his seat in the Fire of Hell” [11]

’Abdul-Hayy al-Laknaawee writes, “The claim that acting upon Da’eef ahaadeeth in the issue of virtue without difference is false; yes this is the opinion of the majority but the condition is that the hadeeth is not severely Da’eef otherwise it will also not be accepted in the issues of virtues actions.” [12]

It’s a pity the innovators put heels on end to prove such ahaadeeth. What beautiful words said a Bareilwi (Which is extremely rare) who said “To accept ahaadeeth and attributing it to the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) needs proof, an attribution without proof is not permissible.” [13]

As a result acting on Da’eef ahaadeeth pertaining to virtues actions must comply with the three conditions and acting upon them is mustahabb (recommended) on the condition that it is not mawdoo’ (fabricated). If the narration is mawdoo’ then there is no action upon it.

Al-Haafidh Ibn Daqeeq writes, “If the hadeeth is Da’eef with the condition that it is not mawdoo’, then acting upon it is permissible.  But if by it a new custom arises or is born in the Religion as a result then it also forbade from.” [14]

So here another point has been resolved and that is that the Da’eef ahaadeeth is only acted upon when it is not mawdoo’ (fabricated) or forged bearing in mind that any Da’eef hadeeth which leads to a custom in the Religion, will be stopped. The Ahlul Bid’ah try to make such actions as the Sunnah.

Al-’Allaamah as-Sakhaawee writes, “It is permissible and mustahabb to act upon Da’eef ahaadeeth which command virtues actions and encouragement, but the condition is that the ahaadeeth are not mawdoo’ or forged.” [15]

And he also says, “However, as for the forged hadeeth, then it is not permissible to act upon them in any circumstances” [16]

The summary is that it permissible to act upon Da’eef ahaadeeth in actions of virtue and this has some conditions set by the muhadditheen and the ahaadeeth which are mawdoo’ or forged then there is no action upon them neither in the issue of virtues or encouragement.

NOW PAY ATTENTION: Not only are the ahaadeeth concerning the kissing of the thumbs da’eef, but mawdoo’ and forged.

Imaam Jalaalud-Deen as-Suyootee writes,

“Those ahaadeeth which mention the kissing of the fingers and then placing them on the eyes when the Mu‘adhdhin mentions the name of the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), all of them are mawdoo’ and forged.” [17]

There is another narration from Khidr (’alayis-salaatu wa salaam) which mentions the thumbs in, Tadhkiratul-Mawdoo’aat (p. 36), al-Mawdoo’aatul-Kabeer (p. 75), Ahmad Yaar Khaan Bareilwi in Jaa‘ul-Haqq (p. 378) from Maqaasidul-Hasanah, Muhammad ’Umar in Maqyaas Khaafiyat (p. 601).

Al-’Allaamah Muhammad Taahir and Mullaa ’Alee al-Qaaree writes,

“There are a lot of majhool (unknown) narrators in the isnaad and it is also munqati’ (disconnected)” [18]

Then how can we insert this narration in the Religion, Imaam al-Bayhaqee writes in one place, “In this isnaad there are a number of majhool narrators, and Allaah the Glorified and Exalted has not made us responsible that we take our Religion from unknown narrators.”[19]

Footnotes:

[1] Shaykh Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) says, “This hadeeth is not Saheeh and has been attributed to Aboo Bakr Siddeeq (marfoo’an) by ad-Daylamee in Musnadul-Firdaws. However, Ibn Taahir says in at-Tadhkirah that it is not Saheeh and Imaam ash-Shawkaanee also says the same in al-Hadeethul-Mawdoo’ah (p. 9), and Imaam as-Sakhaawee has also said that it is not Saheeh in al-Maqaasid.

[2] Jaa‘ul-Haqq (p. 382)

[3] Saheeh: Related by Aboo Daawood (no. 4607) and by at-Tirmidhee (no. 2676). It was authenticated by Shaykh al-Albaanee in Irwaa‘ul-Ghaleel (no. 2455).

[4] al-Mawdoo’aatul-Kabeer (p. 65)

[5] Jaa‘ul-Haqq (p. 382)

[6] Maqyaas Khaafiyat (p. 602)

[7] Jaa‘ul-Haqq (p. 383)

[8] al-Qawlul-Badee’ah (p. 165)

[9] Imaam (2/171)

[10] Refer to al-Qawlul-Badee’ah (p. 195), Tadreebur-Raawee (1/298-299), Fathul-Mugeeth (1/268).

[11] Related by Muslim (1/8)

[12] al-Aathaarul-Marfoo’ah fil-Akhbaaril-Mawdooa’ah (p. 310)

[13] ’Arfaanush-Sharee’ah (3/27)

[14] Ahkaamul-Ahkaam (1/51)

[15] al-Qawlul-Badee’ah (p. 195)

[16] al-Qawlul-Badee’ah (p. 196)

[17] Tayseerul-Maqaal lis-Suyootee from ’Imaadud-Deen (p. 123)

[18] Refer to Tadhkiratul-Mawdoo’aat (p. 36), and al-Mawdoo’aatul-Kabeer (p. 75).

[19] Kitaabul-Qurraa‘ (p. 127)