Breaking : The ’ulamâ’ of Ahl as-Sunna have guided the people to the right path in every part of the world in every century. They have not left
any question
unanswered. They have protected Muslims from believing in the lies and slanders of zindîqs, men of bid’a,
and religion reformers. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that Islam will not be corrupted till the end of the world...
21–
Rashîd Ridâ has the preacher say the words of the Hurûfîs,
Durzîs (Druzes) and Bâtinîs, who have nothing to do with Islam, and thus misrepresents
these to be the preacher’s knowledge of Islam, and has the religion reformer
say that these things have no place in Islam and, hence, presents the preacher
as an ignoramus. He tries to establish the readers’ confidence in the religion reformer and to represent the Ahl
as-Sunna men of religious post as ignorant.
22–
The religion reformer says: “Recently most of those who call themselves Ahl
as-Sunna wa ’l-Jamâ’a have not been able to escape the bid’a made up by the
Bâtinîs and others. They are different in name only. If you compare the words
of the Bâtinîs with those of the men of tasawwuf of the fourth and later
centuries, you will find little difference between them.”
Here
again the religion reformer reveals his ignorance in Islam. Contrary to what he
writes, the term Ahl as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a was not invented
after Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam), who had referred to this term and called Muslims to unite under this
name. The hadîths, “Hold fast to my sunna,” and “Do not depart from
the Jamâ’a,” are the evidence of this call. With his insolent lie above, the
reformer attacks the superior scholars of Ahl as-Sunna and the great Awliyâ’
and attempts to vilify them. The books of Ahl as-Sunna scholars are still the
same just as they were written a thousand years ago. There may be ignorant or
heretical people in every branch of science and knowledge, among every class of
people, and it is a great injustice to attack the word Ahl as-Sunna by taking a
few such people as examples. And likening the great men of tasawwuf to the
Bâtinîs is one of the tactics of the religion reformers which they have used
most frequently. Mistaking the scholars of bâtin (interior, hidden knowledge)
for the zindîqs called Bâtinîs is like misrepresenting light as dark, right as wrong,
and honest as crooked. Rashîd Ridâ’s book is very far from being a scientific
work; it is more of a writing prepared by a conjurer in order to deceive and
hoodwink the readers.
23–
Rashîd Ridâ says through the preacher’s mouth: “I do not see why the scholars
of kalâm and fiqh keep silent against the instigation of the subversive
Shî’ites, who have both deviated themselves and caused others to deviate from
the right path, nor can I explain it to myself. Men of kalâm have always been
against the Mu’tazila, refuted and vehemently resisted against their beliefs.
The Mu’tazila doctrine and its devotees, therefore, have faded away from
history. As for the scholars of fiqh, though all of them belong to Ahl as-Sunna
wa ’l-Jamâ’a, they have been struggling against one another, refuting one
another.”
Obviously, these slanders against the scholars of kalâm and fiqh, which Rashîd Ridâ writes through the preacher, will
not convince anyone. Libraries are full of
books of refutation written by the scholars of
Ahl as-Sunna. Those written in Persian are not fewer than the Arabic ones. If
Rashîd Ridâ knew Persian and had read the book Tuhfa-i Ithnâ ’ashariyya by
Hadrat ’Abd al-’Azîz ad-Dahlawî, he could not help being astonished at how the
great scholar rebuts and puts to rout the lâ-madhhabî.
Thouse who read Hadrat Al-Imâm ar-Rabbânî Ahmad al-Fârûqî as-Sirhindî’s
Radd-i Rawâfid, which explains the cause of the Uzbek Sultan ’Abdullah
Shah’s war against them and his conquering them, and any man of knowledge who
sees the book Hujaj-i Qat’iyya, which narrates as-Suwaidî’s debate with Nâdir Shah’s men and his
overpowering them, will fully understand that the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna did
overcome them. At the end of the eightieth letter, the translation of the book Maktûbât
gives the names and the books of thirty-two of those scholars who wrote
that the lâ-madhhabî are heretical and that they strive to demolish Islam from
within. Also, the idea that the scholars of fiqh have been struggling with one
another is one of the slanders which the religion reformers have been repeating
constantly. This has been already answered in the sixth article.
24– The religion reformer says:“The scholars’ refuting and
struggling against one another originated mostly
from falling for the desires of the nafs. The one and only cause of
the birth of the knowledge of kalâm was the Mu’tazila. They [scholars of kalâm]
dived into some matters which the pious
Salaf had not. They put forward some objections to
them. And the others stood against their arrows of
objection. With the disappearing of
the
real scholars of knowledge, of ideas and deduction,
the posterity began
to repeat word for word that they had said. In the process of
time these, too, came to
no use. These imitators kept silent against those matters, bid’as and superstitions,
which appeared after such scholars as al-Imâm
al-Ash’arî and his followers, and accused those who asked questions about them of blasphemy. Yet,
when these bid’as and heresies were put forward in a religious guise and colour and had
a number of
partisans and supporters, this time the men of kalâm also attempted to defend them by explaining them away.
Moreover, the direction of the weapon of accusing one of blasphemy
was
changed to
turn against those
who had objected to
these bid’as and heresies, and they accused them of disbelief and heresy. It is possible to see this in every generation and in every nation.
“As for men of fiqh, let us listen
to al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî
about their attitudes: Hujjat al-Islâm al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî wrote under the topic ‘Kitâb al-’ilm’ in his book Ihyâ’: ‘The reason why the men of fiqh quarelled, struggled with one another was to ingratiate themselves with rulers and governors, thus to obtain
ranks and to be qâdîs. For this reason, when carefully observed, it will be seen
that the greatest struggle was between
the Shâfi’îs
and the Hanafîs. For, these
ranks and posts were always occupied by these two...’ ”
In this passage, Rashîd Ridâ confuses the evil people who learned fiqh
in
order
to
obtain worldly advantages
with
the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh who tried to correct the world and the wicked, and thereby tries to belittle and defame the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh and the
a’immat al-madhâhib and prepares
grounds
for the war which he would make in
order to demolish Islam from within by abolishing the madhhabs and their taqlîds. Also, he
attempts to interpolate Hadrat al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî’s (d. 505/1111) writing to render the great ’âlim a false witness for himself. Contrary to what he writes, Hadrat al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî never blamed the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh. In the fourth chapter of the subject “ ‘ilm,” he wrote the distinction
between the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh and the wicked people who used the knowledge of fiqh as
a means for their worldly advantages.
He wrote: “The ’ulamâ’ of fiqh kept away from rulers and governors. They would be asked to
issue qadâs and fatwâs, but they
would refuse. Upon seeing the greatness and honour associated with these posts, the wicked people wanted to approach the rulers as muftîs. Because the rulers esteemed the madhhabs and had been trying
to
find out whether the Hanafî
or the Shâfi’î madhhab was suitable, those who were not learned began to learn the matters of difference
between the two madhhabs.
They were wound up into contraventions and debates. These wicked men of
religious
post busied themselves with whatever the rulers and
governors
were inclined to.” The religion
reformer distorts
this passage of al-Imâm
al-Ghazâlî’s, which was about
the wicked scholars
(’ulamâ as-sû’),
and
twists it
into
animadversion against
the
’ulamâ’ of fiqh; he does not feel shame for having raised
the outcry that the Shâfi’îs and the Hanafîs fought one another.
Another lie peculiar to the religion reformers is to say that the ’ulamâ’
of Islam followed
their nafses. The ’ulamâ’ of fiqh and the a’immat al-madhâhib said nothing in opposition
to the
Qur’ân al-kerîm or the Hadîth ash-sherîf. Because what they all said was based on the Book and the Sunna, the nafses of
their followers got redeemed of the state of
ammâra and became mutma’inna. Since those
who
followed them were
so,
is it possible
that their own nafses
would
not
have been mutma’inna? The nafses of the four a’immat al-madhhâhib and of all the mujtahids were mutma’inna. Each of
them
was a Walî
who had advanced in the zâhirî (exterior) knowledge and had reached
perfection in the bâtinî (interior, hidden) knowledge. To say that they followed their nafses means to vilify all Muslims as well as Islam itself. One should
realize how ugly the accusation is.
The religion
reformer, by speaking ill of the later men of religious duty, denies the Hadîth ash-sherîf, “A mujaddid
(strengthener, renewer, of Islam) will come every hundred years. He will strengthen this religion.” It is true
that many Muslims have deviated and
seventy-two heretical groups have appeared. But the deviation of Muslims
does not mean that Islam itself
was defiled. There have always been those true pious
Muslims who have not given up
following as-Sahâbat al- kirâm. These Muslims are called Ahl as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a.
The ’ulamâ’ of Ahl as-Sunna have guided the people to the right path in every part of the world in every century. They have not left
any question
unanswered. They have protected Muslims from believing in the lies and slanders of zindîqs, men of bid’a,
and religion reformers. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that Islam will not be corrupted till the end of the world.
25– The religion reformer praises himself and extols the magazine Al-Manâr
to the skies, which he himself edited, a case justly
pertinent to the
saying, “The Hurûfî’s
miracle
is related by
himself only.” On the other hand, in this magazine
he represents freemasons
and
religion reformers as Islamic scholars
and, by saying that they will renew Islam, he means that the task of restoring Islam to its honourable
early state will be done by
them. Islam was defiled and Islamic books were changed, he alleges, and they will correct it. But the venom vomited by the snake lying under his insidious words is directed to destroy
Ahl
as-Sunna,
to annihilate the books of
Ahl as- Sunna, which guide to the path of as-Sahâbat al-kirâm,
and to replace these books with the books of freemasons and the enemies who have been trying to
destroy Islam from within. In short, it is
to corrupt Islam, the path of Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s- salâm)
and as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, and thereby to
eradicate Islam. This is the very purpose of religion reformers, of those who say that they will reform the religion. Their attacking the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna,
who show us the footsteps of the as- Sahâbat al-kirâm, reveals clearly their ignoble motives. Such insidious disbelievers who strive to demolish Islam from within by masqureading as Muslims are called
“zindîqs.” Zindîqs can deceive
and corrupt
Muslims, but they cannot corrupt
Islam; Allâhu ta’âlâ promises that He will protect Islam.
26– Through the religion reformer, Rashîd Ridâ, says: “I do not deny the virtue and knowledge possessed by the imâms who
were
mujtahids.
Their
virtue
and knowledge were beyond praise and
glorification. Yet, before the mujtahids, every Muslim used to ask for documentary
evidence. Those
who came later ignored the documentary
evidence and exalted
the mujtahid imâms to the grade of prophets. They even preferred the mujtahid’s word to a hadîth. They said that the hadîth could be mansûkh (said by the Prophet
at his early age, but changed by himself later) or there could be another hadîth in their imâm’s view. The mujtahids did not find it right to act in
accordance with the words of the persons who could possibly go wrong or
who
could not know the matter and who were not safe from errors, and to lay aside the
hadîth of the Prophet, who was free from error. The muqallids dissented from the Qur’ân, too, which is the
evident guide and the absolute document.
They said that it was not permissible to learn the religion from the Qur’ân and
that only mujtahids could understand the meaning of the Qur’ân. They claimed that it was not permissible to ignore the mujtahid’s word and to act in accordance with the Qur’ân. They said that it was not permissible to say, ‘Allah says so,’ or ‘Rasûlullah says so,’ and that
we should say, ‘The fiqh scholar has understood it
as such.’ There
is not a branch of knowledge which might exceed, with all its subjects, the capacity of most people and which can be understood only by certain people of certain times. It is a requirement of the Divine Law that the later scholars
should be more advanced than the earlier
ones, for, the starting point of the later ones is
where the earlier ones have left off. The Qur’ân and the
Hadîth are more understandable than the books of fiqh. A person who has learned Arabic well understands them more easily. Isn’t Allâhu ta’âlâ able
to explain His religion more explicitly than the men of fiqh? Rasûlullah understood what
Allah meant better than anybody else, and he
explained it clearly and communicated everything.
“If most people had been incapable of deriving rules from the Book and the Sunna, all the people would not be held liable for these rules. One should know what one believes together with its
proofs. Allah disapproves of
the taqlîd and muqallids. He declares that they will
not be forgiven by imitating their fathers and grandfathers.
To understand that part of the religion concerning fiqh from its documents is
easier than understanding the part concerning îmân. Allâhu ta’âlâ holds us liable
for the difficult one. Is it ever possible that He will not hold us liable
for the easy one?
“Prophets did
not err, but mujtahids might have made errors. Mujtahids expanded
the religion and made
it several times as much as
it was. They drove Muslims
into trouble. There cannot be employed any qiyâs in the field of
’ibâdât; nor can one add anything to
’ibâdât. [However], qiyâs and istihsân (approval of facility) can be employed in
judicial decisions. The mujtahids, too, prohibited men from taqlîd.”
In his
sophisms, the religion reformer
contradicts himself time and again. Employing logic in any branch of
knowledge requires having some knowledge of
that branch. The intrigues
played with a bare reasoning by those who do not understand the basic knowledge of Islam do not give any result but rather bring disgrace upon themselves. It is
true that those Muslims preceding the mujtahids, that is,
as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, asked for documents; they did not follow one another. But they were all mujtahids. They were the
people of the first century praised and lauded
by Rasûlullah (sall-allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam).
All as- Sahâbat al-kirâm and many of the Tâbi’ûn were mujtahids. It was necessary for a mujtahid to act in accordance with what he understood, and it was not permissible for him to follow
another
mujtahid.
A Muslim simply does not say, “Those who
came later exalted the mujtahids to the grade of prophets,” nor does he claim that
they even held them superior. For
this statement stigmatizes billions of
Muslims who have belonged to the four madhhabs as disbelievers. He who says or writes that a
certain Muslim is a disbeliever becomes a disbeliver himself. It is even a
greater slander to accuse muqallids
of dissenting from the Qur’ân al-kerîm. The religion reformers should know very well that a
madhhab means the way of the Book and the Sunna. He who follows an imâm al-madhhab believes that he
follows the Qur’ân al-kerîm and Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam).
No Muslim says, “It is not permissible to ignore the mujtahid’s word and to
act in accordance with the Qur’ân,” nor has any Muslim
ever said so. This is one of the abominable slanders made by religion
reformers, freemasons and
zindîqs against pure Muslims. Every Muslim says, “I want to adapt myself to the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the Hadîth ash-sherîf, but I myself cannot draw conclusions from them. I cannot depend on or
follow the rules which I understand. I depend on and follow what the imâm al-madhhab understood, for, he was more learned than I am. He knew the eight main branches of knowledge and the twelve subsidiary
branches better than I do.
He feared Allâhu ta’âlâ
more than I
do. He did not draw conclusions from the Qur’ân al- kerîm out of his
own understanding but
learned from as- Sahâbat al-kirâm the meanings which had been
given by Rasûlullah (’alaihi
’s-salâm).
I fear much
on
account of
the hadîth ash-sherîf, ‘He who derives meanings out of his own understanding
becomes a disbeliever.’
In fact, there were differences between the rules derived from the
Qur’ân al-kerîm and the Hadîth ash-sharîf by those
great scholars whose knowledge, goodness and taqwâ, as declared
in many hadîths, were very superior to
those of their successors. If it
had been easy to derive rules, they all would have inferred the same.” How could an ignoramus ever be right to say, “Allâhu ta’âlâ says so,” or “Rasûlullah says so”? Allâhu ta’âlâ prohibited us
to talk so. Even the ’ulamâ’ of tafsîr and the a’immat al-madhhâhib did not
dare to
say these words;
after explaining what they understood, they always said, “This is what
I understand. Allâhu ta’âlâ knows the
truth of it.” Even as-Sahâbat al-kirâm used to have difficulty in understanding the meaning of
the Qur’ân al- kerîm and asked Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). So it is clear how ignorant and stupid a day-dream the religion reformer has been
pursuing.
The statement, “Later scholars should be more advanced than the earlier ones,” is
true when we refer to experimental sciences.
Concerning the knowledge of Islam,
however, Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) hadîth sherîf is valid: “Each century will be worse than the
one preceding it. This will be the case until Doomsday.” This hadîth sharîf is valid
also when the scientists’ personality and their ways of using the science and
its products
are
in question. This principle is certainly true for the majority, and there have been exceptions in every century. The religion
reformer not only mistakes experimental knowledge and religious knowledge for
each
other but also supposes that science and scientist are the same. Science has surely made advancements, but this does not mean that scientists also are advanced.
Among the later ones, those who are more retrogressive, more corrupt and baser than the earlier ones are not less in number.
Arabic is necessary for understanding the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the Hadîth ash-sherîf, yet Arabic alone is not enough. If it were enough, each of
the
Arab Christians in
Beirut would have consequenlty been an Islamic scholar
since among them there were those who had a
deeper knowledge of Arabic than the Egyptian
religion reformers
and
those who were experts in Arabic, as
well as those who compiled dictionaries like Al- munjid. None of them was able to
understand the Qur’ân al- kerîm or even to attain to the honour of being a
Muslim. The Qur’ân al-kerîm summons
people to happiness,
to îmân,
to Islam. If they
had understood this invitation, they would have accepted it. Their
disbelief does not show that Allâhu ta’âlâ’s invitation is not clear or eloquent.
The Qur’ân al-kerîm addresses as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, their lightsome hearts, and unerring reason. It invites by means of the Quraish language. It does not speak the Arabic taught in the Jâmi’
al-Azhar or Beirut. As-Sahâbat al-kirâm
matured in Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
suhba (companionship, company) and
attained to the perfection which could not be reached by others among the Umma; yet their understanding
(some parts of) the Qur’ân al-kerîm was different from one another’s. There were also points they
could not understand. Since those great people were incapable, how will the case be with such people like us
who understand slang Arabic? Our a’immat al-madhâhib did not attempt
to derive
meanings from the Qur’ân al-kerîm, but, regarding themselves
as incapable of doing
this,
strived
to
learn, by asking as- Sahâbat al-kirâm, the way Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) had explained
the Qur’ân al-kerîm.
Also, they preferred
what as- Sahâbat al-kirâm had understood
to what they themselves understood. Al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa (d.
150/767, rahmatullâhi ’alaih) would prefer the word of any Sahâbî to his own understanding. When he
found no information coming from Rasûlullah (’alaihi
’s-salâm)
or from as-Sahâbat
al-kirâm,
he had to employ ijtihâd. Islamic scholars in each century have trembled before the
greatness, superiority, wara’ and
taqwâ of their predecessors and have held fast to their words as proofs and documents. Islam is a religion of manners (âdâb) and modesty (tawâdu’). An ignoramus behaves daringly and thinks of himself as an Islamic scholar, but a scholar humbles himself. He who humbles himself will be exalted by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Each of the chiefs of
the seventy-two groups, who will go
to Hell as it was stated by
Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm), was a profound scholar, too; yet, they depended on their knowledge too much and attempted to
derive meanings
from
the
Book and the Sunna.
Therefore, they could not attain to the honour of adapting themselves to
as-Sahâbat al-kirâm and deviated from the right path. They caused millions of Muslims to go to Hell. The ’ulamâ’ of
the
four madhhabs did not use their deep knowledge
in deriving rules from the Qur’ân al-kerîm; they did not
dare to
do this.
They used it
in understanding
what Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
as-Sahâbat al-kirâm had
said. Allâhu ta’âlâ does not command people to
derive rules from the Qur’ân al-kerîm. He commands them to obey and accept the rules brought
by His Messenger (’alaihi
’s-salâm) and as- Sahâbat al-kirâm. The religion reformers’ incapacity in understanding this subtlety has driven them to
perdition. Allâhu ta’âlâ’s commands, “Obey My
Messenger!” and “Adapt yourselves
to My Messenger!” and Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s- salâm) command, “Hold fast to the way of my compaions!” are the documents of our argument. If
following the a’immat al- madhâhib meant to
abandon Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Messenger
(’alaihi ’s-salâm) and to
become a slave of another slave,
following as-Sahâbât al-kirâm would have meant the
same.
Since it was not so, Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) commanded it. He commanded people
to believe briefly and to perform ’ibâda as much as they saw him do. He did not even suggest that they should know the proofs.
Allâhu ta’âlâ
disapproves of disbelievers imitating their parents, and
He commands them to give up disbelief
and to have belief. He does not disapprove of imitating
His Messenger
(’alaihi ’s-salâm), but
commands
it. And Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) commands us to imitate his companions. It is
bad
to follow the wicked,
but this should not
prevent us from following the good people. As explained above,
if it were easy
to
understand the documents of the part pertaining to îmân, the Christian Arabs in
Beirut would
necessarily have
îmân
easily. Since it was not easy
to understand the documents of
the principles that are to be believed, we were ordered to
have
îmân without the need to understand the documents, and those who believed in
this manner were called “Mu’minûn” (Believers, Muslims). If
Allâhu ta’âlâ had
made Muslims liable also for learning and understanding the documents of the rules
concerning ’ibâdât, His Messenger (’alaihi ’s-salâm), too, would have suggested it. Indeed, as explained above, he never did.
By saying that prophets (’alaihimu ’s-salâm) never erred but
mujtahids might
have made mistakes, he
supposes that the rules revealed by mujtahids are different from those revealed by the Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm). On the contrary, a mujtahid or an imâm al-madhhab was a great ’âlim who spent his whole life studying day and
night, searching and finding out the rules that had been conveyed
by the Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) and by as- Sahâbat al-kirâm and who transmitted them to Muslims. No mujtahid ever added anything to
any kind of ’ibâdât. They said unanimously
that it was a bid’a and a great sin. There cannot
be another slander as ugly and loathsome as
accusing the mujtahids of something which they themselves
prohibited. It is crass ignorance and idiocy to say that mujtahids expanded the religion. It is answerable in no way but with a a sneer. The religion does not expand, but the number of cases increases. It is
a great service to Islam and a very valuable ’ibâda to apply Islam
to those
cases
which have
appeared and
developed during the course of time. And this has been and is still
being the lot of the mujaddid imâms.
A mujaddid does not have to be a mujtahid mutlaq. It is
true that the four a’immat al-madhâhib prohibited taqlîd. But they prohibited it
for those scholars who were educated among their disciples and who had reached the grade
of ijtihâd. It is
never permissible for any mujtahid to follow another
mujtahid. This rule
will be valid till Doomsday.
But it does not apply to the ignoramuses and religion reformers who think of
themselves as mujtahids. If a
mouse thinks of itself as a lion and then meets a cat, it will realize that it has been wrong. But its mistake will cost it its life.
Continued ...
Hakikat Kitabevi, Waqf
Ikhlas Publications No: 10, Answer to an Enemy of Islam, Muhâwarât, Fourteenth
Edition, Fatih-Istanbul (Turkey), p. 29-40, (2000), or http://hakikatkitabevi.com
Post a Comment