DUA AFTER SALATUL JANAZAH A CHILDISH OBJECTION

Following an article entitled “SUNNAH AND BID'AH” published in AL-HAADI Vol. 2 No. 5, a Molvi Sahib published a pamphlet attempting to refute the article in question—or more precisely, the part referring to the Dua after Salat-ul-Janazah.

Indeed, Al-Haadi concluded that the Dua after Salat-ul-Janazah is a Bid'ah. It must first be emphasised that this conclusion of Al-Haadi is based on evidence and the opinions of the 'Ulama-e-Kiraam (Rahimahumullah) of all eras, who have unanimously condemned this practice. Let us examine:

Imaam Abu Bakr Bin Hamid (264H) said:

"Making Dua after Salat-ul-Janazah is Makruh."

As for Allaamah Shams-ul-Aimmah Al-Halwai (454H) and Allaamah Qazi Shaghdi (461H) (Rahimahumullah), they said:

"No one has the right to stand to make Dua after Salat-ul-Janazah."

Imaam Taahir Bin Ahmad Bukhari Sarakhsi (545H) (Rahimahullah) said:

"Do not stand to make Dua for the Mayyit after reading the Qur'an Kareem, whether before or after Salat-ul-Janazah." (Khulaasat-ul-Fatawa)

Another scholar, Allaamah Sirajuddeen (Rahimahullah), the author of Fatawa Sirajiyah (569H), said:

"When one has finished the Salat-ul-Janazah, do not remain standing to make Dua."

The famous jurist of the 7th century, Sheikh Mukhtaar Bin Muhammad Zahid (658H), shared the same view as Allaamah Sirajuddeen.

Alluding to the same practice (Dua after the Salat-ul-Janazah), Sheikh Ibn-ul-Haaj (737H) (Rahimahullah) states in his book Al-Madkhal:

"This is a custom that must be abandoned."

Shaykh Haafiz-ud-Deen Bin Shihaab (827H) (Rahimahullah), author of Fatawa Bazzaaziyah, said:

"One should not stand and make Dua after Salat-ul-Janazah, this having already been done, because the greater part of Salat-ul-Janazah includes the Dua itself."

Shaykh Shamsuddeen Muhammad Khurasaani (962H) (Rahimahullah) stated:

"One should not make Dua."

Allaamah Ibn Nujayim (969H) (Rahimahullah) and Allaamah 'Ali Al-Qaari (1014H) (Rahimahullah), in his book Al-Mirqat, a commentary on Mishkaat Sharif, wrote:

"Do not make Dua for the Mayyit after Salat-ul-Janazah because that is equivalent to adding something to it."

Alhamdulillah, good advice and constructive criticism are always welcome. However, after analysing the content of this pamphlet, we have noted the following points:

1. There is a strong possibility that the Molvi Sahib either did not understand the explanations well, or more specifically, the principle from which we concluded that the Dua after Salat-ul-Janazah is a Bid'ah. Not to say he was dishonest,  because he did not reproduce the principle in question in its entirety.

In the article in question, we emphasised several times that if—despite the existence of a reason—a certain practice did not exist in the life of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu 'Alaihi Wasallam) or the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (Radiyallaahu 'Anhum), this alone is enough to prove that the practice has no place in Deen-ul-Islam. It is from this very principle that the practice of making Dua after Salat-ul-Janazah has been deemed Bid'ah.

2. We also note that the Molvi Sahib at least agrees that Rasulullah (Sallallaahu 'Alaihi Wasallam) did not make Dua after Salat-ul-Janazah. The fact that Salat-ul-Janazah existed during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu 'Alaihi Wasallam), yet there is no evidence that he made Dua afterwards, is sufficient to establish the practice as Bid'ah. A Hadith that explicitly forbids the practice is not necessary for it to be condemned.

After all, the Fuqaha (Rahimahumullah) have declared certain practices to be Bid’ah solely because, despite a valid reason, they did not exist during the Prophet’s life. Consider the following examples:

a.     Allaamah Sa’d-ud-Deen Kashgari (Rahimahullah) (d. 700H) said in Munniyyat-ul-Musalli:
"Performing more than eight Rak’aat (with only one Salaam) during the night and more than four Rak’aat (with only one Salaam) during the day is Makruh by Ijma."

Al-Bada’i-was-Sana’i explains the reason:

"Because this practice was not reported from Nabi-e-Karim (Sallallaahu 'Alaihi Wasallam)."
Hidaayah states:

"The proof that it is Makruh is that Rasulullah (Sallallaahu 'Alaihi Wasallam) did not do more than that. Had it not been Makruh, he would have done more to show its permissibility."

b.     Durr-ul-Mukhtaar states:

"It is Makruh to make Dua upon completing Khatm-ul-Quran during Ramadhan, and to do so in Jamaa’ah, because such a practice was not reported from Rasulullah (Sallallaahu 'Alaihi Wasallam) or the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (Radiyallaahu 'Anhum)."

c.      Hidaayah says:

"It is Makruh to perform Nafl Salah after Subh-e-Saadiq except for the two Sunnah Rak’aat of Fajr, as Rasulullah (Sallallaahu 'Alaihi Wasallam) did not perform more than that, despite his great love for Salah."

These examples make it clear that a direct prohibition via Hadith is not necessary for a practice to be declared Bid’ah. The statements of the Aimmah (Rahimahumullah), as cited in the article “SUNNAH AND BID’AH”, show that the practice of making Dua after Salat-ul-Janazah is forbidden precisely because it never occurred in the time of Nabi-e-Karim (Sallallaahu 'Alaihi Wasallam)—despite the presence of a reason.

1.The Molvi Sahib disagrees with the opinions of the Aimmah (Rahimahumullah) who declared the practice of Dua after Salat-ul-Janazah as Bid’ah. Does he claim to possess more knowledge than these esteemed scholars? There is no doubt that the Aimmah (Rahimahumullah) knew better than all of us, the Ahaadith‎‎ that the Molvi Sahib cited. Nevertheless, they all condemned the practice that Molvi Sahib now defends.

It is therefore clear that they did not understand the Hadith cited in the way that Molvi Sahib is attempting to make us understand. This serves as proof that the Hadith in question does not provide evidence for the practice of making Du'a after Salat-ul-Janazah. Molvi Sahib must recognise that our knowledge, when compared to that of the Aimmah Mujtahideen (Rahimahumullah), amounts to nothing. Is it not logical for us to follow the interpretations of those who are truly endowed with knowledge of the Deen, rather than following someone whose knowledge is almost negligible?

2. The Molvi Sahib’s translation of the Hadith of Abu Dawud is incorrect. Anyone with knowledge of Arabic would readily notice this.

His translation reads:

"When you finish reading Namaz Janazah for Mayyit, then make a special dua for him."

He then claims:

"Thus, what is understood is to make dua immediately."

However, the words “finish” and “special dua” do not appear in the original Hadith. The correct translation is:

"When you make Salah for a Mayyit, then make Dua with Ikhlaas (sincerity) for him."

The word “izaa” indicates a condition and a moment in time. A more idiomatic translation would be:

"Make Dua with sincerity when you make Salah for a Mayyit."

The Molvi Sahib attempts to use this Hadith to support the practice of Dua after Salat-ul-Janazah. But can he explain why such a practice is entirely absent from the life of Nabi-e-Karim (Sallallaahu 'Alaihi Wasallam) himself? And why it was similarly absent in the lives of the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam and the Taabi’een (Rahimahumullah)? Does the Molvi Sahib expect us to believe that these noble personalities misunderstood the Hadith, while he understood it correctly over 1400 years later?

It is quite possible that the Molvi Sahib did not consider all these points. Otherwise, he would not have downplayed the importance of the opinions of the Aimmah (Rahimahumullah), whose conclusions are firmly based on Shari’ah. Only those who bear hostility towards the ‘Ulama-e-Haqq, or those who are intellectually dishonest, would fail to acknowledge the immense contribution of these Aimmah (Rahimahumullah) to the cause of Islam.

If, despite all these clear and straightforward explanations, the Molvi Sahib insists on inserting the words “finish” and “immediately” into the translation of this Hadith, then it would be interesting to see how he translates verse 98 of Surah 16. According to our translation principles, Allah Ta’ala says in that verse:

"When you read the Qur'an, then seek Allah's protection from the accursed Shaytan."

Note that at the beginning of this verse there is the word “Izaa”, and the second part of this verse begins with the word “Fa”.

In this verse, Allah Ta'ala commands us to say “A'uzubillāhi minash-Shaytanir-rajīm”—without doubt—before reciting the Qur’an Karim. However, if we were to follow the principle adopted by Molvi Sahib, and the so-called “lesson” in Arabic grammar which he believes he is offering us, we would be forced to translate the verse as follows:

“When you finish reciting the Qur’an, then immediately say: A'uzubillāhi minash-Shaytanir-rajīm.”

Similarly, in verse 53 of Surah 33, Allah Ta'ala says:

“...When you ask them (the wives of Rasulullah ﷺ) for anything, then ask them from behind a curtain...”

Here too, it is worth noting that the word “Izaa” appears, and the second part of the verse begins with “Fa”. However, if we again follow the principle of Molvi Sahib, we would be compelled to translate the verse as follows:

“When you have finished asking something from these women (the wives of Rasulullah [Sallallaahu 'Alaihi Wasallam]) then ask them immediately from behind a curtain.”

It is evident that this would render the verse meaningless. It is now for the Muslims to judge the fairness and accuracy of Molvi Sahib’s translation. Our aim in presenting this comparison is to demonstrate that it is incorrect to generalise the principle Molvi Sahib has adopted in his translation of the Hadith of Abu Dawud. When we consider the correct translations of the two Qur'anic verses mentioned above, it becomes clear that Molvi Sahib’s attempt to apply his rule here was ill-conceived.

The principle Molvi Sahib invokes may apply in some contexts but certainly not in others. Furthermore, the fact that the Sahabah-e-Kiraam (Radiyallaahu 'anhum), the Taabi'een (Rahimahumullah), and the Aimmah (Rahimahumullah) did not interpret the Hadith of Abu Dawud in the manner that Molvi Sahib is now advocating—more than 1400 years later—clearly indicates that his interpretation is flawed. His understanding of the Hadith contradicts the understanding of the greatest scholars of this Ummah.

AL-HAADI was therefore entirely correct in stating that there is no basis for making Du‘ā after Salat al-Janazah.

We stress that it is wholly illogical to abandon the fatawa of the Aimmah (Rahimahumullah) of every era in favour of the opinion of someone whose knowledge cannot even be compared to that of those illustrious scholars.

Molvi Sahib has thus failed in the very task he set for himself—namely, to prove that Du‘a after Salat al-Janazah is not Bid'ah. It would be far more beneficial for him—and for the Ummah—if he focused on matters that truly contribute to the welfare of the Ummah, rather than engaging in discourse that casts doubt on the extent of his own knowledge.

Let it be clearly stated that Al-Haadi does not arrive at any conclusion without solid and reliable evidence. When we refute a view, it is always with firm and concrete proof, and always with the intention of upholding the Haqq (truth), purely for the sake of Allah Ta'ala. Alhamdulillah, our objective is never to merely win an argument or to score rhetorical points. What truly matters is that Islam and the Muslims are victorious in truth. And if anyone is ever able to prove that we have erred, In shā’ Allāh, we will have the sincerity and humility to retract our statements.

We therefore seek only the cooperation and understanding of every sincere Muslim, male or female.

Each and every one of us will ultimately be accountable to Allah Ta'ala.
Harming Islam or the Muslims, spreading falsehoods, disrespecting the ‘Ulamā’-e-Haqq (Rahimahumullah), or treating the Deen as if it were a child’s game—these are without doubt extremely grave sins.

May Allah Ta'ala protect us from these and guide us all to the Sirāt al-Mustaqīm, the path of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamā‘ah. Ameen.

[English version of "Dua après la salaatul Janazah Objection enfantine" – Al Haadi – Vol. 2 No.6]