"Al-Albani Unveiled - An Exposition of His Errors
and other important issues"
Compiled
by
Sayf ad-Din Ahmed ibn Muhammad
-=O=-
AHADITH ON INTERPRETING THE HOLY QUR'AN
WITHOUT SOUND KNOWLEDGE
There are a number of Hadith related to the issue of interpreting
the Holy Qur'an without sound knowledge. Two of them are found
in the collection of Ahadith known as Mishkatul Masabih by Imam al-
Tabrizi (ash-Shafi'i), one from Ibn Abbas and the other from Jundub
(Allah be pleased with them):-
(A) Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that the
Prophet (Peace be upon him) as saying: "He who speaks about the
Qur'an on the basis of his personal opinion (only) would find his
abode in Hell fire. In another version: He who speaks about the
Qur'an without sound knowledge of it would find his abode in Hell
fire." (Tirmidhi).
(B) Jundub (Allah be pleased with him) reported the Prophet (Peace
be upon him) as saying: "He who speaks about the Qur'an on the
basis of his personal opinion (by any accord) he commits an error,
even if he is right." (Tirmidhi and Abu Dawood). (See Mishkatul-
Masabih, 1/234-235, English ed'n)
The above two Hadiths have also been quoted by Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya in
his Muqaddima fi usool al-Tafseer (English trans'n by M.A.H. Ansari
under the title: 'An Introduction to the Principles of Tafseer', pg.
60) where he said after quoting Jundub's (Allah be pleased with him)
version: "Al-Tirmidhi thinks that this Hadith is rare (gharib). Other
scholars of Hadith are not sure about the veraciousness of Suhayl ibn
Abi Hizaam, who is one of its transmitters (in the Sanad). However a
number of scholars from the companions and others have been reported
to have condemned in the same vein the effort to explain the Qur'an
without knowledge." But in the footnotes on the same page of the
above book (no's 158 and 159) it was stated that al-Albani had declared
both Hadiths (A) and (B) above to be DAEEF in his checking of Mishkatul-
Masabih.
I say: this is only one opinion out of many on the status of the above
Ahadith. It seems that even Ibn Taymiyya after quoting the Hadith
from Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) accepted it, (although he
had reservations about the Hadith from Jundub) since he kept quiet
about declaring it inauthentic; but Allah knows best.
In fact Imam al-Tirmidhi classified the Hadith reported from Ibn
Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) to be Hasan Sahih (see Ulum al-
Qur'an, pg. 132, fn. 20, by Ahmad Von Denffer) and the Hadith
related from Jundub (Allah be pleased with him) was classified to be
Hasan, by the great scholar of Hadith, Imam al-Suyuti (d. 911/1505;
Rahimahullah) in his al-Jami al-Saghir. This classificaton was also
said to be Hasan, by al-Imam Munawi (d. 1031/1622; Rahimahullah)
in his checking and commentary of Imam Suyuti's above named book; due
to the existence of other variant narrations that strengthen it.
(vide: Fayd al-Qadir Sharh al-Jami al-Saghir, vol.6. pg. 191-92, by
Imam al-Munawi). Other narrations on this issue are as follows:-
Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) reported the Prophet (Peace
be upon him) as saying three times: "Opinion based arguments
(controverting) about the Qur'an are Kufr." Then he said: "What you
know of it, act upon it; and what you are ignorant of, refer to one
who knows (e.g. a qualified Mufassir)." (related by Imam's Ahmad and
Abu Ya'la; see also Sunan Abu Dawood, 3/4586; English ed'n for half
of the narration)
Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) said: "I will give an
exemplary punishment to any man brought to me who is not knowledgeable
in Arabic yet interprets (tafsir) Allah's Book." (related by Imam
al-Bayhaqi; see Hafiz al-Dhahabi's at-Tafsir wa'l Mufasiroon, vol. 1,
pg. 274 )
Imam Mujahid (Rahimahullah) the disciple of the great Companion Ibn
Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) said: "It is not permissible for
anyone who believes in Allah and the last day to interpret Allah's
Book if he is not knowledgeable in the Arabic language." (vide:
Mabahith fi Uloom al-Qur'an, pg. 331, by M. al-Qattan)
I leave it to the noble reader to decide whose classification you
would prefer! May be those ignorant people who go around interpreting
the Holy Qur'an without the requisite qualifications (as amongst the
generality of the "Salafiyya") in their 'study' circles, may take heed
of the above Hadiths and their classifications by the great scholars
of Hadith.
-=O=-
DA'EEF AHADITH AND THEIR APPLICABILITY
TO ISLAMIC DECREES (FATAWA)
I now wish to convey to you the honourable reader, a short but
detailed explanation of what is a Daeef (weak) Hadith, and when
they can be applied and practised by the dictates of Islamic
Jurisprudence. The reason for writing this account is simply due
to a very common misunderstanding amongst many of the so called
"Salafiyya" and other ignorant people, who have not even scratched
the surface of the Science of Hadith, and the way scholars rate
Hadith (tasheeh), as well as differences of opinion (Ikhtilaf) in the
final classification of Hadith; hence they are generally incapable of
knowing when a Daeef Hadith can be used in Islamic rulings, even
though many of the prominent Mujtahid Imams themselves used to
do so in the absence of an authentic narration.
Instead many ignorant people have been causing an unjustifiable fitna
(mischief), by accusing usually the ignorant believers of following
"Daeef Ahadith", and I say, this is due to their ignorance of all the
available channels of transmission (Asanid) for a particular Hadith.
Since many a time a Hadith may be classified as being Daeef through
one particular Isnad, and just because of this, many of the ignorant
members of the "Salafiyya" become absolutely convinced that whoever
follows, and practises this particular "Daeef" Hadith is an innovator
(Mubtadi)! This I believe is the "wrong" approach to classifying
Ahadith, because other chains of transmission (Sanad) must be considered,
and if this is done, a singular Daeef Hadith through one Isnad could
even eventually reach the level of Hasan li ghairihi (a good Hadith due
to other narrations supporting and strengthening it). This is also the
chief reason why the 'Salafiyya' and their "scholars of Hadith and Fiqh",
are trying to demolish the Taqleed of the Mujtahids. They claim that
the followers of the four schools of Fiqh are "contradicting" the
authentic Sunnah by following many Daeef Ahadith based rulings!
Usually, what is found amongst such people who claim to be scholars of
Hadith, is that they don't always try their utmost to find other
supporting narrations to give a more realistic, and acceptable
classification. For example, when I compared the list of Ahadith declared
to be Daeef in the Riyadh us-Salihin (by Imam Nawawi), as checked by
al-Albani and Shaykh Shu'ayb al-Arnaoot (from Amman, Jordan) separately;
I noticed that Shaykh al-Arnaoot took greater pains to declare many
Daeef Hadith to be Hasan Li Ghairihi, whereas al-Albani hardly bothered
to raise the rank of a singular Daeef Hadith to Hasan Li Ghairihi by
investigating other supporting routes of narration! Insha'Allah we
should all follow the authentic Sunnah when it is definitely proven
and cannot be explained away by other authentic interpretations and
evidences.
The following discussion has been derived from the English
translation of Umdat al-Salik wa Uddat al-Nasik (The Reliance of the
Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper, by Shaykh Ahmad ibn Naqib
al-Misri [d. 769/1368; Rahimahullah], trans. by Noah Ha Mim Keller,
W48.0, pg. 954-957). NB- the abbreviations for the following quote
are:-
A=Shaykh Abdal Wakil Durubi, N=Shaykh Nuh Ali Salman,
n=translators remark
"(A:) Weak (daeef) is a term for any Hadith with a chain of
transmission containing a narrator whose memory was poor, one who
has not trustworthy, not identified by name, or for other reasons.
But weak cannot simply be equated with false. Were this the case ,
mere analysis of the transmitters would be the universal criterion for
the acceptance or rejection of particular rulings based on hadiths.
While scholars do use this measure in upgrading the work of
preceding generations of legal authorities, they have not employed it
as a simplistic expedient to eliminate every piece of legal information
that is connected with a weak hadith, because of various
considerations. One of these is that when a piece of information is
received through a means of transmission that may or may not be
trustworthy, we generally have doubts about it. But when one and
the same piece of information reaches us through several completely
different channels, even though each one may or may not be
trustworthy, the logical probability of the information's falsity is
much reduced. And if we receive the very same information from
ten such channels, the possibility of its falsity does not usually even
come to mind. This verificatory principle has two important
implications, one being the obligatory nature of belief in Hadiths that
are mutawatir, and the second being the weight that Hadith scholars
give to multiple means of transmission, which can raise a Hadith
from well authenticated (hasan) to rigorously authenticated (sahih), or
from weak (daeef) to well authenticated, as described in the following
account of a Hadith's reclassification by a major specialist in Hadith
forgeries.
('Ali Qari:) The Hadith "I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its
gate," was mentioned by Tirmidhi in his Jami', where he said it was
unacknowledgeable. Bukhari also said this, and said that it was
without legitimate claim to authenticity. Ibn Ma'in said that it
was a baseless lie, as did Abu Hatim and Yahya ibn Sa'id. Ibn Jawzi
recorded it in his book of Hadith forgeries, and was confirmed by
Dhahabi, and others in this. Ibn Daqiq al-'Eid said, "This Hadith is
not confirmed by scholars, and is held by some to be spurious."
Daraqutni stated that it was uncorroborated. Ibn Hajar 'Asqalani was
asked about it and answered that it was well authenticated (hasan),
not rigorously authenticated (sahih), as Hakim had said, but not a
forgery (mawdu'), as Ibn Jawzi had said. This was mentioned by Suyuti.
The Hadith master (hafiz) Abu Sa'id 'Ala'i said, "The truth is that the
Hadith is well authenticated (hasan), in view of its multiple means of
transmission, being neither rigorously authenticated (sahih) nor weak
(da'if), much less a forgery" (Risala al-mawdu'at, 26 ).
(A:) Thus, when the person who has related a Hadith is an Islamic
scholar of the first rank, it is not enough for a student or popular
writer to find one chain of transmission for the Hadith that is weak.
There are a great many Hadiths with several chains of transmission,
and adequate scholarly treatment of how these affect a Hadith's
authenticity has been traditionally held to require a master (hafiz),
those like Bukhari, Muslim, Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir, or Suyuti who have
memorized at least 100,000 Hadiths - their texts, chains of
transmission, and significance - to undertake the comparative study
of the Hadith's various chains of transmission that cannot be
accurately assessed without such knowledge. Today, when not one
Hadith master (hafiz) remains in the Muslim Community, we do not
accept the judgement of any would-be reclassifiers of Hadith, no
matter how large their popular following, unless it is corroborated
by the work of previous Hadith masters.
Another reason why weak cannot simply be equated with false is the
fact that weak is an attribute of the Hadith's chain of transmission,
while false is an attribute of the Hadith's text. These are two
different things, and the relationship between their respective
reliabilities is a probablistic expectation (istinbat) that is
neither strictly casual, nor yet a necessary logical implication
(lazim), there being four logical possibilities for any Hadith:
(1) A sound text and sound chain of transmission, as with well-
authenticated (hasan) and rigorously authenticated (sahih) Hadiths;
(2) A sound text and an unsound chain of transmitters, reflecting the
possibility that a transmitter with poor memory, or unknown to the
person who recorded the Hadith, or one not trustworthy, is in principle
capable of relating the Hadith correctly;
(3) An unsound text and unsound chain of transmitters, as with
Hadiths that are forged (mawdu');
(4) or an unsound text and a sound chain of transmitters, reflecting
the possibility that one of those who classify the personalities and
reliability of various Hadith transmitters could in principle make an
error in their ijtihad regarding a particular person.
Because of the distinction between text and transmission, forms of
evidence other than the authenticity rating of the chain of narrators
are sometimes admissible, as when there is a consensus of legal
scholars who have received the Hadith with acceptance, which is an
acknowledged form of corroboration for Hadith of the second type
mentioned above.
(Isma'il Ansari:) Ibn Hajar 'Asqalani says: "Among the characteristics
that necessitate acceptance is for scholars of Sacred Law to have
concurred on applying implications of a Hadith. Such a Hadith is
acceptable, even obligatory to apply, as a number of the Imams of
fundamentals of Islam (usul) have explicitly stated. Shafi'i, for
example, says, 'What I have said about water when its taste, odour,
and colour change, has been related from the Prophet (Allah bless
him and give him peace) through a channel of transmission that Hadith
scholars do not confirm the like of, but it is the position of all
scholars without a single dissenting voice I know of.' And he said of
the Hadith, 'There is no bequest to an estate division heir' -
'Scholars of Hadith do not corroborate it, but all scholars receive it
with acceptance and apply it.'"
Ibn al-Qayyim, in his I'lam al-muwaqqi'in, when discussing the Hadith
of Mu'adh about judgements (A: in which the Prophet (Allah bless him
and give him peace) asked Mu'adh ibn Jabal when dispatching him to
Yemen how he would judge, to which Mu'adh replied that he would judge
first by the Koran, then the Sunna, and then by his own reasoning
(ijtihad)), says, "Legal scholars accept it and employ it as evidence,
from which we learn that they hold it to be rigorously authenticated
(sahih), just as we learn of the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and
give him peace):
(1) "'There is no bequest to an estate division heir.'
(2) "'[The Hadith about the sea,] Its water is purifying.'
(3) "'When buyer and seller differ about the price they have agreed
upon and the merchandise still exists, each swears [N: that his side
of the story is correct] and [N: they cannot agree] they cancel the
sale.'
(4) "'The killer's extended family is responsible for the indemnity.'
"Even if these Hadiths are unauthenticated in their chains of
transmission, since virtually all scholars have related them, the
Hadiths' authenticity, which they accept, eliminates their need to
verify the channels of transmission, and so it is too with the Hadith
of Mu'adh: the fact that all scholars have adduced it as evidence
eliminates the need for their checking its means of transmission."
And Ibn 'Abd al-Barr says in al-Istidhkar, concerning Tirmidhi's
having related that Bukhari said of the Hadith of the sea "Its water
is purifying" that it was rigorously authenticated (sahih)- "Hadith
scholars do not consider Hadiths with the like of its chain of
transmission to be rigorously authenticated (sahih), though I hold it
to be so, because scholars have received it with acceptance" (al-Isaba
fi nusra al-Khulafa' al-Rashidin wa al-Sahaba, 11. 8-9 ).
(A:) Among the primary textual evidence for the admissibility of such
Hadiths is the word of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace):
"Allah will never make my Community concur upon misguidance, and Allah's
hand is over the group." (This is a Sahih Hadith related by Imam al-Hakim).
So it is inadequate for someone who proposes to annul a ruling of
Sacred Law to adduce that the Hadith supporting it has a weak chain
of transmission, unless he can establish both that there are not a
number of similar variants or alternate channels of transmission that
strengthen it, confirming this by means of a text by a Hadith master
(hafiz); and that the meaning of the Hadith has not been received
with acceptance by the scholars of the Muslim Community. "
Let me now quote the opinion of one the foremost Shaykh's of the
"Salafiyya", Taqi ad-Deen Ahmad ibn Taymiyya. He said in his
recently translated book "Muqqaddima fi Usool al-Tafseer" ('An
Introduction to The Principles of Tafseer', trans. by Muhammad
Abdul Haq Ansari, pg. 38): "The point we are making is that multiple
means of transmission, without prior discussion or agreement between
the reporters usually guarantee the validity of the content of the
Hadith transmitted. However, those who are acquainted with the lives
of transmitters can make better use of the Hadith. They can also
use the Ahadith which are reported by transmitters who are not well
known or who are quite weak in their memory, as well as the Ahadith
which are mursal (a Hadith where the name of the Companion is missing,
but attributed to the Prophet by a disciple of a Companion). Many
scholars have noted down Ahadith of this type. They think that even
though by themselves these Ahadith do not prove anything, they can
nonetheless be used to strengthen other Ahadith." Then Ibn Taymiyya
said later on the same page: "The scholars of Hadith often use a Hadith
which suffers from error caused by weakness of memory as supporting
evidence. They have even considered some Ahadith reported by reliable
(thiqah), true (sideeq) and correct narrators (al-dhabt) to be weak in
which they are able to find out some defects. The science that discusses
these reasons is called 'ilm ilal al-Hadith, the science of the hidden
defects of Hadith, which is one of their noblest disciplines...."
Insha'Allah the above discussion may help to alleviate the great
misunderstanding amongst the non-specialists of the Science of Hadith.
Is it not true that: "Only a fool speaks about a subject without
knowledge; leading himself astray, and those who listen to his false
decrees even further astray?" May Allah keep us on the Straight Path!
-=O=-
IJTIHAD, TAQLEED AND THE "SALAFIYYA" SECT
I would now like to briefly explain some grave misconceptions
surrounding the important Islamic concepts of Ijtihad and Taqleed,
and the people who are in opposition to the very concept of Taqleed,
namely this new movement called the "Salafiyya". They are also
known by the names, 'Wahhabi', (one group of the Wahhabi's also
claim to follow the Hanbali Madhhab; see later) 'La-Madhhabiyya',
'Ghayr-Muqallidin' or 'Ahl al-Hadith' (this name has been adopted by
them from the original and authentic group of the pious predecessors
of Islam) by the opposition as well as themselves occasionally. Let it
be known that the above names are all usually representative of the
samething in beliefs (with some minor discrepancies and different
interpretations with in their fold), concepts, and usually the practise
as well, although they have no coherent jurisprudence; all this has led
to divisions and subdivisions within them. This is usually derived
from the works and beliefs of Ibn Taymiyya and his disciple Ibn al-
Qayyim al-Jawziyyah when it suits their mode! Before I delve into
the actual subject matter, I feel it is wise to define what is Ijtihad
and Taqleed respectively, and who do they apply to in principle and
practise.
According to the divine law of Islam, Taqleed is the acceptance of a
statement or juristic ruling of an Imam (Mujtahid) of the highest
calibre, intelligence, learning, as well as piety, on the conviction
that the accepted statement has been derived in accordance with hard
facts, and proofs from the fundamental sources (Usool) of Islam;
namely the Holy Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijma (consensus; of which there
are various types) or even Qiyas (analogical deduction). In short it
is the following of qualified and verified scholarship of an absolute
(Mutlaq) Mujtahid, as well as the opinions derived by the scholars
within the Madhhab (school of Islamic jurisprudence) of the Mujtahid
Mutlaq. Hence one who follows the opinions of a particular Madhhab
and its scholars is known as a Muqallid.
The scholars have said that it is not necessary for the common (ammi)
Muslim to have to ask or know the proofs of things that are prescribed
by the Shari'ah in terms of practise (Amal), but no scholar has said
that it is forbidden to know the proofs (dalil) of a qualified scholar
or authoritative books if one wishes to do so. What I have just
described applies to one category of Muqallids, and that is the lot
of the common Muslim who has not gained the requisite qualifications to
follow an independent method of deriving laws from the sources of the
Shari'ah (see the quotes from scholars later). The other type of Muqallid
is one who is still a follower of a particular school of jurisprudence,
but he acquaints himself with the evidences used by the Mujtahids of
his Madhhab as far as possible; hence he is known as a Muqallid Muttabi'a.
The Muqallid Muttabi'a is usually a man of knowledge ('Alim) who is
qualified in his own right to convey the rules and laws of Islam, but
he is not yet qualified to derive new laws from the sources of the
Shari'ah independently, i.e. he is not a Mujtahid.
The scholars have said that Taqleed is only permissible in things that
are to be practised (Amal) according to the divine Shari'ah, but it is
impermissible (haram) in the facts that need to be believed in, thus
one must know the fundamental beliefs of Islam (Aqeedah, I'tiqad or Iman).
For example, Shaykh Ahmad al-Sirhindi (d. 1034/1624; Rahimahullah) said
in his Maktubat (vol. 2, 67th letter): "Among the 73 sects, only the
Madhhab of the Ahl-as-Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah will be saved from Hell.
Each Muslim has to learn the belief of the Ahl as-Sunnah and correct his
Iman accordingly. The majority of Muslims who have spread over the world
for centuries have been in the Ahl as-Sunnah Madhhab." It is the Taqleed
of wrong beliefs (Aqa'eed) which has been condemned by the Qur'an and the
Sunnah; and this may lead one to the fire of hell, even if one claims to
be a believer. Let it be known that the vast majority of believers amongst
the pious predecessors (Salaf as-Saliheen), scholars after them and even
ordinary folk, have had the correct beliefs held by what is regarded as
the saved sect from Qur'anic and Hadith based evidence; and that is only
the sect of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah. The question that may be asked
by an inquisitive reader is, "Who are the Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah (Sunni
Muslims)?" For the answer and the characteristics of the saved sect (Firqat
an-Najiyyah) please see later for the scholarly opinions.
Now, the opposite of a Muqallid is one who is known as a Mujtahid. A
Mujtahid is a scholar of the highest rank, piety and learning, who has
gained the requisite qualifications to independently strive, derive,
and extract the laws of Islam from the fundamental bases (namely the
Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijma and Qiyas); and this process is known as Ijtihad
(independent reasoning). In doing so, the absolute Mujtahid does not
usually follow the opinions of others without knowing their evidences,
as well as their justifications. In fact some scholars have said that
it is forbidden (haram) for a qualified Mujtahid to make Taqleed of
others (see below).
Let me now give you just four quotes from some well known scholars, and
their declarations on Taqleed and Ijtihad:
(A) It was stated in the book: "Imam Abu Hanifah: Life and Work",
by the well known Historian of India, Allamah Shibli Numani (pg.
117): "The word Mujtahid has been defined as follows by scholars of
Hadith like Baghawi (d. 510/1117), Rafi'i (d. 623/1226), Nawawi (d.
676/1277) and others; thus: "A Mujtahid is one well versed in the
Qur'an, Hadith, the early schools of law (Madhhabs), lexicology and
analogical reasoning (Qiyas), that is to say, one who knows all or
practically all Qur'anic passages, established Traditions (Ahadith)
from the Prophet (peace be upon him) and sayings of the early
generations pertaining to legal problems, has the necessary lexical
learning and is acquainted with all the methods of analogical
reasoning (this is only a summary of the actual requirements). If a
man is deficient in any of these things, he cannot be called a
Mujtahid and should conform to one or other of the recognised
schools of law (i.e; only the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or Hanbali
schools today)."
(B) Imam Abdal Ghani an-Nablusi (d. 1143/1733, he was an author of
nearly 500 works; Rahimahullah) said in his well known book,
Khulasat-ut-Tahqiq: "A Muslim has either become a Mujtahid or has
not reached the grade of Ijtihad. A Mujtahid is either Mutlaq
(absolute) or Muqayyad (belonging to a Madhhab). It is not permissible
for a Mutlaq Mujtahid to follow another Mujtahid (i.e; he does not make
Taqleed); he has to follow his own Ijtihad. However, a Muqayyad Mujtahid
follows his own Ijtihad which he employs in accordance with the methods of
the Madhhab of the Mutlaq Mujtahid. The one who is not a Mujtahid should
follow whichever he likes of the four Madhhabs; and when doing an Ibada
(worship) in accordance with a certain Madhhab, he has to fulfil all the
conditions required by that Madhhab for it to be Sahih (correct). If he
does not fulfil one of these conditions, his Ibada will not be Sahih.
It has been informed unanimously by the Ulama (Ijma-al-Ulama) that such an
Ibada will be in vain (ba'til). Though it is not a must for him to believe
that his Madhhab is superior (rather they are all equal), it will be good if
he believes so. Talfiq, that is, to do any Ibada or any deed in accordance
with those words of the four Madhhabs that disagree with one another means
to go out of the four Madhhabs and to make up a fifth Madhhab. This Ibada
of his will be in vain, and he will have made a game out of Islam, because
this Ibada will not be Sahih according to any of the four Madhhabs."
(C) Imam Abdal Wahhab ash-Sha'rani (d. 973/1565; Rahimahullah)
said in his book, al-Mizan al-Kubra: "An 'alim in the grade of
Ijtihad, that is, a scholar who can infer rules from the sources
(of the Shari'ah), is not permitted to follow somebody else. However,
according to the Ulama, it is Wajib (incumbent) for the ordinary
Muslim to follow a Mujtahid. They said that if a non-Mujtahid
Muslim did not follow a Mujtahid, he would deviate from the right
path. All Mujtahids inferred rules from the documentary evidences
they found in Islam. No Mujtahid has ever talked out of his own
opinion on the religion of Allahu ta'ala. Each Madhhab is like a
tissue woven with the threads of the Book (of Allah) and the Sunnah.
Anybody who is not in the grade enabling him to employ Ijtihad has
to choose and follow any one he likes of the four Madhhabs, because
they all show the way leading to Paradise. A person who speaks ill
of any of the A'immat al-Madhahib (founders of the Madhhabs) shows his
ignorance (and this is common amongst the ignorant members of the
La-Madhhabi groups today)."
(D) Shaykh Sulayman ibn Abdal Wahhab, rahimahullah (he was the brother
of Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab, the founder of the "Wahhabi" sect) said
in his book, As-Sawa'iq al-Ilahiyya fi'r raddi ala'l-Wahhabiyya, after
mentioning the qualifications of a Mujtahid: "Only such a personage who
has all these excellences can be followed (Taqleed) and can issue Fatwas.
If he lacks one of these qualities, he cannot be a Mujtahid and may not
be followed. He himself should follow a Mujtahid. Hence, a Muslim is
either a Mujtahid or a Muqallid. There is not a third one. It is
necessary for Muqallids to follow a Mujtahid. This has been said
unanimously. Even Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d.751/1350) whom the
Wahhabi's praise as an allamah (very knowledgeable scholar), whose
every word is a document, said in his I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, 'A person
who does not fulfil the requirements of Ijtihad is not permitted to
draw any conclusion from the Qur'an al--Karim or the Hadith ash-Sharif.'
(If this statement is authentic; then it clearly demolishes the way of
the modern day "Salafiyya", who are experimenting with their own
Ijtihads without being qualified to do so!). The men of the present
age regard as scholars those who recite Ayats and Hadiths, and who
give meanings to them in accord with their points of view. They do
not listen to those who quote Ahl as-Sunnah scholars in their speeches
and books. Ignorant and heretical people who do not fulfil even a single
requirement of Ijtihad are taken to be men of religious authority today.
May Allahu ta'ala protect Muslims against their calamity! Amin!"
Al-Shaykh Abdal Rahman Ba'alawi (d. 1251/1835; Rahimahullah) said in his
Bughyat al-mustarshidin fi talkhis fatawa ba'd al-a'imma min al-
muta'akhkhirin (The goal of guidance-seekers: a summary of the formal
legal opinions of certain later Imams), pg. 8: "Ibn Salah (d.643/1245;
a scholar of Hadith, Rahimahullah) reports that there is scholarly
consensus (Ijma) on its being unlawful to follow rulings from schools
other than those of the four Imams, meaning in one's personal works, let
alone give court verdicts or formal opinions to people from them, because
of the untrustworthiness of the ascription of such rulings to the scholars
who reportedly gave them, there being no channels of transmission (asanid)
which obviate the possibility of textual corruption and spurious substit-
utions. The Zaydis, for example, who trace themselves to Zayd ibn Ali
ibn Hussain (son of Ali and Fatima), the beatitude of Allah be upon them,
despite the fact that Zayd was one of the Imams of the religion and a
renowned figure well qualified to give guidance to those seeking it,
his followers identify him with extreme permissiveness on many questions,
ascriptions based on failure to check as to what his positions actually
were (by naming the intermediate transmitters and establishing their
reliability). It is quite otherwise with the four schools, whose Imams
(Allah reward them) have spent themselves in checking the positions
of their schools, explaining what could be rigorously authenticated
(Sahih) as the position of the person it was attributed to, and what
could not be. Their scholars have thus achieved safety from textual
corruption and have been able to discern the genuine from the poorly
authenticated (and this is in complete contradistinction to today's
"Salafi's"). [Translation taken from The Reliance of the Traveller,
pg. 25-6, by N.H.M. Keller].
Today we live in an age where the very concept of Taqleed has been made
"haram" by the ignorant non-scholars of Islam, as well as some people
who are regarded as scholars. It has become a source of heated debate
and repudiation by many a "man of knowledge", as well as like minded
non-scholars who act and behave as absolute Mujtahids, even though they
have not acquired an iota's worth of Islamic knowledge. It is these
very people who are calling for the abandonment of Taqleed of the four
existing schools of Islamic jurisprudence (The Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i
and Hanbali), and in return are calling for everyone to derive one's
own rulings from the divine sources of Islam (viz. Qur'an and Sunnah).
Thus they have embarked upon the path of performing Ijtihad without
the requisite qualifications set down by the well known scholars of
Islam; hence many of them behave as though they are absolute Mujtahid's
(may Allah protect us from their fallacious interpretations)!
It is these very people who claim to be on the path of the pious
predecessors of the first three generations of Islam (Salaf as-Salihin)
in terms of Aqeedah, methodology and practise. But in reality they are
clinging on to the Aqeedah and Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim,
Ibn Hazm al-Zahiri, Ibn Abdal Wahhab, ash-Shawkani, Ibn Ba'z,
al-Albani and the like minded people when it suits their whims
and desires. Hence, they claim to be the followers of the pious
predecessors, but in reality they have formed an incoherent Fiqh
called the "Salafiyya Madhhab", even though this very name was
unknown to the original Salaf as-Salihin!
The President of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Taha
Jabir al-Alwani, said with regards to the "Salafiyya" in his recently
published book, The Ethics of Disagreement in Islam, (pg. 119): "In
retrospect, we can see that the leading scholars of the schools of
Islamic jurisprudence had reasons to justify their differences of
opinion and lessen their impact. The master perpetrators of
disagreement in our own times, however, do not have a single
plausible basis for justifying their differences. They are not
Mujtahidun or persons capable of independent reasoning or analytical
thought. They are, rather, unthinking followers (muqallidun) of those
among them who raise their voices to proclaim that they are not in
fact 'followers' nor do they believe in the 'duty to follow.' They
claim that they derive their rulings and opinions directly from the
Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet, peace be on him. In reality,
they cling to some books of Hadith and follow in the footsteps of
their authors in all matters pertaining to the authenticity of a Hadith
and the trustworthiness and reliability of its narrators (I say: this is
exactly what is done by the followers of al-Albani, and other like
minded people; and this is also Taqleed, no matter how much one may deny
it). Some of them claim knowledge of the science which studies the
biographies of Hadith reporters and the extent of their reliability. On
the basis of studying a single book on this vast subject, a person cannot
justifiably elevate himself to the position of a Mujtahid (as is usually
found amongst the members of the "Salafiyya" who derive rulings from the
Qur'an and Sunnah without sound scholarship)."
The South African based Majlis al-Ulama, said with regards to the
Islamic concept of Taqleed (The Majlis, vol. 7 No.10, pg. 7 ):
"Taqleed, the Islamic concept of following the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen
(the highest class of Fuqaha-Islamic Jurists) is being subjected to much
scorn, ridicule and rejection by modernist Muslims schooled in the
liberal culture of the West while being largely uneducated in terms of
the Shari'ah. There exists also another group apart from the modernists,
which has likewise considered it fashionable to argue away the vital
Shar'i requirement of Taqleed. This group comes in the group of Ulama
of Islam. They have adopted a similar attitude of rejecting Taqleed by
virtue of external un-Islamic influences which they have acquired as a
result of them deviating from the Path of the Sunnah. Western liberalism
has undoubtedly captured their minds, hence they labour to create some
kind of harmony between the rigid demands of Islam and the so-called
rational dictates of modern reason. Such modern learned men operating
under the designation of Ulama and occasionally donning even the external
garments of Ulama to create a deceptive appearance of piety, pose the
greatest danger to the Imaan of untainted laymen. Most of the "Islamic"
colleges in the Middle Eastern countries and some of such Madrasahs
in other parts of the world pour out members of this hybrid class of
"Ulama" who find it difficult to distinguish between right and left.
They are saddled with the problem of harmonizing Islam with modernism
and in the process of their evil pursuit they are constrained to abandon
any Islamic demand which thwarts or impedes their ungodly mission. One
of the greatest impediments in the endeavour to modernise Islam to conform
to western standards of reason is the Shar'i demand of Taqleed. Taqleed
is a thorn in their flesh and it has to be eliminated for the attainment
of their pernicious goal.
Self-conceit and self opinion are the products of western liberalism
and materialism. These diseases, gripping many Muslims in this age,
have lamentably disturbed the equilibrium of Muslim intelligence.
The ailing Muslim intelligence of these times has been so drastically
jarred, that it is incapable of discerning the dangerous abyss it is
slipping into by shunning the vital and compulsory injunction of
Taqleed. It fails to understand that the ultimate consequence of
admut-Taqleed (abandonment of Taqleed) is the abdication of Imaan.
Those who shun Taqleed hover on the brink of kufr (then some
evidences were provided in favour of Taqleed from the Qur'an, but I
have decided not to give the documentary proofs and arguments at
the moment since it is not really part of the aims of this work; what
is really required is a comprehensive book of its own to explain the
reality of Taqleed and its proofs).
Those who seek to abandon Taqleed are dwelling in self-deception.
They deceive themselves into believing that they possess adequate
ability and qualification to embark on the process of deducting Shar'i
Masaa'il (legal problems of the Shari'ah). But, they grope lamentably
in darkness. There is not a single rule which they are capable of
deducting without resorting to the works of this or that Imam. If it is
a matter of Fiqh, they are constrained to refer to the works of Fuqaha
(scholars of Islamic Jurisprudence). If it is about Tafseer, they have
to refer to some work of the Mufassireen (commentators of the Qur'an).
If it is a question pertaining to Hadith, they have no option other
than making Taqleed of the Hadith Kitaabs (books) of such Ulama
who themselves were Muqallideen (followers of Imams). In order to
ascertain the authenticity of a Hadith, there is no alternative other
than making Taqleed of the Aimmah-e-Hadith (Imams of Hadith). At no
stage can anyone be independent of Taqleed (unless one is a Mujtahid).
But, the negators of Taqleed dupe themselves by seeking to satisfy
their desires in flitting from Madhhab to Madhhab, in picking and
choosing rules and opinions which conform to their whimsical desires
and fancies.
The votaries of admut Taqleed (abandonment of Taqleed) consider
it below their dignity to be hitched to any specific Madhhab of the
Shari'ah; they advocate a policy of picking and choosing from the
various Madhhabs, when it suits them they accept a mas'alah from
the Hanafi Madhhab; when a mas'alah in the Shafi'i Madhhab
appears more in consonance with laxity and desire, they switch over
to that Madhhab, when something more appeasing is discerned in the
Maliki Madhhab, they opt for that mas'alah. They wonder aimlessly
in this deception, deluding themselves. They fail to understand that
even in their unlawful policy of talfeeq (this is the taking of the easy
rulings of all the Madhhabs), they have to follow the Aimmah-e-
Mujtahideen. Indispensability of the Fuqaha is accepted by the
opponents of the Imams, albeit in an implied and subtle way. They
are totally incapable of formulating a single mas'alah without
resorting to aid from the illustrious authorities among the Fuqaha,
Muhaddithin and Mufassireen. But, they childishly trumpet the
bugle of the validity of talfeeq, a concept which is unanimously
unlawful." Here ends the quote.
In his "refutation" against the Taqleed of the four schools of Fiqh,
al-Albani quoted some sayings from the four main Mujtahid Imams
apparently "forbidding" Taqleed; and this at first seems to be strong
proof in defence of his case (see Sifah Salah an-Nabee, pp. viii-xiv).
But the learned reader should know that these quotations are out of
context and garbled! The greatest proof in favour of my statement, is
that nearly every scholar who was supposed to have quoted these
apparently Taqleed "forbidding" statements as given in the footnotes
of al-Albani's above mentioned book, was himself affiliated and in the
process of promulgating one of the four Madhhabs themselves! Is
this not a great deception on al-Albani's part? This is a great shame
on those who fight against Taqleed, but on the other hand "blindly"
accepted al-Albani's suppositions and claims without research; as well
as the so called independent methodology they claim to be clinging
on to!
Recently, I came across a book entitled: "Blind Following of
Madhhabs," by one of the late Shaykh's of the "Salafiyya",
Muhammad Sultaan al-Ma'soomee al-Khajnadee; edited by one of al-
Albani's foremost students (Saleem al-Hilaalee). In the above named
book, al-Khajnadee tried his best to refute Taqleed, but in reality he
failed quite miserably in his refutation of what he calls "Blind
Following!" After reading this book of garbled interpretations,
slanders, and even lies, I came to the conclusion that al-Khajnadee
seemed to have been a confused and contradicting personality! Now,
let me elaborate my claim by quoting and commenting on just a few
selected pages from the actual book.
It seems that the translation of the whole book was incomplete,
since the editor, Abu Usaamah Saleem al-Hilaalee said on pg. iii, "I
also noticed some places containing that which was superfluous, so I
left it out." I wonder what these 'superfluous' statements were?
On page ix of the above named book, it was written that al-Khajnadee
met, "Shaykh Muhammad Rasheed Ridaa. He helped with al-Manaar magazine
(this was edited by the last named person), and bought all of its back
issues and the works of Shaykh Muhammad Abdah and likewise what had been
printed from the works of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and his student
Ibn ul-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah." From this last quote, those of us who have
heard and read what the people of knowledge have said about the above named
Shaykh's, will realize straight away that all four of them had corrupt
beliefs (Aqeedah) on certain controversial points, like the attributes of
Allah Subhana wa Ta'ala, as well as being famous for erring on many legal
points of the Shari'ah!
It is a well known fact that Muhammad Rashid Rida (d. 1935) and
his teacher Muhammad Abduh (he was the Mufti of Egypt in his day,
d. 1905) were both Freemasons, who strove to reinterpret the Shari'ah
with their own whims and desires by claiming to "reform" Islam from
"impurities", and this led to their call for the abandonment of
Taqleed; hence the need for the abolishment of the four schools of
Fiqh. These two enemies of Islam strove hard in their Freemasonic
plot to "reform" Islam, but in reality they fought against Islam from
within; this was realized by many scholars with in their day as well as
after them by examining their "Fatwa's" and speeches. Hence, many
a man of knowledge (e.g. Shaykh Muhammad Bakhit al-Muti'i - the
grand Mufti of Egypt and one of the leading Hanafi scholars of his
time, d. 1354/1935; Rahimahullah) exposed them for what they were,
as well as warning the sincere believers to be on their guard from
their "sweet poison" (refer to The Evolution of Fiqh, pg. 114, by A.A.
Bilal Philips). Thus, it is not hard to realise that al-Khajnadee himself
may have been strongly influenced by the above named Freemasons, after
imbibing 'knowledge' from their sweet poisoned chalice! As for Ibn
Taymiyya and his loyal disciple Ibn al-Qayyim, please see later for the
scholarly judgements on their views and ideas.
Saleem al-Hilaalee said on page 13, "For example, the Maalikees
leave their arms at their side, during the Salaah and read Qunoot in
Fajr, whereas we find Maalik-rahimahullaah-quotes in al-Muwatta;
"Chapter: placing the two hands; one upon the other in Prayer... But
the later Maalikees use as evidence that Maalik used to pray with his
hands hanging at his side, this is ignorance with regard to the
madhhab which they follow. Since Ja'far ibn Sulaymaan, the
governor of al-Madeenah lashed the Imaam in the year 146H and
stretched out his arms until his hands became dislocated and so he
was not able to place his hands one over the other in Prayer...."
The above statement by al-Hilaalee claimed that those who follow
the Maliki Madhhab only left their hands unfolded in Salah, since
Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) had to leave his arms unfolded after
being lashed!! He also claims that this is "ignorance with regard to
the madhhab which they follow." But in reality, it is he who has
fallen into the abyss of ignorance on this issue by 'blind' supposition!
Although Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) related two Hadiths supporting
the folding of the right hand on the left in Salah in his al-Muwatta,
this does not mean that Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) himself always
folded his hands in Salah. As you may have read in the section on
"The Placing of Hands in Prayer", I quoted the most authoritative
position of the Maliki madhhab, as well as what Imam Malik himself
said about placing the hands in Salah. Here is the quote again for
good measure; and for the displacement of ignorant claims: "In al-
Mudawwanah (vol. 1, pg. 75-76), Imam Malik has been recorded to
have said, 'Putting the right hand on the left in salah, I have no
knowledge of it in the compulsory (Fard) prayer, it is thus disliked
(Makrooh). But in the supererogatory (Nafl) prayer their is no harm
(in folding the hands), it is left to the individual to decide.' Please
ask yourselves who is ignorant, al-Hilaalee or the Maliki scholars?!
Al-Khajnadee claimed on page 47, that the book al-Mudawwanah was by
Imam Malik! In fact, as I have said on more than one occasion
previously, al-Mudawwanah is the compilation of Qadi Sahnoon! It is
strange how al-Hilaalee did not correct al-Khajnadee in his editorial
footnotes; do they want us to accept their claims 'blindly'?
On page 22, al-Khajnadee quoted the well known Hadith from Irbaad
ibn Saariyah (Allah be pleased with him) where the Holy Prophet
(Peace be upon him) ordered us to, "Keep to my Sunnah and the Sunnah
of the Rightly-Guided Khulafaa, cling to that with your teeth." Thus
it is incumbent to cling to the rightly guided Khulafaa; and they are
Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them all).
But, as is the habit of men of his ilk, he contradicts himself by saying
on the very next page: "Neither, Imaam Abu Haneefah or Maalik said,
'Keep to my saying' or 'Follow my madhhab', not even Abu Bakr or
'Umar-radiallaahu'anhum- rather they all forbade that." Thus, is he
saying that we should not keep to the sayings of Abu Bakr or Umar (Allah
be pleased with them) even though it is a command of the Prophet (Peace
be upon him)?
In fact al-Albani himself quoted two statements in "Sifah Salah-an-
Nabee", from Imams Abu Hanifah and Malik (Allah's mercy be upon them)
which permitted Taqleed of their views, so long as they agreed with the
Qur'an and Sunnah! On page ix Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahimahullah) has been
quoted as saying, "When I say something contradicting the Book of Allah
the Exalted or what is narrated from the Messenger (peace be upon him),
then ignore my saying." Does this not mean that if any of Imam Abu
Hanifah's Fatwa's does not contradict the Qur'an and the Sunnah, may be
taken by way of Taqleed; after the research scholars within the Hanafi
school had shown that it had a basis?
Similarly, Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) was quoted by al-Albani to
have said (see 'Sifah', pg. x): "Truly I am only a mortal: I make
mistakes (sometimes) and I am correct (sometimes). Therefore, look
into my opinions: all that agrees with the Sunnah, accept it; and all
that does not agree with the Book and the Sunnah, ignore it." Again,
Imam Malik has given us the right to take his opinions, so long as
they agree with the Qur'an and Sunnah; Is this not in favour of
Taqleed after the verifying scholars of the Maliki Madhhab proved
which verdicts of Imam Malik were in harmony with the Shari'ah?
Also, al-Albani quoted Imam al-Shafi'i (see 'Sifah', pg. xi) as
saying; "If you find in my writings something different to the Sunnah
of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), then
speak on the basis of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be
upon him), and leave what I have said." Hence, whatever contradicts
the authentic Sunnah in Imam al-Shafi'i's writings was carefully
examined by the research scholars within the Shafi'i Madhhab. This
means that whatever did not contradict the Sunnah in Shafi'i's
writings may be taken by way of Taqleed; does it not?
On page 33, al-Khajnadee said, "Taqleed in the Sharee'ah is referring
back to someone's saying for which there is no proof and that is
prohibited in the Sharee'ah. Ittibaa is that for which the proof is
established. Taqleed in Allah's deen is not correct and ittiba is
binding." This statement shows that al-Khajnadee did not even know
what the correct definition of Taqleed was! He has definitely confused
the meanings of the two words Taqleed and Ittiba. As I had said at the
beginning of this section, Taqleed is the acceptance of a Mujtahids fatwa
for which the proof has been established! How could it ever be said that
Taqleed is the referring back to a "saying for which there is no proof?"
Surely, this is not Taqleed but the following of mere opinion. What
al-Khajnadee said about Ittiba is in reality the true extent of Taqleed!
So, please beware of this cunning deception my dear brothers and sisters.
On page 37, al-Khajnadee made a blatantly false statement by saying
nonsensically, "If you look into the matter carefully it will be
clear to you that these madhhabs were spread, promoted and made
attractive by the enemies of Islam in order to split the Muslims and
cause discord amongst them. Or they were started by the ignorant
in conformity with the Jews and Christians and in imitation of them,
as they do in many matters." By Allah, this is a grave calumniation,
a highly nefarious aspersion and a blatant misrepresentation of
historical facts! Only one who lacks a speck of analytical deduction
and investigation into historical facts could say such a crass thing!
In reality, these madhhabs were spread by the founders of these very
schools, and especially by those amongst their disciples, and then
those who succeeded them.... So that eventually a full chain of
transmission (Isnad) was built up and recorded by the succeeding
scholars in their works, just as in the science of Hadith. Even
today, some scholars have an unbroken chain going back to the scholars
of Hadith and Fiqh of the first generations of Islam!
The great scholar of Islam, Qadi Iyad (d. 544/1149 Rahimahullah),
has quite beautifully and eloquently explained how the Madhhabs
arose, and why one should make Taqleed of them. He said: "This
Ijtihad and the handing down of rules and Shari'ah, on the basis of
it-there are very few, very few who have the capacity. Indeed they
are fewer than the few after the first generation (of Muslims), the
upright Salihun, and the first three praiseworthy generations. Now
since this is the nature of the matter, any human being burdened
with the moral responsibility to obey Allah, but not having attained
the status of being able to know the Shari'ah, on his own, is
necessarily required to get that knowledge from someone else.
He must take the knowledge of every act of worship he has been
commanded to do-every application of the Shari'ah that has been
made responsible for him to perform directly, from that man who can
give it to him straight from the source and who will make him know
exactly what to do. That man must be the staff by which he stands
in his own transmission to others, in the knowledge he acquires, and
in the Shari'ah parameters by which he lives. This is Taqleed. And
this is precisely the position of the ordinary people, indeed the vast
majority of all people. Since this is the case, what is required of
you is that in all such matters, you do Taqleed of the 'alim in whom you
have complete trust. If such Ulama are many, then follow that one
who is most knowledgeable. This is the portion of Ijtihad which falls
to the lot of the Muqallid with regard to his deen. And it is not
fitting that the Muqallid should abandon the most knowledgeable
(Mujtahidun) in favour of someone else, even though that other
person is also busy with knowledge. The Muqallid must therefore
ask at that time about those things which he does not know until he
has knowledge of them, just as Allah, Glory be to Him, has said,
'Then ask the people of Remembrance if you do not know.' (Qur'an
16:43 and 21:7)
And the one upon whom we ask Allah's blessings and peace
commanded the Khalifs after him and his Companions be emulated.
The one upon whom we ask blessings and peace also sent his
Companions out among the people to give them understanding in the
deen, to teach them what had been made incumbent on them, and
Allah urged on the entirety of them to go out, 'From every group
among you let there be a group who will develop understanding of
the deen and who will give warning to their people when they return
to them.'
Now since this matter is something necessary, and there is no way
around it, and since they who most deserve to be followed by the
uniformed ordinary man, the beginner, who has taken it on himself
to worship, or the student seeking right guidance and knowledge of
Fiqh in the deen of Allah, and those who have the greatest right to be
followed are the Fuqaha of the Sahaba of Rasulullah (Peace be upon
him), they are those who took their knowledge directly from him,
who knew the circumstances of the Revelation, of the commands and
prohibitions, the various prophecies, of the different aspects of the
Shari'ah, the exact pronunciation of the Prophet's words, may Allah
bless him and give him peace, who themselves witnessed the accompanying
circumstances of these ayats, who spoke to the Prophet, may Allah bless
him and give him peace, directly, about most of it, who asked him about
it despite the extensive knowledge from the Prophet (Peace be upon him)
which they themselves already had, and their knowledge of the meanings
of Arabic speech, the illumination of their hearts, and the openness
and receptivity of their hearts, such that they were, without the least
contention, the most knowledgeable of Imams, and they were those of the
Imams most worthy of being followed by Taqleed.
Nevertheless, they only spoke about a few of the problematic
events that happened among them, and large numbers of answers to
Shari'ah questions did not branch out from them in detail. They did
not speak about the Shari'ah, except with regard to the basic
teachings, and certain things that actually happened. Most of their
pre-occupation was with the putting into practise of what they knew
and the active defence of the entire deen, the laying down of the firm
foundation of the Shari'ah of the Muslims. There was among them a
degree of difference of opinion in some of the things which they
discussed which could keep the Muqallid in a perpetual state of
confusion, and require of him the kind of reflection and review for
which he is not yet prepared. And indeed the full elaboration of
questions, resolving of problems, and setting out the discussions,
only came about in response to those matters, the appearance of
which had been anticipated after the Sahaba were gone.
Consequently, the Tabi'in, the Followers (like Imam's Abu Hanifah,
an-Nakhai, Hammad, al-Zuhri, Hasan al-Basri, Sha'bi...), came and
reflected on the differences of opinions of the Companions, and built
on the foundations which they had laid down. Then after them came
the Ulama from among the Followers of the Followers (like Imam's
Malik, Shafi'i, Ibn Hanbal, Dawood al-Zahiri...). By that time, the
occurrences which had happened already became many and the problematic
events had already occurred, while Fatwas regarding all of this had
branched out into many details. Therefore they gathered together the
opinion of them all, and they committed their Fiqh to memory.
They sought out differences of opinion of the earlier generations as
well as their areas of agreement, but they were cautious about the
matter of this disagreement spreading and of its getting out of
control. Therefore they did Ijtihad regarding all these parts of the
Sunnah, and of the precise articulation of fundamental principles.
They asked questions and they got answers. They built up the
foundations of the basic precepts and they made accessible the basic
principles. Upon them were delineated the solutions to problems and
events and they were put down in writing for the people, and
organised. Each of them worked on the basis of the inspiration he
was given and the accomplishment to which Allah had guided them.
So they became the ultimate in the science of Usool and of the
specific details of the Shari'ah in the matters of agreement and
disagreement. And on the basis of this knowledge which had come
to them, they made Qiyas, analogy, according to the indications, and
the similarities that they had got. May Allah be pleased with all of
them and may He give them the full extent of the reward of their
Ijtihad.
Therefore it is an individual obligation that falls on the ordinary
Muqallid and the student of knowledge in his beginning stages, to
take recourse in his Taqleed to these great men, or the explicit texts
regarding the problems and events that befall him. Recourse must be
had to them regarding all of these matters which are problematic
because of the fact that they were immersed in knowledge of the
Shari'ah and it literally revolved around them. They alone have
precise understanding of the schools, of who had gone before, and
the earlier generations, and that knowledge is enough for all who
have come after them in later generations. Nevertheless, it is simply
not possible that all of these earlier Fuqaha can be simultaneous
objects of Taqleed regarding the most difficult problems and the
majority of questions, because of their differences among themselves
caused by conflicting opinions about the fundamental principles upon
which they built. Moreover, it is not valid for the Muqallid to do
Taqleed of any among them merely on the basis of personal whim, or
chance that he has come upon a decision on the basis of what he
happened to find the people of his region doing, or his family doing
(and this is quite common today; is it not?)
Again therefore, the portion of Ijtihad that falls to his lot in this
case, is that he seek to discover by reflection which of them was the
most knowledgeable, and come to know which of them is most worthy of
being an object of Taqleed from among all of them, so that in his
practise and his Fatwas, the ordinary man can trust him and rely on
him and trust that in his acts of worship, he had taken on himself
only what the Mujtahid had and discerned as correct. The ordinary
man therefore must give to the most knowledgeable (scholars) among
the adherents to the schools of these earlier Fuqaha, the status which
by right, he deserves. It is not permissible for him that he go beyond
them in his seeking of Fatwas to one who does not follow the opinion of
his school (NB-There are certain conditions which need to be fulfilled
before one can take opinions from other schools, these principles have
been explained by scholars like Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami).
For as some of the Shaykhs have said, 'The Imam is with regard to one
who adheres to his school, to his way, like the Prophet, may Allah bless
him and give him peace, is with regard to his Ummah.' It is not permissible
for him to go against his Imam (unless one has become a Mujtahid within the
school or in specific issues). This has been expressed quite correctly,
and the correct way will become clear to those who have insight, and
eyes with which to see, on the basis of what we have elaborated and
the stipulations we have laid down." (quoted from Root Islamic
Education, pp. 82-7, by Shaykh Abdalqadir al-Murabit ).
So please ask yourselves, "Were these great scholars the enemies of
Islam (Allah forbid), who imitated the ways of corrupt Christians and
Jews?" I say, never could these madhhabs have ever existed if the
well known scholars did not spread them; is this not the basic and
fundamental truth?
One of the most well known scholars of Hadith in our time,
Shaykh Shu'ayb al-Arnaoot (b. 1928 in Albania, presently residing in
Amman, Jordan), said with regard to Taqleed and the founders of the
madhhabs, "They are explainers, not popes; but in each of their
schools there afterwards followed a hundred or more scholars who
refined and added to their work, men whose stature in Islamic
knowledge was like mountains, any one of whom could put fifteen of
the scholars available today in his pocket."
Another imbecilic statement was made by al-Khajnadee on page 56,
where he said, "They have taken a path opposite to that of the people
of knowledge, their late-comers have inverted the way of the Salaf
and turned the foundations of the Deen upside down. So they
declare the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger (Peace be
upon him), the sayings of his Khulafaa and the rest of the
Companions-radiallaahu 'anhum-to be false." Again, he made a
wicked declaration by claiming that the followers of these madhhabs
declared the, "Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace be
upon him), the sayings of his Khulafaa and the rest of the
Companions-radiallahu 'anhum-TO BE FALSE." I ask you which
scholar within the four madhhabs, let alone the 'blind followers'
declared it "To be false?" Would it not be true, that if one declared
the above sources to be "false" he or she may automatically go out of
the fold of Islam (especially the first two sources), let alone be a
follower of a Madhhab (and only Allah knows best)? How could the
'blind followers' declare something to be false, when the great
scholars have said that it is impermissible to take the "Ijtihad" of
non-Mujtahid's as documentary proof? May Allah guide the people who
believe in what al-Khajnadee proclaimed!
There are many other vile statements made by al-Khajnadee in his
above named book, but this is not the time and place to outline them
in detail; rather a well grounded scholar could easily refute his
nonsensical slanders and lies by way of logical proofs from the
sources of the Shari'ah. This book of his was meant to be "sound"
advice for some prospective Japanese converts to Islam. It seems al-
Khajnadee wanted his Japanese readers (not to mention the generality
of the Muslim readership) to accept everything he said "blindly" and
without research; thus he may not have been advising the Japanese
questioners, but instead confusing them even more deeply by not
explaining the meanings of many of the statements and their
ramifications, let alone the Shari'ah terminology he had used!
Besides that, he as well as his friend al-Albani (in his 'Sifah Salah
an-Nabee'), failed to tell their readers that nearly every scholar they
quoted from were the adherents of one of the four existing schools!
This is a great trick of the most knowledgeable of "Salafi" scholars;
they seem to deceive themselves as well as their readers when it
comes to proclaiming this undeniable fact!
Rather, al-Khajnadee and al-Albani should have tried to disprove
the evidences used by the scholars within the Madhhabs (from the
Qur'an, Sunnah and even the Ijma), which documents and allows
Taqleed to all non-Mujtahids! The following is a list of some of the
scholars quoted by al-Albani and al-Khajnadee in their books, and the
Madhhab they were in:
THE HANAFI SCHOLARS
Imam Ibn Abidin (d. 1252/1836; al-A'lam, 6.42 [viii,15,22]), Hafiz
Ibn al-Humam (d. 861/1457; al-A'lam, 6.255 [viii,22,32]), Imam Ibn
al-Shahnah al-Kabeer [viii], Imam Zufar (d. 158 AH [viii]), Imam Abu
Yusoof (d. 182/798; al-A'lam, 8.193 [viii,14]), Imam Muhammad al-
Shaybani (d. 189/804; al-A'lam, 6.80 [ix,14]), Imam al-Tahawi (d. 321
AH, [5]), Imam ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi [17], Imam ibn Nujaim al-
Misri (d. 970 AH [34]), Shaykh Ali al-Qari (d. 1014/1606; al-A'lam,
5.12 [35]), Shaykh Abd al-Haqq Dehlawi (d. 1052 AH [36]), Allamah
Abdal Hayy al-Lucknawi (d. 1304 AH; also known as Abul Hasanat
[ix]), Shaykh Abul Hasan as-Sindee al-Hanafi [5], Shaykh Aafiyyah
ibn Yazeed [viii].
THE MALIKI SCHOLARS
Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 463/1071; al-A'lam, 8.240 [x,5]), Imam
Ibn Wahb (d. 197/812 [x]), Imam Abdullah ibn Abee Zaid al-Qairwanee
al-Maliki (d. 389 AH [16]).
THE SHAFI'I SCHOLARS
Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458/1066; al-A'lam, 1.116 [xi,6]), Shaykh Abu
Yusoof al-Buweeti [xii], Shaykh Abul Qasim ad-Daariki [xii], Hafiz Ibn
as-Salah (d. 643/1245; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 8.326 [xii]), Imam Taqi
ad-Deen al-Subki (d. 756/1355; al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya, 114 [xii,14]),
Imam Abu Nu'aym (d. 430/1038; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 4.18 [xii,52]),
Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256/870; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 2.212-14 [6]), Imam
Muslim (d. 261/875; Siyar a'lam al-nubala, 12.557-61 [6]), Imam Abu
Dawood (d. 275/889; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 2.293 [xiii,14]), Imam Nisai
(d. 309/915; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 3.14-16 [6]), Imam Tirmidhi (d.
279/892; Siyar a'lam, 13.270-73 [6]), Imam ibn Majah (d. 209/824; al-
A'lam, 7.144 [6]), Imam al-Suyuti (d. 911/1505; al-A'lam, 3.301-2 [5]),
Hafiz Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311/924; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 3.109 [16]),
Imam ash-Sha'rani (d. 973/1565; al-A'lam, 4.180-1 [viii,35]), Imam
Hakim (d. 405/1014; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 4.155 [xi,39]), Imam ibn
Asakir (d. 571 AH [xi]), Hafiz Khateeb al-Baghdadi (d. 463/1072;
Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 4.29 [xi,52]), Hafiz al-Dhahabi (d. 748/1348;
Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 9.100 [18]), Hafiz al-Iraqi (d. 806/1404; al-A'lam,
3.344 [18]), Imam al-Tabarani (d. 360/971; Siyar a'lam, 16.119-23 [18]),
Imam al-Izz ibn Abdas Salam (d. 660/1262; al-A'lam, 4.21 [27]), Imam
ibn Hibban (d. 354/965; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 3.131 [39]), Hafiz Ibn
Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852/1449; al-A'lam, 1.178 [39]), Hafiz al-
Haythami (d. 807/1405; al-A'lam, 4.266 [40]), Imam al-Haramayn (d.
478/1085; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 5.165 [41]), Imam Abul Qasim al-
Qushayri (d. 465/1072; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 5.153 [50]), Imam al-Razi
(d. 606/1210; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 8.81-89 [59]), Imam al-Baghawi (d.
510/1117; al-A'lam, 2.259 [59]), Imam Abu Shamah (d. 665 AH [78]),
Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676/1277; al-A'lam, 8.149 [xi,15]).
THE HANBALI SCHOLARS
Hafiz ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328; al-A'lam, 1.144 [30]), Hafiz ibn
al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d. 751/1350; Siyar a'lam, 7.202 [xiii,42]),
Hafiz ibn al-Jawzi (d. 508/1114; al-A'lam, 3.316 [xii,53]), Hafiz
ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (d. 795/1393, [xiv]).
NB- The contents in the brackets (after the names of the above
scholars), stand for the following abbreviations:-
(i) 'd.'- the year of the scholars death, usually in Hijri and Christian
dates.
(ii) 'al-A'lam'- This is a well known biographical dictionary by Khayr
al-Deen al-Zirikly (see bibliography for full details).
(iii) 'Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya'- This is a very well known dictionary listing
all the famous Shafi'i scholars uptill the death of its author-Imam Taj
al-Deen al-Subki (rahimahullah).
(iv) 'Siyar a'lam al-nubala'- This is a biographical dictionary by the
famous scholar of Hadith-al-Hafiz Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Dhahabi
(rahimahullah).
(v) 'al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya'- This is a well known collection by the
great scholar of Islam-Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami
(rahimahullah).
(vi) Whatever appears in square brackets- [ ], refers to the page
number in al-Albani's 'Sifah Salah an-Nabee' (only in roman
numerals) and al-Khajnadee's 'Blind Following of Madhhabs.'
So now my dear reader, you should be asking yourselves the
simple question: "Why did the above named scholars adhere to one
of the four schools, but today people like al-Albani etc; are calling
for the abandonment of the Taqleed of the four schools?" Even two of
the most prominent Imams of the neo-"Salafiyya", Ibn Taymiyya and
Ibn al-Qayyim were Hanbali in Fiqh (but their Aqeedah has been
questioned by many scholars). One may have also noticed that not
one of the 6 main Imams of Hadith (al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood,
Tirmidhi, an-Nisai and Ibn Majah) were out of the four schools; and
this fact may astonish the so called "Salafiyya" who claim to be on
the path of the scholars of Hadith! If this fact seems unconvincing
to the lay reader, then one should read their biographies in the above
named dictionaries, or their actual books! Thus, without even writing
a refutation against the likes of al-Albani and al-Khajnadee, the above
named scholars (not to mention thousands of other scholars) stand as a
witness against their false claims on the Islamic concept of Taqleed.
The "Salafiyya" claim to be on the path of the scholars of Hadith; but
I ask you, who were the scholars of Hadith? The answer to this question
may be found in their biographies; but just for the record, one should
never forget that the vast majority of the scholars of Hadith were usually
in one of the four schools of Fiqh after their founding; and this may be
called the way of the traditional and classical scholars, indifference to
the modern day "Salafiyya". I ask you now, what is there to stop one
from adhering to one of the four schools, when so many great scholars did
so?
Al-Albani and many of the other "Salafiyya" Shaykhs try to refute
Taqleed by quoting statements coming directly from the four Imams
themselves, which apparently 'forbid' Taqleed of their Fatwa's! In
fact the scholars have explained each one of these apparently Taqleed
forbidding statements quite explicitly. The bottom line of these
statements has lead the scholars to conclude, that these statements
refer to the forbiddance of one Mujtahid taking the Ijtihad of another
Mujtahid without knowing his documentary evidence (refer to the
previous pages for some statements on this issue); but not the
forbiddance of non-Mujtahids taking the Ijtihads of the Mujtahids,
and this is precisely Taqleed of the allowable type. If Allah wills,
the true meanings of these statements may be collated and annotated by
way of reference to the classical scholars of Islam; instead of receiving
garbled and incontextual quotations from the four Mujtahids (Allah's
mercy be upon them) by the likes of al-Albani.
Now, I have explained briefly what is Taqleed, and who it applies
to. The question now remains on who are the "Salafiyya"? To
answer this question in brief, I feel that it is incumbent to give a
biography of the Imams of the "Salafiyya", what the scholars said
about these persons, and most importantly the creed they are clinging
onto (aqeedah). The last one of which is very important, since it is
the creed of a believer (as well as the actions) which will lead one to
the gardens of Paradise or to the pits of Hell in the hereafter! The
modern day "Salafiyya" claim to take their name from the famous
Hadith of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him); where he said:
"The best of people are my generation, thereafter those who follow
them, thereafter those who will follow them. Then will come such
people that one's testimony will outrun his oath, and one's oath, his
testimony." (Vide: Sahih al-Bukhari, pg. 18-9, Trans. by M. Asad;
also see Sahih Muslim, vol. 4, pg. 1345-7, English ed'n). These three
generations of the true believers are known as the Salaf-as-Salihin
(the pious predecessors); hence they have derived an epithet from
this Hadith to call themselves "Salafi's" or the "Salafiyya".
Shaykh Ustad ibn Khalifa Alawi, said in his book 'Aqidat as-Salafi
wa'l-Khalaf': "As Allamah Abu Zahra (d.1974; he was a famous
scholar from al-Azhar University, Egypt; Rahimahullah) writes in his
book 'Tarikh al-Madhahibi'l Islamiyya', some people who dissented
from the Hanbali Madhhab, named themselves 'Salafiyyin'. Abu'l
Faraj ibn al-Jawzi (d.508/1114) and other scholars in the Hanbali
Madhhab, too, by proclaiming that those "Salafi's" were not the
followers of the Salaf-as-Salihin but were the owners of bid'ah
(heretical innovations), belonging to the group of Mujassima (a
deviant sect who believed that Allah was a material body; we seek
refuge in Allah), prevented this mischief from spreading. In the
seventh century (after Hijri) Ibn Taymiyya waged this fitna (mischief)
again." Let me now give you a biography of Ibn al-Qayyim al-
Jawziyya, and his teacher Ibn Taymiyya; as well as what the great
scholars of Islam said about them and their Aqeedah.
Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya
(may Allah have mercy on him and forgive him)
Ibn al-Qayyim is Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr ibn Ayyub ibn Sa'd,
Abu Abdullah al-Zura'i Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, born in Damascus in
691/1292. He was a Hanbali Hadith scholar and author who wrote a
number of works, among them Zad al-ma'ad [The provision for the
return] in Hadith, and I'lam al-mawaqqi'in [The instruction for those
who sign formal legal opinions] in fundamentals of Islamic law. His
most significant contribution however, was his editing and preparing
for publication the writings of Ibn Taymiyya, whose devoted pupil he
was. He went to prison with his Shaykh in the citadel of Damascus
and suffered with him until Ibn Taymiyya's death in 728/1328, when
he was released. He thereafter worked to spread and popularize the
master's ideas, as dedicated to him after his death as he had been in
life, supporting him in what was right and what was wrong. A
specimen of the latter is Ibn al-Qayyim's al-Qasida al-nuniyya (Ode
rhyming in the letter n ), a lengthy poem on tenets of faith (aqeedah)
that is filled with corrupt suggestions about the attributes of Allah,
which Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d.756/1355, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn
Hajar al-Haytami described him as being 'the Mujtahid Imam whose
Imamate, greatness, and having reached the level of Ijtihad are
agreed upon'; Rahimahullah) analyses in detail in his al-Sayf al-saqil
[The burnished sword], giving the verdict that the poem's
anthropomorphisms of the Divinity are beyond the pale of Islam. The
poem could not be openly circulated in Ibn al-Qayyim's lifetime but
only secretly, and it seems that he never abandoned it (it is still used
as a reference by the 'Salafi' scholars today), for the Hanbali historian
and biographer Ibn Rajab heard it from its author in the year of his
death.
A second unfortunate peculiarity the poem shares with some of Ibn
al-Qayyim's other works on Islamic faith is that it presents the reader
with a false dilemma, namely that one must either believe that Allah
has eyes, hands, a descending motion, and so forth, in a literal
(haqiqi) sense, or else one has nullified ('attala) or negated (nafa)
these attributes.And this is erroneous, for the literal is that which
corresponds to an expression's primary lexical sense as ordinarily
used in a language by the people who speak it, while the above
words are clearly intended otherwise, in accordance with the
Qur'anic verse, 'There is nothing whatsoever like unto him' (Qur'an
42:11), for if the above were intended literally, there would be
innumerable things like unto Him (Allah) in such respects as having
eyes, hands, motion, and so forth, in the literal meaning of these
terms. The would-be dilemma is also far from the practise of the
early Muslims, who used to only accept such Qur'anic verses and
Hadiths as they have come, consigning the knowledge of what is
meant by them-while affirming Allah's absolute transcendence above
any resemblance to created things-to Allah Most High alone, without
trying to determinately specify how they are meant (bi la Kayf), let
alone suggesting people understand them literally (haqiqatan) as Ibn
al-Qayyim tried to do.
While granting that his other scholarly achievements are not
necessarily compromised by his extreme aberrances in tenets of faith
(aqeedah), it should not be forgotten that depicting the latter as a
'reform' or 'return to early Islam' represents a blameworthy
innovation (bid'ah) on his part that appeared more than seven
centuries after the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him
peace) and his Companions (Sahaba). A particularly unsavoury
aspect of it is that in his attempts to vindicate the doctrine, Ibn al-
Qayyim casts aspersions upon the Islam of anyone who does not
subscribe to it, at their forefront the Ash'ari school, whom his books
castigate as 'Jahmiyya' or 'Mu'attila,' implying, by equating them
with the most extreme factions of the Mu'tazilites, that they deny any
significance to the divine attributes, a misrepresentation that has seen
a lamentable recrudescence in parts of the Muslim world today.
Whether such views are called 'fundamentalism' or some other name,
the scholars of the Muslims remember history, and that it was Abu
Hanifah (Rahimahullah) who first observed, 'Two depraved opinions
have reached us from the East, those of Jahm, the nullifier of the
divine attributes, and those of Muqatil (ibn Sulayman al-Balkhi, d.
150 AH), the likener of Allah to his creation.' To make of these two
an either-or for Muslims, or depict the latter as 'Sunnah' when it has
been counted among heresies and rejected by the Muslim Community
for the first seven centuries of Islam that preceded Ibn al-Qayyim and
his mentor Ibn Taymiyya, is to say the least difficult to accept, and it
would seem fitter to simply acknowledge that Ibn al-Qayyim was a
talented author in fundamentals of law, Hadith, and other fields, but
unfortunately enamoured with his teacher to the extent of following
him in innovations (bid'ah) in tenets of faith (aqeedah) and
misrepresenting the positions of those who opposed them. He died
in Damascus in 751/1350. (vide: al-A'lam, 6.56, by al-Zirikly; al-Sayf
al-saqil, 2-192, by Imam Taqi ad-Din al-Subki; Sharh al-Qasida al-
nuniyya, 1.268-88, by H.M. Khalil; Siyar a'lam al-nubala, 7.202, by
Hafiz al-Dhahabi, taken from The Reliance of the Traveller, pp. 1058-
9, Trans. by N.H.M. Keller).
Hafiz Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya
(may Allah have mercy on him and forgive him)
Ibn Taymiyya is Ahmad ibn Abd al-Halim ibn Abd al-Salam ibn
Abdullah, Abu al-Abbas Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya al-Harrani, born in
Harran, east of Damascus, in 661/1263. A famous Hanbali scholar in
Qur'anic exegesis, Hadith, and jurisprudence, Ibn Taymiyya was a
voracious reader and author of great personal courage who was
endowed with a compelling writing style and a keen memory.
Dhahabi wrote of him, 'I never saw anyone faster at recalling the
Qur'anic verses dealing with subjects he was discussing, or anyone
who could remember Hadith texts more vividly.' Dhahabi estimates
that his legal opinions on various subjects amount to three-hundred
or more volumes.
He was imprisoned during much of his life in Cairo, Alexandria,
and Damascus for his writings, scholars of his time accusing him of
believing Allah to be a corporeal entity (a body) because of what he
mentioned in his al-Aqeedah al-Hamawiyya, and al-Wasitiyya and
other works, such that Allah's 'hand', 'foot', 'shin', and 'face', are
literal (haqiqi) attributes, and that He is upon the Throne in person.
The error in this, as mentioned above, is that suggesting such
attributes are literal is an innovation and unjustifiable inference from
the Qur'anic and Hadith texts that mention them, for the way of the
early Muslims was mere acceptance of such expressions on faith
without saying how they are meant, and without additions,
subtractions, or substituting meanings imagined to be synonyms,
while acknowledging Allah's absolute transcendence beyond the
characteristics of created things, in conformity with the Qur'anic
verse, 'There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him' (Qur'an 42:11;
also Allah says: 'Walam yakul-la Huu kufu wan 'ahad: And there is
none comparable unto Him', Qur'an 112:4). As for figurative
interpretations that preserve the divine transcendence, scholars of
tenets of faith have only had recourse to them in times when men of
reprehensible innovations (bid'ah), quoting Hadiths and Qur'anic
verses, have caused confusion in the minds of common Muslims as to
whether Allah has attributes like those of His creation or whether He
is transcendently beyond any image conceivable to the minds of men.
Scholars firmness in condemning those who have raised such
confusions has traditionally been very uncompromising, and this is
no doubt the reason that a number of the Imams of the Shafi'i school,
among them Taqi al-Din Subki, Ibn Hajar Haytami, and al-'Izz Ibn
Jama'a, gave formal legal opinions that Ibn Taymiyya was misguided
and misguiding in tenets of faith, and warned people from accepting
his theories. The Hanafi scholar Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari has
written, "Whoever thinks that all the scholars of his time joined in a
single conspiracy against him from personal envy should rather
impugn their own intelligence and understanding, after studying the
repugnance of his deviations in belief and works, for which he was
asked to repent time after time and moved from prison to prison until
he passed on to what he'd sent ahead."
While few deny that Ibn Taymiyya was a copious and eloquent
writer and Hadith scholar, his career, like that of others,
demonstrates that a man may be outstanding in one field and yet
suffer from radical deficiencies in another, the most reliable index of
which is how a field's Imams regard his work in it. By this measure,
indeed, by the standards of all previous Ahl al-Sunnah scholars, it is
clear that despite a voluminous and influential written legacy, Ibn
Taymiyya cannot be considered an authority on tenets of faith
(aqeedah), a field in which he made mistakes profoundly
incompatible with the beliefs of Islam, as also with a number of his
legal views that violated the scholarly consensus (Ijma) of Sunni
Muslims. It should be remembered that such matters are not the
province of personal reasoning (Ijtihad), whether Ibn Taymiyya
considered them to be out of sincere conviction, or whether simply
because, as Imam Subki said, 'His learning exceeded his intelligence.'
He died in 728/1328. (vide: al-A'lam, 1.144, by al-Zirikly; al-Durar al-
Kamina, 1.144-55, by Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani; al-Rasa'il al-
Subkiyya, 151-52, edited by K.Y. al-Hut; al-Sayf al-saqil, 6, by Imam
al-Subki; Shaykh Hasan Saqqaf; taken from The Reliance of the
Traveller, pp. 1059-60, Trans. by N.H.M. Keller).
There are many quotes available to us today coming from the
works of many well known scholars, in their refutation of Ibn
Taymiyya's beliefs, legal opinions and his very personality! As I have
indicated earlier, today's "Salafi's" and other like minded people have
come to the conclusion that he is the Imam to be "followed" in terms
of Aqeedah; since the Aqeedah that one clings to determines which
sect of Islam one is adhering to, and the "Salafiyya" claim that the
Aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim etc; is the Aqeedah of the
'Firqat an-Najiyyah' (The Saved Sect as described in the Ahadith),
and that alone is the Aqeedah of the 'Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah' to
them! I wish to convey to the honourable reader some of the
opinions held by the great scholars on Ibn Taymiyya, and in
particular what his disciple al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi said about him; since
he had first hand contact with Ibn Taymiyya which can be relied
upon very highly. The quote from Shaykh Ibn Battuta (see below) is
quite significant, since it clearly demonstrates the anthropomorphic
ideas that Ibn Taymiyya had with regards to Allah's attributes!
(1) Al-Imam Taqi ad-Din al-Subki (d. 756/1355; Rahimahullah)
Imam al-Subki wrote tracts refuting Ibn Taymiyya's Aqeedah and
works, for example Al-Durra al-Mudiyya fi al-Radd 'ala Ibn Taymiyya
(edited by Shaykh al-Kawthari) and al-Rasa'il al-Subkiyya fi al-Radd
'ala Ibn Taymiyya wa tilmidhihi Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (edited by
Shaykh Kamal al-Hut). Besides these refutations, he admitted that
Ibn Taymiyya was a deeply knowledgeable scholar in his own right.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (Rahimahullah) has recorded
the following letter written by Imam al-Subki to Hafiz al-Dhahabi, the
eminent disciple of Ibn Taymiyya, in his al-Durar al-kamina fi a'yan
al-mi'a al-thamina (1, 169): "As for what you say with regard to al-
Shaykh Taqi al-Din (Ibn Taymiyya), I am convinced of the great
scope, the ocean-like fullness and vastness of his knowledge of the
transmitted and intellectual sciences, his extreme intelligence, his
exertions and his attainments, all of which surpass description. I
have always held this opinion. Personally, my admiration is even
greater for the asceticism, piety, and religiosity with which Allah has
endowed him, for his selfless championship of the truth, his
adherence to the path of our forebears, his pursuit of perfection..."
Some people may call this an over exaggeration on Imam Subki's
part, since he has been noted to have said that Ibn Taymiyya was 'a
Khawarij (the first extreme sect which seceded from Islam during the
Sahaba's time) from Islam!' As well as saying that 'his learning
exceeded his intelligence'. But Allah knows best.
(2) Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi (d. 748/1348; Rahimahullah)
Hafiz al-Dhahabi was a special case when it came to giving his
opinions on his teacher Ibn Taymiyya. His praise of Ibn Taymiyya is
routinely eulogistic in nature, but it is invariably filled with strong
and some what harsh criticisms as well. Imam al-Subki had criticized
al-Dhahabi for being influenced by Ibn Taymiyya, when he said: "The
group comprised of al-Mizzi, al-Dhahabi, al-Birzali, and many of their
followers were clearly harmed by Abu al-Abbas ibn Taymiyya, who
led them to gross acts of no little consequence and drew them to
things that they should have avoided..." (vide: Tabaqat al-Shafi'iyya
al-Kubra, 6, 254). Anyhow, al-Dhahabi himself seemed to have had
mixed feelings for Ibn Taymiyya, as we shall see in the next few
paragraphs. The most explicit criticism of Ibn Taymiyya as a
scholarly figure may have come in an epistle entitled al-Nasiha al-
Dhahabiyya li-Ibn Taymiyya (al-Dhahabi's advice to Ibn Taymiyya);
apparently from the pen of Hafiz al-Dhahabi. Some people have
doubted the authenticity of this document in its ascription to Hafiz al-
Dhahabi; but even if it was not by al-Dhahabi we may assume that it
was a blistering attack by some 'unknown' scholar! The document
has been preserved in the Bayan Zaghal al-'Ilm (edited by Shaykh
Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari, pp. 31-34).
Here are a few excerpts from this document (pg 32): "Blessed is he
whose fault diverts him from the faults of others! Damned is he
whom others divert from his own faults! How long will you look at
the motes in the eye of your brother, forgetting the stumps in your
own? How long will you praise yourself and your prattling phrases
while disparaging the Ulama and pursuing other people's
weaknesses? (Pg. 32-33): By Allah, you must leave us alone! You
are contentious and are endowed with a learned tongue which does
not pause or rest! Beware of captious questions in religions... Too
much talk without proof hardens hearts.... (pg 33) By Allah, we have
become the laughing stock of creation! How long will you dig up
intricate philosophical blasphemies for us refute with our brains? You
have repeatedly swallowed the poison of the philosophers and their
works; the body becomes addicted to the frequent use of poison so
that is secreted, by Allah, in the very bones. Your followers help you
and fight for you in word and deed but are your secret enemies in
their hearts! Are not most of your disciples crippled and bound, of
facile intelligence or blind, liars, stupid, strange, crafty, or dessicated,
virtuous without understanding? If you don't believe me, inspect
them, weigh them with justice... (Pg. 34): I do not expect you to
accept my words or hearken to my admonition; instead you will
strive to produce volumes in refutation of this one page. You will
snip off the tails of my words relentlessly, until I retreat into absolute
silence! If this is your attitude towards me - someone who regards
you with love and affection - how will you treat your enemies, among
whom, by Allah, are righteous men, intelligent and virtuous...? I will
be content if you curse me in public as long as you heed my words in
private."
The Muhaddith, Hafiz al-Sakhawi (d. 902/1497; Rahimahullah), said
that he had seen the above work attributed to al-Dhahabi.
Nevertheless, al-Sakhawi quotes, without identifying, another treatise
in which al-Dhahabi criticised Ibn Taymiyya in the following words:
"Though I have spent long years considering and investigating Ibn
Taymiyya, I have found that the only reasons why the Egyptians and
Syrians hated him, scorned him, and called him a liar or even an
unbeliever, were his pride, his vanity, and his pretensions, his
passion to head his fellow Shaykhs, his contempt for the great, and
his love of publicity." (vide: Al-I'lan bi al-Tawbikh li-Man Dhamma
al-Ta'rikh, pg. 136).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852/1449; Rahimahullah)
recorded al-Dhahabi as saying in his al-Durar al-Kamina (1,161):
"People who know him well sometimes accuse me of failing to do
justice; his opponents sometimes charge me with puffery. I have
been abused by both parties-his supporters and his adversaries. (His
hair and beard were salt-and pepper coloured, containing little grey,
his hair reaching his ear lobes. His eyes were like eloquent tongues.
Of medium height, he was broad shouldered and had a loud,
expressive voice and was quick of speech). Though anger would
sometimes grip him, he would conquer it with forbearance. I have
not seen his like for supplications and appeals and for his abundant
concern for others. But I do not believe him to be infallible; indeed, I
disagree with him on both basic and secondary issues. For, despite
his vast learning, his extreme courage, his fluid mind, and his regard
for the sanctities of religion, he was but a man." Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-
Asqalani also recorded al-Dhahabi as saying in al-Durar al-Kamina
(1,161): "In discussion he would be possessed by rage, anger, and
hostility against his adversaries, which implanted enmity in their
spirits. If he had only treated his antagonists with civility, they
would have been reconciled with him, for the most notable of them
deferred to his learning, acknowledged his ardent zeal, and agreed
that his lapses were few."
(3) Imam Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti (d. 911/1505; Rahimahullah)
Imam as-Suyuti wrote in his book Kam' al-mu'arid : "Ibn
Taymiyya was arrogant. He was self conceited. It was his habit to
represent himself as superior to everybody, to slight the person
whom he talked to and to make fun of great Muslims."
(4) Hafiz al-Sakhawi (d. 902/1497; Rahimahullah)
Hafiz al-Sakhawi (a student of Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani) stated
in his al-I'lan (English translation in 'A History of Muslim
Historiography', pg. 284, by F. Rosenthal): "There are also those
scholars of great learning, austerity, and asceticism whom people
avoided and whose knowledge they were careful not to utilize,
because of their loose tongue and lack of tact, which caused them to
talk and criticize excessively. Such men were Ibn Hazm and Ibn
Taymiyya."
(5) Shaykh Muhammad Ali Beg (Rahimahullah)
Shaykh al-Beg from Damascus wrote in his book Hittat ash-Sham :
"Ibn Taymiyya and the (Christian) Priest Luther's aims were alike.
While the Christian reformer was successful, the reformer of Islam
was unsuccessful."
(6) Shaykh Muhammad Ziyaullah (Rahimahullah)
Shaykh Ziyaullah from Siyalkut, Pakistan, wrote in his work The
Truth of Wahhabism : "Mawlana Abd al-Hayy Lucknawi (d.1304 A.H;
al-Albani has quoted from him in his 'Sifah Salah an-Nabee'), the
great alim of India and the author of hundreds of invaluable books
known to the world, said in his book Ghais al-ghamam, 'Like the
predecessor Ibn Taymiyya al-Harrani, the successor ash-Shawkani
(d.1250/1834; see later for his views) was very learned but less
intelligent. The latter was exactly alike, even more inferior than the
former.'"
(7) Imam al-Safadi (d.764/1363; Rahimahullah)
Imam al-Safadi has preserved an anecdote on Ibn Taymiyya's
childhood in his al-Wafi bi al-Wafayat (vol. 7, pg. 17-8). When he was
studying with members of another prominent Hanbali family of
Damascus, Ibn Taymiyya inadvertently shows us that the violent
temper and the presumptuousness noticed by al-Dhahabi was evident
at an early age: "When Ibn Taymiyya was a little boy, studying with
the Banu Munajja, they supported something that he denied,
whereupon they produced the text. When he had read it, he threw it
down in fury. They said, 'How bold you are to cast from your hand
a volume that contains knowledge!' He quickly replied, 'Who is
better, Moses or I?' 'Moses', they said. And which is better-this
book or the tablets on which the ten commandments were inscribed?'
'The tablets', they replied. Ibn Taymiyya said, in words to this effect,
'Well when Moses became angry, he threw down tablets.'" Another
anecdote from al-Safadi serves to confirm al-Dhahabi's observation
that Ibn Taymiyya was oblivious to his worldly surroundings. This
one tells how once Ibn Taymiyya consumed, without complaint, a
squash which his mother had discarded because it was too bitter to
eat!
What seems to be more indicative of Ibn Taymiyya's complete
absorption in his religious cause, is his profession of indifference to
the various forms of punishment which might be inflicted upon him;
as has been recorded by the Hanbali historian Hafiz Ibn Rajab (d.
795/1393; Rahimahullah), in his al-Dhayl 'ala Tabaqat al-Hanabila
(2,402): "What can my enemies do to me? My Garden is in my heart;
wherever I go, it goes with me. My prison is solitude! My death is
martyrdom! Exile is a journey"!
(8) Ibn Battuta (d.779/1377; Rahimahullah)
The well known travelling scholar of Islam, Ibn Battuta, has judged
Ibn Taymiyya in the following words: "Among the chief Hanbali
fuqaha in Damascus was Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya who, although he
enjoyed great prestige and could discourse on the scholarly
disciplines, had a screw loose (illa anna fi 'aqlihi shay'an). The
people of Damascus held him in extreme respect. He used to preach
to them from the minbar and once had discoursed in a manner which
the fuqaha found reprehensible, so they reported him to Malik al-
Nasir, who ordered him to be sent to Cairo. There the qadis and
fuqaha were convoked in the sultan's council chamber, where they
were addressed by Sharaf al-Din al-Zuwawi, who said, 'This man
said such-and-such', spelling out the reprehensible statements of Ibn
Taymiyya and producing depositions to that effect which were placed
before the chief qadi. When the latter asked for Ibn Taymiyya's
reply, he said, 'There is no Allah but Allah', responding in a like
manner when the qadi repeated the question. Al-Malik al-Nasir
ordered him to be put into prison, where he remained for some years
and wrote a book of Qur'anic commentary which he entitled al-Bahr
al-Muhit in almost forty volumes. Later, his mother complained
before al-Malik al-Nasir, and he ordered his release. But then the
same thing happened again while I was in Damascus. I was in
attendance on a Friday when he was preaching to the people and
exhorting them from the minbar of the cathedral mosque. In the
course of his speech he said, 'Allah comes down to the sky of this
world just as I came down now', and he descended one step of the
minbar. A Maliki faqih known as Ibn al-Zahra remonstrated with
him and denounced what he had said, whereupon the congregation
rose against this faqih, striking him with their hands and shoes until;
his turban fell off, exposing a silk skullcap on his head. They
rebuked him for wearing this and bore him to the house of Izz al-Din
ibn Musallam, the qadi of the Hanbali's, who ordered him to be
imprisoned and then flogged. But the Maliki and the Shafi'i fuqaha
denounced this punishment and carried the matter to Malik al-Umara
Sayf al-Din Tankiz, one of the good and virtuous amirs, who wrote to
al-Malik al-Nasir about the matter and sent a legal deposition against
Ibn Taymiyya on such reprehensible matters as the following: 'He
who pronounces triple divorce with one phrase is bound only by one
divorce'; 'The traveller who sets out to visit the Hallowed Tomb
(may Allah increase its perfume) may not reduce his prayers'; and
the like. He sent the deposition to al-Malik al-Nasir, who ordered Ibn
Taymiyya to be imprisoned in the citadel. There he remained until
he died." (vide: Ibn Battuta, Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325-1354
C.E; pp. 67-8, 1929 edn; The Travels of Ibn Battuta, 1325-1354 C.E; 1,
135-36, by H. Gibb; Tuhfat an-nuzzar, pg.9, by Ibn Jazi; also quoted
in Jawahir al-bihar, by Shaykh Yusuf an-Nabahani, d. 1350/1932).
The above account given by Ibn Battuta has been discounted by
certain people; especially by Ibn Taymiyya's supporters, simply
because they believe that Ibn Taymiyya would never have made the
anthropomorphic statement, 'Allah comes down to the sky of this
world just as I came down now', and then he allegedly took a step
down the pulpit to demonstrate how Allah descends (nuzul). Even if
one was to denounce Ibn Battuta's account as being a false and
fabricated statement, one may wish to know that the greatest scholar
of Hadith in his time, Shaykh al-Islam al-Hafiz Ahmad ibn Hajar al-
Asqalani (Rahimahullah) has reported an incident in al-Durar al-
kamina (1, 164) where again Ibn Taymiyya descended the steps of the
minbar in order to illustrate his understanding of how Allah descends
(nuzul) as early as the year 705/1305 AH (some 21 years before Ibn
Battuta's account). Hafiz Ibn Hajar's source for this incident was one
of Ibn Taymiyya's own disciples by the name Sulayman Najm al-Din
al-Tufi al-Hanbali (d. 716/1316). Besides these incidents involving Ibn
Taymiyya's views on Allah's attributes, other statements regarding
Ibn Taymiyya's views on this topic have been recorded by Ibn Abd
al-Hadi (d. 744/1343-44) in his Uqud al-Durriyya min Manaqib Shaykh
al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (pp.198-232) and Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373)
in his Bidaya (14, 38).
(9) Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami al-Makki (d.974/1567; R. A.)
The Shafi'i Imam of his time, al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Haytami gave an
official Fatwa on the heresy of Ibn Taymiyya in his book al-Fatawa al-
Hadithiyya: "Allahu ta'ala made Ibn Taymiyya lapse into heresy and
perdition. He made him deaf and blind. Many scholars have
informed that his deeds were corrupt and his words were false, and
they proved it with documents. Those who read the books of the
great Islamic scholar Abu'l Hasan as-Subki and his son Taj ad-din as-
Subki and the books of Imam al-Izz ibn Jama'a, and those who study
the statements said and written in response to him by the Shafi'i,
Maliki and Hanafi Ulama living in his time, will see that we are
right.. As well, Ibn Taymiyya slandered and cast nefarious
aspersions upon the great scholars of the Sufi path. And further!
He did not hesitate to attack Sayyidina Umar (Allah be pleased with
him) and Sayyidina Ali (Allah be pleased with him), Islam's
archstones. His words overflowed the measure and the rules of
decorum, and he threw arrows even at steep cliffs. He stigmatized
the scholars of the right way as innovators, heretics and
ignoramuses...
A letter written to Ibn Taymiyya in 705/1305 C.E; says: 'O my
Muslim brother, who considers himself to be a great scholar and the
Imam of his time! I loved you for Allah's sake. I disapproved the
scholars who were against you. But hearing your words unbecoming
to love has puzzled me. Does a wise person doubt that the night
begins when the sun sets? You said that you were in the right way
and that you were enjoining the good and forbidding the evil. Allah
ta'ala knows what your purposes and intentions are. But sincerity
will be seen in a person's deeds. Your deeds have torn off the cover
from your words. In the wake of those who follow their inner
desires and whose words are unreliable, you have not only defamed
those living in your time but also stigmatized the deceased as
disbelievers. In addition to attacking the successors of the Salaf as-
salihin (the first three pious Muslim generations), you have slandered
the Sahaba, especially the greatest ones. Can't you imagine in what
situation you will be in when those great people ask their rights on
the day of Resurrection? On the pulpit of the Jami al-jabal in the
Salihiyya city you said that Umar (ibn al-Khattab; Allah be pleased
with him) had had some wrong statements and disasters. What were
these disasters? Which of these disasters did the Salaf as-salihin tell
you about? You say that Ali (ibn Abi Talib; Allah be pleased with
him) had more than 300 hundred errors! Supposing the case had
been with Sayyidina Ali, could you have one right word then? Now
I am beginning to act against you. I shall try to protect Muslims
against your villainy. For, you have overflowed the measure. Your
torture has reached the living and the dead. Believers must shun
your evils.'
Taj ad-Din as-Subki (Rahimahullah) states that Ibn Taymiyya
disagrees with the Salaf as-salihin in the following matters:
(1) He said, 'Talaq (divorce) does not become actual; (in case it
happens) it is necessary to pay kaffara (equal to that which is paid)
for an oath.' None of the Islamic scholars that came before him said
that kaffarat must be paid.
(2) He said, 'Talaq given to a menstruating woman does not become
actual, nor does Talaq given during the time of her purity become
actual.'
(3) He said, 'It is not necessary to make up (qada) for a Salah omitted
deliberately.' (This is definitely true; it was also the view of Ibn al-
Qayyim and Ibn Hazm al-Zahiri).
(4) He said, 'It is permissible (mubah) for a menstruating woman to
go around the Ka'ba. (If she does so) she will not have to pay any
kaffara.'
(5) He said, 'One Talaq given in the name of three Talaq's is still one
Talaq.' Whereas, before saying so, he repeatedly said for many years
that the consensus of the Muslims was not so.
(6) He said, 'Taxes incompatible with Islam are halal to those who
demand them.'
(7) He said, 'When taxes are collected from tradesman, they stand for
Zakah (charity) even if they do not intend (for zakah).'
(8) He said, 'Water does not become impure when a mouse or the
like dies in it.'
(9) He said, 'It is permissible for a sexually defiled (junub) person to
perform supererogatory Salah without making ghusl (bath) at night.'
(10) He said, 'Conditions stipulated by the waqif (person who devotes
property to a pious foundation) are not taken into consideration.
Something devoted for Shafi'is is spent for Hanafi's.'
(11) He said, 'A person who disagrees with the Ijma al-Ummah
(consensus of the Muslim community) does not become a disbeliever
or a sinner.'
(12) He said, 'Allah ta'ala is mahall-i hawadith. He is made up of
particles coming together.'
(13) He said, 'The Qur'an al-Karim was created in the Dhat (essence,
person) of Allahu ta'ala.'
(14) He said, 'The 'alam, that is, all creatures are eternal with their
kinds.'
(15) He said, 'Allahu ta'ala has to create good things.'
(16) He said, 'Allahu ta'ala has a body and directions; he changes His
place and is as big as the Arsh (throne).'
(17) He said, 'Hell is not eternal; it will go out at last.'
(18) He denied the fact that Prophet's (Peace be upon them all) are
impeccable.
(19) He said, 'Rasulullah (Peace and blessings be upon him) is no
different from other people. It is not permissible to pray through his
intercession (tawassul).'
(20) He said, 'It is sinful to go to Madinah with the intention of
visiting (the grave of) Rasulullah (Peace be upon him).'
(21) He also said, 'It is haram to go there to ask for intercession
(shafa'a).'
(22) He said, 'The Tawra and the Injil (two former revelations) did
not change in vocabulary but in meaning.'
Some scholars said that most of the above quoted statements did
not belong to Ibn Taymiyya, but none of them denied that he had
said, 'Allah had directions and is a composition of particles coming
together.' However, it was declared by consensus that he was rich in
Ilm, jalala and in diyana. A person who has Fiqh, knowledge, justice
and reason must first observe a matter and then decide about it with
prudence. Especially, judging a Muslim's disbelief, apostasy, heresy
or that he must be killed requires very minute observations and utter
circumspection."
It was written in the book Aqeedah wa'l Islam (pg. 78, author
unknown): "Before those two people (Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-
Qayyim), there was not a Madhhab called 'Salafiyya', nor even the
word 'Salafiyya'; how could they have said to have tried to enrich the
Madhhab of the Salaf as-salihin, which was named Ahl as-Sunnah
wa'l Jama'ah? Ibn Taymiyya tried to distort this right Madhhab and
invented many bid'ahs (bad innovations). The source of the books,
words and heretical, corrupt thoughts of today's la-Madhhabi (anti-
Madhhabites) people and religion reformers is only the bid'ahs
invented by Ibn Taymiyya. In order to deceive Muslims and to
convince the youth that they are on the right path, these heretics
devised a horrible stratagem; they forged the name 'Salafiyya' from
the term 'Salaf as-salihin' so that they may justify Ibn Taymiyya's
bid'ahs, corrupt ideas and drift the youth into his wake. They
attached the stigmas of philosophy and bid'ah to Islamic scholars,
who are the successors of the Salaf as-salihin, and blamed them for
dissenting from their invented name 'Salafiyya'. They put forward
Ibn Taymiyya as a Mujtahid, as a hero that resuscitated the
'Salafiyya'. Actually, the Ulama of the Ahl al-Sunnah, who are the
successors of the Salaf as-salihin, defended the teachings with respect
to I'tiqad (belief) of the Ahl al-Sunnah, which was the Madhhab of
the Salaf as-salihin; in the books which they have written up to our
time and which they are still writing today, they inform that Ibn
Taymiyya, ash-Shawkani and the like have dissented from the way of
the Salaf as-salihin and have been drifting Muslims towards perdition
and Hell."
-=O=-
Available from:
Sayf ad-Din Ahmed ibn Muhammad,
296, Holloway Road,
London,
N7 6NJ,
England,
UK.
and
All Good Bookshops
-=O=-
Price:
UK #2.50 (pounds)
Overseas $7.00 (US dollars)
please make all cheques payable to M.Ahmed
price includes postage and packing.
-=O=-
.
(
geocities.com/~abdulwahid)