The
Sunni Articles
by al-Hafiz Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Harari as-Shaf‘i ar-Rifa’i,
may Allah preserve him.
(Part 1)
Preface
Praise
and thanks to Allah for the givings He granted without Him being obligated to
do so, and we ask Allah to raise the status of the Prophet Muhammad and protect
his Ummah from that which he fears fo
We are putting
this treatise in the hands of the reader to clarify the case of Ibn Taymiyyah
to whoever does not know about it and to refute some of his numerous sayings in
which he deviated from the belief and Ijma’ [The ‘Ijma’, one source of Islamic
teachings, is defined as the unanimous agreement of the mujtahidun (top
scholars) from among the followers of Prophet Muhammad, sall-Allahu ‘alayhi wa
sallam, upon a religious matter during a certain period of time.] of the
Muslims, their Salaf and Khalaf [The Salaf are the Muslims who lived within the
first three-hundred years A.H. [After Hijrah, the immigration of Prophet
Muhammad (sall-Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) from Mecca to Medina]. This includes the Sahabah (Companions
of the Prophet, i.e., persons who met with Prophet Muhammad (sall-Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam), believed in
him, and died Muslim) and Tabi’un (Muslims who met with the Companions).
The Khalaf are the Muslims who lived afterwards.]. Additionally, this
treatise is meant to be an extension to what has been said and composed of
articles about Ibn Taymiyyah's case, applying Ayah 110 of Al ‘Imran, which
means: You are the best nation that were sent out to people, because you bid
the obedience and forbid the disobedience.
We
ask Allah to grant us success and the best of intentions. Our goal is to obey
Allah.
Author's
Introduction
Know that the reason
for writing this treatise is that many people thought that attributing the hadd
(limit) and the jismiyyah (bodily characteristics) to Allah, and prohibiting
the tawassul (asking Allah for things by some good people or deeds) by the
anbiya' (prophets) and awliya' (righteous Muslims) after their death, and the
tabarruk (seeking the blessing of Allah) by visiting their graves are the
beliefs and actions of the Salaf.
Since the situation
is as such, the necessity called for showing that the truth of the matter is
different from what is thought. In other words, the Salaf had the belief
that Allah is clear of the hadd, i.e., that Allah never had a hadd.
Moreover, Allah does not have a hadd according to His knowledge or to the
knowledge of the creation. Performing the tawassul by the anbiya' and
awliya' after their death and the tabarruk by visiting their graves hoping for the
fulfillment of their du’a' (supplication, asking Allah) at their graves is the
condition in which the Salaf were. We wanted to show that Imam Ahmad Ibn
Hanbal was different from what Ibn Taymiyyah innovated. We saw that it is
obligatory to expose this imposture by showing that the Ijma’ permits the
tawassul by the anbiya' and awliya' after their death, that the going (of the
Muslims) to the graves of those people with the purpose of tabarruk is not
shirk (associating partners with Allah), and that touching the grave for
tabarruk is permitted, has no shirk in it, and is not haram (prohibited,
sinful). This treatise is full of Islamic proofs. The reader, by
the will of Allah, will see them in detail.
Ibn Taymiyyah's Deviations from the Muslims
Hafiz Abu Sa’id
al-’Ala'i, the Shaykh of Hafiz al-’Iraqi, mentioned many of these issues.
This was reported by Muhaddith, Hafiz, and historian Shams-ud-Din Ibn Tulun in
"Thakha'ir-ul-Qasr". Among what was reported about Ibn
Taymiyyah, is his saying that Allah is the site of creations, that the world is
eternal by kind and it always has been created with Allah, and some of which
his saying of the jismiyyah, direction, and movement (of Allah). Ibn
Taymiyyah wrote a juz' (section) that Allah's knowledge does not pertain to
what does not end, like the enjoyment of the people of Jannah, and that Allah
does not know everything about the finite, that our prophet Muhammad,
‘alayh-is-salam, has no jah (status) and whoever performs tawassul by him is
wrong. He wrote many papers about that. He said exaggeratedly that
starting a trip to visit our prophet is a sin which invalidates shortening the
Salah in it. Before Ibn Taymiyyah, no Muslim had said what he said.
He said that the torture of the people of Hell stops and does not last
forever. He was ordered to repent many times, but he broke his promises
and agreements every time until he was imprisoned as per the fatwa of the Four
Judges [The full text of this fatwa will be mentioned, by the will of Allah, at
the end of the book.]one of whom was a Shafi’i, the second Maliki, the third
Hanafi, and the fourth Hanbali [A madhhab is a framework inferred by a mujtahid
from the Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijma’, and Qiyas, by which he deduces the judgements
on the practical matters of al-'Islam such as the Taharah, Salah, Zakah, Siyam,
and Hajj. The Sunni madhhayb which are available today are four:
The Hanafi Madhhab, the Maliki Madhhab, the Shafi’i Madhhab, and the Hanbali
Madhhab. The respective founders of those madhhayb are: Imam Abu Hanifah
(80-150 A.H.), Imam Malik (93-179 A.H.), Imam ash-Shafi’i (150-204 A.H.), and
Imam Ibn Hanbal (164-241 A.H.)] They passed the ruling that he was a straying
man, against whom it is obligatory to warn, as was said in
"‘Uyun-ut-Tarikh" by Salah-ud-Din as-Safadi, who was a student of Ibn
Taymiyyah and of Taqi as-Subki. King Muhammad Ibn Qalawun issued a decree
to be read on the manabir [Manabir is the plural of minbar which is a podium,
an elevated platform for a speaker or the like.] in Egypt and ash-Sham (area
including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine) to warn people against him and
his followers.
Ath-Thahabi, a
contemporary of Ibn Taymiyyah, had praised him first. However, when his
case was exposed to him, he said in his treatise, "Bayanu Zaghal-il-’Ilm
wat-Talab", page 17: By Allah, my eye has not fallen on a person who was
more knowledgeable or more intelligent than a man called Ibn Taymiyyah.
He showed zuhd (disinterest) in food, clothing, and women. He supported
the truth and performed Jihad with every possible means. I got tired in
weighing and digging him out. I got bored with that for long years.
I found that as a result of his arrogance, self deceipt, excessive love to be
the head of the scholars, and disdain with great people, he was falling behind
the people of Egypt and ash-Sham; they hated him, degraded him, and charged him
with lying and kufr. Look at the consequence of claim and love of
appearance. We ask Allah for forgiveness. There are some people who
are not more pious, knowledgeable, or zahid (careless about mundane matters)
than he is. However, they overlook the sins of their friends. Allah
did not empower those people over Ibn Taymiyyah by their piety and greatness,
but by his sins. What Allah warded off him and his followers is more;
they only got some of what they deserve. Have no doubt about it.
This treatise is confirmed about ath-Thahabi, because Hafiz as-Sakhawi reported
this statement about him in his book "al-'I’lam bit-Tawbikh" on page
77.
Ibn Taymiyyah's
Saying of Hawadith with No Beginning Existing Eternally with Allah
Ibn
Taymiyyah's statement in "Minhaj-us-Sunnat-in-Nabawiyyah", Volume I,
page 24 is: If you say to us: You said of the occurrence of the hawadith in
Allah, we say to you: Yes, and this saying of ours is what the Shar’ and mind
showed.
He replied to Ibn
Hazm for reporting the Ijma’ that Allah existed eternally and no thing existed
with Him, and that the disagreer with this is a kafir. After these words,
Ibn Taymiyyah said: What is stranger than that is his (Ibn Hazm's) reporting
the Ijma’ upon the kufr of whoever contended with the belief that Allah existed
eternally by Himself and no thing existed with Him.
Ibn Taymiyyah's
statement in "Sharh Hadith ‘Imran Ibn Husayn", page 193,: If the kind
of the creations is assumed to be eternal with Allah, this companionship is not
negated by the Shar’ or the mind, but it is of His perfection. Allah,
ta’ala, said that the One Who creates is not equal to whoever does not
create. Then Ibn Taymiyyah said: The creation existed eternally with
Him. Then he said: but many people confuse the self with the kind.
His statement in
"Muwafaqatu Sarih-il-Ma’qul li Sahih-il-Manqul", page 291 is: We
said: we do not accept. However, the daily hadith is preceded by hawadith
without a beginning.
In the manuscript
of "Tashnif-ul-Masami’", page 342, Muhaddith, Usuli Badr-ud-Din
az-Zarkashi reported the agreement of the Muslims upon the kufr of whoever says
that the kind of the world is eternal. After mentioning that the
philosophers said the world is eternal by matter and shape, and that some said
it is eternal by matter but its shape is muhdath (has a beginning), he said:
and the Muslims charged them (the philosophers) with deviation and kufr.
Before that Hafiz Ibn Daqiq al-’Id, Qadi ‘Iyad, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar said the
like in "Sharh al-Bukhari". Hafiz as-Subki confirmed this
belief about Ibn Taymiyyah in his treatise "ad-Durrat-ul-Mudiyyah"
and as said previously, Abu Sa’id al-’Ala'i did too. This belief was
reported also by al-Jalal-ud-Dawwani in "Sharh-ul-’Adudiyyah".
He said: I saw in a writing of Abul-’Abbas Ibn Taymiyyah the saying that the
kind of al-’Arsh is eternal.
The Hanafi ‘Allamah
(very knowledgeable Islamic scholar) al-Bayyadi mentioned in his book
"Isharat-ul-Maram", page 197, after mentioning the proofs about the
beginning of the world: Hence, what Ibn Taymiyyah thought of al-’Arsh being
eternal, as reported in "Sharh-ul-’Adudiyyah", is invalidated.
In his poem, which
is famous even among the defenders of Ibn Taymiyyah, and which contained
refuting al-Hilli then Ibn Taymiyyah, among of what as-Subki said: Ibn
Taymiyyah has a refutation to what one of the rawafid (some deviant groups)
said that was complete. However, he mixed the truth with the hashw [The
hashw is done by a group called al-Hashwiyyah. It is a vile group with
ignorant members attributing themselves to Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, who is clear
of them. They reported words about him which they misunderstood.
Then, they continued with their bad belief claiming to cling to the
Hadith. The best of the muhaddithun (pl. of muhaddith) in his time, Ibn
‘Asakir used to refrain from teaching them the Hadith and prevent them from
attending his circle in Damascus. This group did not have a head or
someone to carry its invalid belief, except some scattered efforts which were
foiled by the Muslims. Then, around the end of the 700th Hijriyyah year,
Ibn Taymiyyah advocated the invalid beliefs and ideas of this group.] whenever
he could. He says that there are hawadith with no beginning that occur in
Allah. Praise to Allah; He is clear of what he (Ibn Taymiyyah) thinks
about Him.
Ibn Taymiyyah's Saying of the Hadd to the
Self of Allah
In the
book written by Imam at-Tahawi [Ahmad Ibn Salamah at-Tahawi is a great Imam of
the Salaf (229 - 321 A.H.).] which he called: "Mentioning the belief of
Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, according to the Madhhab of the fuqaha' (scholars)
of al-'Islam, Abu Hanifah an-Nu’man Ibn Thabit al-Kufi, Abu Yusuf Ya’qub Ibn
Ibrahim al-'Ansari, and Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybani"
his two companions and others, Imam at-Tahawi negated the hadd about Allah by
saying what means: He (Allah) is majestically above (He does not have) the
hudud (plural of hadd) and ghayat (extensions in area, for example).
Ibn Taymiyyah
confirmed attributing the hadd to Allah in his book "al-Muwafaqah",
Volume 2, page 33. He said: The Muslims and non-Muslims agreed that Allah
is in the sky and they limited Him to this. On page 29, he said: He
(Allah) does not have a hadd we know, but He has a hadd that He
knows. What he claimed that both Muslims and non-Muslims agreed and had
consensus that Allah has a hadd is strange.
The
negation of the hadd about Allah have been confirmed in reports by Abu Hanifah,
others, and even those before him, namely Imam Zayn-ul-’Abidin ‘Ali Ibn
al-Husayn, radiyallahu ‘anhuma [Radiyallahu ‘anhuma means: May Allah be
pleased with both of them (here, Zayn-ul-’Abidin ‘Ali and his father
al-Husayn).] in his treatise famously known as
"As-Sahifat-us-Sajjadiyyah". In "Sharh Ihya'i
‘Ulum-id-Din", Muhaddith, Hafiz Muhammad Murtada az-Zabidi, the explainer
of "al-Qamus", mentioned with a muttasil isnad (continuous chain of
qualified relators) [A muttasil Hadith is the Hadith heard by the relator
from his shaykh and so on back to the Prophet or a Companion without any
interruption in the chain of relators.] from him back to Zayn-ul-’Abidin the
saying of Zayn-ul-’Abidin in his treatise: He (Allah) is not limited to have a
hadd (limit). He also mentioned his saying: No place surrounds Him.
The saying of ‘Ali, radiyallahu ‘anh: "not limited" is explicit that
it is not consonent with Allah to be limited; He does not have a hadd, neither
according to His knowledge nor to the knowledge of the creation.
Where is what Ibn
Taymiyyah claimed of the agreement of the Muslims upon attributing the hadd to
Allah? The rest of the Salaf were negating the hadd about Allah, evidenced
by the aforementioned saying of at-Tahawi. He mentioned this as the
madhhab of the Salaf; those four [The four great Salaf scholars mentioned above
are: Abu Hanifah an-Nu’man Ibn Thabit al-Kufi, Abu Yusuf Ya’qub Ibn Ibrahim
al-'Ansari, Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybani,
Zayn-ul-’Abidin ‘Ali Ibn al-Husayn.] are among the famous scholars of the
Salaf. This is the madhhab of all the Salaf as indicated by his sayings:
"Mentioning the belief of Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah".
The deceipt of Ibn Taymiyyah
has shown up and is exposed. This is his habit. He attributes the
belief that he likes to the scholars of the Salaf to delude the weak-minded
people that his madhhab is that of the Salaf. This is far from what he
thinks.
Ibn Taymiyyah's Saying of the Sitting of
Allah, Ta’ala
Ibn
Taymiyyah's saying of Allah sitting is confirmed about him, although some of
his followers negated this when they found it ugly. He mentioned this in
his book "Minhaj-us-Sunnat-in-Nabawiyyah" by sayings: The majority of
Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah say that Allah, tabaraka wa ta’ala, [Tabaraka wa
ta’ala attributes the giving and perfection to Allah.] descends and al-’Arsh
does not get void of Him. He claimed that this was reported about Ishaq
Ibn Rahawayh, Hammad Ibn Zayd, Imam Ahmad, and others. He is a fabricator
and great lier about that.
In his Tafsir named
"an-Nahr", the Grammarian Abu Hayyan al-'Andalusi reported about Ibn
Taymiyyah having this belief. He said: In his handwriting, a book of
Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah, who was contemporary with us, which he called
"Kitab-ul-’Arsh", I read: Allah sits on al-Kursi and has left a space
for the Messenger of Allah to sit with Him. At-Taj Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn
‘Abd-il-Haqq al-Baranbari pretended that he is a promoter of his ideas and
tricked him, until he took it from him; we read that in it. [The author of
"Kashf-uz-Zunun" reported that about him also in Volume 2, page 1438.]
This reporting of
Abu Hayyan was omitted from the old printed copy. However, the manuscript
confirms it. In his commentary on "as-Sayf-us-Saqil", page 85,
az-Zahid al-Kawthari said explaining the reason of omitting these statements of
Ibn Taymiyyah: The editor of as-Sa’adah Printing House told me that he found it
very ugly and he omitted it upon printing so that the enemies of al-'Islam
would not use it. Then he requested that I record that here to catch up
what he missed and out of sincerity to the Muslims.
In
"al-Muwafaqah", page 29, Ibn Taymiyyah said: Allah, ta’ala, has a hadd
no one but Him knows it. One should not imagine that hadd for a purpose
in himself, but believe it and leave knowing about it to Allah. His place
has a hadd, which is on His ‘Arsh above His skies. These are two limits.
In the twenty-fifth
volume of "al-Kawakib-ud-Darari", which is in the Library of
az-Zahiriyyah in Damascus, Ibn Taymiyyah said: If Allah willed he would sit on
a mosqito, which would carry Him by His power; how about on a large ‘Arsh!
V. The Fifth
Article
Ibn Taymiyyah's Prohibiting the Tawassul by
the Anbiya' and Awliya' and the Tabarruk by them and their Traces
Among the most
famous issues that were confirmed about Ibn Taymiyyah by the reporting of the
scholars contemporary to him and others who came after them, are his
prohibiting the tawassul by the anbiya' and salihun (righteous Muslims) after
their death and in their absence while alive and tabarruk by them and their
traces, and his prohibiting to visit the grave of the Prophet, ‘alayh-is-salatu
was-salam, for the purpose of tabarruk. As was shown, he accuses the
Muslim a'immah (pl. of imam) of treachery. He disagreed with Imam Ahmad
and Imam Ibrahim Ibn Ishaq al-Harbi. He is, as Hafiz as-Subki said about
him: No one among the Salaf and Khalaf preceded Ibn Taymiyyah to disapprove the
tawassul. He said what no scholar before him had ever said.
Ibn Taymiyyah and
his followers accuse of kufr the people who perform the tawassul and
istighathah (asking for help) by the Messenger of Allah and others of anbiya'
and awliya'. What led them to this, is their ignorance of the meaning of
‘ibadah (worship) mentioned in the like of the ayah 5 of al-Fatihah, which
means: We worship You (Allah) and we ask You for help and the ayah 3 of
az-Zumar, which means: Those who worshipped the idols said: We do not worship
them except to achieve a higher status by them from Allah. The ‘ibadah in
the language of the Arabs is what the linguists defined. The famous
linguist, Imam az-Zajjaj defined it by saying: The ‘ibadah in the language of
the Arabs is obedience with subjugation. In
"Mufradat-ul-Qur'an" the Linguist, Imam Abul-Qasim ar-Raghib
al-'Asbahani said: The ‘ibadah is the ultimate humbleness. Imam, Hafiz,
Faqih, Linguist, and Mufassir (Explainer of the Qur'an) ‘Ali Ibn ‘Abd-il-Kafi
as-Subki in his tafsir (explanation) of ayah 5 of al-Fatihah which means: We
(Muslims) worship You (Allah) said: That is, we make our ‘ibadah (worship),
which is the ultimate fear with subjugation, exclusive to You (Allah).
Those people (Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers were also ignorant of the meaning
of the du’a' mentioned in the Qur'an in many positions, like the ayah 13 of
al-Hajj, which means: They perform du’a' to (worship) those idols, the harm of
which by being worshipped is closer than their benefit by being intercessors,
or the ayah 5 of al-'Ahqaf, which means: Who is more astray than the one who
performs du’a' to (worships) other than Allah, who will not answer his
du’a'. They thought that the meaning of du’a' in these two ayat mean the
mere nida' (calling) and did not know that it is the ‘ibadah which is the
ultimate humbleness. The scholars of Tafsir have agreed that the du’a' in
those ayat is their ‘ibadah (worship) to other than Allah in this manner.
No linguist or scholar of Tafsir explained the du’a' as the mere calling.
Consequently, those ignorant people started accusing of kufr whoever says: O
Messenger of Allah, or O Abu Bakr, or O ‘Ali, or O Jilani, or the like in the
absence of those people while alive or after their death thinking that this
calling is an ‘ibadah to other than Allah. This is far from what they
think. Did these not know that it is not permissible to explain the
Qur'an and Hadith with what disagrees with the (Arabic) language? What
would these say about what al-Bukhari related in "al-'Adab-ul-Mufrad"
about Ibn ‘Umar that his leg was benumbed severly and he was told: Mention the
name of the most beloved person to you. Then he said (what means): O
Muhammad. The result was as if his leg was untied from a knot.
Would they accuse him of kufr for this calling or what would they do?
What would they say about al-Bukhari mentioning this incident? Would they
rule that he mentioned shirk in his book to be applied?
Among their
suspicious matters is their quoting the Hadith of al-Bukhari and others: The
du’a' is the worship. Al-Bukhari related it in
"al-'Adab-ul-Mufrad" and Ibn Hibban did. They want to let the
people believe that the tawassul by the anbiya' and awliya' after their death
or in their absence if alive is shirk and ‘ibadah to other than Allah.
The answer is: The meaning of the Hadith is that the du’a' which is imploring
Allah, as the scholars of language defined the du’a', is among the greatest
types of worship, with the meaning of what is done to achieve a better status
from Allah, because the Salah which, after the belief, is the best action to
seek a better status from Allah includes the du’a'. This is from the
‘ibadah which is one of the two meanings according to the norm of the scholars
of the Religion. It is like naming relief ‘ibadah. The Messenger of
Allah said: Awaiting the relief is an ‘ibadah (Ibn Hibban). This naming
stems from the general definition of ‘ibadah which is the ultimate humbleness,
because when the slave (of Allah) performs du’a', he implores Allah, ta’ala,
since He is the Creator of benefit and harm, then he has humbled himself to
Allah with the ultimate humbleness. Our performance of obedience to Allah
and our avoidance of disobedience to Allah is due to Allah's help and
protection, respectively.
Those negators of
tawassul want, by mentioning this Hadith, to accuse of kufr whoever says: O
Messenger of Allah, or O Messenger of Allah, help me, or the like, such as the
saying of ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar when his leg was benumbed: O Muhammad. They
are told: If the saying of someone upon calamity: O Muhammad or O Messenger of
Allah is shirk according to you, then [would you] accuse of kufr the scholars
of Hadith who put this in their writings, such as al-Bukhari and others!
Then it is known
that the ‘ibadah is used Islamically by the carriers of the Shari’ah (Islamic
Law) as whatever is done to seek a better status from Allah. It was
mentioned in the sahih (authentic) [A sahih Hadith is a Hadith which is related
by an ‘adl from another ‘adl back to the Prophet or Sahabi, devoid of any
shuthuth or defect.] Hadith to mean the hasanah, like the Prophet's saying:
Awaiting the relief is an ‘ibadah (Ibn Hibban), i.e., a hasanah by which one
seeks a better status from Allah. In this meaning, are the sadaqah
(charity), Siyam (fasting), and doing obedience and the good things to people;
this is very much widespread.
In his
mu’jaman, al-Mu’jam-ul-Kabir and al-Mu’jam-us-Saghir [Al-Mu’jam is a book of
Hadith in which the Ahadith are mentioned according to the alphabetical order
of the shuyukh. Al-Mu’jaman is the dual form of al-mu’jam.] at-Tabarani
akhraj about ‘Uthman Ibn Hunayf that a man used to go to ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan who
did not pay attention to him and did not look into his case. He met
‘Uthman Ibn Hunayf and complained to him about it. He said: Go to the wash
place, perform Wudu' and rak’atan, then say (what means): O Allah, I ask You
and direct my request to You by our Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of
mercy. O Muhammad, I direct my request to Allah by you to be
fulfilled. Then let us go together. The man went and did what he
was told. Then he came to the gate of ‘Uthman. The gateman came,
took him by hand, admitted him to ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan, and seated him on his
rug. ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan asked him: What is your wish? He mentioned
his wish to him. ‘Uthman fulfilled his wish and said: I did not remember
your wish until this time. Then the man left and met ‘Uthman Ibn Hunayf
and said: May Allah reward you with good things. He would not have looked
into my wish had you not talked to him about me. ‘Uthman Ibn Hunayf said:
By Allah, I did not talk to him, but I witnessed a blind person who came to the
Messenger of Allah complaining about losing his sight. The Messenger of
Allah said (what means): If you would be patient or else I will make a du’a'
for you. He said: O Messenger of Allah, losing my sight is hard for me
and I have no guide. He said (what means): Go to the wash place, perform
Wudu', pray rak’atan, then say: O Allah, I ask You... to the end of the
du’a'. The man did what he was told. By Allah, neither had we
departed yet nor had the sitting lasted for long time, the man came to us
sightful as if he had never had any problem.
In his
Mu’jaman, at-Tabarani said that the Hadith is sahih. According to the
scholars of Hadith, the word Hadith is reserved to what has been marfu’
[Al-Marfu’ is a Hadith which is attributed to the Prophet by a Companion.] to
the Prophet and to what is mawquf [Al-Mawquf is a Hadith which is attributed to
a Companion, but not to the Prophet.] to the Sahabi, as it is established in
the books of Istilah (Science of Hadith). Imam Ahmad used the word Hadith
for an athar [Al-'Athar refers to the marfu’ and mawquf Hadith or to the mawquf
Hadith only.] of ‘Umar about cheese brought by the Majus (fire worshippers)
whose habit was to use the rennet of the maytah [Al-Maytah is an animal which
was not slaughtered as per the rules of al-'Islam. It is a great sin to
eat a maytah.].
The Hadith of
‘Uthman Ibn Hunayf is an evidence for the permissibility of tawassul by the
Messenger of Allah in his life and after his death, in his presence and his
absence. The matter is not like what Ibn Taymiyyah says: It is not
allowed to perform tawassul except by the alive and present person. Since
al-'Albani follows him, he discredited the portion of the Hadith which is
mawquf by saying: The mawquf Hadith is munkar [Al-Munkar is the opposite of
ma’ruf Hadith; it is a Hadith which is related by one person who has not
reached a proper level of memory and trusworthiness.]. The source of the
confusion of al-'Albani is his going beyond his limit. He did not stop at
the statements of the scholars of the Hadith that whoever did not reach the
level of Hafiz has no right to judge whether a Hadith is sahih, da’if [Ad-Da’if
is a Hadith which lacks any of the requisites of the sahih or hasan Hadith.],
or mawdu’ [Al-Mawdu’ is a Hadith which is fabricated upon the Prophet.].
This Hadith was related also by Hafiz as-Subki and Hafiz al-Bayhaqi.
Another
proof is the Hadith: Whoever says when he goes out to the masjid (mosque): O
Allah, I ask You by the right of the askers upon You and by the right of this
walking of mine, because I did not go out discontentedly, or to be praised or
for fame; I went out to avoid Your punishment and seek Your acceptance. I
ask You to save me from Hellfire, and to forgive my sins; no one forgives the
sins except You, Allah accepts his du’a' and 70,000 angels ask Allah to forgive
him. It is related by Ibn Majah. Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani and
Hafiz Abul-Hasan al-Maqdisi said: it is hasan [Al-Hasan is a Hadith, the
relators of which are known for their trustworthiness and good memory.
Included is the Hadith which is related in more than one riwayah (rendition)
all of which are devoid of any defect that blemishes its authenticity. It
is accepted by the scholars of al-'Islam, and is used for inferring Islamic
rulings.]. There is no attention to al-'Albani's tad’if of the Hadith
after these Hafizan (dual of Hafiz) said it is sahih, because al-'Albani is not
at the level of Hafiz; he is far from it as far as the sky is from Earth.
Moreover, he admitted in some of his books that he did not reach the level of
Hafiz.
The
condition for considering a Hadith sahih, da’if, or mawdu’ is that it is not
taken except from the words of a Hafiz as stated by as-Suyuti in
"Tadrib-ur-Rawi". Is the daring of al-'Albani to say about
Hadith that it is sahih, da’if, or mawdu’ a result of his ignorance of the
words of the people of the Mustalah (Science of Hadith)? Or is it that he
knew what they said, but his desires, and the love of showing up and claiming
what is not his, thinking that he could fool the people if he said about Hadith
that it is sahih, hasan, or da’if are the ones which dragged him?
Let us
mention here the statement of Hafiz Ibn Hajar in summary, since this will
remove any ambiguity that some people imagined for not differentiating between
the Hadithan (dual of Hadith): the practical Hadith and the verbal
Hadith. The practical Hadith is the one which is da’if, but the verbal
Hadith is thabit (confirmed). Ibn Hajar said: The saying of an-Nawawi: We
related in the book of Ibn as-Sunni from Bilal and by the previous sanad [Sanad
or isnad refers to the chain of people relating a Hadith.] to Abu Bakr Ibn
as-Sunni many times; ‘Abdullah Ibn Muhammad al-Baghawi told us al-Hasan Ibn
‘Arafah told us ‘Ali Ibn Thabit al-Jazari from al-Wazi’ Ibn Nafi’ from Abu
Salamah Ibn ‘Abd-ir-Rahman from Jabir Ibn ‘Abdillah, ‘radiyallahu ‘anhuma, from
Bilal, ‘radiyallahu ‘anh, [Radiyallahu ‘anh means: May Allah be pleased with
him.] the mu'addhin of the Prophet, sall-Allahu ‘alayhi wa ‘ala alihi wa
sallam, [Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa ‘ala alihi wa sallam means: May Allah raise the
rank of the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad and his Ahlu-l-Bayt.] who said what
means: When the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa ‘ala alihi wa sallam, went for
Salah, he used to say: In the Name of Allah. I believe in Allah. I rely on
Allah. No one avoids disobeying Allah except with the protection of Allah
and no one has the strength to obey Allah except with the help of Allah.
O Allah, I ask You by the right of the askers upon You and by the right of this
going out of mine, because I did not go out discontentedly, or to be praised or
for fame; I went out seeking Your acceptance and to avoid Your punishnent.
I ask You to protect me from Hellfire, and to admit me to Paradise. This
is a very da’if Hadith. Ad-Daraqutni akhraj it in "al-'Ifrad"
from this way and said what means: Al-Wazi’ is the only relator of this
Hadith. The author reported that it is agreed that he is da’if and his
Hadith is munkar. I (Ibn Hajar) said: There is a tougher saying about
him. Yahya Ibn Mu’in and an-Nasa'i said: He is not a thiqah
(trustworthy). Abu Hatim and others said: His Hadith is matruk [Al-Matruk
is a Hadith related by a da’if person, because, e.g., he is known to lie.
His Hadith is abandoned.]. Al-Hakim said: He related mawdu’ (fabricated)
Ahadith. Ibn ‘Adi said: All of his Ahadith are not mahfuz [Al-Mahfuz is a
Hadith in which the addition of the relator of a sahih or hasan Hadith to its
wording disagrees with what a more trustworthy person related. The
relating of the latter outweighs that of the former and is known as a mahfuz
Hadith. The outweighed Hadith is known as a shathth Hadith.]. I said: He committed
idtirab [Al-'Idtirab refers to the case when a person relates a Hadith in more
than one version, such as adding more words in one version or changing the
wording or meaning of the Hadith. Additionally, the two versions are
equally authentic, but neither one version outweighs the other nor it is
possible to bring the two versions together. The Hadith is called
mudtrib.] in this Hadith. In "al-Yawm wal-Laylah", Abu Nu’aym
akhraj it in another version from him. He said: From Salim Ibn ‘Abdillah
Ibn ‘Umar from his father from Bilal. There is no other evidence to
strengthen the Hadith.
His
saying: And we related in the book of Ibn as-Sunni means from the riwayah
(rendition) of ‘Atiyyah al-’Awfi from Abu Sa’id al-Khidri from the Messenger of
Allah, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa ‘ala alihi wa sallam. ‘Atiyyah is da’if
also. I said: His da’f is due to his tashayyu’ (following the Shi’ah) and
tadlis [At-Tadlis is relating a Hadith in a delusive manner so that people
would accept the Hadith from one. The tadlis is done by the relator,
because, e.g., his shaykh is young or da’if, by dropping the name of his shaykh
from the chain or mentioning him in such a way that people think that he is
talking about another person.]. He himself is saduq (truthful).
Al-Bukhari akhraj for him in "al-'Adab-ul-Mufrad" and Abu Dawud
akhraj for him many Ahadith about which he kept silent. At-Tirmithi said
that many of his Ahadith were hasan, some of which are of his ifrad [ Al-'Ifrad
refers to the case when the relating of a Hadith is confined to one person or
to one person from another person, or to a group of people from a certain area,
for example.] . So do not think that he is like al-Wazi’.
I read,
in Damascus, under Fatimah Bint Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn ‘Uthman,
the Dimashqiyyah (from Damascus) from Abul-Fadl Ibn Abu Tahir. He said:
Isma’il Ibn Zufr told us; Muhammad Ibn Abu Zayd told us; Mahmud Ibn Isma’il
told us; Abul-Husayn Ibn Fathshah told us; at-Tabarani in the chapter on
"Du’a'" told us; Bishr Ibn Musa told us; ‘Abdullah Ibn Salih, who is
al-’Ajali, told us; Fudayl Ibn Marzuq told us from ‘Atiyyah from Abu Sa’id
al-Khidri, radiyallahu ‘anh, who said: The Messenger of Allah, sallallahu
‘alayhi wa ‘ala alihi wa sallam, said what means: If a man went out of his
house for Salah and said: O Allah, I ask You by the right of the askers upon
You and by the right of this walking of mine, because I did not go out
discontentedly, or to be praised or for fame; I went out to avoid Your
punishment and seeking Your acceptance. I ask You to save me from
Hellfire, and to forgive my sins; no one forgives the sins except You, Allah
assigns 70,000 angels to ask Allah to forgive him and He accepts his du’a'
until he finishes his Salah. This is a hasan Hadith which Ahmad akhraj
from Zayd Ibn Harun from Fudayl Ibn Marzuq. Ibn Majah akhraj it also from
Muhammad Ibn Yazid Ibn Ibrahim at-Tustari from al-Fadl Ibn Muwaffaq. Ibn
Khuzaymah akhraj it also in the book "at-Tawhid" from the riwayah of
Muhammad Ibn Fudayl Ibn Ghazwan and from the riwayah of Abu Khalid
al-'Ahmar. Abu Nu’aym al-'Asbahani akhraj it also. All of them
akhraj it from the riwayah of Abu Nu’aym al-Kufi from Fudayl Ibn Marzuq.
We related it in the chapter on as-Salah by Abu Nu’aym. He said in his
riwayah from Fudayl from ‘Atiyyah: He said: Abu Sa’id told me and he mentioned
it but did not attribute it to a Sahabi. Consequently, he was safe from
the tadlis of ‘Atiyyah.
I was
surprised by the Shaykh how he mentioned the riwayah of Bilal without Abu Sa’id
and how he attributed the riwayah of Abu Sa’id to Ibn as-Sunni without Ibn
Majah or others. Allah is the One who gives success [This is the end of
Ibn Hajar's statement.].
In this
Hadith, there is an evidence about the permissibility of performing the
tawassul by the live and dead people, because the word 'askers' includes both
of them, and the permissibility of tawassul by the good deed, which is the
walking of the man to the masjid for the sake of Allah. The Shar’ did not
differentiate between the tawassul by the good selves and the good deed.
One may say: How would the tawassul by the self of the Messenger of Allah, who
is the most honorable creation of Allah, not be permissible and it would be
permissible to do that by the Salah, Siyam, and sadaqah of the slave?
Both are creations of Allah: the good selves are creations of Allah and the
good deeds, which the slaves perform, are creations of Allah. For what
reason is the differentiation?
Most of
the confusion which they adduce to prohibit the tawassul and visiting the grave
of the Messenger are matters which are irrelevant to the tawassul, like the
marfu’ Hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas and in it: If you ask, ask Allah and if you ask for
help, ask Allah for help. The answer is: This Hadith does not contain: Do
not ask other than Allah or Do not ask other than Allah for help. The
Prophet meant: Allah is more worthy to be asked and His help is more worthy to
be sought. How do these people fabricate upon the Messenger of Allah and
Ibn ‘Abbas to prove their claim of accusing of kufr the one who performs the
tawassul and asks help from the Messenger? This Hadith is like the saying
of the Messenger of Allah in the Hadith related by Ibn Hibban: Do not accompany
except a believer and let no one except a pious eat your food. Does this
Hadith contain that accompanying the non-Muslim is prohibited? Would one
understand from it that feeding the non-pious is prohibited? In His Book
(al-Qur'an), Allah permitted the Muslims to feed their kafir (non-Muslim)
prisoner and praised it in al-'Insan, 8: They feed the food out of their love
for Allah to the needy who cannot earn, orphan, and the (non-Muslim) prisoner .
Among
their suspicious actions is their adducing the Hadith of ‘Umar that he asked
Allah for rain by al-’Abbas. They claimed that ‘Umar performed the
tawassul by al-’Abbas, because the Messenger had died. The answer is: Did
‘Umar or al-’Abbas tell you that this tawassul was because the Messenger had
died? No! Neither ‘Umar nor al-’Abbas said that or indicated it.
It is only out of your fabrications upon them to support your desire to accuse
of kufr the one who performs the tawassul by the Prophet.
As one
of their suspicious things, they may mention a Hadith, which is agreed that it
is da’if: Abu Bakr said (what means): Let us perform istighathah by (ask for
the help of) the Messenger of Allah against this hypocrite. The Messenger
of Allah said what means: I am not someone by whom help is asked.
Allah is the only One Who is asked for help. The answer to this suspicious
matter is: Firstly, this Hadith has Ibn Lahay’ah among its relators, who is
da’if. Secondly, this Hadith is contradictory to the Hadith that
al-Bukhari akhraj in his Sahih from the marfu’ Hadith of ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar,
and in it the sun approaches the heads of the people on the Day of
Judgement. While they are like that, they ask Adam for help. How do
they cling to an unconfirmed Hadith when it is opposed by the sahih Hadith.
In the
book "Kashshaf-ul-Qina’", Volume 2, page 68 is mentioned: As-Samiri
and the author of at-Talkhis said (what means): There is no objection to
perform the tawassul by the shuyukh (plural of shaykh) and the poius
scholars. In "al-Muthahhab" he said: It is permissible to ask
Allah by performing the intercession by a righteous man, and it is said: it is
mustahabb (liked) to do so.
In his
Mansak which he wrote to al-Marwazi, Ahmad said: It is sunnah for the one who
is asking Allah for rain to perform the tawassul (ask Him) by the
Prophet. He determined it in "al-Mustaw’ab" and others.
Then he said: Ibrahim al-Harbi said (what means): The du’a' at the grave of
Ma’ruf al-Kurakhi is the tested antidote. Ibrahim al-Harbi [Ath-Thahabi
said what means: He was born in the year 198 A.H. He acquired the Fiqh
under Ahmad and was one of his most respectable companions. In
"Tathkirat-ul-Huffaz", ath-Thahabi said what means: As-Salami said
(what means): I asked ad-Daraqutni about Ibrahim al-Harbi. He said (what
means): He used to be compared with Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his zuhd, knowledge,
and piety.] is one of the contemporaries of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. He died
forty years after Ahmad. He was one of the most respected and trustworthy
scholars of Hadith. The saying of Ibn Taymiyyah that it is an ugly
innovation is refuted by the agreement of the a'immah. The statement of
Imam Ahmad and of Ibrahim al-Harbi, who was one of the respected scholars of
Salaf, testify to the refutation. Where is the agreement that Ibn
Taymiyyah claims?
The
meaning of what is mentioned about Abu Hanifah that he hated to say: I ask You
by the right of Your anbiya', is not prohibiting the tawassul in general in all
of its forms and wordings. Abu Hanifah hated this expression: by the
right of Your anbiya', as the people of his madhhab said, because it may seem
to mean that the slaves have a right which is obligatory upon Allah (to
fulfil). The people of his madhhab are more aware of his words. The
followers of Abu Hanifah have been and are still performing tawassul by the
anbiya' of Allah and consider it something by which they seek a better status
from Allah.
Concerning
that he said (what means): Allah is not asked by other than Him, is far from
being true. How could it be true when it is confirmed in the Sahih that
due to rain, three men took shelter in a cave. A rock fell and blocked the
entrance of the cave and they could not exit. Every one of them asked
Allah by his good deed to relieve them of their calamity [; the rock moved
away]. Al-Bukhari and others akhraj this Hadith. How would one pay
attention to this report about Abu Hanifah which contradicts the sahih?
Al-'Albani mentioned in some of his circles: Abu Hanifah saved us the trouble
concerning the tawassul, meaning that Abu Hanifah prohibits the tawassul in
general as they do. Let those prove, if they can, that Abu Hanifah said:
it is prohibited to perform the tawassul by the Prophet after his death, or
while alive in his absence as the followers of Ibn Taymiyyah claim in his
saying: It is not permitted to perform the tawassul except by the alive and
present person.
The
tawassul, tawajjuh (directing oneself), and the istighathah (asking for help)
lead to the same thing as Hafiz Taqi-ud-Din as-Subki said. He is one of
the linguists, as as-Suyuti said. This is evident. In the Ramadah
Year, a companion went to the grave of the Messenger of Allah and said: O
Messenger of Allah, ask Allah to give rain to your Ummah; they are close to
perish. It is correct to call what he did tawassul and istighathah,
because he went to the grave of the Messenger asking him to save them from the
calamity that hit them by him (the Messenger) asking Allah to give them
rain. Al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Kathir in his "Tarikh" said that this
Hadith is sahih. This occurring from Ibn Kathir is an evidence that he
did not follow Ibn Taymiyyah in the issue of tawassul, because he did not find
the evidence with him.
The goal
of the performer of tawassul may or may not happen, as much as the one who
takes medicine; he may or may not recover by it. Also, Allah made the
visit to the graves of the anbiya' and awliya' seeking blessing, with the hope
of having one's du’a' fulfilled there, a means to achieve benefit. This
is known among Muslims, the lay ones and the scholars. No one before Ibn
Taymiyyah renounced it. An example is the aforementioned story of the
companion who visited the grave of the Prophet in the Ramadah Year. Its
authenticity was confirmed by al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Kathir.
The
saying of the negators of tawassul: Why do you make wusata' between you and
Allah and why do you not ask Allah for your needs has no sense, because the
Shar’ permitted the believer to ask for his need with or without the
tawassul. Whoever says: O Allah I ask You by Your Prophet or by the
status of Your Prophet or the like, he has asked Allah. Whoever says: O
Allah I ask You for this and that, he has asked Allah. Both matters
comprise the slave asking his Lord. Both are included in the Hadith: If
you ask, ask Allah.
Taymiyyun
(followers of Ibn Taymiyyah), the matter is not like what you claim. You
and your imam, Ibn Taymiyyah, will meet the consequences of what occurs from
you, since he spread this invalid belief of considering the tawassul and
visiting the graves for tabarruk as straying and kufr, because it goes under
the Hadith: Whoever initiates in al-'Islam a bad deed, he will carry its burden
and the burden of everyone who acts in that way after him.
In
another position, Ibn Taymiyyah declared that going to the grave to make du’a'
there is an ugly innovation. Al-Buhuti, the author of
"Kashshaf-ul-Qina’", said reporting about the author of
"al-Furu’": Our shaykh- meaning Ibn Taymiyyah- said: one's going to
the grave for du’a' hoping for its fulfillment there is an innovation and not
something by which one seeks a better status from Allah by the agreement of the
a'immah. The author of "al-Furu’" is Shams-ud-Din Ibn Muflih,
al-Hanbali and one of Ibn Taymiyyah's students. In another place in
"Kashshaf-ul-Qina’", he said: The shaykh- meaning Ibn Taymiyyah-
said: By the agreement of the a'immah, it is prohibited to perform Tawaf around
other than al-Bayt-ul-’Atiq (al-Ka’bah), then he said: They agreed that he does
not kiss it or rub his body with it; it is of the shirk. He said: Allah
does not forgive the shirk even if it was the smaller shirk. This is the
statement which al-Buhuti reported about him. In the folds of these words
is accusing Abu Ayyub al-'Ansari, about whom it was confirmed that he placed
his forehead on the grave of the Prophet, of kufr. Marwan Ibn al-Hakam
saw him and held his neck. Abu Ayyub turned his face towards him.
Marwan went away. Abu Ayyub said: I did not come to the stone. I came to
the Messenger of Allah. I heard the Messenger of Allah say: Do not weep
for al-'Islam if the qualified people were in charge, but weep for it if it was
under the charge of the unqualified. Al-Hakim related it in
"al-Mustadrak" and said it is sahih. Ath-Thahabi agreed to his
authentication. If putting the face on the grave was not objected to by
any of the Companions, what would Ibn Taymiyyah say? Would he accuse Abu
Ayyub of kufr or what would he do? Then what would he do with the
statement of Imam Ahmad reported by his son ‘Abdullah, which was mentioned
previously in other than this article, that he said about kissing and touching
the minbar and grave of the Prophet seeking the blessing and a better status
from Allah: No objection to that.
Al-Buhuti
said in "Kashshaf-ul-Qina’": Ibrahim al-Harbi said: It is mustahabb
(liked) to kiss the chamber of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Then al-Buhuti said: No objection to one's touching it (the grave) with one's
hand.
Then he
reported the words of Ibn Taymiyyah: Rubbing one's body with, performing Salah
at, and going to the grave (of the Prophet) believing that performing du’a'
there is better than elsewhere, or committing a nathr (oath) for it or the
like, the shaykh -meaning Ibn Taymiyyah- said: This is not of the Religion of
the Muslims, but is of what has been initiated of the ugly innovations which
are of the branches of shirk. In "al-'Ikhtiyarat", Ibn Taymiyyah
said: The Salaf and a'immah agreed that whoever says salam to the Prophet or
other prophets and righteous people does not rub his body with the grave or
kiss it. They agreed that he does not hold or kiss except the Black Stone. The
Yamani Rukn is held, but correctly is not kissed. Then in response to Ibn
Taymiyyah, al-Buhuti said: I said: But Ibrahim al-Harbi said: It is mustahabb
(liked) to kiss the chamber of the Prophet. Al-Buhuti is a Hanbali
(follower of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal), but when he knew of the incorrectness of
Ibn Taymiyyah's words, he repelled his words, thereby refuting Ibn Taymiyyah's
claim about the agreement of the Salaf to prohibit the kissing of the
grave. He did not catch Ibn Taymiyyah; he died after the year 1000 A.H.
Some
followers of Ibn Hanbal, like Abul-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzi and his Shaykh Ibn ‘Aqil
declared that it is makruh (disliked) to go to the grave for du’a'.
However, they did not prohibit it. No one of the Salaf and Khalaf
prohibited it. What was cited about some scholars is the karahah
(disliking) and not the tahrim (prohibiting). However, Ibn Taymiyyah's
pen trespassed the limits; he deviated from the truth to accusing the Muslims
of kufr for that. Whoever tracked the biographies of the muhaddithun and
‘ulama' finds in a lot of them that a fulan of the scholars of Hadith or the
righteous was buried in a certain town; he is visited and the du’a' is
fulfilled there. Among that is what Hafiz Ibn ‘Asakir mentioned in the
biography of Hafiz ‘Abd-ul-Ghafir Ibn Isma’il al-Farisi. He said: He was
buried in Naysabur and his grave is visited and the du’a' is fulfilled there.
It was mentioned previously that Ibrahim al-Harbi said:: The grave of Ma’ruf is
the tested antidote. This was mentioned in "Tarikh Baghdad" by
Hafiz al-Baghdadi. In his book "al-Hisn-ul-Hasin" and its
summary "‘Uddat-ul-Hisn-il-Hasin", Hafiz, Muhaddith, the Shaykh of
the Qurra' (Reciters of al-Qur'an) Shams-ud-Din Ibn al-Jazari mentioned that
the graves of the righteous are among the places of having the du’a'
fulfilled. He came after Ibn Taymiyyah and was a study mate of Hafiz Ibn
Hajar al-’Asqalani.
How does
Ibn Taymiyyah rule that this matter, which is mutawatir [A mutawatir Hadith is
one related by a large number of Muslims in a way which was impossible for them
to have agreed to lie about it, from the beginning of the chain of relators to
the end. They have seen or heard what they related and it was true, i.e.,
not misconstrued. (The number of mutawatir Ahadith is around fifty.)]
among the Muslims, is shirk. Praise to You Allah; this is a foul
fabrication.
By this,
it is clear that Ibn Taymiyyah attributed the opinion of his which he desires
to the a'immah and claimed their agreement upon it without any proof. Let
this be known to those who took Ibn Taymiyyah's saying and ruled with kufr upon
those who visited the grave of the Messenger and others for performing du’a'
there, that visiting the grave with this intention is shirk. Let them be
warned against it and let them quit the blind imitation. The truth of the
matter is what as-Subki said: It is preferred to perform the tawassul by the
Prophet and no one of the Salaf or Khalaf objected to it, except Ibn Taymiyyah;
he said what no scholar before him had said.
Their
citation of ‘Umar's cutting the tree of Bay’at-ur-Ridwan to support their
prohibiting the tabarruk by the graves of the anbiya' and salihin is of no
value. It is interpreted as that ‘Umar was worried that there will come a
time when people would worship the tree. He did not mean to prohibit the
tabarruk with the traces of the Messenger. Had it been like what they thought,
his son ‘Abdullah would not have come to the tree of samur, under which the
Messenger used to sit, seeking the tabarruk. He used to water it so that
it does not dry out. Ibn Hibban related it and said it is sahih. There is
no doubt that ‘Abdullah understood his father's biography more than Ibn
Taymiyyah and his followers did.
We
challenge whoever is fanatic about Ibn Taymiyyah to bring forth a sahih report
from the Salaf or Khalaf prohibiting visiting the grave of the Prophet for
tabarruk or the tawassul by him in his life or after his death. They will
not find it. That is why Ibn Kathir disagreed with his shaykh Ibn
Taymiyyah in the issue of tawassul. However, he followed him in the issue
of divorce and was tortured for that. Ibn Kathir declared in his Tafsir
with the liking of tawassul by the Prophet after his death and asking help by
him. He mentioned it in his history book "al-Bidayah
wan-Nihayah" in the biography of ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab.
As for
their prohibiting the travel to visit the grave of the Prophet, inferrring from
the Hadith [related by al-Bukhari]: There is no extra merit in packing luggage
except to three masajid (mosques): al-Masjid-ul-Haram, al-Masjid-ul-'Aqsa, and
my Masjid (Masjid-ur-Rasul), the answer is the following: No one of the
Salaf understood what Ibn Taymiyyah understood. Visiting the grave of the
Messenger is sunnah whether with or without traveling as for the residents of
Medina. The Hanabilah stated, as others did, that the visit to the grave
of the Prophet is sunnah, whether or not one meant to do it with traveling.
The
meaning of the Hadith which the Salaf and Khalaf understood is: There is no
extra merit in traveling to pray in a masjid except traveling to those three
masajid, because the reward of Salah in them is multiplied up to 100,000 times
in al-Masjid-ul-Haram, to 1000 times in Masjid-ur-Rasul, and to 500 times in
al-Masjid-ul-'Aqsa. What is meant by the Hadith is: The traveling to
perform Salah. This is shown by what Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal related in his
"Musnad" from the route of Shahr Ibn Hawshab, from the marfu’ Hadith
of Abu Sa’id: Animals should not be ridden to a masjid in which Salah is
sought, except to al-Masjid-ul-Haram, al-Masjid-ul-Aqsa, and my Masjid
(al-Masjid-un-Nabawi). Hafiz Ibn Hajar said that this Hadith is a hasan
Hadith, and it shows the meaning of the previous Hadith. Explaining the
Hadith with another Hadith is better than the perversion of Ibn
Taymiyyah. In his Alfiyyah (Poem of about one-thousand lines) of the
Mustalah of Hadith, al-’Iraqi said: The best way to explain a text (ayah or
Hadith) is by another text (ayah or Hadith).
What
felled Ibn Taymiyyah in this perversion is his ill-understanding. He is
as Hafiz Wali-ud-Din al-’Iraqi said about him: His knowledge is greater than
his mind. He mentioned that in his book "Al-'Ajwibat-ul-Mardiyyah
‘alal-'As'ilat-il-Makkiyyah", which was mentioned previously.
Important Note
How was
it justifiable to them to do that when it was confirmed that al-Harth Ibn
Hassan al-Bakri, radiyallahu ‘anh, said: I ask refuge with Allah and His
Messenger from being like the envoy of ‘Ad. This is the Mashhur Hadith
[Al-Mashhur is a Hadith related by more than two persons. It can be sahih
or otherwise.] that Imam Ahmad related in his "Musnad", and Hafiz Ibn
Hajar said that it is a hasan Hadith. The evidence in it is that the
Messenger did not say to al-Harth: You committed shirk for having said:
and His Messenger, since you asked refuge with me!
It was
also confirmed that Ibn ‘Abbas related that the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa
sallam, said: Allah has angels, other than the Hafazah (angels who record man's
deeds) who roam (on Earth) writing what fall of tree leaves. If any of
you fell in a calamity in a desert let him call: O slaves of Allah help.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar related it in "al-'Amali" and said that it is a hasan
Hadith.
When
their understanding was ill, they made those things ‘ibadah to other than Allah
for their mere wordings. They charged Muslims with kufr for a matter upon
the permissibility of which, the Salaf and Khalaf agreed. This is an
evidence that they did not understand the meaning of the ‘ibadah mentioned in
the Qur'an, according to the Arabic language rules. The linguists stated
the meaning very clearly and without any ambiguity. Their definition of
‘ibadah as the ultimate humbleness was mentioned before. How did the
negators of tawassul rule that asking for what it is not the habit to ask is
shirk and made it a rule, when the Companion Rabi’ah Ibn Ka’b al-'Aslami asked
the Messenger of Allah to be his companion in the Jannah. The Messenger
did not object to him and out of humbleness said to him: Do you want any thing
else? The Companion said: This is it. He said to him: perform a lot
of sujud (Muslim).
What
would be shirk is when one asks a creation to do what Allah is the only One Who
does, such as asking some one to create a thing, i.e., bring it from
non-existence into existence, and to ask him for forgiveness of sins. Fatir, 3
means: Is there any Creator other than Allah (i.e., no one is the Creator
except Allah). Ayah 135 of Al ‘Imran means: Who forgives the sins except Allah
(i.e., no one forgives the sins except Allah). In Maryam, 19 it is mentioned
that Jibril said to Maryam: (I was sent by Allah) to give you a pure boy.
Actually, the giver of the boy, who is ‘Isa, to Maryam is Allah, but Allah made
Jibril a means and Jibril attributed the giving to himself. Jibril's case
shows the excessive deviation of those who accuse of kufr the performers of
tawassul and istighathah, just because they said: O Messenger of Allah I have
no way out, O Messenger of Allah help me, and the like of these statements,
which they say and do not mean by them that the Messenger of Allah creates, or
deserves the ‘ibadah, which is the ultimate humbleness. They mean that he
is a wasitah, i.e., a means to obtain the intended matter and blessing from
Allah. They do not understand from the wasitah except the meaning of
having a means even if they call it wasitah. Allah made it the norm to
relate the effects with the means. Allah had the power to give Maryam
that pure boy without having Jibril as a means for that.
How did
they justify charging Muslims with kufr for the mere saying of: The nabi or the
wali is a wasitah, meaning a means. The shirk is to confirm the wasitah,
i.e., say that there is something which helps Allah or that Allah cannot do
that thing independently except through the nabi or the wali. This is the
shirk, if they [the Taymiun] would just understand.
Benefit
Hafiz
‘Abd-ur-Rahman Ibn al-Jawzi mentioned in the book "Al-Wafa bi
Ahwal-il-Mustafa" and Hafiz ad-Diya' al-Maqdisi mentioned also: From Abu
Bakr al-Minqari; he said: At-Tabarani, Abush-Shaykh, and I were in the Haram of
the Messenger of Allah in a bad situation. Hunger had affected us and we
continued fasting that day. When the time of ‘Isha' came, I came to the
grave of the Messenger of Allah and said: O Messenger of Allah, hunger, hunger;
and I left. Abush-Shaykh told me: Sit down, either there will be
provision or death. Abu Bakr said: Abush-Shaykh and I slept, while at-Tabarani
was sitting looking into something. An ‘Alawi [a descendent of Prophet
Muhammad (sall-Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam)] came and knocked the door. He had two servants, each had a
big straw bag full of things. We sat, ate, and thought that the rest will
be taken by the servant. However, he departed and left the rest for us.
When we finished eating, the ‘Alawi said: O people, did you complain to the
Messenger of Allah? I saw the Messenger of Allah in the dream; he ordered
me to carry something to you.
In this
story, there is that those great people deemed the istighathah by the Messenger
a good, permissible matter. Then the scholars conveyed it in their
writings, some of which were the Hanabilah and others. In the eyes of the
Muslims, those are muwahhidun (believers in Allah), not just that, but among
the greatest muwahhidun. However, in the eyes of the negators of the
tawassul who followed Ibn Taymiyyah they have committed shirk, because whoever
likes shirk commits kufr. What is the answer of those people about the
likes of this incident which if traced would come in a large volume. Let
those prepare an answer when they are asked on the Display-of-Deeds Day.
Isma’il
Ibn Ahmad al-Hiri told us; he said: Muhammad Ibn al-Husayn as-Salami told us;
he said: I heard Abul-Hasan Ibn Maqsam say: I heard Abu ‘Ali as-Saffar say: I
heard Ibrahim al-Harbi say: The grave of Ma’ruf is the tested antidote.
Abu
Ishaq Ibrahim Ibn ‘Umar al-Barmaki told me; he said: Abul-Fadl ‘Ubaydullah Ibn
‘Abd-ir-Rahman Ibn Muhammad az-Zuhri told us; he said: I heard my father say:
The grave of Ma’ruf is tested for the fulfillment of needs. Whoever said
there : "Qul Huwallahu Ahad"
one-hundred times and asked Allah, Ta’ala, what he wanted, Allah would fulfil
his need.
Abu
‘Abdillah Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn ‘Abdillah as-Suwari told us; he said: I heard
Abul-Husayn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Jami’ say: I heard Abu ‘Abdillah Ibn
al-Mahamili say: I have known the grave of Ma’ruf al-Kurakhi for seventy
years. Allah will relieve the distress of any person who comes to it.
Qadi Abu
‘Abdillah al-Husayn Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Muhammad as-Saymari told us; he said: ‘Umar
Ibn Ibrahim al-Muqri told us; he said: ‘Umar Ibn Ishaq Ibn Ibrahim told us; he
said: ‘Ali Ibn Maymun told us; he said: I heard ash-Shafi’i say: I
perform tabarruk by Abu Hanifah and come to his grave every day, i.e.,
visiting. If I needed something, I would pray rak’atan, come to his
grave, and ask Allah there. It would not be too long before my need was
fulfilled.
The
Graveyard of Bab-ul-Burdan has a group of meritorious people. At the
Musalla prescribed for Salat-ul-’Id, there was a grave known as the Grave of
Nuthur (pl. of nathr) [An-Nathr is an oath to Allah by which one commits
oneself to do any good deed which is not obligatory, such as fasting a certain
number of days or paying charity. It is obligatory to fulfil one's
nathr.]. It is said that in it was buried a man who was a descendent of
‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib. People perform tabarruk by visiting him, and whoever
had a need would come to him to have his need fulfilled.
Qadi
Abul-Qasim ‘Ali Ibn al-Muhsin at-Tannukhi told me; he said: My father told me;
he said: I was sitting in the presence of ‘Adud-ud-Dawlah while we were camping
near the A’yad Musalla in the eastern part of the city of as-Salam aiming to go
with him to Hamathan. In the first day he attended the camp, his eye fell
on the construction made on the Grave of Nuthur. He said to me: What is
this construction? I said to him: This is the Mashhad (Grave) of
Nuthur. I did not say grave, because I knew his superstition of
this. He liked the wording and said: I knew this is the Grave of Nuthur,
but I wanted its matter to be explained. I said: This is a grave, it is
said, of ‘Ubaydullah Ibn Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar Ibn ‘Ali Ibn al-Husayn Ibn ‘Ali Ibn
Abi Talib. It is also said: It is the grave of ‘Ubaydullah Ibn Muhammad
Ibn ‘Umar Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib. It is said that one ruler wanted to
have him killed secretly. A ditch was made for him. He was taken on
it without him knowing and fell into it. Then the sand was thrown over
him while alive. The grave was famous as the Grave of Nuthur, because
every single nathr made for him was valid, the nathir (one who performs the
nathr) achieved what he wanted and is obligated to fulfil his nathr. I am
one of those who made nathr for it many times that I cannot count for hard
mattrers. I achieved them; fulfilling the nathr became obligatory upon me
and I did fulfil it. He did not accept this saying and said what
implicated that this occurred accidentally. Then lay people marketed it
magnified and spread false news about it. I stopped talking.
Few days
later while we were camping in our position, he sent after me in the
afternoon. He said: Ride with me to the Mashhad of Nuthur. We rode
along with some of his retinues until we reached to the place. He entered
and visited the Grave. There, he prayed rak’atan after which he made a
sujud in which he made a long du’a' in a such a way that no one heard him.
Then we rode back to his tent and stayed for days. Then we moved to
Hamathan. We reached it and stayed with him for months. Then he
sent after me and said: Do you remember what you told me about the Mashhad of
Nuthur in Baghdad? I said: Yes, I do. He said: I addressed you with
its meaning without that which was in me to have a good company with you.
What was in me is that all of what was said about the Grave was a lie. A
short time after that something occurred to me that I was afraid it would happen.
I worked hard to avoid its happening even if it amounted to spend all of what I
had in my treasuries and employing my soldiers. I could not find a way to
that. Then I remembered what you told me about the nathr for the
Graveyard of Nuthur. I said: Why do I not try that? I performed a
nathr that if Allah protected me from that matter, I would carry 10,000 full
Darahim to the box of this Mashhad. Today I got the news of being
protected from that matter. I told Abul-Qasim ‘Abd-ul-’Aziz Ibn Yusuf -his
writer- to write to Abur-Rayyan, who was his delegated ruler in Baghdad to
carry them to the Graveyard. Then he looked at ‘Abd-ul-’Aziz who was
present and said: Surely, I wrote that and the order in the letter was executed
[This is the end of the statement by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi.].
In
"al-Mi’yar", Vol. 2 page 82, Abul-’Abbas Ahmad Ibn Yahya,
al-Wansharisi, al-Maliki, who died in Fas in the year 914 A.H. said: Some
villagers were asked about those who performed a nathr to visit the grave of a
righteous Muslim or an alive righteous Muslim. He answered: He is
obligated to fulfil his nathr even if one rode an animal to get there.
Ibn ‘Abd-il-Barr said (what means): One is obligated to fulfil every act of
worship, visit, ribat (guard post), or other acts of obedience other than
Salah. The Hadith which says: The animals are not ridden...[ Ahmad akhraj
it in his Musnad.] is particular to Salah. However, there is no
difference about (the permissibility of) visiting the alive brothers and
shuyukh and performing a nathr to do that and ribat, and the like. The
sunnah leads to this of visiting the brother in the Religion of Allah and ribat
in the places of ribat. Some people hesitated about visiting the graves
and the traces of the righteous Muslims. There should not be a hesitation
about them, because they are of the acts of worship other than Salah, and
because it is out of visiting and reminding for the saying of the Prophet:
Visit the graves; they remind you of death [Al-Bayhaqi akhraj it in his
Sunan.]. The Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, used to go to Hira'
when he was in Mecca, and to Quba' when in Medina. The goodness is in
following him and and his traces by word and action, especially those who
showed obedience to him.
Let it
be known that we do not say of the validity of the nuthur for the graves of the
shuyukh and awliya', with the belief that those places have piculiarities in
bringing benefit or warding off harm without those people seeking a better
status from Allah by paying charity on the behalf of the buried so that Allah
fulfil their needs. We say as al-'Athru’i, may Allah's mercy be upon him,
said: Many of the nuthur of the laypeople for the graves are invalid and
prohibited, because they mean that those places bring benefit and ward off harm
by a peculiarity of theirs. Allah, subhanahu wa Ta’ala, knows best.
What
proves that the scholars of Hadith and others did not care about the deviation
of Ibn Taymiyyah in prohibiting the tawassul by the Messenger after his death
is that Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani performed the tawassul by the Prophet in
his poems known as "an-Nayyirat-us-Sab’". Also his shaykh
Zayn-ud-Din al-’Iraqi did that at the end of his poem in "Tafsiru
Mufradat-il-Qur'an". This has been and is still the habit of the scholars
of the Salaf and Khalaf. No one avoided that except those who were
deceived by Ibn Taymiyyah's innovation, the great innovation of his prohibiting
the tawassul by the Prophet who is dead or not present.
Among
the innovations of the Mushabbihah (group of people who liken Allah to His
creation) who followed Ibn Taymiyyah that they stipulate three things for the
correctness of one's Islam: Tawhid-ul-'Uluhiyyah, Tawhid-ur-Rububiyyah, and
Tawhid-ul-'Af’al. The answer for that is: Tawhid-ul-'Uluhiyyah along with
understanding the meaning is enough. This is evidenced by what is sahih
of the questioning in the grave. The buried is asked: Who is your
Lord? What is your Religion? Who is your Prophet? Had the
matter been like what this group of people say, the Hadith would have said: Who
is your Lord? Who is your God? However, since the meaning is
included, the Messenger of Allah was satisfied with mentioning: Who is your
Lord? What they take a long breath about is a refuted argument.
Where are those from the saying of the Prophet: I was ordered to fight people
until they profess that no one is God but Allah, and that I am the Messenger of
Allah? It is a mashhur Hadith. However, some scholars of Hadith
said that it is mutawatir.
Among
their confusing the Muslims is in the issue of the giving of the recitation to
the dead people. Let us be content with proving that by mentioning the
Hadith of al-Bukhari that the Prophet said to ‘A'ishah: If that happened while
I am alive, I would ask for forgiveness for you and I would make a du’a' for
you. The evidence in the Hadith is his saying: ' I would make a du’a' for
you '. These words include the du’a' with [all of] its kinds.
Included in this is the du’a' of the man after reciting some ayat of the Qur'an
to deliver the reward to the dead person by saying the like of: O Allah,
deliver the reward of my recitation to fulan. What was famous about
ash-Shafi’i of saying that recitation does not reach the dead is interpreted as
the recitation that is without a du’a' to deliver it and for the recitation
which is done at other than the grave, or else ash-Shafi’i approved it.
VI. The Sixth Article
Ibn
Taymiyyah's Disagreement with the Ijma’ of the Muslims in the Divorce Issue
1.
Either it is said that it is da’if by shuthuth [Ash-Shuthuth is the case
when a Hadith is shathth (see mahfuz).] as Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal ruled
it. This was mentioned by Hafiz Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali in his refutation to
whoever said that the three in one pronouncement are one. It is also
ruled to be da’if by shuthuth, because it disagrees with what was confirmed
about ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas that he passed the judgement upon whoever pronounced
the divorce thrice all at once that it is deemed three. This was
mutawatir about Ibn ‘Abbas. Al-Bayhaqi mentioned in
"as-Sunan-ul-Kubra" with his asanid (pl. of isnad) from eight of his
trustworthy students that Ibn ‘Abbas ruled that.
2.
Or it is said: This is interpreted as that the meaning of the divorce
three times was deemed one is that the battah divorce [A battah divorce is the
three-time divorce when a man says to his wife: You are divorced the
battah. Consequently, the divorced woman cannot return to her exhusband
(the man who divorced her) except after her iddah from this divorce has
expired, another man marries and has sexual intercourse with her, then he
divorces her , and her ‘iddah of the latter divorce has expired.] used to be
used to emphasize the one-time divorce. Then people started using it
during the time of ‘Umar to mean the three-time divorce. Consequently,
‘Umar carried out his ruling according to their intentions. The
explanation of this is that the saying of the people: "You are divorced
the battah" was used with the intention of emphasizing the one-time
divorce, then it became famous to indicate the three-time divorce. Hence,
the madhhayb of the scholars were different about it. Some of them made
the (word) battah and also the saying [of a man to his wife]: You are forbidden
to me or you are ba'in [Ba'in refers to divorcing the wife three times, as much
as a battah divorce is.] to indicate the three-time divorce. Others made
the battah according to the intentions. What shows that the matter as
mentioned above is what is in some of the copies of Imam Muslim's Sahih of the
Magharibah: During the time of the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr, and the
beginning of ‘Umar's Khilafah, the battah used to be one, as Hafiz Abu Bakr Ibn
al-’Arabiy mentioned in his book: "al-Qabas ‘ala Muwatta' Malik Ibn
Anas".
In his
explanation of al-Bukhariy, in his last, vast discussion of the issue of
combining the three pronouncements, Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned that this Hadith
should not be used to oppose the Ijma’ upon deeming the three pronouncements
three in the time of ‘Umar. There is no disagreement in this issue.
The disagreement that comes after the Ijma’ is a negligible disagreement.
As for what Hafiz Ibn Hajar conveyed that a disagreement was related about ‘Ali
and others, he did not convey it with determination. He meant that some
people said that about ‘Ali and others. This does not contradict the
Ijma’ which he stated at the end of the discussion. Had he believed what
was conveyed about ‘Ali and those who were mentioned with him confirmed, he
would not have ended the discussion with his saying what means: There is Ijma’
upon the issue.
No
disagreement was confirmed about any of the mujtahidun of Ahl-us-Sunnah in this
issue. Even Ibn Taymiyyah who brought up this disagreement had stated the
Ijma’ and said that whoever disagreed with it was a kafir. Hafiz Abu
Sa’id al-’Ala'i related this about him. Ibn Taymiyyah is not a
mujtahid. This disagreement of his is like his disagreement in the issue
of the perpetuity of Hell. In his book
"Minhaj-us-Sunnat-in-Nabawiyyah", Ibn Taymiyyah had mentioned the
Ijma’ upon the perpetuity of Paradise and Hell, and that no one disagreed
except Jahm Ibn Safwan and that he was charged with kufr. Then he
infringed this Ijma’ and said: The fire of Hell will vanish.
Also he
said that the provisional divorce with the purpose of yamin [Al-Yamin is
swearing by one of the Names or attributes of Allah.] does not occur when the
provisional matter happens, and that only the kaffarah is due. In this,
he infringed the Ijma’ of the scholars of al-'Islam that the provisional
divorce occurs when the provisional matter happens, whether or not it was with
the purpose of yamin. Hafiz Abu Sa’id al-’Ala'i reported also that Ibn
Taymiyyah had said that there had been Ijma’ upon this issue and whoever
disagreed with it was a kafir. Is it allowed after all of that to
consider one like this man an imam and mujtahid and thereby take his saying
which is his ijtihad? The reporting about those people whom Ibn Taymiyyah
related that they took his saying was not confirmed. It was ascribed to
them. A saying would not be confirmed about an imam just because it was
ascribed to him.
We
thank Allah that the Saudi courts discarded the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah in
divorce. There is no justification for the Egyptian courts to agree with
him (in this isssue), because this is a rejection of the Ijma’ of the four
madhhayb and others. The Saudi judges refused Ibn Taymiyyah's opinion,
because it is against the madhhab of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, in addition to its
disagreement with the Ijma’. Ahmad and all of his companions agree that
Ahmad's madhhab is that the three divorce pronouncements all at once are deemed
three.
Whoever
takes the seeming meaning of the Hadith accuses ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab and Ibn
‘Abbas with betrayal. As for their accusing ‘Umar wih betrayal, it is
their allegation that he ruled prohibiting the women, who were divorced three
times by one pronouncement, upon their husbands except after they marry other
men while he knew that the Messenger and Abu Bakr ruled differently.
Additionally, this entails accusing ‘Umar of kufr, because whoever perverts a
ruling which he knows the Messenger of Allah enacted commits kufr.
Moreover, this entails accusing of betrayal the Companions who were at that
time, like ‘Ali, radiyallahu ‘anh, for remaining silent, according to their
claim, about the perversion of ‘Umar. ‘Umar said what means: We ask refuge with
Allah of a problem without Abul-Hasan [Abul-Hasan is the kunyah of ‘Ali Ibn Abi
Talib. The kunyah of a man is a name that starts with "Abu",
meaning the father of. ‘Umar is praising ‘Ali's intelligence and courage
to solve problems.]. How is it appropriate with Abul-Hasan to be silent
if he knew that it was different from the ruling of the Messenger. Praise
to You Allah; this is a foul fabrication.
This is
different from what ‘Umar did concerning hitting the drinker of alcohol eighty
times after he had been beaten forty times in the time of the Messenger and Abu
Bakr, because this does not contain what the issue of the divorce had, as said
by ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib: Whipping forty is a sunnah and whipping eighty is a
sunnah (related by Muslim and others). It is not permissible to make this
similar to that, since what ‘Umar did in the issue of whipping does not entail
annuling a ruling put by the Messenger of Allah, because the deed of the
Messenger (whipping forty) does not include that other than this number is
prohibited.
As for
accusing Ibn ‘Abbas of betrayal, whoever of them said that Ibn ‘Abbas passed
the judgement that the three pronouncements at one time are three in spite of
his knowledge that the ruling of the Messenger of Allah is different than that
[according to their claim], he attributed to him perverting the ruling of the
Messenger of Allah intentionally.