“People are of two
categories: learned people and ordinary people. The former ones will find out
the documentary evidences and follow them. The latter ones will follow
mujtahids and faqîhs provided that they will not follow a certain one. Ordinary
people do not have a certain madhhab. This is the meaning of the saying, ‘Their
madhhab is the madhhab of the muftî.’ Early scholars, again, say that it is not
necessary to attach oneself to a certain muftî. One will understand the matter
by asking
anyone
he wishes. Ordinary people are also permitted to act upon hadîths. Imâms did
not disagree with one another in this respect. It is written in al-Hidâya about the fast of a person who
undergoes cupping that if a person eats something after going through a cupping
operation because he supposes his fast has been broken, he will perform both
the qadâ’ and the kaffâra, since this supposition of his is not based upon any
religious document. If the muftî gives such a fatwâ, it will be a document for
him. If he has followed a hadîth, the case will be the same and he will not do
the kaffâra (al-Kâfî and al-Hâmidî). Rasûlullah’s words would not be inferior
to a muftî’s. All the four imâms said, ‘Leave aside our words and take the
hadîth.’ But some people say that he who wants to act upon the Book and the
Sunna becomes a zindîq. Abû Hanîfa said, ‘It is not permissible for anyone who
does not know my documentary evidences to issue fatwâ according to my ijtihâd.’
He meant that he did not employ ijtihâd so that people would turn away from the
Book and the Sunna and follow his words, but his ijtihâds were intended to show
people how to derive rules from the Book and the Sunna. To say, by following
the words of the posterity, such as Ibn ’Âbidîn, that it is harâm to infer
rules from the Book and the Sunna will mean to disagree with Abû Hanîfa. These
imitators conveyed the saying, ‘A’mâl should be based upon fiqh, not upon
hadîths,’ from other imitators. Though the book Zahiriyya
writes that the saying was intended for ordinary people, it comes to mean that
it is not permissible to act upon the Book and the Sunna while there is fiqh,
and it is obvious that the saying is wrong. Those who say so are ignorant and
stubborn. Al-Kaidânî said that the tenth of the harâm actions was to raise the
finger while performing salât. ’Alî al-Qâri’ said that this statement was
sinful and that if it could not be explained away, he [al-Kaidânî] would be
considered as a disbeliever, for it was certain that Rasûlullah raised his
finger.”
Yes people are of two
categories. The first ones are the scholars of Islam who have reached the grade
of ijtihâd. The second ones are those scholars who have not reached the grade
of ijtihâd and ordinary people. In the statement that ordinary people will ask
a muftî about what they want to know, ‘the muftî’ means ‘a muftî in their own
madhhab’. Ibn ’Âbidîn wrote in the preface
to Radd al-muhtâr on the authority of the book Hazânat ar-riwâyât: “Those scholars who were able
to draw meanings from âyats and hadîths were ahl ad-dirâya. They were in the
grade of ijtihâd. It was permissible for them to act upon a marjuh (not
preferred) report or a da’îf of which the transmitters were not trusted in)
narration coming from their own imâm al-madhhab, even though it might not agree
with the madhhab they belonged to. When there was difficulty in doing
something, they could issue a fatwâ upon it for ordinary Muslims, too.” As it
is seen, it is always permissible for a mujtahid fi ’l-madhhab to follow an
ijtihâd showing an easy way in his madhhab which is permissible for an ordinary
Muslim only when there is difficulty.[1] Ibn ’Âbidîn writes again in the preface, “The ordinary
Muslims do not have a madhhab and their madhhab is their muftî’s madhhab. The
commentary on Tahrîr of Ibn Humâm writes
in the explanation of this statement that following a madhahb is for a person
who knows and understands what a madhhab is or who has understood the fatwâs of
the imâms of a madhhab by reading a book of this madhhab, and that the claim of
a person who is not so to be a Hanafî or a Shâfi’î does not show that he
belongs to either madhhab. As it is understood from this, an ordinary person’s
saying that he has changed his madhhab has no value; upon asking a muftî of
another madhhab he will have changed his madhhab. Ibn Humâm writes in his book Fat’h al-qadîr, ‘A muftî has to be a mujtahid. A
scholar who is not a mujtahid is called “nâqil” (transmitter), but not a
“muftî.” Those muftîs who are not mujtahids are muqallids, too. These, as well
as ordinary Muslims, cannot draw correct meanings from hadîths. They,
therefore, have to adapt themselves to what mujtahids understood, that is, they
have to follow them. The imâms did not disagree with one another in this
respect.”
As for cupping when one
is fasting, certainly it does not break a Hanafî’s fast. If he eats something
thinking that his fast has been broken, qadâ’ and kaffâra will be compulsory. A
person who is as ignorant as not to know that he has not broken his fast after
cupping is an ordinary person. If a Hanbalî muftî says that it breaks his fast,
or if he hears a hadîth stating that it does and cannot explain it away, the
unbrokenness of his fast becomes uncertain and, when he eats afterwards, the kaffâra
will not be compulsory, for the madhhab of an ordinary Muslim is the
[1] See the
chapter on “ghusl” in the book Endless Bliss, IV.
madhhab
of the muftî whom he asks. This example is an ijtihâd of al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû
Hanîfa. It shows that a Hanafî has to obey the ijtihâd of al-Imâm al-a’zam. The
religion reformer, by giving this example, proves that he is not right. Ibn
Humâm explains the phrase “depending on a religious proof” in al-Hidâya as “likening to one of the things that
break a fast.” This explanation and the report that the muftî’s fatwâ is a documentary
evidence also prove that the reformer is wrong. The reformer falls into the
trap that he sets for Muslims. Each imâm al-madhhab’s statement, “Leave my word
aside, follow the hadîth,” was intended for his disciples, who were mujtahids,
too. A mujtahid had to follow his own ijtihâd.
No faqîh (scholar of
fiqh) has ever said, “He who wants to act upon the Book and the Sunna will
become a zindîq.” These words are invented by the reformer. The statement “He
who wants to act upon what he understands from the Book and the Sunna will
become a zindîq,” which was said by the ’ulamâ’ of Islam, is the truth of the
matter, for, a person who has not reached the grade of ijtihâd cannot deduce
correct meanings from the Book or the Sunna. Our Prophet
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) said that he who would draw wrong meanings
would become a kâfir. Because of this great danger, even the a’immat
al-madhâhib learned the meanings in the Book and the Sunna from as-Sahâbat
al-kirâm and employed ijtihâd in accordance with these correct meanings.
Dislike for these correct meanings and correct ijtihâds means dislike for
Islam, which in turn means being a zindîq. Al-Imâm al-azâm’s saying, “It is not
permissible for anyone who does not know my documentary evidences to issue fatwâ
according to my ijtihâd,” shows that Ibn ’Âbidîn has adopted his statement from
al-Imâm al-a’zam. It proves that Ibn ’Âbidîn’s book is dependable and very
soud. The taqlîd of an imâm al-madhhab does not mean to turn away from the Book
and the Sunna. It means to adapt oneself to the correct meaning deduced by the
imâm al-madhhab and not to attempt to draw wrong meanings from the Book and the
Sunna. The a’immat al-madhâhib established methods and principles showing how
to deduce meanings from the Book and the Sunna and each of them taught them to
the mujtahids in his own madhhab. Muqallids, especially the ordinary people
among muqallids, like the reformer, are very far from knowing or understanding
these methods and principles and from performing ijtihâd. Ibn ’Âbidîn
(rahmatullâhi ’alaih) never said that it was harâm for mujtahids to infer rules
from the Book and the Sunna,
but he
said that, for the ignoramuses like the reformer who have not reached the grade
of ijtihâd, it was harâm to infer rules. Our Prophet
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) declared, “He who
infers rules from the Qur’ân al-kerîm through his own opinion becomes a kâfir.”
Al-Imâm al’a’zam Abû Hanîfa, too, said that it was not permissible for the
ignorant who are not in the grade of ijtihâd to issue fatwâs. The religion
reformer, too, writes this fact as quoted above. Then, Hadrat Ibn ’Âbidîn is
absolutely right. Hadrat Sayyid ’Abdulhakîm-i Arwâsî, al-Walî al-kâmil wa
’l-mukammil, the profound ’âlim cognizant of the four madhhabs down to their
subtle particulars, said, “Of the books of fiqh in the Hanafî madhhab, Radd al-muhtâr [by Ibn ’Âbidîn] is the most
useful and valuable one. Its every word is a proof; its every decision is a
document.” What else can a person who speaks ill of and slights such a basic
book of Islam be, if he is not a zindîq? Ibn ’Âbidîn was a great ’âlim of fiqh
in the Hanafî madhhab. He took his every word, his every decision from the
mujtahids who had taken them from al-Imâm al-a’zam, and, this great imâm from
the Book and the Sunna. As it is seen, any Muslim who follows the rules
conveyed by Ibn ’Âbidîn, in fact, follows the Book and the Sunna. But he who
does not want to follow Ibn ’Âbidîn follows not the Book or the Sunna, but his
own fancies, the desires of his nafs. The Qur’ân
al-kerîm and hadîth ash-sherîf say that a
person who does so will go to Hell. Let us say again that the statement, “It is
not permissible to act upon the Book and the Sunna while there is the fiqh,”
has been fabricated by religion reformers. Neither an ’âlim nor a Muslim has
said or written so. It is written in religion reformers’ books only.
As for raising the finger
in salât, it is explained in detail in the third volume of Ma’ârif as-sunan. Giving examples from many
books, the book prefers the raising of the finger. However, Hadrat al-Imâm
ar-Rabbânî, in the 312th letter of the first volume of his Maktûbât, alluded to his deep penetration into
the methods and principles of madhhabs and the superiority of mujtahids, and
after quoting the hadîths showing that the finger was to be raised, he listed
also the valuable fatwas informing that it was harâm and makrûh. With strong
documentary evidences, he proved that it would be more prudent not to raise the
finger. In this conclusion, he depended, again, upon the hadîth ash-sherîf of Rasûlullah, the Master of Mankind
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam). This letter in Maktûbât
fully exposed to view how meticulously the imâms of Islam observed the matter
for adapting themselves to a hadîth
ash-sherîf.
Hadrat Ahmad Sa’îd al-Fârûqî ad-Dahlawî, one of the ’ulamâ’ of Islam and great
men of tasawwuf of India, explained fully the comments of the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh
on the raising of the finger. He wrote in his sixty-third letter, “Some
’ulamâ’, seeing that there were many narrations about it, said that it was a
sunna. Some others, seeing that the narrations were incongruous, said that the
finger should not be raised. When there are two fatwâs on a matter, one may do
it according to either of them. The person who does the one way should not
belittle or censure those who do the other way.” As it is seen, the ’ulamâ’ of
fiqh ordered Muslims to respect one another’s madhhabs. ’Alî al-Qârî’s speaking
ill of al-Kaidânî’s fiqh book is not surprising; it is written in the book Al-fawâ’id al-bahiyya that he was presumptuous
against even such arch-stones of Islam as al-Imâm ash-Shafi’î and Imâm Mâlik,
and that he was answered in a manner he deserved by Shaikh Muhammad Miskîn.
’Alî al-Qârî wrote a separate booklet to accuse Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
parents of disbelief and boasted about this booklet in his commentary on
Shifâ’, and it is obvious that the commentaries and marginalias written by him
on many valuable books are not worthy of making him an authority in Islam.
Being an authority in Islam requires being a mujtahid. A non-mujtahids’
attempting to judge the great personages of Islam means to overflow the
measures of decency.
Ahmad Ridâ Khan al-Barilawî (d. India, 1340/1921) wrote: “’Alî al-Qârî’ denied in his book Minah ar-rawd that Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) blessed mother and father had died as Believers, and said, ‘To refute it, I wrote a separate booklet. In this booklet, showing proofs from the Book, the Sunna, qiyâs and ijmâ’ al-Umma, I refuted what al-Imâm as-Suyûtî wrote in his three booklets.’ Al-Imâm as-Suyûtî (rahmatullâhi ’alaih) wrote six booklets to prove that Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) blessed parents had died as Believers. This is not a subject of fiqh, that is, it is not a teaching that can be included in af’âl al-mukallafîn and defined as halâl, harâm, sahîh or fâsid. Therefore, there is not any qiyâs or ijmâ’ about it. The disagreement between the ’ulamâ’ on this matter is obvious. The great ’âlim of Islam al-Imâm as-Suyûtî was thoroughly right. It is also surprising that ’Alî al-Qârî’ said he had shown proofs from the Book. The Qur’ân al-kerîm does not mention it, neither openly nor figuratively. Furthermore, for pointing out any similarity between such matters and the things that were the causes of the revelation of some ayâts, one has to document it with hadîths. Al-Imâm as-
Suyûtî
was such a profound ’âlim of Islam that he can never be compared to ’Alî
al-Qârî’ and the like. He was much more gifted in distinguishing hadîths from
one another and in knowing their ’illa, rijâl and ahwâl than ’Alî al-Qârî’ and
the like, who had no other way than keeping quiet or surrendering to his
writings. This great imâm documented his writings with overwhelming and silencing
evidences. If mountains understood the soundness of his documentation, they
would melt.”[1]
“We were prohibited from
looking at and acting upon what we would see in any books other than the books
of the scholars of our own madhhab. In fact, we were told that those writings
of Kamâl Ibn Humâm, who was a mujtahidi fi ’l-madhhab, which disagreed with the
rules of the madhhab, were not to be acted upon even if they would be based
upon sound evidences.”
It is ever possible that a preacher of Islam would say such absurd and mendacious things? Yet the religion reformer becomes so furious, so vindictive when attacking the Ahl as-Sunna that he overflows not only beyond knowledge and decency but also beyond reason and becomes unconscious with rage. Here, he touches upon one of the subtle matters of ’ilm al-usûl al-fiqh, which could be explained briefly as follows: There have been seven grades for the fuqahâ’ (scholars of fiqh) of the four madhhabs. The first grade belonged to mujtahidi fi ’sh-shar’. In this grade were the four a’immat al-madhhâhib. They established
[1] Al-mustanat al-mu’tamad. The author, Ahmad Ridâ Khan al-Barilawî, as an ’âlim in the Hanafî madhhab, shows that ’Alî al-Qârî’ (d. Mecca, 1014/1606), who was also a Hanafî, was wrong and had no authority in Islam, and defends and praises al-Imâm as-Suyûtî, who belonged to the Shâfi’î madhhab. The ’ulamâ’ of Islam have always done the same and defended the right, paying no attention to the difference of madhhabs. The upstart reformers, however, attack the Ahl as-Sunna by attributing the groundless stories in the books of their lâ-madhhabî friends and the slanders in the books of the enemies of the Ahl as-Sunna to the Ahl as-Sunna. And, with a view to blemishing the scholars of fiqh and the most valuable books of the madhhabs, Rashîd Ridâ calls on such a person as ’Alî al-Qârî’, who was as excessive as to say “disbelievers” about the blessed parents of our master Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam), as a witness for himself.
the
methods (usûl) and principles (qawâ’id) of their own madhhabs. In the second grade
were the mujtahidi fi ’l-madhhab, the
mujtahids belonging to a madhhab, such as the mujtahids among al-Imâm
al-a’zam’s disciples, who deduced rules from documents by following the
principles set by him. In the third grade were the scholars called mujtahidi fi’l-masâ’il, who deduced the rules for
the matters that had not been mentioned by the imâm al-madhhab and his
disciples. They could not disagree with them. The ’ulamâ’ such as at-Tahawî,
Abû’l-Hasan al-Karkhî, Shams al-a’imma al-Halwânî, Shams al-a’imma as-Sarahsî
and Qâdî Khân were in this grade. In the fourth grade were the as-hâb at-takhrîj, who were not mujtahids. They
explained the brief statements and unclear rules of the mujtahids. Ar-Râzî was
one of them. In the fifth grade were the as’hâb at-tarjîh,
who classified the narrations in the order of their soundness. So were
al-Qudûrî and al-Marghinânî, the author of al-Hidâya.
In the sixth grade were the as’hâb at-tamyiz,
who distinguished the qâwî, da’îf, zâhir and nâdir narrations from one another.
The authors of the books Kanz, Mukhtâr
and Wiqâya were among them. Those who
were in the seventh grade could not do any of these; none of them could issue a
fatwâ disagreeing with the madhhab unless there was urgency or difficulty.
The religion reformer
distorts this and claims that it was prohibited to read or to act upon a book
that did not belong to one’s own madhhab. On the contrary, any Muslim, like the
scholars mentioned above, may read and learn the book of any madhhab he wishes.
He may transfer himself to another madhhab if he wants to. When there is
difficulty, that is, urgent necessity, everybody can do the easy ways (rukhsas)
permitted in his own madhhab. If he cannot, he may do the easy ways in another
madhhab, thus getting out of the difficult situation. However, when doing an
affair in accordance with another madhhab, he has to do the commands and
abstain from the prohibitions pertaining to that affair in that madhhab. For
this reason, he has to have learned the points which are necessary in that
madhhab. Ibn ’Âbidîn writes at the beginning of the third volume of Radd al-muhtâr that Ibn Humâm was one of the
as’hâb at-tarjîh. That is, contrary to what the religion reformer says, he was,
let alone being a mujtahid mutlaq, not a mujtahid at all. Like any muqallid,
he, too, had to follow a madhhab. The religion reformer said before that such
scholars as Ibn ’Âbidîn were the imitators of the imitators because they
followed such muqallids as Ibn Humâm.
And now
he attempts to blame them by saying that they did not follow them. He does not
know what to do to belittle Ahl as-Sunna! The books written by the scholars of
Ahl as-Sunna tell everything plainly. For example, the great scholar Hadrat
Ahmad ibn Hajar al-Makkî, in his Al-fatâwâ
’l-hadîthiyya, explained whether a person who follows a madhhab may
follow another madhhab or not:
“Imâm Abu ’l-Hasan ’Alî
as-Subkî (rahmatullâhi ’alaih) says that there are seven different cases of
following another madhhab: 1) If a person believes that the ijtihâd of another
madhhab on a certain matter is more dependable than that of his own madhhab, it
is permissible for him to do that matter in accordance with that madhhab. 2) A
person who cannot know which of the two imâms of madhhabs is more hitting in
his ijtihâd on a certain matter may do that matter in accord with either of
these madhhabs. If he prefers the madhhab other than his with the purpose of a
religious precaution, for example, for the purpose of avoiding the harâm, his
action will be permissible without any karâha (anything disliked by the Prophet). If he has a different intention, it will be
makrûh. 3) Though it is permissible to follow another madhhab showing an easy
way in something which one needs to do, it is wâjib for him to follow one of
the two imâms whose documentary evidence, he believes, is stronger. 4) It is
not permissible to follow another madhhab without any need and because of the
desire to do the easy way without knowing which of them is stronger. If one
does so, one will have obeyed not Islam but one’s own desire. 5) It is not
permissible to do one’s affairs in accord with the collection of the rukhsas of
madhhabs since it is against Islam to do so. 6) By consensus, it is not
permissible to do an affair in accord with more than one madhhab if it is not
sahîh in one of these madhhabs. It is da’îf (not probable) that Kamâl ibn Humâm
said it was permissible. 7) While the effects of something which one has done
in accordance with one madhhab are still going on, one is not permitted to
follow another madhhab. For example, if a person, because there is the right of
shuf’a[1] in the Hanafî madhhab, follows the Hanafî madhhab
and buys his neighbor’s house from the person who has bought it before, he
cannot follow the Shâfi’î madhhab in doing
[1] ‘Shuf’a’ is the right or claim of pre-emption in respect of a house or land of which one is part-owner or which adjoins one’s own property. For more detail, see 39th chapter of Endless Bliss, II.
anything concerning this house.”
“It is harâm to follow a
muqallid. A person who has heard a sahîh hadîth cannot be told to compare this
hadîth with so and so’s ijtihâd and to act upon it if it is in agreement with
it. He can be told to investigate if it is mansûkh. But this is a job for an
expert. Those who are not experts should obey the âyat, “Those who do not know should ask those who know!”
and ask those who are experts. It is good for a person to love all the mujtahid
imâms and to follow each of them in cases when he is sure they agree with the
Sunna.”
Certainly it is harâm to
follow a muqallid. But, believing and acting upon the information given by a
Muslim who is muqallid does not mean following him. A person cannot be told,
“Compare this hadîth with so and so’s ijtihâd and act upon it if it is in
agreement with it.” But he can be told, “Compare what you understand from this
hadîth sherîf with the ijtihâd of your madhhab’s imâm. If they are unlike each
other, act in accord not with what you understand but with what your madhhab’s
imâm understood.” Sanâullâh-i Pâniputî (rahmatullâhu ta’âlâ ’alaih), a great
Islamic scholar of India who died in
[1] Abû Hanîfa (rahmatullâhi ’alaih), seeing that this hadîth had ta’wîl (inexplicit meanings), followed another hadîth with a clear meaning. If one of the four madhhabs has followed a hadîth, we have to follow it, too.
reported unanimously by the Umma cannot
be heretical or false.’ The
115th âyat of Sûrat an-Nisâ declares, ‘We will
throw into Hell the dissenter from the Believers’ path.’ It is
improbable and impossible for the imâms of the four madhhabs and the great
scholars trained by them to have skipped even one hadîth. By ijmâ’, a hadîth is
of mansûkh or ta’wîl if none of them has followed it.” Hence, when one sees
that an ijtihâd of an imâm al-madhhab is inconsistent with a hadîth, one should
say, “The imâm concluded that it was either mansûkh or ta’wîl,” rather than
saying, “He did not hear or follow it.” The religion reformer, as quoted in the
30th article, said, “The usûl scholars’ deducing the necessity of taqlîd from
the âyat, ‘If you do not know, ask those who know!’
is a fruitless and unsound deduction and reasoning.” Here, however, he says,
“Those who are not experts should obey the âyat, ‘Those
who do not know should ask those who know!’ and ask those who are
experts.”
“When al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î
said to a person who asked him a question, ‘Rasûlullah said so,’ the person
said, ‘And you, too, admit this decision, don’t you?’ Al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î said,
‘If I do not venerate the statement that comes from Rasûlullah down to me,
which part of the earth will accept me?’ Therefore, imâms prohibited taqlîd and
showed the door to ijtihâd. An ijtihâd disagreeing with a hadîth will be put
aside. Al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î always said, ‘If you find any sahîh hadîth, let me
know so that I can practise it!’ It is not permissible to attribute a statement
disagreeing with a hadîth to al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î. ’Izz ad-dîn ibn ’Abd
as-Salâm, well-known as Sultan al-’ulamâ’, said, ‘It is so astonishing for a
faqîh to persist in following his own madhhab instead of another madhhab whose
leader obviously hit the right point [in his ijtihâd], though he has realized
that his madhhab is weak. He supposes that reality, hittingness, is in his own
imâm only. Such people have been blindfolded with the taqlîd so much that they
are in this state now. There is no similarity between these and the Salaf.’ “
And he says through the
preacher’s mouth:
“This great scholar’s
words are reasonable. But most fuqâhâ’ were fixed on their madhhabs. These
fellows preferred being a Hanafî or Shâfi’î to being a
The religion reformer
himself affirms his own statement. Certainly, so should be the freemasonic
tactics! How have the freemasons spread all over the world? Haven’t they
achieved it because of this mendacious, deceitful policy of theirs? But they cannot
deceive Muslims who have read the books of ’ilm al-hâl. The scholars of Ahl
as-Sunna wrote necessary answers to their tricky writings and despised them
all. One of these valuable books is Hadrat Yûsuf an-Nabhânî’s Hujjat-Allâhi ’ala ’l-’âlamîn.[1] But it is feared that those who do not know these answers
or who have not read them may get deceived and fall down into the abyss. That
is why we took to writing. In order to prevent young men of religious
profession from being carried away by this destructive gale and being led into
calamity, we had to answer these lies. For doing this, we deemed it suitable to
translate passages also from the books Shawâhid
al-haqq and Sihâm as-sâ’iba li as’hâbi ’d-da’âwi ’l-kâdhiba in our
various books.
As Hadrat al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î
said, every Muslim certainly obeys every sahîh hadîth. There is not a Muslim
unaware of this. It is surprising that the religion reformer writes this as a
support for his allegations; in fact, he uses it as a mask, and it has nothing
to do with taqlîd or ijtihâd. It is a statement which any Muslim would say.
Another slander of the
religion reformer which he repeats frequently is: “An ijtihâd disagreeing with
a hadîth should be put aside.” When ijtihâds were employed by the a’immat
al-madhhâhib, there were some hadîths that were not known to them. When such
hadîths appeared, the mujtahids who were their disciples put aside their
masters’ ijtihâds that disagreed with these hadîths. For, all the four ’aimmat
al-madhâhib had commanded them to do so. As quoted above, the religion reformer
also writes some such commands of al-Imâm ash-Shafi’î. No new hadîth could be
found now, so there is not the question of any hadîth disagreeing with
ijtihâds. All the hadîths have been reported. Basic books of Islam do not
contain any hadîth disagreeing with the hadîths which are sahîh. There have
been those hadîths left now from which mujtahids did not deduce rules because
they were mansûkh or because there were not sufficient witnesses for their
soundness. There might certainly be disagreement between ijtihâds and them, but
all of such ijtihâds were deduced from
[1] See the
translation from this book in Belief and Islam, pp. 45-50.
Hadrat Sanâ’ullâh-i
Paniputî wrote in 1197: “Allâhu ta’âlâ declares, ‘Obey
the Ulû ’l-amr.’ For this reason, it is wâjib to obey the commands
which are compatible with Islam, of ’âlims, Walîs, sultans and governments. To
obey them in those cases not compatible with Islam means to make them partners
with Allâhu ta’âlâ. Al-Bukharî, Muslim, Abû Dâvud and an-Nasâ’i told that
Hadrat ’Alî (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) said, ‘Nobody should be obeyed in anything
which is sinful. One should obey in cases compatible with Islam.’ A
hadîth
sherîf declares, ‘The creature should not be obeyed
in something which is disobedience to the Creator.’ It is not permissible
to oppose or revolt against those orders and laws of the government which are
disobedience to the Creator. It is a grave sin to cause disunion (fitna). A
Muslim disobeys neither the Creator nor the government. He does not commit a
sin or a crime. It is always very easy to achieve this. If, for instance, a
Hanafî learns a sahîh hadîth which has not been abrogated, and if he finds out
that the ijtihâd of al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa disagrees with this hadîth, and
if one of the four madhhabs has an ijtihâd compatible with this hadîth, it will
be wâjib for him to follow this hadîth. If he did not follow the hadîth, he
would have made the imâm al-madhhab a partner with Allâhu ta’âlâ. Al-Imâm
al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa said, ‘I venerate every hadîth of Rasûlullah (’alaihi
’s-salâm) highly. I respect the words of as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, too. The words of
the Tâbi’ûn are like our words.’ Al-Baihakî quotes these comments of al-Imâm
al-a’zam in his book al-Madkhal. Al-Imâm
al-a’zam is reported in Rawdat al-’ulamâ’
as having said, ‘If there is a hadîth or a saying of a Sahâbî, give up my
word.’
“As we were explaining
above that it was necessary to give up the imâm al-madhhab’s ijtihâd and to
follow a hadîth, we said, ‘If one of the four madhhabs has an ijtihâd
compatible with this hadîth,’ for, one will have deviated from the ijmâ’
al-Umma if there is no ijtihâd compatible with that sahîh hadîth. After the
third or fourth Islamic century, only four of the madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a have survived, others
being forgotten. Islamic scholars have reported unanimously that a statement
which disagrees with one of these four madhhabs is not sahîh. A
hadîth sherîf
declares, ‘A word which is said through ijmâ’ by my
Umma cannot be heresy,!’ Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the 114th âyat of
the Sûrat an-Nisâ’, ‘We will drag the person who
deviates from the Believers’ path along the direction to which he has deviated,
and then We will throw him into Hell.’ It
should be known very well that it is impossible that the four a’immat
al-mahâhib and the great scholars among their disciples might have not heard of
one of the hadîths which are sahîh. If none of those scholars based his ijtihâd
on such a hadîth, then it had been abrogated by another hadîth or it was a kind
of hadîth that had to be explained away. None of the great men of tasawwuf
deviated from the four madhhabs. To deviate from the four madhhabs means to
deviate from Islam. When visiting the graves of Awliyâ’ and martyrs, it is not
permissible to prostrate towards their graves, to go around their graves, to
light candles on them, to perform salât there or to gather around the graves
every year like celebrating a kind of feast, which are sinful actions ignorant
people do. These have been prohibited in many hadîths.”[1] Every Muslim has to follow one of the four madhhabs.[2] If a hadîth disagreeing with an ijtihâd of an imâm
al-madhhab is encountered, it should be known that it was seen by him or by the
mujtahids who were his disciples and that it was found to be mansûkh or its
soundness was not certain because it lacked documentation. It should be thought
that the ijtihâd was deduced from another sahîh hadîth. Then, there exists no
sahîh hadîth today which is not written in the books of Ahl as-Sunna. It should
not be forgotten that for erroneous ijtihâds and those who follow them, too,
there will also be given thawâb. During the present time there is no ijtihâd
disagreeing with any sahîh hadîth, in any of the four madhhabs. Ibn ’Âbidîn, at
the beginning of the chapter on wudû’, wrote, “It is not necessary to seek the
documentary evidences for the narrations coming from mujtahids.” Muslims are
not commanded to seek or learn the documentary evidences of the mujtahid. They
are commanded only to follow him. The âyat above shows this fact clearly. For
this reason, it is not permissible to disapprove of any ijtihâd. To disapprove
of any ijtihâd means to disapprove the âyat or the hadîth from which it was
deduced. Everybody should believe that his own madhhab is correct. A scholar who
understands that his
[1] Sanâ’ullâh-i Paniputî, Tafsîr al-Mazharî, in the tafsîr of the 64th âyat of the Sûrat âl ’Imrân.
[2] It is written in the books Bahr ar-râ’iq, Hindiyya and Al-basâ’îr that it is wâjib for every non-mujtahid to follow one of the four madhhabs, that he does not belong to Ahl as-Sunna if he does not follow one of them, and that he is a heretic or a disbeliever if he does not belong to the Ahl as-Sunna. The related passages from these books have been reprinted in Istanbul.
own madhhab is weak and another madhhab is more
hitting should transfer to the other madhhab. As a matter of fact there has
been no scholar who did not do so; no faqîh has been seen to be “fixed” on his
own madhhab.[1]
As a doctor’s taking such
titles as neurologist or internist does not mean for him to give up being a
doctor, so being a Shâfi’î or a Hanafî does not mean to give up being a
Muhammadî, for both the Shâfi’îs and the Hanafîs are Muhammadîs. To be
Muhammadî, it is necessary to be Shâfi’î, or Hanafî, or Mâlikî, or Hanbalî. In
fact, among members of the heretical seventy-two groups, the ones with
uncontaminated îmân (belief) are Muhammadîs. He who is not Muhammadî is a
disbeliever. With the quoted statement of his, the religion reformer says
“disbelievers” about millions of Muslims. It would be insufficient however much
could be written to tell about the baseness of the person who uttered those
words. It must be understood that he who says so against Muslims is either vulgarly
ignorant or a zindîq hostile to Islam.
“People who care for no
one who tells the truth have said that taqlîd exists because of discussions,
desire for fame, personal advantages and being accustomed to it.
“Al-Imâm as-Suyûtî said
that ijtihâd was fard kifâya in every century. It is fard that there be a
mujtahid in every century. They should be absolute (mutlaq) mujtahids. It is
wrong to say, ‘There came no absolute mujtahid after the fourth [Islamic]
century. There came a few absolute mujtahids later, yet because their ijtihâds
coincided with the ijtihâd of the imâm al-madhhab who educated them, they were
considered to be in his madhhab.’ Therefore, if a person follows an independent
way of ijtihâd without following any of the four madhhabs, no one will have the
right to object to him. One of the absolute mujtahids educated in this manner
was Hadrat Imâm Muhammad ash-Shawkânî, who died in
[1] See the preface to al-Mîzân al-kubrâ for the name of many of those scholars who changed their madhhabs.
The religion reformer
claims that the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna were afraid of telling the truth. He
slanders; they always told the truth in every century. As everybody knows, many
of them were martyred for this reason. There is no partisanship in Islam; why
should we search for its causes, then? There are the four madhhabs today. None
of them belongs to anybody. Each Muslim follows the madhhab he likes, for, all
four of them are right. All four are true. All four are Ahl as-Sunna. All four
are Muhammadî. All of those who follow the four madhhabs consider one another
as brothers. The îmân, the beliefs, of all of them are the same. Most of their
acts of worship are the same, too. They are different in doing a few discordant
matters. However, this difference is a compassion, a blessing of Allâhu ta’âlâ
for Muslims.
There are no men of
religious duty who do not know the high religious status of Hadrat ’Abd
al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî, who was a great scholar, expert in bâtinî and zâhirî
knowledge. Only religion reformers refuse to accept his status. This exalted
scholar wrote:
“The îmâms of the four
madhhabs and all scholars who followed them said that every Muslim was free to
adapt himself to any of the four madhhabs, that it was permissible to transfer
oneself from one madhhab to another, and that one could follow another madhhab
when there was haraj (compulsory necessity). Allâhu ta’âlâ decreed and
predestinated in the eternal past that Muslims would part into four madhhabs
and that this would be useful for His slaves. If He had not decreed so, it
would not have been so, and His Messenger (’alaihi ’s-salâm) would not have
said that this parting was of the Divine Compassion, and as He prohibited
parting in belief (i’tiqad), so He would have prohibited parting in actions
(a’mâl). Every business has an ’azîma
(difficult way) as well as a rukhsa
(easy way). A business has its ’azîma in one madhhab, while its rukhsa is
permitted in another madhhab. A person who can do the azîma is not permitted to
pick out the rukhsas of the four madhhabs. Doing so means making a game of
Islam. Rukhsas are for those who are unable to do ’azîmas. Moreover, it is
better for the able person not to do the rukhsa in his own madhhab, either. One
should act upon ’azîmas as much as one can. Non-mujtahids have to choose one
madhhab and follow it in everything they do. When they reach a grade to infer
rules from the Nass (âyats and hadîths) by way of nazar (careful examination)
and istidlâl (reasoning, convincing oneself with
reasonable
evidences), they must follow their own ijtihâds. This is stated in Imâm Ahmad
ibn Hanbal’s saying, ‘Obtain your knowledge from the source your imâms did.
Don’t go on with the taqlîd.’ Abû Muhammad al-Jawînî (d. 478/1085) wrote in his
book Muhît, ‘It is wara’ and taqwâ for
capable people to do the ’azîmas of the four madhhabs and it is very good. It
is permissible for incapable people to do the rukhsas of the four madhhabs, but
all the requirements of a rukhsa in a madhhab should be fulfilled.’
“Al-Imâm as-Suyûtî says:
‘There are two kinds of mujtahids: mujtahid mutlaq
and mujtahid fi ’l-madhhab. A scholar
who is a mujtahid fi ’l-madhhab does not follow the imâm of his own madhhab; he
issues a fatwâ as a result of his own inference, but he has to look for the
documentary evidence according to the principles (qawâ’id) of the imâm of the
madhhab. He cannot go beyond these principles. No mujtahid mutlaq came after
the imâms of the four madhhabs. That is, no scholar claimed to be a mujtahid
mutlaq. Only Muhammad Jarîr at-Tabarî claimed to be so, yet no scholar admitted
his claim.’
“When Shaikh ’Izz ad-dîn
ibn Jamâ’a issued a fatwâ for a matter in accordance with another madhhab, he
would always include all the conditions concerning that matter required in that
madhhab and state that the conditions were to be fulfilled, and would add, ‘If
you do not do them, it will not be sahîh as an ’ibâda,’ for, doing the rukhsas
of madhhabs is permissible only when there is hardship in doing ’azîmas, and
with proviso that one shall fulfil all their conditions.
“If one’s hand touches a
woman [he is and/or was permitted to marry with nikâh], his ablution breaks
according to the Shâfi’î madhhab but it does not in the Hanafî madhhab. When it
is possible for a Shafi’î who has touched [such] a woman to perform an ablution
again, it will not be sahîh (valid, lawful) for him to perform salât with his
broken ablution by following the Hanafî madhhab. His following the Hanafî
madhhab in this respect requires the existence of a compulsory hardship; that
is, it must be impossible for him to perform an ablution again, and he has to
do all the things that are fard and wâjib in an ablution and salât according to
the Hanafî madhhab.”[1]
The religion reformer,
taking the scholars’ comment that there may come mujtahidi fi ’l-madhhab in
every century, claims that absolute (mutlaq) mujtahids who will not follow the
four
[1] ’Abd
al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî, Al-mîzân al-kubra, the preface.
madhhabs
will come. By saying that “hadrat” ash-Shawkânî brought a new madhhab in this
manner, he praises another religion reformer like himself. The great scholar
Hadrat Sayyid Abdulhakîm-i Arwâsî (quddisa sirruh) explained ash-Shawkânî’s
real purpose in a letter, saying, “Ash-Shawkânî and many other people like him
were far from being authorities in Islam. Ash-Shawkânî’s words cannot be
documents in religious matters. You write that ash-Shawkânî said that the
tafsîr of Ibn ’Abbâs was not a tafsîr at all. There is not a book in the name
of tafsîr of Ibn ’Abbâs. ’Abdullâh ibn ’Abbâs (radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ) did not
write any book. Having attended the valuable suhba of the Prophet, Master of the Universe (’alaihi ’s-salâm),
and having seen Jabrâ’il (’alaihi ’s-salâm), and being one of the most learned
among as-Sahâbât al-kirâm (’alaihimu ’r-ridwân) he made some explanations on
some âyats as well as on some hadîths. Our scholars of tafsîr adopted these
explanations and embellished their books of tafsîr with them. One of them is
the tafsîr by al-Baidâwî. Islamic scholars unanimously said that such tafsîrs
were of a very high grade. Ash-Shawkânî’s words should be corrected, and a
person who is to do it must know the subtle principles of ’ilm al-usûl
al-hadîth. However, it is not known that ash-Shawkânî reached such a high
status in knowledge, for if he had reached it, he would not have said anything
disagreeing with the principles of the great scholars.” In fact, ash-Shawkânî
belonged to the Zaidî heresy.[1]
When ash-Shawkânî’s
books, for example, Irshâd al-fuhûl, are
studied carefully, it will be concluded that he disguised himself in tâqiyya, that is, he made himself known as a
Sunnî thought he was a Zaidî; for, such heretics had to disguise themselves in
tâqiyya while they lived among the Ahl as-Sunna. Throughout his book, among the
names of Ahl as-Sunna scholars, he wrote the names of and gave quotations from
the scholars belonging to old heretical groups whose names and books had been
forgotten and whose instigations had been suppressed, and he had them debate and
tried to prove reformers and lâ-madhhabî ones among them to be right. For
example, he claimed that absolute ijtihâd would be employed till the end of the
world. He wrote that Ibn ’Abd as-Salâm, and his disciple Ibn Daqîq al-’îd (d.
702/1302), and his disciple Ibn Sayyid an-nâs, and his disciple Zain ad-dîn
al-’Irâqî (d. 806/1404) and his disciple Ibn Hajar al-Asqalânî and many
[1] Muhammad
ibn Ahmad Khalaf, Muftî of Kuwait, Jawâb as-sâ’il. p. 69.
others
were absolute (mutlaq) mujtahids; thus, he surreptitiously attempted to abolish
Ahl as-Sunna and to make himself known as a mujaddid superior to all of them
and as a mediator between ’ulamâ’. Today, young men of religious profession,
seeing that he had read hundreds of books in Arabic, his mother tongue, and
that he seemed to play the role of a mediator between the ’ulamâ’, suppose this
heretic to be a mujtahid and, following him, dissent from the Ahl as-Sunna.
Muhammad ash-Shawkânî
wrote in his book Irshâd al-fuhûl:
“Taqlîd means to admit
someone’s ra’y (opinion) or ijtihâd without knowing his documents. To admit
someone’s narration (khabar) means to admit the words of the person whom you
quote. According to the majority of scholars, taqlîd is never permissible in
a’mâl. Ibn Hazm said that there was unanimity on this. Al-Qurâfî said that it
was so in the Mâlikî madhhab. Ash-Shâfi’î and Abû Hanifa each said, ‘Do not
follow me!’ There is the unanimity that it is not permissible to follow the
dead. It is suprising that the scholars of usûl had not conveyed this. Many
muqallids of the four a’immat al-madhâhib say that taqlîd is wâjib for the ’âmî
(ordinary Muslim). Since those who say so are muqallids, their words cannot be
documents. There was no taqlîd during the time of as-Sahâba and the Tâbi’ûn.
They learned the Book and the Sunna by asking one another. In fact, the âyat, ‘Ask those who know!’ means ‘Ask what the Divine
Rule is.’ It does not mean to ‘ask about the opinions of those who know.’ The
âyat, ‘Refer the things on which you disagree to
Allah and to His Messenger,’ prohibits taqlîd. Rasûlullah, whenever
he sent a Sahâbî to another place, would say, ‘When
you cannot find [the solution of] something
in the Sunna, judge about it by finding it out through your own ra’y!’
A person who follows a mujtahid will have made him the possessor of Islam,
which belongs to Rasûlullah.”
Ash-Shawkânî’s statement
“According to the majority of scholars, taqlîd is never permissible in a’mâl,”
is his own opinion, in which he misinterprets the fact that the mujtahids’
taqlîd of one another is not permissible. He gives reference from such a separatist
as Ibn Hazm (d. 456/1064). The four a’immat al-madhâhib never said that
ordinary Muslims should not imitate others. We have written about this already.
And the idea “It is not permissible to follow the dead,” is one of the beliefs
in Shî’ism to
which
as-Shawkânî belonged. That he is surprised at Ahl as-Sunna scholars’ not
holding the same idea shows that he was a heretic who held much to this Shî’ite
belief. And his reference that since the scholars of fiqh belonging to the four
madhhabs “are muqallids, their words could not be documents,” shows that he is
confused because of his own heresy and excessive bigotry. However, he admits in
his first two sentences that a scholar of fiqh who is a muqallid follows the
imâm al-madhhab and does not speak from himself, and his words are the imâm
al-madhhab’s words, which, as he himself means in his tenth sentence, are
documents. It was certainly true that the taqlîd was unnecessary during the
time of as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, since they all were mujtahids. But there are
thousands of examples, listed in many books, showing that the muqallids among
the Tabi’ûn were much greater than mujtahids. By writing that Rasûlullah
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) commanded the Sahâbîs whom he sent as judges to
other places to judge in accordance with their own ra’y, ash-Shawkânî rebuts
his own claims. Allâhu ta’âlâ makes him, too, prove that Ahl as-Sunna is right.
As it is seen, the
lâ-madhhabî and religion reformers speak through the tongue of ash-Shawkânî. In
order to deceive Ahl as-Sunna, the reformer represents a heretic, an enemy of
Ahl as-Sunna, as a mujtahid mutlaq. It is written in Al-usûl al-arba’a that ash-Shawkânî did not belong to a
madhhab, that he said “disbeliever and polytheist” about one who followed a
madhhab, and that the lâ-madhhabî regard him as a mujtahid.
“Imâm Ahmad said to Abû
Dâwud, ‘Do not follow anybody in the religion! Take what is conveyed from
as-Sahâba! You are free to adapt (tâbi’) yourself to those who came after
as-Sahâba.’ ‘Adaptation’ does not mean to ‘follow’ (taqlîd). Taqlîd means to
follow a person’s words or opinions without knowing where he has taken it from,
without seeing his proofs. The Hanbalî madhhab is the madhhab of the hadîth. None
of the scholars who adapted themselves to this madhhab gave up the hadîth in
return for their imâm’s opinions. Taqlîd makes intellect useless. He who
compares the deductions (ra’y) or ijtihâds of scholars with the Nass and then
gives up the ones disagreeing with the Nass will not have given up the words of
scholars. Neither it is fard to follow ijtihâds, nor will those who do not
follow them be sinners or disbelievers.
The
imâms or their disciples did not say that it was necessary to admit their deductions
or ijtihâds. Imâm Abû Hanîfa said, ‘This is my ijtihâd. If there should be
anyone to say the better I will follow him.’ When Hârûn ar-Rashîd wanted to
command everybody to follow the ijtihâds of Imâm Mâlik, the imâm said, ‘Do not
do that! A hadîth which is not known at some place is known at some other
place.’ A hadîth reported by only one person denotes supposition. Such a
hadîth, even if it is sahîh, is to be given up if it is against the public
advantage. The Sunna will not be abandoned by doing so. It will have been
omitted because strong evidence against it has been seen. So is the case with
Hadrat ’Umar’s ijtihâd upon divorce and mut’a. Hadrat ’Umar cannot be said to
have opposed to the hadîth.”
He boasts of himself by
writing through the preacher’s tongue:
“O you virtuous young
man! I now appreciate your deep and extensive knowledge.”
He writes again through
the preacher’s tongue:
“The harm of taqlîd, even
if it were only getting stuck into the books of one’s own madhhab and
neglecting the books of hadîth, will prove it [taqlîd] wrong.”
Not only Imâm Ahmad but
also the other a’immat al-madhâhib said to their disciples, “Do not follow
anybody, not even me. Take what is conveyed from as-Sahâba,” because there were
mujtahids among their disciples. Mujtahids had to do so. And the statement,
“You are free to adapt yourself to those who came after as-Sahâba” is a lie,
for, a mujtahid was not permitted to follow another mujtahid. Hadrat ’Abd
al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî wrote in Al-mîzân al-kubrâ:
“An ’âlim in the grade of
ijtihâd, that is, a scholar who can find out the adilla
and infer rules from them, is not permitted to follow somebody else. However,
according to the ’ulamâ’, it is wâjib for an ordinary Muslim to follow a
mujtahid. They said that if a non-mujtahid Muslim did not follow a mujtahid, he
would deviate from the right path. All mujtahids inferred rules from the
documentary evidences they found in Islam. No mujtahid has ever talked out of
his own opinion concerning the religion of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Each madhhab is like
a tissue woven with the threads of the Book and the Sunna. Anybody who is not
in the grade enabling him to employ ijtihâd has to choose and follow
any one
he likes of the four madhhabs, because they all show the way leading to Paradise.
A person who speaks ill of any of the a’immat al-madhâhib shows his ignorance.
For example, it was said unanimously by all the early ’ulamâ’ and their
successors that al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanifa Nu’mân ibn Thâbit (rahmatullâhi
’alaih) had had very great knowledge and wara’, had worshipped much, and had
been very meticulous and prudent in deducing rules. One should trust oneself to
Allâhu ta’âlâ against saying, ‘He mixed Allâhu ta’âlâ’s religion with words
disagreeing with the Book and the Sunna by inferring from his own opinion and
point of view,’ about such an exalted imâm. Every Muslim should be reverent
towards the a’immat al-madhâhib. The high status of al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa
was fully realized only by the great Awliyâ’ who were the possessors of kashf.”
Claiming that the Hanbalî
scholars did not give up the hadîth is a vituperation against the other three
a’immat al-madhâhib. As we have quoted before, the religion reformer, too,
said, “Each imâm al-madhhab said that his ijtihâd should be given up when a
sahîh hadîth was found.” Now he denies it. And the statement, “Taqlîd makes
intellect useless,” reflects the vulgar ignorance of the person who says so.
Allâhu ta’âlâ’s religion is above intellect, comprehension and realization. If
intellect is compelled to go up into it, its wings will fail and it will then
become useless. The most effective medicine to protect the intellect in
religious matters is to follow mujtahids. Comparison between scholars’ ra’y or
ijtihâd and the Nass is a task which can be done by mujtahids only. For us, the
ignorant, who know nothing of ijtihâd or of the knowledge of tafsîr or hadîth,
there is no other way than admitting and believing the greatness of an imâm
al-madhhab and to follow him. It was said unanimously by the ’ulamâ’ of Islam
that it was wâjib for us ordinary people to follow an imâm al-madhhab.[1] The one who does not adapt himself to an imâm
al-madhhab’s ijtihâd becomes a sinner. It is written in the books of fiqh that
the one who does not admit a decree which has been given unanimously by the
four madhhabs and which has spread over every country will become a non-Muslim.[2] Al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa
[1] ’Abd al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî, Al-mizân al-kubra, p. 68, with references added.
[2] Ibn ’Âbidîn, Radd al-muhtâr, the beginning of the salât al-witr. It is for this reason that religion reformers attack against this valuable book and Hadrat Ibn ’Âbidîn (rahmatullâhi ’alaih), who is one of the arch-stones of the Hanafî madhhab.
(rahmatullâhi ’alaih) said about his own ijtihâds,
“This is my ijtihâd. I have done what I could. If anyone does better than this,
it is more probable that he is right.” But he did not say, “I will follow him.”
There are those things which were decided to be halâl, harâm or wâjib by the
a’immat al-madhâhib, though they were not explained clearly in the Qur’ân al-kerîm or the hadîth
ash-sherîf. They did not give any decision when they could not find
hints in the Qur’ân al-kerîm or the hadîth
ash-sharîf. They were like the stars in the sky. Others are like the people
walking about on the earth. The latter, seeing the former’s reflection on the
surface of water, think that they know them. Harûn ar-Rashîd, the Khalîfa,
visited Imâm Mâlik and said, “I want to spread your books everywhere so that
the whole Umma should follow only these books.” Hadrat Imâm said, “O Amîr
al-mu’minîn (the Head of Muslims)! The disagreement between the disagreement of
scholars is Allâhu ta’âlâ’s compassion upon the Umma. Every mujtahid will
follow the evidence which he knows as sahîh. The rules deduced by them all
guide to the right path. They are all in the way of Allâhu ta’âlâ.” Thus, he
meant that all the madhhabs and mujtahids were on the right path. Strange to
see, the religion reformer, who insists on saying that not hadîths but ijtihâds
should be given up, claims now that hadîths which are da’îf should be given up
in mu’âmalât. Al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa, when employing ijtihâd, would prefer
a hadîth da’îf, and even the words of any Sahâbî, to his own ra’y. A dâîf
hadîth can be a document (dalîl) only for supererogatory (fadâ’il) ’ibâdât; in
other words, the supererogatory ’ibâdât can be performed also according to such
hadîths. For the ’ibâdât that are fard, wâjib or sunnat mu’akkada, only those
hadîths that are mashhûr and sahîh can be documents. While looking for such a
document for a matter, or while employing ijtihâd on a matter which had not
been explained in an âyat or in such hadîths, in other words, while looking for
the document of a matter similar to the matter in question, al-Imâm al-a’zam
Abû Hanîfa would prefer a da’îf hadîth to his own ra’y; that is, he would
prefer the document shown by a da’îf hadîth to his own deduction. For, the hadîth ash-sherîf written in al-Madkhal by Imâm
al-Baihakî declares, “It is fard for all of you to
follow the Qur’ân al-kerîm. It is not excusable for any of you to abandon it. In those
matters which you cannot find in the Qur’ân
al-kerîm, follow my sunna! If you cannot find
them in my sunna, either, follow the words of my Companions! For, my Companions
are like the stars in the sky. You will find guidance to the right
path if you follow any of them.
Disagreement among my companions is [Allâhu ta’âlâ’s] compassion
upon you.” This hadîth sherîf shows that the one who follows any of
the four a’immat al-madhâhib will find guidance to the right path. And this
documents the fact that all the four madhhabs guide to the right path. The
religion reformer’s referring the ijtihâd on divorce and mut’a[1] to Hadrat ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) is untrue, for
no Sahâbî disagreed with him, hence it was the unanimous decision of as-Sahâbat
al-kirâm.
It is also appalling
that, to him, taqlîd of a madhhab means to give up reading books of hadîth. All
of those who wrote, explained and published thousands of books of hadîth
filling up the world’s libraries today, were the Ahl as-Sunna, each of whom
followed a madhhab. Imâm Hamdân ibn Sahl (rahmatullâhi ’alaih) wrote: “If I
were a qâdî (judge), I would imprison two kinds of people: one is he who reads
books of hadîth but does not read books of fiqh, and the other is he who reads
books of fiqh but does not read books of hadîth. Don’t you see how fast our
a’immat al-madhâhib held to the knowledge of hadîth and how hard they studied
fiqh, or that they did not content themselves with only one of them?” All the scholars
of the Ahl as-Sunna disapproved and prohibited speaking from one’s own angle of
comparison (qiyâs) and deduction (ra’y) on Allâhu ta’âlâ’s religion. Who
disapproved of it most was al-Imâm al-’azam Abû Hanîfa (rahmatullâhi ’alaih).
He and the other a’immat al-madhâhib are quoted on this subject in al-Mîzân al-kubrâ. Does it befit a Muslim to say,
“In their ijtihâd they disagreed with the Nass and employed ijtihâd
incompatible with the hadîth through deduction and comparison,” about these
scholars who said quite the opposite? It is not permissible even to think so
about our a’immat al-madhâhib, who were Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam) inheritors. Those who say so, in fact, deny the hadîths declaring that
they were his inheritors, and thus contradict the hadîth
ash-sherîf. Furthermore, by doing so they think ill of and slander
Muslims. Both of them are grave sins. Because they perpetrate harâm, they
should repent before Allâhu ta’âlâ.
“The taqlîd of someone is
a huge obstacle against knowledge and intellect. Not all the rules deduced
through
[1] “Mut’a” is an un-Islamic form of nikâh, explained in detail in Endless Bliss.
ijtihâd
by mujtahids originated from the same source. Some were deduced from the Book,
while others from the Sunna. Therefore, there are different views on some
matters.”
Having involved himself
in a great matter which he could never cope with, the religion reformer now
gets confused. The poor man, who can never tolerate Muslims’ following the
a’immat al-madhâhib by obeying the above-quoted hadîth sherîf and the âyat
quoted several times before, being unable to find any reason based on knowledge
and intellect for blaming taqlîd, says that taqlîd obstructs knowledge and
intellect. We answered this claim of his in the previous article. Is he a Muslim
or an enemy of Islam who says that obeying the commands in the âyat and the
hadîth causes such harms? We leave the answer to the understanding and reason
of our dear readers. Hadrat ’Abd al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî wrote in his work al-Mîzân al-kubrâ:
“O my Muslim brother!
Meditate well! If Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) had not explained
what had been revealed briefly and symbolically in the Qur’ân
al-kerîm, the Qur’ân al-kerîm would have
remained concealed. If our a’immat al-madhâhib (rahmatullâhi ’alaihim ajma’în),
who were Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) inheritors, had not
explained the brief hadîths, the Prophet’s Sunna
would have remained concealed. Therefore, the scholars of each century, by
following Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam), explained all the brief
hadîths. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the 44th âyat of the Sûrat an-Nahl, “You
(the Prophet) shall
explain (bayân) to mankind what I send
down for them.” ‘Bayân’ means ‘to express the âyats of Allâhu ta’âlâ
in other terms, in a different way.’ If the scholars among the Umma had been
able to explain âyats and to interpret brief âyats and to infer rules from the Qur’ân al-kerîm, Allâhu ta’âlâ would have said to His Prophet, ‘Tell them what is sent to you through the
Angel,’ and He would not have commanded him to explain. Shaikh al-Islâm
Zakariyyâ (rahmatullâhi ’alaih) said, ‘If Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam) had not interpreted what had been declared briefly in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and if the a’immat al-madhâhib had not
explained what had been communicated symbolically, none of us could have
understood them. For example, if the Shâri’ (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) had
not explained how to perform a ritual ablution in his hadîths, we would not
have been able to deduce from the Qur’ân al-kerîm
how to perform it. Similarly, the
number
of rak’as in each salât, the rules, cases and amount of nisâb, the conditions
and fard and sunna acts of fasting, pilgrimage and zakât could not have been
inferred from the Qur’ân al-kerîm. None of the
symbolically revealed Qur’ânic rules would have been understood if they had not
been explained in the hadîth ash-sherîf.
“It is a symptom of
faction (nifâq) to struggle against the ’ulamâ’ of Islam since it means to
struggle to oppose and reject their proofs (dalâ’il). Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in
the 46th âyat of the Sûrat an-Nisâ of the Qur’ân
al-kerîm, ‘For having believed, they have to
appoint you to be an arbitrator to settle the disputes among them, admit your
decision and surrender.’ This âyat signifies that those who are not
pleased with Rasûlulah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) decision or with the commandments
of Islam do not have îmân. A hadîth sherîf declares, ‘Do not quarrel or dispute in the Messenger’s presence!’
Since the ’ulamâ’ are Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) inheritors,
to quarrel or to dispute with the ’ulamâ’ of his religion, to attempt to
criticize their ijtihâds, which are correct, means to dispute with him. As we
have to believe and confirm all the revelations which he brought even if we
cannot understand their ultimate divine causes and evidences, so we have to
believe and confirm the knowledge conveyed from our aimmat al-madhâhib, even if
we do not understand their documentary evidences, since they are not against
Islam. Despite the fact that there are different, even opposite principles in
the religions of all prophets (’alaihimu
’s-salâtu wa ’s-salâm), we Muslims have to believe and acknowledge all of them
as Prophets of Allâhu ta’âlâ, since the ’ulamâ’
declared it unanimously. The case is the same with the madhhabs. Non-mujtahids
have to believe and acknowledge all the four madhhabs though they see that
there are differences between them. A non-mujtahid’s finding a madhhab as
erroneous does not show that the madhhab is erroneous. Instead, it shows that
he understands little and that he himself is erroneous. Al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î
said, ‘To surrender oneself is half of îmân.’ Upon this, Hadrat Rabî’ said,
‘Nay, it is the whole of îmân,’ and al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î admitted it. Again,
al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î said, ‘A person with perfect îmân does not speak on the
knowledge of usûl. That is, he does not ask why it is that way and not this
way.’ When asked what was the knowledge of usûl, he said it covered the Book,
the Sunna and ijmâ’ al-Umma. This remark of his shows that we have to say that
we believe all knowledge that has come
from
Allâhu ta’âlâ and the Prophet as He has
revealed. So should be the case with what has been conveyed through the ’ulamâ’
of Islam; that is, we should say that we believe the words of our a’immat
al-madhâhib without pronouncing on them, without arguing. Therefore, Imâm Ibn
’Abd al-Birr (d. 463/1071) said, ‘None of our a’imma has been heard to command
his disciples to follow a certain madhhab. They told them to follow fatwâs of
any madhhab they liked, for all the madhhabs are Allâhu ta’âlâ’s compassion. It
was not stated in any hadîth, sahîh or da’îf, that our Prophet
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) commanded anybody of his umma to recommend a
certain madhhab.’
“Al-Imâm al-Qurâfî says,
‘As it was witnessed unanimously by as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, a person who followed
Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ) by adopting their
fatwâs would also ask other Sahâbîs about his other manners and would act upon
what he learned. Nobody would ask for witnesses or documents.[1] And by the unanimous declaration of the ’ulamâ’, it is
necessary today for a new Muslim to learn and do by asking the scholars of a
single madhhab without asking for proofs, and if he cannot find scholars of the
same madhhab, to ask any scholar but later, to learn one of the four madhhabs
and follow it. A stubborn person who refuses this unanimity has to find proofs
for his refutation.’ ”[2]
’Allâma Sayyid Ahmad
at-Tahtâwî, a great Hanafî fiqh scholar of Egypt, wrote in the subject of
‘Zabâyih’ in his Hâshiyatu Durr al-mukhtâr:
“According to the majority of the scholars of tafsîr, the âyat, ‘They parted into groups in the religion.’
referred to the people of bid’a who would arise in this umma. In a
hadîth
sherîf reported by Hadrat ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), Rasûlullah (’alaihi
’s-salâm) said to Hadrat ’Â’isha (radiy-Allâhu anhâ), ‘The âyat about the partition into groups in the religion
refers to the people of bid’a and to the followers of their nafses who would
[1] In other words, it was not possible for the new Muslims among the Tâbi’ûn to follow the madhhab of only one Sahâbî, since the madhhabs of as-Sahâbat al-kirâm were not codified or compiled in books as great madhahbs. It was to a few persons’ lot to be in company with a Sahâbî all the time and to ask him about everything, thus to act upon what they heard. They needed to ask any Sahâbî they met and to listen and act accordingly. When there is darûra (compulsory necessity), one can follow any madhhab. The Tâbi’ûn never asked for proof.
[2] al-Mîzân
al-kubrâ, p. 41.
arise in this umma.’ Allâhu
ta’âlâ declared in the 153rd ayat of the Sûrat al-An’âm, ‘This is the right path. Be on this path! Do not part into
groups!’ (that is, Jews, Christians and other heretics departed from
the right path; you should not part like them!) In the 103rd âyat of the Sûrat
âl ’Imrân, Allâhu ta’âlâ declared, ‘You all should
hold on to Allâhu ta’âlâ’s rope! Do not part into groups!’ Some
scholars of tafsîr said that ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ’s rope’ meant ‘jamâ’a, unity’. The
command, ‘Do not part into groups,’
shows that it is so and the jamâ’a are the possessors of fiqh and ’ilm. One who
dissents from fuqahâ’ (scholars of fiqh) as much as a span falls into heresy,
becomes deprived of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s help and deserves Hell, because the fuqahâ’
have been on the right path and have held on to the Sunna of Rasûlullah
(’alaihi ’s-salâm) and on to the path of the Khulafâ’ ar-râshidîn, the Four
Caliphs (radiy-Allâhu ’anhum). The As-siwâd al-a’zam, i.e., the majority of
Muslims, are on the path of the fuqahâ’. Those who depart from their path will
burn in the fire of Hell. O Believers! Follow the unique group which is
protected against Hell! And this group is the one that is called Ahl as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a. For, Allâhu ta’âlâ’s
help, protection and guidance are for the followers of this group, and His
wrath and punishment are for those who dissent from this group. Today, this
group of salvation come together in the four madhhabs, namely the Hanafî, Mâlikî, Shâfi’î and Hanbalî. In the present time, one who does not
adapt himself to one of these four madhhabs is a man of bid’a and is destined
for Hell. All people of bid’a claim that they are on the right path. This
subject can be judged not by mere claim or imagination but by the reports of
the specialists in this path and of the scholars of hadîth, whose reports are
based on the right path.”[1]
The
’ulamâ’ of Islam have written numerous books on their biographies and
superiority, for example, the section “Ashadd
al-jihâd fî ibtâli da’wa ’l-ijtihâd” of the Arabic book al-Minhat al-Wahbiyya fî raddi ’l-Wahhâbiyya,
and the books
[1] This passage from at-Tahtâwî reports openly and definitely that the Wahhâbîs, the Shî’ites and other lâ-madhhabî people are the people of bid’a, dalâla and Hell. The one-page Arabic original of this passage is appended photostatically in the book Radd al-Wahhâbî published in Istanbul in 1399 (1979). Edited first in India in 1264 (1848), this book proves with authentic references that the four madhhabs are right and that following one of them is necessary to escape Hell.
Hidâyat al-muwaffiqîn and Sabîl an-najât, which
were published in Istanbul. The following is the translation from Ashadd al-jihâd to be a souvenir for the youth:
He was
born in
Al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû
Hanîfa performed salât every night. Once, while he was sleeping in the Ka’ba,
he was waken by a voice: “O Abû Hanîfa! Thou hast served Me faithfully. Thou
hast known Me well. On account of this faith and acknowledgement of thine, I
have forgiven thee and those who will follow thee until Doomsday.” What good
news for Abû Hanîfa and for the followers of his madhhab! His beautiful moral
character and good qualities could exist only in an ’ârif and imâm who was a
mujtahid. Of the mujtahid-imâms and mature ’âlims whom he educated, ’Abdullah
ibn Mubârak, Imâm Mâlik, Imâm Mis’ar, Abû Yûsuf, Muhammad ash-Shaibânî and Imâm
Zufar are the witnesses of his high status. Though he wished to keep away from
the
people and go into retirement because he had much modesty and bashfulness, he
began to issue fatwâs when he was commanded by Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi
wa sallam) in his dream to promulgate his madhhab. His madhhab spread far and
wide. His followers increased in number. Those who envied him appeared, yet
they all were routed and disgraced. Many scholars learned the usûl and furû’ of
his madhhab and wrote many books. Those who could observe and understand his
naqlî (narrated, traditional) and ’aqlî (mental) documentation wrote about his
superiority. Though Abu ’l-Faraj ibn al-Jawzî quotes some stories belittling
al-Imâm al-a’zam in his book, he wrote them not to belittle al-Imâm al-’azam
but to show that there were those who were jealous of him. In the same book he
praises al-Imâm al-a’zam more than others. Al-Imâm al-’azam’s father, Thâbit,
had visited Hadrat ’Alî (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), who had invoked for a blessing on
him and his children. The prayer manifested on al-Imâm al-a’zam. Attaining the
suhba of some of as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, particularly of Hadrat Anas ibn Mâlik
(radiy-Allâhu ’anh), he was honoured with being one of the Tâbi’ûn.
[’Abd al-Wahhâb
ash-Sha’rânî wrote:
“Before writing my book Adillat al-madhâhib, I studied the ijtihâds of
Abû Hanîfa and his disciples very minutely. I saw that each of them was based
on an âyat kerîma, hadîth sharîf or khabar (narration) reported from as-Sahâbat
al-kirâm. Such great mujtahids as Imâm Mâlik, Imâm Ahmad and al-Imâm
ash-Shâfi’î praised al-Imâm al’a’zam very much. Others speaking favourably or
unfavourably about him is not of any importance, for, those who are in the
Mâlikî, Hanbalî or Shâfi’î madhhab have to love and praise someone whom their
imâm al-madhhab praised. If they do not love him they will have not obeyed
their madhhab. It is wâjib for anyone who adapts himself to a madhhab to follow
his imâm al-madhhab and praise al-Imâm al-a’zam. One day, while I was writing
al-Imâm al-a’zam’s biography, a man came in and showed me a piece of paper. It
wrote ill of al-Imâm al-a’zam. I told him that it had been written by somebody
who had not understood al-Imâm al-a’zam’s ijtihâds. He said he had taken it
from Fakhr ad-dîn ar-Râzî’s book. ‘Fakhr ad-dîn ar-Râzî (d. 606/1209) is like a
student when compared to al-Imâm al-a’zam. Or he is like a villager compared to
a sultan, or like a star which cannot be seen in a sunny sky. As it is harâm
for a villager to blame the sultan without any evidence, so it is harâm for us,
the muqallids, to disagree with the imâm al-madhhab’s ijtihâd or to
say
groundless words against him unless there is a clear âyat that cannot be
explained away,’ I said.[1] It is wâjib for a muqallid who cannot understand
one of the decisions which al-Imâm al’a’zam made through ijtihâd to act in
accordance with it unless its opposite is proved.
“Abû Mutî’ related that
while he was with al-Imâm al-a’zam in the Kûfa Mosque, Sufyân ath-Thawrî, Imâm
Muqâtil, Hammâd ibn Salama, Imâm Ja’far as-Sâdiq and some other ’ulamâ’ came
in. ‘We have heard that you employ qiyâs in religious matters. This will harm
you very much, for it was the Devil who employed it first,’ they said. Al-Imâm
al-a’zam answered them from morning till the time of the Friday prayer. He
explained his madhhab. ‘First I look in the Qur’ân
al-kerîm. If I cannot find in it, I look in the hadîth
ash-sherîf. If I cannot find it again, I look in the ijmâ’ of as-Sahâbat
al-kirâm. If I cannot find it, either, I prefer one of [their opinions about]
those [matters] on which they disagreed. If I cannot find it, either, I then
employ qiyâs,’ he said and showed some examples. They all stood up, kissed his
hand and said, ‘You are the master of the ’ulamâ’. Forgive us, please!
Inadvertently, we have bothered you.’ And he replied, ‘May Allâhu ta’âlâ
forgive me and you.’
“O my brother! Refrain
from speaking ill of al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa and the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh who
have been following his madhhab! Do not believe what the ignorant say or write!
If you follow religion reformers who do not know the ahwâl, zuhd, wara’ and the
prudence and strictness in religious matters of that exalted imâm and say that
his documentation is unsound, you will suffer perdition with them in the next
world. If you, as I do, study his documentation, you will realize that all the
four madhhabs are sahîh (valid)! If you want to see the correctness of the four
madhhabs as clearly as the noon sun, cling to the path of the men of Allâhu
ta’âlâ! Advance on the way of tasawwuf, thus guarantee your knowledge and
worship to be only for Allâhu ta’âlâ’s sake. Then you will see the source of
the teachings of Islam. You will
[1] Please note how Hadrat ’Abd al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî, who was a Shâfi’î, censured Fakhr ad-dîn ar-Râzî, who also was a Shâfi’î, because ar-Râzî spoke ill of al-Imâm al-a’zam. We suggest that religion reformers who have tried to deceive Muslims by saying that the Hanafîs and the Shâfi’îs fought each other and caused Islam to go backwards shall read the lines above carefully and wake up from unawareness.
realize
that all the four madhhabs have spread by originating from this same source and
that none of them contains any rule outside of Islam. How lucky for those who
behave properly and respectfully towards the a’immat al-madhâhib and the
’ulamâ’ who have followed them! Allâhu ta’âlâ made them guides (imâms) to show
His human creatures the way to happiness. They are His great blessings upon
people. They are the pioneers of the way leading to Paradise.”[1] ]
was born
in Medina in
[1] Preface to al-Mîzân al-kubrâ in the Arabic work ’Ulamâ’ al-Muslimîn wa Wahhâbiyyûn, p. 62, Istanbul, 1973.
hadîth
is studied, Mâlik is like a celestial star. Nobody could be like Mâlik in
memorizing, understanding and preserving knowledge. To me, in the knowledge
about Allâhu ta’âlâ nobody is as trustworthy as Mâlik. The witness between
Allâhu ta’âlâ and me is Imâm Malik. Had it not been for Mâlik and Sufyân ibn
’Uyaina, knowledge would have gone from the Hijâz by now.” When ’Abdullah asked
his father Ahmad ibn Hanbal who was the most learned among Zahrî’s disciples,
his father said that Mâlik was the most learned in every branch of knowledge.
Ibn Wahab said, “If it weren’t for Mâlik and Laith, we all would deviate.”
Al-Awzâ’î, whenever he heard the name of Imâm Mâlik, would say, “He is the most
learned of the learned, the greatest ’âlim of Medina, and the Muftî of
al-Haramain.” Upon hearing of Imâm Mâlik’s death, Sufyân ibn ’Uyaina said, “The
world does not have anybody like him now. He was the imâm of the world, the
’âlim of the Hijâz, the witness of his time and the sun of the Ummat
al-Muhammad (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam). Let us be on his way.” Ahmad ibn
Hanbal said that Imâm Mâlik was superior to Sufyân ath-Thawrî, Laith, Hammâd
and al-Awzâ’î. Sufyân ibn ’Uyaina said that the hadîth
ash-sherîf, “When people are in urgent need
[of someone], they will find no one surpassing the
scholar in Medina,” signified Imâm Mâlik. Imâm Malik said that he
dreamt of Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) every night. Mus’âb said
that he had heard his father say, “Mâlik and I were in Masjid an-Nabawî.
Someone approached and asked which of us was Abû ’Abdullah Mâlik. We showed him
who he was. He came near him, threw his arms round his neck and kissed him on
the forehead. He said, ‘I dreamt of Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam)
sitting here. Call Mâlik, he said. You came, trembling. Relax yourself, O Abâ
’Abdullah! Sit down and open up your chest, he commanded. Your chest opened and
radiated fragrant scents everywhere.’ Imâm Mâlik wept and said that the dream
was to be interpreted as knowledge.”
name was
Muhammad ibn Idris ibn ’Abbâs ibn ’Uthmân ibn Shâfi’. His descent traced back
to Hâshim ibn ’Abd al-Muttalib as his eighth father, whose uncle, Hâshim, was
among Rasûlulah’s ancestors. His fifth father, Sâyib, was in the enemy army in
the Battle of Badr, but later he and his son Shâfî’ became Sahâbîs. The imâm,
therefore, was called “ash-Shâfi’î.” His mother was a Sharîfa, a descendant of
Hadrat Hasan (radiy-Allâhu ’anh). He was born in Gazza in
was two
years old, he was taken to al-Makkat al-mukarrama, where he memorized the Qur’ân al-kerîm in childhood and Imâm Mâlik’s hadîth
book Muwatta’ at the age of ten. He
began to issue fatwâs at the age of fifteen. He went to al-Madînat al-Munawwara
in the same year and acquired knowledge and faid from Imâm Mâlik. He came to
Baghdad in 185. Two years later he went to Mecca for hajj. He returned to
Baghdad in 198 and settled in Egypt in 199. Long after his death, there were
those who wanted to take his body to Baghdad, and when his grave was dug, it
emanated a musky scent, intoxicating the people there. They gave up digging.
With respect to knowledge, worshipping, zuhd, ma’rifa, intelligence, memory and
pedigree, he was the most superior of the imâms of his time, and superior also
to most of those who came before him. His madhhab spread far and wide. All of
the inhabitants of al-Haramain and al-Ard al-Muqaddas [Palestine] became
Shâfi’î. The hadîth ash-sherîf, “The scholar of Quraish will fill the world with knowledge,”
appeared on al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î. When ’Abdullah inquired of his father, Ahmad
ibn Hanbal, the reason why he prayed very much for al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î, his
father said, “O my son! Al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î’s place among people is like that
of the sun in the sky. He is a healer of souls.” In those days, Muwatta’ contained 9500 hadîths, and later it was
abbreviated to the present one which contains some 1700 hadîths. He won the
nickname Nâsir as-Sunna (helper of the
religion). It was astonishing that he founded a new madhhab in such a short
time as four years. More than 40 books have been written revealing his
biography and his superiority.
was born
in Baghdad in
Rasûlullah
(’alaihi ’s-salâm) who commanded him, ‘Write a letter including my greetings to
Abû ’Abdullah Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He will be asked if the Qur’ân al-kerîm is a creature. Tell him not to answer the
question.’ ” 800 000 men and 60 000 women attended his funeral. On the day he
passed away, 20 000 Jews, Christians and Magians embraced Islam.
These four a’imma of Ahl
as-Sunna were the best ones of the second century of Islam as praised in the hadîth ash-sherîf. All of them are among “those” in
the âyat, “Allâhu ta’âlâ loves those who follow
them [as-Sahâbat al-kirâm] in goodness.”
If a person, instead of following them, follows someone among ignorant and base
people in the worst of all times, this will show his idiocy. Allâhu ta’âlâ
declared: “Obey Ulû ’l-amr!” Ulû ’l-amr
are the ’ulamâ’ or the governments which practise the fatwâs of ’ulamâ’.
According to both the interpretations, it is wâjib to follow the a’immat
al-madhâhib. Fakhr ad-dîn ar-Râzî inferred from this âyat that qiyâs was a
document and that it was wâjib for a muqallid to follow the ’ulamâ’. And for
the unanimity of the ’ulamâ’ of usûl, those ’ulamâ’ who are not absolute
mujtahids are muqallids, too. It is understood from the 114th âyat of Sûrat
an-Nisâ’ that it is harâm to dissent from the unanimity of the mujtahids.[1]
“An Âyat kerîma declares,
‘Allâhu ta’âlâ wishes His human slaves to be shown facilitiy. He does not want
them to suffer difficulty.’ A hadîth sherîf declares, ‘As Allâhu ta’âlâ likes us to do ’azîmas, so He likes us to
do rukhsas.’ In other words, He likes us to do the rukhsas which He
has permitted. This should not be misunderstood. Al-Imâm al-Manâwî wrote in his
commentary on al-Jâmi’ as-saghîr, ‘It is
not permissible to collect the rukhsas of madhhabs and make up a new madhhab of
rukhsas, which means to dissent from Islam.’ Ibn ’Abd as-Salâm said that it
would be permissible provided you will not diverge from Islam. Al-Imâm as-Subkî
said, ‘It is permissible to transfer oneself to another madhhab which comes
easier to one when there is a need and strong necessity (darûra). But it is not
permissible without a
[1] There is detailed information about ijmâ’ and qiyâs in al-Husâmî’s book al-Muntahâb fî usûl al-madhhab, which was edited the second time together with its commentary-index titled Hâmî in Pakistan. Muhammad ibn Muhammad Husâm ad-dîn al-Husâmî passed away in Farghana in 644/1246. See also the end of the thirty-third article.
strong
necessity, for, in that case it will be for the advantage of one’s self, not
for protecting one’s religion. It is not permissible to change one’s madhhab
frequently.’ I have given detailed information on the taqlîd of a madhhab in my
book Khulâsat at-tahqîq fî bayâni hukmi ’t-taqlîd
wa ’t-talfîq[1] .
“It is not permissible to
make up hîlat Shar’iyya[2] in order to make the halâl harâm or to make the
harâm halâl, that is, it is not a rukhsa approved by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Ibn
al-’Izz, in the explanation of the taqlîd of another madhhab, wrote, ‘One
should avoid making hîlat Shar’iyya a means for one’s own desires without
understanding the words of the a’immat al-madhâhib or knowing hîlat Shar’iyya.’
It is obvious that muqallids do not know hîlat Shar’iyya, and they use the word
‘hîla,’ which they have heard from the a’immat al-madhâhib, in the line of
their own desires. Al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa said that those muftîs who
taught hîlat Shar’iyya were to be punished.
“The rukhsas which Allâhu
ta’âlâ likes are the facilities which He has permitted for those who get into
straits while doing His command. However, it is not permissible to escape doing
the commands or to look for facilities suitable for one’s own reasoning and
understanding. Najm ad-dîn al-Ghazzî wrote in the book Husn at-tanabbuh, ‘The Devil does not let one do
the rukhsas permitted by Allâlu ta’âlâ. For example, he does not let him apply
masah on the mests. He has him wash his feet. One should act upon the ruhksas
but not look for the rukhsas of the madhhabs all the time, for, it is harâm to
gather the facilities of the madhhabs together. It is a devilish way.’
“Most of the Salaf
as-sâlihîn (Muslims of the first two centuries of Islam) suffered
inconveniences. They performed hard ’ibâdât. You should not do like them! Take
the way of the rukhsas stated clearly in the Qur’ân
al-kerîm and the hadîth ash-sherîf! But
do not slander those great people! They were much more learned and intelligent
than you are. You do not know what they knew. Do not meddle with things you do
not know or understand, and do not follow them. And protect yourself from
opposing
[1] Photographic second edition of the Arabic original by Hakîkat Kitâbevi, Istanbul, 1974.
[2] Doing something suitably with a less-known rule of Islam when it cannot be done suitably with a well-known rule. See Al-basâ’îr li munkiri ’t-tawassuli bi ahli ’l-maqâbir and the sixth part of Fatâwa al-Hindiyya for more detail.
those
great people by depending on what you understand from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the hadîth
ash-sherîf! They understood the Qur’ân al-kerîm
and the hadîth ash-sherîf better than you do.
Having been closer to the time of Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam)
than you are; their intellect having been enlightened with the Ma’rifat-Allah
(knowledge about Allâhu ta’âlâ); having clung to the Sunna fully; and their
ikhlâs (quality of doing everything only for Allâhu ta’âlâ’s sake), imân,
tawhîd (belief in the oneness, unity, of Allâhu ta’âlâ) and zuhd (not setting
one’s heart on worldly things) having been much greater, they knew much better
than you and the like. O you poor man with a religious post! Day and night you
have been thinking of and running after the desires of your stomach and nafs.
You have acquired some religious information in order to satisfy them. Relying
on your smattering, you think of yourself as an authority on Islam. You attempt
to compete with the Salaf as-sâlihîn. Do not slander those great people of
Islam who spent their lives learning and teaching knowledge and who purified
their hearts with pious actions and who strictly abstained from mushtabihât in
order to consume halâl food and escape from the harâm! They were much higher
than you are. This state of yours is like that of a sparrow competing with a
falcon in eating and drinking. The mujâhada, riyâdât, ’ibâdât, ijtihâds and
words of those great people were all in a manner as to suit with the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the hadîth
ash-sherîf. The Salaf as-sâlihîn themselves acted upon ’azîmas, but
issued fatwâs for Muslims to act upon rukhsas.
“The majority of the
’ulamâ’ of Ahl as-Sunna said that îmân by mere acceptance was sahîh (valid,
lawful), even though such a muqallid of îmân was disobedient and sinful because
he had given up istidlâl (reasoning, convincing oneself with reasonable
evidences). In other words, a person who believes only by learning from
somebody without thinking or understanding is a Believer, a Muslim. The karâmât
of Awliyâ’ are true. They may have karâmât when they are dead as well as when
alive. The karâmât of Hadrat Mariam, of the As’hâb al-kahf and of the Âsaf ibn
Barhiyâ, and of the Prophet Hadrat Sulaimân’s
(’alaihi ’s-salâm) vizier are revealed in the Qur’ân
al-kerîm. Karâmât are the things that happen from the scholars of Ahl
as-Sunna and which cannot be comprehended through reason or science. Because
karâmât did not happen from those who were not Ahl as-Sunna, none of the
seventy-two groups believed in karâmât.
“A mujtahid does not err
while searching for and choosing one
of the
âyats or hadîths as a document. But he may err while deducing rules from the
document which he has found. Therefore, a mujtahid who has not erred will be
given ten thawâbs and a mujtahid who has erred will be given one thawâb.
Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) commanded Hadrat ’Amr ibn al-Âs: ‘You yourself deduce rules! If you do not err you will get
ten thawâbs; if you err you will get one,’ concerning matters
whereon he could not find a nass. The one thawâb is not for his painstaking in
ijtihâd but for his hittingness in finding the document. If he errs in finding
the document, too, he will not be given any thawâb, but those who follow such
ijtihâds will not be tormented. To Allâhu ta’âlâ, only one of various ijtihâds
[on a particular matter] is right. Others are wrong. According to the scholars
of the Mu’tazila, a mujtahid never makes a mistake, and what is right varies.
Ijtihâd is detailed in Mir’ât al-usûl, a
commentary on Mirqât al-wusûl, both by
Molla Khusraw.
“It was declared in a
hadîth sharîf that lies and slanders would increase after the third century [of
Islam]. Bid’as and heresies will increase. Those who deviate from the path of
the Salaf as-sâlihîn in faith and worship will increase in number. The ’ulamâ’
of fiqh and the pilgrims (sâlikûn) on the way of tasawwuf, who cling to the
Book and the Sunna, and the ijmâ’ of the Salaf as-sâlihîn will be saved, others
will suffer perdition. The ’ulamâ’ of fiqh and experts in tasawwuf will exist
until the end of the world. But it will not be known for certain who they are.
However, those whom Muslims unanimously approve of will be known.
“It is fard ’ayn
(commandment for every Muslim) to learn ’ilm al-hâl (books, teachings, of one
madhhab). Allâhu ta’âlâ declares, ‘Learn by asking
those who know!’ So it is necessary for those who do not know to
learn from the ’ulamâ’ or their books. For this reason, it is declared in a
hadîth sherîf, ‘It is fard both for men and for
women to learn knowledge.’ These commands show that it is necessary
to learn the teachings that should be done with the body and with the heart
from the books of ’ilm al-hâl and that we should not believe what the ignorant,
lâ-madhhabî men with religious post [especially religion reformers] say or
write.
“As it has been declared
by the ’ulamâ’ of the right path unanimously, it is fard ’ayn for every Muslim
to learn the belief of Ahl as-Sunna briefly and the fard and harâm actions
thoroughly in their daily life and ’ibâdât. If they do not learn these from the
books of ’ilm al-hâl, they become either heretics or disbelievers. It is fard
kifâya (fard for at least one Muslim) to learn more than
these,
e.g., the twelve preliminary branches of the Arabic language, tafsîr, hadîth,
science, medicine and mathematics. If one person in a town performs the fard
kifâya, it is not fard but mustahab for other inhabitants of the town. Keeping
fiqh books in a town is like keeping Islamic scholars. It is not fard for
anybody in such a town to learn tafsîr, hadîth and the more-than-necessary of
fiqh, but it is mustahab. It is never fard for anybody to find out the
documents of the rules or to study them, while it is always mustahab for
scholars. Learning those branches of knowledge that are mustahab is more
blessed than performing supererogatory (nâfila) ’ibâdât. When there exists no
caliph, scholars undertake his duties. It is wâjib to obey those scholars who
lead a life compatible with their knowledge.”[1]
These
enemies of Islam, who have worked in the disguise of men with religious posts,
have been called “zindîqs,” “religion reformers” or “bigots of science.” They have deceived the
ignorant and led them out of Islam in every century, yet they have not been
able to harm Islam itself, for there have been many scholars of fiqh and great
men of tasawwuf in every century who have been warning Muslims with their
lectures and articles to prevent them from being deceived. But now, the
scholars of Islam having decreased in number, the enemies of Islam have found
an opportunity. Appearing in the disguise of men with religious posts, they
have been attacking Islam. To detect these insidious enemies, Muslims should
know how a scholar of Islam should be. Hadrat Muhammad Ma’thûm al-Fârûqî
as-Sirhindî ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’ described the scholars of Islam as follows:
“Do not make friends with
a person who does not obey Islam or who has deviated into a heretical path!
Keep away from those men with religious posts who commit bid’a! Hadrat Yahyâ
ibn Ma’âdh ar-Râzî (quddisa sirruh) said, ‘Hold yourself off from three sorts
of people. Keep away from them.’ These three sorts of people are the ghâfil
(preoccupied with self, so forgetful of Allâhu ta’âlâ), and deviated men with
religious posts; those qârîs (reciter of the Qur’ân
al-kerîm by heart) who fawn on the rich; and those men of tasawwuf who
do not know anything of Islam. If a person
[1] ’Abd
al-Ghânî an-Nabulusî, Al-hadîqat an-nadiyya, part I, chapter III.
who has
come forward with the title of a man of religious authority does not obey
Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) sunna, that is, if he does not
cling to Islam, we should keep away from him and should not buy or read his
books. We should keep away even from the place where he is. Even a little
credit given to him will ruin your fatih. He is not a man of authority on
Islam, but an insidious enemy of Islam. He defiles your faith and îmân. He is
more harmful than the Devil. His words may be sweet and persuasive and he may
pretend to dislike this world, but you should still run away from him as you
would run away from a fierce animal. Al-Junaid al-Baghdâdî (quddisa sirruh), a
scholar of Islam, said, ‘There is only one way that will lead one to endless
bliss: to keep within the footsteps of Rasûlullâh (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam)’; ‘Do not follow a man of religious post who does not read the books of
tafsîr written by the ’ulamâ’ of Ahl as-Sunna or who is not on the path shown
in the hadîth ash-sherîf, for a scholar of Islam
should be on the path shown in the Qur’ân al-kerîm
and the hadîth ash-sherîf’; ‘The Salaf
as-sâlihîn were on the right path. They were devotees. They attained Allâhu
ta’âlâ’s love and approval. Their path was the path shown in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the hadîth
ash-sherîf. They held fast to this right path.’[1]
“The great men of
tasawwuf and the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh were on the path of the Salaf as-sâlihîn. They
all held fast to Islam. They were honoured with being Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi
’s-salâm) inheritors. Not a hair’s breadth did they deviate from Islam in their
words, actions and morals.
“I write again and again
that you should not think of those who are slack in obeying Rasûlullah (’alaihi
’s-salâm) or who deviate from his lightsome path as authorities on religious
matters! Do not believe their false words or ardent writings! Jews,
[1] As it is understood here, Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) path is the path of Salaf as-Sâlihîn, who were the group of those Muslims of the first two centuries of Islam which comprised as-Sahâbat al-kirâm and the distinguished ones among the Tâbi’ûn and Taba’ at-Tâbi’ûn. The four a’immat al-madhhâhib were among these distinguished ones. Then, Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) path is the path explained in the fiqh books of the four madhhabs. Therefore, as declared unanimously by the ’ulamâ’ of Ahl as-sunna, a person who turns away from the fiqh books of the four madhhabs will have deviated from Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) path. This unanimity is reported clearly in the annotation of the part “Zabâyih” of Durr al-mukhtâr by at-Tahtâwî.
Christians
and those Indian disbelievers called Buddhists and Brahmins also have been
using sweet and stirring words and sophisms to propagandize that they have been
on the right path and that they have been inviting people to goodness and
happiness. Abû ’Umar ibn Najîb said, ‘Any knowledge which is not lived up to is
more harmful than useful to its possessor.’ The way leading to all kinds of happiness
is Islam. The way to salvation is to keep within the footprints of Rasûlullah
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam). Obeying him is the sign that distinguishes
right from wrong. Any word, writing or deed which is not compatible with his
religion is of no value. Khâriqa (prodigy; an extraordinary thing) happens out
of staying hungry or riyâda, and it is not peculiar to Muslims only. ’Abdullah
ibn Mubârak (rahmatullâhi ’alaih) said, ‘He who is slack in doing the mustahab
cannot do the sunna. Slackness in doing the sunna makes it difficult to do the
fard. And he who is slack in doing the fard cannot attain to ma’rifa, Allâhu
ta’âlâ’s love.’ It is for this reason that a hadîth sherîf declares, ‘Committing sins leads one to disbelief.’ Hadrat
Abû Sa’id Abu ’l-khair (d. 440/1049), one of the great Awliyâ’, was asked, ‘So
and so walks on the surface of water. What would you say about that?’ ‘It is
worthless. A duck can float on water, too,’ he said. When asked, ‘So and so
flies in the air?’ he said, ‘A fly flies, too. He is as valuable as a fly.’
When he was asked, ‘So and so goes from one city to another instantaneously?’
he said, ‘The Devil also goes from the east to the west in a flash. Such things
are worthless in our religion. A manly person lives among the people and goes
shopping and gets married, yet he does not forget Allâhu ta’âlâ even for a
moment.’ Hadrat Abû ’Alî ar-Rodbârî (d. in Egypt in 321/933), one of the great
Awliyâ’ and a disciple of al-Junaid al-Baghdâdî, was asked, ‘A man with
religious duties who listens to musical instruments [or makes friends with
na-mahrâm girls and women or allows his wife and daughters to go out without
covering themselves as prescribed by Islam] and who says that his heart is pure
and that the heart is important, what would you say about him?’ ‘His
destination is Hell,’ he said. Abû Sulaimân ad-Dârânî, who settled in a village
called Darya of Damascus and died there in 205/820, said, ‘First I compare my
thoughts and intentions with the Book and the Sunna. I then say and do the ones
which are compatible with these two just documents.’ The hadîth ash-sherîf declares, ‘The men of bid’a will go to Hell’; ‘The Devil makes a person worship
very much who has made up a bid’a and commits it. It makes him
weep a lot,’ and ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ does not accept the fast, salât,
hajj, ’umra, jihâd and fard or supererogatory worship of a person who commits
bid’a. Such a person goes out of Islam easily.’[1] Shaikh Ibn Abî Bakr Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Andulusî,
who lived in Egypt and died in 734/1334, said in his book Ma’ârij al-hidâya,
‘Get to know what is right and be right! Each action, thought, word and manner
of a perfect person is in perfect accord with those of Rasûlullah (’alaihi
’s-salâm), for all kinds of happiness can be attained by following him. To
follow him means to hold fast to Islam.’
“How do we follow
Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam)? Here I write its important aspects:
“You should repent
(tawba) right after committing a sin. The repentance of a sin which is committed
publicly should be done publicly, and the repentance of a sin which is
committed secretly should be done secretly. Repentance should not be postponed.
The kirâman katibîn angels do not record a sin immediately. It will never be
written down if it is repented for. They will record it if one does not repent
for it. Ja’far ibn Sinân (quddisa sirruh) said, ‘Not to repent for a sin is
worse than committing a sin.’ And he who has not repented on the spot should do
it before death. We should not neglect wara’ and taqwâ. Taqwâ is not to do what is clearly prohibited
(harâm), and wara’ is not to do doubtful
things (mushtabihât). It is more useful
to avoid the prohibited than doing the commanded (fard). Our superiours have
said, ‘The bad as well as the good do favours. But it is only the siddîqs, the
good, who avoid sins.’ Hadrat Ma’rûf al-Karkhî[2] said, ‘Avoid very much looking at all women with the
exception of the mahram ones! Do not look even at an ewe!’ A hadîth ash-sherîf declares, ‘It is the men of wara’ and zuhd who will attain to Allâhu ta’âlâ’s
Presence on the Day of Resurrection’; ‘The salât of a man of wara’ is
acceptable,’ and ‘It is an ’ibâda to be together with a man of wara’. Talking
with him is as blessed as giving alms.’ Do not do
[1] These hadîths foretold about those men with religious posts who make reforms or alterations in the religion, for example, who use a radio or loudspeaker in the adhân or salât or who make known the time of salât with lights on minarets.
[2] He was the son of a Christian named Fîrûz. He was emancipated by imâm ’Alî Ridâ and became the master of Sýrrî as-Saqatî, who became the master of al-Junaid al-Baghdâdî. He passed away in Baghdâd in 200 / 815.
anything which your heart shivers at! Do not follow
your nafs! Consult your heart about the things which you suspect! A
hadîth
sherîf declares, ‘Any action which calms the nafs
and relieves the heart is good. Any action which rouses the nafs and excites
the heart is a sin.’ Again a hadîth sherîf declares, ‘Things that are halâl are evident. Harâms have been
revealed, too. Avoid doubtful things. Do what you know to be doubtless!’
This hadîth sherîf shows that we should not do something which excites the
heart and is doubtful. It is permissible to do something about which there is
no doubt. Another hadîth sherîf declares, ‘The
things which Allâhu ta’âlâ has made halâl in the Qur’ân al-kerîm are halâl. He will forgive
what He has not declared in the Qur’ân al-kerîm.’ When we meet a doubtful affair, we should put
our hand on our heart. If the heart does not palpitate, we should do it. If it
palpitates, we should not do that thing. A hadîth sherîf declares, ‘Put your hand on your chest! The heart will be calm about
something halâl. It will palpitate about something harâm. If you doubt about
something, don’t do it! Don’t do it even if men with religious posts issue a
fatwâ!’ A person who has îmân will refrain from venial sins in order
to escape from committing grave sins.
We should deem all of our
’ibâdât and good deeds as defective. We should think that we have not been able
to do Allâhu ta’âlâ’s commands properly. Abû Muhammad ’Abdullah ibn Manâzil[1] (quddisa sirruh) said, ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ has commanded
various kinds of ’ibâdât. He has commanded patience, devotion, salât, fast and
istighfâr (begging Allâhu ta’âlâ for the forgiveness of one’s sins), which is
done immediately before dawn. He has declared istighfâr last. Thus, it has
become necessary for human beings to deem all their ’ibâdât and good deeds as
defective and to ask for pardon and forgiveness.’ Ja’far ibn Sinân (quddisa
sirruh) said, ‘Worshippers deeming themselves superior to sinners is worse than
their sins.’ Once, Hadrat ’Alî Murta’ish (quddisa sirruh) gave up i’tikâf
(retreat) and went out of the mosque after the twentieth of Ramadân. When asked
why he had gone out, ‘Seeing that the qârîs were reciting the Qur’ân al-kerîm melodiously and boasting about it, I
could not stay inside any longer,’ he said.
“We should work in order
to earn our household’s and our own livelihood in a halâl way. Trade and crafts
are necessary for
[1] His
master was Hamdûn al-Qassâr, who passed in Nishapur in 271/884.
doing
this. The Salaf as-sâlihîn always worked and earned in this manner. There are
many hadîths explaining the thawâb in earning in a halâl way. Hadrat Muhammad
ibn Sâlim was asked: ‘Shall we work and earn, or shall we only worship and put
our trust in Allâhu ta’âlâ?’ He said, ‘Tawakkul (trust in Allâhu ta’âlâ) was a
hâl (quality) of Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam), and earning by
working was his sunna. You shall work and put your trust in Allâhu ta’âlâ!’ Abû
Muhammad Ibn Manâzil said, ‘It is more useful to work and put one’s trust in
Allâhu ta’âlâ than to seclude one’s self for worshipping (’ibâda).’
“We should be temperate in
eating. We should not eat so much as to slacken us. Nor should we diet so much
as to prevent us from ’ibâdât. Hadrat Shâh an-Naqshaband (quddisa sirruh), one
of the greatest Awliyâ’, said, ‘Eat well and work well!’ In short, everything
which helps ’ibâdât and the doing of good is good and blessed. And those which
diminish them are prohibited. We should check and be careful about our
intention on anything good we do. If the intention is not good, we should not
do it.
“We should avoid (’uzla)
those who do not obey Islam and those who commit bid’as and sins. In other
words, we should not be friends with such people. A hadîth sharîf declares, ‘Hikma is made up of ten parts of which nine make up ’uzla.
And one is reticence.’ We should meet such people when necessary. We
should spend our time in working, making dhikr, thinking and performing
’ibâdât. The time for merry-making is after death. We should be friends with
pious, pure Muslims, be useful to them and make use of them. We should not
waste our time with useless, unnecessary words. [We should not read harmful
books or newspapers, listen to such radio or watch such television programs.
Books, newspapers, radios and televisions of the enemies of Islam have been
striving insidiously to annihilate Islam. They have been making plans to make
the youth irreligious and immoral. We should not fall into their traps.]
“We should treat
everybody with a cheerful face, no matter whether he is good or bad. [We should
not arouse instigation (fitna). Nor should we make enemies. We should follow
Hâfiz Shirâzî’s words, ‘Tell the friends the truth and handle the enemies with
a cheerful face and a sweet language.’] We should forgive those who ask for
forgiveness. We should show a good temper towards everybody. We should not oppose
anybody’s words or dispute with anybody. We should never speak harshly but
softly to everybody. Shaikh ’Abdullah Bayal (quddisa sirruh) said,
‘Tasawwuf
does not mean salât, fast or ’ibâdât at nights. These are the duties of every
person as a human slave. Tasawwuf means not to hurt anybody. He who manages
this attains to the goal.’ Hadrat Muhammad ibn Sâlim was asked how to
distinguish a Walî from other people. ‘He will be distinguished by his soft
words, beautiful manners and plentiful favours, and he never disagrees when
speaking with somebody and forgives those who ask forgiveness and pities
everybody,’ he said. Abû ’Abdullah Ahmad al-Makkârî said, ‘Futuwwat means to do
favours to a person by whom you have been offended, to give presents to a person
whom you dislike, and to be cheerful towards a person by whom you are bored.’
“We should talk little,
sleep little and laugh little. Laughing too much darkens the heart. We should
work, but only from Allâhu ta’âlâ should we expect its recompense. We should
take pleasure in doing His commands. If we trust only in Allâhu ta’âlâ, He will
bestow on us whatever we wish for. A hadîth sherîf declares, ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ gives every wish of the person who trusts
only in Him. He makes other people help him.’ Yahyâ ibn Ma’âdh
ar-Râzî (d. in Nishapur in 258/872) said, ‘Others will love you as much as you
love Allâhu ta’âlâ. Others will fear you as much as you fear Allâhu ta’âlâ.
Others will give you help in proportion to the worship you do for Allâhu
ta’âlâ.’ Do not run after your own advantages! Abû Muhammad ’Abdullah ar-Râsibî
(d. in Baghdad in 367/978) said, ‘The largest curtain between Allâhu ta’âlâ and
man is man’s thinking of only himself and his trusting in another man who is
incapable like himself. We should think of ingratiating ourselves not with men,
but with Allâhu ta’âlâ.’
“We should behave with a
sweet language and a cheerful face towards our wives and children. We should
stay with them as much as to give them their due. We should not attach
ourselves to them so much as to turn away from Allâhu ta’âlâ.
“We should not consult
the ignorant and deviated men with religious posts about our religious matters.
We should not stay together with those who are fond of this world. We should
follow the Sunna in everything we do and should abstain from any bid’a. When we
are happy we should not overflow the Islamic limits. Nor should we give up hope
for Allâhu ta’âlâ’s help when we are in trouble. We should not forget that
there is easiness alongside every difficulty. Our attitude should never change
in happiness or in trouble, we should be in the same state in abundance and in
scarcity. In fact, we should feel easy in scarcity and uneasy in
abundance.
Change of events should not make change in us.
“Instead of looking for
others’ faults, we should see our own faults. We should not deem ourselves
superior to any other Muslim. We should hold every Muslim higher than
ourselves. When we meet a Muslim, we should believe that our happiness may
depend on the blessing he will invoke on us. We should be like servants with
those whom we are obliged to. A hadîth sherîf declares, ‘A Muslim who does the following three deeds has perfect
îmân: serving one’s household, sitting together with the poor [not
with beggars!] and eating together with one’s
servants.’ In the Qur’ân al-kerîm,
these three things are declared to be the qualities of Believers. We should
learn the manners of the Salaf as-sâlihîn and try to be like them. We should
not speak ill of anybody in his absence. We should prevent a backbiter. [It is ghîba to talk behind a person’s back in a manner
that would hurt him when he hears it and even if what you say is true. If it is
a lie, it is iftirâ (slander). Both are
grave sins.] We should form it a habit to perform al-amru bi ’l-ma’rûf wa
’n-mahyu ’ani ’l-munkar.[1] Muhammad ibn Alyan’a was asked how to understand
if Allâhu ta’âlâ likes you. He said, ‘It is understood when tâ’a comes sweet
and committing sins comes bitter to you.’ We should not be stingy with the fear
of becoming poor. The Devil deceives man by saying that he may become poor and
by tempting him to fornication. A hadîth sherîf declares, ‘A person who has a crowded household but little food and
who performs his salât well and who does not backbite Muslims will be with me
on the Day of Resurrection.’ ”[2]
A Muslim who possesses
the qualities of goodness written above is called a man of religious authority.
We should realize that a person who does not own such qualities, and who even
dislikes, belittles those who posses them, is not a man of religious authority,
but an enemy of Islam, and we should not believe his words or writings.
[1] Duty to teach others what Allâhu ta’âlâ’s commands are and to prevent, to disapprove somebody’s committing His prohibitions.
[2] Muhammad Ma’thûm al-Fârûqî as-Sirhindî, Maktûbât, vol. II, 110th letter.
Also,
there is detailed information on bid’as in the first part of the Arabic book Hadîqat an-nadiyya by ’Abd al-Ghanî an-Nabulûsî.
And this part also was published by offset in Istanbul in 1399 (1979). In the
following, a translation of a part of his writtings on bid’a is presented:
Bid’a means
belief, deed or word that is incompatible with the Sunna [that is, the
religious teachings of Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm)]. Allâhu ta’âlâ created His
slaves so that they should worship Him. ’Ibâda (worship) means humiliation and
degradation. In other words, it is man’s offering his humiliation and
incapability to his Rabb (Creator). And this, in its turn, means to disregard
the beauty or uglinesses dictated by mind, by the nafs and by customs, so as to
submit oneself to the Creator’s description of what is beautiful and what is
ugly, and to believe and obey the Book and the Prophet
(’alaihi ’s-salâm) sent by the Creator. If a person does some action by his own
choice without considering that his Creator has permitted it, he has not
offered servility to Him and has not fulfilled the requirements for being
Muslim. If that action pertains to belief and is one of the facts which have
been unanimously declared to be believed, this belief of his is a bid’a that causes kufr (disbelief). If that
action pertains not to belief but to words and actions related to the religion,
it is fisq, a grave sin. It is declared in a hadîth sherîf, “If a person invents something nonexistent in the religion,
it is to be rejected.” This hadîth sherîf shows that if some belief,
word, action or behavior that does not exist in Islam is introduced and
believed to belong to the religion or to be an ’ibâda, or if some addition or
deletion is done in what is communicated by Islam and if it is expected that
doing so will cause thawâb, such an innovation or change is a bid’a, in which case Islam will have been
disobeyed and flouted. Those novelties which are done not in Islam but in
customs, that is, those for which thawâb is not expected, are not bida’ (pl. of
bid’a). For example, our religion does not reject the innovations and
alterations done in eating, drinking, travelling and transportation or housing.
[Therefore, eating at a table or from separate dishes; using spoons or forks;
travelling by automobiles and aeroplanes; using any kind of building, house or
kicthen utensils; and all sorts of technological knowledge, tools or works are
not considered as bida’ in Islam. It is permitted, even a fard kifâya, to make
and use them in beneficial fields. For
example,
it is permissible to produce radios, loud-speakers or electronic machines and
to use them outside ’ibâdât. The use of loud-speakers in worldly affairs is
permitted, but the recitation of the adhân, al-Qur’ân
al-kerîm or mawlîd through it is an alteration in ’ibâda, and a bid’a.
In order for the adhân to be heard from distant places, it should not be called
through a loud-speaker, but we should build mosques in every district, and
every muezzin should call it separately at each mosque.]
One day, Anas ibn Mâlik
(radiy-Allâhu ’anh) was asked why he wept. He said, “Of the ’ibâdât I had
learned from Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm), only salât remined unchanged. And
now I weep because I see that it has been changed, too.” He meant that he wept
because most of the people of his time did not carry out the requirements,
wâjibs, sunnas, mustahabs of salât and did not avoid its makrûhs, mufsids and
bid’as. Those were the people who could not realize the greatness of prophets, of Awliyâ’, or of the pious and devoted
Muslims. Leaving their path, they changed ’ibâdât according to their personal
opinions and nafses. Abandoning the way to felicity, they relapsed into
perdition. The reason for his weeping was that they changed salât by putting
some additions and deletions in it. Thus they changed the Sunna, [that is,
Islam]. And it is bid’a to change the Sunna.
It is declared in a
hadîth sherîf, “If an umma produces a bid’a in the
religion after the death of their prophet, they will lose a sunna identical with it.” In
other words, if they make up a bid’a that does not cause disbelief, they will
lose a sunna of the same category.
It is declared in a
hadîth sherîf, “Unless a holder of bid’a gives up
his bid’a, Allâhu ta’âlâ will not give thim the chance to repent.” That
is, if a person produces a bid’a or commits a bid’a produced by someone else,
he cannot repent for it because he considers the bid’a to be good and expects
thawâb for it. And, because of the evil of that bid’a, which may even cause
disbelief, he will not get the chance to repent for any of his sins.
It is declared in a
hadîth sharîf, “Allâhu ta’âlâ will never accept any
[good] deed of a person who commits something which is a bid’a in the religion,
unless he ceases from that bid’a for Allâhu ta’âlâ’s sake.” In other
words, if a person keeps doing something which is a bid’a in belief, deeds,
words or morals, He shall not accept any of his ’ibâdât of the same kind even
if they are sahîh. In order for his ’ibâdât to be accepted, he has to cease
from that bid’a by fearing Allâhu ta’âlâ, expecting thawâb from
Him or
for gaining His approval.
It is declared in a
hadîth sherîf, “Allâhu ta’âlâ will not accept the
fast, hajj, ’umra, jihâd, abstention from sinning and justice of a holder of
bid’a. He will go out of Islam easily.” That is, his ’ibâdât will
not be accepted even if they are sahîh; he will not be given thawâb. For, he
keeps on committing a bid’a that does not cause disbelief. The worship of a
holder of a bid’a causing disbelief are not sahîh in any case. None of his
obligatory or supererogatory acts of worship will be accepted. Because bid’a is
committed by following the nafs and Satan, its holder goes out of Islam, out of
the submission to the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Îmân is a function of the
heart. [The five principles of] Islâm are the function of the heart and
language together. Îmân is proper to the heart. But Islâm comprises all: the
heart, language and body. Îmân in the heart and Islâm in the heart are identical
with each other. What forsakes the holder of bid’a is the Islâm in the language
and body. One who goes on committing a bid’a has become a person who obeys the
nafs and Satan. One who commits sins becomes disobedient and sinful. He is not
called a holder of bid’a. But a man of bid’a is disobedient and sinful and
supposes his bid’a to be an ’ibâda and expects thawâb for it. Sinning outside
’ibâdât does not prevent the ’ibâdât from being approval.
It is declared in a
hadîth sherîf, “After me there will be differences
among my umma. Those who live in that time must hold fast to my sunna and to
the sunna of the Khulafâ’ Ar-râshidîn! They must shun the innovations in the
religion! Every innovation in the religion is a bid’a. All bid’as are heresy.
The destination of heretics is the fire of Hell.” This
hadîth sherîf
pointed out that there would be various differences among this umma; it says
that, of them, we must cling to the one which follows the path of Rasûlullah
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) and his four caliphs. Sunna means his
utterances, all ’ibâdât, beliefs and morals, and [the things approved by] his
keeping quiet when he saw them being done.
It is declared in a
hadîth sherîf, “When corruption is spread among my
umma, the one who clings to my sunna will be given the thawâb of a hundred
martyrs!” That is, when people go beyond the limits of Islam by
following the nafs, bid’as and their own intellect, a person who follows his
sunna is given the thawâb of a hundred martyrs one the Day of Rising. For, during
the time of disunion and corruption, following Islam will be as difficult as
fighting
against disbelievers.
It is declared in a
hadîth sherîf, “Islam began lonely (gharîb). It
will be lonely in its final times, too. Glad tidings be to those lonely people!
They will amend my sunnat defiled by people.” That is, as most
people in the beginning of Islam did not know Islam and found it odd, so in the
latest time those who know Islam will be few. They will restore his sunna,
which will be defiled after him. To this end they will perform al-amru bi
’l-ma’rûf wa ’n-nahyi ’ani ’l-munkar. They will be examples for others in
following the Sunna, that is, Islam. They will write the teachings of Islam
correctly, and will try to disseminate their books. Few people will listen to
them, and they will have a lot of adversaries. During that time, the man with a
religious post with many sympathisers will be the person who mixes sweet but
false words with the truth. For, a person who tells the naked truth will have many
adversaries.
It is declared in a
hadîth sherîf, “Banû Isrâ’îl (Sons of
Israel) parted into seventy-two groups. My umma
will part into seventy-three groups. Seventy-two of them will burn in the fire,
and only one will be safe. They are those who follow me and my Sahâba.”
In other words, The Sons of Israel parted into seventy-two groups in religion
matters. And Muslims will part into seventy-three groups. That is, they will
part into many groups. None of them will be disbelievers, but they will burn in
Hell for a long time. Solely the group that will hold the same belief and
perform the same ’ibâdât as he and his Sahâba did will not enter Hell. If those
scholars of Islam who do ijtihâd in the teachings of the beliefs of Rasûlullah
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) and as-Sahâbat al-kirâm err from a belief which
is religiously indispensable and unanimously known, they become disbelievers.
They are called mulhids.[1] If they err from a belief which is not
communicated by consensus and which is not indispensable, they become not
disbelievers but holders of bid’a in belief. They, too, are called Ahl al-qibla (Muslims). Also, while employing
ijtihâd in the teachings of deeds and ’ibâdât, those who disbelieve those
’ibâdât that are unanimously known to be indispensable become disbelievers or
mulhids. But those scholars who err from those ’ibâdât that are neither
indispensable nor unanimously communicated earn thawâb if they are mujtahids.
They become lâ-madhhabî if they are not
mujtahids. For, it is not permissible
[1] It is
written in Bahr and Hindiyya that they are polytheists.
for a non-mujtahid to do ijtihâd; he has to follow
the madhhab of a mujtahid. It is declared in a hadîth sherîf, “One who says, ‘Lâ ilâha ill-Allâh’, should not be called a
kâfir on account of his sinning! He who calls him a kâfir will become a kâfir
himself.” A person who will not enter Hell because of his correct
belief may enter Hell because of the sins he commits. If he is sâlih (true,
pious, devoted), that is, if he repents for his sins or attains forgiveness or
shafâ’a, he will never enter Hell. Because a person who denies a belief or a
deed which has been communicated unanimously and is indispensable, that is,
known even by the ignorant, will become a disbeliever or a renegade, he is not
called a believer in “Lâ ilâha ill-Allah” or a man of the qibla or a holder of
bid’a, even if he says “Lâ ilâha ill-Allah,” does all kinds of ’ibâdât and
avoids all kinds of sins.
Question: “Our Prophet (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) declared, ‘All bid’as are heresy.’ But the scholars of fiqh
said that some bid’as were mubâh (permitted), some were mustahab and some were
wâjib. How can these two statements be reconciled?”
Answer: The word ‘bid’a’
has two meanings. The first is its lexical meaning, which is general. In this
sense, any kind of innovation, whether in customs or in ’ibâdât is called
bid’a. Customs are actions for which thawâb is not expected and which are done
for worldly advantages. But ’ibâdât are done for gaining thawâb in the
hereafter. Lexically, bid’a means all kinds of innovations introduced after as-sadr al-awwal, which covers the times of the
Salaf as-sâlihîn, that is, the Sahâbat al-kirâm, the Tâbi’în, and the Taba’
at-Tâbi’în. Things introduced in their times are not bid’as. Bid’as are the
innovations introduced after the Tâbi’în and the Taba’ at-Tâbi’în.
The second meaning of the
word ‘bid’a’ is the innovations in the religion that are introduced after
as-sadr al-awwal. These changes are either in belief or in ’ibâdât. To invent a
new ’ibâda or to put some addition or deletion in an ’ibâda is a bid’a in ’ibâdât. Of such bid’as, those that were
introduced without a verbal or practical, overt or denotative permission from
the “owner of the religion,” that is, from Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm), are
called bid’at sayyi’a. None of the
bid’as in customs are called bid’at sayyi’a since they are done not for
worshipping but for worldly advantages. Innovations done in eatings, drinking,
dressing and habitation are bid’as in customs. All bid’as done in belief are bid’at sayyi’a. The beliefs of the seventy-two
heretical groups are bid’at sayyi’a. The innovations done by the four
madhhabs
in ’ibâdât are not bid’ats since they were derived not out of reasoning but
from the adillat ash-Shari’iyya. They
are not additions to the Nass but are the explanations of the Nass. If saying
the takbîr iftitâh several times when beginning the salât is intended for extra
thawâb, it is a bid’a. If it is done inadvertently because of scruples, it is a
sin. If the bid’as made in ’ibâdât were overtly or denotatively permitted by
the owner of the religion, they are called bid’at
hasana, which are mustahab or wâjib. It is mustahab to build
minarets for mosques. It is thawâb to build them, and it is not sinful not to
build them. A minaret is also called ma’dhana.
Zaid ibn Thâbit’s mother (radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ) said, “The highest house around
Masjid an-Nabî in Medina was mine. Formerly, Hadrat Bilâl al-Habashî
(radiy-Allâhu ’anh) used to call the adhân by mounting the roof of my house.
After Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) masjid was built, he called
it by mounting the high place built in the masjid.” This shows that it is sunna
for muadhdhins (muezzin) to call the adhân by mounting the minaret. [It is a
dismal fact that the bid’a of calling the adhân through loud-speakers has been
annihilating this sunna.] Building religious schools and writing religious
books are bid’as that are wâjib. It is thawâb to do and sinful not to do them.
So is the case with producing warning proofs against the doubts of the holders
of bid’a and mulhids, that is, holders of those bid’as that are disbelief.
All the bid’as stated in
the hadîths written above are bida’ sayyi’a which were introduced into Islam.
They are not useful to ’ibâdât. Bida’ hasana, which are helpful in ’ibâdât and
which are done with the permission of the owner of the religion are not
heresies. The hadîth ash-sherîf, “Hold fast to my sunna and to the sunna of the Khulafâ’
Ar-râshidîn,” means “Give up the changes which you will make in
Islam following your intellect and nafses and hold fast to my path,” and shows
that bid’as in customs are not heretical. For, Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
path covers religious teachings. He did not say anything pertaining to customs.
He came to inform men of their faith. He was not sent to tell them about their
worldly affairs. For, men knew their worldly affairs well, while they could not
guess what Allâhu ta’âlâ’s will and commands were.
Today, the word ‘bid’a’
comes to mean the bid’as in belief. Holders of such heretical beliefs are called
mubtadi’ and ahl
al-hawâ. For, they follow not Islam but their nafses. The
seventy-two heretical sects are in this group. The beliefs of some of them
cause
disbelief.
Those who do not believe in the rising after death, deny the Attributes of Allâhu
ta’âlâ, or say that classes of beings are eternal are in this group, too. Such
beliefs, which cause disbelief, are called ilhâd.
Those who hold such beliefs are called mulhids.
A belief does not cause disbelief if the person who holds it derived it by
interpreting wrongly one of the âyats and hadîths whose meanings were
inexplicit and dubious and, therefore, had to be explained away (ta’wîl) by
choosing the most proper meaning among numerous meanings. Those who do not
believe in the torment in the grave or who do not believe in the Mi’râj are so.
But these bid’as, which do not cause disbelief, are more sinful than the
gravest felonies, such as killing a Believer unjustly and committing
fornication. They do not become disbelievers because they derive their wrong
beliefs by supposition from the Qur’ân al-kerîm
and from the hadîth ash-sherîf. Today, many
people disbelieve these facts not out of wrong ta’wîl but saying that they are
not conformable to reason and science. Such disbelievers who base their beliefs
not on Islam but on reason and science become renegades. Mulhids whose beliefs
cause disbelief think of themselves as Muslims, perform ’ibâdât and avoid sins,
but none of these deeds are valid.
Bida’ sayyi’a in ’ibâdât
are not so bad as the bid’as in beliefs, but they, too, are unaccepted and
heretical. It is necessary to avoid them more than avoiding any kind of
wrongdoing. Especially, if a bid’a in an ’ibâda causes neglecting a sunnat
muakkada, the bid’a becomes even more sinful.
The belief which is the
opposite of the bid’a in belief is called Ahl
as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a. The opposite of the bid’a in ’ibâdât is
called Sunnat al-hudâ. The former
represents the belief of Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam), and the
latter are the ’ibâdât which he continously did but sometimes omitted and which
he did not prohibit others from omitting. Those which he prohibited to omit are
called wâjib. It is not sinful to omit a
sunnat hudâ without any excuse. He who omits them continuously will be
reproached on the Day of Resurrection. Examples of them are the adhân, the
iqâma, performing salât in jamâ’a and the sunnas of the five daily prayers of
salât. However, if all the inhabitants of a location omit them, they are to be
fought against.
It is not heresy to do bid’as
in customs. It is wara’ and better not to do them. Building houses higher than
necessary, eating until being fully satiated, drinking coffee and tea, and
smoking are
bid’as
in customs. We cannot say that these are harâm or makrûh. A sultan’s commands
and prohibitions compatible with Allâhu ta’âlâ’s commands and prohibitions are
valid. Obeying the orders which he gives following his nafs and intellect are
not wâjib, yet it is not permissible to revolt against them. Moreover, it is
wâjib to obey a cruel sultan in order to be safe from his injustice and
oppression. For, it is not permissible for one to put oneself in jeopardy. Ulu ’l-amr, whom the âyat commands Muslims to
obey, means the sultan, ruler or judge who is a Muslim. It is wâjib to obey their
right and equitable commands. The opposite of the bid’as in customs is the sunnat az-zâ’ida which comprises Rasûlullah’s
(sall-Allâhu alahi wa sallam) habitual actions. Examples of this are the
mustahabs such as the styles of his clothes, beginning with his right side when
putting on his clothes and dressing up, eating, drinking, giving and taking
something with his right hand, cleaning himself with his left hand after
relieving himself, and entering the toilet the left foot first. [As it is seen,
changes that take place in men’s and women’s clothing in the process of time,
their wearing clothes like those of sinners, are bid’as in customs. Women’s
dresses large enough to cover the whole body other than their hands and faces
are not bid’as in the religion. Nor are they sinful. In using such coverings
they must follow the customs in their country. Using coverings and dresses that
are not customary will cause repute and fitna, both of which are harâm.]
As it will be understood
from what has been told so far, bid’a generally, in its lexical sense, are of
two kinds: bid’a in customs and bid’a in the religion. When the word ‘bid’a’ is
used alone, bid’a in the religion is meant. And bid’as in the religion pertain
to belief and ’ibâdât. All of those pertaining to belief are sayyi’a. And there
are two kinds of bid’a in the ’ibâdât: sayyi’a and hasana. Bida’ sayia are
those bid’as which are in belief but do not cause disbelief and those which are
in ’ibâdât and do not serve Islam. If a bid’a in belief causes disbelief it
becomes ilhâd. Bida’ hasana are the innovations which serve Islam. They also
are of two kinds: mustahab and wâjib. The minaret is a bid’a hasana which is
mustahab. For, it is sunna for the muadhdhin to call the adhân by mounting a
high place. The minaret serves this sunna. [It is not sunna to call the adhân
with a voice louder than a man’s natural voice. It is makrûh. Therefore,
calling the adhân through an electrical apparatus called a loudspeaker serves
not the sunna, but the makrûh. For this reason, using a loudspeaker is a bid’a
sayyi’a
and prevents the sunna of calling the adhân by mounting the minaret. It is not
commanded to make the call of the adhân reach everywhere. It is commanded to
raise the voice as loud as to be heard in the quarter. It is commanded that
Muslims should build a mosque at every quarter and that the muadhdhin in every
mosque should mount a high place and call the adhân separately. It is a bid’a
sayyi’a, an ugly bid’a, for muadhdhins to call the adhân through loudspeakers
so that the adhân called at one place may be heard in every quarter or to call
it at one place and use loudspeakers installed in all the mosques. Allâhu
ta’âlâ declared, “The religion has been perfected. It has been explained how
’ibâdât are to be done. Nothing is left incomplete.” And the Salaf as-sâlihîn
called the adhân and performed salât the same as commanded for a thousand
years. It would be an ugly bid’a to dislike, or to find incomplete and
unsatisfactory, what they did and to attempt to call the adhân through
loudspeakers or to perform salât with loudspeakers. The hadîths above state
that none of the ’ibâdât of those who commit ugly bid’as will be accepted, and
that they will go to Hell. By ignoring Islam’s command to build a mosque at
every quarter, to try to defend the bid’a of calling the adhân through
loudspeakers under the pretext that otherwise it is not heard everywhere means
to try to wash away faeces with urine. Yes, when washed off with urine, the
faeces will disappear, and the ignorant will like it. But the case is that
faeces spreads everywhere, and urine fouls the places it touches.] The
innovations that are bida’ hasana are permitted, and even commanded, by the
Shârî’, the Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm).
Question: “Why
did the Sahâbat al-kirâm, the Tabi’în and Taba’ at-tâbi’în not do the bida’
hasana that are mustahab and wâjib?”
Answer: They
did not need some of them. For example, they did not build schools, nor did
they need to write books. For, there were many scholars and mujtahids. It was
easy for everybody to ask and learn. Further, they did not have enough money or
property to make huge buildings or minarets. But the most important reason was
that they did more important duties, which left them no time to do them. Day
and night they fought against disbelievers, against those states and dictators
who impeded Islam’s promulgation. They spent all their money and property for
those jihâds. Conquering countries and cities, they rescued millions of people
from the talons of cruel states and, converting t
hem to
Islam, caused them to attain to felicity in this world and the next. They
conveyed Islam’s order and morals to Allâhu ta’âlâ’s slaves. They did not have
time to do other things.
Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu
alaihi wa sallam) stated, “If a person makes a
sunnat hasana in Islam, he attains its thawâb plus the thawâb of those who will
practise it. If a person introduces a sunnat sayyi’a in Islam, he is given its
punishment plus the punishment of those who will practise it.” All
the bida’ hasana are included in the sunnat hasana stated in this
hadîth
sherîf. His deserving the rewards or punishments of all the people who will
practise a newly introduced sunna till the end of the world depends on his
intending for others also to do it. Likewise, if the imâm of the jamâ’a does
not intend to be the imâm for the jamâ’a, he only gets the thawâb of performing
salât alone — not the twenty-seven times as much as this. For getting the total
thawâb of the jamâ’a, he has to intend to be the imâm.
The harm of committing a
bid’at sayyi’a is worse than the harm of omitting a sunna and even wâjib. In
other words, if it is dubious whether something is sunna or bid’a, it should
not be done.
Question: “The
religion has been perfected with the Book and the Sunna. ’Ibâdât not permitted
by these two are bida’. Now, is it proper to say that the adillat ash-Shar’iyya
are four?”
Answer: The
scholars of Ahl as-Sunna said that the adillat ash-Shar’iyya are four: the
Book, the Sunna, qiyâs al-fuqahâ’ and ijmâ’ al-Umma. Yet the last two originate
from the first two. Therefore, in actuality, they are two: the Book and the
Sunna. A rule which is put by ijmâ’, that is, by consensus, has to be based
upon a proof, a document from the Book or the Sunna. Also qiyâs can be a proof
for ijmâ’. An example of this is the ijmâ’ which was applied for electing Abû
Bakr as-Siddîq (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) the caliph. A hadîth sherîf reported by one
person can be a proof, too. For, the documentation by ijmâ’ does not need its
proof to be certain. It is a document because it is the ijmâ’. If it were a
condition for its proof to be certain, the ijmâ’ would be unnecessary; the
proof would be the document. For qiyâs also, a proof, a principle from the Book
or the Sunna is necessary. For, qiyâs discloses a hidden, concealed rule
existing in the Book and the Sunna. It does not add a rule to them. That is, it
does not invent but reveals rules. It explains a general rule for furû’ (the
branch of science not only to be believed but also to be practised). And ijmâ’
can be a support, a source for qiyâs. The Sunna is the
interpretation
and explanation of the Book. Then, the only source of Islam is the Book of
Allâhu ta’âlâ.
Today some tekke shaikhs
and false, mendacious men of tasawwuf, when they are blamed for their behaviour
incompatible with Islam, say, “These are harâm in zâhir (exterior, apparent)
knowledge. We have bâtin (hidden) knowledge. So they are halâl for us.” It is
disbelief to say so. A person who says so or who approves such statements becomes
a disbeliever. Explaining them away (ta’wîl) or saying them without knowing
their meanings is not excusable. These zindîqs say, “You acquire knowledge from
books. But we aquire it from its owner, that is, directly from Muhammad
(’alaihi ’s-salâm). In case we are not satisfied with it, we ask and learn from
Allah. We do not need to read books or to learn from a master. To attain to
Allah it is necessary to give up the exterior knowledge and not to learn Islam.
If our way had been wrong, would we have attained to such high states and
karâmât or have been seeing nûrs (spiritual lights) and prophets’ souls? When we do something sinful we are informed of it
in our dreams. In our dream, Allâhu ta’âlâ gives us permission to do something
which you term harâm, and we know that it is halâl for us.” Such words, which
aim to sabotage Islam, are ilhâd. That is, they mean to change the overt
meanings in the Book and the Sunna. They are dalâla, that is, deviation from
the path of Believers. They mean to make fun of Islam. Such depraved words
should not be believed. It is disbelief even to doubt that they are wrong. He
who says or believes so is called a zindîq.
You should not call a person a zindîq as soon as you hear from someone else
that he says so. You cannot reach this conclusion unless it is understood
canonically by the testimony of two just witnesses. Zindîq means dahrî, one who
worships matter and nature and does not believe in Allâhu ta’âlâ and in the
next world.
Islamic rules cannot be
learned by way of ilhâm. The ilhâm (inspiration) given to the Awliyâ’ cannot be
a proof, a document for others. Ilhâm means
knowledge coming to the heart from Allâhu ta’âlâ. Yes, the ilhâms of the
Awliyâ’ are true. Their truth is judged by their compatibility with the
teachings of Islam. But being a Walî requires learning and obeying the
teachings of Islam. The âyat, “Allâhu ta’âlâ
bestows knowledge upon the people of taqwâ,” proves this. Ilhâms do
not come to the heart of a person who does not adhere to the Sunna or avoid the
bid’as. His utterances are heretical things that come from the nafs and Satan.
These statements of ours cannot be said to be in contradiction
with the
conversation between Mûsâ and Khidir (’alaihima ’s-salâm), for the latter was
not of the former’s umma. He was not commanded to follow him. Muhammad (’alaihi
’s-salâm), however, is the Prophet of all people
and genies all over the world that will come till the end of the world. Al-’ilm al-ladunnî and ilhâm are bestowed upon those who adapt themselves to Muhammad
(’alaihi ’s-salâm). Those who are endowed with this blessing understand the
Book and the Sunna well. Islamic teachings cannot be understood by dreams,
either. A dream incompatible with Islam is to be judged as Satanic.
Al-Junaid al-Baghdâdî (d.
in Baghdad, 298/910), one of the greatest Awliyâ’, said, “The only way to lead
man to Allâhu ta’âlâ’s approval is to follow Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm).”
Again, he said, “A person who does not obey the Qur’ân
al-kerîm or the hadîth ash-sherîf cannot
be a guide.” [Non-mujtahids cannot understand the Qur’ân
al-kerîm or the hadîth ash-sherîf. Those
scholars who founded the seventy-two heretical groups misunderstood them
because they were non-mujtahids. They misled millions of Muslims. To obey the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the hadîth
ash-sherîf, following one of the four madhhabs is necessary.] Yes, an
illiterate person who has not read or learned anything may become an ’ârif and
be able to understand the meaning of the Qur’ân
al-kerîm, but he cannot be a guide for others. To be a guide, it is
necessary to learn the rules in the Book and the Sunna from a master [or from
the books of fiqh in one of the four madhhabs], for the way of the Salaf
as-sâlihîn and their sucessors is the way of the Book and the Sunna.
Sirrî as-Saqatî (d. in
Baghdad, 251/865), one of the greatest Awliyâ’, a disciple of Ma’rûf al-Karkhî
and the maternal uncle and master of al-Junaid al-Baghdâdî, said, “Tasawwuf
comprises three meanings: To be a possessor of wara’; not to utter any words
incompatible with the Book and the Sunna; and not to commit harâms while having
karâmât.”[1] Wara’ means
abstention also from doubtful actions. Al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî (d. in Tûs/Meshed,
Iran, 505/1111) wrote in his book Mishkât al-anwâr,
“The heart is a house for angels. Such bad habits as wrath, lust, jealousy and
arrogance are like howling dogs. Angels do not enter a place where there are
dogs. It is declared in a hadîth sherîf, ‘Angels do
not enter a house where there are dogs or pictures.’ I do not say
[1] A karâma that causes one to commit a harâm is called “makr” or “istidrâj.”
that the word ‘house’ in this
hadîth sherîf means
‘heart’ or that the word ‘dog’ means ‘bad habit.’ I believe in their apparent
meanings and also add the meanings above. These words of mine separate Ahl
as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a from the group of bid’a called Bâtiniyya. Bâtinîs ignore
the apparent meanings and invent heretical meanings. If the apparent meaning of
an âyat contradicts the apparent meanings of other âyats, then its apparent
meaning must be given up, and it must be explained away (ta’wîl), that is, the
most appropriate of its meanings must be given to it. Those who insist on
giving apparent meanings when ta’wil is necessary are called Hishwî. For this reason, it has been said that
the Qur’ân al-kerîm has apparent and hidden
meanings. Those who always give apparent meanings become Hishwî. Those who
always give unusual meanings become Bâtinî. Those who give both meanings as the
case requires become perfect Muslims.” Only an expert in the bâtin (hidden) and
zâhir (exterior) branches of knowledge can understand whether or not a
statement of a man of tasawwuf is compatible with Islam. Those who do not know
the meanings of the words used by the scholars of tasawwuf cannot understand
it. Such people [like Ibn Taimiyya and Muhammad ibn ’Abd al-Wahhâb], who are far
from being perfect, suppose that Bâyazîd al-Bistâmî’s statement, “Subhânî mâ
a’zama shânî’,” is incompatible with Islam. Muhyidîn ibn al-’Arabî explained in
detail that the meaning of that statement was kamâl-i tanzîh. A person who
disobeys Islam may perform wonders. These are called not “karâmât” but “istidrâj.” Bâyazîd al-Bistâmî saw a person who
was known as a Walî spit toward the qibla and said, “This man has ignored one
of the good manners of Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam). [So] he
cannot be a Walî.”
Bâyazîd al-Bistâmî said,
“Even if a person displays karâmât, such as walking on water, going to distant
places in a moment and flying in the air, do not consider him to be a Walî
unless he obeys Islam!” For obeying Islam, it is necessary to follow one of the
four madhhabs. It has been declared by consensus that it is not permissible for
non-mujtahids to follow as-Sahâbat al-kirâm. [Because, their madhhabs are not
known.] Ijtihâd will be employable till the end of the world. [However, few
scholars fulfil the conditions for being able to employ ijtihâd. Further, there
is no need for them to employ new ijtihâds. A solution for every matter that
will arise till the end of the world exists in one of the four madhhabs.] The
’ibâda Allâhu ta’âlâ likes best is to do the fard. The valuable ones of the
suppererogatory ’ibâdât are those
that are
done alongside the fards, which exist in them and which supplement them.
Muhammad ibn Fadl
al-Balkhî (d. 319/931) said, “Four factors cause the nûrs (spiritual lights) of
Islam to leave hearts and hearts to darken: not to practise one’s knowledge; to
practise without knowing; not to learn what one does not know; to impede
others’ learning.” Some people learn in order to be known as men of knowledge
and to obtain property and posts. [They use being men with religious posts as a
means for living and for politics.] They do not learn for practising. They are
men of religion in name. The way they follow is the way of the ignorant. Saying
that Allâhu ta’âlâ is compassionate and likes to forgive, they commit grave
sins. They act according to their personal reason and wishes. They want others
to do so, too. They blame true Muslims for not following them. Moreover, they
suppose they are on the right path and will attain to salvation. They do not
read the true books compiled from books written by scholars of Ahl as-Sunna,
and do not let their children read them, either. Their hearts are evil and
their words are deceitful and false. Every day they masquerade in a different appearence.
They show a smiling face towards people, but slander them behind their back.
They prevent correct books which have not been interpolated with bid’as from
being read. [They say, “Do not read these books. They are harmful.”] They
intimidate those who publish and read them. With deceitful advertisements they
praise the harmful books of the lâ-madhhabî. They insult the teachings of
Islam. What they write with their short sights are presented to the younger
generation under the name of knowledge and science. As it is understood from
what has been written so far, all Islamic scholars and men of tasawwuf adhered
to Islam, which consequently brought them up to higher grades. It must be
realised that those who speak ill of them are ignorant in Islam. We should not
believe the false words of such ignorant people. They are thieves of the faith.
They are the lâ-madhhabî or zindîqs who block the way to felicity.
A person who says that he
does not believe in the torment in the grave becomes a disbeliever, for his
statement expresses not a report or ta’wîl or Islam but his disrespect for
Islam.
Those who belong to the
group of Qadariyya, alias Mu’tazila, become disbelievers because they say,
“Allah does not create evils or sins. Man creates his own deed.”
Those who belong to the
group of Bâtiniyya become disbelievers because they believe in the
reincarnation of souls and
say that
man comes back to the world after death, that Allah’s soul has entered the
Twelve Imâms, that it is unnecessary to obey Islam until the Twelve Imâms are
reincarnated and that Jabrâ’il (’alaihi ’s-salâm) had been commanded to bring
the wahî to ’Alî (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), but made a mistake and brought it to
Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm).
Those Khârijîs who call
all Muslims “disbelievers” without depending on a ta’wîl or who accuse ’Alî,
’Uthmân, Talhâ, Zubair and ’Â’isha (radiy-Allâhu ’anhum) of disbelief become
disbelievers.
Adherents of the
Yazîdiyya group become disbelievers because they say that a Persian prophet will come and abrogate the religion of
Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm).
Those who are in the
Najâriyya and Mu’tazila groups become disbelievers because they do not believe
in the attributes of Allâhu ta’âlâ.
The Jabriyya become
disbelievers because they say that man cannot do anything, that Allah creates
everything whether man requests it or not and that for this reason those who
commit sins are excusable.
Some among the Mu’tazila
group becomes disbelievers because they say that Allah does not see anything
and will not be seen in Paradise.
The Qadariyya become
disbelievers because they deny the attribute of Knowledge [of Allâhu ta’âlâ]
and say that Allah does not know anything.
Of the Murji’a group,
those who say that Allah will forgive some disbelievers as He wills and torment
eternally some believers as He wills, those who say that their ’ibâdât will
certainly be accepted and sins will certainly be pardoned, and those who say
that all the fard are supererogatory ’ibâdât, and it is not sinful not to do
them become disbelievers.
Khârijîs fall into a
group of bid’a because they say that deeds and ’ibâdât are included in îmân,
and a person who omits any fard becomes a disbeliever or that a person who
commits a grave sin loses his îmân, and his îmân comes back when his sinning is
over.
Masah on bare feet
instead of masah on mests is not disbelief but a bid’a. The salât performed
behind an imâm who has done masah on his bare feet [when performing an
ablution] is not sahîh. It is not permissible to make friends with holders of
bid’a. It is declared in a hadîth sherîf, “If a
person keeps away from a holder
of bid’a, Allâhu ta’âlâ fills his heart with amân (security, peace)
and îmân. If a person disesteems a holder of bid’a, Allâhu ta’âlâ protects him
against the fear of the Resurrection.”
The first task for each
Muslim is to learn the belief of Ahl as-Sunna correctly and to strive so that
his household and all his friends will learn it. He should pray to Allâhu
ta’âlâ that they will live in the belief of Ahl as-sunna. He should be very alert
not to be deceived by satanic men or genies, by evil company or by misleading
writings.
It is declared in a
hadîth sherîf, “The best of people are the Muslims
who live in my time. The next best are those who will succeed them. And the
next best are those who will come after them. After these, lies will be
widespread.” This hadîth sherîf shows that falsities began to take
place in words, behaviours and deeds at the end of the third centruy of Islam.
People could no longer be trusted, for bid’as among them were on the increase.
In belief and in deeds they dissented from the path of the Salaf as-sâlihîn.
The great men of tasawwuf and the imâms of fiqh, who were approved unanimously
by Muslims, promulgated the path of the Salaf as-sâlihîn.
The fatwâ book Tâtârhâniyya says, “One who says that ’Umar,
’Uthmân ’Alî (radiy-Allâhu ’anhum) were not Sahâbîs becomes a holder of bid’a.
One who does not believe a narration reported by a single person becomes not a
disbeliever but a holder of bid’a. However, one who says that Abû Bakr
as-Siddîq (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) was not a Sahâbî becomes a disbeliever since by
doing so he denies the âyat al-kerîma.” The fatwâ book Zahîriyya says, “It is true that one who
disbelieves in the caliphate of Abû Bakr as-Siddîq or Hadrat ’Umar al-Farûq
(radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ) becomes a disbeliever, for their selection as khalîfa
was reported as an ijmâ’.” [According to Ahl as-Sunna, ijmâ’ (consensus) is a
documentary proof. He who denies this proof becomes a disbeliever. Since ijmâ’
is not a proof for the Khârijîs, Shî’ites and Wahhâbîs, they said that he who
denies something reported through ijmâ’ will not become a disbeliever.]
Ibn ’Âbidîn, in the
subject on renegades in the third chapter of Radd
al-muhtâr, wrote, “Non-Muslim countrymen living in Dâr al-Islâm are
called Zimmîs. It is not permissible to
violate the property, lives or chastity of zimmîs or of those disbelievers who
come to the country for trade or as tourists. They possess the same freedom
given to Muslims. The case is not so with mulhids. Those mulhids who deceive
Muslims are asked to repent. If they
refuse,
all of them are killed with the command of the head of the State. If they
repent, their repentance is accepted. Those holders of bid’a whose belief does
not cause disbelief are given advice. If they refuse and do not repent, they
are punished with ta’zîr[1] by the State. If it is considered necessary, they
are forced to repent by imprisonment or flogging. If their leader who
endeavours to deceive Muslims, does not repent after imprisonment and flogging,
it is permissible for the State to have him killed. Though one who causes
Muslims to part from the madhhab of Ahl as-Sunna and to become lâ-madhhabî
heretics and thus tries to spread bid’as does not become a disbeliever, it is
permissible for the head of the State to have him killed in order to protect
the people from losing their peace and unity.
[1] See
glossary.