Some proofs for the Mawlid

We find nowadays publications filled with lies and deception which mislead many Muslims into thinking negatively about the honorable Mawlid of the Prophet. These publications claim that to celebrate the Mawlid is an act of innovation that goes against Islam. This is far from the truth, and it is therefore necessary for those who can speak clearly to help clarify and reverse the doubts surrounding this most blessed day. It is with this humble intention that I present the following proofs in support of celebrating our beloved Prophet’s birthday.

The Prophet said, “He who innovates something in this matter of ours that is not of it will have it rejected.” He also said, “Beware of innovations, for every innovation (kul bida`) is misguidance.”

Those opposed to Mawlid cite this saying and hold that the word every (kul) is a term of generalization, including all types of innovations, with no exception, and that therefore, celebrating Mawlid is misguidance. By daring to say that, they accuse the scholars of Islam of innovation. At the top of the list of those they have accused, then, is our Master `Umar (r). Those in opposition to Mawlid quickly reply to this, “But we did not mean the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad.”

It follows, then, that the meaning of every (kul) cannot be taken in its general sense. Therefore, although the Prophet may not have said to celebrate his blessed birthday, it is nonetheless not innovation to do so. For, as the following examples show, there were many actions and practices instituted by his close followers after his time that are not deemed innovation.

Compiling the Koran.

(From a Prophetic saying related by Zaid Ibn Thabit.(r)) “The Prophet died and the Koran had not been compiled anywhere. `Umar (r) suggested to Abu Bakr (r) to compile the Koran in one book. When a large number of Companions were killed in the battle of Yamama, Abu Bakr wondered, “How could we do something that the Prophet did not do?’ `Umar said, “By Allah, it is good.’ `Umar persisted in asking Abu Bakr until Allah expanded his chest for it (Allah made him agree and accept these suggestions) and he sent for Zaid Ibn Thabit and assigned him to compile the Koran.” Zaid said, “By Allah if they had asked me to move a mountain, it would not have been more difficult than to compile the Koran.” He also said, “How could you do something that the Prophet did not do?” Abu Bakr said, “It is good, and `Umar kept coming back to me until Allah expanded my chest for the matter.” The saying is narrated in Sahih Al Bukhari.

The Maqam of Ibrahim (as) in relation to the Ka’ba.

(Al Bayhaqi narrated with a strong chain of narrators from Aisha.) “The Maqam during the time of the Prophet and Abu Bakr was attached to the House, then `Umar moved it back.” Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in Al Fath, “The Companions did not oppose `Umar, neither did those who came after them, thus it became unanimous agreement.” He was the first to build the enclosure (maqsura) on it, which still exists today.

Adding the first call to prayer on Friday.

(From Sahih Al Bukhari, from Al Sa’ib bin Yazid.) “During the time of the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr (r) and `Umar (r), the call to Friday prayer used to occur when the Imam sat on the pulpit. When it was Othman’s (r) time, he added the third call (considered third in relation to the first adhan and the iqama. But it is named first because it proceeds the call to the Friday prayer.)”

Salutations on the Prophet composed and taught by our Master `Ali (r).

The salutations have been mentioned by Sa’id bin Mansoor and Ibn Jareer in Tahzeeb al Aathar, and by Ibn Abi Assim and Ya’qoob bin Shaiba in Akhbar `Ali and by Al Tabarani and others from Salamah Al Kindi.

The addition to the tashahhud by Ibn Mas’ud.

After “wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu,” and the Mercy of Allah and Blessings, he used to say, “assalamu `alayna min Rabbina,” peace upon us from our Lord. Narrated by Al Tabarani in Al Kabir, and the narrators are those of the sound transmitters, as it has been mentioned in Majma’ Al Zawa’id.

The addition to the tashahhud by Abdullah Ibn `Umar.

He added the basmalah at the beginning of the tashahhud. He also added to the talbia, “labbaika wa sa’daika wal khayru bi yadayka wal raghba’u ilayika wal `amalu” This is mentioned in Bukhari, Muslim, et al.

These are some of the developments instituted by the Prophet’s Companions, the scholars, and the honorable members of his nation, which did not exist during the time of the Prophet, and which they deemed good. Are they, then, misguided and guilty of bad innovation?

As for the claim that there is no such thing in religion as good innovation, here are some sayings of the brilliant scholars of Islam belying this claim.

Imam Nawawi said in Sahih Muslim (6-21)

“The Prophet’s saying every innovation is a general-particular and it is a reference to most innovations. The linguists say, “Innovation is any act done without a previous pattern, and it is of five different kinds.’” Imam Nawawi also said in Tahzeeb al Asma’ wal Sifaat, “Innovation in religious law is to originate anything which did not exist during the time of the Prophet, and it is divided into good and bad.” He also said, “Al-muhdathat (pl. for muhdatha) is to originate something that has no roots in religious law. In the tradition of religious law it is called innovation, and if it has an origin within the religious law, then it is not innovation. Innovation in religious law is disagreeable, unlike in the language where everything that has been originated without a previous pattern is called innovation regardless of whether it is good or bad.”

Shaykh Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, the commentator on Al Bukhari, said,

“Anything that did not exist during the Prophet’s time is called innovation, but some are good while others are not.”

Abu Na’eem, narrated from Ibrahim Al Junaid, said, “I heard Ash-Shafi’i saying, “Innovation is of two types; praiseworthy innovation and blameworthy innovation, and anything that disagrees with the Sunnah is blameworthy.’”

Imam Albayhaqi narrated in Manaqib Ash-Shafi’i that Ash-Shafi’i  said,

“Innovations are of two types: that which contradicts the Koran, the Sunnah, or unanimous agreement of the Muslims is a innovation of deception, while a good innovation does not contradict any of these things.”

Al `Izz bin Abdussalam said, at the end of his book, Al Qawa’id,

“Innovation is divided into obligatory, forbidden, recommended, disagreeable and permissible, and the way to know which is which is to match it against the religious law.”

Clearly we see from the opinions of these righteous scholars, that to define innovations in worship as wholly negative without exception is ignorant. For these pious knowers, among them Imam Nawawi and Ash-Shafi’i, declared that innovations could be divided into good and bad, based on their compliance or deviance with religious law.

Moreover, the following Prophetic saying is known even to common Muslims, let alone scholars: “He who inaugurates a good practice (sunnatun hasana) in Islam earns the reward of it, and of all who perform it after him, without diminishing their own rewards in the least.” Therefore it is permissible for a Muslim to originate a good practice, even if the Prophet didn’t do it, for the sake of doing good and cultivating the reward. The meaning of inaugurate a good practice (sanna sunnatun hasana) is to establish a practice through personal reasoning (ijtihad) and derivation (istinbat) from the rules of religious law or its general texts. The actions of the Prophet’s Companions and the generation following them which we have stated above is the strongest evidence.

The ones prejudiced against celebrating the Prophet’s birthday have paved the way for their falsehood by deceiving the less-learned among the Muslims. The prejudiced ones claim that Ibn Kathir writes in his Al Bidaya wal Nihaya (11-172) that the Fatimide-Obaidite state, which descends from the Jew, Obaidillah Bin Maimoon Al Kaddah, ruler of Egypt from 357-567 A.H., innovated the celebration of a number of days, among them, the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday. This treacherous lie is a grave insult to the scholarship of Ibn Kathir and the scholarship of all Islam. For in truth, Ibn Kathir writes about the Prophet’s birthday in Al bidaya wal nihaya [13-136] “The victorious king Abu Sa’id Kawkaburi, was one of the generous, distinguished masters, and the glorious kings; he left good impressions and used to observe the honorable Mawlid by having a great celebration. Moreover, he was chivalrous, brave, wise, a scholar, and just.” Ibn Kathir continues, “And he used to spend three hundred thousand Dinars on the Mawlid.” In support, Imam Al Dhahabi writes of Abu Sa’id Kawkaburi, in Siyar A’laam al nubala’ [22-336] “He was humble, righteous, and loved religious learned men and scholars of Prophetic saying.”

Following are some sayings of the rightly guided Imams regarding the Mawlid.

Imam Al Suyuti, from Alhawi lil fatawi, wrote a special chapter entitled “The Good Intention in Commemorating the Mawlid,” at the beginning of which he said,

“There is a question being asked about commemorating the Mawlid of the Prophet in the month of Rabi’ Al Awal: what is the religious legal ruling in this regard, is it good or bad? Does the one who celebrates get rewarded or not?” The answer according to me is as follows: To commemorate the Mawlid, which is basically gathering people together, reciting parts of the Koran, narrating stories about the Prophet’s birth and the signs that accompanied it, then serving food, and afterwards, departing, is one of the good innovations; and the one who practices it gets rewarded, because it involves venerating the status of the Prophet and expressing joy for his honorable birth.

Ibn Taymiyya said in his book Iqtida’ Al Sirat Al Mustaqeem (pg. 266)

“Likewise, what some people have innovated, in competition with the Christians in celebrating the birth of Jesus, or out of love and veneration of the Prophet⦣128;榱uot; and he continues “⦣128;æ´¨at the predecessors didn’t do, even though there is a reason for it, and there is nothing against it.” This is a saying of someone who set fanaticism aside and sought to please Allah and his Prophet. As far as we are concerned, we commemorate the Mawlid for no other reason but what Ibn Taymiya said, “Out of love and veneration of the Prophet.” May Allah reward us according to this love and effort, and may Allah bless the one who said, “Let alone what the Christians claim about their Prophet, and you may praise Muhammad in any way you want and attribute to his essence all honors and to his status all greatness, for his merit has no limits that any expression by any speaker might reach.”

In the same source previously mentioned, Al Suyuti said,

“Someone asked Ibn Hajar about commemorating the Mawlid. Ibn Hajar answered, “Basically, commemorating the Mawlid is an innovation that has not been transmitted by the righteous Muslims of the first three centuries. However, it involves good things and their opposites, therefore, whoever looks for the good and avoids the opposites then it is a good innovation.’ It occurred to me (Al Suyuti) to trace it to its established origin, which has been confirmed in the two authentic books: Al Sahihain. When the Prophet arrived in Medina he found that the Jews fast the day of Aashura; when he inquired about it they said, “This is the day when Allah drowned the Pharaoh and saved Moses, therefore we fast it to show our gratitude to Allah.’ From this we can conclude that thanks are being given to Allah on a specific day for sending bounty or preventing indignity or harm.” Al Suyuti then commented, “What bounty is greater than the bounty of the coming of this Prophet, the Prophet of Mercy, on that day?”

“This is regarding the basis of Mawlid. As for the activities, there should be only the things that express thankfulness to Allah, such as what has been previously mentioned: reciting Koran, eating food, giving charity, reciting poetry praising the Prophet or on piety which moves hearts and drives them to do good and work for the Hereafter.”

These are the derivations that those opposed to Mawlid call false conclusions and invalid analogies.

Imam Mohammed bin Abu Bakr Abdullah Al Qaisi Al Dimashqi.

Jami’ Al Athar fi Mawlid, Al Nabiy Al Mukhtar, Al lafz al ra’iq fi Mawlid khayr al khala’iq, and Mawlid al sadi fi Mawlid Al Hadi,

Imam Al `Iraqi.

Al Mawlid al heni fi al Mawlid al sani.

Mulla `Ali Al Qari.

Al Mawlid Al rawi fil Mawlid al Nabawi.

Imam Ibn Dahiya.

Al Tanweer fi Mawlid Al basheer Al Nadheer.

Imam Shamsu Din bin Nasir Al Dimashqi.

Mawlid al Sadi fi Mawlid Al Hadi. He is the one who said about the Prophet’s estranged uncle, Abu Lahab, “This unbeliever who has been dispraised, “perish his hands” [111: 1], will stay in Hell forever. Yet, every Monday his torment is being reduced because of his joy at the birth of the Prophet.” How much mercy can a servant expect who spends all his life joyous about the Prophet and dies believing in the Oneness of Allah?

Imam Shamsu Din Ibn Al Jazri.

Al Nashr fil Qira’at Al `Ashr, `Urf Al Ta’reef bil Mawlid al shareef.

Imam Ibn Al Jawzi

Imam Ibn Al Jawzi said about the honorable Mawlid, “It is security throughout the year, and glad tidings that all wishes and desires will be fulfilled.”

Imam Abu Shama

Imam Abu Shama (Imam Nawawi’s shaykh) in his book Al ba’ith ala Inkar Al bida` wal hawadith (pg.23) said, “One of the best innovations in our time is what is being done every year on the Prophet’s birthday, such as giving charity, doing good deeds, displaying ornaments, and expressing joy, for that expresses the feelings of love and veneration for him in the hearts of those who are celebrating, and also, shows thankfulness to Allah for His bounty by sending His Messenger, the one who has been sent as a Mercy to the worlds.”

Imam Al Shihab Al Qastalani

Imam Al Shihab Al Qastalani (Al Bukhari’s commentator) in his book Al mawahib Al Ladunniya (1-148) said, “May Allah have mercy on the one who turns the nights of the month of the Prophet’s birth into festivities in order to decrease the suffering of those whose hearts are filled with disease and sickness.”

There are others who wrote and spoke about Mawlid, such as Imam Al Sakhawi, Imam Wajihu Din bin `Ali bin al Dayba’ al Shaybani al Zubaidi, and many more, which we will not mention due to the limited space available. From these many evidences, it should be clear by now that celebrating the Mawlid is highly commendable and allowed. Surely we cannot simply shrug off as heretics the scholars and dignitaries of this nation who approved the commemoration of the Mawlid and wrote countless books on the subject. Are all these scholars, to whom the whole world is indebted for the beneficial books they have written on Prophetic sayings, jurisprudence, commentaries, and other sorts of knowledge, among the indecent who commit sins and evil? Are they, as those opposed to Mawlid claim, imitating the Christians in celebrating the birth of Jesus? Are they claiming that the Prophet did not convey to the nation what they should do? We leave answers to these questions up to you.

And yet we must continue to examine the errors which those opposed to Mawlid utter. They say “If celebrating the Mawlid is from the religion, then the Prophet would have made it clear to the nation, or would have done it in his lifetime, or it would have been done by the Companions.” No one can say that the Prophet did not do it out of his humbleness, for this is speaking evil of him, so they cannot use this argument.

Furthermore, that the Prophet and his Companions did not do a certain thing does not mean they made that thing prohibited. The proof is in the Prophet’s saying, “Whoever establishes, in Islam, a good practice…” cited earlier. This is the strongest evidence that gives encouragement to innovate whatever practices have foundations in religious law, even if the Prophet and his Companions did not do them. Al Shafi’i said, “Anything that has a foundation in religious law is not an innovation even if the Companions did not do it, because their refraining from doing it might have been for a certain excuse they had at the time, or they left it for something better, or perhaps not all of them knew about it.” Therefore, whoever prohibits anything based on the concept that the Prophet did not do it, his claim has no proof and must be rejected.

Thus we say to the rejecters of Mawlid: based on the rule you have attempted to found, that is, that whoever does anything that the Prophet or his Companions did not do is committing innovation, it would follow that the Prophet did not complete the religion for his nation, and that the Prophet did not convey to the nation what they should do. No one says this or believes this except a heretic defecting from the religion of Allah. To the doubters of Mawlid we declare, “Based on what you say, we convict you.” For you have innovated in the basics of worship a large number of things that the Prophet did not do⦣128;â?nor did his Companions, the Generation after the Companions, or the Generation after them. For instance:

Congregating people behind one Imam to pray Salat al Tahajjud after Salat Al Tarawih, in the two Holy Mosques and other mosques.

Reciting the Prayer of Completion of the Koran in Salat al Tarawih and also in Salat al Tahajjud.

Designating the 27th night of Ramadan to complete reading the entire Koran in the two Holy Mosques.

A caller saying, after Salat al Tarawih, in the Qiyam prayer, “May Allah reward you.”

Founding organizations which did not exist in the time of the Prophet, such as Islamic universities, societies for committing the Koran to memory, and offices for missionary work, and committees for enjoining good and forbidding evil. We are not objecting to these things, since they are forms of good innovation. We merely list these innovations to point out that those who oppose Mawlid clearly contradict their own rule stating that anything that neither the Prophet nor his Companions did is innovation. And since they claim that all innovation is bad, they themselves are guilty.

Yet another claim they make is to say that those who commemorate the Mawlid are mostly indecent and immoral. This is a vulgar statement and it only reflects the character of the one saying it. Are all the distinguished scholars that we have mentioned, from the point of view of those opposed to Mawlid, indecent and immoral? We won’t be surprised if this is what they believe. This is a most serious slander. We say, as the poet said, “When Allah wants to spread a virtue that has been hidden, He would let a tongue of an envious person know about it.”  

Those opposed to Mawlid, may Allah guide them, have confused some expressions, and claim that some religious scholars associate partners with Allah. Take for example the plea of Imam Al Busiery to Prophet Muhammad, “Oh, most generous of creation, I have no one to resort to, save You, when the prevailing event takes place.” They must examine carefully the saying of Imam Al Busiery: inda hulul il amim, when the prevailing event takes place. What is al Amim? It means that which prevails over the whole universe, and all of creation, in referring to the Day of Judgment. Imam Al Busiery is asking intercession from the Prophet on the Day of Judgment because on that Day we will have no one to resort to, or appeal to. Imam Al Busiery seeks his intercession to Allah through the Prophet, for when all other Messengers and Prophets will be saying, “Myself, myself,” the Prophet will be saying, “I am the one for it, I am for it [the Intercession]” It becomes even more clear now that the doubts of those opposed to Mawlid are unfounded, just as their charges of associating partners with Allah are unfounded. This is due to their blindness, both physical and spiritual.

Another similar example can be found in the well-known saying transmitted by the distinguished Imam Al Kamal bin Al Hammam Al Hanafi, author of Fath il Qadeer fi manasik al Farisi, and Sharh al Mukhtar min al sada al ahnaf. When Imam Abu Hanifa visited Medina, he stood in front of the honorable grave of the Prophet and said, “O, most honorable of the Two Weighty Ones (humankind and jinn)! O, treasure of mankind, shower your generosity upon me and please me with your pleasure. I am aspiring for your generosity, and there is no one for Abu Hanifa in the world but you.” Again, we must not misinterpret this entreaty, but realize its true meaning.

Yet another misconception those opposed to Mawlid hold can be seen in their statements such as these: “What occurs during Mawlid is mixing between men and women, singing and playing musical instruments, and drinking alcohol.” I myself know this to be a lie, for I have attended many Mawlids and have not seen any mixing, and never heard any musical instruments. And as for drunkenness, yes, I have seen it, but not that of worldly people. We found people intoxicated with the love of the Prophet, a state surpassing even the agony of death, which we know overcame our master Bilal at the time of his death. In the midst of this sweet stupor he was saying, “Tomorrow I shall meet the loved ones, Muhammad and his Companions.”

To continue, those opposed to Mawlid say, “The day of the Prophet’s birth is the same day of the week as his death. Therefore, joy on this day is no more appropriate than sorrow, and if religion is according to one’s opinion, then this day should be a day of mourning and sorrow.” This kind of lame eloquence, is answered by the Imam Jalal al Din al Suyuti, in Al hawi lil fatawi (pg.193), “The Prophet’s birth is the greatest bounty, and his death is the greatest calamity. Religious law urges us to express thankfulness for bounties, and be patient and remain calm during calamities. Religious law has commanded us to sacrifice an animal on the birth of a child [and distribute the meat to the needy], which is an expression of gratitude and happiness with the newborn, while it did not command us to sacrifice at the time of death. Also, it prohibited wailing and showing grief. Therefore, the rules of Divine Law indicate that it is recommended to show joy during the month of the Prophet’s birth, and not to show sorrow for his death.”

Furthermore, Ibn Rajab, in his book Al lata’if, dispraising the rejecters of Mawlid based on the above argument, said, “Some designated the day of Aashura as a funeral ceremony for the murder of Al Hussein. But neither Allah nor His Prophet commanded that the days of the prophets’ great trials or deaths should be declared days of mourning, let alone those with lesser rank.”

We conclude this article with a saying of the Prophet, which has been narrated by Abu Ya’la, from Hudhaifa and about which Ibn Kathir said, “It’s chain of transmission is good.” Abu Ya’la said, “The Prophet has said, “One of the things that concerns me about my nation is a man who studied the Koran, and when its grace started to show on him and he had the appearance of a Muslim, he detached himself from it, and threw it behind his back, and went after his neighbor with a sword and accused him of associating partners with Allah.’ I then asked, “Oh, Prophet of Allah, which one is more guilty of associating partners with Allah, the accused or the accuser?’ The Prophet said, “It is the accuser.’”

Completed, with all Praises to Allah and salutations and peace be upon our master Muhammad and the family of Muhammad and his Companions.

 

The Special Life of Our Prophet

By Sayyid Muhammad ibn `Alawi al-Maliki

Translation and notes by GF Haddad 

It is established that our Prophet possesses an isthmus-life that is greater and more perfect than that of any other, of which he himself told us. It is equally established that he is intimately connected with the Community, fully cognizant of their states, seeing their actions, hearing their speech, replying to their greetings, and the hadiths to that effect are numerous.

Among these hadiths is the narration of the Prophet from `Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud – Allah be well-pleased with him: “Verily, Allah has angels that roam the earth and convey to me the greeting of my Community.” (Inna lillâhi malâ’ikatan sayyâhîna fi al-ardi yuballighûnî min ummatî al-salâm.)1

Al-Mundhiri said: “Al-Nasa’i and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih narrated it.” Isma`il al-Qadi2 and others have narrated it through various paths with chains that leave no doubt as to their soundness. All of these chains are to Sufyan al-Thawri: From `Abd Allah ibn al-Sa’ib: From Zadhan: From `Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud. Al-Thawri explicitly declared having heard it from `Abd Allah ibn al-Sa’ib, as reported in al-Qadi Isma`il’s book. As for `Abd Allah ibn al-Sa’ib and Zadhan, Muslim used them as sub-narrators [in his Sahih], and Ibn Ma`in declared them trustworthy (thiqa), so the chain is sound.3

Also among these hadiths is Ibn Mas`ud’s narration that the Prophet said: “My life is a great good for you, you will relate about me and it will be related to you, and my death is a great good for you, your actions will be exhibited to me, and if I see goodness I will praise Allah, and if I see evil I will ask forgiveness of Him for you.” (Hayâtî khayrun lakum tuhaddithûna wa yuhaddathu lakum wa wafâtî khayrun lakum tu`radu a`malukum `alayya famâ ra’aytu min khayrin hamidtu Allâha wa mâ ra’aytu min sharrin istaghfartu Allâha lakum.)4

The hadith master al-`Iraqi said in the book of Jana’iz of his work Tarh al-Tathrib fi Sharh al-Taqrib: “Its chain is good” (isnâduhu jayyid).5 The hadith master al-Haythami said: “Al-Bazzar narrated it and its sub-narrators are the men of the Sahih.”6 The hadith master al-Suyuti declared it sound (sahîh) in al-Mu`jizat and al-Khasa’is. So did al-Qastallani the commentator of al-Bukhari. Al-Munawi also declared, in Fayd al-Qadir, that it is sahîh.7 So did al-Zurqani in his commentary on al-Qastallani’s al-Mawahib al-Laduniyya. So did Shihab al-Din al-Khafaji in his commentary on [al-Qadi `Iyad's] al-Shifa’.8 So did al-Mulla `Ali al-Qari in his, adding: “Al-Harith ibn Usama narrated it in his Musnad with a sound chain.”9 Ibn Hajar also mentioned it in al-Matalib al-`Alya.10 This hadith also came to us through another, mursal way from [the Tabi`î] Bakr ibn `Abd Allah al-Muzani. The hadith master Isma`il al-Qadi narrated it in his monograph on the invocation of blessings on the Prophet , and Shaykh al-Albani said about it: “Mursal sahîh.”11 The hadith master Ibn `Abd al-Hadi declared it sound (sahîh) despite his excessive rigor and harshness in his book al-Sarim al-Munki. After all this evidence, does any meddler have anything left to say? The hadith is undoubtedly sound, and no-one questions its authenticity.

This hadith indicates that the Prophet knows about our actions because they are being shown to him, and he asks Allah forgiveness on our behalf for whatever wrong we may do. If this is the case, then it is permissible for us to use him as a means to Allah and ask for his intercession with Him. For he knows our case, and so he can intercede for us and supplicate for us, as he is the intercesor whose intercession is granted – may Allah send blessings and peace upon him and his Family, and increase him in honor and bounty.

Allah has informed us in the Qur’an that the Prophet is a witness over his entire Community. This assuredly requires that the actions of his Community be shown to him so that he may witness to whatever he saw and knew:

Ibn al-Mubarak said: One of the Ansâr narrated to us from al-Minhal ibn `Amr that the latter hears Sa`id ibn al-Musayyib say: “Not one day passes except the Prophet’s Community is shown to him morning and evening. He knows them by their marks [or names] and their actions, thereby giving witness concerning them. Allah said: {But how (will it be with them) when we bring of every people a witness, and We bring you (O Muhammad) a witness against these?} (4:41). (Laysa min yawmin illâ wa yu`radu fîhi `alâ al-nabiyyi ummatuhu ghuduwwatan wa `ashiyyan fa ya`rifuhum bi sîmâhum wa a`mâlihim fa lidhâlika yashhadu `alayhim. Yaqûlu Allâhu ta`âlâ…)12

Also among these hadiths is the narration from `Ammar ibn Yassir – Allah be well-pleased with him – that the Prophet said: “Verily, Allah has put an angel in charge of my grave and given him the names of all creatures. No-one invokes blessings upon me until the Day of Resurrection except he informs me of his name and the name of his father thus: So-and-so son of So-and-so has just invoked blessings upon you.” (Inna Allâha wakkala bi qabrî malakan a`tâhu Allâhu asmâ’a al-khalâ’iqi falâ yusallî `alayya ahadun ilâ yawmi al-qiyâmati illâ ablaghanî bi ismihi wa ismi abîhi hâdhâ fulânu ibnu fulânin qad sallâ `alayk.)

It is narrated by al-Bazzar, while Abu al-Shaykh – Ibn Hayyan – narrates it thus:

The Prophet said: “Allah Most High has an angel to whom he has given the names of all creatures, and he shall stand at my grave, after I die, so that none shall invoke blessings upon me except he shall say: `O Muhammad, So-and-so son of So-and-so has just invoked blessings upon you.’ Thereupon the Almighty Lord shall send a blessing upon that person, tenfold for each blessing he invoked upon me.” (Inna lillâhi malakan a`tâhu asmâ’a al-khalâ’iqi fa huwa qâ’imun `alâ qabrî idhâ mittu falaysa ahadun yusallî `alayya salâtan illâ qâla yâ Muhammadu sallâ `alayka fulânu ibnu fulânin. Qâla fa yusallî al-Rabbu `alâ dhâlika al-rajuli bi kulli wâhidatin `ashrâ.)13

Also among these hadiths is the narration of Abu al-Darda’: “Make abundant invocations of blessings upon me the day of Jum’a, for that day is witnessed by the angels. Verily, no-one invokes blessings upon me except his invocation is shown to me until he finishes it.” Abu al-Darda’ said: “Even after death?” The Prophet replied: “Even after death! Truly Allah Most High forbade the earth to consume the bodies of Prophets. Therefore the Prophet of Allah is alive and sustained!” (Akthirû al-salâta ‘alayya yawma al-jumu’a fa innahu mashhûdun tashhaduhu al-malâ’ikatu wa inna ahadan lan yusalliya ‘alayya illâ ‘uridat ‘alayya salâtuhu hattâ yafrughû minhâ. Qâla qultu wa ba’da al-mawt? Qâla wa ba’da al-mawti inna Allâha harrama ‘alâ al-ardi an ta’kula ajsâda al-anbiyâ’i fa nabiyyullâhi hayyun yurzaq.)14 Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya said: “This hadith is authentic by the criterion of Muslim.”

Also, the hadith of Abu Hurayra: Abu Dawud narrated with a sound (sahîh) chain – as stated by al-Subki – from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah said: “No-one greets me except that Allah has returned my soul to me so that I may greet him back.” (Mâ min ahadin yusallimu ‘alayya illâ radd Allâhu ‘alayya rûhî hattâ arudda ‘alayhi al-salâm.)15

Also, the hadith of Abu Hurayra from the Prophet : “Whoever invokes blessings upon me at my grave I hear him, and whoever invokes blessings on me from afar, I am informed about it.” (Man sallâ `alayya `inda qabrî sami`tuhu wa man sallâ nâ’iyan bullightuhu.)16 The narrations to that effect are very numerous indeed.

NOTES

1Narrated from Ibn Mas`ud with a sound chain by Muslim’s criterion as stated by Shaykh Shu`ayb al-Arna’ut in Ibn Hibban (3:195 #914), al-`Azim Abadi in `Awn al-Ma`bud (6:21), Ibn al-Qayyim who declared its chain sound in Jala’ al-Afham (p. 24), and al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak, confirmed by al-Dhahabi (2:241=1990 ed. 2:456). Also narrated by al-Nasa’i with six chains in his Sunan, al-Sunan al-Kubra (3:43), and `Amal al-Yawm wa al-Layla (2:167), Isma`il al-Qadi in Fadl al-Salat `ala al-Nabi – Allah bless and greet him – (p. 34), al-Bayhaqi in Shu`ab al-Iman (2:217) and al-Sunan al-Kubra (1:380), Abu Ya`la in his Musnad (9:137 #5213), Ahmad in his, al-Darimi in his, Ibn Abi Shayba (2:253=2:517, 6:316), `Abd al-Razzaq in his (2:215 #3116), al-Tabarani in al-Kabir (#10528-10530), Ibn al-Mubarak in al-Zuhd (p. 364 #1028) and his Musnad (p. 30 #51), and al-Khatib in Talkhis al-Mutashabih (p. 766).

2The Imam and hadith master, Shaykh al-Islam Abu Ishaq Isma`il ibn Ishaq ibn Isma`il ibn Hammad ibn Zayd al-Azdi al-Jahdami al-Qadi al-Maliki (199-282), author of several works, including a Musnad. See al-Dhahabi, Siyar (Arna’ut ed. 13:341).

3Zadhan in this narration is Abu `Umar al-Kindi al-Bazzaz as named explicitly in Abu Sa`id al-Shashi’s (d. 335) narration of this hadith in his Musnad (2:252). Muslim narrated from him, from Ibn `Umar, two narrations of the Prophet in three places: “Whoever strikes his slave in the face or beats him unjustly, his expiation is to manumit him,” and the Prophet’s prohibition of the use of wine fermentation-vessels. See also Abu Bakr al-Asbahani’s Rijal Muslim (1:230) and Ibn Hajar’s Taqrib. He was declared thiqa by Ibn Ma`in, Ibn Sa`d, al-`Ijli, Ibn Shahin, al-Khatib, and al-Dhahabi as reported by al-Arna’ut and Ma`ruf in al-Tahrir (1:409 #1976). From `Abd Allah ibn al-Sa’ib al-Kindi or al-Shaybani al-Kufi, Muslim narrated through two chains the hadith of Thabit ibn al-Dahhak whereby the Prophet forbade sharecropping. He is trustworthy (thiqa) as stated in Ibn Hajar’s Taqrib (1:304 #3339). The rest of the sub-narrators of this hadith are all the men of al-Bukhari and Muslim.

4Narrated from Ibn Mas`ud by al-Bazzar in his Musnad (1:397) with a sound chain as stated by al-Suyuti in Manahil al-Safa (p. 31 #8) and al-Khasa’is al-Kubra (2:281), al-Haythami (9:24 #91), and al-`Iraqi in Tarh al-Tathrib (3:297) – his last book, as opposed to al-Mughni`an Haml al-Asfar (4:148) where he questions the trustworthy rank of one of the narrators in al-Bazzar’s chain. Shaykh `Abd Allah al-Talidi said in his Tahdhib al-Khasa’is al-Kubra (p. 458-459 #694) that this chain is sound according to Muslim’s criterion, and Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh in Raf`al-Minara (p. 156-169) discusses it at length and declares it sound. Their shaykh, al-Sayyid `Abd Allah ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari (d. 1413/1993) declared it sound in his monograph Nihaya al-Amal fi Sharh wa Tashih Hadith `Ard al-A`mal. Opposing these six judgments al-Albani declares it weak in his notes on al-Qadi Isma`il’s Fadl al-Salat (p. 37 n. 1). It is also narrated with weak chains from Anas and – with two sound mursal chains missing the Companion-link – from the Successor Bakr ibn `Abd Allah al-Muzani by Isma`il al-Qadi (d. 282) in his Fadl al-Salat `ala al-Nabi (p. 36-39 #25-26). The latter chain was declared sound by al-Qari in Sharh al-Shifa’ (1:102), Shaykh al-Islam al-Taqi al-Subki in Shifa’ al-Siqam, his critic Ibn `Abd al-Hadi in al-Sarim al-Munki (p. 217), and al-Albani in his Silsila Da`ifa (2:405). A third, weak chain is related from Bakr al-Muzani by al-Harith ibn Abi Usama (d. 282) in his Musnad (2:884) as per Ibn Hajar in al-Matalib al-`Aliya (4:23). Al-Albani declared the hadith weak on the grounds that some authorities questioned the memorization of the Murji’ hadith master `Abd al-Majid ibn `Abd al-`Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad. However, he was retained by Muslim in his Sahih and declared thiqa by Yahya ibn Ma`in, Ahmad, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Shahin, al-Khalili, and al-Daraqutni, while al-Dhahabi listed him in Man Tukullima Fihi Wa Huwa Muwaththaq (p. 124) as stated by Mamduh in Raf` al- Minara (p. 163, 167). Al-Arna’ut and Ma`ruf declare him thiqa in Tahrir al-Taqrib (2:379 #4160) as well as Dr. Nur al-Din `Itr in his edition of al-Dhahabi’s Mughni (1:571 #3793) and Dr. Khaldun al-Ahdab in Zawa’id Tarikh Baghdad (10:464). Even if al-Albani’s grading were hypothetically accepted, then the weak musnad narration in conjunction with the sound mursal one – graded sahîh by al-Albani – would yield a final grading of hasan or sahîh, not da`îf. In addition to this, Mamduh quoted al-Albani’s own words in the latter’s attempted refutation of Shaykh Isma`il al-Ansari entitled Kitab al-Shaybani (1:134-135) whereby “The sound mursal hadith is a proof in all Four Schools and other than them among the Imams of the principles of hadith and fiqh, therefore it is apparent to every fair-minded person that the position whereby such a hadith does not form a proof only because it is mursal, is untenable.” This is one of many examples in which al-Albani not only contradicts, but soundly refutes himself.

Shaykh Hasanayn Muhammad Makhluf wrote in his Fatawa Shar`iyya (1:91-92): “The hadith means that the Prophet is a great good for his Community during his life, because Allah the Exalted has preserved the Community, through the secret of the Prophet’s – Allah bless and greet him – presence, from misguidance, confusion, and disagreement, and He has guided the people through the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – to the manifest truth; and that after Allah took back the Prophet , our connection to the latter’s goodness continues uncut and the extension of his goodness endures, overshadowing us. The deeds of the Community are shown to him every day, and he glorifies Allah for the goodness that he finds, while he asks for His forgiveness for the small sins, and the alleviation of His punishment for the grave ones: and this is a tremendous good for us. There is therefore `goodness for the Community in his life, and in his death, goodness for the Community.’ Moreover, as has been established in the hadith, the Prophet is alive in his grave with a special `isthmus-life’ stronger than the lives of the martyrs which the Qur’an spoke of in more than one verse. The nature of these two kinds of life cannot be known except by their Bestower, the Glorious, the Exalted. He is able to do all things. His showing the Community’s deeds to the Prophet as an honorific gift for him and his Community is entirely possible rationally and documented in the reports. There is no leeway for its denial; and Allah guides to His light whomever He pleases; and Allah knows best.”

5Al-`Iraqi, Tarh al-Tathrib (3:297).

6Al-Haythami, Majma` al-Zawa’id (9:24 #91).

7Al-Munawi in Fayd al-Qadir (3:401) only reported al-`Iraqi’s words “Its narrators are the men of the Sahih except for `Abd al-Majid ibn Abi Rawwad who, despite being retained by Muslim as a narrator and being declared trustworthy (thiqa) by Ibn Ma`in and al-Nasa’i, was declared weak by some.” Al-Munawi then went on to criticize al-Suyuti’s unmitigated authentication of the narration in Manahil al-Safa although al-Suyuti is correct.

8Al-Khafaji, Sharh al-Shifa’ (1:102).

9Al-Qari, Sharh al-Shifa’ (1:102), referring to the mursal hadith of Bakr al-Muzani.

10Ibn Hajar, al-Matalib al-`Alya (4:22).

11In his edition of Isma`il al-Qadi’s Fadl al-Salat `ala al-Nabi – Allah bless and greet him – (p. 37), after which he goes on to say that the hadith is weak, as in his Silsila Da`ifa (#979).

12Narrated by Ibn al-Mubarak in al-Zuhd (p. 42), Ibn Kathir (asmâ’ihim instead of sîmâhum) in his Tafsir (1:500), al-Qurtubi in al-Tadhkira (1:335), Ibn Hajar (asmâ’ihim instead of sîmâhum) in Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 9:99), and al-Mubarakfuri (asmâ’ihim instead of sîmâhum) in Tuhfa al-Ahwadhi (8:300).

13Narrated from `Ammar ibn Yâsir by Abu al-Shaykh in al-`Azama (1988 ed. 2:763) and al-Bazzar in his Musnad (Ibn Hajar, Mukhtasar 2:436 #2164), and from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq by al-Daylami in al-Suyuti’s al-La’ali’ al-Masnu`a (1996 ed. 1:260 =1981 ed. 1:284) and al-Haba’ik fi Akhbar al-Mala’ik (p. 99).

Al-Haythami (10:162) said: “Its chains contain Nu`aym ibn Damdam whom some scholars declared weak and `Imran ibn al-Himyari [al-Ju`fi], whom al-Bukhari indicated was unconfirmable (lâ yutâba`) [i.e. very weak], while the author of Mizan al-I`tidal [al-Dhahabi] declared him unknown. The rest of its sub-narrators are the men of the Sahih.” There are some inaccuracies in this report. Al-Bukhari actually stated in al-Tarikh al-Kabir (6:416 #2831): “He is unconfirmable in his narration of that hadith” as cited by Ibn `Adi in al-Kamil (5:93 #1273). Al-Dhahabi in the Mizan (3:236 #6278) did not declare Ibn al-Himyari unknown, but said: “His narration of the hadith `Allah has given me an angel’ is not known, and al-Bukhari said: he is unconfirmable in narrating it.’” Ibn Hajar names him `Imran ibn Himyar and similarly states in Lisan al-Mizan (4:345 #996): “His narration of `Allah has given me an angel’ is not known.” However, Ibn Hibban includes him in the Thiqat (5:223 #4608) and Ibn Abi Hatim mentions him without discrediting him in al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dil (6:296 #1644). As for Nu`aym ibn Damdam, Ibn Hajar in Lisan al-Mizan (6:169 #595) stated: “From him narrated Sufyan ibn `Uyayna, Abu Ahmad al-Zubayri, Qubaysa ibn `Uqba, `Abd al-Rahman ibn Salih al-Kufi, and others… and I was so far unable to discover who had declared him weak.” Accordingly, the chain of the hadith is fair because Nu`aym’s unknown state is eliminated and his credibility is established by the fact that two or more trutworthy authorities narrated from him, according to the rules of hadith science. Lastly, al-Daylami’s chain contains neither Nu`aym nor `Imran.

Al-`Uqayli cited the narration in his Du`afa’ (3:248 #1246) and said: “`Ali ibn al-Qasim al-Kindi from Nu`aym ibn Damdam is a Shi`i chain of transmission that needs investigation.” Al-Suyuti cited it in La’ali’ al-Masnu`a (1996 ed. 1:259-260 =1981 ed. 1:284) and went on to narrate corroborative proofs for the authenticity of the hadith, among them Ibn Abi Shayba’s (2:253, 6:326) two mursal narrations from the weak Tâbi`î Yazid ibn Aban al-Raqashi: “An angel is in charge of all that invoke blessings upon the Prophet to inform him of it saying: `So-and-so from your Community has invoked blessings on you.’” Isma`il al-Qadi also narrates it from Yazid in Fadl al-Salat (p. 37-38 #27) but with the addition: “on the day of Jum`a, and with the wording: “So-and-so from your Community is invoking blessings on you.”

Al-Suyuti cites `Ammar’s narration in his commentary on al-Nasa’i’s Sunan (4:110). Al-Mundhiri cites the narration in al-Targhib (1994 ed. 2:388) after al-Bazzar, Abu al-Shaykh, and al-Tirmidhi in [al-`Ilal?] “al-Kabir.” The hadith is further confirmed by the sound narrations already mentioned and those that follow, as well as the Tâbi`î Ayyub al-Sikhtyani’s sound mursal narration in Isma`il al-Qadi’s Fadl al-Salat (p. 36): “It has reached me – and Allah knows best – that there is an angel in charge of each person that invokes blessings on the Prophet so that he will convey it to him.” Al-Tabari in the commentary on the verse {For him are angels ranged before him and behind him who guard him by Allah’s command} (13:11) in his Tafsir (13:115) narrates from `Uthman ibn `Affan that the Prophet identified the angels that attend every believer as twenty, ten in the day and ten in the night, among them two angels whose unique responsibility is to record one’s invocations of blessings upon the Prophet . See also al-Albani, Silsila Sahiha (#1530).

14Narrated from Abu al-Darda’ by Ibn Majah with a munqati’ chain missing a sub-narrator in two places. However, its parts are confirmed verbatim by other sound narrations, among them Aws’s narration cited below. Consequently the hadith master al-Busiri declared it sound in his Zawa’id (2:58-59). The first part (concerning the order to invoke more blessings on Jum’a and the disclosure of this invocation to the Prophet) is related by al-Bayhaqi in Shu’ab al-Iman through Abi Umama, Anas, and Abu Mas’ud al-Ansari, and by al-Hakim in his Mustadrak from the latter. Al-Shafi’i in his Musnad relates the first part only (“Invoke blessings upon me abundantly on Friday”) mursal from Safwan ibn Salim.

15Narrated from Abu Hurayra by Abu Dawud with a chain declared sound by al-Nawawi in Riyad al-Salihin and al-Adhkar, Ibn al-Qayyim in Jala’ al-Afham (1996 ed. p. 48 #23 cf. ‘Awn al-Ma’bud 6:22), Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 6:488), al-Wadyashi in Tuhfa al-Muhtaj (2:190), al-’Ajluni in Kashf al-Khafa’ (2:253), and al-Shawkani in Nayl al-Awtar. Also narrated from Abu Hurayra by Ahmad with a sound chain according to al-Zayn in the Musnad (9:575 #10759) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (5:245 #1040) and Shu’ab al-Iman (2:217, 3:490-491); and al-Tabarani in al-Awsat (3:262) with a weak chain as indicated by al-Haythami (10:162). There is little weight to al-Albani’s claim in his notes on al-Alusi’s al-Ayat al-Bayyinat (p. 80) and his Silsila Sahiha (#2266) that “this hadith is only fair, not sound.”

16A fair hadith narrated from Abu Hurayra, not by Ibn Abi Shayba (as mistakenly stated by al-Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa’) but:

* By Abu al-Shaykh with a good chain in Thawab al-Salat `ala al-Nabi as stated by Ibn al-Qayyim in Jala’ al-Afham (p. 48-49=p. 16-22), Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1989 ed. 6:379=1959 ed. 6:488), al-Suyuti in al-La’ali’ (1996 ed. 1:259=1:282-283), and others. Ibn al-Qayyim states: “This narration is extremely singular” while Ibn Hajar states: “Abu al-Shaykh cites it in al-Thawab with a good chain (sanad jayyid).” Al-Sakhawi reiterates the latter verdict in al-Qawl al-Badi` (p. 154) as reported by Shaykh `Abd Allah Siraj al-Din in al-Salat `ala al-Nabi (p. 214) and Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh in Raf` al-Minara (p. 351). Al-Munawi questions this grading in Fayd al-Qadir and Ibn `Abd al-Hadi in al-Sarim al-Munki (p. 206) claims without proof that Abu al-Shaykh’s chain, although strong, is “a gross mistake” because – in his view – “the hadith did not come to us except through al-Suddi, who is discarded” (cf. below). However, Ibn `Arraq in Tanzih al-Shari`a (1:335) confirms Ibn Hajar’s verdict and al-Suyuti in al-La’ali’ authenticates Abu al-Shaykh’s chain – among other narrations, citing it in his commentary on al-Nasa’i’s Sunan (4:110) and rejecting Ibn al-Jawzi’s verdict of forgery in al-Mawdu`at (1:303). Shaykh Ahmad al-Ghumari in his al-Mudawi li `Ilal al-Munawi (6:277) graded Abu al-Shaykh’s chain “spotless.”

* By al-Bayhaqi with two chains – with ublightuhu in the end – in Shu`ab al-Iman (2:218 #1583), al-`Uqayli in al-Du`afa’ (4:137) and others, through Muhammad ibn Marwan al-Suddi who is accused of lying and is discarded as a narrator as stated by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (6:466), or through al-`Ala’ ibn `Amr al-Kufi who is weak, but al-Bayhaqi in Hayat al-Anbiya’ (p. 15) cites corroborating chains and narrations which strengthen the hadith.

* By al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad (3:292) with the very weak chain of Muhammad ibn Marwan al-Suddi with the wording: “Whoever invokes blessings upon me at my grave I hear him, and whoever invokes blessings on me from afar, an angel was put in charge of it who informs me of it. He will have sufficiency of his worldly needs for it as well as his needs in the hereafter, and I shall witness on his behalf – or: I shall be his intercessor.” Al-Ahdab in his Zawa’id Tarikh Baghdad (3:69) considers the second sentence of this narration undoubtedly forged.

As for al-Albani’s grading of mawdû` for this hadith in his notes on al-Alusi’s al-Ayat al-Bayyinat (p. 80) and his Silsila Da`ifa (#203) in imitation of Ibn Taymiyya’s identical verdict in the latter’s al-Radd `ala al-Akhna’i in Majmu`a al-Fatawa (27:241-242), it stems from studied ignorance of Abu al-Shaykh’s chain as pointed out by Mamduh in Raf` al-Minara (p. 354). Note that Ibn Taymiyya contradicts himself by (1) declaring al-Suddi’s chain not forged but “containing some weakness (fîhâ lîn) and corroborated by firmly established reports” elsewhere in his Fatawa (27:116) and (2) considering the meaning of the hadith correct, all of which al-Albani rejects (“I do not know from where Ibn Taymiyya took his claim (27:384) that he hears the salaam from someone near!”). That man goes so far as to state: “I have found no evidence for the Prophet’s hearing of the salaam of those who greet him at his grave”! This is one of his greater enormities and the essence of innovation and deviation. On the hearing of the Prophet in the grave see also al-Nabahani, Shawahid al-Haqq (p. 283-285).

Allah bless and greet the Prophet, his Family, and all his Companions. Wal-hamdu lillahi Rabb al-`alamin.

Hajj Gibril

GF Haddad ©
[2000-06-11]

 

The Meaning of Bid’a

Two of the best works to date on the precise definition of bid’a are ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Lucknawi’s Tuhfa al-Akhyar – with its commentary by his student Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda – and Sayyid ‘Abd Allah Mahfuz al-Haddad’s al-Sunna wa al-Bid’a in which the latter adduces more than three hundred and fifty narrations of the Prophet and the Companions — Allah be well-pleased with them — in refutation of the “Salafi” author Muhammad al-Shuqayri and his book entitled al-Sunna wa al-Mubtada’at. In the latter book al-Shuqayri displays blind fanaticism and attacks the scholars of the Community as innovators on the misconceived basis of the hadith of the Prophet :

Every new matter (kullu muhdathatin) is an innovation (bid’a), every innovation is misguidance (dalala), and every misguidance is in the Fire.1

Al-Shuqayri misconstrued the above hadith in disregard of the Prophet’s hadith concerning the variances of scholars:

If the judge (al-hakim) rules by exerting his mind and hits the mark, he has two rewards; if he rules by exerting his mind and misses the mark, he has but one reward.2

Yet the near-totality of the scholars, including Ibn Taymiyya, have understood, in the light of the hadith of the mujtahid’s reward and contrary to the claims of latter-day “Salafis,” that the findings of ijtihad on the principles of the Sunna is part of the Law and not an innovation in the Religion. As Sayyid ‘Ali ibn Muhammad Ba ‘Alawi said in his introduction to al-Haddad’s al-Sunna wa al-Bid’a:

All of the imams are correctly guided and have their reward with Allah for their inferences and individual exertions in their diligent pursuit of the truth…. As for the likes of [Muhammad al-Shuqayri] the author of al-Sunan wa al-Mubtada’at, their entire knowledge is limited to one hadith of the Prophet , “Every new matter is an innovation,” while they toss away every other hadith of his that indicate the procurement of every good and provide the rulings that concern all new matters…. Whereas what is meant by the hadith “Every new matter is an innovation” is the innovation that contravene the texts of the Law. That, and that alone, is the innovation of misguidance.3

Sayyid ‘Ali and Sayyid ‘Abd Allah go on to cite several verses of the Qur’an as proofs for the lexical understanding of words denoting universal inclusivity such as kull (“every”), each of which allowing for exceptions to the rule of all-inclusiveness, which indicates, among other lexical facts, that kull in Arabic may mean “most” or “very many” and not necessarily “all without exception”:

* (We opened unto them the gates of all (kull) things( (6:44) except the gates of divine mercy.

* (Destroying all (kull) things by commandment of its Lord( (46:25) except the dwellings, and also the mountains, the heavens, and the earth;

* (And she has been given (abundance) of all (kull) things( (27:23) except Sulayman’s ( throne;

* (And that man has only that for which he makes effort( (53:39) although there are proofs that reach the level of mass transmission in meaning (tawatur ma’nawee) whereby the Muslim can benefit from the deeds of others among his brethren and the supplication of theangels, in evidence of which Ibn Taymiyya gathered over twenty proofs which were quoted by al-Jamal in his supercommentary on Tafsir al-Jalalayn for this verse.

* (Those unto whom men (al-nas) said: Lo! the people (al-nas) have gathered against you( (3:173), in which case both mentions of al-nas patently refer to a limited number and not to the totality of human beings.

* (Lo! you (idolaters) and that (ma) which you worship beside Allah are fuel of hell( (21:98) but ‘Isa (, his mother, and the angels, although they were all worshipped beside Allah, are not meant by this verse.

* (And consult with them upon the conduct of affairs( (3:159). Ibn ‘Abbas said: “That is: in some of the affairs.”4 The Prophet did not consult them for law-giving and legal rulings.

* (That every (kull) soul may be rewarded for that which it strives (to achieve)( (20:15), “every soul” in the sense of what Allah does not forgive, but as for what He forgives, it is excluded from the expression of universality.

The terminology of the scholars of usul for the lexical and juridical rule applied in the above examples is “the universal [mentioned] in the sense of the specific” (al-’umum bi ma’na al-khusus). Following are examples of this rule in the hadith:

* The Prophet sent a military detachment under the command of one of the Companions after ordering those who were with him to obey him faithfully. In the course of the expedition the commander became angry with them. He lit a fire and ordered them to enter it. They refused, saying: “We have fled to Allah’s Messenger to get away from the fire (fararna ila Rasulillahi min al-nar)!” When the Prophet heard about the incident he said: “Had they entered it they would not have come out of it until the Day of Resurrection. Obedience is only in good matters.”5

* Similarly, the verse (Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority( (4:59), although couched in absolute terms, in meant in abolute terms for Allah and His Messenger but in conditional terms for (those of you who are in authority( as stipulated by the Prophet’s hadith: “No obedience whatsoever is due to creatures in disobedience of Allah.”6

* The Prophet said: “Every human being shall be consumed by the earth but for the coccyx (‘ajbal-dhanab).”7 Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: “The letter of this hadith and its general meaning necessitate that human beings are all undifferentiated in this case, except that it was narrated that the earth does not consume the bodies of Prophets and martyrs.”8

* The Prophet forbade the abandonment (al-hajr) of one Muslim by another for a period of over three days.9 Yet he ordered the Muslims to ostracize the three Companions who had stayed back during the campaign of Tabuk, and this ostracism lasted for fifty days as narrated by Ka’b ibn Malik al-Ansari – one of the three – in Bukhari’s Sahih.10 Thus the hadith of prohibition bears specific interpretations.

* The Prophet said: “Truly, this black seed (al-habba al-sawda’) is a cure for every (kull) disease except death.”11 The consensus of the commentators is that the universal was named in the sense of the specific in this hadith to mean that many diseases are cured by the black seed, although an all-inclusive wording was used.

* The Prophet said: “None shall enter Hellfire who prays before sunrise and before sunset.”12 This hadith is worded all-inclusively although it is not meant to include those who abandon the prayers of zuhr, maghrib, and ‘isha’. Ibn Hajar confirmed al-Tibi’s ruling that sound germane narrations must be taken together as one hadith, the general being modified in light of the specific (yuhmalu mutlaquha ‘ala muqayyaduha) so that practice can conform with the totality of their contents.13

Following are some illustrations of the Companions’ innovations on the basis of individual ijtihad on the principles of the Sunna:

* The Prophet said to Bilal — Allah be well-pleased with him — at the time of the dawn prayer: “O Bilal, tell me about the deed for which you are most hopeful for reward in Islam, for, truly I heard the sound of your sandals in Paradise.” He replied: “I did not do anything for which I am more hopeful of reward except the fact that I never perform ablution in the day or night without praying what I must pray after such ablution.”14 In another version Bilal says: “I never raised adhan except I prayed two rak’as afterwards, nor did I ever lose my ritual purity except I performed ablution then prayed the two rak’as I owed Allah,” whereupon the Prophet said bihima, meaning “With these two acts [you entered Paradise].”15 Ibn Hajar said: “This hadith signifies that ijtihad is permissible concerning timing in acts of worship.”16

* Similar to the above evidence is the hadith of the Companion Khubayb ibn Isaf or Yasaf al-Ansari — Allah be well-pleased with him — who, when he was captured by the disbelievers of Quraysh, asked to pray two rak’as before his execution as narrated in two places by Abu Hurayra — Allah be well-pleased with him — in Bukhari’s Sahih. Abu Hurayra then added: “Khubayb was the first to innovate (sanna) the two rak’as for each and every Muslim who is to be executed by his enemies.” The general rule for acts of worship, particularly prayer, is spelled out by the Prophet in his hadith al-salatu khayru mawdu’in fa aqlil minha aw istakthir: “Prayer is an immense good. Therefore, pray a little, or [if you can] pray a lot.”17 Although this hadith is weak, it is agreed upon among the jurists of Ahl al-Sunna that the best type of physical worship (‘ibada al-badan) is prayer on the evidence of the divine order (Bow down and prostrate yourselves, and worship your Lord, and do good( (22:77) as elucidated by the Prophet’s hadith: “Know that the best of your good deeds is prayer.”18

* The Companion Rifa’a ibn Rafi’ al-Zurqi’s innovated invocation at the time the Prophet was leading the sunset prayer and said: “May Allah hear whoever praises Him!” whereupon Rifa’a said: “Our Lord! To You belongs all praise, abundant, excellent, and blessed!” Later, the Prophet asked who had said this and declared that the angels were competing to be the first to write it down.19 Ibn Hajar said: “From this hadith can be inferred the permissibility of innovating (jawaz ihdath) an invocation inside sala other than what is received from the Prophet as long as it does not contradict what is received from the Prophet .”20

* Similar to the above evidence is the hadith whereby a Companion came late to join the ranks of the people at prayer and opened his prayer with the words: Allahu akbar kabeeran wa al-hamdu lillahi katheeran wa subhan Allahi bukratan wa aseela

Allah is greater and truly great! Praise belongs to Allah abundantly! Glory to Allah morning and evening!

After prayer the Prophet asked who had said this. The man identified himself saying: “O Messenger of Allah! I did not intend by it other than good.” The Prophet said: “I saw the gates of heaven open because of those words.” Ibn ‘Umar added in his narration: “I never stopped saying them since I heard the Prophet say this.”21

There are numerous additional verses and sound hadiths that similarly illustrate the above principles. It is therefore a mark of profound ignorance of the foundations of the Law and of the Islamic sciences – in fact a patent contravention of the practice of the Salaf and Khalaf of Ahl al-Sunna – to interpret the hadith “Every new matter is an innovation” in the absolute sense and refuse to subject it to the established rules provided by the Sharee’a in such a case.

Imam al-Nawawi in Sharh Sahih Muslim said of the hadith “Every new matter is an innovation”:

This is an universal rule understood specifically (ammun makhsus). What is meant by it is new matters that are not validated by the Sharee’a. That – and that alone – is what is meant by innovations (al-bida’).22

Similarly, Abu Bakr ibn al-’Arabi in his commentary on al-Tirmidhi’s narration of the hadith “Beware of newfangled matters” (iyyakum wa muhdathat al-umur) said:

Know – may Allah teach you! – that a newfangled matter is one of two kinds: a new matter that has no foundation except lust and whim, and this is definitely invalid; or, a new matter that corresponds to something already there, and that is the Sunna of the Caliphs and the great Imams. Nor do the terms “new matter” (muhdath) and “innovation” (bid’a) in themselves denote blameworthy terminology nor blameworthy meanings. For Allah said: (Never comes there unto them a new reminder (dhikrun muhdath) from their Lord but they listen to it while they play( (21:2), and ‘Umar — Allah be well-pleased with him — said: “What a wonderful innovation (bid’a) is this!”23 The only blameworthy innovation is what contravenes the Sunna, and the only blameworthy new matter is what leads to misguidance.24

NOTES

1. Narrated from Jabir by al-Nasa’i with a fair chain and from Ibn Mas’ud by Ibn Majah with a weak chain. The hadith is sound in Muslim’s narration from Jabir with the wording: “Every new matter is an innovation and every innovation is misguidance” without mention of the Fire. Ibn Taymiyya stated in his epistle Minhaj al-Usul in Majmu’ al-Fatawa (19:191) that the phrase “every misguidance is in the Fire” is not a sound (saheeh) narration from the Prophet . See the discussion of the various narrations of that hadith adduced by Abu Ghudda and the latter’s confirmation of Ibn Taymiyya’s remark in his appendices on al-Lucknawi’s Tuhfa al-Abrar (p. 139-144).

2.Narrated from both ‘Amr ibn al-’As and Abu Hurayra by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, and Ahmad. 3In Al-Haddad, al-Sunna wa al-Bid’a (p. 5-6).

4.Narrated by Sa’id ibn Mansur, al-Bukhari in al-Adab al-Mufrad, and Ibn al-Mundhir with a fair chain as stated by al-Suyuti in al-Durr al-Manthur for this verse.

5.Narrated from ‘Ali by Bukhari and Muslim.

6.Narrated from ‘Ali, Ibn Mas’ud, and ‘Imran ibn Husayn by Ahmad in his Musnad with sound chains.

7.Narrated from Abu Hurayra by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad, and Malik in al-Muwatta’.

8.Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Tamhid (18:173). See Appendix 25, “The Prophets in Barzakh” (p. 455).

9.Narrated from Anas by Bukhari, al-Tirmidhi, Malik, Abu Dawud, and al-Nasa’i.

10.The hadith is translated in Shaykh Hisham Kabbani’s Encyclopedia in the section listing the hadiths of the Companions’ kissing of the Prophet’s hand.

11.Narrated from ‘A’isha and Abu Hurayra by Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and Ahmad through nineteen chains. Al-Zuhri said: “The black seed is black cumin (al-shuneez).” It is also named Indian cumin, fennel-flower; corn cockle, and wild savager.

12.Narrated from ‘Amara ibn Ru’ayba al-Thaqafi by Muslim, al-Nasa’i, Abu Dawud, and Ahmad.

13.In Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 11:271 #6080).

14.Narrated from Abu Hurayra by Bukhari, Muslim, and Ahmad.

15.Narrated from Burayda al-Aslami by al-Tirmidhi (hasan saheeh ghareeb) and al-Hakim, who declared it saheeh and al-Dhahabi concurred.

16.In Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 3:63 #1098).

17.Al-salatu khayrun mawdu’un. Narrated from Abu Dharr by Ahmad in his Musnad with three weak chains although al-Zayn declares one of them fair (16:259 #22189), by al-Quda’i in Musnad al-Shihab (1:378 #651), al-Hakim who declared it saheeh but al-Dhahabi pointed out that its chain contains Yahya ibn Sa’id Abu Zakariyya al-Sa’di al-Basri who is weak as per Ibn ‘Adi in al-Kamil fi al-Du’afa’ (7:244 #2142), by al-Bazzar in his Musnad and, as part of a very long hadith, by Abu Nu’aym in al-Hilya and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih with a very weak chain as stated by al-Arna’ut (2:76 #361); also narrated from Abu Hurayra by al-Tabarani in al-Awsat with a weak chain as indicated byal-Haythami, and from Abu Umama by Ahmad and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir (8:217 #7871) with a weak chain as stated by al-Haythami in Majma’ al-Zawa’id (1:159). Ibn Hajar indicates its weakness in Talkhis al-Habir (1964 ed. 2:21 #542) and Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 2:480 #946). 18Narrated as part of a longer hadith from Thawban with sound chains by Ibn Majah and Ahmad. Malik cites it in his Muwatta’.

19.Narrated from Rifa’a by Bukhari, al-Nasa’i, Ahmad, and Malik.

20.In Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 2:287 #766).

21.Narrated from Ibn ‘Umar by Muslim, al-Tirmidhi (hasan saheeh ghareeb), al-Nasa’i with two chains, and Ahmad with several chains in his Musnad. One of al-Nasa’i’s versions has: “I saw twelve angels compete for it,” while two of Ahmad’s versions have: “I saw your words ascend to heaven until a door was opened and they entered.” 22Al-nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim (1972 ed. 6:154).

23.Narrated from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Abd al-Qari by Bukhari and Malik in his Muwatta’.

24.Ibn al-’Arabi, ‘Arida al-Ahwadhi, Book of Knowledge, Chapter entitled “Concerning Conformity to Sunna and the Avoidance of Innovation” (Ma ja’a fi al-akhdhi bi al-Sunna wa ijtinab al-Bid’a).

GF Haddad

 

The Light of the Prophet

From Shaykh M. Hisham Kabbani’s book “The 555 beautiful names of the Prophet” (Forthcoming).

72. al-Nur: The Light.

There are three verses in the Qur’an which mention the Prophet as a light.

Allah said: “From Allah has come to you a Light and a Book manifest.” (5:15)

Qadi `Iyad said: “He [the Prophet] was named a Light because of the clarity of his case and the fact that his Prophecy was made manifest, and also because of the illumination of the hearts of the believers and the knowers of Allah with what he brought.”

Suyuti in Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Fayruzabadi in the Tafsir Ibn `Abbas entitled Tanwir al-miqbas (p. 72), Shaykh al-Islam, Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, the Mujaddid of the sixth century, in his Tafsir al-kabir (11:189), Qadi Baydawi in his Tafsir entitled Anwar al-tanzil, al-Baghawi in his Tafsir entitled Ma`alim al- tanzil (2:23), Imam al-Shirbini in his Tafsir entitled al-Siraj al- munir (p. 360), the author of Tafsir Abi Sa`ud (4:36), and Thana’ullah Pani Patti in his Tafsir al-mazhari, (3:67) said: “What is meant by a Light is: Muhammad, Blessings and peace upon him.”

Ibn Jarir al-Tabari in his Tafsir jami` al-bayan (6:92) said: “There has come to you a Light from Allah: He means by the Light: Muhammad, Blessings and peace upon him, by means of whom Allah has illuminated the truth, brought forth Islam, and obliterated idolatry. Therefore he (the Prophet) is a light for those who have been enlightened by him and by his exposition of truth.”

al-Khazin in his Tafsir (2:28) similarly says: “There has come to you a Light from Allah means: Muhammad, Blessings and peace upon him. Allah called him a light for no other reason than that one is guided by him (Muhammad) in the same way that one is guided by light in darkness.”

al-Nasafi in his commentary entitled Tafsir al-Madarik (1:276) and al-Qasimi in his Mahasin al-ta’wil (6:1921) similarly say: “There has come to you a Light from Allah: this is the light of Muhammad, Blessings and peace upon him, because one is guided by him. Similarly he has been called a lamp (siraj).”

Imam Ahmad al-Sawi similarly said in his supercommentary on Tafsir al-Jalalayn (1:258): “There has come to you a Light from Allah: that Light is the Prophet, Blessings and peace upon him. He was named a light because he enlightens the sight and guides it to the correct path; and also because he is the root of every light whether material or spiritual.” We will return to the latter statement below insha Allah.

Sayyid Mahmud al-Alusi in his commentary entitled Tafsir Ruh al-Ma`ani (6:97) similarly says: “There has come to you a Light from Allah: that is, an immense light which is the Light of Lights and the Elect among all Prophets, Blessings and peace upon him.”

Isma`il al-Haqqi in his supercommentary on Alusi entitled Tafsir ruh al-bayan (2:370) similarly said: “There has come to you a Light from Allah and a Book that makes all things manifest: It is said that the meaning of the former is the Messenger, Blessings and peace upon him, and the latter is the Qur’an… The Messenger is called a Light because the first thing which Allah brought forth from the darkness of oblivion with the light of His power was the light of Muhammad, Blessings and peace upon him, as he (the Prophet) said: The first thing Allah created is my light.” This narration is addressed below.

Of particular note is the fact that the Mu`tazilis insisted that the Light in verse 5:15 referred only to the Qur’an and not to the Prophet. Alusi said in the continuation of the passage quoted above: “Abu `Ali al-Jubba’i said that the light concerns the Qur’an because the Qur’an discloses and brings forth the paths of guidance and certitude. al-Zamakhshari [in al-Kashshaf 1:601] also contented himself with this explanation.” Further elaboration on these two sources is given by Shah `Abd al-`Aziz al-Multani in his al-Nabras (p. 28-29): “al-Kashshaf proclaims itself Father of the Mu`tazila… Abu `Ali al-Jubba’i is the Muhammad ibn `Abd al- Wahhab of the Mu`tazila of Basra.” The similarity of the Mu`tazila with the Wahhabis and “Salafis” of modern times is pointed out by Imam Kawthari in many places in his Maqalat, where he shows that as in the case of the Mu`tazila, the Wahhabis’ denial of the characteristics of the awliya’ camouflages a denial of those of the Prophets.

There is a notable explanation among Ahl al-Sunna which ascribes the meaning of the Prophet to both the Light and the Book. al-Sayyid al-Alusi said in Ruh al-ma`ani (6:97): “I do not consider it far-fetched that what is meant by both the Light and the Manifest Book is the Prophet, the conjunction being in the same way as what was said by al-Jubba’i [in that that both the Light and the Book were the Qur'an]. There is no doubt that all can be said to refer to the Prophet. Perhaps you will be reluctant to accept this from the viewpoint of expression (`ibara); then let it be from the viewpoint of subtle allusion (ishara).”

al-Qari said in Sharh al-shifa’ (1:505, Mecca ed.): “It has also been said that both the Light and the Book refer to Muhammad, because just as he is a tremendous light and the source of all lights, he is also a book that gathers up and makes clear all the secrets.” He also said (1:114, Madina ed.): “And what objection is there to predicate both nouns to the Prophet, since he is in truth an immense Light due to the perfection of his appearance among all light, and he is a Manifest Book since he gathers up the totality of secrets and he makes evident all laws, situations, and alternatives.”

Allah said: “The likeness of His light is as a niche wherein is a Lamp (the lamp in a glass, the glass as it were a glittering star) kindled from a Blessed Tree, an olive that is neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil wellnigh would shine, even if no fire touched it; Light upon Light.” (24:35)

Suyuti said in al-Riyad al-aniqa: Ibn Jubayr and Ka`b al- Ahbar said: “What is meant by the second light is the Prophet because he is the Messenger and the Expositor and the Conveyor from Allah of what is enlightening and manifest.” Ka`b said: “Its oil wellnigh would shine because the Prophet wellnigh would be known to the people even if he did not say that he was a Prophet, just as that oil would send forth light without a fire.”

Ibn Kathir comments on this verse in his Tafsir by citing the report through Ibn `Atiyya whereby Ka`b al-Ahbar explained Allah’s words: yakadu zaytuha yudi’u wa law lam tamsashu nar as meaning: “Muhammad is nearly manifest as a Prophet to people, even if he did not declare it.”

Qadi `Iyad said in al-Shifa’ (English p. 135): Niftawayh said regarding the words of Allah: “Its oil almost gives light when no fire has touched it” (24:35): “This is the likeness that Allah has made of His Prophet. He said that the meaning of the ayat was that this face almost indicated his Prophethood even before he had received the Qur’an, as Ibn Rawaha said:

Even if there had not been clear signs among us,
His face would have told you the news.”

Among those who said that the meaning of mathalu nurihi — the likeness of His Light — is the Prophet Muhammad, upon him blessings and peace: Ibn Jarir al-Tabari in his Tafsir (18:95), Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa’, al-Baghawi in Ma`alim al-Tanzil (5:63) in the margin of al-Khazin, from Sa`id ibn Hubayr and al-Dahhak, al- Khazin in his Tafsir (5:63) Suyuti in al-Durr al-manthur (5:49), Zarqani in Sharh al-mawahib (3:171), al-Khafaji in Nasim al-riyad (1:110, 2:449).

al-Nisaburi in Ghara’ib al-Qur’an (18:93) said: “The Prophet is a light and a light-giving lamp.”

al-Qari in Sharh al-shifa’ said: “The most apparent meaning is to say that what is meant by the light is Muhammad.”

Allah said: “O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of glad tidings, and a Warner, and as one who invites to Allah by His leave, and as a Lamp spreading Light.” (33:45- 46)

Qadi al-Baydawi said in his Tafsir: “It is the sun due to His saying: We have made the sun a lamp; or, it could be a lamp.”

Ibn Kathir states in his Tafsir: “His saying: and a light- giving lamp, that is: your status shows in the truth you have brought just as the sun shows in its rising and illuminating, which none denies except the obdurate.”

Raghib al-Asfahani in al-Mufradat (1:147) said: “The word [lamp] is used for everything that illumines.”

al-Zarqani in Sharh al-mawahib (3:171) said: “He was named lamp because from the one lamp take the many lamps, and its light is no wise diminished.”

`Abd Allah ibn Rawaha al-Ansari — the great-grandson of the poet Imru’ al-Qays — said of the Prophet:

law lam takun fihi ayatun mubina
lakana manzaruhu yunabbi’uka bi al-khabari

Even if there were not, concerning him, clear and evident signs, yet the sight of him would have told you the news.

Ibn Hajar narrated it in al-Isaba (2:299) and said: “This is the most beautiful verse of poetry by which the Prophet was ever praised.” Ibn Sayyid al-Nas said of him in Minah al-madh (p. 166):

He was killed as a martyr on the day of Mu’ta in Jumada 8 before the conquest of Mecca. On that day he was one of the commanders. He was one of the poets who did good and who used to fend off harm from Allah’s Messenger. It was concerning him and his two friends Hassan (ibn Thabit) and Ka`b (ibn Zuhayr) that was revealed the verse: “Except those who believe and do good deeds and remember Allah abundantly.” (The Poets 26:227).

Hisham ibn `Urwa narrated from his father that the latter said: I never saw anyone more aggressive or faster in his poetry than `Abd Allah ibn Rawaha. I heard Allah’s Messenger say to him one day: “Recite some poetry appropriate to the moment, while I look at you.” He rose up then and there and said:

inni tafarrastu fika al-khayra a`rifuhu
wallahu ya`lamu anna ma khanani al-basaru
anta al-nabiyyu wa man yuhramu shafa`atahu
yawma al-hisabi laqad azra bihi al-qadaru
fa thabbat allahu ma ataka min hasanin
tathbita musa wa nasran kalladhi nusiru

I foresee for you immense good, of this I am certain.
Allah knows that my sight never betrayed me.
You are the Prophet, and whoever is deprived of your intercession
On the Day of Reckoning, his destiny is disgrace.
May Allah make firm all the good that He gave you,
With a firmness like Musa’s and the same victory.

Upon hearing this the Prophet said to him: “And you also, may Allah make you firm, O Ibn Rawaha.” Hisham ibn `Urwa continued: Allah indeed made him firm with the staunchest firmness. he died as a martyr, and Paradise was opened for him and he entered it.

As an attribute of Allah it is Dhu al-Nur which means the Creator of light and the Illuminator of the heavens and the earth with His lights, as well as the illuminator of the hearts of the believers with guidance. Nawawi said in Sharh Sahih Muslim, in his commentary on the Prophet’s du`a which begins: “O Allah, you are the light of the heavens and the earth and yours is all praise…” (Book of Salat al-musafirin #199):

The scholars said that the meaning of “You are the light of the heavens and the earth” is: You are the One who illuminates them and the Creator of their light. Abu `Ubayda said: “Its meaning is that by Your light the dwellers of the heavens and the earth obtain guidance.” al- Khattabi said in his commentary on Allah’s name al-Nur: “It means the One by Whose light the blind can see and the lost can be guided, whence Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth, and it is possible that the meaning of al-Nur is: Dhu al-nur, and it is incorrect that al-Nur be an attribute of Allah’s Essence, for it is only an attribute of action (sifatu fi`l), that is: He is the Creator of light.” Others said: “The meaning of the light of the heavens and the earth is: The disposer of their sun and moon and stars.”

Ibn `Umar narrated that the Prophet said: “Allah the Exalted created creation in a darkness (fi zulmatin); then He cast upon them from His Light. Whoever was touched by that Light, he is guided, and whoever was missed by it is misguided. Therefore I say that the Pen is dry (and all is) in Allah’s foreknowledge.”

Narrated by Tirmidhi with a good chain in the Sunan (hasan), Ahmad in two places in his Musnad, Tabarani, al-Hakim in his Mustadrak, and Bayhaqi in the Sunan al-kubra. Ibn `Arabi al-Maliki in his commentary on Tirmidhi entitled `Aridat al- ahwadhi (10:108) confirmed the latter’s grading and comments on the hadith: “It is clear from it that each one receives of that Light to the extent of what he has been granted out of the general and the specific… in the heart and in the limbs.”

The above hadith and its explanation by Qadi Ibn al-`Arabi show that the characteristic of Believers is light, and the Prophet is the first of the Believers and the one who can be more than anybody else characterized as light — including the angels who are formed of light — and only someone deficient in their belief would deny that he was assuredly the first and the foremost of all creation to be touched by Allah’s light when He cast it, to an extent in which no angel, no Prophet, and no jinn rivals him.

The above brings to light the pitfalls of the literalism of Ibn Taymiyya when he claimed in his essay on tasawwuf in Majmu`at al-fatawa (11:94, 18:366) that the Prophet could not possibly be made of light on the grounds that human beings are created from earth into which the spirit is blown, while angels alone are created from light. To support his view, he cites the hadith from `A’isha in Muslim whereby the Prophet said:

“The angels were created from light, the jinn from smokeless fire, and Adam from what was described to you (i.e. in the Qur’an).”

However, to deduce from the above that a human being can never be characterized as a light is precisely what Iblis presumed when he disobeyed Allah on the pretense that smokeless fire is a nobler and higher element than earth. Furthermore, it contradicts the authentic hadith of Ibn `Umar narrated by Tirmidhi instead of elucidating it as would be required for a correct and comprehensive understanding of the subject.

The correct view is that Prophets are a brand of human beings superior to the angels with respect to the light and the other gifts bestowed on them by Allah, whether general or particular, in their hearts or in their limbs, to use Ibn al-`Arabi al-Maliki’s language. This is explicited by Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa’ (English p. 277-278) with regard to the Prophets’ angelic inward qualities:

Prophets and Messengers are intermediaries between Allah and His creation. They convey His commands and prohibitions, His warning and threat to His creatures and they acquaint them with things they did not know regarding His command, creation, majesty, power and His Malakut. Their outward form, bodies and structure are characterized by the qualities of men as far as non-essential matters such as illnesses, death and passing away are concerned and they have human traits.

But their souls and inward parts have the highest possible human qualities, associated with the Highest Assembly, which are similar to angelic attributes, free of any possibility of alteration or evil. Generally speaking the incapacity and weakness connected with being human cannot be associated with them. If their inward parts had been human in the same way as their outward, they would not have been able to receive revelation from the angels, see them, mix and sit with them in the way other mortals are unable to do.

If their bodies and outward parts had been marked by angelic attributes as opposed to human attributes, the mortals to whom they were sent would not have been able to speak with them as Allah has already said. Thus they have the aspect of men as far as their bodies and outward parts are concerned, and that of angels in respect of their souls and inward parts.

It is doubtful that Ibn Taymiyya did not understand the aspects of the question elaborated by Qadi `Iyad. In fact, after denying that Prophets are made of light like the angels, Ibn Taymiyya goes to state the known position of Ahl al-Sunna that Prophets — chief among them the Seal of Prophets — manifest a rank not reached by the angels:

Allah manifests some of His Power and Wisdom through righteous human beings, saints and prophets, which He does not manifest through the angels, for He combines in the former group qualities which are scattered among other creation. Thus He creates the man’s body from the Earth and his spirit from the Highest Company, and this is why it is said, “Man is a microcosm, and a copy of the greater Universe.”

Muhammad is the Chief of the Children of Adam, the Best of Creation, the noblest of them in the sight of Allah. This is why some have said that “Allah created the Universe due to him,” or that “Were it not for him, He would have neither created a Throne, nor a Footstool, nor a heaven, earth, sun or moon.” However, this is not a hadith on the authority of the Prophet… but it may be explained from a correct aspect.

Ibn Taymiyya goes on to elaborate his proofs for the truth of the saying that Allah created the Universe due to the Prophet, and we have quoted the continuation of his discourse above, in the chapter on the names Muhammad and Ahmad (#1-2).

The Companion `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf recited the following poetry about the Prophet:

ala anna khayra al-nasi fi al-ardi kullihimi
nabiyyun jala `anna shukuka al-tarajjumi
nabiyyun ata wa al-nasu fi `unjuhiyyatin
wa fi sadafin fi zulmati al-kufri mu`timi
fa aqsha`a bi al-nuri al-mudi’i zalamahu
wa sa`adahu fi amrihi kullu muslimi

Verily, the best of all humankind on the earth is a Prophet
who removed from us the doubts of skepticism,
A Prophet who came while people were wrapped in haughtiness
and in the pitch-black darkness of the night of disbelief:
Whereupon he dispelled this darkness with abundant light
and in this matter he was helped by each of those who submitted.

Ibn Sayyid al-Nas narrated it in Minah al-madh (p. 176).

The Prophet’s uncle al-`Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib said to him: “O Messenger of Allah, I wish to praise you.” The Prophet replied: “Go ahead — nay, may Allah adorn your mouth with silver!” He said:

Before you came to this world you were blessed in the shadows and in the repository (i.e. loins) in the time when they (Adam and Eve) covered themselves with leaves. Then you descended to the earth, neither as a human being, nor as a piece of flesh, nor as a clot, But as a drop that boarded the ark when the flood destroyed the eagle and the rest of the idols: A drop that progressed from the loins to the wombs in the succession of the worlds and the heavens Until the Preserver of All made your immense honor issue in the highest summit of the line of Khindif. And then, when you were born, a light rose over the earth until it illuminated the horizon with its radiance. We are in that illumination and that original light and those paths of guidance — and thanks to them pierce through.

Ibn Sayyid al-Nas narrated it with his isnad through al- Tabarani and al-Bazzar in Minah al-madh (p. 192-193), also Ibn Kathir in al-Sira al-nabawiyya (ed. Mustafa `Abd al-Wahid 4:51), and `Ali al-Qari in his Sharh al-Shifa’ (1:364) says it is narrated by Abu Bakr al-Shafi`i and Tabarani, and cited by Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Isti`ab and Ibn al-Qayyim in Zad al-ma`ad.

The Companions many times compared the Prophet to a light or a harbinger of light, particularly a sun and a moon, chief among them his poet, Hassan ibn Thabit al-Ansari:

tarahhala `an qawmin faddalat `uqulahum
wa halla `ala qawmin bi nurin mujaddadi

He left a people who preferred their minds over him and he dawned on a people with a light made new.

mata yabdu fi al-daji al-bahimi jabinuhu
yaluhu mithla misbahi al-duja al-mutawaqqidi

Whenever his forehead emerged in pitch-black darkness
it would shine like the blazing luminary of dark night.

Bayhaqi narrated the two verses in Dala’il al-nubuwwa (1:280, 302). The latter verse is also narrated Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Isti`ab (1:341) and al-Zarqani in Sharh al-mawahib (1:91).

Abu `Ubayda ibn Muhammad ibn `Ammar ibn Yasir said: I said to al-Rubayyi` bint Mu`awwadh: “Describe for me Allah’s Messenger.” She replied: “If you saw him you would say: The sun is rising.”

Bayhaqi narrates it with his isnad in Dala’il al-nubuwwa (1:200), and Haythami in Majma` al-zawa’id (8:280) says that Tabarani narrates it in al-Mu`jam al-kabir and al-Awsat and that its narrators have been declared trustworthy.

Ka`b ibn Malik said: “I greeted the Prophet and there was lightning in his face. Whenever the Prophet was happy, his face would be illuminated as if it were a piece of the moon.”

Bukhari and Muslim narrated it, as well as Ahmad in his Musnad. Bayhaqi in Dala’il al-nubuwwa (1:301) relates these descriptions of the Prophet by the Companions and others:

When the Prophet left Mecca and emigrated to Madina his aunt, `Atika bint `Abd al-Muttalib, recited the following — although, Bayhaqi said, she still followed the religion of the Quraysh:

`aynayya juda bi al-dumu`i al-sawajimi
`ala al-murtada kal-badri min ali Hashimi

My eyes have overflowed with streaming tears shed
for the Uniquely Chosen One, the Full Moon
of the House of Hashim.

Abu Bakr al-Siddiq described the Prophet thus:

aminun mustafa li al-khayri yad`u
ka daw’i al-badri zayalahu al-zalamu

A trustworthy one, chosen, calling to goodness,
Resembling the light of the full moon set off from darkness.

While `Umar would recite the following:

law kunta min shay’in siwa basharin
kunta al-mudi’a li laylat al-badri

If you were anything other than a human being
You would be the light in the night of a full moon.

Bayhaqi narrated the above in Dala’il al-nubuwwa (1:301- 302) and relates that `Umar added after saying the above: “The Prophet was like this, and no one other than he was like this.” See the complete text of `Atika bint `Abd al-Muttalib’s praise below (#545-550).

Jami` ibn Shaddad said: One of our men was called Tariq. [al- Qari: "This is Ibn Shihab Abu `Abd Allah al-Muharibi, a Companion who narrated from the Prophet.] He related that he had seen the Prophet at Madina and the Prophet had asked: “Do you have anything with you to sell?” We replied: “This camel.” The Prophet said: “How much?” We said: “So many wasqs [about 240 double-handed scoops] of date.” He took its rein and went to Madina. Tariq and his companion said: “We have sold to a man and we do not even know who he is!” One of the women with us said: “I will guarantee the price of the camel. I saw the face of a man like the full moon. He will not cheat you.” In the morning, a man brought us the dates and said: “I am the messenger of the Messenger of Allah. He bids you eat of these dates and weigh until you have full weight.” We did so.

Qadi `Iyad narrates it in al-Shifa’ (English p. 135). Suyuti in Manahil al-safa (p. 114 #515) and al-Qari in Sharh al-shifa’ (1:525) refer it to al-Bayhaqi.

Ibn `Abbas related that the Prophet said while in prostration:
“O Allah, place light in my heart, light in my hearing, light in my sight, light on my right, light on my left, light in front of me, light behind me, light above me, light below me, and make light for me,” or he said: “Make me light.” Salama said: I met Kurayb and he reported Ibn Abbas as saying: “I was with my mother’s sister Maymuna when the Messenger of Allah came there, and then he narrated the rest of the hadith as was narrated by Ghundar and said the words: “Make me light,” beyond any doubt.

Muslim narrates it in his Sahih, book of Salat al- musafirin. Imam Ahmad in his Musnad also narrates it with a strong chain, but with the reverse order of the first narration cited above, resulting in the wording: “… and make me light,” or he said: “Make light for me.” Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1989 ed. 11:142) mentions a narration in Ibn Abi `Asim’s Kitab al-du`a which states: “And grant me light upon light” (wa hab li nuran `ala nur). There are many sound narrations of this hadith mentioning other parts of the Prophet’s person. Ibn Hajar states that Abu Bakr ibn al-`Arabi numbered the items for which the Prophet supplicated for light in himself at twenty-five in the totality of the sound narrations of that hadith. Among them are:

Light in the Prophet’s heart
Light in the Prophet’s tongue
Light in the Prophet’s hearing
Light in the Prophet’s eyesight
Light in the Prophet’s six directions: right, left, front, back,
above, and below
Light in the Prophet’s soul
Light in the Prophet’s chest
Light in the Prophet’s sinew
Light in the Prophet’s flesh
Light in the Prophet’s blood
Light in the Prophet’s hair
Light in the Prophet’s skin
Light in the Prophet’s bones
Light in the Prophet’s grave
“Enhance light for me.”
“Give me abundant light.”
“Give me light upon light.”
“Make me light.”

The Prophet first appeared to his mother in the form of a light that lit the world for her until she could see the palaces of Syria from her place in Mecca:

`Irbad ibn Sariya and Abu Imama said that the Prophet said: ” I am the supplication of my father Ibrahim, and the good tidings of my brother `Isa. The night I was delivered my mother saw a light that lit the castles of Damascus so that she could see them.”

It is narrated by al-Hakim in his Mustadrak (2:616-617), Ahmad in his Musnad (4:184), and Bayhaqi in Dala’il al-nubuwwa (1:110, 2:8). Ibn al-Jawzi cites it in al-Wafa’ (p. 91, ch. 21 of Bidayat nabiyyina sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam), and Ibn Kathir in Mawlid rasul Allah and his Tafsir (4:360). Haythami cites it in Majma` al-zawa’id (8:221) and said Tabarani and Ahmad narrated it, and Ahmad’s chain is fair (hasan). See for Ahmad’s complete text Bisharatu `Isa (#454).

Ibn Ishaq in his history of the early Muslims narrates something similar in a longer form as related in Ibn Hisham’s epitome entitled Sirat Rasul Allah (Dar al-wifaq ed. 1/2:166):

Ibn Ishaq said: Thawr ibn Yazid related to me from one of the scholars, and I do not reckon it is other than Khalid ibn Ma`dan al-Kala`i, that a small group of the Prophet’s Companions said to him: “O Messenger of Allah, tell us about yourself.” He replied: “Yes. I am the supplication of my father Ibrahim, and the good tidings of my brother `Isa, and my mother saw, when she delivered me, that a great light issued from her and lit the castles of Syria for her. I was nursed by the Banu Sa`d ibn Bakr. While I was with a brother of mine besides our dwellings, feeding the sheep, two men came to me wearing very white clothes and carrying a contained of gold filled with snow. Then they took me and they opened my chest, removed my heart, opened it, and removed from it a black clot which they threw away. Then they washed my heartand my chestwith the snow until they purified them. Then one of them said to the other: Weigh him against ten of his Community. He did, and I outweighed them. Then he said: Weigh him against a hundred of his Community. He did, and I outweighed them. Then he said: Weigh him against a thousand of his Community. He did, and I outweighed them. Then he said: Leave him, for by Allah if you weighed him against all of his Community he would outweigh them. [Tabari added:] Then they hugged me close to their chests and kissed my head between the eyes and said: O Beloved, do not fear, verily if you knew the good that is to take place through you, you would be pleased.

It is also related by Tabari in his History. Thawr ibn Yazid and Khalid ibn Ma`dan are trustworthy narrators from whom Bukhari and many others took hadith.

Qadi `Iyad said in his book al-Shifa’, in the chapter on the nobility of the Prophet’s lineage:

Ibn `Abbas said that the spirit of the Prophet was a light in front of Allah two thousand years before he created Adam. That light glorified Him and the angels glorified by his glorification. When Allah created Adam, he cast that light into his loins.

Suyuti said in Manahil al-safa (p. 53 #128): “Ibn Abi `Umar al-`Adani relates it in his Musnad.” In Takhrij ahadith sharh al-mawaqif (p. 32 #12) Suyuti cites it with the wording: “The Quraysh were a light in front of Allah.” Ibn al-Qattan in his Ahkam (1:12) narrates it in the following form, although `Abd Allah al-Ghimari in Irshad al-talib rejects the latter as a forgery:

`Ali ibn al-Husayn from his father from his grandfather said that the Prophet said: “I was a light in front of my Lord for fourteen thousand years before He created Adam.”

Something similar is narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Fada’il al-sahaba (2:663 #1130), Dhahabi in Mizan al-i`tidal (1:235), and al-Tabari in al-Riyad al-nadira (2:164, 3:154). Related to the above are the following reports:

`Amr ibn `Abasa said that the Prophet said: “Verily, Allah created the spirits of His servants two thousand years before He created His servants. Then whichever among them recognized each other came close, and whichever did not, stayed apart.”

Suyuti in Takhrij ahadith sharh al-mawaqif (p. 31 #10) says that Ibn Mandah narrated it, while Haytami in his Fatawa hadithiyya says that it is extremely weak.

Ibn `Abbas explained taqallubak — “your translation” — in the verses “[Your Lord] Who sees you when you stand, and your translation among those who prostrate themselves” (26:218- 219), as “your descent through the loins of your ancestors.” It is narrated from Ibn `Abbas by al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (2:338) and is the explanation retained by Ibn Mardawayh, al- Razi, Suyuti, and others.

al-Shahrastani in his Kitab al-milal wa al-nihal (2:238) said: “The light of Muhammad went from Ibrahim to Isma`il. Then that light passed through all his children, until it arrived at `Abd al- Muttalib… and with the blessing of this light Allah repelled Abraha’s harm” (wa bibarakati dhalik al-nur dafa` allahu ta`alaa sharra Abraha).

Suyuti cites the above in several of his books, such as Masalik al-hunafa’ (p. 40-41) which we translated below under the attribute Karim al-tarafayn (#485), also his al-Duruj al-munifa (p. 16) and his al-Ta`zim wa al-minna (p. 55), all three of which were written to show the bases on which the Prophet’s two parents are considered to be in Paradise by the majority of the scholars.

al-Zuhri narrated: `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Muttalib was the most handsome man that had ever been seen among the Quraysh. One day he went out and was seen by a an assembly of the women of Quraysh. One of them said: “O women of the Quraysh, which among you will marry this youth and catch thereby the light that is between his eyes?” For verily there was a light between his eyes. Thereafter Amina bint Wahb ibn `Abd Manaf ibn Zuhra married him, and after he joined her she carried Allah’s Messenger.

al-Bayhaqi narrated it in Dala’il al-nubuwwa (1:87). Tabari in his Tarikh (2:243), Ibn al-Jawzi in al-Wafa’ (p. 82-83, ch. 16 of Abwab bidayati nabiyyina), and Ibn Hisham narrated something similar but on the authenticity of which they raise doubt (cf. Guillaume trans. p. 68-69):

It is alleged a woman of Banu Asad who was the sister of Waraqa ibn Nawfal proposed to `Abd Allah, but he married Amina bint Wahb instead and consummated his marriage. Then he left her presence and met the woman who had proposed to him. He asked her why she did not make the proposal that she made to him the day before; to which she replied that the light that was in him the day before had left him, and she no longer had need of him… She said: “When you passed me there was a white blaze between your eyes and when I invited you you refused me and went to Amina, and she has taken it away.”

It is related that Jabir ibn `Abd Allah said to the Prophet: “O Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be sacrificed for you, tell me of the first thing Allah created before all things.” He said: “O Jabir, the first thing Allah created was the light of your Prophet from His light, and that light remained (lit. “turned”) in the midst of His Power for as long as He wished, and there was not, at that time, a Tablet or a Pen or a Paradise or a Fire or an angel or a heaven or an earth. And when Allah wished to create creation, he divided that Light into four parts and from the first made the Pen, from the second the Tablet, from the third the Throne, [and from the fourth everything else].”

The judgments on this narration vary greatly among the scholars. Their words are listed below under the alphabetical listing of their names.

`Abd al-Haqq al-Dihlawi (d. 1052) the Indian hadith scholar cites it as evidence in Madarij al-nubuwwa (in Persian, 2:2 of the Maktaba al-nuriyya edition in Sakhore) and says it is is sahih (sound and authentic).

`Abd al-Hayy al-Lucknawi (d. 1304) the Indian hadith scholar cites it in his al-Athar al-marfu`a fi al-akhbar al-mawdu`a (p. 33-34 of the Lahore edition) and says: “The primacy (awwaliyya) of the Muhammadan light (al-nur al-muhammadi) is established from the narration of `Abd al-Razzaq, as well as its definite priority over all created things.”

`Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211) narrates it in his Musannaf according to Qastallani in al-Mawahib al-laduniyya (1:55) and Zarqani in his Sharh al-mawahib (1:56 of the Matba`a al-`amira edition in Cairo). There is no doubt as to the reliability of `Abd al- Razzaq as a narrator. Bukhari took 120 narrations from him, Muslim 400.

`Abidin (Ahmad al-Shami d. 1320), the son of the Hanafi scholar Ibn `Abidin, cites the hadith as evidence in his commentary on Ibn Hajar al-Haytami’s poem al-Ni`mat al-kubra `ala al- `alamin. Nabahani cites it in his Jawahir al-bihar (3:354).

`Ajluni (Isma`il ibn Muhammad d. 1162) in his Kashf al- khafa’ (1:265 of the Maktabat al-Ghazali edition in Beirut) narrates the hadith in its entirety from Qastallani in his Mawahib.

Alusi (al-Sayyid Mahmud) in his commentary of Qur’an entitled Ruh al-ma`ani (17:105 of the Beirut edition) said: “The Prophet’s being a mercy to all is linked to the fact that he is the intermediary of the divine outpouring over all contingencies [i.e. all created things without exception], from the very beginnings (wasitat al-fayd al-ilahi `ala al-mumkinat `ala hasab al-qawabil), and that is why his light was the first of all things created, as stated in the report that “The first thing Allah created was the light of your Prophet, O Jabir,” and also cited is: “Allah is the Giver and I am the Distributor.” [See al-Qasim #261.] The Sufis — may Allah sanctify their secrets — have more to say on that chapter.” Alusi also cites the hadith of Jabir as evidence in another passage of Ruh al-ma`ani (8:71).

Bakri (Sayyid Abu al-Hasan Ahmad ibn `Abd Allah, d. 3rd c.) in his book al-Anwar fi mawlid al-nabi Muhammad `alayhi al- salat wa al-salam (p. 5 of the Najaf edition) cites the following hadith from `Ali: “Allah was and there was nothing with Him, and the first thing which He created was the light of His Beloved, before He created water, or the Throne, or the Footstool, or the Tablet, or the Pen, or Paradise, or the Fire, or the Veils and the Clouds, or Adam and Eve, by four thousand years.”

Bayhaqi (d. 458) narrates it with a different wording in Dala’il al-nubuwwa according to Zarqani in his Sharh al-mawahib (1:56 of the Matba`a al-`amira in Cairo) and Diyarbakri in Tarikh al-khamis (1:20).

Diyarbakri (Husayn ibn Muhammad d. 966): He begins his 1,000-page history entitled Tarikh al-khamis fi ahwal anfasi nafis with the words: “Praise be to Allah Who created the Light of His Prophet before everything else,” which is enough to disprove al- Ghumari’s exaggerated claim that “anyone who reads it will be convinced that the hadith is a lie.” Then Diyarbakri cites the hadith as evidence (1:19 of the Mu’assasat Sha`ban edition in Beirut).

Fasi (Muhammad ibn Ahmad d. 1052) cites it as evidence in Matali` al-masarrat (p. 210, 221 of the Matba`a al-taziyya edition) and says: “These narrations indicate his primacy (awwaliyya) and priority over all other creations, and also the fact that he is their cause (sabab).”

Ghumari (`Abd Allah) in his Irshad al-talib al-najib ila ma fi al-mawlid al-nabawi min al-akadhib (p. 9-12 of the Dar al- furqan edition), commenting on Suyuti’s words (quoted below) whereby the hadith has no reliable chain: “This shows great laxity on the part of Suyuti, which I thought him to be above. First, the hadith is not present in `Abd al-Razzaq’s Musannaf, nor in any of the books of hadith. Secondly : the hadith has no chain of transmission to begin with. Thirdly: he has not mentioned the rest of the hadith. It is mentioned in Diyarbakri’s Tarikh, and anyone who reads it will be convinced that the hadith is a lie about the Messenger of Allah.” This exaggerated conclusion is disproved by the fact that Diyarbarkri himself does not consider it a lie since he cites the hadith in the first words of his book.

Gilani (Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir, d. 561) in his book Sirr al- asrar fi ma yahtaju ilayh al-abrar (p. 12-14 of the Lahore edition) said:

Halabi (`Ali ibn Burhan al-Din, d. 1044) cites it as evidence in his Sira (1:31 of the Maktaba Islamiyya edition in Beirut) and then states: “It provides evidence that he is the root of everything that exists (in creation) and Allah knows best.”

Haqqi (Isma`il, d. 1137) cites it as evidence in his Tafsir entitled Ruh al-bayan and says: “Know, O person of understanding, that the first thing Allah created is the light of your Prophet… and he is the cause for the existence of everything that was brought to existence, and the mercy from Allah upon all creatures… and without him the higher and the lower worlds would not have been created.” Yusuf al-Nabahani mentions it in his Jawahir al-bihar (p. 1125).

Haytami (Ahmad ibn Hajar d. 974) states in his Fatawa hadithiyya (p. 247 of the Baba edition in Cairo) that `Abd al- Razzaq narrated it, and cites it in his poem on the Prophet’s birth entitled al-Ni`mat al-kubra `ala al-`alamin (p. 3).

Ibn al-Hajj al-Abdari (Muhammad ibn Muhammad d. 736) in his book al-Madkhal (2:34 of the Dar al-kitab al-`arabi in Beirut) cites it from al-Khatib Abu al-Rabi` Muhammad ibn al- Layth’s book Shifa’ al-sudur in which the latter says: “The first thing Allah created is the light of Muhammad, blessings and peace upon him, and that light came and prostrated before Allah. Allah divided it into four parts and created from the first part the Throne, from the second the Pen, from the third the Tablet, and then similarly He subdivided the fourth part into parts and created the rest of creation. Therefore the light of the Throne is from the light of Muhammad , the light of the Pen is from the light of Muhammad , the light of the Tablet is from the light of Muhammad , the light of day, the light of knowledge, the light of the sun and the moon, and the light of vision and sight are all from the light of Muhammad .”

Isma`il al-Dihlawi (Shah Muhammad, d. 1246), one of the leaders of the Wahhabi-influenced Deobandi school in the Indo- Pakistani Subcontinent in one of his booklets entitled Yek rawzah (p. 11 of the Maltan edition) says: “As indicated by the narration: The first thing Allah created was my Light.”

Jamal (Sulayman d. 1204) cites it as evidence in his commentary on Busiri entitled al-Futuhat al-ahmadiyya bi al- minah al-muhammadiyya (p. 6 of the Hijazi edition in Cairo).

Janijawhi (Rashid Ahmad) a leader of the Wahhabi- influenced Deobandi school of India and Pakistan in his Fatawa rashidiyya (p. 157 of the Karachi edition) said that the hadith was “not found in the authentic collections, but Shaykh `Abd al-Haqq (al-Dihlawi) cited it on the basis that it had some grounding of authenticity.” Actually Shaykh `Abd al-Haqq not only cited it but he said it was sound (sahih).

Jili (`Abd al-Karim) in his Namus al-a`zam wa al-qamus al-aqdam fi ma`rifat qadar al-bani sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam cites it as evidence. Nabahani relates it in his Jawahir al-bihar (see below).

Kharputi (`Umar ibn Ahmad, d. 1299) in his commentary on Busiri entitled Sharh qasidat al-burda (p. 73 of the Karachi edition).

Maliki al-Hasani (Muhammad ibn `Alawi) in his commentary on `Ali al-Qari’s book of the Mawlid entitled Hashiyat al-Mawrid al-rawi fi al-mawlid al-nabawi (p. 40) said: “The chain of Jabir is sound without contest, but the scholars have differed concerning the text of the hadith due to its peculiarity. Bayhaqi also narrated the hadith with some differences.” Then he quoted several narrations establishing the light of the Prophet.

Nabahani (Yusuf ibn Isma`il) cites it as evidence in al- Anwar al-muhammadiyya (p. 13), in his Jawahir al-bihar (p. 1125 or 4:220 of the Baba edition in Cairo), and in his Hujjat Allah `ala al-`alamin (p. 28).

Nabulusi (`Abd al-Ghani d. 1143) says in his Hadiqa al- nadiyya (2:375 of the Maktaba al-nuriyya edition in Faysalabad): “The Prophet is the universal leader of all, and how could he not be when all things were created out of his light as has been stated in the sound hadith.”

Nisaburi (Nizamuddin ibn Hasan, d. 728) cites it as evidence in elucidation of the verse: “And I was ordered to be the first of the Muslims” (39:12) in his Tafsir entitled Ghara’ib al- Qur’an (8:66 of the Baba edition in Cairo).

Qari (Mulla `Ali ibn Sultan, d. 1014) cites it in full in his book al-Mawlid al-rawi fi al-mawlid al-nabawi (p. 40), edited by Sayyid Muhammad `Alawi al-Maliki.

Qastallani (Ahmad ibn Muhammad, d. 923) narrates it in his al-Mawahib al-laduniyya (1:55 of the edition accompanied by Zarqani’s commentary).

Rifa`i (Yusuf al-Sayyid Hashim) cites it as evidence in Adillat ahl al-sunna wa al-jama`a al-musamma al-radd al- muhkam al-mani` (p. 22): `Abd al-Razzaq narrated it.

Suyuti in al-Hawi li al-fatawi, in the explanation of Surat al-Muddaththir: “It has no reliable chain”; and in Takhrij ahadith sharh al-mawaqif: “I did not find it in that wording.”

Thanwi (Ashraf `Ali), a leader of the Wahhabi-influenced Deobandi school in the Indian Subcontinent, in his book Nashr al- tayyib (in Urdu, p. 6 and 215 of the Lahore edition) cites it as evidence on the authority of `Abd al-Razzaq, and relies upon it.

Zarqani in Sharh al-mawahib cites it (1:56 of the Matba`a al-`amira edition in Cairo) and refers it to `Abd al-Razzaq’s narration in his Musannaf.

Zahir (Ihsan Ilahi), a leader of the Wahhabi-influenced Deobandi school and declared enemy of the Barelwi school of Ahl al-Sunna in Lahore, India, in his book Hadiyyat al-mahdi (p. 56 of the Sialkut edition) says: “Allah began His creation with the Muhammadan light (al-nur al-muhammadi), then He created the Throne over the water, then He created the wind, then He created the Nun and the Pen and the Tablet, then He created the Intellect. The Muhammadan Light is therefore a primary substance for the creation of the heavens and the earth and what is in them… As for what has come to us in the hadith: The first thing which Allah created is the Pen; and: The first thing which Allah created is the Intellect: what is meant by it is a relative primacy.”

Blessings and peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions.

Fouad Haddad

 

Tawassul of `Umar through al-`Abbas (Allah be pleased with them)

Question:

How do the contemporary Hanafi scholars explain the hadeeth recorded in Sahih Al-Bukhari according to which Khalifah Umar (Allah be pleased with him) asked Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) to ask Allah for rain on behalf of the Muslim community and not the Prophet Muhammad at his grave. The Khalifah said that they USED to ask the Prophet Muhammad to ask Allah and now they ask his uncle instead.

Answer by Shaikh G.F Haddad

Before turning to the question and its questionable premises some preliminary remarks are in order.

First of all, `Umar asked al-`Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib, not his son `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas. What was posted recently on the Hanbali forum is a mistake which I pointed out to the author.

Second, the terminology of the Khalifa’s request, Allah be well-pleased with him, is as follows:

“O Allah! We would use our Prophet as a means to You and You then sent us rain; now we use our Prophet’s uncle as a means to You, therefore send us rain!”

Narrated from Anas by al-Bukhari in his Sahih.

“Whoever understands from this that `Umar only used al-`Abbas as his means and not the Messenger of Allah, upon him peace, because al-`Abbas is alive and the Messenger of Allah is dead – that person’s understanding is dead.” (Al-Maliki)

Al-Suyuti mentions the context of this event in his Tarikh al-Khulafa’ (Beirut, 1992 Ahmad Fares ed. p. 140):

“In the year 17 `Umar enlarged the Prophetic mosque. That year there was a drought in the Hijaz. It was named the Year of Cinders (`am al-ramada). `Umar prayed for rain for the people by means of al-`Abbas. Ibn Sa`d narrated from [the Sahabi] Niyar al-Aslami that when `Umar came came out to pray for rain, he came out wearing the cloaks (burd) of the Messenger of Allah, upon him blessings and peace. Ibn `Awn narrated that `Umar took al-`Abbas’s hand and raised it up, saying, ‘O Allah, we seek a means to You with the uncle of Your Prophet to ask that You drive away from us the drought and water us with rain’….”

Now, the event of the tawassul of Sayyiduna `Umar through al-`Abbas shows the following:

[1] Nowhere in the hadith is there any indication that there was no tawassul through the Prophet upon him peace, in the time of `Umar. Such a view is an inference or an extrapolation that is not based on explicit evidence.

[2] On the contrary, `Umar implicitly made tawassul through the Prophet upon him peace, at that very time, by wearing his blessed cloaks as he came out for the prayer for rain as mentioned in the report by Ibn Sa`d. In Sahih Muslim Asma’ says that she inherited the mantle of the Prophet from her sister `A’isha and that they used it to seek a cure for people.

[3] The use of the Prophet’s uncle illustrates that tawassul is essentially through the Prophet upon him peace, as the importance of al-`Abbas in this respect is only in his relationship to the Prophet as `Umar himself states with the words “the uncle of Your Prophet” in al-Bukhari’s version already mentioned; “the status of al-`Abbas in relation to your Prophet” in al-Lalika’i’s version; and as al-`Abbas states:

“O Allah, truly no tribulation descends except because of sins, nor is lifted except upon repentence. The people have turned to you by means of me BECAUSE OF MY POSITION IN RELATION TO YOUR PROPHET, and here are our hands [raised up] towards you – despite our sins – and our forelocks in repentence, so send down water for us and PRESERVE YOUR PROPHET IN THE PERSON OF HIS UNCLE.” Whereupon the sky let down water as thick as ropes and the people came over to al-`Abbas passing their hands over him and saying to him: “Congratulations to you, irrigator of the two Sanctuaries!” Whereupon `Umar said, “He/This is, by Allah, the means to Allah and the place of nearness to Him!”

Cited from al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar’s narration in al-Ansab by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (2:497).

So the tawassul continues to be solely through the Prophet despite appearances to the contrary, for he is the ultimate recourse of human beings seeking nearness to Allah as he himself taught the blind man (“Say, ‘O Muhammad, I turn with you to Allah…’”) and as several Sahaba explicitly said, such as in the following reports:

(a) Report of the Bedouin who said to the Holy Prophet :

We have come to you when even our virgins’ milk is dry, and the mother worries for her own life over her child’s, The child lets down his arms sitting still For hunger, a hunger unstilled and uninterrupted. We have nothing left from what our people eat Except bitter colocynth and camel-wool mixed with blood. And we have none but you to flee to, for where can people flee except to the Messengers?

Then the Prophet - upon him peace – stood up and he was dragging his garment. He climbed up the pulpit and said: “O Allah, send us water….” whereupon rain fell abundantly. Then the Prophet upon him peace said: “If Abu Talib were alive he would have liked to see this. Who will recite for us what he said?” Hearing this, `Ali stood up and said: “O Messenger of Allah, I think you mean his saying:

A fair-skinned one by whose face rainclouds are sought, A caretaker for the orphans and protector of widows. With him the clan of Hashim seek refuge from calamities, For they possess in him immense favor and grace….”

Narrated by al-Bayhaqi in Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (6:141) cf. Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya (6:90-91) and Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (1989 ed. 2:629).

(b) Report of Sawad ibn Qarib al-Sadusi who declaimed:

Truly, you are the nearest of all Messengers as a means to Allah, son of the noblest and purest ones!

 

Therefore, be an intercessor for me the Day none but you among intercessors shall be of the least benefit for Sawad ibn Qarib!

Whereupon the Prophet smiled, upon him peace, and said: “You have obtained success, Sawad!”

Narrated by Abu Ya`la in his Mu`jam (p. 265), al-Tabarani in al-Kabir (7:94 §6475), Abu Nu`aym in Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (p. 114 §63), al-Taymi in the Dala’il (p. 132), al-Hakim in the Mustadrak, (3:705), al-Bayhaqi in the Dala’il (2:251) cf. Ibn `Abd al-Barr, Isti`ab (2:675), Ibn Kathir, Tafsir (4:169) and Bidaya, Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (7:180) and Isaba (3:219).

(c) Report of Hassan ibn Thabit who declaimed:

 

O Pillar of those who rely upon you, O Immunity of those who seek refuge in you, and Resort of those who seek herbiage and rain, and Neighboring Protector of those in need of shelter! O you whom the One God has chosen for His creatures by planting in him perfection and purity of character!

Narrated by Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Isti`ab (1:276) and Ibn Sayyid al-Nas in Minah al-Mad-h (p. 73).

[4] The background to `Umar’s prayer for rain shows that there was also an explicit tawassul through the Prophet upon him peace, performed by the Sahabi Bilal ibn al-Harith as narrated in two versions:

(a) Version 1

From the Sahabi Malik al-Dar:

 

The people suffered a drought in `Umar’s khilafa, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet sallAllahu `alayhi wa- Alihi wa-Sallam and said: “Messenger of Allah! Ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished.” After this the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: Be clever!” The man went and told `Umar. The latter wept and said: “My Lord! I spare no effort except in what escapes my power.”

Ibn Kathir cites it thus from al-Bayhaqi’s Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (7:47) in al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya (Ma`arif ed. 7:91-92=Dar Ihya’ al-Turath ed. 7:105) saying: “isnaduhu sahih” and he also declares its chain sound (isnaduhu jayyidun qawi) in his Jami` al-Masanid (1:223) in Musnad `Umar. Ibn Abi Shayba cites it (6:352=12:31-32) with a sound (sahih) chain as confirmed by Ibn Hajar who says: “rawa Ibn Abi Shayba bi’isnadin sahih” and cites the hadith in Fath al-Bari, Book of Istisqa ch. 3 (1989 ed. 2:629-630=1959 ed. 2:495) as well as in al-Isaba (6:164 §8350=3:484) where he says that Ibn Abi Khaythama cited it. It is also thus narrated by al-Khalili in al-Irshad (1:313- 314) and Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Isti`ab (2:464=3:1149).

Al-Albani attempted to weaken this report in his Tawassul (p. 120) but was refuted in the lengthy analysis given by Mamduh in Raf` al-Minara (p. 262-278), which refutes other similar attempts cf. Ibn Baz’s marginalia on Fath al-Bari, Abu Bakr al-Jaza’iri’s tract Wa-Ja’u Yarkudun, Hammad al-Ansari’s articles “al-Mafhum al-Sahih lil-Tawassul” also titled “Tuhfat al-Qari fil-Radd `ala al-Ghumari,” and other such literature.

Ibn Hajar identifies the man who visited and saw the Prophet upon him peace, in his dream as the Companion Bilal ibn al- Harith, counting this hadith among the reasons for al- Bukhari’s naming of the chapter “The people’s request to their leader for rain if they suffer drought” in his Sahih, book of Istisqa’.

(b) Version 2 from al-Tabari’s Tarikh (2:509):

In the year of the drought called al-Ramada during the successorship of `Umar the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harith, while slaughtering a sheep for his kin, noticed that the sheep’s bones had turned red because the drying flesh was clinging to them. He cried out “Ya Muhammadah!” Then he saw the Prophet - upon him peace – in a dream ordering him to go to `Umar with the tidings of coming rain on condition that `Umar show wisdom. Hearing this, `Umar assembled the people and came out to pray for rain with al-`Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet upon him blessings and peace.

[5] `Umar had made tawassul through the Prophet in the past, upon him peace, since he said: “WE WOULD USE OUR PROPHET AS A MEANS TO YOU…” i.e. in his and Abu Bakr’s rule (and not only during the life of the Prophet upon him peace), as it is improbable that they never once experienced drought in the previous 8.5 years. “But to restrict this sententence to the Prophet’s lifetime is a deficiency stemming from idle lust, a manipulation of the text of the report, and figurative interpretation without proof.” (Al-Kawthari)

[6] At any rate the major Sahaba did make tawassul through the Prophet upon him peace, after his time as established by the report from our Mother `A’isha – Allah be well- pleased with her – in al-Darimi’s Sunan, in the 15th Chapter of the Introduction (1:43) titled: “Allah’s generosity to His Prophet after his death,” related from Aws ibn `Abd Allah with a good chain:

“The people of Madina complained to `A’isha of the severe drought that they were suffering. She said: “Go to the Prophet’s grave and open a window towards the sky so that there will be no roof between him and the sky.” They did so, after which they were watered with such rain that vegetation grew and the camels got fat. That year was named the Year of Plenty.”

The reader will find extensive documentation on this report in the Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine (4:47-52) and it was declared authentic by all the Sunni experts of hadith, last in date Shaykh Nabil ibn Hashim al-Ghamri in his 1999 10-volume edition of and commentary on al-Darimi titled Fath al-Mannan (1:564-566) where he rejects the objections of al-Albani and his likes to this hadith.

[7] `Umar had made tawassul through the Prophet upon him peace, in the campaign of Tabuk and had therefore directly experienced the Divine munificence and Prophetic generosity.

“When the travel provision of the people decreased they thought of slaughtering their camels but `Umar came to the Prophet upon him peace, and said, ‘How will they survive without their camels?’ The Prophet said, ‘Call to them to bring every remainder of their travel provisions.’ A piece of leather was spread and they brought whatever they had. Then the Messenger of Allah stood and supplicated, then he blessed over the food and summoned them to being their bags. The people supplied themselves to the last one. Then the Messenger of Allah said, ‘I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah!’”

Narrated from Salama ibn al-Akwa` by al-Bukhari and Muslim and from Abu Hurayra by Muslim and Ahmad.

[8] `Umar used al-`Abbas to show people the status of the Prophet’s family in the society and teach them to respect and venerate them, as Ibn Hajar said in explanation of the report of Anas cited above:

“It is desirable to seek the intercession of saintly people and the relatives of the Prophet sallAllahu `alayhi wa-Alihi wa-Sallam, and it shows al-`Abbas’s great merit and that of `Umar due to the latter’s humbleness before al-`Abbas and his recognition of his due right.”

This is confirmed by al-Ajurri’s narration in al-Shari`a and Ahmad in Fada’il al-Sahaba (2:937 #1802) that Ka`b al- Ahbar took al-`Abbas’s hand and said, “I shall hide it away [this handshake] for your intercession on my behalf.” Al- `Abbas replied: “Why, will I have the power of intercession?” Ka`b said: “Yes, there is none from the Household of the Prophet upon him and them peace, except they have the power of intercession!” Ka`b al-Ahbar also said to Sayyidina `Umar: “Whenever the Israelites had a drought they sought intercession through their Prophet’s household” as narrated by Ibn `Abd al- Barr in al-Isti`ab (2:814).

[9] It is known that `Umar had a particular veneration for the Prophetic Household (Ahl al-Bayt) as illustrated by the following reports:

(a) Ibn Sa`d narrated from al-Sha`bi and al-Hasan that al- `Abbas had some need of `Umar one day and said to him: “Commander of the Believers, suppose the uncle of Musa, upon him peace, came to you as a Muslim, how would you treat him?” He replied, “I swear by Allah that I would treat him well!” Al-`Abbas said, “Well, I am the uncle of Muhammad the Prophet - upon him and his House blessings and peace!” `Umar said, “Abu al-Fadl, and what do you suppose? By Allah, your father [`Abd al-Muttalib] is certainly dearer to me than my own father!” He said, “By Allah?” `Umar said, “By Allah, yes! Because I know that he [`Abd al-Muttalib] is dearer to the Messenger of Allah than my own father, therefore I prefer the love of the Messenger of Allah to my love.”

(b) A man disparaged `Ali ibn Abi Talib in the presence of `Umar whereupon the latter said: “Do you know the dweller of this grave? He is Muhammad ibn `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Muttalib. And `Ali is the son of Abu Talib ibn `Abd al-Muttalib. Therefore, do not mention `Ali except in a good way for if you dislike him you will harm this one in his grave.” Narrated by Ahmad with a good chain in Fada’il al-Sahaba (2:641 #1089).

(c) After `Umar saw al-Husayn ibn `Ali ibn Abi Talib waiting at his door he said to him: “You are more deserving of permission to enter than [my son] `Abd Allah ibn `Umar! You see the goodness that was placed on our head; [therefore] first Allah; then you [the Prophetic Household]!” and he placed his hand on his head as he spoke. Narrated by Ibn Sa`d, Ibn Rahuyah, and al-Khatib.

(d) Jabir said he heard `Umar ibn al-Khattab say on the pulpit after he married Umm Kulthum, the daughter of `Ali and Fatima – Allah be well-pleased with them:

“Do not disparage me [for marrying a young girl], for I heard the Prophet say, upon him blessings and peace: ‘On the Judgment Day every means will be cut off and every lineage severed except my lineage.’”

Narrated by al-Tabarani. Al-Haythami said its narrators are those of al-Bukhari and Muslim.

`Umar desired to place himself in the Prophet’s lineage through this marriage due to the precedence of Ahl al-Bayt in the Prophet’s intercession, upon him and them peace.

[10] Nor is this intercession solely by way of the Prophet’s mere supplication (du`a) and by means of al-`Abbas’s mere supplication as claimed by the innovators and by the terminology of the question cited above. Rather, it was by means of their person (dhat) AND du`a as literally stated in the following reports among many others:

(a) Intercession through the Prophet’s person according to Ibn `Umar:

In Sahih al-Bukhari: `Abdullah ibn Dinar said:

“I heard Ibn `Umar reciting the poetic verses of Abu Talib:

A fair-skinned one by whose face rainclouds are sought, A caretaker for the orphans and protector of widows.

“`Umar ibn Hamza said: Salim narrated from his father (Ibn `Umar) that the latter said: “The poet’s saying came to my mind as I was looking at the face of the Prophet - upon him blessings and peace – while he was praying for rain – and he did not come down until the rain water flowed profusely from every roof-gutter:

 

A fair-skinned one by whose face rainclouds are sought, A caretaker for the orphans and protector of widows.”

One sub-narrator added: “These were the words of Abu Talib.”

Note that in his translation of Bukhari (2:65), Muhammad Muhsin Khan alters the wording of the hadith to read: “A white person WHO IS REQUESTED TO PRAY FOR RAIN” in place of “by whose face rain is sought.” This is tahrif i.e. textual and semantic manipulation of the most important source in Islam after the Qur’an.

(b) Intercession through al-`Abbas’s person according to `Umar:

“People! The Messenger of Allah sallAllahu `alayhi wa-Alihi wa-Sallam considered al-`Abbas like his father, venerating him and greatly respecting him and his rights. Therefore, O people! take the lead of the Messenger of Allah in the person of his uncle al-`Abbas and take the latter as your means to Allah Most High in the context of your tribulation.”

Narrated from `Umar with a sound chain by al-Baladhiri and with weak chains from Ibn `Umar by al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar in al-Ansab and Ibn `Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq (8:932) as cited by Ibn Hajar in the Fath (1959 ed. 2:497). Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh in Raf` al- Minara (p. 120) rejected al-Albani’s claim in his book al-Tawassul (p. 67-68) that the chain of this hadith is “mixed up” (mudtarib) as inapplicable here.

[11] `Umar showed the possibility of tawassul through X. even though Y. – also present – may be better than X. He showed that tawassul through the inferior in the presence of the superior is permissible as there is Consensus that the best of all living human beings after Prophets then, namely `Umar, `Uthman, and `Ali are all three superior to al-`Abbas, Allah be well-pleased with all of them. This was also a mark of humbleness on `Umar’s part as already cited from Fath al-Bari. Another example of this is the tawassul of Mu`awiya for rain through the Sahabi Yazid ibn al-Aswad al-`Amiri as narrated by Abu Zur`a al-Dimashqi in his Tarikh and his tawassul also through the Tabi`i Abu Muslim al-Khawlani as narrated by Ahmad in al-Zuhd cf. al-Tahanawi, I`la’ al-Sunan (8:193).

[12] `Umar used al-`Abbas also as a precaution lest people’s faith in the Prophet upon him peace, be shaken in case the prayer were not answered.

[13] Finally, the Sunna prayer for rain formally has to be performed by the outward, political Imam of the Muslims or his deputy. It is in that function that the office of the Messenger of Allah – upon him blessings and peace – had ceased and was taken over, first by Abu Bakr, then by `Umar. Al-`Abbas’s position in this event is that of the deputy of the latter as the Commander of the Believers. And Allah knows best.

–

I have compiled the above from the references cited below and the lights imparted by my teachers on this subject – may Allah keep them and thank them for guarding pure and authentic Sunni doctrine from the ignorant and the extremists.

Contemporary Hanafi References:

- Al-Kawthari, Muhammad Zahid. “Mahq al-Taqawwul fi Mas’alat al-Tawassul” (“The Eradication of Gossip Concerning the Use of Intermediaries”) in his Maqalat (“Essays”) and recently published as a monograph with introduction and notes by Shaykh Wahbi Sulayman Ghawji (1997).

- Al-Dajwi, Yusuf Ahmad – al-Kawthari’s Shaykh. Four Articles on tawassul originally published in Majallat al-Azhar and reprinted at the beginning of Ghawji’s edition of al-Kawthari’s “Mahq al-Taqawwul.”

- Ghawji, Wahbi Sulayman. Introduction to Mahq al-Taqawwul.

- Al-Nass, Samer. Al-Wasilatu ila Fahmi Haqiqat al-Tawassul (“The Means to Understanding the Truth of Seeking a Means”). Beirut: Dar al-Tawfiq, 2003. The best treatment in our opinion.

Other references:

- Muhammad ibn `Alawi al-Maliki, Mafahim Yajib an Tusahhah (“Necessary Correction of Certain Misconceptions”). 10th ed. (p. 153-156.)

- Abul-Hasanayn `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Rahman al-Makki al- Hashimi, al-Salafiyya al-Mu`asira: Munaqashat wa-Rudud (“Contemporary Salafism: Discussions and Rebuttals”) p. 143-145.

- Al-Ghumari, Irgham al-Mubtadi` al-Ghabi bi-Jawaz al- Tawassul bil-Nabi (“Compelling the Dunderheaded Innovator to Accept the Permissibility of Using the Prophet as a Means”). Ed. Hasan `Ali al-Saqqaf. 2nd ed. Amman: Dar al-Imam al-Nawawi, 1992.

- Mahmud Mamduh, Raf` al-Minara bi-Ahadith al-Tawassul wal- Ziyara (“Raising the Lighthouse with the Hadiths of Seeking Means and Visitation [of the Prophet]“) p. 118-121.

In his book (al-balagh-ul-Mubeen) Imam Shah Waliullah infers that the Khalifah did not consider it allowed to ask those who had left this world or the absent for intercession.

This is contrary to the view reported from Shah Wali Allah in his book Fuyud al-Haramayn (“The Outpourings of the Two Sanctuaries) cf. http://www.al-maqsood.org/islam/shah-1.htm

The apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that some books of Shah Wali Allah may not be free from Wahhabistic interpolations, see LivingIslam.org

It is known that the beasts themselves ask for rain as in the Prophetic hadith of the ant narrated from Abu Hurayra by al-Daraqutni, his student al-Hakim, and others:

cf. Ibn Abi Shayba (6:62, 7:71)
Abu al-Shaykh, al-`Azama (5:1572)
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir (3:360)
Ibn Hajar, Talkhis al-Habir (2:97 #718)
Ibn al-Mulaqqin, Khulasat al-Badr (1:250)
Al-San`ani, Subul al-Salam (2:83)
Al-Shawkani, Nayl al-Awtar (4:27)
Al-Tahanawi, I`la’ al-Sunan (8:193).

And the Sunna requires us to bring the beasts out during the prayer for rain, and the Prophet said, - upon him peace,

- “Were it not for the beasts they [who withhold zakat] would never be granted rain.” Narrated by Ibn Majah.

- “Were it not for the pasturing beasts punishment would be poured on you literally.” Abu Ya`la, al-Bazzar and others.

So we may hope for their intercession, but not for that of the Prophet Muhammad??

No, the Khalifah did not consider the Prophet upon him peace, to be absent nor to have left this world. Otherwise, why did he address the Prophet upon him peace, and Abu Bakr in their graves as narrated by al-Tabarani through trustworthy narrators (see below) and why was “nothing more important to him” – as narrated from him by al- Bukhari in his Sahih – than to be buried near them?

Qays ibn Abi Hazim narrated that one day, `Umar addressed the people from the pulpit in Madina and said in his address:

“Verily there is in the Gardens of `Adn a palace which has five hundred doors, each posted with five thousand of the ladies of Paradise, and none but a Prophet shall enter it.” At this point he turned to the grave of the Messenger of Allah – upon him blessings and peace – and said: “Congratulations to you, O dweller of this grave!” Then he continued: “And none but a Most-Truthful One (siddiq) shall enter it.” At this point he turned towards Abu Bakr’s grave and said: “Congratulations to you, Abu Bakr!” Then he said: “And none but a Martyr shall enter it,” and he pointed to himself. He continued, speaking to himself outloud: “And when did you inherit martyrdom, `Umar?” Then he said: “Truly, the One who brought me out from Makka unto the migration to Madina is able to bring me martyrdom!”

Al-Tabarani narrated it in al-Awsat through trustworthy narrators cf. al-Haythami, Majma` al-Zawa’id (9:54-55).

Do the Ahnaaf consider Khalifah Umar to have performed his ijtihad on this issue but the Ahnaaf disagreed with him? Please explain.

Even if the act of `Umar were not originally a Sunna – which it is – the ijtihad of the Khulafa’ al-Rashidin nevertheless has the probative force of Sunna in this Religion, with which no School, Hanafi or other, is at liberty to differ. Not that the Ahnaaf disagreed with him in this or in anything else whatsoever that comes to mind! And it is a poorly phrased question indeed that places an entire Sunni School in the immaterial position of disagreeing with one of the Khulafa’ al-Rashidin when this is the exclusive wont of Ahl al-Bid`a.

Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad
[Mon, 20 Oct 2003]

 

The Sunni Definition of Bid`a As Either Good or Bad

This article is in two parts:

I. Al-Shâfi`î’s definition of bid`a as either good or bad;
II. The division of bid`a into good and bad among Ahl al-Sunna and others.

I.
Al-Shâfi`î’s Definition of Bid`a
as Either “Good” or “Bad”

A major contribution of Imâm al-Shâfi`î (ra) in the Foundations of Jurisprudence (us.ûl al-fiqh) is his division of innovation (al-bid`a) and innovated matters (al-muh.dathât) into “good” and “bad” depending whether they conformed or not to the guidelines of the Religion. This is authentically narrated from al-Shâfi`î from two of his most prestigious students in the latter period of his life, the Egyptian h.adîth Masters H.armala ibn Yah.yâ al-Tujaybî and al-Rabî` ibn Sulaymân al-Murâdî:

H.armala said, “I heard al-Shâfi`î (ra) say:

‘Innovation is two types (al-bid`atu bid`atân):
approved innovation (bid`a mah.mûda) and disapproved innovation (bid`a madhmûma). Whatever conforms to the Sunna is approved (mah.mûd) and whatever opposes it is abominable (madhmûm).’

He used as his proof the statement of `Umar ibn al-Khat.t.âb (ra) about the [congregational] supererogatory night prayers in the month of Ramad.ân: “What a fine innovation this is!”[1]

Al-Rabî` said, “Al-Shâfi`î said to us:
‘Innovated matters are of two kinds (al-muh.dathâtu min al-umûri d.arbân):
one is an innovation that contravenes (mâ uh.ditha yukhâlifu) something in the Qur’ân or the Sunna or a Companion-report (athar) or the Consensus (ijmâ`): that innovation is misguidance (fahâdhihi al-bid`atu d.alâla).
The other kind is the innovation of any and all good things (mâ uh.ditha min al-khayr) contravening none of the above, and this is a blameless innovation (wahâdhihi muh.dathatun ghayru madhmûma).
`Umar (ra) said, concerning the prayers of Ramad.ân: What a fine bid`a this is! meaning that it was innovated without having existed before and, even so, there was nothing in it that contradicted the above.’”[2]

Thus al-Shâfi`î set forth the essential, indispensable criterion for the determination of true bid`a, as defined, among others, by Imâm al-Haytamî, Qâd.î Abû Bakr Ibn al-`Arabî, and Imâm al-Lacknawî respectively:

“Bid`a in terms of the Law is everything innovated in contravention of the Lawgiver’s command and the latter’s specific and general proof.”[3]

“Only the bid`a that contradicts the Sunna is blameworthy.”[4]

“Bid`a is all that did not exist in the first three centuries and for which there is no basis among the four sources of Islâm” i.e. Qur’ân, Sunna, Ijmâ`, and Qiyâs.[5]

Consequently, it is not enough for something merely to be novel to be a bid`a; it must also contradict the Religion.

Al-Bayhaqî commented on al-Rabî`s report thus:

Similarly, debating with the people of innovations – when they make public their innovations or bring up their insinuations – to refute them and expose their fallacies: even if this is an innovation, nevertheless, it is a praiseworthy one because it consists in refuting what we just mentioned. The Prophet was asked about Divine foreordainment (al-qadar) and so were some of the Companions, and they replied with the answers that were narrated to us from them. At that time, they contented themselves with the words of the Prophet and, thereafter, with the reports to that effect. However, in our time, the innovators do not content themselves with such reports nor do they accept them. Therefore, it is necessary to refute their insinuations – when they make them public – with what they themselves consider proofs. And success is through Allâh.[6]

This is a clear-cut defense of the necessity and Sunna character of kalâm in the defense against innovators on the part of Imâm al-Bayhaqî. Something similar is reported from Ibn `Asâkir, Ibn al-S.alâh., al-Nawawî, Ibn al-Subkî, Ibn `âbidîn, and others of the great Imâms.

II.
Division of Bid`a
into Good and Bad
among Ahl al-Sunna and Others

Al-Ghazzâlî’s Identical Definition

H.ujjat al-Islâm al-Ghazzâlî said in his discussion of the adding of dots to the Qur’anic script:

The fact that this is innovated (muh.dath) forms no impediment to this. How many innovated matters are excellent! As it was said concerning the establishing of congregations in Tarâwîh. that it was among the innovations of `Umar (ra) and that it was an excellent innovation (bid`a h.asana). The blameworthy bid`a is only what opposes the ancient Sunna or might lead to changing it.[7]

Ibn al-`Arabî al-Mâlikî’s Identical Definition

The Qâd.î Abû Bakr Ibn al-`Arabî said in his discussion of bid`a:

Know – May Allâh grant you knowledge! – that innovated matters are two kinds (al-muh.dathâtu d.arbân).
1.) An innovated matter that has no basis other than lust and arbitrary practice. Such is categorically invalid. And
2.) An innovated matter understood to correspond to something [established]. Such is the Sunna of the Caliphs and that of the eminent Imâms. Innovated matters and innovations are not blameworthy merely for being called muh.dath and bid`a nor because of their meaning! Allâh Most High has said, (Never comes there unto them a new (muh.dath) reminder from their Lord) (21:2) and `Umar (ra) said: “What a fine bid`a this is!” Rather, only the bid`a that contradicts the Sunna is blameworthy and only the innovated matters that invite to misguidance are blameworthy.”[8]

Ibn H.azm and Ibn al-Jawzî’s Identical Definition

Ibn H.azm al-Z.âhirî said: Bid`a in the Religion is everything that did not come to us in the Qur’ân nor from the Messenger of Allâh , except that one is rewarded for some of it and those who do this are excused if they have good intentions. Of it is the rewardable and excellent (h.asan), namely, what is originally permitted (mâ kâna as.luhu al-ibâh.a) as was narrated from `Umar (ra): “What a fine bid`a this is!” Such refers to all good deeds which the texts stipulated in general terms of desirability even if its practice was not fixed in the text. And of it is the blameworthy for which there is no excuse such as what has proofs against its invalidity.[9]

Ibn al-Jawzî speaks in similar terms in the beginning of his Talbîs Iblîs: “Certain innovated matters (muh.dathât) have taken place which do not oppose the Sacred Law nor contradict it, so they [the Salaf] saw no harm in practicing them, such as the convening of the people by `Umar (ra) for the night prayer in Ramad.ân, after which he saw them and said: `What a fine bid`a this is!’”

 

Ibn al-Athîr al-Jazarî’s Identical Definition

The lexicographer Ibn al-Athîr said in his masterpiece, al-Nihâya fî Gharîb al-H.âdîth wal-Athar: Bid`a is two kinds: the bid`a of guidance and the bid`a of misguidance (bid`atu hudâ wa-bid`atu d.alâla). Whatever contravenes the command of Allâh and His Messenger : that is within the sphere of blame and condemnation. And whatever enters into the generality of what Allâh or His Prophet commended or stressed: that is within the sphere of praise. Whatever has no precedent such as extreme generosity or goodness – such are among the praiseworthy acts. It is impermissible that such be deemed to contravene the Law because the Prophet has stipulated that such would carry reward when he said: “Whoever institutes a good practice in Islâm (man sanna fîl-islâmi sunnatan h.asana) has its reward and the reward of all those who practice it.” And he said, conversely, “whoever institutes a bad practice in Islâm (waman sanna fîl-islâmi sunnatan sayyi’atan) bears its onus and the onus of all those who practice it.” [10] Such is when the act goes against what Allâh and His Messenger commanded…. It is in this sense that the h.adîth “every innovation is misguidance”[11] is understood: he means, whatever contravenes the bases of the Law and does not concur with the Sunna.[12]

 

Ibn `Abd al-Salâm’s Final Fivefold Classification

Shaykh al-Islâm, Sult.ân al-`Ulâmâ’ Imâm al-`Izz Ibn `Abd al-Salâm similarly said: There are different types of innovations (bida`). The first type is whatever the Law indicated as praiseworthy or obligatory and the like of which was not done in the first period of Islâm. The second type is whatever the Law indicated as forbidden or disliked, and which was not done in the first period of Islâm. The third type is whatever the Law indicated as indifferently permitted and which was not done in the first period of Islâm.[13]

Elsewhere he states that the categories of bid`a are five, identical to the jurists’ classification of deeds: “obligatory” (wâjib), “forbidden” (h.arâm), “recommended” (mandûb), “disliked” (makrûh), and “permitted” (mubâh.).[14]

 

Al-Nawawî’s Endorsement of the Fivefold Classification

Shaykh al-Islâm, Imâm al-Nawawî said: Al-Bid`a in the Law is the innovating of what did not exist in the time of the Messenger of Allâh and is divided into “excellent” and “bad” (wahya munqasimatun ilâ h.asana wa qabîh.a). The Shaykh, the Imâm on whose foremost leadership, greatness, standing, and brilliance in all kinds of Islamic sciences there is consensus, Abû Muh.ammad `Abd al-`Azîz ibn `Abd al-Salâm – Allâh have mercy on him and be well-pleased with him! – said toward the end of his book, al-Qawâ`id [al-Kubrâ]:

“Innovation is divided into ‘obligatory’ (wâjiba), ‘forbidden’s (muh.arrama), ‘recommended’s (mandûba), ‘offensive’s (makrûha), and ‘indifferent’s (mubâh.a).
The way [to discriminate] in this is that the innovation be examined in the light of the regulations of the Law (qawâ`id al-sharî`a). If it falls under the regulations of obligatoriness (îjâb) then it is obligatory; under the regulations of prohibitiveness (tah.rîm) then it is prohibited; recommendability, then recommended; offensiveness, then offensive; indifference, then indifferent.”[15]

 

Ibn H.ajar’s Endorsement of the Fivefold Classification

The H.âfiz. Ibn H.ajar said: The root meaning of innovation is what is produced without precedent. It is applied in the law in opposition to the Sunna and is therefore blameworthy. Strictly speaking, if it is part of what is classified as commendable by the law then it is a good innovation (h.asana), while if it is part of what is classified as blameworthy by the law then it is blameworthy (mustaqbah.a), otherwise it falls in the category of what is permitted indifferently (mubâh.). It can be divided into the known five categories.[16]

 

Agreement of the Schools over the Fivefold Classification

Agreement formed in the Four Schools around the fivefold classification of bid`a as illustrated by the endorsement of the major later authorities in each School.

(1) Among the H.anafîs: al-Kirmânî, Ibn `âbidîn, al-Turkmânî, al-`Aynî, and al-Tahânawî.[17]

(2) Among the Mâlikîs: al-T.urt.ûshî, Ibn al-H.âjj, al-Qarâfî, and al-Zurqânî, while al-Shât.ibî attempts a refutation and claims that the fivefold classification is “an invented matter without proof in the Law”![18]

(3) Consensus among the Shâfi`îs.[19]

(4) Reluctant acceptance among later H.anbalîs, who altered al-Shâfi`î and Ibn `Abd al-Salâm’s terminology to read “lexical innovation” (bid`a lughawiyya) and “legal innovation” (bid`a shar`iyya), respectively – although inaccurately – matching al-Shâfi`î’s “approved” and “abominable.[20] This manner of splitting hairs has become the shibboleth of Wahhâbism in every micro-debate on bid`a although the correct way – as usual – is patently that of the Jumhûr.

Shaykh Muh.ammad Bakhît al-Mut.î`î concluded that “The legal bid`a is the one that is misguidance and condemned; as for the bid`a that the Ulema divided into obligatory and forbidden and so forth, such is the lexical bid`a which is more inclusive than the legal because the legal is only part of it.”[21]

Al-Shawkânî concluded in Nayl al-Awt.âr that the foundational division of innovations into “good” and “bad” is the soundest and most correct position.[22]

It is enough that a major Mujtahid Imâm of the Salaf said so on the basis of the Qur’ân and Sunna regardless of the argumentations of later centuries – whether from a would-be murajjih. like al-Shawkânî or a would-be censor like al-Shât.ibî – in light of the concurrence of the Jumhûr around al-Shâfi`î’s explanation and the Divine and Prophetic injunctions to follow the path of the Believers and to stay with their greatest mass.
“He is not an Imâm in `Ilm who follows aberrant (shâdhdh) positions” (`Abd al-Rah.mân ibn Mahdî).

And Allâh knows best.

Notes

[1] Narrated from H.armala by Abû Nu`aym with his chain through Abû Bakr al-âjurrî in H.ilyat al-Awliyâ’ (9:121 #13315=1985 ed. 9:113) and cited by Abû Shâma in al-Bâ`ith `alâ Inkâr al-Bida` wal-H.awâdith (Ryadh 1990 ed. p. 93), Ibn Rajab in Jâmi` al-`Ulûm wal-H.ikam (p. 267=Zuh.aylî ed. 2:52= Arna’ût. ed. 2:131 s.ah.îh.), Ibn H.ajar in Fath. al-Bârî (1959 ed. 13:253), al-Turt.ûshî in al-H.awâdith wa al-Bida` (p. 158-159), and al-Shawkânî, al-Qawl al-Mufîd fî Adillat al-Ijtihâd wa al-Taqlîd (1347/1929 ed. p. 36). `Umar’s report is narrated by Mâlik in al-Muwat.t.a’ and al-Bukhârî in his S.ah.îh.. 

[2] Narrated from al-Rabî` by al-Bayhaqî in his Madkhal and Manâqib al-Shâfi`î (1:469) with a sound chain as stated by Ibn Taymiyya in his Dâr’ Ta`ârud. al-`Aql wa al-Naql (p. 171) and through al-Bayhaqî by Ibn `Asâkir in Tabyîn Kadhib al-Muftarî (Kawtharî ed. p. 97). Cited by al-Dhahabî in the Siyar (8:408), Ibn Rajab in Jâmi` al-`Ulûm wal-H.ikam (p. 267=Zuh.aylî ed. 2:52-53=Arna’ût. ed. 2:131 s.ah.îh.), and Ibn H.ajar in Fath. al-Bârî (1959 ed. 13:253).

[3] Al-Haytamî, al-Tabyîn fî Sharh. al-Arba`în (p. 32).

[4] Ibn al-`Arabî, `ârid.at al-Ah.wadhî (10:147).

[5] Cf. al-Lacknawî, Iqâmat al-H.ujja (p. 12).

[6] Al-Bayhaqî, Manâqib al-Shâfi`î (1:469).

[7] Al-Ghazzâlî, Ih.yâ’ `Ulûm al-Dîn (1:276).

[8] Ibn al-`Arabî, `ârid.at al-Ah.wadhî (10:146-147).

[9] Ibn H.azm, al-Ih.kâm fî Us.ûl al-Ah.kâm (1:47).

[10] Narrated from Jarîr ibn `Abd Allâh al-Bajalî by Muslim, al-Tirmidhî, al-Nasâ’î, Ibn Mâjah, Ah.mad, and al-Dârimî. Also narrated with a similar wording from Abû Hurayra by Ibn Mâjah and Ah.mad; from Abû Juh.ayfa by Ibn Mâjah; and from Hudhayfa by Ah.mad.

[11] Narrated from al-`Irbâd. ibn Sâriya by al-Tirmidhî (h.asan s.ah.îh.), Abû Dâwûd, Ibn Mâjah, Ah.mad, al-Dârimî, Ibn H.ibbân (1:178-179 #5 s.ah.îh.), al-H.âkim (1:95-97=1990 ed. 1:174-177) – declaring it s.ah.îh. while al-Dhahabî confirmed it – and in al-Madkhal ilâ al-S.ah.îh. (p. 80-81), al-âjurrî in al-Sharî`a (p. 54-55 #79-82=p. 46 s.ah.îh.), Ibn Abî `âs.im in al-Sunna (p. 29 #54 s.ah.îh.), al-T.ah.âwî in Mushkil al-âthâr (2:69=3:221-224 #1185-1187 s.ah.îh.), Muh.ammad ibn Nas.r al-Marwazî in al-Sunna (p. 26-27 #69-72 s.ah.îh.), al-H.ârith ibn Abî Usâma in his Musnad (1:197-198), al-Rûyânî in his Musnad (1:439), Abû Nu`aym in H.ilyat al-Awliyâ’ (1985 ed. 5:220-221, 10:115), al-T.abarânî in Musnad al-Shâmiyyîn (1:254, 1:402, 1:446, 2:197, 2:298) and al-Kabîr (18:245-257), al-Bayhaqî in al-Sunan al-Kubrâ (10:114), al-Madkhal (p. 115-116), al-I`tiqâd (p. 229), and Shu`ab al-‘mân (6:67), al-Baghawî who declared it h.asan in Sharh. al-Sunna (1:205 #102 isnâd s.ah.îh.), Ibn al-Athîr in Jâmi` al-Us.ûl (1:187, 1:279), Ibn `Asâkir in al-Arba`în al-Buldâniyya (p. 121), Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhîd (21:278-279) and Jâmi` Bayân al-`Ilm (2:924 #1758) where he declared it s.ah.îh., and others.

[12] Ibn al-Athîr, al-Nihâya (1:79 entry b-d-`).

[13] Ibn `Abd al-Salâm, al-Fatâwâ al-Maws.iliyya (p. 129).

[14] Ibn `Abd al-Salâm, al-Qawâ`id al-Kubrâ (2:337-339) cf. al-Nawawî in al-Adhkâr (Thaqâfiyya ed. p. 237) and Tahdhîb al-Asma’ wal-Lughât (3:20-22), al-Shât.ibî in al-I`tis.âm (Beirut ed. 1:188), al-Kirmânî in al-Kawâkib al-Darârî (9:54), Ibn H.ajar in Fath. al-Bârî (13:253-254), al-Suyût.î, introduction to H.usn al-Maqs.id in al-H.âwî lil-Fatâwâ; al-Haytamî, Fatâwâ H.adîthiyya (p. 150), Ibn `âbidîn, Radd al-Muh.târ (1:376) etc.

[15] Al-Nawawî, Tahdhîb al-Asmâ’ wal-Lughât (3:20-22).

[16] Ibn Hajar, Fath. al-Bârî (1959 ed. 5:156-157=1989 ed. 4:318).

[17] Al-Kirmânî, al-Kawâkib al-Darârî Sharh. S.ah.îh. al-Bukhârî (9:54), Ibn `âbidîn, H.âshiya (1:376, 1:560); al-Turkmânî, al-Luma` fîl-H.awâdith wal-Bida` (Stuttgart, 1986, 1:37); al-Tahânawî, Kashshâf Ist.ilâh.at al-Funûn (Beirut, 1966, 1:133-135); al-`Aynî, `Umdat al-Qârî in al-H.imyarî, al-Bid`at al-H.asana (p. 152-153).

[18] Al-T.urt.ûshî, Kitâb al-H.awâdith wa al-Bida` (p. 15, p. 158-159); Ibn al-H.ajj, Madkhal al-Shar` al-Sharîf (Cairo, 1336/1918 2:115); al-Qarâfî, al-Furûq (4:219) cf. al-Shât.ibî, al-I`tis.âm (1:188-191); al-Zurqânî, Sharh. al-Muwat.t.a’ (1:238). Al-Shât.ibî’s I`tis.âm was recirculated by two Wahhâbîs: Rashîd Rid.â then Salîm Hilâlî. A third Wahhâbî, Muh.ammad `Abd al-Salâm Khad.ir al-Shuqayrî – Rid.â’s student – authored al-Sunan wal-Mubtada`ât al-Muta`alliqa bil-Adhkâr wal-S.alawât which he filled with unverifiable tales which he proceeds to denounce with much ado.

[19] Abû Shâma, al-Bâ`ith `alâ Inkâr al-Bida` wa al-H.awâdith (Riyad: Dâr al-Raya, 1990 p. 93, Cairo ed. p. 12-13) as well as those already mentioned. Note: “consensus” (ijmâ`) is more inclusive than “agreement” (ittifâq), and binding.

[20] Ibn Rajab, al-Jâmi` fîl-`Ulûm wal-H.ikam (2:50-53), and Ibn Taymiyya’s section on bid`a in his Iqtid.â’ al-S.irât. al-Mustaqîm Mukhâlafat As.h.âb al-Jah.îm. This is also the position of Ibn Kathîr: see his commentary of the verse: (The Originator of the heavens and the earth!) (2:117) in his Tafsîr. He followed in this his teacher Ibn Taymiyya.

[21] Bakhît, Fatâwâ H.adîthiyya (p. 205).

[22] Al-Shawkânî, Nayl al-Awt.âr (4:60).

The Hilye of the Prophet Muhammad

Calligraphy presents the thought as the source of the image, not the image as the source of the thought.” — Nabil F. Safwat¹

How does one describe the indescribable? How does one form an image of that which cannot be portrayed? That is what the hilye does–it gives parameters to the imagination so that one can think about the Prophet with a mental or spiritual image to hang onto, yet not attempt to visualize him or portray him in a painting. But the hilye is not an icon in words. As impressive and accurate as the many hilye texts are, they still remain vague, contrary to the claims of literalists, who would reject these texts as being visual portraits. That, of course, would not be acceptable to Muslims.

Hilye² is the Turkish form of the Arabic word hilya, which has several meanings, including physiognomy, natural disposition, likeness, depiction, characterization, and description. But these dictionary definitions only begin to convey the real meaning of the hilye, which embodies the Prophet’s moral, behavioral, and spiritual qualities as well as physical appearance. Like most Arabic words, hilya carries multiple overtones, making it difficult to translate. It has connotations of ornament, beauty, finery, and embellishment. I like to think of a hilya as a beautiful and significant description.

The Hilye in History

Arabic source literature includes hilye texts describing many important figures. Most prominent of these are the hilyes of the Prophet Muhammad and of his four companions–the chahar yar, or four friends, the first four caliphs and successors of the Prophet, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. Interestingly, we also have hilyes for some of the pre-Quranic Biblical prophets. In one of the great works on hilyes, Qasas al-Anbiya, by Tha’labi (d. 1035 AD), we find hilyes for Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, John the Baptist, and Jesus. These are related by the enigmatic figure Ka’b al-Ahbar. A learned Muslim of Jewish, possibly rabbinic, origin and a specialist in Biblical lore, K’ab al-Ahbar was a friend and confidant of Umar and the Prophet’s wife, Aisha.

Oral literature was possibly the highest calling of the ancient Arabs, and long before the hilye was used in calligraphy, it was spoken. What first impresses the reader–or listener–about these texts is their compactness, their terseness. They say as much as possible in a few well-chosen words, some of which are profoundly obscure. In my translations of the texts, for example, I consulted both the commentary of Molla Ali Al-Qari, a Hanafi religious scholar of the early 17th century AD, and the Lisan al-Arab, a lexicon that includes many of the words used in the hilyes. Yet some areas remain ambiguous or open to interpretation.

The wording of hilyes is carefully composed, with the care one would expect from a keen observer of people, one gifted with a finely honed skill in language. In his narration of the hilye, for example, Hind is mentioned as a wassaf, or one who describes. One can hypothesize that Hind had a special gift for this kind of literature, just as some may have a special gift for poetry. Few writers could match these gems of conciseness and beauty, composed as they were with wit, poignancy, intimacy, and rhetorical flourish. These artful descriptions make vivid impressions on the listener or reader. They are quite memorable and played an important part in recalling beloved and respected figures.

Hilyes have some general features in common. They begin with a succinct description of the subject’s physical characteristics, including height, build, complexion, eyes, hair, hands, and gait, then move to the subject’s individual and moral characteristics. Consider, for example, the hilye of Soloman (the prophet Sulayman, in Islamic terms), as told by K’ab al-Ahbar:

Sulayman was of pale complexion; his body was large, very clean and beautiful. He was humble and unpretentious and liked to associate with the poor and would keep company with them. He would say, “The poor must sit with the poor.” During his father Dawud’s reign, his father would consult him because of his advanced intellect and knowledge, which was remarkable considering his young age.

Or take this hilye of Uthman, the third caliph:

Uthman, may God be pleased with him, was of medium stature. He wasn’t short or tall. He had a beautiful face. He was fleshy and had fine skin. He had a thick beard. His head and beard hair were abundant. Because of this, his opponents called him Na’sal [after an Egyptian in Medina with a long beard]. His complexion was swarthy, and he was big boned. He was the beloved friend of the beloved friend [Muhammad] of the All-Merciful God. He collected the Quran [and published it]. He was full of modesty and faith. He died a martyr while reading the Quran.

Another interesting occurrence of the word hilye is in the title of the famous biographical work in Arabic Hilyat al-Awliya, by Abu Nu’aym (d. 1038 AD), which can be translated as “Description (or Depiction) of the Saintly People.” This is an excellent source of information about the early religious figures of Islam and contains much material from their own lips, including, fascinatingly, Ka’b al-Ahbar himself in a long entry.

The Hilyes of the Prophet

The most famous hilye texts, of course, are those that characterize the Prophet Muhammad. In Turkish they are called Hilye-i Saadet (the Hilye of Felicity), Hilye-i Serif (the Noble Hilye), and Hilye-i Nebevi (the Prophetic Hilye). The most popular of these texts for calligraphers is one related by Ali ibn Abi Talib, which I translate as follows:

Transmitted from Ali [son-in-law of the Prophet], may God be pleased with him, who, when asked to describe the Prophet, peace be upon him, would say: He was not too tall nor too short. He was medium sized. His hair was not short and curly, nor was it lank, but in between. His face was not narrow, nor was it fully round, but there was a roundness to it. His skin was white. His eyes were black. He had long eyelashes. He was big-boned and had wide shoulders. He had no body hair except in the middle of his chest. He had thick hands and feet. When he walked, he walked inclined, as if descending a slope. When he looked at someone, he looked at them in full face.

Between his shoulders was the seal of prophecy, the sign that he was the last of the prophets. He was the most generous-hearted of men, the most truthful of them in speech, the most mild-tempered of them, and the noblest of them in lineage. Whoever saw him unexpectedly was in awe of him. And whoever associated with him familiarly, loved him. Anyone who would describe him would say, I never saw, before him or after him, the like of him. Peace be upon him.

The most comprehensive hilye text is found in the great work on the Prophet by Al-Qadi Iyad (d. 1149). Here it is, in its fullest version:

Al-Hasan, son of Ali [May God be pleased with both of them] said: “I asked my uncle Hind, son of Abu Hala about the hilye [description] of the Prophet of God, my peace and blessings be upon him. Hind was known to be a prolific describer of the Prophet, and I wished him to relate some of it for me so I might hold fast to it.”

So Hind said: “The Prophet of God, peace be upon him, was of mighty significance to God, and profoundly honored among the people. His face radiated light like the moon on its fullest night. He was a bit taller than the medium stature and a bit shorter than the tall and skinny. His head was large. His hair was wavy. If his hair parted, he would leave it parted, if not he would leave it, and it would not be long enough to pass his earlobes. His complexion was fair. He had a wide forehead, arched, thick eyebrows with a space between them. There was a vein between them that would swell and pulse when he was angry. His nose was aquiline; it had a brightness about the upper part that led those who were less observant to think him haughty. He had a thick beard. His eyes were very black and the whites very white. His cheeks were not prominent, he had a wide mouth. His teeth were white and there was a space between his front teeth.

“There was a fine line of hair on his chest, and it was as if it were an ivory statue with the purity of silver. His figure was well proportioned, full bodied and strong. There was no slackness in his musculature, his chest didn’t protrude over his belly, nor the reverse. His chest was broad and his shoulders wide and muscular. He had large limbs. The parts of his body that could be seen while he was clothed were luminous. His body from the neck to the navel was joined by hair which flowed down like a line. There was no hair on his nipples. His forearms, shoulders, and upper chest were hairy. The bones of his forearms were long. His palms were wide and generous. His hands and feet were thick. His limbs were long. He had long sinews. His insteps were high. His feet were smooth without protuberances and water would run off of them. When he would move off, he would move with determination. He would step surely and unhurriedly and not proudly. He walked gently and with dignity, and he would take wide steps when he wanted to walk quickly. When he walked, it was as if he were descending from a slope and when he would look at someone, he would turn to him fully. He would lower his gaze and look down more often than up. He didn’t stare. He would lead his companions by walking behind them out of modesty and would always be the first to greet them.”

At this point, Al-Hasan said to Hind, “Describe to me the way he spoke.”

Hind said, “The Prophet of God, peace and blessings be upon him, was continually full of concern. He was constantly deep in thought. He had no rest, and would not speak without a reason. He would be silent for long periods of time. He would begin conversations, and end them clearly and distinctly and would speak in a way that combined many meanings in few words. He spoke with excellence, and there was no excess in it, nor unnatural brevity. He was gentle by nature and not coarse, nor was he contemptuous of anyone. He would extol the favors he received, even when they were few and small. He never found fault with them. He never criticized the food or drink that was prepared for him, nor did he overly praise it. No one would stand against his anger when matters of the Lord’s truth were opposed, until he had triumphed, but he would never get angry for his own sake, nor would he ever seek to win such an argument. He would gesture with his whole palm, to point. When he was astonished, he would make his palm face upwards. He used his hands frequently as he spoke, and would strike his left palm with his right thumb. When he would get angry, he would turn away and avert his gaze, and when he was full of joy he would lower his eyes. Most of his laughing was as smiling; when he did laugh, it was not loud, and he would show his teeth a bit like they were hailstones.”

Al-Hasan said, “I kept this report to myself, away from [my brother] Al-Husayn for awhile, then I told it to him, but he had already heard it and found out even more. He had asked our father [Ali] about the way the Prophet of God, peace be upon him, was at home, when he went out in his assemblies, and about his way of living.” Al-Hasan left nothing of this out.

Al-Husayn said, “I asked my father [Ali], may God be pleased with him, about how the Prophet of God, peace be upon him, was at home.”

He [Ali] said, “He always asked permission to enter his home, from God, and those within. When at home, he would divide his time into three parts, one for God, one for his family, and one for himself. Then he would divide his own portion between himself and the people. His elite companions would mostly share this time with him, and they would convey his words to the common people. He would hold nothing back from them, neither knowledge or worldly things. It was his way to prefer the people of excellence, according to their merit in religious matters. Among the people there were those with a need, those with two needs, and those with many needs. He would work with them, and he would occupy them and the community in general with that which would improve their situations. This he would do by asking about them and their needs, and informing them what they ought to do. He would say, ‘Let the one who is present among you inform the one who is absent, and bring to me the need of he who is unable to tell me himself. Truly, the one who informs a person of authority of the need of one who is unable to convey it himself, God will make firm his feet on the day of judgment.’ This was the kind of topic mentioned in his presence, and he didn’t accept anything else from anyone [he didn’t like meaningless conversation and liked to talk about how to help people].”

Ali then said, in the hadith of Sufyan Ibn Waki: “They would come as scouts [seeking decisions or knowledge], and they would not go on their way until they had found what they sought, and then they would leave as guides and learned people.”

I said [Husayn to his father Ali], “Tell me about his going out and how he acted outside.”

Ali said, “The Prophet of God, peace and blessings upon him, would hold his tongue except in matters which concerned his companions. He would encourage affection and concord between them and would say nothing to alienate one from another. He honored the nobles of every people who would come to him and make them their leaders. He would be wary around some people and on his guard against them [especially nomads], but he would never withhold from anyone his open-faced friendliness and fine personality. He would ask his companions about their situations, and he would ask people about what was going on amongst them. He would approve of that which was good and advocate it, and he would denounce that which was base and discourage it.

“Everything he did was in moderation, without excess or contrariness. He was not thoughtless, out of fear that those who came to him would become unmindful or weary. He was prepared for every situation in this world and the next. He didn’t fail to fulfill what was right, and he didn’t overstep his authority in regards to those near him. The most meritorious and excellent people to him were those whose advice was most universal; the most significant of them to him were those most beneficial to others, and the most helpful in helping others bear their burdens.”

Then Al-Husayn said, “Then I asked him [Ali] about his gatherings and about what he did in them, and he said: “The Prophet of God, peace be upon him, did not sit down or stand up without mentioning God, nor did he reserve for himself fixed places among the people to be seated, and he forbade others also to reserve places for themselves [especially in mosques and public gatherings]. When he would go to visit a group, he would sit in the nearest available spot, and ordered that others follow this practice. He would give those seated near him his full share of attention in such a way that no one would think others had been given precedence over him. Whenever someone he would be sitting with would tell him of his needs, he would bear with that person until that person left him. When someone would ask him to solve a problem, he would not turn him away without solving it for him, if possible, or saying a comforting word or a prayer for its fulfillment. His cheerfulness and open personality were felt by all the people, and he became like a father to them. They came to have the right of mercy and compassion from him, as they were close, like the relation of parent and child, distinguished only by virtue and devotion to God. And in another narrative, they became equals regarding their rights in his eyes.

“Assemblies with him were gatherings of gentleness, dignified conduct, modesty, patience, and trust. No voice would be raised, nor would women be spoken of in a depraved way, nor would peoples’ errors be mentioned. [This last item comes via different narrations.] They inclined to each other in affection out of devotion to God, as humble people. In these gatherings, the old were honored, the young were treated with gentleness. They would come to the aid of the needy and would have compassion for the stranger.”

And then I asked him [Ali] about the Messenger’s conduct among his close associates and servants.

[Ali] said: “The Prophet of God, peace be upon him, was unfailingly cheerful, easy going by nature, and mild mannered. He was neither crude nor coarse . He was not a clamorous loudmouth, nor a repeater of obscenities. He was not one to find faults in others, nor did he overly praise them either. He was unconcerned about what he did not want, and this did not bother him. He allowed his soul no portion of three things – hypocrisy, acquisitiveness, and that which did not concern him. He did not allow himself to engage in three things regarding people – he would not criticize others, he would not revile anyone, and he would not seek out others’ faults. He would speak of nothing unless he hoped a reward from God for it. When he would talk, the ones sitting with him would be so still and quiet, you would imagine birds were sitting on their heads. When he was silent, they would talk, but not quarrel in his presence. When one of them would talk, they would all listen attentively until he had finished. They would speak about a subject that was brought up by the first to speak until they had finished with it. He would laugh at what they laughed at, and he would be amazed by what amazed them. He was patient with the stranger who had roughness in his speech. He would say, ‘Whenever you see someone seeking to solve a problem, help him out.’ He did not seek praise, except to be spoken of appropriately. He wouldn’t interrupt another’s speech unless it got excessive or too long, then he would end it or get up to leave.”

Here ends the hadith of Sufyan IbnWaki. Through other narrators, Al-Hasan continues in the words of his brother Al-Husayn. I said [to Ali], “What was the silence of the Prophet of God [peace upon him] like?”

He said, “His silences were for four situations: forbearance, caution, estimation, and contemplation. As for his estimation, it was to take an impartial study of events and listen to the people in order to be just. As for his contemplation, it was about what was eternal and what was transitory. His forbearance was part of his patience, he was not angered by that which was provocative. His caution was for four reasons – taking good speech or action into consideration so he might use it in an exemplary way; abjuring the ugly and bad so it would be left alone; exerting his judgment to improve the situation of his community; [and] establishing ways to maintain the good order of his community in regard to this world and the next.”

The description is finished, with thanks and praise to God for His aid.

From the same work is a shorter, very intriguing hilye text:

Hilal related to us, from Ata Bin Yasar. He said: “I met Abdullah ibn Amr ibn Al-As, and I said, ‘Tell me about the description of the Prophet of God, peace be upon him.’”

He said, “Yes, certainly. By God, he was described in the Torah³ in some ways as in the Quran, ‘O Prophet, we have sent you as a witness, a bringer of good tidings, and a warner’ and as a protector of the weak. You are my servant and prophet. I have named you The One Who Relies.

“He was not crude, nor was he coarse, nor was he one to shout and make a lot of noise in the marketplace. He did not answer an evil deed with another, but he would pardon and forgive. He would not be taken by God until he had straightened out the crooked people, until they would confess there was no divinity but God, and open blind eyes and deaf ears and closed hearts. O God, grant mercy and peace to our master Muhammad and his family.”

Other hilye texts exist, such as those related by Umm Ma’bad and Abu Hurayra. Both of these have been calligraphed by Ottoman artists in the 19th century. In 1897, the Ottoman calligrapher Bakkal Arif Efendi, a refugee from Bulgaria, was commissioned by the Ottoman Printing House to write a large hilye in Turkish. Its text was composed by the Ottoman statesman, poet, and author Jevdet Mehmet Pasha. Displaying a hilye in the home, workplace, or mosque was believed to provide a blessed environment, but a hand-made levha, or panel of calligraphy, was expensive. A beautifully printed version made the hilye accessible to people of lesser means.

The Hilye in Calligraphic Art

The first hilyes to be produced as an art form were, as far as we can tell, by the great Ottoman calligrapher Hafiz Osman Efendi (the Second Sheikh, 1644-98 AD). He took the hilye text from Iman Tirmidhi’s Ash-Shama’il al-Muhammadiya and composed it in the configuration we now associate with the hilye. At the top is the Besmele–that is, the text “In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful,” often prefixed by the words “It is from Suleyman, and it is …” In the center, generally within a crescent shape, is the main text, surrounded by the names of the Prophet’s four main companions, the first four successors. Under this is a Quranic ayat, or verse, usually, “We did not send you [Muhammad] except as a mercy to the universe,” or occasionally, “Truly, you are of a tremendous nature.” The remainder of the text follows, ending in supplications to the Prophet, plus the calligrapher’s signature and date. Very rarely, the whole work is finished with a hadith qudsi (that is, a holy saying direct from God): “Were it not for you, were it not for you, I would not have created the starry heavens.” ⁴

In the art of calligraphy, this form has been very significant, most often written in Sulus and Nesih scripts, both small and large versions. The work is also done in Nestalik script; the first to do so was Mehmed Es’ad Yesari Efendi (d. 1789 AD).

Largely ignored outside of Ottoman Turkey, the hilye was a beloved and honored work there. It is still an important part of the calligrapher’s repertoire. It is common for calligraphy students to compose a hilye when they are ready to receive the icazet, or diploma. My case was typical. In 1988, my teacher, Hasan Celebi, informed me that I was ready to receive the icazet and told me to write the text but not to sign it. When I finished the text and sent it to him, he wrote the icazet text under it. He then took the piece to another calligrapher, Sheikh Mustafa Bekir, who, after examining it, wrote to the left of the icazet text the taskik–confirmation of the icazet. The piece was then illuminated by Hasan Celebi’s son, Mustafa, one of the most prominent illuminators in Turkey. Finally, it was presented to me at a ceremony at the headquarters of the Research Centre for Islamic History, Art, and Culture in Istanbul.

There is nothing in the art of Islamic calligraphy quite like illuminating a hilye. It is a challenging and daunting undertaking, due to the composition’s complex structure and layout. It requires careful planning to bring balance and harmony to the work as a whole and to avoid creating focal spots, which are not appropriate in classical Islamic calligraphy.

Attempts have been made to produce hilyes in other forms and layouts. Sometimes, for example, the hilye is executed in a small, folding, portable format, or album, as was done by Mehmed Shevki Efendi (1827-87 AD). In addition, Kadiasker Mustafa Izzet (d. 1876 AD) and Hasan Riza Efendi (d. 1920 AD) produced magnificent large-format hilyes, some over four feet in height. Other departures from the traditional format, however, were garish or kitschy in design and have become historical curiosities of little merit.

The Significance of the Hilye

In the Hind hilye, Al-Hasan, grandson of the Prophet, said, “I asked my uncle Hind, son of Abu Hala, about the Hilye of the Prophet of God so I might hold fast to it.” I believe this is a clue to the hilye concept. Most Muslims and historians of Islam know about the Prophet and his life, which is an open book. He is a daily presence and memory, showing us through his life and teachings the way to the well-lived life and thus the way to God. Muslims love Muhammad and commend him for always doing the right thing, even at his own expense. They appreciate his directness and clarity, his courtliness and manliness, his warmth and bravery. They sympathize with his terrors during the first revelations of the Quran and empathize with the huge burden he had to bear. But they do not and cannot adore him. Adoration is reserved for the Creator alone.

An interesting but questionable hadith, which was thought to be genuine until recently, may shed some light on the significance of the hilye. The Prophet said, “He who sees my hilye after me, it is as if he had actually seen me, and he who sees it out of love and desire for me, God will forbid the fire of Hell to touch him. He will be safe from the trials of the grave, and he will not be sent forth naked on the day of resurrection.” This hadith, whatever its status, refers, of course, not to the calligraphic composition of the hilye but to the physical, moral, and spiritual description of the Prophet.

Reading, or even simply viewing, a well-produced hilye can refresh the heart and mind. It gives us, so many generations later, a kind of intimacy with the Prophet, as though we had known him. To see him in this way is to allow him to show the way.

In an authentic hadith, the Prophet said, “He who has seen me in a dream, has seen the truth.” His presence must have been so striking that people saw right through him to the prophetical truth he taught. After his death, people wanted to remember him, and these hilye texts must have been very helpful in retaining a “memory vignette” his companions could pass to future generations.

Since the death of the Prophet, a substantial literature has developed devoted to the things he said and did (hadith) and, later, to his life and times and the circumstances of his prophecy (sira). The hilyes fit into this framework as they answer the questions, “What was he like? What kind of human being was he?”

Hollywood has done prophets a considerable injustice. They are depicted on screen as ranting, ill-clad madmen, flaky revolutionaries, or effete wise men. The hilyes offer a better picture of a prophet–of the one who claimed to be the last prophet. Images fixed in the imagination by countless Biblical epics, while often entertaining, do not prepare the mind for the depiction of an actual prophet that we find in the hilye texts–nor does the image (or non-image) portrayed in the movie “The Message,” which characterizes Muhammad as a 1960s-style social revolutionary.

In the hilyes we find a man who was not physically remarkable, yet attractive to all who saw him–a man who stood out among his peers. He was a man of humility but not humble; a man who was complex yet straightforward. He made time for his family, his friends, and his social responsibilities but left private time for himself and God. He loved the company of women, and he liked a good joke, but he didn’t laugh too much, nor was he quick to anger. He was neither a braggart nor a ranter. He said what he meant and said it eloquently, and there wasn’t an inch of hypocrisy in him. He was the Prophet of God, the model for mankind, yet he did not boast of it. He made it abundantly clear that high ideals never justified bad behavior. He had to deal with the social and theological implications of an idolatry far more terrible in its lumpen banality, its home-made weirdness, than the fire-belching Baals and Molochs of DeMille, and all in 21 years.

Muhammad was such a guide to spiritual truth that his wife Aisha said of him, “His personality was the Quran.”

It is not part of the truth to be Arab or Afghan, Persian, Turk, or American. Religion is to seek the truth and try to live by it. Muslims believe that Muhammad ushered in the adulthood of humanity: Islam would be enough. It is the privilege of the calligrapher to honor this man through art. Returning over and over to these hilyes, these eyewitness accounts, one can savor the wonder of the Prophet and the awesome mystery of the Creator.

Copyright 2002, Mohamed Zakariya. This text may not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form without permission from the author.

1 Safwat, Nabil F. The Art of the Pen: Calligraphy of the 14th to 20th Centuries, volume 5 of the Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art. (London: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 47.

2 Because the word has become known to connoisseurs and historians of Islamic art primarily through calligraphic works composed by Ottoman calligraphers, I prefer to use the more easily pronounced Turkish version of the word, hilye, rather than the Arabic hilya, with its hard h. (Although the hilye occasionally appears in Persian art, it is nearly completely ignored in other Islamic art traditions.)

3 See Isaiah 42:1-4 for a remarkable confluence of meanings.

4 In his book on popular hadiths, the 18th century scholar al-Ajluni says this one was found to have been forged, yet in his opinion it is sound in meaning even if not an authentic Hadith

 By Mohamed Zakariya

Understanding the four madhabs

The ummah’s greatest achievement over the past millennium has undoubtedly been its internal intellectual cohesion. From the fifth century of the Hijra almost to the present day, and despite the outward drama of the clash of dynasties, the Sunni Muslims have maintained an almost unfailing attitude of religious respect and brotherhood among themselves. It is a striking fact that virtually no religious wars, riots or persecutions divided them during this extended period, so difficult in other ways.

The history of religious movements suggests that this is an unusual outcome. The normal sociological view, as expounded by Max Weber and his disciples, is that religions enjoy an initial period of unity, and then descend into an increasingly bitter factionalism led by rival hierarchies. Christianity has furnished the most obvious example of this; but one could add many others, including secular faiths such as Marxism. On the face of it, Islam’s ability to avoid this fate is astonishing, and demands careful analysis.

There is, of course, a straightforwardly religious explanation. Islam is the final religion, the last bus home, and as such has been divinely secured from the more terminal forms of decay. It is true that what Abdul Wadod Shalabi has termed ‘spiritual entropy’[1] has been at work ever since Islam’s inauguration, a fact which is well-supported by a number of hadiths. Nonetheless, Providence has not neglected the ummah. Earlier religions slide gently or painfully into schism and irrelevance; but Islamic piety, while fading in quality, has been given mechanisms which allow it to retain much of the sense of unity emphasised in its glory days. Wherever the antics of the emirs and politicians might lead, the brotherhood of believers, a reality in the initial career of Christianity and some other faiths, continues, fourteen hundred years on, to be a compelling principle for most members of the final and definitive community of revelation in Islam. The reason is simple and unarguable: God has given us this religion as His last word, and it must therefore endure, with its essentials of tawhid, worship and ethics intact, until the Last Days.

Such an explanation has obvious merit. But we will still need to explain some painful exceptions to the rule in the earliest phase of our history. The Prophet himself (pbuh) had told his Companions, in a hadith narrated by Imam Tirmidhi, that “Whoever among you outlives me shall see a vast dispute”. The initial schisms: the disastrous revolt against Uthman (r.a.)[2], the clash between Ali (r.a.) and Talha, and then with Mu`awiyah[3], the bloody scissions of the Kharijites[4] – all these drove knives of discord into the Muslim body politic almost from the outset. Only the inherent sanity and love of unity among scholars of the ummah assisted, no doubt, by Providence overcame the early spasms of factionalism, and created a strong and harmonious Sunnism which has, at least on the purely religious plane, united ninety percent of the ummah for ninety percent of its history.[5]

It will help us greatly to understand our modern, increasingly divided situation if we look closely at those forces which divided us in the distant past. There were many of these, some of them very eccentric; but only two took the form of mass popular movements, driven by religious ideology, and in active rebellion against majoritarian faith and scholarship. For good reasons, these two acquired the names of Kharijism and Shi’ism. Unlike Sunnism, both were highly productive of splinter groups and sub-movements; but they nonetheless remained as recognisable traditions of dissidence because of their ability to express the two great divergences from mainstream opinion on the key question of the source of religious authority in Islam.

Confronted with what they saw as moral slippage among early caliphs, posthumous partisans of Ali (r.a.) developed a theory of religious authority which departed from the older egalitarian assumptions by vesting it in a charismatic succession of Imams. We need not stop here to investigate the question of whether this idea was influenced by the Eastern Christian background of some early converts, who had been nourished on the idea of the mystical apostolic succession to Christ, a gift which supposedly gave the Church the unique ability to read his mind for later generations. What needs to be appreciated is that Shi’ism, in its myriad forms, developed as a response to a widely-sensed lack of definitive religious authority in early Islamic society. As the age of the Righteous Caliphs came to a close, and the Umayyad rulers departed ever more conspicuously from the lifestyle expected of them as Commanders of the Faithful, the sharply-divergent and still nascent schools of fiqh seemed inadequate as sources of strong and unambiguous authority in religious matters. Hence the often irresistible seductiveness of the idea of an infallible Imam.[6]

This interpretation of the rise of Imamism also helps to explain the second great phase in Shi’i expansion. After the success of the fifth-century Sunni revival, when Sunnism seemed at last to have become a fully coherent system, Shi’ism went into a slow eclipse. Its extreme wing, as manifested in Ismailism, received a heavy blow at the hands of Imam al-Ghazali, whose book “Scandals of the Batinites” exposed and refuted their secret doctrines with devastating force.[7] This decline in Shi’i fortunes was only arrested after the mid-seventh century, once the Mongol hordes under Genghis Khan had invaded and obliterated the central lands of Islam. The onslaught was unimaginably harsh: we are told, for instance, that out of a hundred thousand former inhabitants of the city of Herat, only forty survivors crept out of the smoking ruins to survey the devastation.[8] In the wake of this tidal wave of mayhem, newly-converted Turcoman nomads moved in, who, with the Sunni ulama of the cities dead, and a general atmosphere of fear, turbulence, and Messianic expectation in the air, turned readily to extremist forms of Shi’i belief.[9] The triumph of Shi’ism in Iran, a country once loyal to Sunnism, dates back to that painful period.[10]

The other great dissident movement in early Islam was that of the Kharijites, literally, the seceders, so-called because they seceded from the army of the Caliph Ali when he agreed to settle his dispute with Muawiyah through arbitration. Calling out the Quranic slogan, “Judgement is only Gods”, they fought bitterly against Ali and his army which included many of the leading Companions, until, in the year 38, Imam Ali defeated them at the Battle of Nahrawan, where some ten thousand of them perished.[11]

Although the first Kharijites were destroyed, Kharijism itself lived on. As it formulated itself, it turned into the precise opposite of Shi’ism, rejecting any notion of inherited or charismatic leadership, and stressing that leadership of the community of believers should be decided by piety alone. This was assessed by very rudimentary criteria: the early Kharijites were known for extreme toughness in their devotions, and for the harsh doctrine that any Muslim who commits a major sin is an unbeliever. This notion of takfir (declaring Muslims to be outside Islam), permitted the Kharijite groups, camping out in remote mountain districts of Khuzestan, to raid Muslim settlements which had accepted Umayyad authority. Non-Kharijis were routinely slaughtered in these operations, which brought merciless reprisals from tough Umayyad generals such as al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. But despite the apparent hopelessness of their cause, the Kharijite attacks continued. The Caliph Ali (r.a.) was assassinated by Ibn Muljam, a survivor of Nahrawan, while the hadith scholar Imam al-Nasai, author of one of the most respected collections of sunan, was likewise murdered by Kharijite fanatics in Damascus in 303/915.[12]

Like Shi’ism, Kharijism caused much instability in Iraq and Central Asia, and on occasion elsewhere, until the fourth and fifth centuries of Islam. At that point, something of historic moment occurred. Sunnism managed to unite itself into a detailed system that was now so well worked-out, and so obviously the way of the great majority of ulama, that the attraction of the rival movements diminished sharply.

What happened was this. Sunni Islam, occupying the middle ground between the two extremes of egalitarian Kharijism and hierarchical Shi’ism, had long been preoccupied with disputes over its own concept of authority. For the Sunnis, authority was, by definition, vested in the Quran and Sunnah. But confronted with the enormous body of hadiths, which had been scattered in various forms and narrations throughout the length and breadth of the Islamic world following the migrations of the Companions and Followers, the Sunnah sometimes proved difficult to interpret. Even when the sound hadiths had been sifted out from this great body of material, which totalled several hundred thousand hadith reports, there were some hadiths which appeared to conflict with each other, or even with verses of the Quran. It was obvious that simplistic approaches such as that of the Kharijites, namely, establishing a small corpus of hadiths and deriving doctrines and law from them directly, was not going to work. The internal contradictions were too numerous, and the interpretations placed on them too complex, for the qadis (judges) to be able to dish out judgements simply by opening the Quran and hadith collections to an appropriate page.

The reasons underlying cases of apparent conflict between various revealed texts were scrutinised closely by the early ulama, often amid sustained debate between brilliant minds backed up with the most perfect photographic memories. Much of the science of Islamic jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh) was developed in order to provide consistent mechanisms for resolving such conflicts in a way which ensured fidelity to the basic ethos of Islam. The term taarud al-adilla (mutual contradiction of proof-texts) is familiar to all students of Islamic jurisprudence as one of the most sensitive and complex of all Muslim legal concepts.[13] Early scholars such as Ibn Qutayba felt obliged to devote whole books to the subject.[14]

The ulama of usul recognised as their starting assumption that conflicts between the revealed texts were no more than conflicts of interpretation, and could not reflect inconsistencies in the Lawgiver’s message as conveyed by the Prophet (pbuh). The message of Islam had been perfectly conveyed before his demise; and the function of subsequent scholars was exclusively one of interpretation, not of amendment.

Armed with this awareness, the Islamic scholar, when examining problematic texts, begins by attempting a series of preliminary academic tests and methods of resolution. The system developed by the early ulama was that if two Quranic or hadith texts appeared to contradict each other, then the scholar must first analyse the texts linguistically, to see if the contradiction arises from an error in interpreting the Arabic. If the contradiction cannot be resolved by this method, then he must attempt to determine, on the basis of a range of textual, legal and historiographic techniques, whether one of them is subject to takhsis, that is, concerns special circumstances only, and hence forms a specific exception to the more general principle enunciated in the other text.[15] The jurist must also assess the textual status of the reports, recalling the principle that a Quranic verse will overrule a hadith related by only one isnad (the type of hadith known as ahad), as will a hadith supplied by many isnads (mutawatir or mashhur).[16] If, after applying all these mechanisms, the jurist finds that the conflict remains, he must then investigate the possibility that one of the texts was subject to formal abrogation (naskh) by the other.

This principle of naskh is an example of how, when dealing with the delicate matter of taarud al-adilla, the Sunni ulama founded their approach on textual policies which had already been recognised many times during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh). The Companions knew by ijma that over the years of the Prophets ministry, as he taught and nurtured them, and brought them from the wildness of paganism to the sober and compassionate path of monotheism, his teaching had been divinely shaped to keep pace with their development. The best-known instance of this was the progressive prohibition of wine, which had been discouraged by an early Quranic verse, then condemned, and finally prohibited.[17] Another example, touching an even more basic principle, was the canonical prayer, which the early ummah had been obliged to say only twice daily, but which, following the Miraj, was increased to five times a day.[18] Mutah (temporary marriage) had been permitted in the early days of Islam, but was subsequently prohibited as social conditions developed, respect for women grew, and morals became firmer.[19] There are several other instances of this, most being datable to the years immediately following the Hijra, when the circumstances of the young ummah changed in radical ways.

There are two types of naskh: explicit (sarih) or implicit (dimni).[20] The former is easily identified, for it involves texts which themselves specify that an earlier ruling is being changed. For instance, there is the verse in the Quran (2:142) which commands the Muslims to turn in prayer to the Kaba rather than to Jerusalem.[21] In the hadith literature this is even more frequently encountered; for example, in a hadith narrated by Imam Muslim we read: “I used to forbid you to visit graves; but you should now visit them.”[22] Commenting on this, the ulama of hadith explain that in early Islam, when idolatrous practices were still fresh in peoples memories, visiting graves had been forbidden because of the fear that some new Muslims might commit shirk. As the Muslims grew stronger in their monotheism, however, this prohibition was discarded as no longer necessary, so that today it is a recommended practice for Muslims to go out to visit graves in order to pray for the dead and to be reminded of the akhira.[23]

The other type of naskh is more subtle, and often taxed the brilliance of the early ulama to the limit. It involves texts which cancel earlier ones, or modify them substantially, but without actually stating that this has taken place. The ulama have given many examples of this, including the two verses in Surat al-Baqarah which give differing instructions as to the period for which widows should be maintained out of an estate (2:240 and 234).[24] And in the hadith literature, there is the example of the incident in which the Prophet (pbuh) once told the Companions that when he prayed sitting because he was burdened by some illness, they should sit behind him. This hadith is given by Imam Muslim. And yet we find another hadith, also narrated by Muslim, which records an incident in which the Companions prayed standing while the Prophet (pbuh) was sitting. The apparent contradiction has been resolved by careful chronological analysis, which shows that the latter incident took place after the former, and therefore takes precedence over it.[25] This has duly been recorded in the fiqh of the great scholars.

The techniques of naskh identification have enabled the ulama to resolve most of the recognised cases of taarud al-adilla. They demand a rigorous and detailed knowledge not just of the hadith disciplines, but of history, sirah, and of the views held by the Companions and other scholars on the circumstances surrounding the genesis and exegesis of the hadith in question. In some cases, hadith scholars would travel throughout the Islamic world to locate the required information pertinent to a single hadith.[26]

In cases where in spite of all efforts, abrogation cannot be proven, then the ulama of the salaf recognised the need to apply further tests. Important among these is the analysis of the matn (the transmitted text rather than the isnad of the hadith).[27] Clear (sarih) statements are deemed to take precedence over allusive ones (kinayah), and definite (muhkam) words take precedence over words falling into more ambiguous categories, such as the interpreted (mufassar), the obscure (khafi) and the problematic (mushkil).[28] It may also be necessary to look at the position of the narrators of the conflicting hadiths, giving precedence to the report issuing from the individual who was more directly involved. A famous example of this is the hadith narrated by Maymunah which states that the Prophet (pbuh) married her when not in a state of consecration (ihram) for the pilgrimage. Because her report was that of an eyewitness, her hadith is given precedence over the conflicting report from Ibn Abbas, related by a similarly sound isnad, which states that the Prophet was in fact in a state of ihram at the time.[29]

There are many other rules, such as that which states that ‘prohibition takes precedence over permissibility.’[30] Similarly, conflicting hadiths may be resolved by utilising the fatwa of a Companion, after taking care that all the relevant fatwa are compared and assessed.[31] Finally, recourse may be had to qiyas (analogy).[32] An example of this is the various reports about the solar eclipse prayer (salat al-kusuf), which specify different numbers of bowings and prostrations. The ulama, having investigated the reports meticulously, and having been unable to resolve the contradiction by any of the mechanisms outlined above, have applied analogical reasoning by concluding that since the prayer in question is still called salaat, then the usual form of salaat should be followed, namely, one bowing and two prostrations. The other hadiths are to be abandoned.[33]

This careful articulation of the methods of resolving conflicting source-texts, so vital to the accurate derivation of the Shariah from the revealed sources, was primarily the work of Imam al-Shafi’i. Confronted by the confusion and disagreement among the jurists of his day, and determined to lay down a consistent methodology which would enable a fiqh to be established in which the possibility of error was excluded as far as was humanly possible, Shafi’i wrote his brilliant Risala (Treatise on Islamic jurisprudence). His ideas were soon taken up, in varying ways, by jurists of the other major traditions of law; and today they are fundamental to the formal application of the Shariah.[34]

Shafi’i’s system of minimising mistakes in the derivation of Islamic rulings from the mass of evidence came to be known as usul al-fiqh (the roots of fiqh). Like most of the other formal academic disciplines of Islam, this was not an innovation in the negative sense, but a working-out of principles already discernible in the time of the earliest Muslims. In time, each of the great interpretative traditions of Sunni Islam codified its own variation on these roots, thereby yielding in some cases divergent branches (i.e. specific rulings on practice). Although the debates generated by these divergences could sometimes be energetic, nonetheless, they were insignificant when compared to the great sectarian and legal disagreements which had arisen during the first two centuries of Islam before the science of usul al-fiqh had put a stop to such chaotic discord.

It hardly needs remarking that although the Four Imams, Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas, al-Shafi’i and Ibn Hanbal, are regarded as the founders of these four great traditions, which, if we were asked to define them, we might sum up as sophisticated techniques for avoiding innovation, their traditions were fully systematised only by later generations of scholars. The Sunni ulama rapidly recognised the brilliance of the Four Imams, and after the late third century of Islam we find that hardly any scholars adhered to any other approach. The great hadith specialists, including al-Bukhari and Muslim, were all loyal adherents of one or another of the madhhabs, particularly that of Imam al-Shafi’i. But within each madhhab, leading scholars continued to improve and refine the roots and branches of their school. In some cases, historical conditions made this not only possible, but necessary. For instance, scholars of the school of Imam Abu Hanifah, which was built on the foundations of the early legal schools of Kufa and Basra, were wary of some hadiths in circulation in Iraq because of the prevalence of forgery engendered by the strong sectarian influences there. Later, however, once the canonical collections of Bukhari, Muslim and others became available, subsequent generations of Hanafi scholars took the entire corpus of hadiths into account in formulating and revising their madhhab. This type of process continued for two centuries, until the Schools reached a condition of maturity in the fourth and fifth centuries of the Hijra.[35]

It was at that time, too, that the attitude of toleration and good opinion between the Schools became universally accepted. This was formulated by Imam al-Ghazali, himself the author of four textbooks of Shafi’i fiqh,[36] and also of Al-Mustasfa, widely acclaimed as the most advanced and careful of all works on usul, usul al-fiqh fil madhhab. With his well-known concern for sincerity, and his dislike of ostentatious scholarly rivalry, he strongly condemned what he falled ‘fanatical attachment to a madhhab’.[37] While it was necessary for the Muslim to follow a recognised madhhab in order to avert the lethal danger of misinterpreting the sources, he must never fall into the trap of considering his own school categorically superior to the others. With a few insignificant exceptions in the late Ottoman period, the great scholars of Sunni Islam have followed the ethos outlined by Imam al-Ghazali, and have been conspicuously respectful of each others madhhab. Anyone who has studied under traditional ulama will be well-aware of this fact.[38]

The evolution of the Four Schools did not stifle, as some Orientalists have suggested,[39] the capacity for the refinement or extension of positive law.[40] On the contrary, sophisticated mechanisms were available which not only permitted qualified individuals to derive the Shariah from the Quran and Sunnah on their own authority, but actually obliged them to do this. According to most scholars, an expert who has fully mastered the sources and fulfilled a variety of necessary scholarly conditions is not permitted to follow the prevalent rulings of his School, but must derive the rulings himself from the revealed sources. Such an individual is known as a mujtahid,[41] a term derived from the famous hadith of Muadh ibn Jabal.[42]

Few would seriously deny that for a Muslim to venture beyond established expert opinion and have recourse directly to the Quran and Sunnah, he must be a scholar of great eminence. The danger of less-qualified individuals misunderstanding the sources and hence damaging the Shariah is a very real one, as was shown by the discord and strife which afflicted some early Muslims, and even some of the Companions themselves, in the period which preceded the establishment of the Orthodox Schools. Prior to Islam, entire religions had been subverted by inadequate scriptural scholarship, and it was vital that Islam should be secured from a comparable fate.

In order to protect the Shariah from the danger of innovation and distortion, the great scholars of usul laid down rigorous conditions which must be fulfilled by anyone wishing to claim the right of ijtihad for himself.[43] These conditions include:

(a) mastery of the Arabic language, to minimise the possibility of misinterpreting Revelation on purely linguistic grounds;

(b) a profound knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah and the circumstances surrounding the revelation of each verse and hadith, together with a full knowledge of the Quranic and hadith commentaries, and a control of all the interpretative techniques discussed above;

(c) knowledge of the specialised disciplines of hadith, such as the assessment of narrators and of the matn [text];

(d) knowledge of the views of the Companions, Followers and the great imams, and of the positions and reasoning expounded in the textbooks of fiqh, combined with the knowledge of cases where a consensus (ijma) has been reached;

(e) knowledge of the science of juridical analogy (qiyas), its types and conditions;

(f) knowledge of ones own society and of public interest (maslahah);

(g) knowing the general objectives (maqasid) of the Shariah;

(h) a high degree of intelligence and personal piety, combined with the Islamic virtues of compassion, courtesy, and modesty.

A scholar who has fulfilled these conditions can be considered a mujtahid fil-shar, and is not obliged, or even permitted, to follow an existing authoritative madhhab.[44] This is what some of the Imams were saying when they forbade their great disciples from imitating them uncritically. But for the much greater number of scholars whose expertise has not reached such dizzying heights, it may be possible to become a mujtahid fi’l-madhhab, that is, a scholar who remains broadly convinced of the doctrines of his school, but is qualified to differ from received opinion within it.[45] There have been a number of examples of such men, for instance Imam al-Nawawi among the Shafi’is, Qadi Ibn Abd al-Barr among the Malikis, Ibn Abidin among the Hanafis, and Ibn Qudama among the Hanbalis. All of these scholars considered themselves followers of the fundamental interpretative principles of their own madhhabs, but are on record as having exercised their own gifts of scholarship and judgement in reaching many new verdicts within them.[46] It is to these experts that the Mujtahid Imams directed their advice concerning ijtihad, such as Imam al-Shafi’i’s instruction that ‘if you find a hadith that contradicts my verdict, then follow the hadith’.[47] It is obvious that whatever some writers nowadays like to believe, such counsels were never intended for use by the Islamically-uneducated masses. Imam al-Shafi`i was not addressing a crowd of butchers, nightwatchman and donkey-drovers.

Other categories of mujtahids are listed by the usul scholars; but the distinctions between them are subtle and not relevant to our theme.[48] The remaining categories can in practice be reduced to two: the muttabi (follower), who follows his madhhab while being aware of the Quranic and hadith texts and the reasoning, underlying its positions,[49] and secondly the muqallid (emulator), who simply conforms to the madhhab because of his confidence in its scholars, and without necessarily knowing the detailed reasoning behind all its thousands of rulings.[50]

Clearly it is recommended for the muqallid to learn as much as he or she is able of the formal proofs of the madhhab. But it is equally clear that not every Muslim can be a scholar. Scholarship takes a lot of time, and for the ummah to function properly most people must have other employment: as accountants, soldiers, butchers, and so forth.[51] As such, they cannot reasonably be expected to become great ulama as well, even if we suppose that all of them have the requisite intelligence. The Holy Quran itself states that less well-informed believers should have recourse to qualified experts: So ask the people of remembrance, if you do not know (16:43).[52] (According to the tafsir experts, the people of remembrance are the ulama.) And in another verse, the Muslims are enjoined to create and maintain a group of specialists who provide authoritative guidance for non-specialists: A band from each community should stay behind to gain instruction in religion and to warn the people when they return to them, so that they may take heed (9:122). Given the depth of scholarship needed to understand the revealed texts accurately, and the extreme warnings we have been given against distorting the Revelation, it is obvious that ordinary Muslims are duty bound to follow expert opinion, rather than rely on their own reasoning and limited knowledge. This obvious duty was well-known to the early Muslims: the Caliph Umar (r.a.) followed certain rulings of Abu Bakr (r.a.), saying I would be ashamed before God to differ from the view of Abu Bakr. And Ibn Masud (r.a.), in turn, despite being a mujtahid in the fullest sense, used in certain issues to follow Umar (r.a.). According to al-Shabi: Six of the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) used to give fatwas to the people: Ibn Masud, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Ali, Zayd ibn Thabit, Ubayy ibn Kab, and Abu Musa (al-Ashari). And out of these, three would abandon their own judgements in favour of the judgements of three others: Abdallah (ibn Masud) would abandon his own judgement for the judgement of Umar, Abu Musa would abandon his own judgement for the judgement of Ali, and Zayd would abandon his own judgement for the judgement of Ubayy ibn Kab.[53]

This verdict, namely that one is well-advised to follow a great Imam as ones guide to the Sunnah, rather than relying on oneself, is particularly binding upon Muslims in countries such as Britain, among whom only a small percentage is even entitled to have a choice in this matter. This is for the simple reason that unless one knows Arabic,[54] then even if one wishes to read all the hadith determining a particular issue, one cannot. For various reasons, including their great length, no more than ten of the basic hadith collections have been translated into English. There remain well over three hundred others, including such seminal works as the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal,[55] the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba,[56] the Sahih of Ibn Khuzayma,[57] the Mustadrak of al-Hakim,[58] and many other multi-volume collections, which contain large numbers of sound hadiths which cannot be found in Bukhari, Muslim, and the other works that have so far been translated. Even if we assume that the existing translations are entirely accurate, it is obvious that a policy of trying to derive the Shariah directly from the Book and the Sunnah cannot be attempted by those who have no access to the Arabic. To attempt to discern the Shariah merely on the basis of the hadiths which have been translated will be to ignore and amputate much of the Sunnah, hence leading to serious distortions.[59]

Let me give just two examples of this. The Sunni Madhhabs, in their rules for the conduct of legal cases, lay down the principle that the canonical punishments (hudud) should not be applied in cases where there is the least ambiguity, and that the qadi should actively strive to prove that such ambiguities exist. An amateur reading in the Sound Six collections will find no confirmation of this.[60] But the madhhab ruling is based on a hadith narrated by a sound chain, and recorded in theMusannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba, the Musnad of al-Harithi, and the Musnad of Musaddad ibn Musarhad. The text is: “Ward off the hudud by means of ambiguities.“[61] Imam al-Sanani, in his book Al-Ansab, narrates the circumstances of this hadith: “A man was found drunk, and was brought to Umar, who ordered the hadd of eighty lashes to be applied. When this had been done, the man said: Umar, you have wronged me! I am a slave! (Slaves receive only half the punishment.) Umar was grief-stricken at this, and recited the Prophetic hadith, Ward off the hudud by means of ambiguities.”[62]

Another example is provided by the practice of istighfar for others during the Hajj. According to a hadith, ‘Forgiveness is granted to the Hajji, and to those for whom the Hajji prays.’ This hadith is not related in any of the collections so far translated into English; but it is narrated, by a sound isnad, in many other collections, including al-Mu`jam al-Saghir of al-Tabarani and the Musnad of al-Bazzar.[63]

Another example pertains to the important practice, recognised by the madhhabs, of performing sunnah prayers as soon as possible after the end of the Maghrib obligatory prayer. The hadith runs: Make haste to perform the two rakas after the Maghrib, for they are raised up (to Heaven) alongside the obligatory prayer. The hadith is narrated by Imam Razin in his Jami.

Because of the traditional pious fear of distorting the Law of Islam, the overwhelming majority of the great scholars of the past – certainly well over ninety-nine percent of them – have adhered loyally to a madhhab.[64] It is true that in the troubled fourteenth century a handful of dissenters appeared, such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim;[65] but even these individuals never recommended that semi-educated Muslims should attempt ijtihad without expert help. And in any case, although these authors have recently been resurrected and made prominent, their influence on the orthodox scholarship of classical Islam was negligible, as is suggested by the small number of manuscripts of their works preserved in the great libraries of the Islamic world.[66]

Nonetheless, social turbulences have in the past century thrown up a number of writers who have advocated the abandonment of authoritative scholarship. The most prominent figures in this campaign were Muhammad Abduh and his pupil Muhammad Rashid Rida.[67] Dazzled by the triumph of the West, and informed in subtle ways by their own well-documented commitment to Freemasonry, these men urged Muslims to throw off the shackles of taqlid, and to reject the authority of the Four Schools. Today in some Arab capitals, especially where the indigenous tradition of orthodox scholarship has been weakened, it is common to see young Arabs filling their homes with every hadith collection they can lay their hands upon, and poring over them in the apparent belief that they are less likely to misinterpret this vast and complex literature than Imam al-Shafi’i, Imam Ahmad, and the other great Imams. This irresponsible approach, although still not widespread, is predictably opening the door to sharply divergent opinions, which have seriously damaged the unity, credibility and effectiveness of the Islamic movement, and provoked sharp arguments over issues settled by the great Imams over a thousand years ago.[68] It is common now to see young activists prowling the mosques, criticising other worshippers for what they believe to be defects in their worship, even when their victims are following the verdicts of some of the great Imams of Islam. The unpleasant, Pharisaic atmosphere generated by this activity has the effect of discouraging many less committed Muslims from attending the mosque at all. No-one now recalls the view of the early ulama, which was that Muslims should tolerate divergent interpretations of the Sunnah as long as these interpretations have been held by reputable scholars. As Sufyan al-Thawri said: ‘If you see a man doing something over which there is a debate among the scholars, and which you yourself believe to be forbidden, you should not forbid him from doing it.’[69] The alternative to this policy is, of course, a disunity and rancour which will poison and cripple the Muslim community from within.[70]

In a Western-influenced global culture in which people are urged from early childhood to think for themselves and to challenge established authority, it can sometimes be difficult to muster enough humility to recognise ones own limitations.[71] We are all a little like Pharaoh: our egos are by nature resistant to the idea that anyone else might be much more intelligent or learned than ourselves. The belief that ordinary Muslims, even if they know Arabic, are qualified to derive rulings of the Shariah for themselves, is an example of this egotism running wild. To young people proud of their own judgement, and unfamiliar with the complexity of the sources and the brilliance of authentic scholarship, this can be an effective trap, which ends by luring them away from the orthodox path of Islam and into an unintentional agenda of provoking deep divisions among the Muslims. The fact that all the great scholars of the religion, including the hadith experts, themselves belonged to madhhabs, and required their students to belong to madhhabs, seems to have been forgotten. Self-esteem has won a major victory here over common sense and Islamic responsibility.[72]

The Holy Quran commands Muslims to use their minds and reflective capacities; and the issue of following qualified scholarship is an area in which this faculty must be very carefully deployed. The basic point should be appreciated that no categoric difference exists between usul al-fiqh and any other specialised science requiring lengthy training. Shaykh Sa`id Ramadan al-Buti, who has articulated the orthodox response to the anti-Madhhab trend in his book: Non-Madhhabism: The Greatest Bida Threatening the Islamic Shari`a, likes to compare the science of deriving rulings to that of medicine. “If ones child is seriously ill”, he asks, “does one look for oneself in the medical textbooks for the proper diagnosis and cure, or should one go to a trained medical practitioner?” Clearly, sanity dictates the latter option. And so it is in matters of religion, which are in reality even more important and potentially hazardous: we would be both foolish and irresponsible to try to look through the sources ourselves, and become our own muftis. Instead, we should recognise that those who have spent their entire lives studying the Sunnah and the principles of law are far less likely to be mistaken than we are.[73]

Another metaphor might be added to this, this time borrowed from astronomy. We might compare the Quranic verses and the hadiths to the stars. With the naked eye, we are unable to see many of them clearly; so we need a telescope. If we are foolish, or proud, we may try to build one ourselves. If we are sensible and modest, however, we will be happy to use one built for us by Imam al-Shafi’i or Ibn Hanbal, and refined, polished and improved by generations of great astronomers. A madhhab is, after all, nothing more than a piece of precision equipment enabling us to see Islam with the maximum clarity possible. If we use our own devices, our amateurish attempts will inevitably distort our vision.

A third image might also be deployed. An ancient building, for instance the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, might seem imperfect to some who worship in it. Young enthusiasts, burning with a desire to make the building still more exquisite and well-made (and no doubt more in conformity with their own time-bound preferences), might gain access to the crypts and basements which lie under the structure, and, on the basis of their own understanding of the principles of architecture, try to adjust the foundations and pillars which support the great edifice above them. They will not, of course, bother to consult professional architects, except perhaps one or two whose rhetoric pleases them nor will they be guided by the books and memoirs of those who have maintained the structure over the centuries. Their zeal and pride leaves them with no time for that. Groping through the basements, they bring out their picks and drills, and set to work with their usual enthusiasm.

There is a real danger that Sunni Islam is being treated in a similar fashion. The edifice has stood for centuries, withstanding the most bitter blows of its enemies. Only from within can it be weakened. No doubt, Islam has its intelligent foes among whom this fact is well-known. The spectacle of the disunity and fitnas which divided the early Muslims despite their superior piety, and the solidity and cohesiveness of Sunnism after the final codification of the Shariah in the four Schools of the great Imams, must have put ideas into many a malevolent head. This is not to suggest in any way that those who attack the great madhhabs are the conscious tools of Islam’s enemies. But it may go some way to explaining why they will continue to be well-publicised and well-funded, while the orthodox alternative is starved of resources. With every Muslim now a proud mujtahid, and with taqlid dismissed as a sin rather than a humble and necessary virtue, the divergent views which caused such pain in our early history will surely break surface again. Instead of four madhhabs in harmony, we will have a billion madhhabs in bitter and self-righteous conflict. No more brilliant scheme for the destruction of Islam could ever have been devised.[74]

---

ENDNOTES:

[1] Abdul Wadod Shalabi, Islam: Religion of Life (2^nd ed., Dorton, 1989), 10. This is the purport of the famous hadith : ‘The best generation is my own, then that which follows them, then that which follows them’. (Muslim, Fada’il al-Sahaba, 210, 211, 212, 214)

[2] The Khalifa was killed by Muslim rebels from Egypt, whose grievances included his alleged ‘innovation’ of introducing a standard text of the Holy Koran. (Evidently the belief among some modern Muslims that there can be no such thing as a ‘good innovation’ (bid`a hasana) has a long history!) For the full story, see pages 63-71 of M.A. Shaban, Islamic History AD 600-750 (AH 132): A New Interpretation (Cambridge, 1971).

[3] Shaban, 73-7.

[4] For the Kharijtes see Imam al-Tabari, History, vol. XVIII, translated by M. Morony (New York, 1987), 21-31. Their monstrous joy at having assassinated the khalifa `Ali ibn Abi Talib is recorded on page 22.

[5] For an account of the historical development of the fiqh, see Ahmad Hasan, The Early Development of Islamic Jurisprudence (Islamabad, 1970); Hilmi Ziya Ulken, Islam Dusuncesi (Istanbul, 1946), 68-100; Omer Nasuhi Bilmen, Hukuki Islamiyye ve Istalahati Fikhiyye Kamusu (Istanbul, 1949-52), I, 311-338.

[6] For a brief account of Shi’ism, see C. Glasse, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam (london, 1989), 364-70.

[7] Fada’ih al-Batiniya, ed. `Abd al-Rahman Badawi (Cairo, 1964).

[8] For a detailed but highly readable account of the Mongol onslaught, see B. Spuler, History of the Mongols, based on Eastern and Western Accounts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (London, 1972); the best-known account by a Muslim historian is `Ala’ al-Din al-Juwayni, Tarikh-i Jihangusha, translated by J.A. Boyle as The History of the World-Conqueror (Manchester, 1958).

[9] For the slaughter of the ulema, see the dramatic account of Ahmad Aflaki, Manaqib al-`Arifin, ed. Tahsin Tazici (Ankara, 1959-61), I, 21, who states that 50,000 scholars were killed in the city of Balkh alone.

[10] The critical battle was fought in 873/1469, when the Mongol ruler of Iran was defeated by the Turkomans of the (Sunni) Ak Koyunlu dynasty, who were in turn defeated by Shah Isma`il, an extreme Shi`ite, in 906-7/1501, who inaugurated the Safavid rule which turned Iran into a Shi`i country. (The Cambridge History of Iran, VI, 174-5; 189-350; Sayyid Muhammad Sabzavari, tr. Sayyid Hasan Amin, Islamic Political and Juridical Thought in Safavid Iran [Tehran, 1989].)

[11] The Kharijites represent a tendency which has reappeared in some circles in recent years. Divided into many factions, their principles were never fully codified. They were textualist, puritanical and anti-intellectual, rejected the condition of Quraishite birth for their Imam, and declared everyone outside their grouping to be kafir. For some interesting accounts, see M. Kafafi, ‘The Rise of Kharijism’, Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Egypt, XIV (1952), 29-48; Ibn Hazm, al-Fisal fi’l-milal wa’l-nihal (Cairo, 1320), IV, 188-92; Brahim Zerouki, L’Imamat de Tahart: premier etat musulman du Maghreb (Paris, 1987).

[12] Probably because he had written a book celebrating the virtues of the caliph `Ali. See Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (Hyderabad, 1325), I, 36-40.

[13] See, for example, Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni, al-Burhan fi usul al-fiqh (Cairo, 1400), §§1189-1252.

[14] Ibn Qutayba, Ta’wil Mukhtalif al-Hadith (Cairo, 1326). Readers of French will benefit from the translation of G. Lecomte: Le Traite des divergences du hadith d’Ibn Qutayba (Damascus, 1962). There is also a useful study by Ishaq al-Husayni: The Life and Works of Ibn Qutayba (Beirut, 1950). Mention should also be made of a later and inmost respects similar work, by Imam al-Tahawi (d. 321): Mushkil al-Athar (Hyderabad, 1333), which is more widely used among the ulema.

[15] Imam Abu’l-Wahid al-Baji (d. 474), Ihkam al-Fusul ila `Ilm al-Usul, ed. A. Turki (Beirut, 1986/1407), §§184-207; Imam Abu Ishaq al-Sirazi (d. 476), al-Luma` fi usual al-fiqh (Cairo, 1377), 17-24; Juwayni, §§327-52, 1247; Imam al-Shafi`i, tr. Majid Khadduri, Al-Shafi`i’s Risala: Treatise on the Foundations of Islamic Jurisprudence (Cambridge, 1987), 103-8. Shafi`i gives a number of well-known examples of Koranic texts being subject to takhsis. For instance, the verse ‘As for the thief, male and female, cut of their hands as a retribution from Allah,’ (5:42) appears to be unconditional; however it is subject to takhsis by the hadith which reads ‘Hands should not be cut off for fruits, nor the spadix of a palm tree, and that the hand should not be cut off unless the price of the thing stolen is a quarter of a dinar or more.’ (Malik, Muwatta’, Abu Daud, Sunan; see Shafi`i, Risala, 105.)

[16] Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (Cambridge, 1991), 356-65. This excellent book by a prominent Afghan scholar is by far the best summary of the theory of Islamic law, and should be required reading for every Muslim who wishes to raise questions concerning the Shari`a disciples.

[17] The verses in question were: 2:219, 4:43, and 5:93. See Kamali, 16-17.

[18] Kamali, 150; Ibn Rushd, The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer, tr. Imran Nyazee and Muhammad Abdul Rauf (Reading, 1994), 97. This new translation of the great classic Bidayat al-Mujtahid, only the first volume of which is available at present, is a fascinating explanation of the basic arguments over the proof texts (adilla) used by the scholars of the recognized madhhabs. Ibn Rushd was a Maliki qadi, but presents the views of other scholars with the usual respect and objectivity. The work is the best-known example of a book of the Shari`a science of `ilm al-khilaf (the ‘Knowledge of Variant Rulings’; for a definition of this science see Imam Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazali, al-Mustasfa min `ilm al-usul, [Cairo, 1324] I, 5).

[19] Kamali, 150 quoting Shatibi, Muwafaqat, III, 63.

[20] Kamali, 154-160; Baji, §§383-450; Shirazi, 30-5; Juwayni, §§1412-1454; Ghazali, Mustasfa, I, 107-129. The problem was first addressed systematically by Imam al-Shafi`i. ‘There are certain hadiths which agree with one another, and others which are contradictory to one another; the abrogating and the abrogated hadiths are clearly distinguished [in some of them]; in others the hadiths which are abrogating and abrogated are not indicated.’ (Risala, 179.) For cases in which the Holy Koran has abrogated a hadith, or (more rarely) a hadith has abrogated a Koranic verse, see Ghazali, Mustasfa, I, 124-6; Baji, §429-39; Juwayni, §1440-3. The sunna is able to abrogate the Koran because it too is a revelation (wahy); as Imam al-Baji explains it, ‘The Blessed Prophet’s own sunnas do not in reality abrogate anything themselves; they only state that Allah has cancelled the ruling of a Koranic passage. Hence the abrogation, in reality, is from Allah, whether theabrogating passage is in the Koran or the Sunna.’ (Baji, §435.)

[21] For this as an instance of abrogation, see Shafi`i, Risala (Khadduri), 133.

[22] Muslim, Jana’iz, 100.

[23] Kamali, 154.

[24] Kamali, 155; see also Shafi`i, Risala (khadduri), 168.

[25] Sayf ad-Din Ahmed Ibn Muhammad, Al-Albani Unveiled: An Exposition of His Errors and Other Important Issues (London, 2^nd ed., 1415), 49-51; Ibn Rushd, The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer, 168-170; Shafi`i, Risala (Khadduri), 199-202.

[26] M.Z. Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, its Origins, Development and Special Features (Revised ed. Cambridge, 1993), 3, 40, 126.

[27] Defects in the matn can sometimes make a hadith weak even if its isnad is sound (Siddiqi, 113-6).

[28] Kamali, 361; Bilmen, I, 74-6, 82-4. The classification of revealed texts under these headings is one of the most sensitive areas of usul al-fiqh.

[29] Kamali, 361.

[30] Kamali, 362.

[31] Kamali, 235-44; Ghazali, Mustasfa, 1, 191,2; Juwayni, §343.

[32] For some expositions of the difficult topic of qiyas, see Kamali, 197-228; Shirazi, 53-63; Juwayni, §§676-95; Imam Sayf al-Din al-Amidi (al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam, Cairo, 1332/1914), III, 261-437, IV, 1-161.

[33] Kamali, 363-4.

[34] The accessible English translation of his best-known work on legal theory has already been mentioned above in note 15.

[35] The question is often asked why only four schools should be followed today. The answer is straightforward: while in theory there is no reason whatsoever why the number has to be four, the historical fact is that only these four have sufficient detailed literature to support them. In connection with the hyper-literalist Zahiri madhhab, Ibn Khaldun writes: ‘Worthless persons occasionally feel obliged to follow the Zahiri school and study these books in the desire to learn the Zahiri system of jurisprudence from them, but they get nowhere, and encounter the opposition and disapproval of the great mass of Muslims. In doing so they often are considered innovators, as they accept knowledge from books for which no key is provided by teachers.’ (Muqaddima, tr. F. Rosenthal [Princeton, 1958], III, 6.)

[36] These are (in order of length, shortest first), al-Khulasa, al-Wajiz, al-Wasit and Basit. The great Imam penned over a hundred other books, earning him from a grateful Umma the title ‘Hujjat al-Islam’ (The Proof of Islam). It is hardly surprising that when the ulema quote the famous sahih hadith ‘Allah shall raise up for this Umma at the beginning of each century someone who will renew for it its religion,’ they cite Imam al-Ghazali as the renewer of the fifth century of Islam. See for instance Imam Muhammad al-Sakhawi (d. 902AH), al-Maqasid al-Hasana fi bayan kathirin min al-ahadith al-mushtahira `ala al-alsina (Beirut, 1405), 203-4, who lists the ‘renewers’ as follows: `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz, al-Shafi`i, Ibn Surayj, Abu Hamid al-Isfaraini, Hujjut al-Islam al-Ghazali, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Ibn Daqaq al-`Id, al-Balqini. Imam Ibn `Asakir (d. 571AH), in his famous work Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari fima nusiba ila al-Imam Abi’l-Hasan al-Ash`ari, ed. Imam Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari (Damascus, 1347, reproduced Beirut, 1404), 52-4, has the following list: `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz, al-Shafi`i, al-Ash`ari, al-Baqillani, al-Ghazali.

[37] Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Ihya `Ulum al-Din (Cairo: Mustafa al-Halibi, 1347), III, 65.

[38] ‘The most characteristic qualities of the great ulema are dignity and serenity, respect for other scholars, compassionate concern for the Umma, and following the Prophet, upon whom be blessings and peace, whose view was always broad, his wisdom perfect, and his toleration superb.’ Imam Yusuf al-Dajawi (d. 1365AH), Maqalat wa-Fatawa (Cairo: Majmu` al-Buhuth al-Islamiya, 1402), II, 583. `True fairness is to regard all the Imams as worthy; whoever follows the madhhab of a Mujtahid because he has not attained the level of Ijtihad, is not harmed by the fact that other imams differ from his own.’ (Shatibi, I`tisam, III, 260.) There are many examples cited by the scholars to show the respect of the madhhabs for each other. For instance, Shaykh Ibrahim al-Samadi (d. 1662), a pious scholar of Damascus, once prayed to be given four sons, so that each might follow one of the recognized madhhabs, thereby bringing a fourfold blessing to his house. (Muhammad al-Amin al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-atar fi a`yan al-qarn al-hadi `ashar [Cairo, 1248], I, 48.) And it was not uncommon for scholars to be able to give fatwas in more than one madhhab (such a man was known technically as mufti al-firaq). (Ibn al-Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimasq [Beirut, 1908], 311.) Hostility between the Madhhabs was rare, despite some abuse in the late Ottoman period. Al-Dhahabi counsels his readers as follows: ‘Do not think that your madhhab is the best, and the one most beloved by Allah, for you have no proof of this. The Imams, may Allah be pleased with them, all follow great goodness; when they are right, they receive two rewards, and when they are wrong, they still receive one reward.’ (al-Dhahabi, Zaghal al-`Ilm wa’l-Talab, 15, quoted in Sa`id Ramadan al-Buti, Al-Lamadhhabiya Akhtar Bid`a tuhaddid al-Shari`a al-Islamiya, 3<sup>rd</sup> edition, Beirut, 1404, 81.) The final words here (‘right … reward’) are taken from a well-known hadith to this effect (Bukhari, I`tisam, 21.)

[39] Most notoriously N. Couson, Conflicts and Tensions in Islamic Jurisprudence (Chicago, 1969), 43, 50, 96; but also I. Goldziher, Louis Ardet and Montgomery Watt.

[40] It will be useful here to refute an accusation made by some Orientalists, and even by some modern Muslims, who suggest that the scholars were reluctant to challenge the madhhab system because if they did so they would be ‘out of a job’, and lucrative qadi positions, restricted to followers of the orthodox Schools, would be barred to them. This is a particularly distasteful example of the modern tendency to slander men whose moral integrity was no less impressive than their learning: to suggest that the great Ulema of Islam followed the interpretation of Islam that they did simply for financial reasons is insulting and a disgraceful form of ghiba (backbiting). In any case, it can be easily refuted. The great ulema of the past were in almost every case men of independent means, and did not need to earn from their scholarship. For instance, Imam Ibn Hajar had inherited a fortune from his mother (al-Sakhawi, al-Daw’ al-Lami` li-Ahl al-Qarn al-Tasi` (Cairo, 1353-5), II, 36-40). Imam al-Suyuti came from a prominent and wealthy family of civil servants (see his own Husn al-Muhadara fi akhbar Misr wa’l-Wahira [Cairo, 1321], I, 153, 203). For examples of scholars who achieved financial independence see the editor’s notes to Ibn Jam`a’s Tadhkirat al-Sami` fi Adab al-`Alim wa’l-Muta`allim (Hyderabad, 1353), 210: Imam al-Baji was a craftsman who made gold leaf: ‘his academic associates recall that he used to go out to see them with his hand sore from the effects of the hammer’ (Dhahabi, Tadhkira, III, 349-50); while the Khalil ibn Ishaq, also a Maliki, was a soldier who had taken part in the liberation of Alexandria from the Crusaders, and often gave his fiqh classes while still wearing his chain mail and helmet (Suyuti, Husn al-Muhadara, I, 217.) And it was typical for the great scholars to live lives of great frugality: Imam al-Nawawi, who died at the age of 44, is said to have damaged his health by his ascetic lifestyle: for instance, he declined to eat of the fruit of Damascus, where he taught, because it was grown on land whose legal status he regarded as suspect. (al-Yafi`I, Mir’at al-Janan wa-`Ibrat al-Yaqzan [Hyderabad, 1338], IV, 1385.) It is not easy to see how such men could have allowed motives of financial gain to dictate their approach to religion.

[41] A mujtahid is a scholar qualified to perform ijtihad, defined as ‘personal effort to derive a Shari`a ruling of the furu` from the revealed sources.’ (Bilmen, I, 247.) His chief task – the actual process of derivation – is called istinbat, originally signifying in Arabic ‘bringing up water with difficulty from a well.’ (Bilmen, I, 247.)

[42] ‘When Allah’s Messenger, upon him be blessings and peace, wished to send Mu`adh ibn Jabal to the Yemen, he asked him: ‘How will you judge if an issue is presented to you for judgement?’ ‘By what is in Allah’s Book,’ he replied. ‘And if you do not find it in Allah’s Book?’ ‘Then by the Sunna of Allah’s Messenger.’ ‘And if it is not in the Sunna of Allah’s Messenger?’ ‘Then I shall strive in my own judgement’ (ajtahidu ra’yi). (Abu Daud, Aqdiya, 11.)

[43] Kamali, 366-393, especially 374-7; see also Amidi, IV, 219-11; Shirazi, 71-2; Bilmen, I, 247, 250, 251-2.

[44] Kamali, 386-8. Examples of such men from the time of the Tabi`un onwards include ‘Ibrahim al-Nakha`I, Ibn Abi Layla, Ibn Shubruma, Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Hasan ibn Salih, al-Awza`i, `Amr ibn al-Harith, al-Layth ibn Sa`d, `Abdullah ibn Abi Ja`far, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, Abu `Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Salam, Abu Thawr, Ibn Khuzayma, Ibn Nasr al-Marwazi, Ibn Mundhir, Daud al-Zahiri, and Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, may Allah show them all His mercy.’ (Bilmen, I, 324.) It should be noted that according to some scholars a concession (rukhsa) exists on the matter of the permissibility of taqlid for mujtahid: Imam al-Baji and Imam al-Haramayn, for instance, permit a mujtahid to follow another mujtahid in cases where his own research to establish a matter would result in dangerous delay to the performance of a religious duty. (Baji, §783; Juwayni, §1505.)

[45] Kamali, 388; Bilmen, I, 248.

[46] ‘The major followers of the great Imams did not simply imitate them as some have claimed. We know, for instance, that Abu Yusuf and al-Shaybani frequently dissented from the position of Abu Hanifa. In fact, it is hard to find a single question of fiqh which is not surrounded by a debate, in which the independent reasoning and ijtihad of the scholars, and their determination to locate the precise truth, are very conspicuous. In this way we find Imam al-Shafi`i determining, in his new madhhab, that the time for Maghrib does not extend into the late twilight (shafaq); while his followers departed from this position in order to follow a different proof-text (dalil). Similarly, Ibn `Abd al-Barr and Abu Bakr ibn al-`Arabi hold many divergent views in the madhhab of Imam Malik. And so on.’ (Imam al-Dajawi, II, 584.)

[47] ‘Whenever a mujtahid reaches a judgement in which he goes against ijma`, or the basaic principles, or an unambiguous text, or a clear qiyas (al-qiyas al-jali) free of any proof which contradicts it, his muqallid is not permitted to convey his view to the people or to give a fatwa in accordance with it … however no-one can know whether this has occurred who has not mastered the principles of jurisprudence, clear qiyas, unambiguous texts, and anything that could intervene in these things; and to know this one is obliged to learned usul al-fiqh and immerse oneself in the ocean of fiqh.’ (Imam Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi, al-Furuq (Cairo, 1346), II, 109.)

[48] The ulema usually recognize seven different degrees of Muslims from the point of view of their learning, and for those who are interested they are listed here, in order of scholarly status. (1,2) The mujtahidun fi’l-shar` (Mujtahids in the Shari`a) and the mujtahidun fi’l-madhhab (Mujtahids in the Madhhab) have already been mentioned. (3) Mujtahidun fi’l-masa’il (Mujtahids on Particular Issues) are scholars who remain within a school, but are competent to exercise ijtihad on certain aspects within it which they know thoroughly. (4) Ashab al-Takhrij (Resolvers of Ambiguity), who are competent to ‘indicate which view was preferable in cases of ambiguity, or regarding suitability to prevailing conditions’. (5) Ashab al-Tarjih (People of Assessment) are ‘those competent to make comparisons and distinguish the correct (sahih) and the preferred (rajih, arjah) and the agreed-upon (mufta biha) views from the weak ones’ inside the madhhab. (6) Ashab al-Tashih (People of Correction): ‘those who could distinguish between the manifest (zahir al-riwaya) and the rare and obscure (nawadir) views of the schools of their following.’ (7) Muqallidun: the ‘emulators’, including all non-scholars. (Kamali, 387-9. See also Bilmen, I, 250-1, 324-6.) Of these seven categories, only the first three are considered to be mujtahids.

[49] This is explained by Imam al-Shatibi in the context of the following passage, all of which is quoted here to furnish a further summary of the orthodox position on taqlid. ‘A person obliged to follow the rules of the Shari`a must fall into one of three categories. [I] He may be a mujtahid, in which case he will practice the legal conclusions to which his ijtihad leads him. [II] He may be a complete muqallid, unappraised of the knowledge required. In his case, he must have a guide to lead him, and an arbitrator to give judgements for him, and a scholar to emulate. Obviously, he follows the guide only in his capacity as a man possessed of the requisite knowledge. The proof for this is that if he knows, or even suspects, that he does not in fact possess it, it is not permissible for him to follow him or to accept his judgement; in fact, no individual, whether educated or not, should think of following through taqlid someone who he knows is not qualified, in the way that a sick man should not put himself in the hands of someone whom he knows is not a doctor. [III] He may not have attained to the level of the Mujtahids, but he understands the dalil and its context, and is competent to understand it in order to prefer some rulings over others in certain questions. In his case, one must either recognize his preferences and views, or not. If they are recognized, then he becomes like a mujtahid on that issue; if they are not, then he must be classed alone with other ordinary non-specialist Muslims, who are obliged to follow Mujtahids. (al-I`tisam [Cairo, 1913-4] III, 251-3.)

An equivalent explanation of the status of the muttabi` is given by Amidi, IV, 306-7: ‘If a non-scholar, not qualified to make ijtihad, has acquired some of the knowledge required for ijtihad, he must follow the verdicts of the Mujtahids. This is the view of the correct scholars, although it has been rejected by some of the Mu`tazilites in Baghdad, who state: “That is not allowable, unless he obtains a clear proof (dalil) of the correctness of the ijtihad he is following.” But the correct view is that which we have stated, this being proved by the Koran, Ijma` and the intellect. The Koranic proof is Allah’s statement, “Ask the people of remembrance if you do not know,” which is a general (`amm) commandment to all. The proof by Ijma` is that ordinary Muslims in the time of the Companions and the Followers used to ask the mujtahids, and follow them in their Shari`a judgements, while the learned among them would answer their questions without indicating the dalil. They would not forbid them from doing this, and this therefore constitutes Ijma` on the absolute permissibility of an ordinary Muslim following the rulings of a mujtahid.’ For Amidi’s intellectual proof, see note 51 below.

[50] A muqallid is a Muslim who practices taqlid, which is the Shari`a term for ‘the acceptance by an ordinary person of the judgement of a mufti.’ (Juwayni, §1545.) The word ‘mufti’ here means either a mujtahid or someone who authentically transmits the verdict of a mujtahid. ‘As for the ordinary person [`ammi], it is obligatory [wajib] upon him to make taqlid of the ulema.’ (Baji, §783.) The actual choice of which mujtahid an ordinary Muslim should follow is clearly a major responsibility. ‘A muqallid may only make taqlid of another person after carefully examining his credentials, and obtaining reliable third-party testimony as to his scholarly attainments’ (Juwayni, §1511). (Imam Ibn Furak, however holds that a mujtahid’s own self-testimony is sufficient.) Imam Juwayni goes on to observe (§1515) that is is necessary to follow the best mujtahid available; whichis also the positoin of Imam al-Baji (§794). See also Shirazi (p. 72): ‘It is not permissible for someone asking for a fatwa to ask just anyone, lest he ask someone who has no knowledge of the fiqh. Instead it is obligatory (wajib) for him to ascertain the scholar’s learning and trustworthiness.’ And Qarafi (II, 110): ‘The Salaf, may Allah be pleased with them, were intensely reluctant to give fatwas. Imam Malik said, “A scholar should not give fatwas until he is regarded as competent to do so both by himself and by others.” In other words, the scholars must be satisfied of his qualifications. Imam Malik did not begin to give fatwas until he had been given permission (ijaza) to do so by forty turbaned ones [scholars].’

[51] ‘The dalil for our position is Allah’s commandment: So ask the people of remembrance, if you do not know. For if we forbade taqlid, everyone would need to become an advanced scholar, and no-one would be able [have time] to earn anything, and the earth would lie uncultivated.’ (Shirazi, 71.) ‘The intellectual proof [of the need for taqlid] is that if an issue of the furu` arises for someone who does not possess the qualifications for ijtihad then he will either not adopt an Islamic ruling at all, and this is a violation of the Ijma`, or, alternatively, he will adopt an Islamic ruling, either by investigating the proofs involved, or by taqlid. But an adequate investigation of the proofs is not possible for him, for it would oblige him, and all humanity, fully to investigate the dalils pertaining to the issues, thereby distracting them from their sources of income, and leading to the extinction of crafts and the ruin of the world.’ (Amidi, Ihkam, IV, 307-8.) ‘One of the dalils for the legitimacy of following the verdicts of the scholars is our knowledge that anyone who looks into these discussions and seeks to deduce rulings of the Shari`a will need to have the right tools, namely, the science of the rulings of the Koran and Sunna and usul al-fiqh, the principles of rhetoric and the Arabic language, and other sciences which are not easily acquired, and which most people cannot attain to. And even if some of them do attain to it, they only do so after long study, investigation and very great effort, which would require that they devote themselves entirely to this and do nothing else; and if ordinary people were under the obligation to do this, there would be no cultivation, commerce, or other employments which are essential for the continuance of humanity – and it is the ijma` of the Umma that this is something which Allah ta`ala has not obliged His slaves to do. … There is therefore no alternative for them to following the ulema.’ (Baji, §793.)

[52] ‘There is ijma` among the scholars that this verse is a commandment to whoever does not know a ruling or the dalil for it to follow someone who does. Almost all the scholars of usul al-fiqh have made this verse their principle dalil that it is obligatory for an ordinary person to follow a scholar who is a mujtahid.’ (al-Buti, 71; translated also in Keller, 17.)

[53] See also Dajawi, II, 576: ‘The Companions and Followers used to give fatwas on legal issues to those who asked for them. At times they would mention the source, if this was necessary, while at other times they would limit themselves to specifying the ruling.’ Al-Ghazali (Mustasfa, II, 385) explains that the existence of taqlid and fatwa among the Companions is a dalil for the necessity of this fundamental distinction: ‘The proof that taqlid is obligatory is the ijma` of the Companions. For they used to give fatwas to the ordinary people and did not command them to acquire the degree of ijtihad for themselves. This is known necessarily (bi’l-darura) and by parallel lines of transmission (tawatur) from both the scholars and the non-scholars among them.’ See also Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima (Bulaq ed., p. 216): ‘Not all the Companions were qualified to give fatwas, and Islam was not taken from all of them. That privilege was held only by those who had learnt the Koran, knew what it contained by what of abrogated and abrogating passages, ambiguous (mutashabih) and perspicuous (muhkam) expressions, and its other special features.’ And also Imam al-Baji (§793): ‘Ordinary Muslims have no alternative but to follow the Ulema. One proof of this is the ijma` of the Companions, for those among them who had not attained the degree of ijtihad used to ask the ulema of the Companions for the correct ruling on something which happened to them. Not one of the Companions criticized them for so doing; on the contrary, they gave them fatwas on the issues they had asked about, without condemning them or telling them to derive the rulings themselves [from the Koran and Sunna].’ See also Imam al-Amidi: in note 49 above.

A list of the muftis among the Companions is given by Juwayni (§§1494-9); they include the Four Khalifas, Talha ibn `Ubaydillah, `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf, and Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas. Others were not muftis, such as Abu Hurayra, who despite his many narrations of hadiths was never known for his judgements (§1497). Shirazi (p. 52) confirms the obvious point that some Companions are considered more worthy of being followed in legal matters than others.

[54] As we have seen above, the ulema regard a mastery of the Arabic language as one of the essential qualifications for deriving the Shari`a directly from the Koran and Sunna. See Juwayni, §§70-216, where this is stressed. Juwayni records that Imam al-Shafi`i was so expert in the Arabic language, grammar and rhetoric that at a very young age he was consulted by the great philologist al-Asma`i, who asked his help in editing some early and very difficult collections of Arabic poetry. (Juwayni, §1501.) We also learn that Imam `Ibn al-Mubarak, the famous traditionalist of Merv, spent more money on learning Arabic than on traditions [hadith], attaching more importance on the former than the latter, and asking the students of hadith to spent twice as long on Arabic than on hadith … al-Asma`i held that someone who studied hadith without learning grammar was to be categorized with the forgers of hadith.’ (Siddiqi, 84-5.)

[55] Published in 6 volumes in Cairo in 1313 AH. Another work by him, the Kitab al-Zuhd (Beirut, 1403), also contains many hadiths.

[56] Published in 13 volumes in Bombay between 1386 and 1390.

[57] Edited by M.M. al-A`zami, Beirut, 1391-97.

[58] This is an important collection of hadiths who accuracy Imam al-Hakim al-Nisaburi considered to meet the criteria of Imams al-Bukhari and Muslim, but which had not been included in their collections. Published in four large volumes in Hyderabad between 1334-1342.

[59] Needless to say, the amateurs who deny taqlid and try to derive the rulings for themselves are even more ignorant of the derivative sources of Shari`a than they are of the Koran and Sunna. These other sources do not only include the famous ones such as ijma` and qiyas. For instance, the fatwas of the Companions are considered by the ulema to be a further important source of legislation. ‘Imam al-Shafi`i throughout his life taught that diya (bloodmoney) was increased in cases of crimes committed in the Haramayn or the Sacred Months, and he had no basis for this other than the statements of the Companions.’ (Juwayni, §1001.)

[60] There is a version of this hadith in Tirmidhi (Hudu, 2), but attached to an isnad which includes Yazid ibn Ziyad, who is weak.

[61] Ibn Abi Shayba, Musannaf, XI, 70.

[62] Sakhawi, 74-5.

[63] Sakhawi, 742.

[64] For a complete list of the most famous scholars of Islam, and the madhhabs to which they belonged see Sayf al-Din Ahmad, Al-Albani Unveiled, 97-9.

[65] For these writers see Ahmad ibn al-Naqib al-Misri, tr. Nuh Keller, Reliance of the Traveller (Abu Dhabi, 1991), 1059-60, 1057-9. The attitude of Ibn al-Qayyim is not consistent on this issue. In some passages of his I`lam al-Muwaqqi`in he seems to suggest that any Muslim is qualified to derive rulings directly from the Koran and Sunna. But in other passages he takes a more intelligent view. For instance, he writes: ‘Is it permissible for a mufti who adheres to the madhhab of his Imam to give a fatwa in accordance with a different madhhab if that is more correct in his view? [The answer is] if he is [simply] following the principles of that Imam in procedures of ijtihad and ascertaining the proof-texts [i.e. is a mujtahid fi’l-madhhab], then he is permitted to follow the view of another mujtahid which he considers correct.’ (I`lam al-Muwaqqi`in, IV, 237.) This is a broad approach, but is nonetheless very far from the notion of simply following the ‘dalil’ every time rather than following a qualified interpreter. This quote and several others are given by Shaykh al-Buti to show the various opinions held by Ibn al-Qayyim on this issue, which, according to the Shaykh, reveal ‘remarkable contradictions’. (Al-Buti, 56-60.)

[66] Many of Ibn Taymiya’s works exist only as single manuscripts; and even the others, when compared to the works of the great scholars such as al-Suyuti and al-Nawawi, seem to have been copied only very rarely. See the list of ancient manuscripts of his works given by C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur (2^nd. Ed. Leiden, 1943-9), II, 126-7, Supplement, II, 119-126.

[67] `Abduh, in turn, was influenced by his teacher and collaborator Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839-97). Afghani was associated with that transitional ‘Young Ottoman’ generation which created the likes of Namik Kemal and (somewhat later) Zia Gokalp and Sati` al-Husari: men deeply traumatized by the success of the Western powers and the spectacle of Ottoman military failure, and who sought a cultural renewal by jettisoning historic Muslim culture while maintaining authenticity by retaining a ‘pristine essence’. In this they were inspired, consciously or otherwise, by the wider 19^th century quest for authenticity: the nationalist philosophers Herder and Le Bon, who had outlined a similar revivalist-essentialist project for France and Germany based on the ‘original sources’ of their national cultures, had been translated and were widely read in the Muslim world at the time. Afghani was not a profound thinker, but his pamphlets and articles in the journal which he and `Abduh edited, al-`Urwat al-Wuthqa, were highly influential. Whether he believed in his own pan-Islamic ideology, or indeed in his attenuated and anti-historicist version of Islam, is unclear. When writing in contexts far from his Muslim readership he often showed an extreme scepticism. For instance, in his debate with Renan concerning the decline of Arab civilization, he wrote of Islam: ‘It is clear that where-ever it becomes established, this religion tried to stifle the sciences and it was marvellously served in its designs by despotism.’ (Reply to Renan, translated by N. Keddie in An Islamic Response to Imperialism: Political and Religious Writings of Sayyid Jamal al-Din ‘al-Afghani’ (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), 183, 187. It is hardly surprising that `Abduh should have worked so hard to suppress the Arabic translation of this work!

Afghani’s reformist ideology led him to found a national political party in Egypt, al-Hizb al-Watani, including not only Muslims, but in which ‘all Christians and Jews who lived in the land of Egypt were eligible for membership.’ (Jamal Ahmed, The Intellectual Origins of Egyptian Nationalism (London, 1960), 16.) This departure from traditional Islamic notions of solidarity can be seen as a product of Afghani’s specific attitude to taqlid. But his pupil’s own fatwas were often far more radical, perhaps because `Abduh’s ‘partiality for the British authority which pursued similar lines of reform and gave him support’ (Ahmed, 35). We are not surprised to learn that the British governor of Egypt, Lord Cromer, wrote: ‘For many years I gave to Mohammed Abdu all the encouragement in my power’ (Lord Cromer, Modern Egypt [ New York, 1908], II, 180). An example is the declaration in `Abduh’s tafsir (much of which is by Rida) that the erection of statues is halal. The same argument was being invoked by Ataturk, who, when asked why he was erecting a statue of himself in Ankara, claimed that ‘the making of statues is not forbidden today as it was when Muslims were just out of idolatry, and that it is necessary for the Turks to practice this art, for it is one of the arts of civilization’. (C. Adams, Islam and Modernism in Egypt [London, 1933], 193-4.)

[68] A poorly-argued but well-financed example of a book in this category is a short text by the Saudi writer al-Khajnadi, of which an amended version exists in English. This text aroused considerable concern among the ulema when it first appeared in the 1960s, and Shaykh Sa`id Ramadan al-Buti’s book was in fact written specifically in refutation of it. The second and subsequent editions of al-Buti’s work, which shows how Khajnadi systematically misquoted and distorted the texts, contain a preface which includes an account of a meeting between al-Buti and the Albanian writer Nasir al-Din al-Albani, who was associated with Khajnadi’s ideas. The three-hour meeting, which was taped, was curious inasmuch as al-Albani denied that Khajnadi was stating that all Muslims can derive rulings directly from the Koran and Sunna. For instance where Khajnadi makes the apparently misleading statement that ‘As for the Madhhabs, these are the views and ijtihads of the ulema on certain issues; and neither Allah nor His messenger have compelled anyone to follow them,’ Al-Albani explains that ‘anyone’ (ahad) here in fact refers to ‘anyone qualified to make ijtihad’. (Al-Buti, 13.) Al-Albani went on to cite several other instances of how readers had unfortunately misunderstood Khajnadi’s intention. Shaykh al-Buti, quite reasonably, replied to the Albanian writer: ‘No scholar would ever use language in such a loose way and make such generalizations, and intend to say something so different to what he actually and clearly says; in fact, no-one would understand his words as you have interpreted them.’ Albani’s response was: ‘The man was of Uzbek origin, and his Arabic was that of a foreigner, so he was not able to make himself as clear as an Arab would. He is dead now, and we should give him the benefit of the doubt and impose the best interpretation we can on his words!’ (al-Buti, 14.) But al-Albani, despite his protestations, is reliably said to believe even now that taqlid is unacceptable. Wa-la hawla wa-la quawwata illa bi’Llah.

[69] The ulema also quote the following guiding principles of Islamic jurisprudence: ‘That which is wrong (munkar) need not be condemned as [objectively] wrong unless all scholars agree (in ijma`) that it is so.’ (Dajawi, II, 583.) Imam al-Dajawi (II, 575) also makes the following points: ‘The differences of opinion among the ulema are a great mercy (rahma) upon this Umma. `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz declared: “It would not please me if the Companions of Muhammad, upon whom be blessings and peace, had not disagreed, for had they not done so, no mercy would have come down.” Yahya ibn Sa`id, one of the great hadith narrators among the Followers (Tabi`un), said: “The people of knowledge are a people of broadness (ahl tawsi`a). They continue to give fatwas which are different from each other, and no scholar reproaches another scholar for his opinion.” However, if ordinary people took their rulings straight from the Koran and Sunna, as a certain faction desires, their opinions would be far more discordant than this, and the Four Schools would no longer be four, but thousands. Should that day come, it will bring disaster upon disaster for the Muslims – may we never live to see it!’

One could add that ‘that day’ seems already to be upon us, and that the resulting widening of the argument on even the most simple juridical matters is no longer tempered by the erstwhile principles of politeness and toleration. The fiercely insulting debate between Nasir al-Din al-Albani and the Saudi writer al-Tuwayjiri is a typical instance. The former writer, in his book Hijab al-Mar’a al-Muslima, uses the Koran and Sunna to defend his views that a woman may expose her face in public; while the latter, in his al-Sarim al-Mashhur `ala Ahl al-Tabarruj wa’l- Sufur, attacks Albani in the most vituperative terms for failing to draw from the revealed sources and supposedly obvious conclusion that women must always veil their faces from non-mahram men. Other example of this bitter hatred generation by the non-Madhhab style of discord, based in attempts at direct istinbat, are unfortunately many. Hardly any mosque or Islamic organization nowadays seems to be free of them.

The solution is to recall the principle referred to above, namely that two mujtahids can hold differing opinions on the furu`, and still be rewarded by Allah, while both opinions will constitute legitimate fiqh. (Juwayni, §§1455-8; Bilmen, I, 249.) This is clearly indicated in the Koranic verses: ‘And Daud and Sulayman, when they gave judgement concerning the field, when people’s sheep had strayed and browsed therein by night; and We were witness to their judgement. We made Sulayman to understand [the case]; and unto each of them We gave judgement and knowledge.’ (21:78-9) The two Prophets, upon them be peace, had given different fatwas; and Sulayman’s was the more correct, but as Prophets they were infallible (ma`sum), and hence Daud’s judgement was acceptable also.

Understanding this is the key to recreating the spirit of tolerance among Muslims. Shaykh Omer Bilmen summarizes the jurists’ position as follows: ‘The fundamentals of the religion, namely basic doctrine, the obligatory status of the forms of worship, and the ethical virtues, are the subject of universal agreement, an agreement to which everyone is religiously obliged to subscribe. Those who diverge from the rulings accepted by the overwhelming majority of ordinary Muslims are considered to be the people of bid`a and misguidance, since the dalils (proof-texts) establishing them are clear. But it is not a violation of any Islamic obligation for differences of opinion to exist concerning the furu` (branches) and juz’iyyat (secondary issues) which devolve from these basic principles. In fact, such differences are a necessary expression of the Divine wisdom.’ (Bilmen, I, 329.)

A further point needs elucidating. If the jurists may legitimately disagree, how should the Islamic state apply a unified legal code throughout its territories? Clearly, the law must be the same everywhere. Imam al-Qarafi states the answer clearly: ‘The head of state gives a judgement concerning the [variant rulings which have been reached by] ijtihad, and this does away with the disagreement, and obliges those who follow ijtihad verdicts which conflict with the head of state’s to adopt his verdict.’ (Qarafi, II, 103; affirmed also in Amidi, IV, 273-4.) Obviously this is a counsel specifically for qadis, and applies only to questions of public law, not to rulings on worship.

[70] This was understood as early as the 18^th century. Al-Buti quotes Shah Waliullah al-Dahlawi (Hujjat Allah al-Baligha, I, 132) as observing: ‘The Umma up to the present date … has unanimously agreed that these four recorded madhhabs may be followed by way of taqlid. In this there are manifest benefits and advantages, especially in these days in which enthusiasm has dimmed greatly, and souls have been given to drink of their own passions, so that everyone with an opinion is delighted with his opinion.’ This reminds us that Islam is not a totalitarian religion which denies the possibility and legitimacy of variant opinions. ‘The Muslim scholars are agreed that the mujtahid cannot incur a sin in regard to his legitimate ijtihad exercised to derive judgements of Shari`a. [Only the likes of] Bishr al-Marisi, Ibn `Aliyya, Abu Bakr al-Asamm and the deniers of qiyas, such as the Mu`tazilites and the Twelver Shi`a, believe that there is only one true ruling in each legal issue, so that whoever does not attain to it is a sinner.’ (Amidi, IV, 244.) This is of course an aspect of the Divine mercy, and a token of the sane and generous breadth of Islam. ‘Allah desires ease for you, not difficulty.’ (Koran, 2:185) ‘I am sent to make things easy, not to make them more difficult.’ (Bukhari, `Ilm, 12.) ‘Never was Allah’s Messenger, may blessings and peace be upon him, given the choice between two options but that he chose the easier of them, unless it was a sin.’ (Bukhari, Manaqib, 23.) But the process lamented in Dahlawi’s day, by which people simply ignored this Sunna principle, has nowadays become far more poisonous. What is particularly damaging is that egos have become so powerful that the old Muslim adab of polite tolerance during debate has been lost in some circles, as people find it hard to accept that other Muslims might hold opinions that differ from their own. It must be realized that if Allah tells Musa (upon him be peace) to speak ‘gently’ to Pharoah (20:43), and commands us ‘not to debate with the People of the Book save in a most excellent way,’ (29:46) then how much more important must it be to debate politely with people who are neither Pharoahs nor Christians, but are of our own religion?

[71] Probably because of an underlying insecurity, many young Muslim activists cannot bear to admit that they might not know something about their religion. And this despite the example of Imam Malik, who, when asked forty questions about fiqh, answered ‘I do not know’ (la adri) to thirty-six of them. (Amidi, IV, 221; Bilmen, I, 239.) How many egos nowadays can bear to admit ignorance even once? They should remember the saying: ‘He who makes most haste to give a fatwa, makes most haste to the Fire.’ (Bilmen, I, 255.) Imam al-Subki condemns ‘those who make haste to give fatwas, relying on the apparent meaning of the [revealed] phrases without thinking deeply about them, thereby dragging other people into ignorance, and themselves into the agonies of the Fire.’ (Taj al-Din al-Subki, Mu`id al-Ni`am wa-Mubid al-Niqam (Brill, 1908), 149. Even Imam al-Sha`bi (d.103), out of his modesty and adab, and his awareness of the great complexity of the fiqh, did not consider himself a mufti, only a naqil (transmitter of texts). (Bilmen, I, 256.)

[72] Cf. Imam al-Dajawi, II, 579: ‘By Allah, this view (that ordinary people should not follow madhhabs) is nothing less than an attempt to fling the door wide open for people’s individual preferences, thereby turning the Book and the Sunna into playthings to be manipulated by those deluded fools, driven by their compounded ignorance and their corrupt imaginings. It is obvious that personal preferences vary enormously, and that ignorant people will arrive at their conclusions on the basis of their own emotions and imaginings. So what will be the result if we put them in authority over the Shari`a, so that they are able to interpret it in the light of their own opinions, and play with it according to their preferences?’

[73] Buti, 107-8. The same image is used by Imran Nyazee: ‘Taqlid, as distinguished from blind conversatism, is the foundation of all relationships based on trust, like those between a patient and his doctor, a client and his lawyer, and a business and its accountant. It is a legal method for ensuring that judges who are not fully-qualified mujtahids may be able to decide cases in the light of precedents laid down by independent jurists … The system of taqlid implies that as long as the layman does not get the training for becoming a doctor he cannot practice medicine, for example. In the case of medicine such a person may be termed a quack and may even be punished today, but in the case of Islamic law he is assuming a much graver responsibility: he is claiming that the opinion he is expressing is the law intended by Allah.’ (Introduction to The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer, xxxv.)

[74] It hardly needs adding, as a final observation, that nothing in all the above should be understood as an objection to the extension and development of the fiqh in response to modern conditions. Much serious ijtihad is called for; the point being made in this paper is simply that such ijtihad must be carried out by scholars qualified to do so.

 

By Abdul Hakim Murad

 

The Place of Tasawwuf in Traditional Islam

Perhaps the biggest challenge in learning Islam correctly today is the scarcity of traditional ‘ulama. In this meaning, Bukhari relates the sahih, rigorously authenticated hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, 

“Truly, Allah does not remove Sacred Knowedge by taking it out of servants, but rather by taking back the souls of Islamic scholars [in death], until, when He has not left a single scholar, the people take the ignorant as leaders, who are asked for and who give Islamic legal opinion without knowledge, misguided and misguiding” (Fath al-Bari, 1.194, hadith 100).

The process described by the hadith is not yet completed, but has certainly begun, and in our times, the lack of traditional scholars—whether in Islamic law, in hadith, in tafsir ‘Qur’anic exegesis’—has given rise to an understanding of the religion that is far from scholarly, and sometimes far from the truth. For example, in the course of my own studies in Islamic law, my first impression from orientalist and Muslim-reformer literature, was that the Imams of the madhhabs or ‘schools of jurisprudence’ had brought a set of rules from completely outside the Islamic tradition and somehow imposed them upon the Muslims. But when I sat with traditional scholars in the Middle East and asked them about the details, I came away with a different point of view, having learned the bases for deriving the law from the Qur’an and sunna. 

And similarly with Tasawwuf—which is the word I will use tonight for the English Sufism, since our context is traditional Islam—quite a different picture emerged from talking with scholars of Tasawwuf than what I had been exposed to in the West. My talk tonight, In Sha’ Allah, will present knowledge taken from the Qur’an and sahih hadith, and from actual teachers of Tasawwuf in Syria and Jordan, in view of the need for all of us to get beyond clichés, the need for factual information from Islamic sources, the need to answer such questions as: Where did Tasawwuf come from? What role does it play in the din or religion of Islam? and most importantly, What is the command of Allah about it? 

As for the origin of the term Tasawwuf, like many other Islamic discliplines, its name was not known to the first generation of Muslims. The historian Ibn Khaldun notes in his Muqaddima: 

This knowledge is a branch of the sciences of Sacred Law that originated within the Umma. From the first, the way of such people had also been considered the path of truth and guidance by the early Muslim community and its notables, of the Companions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), those who were taught by them, and those who came after them. 

It basically consists of dedication to worship, total dedication to Allah Most High, disregard for the finery and ornament of the world, abstinence from the pleasure, wealth, and prestige sought by most men, and retiring from others to worship alone. This was the general rule among the Companions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the early Muslims, but when involvement in this-worldly things became widespread from the second Islamic century onwards and people became absorbed in worldliness, those devoted to worship came to be called Sufiyya or People of Tasawwuf (Ibn Khaldun, al-Muqaddima [N.d. Reprint. Mecca: Dar al-Baz, 1397/1978], 467).

In Ibn Khaldun’s words, the content of Tasawwuf, “total dedication to Allah Most High,” was, “the general rule among the Companions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the early Muslims.” So if the word did not exist in earliest times, we should not forget that this is also the case with many other Islamic disciplines, such as tafsir, ‘Qur’anic exegesis,’ or ‘ilm al-jarh wa ta‘dil, ‘the science of the positive and negative factors that affect hadith narrators acceptability,’ or ‘ilm al-tawhid, the science of belief in Islamic tenets of faith,’ all of which proved to be of the utmost importance to the correct preservation and transmission of the religion.

As for the origin of the word Tasawwuf, it may well be from Sufi, the person who does Tasawwuf, which seems to be etymologically prior to it, for the earliest mention of either term was by Hasan al-Basri who died 110 years after the Hijra, and is reported to have said, “I saw a Sufi circumambulating the Kaaba, and offered him a dirham, but he would not accept it.” It therefore seems better to understand Tasawwuf by first asking what a Sufi is; and perhaps the best definition of both the Sufi and his way, certainly one of the most frequently quoted by masters of the discipline, is from the sunna of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) who said:

Allah Most High says: “He who is hostile to a friend of Mine I declare war against. My slave approaches Me with nothing more beloved to Me than what I have made obligatory upon him, and My slave keeps drawing nearer to Me with voluntary works until I love him. And when I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he seizes, and his foot with which he walks. If he asks me, I will surely give to him, and if he seeks refuge in Me, I will surely protect him” (Fath al-Bari, 11.340–41, hadith 6502);

This hadith was related by Imam Bukhari, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, al-Bayhaqi, and others with multiple contiguous chains of transmission, and is sahih. It discloses the central reality of Tasawwuf, which is precisely change, while describing the path to this change, in conformity with a traditional definition used by masters in the Middle East, who define a Sufi as Faqihun ‘amila bi ‘ilmihi fa awrathahu Llahu ‘ilma ma lam ya‘lam,‘A man of religious learning who applied what he knew, so Allah bequeathed him knowledge of what he did not know.’

To clarify, a Sufi is a man of religious learning,because the hadith says, “My slave approaches Me with nothing more beloved to Me than what I have made obligatory upon him,” and only through learning can the Sufi know the command of Allah, or what has been made obligatory for him. He has applied what he knew, because the hadith says he not only approaches Allah with the obligatory, but “keeps drawing nearer to Me with voluntary works until I love him.” And in turn, Allah bequeathed him knowledge of what he did not know, because the hadith says, “And when I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he seizes, and his foot with which he walks,” which is a metaphor for the consummate awareness of tawhid, or the ‘unity of Allah,’ which in the context of human actions such as hearing, sight, seizing, and walking, consists of realizing the words of the Qur’an about Allah that, 

“It is He who created you and what you do” (Qur’an 37:96).

The origin of the way of the Sufi thus lies in the prophetic sunna. The sincerity to Allah that it entails was the rule among the earliest Muslims, to whom this was simply a state of being without a name, while it only became a distinct discipline when the majority of the Community had drifted away and changed from this state. Muslims of subsequent generations required systematic effort to attain it, and it was because of the change in the Islamic environment after the earliest generations, that a discipline by the name of Tasawwuf came to exist. 

But if this is true of origins, the more significant question is: How central is Tasawwuf to the religion, and: Where does it fit into Islam as a whole? Perhaps the best answer is the hadith of Muslim, that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said: 

As we sat one day with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace), a man in pure white clothing and jet black hair came to us, without a trace of travelling upon him, though none of us knew him.

He sat down before the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) bracing his knees against his, resting his hands on his legs, and said: “Muhammad, tell me about Islam.” The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “Islam is to testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and to perform the prayer, give zakat, fast in Ramadan, and perform the pilgrimage to the House if you can find a way.”

He said: “You have spoken the truth,” and we were surprised that he should ask and then confirm the answer. Then he said: “Tell me about true faith (iman),” and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) answered: “It is to believe in Allah, His angels, His inspired Books, His messengers, the Last Day, and in destiny, its good and evil.”

“You have spoken the truth,” he said, “Now tell me about the perfection of faith (ihsan),” and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) answered: “It is to worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you see Him not, He nevertheless sees you.”

The hadith continues to where ‘Umar said:

Then the visitor left. I waited a long while, and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said to me, “Do you know, ‘Umar, who was the questioner?” and I replied, “Allah and His messenger know best.” He said, 

“It was Gabriel, who came to you to teach you your religion” (Sahih Muslim, 1.37: hadith 8). 

This is a sahih hadith, described by Imam Nawawi as one of the hadiths upon which the Islamic religion turns. The use of din in the last words of it, Atakum yu‘allimukum dinakum, “came to you to teach you your religion” entails that the religion of Islam is composed of the three fundamentals mentioned in the hadith: Islam, or external compliance with what Allah asks of us; Iman, or the belief in the unseen that the prophets have informed us of; and Ihsan, or to worship Allah as though one sees Him. The Qur’an says, in Surat Maryam, 

“Surely We have revealed the Remembrance, and surely We shall preserve it” (Qur’an 15:9), 

and if we reflect how Allah, in His wisdom, has accomplished this, we see that it is by human beings, the traditional scholars He has sent at each level of the religion. The level of Islam has been preserved and conveyed to us by the Imams of Shari‘a or ‘Sacred Law’ and its ancillary disciplines; the level of Iman, by the Imams of ‘Aqida or ‘tenets of faith’; and the level of Ihsan, “to worship Allah as though you see Him,” by the Imams of Tasawwuf. 

The hadith’s very words “to worship Allah” show us the interrelation of these three fundamentals, for the how of “worship” is only known through the external prescriptions of Islam, while the validity of this worship in turn presupposes Iman or faith in Allah and the Islamic revelation, without which worship would be but empty motions; while the words, “as if you see Him,” show that Ihsan implies a human change, for it entails the experience of what, for most of us, is not experienced. So to understand Tasawwuf, we must look at the nature of this change in relation to both Islam and Iman, and this is the main focus of my talk tonight. 

At the level of Islam, we said that Tasawwuf requires Islam,through ‘submission to the rules of Sacred Law.’ But Islam, for its part, equally requires Tasawwuf. Why? For the very good reason that the sunna which Muslims have been commanded to follow is not just the words and actions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), but also his states, states of the heart such as taqwa ‘godfearingness,’ ikhlas ‘sincerity,’ tawakkul ‘reliance on Allah,’ rahma ‘mercy,’ tawadu‘ ‘humility,’ and so on. 

Now, it is characteristic of the Islamic ethic that human actions are not simply divided into two shades of morality, right or wrong; but rather five, arranged in order of their consequences in the next world. The obligatory (wajib) is that whose performance is rewarded by Allah in the next life and whose nonperformance is punished. The recommended (mandub) is that whose performance is rewarded, but whose nonperformance is not punished. The permissible (mubah) is indifferent, unconnected with either reward or punishment. The offensive (makruh) is that whose nonperformance is rewarded but whose performance is not punished. The unlawful (haram) is that whose nonperformance is rewarded and whose performance is punished, if one dies unrepentant. 

Human states of the heart, the Qur’an and sunna make plain to us, come under each of these headings. Yet they are not dealt with in books of fiqh or ‘Islamic jurisprudence,’ because unlike the prayer, zakat, or fasting, they are not quantifiable in terms of the specific amount of them that must be done. But though they are not countable, they are of the utmost importance to every Muslim. Let’s look at a few examples.

(1) Love of Allah. In Surat al-Baqara of the Qur’an, Allah blames those who ascribe associates to Allah whom they love as much as they love Allah. Then He says, 

“And those who believe are greater in love for Allah” (Qur’an 2:165), making being a believer conditional upon having greater love for Allah than any other.

(2) Mercy. Bukhari and Muslim relate that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Whomever is not merciful to people, Allah will show no mercy” (Sahih Muslim, 4.1809: hadith 2319), and Tirmidhi relates the well authenticated (hasan) hadith “Mercy is not taken out of anyone except the damned” (al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 4.323: hadith 1923).

(3) Love of each other. Muslim relates in his Sahih that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “By Him in whose hand is my soul, none of you shall enter paradise until you believe, and none of you shall believe until you love one another . . . .” (Sahih Muslim, 1.74: hadith 54).

(4) Presence of mind in the prayer (salat). Abu Dawud relates in his Sunan that ‘Ammar ibn Yasir heard the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) say, “Truly, a man leaves, and none of his prayer has been recorded for him except a tenth of it, a ninth of it, eighth of it, seventh of it, sixth of it, fifth of it, fourth of it, third of it, a half of it” (Sunan Abi Dawud, 1.211: hadith 796)—meaning that none of a person’s prayer counts for him except that in which he is present in his heart with Allah.

(5) Love of the Prophet. Bukhari relates in his Sahih that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “None of you believes until I am more beloved to him than his father, his son, and all people” (Fath al-Bari, 1.58, hadith 15).

It is plain from these texts that none of the states mentioned—whether mercy, love, or presence of heart—are quantifiable, for the Shari‘a cannot specify that one must “do two units of mercy” or “have three units of presence of mind” in the way that the number of rak‘as of prayer can be specified, yet each of them is personally obligatory for the Muslim. Let us complete the picture by looking at a few examples of states that are haram or ‘strictly unlawful’: 

(1) Fear of anyone besides Allah. Allah Most High says in Surat al-Baqara of the Qur’an, 

“And fulfill My covenant: I will fulfill your covenant—And fear Me alone” (Qur’an 2:40), the last phrase of which, according to Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, “establishes that a human being is obliged to fear no one besides Allah Most High” (Tafsir al-Fakhr al-Razi, 3.42).

(2) Despair. Allah Most High says, 

“None despairs of Allah’s mercy except the people who disbelieve” (Qur’an 12:87), indicating the unlawfulness of this inward state by coupling it with the worst human condition possible, that of unbelief.

(3) Arrogance. Muslim relates in his Sahih that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “No one shall enter paradise who has a particle of arrogance in his heart” (Sahih Muslim, 1.93: hadith 91).

(4) Envy,meaning to wish for another to lose the blessings he enjoys. Abu Dawud relates that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Beware of envy, for envy consumes good works as flames consume firewood” (Sunan Abi Dawud, 4.276: hadith 4903).

(5) Showing off in acts of worship. Al-Hakim relates with a sahih chain of transmission that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “The slightest bit of showing off in good works is as if worshipping others with Allah . . . .” (al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn, 1.4). 

These and similar haram inward states are not found in books of fiqh or ‘jurisprudence,’ because fiqh can only deal with quantifiable descriptions of rulings. Rather, they are examined in their causes and remedies by the scholars of the ‘inner fiqh’ of Tasawwuf, men such as Imam al-Ghazali in his Ihya’ ‘ulum al-din [The reviving of the religious sciences], Imam al-Rabbani in his Maktubat [Letters], al-Suhrawardi in his ‘Awarif al-Ma‘arif [The knowledges of the illuminates], Abu Talib al-Makki in Qut al-qulub [The sustenance of hearts], and similar classic works, which discuss and solve hundreds of ethical questions about the inner life. These are books of Shari‘a and their questions are questions of Sacred Law, of how it is lawful or unlawful for a Muslim to be; and they preserve the part of the prophetic sunna dealing with states.

Who needs such information? All Muslims, for the Qur’anic verses and authenticated hadiths all point to the fact that a Muslim must not only do certain things and say certain things, but also must be something, must attain certain states of the heart and eliminate others. Do we ever fear someone besides Allah? Do we have a particle of arrogance in our hearts? Is our love for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) greater than our love for any other human being? Is there the slightest bit of showing off in our good works?

Half a minute’s reflection will show the Muslim where he stands on these aspects of his din, and why in classical times, helping Muslims to attain these states was not left to amateurs, but rather delegated to ‘ulama of the heart, the scholars of Islamic Tasawwuf. For most people, these are not easy transformations to make, because of the force of habit, because of the subtlety with which we can deceive ourselves, but most of all because each of us has an ego, the self, the Me, which is called in Arabic al-nafs, about which Allah testifies in Surat Yusuf:

“Verily the self ever commands to do evil” (Qur’an 12:53). 

If you do not believe it, consider the hadith related by Muslim in his Sahih, that:

The first person judged on Resurrection Day will be a man martyred in battle.

He will be brought forth, Allah will reacquaint him with His blessings upon him and the man will acknowledge them, whereupon Allah will say, “What have you done with them?” to which the man will respond, “I fought to the death for You.”

Allah will reply, “You lie. You fought in order to be called a hero, and it has already been said.” Then he will be sentenced and dragged away on his face and flung into the fire.

Then a man will be brought forward who learned Sacred Knowledge, taught it to others, and who recited the Qur’an. Allah will remind him of His gifts to him and the man will acknowledge them, and then Allah will say, “What have you done with them?” The man will answer, “I acquired Sacred Knowledge, taught it, and recited the Qur’an, for Your sake.”

Allah will say, “You lie. You learned so as to be called a scholar, and read the Qur’an so as to be called a reciter, and it has already been said.” Then the man will be sentenced and dragged away on his face to be flung into the fire.

Then a man will be brought forward whom Allah generously provided for, giving him various kinds of wealth, and Allah will recall to him the benefits given, and the man will acknowledge them, to which Allah will say, “And what have you done with them?” The man will answer, “I have not left a single kind of expenditure You love to see made, except that I have spent on it for Your sake.”

Allah will say, “You lie. You did it so as to be called generous, and it has already been said.” Then he will be sentenced and dragged away on his face to be flung into the fire (Sahih Muslim, 3.1514: hadith 1905).

We should not fool ourselves about this, because our fate depends on it: in our childhood, our parents taught us how to behave through praise or blame, and for most of us, this permeated and colored our whole motivation for doing things. But when childhood ends, and we come of age in Islam, the religion makes it clear to us, both by the above hadith and by the words of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) “The slightest bit of showing off in good works is as if worshipping others with Allah” that being motivated by what others think is no longer good enough, and that we must change our motives entirely, and henceforth be motivated by nothing but desire for Allah Himself. The Islamic revelation thus tells the Muslim that it is obligatory to break his habits of thinking and motivation, but it does not tell him how. For that, he must go to the scholars of these states, in accordance with the Qur’anic imperative,

“Ask those who know if you know not” (Qur’an 16:43),

There is no doubt that bringing about this change, purifying the Muslims by bringing them to spiritual sincerity, was one of the central duties of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace), for Allah says in the Surat Al ‘Imran of the Qur’an,

“Allah has truly blessed the believers, for He has sent them a messenger of themselves, who recites His signs to them and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom” (Qur’an 3:164),

which explicitly lists four tasks of the prophetic mission, the second of which, yuzakkihim means precisely to ‘purify them’ and has no other lexical sense. Now, it is plain that this teaching function cannot, as part of an eternal revelation, have ended with the passing of the first generation, a fact that Allah explictly confirms in His injunction in Surat Luqman,

“And follow the path of him who turns unto Me” (Qur’an 31:15).

These verses indicate the teaching and transformative role of those who convey the Islamic revelation to Muslims, and the choice of the word ittiba‘ in the second verse, which is more general, implies both keeping the company of and following the example of a teacher. This is why in the history of Tasawwuf, we find that though there were many methods and schools of thought, these two things never changed: keeping the company of a teacher, and following his example—in exactly the same way that the Sahaba were uplifted and purified by keeping the company of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and following his example. 

And this is why the discipline of Tasawwuf has been preserved and transmitted by Tariqas or groups of students under a particular master. First, because this was the sunna of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in his purifying function described by the Qur’an. Secondly, Islamic knowledge has never been transmitted by writings alone, but rather from ‘ulama to students. Thirdly, the nature of the knowledge in question is of hal or ‘state of being,’ not just knowing, and hence requires it be taken from a succession of living masters back to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), for the sheer range and number of the states of heart required by the revelation effectively make imitation of the personal example of a teacher the only effective means of transmission. 

So far we have spoken about Tasawwuf in respect to Islam, as a Shari‘a science necessary to fully realize the Sacred Law in one’s life, to attain the states of the heart demanded by the Qur’an and hadith. This close connection between Shari‘a and Tasawwuf is expressed by the statement of Imam Malik, founder of the Maliki school, that “he who practices Tasawwuf without learning Sacred Law corrupts his faith, while he who learns Sacred Law without practicing Tasawwuf corrupts himself. Only he who combines the two proves true.” This is why Tasawwuf was taught as part of the traditional curriculum in madrasas across the Muslim world from Malaysia to Morocco, why many of the greatest Shari‘a scholars of this Umma have been Sufis, and why until the end of the Islamic caliphate at the beginning of this century and the subsequent Western control and cultural dominance of Muslim lands, there were teachers of Tasawwuf in Islamic institutions of higher learning from Lucknow to Istanbul to Cairo. 

But there is a second aspect of Tasawwuf that we have not yet talked about; namely, its relation to Iman or ‘True Faith,’ the second pillar of the Islamic religion, which in the context of the Islamic sciences consists of ‘Aqida or ‘orthodox belief.’

All Muslims believe in Allah, and that He is transcendently beyond anything conceivable to the minds of men, for the human intellect is imprisoned within its own sense impressions and the categories of thought derived from them, such as number, directionality, spatial extention, place, time, and so forth. Allah is beyond all of that; in His own words, 

“There is nothing whatesover like unto Him” (Qur’an 42:11)

If we reflect for a moment on this verse, in the light of the hadith of Muslim about Ihsan that “it is to worship Allah as though you see Him,” we realize that the means of seeing here is not the eye, which can only behold physical things like itself; nor yet the mind, which cannot transcend its own impressions to reach the Divine, but rather certitude, the light of Iman, whose locus is not the eye or the brain, but rather the ruh, a subtle faculty Allah has created within each of us called the soul, whose knowledge is unobstructed by the bounds of the created universe. Allah Most High says, by way of exalting the nature of this faculty by leaving it a mystery,

“Say: ‘The soul is of the affair of my Lord’” (Qur’an 17:85).

The food of this ruh is dhikr or the ‘remembrance of Allah.’ Why? Because acts of obedience increase the light of certainty and Iman in the soul, and dhikr is among the greatest of them, as is attested to by the sahih hadith related by al-Hakim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

“Shall I not tell you of the best of your works, the purest of them in the eyes of your Master, the highest in raising your rank, better than giving gold and silver, and better for you than to meet your enemy and smite their necks, and they smite yours?” They said, “This—what is it, O Messenger of Allah?” and he said: Dhikru Llahi ‘azza wa jall, “The remembrance of Allah Mighty and Majestic.” (al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn, 1.496).

Increasing the strength of Iman through good actions, and particularly through the medium of dhikr has tremendous implications for the Islamic religion and traditional spirituality. A non-Muslim once asked me, “If God exists, then why all this beating around the bush? Why doesn’t He just come out and say so?” 

The answer is that taklif or ‘moral responsibility’ in this life is not only concerned with outward actions, but with what we believe, our ‘Aqida—and the strength with which we believe it. If belief in God and other eternal truths were effortless in this world, there would be no point in Allah making us responsible for it, it would be automatic, involuntary, like our belief, say, that London is in England. There would no point in making someone responsible for something impossible not to believe. 

But the responsibility Allah has place upon us is belief in the Unseen, as a test for us in this world to choose between kufr and Iman, to distinguish believer from unbeliever, and some believers above others.

This why strengthening Iman through dhikr is of such methodological importance for Tasawwuf: we have not only been commanded as Muslims to believe in certain things, but have been commanded to have absolute certainty in them. The world we see around us is composed of veils of light and darkness: events come that knock the Iman out of some of us, and Allah tests each of us as to the degree of certainty with which we believe the eternal truths of the religion. It was in this sense that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “If the Iman of Abu Bakr were weighed against the Iman of the entire Umma, it would outweigh it.”

Now, in traditional ‘Aqida one of the most important tenets is the wahdaniyya or ‘oneness and uniqueness’ of Allah Most High. This means He is without any sharik or associate in His being, in His attributes, or in His acts. But the ability to hold this insight in mind in the rough and tumble of daily life is a function of the strength of certainty (yaqin) in one’s heart. Allah tells the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in Surat al-A‘raf of the Qur’an, 

“Say: ‘I do not possess benefit for myself or harm, except as Allah wills’” (Qur’an 7:188),

yet we tend to rely on ourselves and our plans, in obliviousness to the facts of ‘Aqida that ourselves and our plans have no effect, that Allah alone brings about effects.

If you want to test yourself on this, the next time you contact someone with good connections whose help is critical to you, take a look at your heart at the moment you ask him to put in a good word for you with someone, and see whom you are relying upon. If you are like most of us, Allah is not at the forefront of your thoughts, despite the fact that He alone is controlling the outcome. Isn’t this a lapse in your ‘Aqida, or, at the very least, in your certainty? 

Tasawwuf corrects such shortcomings by step-by-step increasing the Muslim’s certainty in Allah. The two central means of Tasawwuf in attaining the conviction demanded by ‘Aqida are mudhakara, or learning the traditional tenets of Islamic faith, and dhikr, deepening one’s certainty in them by remembrance of Allah. It is part of our faith that, in the words of the Qur’an in Surat al-Saffat, 

“Allah has created you and what you do” (Qur’an 37:96); 

yet for how many of us is this day to day experience? Because Tasawwuf remedies this and other shortcomings of Iman, by increasing the Muslim’s certainty through a systematic way of teaching and dhikr, it has traditionally been regarded as personally obligatory to this pillar of the religion also, and from the earliest centuries of Islam, has proved its worth. 

The last question we will deal with tonight is: What about the bad Sufis we read about, who contravene the teachings of Islam? 

The answer is that there are two meanings of Sufi: the first is “Anyone who considers himself a Sufi,” which is the rule of thumb of orientalist historians of Sufism and popular writers, who would oppose the “Sufis” to the “Ulama.” I think the Qur’anic verses and hadiths we have mentioned tonight about the scope and method of true Tasawwuf show why we must insist on the primacy of the definition of a Sufi as “a man of religious learning who applied what he knew, so Allah bequeathed him knowledge of what he did not know.” 

The very first thing a Sufi, as a man of religious learning knows is that the Shari‘a and ‘Aqida of Islam are above every human being. Whoever does not know this will never be a Sufi, except in the orientalist sense of the word—like someone standing in front of the stock exchange in an expensive suit with a briefcase to convince people he is a stockbroker. A real stockbroker is something else.

Because this distinction is ignored today by otherwise well-meaning Muslims, it is often forgotten that the ‘ulama who have criticized Sufis, such as Ibn al-Jawzi in his Talbis Iblis [The Devil’s deception], or Ibn Taymiya in places in his Fatawa, or Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, were not criticizing Tasawwuf as an ancillary discipline to the Shari‘a. The proof of this is Ibn al-Jawzi’s five-volume Sifat al-safwa, which contains the biographies of the very same Sufis mentioned in al-Qushayri’s famous Tasawwuf manual al-Risala al-Qushayriyya. Ibn Taymiya considered himself a Sufi of the Qadiri order, and volumes ten and eleven of his thirty-seven-volume Majmu‘ al-fatawa are devoted to Tasawwuf. And Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya wrote his three-volume Madarij al-salikin, a detailed commentary on ‘Abdullah al-Ansari al-Harawi’s tract on the spiritual stations of the Sufi path, Manazil al-sa’irin. These works show that their authors’ criticisms were not directed at Tasawwuf as such, but rather at specific groups of their times, and they should be understood for what they are. 

As in other Islamic sciences, mistakes historically did occur in Tasawwuf, most of them stemming from not recognizing the primacy of Shari‘a and ‘Aqida above all else. But these mistakes were not different in principle from, for example, the Isra’iliyyat (baseless tales of Bani Isra’il) that crept into tafsir literature, or the mawdu‘at (hadith forgeries) that crept into the hadith. These were not taken as proof that tafsir was bad, or hadith was deviance, but rather, in each discipline, the errors were identified and warned against by Imams of the field, because the Umma needed the rest. And such corrections are precisely what we find in books like Qushayri’s Risala,Ghazali’s Ihya’ and other works of Sufism.

For all of the reasons we have mentioned, Tasawwuf was accepted as an essential part of the Islamic religion by the ‘ulama of this Umma. The proof of this is all the famous scholars of Shari‘a sciences who had the higher education of Tasawwuf, among them Ibn ‘Abidin, al-Razi, Ahmad Sirhindi, Zakariyya al-Ansari, al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salam, Ibn Daqiq al-‘Eid, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Shah Wali Allah, Ahmad Dardir, Ibrahim al-Bajuri, ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, Imam al-Nawawi, Taqi al-Din al-Subki, and al-Suyuti. 

Among the Sufis who aided Islam with the sword as well as the pen, to quote Reliance of the Traveller, were:

such men as the Naqshbandi sheikh Shamil al-Daghestani, who fought a prolonged war against the Russians in the Caucasus in the nineteenth century; Sayyid Muhammad ‘Abdullah al-Somali, a sheikh of the Salihiyya order who led Muslims against the British and Italians in Somalia from 1899 to 1920; the Qadiri sheikh ‘Uthman ibn Fodi, who led jihad in Northern Nigeria from 1804 to 1808 to establish Islamic rule; the Qadiri sheikh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza’iri, who led the Algerians against the French from 1832 to 1847; the Darqawi faqir al-Hajj Muhammad al-Ahrash, who fought the French in Egypt in 1799; the Tijani sheikh al-Hajj ‘Umar Tal, who led Islamic Jihad in Guinea, Senegal, and Mali from 1852 to 1864; and the Qadiri sheikh Ma’ al-‘Aynayn al-Qalqami, who helped marshal Muslim resistance to the French in northern Mauritania and southern Morocco from 1905 to 1909. 

Among the Sufis whose missionary work Islamized entire regions are such men as the founder of the Sanusiyya order, Muhammad ‘Ali Sanusi, whose efforts and jihad from 1807 to 1859 consolidated Islam as the religion of peoples from the Libyan Desert to sub-Saharan Africa; [and] the Shadhili sheikh Muhammad Ma‘ruf and Qadiri sheikh Uways al-Barawi, whose efforts spread Islam westward and inland from the East African Coast . . . . (Reliance of the Traveller,863).

It is plain from the examples of such men what kind of Muslims have been Sufis; namely, all kinds, right across the board—and that Tasawwuf did not prevent them from serving Islam in any way they could.

To summarize everything I have said tonight: In looking first at Tasawwuf and Shari‘a, we found that many Qur’anic verses and sahih hadiths oblige the Muslim to eliminate haram inner states as arrogance, envy, and fear of anyone besides Allah; and on the other hand, to acquire such obligatory inner states as mercy, love of one’s fellow Muslims, presence of mind in prayer, and love of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). We found that these inward states could not be dealt with in books of fiqh, whose purpose is to specify the outward, quantifiable aspects of the Shari‘a. The knowledge of these states is nevertheless of the utmost importance to every Muslim, and this is why it was studied under the ‘ulama of Ihsan, the teachers of Tasawwuf, in all periods of Islamic history until the beginning of the present century.

We then turned to the level of Iman, and found that though the ‘Aqida of Muslims is that Allah alone has any effect in this world, keeping this in mind in everhday life is not a given of human consciousness, but rather a function of a Muslim’s yaqin, his certainty. And we found that Tasawwuf, as an ancillary discipline to ‘Aqida, emphasizes the systematic increase of this certainty through both mudhakara, ‘teaching tenets of faith’ and dhikr, ‘the remembrance of Allah,’ in accordance with the words of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) about Ihsan that “it is worship Allah as though you see Him.”

Lastly, we found that accusations against Tasawwuf made by scholars such as Ibn al-Jawzi, and Ibn Taymiya were not directed against Tasawwuf in principle, but to specific groups and individuals in the times of these authors, the proof for which is the other books by the same authors that showed their understanding of Tasawwuf as a Shari‘a science. 

To return to the starting point of my talk this evening, with the disappearance of traditional Islamic scholars from the Umma, two very different pictures of Tasawwuf emerge today. If we read books written after the dismantling of the traditional fabric of Islam by colonial powers in the last century, we find the big hoax: Islam without spirituality and Shari‘a without Tasawwuf. But if we read the classical works of Islamic scholarship, we learn that Tasawwuf has been a Shari‘a science like tafsir, hadith, or any other, throughout the history of Islam. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

“Truly, Allah does not look at your outward forms and wealth, but rather at your hearts and your works” (Sahih Muslim, 4.1389: hadith 2564).

And this is the brightest hope that Islam can offer a modern world darkened by materialism and nihilism: Islam as it truly is; the hope of eternal salvation through a religion of brotherhood and social and economic justice outwardly, and the direct experience of divine love and illumination inwardly. 

By Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller

 

Why Muslims Follow Madhabs

The work of the mujtahid Imams of Sacred Law, those who deduce shari‘a rulings from Qur’an and hadith, has been the object of my research for some years now, during which I have sometimes heard the question: “Who needs the Imams of Sacred Law when we have the Qur’an and hadith? Why can’t we take our Islam from the word of Allah and His Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), which are divinely protected from error, instead of taking it from the madhhabs or “schools of jurisprudence” of the mujtahid Imams such as Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi‘i, and Ahmad, which are not?”

It cannot be hidden from any of you how urgent this issue is, or that many of the disagreements we see and hear in our mosques these days are due to lack of knowledge of fiqh or “Islamic jurisprudence” and its relation to Islam as a whole. Now, perhaps more than ever before, it is time for us to get back to basics and ask ourselves how we understand and carry out the commands of Allah.

We will first discuss the knowledge of Islam that all of us possess, and then show where fiqh enters into it. We will look at the qualifications mentioned in the Qur’an and sunna for those who do fiqh, the mujtahid scholars. We will focus first on the extent of the mujtahid scholar’s knowledge—how many hadiths he has to know, and so on—and then we will look at the depth of his knowledge, through actual examples of dalils or “legal proofs” that demonstrate how scholars join between different and even contradictory hadiths to produce a unified and consistent legal ruling.

We will close by discussing the mujtahid’s relation to the science of hadith authentication, and the conditions by which a scholar knows that a given hadith is sahih or “rigorously authenticated,” so that he can accept and follow it.

Qur’an and Hadith. The knowledge that you and I take from the Qur’an and the hadith is of several types: the first and most important concerns our faith, and is the knowledge of Allah and His attributes, and the other basic tenets of Islamic belief such as the messengerhood of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), the Last Day, and so on. Every Muslim can and must acquire this knowledge from the Book of Allah and the sunna.

This is also the case with a second type of general knowledge, which does not concern faith, however, but rather works: the general laws of Islam to do good, to avoid evil, to perform the prayer, pay zakat, fast Ramadan, to cooperate with others in good works, and so forth. Anyone can learn and understand these general rules, which summarize the sirat al-mustaqim or “straight path” of our religion.

Fiqh. A third type of knowledge is of the specific details of Islamic practice. Whereas anyone can understand the first two types of knowledge from the Qur’an and hadith, the understanding of this third type has a special name, fiqh, meaning literally “understanding.” And people differ in their capacity to do it.

I had a visitor one day in Jordan, for example, who, when we talked about why he hadn’t yet gone on hajj, mentioned the hadith of Anas ibn Malik that

the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Whoever prays the dawn prayer (fajr) in a group and then sits and does dhikr until the sun rises, then prays two rak‘as, shall have the like of the reward of a hajj and an ‘umra.” Anas said, “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘Completely, completely, completely’” (Tirmidhi, 2.481).

My visitor had done just that this very morning, and he now believed that he had fulfilled his obligation to perform the hajj, and had no need to go to Mecca. The hadith was well authenticated (hasan). I distinguished for my visitor between having the reward of something, and lifting the obligation of Islam by actually doing it, and he saw my point.

But there is a larger lesson here, that while the Qur’an and the sunna are ma‘sum or “divinely protected from error,” the understanding of them is not. And someone who derives rulings from the Qur’an and hadith without training in ijtihad or “deduction from primary texts” as my visitor did, will be responsible for it on the Day of Judgment, just as an amateur doctor who had never been to medical school would be responsible if he performed an operation and somebody died under his knife.

Why? Because Allah has explained in the Qur’an that fiqh, the detailed understanding of the divine command, requires specially trained members of the Muslim community to learn and teach it. Allah says in surat al-Tawba:

“Not all of the believers should go to fight. Of every section of them, why does not one part alone go forth, that the rest may gain understanding of the religion, and to admonish their people when they return, that perhaps they may take warning” (Qur’an 9:122)

—where the expression li yatafaqqahu fi al-din, “to gain understanding of the religion,” is derived from precisely the same root (f-q-h) as the word fiqh or “jurisprudence,” and is what Western students of Arabic would call a “fifth-form verb” (tafa‘‘ala), which indicates that the meaning contained in the root, understanding, is accomplished through careful, sustained effort.

This Qur’anic verse establishes that there should be a category of people who have learned the religion so as to be qualified in turn to teach it. And Allah has commanded those who do not know a ruling in Sacred Law to ask those who do, by saying in surat al-Nahl,

“Ask those who recall if you know not” (Qur’an 16:43),

in which the words “those who recall,” ahl al-dhikri, indicate those with knowledge of the Qur’an and sunna, at their forefront the mujtahid Imams of this Umma. Why? Because, first of all, the Qur’an and hadith are in Arabic, and as a translator, I can assure you that it is not just any Arabic.

To understand the Qur’an and sunna, the mujtahid must have complete knowledge of the Arabic language in the same capacity as the early Arabs themselves had before the language came to be used by non-native speakers. This qualification, which almost no one in our time has, is not the main subject of my essay, but even if we did have it, what if you or I, though not trained specialists, wanted to deduce details of Islamic practice directly from the sources? After all, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has said, in the hadith of Bukhari and Muslim: “When a judge gives judgement and strives to know a ruling (ijtahada) and is correct, he has two rewards. If he gives judgement and strives to know a ruling, but is wrong, he has one reward” (Bukhari, 9.133).

The answer is that the term ijtihad or “striving to know a ruling” in this hadith does not mean just any person’s efforts to understand and operationalize an Islamic ruling, but rather the person with sound knowledge of everything the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) taught that relates to the question. Whoever makes ijtihad without this qualification is a criminal. The proof of this is the hadith that the Companion Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah said:

We went on a journey, and a stone struck one of us and opened a gash in his head. When he later had a wet-dream in his sleep, he then asked his companions, “Do you find any dispensation for me to perform dry ablution (tayammum)?” [Meaning instead of a full purificatory bath (ghusl).] They told him, “We don’t find any dispensation for you if you can use water.”

So he performed the purificatory bath and his wound opened and he died. When we came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), he was told of this and he said: “They have killed him, may Allah kill them. Why did they not ask?—for they didn’t know. The only cure for someone who does not know what to say is to ask” (Abu Dawud, 1.93).

This hadith, which was related by Abu Dawud, is well authenticated (hasan), and every Muslim who has any taqwa should reflect on it carefully, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) indicated in it—in the strongest language possible—that to judge on a rule of Islam on the basis of insufficient knowledge is a crime. And like it is the well authenticated hadith “Whoever is given a legal opinion (fatwa) without knowledge, his sin is but upon the person who gave him the opinion” (Abu Dawud, 3.321).

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) also said:

Judges are three: two of them in hell, and one in paradise. A man who knows the truth and judges accordingly, he shall go to paradise. A man who judges for people while ignorant, he shall go to hell. And a man who knows the truth but rules unjustly, he shall go to hell (Sharh al-sunna, 10.94).

This hadith, which was related by Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and others, is rigorously authenticated (sahih), and any Muslim who would like to avoid the hellfire should soberly consider the fate of whoever, in the words of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), “judges for people while ignorant.”

Yet we all have our Yusuf ‘Ali Qur’ans, and our Sahih al-Bukhari translations. Aren’t these adequate scholarly resources?

These are valuable books, and do convey perhaps the largest and most important part of our din: the basic Islamic beliefs, and general laws of the religion. Our discussion here is not about these broad principles, but rather about understanding specific details of Islamic practice, which is called precisely fiqh. For this, I think any honest investigator who studies the issues will agree that the English translations are not enough. They are not enough because understanding the total Qur’an and hadith textual corpus, which comprises what we call the din, requires two dimensions in a scholar: a dimension of breadth, the substantive knowledge of all the texts; and a dimension of depth, the methodological tools needed to join between all the Qur’anic verses and hadiths, even those that ostensibly contradict one another.

Knowledge of Primary Texts. As for the breadth of a mujtahid’s knowledge, it is recorded that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s student Muhammad ibn ‘Ubaydullah ibn al-Munadi

heard a man ask him [Imam Ahmad]: “When a man has memorized 100,000 hadiths, is he a scholar of Sacred Law, a faqih?” And he said, “No.” The man asked, “200,000 then?” And he said, “No.” The man asked, “Then 300,000?” And he said, “No.” The man asked, “400,000?” And Ahmad gestured with his hand to signify “about that many” (Ibn al-Qayyim: I‘lam al-muwaqqi‘in, 4.205).

In truth, by the term “hadith” here Imam Ahmad meant the hadiths of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in all their various chains of transmission, counting each chain of transmission as a separate hadith, and perhaps also counting the statements of the Sahaba. But the larger point here is that even if we eliminate the different chains, and speak only about the hadiths from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) that are plainly acceptable as evidence, whether sahih, “rigorously authenticated” or hasan “well authenticated” (which for purposes of ijtihad, may be assimilated to the sahih), we are still speaking of well over 10,000 hadiths, and they are not contained in Bukhari alone, or in Bukhari and Muslim alone, nor yet in any six books, or even in any nine. Yet whoever wants to give a fatwa or “formal legal opinion” and judge for people that something is lawful or unlawful, obligatory or sunna, must know all the primary texts that relate to it. For the perhaps 10,000 hadiths that are sahih are, for the mujtahid, as one single hadith, and he must first know them in order to join between them to explain the unified command of Allah.

I say “join between” because most of you must be aware that some sahih hadiths seem to controvert other equally sahih hadiths. What does a mujtahid do in such an instance?

Ijtihad. Let’s look at some examples. Most of us know the hadiths about fasting on the Day of ‘Arafa for the non-pilgrim, that “it expiates [the sins of] the year before and the year after” (Muslim, 2.819). But another rigorously authenticated hadith prohibits fasting on Friday alone (Bukhari, 3.54), and a well authenticated hadith prohibits fasting on Saturday alone (Tirmidhi, 3.120), of which Tirmidhi explains, “The meaning of the ‘offensiveness’ in this is when a man singles out Saturday to fast on, since the Jews venerate Saturdays” (ibid.). Some scholars hold Sundays offensive to fast on for the same reason, that they are venerated by non-Muslims. (Other hadiths permit fasting one of these days together with the day before or the day after it, perhaps because no religion venerates two of the days in a row.) The question arises: What does one do when ‘Arafa falls on a Friday, a Saturday, or a Sunday? The general demand for fasting on the Day of ‘Arafa might well be qualified by the specific prohibition of fasting on just one of these days. But a mujtahid aware of the whole hadith corpus would certainly know a third hadith related by Muslim that is even more specific, and says: “Do not single out Friday from among other days to fast on, unless it coincides with a fast one of you performs” (Muslim, 2.801).

The latter hadith establishes for the mujtahid the general principle that the ruling for fasting on a day normally prohibited to fast on changes when it “coincides with a fast one of you performs”—and so there is no problem with fasting whether the Day of Arafa falls on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.

Here as elsewhere, whoever wants to understand the ruling of doing something in Islam must know all the texts connected with it. Because as ordinary Muslims, you and I are not only responsible for obeying the Qur’anic verses and hadiths we are familiar with. We are responsible for obeying all of them, the whole shari‘a. And if we are not personally qualified to join between all of its texts—and we have heard Ahmad ibn Hanbal discuss how much knowledge this takes—we must follow someone who can, which is why Allah tells us, “Ask those who recall if you know not.”

The size and nature of this knowledge necessitate that the non-specialist use adab or “proper respect” towards the scholars of fiqh when he finds a hadith, whether in Bukhari or elsewhere, that ostensibly contradicts the schools of fiqh. A non-scholar, for example, reading through Sahih al-Bukhari will find the hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) bared a thigh on the ride back from Khaybar (Bukhari, 1.103–4). And he might imagine that the four madhhabs or “legal schools”—Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, and Hanbali—were mistaken in their judgment that the thigh is ‘awra or “nakedness that must be covered.”

But in fact there are a number of other hadiths, all of them well authenticated (hasan) or rigorously authenticated (sahih) that prove that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) explicitly commanded various Sahaba to cover the thigh because it was nakedness. Hakim reports that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) saw Jarhad in the mosque wearing a mantle, and his thigh became uncovered, so the Prophet told him, “The thigh is part of one’s nakedness” (al-Mustadrak), of which Hakim said, “This is a hadith whose chain of transmission is rigorously authenticated (sahih),” which Imam Dhahabi confirmed (ibid.). Imam al-Baghawi records the sahih hadith that “the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) passed by Ma‘mar, whose two thighs were exposed, and told him, ‘O Ma‘mar, cover your two thighs, for the two thighs are nakedness’” (Sharh al-sunna 9.21). And Ahmad ibn Hanbal records that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “When one of you marries [someone to] his servant or hired man, let him not look at his nakedness, for what is below his navel to his two knees is nakedness” (Ahmad, 2.187), a hadith with a well authenticated (hasan) chain of transmission. The mujtahid Imams of the four schools knew these hadiths, and joined between them and the Khaybar hadith in Bukhari by the methodological principle that: “An explicit command in words from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is given precedence over an action of his.” Why?

Among other reasons, because certain laws of the shari‘a applied to the Prophet alone (Allah bless him and give him peace). Such as the fact that when he went into battle, he was not permitted to retreat, no matter how outnumbered. Or such as the obligatoriness for him alone of praying tahajjud or “night vigil prayer” after rising from sleep before dawn, which is merely sunna for the rest of us. Or such as the permissibility for him alone of not breaking his fast at night between fast-days. Or such as the permissibility for him alone of having more than four wives—the means through which Allah, in His wisdom, preserved for us the minutest details of the Prophet’s day-to-day sunna (Allah bless him and give him peace), which a larger number of wives would be far abler to observe and remember.

Because certain laws of the shari‘a applied to him alone, the scholars of ijtihad have established the principle that in many cases, when an act was done by the Prophet personally (Allah bless him and give him peace), such as bearing the thigh after Khaybar, and when he gave an explicit command to us to do something else, in this case, to cover the thigh because it is nakedness, then the command is adopted for us, and the act is considered to pertain to him alone (Allah bless him and give him peace).

We can see from this example the kind of scholarship it takes to seriously comprehend the whole body of hadith, both in breadth of knowledge, and depth of interpretive understanding or fiqh, and that anyone who would give a fatwa, on the basis of the Khaybar hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari, that “the scholars are wrong and the hadith is right” would be guilty of criminal negligence for his ignorance.

When one does not have substantive knowledge of the Qur’an and hadith corpus, and lacks the fiqh methodology to comprehensively join between it, the hadiths one has read are not enough. To take another example, there is a well authenticated (hasan) hadith that “the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) cursed women who visit graves” (Tirmidhi, 3.371). But scholars say that the prohibition of women visiting graves was abrogated (mansukh) by the rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith “I had forbidden you to visit graves, but now visit them” (Muslim, 2.672).

Here, although the expression “now visit them” (fa zuruha) is an imperative to men (or to a group of whom at least some are men), the fact that the hadith permits women as well as men to now visit graves is shown by another hadith related by Muslim in his Sahih that when ‘A’isha asked the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) what she should say if she visited graves, he told her, “Say: ‘Peace be upon the believers and Muslims of the folk of these abodes: May Allah have mercy on those of us who have gone ahead and those who have stayed behind: Allah willing, we shall certainly be joining you’” (Muslim, 2.671), which plainly entails the permissibility of her visiting graves in order to say this, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) would never have taught her these words if visiting the graves to say them had been disobedience. In other words, knowing all these hadiths, together with the methodological principle of naskh or “abrogation,” is essential to drawing the valid fiqh conclusion that the first hadith in which “the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) cursed women who visit graves”—was abrogated by the second hadith, as is attested to by the third.

Or consider the Qur’anic text in surat al-Ma’ida:

“The food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them” (Qur’an 5:5).

This is a general ruling ostensibly pertaining to all their food. Yet this ruling is subject to takhsis, or “restriction” by more specific rulings that prove that certain foods of Ahl al-Kitab, “those who have been given the Book,” such as pork, or animals not properly slaughtered, are not lawful for us.

Ignorance of this principle of takhsis or restriction seems to be especially common among would-be mujtahids of our times, from whom we often hear the more general ruling in the words “But the Qur’an says,” or “But the hadith says,” without any mention of the more particular ruling from a different hadith or Qur’anic versethat restricts it. The reply can only be “Yes, brother, the Qur’an does say, ‘The food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you,’ But what else does it say?” or “Yes, the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari says the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) bared his thigh on the return from Khaybar. But what else do the hadiths say, and more importantly, are you sure you know it?”

The above examples illustrate only a few of the methodological rules needed by the mujtahid to understand and operationalize Islam by joining between all the evidence. Firstly, we saw the principle of takhsis or “restriction” of general rules by more specific ones, both in the example of fasting on the Day of ‘Arafa when it falls on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, and the example of the food of Ahl al-Kitab. Secondly, in the Khaybar hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari about baring the thigh and the hadiths commanding that the thigh be covered, we saw the principle of how an explicit prophetic command in words is given precedence over a mere action when there is a contradiction. Thirdly, we saw the principle of nasikh wa mansukh, of “an earlier ruling being abrogated by a later one,” in the example of the initial prohibition of women visiting graves, and their subsequently being permitted to.

These are only three of the ways that two or more texts of the Qur’an and hadith may enter into and qualify one another, rules that someone who derives the shari‘a from them must know. In other words, they are but three tools of a whole methodological toolbox. We do not have the time tonight to go through all these tools in detail, although we can mention some in passing, giving first their Arabic names, such as:

—The ‘amm, a text of general applicability to many legal rulings, and its opposite:

—The khass, that which is applicable to only one ruling or type of ruling.

—The mujmal, that which requires other texts to be fully understood, and its opposite:

—The mubayyan, that which is plain without other texts.

—The mutlaq, that which is applicable without restriction, and its opposite:

—The muqayyad, that which has restrictions given in other texts.

—The nasikh, that which supersedes previous revealed rulings, and its opposite:

—The mansukh: that which is superseded.

—The nass: that which unequivocally decides a particular legal question, and its opposite:

—The dhahir: that which can bear more than one interpretation.

My point in mentioning what a mujtahid is, what fiqh is, and the types of texts that embody Allah’s commands, with the examples that illustrate them, is to answer our original question: “Why can’t we take our Islamic practice from the word of Allah and His messenger, which are divinely protected, instead of taking it from mujtahid Imams, who are not?” The answer, we have seen, is that revelation cannot be acted upon without understanding, and understanding requires firstly that one have the breadth of mastery of the whole, and secondly, the knowledge of how the parts relate to each other. Whoever joins between these two dimensions of the revelation is taking his Islamic practice from the word of Allah and His messenger, whether he does so personally, by being a mujtahid Imam, or whether by a means of another, by following one.

Following Scholars (Taqlid). The Qur’an clearly distinguishes between these two levels—the nonspecialists whose way is taqlid or “following the results of scholar without knowing the detailed evidence”; and those whose task is to know and evaluate the evidence—by Allah Most High saying in surat al-Nisa’:

“If they had referred it to the Messenger and to those of authority among them, then those of them whose task it is to find it out would have known the matter” (Qur’an 4:83)

—where alladhina yastanbitunahu minhum, “those of them whose task it is to find it out,” refers to those possessing the capacity to infer legal rulings directly from evidence, which is called in Arabic precisely istinbat, showing, as Qur’anic exegete al-Razi says, that “Allah has commanded those morally responsible to refer actual facts to someone who can infer (yastanbitu) the legal ruling concerning them” (Tafsir al-Fakhr al-Razi, 10.205).

A person who has reached this level can and indeed must draw his inferences directly from evidence, and may not merely follow another scholar’s conclusions without examining the evidence (taqlid), a rule expressed in books of methodological principles of fiqh as: Laysa li al-‘alim an yuqallida, “The alim [i.e. the mujtahid at the level of instinbat referred to by the above Qur’anic verse] may not merely follow another scholar” (al-Juwayni: Sharh al-Waraqat, 75), meaning it is not legally permissible for one mujtahid to follow another mujtahid unless he knows and agrees with his evidences.

The mujtahid Imams trained a number of scholars who were at this level. Imam Shafi‘i had al-Muzani, and Imam Abu Hanifa had Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani. It was to such students that Abu Hanifa addressed his words: “It is unlawful for whoever does not know my evidence to give my position as a fatwa” (al-Hamid: Luzum ittiba‘ madhahib al-a’imma, 6), and, “It is not lawful for anyone to give our position as a fatwa until he knows where we have taken it from” (ibid.).

It is one of the howlers of our times that these words are sometimes quoted as though they were addressed to ordinary Muslims. If it were unlawful for the carpenter, the sailor, the computer programmer, the doctor, to do any act of worship before he had mastered the entire textual corpus of the Qur’an and thousands of hadiths, together with all the methodological principles needed to weigh the evidence and comprehensively join between it, he would either have to give up his profession or give up his religion. A lifetime of study would hardly be enough for this, a fact that Abu Hanifa knew better than anyone else, and it was to scholars of istinbat, the mujtahids, that he addressed his remarks. Whoever quotes these words to non-scholars to try to suggest that Abu Hanifa meant that it is wrong for ordinary Muslims to accept the work of scholars, should stop for a moment to reflect how insane this is, particularly in view of the life work of Abu Hanifa from beginning to end, which consisted precisely in summarizing the fiqh rulings of the religion for ordinary people to follow and benefit from.

Imam Shafi‘i was also addressing this top level of scholars when he said: “When a hadith is sahih, it is my school (madhhab)”—which has been misunderstood by some to mean that if one finds a hadith, for example, in Sahih al-Bukhari that is inconsistent with a position of Shafi‘i’s, one should presume that he was ignorant of it, drop the fiqh, and accept the hadith.

I think the examples we have heard tonight of joining between several hadiths for a single ruling are too clear to misunderstand Shafi‘i in this way. Shafi‘i is referring to hadiths that he was previously unaware of and that mujtahid scholars know him to have been unaware of when he gave a particular ruling. And this, as Imam Nawawi has said, “is very difficult,” for Shafi‘i was aware of a great deal. We have heard the opinion of Shafi‘i’s student Ahmad ibn Hanbal about how many hadiths a faqih must know, and he unquestionably considered Shafi‘i to be such a scholar, for Shafi‘i was his sheikh in fiqh. Ibn Khuzayma, known as “the Imam of Imams” in hadith memorization, was once asked, “Do you know of any rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith that Shafi‘i did not place in his books?” And he said “No” (Nawawi: al-Majmu‘, 1.10). And Imam Dhahabi has said, “Shafi‘i did not make a single mistake about a hadith” (Ibn Subki: Tabaqat al-Shafi‘iyya, 9.114). It is clear from all of this that Imam Shafi‘i’s statement “When a hadith is sahih, it is my position” only makes sense—and could result in meaningful corrections—if addressed to scholars at a level of hadith mastery comparable to his own.

Hadith Authentication. The last point raises another issue that few people are aware of today, and I shall devote the final part of my speech to it. Just as the mujtahid Imam is not like us in his command of the Qur’an and hadith evidence and the principles needed to join between it and infer rulings from it, so too he is not like us in the way he judges the authenticity of hadiths. If a person who is not a hadith specialist needs to rate a hadith, he will usually want to know if it appears, for example, in Sahih al-Bukhari, or Sahih Muslim, or if some hadith scholar has declared it to be sahih or hasan. A mujtahid does not do this.

Rather, he reaches an independent judgment as to whether a particular hadith is truly from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) through his own knowledge of hadith narrators and the sciences of hadith, and not from taqlid or “following the opinion of another hadith scholar.”

It is thus not necessarily an evidence against the positions of a mujtahid that Bukhari, or Muslim, or whoever, has accepted a hadith that contradicts the mujtahid’s evidence. Why? Because among hadith scholars, the reliability rating of individual narrators in hadith chains of transmission are disagreed about and therefore hadiths are disagreed about in the same manner that particular questions of fiqh are disagreed about among the scholars of fiqh. Like the schools of fiqh, the extent of this disagreement is relatively small in relation to the whole, but one should remember that it does exist.

Because a mujtahid scholar is not bound to accept another scholar’s ijtihad regarding a particular hadith, the ijtihad of a hadith specialist of our own time that, for example, a hadith is weak (da‘if), is not necessarily an evidence against the ijtihad of a previous mujtahid that the hadith is acceptable. This is particularly true in the present day, when specialists in hadith are not at the level of their predecessors in either knowledge of hadith sciences, or memorization of hadiths.

We should also remember what sahih means. I shall conclude my essay with the five conditions that have to be met for a hadith to be considered sahih, and we shall see, in sha’ Allah, how the scholars of hadith have differed about them, a discussion drawn in its outlines from contemporary Syrian hadith scholar Muhammad ‘Awwama’s Athar al-hadith al-sharif fi ikhtilaf al-A’imma al-fuqaha [The effect of hadith on the differences of the Imams of fiqh] (21–23):

(a) The first condition is that a hadith must go back to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) by a continuous chain of narrators. There is a difference of opinion here between Bukhari and Muslim, in that Bukhari held that for any two adjacent narrators in a chain of transmission, it must be historically established that the two actually met, whereas Muslim and others stipulated only that their meeting have been possible, such as by one having lived in a particular city that the other is known to have visited at least once in his life. So some hadiths will be acceptable to Muslim that will not be acceptable to Bukhari and those of the mujtahid imams who adopt his criterion.

(b) The second condition for a sahih hadith is that the narrators be morally upright. The scholars have disagreed about the definition of this, some accepting that it is enough that a narrator be a Muslim who is not proven to have been unacceptable. Others stipulate that he be outwardly established as having been morally upright, while other scholars stipulate that this be established inwardly as well. These different criteria are naturally reasons why two mujtahids may differ about the authenticity of a single hadith.

(c) The third condition is that the narrators must be known to have had accurate memories. The verification of this is similarly subject to some disagreement between the Imams of hadith, resulting in differences about reliability ratings of particular narrators, and therefore of particular hadiths.

(d) The fourth condition for a sahih hadith is that the text and transmission of the hadith must be free of shudhudh, or “variance from established standard narrations of it.” An example is when a hadith is related by five different narrators who are contemporaries of one another, all of whom relate the same hadith from the same sheikh through his chain of transmission back to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). Here, if we find that four of the hadiths have the same wording but one of them has a variant wording, the hadith with the variant wording is called shadhdh or “deviant,” and it is not accepted, because the difference is naturally assumed to be the mistake of the one narrator, since all of the narrators heard the hadith from the same sheikh.

There is a hadith (to take an example researched by our hadith teacher, sheikh Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut) related by Ahmad (4.318), Bayhaqi (2.132), Ibn Khuzayma (1.354), and Ibn Hibban, with a reliable chain of narrators (thiqat)—except for Kulayb ibn Hisham, who is a merely “acceptable” (saduq), not “reliable” (thiqa)—that the Companion Wa’il ibn Hujr al-Hadrami said that when he watched the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) kneeling in the Tashahhud or “Testification of Faith” of his prayer, the Prophet

lifted his [index] finger, and I saw him move it, supplicating with it. I came [some time] after that and saw people in [winter] over-cloaks, their hands moving under the cloaks (Ibn Hibban, 5.170–71).

Now, all of the versions of the hadith mentioning that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) moved his finger have been related to us by way of Za’ida ibn Qudama al-Thaqafi, a narrator who is considered reliable, and who transmitted it from the hadith sheikh ‘Asim ibn Kulayb, who related it from his father Kulayb ibn Shihab, from Wa’il ibn Hujr al-Hadrami. But we find that this version of “moving the finger” contradicts versions of the hadith transmitted from the same sheikh, ‘Asim ibn Kulayb, by no less than ten of ‘Asim’s other students, all of them reliable, who heard ‘Asim report that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not move but rather pointed (ashara) with his index finger (towards the qibla or “direction of prayer”).

These companions of ‘Asim (with their hadiths, which are well authenticated (hasan)) are: Sufyan al-Thawri: “then he pointed with his index finger, putting the thumb to the middle finger to make a ring with them” (al-Musannaf 2.68–69); Sufyan ibn ‘Uyayna: “he joined his thumb and middle finger to make a ring, and pointed with his index finger” (Ahmad, 4.318); Shu‘ba ibn al-Hajjaj: “he pointed with his index finger, and formed a ring with the middle one” (Ahmad, 4.319); Qays ibn al-Rabi‘: “then he joined his thumb and middle finger to make a ring, and pointed with his index finger” (Tabarani, 22.33–34); ‘Abd al-Wahid ibn Ziyad al-‘Abdi: “he made a ring with a finger, and pointed with his index finger” (Ahmad, 4.316); ‘Abdullah ibn Idris al-Awdi: “he had joined his thumb and middle finger to make a ring, and raised the finger between them to make du‘a (supplication) in the Testification of Faith” (Ibn Majah, 1.295); Zuhayr ibn Mu‘awiya: “and I saw him [‘Asim] say, ‘Like this,’—and Zuhayr pointed with his first index finger, holding two fingers in, and made a ring with his thumb and second index [middle] finger” (Ahmad, 4.318–19); Abu al-Ahwas Sallam ibn Sulaym: “he began making du‘a like this—meaning with his index finger, pointing with it—” (Musnad al-Tayalisi, 137); Bishr ibn al-Mufaddal: “and I saw him [‘Asim] say, ‘Like this,’—and Bishr joined his thumb and middle finger to make a ring, and pointed with his index finger” (Abi Dawud, 1.251); and Khalid ibn Abdullah al-Wasiti: “then he joined his thumb and middle finger to make a ring, and pointed with his index finger” (Bayhaqi, 2.131).

All of these narrators are reliable (thiqat), and all heard ‘Asim ibn Kulayb relate that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) “pointed with (ashara bi) his index finger” during the Testimony of Faith in his prayer. There are many other narrations of “pointing with the index finger” transmitted through sheikhs other than ‘Asim, omitted here for brevity—four of them, for example, in Sahih Muslim, 1.408–9). The point is, for illustrating the meaning of a shadhdh or “deviant hadith,” that the version of moving the finger was conveyed only by Za’ida ibn Qudama from ‘Asim. Ibn Khuzayma says: “There is not a single hadith containing yuharrikuha (‘he moved it’) except this hadith mentioned by Za’ida” (Ibn Khuzayma, 1.354).

So we know that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to point with his index finger, and that the version of “moving his finger” is shadhdh or “deviant,” and represents a slip of the narrator, for the word ishara in the majority’s version means only “to point or gesture at,” or “to indicate with the hand,” and has no recorded lexical sense of wiggling or shaking the finger (Lisan al-‘Arab, 4.437 and al-Qamus al-muhit (540). This interpretation is explicitly borne out by well authenticated hadiths related from the Companion Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr that “the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to point with his index finger when making supplication [in the Testification of Faith], and did not move it” (Abi Dawud, 1.260) and that he “used to point with his index finger when making supplication, without moving it” (Bayhaqi, 2.131–32).

Finally, we may note that Imam Bayhaqi has joined between the Za’ida ibn Qudama hadith and the many hadiths that apparently contradict it by suggesting that moving the finger in the Za’ida hadith may mean simply lifting it (rafa‘a), a wording explicitly mentioned in one version recorded by Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) “raised the right finger that is next to the thumb, and supplicated with it” (Muslim, 1.408). So according to Bayhaqi, the contradiction is only apparent, and raising the finger is the “movement” that Wa’il saw from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the people’s hands under their cloaks, according to Za’ida’s version, which remains, however, shadhdh or “deviant” from a hadith point of view, unless understood in this limitary sense.

(e) The fifth and final condition for a sahih hadith is that both the text and chain of transmission must be without ‘illa or “hidden flaw” that alerts experts to expect inauthenticity in it. We will dwell for a moment on this point not only because it helps illustrate the processes of ijtihad, but because in-depth expertise in this condition was not common even among top hadith Imams. The greatest name in the field was ‘Ali al-Madini, one of the sheikhs of Bukhari, though his major work about it is now unfortunately lost. Daraqutni is perhaps the most famous specialist in the field whose works exist. In the words of Ibn al-Salah, a hafiz or “hadith master” (someone with at least 100,000 hadiths by memory), the knowledge of the ‘illa or “hidden flaw” is:

among the greatest of the sciences of hadith, the most exacting, and highest: only scholars of great memorization, hadith expertise, and penetrating understanding have a thorough knowledge of it. It refers to obscure, hidden flaws that vitiate hadiths, “flawed” meaning that a defect is discovered that negates the authenticity of a hadith that is outwardly “rigorously authenticated” (sahih). It affects hadiths with reliable chains of narrators that outwardly appear to fulfill all the conditions of a sahih hadith (‘Ulum al-hadith).

It may surprise some people to learn that one example often cited in hadith textbooks of such a hidden flaw (‘illa) is from Sahih Muslim, all of whose hadiths are rigorously authenticated (sahih), as Ibn al-Salah has said, “except for a very small number of words, which hadith masters of textual evaluation (naqd) such as Daraqutni and others have critiqued, and which are known to scholars of this level” (‘Ulum al-hadith). The hadith of the present example was related by Muslim from the Companion Anas ibn Malik in several versions, which might convince those unaware of its flaw to believe that someone at prayer should omit the Basmala or “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim” at the beginning of the Fatiha. According to the hadith, Anas ibn Malik (Allah be well pleased with him) said,

I prayed with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace), Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and they opened with “al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,”not mentioning “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim” at the first of the recital or the last of it [and in another version, "I didn’t hear any of them recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’"] (Muslim, 1.299).

Scholars say the hadith’s flaw lies in the negation of the Basmala at the end, which is not the words of Anas, but rather one of the subnarrators explaining what he thought Anas meant. Ibn al-Salah says: “Its subnarrator related it with the above-mentioned wording in accordance with his own understanding of it” (Muqaddima Ibn al-Salah (b01), 99). This hadith is given as an example of a “hidden flaw” in a number of manuals of hadith terminology such as hadith master (hafiz) Suyuti’s Tadrib al-rawi (1.254–57); hadith master Ibn al-Salah’s Ulum al-hadith; hadith master Zayn al-Din al-‘Iraqi’s al-Taqyid wa al-idah (98–103); and others. Al-‘Iraqi says, “A number of hadith masters (huffaz) have judged it to be flawed, including Shafi‘i, Daraqutni, Bayhaqi, and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr” (ibid., 98).

Now, Bukhari has related the hadith up to the words “and they opened with ‘al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin’”; without mentioning omitting the Basmala (Bukhari, 1.189), and Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud relate no other version. Scholars point out, in this connection, that the words “al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin” were in fact the name of the Fatiha, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and his Companions often used the opening words of suras as names for them; for example, in the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari of Abu Sa‘id ibn al-Mu‘alla, who relates that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I will teach you a sura that is the greatest sura of the Qur’an before you leave the mosque.” Then he took my hand, and when he was going out, I said to him, “Didn’t you say, ‘I will teach you a sura that is the greatest sura of the Qur’an before you leave the mosque’?” And he said: “‘Al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin’: it is the Seven Oft-Recited [Verses] (al-Sab‘ al-Mathani) and the Tremendous Recital (al-Qur’an al-‘Adhim) that I have been given” (ibid., 6.20–21).

In this hadith, “Al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin” is plainly the name of the Fatiha, and means nothing besides, for otherwise, it is one verse, not seven. ‘A’isha, who was one of the ulama of the Sahaba, also referred to names of suras in this way, as in the hadith of Bukhari that

the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), when he went to bed each night, joined his hands together, blew a light spray of saliva upon them, and read over them “Qul huwa Llahu Ahad,” “Qul a‘udhu bi Rabbi l-Falaq,” and “Qul a‘udhu bi Rabbi n-Nas”; then wiped every part of his body he could with them (ibid., 233–34),

which clearly shows that she named the suras by their opening words (after the Basmala), as did other early Muslims (such as Bukhari in his chapter headings in the section of his Sahih on the Virtues of the Qur’an, for example). So there is no indication, in the portion of the Anas hadith’s wording that is agreed upon by both Bukhari and Muslim; namely, “I prayed with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace), Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and they opened with ‘al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,’” that the Basmala was not recited aloud. Says Tirmidhi: “Imam Shafi‘i has said, ‘Its meaning is that they used to begin with the Fatiha before the sura, not that they did not recite “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim.”’ And Shafi‘i held that the prayer was begun with ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim,’ and that it was recited aloud in prayers recited aloud” (Tirmidhi, 2.16).

Hadith scholars who are masters of textual critique, like Daraqutni and others, consider the words of the Anas hadith”not mentioning ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim,’” which outwardly seem to suggest omitting the Basmala, to be vitiated by an ‘illa or “hidden flaw” for many reasons, a few of which are:

—It is established by numerous intersubstantiative channels of transmission (tawatur), that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “There is no prayer for whoever does not recite the Fatiha” (Bukhari, 1.192). That the Basmala is the Fatiha’s first verse is shown by several facts:

First, the Sahaba affirmed nothing in the collation of the Qur’an (mushaf) of ‘Uthman’s time except what was Qur’an, and they unanimously placed the Basmala at the beginning of every sura except surat al-Tawba.

Second, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “When you recite ‘al-Hamdu li Llah,’ recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim,’ for it is the Sum of the Qur’an (Umm al-Qur’an), and the Compriser of the Scripture (Umm al-Kitab), and the Seven Oft-Repeated [Verses] (al-Sab‘ al-Mathani)—and ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’ is one of its verses” (Bayhaqi, 2.45; and Daraqutni, 1.312), a hadith related with a rigorously authenticated (sahih) channel of transmission to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), and through another chain to Abu Hurayra alone (Allah be well pleased with him).

Third, Umm Salama relates: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to recite: ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim. al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,’ separating each phrase”; a hadith which Hakim said was rigorously authenticated (sahih) according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim, which Imam Dhahabi corroborated (al-Mustadrak, 1.232). Daraqutni also relates from Umm Salama that “the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) when he used to recite the Qur’an would pause in his recital verse by verse: ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim: al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin: ar-Rahmani r-Rahim: Maliki yawmi d-din.’” Daraqutni said, “Its ascription is rigorously authenticated (sahih); all of its narrators are reliable” (Daraqutni, 1.312–13). These hadiths show that the Basmala was recited aloud by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) as part of the Fatiha.

Fourth, Bukhari relates in his Sahih that when Anas was asked how the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to recite, “he answered: ‘By prolonging [the vowels]’—and then he [Anas] recited ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim,’ prolonging the Bismi Llah, prolonging the r-Rahman, and prolonging the r-Rahim” (Bukhari, 6.241), indicating that Anas regarded this as part of the Prophet’s Qur’an recital and that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) recited it aloud.

Fifth, Daraqutni has recorded two hadiths, both from Ibn ‘Abbas, and has said about each of them, “This is a rigorously authenticated (sahih) chain of transmission, there is not a weak narrator in it,” of which the first is: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim,’ aloud”; and the second is: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to begin the prayer with ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’” (al-Nawawi: al-Majmu‘, 3.347).

—Imam al-Mawardi summarizes: “Because it is established that it is obligatory to recite the Fatiha in the prayer, and that the Basmala is part of it, the ruling for reciting the Basmala aloud or to oneself must be the same as that of reciting the Fatiha aloud or to oneself” (al-Hawi al-kabir, 2.139).

—Imam Nawawi says: “Concerning reciting ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’ aloud, we have mentioned that our position is that it is praiseworthy to do so. Wherever one recites the Fatiha and sura aloud, the ruling for reciting the Basmala aloud is the same as reciting the rest of the Fatiha and sura aloud. This is the position of the majority of the ulama of the Sahaba and those who were taught by them (Tabi‘in) and those after them. As for the Sahaba who held the Basmala is recited aloud at prayer, the hadith master (hafiz) Abu Bakr al-Khatib reports that they included Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbas, Abu Qatada, Abu Sa‘id, Qays ibn Malik, Abu Hurayra, ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa, Shaddad ibn Aws, ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far, Husayn ibn ‘Ali, Mu‘awiya, and the congregation of Emigrants (Muhajirin) and Helpers (Ansar) who were present with Mu‘awiya when he prayed in Medina but did not say the Basmala aloud, and they censured him, so he returned to saying it aloud” (al-Majmu‘, 3.341).

These are some reasons why scholars regard the Anas hadith in Sahih Muslim to be mu‘all or “flawed.” We cannot here discuss other aspects of the hadith such as the flaws in its chain of narrators, which are explained in detail in Zayn al-Din ‘Iraqi’s al-Taqyid wa al-idah (100–101), though the foregoing may give a general idea why it has been considered flawed by hadith masters (huffaz) such as Suyuti, ‘Iraqi, Ibn Salah, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Daraqutni, and Bayhaqi—and why the shari‘a ruling apparently deducible from the end of the hadith; namely, omitting the Basmala when reciting the Fatiha at prayer, has been rejected by al-Shafi‘i, Nawawi, and others, who hold that the Basmala is recited aloud whenever the Fatiha is. (The position of Abu Hanifa and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, it may be noted, is that one recites the Basmala to oneself before the Fatiha, thus joining between hadiths on both sides by interpreting the “omitting” in the Anas hadith in other than its apparent sense, to mean merely “reciting to oneself.”) In any case, it is clearly not a story of “the hadith in Sahih Muslim that the Imams didn’t know about,” as some of the unlearned seriously suggest today, but rather a difference of opinion in hadith authentication involving the highest levels of shari‘a scholarship.

Studying the five conditions above for a sahih hadith and the differences about them among specialists shows us why the mujtahid Imams of the schools sometimes differ with one another about whether a particular hadith is really from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). Whoever believes that a single scholar, whether Bukhari, Muslim, or a contemporary sheikh, can finish off all differences of opinion about the acceptability of particular hadiths, should correct his impressions by going and studying the sciences of hadith. What we can realize from this is that when we find a hadith in Sahih Bukhari that one school of fiqh seems to follow and another does not, it may well be that differences in fiqh methodology, hadith methodology, or both, play a role.

Conclusions. Let me summarize everything I have said tonight. I first pointed out that the knowledge you and I learn from the Qur’an and hadith may be divided into three categories. The first is the knowledge of Allah and His attributes, and the basic truths of Islamic belief such as the messengerhood of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), the belief in the Last Day, and so on. Every Muslim can and must learn this knowledge from the Book of Allah and the sunna, which is also the case for the second kind of knowledge: that of general Islamic laws to do good, to avoid evil, to perform the prayer, pay zakat, fast Ramadan, to cooperate with others in good works, and so on. Anyone can and must learn these general prescriptions for him or herself.

Then we discussed a third category of knowledge, which consists of fiqh or “understanding” of specific details of Islamic practice. We found in the Qur’an and sahih hadiths that people are of two types respecting this knowledge, those qualified to do ijtihad and those who are not. We mentioned the sahih hadith about “a man who judges for people while ignorant: he shall go to hell,” showing that would-be mujtahids are criminals when they operate without training.

We heard the Qur’anic verse that established that a certain group of the Muslim community must learn and be able to teach others the specific details of their religion. We heard the Qur’anic verse that those who do not know must ask those who do, as well as the verse about referring matters to “those whose task it is to find it out.”

We talked about these scholars, the mujtahid Imams, firstly, in terms of their comprehensive knowledge of the whole Qur’an and hadith textual corpus, and secondly, in terms of their depth of interpretation, and here we mentioned Qur’an and hadith examples that illustrate the processes by which mujtahid Imams join between multiple texts, and give precedence when there is ostensive conflict. Our concrete examples of ijtihad enabled us in turn to understand to whom the Imams addressed their famous remarks not to follow their positions without knowing the proofs. They addressed them to the first rank scholars they had trained and who were capable of grasping and evaluating the issues involved in these particular proofs.

We then saw that the Imams were also mujtahids in the matter of judging hadiths to be sahih or otherwise, and noted that, just as it is unlawful for a mujtahid Imam to do taqlid or “follow another mujtahid without knowing his evidence” in a question of fiqh, neither does he do so in the question of accepting particular hadiths. Finally, we noted that the differences in reliability ratings of hadiths among qualified scholars were parallel to the differences among scholars about the details of Islamic practice: a relatively small amount of difference in relation to the whole.

The main point of all of this is that while every Muslim can take the foundation of his Islam directly from the Qur’an and hadith; namely, the main beliefs and general ethical principles he has to follow—for the specific details of fiqh of Islamic practice, knowing a Qur’anic verse or hadith may be worlds apart from knowing the shari‘a ruling, unless one is a qualified mujtahid or is citing one.

As for would-be mujtahids who know some Arabic and are armed with books of hadith, they are like the would-be doctor we mentioned earlier: if his only qualification were that he could read English and owned some medical books, we would certainly object to his practicing medicine, even if it were no more than operating on someone’s little finger. So what should be said of someone who knows only Arabic and has some books of hadith, and wants to operate on your akhira?

To understand why Muslims follow madhhabs, we have to go beyond simplistic slogans about “the divinely-protected versus the non-divinely-protected,” and appreciate the Imams of fiqh who have operationalized the Qur’an and sunna to apply in our lives as shari‘a, and we must ask ourselves if we really “hear and obey” when Allah tells us

“Ask those who know if you know not” (Qur’an 16:43).

By Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller