Muhammad ibn Sulaimân al-Madanî ash-Shâfi’î
(rahmat-Allâhi ’alaih), [who passed away in Medina in
“Question: Oh great ’ulamâ’, the stars who lead to the path of
the Best of Creatures (the Prophet)! I ask you: Is a person to be permitted to
disseminate his ideas if he says that this umma has wholly dissented from the
essence of Islam and from the path of Rasûlullâh (sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam), just by measuring with his short sight and narrow mind the
knowledge he has gathered from various religious books, and if he says that he
is mujtahid and, therefore, is able to derive knowledge on Islam from Allâh’s
Word and Rasûlullâh’s hadîths, although he does not have any of the
qualifications stated as necessary by the ’ulamâ’ of Islam for being a
mujtahid? Should he not give up this claim of his and follow the ’ulamâ’ of
Islam? He says that he is an imâm, that it is necessary for every Muslim to
follow him and that his madhhab is necessary. He forces Muslims to accept his
madhhab. He says that those who do not obey him are unbelievers, that they
should be killed and that their possessions should be confiscated. Does this
man tell the truth? Or, is he wrong? Even if a person fulfilled all the
requirements necessary for making ijtihâd and founded a madhhab, would it be
jâ’iz for him to force everyone to adopt this madhhab? Is it necessary to adopt
a certain madhhab? Or, is everyone free to choose any madhhab he like? Does a
Muslim go out of Islam if he visits the grave of a Sahâbî or a pious servant of
Allâhu ta’âlâ, vows something for him, cuts an animal near a grave, prays
making a mediator of a dead person, takes some soil from such a grave to
receive blessings or asks help from Rasûlullâh or a Sahâbî to get redeemed from danger? Is it permitted to kill such
a Muslim even though he says, ‘I do not worship the dead person and do not
believe that he has the power to do anything. I make an intercessor, mediator,
of that person with Allâhu ta’âlâ to make me attain my wish, because, I believe
that he is a beloved servant of Allâhu ta’âlâ.’ Does a person go out of Islam
if he swears by something [or somebody] other than Allah?
“Answer: It should be well understood that knowledge
is to be learned from a master. Those who learn knowledge, one’s religion, from
books by themselves make many mistakes. Their mistakes are more than their
correct conclusions. There is no one who can employ ijtihâd today. Al-Imâm
ar-Râfi’î, al-Imâm an-Nawawî and Fakhr ad-dîn ar-Râzî said, ‘The ’ulamâ’ have
come to a unanimous conclusion that there is no one left capable of employing
ijtihâd today.’ No ’âlim argued with al-Imâm as-Suyûtî, who was like an ocean
in every science and a profound ’âlim, when he declared that he was a relative
(nisbî) mujtahid, that is, a mujtahid belonging to a formerly established
madhhab, though he did not say that he was an absolute (mutlaq) mujtahid or
that he had his own madhhab. He wrote more than five hundred books. Every book
of his khows that he was at a very high level in the sciences of tafsîr and
hadîth and in every branch of Islamic knowledge. Is it apt to believe similar
words of those who are very far from the high level of an ’âlim such as al-Imâm
as-Suyûtî while he was not accepted as a relative mujtahid? They should not
even be listened to. And if one of them goes so far as to say that the books by
the ’ulamâ’ of Islam were wrong, we shall doubt his reason and faith. Because,
we may ask: From whom has he acquired his knowledge? Since he has seen neither Rasûlullâh (sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam) nor any Sahâbî, he should have
learned by reading the books by the ’ulamâ’ of Islam if he knows anything. If
he says that the books of those ’ulamâ’ are distorted, then how has he himself
found the right path? He should explain this point to us! The imâms of the four
madhhabs and the great ’ulamâ’ who came up in these madhhabs derived all their
knowledge from âyats and hadîths. From which source has he acquired his
knowledge which disagrees with theirs? It is obvious that he has not attained
the degree of employing ijtihâd. The thing this man should do when he
encounters a hadîth sharîf which he cannot comprehend is to search for the
interpretations of that hadîth
sharîf by mujtahids. He should adopt the
interpretation he likes. Al-Imâm an-Nawawî
(rahimah-Allâhu ta’âlâ), a profound ’âlim, wrote in his book Rawda that his was the way to be followed. Only those profound ’ulamâ’ who
had attained the degree of ijtihâd could comprehend âyats and hadîths.
Non-mujtahids are not permitted to attempt to understand âyats and hadîths. So,
Ibn ’Abd al-Wahhâb had better return to the right path and give up his
heresies.
“As for his calling Muslims ‘unbelievers,’ a hadîth sharîf declares, ‘If a
person calls a Muslim an “unbeliever,” one of the two becomes an unbeliever. If
the accused is a Muslim, the one who accuses becomes an unbeliever.’ Al-Imâm ar-Râfi’î (rahmat-Allâhi ’alaih), with
reference to Tuhfa, wrote in his book Ash-sharh al-kabîr,
‘The one who calls a Muslim a disbeliever but is unable to explain it away
becomes a disbeliver himself, for he will have called Islam disbelief.’ Al-Imâm
an-Nawawî, too, wrote the same in his book Rawda. Abu Is’haq
al-Isfarâînî, al-Hâlimî, an-Nasr Al-Muqaddasî, al-Ghazâlî, Ibn Daqiqi ’l-Îd and
many other ’ulamâ’ said that he becomes a disbeliever whether he is able to
explain it away or not.
“As to his permitting killing Muslims and confiscating
their properties, a hadîth
sharîf declares, ‘I have been commanded to fight against
disbelievers until they say Lâ ilâha illa’llâh.’ This hadîth
sharîf shows that it is not permissible
to kill Muslims. This hadîth
sharîf was said in the light of the sixth
âyat al-karîma of Surât at-Tawba which declares, ‘Free them who make tawba and perform salât
and give zakât.’ The twelfth âyat
al-karîma of Sûrat at-Tawba declares, ‘They are your brothers in Islam.’ It is declared, ‘We judge
according to the appearance we see. Allâhu ta’âlâ knows the secret,’ in a hadîth
sharîf.[1]
Another hadîth sharîf declares, ‘I am not ordered to dissect the hearts of men and see their
secrets.’ Hadrat Usâma killed a man
who had been heard to have said, ‘Lâ ilâha illa’llâh’; when Usâma claimed that
the man had not had îmân in his heart, Rasûlullâh declared, ‘Did you dissect his heart?’
“It is not permissible for a mujtahid to compel people
to accept his madhhab. If he is a qâdî at the court, he may give a ruling
according to his ijtihâd and may order that his decree be
[1] That author opposes this hadîth sharîf too, and says, “We do not care about the words. We look for the intentions and meanings,” on the 146th page of his book. There are many such statements, incompatible with âyats and hadîths, in his book.
“As for making nadhr for awliyâ’, the Shâfi’î ’ulamâ’
explained this subject in detail. It is noted in the book Hiba
with reference to the book Tuhfa: ‘If someone makes a vow for a dead walî with the
intention that the goods he vowed be for the walî, this nadhr is not sahîh. If
he vows without this intention his nadhr is sahîh, and the goods vowed are to
be given to the servants of the walî’s tomb, the students and teachers of the
madrasa near the tomb and to the poor who live near the tomb. If the people who
are used to receiving the vowed goods assemble near the tomb, and if it is a
custom of that country that the goods vowed should be given to them, the goods
are given to them. If there is no such custom, then the nadhr is invalid. This
is reported from as-Samlâwî and ar-Ramlî, too. Everyone knows that no one
amongst those who make nadhr for a dead walî would ever think the goods vowed
should be given to the dead walî. Because, everyone knows that the dead do not
take or use anything and that the goods are to be given to the poor or to the
people who serve at the tomb. This is why it is an ’ibâda. In fact, according
to the Shâfi’î madhhab it is not permissible to vow to do mubâh, makrûh or
harâm things. The ’ibâdas and sunnas which are neither fard nor wâjib can be
vowed as nadhr.’
“Some ’ulamâ’ said ‘permissible’ and some said ‘not
permissible’ for kissing and rubbing one’s face on graves. Those who said ‘not
permissible’ said that it was makrûh. Nobody said it was harâm.
“As declared in the hadîths quoted at the beginning of
our book, to have recourse to prophets and pious Muslims, that is, to put them as
intermediaries, or to entreat Allâhu ta’âlâ through them is permissible. There
are many hadîths which show that it is permissible to have tawassul
(recommendation of oneself to Allâhu ta’âlâ) through pious deeds. It is
certainly permissible to have recourse to the mediation of pious men while it
is permissible to make so of good deeds.
“As to swearing by some being other than Allâhu
ta’âlâ, it is disbelief only if that being is highly esteemed and attributed as
a partner to Allâhu ta’âlâ. The hadîth ash-sharîf, ‘He who swears by someone other than Allah
become a disbeliever,’ which was
related by Hâkim and Imâm Ahmad and quoted in al-Munâwî’s book, explains this
fact. But al-Imâm an-Nawâwî, depending on the majority of the ’ulamâ’, wrote
that it was makrûh and added that the ijmâ’ of Muslims was a document.
“The 114th âyat al-karîma of Sûrat an-Nisâ’ declares, ‘We put into Hell in the hereafter together
with unbelievers the person who, after tawhîd and guidance have been taught ot
him, dissents from the right path of Rasûlullâh
and departs from the Believers in belief and deeds.’ It is understood from this âyat karîma also that it is
necessary for every Believer to follow the path of Ahl as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a.
It should not be forgotten that the wolf will devour the lamb out of the flock.
Likewise, he who remains outside Ahl as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a will go to Hell.”
After the above passage, Hadrat Dâwûd ibn
Sulaimân goes on:
“This is the end of our short quotation from the
profound scholar Muhammad ibn Sulaimân al-Madanî’s long fatwa on this subject.
This will be sufficient for those whom Allâhu ta’âlâ has decreed guidance.
Muhammad ibn Sulaimân died in
“Hanafî scholar Muhammad ibn ’Abd al-’Azîm al-Makkî
[(rahmat-Allâhi ’alaih) d.
“Ibn Hazm was an Andalusian. He was in the Zâhiriyya
madhhab, which was founded by Dâwûd al-Isfhânî [az-Zâhirî, d. Baghdad,
Hazm hated him. They disliked his ideas. They all
agreed that he was a heretic. They could not speak good of him. They warned the
sultans to beware of him. They told Muslims to keep away from him.’ Ibn
al-’Ârif said, ‘Ibn Hazm’s tongue and al-Hajjâj’s sword did the same thing.’
Ibn Hazm had many wicked, heretical ideas incompatible with the Hadîth.
Al-Hajjâj[1]
killed one hundred and twenty thousand innocent people without any reason. And
Ibn Hazm’s tongue led astray hundreds of thousands of Muslims who came after
the ‘good time’ defined in the Hadîth
ash-sharîf. He died in 456 A.H. (1064).
“May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect all my Muslim brothers against heretical and corrupt paths! May He bestow upon us the belief and deeds compatible with the correct ijtihâds of the ’ulamâ’ of the four madhhabs! May He assemble us as the followers of their madhhabs beside the prophets, siddîqs, martyrs and the pious on the Day of Judgement! Âmîn.”[2]
[1] Al-Hajjâj az-zâlim as-Saqafî, who died in 95 A.H. (714), was the Governor of Medina and Iraq during the caliphate of ’Abd al-Malik and his son Walîd.
[2] Dâwûd ibn Sulaimân, Ashadd al-jihâd, written in 1293 A.H., published in Bombay, 1305 A.H. Arabic reprint and Turkish version in 1390 (1970).