Sufism - Response To A Sufi Symphathizer

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

May I start by asking Allah Ta’ala to guard me and you – and all brothers – against any form of partisanship in the name of anything other than Islam, the deen of Allah as brought by our noble Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). It is indeed very interesting that a Muslim should always remain a Muslim and should strive, as much as possible, to be free from being partisan except for the name of Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). While this is a fundamental truth, it is equally important to bear in mind that when one is a Muslim, he cannot free himself from being against what is unIslamic and in contradiction to the teachings of the Rasul (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). That is because Islam and indeed the whole teachings and life of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) are no more obscure, neither are they mysterious.

The deen of Allah has been completed before the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) left this world, and all these are found in the Qur’an and the authentic sunnah of the Prophet. But it is not a hidden fact that the Ummah has been divided into groups and sects, each has formulated for itself either sets of beliefs or different phases of ibadaat, and each claiming what he practises to be in line with the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), for no Muslim will admit that he professes something that negates his teachings. We are therefore left with the question: how do we ascertain what is in line with the teachings of the Prophet in order to differentiate it from what is against it? Here comes the issue of the fundamental yardstick with which to carry out this important task, that is the Qur’an and the Sunnah (sayings, deeds, and implied approvals) of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) based on the understanding of those pious and noble companions. This is another vital aspect of understanding the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). That is because the companions who lived with him and witnessed the Qur’an being revealed to him, were the direct and immediate subjects of his teachings, the students who received his lessons and understood and practised it in the way and manner ordered and desired by Allah Ta’ala. Any mistake on their part in the course of practising any injunction is redressed immediately by ‘Wahy’.

This is why it is of fundamental importance to believe that the Islam practised by the Sahabah is the best as it conforms with and reflects the true teachings of the Rasul and affirms that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) really taught them what Allah ordered and that he was the best of all teachers, the most successful instructor able to bring forth a generation which was able to change and influence the whole world within a period of less than twenty years from his death. It is in the light of the above that Islam frowns at anything new and not known to be part of it in the days of the Prophet as an aspect or pattern of worship through which the pleasure of Allah is sought.

On a more specific note, upholding the view that one does not belong to any group, is a fact very necessary and rational, if by that, he means he will not belong to any group in a sort of blind way as to believe that anything not upheld by that group is false. But if dissociating one’s self with any group means he will focus on any matter regarding religion from a neutral point of view without sticking to a specific Islamic principle based on the supremacy of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the practice of the pious predecessors, then this is surely anything but right. What Islam requires from his subjects is that the virtue or otherwise of anything, anyone or any group is measured by that person’s or group’s conformity with Islam and its teachings. One must believe that Islam is the only religion accepted by Allah, the most pure, absolute and not relative truth, the best value system suitable to mankind and the most accurate way of life that guides to every goodness in this world and in the hereafter.

Any good thing found in any other way not Islam is found in Islam and more, so we may praise that way or path for being in line with what Islam taught, but not for containing something Islam fails to attain. That is why when the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) saw Umar ibn al-Khattab (radiyallahu ‘anhu) with some papers he got from a Jew, and read it to the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), the Prophet was outraged and immediately rebuked him and said: ((…I have indeed brought it (this deen and path) to you so clean and neat…I swear by Him in whose Hand is my life, Had Musa been alive it wouldn’t be allowed for him but to follow me) – Ahmad 3/387, Darimi 1/115, Ibn Abi Shai’bah No. (26421) and others. Its isnad is Hasan.
So the fact that the Shi’ites, for example, called on all Muslims to rise against America or its values, is not because that is part of the Shi’ii creed independent of other Muslims and that you can not find same with any other groups of the Muslims. Rather it is Islam that calls upon all Muslims not to take the non-believers as friends, and the failure of other groups to make such calls does not mean they do not have that in their set of beliefs.

Secondly the issue of a write-up being balanced, differs relatively from one subject to another just as it differs from the writer’s ideological background. After all, in Islam what is known to be hailed most when speaking or writing about others, is that one should be just and should not ascribe anything contrary to the reality of the person or topic he discusses. But if what is meant by being balanced is that one must appear or sound neutral, or that when he presents an opposing view he must necessarily give the proposing view, I beg to assert that this is not a general principle in Islam, although it is allowed if one will later on specify the correct path so as not to leave people in the dark, thereby implying that all is one and same. In the same vein, if I am asked about Christianity, for instance, will I be charged with being unfair by pointing the Islamic view alone and stressing that it is a corrupted religion proscribed by Allah with the coming of Islam et cetera.

That is why I am more surprised after reading M. Halilu’s introduction to the response he posted on Hijazi’s article, calling for non-partisanship, to find the writer of the response a Sufi and his response so ‘imbalance’ in the sense that he made some unfounded charges against Hijazi just by way of reading his mind under the pretense of reading between the lines.

This issue of balance and imbalance and the issue of some ‘Sheiks’ lacking in da’wah methodology as cast on this forum from time to time are of course topics that need to be discussed in a more detailed manner. May Allah spare us or other brothers the time to take it up.

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,
Fariduddien Rice, in his response to Yusuf Hijazi’s article, charges him of lying, relying on non-Muslim sources, failing to provide references to some of the issues he raised, condemning Muslims and attributing them to kufr and shirk, among other things.
The piece I am writing will focus more on providing the sources and references Hijazi is charged of failing to give. This will also answer the charge of relying on non-Muslim sources, although most of Hijazi’s non-Muslim references appear to be connected with definitions of some terms. Other charges are mere personal attacks as can be seen clearly.
As regards the origin of the word Sufi there are of course many differing views on that and the Sufis themselves are not in agreement. Affirming this, Al-Sahrawardi believes that the Sufis’ definition of the word are more than one thousand. (See: ‘Awariful Ma’aarif p. 54). Another Sufi claims there are about two thousand definitions of the word (See Tahir al-Hamidi’s introduction to al-Ta’arrufi Li Madhhabi Ahlit Tasawwuf, by Abubakr al-Kalaabaadhi, p. 11). I don’t think there is a word so ‘blessed’ with such number of meanings.
As for Ibn Taimiyyah’s position on Sufism, it is true that he praised some of the famous Shaikhs attributed to Sufism, but it is important to note that he did so not for the sake of Sufism as a thought, but because the works and deeds of those Shaikhs were in conformity with Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). This you will find most where he discusses the issue of ‘Wahdatul Wujud’ (Unity of Creation or union with the Creator, or the belief that everything is one and God in essence) and condemns its proponents. This ideology, according to them permits one to claim what they call ‘Raf’ut Takaaleef’ (free from obligations of observing the precepts of religion). It is at this stage the Sufi Sheikh declares his disciple free from obligations like observing the five daily prayers and the likes, an attitude worthy of condemnation. So when Ibn Taimiyyah, who is very conversant with the works of those famous Shaikhs like Ibrahim ibn Adham, Abu Salaiman al-Daaraanee, Junaid, Abdul Qadir Jailani and others, whom he knows to have been in compliance with the Qur’an and Sunnah, and calling their disciples to be upright in following the teachings of Islam and engaged themselves in ‘Amr bil Ma’roof wan Nahyu ‘anil Munkar’ (enjoining the good and forbidden the evil), he does not hesitate to dissociate them from the practices of Wahdatul Wujud’ and so he praises them based that. It is in this regard he says : “As for those who were firmly upon the Straight Path from amongst the Saalikin (disciples or followers of a spiritual path) like the majority of the shaykhs of the Salaf such as Fudayl bin ‘Iyaadh, Ibraheem bin Adham, Abu Sulaimaan ad-Daaraanee, Ma`roof al-Kharkee, as-Sari as-Saqatee, al-Junaid bin Muhammad, and others. Also such as Abdul Qaadir, Shaykh Hammaad, Shaikh Abu al-Bayaan and others from the later scholars. These people did not allow the ‘Saalik’ to depart from the commands and prohibitions of the Sharee`ah even if he were to walk on water or fly in the air! (i.e. in the name of Karamah). Rather they made it incumbent upon him to carry out what is commanded and leave off all whatever is prohibited until the time of his death. This is the truth which is proven by the Book, the Sunnah and the consensus of the Salaf”. (Majmu’ Fatawaa Ibn Taimiyyah vol. 10 p.516-517).
It is therefore clear that Ibn Taimiyyah wishes to make a perfect distinction between the practice of those early men of Zuhd and piety and the practices of the later days Sufis. But Ibn Taimiyyah’s critique of Sufism as a thought and practice is what occupies much of his writings on the subject in his effort to dispel the fallacies that marred Islam in the name of Sufism, even though we find him giving excuses to some sufi practices particularly when the person involved is known to be steadfast in complying with the teachings of the Sunnah in general and only errs in that instance.
As for Sufism being a conglomerate consisting of extracts from a multitude of other religions with which Sufis interacted, Fariduddien dismissed this claim on the ground that no reference was given by Hijazi and that this theory comes from non-Muslim orientalists. The fact is that the theory is indeed true and has been testified by more than one Muslim scholar or writer, Sufi and non-Sufi. The first person to link Sufism with a foreign religion was Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Bairuni (d. 440) in his book: ‘Tahqeeq Ma Lil Hindi Min Maquulatin Maqbulatin Fil ‘Aqli Au Mardhuulah’ where he outlined three aspects on which Sufism meets with Hindu philosophy and religion. (See the History of Islamic Sufism by Dr. Qasim Gani and the book Islamic Sufism by Dr. Taftazani. There is also a very strong relation between Sufism and Buddhism in many aspects. There is indeed a Phd. thesis on the subject titled: Buddhism – its History, Beliefs and Relationship with Sufism’ by Dr. Abdullah Mustapha Numsok, in the Islamic University of Madina. The author is now a member of the teaching staff in the Faculty of Islamic Studies in the University of Emir Sunklaa, in Fatani – Thailand. He has discussed this issue in a detailed and scholarly manner establishing the linkage and relationship between the two thoughts. In one of the examples he cited on discarding women and marriage he quoted what was reported from one Sufi Riyah ibn ‘Amr Al-Qaisi, that he said: “A person will not reach the level of Siddiqeen unless he leaves off his wife like a widow, and his sons like orphans and returns to the dwellings of dogs” (Al-Kawakibud Durriyyah 1/105-106). This statement is in line with what is reported from a Buddhist Saint, Shamana who says: “This stage of holiness (Arahat) is unattainable but by him who leaves off his house and endure the burden of leaving off his wife like a widow and his sons like orphans” (Lessons for the Saints p. 47). He further cited many examples in various aspects of the Buddhist and Sufi creeds, like the issue of seclusion, the doctrine of Fana’a (which the Buddhist call Nervana), ways of receiving and practising Dhikr and Wird, belief in the presence of the Sheikh or Saint at times of Dhikr, making dhikr in congregation and in one tone, the issue of Hulul (incarnation) which the Buddhists call (Awatar or Mahayan), wearing the Suuf (wool), wearing ragged clothes, encouraging destitution and begging (Almajiranci), unemployment in the name of religion etc. In fact the resemblances and relationship are too obvious to leave any doubt in the mind of the reader. In an abstract he gave in English at the end of the thesis, the writer concluded: “In my study, I also uncovered the relationship between Sufism and Buddhism as follows: …4) That it has been historically confirmed that Indian-Buddhist monks have influenced the emergence of the Sufi groups,marking their difference in looking at the Islamic view point of life. 5) The common elements between Sufism and Buddhism are: 1. Hulul or Samsara – transmigration of souls and 2. Nirvana or Fana – extinction requiring engaging in mental exercises and life practices such as giving up of property, marriage, observing of hunger, begging and giving up of the world and so on.” (Buddhism – Its History, Beliefs and Relationship with Sufism, Abstract p. 3-4).
All this in addition to its Platonian, Christian, Jewish and Shi’ite origin. This you can find in the book ‘At-Tasawwuf – Origin and Sources by Ihsan Ilahi Zahir p. 49-135, where he quoted confessions by many Sufis to that effect. It is indeed worth reading. Also refer to Tafseer al-Qurtubi where he mentioned that an aalim was asked about the sufi samaa’ and dancing, and he attributed that to the followers of as-Samiri, that is from the Jews. (Tafseerul Qurtubi 11/237-238).
The distinction between Sufism in its early stage and what metamorphosed to become Sufism in later days, is indeed very vital to this topic. What remains to be noted by many is that present day Sufism has been distanced far away from the early one characterised by Zuhd and Seclusion for ibadah. Sufism, now is in what researchers call its sixth stage, that is the stage of ‘Tariqanism’, meaning that no Sufi is now allowed to practice Zuhd as known in the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) independently unless he officially renders himself a subject and disciple of a Sheikh or founder of one Tariqa (Sufi order) or the other. It is now pure partisan in the sense that one Sheikh does not allow his disciple to change to another Tariqa or Sheikh as this is considered ‘riddah’. This is all written in their books and studies in the field are so many for anyone to deny this. So when writers condemn Sufism without differentiating the early from the present they mean the present one. This is not to say that the early one also has not been condemned by many scholars amongst the salaf considering the fact that the name itself is alien to Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). While zuhd and dhikr are values upheld by the Sunnah, making it in the name of Sufism renders, at least, its pattern a bid’ah.
As regards Shafi’is condemnation of Sufism which Hijazi quoted him saying: “If a person exercised Sufism (Tasawwafa) at the begenning of the day, he doesn’t come at Zuhur except an idiot”, Fariduddien dismisses this by saying: ‘No reference has been provided. You can provide all these references to non-Muslim sources, but you cannot even provide a reference for a supposed statement by Imam al-Shafi’I? Why can’t you provide the reference?”. May be it will please him to know that this statement is confirmed to have been said by Shafi’e as has been reported with isnad by Al-Baihaqi in his ‘Manaaqibus Shaafi’ee vol. 2 p. 207.
And as regards that of Malik refer to Tartibul Madaarik by Al-Qadi ‘Iyaad 2/54, and Manaqib Malik by az-Zawawi p. 157) and that of Ahmad refer to Talbis Iblis p. 166-167.

To be continued in sha Allah.



This is my second response to Fariduddien’s article on Sufism. I intend to cover all the article minutely in sha Allah and answer the most important and relevant questions he raised. As for my answers to the questions raised by Bro. Halilu’s, I will in sha Allah give them before the next posting.

6. While Hijazi stresses that sufism started as a move towards excessive ibaadah, Fariduddien accuses him of limiting dhikr, either because he fails to grasp what is the difference between the word ‘ibadah’ and ‘dhikr’ or he wants to assert that sufism is nothing but dhikrullah. Ibadah comprises dhikr and other aspects of worship. Anything excessive beyond the limited bounds is not allowed as known in the Sunnah.
Then one can also ask: if he means limiting dhikr in the quantitative sense, that is, one is not allowed to limit himself in repeating a particular dhikr to a restricted number of times, this is true, - unless where specified by the Sunnah.
But if he means by the non limitation that one can extract and produce on his own whatever dhikr he wishes, without resorting to the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), then this is of course wrong. Dhikr, as an ibaadah must be traced to the Qur’an or Sunnah otherwise, it is a bid’ah. It is worth mentioning that dhikr is one of the most important ibaadahs, a religious obligation with which Allah Ta’ala orders His servants. It is the only form of worship in the Qur’an given a quantitative emphasis. Allah Ta’ala says: ((O you who believe, remember Allah with much remembrance. And glorify Him morning and afternoon)) Al-Ahzab: 41-42. He also says: ((…And the men and women who remember Allah much, Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and great reward)) Al-Ahzab: 35.
That is why you find most of the day to day activities of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) are accompanied with one sort of dhikr or another. In fact the Prophet has a specific dhikr for most of his actions, and teaches the Muslim to make this type of ibadah engulf most of his time, from the time he wakes up from his sleep, and when entering the toilet, when coming out, entering the mosque, coming out of it, and during the prayer each action of the prayer has a specific dhikr, when entering ones house, when putting on new clothes, when going to bed, when entering the market and almost every time.
But all these invocations and adhkar are to be received from the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) in word and pattern. One is therefore not allowed to ‘invent’ a dhikr of his own. Nay he is not allowed to change the wordings of a dhikr confirmed to be said by the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).
Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Al-Baraa ibn ‘Aazib (May Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: (When going to bed, perform ablution just like you do when praying, then rest yourself on the right-hand side of your body, then say: “O Allah I have submitted my face to you…” up to the end of the du’a which is: “Aamantu bi kitaabikal ladhi anzalta wa bi nabiyyikal ladhi arsalta” (I believe in Your Book which You revealed, and Your Prophet whom You sent”. Al-Baraa said: I repeated it for the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to hear, and when I came to “I believe in Your Book which You revealed…” I said: ‘…and Your Messenger’ (i.e. instead of saying Your Prophet). The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: “No, ‘and Your Prophet whom You sent’. (Bukhari No. 247, Muslim No. 2081).
The hadith is clear in that it is not allowed for one to change the wording of any dhikr narrated from the Prophet, what more of putting up his own. Ibn Hajar, in his comment on this hadith said: “The best explanation given to the Prophet’s response to this companion who substituted the word ‘Messenger’ instead of ‘Prophet’, is that the wordings of adhkaar are in a sort of abeyance (i.e. should not be said by anyone but based on a nass by Allah or His Prophet), and that they have special characteristics and secrets not subject to analogy. The wordings in which they come must therefore be preserved. This is what al-Maaziri preferred. He (al-Maaziri) said: ‘One must restrict himself to their texts as they are narrated in their letters, for it is possible that the reward is attached to these letters. They might have been revealed to the Prophet in these words. It is therefore obligatory to say them in their letters’. (Fathul Bari 11/116).
As regards the impact of other religions and civilizations on Sufism, Fariduddien continues to deny that. I will treat that separately in sha Allah, in my next response to Bro. Halilu as he appears to disregard previous references to that effect.
On the concept of Wihdatul Adyan (validity of all religions), Fariduddien says: ‘Here the author claims that Tasawwuf teaches the validity of all religions. This claim is false and incorrect. A clear discussion of this, from the viewpoint of traditional Islam (of which Tasawwuf is a part), can be found…’.
The concept of Wihdatul Adyan is one of the most blashpemous teachings of philosophic Sufism and one of the resulting impacts of the concept of Wahdatul Wujud (Union of Existence). According to this concept there is no difference between Iman and Kufr as everything is in reality one thing. They believe that by saying that there is a deity and a servant worshipping him, one is putting a distinction between the two, and this is wrong according to them. So all religions are nothing but one. None of them is better than the others. Whatever deity one worships he is worshipping nothing but one deity. All are on the right path.
Ibn Taimiyyah comments on this concept by saying: “Among their words is that there is nothing in essence but Allah, so idol worshippers do not worship anything but him. That is because, according to them, he has no ‘ghair’ (another, other, else …). That is why they interpret Allah’s saying: ((And your Lord Has decreed that you worship none but Him)) Al-Israa:23, to mean: And your Lord Has predestined that you worship none but Him, because He has no ‘ghair’ whose worship can be conceptualised. So every idolator is just worhsipping Allah” Majmu’ul Fatawaa 2/124.
A contemporary Sufi, Abdurrahman Badawi confesses this reality when he said: “The importance of the concept of ‘al-ittihad’ (oneness of existence) in the making or adaptation of the process of escapade is great, especially in explaining the escapades that express the equality of all religions – both heaven oriented and non-heaven oriented - to the Sufi. To him all religions are equal because the existence (al-wujud) is one, and this existence is nothing but Allah. Therefore all of them are from Allah, and as far as Allah is concerned there is no difference” (Shatahaatus Sufiyyah p. 9).
You can see from the above quote that Badawi did not differentiate between early and later Sufis, even if he is sure that early Sufis did not go to this extent. Then why should a non-Sufi be accused of failing to recognise this difference. Why shouldn’t he be given the benefit of doubt to the fact that whenever he condemns sufi acts, that he refers to the later sufis who diverted from the Zuhd school to philosophical and Hindi schools.
When we come to Ibn Arabi we will find that he expounds more on it to the extent that one will accept, beyond reasonable doubts, that he means what he says. See what Hijazi quoted in his article from the Fusoos of the man saying: “Beware of restricting yourself to one particular religion and disbelieving in everything else…” (Al-Fusoos p. 113).
In another place he confirms the validity of Fir’auna’s claim that he is the lord. In his comment on the verse: ((Saying: I am your lord, most high)) An-Nazi’aat:24, he says ((…Even though all are lords to some degree, I am the most high among them…)) Al-Fusoos p. 210-211.
Somewhere else he says: ((My mind has become set to accept every image – it is a grazing land for antelopes, a temple for the monks, a house for idols, a Ka’abah for the circumambulator, a tablet for the Taurah and a book of the Qur’an”. (Al-Futuhaatul Makkiyyah 3/21).
These kinds of statements from the man are countless in his books, especially the Fusoos and Futuhaat.
Ibnul Faarid, another Sufi who professes ittihaad says: “When a worshipper falls to the ground worshipping stones do not regard it abominable in bigotry. And if the Magian worships the fire …all these worship none but me, even if their aim and intention were directed to other than me”.
Back home you find Tijjani in a more lucid and express manner affirms this concept. While commenting on Allah’s saying: ((Verily, I am Allah. There is no god but Me, so worship Me)) Taha: 14, he says: “He means there is no deity apart from Me, even if the idolators worship their idols, neither did they worship anything but Me, nor did they aim other than Me with humbleness and humility. Nay, I am the god being worshipped in them. This is the meaning of His saying: ((There is no god but Me)). It is in this way he wants you to believe in what the ignorant ones believe that they worship something apart from me or that they aim other than me” Jawahirul Ma’aani 1/184-185.
He also says: “And amongst them is the one who aims at the Most High but behind a cover, that is the idol worshippers and their likes. Because by worshipping the idols, they do not aim at other than Al-Haqq (Allah), the Most exalted, nor do they worship something else. Rather Allah, The Most exalted appears to them from behind those covers in His Glory and Greatness, and attracts them accordingly by virtue of His predestined decree which no one denies” (Jawahirul Ma’aani 1/239).
The likes of these utterances are so many in Sufi books. Now we come to the question: are these words to be taken on their face value? Do these people really mean what they say? Are they telling us that, O you people! You are just wasting your time worshipping one god while you are supposed to worship everything you can rest your eyes on or think of in your mind? Do they mean to tell us that all the verses in the Qur’an calling to the worship of Allah alone, the only God, the Lord of the worlds etc, are mere quabbles and meaningless statements?. This reminds me of another Sufi, Al-‘Afeef At-Tilmisani, who says: “There is no Tauhid in the Qur’an, rather the whole of Qur’an is shirk. He who follows the Qur’an will never reach real Tauhid” (Ibn Taimiyyah quoted him in Al-Furqan baina auliya’ir Rahman wa auliya’is Shaitan p. 88, and Jami’ur Rasa’ili Wal Masa’il 4/51, and Majmu’ul Fatawa 13/186). I don’t expect a Muslim will hesitate to call this kufr. We ask Allah to forgive us repeating these words.
Now Fariduddien in his response to Hijazi, says the claim of the writer – meaning Hijazi – that Sufism teaches the validity of all religions is false and incorrect. He then refers us to ‘a clear discussion’ of the issue by one Nuh Ha Mim Keller on a web address. He says that Mr. Keller shows that the belief in the universal validity of all religions is not part of authentic Sufi teachings, and not part of the teachings of Ibn al-Arabi.
In response to this claim we can view the issue from the following points:
First: The argument that Sufism does not teach the concept of the validity of all religions will not hold. Only if one will contend that the concept originated from other than the Sufis, a claim that will not be supported by the vast Sufi literature. That is because this concept is a direct result of Wahdatul Wujud and al-Ittihad. When one believes that whatever he sees around him – his house, his wife, his sons, his vehicle, his bed, the sun the moon, the trees, the seas, himself and everything is nothing but Allah, there is no point in trying to make a distinction between the Creator, the Lord and Deity, the One and only God and between His creatures, for the line of demarcation has been buried. So, whatever he worships he is in reality worshipping one god. This is what is preached in Sufi books. One may say that not all Sufis believe in this idea or that it is not part of authentic Sufi teachings, as asserted by Fariduddien. Yes of course, but is there any fault in attributing it to Sufisim as a thought and to Sufis as a group so long as we have never come to know this in Islam but from them. Only if one will claim the likes of ibn Arabi not to be Sufis, which will never hold also, as you will come to see.
Secondly, Is Nuh Keller the right person to give us the real meaning of the words spoken by Ibn Arabi, Al-Tilmisani, Ibnul Faarid, Tijjani and their likes? I am not underestimating his knowledge, but wouldn’t Fariduddien do the Muslims a favour of referring to early scholars especially among the Sufis who tried to give meanings acceptable to Islam. Although I am not able to access the page referred to, where Mr Keller treated the matter, but on searching the his name in the web I arrived at a number of articles written by him. In one of those articles, he spoke of how he embraced Islam about twenty-five years ago (i.e. from the time of the talk) and that he studied first at the university of Chicago then to Al-Azhar University of Egypt, later on to Jordan. Some of the articles also articulate on ‘Why it is necessary to follow the Madhhabs’, issues of Islamic Fundamentalism/Extremism, condemning terrorism, especially condeming the Taliban government etc. This doen not mean, if he speaks the truth it not be accepted from him, for everyone has the right to give opinion on any topic and be accepted based on the strength of his argument, but in an intellectual discourse I opine that Fariduddien would have given names of early scholars who took the same position especially that Mr. Keller in one of his lectures confesses that his first studies were in the hands of the orientalists.
Thirdly, Keller’s claim that Wahdatul Adyan is not part of the teachings of Ibn Arabi and that those who attribute it to him only take a very selective reading of the writings of the man, is not based on academic research also. It is a mere claim not substantiated with any evidence, and contradicts what early scholars summed up from his writings and based on that passed their rulings on him which I will come to mention later in sha Allah. The truth of the matter is that, ibn Arabi, even though is not the founder of this thought, he believed in it and played an important role in passing it over to later generations. The statements quoted above and many others testify to that. Samih ‘Aatef Zain says: “The concept of wahdatul adyan was not the invention of Ibn ‘Arabi, rather many Sufis before him advocated it, most famous among them was Al-Hallaj who, through his belief in hulul (incarnation) found that difference in religious beliefs is nothing more than a difference in opinion, with each belief aiming at one reality, that is Allah’s love …This thought might have attracted Ibn ‘Arabi after some centuries, as such he embraced it and manipulated it to suit his caprices considering that man has the free choice to take up any religion he wishes. Nay he can even take all religions…nothing can stop him from worshipping Satan or taking up a dog or a pig to be his god, because – in his false assumption – god is inside all these creatures. That is why he said without any caution that: ‘The dog and the pig are nothing but our god, and The Lord is nothing but a monk in the church’…” (As-Sufiyyah Fi Nazaril Islam p. 470-471. I have choosen to refer to this writer for : 1. He is an Egyptian Professor who has written widely on Sufism and I suppose his conclusions will not be based on a selective reading of Ibn Arabi’s writings. I came to know the book about 17 years ago, in my local branch of the Kano State Library. 2. The author, in his preface, expressly stated: ‘This book of ours only tries to bring out the important Sufi madhhabs and those who profess it, and all that stems from it as a thought. We have not taken side with this or against that, but we have taken up Sufism on the scale of Islam based on Qur’an and Sunnah – and have stayed in sha Allah with Islam…”.
In another study, conducted by Dr. Kamal Muhammad Isa in ‘Nazaratun Fi Mu’taqadaati ibn ‘Arabi p. 51 he assigned a topic for the concept of Wahdatul Adyan and cited some of ibn Arabi’s statements to that effect.
Dr. AbdulQadir Mahmud, in his ‘The Sufi Philosophy in Islam’ says: ‘So the theory of the validity of all religions is one of the products of Wahdatul Wujud according to Ibn ‘Arabi as he sees that all worship the one god who appears in their shapes and the shapes of all gods. Nothing resembles this like the theory of the Indian – Shankar who says: ‘I worship god in every place of worship I like or I bow in front of any god without differentiation’ (Al-Falsafatus Sufiyyah Fil Islam p. 516). These are only examples of comprehensive researches made on the writings and beliefs of Ibn ‘Arabi.
Then considering Ibn Taimiyyah to have treated the issue of Sufism with fairness as accepted by Fariduddien and most Sufis, I bring here what he had to say on Ibn ‘Arabi and his concepts of validity of all religions and wahdatul wujud. In his answer to a question on the contents of Ibn ‘Arabi’s book Al-Fusoos, he said, referring to some statements of Ibn Arabi and his likes: “These people are more blasphemous (than the idolators) considering the fact that these (Ibn Arabi and his likes) considered the idolator to be worshipping Allah and nothing but Allah, and that the idols, to Allah, are like parts of the human body to man… while the idolators confess that their idols are not Allah and that they are His creatures. Also considering the fact that the idolators among the Arabs were confirming that the heavens and the earth have a lord who created them, but according to these people the heavens and the earth and other creatures have no lord apart from themselves. Rather the creatures are the creator…” Majmu’ul Fataawaa 2/129-130.
In another page he says: “The same with these people of ittihad (oneness of creation). Their leaders are leaders in kufr. They must be executed, and whoever claims to have repented, his repentance should not be accepted when caught before he claims repentance. That is because he is the greatest of hypocrites (Zanadiqa) who profess Islam outwardsly and maintain the greatest kufr in their inner self…He who associates himself with them must be punished or defends or praises them or exolts their books or is known to be helping them or hates to speak ill of them or tries to find excuses for them claiming that this kind of statements no one knows its reality, or says: ‘who told you he is the author of this book?’ and the likes of these excuses which no one will say them but an ignorant or hypocrite. Nay he who knows about them and fails to help in standing against them must be punished. Because rising against these people is one of the greatest obligations, for they have corrupted the minds and the religions on many Shaikhs, kings and rulers. They roam all over the earth in corruption and prevent people from the way of Allah. Their damage to the religion is greater than the damage done by those who destroy the worldly affairs of the Muslims and leave alone their religion, like armed robbers and like the Tatar who seize their wealth and leave them their religion…” (Majmu’ul Fatawa 2/131-132).
He adds: “He who appears to have good opinion about them and claims that he does not know their real situation, it should be explained to him and if he did not distant himself from them and openly show his rejection, he should be considered of them”. (Majmu’ul Fatawa 2/133).

On the concept of Wahdatul Wujud (unity of existence and union with the creator), Fariduddien confesses that there are differing opinions regarding the matter and gave example of one of his Shaikhs, Sirhindi who criticized ibn al-‘Arabi on this doctrine as being erroneous. Thanks to Sirhindi for acknowledging the truth, but the word erroneous is too mild for Ibn ‘Arabi’s theory. Nevertheless, it is a good effort to acknowledge that it is not right, but does that mean it is not part of Sufism, just because one or two Sufis disagree with him on it. That is why people are continually called upon to understand these issues. It is not a matter of praise or condemnation. Something bad will not be good just because Ibn Taimiyyah praises it, just as anything good will not cease to be good because someone condemns it. What we should always look at is the praise or condemnation of Allah and His Messenger. Then Fariduddien should also remember that he said there are differing opinions on the matter, that is, while Sirhindi and Ansari reject Ibn Arabi’s theory of Wahdatul Wujud, holders of the other opinion must have accepted and endorsed it and they are Sufis, so the argument is still in place that the theory is part of Sufism even if some Sufis, regardless of their number, reject it. How many of their other doctrines are a matter of concensus, very little. So long as Sufism is a mixture of creeds originating from different sources most of which are alien to Islam, you must definitely find conflicting opinions as regards the acceptability of such beliefs but they are all part of the general name SUFISM. Take for example the various names and Shaikhs every Tariqa finds itself affiliated to. They are so many and each of them has its methods of adimitting new ‘recruits’ or murids, and different aspects of belief, rites and obligations, and all are addressed Sufis, while each holds his peculiar identity under whatever umbrella.
Fariduddien then comes from another angle to say that Wahdatul Wujud is interpreted by others to mean something other than its literal meaning, that is ‘nothing exists of itself, independent of everything else, except Allah’. If they mean to interpret the two-word phrase: ‘Wahdatul Wujud’ the essence of the words itself dismisses this interpretation. Because the word ‘union’ meaning becoming one, has never been interpreted by any scholar of the Arabic language to mean dependence. These people say that in order to understand their theory in its reality you have to dismiss some words from your dictionary, that is any word that indicates dualism, pluralism like ‘bainiyyah’ (between), ghairiyyah (another, other, else etc), ithnainiyyah (dualism) and lot of other words which usage must indicate the existence of more than one thing.
Moreover, it is a waste of time for someone to find excuses and secondary meanings to these statements when they themselves tell us that they mean what they say, and that their words should be given their literal meanings. As-Sakhawi in his ‘Al-Qaulul Munbii ‘an tarjamati ibn ‘Arabi’ says that Ibn Arabi in his Futuhat explicately declared that his statements should be taken as they appear, that is in their literal meanings’.
As-Shaukani also says: ‘He once again said in ‘Ad-Dau’ul lami’ (meaning Sakhawi) under the biography of Husain ibn Abdur Rahman al-Ahdal, that he said: I was told about ibn Arabi that he said: My statements should be given their apparent meanings, and I intend their literal meanings’. So how can you assume – O you who have been deceived – that he did not mean its apparent meanings? Moreover his words in his Futuhaat and Fusoos are in clear Arabic, so also the words of his fellow men, how then can scholars of Shari’ah be expected to understand something contrary to that?…Look, you poor fellow, how those ignorant people played with your intellect, to what extent do you love them. While Allah Ta’ala Has ruled upon the Jews and Christians with disbelief for saying He is the third of the three (in trinity – Ma’idah 73), why shouldn’t He judge these people according to their words? Now listen, let me dictate to you some of the Karamahs of those so called Auli’ya who played with the deen of Allah. As for Hallaj, he was the pioneer in the field of ‘Wahdah’ (oneness of existence), that doctrine in which ibn Arabi and his fellow men wasted their life, but he (Hallaj) lived an era in which there were remains of goodness and mercy in its people on this deen. So they killed him with the swords of Islam…” (As-Sawarimul Hidaad Al-Qati’ah p. 97-98).
That is why many scholars maintained that it is prohibited to give Ibn Arabi’s words meanings other than their apparent one. See Tanbeehul Ghabi Ila Takfeer ibn Arabi by Al-Biqa’ie (d. 885) p. 127. See also ‘Al’Iqduth Thamin Fi Tarikhil Baladil Amin’ by Taqiyuddin Al-Fasi (d.832), where he quoted 22 eminent scholars who explicitly condemned and rendered Ibn Arabi apostate for his concept of Wahdul Wujud and its product Wahdatul Adyan. This chapter has been edited independently in a small book of 83 pages.
I will conclude this part with some questions: what is the essence of all these lengthy quotations on Wahdatul Adyan and Wahdatul Wujud? Didn’t it die out with the demise of the direct deciples of Ibn Arabi? Are the Muslims still threatened by this theory – or is it no more theory? Do we find among the Sufis who believe in and put this doctrine in practice?
One does not need a field research to answer these questions, and will find that even in this present time some of the Sufis believe and practise the concept of Wahdatul Wujud. A man believed to be sane and reasonable living among his kin and friends, eating from and enjoying Allah’s bounties, suddenly opens up his mouth and declare that he is now the lord of the worlds, that he is Allah the creator of the heavens and earth, that he forgives the sins of his deciples. I know of a local school in Kano, back in 1996 where some of its students, most of whom were youths of about 18 – 30, distributed some of Allah’s beautiful Names between themselves, each calling his colleague with one, and believing each of them to be Allah. They used them so jestingly one will not believe such a thing will happen in a Muslim society.
In my place, (Birnin Kudu) the son of a reknown Tijjaniyyah sheikh, declared himself the khalifa of Ibrahim Kaulaha, and immediately attracted the attention of the people of all near-by towns and within a short time he was believed to be telling the truth. In less than a year, after the death of his father, he was believed, at least by his immediate students (murids), to be god. He used to go round the town claiming to be forgiving peoples’ sins. This is a person I know personally and knows me quite alright. Alhamdu lillahi, he later on left the town for Kano, claiming that the people back home did not accord him what he deserved of reverence. These are therefore, things I know from personal experience not read in Sufi books.
Accounts of events of this nature are too many to be denied in many societies, all under the concept of this Wahdatul Wujud and in the name of Sufism.
We ask Allah to guard us from deviating away from His path.

To be continued in sha Allah.
M. Halilu Uba,
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,
I really appreciate your frankness and zeal in exercising justice and fairness. These are values expected of every Muslim and I ask Allah Ta’ala to help and make us stick to His path.
I will try to be brief but to the point in sha Allah, as I have answered most of what you raised, in other write-ups though not addressed to you in particular.
But may I appeal to you and any other brother viewing things the way you do, to kindly make this discourse in the best objective manner possible. The importance of this in any intellectual discourse cannot be over-emphasised. Our focus should be on what one says and what arguments he presents, not what we perceive one to be holding in terms of belief or ideological inclination or whether he is for or against us. His method of presenting his case or putting up his arguments may indicate, but does not necessarily fashion out the ‘party’ to which he belongs. I know of many people who are strongly against Sufism even before they are aware of anything like Wahhabism. Even before you spell it out that you are not a Sufi, I have not taken it from your stance on the matter that you are one, just as I won’t throw anyone, for being anti-Sufi, into a camp I assume he must necessarily belong to – ‘Wahhabi Movement’, ‘Modern Day Salafiyyah’, or any other group – whatever I may perceive the term to mean. What I understood from you was a sincere quest for justice and fair-play in dealing with matters of knowledge, and that is what I still hold, regardless of the method or language you apply in making your point.
Many a member on this forum will view the current discussions on Sufism as just another Izala-Tariqa crisis, based on pure partisanship, for peoples’ intellects have been compartmentalised on this issues into these groups so much so that whenever one speaks against one of them he is seen to belong to the other. Some members, on the other hand, who detaste these kinds of discussions find it necessary to swift their attentions at least away from it. In my view NMN is rich with people who are professionals in various fields and who I assume are above this line of thinking. That is why I personally do not contribute to the view that the forum is dominated by anti-Sufi or Wahhabi elements as they are usually referred to. Rather there are a lot who reserve comments on almost every topic, and prefer the ‘DROM’ class, for reasons best known to them.
One other thing before taking up the issues you raised, Islamic knowledge, especially that has to do with ‘aqeedah and legislating ‘ibaadah, is factual and not subject to the experiments other branches of knowledge like the natural sciences undergo. It is either the Qur’an, the Sunnah or what the Sahabahs agree upon. Opinions differ in interpretations, yes, but not necessarily due to an in-built bias. To say this in a sweeping generalisation, is like disowning these texts their power of al-bayan (eloquence). Yes, there are texts that are subject to interpretation, but what counts is not the interpretation of poor Abubakar or any of his friends. Rather interpretations from ulama of the highest degree of piety who lived with the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and received his teachings, and whom he did not depart without telling them whatever goodness that will bring them near their Lord and near the Jannah, and warning them from whatever evil that will make them near Hell. So what we need is knowledge of what those people practised. If it is available it should please be produced on any matter not only this. Opinions and interpretations will only be binding if they conform to that of the generation of Sahabah.

Now to the issues you raised, let me start with some of your words when addressing brother Ibrahim Ado. You said: ‘The other thing you mentioned which caught my attention is the issue of groups partisanship. A lot has been said already. You hit the hammer on the nail when you pointed out that there was a time in Muslim history when the Mu’tazila were reigning and the Hanbalis down. This is part of the reason we must be careful with blanket condemnation. We may just be living in an era when Sufi bashing is fashionable…’
In so far as political power influences the spread of one Mazhab or another, facts do not change just because of that. If you will just take the time of browsing the pages of the history you mentioned, particularly that to do with the reign of Mu’tazila, you will find that the political power of the Mu’tazila played a vital role in spreading their mazhab, not in making it the truth as against the mazhab of the salaf which Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbali was calling to at that time. That is why he (Imam Ahmad) did not succumb to the Mu’tazili aqeedah despite the fact that he was tortured and coerced to do so, a stance which earned him the title ‘Imam Ahlus Sunnah’. So blanket condemnation or not, a Muslim should believe that Islam as brought by Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and understood by the Sahabah is still there and up to end of this world. It is the only recognisable deen in the sight of Allah. A Muslim only accepts something else, when this is not clear to him whether he happens to get acquainted with it through free books, scholarships from Petro-Dollars or Petro-anything.
Then you said: ‘…They all have differences, each one applying his line of thinking, hence his mazhab. If sticking to the sunnah means just one thing, they should not differ on issues’.
It is natural for people to differ and their difference is never an indication that they are on the wrong track. The Sahabah differred on some issues of fiqh and that did not make Islam vague. The problem is where do we resort to whenever we differ. While some see that in the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), others view that they resort to other sources. But as I have repeated a number of times, the religion of Allah is Islam, whose main source is the Qur’an and Sunnah of the prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) based on the understanding of the salaf. Whoever sticks to this will never be astray in sha Allah, as prophesied by the rasul himself that a party of his ummah will remain with the truth to the last day. It is just the duty of the Muslim to look for the right path and in no where but the aforementioned sources. It is to these sources Allah and His Prophet attached us. Any difference you hear or witness is due to the failure of one side to either accept or even resort to them. It is wrong to assume that one should stay without any belief. Rather he must necessarily belong to the mazhab taught by the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), that is to be with the followers of his sunnah, and strive to know what this sunnah is. What people are always called upon to understand is that there is no one whose example is incumbent upon the Muslim to follow except the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). No one or group should be followed blindly. So one should just go and search anywhere in this world, find what the Prophet and his companions were practising in their days, then follow it, wherever he finds himself and whatever influence he happens to experience either in any Petro-dollar country or in any cave on the vast of this earth. He will only be answerable to that which Allah Has decreed through His prophet. In the days of the Sahabah, when some of the deviated parties – such as the Shi’ah and Khawarij and Qadariyyah - started emerging, they disengaged themselves from them and warned people against them. Some of them even declared the Qadariyyahs apostate for denying Allah’s knowledge of human actions. They did not say: O you people all of you are Muslims. We only differ in matters of opinion or interpretation of the data we received from the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). No they never did that.

Now to the issue of Sufism, I assume we are not in disagreement as to the fact that in Sufism, as a thought – regardless of the origin of the word, there is what is good and what is bad (or what you choose to call the worst mistakes and errors of the worst examples of Sufi personalities). The first, that is the good contained in it, is what some ulama accept and accord it the meaning of ‘Zuhd, tazkiyyah, ihsaan’, or to sum it up, inner purification. The second, on the other hand, is a set of beliefs and rites alien to the teachings of Islam but camouflaged in the name of Sufism. This second meaning is what we have today as Sufism in the name the various Sufi Tariqas, each affiliated to a Shaikh they call Wali.
So we have two angles from which to look at the meaning of the word ‘Sufism’:
Its meaning as a word comprising of many different things. This is what I wanted to show: how it is made difficult, if not impossible, to reach a clear definition of the word. The Sufis themselves – early and contemporary - could not reach an agreement even to a minimum degree as to its meaning, despite its fundamental importance to them. Philosophers and thinkers, as you put it, argued on the number of teeth a donkey has. Yes, this is their usual business. Ours is Islam, the deen of Allah, brought by Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). We are talking of what to worship our Lord with in order to earn His pleasure, an essential factor for which He sent His Prophets to the human race. Should something so vital like this be so obscure to the extent of denoting about two thousand meanings. So our issue is not the parable of the number of teeth a donkey has and the dilemma of the philosophers. Our issue is that a word is just found in our midst, no one can tell us what it means, not even the people with whom it is known. Then we come to find some Muslims identifying themselves with a group or a number of groups under a common denominator given this name. Is it then fair to accuse one for condemning it on the ground that he deliberately failed to differentiate between what is good of it and what is bad? This is the point I was trying to show. It is not a mere theory a child or even an old man can direct us to the way out in order to ascertain its specific meaning. I have clearly got what you mean, that is we should look at the reality of what has been practised by the Sufis especially eminent scholars of Islam amongst them: what did they practice? All the same if we focus that attention what we will find ourselves amidst is another dilemma. Were those scholars identified as Sufis in the manner we find Sufism now? We will in sha Allah try to look at this angle.
The meaning of Sufism as a thought or as the word used by some scholars to refer to ‘Zuhd’ and the set of moral code of conduct and personal etiquette adopted by Muslims in the early days of Islam, and what it came to be comprising of in later days up to this time.
For a clear picture of this we need to study the stages through which Sufism passed in brief.

Celebrating The Maulid

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
All praises are due to Allah, may His blessings and peace be upon our noble Prophet Muhammad, his family and companions.
The issue of celebrating ‘Maulid’ (what some call the birthday of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), in later generations up till this age of ours, has been viewed differently by many people, scholars and commoners alike. Many writings have been excellently presented on the subject by eminent scholars to the effect that this celebration has no basis from the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) thereby calling upon Muslims to desist from participating in it. But despite that you find many Muslims – viewing the matter from a purely sentimental and emotional perspective – still endulge in such practice and view any opposite opinion to be wrong. Some find it difficult to believe that the practice is alien to Islam, considering the fact most of the Muslim Ummah in almost all countries observe it or that some famous scholars known for their sincere service to Islam were reported to have been observing the Maulid.
This piece is a response to a brother with such a view. In an exchange between me and him on the issue he asked why is it that some scholars condemn the observance of maulid while we find some great scholars like Ibn Hajar (Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalaani, d. 852 a.h.) and Suyuti are reported to have been observing or attending the maulid congregation. In my response to him on an internet forum I wrote the following confirming that Ibn Hajar and Suyuti did not only endorse and observe the maulid but also presented some arguments in an effort to give it a legal bearing from some texts of the Qur’an or the Sunnah, then followed it with responses from the scholars especially from the Maliki Mazhab.

The stand of Ibn Hajar regarding maulid is clear and he had really endorsed its observance without any doubt. But this is not found in any of his books, or to be more precise I could not lay my hands on his justification for celebrating maulud and the arguments on which he based that from his own books, but his student Suyuti (‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Bakr As-Suyuti, d. 911 a.h.) quoted him. This I suppose he took directly from Ibn Hajar in one of his lessons.

I will therefore begin by quoting the complete text of Ibn Hajar’s statement and then follow it with the relevant responses. Suyuti states in his Husnul Maqsid Fi ‘Amalil Maulid from his Al-Haawi Lil Fataawi (vol.1 p.302-303):
((Shaikhul Islam, Abul Fadl Ahmad ibn Hajar was asked about celebrating the Maulid, and he answered with the following words:

((Originally celebrating Maulid is an innovation (bid’ah) which has not been reported from any of the pious predecessors ‘As-Salafus Salih’ from the first three generations of the Muslim Ummah. But all the same it contains some good and some bad things. So whoever pursues the good things in performing it, and avoids its opposite, it will be considered a good innovation (bid’ah hasanah). Otherwise it will be (a bad bid’ah).
It appears to me that celebrating the maulid can be deduced from an established source, that is the authentic hadith in al-Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) came to Madina and saw the Jews fasting the day of Ashuraa’. He asked them about that. They said: “this is the day on which Allah Ta’aala drowned Pharaoh and rescued Musa. So we fast it to show our gratitude to Allah Ta’aalaa”.
This infers that one can show gratitude to Allah for a favour He bestows on him, whether that favour is in the form of a blessing He granted him or for rescuing him from a hardship or trouble on a specific day. And that he repeats that celebration on the return of the like of that day every year. Thanking Allah can take the form of various types of ibadaats like prostration, fasting, voluntary alms and reciting (the holy Qur’an). And what kind of blessing is greater than the advent of this Prophet - the prophet of mercy – on that day?
Based on this, the exact and specific day ought to be pursued for the observance of maulid in order to correspond to the story of Musa on the day of Aashuuraa. He who does not take note of this will not care to observe the maulid on any day of the month. Some people even widened the matter and claim that the maulid should be observed on any day of the year. This of course entails some meanings that are unbecoming. This is as far as its initial observance is concerned.
But as regards what should be done in observing the maulid, people should confine themselves to what really gives the impression of showing gratitude to Allah. Like the aforementioned things: reciting the holy Qur’an, feeding the needy, voluntary alms giving and the recitation of some poems intended to praise the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) or that encourages religious devotion (zuhd), and that draws the mind towards the performance of good deeds. But as for the things which follow that, like the (sufi) samaa’ (songs joined with beating drums) and other types of entertainment, what we ought to say is that there is nothing wrong in permitting whatever is lawful from those activities such that it enhances happiness in respect of that day. And to prohibit whatever is known to be unlawful or disliked or is known to be non-preferable (khilaaful awlaa)) Unquote.

This is also mentioned by Al-Zarqaani in Sharhul Mawaahibil Laduniyyah vol.1 p.140, and As-Sharqaawi in his Hashiyah vol.7 p.423.

There are certain things to be noted from the above statement

1. That Ibn Hajar confesses that maulid is bid’ah;
2. And that non of the pious predecessors observed it;
3. That what made him permit it is that it entails some good things;
4. He endorses the categorisation of bid’ah into good and bad;
5. The basis of his stand is that he drew an analogy between maulid and the observance of the fasting of the day of Aashuraa;
6. That he was the first to draw this analogy;
7. The reason common between maulid and the day of Aashuraa is that both are a way of showing gratitude to Allah;
8. That maulid contains some negative and bad activities which, if avoided, it will be a good bid’ah.
9. That the exact date of the birth of the prophet should be pursued in observing the maulid. And this is something impossible, for one thing not known by many people (I don’t mean Ibn Hajar) is that the exact date of his birth is not known, at least through an authentic narration. There are several views on this date. Some say it was on the 2nd of Rabi’ul Awwal, while most of the scholars of hadith say it was on the 8th. Other views are that it was on the 10th or 12th or 17th or 18th. Some even claim that it was in the month of Ramadan and there is no authentic narration from the prophet himself (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) to support any of these views. The only thing established is that it was on Monday as mentioned by the prophet himself. But it is also established that he (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) died on the 12th of Rabi’ul Awwal. That is why Ibnul Haaj (a famous Maliki scholar said: “The most surprising thing is that how can they rejoice with drumming and other means of happiness because of his birth in this month (Rabi’ul Awwal) while he (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) died in the same month, and the ummah was inflicted with a great calamity not comparable with anything. Why didn’t they weep over his death…. Even though if they did that and continue to observe it every year it will all the same be a bid’ah.” Al-Madkhal vol.2 p.16-17. (See on the issue of the difference of opinion on this date Al-Mawahibul Laduniyyah 131-132 and Al-istee’aab by Ibn Abdil Barr, and Al-Bidayah Wan Nihayah by Ibn Katheer.

There are of course more to deduce from his statement.
The Aaashuuraa hadith is not the only proof on which the maulid is based. Rather the proponents of maulid have other arguments to support their claim of its lawfulness. I will briefly mention them here together with what other scholars said in response to those claims.

Two
Suyuti, immediately after quoting the above argument from Ibn Hajar said: “And it appears to me that celebrating maulid can be deduced from another established source. And that is what Al-Baihaqi reported from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) performed an ‘aqiqah for himself after becoming a prophet, even though it was reported that his grandfather Abdul Muttalib had done that for him on the seventh day of his birth. And it is known that it is not a normal practice to repeat the ‘aqiqah. This should therefore be taken to mean that the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) performed that to express his gratitude to Allah Ta’aala for creating him and making him a mercy to the world. It should also be regarded as a legalization of that same action to his ummah, just as the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) used to recite the salatun Nabiyy. So it is recommended that we also express our gratitude over his birth, by joining up in congregations, feeding the needy and other types of ibadaat to demonstrate our happiness.” (Husnul Maqsid Fi ‘Amalil Maulid from vol.1 p.303 of Al-Hawi lil Fataawi).

Three
Another argument forwarded by Ibnul Jazariy in his book ‘Urfut Ta’reef Bil Maulidis Shareef’ and Shamsuddeen Ibnu Naarisriddeen Ad-Dimashqi in his ‘Mauridus Saadii Fi Maulidil Haadi’ is that Abu Lahab was seen in a dream and was asked about his situation in Hell. He replied: ‘I am in the hell fire. But the torment is lightened on me every Monday night and I suck some water from the tip of my finger. And this is because I freed Thuwaibah when she announced to me the good news of the birth of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) and for suckling him’. This is also mentioned by Suyuti in the aforementioned reference.

Four
The saying of Allah Ta’aala: ((Say: In the bounty of Allah and in His mercy therein let them rejoice. That is better than what they amass (of wealth)) Yunus: 58.
They say: To be happy with the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) is demanded by the Qur’an, as seen in this verse. Therefore Allah orders that we rejoice in His mercy, and the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) is the greatest mercy. See Al-Maulidur Rawiyy Fil Maulidin Nabiyy by Alawi Al-Maliki p.10.

These are the strongest arguments, at least which are traceable to the Qur’an and Hadith. There are others drawn from a more distant point of view, and others based on the fact that many people amongst whom some ulama participate in the observance of the maulid. Some of these are:
1. That the first person to innovate the maulid was a renowned just ruler;
2. That Ibn Batuta, in his travels, praised Muhammad ibn Muhiyiddin al-Tabari, one of the judges in Makkah at his time, for his observance of the maulid;
3. That the maulid is a way of remembering the most important personality ever created;
4. That the maulid is recommended by many ulama and that it is one of the good things introduced in Islam;
5. That it is a congregation of alms giving and praising and extolling the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam).
In addition to the various hadiths with some ambiguous meanings they cling to. Some of these are:
1. “Man sanna sunnatan hasanatan…”;
2. Ibn Mas’uud’s saying “Maa Raahul Muslimuna Hasanan fahuwa indallahi hasan” (Whatever the Muslims consider good is good in the sight of Allah);
3. The categorisation of bid’ah by some ulama into good and bad or into wajib, mustahab, mubah, haram and makruh;

Before responding to all these arguments, I think it is important we note some points.
1. The term ‘ibadah’ (worship) is defined as anything loved and pleased with by Allah, either in the form of a saying or action, explicit or implicit.
2. The term ‘bid’ah’ (innovation) denotes anything that possesses the following qualities:
Being an innovation
(One) Claimed to belong to the deen of Islam
(Two) Not having any legal origin. This is in line with the hadith of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) : “Man Ahdatha Fii Amrinaa Hadha Ma Laisa Minhu Fa Huwa Raddun” (Whoever innovated into this affair of ours (Islam) what does not belong to it, will not be accepted). (See Jaami’ul Uluumi Wal Hikam by Ibn Rajab vol.1 p.177). By this definition, worldly affairs like scientific and technological advancements, are not considered as ‘bid’ah’ even though they are innovated.
3. The hadith of the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) ‘Kullu bid’atin dalalah’ (Every innovation is a bid’ah) is a generalisation comprising all kinds of bid’ah as far as the aforementioned definition is concerned. So there is no bid’ah that is good in Islam.
4. Drawing near to Allah through any ibadah must be in line with the shari’ah in two basic points:
(One) Establishing the origin of that ibadah by authentic legal evidence. Therefore it should not be deduced from a false hadith or based on the saying of someone whose saying or action is not a binding ‘hujjah’.
(b) Preserving the original mode of performing the ibadah as taught by the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam).(See Qawaa’idu Ma’rifatil Bida’ip.66).
5. Any act of worship originating from mere reasoning, desire or sentiment, like the saying of an alim, some devoted Shaikhs, or customs of some countries or communities, or some tales or dreams, is considered a bid’ah. (See Al-’itisaam by As-Shatibi vol.1 p.212-219).
6. Any act of worship abandoned by the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam), that is, he did not perform it, even though the factors necessitating its performance were established to prevail, and all obstacles preventing the performance were nonexistent, the performance of that act by somebody else is a bid’ah. E.g. the outward expression of the ‘niyyah’ (intention) to enter into prayer, pronouncing the call to prayer (al-adhan) in prayers other than the five daily prayers and praying two rak’aats after performing the sa’ayi between Safa and Marwa. (See Al’itisaam vol.1 vol.361-364).
7. Any act of worship not performed by the pious precessors (As-Salafus Salih) of the first three generations, that is the Sahabah, the Tabi’een and the At-Ba’it Taabi’een or not reported by them, or not written in their books, or not mentioned by them in any of their gatherings, even though the factors necessitating its performance prevailed and there were no obstacles to prevent the performance, is considered a bid’ah on the part of later generations to perform that act. This is clear in the saying of the famous companion of the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) Hadhaifa ibnul Yamaan (may Allah be pleased with him), when he said to some of the Taabi’een: “Any ‘ibadah’ not practiced by the companions of the prophet, do not practice it. The first did not leave any saying for the last. So fear Allah O you people, and cling to the path of those before you”. See Al-Amr Bil ittibaa’I 62, and Bukhari narrated something near in meaning in hadith No. 7282.
Examples of these acts are the performance of the prayer known as ‘Salatur Raga’ib’ performed by some people in the month of Rajab, and the observance of maulid. This is because the factors necessitating the performance of these acts were not only found in the days of those predecessors, but were even more effective and powerful, and there were no obstacles to prevent them from performing these ibadah. (See At-Targhib an Salatir Ragha’ib al-Maudu’ah p.9, and al-Ba’ith ‘ala Inkaaril Bida’I Wal Hawadith by Abu Shamah p.47 and Iqtidaaus Siraatil Mustaqim vol.2 p.614). Ibnul Haaj, in his al-Madkhal says: “If the maulid will be free from Samaa’ and what it entails and is confined to feeding relatives and friends, it is all the same a ‘bid’ah’ from its mere intention. Because that is an addition to the deen and it is not among the works of the past Salaf. And following the Salaf is better, nay more incumbent than introducing an intention contrary to their own, because they are the best in following the sunnah of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam), best in honouring and extolling him and his sunnah. They precede the whole mankind in embarking upon his sunnah. It has not been reported from any of them that he intended performing the maulid. And we follow their steps. Whatever sufficed them should suffice us…” Al-Madkhal vol.2 p.11-12. And see him on page 26 of the same volume where he says that some people substitute the samaa’ and other activities performed in the maulid, with the reading of Sahihul Bukhari. He said: “Even though the reading of hadith is in itself a great act of bringing one near to Allah, and an act of ‘ibadah’ in which there is blessing and much goodness, one should perform that according to its laid down rules, but not in the name of maulid. Don’t you see that the prayer is one of the greatest means of getting near to Allah, but if one will perform a prayer before its specified time he will be blamed and be considered as violator of the law. So if this is the situation of prayer, what would be of something else.” For information, Ibnul Haaj is one of the famous Maliki scholars. Shaikh Uthman dan Fodio depended intensively on his writings especially this Madkhal. This is known to anyone conversant with the writings of Dan Fodio (rahimahullah). See for example Bayaanul Bida’I and Ihyaaus Sunnah Wa Ikhmaadul Bid’ah. Another Maliki scholar Al-Fakihaani wrote on the subject of maulid in his Al-Maurid fi amalil Maulid, when he was asked about it. He out-rightly condemned it in totality. Suyuti quoted it completely and tried to refute it but in vain. See Al-Hawi Lil Fatawi (vol.1 p.294).
8. The deen of Islam had been completed totally by Allah before the death of our noble Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). No ibadah is left out without being explained by the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). Allah Ta’aala says: ((This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion)). Al-Maa’idah:3. In elaborating this meaning, Imam Malik says: “Whoever innovates a bid’ah which he considers good, has really accused Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) of betraying the message given to him. Because Allah Ta’aala says: ((This day I have perfected your religion for you…)). So whatever is not part of the deen at that time, will not be part of the deen today” See Al-‘itisaam vol.1 p.49). As-Shatibi also reported that Al-Qaadi Abu Bakr Ibnul Arabi narrated from Az-Zubair ibn Bakkaar that he said: “I heard Malik ibn Anas, when someone came to him and asked: ‘O Abu Abdullah, from where should I enter my state of Ihram? He said: “From Dhul Hulaifah (the Miqaat of the people of Madina) from where the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) entered his state of Ihram. The man said: ‘I want to do it from the mosque’. Imam Malik said: “Don’t do that! The man said: ‘I want to do it from the mosque, from the grave of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam)’. Malik said to him: “Do not do that, for I am afraid that a fitnah may afflict you”. He said: ‘What fitnah is in this? It is just some miles I am adding.’ Malik said: “What fitnah is more than to consider yourself ahead of the Prophet in attaining a virtue he could not reach? I heard Allah Ta’aala saying: ((And let those who oppose the Messenger’s commandment beware, lest some Fitnah should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them)). An-Nuur:63. (Al-‘itisaam vol.2 p.52-53, and Al-Wanshareesi in al-Mi’yaar Al-Mu’rib vol.11 p.116. Ibn Battah reported something near in meaning in his Al-Ibaanah Al-Kubraa vol.1 p.261-262).
As-Shatibi, after quoting this story, said: “The fitnah mentioned by Imam Malik in explaining the verse is true of all Ahlul Bid’ah, and it is their base on which they erect their building. For they view that what Allah mentioned in his book and what the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) enacted in his sunnah is less (in quantity or quality) than what their reasoning leads them to. That is what Ibn Mas’uud said when he met some people performing dhikr in congregation and in one tune: “You have really been guided to what your Prophet was not guided to, or that you have clung to a violation and a dalalah (going astray).
Having laid down this, let us return to the above arguments and take them up one after the other.
One: On Ibn Hajar and the Aashuuraa hadith
1.Ibn Hajar’s explanation of maulid based on the Aaashuuraa hadith after confessing that it is a bid’ah is something that cannot be put together. Shaikh Rasheed Ridaa (the famous student of Muhammad Abduhu) in his Fataawaa (p.2112-2113) dismissed this assertion. He said this is enough evidence to render the maulid unlawful, because how can Ibn Hajar affirm that it has not been reported from any of the salaf, and then claim to have an origin. Imam Malik says: “Nothing will reform the later generation of this ummah but what reformed the first generation”.
Had the Aashuuraa hadith been a proof to the observance of the maulid, the first generation of this ummah would definitely have deduced that from the text of the hadith. But having been abandoned by them, even though the factors necessitating the performance of maulid were found at that time, that is their love for the Prophet, their love for honouring him, their love for feeding each other and for dhikrullah, it is not proper for someone in the later generations to use that same text in a meaning different from what they understood from it. As-Shatibi has spoken comprehensively on this qaa’idah (general rule), that is, whatever interpretation to a text not established to have been practiced by those early generations, should not be practiced by later generations in any form of worship. This is because their abandonment of this practice is a consensus that the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) did not mean that by the text, and it is not proper to violate an ‘ijmaa’. As-Shatibi said: “Whatever is practiced by later generations from this type, is really against the ijmaa’ of the first generations. And whoever violates an ijmaa’ is in clear error, for the ummah of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) will never agree collectively on anything astray. So whatever they practiced or abandoned is the sunnah, and is what ought to be given consideration, nay it is real guidance. There are only two things: something right and something in error. Whoever go against the salaf is in error, and this is enough. This is also true of the weak hadith with which the ulama did not work. That is why the claim of the Rafidah (Shi’ite) that the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) explicitly said in a clear text that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) should be the Khalifah immediately after him, was not entertained. Because the practice of the whole Sahabah was against this claim and shows its falseness, for the Sahabah will never be collectively and as a whole astray” Al-Muwaafaqaat Fi Usulis Shari’ah vol.3 p.71). He further said: “Many at times you find the people of bid’ah and dalalah use the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah to forcefully make them bear their ‘mazhabs’. And they use the ambiguous words contained in those texts in the presence of the general public, assuming that they have something to cling to (in respect of their bid’ah). This has many examples…” He then cited some examples relevant to the matter. One of those examples is the claim of some people of the lawfulness of reciting the Qur’an and saying the dhikr in congregation by the saying of the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) “Maj tama’a qawmun fi baitin min buyutillahi…” (No group of people will join up in a mosque, reciting the Qur’an and taking lessons from it …, unless the angels surround them…”, and the hadith: “Maj tama’a qawmun yadhkuruunallah…”. Another example is the claim of the lawfulness of dancing in the mosque based on the hadith that the Ethiopians once played with shields and spears in the mosque of the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). And the claim of everyone who innovated or endorsed a bid’ah that the salaf also innovated some things not in existent in the days of the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) like putting the Qur’an in the form of a book, writing different books on various subjects, keeping records in registers and so forth. He said: “All this is an error to this deen and an imitation of the path of the deviated”. He further explained that what these people mention is mostly part of ‘al-Masaalihil Mursalah’. And it is known that al-masaalihil Mursalah has no connection whatsoever with ‘ibadaat’ (acts of worship). See the aforementioned reference. It is really important for those of us versed in the arabic language to read this from the book itself, that is Al-Muwaafaqaat. See also his other book Al-itisaam on this subject vol.1 p231 upwards. He had treated this matter in detail and with perfect scholarship. Shatibi is also one the famous Maliki scholars who served the course of Islam profoundly. May Allah reward him and have mercy on him.
2. Shaikh Rasheed Ridaa added that the good things contained in the maulid as mentioned by Ibn Hajar that if pursued, maulid will be a good bid’ah, are not in itself bid’ah. The bid’ah is the special congregation in that special mode and style, in the specified time, and considering that to be part of the ‘Sha’aaril Islam” which is never established but with a nass from the Qur’an or Sunnah.
3. He also said: “that observing the maulid reached a stage where those who abstained form performing it are considered infidels. This makes it one of the basic foundations of aqeedah necessarily known from the deen, and this is clearly an addition to the foundations of Islam. And any additions to the foundation of Islam nullifies that particular addition and renders it alien and disowned by the Islam brought by the seal of the prophets (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam)…” Fatawaa Shaikh Rasheed Ridaa.
Shaikh Rasheed Ridaa was asked about some people in the Jawa area of Indonesia who claim that whoever does not attend the maulid is a kafir, and whoever does not stand up on hearing the word ‘Marhaban’, at the time of reading the story of maulid is a kafir. And if someone asks them: Is this ordered by Allah and His Messenger?, they say: You are a kafir. Shaikh Rasheed Ridaa answered to all these questions with the aforementioned statement.
One other thing of this nature is the claim of ahlul maulid that it is haram for one to fast on the day of maulid. Al-Hattab in his ‘Mawahibul Jalil’ quoted an event that occurred in respect of one Ibn Abbaad who said that he came out on the day of maulid and met one Alhaj Ibn ‘Aashir and some other men, and they brought some dishes of varieties of food. And when they invited him he told them that he was fasting. The man (Alhaj Ibn Aashir was very much annoyed to hear that and ordered him to break the fast, and told him that it was a day of eid, so it is unlawful to fast.

Two: Suyuti’s argument with the hadith of Aqiqah
This is simply refuted by the fact that the hadith is not authentic. When asked about whether the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) really performed aqiqah once more for himself, Imam Malik answered: “Tell me about the Sahabah for whom the aqiqah was not performed in Jahiliyyah, have they done that themselves after embracing Islam? This is sheer false” See Ibn Rushdin’s Al-Muqaddimaatul Mumahhidaat vol.2 p.15.
The hadith in question is reported through one Abdullahi ibn al-Muharrar, who is termed by many scholars of hadith as: ‘Da’eef Jiddan’, ‘Munkarul Hadith’ or ‘Matruuk’. See Al-Musannaf by AbdurRazzaaq As-San’aani (d. 211 h) vol.4 p.325, and Al-Majruuhin by Ibn Hibban vol.2 p.29. He said in respect of Abdullahi ibn Muharrar: “He was one of the most devoted people but he used to tell lies without knowing, and used to twist narrations without understanding”.
An-Nawawi states: “As for the hadith mentioned by As-Shiraazi that the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) performed aqiqah for himself, it is reported by Al-Baihaqi through Abdullahi ibn al-Muharrar that the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) … . This is a false hadith” (Al-Majmuu’ by An-Nawawi vol.8 p.330, see also: At-Talkhisul Habeer by Ibn Hajar vol.4 p.147).
One surprising thing is that Al-Baihaqi himself after quoting the hadith stated that it is Munkar, but all the same Suyuti dwelled on the hadith to legalise ‘maulid’ without mentioning the ruling of Baihaqi on it. See As-Sunanul Kubra by Baihaqi vol.9 p.300.
But Az-Zarqaani in his sharhul Mawaahib after quoting Suyuti’s deduction from the hadith commented: “An-Nawawi said this hadith is false. So deducing (maulid) from it is out of place” Sharhul Mawahibil Laduniyyah vol.1 p.140.

Three: On the story of Abu Lahab
1. The text as narrated by Al-Bukhari is not as Ibnul Jazari and Ibn Nasirid Deen claimed. Al-Bukhari narrated from Al-Hakam ibn Nafi’ from Shu’aib from Az-Zuhri, he said Urwatu ibnuz Zubair told me that Zainab bint Abi Salama told him that Umm Habiba bint Abi Sufyan said: “I said: O Allah’s Messenger, marry my sister, the daughter of Abu Sufyan’. The Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “Do you like that? I replied, “Yes, for even now I am not your only wife and I like that my sister should share the good with me”. The Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) said, “But that is not lawful for me”. I said: “We have heard that you want to marry the daughter of Abu Salama”, He said: “You mean the daughter of Umm Salamah?” I said, “Yes” He said, “Even if she were not my step-daughter, she would be unlawful for me to marry as she is my foster suckling niece. I and Abu Salama were suckled by Thuwaiba. So you should not present to me your daughters or your sisters (in marriage)”. Urwah said: “Thuwaibah was a freed slave woman of Abu Lahab. Abu Lahab freed her, and she suckled the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). When Abu Lahab died he was seen in a dream by one of his relatives in a terrible situation in hell. He said to him: “What did you meet? Abu Lahab said: I did not meet (anything but torment), except that I was given water in this (in Abdur Razaq’s narration: He pointed to a dot on his finger) for freeing Thuwaibah”. (Sahihul Bukhari together with Fathil Bari vol.9 p.48 hadith No. 5101).
From this text you will find that:
(a) The part of the text containing the issue of freeing Thuwaibah is from the saying of Urwah without mentioning who told him that. This is what the scholars of hadith call ‘hadith mursal’, and it is part of the weak hadith which is not accepted. (See Fathul Bari vol.9 p.49).
(b) There is no mention that the reason for freeing Thuwaibah is that she brought Abu Lahab the good news of the birth of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam).
(c) There is no mention of the word ‘every Monday’ as asserted by Ibnul Jazari and As-Suhaily (See Suhaili’s assertion in Fathil Bari vol.9 p.48).
(d) Moreover what is confirmed by the scholars of Sirah (Biography of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) is that Thuwaibah was not freed until after the Hijrah of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). Ibn Sa’ad (d 230 h) says: “When the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) was at Makkah he used to send her (Thuwaibah) some gifts, and Khadijah also used to be generous to her. At that time, she was a slave to Abu Lahab. Khadijah made some efforts to buy her from the hands of Abu Lahab so as to free her, but Abu Lahab refused that. But when the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) migrated to Madina Abu Lahab freed her” At-Tabaqaatul Kubraa by Ibn Sa’ad vol.1 p.108. This is confirmed by Ibn Abdil Barr in his Al-istee’aab vol.1 p.12, and Ibnul Jauzi in his Al-Wafaa Bi Ahwaalil Mustafaa vol.1 p.106-107, and Al-Muhibb At-Tabari in his Dhakhaairul ‘Uqbaa Fi Manaaqibi Dhawil Qurbaa p.259, and Ibn Hajar in Al-Isaabaah Fi Tamyeezis Sahaabah vol.4 p.250.
(e) One other thing is that a kafir will never benefit in the hereafter from any deed he performed in this world, for Allah Ta’aala says: ((And We shall turn to whatever deeds they did, and We shall make such deeds as scattered floating particles of dust)) Al-Furqaan:23. That is because the condition for accepting a deed is that it should be with a perfect intention, and this not found in the case of a kafir. So freeing Thuwaibah by Abu Lahab as shown in this mursal hadith is insignificant. This is not like the case of Abu Talib which is established by an authentic hadith. See Fathul Baari by Ibn Hajar vol.9 p.49.
(f) Moreover this case is based on a dream we do not know who saw it. And even if we know it is known that legal rulings such that prohibit or make something lawful are never based on dreams.
Four
The argument based on the verse of Suratu Yunus, is also out of place. That is because interpreting the ‘mercy’ mentioned in the verse to mean the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) is something none of the scholars of the first generation of Muslims claimed. And we have mentioned from the saying of Shatibi, when discussing Ibn Hajar’s deduction of maulid from the Aashuuraa hadith, that any meaning not mentioned by the salaf in their interpretation of the Qur’an, is not accepted, especially when that interpretation is meant to buttress the validity of an innovated ‘ibadah’.
Al-Imam At-Tabari, in his voluminous exegesis of the Qur’an and the best in that field, quoted eighteen separate narratives from the Salaf on interpreting this verse. None of them interpreted ‘mercy’ to mean the person of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). Shatibi is not the only alim to make this bold warning. Al-Imam At-Tabari who is known to be the author of the best and more comprehensive book of Tafsir, even though he lived in the last part of the third century and died in the beginning of the fourth century of Hijrah, he denied himself the right to interpret the Qur’an contrary to the interpretations narrated from the salaf. In his Tafsir vol.15 p.188, when interpreting the verse: ((And offer your prayer neither aloud nor in a low voice, but follow a way between)) Al-Israai:110, he preferred the saying of Ibn Abbas on the meaning of ‘prayer’, ‘aloud’ and ‘in a low voice’. He then mentioned another interpretation of his own, but said: “If not for the fact that I have already mentioned the sayings of scholars of tafsir and I do not consider it permissible to oppose what is reported from them, I would have said that it is good to interpret the verse as follows…. But we do not regard it proper, because the consensus of the masters of tafsir is contrary to that”. In his commentary on another verse he said: “I have preferred this interpretation because it is in agreement with the interpretation of the Sahabah and Tabi’een, because we do not allow going contrary to what is reported from them”. Tafsirut Tabari vol.16 p.151.
But this is not to say that the prophet is not a mercy because this is confirmed by an independent verse. Allah says: ((We have not sent you but as a mercy for the whole creation)). But in this verse there is nothing to necessitate this interpretation. And moreover the word ‘rahmah’ independently or in the genitive form came in the Qur’an about 116 times, and no reasonable person will claim that it means the person of the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) in all these places and in its different contexts. The fact is therefore that the proponents of observing the maulid festival only cling to this particular verse because of the mention of the word: ‘fal yafrahu’ (let them rejoice), and this is exactly what Shatibi outlined previously that one of the methodologies of the people of bid’ah is that they cling to some words with ambiguous meanings to claim the validity of their mazhab. This affirms the need to go back to the interpretation of the first generations. May Allah guide us all.
As regards the other arguments mentioned, I don’t think they deserve our time and energy. The only thing that remains is the issue of categorizing bid’ah into good and bad or wajib manduub mubah etc. and the hadith : Man sanna sunnatan hasanatan… I hope I will have the time to write on that. But for a detailed and more erudite information on this issue one should read the book ‘Al-Qaulul Fasl’ by Shaikh Isma’il Al-Ansari.

Wa sallallahu wa sallama wa baaraka ala Nabiyyina Muhammad wa ala aalihi wa sahbih.

Wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh

Abubakar Muhammad Sani

Islamic University Madina

Rabee’ul Awwal 1422

Identifying The Term: "Ahl As-Sunnah Wal Jama'ah"

HISTORY OF ISLAMIC THEOLOGY III
DEFINING AHLUS SUNNAH WAL JAMA’AH

All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, may His salah and salam be upon His messenger, his noble family and Sahabah.

Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah,
Eid Mubarak,

In my previous discourse, I talked about the definition of Shi’ah and Shi’ism from the Shi’ite and non-Shi’ite scholars. This time we look at the term Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, the literal and technical meanings of the words, and some characteristics outlined to distinguish them from all sects.

The term Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, as is seen, is made of three words : Ahl, Sunnah and Jama’ah. We should therefore know each of the words in its original Arabic meaning, so as to have the right conception of the words put together.

AHL
The word ‘Ahl’ in arabic is used to ascribe something to someone. The ‘Ahl’ of anything is he who is more distinguished with it, or the one to whom it is ascribed. The Arabs usually say : the ‘Ahl’ of any person are those intimate with and close to him - and they sometimes confine that to one’s wife or wives, and the ‘Ahl’ of a house are its inhabitants, the ‘ahl’ of any mazhab are its followers, and the ‘ahl’ of Islam are those who adopt the religion of Islam. (See Mu’jamu Maqaayees al-Lughah by Ibn Faaris, under the term ‘a.h.l.’).

SUNNAH
And the word ‘Sunnah’ literally denotes a way, a path or a conduct and behaviour, either good or bad. (See Lisaanul Arab by Ibn Manzuur and Ghareebul Hadith by Ibnul Atheer, under the term ‘a.h.l.’). It is in accordance with this literal meaning goes the saying of the Prophet e : ((You will definitely follow the way of those before you ...)) (Sahih Bukhari hadith No. 3456, and Sahih Muslim No. 2669. And the Prophet’s e saying: ((He who sets a good precedent in Islam, there is a reward for him for this (act of goodness) and also the reward of him who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards; and he who sets in Islam an evil precedent, there is upon him the burden of that, and also the burden of him who acted upon it subsequently, without any deduction from their burden)). (Sahih Muslim Book 5, The Book of Zakat, No. 2219).

But technically, the term ‘Sunnah’ varies according to the different fields of Islamic knowledge. Its meaning as per the ‘Muhadditheen’ differs from the meaning it takes according to the ‘Fuqaha’a’ as well as it differs from the meaning attached to it by the scholars of Usulul Fiqh.
According to Ahlul Hadeeth, ‘Sunnah’, as Ibn Hajar Al-’Asqalaniy (d. 852) put it, means ‘any saying or deed of the Prophet e, or the affirmation of anything done in his presence or what he intended to do (even if he did not actually do it)’ (Fathul Bariy vol. 13 p. 245). Another scholar puts it this way : ‘any saying or deed of the Prophet e, or the affirmation by him of anything done in his presence, and any description reported of his nature or manners, or his biography, before or after receiving divine revelation.’ (See Usulul Athar by Tahir ibn Saleh al-Dimashqiy p. 3, and As-Sunnah Wa Makanatuha Fit-Tashree’i by Mustapha As-Siba’eey, p. 47).
As for the Fuqahaa’a, they take ‘Sunnah’ to mean : ‘anything established to be reported from the Prophet e and is not classed to be ‘Fard’ or ‘Wajib’. It is therefore synonymous to ‘Mandub’. (See Irshaadul Fuhul by As-Shawkaaniy p. 31).
To the scholars of Usulul Fiqh, ‘Sunnah’ means : Anything reported from the Prophet e specifically, and not clearly stated in the Holy Qur’an, but mentioned by the Prophet e from his own self, either in the course of explaining the meanings of the Qur’an or not. (See Al-Muwafaqaat by As-Shatibiy (d. 790). By this, Sunnah is confined to what comes from the Prophet other than the Qur’an. (See As-Sunnah Qablat Tadween p. 16).
Another usage of the term ‘Sunnah’ is in a general concept in reference to the Islamic injunctions derived from the Qur’an and Sunnah as a whole, or the fundamentals derived thereof by way of ‘istinbat’. It is also used to refer to what is in agreement to that from the sayings and deeds of the Sahabah, the Tabi’een and those who follow them in goodness, considering that to be explanations of the whole Shari’a.
This meaning is what is refered to in the authentic hadith of the Prophet e : ((Follow my ‘Sunnah’ and the ‘Sunnah’ of the rightly guided caliphs after me)) and his saying : ((He whoever turns away from my ‘Sunnah’ is not of me)).
‘Sunnah’ is also used to refer to what opposes ‘Bid’ah’. This usage aroused at the emergence of various sects which deviated from the path of the Prophet e . As-Shatibiy said : “(The term Sunnah) is used in opposition to ‘Bid’ah’, they say :Mr. A. is on the ‘Sunnah’, when his deeds are in agreement with the teachings of the Prophet e, either those deeds are clearly stated in the Qur’an or not, and they say : Mr. B. is on the ‘Bid’ah’ when his deeds are contrary to that” (Al-Muwafaqaat, vol. 4 p. 4.see also Majmu’u Fatawa ibn Taymiyyah vol. 21 p. 317).
And Ibn Rajab (d. 795) says : “Sunnah means a followed path, and that includes sticking fast to the beliefs, deeds and sayings of the Prophet e and his rightly guided caliphs. This is the complete Sunnah, and that is why the (pious) predecessors (As-Salafus Salih) in the past did not use the term but to include all the afore mentioned. This was reported from Hasan Al-Basri, Al-Auzaa’eey and Al-Fudail ibn ‘Iyaad” (Jami’ul ‘Ulumi Wal Hikam vol. 2 p. 120).
This last usage and the one before it are meant by the word ‘Sunnah’ whenever matters of creed and belief are discussed.

JAMA’AH
The word ‘Jama’ah’ literally is derived from ‘al-jam’i’ meaning gathering or collecting something that has been scattered. (See al-Qaamusul Muhit, under the term j.m.’a). Jama’ah therefore means to gather and come together, the opposite of which is separation, dispersion and disunion, later on it was used to address a set of people that come together for a common purpose.
Wordings of scholars differ as to the technical meaning of the word ‘Jama’ah’, but nevertheless do not go beyond two essential points :
a. that ‘jama’ah’ is the path of the Prophet e, the Sahabah and the eminent scholars, comprising of both beliefs, conducts and other fundamentals.
b. that ‘jama’ah’ is the entire muslim Ummah under the leadership of an Imam following the teachings of Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet e. (See al-i’tisaam by as-Shatibiy vol. 2, p. 260-265).

THE TERM AHLUS SUNNAH WAL JAMA’AH

From the previous definitions of the three words ‘Ahl’, ‘Sunnah’ and ‘Jama’ah’, we can arrive at a clear meaning of the term ‘Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah’, and say that: Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah are the most distinguished people in following and complying strictly with the religion of Islam according to its two main fundamental sources - the Qur’an and the Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet e). They are the only part of the Ummah able and ever striving to maintain the original teachings of Islam as it was in the days of the Prophet e and the Sahabah. They hold in high esteem the Sahabah, the Tabi’een and the At-Ba’ut Tabi’een, and follow their steps in practising Islam as they were the best of people on earth in knowing, believing and practising what Allah Ta’ala ordained to be worshiped with, and as the immediate witnesses to the divine revelation and the direct subjects of the prophetic teaching, they examplified the best result ever expected of any follower of the religion of Islam.
Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah attach much importance to the establishment of unity and harmony between themselves and between those in authority over them, in accordance with the teachings of the Prophet e, and do not go out of these bounds unless they witness clear apostasy, obviously contrary to the fundamentals of the religion of Islam.
In other words, Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah are the Sahabah(1), Tabi’uun, At-Ba’ut Tabi’een and those who follow them amongst the eminent scholars (the mujtahiduun) (2)and those who follow their steps in compliance with the Qur’an and the Sunnah to the last day.
Ibn Hazm (d. 456 may Allah have mercy on him) says : “The Ahlus Sunnah we will mention are the followers of the truth, anyone other than them is termed ‘Ahlal Bid’ah’. They (Ahlus Sunnah) are the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them all) and everyone who follow their steps from amongst the best Tabi’een (may Allah have mercy on them), then the Ahlul Hadeeth and those who follow them from amongst the Fuqaha’, generations after generations up to this day of ours, and those who imitate and follow their examples from the common men from all parts of the globe” (Al-Fisal Fil Milali Wal Ahwaa’i Wan Nihal vol. 2, p. 271).

SOME MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF AHLUS SUNNAH
1. They do not belong to any name other than ISLAM and MUSLIMS. Any other title ascribed to them - such as Ahlus Sunnah, Ahlul Hadith, Al-Firqatun Najiyah, At-Ta’ifatul Mansurah, the followers of As-Salafus Salih (the pious predecessors) - are mere descriptions of the ways and methods by which they differ from all sects and denominations claiming the general name ‘Islam’. Al-Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) says : “Ahlus Sunnah have no appellation with which they are known, neither ‘Jahmiyy’, nor ‘Qadariyy’ or ‘Rafidiyy” (See Al-intiqa’a Fi Fadaailit Thalathatil Fuqaha’a by Ibn Abdil Barr p. 35, and Tartibul Madarik by Al-Qadi Iyad vol. 1, p. 172)
2. They do not ascribe themselves to any ‘person’ or party or ethnic group, but the person of the Prophet e, and their allegiance to or repudiation of anyone is only based on the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and one’s compliance with or deviation from them.
3. They totally submit to the Holy Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet e as their major sources.
4. They do not prefer their human reasoning over the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
5. They strictly follow the Sunnah and discard all innovations.
6. They are always average and intermediate in matters of creed. They are neither extremely beyond limited bounds nor in remiss.
7. They adhere to the unity of the Muslim Ummah.
8. They attach much importance to reciting, memorizing and knowing the meanings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

The term ‘Ahlus Sunnah’ is also used to include the whole muslim Ummah except the Shi’ahs (Rafidah). Every non-Shi’ite is therefore Ahlus Sunnah even if he carries with him some amount of ‘Bid’ah’. They say : Mr. A is Sunni and Mr. B is Shi’iee (Rafidee). This is because the Shi’ites (Rafidah) are “the most distant from the Qur’an and Prophet’s hadith, among all Ahlul Bid’ah. That is why it is famous amidst the common men that the Shi’ites deviate from the Sunnah more than anyone. So the generality of the muslim Ummah do not know anyone to be against the Sunni but the Rafidah. It is therefore known that whenever one says : I am a Sunni, he definitely means he is not a Rafidee” (Majmoo’u Fatawa Ibn Taimiyyah vol. 3 p.357).
Based upon this meaning, the term Ahlus Sunnah denotes all muslims other than the Shi’ah Rafidah. This terminology has, to a greater degree, a sense of reality, because the Fundamentals of the Shi’ah (Rafidah), like the issue of Imamah, their stand on the Sahabah, the issue of al-Badaa’a, Infallibility of Imams etc, are in totality different from the fundamentals of all sects other than them.
Al-Imam Sufyan at-Thauriy (may Allah have mercy on him), clearly indicates this meaning when he was asked on compliance with the Sunnah, he said : “Offering priority to Abubakar and Umar” (See Sharh Usulu I’itiqaadi Ahlus Sunnati Wal Jama’ah by Al-Lalakaa’i vol. 1, p. 152, Az-Zahabiy said that this saying is authentic from the Imam, see Tazkiratul Huffaz p. 206).
Ibn Taimiyyah says : “The word Ahlus Sunnah is meant to refer to anyone who affirms the caliphate of the three (Abubakar, Umar and Usman). So all sects are included in that term but the Rafidah. It also means the followers of Hadith and pure Sunnah, in that case it comprises only those who affirm the attributes of Allah (as-Sifat) and those who say : The Qur’an is not a creation (but the word of Allah), and that Allah will be seen on the day of judgement, and believe in Qadar (the fate) and other fundamentals known to Ahlul Hadith and Sunnah” (Minhajus Sunnah vol. 2, p. 221).

Full details as regards these points will be discussed in due course, in sha Allah.

(1) Ali e and all Ahlul Bait inclusive, because they were true and famous Sunnis and never did they claim to be anything other than that, as will come to be known in sha Allah.
(2) The name ‘Mujtahiduun’ is not confined to the Imams of the four famous schools of Jurisprudence as some people assert, but rather there were other mazahibs before and at the time of these four. To be more precise, the term Ahlus Sunnah was there before the Imams of these four mazahibs. Ibn Taimiyyah says : “The term ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah is old and known far before Allah created Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafi’i and Ahmad. Because it is the path of the Sahabah which they received from their Prophet e ...” (Minhajus Sunnah vol. 2, p. 482). Therefore whoever defines ahlus Sunnah as being the followers of the four schools of jurisprudence is either ignorant of the term or is heading to something else other than identifying ahlus Sunnah.

Wassalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah,

Abubakar Muhammad Sani