|
The
preceding Introduction was written
ten years ago, during which time
it has become apparent to us that
our words have had a positive effect
on Muslim youth in guiding them towards
the obligation in matters of their
Deen and worship to return to the
pure sources of Islaam: the Book
and the Sunnah. Among them, there
was an increase in the ranks of of
those who practised the Sunnah and
devoted themselves to it, - Praise
be to Allaah - such that they became
conspicuous for it. However, I still
found among some of them a steadfastness
in failing to practise the Sunnah:
not due to any doubt about its obligation
after reading the Qur'aanic verses
and narrations from the Imaams about
going back to the Sunnah, but because
of some objections and misconceptions
which they had heard from some muqallid
shaikhs. Therefore, I decided to
mention these incorrect notions and
refute them, so that perhaps ths
would encourage more people to practise
the Sunnah and thus be among the
Saved Sect, Allaah Willing.
Some of them say,
"There is no doubt that it is obligatory to return to the guidance of our Prophet
(sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) in the matters of our Deen, especially in the
recommended acts of worship such as Prayer, where there is no room for opinion
or ijtihaad, due to their immutable nature. However, we hardly hear any of the
muqallid shaikhs propounding this; in fact, we find them upholding difference
of opinion, which they regard as flexibility for the Ummah. Their proof for this
is the hadeeth which they repeatedly quote in such circumstances, when refuting
the helpers of the Sunnah, 'The difference of opinion (ikhtilaaf) among my
Ummah is a mercy (rahmah)'. It seems to us that this hadeeth contradicts the
principles to which you invite and based on which you have compiled this book
and others. So, what do you say about this hadeeth ?"
Answer: The answer
is from two angles:
A) Firstly: This
hadeeth is not authentic; in fact, it is false and without foundation. 'Allaamah
Subki said, "I have not come across an authentic or weak or fabricated chain
of narration for it", i.e. no chain of narrators exists for this "hadeeth"!
It has also been
related with the wordings: "... the difference of opinion among my Companions
is a mercy for you" and "My Companions are like the stars, so whichever of them
you follow, you will be guided." Both of these are not authentic: the former
is very feeble; the latter is fabricated. (See Appendix 1)
B) Secondly: This
hadeeth contradicts the Glorious Qur'aan, for the aayaat forbidding division
in the Deen and enjoining unity are too well-known to need reminding. However,
there is no harm in giving some of them by way of example: Allaah says,
"...
and do not fall into disputes, lest you
lose heart and your power depart"1;
"And
do not be among those join deities with
Allaah, those who split up their Deen and
become sects - each party rejoicing with
what it has !"2;
"But
they will not cease to differ, except those
on whom your Lord bestows His Mercy"3.
Therefore, if
those on whom your Lord has mercy do not differ, and the people of falsehood
differ, how can it make sense that differing is a mercy?!
Hence, it is established
that this hadeeth is not authentic, neither in the chain of narration, nor in
meaning; therefore, it is clear and obvious that it cannot be used to justify
resistance towards acting on the Book and the Sunnah, which is what our Imaams
have commanded us anyway.
Others
say, "If differing in the Deen is forbidden, what do you say about the differences
among the Companions and among the Imaams after them? Is there any distinction
between their differing and that of later generations ?"
Answer: Yes, there is a big difference between these two examples of differing,
which manifests itself in two ways: firstly, in cause; secondly, in effect.
A) As for the differing among the Companions, that was unavoidable, natural
difference of understanding: they did not differ by choice. Other factors of
their time contributed to this, necessitating difference of opinion, but these
vanished after their era.4
This type of differing is impossible to totally remove and such people cannot
be blamed in the light of the above mentioned aayaat because of the absence
of the appropriate conditions, i.e. differing on purpose and insisting on it.
However, as for the differing found among the muqallideen today, there is no
overriding excuse for it. To one of them, the proof from the Book and the Sunnah
is shown, which happens to support a Madhhab other than his usual one, so he
puts the proof aside for no other reason except that it is against his Madhhab.
It is as though his Madhhab is the original, or it is the Deen which Muhammad
(sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) brought, while other Madhhabs are separate Deens
which have been abrogated! Others take the opposite extreme, regarding the Madhhabs
- for all their differences - as parallel codes of Law, as some of their later
adherents explain5:
there is no harm in a Muslim taking what he likes from them and leaving what
he likes, because they are all valid codes of Law !
Both these categories of people justify their remaining divided by this false
hadeeth, "The differing among my Ummah is a mercy" - so many of them we hear
using this as evidence! Some of them give the reason behind this hadeeth and
its purpose by saying that it ensures flexibility for the Ummah! Apart from
the fact that this "reason" is contrary to the clear Qur'aanic verses and to
the meanings of the Imaam's words mentioned, there is also text fom some Imaams
to refute it.
Ibn al-Qaasim said,
"I
heard Maalik and Laith saying about the differing of the Companions of the Messenger
of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam), 'It is not as people say: "There
is flexibility in it"; no, it is not like that, but it is a matter of some being
mistaken and some being correct'."6
Ashhab said,
"Maalik
was asked about the person who accepted a hadeeth narrated by reliable people
in the authority of the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi
wa sallam): 'Do you see any flexibility there?' He said, 'No, by Allaah, so
that he may be on the truth. Truth can only be one. Two contradictory views,
can both be correct?! Truth and right are only one."7
Imaam Muzani, a companion of Imaam Shaafi'i said,
"The Companions
of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) indeed differed,
and some of them corrected others. Some scrutinised others' views and found
fault with them. If all their views had been correct, they would not have done
so.
'Umar ibn al-Khattab
became angry at the dispute between Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Ibn Mas'ood about prayer
in a single garment. Ubayy said, 'Prayer in one garment is good and fine;
Ibn Mas'ood said, 'That is only if one does not have many clothes.' So 'Umar
came out in anger, saying, 'Two men from among the companions of the Messenger
of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam), who are looked up to and learnt
from, disputing? Ubayy has spoken the truth and not cared about Ibn Mas'ood.
But if I hear anyone disputing about it after this I will do such-and-such
to him'."8
Imaam Muzani also
said,
"There
is the one who allows differing and thinks that if two scholars make ijtihaad
on a problem and one says, 'Halaal', while the other says, 'Haraam', then both
have arrived at the truth with their ijtihad! It can be said to such a person,
'Is this view of yours based on the sources or on qiyaas (analogy) ?' If he
says, 'On the sources', it can be said, 'How can it be based on the sources,
when the Qur'aan negates differing ?' And if he says, 'On analogy', it can be
said, 'How can the sources negate differing, and it be allowed for you to reason
by analogy that differing is allowed?! This is unacceptable to anyone intelligent,
let alone to a man of learning."9
If it is said
further: "What you have quoted from Imaam Maalik that truth is only one, not
plural, is contradicted by what is found in Al-Madkhal al-Fiqhi by Shaikh Zarqaa'
(1/89), "The Caliphs Abu Ja'far al-Mansoor and later ar- Rasheed proposed to
select the Madhhab of Imaam Maalik and his book Al-Muwatta' as the official
code of Law for the 'Abbaasi empire, but Maalik forbade them from this, saying,
"Indeed, the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam)
differed in the non- fundamental issues and were scattered in various towns,
but each of them was correct."
I say: This incident
of Imaam Maalik (rahimahullaah) is well- known, but his saying at the end, "but
each of them was correct" is one for which I find no basis in any of the narrations
or sources I have come across10, by Allaah,
except for one narration collected by Abu Nu'aim in Hilyah al- Awliyaa' (6/332),
but with a chain of narrators which includes al-Miqdaam ibn Daawood who is classified
among the weak narrators by Dhahabi in ad-Du'afaa'; not only this, but the wording
of it is, "... but each of them was correct in his own eyes." Hence the
phrase "in his own eyes" shows that the narration in Madkhal is fabricated;
indeed, how could it be otherwise, when it contradicts what has been reported
on reliable authority from Imaam Maalik that truth is only one and not plural,
as we have mentioned, and this is agreed on by all the Imaams of the Companions
and the Successors as well as the four Mujtahid Imaams and others. Ibn 'Abdul
Barr says, "If the conflicting views could both be right, the Salaf would not
have corrected each other's ijtihaad, judgments, and verdicts. Simple reasoning
forbids that something and its opposite can both be correct; as the fine saying
goes,
To prove two opposites
simultaneously is the most hideous absurity."11
If it is said
further, "Given that this narration from Imaam Maalik is false, why did he forbid
al-Mansoor from bringing the people together on his book Al-Muwatta' rather
than acceding to the Caliph's wish ?"
I say: The best
that I have found in answer to this is what Haafiz Ibn Katheer has mentioned
in his Sharh Ikhtisaar 'Uloom al-Hadeeth (p.31), that Imaam Maalik said, "Indeed
the people have come together on, and know of, things which we are not acquainted
with." This was part of the excellence of his wisdom and impartiality, as Ibn
Katheer (rahimahullaah) says.
Hence, it is proved
that all differing is bad, not a mercy! However, one type of differing is reprehensible,
such as that of staunch followers of the Madhhabs, while another type is not
blameworthy, such as the differing of the Companions and the Imaams who succeeded
them - May Allaah raise us in their company, and give us the capability to tread
their path.
Therefore, it
is clear that the differing of the Companions was not like that of the muqallideen.
Briefly: the Companions only differed when it was inevitable, but they used
to hate disputes, and would avoid them whenever possible; as for the muqallideen,
even though it is possible in a great many cases to avoid differing, they do
not agree nor strive towards unity; in fact, they uphold differing. Hence there
is an enormous gulf between these two types of people in their difference of
opinion.
This was from
the point of view of cause.
B) The difference
in effect is more obvious.
The Companions
(radi Allaahu 'anhum), despite their well- known differing in non-fundamental
issues, were extremely careful to preserve outward unity, staying well-away
from anything which would divide them and split their ranks. For example, there
were among them those who approved of saying the basmalah loudly (in prayer)
and those who did not; there were those who held that raising the hands (in
prayer) was recommended and those who did not; there were those who held that
touching a woman nullified ablution, and those who did not; - but despite all
that, they would all pray together behind one imaam, and none of them would
disdain from praying behind an imaam due to difference of opinion.
As for the muqallideen,
their differing is totally opposite, for it has caused Muslims to be divided
inthe mightiest pillar of faith after the two testifications of faith: none
other than the Salaah (Prayer). They refuse to pray together behind one imaam,
arguing that the imaam's prayer is invalid, or at least detestable, for someone
of a different Madhhab. This we have heard and seen, as others beside us have
seen12; how
can it not be, when nowadays some famous books of the Madhhabs rule such cases
of invalidity or detestability. The result of this has been that you find four
Mihraabs (alcoves) in some large congregational mosques, in which four imaams
successively lead the Prayer, and you find people waiting for their imaam while
another imaam is already standing in Prayer!!!
In fact, to some
muqallideen, the difference between the Madhhabs has reached a worse state than
that, such as a ban in marriage between Hanafees and Shaafi'is; one well known
Hanafi scholar, later nicknamed Mufti ath-Thaqalayn (The Mufti for Humans and
Jinn), issued a fatwaa allowing a Hanafi man to marry a Shaafi'i woman, because
"her position is like that of the People of the Book"13
! This implies - and implied meanings are acceptable to them - that the reverse
case is not allowed, i.e. a Hanafi woman marrying a Shaafi'i man, just as a
Muslim woman cannot marry a Jew or Christian?!!
These two examples,
out of many, are enough to illustrate to anyone intelligent the evil effects
of the differing of the later generations and their insistence upon it, unlike
the differing of the earlier generations (the Salaf), which did not have any
adverse effect on the Ummah. Because of this, the latter are exempt from the
verses prohibiting division in the Deen, unlike the later generations. May Allaah
guide us all to the Straight Path.
Further, how we
wish that the harm caused by such differing be limited to among themselves and
not extend to the other peoples being given da'wah, for then it would not be
that bad, but it is so sad when they allow it to reach the non- believers in
many areas around the world, and their differing obstructs the entry of people
in large numbers into the Deen of Allaah! The book Zalaam min al-Gharb by Muhammad
al- Ghazaali (p. 200) records the following incident,
"It so
happened during a conference held at the University of Princeton in America
that one of the speakers raised a question, one which is a favourite of the
Orientalists and the attackers of Islaam: 'Which teachings do the Muslims advance
to the world in order to specify the Islaam towards which they are inviting
? Is it Islamic teachings as understood by the Sunnis? Or is it as understood
by the Imaami or Zaidi Shee'ahs? Moreover, all of these are divided further
amongst themselves, and further, some of them believe in limited progression
in thought, while others believe obstinately in fixed ideas.'
The result was
that the inviters to Islaam left those being invited in confusion, for they
were themselves utterly confused."14
In the Preface
to Hadiyyah as-Sultaan ilaa Muslimee Bilaad Jaabaan by 'Allaamah Sultaan al-Ma'soomi
(rahimahullaah), the author says,
A query
was posed to me by the Muslims from Japan, from the cities of Tokyo and Osaka
in the far east, "What is the actual Deen of Islaam? What is a Madhhab? Is it
necessary for one ennobled by the Deen of Islaam to adhere to one of the four
Madhhabs? That is, should he be Maaliki, Hanafi, Shaafi'i or Hanbali, or is
it not necessary?"
This was because
a major differing, a filthy dispute, had occured here, when a number of groups
of Japanese intellectuals wanted to enter into the Deen of Islaam, and be
ennobled by the nobility of Eeman. When they proposed this to some Muslims
present in Tokyo, some people from India said, "It is best that they choose
the Madhhab of Abu Haneefah, for he is the Lamp of the Ummah"; some people
from Indonesia (Java) said, "No, they should be Shaafi'i!" So when the Japanese
heard these statements, they were extremely perplexed and were thrown off
their original purpose. Hence the issue of the Madhhabs became a barrier in
the path of their accepting Islaam!!
Others have the idea
that what we invite to, of following the Sunnah and not accepting the views of
the Imaams contrary to it, means to completely abandon following their views and
benefiting from their opinions and ijtihaad.
Answer: This idea
is as far as can be from the truth - it is false and obviously flawed, as is
clearly evident from our previous discussion, all of which suggests otherwise.
All that we are calling to is to stop treating the Madhhab as a Deen, placing
it in the position of the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, such that it is referred to
in the case of dispute or when extracting a new judgment for unexpected cirumstances,
as the so-called jurists of this age do when setting new rules for personal
matters, marriage, divorce, etc, instead of referring to the Qur'aan and the
Sunnah to distinguish the right from the wrong, the truth from falsehood - all
of this on the basis of their "Differing is a mercy" and their idea of pursuing
every concession, ease and convenience! How fine was the saying of Sulaiman
at-Taymi (rahimahullaah):
Were you to accept
the concessions of every scholar, In you would gather every evil.
Related by Ibn
'Abdul Barr in Jaami' Bayaan al-'Ilm (2/91- 91), who said after it, "There is
ijmaa' (consensus of opinion) on this: I know of no contrary view."
All this pursuing
of concessions for the sake of it is what we reject, and it agrees with ijmaa',
as you see.
As for referring
to the Imaams' views, benefiting from them, and being helped by them in understanding
the truth where they have differed and there is no text in the Qur'aan and the
Sunnah, or when there is need for clarification, we do not reject it. In fact,
we enjoin it and stress upon it, for there is much benefit expected in this
for whoever treads the path of being guided by the Qur'aan and the Sunnah. 'Allaamah
Ibn 'Abdul Barr (rahimahullaah) says (2/182),
"Hence,
my brother, you must preserve the fundamentals and pay attention to them. You
should know that he who takes care over preserving the sunnahs and the commandments
stated in the Qur'aan, considers the views of the jurists to assist him in his
ijtihaad, open up different angles of approach and explain sunnahs which carry
different possible meanings, does not blindly follow the opinion of anyone of
them the way the Sunnah should be followed without analysis, nor ignores what
the scholars themselves achieved in preserving and reflecting on the sunnahs,
but follows them in discussion, understanding and analysis, is grateful to them
for their efforts through which they have benefited him and alerted him about
various points, praises them for their correct conclusions, as in the majority
of cases, but does not clear them of errors just as they did not clear themselves:
such is the pursuer of knowledge who is adhering to the way of the pious predecessors;
such is the really fortunate and truly guided; such is the follower of the Sunnah
of his Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam), and the guidance of the Companions
(radi Allaahu 'anhum).
But he who refrains
from analysis, forsakes the method we have mentioned, disputes the sunnahs
with his opinion and desires to accommadate them only where his own view allows:
such a one is straying and leading others astray. Further, he who is ignorant
of all we have mentioned, and plunges carelessly into giving verdicts without
knowledge: such a one is even more blind, and on a path more astray."
There exists another
common misconception among muqallideen which bars them from practising the Sunnah
which it is apparent to them that their Madhhab is different to it in that issue:
they think that practising that sunnah entails faulting the founder of the Madhhab.
To them, finding fault means insulting the Imaam; if it is not allowed to insult
any individual Muslim, how can they insult one of their Imaams ?
Answer: This reasoning
is totally fallacious, and borne of not understanding the Sunnah; otherwise,
how can an intelligent Muslim argue in such a way?!
The Messenger
of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) himself said, When the one making
a judgment strives his outmost and arrives at the correct result, he has two
rewards; but if he judges, striving his utmost and passes the wrong judgment,
he has one reward.15
This hadeeth refutes the above argument and explains lucidly and without any
obscurity that if someone says, "So-and-so was wrong", its meaning under the
Sharee'ah is "So-and-so has one reward." So if he is rewarded in the eyes of
the one finding fault, how can you accuse the latter of insulting him?! There
is doubt that this type of accusation is baseless and anyone who makes it must
retract it: otherwise it is he who is insulting Muslims, not just ordinary individuals
among them, but their great Imaams among the Companions, Successors the subsequent
Mujtahid Imaams and others. This is because we know for sure that these illustrious
personalities used to fault and refute each other16; is it
reasonable to say, "They used to insult each other"? No! In fact, it is authentically-reported
that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) himself faulted
Abu Bakr (radi Allaahu 'anhu) in his interpretation of a man's dream, saying
to him, "You were right in some of it and wrong in some of it"17- so did
he (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) insult Abu Bakr by these words?!
One of the astonishing
effects this misconception has on its holders is that it prevents them from
following the Sunnah when it is different to their Madhhab, since to them practising
it means insulting the Imaam, whereas following him, even when contrary to the
Sunnah, means respecting and loving him! Hence they insist on following his
opinion to escape from this supposed disrespect.
These people have
forgotten - I am not saying: ... pretended to forget - that because of this
notion, they have landed in something far worse than that from which they were
fleeing. It should be said to them, "If to follow someone means that you are
respecting him, and to oppose him means that you are insulting him, then how
do you allow yourselves to oppose the example of the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi
wa sallam) and not follow it, preferring to follow the Imaam of the Madhhab
in a path different to the Sunnah, when the Imaam is not infallible and insulting
him is not Kufr?! If you interpret opposing the Imaam as insulting him, then
opposing the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) is more obviously
insulting him; in fact, it is open Kufr, from which we seek refuge with Allaah!"
If this is said to them, they cannot answer to it, by Allaah, except one retort
which we hear time and time again from some of them: "We have left this sunnah
trusting in the Imaam of the Madhhab, and he was more learned about the Sunnah
than us."
Our answer to
this is from many angles, which have already been discussed at length in this
Introduction. This is why I shall briefly limit myself to one approach, a decisive
reply by the permission of Allaah. I say:
"The Imaam
of your Madhhab is not the only one who was more learned about the Sunnah than
you: in fact, there are dozens, nay hundreds, of Imaams who too were more knowledgeable
about the Sunnah than you. Therefore, if an authentic sunnah happens to differ
from your Madhhab, and it was taken by one of these other Imaams, it is definitely
essential that you accept this sunnah in this circumstance. This is because
your above- mentioned argument is of no use here, for the one opposing you will
reply, 'We have accepted this Sunnah trusting in our Imaam, who accepted it'
- in this instance, to follow the latter Imaam is preferable to following the
Imaam who has differed from the Sunnah."
This is clear
and not confusing to anyone, Allaah Willing.
Because of all
of the above, I am able to say:
Since this book
of ours has collected the authentic sunnahs reported from the Messenger of Allaah
(sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) about the description of his Prayer, there is
no excuse for anyone to not act on it, for there is nothing in it which the
scholars have unanimously rejected, as they would never do. In fact, in every
instance several of them have adopted the authentic sunnah; any one of them
who did not do so is excused and rewarded once, because the text was not conveyed
to him at all, or it was conveyed but in such a way that to him it did not constitute
proof, or due to other reasons which are well-known among the scholars. However,
those after him in front of whom the text is firmly established have no excuse
for following his opinion; rather, it is obligatory to follow the infallible
text.
This message has
been the purpose of this Introduction. Allaah, Mighty and Sublime, says,
"O
you who believe! Give your response to Allaah and His Messenger when he calls
you to that which will give you life, and know that Allaah comes in between
a man and his heart, and it is He to whom you shall all be gathered."18
Allaah says the
Truth; He shows the Way; and He is the Best to Protect and the Best to Help.
May Allaah send prayers and peace on Muhammad, and on his family and his Companions.
Praise be to Allaah, Lord of the Worlds.
Muhammad Naasirud-Deen
al-Albaani
Damascus
28/10/1389 AH
|