That New-New (Part Three) |

Bismiᵓllāh.

In order to make this more discernable to the minds, let me state that it is my view that those who censure this division only censure the division of innovation as defined in the Sacred Law; the proof for this being that they divide innovation into religious and worldly innovation and consider that a necessity. Those who hold the view (that innovation) is divided into that which is praiseworthy and blameworthy see that this is only with regard to the linguistic innovation because they say, “Adding and increasing upon the religion and the Sacred Law is misguidance and an enormous sin.” There is no doubt with them concerning this, therefore, the difference is only semantical.

Having said this, I would like to say, however, that those among our brothers who deny the division of innovation into that which is praiseworthy and blameworthy, and rather say it is divided into that which is religious and worldly—they were not fortunate in being precise in their expression. This is because once they ruled that the religious innovation is misguidance—which is true—and then ruled that the worldly innovation is neutral, they were wrong in their ruling because by this, they judged that every worldly innovation is permissible. This is a very dangerous matter that can bring about tribulations and problems. Hence, it is necessary and obligatory that there be some detail to this issue. They should instead say, “From the worldly innovation, there are matters that are good, and matters that are bad.” This is something that is witnessed by all currently, and none deny it save a blind, ignorant person. This addition must be mentioned.

A sufficient actualization of this meaning is found in the precise statement of the one who says; “Innovation is divided into that which is praiseworthy and blameworthy.” It is known that this is referring to the linguistic innovation, which those who deny this refer to as worldly (innovation). This statement is at the peak of precision and scrupulousness and calls for every new matter to be categorized according to the proper guidelines and submission to the rule of Sacred Law and the maxims of the religion. This forces the Muslims to present every new and invented matter in both their public and private worldly lives in front of the Sacred Law of Islām in order to see the ruling of Islām in it no matter what that innovation is. This cannot be properly actualized without this great division that is given proper consideration among the scholars of the theoretical basis of jurisprudence [uṣūluᵓ-fiqh]. So, may Allāh ﷻ be pleased with the Imāms of uṣūl and their delineation of the correct expressions that lead to correct meanings without deficiency, alteration, or false interpretation.

al-Muḥaddith Shaykh as-Sharīf as-Sayyid Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlawī ibn ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Mālikī al-Ḥasanī al-Idrīsī al-Makkī | 

“Notions That Must Be Corrected [Mafāhīm yajib ʾan tuṣaḥḥa]” (trans. ARB-ENG, Suraqah Abdul-Aziz); ©2010 Sunni Publications

That New-New (Part Two) |

Bismiᵓllāh.

Some people censure the distinction between good innovation and blameworthy innovation and censure those who espouse it in the most severe manner. Nay, some of them accuse others (holding this view) with corruption and misguidance because, according to them, this is in opposition to the explicit statement of the Messenger ﷺ who said: “Every innovation is misguidance.” So this statement is explicit in its generality and explicit in describing every innovation as misguidance. From this starting point, you will hear such a person say, “So it is correct, after hearing the statement of the legislator and carrier of the message, that every innovation is misguidance - is it correct for a mujtahid or jurist, no matter how high his rank, to come and say: ‘No. Not every innovation is misguidance, some are praiseworthy and some are blameworthy’?”

This is the entry point that deceives many people; they end up shouting among the shouters, and censuring among the censurers, and swelling the ranks of those who have not understood the goals of the Sacred Law or tasted the spirit of the Islāmic religion. Only a short time will remain before such a person is forced to come up with a way out to solve the problems that confront him and show him the reality that he is living in. He is forced to come up with another method, and if not for that, he would be unable to eat, drink, live, or even dress, breathe, get married or interact with his self, family, brothers, or society. This method is for him to say in clear words, “Innovation is divided into religious innovation and worldly innovation.” How exalted is Allāh from all imperfections! This careless person has allowed for himself to invent this (new) categorization, or at the bare minimum, invent this term.

Even if we were to admit for argument’s sake that this meaning was present since the time of prophecy, still, the term ‘worldly’ and ‘religious’ was clearly not present during the time of Prophetic legislation, so from where did we get this categorization and from where did this innovated term come from? Whoever says: “The division of innovation into praiseworthy and blameworthy was not brought by the Law Giver ﷺ,” we say in response: “Likewise, the division of innovation into that which is religious and unacceptable, and that which is worldly and and acceptable is itself the peak of innovation and inventing!” The Law Giver ﷺ said: “Every innovation is misguidance” in a general way, whereas this person says: “No. Not every innovation is misguidance without restriction. Rather, innovation is divided into two categories: the religious innovation that is misguidance and the worldly innovation that is harmless.”

For this reason, we must clarify an important issue here, so that hopefully, it may remove some of the confusion, Allāh ﷻ willing. The speaker here is the Wise Legislator ﷻ, therefore, His word is the law. Hence, it is a must that His words be understood according to the legal scales with which He came. So, if you know that innovation is everything that is invented and innovated without there being a precedent for it, it will not be hidden from you that the blameworthy inventions or additions are the additions to the religion that are added in order that they become a part of the fabric of the Sacred Law that is followed and ascribed to the possessor of the Sacred Law. This is what our Master, the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, warned us from when he ﷺ said “Whoever innovates in this affair of ours that which is not from it, it is rejected.” Having said this, the clear dividing line in this matter is his saying ﷺ, “…in this affair of ours…” Based upon this, our division of innovation into that which is praiseworthy and that which is blameworthy — in our understanding, is nothing more than the linguistic innovation that is merely inventing and bringing something about. None of us doubt that the innovation defined in Sacred Law is anything other than misguidance and tribulation that is blameworthy, rejected and hated. If only those who censure (others) would understand this meaning, it would become clear to them that in reality, the area of agreement is close and the area of dispute is far.

al-Muḥaddith Shaykh as-Sharīf as-Sayyid Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlawī ibn ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Mālikī al-Ḥasanī al-Idrīsī al-Makkī | 

“Notions That Must Be Corrected [Mafāhīm yajib ʾan tuṣaḥḥa]” (trans. ARB-ENG, Suraqah Abdul-Aziz); ©2010 Sunni Publications

That New-New |

Bismiᵓllāh.

Among those pretentious claimants are those who ascribe themselves to the righetous Salaf. They call to the way of the Salafiyya with rudeness, blind partisanship, withered intellects, sickly understandings, and constricted chests. They wage battle against ever new thing and reject every beneficial thing that is invented, claiming that it is a blameworthy innovation and that every innovation is misguidance, without differentiating between the types of innovation, even though the Sacred Law of Islām [sharīʿa] obliges us to distinguish between them and say: from among them are blameworthy innovations as well as good innovations. This is what is necessitated by sound intellect and penetrating insight.

This is what has been thoroughly investigated by the scholars of the theoretical basis of jurisprudence among the Salaf of this Umma - may Allāh ﷻ be pleased with them all - such as Imām al-ʿIzz ibn ʿAbd as-Salām, an-Nawawī, as-Suyūtī, al-Maḥallī, and Ibn Ḥajar (al-Asqalānī).

The Prophetic narrations (when taken altogether) explain themselves and complete each other. It is a must that one looks at all of them at one time and sees to it that they are explained in light of the spirit of the Sacred Law and its understanding that is agreed upon among the people of investigation.

It is for this reason that we find that in order for many of the noble Aḥadīth to be explained, there is a need for the intellect of a capable person who possesses penetrating insight, appropriate understanding, and a heart with taste that is able to take from the sea of the noble Sacred Law and take the states and needs of the Umma into consideration and lead it, while remaining within the boundaries of the principles of Sacred Law and the Qurʾānic and Prophetic texts that must not be neglected.

An example of this is in the ḥadīth: “Every innovation is misguidance…” It must be said that the innovation here is the blameworthy one that does not have a basis in the Sacred Law. This particular restriction is to be found in anotherḥadīth that states: “There is no prayer for the one who lives next to the mosque except in the mosque.” So even though this ḥadīth seems to indicate generality in negating the prayer of the one who lives next to the mosque, the generalities of (all of) the aḥadīth (on this topic) restrict this, and the conclusion is that it is not a complete prayer.

Another example is the ḥadīth: “There is prayer when food is presented.” They (the scholars) said, “This means that the prayer is not complete.” Also the ḥadīth: “None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” They said, “This means complete faith [īmān].”

And the ḥadīth: “‘By Allāh, he does not believe; by Allāh, he does not believe; by Allāh, he does not believe.’ It was said, ‘Who, O Messenger of Allāh?’ He ﷺ said, ‘The one whose neighbour does not feel safe from his evil.’” And the other ḥadīth: “The slanderer will not enter Paradise,” and “The one who disrespects his parents.” The scholars have said, “This person will not enter Paradise if he declares (such actions) to be permissible.”

Thus, (the scholars) do not take these narrations upon their apparent meaning; rather, they employed a type of interpretation. The ḥadīth that concerns innovation is in this realm, for the generalities of the other aḥadīth and conditions of the Companions indicate that what is intended is in fact, the blameworthy innovation that does not fall under the jurisdiction of a comprehensive (legal) foundation. There is also the ḥadīth: “Whoever initiates a good sunna will have the reward for it and the reward of those who act upon it until the Day of Judgement.” And: “Stick to my Sunna, and the Sunna of my rightly-guided Caliphs.” ʿUmar, may Allāh ﷻ be well-pleased with him, used to say concerning the tarāwīḥ prayers, “What a good innovation this is!”

And to Allāh ﷻ belongs all success.

al-Muḥaddith Shaykh as-Sharīf as-Sayyid Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlawī ibn ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Mālikī al-Ḥasanī al-Idrīsī al-Makkī | 

“Notions That Must Be Corrected [Mafāhīm yajib ʾan tuṣaḥḥa]” (trans. ARB-ENG, Suraqah Abdul-Aziz); ©2010 Sunni Publications

The Science of Taṣawwuf | Part One

With Allāh ﷻ is the success for whatever I say, and He is the Guide to the Straight Path.

Sufism [taṣawwuf] is a science possessing a definition [ḥadd], a subject matter [mawḍūᵓ], a founder [wāḍiᵓ], a name [ism], a derivation [istimdād], a legal status [ḥukm], particular issues [masāᵓil], an excellence [faḍīla], an attribution [nisba] and a fruit [thamara]. Aṣ-Ṣāwī said: “It is incumbent on every person who would pass a judgment on a discipline [fann] to first know (these) ten basic principles.” One of the scholars put this in verse:

The definition and the subject matter, then the founder

And the name, the derivation, and the ruling according to the Sacred Law

The development of particular issues, the excellence

And an attribution, (and) a sublime benefit [fāᵓida]

All are a right on the student, knowing that understanding

Is comprised in these ten, the distinction in which he is entrusted

He must know them before beginning to seek knowledge

So that he may keep his sight on what he is seeking.

Excerpt: Kāshifuᵓl-ilbās ʿan fayḍatiᵓl-khatm Abīᵓl-ʿAbbās [Aḥmad at-Tijānī] (The Removal of Confusion concerning the Overflowing Grace of the Seal of the Saints, Aḥmad at-Tijānī) by Shaykh al-Islām al-Ḥājj Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥājj ʿAbd Allāh Niāsse al-Kawlakhī at-Tijānī (©2010, 2001 Fons Vitae Publishers)

majdimam:

مـا لـذة الـعيش إلا صحبة الفقرا     هم السلاطين و السادات والأمرا

What delight is there in life other than companionship with the fuqara?
They are the sultans, lords, and princes.

— Abu Madyan