Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Manner of performing Zikir after Solah (4)

<Notes on "Lessons on Congregational Solah" for Wed, 23rd Jan 2013 @ Salsabil after Isya'


As for asy-Syeikh ‘Abdullah bin as-Siddieq al-Ghumari, even though I am only equipped with a basic degree in Usul Fiqh, with humility and yet with much regret, could detect his manipulative arguments and his following of his desires in his book/article: “Husnu at-Tafahhum wa ad-Darak li Mas-alati at-Tark”, in which he used the “5 rulings in Islam – Wajib (mandotary), Sunnat/Mandub (voulntary), Haram (Prohibited), Makruh (detestable) and Mubah (Permissible)” to prove, among others, that whatever the Prophet neglected and did not perform of acts of worship, is not to be considered “forbidden” but rather “permissible”.


This is his statement in that book:

فهذه أنواع الحكم التي يدور عليها الفقه الإسلامي,ولا يجوز لمجتهد صحابياً كان أو غيره أن يصدر حكماً من هذه الأحكام إلاّ بدليل من الأدلّة السّابقة,وهذا معلوم من الدين بالضرورة لا يحتاج إلى بيان.

ماهو الترك؟

نقصد بالترك الذي ألّفنا هذه الرسالة لبيانه:

أن يترك النبي صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم شيئاً لم يفعله أو يتركه السّلف الصالح من غير أن يأتي حديث أو أثر بالنّهي عن ذلك الشيء المتروك يقتضي تحريمه أو كراهته.

“So these are the types of hukum (rulings) that the whole of Islamic Jurisprudence related to and no jurist/scholar, whether he is a Companion or anyone else, is permitted to come out with a ruling (from among these rulings) except with valid proof based on the evidences mentioned earlier and this is a commonly known thing in Islam, needless to be clarified.

What is neglecting (or not doing)?

We mean with neglecting, the very reason we write this article is to explain it: The Prophet neglecting of something, not doing it or the as-Salaf as-Salih whereby there is no hadeets or narration that prohibited from doing that neglected item/thing, means that it is (Haram) prohibited or (Makruh) disliked… ”

Then he went on to give examples of the types of “neglected things/items” to eventually conclude:

ولم يأت في حديث ولا أثر تصريح بأنّ النبي صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم إذا ترك شيئاً كان حراماً أو مكروهاً.

الترك لا يدل على التحريم

“There has never been any hadeets or narration (from the Companions/salaf) that the Prophet when he neglected something, it is considered Haram or Makruh…To neglect does not indicate the prohibition (of the neglected)”. 

He then quoted from Ibn Hazm’s al-Muhalla, statements which imply the Companions not performing Qabliyah Maghrib, to justify his conclusion. This I have to say: we have known that this is not a justified example and a misleading conclusion, since Qabliyah Maghrib is a Sunnah which the Prophet encouraged. There are 3 narrations in Sahih al-Bukhariy with regard to Qabliyah Maghrib[1].

Although it is true that there in no authentic narration that the Prophet performed it, but he legislated it with his words of encouragement and that is a Sunnah Qauliyah.

Likewise the writings of asy-Syeikh Hasan al-‘Alawi al-Maliki namely “Mafahim yajibu an tusahhah”, who made the same approach and misguided principle. Under this sub-topic:

“The meaning of the Gathering – it has been our tradition to gather for certain occassions of historical importance like the Birth of the Prophet, commemorating al-Isra’ wa al-Mi‘raj and the Night of the Middle of Sha‘ban, the Prophet’s Migration, the Descent of the Qur’an, the Battle of Badr and to our conscience that this is a “custom” that has no connection with the Religion such that it is not to be described as “legitimised” or a “Sunnah”, and at the same time, it is not against any foundation/tenet of the tenets of the Deen (Islam), because the danger is only when a thing is believed to be legislated/legitimised when it is in reality not legitimised and to me the likes of these custom traditional matters, the most one can say is whether it is liked to the Legislator of the Sharie‘ah (Allah) or disliked.” [2]

As a matter of fact, great scholars of the Salaf era and the Companions before them, as well as those who followed their ways, held on to the principle that “whatever the Prophet neglected, they too neglected and not perform them, following his teachings” [3], such that the Qa‘idah of Usul Fiqh states: 

الأصل في العبادة المنع” 


 “the original ruling in matters of ‘Ibadah, is that it is non-permissible unless proven otherwise”

Pg. 53

Apart from what we have taken of al-Imam asy-Syafi‘ie statements, among the scholars who elaborated the explanation of this principle extensively, was al-Imam asy-Syatibi[4] especially the Fifth Chapter “أحكام البدع الحقيقية و الإضافية و الفرق بينهما” meaning: “The Rulings of Bid‘ah (Innovation) which are Haqiqiyah and those which are Idafiyah and the difference between these two. He wrote:

“The Fifth Chapter; Rulings of Bida‘( Innovations in Islamic religious matters) which are actually truly real and Bida‘ which are partially or supplementary and the difference between these two (yet both are Bid‘ah).

Before we discuss on Innovations which are actual/original and Innovations which are partial or supplementary, it is important to explain them.

So, may Allah grant Guidance, we say that: Innovations which are actual/original is one which has no dalil/proof from the Shara‘, not from the Kitab (Qur’an), nor any Sunnah, not even Ijma‘ (consensus of the Companions and Scholars), nor Qiyas (analogy of the jurists) and not even a valid recognised/accepted derivation by the scholars, not in general and not even in detail, and with that it is called Bid‘ah – as we have mentioned before this – because it is a thing newly invented without any preceded example….” [5]


A few lines after that, he explained on the difference of Bid‘ah Idafiyah (partial/supplementary):

“i.e from one aspect it is part of Sunnah, as it is based on a daleel/proof, but from another aspect, it is a bid‘ah, since it is based on specious arguments (seemed to be true but in reality falsehood or suspicious conjecture) instead of daleel/proof or not based on anything at all.

The Difference between these two from the aspect of meaning: is that there is from one aspect, a valid daleel/proof originally, but from the aspect of “the manner/way” or “condition/situation” or details [or time], there is no daleel, when it is in need of a daleel (for it), since most of the time, it involves in matters of ‘Ubudiyat (‘Ibadah/worship) not purely al-‘Adiyat (customs/norms), as will be mentioned, In sha’ Allah.”

Then he elaborated:


[1] Sahih al-Bukhariy; (i) Kitab al-I‘tisam bi al-Kitab wa as-Sunnah: 96; Bab: 27; hadeets no: 7368; Fath al-Bari: 13/348, (ii) Kitab al-Adzan: (k) 10; Bab: Kam baina al-Adzan wa al-Iqamah: (b) 14; hadeets no: 624; Fath al-Bari: 2/126, (iii) Bab: baina kulli al-Adzanayn Solah liman Sya’: (b) 16; hadeets no: 627; Fath al-Bari: 2/130 from the Companion by the name of ‘Abdullah bin Mughaffal and he was also known as ‘Abdullah al-Muzaniy as clarified by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in the Sharh.

[2] Mafahiem Yajibu an Tusahhah: pg. 306.

[3] For example, (i) the Prophet did not legislate Azan (Prayer Call) for both of the Eid Prayers, even though he commanded almost everyone to attend and witness the prayer and listen to the sermon. It would have been legislated, if we think, out of common sense, to have more people gathered. The Companions did the same and even made it clear, the Prophet did not legislate Azan for both Prayers, not even Iqamah as they narrated. The Prophet did not prohibit them, but they understood (ii) this issue of Congregational Du‘a and Dzikir after Obligatory prayers, (iii) The Prophet did not lead du‘a on the Day of Arafah, although his du‘a would surely be accepted by Allah. (iv) ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar corrected a man who said: “Alhamdulillah was solatu was salam ‘ala Rasulillah” after sneezing. Ibn ‘Umar spontaneously said: “That was not what the Messenger of Allah taught us, instead he said (taught us): {When one of you sneezes, he should praise Allah (saying: Alhamdulillah)} and he did not say: and send also your “Solah” (i.e. Solawat – sending du‘a’ of blessings) onto the Messenger of Allah.” NB at-Tirmidzi as-Sunan no: 2378 with a Hasan graded sanad.

[4] See pg. 40 for his biography; Abu Is-haq Ibrahiem bin Musa al-Gharnati asy-Syatibi died 790H.

[5] al-I‘tisam : 2/127.
Copyright 2011
Template by freethemelayouts