|
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
|
