MuhammedAli

Discussion Over Good/Evil Sunnah Hadith And Matters Which Branched From It.

2 posts in this topic

Introduction:

Originally my plan was to target the key points of discussion regarding the Hadith of; whoever introduces good/evil Sunnah in Islam. I didn’t want to chase these issues down to their logical ends in discussion and even in the first article solely because they undermine the integrity/standing of Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) with his Peer and people sitting. It has been practice of Sufia to lead a Talib/Seeker to door of guidance and allow the Talib to realize where he has been brought and give him the decision to enter it on his own accord. My objective never was to debate but to educate and best way education is without humiliation and embrassing. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) considered himself to be my equale and wanted to DEBATE as an equale. And I saw Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) nothing more then misguided seeker and needing guidance and better understanding of Deen. As such point attempt was made to educate through questions and answers by slowly nudging and prodding Shaykh (hadfidha-ullah) toward making him realize his error. Hope was if there is enough respect from Shaykh for me it would be settled within half an hour like it was sorted with mini-Shaykh (hafidha-ullah), a day before our discussion. But lack of respect for prophetic teaching and elders got in the way. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Ibn Abbas narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: "He is not one of us who does not have mercy upon our young, respect our elders, and command good and forbid evil." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B1, H1921] And where Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) gave bit of respect as mini-Shaykh pointed out he gained the goodness through it at the end of discussion. Anyhow after much thinking I have decided there were many things said by Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) which need to be checked because they are heretical and silence upon them will only strengthen heresy. Originally I felt silence was better and let the issues die and people will forget all the misguidance of Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) especially on the issues which none disputes. There has been this nagging thought in my mind that I initiated the discussion and even if one person take his misguidance then I am responsible. Therefore I will address all he said that was incorrect or atleast all the misguidance of his I can recall. My objective is not to embrass the Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) rather to perserve the true teaching of Islam and refute the distortions. And I pray to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) that Shayh (hafidha-ullah) sees errors of his way and repents. I devoted then and I devote my time now as an act of mercy/compassion for young Shaykh (hafidha-ullah). I see where his misguidance will take him and the most compassionate/merciful act I can do for Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) is spend my time pointing out his errors so he repents and adopts what is right. It would be cruel and heartless thing to do to not to strive for his guidance when I have the knowledge and time to invest. And sign of righteous Muslim is that he desires for his brothers what he desires for himself and I desire nothingless then guidance for all and myself. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: Religion is Naseehah (i.e. sincerity/advice, or sincere advice). And this article is nothing more then sinere and genuine effort for Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) to realize his errors and repent. How our Shaykh (hafidha-ulla) takes it is entirely up to him. My reward is with my Lord and ultimately all is for His pleasure and defence of His Deen.

Siwak, Muswak Is Part Of Deen:

During our discussion Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) said Mawlid is innovation in deen it is misguidance. And when it was told that everything is part of Deen. He resorted to and said; x, y, z are not part of Deen. Call it tactical move or genuine issue of lack of knowledge. Tactical move meant he was able to say Siwak is not part of Deen. And this was a shocking statement because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) repeated instructed the companions to use Siwak:
“It was narrated that Hudhaifah said: "We were commanded to use the siwak when we got up to pray at night." [Ref: Nisai, B20, H1624] “Narrated Anas: Allah's Messenger said, "I have told you repeatedly to use the Siwak.” [Ref: Bukhari, B13, H13] “Abu Ayyub narrated that:The Messenger of Allah said: "Four are from the Sunan of the Messengers: Al-Hayat, using Attar, the Siwak, and marriage." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B6, H1080] Can a believer imagine Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) put extra emphasis on something which is not Deen. And a Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) who is living Tafsir of Quran and the best of examples and a Nabi who speaks Wahi (i.e. revelation) that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) extra emphasis on something which is not Deen and using it regularly himself: “Your companion has neither gone astray nor has erred. Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only a Revelation revealed.” [Ref: 53:62] There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.” [Ref: 33:21] And Hadith states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was walking/living Tafsir of Quran then how can his Siwak usage not be part of Deen! May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) give Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) taufeeq for repentance, ameen.

Everything Is Part Of Islam Or Not:

The reason why Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) said Siwak is not part of Deen is because he was asked you say we should practice prophetic Sunnah and leave what is permissible (i.e. Mawlid). Yet you yourself leave the prophetic Sunnah of Siwak and you use tooth paste/brush. Having no place to hide he said; Siwak is not part of Deen therefore the use of tooth paste/brush is not a problem. We already established that Siwak is part of Deen. Hadith of Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was living Quran. Which naturally would mean everything Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was connected with Deen. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud said, “Verily, Allah looked at the hearts of the servants and He found that the heart of Muhammad, was the best among them, so He choose him for Himself and He sent him with His message. Then He looked at the hearts of His servants after Muhammad, and He found that the hearts of his companions were the best among them. Thus He made them into the ministers of His Prophet, fighting for the sake of His religion. And whatever the Muslims view as good is good in the sight of Allah, and whatever they view as evil is evil in the sight of Allah. And the Companions unanimously chose to take Abû Bakr – Allâh be pleased with him – as the successor (to lead the Muslims after the Prophet).” [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Mukthireen, Ibn Mas’ud, H3589] In other words whatever innovated matter the Fitrah of [majority of] Muslims deems good is good in sight of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And whatever innovated matter the [majority of] Muslims consider to be evil is in sight of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). How can what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) deems good/evil is not part of Deen of Islam! Is he not the legislator of religion! Here the only difference is that his judgement becomes apparent via understanding of majority of Muslims. Note even though the above Hadith did not say majority but majority is to be understood due to the following: “One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyyah.[Ref: Muslims, B20, H4559] “I heard the Messenger of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.[Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1, B36, H3950] “Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that,"Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghaffari, Hadith 20776] So understanding of majority is guidance and what the majority see good/evil it is good/evil in judgment of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And what He sees good/evil is religion even though its not directly established from Quran/Hadith.

Kissing The Four Corners Of Kabah:

Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) attributed Hadith to Sahih of Imam Bukhari. He said Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) kissed four corners of Kabah and Umar Ibn al-Khattab (radiallah ta’ala anhu) rebuked him for going against prophetic Sunnah and for introducing an innovation into religion. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) also said; Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) stopped his practice. I have not found this Hadith any where in Sahih al-Bukhari but in Musnad of Imam Ahmad (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala): "Ibn Abbas said he did tawaf of Baytullah with Muawiyah. Muawiyah kissed all the corners of the Kabah. Ibn Abbas said: Why are you kissing these corners when Prophet did not kissed? Muawiyah replied: Nothing in Baytullah should be left. Ibn Abbas replied The life of Prophet is best moral for you. Muawiyah said: You are truthful." [Ref: Msnd Imam Ahmad, H1880] And the grading of Hadith is questionable; Hassan li-ghayrihi (i.e. good due to others). Implications of which is; Hadith itself is weak but others contribute and make it Hassan (i.e. good). Also it was pointed out Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) abandoned the practice, if he did, then it was because prophetic Sunnah is better/superior. Which precisely argument of Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is. In other words Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) didn’t object to it due to it being innovation but due to a superior/better option of prophetic Sunnah being left. Therefore even though the action of Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was permissible it was not Sunnah.

Ijtihad Point Not Made In Discussion:

In the starting of discussion with Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) issue of Ijtihad of Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) came up. And objective was to use it to prove innovation in Deen is permissible but point got tangled and subject changed due to details branching off to new discussions. Even though there are tons of points that can be made and were made during discussion but I want to make the point of Ijtihad in here because it never made. It would have only taken thirty second with a sincere person but it couldn’t be made in two hours of discussion due to insincerity and lack of co-operation from opposition. Even though what I wanted to say would have been means of his guidance Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) proved to be his own worst enemy. And Shaykh (hadfidha-ullah) tried to debate where as my objective was to educate without humiliation and causing embrassment to him in presence of his peers.

Issue Of Ijtihad And Its Reality:

Prophetic teachings are part of Islam and what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed in Quran is already part of Islam. Ijtihad is done on issues which are not teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Quran and what is not already prophetic Sunnah. Therefore Ijtihad is way of introducing innovation into teaching of Islam. If Ijtihad is invalid [Mujtahid will get no sin] then Ijtihad of Mujtahid erroneous [Ijtihadi] innovation. And if Ijtihad of Mujtahid is valid then by default then Mujtahid’s Ijtihad is correct/good [Ijtihadi] innovation in Islam. In this light Ijtihad of Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was innovation. Not getting involved in, if it was valid/invalid, point is his Ijtihad establishes he believed innovations can be introduced. Note if we say no innovation can be made into Islam then teaching of Ijtihad fundamentally would contradict with every innovation is misguidance. Ijtihad teaches introducing innovation and if literalism of; every innovation is misguidance isn’t restricted then Ijtihadi innovations are misguidance as well. In other words two teaching of Prophet (sallallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) contradict. And rule is when there is ambiguity follow what is clear and emphatic and leave what is ambiguous for rasikhoon fil-ilm (i.e. people of understanding) to interpret the ambigous. Ijtihad and its teaching are clear. Ambiguity is in Hadith of; every innovation is misguidance. Note Muslims and Wahhabis/Salafis believe in Ijtihad our understanding of innovation perfectly compliments Ijtihad because we Muslims believe; good/valid innovations via Ijtihad can be made part of Islam. The understanding of Wahhabis/Salafis on subject of innovation [because they believe there can no innovation] contradict with teaching of Ijtihad [because it teaches there has to be innovation]. Therefore those who oppose the Muslims should fear Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and instead of arguing with Muslims should attempt to reconcile the contradiction within their own belief. If they feel their understanding on subject of innovation is correct than they should argue with Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for underminding them by teaching of Ijtihad.

Discussion On Haram And Halal And Mawlid:

Sometime in the beginning of discussion with Shaykh (hafidha-ullah). He said Mawlid is an innovation and therefore not permissible. Islamic position was it is permissible because nothing HARAM in it and in support of Islamic understanding following Ahadith were quoted: “It was narrated that Salman Al-Farisi said: “The Messenger of Allah was asked about ghee, cheese and wild donkeys. He said: ‘What is lawful is that which Allah has permitted, in His Book and what is unlawful is that which Allah has forbidden in His Book. What He remained silent about is what is pardoned.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B29, H3367] “Allah has prescribed certain obligations for you, so do not neglect them; He has defined certain limits, so do not transgress them; He has prohibited certain things do do not do them; and He has kept silent concerning about other things out of mercy for you, and not because of forgetfulness, so do not ask questions concerning them. [Ref: Sunan Darqutni, Vol2, Page137] What Allah has made lawful in His Book is halal and what He has forbidden is haram, and that concerning which He is silent is allowed as His favor. So accept from Allah His favor, for Allah is not forgetful of anything. He then recited, "And thy Lord is not forgetful." [Ref: Musnad Al Bazzar] To establish permissibility in the light of Ahadith it was pointed out Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are silent (i.e. not declared Haram or Halal) on Mawlid therefore it can be celebrated because there is no sin for it. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) presented the following Hadith to undermine what I stated: “What is lawful is evident and what is unlawful is evident, and in between them are the things doubtful which many people do not know. So he who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and honour blameless, and he who indulges in doubtful things is liable to indulge in unlawful things, just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a reserve will soon pasture them in it. [Ref: Bukhari, B10, H3882] Focus of discussion changed because trying to establish detail of Hadith of Bukhari and I was unable to point out so here it goes: Mawlid is not doubtful because it is composed of all that it permissible and good of Islam. Mutashabihat mentioned in the Hadith of Bukhari are those modern inventions and some old regarding which have no specific injunction of Haram/Halal in in Quran and Sunnah i.e. eating elephant, prawns and modern sexual fads. All aspects which make up Mawlid are from prophetic Sunnah. Walking, talking, smiling, food, zikr, Quran recitation, religious sermons, giving charity, flags, and marches are all from prophetic Sunnah. Hence nothing in it is doubtful in it. And to refute permissibility of Mawlid through the Hadith of Mutashabihat is proof that Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) has very shallow understanding of texts he has read.

Wahhabi And Sunni Way Of Establish Permissibility:

When Muslims and Wahhabis/Salafis dispute over on permissibility of a practice typical Wahhabi/Salafi tactic is to demand evidence from prophetic Sunnah. Their argument goes something like this; prove Mawlid from Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The fact is permissibility of a practice is not dependent upon practice being prophetic Sunnah. Rather if parts of a practice are from prophetic Sunnah even if the wholistically the practice isn’t prophetic Sunnah then practice is permissible. Suppose there is a practice called Mehfil. In practice of Mehfil people gather they all recite Surah each, perform 4 Nawafil, are fasting, they all give charity to poor, they all give food to poor persons, and they all gift clothes to poor people, and they all clean the Masjid, they learn about Tawheed, Ibadah, Shirk, Biddah, etc and all strive to bring one new person every week on Mehfil day so new person can do good deeds and get reward. Even though this practice of Mehfil is not prophetic Sunnah but it is composed of all that is Islamic and prophetic Sunnahs. Therefore it doesn’t come into category of Mutashabihat (i.e. doubtful). Permissibility is judged via parts and not by whole. In other words when the Muftis of Islam judge something which has not been adressed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or by His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) they see if the juzz (i.e. parts) of it are from Sunnah. And if a practice is established via parts as from prophetic Sunnahs then it is deemed permissible because its parts are from prophetic Sunnah even though the whole practice itself is not prophetic Sunnah.

Permissible Is Fine But Sunnah Is Better:

Earlier with in the discussion point was made that prophetic Sunnah is best but non-prophetic practices are permissible and there is reward for them. We came to agreement on part of it but Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) contiued to say; then act of Sunnah. It was pointed to him that if Sunnah is better then why do you use tooth brush and tooth paste? His best fall back was because it is not part of Deen. Later on he himself acnowledged everything is connected with Deen and therefore Deen but few minutes later went back on his words. Near the end Shaykh al-Akbar forced him to agree with everything being part of Deen. In other words Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) agrees tooth paste and brush are part of Deen. The question is; Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) why do you leave the Awla/superior for innovation of infidels of West? OK! Point of lizard eating came into discussion some how but I will connect it here. Hadith records:
“It was narrated from Khalid bin Walid that a grilled mastigure was brought to the Messenger of Allah and placed near him. He stretched out his hand to eat (some of it), then those who were present said: “O Messenger of Allah, it is the flesh of a mastigure.” He took his hand away, and Khalid said to him: “O Messenger of Allah, is a mastigure unlawful?” He said: “No, but it is not found in my land and I find it distasteful.” He said: “Then Khalid bent over the mastigure and ate some of it, and the Messenger of Allah was looking at him.” [Ref: Bukhari, B28, H3241] “Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet said: "I do not eat mastigure, but I do not prohibit its eating." [Ref: Bukhari, B67, H444] Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was and is surely best and superior no doubt. But despite this Khalid Bin Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did what was permissible and did not act on prophetic Sunnah. This proves even though Sunnah is superior but one engages in what is permissible without incurring blame. Now if the prophetic Sunnah was the only way to achieve success in here after then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have prevented Khalid Bin Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) but he allowed him to engage in what is halal without objection. Yet the Salafis/Wahhabis object to all that is HALAL in various innovated practices by Muslims. In fact it is recorded in Ahadith that a companion altered the Tasbih of Salah: “One day we were praying behind the Prophet. When he raised his head from bowing, he said, "Sami`al-lahu liman hamidah." A man behind him said, "Rabbana wa laka l-hamdu, hamdan kathiran taiyiban mubarakan fihi" When the Prophet completed the prayer, he asked, "Who has said these words?" The man replied, "I." The Prophet said, "I saw over thirty angels competing to write it first." Prophet rose (from bowing) and stood straight till all the vertebrae of his spinal column came to a natural position.” [Ref: Bukhari, B12, H764] Normally the Imam would say; sami al-lahu liman hamidah. And the Muqtadi’s (i.e. performing Salah behind Imam i.e. follower) response would be; rabbana wa lakal hamd. Companion changed the prophetic Sunnah not just silently but loudly which even the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) heard. Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is surely the best and superior to all but companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) introduced an innovation which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) loved and the angels loved also. The Nabi of mercy was alive can you imagine if that happened if the Wahhabis were in the Masjid. They would have killed that companion by just telling him, qullu biddatan dhalalah, qullu biddatan dhalalah. But the Nabi of mercy (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was alive and well. Who had the more right to tell the companion that; qullu biddatan dhalalah, Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) or Nabi Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? But he didn’t. If the companions and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) were following understanding of innovation which the Wahhabis/Salafis follow then what would have happened? It didn’t happen because they didn’t follow Wahhabi/Salafi understanding of Biddah. If companions had, then companion wouldn’t have innovated, other companions wouldn’t have remained silent, the angels would have been upset/angry, and the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have been angry with the companion. This wasn’t the case then question is: What does that prove? That Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and companions were following Salafi/Wahhabi understanding of innovation? Does this incident not prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), his companions, angels, and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) taught the methodology of innovation which is now held by Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah i.e. Barelwi? Leaving this aside; we agree prophetic Sunnah is better then everything yet the companion innovated. Note his innovation wasn’t out side of Deen. He altered Tasbih of Salah which would be innovation in Deen even according to Wahhabi/Salafi understanding. So what basis did the companions added his Tasbih into Deen? Let me answer it with the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “He who introduced some good Sunnah (i.e. practice, way, tradition, precedent) in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] He made Ijtihad and via which introduced a good innovation/practice into Deen. One thing is clear that it was good innovated Sunnah of companion but Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) approved of it and therefore it became a prophetic Sunnah. This refutes notion that Xpractice has to be prophetic Fehli Sunnah (i.e. Prophet’s Sunnah in action) or Qawli Sunnah (i.e. Prophet’s Sunnah in speech) for it to be permissible. It also sheds light on Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) issue. For sake of argument if lets suppose Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed there can be no innovation with regards to what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did i.e. kissed two corners. This incident of changing the Tasbih and adding to it in presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) establishes Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was wrong because innovation was made in his presence and he approved of it. But the fact was made clear even during our discussion; Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) argued his point from perspective of prophetic Sunnah being superior to Ijtihad.

Sunnah Taraweeh And Innovation In Taraweeh:

When Hadith of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) saying; Taraweeh was excellent innovation. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) said he said this in linguistic sense because Taraweeh was prophetic Sunnah. There is no denial Taraweeh was/is prophetic Sunnah but for only three days. He then out of mercy abandoned it. To abandon Taraweeh was better because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) abandoned it after three days. Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) revived a Sunnah which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) abandoned. Note he wasn’t reviving a forgotten Sunnah he was reviving a abandoned Sunnah. Forgotten can be revived because it was not suppose to be forgotten. Abandoned can’t be revived cause Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) didn’t want to practice it. So reviving that was innovation but if someone wants to argue I can let that go. Three day Taraweeh was prophetic Sunnah but 26/27 additional days wasn’t so he innovated into Taraweeh. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) could not have read entire Quran in three days during Taraweehs in our Taraweehs entire Qurans are finished which is innovation number two. It would only be linguistic innovation if nothing of Sunnah was altered. I mean he revived Taraweeh of three days and he said its excellent innovation. If this was the case then no innovation would be made into prophetic Sunnah and statement would have been understood in linguistic sense. Abdullah says: Surah Ikhlas is excellent innovation. We know Abdullah believes its part of Quran and revealed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). We interpret his statement in light of his belief and come to conclusion his statement only means revelation of Surah Ikhlas was excellent new Surah. Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) added extra 26/27 days to Taraweeh, and entire Quran is recited in it, yet it is still linguistic innovation.

Linguistic Innovation And Its Reality And Correct Understanding:

Following discussion would be according to Hanbali/Wahhabi definition of innovation. So Shar’ri innovation should be interpreted to mean evil [shar’ri] innovation from Sunni definition perspective. I believe Hajj is part of Islam. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed it and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught it. I say: Hajj is innovation. Did I mean Hajj is linguistic innovation or Shar’ri innovation? My saying Hajj is innovation is linguistic sense because in Shar’ri sense I don’t believe it is innovation because for it to be Shar’ri innovation I have to believe it is not prophetic Sunnah and it is not what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) commanded in His Book. Suppose I believe Hajjd is innovation but also believe neither Allah nor His Messenger instructed it but it was innovated in 3rd century. Now if I say Hajj is innovation. Have I made the shar’ri judgment or not? You would be right Shar’ri judgment because Hajj is form of worship not legislated from my perspective. Similarly Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) knew very well that what he has issued is not linguistic innovation it was Sunnah for three days but he innovated entire month Taraweeh and entire and more Quran is recited in it. And his statement is in accordance with Hadith of Good Sunnah in Islam:
“He who introduced some good Sunnah (i.e. practice, way, tradition, precedent) in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466]

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following Addition Has Been Made.
-----------------------------------------------

What Is Part Of Islam And What Is Not Part Of Islam:


Shaykh believes certain prophetic Sunan including Siwak/Miswak are not part of Deen. Yesterday I was sitting down and thinking: Imam Bukhari (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) collected over around ten thousand Ahadith and so did many other Muhadditheen. Why would Imam Bukhari (rahimullah) travel throughout Islamic world to learn Ahadith and record them in His collection. Picture this: I know Yoga has nothing to do with Islam but I walk it, camel it, horse it, all the way to India to learn Yoga so I can write a manual of Yoga in FIQH section of my book and make it part of my TAFSIR of Quran. Can you imagine a sane individual doing this? Why would Imam Bukhari (rahimullah) labour so pains takingly traveling all over the Islamic world to gather … verify … write … teach … something which was not part of Islam?  Its obvious Imam Bukhari (rahimullah) and Imam Muslim (rahimullah) and all the Muhaditheen were crazy and our Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) knows the true Islam. That was sarcasm. Our Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) is reviver of Islam. Again: Sarcasm! Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) follows simple rule; whenever caught out, say its not part of Islam, cite your self as proof of your position. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) is upon this methodology: We follow the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Salaf; the pious predecessors. But when a Muslim says; Jihad is part of Islam and prophetic Sunnah is to take part in Jihad with sword, spear, shield, horse, camel etc … therefore AK47, RPG, Grenades, are innovation and not way of Salaf and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Then say: Weapons are not part of Islam therefore AK47 is fine. O Muslims reason with them: Salah is part of Islam and the method was taught by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Jihad is part of Islam and method and the equipment to be used in it were taught by him through his example and example of his companions. If method is not part of Deen then Ruku, Sujud, Qiyam, etc … are not part of Salah and not part of Islam. Also where do you draw line in something not being part of Islam and being part of Islam. Islam was perfected and completed. So where did Allah or his Prophet give us a teaching/rule via which we can judge something to be part of Islam and not part of Islam. Clearly if something was part of Islam and other was not part of Islam then wasn’t it important for Allah and His Messenger to define boundary. What if I say Qiyam is Salah is not part of Islam/Salah. How do we judge if it is part of Islam/Salah or not? There is no such instruction because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions, Imam Bukhari, and other Muhaditheen, never distinguished between prophetic Sunnah being Islam and not Islam. There is not a single scholar who ever took a prophetic Sunnah and said this is not Islam. Our Shaykh (hadfidha-ullah) is minion of Iblees and spawn from group of Satan of Najd (i.e. Khawarij) and he like his kind will continue to undermine the unity and agreements - Ijmah - of Ummah like his ancestors.

Shaykh’s Objection To My Usage Of Word Sunnah:

During discussion whenever I quoted the Hadith of Good Sunnah (i.e. practice) the word Sunnah was used in original language instead of its English quivlent i.e. practice, precedent, tradition. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) continously interferred and questioned usage of word Sunnah while I quoted the Hadith. In past during my discussions when I used the word practice instead of Sunnah. The idiots argued O you were being deceptive by using word practice when in reality it says Sunnah and they argued O it means prophetic Sunnah. So experience taught me to anounce the actual word so there is no arguing over what word is being used. Its one less point to argue over if word Sunnah is anounced while quoting the Hadith. Little did I know there are idiots I was yet to encounter. After his consistent pestering I switched to practice instead of Sunnah. But Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) had another plan.

Shaykh Uses Sunnah To Mean Action:

Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) originally wanted me to use practice and I did. Realizing that Shaykh (hadfidha-ullah) had no reason to betty bicker he thought of novel way: He said Sunnah means action. Anyone who knows Arabic knows Sunnah does not mean action but amal means action. The reason Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) resorted to this was because Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) wanted to limit/restrict the application of word Sunnah to action of companion who gave bag of silver as Sadaqah. And if one takes it to mean; whoever introdcues good action in Islam … even then nothing of Islamic belief would be refuted because then good action being introduced into Islam would be innovated good action could not have been part of Islam. And this too establish that there is rewared for innovated good actions in Islam even though if the actions are not part of Islam already. Coming to meaning of Sunnah. Sunnah has been used for a single action such as smile of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). As well as multiple actions, four Rakat Sunnat Salah/Namaz is Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) yet it is composed of many actions. It is absolutely fine to apply Sunnah upon a action but to say it means action isn’t because the generality of Sunnah will be negated then with action. Better fit would be plural form i.e. actions but that would be wrong because Sunnah is singular and Sunan is plural. It would be wrong to translate a singular (i.e. Sunnah) to a plural (i.e. actions). Shaykh tried to distort the natural meaning of Hadith to perserve his heretical and Wahhabi beliefs but batil will never be victorious over Islam.


Significance Of Sunnah Meaning Practice V.S. Action:

By distorting the word Sunnah to mean action Shaykh’s (hafidha-ullah) primary objective was to restrict the prophetic statement into the context but it also worked for his position in another way. I cannot say with hundered percent confidence that Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) thought of this but it is something which could have gone through his mind. Mawlid and various innovated innovated good Sunnahs are amalgamation of prophetic actions/Sunan. By translating it to mean action Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) would be underhandedly preventing its application innovated good Sunnahs such as Mawlid, Geeyarweenh, and other practices because all are fusion of acts of worship, charity, education, etc. This seems to be very real motive why Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) would go to lengths to distort the meaning of Sunnah to mean action.

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.