"Ask Ahlu-d-Dhikr
if you don't know..."

(Qur'an majid)

Questions

As salaam-u-alaikum Shaykh Abdul Hadi,

QUESTION 1

Ibn al-Arabi stated the concept of "Wahdat-al-wujud." I've heard from scholars that it is a correct principle for Muslims to believe in. However, I've also read that Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi refuted this concept. Is this true? Both Ibn al-Arabi and Ahmad Sirhindi were sufis. Why the
disagreement on this concept when both were spreading Ahl al-Sunna da'wa? Is it not only the Wahhabis who call this concept a "bad innovation?"

ANSWER

By asking this question you are touching one of the subtlest aspects of 'ilm. Unfortunately, it seems that many persons who are not qualified for studying these doctrines think of themselves as experts, and express groundless judgments. Ibn 'Arabi and Imam Rabbani Sarhindi, radi Allahu 'anhuma', were sufis of the highest level and - apart from this - were also muhaddithuns and fuqahas. IMHO, Imam Rabbani reached a higher degree in wilayah. Their respective doctrines (wahdat al-wujud and wahdat as-shuhud) are not theological (kalami), but gnostic ('irfani). When two theological doctrines are opposite (e.g. Ash'arism and Mu'tazilism), one of them must necessarily be true, and the other necessarily false. But 'irfani doctrines do not refer to the rational understanding of the nature of Allah, but to a special level of comprehension, depending on the level one reaches during the spiritual journey.

Suppose I tell you: "Your cousin is Allah". From the point of view of kalam, this affirmation is false (and kufr), and you will answer me: "No, my cousin is a created being". But, from the point of view of a wali who is in the maqam of ahadiyyah, it could be correct. In the ahadiyyah, the condition of "createdness" ('ubudiyyah) is dissolved in fana', and what is left of "your cousin" is only a peculiar manifestation of a divine Name. The Quranic verse "Everything perishes, except His Face" hints to this condition. A wali is compelled to disguise this condition of his, since when he speaks according to it, ordinary Muslims will think he is becoming a kafir. Mansur al-Hallaj was killed since he uttered "Ana 'l-Haqq", but this was not a real form of kufr, since his ego was completely in fana'; those who condemned him to capital punishment - in their turn - are not sinners, because the judgment of the Shari'ah is based on exterior acts. All this is clearly explain by Jalal ad-din Rumi in his Mathnawi.

The spiritual journey has two directions: a) from al-khalq to al-Haqq, and b) from al-Haqq to al-khalq. During the first part of the journey, the created world disappears, and the wali sees only Allah. Ibn 'Arabi's doctrine is connected to this part of the journey and, for this reason, it can seem that, from an exterior point of view, it contradicts the teaching of Ash'ari kalam. On the contrary, Imam Rabbani's doctrine refers to the second part, when the world reappears in Allah; for this reason, it fully agrees with 'ilm al-kalam. Technically speaking, wahdat al-wujud is a "intoxicated" doctrine, and wahdat as-shuhud is a "sober" doctrine. There is no arm in studying and preaching a sober doctrine, but a drunk doctrine can exteriorly appear as kufr. Some Sunni 'Ulema (like as-Simnani), who have never reach that degree of wilayah, condemned Ibn 'Arabi, but none of them ever condemned Imam Rabbani. My personal opinion is that everyone can study his Maktubat, while the study of Ibn 'Arabi's Futuhat al-Makkiyyah or Fusus al-Hikam must be reserved for those scholars who are experts in Tasawwuf. Notwithstanding this, Imam Rabbani defends Ibn 'Arabi against those who criticize him.

QUESTION 2

Is it permissible for one brother and one sister to pray in Jama (congregational) prayer? What do the 4 madhahib say about this?

ANSWER

Of course; they are mahram, and the can pray together according to all the schools. There is no khalwah when they are alone together. Their situation for jama'ah is not different from that of husband and wife. In the Shafi'i madhhab, a husband must take care while praying with his wife. If he touches her (even by mistake), the wudu' is batil. But touching one's sister has no effect on the wudu'.

QUESTION 3

I have heard many absurd things about "Mufti" Abdl-Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baaz, the grand Wahhabi of Saudi Arabia. I want to make sure that what I've heard about him is correct or not. Can you please tell me a few "fatawa" he made, or books he wrote in which he opposed the Ahl al-Sunna
Ulema? Was it him or his father who said that "it is impossible for anyone to go to the moon?"

ANSWER

He is the strictest follower of Ibn 'Abdi 'l-Wahhab. His fatwas say: celebrating mawlids is bid'ah, making du'ah toward the Prophet's grave is shirk, building domes over graves is kufr, etc. He said what you report about going to the moon, but afterwards changed his fatwa. Before the Gulf War his fatwa was "a Muslim who asks a kafir's help to defend himself from another Muslim becomes a kafir." During the War he wrote: "Allah will bless those Americans who are here to defend Islam." All his fatawa are published by the Saudi Dar al-Ifta', and old fatawa are retired from circulation as soon as he changes them.

QUESTION 4

Is it permissible to reply to a "salam" while I'm praying? Is it permissible for me to say "Yarhamok Allah" while praying if I hear somebody sneeze?

ANSWER

It must be avoided, since it would break salat. The fard of salat is more important than other minor faraid, sunnah or mustahhab. On the contrary, if you hear someone who is dying, is wounded, must be helped in defending himself, etc., breaking the salat becomes compulsory. Saving a human life is more important than praying in the correct time.

QUESTION 5

When I'm seated at the Jumma (Friday) prayer listening to the khutba, and someone comes to me and says "Assalam-u-alaikum," am I obligated to reply or keep silent until the khutba is over?

ANSWER

From the moment the Imam stands of the minbar, till the iqamah is called, it is compulsory to keep silent. If you utter a single word (Imam Ghazali says "even if you say sh..."), you are loosing the merit of Jumu'ah prayer. The best thing is answering by heart and moving the hand or head to greet. This way, you will show to your brother that you have accepted and reciprocated his greeting, and teach him that speaking during the khutbah is forbidden.

QUESTION 6

Please elaborate on Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani. Is he like Muhammad Abduh; better or worse in terms of Islam? What is the evidence that he infact was a Shi'a in guise as a Sunni? Please name some scholars who refuted both of these "freemasons." (Were they free-masons?)

ANSWER

Al-Afghani and 'Abduh were really "master and disciple". I cannot see any significant difference in their thought, except in their background. Al-Afghani is more learnt in Shiism, 'Abduh in Tasawwuf. Al-Afghani's real name was Sayyid Jamal ad-Din al-Asadabadi. Asadabad is a city in Iran, whose population was 100 % Shi'ah. He used to wear a black turban and this (although permitted) is not common among Sunni scholars. On the contrary, Shiite Mollah have this tradition: non-Sayyed ones wear a white turban (like Sunni scholars) while Sayyed ones wear a black one (cf. Khomeini, Khamene'i and Khatami). Apart from this, al-Afghani introduced Nahj al-Balagha in Egypt. This book is regarded by Shiites as "their second Holy Book after the Koran" and contains a lot of false hadiths attributed to Imam 'Ali, radi Allahu 'anh. It contains insults against 'Othman, 'Aysha, Tahla, Zubayr, Mu'awiyah, radi Allahu 'anhum ajma'in, etc. It is also offensive against Imam 'Ali since, by attributing him those words, make him seem responsible of uttering insults against the Sahabah (subhana 'Llah). But the Holy Koran says: "Sahabah are merciful toward each other"! He and 'Abduh tried their best to convict Sunni scholars the Sunni-Shi'ah conflict was only a result of differences in politics, and that the so-called Ja'fari school (but Imam Jafar as-Sadiq was a Sunni scholars, and Shiites abuse his name) must be accepted as legitimate. 'Abduh wrote a Commentary on Nahj al-Balagha, without questioning its authenticity. Al-Afghani and him describe the story of Islam basing themselves on this book; that means they teach Sunni Muslims a Shiite version of those happenings. Al-Afghani was accused of being a freemason and never denied it, while 'Abduh openly admitted it and became both Grand Mufti of Egypt and Grand Master of the United Lodge of Egypt.

In any case, IMHO there is nothing in the Shari'ah that prevents a Muslim to get membership in the Free Masonry. It is not a religious organization, and does not support any religion against another. Many reformists were masons, but also many Sunni scholars, like Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza'iri (the leader of jihad in Algeria) and Shaykh Elish al-Kabir (a Maliki Mufti of Egypt). Al-Afghani and 'Adbuh were refuted by Sayyid 'Abdul Hakim al-Arwasi, Shaykh Hilmi 'Ishiq and Shaykh Khalid al-Baghdadi. You can find all this in the book "The religious Reformers in Islam". Apart from the address I already gave you, it is possible to read a catalogue of English books published by Ihlas Waqf or to download them at http://kitap.ihlas.net.tr

QUESTION 7

Can you mention one or two things that Muhammad Abduh and Al-Afghani said that went against Quran, Sunna, and ijma?

ANSWER

A-Afghani and 'Abduh used to say: a) Arab scholars must free themselves from the influence of Ottoman Ulema, and al-Azhar must become independent from the Shaykh al-Islam of Istanbul. b) Differences between schools of fiqh must be reduced to a common school, and Jafarites must be recognized as a legitimate school. c) The door of ijtihad must be opened once again.

QUESTION 8

Alhumdu Lillah, all of these questions pertain to "purification" which is part of the obligatory knowledge. InshaAllah I hope to hear from you at any time. Please answer according to Shafi'i madhab, and when refering to any other madhab, then please indicate it.

I understand that in the Shafi'i madhab, there are several ways to invalidate the "wudu." These are:

1. The emission of anything from the eliminatory outlets, except maniyy;
2. Touching the penis, vagina, or anus of a human with the inside part of the bare hand;
3. Touching the skin of the marriageable woman who attained to an age at which she is normally desired;
4. Losing consciousness, except if one is sleeping with his buttocks firmly seated.

Maniyy (sperm) emission only invalidates the "ghusl" but not the "wudu."

The question is: If I do both "wudu" and "ghusl," and then I, for example, use the toilet after that, then do I ONLY have to repeat my "wudu" or do I have to repeat both my "wudu" and "ghusl" to be able to pray? OR, if I use the toilet, then is it only my "wudu" which is invalidated, but my "ghusl" is still valid? I hope I was able to get the question across successfully!

ANSWER

When you complete a ghusl, you don't need a wudu' (except in cases you touch your private parts before dressing or do other things that make wudu' batil). In that cases, ghusl is sahih but you need another wudu'. A wudu' before every prayer is only a mustahhab. You must be clear in your niyyah, specify if the wudu' or ghusl are compulsory or not. If you are janib and also need ghusl for Jum'a, the best thing it to make a single ghusl with two niyyat.

QUESTION 9

Knowing that "touching the private parts with inside of the hand" is an invalidator of both "wudu" and "ghusl," is there a certain "sequence" of purification I have to follow in order to make both my wudu and ghusl valid?

In other words, assuming that it is Friday, and I am doing "wudu" and "ghusl" in the shower for "Jumma" prayer. Do I do "wudu" first or "ghusl" first? Or does it not matter? Or can I only do "ghusl", which will also fulfill the requirments of "wudu?"

If I do "wudu" first, and then right after that do "ghusl" and clean my private-parts with the "inside of the hand" during ghusl, then does that not invalidate my wudu (or does it)? How about the ghusl -- does it invalidate it as I clean my private parts with the inside of my hand? Or does "touching the private-parts with the inside of the hand only serve as an "invalidator" AFTER I have completed my wudu and ghusl? I hope you understand my question!

ANSWER

Imam Ghazali says that (in the Shafi'i madhhab), the best way for completing a ghusl is: washing the anus, washing the genital area (never to be touched after), niyyah, washing the hands, performing a complete wudu', except feet, washing the head, washing the right part of your body including the foot, washing the left side including the foot. While drying oneself, it is important not to touch the private parts with the inner part of the hand, but only with a towel. If you touch them, only wudu' must be repeated. Washing means not only pouring water upon, but also passing the wet hand on every part of your body.

QUESTION 10

When it is mandatory for me to do "ghusl," then is it mandatory for me to do "wudu" first, and then do "ghusl," or does "ghusl" fulfill the requirment for "wudu" -- thereby, I should ONLY do ghusl and not wudu to become completely pure. OR, are BOTH "wudu" and "ghusl" necessary to do? In other words, if I ONLY did "ghusl," then is true that it is not necessary for me to do "wudu?"

ANSWER

If you avoid touching your private parts while making ghusl and while drying yourself after completing it, you do not need another wudu' before praying. In any case, renewing the wudu' for each prayer is Sunnah, but one must have a clear niyyah, distinguishing a fard wudu' from a mustahhab one. In the last case, we do not add the niyyah for purification. If you are in doubt whether you have lost your wudu' or not, the best thing is to make an action which breaks wudu', and then making wudu' again

QUESTION 11

In the Shafi'i madhab, is it MANDATORY (Fard/wajib) to do "ghusl" for the "jumma" (Friday) prayer, or is it only a SUNNA? What does the Hanafi madhab say about performing "ghusl" for Friday prayers? -- mandatory or not?

ANSWER

In the Shafi'i madhhab jumu'ah ghusl is only a sunnah. Wudu' is enough for a correct jumu'ah. In the Hanafi madhhab the matter is disputed: someone says it is wajib, some others it is sunnah muakkadah. But sunnah muakkadah, it their madhhab, is very close to wajib. Most of Hanafi scholars say that when you cannot perform a jumu'ah ghusl you need a tayyammum, but this opinion is not accepted by the Shafi'is. In this madhhab, a jumu'ah prayer with proper wudu' and without jumu'ah ghusl is sahih, but avoiding to perform a sunnah (without a good reason) is not, obviously, the best thing.

BarakAllahu-fik for the answers to my questions. Here are some more questions. JazakAllah for sharing your knowledge and being patient with the ignorant:

QUESTION 12

Can you please shed some light on the "Muslim Brotherhood?" I know that Hassan al-Banna was a scholar of Ahl al-sunna, and a great sufi, but their recent followers (like Syed Qutb) are very "wahhabee" oriented. Can you elaborate on this? Is this true or not? Give examples of how Muslim brotherhood is wahhabee-oriented.

ANSWER

Hasan al-Banna was not a Wahhabi, but calling him a Sunni scholar or a "great sufi" is not correct. He was a teacher in an elementary school, a member of a tariqah and a high-ranking exponent of the (British) Masonry in Egypt. He was a follower of the "reformist theory", preached by Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani and opposed by Sunni Scholars and Ottoman Ulema. He separated himself from his (Qadiri) tariqa, thinking that "traditional sufism" was old-fashioned and antiquated. His project was to create a "Muslim secret society", a sort of "Islamic Masonry". The British government supported him in the same way it had sponsored Ibn Sa'ud. After him, Sayyed Qutb became the leader: he was an ignorant person who convicted himself (and his followers) to be a shaykh. He even dared to write a Koranic tafsir (Fi Zhilal al-Qur'an), that is a collection of the most absurd mistakes and baseless interpretations. Its contains insults against the Sahabah, denies the validity of the four Schools and even claims to correct "Othman's limitations" (astaghfir-Ullah). When Egypt and S. Arabia wages war for controlling Yemen, MB started depending on Saudi money and became very much influenced by Wahhabism. Today they are nothing but a Mafia inside the Islamic world. Leadership is transmitted from fathers to sons, and people who never entered a madrasah are called "imam", "mufti", etc. They have created an organization called "Islamic Relief", whose job is nothing but theft. They say, "we collect sadaqat to help Muslims in Bosnia", but they use it for buying house, luxury cars, etc. During an International Muslim Congress in Istanbul a member of the Bosnian government said: "Wallahi, they collected millions to help us, but we have not seen even one dollar from them." The representative of IR, instead of answering, let the hall and came back home. I myself suffered a lot of menaces and defamation from these people, but - al-hamdu Lillah - they were not shutting my mouth up. May Allah save this Ummah from MB. As an evident proof of their Wahhabism, they are worldwide printing, translated and circulating a book called "Minhaj al-Muslim" by Jabir al-Jaza'iri, that is a quintessence of Wahhabism. Their organization (WAMY) also publishes "Fath al-Majid" by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the "gospel" of Wahhabism.

QUESTION 13

I've heard that it is okay to pick and choose from the ijtihads of the 4 mujtahidun. I've also heard that some scholars forbade that. What is the opinion of the "MAJORITY" of scholars on this issue? What do you recommend?

ANSWER

Unnecessary "picking and choosing" among the four schools is of course wrong, and is "talfiq", i. e., the same mistake Muslim scholars attribute to Ibn Taymiyyah and Wahhabis. A Muslim cannot change his school according to his will, except for a good reason. When it is hard to follow your school, you can follow another one, but when the hardship is over you must return to your school. There are other cases of permission: a scholar that is called to serve as imam or qadi in a place when another school is prevalent; a scholar that fears that a certain school is going to be extinguished and needs to be vivified (Shaykh Abd al-Wahhab as-Sha'rani became a Hanbali because the number of Hanbali scholars in Egypt was decreasing); someone who wants to increase his taqwah  and chooses to apply, in any situation, the stricter rule (but the opposite is never permitted). In any case, when under hardship, your cannot just select a single rule, but a whole set. A Shafi'i who - because of hardship - chooses to pray according to the hanafi madhhab, must have a ghusl and a wudu' according to that school, too. Practically speaking, only fuqaha' are allowed to do it.

QUESTION 14

The Quran has a verse which states -- paraphrased -- : "Someone who takes a life unjustly will go to hell." Does this apply to the Muslim and non-Muslim? Does it mean that if a Muslim killed a person unjustly, that he will DEFINITELY go to hell? Please explain.

ANSWER

Someone who dies as a Muslim will only temporarily dwell in hell; but dying as a Muslim means that one's shahadah has been accepted. This acceptance implies one has repented of all his sins; it washes them, exactly like one's first shahadah. Repentance cancels every sin, even shirk and idol-worship.

QUESTION 15

Did the majority of scholars of Islam agree that "tawassul" is halal -- even after the death of a pious person (and not necessarily while the intercessor is "alive and present)?

ANSWER

"Dead" in Islam means "living in the barzakh". Plants and even stones are living beings. Wahhabis think that Prophets' bodies have become dust and sand, but we know they are alive inside their graves, say salawat and intercede for their Ummah. A wali living in this world and a wali living in the barzakh have exactly the same nature. Tawassul of salihun after their death is regarded as halal by the unanimity of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and by a majority of the Hanbali scholars. Only some late Hanbali scholars oppose it, but even those scholars do not equate it to shirk al-akbar.

QUESTION 16

I've heard people say that "Dhul-Qarnayn" was Alexander the Great. Is this correct?

ANSWER

A minority of scholars thinks he is Alexander, others say he was Cyrus of Persia, and others else says, "He was another person, living after Sayydna Nuh and before Sayydna Ibrahim".

QUESTION 17

Christians point out as proof in their bible the verses such as, Jesus said: "Before Abraham, I am" in an attempt to prove that Jesus is "God." What is the correct understanding of such verses from the Islamic perspective?

ANSWER

In the same way in which the Prophet Muhammad, sall-Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam, said "I was a prophet when Adam was between water and mud", and "I was an existing being when Adam was non-existent". Spirits (arwah) are created before this world, and the first spirit was an-Nur al-Muhammadiyya. All Prophets were created from this Nur. So Jesus was existing before this world, but Abraham, (according to the Bible) was only called Abraham in this world. His original name was Abram.

QUESTION 18

There is a group known by many as the "habashis." That's because their shaykh, Abdullah Al-Hariri, is from Ethiopia. He used to be Mufti of Somalia. I learn from this group quite a bit. I have heard from Muslim (both wahhabee and non-wahhabee) that this group is deviant. I have tried to discover WHY in all my days of learning but nothing seems wrong to me. Have you heard about this group? What are your views on this group?

ANSWER

All documents about them in my possession show that they are Sunni Muslims (Shafi'i in fiqh, Ash'ari in kalam and Rifa'i in tariqah) and that their 'aqidah is sahihah. So called "refutations" of Habashis I have read simply refute nothing; they are full of personal accusations, but do not contain any valid proof of their supposed mistakes. Obviously, accusations coming from Wahhabis, from Nazimi-Kabbanis and from other heretic sects cannot be accepted, since those who formulate them lack the necessary requirement of 'adilah.

Latest additions from the Islamic Institute: