Karamaat of Auliyah Recorded in Books other Than Fadha’il Amaal

As salaamu Alaykum, 

These stories of Auliya mentioned below here are not from Fadha’il  Amaal. Shaykh Zakariyyah has not written them. 

It is from and about many of the all time great scholars of Muslim Ummah including Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim. 
(I have mentioned Ibn Taymmiyah  as he is also regarded great by those groups who  criticise similar/same stories of Auliya Allah  in Fadha’il Amaal etc.)

Those brothers who make an isolated case of Fadhail Amaal about Karamat e Auliya. What they have to say about Great Scholars like Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and others who are writing same stories in their books. Shaykh Zakariyyah has only copied some of them with reference. 

If you will try to prove things leaving Qur’an and Hadith from your limited understanding  How you will prove the following…….

1. Mi’raj of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). If you will apply your limited understanding ……..How is it possible to visit Baitul Muqaddas, lead the prayer, visit Paradise and hell …….all in a short span of time……….

But it is 100% true …….Our eyes can be wrong but not the Allah and prophet words………as our Lord has said.

سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي أَسْرَى بِعَبْدِهِ لَيْلاً مِنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ إِلَى الْمَسْجِدِ الأَقْصَى الَّذِي بَارَكْنَا حَوْلَهُ لِنُرِيَهُ مِنْ آيَاتِنَا إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ (الإسراء: 1).

Glorious is He Who made his servant travel by night from Al-Masjid-ul-Haram to Al-Masjid-ul-AqSa whose environs We have blessed, so that We let him see some of Our signs. Surely, He is the All-Hearing, the All- Seeing. [Surah al-Isra’ 17:1]

Hadith from Bukhari

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

Regarding: ‘And We granted the vision (Ascension to the Heaven “Mi’raj”) which We showed you (O Muhammad as an actual eye witness) but as a trial for mankind.’ (Surah al-Isra’ 17.60) It was an actual eye-witness which was shown to Allah’s Apostle during the night he was taken on a journey (through the heavens). And the cursed tree is the tree of Az-Zaqqum (a bitter pungent tree which grows at the bottom of Hell)._Bukhari :: Book 6 :: Volume 60 :: Hadith 240

Narrated Anas bin Malik (radhiyallahu anhu):

The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)said: “While I was walking in Paradise (on the night of Mi’raj), I saw a river, on the two banks of which there were tents made of hollow pearls. I asked, “What is this, O Gabriel?’ He said, ‘That is the Kauthar which Your Lord has given to you.’ Behold! Its scent or its mud was sharp smelling musk!” (The sub-narrator, Hudba is in doubt as to the correct expression. )

Narrated Malik bin Sasaa:

The Prophet said, “While I was at the House in a state midway between sleep and wakefulness, (an angel recognized me) as the man lying between two men. A golden tray full of wisdom and belief was brought to me and my body was cut open from the throat to the lower part of the abdomen and then my abdomen was washed with Zam-zam water and (my heart was) filled with wisdom and belief. Al-Buraq, a white animal, smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey was brought to me and I set out with Gabriel. When I reached the nearest heaven. Gabriel said to the heaven gate-keeper, ‘Open the gate.’ The gatekeeper asked, ‘Who is it?’ He said, ‘Gabriel.’ The gate-keeper,’ Who is accompanying you?’ Gabriel said, ‘Muhammad.’ The gate-keeper said, ‘Has he been called?’ Gabriel said, ‘Yes.’ Then it was said, ‘He is welcomed. What a wonderful visit his is!’ Then I met Adam and greeted him and he said, ‘You are welcomed O son and a Prophet.’ Then we ascended to the second heaven. It was asked, ‘Who is it?’ Gabriel said, ‘Gabriel.’ It was said, ‘Who is with you?’ He said, ‘Muhammad’ It was asked, ‘Has he been sent for?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ It was said, ‘He is welcomed. What a wonderful visit his is!” Then I met Jesus and Yahya (John) who said, ‘You are welcomed, O brother and a Prophet.’ Then we ascended to the third heaven. It was asked, ‘Who is it?’ Gabriel said, ‘Gabriel.’ It was asked, ‘Who is with you? Gabriel said, ‘Muhammad.’ It was asked, ‘Has he been sent for?’ ‘Yes,’ said Gabriel. ‘He is welcomed. What a wonderful visit his is!’ (The Prophet added:). There I met Joseph and greeted him, and he replied, ‘You are welcomed, O brother and a Prophet!’ Then we ascended to the 4th heaven and again the same questions and answers were exchanged as in the previous heavens. There I met Idris and greeted him. He said, ‘You are welcomed O brother and Prophet.’ Then we ascended to the 5th heaven and again the same questions and answers were exchanged as in previous heavens. there I met and greeted Aaron who said, ‘You are welcomed O brother and a Prophet”. Then we ascended to the 6th heaven and again the same questions and answers were exchanged as in the previous heavens. There I met and greeted Moses who said, ‘You are welcomed O brother and. a Prophet.’ When I proceeded on, he started weeping and on being asked why he was weeping, he said, ‘O Lord! Followers of this youth who was sent after me will enter Paradise in greater number than my followers.’ Then we ascended to the seventh heaven and again the same questions and answers were exchanged as in the previous heavens. There I met and greeted Abraham who said, ‘You are welcomed o son and a Prophet.’ Then I was shown Al-Bait-al-Ma’mur (i.e. Allah’s House). I asked Gabriel about it and he said, This is Al Bait-ul-Ma’mur where 70,000 angels perform prayers daily and when they leave they never return to it (but always a fresh batch comes into it daily).’ Then I was shown Sidrat-ul-Muntaha (i.e. a tree in the seventh heaven) and I saw its Nabk fruits which resembled the clay jugs of Hajr (i.e. a town in Arabia), and its leaves were like the ears of elephants, and four rivers originated at its root, two of them were apparent and two were hidden. I asked Gabriel about those rivers and he said, ‘The two hidden rivers are in Paradise, and the apparent ones are the Nile and the Euphrates.’ Then fifty prayers were enjoined on me. I descended till I met Moses who asked me, ‘What have you done?’ I said, ‘Fifty prayers have been enjoined on me.’ He said, ‘I know the people better than you, because I had the hardest experience to bring Bani Israel to obedience. Your followers cannot put up with such obligation. So, return to your Lord and request Him (to reduce the number of prayers.’ I returned and requested Allah (for reduction) and He made it forty. I returned and (met Moses) and had a similar discussion, and then returned again to Allah for reduction and He made it thirty, then twenty, then ten, and then I came to Moses who repeated the same advice. Ultimately Allah reduced it to five. When I came to Moses again, he said, ‘What have you done?’ I said, ‘Allah has made it five only.’ He repeated the same advice but I said that I surrendered (to Allah’s Final Order)'” Allah’s Apostle was addressed by Allah, “I have decreed My Obligation and have reduced the burden on My slaves, and I shall reward a single good deed as if it were ten good deeds.” 

(Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 54 :: Hadith 429 )

They present wrong definition of Karamat.They cheat the muslim youth by interpreting these stories by their logic. In Islam matter has to be proved by Qur’an and Hadith as per understanding of Salafus salehin.

May Allah give these groupism ridden brothers taufeeq to learn Islam, to understand the power of Alla, do justice and not target Fadha’il e Amaal unjustly to deceive and cheat Muslims for sake of their groupism work.

The purpose of this post is to show mirror to those brothers who make an isolated case of Fadhail e Amaal about Karamat e Aulia. They present wrong definition of Karamat. They cheat the muslim youth by interpreting these stories by their logic. In Islam matter has to be proved by Qur’an and Hadith as per understanding of Salafus salehin.

2. Take a live example of reaching at devastative conclusion if you leave Qur’an and Hadith and apply your limited understanding……….
Recently, I read magazine from Hyderabad, India DECEMBER 2012 ISSUE ……..This magazine  claimes to advocate Sahih Hadith and discard weak Hadith………But in reality they have actually denied Ahadith that are not fit on their logic and not fitting to their mentality.

E.g. They have denied the Azab of Qabr (Punishment of Grave)……… 

They gave a convincing logic ………....

“that as Grave is before Day of Judgement, (Qiyamat) And any Court of law do not give Reward and punishment before hearing of case and judgement. So Ahadith describing Azab e Qabr  are ……….(NA’UDHUBILLAH)

Although Ahadith describing Punishment of Grave are in Bukhari Shareef they are denying Hadith as it does not fit with their Logic and mental level. (May Allah give them Hidayat)

BUKHARI SHAREEF HADITH ABOUT PUNISHMENT OF GRAVE

كَانَ سَعْدٌ يُعَلِّمُ بَنِيهِ هَؤُلاَءِ الكَلِمَاتِ كَمَا يُعَلِّمُ المُعَلِّمُ الغِلْمَانَ الكِتَابَةَ وَيَقُولُ: إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ يَتَعَوَّذُ مِنْهُنَّ دُبُرَ الصَّلاَةِ: اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنَ الجُبْنِ، وَأَعُوذُ بِكَ أَنْ أُرَدَّ إِلَى أَرْذَلِ العُمُرِ، وَأَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنْ فِتْنَةِ الدُّنْيَا، وَأَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنْ عَذَابِ القَبْرِ           صحيح البخاري

     “Sa’d (radhiyallahu anhu) used to teach his children the following words like how a teacher teaches children to write. He used to say “Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam used to seek Allah’s refuge from these things after every Salāh.” “Oh Allah, I seek your protection from cowardice and I seek your protection from that I am sent forth to a feeble age and I seek refuge in you from the trials of the world and I seek refuge in you from the punishment of the grave.”_ (Sahih Bukhari)

عَنْ عَائِشَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا: أَنَّ يَهُودِيَّةً دَخَلَتْ عَلَيْهَا، فَذَكَرَتْ عَذَابَ القَبْرِ، فَقَالَتْ لَهَا: أَعَاذَكِ اللَّهُ مِنْ عَذَابِ القَبْرِ، فَسَأَلَتْ عَائِشَةُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَنْ عَذَابِ القَبْرِ، فَقَالَ: نَعَمْ، عَذَابُ القَبْرِ.قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا: فَمَا رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بَعْدُ صَلَّى صَلاَةً إِلَّا تَعَوَّذَ مِنْ عَذَابِ القَبْرِ       صحيح البخاري

Aisha (radhiyallahu anha) narrates that a Jewess came to her and mentioned the punishment of the grave and said “May Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave.” So Hadhrat Aisha (radhiyallahu anha) asked Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) about the punishment of the grave and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said “There is a punishment of the grave”. Aisha (radhiyallahu anha) says that I never saw Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) pray a Salāh after that instance except that he seeked refuge from the punishment of the grave.  (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 1306, & Sahih Muslim).

Those brothers who make an isolated case of Fadha’il e Amaal about Karamat e Aulia. They present wrong definition of Karamat. They cheat the muslim youth by interpreting these stories by their logic. In Islam matter has to be proved by Qur’an and Hadith as per understanding of Salafus salehin.

May Allah give these groupism ridden brothers taufeeq to learn Islam, to understand the power of Alla, do justice and not target Fazail e Amaal unjustly to deceive and cheat Muslims for sake of their groupism work, not to cheat innocent Muslims making isolated case of Fadha’il e Amaal.

A Muslim believes that Karamat/ Kashf is totally under control of Allah.

Nothing is impossible for Allah who has created sky and earth with KUN FAYAKOON and trillions of stars in a Galaxy and trillions of galaxies. 

WHY HE CANT SHOW SOMETIMES HIS SPECIAL POWER ON HANDS OF HIS SELECTED SLAVES (PROPHET AND AULIYA ALLAH)?? ………….MANIFESTATION OF KARAMAT IS IN  ALLAH’S POWER ONLY…….This is belief of Muslims………

It is not related to the will or status of a person (Aulia Allah).
It is by Allah’s Will and not the Desire/status of a person.  

Sometimes a person other than Prophet may get Karamat from Allah. 

Eg: Qur’an says that  Hazrat Mariyam used to get fruits without season while Prophet Zakariyyah (alayhissalaam) was not wasn’t, But it does not mean that her status surpassed than that of a Prophet. As it has already been said that through kashf a lot of things can be seen/felt with the permission of Allah Ta’ala like this one:

KARAMAT/KASHF OF ABU BAKAR (RADHIYALLAHU ANHU)

‘A’ishah (radhiyallahu anha) narrated: “When he (Abu bakr) was on his deathbed, my father (Abu bakr) said to me: “Verily, you have two brothers and two sisters.” So, I became startled at this, as I only had two brothers and one sister. He referred to his then-pregnant wife, Bint Kharijah, saying: “I see that she is pregnant with a girl,” and that turned out to be exactly the case.”
[Reported by ash-Shatibi in ‘al-Muwafaqat‘ (4/85), and Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned it in ‘Majmu’ al-Fatawa‘ (11/318)] 

Nabi Ya’qub (alayhissalam) could not trace from the well of Kunan But By will of Allah he could smell the cloths of Yusuf (alayhissalam) from far away Egypt.

So if you will see the Karamat e Auliya with Muslim vision you will find the greatness of Allah. 
Otherwise you may find something else if you consider that it has been done by the Aulia Allah, then it will become shirk, as Some of the groups are making.

Propaganda of  Shirk in Aulia Allah Stories IN FADHA’IL E AMAAL.

(These stories are from older book of great Imams and scholars REPRODUCED WITH REFERENCE)
May Allah show all of us Right path.

‘Shaykh al Islam’ of the Salafi’s Ahmad bin Taymiyyah views on these Issues
 
The miracles of saints are absolutely true and correct, by the acceptance of all Muslim scholars. And the Qur’an has pointed to it in different places, and the Hadith of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has mentioned it, and whoever denies the miraculous power of saints are only people who are innovators and their followers.“_ [al-Mukhtasar al-Fatawa, page 603].

Ibn Taymiyya says, “what is considered as a miracle for a saint is that sometimes the saint might hear something that others do not hear and they might see something that others do not see, while not in a sleeping state, but in awakened state of vision. And he can know something that others cannot know, through revelation or inspiration.” [Majmu’a Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya, Vol. 11, p. 314]. 

Ahlus Sunnah believe in Karamat of Auliya: By Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah [Sharh Al-Aqeedat-il-Wasitiyah]

وَمِنْ أُصًولِ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ: التَّصْدِيقُ بِكَرَامَاتَ الأَوْلِيَاءِ وَمَا يُجْرِي اللهُ عَلَى أَيْدِيهِم مِّنْ خَوَارِقِ الْعَادَاتِ فِي أَنْوَاعِ الْعُلُومِ وَالْمُكَاشَفَاتِ وَأَنْوَاعِ الْقُدْرَةِ وَالتَّأْثِيرَات ، وَالمَاثُور  عَنْ سَالِفِ الأُمَمِ فِي سُورَةِ الْكَهْفِ وَغَيْرِهَا، وَعَنْ صَدْرِ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ مِنَ الصَّحَابَةِ وَالتَّابِعِينَ وَسَائِرِ فِرق الأُمَّةِ، وَهِيَ مَوْجُودَةٌ فِيهَا إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ ۔

The testimony of the Karamat (charismata) occurred by the Auliya (those righteous people who are close to Allah) also forms part of the principles of Ahlus-Sunnah, as also the testimony of all those extraordinary occurrences and habits which Allah manifests through them in terms of various knowledges, spiritual experiences, powers, and influences and those that are mentioned in the Qur’anic Surah Al Kahf etc. regarding former communities and about the initial period of the Sahaba and Taba’een of this Ummah till today and will continue to remain till the day of judgement.

KARAMAT STORIES OF AULIYA ALLAH BY GREAT SCHOLARS FROM OTHER THAN FADHA’IL AMAAL

Miracles of Ibn Taymiyyah:
 
Incident 1 (Knowing of what is in someone’s heart without him speaking): 

There was once an argument between some of the noble scholars and myself in some issues that we were debating at length over. So, we decided to stop our discussion and go to the Shaykh to give us the decisive word. We found that the Shaykh himself had come to us, and when we were going to ask him about what we were discussing, he delved into each issue before we could even speak. He laid out each of our positions regarding what we were discussing, mentioned the opinions of the scholars on them, and then clarified which opinions were most supported by the evidence, until he got to the final issue we wanted to ask him about and told us what we ourselves were hoping to learn from asking him. So, my companions and I were speechless and shocked at what he had just learned from him, as well as what Allah had made him privy to regarding what we had been thinking of.

Incident 2 (Knowing of what is in someone’s heart without him speaking):

And during the days I spent with him, if I wanted to research a particular issue, I would barely have just thought of it only to find him proceeding to explaining it to me, and providing an answer from numerous angles.

Incident 3 (Knowing of someone’s poverty without them disclosing):

The righteous, knowledgeable Shaykh Ahmad bin al-Harimi told me that he once traveled to Damascus. He said: “So, it happened that when I arrived, I had no provision or money with me, and I knew nobody in the city. So, I began to walk through its streets like a lost person. Suddenly, I saw the Shaykh walking swiftly towards me. He greeted me, smiled in my face, put in my hand a small pouch filled with some dirhams, and said to me: “Spend these now and stop worrying about what you are thinking about, as Allah will never abandon you.” He then walked away as if he had only come to say this to me. So, I supplicated for him, and I was very happy with this. I then asked some of the people: “Who is this man?” They said: “You don’t know him?! He is Ibn Taymiyyah! It has been a very long time since we’ve seen him walk this road.”

Incident 4 (Knowing of someone’s illness without them informing):

And I was told by Shaykh Taqi ad-Din ‘Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Sa’id: “I traveled to Egypt when the Shaykh was living there, and I became very sick the night I arrived. So, I spent the night in some region of the country, and was shocked to suddenly hear someone calling me by my name and nickname. So, I answered him in a weak voice, and I sat up to see a group of the Shaykh’s companions entering upon me, some of whom I had met previously in Damascus. I said: “How did you know I was coming to Egypt when I have just arrived?” They said: “The Shaykh informed us that you were coming and that you are sick, and he told us to hurry to move you somewhere more comfortable, and we saw nobody else arriving or telling us anything.” So, I know that this was from the miracles of the Shaykh (may Allah be Pleased with him).

Incident 5 (Informing an ill person that they are cured):

He also told me: “I became extremely sick in Damascus, such that I could not even sit up. I suddenly felt the Shaykh sitting next to my head, and I was very weak with fever and sickness. He supplicated for me and said: “You are now relieved.” As soon as he left me, I was immediately relieved of all the pain and sickness I had been experiencing.” He also said: “I had come across some poetry written by one who had strayed from the truth that attacked the Shaykh. The reason he had written this poem was that someone had ascribed to him poetry and words that indicated he was a Rafidi, and took these words to a judge, and it was decided to publicize his condition to the people. The man falsely thought that it was the Shaykh who had written these words and taken them to the judge, and this is why he wrote this poetry attacking the Shaykh. So, I kept this poem with me, and I would sometimes recite some of it. I came across many things in it that didn’t sit well, and I was constantly afraid and anxious because of what I was reading, and were it not for Allah’s blessing on me, I would have been overtaken by it. I asked myself why I was so affected by this poem, and I could find nothing more than that I liked some of its words. So, I promised Allah that I would not waste anymore time reading it, and I became a bit relieved and relaxed. However, I still had the poem. So, I took it and burned it up and washed away the ashes so that nothing would be left of it. I asked Allah’s Forgiveness, and suddenly was completely relieved of all the anxiety I had been feeling when reading the poem, and Allah replaced it with relaxation. I have since been in a state of good and relaxation, and I see that this was one of the miracles of the Shaykh granted to him by Allah.”

Incident 6 (Knowing of someone’s poverty without them disclosing):

He also said to me that Shaykh Ibn ‘Imad ad-Din al-Muqri’ al-Mutriz said: “I visited the Shaykh once when I had some money with me. I greeted him, and he replied and welcomed me, and then left me without asking if I had any money with me. After a few days, I had spent all of my money. When the class was over and we had prayed behind him, he wouldn’t let me leave. He sat me down, and after everyone had left, he put a small pouch of money in my hand, saying: “Now, you have no money. Support yourself with this.” I was amazed at this, and knew that Allah had somehow made him privy to my situation – both when I had some money and when I had run out of it.”

Incident 7 (Informing people of the future, which Allah Ta’ala disclosed to him): 

I was also informed by a trustworthy individual: “When the Mongol invasion was approaching Damascus, its people became extremely afraid, and some of them came to him and asked him to supplicate for the Muslims. So, he turned to Allah and then said: “Rejoice, for Allah will grant you victory in three days, to the point that you will see their heads piled on top of each other.” By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, as soon as three days had passed, we saw their heads piled on top of each other in the center of Damascus, just as he said.”

Incident 8 (Informing people of their family members and financial condition without them disclosing): 

And I was told by the righteous Shaykh ‘Uthman bin Ahmad bin ‘Isa an-Nassakh (may Allah be Pleased with him) that he would visit the sick in the hospital in Damascus every week, and this was a constant habit of his. He once came to a young man and supplicated for him, and he was quickly cured. He came to the Shaykh wanting to greet him, and when he saw him, he smiled to him, pulled him close, gave him some money, and said: “Allah has healed you. So, promise Him that you will quickly return to your homeland. Is it right for you to abandon your wife and four daughters without a provider while you sit here?” The man kissed his hand and said: “Sir, I repent to Allah on your hand,” and he later said: “I was amazed at what he knew about me, as I did leave them without any provision, and nobody in Damascus had known of my situation.”

Incident 9 (Informing of someone’s death in the future): 

And I was told by someone I trust that some judges were on their way to Egypt to assume positions there, and that one of them said: “As soon as I arrive in Egypt, I will rule that such and such of the noble scholars should be killed.” Everyone had agreed that this scholar was righteous and pious. However, this man’s heart contained such hatred and enmity to him that it drove him to want him dead. Everyone who heard him say this became worried that he would actually carry out his threat to kill this righteous man, and they were afraid that this man who wanted to be a judge would be led by Satan and by his own desires, causing him to spill sacred Muslim blood – they feared the great evil that would result from such an action. So, they went to Ibn Taymiyyah and told him of exactly what had taken place. He said: “Allah will not allow him to carry out what he wants, and he will not even get to Egypt alive.” The judge had a very short distance to travel until he would arrive in Egypt when he was suddenly stricken with death. So, he died before arriving in Egypt, just as Allah had revealed on the tongue of the Shaykh (may Allah be Pleased with him). And the miracles of the Shaykh (may Allah be Pleased with him) are many, and this is not the place to mention more of them. But, from the most obvious and well-known of his miracles is that nobody was ever known to hate or attack him except that he was then stricken with numerous disasters, mostly in his religion, and this is something well-known that does not require much elaboration.

(All quotes taken from الاعلام العلیھ فی مناقب ابنتيمية written by Shaykh Abu Hafs Umar Ibn Ali-Bazzar who was a contemporary of Ibn Taymiyyah, translated in English as “The Lofty virtues of Ibn Taymiyah

Abu al-Khayr al-Aqta` said: “I entered the city of Allah’s Messenger and I was in material need. I stayed five days without eating anything. I came toward the grave and said Salam to the Prophet and to Abu Bakr and `Umar then said: “I am your guest tonight, O Allah’s Messenger!” I then stepped aside and slept behind the Minbar. I saw the Prophet in my dream, with Abu Bakr to his Right, `Umar to his left, and `Ali in front of him. `Ali shook me and said, “Get up, Rasullullah is coming.” I got up and kissed him between his eyes; he gave me a loaf of bread, I ate half of it; when I woke up I found half a loaf in my hand.” 

(Abu-al-Faraj Ibn Al-Jawzi, Muthir Al-Gharam Al-Sakin Ila Ashraf Al-Amakin)

Hasan ibn Sufyaan Nasawi (rahimahullah) was once with his friends in Egypt out in search for Ahaadith. Their provisions became exhausted to such an extent that three days passed by without a morsel of food. They were forced to beg. Hence, they drew lots to see who from amongst them will go out to beg. Hasan ibn Sufyaan’s name came up and consequently, he took to one corner of the Musjid and performed two Rakaats of Salaat after which he made Du’aa crying and begging unto Allah Ta’ala. When he finished, he saw a young handsome man who had just entered the Musjid and remarked, ‘Where is Hasan ibn Sufyaan?’ he replied, ‘I am here’ The young man then said, ‘The King (Tooloon) conveys his salaams to you and he apologises for his shortcomings towards your service. Here is one hundred Dinaars for every one of you. when Hasan and his friends asked the young man as to how the King had come to know of them, the young man said, ‘The King saw a dream in which a rider flew to him in the air. The rider was holding a spear with which it entered his home and pierced the King in his hip and said – wake up! Go and see to Hasan ibn Sufyaan and his friends. Go! Wake up – Go. Wake up because they are starving for 3 days in the Musjid. The King asked, ‘Who are you?’ the reply was, ‘I am Ridhwaan, the door-keeper of Jannat’ The King woke up and his hip was in severe pain. Thus, he sent these coins to you. 

(Siyaar aalamin nubalaa vol.14 pg.161; of Hafiz Dhahabi)

(al-hafiz) Abu Bakr al-Minqari said: I was with (al-hafiz) al-Tabarani and (al-hafiz) Abu al-Shaykh in the Prophet’s Mosque, in some difficulty. We became very hungry. That day and the next we didn’t eat. When it was time for `isha, I came to the Prophet’s grave and I said: “O Messenger of Allah, we are hungry, we are hungry” (ya rasullallah al-ju` al-ju`)! Then I left. Abu al-Shaykh said to me: Sit. Either there will be food for us, or death. I slept and Abu al-Shaykh slept. al-Tabarani stayed awake, researching something. Then an `Alawi (a descendant of `Ali) came knocking at the door with two boys, each one carrying a palm-leaf basket filled with food. We sat up and ate. We thought that the children would take back the remainder but they left everything behind. When we finished, the `Alawi said: O people, did you complain to the Prophet? I saw him in my sleep and he ordered me to bring something to you.

(Abu-al-Faraj Ibn Al-Jawzi, Kitab al-Wafa (p. 818 #1536)

(Ibn al-Jawzi Muthir Al-Gharam Al-Sakin Ila Ashraf Al-Amakin)

Abu al-Khayr al-Aqta` said: “I entered the city of Allah’s Messenger and I was in material need. I stayed five days without eating anything. I came toward the grave and said Salam to the Prophet and to Abu Bakr and `Umar then said: “I am your guest tonight, O Allah’s Messenger!” I then stepped aside and slept behind the Minbar. I saw the Prophet in my dream, with Abu Bakr to his Right, `Umar to his left, and `Ali in front of him. `Ali shook me and said, “Get up, Rasullullah is coming.” I got up and kissed him between his eyes; he gave me a loaf of bread, I ate half of it; when I woke up I found half a loaf in my hand.” 

Ibn al-Jawzi Kitab al-Wafa (p. 818 #1536)

(al-hafiz) Abu Bakr al-Minqari said: I was with (al-hafiz) al-Tabarani and (al-hafiz) Abu al-Shaykh in the Prophet’s Mosque, in some difficulty. We became very hungry. That day and the next we didn’t eat. When it was time for `isha, I came to the Prophet’s grave and I said: “O Messenger of Allah, we are hungry, we are hungry” (ya rasullallah al-ju` al-ju`)! Then I left. Abu al-Shaykh said to me: Sit. Either there will be food for us, or death. I slept and Abu al-Shaykh slept. al-Tabarani stayed awake, researching something. Then an `Alawi (a descendant of `Ali) came knocking at the door with two boys, each one carrying a palm-leaf basket filled with food. We sat up and ate. We thought that the children would take back the remainder but they left everything behind. When we finished, the `Alawi said: O people, did you complain to the Prophet? I saw him in my sleep and he ordered me to bring something to you.

Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah):

Ibn Abee Ya’laa reports in his Tabaqaatul-Hanaabilah 1/163-167: The story from the book Foundation Of The Sunnah by Fawwaaz Ahmad az-Zumarlee, page number 75

Then Ibn Abee Duwaad and Bishr al-Mareesee said, ‘Kill him, so that we can rest (in his absence).’ Al-Mu’tasim said, ‘I have pledged to Allaah that I will not kill him with a sword and that I will not order for him to be killed with a sword.’ Ibn Abee Duwaad said to him, ‘(Then) lash him with a whip.’ So al– Mu’tasim said, ‘Yes,’ and then said, ‘Bring the executioners,’ and so they were brought.

Al-Mu’tasim said to one of them, ‘With how many lashes will you kill him?’ He said, ‘With ten, 0 Ameerul-Mu‘mineen.’ Then he replied, ‘Take him to yourself (heat him).’

Sulaymaan as-Sijzee continued, ‘So Imaam Ahmad was undressed and made to wear a garment of wool around his waist. Two new ropes were drawn tight around his hands. The man took the whip in his hand and said, ‘Shall I strike him, 0 Ameerul-Mu’mineen?’’

Al-Mu’tasim said, ‘Strike him,’ and he struck him with one lash. Imaam Ahmad said, “All praise is due to Allaah” Then he lashed him a second time and Imaam Ahmad said, “Whatever Allaah will occurs.” Then he struck him a third time and lmaam Ahmad said, “There is no movement nor power save that of Allaah, the
Most High, the Mighty.”

When the man desired to strike him a fourth time I looked at the garment around his waist and it had become loose. He wished that he should fall to the ground, so he raised his head towards the sky and moved his lips — and suddenly the earth shook and two hands came out of it, and supported his weight, by the power of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. 

When al-Mu’tasim saw that he said, ‘Leave him,’ then Ibn Abee Duwaad came to him and said, ‘0 Ahmad, say in my ear: ‘The Qur’aan is created,’ So that I may save you from the hand of the khaleefah.’ So Imaam Ahmad said to him, “0 Ibn Abee Duwaad, say in my ear: ‘The Qur’aan is the Speech of Allah, it is not created,’ so that I save you from the punishment of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic.” Al-Mu’tasim then said, ‘Place him into the prison.’

Allahu akbar these were the effort of our salaf to establish the truth in the earth.

may Allah give us tawfiq to follow their step inshallah.

Abu ‘Abdur-Rahman Muhammad bin Husayn as-Sulami narrated:

I heard al-Malini say: “I went to visit Tahiyyah one time, so I heard her from outside the house, calling out: “O You who loves me, and I love Him!”

So, I went to her and said: “O Tahiyyah, it is good that you love Allah – the Exalted – but, from where do you know that He loves you?”

So, she said: “Yes, I used to live in the land of the Nubians, and my parents were Christians. My mother used to take me to church and bring me to the Cross and say to me: “Kiss the Cross!” So, when I was about to do this, I saw a hand come out of the Cross and push my face away so that I would not kiss it. At that point, I knew that it was Him protecting me.””

Excessive worship of the Salaf (which seems beyond human capability)
 
(Although it is very clear that these stories are mentioned in books not to follow and no can imitate, rather for encouragement only that they read so much Qur’an pak so at least ……..we should finish recite daily to finish at least once in six month……….Are you finishing even once quran in last six month if not please start from today. brother)

Recitation of the Qur’aan: 

1) Uthman Ibn Affan (radhiyallahu anhu) used to finish the entire Qur’aan in one Raka’aat of Wit’r [Tirmidhi, Qiyamul-Lail, Tabaqaat Ibn Saad, Zailul Jawahir]

2) Tamim Dari (radhiyallahu anhu) used to finish the whole of Qur’aan in one night [Tahawi, Tahzeeb Wat-Tahzeeb, Zailul Jawahir]

3) Abdullah Ibn Zubair (radhiyallahu anhu) used to finish the whole of Qur’aan in one night [Tahawi,Qiyamul-Layl]

4) Saeed Ibn Jubair, the Tabi’i (rahimahullah) used to finish the whole of Qur’aan in one night [Tirmidhi, Tahawi, Zailul Jawahir, Tazkiratul-Huffaz]

5) Imam Shafi’i (rahimahullah) used to finish 60 Qur’aans in Ramadhan [Tazkiratul-Huffaz]

6) Imam Wakee Ibn Jarah (rahimahullah) used to finish the whole of Qur’aan in one night [Tareekh-Baghdad]

7) Imam Jarh wat-Ta’deel Yahya Ibn Saeed (rahimahullah) used to finish the Qur’aan in 24 hours [Baghdadi, Tahzeebul-Asma Wal Lugaat]

8) Imam Subki (rahimahullah) relates that Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) used to finish one Qur’aan during the day and one Qur’aan at Iftaar time and at the time of each Khatam (of Qur’aan) he used to say, “Dawwatun-Mustajaba” [Tabqaat Shaf’aiatul Kubra, Alhitta Fi Dhikr As-Siha Sitta]

9) Imam Isma’eel Ibn Katheer (rahimahullah) relates that Imam Abu Haneefa (rahimahullah) used to perform his Fajar Salah with the wudhu of Esha Salah for 40 years and at the spot where he passed away he had finished the Qur’aan 7000 times (please note that in some manuscripts it is printed as 70,000 instead of 7,000) [Al Bidaya Wan-Nihaya]

Excessive fasting: 

1) Qadi Iyad (rahimahullah) and others state that Jamhoor of Ulama agree on “always fasting” as long as the fast is not kept on the days when it is forbidden e.g. on Eid days and Ayamul-Tashreeq etc. [Sha’rh Saheeh Muslim]

2) Imam Ibnul-Haj’r Asqalani (rahimahullah) writes, “…Others have opined that Saiyamud-Dah’r (always fasting) is Mustahab for those who have the strength and none of the other obligations will suffer due to it; and this is also the Madhab of Jamhoor…” [Fathul-Bari]

3) From the Sahaba (alayhim ar-Ridhwaan) Sayyidina Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), Sayyidina Abu-Talha (radhiyallahu anhu), Sayydina Zaid Ibn Suhail and many from the Salaf practised Siyamud-Dah’r (always fasting) [Sha’rh Saheeh Muslim]

4) Imam Shu’ba Ibn Hujjaj practised Siyamud-Dah’r [Tuhfatul-Ahwazi]

5) Imam Waki Ibn Jarrah practised Saiyamud-Dah’r [Baghdadi]

6) Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) practised Siyamud-Dah’r [Meezanul-Kubra]

Excessive Praying: 

1) Imam Ibn ul-Haj’r Asqalani (rahimahullah) & Imam Dahabi (rahimahullah) both relate that Sayyidina Zainul-Abideen Ali Ibn Hussain (rahimahullah) used to pray 1000 Rakaat daily till he passed away [Tadhkiratul-Huffaz, Tahzeeb Wat-Tahzeeb]

2) Imam Ma’moon Ibn Mehraan used to pray 1000 Rakaat daily and once completed 17,000 Rakaat in 17 days [Tahzeeb Wat-Tahzeeb]

3) Imam Mirra Ibn Sharaheel Hamdani used to pray 1000 Rakaat daily but in his old age he had reduced it to 400 Rakaat daily [Al Bidaya Wan-Nihaya]

4) Sayyidina Ali Ibn Abdullah Ibn Abbas used to pray 1000 Rakaat daily [Tahzeeb Wat-Tahzeeb]

5) Umair Ibn Hani (rahimahullah) used to pray 1000 Rakaat daily and used to read 100,000 Tasbeehs daily

Recently i had to came across some brainless “Internet-salafi-laymen” who just blames that follower of imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) Fabricated the stories regarded him. Just cause they never read any book about salaf, and they hear such stories first time, they put everything in fabricated garbage.

Even one of hem said: imam abu hanifa (rahimahullah) didn´t practise mustahab (doing wudu allthough you have wudu)!  where he forgot imam abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) was reciting Qur’an which is nafl, and nafl status is bigger then mustahab!

Here is more same narration regarding tabii (rahimahumullah) who act same like Imam abu hanifa (rahimahullah). may Allah give them jannatul firdaws, and give us tawfiq to do amals like them and follow their footstep .

6) Sulaiman ibn Tarkhan Abu al Mutamir

Sulaiman held the post of Imam in the Jami Masjid of Basra for a period of forty years, during which he performed the Fajr prayer with the same ablution of Isha. [Al-Hilyah (3/29)]

7) Thabit ibn Aslam al-Bunani

Sinan narrates from his father that he said: “I swear by Allah that I placed Thabit in his grave and accompanying me was Humaid al Tawil or somebody else (Muhammad is uncertain) When we had completed the levelling of the dust upon his grave an adobe (unburnt brick) tumbled dow. Upon which Thabit became visible praying in his grave. I said to my companion, Have you not seen? He replied, Keep silent, We levveld the earth once again and proceeded to his daughter and inquired what was the practise of your father. She in return asked What have you observed? We informed her. Upon which she replied, For a period of fifty years, he prayed throughout the night and when the time for sahur would arrive, he would say , O Allah! If you are to grant anyone from your creation prayers in his grave, let him be me.Allah did not discard his supplication. [Al-Hilyah (2/219)]

9) Said ibn Musaiyib

Said ibn musaiyib performed Fajr prayer with the ablution of Isha for Fifty years. [Al-Hilyah (2/163)]

More examples of Salaf

For forty years, the Adhan was never called but Sa`id bin al-Musayyab (radhiyallahu `anhu) was in the mosque before it was called. [Tabaqat al Hanabilah 1/141, Hilyat al Awliya 2/163, Sifat as Safwah 2/80]

After ar-Rabi` bin Khaytham became partially paralyzed, he used to go to the mosque helped by two men. He was told: “O Abu Yazid! You have been given permission to pray at home.” He said, “You have said the truth, but I heard the caller hear, ‘Hayya `ala al-Falah (Come to success)’, and I thought that whoever hears this call should answer it even by crawling.” [Hilyat al Awliya 2/113]

Adi bin Hatim, (radhiyallahu `anhu) said, “Ever since I became Muslim, I always made sure to have Wudu when the Adhan is called.” [As Siyar 3/160]

Ubayd bin Ja`far said, “I never saw my uncle Bishr bin Masnur miss the first takbir, and whenever any person stood up in our mosque to ask people for help, my uncle gave him something.” [Sifat as Safwah 3/376]

Ibn Sama`ah said, “For forty years, I only missed Takbir Tahrimah when my mother died.” [As Siyar 10/646]

“If you know of a man’s disinterest in Takbir Tahrimah, then wash your hands of him.” [As Siyar 5/65, Sifat as Safwah 3/88]

Hammad bin Salamah said, “I have never stood up for prayer without imagining that Jahannam is before my eyes.” [Tadhkirat al Huffadh 1/219]

Mu`awiyah bin Murrah, “I lived during the time of seventy of the Companions of Muhammad (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam), and had they lived among you today, they would not recognize any of your acts except the Adhan!” [Hilyat al Awliya 2/299]

Maymun bin Hayyan said, “I never saw Muslim bin Yasar turning his head while praying, whether the prayer was short or long. Once, a part of the mosque came down and the noise caused fear to the people who were in the market, while he was in the mosque, did not fear nor even turn his head and kept praying.” [Az Zuhd by Imam Ahmad p 359]

“I accompanied `Ata bin Rabah for eighteen years. When he became old and weak, he used to stand in prayer and read close to two hundred Ayat from Surat al Baqarah while standing in such firmness that no part of him would move.” [As Siyar 5/87, Sifat as Safwah 2/213]

Abu Bakr bin Aiyash said, “If you saw Habib bin Abu Thabit while in Sujud, you would think that he had died because of his long prostration.” [As Siyar 5/291]

Musa bin Turayf said: “‘Ali bin Bakkar’s slave-girl used to spread his bed for him, so he would touch it with his hand and say: “By Allah, you feel good; by Allah, you feel cool; by Allah, I will not lay on you tonight,” and he would pray until the next morning with the same wudu’.” [ Sifat as Safwah ]

Imam Dhahabi (RA) who is a student of ibn Taymiyyah  himself recorded about ibn Taymiyyah  that one day ad-Dhahabi and few other students were discussing a matter and were not getting to a conclusion and then ibn Taymiyyah came in and without asking them what they were discussing started telling them about that issue until he clarified the matter to them. 

The Lofty Virtues of Ibn Taymiiyyah page no.22

***********************************

Saying Aameen Silently in Salaat – Explained

[By Maulana ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Yusuf Mangera D.B]

Saying Amin (pronounced aameen) after completing the recitation of Surat al-Fatiha holds great virtue and is a sunna of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) The Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) states in one hadith:

When the imam says “ghayr al-maghdubi alayhim wala’l-daaleen.” Say Aameen, because the angels say amin. And whoever’s amin coincides with the amin of the angels, all his past sins are forgiven (Sahih al-Bukhari 1: 108)

There is no controversy whatsoever regarding the virtue of saying amin at the completion of Surat al-Fatiha. All scholars are unanimous that it is sunna to say amin at that time. The difference of opinion, however, is regarding whether it should be uttered audibly or silently.

It is established that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said amin audibly as well as silently during his lifetime; therefore, it should be not made an issue of great debate. At times it is taken so seriously that some of those who choose to say it aloud criticize the practice of those who say it silently by labelling them ignorant and even deviant ; and some from the latter group criticize the practice of the former group as well.

It must be realized that the difference of opinion is only concerning which method is superior i.e is it more virtuous to say amin aloud or silently? Ibn al Qayyim (rahimahullah), explaining the nature of this issue, writes:

This issue is from among the valud differences of opinion in which no criticism should be directed at those who do it [i.e say amin aloud] nor at those who do not [i.e who say it silently]. This issue is similar to that of raising or not raising the hands [raf ‘al-Yadain] in prayer (Zad al-ma-ad 1:70)

Thus, the following discussion will constitute a combined study of verses of the Holy Qur’an and hadiths of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) that are relevant to the issue of amin, in order to ascertain the more preferred procedure. As mentioned earlier, it is clearly established that the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did say amin aloud as well as silently. The Hanafis and many others accept this.

However, the question is: for how long did the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) say amin aloud?? Since there seems to be no evidence to established that amin was said aloud on a permament basis, it is necessary totake a closer look at the various evidences on this issue that have been utilized by the different schools of fiqh.

                THE VARIOUS OPINIONS

The Hanafi opinion is that amin should be said inaudibly at all times during the prayer. They uphold that it was said aloud by the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) a few times, in order to familiarize the Companions with saying amin after the Fatiha; after which he would say it silently just like all other invocations and supplications of prayer. Others state that amin should be said aloud in all audible prayers (i.e Fajr, Maghrib and ‘Isha) and silently in the silent prayers (i.e Zuhr and ‘Asr).

The following points detail how the imam and the follower [muqtadi] should say amin:

a) All scholars agree that the imam should say amin silently during the silent prayers. As for the audible prayers, Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahumullah) are of the opinion that amin should be said silently in them, and another group of scholars says it should be said audibly

(b) Imam Malik (rahimahullah) (according to al-Mudawwanat al-kubra) and Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) are of the opinion that the follower should always say amin silently in both the audible and silent prayers. This is also one opinion of Imam Shafi’i (rahimahullah). Another group is of the opinion that the followers should say amin audibly during the audible prayers and silently during the silent prayers.

As mentioned earlier, the difference of opinion is only concerning which of the two is more virtuous. Technically speaking, saying amin aloud or silently is regarded by all the scholars as being a sunna act of the prayerand not a fard, or integral part of it.

THE QUR’AN ON THIS ISSUE

According to the most accurate definition, amin is a verbal noun meaning “accept [our] prayer.” Hence, it is a du’a’ [invocation]. This is clearly indicated in Surah Yunus, where, after mentioning the du’a’ of Musa (alayhissalaam), Allah Ta’ala says:

“Accepted is your prayer (O Musa and Harun)!” [al-Qur’an 10:89]

Allah Ta’ala uses the dual tense in this verse and says “da’watukuma,” to mean “the prayer of you both.” Since only Musa (alayhissalaam) is mentioned to have made the du’a’ and not Harun (alayhissalaam), the use of this dual has been explained as implying that Musa (alayhissalaam) was making the du’a’ while Harun (alayhissalaam) was endorsing it with amin. Since amin is a du’a’, Allah referred to them both as invoking Him and said He had accepted the du’as of both.

In the “Chapter on the Imam proclaiming Amin Aloud” [Baab Jahr al-imam bi-l-tamin], Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) quotes the words of ‘Ata ibn Abi Rabah, “Amin is a du’a‘” (Sahih al-Bukhari 1:102). Hafiz ibn Hajr (rahimahullah) further clarifies thos in his commentary where he states,

The one saying amin is considered a da’i [or “invocant]as mentioned on the words of Allah, “Accepted is your prayer (O Musa and Harun)!” Musa (alayhissalaam) was making the du’a’ and Harun (alayhissalaam) was saying amin , as related by Ibn Mardawayh through the narration of Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) [Fath al-Bari]

Thus, once it is established that amin is a form of du’a,’ we must observe the etiquette which Allah Ta’ala has taught us:

“Invoke your Lord woth humility and in secret. He likes not the aggressors” (al-Qur’an 7:55)

Allah Ta’ala commands that prayers and du’a’s be made to Him with humility, sincerity and in silence [khufya]. Many examples are provided in the Qur’an of how the various Envoys [anbiya’] of Allah would invoke Him. Allah Ta’ala says, speaking of the calmness of Zakariyya (alayhissalaam) when he beseeched his Lord:

“When he called out his Lord (Allah)– a call in secret” (al-Qur’an 13:3)

The description of the du’as of other Envoys is also mentioned by Allah Ta’ala:

“Verily, they used to hasten in performing good deeds; and they used to call on Us with hope and fear; and they used to humble themselves begore Us” (al-Qur’an 21:90)

At another point, the Qur’an provides a glimpse of the Last Day when the Trumpet will be blown. Allah Ta’ala says,

“And all voices will be humbled for the Most Beneficient and you all shall hear nothing but the low sound of their footsteps” (al-Qur’an 20:108)

This establishes that since amin is a du’a’, it should be said silently just like other du’as. The various Envoys of Allah preferred to make their invocations silently when they would beseech the All-Hearing [al-Sami’] and the Nigh [al-Qarib]

In many hadiths, the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) advised the Companions to invoke Allah Ta’ala silently. He informed them that Allah is the Nigh and All-Hearing, and that there was no need for them to invoke Him too loudly. Therefore, since amin is also a du’a’, it would be more preferable to utter it silently just
as other invocations and prayers.

       THE HADITHS ON THIS ISSUE

It may have been misconceived from the above analysis that the Hanafis seem to have based their view on mere reasoning and analogy. Therefore, in this section, we will present hadiths to, God-Willing, dispel such misunderstandings and to provide concrete proof of the Hanafi opinion being in total accordance with the Sunna.

1. In a narration of Samura ibn Jumdub and ‘Imran ibn Husayn (radhiyallahu anhum) it is mentioned that

They had a conversation [during which] Samura (radhiyallahu anhu) related two occasions when the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would observe a short silence [sakta] [in prayer]- one following the initial takbir and the second when completing the wala’l Daalleen. ‘Imran ibn Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) could not acknowledge this, so they wrote to Ubay ibn Ka’b (radhiyallahu anhu). His reply stated thay Samura (radhiyallahu anhu) has remembered [correctly] (Sunan Abi Dawud 1:120)

‘Allama Nimawi, commenting on this narration, states:

The first silence was observed to recite the thana silently and the second to say the amin silently. It is possible that ‘ Imran bin Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) initially refuted Samura (radhiyallahu anhu) in regards to the second silence, because it was so brief and he did not think it worthy of mention; and therefore acknowledged rhe first silence because it was longer. It is quiet clear that the amin was recited during the second silence, because there was no other reason to discontinue the recitarion for a brief moment at that instance (Athar al-Sunan 382)

2. Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allag (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

When the imam recites “ghayr al-maghdubi ‘alaihim wala’l-daallleen,” say aameen, because the angels say it and so does the imam (Sunan al-Nasa’i)

This hadith proves that the imam should say amin silently. The reason for this is that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ordered the companions to say amin and informed them that the angels and the imam also say it. If it had been more preferable for the imam to say it aloud, the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would have had no reason to inform the Companions of the imam’s saying amin, because they would have heard it themselves. Since the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) informed them that the imam also said amin , it meabs that amin was normally said in a subdued tonem

3. Shu’ba reports from ‘Alqama ibn Wa’il that:

He [Wa’il] performes prayer with the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), When the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) reached “ghayr al-maghdubi ‘alayhim wala’l-dallin,” he said amin and kept his voice subdued (Musnad Ahmad,Daraqutni; al-Mustadrak, Nasb al-raya 1:494)

This hadith has been narrated from Wa’il ibn Hujr (radhiyallahu anhu) by Sufyan al-Thawri and Shu’ba. The two reports differ however in that Shu’ba, whose narration is above, relates that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said amin silently; whereas Sufyan relates from Wa’il that the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) prolonged his voice [madda biha sawtahu] while saying amin.

Sufyan’s (rahimahullah) report has been used as evidence by those who claim that amin was said aloud by the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). They have criticized Shu’ba’s report in a number of ways and in doing so, have attempted to show Sufyan’s report as being the superior narration. On the other hand the Hanafis have taken Sufyan’s report to mean that the initial “alif” of amin was prolonged and not that the volume of the Messenger’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was raised. The Hanafi scholars have answered all the criticism levelled against Shu’ba’s report and have firmly established it to be the more acceptable one regarding this issue [see Athar al-sunan, Fath al-Mulhim, Darse Tirmidhi, etc.].

4.Abu Hurayra (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

When the imam says wala’l-dallin, say amin (Sahih al-Bukhari 1:108).

Had it been more preferable for the follower to say amin aloud, the wording of this hadith could have read, “when the imam says amin, you say it,” as the imam’s amin would have been the signal to the follower to say amin. However, the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) instructed them to say amin after the imam recited “wala’l-dallin,” since the amin was pronounced silently by the imam.

There are in fact some narrations which contain the words, “when the imam says amin, you say it; however, this is interpreted as, “When the time comes for the imam to say amin, you say it.” It is not taken literally since the normal practice of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was to say amin silently.

THE COMPANIONS AND FOLLOWERS ON THIS ISSUE

1. Abu Wa’il narrates that ‘Ali and ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhum) did not recite bismi’llah, a’udhubillah, or amin aloud [during the prayer] (majma’ al-zawa’id 2: 208).

2. Abu Wa’il narrates that ‘Umar and ‘Ali (radhiyallahu anhum) would not recite bismi’llah or amin aloud (I’la al-sunan 2:215)

3. Imam ‘Abd al-Razzaq in his musannaf and Imam Muhammad in his kitab al-athar have related that the prominent Follower [tabi’i]  Ibrahim al-Nakh’ayy (rahimahullah) said:

There are five things the imam should say silently: subhanaka ‘llahumma [thana], ta’awwudh, bismillah, amin and Allahumma rabbana laka’l-hamd (Musannaf ‘Abd al-Razzaq 2:87)

OTHER REASONS FOR SAYING AMIN SILENTLY

(1) We know it is necessary [wajib] to recite the Qur’an aloud in the audible prayers. By saying amin aloud , someone could be misled into assuming that it is part of the Qur’an along with the Fatiha; whereas all scholars qgree that amin is not part of the Qur’an.

(2) Some scholars consider bismi’llah to be a verse of Surat al-Fatiha yet to do not recite it aloud during the prayer. This proves that invocations, like amin – which no scholar considers to be part of the Qur’an-should not be said aloud.

ANALYZING THE SEEMINGLY CONTRADICTORY HADITH

1. Wa’il ibn Hujr (radhiyallahu anhu) says,

The Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) recited “ghayri’l-maghdubi ‘alayhim wala’l dallin” and followed it with amin, prolonging his voice while saying it [madda biha sawtahu] (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 1:57, Abi Dawud 1: 142)

This is Sufyan’s report from Wa’il ibn Hujr (radhiyallahu anhu), which was previously discussed. It was stated above that the Hanafis prefer Shu’ba’s report over Sufyan’s in this issue.

The word “madda” used in this narration literally means “he stretched.” Hence, the hadith means that the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) stretched the initial alif of the amin ane prolonged it, not that he said it aloud. Shu’ba’s version of Wa’il ibn Hujr’s (radhiyallahu anhu) report (hadith 3 above), which supports this interpretation, clearly mentions that the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) subdued his voice while saying amin.

2. Abu Hurayra (radhiyallahu anhu) says,

When the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) recited wala’l-dallin, he said amin after it, which could be heard in the first row (Sunan Abi Dawud)

The version of Sunan Ibn Maja contains the additional phrase, “The masjid echoed with the sound” (Sunan Ibn Maja 1:61).

The answer to this hadith is that it is weak abd cannot be accepted as evidence, as one of its narratora Bishr ibn Rafi’, has been strongly criticized by a number of hadith experts. Imam Bukhari states, “He is not consistent in his narrations;” Imam Ahmad calls him weak; Imam Nasa’i states, “He is not strong;” and Ibn Hibban states, “He relates spurious narrations.” (Mizan al-i’tidal).

The second point to consider here is that if the sound of the amin only reached the first row (as the main portion of the narration mentions), then how did the whole masjid echo with it (as is added in Ibn Maja’s version)? Had amin echoed throughout the masjid, everyone would have heard it. It is not clear how one version states it was heard from the first row only, while the other states it was so loud that the whole masjid echoed with its sound. Thus, this hadith is self-contradictory and, as a result, cannot be accepted as evidence in proving that amin was said aloud permanently.

A GENERAL EXPLANATION AND CONCLUSION

There are other apparently contradicting narrations which state that amin was said aloud during the prayer. However, many of these have been judged to be extremely weak and inadmissible as evidence. These narrations have not been discussed here but can be found in larger works such as Athar al-Sunan and I’la al-Sunan.

A general answer for all such narrations is that even the Hanafis accept that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said amin aloud; however, they say it was only said aloud for a short period of time and that there is no evidence to establish it was said aloud on a permamant basis. The few times the Messenger (sallalaahu alayhi wasallam) said amin audibly was to emphasize its importance to his Companions. ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) did the same with thana. He recited it aloud for a few days to teach the Companions, after which he continued to recite it silently . This is further confirmed by a report from Wa’il ibn Hujr (radhiyallahu anhu) transmitted by Hafiz Abu Bishr al-Sulabi in his Kitab al-asma’ wa’l-kuna, which states:

I do not think the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said it [amin] aloud except to teach us (athar al-sunan:93, Fath al-Mulhim 2:50-52, I’la al-sunan 2:186).

Ibn al-Qayyim, concluding on the nature of this issue, writes in Zad al-Ma’ad under the discussion of qunut:

If the imam recites it [qunut] aloud a few times to teach the followers, there is no harm in that. ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) recited thana aloud to teach the followers, and Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) recited Surat al-Fatiha during the funeral prayer to teach them it was sunna. Likewise, the issue of the imam saying amin aloud is from the same category (Zad al-ma’ad 1:70)

Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (rahimahullah) states:

Both types of reports [i.e those which state that the amin was said aloud and those which state that it was said silently] have been transmitted from the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and both are reliable [sahih] (Fath al-Mulhim 2:50)

Hence, both types of reports are authentic, but refer to different occasions. The narrations that mention that the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said amin silently, refer to the normal practice of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), and the other refer to the few instances when he said amin aloud to teach the Companions.

Had it been the permanent practice of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the Companions to say amin aloud, it would surely have been narrated from more than just a few Companions. There are five prayers in a day. If amin were said aloud in three of them, it would certainly have been widely reported as such.

Besides the narrarions of Wa’il ibn Hujr, Abu Hurayra (radhiyallahu anhum) and few others (of which most extremely weak and cannot stand as evidences anyway), few Companions reported that the amin was said aloud during the prayer. Even Wa’il (radhiyallahu anhu) himself, whi was a resident of Yemen, visited the illuminated city of Madinah just a few times, so it is possible that the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said amin aloud in his presence in order to teach him. Wa’il also mentions something to this effect, as transmitted by Hafiz al-Dulabi:

I do not think the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said it [amin] aloud except to teach us (Darse Tirmidhi  1:523).

This is not the only report from Wa’il (radhiyallahu anhu) in this regard. Another narration of his, mentioned in Sunan al-Nasa’i, states:

When the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) recited ghayr al-magudubi ‘alayhim wala’l-dallin,” he said amin. I heard him [say it] since I was behind him. (Sunan al-Nasa’i 1:147)

This indicates that he only heard the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) say it because he was behind him, and not because it was pronounced loudly.

Hence, even the narrations of Wa’il (radhiyallahu anhu), which are considered as strong evidence for those who say amin aloud, are surrounded by confusion. On the other hand, the evidence of he Hanafi school is from great Companions like ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, ‘Umar and ‘Ali (radhiyallahu anhum), who have plainly reported that one must say amin silently.

Therefore, since it is established that amin was said silently by the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) for the most part of his life, and that many of the Companions and others gave priority to this method, it is the preferred way.

[Fiqh al-Imam]

Pukhtūnwalī in the light of the Qur’ān and Sunnah

Author:Abu Yusuf ʿUthmān Ibn Farooq al-Yūsufzaī

All praise is due to Allah, may peace and blessing be upon his servant and Messenger Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and on his household and all of his Companions.

What is Pakhtūnwalī or Pashtunwali??

Pukhtūnwalī (Also pronounced Pashtūnwalī) is an unwritten, democratic, socio-political culture, law and ideology of the Pakhtūn society inherited from their forefathers and carried on to the present generation. It is a dominant force of Pakhtūn culture and identity.

What is a Pakhtūn??

Pakhtūn (also pronounced Pashtūn) is a race of people who are ethnic Afghāns. According to the most correct opinion in order to qualify to be known as a Pakh tūn a person has to be an ethnic Afghān, speak Pukh to (also known as Pashto) , be Muslim and follow Pakhtūnwalī.

Executive Summary

The point of this article is to examine the primary concepts of Pakhtūnwalī in the light of the Qur’ān and Sunnah. There are many things done under the name of Pukhtūnwalī that are not Islāmic at all and should be rejected, we will not be discuss that here. In this article we will only examine the very basics of Pakhtūnwalī and how those rules hold up in the light of Islāmic sciences.

Why examine Pukhtūnwalī under the light of the Qur’ān and Sunnah?

This project was initiated because Pukhtāna (Pukhtūn or Pakhtun or Pashtūn People, who are also known as Afghān or Pathān) are well known around the world for strict adherence to Islāmic rules and regulations. They are very orthodox and conservative in their views and extremely observant of Islāmic rituals in their day to day life. Yet, they live by a code of conduct, called Pukhtūnwalī, that some call external to Islām, pre-Islāmic or even un-Islāmic. Hence we wanted to examine the base concepts of Pukhtūnwalī to see if it indeed is un-Islāmic or not.

Primary concepts in Pukhtūnwalī

The basic or primary divisions of Pukhtūnwalī are noted here in Afghān (Also known as Pukh to or Pashto). These Afghān words are common to ethnic Afghān and Pukhtūn society and language.

The following four form the major components of Pukhtūnwalī.

Melmastia (hospitality) – to show hospitality to all visitors, regardless of whom they are, their ethnic, social, religious, or national background, without hope of remuneration or favor.

Badal (justice/revenge) to seek justice for the one who has been wronged. This applies to injustices committed yesterday or 1000 years ago if the wrongdoer still exists.

Nanawatay (settlement) derived from the verb meaning to go in. This principle dictates that a Pukhtūn must provide safety and refuge to anyone who seeks protection in a Pukh tūn’s home. Hence a Pukh tūn will never turn anyone away who seeks refuge or justice. This is to help and protect the poor and weak, who are being persecuted and ask help of a Pukhtūn. This principle also contains the idea that if there is a feud and the vanquished party goes to the house or Hujra or the victor and concedes, the victor will accept their concession.

Nang (honor) – also known as Ghayrat, meaning a Pukhtūn must uphold and protect his honor, and that of his family, at all costs. This includes the defense of Zan, Zar and Zamīn. Zan: Defense of women (meaning his family), Zar: Wealth or Gold (meaning his monetary funds), and Zamīn: Land. Pukhtana are taught that death is preferable to a life without honor.

Now let us examine each of there in the light of the Qur’ān and Sunnah:

Melmastia (hospitality):

To show hospitality to all visitors, regardless of whom they are, their ethnic, social, religious, or national background, without hope of remuneration or favor.

This, I would say is strongly based in Islāmic thought. The reader will find the following verses from the Noble Qur’ān to emphasis this concept:

“Has the story reached you, of the honored guests [three angels; Jibrīl (Gabriel) along with another two] of Ibrahim
(Abraham) ? When they came in to him and said: `Salam (peace be upon you) ,’ He answered: `Salam (peace be upon you), ‘ and said: `You are a people unknown to me.’ Then he turned to his household, and brought out a roasted calf [as the property of Ibrahim (Abraham) was mainly cows] . And placed it before them, (saying): `Will you not eat?”’ [Reference: Qur’ān 51: 24-27]

“And his (Lūt’s) people came rushing towards him, and since aforetime they used to commit crimes (sodomy), he said: `O my people! Here are my daughters (i.e., the women of the nation) , they are purer for you (if you marry them lawfully). So fear Allah and disgrace me not with regard to my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man? ”’ [Reference: Qur’ān 11:78]

This concept is also heavily emphasized in the authentic Ahādīth of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) . As Abu Hurairah (Radhiallāhu Án) reported:

Rasulullah (sallAllahu alyhi wasallam) said: “He who believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him show hospitality to his guest; and he who believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him maintain good relation with relatives; and he who believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him speak good or remain silent.” [Reference: Sahīh al-Bukhārī and Muslim]

This point was further emphasized by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the following Hadīth repoted by Abu Shuraih
Khuwailid bin `Amr al-Kh uza`i (Radhiallāhu Ánhu), who reported:

I heard Rasulullah (sallAllahu alyhi wasallam) saying, “He who believes in Allah and the Last Day, should accommodate his guest according to his right.” He was asked: “What is his right, O Rasulullah (sallAllahu alyhi wasallam) ?” He (sallAllahu alyhi wasallam) replied: “It is (to accommodate him) for a day and a night, and hospitality extends for three days, and what is beyond that is charity.” [Reference: Sahīh al-Bukhārī and Muslim]

So we see from the proof quoted above that the Pukhtūnwalī concept of Melmastia (hospitality) is firmly based in the Shari’ah of Islām. Melmastia is clearly proven and emphasized by the Qur’ān and Sunnah.

Badal (justice/revenge)
To seek justice for the one who has been wronged. This applies to injustices committed yesterday or 1000 years ago if the wrongdoer still exists.

Although this concept is proven from Qur’ān and Sunnah but the way it is carried out by the Pukhtūn people is usually very un-Islāmic. Islām calls for justice yet always favors forgiveness and mercy, while the Pukhtūn usually go above and beyond justice while taking revenge.

Nevertheless the concept of Badal, can be proven from the following verses of the Qur’ān:

“And we prescribe for them therein the life for a life, the eye for the eye, the nose for the nose, the ear for the ear, the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds of retaliation. But whosoever forgives it, it shall be expiation for him. Whosoever judges not by that which God has revealed, such as wrongdoers.” [Reference: Qur’ān 5:45]

“Never should a believer kill a believer unless by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake should free a believing slave and pay compensation to the family of the deceased, unless they remit it freely.” [Reference: Qur’ān 4:92]

Hence we see proof that one is wronged must be compensated by the one who committed the wrong. In regards to this there are rules and regulations in Islāmic law that must be followed. Islām always encourages forgiveness and mercy.

Nanawatay (settlement)

This principle dictates that a Pukhtūn must provide safety and refuge to anyone who seeks protection in a Pukhtūn’s home. Hence a Pukhtūn will never turn anyone away who seeks refuge or justice. This is to help and protect the poor and weak who are being persecuted and ask help of a Pukhtūn. This principle also contains the idea that if there is a feud and the vanquished party goes to the house or Hujra or the victor and concedes, the victor will accept their concession.

This is also well rooted in Islāmic Shari’ah and is clearly proven by the Qur’ān and Sunnah. Here is an example of a Hadīth that promotes such values, narrated ‘Abdullah bin Umar (Radhiallāhu Ánhu):

Rasulullah (sallAllahu alyhi wasallam) said, “A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allah will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him on the Day of Resurrection.” [Reference: Sahīh al-Bukhārī]

This is further clearly stated in an other authentic Hadīth from Sahīh al-Bukhārī, narrated Muawiya bin Suwald (Radhiallāhu Ánhu) I heard Al-Bara’ bin ‘Azib (Radhiallāhu Ánhu) saying:

“Rasulullah (sallAllahu alyhi wasallam) orders us to do seven things and prohibited us from doing seven other things.” Then Al-Bara’ mentioned the following: To pay a visit to the sick
(inquiring about his health) , to follow funeral processions, to say to a sneezer, “May Allah be merciful to you” (if he says, “Praise be to Allah!”), to return greetings, to help the oppressed, to accept invitations, to help others to fulfill their oaths. [Reference: Sahīh al-Bukhārī]

We can further see this concept emphasized by Rasulullah
(sallallahu alyhi wasallam) when He (sallallahu alyhi wasallam) explained in the end of a longer Hadīth:

How shall Allah bless a nation that does not protect the weak against the strong?” [Reference: Sunan Ibn Mājah and Sunan al-Bayhaqī]

So deduce from the aforementioned authentic ahādīth that this principle is something established and encouraged in Islām.

Nang (honor)

The various points below that a tribesman must observe to ensure his honor, and that of his family, is upheld. This includes the defense of Zan, Zar and Zamīn: Defense of women/family, treasure, and property/land. Pukhtana are taught that death is preferable to a life without honor.

Ghayrat which is from the root word Ghira in Arabic is a very clearly established concept in Islām. We can find it being mentioned in the following authentic ahādīth from Sahīh al-Bukhārī: Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ūd (Radhiallāhu Ánhu):

Rasulullah (sallAllahu alyhi wasallam) said, “There is none having a greater sense of Ghira than Allah. And for that He has forbidden the doing of evil actions (illegal sexual intercourse etc.) There is none who likes to be praised more than Allah does.” [Reference: Sahīh al-Bukhārī]

Narrated Abu Huraira (Radhiallāhu Ánhu):
Rasulullah (sallAllahu alyhi wasallam) said: “Allah has a sense of Ghira, and Allah’s sense of Ghira is provoked when a believer does something which Allah has prohibited.” [Reference: Sahīh al-Bukhārī]

Narrated Al-Mughira (Radhiallāhu Ánhu) that Sa’d bin Ubada
(Radhiallāhu Ánhu) said:

“If I found a man with my wife, I would kill him with the sharp side of my sword.” When Rasulullah (sallAllahu alyhi wasallam) heard that he said, “Do you wonder at Sa’d’s sense of ghira? Verily, I have more sense of ghira than Sa’d, and Allah has more sense of ghira than I.” [Reference: Sahīh al-Bukhārī]

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah (Radhiallāhu Ánhu) :

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I saw myself (in a dream) entering Paradise, and behold! I saw Ar-Rumaisa’, Abu Talha’s wife. I heard footsteps. I asked who is it? Somebody said, ‘It is Bilāl ‘ Then I saw a palace and a lady sitting in its courtyard. I asked, ‘For whom is this palace?’ Somebody replied, ‘It is for ‘Umar.’ I intended to enter it and see it, but I thought of your (‘Umar’s) Ghira (and gave up the attempt).” ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “Let my parents be sacrificed for you, O Allah’s Messenger! How dare I think of my Ghira being offended by you? [Reference: Sahīh al-Bukhārī]

Hence we see the concept of Ghira (called Ghayrat) is well established in Islām. We cannot say that ever action carried our in the name of ghayrat or Pukhtūnwalī is approved in Islām , we are only discussing the concept here. All actions carried out under any of the concepts mentioned above must be examined in the light of Shari’ah.

Conclusion

In the light of the abovementioned evidences (dala’il) from the Holy Qur’ān and Noble Hadīth of Rasulullah (sallallahu alyhi wasallam), we can conclude that the core principles of Pukhtūnwalī are not contrary to Islāmic beliefs. Having said that, we must keep in mind the cautionary qualification that the method in which that these principles are carried out in must be inline with the Qur’ān and Sunnah as well.

And Allah knows best.

Was Ibn Taymiyah from the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama‘ah?

By: Shaykh Muhammad Abū Bakr Ghāzīpūrī al-Anṣārī

Forward:

All  praise  is  due  only  to  Allaah.  We  laud  Him  and  beseech  His  aid and  beg  forgiveness  only  from  Him  and  believe  in  Him  and  rely solely  on  Him.  We  seek  salvation  in  Him  from  the  evils  of  our  inner selves  and  the  vices  of  our  actions.  There  is  none  to  misguide  one whom  Allaah  intends  to  guide.  I  bear  witness  that  there  is  no  one worthy  of  worship  but  Allaah,  the  One  who  has  no  partner.  I  also testify  that  Hadhrat  Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)is  the  faithful  servant  and  the  Last Rasul  of  Allaah.  May  Allaah  Ta‟ala‟s  mercy  be  on  him,  his  family and his Sahabaah  and may He bless them and raise their status.

This  work  can  be  divided  into  three  parts  –  the  first  linking  the statements  of Ibn Taymiyah to the  authentic  Sufis, the  second quoting  some  of  the  ludicrous  beliefs  of  the  great  icon  of  the  Salafis  and  the third,  as  the  appendix  explains,  that  Ibn  Taymiyah  was  not  a  true  ‘Alim by academic standards.

The  current  day  Salafis,  who  at  times  label  themselves  as  Ahle Hadith‟/ Ghair  Muqallids‟ go  to  the  extreme  due  to  the  lack  of knowledge  and  deficiency  in  Ilm.  Due  to  their  stubbornness  they strongly  criticize  in  vile  languages  the  statements  of  reliable,  pious  Sufis  and  Ulema  of  Deoband.  The  able  author  Moulana  Muhammad Abu  Bkar  Ghazipuri  highlights  those  very  statements  which  they  are against  as  being  totally  similar  to  what  their  guide,  their  leader,  their  Imaam  of  Deen,  the  one  whom  they  quote  day  and  night,  whom  they call  Shaykhul  Islaam  none  other  than  Ibn  Taymiyah  holds.  The author correctly asks them to rule on their Shaykhul Islaam.

Many  a  historical  icon  once  probed  and  investigated  proved  to  be  a disaster.

The  weird,  strange,  fallacious  beliefs  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  are  simplified yet again for answering by the current Salafis.

Lastly,  from  an  academic  view  the  status  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  is assessed.  The  reader  is  all  along  encouraged  to  be  the  judge  and formulate  an  informed  opinion  of  their  own  –  not  one  propelled  by propaganda and lop-sided information.

Few  years  ago  even  reliable  scholars  thought  that  no-one  was  better than  Al-Bani  but  when  his  knowledge  was  unveiled  he  became history. Ibn Taymiyah’s path to oblivion is following close by.

We  make  Duaa  that  Allaah  Jalla  Majdahu  grants  all  of  us  the  ability to  follow  and  adhere  to  the  way  and  pattern  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnat  wal Jamaat.  A  simple  fomula  is  to  be  adherent  to  one  of  the  Mazhabs  of Fiqh.

A H Elias  (Mufti) May Allaah be  with him. 1430/2009

Preface:

Alḥamdu lillāhi  Rabbil  ‘ālamīn  waṣ  ṣalātu  was  salāmu  ‘alā  sayyidil mursalīn wa ālihi wa ṣaḥbihi ajma‘īn.

These  days  many  tribulations,  various  calamities  and  pains  which Allaah  alone  knows  afflict  the  Islaamic  Ummah.  Yet  Allaah  ‘azza  wa jal  does  not  oppress  His  slaves.  These  tribulations  and  calamities are  due  to  what  we  have  earned  by  way  of  our  disobedience  and  sins. The  only  escape  is  to  turn  to  Allaah  and  repent  and  strive  against  the ego  and  passions.  We  should  have  correct  belief,  perform  pious deeds,  abstain  from  disobedience,  and  be  zealous  in  remembering Him,  establishing  the  symbols  and  pillars  of  the  Dīn,  calling  to  the Quraan and Sunnah and entrenching divine law in our lives. 

In  the  same  way  we  are  bound  at  the  present  moment  to  avoid everything  which  causes  division  and  separation  amongst  the Islaamic  body  and  hatred  and  jealousy  in  human  society.  The weakness, disgrace  and humiliation we  are  suffering  is  due  to nothing besides  this  disunity  amongst  Muslims  and  Islaamic  groups  and contempt for one another. 

Our  struggle  in  these  evil  conditions  which  the  Muslims  witness throughout  the  Islaamic  world,  is  to  hold  on  to  Allaah’s  rope,  arrange our  ranks  and  avoid  all  that  causes  disunity  and  dispute  amongst Muslims.  We  should  be  a  single  hand,  a  single  power  and  a  single army  against  the  enemies  –  the  enemies  of  Islaam  and  the  Muslims, the enemies of Allaah and His Rasūl.

If  we  uphold  this  struggle  which  is  compulsory  upon  us  in  these times, our condition will  be  other than what  we  find ourselves  in right now.  With  the  permission  and  will  of  Allaah  our  lost  honour,  awe and power will be restored.

It  is  extremely  regrettable  that  not  only  do  the  Muslims  not understand  this  reality,  they  do  not  even  attempt  to  understand  it. They  are  involved  in  that  which  does  not  benefit  them.  They  walk  the contrary  path  and  think  that  that  is  the  compulsory  struggle  and  a duty from Allaah and His Rasūl . Innā lillāhi wa innā ilayhi rāji‘ūn.

A  sample  of  this  diversion  from  the  Islaamic  path  is  in  the  form  of the  westernisation  of  the  sect  which  claims  association  with  the Predecessors  and thus  calls  itself  Salafīyah.  Sometimes  they  associate themselves  with Ḥadīth and call  themselves  Ahlul  Ḥadīth.  Sometimes they  pride  themselves  on  not  following  the  Four  Imāms  whose  Fiqh the  Ummah  follows.  They  are  then  “Ghayr  Muqallid.”  The  names  are many but the meaning is the same. 

This  sect  is  today  a  major calamity  upon  the  entire  Ummah, from  east to  west,  from  north  to  south.  Their  efforts  today  are  directed  at proclaiming  the  majority  of  Muslims  to  be  Kāfir,  Innovators  and outside  the  pale  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah.  It  regards  itself  to be  the  sole  group  with  correct  belief,  Imān,  Islaam,  Quraan  and Ḥadīth.  Those  who  enter  the  sect  are  the  only  true  Muslims.  Besides them  all  are  Kuffār  and  apostates.  Their  attitude  is  the  same  as  the Khawārij  in  Islaamic  history.  We  seek  Allaah‟s  protection  against their  evil  and  place  Him  upon  their  necks.  How  many  calamities, disasters,  trials  and  tribulations  is  the  Islaamic  Ummah  not  suffering, yet  how  many  of the  Ummah do they  not  expel  from  Islaam  and issue Fatāwā  that  they  are  astray  and  Mushrikūn?  Every  day  there  is  a  new book,  every  day  there  is  a  new  publication,  every  day  there  is  a  new statement  in  this  regard.  This  is  their  Jihād.  Wa  lā  ḥawla  wa  lā quwwata illā billāhil ‘Azhīm.

These  “Mujāhids”  –  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  they  are  agents  of  the satanic  powers  of  the  Jews  and  Christians  who  work  for  them  and fulfil  their  satanic  desires  of  weakening  Islaam’s  strength,  spreading confusion  in  Islaamic  society,  and  causing  weakness  and  mutual confrontation  amongst  Muslims  –  have  their  sights  specially  on  the those  of  Deobandī  thought  and  their  Ulamā‟  and  spiritual  leaders. They  continuously  lay  in  ambush  for  them  and  seek  to  drive  the Muslims  away  from  them.  They  hatch  such  plots  against  them  that none  can  be  pleased  with  except  Satan.  They  come  up  with  such  lies and  concoctions  against  the  leaders  and  elders  of  Deoband,  that  the  Arsh of ar-Raḥmān could shake  with these.  Whoever wishes  to study their  filth  should  peruse  their  book, “Ad-Diyūbnadīyah.”  By  means  of books  and  publications  they  strive  to  make  the  Muslims  averse  to  the Ulamā‟ of Deoband despite the efforts to combat idolatrous beliefs.

When  I  travelled  this  during  Ramaḍān  for  the  purpose  of  Umrah,  I was  fortunate  enough  to  visit  the  Two  Noble  Ḥarams.  At  that  time some  brothers  were  given  two  writings  of  this  type.  The  first  was  an Arabic  text  of  eight  pages,  named,  “Ash-Shajarah  al-Khabīthah.”  It included  the  picture  of  a  tree,  with  branches,  twigs  and  leaves.  Each leaf  had  the  name  of  an  Islaamic  sect  present  in  the  world.  All  these sects  were  thus  growing  from  the  shajarah  khabīthah  (filthy  tree) with  weak  roots,  while  Salafīs  and  Ghayr  Muqallids  were  shown growing  from  shajarah  ṭayyibah  whose  roots  are  firm  and  branches extend to the sky. 

The  second  writing  was  a  text  of  66  pages  called,  “Are  the  ‘Ulamā’ of  the  Deobandī  sect  from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā‘ah?”  This booklet  was  first  published  in  Arabic,  and  then  translated into  Urdu.  I have  a  copy  of  the  translation,  not  the  original.  Al-Maktab  atTaāwunī  lid  Dawah  wal  Irshād  wa  Tawītil  Jāliyah  at  as-Sunnī,  ar Riyāḍ  had  published  both  booklets.  As  for  who  had  composed  them, this  was  not  mentioned  on  the  front  cover,  inside  or  on  the  back cover.

The  contents  of  the  booklet  was  entirely  extracted  from  the  book  of an  innovator,  drowned  in  innovation  and  fantasies.  He  is  an implacable  enemy  of  the  Ulamā‟  of  Deoband.  This  man,  Arshad  al Qādirī,  is  known  in  India  for  blatant  lies  in  his  writings  against  the Deobandis.

The  “great  Islaamic  hero”  who  compiled  this  booklet  who  exhibits his  Imānī  bravery  by  hiding  his  name,  has  done  no  favour  to  himself or  his  group  to  which  he  claims  affiliation.  The  basis  upon  which  he proclaims  Deoband  to  be  astray  and  outside  the  pale  of  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  is  the  same  as  the  basis  clearly  found  with  that sect.

Would  he  be  pleased  if  someone  should  write  a  book  called,  “Is  the Salafī  sect  and  those  without  Maẓhab  part  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā‘ah”?

The  composer  lists  in  the  booklet  some  incidents  of  the  kashf  and miracles  of  the  elders  of  Deoband  and  presents  these  as  the  basis  of Deobandī  belief.  He  holds  these  Kashf  and  miracles  to  be misguidance,  Shirk  and  contrary  to  the  beliefs  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah wal  Jamā’ah.  He  thus  asks  after  mentioning  the  Kashf  and  miracles, “Is the Deobandī sect part of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā’ah?”

The  uninformed  deceived  one  has  no  concept  that  Kashf  and miracles  do  not  form  the  basis  of  belief,  whether  of  Deobandīs  or others,  since  it  does  not  give  the  benefit  of  absolute  certainty. Something  which  does  not  fulfil  this  criterion  can  never  be  a  basis  of belief.  There  are  no  two  who  will  disagree  on  this  matter.  Thus  his question,  “Are  the  ‘Ulamā’  of  the  Deobandī  sect  from  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā‘ah?”  is  absolutely  futile.  It  is  based  on  stories  of miracles,  Kashf  and  other  facts  which  are  essentially  true  according to  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  such  as  the  Life  of  the  Ambiyaa, the need for Taqlīd of the Aimmah or the status of Taṣṣawwuf.

Despite  the  excesses  of  this  sect  which  makes  Muslims  into disbelievers  which  is  spreading  day-by-day  and  expanding  from place  to  place,  we  turn  our  gaze  away  from  them.  Some  people  are unaware  of  their  state  and  fall  into  their  snares,  and  then  hold  a  bad opinion  on  the  elders  and  Ulamā‟  of  Deoband.  We  are  thus  forced  to examine  their  beliefs  and  see  how  much  of  a  difference  there  is between  them  and  Deoband.  Since  the  basic  doctrines  and  beliefs concerning  Shirk  and  Bid‘ah  are  the  same,  why  then  is  Deoband singled  out  for  expulsion  from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah?  Why are  the  Salafī. Ghayr  Muqallid  and  “Saved”  sects  not  expelled despite common beliefs and deeds?

It  is  known  amongst  all  the  people  of  knowledge  that  the  Salafī  sect never  diverts  in  minor  or  major  matters  from  the  beliefs  of  al-Ḥāfizh Ibn  Taymiyah  and  his  student,  Ibn  Qayyim.  According  to  this  sect, Dīn  is  whatever  Ibn  Taymiyah  and  Ibn  Qayyim  held  Dīn  to  be.  True doctrine  according  to  them  is  what  Ibn  Taymiyah  and  Ibn  Qayyim believed.  Thus  these  two  are  the  scales  and  measures  of  truth  and falsehood,  of  belief  and  disbelief,  of  correct  belief  and  incorrect.

According  to  the  Salafīs,  whoever  contradicts  the  two  of  them  is outside the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamāah.

We  would  therefore  like  to  take  this  opportunity  to  examine  some  of the  beliefs  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  so  that  truth  and  falsehood  can  be clarified,  and  we  can  know  who  is  really  upon  guidance  and  the Straight  Path.  Is  it  not  possible  that  it  is  Ibn  Taymiyah  and  his followers  who  have  abandoned  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  due  to these beliefs? 

The  reader  should  know  that  we  have  nothing  but  honour  and  respect in  our  hearts  for  Ibn  Taymiyah,  may  Allaah‟s  mercy  be  upon  him. We  consider  him  to  be  from  amongst  those  Ulamā‟  upon  whose hands  Allaah  brought  about  much  goodness.  Through  him  He removed  many  innovations,  nonsense,  shirk  acts  and  grave-worship. He  memorised  the  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth.  He  was  a  veritable  ocean  of Dīnī  knowledge.  Despite  that,  he  was  not  innocent  of  mistakes  in regards  knowledge  and  belief.  May  Allaah  pardon  us  and  him.  He was  not  of  the  status  of  an  Imām  whose  Taqlīd  can  be  made  on everything,  just  as  there  is  no  Imām  or  Ālim  in  the  Ummah  upon whom Taqlīd can be made in all matters. 

In  the  following  pages  there  will  be  presented  selected  beliefs  of  Ibn Taymiyah,  taken  from  his  famous  writings  which  circulate  amongst people.  We  seek  Allaah’s  help  and  rely  upon  Him.  Allaah’s salutations  and  peace  be  upon  Muḥammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  his  family  and  all  his companions.

I am  the  one  in  need  of  Allaah’s  mercy,  Muḥammad  Abū  Bakr Ghāzīpūrī, son of  Mawlānā Bakhsh al-Anṣārī.   Book  completed  on  the  night  of  Thursday  after  ‘Ishā,  8th  Shawwāl  al Mukarram 1427 Hijrī.

All  praise  belongs  to  Allaah,  Creator  of  the  heavens  and  earth. Salutations  and  peace  be  upon  Muḥammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  Chief  of  the  Messengers, Seal  of  the  Ambiyaa,  and  upon  all  his  companions  and  family,  the righteous,  guides  and  guided,  and  upon  the  pious  and  truthful  friends of Allaah.

This  is  an  explanation  of  some  of  the  beliefs  of  ash-Shaykh  al-Ḥāfiz  Ḥujjatul  Islaam  wa  Qudratul  Anām,  al- Ārif  ar-Rabbānī,  Ibn Taymiyah  al-Ḥarrāni,  Allaah’s  mercy  be  upon  him,  whose  heart  was filled  with  Qura’manic  light.  These  beliefs  are  taken  from  valuable writings  which  are  circulated  amongst  people.  I  present  these  beliefs of  Ibn  Taymiyah  to  the  readers  so  that  it  may  be  clarified  to  them  if he  was  of the  Ahlus  Sunnah wal  Jamā’ah  or not (The  Salāfīs  expel  Allaah’s    friends  and  the  noble,  pious  Ṣūfīs  from  the  Ahlus Sunnah,  and  deny  Kashf  and  the  appearance  of  extra-natural  acts  at  the  hands  of  the pious  amongst  Allaah’s  slaves,  and  declare  the  acts  of  the  Ṣūfīs  to  be  misguidance. They  regard  Ibn  Taymiyah  as  their  leader  and  establish  their  belief  system  upon  the beliefs  of  that  Ḥārrānī  Shaykh.  When  he  is  their  pivot  in  Dīn,  belief  and  maẓhab, the  question  arises  –  are  the  Salāfīs  part  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah?  If  they dissociate  themselves  from  Ibn  Taymiyah’s  beliefs  which  we  shall  mention,  then we  ask  if  they  will  declare  their  denial  of  these  in  the  interests  of  declaring  the  truth and presenting and reply? ) .  Allaah  guides  to the Straight  Path.  He  is  sufficient  for  me  and  the  best  disposer  of  affairs. Here  now  lies  before  you  the  beliefs  of  Shaykhul  Islaam,  Allaah‟s mercy be upon him.

Ibn Taymiyah‟s belief on extra-natural events

[Khawāriq  –  events  which are  outside  “normal  natural”  events. I  have chosen  to  translate  this  as  “extra-natural”  to  avoid  the  modern connotations of “supernatural” – translator]

He  said,  “There  are  certain  extra-natural  events  which  are  related  to knowledge,  such  as  Kashf.  Others  are  related  to  power  and  kingdom such  as  enacting  acts  which  are  extra-natural.  Others  are  related  to self-sufficiency  in  apparent  gifts  people  are  given,  such  as knowledge,  authority,  wealth  and  independence.  All  these  what Allaah  grants  His  slave  is  in  order  for  him  to  use  it  as  an  aid  upon what  Allaah  loves  and  is  pleased  with,  and  to  draw  closer  to  Him. Through  it  He  raises  his  status  through  the  commands  of  Allaah  and His  Rasūl.  In that  way  his  rank and closeness  to  Allaah  and  His  Rasūl increase.” [al-Fatāwā, V11, p299]

O noble  brothers,  ponder  over  this  belief  of  Ibn  Taymiyah.  Then  ask,  “By  Allaah,  is  this  not  the  exact  same  belief  as  that  of  the  Ṣūfīs?”  In that  case,  Ḥujjatul  Islaam  Ibn  Taymiyah  is  with  the  people  of Taṣṣawuf,  the  people  of  “misguidance  and  nonsense.”  He  is  not  with the present Salafīs, the people of “the Quraan and Imaan.”

Tell  us,  O  Salafī  brothers,  O  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah,  what  is  then your  Fatwā  about  your  Shaykh?  Was  he  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah or was he astray and misguided others?

Come,  O  truthful  believing  brothers,  let  us  see  what  these  words establish about you concerning strange occurrences:

1.  Extra-natural  events  are  proven for the  saints.

2.  There  are  various  forms  of  extra-natural  events.  Some  are related to power, such  as  the  effects  of a  saint  on the  world.

3.  Some  are  related  to  knowledge  such  as  the  knowledge  of  a slave  which none  besides  him  knows.

4.  Unseen matters  shown to him  by  means  of  Kashf.

5.  Self-sufficiency  from  that  which  the  general  masses  on dependants  upon.  

6.  Independence  from  eating,  drinking,  learning,  reading  and writing.

7.  These  extra-natural  events  bring  the  slave  closer  to  Allaah  in station and  are  aids  in attaining  the  pleasure  of  Allaah  and  His Rasūl.

These  are  encompassed  in  the  words  of  al-Ḥāfiz  Ibn  Taymiyah, which  we  just  quoted.  Thus  if  someone  believes  that  a  saint  could assist  someone  in  distress,  in  his  absence,  or  learns  of  a  man’s condition  whilst  being  far  from  him,  or  walks  on  water;  or  flies  in  the air;  or  he  attained some  knowledge  without  direct  learning;  or  that  the conditions  of  the  inmates  of  graves  are  shown  to  him; these  beliefs and  the  many  similar  ones  are  nothing  by  which  someone  can  be  faulted  for.  He  is  not  a  man  who  contradicts  the  Quraan  and  Sunnah. If  it  were,  then  it  would  not  have  been  part  of  the  beliefs  of  Shaykhul Islaam.

What  is  the  stance  of  the  Salafis  is  in  regards  this  belief??  What  is their  opinion  on  Shaykhul  Islaam  Ibn  Taymiyah??  Is  he  of  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  or  not?  O  brothers,  refrain  from  flinging accusations  of  evil  against  the  elders  and not  attempt  to  cause  grief  to Allaah  and  His  Rasūl    with  regard  to  their  friends.  The  punishment for  that  is  all-encompassing.  Allaah  guides  whom  He  will  to  the Straight  Path.

There are various forms of Kashf

Ibn  Taymiyah  said,  “Sometimes  he  is  shown  the  exact  object  when Kashf  of  it  is  made.  Sometimes  he  sees  an  image  of  it  in  his  heart which  acts  as  a  mirror  for  him.  The  heart  sees  as  well.  This  can  occur while  awake  or  asleep,  such  as  when  a  man  sees  something  in  his dream  and  then  sees  the  exact  thing  when  he  awakens  without  any change to it.” [V 11; p 638]

Here  the  Shaykh  speaks  in the  language  of  the  Ṣūfīs.  The  Ṣūfīs  do not say  anything  different  from  Shaykhul  Islaam  in  regards  kashf  and Murāqabah.

My Salafī  brothers  turn  to  Ibn  Taymiyah  and  regard  him  as  a  proof  in Dīn  and  the  Imām  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah.  I  now  ask  them  with  all  due respect  and  honour,  what  is  your  opinion  with  regard  to  these  words of  the  Shaykh?  Are  these  the  words  of  a  man  who  has  diverted  from the  correct  belief?  Are  these  words  of  an  Imām  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah, or misguided ones who have strayed from the Straight Path?

If  these  words  are  incorrect  according  to  you  and  if  such  belief  is contrary  to  the  Quraan  and  Sunnah,  then  do  not  hide  the  truth.  “Do not cover it with falsehood and you know it.”

Dear  brothers!  I  invite  you  to  ponder  over  the  words  of  the  Shaykh  of Islaam  and  the  Muslims.  If  you  have  given  it  thought,  the  following  would have become apparent to you:

1.  Sometimes  the  one  experiencing  Kashf  sees  the  revealed object  as  itself without  any  change.

2.  Sometimes  he  sees  an  image  in  his  heart,  while  he  is  awake, but  it  is  like  a  dream.

3.  That  which  he  dreams  of  he  can  later  see  in  its  original  form when awake.

So  believe  in  this,  O  Salafī  brethren!  This  is  the  belief  of  the  great scholar  in  whose  heart  Quraanic  light  was  placed.  May  Allaah  have mercy  on  him  and us  all.  He  always  spoke  the  truth and was  honest  in his  speech.  He  would  never  make  that  which  contradicts  the  Quraan and  Sunnah  his  belief  and  Dīn.  That  is  what  we  think  of  him.  Tell  us what  you  think  of  him  O  brothers  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah, O people  of the  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth.

He who unconditionally attacks the Ṣūfīs is immoderate

He  said  the  following  concerning  Taṣawwuf  and  its  people,  “There  is a  group  which  reviles  Taṣawwuf  and  the  Ṣūfīs  as  innovators  and outside  the  Ahlus  Sunnah.  Another  group  goes  to  extremes  in  their regards  and  claims  that  they  are  the  best  and  most  perfect  of  creation. Both  of  these  are  reprehensible  extremes.  The  correct  view  is  that they  strive  in  Allaah‟s  obedience,  just  as  others  strive  in  Allaah’s obedience.  Amongst  them  are  those  well  ahead  in  closeness according  to  their  efforts.  Others  are  more  moderate  and  they  are  the People  of  the  Right  Hand…Yet  there  is  also  attributed  to  them  those who have wronged themselves and disobeyed their Rabb.” [v11; p18]

He  then mentioned in regards  those  well  ahead and the  moderate  ones amongst  the  Ṣūfīs,  that  they  are  the  true  Ṣūfīs  and  described  their qualities. [p19]

Thus  al-Ḥāfiz  Ibn  Taymiyah  does  not  unconditionally  attack Taṣawwuf  and  Ṣūfīs.  He  speaks  like  a  person  of  knowledge  about them,  not  like  those  ignorant  of  reality.  He  relates  what  is  true  about Taṣawwuf and Ṣūfīs.

O  Salafī  brothers,  turn  to  guidance  and  fix  your  gaze  at  the  words  of Ḥujjatul  Islaam.  Do  not  be  amongst  those  whom  the  tongue  of  Imām Ahlus  Sunnah  labelled  as,  “reprehensible.”  Do  not  revile  ar Raḥmān’s  friends,  for  indeed  His  Throne  shakes  at  that.  Allaah‟s anger ignites at that.

Who  can  be  more  wrong  and  ignorant  then  he  who  describes Taṣawwuf  in  a  nonsense  manner  and  attacks  its  people  without  any restriction;  whose  tongue  moves  against Allaah’s  people  and  views that  condoned  in  Sharīah  as  innovation;  and  expels  the  Ṣūfīs  from the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā’ah?

Special people know nations‟ punishments through Kashf

Ibn  Taymiyah  said,  “As  for  the  special  ones  amongst  people,  they know  the  punishments  of  nations  through  the  Kashf  Allaah  gives them.” [v11; p69]

Meaning  that  they  are  informed  of  something  which  belongs  to  the knowledge  unseen  to  others  –  will  this  one  die  as  a  believer  or  not? Will he die poor or rich? Will he die in his land or not?

I  ask  the  Salafī  sect, who are  the  Ahlus  Sunnah wal  Jamā’ah?  Is  this  a belief  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  according  to  you?  Does  one who  declares  such  a  belief  remain  a  Muslim?  If  not,  then  proclaim the  truth,  O  People  of  the  truth.  Do  not  hide  the  truth  about  Ḥujjatul Islaam.

I  have  read  much  about  what  you  say  in  regards  our  Mashāikh  of Deoband.  I  know  your  style,  but  have  chosen  to  be  patient  and  not attack  you  in  the  style  of  your  harsh  words  against  our  elders.  Natural vulgarity  and  deliberate  vulgarity  degrades  knowledge  and  the Ulamā‟. Obsenity is not a quality of a believer. 

O  brothers!  When  you  know  the  belief  of  your  leader,  then  either repent  from  your  audacious  statements  against  the  Ulamā‟  and Mashāikh  of  Deoband,  or  expel  Shaykhul  Islaam  from  the  Ahlus Sunnah  and  declare  him  to  be  a  frivolous  innovator.  Weigh  the matters with a balanced scale.

O  Salafī  brothers!  Do  not  be  like  those  who  give  short  measure. “Those  who  when  they  receive  measure  demand  their  full  right,  but when  they  have  to  measure  or  weigh  for  others  they  give  short.” Surely guidance is in Allaah’s Hands.

Allaah’s addresses His friends and shows them Kashf

Shyakhul  Islaam  said,  “These  are  true  matters  which  Umar  bin  al Khaṭṭāb (radhiyallahu anhu) told  us  about  which  occur  to  obedient  ones.  These  are matters  which  the  Most  Honourable  and  Majestic  makes  kashf  of. Allaah‟s friends have Mukhāṭabāt and Kashf. [v11; p205]

You know  the  meaning  of  Kashf  from  the  previous  discussion.  Allaah shows  the  obedient  ones  matters  which  are  hidden  from  the  eyes  of the  general  people.  They  witness  it  and  others  do  not.  They  are informed of what others are not. 

Mukhāṭabāt  means  that  Allaah  sometimes  addresses  His  friend,  and sometimes  the  saint  addresses  Allaah.  Sometimes  the  saint  addresses unseen  beings  like  Jinn,  angels  and  souls  and  sometimes  they converse with him.

These  Mukhāṭabāt  and  Kashf  occur  to  the  saint  during  both  sleep  and wakefulness. 

Yes,  this  is  the  belief  of  virtuous  Imām  which  he  registered  in  his Fatāwā.  So  what  do  you,  O  Salafīs,  think  about  this  august  Imām?

Was  he  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  or  not?  How  can  he possibly  be  part  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  according  to  contemporary Salafīs,  since  they  regard  such  beliefs  as  negation  of  Imān  and Islaam?  They  say  that  someone  who believes  that  is  outside  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  and  part  of  the  sect  with  ridiculous  beliefs,  the Ṣūfīs.  In  fact,  such  a  person  does  not  belong  to  the  community  of  our Nabī,  Muḥammad (sallallaqhu alayhi wasallam) .  Perhaps  there  is  a  different  scale  for  Shakhul Islaam  according  to  you,  O  brothers,  and  misguidance  is  only  for  the Deobandīs?

O  brothers,  what  proof  do  you  have  to  negate  the  belief  of  Shaykhul Islaam?  We  all  know  that  it  does  not  originate  except  from  the Quraan, Sunnah and what the majority of Imāms believed. 

Anyone  can  perform  extra-natural  acts,  but  a  saint  is  one who follows the Quraan and Sunnah

He  said  in  his  Fatāwā,  “You  will  find  many  like  these  and  will believe  that  he  has  to  be  Allaah‟s  friend  because  of  the  Kashf  he displayed  in  certain  matters,  or  extra-natural  acts  such  as  he  indicates to  someone  and  that  person  dies,  or  he  flies  in  the  sky  to  Makkah  or elsewhere,  or  sometimes  walks  on  water,  or  he  fills  up  an  empty container,  or  he  at  times  spends  from  unseen  sources,  or  he  may become  invisible  to  people’s  eyes,  or  someone  is  in  need  and  he  is not  there  but  he  suddenly  appears  and  fulfils  his  need,  or  he  informs the  people  about  their  stolen  goods  or  other  unseen  matters,  etc…. These  matters  are  extra-natural  and  the  performer  may  be  Allaah‟s friend or His  enemy. Do  not  think that  whoever performs  these  acts  is necessarily  Allaah’s  friend.  Friends  of  Allaah  are  assessed  according to  their  qualities,  deeds  and  conditions  as  outlined  in  the  Quraan  and Sunnah. [v11; p214]

Allaah  be  praised  for  the  Shaykh  who  uttered  the  truth  and  spoke  in the  language  of  Deoband.  This  is  indeed  the  exact  belief  of  the  elders and Ulamā‟ of Deoband.  Who  say  nothing  different  to  Ibn Taymiyah in  regards  sainthood and  extra-natural  acts.  It  is  as  if  he  has  explained what  is  their  belief  concerning  Allaah‟s  friends.  If  there  is  any  doubt in what  I  have  said, then  Alhamdulillaah,  the  Ulamā‟  of Deoband are to  be  found  in  every  place  on  earth,  go  enquire  from  them  or  refer  to their  publications  on  Taṣṣawuf  and  character.  You  will  discover exactly what I had said.

Ibn  Taymiyah’s  words  prove  that  these  extra-natural  acts  are  not farfetched  for  Allaah’s  friends.  It  is  an  honour  which  Allaah  confers on  them  due  to  their  obedience  and  Him  being  pleased  with  them. They worship Him and sacrifice their desires for His sake.

Shaykhul  Islaam  repeats  this  in  another  place  in  the  same  volume  of his  Fatāwā,  “The  pious  friends  of  Allaah  are  the  followers  of Muḥammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  They  do  as  He  commanded  and  abstain  from  what  He criticised.  They  follow  Him  in  all  that  is  clear  to  them  that  they should  follow  Him…  Allaah  helps  them  with  His  angels  and  a  spirit from  Him  and  sends  from  His  light  into  their  hearts.  Allaah  honours then  by  way  of  miracles  which  are  also  proofs  for  the  Dīn  and  help for the Muslims. [v11; p 17]

I  am  utterly  amazed  at  the  Salafī  brothers  for  their  attacks  against  the friends  of  Allaah  from  the  people  of  Taṣawwuf  whom  Allaah  had honoured  with  miracles.  How  can  they  regard  attacks  against  the Ṣūfīs  to  be  permitted and  how  can  they  deny  miracles  from  the  slaves of  ar-Raḥmān,  when  Ibn  Taymiyah,  their  leader  in  belief  and Maẓhab,  categorically  establishes  the  reality  of  extra-natural  acts  and miracles  at  the  hands  of  Allaah’s  friends  and  declares  them  to  be amongst Allaah’s great bounties to them?

If  by  virtue  of  their  belief  in  these  acts  and  miracles,  the  Mashāikh and  Ulāmā‟  of  Deoband  are  expelled  from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah  and  are  to  be  considered  innovators  with  doubtful  faith,  then what  is  the  status  of  Shaykhul  Islaam  for  believing  the  same  as  the
Deobandīs?  O  noble  ones,  how  can  his  faith  be  intact?  How  can  he remain  within  the  congregation  of  the  Muslims?  Why  is  he  not attacked  in  regards  his  Dīn  and  belief?  Had  you  thought  about  him before  making  your  statements  in  regards  Deoband,  it  would  have better for you, O denying brothers. 
Once  you  have  pondered  the  just  quoted  words  of  the  Shaykh,  the following should become apparent to you:

1.  Extra-natural  acts  are  established  from  Allaah’s  friends  and cannot  be  denied.

2.  Miracles  are  bounties  from  Allaah  to  His  pious  slaves.  Allaah honours  them  thus  to illustrate  their status  with Him.

3.  It  is  not  impossible  that  a  person  can  die  with  the  mere indication of the  saint.

4.  It  is  not  impossible  that  a  saint  can walk on water.

5.  It  is  not  impossible  that  a  saint  can  fly  in  the  air  to  Makkah  or elsewhere.

6.  It  is  not  impossible  that  he  can spend from  unseen  sources.

7.  It  is  not  impossible  that  he  can be  invisible  to people’s  sight.

8.  That  someone  seeks  his  help  and  the  saint  appears  to  help  him and  the  one  in  distress  sees  him,  whereas  the  saint  was  absent or dead.  

9.  That  a  saint  informs  people  about  their stolen  wealth.

10. The saint informs people about someone missing or sick.

Al-Imām  Ibn  Taymiyah  declares  all  of  this  possible  for  a  saint  and  he is  an  Imām  in  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth  and  a  proof  in matters  of  Dīn.  What is  then  wrong  with  the  Salafīs  that  they  deny  this  for  the  saints?  Who is  more  knowledgeable  of Sharīah, Dīn,  Quraan  and Sunnah  –  you or the Imām?

When  these  acts  and  miracles  are  possible  for  saints,  then  why  do raise  a  hue  and  cry  on  the  possibility  of  them  occurring  at  the  hands of  the  Mashāikh  of  Deoband  and  describe  them  in  an  ugly  manner?  If you  do  not  regard  these  Mashāikha  and  Ulāma  to  be  pious  friends  of Allaah  and perfect  believers  who follow  the  Quraan  and Sunnah, then O  slaves  of  Allaah,  fear  Him!  They  were  certainly  pious  friends  of Allaah.  The  like  of  them  is  rarely  to  be  found  on  the  face  of  the  earth. They  were  like  angels  in  human  form;  averse  to  the  world  and desirous  of  the  Ākhirah;  worshippers  at  night,  warriors  in  the  day. Their  faces  shone  with  the  light  of  taqwā  and  Imaan.  Their  hearts were  attached  to  Allaah  wherever  they  went  and  whatever  they  were paying  attention  to.  They  were  humble  to  the  believers  and  firm against  the  Kuffār.  They  placed  the  edifice  of  Dīn  and  belief  upon  a firm  foundation  of  Quraan  and  Sunnah  and  spread  the  Word  of  Truth in  the  world,  as  the  poet  said,  “Those  are  my  forebearers,  bring  the  like of them if you can, O Jarīr.

Whoever  doubts  our  description  of  them  should  read  their biographies  and  research  their  condition.  If  they  are  to  be  found  to  be really  as  described  and  the  condition  of  their  Dīn  is  that  of  Taqwā, then  why  is  it  far-fetched  that  they  should  have  performed  miracles? Miracles  at  the  hands  of  Allaah’s  friends  are  true  according  to  the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā’ah.

Additional explanation of Kashf from Ibn Taymiyah

The  pious  Imām  said,  “Amongst  those  extra-natural  acts  in  regards knowledge  are  those  where  the  slave  sometimes  hears  that  which others  cannot  hear.  Sometimes  he  can  see  that  which  others  cannot see,  whether  awake  or  asleep.  Sometimes  he  learns  that  which  others do  not  such  as  through  Waḥy  or  Ilhām  or  revealing  of  necessary knowledge;  or  true  insight.  These  are  called  Kashf,  Mushāhadāt  and Mukāshafāt.  Hearing  is  called  Mukhāṭabāt,  seeing  is  called Mushāhadāt  and  knowledge  is  called  Mukāshafah.  They  are  also collectively  called  Kashf/Mukashafah  i.e.  Kashf  was  made  to  him. [v11; p313]

These  are  the  words  of  the  pious  Imām  in  regards  the  reality  of  Kashf and  an  exposition  of  the  different  kinds.  It  is  variously  in  the  either the  form  of hearing, vision or knowledge.  According  to contemporary Salafīs,  words  like  these  are  misguidance,  false  belief  and  words  of the  people  of  Shirk.  O  slaves  of  Allaah,  was  Ibn  Tyamiyah  a  Mushrik or a misguided man according to you?

The  reality  which  cannot  be  hidden  is  that  the  Salafī  sect  is  amongst the  most  ignorant  people  in  regards  the  realities  of  Dīn  and  most  far from  the  path of guidance. If it  were  not  so, they  would not  have  been enemies  of  ar-Raḥmān’s  friends  and  they  would  not  have  walked  the path  transgression  and  excess.  “He  who  Allaah  lets  go  astray  has  no guide.”  “He  for  whom  Allaah  had  not  created  a  light,  will  have  no light.”

It is necessary for the slave to set some time for solitude

Shaykhul  Islaam  said,  “It  is  necessary  that  the  slave  set  aside  some time  alone  for  Ẓikr,  Ṣalāh,  meditation,  self-reckoning  and  rectifying his  heart.  This  can  either  be  inside  his  house  or  elsewhere.”  [v  10;  p 429]

This  is  what  the  Ṣūfīs  term  as,  “Khalwah.”  If  you  regard  that  as monasticism  then  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  “If  this  is  a  rejected  act which  has  no  basis  in  Sharī’ah  and  is  an  innovation  in  Dīn,  then  what is  your  Fatwā  on  the  pious  Imām  whose  heart  was  filled  with Quraanic  light?  Was  he  ignorant  on  what  is  established  and  what  is not  established  in  Sharī’ah  –  and  we  seek  Allaah’s  protection  against such  an  accusation  –  or  was  he  an  inviter  to  innovations  and concoctions?  Was  he  of  those  who  legalised  Ḥarām  and  prohibited Ḥalāl?” Give us your Fatwā, may you be rewarded. 

Kashf can be of the world or Dīnī matters

Ibn  Taymiyah  said,  “Just  as  Kashf  of  the  worldly  matters  can  be made  for  the  believing  slave,  whether  on  a  definite  or  speculative basis,  Dīnī  matters  are  similar…  Sometimes  it  is  a  proof  placed  in the believer‟s  heart  in  which  further  interpretation  is  impossible…  many people  of  Kashf  get  in their hearts  that  this  food is  Ḥarām, or this  man is  a  Kāfir  or  Fāsiq  and  there  is  no  apparent  proof  for  these.”  [v10; p477]

If  such  words  concerning  the  saints  and  people  of  Kashf  were  to come  from  a  Deobandī,  contemporary  Salafīs  would  declare  him guilty  of  Shirk  and  Kufr.  At  the  very  least  he  would  be  declared  to  be an  innovator  and  grave-worshipper.  Sadly  for  them  these  words  come from  Shaykhul  Islaam,  the  man  who  always  spoke  from  Quraan  and Sunnah, whose words were true and honest.

Brethren  in  Dīn!  What  Ibn  Taymiyah  said  is  the  exact  belief  of  the noble  Ṣūfīs.  He  spoke  with  their  tongue.  In  fact,  he  clarified  their belief in such a manner which many others are incapable of.

Let  us  see  what  Fatwā  the  Salafīs  will  issue  in  this  regard.  The essence  of  what  the  Imām  said  is  that  the  Ṣūfīs  sometimes  do something  for  which  there  is  no  apparent  proof  from  the  Quraan  or Sunnah,  yet  but  act  upon it  because  of  inspiration  Allaah  casts  in their hearts. 

It  is  thus  inappropriate  for  us  to  hasten  to  issue  a  Fatwā  against  them and  wag  the  tongue  of  objection.  Instead,  we  are  obligated  to  be patient in their regard, and hand over the matter to Allaah. 

Yet  will  this  sink  in  the  brains  of  the  contemporary  Salafīs?  No,  a thousand  times  no.  They  are  a  sect  whose  thoughts  have  become fossilised  and  eyes  have  been  blinded.  Darkness  upon  darkness clouds  their  hearts.  We  ask  Allaah  to  guide  them  and  enlighten  their eyes  that  they  may  refrain  from  ignorant  rulings  against  Allaah’s slaves.

Extra-natural  acts  may  occur  to  those  of  abstention  and worship

Ibn  Taymiyah  states  in  al-Waṣīyah  al-Kubrā ( Maktabah  as-Sunnah  ad-Dār  as-Salafīyah  li  Nashril  Ilm  printed  it  in  Cairo.  Abū Abdullāh  Muḥammad  bin  Ḥamd  al-Ḥamūd  researched  it  and  attached  his comments  to  it.  I  have  a  copy  of  that  print.  Ad-Dār  as-Salafīyah  printed  it  without realising  that  it  destroys  the  foundation  of  Salafīyah.  Such  is  the  intelligence  of  the Salafīs.) which  explains  the basic  beliefs  of  Islaam,  “Amongst  those  of  you  who  are  abstentious of  the  world  and  engage  in  worship,  there  are  those  who  have purified  states  and  a  pleasing  path,  and  receive  Kashf  and  effects.”  [p 17]

O  brothers  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah,  what  is  your  opinion about  this  Imām?  He  regards  believing  that  Allaah’s  friends  who abstain  from  the  world  and  engage  in  worship  can  receive  Kashf  and extra-natural  effects,  to  be  a  necessary  a  basic  article  of  faith  for Muslims.  Is  this  then  a  false  belief?  Is  he  outside  the  true  faith?  Is  he on something besides Allaah’s guidance?

You  certainly  know  by  now  after  all  these  explanations  what  is  Kashf and  enactments  and  what  the  Imām’s  view  is.  Do  you  have  the capability  to  declare  yourselves  free  from  the  Imām,  the  Shaykh  of Islaam  and  the  Muslims,  the  Proof  in  Dīn,  the  leader  of  the  believers? Do  you  have  the  capability  to  expel  him  from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah

Is  it  not  amazing  that  when  a  Deobandī  says  something  like  this he  is  outside  Islaam,  but  when  Ibn  Taymiyah  says  it  then  he  is Shaykhul  Islaam  and  leader  of  mankind?  Is  this  how  you  judge, O fair ones?

People receive Kashf of the grave and hear the punishments

The  Imām  says  in  his  Fatāwā,  “Kashf  has  been  made  to  many  people who  have  heard  the  voices  of  those  being  punished  in  their  graves. They  saw  them  being  punished  with  their  own  eyes.  These  narrations are many and well-known.” [v4; p296]

O people  of  justice  and  fairness,  is  this  not  what  the  Ṣūfīs,  whom  you label  as  astray,  say?  Now  what  do  you  say  about  the  august  Imām, who  is  the  Imām  of  the  Salafīs  and  Proof  of  the  Ghayr  Muqallids? The  Imām  does  not  stop  at  saying  that  there  are  people  who  hear people  being  punished  in  their  graves,  but  he  said  that  there  are  those who actually see the punishment.

People experience while awake what was dreamt

The  Imām  said  in  al-Waṣīyah  al-Kubrā,  “Sometimes  people experience  sights  while  awake  similar to that  of one  sleeping. He  thus sees  with  his  heart  that  which  the  sleeper  sees.  Realities  can  become shown  to  him  through  the  witnessing  of  his  heart.  All  these  occur  in the world.” [p27]

O  people  of  the  Quraan  and  Sunnah,  ponder  over  the  words  of  the Imām  you  consider  to  be  most  reliable.  He  believed  that  Allaah’s friends  can  see  whilst  awake  what  a  sleeper  sees.  Realities  are revealed  to them  through  the  testimony  of  their  hearts.  This  is  exactly what  the  Ṣūfīs  believe.  It  is  known amongst  all  people  that  the  sleeper can  dream  that  he  is  in  Jannah;  that  he  is  in  Hell;  that  he  is  with angels;  that  he  is  with  the  souls;  that  he  is  speaking  with  the inhabitants  of  the  grave;  that  he  is  in  some  distant  land;  that  he  is  in the  Ka’bah;  that  he  is  at  the  Sacred  Tomb.  A  sleeper  dreams  of  many others  things.  All  these  can  be  experienced  by  people  whilst  awake  as well.  Allaah’s  slave  can  witness  many  realities  with  his  heart.  This  is according to the belief of Ibn Taymiyah. According  to  contemporary  Salafīs,  such  belief  is  misguidance  and deviation  from  Dīn  and  Sharī’ah  and  is  a  negation  of  Imaan.  We  thus have  to  ask  them,  “What  is  your  view  on  the  Imām?  Which  of  the two  are  upon  guidance?  You,  O  brothers  or  your  Imām  and  leader  in Dīn?”

The  slave  can  witness  with  his  heart  without  need  of physical senses

Ibn  Taymiyah  said,  “In  the  same  way  there  are  slaves  who  can witness  with  the  heart,  so  much  so  that  the  physical  senses  are negated  and  he  perceives  it  to  be  a  vision  of  the  physical  eyes.”  [al Waṣīyah; p 27]

That  is  the  same  as  the  belief  of  the  Ṣūfīs,  but  you  say  that  whoever believes  that  is  outside  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah

You,  O  Salafī brothers,  regard  such  as  person  as  a  nonsensical  Ṣūfī.  What  then,  O true  believers,  is  you  opinion  on  the  Imām  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah?  He made  this  matter  to be  a  basic  point  of belief in Dīn and Sharī’ah. Did he  speak  nonsense  or  was  he  soiled  with  Shirk  and  inviting  to innovation? How ignorant  you  are  on the  beliefs  of  your own  Imām!  It  is  as  if  you never  cast  a  glance  at  his  writings  and  beliefs.  You  claim  the  love  of Laylā,  but  Laylā  does  not  acknowledge  it.  Return  to  guidance  and  do not  sow  corruption  on  earth.  Do  not  destroy  yourselves  by  attacking the  Ṣūfīs  whom  Allaah  has  distinguished.  Do  not  seek  to  grieve Allaah and His Rasūl by harming and being enemies to them. 

The  Nabī   and  some  pious  are  alive  in  the  graves  and  can hear
In  his  book  Iqtiḍāuṣ  Ṣirāṭil  Mustaqīm,  Ibn  Taymiyah  strongly  refutes those  who  deny  that  du’ā  near  the  graves  of  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  the pious  may  be  more  likely  to  be  accepted  due  to  their  blessings.  He adds  similar  such  words  and  explicitly  says,  “It  is  not  part  of  this topic  what  has  been  narrated  in  regards  some  people  hearing  a  return of  their  greeting  from  the  tomb  of  the  Nabī  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) or  the  graves  of  others amongst  the  pious.  Indeed  Sa’īd  bin  al-Musayyib  heard  the  Aẓān from the grave during the nights of al-Ḥarrah. [p373]

Is  this  not  an  explicit  admission  from  the  Imām  that  Rasulullaah  is alive  in  his  grave  and  returns  Salām  and  that  Aẓān  is  heard  from  his grave?  In  the  same  way  others  are  alive  in  their  graves.  What  a  denial of  reality  to  deny  the  life  of  the  Ambiyaa  and  pious  in  their  graves after Ibn Taymiyah verified it.

Rasulullaah  hears  complaints  in  his  grave  and  plans  to assist

He  wrote  in the  same  book, “In the  same  way  it  is  narrated that  a  man came  to  the  Nabī‟s    grave  and  complained  about  drought.  He  then had a  vision of him  and he  ordered him  to go to „Umar and tell  him  to go with the people and perform Istisqā‟.” [p373]

Think  about  it,  O  noble  reader,  these  are  the  words  of  Shaykhul Islaam.  Are  they  not  clear  that  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is  alive  in  his  grave  and hears  complaints?  That  he  plans  from  his  grave  to  alleviate  these problems?  That  people  have  vision  of  him  whilst  he  is  in  his  Noble Grave?  If  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  is  not  alive,  then  do  dead  people  hear, command  and  plan  to  remove  difficulties?  Is  it  not  to  deny  reality when  one  denies  that  he  is  alive  despite  having  to  accept  these  facts?

As  for  Allaah’s  words,  “Verily  you  will  die  and  they  will  die…”  it simply  means  that  no  human  will  remain  eternally  on  the  face  of  the earth. Just  as  the  disbelievers  will  not  remain  eternally  on  earth,  in the  same  way,  you  O  Muḥammad  will  not  remain  eternally  on  earth. How  is  this  a  denial  of  him  being  alive  in  his  grave?  The  grave  is another  world  completely.  Its  conditions  are  not  the  conditions  of this world.  If  Allaah  wishes  to  grant  his  Ambiyaa  life  in  their  graves  then what  obstruction  is  there  to  that?  People  with  insight  and  intact intelligence  will  not  deny  that  Ambiyaa  are  alive  in  their  graves.  Yes, their  lives  in  the  graves  are  different  to  their  earthly  lives  in  many ways.  Nevertheless,  it  is  a  life  which  entails  awareness,  hearing, planning and assisting people. This is the belief of the pious Imām

What  the  Imām  said  is  in  fact  the  belief  of  the  ṢūfīsUlamā‟  of Deoband  and  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah.  They  do  not  add  anything  to  that  in  regards  their  belief  in the life of the Ambiyaa.

Despite  his  belief  that  Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is  alive  in  his  grave,  Ibn Taymiyah  is  the  Imām  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  and  Shaykhul  Islaam. Yet  you  Salafīs,  despite  following  him  in  the  “straight  Maẓhab”  and claiming  to  be  the  people  of  Imaan,  recognition,  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth, amaze us at the state of your justice, Dīn and trust. 

After  declaring  that  Rasūlullaah is  dead  in  grave  and  falsely  states that  such  belief  is  the  unanimous  belief  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah,  the author of,  “Are  the  ‘Ulamā’ of  the  Deobandī  sect  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah wal  Jamā‘ah?”  asks,  “Issue  your  Fatwā  on  one  who  does  not  accept the  unanimity  of  the  Ṣaḥābah,  that  how  can  such  a  person  belong  to the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā„ah?” [p35]

Indeed,  how  can  such  a  person  belong  to  the  Ahlus  Sunnah?  If  Ibn Taymiyah is  your  Imām  in the  Ahlus  Sunnah, then  at  the  least  he  is  of the  Ahlus  Sunnah. Your question should be  directed more  at  him  than at  us  Deobandīs.  Either  you  have  no  sense,  your  eyes  are  blind,  your heart is darkened or your have lost all sense of shame.

The  dead  hearing  is  seeking  help  from  them  is  not  specific  to Rasūlullaah 

Ibn  Taymiyah  said  on  the  same  page,  “Similar  occurrences  happen  to those less than the Nabī (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and I know many such incidents.” [p 373]

The  words  of  the  Shaykh  are  absolutely  clear.  They  leave  no  scope for  interpretation. There  are  many  Friends  of  Allaah  who  hear  and help are sought from them when they are alive in their graves.

Do  the  Ṣūfīs  say  anything  different?  If  such  belief  about  the saints  and  Ambiyaa  in  their  graves  is  Kufr  and  Shirk,  it  is obligatory  upon  the  Salafīs  to  denounce  Ibn  Taymiyah  and renounce  him  as  the  Imām  of  the  Quraan  and  Sunnah.  They must  decree  him  guilty  of  Kufr  and  Shirk.  They  then  have  to repent  and  renew  their  faith  because  they  had  made  a  man  guilty of Kufr and Shirk as their Imām in belief. 

“Allaah  will  complete  His  light  even if the  disbelievers  dislike  it.”

The dead hears the Quraan in his grave

Ibn  Taymiyah  wrote  in  his  book  Iqtiḍāuṣ  Ṣirāṭil  Mustaqīm,  “As  for the dead hearing the voices reciting, it is true…

This  is  the  exact  belief  of  the  Grave-Worshippers,  innovators  and those  outside  the  pale  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah.  In  fact, of every  person who  is  not  a  Salafī  for  such  is  the  way  of  the  Salafī  sect.  So  dear Salafī  brothers,  what  is  your  view  on  the  Imām  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah according to you? 

How  regrettable  that  contemporary  Salafīs  weigh  matters  with  two different  scales.  This  is  certainly  not  justice  in  the  Dīn  which  our Rasūl (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) brought.  

One  who  brings  a  new  thing  with  a  good  intention  is rewarded

Ibn  Taymiyah  said,  “Similarly  when  some  people  bring  about, whether  it  resembles  the  Christians  in  the  Birth  of  „Īsā    or  out  of love  and  honour  for  the  Nabī  ,  Allaah  will  reward  them  for  their love  and  effort,  not  for  the  innovation  of  celebrating  the  birth  of  the Nabī  as a festival.” [Iqtiḍāuṣ Ṣirāṭil Mustaqīm; p294]

If  we  were  to  accept  the  Shaykh’s  words,  then  by  Allaah,  the foundation  of  Dīn  would  be  destroyed.  An  innovation  in  Dīn remains  an  innovation  even  if  the  innovator  claims  to  have  a  good intention  and  is  honouring  the  Nabī.  We  have  no  idea  how  the Imām of the Ahlus Sunnah could utter such words. 

If the  contemporary  Salafīs  regard these  words  as  true  –  after  all, they are  the  words  of  their  Imām  and  leader  –  then  we  demand  that  they present  proof  for  it  from  the  Quraan,  Ḥadīth  or  sayings  of  the Ṣaḥābah  or even the Fuqahā‟ or Muḥaddithūn

As  for  us,  these  words  resemble  that  of  innovators  and  graveworshippers.  They  are  words  whispered  by  the  Devil,  not  words  of people  of  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth.  Through  these  words  Ibn  Taymiyah opened  the  doors  of  misguidance.  He  falsified  in  Allaah’s  Dīn  what none  of  Ulamā‟  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  dared  do.  None  of  the  Ṣaḥābah ,  Tābi’īnAimmahFuqahā‟  and  Muḥaddithūn  ever  said  anything like  that.  Alas!  What  is  the  condition of  Islaam?  Where  are  the  heroes of  the  contemporary  Salafīs  in  regards  this  belief  of  their  leader  in Dīn?  Do  we  not  have  a  right  to  question  them  just  as  they  question  us –  is  your  Imām  Ibn Taymiyah part  of the  Ahlus  Sunnah or not?

What  adds  to  our  astonishment  is  that  Ibn  Taymiyah  then  repeats  this statement  without  any  care  on  p297  of  that  book,  “Honouring  the birth  and  making  it  an  annual  festival  is  what  some  people  do  and  in that  there  is  great  reward  for  them  because  of  their  good  aim  and honouring Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .”

SubḥānAllaah!  Is  this  the  statement  of  one  in  whose  heart  Quraanic  light  has  been  cast  or  the  whispers  of  devils?  Give  us  your  Fatwā,  O Salafīs.  May  you  be  rewarded.  Where  now  are  all  those  warnings  of Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) against  innovation  which  you  are  supposed  to  be  more particular about than us Deobandīs? 

O  Allaah,  bear  witness.  If  I  were  walking  a  path  like  the  Salafīs  tread in  reviling  our  elders  and  Ulamā‟  I  would  fully  refute  that  statement and  attacking  the  one  who  uttered  it.  However,  I  believe  that  Ibn Taymiyah  made  a  mistake  when  he  wrote  that,  and  meant something  good  and  will  be  rewarded.  As  the  saying  goes,  “One who  does  a  lot  has  to  slip  up.”  He  who  never  falls  in  the  field  is not  a  true  hero.  We  seek  Allaah’s  protection  against  the  evils  of  the ego  and  Satan.  There  is  no  ability  to  avoid  evil  and  no  power  to  do good except through Allaah Almighty. 

The  author  of  “Are  the  ‘Ulamā’  of  the  Deobandī  sect  from  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā‘ah?”  is  the  most  ignorant  person  and  greatest  liar. He  concocts  beliefs  and  attributes  them  to  the  Mashāikh  of  Deoband. He  wrote,  “Look  O  people  of  Islaam,  at  these  beliefs  of  the Deobandīs.”  He  does  the  same  as  the  Barelwīs,  may  Allaah  curse them.  His  style  in  concocting  beliefs  is  to  relate  a  miracle  from  a book  of  one  of  the  Mashāikh  of  Deoband  and  then  comments,  “This is  the  belief  of  the  Deobandīs…”  i.e.  he  builds  the  beliefs  upon  the stories  of  miracles.  The  ignoramus  does  not  know  that  miracles are  in  nobody‟s  school  the  basis  of  ideology.  Beliefs  are  based upon  conviction,  not  thoughts.  It  is  but  possibilities  which  arise from  miracles.  

Kashf  and  miracles  are  possible  from  Allaah’s  friends  but  these  are not  a  means  of  convincing  knowledge  according  to  any  of  the Ulamā‟  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah.  Stories  of  Kashf  and miracles are never the basis for belief.

If  the  Salafīs,  and  the  above  author  with  them,  insist  that  stories  of miracles  and  Kashf  were  used  as  the  basis  for  beliefs,  then  what  is their  Fatwā  on  their  Imām,  Ibn  Taymiyah?  For  that  is  what  he  says  in the eleventh volume of his Fatāwā.

Life and death are in the slave‟s hands!

Ibn  Taymiyah  said,  “al-Ḥasan  al-Baṣrī  prayed  against  a  Khārijī  who was troubling him and he fell down dead.” [p280]

Would  the  Salafīs  like  it  if  we  said  about  Ibn  Taymiyah  that  he believed  that  a  slave  has  the  power  of  life  and  death  in  his  hands because  he  mentions  this  miracle  in  his  Fatāwā  and  viewed  it  as  real. He  wrote  on  the  same  page,  “The  horse  of  Ṣalt  bin  Ashyam  died whilst  he  was  on  a  campaign.  He  then  prayed,  “O  Allaah,  do  not make  me  dependant  upon  creation.‟  He  asked  Allaah  ‘azza  wa  jal Who  resurrected  his  horse  for  him.‟  When  he  returned  home  he  said, “O  my  son,  take  the  horse’s  saddle  because  it  was  a  loan.‟  He  took the saddle and the horse died.”

I  ask  the  people  of  knowledge,  is  it  permissible  to  believe  concerning Ibn  Ashyam  on  whose  hands  Allaah  had  shown  a  miracle  in answering  his  du’ā,  that  he  controlled  life  and  death?  Or  can  we  say that  Ibn  Taymiyah  believed  that  a  human  can  control  life  and  death and  he  had  knowledge  of  the  unseen,  because  Ibn  Ashyam  knew  that the  horse  would  die  upon  reaching  home.  Would  it  now  be permissible  for  someone  to expel  him  from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah?  Yes,  it will  be  permissible  if that  person walks  the  path of the  Salafīs.

In  this  regard  Ibn  Taymiyah  mentioned  many  miracles  which  the saints performed. These include:

A  man  from  the  Nakha  tribe  had  a  donkey  which  died  during  a journey.  His  companions  said,  “Come  let  us  move  his  baggage  onto our  mounts.”  He  told  them, “Give  a  little  chance.”  He  then  performed an excellent  Wuḍū‟, offered Ṣalāh and  asked  Allaah, Who resurrected his  donkey.  It  then  continued  carrying  his  goods.”  [Chapter  1,  Fatawa 11; p 299]

What  do  our  Salafī  brothers  think  about  this  miracle?  What  do  they think of someone  who thinks  that  such miracles  are  true  and mentions them  in  his  writings?  Is  he  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  or  not?  If  the response  is  yes,  then  I  ask  how  can  that  be,  when  miracles  such  as these  are  Kufr  and  Shirk  according  to  you,  and  the  believer  in  them loses his Imaan and is expelled from the Ahlus Sunnah

If  the  answer  is  in  the  negative,  then  was  Ibn  Taymiyah  a  liar  in describing  these  miracles  and  in  attributing  them  to  the  pious?  Did  he concoct this himself?

You  O  treaders  of  the  Path  of  Guidance  and  only  true  believers,  have one  of  two  options.  Either  you  expel  your  Imām  Ibn  Taymiyah  from the  Ahlus  Sunnah,  or  you  issue  a  Fatwā  that  he  was  a  liar.  Yes  dear brothers  who  attack  the  Mashāikh  of  Deoband,  these  are  your  two choices. There is no third choice. Choose whichever you wish.

Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was an innovator according to Ibn Taymiyah

Ibn  Taymiyah  wrote  in  Iqtiḍāuṣ  Ṣirāṭil  Mustaqīm,  “As  for deliberately  offering  Ṣalāh  in  that  spot  where  the  Nabī  incidentally performed  Ṣalāh, it  is  not  quoted  from  any  Ṣaḥābī  besides  Ibn  ‘Umar. It  would  appear  that  this  is  not  a  Sunnah  of  the  Khulāfā‟  Rāshiḍun, but his own innovation.” [p29]

Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had  said,  “Beware  of  bringing  new  things  in  matters, for  every  new  thing  is  an  innovation  and  every  innovation  is misguidance.”  Thus  according  to  Ibn  Taymiyah,  Ibn  ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  is  an innovator and misguided. 

By  Allāḥ,  when  I  read  these  words  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  in  Iqtiḍāuṣ Ṣirāṭil  Mustaqīm,  the  hairs  of  my  body  rose.  How  poor  in  shame  and how  copious  in  audacity  is  he  in  regards  to  the  Ṣaḥābah.  They  are the  ones  whom  Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had  taught  Dīn  directly.  He  informed them  what  is  Sunnah and  what  is  innovation  in  Sharī’ah;  what  is  truth and  what  is  misguidance;  what  is  Ḥalaal  and  what  is  Ḥarām.  The  Ṣaḥābah    followed  Rasūlullaah  to  the  “T”  and  were  most  zealous is obeying his Sunnah.

As  the  people  of  knowledge  know,  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)was  distinguished amongst  the  Ṣaḥābah  for  his  following  of  every  Sunnah,  great  or less.  He  would  not  leave  anything  Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did,  said  or  guided towards. 

Is  it  not  utterly  astonishing  that  according  to  Ibn  Taymiyah,  Ibn ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)   became  an  innovator,  when  at  the  same  time  he  said  that one gets rewarded for innovations if he had a good intention. 

Perhaps  the  distinguished  scholar  forgot  this  saying  of  Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) , “Fear  Allaah!  Fear  Allaah  in  regard  my  Companions.  Do  not  make them a target after me.

At  this  point  I  wish  to  quote  what  al-Ḥāfizh  aẓ-Ẓahabī  mentioned with  regard  to  Ibn Taymiyah in  Zaghlul  ‘Ilm, “I find no reason for  his fall  amongst  the  peoples  of  Egypt  and  Syria  and  them  hating  him,  disassociating  from  him,  belying  him  and  denying  him,  except  his pride,  vanity,  extremism  against  the  Mashāikh  and  disassociation from the seniors.” [p17]

By  Allaah,  those  words  are  most  certainly  true.  Ibn  Taymiyah  was like  that.  He  was  averse  to  the  seniors,  even  the  Ṣaḥābah.  I  wish  to ask  Ibn  Taymiyah,  if  Ibn ‘Umar‟s (radhiyallahu anhu)   act  was  an  innovation  without any  basis  in  Sharī’ah,  then  why  did  the  other  Ṣaḥābah  not  deny him  and  prevent  him  from  that?  Why  did  they  keep  quiet?  Why  did the  Khulafā‟  Rāshiḍun  not  say  anything  about  him?  Would  it  not have  been  their  duty  to  refute  this  “bad”  act?  Is  Ibn  Taymiyah,  or anyone  from  his  group  able  to  produce  a  single  shred  of evidence  that never  mind  the  Khulafā‟  Rāshidūn,  but  did  even  any  one  Ṣaḥābī , denounce Ibn ‘Umar‟s  act, or did they all remain silent?

One  who  believes  that  the  Ṣaḥābah  witnessed  evil  in  their  midst  and kept  silent  is  without  doubt  outside  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah, because  he  believes  that  the  Ṣaḥābah  did  not  fulfil  a  Shar’ī obligation.  On  the  other  hand,  Allāḥ  says,  “The  believing  male  and females  are  protectors  unto  each  other.  They  order  the  good  and forbid the bad.”

The  statement  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  concerning  Ibn  ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) is  of the  same  category  of  his  statement  on  journeying  to  visit  the Grave  of  Rasūlullaaḥ.  Ibn  Taymiyah  regarded  such  a  journey as  forbidden  and  sinful  and  such  a  traveller  is  not  permitted  to perform  Qaṣr  [shortening]  of  his  Ṣalāh.  Rasūlullaah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said,  “Do not  set  out  on    a  journey,  except  for  three  Masājid…”  Ibn Taymiyah  quoted  the  Ḥadīth  without  knowing  what  exactly  was Rasūlullaah  prohibiting.

Ibn  Ḥajar  wrote  in  Fatḥul  Bārī,  “This  is  amongst  the  ugliest rulings  attributed  to  him.”

To make Zikr of “Allaah” alone is an innovation

Amongst  the  concocted  beliefs  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  is  this  what  he  wrote in  his  Fatāwā,  “Ẓikr  of  al-Ism  al-Mufrad  [Name  of  Allaah  alone] whether  explicitly  or  by  way  of  pronoun  is  an  innovation  in Sharī’ah.” [V10, p396]

In  which  Sharī’ah  might  this  be?  In  the  Sharī’ah  of  Ibn  Taymiyah? Certainly  not  in  the  Sharī’ah  of  Muḥammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)!  Ibn  Taymiyah assumed  the  ultimate  in  arrogance  in  appropriating  the  right  to  Ḥalāl and  Ḥarām.  Allowing  what  he  willed  and  forbidding  what  he  willed is  the  way  of  the  Ulamā‟  of  Banū  Isrāīl.  He  imposes  his  opinion  on Dīn  and  opposes  the  permissibility  on  which  the  Muslims  are unanimous. 

If  this  Ẓikr  is  an  innovation,  then  let  Ibn  Taymiyah  present  proof  that it  is  forbidden  from  the  Quraan  or  Ḥadīth  or  a  saying  of  the  Ṣaḥābah   or  the  Imāms  of  Fiqh  and  Ḥadīth.  Otherwise  he  should  have abstained  from  pronouncing  his  opinion  over  Dīn.  Apparently  Ibn Taymiyah  was  deaf  to  the  verse,  “Verily  by  the  Ẓikr  of  Allaah  do hearts  find  contentment.”  For  in  this  verse  “Allaah”  is  mentioned  on its  own  and  is  not  attached  to  anything  else.  This  is  the  most  explicit proof  on  its  permissibility.  Allaah  says,  “To  Allāḥ  belongs  the  Most Beautiful  Names,  so  call  unto  Him  through  it.”  Allaah  also  says, “Call  unto  Allaah  or  call  unto  ar-Raḥmān.  Whichever  you  call,  to Him  belongs  the  Most  Beautiful  Names.”  Ibn  Taymiyah  made himself  blind  to  all  these  āyāt  when  he  forbade  this  Ẓikr.  He expressed  a  personal  opinion  opposed  to  unanimous  decision. According  to  him  and  according  to  the  majority  of  Muslims, consensus is proof in itself.

It  is  indeed  a  big  joke  that  Ibn  Taymiyah  sought  proof  from  this  in  a way  which  common  people  would  not  have  stooped  to.  He  used  the Aḥādīth  which  narrate  the  virtue  of  the  words,  “SubḥānAllaah  wal ḥamdu  lillāh  wAllaahu  akbar.”  Such  is  his  intelligence  and understanding  of  Dīn.  There  is  no  ability  to  avoid  evil  and  no  power to do good except with Almighty Allaah.” What  relationship  does  the  former  bear  with  the  latter?  Yes,  had Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) forbidden  the  Ẓikr  of  the  word,  “Allaah,”  then  there would  have  been  substance  to  Ibn  Taymiyah‟s  prohibition.  However, there  is  no  such  prohibition  substantiated  from  Rasulullaah   or  his Ṣaḥābah.  From  where  then  did  Ibn  Taymiyah  manage  to  declare this  Ẓikr  to  be  a  prohibited  innovation  when  it  is  proven  from  the Quraan? Is this not concocting Dīn according to one’s opinion?

As  for  his  stating  in  his  Fatāwā  that  this  Ẓikr  is  not  narrated  from  any Ṣaḥābī , is  the  absence  of the  mentioning  proof of its  prohibition, or that  it  was  never  existent  amongst  them?  Such  is  the  intelligence  of Ibn  Taymiyah  and  his  understanding  of  Dīn.  Has  everything  been narrated  to  us  what  they  did  in  private  and  public?  I  present  this question  to  Ibn  Taymiyah  with  full  respect.  If  he  cannot  prove  that the  Ṣaḥābah  when  following  the  Imām  said,  “Allaahu  Akbar,” softly  then  how  can  Ibn  Taymiyah  say,  “Allaahu  Akbar,”  in  his Ṣalāh,  whether  softly  or  loudly?  I  demand  that  he  or  anyone  from  his sect  present  a  single  shred  of  evidence  that  any  of  the  Ṣaḥābah  or the  Salaf  said  it  loudly  or  softly.  If  that  cannot  be  proven,  then  would his  Fatwā  be  that  it  has  no  Shar’ī  basis  for  reciting  it  in  Ṣalāh?  If  it  is not  proven,  then  what  did  the  Nabī (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  his  Ṣaḥābah  recite?  We await the reply of Ibn Taymiyah and his party.

Such  kind  of  statements  such  as  Ibn  Taymiyah’s  belief  on  this  Ẓikr are mere baseless opinions.

Rasulullaah  was  the  Lawgiver  with  power  of  allowing  and prohibiting 

Ibn  Taymiyah  stated  in  his  Fatāwā,  “The  Rasūl  must  be  obeyed  and loved.  Ḥalāl  is  what  he  permitted.  Ḥarām  is  what  he  forbade.  Dīn  is what he prescribed.” [v10; p466]

I  ask  you,  O  Salafī  brothers  who  are  drowned  in  their  love  for  Ibn Taymiyah,  if  this  is  the  statement  of  people  of  the  Sunnah?  Is  this  the Maẓhab  of  the  Predecessors?  Did  the  Ṣaḥābah  say  this?  Or  is  Ibn Taymiyah  speaking  here  with  the  tongue  of  the  innovating Barelwīs  who  are  outside  the  pale  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah?  For  it  is  the  Barelwīs  who  say  that  Dīn  is  what  the  Rasūl (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) prescribed,  forbade  and  permitted. They  thus  attribute  the  authority of  permitting  and  prohibiting  unto  him.  Thus  Rasulullaah    is  the True  Lawgiver  according  to  them.  Ibn  Taymiyah  seems  to  be  with them on this.

On  the  other  hand,  according  to  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  the Real  Lawgiver  is  Allaah  Ta’ālā  alone  Who  has  no  partner  whether  in lawgiving  or  creation.  The  authority  of  Ḥalāl  and  Ḥarām  belongs  to Him alone. Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was the conveyor from Him Most High. 

If  I  wished  to  criticise  Ibn  Taymiyah  I  would  just  be  wasting  my breathe  refuting  that  belief,  because  it  is  my  belief  that statement  was  an  error  on  his  part.  It  is  rare  that  those  who  do much are free fro slip-ups. 

If  he  deliberately  meant  it,  then  it  is  baseless  Shirk  which  has  no proof  from  the  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth.  Ash-Shaykh  Ḥabībur  Raḥmān  al A’zhamī  had  written  “ash-Shāri‘  al-Ḥaqīqī,”  on  this  topic.  In  it  he describes  the  reality  as  per  the  belief  of  the  majority  of  Muslims  and mentions  their proofs  from  the  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth.

The  Nubūwah  of  our  Nabī    is  the  origin  of  the  Nubūwah  of the other Ambiyaa

The  author  of  “Are  the  ‘Ulamā’  of  the  Deobandī  sect  from  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā‘ah?”  made  an  all-out  effort  in  his  ignorance  to make  people  lose  affection  for  ash-Shaykh  Qāsim  an-Nānotwī,  the founder  of  Dārul  ‘Ulūm,  the  famous  university  at  Deoband.  In  doing that  he  imitated  the  style  of  the  misguided,  innovator  and  graveworshipper,  Arshad  al-Qādirī,  of  the  Barelwī  sect.  He  strove  to  incite people  against  the  Imām  in  regards  his  statement  that  the  Prophethood of Muḥammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  is  original  and the  Prohethood of the  other  Ambiyaa stems  from  the  effulgence  of  his  Nubūwah.  That  also means  that  he  is the  Seal  of  the  Ambiyaa,  from  the  first  of  them  to  the  last,  in  aspects of  personality,  time  and  place.  Even  if  in  theory  there  should  have been  a  prophet  after  him,  that  would  have  no  effect  on  his  Finality, because  his  Nubūwah  is  vested  in  himself  originally  whilst  the  others stem from his effulgence. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  that  statement  is  correct.  It  is  the  belief  of  the Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah.  It  is  from  Rasulullaah  that  the  chain  of Nubūwah originated.  He  was  the  Nabī  from  primordial  times  and was already  then  the  Seal  of  Ambiyaa  by  the  decree  of  Allaah,  before even  the  presence  of  the  creation,  before  there  was  time  and  place, before any Nabī came to the world.

Sadly,  the  author  of  the  booklet  did  not  understand  this  subtle meaning  due  to  his  ignorance  and  enmity  against  the  Deobandīs.  He thus  spewed  against  ash-Shaykh  an-Nānotwī  what  he  spewed  and  his tongue spoke like a devil.

The  statement  of  ash-Shaykh  an-Nānotwī  is  in  fact  in  the  same  style as  that  Ibn  Taymiyah.  He  presented  his  argument  based  on  the Quraan  and  Ḥadīth,  in  a  style    and  division  modern  intelligence  can understand.

If  the  author  of  the  booklet  has  any  intelligence  then  he  should  listen very  carefully  to  what  Ḥujjatul  Islaam  wrote.  Ibn  Taymiyah  wrote, “There  is  no  Nabī  in  Jannah  except  that  it  began  with  the  Nabī    and passed  down  to  others.  He  is  the  unconditional  Imām  of  guidance from  the  beginning  of  Banū  Ādam  until  the  last  of  them.”  [alFatāwā: v10; p727]

He  is  the  Intercessor  of  the  first  ones  and  the  last  ones  in  their Reckoning.  He  will  be  the  first  to  seek  the  opening  of  Jannah’s Gate.” [ibid: p728]

That  is  because  Allaah  took  an  oath  from  all  creation  to  believe  in him.” [Ibid: p728]

Ibn  ‘Abbās (radhiyallahu anhu)  said  that  Allaah  never  sent  a  Nabī  except  that  he  made him  pledge  that  if  he  sent  Muḥammad  and  he  was  still  alive,  he would believe in him  and assist him.” [ibid]

“The  Nabī  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “Indeed  I  was  according  to  Allaah  the  Seal  of  the Ambiyaa while Ādam was still in a state of earth.‟” [ibid]

Allaah  wrote  and  decreed  at  that  time,  and  in  that  state  commanded before the progeny.” [v10; p729]

Think  O  ‘Ulāmā,  do  these  words  not  mean  that  Rasulullaah (rasulullah)  is  the origin  of  the  Chapter  of  Nubuwah?  That  the  Nubūwaat  of  the  others gush  from  this  original  spring?  That  theirs  grew  from  his  just  as  twigs grow  from  a  tree’s  branch,  the  twigs  then  sprout  leaves  whilst  the branch remains standing? 

That  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  our  august  Imām,  Muḥammad Qāsim  an-Nānotwī,  “Indeed  our  Nabī  Muḥammad    is  Allaah’s  Nabī in  terms  of  personality,  whilst  the  Nubūwah  of  other  Ambiyaa ‘alayhimus  salām  is  the  effulgence  of  his  Nubūwah  .  He  being  the Seal  of  the  Ambiyaa,  in  personality,  time  and  place,  there  would  be no harm  to his  Nubūwaat  if in theory  there  were  to be  another  Nabi  in the era after him .
This  is  a  very  delicate  meaning  which only  those  will  understand who have  insight  and  intact  intelligence  and  Allaah  has  filled  their  hearts with  His  light.  As  for  those  whose  share  is  but  ignorance  and  lack  of understanding,  how  can  they  possibly  understand  such  delicate meanings?  

Ambiyaa are not innocent of sin

The  most  dangerous  belief  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  is,  I  believe,  the belief  that  the  Ambiyaa  are  not  ma‘ṣūm  [innocent]  of  sin  and disobedience,  whether  minor  or  major.  According  to  him  the ‘Iṣmah  [innocence]  of  the  Ambiyaa  is  confined  to  what  they  relate from  Allaah,  that  they  do  not  repeatedly  sin  or  remain  upon  a  sin.  It does  not  mean  as  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  believe,  that  they  never  commit any sin. 

He  wrote  in  the  tenth  volume  of  his  Fatāwā,  “The  Ambiyaa  –  may Allaah‟s  salutations  be  upon  them  –  are  Ma‘ṣūm    in  terms  of  what they relate from Allaah and conveying His messages.” [p289]

The  aims  of  Nubūwah  and  Risālah  are  achieved  through  this  ‘Iṣmah which is established for the Ambiyaa.” [p290]

He  introduces  this  word  a  bit  saying,  “The  ‘Iṣmah  through  which they  convey  from  Allaah  is  established,  thus  there  is  no  error remaining in the conveying.” [p290]

Dear  reader,  do  you  fully  understand  the  import  of  Ibn  Taymiyah‟s words?  He  claims  that  the  Ambiyaa  were  not  entirely  free  from  sin  as is  the  belief  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah.  Instead,  they  were only  free  from  sin  in  regards  the  conveying  of  their  message.  As  for complete  ‘Iṣmah  from  sins  and  disobedience,  that  is  not  the  belief  of Ibn Taymiyah. 

To  further  clarify  Ibn  Taymiyah’s  belief  on  the  ‘Iṣmah  of  the Ambiyaa,  listen  to  the  following  words  of  his  and  ponder  over  the “…but…” 

He  wrote,  “But  does  Allaah  reach  him  and  erase  what  the  Devil  cast and  thus  establish  His  verses?  There  are  two  views  in  this  matter. What  has  been  narrated  from  the  Predecessors  agrees  with  the Quraan.” [v10; p291]

That  means  that  according  to  Ibn  Taymiyah,  the  narrations  from  the Predecessors  establish  that  the  Ambiyaa  ‘alayhimus  salām  are  not free  from  satanic  misguidance.  Satan  casts  unto  them  that  which  is not  from  Allaah.  Allaah  then  erases  that  and  establishes  His  verses. This is what “agrees” with the Quraan.

If  you  need  more  clarity  then  listen  to  these  words  which  have  many distortions,  “As  for  ‘Iṣmah  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  conveying the  Message,  is  it  proven  from  intelligence  or  is  it  even  heard  of?  Is  it from  Major  and  minor  sins?  Or  some  of  them?  Or  from  repeating them?  Or  is  it  that  ‘Iṣmah  is  not  necessary  except  in  conveying?  Is ‘Iṣmah  from  Kufr  and  sins  necessary  before  Prophethood  or  not?” [v10; p293]

Look  at  this  man.  He  turns  the  issue  of  ‘iṣmah,  which  is  an  agreed upon  issue  amongst  the  Ahlus  Sunnah,  into  a  disputed  issue.  There  is but  one  view  that  they  are  innocent  of  all  sins  after  becoming Ambiyaa.  According to some, they  are  innocent  of major sins  as  well, before  Nubūwah,  but  not  of  minor  sins.  Yet  the  overall  view  of  the Ahlus  Sunnah  is  that  they  are  innocent  of  both  major  and  minor sins,  both  before  and  after  Nubūwah

After  these  statements,  Ibn  Taymiyah  clarifies  his  belief  on  the ‘Iṣmah  of  the  Ambiyaa  alayhimus  salām,  “The  view  which  the majority  hold  and  is  narrated  from  the  Salaf  {Predecessors]  is  that ‘Iṣmah  is  confined  to  innocence  from  repeating  sins  in  general.” [v10; p293]

This  is  a  lie  against  the  Salaf  and  against  the  majority.  They  are  free of  such  a  corrupt  belief  which  contradicts  the  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth. Allaah  says,  “We  found  you  ḍāll  –  meaning  here  unaware  –  and  then We  guided  [you].”  How  can  one  whom  Allaah  guides  and  chooses for  His  Message,  commit  sins?  Allaah  mentions  a  number  of Ambiyaa  alayhimus  salām  and  then  says,  “Follow  their  guidance.” Will  Allaah  order  the  purest  of  His  creation  and  most  virtuous  of  His Messengers  to  follower  those  who  commit  sins?  Allaah  said  to  Satan, “Verily  you  will  have  no  power  over  My  Slaves.”  So  which  of Allaah’s  Slaves  are  more  noble  and  virtuous  than  the  Ambiyaa alayhimus  salām,  that  he  can  then  throw  them  into  sinning  and  turn them  from  guidance?  Disobedience  and  sins  are  nothing  but  the effects of Satan exerting power over Allaah’s Slaves. 

Ibn Taymiyah‟s belief about Yūnus (alayhis salaam)

Since  Ibn  Taymiyah  did  not  believe  in  the  innocence  of  the  Ambiyaa, he  wrote  on  that  basis  in  regards  Yūnus (alayhis salaam ,“Ẓun  Nūn  [Yūnus alayhis salaam] witnessed  the  consequences  of  his  deficiency  in  the  Divine  right when  he  became  angry  and  displeased  that  they  should  be  saved.  In that  he  presented  an  act  which  was  preferring  something  else  to  what was  obligatory  upon  him  in  terms  of  only  loving  Him  and  accepting Him  as  his  god.  By  then  saying,  “There  is  no  god  but  You,”  he recited  the  statement  by  which  the  slave  erases  taking  his  god  his desires.  It  has  been  narrated,  “There  is  nothing  under  the  sky  which Allaah  regards  as  worse  to  worship  than  following  one’s  desires.‟ Yūnus,  Allaah’s  salutations  be  upon  him, thus  perfected  the  reality  of declaring  his  god  and  erased  the  desires  which  he  had  made  a  god besides Him.” [v10; p287]

O  Slaves  of  Allaah!  Look  at  that!  O  ‘Ulamā‟  what  prattle  is  this which the  Imām  of the  Salafīs  says  about  our chief, Yūnus (alayhissalaam), whom Allaah  had  selected  for  Nubūwah?  Tell  us,  O  noble  ones.  Are  these the  words  of  a  scholar  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah?  Who before  this  Shaykh  uttered  such  words  against  a  Nabī  of  Allaah?  Ibn Taymiyah  prattles  and  does  not  know  what  emerges  from  his  mouth. According  to  him,  Yūnus  (alayhis salaam)  was  deficient  in  divine  rights  and made  his  desires  his  god,  which  is  the  worst  associate  unto  Allaah under the sky. 

These  words  are  clear  that  the  Imām  of  the  Salafīs  believed  that Ambiyaa  could  commit  the  worst  of  sins,  so  the  extent  that  they  were not innocent of setting their desires as their gods. 
I  ask  the  Salafī  brothers,  does  their  Imām  remain  a  believer  after uttering  such  words?  Never  mind,  whether  he  is  the  Imām  of  the Muslims  and  Ḥujjatul  Islaam.  As  for  us,  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah,  such  belief  is  undoubtedly  Kufr  and  the  one  who  utters that is certainly left Imaan

We  ask  Allaah  to  save  us  from  evil  beliefs  concerning  His  sincere slaves  from  the  AmbiyaaRusul,  and  pious  Salaf; and  that  He resurrect  us,  the  Deobandīs,  with  them,  through  the  blessings  of  the Chief of all  Messengers (Such  words  of  mediation  is  permissible  according  to  the  Salafīs  as  well.  In  the sketch  of  Ibn  Arabī  in  at-Tāj  al-Mukallil,  an-Nawwāb  al-Bhopālī  ends  with  those words) .

When  it  was  said  to  Ibn  Taymiyah  that  sins  negate  perfection  and  are a  denial  of  the  bounty,  he  replied,  “That  is  when  there  is  remaining upon  that  without  turning  away.  On  the  other  hand,  sincere repentance  which  Allaah  accepts  is  the  means  by  which  He  raises the  repentant  to  a  greater  state  then  what  he  was  upon.    [v10; p293]

This  is  an  explicit  statement  that  Ibn  Taymiyah  did  not  believe  in  the ‘Iṣmah  of  the  Ambiyaa  ‘aalyhimus  salām.  The  strange  thing  about this  reply  which  indicates  the  low  intelligence  and  lack  of understanding  of  Dīn  of  the  man  is  that  he  says  that  sincere repentance  erases  sins  and  raises  the  repentant  to  greater  status.  Well, one  does  not  have  to  be  a  Nabī  for  that.  It  applies  to  any  person  of Imaan.  What  distinction  then  remains  for  the  Ambiyaa?  What distinguishing them in regards sins?

Events affect the Being of Allaah

According  to  all  the  ‘Ulamā‟  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah,  Allaah’s  Being cannot  be  affected  by  external  events.  The  early  and  latter generations  were  unanimous  about  that.  Ibn  Taymiyah  was  however of  a  different  view.  According  to  him,  not  only  is  it  possible  that events  can  affect  Allaah’s  Being,  this  actually  does  occur.  He  wrote in  the  fifth  volume  of  his  Fatāwā,  “From  this  a  second  principle becomes  apparent  in  regards  the  Azalī  [primordial]  and  Muta‘addī [transcending]  acts  of  the  Rabb.  It  is  that  are  voluntary  acts  related  to His  power  and  will  applicable  to  Him  or  not?  The  Maẓhab  of  the Salaf and Aimmah of Ḥadīth is that it is possible.” [p536]

He  also  wrote,  “As  for  His  nearness  and  approaching  Him  on  the  part of  some  Slaves,  This  is  established  by  those  who  establish  His voluntary  acts  by  His  Being,  His  coming  Yawmul  Qiyāmah,  His descending  and  His  Mounting  the  Throne.  This  is  the  Maẓhab  of  the Aimmah  of  the  Salaf,  the  famous  Aimmah  of  Islaam  and  the  people of  Ḥadīth.  Narration  from  them  to  that  effect  is  mutawātir [continuous and known]. [p466]

He  also  wrote,  “These  say  that  He  comes,  descends,  mounts  and other  such  acts  just  as  He  informed  about  His  Being  and  this  is perfection.” [v8; p20]

In  this  way,  Ibn  Taymiyah  continued  establishing  events  for  the Being  of  Allaah.  He  does  not  know  that  one  who  is  affected  by events  cannot  be  Qadīm  [Primordial].  Allaah’s  Being  is  Qadīm.  He does  not  need  anything.  How  then  is  His  Being  affected  by events?

He  attributes  to  Allaah  voluntary  acts  such  as  climbing,  descending, mounting,  laughing,  moving,  keeping  still,  etc  according  to  their literal  meanings.  Thereafter  he  says  that  voluntary  acts  for  Allaah  are different than that for creatures because Allaah is not like anything. 

This  is  nothing  but  sheer nonsense  which  people  of knowledge  do not utter.  If  you  declare  these  acts  to  be  established  for  Allaah  according to  the  literal  meaning,  then  you  have  made  Allaah  partners  with  His creation in the  original  meaning. How  can there  be  any  comparison to the  original  meaning?  For  example,  the  original  meaning  of descending  is  to  move  from  one  place  to  another.  So  Aḥmad  for example  descends  in  this  meaning  and  Allaah  also  descends  in  this meaning?  Is  there  a  comparison  or  is  Aḥmad  and  Allaah’s  Being  the same  in  the  meaning  of  descending?  As  for  Ibn  Taymiyah  then saying  that  Allaah’s  descending  is  different  to  the  creation descending  despite  their  being  a  commonality  in  the  original  meaning of  descending,  there  is  nothing  special  in  that  for  Allaah.  The descending  of  Bakr  is  different  to  the  descending  of  ‘Amr.  Bakr’s climbing  is  different  to  ‘Amr’s  climbing.  Bakr’s  mounting  is different  to  ‘Amr’s  mounting.  These,  despite  the  commonality  of these acts in their original meaning. 

One  who  concocts  his  own  Maẓhab  will  inevitably  fall  into  such prattle.  He  falsely  attributes  his  Maẓhab  to  the  Salaf  in  order  to deceive  the  people  and  misguide  them  from  the  Straight Path. 

Finally,  I ask fair and just  ‘Ulamā‟, “Can we  fairly  consider to be  part of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  someone  who  believes  that  events  affect  the Being of Allaah?”

Ambiyaa do not attain perfection except at their end

Amongst  the  filthy  beliefs  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  is  that  the  Ambiyaa do  not  attain  perfection,  except  at  their  end,  not  at  their beginning.  Listen  well  to  his  statement,  “The  aim  here  is  that  all  that is  blameworthy  upon  Ẓūn    Nūn  as  demonstrated  by  the  story,  is forgiven  and  Allaah  changed  them  to  good  deeds  and  raised  his status.  After  his  emergence  from  the  fish‟s  belly  and  his  repentance, he  was  greater  in  status  than  before  he  fell  into  what  he  fell.”  [v10; p299]

He  also  wrote,  “His  state  after  saying,  “Lā  ilāha  illā  Anta, Subḥānaka,  innī  kuntu  minazh  zhālimīn,‟  was  higher  than  that  his state  before  what  had happened. Regard is  paid to what  the  end is, not what  happened  in  the  beginning.  Actions  are  according  to  their completion.” [v10; p299]

He  also  wrote,  “Allaah  created  Man  and  took  him  from  his  mother, not  knowing  anything.  He  then  taught  him.  He  thus  moved  him  from a  state  of  deficiency  to  a  state  of  perfection.  It  is  thus  not  permissible to  examine  the  worth  of  Man  before  he  reached  the  state  of perfection.  Regard  is  at  the  state  of  perfection.  Yūnus    and  other Ambiyaa attained the most perfect at their end. [v10; p299]

O  Muslims!  Say  in  Allaah’s  Name  if  this  is  the  belief  of  any  of  the Salaf  or  Aimmah  of  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth  in  regards  the  Ambiyaa ‘alayhimus  salām?  Have  your  ears  ever  heard  such  a  statement  from any  of  the  Ṣaḥābah  or  Tābi’ūn?  Inform  me,  for  you  are  Allaah’s witnesses  upon  earth.  Has  the  pen  any  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  ever written something like that in regards those whom Allaah chose?

Who  from  amongst  the  Salafi  ever  stated  that  the  Ambiyaa  are perfect  at  the  end  and  deficient  at  the  beginning,  and  that  their state  is  like  when  emerging  from  their  mothers  and  then  they attain perfection as time passes? You,  O  Salafīs,  are  upon  the  belief  system  of  your  Imām,  so  are  you from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah?  If  you  sufficed  with  what  was with  you,  instead of casting  against  the  ‘Ulāmā‟ of Deoband, it  would have  been  better  for  you.  It  is  good  for  people  to  ponder  of  their  own states instead of attacking others.

Respected  brother,  if  we  were  to  accept  this  statement  of  Ibn Taymiyah,  then  we  would  have  to  say  that  none  of  the  Ambiyaa attained  perfection  even  at  his  end.  The  reason  being  that  had  his  age been  longer  than  what  it  actually  was,  would  his  perfection  and  Imān not have increased?

Ibn  Taymiyah  is  astray  in  this  belief  and  has  gone  far  away  from  the way  of  guidance  in  innovating  a  belief  in  Dīn  which  is  purely  his opinion.  Nobody  from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  has  believed  that.  It  has  not been  narrated  from  the  Ṣaḥābah or  Tābi’ūn.  He  falsely  ascribed this false Kufr belief to them and lied against them. 

Mu’āẓ (radhiyallahu anhu) was more learned than Alī (radhiyallahu anhu)

Ibn  Taymiyah  wrote  in  his  Fatāwā,  “His  statement,  “The  most learned  of  them  in  regards  Ḥalaal  and  Ḥarām  is  Mu’āẓ  bin  Jabal,‟  is closer  to  authenticity  according  to  the  “Ulamā‟  of  Ḥadīth  than  his statement,  “The  best  judge  amongst  you  is  ‘Alī,‟  if  it  in  fact  can  be used  as  proof.  Thus  if  that  is  more  authentic  as  per  chain  of  narration and  clearer  proof,  then  the  one  who  uses  the  other  as  an  argument that  ‘Alī  is  more  learned  than  Mu’āẓ  bin  Jabal  is  an  ignoramus.”  [v4; p41]

This  is  another  example  of  his  ignorance  and  misguidance.  It  is the  belief  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  that  ‘Alī  (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  more  virtuous  and learned than Mu’āẓ bin Jabal (radhiyallahu anhu).  Ibn  Taymiyah’s  habit  was  to  concoct  something  and  then shamelessly  attribute  it  to  the  majority  and  the  Salaf;  the  Quraan and  Ḥadīth.  Actually  it  is  not  amazing  that  he  said  something  like this.  He  was  overzealous  in  seeking  to  find  fault  with  the  son-in-law of  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  Whoever  wants  further  details  on  that,  should  read his book, Minhājus Sunnah

No  believer  attained  complete guidance  –  even  Ambiyaa  and Ṣaḥābah 

In  regards  the  āyah,  “And  what  is  wrong  with  you  that  you  do  not believe  in  Allaah,  whereas  the  Rasūl  calls  you  to  believe  in  your Rabb  and  indeed  took  your  pledge,  if  indeed  you  are  believers,”  Ibn Taymiyah  commented  that  it  is  the  believers  who  being  addressed and  Allaah  desires  from  them  that  they  perfect  their  faith  and  fulfil what is obligatory upon them.
Just  as  we  ask  Allaah  to  guide  us  on  the  Straight  Path  in  every Ṣalāh,  whereas  He  has  guided  the  believers  to  accept  all  that  the Rasūl  brought;  but  complete  guidance  is  in  everything  that  they  say and  do  in  all  their  affairs.  It  is  this  complete  and  perfect  guidance which  is  the  faith  which  is  commanded.  Through  that,  He  takes  them out from the darknesses unto the light.” [v7; p231]

See  what  nonsense  does  your  Imām  utter,  in  what  valley  of  darkness is he blind, is what misguidance he fell.

Does  any  Muslim  –  whom  Allaah  has  blessed  with  the  faith  that Allaah  made  the  Ṣaḥābah  , Tābi’ūnAmbiyaa  and  Rusul  from  those whom  Satan  has  no  power  over  –  believe  such  a  thing?  He  placed them  upon  the  Straight  Path  and  perfect  guidance.  He  removed  them from  darkness  from  their  very  first  day.  They  were  attributed  with  the Imaan  which  is  commanded.  They  were  lights  from  which  beams  of guidance  and  Imaan  shone  and  lit  the  world,  and  from  which  the astray  found  guidance  in  every  place.  No,  a  Muslim  will  never  say such a thing. A thousand times no.

However,  according  to  Ibn  Taymiyah,  these  select  ones  were  not perfect  believers  of  perfect  guidance.  Instead,  they  were  in darkness.  What  kind  of  intelligence  and  understanding  of  Dīn  did this  man  have?  He  whom  Allaah  allows  to  be  misguided  will  have  no guide.  He  for whom  Allaah  has  not  made  light  will  have  no light.

Conclusion

This  was  a  glance  at  some  of  beliefs  of  Shaykhul  Islaam  Ibn Taymiyah,  leader  of  the  Salafīs,  their  proof  for  Islaam.  It  was  a glance  at  some  of  his  thoughts  and  opinions  in  Dīn.  There  are  many other  examples  to  be  found  in  his  writings  and  compilations.  I  have sufficed  with  this  amount  and  do  not  wish  for  more  than  that.  The aim  was  no  complete  encompassing  or  prolongation,  but  to  shed  light on  some  of  the  Salafī  beliefs  which  they  assume  to  originate  from Quraan  and  Ḥadīth.  It  was  to  clarify  truth  from  falsehood  to  the brothers,  and  the  reality  of  their  claim  that  they  belong  to  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  and  that  they  alone  will  be  the  saved  sect  out  of the  73;  that  they  are  the  people  of  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth  and  Imaan  and Islaam  and  the  rest  of  the  Muslims  in  the  world  are  astray, Mushrikūn,  innovators  and  grave-worshippers;  in  fact  apostates behind whom  Ṣalāh is  not  permissible  and  with whom  marriage  is  not permissible.

Ibn Taymiyah was not a true Ālim

Despite  Ibn  Taymiyah  being  a  scholar  of  many  diverse  subjects,  he was  not  a  true  ‘Ālim.  He  was  not  a  religious  and  just  ‘Ālim.  As  for his  lack  of  religiosity,  it  is  because  of  his  apathy  in  speaking  against seniors,  even  against  the  Ṣaḥābah   and  Ambiyaa  ‘alayhimus  salām. There  have  been  many  examples  in  this  booklet  concerning  his irreligiousness. 

As  for  him  not  being  a  true  ‘Ālim,  he  was  not  versed  in  quoting  from the  early  generations.  He  used  to  attribute  statements  to  them  without any proof. This is clear to anyone who reads his writings. 

His  “knowledge”  of  the  Quraan  is  made  apparent  by  his  commentary on  the  āyah,  “And  what  is  wrong  with  you  that  you  do  not  believe  in Allaah, whereas the Rasūl calls you…” This has been commented on.

As  for  his  knowledge  of  Ḥadīth,  he  was  also  not  a  research  scholar, nothing with deep-understanding, nor justice.

As  for  his  lack  of  justice,  he  made  weak  Aḥādīth  to  be  strong  on  the basis  of  prattle,  when  that  Ḥadīth  was  in  concord  with  his  desires.  He would  make  a  strong  Ḥadīth  to  be  weak  if  it  was  contrary  to  his desires. 

As  for  his  lack  of  deep-insight,  he  would  not  distinguish  between weak and strong Ḥadīth and would mix them. 

As  for  his  lack  of  research,  he  would  often  fall  into  confusion  and mix  the  words  of  Rasulullaah  with  the  Ṣaḥābah  and  vice-versa. He  would  make  Mursal  Ḥadīth  Marfū’  and  vice-versa.  He  would  join authentic to weak and weak to authentic. 

We  now  present  unto  some  examples  of  what  we  have  said,  from  a small  booklet  of  his,  whose  pages  do  not  exceed  66.  It  is  called  al Waṣīyah  al-Kubrā.  In  it  he  mentioned  the  basic  beliefs  of  Dīn  and principles of Islaam. 

We  mention  these  examples  here,  so  that  his  affair  may  be  clear,  and the  readers  not  be  deceived  by  those  who  are  extremists  in  their  love and  veneration  for  him.  In  fact,  they  raise  him  above  being  a  human. They  don  him  in  the  highest  of  titles  and  count  him  from  amongst  the most  august  ‘Ulamā‟  of  Islaam.  They  believe  that  Allaah  has  not created the like of him in knowledge, virtue, memory and piety.

Here are some examples from the booklet: “He  who  reads  the  Quraan  and  ponders  over  it,  will  receive  ten rewards  for every  letter.”  [p38]
He  mentioned  this  Ḥadīth  and  did  not  mention  that  it  is  extremely weak.

He  also  wrote,  “Abū  Bakr  and  ‘Umar  raḍhiyAllaahu  ‘anhumā  said, Memorising  the  diacritics  of  the  Quraan  is  more  beloved  to  us  than memorising  some  of its  letters.”  [p38]

This supposed narration is not to be found in any book.

He  mentioned  a  famous  Ḥadīth  is  these  words,  “Khayrul  Qurūn qarnī,” despite there being no source for the word “Qarnī

He  mentioned  the  Ḥadīth  of  al-‘Abbās (radhiyallahu anhu)   complaining  about  the harshness  of  a  certain  people.  The  Nabī (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) then  said,  “By  He  who holds  my  life  in  His  Hand,  they  will  not  enter  Jannah  until  they  love you for my  sake.”  [p43]

Such  a  Ḥadīth  is  not  recorded  in  the  books  in  these  words.  There  are however  other  words,  but  in  any  case,  it  is  a  weak  Ḥadīth  according to  the  Salafīs,  because  amongst  the  narrators  is  Yazīd  bin  Abī  Ziyād al-Qurashī  who  is  a  weak  narrator  according  to  the  majority  of  the Muḥaddithūn

Ibn  Taymiyah  also  narrated  this  Ḥadīth  from  Ibn  ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  ,  “The  first army  to attack Constantinople  will  be  forgiven.”  [p46]  This  is  indeed  nothing  but  a  fantasy  on  his  part.  He  narrated  it  from al-Bukhārī,  whereas  the  narrator  there  is  in  fact  ‘Umayr  bin  al Aswad,  not  Ibn  ‘Umar.  In  addition,  Ibn  Taymiyah  did  not  quote the  correct  words  of  the  Ḥadīth.  The  correct  words  are, “…the  first  of my Ummah to attack Caesar‟s  city  will  be  forgiven.” Such was Ibn Taymiyah, randomly snatching words of Ḥadīth.

He  narrated  the  Ḥadīth,  “The  Nabī (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) passed  by  Abū  Mūsā,  who  was reciting  the  Quraan, and  intently  started to listen to his  recitation…” The  Ḥadīth  with  those  words  and  narrators  is  weak.  There  is  however a  Ḥadīth  in  Muslim  with  the  same  meaning.  Ibn  Taymiyah  never researched it. He  narrated a  weak Ḥadīth and abandoned the  authentic Ḥadīth.  He  also  narrated,  “Verily  Allaah  more  intently  listens  to  a  man reciting  the  Quraan,  than  a  master  listening  to  his  slave-girl.”  This Ḥadīth  is  weak  and  he  did  not  mention  its  weakness.  Perhaps  he  did not  even know.  

He  mentioned  that  Rasulullaah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  taught  his  Ṣaḥābah  to  recite  the following  when  they  visit  the  graveyard,  “As-salāmu  ‘alykum  dāra qaymim  mu’minīn.  Wa  innā  inshāAllaahu  bikum  lāḥiqūn. Yarḥamullāhul  mustaqdimīna  minnā  wa  min  kum  wal  musta’khirīn. Nas’alullāha  lanā  wa  lakumul  ‘āfiyah.  Lā  tuḥarrimnā  ajrahum  wa  lā taftinnā ba‘dahum. Waghfir lanā wa lahum.

This  du’ā  is  not  narrated  in  these  words  from  Rasulullaah    in  any book  of  Ḥadīth.  He  concocted  the  du’ā  himself  by  joining  one  Ḥadīth to  another;  joining  an  authentic  Ḥadīth  to  a  weak  Ḥadīth;  and  further adding  his  own  words.  He  then  had  the  audacity  to  attribute  this  du’ā to Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)who did not say it.

This  is  Ibn  Taymiyah,  the  Imām  of  the  present  Saalfīs  and  their leader  in  Dīn.  The  “Hero”  of  Islaam  about  whom  they  say  that  Allaah never created the like of him amongst the ‘Ulamā‟.

Ibn  Taymiyah  would  at  times  follow  nothing  but  his  desires  in accepting  or  rejecting  a  Ḥadīth.  What  his  desires  liked  he  accepted, and  what  it  disliked  he  rejected.  You  have  seen  for  example,  how  he accepted  weak  Ḥadīth  and  used  them  as  evidence,  and  some  of  them were  in  fact  extremely  weak.  On  the  other  hand  he  rejects  and  belies the  following  Ḥadīth,  “My  Rabb  Most  Honourable  and  Majestic came  to  me  in  the  best  of  forms…”  al-Imām  Aḥmad  narrated  it  in  his Musnad  from  ‘Abdur  Razzāq  from  Ma’mar  from  Ayyūb  from  Abū Qilābah  from  Ibn  ‘Abbās (radhiyallahu anhu).  At-Tirmiẓī  narrated  it  with  a  different chain. This  is  an  impeccable  chain  without  a  dust  particle  on  it. In addition,  as  stated  in  at-Tirmiẓī,  al-Bukhārī  also  authenticated  it.  AtTirmiẓī  said,  “I  asked  Muḥammad  bin  Ismā’īl  about  this  Ḥadīth,  and he replied, This is an authentic Ḥadīth.”

Ibn  Taymiyah  rejected  this  authentic  Ḥadīth  and  said,  “Every  Ḥadīth that  states  that  Muḥammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saw  his  Rabb with his  eyes  on earth is  a lie….similarly  the  Ḥadīth  which  people  of  knowledge  narrate,  “I  saw my Rabb in such-and-such a state…‟” [p24]

Look  at  the  audacity  of  this  man  who  declared  an  authentic  Ḥadīth  to be  a  lie,  solely  on  the  basis  of  his  desires.  He  took  the  measure  of acceptance  and  rejection  to  be  in  his  hand.  Innā  illāhi  wa  innā  ilayhi rāji‘ūn.

Ibn  Taymiyah  practised  his  fancies  in  many  Ḥadīth  and  other important  matters. This  is  not  hidden from  the  ‘Ulamā‟ of Ḥadīth.  For example,  he  wrote  in  his  booklet  that  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was  given Sūratul  Fātiḥah  from  a  treasure  beneath  the  ‘Arsh?  This  is  a  grave mistake  and clear  fancy.  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  was  not  given  Sūratul  Fātiḥah from  the  treasures  beneath  the  ‘Arsh.  What  he  was  given  from  the treasure  beneath  the  ‘Arsh  is  was  the  last  two  verses  of  Sūratul Baqarah.  This  al-Imām  Aḥmad  narrated  from  Ḥuẓayfah  in  his Musnad.

His  booklet  does  not  exceed  66  pages,  yet  look  at  these  few  examples which  shows  his  low  knowledge  and  understanding  of  Ḥadīth.  What then  would  you  think  of  those  writings  of  his  which  run  into  many volumes and so many pages?

It  should  now  be  clear  that  Ibn  Taymiyah  was  not  an  ‘Ālim  versed  in the  sciences  of  Sharī’ah.  He  was  not  a  resort  to  be  relied  upon  in taking  and  rejecting.  He  is  not  reliable  enough  to  be  a  leader  in  Dīn, due  to  his  many  diversion  from  the  beliefs  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah,  and  his  many  personal  contrary  views.  That  is  why  the researcher-‘Ulamā‟ do not accept his statements.

As  for the  extremism  displayed by  his  party  in  exalting  him, that  is  an excess which Allaah and His Rasūl (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) do not love.

Yes,  he  –  may  Allaah‟s  mercy  be  upon  him  –  had  a  strong  memory and  memorised  many  Ḥadīth  and  statements  of  the  ‘Ulamā‟  in various  fields.  He  could  produce  and  spread  what  he  wished.  He  was a  prolific  writer  and  a  spontaneous  debater.  However,  these  qualities and  firmness  in  knowledge  and  understanding  of  Dīn  are  not  the same. It is not given except to those whom Allaah wishes good. 

Finally,  we  ask  Allaah,  Most  Noble  and  Merciful,  to  guide  us  to uprights  deeds  and  words.  May  He  avert  evil  from  us  through  His grace.  May  He  grant  us  goodness  in  this  world  and  the  next.  He  is  the All-Hearing,  Answerer  of  Du’ā.  Allaah’s  salutations  and  peace  be upon  His  Arab  Nabī  Muḥammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  and  all  his  Companions,  pure Family and pure Wives.

KUFFAAR COLONIZATION OF QUR’AANIC KNOWLEDGE IS TO SURRENDER ISLAM TO KUFFAAR DOMINATION

[By United Ulama Council of South Africa]

The  Western  Christian  conspiracy  to  dominate  the  Ummah  and  extinguish  Islam  has  been an  on-going  perpetual  scheme  since  the  defeat  of  the  Roman  empire  by  Islam.  The Crusader  wars  which  were  initiated  to  achieve  this  goal  have  not  ended.  The  only difference  is  that  the  West  has  adopted  a  new  methodology  and  shifted  the  stage  of conflict  after  they  realized  that  it  was  not  possible  to  eliminate  Islam  on  the  Battlefield  as their  colonization  of  the  Muslim  lands  has  proven.  But,  they  succeeded  in  achieving  their objective  to  a  large  extent  with  their  new  scheme  of  colonizing  the  brains  and  the  hearts  of Muslims.

They  succeeded  in  this  nefarious  plot  by  dismantling  the  Islamic  educational  system  and imposing  their  own  atheistic,  secular  system  in  all  the  lands  of  Islam  which  they  had succeeded  to  colonize  in  consequence  of  the  flagrant  rebellion  against  Allah  Ta’ala  and  the blatant  immorality  –  fisq  and  fujoor  –  of  the  Ummah.  Since  the  Ummah  had  appointed  the Western  kuffaar  as  their  leaders,  Allah  Ta’ala  made  them  our  rulers,  and  to  this  day  they are  ruling  all  the  lands  of  the  Ummah.  All  the  governments,  rulers  and  kings  at  the  helm  of affairs  in  Muslim  lands  are  kuffaar  with  Muslim  names.  They  are  the  worst  type  of Munaafiqeen.  The  Nasaara  of  the  West  have  achieved  its  greatest  success  by  having colonized the brains and hearts of the Ummah

This  satanic  colonization  was  with  the  tool  of  western  secular  education  which  comes  with its  ethos  of  atheism,  liberalism  and  immorality  of  the  worst  kinds.  Their  plot  envisages mellowing  Islam  –  watering  it  down  –  making  it  responsive  to  accept  the  ethos  and  spirit  of western  atheism.  Thus,  via  the  universities  and  other  western  secular  educational institutions  with  their  ‘Islamic’  studies  faculties,  which  are  faculties  of  kufr,  they  gave practical effect to colonizing the brains of Muslim students.

In  this  era,  Darul  Uloom  Deoband  was  the  only  Islamic  educational  Institution  which  served as  the  Last  Bastion  of  Islam.  It  was  a  powerful  Bastion  confronting  the  world  of  kufr  and fighting  the  satanic  menace  of  mental  colonization  imposed  on  Muslims  by  the  West. Deoband’s  educational  system  was  the  system  of  the  Salafus  Saaliheen,  and  only  the  purest form  of  Islam  was  the  Fruit  of  the  Deoband  curriculum  which  the  Akaabir  Ulama  and  Auliya of the then Ummah had introduced.

All  Madaaris  affiliated  to  Darul  Uloom  Deoband  have  hitherto  conducted  themselves  with admirable  independence  by  refusing  to  make  the  curriculum  subservient  to  the  western colonial  policy  of  infusing  it  with  the  kufr  ethos  plotted  by  the  orientalists  for  the destruction  of  Islam.  It  is  not  expected  of  the  Darul  Ulooms  to  now  sacrifice  the independence  of  Shar’i  Uloom  which  our  Akaabir  Ulama  and  Auliya  had  so  zealously guarded  and  maintained  pure  from  all  adulterations  of  kufr.  However,  currently  in  South Africa,  the  confounded,  haraam,  illegitimate  entity,  viz.,  the  NNB  jamiat  (No  Name  jamiat) of  Fordsburg,  masquerading  fraudulently  as  ‘uucsa’  has  been  in  cahoots  with  governmental authorities  in  a  scheme  to  satanize  the  pure  Darul  uloom  curriculum  which  the  Akaabir Ulama and Auliya had  introduced. 

For  the  miserable  and  absolutely  stupid  objective  of  gaining  government  recognition  for molvis,  the  NNB  jamiat  of  Juhala  has  been  in  clandestine  contact  with  the  governmental body  called  HWSETA  (Health  and  Welfare  Sector  Education  and  Training  Authority)  to fabricate  a  new  curriculum  for  the  Darul  Ulooms.  It  is  a  shaitaani  curriculum  to  produce zombie  molvis  who  will  be  subservient  to  the  West  and  who  will  be  prepared  to  lap  up  the vomit  of  the  West  and  on  top  of  it  profusely  thank  the  kuffaar  for  allowing  them  the  favour to  lap  up  their  vomit.  Some  extracts  from  the  miserable  kufr-oriented  curriculum  envisaged for  the  Madaaris  by  the  NNB  jamiat  in  cahoots  with  the  government  are  reproduced  here to  alert  Muslims  and  for  them  to  understand  the  danger  that  this  haraam  NNB  jamiat constitutes for the Ummah.

To  gain  the  Zombie-Molvi  certificate  of  qualification  from  the  government  (the  Madaaris will  be  deceptive  fronts  in  the  new  system),  the  students  will  become  freelancers,  believing themselves  to  be  mujtahids.  The  emphasis  will  be  on  self-interpretation  which  in  terms  of the  Shariah  will  be  haraam  misinterpretation,  the  objective  of  which  will  be  scuttling  the Divine  Shariah  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  No  one  in  this  age  has  the  right  to  arrogate  to  himself  the right  of  interpretation.  The  Deen  was  interpreted,  finalized  and  perfected  during  the  very age  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Confirming  this  fact,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed states:

This  Day  have  I  (Allah)  perfected  for  you  your  Deen,  and  I  have completed  for  you  My    Ni’mat  (Favour),  and  I  have  chosen  for   you Islam  as your Deen.

The  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  and  the  Fuqaha  of  the  first  century  had  codified  and systematized  the  Deen.  Whatever  interpretation  was  needed  to  clarify  the  Deen  was effected  during  the  era  of  Khairul  Quroon.  Thereafter,  no  new  interpretation  was  tolerable, and  so  shall  it  remain  until  Qiyaamah.  Any  new  interpretation  or  re-interpretation  is  a shaitaani  plot  to  dismantle  the  Divine  Shariah  and  to  destroy  Islam.  The  Ulama-e-Haqq cannot and will not allow the satanism of the NNB jamiat to succeed, Insha-Allah.

The  kufr  curriculum  emphasizes  repeatedly:  “Read  and  interpret…     Use  appropriate strategies,  methods,  steps  and  media  to  deal  with  identified  diversions  ….identify  relevant issues that needs interpretation…….

Consider the following devious statements from the curriculum text:

Occupational  Responsibilities:    Exposure  to  the  processes  of  identifying,  diagnosing  and correcting  deviations  from  authentic  traditional  Islamic  sources.  ……  Study,  interpret  and identify policy issues where Islamic viewpoints are required.” 

Effective participation in policy and decision making structures and processes.

Study, interpret and identify policy issues where Islamic viewpoints are required.”

Impart  the  interpretations  derived  from  the  Islamic  sources  using  formal  and  informal methods.”

Teach a structured syllabus in Islamic traditions and sources.

Mentor  potential  scholars. (i.e.  brainwash  them  with  the  liberal  ethos  of    kufr education).

In  order  to  enter  the  qualification  (i.e.  the  scrap  kufr  qualification  of  the  agents  of shaitaan)  a  learner  must  be  in  possession  of  a  recognized  qualification  for  (Zombie)  Imam such as The Occupational Certificate Religious Associate Professional (Imam).”

The  United  Ulama  Council  of  South  Africa  (i.e.  the  bogus,  fraud,  juhala  of  the  NNB jamiat  of  Fordsburg  fraudulently  masquerading  as  UUCSA)  has  been  nominated  to  take  up this role. They have accepted this.”

Identify  and  interpret  the  appropriate  verses  from  the  noble  Quran  relating  to  the principle Islamic beliefs.

Identify and interpret the appropriate Ahadith relating to the principle Islamic beliefs.”

Read and interpret the classical texts relating to the principle Islamic beliefs……

Learners  will  be  expected  to  demonstrate  the  ability  to  apply  the  generic  principles within  the  Islamic  belief  framework  and  ensure  compliance  with  the  Islamic  laws  and  the constitutional principles of South Africa.” (Our emphasis)

This  is  the  shaitaani  trap  being  laid  to  make  the  Ilm  of  the  Qur’aan  subservient  to  the secular  constitution  and  to  produce  bootlicking  zombie  molvis.  Insha-Allah,  we  shall  write in  greater  detail  on  this  ploy  of  Iblees.    How  can  it  ever  be  possible  to  fabricate  a compliance  between  Imaan  and  Kufr,  the  Islamic  Shariah  and  the  secular  constitution without  damaging  and  compromising  the  Haqq  of  Allah’s  Deen?  Innumerable  aspects  of Islam  are  in  stark  opposition  to  the  secular  constitution.    Only  a  mad  man  or  a  traitor  to Islam  or  a  munaafiq  can  fabricate  a  baatil  concept  of  satanic  compliance  between opposites.

Identify  and  describe  the  practice  principles  in  child  and  youth  care  work  within  a  multicultural context.”

What  relationship  does  the  Uloom  of  the  Qur’aan  intended  for  man’s  betterment  and success in the Aakhirah have with the multi-cultural concept of atheists and kuffaar

Identify  the  specific  legislation  relevant  to  the  rights  of  children  and  youth  such  as Children’s Act, Child Justice Act, Norms and Standards, Education Act.”

These  Acts  of  secular  law  are  in  conflict  with  the  Shariah’s  laws  on  these  issues.  The curriculum  is  designed  to  brainwash  the  students  into  accepting  and  believing  in  the superiority  of  these  secular  Acts  of  Law.  This  is  the  same  old  hat  which  is  offered  to  Muslim students  in  the  kuffaar  universities  where  kufr  is  imparted  in  so-called  ‘Islamic’  studies faculties.

identify  and  explain  with  examples  the  four  pillars  of  the  United  Nations  Convention  on the Rights of the Child.

Describe  social  equality  as  it  applies  to  the  child  and  youth  and  is  consistent  with  basic human rights and child rights.”   (Most assuredly in conflict with Islamic tenets).

It  is  indeed  stupid  for  Muslims  to  accept  the  satanic  intrusion  of  the  ‘four  pillars’  of  the United  Nations  into  the  Curriculum  of  Islam.  The  NNB  jamiat’s  bootlicking  subservience  to the  kufr  concepts  and  impositions  of  the  murderous  United  Nations  is  shockingly lamentable.  It  is  haraam  to  have  the  dark  cloud  of  the  kufr  of  the  United  Nations overhanging   the Knowledge of the Qur’aan.

Give  examples  of  social  inequalities  within  the  South  African  society  and  how  this impacts on the development of children and youth…….

Everything  of  Islam  will  necessarily  be  categorized  as  ‘social  inequality’.  Almost  the  whole of Islam is anti-social to the concepts of kufr of the people of the dunya.

The  above  are  a  few  random  hogwash  extracts  from  the  scrap  curriculum  which  the  NNB jamiat  in  cahoots  with  the  HWSETA  is  attempting  to  hoist  on  to  the  Darul  Ulooms.    There  is no  relationship  whatsoever  between  this  scrap  kuffaar  curriculum  and  the  Curriculum  of Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  Sahaabah  –  the  Curriculum  which  our Madaaris  have  inherited  from  the  Salafus  Saaliheen.  There  is  nothing  and  no  better  syllabus than  the  Syllabus  which  we  have  acquired  from  the  Salafus  Saaliheen.  The  Qur’aan  and Islam  are  more  than  fourteen  centuries  old,  and  so  is  the  methodology  of  Ta’leem  of  the Ilm of this Deen which does not tolerate any interference in any of its institutions.

From  the  shaitaani  curriculum,  every  sincere  and  intelligent  Muslim  will  understand  that, leave  alone  any  semblance  of  affinity,  there  is  complete  antagonism  between  the  two systems,  and  why  should  they  not  be  poles  apart  when  the  objective  of  the  secular  system is  the  acquisition  of  the  carrion  of  the  dunya  while  the  goal  and  objective  of  Deeni Knowledge  are  Allah’s  Pleasure  and  the  Salvation  of  the  Aakhirah.  The  NNB  moron  jamiat’s idea  of  a  harmonious  blend  between  Ilm-e-Wahi  (the  Knowledge  of  the  Qur’aan)  and  the scrap  knowledge  of  the  dunya  does  not  comport  with  the  Maqaasid  of  Ilm-e-Deen.  Any   interpretation,  re-interpretation  and  expansion  of  the  sacred  Knowledge  of  Islam  to fabricate  any  concept  at  variance  with    the  Shariah  handed  to  the  Ummah  by  the  Sahaabah and  the  Taabi-een  are  satanic  interpolations  designed  to  extinguish  first  the  spirit  of  Islam, then the letter of Islam, viz., its Shariah.

What  has  been  fed  to  the  NNB  jamiat  traitors  by  the  agents  of  Shaitaan  is  the  same  old  kufr hat  which  the  kuffaar  educational  masters  of  the  West  –  the  orientalists  –  had  dinned  into the  ears  and  indoctrinated  into  the  brains  of  Anglo-Muslim  students  studying  at  the  socalled  Islamic  studies  faculties  of  the  atheist  universities.  For  those  zombie  molvis  who  will be  brainwashed  by  the  kufr  system  of  ‘islamic’  education,  the  concepts  and  institutions  of Islam  will  take  on  a  new  texture  and  meaning  totally  at  variance  and  in  conflict  with  the Islam  revealed  to  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  passed  on  to  posterity  by  the Sahaabah  and  the  successive  generations  of  Islam  by  way  of  reliable  and  authentic narration.

The  hybrid,  stupid,  scrap  curriculum  which  the  kuffaar  are  conspiring  to  impose  on  Muslims with  the  aid  of  the  fraud  and  bogus  uucsa  operated  by  the  NNB  jamiat  cannever  produce an  Aalim  of  the  Deen.  The  products  which  this  silly  scrap  curriculum/syllabus  will  churn  out will  be  zombie  molvis  whose  brains  will  be  colonized  and  fitted  into  the  straightjacket  of kufr  liberalism  the  objective  of  which  will  be  the  destruction  of  Islam.  The  deceptive utilization  of  Islamic  terminology  to  market  the  scrap  kufr  curriculum  should  not  fool Muslims.  The  very  bottom  line  for  correct  appraisal  and  understanding  of  the  reality  is  that nothing  can  replace  the  sacred  curriculum  of  the  Sahaabah.  We  are  welded  to  the  Sunnah as  it  was  imparted  during  the  Khairul  Quroon.  As  long  as  Muslims  staunchly  adhere  to  the Sunnah, the evil conspiracies of the vile plotters will not harm us. 

Currently  the  NNB  jamiat  has  its  own  madhouse  ‘madrasah’  where  the  Qur’aan  with  its  Ilm has  been  made  subservient  to  secular  education.  Without  a  scrap  matric  certificate,  the NNB  jamiat  has  made  the  acquisition  of  higher  Deeni  Knowledge  unlawful.  It  is  this  kufr system  which  will  be  expanded  manifold  in  the  curriculum  which  is  being  plotted  by  the agents of shaitaan. It  should  be  understood  that  this  is  only  the  first  step  to  harness  the  Ilm  of  the  Qur’aan.  The process  will  be  incremental,  like  the  proverbial  camel  which  was  given  space  by  its  master to  insert  only  its  neck  into  the  tent  for  warmth.  The  camel  was  incrementally  allowed  to enter  by  degrees  until  it  was  completely  inside  the  tent  from  whence  it  kicked  out  its master.  It  is  imperative  for  the  Ulama  associated  with  the  Darul  Ulooms  to  cure  themselves of  the  malady  of  intellectual  myopia  to  enable  them  to  understand  and  foresee  the consequences of this shaitaan plot. 

The  argument  that  the  benefit  of  government  control  and  supervision  of  the  Madaaris  and their  educational  system  is  the  availability  of  study  visas  for  foreign  students  is  ridiculously stupid.  The  Uloom  of  the  Deen  may  not  be  surrendered  to  shaitaan  and  the  kuffaar  for  the acquisition  of  lousy  visas.  Confound  the  visas.  The  students,  if  they  are  sincere,  will  find some  alternative  institutions.  There  is  no  imperative  need  for  them  to  come  to  South Africa.

It  is  haraam  to  submit  to  the  haraam  system  which  is  being  plotted.  It  is  not  permissible to  study  the  Deen  under  the  confounded  western  system.  It  is  a  system  designed  to destroy  Islam  –  a  system  camouflaged  with  an  ’un-Islamic’  outer  veneer.  But  on  close examination,  it  stinks.  It  reeks  of  kufr  and  shaitaaniyat.  Surrendering  the  sacred  Ilm  of the  Qur’aan  to  the  kuffaar  is  in  effect  to  surrender  Islam  for  destruction.

Refuting La-Madhabi’s Regarding the Timing of Salaat al ‘Asr

[By: Majlisul Ulama  of  South Africa]

THE DISPUTE

Like many issues of the Deen, the time of ‘Asr Salaat was resolved and settled fourteen centuries ago during the Khairul Quroon.  The Four Madhabs (Hanafi, Maaliki, Shaafi and Hanbali) have their Qur’aanic and Hadith proofs for their respective views and rulings on the various laws of the Shari’ah. The followers of the Four Islamic Madhabs which constitute the  Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah have been practising  the teachings and tenets of Islam in accordance with the expositions of their respective Madhabs throughout the passage of Islam’s centuries in harmony, understanding and accepting the validity of the standpoints of all Madhabs.

In recent times there has developed a sect  of misguided people called  Ghair-Muqallids  who have resolved to make unnecessary conflict and controversy a salient feature of their deviated madhab. Teachings of the Madhabs which have been settled and accepted fourteen centuries ago have been unnecessarily and baselessly criticized and branded as being in conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah

Although the La-Madhabis criticize all Four Madhabs in general, they have displayed considerable rancour and gorged out much invective for the Hanafi Math-hab in particular. Their main allegation against the Ahnaaf is that Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and the Fuqaha of the Hanafi Madhab issued rulings  in conflict with the Hadith, which of course, has to be dismissed with contempt. The charge is utterly baseless.

ASR  TIME

The present discussion is on the question of Asr time. When does it begin?  According to the Ahnaaf, Asr time commences at  Mithlain, i.e. when the length of the shadow of an object has reached twice the length of the object plus  Fay-e-Zawaal.  If, for example, the length of the shadow of a meter stick at Zawaal is 10 centimetres, then Asr time will begin when the length of the shadow is two metres and 10 centimetres.

According to the deviant Salafis, Asr  time commences at one  Mithl, i.e. when the shadow equals one length of the object plus  Fay-e-Zawaal.  This is also the viewpoint  of the other Madhabs.

The purpose of our article is not to refute the validity of the viewpoints of the other Madhabs. There is no dispute with them. However, the criticism and baseless charges directed against the Hanafi Madhab by the La-Madhabis have necessitated a response to show that the Hanafi view is based on the Hadith in the same way as the other Mathhabs claim that their views are structured on the Hadith.

Since the La-Madhabis and other Ghair Muqallideen of their ilk, in obedience to desire and  opinion, have embarked on spreading confusion in the Ummah on masaail which have been resolved many centuries ago, the need for this response and refutation developed. In sha’Allah, this discussion will debunk their baseless claim that the Hanafi Fuqaha have employed logic in conflict with the Sunnah to formulate the rules of the Shari’ah. It is there allegation that the Ahnaaf resort to opinion and interpretation inspite of the existence of clear Hadith proofs to the contrary.

At the very outset we should say that on the issue of the beginning of Asr time, the la-madhabis have no Hadith which categorically asserts  the  Mithl  view. They have resorted to interpretation of the Ahaadith in order to arrive at their opinion of  Mithl.  They simply lack even a single Hadith which clearly states the  Mithl  view. Thus, their charge of logic directed to the Ahnaaf rebounds on themselves and their opinion. It will, therefore, be correct for us to say that the deviant British registered la-madhabis have no Hadith evidence for their  Mithl opinion. Let us now examine the basis and proofs of the two viewpoints on this question.

(1) THE HADITH OF THE IMAAMATE   OF JIBRAEEL (alayhis salaam)

The only Hadith which the La-Madhabis present to substantiate their view of  Mithl,  i.e. Asr begins after the shadow has reached one length), is the Hadith which explains the times when Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) led Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in Salaat, The Hadith is as follows:

“Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Jibraeel led me (i.e. became the Imaam) in Salaat by the Bait twice. On the first of the two occasions he performed Zuhr when the shadow was the length of a shoelace (i.e. very early) Then he performed Asr when the shadow of every object was equal to one mithl (once its length). Thereafter he performed Maghrib……………On the second occasion he performed Zuhr when the shadow of every thing was its mithl (one length) which was the Asr time of the day before. Then he performed Asr when the shadow was mithlain (twice the length of the object)……”   (Tirmidhi)

This Hadith constitutes the strongest proof for the one Mithl  view. Our argument in refutation of the Ghair Muqallideen’s view pertaining to this particular Hadith is as follows:

(a) When it suits their desires, the Ghair Muqallideen conveniently overlook their own principles of deduction and formulation of rules. They always demand  unambiguous/ categoric (SareehAhaadith of the  Saheeh  class from their adversaries for the masaail. However, when they fail to discover any such Ahaadith to bolster their claims, they have no hesitation in accepting narrations of lesser degree of strength than  Saheeh  and even  narrations of ambiguous and contradictory meanings.

This particular Hadith which is their strongest  daleel (proof) is of the  Hasan  category. Ahaadith of this category are valid as basis by the Ahnaaf. But it devolves on la-madhabis who are so vociferous in their demand for  Saheeh and Sareeh  Ahaadith to produce such narrations. Presentation of narrations of a lesser category than  Saheeh  is improper for them.
(b)  Although this Hadith mentions that on the first of the two occasions Asr was performed at one  Mithl, it is ambiguous in view of the contradiction of Zuhr having been performed also at one  Mithl  on the second occasion. In terms of the principle:  “When the proofs are contradictory, they are discarded.”,  this Hadith should not be tendered as proof for Asr time. The contradiction has constrained the operation of this principle.

While the Hadith should not be used to substantiate the one  Mithl  view on account of  the contradiction, a suitable interpretation has to be offered to avoid dismissing the Hadith which is of an authentic class albeit not of the  Saheeh  category. The best and most logical answer for the ostensible contradiction is that the performance of Zuhr at one  Mithl  on  the second occasion abrogates the Asr time of the previous day when Asr was performed at one Mithl.

On the basis of the interpretation of abrogation, the contradiction is eliminated and the Asr view of  Mithlain (twice the length of the object) is upheld, in fact categorically confirmed by the following statement appearing in this very same Hadith: “Then he performed Asr when the shadow was mithlain.”

(c)  The other contradiction apparent here is that the Hadith clearly states that on the second occasion Zuhr was performed  “at the time of Asr of the day before”.   Zuhr may not be performed during Asr time. It has to be performed in its own time. Inspite of this, Hadhrat Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) led Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in  Zuhr Salaat at a time which was Asr time the day before. This is further confirmation of the abrogation of the Asr time  of the previous day.

While one  Mithl  was the Asr time yesterday, today it was abrogated practically by performing Zuhr Salaat  in the same time, i.e. the time when it was Asr the day before.

(d)  The following Hadith in Saheeh Muslim goes against the grain of the la-madhabis and rejects the one  Mithl  view for Asr:

Abdullah Bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: “Verily, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The time of Zuhr is when the sun has past the zenith  and (at that time) the shadow of  a man was as his length— and it lasts until the time of Asr has not set in…….

This Hadith  categorically states that Zuhr time  was at one Mithl.  It is quite obvious that Asr cannot therefore also be at one  Mithl.  This Hadith also confirms the view of abrogation, namely, that Asr which was performed at one Mithl  on the first occasion of Jibraeel’s  imamate was abrogated when he performed Zuhr at one  Mithl  on the next day.

(e)  Since the Ghair Muqallideen in general rely so heavily on this particular Hadith, they should act in accord with it in entirely, not selectively. The Hadith states with clarity that on the second day Zuhr was performed at the time when Asr was performed the previous day. But this is not the madhab of the ghair muqallideens. They discard this section of the Hadith inspite of it being after the practice of the first day. The Asr time of the previous time became the Zuhr time of the next day. But this is not the view of the la-madhabis inspite of  the clarity of the Hadith on this aspect.  Thus, this Hadith goes contrary to the view held by the la-madhabis.

The la-madhabis have attempted to overcome this difficulty  by arguing that Asr was performed  after  one mithl on the first day and  Zuhr   before  one  mithl on  the second day.  This argument is devoid of substance  because:

(1) The Hadith in question states with clarity that Asr was performed on the first day at one Mithl, not  after  one  Mithl.

(2) The Hadith likewise states explicitly that Zuhr on the second day was performed at one  Mithl, not  before  one  Mithl.

(3) The Hadith is very clear in mentioning that Zuhr was performed on the second day  “at the time of Asr of the previous day”.

(4) The Hadith of Abdullah Bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) also confirms that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) stated that the time of Zuhr is after Zawaal, and that was a time when the shadow was one  Mithl.

(5) The Hadith of Jaabir (radhiyallahu anhu) in Nasai states that Zuhr was performed when the shadow was one  Mithl.   This Hadith relates to the very same episode of the imamate of Jibraeel (alayhis salaam). The relevant words are:  “Then he (Jibraeel) came the next day when the shadow of a man was its mithl. He then said: ‘Stand up, O Muhammad! And perform Salaat.’ Then he performed Zuhr.”

It should be noted that on the second day Hadhrat Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) arrived only  when the shadow was one mithl.  Thus the Zuhr Salaat which he commanded Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to perform was  after one mithl, not before one mithl.

This portion of the Hadith confirms the  viewpoint of the Ahnaaf that after one  Mithl   it is still Zuhr time.

(2)  THE HADITH OF ABDULLAH IBN UMAR (radhiyallahu anhu)

Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:  “The time of Zuhr is when the sun has passed the meridian and the shadow of a man is his length, until Asr has not set in……..”  (Saheeh Muslim)

This Hadith explicitly mentions that Zuhr time begins after Zawaal and when the shadow is one  mithl. It is mentioned with clarity that Zuhr is during one mithl.

(3)  THE HADITH OF THE HUJRAH
“Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) narrates: Verily,  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) performed Asr while the sun was in her hujrah (room) while the shadow had not yet become apparent (on the walls).”

This Hadith ostensibly indicates that Asr was performed very early before  Mithlain.  The rationale for the one  mithl view in this narration is that if the shadow had already attained two lengths  (mithlain),  it would have been visible on the walls of the very small room.

The door of the  hujrah  faced west where the sun sets. There was no roof at the entrance of the  hujrah. This allowed the sun to shine inside the room.  Different explanations are given regarding the phenomenon of the shadow in this situation. Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh) said: “There is no indication that (the Salaat) was performed early…..In fact, this narration indicates delay, not early performance.”

Whatever merit the la-madhabis may discern in this Hadith for their view,  the ambiguity of the narration constrains them to resort to interpretation. The narration is not a categoric proof for the one  mithl  view.

(4) THE HADITH  OF THE SUBURBS

“Anas Ibn Maalik (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would perform Asr while the sun was high and bright. A man would go to the outlying suburbs and reach there while the sun was still high. Some of the suburbs were about four miles from Madinah.”                (Bukhaari)

The argument is that the arrival of a person in the suburbs would have to be before  mithlain   because the sun would be quite high by the time he reached. 

This line of argument is extremely flimsy and cannot be presented as incontrovertible proof for the one  mithl  view, especially when this view is in conflict with other Ahaadith (already discussed) which explicitly mention one  Mithl for  Zuhr and Mithlain  for Asr. Furthermore, the Hadith has to be interpreted to conform to the one  mithl  view. It is not an explicit statement which substantiates the la-madhabis viewpoint.

This Hadith is not proof for the  mithl  view because it is quite possible to reach the outlying suburbs while the sun was still high after having performed Asr at Mithlain

Furthermore, the words ‘Was-shamsu murtiafah’  (the sun was high) means that the person would arrive quite some time prior to sunset. The sun being high in this context means, well before sunset. It does not mean before  mithlain.  While the sun was ‘high’, it was not at a height before  mithlain.   On the contrary it was close to setting. This is more reasonable since it would take approximately 1 hour 40 minutes to walk the 4 miles (7.2 kilometers). If the walk was commenced after Asr at  Mithlain,  the person would arrive while the sun was still quite high above the western horizon prior to sunset.

There is no evidence in this Hadith that Asr was performed at one  mithl.

(5) THE HADITH OF THE CAMEL

“Anas Ibn Maalik (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) performed Asr. When he turned (to leave) a man from Bani Salmah came to him and said: O Rasulullah! We intend slaughtering a camel and wish you to attend. Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) replied: ‘Yes.’ He proceeded and we went with. We found that the camel had not yet been slaughtered. It was then slaughtered, cut up and cooked. We ate of it before the sun had set.”    (Saheeh Muslim)

This Hadith is also cited in substantiation of the one  mithl  view. It is argued that if Asr was performed  after  Mithlain, all this could not be possible. This claim is arbitrary and incorrect. It is quite possible to accomplish all this even after having performed Asr after  Mithlain.  The persons carrying out the work of slaughtering, skinning, cutting and cooking of the camel’s meat  were experts. This work did not pose a formidable task for them. The  interpretation of  Asr at one  mithl  claimed on the basis of this  Hadith is extremely flimsy and untenable.

Besides the aforegoing ambiguous Ahaadith, the la-madhabis have no  Sareeh  (explicit) Hadith to substantiate their claim that Asr commences at one  Mithl.  Their entire case is the product of interpretation. Ahaadith of ambiguous meanings have been interpreted to produce the ruling of one  Mithl.  Furthermore, the interpretations are far fetched, and this reduces the strength of their argumentation and the credibility of their view. On the contrary, the Hadith narrations speak with greater clarity in favour of the Hanafi view, namely, Asr begins at  Mithlain

The Hadith proofs of the Ahnaaf are as follows:

(1) The Hadith (No.1)  pertaining to the imaamate of Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) which has already been discussed and  explained.

(2)  The Hadith of Abdullah Bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) which explicitly mentions that Zuhr time was also at one  Mithl. This has already been discussed.

(3) The Hadith of Ibraad 

“Abu Dharr Ghafaari (radhiyallahu anhu) said: We were with Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on a journey when the muath-thin intended to give Adhaan for Zuhr. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Wait until it becomes cool (i.e. delay the Athaan until it becomes a bit cool).’ (After some time), the muath-thin  again intended to give the Adhaan Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said to him: ‘Wait till it is a bit cool.’ (The Muath-thin waited) until we saw the shadow of the dunes. Then Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Verily, the intensity of the heat is  of the flames of Jahannum Therefore when the heat is intense, delay the Salaat until it is cool.”   (Bukhaari)

It is quite apparent from this Hadith that the Muath-thin had intended to recite the Athaan quite early, i.e. before one  mithl. However, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) twice ordered him to delay the Zuhr Athaan which the Muath-thin recited only after the appearance of the shadows of the sand dunes. The appearance of the shadows of the dunes was after one  mithl. Thus it is confirmed that one  mithl  and after it is still time of Zuhr.

In response to this proof of the Ahnaaf, it is argued that the instruction to delay Zuhr was on a journey, and perhaps this was for combining Zuhr with Asr. This argument is baseless because the Hadith explicitly mentions the reason for delaying Zuhr until the shadows of the dune became visible. The reason which  is explicitly stated in the Hadith is:  “The intensity of the heat is of the flames of Jahannam.”

This  illat  (reason) applies whether one is on a journey or not. It is common to both situations, hence the ruling will apply whenever and wherever the illat exists.

Furthermore, in another Hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu), Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:  “When the heat becomes intense, then delay the Salaat until it becomes cool, for verily, the intensity of the heat is of the flames of Jahannum.” (Bukhaari)

Another Hadith in this regard recorded in Nasaai confirms this position with greater clarity. Anas Bin Maalik (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates:  “When it would be hot, he would delay the Salaat until coolness, and when it was cold,  he would perform it early.”

We understand from this Hadith that delaying Zuhr Salaat when it was very hot, and performing the Salaat early when it was cold, were the normal practices of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Hence, to restrict the delay to  safar  (journey) is utterly baseless.

This Hadith is conspicuous proof for the view of the Ahnaaf that one  mithl  is still Zuhr time, not Asr. The question of the setting in of ‘coolness’ does not arise before  mithl (one shadowlength). Before one  mithl, the heat is intense.  The description of  “the flames of Jahannum” will appropriately apply to the heat prior to one  mithl, not to the heat after one  mithl.  The heat after one mithl  is ‘cool’ in relation to the heat before it.

Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) emphasis  on  ibraad (to perform Zuhr Salaat when the heat had relatively cooled) is adequate proof for the claim of the Ahnaaf that it was his normal practice to perform Zuhr after one  mithl.  This effectively negates the contention of Asr being at one mithl.

Some have attempted to argue against the Ahnaaf with an even  weaker interpretation. It is claimed that   ibraad  here does not mean to delay Salaat, but it means the opposite, viz. to perform Salaat early during the time called  Burdun Nahaar  (early afternoon). This weak interpretation is negated by the following facts:

In the Hadith cited by Abu Dharr Ghafaari (radhiyallahu anhu), Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) explicitly  instructed the Muath-thin on two occasions to refrain from the Adhaan and to delay it until it becomes cool. This instruction would be correct only if the Muath-thin had attempted to give the Adhaan early, as indeed he had.

It is incorrect to describe the  relatively ‘cooler’ heat of the early afternoon as being of  the flames of Jahannum.  This description aptly applies to the intense heat of the time after one mithl, not to the early afternoon heat. 

(4)  The one Mithl shadow

In the Hadith of Abdullah Ibn Umar (already discussed), the one  mithl  shadow of a man is not mentioned as the final time of Zuhr. It is stated as the  Awwal Waqt  (the Initial Time)  with clarity. It is therefore baseless to aver that this initial time of Zuhr is the beginning of Asr.

ENDING OF ZUHR AT MITHLAIN

From the Ahaadith which we have discussed it is abundantly clear that Zuhr Salaat was performed even after one  Mithl.  There is not  a  single narration from which it could be inferred that Zuhr was performed after  Mithlain  (two shadow lengths). On the contrary,  the Hadith is explicit in stating that Asr was performed when it was  Mithlain.   Narrating the Hadith of the imamate of Jibraeel  (alayhis salaam), Hadhrat Jaabir (radhiyallahu anhu) says:

“Then Jibraeel came (on the second day) when the shadow of a man was twice his length. Then he said: ‘Stand up, O Muham mad and perform Salaat.’ He then performed Asr.”  (Nasaai) It has been established beyond doubt that Zuhr time continues after one  Mithl,  and that  Mithlain  is the time of Asr in the unanimous view of all authorities. While there is difference on the beginning of Asr time, no one disputes the validity of  Asr when it is  Mithlain.  There is no third view.  Mithlain  is confirmed to be exclusively Asr time. Hence, it is a logical necessity to accept that Zuhr time expires when it is  Mithlain  which ushers in the time for Asr.

CONCLUSION

The contention of the la-madhabis is that the case of the Ahnaaf is not based on Hadith, but is in conflict with Hadith. They pretend that their view is structured on  Sareeh  (explicit) Hadith narrations of the  Saheeh  class. But this is not the case. It has been seen that the primary basis of their view, viz., the Hadith of Jibraeel’s Imaamate,  is not a   Sareeh  substantiation for their view. On the contrary, it contradicts their opinion. The view of  Asr commencing with one  Mithl  has no  Sareeh Hadith to bolster it. Interpretation (Ta’weel)  has been adopted to support the one mithl view with Ahaadith.

All Madhabs employ the Hadith  of Jibraeel’s Imaamate as their basis. Just as the Ahnaaf  are constrained to resort to interpretation of the Ahaadith on this question, so too are all others compelled to adopt interpretation. There is, therefore, no justification for the allegation that the view of the Ahnaaf is in conflict with the Ahaadith.

This exercise has not been embarked on with the intention to disprove the views of the other three Madhabs on the question of Asr time. The aim is only to show that the ruling of the Hanafi Madhab is based on the Ahaadith, not  in conflict with it.

Did ʼAmir Muʻāwiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) curse or order the cursing of ʻAlī (radhiyallahu anhu)

By Shaykh Mumtāz al-Ḥaqq Mālik
Edited byʻAbd Allāh al-Afrīqī 

Shīʻahs [and many amongst the Sunnī’s] are led to believe that ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) started the despicable innovation of cursing and ordering the cursing of ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) – (Na’audhubillah) Allāh forbid!

There is absolutely no authentic proof found in Sunni sources to support this idea. This is purely a Shiʻah accusation against a noble Companion of Rasūl Allāh (ṣallallāhu ʻalayhi wasallam), a scribe of revelation (waḥy), the uncle of believers, ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu).

The only Ṣāḥīḥ narration in Sunnī literature is that by Saʻd ibn ʼAbī Waqqaṣ (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu), one of the ʻAsharah Mubasharah, as reported in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Shīʻahs often misquote this ḥadīth to prove their point. The actual ḥadīth is,

حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادٍ، – وَتَقَارَبَا فِي اللَّفْظِ – قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا حَاتِمٌ، – وَهُوَ ابْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ – عَنْ بُكَيْرِ بْنِ مِسْمَارٍ، عَنْ عَامِرِ بْنِ سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي وَقَّاصٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ أَمَرَ مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ سَعْدًا فَقَالَ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَسُبَّ أَبَا التُّرَابِ فَقَالَ أَمَّا مَا ذَكَرْتُ ثَلاَثًا قَالَهُنَّ لَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَلَنْ أَسُبَّهُ لأَنْ تَكُونَ لِي وَاحِدَةٌ مِنْهُنَّ أَحَبُّ إِلَىَّ مِنْ حُمْرِ النَّعَمِ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ لَهُ خَلَّفَهُ فِي بَعْضِ مَغَازِيهِ فَقَالَ لَهُ عَلِيٌّ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ خَلَّفْتَنِي مَعَ النِّسَاءِ وَالصِّبْيَانِ فَقَالَ لَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏”‏ أَمَا تَرْضَى أَنْ تَكُونَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى إِلاَّ أَنَّهُ لاَ نُبُوَّةَ بَعْدِي ‏”‏ ‏.‏ وَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ ‏”‏ لأُعْطِيَنَّ الرَّايَةَ رَجُلاً يُحِبُّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيُحِبُّهُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ فَتَطَاوَلْنَا لَهَا فَقَالَ ‏”‏ ادْعُوا لِي عَلِيًّا ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَأُتِيَ بِهِ أَرْمَدَ فَبَصَقَ فِي عَيْنِهِ وَدَفَعَ الرَّايَةَ إِلَيْهِ فَفَتَحَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَمَّا نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الآيَة{‏ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ‏}‏ دَعَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَلِيًّا وَفَاطِمَةَ وَحَسَنًا وَحُسَيْنًا فَقَالَ ‏”‏ اللَّهُمَّ هَؤُلاَءِ أَهْلِي ‏”‏ ‏.‏

Saʻd ibn ʼAbī Waqqaṣ (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) said, “Muʻāwiyah ibn ʼAbī Sufyān (radhiyallahu anhu) said (to him) , “What prevents you from making sabb of ʼAbū Turāb (ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu))?” So He (Saʻd) said, “Because I remember three things Rasūl Allāh (ṣallallāhu ʻalayhi wasallam) said about him. So I will never make sabb of him. Even one of those things would have been more dear to me than red camels…” to the end. (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim)

The above narration is about a meeting between ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and Saʻd ibn ʼAbī Waqqaṣ (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu), which occurred at Ḥājj after ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) had been martyred and ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) had been appointed Khalīfah. ʻUthmān’s (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) killers were amongst the supporters of ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu).

Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr had come with them and brought them to assassinate ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu). This was due to a grudge he had with ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu). When Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr grabbed ʻUthmān’s beard to push and throw him down, ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) said to him, “If your father saw this, he would not have been happy.”

These words of ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) shook Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr and he left ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and stepped back. The others who had come with him jumped on ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and martyred him. ʻUthmān’s (radhiyallahu anhu’s) wife tried to intervene and was also hurt in this struggle. She later testified to the whole event and the role of Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr that he had brought the killers with him but then did not take part in the eventual killing.

Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr’s mother ʼAsmāʼ bint ʻUmais (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhā), after the death of ʼAbū Bakr (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu), married ʻAlī (raḍiyallāhu ʻanhu). So Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr was his step son.

When ʻUthmān’s (radhiyallahu anhu) wife identified Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr as a culprit and the killers were known to him as he came with them, so when ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and the other Ṣaḥābah demanded prompt justice for the killing of ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) felt unable to deliver that justice promptly, ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiya -llāhu ʻanhu) blamed ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) for this apparent inability to deliver justice for ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu). Especially as well because the killers were among the supporters of ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and known to his step son, Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr.

ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) then lobbied some of the senior Ṣaḥābah for this. Saʻd ibn ʼAbī Waqqaṣ (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) was amongst the few most senior Ṣaḥābah alive as he was from amongst the ʻAsharah Mubasharah and one of the six members of the committee appointed by ʻUmar (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) to choose the Khalīfah after him and he was also amongst those who had initially appointed ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and then ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) to be Khalīfah as well. Hence, Saʻd ibn ʼAbī Waqqaṣ (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) was a powerful figure and a very senior Ṣaḥābī.

When ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) met him at Hajj , he questioned him, مامنعكانتسباباتراب “What prevents you from making sabb of ʼAbū Turāb? “

Sabb in Arabic does not mean curse. Although it generally means to swear but it also means to blame someone. If ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) had wanted Saʻd (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) to curse ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) then he would have said, مامنعكانتلعناباتراب “What prevents you from cursing ʼAbū Turāb?” But he does not say that. ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) only questioned Saʻd (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu), that, “What prevents you from making sabb of ʼAbū Turāb?” He did not force him to do so. When Saʻd (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) replied that he can’t and won’t, and gave his reasons, ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) stopped, did not pressure him and left him. From this it is clear that there is no compulsion of cursing ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) from ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu).

The entire issue has been exaggerated and misunderstood. The reality is as explained above. ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) only wanted Saʻd (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) to blame ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) for not being able to deliver justice for ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu).

In any case , if ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) was ever cursed by ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu), then why did Ḥasan and Ḥusayn (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhum) give him allegiance, visit him and stay with him, and accept his gifts? Would anybody behave that way towards someone who cursed their father and especially if that father was ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and the children were the likes of Ḥasan and Ḥusayn (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhum). Secondly, from the many sons and grandsons of ʻAlī (raḍiyallāhu ʻanhu), did none of them have the courage and respect to stand up in honour of their father and grandfather, if and when ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) was being cursed?

If the Shīʻah version of ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) being cursed had any truth, then it leaves the entire ʼAhl al-Bayt and descendents of ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) as being unable and unwilling to stand up in defence of the honour of their noble father and grandfather, which cannot be defined as a virtuous character trait.

If ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) used to curse and ordered the cursing of ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and this evil practice supposedly continued for many years, then we ask:

Where were the Shīʻahs of ʻAlī  during all of this period? Did they simply not exist? Were they not faithful and loyal to ʻAlī at all?

And Allāh – Most High – knows best!