A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
|11/07/05 at 10:38:44|
|"When a man loves a woman, he seeks union with her, that is to say the most complete union possible in love, and there is in the elemental sphere no greater union than that between the sexes. [Man's] contemplation of the Reality without formal support is not possible. . . . Since, therefore, some form of support is necessary, the best and most perfect kind is the contemplation of God in woman.|
The greatest union is that between man and woman."
- Shaykh al Akbar, Ibn al-`Arabi
|11/09/05 at 01:03:43|
|Re: Sufi Wisdom|
|11/07/05 at 10:40:15|
|Shaykh Abdul Qadir as-Sufi al-Murabit|
All kinds of things happen at the last minute with people because it is written. Only the other day, one of our people in Switzerland wanted to marry a man who was not Muslim and she said to him, "I cannot marry you because you are not Muslim. You have to become Muslim." He became Muslim and on the Monday they were married, and on the Saturday he was dead. Allah had written Islam for him and so the wedding was followed by a funeral in the outward, but in the inward he had gone out from this world and from the Fire, to the Garden. This is the seal of the destiny of Allah, subhanahu wa ta’ala.
|Re: Sufi Wisdom|
|11/10/05 at 16:47:05|
|Decades ago, when I had just become Muslim, I met a very cultured and educated lady for whom I had great respect, and I told her I had become Muslim. She said, "Oh, that is very beautiful, Islam is a very beautiful religion. There is only one thing, which is that I have read the Quran and I found that there is a lot of violence in it."|
This disturbed me because I did not know how to answer her.
Many years later I was reading Imam al-Ghazzali and he says, "When the kafir opens the Quran, he finds nothing in it but fighting and battles and blood and the fire and all the terrible punishments that are due. When the Mumin opens the Quran, he finds gardens under which rivers flow and that Allah loves them. this is the secret of the Quran - that is has for its people what it has." To that, we would add that the kafir nevertheless finds in it a warning.
Quran says in it, "Ya ayuhalladhina amanu," and, "Ya ayuhalladhina kafiru." So the kuffar have a warning and the muminun have guidance and we are the people of guidance, and we thank Allah for the gift of Islam.
It is enough for us.
- Shaykh Abdul Qadir as-Sufi al-Murabit
|11/10/05 at 18:15:58|
|Re: Sufi Wisdom|
|11/10/05 at 16:48:21|
|Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Raheem |
- If you would not like to be mentioned as a bad person, avoid from heart breaking.
- Living in hearts is only possible after reaching a level of ability to communicate with hearts.
- Those who believe lips influence hearts (qalb) are in mistake. Hearts alone influence hearts. Lips can, at best, reach the ears.
- If you have not removed your anger entirely from your heart, you are still away from the Truth.
- If your Lord's (Rabb) speech does not print impression on your heart, examine your sincerity and faith.
- You can attain the heart of your beloved through giving "your entire self", rather than your "physical being".
From - Ahmed Hulusi: From his book "From friend to friend"
|11/10/05 at 16:50:34|
|Re: Sufi Wisdom|
|11/10/05 at 21:50:40|
|[quote author=Siham link=board=library;num=1131374325;start=0#0 date=11/07/05 at 10:38:44]|
- Shaykh al Akbar, Ibn al-`Arabi
Ibn Arabi is not shaikh akbar, the scholars of Islam have talked about him in great detail, here is just some of what was said by some of the greatest scholars of Islam as Shaikh Munajjid tells us:
Praise be to Allaah.
Who was Ibn ‘Arabi?
He was a prominent Sufi; in fact he was an extreme Sufi. His name was Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Taa’i al-Andalusi. The scholars have told us about him in response to a question which was put to them. The question was as follows:
What do the imaams of the religion and the guides of the Muslims say about a book which has been circulating among the people, the author of which claims that he wrote it and distributed it to people by permission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which was given to him in a dream which he claims to have seen? Most of this book contradicts what Allaah revealed in His Books and is opposed to what His Prophets said.
Among the things that he says in this book are: Adam was called insaan because in relation to the truth (Al-Haqq), he was like the pupil [insaan] of the eye, the part that can see.
Elsewhere he said: Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see.
Concerning the people of Nooh he said: if they had turned away from their worship of [their idols] Wudd, Siwaa’, Yaghooth and Ya’ooq, they would have lost more of Al-Haqq.
Then he said: Every object of worship is a manifestation of Al-Haqq. Those who know it, know it, and those who do not know it, do not know it. The one who has knowledge knows what he is worshipping and in what image the object of his worship is manifested. These many and varied manifestations are like the limbs of a physical image.
Then he said concerning the people of Hood: They reached a true state of closeness (to Allaah) and were no longer remote. The heat of Hell no longer affected them and they gained the blessing of closeness to Allaah because they deserved it. They were not given this delicious experience as a favour, but because they deserved it as a result of the essence of their deeds, for they were on a straight path.
Then he denied the idea of the warning against those of mankind against whom the word of punishment is justified.
Should the one who believes in what he says be denounced as a kaafir, or should we accept what he says, or what? If the person who listens to him is an adult of sound mind, and does not denounce him by speaking or in his heart, is he a sinner, or what?
Please explain to us clearly and with proof, as Allaah has taken the covenant from the scholars on that basis, for negligence [on the part of the scholars] causes a great deal of confusion to the ignorant.
(‘Aqeedah Ibn ‘Arabi wa Hayaatuhu by Taqiy al-Deen al-Faasi, p. 15, 16).
(The author) mentioned the response of some of the scholars:
Al-Qaadi Badr al-Deen ibn Jamaa’ah said:
The passages quoted, and other similar parts of this book, are bid’ah and misguidance, evil and ignorance. The religiously-committed Muslim would not pay any heed to them or bother to read the book to find out more.
Then he said:
The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) could never give permission in a dream for something which goes against and contradicts Islam; on the contrary, this is from the evil insinuations or whispers of the Shaytaan and a trap whereby the Shaytaan is playing with him and tempting him.
His words about Adam, that he is the pupil of the eye, and his likening Allaah to His creation, and his remark that ‘Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see’ – if by ‘Al-Haqq’ he is referring to the Lord of the Worlds – is a clear statement of anthropomorphism [likening Allaah to His creation] and he has taken this notion to extremes.
With regard to his denial of what has been narrated in the Qur’aan and Sunnah concerning the warning: this makes him a kaafir in the view of the scholars of the followers of Tawheed.
His comments about the people of Nooh and of Hood is vain and false talk which deserves to be rejected. The best way of dealing with that is to destroy this and all other similar passages of his book, for it is no more than fancy words, an expression of baseless ideas and an attempt to introduce into the religion ideas that do not belong to it. The ruling on this is that it should be rejected and ignored. (Ibid., p. 29, 30).
Khateeb al-Qal’ah Shaykh Shams al-Deen Muhammad ibn Yoosuf al-Jazari al-Shaafa’i said:
Praise be to Allaah. His comment about Adam being called insaan is anthropomorphism [likening Allaah to His creation] and is a lie and falsehood. His belief that the idol-worship of the people of Nooh was valid is kufr. Anyone who says such a thing cannot be approved of. His comment that ‘Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see’ is false and contradictory, and it is also kufr. His comment that the people of Hood had reached a true state of closeness (to Allaah) is a lie against Allaah, and by saying this, he has rejected what Allaah said about them. His remark that they were no longer remote and that Hell became a blessing and a joy for them is a lie and a rejection of everything that was revealed to the Prophets; the truth of the matter is what Allaah said about that, that they (the people of Hood) will abide in the torment forever.
Concerning those who believe what he says – and he knows what he said – the same ruling applies to them as to him: that they are misguided kaafirs, if they have knowledge. If they do not have knowledge, then the person who says that out of ignorance should be told the truth and taught about it, and should be stopped if possible.
His denial of the warning to all people is a lie and a rejection of the consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. No doubt Allaah will bring about the punishment. Islam offers definitive evidence that a group of sinners from among the believers will be punished, and the one who denies that is regarded as a kaafir. May Allaah protect us from wrong belief and denying the Resurrection. (Ibid., p. 31, 32).
Ibn Taymiyah said:
The Muslims, Christians and Jews all know something which is a basic principle of the Muslims’ religion: that whoever says of any human being that he is a part of God is a kaafir, he is regarded as a disbeliever by all these religions. Even the Christians do not say this, although their belief is a major form of kufr; no one says that the essence of creation is part of the Creator, or that the Creator is the creation, or that Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see.
Similarly, his remark that if the Mushrikeen turn away from idol-worship, they will have turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that they have abandoned idol-worship, is obviously kufr according to the basic principle that is common to all the religions. For the religions are agreed that all the Prophets forbade idol-worship and regarded as disbelievers those who did that; the believer cannot be a believer unless he disavows himself of worshipping idols and of everything that is worshipped instead of Allaah. As Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning);
“Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone’” [al-Mumtahanah 60:4]
-- and he quoted other aayaat as proof -- then he said:
Whoever says that if the idol-worshippers give up their idols, they will have turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that they have abandoned idol-worship, is an even worse kaafir than the Jews and Christians, and the one who does not regard them as kaafirs is an even worse kaafir than the Jews and Christians, for the Jews and Christians regard idol-worshippers as disbelievers, so how about one who says that the one who gives up idol-worship has turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that he has abandoned idol-worship?! Let alone the fact that he says, The one who has knowledge knows what he is worshipping and in what image the object of his worship is manifested. These many and varied forms are like the limbs of a physical image and the energy in a spiritual image; nothing but Allaah is being worshipped in everything that is worshipped. He is an even greater kaafir than the worshippers of idols, for they only take them as intercessors and mediators, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“ [The Mushrikeen say] ‘We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah’” [al-Zumar 39:3]
“Have they taken (others) as intercessors besides Allaah? Say: “Even if they have power over nothing whatever and have no intelligence?” [al-Zumar 39:43]
They acknowledged that Allaah is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and the Creator of the idols, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And verily, if you ask them: ‘Who created the heavens and the earth?’ Surely, they will say: ‘Allaah (has created them)’” [al-Zumar 39:38] (Ibid., 21-23)
Shaykh al-Islam also said:
When the faqeeh Abu Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam came to Cairo and they asked him about Ibn ‘Arabi, he said:
He is a vile and evil shaykh who says that the world is eternal and does not see anything haraam in any sexual relationship.
He mentioned the belief that the world is eternal because this is what [Ibn ‘Arabi] believed, but this is well-known form of kufr and the faqeeh Abu Muhammad denounced him as a kaafir because of this. At that time Ibn ‘Arabi had not yet said that the universe was God or the universe was the image and essence of God. This is a greater form of kufr because those who say that the universe is eternal still believe that there had to be Someone Who brought it into existence, that from the One Who must exist comes that which may exist. Those shaykhs who met him [Ibn ‘Arabi] said that he was a liar and a fabricator, and that in his books such as al-Futoohaat al-Makkiyyah etc. there were lies which could not be concealed from any intelligent person.
Then he said:
I have not even mentioned one-tenth of what they mentioned about kufr, but people who do not know about them have been deceived by these ideas, just as they were deceived by the Baatini Qaraamitah when they claimed to be descendents of Faatimah and said that they belonged to the Shee’ah, so the Shee’ah began to like them without knowing of their hidden kufr. So the person who is attracted to them is one of two things: either he is a heretic and hypocrite, or he is misguided and ignorant. With regard to these pantheists (ittihaadiyoon), their leaders are the leaders of kufr and must be executed, and their repentance cannot be accepted if they are seized before they repent, for they are among the greatest heretics, those who make an outward display of being Muslim whilst concealing kufr in their hearts, those who conceal their beliefs and their opposition to Islam. Everyone who follows them, who defends them, who praises them, who admires their books, who is known to help them, who does not like to speak against them or who makes excuses for them by saying that we do not know exactly what these statements mean, who says ‘How can we be sure that he wrote this book?’ and other excuses which no one but an ignorant person or a hypocrite would come up with, must be punished.
Indeed, it is obligatory to punish everyone who knows about them but does not help to resist them, because campaigning against these people is one of the most serious duties, for they have corrupted the minds and religious belief of many shaykhs, scholars, kings and princes, and they are spreading corruption throughout the world, preventing people from following the path of Allaah. The harm that they cause to the religion is greater than that done by those who damage the worldly interests of the Muslims but leave their religion alone, such as bandits on the highways and the Tatars (Mongols) who took their wealth but left their religion alone. Those who do not know them should not underestimate the danger they pose. Their own misguidance and the extent to which they misguide others defies description.
Then he said:
Whoever thinks well of them and claims not to know how they really are should be informed about them. If he does not then turn his back on them and denounce them, then he should be classed as one of them.
Whoever says that their words could be interpreted in such a way that it does not contradict sharee’ah is one of their leaders and imaams. If he is intelligent, he should know what they really are. But if he believes in it and behaves like this openly and in secret, then he is a worse kaafir than the Christians.
(Ibid., p. 25-28 – adapted and abbreviated)
Ibn Hajar said:
Some confusing words of Ibn ‘Arabi were mentioned to our master Shaykh al-Islam Siraaj al-Deen al-Balqeeni, and he was asked about Ibn ‘Arabi. Our Shaykh al-Balqeeni said: he is a kaafir.
(Ibid., p. 39).
Ibn Khaldoon said:
Among these Sufis are: Ibn ‘Arabi, Ibn Saba’een, Ibn Barrajaan and their followers who follow their path and their religion. They have many books in circulation that are filled with blatant kufr and repugnant bid’ahs, trying to interpret clear texts in very far-fetched and repugnant ways, such that the reader is astounded that anyone could attribute such things to Islam.
(Ibid., p. 41).
These later Sufis, such as Ibn ‘Arabi and his followers, are misguided and ignorant and beyond the pale of Islam; those among them who have knowledge are even worse.
(Ibid., p. 55).
Abu Zar’ah ibn al-Haafiz al-‘Iraaqi said:
Undoubtedly the famous book Al-Fusoos contains blatant kufr, as does al-Futoohaat al-Makkiyyah. If it is true that he wrote this and continued to believe in it until he died, then he is a kaafir who is doomed to eternity in Hell, no doubt about it.
(Ibid., p. 60).
So how can any sane person say that these brilliant scholars did not understand Ibn ‘Arabi? If they did not understand him, who can?
An incident from which we learn a lesson:
I heard our companion al-Haafiz al-Hujjah al-Qaadi Shihaab al-Deen Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Hajar al-Shaafa’i say: there were many disputes about Ibn ‘Arabi between me and one of those who like Ibn ‘Arabi, until I insulted him because of the bad things that he had said, but that did not make the man change his mind. He threatened to complain about me to the Sultaan in Egypt with regard to a matter that was different from that which we were arguing about, just to cause trouble for me. I said to him: the Sultaan has nothing to do with this! Come, let us make Mubaahalah [call our sons, our wives and ourselves and pray and invoke the Curse of Allaah upon those who lie – cf. Aal ‘Imraan 3:61]. It is very rare, when people make Mubaahalah and one of them is lying, for that one to go unpunished. So he said to me, ‘Bismillaah’ [i.e, he agreed]. And I said to him: ‘Say: O Allaah, if Ibn ‘Arabi is misguided, then curse me with Your Curse’ – so he said that. Then I said, O Allaah, if Ibn ‘Arabi is rightly-guided, then curse me with Your Curse. Then we parted. Then we met in a park in Egypt on a moonlit night, and he said to us, Something soft touched my leg, look! So we looked but we did not see anything. Then he checked his eyes and he could not see anything (i.e., Allaah had afflicted him with blindness).
This is the meaning of what Al-Haafiz Shihaab al-Deen ibn Hajar al-‘Asqallaani told me.
(Ibid., p. 75, 76).
This is how this man has misguided and deceived those who are seeking the truth and who want to follow the path of right guidance. He is a heretic who was not ahead of his time in any way except in misguidance and kufr. He does not possess any light or wisdom; on the contrary he is in the depths of darkness and ignorance.
We have quoted to you the words of scholars other than Ibn Taymiyah, to point out the kufr of Ibn ‘Arabi, so that you will not think that Ibn Taymiyah was the only one who denounced him as a kaafir.
We ask you by Allaah, besides Whom there is no other god, can a person who says that the creation is a part of the Creator be a Muslim?
|11/10/05 at 21:52:27|
|Re: Sufi Wisdom|
|11/10/05 at 22:27:30|
(differences) among the Madhhabs in Islam
Dr. G. Fouad Haddad
1 Al-Hafiz al-Bayhaqi in his book "al-Madkhal" and al-Zarkashi in his "Tadhkirah fi al-ahadith al-mushtaharah" relate: Imam al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Siddiq said: "The differences among the Companions of Muhammad (s) are a mercy for Allah's servants.Al-Hafiz al-`Iraqi the teacher of Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani said: "This is a saying of al-Qasim ibn Muhammad who said: 'The difference of opinion among the Companions of Muhammad (s) is a mercy.
2 Al-Hafiz Ibn al-Athir in the introduction to his "Jami` al-usul fi ahadith al-rasul" relates the above saying from Imam Malik according to al-Hafiz Ibn al-Mulaqqin in his "Tuhfat al-muhtaj ila adillat al-Minhaj" and Ibn al-Subki in his "Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya."
3 Bayhaqi and Zarkashi also said: Qutada said: "'Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz used to say: 'It would not please me more if the Companions of Muhammad (s) did not differ among them, because had they not differed there would be no leeway (for us).'" 4 Bayhaqi also relates in "al-Madkhal" and Zarkashi in the "Tadhkira": Al-Layth ibn Sa`d said on the authority of Yahya ibn Sa`id: "the people of knowledge are the people of flexibility (tawsi`a). Those who give fatwas never cease to differ, and so this one permits something while that one forbids it, without one finding fault with the other when he knows of his position."
5 Al-Hafiz al-Sakhawi said in his "Maqasid al-hasana" p. 49 #39 after quoting the above: "I have read the following written in my shaykh's (al-Hafiz ibn Hajar) handwriting: 'The hadith of Layth is a reference to a very famous hadith of the Prophet (s), cited by Ibn al-Hajib in the "Mukhtasar" in the section on qiyas (analogy), which says: "Difference of opinion in my Community is a mercy for people" (ikhtilafu ummati rahmatun li al-nas). There is a lot of questioning about its authenticity, and many of the imams of learning have claimed that it has no basis (la asla lahu). However, al-Khattabi mentions it in the context of a digression in "Gharib al-hadith" . . . and what he says concerning the tracing of the hadith is not free from imperfection, but he makes it known that it does have a basis in his opinion.'"
6 Al-`Iraqi mentions all of the above (1-5) in his "Mughni `an haml al-asfar" and says: "What is meant by "the Community" in this saying is those competent for practicing legal reasoning (al-mujtahidun) in the branches of the law, wherein reasoning is permissible."
NOTE: What `Iraqi meant by saying "the branches wherein reasoning is permissible" is that difference is not allowed in matters of doctrine, since there is agreement that there is only one truth in the essentials of belief and anyone, whether a mujtahid or otherwise, who takes a different view automatically renounces Islam. (Shawkani, "Irshad al-Fuhul" p. 259 as quoted in Kamali, "Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence" p. 383.) Al-Albani in his attack on the hadith "Difference of opinion in my Community is a mercy" ignores this distinction and even adduces the verse: "If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much discrepancy" (4:82) in order to prove that differences can never be a mercy in any case but are always a curse. Al-Albani's point is directed entirely against those who are content to follow a madhhab. The only scholar he quotes in support of his position is Ibn Hazm al-Zahiri, whose mistake he adopts without mentioning it was denounced by Nawawi. ("Silsila da`ifa" 1:76 #57)
7 Ibn Hazm said in "al-Ihkam fi usul al-ahkam" (5:64): "The saying "Difference of opinion in my Community is a mercy" is the most perverse saying possible, because if difference were mercy, agreement would be anger, and it is impossible for a Muslim to say this, because there can only be either agreement, or difference, and there can only be either mercy, or anger." However, Imam Nawawi said in his Commentary on "Sahih Muslim":"If something (i.e. agreement) is a mercy it is not necessary for its opposite to be the opposite of mercy. No-one makes this binding, and no-one even says this except an ignoramus or one who affects ignorance. Allah the Exalted said: "And of His mercy He has made night for you so that you would rest in it," and He has named night a mercy: it does not necessarily ensue from this that the day is a punishment."
8 Al-Khattabi said in "Gharib al-hadith": "Difference of opinion in religion is of three kinds: - In affirming the Creator and His Oneness: to deny it is kufr (disbelief); - In His attributes and will: to deny them is innovation; - In the different rulings of the branches of the law (ahkam al-furu`): Allah has made them mercy and generosity for the scholars, and that is the meaning of the hadith: "Difference of opinion in my Community is a mercy." Al-Jarrahi cited it in "Kashf al-khafa" 1:64 #153.
9 Al-Hafiz al-Suyuti says in his short treatise "Jazil al-mawahib fi ikhtilaf al-madhahib" (The Abundant Grants Concerning the Differences Among the Schools): "The hadith "Difference of opinion in my Community is a mercy for people" has many benefits among which are the fact that the Prophet (s) foretold of the differences that would arise after his time among the madhahib in the branches of the law, and this is one of his miracles because it is a foretelling of things unseen. Another benefit is his approval of these differences and his confirmation of them because he characterizes them as a mercy. Another benefit is that the legally responsible person can choose to follow whichever he likes among them." After citing the saying of `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz already quoted (#3 above), Suyuti says: "This indicates that what is meant is their differences in the rulings in the branches of the law."
10 The muhaddith al-Samhudi relates al-Hafiz Ibn al-Salah's discussion of Imam Malik's saying concerning difference of opinion among the Companions: "Among them is the one that is wrong and the one that is right: therefore you must exercise ijtihad." Samhudi said: "Plainly, it refers to differences in legal rulings (ahkam). Ibn al-Salah said: "This is different from what Layth said concerning the flexibility allowed for the Community, since this applies exclusively to the mujtahid as he said: "you must exercise ijtihad," because the mujtahid's competence makes him legally responsible (mukallaf) to exercise ijtihad and there is no flexibility allowed for him over the matter of their difference. The flexibility applies exclusively to the unqualified follower (muqallid). The people meant in the saying: "Difference of opinion in my Community is a mercy for people" are those unqualified followers. As for the import of Malik's saying "Among the Companions is the one that is wrong and the one that is right," it is meant only as an answer to those who say that the mujtahid is able to follow the Companions. It is not meant for others.""
11 The author of "al-Fiqh al-Akbar" (attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa) said: "Difference of opinion in the Community is a token of divine mercy."
12 Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali said in "Al-`Aqa'id": "The difference in opinion in the Community is a mercy, and their agreement is a proof."
The decision of `Umar whereby he gave precedence to `Ubayy ibn Ka`b's ijtihad over the ijtihad of `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud on the validity of praying in a single garment is not a proof that `Abdullah was wrong, rather it is a proof that `Umar exercised his own ijtihad and authority as the Greater Imam in settling the question. He overruled, not invalidated, and if Ibn Mas`ud held his position from the Prophet (s) he cannot change it even after `Umar's ruling. This is true of every true mujtahid at any time: he is obligated to follow the result of his own ijtihad even if it should differ with that of every other mujtahid of the past and present, unless he becomes convinced that he was mistaken in his previous ijtihad.
According to all the scholars it is incumbent upon the leader of the Muslims to be a mujtahid and it is his responsibility in such cases to settle the question for the sake of the people of his time, and that is the proper context of Imam Malik's injuction: "Exercise ijtihad." It is addressed to the mufti who must establish what is correct in clearcut fashion, not to the muqallid (follower) who is only interested in "a way to follow" (= madhhab) without having to verify its proofs and inferences. However, another mufti may reach another conclusion and be followed, and is not bound by that of the first, nor are those who take their fatwa from him, and no-one finds fault with the other, as Al-Layth ibn Sa`d stated.
A clear proof that the fatwa of the leader overrules but does not invalidate the opinion of the Companions even if it directly contradicts it, is the fact that when `Umar ibn al-Khattab proposed to have all the hadith collected and written down he consulted the Companions and they unanimously agreed to his proposal; later he disapproved of it and ordered that everyone who had written a collection burn it. Yet `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz later ordered that hadith be collected and written. Al-Hafiz al-Baghdadi relates it in his "Taqyid al-`ilm" 49, 52-53, 105-106, and Ibn Sa`d in his "Tabaqat" 3(1):206, 8:353.
Those who think they are mujtahid but in reality are unqualified, when faced by the followers of madhahib, cover up their ignorance with the flashy claim: "We follow Qur'an and Sunna, not madhahib." When it is pointed out to them that to follow a madhhab is to follow Qur'an and Sunna through true ijtihad, they become upset: "How can the four madhhabs differ and be right at the same time? I have heard that only one may be right, and the others wrong." The answer is that one certainly follows only the ruling that he believes is right, but he can never fanatically invalidate the following of other rulings by other madhahib, because they, also, are based on sound principles of ijtihad. At this they rebel and begin numbering the mistakes of the mujtahids: "Imam Malik was right in this, but he was wrong in that; Imam Shafi`i was right in this, but he was wrong in that . . . " This is what they say, and what they hide in their heart is worse because it includes even the Companions. This we will never accept. But when they are rebuked for this blatant disrespect they make it known that they have been wronged and "They are arrogant in their sin" (2:206). This is nothing else than the legacy of the Wahhabi/Salafi movement.
Blessings and Peace on the Prophet, his Family, and His Companions. May Allah be well pleased with the Four Mujtahid Imams, and all the scholars who feared Allah truly.
Fouad Haddad Sunnah Foundation
|11/10/05 at 22:44:54|
|Re: Sufi Wisdom|
|11/10/05 at 23:02:25|
Please see Note about the Al-Manar board thread.
|11/10/05 at 23:19:20|
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board