Contents 1
Introduction
5
2
Defining the Parameters of Islām
6
3
A Tripartite Critique
9
4
Shaykh Būṭī on the Miracles of the Awliyā and Their Beatific Vision of The Best of Creation ﷺWhile Awake
9
5
Shaykh Būṭī on Facing The Best of Creation ﷺWhile Supplicating
15
6
Shaykh Būṭī Regarding The Noble Parents Ι of The Best of Creation ﷺ
17
7
Conclusion
22
1
The Opening الحمد ل ه رب العالمين و صلى ال ه على سيدنا محمد خاتم النبين و اِمام المرسلين و على آله و صحبه أَ جمعين “Among the temptations for the scholar is that speech becomes more beloved to him than attentively listening. Speech allows for eloquent expression and superfluous embellishment, and leaves the speaker susceptible to error; whereas in thoughtful silence, there is integrity and knowledge. Some scholars hoard their knowledge; they love not that it be found with other scholars. Such a scholar is destined for the first level of the fire. Other scholars take their knowledge as though they were the ruler; so that, should anyone contradict him in any aspect of his knowledge or take his standing [as a scholar] lightly he becomes incensed. Such people are destined for the second level of the fire. Still, other scholars deem their knowledge and erudition suitable only for the noble and affluent; they do not regard the people of need worthy of it. These are destined for the third level of the fire. Some scholars make themselves legal advisers and proceed to issue faulty rulings; God loathes those who feign roles for they are not suited. These scholars are destined for the fourth level of the fire. Then other scholars employ the terminology of the Jews and Christians in their discourse, in order to enhance their knowledge. These are destined for the fifth level of the fire. Then there are the scholars who take their knowledge as a trait of chivalry, prestige, and standing among the people. Such people are destined for the sixth level of the fire. Some scholars are overcome with arrogance and vanity, so when they admonish others, they respond with disdain. These are in the seventh level of the fire. Hold fast to silence! For by it you will overcome Satan. Beware, lest you laugh when there is nothing to be amused about, and do not set off without a destination in mind.” Qut al-Qulūb, on the authority of Sayyidunā Muʿādh Ibn Jabal Ζ [Iḥyā ʿUlūm ul-Dīn]
2
This short work aims to tackle the false notions levelled at Shaykh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī Ζ which have appeared in an article entitled, ‘The Parameters of Sunnī Islām’, authored by Mufti Wajid Iqbal. Despite numerous attempts for a dialogue to discuss the contents of his article, I did not receive a reply after the initial pleasantries, so I hope this article will clarify the contentions I have with his statements. Allāh Α allow us to remain objective. Āmīn.
3
Shaykh Ramaḍān al- Būṭī Ζ Lovingly remembered as ‘the Shaykh of the Levant’, was martyred on the 21st March 2013 in Damascus whilst delivering a dars from The Noble Qur’ān. Thousands witnessed his funeral in the city of Damascus, and he was finally laid to rest next to Sulṭān Salāh ul-Dīn Ζ. Shaykh Ramaḍān will always be remembered as a righteous man of Allāh Α. A scrupulous individual, who diligently served this pure religion. [1929 - 2013]
4
1
Introduction
A recent surge of attacks levelled against Shaykh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī and a number of malignant attempts to tarnish his reputation have ultimately provoked a retaliatory response. Initially, he was accused of rejecting the beatific vision of the Messenger of Allāh Β while in a wakeful state, and since then, a torrent of unwarranted accusations have been spewed at him creating a huge rift amongst the Sunnī public in the UK, throwing them further into disarray. These dogged notions and erroneous claims have now filtered down the pyramid and are being parroted by the common folk who have absolutely no idea who Shaykh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī was, nor of his contributions to Sunnī Islam. If these issues were truly contentious, Shaykh Ramaḍān was willing to sit and have a dialogue with any of his contemporaries. During his life, a legal verdict [fatwa] permitting the use of pornography was falsely ascribed to him. In response to this he said: “… I have found over there, blatant, foolish, and intended [statements]. I know them, and they know me, yet they did not challenge me, and neither did they ask me. Rather, they spread this matter amongst the common folk, for this very purpose [to discredit him] ….” Islam demands sincerity on the part of Muslims and exhorts them to preach the divine message with gracious conduct. In Surah al- Nahl, Allāh Α states: ْ ِ ك ب ِالْح ِ كمَة ِ و َال ْمَوْعِظَة ِ الْحَسَنَة َ ِّ ل ر َب ِ ا ُ ْدع ُ ِإلَى ٰ سَب ِي Call people to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation.1 The Messenger of Allāh Β is reported to have said: و لأَ ئِمة المسلمين و عا َمّتِهم, و لرسوله, و لكتابه, ل ه: قلنا لمن يا رسول ال ه؟ قال:الدين النصيحة The religion is sincerity. We [the Companions] asked: ‘for whom O’ Messenger of Allāh? He said: ‘[sincerity] towards Allāh, His book, His Messenger, the leaders of the Muslims, and their common folk.2
1 2
Surah al- Nahl, v. 125. Saḥīḥ Muslim, on the authority of Sayyidunā Tamīm Ibn Aws al-Dārī Ζ.
5
Commenting on this ḥadīth, Ibn Ḥajr al- Makkī Ζ [d. 974] writes: من وعظ: حتى قال بعضهم, وعظوه س َرّا...ٍو كان السلف اِذا أرادوا نصيحة أَ حد َ فأ َِن ّما... و منْ وعظه على رؤوس الناس, فهي نصيحة...أَ خاه سرا .وبّ خه Whenever the predecessors intended to advise a person, they would admonish him in private. Some of them said: ‘sincerity is when a person admonishes his brother in private. The one who does so publicly has undoubtedly rebuked him.’3 Al-Fuḍayl Ζ is reported to have said: و الفاجر يهتك و يعير,المؤمن يستر و ينصح The believer shields and advises [his brother], whereas the shameless one disgraces and censures him.4 Al- Dimyātī writes: ... و تَعْظِي ْمهم,الظن بِه ِم و نشر مناقبهم و اِحْ سان ِّ … and to publicize their virtues (the scholars), as well as thinking well of them and honouring them…
2
Defining the Parameters of Islām
For a Muslim, true faith is the greatest treasure he possesses. A Muslim guards and preserves his faith with his life. In the past, upright scholars immediately dispelled heretical notions which attempted to violate the sanctity of faith by rejecting some of its foundational tenets. The upright refuted heresies lest they sow doubts in the minds of Muslims and cause the removal of faith from their hearts. It is for this very reason, Abū Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī and Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī Ι are considered the foremost authorities of Sunnī creed. Both of these illustrious Imāms came during bleak times and worked tirelessly to eradicate the dogma of the Muʿtazila and other deviant sects. Imām Ashʿarī and Imām Māturīdī were the means of the revival of Islām, and so their names became etched into the hearts of every valiant Muslim. 3 4
Al-Fatḥ ul-Mubīn Ibid.
6
Years before this, the Imām of the Ahl ul-Sunnah, Imām Aḥmad Ibn Hanbal Ζ was ready to sacrifice his life to preserve the correct creed regarding the Divine Speech of Allāh Α. As a consequence, he was imprisoned and savagely beaten causing him to suffer from chronic pains for the remainder of his life. These righteous Imāms defined the parameters of Sunnī Islam, and the likes of alGhazzālī, al-Subkī, al-Rāzī, al-Sanūssī, and Ālahazrat traversed their path of dedication in preserving the Muslim creed and in eradicating abhorrent notions. Addressing Sayyid Muḥammad Ibn ʿAlawī al-Mālikī, Sayyid Makkī al-Kattānī said: “if you did not take a stand, we would have all been punished!” The former spent his life defending the beliefs of Ahl ul-Sunnah, for which he was placed under house arrest by the SaudiWahhābī government for some years of his life. Today, Muslims are facing serious issues regarding creed, which has left the faith of many hanging by a thread. To make matters worse, the perpetrators have changed their attire and are not as conspicuous as they were before. Moreover, the caliber of scholarship has drastically declined resulting in a huge void. Rather than tackling said issues head-on, many have embroiled themselves in secondary and tertiary issues for the sake of partisanship. To illustrate this point, and before commencing a critique of the main body of Mufti Wajid’s article, I would like to bring the reader’s attention to the following passage extracted from the introduction: Despite other commitments, I thoroughly read a range of works authored by Shaykh Ramadān and listened to some of his recorded lectures. Contrary to what I expected, I was shocked by some of his remarks that clearly contravened key parameters of Ahl al Sunnah. These views were unequivocally rooted in and akin to the Salafist-Deobandi methodology. So, in an attempt to dispel those notions, I decided to write this short epistle. [Emphasis added] Somebody who contravenes the parameters of Ahl al-Sunnah has ultimately transgressed the boundaries of Sunnī Islam. It may be in one or a number of issues. Mufti Wajid, it seems, does not understand the implications of such a statement, and has conflated ‘key parameters of Ahl ul-Sunnah’ with disputed (mukhtalifī) issues. To expound on this point, consider the ruling concerning Abū Ṭālib. Imam Ahmad Ridā Khān Ζ penned a comprehensive treatise entitled ‘Sharhu al-Maṭālib fī Mabhathi Abī Ṭālib’, in which he categorically rejects the notion that Abū Ṭālib embraced Islam 7
on his deathbed. This was also the view of the vast majority of scholars, including the likes of Imam al-Nawawī, Imam al-Baghawī, and Shaykh ʿAbd al-Ḥaq Θ. Despite this, Mufti Aṭā Muḥammad Bandyalwī Ζ held a contrary position, believing Abū Ṭālib to be a Muslim, as did the great Imam of Makkah, Zaynī Daḥlān Ζ. Mufti Wajid’s understanding of parameters confuses primary issues with secondary and tertiary ones. The consequent of Mufti Wajid’s methodology, when applied to the views held by Imām Bandyalwī Ζ and Imām Zaynī Dahlān Ζ, would impute an accusation of ‘views [that are] unequivocally rooted in and akin to the Shīʿah methodology’. This is an absurd conclusion to draw. Many righteous scholars of the past held positions which are considered anomalous (shādh). Case in point, Imām al-Qurṭubī, who considered Lady Maryam Η to be a prophetess. Commentating on verse 42 of Surah Āal e Imrān, he writes: َ و ِ سطَة ِ ال ْمَل َكِ كَمَا أَ ْوحَى ِإلَى سَائِر ِ الل ّه َ تَع َالَى أَ ْوحَى ِإلَيْهَا ب ِوَا ّ َ َ ل ِأ،ٌ ن م َْر ي َم َ نَب َِي ّة ّ َ َح أ ُ َالصّ حِي َ ن
َ َالن ّب ِيِّين The correct position is that Sayyidah Maryam was a prophetess, because Allāh sent revelation to her by means of the angel like He did with every other prophet.5 Elsewhere he writes: ُ سلَام ّ َ ِيس عَلَيْه ِ ال َ كوْنِهَا نَب َِي ّة ً كِ َإ ْدر َ ص ّدِيق َة ً م َ َع ِ َف َِإ َن ّه ُ يَج ُوز ُ أَ ْن تَكُون It is permissible that she was ‘siddīqa’ as well as a prophetess, much like [Sayyidunā] Idrīs Γ.6 Despite this, nobody in their right mind would suggest Imām al-Qurṭubī Ζ has ‘contravened the parameters of Ahl al-Sunnah’, since it constitutes insolence and failing to hold a good opinion about him (refer to the quote of Sayyidunā Fudayl Ζ). Many Sunnī scholars of the past made statements which did not conform to mainstream Sunnī beliefs, and although the notion would be dispelled (or interpreted in some cases), the scholar was always held in high regard. 5 6
Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, Surah Āale Imrān, v. 42. Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, Surah al-Mā’ida, v. 76
8
3
A Tripartite Critique
Shaykh Ramaḍān authored many groundbreaking works. One such work is entitled ‘Al-Lā Madhabiyya’ which highlights the necessity of adhering to the Four Schools of Islamic Law. Furthermore, Shaykh Ramaḍān is perhaps one of the only Sunnī Imāms to have debated Nāṣir ul-Dīn Albānī (the leader of the latter-day Najdī movement), on key principles of the religion. Albānī also published a work attempting to refute Shaykh Būṭī’s Fiqh ul-Sīrah.7 Many of his lectures emphasise the importance of creed, and coupled with his mastery of the Arabic language and eloquent delivery, Allāh Α guided a great deal of Muslims through him. To then suggest his methodology is akin to that of the Salafis and Deobandis is utter slander. Nonetheless, we shall critique each of the following three contentions of Mufti Wajid: I. Shaykh Būṭī denied the miracles of the Awliyā and rejected the beatific vision of the Messenger of Allāh Β while in a wakeful state. II. Shaykh Būṭī’s stance on supplicating while facing The Noble Prophet Β. III. Shaykh Būtī’s position regarding The Noble Parents of Allāh’s Messenger Β.
4
Shaykh Būṭī on the Miracles of the Awliyā and Their Beatific Vision of The Best of Creation ﷺWhile Awake
Mufti Wajid quotes the following miracle of Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī Ζ from the fatāwa of Imam Ahmad Riḍā Khān Ζ: A woman, impressed by the reputation of Shaykh Abd al-Qadir alJilani (Allāh sanctify his secrets), decided to leave her son in his care and said: ‘Take this child as your own, I renounce all rights to him. Raise him to become like you.’ The Shaykh accepted the child and started to guide him. After some time, the mother returned to see her son and found him thin and pale as he ate a crust of bread. She was angry and asked to see the Shaykh. When she was taken to the Shaykh, she found him well dressed, seated in a pleasant room, and eating a chicken. She exclaimed: ‘While 7
Difā Anil Hadīth al–Nabawī wa’l Sīrah fi’l Raddi ʿalā Jahālā til Dactūr al–Būṭī fī Kitābihī ‘Fiqh ul–Sīrah’
9
you eat your chicken, my poor son - whom I left in your care - has nothing but a piece of dry bread!’ The Shaykh placed his hand over the bones of the chicken and said: ‘In the name of Allāh - Who revives bones from dust - rise!” The chicken immediately came to life and it ran about the table saying: “There is no god but Allāh, Muhammad Β is His Messenger, and Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (Allāh sanctify his secrets) is the friend of Allāh and His Messenger Β “! Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (Allāh sanctify his secrets) then turned to the woman and said: ‘When your son is able to do as I did, he can also eat whatever he wishes.’ He then quotes Shaykh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī from his book, ‘Hādha Wālidī:’ I say to these brothers: ‘What benefits me in my religion and in rectifying my state that I incline towards a story that states Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani was served a cooked chicken. When he ate it, he gathered its scattered bones on the table and said to it ‘stand by the permission of Allāh!’ it stood immediately as a living chicken. It went flapping its wings.’ How much does this benefit me in rectifying my state and to awake me from the ignorance of the whims towards the fate that I face and in softening the heart after the hardness that veils it? I would rather incline towards his preaching and advice with sincerity, burning the heart with love of Allāh in a gathering filled with faith, a gathering on his book al-Fath al-Rabbani...Thus why should I waste time in pastime listening to a story which I do not know if it’s correct or fabricated…” He [Mufti Wajid] concludes: The sheer care and diligence taken by these erudite scholars in preserving and transmitting saintly miracles demonstrates their saliency and the importance of recounting them-a far cry from being useless or without benefit. The wonders of the saints showcase the strength of Allāh, the power he gives to his Friends due to their closeness with Him. These miracles allow a person to revive their heart by turning to Allāh in amazement and invoking His glory, whilst also paving a way for a seeker to follow in the footsteps of the saints… Regarding the second contention in which he implies denial of the beatific vision of the Messenger of Allāh Β whilst in a wakeful state, he writes: On this topic, Shaykh Ramadan al-Bouti writes in his commentary of 10
the Hikam: “…They tell me about their Shaykh seeing the Messenger of Allāh in a wakeful state and not whilst asleep; telling me of the discussions which took place between their Shaykh and the Messenger of Allāh Β and his stance on several issues and contemporary problems. What does the Shari’ah say about these people? The Shari’ah says that it is binding to punish anyone who claims to see the Messenger of Allāh Β in wakefulness. That is because no-one from the companions of Allāh’s Messenger Β, the followers [Tabi’in], or the followers of the followers [Tabi’ al-Tabi’in] claimed to see Allāh’s Messenger Β in wakefulness after his Β demise; as per Islamic History, in general or biographical accounts.” The aforementioned statement was a devastating read, primarily because it echoes the fabricated methodology adopted by modern Salafis who use the same tactic to deliberately confuse the masses; the same fallacious argument which has been refuted and dismantled by our Ulema. Mufti Wajid’s assertion now raises the question, was Shaykh Ramaḍān truly a skeptic and a critic of the miracles of the Awliyā? Was he truly an ardent critic of the Gnostics who were honoured with the beatific vision? The answer is, of course, no. Unfortunately, Mufti Wajid’s lack of research into Shaykh Būṭī’s comments evident, and the absence of scholarly due-diligence is concerning. Before returning to the actual text, let us momentarily turn our attention to a recorded clip of Shaykh Ramaḍān (published on the 10th August 2015) which has accumulated almost thirty thousand views. In the clip, Shaykh Ramaḍān categorically affirms the miracle (karāma) of the great gnostic of Allāh, Sayyidī Aḥmad al-Rifāʿī Ζ, who had the beatific vision of the Messenger of Allāh Β in a wakeful state. In a lecture, Shaykh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī says:8 You must know that the Messenger of Allāh Β returns greetings to the one who greets him, and now I will inform you of a story of Imam Ahmad al-Rifāʿī [Allāh have mercy on him], and I hope and I affirm that this story is absolutely authentic and sound. Yes, this man was a godly man, this man was undoubtedly from amongst the great friends (of Allāh) and his righteous slaves. He travelled for Ḥajj intending the sacred house 8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JV-Wfy8TGI
11
of Allāh, and then proceeded to the resting place of the Messenger of Allāh Β, and when he reached the noble abode of the Messenger of Allāh Β, he conferred prayers unto him, and said: When [I was distant], I would despatch my spirit, it would kiss the earth on my behalf as my deputy. Now, in the physical realm, I have presented myself, so stretch out your hand so that my lips may be honoured…” The [noble] Hand appeared from behind the lattice, and Ahmad al-Rifāʿī kissed it…. This is sound, and has been mass transmitted, numerous people bore witness to it. The transcription above is enough to quell the accusations levelled at Shaykh Ramaḍān, since it clarifies his stance on the beatific vision, as well as the miracles of the Awliyā. A few supplementary points to note: • In the translation provided by Mufti Wajid, nowhere does Shaykh Ramaḍān reject the miracles of the Gnostics. Rather, he questions the authenticity of the report, not knowing whether it is verified or fabricated. • To condemn Shaykh Būṭī for not knowing a miracle [of a walī] had reached mass transmission is unfair. Some scholars quote fabricated hadīth assuming it to be authentic. Surely Mufti Wajid is not giving preference to the reports of the Awliyā over the science of hadith. The subtext of his statement suggests that every scholar ought to know the grading of these miracles. • To compare any latter-day scholar to Ālahazrat when it concerns knowledge regarding Sayyidī Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī is not an equivalent comparison. Those familiar with Ālahazrat know of his unflinching love for Sulṭān ul-Awliyā to the extent that it is possible he was a specialist (mutakhasis) in this field. It raises the question, what possible motive could Shaykh Ramaḍān have had for questioning the authenticity of a report ascribed to one gnostic, when he affirms and relates a miracle of another gnostic elsewhere? As for the contention from the commentary of ‘Al-Ḥikam al-Aṭṭāiyya’, Musṭaphā Jamāl has already addressed this in an article entitled ‘The Prophetic Vision: In Defence of Shaykh Dr Sa’īd Ramaḍān al-Būṭī’. Mufti Wajid has simply reiterated the initial objection. Nonetheless, we will cite it here. Musṭaphā Jamāl writes: …Commentating on the ‘Ĥikam’ of Ibn Átā’illāh, Dr Ramađān tackles an issue largely associated with leaders of Sufi groups. Many of whom 12
claim to have seen the Prophet Β in a wakeful state. Thus, Shaykh Būṭī elucidates on the legal ramifications of such claims, he writes: فما ذا يقول الشرع في حق هولاء الناس؟ يقول الشرع في حق من يزعم َأن ّه
يج ِبُ أَ ن يُعزر َ ا َِن ّه:يرى رسول ال ه يقظة ‘What does the Sharīah say in the right of those people? The Sharīah states regarding the one who claims to have seen the Prophet [peace and blessings be upon Him] in a wakeful state: it is wajib that he be rebuked [discretional punishment]’ [vol. 1, pg. 296]. The Shaykh then makes mention of the righteous Salaf; the Companions, the Successors, and those who succeeded them. None of them ever lay claim to witnessing the Prophet Β in a wakeful state after his passing, and if anyone was deserving of this honour, it was surely these noble men and women. He then writes: و نحن لا نستدل بهذا الذي عرفناه من تاريخ السلف الصالح على أن رو ية فرسول ال ه حيّ يتمتع بحياة برزخية.رسول ال ه يقظة مستحيلة معاذ ال ه
و امكانية رو ية أهل البرزخ.متميزة عن حياة غيره من الاولياء الصالحـين .عقلا قائِماة ‘We are not inferring with this statement, something which we know from the history of the righteous predecessors - that the vision of the Messenger of Allāh Β whilst in a wakeful state is impossible, refuge is sought in Allāh!9 The Messenger of Allāh Β is alive, enjoying an afterlife which is distinct from the living of anyone other than him from the righteous friends (of Allāh Α). The possibility of witnessing the people of the afterlife (barzakh) is rationally established’. ولـكن الامكانية الع َقلية لها شئ ٌ و ادعاء وقوعها شيء آخر ‘Having said that, it being rationally possible is one thing, whilst claiming it happens is another’. بل الأربعة من ادعى هذه,ن فى العصور المفضلة الثلاثة ّ َ َن التاريخ لا يعلم أ ّ َِا و لـكنه لم يزعمها, فهى اِمّا أَ َ ّنها لم تقع أَ ْو أَ نّها ربما وقعت لبعض منهم...الرو ية , لا في مجالسة الخاصة و لا على الملأ و امام عامة الناس,لنفسه و لم يتحدث بها
9
Shaykh Būṭī categorically affirms the prophetic vision.
13
كما يفعل بعضهم اليوم ‘In history, it is not known from the three great generations, rather four, that anyone of them lay claim to this type of vision… so, either it did not occur, or it was a rare occurrence for a few of them. Despite that, a person would not make such a claim for himself, and neither would he disclose it to others, whether it was a gathering of the elect (awliyā’) or a gathering for the masses, contrary to what some people do today’. أَ ْو يرى رسول ال ه يقظة في زماننا هذا ينبغي,اذن فالذي يدعي أَ َن ّه رأى
لكان اذن, اذ لو رآه فعلا بناء على الامكان العقلي.أن يعزر لأنه كاذب
من أصلح الصالحـين و لحملته حاله المتميزة من الصلاح و الفضل و التقوى و بل لا ب ّد, على أن يصمت و لا يجلجل بهذا الامر بين الناس,القرب من ال ه
ن يزداد وجلا و ّ َ و أ,ان تحمله حاله تلك على أن لا يفتح فمه بهذا الخـبر لأَ حد
تواضعا و خوفا من ال ه عزوجل ‘Thus, the one who claims to have seen the Messenger of Allāh Β in a wakeful state in our time deserves to be reprimanded because he is a liar , even though his vision (of the Prophet) is an action which is rationally possible. Such a person would be exceptionally righteous, and this would cause him to conduct himself in such a manner which sets him apart, in terms of virtue, piety, and proximity towards Allāh, he would remain silent and not announce this matter amongst people. Rather, it is necessary that he carry himself in such a manner whereby he does not open his mouth and inform anybody of this matter, and it increases him in fear, humility and dread of Allāh, the Mighty, the Exalted’. و لماذا يحدث الشيخ مريده بمثل هذه المزاعم أو الاخبار!؟ ‘Why does the Shaykh inform his disciple of these kinds of claims and reports?!’ Shaykh Ramađān al-Būṭī quite clearly adheres to the position of mainstream Sunnī Islam, and to suggest anything contrary to this is outright slander. His concerns with modern ‘Sufi’ scholars are absolutely justified when considering the impact it has on undiscerning, naïve followers who are duped into thinking their Shaykh has reached unprecedented heights
14
and cannot possibly do any wrong. In recent times, this has become a growing problem in various parts of the Muslim world, most notably in Pakistan. In 1989, Tāhir ul-Qādrī addressed a large crowd, telling them of an absurd dream in which he saw the Prophet Β complaining about his mistreatment at the hands of the scholars of Pakistan. The Prophet, according to Tāhir, was upset because the people of Pakistan did not treat him well after having invited him. These preposterous claims were enough to lure an otherwise docile public to donate thousands, if not millions of rupees towards his organisation. Shaykh Ramađān al-Būṭī was fully aware of these charlatans, and it is ultimately these claimants of prophetic visions who display annoyance at his comments. A few further points to note: • To suggest Shaykh Būṭī is reprimanding the Awliyā who were undoubtedly honoured with these noble visions is not a fair reading of the Shaykh’s position. He affirms the account of Shaykh Aḥmad al-Rifāʿī Ζ, and suggests it is rationally possible in his commentary. • Shaykh Aḥmad al-Rifāʿī Ζ did not inform others of his account at the noble chamber, but even if he did, it could be substantiated, since many people witnessed it. Shaykh Aḥmad Ḥabbāl and Shaykh Shukrī al-Luḥafī did not inform others of their visions. If someone suggests otherwise, he needs to bring forth proof. • It is fine to suggest Shaykh Ramaḍān may have erred when he said: ‘none of the salaf ever lay claim to such a vision…’
5
Shaykh Būṭī on Facing The Best of Creation ﷺWhile Supplicating
Moving onto the second contention, Mufti Wajid writes: Shaykh Ramadan writes in Fiqh al-Sirah: “Then turn to the Qibla and move to the right slightly until you are between the grave and the first pillar. Raise your
15
hands sincerely with prayer. Do not assume there is bad etiquette in this with the messenger of Allāh ﷺor that du’a must be made facing the grave, because du’a is addressed to Allāh and so it is not permissible to associate (shirk) others in this. The best direction [to face] for making du’a to Allāh is the Qiblah. Do not pay any attention towards the many ignorant and innovating people that you see going against this…”[Emphasis added]. The aforementioned comments of the Ulema clearly and concisely prove the inaccuracy of this hasty generalisation and unfounded criticism by Shaykh Ramadan. A scholarly difference, however is acceptable in most cases, but it is not tolerable to malign and rebuke others for a practice which has been endorsed by the Ulema. Having read this initially, I wondered whether Mufti Wajid’s condemnation would extend to Shaykh ul-Islām, Yaḥyā Ibn Sharaf al-Nawawī Ζ who writes (almost verbatim) in ‘Al-Īḍāḥ fi’l-Manāsik’: َ و. و يستقبل القبلة. فيقف بين القير و الاسطوانة الى هناك.ثم ّ يتقدم اِلى رأس القبر
يحمد ال ه تعالى و يمجده و يدعو لنفسه بما أهم ّه و ما أحبه و لوالديه و لمن شاء من أقاربه و َ أشياخه و اِخوانه و ساىئر المسلمين .ثم ّ ياتي الروضة فيكثر فيها من الدعاء و الصلاة
Then he proceeds towards the The Sacred Resting Place, stopping between it and the pillar. And he faces the Qibla, and he glorifies Allāh Α and extols His praises, and he supplicates for himself with whatever concerns him, and whatever is dear to him, and for his parents, and for whosoever he wishes from his kin, his teachers, his brothers, and the rest of the Muslims. Then he advances towards The Sacred Resting Place and remains abundant in supplications and prayers. He goes on to mention: لا يجوز أن يطاف بقير النبي صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم و يكره اِلصاق البطن و الظهر
و يكره مسحه باليد و تقبيله بل الادب أن يبعد منه كما. قاله الحليمي و غيره.بجدارالقير
و هو الذي قاله. هذا هو الصواب.يبعد منه لو حضر في حياته صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم فان الاقتداء. و ينبغي أن لا يغْتَر ّ بكثير من العوام في مخالفتهم ذالك. و أَ طبقو عليه.العلماء ... ولا يلتفت الى محدثات العوام و جهالاتهم.و العمل انما يكون بأقوال العلماء 16
And it is completely impermissible to perform rounds (tawaf ) around The Sacred Resting Place of the Messenger of Allāh Β, and it is disliked to cling to the inside, and outside of the walls of its walls, Ḥalīmī and others have mentioned this. It is also disliked to wipe The Sacred Resting Place with the hand and to kiss it. Rather, etiquettes dictate you remain at a distance, as you would if He Β were before you in his worldly life Β. This is undoubtedly the correct position, and well in accordance to what the scholars have stipulated, and they concur with it. It is necessary that one does not become misled through the actions of the many who oppose that, since emulation and action are done with the words of the scholars, and do not incline towards the innovations of the masses and their foolishness. He then concludes: و من خطر بباله أَ ن المسح باليد و نحوه أبلغ في البركة فهو من جهالته و غفلته لأن !البركة اِنما هي ما وافق الشرع و أقوال العلماء و كيف يبتغي في مخالفة الصواب؟
The one who thinks in his mind that touching with the hand and other such actions are the greatest means of attaining blessings, then this is from his patent ignorance and his heedlessness since blessings are granted through whatever concords with the sharia and the statements of the scholars. How then, does he desire to oppose what is correct?! Some scholars were undoubtedly cut from the same cloth. Shaykh ul-Qul, Sayyidī Aṭā Muḥammad Bandayalwī Ζ elucidated on this point when he suggested Shaykh ʿAbd al-Ḥaq, Imām Yūsuf al-Nabhānī, and Ālahazrat were cut from the same cloth. It is obvious to see, that Sayyidī Shaykh Ramaḍān emulated the way of Imam al-Nawawī, adhering to his methodology. Thus, any accusations levelled against him are also directed towards Shaykh ul-Islam and all the scholars who expressed the same views [we seek refuge in Allāh Α!].
6
Shaykh Būṭī Regarding The Noble Parents Ι of The Best of Creation ﷺ
Finally, Mufti Wajid’s final contention pertains to the noble parents Ι of the Messenger of Allāh Β, and it was this passage which finally convinced me of the lack of 17
scholarly verification and diligence in his article. The reader will also come to this conclusion when he compares Mufti Wajid’s passage with Shaykh Ramaḍān’s actual comments. Mufti Wajid writes: Shaykh Ramadan not only objected to the prophetic prayer (salawat): “O Allāh! Send blessing upon Muhammad and his parents”, he stated it was a reprehensible innovation (Bid’a) - as published in his book ‘Hadha Walidi’. He added that his father also objected to the same salawat and wrote an article in the Nahjul Islam magazine expressing his criticism of it. Shaykh Ramadan writes: The first of the two is the necessity to fulfil the Command of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. It is narrated by al-Bukhari in his Sahih that following the revelation of the verse O those who believe send prayers on him and send salutations abundantly, the companions asked, how should we send prayers upon you O Messenger of Allāh ? ﷺHe ﷺreplied: ‘Say: O Allāh! Send prayers upon Muhammad and his family ﷺ, offspring, and his ﷺwives just has you sent prayers upon Ibrahim’…till the end of the hadith. The second of the two is the need to follow the Messenger of Allāh ﷺin him ﷺbeing prohibited to pray for his ﷺmother when Allāh prohibited him ﷺfrom this. do not find any of the prayers of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺthat he sought forgiveness for his ﷺparents or anyone of them, yet there are many compositions for seeking forgiveness [related] from him ﷺ. For example, his saying before sleeping ‘O my lord! Forgive me my sins…” Proof cannot be taken of their disbelief by this prohibition because the prohibition from his Lord was for wisdom hidden from us just as we mentioned earlier. Thirdly, prayers upon the messenger of Allāh ﷺis worship from amongst the greatest of worships and worship is not correct except by following what came from the Messenger of Allāh ﷺeither by action or word, narrated authentically. It is proven definitively that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺdid not order the companions with prayers upon his ﷺparents nor did they do this, and nor did the followers and those after them. This is the same application of the fallacious principle that it is not lawful 18
for us to practice something which not been practiced by the Prophet -ﷺ it is the same reasoning used by Salafists to denounce and delegitimise Mawlid celebrations. Shaykh Ramadan continues: Indeed I see - in the insertion of the word ‘and his parents’ in sending prayers upon the Prophet ﷺ- flaws in this claim to love.’ It pains us to say it, but the words and message that Shaykh Ramadan portrays are indicative of a Salafi methodology, and such a stance on this kind of salawat has been refuted by the Ulema of Ahl al-Sunnah. We conclude and re-affirm that the parents of our beloved Prophet ﷺare Muslims, are part of the beloved’s Β ummah, and are the beloved’s ﷺ honourable companions ; ﷺmay Allāh be well pleased with them bothand that is entirely lawful to supplicate for them and include them in salawat. Mufti Wajid makes it seem as if Shaykh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī held a position contrary to that of Imam Jalāl ul-Dīn al-Suyūtī, Ālahazrat and other illustrious figures in this religion Θ. However, the very chapter in his work ‘Hādha Wālidī’ reads: مبحث نجاة والدي رسول ال ه صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم و الصلاة عليهما Discussing the salvation of The Parents of The Messenger of Allāh Β and sending prayers upon them. In the very same book quoted by Mufti Wajid, Shaykh Ramaḍān writes: هذه موعظة و نصيحة من ملا رمضان لمن يقولون بالصلاة على والدي رسول ال ه
و حاشا.صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم و يتهمون المنكرين للصلاة عليهما ب ِأ َ ّنهم يحكمون بكفرها و هو-منها-أَ ن يقول رجل مؤمن بِكُفرها بل اِن العلماء ذكروا أَ دلة على اِسلامها أو نجاتها
...أنّها من أَ هل الفترة-أَ ق ْواها This is an exhortation and counsel from Mullāh Ramaḍān (his venerable father) to those who convey prayers upon the parents of the Messenger of Allāh Β, and they charge those who reject the [legality of sending] prayers upon them because they have ruled in favour of their disbelief. God Forbid that a believing man associate disbelief to them! Rather, the scholars have presented many proofs highlighting their Islam and salvation. From amongst those proofs, and undoubtedly the strongest of proofs is, that they are from ahl ul-fitra. 19
He then continues to explain other pathways which have led scholars to conclude that the noble parents of the Messenger of Allāh Β are believers. After which, he writes: فثبت بهذه الادلة أنّهما ناجيان اِن شاء ال ه و لا ينافيها حديث مسلم في صحيحه عن استأْ ذنت ربي أن:أبي هريرة رضي ال ه عنه أَ ن رسول ال ه صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم قال فا ِن ظاهر هذا الحديث لا.أستغفر ل ُأمي فلم ي َأْ ذن لي و استأذنت أَ ن أزور قبرها فأَ ذن لي
...يدل على أنهما غير ناجيين اِذ قد يكون النهي عن الاستغفار لسبب آخر ال ه أعلم به Thus it has been established with these proofs, that they [the noble parents] have attained salvation if Allāh wills, and the report found in the collection of Imam Muslim does not contradict this-from Abū Hurayra [Allāh is pleased with him], the Messenger of Allāh Β said: ‘I asked permission from my Lord to seek forgiveness for my mother, and I was not granted it, and I sought permission to visit her grave and I was granted it’. What is evident from the hadīth does not suggest that they have not been delivered [from the fire], since the prohibition to seek forgiveness for them is due to another reason, and Allāh knows best as to what that reason is…
He then writes: و كيف نحكم بكفرها أبوي رسول ال ه صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم و قد كنت أقرأ سورة ت ي َدا أب ِ ْي لَه ٍَب َ ّو ت َ َّب( في بعض الاحيان فقرأْ ت في بعض الـكتب رواية عن بعض ْ ّ )تَب الصالحـين أنه كان يكثر من قرأة هذه السورة فرأى رسول ال ه صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم فى و منذ. أَ ليس هو عمي؟! يقصد أَ با لهب:الرو يا و في وجهه علائم التأثر و العتاب و قال له
ذالك الحـين أَ مسكت عن قراة هذه السورة الا في الختم اِك ْرام ًا لرسول ال ه صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم … and how can we level a ruling of disbelief against the parents of the Messenger of Allāh Β?! I would recite Surah tul - Masad occasionally, I came across a narration from some righteous slaves, that there was somebody who would recite this surah excessively who later witnessed the Messenger of Allāh Β in a dream, there were evident signs of emotion and censure on his [noble] face, and he said to him, ‘is he not my uncle?!’ He Β meant by this, Abū Lahab. Since then, I have abstained from recit20
ing this surah except during the recital of the entire Qur’an [khatam]-in honour of the Messenger of Allāh Β! Shyakh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī, and his noble father, Mullāh Ramaḍān Ι, both adhered to the position of mainstream Sunnī Islam, in that the parents of the Messenger of Allāh Β were believers, yet in an attempt to suggest otherwise, Mufti Wajid writes: We conclude and re-affirm that the parents of our beloved Prophet Β are Muslims, are part of the Beloved’s Β ummah. A second contention against Shaykh Ramaḍān [and his father] was that they both disapproved of sending prayers and blessings upon the noble parents of the Messenger of Allāh Β. It’s worth noting at this point Mufti Wajid did not quote Shaykh Būṭī’s reasoning. If he did, he would be forced to condemn a host of scholars, including the great Imām, Muḥammad Ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī Ζ. Shaykh Ramaḍān lists a number of reasons as to why sending prayers and salutations upon The Parents of The Messenger of Allāh Β is prohibited (mamnūʿ), these have been mentioned vaguely by Mufti Wajid [refer to the translation above]. What he failed to mention was the following: ...و قد قرر العلماء أَ ن الامتثال خير من الادب The scholars have reiterated that imitation is superior to adab… و من التطبيقات الاحتياطية لهذه القاعدة ما هو ملاحظ من أن الامام الشافعي في
كتابه الأم اذا ذكر اسم رسول ال ه صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم لا يقول سيدنا محمد بل يقول محمد صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم …and from the precautionary application of this rule is what has been observed from Imām al- Shā’fiʿī in his book ‘Al-Umm’, when he mentioned the name of the Messenger of Allāh Β, he did not say ‘Sayyidunā Muḥammad’. Rather, he said, Muḥammad [Β]… Would it be fair to impute that Imam al- Shāfiʿī adopted a Salafi/Wahabi methodology, and is this an application of a ‘fallacious principle’ on the part of Muḥammad Ibn Idrīs? Mufti Wajid would be compelled to say yes. The omission of these passages raises questions. Shaykh Ramaḍān continues: َ ن بعض الن ّاس اقترح ز يادة )سيدنا( في ّ َ َكما ذكر في بعض الحواشي التحفة لابن حجر أ الاذان و الاقامة فردّ الفقهاء جميعا بأَ ن ذالك غير وارد فلا رسول ال ه أمر به و لا الصحابة 21
...أو التابعون فعلوا ذالك “… similarly, it has been mentioned in some marginalias of Al-Tuhfa of Ibn Ḥajr that some people would insert the word ‘Sayyidunā’ in the Adhān and Iqāma. As a result, all of the jurists categorically rejected this practice, since it has not been transmitted, neither did the Messenger of Allāh Β command it, and nor did the Companions and successors practice it Θ…”
7
Conclusion
To conclude, Allāh Α and His Noble Messenger Β defined the parameters of Islam. In order to determine who has contravened them, it is a prerequisite to first understand what they are. Issues such as perennialism, atheism, the honour of the Messenger of Allāh, ḥadīth forgeries, endorsing deviant scholars and groups, are what contravene the parameters of Islam, and it is these issues which need to be challenged. On a final note, I urge Mufti Wajid to beseech Allāh Α in His court, and ask His forgiveness for misinterpreting Shaykh Ramaḍān’s works and statements. and I ask Allāh Α to grant him tawfīq to do so. و صلى ال ه على سيدنا و مولنا محمد و على اله و صحبه أجمعين
22
