Breaking : We would suggest, with emphasis, that our young brothers read the books of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna so that they shall not be tricked by the religion reformers’ lies…
10–
At the beginning of the First Dialogue, the religion reformer says: “The
virtuous young reformer, in order to make Muslims attain happiness, wants to
rescue them from the nuisance of taqlîd, which appeared later, and to help them
to follow the Book, the Sunna and the path of the Salaf. In the first century
[of Islam] even shepherds used to get their religious knowledge directly from
the Book and the Sunna.”
See
the buffoonery of Rashîd Ridâ’s! He says “virtuous” for the one who is a
heretic like himself. Through the mouth of an ignorant religion reformer, he
attempts to advise the old reverend
preacher. He says “nuisance “ about the
blessing of the taqlîd which is commanded by Allâhu ta’âlâ and Rasûlullah (’alaihi
’s-salâm) and which is necessary in the unanimous inference of Islamic
scholars.
He
does not realize that imitating one of the four madhhabs is an imitation which
is right, and dissenting from a madhhab by following a lâ-madhhabî is an imitation
which is wrong. He makes fun of the respectable preacher and of the blessed
word ‘wâ’iz’ (preacher). He does not know that he who makes fun of the blessed
words peculiar to men with religious responsibilities becomes a non-Muslim.
If we
had not known the Hadîth ash-sherîf, “The most atrocious, the
basest people will come to preside over Muslims,” we would
have been astonished at the unfortunate fact that this man occupied a position
of issuing fatwâs in such a Muslim country as Egypt. O you the base heretic!
Instead of making fun of Muslims and having preachers act in plays, why don’t
you come forward honestly and challenge Jews, Christian missionaries,
freemasons and communists? No, you cannot even look askance at them. Masons are
your masters, patrons.
Who
do you think you are being deceitful with the words, “to rescue Muslims from
the nuisance of taqlîd... and to help them to follow the Book (the Qur’ân
al-kerîm), the Sunna and the way of the Salaf”? Your words contradict each
other. Isn’t it taqlîd to cling to the Book, to the Sunna and to the path of
the Salaf? And this taqlîd that you wish for is possible only by following one
of the four a’immat al-madhâhib.
To
abandon that taqlîd, which you call “nuisance,” will mean to abandon the taqlîd
of the book, of the Sunna and of the path of the Salaf, thus to go out of
Islam; what you want is this wrong taqlîd. Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam) declared: “He who interprets the Book and the Hadîth
according to his own view becomes a non-Muslim.”
You
want to drive Muslims to the taqlîd which is wrong. Take the mask off your
face! Reveal the fact that you are an enemy of Islam so that we may answer you.
For the time being we quote one line from one of your fellow freemasons:
“Do
you think of everybody as blind, and all the people as stupid?”
Do
not insult the Muslims of the first century by calling them “shepherds”! Don’t
represent them as ignorant! They were all learned, whether they were shepherds,
fighters or commanders. They were all mujtahids. Certainly they could get
knowledge directly from the Book.
Since
1150 (1737), lâ-madhhabism, that is, the bid’a of disapproving the scholars of
Ahl as-Sunna, has been spread over the world. The ignorant in Saudi Arabia have
been the leaders of this destructive and disunionist activities which harm Islam
from the inside and makes brothers-in-Islam enemies to one another. The
lâ-madhhabî, who came to power by attacking the Ahl as-Sunna Muslims and
plundering and killing under torture thousands of innocent women and children,
founded a state with the help of the British in 1350 (1932) and began propagandizing
through the organizations in various countries which they established with diplomatic
power and the financial support of hundreds of thousands of gold coins
annually. Through the publications that are full of lies and slanders, they deceive
ignorant people and try to annihilate Islam from within.
Wahhâbism
was founded by Muhammad ibn ’Abd al-Wahhâb. He was born in Najd in 1111 [1699],
and died in 1206 [1792]. His father and his brother Sulaimân ibn ’Abd al-Wahhâb
were pure Muslims and Ahl as-Sunna scholars. Like other scholars in the Hijaz,
they, too, explained to Muslims that Wahhâbism was a false path. Many books
were written to protect Ahl as-Sunna, which was true Islam. For example. Sulaimân
ibn ’Abd al-Wahhâb, in order to admonish his brother, wrote at the beginning of
his work:
“Allâhu
ta’âlâ sent Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm) as the Prophet for all human beings. He
explained everything that was necessary for men in the Book, Al-Qur’ân
al-kerîm, which He sent to him; He created whatever He had promised him. He
declared that He was going to protect the religion of Islam, which He sent
through him, against alteration and corruption until the end of the world. He
said also that Muhammad’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) umma was the best of mankind; and
the Prophet gave the glad tidings that this umma would never become corrupt until
the end of the world and commanded men to hold fast to his path.
Allâhu
ta’âlâ, in the 114th âyat of the Sûrat an-Nisâ’, declares: ‘We will throw
the one who deviates from the Believers’ path into Hell.’ Therefore,
the ijmâ’ (agreement, unanimity) among the ’ulamâ’ of Islam has become a
hujja (document) and a dalîl (proof, evidence) for religious knowledge.
Deviation from this ijmâ’ has become a prohibition. Those who do not know this
path of ijmâ’ should learn it by asking those who know, which is a command
stated in the 43rd âyat of the Sûrat an-Nahl. This âyat is explained
in the Hadîth ash-sherîf, ‘Ask those who know about what you do not know.
The cure for ignorance is to learn by asking.’
“As
the ’ulamâ’ of Islam say unanimously, a mujtahid is a person who has
memorized the Arabic vocabulary; who knows the different, literal and
allegorical meanings of words; who is an ’âlim of fiqh; who has committed the
Qur’ân al-kerîm to his memory and knows the ways it is read (qirâ’a); who knows
the tafsîrs of all the âyats of the Qur’ân al-kerîm; who can distinguish
between muhkam and mutashâbih, nâsikh and mansûkh, qasas and other âyats and
sahîh, muftarî, muttasil, munqati’, mursal, musnad, mashhur and mawqûf hadîths;
who also is a possessor of wara’, whose nafs has attained tazkiya (rescuing the
nafs from its (harmful desires); and who is sâdiq (sincere in his word) and
amîn (trustworthy).
Only
such a personage who has all these excellences can be followed (taqlîd) and can
issue fatwâs. If he lacks one of these qualities, he cannot be a mujtahid and
should not be followed. He himself should follow a mujtahid. Hence, a Muslim is
either a mujtahid or a muqallid (one who practises taqlîd). There
is not a third alternative. It is fard for muqallids to follow a mujtahid. This
has been said unanimously. Even Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya [d. 751/1350], whom
the Wahhâbîs praise as an ’allâma whose every word is a document, said in his I’lâm
al-muqi’în, ‘Aperson who does not fulfil the requirements of ijtihâd is not
permitted to draw any conclusions from the Qur’ân al-kerîm or the Hadîth
ash-sherîf.’
Today
people who recite âyats and hadîths and interpret them in accord with their
points of view are looked on as scholars. People who quote Ahl as-Sunna scholars
in their speeches and books, on the other hand, are taken no heed of. The
ignorant and heretical people who do notn fulfil even a single requirement of
ijtihâd are considered as men of religious authority today. May Allâhu ta’âlâ
protect Muslims against this calamity! Âmin!”
As
quoted in the preceding article, Rashîd Ridâ praises Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya
as the “Imâm ’Allâma” and means that he follows in his footsteps. And Ibn
al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, as quoted above, prohibits non-mujtahids to draw
conclusions from the Book and the Sunna. However, Rashîd Ridâ opposes his words,
and this openly shows that he is insincere in the cause of Islam and that he is
an enemy of Islam, who tries to annihilate Islam from behind the scene.
11–
Rashîd Ridâ, with the pen in his own hand, goes on having the religion reformer
and the preacher converse with each other. While praising the religion reformer
and lauding him to the skies, he belittles and abhors the preacher in every
respect. He ascribes his own hasty, stupid statements to the preacher.
In
this book, we shall not deal with what Rashîd Ridâ wrote as a religion
reformer. But we shall write down the answers which suit the preacher’s tongue,
instead of the answers which he deems worthy of the preacher. We believe that
after reading with attention our dear readers and pure, true men with a religious
duty will understand well the inner nature of the freemasonic ruse.
A preacher cannot be so ignorant as to think that the definitions of îmân in
logic, sociology, anatomy, and even in fiqh and tasawwuf, are the
same, for, he has to be a man of knowledge who has studied and understood them during his advanced studies in the madrasa. But, if he, instead of being educated in a madrasa, has been educated
in the Jâmi’ al- Azhar
after the reformations were made there by
the
Muftî of Cairo, Muhammad ’Abduh (d. 1323/1905) and his novices, he will
confuse
these
definitions with each other, since
the freemasons abrogated scientific and
advanced religious
courses at the madrasas both in the Ottoman Empire and in Egypt. They produced modernist religion reformers who
were ignorant in Islam.
A preacher is a Muslim who knows what backbiting (ghîba) means. He knows that a word which is said about a group is not backbiting, though the religion reformer may not know the fact.
12– The religion reformer says: “Is it compatible with reason to deny what we see for the sake of the groundless words which
we
call
‘ijmâ’ or
‘unanimity’?”
He makes fun of the basic
teachings of Islam and claims that
the word ijmâ’ does not have a foundation. Scholars of fiqh learned it
from the Hadîth ash-sherîf, “My umma will not have ijmâ’ (that is, they will not agree) on
heresy!” But
how could the religion reformer know this fact! He has
not heard it from his so-called modern masters!
Ijmâ’ (consensus) was the agreement of
the ijtihâds of contemporary mujtahids of a century with one another. There has been no mujtahid mutlaq after the fourth century, and there has been no ijmâ’ since then. The ijmâ’s in the preceding centuries were to be used as proofs and documents by the mujtahids
of the later centuries. Unanimity among
the muqallids, the
ignorant or
especially among
the
religion reformers cannot
be called ijmâ’. The
soundest,
the most valuable
ijmâ’ was the
ijmâ’ of
as-Sahâbat
al-kirâm.
The scholars
who succeeded
them
collected information
about
those matters which had been communicated
as
ijmâ’ and wrote them in
their books. The information on those matters on which there had been no unanimity and the words of non- mujtahids were strictly prevented
from being called ijmâ’.
According to the scholars of
Ahl as-Sunna, al-adillat ash- Shari’iyya, that is,
the sources from which Islamic rules were derived, are four: the Book, the Sunna, qiyâs al-fuqahâ’ and ijmâ’ al-Umma.
The Book is the Qur’ân al-kerîm. The Sunna is he Hadîth ash-sherîf. These two are also called “Nass.” Qiyâs al-fuqahâ’ is composed of the ijtihâds of the scholars who were mujtahids. One who says that ijmâ’ is not a dalîl (documentary evidence) does not become
a disbeliever. He becomes a man of bid’a, for he says
it out of explaining away (ta’wîl) the
dubious nasses. The Khârijites and other lâ-madhhabî people are in this group. Their
words opposing
ijmâ’ do not result in disbelief.
However, it causes disbelief for those ignorant people who are unaware
of ta’wîl to
express their ideas and thoughts unconformable to ijmâ’.
A preacher does not talk out of imagination or supposition. He does not base his decision
on possibilities. He knows that it is
not
permissible
to talk without
sufficient knowledge
or
to decide through supposition. He does not deny what he sees, but he
studies and experiments, for, the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the Hadîth ash-sherîf order Muslims to think, to study and to experiment, and commend those who do
so.
The book ’Aqâ’id an-Nasafî, which he should have read in a madrasa and which the religion
reformer should not even
have heard
of,
writes about
the means for acquiring knowledge
on its very first page.
13– He represents the preacher as
a man
who does not
believe in geography or newspapers and who does not accept
what disbelievers report. See the
slander against the preacher! Muslims do believe in scientific knowledge, but they
do not get deceived by the lies which non-Muslims say under the mask of science. Trying to
deceive Muslims and blemish Islamic religion,
those kâfirs, who are not aware of
science, and
pretending as scientists, saying lies in the form of scientific knowledge
are called (Science bigots), or (Religion reformers) or (Zindîqs).
These are separatists who slander both Islam and the science. If Muslims had not believed in
geography, would they have studied this branch
of knowledge? The names and authors of the
geography books that make known Muslims’ studies and discoveries in this field are written in
the books Kashf az-zunûn and Mawdû’ât al-ulûm and
also in Brockelmann’s German Geschichte der Arabischen Literatur. Let us
ask the religion reformer: who measured first the length of one meridian on
the Sinjar Desert? Weren’t they the Muslims of Ahl
as-Sunna who belonged to one of the four madhhabs? Won’t a Muslim who follows their path and who is like them believe in scientific knowledge?
Moreover, it is a squalid slander against Muslims to
ascribe
the statement, “Geography is a branch
of knowledge belonging to non-Muslims, so
it is
not
acceptable,” to
a
preacher.
An ignorant person, a heretic
or a religion reformer
who disguises himself as a
preacher may speak so nonsensically. But it would be enmity against
Islam to say
that an honourable Muslim following one of the four madhhabs spoke so.
The madhhabs do
not prohibit science, technology, calculation or experimentation; why, then, should a person who follows a madhhab
prohibit
them? The madhhabs
commend them and order muqallids to learn them. A person who does not believe
or learn them cannot be a
follower of an imâm al- madhhab. It befits the enemies
of the madhhabs
to attribute such words to a follower of a madhhab.
14– A preacher could not be
so
ignorant as to take
the humble, poor and contemptible state Muslims are in as a
sign of the imminence of Doomsday, for, the imâm al-madhhab whom he follows reported that there would be wealth, excessiveness,
many buildings and much fornication towards
Doomsday. A muqallid should know this fact, too. If
he does not know it, he is the follower
of no madhhab. The a’immat al-madhâhib
said that
people would become evil after Hadrat al-Mahdî and before him there will be many days of happiness. Muslims should live
these happy days
and,
therefore, work and make
progress
materially and spiritually. Allâhu ta’âlâ will certainly reward the one who works.
15– The religion reformer uses the term “the concept of
the Mahdî” about Hadrat
al-Mahdî. He says he does not believe
that Hadrat
al-Mahdî
will come in the future.
The religion reformer, a zindîq, may not, but Muslims should believe that he will come since all the ’ulamâ’ of Islam unanimously write that he
will come. Such great scholars as al-Imâm as-Suyûtî and Ibn Hajar
al-Makkî
(d. 974/1566)
wrote
books about Hadrat
al- Mahdî. They quoted what
more
than two
hundred hadîths uttered about him and the alâmât (signs) of
his coming in the future.
16– The religion reformer says: “Concerning any matter on which there has
been no ijmâ’, everybody should follow a documentary evidence
that satisfies him. As a matter of fact, to follow a mujtahid means to follow his proofs.”
Yes, to follow (taqlîd) a mujtahid means to follow his documentary proofs, namely the
Qur’ân al-kerîm and the Hadîth ash-sherîf. But it was the mujtahid who found out the proofs for the matter. As a
matter of fact, the madhhabs differed from one another in finding out the proofs. Finding out a proof for any matter required being an ’âlim in the grade of ijtihâd, a mujtahid. Indeed, such an ’âlim could not imitate another person; he had to act in accord with his own ijtihâd.
17– Rashîd Ridâ writes that the preacher believes the kashf of the Awliyâ’ concerning
the time of Doomsday. The fact, however, is
that the a’immat al-madhâhib
said that it was not made known when Doomsday
would come, that no one but Allâhu
ta’âlâ knew it, and that the kashfs
of the Awliyâ’ could not
be
proofs or
documents for anybody. Those
who
follow these ’âlims will certainly say so. It would be a mendacity, an abominable slander to impute any words other than these to
the
preacher.
18– The religion reformer is
right to
say that there are made- up hadîths in tafsîr books like the tafsîr book Kalbî,
yet his statement, “So is the tafsîr book by al-Baidâwî,”
is absolutely wrong. The great
scholar
Hadrat ’Abdulhakîm-i Arwâsî
(d.
1362/1943) said,
“Qâdî al-Baidâwî (Bayyad-Allâhu wajhah, May Allâhu
ta’âlâ make his face luminous) was as suitably high as his name
and the blessing invoked on him. He was loved and honoured above all by the mufassirs (’âlim authors
of tafsîr books). He
reached the highest
grade in
the knowledge of tafsîr. He was a
sanad (authority) in every branch of knowledge.
He was prominent
in
all madhhabs
and
a
guide in every thought. He has been known as an
expert in every branch of science,
as a guide in every kind of usûl, and as dependable,
powerful and distinguished by early and late ’ulamâ’.
It is a great dare to say that there are made-up hadîths in the book of such a profound ’âlim. It is to make a deep precipice in Islam. The tongue of the person who utters such words, the heart of the one who believes them, and the ears of the one who listens to them deserve to
catch fire. Could not this great man of knowledge distinguish made-up
hadîths
from the
true ones?
What should be said to those who say that he could not? Or, did he lack religious
strength and fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ so far as to
write made-up hadîths and to
take no notice of
the heavy punishments which our Prophet (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) had told about those who would do so? It would be so wicked, so loathsome to
say that
he did.
Because
the
meanings of these hadîths are too lofty for the narrow mind and the thick head
of the person who would say so, he finds no other
way than saying that they are mawdû’.”
19– The religion reformer says: “We have not seen the
next
world; then how can we associate ash-Sha’rânî’s words about the geographical position of the place named ‘Mawqif’ and his map of the Sirât,
the Mîzân, Hell and Paradise with the next world? We have not seen any proof in the Book, the Sunna, ’Aql (reason)
or Hikma (wisdom) about such
things. It is strange that your shaikhs (masters) turn away from
the world’s most famous
and useful geography and
draw maps of the next world which cannot be seen.”
With these words,
he attacks the great Awliyâ’ (the elect loved
and protected by Allâhu ta’âlâ) and their
karâmât (miracles worked by
Allâhu ta’âlâ through Awliyâ’) and tries to undermine Muslims’ belief in them. However, he has no right to behave so, for, Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the Qur’ân al-kerîm, “Perform
the
dhikr (remembrance
of Allâhu ta’âlâ) continually. Through the dhikr the heart
attains itminân (tranquillity).”
A hadîth
sherîf
declares, “The
symptom of loving Allâhu ta’âlâ
is to remember Him very much.” The ’ulamâ’ of hadîth said,
“Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) performed the dhikr every moment.”
It is for this reason that the great ones of this umma performed the dhikr so much, and
thus strived to carry out this command of Islam, too. By performing the dhikr constantly, their
blessed hearts attained tranquillity, and, as
it is
stated in the hadîths, “There is a cure for every disease. The cure for the heart is the dhikr of Allah,” and “The sources of taqwâ (piety, abstention
from
harâms)
are the ’ârifs’ hearts,”
they were saved from the disease of the heart, from sins.
They attained Allâhu ta’âlâ’s love.
And these
very scholars,
who had taqwâ and whose hearts were pure, said that while
performing
the dhikr constantly they forgot about
the world, about
everything, that their hearts became like mirrors, and that, like a dream when everything has been forgotten in sleep, something was manifested in their
hearts. They
gave
these manifestations such names as “kashf,” “mukâshafa” or “shuhûd.” Thousands of Awliyâ’ in every century said so.
It is an ’ibâda to perform the dhikr very much. Allâhu
ta’âlâ loves those who do it very much,
and
their
hearts
become
the sources of
taqwâ. The Book and the Sunna reveal these facts. These facts are called
the “umûr at-tashrî’iyya”
(Islamic matters). He who disbelieves
them will have disbelieved the Book and the Sunna.
It has been revealed by true Muslims, whom Allâhu ta’âlâ loves, that
there occurs kashf and shuhûd in the heart.
A hadîth sherîf declares, “No discord remains in one’s heart who perform the dhikr very much.” Those who revealed these facts
were not munâfiqs, but
Muslims true in though and in words. Kashf and karâma have been reported by such people as tawâtur (the state of being widespread, which is a proof of
authenticity and against denial). Moreover, though these are the
umûr al-wijdâniyya or umûr ad-dhawqiyya (matters not shown in Islam but done upon one’s own judging with
one’s conscience) and
they
cannot
be documents
for others.
Muslims have been neither commanded nor prohibited
to believe them. It is
better to believe than disbelieve what the pious Muslims loved by Allâhu ta’âlâ have reported as tawâtur. One should have a good
opinion of a Muslim
and trust his conduct, even his
words concerning ’ibâdât (Islamic rites). The proverb, “He
who denies will be deprived,” has
always shown inevitability.
Hadrat ’Abd al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî was a profound ’âlim and
a great Walî. He is one of the archstones of the Shâfi’î madhhab. He is loved and admired by the Ahl as-Sunna. The books he read and memorized are beyond count. Some of them are mentioned in
the preface of
his
Al-mîzân
al-kubrâ. Hundreds of his works are listed in Kashf az-zunûn. Each
of his books is a monument exhibiting his greatness. Hanafî scholars, too, have been admirers of his
deep knowledge, his kashfs and shuhûds. They have reported that he is
one of the “stars on the earth.”
It was declared in
a hadîth sherîf, “On the Day of Resurrection, first the prophets and then the ’ulamâ’ and martyrs will intercede.” Holding fast to
this hadîth sherîf, we expect his intercession. It is obvious that those who attack such eye-apples of
the Ahl as-Sunna are zindîqs. Zindîqs and disbelievers
attacked also Muhammad
(’alaihi ’s-salâm), the guide
of Muslims. Voltaire,
the famous
disbeliever
hostile to Islam, stooped to making the Master of Mankind, Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm), a topic for his repulsive plays.
So will such base attacks be certainly
made upon the scholars
of Ahl as- Sunna, who are the inheritors of
the
exalted Prophet (’alaihi
’s- salâm). These great people will certainly not be blemished by being a subject for the
filthy mouths and cracked pens of the enemies. Falling down on the ground does not decrease the value of a jewel.
Abd al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî and similar great people, who were loved by Allâhu ta’âlâ very much, said not that they saw the Mawqif, Sirât, Paradise or Hell with their eyes, but that they could
not be seen in this world and that they were shown like a dream and were revealed to their hearts in a manner that could not be known or understood or described. They revealed this secret to
those whom they loved, to their intimate friends. They said,
“Man lam yadhuq lam
yadri,”
(He
who
has not tasted
cannot understand).
It is ignorance
or
stupidity to
deny something which cannot be understood, and the comment “impossible, can never be” about something which one cannot understand is
an expression of regression, stubbornness and fanaticism. That is
why we call the religion reformer “a bigot of science.” What else could it be, if not being a
zindîq or enemy against Islam, to
make fun of Muslim ’ulamâ’s subtle knowledge
which is beyond the limits of reason and science, by saying that they drew maps?
20–Rashîd Ridâ quotes the
ahâdith ash-sherîf about Doomsday in his book. But he has the preacher always utter those words concocted by zindîqs in the name of hadîth. And, having the religion
reformer prove that those words are not
hadîths, he
has
him tell the facts that are written in the books of the ’ulamâ’ of Ahl as-Sunna.
Through this trick which he plays, he
endeavours to belittle preachers and Muslims, who are the followers of
the madhhabs, to misrepresent them as ignorant,
while introducing himself and
other religion reformers as intelligent, learned men of Islam.
No doubt, those Muslims who have read and understood Islamic books well
will not believe these abominable slanders. But we are
writing these lines lest
those who do not know the fact should be
deceived by
thinking that these writings of the religion reformer are
true. We would suggest, with emphasis, that our young brothers read the books of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna so that they shall not be tricked by the religion reformers’ lies.
Continued
...
Hakikat Kitabevi, Waqf Ikhlas Publications No: 10, Answer
to an Enemy of Islam, Muhâwarât, Fourteenth Edition, Fatih-Istanbul (Turkey),
p. 19-29, (2000), or http://hakikatkitabevi.com
Post a Comment