Welcome to the Net Muslims Forums.
Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default Origins of Shia-Sunni division & other Sects

    The origins of the Shia/Sunni division - Part I


    Pledge of loyalty (Bai'at) to the former Khalifahs:

    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) had taken pledge of loyalty on the hands of all the three past Khalifahs. However he was late in taking pledge at the hand of Hadrat Abu Bakr (R.A.).

    The reason why he was late in taking pledge on the hands of Hadrat Abu Bakr (R.A.) was the serious illness of his beloved wife, Hadrat Fatima (R.A.) and that he was busy in collection of the Holy Qur'an. It is mentioned in the famous history book, Tabaqat ibn Sa'd: When Hadrat Abu Bakr (R.A.) enquired of Ali (R.A.) why he was so late in taking pledge of loyalty and whether he disliked his "Khilafat", Ali (R.A.) replied, "I do not dislike your leadership but the fact is that I had taken an oath after the death of the Holy Prophet not to put on my sheet (i.e. not to engage in any work) except for performing Salat until I have collected all the parts of the Holy Qur'an." The Hadrat Ali (R.A.) took pledge of loyalty on the hand of Abu Bakr and helped him throughout his Khilafat. He was very active during the time of Hadrat Umar and also married his daughter, Umm-i-Kulthum to him. In the matter of Hadrat Uthman's election he voted in his favour as has been mentioned before.

    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was one of the very important members of "Shura" (Advisory Council) during the time of the first three Khalifahs. He was also the great jurist (Mufti) of Medina during the time of past Khalifahs. He was among the panel of six persons who had to select the Khalifah amongst themselves after Hadrat Umar (R.A.). Hadrat Uthman had great regard for him and consulted him in all the matters. His sons were the main guards at Uthman’s residence when the rebels laid siege to his house.

    Thus we conclude that Hadrat Ali (R.A.) gave his fullest possible support to all of his predecessors.


    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) as the fourth Khalifah:

    The insurgents' shameful act of assassination of the Khalifah could never have been imagined by Hadrat Ali or any other eminent Companion at Medina. It came as a total surprise to Hadrat Ali (R.A.) whose two sons, Hasan and Husain (R.A.) were guarding the gate of Uthman’s residence. The insurgents after climbing the back wall of the residence had assassinated the Khalifah. The assassination of Hadrat Uthman was really due to creation of faction among the Muslim Community which was the goal of ‘Abdullah Bin Saba and his followers (the insurgents), and they achieved it.
    After the assassination of Hadrat Uthman, the insurgents virtually controlled the Capital, Medina for several days. The Muslims were frightened and sat behind closed doors. After the assassination of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.) an unprecedented calamity had fallen on the Muslims and for three days, Medina was without any government.

    Afterwards the insurgents approached Hadrat Ali (R.A.) to be the Khalifah. Egyptians led by Ibn Saba and Ghafqi were the main group of insurgents behind the proposal for the Khilafat of Hadrat Ali (R.A.) Hadrat Ali first declined to bear the responsibility of this great office. But the insurgents pressed him to accept it. As a matter of fact Hadrat Ali wanted to approach Hadrat Talha and Hadrat Zubair (R.A.) who were included in the panel of the six persons appointed by Hadrat Umar (R.A.) to select a Khalifah. He wanted to take pledge of loyalty (Bai'at) at the hands of any of these two gentlemen. But at the end, pressed by the threats of the regicides he decided to put the matter before Muslim public in the Mosque of the Holy Prophet(Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam). Most of the Companions in Medina considered him, to be the fittest person for "Khilafat" after Hadrat Uthman (R.A.). He then agreed to take the responsibility and gave his consent.

    On 21st Dhul-Hijjah 35 A.H. pledge of loyalty took place at the hands of Hadrat Ali (R.A). First of all the leading insurgents took the pledge of loyalty on his hands, followed by the general public, at Medina. Hadrat Talha and Zubair (R.A.) did not want to take a pledge (Bai'at) until the case of Hadrat Uthman assassination was decided. Before that Hadrat Ali had offered the office of Khilafat to both of them but they had declined. However under the threats of insurgents they took the pledge of loyalty at Hadrat Ali’s hands, on the condition: "You (i.e.’ Ali) have to decide matters according to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah (ways of the Holy Prophet) and would punish the guilty according to Islamic Law." Hadrat Ali (R.A.) agreed to their conditions. Hadrat Sa'd bin Waqqas said that he would take pledge when all the Muslims had done so. Following Companions did not take pledge at the hands of Hadrat Ali (R.A.): Muhammad bin Muslimah, Usamah bin Zaid, Hassan bin Thabit. Ka'b bin Malik, Abu Sa'id Khudri, Nu'man bin Bashir, Zaid bin Thabit, Mughirah bin Shu'bah and 'Abdullah bin Salam. Most of the members of Banu Umayyah (Uthman's family) also did not take pledge of loyalty at Hadrat Ali’s hands. Some of such persons who did not take Bai'at went to Syria.

    However the majority of the Muslims in Medina took pledge at the hands of Hadrat Ali. According to "Ahli Sunnah wal Jama'ah", Hadrat Ali was the most suitable and the fittest person for Khilafat after Hadrat Uthman (R.A.). If some of the Companions did not take pledge on his hands, because of the political situation of that time, it did not mean that his Khilafat was not accepted by the Muslim majority. Besides Hadrat Ali (R.A.) nobody including Hadrat Mu'awiyah (R.A.) claimed to be the Khalifah at that time. The difference between them was the question of punishment to the assassins, which took the shape of various battles. As it would be seen afterwards Hadrat Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.) declared his Khilafat only after the death of Hadrat Ali (R.A.). Hadrat Ali was declared to be the Khalifah not only by the insurgents but by the Muslim public as well including the leading Ansar (Helpers) and Muhajirin (Emigrants). This could also be noticed with the fact that in the first battle which took place between Hadrat Ali and Hadrat 'Aisha (and her group) about 800 of those Companions who had participated in the Treaty of Hudaibiyah were with Hadrat Ali besides other Companions. As a matter of fact Hadrat Ali was the most popular figure at that time and was the most appropriate person to be the fourth caliph.


    Disobedience of Abdullah bin Saba and other Sabaites:

    On his third day as the Khalifah, Hadrat Ali asked all the Sabaites (insurgents) to return to their places. Some of them started to go back but a party headed by Abdullah bin Saba did not obey the Khalifah pretending all the while to be his friends. In the history of Islam this was the first incident of disobedience of a Khalifah. Their aim was to be with him in order to create mischief as it would be observed later.

    Hadrat Ali (R.A.), faced a very difficult situation. His three main problems were:
    (i) To establish peace in the State and to set right the deteriorating political situation.
    (ii) To take action against the assassins of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.) who had gone underground after he took the office.

    Actually some of them were among the persons who requested Hadrat Ali (R.A.) to take office of the Khilafat, but neither he nor any other Muslim at that time knew the real assassins. It was the hardest job at that time to find out the real assassins because the persons who recognised them had already left Medina, and those among the Sabaites, who were present there did not tell Hadrat Ali the truth. All of the Sabaites told Ali (R.A.) that they did not want to assassinate Hadrat Uthman, that was done only by some of the wicked persons whom they did not recognise. Some time, therefore, was required to investigate the matter and that was possible only after peaceful atmosphere was restored in the state which, unfortunately, never occurred during the caliphate of Hadrat Ali as the situation continued to worsen.


    (iii) The third problem was the attitude to be adopted towards those Companions (R.A.) who would not pledge loyalty at the hands of Hadrat Ali unless he either handed over the assassins to them or punish them according to Islamic Law. Though we cannot criticise the sincerity of their intention but in fairness to Ali, it has to be said that it was rather an impossible job for Ali (R.A.)to fulfil their demands immediately in that situation.

    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was a very straight-forward man who considered the "Khilafat" (Caliphate) as a great trust. His aim was to establish peace in the State which should be the first aim of every good ruler in such a place where certain elements try to destroy the order. According to leading Islamic Jurists it is quite right for a Muslim ruler to delay the cases of murder etc. in order to establish peace in an Islamic State (as mentioned by Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi in his book "Ahkam-ul-Qur'an'?. Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was quite right in his decision to tackle the assassins on restoration of normally. The Majority of the Muslims, specially Ahli Sunnah wal- Jama’ah had agreed with him on this point.

    The events which took place during the caliphate of Hadrat Ali in the form of various battles will be discussed in the light of the above facts.


    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) seeks to ascertain the names of Hadrat Uthman assassins:

    After assuming office, Hadrat Ali (R.A.) tried to find out the assassins of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.). He called Marwan bin al-Hakm, the chief secretary of Hadrat Uthman, who was present, in the house at the time of assassination, but he had already left for Damascus along with a number of Banu Umayyads.

    The only other witness was Hadrat Nailah, wife of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.). But she was a housewife who used to live under "Hijab" (Pardah) in accordance with Islamic custom and as such she could not tell the names of the persons present at that time except the-features of some of them. She could only name Muhammad bin Abi Bakr who had entered the house but as stated before he had left the house before Hadrat Uthman assassination. Moreover Muhammad bin Abi Bakr took an oath (in accordance to Islamic Law) that he was not an assassin and he had left the house as soon as Hadrat Uthman (R.A.) recognised him and said, "0 my dear nephew, if your father (Abu Bakr) were alive you would have not committed this." Hadrat Nailah gave her evidence in favour of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr and had confirmed that he was not one of the assassins. In spite of his efforts Hadrat Ali could not locate the assassins.


    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) dismisses the governors:

    In the opinion of Hadrat Ali (R.A.) the governors appointed by Hadrat Uthman (R.A.) were basically responsible for all the events. They did not pay much attention to check the subversive activities of the insurgents. So he dismissed all the governors appointed by Hadrat Uthman (R.A.). Some of the Companions did not agree with Hadrat Ali (R.A.) on this. Among such persons were Hadrat Mughirah bin Shu'bah and Hadrat Ibn Abbas (R.A.). They advised Hadrat Ali not to take such a hasty action. According to them it was not wise to dismiss them unless they pledged loyalty to Hadrat Ali, because Uthman’s assassination could be an easy excuse for them to refuse the pledge of loyalty to Hadrat Ali’s. Hadrat Ali did not listen to their advice because he believed that expediency should not be the guiding factor. Hadrat Mughirah bin Shu'bah (R.A.) was totally against Ali’s action. He left Medina and went to Mecca.

    He appointed Hadrat 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas as the governor of Yemen; Uthman bin Hanif as the governor of Basrah; Ammarah bin Hassan of Kufa, and Qais as the governor of Egypt. Hadrat Sahl Bin Hanif was asked to take charge of governorship of Syria from Hadrat Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.).

    When the governors went to take charge they were faced with difficulties. Egypt was one of the provinces in favour of Ali (R.A.)but when the new governor, Qais reached there the public was divided in three groups. Some of them accepted him but others demanded that the assassins must be punished first. There was a third group, belonging to Sabaites and the insurgents, who demanded that the assassins must not be punished in any case. Same difficulty was faced by the newly appointed governor of Basrah. A group of people was in favour of the insurgents while the other was against them. While the governor of Kufa was on his way a spokesman of Kufis came and asked him to return to Medina because they did not want to change their governor Hadrat Musa Ash’ari (R.A.) in any case. So Hadrat Ammarah bin Hassan(R.A.), the governor designate, returned to Medina. The new governor of Yemen, Hadrat Abdullah bin Abbas did not face any difficulty because Ya'la, the old governor had already left Kufa for Mecca before Hadrat Ibn Abbas reached there. When Hadrat Sahl bin Hanif, the governor designate of Syria, reached Tabuk (the out-post of Syria), Amir Mu'awiyah's cavalry men stopped him from proceeding any further and asked him to go back to Medina. Thus Kufa and Syria were the two provinces which had openly flouted Hadrat Ali’s authority.

    Hadrat Ali sent his special messengers to Kufa and Syria. The governor of Kufa, Hadrat Abu Musa Ash'ari (R.A.) sent a satisfactory reply and assured Hadrat Ali of his loyalty to him. Not only this he also wrote to him that he had already taken pledge of loyalty for him from the people of Kufa.

    The case of Hadrat Mu'awiyah (R.A.) was entirely different.


    Hadrat Amir Muawiyah's demand for assassins:

    After the assassination of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.) his family except his wife Nailah, reached Damascus and told Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.) the details. They also carried with them the blood stained shirt of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.) and the chopped off fingers of his wife Hadrat Nailah. Amir Mu'awiyah, a kinsman of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.) was shocked on hearing the news, and when it was made public, all the Muslims of Syria were greatly perturbed. Hadrat Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.) was a great statesman and was in Syria for about 20 years. He hung the blood stained shirt and the chopped off fingers of Hadrat Uthman's wife on the "Mimber" (pulpit) of the Jami' Mosque of Damascus because of which the Syrian Muslims got inflamed. This was the situation of Syria when Sahl bin Hanif, the governor designate of Syria was forced to return to Medina from Tabuk.

    On receiving the special messenger from Hadrat Ali, Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.) did not reply for about three months and detained the messenger. Then he sent his own messenger to Hadrat Ali (R.A.) in Rabi'ul Awwal, 36 A.H. The messenger handed over the letter to Hadrat Ali addressed as "From Mu'awiyah to Ali". When the letter was opened it was a blank paper on which only "Bismilla-Hir-rahmanir Rahim "(In the name of Allah, most Gracious, most Merciful) was written. Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was amazed to see the letter, which was in fact, an insult to the office of the "Khalifah". The messenger also told Ali (R.A.) that 50,000 sheikhs of Syria were bemoaning the death of Hadrat Uthman and were determined to fight until the assassins were handed over to them. Hadrat Ali replied, "O Allah! You know it well that I am free from any charge of Uthman’s assassination. I swear by Allah that the assassins have escaped . "

    The Sabaites pretending to be friends of Hadrat Ali, tried to create another disturbance by trying to kill the messenger, but Hadrat Ali (R.A.) did not allow it. However exchange of hot words took place between them and the messenger.

    Amir Mu'awiyah's reply was a clear indication of his intention. The matter was not going to be settled without force. Therefore Hadrat Ali decided to use force against Mu'awiyah (R.A.) and started preparations for it. Hadrat Ali's elder son, Imam Hasan (R.A.) was a man of rather mild temper. He requested his father to give up the Khilafat and not to think of fighting against Muslims (i.e., to start a civil war). But there was no other way and Hadrat Ali (R.A.) had to handle the situation with an iron hand in order to keep the provinces under the centre as they were since the time of Hadrat Abu Bakr (R.A.).

    This was the first time in the history of Islam when the Muslims were preparing to fight against each other. As a Khalifah Hadrat Ali was quite right in his decision. Not to pledge loyalty was an open revolt against his authority and he had to deal boldly with any type of internal rebellion. Hadrat Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.), as a matter of fact, was over-excited on the tragic assassination. The family of Uthman (R.A.) which had reached there after the assassination was also a cause of this attitude. Moreover some of the Sabaites, whose only aim was to divide the Muslim community, had reached Syria and incited the Muslims against Hadrat Ali. They were playing double role. On the one side a group of them was with Hadrat Ali (R.A.) to stir him up against Mu’awiyah; (R.A.), while on the other side some of them went to Syria only to inflame the feelings of Muslims over there. Under such conditions Mu'awiyah (R.A.) had no alternative but to insist upon his demand for punishment of the assassins before pledging loyalty to Hadrat Ali (R.A.).


    Hadrat 'Aisha's demand for chastisement of assassins:

    While Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was preparing for war against Amir Mu'awiyah another difficulty arose. After the assassination of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.) some members of his family went to Hadrat Aisha (R.A.) who was in Mecca to perform the Hajj. They and a number of Medinites informed her about the tragedy while she was on her way from Mecca to Medina after the Hajj. Hearing the news of assassination of Hadrat Uthman she returned to Mecca and appealed to the people over there to avenge the death of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.). Hundreds of people including the governor of Mecca came out at 'Aisha's call. The governor of Yemen, Ya'la bin Munabbah also joined her in Mecca. Among Banu Ummayyads who joined Hadrat ‘Aisha in Mecca were Sa'id bin ‘As, Walid bin ‘Uqbah and Marwan bin Hakam.

    In the meantime Hadrat Talha and Zubair (R.A.) demanded Hadrat Ali to punish the assassins. He told them, "Please wait. I will do my duty as soon as conditions allow me." Hadrat Talha and Zubair were not satisfied with Hadrat Ali’s reply and left Medina for Mecca to join Hadrat Aisha (R.A.). They had not correctly assessed the delicate situation in Medina. The city was not free from the grip of Sabaites and there was a general feeling against Umayyads in the public. Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was anxious to restore peace first so that the assassins could be punished.

    In Mecca Hadrat ‘Aisha (R.A.) started to march to Medina at the head of about two thousand men with the object of dealing with the assassins. Hadrat ‘Abdullah bin Zubair was also there. They also asked him to join but he declined to do so and remained neutral.

    When Hadrat ‘Aisha was about to march to Medina, proposals came to visit Basrah first to collect more supporters. She decided to go to Basrah.


    Hadrat ‘Aisha goes to Basrah:

    While Hadrat 'Aisha was on her way to Basrah more people joined her in the way. By the time she reached Basrah, there were three thousand men under her flag.

    The governor of Basrah, Uthman bin Hanif (appointed by Hadrat 'All), sent some men to find out the object of her visit. She and other Muslims told them that they wanted to tell people of their duty towards the late Khalifah so that proper action would be taken to punish the assassins. The messenger of the governor asked Hadrat Talha and Zubair for what reason they were breaking the Bai'at on the hands of Hadrat Ali. They told them that the pledge (Bai'at) was taken from them at the point of sword, and that they would have kept the pledge if Hadrat Ali had avenged Uthman’s assassination.

    The governor of Basra decided not to allow them to enter the city till he got help from Hadrat Ali. He called a public meeting and asked people to fight against them. In the meeting some people favoured the governor while some of them supported Hadrat 'Aisha, Talha and Zubair. The supporters of Hadrat Ali (R.A.) and the governor came out to fight.


    Hadrat 'Aisha takes over Basra:

    Hadrat 'Aisha gave a stirring speech before the Muslims. It was so impressive that half of the supporters of the governor left him and joined Hadrat 'Aisha. Seeing this she tried to settle the matter peacefully instead of fighting. But there were same agents of Abdullah bin Saba (Sabaites) specially his famous disciple, Hakim bin Hublah, who did not allow any settlement. He attacked Hadrat 'Aisha's army before the governor gave him permission to do so.

    The fight took place but no result came out till the evening. In the meantime the governor got instructions from Hadrat Ali to resist Hadrat 'Aisha's army if they did not agree to pledge loyalty to him. Then a furious battle took place in which Uthman bin Hanif, the governor, was defeated and captured. Hakim bin Hublah and some of his followers were killed, and Basra was occupied by Hadrat Aisha and her supporters.


    March to Basrah:

    The capture of Basrah by Hadrat ‘Aisha (R.A.) made the situation very grave. The Islamic state was really on the verge of serious civil war. Hadrat Ali (R.A.) never wanted to start war against the Muslims but the internal situation at that time compelled him to do so. War was unavoidable.

    The Khalifah, therefore, postponed his march to Syria for the time being in order to set things right in Iraq. He decided to march on to Basrah. A number of Ansar and other Companions were not in favour of Hadrat Ali (R.A.) leaving Medina, instead they asked him to send his army. When Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was leaving Medina, Abdullah bin Salam (R.A.) took hold of his camel and said, "0 Amirul-Mu'minin (Leader of the believers) don't leave Medina. If you leave it at this moment, you would never come back and the Capital would be changed." But he decided to go ahead with his mission because of the seriousness of the situation.

    Some of the Companions remained neutral and did not join Hadrat Ali (R.A.) even though he asked them to do so. Among such persons were: Abdullah bin Umar, Muhammad bin Muslimah, Sa'd bin Waqqas and Usamah bin Zaid (R.A.)

    Hadrat Ali started for Basrah towards the end of Rabi’ul Awwal, 36 (A. H.) i.e. Nov. 656 A.D. Abdullah bin Saba and his followers were accompanying Hadrat Ali.


    Help from Basrah:

    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) asked Abu Musa Ash'ari to send help but he got no response because Hadrat Abu Musa (R.A.) dreaded a civil war. Therefore Hadrat Ali (R.A.) sent his eldest son, Hasan (R.A.) to Kufa who addressed the people and pleaded for Ali (R.A.). The people were stirred on the appeal and about nine thousand men marched on to join Ali (R.A.).


    Ali (R.A.) seeks peace:

    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) assured all the people accompanying him that he would try his best to avoid blood-shed and to set the things right peacefully. On reaching Dhi Oar, a place near Basrah, Hadrat Ali, with his characteristic aversion to blood-shed sent his cousin 'Abdullah bin Abbas and Qa'qa bin Amr (R.A.) to negotiate peacefully with Hadrat 'Aisha, Talha, and Zubair (Rid. A.) who were preparing to face Hadrat Ali (R.A.) with a big army.

    The messengers of Hadrat Ali (R.A.) assured Hadrat 'Aisha, Talha, and Zubair (Rid. A.) that Hadrat Ali would avenge the assassins of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.) as soon as peace was established in the state. Hearing this they were satisfied and there were hopes for a peaceful settlement.

    But in the army of Ali (R.A.) there were Abdullah bin Saba and his henchmen to whom peace was fatal. At the possibility of peaceful settlement they were much disturbed. They met in a secret council and whispered to each other that Ali (R.A.)was prepared to avenge the death of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.). They were determined to make the peaceful settlement a total failure. They sent their agents to Basrah to incite the Muslims population by saying that if Ali (R.A.) entered Basrah he would enslave all the inhabitants and would kill all the youths. The Basrites, therefore, must check and fight him back.

    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) hoping for a peaceful settlement, marched towards Basrah to talk personally with Hadrat Talha and Zubair (R.A.). The two armies were facing each other. Hadrat Ali gave an address to Basrites in which he said, "I am but your brother........I will avenge Uthman's assassins," Hadrat Talha, Zubair and Basrites were fully satisfied with what Hadrat Ali (R.A.) told them. Ali (R.A.) also returned to his camp very satisfied. He gave strict orders to his men not to fight in any case, and prayed all the night to Allah.

    But Ibn Saba and his henchmen had planned otherwise. In the darkness of night they made a sudden attack on Hadrat 'Aisha's army. Hadrat Talha and Zubair were startled by the sudden attack and said that Ali (R.A.)could not desist from shedding Muslim blood and he has ordered a night attack. On the other hand Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was shocked when he was told by Sabaites that Talha and Zubair had taken them by surprise. He also remarked in the same way that they did not stop from taking the blood of Muslims. According to Tabari the following Sabaites were the leaders behind this plan: Ashtar Nakh'i Ibn Sauda, Khalid bin Muljam, Alba bin Haitham and Shuraib bin Aufa. Ibn Saba was the ring leader.


    The Battle of Camel (Jamal):

    Soon a full scale war started. Hundreds of Muslims fell on each side. Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was greatly pained at the situation. He tried to stop the battle but the battle had already flared up.

    In the dawn the troops of Hadrat 'Aisha (R.A.) apprised her of the situation and suggested that she should mount on a camel in Hijab (Pardah) so that the situation might ease. But it worked the other way and Basrites thought tfiat Hadrat Aisha came in the field to fight with them. During the fight Hadrat Ali reminded Talha and Zubair(R.A.) the words of the Holy Prophet: "One day you (Talha and Zubair) will fight Ali wrongly." They remembered the saying and left the battlefield but when Talha was leaving the field somebody rained arrows on him and he was killed.

    When the fight did not come to an end Hadrat Ali (R.A.) ordered one of his men to cut the hind legs of the camel on which Hadrat 'Aisha was mounting in a "howdah". The order of Hadrat Ali was carried out and the camel fell on its forelegs. Hadrat 'Aisha was taken out of the "howdah" with due respect. The battle came to an end in favour of Hadrat Ali (R.A.). Hadrat Aisha (R.A.) was sent with due respect to Medina escorted by her own brother, Muhammad bin Abi Bakr. In this battle about ten thousand Muslims on both sides lost their lives. Hadrat Ali (R.A.) felt deeply moved because of the loss of Muslim blood. Hadrat Zubair who had already left the field after remembering the Holy Prophet's saying was going to Mecca. He stopped in a valley to perform his Salat, but was slain by a man, named Amr bin Jarmoz while he was busy in his Salat. When Hadrat Ali came to know, he rebuked the murderer by saying: "I have seen him fight for the Prophet of Allah several times. I give the murderer the news of hell-fire."

    After the battle he took pledge of loyalty from the people of Basrah and appointed Hadrat Abdullah bin Abbas as the governor of Basrah. He gave general amnesty to all those who fought against him including Marwan bin Hakam and other persons of Banu Umayyah family. The address which Hadrat Ali (R.A.) gave at Jami' Mosque of Basrah before the Bai'at (pledge of loyalty) moved the Muslims, and they were convinced that Ali (R.A.) was a just Khalifah.


    Change of Capital:

    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was very much grieved on seeing the disrespect of the "Haram" (Forbidden Place) of Medina when the insurgents laid siege to the late Khalifah's house and then assassinated him. He wanted to change the Capital to save Medina from future political disturbance. After staying for a few days at Basrah, Hadrat Ali (R.A.) went to Kufa. There he was given a warm welcome. He got more supporters at Kufa and thought it to be a more suitable place as the Capital of his Khilafat. Therefore in Rajab 36 A.H., he decided to transfer the capital from Medina to Kufa.


    Hadrat Ali’s Final Invitation to Hadrat Mu'awiyah:

    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) now turned his attention towards Hadrat Mu'awiyah (R.A.). He was then ruling over the whole Islamic State with the exception of Syria. The peace minded Hadrat Ali (R.A.) wanted a peaceful settlement. He, therefore, wrote a letter to Hadrat Mu'awiyah (R.A.) asking him to take pledge of loyalty at his hand in the interest of Islam and the unity of the Muslims. But Hadrat Mu'awiyah again demanded of him to avenge Hadrat Uthman’s assassins first.

    The show of Hadrat Uthman's blood-stained shirt and the chopped-off fingers of his wife, Hadrat Nailah, was still going on in the Jami' Masjid of Damascus. The powerful Syrians had rallied round Hadrat Mu'awiyah. On the other hand Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was still unable to overcome the insurgents. When Hadrat Amir Mu'awiyah's messenger came to Hadrat Ali to put the demand to hand over the assassins, 10,000 men of Hadrat Ali’s army said with one voice: "All of us are the assassins of Uthman (R.A.)." Hadrat Ali (R.A.) then said to the messengers, Hadrat Muslimah, "You can see for yourself the situation. I am still unable to find out the real assassins." But Hadrat Mu'awiyah was determined not to give up his demand. Hadrat Ali (R.A.), finding no other way, was compelled to declare war against Hadrat Mu'awiyah (R.A.).


    The Battle of Siffin:

    The above situation forced Hadrat Ali (R.A.) to march out against Syria. In the beginning there was not much response for Hadrat Ali’s call. But when Hadrat Ali explained the position to the Muslims, a large army gathered around Hadrat Ali and 50,000 Muslims came out under his banner to fight the Syrians. When Mu'awiyah (R.A.)came to know about Hadrat Ali’s advance, he too proceeded with a vast army and occupied a better position in the field. Hadrat Ali (R.A.) encamped at Siffin, and Amir Mu'awiyah on the other side of Siffin.

    Hadrat Ali’s intention was not to shed Muslim blood in vain. He therefore again tried and sent a deputation of three men on peace mission to Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.). Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.) again demanded that the assassins of Hadrat Uthman must be slain before any compromise can be reached and that he was demanding this as a "Wall" (next of kin of a murdered person) of Hadrat Uthman. The demand was again refused by Hadrat Ali (R.A.) on the ground that he was not able to locate the real assassins and it would need some time, and that the Pledge of Loyalty must be taken without any condition.

    In the month of Dhul Hijjah 36 A.H., Hadrat Ali (R.A.) ordered his troops to take positions. But there seemed unwillingness to fight on both the sides. Muslims were facing Muslims. However in the beginning fighting began with single combats followed by light encounters of single battalions. Thus the whole month of Dhul Hijjah ended without any big fight. When the moon of Muharram appeared Hadrat Ali and Mu'awiyah made a truce for one month. During this time he again got an opportunity for renewed peace talks. Hadrat Ali(R.A.) sent another mission led by 'Adi bin Hatim Tai to Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.). But this time Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.) took it as a threat and refused to recognise Hadrat Ali (R.A.) as the Khalifah unless he avenged Hadrat Uthman's assassination. In this way the last attempt proved to be fruitless.

    On the evening of the last day of Muharram, 37 A.H. Hadrat Ali (R.A.) gave orders to his army to attack the Syrian forces because they had been given enough time to think. The war started the following morning. Hadrat Ali (R.A.) gave strict orders that no person should be killed if he left the field or ran away. Women and old people would be secure. Hadrat Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.) also gave the same order to his army.

    The war started on Tuesday 1st Safari, 37 A.H. On the first day a battalion of Hadrat Ali’s army, led by Ushtar fought with the Syrians led by Habib bin Muslimah. On the second day another battalion led by Hashim bin 'Utbah from Hadrat Ali’s side fought with the Syrians led by Abul A'war Salama. On the third day the battalion from Hadrat Ali side was led by Hadrat Ammar bin Yasir and the Syrians were led by 'Amr Bin As (R.A.). During the battle Hadrat Ammar bin Yasir (R.A.) was martyred but no result came out. The martyrdom of Hadrat 'Ammar bin Yasir, however, proved that Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was right because of the following Hadith mentioned in Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and other authentic books of Hadith: According to this Hadith the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi we Salaam) said, "'Ammar bin Yasir would be killed by a group of rebels." Since Hadrat 'Ammar (R.A.) was fighting in favour of Hadrat Ali, and was killed by the army of Hadrat Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.), Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was in the right and his opponents were the rebels.

    For seven days the battle continued in this way. A new battalion used to fight from each side under a new commander. On the 8th day the whole army of Hadrat Ali (R.A.) clashed with that of Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.). A fierce battle was fought but with no end in sight. According to most of the historians, Hadrat 'Ammar bin Yasir was martyred on that day. However no result came out till the evening. The death of Hadrat 'Ammar bin Yasir was a shock to Hadrat Ali (R.A.). The battle went on the whole night. At one time Hadrat Ali reached the tent of Hadrat Mu'awiyah and challenged him to fight personally with him instead of shedding Muslim blood, the winner would be the Khalifah. But Hadrat Mu'awiyah (R.A.)did not accept the challenge because Hadrat Ali was a noted warrior of Arabia.

    On the second day of the battle Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.) was about to lose the battle. But, Amir Mu'awiyah was a shrewd person and had been the governor of Syria from Hadrat Umar's time. He had with him Hadrat Amr bin 'As (R.A.), the conqueror of Egypt and a recognised statesman of Arabia. Seeing the impending defeat he consulted Hadrat 'Amr bin 'As (R.A.) who advised Amir Mu'awiyah to give orders to the troops of the front ranks to fasten the Holy Qur'an to their lances as a sign that war would cease and that the decision would be referred to the Holy Book.
    Seeing copies of the Holy Qur'an on lances, Hadrat Ali (R.A.) recognised it as a clever move of the enemy but a good many men of his army did not share his view and stopped fighting. Being helpless he ordered his troops to stop fighting.


    Arbitration:

    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) sent his envoy to Hadrat Mu'awiyah (R.A.) to find out what he meant by making the Holy Qur'an a judge. Hadrat Amir Mu'awiyah told him that he wanted an arbitration through judges, one from his side and the other from Hadrat Ali’s side, and that both the parties should abide by the decision of the judge. Had rat Ali accepted it. He tried to make Hadrat Abdullah bin Abbas as the arbitrator from his side, but some of his followers objected to it on the ground that he was related to Hadrat Ali. They proposed the name of Hadrat Musa Ash'ari (R.A.). Hadrat Ali accepted their proposal and he was appointed as the arbitrator of Ali’s (R.A.) side. Hadrat Mu'awiyah appointed 'Amr bin 'As (R.A.) as the arbitrator from his side, and none of his followers questioned his choice although he was related to Amir Mu'awiyah. This shows that the followers of Hadrat Mu'awiyah were more united than the followers of Hadrat Ali. There were many Sabaites in Hadrat Ali’s camp and they were the real cause of such differences. Whenever they saw the Muslims uniting they tried to create confusion with the aim of disuniting them.

    In case the two arbitrators could not come to an agreement, the decision was to lie with eight hundred men (four hundred from Hadrat Ali’s camp and four hundred from Hadrat Mu'awiyah camp) and it would be settled by the majority. A place named Dumat-ul-Jandal, in between Syria and Iraq, was proposed for the talks. Both the judges with 800 would go there to finalise their award by the month of Ramadan, and to make it public. A temporary agreement was signed on 13th Safari, 37 A.H. between Hadrat Ali and Hadrat Mu'awiyah. The two armies then left for their homes leaving about 90,000 men dead in the field of Siffin, which number exceeded the total Muslim casualties in all the Islamic battles against the non-Muslims by the time.


    "Khawarij" or Dissenters:

    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) who was almost winning the battle against Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.) marched back from Siffin with a sense of loss. There was a tremendous loss of Muslim lives in Siffin. Never before in the history of Islam had the loss of Muslim blood been so heavy. Hadrat Ali after all wanted a peaceful solution, although the price was heavy.

    When Hadrat Ali announced the agreement before his troops, formed of various tribes. Two brothers of the Tribe of 'Anza stood up and opposed appointment of Arbitrator ("Hakam" or Judge) between the two parties for Allah's commandments were with them in the form of the Holy Qur'an which is the best "Hakam". Other people also followed this example and a good many people were against the arbitration. According to them the Arbitration was against the spirit of Islam. Some of these men requested Hadrat Ali to throw away the agreement but he said, "I did not want any agreement at that stage but you forced me to do so. When 1 gave my word of honour, you are forcing me to give them up. I would never do it." The followers of Hadrat Ali split into two groups. One group stood by the agreement while for the other the arbitration was un-lslamic.

    The second group, which was opposing arbitration, was known as Kharijites ("Khawarij" in Arabic). By the time Hadrat Ali returned to Kufa, their number reached 12,000. They did not stay with other Muslims in Kufa; instead, they encamped at Harorah and appointed Sheith bin Rabi'i as their commander-in-chief, and 'Abdullah bin Kawa as their Imam to lead Salats. They announced their policy which was as follows:

    "The Bai'at (Pledge of Loyalty) is only for Allah, and He alone is to be obeyed. To spread good and forbid evil according to the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah is our foremost duty. There exists neither a Khalifah nor an Amir. Both Ali and Mu'awiyah are in error. Mu'awiyah in error because he did not accept Ali while Ali is in error because he agreed on arbitration. After gaining power, we will set up a social order based on Allah's Book (i.e. the Holy Qur'an)."


    Ali (R.A.) sends his emissary to "Khawarij":

    After returning to Kufa Hadrat Ali sent 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas to remove the misunderstanding of the Khawarll (Dissenters). Instead of returning to the right belief, they started a lengthy argument with him. Seeing this Hadrat Ali himself went to them. He gave them all the assurances that the arbitration would only be accepted if it was based upon the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah. He was successful in his efforts after a great difficulty, and the "Khawarij joined him again temporarily.



  2. #2
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    The origins of the Shia/Sunni division - Part II


    Verdict of the Arbitrators:


    The two arbitrators thought over the matter for six months then met at the frontier town of Dumat-ul-Jandal in Sha'ban, 37 A.H. (Jan. 658). Each of them was having four hundred men with him. The commander of men from Hadrat Ali’s side was Shuraih bin Hani, and the Imam Hadrat 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas. The four hundred men from Mu'awiyah's camp were under Surjil bin Samah. Besides these some neutral Companions like 'Abdullah bin Umar, 'Abdullah bin Zubair, and Sa'd bin Waqqas were also present there.

    Hadrat 'Amr bin 'As, the judge appointed by Hadrat Mu'awiyah, was a famous statesman and diplomat of Arabia. On the other hand Abu Musa Ash'ari, the judge from Hadrat Ali’s side, was a simple Muslim, unacquainted with diplomatic tactics. In the beginning a discussion between the two judges took place. A scribe was ordered to write down the points of agreement during the discussion. They reached on the following agreement after a long discussion:--

    "All and Mu'awiyah both withdraw their right for the Khilafat. The Muslims should appoint a third person as their Khalifah."

    According to some historians the discussion was not recorded and the agreement was reached verbally. However they could not reach an agreement on the choice of the most suitable person to be approved as the Khalifah in place of Hadrat Ali or Hadrat Mu'awiyah.

    After the agreement Hadrat Amr bin 'As asked Hadrat Abu Musa Ash'ari to make it public by announcing it in the mosque before the Muslims. Hadrat Abu Musa (R.A.) announced: "We have agreed that neither Ali nor Mu'awiyah would be considered as the Khalifah. You may elect any other man you think fit." After this Hadrat Amr bin 'As (R.A.) stood up and said, "I do not consider Ali fit for the Khilafat, but in my opinion Mu'awiyah is fit for it." The statement of Hadrat Amr not only showed the split of opinion between the Arbitrators but also meant one sided decision according to which Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was supposed to lose his power but not Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.).

    Hearing the statement of Amr ibn As (R.A.) there was a big uproar. The result of the arbitration was a mere confusion. In this way the arbitration proved to be a futile and the hopes of peace were gone. Both the parties left the place in great disgust. The acceptance of such arbitration, really proved to be disastrous to Ali. Hadrat Ali lost the case before it opened.

    When Ali (R.A.)heard the result of the arbitration he said, "The judgement is not based upon the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah which was the condition for arbitration. Therefore it cannot be accepted." He then delivered a lecture in the Jami' Masjid of Kufa and asked the Muslims to prepare to attack Syria.


    Split in Muslim Community:


    As soon as the "Khawarii " knew the result of arbitration they again separated and this time rose in an open revolt. A new group was thus created in the history of Islam which proved to be more dangerous than any other group existing before then.

    As it has been discussed in connection with the assassination of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.), the Muslim community was divided into four main groups viz, Uthmanis, Shi’an-i Ali, Marhabah and Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama'ah. Marhabis were absorbed in other groups. The remaining three groups were still existing. Now the fourth group of Kharijites ("Khawarij was formed. Before proceeding further let us see the main beliefs of these groups:

    (i) Uthmanis:

    They were now confined to Syria under the banner of Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.). They demanded that until the assassins of Hadrat Uthman were punished or handed over to them, they would not accept the Khilafat of Hadrat Ali. But after the so called judgement of the arbitrators, they totally rejected the Khilafat of Hadrat Ali and took Bai'at (Pledge of Loyalty) at the hand of Amir Mu'awiyah after declaring him as the Khalifah. It would be discussed in more detail later on.

    (ii) Shi'an-i Ali (or Shia's):

    They called themselves as the friends of Ali (R.A.) in the beginning but later on they developed their own beliefs and considered Hadrat Ali as "Wasi" i.e. Administrator of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi we Salaam), and the only fit person for the Khilafat. They not only criticised and condemned Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.) but also Umar, Abu Bakr, and Uthman (R.A.) and discarded the authority of the first three Khalifahs. However they did not criticise the first two Khalifahs openly during the time of Hadrat Ali (R.A.). As years passed this group became an exponent of a separate school of thought in Islamic Law and Jurisprudence and they wrote their own books of Hadith, History of Islam and Commentaries of the Holy Qur'an based upon their beliefs. They disagreed with most of the works produced by Sunni Scholars.

    (iii) Ahl-i-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah:

    The majority of the Companions, and Muslims at the time were not only in favour of Hadrat Ali but all the preceding Khalifahs i.e. Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (R.A.). They believed that the "Right Path" was to follow the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet .(Sallallahu 'alaihi we Salaam) and the traditions of his pious Jama'ah (i.e. all the Companions), especially the first four Khalifahs who set examples to solve various problems according to the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah. This group was in great majority not only at that time but in all the periods of Islamic History.

    They fully supported Hadrat Ali (R.A.) during his Khilafat. According to them Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.) was not right in not accepting Hadrat Ali authority. But they considered that mistake based upon "ljtihad". After all, he was a pious Companion and the sincerity of a Companion must not be questioned. Hadrat Shah Waliullah, in his famous book, Izalar-ul-Khafa writes: Amir Mu'awiyah(R.A.) was an excellent Companion of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi we Salaam).Do not criticise or condemn him otherwise you would be committing a "Haram"(unlawful) act because in a Hadith the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi we Salaam) said: Do not criticise and condemn my Companions. I swear by Allah, Who holds my life, gold equal to mountain Uhud, spent by you for the sake of Allah, cannot be equal even to the handful of grains spent by a Companion. (Abu Da'ud). According to a number of Ahadith, it is forbidden for a Muslim to criticise a Companion.

    In a number of Ahadith the virtues of Hadrat Mu'awiyah (R.A.) have been mentioned. Once the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi we Salaam) prayed for Amir Mu'awiyah as follows: "O Allah, make him a Muslim who would be on Your Guidance and such a Muslim who may guide others." Ibn Sa'd says that the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi we Salaam) prayed for Amir Mu'awiyah as follows: "O Allah, give him the knowledge of the Book (i.e., the Holy Qur'an)and make him ruler(king) of the countries, and save him from the punishment (of the Hereafter)." Moreover Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.) was one of the scribes of the Revelation (i.e., the Holy Qur'an) during the time of the Holy Prophet.

    It is necessary, therefore, that we must not question his sincerity. Due to political conditions at that time, he was strict in his demand of chastisement of the assassins of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.). Most of the historians agree on this point that he did not declare himself a Khalifah during the life of Hadrat Ali although people took Bai'at on his hand.

    (iv) The "Khawarij':

    The Khawarij were more political group than theological. They accepted the authority of Hadrat Abu Bakr and Umar (R.A.) but denounced Hadrat Uthman, Ali, and Mu'awiyah (Rid. A.). They said that the "Hakam" (Arbitrator or Judge for the dispute between Hadrat Ali and Mu'awiyah) was against the principles of Islam. Only Allah had to be obeyed through the Holy Qur'an and not the Hakam. They also formulated a number of other beliefs as well. In the later period of Islamic history this group became almost extinct.


    The Kharijite Trouble:


    The "Khawarij " set up their centre at Nahrwan and began to preach their cult. Many people gathered around them and they gained sufficient strength. They were very harsh to those who differed from them and regarded such Muslims as rebels against Islam and murdered them. Loyalty to the Khalifah was a great crime in their eyes and they called it "the cult of personality".

    The Khariljites seemed to be very pious as far as their appearance was concerned. They used to offer long Salats, wore simple dress and were honest in their dealings. But they were misguided in beliefs and killed all those who said that they were the followers of the Khalifah.

    After the failure of arbitration Hadrat Ali (R.A.) wanted to march to Syria but the Kharijite movement diverted his attention. It was a great danger not only to the Muslim unity but to the Islamic beliefs and practices as a whole. It was an urgent need to wipe out such a movement in its early stage. Therefore he set out for Nahrwan, the centre of "Khawarij" instead of Syria.

    Reaching there Hadrat Ali tried to negotiate with them peacefully. He sent some prominent Companions to persuade Khariii leaders but they did not listen to them. Then Hadrat Ali asked them to hand over such people who have murdered innocent Muslims. He told them that he would leave the rest if they handed over the murderers. To this he replied to the Khalifah, "All of us are murderers and we want to murder all of your followers. We would never stop from this."

    The stage reached when there was no other way than to fight with them. Before declaring war against them Hadrat Ali declared that those who would be loyal to him or those who left Nahrwan and did not fight would be given amnesty. On his appeal 3000 Kharijites repented and again took Bai'at at his hands. The rest did not move from their position.

    The battle began. A fierce fight took place. Kharijites fought desperately but were defeated. Most of their leaders were slain. After the battle Hadrat Ali searched the slain body of the man about whom the Holy Prophet had prophesied, and had given some of the signs which were, really the forecast of Khariiite trouble. Hadrat Ali (R.A.) found the body with all the signs told by the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi we Salaam) and remarked, The Holy Prophet was very true in his prophecy."


    Unwillingness to march to Syria:


    After the battle at Nahrwan Hadrat Ali (R.A.) wanted to march on to Syria but his men were in no mood for that. They asked for some rest when he was encamping at Nakhila, some miles away from the Capital. Hadrat Ali (R.A.) allowed them to take some rest over there but they started to slip away to their homes, and only a few of them were left with him. Seeing the situation Hadrat Ali was also forced to return to Kufa.

    After some time Hadrat Ali again asked the Kufis to march on to Syria. He gave a stirring address in the Jami' Masjid of the Capital but the leaders of Kufa did not show any inclination. Despite many efforts Hadrat Ali was not successful in raising another army against the Syrians.


    Loss of Egypt:


    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) appointed Qais bin Sa'd (R.A.) as the governor of Egypt. He took pledge of loyalty from the Egyptians for Hadrat Ali (R.A.). The inhabitants of the town of Khartaba were not loyal to Hadrat Ali. He left them alone on the condition of a peaceful conduct. Some friends of Hadrat Ali, who were having an eye on the governorship of Egypt, started to doubt loyalty of Qais to Hadrat. They told Hadrat Ali that Qais was more sympathetic to Hadrat Mu'awiyah and must be sacked.

    When Hadrat Mu'awiyah noticed that the position of Qais was doubtful in the eyes of Hadrat Ali, he declared him as his man. Hearing this Hadrat Ali (R.A.) dismissed him and appointed Muhammad bin Abi Bakr as the governor of Egypt. Muhammad bin Abu Bakr was a young man and was not able to control the Egyptians in a tactful way. He forced the people of Khartaba to pledge loyalty for Hadrat Ali and remained busy with them for a long time. In the meantime the battle of Siffin took place but he was so busy with the internal affairs of Egypt that he could not send any army to help Hadrat Ali (R.A.).

    After the battle of Siffin Hadrat Ali appointed Malik bin Ushtar as the governor of Egypt. Ibn Ushtar was a strong man, but he could not join his duty and passed away in the way. Muhammad bin Abi Bakr, therefore, continued as the governor of Egypt.

    After the award of the arbitration, the Syrians declared Hadrat Mu'awiyah as their Khalifah and took Bai'at on his hands. According to a number of historians, Amir Mu'awiyah did not declare himself as the Khalifah during the life of Hadrat Ali (R.A.). However he tried to extend his control over the Islamic state after the award. The first step was to send his army under the command of Hadrat 'Amr ibn 'As to attack Egypt. Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, the governor of Egypt wrote to Hadrat Ali for help. But before he got any help 'Amr ibn 'As (R.A.) reached Egypt with six thousand men. Ten thousand inhabitants of Khartaba also joined his army. They easily beat back two thousand men of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr. He himself took shelter in a house but was caught and slain. In 38 A.H. Hadrat Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.) became the master of Egypt. He appointed Hadrat Amir ibn 'As as the governor.


    Unrest in Basrah and Iran:


    Hadrat 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas (R.A.) was the governor of Basrah controlling the whole of Persia and other parts of the Islamic State in the East. Basrites were pro-Ali but there were Uthmani (pro-Mu'awiyah) elements as well over there. In 38 A.H. Hadrat Abdullah ibn Abbas went to Kufa to pay a visit to the Khalifah. Abdullah ibn Hadrami, and Uthmani (pro-Mu’awiyah) was in Basrah in those days. In the absence of Ibn Abbas he saw his chance and incited the people to avenge the assassination of Hadrat Uthman. He got support and was able to raise an army which invaded Basrah. The governor's deputy, Ziyad ibn Abi Sufyan, could not face him and fled. Hearing the rising Hadrat Ali sent Jariah ibn Qudamah who belonged to Bani Tamim tribe. He went to Basrah with fifty people and negotiated with Basrites, most of whom were from Bani Tamim tribe. He was successful in his mission and the rebellion was put down. Ibn Hadrami and seventy of his followers shut themselves in a house which was burnt by pro-Ali Basrites.

    When the people of Eastern Persia and Kirman heard the burning of Ibn Hadrami they refused to pay Kharaj Revenue in protest. However their rising was put down by police action.

    After consulting with 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas (R.A.), Hadrat Ali appointed Ziyad ibn Abi Sufyan as the governor of Basrah to control Persia and other Eastern parts of the State.


    Pro-Mu’awiyah parties invade various parts:


    After the award, Uthmanis tried to create general unrest in the country. During the year 39 A.H. strong parties were set out from Syria. Hadrat Ali (R.A.) tried to stir his friends in Kufa but they would never come out at Ali’s call. Neither they were prepared to fight the Syrians again nor they tried seriously to check the invading parties of Uthmanis.

    One of such parties went to 'Ain al-tamr under the command of Nu'man ibn Bashir but he was defeated by Ali’s governor, Malik ibn Ka'b. Another party of six thousand men under Sufyan ibn 'Auf went to Ambar and Mada'in (Midian). They killed the officer in charge of Ambar. Hadrat Ali sent Sa'id ibn Auf with an army but they ran away. Another party of three thousand men under Dahak ibn Qais came as fairest as the neighbourhood of Basrah. Hadrat Ali sent four thousand men under Hajar ibn 'Adi. A fight took Place in which 19 Syrians (Uthmanis) were killed. Rest of them ran away in the darkness of the night.

    In the same year (i.e., 39 A. H.) Had rat 'A ii sent his deputy ibn 'Abbas, to lead Hajj. Amir Mu’awiyah also sent his deputy, Yazid ibn Sanjar to lead the Hajj. A tussle between the two men took place. At the end it was settled that a third person, Shaibah ibn Uthman ibn Abi Talha, would lead the Hajj. In this way Hadrat Ali lost this symbol of Khilafat as well.

    Hadrat Ali’s hold weakened day by day. His most effective and eloquent speeches could not arouse his friends to action. Each day that passed witnessed the Khalifah growing more and more helpless.

    A number of other incidents between pro-Mu'awiyans and pro-Alis also took place in the same year the details of which are ignored here.


    Loss of Hijaz and Yemen:


    Hijaz and Yemen were still under the control of Hadrat Ali (R.A.). In the year 40 A. H., Amir Mu'awiyah sent Busr ibn Abi Artat with three thousand men to Hijaz. First of all he went to Medina. The governor of Medina, Abu Ayyub was not able to check the Syrians and he left for Kufa. Busr took pledge of loyalty from the Medinites forcibly for Amir Mu'awiyah (R.A.), and exclaimed, "Had Mu'awiyah not forbidden me, I would not have left a single adult in Medina alive."
    After taking over Medina, Busr reached Mecca and occupied it unopposed. There too he took the pledge of loyalty from the Meccans for Amir Mu’awiyah forcibly.

    From Mecca Busr went to Yemen. At that time Hadrat 'Ubaidullah ibn 'Abbas was the governor of Yemen. Hearing of the Syrian army he fled to Kufa. Busr occupied San'a, the capital of Yemen and killed two little sons of Ubaidullah. He also slew a number of Ali’s supporters in Yemen.

    Hearing the cruelty of Busr Hadrat Ali sent Jariah ibn Qudamah with two thousand men. But before he reached Yemen, Busr fled to Syria. He also sent Wahb ibn Mas'ud with another two thousand men to Hijaz. Jariah ibn Qudamah, after establishing Ali’s rule in Yemen, was advancing to Mecca. As soon as he reached the Holy city, he received the news of Hadrat Ali’s assassination which ended his campaign.

    According to Ibn Jarir at the end of the year 40 A.H. a treaty was signed between Amir Mu'awiyah and Hadrat Ali, on the request of Amir Mu'awiyah to avoid blood shed among the Muslims. Under that treaty Syria and Egypt remained under the control of Amir Mu'awiyah and the rest of the state under the control of Hadrat Ali. Thus the conflict between the two parties ended. This civil war which ended to the detriment of Hadrat Ali was the end of Islamic democratic rule.
    But according to some other historians, no treaty took place between Hadrat Ali and Mu'awiyah. While Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was preparing to attack Syria, (for which he had issued an ordinance compelling each and everyone under him to march to Syria) he was assassinated.


    Victories:


    The civil war did not allow Hadrat Ali (R.A.) to launch Jihad (Holy War) and the Islamic Empire saw no further extension. However some parts of Sistan (near Kabul) were conquered during this period. According to some histories Muslims made a naval attack on Kohan (near Bombay, India) in the year 38 A.H


    Assassination of Hadrat Ali (R.A.):


    After the battle of Nahrwan the "Khwarij" had gone underground. As a matter of fact they were as much against .Hadrat Ali (R.A.)as they were against Hadrat Mu'awiyah (R.A.). They were still working against the Khilafat and they were greatly disgusted with the civil war that seemed endless.
    To end this state of affairs, they worked out a dangerous plot. According to them Muslims were divided because of differences between Hadrat Ali and Amir Mu'awiyah. They also disliked 'Amr ibn 'As and considered him as chief planner for Amir Mu'awiyah. They decided, therefore, to assassinate all the three of them. It was planned that the three personalities would be struck at the same time on the same day.

    Three persons, appointed to assassinate Ali, Mu'awiyah, and 'Amr ibn 'As (R.A.) were Abdur Rehman Muljam, Bark ibn 'Abdullah, and 'Amr ibn Bark respectively. Early hours of the 17th of Ramadan, 40 A.H., was fixed for the assassination.

    After the Fajr Salat of the 17th Ramadan in :he year 40 A.H. (661 A.D.) the three appointed Kharljis struck the three men. Amir Mu'awiyah escaped with a scratch, Hadrat Amr ibn 'As did not turn out for the Imamat because he was sick that day, thus was unhurt, but Hadrat Ali (R.A.) was mortally wounded with the poisoned sword of Ibn Muljam. He passed away in the evening of Ramadan 20, 40 A.H.

    Ibn Muljam was caught by the people after he had struck Hadrat Ali. Hadrat Ali asked the Muslims to slay him if he died. At the same time of his death Hadrat Ali called his sons and advised them to serve Islam and to be good with the Muslims. When somebody asked him should the Muslims take pledge of loyalty at the hands of his elder son, Hadrat Hassan, he replied, "I leave this decision to the Muslims." He also advised people not to kill any person other than the assassin to avenge him.

    He was sixty three years old at the time of his death and had ruled for four years and nine months as the Khalifah.

    According to a number of historians his real grave is not known because his son Hadrat Hasan took out his body from the grave after he was buried because of the fear of Kharijis and buried him at an unknown place.


    Period of his Khilafat:


    The period of Hadrat Ali’s Khilafat extending to four years and about nine months, was marked by civil war. His rule was characterised by a series of revolts for the first time in the history of Islam. He was elected as the Khalifah in the most critical period of Islamic history. The martyrdom of Hadrat .Uthman was an extraordinary event about which the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi we Salaam) had already prophesied. Hadrat Ali was in a very difficult situation. On the one hand the assassins and the insurgents were creating endless trouble for him, and on the other hand Banu Umayyah (Uthman's family) fled to Syria and incited Amir Mu'awiyah to stick to his demand for avenging HADRAT Uthman’s assassins. Hadrat Ali faced these problems and difficulties with extraordinary courage and presented before us an exemplary character. He never had full support even from his friends in Kufa but still remained firm in his position.

    As it has been described before, he could never locate the real assassins of Hadrat Uthman and this could not be achieved until peace was established. Therefore his first task was to create an atmosphere of peace in the state. But the Sabaites (insurgents) never wanted peace. They worked on both sides. On the one side they made it difficult for Hadrat Ali to find out the assassins, and on the other hand they sent their agents to Syria to incite the people (especially Umayyads) against Hadrat Ali. Their main aim was to let the Muslims fight among themselves so that they might prosper. Although Hadrat Ali knew all this but he was unable to take any firm action because of the civil war.

    The third problem faced by Hadrat Ali (R.A.)was the Kharijite movement. They were extremists and misled a number of innocent Muslims. They did not hesitate to use sword against persons who do not agree with them. They developed many beliefs foreign to Islam, although they appeared to be very pious but very politically, they were corrupt. Hadrat Ali dealt with them with an iron hand. He realised that if they were not wiped out in the beginning they would mislead future generations. He was successful in destroying their strong hold. However some of them, who escaped, went underground but they were never in a strong position.

    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) tried his utmost to unite the Muslims and bring them back on one platform but he was not successful. The tragic death of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.) signal for blood shed among the Muslims. The Companions were not to be blamed for it at all. This was caused by anti-Islamic elements in the form of Sabaites, ('Abdullah ibn Saba and his followers). Historical facts bear it out that Abdullah ibn Saba became the greatest enemy of Islam. It was he who shattered the unity of Muslims forever. After completing their mission the Sabaites made a pretence of being Ali’s friends but they never helped him nor the cause of Muslim Unity. No sooner had Hadrat Ali assumed Khilafat than a group of the same miscreant Sabaites who had brought about the cold-blooded assassination of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.) began to demand due retribution for the murder of the Khalifah and started to incite Muslims only to create division among them. Thus they played a double role. A group of them showed themselves as friends of Ali and another group (much smaller than the first) went to Syria and other parts of Islamic State to incite the Muslims against Hadrat Ali (R.A.).

    Hadrat Ali (R.A.) faced all these problems with courage and never lost heart. He was a man of strong will power and determination and was quite right in his decisions.

    ----------------------

    Source:
    The Islamic Scholar: The most comprehensive Islamic Software on CD-ROM for Windows

    Par Excellence Computers cc
    PO Box 42671, Fordsburg, 2033, Johannesburg, South Africa
    (http://www.parexcellence.co.za)

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Deobandis


    Are Deobandis part of Ahlus Sunnah? Are they within the folds of Islam?


    Answer :


    Praise be to Allaah.

    The Deobandis are one of the groups of Muslims. This group is connected to and named after the University of Deoband – Dar al-Uloom – in India. It is an intellectual school of thought that is deeply rooted, and everyone who graduated from that university was influenced by its academic characteristics, so that they became known as Deobandis.

    The University of Deoband was founded by a group of Indian ‘ulamaa’ (scholars) after the British had put a stop to the Islamic revolution in India in 1857 CE. Its establishment was a strong reaction against western advancement and its materialistic civilization in the Indian Subcontinent, aimed at saving the Muslims from the dangers of these circumstances, especially when Delhi, the capital, had been destroyed following the revolution and the British had taken full control of it. The scholars feared that their religion might be assimilated, so Shaykh Imdaadullaah al-Muhaajir al-Makki and his student Shaykh Muhammad Qaasim al-Nanatuwi, and their companions, drew up a plan to protect Islam and its teachings. They thought that the solution was to establish religious schools and Islamic centers, thus al-Madrasah al-Islamiyyah al-Arabiyyah was established in Deoband as a center for Islam and Sharee’ah in India at the time of British rule.

    The most prominent figures of this intellectual school:

    1- Muhammad Qaasim
    2- Rasheed Ahmad al-Kankoohi
    3- Husayn Ahmad al-Madani
    4- Muhammad Anwaar Shah al-Kashmiri
    5- Abu’l-Hasan al-Nadvi
    6- Al-Muhaddith Habeeb al-Rahmaan al-A’zami


    Thoughts and beliefs


    With regard to basic tenets of belief (‘aqeedah), they follow the madhhab of Abu Mansoor al-Maatreedi.


    They follow the madhhab of Imaam Abu Haneefah with regard to fiqh and minor issues.
    They follow the Sufi tareeqahs of the Naqshbandiyyah, Chishtiyyah, Qaadiriyyah and Saharwardiyyah with regard to spiritual development.

    The thoughts and principles of the Deobandi school may be summed up as follows:

    - Preserving the teachings of Islam and its strength and rituals.
    - Spreading Islam and resisting destructive schools of thought and missionary activity.
    - Spreading Islamic culture and resisting the invading British culture.
    - Paying attention to spreading the Arabic language because it is the means of benefiting from the sources of Islamic sharee’ah.
    - Combining reason and emotion, and knowledge and spirituality.

    See al-Mawsoo’ah al-Muyassarah fil Adyaan wal Madhaahib (1/308).


    Because the Deobandis follow the Maatreedi madhhab with regard to belief (‘aqeedah), we have to define what al-Maatreediyyah is:


    This is a philosophical (kalaami) group which is named after Abu Mansoor al-Maatreedi. It is based on using rational and philosophical proof and evidence in disputes with opponents from among the Mu’tazilah, Jahamiyyah and others to establish the truths of religion and Islamic ‘aqeedah (belief). With regard to sources, the Maatreediyyah divide the bases of religion into two categories depending on the source:

    1 – Divine or rational: these are matters which are established independently by reason and the reports follow that. This includes issues of Tawheed and the Divine attributes.
    2 – Legislative matters or transmitted reports, These are matters which reason states may or may not exist, but there is no way to prove rationally that they exist, such as Prophethood, the torment of the grave and issues of the Hereafter. It should be noted that some of them regarded Prophethood as coming under the heading of rational issues.

    It is obvious that this is contradictory to the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, because the Qur’aan, Sunnah and consensus of the Sahaabah are the sources of guidance in their view. This is in addition to their bid’ah (innovation) of dividing the sources of religion into rational matters vs. transmitted reports, which was based on the false notion of the philosophers who assumed that the religious texts contradict reason, so they tried to mediate between reason and the transmitted reports. This led them to force reason into fields where it has no place, so they came up with false rulings which contradicted sharee’ah, and that led them to say that they did not know what the texts mean and that only Allaah knows their meaning, or to misinterpret them altogether. In the view of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, on the other hand, there is no contradiction between sound reason and the sound transmitted reports.

    See al-Mawsoo’ah al-Muyassarah fi’l-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah, 1/99


    Attitude of Ahl al-Sunnah towards the Maatreediyyah


    It was narrated from the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that this ummah would split into seventy-three sects, all of which would be in the Fire apart from one. The Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) explained that the saved group is the Jamaa’ah, which is the group that follows the same path as the Messenger SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his Companions.

    Undoubtedly Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, who adhere to the Qur’aan and Sunnah in terms of both knowledge and actions, are the saved group, and this description applies to them, i.e., they adhere to that which the Messenger SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his Companions adhered to in terms of knowledge and actions.

    It is not sufficient for an individual or group merely to claim to belong to the Sunnah whilst going against the methodology of the salaf, namely the Sahaabah and Taabi’een. Rather it is essential to adhere to their methodology in knowledge, action, approach and spiritual development.

    The Maatreediyyah are one of the groups whose opinions include true and false views, and some things that go against the Sunnah. It is known that these groups vary with regard to the truth, how near or far they are; the closer they are to the Sunnah, the closer they are to the truth and the right way. Among them are some who went against the Sunnah with regard to basic principles, and some who went against the Sunnah with regard to more subtle issues. There are some who refuted other groups who are farther away from the Sunnah, so they are to be praised with regard to their refutation of falsehood and what they have said of truth, but they have overstepped the mark in so far as they have rejected part of the truth and gone along with some falsehood. So they have refuted a serious bid’ah by means of a lesser bid’ah, and refuted falsehood with a lesser form of falsehood. This is the case with most of the philosophers (ahl al-kalaam) who claim to belong to Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah…”

    (From the words of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, al-Fataawa, 1/348).
    There remains one important question to be answered, which is: what is our duty towards the Maatreediyyah and groups who hold similar beliefs such as the Deobandis and others?


    The answer varies according to differences in the persons involved.

    If someone is stubborn and propagates his bid’ah, then we must warn others about him and explain where he has gone wrong and deviated. But if he does not propagate his bid’ah and it is clear from his words and actions that he is seeking the truth and striving for that purpose, then we should advise him and explain to him what is wrong with this belief, and guide him in a manner that is better; perhaps Allaah will bring him back to the truth. This advice is included in the words of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “Religion is sincerity (or sincere advice).” We [the Sahabah] asked, “To whom?” He said, “To Allaah and His Book, and His Messenger, and to the leaders of the Muslims and their common folk.”
    (Narrated by Muslim, 55).

    Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
    (
    www.islam-qa.com)
    Question #22473

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Naasibis

    I would like to know about the following terms:
    1- What is the definition of a Naasibi?

    2- What is the ruling on such a person – is he a Muslim, a kaafir (disbeliever), one who has gone astray, or an innovator?

    3- Are there some references which speak about the Naasibis?.



    Answer :


    Praise be to Allaah.
    Nasb in Arabic refers to setting something up or raising it. Mukhtaar al-Sihaah, 1/275.
    In al-Qaamoos it says that the Naasibis (al-nawaasib, al-naasibah and ahl al-nasb) are those whose religious beliefs include hating ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) because they set themselves up against him, i.e. took a hostile stance against him.

    Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The Naasibis are those who set themselves up against Ahl al-Bayt (the members of the Prophet’s household) and hated them and slandered them. They are diametrically opposed to the Raafidis (Shi’ah). Sharh al-Waasitiyyah, 2/283.

    Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said, explaining the ‘aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah: They (i.e., the Sunnis) love the people of the household of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); they regard them with love and loyalty, and they heed the command of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) concerning them… but they reject the way of the Raafidis who hate the Sahaabah and slander them, and they reject the way of the Naasibis who insult Ahl al-Bayt in words and deed. Ahl al-Sunnah do not indulge in discussions about the disputes that took place among the Sahaabah.

    Al-‘Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah, Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 3/154.

    So the Naasibis are those who hate Ahl al-Bayt, especially ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), and some of them slander him and some accuse him of being a rebellious evildoer, and some of them regard him as a kaafir, as was referred to by Shaykh al-Islam (Manhaaj al-Sunnah, 7/339).
    One of the most well-known groups who emerged from among the Naasibis were the Khaarijis who rebelled against ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and regarded him as a kaafir, and they added other innovations to that.

    Undoubtedly rebelling and hating the Ahl al-Bayt and other Sahaabah is a serious kind of bid’ah (innovation) that implies slandering this religion which was transmitted to us via the Sahaabah, the Ahl al-Bayt and others.

    With regard to whether they are to be regarded as kaafirs, this varies according to the level of hatred for the Sahaabah, and their motives. In brief, if they hate them for some worldly reason then that does not mean that they are kaafirs or hypocrites, but if it is for a religious reason, because they are the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then this is kufr. Anything in between that is an area of scholarly dispute in general. See question no;45563

    With regard to the ruling on the Khaarijis – who have a similar mentality to the Shi’ah and added to that hatred of the Sahaabah, regarding the one who commits a major sin as a kaafir, and other kinds of bid’ah – there is some difference of opinion among the scholars. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

    The ummah is agreed on condemning of the Khaarijis and regarding them as having gone astray, but they dispute as to whether they are to be regarded as kaafirs. There are two well-known views in the Madhhabs of Maalik and Ahmad. In the madhhab of al-Shaafa’i there is also a dispute as to whether they are kaafirs. Hence there are two views in the madhhab of Ahmad.

    The first is that they are wrongdoers, and the second is that they are kaafirs like the apostates, so it is permissible to kill them first, to kill those taken prisoner, and to pursue those who run away. If possible they should be asked to repent as in the case of apostates: if they repent all well and good, otherwise they are to be executed.

    Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/518.

    Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: With regard to viewing them as kaafirs and stating that they will abide in Hell for eternity, there are also two well-known scholarly views, which were both narrated from Ahmad. The two views apply to the Khaarijis and those who went astray such as the Harooris, Raafidis and others. The most correct of these views is that their beliefs which are well known to go against what the Messenger brought constitute kufr. Similarly their actions which are like the actions of the kuffaar against the Muslims are also kufr. I have mentioned the evidence for that elsewhere. But to declare a specific individual among them to be a kaafir and to judge that he will abide in Hell forever is dependent upon the conditions for declaring a person to be a kaafir being met and the impediments to so doing being absent.

    When we quote the verses and reports which speak of promises and warnings, and who is a kaafir and a faasiq, we should quote them in a general sense. We cannot judge that any specific individual is included in the general meaning of those texts, unless one of the conditions is met with no impediment. We have already discussed this principle in Qaa’idat al-Takfeer. (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/500). And Allaah knows best.

    The questioner should note that in their books the Raafidis who go to extremes with regard to ‘Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt, and slander the Sahaabah and regard them as kaafirs, often accuse those who disagreed with their falsehood of being Naasibis, but by Naasibis they mean Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. They do this to express their dislike of them for going against their falsehood and following the way of truth. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: “With regard to Ahl al-Sunnah, they regard as friends all the believers. When they speak it is on the basis of knowledge and fairness, unlike those who are ignorant or follow their whims and desires; they reject the way of both the Raafidis and the Naasibis and they hold all of the early generations in high esteem, and they recognize status and virtue of the Sahaabah and respect the rights of Ahl al-Bayt as prescribed by Allaah. They also recognize the varying status of members of the early generation, and they recognize that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar enjoyed precedence and had virtues that were not shared by anyone else among the Sahaabah. Manhaaj al-Sunnah, 2/71

    Based on this, we have to know who uses this word and who they are referring to by that, lest we reject the truth, because of their describing the people of truth in an incorrect manner. Because one of the characteristics of the people who follow innovation is to attack Ahl al-Sunnah and describe them in offputting terms. What counts is that which is in accordance with the Qur’aan and Sunnah and the way of the earliest generations of this ummah, no matter how much the followers of falsehood try to distort it.

    Among the books which speak of the Naasibis and refute them and their ideas, and discussed those who went to the other extreme, namely the Raafidis, is Manhaaj al-Sunnah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah. You can refer to this book or some of its abridged editions.

    We ask Allaah to guide us and you to follow His Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and to protect us from misguidance and temptations both obvious and subtle.

    Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)
    Question #43322

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Druze

    Can you give me a brief idea about the beliefs of the Druze? What is the Islamic ruling concerning them?.

    Answer :


    Praise be to Allaah.


    The Druze originated as a secret sect among the esoteric (baatini) groups that appear outwardly to be Muslim and who sometimes pretend to be religious, ascetic and pious. They make an outward show of false pride in religion, pretending to be various kinds of Shi’ahs, Sufis and lovers of Ahl al-Bayt (the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)). They claim to carry the banner of peace and reconciliation amongst people, and they talk about uniting people in order to deceive them and lead them astray from their religion. When the opportunity arises, when they become stronger and find supporters among the ruling classes, they show their true colours and proclaim their real beliefs and aims, and they start to promote evil and corruption, and try to destroy religious teachings, sound beliefs and morals.

    This is clear to anyone who studies their history and follows their progress from the day the Jew ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Saba’ lay the foundations and planted the seed, a legacy which has been handed down from one generation to another, as they have tried hard to implement these principles, and this has continued until the present day.

    Although the Druze are one of these esoteric groups, they have their own characteristics as regards their origins and the time when they emerged, and the circumstances which helped them to become established. We will mention some brief details concerning that and the rulings of the scholars concerning them.

    1 – The Druze are named after Durzi, whose full name was Abu ‘Abd-Allaah Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Durzi. His name is also given as ‘Abd-Allaah al-Durzi and Durzi ibn Muhammad. It was said that Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Durzi was Tashtakeen or Hashtakeen al-Durzi. It was also said that they are named after Tayrooz, a city in Persia. Al-Zubaydi narrated that the correct form of the name is Darzi, based on the phrase “awlaad darzah” meaning those who are base and vile.

    2 – Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Durzi appeared at the time of al-Haakim bi Amrihi, Abu ‘Ali al-Mansoor ibn al-‘Azeez, one of the ‘Ubaydi kings (known in the west as Fatimids) who ruled Egypt for nearly two hundred years and who falsely claimed to be descended from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) though Faatimah (may Allaah be pleased with her).

    Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Durzi was originally a follower of the esoteric Ismaili sect who claim to be the followers of Muhammad ibn Isma’eel ibn Ja’far al-Saadiq. Then he left this group and contacted the ‘Ubaydi al-Haakim, approving of his claim to divinity, and he called the people to worship him alone. He claimed that God had become incarnate in ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib, and that the soul of ‘Ali has migrated to his sons one after another, until it reached al-Haakim. Al-Haakim gave him authority in Egypt so that the people would obey him in his call. When his true intentions became clear, the Muslims in Egypt rebelled against him and killed some of his supporters. When they wanted to kill him, he escaped and fled to al-Haakim, who gave him some money and told him to go to Syria to spread his call there. So he went there and stopped in Waadi Taym-Allaah ibn Tha’labah, to the west of Damascus, where he called them to deify al-Haakim and spread the principles of the Druze among them, and distributed money to them, and they responded to his call.

    Another man also spread the call of the deification of al-Haakim, a Persian man whose name was Hamzah ibn ‘Ali ibn Ahmad al-Haakimi al-Durzi, one of the leading baatinis. He had contacted the leaders of the secret call of al-Haakim’s party, and he called for his deification in secret until he became one of their main leaders. Then he proclaimed that openly and claimed that he was the messenger of al-Haakim, and al-Haakim supported him in that. When al-Haakim died and was succeeded by his son who was known as Al-Zaahir li I’zaaz Deen Allaah (the supporter of the religion of Allaah), and he disavowed himself of his father’s claim to divinity, this call was chased out of Egypt. Hamzah fled to Syria and was followed by some of those who had responded to his call. Most of them settled in the region that later came to be known as Jebel el Druze in Syria.

    Their principles are as follows:

    (a) Incarnation. They believe that Allaah was incarnated in ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), then in his sons after him, one after another, until He was incarnated in the Faatimid al-Haakim Abu ‘Ali al-Mansoor ibn al-‘Azeez. They believe that al-Haakim will return and that he disappears and reappears.

    (b) Dissimulation (taqiyah) – i.e., hypocrisy and concealment. They do not tell anyone their real beliefs except those who are of their number. Indeed they do not disclose their secrets to anyone except those whom they trust from among their own group.

    (c) Infallibility of their imams. They think that their imams are infallible and protected from sin. Indeed, they deified them and worshipped them instead of Allaah, as they did with al-Haakim.
    (d) Esotericism (baatiniyyah). They claim that the texts of sharee’ah have an esoteric or secret meaning other than the apparent meaning. They based their heresy concerning the texts on this, and distorted the meanings of the reports, commands and prohibitions.

    With regard to their heresy concerning the reports, they deny the perfect attributes of Allaah and they deny the Day of Resurrection with its reckoning and recompense of Paradise and Hell. They replaced that with something that they call the transmigration of souls, the belief that the soul of a person or animal moves, when he or it dies, to the body of another person or animal when he or it is born, to dwell therein being either blessed or tormented. They believe that the universe is eternal and is no more than wombs giving birth and the earth swallowing the bodies of the deceased (i.e., a never-ending cycle of birth and death). They do not believe in the angels or the message of the Prophets, and they follow the philosophers who followed their own whims and desires and the principles and theories of Aristotle.

    With regard to their heresy concerning the texts which stipulate commands and prohibitions, they distort them. They say that salaah (prayer) really means knowledge of their secrets, not the five daily prayers; siyaam (fasting) means concealing their secrets, not refraining from things that break the fast from dawn until sunset; and that Hajj (pilgrimage) means visiting the shaykhs whom they venerate. They regard immoral actions, both outward and inward, as permissible, and they allow marriage to daughters and mothers, and other kinds of tinkering with the texts and denying things that are clearly known to be the laws of Allaah that He has enjoined upon His slaves. Hence Abu Haamid al-Ghazaali and others said concerning them: outwardly their madhhab is Raafidi (Shi’ism) but inwardly it is pure kufr.

    (e) Hypocrisy and deceit in their call. They make an outward display of being Shi’ah and of loving Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet’s household) to those whom they call. When they respond to them, they call them to Shi’ism and openly criticize the Sahaabah and slander them. If they accept that then they disclose to them the alleged faults of ‘Ali and slander him. If they accept that, then they go on to slander the Prophets and say that they have secrets that go against the message to which they called their nations; they say that they were smart and devised new laws for their nations for them to achieve worldly interests, and so on.

    Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah was asked about how the Druze and Nusairis should be judged. He replied:

    These Druze and Nusairis are kaafirs, according to the consensus of the Muslims. It is not permissible to eat the meat they slaughter, or to marry their womenfolk. They do not agree to pay the jizyah, so they are apostates from the religion of Islam and are not Muslims, nor are they Jews or Christians. They do not agree that the five daily prayers are obligatory, or that fasting Ramadaan is obligatory, or that Hajj is obligatory. They do not regard as haraam that which Allaah and His Messenger have forbidden of dead meat or wine, etc. Even if they pronounce the Shahaadatayn, with these beliefs they are kaafirs according to the consensus of the Muslims. As for the Nusairis, they are the followers of Abu Shu’ayb Muhammad ibn Naseer, who was one of the extremists who say that ‘Ali is a god, and they recite these words:

    “I bear witness that there is no god except Haidar [i.e., ‘Ali],
    and no screen covering him except Muhammad, the honest and trustworthy one,
    and there is no way to him except through Salmaan the all-powerful.”

    Haidar is a title given to ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him).

    With regard to the Druze, the followers of Hashtakeen al-Durzi, who was one of the freed slaves of al-Haakim whom he sent to the people of Wadi Taym-Allaah ibn Tha’labah and he called them to believe in the divinity of al-Haakim and they call him “the creator, the all-knowing”, and swear by him, they are among the Ismailis who believe that Muhammad ibn Isma’eel abrogated the law of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allaah. They are worse kaafirs than many other extremist groups. They believe that this universe has no creator and they deny the resurrection and the duties and prohibitions of Islam. They are among the esoteric Qarmatians (al-Qaraamitah) who are worse kaafirs than the Jews, Christians and mushrik Arabs. Basically they follow the philosophy of Aristotle and his ilk, or the Magians. Their ideas are a mixture of Magian philosophy but they make an outward, hypocritical display of being Shi’ah. And Allaah knows best.

    Shaykh al-Islam also said, refuting the ideas of some sects of Druze:

    The fact that these groups are kaafirs is something concerning which there is no dispute among the Muslims. Rather whoever doubts that they are kaafirs is a kaafir like them. They do not have a status like that of the People of the Book or of the mushrikeen, rather they are misguided kaafirs and it is not permissible to eat their food, their women may be taken captive and their wealth may be confiscated. They are heretics and apostates whose repentance cannot be accepted, rather they should be killed wherever they are found, and they may be cursed because of what they are. It is not permissible to employ them as guards and gatekeepers. Their scholars and leaders must be killed, lest they lead others astray. It is haraam to sleep with them in their houses or to be friends with them, or to walk with them or to attend their funerals, if their death is announced. It is haraam for the Muslim authorities to neglect to carry out the hadd punishment that Allaah has enjoined by whatever means they see fit. And Allaah is the One Whose help we seek and in Whom we put our trust.

    From the fatwas of the Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas.

    Majallat al-Buhooth al-Islamiyyah, 36/85-89

    islamqa.com
    Question #26139

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Ash'aris

    Is it permissible to study fiqh or ‘uloom al-hadeeth (sciences of hadeeth) with an Ash’ari individual?.


    Answer :


    Praise be to Allaah.

    The Ash’aris are a sect that is named after Imam Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash’ari (may Allaah have mercy on him). Al-Ash’ari passed through three stages – as mentioned by Ibn Taymiyah in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 4/72 – which may be summed up as follows: a Mu’tazili stage; then following Ibn Kilaab; then following Ahl al-Sunnah, chiefly Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Al-Ash’ari clearly stated his final position in his three books: Risaalah ila Ahl al-Thaghr, Maqaalaat al-Islaamiyyeen, and al-Ibaanah. Whoever follows al-Ash’ari at this stage is in accordance with Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah in most issues. Whoever follows his path at the second stage is going against al-Ash’ari himself, and is going against Ahl al-Sunnah in many issues.

    Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said in al-Fataawa, 3/338:

    Those later scholars who called themselves after Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash’ari were following the second of his stages of ‘aqeedah. They followed the method of misinterpreting most of the divine attributes, and this only affirmed the seven attributes mentioned in the following line of verse:

    “Ever-Living, All-Knowing, Able (to do all things), He speaks, He wills, He hears and He sees.”
    They also differed with Ahl al-Sunnah as to how these attributes are to be understood.
    The Standing Committee issued a fatwa (no. 6606, vol. 3/220):

    The Ash’aris are not kuffaar, rather they erred in their interpretation of some of the Divine attributes.

    Based on this, it is better for a Muslim to study Islamic knowledge and sharee’ah only with scholars who are well known for their knowledge and sound belief (‘aqeedah), and to keep away from those who follow bid’ah and go against Ahl al-Sunnah, including the Ash’aris. This is something that is easy to do – praise be to Allaah – because the means of learning have become readily available to all people. The knowledge of the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah is available through many means such as Islamic tapes, books, and leaflets; there are Islamic bulletin boards and sites on the internet, and many easy ways of accessing knowledge – praise be to Allaah.

    O Allaah, teach us that which will benefit us, benefit us by that which we learn and increase us in knowledge.

    For more information see Question no. 10693.
    And Allaah knows best.

    Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)
    Question #34531

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Al-Ibaadiyyah

    Who are the Ibaadis?.


    Answer :


    Praise be to Allaah.


    1 – Definition.

    The Ibaadis are a group of Khaarijis who are named after their founder, ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ibaad al-Tameemi. They claim that they are not Khaarijis, and they deny this origin. But the truth is that they are not extreme Khaarijis like the Azraqis, but they agree with the Khaarijis in many issues such as denying the divine attributes, saying that the Qur’aan is created, and allowing rebellion against oppressive rulers.

    2 – After whom are the Ibaadis named?

    Their first founder was ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ibaad from the tribe of Banu Murrah ibn ‘Ubayd ibn Tameem. He was named after Ibaad which is a village in al-Yamaamah known nowadays as al-‘Aarid. ‘Abd-Allaah was a contemporary of Mu’aawiyah and died at the end of the reign of ‘Abd al-Maalik ibn Marwaan.

    3 – Their most important beliefs:

    · From their books it seems that they deny the divine attributes, and they agree to a large extent with the Mu’tazilah in the misinterpretation of divine attributes. But they claim that their views are based on sound evidence, when they interpret the divine attributes in a metaphorical sense, which explains the meaning without likening Allaah to His creation. But the truth of this matter is the view of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, who follow the evidence and affirm the names and attributes of Allaah as He Himself has affirmed them, without denying them, discussing how, they are, misinterpreting them or likening Allaah to His creation.

    · They deny that the believers will see Allaah in the Hereafter.
    · They misinterpret some matters having to do with the Hereafter and deny that they are real, such as the Balance (Meezaan) and the Siraat.

    · The attributes of Allaah are not additional to His Essence, they are His Essence.
    · The Qur’aan in their view is created, and they agreed with the Khaarijis in that. Al-Ash’ari said in Maqaalaat al-Islamiyyeen, “All the Khaarijis say that the Qur’aan was created.” Maqaalaat al-Islamiyyeen, 1/203.

    · In their view the one who commits a major sin is a kaafir in the sense of being ungrateful to Allaah or being a hypocrite.
    · In their view people fall into three categories:
    - Believers who are sincere in their faith
    - Mushriks whose shirk is obvious
    - People who have affirmed belief in Tawheed and Islam, but who do not adhere to its practices and acts of worship, so they are not mushriks because they have affirmed belief in Tawheed, but they are not believers either because they do not adhere to the requirements of faith. So they are included with the Muslims in rulings having to do with this world, because of their affirmation of Tawheed, and they are included with the mushriks in rulings having to do with the Hereafter because they were not sincere in their faith and they went against the requirements of Tawheed.

    · They believe that those of the people of the qiblah who differ from them are kaafirs but not mushriks; it is permissible to marry them and inherit from them. Their weapons, horses and anything that may be used for war is permissible as war booty and everything else is haraam.

    · The one who commits a major sin is a kaafir and when he is committing sin and persisting in it, he cannot be admitted to Paradise if he has not repented, for Allaah does not forgive major sins unless those who commit them repent before death.

    · They call the one who commits a major sin a kaafir, claiming that this is kufr in the sense of ingratitude to Allaah or in the sense of hypocrisy, not in the sense that he is a kaafir who is beyond the pale of Islam. Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah on the other hand call such a person disobedient or a sinner. Whoever dies in such a state – according to Ahl al-Sunnah – is subject to the will of Allaah: if He wills, He will forgive him by His grace, and if He wills, He will punish him by His justice until he is cleansed of his sin, then he will be moved to Paradise. But the Ibaadis say that the sinner will abide in Hell forever, so in this regard they agree with the rest of the Khaarijis and Mu’talizah who say that the sinners will abide in Hell forever.

    · They deny that there will be any intercession for the sinners who are believers in Tawheed, because sinners – in their view – will abide in Hell forever, so there can be no intercession for them to be brought forth from Hell.

    · Some of them criticized the caliph ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan, Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan and ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may Allaah be pleased with them).

    Mawsoo’ah al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah, 1/63.

    Question #11529 (www.islam-qa.com)

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Ismailis

    The Suni Muslim was Reciting QURAN we are also reciting quran they are also resisting eid namaz we are also we are also reciting eid namaz and etc. THEN WHY WE HAVE TWO RELIGIOUS SHIA & SUNI

    Answer :


    Praise be to Allaah.

    All of those who belong to Islam and bear witness that there is no god except Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah recite the Qur’aan and affirm that salaah, fasting, zakaah and Hajj are obligatory. But they are divided into different groups, each of which has its own way as regards beliefs and acts of worship. The best of these groups is Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, who adhere to the Qur’aan and Sunnah both outwardly and inwardly, and who follow the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the first Muslims, the Muhaajireen and Ansaar. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “Say (O Muhammad to mankind): “If you (really) love Allaah, then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic Monotheism, follow the Qur’ششn and the Sunnah), Allaah will love you” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:31]

    “And the foremost to embrace Islam of the Muhaajiroon and the Ansaar and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allaah is well-pleased with them as they are well-pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success” [al-Tawbah 9:100]

    The worst of these groups are the hypocrites (munaafiqeen) who make an outward display of faith whilst concealing kufr (disbelief). They speak words which do not reflect what is in their hearts. They are the ones of whom Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “And of mankind, there are some (hypocrites) who say: ‘We believe in Allaah and the Last Day,’ while in fact they believe not… And when they meet those who believe, they say: ‘We believe,’ but when they are alone with their Shayaateen (devils — polytheists, hypocrites), they say: ‘Truly, we are with you; verily, we were but mocking’” [al-Baqarah 2:8, 14]

    Between these two groups are others which vary in their degree of closeness to good and evil. The Ismailis are an extreme Raafidi group who make an outward display of loyalty to Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) whilst concealing disbelief in Allaah, His angels, His Books and His Messengers. Hence some of the scholars said concerning the Faatimis, who were same as the Ismailis, that they make an outward display of being Raafidis, but they conceal in their hearts pure kufr. They are also called Baatinis because they claim that the texts and laws have hidden (baatin) meanings other than those which are known to the Muslims.

    For example, they say that the five prayers refer to the knowledge of their secrets, the fast of Ramadaan is the concealment of their secrets, and Hajj is travelling to meet their shaykhs. But the baatini school of thought – which includes the Ismailis – is based on secrecy. Their real beliefs are secrets which are known only to their leaders, and these leaders are deluding the ordinary people, enslaving and exploiting them, demanding from them sums of money to be paid at certain times, expecting absolute obedience from them and scaring them by telling them that if they go against them they will be stricken with calamities. They command them to be different from the Sunnis with regard to fasting, ending the fast and Hajj, although they may show some tolerance and act friendly in order to deceive them. You are one of the ordinary Ismailis, and you do not know the secrets that the leaders have. They do not think that you are qualified to know them, because they know that if you and others like you were to discover these secrets, you would be disgusted and would have nothing more to do with them, and you would reject their beliefs. They want you to continue being a follower, enslaved to them, and they want to retain their leadership over you. Fear Allaah and free yourself from this enslavement to someone other than Allaah and following someone other than the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), because there is no one who should be followed apart from the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

    May Allaah bless you with guidance to the Sunnah and keep you away from the path of bid’ah; may He open your eyes to the truth that He is Able to do all things.


    Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn al-Barraak

    (www.islam-qa.com)
    Question #7974

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Al-Ahbaash (the Habashis)


    what's the Islamic point of view concerning the new group that appeared in Islam "AL AHBASH"? what are we supposed to do with them? and would you please tell me in brief what are the mistakes they have in their Aqeedah?


    Answer :


    Praise be to Allaah.

    Praise be to Allaah Alone, and peace and blessings be upon the one after whom there is no Prophet, and upon his family and companions.

    The Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwaas (al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah li’l-Buhooth al-‘Ilmiyyah wa’l-Iftaa’) has received questions and requests for information concerning Jamaa’at al-Ahbaash (the Habashis) and about the person after whom this group is named, one ‘Abd-Allaah al-Habashi, who is based in Lebanon. This group conducts activities in various European countries, and in America and Australia. The Committee therefore examined the books and articles published by this group, in which their beliefs, thoughts and call are stated clearly. After examining this material and pondering the matter, the Committee issued the following statement to the Muslims:

    Firstly:

    It was reported in al-Saheehayn from the hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
    “The best of people are my generation, then the generation that follows them, then the generation that follows them.” And there are other versions of this hadeeth.

    And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
    “I advise you to fear Allaah and to listen and obey, even if a slave is appointed as your leader. Whoever among you lives after I die will see differences arise. I urge you to adhere to my Sunnah and the way of my rightly-guided successors (al-khulafaa’ al-raashidoon); clench your teeth on it (i.e., hold fast to it). Beware of newly invented things, for every innovation (bid’ah) is a going astray.” (Narrated by Ahmad, and Abu Dawood and al-Tirmidhi, who said, it is a saheeh hasan hadeeth).

    One of the most important characteristics by which those first generations were distinguished and by which the achieved a higher level of righteousness than all other people, was the fact that they referred all their affairs to the Qur’aan and Sunnah; the Qur’aan and Sunnah were given precedence over all individual opinions, no matter whose opinion it was; they understood the texts of the two noble Revelations (i.e., the Qur’aan and Sunnah) in accordance with the principles of sharee’ah and the Arabic language; the sharee’ah was adopted in its entirety, and with regard to every single detail; ambiguous texts were referred to clear texts. Hence they upheld the sharee’ah and adhered to it, and they held fast to it. They did not add anything to it or take anything away from it. How could they add anything to it or take anything away from it when they were adhering to the divine texts which free from mistakes and errors?

    Secondly:

    Then these generations were succeeded by others among whom there were many innovations and invented matters, where everyone who had an opinion was enamoured of his opinion and forsook the texts of sharee’ah, and the texts were deliberately misinterpreted and distorted to suit people’s desires and ideas. Thus they went against the Trustworthy Messenger, and followed a way other than that of the believers. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
    “And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way, We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell — what an evil destination!” [al-Nisaa’ 4:115]

    It is a part of the grace of Allaah towards this Ummah that in each age He sends to it scholars who are well versed in knowledge and who can stand up against every kind of bid’ah that distorts the beauty of the faith and contaminates its purity, and competes with or tries to destroy the Sunnah. This is the fulfilment of Allaah to protect His religion and sharee’ah, as He said (interpretation of the meaning):

    “Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur’aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)” [al-Hijr 15:9]

    And according to the hadeeth narrated in the books of Saheeh, the Sunans, the Musnads and others, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
    “A group of my ummah will continue to adhere to the commands of Allaah, and they will not be harmed by those who let them down or oppose them, until the Command of Allaah comes to pass, and they will be prevailing over the people.” And there are other versions of this report.

    Thirdly:

    During the last quarter of the fourteenth century AH there emerged a group led by ‘Abd-Allaah al-Habashi, who moved from Ethiopia to Syria, taking his miguidance with him, and he moved about in that region until he settled in Lebanon, where he started to call people to his way. His number of followers increased and his ideas – which are a mixture of the ideas of the Jahamiyyah [a group which misinterpreted the attributes of Allaah], the Mu’tazilah [a philosophical group many of whose ideas differ from those of Ahl al-Sunnah], grave-worshippers and Sufis – began to spread. He fanatically supported his ideas by engaging in debates and printing books and leaflets which propagate them.

    Anyone who reads what has been written and published by this group will see clearly that their beliefs go beyond the pale of Islam, i.e. Jamaa’at al-Muslimeen (Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah). Among their false beliefs, for example are the following (this is not a complete list):

    1. With regard to the issue of faith, they follow the school of thought of al-Irjaa’ [those who believe that sin does not matter so long as one is a believer] which is condemned in Islam.

    It is known that the belief of the Muslims, which was that followed by the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een and those who follow their path until the present day, is that faith (eemaan) is the matter of words spoken by the tongue, beliefs held in the heart and actions done by the body. Belief must be accompanied by submission to the laws of Islam, otherwise that so-called faith is not valid.
    There are many reports from the Salaf which confirm this belief, for example the words of Imaam al-Shaafa'i (may Allaah have mercy on him): “Among the consensus of the Sahaabah and the Taabi’een and those who came after them, and those whom we have met, is that they say: faith is words, actions and intentions; one of these three will not be complete without the others.”

    2. They allow seeking help from and seeking refuge with the dead, and praying to them instead of to Allaah. This is shirk akbar (major shirk) according to the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and the consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. This shirk is the same as the religion of the earlier mushrikeen, such as the kuffaar of Quraysh and others, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meanings:

    "And they worship besides Allaah things that harm them not, nor profit them, and they say: 'These are our intercessors with Allaah'" [Yoonus 10:18]

    “Verily, We have sent down the Book to you (O Muhammad) in truth. So worship Allaah (Alone) by doing religious deeds sincerely for Allaah’s sake only.
    Surely, the religion (i.e. the worship and the obedience) is for Allaah only. And those who take Auliyaa’ (protectors, helpers, lords, gods) besides Him (say): ‘We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah.’ Verily, Allaah will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Truly, Allaah guides not him who is a liar, and a disbeliever”

    [al-Zumar 39:2-3]

    “Say (O Muhammad): ‘Who rescues you from the darkness of the land and the sea (dangers like storms), (when) you call upon Him in humility and in secret (saying): If He (Allaah) only saves us from this (danger), we shall truly, be grateful.’” [al-An’aam 6:63]

    “And the mosques are for Allaah (Alone), so invoke not anyone along with Allaah” [al-Jinn 72;18]

    “Such is Allaah, your Lord; His is the kingdom. And those, whom you invoke or call upon instead of Him, own not even a Qitmeer (the thin membrane over the date stone). If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call; and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you. And on the Day of Resurrection, they will disown your worshipping them. And none can inform you (O Muhammad) like Him Who is the All‑Knower (of everything)” [Faatir 35:13-14]

    And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: Du’aa’ (supplication) is worship.” This was narrated by the authors of Sunan with a saheeh isnaad. And there are many aayaat and ahaadeeth which say the same thing. This indicates that the earlier mushrikeen knew that Allaah was the Creator and Provider, the One Who brings benefit or causes harm, and they worshipped their gods so that they would intercede for them with Allaah and bring them closer to Him. Thus they committed shirk. Allaah ruled that they were guilty of kufr and shirk, and commanded His Prophet to fight them until all worship was for Allaah Alone, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone” [al-Anfaal 8:39]

    The scholars have written many books on this topic in which they have explained clearly the true Islam with which Allaah sent His Messengers and revealed His Books. They also discussed the religion and beliefs of the people of the Jaahiliyyah, and their actions which went against the laws of Allaah. One of the best writers on this topic was Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him), in his numerous books. One of the most concise of his works is Qaa’idah Jaliyyah fi’l-Tawassul wa’l-Waseelah.

    3. In their view, the Qur’aan is not the Word of Allaah in the true sense.

    It is known from the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and by the consensus of the Muslims, that Allaah speaks whenever He wills, in a manner that befits His Majesty, may He be glorified, and that the Qur’aan, both its letters and meanings, is the word of Allaah in the true sense. Allaah says (interpretation of the meanings):

    “And if anyone of the Mushrikoon (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allaah) seeks your protection then grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allaah” [al-Tawbah 9:6]

    “and to Moosa (Moses) Allaah spoke directly” [al-Nisaa’ 4:164]
    “And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice” [al-An’aam 6:115]
    “a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allaah [the Tauraat (Torah)], then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?” [al-Baqarah 2:75]
    “They want to change Allaah’s Words. Say: ‘You shall not follow us; thus Allaah has said beforehand.’”[al-Fath 48:15]

    And there are many well known aayaat which say the same thing. Numerous mutawaatir reports from the Salaf confirm this belief, which is stated in the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah – to Allaah be praise and blessings.

    4. They think that it is obligatory to interpret the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah which speak of the attributes of Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted (i.e., to understand them differently from the apparent meaning). This is contrary to the consensus of the Muslims, from the Sahaabah and Taabi’een to those who follow their path until the present day. The Muslims believe that it is obligatory to believe in what is stated in the texts about the Names and attributes of Allaah, without distorting the meanings, denying any of His attributes, discussing the hows and whys or likening any of Allaah’s attributes to human attributes. They (the Muslims) believe that there is none like unto Allaah and He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing; they do not deny any of the attributes with which He has described himself. They do not change the words from their (right) places or belie or deny (or utter impious speech against) His Names or signs. They do not discuss the nature of His attributes, or liken His attributes to the attributes of His creation, because there is nothing that can be compared to Him, and He has no equal or rival.

    Imaam al-Shaafa'i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “I believe in Allaah and in what has come from Allaah as Allaah meant it. I believe in the Messenger of Allaah and in what has come from the Messenger of Allaah as the Messenger of Allaah meant it.” Imaam Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “We believe in it; we do not reject anything that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, and we do not describe Allaah with more than He has described Himself.”

    5. Among their false beliefs, they deny that Allaah is above His creation.

    The belief of the Muslims, as indicated by the verses of the Qur’aan, the ahaadeeth of the Prophet, sound human nature and clear common sense is that Allaah is above His creation, over His Throne, and nothing at all of His creatures’ affairs is hidden from Him. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “and then He rose over (Istawaa) the Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty)”. [al-A’raaf 7:54] – this phrase appears seven times in the Qura’aan. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “To Him ascend (all) the goodly words, and the righteous deeds exalt it (i.e. the goodly words are not accepted by Allaah unless and until they are followed by good deeds)” [Faatir 35:10]

    “And He is the Most High, the Most Great” [al-Baqarah 2:255]
    “Glorify the Name of your Lord, the Most High” [al-A’laa 87:1]

    “And to Allaah prostrate all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, of the moving (living) creatures and the angels, and they are not proud [i.e. they worship their Lord (Allaah) with humility]. They fear their Lord above them, and they do what they are commanded” [al-Nahl 16:49-50] – and there are other similar aayaat.

    And many saheeh ahaadeeth have been narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on this topic, for example: the story of the Mi’raaj (ascent into the heavens), which is mutawaatir, when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) passed through the heavens one by one, until he reached his Lord, Who brought him close or called to him, and enjoined fifty prayers upon him, then he kept going back and forth between Moosa (peace be upon him) and his Lord. He came down from the presence of his Lord to Moosa, and Moosa asked him, “How many (prayers) have been enjoined upon you?” When he told him, he said, “Go back to your Lord and ask Him to reduce them.” So he went back up to his Lord and asked Him to reduce them.

    It was reported in al-Saheehayn that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When Allaah created His creation, He wrote in a Book which is with Him, above the Throne: ‘My Mercy prevails over My wrath.’”

    It was reported in al-Saheehayn from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do you not trust me, when I am the trustee of the One Who is in the heaven?”

    In Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah and Sunan Abi Dawood it is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Throne is above water, and Allaah is above the Throne, and Allaah knows what you are doing.”

    In Saheeh Muslim and elsewhere it is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to the slave-girl, “Where is Allaah?” She said, “In heaven.” He said, “Who am I?” She said, “You are the Messenger of Allaah.” He said: “Set her free, for she is a believer.”
    This is the pure belief which was adhered to by the Muslims: the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een and those who have followed them in truth until the present day, praise be to Allaah. Because of the great importance of this topic and the fact that so much evidence (daleel) – more than one thousand aayaat and ahaadeeth – points to it, the scholars have devoted books to it, e.g., al-Haafiz Abu ‘Abd-Allaah al-Dhahabi in al-‘Alu li’l-‘Aliy al-Ghaffaar, and al-Haafiz Ibn al-Qayyim in Ijtimaa’ al-Juyoosh al-Islaamiyyah.

    6. They speak of some of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in a manner that is not appropriate.

    An example of that is their statement that Mu’aawiyah (may Allaah be pleased with him) was a faasiq (rebellious evildoer). In this regard they go along with the Raafidis (may Allaah curse them). The Muslims should not discuss what happened among the Sahaabah, may Allaah be pleased with them all; they should refrain from speaking whilst believing that all of them were good and had the virtue of having been companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). It was reported that the Prophet(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not slander my Companions, for even if any of you were to spend (in charity) gold equivalent to the size of Mount Uhud, he would never reach their level, not even half way.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim). And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
    “And those who came after them say: Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful.” [al-Hashr 59:10]

    This is the sound belief concerning the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This is the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah throughout the centuries. Imaam Abu Ja’faar al-Tahhaawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, explaining the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah:

    “We love the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but we do not go to extremes in our love for any of them, and we do not disown any of them. We hate those who hate them, and we do not say anything but good about them (the companions). Love for them is true religion, faith and goodness; hatred for them is kufr, hypocrisy and transgression.”
    Fourthly:

    What we may note about this group is that they follow weird fatwas, and their fatwas go against the shar’i texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Examples of that include the following:

    They permit gambling with the kuffaar in order to take away their money; they permit stealing their crops and animals, on the condition that this stealing will not cause fitnah (tribulation); they permit dealing in ribaa when dealing with the kuffaar; they permit those who are in need to buy lottery tickets, which is haraam.

    Other ways in which they obviously go against the sharee’ah include:

    They permit looking at a non-mahram woman in a mirror or on a screen, even with desire; they say that persisting in looking at a non-mahram woman is not haraam; they say that for a man to look at any part of a woman who is not permissible for him is not haraam; they say that if a woman goes out wearing make-up and perfume but she does not have the intention of attracting men, this is not haraam; they permit free mixing of men and women; and they have other odd and outrageous fatwas which go against sharee’ah and they consider things which are major sins to be permissible. We ask Allaah to keep us safe from that which will provoke His wrath and earn His punishment.

    Fifthly:

    Some of the outrageous means they use to turn people away from the scholars who have deep knowledge, and put people off from reading their books or referring to the reports transmitted from them, include: slandering them, belittling them and undermining them, and even denouncing them as kaafirs. Chief among the scholars whom they defame in this manner is the imaam and mujaddid Shaykh al-Islam Abu’l-‘Abbaas Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Haleem ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam ibn Taymiyah, may Allaah have mercy on him. ‘Abd-Allaah al-Habashi even wrote a book specifically about this reforming imaam, in which he accused him of being misguided and misled; he attributed to him words that he did not say, and fabricated other lies about him. Allaah will deal with him, and it is before Allaah that all disputing parties will ultimately meet.

    They also slander the reforming imaam Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, may Allaah have mercy on him, and his call for reform which he undertook in the heart of the Arabian Peninsula, where he called people to follow Tawheed and cast aside Shirk, to honour the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah and to act upon them, and to uphold the Sunnah and do away with bid’ah. Through him, Allaah revived the teachings of Islam that had been forgotten, and He did away with whatever He willed of bid’ah and innovation. The effects of this call – by the grace and blessings of Allaah – spread throughout the Islamic world, and Allaah guided many people thereby. But this misguided group have directed their arrows against this call of the Sunnah and those who make this call; they have fabricated lies and propagated doubts and confusion, and they have rejected this clear call to follow the Qur’aan and Sunnah. They have done all of this to put people off the truth and to prevent them from following the straight path. We seek refuge with Allaah from that.

    No doubt the hatred that this group has towards the great and blessed scholars of this ummah is indicative of the hatred that they hold in their hearts towards everyone who calls people to worship Allaah Alone and adhere to Tawheed, which was the belief and way of the people of the best generations. This group is far away from the essence of true Islam.

    Seventhly:

    Based on what we have said above, and other things that we have not mentioned here, the Committee makes the following statements:

    1- Jamaa’at al-Ahbaash (the Habashis) is a misguided group which is beyond the pale of the Muslim community (Jamaa’at al-Muslimeen, i.e., Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah). They must come back to the truth which was followed by the Sahaabah and Taabi’een in all aspects of religion, action and belief. This is better and more lasting for them.

    2- It is not permissible to follow the fatwas of this group, because they adopt odd views which clearly contradict the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and they follow some far-fetched and corrupt interpretations of some shar’i texts. All of these are reasons why ordinary Muslims should not trust their fatwas or believe them.

    3- What they say about the Ahaadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is not to be trusted, whether it has to do with the isnaad or the meaning of a hadeeth.

    4- Muslims in all places must beware of this misguided group and warn others against them. They must beware of falling into their traps under any name or banner, and they should seek reward by advising their followers who have been deceived by them, and explain the faults in their way of thinking and their beliefs.

    Having stated this clearly to the people, the Committee asks Allaah, may He be exalted, by His Most Beautiful Names and Sublime Attributes to protect the Muslims from all fitnahs (trials, temptations), both visible and invisible, to guide those Muslims who have gone astray, to reform their affairs, to turn the plots of the plotters against them, and to suffice the Muslims against their evil. For Allaah is Able to do all things, and He is most Generous in responding. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions, and those who follow them in truth.

    Fataawaa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 12/323

    (www.islam-qa.com)
    Question #8571

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Qadianiyyah


    I appeal to you to answer the questions that I have previously submitted or to answer the one that follows, as the problem has for months caused me nothing but trouble in my local community. Even if I had the support of a fatwa, it might not help because this local community does not respect the ulama, but at least I would know that I am not erring.
    I know that you cannot answer all questions, but surely something as important as this cannot be ignored. It is Ramadan and I hope for your answer.

    1. If someone is not a qadiani but knows that they believe in a false prophet and accepts qadianis as a madhab in Islam, are they out of Islam? I believe that they are out of Islam, and I am acting on that belief in my conduct towards such people.


    Answer :


    Praise be to Allaah.

    Definition:

    Qadianiyyah is a movement that started in 1900 CE as a plot by the British colonialists in the Indian subcontinent, with the aim of diverting Muslims away from their religion and from the obligation of jihaad in particular, so that they would not oppose colonialism in the name of Islam. The mouthpiece of this movement is the magazine Majallat Al-Adyaan (Magazine if Religions) which was published in English.

    Foundation and prominent personalities:

    1. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiani (1839-1908 CE) was the main tool by means of which Qadianiyyah was founded. He was born in the village of Qadian, in the Punjab, in India, in 1839 CE. He came from a family that was well known for having betrayed its religion and country, so Ghulam Ahmad grew up loyal and obedient to the colonialists in every sense. Thus he was chosen for the role of a so-called prophet, so that the Muslims would gather around him and he would distract them from waging jihaad against the English colonialists. The British government did lots of favours for them, so they were loyal to the British. Ghulam Ahmad was known among his followers to be unstable, with a lot of health problems and dependent on drugs.

    2. Among those who confronted him and his evil da’wah was Shaykh Abu’l-Wafa’ Thana’ al-Amritsari, the leader of Jama’iyyat Ahl al-Hadeeth fi ‘Umoom al-Hind (The All-India Society of Ahl al-Hadeeth). The Shaykh debated with him and refuted his arguments, revealing his ulterior motives and Kufr and the deviation of his way. When Ghulam Ahmad did not come to his senses, Shaykh Abu’l-Wafa’ challenged him to come together and invoke the curse of Allaah, such that the one who was lying would die in the lifetime of the one who was telling the truth. Only a few days passed before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiani died, in 1908 CE, leaving behind more than fifty books, pamphlets and articles, among the most important of which are: Izaalat al-Awhaam (Dispelling illusions), I’jaaz Ahmadi (Ahmadi miracles), Baraaheen Ahmadiyyah (Ahmadi proofs), Anwaar al-Islam (Lights of Islam), I’jaaz al-Maseeh (Miracles of the Messiah), al-Tableegh (Conveying (the message))and Tajalliyyaat Ilaahiyyah (Divine manifestations).

    3. Noor al-Deen (Nuruddin): the first Khaleefah of the Qadianis. The British put the crown of Khilaafah on his head, so the disciples (of Ghulam Ahmad) followed him. Among his books is: Fasl al-Khitaab (Definitive statement).

    4. Muhammad Ali and Khojah Kamaal al-Deen: the two leaders of the Lahore Qadianis. They are the ones who gave the final shape to the movement. The former produced a distorted translation into English of the Qur’aan. His other works include: Haqeeqat al-Ikhtilaaf (The reality of differences), al-Nubuwwah fi’l-Islam (Prophethood in Islam) and al-Deen al-Islami (The Islamic religion). As for Khojah Kamaal al-Deen, he wrote a book called al-Mathal al-A’laa fi’l-Anbiya’ (The highest example of the Prophets), and other books. This Lahore group of Ahmadis are those who think of Ghulam Ahmad as a Mujaddid (renewer or reviver of Islam) only, but both groups are viewed as a single movement because odd ideas that are not seen in the one will surely be found in the other.

    5. Muhammad Ali: the leader of the Lahore Qadianis. He was one of those who gave the final shape to Qadianiyyah, a colonialist spy and the person in charge of the magazine which was the voice of the Qadianiyyah. He also produced a distorted translation into English of the Qur’aan. Among his works are Haqeeqat al-Ikhtilaaf (The reality of differences), and al-Nubuwwah fi’l-Islam (Prophethood in Islam), as stated above.

    6.
    Muhammad Saadiq, the mufti of the Qadianiyyah. His works include: Khatim al-Nabiyyeen The seal of the Prophets).


    7.
    Basheer Ahmad ibn Ghulam. His works include: Seerat al-Mahdi (the life of the Mahdi) and Kalimat al-Fasl (Decisive word).


    8. Mahmood Ahmad ibn Ghulam, his second Khaleefah. Among his works are: Anwaar al-Khilaafah (Lights of the caliphate), Tuhfat al-Mulook and Haqeeqat al-Nubuwwah (The reality of prophethood).

    9. The appointment of the Qadiani Zafar-Allaah Khan as the first Foreign Minister of Pakistan had a major effect in supporting this deviant sect, as he gave them a large area in the province of the Punjab to be their world headquarters, which they named Rabwah (high ground) as in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): “… And We gave them refuge on high ground (rabwah), a place of rest, security and flowing streams.” [al-Mu’minoon 23:50].

    Their thought and beliefs

    1. Ghulam Ahmad began his activities as an Islamic daa’iyah (caller to Islam) so that he could gather followers around him, then he claimed to be a mujaddid inspired by Allaah. Then he took a further step and claimed to be the Awaited Mahdi and the Promised Messiah. Then he claimed to be a Prophet and that his prophethood was higher than that of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

    2. The Qadianis believe that Allaah fasts, prays, sleeps, wakes up, writes, makes mistakes and has intercourse – exalted be Allaah far above all that they say.

    3. The Qadiani believes that his god is English because he speaks to him in English.

    4. The Qadianis believe that Prophethood did not end with Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but that it is ongoing, and that Allaah sends a messenger when there is a need, and that Ghulam Ahmad is the best of all the Prophets.

    5.
    They believe that Jibreel used to come down to Ghulam Ahmad and that he used to bring revelation to him, and that his inspirations are like the Qur’aan.


    6.
    They say that there is no Qur’aan other than what the “Promised Messiah” (Ghulam Ahmad) brought, and no hadeeth except what is in accordance with his teachings, and no Prophet except under the leadership of Ghulam Ahmad.


    7. They believe that their book was revealed. Its name is al-Kitaab al-Mubeen and it is different from the Holy Qur’aan.

    8. They believe that they are followers of a new and independent religion and an independent Sharee’ah, and that the friends of Ghulam are like the Sahaabah.

    9. They believe that Qadian is like Madeenah and Makkah, if not better than them, and that its land is sacred. It is their Qiblah and the place they make hajj to.

    10. They called for the abolition of jihaad and blind obedience to the British government because, as they claimed, the British were “those in authority” as stated in the Qur’aan.

    11. In their view every Muslim is a Kaafir unless he becomes a Qadiani, and everyone who married a non-Qadiani is also a kaafir.

    12. They allow alcohol, opium, drugs and intoxicants.

    Intellectual and ideological roots

    13. The westernizing movement of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan paved the way for the emergence of the Qadianiyyah, because it had already spread deviant ideas.

    14. The British made the most of this opportunity so they started the Qadiani movement and chose a man from a family that had a history of being agents of the colonialists.

    15. In 1953 CE, there was a popular revolution in Pakistan which demanded the removal of Zafar-Allaah Khan from the position of Foreign Minister and that the Qadiani sect should be regarded as a non-Muslim minority. In this uprising around ten thousand Muslims were martyred, and they succeeded in having the Qadiani minister removed from office.

    16. In Rabee’ al-Awwal 1394 AH (April 1974), a major conference was held by the Muslim World League in Makkah, which was attended by representatives of Muslim organizations from around the world. This conference announced that this sect is Kaafir and is beyond the pale of Islam, and told Muslims to resist its dangers and not to cooperate with the Qadianis or bury their dead in Muslim graveyards.

    17. The Majlis al-Ummah in Pakistan (the central parliament) debated with the Qadiani leader Mirza Naasir Ahmad, and he was refuted by Shaykh Mufti Mahmood (may Allaah have mercy on him). The debate went on for nearly thirty hours but Naasir Ahmad was unable to give answers and the Kufr of this group was exposed, so the Majlis issued a statement that the Qadianis should be regarded as a non-Muslim minority.

    18. Among the factors that make Mirza Ghulam Ahmad an obvious Kaafir are the following:

    1. His claim to be a Prophet
    2. His abolition of the duty of jihaad, to serve the interests of the colonialists.
    3. His saying that people should no longer go on Hajj to Makkah, and his substitution of Qadian as the place of pilgrimage.

    4. His anthropomorphism or likening Allaah to human beings.
    5. His belief in the transmigration of souls and incarnation.
    6. His attributing a son to Allaah and his claim to be the son of God.

    7. His denying that Prophethood ended with Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his regarding the door of Prophethood to be open to “any Tom, Dick or Harry”.

    8. The Qadianis have strong ties with Israel. Israel has opened centres and schools for them, and helped them to publish a magazine which is their mouthpiece, to print books and publications for distribution worldwide.

    9. The fact that they are influenced by Judaism, Christianity and al-Baatiniyyah is clear from their beliefs and practices, even though they claim to be Muslims.

    Their spread and positions of influence

    1. Most of the Qadianis nowadays live in India and Pakistan, with a few in Israel and the Arab world. They are trying, with the help of the colonialists, to obtain sensitive positions in all the places where they live.

    2. The Qadianis are very active in Africa and in some western countries. In Africa they have more than 5,000 teachers and dai’yahs working full-time to call people to Qadianiyyah. Their wide-spread activity proves that they have the support of the colonialists.

    3. The British government is also supporting this movement and making it easy for their followers to get positions in world governments, corporate administration and consulates. Some of them are also high-ranking officers in the secret services.

    4. In calling people to their beliefs, the Qadianis use all kinds of methods, especially educational means, because they are highly-educated and there are many scientists, engineers and doctors in their ranks. In Britain there is a satellite TV channel called Islamic TV which is run by the Qadianis.
    From the above, it is clear that:

    Qadianiyyah is a misguided group, which is not part of Islam at all. Its beliefs are completely contradictory to Islam, so Muslims should beware of their activities, since the ‘Ulama’ (scholars) of Islam have stated that they are Kaafirs.

    For more information see: Al-Qadianiyyah by Ihsaan Ilaahi Zaheer.
    (Translator’s note: this book is available in English under the title “Qadiyaniat: an analytical survey” by Ehsan Elahi Zaheer)

    Reference: Al-Mawsoo’ah al-Muyassarah fi’l-Adyaan al-Madhaahib wa’l-Ahzaab al-Mu’aasirah by Dr. Maani’ Hammad al-Juhani, 1/419-423

    The following statement was published by the Islamic Fiqh Council (Majma’ al-Fiqh al-Islami):
    After discussing the question put to the Islamic Fiqh Council in Capetown, South Africa, concerning the ruling on the Qadianis and their off-shoot which is known as Lahoriyyah, and whether they should be counted as Muslims or not, and whether a non-Muslim is qualified to examine an issue of this nature:

    In the light of research and documents presented to the members of the council concerning Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiani, who emerged in India in the last century and to whom is attributed the Qadiani and Lahori movements, and after pondering the information presented on these two groups, and after confirming that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a prophet who received revelation, a claim which is documented in his own writings and speeches, some of which he claimed to have received as revelation, a claim which he propagated all his life and asked people to believe in, just as it is also well-known that he denied many other things which are proven to be essential elements of the religion of Islam.

    In the light of the above, the Council issued the following statement:

    Firstly: the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet or a messenger and to receive revelation are clearly a rejection of proven and essential elements of Islam, which unequivocally states that Prophethood ended with Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and that no revelation will come to anyone after him. This claim made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad makes him and anyone who agrees with him an apostate who is beyond the pale of Islam. As for the Lahoriyyah, they are like the Qadianiyyah: the same ruling of apostasy applies to them despite the fact that they described Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a shadow and manifestation of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

    Secondly: it is not appropriate for a non-Muslim court or judge to give a ruling on who is a Muslim and who is an apostate, especially when this goes against the consensus of the scholars and organizations of the Muslim Ummah. Rulings of this nature are not acceptable unless they are issued by a Muslim scholar who knows all the requirements for being considered a Muslim, who knows when a person may be deemed to have overstepped the mark and become an apostate, who understands the realities of Islam and kufr, and who has comprehensive knowledge of what is stated in the Qur’aan, Sunnah and scholarly consensus. The ruling of a court of that nature is invalid.

    And Allaah knows best.


    Majma’ al-Fiqh al-Islami, p. 13

    Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

    Question #4060 - (www.islam-qa.com)

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Al-Qur'aaniyyeen


    assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah
    There is a deviant group of people who claim to follow the Quran only, and not the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (SAW). Please provide us with scholarly proof that they are on the wrong path, so we can give them da'wah, Insha Allah.
    Wassalaam


    Answer :


    Praise be to Allaah.


    Some people have started to claim that the Sunnah is not a source of legislation. They call themselves “al-Qur’aaniyyeen” and say that we have the Qur’aan, so we take as halaal whatever it allows and take as haraam whatever it forbids. The Sunnah, according to their claims, is full of fabricated ahaadeeth falsely attributed to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). They are the successors of other people about whom the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us.

    Ahmad, Abu Dawood and al-Haakim reported with a saheeh isnaad from al-Miqdaam that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Soon there will be a time when a man will be reclining on his couch, narrating a hadeeth from me, and he will say, ‘Between us and you is the Book of Allaah: what it says is halaal, we take as halaal, and what it says is haraam, we take as haraam.’ But listen! Whatever the Messenger of Allaah forbids is like what Allaah forbids.” (Al-Fath al-Kabeer, 3/438. Al-Tirmidhi reported it with different wording, and said that it is hasan saheeh. Sunan al-Tirmidhi bi Sharh Ibn al-‘Arabi, al-Saawi edn., 10/132).

    The name al-Qur’aaniyyeen does not befit these people, because the Qur’aan tells us, in almost one hundred aayahs, to obey the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Obedience to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is considered in the Qur’aan to be a part of obedience to Allaah, may He be glorified.

    “He who obeys the Messenger, has indeed obeyed Allaah, but he who turns away, then we have not sent you (O Muhammad) as a watcher over them.”
    [al-Nisa’ 4:80 – interpretation of the meaning].

    The Qur’aan, which they claim to follow, denies the faith of the one who refuses to obey the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and does not accept his ruling:

    “But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.” [al-Nisa’ 4:65 – interpretation of the meaning]


    Their suggestion that the Sunnah is “contaminated” with fabricated ahaadeeth is not valid, because the scholars of this ummah took the utmost care to purify the Sunnah from all alien elements. If they had any doubts about the truthfulness of any narrator, or there was the slightest possibility that he could have forgotten something, this would be sufficient grounds for rejecting a hadeeth. Even the enemies of this ummah have stated that no other nation has paid so much attention to examining its reports and their narrators, especially in the case of reports narrated from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

    For it to be obligatory to follow a hadeeth, it is sufficient for it to be known that it is a saheeh (authentic, sound) hadeeth narrated from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was content to convey his message by sending just one of his Companions, which proves that the hadeeth reported by one trustworthy person must be followed.

    Moreover, we would ask these people: where are the aayaat which tell us how to pray, or which tell us that the obligatory prayers are five times daily, or which tell us about the nisaab on various kinds of wealth for the purpose of zakaah, or about the details of the rituals of Hajj, and other rulings which we can only know from the Sunnah?

    Al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah
    , 1/44

    For more information on the shar'i evidence that the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is a source of evidence, see Question #
    604.

    Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
    Question #3440 - (www.islam-qa.com)

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Al-Ghazzaali

    Could you shed some light on who Imam al Ghazzali was?

    Answer :


    Praise be to Allaah.

    Al-Ghazzaali was Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Toosi, who was known as al-Ghazzaali. He was born in Toos in 450 AH. His father used to spin wool and sell it in his shop in Toos.

    The life of al-Ghazzaali needs to be discussed at length because he went through a number of stages. He indulged in philosophy, then he recanted and rejected that. After that he indulged in what is known as ‘ilm al-kalaam (Islamic philosophy) and gained a sound grasp of its basic principles; then he rejected that after it became clear to him that it was corrupt and filled with contradictions. He was focusing on ‘ilm al-kalaam during the period when he refuted philosophy, and at that time he was given the title of Hujjat al-Islam, after he had refuted the arguments of the philosophers. Then he recanted ‘ilm al-kalaam and turned away from it. He followed the path of the Baatiniyyah (esotericists) and learned their knowledge, but then he rejected that and showed the beliefs of the Baatiniyyah to be false, and exposed the manner in which they tamper with the texts and rulings.

    Then he followed the path of Sufism. These are the four stages that al-Ghazzaali went through. Shaykh Abu ‘Umar ibn al-Salaah (may Allaah have mercy on him) spoke well of him when he said: “A lot has been said about Abu Haamid and a lot has been narrated from him. As for these books – meaning al-Ghazzaali’s books which contradict the truth – no attention should be paid to them. As for the man himself, we should keep quiet about him, and refer his case to Allaah.” See Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali wa’l-Tasawwuf by ‘Abd al-Rahmaan Dimashqiyyah.

    No fair-minded person would deny the rare level of intelligence, ingenuity and cleverness that Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali attained. Al-Dhahabi said of him: “Al-Ghazzaali, the imaam and shaykh, the prominent scholar, Hujjat al-Islam, the wonder of his time, Zayn al-Deem Abu Haamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Toosi al-Shaafa’i al-Ghazzaali, the author of many books and one possessed of utter intelligence. He studied fiqh in his own town, then he moved to Nisapur in the company of a group of students. He stayed with the Imaam al-Haramayn and gained a deep knowledge of fiqh within a short period. He became well-versed in ‘ilm al-kalaam and debate, until he became the best of debaters…” (Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’, part 9, p. 323)
    You will find that even though Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali had such a deep knowledge of fiqh, Sufism, ‘ilm al-kalaam, usool al-fiqh, etc., and even though he was such an ascetic and devoted worshipper, and had such a good intention and vast knowledge of Islamic sciences, he still had an inclination towards philosophy. But his philosophy emerged in the form of Sufism and was expressed through Islamic ideas. Hence the Muslim scholars, including his closest companion Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi, refuted his ideas. Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi said: Our shaykh Abu Haamid went deep into philosophy, then he wanted to come out of it but he was unable to. There were narrated from him opinions which sound like the Baatini way of speaking, and that may be verified by looking in al-Ghazzaali’s books. See Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, part 4, p. 66.

    Even though al-Ghazzaali was very advanced in knowledge, he had little knowledge of hadeeth and its sciences, and he could not distinguish between sound ahaadeeth and weak ones. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “If we assume that someone narrated the view of the salaf but what he narrated is far removed from what the view of the salaf actually is, then he has little knowledge of the view of the salaf, such as Abu’l-Ma’aali, Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali, Ibn al-Khateeb and the like, who did not have enough knowledge of hadeeth to qualify them as ordinary scholars of hadeeth, let alone as prominent scholars in that field. For none of these people had any knowledge of al-Bukhaari and Muslim and their ahaadeeth, apart from what they heard, which is similar to the situation of the ordinary Muslim, who cannot distinguish between a hadeeth which is regarded as saheeh and mutawaatir according to the scholars of hadeeth, and a hadeeth which is fabricated and false. Their books bear witness to that, for they contain strange things and most of these scholars of ‘ilm al-kalaam and Sufis who have drifted away from the path of the salaf admit that, either at the time of death or before death. There are many such well-known stories. This Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali, despite his brilliance, his devotion to Allaah, his knowledge of kalaam and philosophy, his asceticism and spiritual practices and his Sufism, ended up in a state of confusion and resorted to the path of those who claim to find out things through dreams and spiritual methods. (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, part 4, p. 71).

    He also said: Hence, even though Abu Haamid refuted the philosophers and classed them as kaafirs, and expressed veneration of Prophethood [as opposed to philosophy], etc., and even though some of what he says is true and good, and indeed of great benefit, nevertheless some of his writings contain philosophical material and matters where he followed the corrupt principles of philosophy that contradict Prophethood and even contradict sound common sense. Hence a group of scholars from Khurasaan, Iraq and the Maghreb criticized him, such as his friend Abu Ishaaq al-Margheenaani, Abu’l-Wafa’ ibn ‘Aqeel, al-Qushayri, al-Tartooshi, Ibn Rushd, al-Maaziri and a group of earlier scholars. This was even mentioned by Shaykh Abu ‘Amr ibn al-Salaah in his book Tabaqaat Ashaab al-Shaafa’i, and was confirmed by Shaykh Abu Zakariya al-Nawawi, who said in his book: “Chapter explaining some important things for which Imaam al-Ghazzaali was denounced in his books which were unacceptable to the scholars of his madhhab and others, namely his odd statements such as what he said in Muqaddimat al-Mantiq at the beginning of al-Mustasfa: ‘This is the introduction to all knowledge, and whoever does not learn this, his knowledge cannot be trusted at all.’”

    Shaykh Abu ‘Amr said: “I heard Shaykh al-‘Imaad ibn Yoonus narrating from Yoosuf al-Dimashqi, the teacher of al-Nizaamiyyah in Baghdad, who was one of the famous deans of the school, that he used to denounce these words and say, “Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and So-and-so and So-and-so…” meaning that these great leaders had a great deal of certainty and faith even though they had no knowledge of this Muqaddimah and of any of the ideas contained in it.” (al-‘Aqeedah al-Isfahaaniyyah, part 1, p. 169).

    Al-Dhahabi narrated in his book Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’ that Muhammad ibn al-Waleed al-Tartooshi said in a letter which he sent to Ibn Muzaffar: As for what you mentioned about Abu Haamid, I have seen him and spoken to him, and I think that he is a man of great knowledge, he is intelligent and capable, and has been studying all of his life, spending most of his time in study, but then he drifted away from the path of the scholars and entered the crowd of worshippers. Then he became a Sufi and forsook knowledge and its people, then he got involved with “inspiration”, those who claim to have spiritual knowledge, and the insinuating whispers of the Shaytaan. Then he mixed that with the views of the philosophers and the symbolic phrases of al-Hallaaj, and he started to criticize the fuqaha’ and the scholars of ‘ilm al-kalaam. He almost went astray from the religion altogether. When he wrote al-Ihya’ [i.e., Ihya’ ‘Uloom al-Deen], he started to speak of the inspiration and symbolic words of the Sufis, although he was not qualified to do that and had no deep knowledge of such matters. Hence he failed, and filled his book with fabricated reports.

    I (al-Dhahabi) say: as for al-Ihya’, it contains many false ahaadeeth, and it contains much that is good. I wish that it did not contain etiquette, rituals and asceticism that are in accordance with the ways of the philosophers and deviant Sufis. We ask Allaah for beneficial knowledge. Do you know what is beneficial knowledge? It is that which Allaah revealed in the Qur’aan, which was explained by the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in word and deed, and the type of knowledge which we are not forbidden to acquire. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever turns away from my Sunnah does not belong to me.” So, my brother, you must ponder the words of Allaah and persist in studying al-Saheehayn, Sunan al-Nasaa’i, Riyaadh al-Nawawi and al-Adhkaar by al-Nawawi, then you will succeed and prosper.
    Beware of the opinions of the philosophers, the practice of spiritual exercises, the starvation of monks, and the nonsense talk of those who stay alone for long periods in their monasteries. All goodness is to be found in following the pure and tolerant way of the haneefs. And seek the help of Allaah. O Allaah, guide us to Your straight path.

    Al-Maaziri praised Abu Haamid with regard to fiqh, and said that he had more knowledge of fiqh than of usool al-fiqh (the basic principles of fiqh). With regard to ‘ilm al-kalaam which is usool al-deen, he wrote books in this field, but he did not have deep knowledge of it. I realized that he was lacking in experience in this field, because he studied the branches of philosophy before he studied usool al-fiqh, so philosophy made him audacious in criticizing ideas and attacking facts, because philosophy goes along with one’s train of thought, without any shar’i guidelines.

    A friend of his told me that he spent a lot of time studying Rasaa’il Ikhwaan al-Safa, which contains fifty-one essays. It was written by someone who has studied sharee’ah and philosophy, then had mixed the two. He was a man who was known as Ibn Seena, who filled the world with his books. He had a good knowledge of philosophy, which led him to try to refer all the basic principles of ‘aqeedah to philosophy. He strove hard and achieved what others had failed to do. I have seen some of his books and I noticed that Abu Haamid quotes him a great deal when he speaks of philosophy. With regard to Sufi views, I do not know where he got them from, but I have seen that some of his companions mention the books of Ibn Seena and their contents, and he also mentioned the books of Abu Hayyaan al-Tawheedi. As far as I am concerned, he picked up his Sufi ideas from him. I was told that Abu Hayyaan wrote a huge book about these Sufi ideas, and al-Ihya’ contains a lot of baseless ideas… then he said: In al-Ihya’ he mentioned ideas that have no basis, such as starting with the index finger when cutting the nails because it is superior to the other fingers, as it is the finger used in tasbeeh; then moving on to the middle finger because it is to the right of the index finger, and ending with the thumb of the right hand. He narrated a report concerning that.

    I (al-Dhahabi) say: this is a fabricated report. Abu’l-Faraj al-Jawzi said: Abu Haamid wrote al-Ihya’ and filled it with fabricated ahaadeeth which he did not know were fabricated. He spoke of inspiration and deviated from the framework of fiqh. He said that what is meant by the stars, moon and sun that Ibraaheem saw was the barriers of light that keep a person from Allaah, not the things that are well known. This is like the words of the Baatiniyyah.

    (Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’, part 19, p. 340).

    Then at the end of his life, al-Ghazzaali (may Allaah have mercy on him) came back to the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. He focused on the Qur’aan and Sunnah and condemned ‘ilm al-kalaam and its proponents. He advised the ummah to come back to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and to act in accordance with them, as was the way of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them and those who follow them in truth until the Day of Judgement). Shaykh al-Islam (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: After that he came back to the path of the scholars of hadeeth, and wrote Iljaam al-‘Awwaam ‘an ‘Ilm al-Kalaam.

    (Majmoo Fataawa, part 4, p. 72)

    A glance at Iljaam al-‘Awwaam ‘an ‘Ilm al-Kalaam will prove to us that he had indeed changed in many ways:

    1 – In this book he advocated the belief of the salaf, and pointed out that the way of the salaf was the truth, and that whoever went against them was an innovator or follower of bid’ah.

    2 – He emphatically denounced ta’weel (interpretation of the attributes of Allaah in a manner that differs from their apparent meaning). He advocated affirming the attributes of Allaah and not misinterpreting them in a manner that would lead to denying the attributes of Allaah.

    3 – He emphatically denounced the scholars of ‘ilm al-kalaam and described all their principles and standards as “reprehensible innovations” which had harmed a great number of people and created trouble for the Muslims. He said: “The harm caused to a great number of people is something that has been seen, witnessed and experienced. The evil that has resulted since ‘ilm al-kalaam began has become widespread even though people at the time of the Sahaabah forbade that. This is also indicated by the fact that the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the Sahaabah, by consensus, did not follow the way of the scholars of ‘ilm al-kalaam when they produced arguments and evidence and analysis. That was not because they were incapable of doing so; if they had thought that was something good, they would have done it in the best manner, and they would have studied the matter hard, more than they did with regard to the division of the estate among the heirs (al-faraa’id).”

    He also said: “The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) needed to prove the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to the Jews and Christians, but they did not add anything to the evidence of the Qur’aan; they did not resort to arguments or lay down philosophical principles. That was because they knew that doing so would provoke trouble and cause confusion. Whoever is not convinced by the evidence of the Qur’aan will not be convinced by anything other than the sword, for there is no proof after the proof of Allaah.”

    See Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali wa’l-Tasawwuf.

    These are a few of the comments that trustworthy scholars have made about al-Ghazzaali (may Allaah have mercy on him). Perhaps this is enough for those who wish to be guided. And Allaah is the Guide to the straight path.

    Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
    Question #13473 - (www.islam-qa.com)

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Sufi


    In the sufis thariqa' there was a term call syari'a,thariqa',haqiqa' and ma'rifah.Is this term really have been tought by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)to his companion according to the definition by the thariqa' it self.

    Answer :


    Praise be to Allaah.

    We must understand that the word al-soofiyyah (Sufism) refers to wearing woollen clothes [the Arabic word soof means “wool”] and nothing else.

    Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

    The word al-soofiyyah (Sufism) refers to wearing woollen clothes; this is the correct meaning. It was said that it comes from the word safwat al-fuqaha’ (the elite of the fuqaha’) or from Soofah ibn Add ibn Taanijah, an Arab tribe that was known for its asceticism, or from Ahl al-Suffah (poor Muslims in Madeenah at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who used to stay in the mosque), or from al-Safa (the mountain in Makkah), or from the word al-safwah (meaning elite), or from the phrase al-saff al-muqaddam bayna yaday Allaah (the foremost rank before Allaah). All of these views are weak (da’eef); if any of them were true then the word would be saffi or safaa’i or safawi, not sufi.

    Majmoo’ al-Fataawa
    , 11/195

    Sufism (tasawwuf) did not appear until after the first three generations which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) praised when he said, “The best of mankind is my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them…” (narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2652; Muslim, 2533; from the hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood).

    Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
    With regard to the word soofiyyah (Sufism), it was not known during the first three generations, rather it became known after that.

    Majmoo’ al-Fataawa
    , 11/5

    This tareeqah and its like are among the innovated ways that go against the Qur’aan and Sunnah and the way followed by the best generations. All the shaykhs of these tareeqahs have made up their own wirds (phrases to be uttered as dhikr), hizb (books of du’aa’ to be read daily by their followers) and ways of worship by which each of them may be distinguished from the others; this goes against sharee’ah and divides the ummah.

    Allaah has blessed this ummah by perfecting its religion and completing His Favour upon it, so everyone who comes up with an act of worship or a way that was not brought by sharee’ah is effectively rejecting what Allaah has said and accusing the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) of betraying the trust.

    Along with this innovation of theirs, they may also be lying by claiming that they received their tareeqah from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or that they are following the path and guidance of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (al-khulafa’ al-raashideen).

    The scholars of the Standing Committee were asked:

    Is there any such thing in Islam as the numerous tareeqahs like the Shaadhilyyah, Khalwatiyyah etc? If there is such a thing, what is the evidence for that? What is the meaning of the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “And verily, this is My straight path, so follow it, and follow not (other) paths, for they will separate you away from His path. This He has ordained for you that you may become Al‑Muttaqoon (the pious)”

    [al-An’aam 6:153]


    “And upon Allaah is the responsibility to explain the Straight Path. But there are ways that turn aside (such as Paganism, Judaism, Christianity). And had He willed, He would have guided you all (mankind)”

    [al-Nahl 16:9]


    What are the ways that separate people from the path of Allaah, and what is the way of Allaah? What is the meaning of the hadeeth narrated by Ibn Mas’ood, according to which the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) drew a line and said, “This is the path of guidance,” then he drew lines to its right and another to its left and said, “These are other paths and on each path there is a devil calling people to it”?

    They answered:

    There is no such thing in Islam as the tareeqahs that you mentioned, or anything else like them. What there is in Islam is what is indicated by the two verses and the hadeeth that you quoted, and what was indicated by the hadeeth in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Jews split into seventy-one sects, and the Christians split into seventy-two sects. My ummah will split into seventy-three sects, all of which will be in Hell except one.” It was asked, “Who are they, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “Those who follow the same path as I and my companions are on today.”

    And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “A group among my ummah will continue to follow the truth and to be victorious, and they will not be harmed by those who forsake them or oppose them, until the command of Allaah comes to pass when they are like that.” The truth lies in following the Qur’aan and the saheeh, unambiguous Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This is the path of Allaah, this is the Straight Path. This is the straight line mentioned in the hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood, and this is what was followed by the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) (may Allaah be pleased with them and with their followers among the early generations (salaf) of this ummah, and with those who follow their path).

    All other tareeqahs or groups are the paths mentioned in the verse (interpretation of the meaning):

    “… and follow not (other) paths, for they will separate you away from His path…”

    [al-An’aam 6:153]


    Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah
    , 2/283, 284

    And Allaah knows best.

    Question #20375 - (www.islam-qa.com)

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Zaahiri

    We have heard of the Zaahiri (literalist) madhhab – what is its main idea? Do they follow the Sunnah?.

    Answer :


    Praise be to Allaah.

    The Zaahiri madhhab is well known. It is the madhhab followed by Dawood ibn ‘Ali al-Zaahiri and Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm and those who follow their line of thought.

    What it means is following the apparent meaning of the texts and not looking at the basis of rulings, and they do not believe in making analogies. Rather they go by the apparent meaning of commands and prohibitions and they do not pay attention to the basis and reasons behind these rulings. They are called Zaahiris (literalists) for this reason, because they go by the apparent meaning and do not pay attention to shar’i bases, wisdom and analogies which are indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah. But in general their way is better than the way of those who only refer to reasoning, analogy and arguments, and who do not pay much attention to the shar’i evidence of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. But they are falling short and are to be criticized for focusing only on the apparent meanings of the texts and not paying enough attention to the bases, wisdom and reasoning which the Lawgiver referred to and the objects which sharee’ah aimed to achieve, hence they made mistakes with regard to many issues which are referred to by the Qur’aan and Sunnah.
    And Allaah is the Source of strength.

    Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat li’l-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 6/218

    Question #34759 - (www.islam-qa.com

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Tableeghi Jama’at (Jamaa’at al-Tableegh)


    Is it permissible to mix with the Tableeghi Jama’at in order to learn from them and do dhikr only?.

    Answer:

    Praise be to Allaah.


    The Tableeghi Jama’at (Jamaa’at al-Tableegh) is one of the da’wah groups that is striving to spread Islam and call people to it. It has played a good role in calling sinners and those who have deviated by spending time and money, and putting up with the difficulties of travelling etc.


    But looking at some of the mistaken ideas and objectionable beliefs that have been quoted from some of the shaykhs of this group, some of the scholars have ruled that no one should go out with them except seekers of knowledge [taalib al-‘ilm] who should go with the aim of teaching and guiding them.

    Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked the following question: I went out with the Tableeghi Jamaa’at to India and Pakistan. We used to gather and pray in mosques in which there are graves, and I heard that prayers offered in mosques in which there are graves are invalid. What is your opinion on my prayers, and should I repeat them? What is the ruling on going out with them to these places?

    He replied:

    The Tableeghi Jama’ah does not have a clear idea on matters of ‘aqeedah, so it is not permissible for anyone to go out with them apart from the one who has knowledge and understanding of the correct ‘aqeedah followed by Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, so that he can teach them, advise them and cooperate with them for good purposes, because they are very active, but they need more knowledge and they need scholars who know about Tawheed and the Sunnah to teach them. May Allaah help us all to understand His religion properly and adhere to it steadfastly…
    Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 8/331

    If the members of this group with whom you are in contact follow sound ‘aqeedah and have knowledge, then there is nothing wrong with your cooperating with them and attending their gatherings.

    Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked:

    We are living in the desert. Some of us have settled here and some are working to earn a halaal income. A group from the Tableeghi Jama’at came to us, some of whom we know personally and are sure that their intentions are sincere, but they are not scholars; and some of them are scholars who call us to go out to the villages around us, and say that we should spend so many days or weeks or months doing that. We have not seen anything wrong with the dhikr circles that they hold. Is it permissible to listen to them or to go out with them to the neighbouring villages or outside the Kingdom (Saudi Arabia)?

    He replied:
    If the people mentioned are known to have sound ‘aqeedah and knowledge and to be virtuous and good people, then there is nothing wrong with cooperating with them in calling people to Allaah and teaching and advising them, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “Help you one another in Al‑Birr and At‑Taqwa (virtue, righteousness and piety)”

    [al-Maa'idah 5:2]

    And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever guides others to do something good, he will have a reward like that of the one who does it.”

    May Allaah guide us all.

    Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh, 9/307

    And Allaah knows best.

    http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/39349


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •