Yaser Birjas and Yasir Qadhi, both instructors at al-Maghrib Institute, had a debate on whether it is permissible to eat meat from the People of the Book (Ahl-e-Kitaab), i.e. the Jews and Christians, in the USA. Part-1 and Part-2 of the debate between Yaser Birjas and Yasir Qadhi can be heard on youtube.
While Yasir Qadhi’s position in this instance is correct (a rarity indeed) — that it is not allowed for Muslims to eat any unslaughtered meat, including chicken, from American fast-food restaurants — Yaser Birjas begged to differ. Yaser Birjas firmly believes that eating chicken at McDonalds and other such places in the USA is permissible. This is clear from Yaser Birjas’s words at the very end of the debate in Part-2, when he clearly confessed to eating such meat:
“I was eating chicken, he [meaning Yasir Qadhi] was eating something else.”
But eating such chicken is no laughing matter. It is haraam. Like Yasir Qadhi, Yaser Birjas is not qualified to give a fiqhi opinion on the matter. Even worse, Yaser Birjas says he derives his position on the permissibility of eating chicken at US fast-food restaurants from the Shafi’i madhab (!). This is a gross misrepresentation of the Shafi’i madhab which Yaser Birjas should repent for. Such blunders are inevitable when non-scholars like Yaser Birjas play scholar on fiqhi issues when they are clearly not in a position to do so. One can only wonder how many youth were misguided by Yaser Birjas’s position that Muslims can eat chicken in US fast-food restaurants “because they are People of the Book.”
SHAYKH HAMZA KARAMALI EXPLAINS THE SHAFI’I POSITION ON MEAT IN THE USA
Shaykh Hamza Karamali of Qibla (formerly Sunnipath Academy) explains the incorrect understanding that some people (like Yaser Birjas) have of the Shafi’i madhab’s position on the matter. It is worth reading Shaykh Karamali’s response in full to understand how Yaser Birjas misrepresented the Shafi’i madhab.
A questioner asked:
“Could you please explain to me the position of the Shafi’i madhhab on eating the meat of those who call themselves Christians, in the West, for example, Mcdonalds? Is it halal to eat this type of meat?”
Shaykh Karamali responded:
In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate
assalamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh
I pray that this message finds you well. May Allah reward you for asking this important question.
It is not permissible to eat meat unless it fulfills the conditions of a valid Islamic slaughter. Meat that hasn’t been Islamically slaughtered is called “carrion” (Ar. maytah) and Allah Most High clearly prohibits the consumption of carrion in many verses, such as “Prohibited for you are: carrion, blood, …” (5:3).
The meat that is sold in supermarkets and restaurants in countries with small Muslim populations, such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and other countries, does not generally meet the conditions of a valid Islamic slaughter and is not permissible to eat.
Some Muslims argue that the Shafi`i school permits eating such meat. This is a mistake. The meat that is prevalently available in such lands is not halal and impermissible to eat even according to the Shafi`i school.
The Muslims who mistakenly ascribe this position to the Shafi`i school argue that (1) since the Shafi`i school does not require the slaughterer to recite the name of Allah while slaughtering, and (2) since the Quran permits us to eat the meat of Christians, the meat found in supermarkets and restaurants is permissible to consume. This reasoning is incorrect on both of its premises.
The first premise is a true premise but makes a number of incorrect assumptions. It is, in fact, true that reciting the name of Allah while slaughtering is not a requirement in the Shafi`i school. However, the Shafi`i school–like other schools –makes other stipulations regarding a valid slaughter that are generally not met in non-Muslim countries. For example, the slaughter is only valid if the windpipe and gullet of the animal is severed with a sharp instrument. Killing the animal through electrocution or a through a shot to the head violates this condition and the resulting dead animal is not permissible to eat at all. This is, in fact, how most meat is slaughtered in non-Muslim countries.
The second premise also does not lend credence to the argument because according to the Shafi`is, the meat validly slaughtered by Christians (i.e. by severing the windpipe and gullet with a sharp instrument) is only permissible to eat if the Christians meet certain stringent conditions. The vast majority of Christians alive today don’t meet these stringent conditions and their slaughtered meat is not permissible to eat in the Shafi`i school. [1] So, if anything, the Shafi`i school is even stricter than other schools when it comes to the permissibility of eating meat that is slaughtered by the People of the Book.
And Allah Most High knows best.
Hamza.
[1] The Shafi`is stipulate that the Christian whose slaughtered meat is permissible to eat is someone who has an uninterrupted Christian lineage all the way back to pre-Islamic times. If the Christian is of non-Israelite descent, then this needs to be positively established (virtually impossible in our times). If the Christian is of Israelite descent, then the conditions are less stringent.
The Shafi’i Fiqh Fatwa Department was also asked the same question.
Question:
“Allah made it lawful to eat the meat of the people of the book/scripture…Now in the U.S.A. does the same apply to fast food places that sell chicken and you do not know how it was killed?”
Answer:
Regarding a Muslim consuming meat whilst residing in a minority context, Imam Nawawi mentioned,
“What if an animal is found slaughtered, and it is not known whether or not the one who slaughtered it was a Muslim, from Ahl al-Kitab, or from other than them [Majusi]? In this case, when the animal is found in lands where there are Muslims and others, it shall not be considered as halal (i.e. it is impermissible) due to the uncertainty of if it was lawfully slaughtered.” (Rawdat al-Talibin 3/270, also see: Mughni al-Muhtaj 6/121)
According to the United State’s 2010 Census figures, about 16.1% of Americans adhered to the category of “no religion.” And 0.7% claimed to be Buddhists, 0.4% claimed to be Hindus, and 1.2% claimed other religions. Thus, about one-fifth of the population in the United States adheres to a religion other than Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. In some states, like Vermont, the rate of people claiming “no religion” is significantly high, being reported at 34%.
Accordingly, the situation in the United States would be as Imam Nawawi stated in Rawdah, “it is not clear as to whether or not he who slaughtered it was a Muslim, from Ahl al-Kitab, or from other than them…” (Rawdat al-Talibin 3/270)
Therefore, it is not permissible to eat the meat served in fast-food restaurants in the United States; unless verified that the food served is acceptable according to Islamic dietary guidelines.
Yaser Birjas should repent for speaking without knowledge and misguiding and confusing our youth on the matter. His view must certainly have caused many youth to eat haraam chicken at McDonalds and other places in the USA. We seek refuge in Allah from such misguidance. Indeed, our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings be upon him) had warned:
“Allah does not take away the knowledge by ordering it pulled out of the hearts of the people. Instead, Allah takes the knowledge away by making the scholars die. When no scholar remains, people take for the themselves ignorant leaders whom they ask for religious answers. These leaders will answer them with ignorance, thus straying and leading them astray.”
(Source: Hadith Tirmidhi)
May Allah protect us from pseudo-scholars and Guide us on the Straight Path of the most knowledgeable in our Ummah. Aaameen!
The Al-Maghrib Institute teaches in this article in the Al-Maghrib Institute Forum that (for men) placing the hands below the navel in prayer is wrong. This explanation is peppered with explanations of evidence from Naseerudin Al-Albani (from the anti-madhabi so-called “Ahl-e-Hadeeth” anti-Sunni sect) and “Dr. Bilal Philips” (the notorious Jamaican-Canadian Wahhabi whose writings are filled with anti-Sunni gibberish). If he thinks the title “Dr.” is supposed to make us believe his explanations are spot on, then he is sadly mistaken.
It is a fact that the Hanafis and Hanbalis pray with their arms below the navel. Al-Maghrib Institute conveniently hides this from their students. Not only is this an attack on Hanafis and Hanbalis, and attributing ignorance to generations of their scholars and followers — who were part of the pious salaf us-salih — but also shows that Al-Maghrib Institute teachers promote teachings contrary to the Hanbali madhab. So much for the claim that Wahhabi/neo-Wahhabi fiqh is Hanbali. As one brother rightfully puts it: “Wahhabis are fake Hanbalis.” I say they are Hanbalis of convenience, just as they are Hanafis, Shafi’is, and Malikis of convenience. Therefore, learning jurisprudence from the Al-Maghrib Institute is to mix the wrong with the right based on a layperson methodology of the Islamic Sources that was never followed by Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah today and throughout Islam’s history.
Al-Maghrib Institute’s teachers, though lacking any competency in ijtihad or in the understanding of the ijtihad of the mujtahideen who were capable of delving in it, nevertheless still feel comfortable in declaring their understanding of fiqh to be superior to Muslims of the Salaf who had higher knowledge. May Allah Protect us from laypeople who arrogantly play with fiqh without any `usool as a baby plays with his toys. Al-Maghrib Institute’s pseudo-scholars will be held accountable for teaching youngsters ignorance and a selective understanding of what our glorious `ulema taught and stood for.
EVIDENCE TO OPPOSE AL-MAGHRIB INSTITUTE’S POSITION AGAINST THE HANAFI AND HANBALI POSITIONS OF PLACING HANDS BELOW THE NAVEL
Shaykh Faraz Rabbani of Seekers Guidance (formerly of Sunnipath Academy) was asked the following question:
“I am referring you to an article written by a ‘salafi’ in response to Hasan as-Saqqaf’s refutation of al-albani. The issue discussed is that of the placing of the hands in prayer. Their argument is very convincing since they quote from scholars such as Ayni, the [Hanafi] commentator of al-Bukhari, which appears to show that hanafi salah is based on weak dalail. What have the scholars said in response to this?”
Shaykh Faraz Rabbani responds:
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Walaikum assalam,
The early Muslims used to say: “This matter is your deen, so be careful where you take your deen from.”
Things to think about:
1. Are Salafis reliable transmitters of knowledge, or people of gross innovation?
2. Who is “Mubarakfooree,” whose work was quoted on that site? He was a major member of the Ahle-Hadis (Wahhabi) movement of India , with a gross anti-Hanafi bias, as his (otherwise often useful) works clearly show.
3. Imam Ahmad transmitted the hadiths of placing one’s hands on one’s chest in his Musnad and was certainly aware of the hadiths transmitted on this matter. However, his position (and the relied upon position of his school) [see: Kashshaf al-Qina` of al-Buhuti, and al-Mughni of Ibn Qudama] is the same as that of Imam Abu Hanifa and his students: the sunna, as Imam Ali (Allah be pleased with him) said, is to place one’s hands below the navel. Note that all these giants were absolute mujtahids, something Mubarakfooree and, even more so, Albani, are nowhere close to being.
4. Much of the article is mis-quotes, mixing and matching scholarly reasoning, and imbalanced argument.
5. The established Sunni position is that all four madhhabs are sound, and their positions valid to follow, because the fact is that they are inevitably based on sound proofs, when one considers the legal methodology of that particular school. One cannot superimpose one school’s legal methodology on another.
6. As an aside, Hasan Saqqaf is an innovator, whose innovations (especially in matters of aqida and methodology) are far worse than those of the Wahhabis. His most recent work is a negation of (the soundly established) beholding Allah in the Next Life.
The following is taken from Shaykh Abdurrahman ibn Yusuf’s excellent work in English on the evidences of the Hanafi school, Fiqh al-Imam:
Evidence of the Hanafis:
1. Wa’il ibn Hujr narrates, “I saw Rasulullah placing his right hand upon the left one below his navel, in prayer.” [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba, Athar al-Sunan 90]
This is the third version of Wa’il ibn Hujr’s narration which was mentioned at the beginning of the chapter containing the words, “below the navel.” Some Hanafi scholars have stated that this version cannot be used as conclusive evidence for their opinion, because the words “below his navel” are only to be found in some editions of Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba, and not in them all. This is aside from the fact that, as we mentioned, it has an inconsistent text.
However, it is stated in Fath al-Mulhim that “Allama Qasim ibn Qutlubgah has judged this version to be of sound transmission.” Allama Muhammad Abu’l-Tayyibal-Madaniwrites in his commentary on Sunan al-Tirmidhi that this narration has a strong chain, and Shaykh ‘Abid Sindhi states, “Its narrators are trustworthy.” Also, a number of scholars have verified that the addition, “below the navel” is to be found in many manuscripts of Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba, even if it is not found in the recently published editions. [See Athar al-sunan 148]
Therefore, despite the problematic nature Wa’il ibn Hujr’s narration, this version of it can not be rendered totally unacceptable, since there are many other more reliable reports that strengthen it.
2. ‘Ali states, “To place one palm over the other beneath the navel, is from the sunna of salat.” [Bayhaqi 312*, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba 1:391]
It is a known fact that whenever a Companion utters the words “It is from the sunna” regarding any action, it means it is something acquired from Rasulullah himself. Hence, ‘Ali could have only reported this practice as sunna after observing Rasulullah do it. The problem with this narration is that it contains ‘Abdal-Rahman ibn Ishaq in its chain who has been classified as weak. The Hanafis have not fully relied on this narration as a basis f or their opinion, but since there are many other narrations which reinforce it, it could still stand as supplementary evidence.
3. Hajjaj ibn al-Hassan relates, “Either I heard Abu Mijlaz saying or I inquired from him, ‘How should one position his hands [during prayer]?’ He replied, “He should place the inner portion of his right hand upon the back of the left one beneath the navel.” [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba 1:390]
The transmission of this hadith is sound [hasan], as ‘Allama Mardini states in his book al-Jawhar al-naqiyy.
4. Ibrahim al-Nakh’ay relates, “One should place his right hand upon the left one beneath the navel whilst in salat.” [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba 1:390]
The transmission of this hadith is also sound [hasan].
5. Abu Hurayra narrates, “The placing of one hand over the other in salat should be beneath the navel.” [al-Jawharal-naqiyy 2:31*]
6. Anas reports that there are three aspects from the character of Nubuwwa [Prophethood]: to open fast early, to delay the suhur [pre-dawn meal], and to position the right hand over the left one beneath the navel while in salat. [al-Jawharal-naqiyy 2:31*]
Other reasons for the Hanafi opinion:
The scholars have provided various reasons why the hands are best placed beneath the navel and why this method has been classified as most preferable.
(a) Although most of the ahadith on this issue are weak in one way or another, the narrations presented by the Hanafis have been judged to be more sound than the rest.
(b) Ibn al-Humam states in his book Fath al-Qadir, “Due to the inconsistency and contradiction s found between the various narrations, it is best to resort to analogy and reasoning. Standing before the Lord demands a posture which expresses respect and reverence. Since positioning the hands beneath the navel is probably the most respectful way of standing, it will be considered most superior. On the other hand, the reason for women being instructed to position their hands on their chest, is so that greater concealment [and modesty] can be achieved by this.”
3. ‘Allama ‘Ayni states, “To position the hands beneath the navel holds great virtue. It is a posture which signifies great respect. It displays greater contrast to the postures of the disbelievers.” He also writes, “This is the same posture in which one stands before the rulers [of this world].” He further states, “Placing the hands on the chest creates a similarity with women, hence that cannot be classified as the sunna for men.” [‘Umdat al-qari 3:16*]
A knowledgeable analysis of the matter is also available in the Seeking `Ilm website over here.
May Allah Protect us from the misguidance of Al-Maghrib Institute and keep us on the Right Path as taught by the Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi’i, and Maliki schools of jurisprudence, whose superior understanding of Islam was rooted in the time of the pious salaf us-salih. Aaameen.
The Al-Maghrib Institute teaches “The Light of Guidance: The Fundamentals of Faith 101”. This hyperlinked document shows that these course notes were made by Yasir Qadhi and taught by various teachers to Al-Maghrib Institute students. Note that the course notes are dated “February 2011,” which clearly indicates that this is a very recent and current course by Al-Maghrib Institute. True to their Wahhabi-Salafi colors, their attacks on orthodox Sunni Islam continue.
The following is a selection of strange quotes from the course that are contrary to orthodox Sunni Islam.
(1) The quote below in the Al-Maghrib Institute course notes states that Shaykh Abdal-Qadir Jilani was worshipped “more and more.” But by who? The notes are silent about this. What is being attacked here is not “worship” of the Shaykh, but the orthodox Sunni practice of tawassul which is not worship. The specific quote from the course:
“As with the people of Nūḥ, when [Shaykh Abdal-Qadir Jilani] died the people started to exalt him and worship him more and more. Now, his grave is found in twelve different lands in the world. The basis of shirk is to take a righteous person and put him higher than he deserves.” (p.89)
(2) The quote below in the Al-Maghrib Institute course notes states that it is not allowed for a Muslim to travel to a mosque with the intention of getting blessings. The course notes says:
“In Damascus, the Umayyad mosque is the oldest masjid, and it is Islāmically not allowed to travel to Damascus just to pray in that mosque thinking that it will give you blessings. You can go there to sight-see and visit the mosque, but you cannot think that you will get more reward by going there.” (p.96)
This is an echo of one of Ibn Taymiyah’s strange fatawa, which was soundly refuted by Ahl-al-Sunna scholars in a previous post in the section titled, “Yasir Qadhi Parrots Ibn Taymiyah’s Mistake.” What do Yasir Qadhi and the Al-Maghrib Institute have to say about the Sunni scholars’ unveiling of Ibn Taymiyah’s blunder regarding the matter? Curiously but unsurprisingly, the course notes are silent about this.
(3) The quote below in the Al-Maghrib Institute course notes states that there is “nothing holy” about the Prophet’s (peace & blessings be upon him) grave. The course says:
“Do not seek barakah from the [Prophet’s] grave. Ask Allāh to help you and make du‘ā. Do not seek blessings by kissing or touching the grave. Also, realize that the copper grailing was built 300 years ago and has nothing to do with the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). It was built by the Ottomans and there is nothing holy about it. If you think that the grave exudes barakah by some barakah osmosis, it has been 14 centuries, and the barakah would have reached Minnesota. This would mean that the carpets next to the grailing and the land around it are blessed. This is not the way our religion works, and we are not a superstitious religion. His body was blessed, but where he is buried now is not assumed to transfer the blessings to the whole world.” (p.97)
Typical of Wahhabis-Salafis, notice the disrespect and lack of adaab the Al-Maghrib Instiute has for our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) when they shamelessly said: “If you think that the grave exudes barakah by some barakah osmosis, it has been 14 centuries, and the barakah would have reached Minnesota.” Can a true orthodox Sunni ever be so disrespectful, sarcastic, and comfortable with such mockery?
(4) The quote below in the Al-Maghrib Institute course notes states that asking the Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) to make du’a for you is shirk. The course states:
“People make du‘ā to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) or ask the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) to make du‘ā for them to Allāh….They are taking a prophet of God and making him into a god like the Christians. This is a clear manifestation of shirk.” (p.98)
However, the Sunna Foundation provides the specific evidence of a Companion of the Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) who went to the grave of the Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) and asked the Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) to ask Allah to give rain to the Ummah:
Al-Bayhaqi relates with a sound (sahih) chain: “It is related from Malik al-Dar, `Umar’s treasurer, that the people suffered a drought during the successorship of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished,” after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!” The man went and told `Umar. The latter said: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!” Ibn Kathir cites it thus from Bayhaqi in al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya and says: isnaduhu sahih; Ibn Abi Shayba cites it in his Musannaf with a sound (sahih) chain as confirmed by Ibn Hajar who says: rawa Ibn Abi Shayba bi isnadin sahih and cites the hadith in Fath al-Bari. He identifies Malik al-Dar as `Umar’s treasurer (khazin `umar) and says that the man who visited and saw the Prophet in his dream is identified as the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harith, and he counts this hadith among the reasons for Bukhari’s naming of the chapter “The people’s request to their leader for rain if they suffer drought.” He also mentions it in al-Isaba, where he says that Ibn Abi Khaythama cited it.
The legal inference here is not from the dream, because although the dream of seeing the Prophet is truthful, a dream cannot be used to establish a ruling (hukm) due to the possibility that the person who saw it makes an error in its wording. Rather, the inference from this hadith is based on the action of the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harith. The fact that Bilal came to the grave of the Prophet, called out to him, and asked him to ask for rain is a proof that these actions are permitted. These actions fall under the rubric of asking the Prophet for help (istighatha), seeking him as a means (tawassul), and using his intermediary (tashaffu`), and none of the Companions reprimanded him, and therefore it was understood that such actions are among the greatest acts of drawing near to Allah.
In his edition of Ibn Hajar, the Wahhabi scholar Ibn Baz rejects the hadith as a valid source for seeking rain through the Prophet, and brazenly condemns the act of the Companion who came to the grave, calling it munkar (aberrant) and wasila ila al-shirk (a means to associating partners to Allah). We seek protection from Allah from ignorance and error.
According to al-Maghrib Institute’s neo-Wahhabi logic, this would make the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harith guilty of shirk ul-akbar. May Allah protect us from such perverted accusations against the beloved Companions of our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him)!
(5) The Al-Maghrib Institute course states that tabarruk (or the act of asking Allah for things using objects associated with holy people) should not be done because there is no way of knowing what is and what is not authentic that belongs to the Prophet (peace & blessings upon him). But what if authentic possessions of the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) did exist, and Muslims did tabarruk with them? The course notes below do not explicitly answer this question, though they imply that it is permissible. The reason is because, the course notes state, that: “Theoretically, the remnants of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) will always exude barakah.” The course says:
“What about seeking barakah from the Prophet’s hair and clothes and shoes in our times? What about seeking barakah from the remnants of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)? Theoretically, the remnants of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) will always exude barakah. The problem that arises is that we have no way of knowing that this item was in fact the item of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). By and large, we can guarantee that this is a forgery and fabrication. There are at least 12 shoes on display around the world from China to places in Africa that claim to be shoes of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) even though he only had one pair of shoes in his life….A little common sense will tell you that this is not real. We don’t have a single item on the face of the earth that we know belonged to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), even those in museums. There is nothing on the face of the earth that we know for sure that belonged to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam).” (p.99)
The above, however, contradicts what is quoted from the notes in #7 below.
(6) The course says below: “The stones of the Ka’bah are not even blessed,” and “The Ka’bah itself is not holy.” The only comment is that I ask Allah to protect us from such perfidious, anti-Sunni statements. The course says:
“It is not that uncommon to get a small piece of the cloth of the Ka‘bah. There is nothing that is blessed about the cloth of the Ka‘bah. The stones of the Ka‘bah are not even blessed. Only al-ḥajar al-aswad is blessed. We are not polytheists and pagans and idol worshippers. The Ka‘bah itself is not holy. It is the area and land and environment that is holy but not the physical structure.” (p.100)
(7) Recall from #5 above that Al-Maghrib Institute attempted to forbid tabarruk through the Prophet’s (peace & blessings upon him) possessions by saying there is no way of knowing what the authentic possessions of the Prophet (peace & blessings be upon him) are. Also, remember that Al-Maghrib Institute said that “Theoretically, the remnants of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) will always exude barakah” (p.99). Now, the course says:
“In contrast, if a person is asking for blessings from an object he think (sic) Allāh has blessed, then this is bid‘ah and not shirk.” (p.101)
This is a contradiction. In #5 above, al-Maghrib Institute stated that in theory the Prophet’s (peace & blessings upon him) things will always exude barakah, and implied that tabarruk would be permissible if we knew those possessions authentically belonged to Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him). But now we know from the quote above that even if authentic possessions of Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him), or of any genuine saint, did exist, it would still be “bid’ah” to ask Allah for things using those possessions. How can an act be both “theoretically” correct, but “bid’ah” if actually practiced? It sounds a bit like Al-Maghrib Institute’s contradictory stand on Mawleed.
Though repulsive, however, it is good to know that al-Maghrib Institute has shifted its position from “shirk” to “bid’ah” in regards to tabarruk. One day I hope the position will change from “bid’ah” to halaal in line with orthodox Sunni tradition.
(8) Now to tawassul. It is well-known that Wahhabis of all varieties (including the al-Maghrib Institute variety) forbid the act of tawassul in the form of asking Allah for things using a pious intermediary who is living the life of barzakh in the grave. Even more interesting is the recognition and admission by Al-Maghrib Institute that famous Islamic scholars allowed this form of tawassul that al-Maghrib Institute is against! The course says:
“It is true that many famous scholars starting from medieval Islām such as An-Nawawi, Ibn Ḥajar, Al-Shawkāni and Al-Suyūṭī clearly allowed this type of tawassul. Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Al-Qayyim, Ibn Kathīr agree with us.” (p.135)
This is proof that al-Maghrib Institute picks and chooses from scholars, instead of choosing to follow the great majority of Muslims on the matter. They prefer to adhere to controversial individuals rather than fully established and uncontroversial scholars (though Shawkani is rather strange in some aspects from a truly Sunni perspective). It is to be noted, however, that Ibn Kathir did not express any outright condemnation of this form of tawassul. And neither was he influenced by Ibn Taymiyah’s strange understanding of creed (`aqeedah).
(9) Of the Ash’aris and Maturidis — both of which represent the Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah — the al-Maghrib Institute class notes state:
“These groups are our theological cousins. Their book definition of tawḥīd is incorrect. Ulūhiyyah is missing from their definition. It is not a coincidence that where this group became dominant, shirk in ulūhiyyah also increased. When you make du‘ā to a dead saint, according to this group you are not committing shirk. They define tawḥīd in rubūbiyyah and do not accept ulūhiyyah as a part of tawḥīd. For us, ulūhiyyah is tawḥīd because what is lā ilāha illa Allāh except ulūhiyyah. At the end of the day, these people are not bad people. They just have incorrect ideas. They are our brothers in Islām and we love the good in them and try to correct the bad in them. They are the closest group to pure Sunni Islām. Ibn Taymiyyah said we include them in the general, broad sense Sunni Islām. At the end of the day, what combines us is more than what separates us.” (p.169-170)
Note the accusation of shirk when the notes state, “It is not a coincidence that where this group became dominant, shirk in ulūhiyyah also increased.” However, in the same breath the notes state, “At the end of the day, these people are not bad people” and “They are the closest group to pure Sunni Islam“? How can people who have been accused of committing “shirk in uluhiyyah” be the “closest group to pure Sunni Islam”? Especially when the same notes state in page-158 that “Worshipping other than Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) is kufr. Shirk definitely is a type of kufr.”
Is it perhaps because Yasir Qadhi knows that the vast majority of Hanafis are Maturidi and the vast majority of Shafi’is and Malikis are Ash’ari? In other words, 99% of Muslims have been Ash’ari and Maturidi — and Yasir Qadhi and his entourage have the audacity to claim that they have committed “shirk in uluhiyyah”? Some famous Ash’ari scholars are Imam Nawawi, Imam Baihaqi, Imam Ghazzali, Imam Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Imam al-Qurtubi, Qadi `Iyad al-Maliki, Shaykh al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Imam Fakhrud-Din ar-Razi, and many others. Even Salahhad-deen al-Ayoobi was Ash’ari. Can any Muslim in their correct state of mind accuse these Muslims of “shirk in uluhiyyah”? Is this perhaps why Yasir Qadhi in the same breath says Ash’aris and Maturidis are not bad people? We seek refuge in Allah from such extremist accusations and belittling of our great `ulema.
May Allah Guide all of us to the path of the Muslim majority — not the minority splinter groups that the Al-Maghrib Institute diehardly propagates.
The greatest figures of kalaam, starting with Ibn Furak, al-Baqillani, Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, al-Juwani, al-Ghazali, and then ending with the main seal, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi – all of them had very minimal knowledge of hadeeth and the sciences of hadeeth. Al-Ghazali unabashedly admits this in his Ihya, and this is not just a claim shrouded in modesty, but rather the truth, as any student of hadeeth knows. The mere quantity of fabricated and extremely weak (wahi and batil) ahadeeth in this work are enough of an indication to the veracity of his claim. Additionally, he has no works on the sciences of hadeeth or shurooh of the books of hadeeth, yet he wrote numerous works on mysticim, pure philsophy (read his Miskhat al-Anwar – and much can be said about this work, which is perhaps wiser not to say in public!), and kalaam.
It is a amazing that Yasir Qadhi has chosen to slander the greatest scholars Islam has ever produced. It is through them that our Religion was defended from pseudo-Sunni and other heretics, and it is through them that correct knowledge of Islam has reached us.
Shaykh Gabriel Fouad Haddad responds to insults against Hujjat al-Islam, Imam Ghazzali:
Those Who Attack Imam Ghazali
by Sh. G. F. Haddad
Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem
was-salaat was-salaam `alaa Rasul-illah wa ‘alaa alihi wa sahbihi wa sallam
Today’s “Salafis” have revived a particularly bad trait of some naysayers of the past, which consists in attacking Imam Ghazali and belittling those who read his works and cite them to illustrate their opinions. This concerns especially his major book Ihya’ `Ulum al-Din, because it is a landmark of tasawwuf whose immense success and readership the enemies of tasawwuf find particularly galling. Some go so far as to claim that Ghazali was mad when he wrote it, others misconstrue Ghazali’s deathbed reading of Imam Bukhari as a renunciation of tasawwuf, others yet bring up the condemnations of the book by a handful of scholars known for their anti-sufi bias. Yet Allah has allowed the book to tower high above the clamor of its few detractors, and its translations keep increasing in number and quality. The following is intended to provide readers with reliable references concerning his life and works so as to protect ourselves, with Allah’s help, against the slurs of ignorance and envy.
Salah al-Din al-Safadi (d. 764), Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi’s student, relates in his great biographical dictionary entitled al-Wafi — which contains over 14,000 biographies:
Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Ahmad, the Proof of Islam, the Ornament of the Faith, Abu Hamid al-Tusi (al-Ghazali), the Shafi`i jurist, was in his later years without rival.
In 488 he gave up the entirety of his worldly estate (and his professorship at the Nizamiyya, where he had taught since 484) and followed the way of renunciation and solitude. He made the Pilgrimage, and, upon his return, directed his steps to Syria, where he abided a while in the city of Damascus, giving instruction in the mosque retreat (zawiyat al-jami`) which now bears his name in the Western quarter. He then voyaged to Jerusalem, exerting himself greatly in worship and in visiting the holy sites and places. Next he travelled to Egypt, remaining for a while at Alexandria…
He returned to his native city of Tus (shortly before 492). Here he compiled a number of valuable books [among them the Ihya’] before returning to Nisabur, where he was obliged to give lessons at the Nizamiyya (499). He subsequently forsook this and made his way back to his home city, where he assumed the directorship of a retreat (khaniqah) for the Sufis and that of a neighboring college for those occupied with learning. He divided his time among good works such as reciting through the Qur’an and holding lessons for the People of Hearts (the Sufis)…
It is among the noblest and greatest of books, to the extent that it was said concerning it: If all books of Islam were lost except the Ihya’, it would suffice for what was lost… They disapproved of him for including in it hadiths which were not established to be authentic, but such inclusion is permitted in works of encouraging good and discouraging evil (al-targhib wa al- tarhib). The book remains extremely valuable. Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi used to say: “It was as if Allah gathered all sciences under a dome, and showed them to al-Ghazali,” or something to this effect. He passed away… in 505 at Tabaran… the citadel of Tus, where he was interred.(1)
The above clearly refutes the fabrication by some that Ghazali disavowed tasawwuf towards the end of his life. Let us turn to the fabrication of those who try to separate between the Ghazali of usul al- fiqh and the Ghazali of tasawwuf. When they are told that Imam Ghazali’s books on the methodology and foundations of Islamic law are considered required reading in the field — such as his Mustasfa and Mankhul and Shifa’ al-ghalil — they say that he wrote them before his period of seclusion during which he adopted tasawwuf. In reality, the greatest and most comprehensive of the four books he wrote on Usul al-fiqh (Principles of law) was composed in the last period of his life as stated by Dr. Taha al-`Alwani in his book Usul al-fiqh al-islami:
Al Imam al-Ghazali’s Encyclopedia of Shari`a Source Methodology, his fourth book on the subject, and his last word, was al- Mustasfa, which has been printed several times in Egypt and elsewhere. Indeed, this is the work he wrote after coming out of his period of meditation and seclusion.(2)
The notice on Ghazali in the Reliance states:
In Damascus he lived in seclusion for some ten years, engaged in spiritual struggle and the remembrance of Allah, at the end of which he emerged to produce his masterpiece Ihya’ `Ulum al-Din [Giving Life to the Religious Sciences], a classic among the books of the Muslims about internalizing godfearingness (taqwa) in one’s dealings with Allah, illuminating the soul through obedience to Him, and the levels of believers’ attainment therein. The work shows how deeply Ghazali personally realized what he wrote about, and his masterly treatment of hundreds of questions dealing with the inner life that no-one had previously discussed or solved is a performance of sustained excellence that shows its author’s well- disciplined intellect and profound appreciation of human psychology. He also wrote nearly two hundred other works, on the theory of government, Sacred Law, refutations of philosophers, tenets of faith, Sufism, Koranic exegesis, scholastic theology, and bases of Islamic jurisprudence.(3)
What about Ghazali’s scholarly critics? The most vocal, Ibn al- Jawzi — a detractor of Sufis — dismisses the Ihya’ in four of his works: I`lam al-ahya’ bi aghlat al-Ihya’ (Informing the living about the mistakes of the Ihya’), Talbis Iblis, Kitab al-qussas,(4)and his history al-Muntazam fi tarikh al-muluk wal-umam.(5)His views influenced Ibn Taymiyya and his student Dhahabi. The basis of their position was Ghazali’s use of weak hadiths, a list of which is provided by Taj al-Din al-Subki in his Tabaqat. Is their criticism justified or an exaggeration? Most likely the latter, in view of the fact that both the hafiz al-`Iraqi (d. 806) and the hafiz al-Zabidi (d. 1205) after him documented every single hadith in the Ihya and never questioned its usefulness as a whole. Rather, they accepted its immense standing among Muslims and contributed to its embellishment and spread as a manual for spiritual progress. As Subki stressed, Ghazali never excelled in the field of hadith.(6)
More importantly, the majority of hadith masters hold it permissible to use weak hadiths in other than the derivation of legal rulings, such as in the encouragement to good and discouragement from evil (al-targhib wa al-tarhib), as countless hadith masters have indicated as well as other scholars, such as al-Safadi himself.(7)It must be understood that Ghazali incorporated all the material which he judged of use to his didactic purposes on the bases of content rather than origin or chain of transmission; that most of the Ihya consists in quotations from Qur’an, hadith, and the sayings of other than Ghazali, his own prose accounting for less than 35% of the work;(8)and that most of the huge number of hadiths cited are authentic in origin.
In conclusion, we say as al-Safadi that the Ihya’ ranks as a work of targhib or ethics, which is the principal business of tasawwuf. Criteria of authenticity for evidence cited in such works are less rigorous than for works of `aqida and fiqh according to the majority of the scholars, as the next section shows. To hold works of tasawwuf to the criteria of the latter works is to blame apples for not being oranges. Consequently, as al-Safadi correctly indicated, the criticism of Ihya’ `ulum al-din by some on the basis of weak hadiths does not stand, nor does similar criticim of like works, for example Dhahabi’s criticism of Abu Talik al-Makki’s Qut al-qulub and others. Those who cling to such criticism while ignoring the massive endorsement of tasawwuf and its books by the Muslim scholars cling to their own prejudice rather than sound knowledge. Our advice to these brethren is: We remind you of al-Dhahabi’s advice in his biographical notice on Ibn all-Farid in Mizan al-i`tidal: “Do not hasten to judge, rather, keep the best opinion of Sufis”;(9)of Imam Ghazali’s advice in al-Munqidh min al-dalal: “Think good thoughts (about Sufis) and do not harbor doubts in your heart”;(10)and of Ibn Hajar al-Haytami’s fatwa concerning critics of those who respect tasawwuf and believe in awliya’: “Bad thoughts about them (Sufis) is the death of the heart.”(11)Take the great good that is in each of the works of the Sufis in the proper manner, respect the masters of tasawwuf, the least among whom towers high above you in knowledge, do not search out the disagreements of scholars, and stick to humbleness and respect before those who speak about Allah from Whom comes all success.
(1) Salah al-Din Khalil ibn Aybak al-Safadi, al-Wafi bi al-wafayat (Wiesbaden, 1962-1984) 1:274-277 (#176).
(2) Taha Jaber al-`Alwani, Usul al-fiqh al-islami: Source Methodology in Islamic Jurisprudence, ed.Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo (Herndon, VA: IIIT, 1411/1990) p. 50
(3) Reliance of the Traveller p. 1048.
(4) Ibn al-Jawzi, Kitab al-qussas wa al-mudhakkirin p. 201.
(5) Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Muntazam 9:169.
(6) Taqi al-Din al-Subki, Tabaqat al-shafi`iyya 4:179-182.
(7) See al-Hakim, al-madkhal li `ilm al-hadith” (beginning), al- Bayhaqi Dala’il al-nubuwwa (introduction), Nawawi, al-Tibyan fi `ulum al-qur’an p. 17. The latter says: “The scholars are in agreement on the legitimacy of using weak hadiths in the realm of virtous works.” Al- Sakhawi stated the view of the scholarly consensus on this question in the Epilogue of of his al-Qawl al-badi` fi al-salat `ala al-habib al- shafi` (The admirable doctrine concerning the invocation of blessings upon the beloved intercessor) (Beirut: dar al-kutub al-`ilmiyya, 1407/ 1987) p. 245-246.
(8) T.J. Winter, trans. Ghazali’s “Remembrance of Death” (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1989), Introduction, p. xxix n. 63.
(9) al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-i`tidal 3:214.
(10) al-Ghazali, al-Munqidh min al-dalal (Damascus 1956) p. 40.
(11) Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Fatawa hadithiyya (Cairo: al-Halabi, 1970) p. 331.
Reproduced with permission from Shaykh M. Hisham Kabbani’s _The Repudiation of “Salafi” Innovations_ (Kazi, 1996) p. 326-330.
Blessings and Peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions
Islamic tradition has established that Ash’ari, Maturidi, and correct Athari creeds represent Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah. This has been noted by distinguished Islamic scholars of every era for the past 1,000+ years. Yet, Yasir Qadhi begs to differ and casts suspicion on Ash’ari creed (and by extension Maturidi creed which is almost the same) which has been followed by the majority of Islam’s scholars. This is a well established fact. It is as if Yasir Qadhi claims he knows better than the scholars of past (who lived closer to the time of the salaf us-salih).
The question and Yasir Qadhi’s response are provided below. May Allah Guide us from heterodoxy and pseudo-Sunni “scholars” like Yasir Qadhi who are leading Muslims away from Sunni orthodoxy.
QUESTION
Is it true that today the majority of Sunni Muslim SCHOLARS in the Ummah are Ash’arite?
Yasir Qadhi’s response:
“It’s difficult to state with certainty. Large generalizations are made, for example, since ‘this particular school’ is Ashari in theology, then all of its hundreds and thousands of graduates must also be so. However, in my personal experience, if you were to interview the vast majority (yes, the VAST majority) of the graduates of these schools, they have only a cursory understanding of theology in the first place. If you know what to ask (for example, are Allah’s actions characterized as being the wisest?), it is very possible to ‘trick’ them into giving response that are pure Sunni, despite the fact that they might verbally claim allegiance to kalaam theology.”
Yasir Qadhi later says:
Hence, it is rather tricky to claim that the majority of scholars are this or that; I would say that the majority are upon the fitrah, even if they might be influenced by kalaam in some specific issues (for example, the issue of istiwaa).
Yasir Qadhi continues:
Now, I do believe there were certain moments and places in history where Asharites were indeed a majority of scholars, such as in middle Mamluk Egypt and Syria (the time and era when Ibn Taymiyyah lived), but how about the rest of the Muslim world at that time? The Muslim empire spanned half of the globe and was not limited to Damascus or Cairo. Has their been any exhausitve research or substantiated proof that the majority of scholars of the entire earth were of this or that theology?
Yasir Qadhi concludes by saying:
So, to conclude this point, although 1) the Nizamiyah College, 2) the Ayyubid Dynasty after it and the University it founded, and, 3) the Muwahidoon, are the three primary factors for the sudden resurgence of kalaam theology in post 5th century hijrah, I am a bit more suspicious of the claims that, even from that time, it represented the majority of the Ummah.
Shaykh Muhammad ‘Alawi Maliki, the late great Sunni giant of Islam and considered to be a renewer (mujaddid) of his century said in his article, “The Ash’aris”:
“Many sons/daughters of Muslims are ignorant of the Ash’ari School, whom it represents, and its positions on the tenets of the Islamic faith (aqidah), and yet some of them are not God-fearing enough to refrain from accusing it of deviance, departure from the religion of Islam, and heresy about the attributes of Allah. The ignorance of the Ash’ari school is a cause of rendering the unity of the Ahl al-Sunnah dispersing its ranks. Some have gone as far as to consider the Ash’aris among the categories of heretical sects, though it is beyond me how believers can be linked with misbelievers, or how Sunni Muslims can be considered equal with the most extreme faction of the Mu’tazilites, the Jahmites.
“Shall We deal with Muslims as We do criminals? How is it that you judge?” [Qur’an 68:35-36]
The Ash’aris are the Imams of the distinguished figures of guidance among the scholars of the Muslims, whose knowledge has filled the world from east to west, and whom people have unanimously concurred upon their excellence, scholarship, and religiousness. They include the first rank of Sunni scholars and the most brilliant of their luminaries, who stood in the face of the excesses commited by the Mu’tazilites, and who constitute whole sections of the foremost Imams of Hadith, Sacred Law, Quranic exegesis. Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani (d. 852/1449; Rahimullah), the mentor of Hadith scholars and author of the book “Fath al-Bari bi sharh Sahih al-Bukhari“, which not a single Islamic scholar can dispense with, was Ash’ari. The shaykh of the scholars of Sunni Islam, Imam Nawawi (d. 676/1277; Rahimullah), author of “Sharh Sahih Muslim” and many other famous works, was Ash’ari. The master of Qur’anic exegetes, Imam Qurtubi (d. 671/1273; Rahimullah), author of “al-Jami’ li ahkan al-Qur’an“, was Ash’ari. Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar Haytami (d. 974/1567; Rahimullah), who wrote “al-Zawajir ‘an iqtiraf al-kaba’ir“, was Ash’ari. The Shaykh of Sacred Law and Hadith, the conclusive definitive Zakariyya Ansari (d. 926/1520; Rahimullah), was Ash’ari. Imam Abu Bakr Baqillani (d. 403/1013; Rahimullah), Imam ‘Asqalani; Imam Nasafi (d. 710/1310; Rahimullah); Imam Shirbini (d. 977/1570; Rahimullah); Abu Hayyan Tawhidi, author of the Qur’anic commentary “al-Bahr al-muhit“; Imam ibn Juzayy (d. 741/1340; Rahimullah); author of “al-Tashil fi ‘ulum al-Tanzil“; and others – all of these were Imams of the Ash’aris. If we wanted to name all of the top scholars of Hadith, Qur’anic exegesis, and Sacred Law who were Imams of the Ash’aris, we would be hard put to do so and would require volumes merely to list these illustrious figures whose wisdom has filled the earth from east to west. And it is incumbent upon us to give credit where credit is due, recognising the merit of those of knowledge and virtue who have served the Sacred Law of the Greatest Messengers (Allah bless him and grant him peace). What good is to be hoped for us if we impugn our foremost scholars and righteous forbearers with charges of aberrancy and misguidance? Or how should Allah give us the benefit of their scholarship if we believe it is deviance and departure from the way of Islam? I ask you, is there a single Islamic scholar of the present day, among all the PhD.’s and geniuses, who has done what Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani or Imam Nawawi have, of the service rendered by these two noble Imams (May Allah enfold them in His mercy and bliss) to the pure Prophetic Sunnah? How should we charge them and all Ash’aris with abberancy when it is we who are in need of their scholarship? Or how can we take knowledge from them if they were in error? For as Imam Zuhri (d. 124/742; rahimullah) says, “This knowledge is religion, so look well to whom you are taking your religion from.”
Is it not sufficient for someone opposed to the Ash’aris to say, “Allah have mercy on them, they used reasoning (ijtihad) in figuratively interpreting the divine attributes, which it would have been fitter for them not to do”; instead of accusing them of deviance and misguidance, or displaying anger towards whoever considers them to be of the Sunni Community? If Imams Nawawi, ‘Asqalani, Qurtubi, Baqillani, al-Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Haytami, Zakariyyah Ansari, and many others were not among the most brilliant scholars and illustrious geniuses, or of the Sunni Community, then who are the Sunnis?
I sincerely entreat all who call others to this religion or who work in the field of propagating Islam to fear Allah respecting the honour of the Community of Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is possessed of goodness until the Final Hour, we are bereft of any if we fail to acknowledge the worth and excellence of our learned.”
In conclusion, the Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jama’ah are the true followers of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all), followed by by those who trod their path for the last 1400 years. It is in summary the followers of Imam Abu’l Hasan al-Ash’ari (Rahimullah) and Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (Rahimullah) in Aqeedah, and this saved sect is represented by the adherents of one of the four schools – Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali today. This is the sect which has had the largest following throughout Islamic history as-Sawad al-Az’am) as confirmed by the Qur’anic and Ahadith based evidence and it will remain dominant until the Hour is established, inshaAllah.
Does Yasir Qadhi dare question the creed of Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah? Does Yasir Qadhi dare question the creed of our illustrious scholars like Imam Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Imam Nawawi, Imam Qurtubi, and many other well-known Ash’ari scholars? If they were not on the correct Islamic creed, then would Yasir Qadhi care to tell us who had the correct Islamic creed in each of the generations that have passed?
For more of Yasir Qadhi’s insults against the Ash’aris, one may refer to this previous post.
May Allah protect us from Yasir Qadhi and his followers who are propagaters of pseudo-Sunni misguidance, and who try to separate Muslims from the great mass of Muslims. May Allah keep all of us in the fold of the Ash’aris, Maturidis, and correct non-anthropomorphic Atharis who comprise the vast majority of Muslims in Islam’s history.
I end with a list of FAMOUS ASH’ARI SCHOLARS:
Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini
The hafidh: Abu Nuaym al-Asbahani, the author of the book, Hilyat al-Awliya’
Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni , who was the one whose hand lit up after he died, because he had written so many authentic religious judgments (fatwas);
Abdul-Malik Abul-Ma’ali al-Juwayni , who is the son of Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni and the famous Imam of the Haramayn, the Haram of Makkah and the Haram of al-Madinah;
Abu Mansur at-Tamimi, the author of Al-Farqu Baynal-Firaq and ‘Usul ud-Din;
The hafidh: al-Isma’ili, who authored the book: Al-Mustakhraj ‘Ala Sahih al-Bukhari;
The famous hafidh: al-Bayhaqi;
The hafidh: ad-Daraqutni ; who was among the giants of the hafidhs of hadith;
The hafidh:, al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, who authored the famous book, The History of Baghdad;
The ustadh: Abul-Qasim al-Qushayri, the author of Ar-Risalah al-Qushayriah, a famous book in Sufism;
His son, known as Abun-Nasr;
The shaykh: Abu Ishaq ash-Shirazi , who was a famous Shafi’i scholar who authored At-Tanbih, Al-Muhadhdhab, and Al-Luma’;
The famous Shafi’i faqih: Nasr al-Maqdisi;
Imamal-Ghazali;
Abul-Wafa’ Ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali;
The Hanafi judge: ad-Damghani, who was the judge of all judges in his era;
Imam Abul-Walid al-Baji, a famous Maliki scholar;
The Imam, the Master: Ahmad ar-Rifa’i;
The hafidh: Abul-Qasim Ibn ‘Asakir;
Ibnus-Sam’ani, who acquired the knowledge through about 1000 shaykhs and authored the book: Al-Ansab;
Al-Qadi ‘Iyad al-Malikiyy, the author of Ash-Shifa;
Imam Nawawi;
Imam Fakhrud-Din ar-Razi, the author of the famous book of interpretation;
Al-Qurtubi, who is also famous for his book of interpretation;
The Shafi’i shaykh: ‘Izzud-Din Ibnu ‘Abdis-Salam, who was known for being strict in bidding that which Allah made lawful and forbidding that which Allah made unlawful;
The Maliki scholar, linguist, and faqih: Abu ‘Amr Ibnul-Hajib;
Al-Qadi Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id, who, according to some sayings, reached the level of ijtihad;
Imam ‘Ala’ud-Din al-Baji, a famous Maliki scholar;
The judge of the judges: Taqiyyuddin as-Subki;
The hafidh of Jerusalem: al-‘Ala’i;
The hafidh: Zaynud-Din al-Iraqi, and his son, the hafidh, AbuZur’ah;
The Seal of the hafidhs: Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani;
The seal of the linguists, Imam Murtada az-Zabidi, who was a follower of the school (madhhab) of Imam Abu Hanifah;
The judge of the judges, the famous later Shafi’i scholar: Zakariyya al-Ansari;
The Sufi shaykh: Baha’ud-Din ar-Rawwas;
The Mufti of the city of Makkah: Ahmad Ibn Zayni Dahlan , who authored a famous book: The History of Islamic States;
The famous Indian scholar: Waliyyullah ad-Dahlawi;
The Mufti of Egypt, the shaykh: Muhammad ‘Ulaysh al-Maliki;
The shaykh of the Azhar Mosque in Egypt, who lived about 100 years ago: Shaykh ‘Abdullah ash-Sharqawi;
The famous shaykh from Tripoli: Abul Mahasin al-Qawuqji, who died less than 100 years ago in Egypt. Much of the narration which has reached us today was narrated through him;
Imam Husayn al-Jisr at-Tarabulsi of Tripoli, who is known for his books: Ar-Risalah al-Hamidiyyah and Al-Husun al-Hamidiyyah, both authored to defend the Religion of Islam against the atheists at the time of the Ottoman Sultan, AbdulHamid II;
Yasir Qadhi, nicknamed as “Abu Ammar” in the Al-Maghrib Institute Forums, had this to say of the great scholar, Imam Shams al-Din al-Sakhawi (may Allah bless him abundantly), known to be the foremost student of the eminent scholarly giant of Islam, Imam Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani:
“As-Sakhawi, with all due respect to his knowledge of hadeeth, was not purely upon the ‘aqeedah of Ahl as-Sunnah.”
The ugly attack by Yasir Qadhi on the great scholar of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’al Jama’ah is an attack on the unity of Muslims and disparagement of our glorious scholars who our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings be upon him) described as the “heirs of the Prophets”. Yasir Qadhi did not mention that questioning the `aqeedah and hadeeth knowledge of Imam al-Sakhawi is tantamount to questioning the `aqeedah and hadeeth credentials of the well-known, established hadeeth master, Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani. May Allah Protect us from Yasir Qadhi’s bigotry and misguidance.
Below is the biography of the great Imam al-Sakhawi– conveniently dismissed by Yasir Qadhi and unexplained to his students:
“The foremost student of Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani and a great jurist, historian, and hadith master, Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Rahman al-Sakhawi, like Taqi al-Din al-Subki and al-Suyuti, belonged to the Shadhili order founded by Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili, as represented by the great Maliki Master Ibn `Ata’ Allah, five of whose works al-Sakhawi transmitted to posterity, including the Hikam, from the Shadhili commentator Ahmad Zarruq (d. 899).
In his biography of the famous men of his time entitled al-Daw’ al-lami` al-Sakhawi reveals that his father Zayn al-Din `Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad (d. 874) was a Cairo-born Sufi of great piety, and a member of the Baybarsiyya Sufi community where Ibn Hajar, Sakhawi’s teacher, taught for forty years.1
In the section of his al-Jawahir al-mukallala fi al-akhbar al-musalsala devoted to the transmission of hadith through chains formed exclusively of Sufi narrators, Sakhawi states that he himself had received the Sufi path from Zayn al-Din Ridwan al-Muqri’ in Cairo.2
In the same work Sakhawi also mentions several of his teachers and students of hadith who were Sufis. Here are the names of some of them, together with the words used by him to describe them in his biographical work al-Daw’ al-lami`:*
Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad al-Hishi al-Halabi al-Shafi`i (b. 848) the head of the Bistamiyya Sufis in Aleppo, the mother trunk of the Naqshbandi Sufi order affiliated with Abu Yazid al-Bistami. He spent two years in Mecca with Sakhawi, who wrote him an ijaza or permission to teach. In this ijaza Sakhawi calls him: “Our master, the masterful Imam of merits and guidance, the Educator of Murids (students in the Sufi path), the Mainstay of Wayfarers in the Sufi path, the Noble Abu Bakr al-Hishi al-Halabi, may Allah preserve him and have mercy on his gracious predecessors (i.e. the chain of his shaykhs in the Sufi path), and may Allah grant us and all Muslims their benefits.”3
Badr al-Din Hussayn ibn Siddiq al-Yamani al-Ahdal (d. 903): al-Sakhawi gave him a comprehensive ijaza granting him permission to teach all of his books.4
Abu al-Fath Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Madani al-Maraghi (d. 859): Sakhawi took hadith from him. He was head of two Sufi khaniqas in Cairo, the Zamamiyya and the Jamaliyya. He led a life of seclusion for the most part, and wrote a commentary on Nawawi’s manual of Law Minhaj al-talibin, and an epitome of Ibn Hajar’s Fath al-bari because of his defense of Ibn `Arabi, he was murdered in front of the Ka`ba by a fanatic.5
Taqi al-Din Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad al-Qalqashandi (d. 867), also called `Abd Allah. He received the Sufi khirqa or cloak of authority in Cairo. He is said to have read the whole of Sahih al-Bukhari in three days while in Mecca. He lived in al-Quds, where al-Sakhawi met him and took hadith from him.6
Thiqat al-Din Abu al-`Abbas Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-`Uqbi (d. 861). He taught hadith and tajwid in Mecca, where Sakhawi studied under him.7
Kamal al-Din Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahid al-Sikandari al-Siwasi (d. 861). He was a master of all sciences and taught at the Madrasa al-Ashrafiyya in Cairo, after which he headed the Shaykhuni Sufi khaniqa. He authored many books.8
Abu `Abd Allah Muhammad ibn `Ali al-Husayni al-Qahiri al-Shafi`i al-Sufi (d. 876). Munawi’s deputy judge in Cairo, a student of `Izz al-Din ibn Jama`a, Jalal al-Din al-Bulqini and many others, and a student and friend of Sakhawi’s teacher Ibn Hajar whose work Fath al-bari he copied twice. A teacher of fiqh and hadith, he wrote an epitome of Ibn al-Athir’s Kitab al-ansab. He was an old acquaintance of Sakhawi’s father, and consequently treated Sakhawi himself “with indescribable respect.” He was one of the ten students to whom Ibn Hajar gave his authority in teaching hadith after him.9
Abu Khalid Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Jibrini (d. 860). He was a writer, archer, horseman, and Sufi shaykh at the zawiya (alcove-mosque) of Jibrin, where al-Sakhawi met him and took hadith from him. Sakhawi says of him: “He was handsome, modest, generous, courageous, and endowed with spiritual strength and virility after the shaykhs of true majesty.”10
Zaki al-Din Abu al-`Abbas Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Ansari al-Khazraji al-Sa`di al-Muqri’ al-Sufi (d. 875). An associate of Ibn Hajar and a prolific writer, he wrote an autobiography in more than fifty volumes, although Sakhawi said he was unaffected, congenial, readily given to tears, and quick of repartee.11
Thiqat al-Din Abu `Ali Mahmud ibn `Ali al-Sufi al-Khaniki (d. 865). Born and raised in Cairo’s Khaniqa al-Siryaqusiyya where he taught late in life. He died while at Mecca for the pilgrimage.12
Abu al-Faraj `Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalil al-Dimashqi al-Sufi (d. 869). He was a muhaddith. Al-Sakhawi studied under him in Cairo and at the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus.13
Citations:
1 al-Sakhawi, al-Daw’ al-lami` (Beirut: dar maktabat al-hayat, 1966) 4:124-125.
2 A.J. Arberry, Sakhawiana: A Study Based on the Chester Beatty Ms. Arab. 773 (London: Emery Walker Ltd., 1951) p. 35.
CNN’s IGNORANCE: WHO IS MODERATE AND WHO IS EXTREME?
Recently the CNN invited Yasir Qadhi and a few of the staff of Muslim Matters to their studio and presented them as “moderates” who teach “traditional Islamic teachings”. The Muslim Matters staff was able to take advantage of this ignorance by CNN that did not even question them once about their support of Wahhabism and their differences with the majority of Muslims. The title of the video is “Moderates counter Muslim extremists”.
The CNN reporter said:
“Meet the staff of Muslim Matters, a website that answers questions using traditional Islamic teachings to counter arguments made by Islamic extremists.”
Amad of Muslim Matters, known for casting aspersions against Ahl-al-Sunna, said:
“Our goal was to be able to present an orthodox voice online and show that you can be 100% orthodox and 100% American.”
But who besides Wahhabis, neo-Wahhabis, or some manifestation of Salafi-Wahhabism say that Wahhabism and its different shades are “orthodox” and “moderate”? CNN failed to explain the definitions of a “moderate” and “extremist” though one can understand the shallow approach CNN was following.
CNN naively appeared to define an “orthodox” and “moderate” Muslim as any Muslim who condemned militants (so-called jihadists). This simplistic, bi-polar division of Muslims — condemners of militancy are “moderate” and “orthodox”; supporters of militancy are “extremists” – brushes over and obscures the various shades of extremism and, instead, lumps non-violent extremists with the real moderates: This is exactly what CNN did when they lumped Yasir Qadhi with Imam Hamza Yusuf and Imam Zaid Shakir, the latter two being genuine Sunni moderates while Yasir Qadhi being a rabid, unorthodox Wahhabi.
Had CNN done their homework, they would have invited Imams Hamza Yusuf, Zaid Shakir, and other teachers from Zaytuna College who represent ‘traditional Islamic teachings’ to their studio rather than Yasir Qadhi and Muslim Matters who are a pseudo-Sunni, Wahhabi minority.
ARE NON-VIOLENT WAHHABI EXTREMISTS “MODERATES”?
Did it not occur to CNN that a condemner of violence may possibly be contributing to the problem of extremism in other ways? By failing to mention the various shades of Islamic extremism, and mixing apples with oranges, CNN bestowed accolades on Yasir Qadhi and Muslim Matters as propagaters of “moderation” and “orthodox” Islam.
In actuality, Yasir Qadhi and his entourage are known to represent a minority neo-Wahhabi/Salafi sect of Islam that contradicts the beliefs of the Sunni majority: followers of the Ash’ari/Maturidi/Athari creeds and followers of the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence.
Even if many youngsters support neo-Wahhabi groups like Muslim Matters, Sunni scholars – now and in the past – who represent the Muslim majority have condemned such groups as unorthodox and extreme. This fact completely escaped CNN. This resulted in CNN praising extremist Wahhabis and distorting the image of genuine, orthodox Sunnis.
Even if Yasir Qadhi does not espouse violence, he is known to make takfeer (condemning Muslims as being out of the fold of Islam) against most Muslims, and accuses them of reprehensible innovation (bid’ah) and polytheism (shirk). In lock-step with Wahhabi teachings, he openly praises Ibn Taymiyah’s unorthodox understanding of creed, uses his categorization to explain creed, and casts aspersions against followers of the Ash’ari creed (and by extension the Maturidi creed) of being outside the fold of Islam.
CNN should have known that those who were being condemned by Yasir Qadhi collectively represent most Muslims in Islam’s history and are the real “moderates” and followers of “orthodox” Islam.
CNN should have known that a long list of orthodox Sunni scholars refuted Wahhabism in their books, treatises, and poems, and warned the Muslim masses from their reprehensible innovations in matters of belief and worship. A sample of these Sunni scholars is provided below.
WAHHABISM FUELS IDEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM
Wahhabism indeed fuels ideological extremism and a bi-polar vision of the world — similar to the keyboard “jihadists” and other pseudo-Sunni militants they set out to condemn. Indeed, one finds parallels in the role models the Wahhabis use. While non-violent Wahhabis and militant “jihadists” interpret the statements of Ibn Taymiyah and Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab differently, they view both as legitimate and valid scholars in almost all accounts. Sunni scholars view these individuals as astray from orthodox Sunni Islam, mainly in matters of creed but also in matters of worship.
Wahhabism was the ideological fuel that inculcated Osama bin Laden, who then turned to a hybrid Wahhabi-Salafi “jihadist”. Those who say Wahhabism was not part of Osama bin Laden’s beliefs and worldview are naive. He was born and raised in Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, had a Wahhabi father who was close to the Saudi Wahhabi monarchy, and whose son Omar bin Laden in a recent book clearly stated that his father is a “Wahhabi”.
DOES CNN KNOW THE FOLLOWING ABOUT YASIR QADHI, MUSLIM MATTERS,
& AL-MAGHRIB INSTITUTE?
ANWAR AL-AWLAKI. Does CNN know that Muslim Matters at one time supported Anwar al-Awlaki, the militant “jihadist”? Does CNN know that “moderate” Muslim Matters was very happy in 2007 when Anwar al-Awlaki was released from prison in Yemen, and devoted an entire article to this? This article was written by the same “Amad” that CNN invited to its studio. Muslim Matters said this of Anwar Awlaki:
“Alhamdulillah this is great news. I urge all the brothers and sisters to send a quick email to Imam Awlaki, telling him how happy we are that he has been released from his unlawful and undeserved imprisonment, back to his family and friends. May Allah protect our scholars and students of knowledge from the oppressors and the dictators of the world.”
SAUDI WAHHABI EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. Does CNN know that many, if not most, instructors at al-Maghrib Institute (all of whom support Muslim Matters) studied and graduated in Wahhabi educational institutions in Saudi Arabia? Namely, the following instructors: Muhammad alShareef (the founder of al-Maghrib Institute), Yasir Qadhi, Yaser Birjas, AbdulBary Yahya, Shpendim Nadzaku, Navaid Aziz, Ahsan Hanif, and — the latest addition — Abdullah Hakim Quick.
SUNNI SCHOLARS REFUTE WAHHABISM. Does CNN know which moderate, orthodox Sunni scholars wrote against Wahhabis and warned Muslims from them? The following is a sample:
–Al-`Amrawi, `Abd al-Hayy, and `Abd al-Hakim Murad (Qarawiyyin University, Morocco): Al-tahdhir min al-ightirar bi ma ja’a fi kitab al-hiwar [“Warning Against Being Fooled By the Contents of the Book (by Ibn Mani`) A Debate With al-Maliki (an attack on Ibn `Alawi al-Maliki by a Wahhabi writer)”] (Fes: Qarawiyyin, 1984).
–`Ata’ Allah al-Makki: al-sarim al-hindi fil `unuq al-najdi [“The Indian Scimitar on the Najdi’s Neck”].
–Al-Azhari, `Abd Rabbih ibn Sulayman al-Shafi`i (The author of Sharh Jami’ al-Usul li ahadith al-Rasul, a basic book of Usul al-Fiqh: Fayd al-Wahhab fi Bayan Ahl al-Haqq wa man dalla `an al-sawab, 4 vols. [“Allah’s Outpouring in Differentiating the True Muslims From Those Who Deviated From the Truth”].
–Al-Barakat al-Shafi`i al-Ahmadi al-Makki, `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Ahmad: unpublished manuscript of a refutation of the Wahhabi sect.
–Al-Buti, Dr. Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan (University of Damascus): Al-Salafiyyatu marhalatun zamaniyyatun mubarakatun la madhhabun islami [“The Salafiyya is a blessed historical period not an Islamic school of law”] (Damascus: Dar al-fikr, 1988); Al-lamadhhabiyya akhtaru bid`atin tuhaddidu al-shari`a al-islamiyya [“Non-madhhabism is the most dangerous innovation presently menacing Islamic law”] (Damascus: Maktabat al-Farabi, n.d.).
–Al-Dahesh ibn `Abd Allah, Dr. (Arab University of Morocco), ed. Munazara `ilmiyya bayna `Ali ibn Muhammad al-Sharif wa al-Imam Ahmad ibn Idris fi al-radd `ala Wahhabiyyat Najd, Tihama, wa `Asir [“Scholarly Debate Between the Sharif and Ahmad ibn Idris Against the Wahhabis of Najd, Tihama, and `Asir”].
–Dahlan, al-Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zayni (d. 1304/1886). Mufti of Mecca and Shaykh al-Islam (highest religious authority in the Ottoman jurisdiction) for the Hijaz region: al-Durar al-saniyyah fi al-radd ala al-Wahhabiyyah [“The Pure Pearls in Answering the Wahhabis”] pub. Egypt 1319 & 1347 H; Fitnat al-Wahhabiyyah [“The Wahhabi Fitna”]; Khulasat al-Kalam fi bayan Umara’ al-Balad al-Haram [“The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Sacrosanct Country”], a history of the Wahhabi fitna in Najd and the Hijaz.
Many more Sunni scholars and their works exist that refute Wahhabism.
TEACHING THE WAHHABI FOUNDER’S BOOK. Does CNN know that Yasir Qadhi teaches Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab’s Kitab ut-Tawheed? Ibn Abdal-Wahhab is the founder of Wahhabism whose followers massacred Sunnis and Shi’ahs and called it “jihad” because they accused them of polytheism (shirk). The orthodox Sunni scholars have refuted Wahhabism’s founder as well as his writings, including the books Yasir Qadhi teaches in Muslim Matters and the al-Maghrib Institute.
SUPPORTING A SHAYKH WHO CONDONES VIOLENCE AGAINST CIVILIANS. Does CNN know that Yasir Qadhi has called Shaykh Salman al-Oudah his “mentor” even though he legitimizes the killing of civilians in Jerusalem? Does CNN know that Shaykh Salman al-Oudah was one of Osama bin Laden’s favorite scholars?
PRAISING AN OSAMA BIN LADEN SUPPORTER. Does CNN know Yasir Qadhi’s praise of an Osama bin Laden supporter — the late Wahhabi scholar, Ibn Jibreen? Yasir Qahdi had this to say of Ibn Jibreen when he died:
“Truly with the death of the Shaykh we have lost the last of the great giants of our era.”
WAHHABI MENTORS. Does CNN know that Yasir Qadhi’s colleague, Waleed Basyouni, who teaches at al-Maghrib Institute and who is supported by Muslim Matters, studied at the al-Imam Muhammad University in Saudi Arabia that was named after the founder of Wahhabism (Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab)? Does CNN know that Waleed Basyouni was a student of the late Ibn Baz, the former Wahhabi grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, who had forbidden women to drive? Does CNN know that Waleed Basyouni also supported Ibn Jibreen, the Osama bin Laden supporter?
SUPPORTING ALI AL-TIMIMI. Does CNN know that Yasir Qadhi openly supports a Wahhabi, Ali al-Timimi, who was accused and convicted of being the spiritual guide of the “Virginia jihadists” and is currently serving a life sentence in a US prison? Yasir Qadhi wrote an entire article praising and defending Ali al-Timimi on the Muslim Matters website.
Here are some words of Yasir Qadhi’s strong support and admiration for al-Timimi, who shaped and directed him in the path he has taken :
“I personally owe a lot to Sh. al-Timimi, and I can say (with pride) that fifteen years ago, back in the early 90’s, he played an instrumental role in shaping and directing me to take the path that has led me to where I am today. I had the opportunity to be of the first batches of his students – in fact he was the first teacher who taught me the realities and intricacies of tawhid and aqidah, which, to this day, remains my primary focus and speciality.”
TEACHING UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB. Does CNN know that Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, also known as the “Underwear Bomber” who tried to blow up a US-bound plane on Christmas in 2009, attended Al-Maghrib Institute’s seminars in both the UK and United States, including a class taught by Yasir Qadhi?
YASIR QADHI CONFESSES TO BEING A SALAFI. Does CNN know that Yasir Qadhi described himself as a Salafi as stated in this Washington Post article?:
“Yasir Qadhi, a lecturer with AlMaghrib Institute, an Islamic educational organization founded by a former prayer leader at Dar-us-Salaam, cited his own experienceas an example ofhow Salafism has adaptedin the United States.”
Wahhabism-Salafism has never represented orthdodox Sunni Islam. Wahhabism originated in the 1700s while Salafism originated in the late 1800s/early 1900s and branched of into offshots and hybrids later in the century. Orthodox Sunni Islam originated in the early Islamic period of Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him) and has been represented by scholars of the Ash’ari/Maturidi/Athari creeds and Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence.
YASIR QADHI, AL-MAGHRIB INSTITUTE, AND DAR-US-SALAM. Does CNN know that Yasir Qadhi is a leader and teacher of the Wahhabi Al-Maghrib Institute that has origins in Dar-us-Salam, the Wahhabi institute in Maryland, USA that was founded by Safi Khan who graduated from the Wahhabi Imam Muhammad ibn Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia? This has been explained in some detail in a separate post in this blog.
CONTACT CNN & TELL THEM THE TRUTH
The above are only selected examples of how Yasir Qadhi, Muslim Matters, and the al-Maghrib Institute contradict moderate, orthodox Sunni Islam. CNN should browse this blog carefully and examine the specific sources and citations noted. It is common knowledge that any Wahhabi group, including Muslim Matters, can never truly claim the mantle of “moderation” and “orthodoxy” even if they think they do.
The mantle of moderation and orthodoxy has always been represented by the Muslim majority who have condemned Wahhabism, including the likes of Muslim Matters, and similar splinter groups that appeared over the generations. CNN failed to understand and explain that extremists can still be in the non-violent camp as well — just as Yasir Qadhi and Muslim Matters are. This makes them poisonous to our society ideologically, if not in terms of brute violence. This should concern CNN just as much, if not more, than the orthodox Sunnis who truly practice “traditional Islamic teachings” and who have dealt with the Wahhabi-Salafi menace time and again. CNN should never have invited Yasir Qadhi and other Muslim Matters staff and represented them as promoters of “orthodoxy”, “moderation”, and “traditional Islamic teachings”. Rather, they should have invited the real moderates like Imam Hamza Yusuf, Imam Zaid Shakir, or Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad.
Please write to CNN and request them to qualify and correct their view of who exactly a “moderate” and “extremist” is. CNN has damaged its image and reputation as a trustworthy news source by portraying extremists as moderates, mixing the facts, and wrongly representing the moderate, Sunni majority.
IMAM AHMAD IBN HANBAL ALLOWS TAWASSUL THROUGH THE PROPHET (PBUH)
The following is evidence of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s approval of tawassul through our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him):
“Imam Ahmad made tawassul through the Prophet a part of every du`a according to the following report: `Ala’ al-Din al-Mardawi said in his book al-Insaf fi ma`rifat al-rajih min al-khilaf `ala madhhab al-Imam al-mubajjal Ahmad ibn Hanbal (3:456): “The correct position of the [Hanbali] madhhab is that it is permissible in one’s supplication (du`a) to use as one’s means a pious person, and it is said that it is desirable (mustahabb). Imam Ahmad said to Abu Bakr al-Marwazi:
“yatawassalu bi al-nabi fi du`a’ih”
(“Let him use the Prophet as a means in his supplication to Allah.”)
The same report is found in Imam Ahmad’s Manasik as narrated by his student Abu Bakr al-Marwazi. Similarly the lengthy wording of the tawassul according to the Hanbali madhhab as established by the hafiz Ibn `Aqil in his Tadhkira was cited fully by Imam Kawthari in his appendix to Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki’s al-Sayf al-saqil included in Kawthari’s edition of the latter.” (Source: http://www.sunnah.org/publication/encyclopedia/html/tawassul.htm)
YASIR QADHI DISMISSES THE SALAF-US-SALIH
Regarding Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s permissibility of doing tawassul through Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him), Yasir Qadhi said:
“As for the statement attributed to Imam Ahmad, yes some Hanbali books state this. Personally, I haven’t come across the isnaad of this narration (I’m not saying its not authentic, I’m saying I haven’t found it yet), and for such delicate issues I would like to be fully certain before unequivocally attributing such an opinion to Imam Ahmad. Regardless, even if he did allow it, this would be an opinion that we would respect (from him and others), but not necessarily follow.”
The above quote by Yasir Qadhi must not be underestimated. This is explicit evidence from Yasir Qadhi (and by extension al-Maghrib Institute) that he is willing to NOT follow the pious adherents of the Salaf-us-Salih if their views do not conform to the Wahhabi-Salafi perspective.
In this case, Yasir Qadhi is willing to reject the opinion of a mujtahid mutlaq Imam — the founder of the Hanbali madhab — who clearly allowed tawassul through Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him), as clearly illustrated in the evidence above.
This means that Yasir Qadhi’s measure of approval for opinions of the Salaf-us-Salih depends on whether they agree with his own opinions or not. If they don’t, Yasir Qadhi conveniently dismisses them. Is this the approach of a genuine orthodox Sunni? Obviously not. The Salaf-us-Salih is only useful to Yasir Qadhi inasmuch as they agree with him — that’s it.
Yasir Qadhi has reversed the matter to mean that the Salaf-us-Salih should follow him instead. This makes Yasir Qadhi a dangerous and arrogant innovater who uses the name of the Salaf us-Salih only to promote his Wahhabi agenda and unorthodox interpretations. This is while knowing well that the Salaf-us-Salih are the ‘best of Muslims’ who we should try our best to emulate. They are our role models. They possess more knowledge than us. We should be humble and follow their understanding of Islam that was deeply rooted in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) said:
“The best of people is my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them.”
(Source: Bukhari and Muslim)
In spite of the Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) specifying the high status of the Salaf-us-Salih, Yasir Qadhi conveniently dismisses them when they differ from his Wahhabi perspective. Yasir Qadhi should fear Allah and repent for his arrogance.
YASIR QADHI SAYS TAWASSUL IS “INNOVATION”
As if this was not enough, Yasir Qadhi proclaimed his view of tawassul in complete contradiction to the ijtihad of our beloved mujtahid mutlaq Imam, Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Yasir Qadhi said:
“The issue of asking Allah ‘…by the rank/status/body/honor of the Prophet.’ This is an innovation.”
Does Yasir Qadhi know that Imam Ahmad memorized one million ahadeeth, including all the chains of narration and status of those narrators? What authority does Yasir Qadhi have to reject Imam Ahmad’s ijtihad on the matter when Yasir is clearly not at the rank of being a mujtahid mutlaq? Does Yasir expect us to reject Imam Ahmad’s approval of tawassul through the Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) and embrace his (Yasir’s) opposition to tawassul when Yasir’s understanding is NOT rooted in the Salaf-us-Salih, nor in agreement with what the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali madhahib said about the matter?
IMAM AHMAD APPROVES OF TABARRUK
Imam Ahmad even said that the minbar can be used for tabarruk:
“Imam Ahmad’s son `Abd Allah said: I asked my father about the man who touches and kisses the pommel of the Prophet’s minbar to obtain blessing, or touches the grave of the Prophet. [Imam Ahmed] responded by saying:
“There is nothing wrong with it.”
“`Abd Allah also asked Imam Ahmad about the man who touches the Prophet’s minbar and kisses it for blessing, and who does the same with the grave, or something to that effect, intending thereby to draw closer to Allah. [Imam Ahmad] replied:
Will Yasir Qadhi dismiss this evidence too? How much evidence will he dismiss to uphold his Wahhabi credentials?
YASIR QADHI CONTRADICTS AL-ALBANI’S FINDING ON TAWASSUL THROUGH THE PROPHET (PBUH)
It is interesting to note that even the late Wahhabi Naseeruddin al-Albani contradicted Yasir Qadhi when he confirmed that Imam Ahmad allowed tawassul through the Prophet (peace & blessings upon him). It seems like Yasir Qadhi thinks he knows more than all teachers of hadeeth — even if the hadeeth “teacher” is a Wahhabi! Al-Albani said:
“Imaam Ahmad allowed tawassul by means of the Messenger alone, and others such as Imaam ash-Shawkaanee allowed tawassul by means of him and other Prophets and the Pious.”
(Source: al-Albani, At-Tawassul, p. 38)
Allah Protect us and our children from such misguided “scholars” who lead themselves and those who follow them astray. Aaameen!
“As I’ll answer in the other thread, for the Ashairah there is no concept of shirk in uloohiyyah; its ruboobiyyah or nothing. And even that, only one aspect of ruboobiyyah, which is creation and lordship, and not the other two that we mentioned in class.”
“When one peruses the famous source books of the Ashʿaris throughout the centuries, one finds that the primary emphasis is always proving the existence of Allah, and then proving that He has seven attributes. There is hardly any mention of Allah’s right to be worshipped (even in later books).
Picking on faults of Ash’aris is picking faults against Ahl-al-Sunnah wa’al Jama’ah. Who besides Wahhabis criticize and condemn Ash’aris as being innovaters and, worse, kuffar? Only one who wants to divide Muslims. Orthodox Sunni scholar, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, said in his book, Fath al-jawad:
“A mubtadi (innovator) is the person who does not have the faith (aqid’ah) conveyed unanimously by the Ahl as-Sunnah. This unanimity was transmitted by the two great Imam’s Abu’l Hasan al-Ashari (d.324/936; Rahimahullah) and Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d.333/944; Rahimahullah) and the scholars who followed their path.”
“Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami also said in his book al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya (pg. 205):”
“Man of bid’ah means one whose beliefs are different from the Ahl as-Sunnah faith. The Ahl as-Sunnah faith, is the faith of Abu’l Hasan al-Ashari, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi and those who followed them. One who brings forth something which is not approved by Islam becomes a man of bid’ah.”
It is a fact that 99.9% of Muslim scholars (`ulema) throughout Islam’s history have either been Ash’ari or Maturidi in creed — the latter being virtually the same as the Ash’ari creed with few minor differences. Because Ash’aris and Maturidis make up the majority and main mass of Muslims, they are Islam’s “Saved Sect” or Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah that should be followed. Rejecting them takes one on a different path from the Muslim mass which is forbidden according to the Qur’an and Sunnah.
–
Yet, this is exactly what Yasir Qadhi has been doing. He, like other Wahhabis, has no problem turning his back on the “Saved Sect” and accusing them of terrible things. Somehow it is conceivable to him that the majority of Muslims since the time of our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) — learned and layfolk — have not understood their creed properly.
–
But questioning the Ash’aris and accusing them of not understanding their creed is to question the creed of the “heirs of the Prophets”. Well known Ash’ari scholars include: Imam Nawawi, Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Imam Qurtubi, Imam Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, and many others. Who is likely a deviant? Yasir Qadhi and his Wahhabi entourage or the majority of Muslim scholars?
–
Sadly, the conclusion of Yasir Qadhi of ‘improper understanding of creed’ is that Ash’aris are kuffar. Yasir Qadhi’s `uluhiyya and rububiyya hulabaloo and circus with words which has non-Salaf origins is taken from Ibn Taymiyah who did not live in the Salaf period. This creative categorization of tawheed and its anti-Sunni results were a bid’ah that found its way into Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab’s writings and hence the writings of today’s Wahhabis, including Yasir Qadhi.
–
The most disgusting aspect of this categorization is its conclusion and outcome: the Ash’aris — and by extension the majority of Muslims — are kuffar. How can anyone think the Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah is kuffar? As bizarre as it sounds, a few outcasts in Islam’s history did make that conclusion.Shaykh Abu Haamed Ibn Marzooq explains:
“The (division of tawHeed into) Oneness of Godhead (tawHeed al-uloohiyya) and Oneness of Lordship (tawHeed al-ruboobiyya) was invented by Ibn Taymiyya who claimed that all Muslims among the (Ash`ari) theologians (al-mutakallimeen) worshipped other than Allah due to their ignorance of ‘tawHeed al-uloohiyya,’ and he claimed that they only knew, of tawHeed, the ‘tawHeed al-ruboobiyya’ which consists in affirming that Allah is the Creator of all things, and he claims that the polytheists (al-mushrikoon) admitted it also. He therefore declared all Muslims to be unbelievers (kaafir), and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab imitated him in this, and others imitated Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab in it.(Source: http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/ibntay08.html)
So, Ibn Taymiyah and his Wahhabi admirers compare Ash’aris (=Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah) to the polytheists of Mecca. No Muslim has ever done this before. Those who differed with Ash’aris in a scholary fashion, such as some Atharis, never accused them of kufr. This is a Taymiyan invention accepted and propagated by Wahhabis today.
–
But the Taymiyan-Wahhabi conception of tawheed and its dreadful result of takfeer against the masses has no origins in the Salaf. The categorization is not from the Qur’an or the Sunnah. It is not Hanbali. It is not from our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him), the Sahaba, the Tabi’een, or even the Taba al-Tabe’een. So why should we follow it? Shaykh Abu Haamed Ibn Marzooq explains this matter in detail:
1. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, to whom Ibn Taymiyya falsely affiliated himself in front of Hanbalis, never said that tawheed consisted in two parts, one being tawheed al-ruboobiyya and the other tawheed al- uloohiyya, nor did he ever say that “whoever does not know tawheedal-uloohiyya, his knowledge of tawheed al-ruboobiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge.” Anyone can check that Imam Ahmad never said such a thing in his doctrine (`aqida) as recorded in the compilations of his followers such as Ibn al-Jawzi’s ‘Manaaqib‘ and other books, none of which contain this drivel.
2. None of the followers of the Followers (atba`a` al-taabi`een) ever said to his companions (i.e. students of younger generations) that tawheed consisted in two parts, one being tawheed al-ruboobiyya and the other tawheed al-uloohiyya, nor did any of them ever say that “whoever does not know tawheed al-uloohiyya, his knowledge of tawheed al- ruboobiyya is not taken into account.” If humankind and jinn joined together to prove that one of the atbaa` al-taabi`een ever said such a thing, they would not succeed!
3. None of the Followers (al-taabi`een) ever said to their companions (i.e. students of younger generations) that tawheed consisted in two parts, one being tawheed al-ruboobiyya and the other tawheed al- uloohiyya, and if humankind and jinn joined together to establish that one of them ever said such a thing, they would not succeed!
4.None of the Companions of the Prophet (s) ever said that tawheed consisted in two parts, one being tawheed al-ruboobiyya and the other tawheed al-uloohiyya, nor did any of them ever say that “whoever does not know tawheed al-uloohiyya, his knowledge of tawheed al-ruboobiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge.” And I defy whoever stakes a claim that he has knowledge, to try and trace for us such a fabricated division back to the Companions — even with an inauthentic narration (wa law bi riwaayatin waahiya)!
5. Nowhere in the extensive Sunna of the Prophet (s), which is the exposition of the Book of Allah the Mighty and the Majestic, whether in the books of ‘sahih‘, the ‘sunnan‘, the ‘masaanid‘, or the ‘ma`aajim‘, is it related that the Prophet (s) ever said to his Companions or ever taught them that tawheed consisted in two parts, one being tawheed al-ruboobiyya and the other tawheed al-uloohiyya, nor that “whoever does not know tawheed al-uloohiyya, his knowledge of tawheed al-ruboobiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge.” If humankind and jinn joined together to establish that the Prophet (s) ever said such a thing, even with an inauthentic chain of transmission, they would not succeed!
6. Indeed the books of the Sunna of the Prophet (s) overflow with the fact that the call (da`wa) of the Prophet (s) to the people unto Allah was in order that they witness that there is no god except God alone and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God, and in order that they repudiate idol-worship. One of the most famous illustrations of this is the (sound) narration of Mu`adh ibn Jabal when the Prophet (s) sent him to (govern) Yemen and said to him: “Invite them to the witnessing that {there is no god but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God}. If they obey this, at that time tell them that they are obligated to pray five prayers in every twenty-four hours…” And it is narrated in five of the six books of authentic traditions, and Ibn Hibbaan declared it sound, that a beduin Arab reported the sighting of the new moon to the Prophet (s) and the latter ordered the people to fast without asking this man other than to confirm the two witnessings. According to this drivel of Ibn Taymiyya, it would have been necessary for the Prophet (s) to call all people to the tawheed al-uloohiyya of which they were ignorant, for as for tawheed al-ruboobiyya they knew it already; and he should have said to Mu`aadh (according to this drivel): “Invite them to tawheed al-uloohiyya“; and he should have asked the beduin who had sighted the new moon of Ramadan (according to this drivel): “Do you know tawheed al-uloohiyya?”
7.In His precious Book which falsehood cannot approach whether from the front or from the back, Allah never ordered “tawheed al-uloohiyya” to His servants, nor did He ever say that “whoever does not know this tawheed, his knowledge of tawheed al-ruboobiyya is not taken into account.”
8. Rather, Allah ordered the utterance of an Absolute Word of Oneness (kalimat al-tawHeed muTlaqa), for He said as He addressed His Prophet (s): “Know that there is no other god except God alone” (‘fa`lam annahu la ilaaha illallaah’). And He spoke similarly in all of the verses of oneness (tawheed) that are mentioned in the Qur’an including surat al-ikhlas which is equivalent to one third of the Qur’an.
9. It would have been necessary for Allah, if we were to believe this drivel (of Ibn Taymiyya), that since His servants all knew about tawheed al-ruboobiyya and did not know about tawheed al-uloohiyya, He should have made it explicitly clear to them and not misguided them and not punished them for their ignorance of half of tawheed, nor said to them: “Today I have perfected for you your Religion and I have completed My blessing upon you and I have accepted for you islaam as a religion.” And we seek refuge in Allah from the treacheries of the tongue and the corruption of folly.
Peace and Blessings upon the Prophet, his Family, and
When the simple testification of faith is sufficient to become a Muslim as clearly stated by our Islamic Sources, why is Yasir Qadhi continuing to parrot what Ibn Taymiyah (and later Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab) said that has no roots in the Qur’anic or Sunnic discourse? Through this categorization, why is he content in implicitly accusing the majority of Muslims of being kuffar? Is this not takfeer and an ugly attack on Muslim unity laid bare? In case anyone has doubts about this, here is an explicit denunciation of the Ash’aris by Yasir Qadhi who says:
“We affirm the attributes but do not delve into the kayfiyyah; this is NOT a denial of the kayfiyyah, but rather an acknowledgment that only Allah is aware of it. As for the people of kalaam, as you correctly quoted them, they deny the actual existence of any kayfiyyah, which of course is one more way of actually denying the existence of the attribute.”
Leaving no stone unturned in accusing Ash’aris of being outside Islam, Yasir Qadhi accuses the Ash’aris of, in his own words, “denying the existence of [Allah’s] attribute.” If this is not an accusation of kufr, what is it? Would Yasir and his al-Maghrib Institute care to explain?
–
Yasir Qadhi’s accusation that Ash’aris hardly mention anything about “Allah’s right to be worshipped” is pure calumny against our eminent scholars and supports the same ugly takfeeri accusation against them: they never worshipped Allah; they negate His Attributes; they had a religion similar to that of pre-Islamic polytheists. As stated, it is based on Ibn Taymiyah’s understanding that is not rooted in the Salaf, and is an accusation of kufr against the majority of `ulema and Muslims who were Ash’ari-Maturidi.
–
These reasons are precisely why Wahhabis are out of the Sunni circle — their takfeer against the Ummah of our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him). Wahhabi arrogance truly has no bounds. Shaykh Salah al-Din al-Idlibi in the following article refuted the attack on Ash’aris in detail: http://marifah.net/articles/Asharisonshirk-AlIdlibi.pdf
YASIR QADHI ATTACKS SUFIS
Yasir Qadhi said:
“The point is that Sufis have their own understanding of tawhid, and of course they are far more prone to shirk than the Asharis (due to their exaltation of saints).”
This is typical Wahhabi nonsense. First, accusing Ash’aris of “negating” the Attributes of Allah, and now accusing Sufis of “shirk” because of their “exaltation of saints”. This undoubtedly refers to the high respect Sufis have for people of knowledge, and their support of istighatha (asking for help) and tawassul (asking Allah for something through a pious intermediary in the grave) — two orthodox Sunni practices accepted by the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence. One sees that Yasir Qadhi and his blind Wahhabi footsoldiers have multiple means of stabbing the heart of the Ummah with their multi-pronged dagger of takfeer.
YASIR QADHI ATTACKS SHAYKH IBN ALAWI AL-MALIKI
Yasir Qadhi said:
“Of course, those who took the class (unlike some of the brothers who seem to be so eager in participating on the forums but did not seem so eager to take the knowledge when it was presented to them) will completely understand why al-Maliki is so zealously trying to defend his version of the religion of the Jahiliyyah Arabs.”
Another post in this blog already elaborates on this vicious attack by Yasir Qadhi on Shaykh al-Maliki (Allah bless him immensely). This is yet further evidence to substantiate the point. Instead of saying, “We have differences in the matter” and leaving it at that, Yasir Qadhi feels the need to hurl takfeeri insults against one of the late giants of Sunni Islam who was considered by many as the “renewer (mujaddid)” of the twentieth century. How does al-Maghrib Institute expect to bring unity to the Islamic community with such derogatory and extremist behavior?
YASIR QADHI CRITICIZES SHAYKH IBN AL-JAWZI
Yasir Qadhi said:
“The theology of Imam Ahmad is easily seen in the dozens of classical works that contain his direct quotes (in addition to his own works and the work of his son Abdullah and direct students). A mere claim on the part of Ibn al-Jawzi to be representing Imam Ahmad needs to be backed up with proof; and the proof overwhelmingly refutes such a position.
Yasir Qadhi also said:
“Ibn al-Jawzi’s work on the Attributes is indeed heralded by the people of kalaam to buttress their ideology (and this is why it was translated into English with the introduction and inserted comments that are found in the translated work), but as is typical with such matters, there is much more to the issue than this one work. The very fact that no other work in this vein exists except for Ibn al-Jawzi’s is sufficient proof that his views were eclectic, and went against the vast majority of those who ascribed themselves to Imam Ahmad.”
Because Shaykh Ibn al-Jawzi did ta’weel and refuted the anthropomorphists who wrongly spoke in the “Hanbali” madhab’s name, Yasir Qadhi feels compelled to defend the anthropomorphists against Shaykh Ibn al-Jawzi. Like a true extremist, whatever does not conform to the Wahhabi perspective is thrown out the window by Yasir Qadhi, no matter which “heir of the Prophets” we quote from in Sunni Islam’s defense.
–
Below, in the matter of tawassul through Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him), Yasir Qadhi openly confesses that he is more than willing to reject the saying of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in this regard. Is this genuine following of the Salaf or the deviant act of cherry-picking among their statements?
YASIR QADHI PARROTS IBN TAYMIYAH’S MISTAKE
“The issue of undertaking a journey to ‘pay respects’ to a grave, regardless of who is buried in that grave. This is an innovation, and as evidence we have the authentic, muttafaq alayhi hadeeth of the prohibition to travel except to the three masjids.”
Shaykh Haddad explains the origins of Ibn Taymiyah’s distorted understanding of the matter and its refutation by Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah, including the Hanbali rejection of it:
“After spending the years 719-721 in jail, he was jailed again in 726 until his death two years later amid charges of kufr for declaring that one who travels to visit the Prophet [pbuh] commits a prohibition (harâm), a sin (ma`siya), and an innovation (bid`a).”
Hanbali Rejection of Ibn Taymiyah’s Fatwa
“Al-Mardâwî, Ibn Hubayra, and others stated that the entirety of the early and late authorities in the Hanbalî Madhhab stipulate the desirability (istihbâb) of visiting the grave of the Prophet [pbuh] in Madîna, most especially after Hajj, and/or travelling to do so. Ibn Muflih., al-Mardâwî, and Mar`î ibn Yûsuf in Ghâyat al-Muntahâ stated the Sunnî character of visiting the graves of the Muslims and the permissibility (ibâha) of travelling to do so. Mar`î reiterates this ruling in his unpublished monograph on the ethics of graves and visitation, Shifâ’ al-Sudûr fî Ziyârat al-Mashâhid wal-Qubûr.”
Shaykh Taqi al-Din al-Subki Rejects Ibn Taymiyah’s Fatwa
“This most notorious of all fatwas was refuted by his contemporary the hadîth Master and Shaykh al-Islâm Taqî al-Dîn al-Subkî in his landmark book Shifâ’ al-Siqâm fî Ziyârati Khayri al-Anam (“The Healing of Sickness Concerning the Visitation to the Best of Creatures”) , also titled Shann al-Ghâra `alâ man Ankara al-Safar li al-Ziyâra (“The Raid Against Him Who Denied the Lawfulness of Travel for the Purpose of Visitation”). Shaykh al-Islâm adduced the h.adîth “Whoever visits my grave, my intercession will be guaranteed for him” as proof against Ibn Taymiyya’s claim that “all the hadîths that concern the merit of visitation are weak or rather forged” and denounced Ibn Taymiyya’s unprecedented fatwâ as a flagrant innovation.”
Shaykh Zayn al-Din al-`Iraqi Rejects Ibn Taymiyah’s Fatwa
Imâm Abû al-Fadl Zayn al-Dîn `Abd al-Rahim ibn al-Husayn al-`Irâqî al-Mis.rî (725-806), Shaykh al-Islâm, the Imâm, Qâdî of Cairo, hadîth Master of his time, and principal teacher to the hadîth Master Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî, said in al-Ajwiba al-Makkiyya, a refutation of Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwâ claiming the prohibition of travel to visit the Prophet [pbuh] : “There is no tahrîm (prohibition) of an act of travel in the hadîth [“Mounts are not to be saddled except to travel to three mosques”]; rather, it is an emphasis on the importance of traveling to these three mosques in particular, and the emphasis becomes an obligation in case of vow (nadhr), which is not the case for a vow to pray in any mosque other than these three.” […]
Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani Rejects Ibn Taymiyah’s Fatwa
Imâm Ibn H.ajar al-`Asqalânî in Fath al-Bârî said of Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa prohibition to travel in order to visit the Prophet [pbuh] : “This is one of the ugliest matters ever reported from him.”
Like a devoted Wahhabi and blind Ibn Taymiyah supporter Yasir Qadhi defends Ibn Taymiyah and ignores the correction of the absurd fatwa from the many illustrious scholars as stated above. This includes Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani and his teacher!
YASIR QADHI SAYS TAWASSUL IS “INNOVATION”
Yasir Qadhi said:
“The issue of asking Allah ‘…by the rank/status/body/honor of the Prophet.’ This is an innovation.”
This is in direct contradiction to the position of tawassul held by the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, including Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal himself — see below.
YASIR QADHI SAYS HE WOULD NOT AGREE WITH MUJTAHID AHMED IBN HANBAL EVEN IF HE WAS CORRECT
Regarding Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal’s permissibility of doing tawassul through Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him), Yasir Qadhi said:
“As for the statement attributed to Imam Ahmad, yes some Hanbali books state this. Personally, I haven’t come across the isnaad of this narration (I’m not saying its not authentic, I’m saying I haven’t found it yet), and for such delicate issues I would like to be fully certain before unequivocally attributing such an opinion to Imam Ahmad. Regardless, even if he did allow it, this would be an opinion that we would respect (from him and others), but not necessarily follow.”
The above quote by Yasir Qadhi must not be underestimated. This is explicit evidence from Yasir Qadhi (and by extension al-Maghrib Institute) that he is willing to NOT follow the pious adherents of the Salaf-us-Salih if their views do not conform to the Wahhabi-Salafi perspective. In this case, Yasir Qadhi is willing to reject the opinion of a mujtahid mutlaq Imam — the founder of the Hanbali madhab — who clearly allowed tawassul through Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him).
The following is evidence of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s approval of tawassul through our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him):
“Imam Ahmad made tawassul through the Prophet a part of every du`a according to the following report: `Ala’ al-Din al-Mardawi said in his book al-Insaf fi ma`rifat al-rajih min al-khilaf `ala madhhab al-Imam al-mubajjal Ahmad ibn Hanbal (3:456): “The correct position of the [Hanbali] madhhab is that it is permissible in one’s supplication (du`a) to use as one’s means a pious person, and it is said that it is desirable (mustahabb). Imam Ahmad said to Abu Bakr al-Marwazi:
“yatawassalu bi al-nabi fi du`a’ih”
(“Let him use the Prophet as a means in his supplication to Allah.”)
The same report is found in Imam Ahmad’s Manasik as narrated by his student Abu Bakr al-Marwazi. Similarly the lengthy wording of the tawassul according to the Hanbali madhhab as established by the hafiz Ibn `Aqil in his Tadhkira was cited fully by Imam Kawthari in his appendix to Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki’s al-Sayf al-saqil included in Kawthari’s edition of the latter.” (Source: http://www.sunnah.org/publication/encyclopedia/html/tawassul.htm)
–
This means that Yasir Qadhi’s measure of approval for opinions of the Salaf-us-Salih depends on whether they agree with his own opinions or not. If they don’t, Yasir Qadhi conveniently dismisses them. Is this the approach of a genuine orthodox Sunni? Obviously not. The Salaf-us-Salih is only useful to Yasir Qadhi inasmuch as they agree with him — that’s it. This makes Yasir Qadhi a dangerous arch-innovater who uses the name of the Salaf us-Salih only to promote his agenda and unorthodox interpretations. In view of this, how can he consider himself to be a truthful, genuine Sunni?
–
Apparently in this instance Yasir Qadhi even rejects the Wahhabi Naseeruddin al-Albani who said:
“Imaam Ahmad allowed tawassul by means of the Messenger alone, and others such as Imaam ash-Shawkaanee allowed tawassul by means of him and other Prophets and the Pious.”
(Source: al-Albani, At-Tawassul, p. 38)
The above are only a sample of Yasir Qadhi’s teachings that destroy the unity of the Ummah. He accuses Ash’aris of having an incomplete tawheed, says Ash’aris deny the Attributes of Allah (Is this not an accusation of kufr?), says Sufis are more prone to shirk than Ash’aris are (read: both are prone to shirk), says Shaykh ibn Alawi al-Maliki defends a version of religion of the “Jahiliyyah Arabs”, criticizes Shaykh Ibn al-Jawzi (the great Sunni scholar) of not being truly representative of the Hanbali madhab, says that he would reject Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal’s view even if he was right (!), says traveling to respect someone at his/her grave is an “innovation”, says tawassul (when the intermediary is in the grave) is an “innovation”, among other despicable, anti-Sunni rubbish.
–
Allah protect us from such “scholars” of misguidance and give us truthful guides from Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah! Aaameen!
Someone with the nickname “ahmemon” in the Al-Maghrib Institute forum asked a legitimate question regarding the “brand” of Islam taught by the Al-Maghrib Institute. The subject in “ahmemon’s” message was “why r all scholars from madinah univ?” Imagine what was going on in the minds of Al-Maghrib Institute’s Salafi instructors! The entire message by ahmemnon, in full, is stated below:
Assalamu Alaikum,
I’m trying to help bring AlMaghrib to Irvine (my ‘hood), but some people here are having objections.
They are suspecting AlMaghrib of having a “salafi agenda” (whatever that exactly is, what is it?) and point out how all scholars that teach here are exclusively from madinah university. They are basically saying that we don’t want such a strong overwhelming ‘salafi’ or ‘sufi’ (not that almaghrib is suspected of being sufi) influence.
… and honestly, this has always seemed fishy to me, on the one hand AlMaghrib advertised to bring all muslims together under the shahada, but yet there is such a strong bias towards one flavor of scholarship — a flavor that is, at least stereotypically, on one far side of the spectrum.
How do AlMaghrib scholars feel about the Saudi government? (i don’t know too much about the saudi govt but this is one issue of controvercy that I am encountering)
I’ve listened to A LOT of Ust. Muhammad AlShareef stuff, and I love it, don’t get me wrong… I just want to know how to get over this issue.
Do these concerns have validity? has anybody else encountered such obstacles when bringing almaghrib to their area? How do I overcome such obstacles, are they overcome-able?
The intention of the asker seemed genuine. It is clear that all “ahmemon” was asking for were straight answers to what he had rightly heard regarding the Salafi painted agenda of the Al-Maghrib Institute. Many responded to his message with a wide manifestation of utter ignorance. Who at first silently watched this ignorance and slyly chose to remain silent? The founder of Al-Maghrib Institute himself: Muhammad AlShareef.
–
-MUHAMMAD ALSHAREEF’S TAP-DANCE AROUND WAHHABISM-
Muhammad AlShareef at first kept quiet as he observed the ignorant responses from his followers. But “ahmemon” was on the mark with his concern and questions. Muhammad AlShareef obviously knew about this which explains his initial silence.
–
He chose to keep silent because of the truthful and sensitive nature of the question. He was surely pondering over how he could masterfully evade point-blank answers to the point-blank questions that would have clearly exposed Al-Maghrib Institute, including himself. His first response was a childish one that attempted to deflect the legitimate concerns with poor humor.
–
Finally, however, came the serious ‘Muhammad AlShareef tap-dance’ around Wahhabism. His response, in full, was as follows:
“For the record, the premise of this whole discussion is false and inaccurate: Mohammad Faqeeh did NOT study a single day in Madinah University. He is not a Madinah graduate. Does it get any more clearer?
[My parents are from Egypt, Yasir from Palestine, Yaser Q from Pakistan, AbdulBary Vietnam, M Faqeeh east Africa ~ I don’t think there is a more diverse instructor background program at this level.]
Never in a single day did I say, “Hmm..let me hire ‘only’ Madinah grads. Believe me, there are hundreds of grads accross the USA and Canada, had that been the case, we would have anyone teaching.
Nay, my focus was: Who has strong knowledge, good command of the English language, a higher education degree, has upright character, and is able to adjust to AlMaghrib’s teaching style. Those were the only filters in my mind.
In sha Allah, therefore I think there should be another topic for those who want to disccuss the topic: “Is it Haram and a conspiracy when Saudi Arabia tries to educate Muslims?”
(wAllahi, I’m fine with discussing it, I just got my issues with false accusations. And in sha Allah I would request that this issue be dis-associated from AlMaghrib, especially from us who are supposed to know our institute. Us just carrying on just adds to the misconception.)
wAllahu ‘alam.
Barak Allahu feekum.
PS: Did anyone notice that almost all the Ameers are Desi IT people? Except Mostafa (who is coincidentally in IT)? No one said, “Hey, is this a conspiracy to make people eat Biryani while checking their email?”
In sha Allah, let’s move on. If you’d like to continue a related discussion, you are welcome to open a new thread.”
It’s unfortunate that instead of being honest, Muhammad AlShareef chose to dodge the question and swamp the questioner with irrelevance. Instead of clarifying the matter to the questioner, Muhammad AlShareef buried the entire matter. This tap-dance has to be explained in more detail so others like ahmemon don’t get deceived.
–
–
(1) Muhammad AlShareef said:
“For the record, the premise of this whole discussion is false and inaccurate: Mohammad Faqeeh did NOT study a single day in Madinah University. He is not a Madinah graduate. Does it get any more clearer?”
Muhammad AlShareef refuted the premise of the questioner, i.e. why are all scholars from Madinah University? By refuting the premise and proving that not all instructors graduated from Madinah University, he thought he made his point very clearly. End of discussion.
–
The problem is he never addressed the heart of the real discussion at all. What Muhammad AlShareef ignored was the fact that even though “all” al-Maghrib instuctors didn’t graduate from Madinah University, MANY al-Maghrib instructors DID indeed graduate from Madinah University. Namely, the following instructors: himself, Yasir Qadhi, Yaser Birjas, AbdulBary Yahya, Shpendim Nadzaku, Navaid Aziz, Ahsan Hanif, and — the latest addition — Abdullah Hakim Quick.
–
–
Refuting the premise doesn’t change the fact that Madinah University education is an integral part of al-Maghrib’s instructors’ profile. This was the questioner’s concern that Muhammad AlShareef evaded. Even if all instructors didn’t graduate from Madinah University, they still have strong links to Saudi Arabia’s educational institutions, within the country and abroad, that teach Wahhabism.
–
Therefore, the concern remains. But Muhammad AlShareef chose to tap-dance instead. He said Mohammed Faqeeh didn’t graduate from Madinah University. But Mohammed Faqeeh did graduate from King Abdul Azeez University in Saudi Arabia in ‘Quranic Recitation and Memorization’. Moreover, Mohammed Faqeeh completed a B.A. degree in ‘Islamic Studies’ from the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in the United States — which was affiliated with the Al-Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University in Saudi Arabia. Why did Muhammad AlShareef deceptively conceal this essential information from the questioner who was, as clearly illustrated, sincere in his question?
–
Apart from Mohammed Faqeeh’s Saudi connection, al-Maghrib instructor Ali Shehata’s teacher, Muhammad S. Adly, used to teach at Masjid al-Harram, and Waleed Basyouni received a Bachelor’s degree in ‘Islamic Sciences’ from Al-Imam Muhammad University — both obviously in Saudi Arabia.
–
Anyone want to guess who “Al-Imam Muhammad” is? He is Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab — founder of the Wahhabi movement! I’m ahead of myself. But you surely understand the point. Now let’s complete untapping Muhammad AlShareef’s tap-dance.
–
–
(2) Muhammad AlShareef said:
“[My parents are from Egypt, Yasir from Palestine, Yaser Q from Pakistan, AbdulBary Vietnam, M Faqeeh east Africa ~ I don’t think there is a more diverse instructor background program at this level.]”
This is a response of irrelevance. Whether al-Maghrib Institute has a “diverse instructor background” or not is a digression of the matter and unrelated to the question and concerns of the questioner. By discussing ‘instructor diversity’, Muhammad AlShareef tries to impress the questioner as a tactic to fudge the real issue at hand and escape the responsibility of explaining it. But showering al-Maghrib Institute with irrelevant praise doesn’t change the concerns of the questioner: ‘Diversity’ is NOT the issue here. Wahhabi-Salafi ‘commonality’ is. And that’s what Muhammad AlShareef has been evading.
–
–
(3) Muhammad AlShareef later explains his criteria for selecting al-Maghrib’s instructors:
“Nay, my focus was: Who has strong knowledge, good command of the English language, a higher education degree, has upright character, and is able to adjust to AlMaghrib’s teaching style. Those were the only filters in my mind.”
Quite a miracle, isn’t it? I mean, what are the odds of choosing an instructor with “strong knowledge, good command of the English language, a higher education degree,” who “has upright character”, and “is able to adjust to AlMaghrib’s teaching style” — and yet have ALL of them follow and teach Wahhabi-Salafi Islam? A coincidence? Sorry, I’m not trying to insult your intelligence like Muhammad AlShareef is.
–
It is as clear as daylight that the common denominator that cuts across all al-Maghrib instructors is their unorthodox Wahhabism. Because Saudi educational institutions teach Wahhabism, and because most (if not all) al-Maghrib instructors graduated from these institutions, this logically makes al-Maghrib Institute a Wahhabi organization. And a Wahhabi organization, by definition, rejects all other interpretations of Islam — including the Islam that most Muslims have been following through the generations since the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him).
–
Make no mistake about it. Muhammad AlShareef concealed the Wahhabi issue from the questioner for a reason. Countless Sunni scholars have opposed Wahhabism from all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence in matters of `aqeedah and `ibadat. Because Muhammad AlShareef didn’t want the questioner to know about this makes him, at least, ingenuine to his questioner, and a hideous promoter of the Wahhabi agenda.
–
–
(4) Muhammad AlShareef then broaches the issue of Saudi Arabia:
“In sha Allah, therefore I think there should be another topic for those who want to disccuss the topic: “Is it Haram and a conspiracy when Saudi Arabia tries to educate Muslims?””
You ask, “Is it Haram and a conspiracy when Saudi Arabia tries to educate Muslims?” Well, the problem is that Saudi Arabia educates its Muslims in only ‘one’ brand of Islam: Wahhabism.
–
It isn’t a “conspiracy” by Saudi Arabia but a deliberate and, must I say, organized and financially effective effort to spread a version of Islam that was, and still is, rejected by all genuine Sunni scholars who follow the Ash’ari, Maturidi, and Athari creeds and Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence.
–
You ask, is it “Haram”? If someone asked you if it was “Haram” to teach a Khawarij-like Islam that was rejected by masses of Muslims in their time, what would you say?
–
–
(5) Muhammad AlShareef then says:
“(wAllahi, I’m fine with discussing it, I just got my issues with false accusations. And in sha Allah I would request that this issue be dis-associated from AlMaghrib, especially from us who are supposed to know our institute. Us just carrying on just adds to the misconception.)”
You said “wAllahi” you are fine with discussing the Saudi connection to al-Maghrib Institute. But then you contradicted yourself in the very next line by saying you “request that this issue be dis-associated from AlMaghrib” and that “Us just carrying on just adds to the misconception”. “Wallahi”? In reality you are really NOT fine with discussing the issue. Your tap-dancing around the issue the entire time makes that crystal clear.
–
–
(6) After Muhammad AlShareef dodges the crux of the matter, and leaves the questioner hanging and surely dumbfounded, he then says:
“PS: Did anyone notice that almost all the Ameers are Desi IT people? Except Mostafa (who is coincidentally in IT)? No one said, “Hey, is this a conspiracy to make people eat Biryani while checking their email?””
Your obfuscation of truth has no bounds, Muhammad AlShareef. Youngsters aren’t fools as you wish them to be, and your misleading analogies are not going to make them stop asking the important questions. Muslims, and especially our young ones, deserve more respect than you give them. They deserve honesty. They deserve the truth, and the FULL truth. They don’t want a tap dance and they don’t ask for unnecessary digressions. Now that your tap-dance has been untapped, you can say the truth now — no-holds-barred.
–
–
Muhammad AlShareef, if you are the true Islamic model you wish to be, it is time to be honest with ahemom and other Muslims about the matter by saying:
“As the founder of al-Maghrib Institute, I say: Yes, al-Maghrib Institute is a Salafi-Wahhabi Institute. My criteria for selecting instructors is primarily because of their acceptance of Wahhabi teachings. That’s why most of them come from Saudi educational institutions. Saudi Arabia’s policy obligates these insitutions to teach Wahhabism, whether it is Madinah University, Imam al-Muhammad University, King Abul Azeez University, or any other university in Saudi Arabia. They are paid to teach Wahhabism and condemn all other understandings of Islam as heresy, bid’ah, and shirk. This includes what the majority of Muslims follow. It includes Ash’aris and Maturidis. It includes the sawad al-azam, or mass of Muslims who have adhered to and followed one of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence. We are indeed a minority group of Muslims and we give our allegiance to Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab, whether the Saudi government sincerely does so or not. This is the “Biryani” al-Maghrib Institute is made of. And this is the “Biryani” you and all other students of al-Maghrib will eat — like it or not. Sincerely – Muhammad AlShareef.”
Ya Allah! Please Guide us through the scholars of knowledge! Save us from the scholars of misguidance who lead themselves and those who follow them astray! Aaaameen! Ya Rabbil `Aalameen!!
What are the origins of the al-Maghrib Institute? One can guess it had nothing to do with moderate Sunni Islam. Rather its origins emanate from an older Wahhabi institute called Dar-us-Salam (or al-Huda) in Maryland, USA.
The following are excerpts from an announcement made by Muhammad AlShareef, the founder of al-Maghrib Institute. These statements shed light on the origins of al-Maghrib Institute. Of particular interest is Al-Maghrib Institute’s affiliation with Dar-us-Salam:
“On April 25-26th, 2005, the AlMaghrib Institute Shuyookh, AlMaghrib Institute’s USA management, and this author gathered together in Memphis, TN in an effort to determine the future academic course of action for AlMaghrib Institute.
Firstly: Where did we come from? Since AlMaghrib’s inception in 2001.
AlMaghrib Institute was founded in 2001 by Muhammad Alshareef in cooperation with Dar-us-Salaamas the financial/community backbone and the American Open University as the academic backbone.
An agreement was made between AlMaghrib Institute and Dar-us-Salaam with the American Open University. The agreement was to acknowledge course credit to students for the courses they took with AlMaghrib Institute.
Secondly: Where are we now? And where are we headed? In the last 6-12 months to present and beyond, in sha Allah.
AlMaghrib Institutes founder/director moved back to Canada in October, 2004.
Management and Administration of AlMaghrib Institute was moved from College Park, Maryland to Houston, Texas.
AlMaghrib Institute became it’s own registered company, legally, under no other registered company/organization.”
As stated above, Dar-us-Salam was the “financial/community backbone” of the al-Maghrib Institute where its “Management and Administration” originated. Therefore, to know more about the al-Maghrib Institute, it is important to know more about Dar-us-Salam.
The Washington Post states that Dar-us-Salam practices Salafi/Wahhabi Islam:
“The kind of Islam practiced at Dar-us-Salaam, known as Salafism, once had a significant foothold among area Muslims, in large part because of an aggressive missionary effort by the government of Saudi Arabia. Salafism and its strict Saudi version, known as Wahhabism, struck a chord with many Muslim immigrants who took a dim view of the United States’ sexually saturated pop culture and who were ambivalent about participating in a secular political system. It was also attractive to young Muslims searching for a more “authentic” Islam than what their Westernized immigrant parents offered.”
Dar-us-Salam (al-Huda School), located in College Park, Maryland (USA), was founded by and currently headed by a Wahhabi named Safi Khan. Safi Khan was educated by Wahhabi scholars in Saudi Arabia. He also attended the Imam Muhammad ibn Saud University in Riyadh and, as is no surprise, teaches Wahhabism. As al-Maghrib Institute is a modern extension of Dar-us-Salam, it no surprise that the al-Maghrib Institute propagates Wahhabism.
-ALI ASAD CHANDIA: DAR-US-SALAM & TERRORISM-
Just as the al-Maghrib Institute has links to dubious individuals, including known extremists and even an Osama bin Laden supporter, Dar-us-Salam/al-Huda School has had its share of extremist problems as well. The point is not to implicate the entire school of wrongdoing but simply to show the connections it has to scary individuals. Ali Asad Chandia who taught at the al-Huda School for four years was guilty of terrorism. Maryland’s Gazette states:
“Ali Asad Chandia, 29, a resident of College Park who taught at Al-Huda for four years, was sentenced Friday for aiding Lashkar-e-Taiba, an anti-Indian government organization.
Chandia was charged with assisting Lashkar-e-Taiba member Mohammed Ajmal Khan, who is serving a 9-year prison sentence in Britain for serving as a military procurement official for the group. Prosecutors sought a sentence of 30 years to life for Chandia, but U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton gave the Pakistani-born teacher 15 years.”
The al-Maghrib Institute is a repackaged, flashy, state-of-the-art version of Wahhabi Dar-us-Salam (also known as the al-Huda School in College Park, Maryland) that was created to escape the fallout against Dar-us-Salam from the September 11, 2001 attacks. Since Dar-us-Salam was Wahhabi-Salafi, cameras focused in its direction to publicize the unorthodox version of Islam it was preaching. The typical conservative Wahhabi image was a magnet for criticism by many, including the media. Therefore, it had to be ‘redone’ — rebranded — in a modern, “open-minded”, and alluring way. To deflect criticism by Americans and others, the new al-Maghrib Institute discussed issues that were normally taboo, including sex, gay people, and other ‘cool’ topics. Beneath the paraphernalia, colorful purple image, and high-tech make-over, however, is the same ugly Wahhabism. While Dar-us-Salam is more closed, al-Maghrib Institute attempts to accept all who wish to join in an attempt to make their unorthodox Salafism “adapt” to ‘Western’ environments like the United States, Canada, and UK.
The same Washington Post article states:
“Yasir Qadhi, a lecturer with AlMaghrib Institute, an Islamic educational organization founded by a former prayer leader at Dar-us-Salaam, cited his own experience as an example of how Salafism has adapted in the United States.”
Brothers and sisters, don’t be fooled. Stick with the majority of Muslims and not the dubious al-Maghrib Institute (and Dar-us-Salam) that represents a pseudo-Sunni splinter sect that appeared in the 1700s.
Allah Guide us on the path of the Muslim majority and Protect us from the scholars of deviation. Aameen!
Though the matter of istighatha (calling for help) has already been discussed elsewhere in this blog, it is important to document as many instances as possible where Yasir Qadhi (and his Wahhabi cronies) mislead the masses on the matter.
In response to a question, Yasir Qadhi said:
“If a person goes to a grave and makes du’a to that grave and says ‘Ya Fulan’, ‘Ya Abdal-Qadir Jeelani’…this is blatant shirk about which there is no difference of opinion amongst the classical scholars of Islam. You cannot make du’a to other than Allah.”
Yasir Qadhi didn’t explain the fine difference between an act of shirk and the legitimate Sunni act of istighatha in which Muslims say the same statement, “Ya Fulan-bin-Fulan, etc.” What Yasir Qadhi conceals regarding the valid act of istighatha is, in fact, manipulative and deceitful. The reason is that the audience doesn’t have a chance to know that istighatha is a legitimate and valid act in agreement with the Qur’an and Sunnah as explained and accepted by the `ulema of the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali madhahib. Yasir selectively packages his answer Wahhabi-style and forces it down the throat of his questioner and audience as if the Wahhabi understanding is the only correct understanding.
Contrary to Yasir Qadhi’s (mis)understanding, as is common to all Wahhabis, a statement such as “Oh Abdal-Qadir Jeelani” is insufficient to conclude that the asker is a mushrik. Rather, the intention of the person counts and must be understood before making such a heavy accusation.
If the person saying those words intended worship, then he indeed committed shirk. But if the person did not intend worship by such calling, but simply intended to ask, then this is not polytheism at all. This is the understanding that the vast majority of Sunni `ulema had. Yasir failed to explain this.
-ALL DU’A IS NOT WORSHIP-
Shaykh Tahir-ul-Qadri, the same Sunni Shaykh who gave a great fatwa against terrorism and who was ridiculed by Muslimmatters, explains the lawful practice of istighathah in his excellent book, “Beseeching for Help (Istighathah)”:
Contrary to what Wahhabis say, all du’a is NOT worship. Shaykh Qadri says that:
“…the word du’a sometimes carries the meaning of address [al-Khitab] or speech. At the occasion of the battle of Uhud, when the Companions seemed to lose heart and were fighting in scattered groups, and only a few of them were concentrated around him, the holy Prophet (pbuh) called those who had scattered away from him. The Qur’an has described his words in these terms:
“When you were running away (in a state of disarray), and never cast a backward glance, and the Messenger (pbuh), who (stood steadfast) among the group behind you, was addressing you.”{Qur’an 3:153}
The word yad’ukum of the verse, that is, he was addressing you, cannot be interpreted in the sense of worship. This interpretation borders on sheer disbelief, which is simply inconceivable for the true believer.”
–SAYING THAT ALL DU’A IS WORSHIP LEADS TO MANY PROBLEMS–
Saying that du’a can only mean worship will, from a Qur’anic perspective, be extremely problematic and unsensible. Shaykh Qadri further explains:
“If we interpret du’a as simply an act of worship, and the act of begging for help is also merged into the act of worship, then the entire society will be pushed down into the quagmire of disbelief and (God forbid) even the prophets will not be immune to this downward slide.
Therefore, it should be clearly recognized that du’a (calling) is not synonymous with worship in all contexts. If we do not acknowledge this difference between their contextual meanings it will amount to opening Pandora’s box of disbelief, as no one will remain untainted by its rampant proliferation.
The Qur’anic verse itself is a witness to the fact that the holy Prophet (pbuh) himself also called non-God for help, and the Qur’an itself is according permission to call one another for help.
Shaykh Qadri then gives a list of verses that illustrate the problems with understanding all du’a as being worship:
If, as a supposition, we interpret da’a, yad’u, nad’u as worship or as an act of beseeching help in every context of situation indiscriminately, which is regarded by some people as an auxiliary form of worship, then it will be quite problematic to offer a sound explanation of the following Qur’anic verses:
– And, O my people, what is this that I call you to the (path of) salvation and you call me to hell?
{Qur’an 40:41}
– He said: O my Lord! I call my people night and day (to the right religion) but my call only increased their flight (from the religion).
{Qur’an 71:5-6)
– And Allah calls (people) to the home of peace (Paradise).
{10:25}
– Call (the adopted sons) by the names of their fathers: that is just in the sight of God.
{Qur’an 33:5}
– Then, let him call (for help) his comrades. We shall also, call (our) soldiers soon.
{Qur’an 96:17-8}
– Then they will call on them, and they will not listen to them.
{Qur’an 18:52}
– When we shall call together all factions of human beings with their leaders.
{Qur’an 17:71}
– And if you call them to guidance.
{Qur’an 18:57}
-SHAYKH ABU ADAM’S RESPONSE — “DU’A TO THE DEAD”-
In another post on this blog, Yasir Qadhi repeated the same misunderstanding of the matter. Yasir said:
“The permissibility to make du`a to the dead is of course an import of (late) Sufism and not pure Ash`ari thought…”
Shaykh Abu Adam responded:
The issue here is what does he mean by du`a? If he means prayer, then no Muslim will disagree that it is kufr to make du`a to the dead. If, however, the meaning of du`a here is simply calling, without any sense of worship to the person called, then this is another matter.
Should someone claim that every du’a is worship then how would they understand the following verse in the Holy Qur’an:
لاَّ تَجْعَلُواْ دُعَآءَ الرَّسُولِ بَيْنَكُمْ كَدُعَآءِ بَعْضِكُمْ بَعْضاً
“Make not the addressing (du’a’) of the Prophet among you like your addressing one another…”
So basically we cannot interpret du`a to mean worship in every context. A call without worshipping the called upon is just a call, and it is not shirk. Moreover, calling a person who has died is done every day in every single one of the 5 daily prayers, where a Muslim says, “Ya Ayyuhan-Nabi,” i.e. “O Prophet!” Clearly then, calling a person who has died is not an import of late Sufism.
–HOW ABOUT THE SPECIFIC HADITH?-
A hadith states:
“Du’a is worship.” (Sunan Abu Dawood vol.1 p387 no.1474)
A Sunni brother comments:
This hadith does not refer to every “du’a“.
Rather the du’a being referred to is the du’a which is imploring Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala to achieve a better status with Him.
The word du’a which comes from the root word da’a can have different meanings in different contexts.
If someone were to say that every du’a is ibadah then how would they understand the following verse in the Holy Qur’an:
“Make not the addressing (du’a’) of the Prophet among you like your addressing one another…”
And (remember) when Ibrâhim (Abraham) said, “My Lord! Show me how You give life to the dead.” He (Allâh) said: “Do you not believe?” He [Ibrâhim (Abraham)] said: “Yes (I believe), but to be stronger in Faith.” He said: “Take four birds, then cause them to incline towards you (then slaughter them, cut them into pieces), and then put a portion of them on every hill, and call them, they will come to you in haste. And know that Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.” (Al-Baqarah 2:260)
Here the word “idu’unna” means call them which has the same linguistic meaning as du’a. Ibraheem has made du’a to these birds.
Then whoever disputes with you concerning him [‘Iesa (Jesus)] after (all this) knowledge that has come to you, [i.e. ‘Iesa (Jesus)] being a slave of Allâh, and having no share in Divinity) say: (O Muhammad SAW) “Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves – then we pray and invoke (sincerely) the Curse of Allâh upon those who lie.” (Aali Imran 3:61)
(And remember) when you ran away (dreadfully) without even casting a side glance at anyone, and the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) was in your rear calling you back. There did Allâh give you one distress after another by way of requital to teach you not to grieve for that which had escaped you, nor for that which had befallen you. And Allâh is Well*Aware of all that you do. (Aali Imran 3:153)
Here the word “yadu’ukum” is being used to mean to call upon someone.
So, it is clear that not every du’a is ibadah.
The du’a only becomes ibadah if one is imploring Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala humbling himself in subjugation and obedience to achieve a better status with Him.
Surely Yasir Qadhi, in his high praise of the Four Mujtahid Imams and followers, must have known about the position of istighatha according to their madhahib. But he clearly chose to conceal this important information from the man asking the question and the audience that was listening. This shows that Yasir Qadhi’s praise of the Four Mujtahid Imams was phony. If his praise was genuine, he wouldn’t have concealed their madhahibs’ positions on the permissibility of istighatha. Below is a brief discussion on the validity of istighatha.
–ISTIGHATHA: THE EVIDENCE-
The following are two specific is evidences of the permissibility of istighatha in Islam. It is not “shirk” as the Wahhabis proclaim. I thank “Faqir” for detailed evidence regarding the narration of Malik al-Dar (#1 below).
EVIDENCE #1: NARRATION OF MALIK AL-DAR
Imam al-Bayhaqi relates with a sound (sahih) chain:
It is related from Malik al-Dar, `Umar’s treasurer, that the people suffered a drought during the successorship of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said:
“O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished,” after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!”
The man went and told `Umar. The latter said: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!””
Ibn Kathir cites it thus from Bayhaqi in al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya and says: isnaduhu sahih;[25] Ibn Abi Shayba cites it in his Musannaf with a sound (sahih) chain as confirmed by Ibn Hajar who says: rawa Ibn Abi Shayba bi isnadin sahih and cites the hadith in Fath al-bari.[26] He identifies Malik al-Dar as `Umar’s treasurer (khazin `umar) and says that the man who visited and saw the Prophet in his dream is identified as the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harith, and he counts this hadith among the reasons for Bukhari’s naming of the chapter “The people’s request to their leader for rain if they suffer drought.” He also mentions it in al-Isaba, where he says that Ibn Abi Khaythama cited it.[27]”
What follows is the original Arabic wording of this hadith of tawassul in Umar ibn al Khattab’s time as cited by various major scholars of Hadith:
[kindly provided by Sidi Abul Hasan]
From the Musannaf (12/31-32) of ibn Abi Shayba (d. 235 AH):
31380 حدثنا أبو معاوية ، عن الأعمش ، عن أبي صالح ، عن مالك الدار ، قال : وكان خازن عمر على الطعام ، قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر ، فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا رسول الله ، استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا ، فأتى الرجل في المنام فقيل له : ” ائت عمر فأقرئه السلام ، وأخبره أنكم مستقيمون وقل له : عليك الكيس ، عليك الكيس ” ، فأتى عمر فأخبره فبكى عمر ثم قال : يا رب لا آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه *
2974 أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة ، وأبو بكر الفارسي قالا : أخبرنا أبو عمرو بن مطر ، أخبرنا أبو بكر بن علي الذهلي ، أخبرنا يحيى ، أخبرنا أبو معاوية ، عن الأعمش ، عن أبي صالح ، عن مالك قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمان عمر بن الخطاب ؛ فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا رسول الله , استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا ؛ فأتاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام ؛ فقال ائت عمر فأقرئه السلام ، وأخبره أنكم مسقون . وقل له : عليك الكيس الكيس . فأتى الرجل عمر ، فأخبره ، فبكى عمر ثم قال : يا رب ما آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه *
From al-Irshad fi Ma’rifa Ulama al-Hadith of Hafiz al-Khalili (1/313-314):
مالك الدار مولى عمر بن الخطاب الرعاء عنه : تابعي , قديم , متفق عليه , أثنى عليه التابعون , وليس بكثير الرواية , روى عن أبي بكر الصديق , وعمر , وقد انتسب ولده إلى جبلان ناحية . حدثني محمد بن أحمد بن عبدوس المزكي أبو بكر النيسابوري , حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد بن الحسن الشرقي , حدثنا محمد بن عبد الوهاب قال : قلت لعلي بن عثام العامري الكوفي : لم سمي مالك الدار ؟ فقال : الداري المتطيب . حدثنا محمد بن الحسن بن الفتح , حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد البغوي , حدثنا أبو خيثمة , حدثنا محمد بن خازم الضرير , حدثنا الأعمش , عن أبي صالح , عن مالك الدار ، قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمان عمر بن الخطاب , فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا نبي الله , استسق الله لأمتك فرأى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال : ” ائت عمر , فأقرئه السلام , وقل له : إنكم مسقون , فعليك بالكيس الكيس ” . قال : فبكى عمر , وقال : يا رب , ما آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه يقال : إن أبا صالح سمع مالك الدار هذا الحديث , والباقون أرسلوه
Imam Ibn Kathir in al Bidaya wal Nihaya (7/106):
وقال الحافظ أبو بكر البيهقي: أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة، وأبو بكر الفارسي قالا: حدثنا أبو عمر بن مطر، حدثنا إبراهيم بن علي الذهلي، حدثنا يحيى بن يحيى، حدثنا أبو معاوية، عن الأعمش، عن أبي صالح، عن مالك قال: أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر بن الخطاب، فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم.
فقال: يا رسول الله استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا.
فأتاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال: إيت عمر، فأقرئه مني السلام، وأخبرهم أنه مسقون، وقل له عليك بالكيس الكيس.
فأتى الرجل فأخبر عمر، فقال: يا رب ما آلوا إلا ما عجزت عنه.وهذا إسناد صحيح.
Shaykh al-Islam al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-Sahaba (3/484) :
الإصابة – لابن حجر
8362[ص:274] مالك بن عياض مولى عمر هو الذي يقال له مالك الدار له إدراك وسمع من أبي بكر الصديق وروى عن الشيخين ومعاذ وأبي عبيدة روى عنه أبو صالح السمان وابناه عون وعبدالله ابنا مالك وأخرج البخاري في التاريخ من طريق أبي صالح ذكوان عن مالك الدار أن عمر قال في قحوط المطر يا رب لا آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه وأخرجه بن أبي خيثمة من هذا الوجه مطولا قال أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا رسول الله استسق الله لأمتك فأتاه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال له ائت عمر فقل له إنكم مستسقون فعليك الكفين قال فبكى عمر وقال يا رب ما آلوا إلا ما عجزت عنه وروينا في فوائد داود بن عمرو الضبي جمع البغوي من طريق عبدالرحمن بن سعيد بن يربوع المخزومي عن مالك الدار قال دعاني عمر بن الخطاب يوما فإذا عنده صرة من ذهب فيها أربعمائة دينار فقال اذهب بهذه إلى أبي عبيدة فذكر قصته وذكر بن سعد في الطبقة الأولى من التابعين في أهل المدينة قال روى عن أبي بكر وعمر وكان معروفا وقال أبو عبيدة ولاه عمر كيلة عيال عمر فلما قدم عثمان ولاه القسم فسمى مالك الدار وقال إسماعيل القاضي عن علي بن المديني كان مالك الدار خازنا لعمر.
Hafiz ibn Hajar in Fath al Bari (2/495):
وروى ابن أبي شيبة بإسناد صحيح من رواية أبي صالح السمان عن مالك الداري – وكان خازن عمر – قال ” أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يا رسول الله استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا، فأتى الرجل في المنام فقيل له: ائت عمر ” الحديث.
وقد روى سيف في الفتوح أن الذي رأى المنام المذكور هو بلال بن الحارث المزني أحد الصحابة، وظهر بهذا كله مناسبة الترجمة لأصل هذه القصة أيضا والله الموفق.
Imam ibn Abdal Barr in al-Isti’ab (2/464) under the biography of Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) said:
وروى أبو معاوية عن الأعمش عن أبي صالح عن مالك الدار قال: أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يا رسول الله استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا.
Sidi Abul Hasan goes on to comment:
“Note: All of these Imams narrated it and not one of them weakened it let alone said it leads to Shirk as some of the innovators of this age claimed!
In fact Imam ibn Hajar and Imam ibn Kathir explicitly declared its Isnad to be Sahih. Ibn Kathir in his recently published: Jami al-Masanid (1/223) – Musnad Umar – declared it as: “Isnaduhu Jayyid Qawi: ITS CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION IS GOOD AND STRONG!”
Let the pseudo-Salafiyya take note – that this is the ruling of ibn Kathir in 2 places, and he was associated with Ibn Taymiyya.”
EVIDENCE #2: “YA MUHAMMAD!” (peace & blessings upon him)
In Imam Bukhari’s “al-Adab-ul-Mufrad” related the following about Ibn Umar that his leg was numbed and he was told: Mention the name of the most beloved person to you. He then said: “O Muhammad.” The result was as if his leg was untied from a knot. This is specific evidence as related by Imam Bukhari in which “Ya Muhammad” is specifically mentioned. And this proves Yasir Qadhi absolutely wrong when he said: “If a person goes to a grave and makes du’a to that grave and says ‘Ya Fulan’, ‘Ya Abdal-Qadir Jeelani’…this is blatant shirk about which there is no difference of opinion amongst the classical scholars of Islam.”
SHAYKH FARAZ RABBANI APPROVES OF ISTIGHATHA
To top it off, Shaykh Faraz Rabbani — orthodox Sunni scholar and founder of Seeker’s Guidance — explained the validity of istighatha as follows:
In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful & Compassionate
There are a few issues:
a) It is a fundamental belief of Muslims that only Allah benefits or harms; that only Allah gives and takes;
b) It is also a fundamental belief of Muslims that Allah has created means for humans to take;
c) However, the relationship between these created means and their effects is only normative: it is Allah who creates the means, and Allah who creates the results.
This is why Shaykh Abd al-Rahman al-Shaghouri (Allah have mercy on him), the great spiritual guide and master of the sciences of faith (aqida) from Damascus, explained,
“Taking means is necessary, and denying that they are effective is necessary. Whoever negates means is denying the Wisdom of Allah, and whoever relies upon means is associating others with Allah.”
This is the understanding upon which Muslims “call upon other than Allah.” It is no different from taking medicine when sick, or going to a mechanic when your car is giving trouble: if you think that the medicine itself creates the healing, or that the mechanic is the one himself creates the fixing, then you have serious innovation in belief. The sound understanding is that Allah creates the healing when you use the medicine, and He creates the fixing when the mechanic does their job: we affirm these means, but also affirm that it is Allah who created both the means and the resultant effect.
This is pure affirmation of Divine Oneness. How can it “smack of shirk.” […]
The Wahhabi movement was created by Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab in the 1700s. The Wahhabis are notorious for making takfir against masses of Sunnis and Shi’ah and accusing them of not understanding their religion properly — even though both Sunnis and Shi’ah existed before the Wahhabi founder was born.
Wahhabis massacred thousands of Muslims because they accused them of doing “shirk” (polytheism). Wahhabis desecrate the relics of Islam’s heritage, including the graves of noble Companions of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Fatawa were given by numerous Sunni scholars against Wahhabis, including that of the Mufti of Mecca Ahmad ibn Zayni Dahlan. The Wahhabi founder extolled Ibn Taymiyah, considered an outcast in matters of `aqeedah (creed) and `ibadaat (worship), and was even refuted by members of his own family who were scholars.
Ibn Abdal Wahhab allowed the monarchy of al-Sa’ud to reign supreme politically, even though monarchies are unIslamic. The Wahhabis are notorious for spreading extremism worldwide, even to this day, and have influenced criminals and terrorists of all colors, including Osama bin Laden. Omar bin Laden (the son of Osama bin Laden) in his recent book (co-authored with his mother, Najwa bin Laden), “Growing up Bin Laden”, explicity said that his father was a “Wahhabi”. Whether this description is fully accurate or not is a matter of debate. What is agreed upon, however, is that Wahhabism facilitated and contributed to his terroristic outlook.
-YASIR QADHI TEACHES THE WAHHABISM FOUNDER’S “KITAB TAWHEED”-
The al-Maghrib Institute, and specifically Yasir Qadhi, taught a class on the explanation of Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab’s “Kitab Tawheed” — a book condemned by orthodox Sunni scholars and a book filled with unorthodox understandings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. It is these grossly incorrect interpretations that provide the Wahhabi justification to accuse Muslims who practice the legitimate Islamic forms of tawassul (such as istighaatha) of doing “shirk” (polytheism).
Yasir Qadhi’s classes on the explanation of the Wahhabi Founder’s ridiculous book can be heard here:
No orthodox Sunni would ever teach such an unscholarly and perfidious book that was used to ostracize, condemn, and kill thousands of well meaning Muslims. Only Wahhabis promote such discredited work by unscholarly individuals like Ibn Abdal-Wahhab.
–YASIR QADHI’S BOOK: “A CRITICAL STUDY OF SHIRK”-
Yasir Qadhi has, in fact, published a book on explaining Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab’s interpretation of shirk. The title of the book is “A Critical Study of Shirk: An Explanation of Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab’s ‘Kash al-Shubuhat'”. The following are publication details and a brief description of the book by the publisher:
“This work, which is a detailed explanation of one of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s most important works, deals with explaning and refuting the evidences that were used by certain Muslim groups of his time to justify acts of shirk (the act of associating partners with Allah). It is entitled Kash al-Shubuhat, which literally translates as: ‘the clearing of doubts.’ Ibn Abd al-Wahhab intended in this work to expose the falsity and speciousness of these arguments by proving that the pagans whom the Prophet (pbuh) fought utilized the exact same arguments and fell prey to the same reasoning as these modern practitioners of shirk did. It is one of the most advanced works on the subject, and over a dozen different arguments and evidences used to justify shirk are presented and then refuted.
In order to maximize the benefit of this work, introductory sections concerning other aspects of shirk not mentioned by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab have been added by the author. To this end, the work discusses the definitions of shirk, the importance of knowing shirk, the difference between shirk and kufr, the types and categories of shirk, the history of shirk, the evils and futility of shirk, the causes of shirk, and other related topics. In addition, a brief biography of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab is included as a preface to the text of this book.
This work is undoubtedly the most comprehensive study in the English language of shirk, and hence an essential book for thoes who wish to understand this great evil known to man.”
The book attempts to portray certain Islamic acts as acts of polytheism. What it doesn’t explain is that the Islamic acts — tawassul, istighaatha, tabarruk — that they condemn as polytheistic acts have always been orthodox Sunni (and Shi’ah) practices accepted by the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi) and the Shi’ah Jaafariyya school for the past 1,000+ years.
This is what makes Wahhabis and Wahhabism a takfiri splinter sect unrepresentative of Sunni Islam.
-YASIR QADHI DEFENDS WAHHABISM-
Yasir Qadhi on the notorious Islam Channel (above at 2:12) spoke about a program called “Dispatchers” in which Wahhabi ‘scholars’ were secretly videotaped and exposed by a journalist. Qadhi lashed out against the program and defended the extremists who were exposed:
They are labeling this group of people with a label. And they are telling as if the other Muslims oh you must disassociate yourself from this group of people. And they have chosen this label – they call it ‘Wahhabi’, or they call it ‘Salafi’ – and they say, ‘This is what the Wahhabis teach…this is what the Salafis teach’. Now if you look at what they are teaching and what they are saying, much of it is something which is general to Islam.”
Qadhi also foolishly says that the word ‘Wahhabi’ is an “invented label” used by non-Muslims to divide Muslims. On the contrary, Sunni and Shi’ah Muslims, starting with their eminent scholars (`ulema), condemned Wahhabis for their heretical understanding of belief and worship that contradicted the orthodox Sunni understanding. You may listen to Qadhi’s defense of Wahhabism here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcOKzcPQkGY
For those who are wondering, yes, this is the same Islam Channel whose CEO, Mohamed Ali Harrath, was recently arrested in South Africa for terrorism related charges. Surely Yasir Qadhi can tell us more about this. A January 2010 article from the Guardian states:
The head of the UK-based Islam Channel has been arrested in South Africa and faces deportation to Tunisia over terrorism charges.
Mohamed Ali Harrath, who has advised Scotland Yard on Islamic extremism, had been sought by Interpol and authorities in Tunisia over claims that he was linked to an alleged terror organisation in his homeland…. He was convicted in absentia of numerous criminal and terrorism-related offences by Tunisian courts and sentenced to 56 years in prison.”
Apparently Mohamed Ali Harrath was recently “vindicated” according to the Islam Channel website. However, his Wahhabi-Salafi propagation and support still prevail through the Islam Channel. A recent interview on BBC’s Hardtalk exposes the extremist nature of the Islam Channel which can be seen and heard here:
Yasir Qadhi was also a guest speaker at the Global Unity Conference (April 3-4, 2005) in the ExCel arena in London, alongside Mohamed Ali Harrath who was also invited to speak, as were other Salafi-Wahhabis, including journalist Yvonne Ridley and Yusuf Estes.
One can see that Yasir Qadhi has/had associated himself with very controversial individuals. As the main page of this blog states, the al-Maghrib Institute as an organization has had links, in one way or another, with:
-SALMAN AL-OUDAH: a Saudi Shaykh loved by Osama bin Laden.
–IBN JIBREEN: the late Saudi Shaykh who loved Osama bin Laden.
-ALI AL-TIMIMI: currently serving a life sentence in a US prison for a plethora of anti-American charges.
-ANWAR AL-AWLAKI: an al-Qa’eda member in hiding who tells Muslims to kill Americans, and who is suspected of being NIDAL MALIK HASSAN’S mentor.
NIDAL MALIK HASSAN was the murderer of the Fort Hood soldiers. Recently Yasir Qadhi wrote an article on Muslim Matters on why it is right NOT to target Anwar al-Awlaki.
-UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB: the “UNDERWEAR BOMBER” who tried to blow up a US-bound plane in December 2009.
-And many more: MOHAMED ALI HARRATH, YVONNE RIDLEY, YUSUF ESTES, etc.
-MUSLIM SCHOLARS REFUTE WAHHABISM-
The following is a list of some Muslim scholars who have refuted Wahhabism. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but sufficiently long to make the point.
It is interesting that Yasir Qadhi has not mentioned any of these scholarly refutations against Wahhabism even once in all of his lectures, classes, and presentations. He has the audacity of saying that Wahhabism is a non-Muslim invention to divide Muslims, whereas Muslim scholars have always been at the forefront of opposing Wahhabism in historical and contemporary times. Al-Maghrib Institute students, ask Yasir Qadhi about these Islamic refutations against Wahhabism — each and every one of them:
–Al-Ahsa’i Al-Misri, Ahmad (1753-1826): Unpublished manuscript of a refutation of the Wahhabi sect. His son Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn `Abd al-Latif al-Ahsa’i also wrote a book refuting them.
–Al-Ahsa’i, Al-Sayyid `Abd al-Rahman: wrote a sixty-seven verse poem which begins with the verse:
Badat fitnatun kal layli qad ghattatil aafaaqa wa sha“at fa kadat tublighul gharba wash sharaqa
[A confusion came about like nightfall covering the skies
and became widespread almost reaching the whole world]
–Al-`Amrawi, `Abd al-Hayy, and `Abd al-Hakim Murad (Qarawiyyin University, Morocco): Al-tahdhir min al-ightirar bi ma ja’a fi kitab al-hiwar [“Warning Against Being Fooled By the Contents of the Book (by Ibn Mani`) A Debate With al-Maliki (an attack on Ibn `Alawi al-Maliki by a Wahhabi writer)”] (Fes: Qarawiyyin, 1984).
–`Ata’ Allah al-Makki: al-sarim al-hindi fil `unuq al-najdi [“The Indian Scimitar on the Najdi’s Neck”].
–Al-Azhari, `Abd Rabbih ibn Sulayman al-Shafi`i (The author of Sharh Jami’ al-Usul li ahadith al-Rasul, a basic book of Usul al-Fiqh: Fayd al-Wahhab fi Bayan Ahl al-Haqq wa man dalla `an al-sawab, 4 vols. [“Allah’s Outpouring in Differentiating the True Muslims From Those Who Deviated From the Truth”].
–Al-Barakat al-Shafi`i al-Ahmadi al-Makki, `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Ahmad: unpublished manuscript of a refutation of the Wahhabi sect.
–al-Bulaqi, Mustafa al-Masri wrote a refutation to San`a’i’s poem in which the latter had praised Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. It is in Samnudi’s “Sa`adat al-Darayn” and consists in 126 verses beginning thus:
Bi hamdi wali al-hamdi la al-dhammi astabdi
Wa bil haqqi la bil khalqi lil haqqi astahdi
[By the glory of the Owner of glory, not baseness, do I overcome;
And by Allah, not by creatures, do I seek guidance to Allah]
–Al-Buti, Dr. Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan (University of Damascus): Al-Salafiyyatu marhalatun zamaniyyatun mubarakatun la madhhabun islami [“The Salafiyya is a blessed historical period not an Islamic school of law”] (Damascus: Dar al-fikr, 1988); Al-lamadhhabiyya akhtaru bid`atin tuhaddidu al-shari`a al-islamiyya [“Non-madhhabism is the most dangerous innovation presently menacing Islamic law”] (Damascus: Maktabat al-Farabi, n.d.).
–Al-Dahesh ibn `Abd Allah, Dr. (Arab University of Morocco), ed. Munazara `ilmiyya bayna `Ali ibn Muhammad al-Sharif wa al-Imam Ahmad ibn Idris fi al-radd `ala Wahhabiyyat Najd, Tihama, wa `Asir [“Scholarly Debate Between the Sharif and Ahmad ibn Idris Against the Wahhabis of Najd, Tihama, and `Asir”].
–Dahlan, al-Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zayni (d. 1304/1886). Mufti of Mecca and Shaykh al-Islam (highest religious authority in the Ottoman jurisdiction) for the Hijaz region: al-Durar al-saniyyah fi al-radd ala al-Wahhabiyyah [“The Pure Pearls in Answering the Wahhabis”] pub. Egypt 1319 & 1347 H; Fitnat al-Wahhabiyyah [“The Wahhabi Fitna”]; Khulasat al-Kalam fi bayan Umara’ al-Balad al-Haram [“The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Sacrosanct Country”], a history of the Wahhabi fitna in Najd and the Hijaz.
–al-Dajwi, Hamd Allah: al-Basa’ir li Munkiri al-tawassul ka amthal Muhd. Ibn `Abdul Wahhab [“The Evident Proofs Against Those Who Deny the Seeking of Intercession Like Muhammad Ibn `Abdul Wahhab”].
–Shaykh al-Islam Dawudibn Sulayman al-Baghdadi al-Hanafi (1815-1881 CE): al-Minha al-Wahbiyya fi radd al-Wahhabiyya [“The Divine Dispensation Concerning the Wahhabi Deviation”]; Ashadd al-Jihad fi Ibtal Da`wa al-Ijtihad [“The Most Violent Jihad in Proving False Those Who Falsely Claim Ijtihad”].
–Al-Falani al-Maghribi, al-Muhaddith Salih: authored a large volume collating the answers of scholars of the Four Schools to Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab.
–Al-Habibi, Muhammad `Ashiq al-Rahman: `Adhab Allah al-Mujdi li Junun al-Munkir al-Najdi [“Allah’s Terrible Punishment for the Mad Rejector From Najd”].
–Al-Haddad, al-Sayyid al-`Alawi ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan ibn al-Qutb
–Sayyidi `Abd Allah ibn `Alawi al-Haddad al-Shafi`i: al-Sayf al-batir li `unq al-munkir `ala al-akabir [“The Sharp Sword for the Neck of the Assailant of Great Scholars”]. Unpublished manuscript of about 100 folios; Misbah al-anam wa jala’ al-zalam fi radd shubah al-bid`i al-najdi al-lati adalla biha al-`awamm [“The Lamp of Mankind and the Illumination of Darkness Concerning the Refutation of the Errors of the Innovator From Najd by Which He Had Misled the Common People”]. Published 1325H.
–Al-Hamami al-Misri, Shaykh Mustafa: Ghawth al-`ibad bi bayan al-rashad [“The Helper of Allah’s Servants According to the Affirmation of Guidance”].
–Al-Hilmi al-Qadiri al-Iskandari, Shaykh Ibrahim: Jalal al-haqq fi kashf ahwal ashrar al-khalq [“The Splendor of Truth in Exposing the Worst of People] (pub. 1355H).
–Al-Husayni, `Amili, Muhsin (1865-1952). Kashf al-irtiyab fi atba` Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab[“The Dispelling of Doubt Concerning the Followers of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab”]. [Yemen?]: Maktabat al-Yaman al-Kubra, 198?.
–Al-Kabbani, Muhammad Hisham, Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine, vol. 1-7, As-Sunnah Foundation of America, 1998.
_____, Islamic Beliefs and Doctrine According to Ahl as-Sunna – A Repudiation of “Salafi” Innovations, ASFA, 1996.
_____, Innovation and True Belief: the Celebration of Mawlid According to the Qur’an and Sunna and the Scholars of Islam, ASFA, 1995.
_____, Salafi Movement Unveiled, ASFA, 1997.
–Ibn `Abd al-Latif al-Shafi`i, `Abd Allah: Tajrid sayf al-jihad `ala mudda`i al-ijtihad [“The drawing of the sword of jihad against the false claimants to ijtihad”].
–The family of Ibn `Abd al-Razzaq al-Hanbali in Zubara and Bahrayn possess both manuscript and printed refutations by scholars of the Four Schools from Mecca, Madina, al-Ahsa’, al-Basra, Baghdad, Aleppo, Yemen and other Islamic regions.
–Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi, `Allama al-Shaykh Sulayman, elder brother of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab: al-Sawa’iq al-Ilahiyya fi al-radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyya [“Divine Lightnings in Answering the Wahhabis”]. Ed. Ibrahim Muhammad al-Batawi. Cairo: Dar al-insan, 1987. Offset reprint by Waqf Ikhlas, Istanbul: Hakikat Kitabevi, 1994. Prefaces by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Kurdi al-Shafi`i and Shaykh Muhammad Hayyan al-Sindi (Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab’s shaykh) to the effect that Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab is “dall mudill” (“misguided and misguiding”).
–Ibn `Abidin al-Hanafi, al-Sayyid Muhammad Amin: Radd al-muhtar `ala al-durr al-mukhtar, Vol. 3, Kitab al-Iman, Bab al-bughat [“Answer to the Perplexed: A Commentary on “The Chosen Pearl,”” Book of Belief, Chapter on Rebels]. Cairo: Dar al-Tiba`a al-Misriyya, 1272 H.
–Ibn `Afaliq al-Hanbali, Muhammad Ibn `Abdul Rahman: Tahakkum al-muqallidin bi man idda`a tajdid al-din [Sarcasm of the muqallids against the false claimants to the Renewal of Religion]. A very comprehensive book refuting the Wahhabi heresy and posting questions which Ibn `Abdul Wahhab and his followers were unable to answer for the most part.
–Ibn Dawud al-Hanbali, `Afif al-Din `Abd Allah: as-sawa`iq wa al-ru`ud [“Lightnings and thunder”], a very important book in 20 chapters. According to the Mufti of Yemen Shaykh al-`Alawi ibn Ahmad al-Haddad, the mufti of Yemen, “This book has received the approval of the `ulama of Basra, Baghdad, Aleppo, and Ahsa’ [Arabian peninsula]. It was summarized by Muhammad ibn Bashir the qadi of Ra’s al-Khayma in Oman.”
–Ibn Ghalbun al-Libi also wrote a refutation in forty verses of al-San`ani’s poem in which the latter had praised Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. It is in Samnudi’s Sa`adat al-darayn and begins thus:
Salami `ala ahlil isabati wal-rushdi
Wa laysa `ala najdi wa man halla fi najdi
[My salutation is upon the people of truth and guidance
And not upon Najd nor the one who settled in Najd]
–Ibn Khalifa `Ulyawi al-Azhari: Hadhihi `aqidatu al-salaf wa al-khalaf fi dhat Allahi ta`ala wa sifatihi wa af`alihi wa al-jawab al-sahih li ma waqa`a fihi al-khilaf min al-furu` bayna al-da`in li al-Salafiyya wa atba` al-madhahib al-arba`a al-islamiyya [“This is the doctrine of the Predecessors and the Descendants concerning the divergences in the branches between those who call to al-Salafiyya and the followers of the Four Islamic Schools of Law”] (Damascus: Matba`at Zayd ibn Thabit, 1398/1977.
–Kawthari al-Hanafi, Muhammad Zahid. Maqalat al-Kawthari. (Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Azhariyah li al-Turath, 1994).
–Al-Kawwash al-Tunisi, `Allama Al-Shaykh Salih: his refutation of the Wahhabi sect is contained in Samnudi’s volume: “Sa`adat al-darayn fi al-radd `ala al-firqatayn.”
–Khazbek, Shaykh Hasan: Al-maqalat al-wafiyyat fi al-radd `ala al-wahhabiyyah[“Complete Treatise in Refuting the Wahhabis”].
–Makhluf, Muhammad Hasanayn: Risalat fi hukm al-tawassul bil-anbiya wal-awliya [“Treatise on the Ruling Concerning the Use of Prophets and Saints as Intermediaries”].
–Al-Maliki al-Husayni, Al-muhaddith Muhammad al-Hasan ibn `Alawi: Mafahimu yajibu an tusahhah [“Notions that should be corrected”] 4th ed. (Dubai: Hashr ibn Muhammad Dalmuk, 1986); Muhammad al-insanu al-kamil [“Muhammad, the Perfect Human Being”] 3rd ed. (Jeddah: Dar al-Shuruq, 1404/1984).
–Al-Mashrifi al-Maliki al-Jaza’iri: Izhar al-`uquq mimman mana`a al-tawassul bil nabi wa al-wali al-saduq [“The Exposure of the Disobedience of Those Who Forbid Using the Intermediary of the Prophets and the Truthful Saints].
–Al-Mirghani al-Ta’ifi, `Allama `Abd Allah ibn Ibrahim (d. 1793): Tahrid al-aghbiya’ `ala al-Istighatha bil-anbiya’ wal-awliya [“The Provocations of the Ignorant Against Seeking the Help of Prophets and Saints”] (Cairo: al-Halabi, 1939).
–Mu’in al-Haqq al-Dehlawi (d. 1289): Sayf al-Jabbar al-maslul `ala a`da’ al-Abrar [“The Sword of the Almighty Drawn Against the Enemies of the Pure Ones”].
–Al-Muwaysi al-Yamani, `Abd Allah ibn `Isa: Unpublished manuscript of a refutation of the Wahhabi sect.
–Al-Nabahani al-Shafi`i, al-qadi al-muhaddith Yusuf ibn Isma`il (1850-1932): Shawahid al-Haqq fi al-istighatha bi sayyid al-Khalq (s) [“The Proofs of Truth in the Seeking of the Intercession of the Prophet”].
–Al-Qabbani al-Basri al-Shafi`i, Allama Ahmad ibn `Ali: A manuscript treatise in approximately 10 chapters.
–Al-Qazwini, Muhammad Hasan, (d. 1825). Al-Barahin al-jaliyyah fi raf` tashkikat al-Wahhabiyah [“The Plain Demonstrations That Dispel the Aspersions of the Wahhabis”]. Ed. Muhammad Munir al-Husayni al-Milani. 1st ed. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Wafa’, 1987.
–Al-Qudsi: al-Suyuf al-Siqal fi A`naq man ankara `ala al-awliya ba`d al-intiqal [“The Burnished Swords on the Necks of Those Who Deny the Role of Saints After Their Leaving This World”].
–Al-Rifa`i, Yusuf al-Sayyid Hashim, President of the World Union of Islamic Propagation and Information: Adillat Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`at aw al-radd al-muhkam al-mani` `ala munkarat wa shubuhat Ibn Mani` fi tahajjumihi `ala al-sayyid Muhammad `Alawi al-Maliki al-Makki [“The Proofs of the People of the Way of the Prophet and the Muslim Community: or, the Strong and Decisive Refutation of Ibn Mani`’s Aberrations and Aspersions in his Assault on Muhammad `Alawi al-Maliki al-Makki”] (Kuwait: Dar al-siyasa, 1984).
–Al-Samnudi al-Mansuri, al-`Allama al-Shaykh Ibrahim: Sa`adat al-darayn fi al-radd `ala al-firqatayn al-wahhabiyya wa muqallidat al-zahiriyyah [“Bliss in the Two Abodes: Refutation of the Two Sects, Wahhabis and Zahiri Followers”].
–Al-Saqqaf al-Shafi`i, Hasan ibn `Ali, Islamic Research Intitute, Amman, Jordan: al-Ighatha bi adillat al-istighatha wa al-radd al-mubin `ala munkiri al-tawassul [“The Mercy of Allah in the Proofs of Seeking Intercession and the Clear Answer to Those who Reject it”]; Ilqam al hajar li al-mutatawil `ala al-Asha`ira min al-Bashar [“The Stoning of All Those Who Attack Ash’aris”]; Qamus shata’im al-Albani wa al-alfaz al-munkara al-lati yatluquha fi haqq ulama al-ummah wa fudalai’ha wa ghayrihim… [“Encyclopedia of al-Albani’s Abhorrent Expressions Which He Uses Against the Scholars of the Community, its Eminent Men, and Others…”] Amman : Dar al-Imam al-Nawawi, 1993.
–Al-Sawi al-Misri: Hashiyat `ala al-jalalayn [“Commentary on the Tafsir of the Two Jalal al-Din”].
–Sayf al-Din Ahmed ibn Muhammad: Al-Albani Unveiled: An Exposition of His Errors and Other Important Issues, 2nd ed. (London: s.n., 1994).
–Al-Shatti al-Athari al-Hanbali, al-Sayyid Mustafa ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan, Mufti of Syria: al-Nuqul al-shar’iyyah fi al-radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyya [“The Legal Proofs in Answering the Wahhabis”].
–Al-Subki, al-hafiz Taqi al-Din (d. 756/1355): Al-durra al-mudiyya fi al-radd `ala Ibn Taymiyya, ed. Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari [“The Luminous Pearl: A Refutation of Ibn Taymiyya”]; Al-rasa’il al-subkiyya fi al-radd `ala Ibn Taymiyya wa tilmidhihi Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, ed. Kamal al-Hut [“Subki’s treatises in Answer to Ibn Taymiyya and his pupil Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya”] (Beirut: `Alam al-Kutub, 1983); Al-sayf al-saqil fi al-radd `ala Ibn Zafil [“The Burnished Sword in Refuting Ibn Zafil (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya)” Cairo: Matba`at al-Sa`ada, 1937; Shifa’ al-siqam fi ziyarat khayr al-anam [“The healing of the sick in visiting the Best of Creation”].
–Sunbul al-Hanafi al-Ta’ifi, Allama Tahir: Sima al-Intisar lil awliya’ al-abrar [“The Mark of Victory Belongs to Allah’s Pure Friends”].
–Al-Tabataba’i al-Basri, al-Sayyid: also wrote a reply to San`a’i’s poem which was excerpted in Samnudi’s Sa`adat al-Darayn. After reading it, San`a’i reversed his position and said: “I have repented from what I said concerning the Najdi.”
–Al-Tamimi al-Maliki, `Allama Isma`il (d. 1248), Shaykh al-Islam in Tunis: wrote a refutation of a treatise of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab.
–Al-Wazzani, al-Shaykh al-Mahdi, Mufti of Fes, Morocco: Wrote a refutation of Muhammad `Abduh’s prohibition of tawassul.
–al-Zahawi al-Baghdadi, Jamil Effendi Sidqi (d. 1355/1936): al-Fajr al-Sadiq fi al-radd ‘ala munkiri al-tawassul wa al-khawariq [“The True Dawn in Refuting Those Who Deny the Seeking of Intercession and the Miracles of Saints”] Pub. 1323/1905 in Egypt.
–Al-Zamzami al-Shafi`i, Muhammad Salih, Imam of the Maqam Ibrahim in Mecca, wrote a book in 20 chapters against them according to al-Sayyid al-Haddad.
-CONCLUSION-
This post proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Yasir Qadhi (and al-Maghrib Institute) are propagaters and supporters of Wahhabism. He teaches and explains books by the founder of Wahhabism, defends Wahhabis against rightful accusations of extremism against them, and slyly hides the fact that countless Sunni (and Shi’ah) scholars have written entire books, poems, and other treatises opposing and refuting Wahhabis for their anti-Sunni, heretical beliefs and acts of worship.
Allah Protect our children from misguidance and from taking a path separate from the Muslim majority that never practiced polytheism or anything resembling it as the Wahhabis falsely accuse! Aaameen.
Shaykh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali of Zaytuna responds to Yasir Qadhi’s article in Muslim Matters that demeaned Ash’aris and misconstrued their authentic positions. The following are some of his excerpts that shed light on the view held by Ahl al-Sunna wa’l Jama’ah and their differences with the distorted — in many cases, malevolent — understanding of the Salafi-Wahhabis. Allah make this of benefit to all of us!
Shaykh bin Hamid Ali is a teacher at the Zaytuna Institute that provides the following biography of the Shaykh:
Abdullah bin Hamid Ali began the study of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the age of 17 with his first Arabic teacher, Imam Aberra—-may Allah show him mercy—-of Eritrea, a well-known private teacher in Philadelphia. He later studied Arabic, Qur’anic recitation (tajwid) and memorization (hifz), and other introductory topics with Imam Anwar bin Nafea Muhaimin and his brother Anas. He studied privately and as an undergraduate student with Dr. Khalid Yahya Blankinship of Temple University, and at the former Institute of Arabic and Islamic Sciences in Fairfax, Virginia. In 1997, he left the United States and began more intensive studies in the Islamic sciences at the University of Qarawiyyin of Fes, Morocco. In 2001, he graduated with a license from the Faculty of Shariah to teach the Islamic Sciences (al-ijazah al-‘ulya), and then returned to Philadelphia. Since his return, he has written a number of articles on various Islamic topics (www.lamppostproductions.com), taught numerous classes, workshops, and seminars, and translated and annotated The Attributes of God (Amal Press), a work by the great scholar, ‘Abd Al-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi. In October, Abdullah left a full-time position as chaplain with the State Correctional Institution of Chester, Pennsylvania, after five years, and joined the Zaytuna staff as a resident scholar. He lives with his wife and daughter in the Bay Area.
SHAYKH ABDULLAH BIN HAMID ALI
“As Salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullah, Shaykh Yasir
“This is your brother, Abdullah bin Hamid Ali. How are things? I’d like to congratulate you on your excellently worded article related to the matter of atomism and its relationship to Ash’ari and Mutazili doctrine. I really enjoyed reading it. But, as you can expect I do have a couple of questions that I’d like for you to clarify for me. Before that, I’d like to first state as you would expect that I do not agree that you were able to prove your thesis that the Ash’ari doctrine of the attributes originate primarily from Hellenistic thought and philosophy. Rather, it is primarily originated from the Qur’an itself by inference, of course. If it then agrees with many aspects of Hellenistic thought, that should not be a problem, but of course you are free to hold whatever view that you like. Secondly, what puzzles me is that you do not see the rational origins of your own thought or even the rational origins of Ahl al-Hadith thought in doctrine generally speaking. All of us are making inferences from the sources, so why should the Ash’aris be implicated as those who have departed from the text? Furthermore, Ash’ari doctrine of the attributes is rooted in the language of the Arabs as understood during the time of the Salaf. My other question relates to this statement you made,
“The Ash`aris do indeed state that Allah’s actions are not done for a purpose, nor can they be characterized with “wisdom”. They deny what is called “al-Hikma wa al-Ta`lil’”
“I think it would be good to rephrase this to give the Ash’aris more justice on this matter. The way that you phrase it makes it sound like the Ash’aris hold that Allah’s actions are nothing more than ‘abath’ as the Qur’an clearly denies. Do deny that would be tantamount to apostasy for it would be an outright denial of Allah’s explicit words. This is not the Ash’ari view, and your words can be seen as distorting the true understanding they intend to convey….”
“Instead of simply appreciating your scholarship, many people will take your words as further support for whatever personal vendetta he/she has against certain Muslim factions, while the greater concerns of our community will continue to go neglected. We need to do our best to make sure that people don’t waste too much time on chat rooms and blogs going back and forth about matters they do not completely understand. May Allah make you a light for others out of darkness.” (end of quote)
SHAYKH BIN HAMID ALI’S CLARIFICATION TO A YASIR QADHI FOLLOWER
Shaykh bin Hamid Ali also responded to a Salafi tarnished follower of the Al-Maghrib Institute in the issue of ta’wil, or figurative interpretation of the Attributes of Allah in the Qur’an and Sunnah:
“As for Brother Haithim’s comment, “In fact the Shaikh went against the Ash’ari creed.” Well, according to Abul-Hussein I’ve taken the view of “some” Ash’aris. If I am incorrect about that assumption, then I still haven’t seen how I have gone against the Ash’ari creed. I just think you are misunderstanding what is meant by “ta’lil” and are perhaps confusing it with “hikma.” Otherwise, I don’t think it would be appropriate for you to say, “Ash’aris believe that Allah SWT’s actions are neither based nor motivated by a divine wisdom.” and then to say “Imams Bajoori and Marghini have made similar statements. Ash’aris do believe Allah SWT’s actions to be wise, but not motivated by a divine wisdom.” I don’t see where I have said anything different from this.
“When a person has a sensor placed on a door to detect movement so that the door opens every time a person wants to enter, this is an example of ta’lil. Why the sensor? To detect the person who’s about to enter the door. What is the wisdom of that? Perhaps, it’s to remove the burden of having to push or pull the door open, thus lightening the burden of the people. Or perhaps the wisdom is for one to simply develop an admiration and appreciation for the creator of the door with the sensor and to feel amazement for one who could do such a thing. I hope that I am clear about what the difference is between “‘illah gha’iyya” and “hikma ilahiyya.”
“As for the first thing “ta’til”, Allah’s actions are free from being bound by such motivations, while ever action of the Creator is characterized by wisdom. This is the Ash’ari view. To actually study that with an Ash’ari rather than read about it may be at the root of misunderstandings. Harshness with people many times results from autodidacts and their independent studies of the rational and legal sciences. This is one thing that Imam Shatibi in his Al-Muwafaqat considered to be the reason for Ibn Hazm’s harshness toward the ‘ulama. Perhaps you need to read what I wrote again for the sake of fairness. However, if your intention is to merely make this a tit for tat exchange, don’t hold your breath. This is only a one shot deal for me. My time and work is too valuable for such a waste of time. I just thought that I would reach out in the hopes that I have found “brothers” who I am able to “reason” with. Beyond that, those of you who may seek only disputation can go right ahead and argue with my corpse (metaphorically “or not”).”
Though the debate on Ash’ari theology below is not new, it is the first time it has been published in this blog. The more one reads about Yasir Qadhi and his statements, the more one realizes that he is leading Muslims on a path that contradicts the majority of Muslims. Allah Protect us from people like him who attempt to promote their unorthodox, distorted understandings on our Muslim youth!
Below, Shaykh Abu Adam responds to Yasir Qadhi’s maligning of Ash’aris. As one can see from the listed posts, Yasir Qadhi’s maligning of Ash’aris seems to be a favorite hobby of his. Yasir assumes he has mastered the subject, though a learned scholar like Shaykh Abu Adam is easily able to point to his inaccuracies and heterodoxy without any difficulty whatsoever.
The following is Yasir Qadhi’s response to a string of comments made by Shaykh Abu Adam in the Muslim Matters forum. Because Yasir had closed the comments, he had the last word and prevented Shaykh Abu Adam from responding. Shaykh Abu Adam, however, responded in his own website for all to see. Both can be read below, in full.
YASIR QADHI’S STRANGE VIEWS
Yasir Qadhi said:
Salaam Alaikum
There were numerous miscellaneous issues brought up in the previous comments, I’ll try to answer them briefly. Those that remain unanswered are being dealt with in upcoming articles insha Allah.
– One of the major differences between orthodox Sunni Islam (a.k.a. the Ahl al-Hadith) and the people of kalaam is the issue of theological priorities. The people of kalaam, of all stripes, considered proving the existence of God to be their utmost priority. Hence, they exhausted much of their efforts to this end. Every major theological textbook of the Ash`arites begins with this in mind. And this, of course, is a byproduct of their philosophical inclinations (this issue continues to remain center-stage in modern philosophy classes). The Quran, in stark contrast, hardly devotes any attention to actually proving the existence of God; in fact Allah says, upon the tongue of one of the prophets, “Is there any doubt about Allah?” (Surah Ibrahim, 10). And the Prophet (saw) informed us “Every child is born upon the fitrah; then his parents make him a Jew or Christian” (Sahih Muslim). Hence, the fitrah, which is ingrained in every human, innately affirms the existence of God. It is for this reason that atheism has always been an aberration and minority belief in all societies. Atheism has never been a serious threat to the Muslim ummah, it is currently not a threat, and it never will be a threat. I am obviously not denying that it is possible to find some people who leave Islam and become atheists, but for every one such person, there are thousands upon thousands of Muslims whose problems have more to do with a weakness of Iman, not a lack of Iman.
– The grandiose claim that the Ash`arites “saved” the Muslim Ummah from embracing atheism en masse by using their own philosophical proofs to refute them, while placating to Ash`arite ego, is actually historically and intellectually false. There simply was no serious threat from atheism, and there continues to be no serious threat, simply because man by his nature (fitrah) needs to believe in a Divine Being. Rather, the threat of worshiping other than the True God (i.e., shirk) is actually much more real and pronounced, and it is for this reason that literally thousands of verses in the Quran deal with the problem of shirk, whereas only a handful deal with atheism. And to this day, shirk is a greater problem for the Muslims than atheism (how many Muslims make du�aa to other than Allah, claiming this is a legitimate form of “tawassul”?). I only wish the Ash`arites took on refuting shirk with the same passion and zeal that they do in determining what God “can” and “cannot” be characterized with.
– Neither the “Proof from Accidents” nor the Ash`arite belief in atomism are “Quranic” proofs per se. What I mean by this is that the Quran itself does not make such claims; if someone wishes to read in such elaborate premises and cosmological views into vague verses, then while I would applaud them for their imagination, I would venture that any unbiased reader would concur that the Quran itself does not call to these matters. And the greatest evidence for this is that the earliest generations of Islam (and even the Prophet (saw) himself) did not derive such complex cosmological premises from the Quran. Now, the claim that a certain proof or theory does not contradict the Quran is not the same as saying it is Quranic. Much of what is taught in science classes in our times does not contradict the Quran, but at the same time no one would claim that it is Quranic (meaning, derived from the Quran). With this differentiation in mind!
– The problem then comes that one takes a non-Quranic evidence as a certain fact, and then uses it to deny or distort what is clearly Quranic (in this case, the Attributes of God). Herein actually lies the main contention that the Ahl al-Hadith have with the Ash`arites. The Ash`arites give precedence to what they perceive to be intellectual proofs, claiming that these proofs have greater authority than the texts of the Quran and Sunnah. Both al-Ghazali and al-Razi quite explicitly (and nonchalantly, I might add) state so. But the fact of the matter is that their “intellectual proofs” are merely anachronistic byproducts of Hellenestic debates that occurred in centuries gone by. What is quite poignant in this regard is that all the groups of kalaam, who claim to have such “intellectual proofs”, actually reach “incontrovertible”proofs which are directly in contradiction to one another. What the Mu`tazilites perceived as a “proof” was denied by the Ash`arites as an “impossibility”, and vice versa (this is not to mention the pure falasifa, or even the differences between various Ash`arite schools and Mu`tazilite branches – all of whom posited ‘intellectual proofs’ which are mutually exclusive to one another). Yet the source of both of these groups was the same: what they perceived to be “aql”, or intellect.
– The claim that atomism plays no role in making ta`wil of the Attributes is simply false; perhaps the one who made this claim is not aware of the intricacies of Ash`arite or Mutazilte theology. The very reason why the Ash`arites denied, for example, Allahs nuzool (descent), or istiwa (rising over the throne), is because it clashed with their basic philosophical proof for the existence of God, which is wholly based upon the belief in atomism. For them, motion is an “accident”, and an “accident” by definition must subside in a “body” (which is composed of multiple atoms), and a “body” has been proven to be created. Hence, to ascribe “motion” to God would necessitate, based upon Ash`arite theology, that God was created. For the Ahl al-Sunnah, firstly “motion” is a term that they do not delve into with respect to God’s attributes – neither affirming it nor denying it, as this word or its Arabic equivalents are not used in the Divine Texts. Secondly, the philosophical premises that the Ash`arites use to arbitrarily deny what Allah and His Prophet have quite explicitly affirmed are not premises that the Quran itself calls to. Rather, the Ahl al-Sunnah give greater precedence to the Divine Texts and take what Allah says about Himself without questioning “how can this be so?” for indeed Allah is the One who said, ‘There is nothing like Him’. If there is nothing like Him, we should not compare Him to ‘accidents’ or ‘bodies’ but rather simply accept what He says about Himself.
– The claim that objects have no ta`thir (or “effect”) on other objects is also one that has no basis from Scripture, reason, or even human experience. Rather, Allah has created each and every substance with intrinsic properties, and these properties may in fact effect other substances if Allah allows them to. Once again, this is the “middle position” that the Ahl al-Hadith subscribed to. On the one hand you had the philosophers and natural scientists who claimed that natural causes must take effect. They claimed that, for example, if fire is exposed to cotton in normal circumstances, it is inevitable that the cotton will itself catch fire. The Ash`arites, in their attempt to defend their conception of miracles, went to the exact opposite and claimed that, in fact, fire has no effect in causing cotton to burn. The Ahl al-Hadith claim that natural causes are effective if and only if Allah wills them. Allah can prevent these natural causes from acting, but if He wills, the cause can have an effect. Hence, nothing happens except by the Will of Allah, and Allah is indeed the creator of all things, but this does not negate that Allah Himself has created substances with intrinsic properties. Ibn al-Qayyim, in his magnificent work Shifa al-Alil, discussed this point in great detail, and mentions that the evidences for this simple fact number in the thousands in the Quran. As one example, Allah says numerous times in the Quran that He sends down rain so that gardens and plants may flourish. In other words, Allah Himself states that rain is a direct cause of plants flourishing. There is no rational human being (apart from a few who have been exposed to some type of philosophical rhetoric, such as Ash`arite kalaam) who denies natural causality. Humans the world over, in fact even animals, live their lives with this basic foundational premise in mind. If they don’t eat, drink, sleep, avoid dangers, etc. they will not survive, and all of this is with the Will and Permission of Allah, not independent of it. I will insha Allah talk about this issue in greater detail in a later paper.
Once again, I appreciate all the comments. As stated before, we do not want to start an endless debate, and this thread has been open for a good amount of time. There will be other articles, on many miscellaneous theological issues, where we can continue discussions between the two groups.
I believe that this method (of leaving the comments open for a good amount of time before close them) is the most practical and useful, as all of us have limited times, and a debate between any two established groups will never actually result in a final, decisive conclusion. After ten centuries of debate (the first works written in Ash`arite theology date back to the fourth century – of course the first works that we have on Ahl al-Hadith methodology date back to the second century), it is not possible that we will produce anything new on these pages. The two groups will continue to exist, and it is only a question of individuals deciding which of the two they believe to be closer to the truth.
We will be using the same format for future theological articles (leaving comments open for a while, and then closing them). If anyone has anything to add to this article, please e-mail info at muslimmatters dot org.
I am fully confident that sincere, open-minded readers can conclude for themselves which of the two theologies presented above is orthodox and Scriptural (meaning derived purely from the Divine Texts), and which is not.
Yasir said: The people of kalaam, of all stripes, considered proving the existence of God to be their utmost priority.
As if this is something bad. This is because this is the basis for knowing Allah; knowing that His existence is a must. In any case, we are not interested in your opinion, we are interested only in verdicts. Are you saying it is haram? If it isn’t haram, then by what right are you blaming us?
Yasir said: Rather, the threat of worshipping other than the True God (i.e., shirk) is actually much more real and pronounced, and it is for this reason that literally thousands of verses in the Quran deal with the problem of shirk, whereas only a handful deal with atheism. I only wish the Ash`arites took on refuting shirk with the same passion and zeal that they do in determining what God ‘can’ and ‘cannot’ be characterized with.
The Ahl al Sunnah wal Jama’ah are concerned with the problem of shirk. We want everyone to believe that Allah is not a body. There is no difference between someone who believes that Allah is a body, and says “but I don’t know how,” and a Hindu that only worships one idol that he has not seen yet, and says “I don’t know how.” Both are worshiping something physical that they don’t know the shape of, but that has a shape; they are two things of the same kind. Al-Qurtubi in his commentary in the Quran narrates from his Shaykh Ibn Al-Arabi, the famous hadith scholar of Andalus, regarding those who say Allah has a body: “The sound verdict is that they are blasphemers, because there is no difference between them and those that worship idols and pictures. Thus they are requested to repent from this belief, and if they refuse they are killed” (4/14).
What it comes down to is that it is of extreme importance that you actually worship Allah, not just something that you call Allah. You don’t become a believer in Allah by calling an idol “Allah.” This is the main concern of Ahl al Sunnah wal Jama’ah, and it is a concern about shirk.
Yasir said: Neither the ‘Proof from Accidents’ nor the Ash`arite belief in atomism are ‘Quranic’ proofs.
First of all, if an argument is valid, then it is a proof, and it does not matter if you feel it is “Quranic” or not, whatever that means. A valid argument is a valid argument and a proof. If you start rejecting some valid arguments for no reason, then you have destroyed the bases for human knowledge beyond what the senses provide. You have sunk to the level of dumb animals. You have taken the view of the Baraahimah, the philosophers of ancient India and Persia. They rejected the idea that knowledge can be achieved beyond what is strictly sensory. This is the heritage of your cow-worshiping neighbors back home.
The belief that there is an indivisible element is clearly stated in the Quran, because it unequivocally implies that created things are not infinitely divisible. Rather, they are finite in size:
وما من غائبة في السماء والأرض إلا في كتاب مبين
Meaning: “there is nothing hidden to creation in the skies or earth that is not in a clear book.” (Suuratu-l-Naml, 75)
As you know, the book is not infinite in size, therefore, the created things in the sky and earth are limited in number, and not infinite.
Another aayah:
لا يعزب عنه مثقال ذرة في السماوات ولا في الأرض ولا أصغر من ذلك ولا أكبر إلا في كتاب مبين
Meaning: “Nothing is hidden from Him, not what has the size of the smallest ant in the Skies or Earth, and nothing smaller or larger than that, and it is all recorded in a clear book.” (Suuratu Saba’, 3)
This aayah tells you very clearly that everything smaller than the smallest ant is recorded, this means that it is not infinitely divisible, because the book is not infinite in size. Further to this is another aayah:
وأحْصَى كُلّ شَيْءٍ عَدَدا
Meaning: “Allah knows the number of all things.” [Al-Jinn, 28]
Another aayah:
وكل شيء أحصيناه كتابا
Meaning: everything has been recorded in a book. (An-Naba’, 29)
At-Tabari said: “It means that all things have been counted and recorded in a book, that is, its total number, amount, and value.” Clearly then, they are not infinite, because that would make all the numbers infinity.
Denying that creation has an indivisible element is also against ijmaa, for Abdul Qahir Al-Baghdadi stated in his “Usul al Din” regarding it : “This is the saying of most Muslims, except An-Nattaam (a Mutazili leader),” and the disagreement of someone like An-Nataam is certainly not considered for ijmaa.
Yasir said: What I mean by this is that the Quran itself does not make such claims (I.e. ‘Proof from Accidents’). And the greatest proof for this is that the earliest generations of Islam (and even the Prophet (saw) himself) did not derive such complex theological premises from the Quran. Now, the claim that a certain proof or theory does not contradict the Quran is not the same as saying it is Quranic.
If the proof is valid, complies with the Quran, and proves something stated in it, then why is it not Quranic? Different times and different people are affected by different types of proofs. The encouragement to think of proofs of Allah’s existence and attributes are very many in the Quran, and they are not restricted to what is verbatim mentioned in the scriptures. An example of such encouragement is in this ayah:
أَفَلاَ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَى ٱلإِبْلِ كَيْفَ خُلِقَتْ
Meaning: “What, do they not consider how the camel was created?”
In light of the ayah, if you want me to restrict how I consider the camel, then you need to show me an explicit text prohibiting me from considering the “how” of the camel. It does not matter if the consideration is simple or not, lucid or not. This is because the encouragement to consider is absolute in the ayah, and cannot be restricted without a scripture text as proof.
What you call “accidents,” which would be better translated as incidents, refers simply to the different events and attributes bodies have, that is, anything with a size. The Quran states that Allah created everything. Does this not include what happens to bodies? This claim of yours is truly puzzling. An example of an ayah from the Quran that encourages thinking about bodies (things with size) and accidents (attributes and actions of things with size) is:
Meaning: “Verily in the creation of the Skies and the Earth, and the differences of night and day there are signs for those who have perceptive minds.” (Aal Imraan, 190)
The Skies and the Earth are both bodies, because they both have size, and the changes of night and day are “accidents”. Clearly then, seeking proofs of Allah’s existence and attributes in bodies and events is something Quranic of the highest order.
Anyway, using the proofs mentioned in the Quran will lead to the same conclusions as proofs based on the indivisible element, namely that Allah is not like creation. This is because all creation as we know it is either something with size (a body), or an attribute of it (“accident”). If you prove that Allah exists based on them, then you are implicitly saying that Allah is not like that, because you are already arguing that these bodies and their attributes need a creator.
For example, based on the ayah, if you say that night and day are timed orderly, and that this shows that someone orders them, then you must also hold that Allah is not something “timed”. Otherwise you would end up saying that Allah needs a creator according to your original argument.
Moreover, if you say that the skies and the earth are highly ordered structures, and that someone must have ordered them, then you must also hold that Allah is not a structure. Otherwise you would end up saying that Allah needs a creator according to your original argument.
Yasir said: The problem then comes that one takes a non-Quranic evidence as a certain fact, and then uses it to deny or distort what is clearly Quranic (in this case, the Attributes of God). Herein actually lies the main contention that the Ahl al-Hadith have with the Ash`arites. If there is nothing like Him, we should not compare Him to ‘accidents’ or ‘bodies’ but rather simply accept what He says about Himself.
Actually, if there is nothing like Him, then you must deny that what is mentioned in the Qur’aan about the attributes of Allah means Him having a like. Asharis do not deny Allah’s attributes, and they do not compare Allah to accidents and bodies, they deny that He is like them. They deny that His attributes should be quantitative or limited. That is something very different. This does not involve comparison, but knowing the characteristics of creation that makes them need a creator. This is something obvious to even common people, because it simply means that Allah is not limited, not by time and not by place. Rather, He created time and space, and He existed without them before they existed, and He is now as He was before they existed.
Yasir said: Rather, Allah has created each and every substance with intrinsic properties, and these properties may in fact affect other substances if Allah allows them to…..Allah can prevent these natural causes from acting, but if He wills, the cause can have an effect. Hence, nothing happens except by the Will of Allah, and Allah is indeed the creator of all things, but this does not negate that Allah Himself has created substances with intrinsic properties.
Are you telling me that substances can act without Allah having created that act? That they will act unless He prevents them? If you do, then you are a contradicting the Quran, because Allah said:
وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ فَقَدَّرَهُ تَقْدِيرًا
Meaning: “And He created everything and predestined it.” (Al-Furqaan, 2)
If this is not your opinion, then you don’t know what you are saying, because this is exactly the position of the Asharis. No one is saying that if you put a fire on your hand you won’t burn, what is being said is that the fire itself, the heat that it generates, and the burn that it makes are all separate creations. So whenever fire has heat it means that Allah has created that particular heat of that particular incident, and if it ever burns a hand it is because Allah created the burn in the hand for each and every incident. This is true even if the burning never fails to happen, because Allah said:
وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ فَقَدَّرَهُ تَقْدِيرًا
Meaning: “And He created everything and predestined it.” (Al-Furqaan, 2)
This comes back to the belief of Ahl al Sunnah wal Jama’ah that Allah is the only creator. Only He can bring any event into existence, and no one and nothing else, ever, without exception. Every single movement, every single thought, every single change that occurs is created and predestined by Allah. If you believe this, then it is clear that no substance has actual and real power to affect things, it just appears that way.
So if water is followed by growth of the harvest, then this is because every incident of growth in every single plant has been created and predestined by Allah. If it did not grow, it was not because it was going to grow by itself and then Allah prevented it, but because Allah has not created growth in it. Rather, He created the next periods of its existence as a non-growing plant. The non-growing plant is not remaining this way independently either. Rather, every moment of its existence is created by Allah.
Your statements “Allah is indeed the creator of all things,” and “Allah has created each and every substance with intrinsic properties, and these properties may in fact affect other substances if Allah allows them to” are contradict one another. Why? Because in the first you say that Allah creates all things, and in the second you are saying that properties might affect things. If something happens in this world, however minute, it is because Allah has created it. You cannot say that Allah willed something, anything at all, and did not create it, because:
وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ فَقَدَّرَهُ تَقْدِيرًا
Meaning: “And He created everything and predestined it.” (Al-Furqaan, 2)
As always, Shaykh Abu Adam — a champion of Sunni-Ash’ari doctrine — dissects Yasir Qadhi’s pseudo-Sunni jargon with precision and alacrity. May Allah `Azza Wajal shower Shaykh Abu Adam abundantly with His Blessings and Guide Yasir Qadhi to Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah!
–
Question:
assalamu ‘alaykum
Yasir Qadi says:
“The permissibility to make du`a to the dead is of course an import of (late) Sufism, and not pure Ash`ari thought. Although, of course, in our times the two movements (which, once upon a time, were distinct and separate), are now one. I have written and am presently writing a number of papers on the merging of these two movements. Basically, this issue goes back to the Ash`ari definition of ilah, which, as al-Razi and others state, means ‘the one who can independently create?’ Hence, if you don’t believe your dead Shaykh can create life or give you sustenance himself, but rather does so by a power given to him by Allah, this would not be shirk according to that definition. As we proved in our class ‘Light of Guidance,’ the Arabs of old also believe their idols were given powers by Allah, and did not claim they had independent powers. Additionally, our definition of shirk is taken from the Quran, and is ‘to give the rights of Allah to other than Allah,’ and du`a is a sole right of Allah. But all of this is a separate topic, meant for another article!”
Before Yasir Qadi posts his articles, my question is: Were the Sufis really a ’separate’ movement than the Ash`aris. Is such an idea being spread out by the so called ‘Maliki-in-Fiqh-Salafi-in-Creed’ scholars of Mauritania? I am not aware of such from the Islamic Sunni institutions of Morocco.
jazak Allahi khayr
Answer:
Yasir Qadi is merely a demagogue that uses rhetorical tricks rather than proofs, and knows how to manipulate his audience with a shipload of hidden assumptions. He likes to use words like “obviously,” “of course,” “everybody that is reasonable knows,” “we have proved elsewhere,” or “will prove in the future,” and the like, to dodge the fact that he cannot prove what he is saying. (I have highlighted them below for your amusement). And of course he is far too busy to engage in a proper dialogue. I have made some brief comments on what he said below:
Yasir Qadi says:The permissibility to make du`a to the dead is of course an import of (late) Sufism and not pure Ash`ari thought;
The issue here is what does he mean by du`a? If he means prayer, then no Muslim will disagree that it is kufr to make du`a to the dead. If, however, the meaning of du`a here is simply calling, without any sense of worship to the person called, then this is another matter.
Should someone claim that every du’a is worship then how would they understand the following verse in the Holy Qur’an:
لاَّ تَجْعَلُواْ دُعَآءَ الرَّسُولِ بَيْنَكُمْ كَدُعَآءِ بَعْضِكُمْ بَعْضاً
“Make not the addressing (du’a’) of the Prophet among you like your addressing one another…”
So basically we cannot interpret du`a to mean worship in every context. A call without worshiping the called upon is just a call, and it is not shirk. Moreover, calling a person who has died is done every day in every single one of the 5 daily prayers, where a Muslim says, “Ya Ayyuhan-Nabi,” i.e. “O Prophet!” Clearly then, calling a person who has died is not an import of late Sufism.
Yasir Qadi says: Although, of course, in our times the two movements (which, once upon a time, were distinct and separate), are now one. I have written and am presently writing a number of papers on the merging of these two movements.
Wahabism is a movement. It started about 200 years ago under the guidance of the books of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim, who were both chief heretics in their time. By playing the games of the Batiniyyah sects, hiding and lying about their real beliefs, they managed to preserve their necks, though there were a few close calls.
The Ash`ari school is not a movement, it is the school of the Sunni belief system. Its name comes from Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash`ari, not because he made up the school’s belief, but because he defended, detailed and systematized the belief of Sunnis to the extent that most Sunni scholars after him cannot but admit that he is their imam. That is, either him, or Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi, who did the same thing as Ash`ari did at approximately the same time, but in another location.
Likewise Sufism has been around since the beginning, whether it went by that name or not. Sufism is simply the art of following Sunni Islam, while trying to distance oneself from the desires and vanities of this life. It is the science of applying Islam to one’s life to the fullest extent, especially on the inside.
Yasir Qadi says: Basically, this issue goes back to the Ash`ari definition of ilah, which, as al-Razi and others state, means ‘the one who can independently create’. Hence, if you don’t believe your dead Shaykh can create life or give you sustenance himself, but rather does so by a power given to him by Allah, this would not be shirk according to that definition.
This is a fallacious argument. How does saying that the word ‘ilah’ means ‘the one who can independently create’ also mean that something other than Allah can create? The definition does not say that there can be a ‘dependent creator.’ It simply says that Allah creates independently of anything or anyone. In fact, when you say that Allah creates independently, you are saying that Allah does not create through an agent, so it is implied that no one and nothing other than Allah creates, i.e. it is not possible that someone be given a power to create.
A person who believes that his dead Shaykh can create life and give sustenance by a power given to him by Allah is indeed a blasphemer. No Muslim believes that, and Sunni Sufis certainly do not believe that. Ash`aris do not believe that other than Allah can create. There is only one creator.
Note that by “create” we mean to bring into existence, or to have independent influence on events.
Yasir Qadi says:As we proved in our class ‘Light of Guidance’, the Arabs of old also believe their idols were given powers by Allah, and did not claim they had independent powers. Additionally, our definition of shirk is taken from the Quran, and is ‘to give the rights of Allah to other than Allah’, and du`a is a sole right of Allah. But all of this is a separate topic, meant for another article!
The du`a that is prayer, i.e. worship, is only for Allah. However, merely calling is not only for Allah. As usual the Wahabis have a great preoccupation with words, with an incredible blindness to the ranges of meaning behind them.
His definition of shirk is not very clear. What does he mean by ‘give the rights?’ For example, if I give Zakaat to an official collector, then it is Allah’s right that this money is given to the poor. So if the collector takes the money for himself (and he is rich), has he committed shirk according to Yasir? It is a strange definition.
A better definition of shirk is ‘to attribute to Allah a partner, part or a likeness to creation.’ This is because the belief in Allah’s Oneness is the belief that ‘He does not have a partner, part or a likeness to creation.’
Questioner says: Before Yasir Qadi posts his articles, my question is: Were the Sufis really a “separate” movement than the Ash’aris. Is such an idea being spread out by the so called ‘Maliki-in Fiqh-Salafi-in-Creed’ scholars of Mauritania? I am not aware of such from the Islamic Sunni institutions of Morocco.
Sufism is really just a branch of the Islamic sciences that a person focuses more or less on. It is not really a movement, although there are of course Sufi movements. So there is no separation between Sufism and Ash`arism. However, like in all the sciences, some scholars are more famous for one thing than the other. Then we also find those unique individuals that master them all. For example Al-Qushayri is a famous imam of both Ash`ari creed and Sufism.
The problem that Wahabis have with merely calling the name of a dead person comes from their belief that Allah is a kind of creature. This makes it difficult for them to come up with a way of thinking of themselves as monotheists. After all, since what they worship and call Allah (but isn’t actually Allah), is simply another physical thing, all physical things become potential rivals. This leads to paranoid delusions, such as thinking that calling the name of a dead person is shirk.
For a Muslim, however, the basis for monotheism is clear. It is the belief that Allah does not have a partner, parts or a likeness to creation. As long as one believes this, one has not committed shirk by calling a dead person, because one does not believe that the dead person has any power to create at all, but is merely a creation, whose calling may or may not correlate with a desired effect created by Allah.
Yasir Qadhi wrote a long article on Mawlid, the birthday of our blessed Prophet (Allah bless him abundantly and grant him peace). The article titled “The Birth-Date of the Prophet and the History of the Mawlid” was divided into three parts.
According to Qadhi, the objective was not to discuss the legality of Mawlid from a religious standpoint – whether it is permissible to celebrate it or not – but to understand the discussion of the birth-date, its historical origins, and how it was eventually incorporated as a practice of many Sunnis worldwide.
Qadhi decided to spend 99% of his time and effort explaining the birth-date and historical origins of Mawlid, with minimum input of the legal verdict on its permissibility or impermissibility — what really matters to a Muslim. Qadhi said the article:
…did not discuss the legal validity for such a celebration, as that is another topic altogether, and one that has been hashed and rehashed on many different sites and forums.
Yet, when one reaches the end of the article, Qadhi contradicts himself by doing what he said the article wouldn’t do: He gave his legal verdict on Mawlid.
Before discussing what his legal verdict was, it is clear that, contrary to what Qadhi said, his real aim was to convey that last 1% (legal verdict) to readers — otherwise, he wouldn’t have done so. Its relation to the 99% of birth-date and origins discussion was to set the context in detail for this final verdict. It was supposed to drive his final message home with full force, so his readers/fans would get the message loudly and clearly.
ATTACHING MAWLID TO UNCERTAINTY & NON-SUNNI ORIGINS
Qadhi did this by saying there is disagreement among scholars as to when the actual birth-date is, and that the Shi’ah originated the practice of Mawlid. Regarding the birth-date, Qadhi said:
“The exact birth-date of the Prophet salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam has always been the subject of dispute amongst classical scholars. Nothing authentic has been reported in the standard source books of tradition, and this fact in itself shows that it was not held in the significance that later authorities did.”
Regarding Shi’ah origins, Qadhi said:
“The intellectual (and at times even biological) descendants of the Fatimid caliphs in our times are many. In particular, the Ismaili Aga Khan Imams and the Bohri Imams both trace their direct lineage to the Fatimid caliphs, and the group known as the Druze also are an offshoot of the Fatimid dynasty. It was this dynasty that first initiated the celebration of the mawlid.”
It doesn’t take a genius to know what Qadhi’s up to. He’s trying to delegitimize Mawlid by attaching it to what he believes is a vile and heretical sect. Qadhi is already noted to have said that the Shi’ah is “the most lying sect of Islam” and “it is their religion to lie.” And if we didn’t know the birth-date for sure, then… maybe most Sunnis are just a bunch of idiots anyway as they practiced this vile, non-Sunni act at the wrong time!
QADHI’S FINAL (SLOPPY) VERDICT
I won’t hold you in suspense any longer. Here’s Qadhi’s verdict, in full, followed by an analysis:
My own leanings, which I have never shied away from expressing, are the same as those of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728) that he mentioned in his work Iqtiḍā Sirāt al-mustaqīm: that the general ruling is that such a celebration is not a part of the religion, but was added by later generations, and hence should be avoided; but it is possible that some groups of people who practice it out of ignorance will be rewarded due to their good intentions. The mawlid of the Prophet salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam should be celebrated every day, by following his Sunnah and doing in our daily lives what he salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam wanted us to do.
He then says:
I also stress that even if I disapprove of a public celebration of the mawlid, not all mawlids are the same, and if the only matter that is done on a mawlid is to praise the beloved Prophet salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam in an appropriate manner, and mention aspects of his sirah, and thank Allah for blessing us to be of his Ummah, then this type of celebration is permissible, in fact praiseworthy, on any day of the year, and hence even if some groups choose one specific day to do it, others should not be harsh in their disapproval of it. I believe that the fatwas given by such esteemed authorities as Ibn Hajr (d. 852) and al-Nawawi (d. 676) legitimizing mawlids refer, in fact, to such ‘innocent’ mawlids. Sadly, it is well-nigh impossible to find such ‘pure’ mawlids practiced in our times!
THE ANALYSIS
Qadhi’s contradiction is glaring and can be seen in 3 parts. Focus on parts 1 and 3 as that is the ultimate contradiction. Here’s the absurdity in case you missed it. Please read carefully.
The 1st part:
My own leanings, which I have never shied away from expressing, are…that the general ruling is that such a celebration is not a part of the religion, but was added by later generations, and hence should be avoided.
Though his words are plain enough to understand, it is clear that he sees Mawlid as an extremely abominable, irreligious practice that should be avoided. It is a categorical rejection of Mawlid. How else could this be interpreted?
The 2nd part. Qadhi then softens up and says:
“…but it is possible that some groups of people who practice it out of ignorance will be rewarded due to their good intentions.”
I appreciate the friendly qualification, Qadhi. Maybe the majority of Sunnis who practiced Mawlid “out of ignorance” just may get away with it and be blessed. After all, they couldn’t have intended anything vulgar by honoring the Best of Creations, right?
Qadhi then rightly wonders: wait…but this would include the eminent Imams Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, and other great `ulema of our Ummah. Perhaps calling them “ignorant” isn’t such a good idea, so…
The 3rd part. Qadhi does the inevitable. He blurts a position completely contradictory to his initial opposition to Mawlid.
In fact, he illustrates this contradiction beautifully in one line. I’ll break it up in 2 parts so you can see it:
(a) “I also stress that even if I disapprove of a public celebration of the mawlid,
(b) not all mawlids are the same, and if the only matter that is done on a mawlid is to praise the beloved Prophet salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam in an appropriate manner, and mention aspects of his sirah, and thank Allah for blessing us to be of his Ummah, then this type of celebration is permissible, in fact praiseworthy, on any day of the year, and hence even if some groups choose one specific day to do it, others should not be harsh in their disapproval of it.
As you see, a above (or the 1st part, as explained earlier) is the opposite of b above (or the 3rd part explained earlier), yet Qadhi manages to say both in the same line! Mawlid should be avoided because it’s not part of the Religion (1st part), but it’s also praiseworthy because it can be (3rd part)?
Let’s try to make sense of this:
-1st part: Mawlid is “not a part of the religion” so it “should be avoided.”
-2nd part: If you celebrate this bad act, you are an ignoramus who still might be blessed.
-3rd part: You can celebrate Mawlid if it’s done properly and it can even be “praisworthy.”
Huh? How can you agree to celebrate Mawlid and call it possibly “praiseworthy” in the 3rd part if you’ve categorically rejected it in the 1st part by saying Mawlid is “not a part of the religion”? This is pure gibberish.
It is clear, however, that in spite of your glaring contradiction, you certainly wish to please your Wahhabi-Salafi audience more. This is a shame.
More can be said of Qadhi’s views on Mawlid from the above excerpts, such as his claim that no authentic Mawlid exists today, or that he has yet to see one — a claim so outlandish as to not merit explanation. But the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.
QADHI IS UNLIKE IBN TAYMIYYA ON MAWLID
Note another deception. Qadhi in his own words says his views of Mawlid
“…are the same as those of Ibn Taymiyya.”
But Qadhi’s views are not the “same” as Ibn Taymiyya’s views on Mawlid. Qadhi should read more carefully what his own team (Ali Shehata) writes about Ibn Taymiyya’s “correct” view of Mawlid in an article on his own Muslim Matters website ( http://muslimmatters.org/2009/04/01/misunderstanding-ibn-taimiyyah-on-the-mawlid/ ).
To be clear, according to his own Muslim Matters author, Ibn Taymiyya rejected Mawlid and said that those with good intentions who celebrate Mawlid may be blessed nonetheless if they performed this rejected act. This is where Qadhi and Ibn Taymiyya are one and the same (as illustrated in the 1st and 2nd parts of the analysis above).
But going into more detail reveals the context of how they differ. To Ibn Taymiyya, the response to more observant Mawlid celebrators is to admonish them with evidence that it is incorrect. That is, Ibn Taymiyya’s predominant view is that celebrating Mawlid is wrong and should be forbidden.
However, those who are less observant should be left to celebrating Mawlid because leaving it may lead them to bigger evils. In other words: it’s better for less observant/deviated Muslims to stick to something deviated (Mawlid) while focusing on whatever good it can have (such as good intentions) to prevent them from participating in more deviant activities (probably related to shirk). It is the lesser of two evils. Nowhere does Ibn Taymiyya say the act can be “praiseworthy”.
And this brings us to: drunk Mongol soldiers — no joke.
MAWLID CELEBRATORS AS DRUNK MONGOL SOLDIERS
To clarify Ibn Taymiyya’s position on less observant Mawlid celebrators, Ali Shehata of Muslim Matters gave the following example, as quoted verbatim from him:
In case you are trying to make sense of these concepts, an example from Ibn Taimiyyah’s life itself may clarify it greatly insha’Allah. It has been narrated that once Ibn Taimiyyah was walking with his students when they came across some drunken Mongol soldiers. In his time, the Mongolians had invaded the Muslim lands, including Iraq where he was born, and they had decimated these lands with a degree of killing heretofore never seen. From the mercy of Allah though, these invaders came to accept Islam even though this didn’t result in the absolute cessation of their hostilities and atrocities, but it did protect the Muslims to a greater degree alhamdulillah. In any case, Ibn Taimiyyah refrained from censuring these Muslim soldiers and his students asked him why he didn’t forbid the soldiers from the evil (drinking alcohol) that they were openly doing. He answered them with great wisdom by saying that when they are sober they kill Muslims, and this is a far greater evil then their drinking (lesser of two evils).
Ali Shehata then says:
So, in summary what may seem like Ibn Taimiyyah validating or permitting the celebration of the Mawlid is in theory no different than this example.
Therefore, according to Ibn Taymiyya (as explained by Ali Shehata) less observant Muslims who celebrate Mawlid are like drunk Mongol soldiers who are better off drinking alcohol (or celebrating, in the case of less observant Mawlid celebrators) rather than killing which is a bigger evil (!). It escapes me how the crime of drinking alcohol by Mongol soliders can be equated to the noble act of honoring and praising the Best of Creation (Allah bless him abundantly and grant him peace).
Ibn Taymiyya’s views and Ali Shehata’s interpretations of them are bizarre indeed. Qadhi’s are just as bizarre albeit in a modified, contradictory form, as explained above.
THE REALITY: QADHI’S VIEW IS HIS OWN
In summary: Contrary to Qadhi’s claims that his views are the “same” as Ibn Taymiyya’s, Ibn Taymiyya never supported Mawlid as a “praiseworthy” act in the way Imams Nawawi and Ibn Hajar did — even though Qadhi portrayed it as such in his article.
While Ibn Taymiyya is surprisingly consistent in his position on Mawlid, Qadhi is not. Qadhi’s position is littered with logical fallacies. He claims to oppose Mawlid but simultaneously claims it can be praiseworthy if it is “innocent.” This is a clear-cut contradiction that attempts to unify Ibn Taymiyya’s views of Mawlid with those who considered it a praiseworthy innovation, as Imams Nawawi and Ibn Hajar did.
But after Qadhi stitched both contradictory views from each cloth and made his own cloth, he deceitfully claimed it was the “same” cloth as Ibn Taymiyya’s. As we have seen beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is not. Qadhi’s view is only his own in spite of his fallacious claim.
The reason why Qadhi chose to portray himself as closer to Ibn Taymiyya’s view rather than Imams Nawawi’s and Ibn Hajar’s view is because Ibn Taymiyya is a favorite of Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab and other Wahhabis. Qadhi finds more comfort with these controversial figures and outcasts who were infamous for their literalism, anthropomorphism, and opposition to Sunni `aqeedah and `ibadaat than the majority of mainstream scholars who opposed them.
We can also conclude that Qadhi’s claim that his view on Mawlid is the “same” as Ibn Taymiyya’s contradicts Ali Shehata’s article on the topic. Either Qadhi is wrong or Ali Shehata is wrong, though Ali Shehata seems to have analyzed the evidence more carefully. If so, Qadhi has either made an honest mistake by saying what he did, or he intentionally wished to deceive his readers.
It is clear, however, that Muslim Matters needs to stop giving contradictory messages of Mawlid and misrepresentations of scholars they claim to love. This sloppiness and confusion must stop. Al-Maghrib Institute students are confused, and for good reason.
DISCREDITING MAWLID: A SLOPPY ATTEMPT
Unfortunately Qadhi’s sloppiness doesn’t end here. As noted, Qadhi attempted to discredit Mawlid in 99% of his article before he ended with his one-line, love-hate contradiction.
But an astute commentator on Muslim Matters silenced Qadhi and his followers when he said:
To use the argument that the Mawlid was originally a Shia celebration, therefore it’s validity is on shaky grounds is not a logical one.
Here is another example for you to think about.
Al-Ahzar was an institution started by the same Fatimid Dynasty, what does that mean for the Al-Ahzar we have today, or about all the scholars it has produced.
When Qadhi and his team were unable to furnish a sensible response, the astute commentator gave them another example to ponder over:
The argument still stands. The validity of an action, in Islam, is not dependent on who or how it started. It depends on Quran, Sunna and Ijma.
It is related by Imam Bukhari on the authority of Ibn-i-Abbas that when the Prophet Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam came to Madinah he found that the Jews observed the fast of ‘Ashura. He enquired about it from them and was told that it was the day on which God had delivered the Children of Israel from the enemy and Moses used to keep a fast on it as an expression of gratitude to the Almighty. The Prophet Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam thereupon, remarked that ‘Moses has a greater claim upon me than upon you,’ and he fasted on that day and instructed his followers to do the same.
Now that is logical reasoning that Qadhi and Company can (possibly) learn much from. If Mawlid is from Shi’ah origins, so what? So was Al-Azhar University (apparently where Suhaib Webb, one of the Al-Maghrib Institute instructors, is studying at!). And the Prophet (Allah bless him abundantly and grant him peace) even followed a practice that originated with the Jews: fasting on the day of `Ashura!
MAWLID: THE VERDICT OF THE SCHOLARS
This article would be incomplete without the final verdict of the illustrious Sunni scholars — the heirs of the Prophets (Allah bless them abundantly and grant them peace!). This is the part Qadhi forgot to tell you about. He mentioned just two great scholars who approved of Mawlid as if it was a minority view. The reality is different. Special thanks to http://seekingilm.com/archives/203. May Allah bless him immensely!
-Imam Abu Shama (Imam Nawawi’s shaykh) in his book Al ba’ith ala Inkar Al bida` wal hawadith (pg.23) said:
“One of the best innovations in our time is what is being done every year on the Prophets birthday, such as giving charity, doing good deeds, displaying ornaments, and expressing joy, for that expresses the feelings of love and veneration for him in the hearts of those who are celebrating, and also, shows thankfulness to Allah for His bounty by sending His Messenger, the one who has been sent as a Mercy to the worlds.”
-Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti said[in his Alhawi lil-Fatawi]:
“Someone asked Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani about commemorating the Mawlid.
Ibn Hajar answered:
“As for the origin of the practice of commemorating the Prophet’s birth(may Allahs blessings be upon him), it is an innovation ( bida’a ) that has not been conveyed to us from any of the pious early muslims of the first three centuries, despite which it has included both features that are praisweorthy and features that are not. If one takes care to include in such a commemoration only things that are praiseworthy and avoids those that are otherwise, it is a praiseworthy innovation, while if ones occured to me, namely the rigourously authenticated ( sahih ) hadith in the collections of Bukhari and Muslim that ‘ the Prophet(may Allahs blessings be upon him) came to Medina and found the Jews fasting on the tenth of Muharram ( ‘Ashura ‘ ), so he asked them about it and they replied ‘It is the day on which Allah drowned Pharaoh and rescued Moses, so we fast in it to thanks to Allah Most high’,which indicates the validity of giving thanks to Allah for the blessings He has bestowed on a particular day in providing a benefit, or averting an affliction, repeating one’s thanks on the anniversary of that day every year, giving thanks to Allah taking any various forms of worship such as prostration, fasting, giving charity or reciting the Koran.”
-Al-Suyuti then further writes:
“Then what blessing is greater than the birth of the Prophet (may Allahs blessings be upon him), the Prophet of Mercy, on this day?”
(Source: al Hawi li al fatawi al fiqh was ulum al tafsir was al hadith wa al usul wa al nahw wa al i wa sa’ir al funun. 2 vols. 1352/1933 – 34 Reprint Beirut : Dar al Kutub al Ilmiyya, 1403/1983. Quoted in The Reliance of the Traveller (Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri) page w58.0 –w59.0.)
Imam Suyuti in his book Husn al-maqsid fi `amal al-mawlid, p. 54 and 62, says:
“The reason for gathering for tarawih prayers is Sunna and qurba (to seek nearness to Allah )… and similarly we say that the reason for gathering to celebrate mawlid is mandub (recommended) and qurba (an act of drawing near).. and the intention to celebrate mawlid is mustahsana (excellent) without a doubt.”……”I have derived the permissibility of Mawlid from another source of the Sunna [besides Ibn Hajar’s deduction from the hadith of `Ashura’], namely, the hadith found in Bayhaqi, narrated by Anas, that “The Prophet slaughtered an `aqiqa [sacrifice for newborns] for himself after he received the prophecy,” although it has been mentioned that his grandfather `Abd al-Muttalib did that on the seventh day after he was born, and the `aqiqa cannot be repeated. Thus the reason for the Prophet’s action is to give thanks to Allah for sending him as a mercy to the worlds, and to give honor to his Umma, in the same way that he used to pray on himself. It is recommended for us, therefore, that we also show thanks for his birth by meeting with our brothers, by feeding people, and other such good works and rejoicing.” (Husn al-maqsid fi `amal al-mawlid 64-65).
-Imam Ibn Kathir has said in “Al-Bi’dayah” Vol.13, p. 136 :
“Sultan Muzaffar used to arrange the celebration of the Meelad Shareef with honour, glory, dignity and grandeur. In this connection he used to organise a magnificent festival”. Then ibn kathir said in praise of that man: “He was a pure-hearted, brave and wise Aalim (Scholar) and a just ruler, may Allah shower His Mercy upon him and grant him an exalted status.”
-Imam Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, in his book al-Durar al-kamina fi `ayn al-Mi’at al-thamina, mentions that Ibn Kathir
“in the last days of his life wrote a book entitled Mawlid Rasul Allah which was spread far and wide. That book mentioned the permissibility and recommendability of celebrating the Mawlid.”
Ibn Kathir also said: “The Night of the Prophet’s birth is a magnificient, noble, blessed and holy night, a night of bliss for the believers, pure, radiant with lights, and of immeasurable price.” (Ibn Kathir, Mawlid Rasul Allah , ed. Salah al-Din Munajjad (Beirut: dar al-kitab al-jadid, 1961)).
-Hafiz al-Dhahabi writes in his Siyar a`lam al-nubala’:
“He [Muzaffar] loved charity (sadaqa)… and built four hospices for the poor and sick… and one house for women, one for orphans, one for the homeless, and he himself used to visit the sick… He built a madrasa for the Shafi`is and the Hanafis… He would forbid any reprehensible matter entry into his country… As for his celebration of the Noble Mawlid al-Nabawi, words are too poor to describe it. The people used to come all the way from Iraq and Algeria to attend it. Two wooden dais would be erected and decorated for him and his wife… the celebration would last several days, and a huge quantity of cows and camels would be brought out to be sacrificed and cooked in different ways… Preachers would roam the field exhorting the people. Great sums were spent (as charity). Ibn Dihya compiled a “Book of Mawlid” for him for which he received 1,000 dinars. He [Muzaffar] was modest, a lover of good, and a true Sunni who loved scholars of jurisprudence and scholars of hadith, and was generous even to poets. He was killed in battle according to what is reported.”
(al-Dhahabi, Siyar a`lam al-nubala’, ed. Shu`ayb Arna’ut (Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risalah, 1981) 22:335-336.)
-Imam Shawkani in his book al-Badr at-tali`, said:
“It is permissible to celebrate the Prophet’s birthday.” He mentioned that Mullah `Ali Qari held the same opinion in a book entitled al-Mawrid ar-Rawi fi al-Mawlid al-Nabawi, written specifically to support the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday.”
He also said:
“The Mawlid was begun three centuries after the Prophet(may Allahs blessings and peace be upon him), and all Muslim nations celebrated it, and all `ulama accepted it, by worshipping Allah alone, by giving donations and by reading the Prophet’s Sira.”
Al-Shawkānī concluded in Nayl al-Awtār that the foundational division of innovations into “good” and “bad” is the soundest and most correct position. ( Al-Shawkānī, Nayl al-Awtār (4:60).
-Ibn al-Jawzi wrote a booklet of poems and sira to be read at mawlid celebrations. It is entitled Mawlid al-`arus and begins with the words:
al-hamdu lillah al-ladhi abraza min ghurrati `arusi al-hadrati subhan mustanira
(”Praise be to Allah Who has manifested from the radiance of the bridegroom of His presence a lightgiving daybreak..”).
-Imam Subki said:
“When we were celebrating the Prophet’s birthday, a great uns (familiarity) comes to our hearts, and we feel something special.”
(Husn al-maqsid fi amal al-mawlid(”Excellence of purpose in celebrating mawlid”) is one of his books.)
-Ibn al-Jawzī in Talbīs Iblīs:
“Certain innovated matters ( muhdathāt) have taken place which do not oppose the Sacred Law nor contradict it, so they [the Salaf] saw no harm in practicing them, such as the convening of the people by ‘Umar for the night prayer in Ramadān, after which he saw them and said: ‘What a fine bid’ah this is!’”
-Imam Ibn al Jawzi also said about Mawlid:
“It is security throughout the year, and glad tidings that all wishes and desires will be fulfilled.”
-Ibn Taymiyya’s opinion about Mawlid from: “the Collected Fatwas,” (”Majma’ Fatawi Ibn Taymiyya,”) Vol. 23, p. 163. Don’t forget the context of his statement as explained above:
“fa-t’adheem al-Mawlid wat-tikhaadhuhu mawsiman qad yaf’alahu ba’ad an-naasi wa yakunu lahu feehi ajra `adheem lihusni qasdihi t’adheemihi li-Rasulillahi, salla-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam”
“To celebrate and to honor the birth of the Prophet (may Allahs blessings be upon him) and to take it as an honored season, as some of the people are doing, is good and in it there is a great reward, because of their good intentions in honoring the Prophet (may Allahs blessings be upon him).”
-Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyyah, the best and most reknowned student of Ibn Taymiyya, writes, on page 498 of “Madarij as-Salikin,”
”Listening to a good voice celebrating the birthday of the Prophet (s) or celebrating any of the holy days in our history gives peace to the heart, and gives the listener light from the Prophet (s) to his heart, and he will drink more from the Muhammadan spring (`ayn al-Muhammadiyya).”
-Imam Mohammed bin Abu Bakr Abdullah al Qaisi al Dimashqi. He wrote Jami` al athar fi mawlid, Al nabiy al mukhtar, Al lafz al ra’iq fi mawlid khayr al khala’iq, and Mawlid al sa`ada fi mawlid al hadi.
-Imam Al `Iraqi. He wrote Al Mawlid al heni fi al mawlid al sani.
-Mulla `Ali Al Qari. He wrote Al mawlid al rawi fil mawlid al nabawi.
-Imam Ibn Dahiya. He wrote Al Tanweer fi mawlid al basheer al nadheer.
-Imam Shamsu Din bin Nasir al Dimashqi. He wrote Mawlid al sa`ada fi mawlid al hadi. He is the one who said about the Prophet’s(alayhi salat wa salam) estranged uncle, Abu Lahab, “This unbeliever who has been disparaged, ‘perish his hands’, will stay in Hell forever. Yet, every Monday his torment is being reduced because of his joy at the birth of the Prophet r. How much mercy can a servant expect who spends all his life joyous about the Prophet (alayhi salat wa salam) and dies believing in the Oneness of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?”
-Imam Shamsu Din Ibn Al Jazri. He wrote Al nashr fil qira’at al `ashr, `urf al ta’reef bil mawlid al shareef.
And the list goes on, and on, and on…
Though some genuine scholars did hold a different opinion from the above-stated scholars, they certainly didn’t do it in the unsensible, contradictory, deceptive, anti-Sunni, Wahhabi fashion as Yasir Qadhi did. This post makes this as clear as daylight.
Allahu Ta’ala Guides Whom He Wills.
Allah bless the great Prophets, our beloved Rasul (Allah bless him abundantly and grant him peace), and give abundant blessings, success, and tranquility to the “heirs of the Prophets” who followed the Best of Your Creation with unrelenting dedication.
Yet another case of dwarfs shouting at Muslim giants. Suhaib Webb (picture above) openly shows his opposition to our beloved Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, and to the Sunnipath Academy. He described Shaykh Nuh’s group as the “Keller cult”. Suhaib had once been a teacher at Sunnipath but then joined the Al-Maghrib Institute. Not a smart move. But the Al-Maghrib Institute was thrilled, no doubt, from Suhaib’s about-face as shown in the Institute’s introduction.
Now to more context and details of Suhaib’s bizarre statements. These comments of Suhaib were generated when, on his blog, he was asked if he agreed with the legitimate Sunni practice of istighaatha. Someone had copy-pasted an excerpt from Sunnipath by Shaykh Faraz Rabbani explaining its permissibility. Here is what our beloved Shaykh Rabbani correctly said:
In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful & Compassionate
There are a few issues:
a) It is a fundamental belief of Muslims that only Allah benefits or harms; that only Allah gives and takes;
b) It is also a fundamental belief of Muslims that Allah has created means for humans to take;
c) However, the relationship between these created means and their effects is only normative: it is Allah who creates the means, and Allah who creates the results.
This is why Shaykh Abd al-Rahman al-Shaghouri (Allah have mercy on him), the great spiritual guide and master of the sciences of faith (aqida) from Damascus, explained,
“Taking means is necessary, and denying that they are effective is necessary. Whoever negates means is denying the Wisdom of Allah, and whoever relies upon means is associating others with Allah.”
This is the understanding upon which Muslims “call upon other than Allah.” It is no different from taking medicine when sick, or going to a mechanic when your car is giving trouble: if you think that the medicine itself creates the healing, or that the mechanic is the one himself creates the fixing, then you have serious innovation in belief. The sound understanding is that Allah creates the healing when you use the medicine, and He creates the fixing when the mechanic does their job: we affirm these means, but also affirm that it is Allah who created both the means and the resultant effect.
This is pure affirmation of Divine Oneness. How can it “smack of shirk.”
See answer(s) mentioned below.
Wassalam,
Faraz Rabbani
SUHAIB’S HARSH RESPONSE
Let’s read Suhaib’s harsh response in the comments section of his website here:
“After I was shown a number of answers at Sunnipath, I left them. I would not encourage anyone to take fatwa or knowledge from them as they are not qualifed. Nor would I encourage anyone to go to Jordan and live with theKeller cult. The reports we are getting from there and the damaged murids we are seeing in Cairo, we need to avoid these people at all cost. A simple remedy. When you go to study some place ask yourself, where is the memorization of the Qur’an, its study and the Sunna? Where is the fiqh and the Usol? I’ve been told that [they] buy Nuh Keller’s sweaty clothes, nasty old miswaks and so on.This is not Islam, this is Hislam. This is not an issues of sufi salafi, this is an issue of a Jim Jones type cult.”
Comparing Shaykh Nuh’s students to a “Jim Jones type cult”? Suhaib realizes his response was out of anger and says:
I must admit my anger got the best of me. However, as you have stated, there must be a better way. I’m truly appreciative of this nasiha and pray Allah will bless me to follow the best of it.
He continues:
That being said, I would like to make it clear that I have found instances of families being broken by this group and witnessed an intolerance from some of their followers that borders on bigotry. I have a dear friend who left the group and has since left Islam. I would prefer not to go into details, but he was ex communicated from the group by their leader. I do not agree with Nuh Keller, his followers nor with what Sunnipath pushes as being mainstream. Islam is not about any personality save the Prophet {sa).
Suhaib then compares Shaykh Nuh’s group with “churches”(!):
Unfortunately I find many similarities between such groups and the very churches I attended before my Islam. I would not encourage anyone to go to Jordan to live with them, nor take fatwa [or] courses from Sunnipath.Unity has its price and we cannot use it to justify destroyed families and the strange opinions found at Sunnipath.
Suhaib’s opposition is so much that he believes:
American Muslim leadership has a responsibility to stand up in front of any group that threatens the social fabric of our communities and pushes strange opinions off as though they are the norm.
He then concludes by saying:
Let folks know now that I’m not going respond to the barrage of comments I’m about to receive regarding this. I have no time for this and hope and pray that we can move beyond desires and look at the realities articulated by the Qur’an, Sunna and the Usol.
Suhaib is “not going to respond to the barrage of comments”? Why? Is he afraid to counter the clear evidence for istighaatha that the majority of Muslims in Islam’s history have supported? And what other “strange opinions” in Sunnipath did he read? More importantly, on what basis did he find those opinions “strange”? Is Suhaib not telling us because there is no sensible and strong basis for his position? Probably.
Apparently Suhaib heard some bad news from some people, but then generalized against Shaykh Keller, his students, and Sunnipath wholesale. He is upset, but his reaction is clearly extreme. Unfortunately Suhaib has been swayed by the Wahhabi-Salafis though he says “I’m not a salafi, nor do I claim to be one.” This is perhaps why some call him a ‘sufi-salafi’. He may be following a strain of Egyptian salafism who like tasawwuf but dislike tawassul and/or istighaatha, and other similar practices that Sufis are known for.
SUHAIB’S TEACHER: SHAYKH MUHAMMAD HASSAN AL-DIDO
Suhaib’s teacher, Shaykh Muhammad Hassan al-Dido, is a favorite of many Saudis who is known for his so-called “moderate Wahhabism.” The Shaykh even studied in Saudi Arabia for some time and has successfully spread his version of Wahhabism in Mauritania. He is known to harbor critical thoughts against istighaatha — a practice accepted by orthodox Sunnis as legitimate. While he is more diplomatic, softer, and less rejectionist than most Wahhabis, his personal views clearly lean towards key Wahhabi positions, such as his opposition to tawassul. While he rejects certain Sunni practices, he does not accuse Sunnis who practice them of shirk. He attempts to reconcile contradictory positions in the name of “unity” which dilutes the understanding and meaning of what a genuine Sunni means.
For example, when Shaykh Muhammad Hassan al-Dido was asked what Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah meant, he never referred to the Ash’aris and Maturidis at all. Rather, he said:
The scholars pieced together these two terms and coined what that the Prophet and his companions were upon “the sunna and community of the believers.” However, the meaning of the term sunna in this context is not the meaning of the term known amongst the scholars of Islamic law. The legal definition of sunna is a commanded legislative action that is not mandatory where one is rewarded for performing it and is not punished for leaving it. This is the meaning according to the scholars of Islamic law and the principles of Islamic law, but this is not the intended meaning. Also, the intended meaning of the community of believers is not a large number of individuals or a righteous group only. On the contrary, Allah says in the six chapter of the Qur’an, “And if you were to obey most of the people, they would misguide you from the path of Allah. “ The intended meaning of the Sunna is the way that the Prophet and his companions were upon. So this is what we call “Sunna” and “community” regarding their terminology, and there should be no arguing over terminology” is a famous axiom of Usōl al-Fiqh.]
It is interesting that Shaykh al-Dido used a verse that was used to describe disbelievers to indirectly oppose the idea that any Muslim majority understanding of creed (as the Ash’aris and Maturidis stood for) was not necessarily correct. The verse he quoted was 6:116. The famous Tafsir al-Jalalayn gives the tafsir of the verse as follows:
“If you obey most of those on earth, that is, the disbelievers, they will lead you astray from the way of God, [from] His religion; they follow only supposition, when they dispute with you concerning [the status of] carrion, saying: ‘What God has killed is more worthy of your consumption than what you kill yourselves!’; they are merely guessing, speaking falsehood in this [matter].”
“(If thou obeyedst) O Muhammad (most of those on earth) i.e. the Meccan leaders who were Abu’l-Ahwas Malik Ibn ‘Awf al-Jushami, Budayl Ibn Warqa’ al-Khuza’i and Julays Ibn Warqa’ al-Khuza’i (they would mislead thee far from Allah’s way) in the Sacred Precinct. (They follow naught but an opinion) they pronounce nothing but surmise, (and they do but guess) they lie to the believers when they say to them: that which Allah immolates is better than that which you slaughter with your own knives.”
Why did Shaykh al-Dido not inform us that the above mufasirreen referred to disbelievers in the above verse and not to Muslims, as he portrayed?
Contrary to what Shaykh al-Dido says, the truth is that the main mass of Muslims — and specifically the majority of Muslims — is what represents the Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah, and they are the Ash’aris and Maturidis. Most Hanafis are Maturidi while most Shafi’is and Malikis are Ash’ari. It is strange that Suhaib Webb and his Shaykh al-Dido are comfortable in excluding Ash’aris and Maturidis as part of Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah.
Shaykh al-Dido’s critical defense of Ibn Taymiyyah (a favorite of Wahhabis) is also well known. Unfortunately Shaykh al-Dido shows his bias by opting for a non-critical approach against Ibn Taymiyyah on what reputable scholars criticized him for, such as his heterodox and anthropomorphist understanding of `aqeedah, his opposition to Ash’aris, and other abominable statements in `ibadaat. A detailed exposition of Ibn Taymiyyah’s big blunders in `aqeedah — very serious to be overlooked — can be read at:
Related to beliefs and principles of the philosopher of anthropomorphism Ibn Taymiyyah
It is truly surprising that in spite of Shaykh al-Dido’s many `ijaazas he received from reputable Ash’ari-Maturidi Shuyukh, he is still mainly on the track of some Salafi variety. Suhaib mirrored his teacher’s views when he (Suhaib) said:
“I have nothing against the Asharia, they are my brothers and I have ijazat in their texts. I don’t agree with them, will bring up other opinions that might not fit their own, but I have nothing but respect for them.”
It’s funny how Suhaib receives `ijazat from Ash’aris only to disagree with them. Along with Suhaib’s sufi-salafi confusion, his Ash’ari confusion also persists — his good intentions notwithstanding.
SUHAIB’S INDIRECT TUSSLE WITH SHAYKH GF HADDAD
Suhaib had published an article on his blog titled, “How Ash’arism Spread,” by a scholar named Taqi al-Din Ahmad b. ‘Ali al-Maqrizi, in which he took an unconventional stand towards Ash’ari theology. The original article can be read here.
Though Suhaib was not the author, he clearly endorsed its contents and is the reason he posted it on his blog.
Shaykh GF Haddad responded with an article on Taqi al-Din Ahmad b. ‘Ali al-Maqrizi that can be read here.
This led to a debate in which Suhaib’s anger led him to call Shaykh al-Haythami a “bigot” for his critical views of Ibn Taymiyyah. Suhaib later repented but still gave his justification in an article entitled, “Saying So Long To a Dear Friend: Traditional Islam.” He said:
“One of the grave mistakes I made in that debate was to call al-Haythami a bigot. Until this day the traditionalist have done nothing but remind me of this error….First I said he was a bigot in regards to Ibn Tammiyah and did not use the term in an absolute form. However, this was a grave mistake and I ask Allah to forgive me and that is sufficient.”
Suhaib is right to repent for his inappropriate behavior. But note that his defense of Ibn Taymiyyah had clearly made him exceed the bounds of etiquette our Qur’an and Sunnah specified. Excluding his repentance, Suhaib’s staunch defense of Ibn Taymiyyah was a typical Wahhabi reaction. He did the same by using derogatory language against Shaykh Nuh Keller and Sunnipath, as noted above.
In spite of Suhaib’s Islamic education and wish for “unity” and true moderation — a need for a “third discourse”, as he put it — he is somehow still unable to control his temper, even if his repeated repentences are commendable. How he expects Muslims to accept his “third discourse” in view of this is rather puzzling.
STEPPINGAWAYFROMAHL AL-SUNNA
Suhaib’s opposition to traditional Islam was made clear by him in in the same article that, as illustrated above, was aptly titled for what he intended to convey:
In short, I’m washing my hands from traditional Islam. I’ve resigned my post from Sunni-Path. This is not an easy decision for me as Sh. Faraz [Rabbani] is a true friend and beloved companion. But, the discourse is one and the same and with all respect I advice (sic) others to step back from traditional Islam and adopt the path of Islam. Stick to the way of the major scholars, avoid disputes, move forward and keep a clean heart towards others. I will not spend my days attacking traditional Islam, but I’m free from it and have nothing to do with it.
Suhaib has deleted the above words from his writings though they are captured above for all to read. It makes me wonder what Suhaib meant by sticking “to the way of major scholars” when, in the same passage, he said he is “free from” traditional Islam and has “nothing to do with it.” Which “major scholars” is Suhaib following if not from traditional Islam? Suhaib failed to elaborate on this important point.
SUHAIB STEPS CLOSER TO WAHHABISM
I certainly hope brother Suhaib will retract his abominable statements, separate his past ‘church’ experience from his current Islamic learning, and not mix apples with oranges.
But his relatively new leadership position at Al-Maghrib Institute in 2007 indicates the contrary. Though he has humbled himself by admitting his anger (repeatedly), he still makes it crystal clear beyond any shadow of a doubt not to learn from Shaykh Nuh Keller, Sunnipath, and by extension all other mainstream/traditional Islam sources.
Suhaib’s call is a call away from Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah – not towards it, and this is very unfortunate.
SHAYKH NUH HA MIM KELLER & SUNNIPATH
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, he is one of the greatest `ulema living today. His background and biography are worth reading to better understand how misplaced and unethical Suhaib Webb’s insults against Shaykh Keller were. Suhaib was criticizing an accomplished Shaykh who continues to teach and inspire millions:
“Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, American Muslim translator and specialist in Islamic Law. Born in 1954 in the north-western United States, was educated in philosophy and Arabic at the University of Chicago and UCLA. He entered Islam in 1977 at al-Azhar in Cairo, and later studied the traditional Islamic Sciences of hadith, Shafi’i and Hanafi jurisprudence, legal methodology (usul al-fiqh), and tenets of faith (`aqidah) in Syria and Jordan, where he has lived since 1980. His English translation of `Umdat al-Salik [The Reliance of the Traveller] (1250 pp., Sunna Books, 1991) is the first Islamic legal work in a European language to receive the certification of al-Azhar, the Muslim world’s oldest institution of higher learning. He also possesses ijazas or “certifiates of authorisation” in Islamic jurisprudence from sheikhs in Syria and Jordan.
“His Other translations and works include: Al-Maqasid: Imam Nawawi’s Manual of Islam; The Sunni Path: A Handbook of Islamic Belief; and Tariqa Notes (handbook for those on the Shadhilli path of tasawwuf). He is currently translating Imam Nawawi’s Kitab al-Adhkar [The Book of Rememberance of Allah], a compendium of some 1227 hadiths on prayers and dhikrs of the prophetic sunna. He is also completing a work on the issue of the Qibla which will be available soon. (from http://www.masud.co.uk) [This book has been completed and is now available!]
“Nuh Keller is an exponent of the traditional following of qualified scholarship. His translation of the Umdaad us-Salik (Reliance of the Traveler) is among the best works available in English language on Classical Fiqh. He has written many articles defending the following of qualified scholarship (taqlid). Many issues that surround this matter have been put to light and discussed e.g. the definition of Bida’a, a word often used with unsurpassed authority by the followers with higher intensities of outward exertions. He has also talked of and written on Tasawwuf in classical Islam, which he argues is a central Islamic science, just as science of Tafseer.”(Source: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/)
The Sunnipath Academy is one of the best online Sunni academies around. I had taken an online class from them myself and greatly benefited from it. I highly recommend Muslims to read their Question-Answer archives and to take classes with them. You may learn more at: http://www.sunnipath.com/. It is very inspiring to read the teacher profiles at the Sunnipath Academy, and I encourage all of you to do so: http://www.sunnipath.com/About/academyTeachers.aspx
AN EXPLANATION FOR SHAYKH NUH’S STUDENTS’ ACTIONS?
WHY DID THE COMPANION OF THE PROPHET (PBUH) TAKE THE PROPHET’S HAIR?
Regarding why Shaykh Nuh’s followers are so eager to have Shaykh Nuh’s used items, and wanting a “good explanation for that”, perhaps the doubters and slanderers should ponder over why the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), after he shaved his head after the pilgrimage, that Abu Talha was the first one to take of his hair (Bukhari). Why would Abu Talha want the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and grant him peace) hair?
WHY DID THE PROPHET (PBUH) DISTRIBUTE HIS NAILS?
Imam Ahmad narrates in his Musnad (4:42) from `Abd Allah ibn Zayd ibn `Abd Rabbih with a sound (sahih) chain as stated by Haythami in Majma` al-zawa’id (3:19) that the Prophet clipped his nails and distributed them among the people. Why did the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) distribute his nails among the people?
WHY DID THE COMPANIONS WANT THE PROPHET’S (PBUH) SWEAT?
Anas said: “The Prophet stayed with us, and as he slept my mother began to collect his sweat in a flask. The Prophet awoke and said: O Umm Sulaym, what are you doing? She said: This is your sweat which we place in our perfume and it is the best perfume.” (Narrated Imams Muslim and Ahmad). Why did the Prophet’s noble followers want the Prophet’s sweat (Allah bless him and grant him peace)?
THE PROPHET (PBUH) USED HIS SALIVA (AND SOIL) TO CURE SOMEONE?
Bukhari and Muslim narrated that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) used to heal the sick with his saliva mixed with some earth with the words: “Bismillah, the soil of our earth with the saliva of certain ones among us shall heal our sick with our Lord’s permission.” Heal the sick with saliva? Ponder over the sahih hadeeth.
WHY DID THE COMPANIONS OF THE PROPHET(PBUH) WANT HIS ABLUTION WATER?
Bukhari and Muslim narrate that the Companions would compete for whoever would get the remnant of the Prophet’s ablution water in order to put it on their faces. Why would the Companions want the Prophet’s ablution water?
IMAM NAWAWI SPEAKS IN FAVOR OF TABARRUK
One of the greatest scholars in Islam, Imam Nawawi (in “Sharh Sahih Muslim”) said: “In these narrations is evidence for seeking blessings with the relics of the saints” (fihi al-tabarruk bi athar al-salihin). This, of course, with the understanding that the relics of holy people are a means to receiving blessings from Allah Almighty.
And that explanation by our beloved Imam Nawawi can be used to understand why Shaykh Nuh’s followers are so eager to have some of his used possessions. Instead of casting doubt and, worse, joining in the slandering of a pious Muslim like Wahhabis-Salafis routinely do, has it ever occurred to you that his followers are simply following the early Muslims of the Salaf by wanting to be close to the possessions of Shaykh Nuh who they see as their noble and pious Shaykh?
Just as the Companions were eager to have the Prophet’s hair, nails, sweat, ablution water, and many other things because they were associated with the holiest human who ever existed, likewise the followers of Shaykh Nuh wish to associate with the things of who they see as their pious Shaykh and role model who emulates the Prophet (Allah bless him & grant him peace) and other early followers of the Salaf.
In view of the above, how can any fair-minded and educated Muslim condemn Shaykh Nuh’s followers? And if doubters and slanderers are still doubtful about Shaykh Nuh and/or his followers, then you should also cast doubt on why the followers of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) were so eager to obtain the Prophet’s items (na’udhubillah). The Prophet gave his possessions to his followers as well, as noted above. Tabarruk is a noble and established practice in our Islamic tradition that Shaykh Nuh’s followers are following, and in full agreement with the Qur’an and Sunnah — even if the Salafis-Wahhabis foolishly think that tabarruk and tawassul are”shirk”.
We listen to the scholars of jurisprudence and not the words of some confused, young Muslims who choose not to follow any of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence, and who condemn traditional Sunni Islam out of their utter ignorance and misinterpretation of a genuine Sunni act. It is well known that Suhaib Webb not only condemns traditional Sunni Islam, but also rejects or at least questions the genuine Sunni acts of tabarruk and tawassul.
Suhaib Webb should be reprimanded for his over-reaction, misguidance, and misinterpretations regarding Shaykh Nuh and his followers, and for telling brothers and sisters not to learn from Shaykh Nuh. Suhaib Webb should repent as it is Shaykh Nuh and his followers who are closely following Sunni tradition, unlike Suhaib Webb who is condemning them and the entire Sunni tradition represented by the illustrious “heirs of the Prophets”, including our beloved Imam Nawawi.
May Allah Guide us on the Right Path and forgive us for our wrong assumptions and misinterpretations of the actions of the pious.
A TREND OF INSULTS FROM THE AL-MAGHRIB INSTITUTE
It is a pity that the trend one sees at al-Maghrib Institute is not a good one. It is a poor example to the youngsters who see the instructors as great role models. Somehow Suhaib chooses to ignore these repugnant attacks against Sunni Islam:
Then we see Suhaib Webb, an instructor at al-Maghrib Institute, describing Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller’s group of students as the “Keller cult” and “an issue of a Jim Jones type cult.”Previously he called Imam Haythami a “bigot.” The retraction may be of these words, but his opposition to traditional Islam, even if in more polite terms, remains. Suhaib’s behavior is clearly not Sunni.
Suhaib, please humble yourself and speak with respect about the people of knowledge. You were only 5 years old in your warm, cozy Oklahoma home when Shaykh Nuh Keller converted to Islam at 23 years of age in 1977. Shaykh Nuh Keller became Muslim long before you did, and so he has drunk from the pool of knowledge with traditional Muslim scholars long before you did. Your criticisms of him are misplaced, inappropriate, and exaggerated. You should refrain from such behavior again in the future.
All of these insults and opposition are against scholars and Muslims who are followers of the Ash’ari-Maturidi creed, and adherents of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanbali). In other words, they are insults against Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah — what most Muslims in Islam’s history have believed and stood for. This opposition against the majority only disunites, if only they knew.
Allah, guide brother Suhaib’s soul and take the confusion away from him. Allah, keep all of us on the Path of the Muslim majority. Aaameen.
(Picture: The beloved scholar of Ahl-ul-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah, Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad. May Allah bless him immensely and protect him from Salafi-Wahhabi mischief!)
A classic example of little dwarfs shouting at Muslim giants, Muslim Matters had this to say of our beloved Shaykh and intellectual, Abdal Hakim Murad:
Abdal-Hakim Murad is particularly vitriolic about the “Wahhabi” bogey-man. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, instead of giving a fair chance for investigations of who was responsible, etc., he did what the rest of the neo-cons did, blame “Wahhabis”. In his article here, he pointed to the great wisdom of Kabbani that was duly ignored by America. I wonder what he wanted the government to do. Arrest the leaders of 80% of America’s mosques, which Kabbani claimed were run by Wahhabis?
After tying Shaykh Abdal-Hakim to the “neo-cons” and taking a swipe at Shaykh Kabbani, the article then goes on to discuss Shaykh Abdal-Hakim’s “hatred for certain Muslims”:
Abdal-Hakim’s hatred for certain Muslims is unfortunate (even if he doesn’t agree with their methodology); instead of discussing the root-cause [of] the fanaticism and the terrorism (i.e. Israel & other injustice upon Muslims), he chose to attack Muslims.
Muslim Matters then directs readers to a refutation against Shaykh Abdal-Hakim from Usama Hassan. Is this the same Usama Hassan who said:
“I’m very happy to be associated with the quilliam foundation and i hope we’ll have more and more think-tanks like this to challenge some of the thinking and public discourse about islam in britain and the west.”
To those who are unaware of Shaykh Abdal-Hakim Murad, know well that he is one of the leading intellectuals of our Ummah today. English-speaking Muslims (and non-Muslims) are especially indebted to him. I highly encourage everyone to read his biography and learn from his articles at: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/. Masud Khan’s excellent website provides this biography of the beloved Shaykh:
“Abdal Hakim Murad graduated from Cambridge University with a double-first in Arabic in 1983. He then lived in Cairo for three years, studying Islam under traditional teachers at Al-Azhar, one of the oldest universities in the world. He went on to reside for three years in Jeddah, where he administered a commercial translation office and maintained close contact with Habib Ahmad Mashhur al-Haddad and other ulama from Hadramaut, Yemen.
In 1989, Shaikh Abdal Hakim returned to England and spent two years at the University of London learning Turkish and Farsi. Since 1992 he has been a doctoral student at Oxford University, specializing in the religious life of the early Ottoman Empire. He is currently Secretary of the Muslim Academic Trust (London) and Director of the Sunna Project at the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at Cambridge University, which issues the first-ever scholarly Arabic editions of the major Hadith collections.
Shaikh Abdal Hakim is the translator of a number of works, including two volumes from Imam al-Ghazali’s Ihya Ulum al-Din. He gives durus and halaqas from time to time and taught the works of Imam al-Ghazali at the Winter 1995 Deen Intensive Program in New Haven, CT. He appears frequently on BBC Radio and writes occasionally for a number of publications, including The Independent; Q-News International, Britain’s premier Muslim Magazine; and Seasons, the semiacademic journal of Zaytuna Institute.”
A TRAJECTORY OF INSULTS
But vitriolic attacks against eminent scholars by Muslim Matters is no surprise. Yasir Qadhi was one of the reviewers of the article who approved of this mockery. One reads at the bottom of the article:
Acknowledgements: Yasir Qadhi, Ruth Nasrullah, and Omar Usman for reviewing and providing valuable comments.
As Yasir and his team mock Shaykh Abdal-Hakim, Yasir is also known for his infamous accusation of shirk against the jewel of our Ummah, the late Shaykh Muhammad ibn `Alawi al-Maliki: https://sunni1.wordpress.com/category/yasir-qadhis-takfir/
Yasir also accused our beloved Shaykh Busiri and his famous poem, al-Burda, of shirk. He says:
“…there is blatant shirk in all three categories of tahweed in that poem: shrik in ruboobiyyah, uloohiyyah and asma wa sifaat.”
One wonders: What did Yasir Qadhi really have in mind when he signed the “Pledge of Unity” with Muslims who love and praise Shaykh Abdal-Hakim, who praise al-Burda, and who praise Shaykh Ibn `Alawi al-Maliki as a mujaddid?
P.S. In the Muslim Matters article, “British Muslims & Their Leadership”, author Abu Aaliyah uses “T.J. Winter” (a.k.a. Shaykh Abdal-Hakim) as a reliable source of information. See footnote #10. It’s interesting that Muslim Matters, with one breath, can accuse someone of being “vitriolic” and a “Muslim hater” and simultaneously use the same person as a reliable/authentic source of information for one of its articles.
(http://muslimmatters.org/2007/12/21/british-muslims-their-leadership/)
For those who are familiar with true scholars of Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah, read this post by Yasir Qadhi and let us know your thoughts. Make sure you don’t forget to read the title of the post too. How would a serious orthodox Sunni react to such a post?:
Yasir Qadhi: My Conversion – Admitting One’s Mistake and Moving On
“This is, in many ways, an awkward post for me. Admitting one’s mistake is not easy to do. Claiming that one’s past opinions were wrong – opinions that were defended publicly, in writing and speech, and championed for many, many years – is always a bitter pill to swallow. And this is even more difficult to do when the ‘mistake’ is not just one secondary matter or trivial opinion, but rather an entire framework or methodology.
But now, I am forced to make such a confession. I have given the matter great thought, and have realized there is no way forward unless I break clean of my past. And if I do so, I am not the first, nor shall I be the last, to make such a claim. Many great scholars in our tradition have gone through phases of their life, realizing later on that they followed an incorrect system in an earlier stage.
It is an open secret that there are two great traditions in our times competing with one another. Each of these two systems claims to be better and more perfect. Each one claims to be older, or more ‘orthodox’. Each one claims to have large numbers of followers. Each one presents an entire methodology – a holistic framework from which all other programs of one’s life should spring forth. Each one is eager for converts, critiquing the other tradition with utmost contempt (sometimes with very cheap and underhand tactics – as bloggers know all too well).
It is obvious that both of these systems cannot simultaneously be true in all that they say. One of the two MUST be the more correct and better.
For many years of my life, (in fact for ALL of the years that I have been of age), I had been an ardent follower of what I thought was the only system. As a young teenager, I never even knew that people followed other methodologies, and the first time I was exposed to the other system I truly found it incomprehensible. It seemed too difficult to follow, too ‘strange’ and exotic. As I grew older, and learnt more about both systems, initially my faith in my own tradition grew stronger and stronger. It is actually ironic that I wrote many works, books and treatises in its framework. In many public and private gatherings, I had defended my own preferred methodology and mocked the other.
It is true that many people tried to convert me, and initially I rebuffed them quite easily. But as these efforts increased in earnestness, and I found close friends of mine, people whom I truly looked up to, convert one by one, I felt the seeds of doubt grow within me. Perhaps my system was not the best? Perhaps the framework that I had initially been led to believe was the truest and most perfect was not actually so?
One by one, those whom I admired began to drop their ‘old school’ affiliations and change boat. I was truly shocked – my very foundations shaken. Eventually, not a single friend of mine who specialized in the field still remained with me in the old camp. When the final person in my circle of friends converted, it was the last straw.
So I decided to take time out of my other projects, and do some research. After all, this was not a trivial matter, it was an entire methodology of operation. Taking a deep breath putting aside all my previous prejudices, with a pure and unbiased heart, I began to read. And read, read and read. History, works of methodology, testimonies from converts, and even biographies of the founders of these schools. And that was when I realized that I had been wrong all along.
Reading the material that I read, it dawned upon me that the more orthodox of the two methodologies was NOT, in fact, my current one. Rather, it was quite clear that the other system was older, and that mine was but a cheap attempt at imitation. It was also clear to me that my own system, unlike the other one, was full of mistakes – mistakes that I had tried to ignore or brush aside, but existed nonetheless. The other system attracted all the high-profile converts; surely there was a reason for this?
In the end of the day, the evidence spoke for itself. I decided to cast aside my old prejudices, and at least try the new methodology for a while. Until one experiences certain ‘realities’, book knowledge alone will never be sufficient. So, gathering whatever courage I could, I went ahead and took the plunge. For a full week, I immersed myself in a new and fascinating world. I discovered matters that cannot even be expressed in words. The simplicity, elegance and profundity of it all truly blew me away. It was, in all senses of the term, a truly mystical experience compared to my previous ones.
That week is over now, and I cannot remain quite any longer. I too have converted, and this conversion must be made public. This is the truth, and it shall set me free.
I hereby renounce any affiliations I previously had with the PC, and am now a die-hard Mac fan.” (end of Y. Qadhi’s post)
Is it just me or do you also feel a sense of frustration after reading the post? Yasir’s joke that he certainly thinks is funny is an inconsiderate and wasteful exercise to any sensible Muslim. It behooves one to wonder why Yasir thought it was worth his or anyone else’s time. It brings absolutely no benefit to our salvation whatsoever.
Yasir Qadhi should reflect on what the Qur’an says:
“O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger, and make not vain your deeds! Qur’an” (47:33)
Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said,
“Lose no time to do good deeds before you are caught up by one of seven calamities awaiting you: a starvation which may impair your wisdom; a prosperity which may mislead you; an ailment which may damage your health; an old age which may harm your senses; a sudden death; the Dajjal (Antichrist); or Doomsday, which is indeed the hardest and most bitter.” (at-Tirmidhi, al-Baihaqi)
Unfortunately in this regard Yasir makes a poor example to those who see him as their guide. This is reflected in the 300+ responses by commentators to his article who, by and large, supported this unIslamic way of behaving. The reader is highly encouraged to skim through the comments to read the strange nature of these responses:
This shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Muslims are being influenced negatively by articles written and promoted by Yasir and his colleagues on Muslim Matters. Contary to some who call Muslim Matters an “intelligent blog”, it is in fact contributing to dumbing down our brothers and sisters.
It is best not to waste one’s valuable time with the articles and misplaced da’wa of self-proclaimed “scholars” in Muslim Matters. They are not true representatives of Sunni Islam and do not follow the way of the vast majority of Sunnis. Time and again they contradict the four madhahib of Sunni jurisprudence and the Ash’ari-Maturidi-Athari understanding of creed.
May Allah protect us from scholars of waste and heterodoxy, and make us follow the pristine `ulema whose words truly reflect the piety and humility that mirror the example of the best of creations, Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him abundantly and grant him peace).
–YASIR QADHI’S BOOK: “A CRITICAL STUDY OF SHIRK”-
~ AL-MAGHRIB INSTITUTE 'WATCH' ~ 
