Introductory Remarks

The ideal that the World Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), presented before the people of the world is, in a word, the Sunnah; and everything contrary to it is considered bid’ah. Through twenty-three years of unceasing effort and struggle, the society that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) built was liberated from the octopus-like grip of every form of bid’ah and jahiliyyah, and established upon the enlightened, magnificent ideal of the Sunnah. This was a great blessing for humanity as a whole.

In later times, for various reasons, the Muslim society deviated from the ideal of the Sunnah, and countless bid’ahs entered their aqidah and practice. There even came a time when Muslims began to regard and follow a chaotic mixture of Sunnah and bid’ah as the Islamic ideal. As a result, their lives suffered complete disintegration and calamity. In the present age, that very distressed environment and situation has engulfed the entire Muslim world.

But this state is not desirable for Muslims. Such deviation from the ideal cannot be acceptable to anyone. Therefore, it is essential today to present people anew with an extensive explanation and analysis of Islamic idealism, so that awareness may awaken in the hearts of Muslims, and an ardent desire may arise within them to change their condition, revive themselves, and become idealistic once again. At this stage, the present book is a noteworthy outcome of whatever my modest writing ability has been able to accomplish. The sole purpose underlying the composition of this book is to present clearly the fundamental explanation and analysis of the Sunnah and bid’ah, and to show where deviation from the Sunnah and the entry of bid’ah have occurred in creed, belief, life, and society. The readers themselves will consider how far this purpose has been achieved, or whether I may claim any success at all. My only statement is that whatever I have written, I have written after deep thought and careful understanding; I have written in order to present the correct view clearly; and I have written on the basis of the Qur’an and Hadith, fiqh, and the opinions of universally respected scholars. I alone am personally responsible for the views discussed in this book, and if anyone is to be held responsible, only I may be held responsible, not anyone else. If I have made any mistake in this discussion, my mistake may be pointed out—not by invoking anyone’s authority, but on the basis of the Qur’an and Hadith. I am fully prepared to correct any such mistake.

Even so, if this effort of mine is able to make even a small contribution toward illuminating the ideal and dispelling the darkness of bid’ah, I shall consider my labor worthwhile and, regarding it as a means of attaining salvation before Allah in the Hereafter, I shall offer Him my thanks.

Muhammad Abdur Rahim

Preface to the Second Edition

My book Sunnah and Bid’ah was first published in September 1967. Soon afterward, all its copies were sold out. It became clear even then that the book had been well received by the learned community and had created a significant stir in the world of thought. In fact, this book dealt a tremendous blow to the bid’ahs that had been cultivated and accumulated in our society over the ages, and the worshippers of bid’ah and groups dependent upon bid’ah were stunned and wounded by that blow. Cries of “It is all over!” resounded everywhere. This was my challenge to the bid’ah prevailing at the time. Naturally, I expected that a rebuttal might come from the proponents of bid’ah.

But in practice it became clear that, in response to the decisive, sharp, and irresistible blow of this book, the proponents of bid’ah had nothing worth saying. Although they left no stone unturned in spreading slander against me, the concerned circles subsequently found no course other than silence. I breathed a sigh of relief when I saw that no group had the ability to refute, with any conclusive proof, what I had said against bid’ah as vast as a mountain. I give thanks to Almighty Allah that I was able to carry out the Sunnah of Hazrat Ibrahim (peace be upon him) against the accumulated bid’ahs of this age and to follow the example of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and Mujaddid Alf Sani (may Allah have mercy on them), however modest and insignificant that effort may have been.

In this connection, I wish to remind readers that although I have proved the pir-murid system to be contrary to the Sunnah and a bid’ah, I have certainly acknowledged the great services to Islam that the ulama and the pirsahibs of this country have rendered throughout the ages, as well as their immeasurable contribution behind the fact that the name and traces of the religion of Islam still remain in this country.

For nearly the past ten years, the book could not be reprinted in full because no bold publisher could be found. It has now been newly published by Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman. Several new subjects have been added, and many passages from the first edition have been rewritten with greater force and reasoning. Compared with the earlier edition, this edition is considerably richer in theory and information.

I can therefore readily hope that, compared with the first edition, this edition will be much more warmly received by the learned readers. I offer endless thanks to Almighty Allah for having enabled me to present the book anew to the reading public.

Muhammad Abdur Rahim

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

‘Sunnah’ and ‘bid’ah’ are both Arabic words. Nevertheless, both words are widely known in Muslim society and have been extensively used in the cultural history of Islam. Yet, as far as can be understood, many people are unable to grasp the correct significance of these two terms. Although, among all the fundamental terms of Islamic culture—terms upon which a complete understanding of the Islamic way of life depends—these two words are included. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to analyze the correct significance of these two words and, in their light, to examine and assess the aqidah, practice, and akhlaq of the present Muslim world, although the subject calls for detailed discussion.

The need to discuss this subject becomes even more urgent when we see that, in present-day Muslim society, no practical distinction is made between the Sunnah and bid’ah. Not only that, many kinds of actions supported by the Sunnah and regarded by the Sunnah as essential and obligatory are still generally abandoned in Muslim society, while many forms of bid’ah have gained importance like the Sunnah, taken firm root, and settled there adorned with branches, leaves, flowers, and fruits. The situation is now such that, by looking at the face of present-day Muslim society, observing the totality of its individual and social activities, and noting its actual role in various spheres of life, there is no way to understand which is Sunnah and which is bid’ah. In Muslim life today, the pure, all-pervading radiance of the Sunnah has grown dim, and in its place the black darkness of bid’ah has spread everywhere and engulfed the entire Muslim life. Until liberation is achieved from this noose-like grip of bid’ah, it is utterly impossible—it cannot happen—to illuminate Muslim life with the clear stream of light of the Sunnah. It is precisely with this purpose inspiring us that we have undertaken this discussion.

Sunnah and Bid’ah: Explanation and Significance

First, we wish to present a detailed fundamental explanation of these two words and understand what ‘Sunnah’ means as an Islamic term, and who the Ahl al-Sunnah are. We also wish to understand what bid’ah is and in how many ways it has consciously or unconsciously engulfed Muslim society.

‘‘Sunnah’’ Word: Explanation

The literal meaning of the word ‘Sunnah’ is ‘path.’

The word ‘Sunnah’ has been used in the Noble Qur’an in many places.

One verse reads:

 سُنَّةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلُ ۖ وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ اللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا [٤٨:٢٣]

The Sunnah of Allah, which has been in effect from before. And you will never find any change in the Sunnah of Allah. (Al-Fath: 48)

Another verse states:فَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا ۖ وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَحْوِيلًا

—You will never find any change in Allah’s Sunnah; you will never find any deviation in it. (Al-Fatir 35:42)

In Surah Bani Isra’il too, the word ‘Sunnah’ has been used twice in the same verse.

The verse reads: سُنَّةَ مَن قَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا قَبْلَكَ مِن رُّسُلِنَا ۖ وَلَا تَجِدُ لِسُنَّتِنَا تَحْوِيلًا [١٧:٧٧]

—This is the Sunnah concerning the messengers whom We sent before you, and you will never find any change in Allah’s Sunnah.

The literal and lexical meaning of the word ‘Sunnah’ used in these verses is a path, way, and method. But what does ‘Sunnatullah’—Allah’s Sunnah—mean?

Imam Raghib al-Isfahani wrote: Allah Most High’s Sunnah refers to the practical way of His actions and efficacy, and to the rules and method of obeying Him.

Thus, it becomes clear that the word ‘Sunnah’ relates to a fundamental matter. It has been applied to Allah, just as it has been applied to the prophets and messengers. The Qur’an also uses this word to explain the actual position of ordinary people.

This is the literal usage and lexical meaning of the word ‘Sunnah.’ It is from this perspective that we have begun our analysis of the word ‘Sunnah.’ Before us is its original and unadulterated meaning.

In Imam Raghib’s words: The Sunnah of the Prophet is the rule, way, and method that he consistently followed in practical deeds and actions.

In the words of Allamah Muhammad Bashir Sahsawani, ‘Sunnah’ is the particular path, way, and method that has been practically followed in matters of the religion of Islam, in doing or refraining from an action, since the time of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him)—the path upon which one proceeds. In the chapter ‘Kitab al-Qadi’ of ‘Kitab al-Maqsud,’ the word ‘Sunnah’ has been explained as follows: ‘Sunnah’ is a followed course of action in the religion of Islam, whose observance is obligatory or incumbent in all circumstances.

Allamah Abdul Aziz al-Hanafi wrote: The word ‘Sunnah’ denotes the sayings and actions of the Messenger (peace be upon him). It is also used to denote the practical mode of conduct of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) and the noble Companions.

Allamah Safiuddin al-Hanbali wrote: Whatever saying, action, or approval of the Messenger is found through a chain of transmission, apart from the Qur’an, is Sunnah.

It must be remembered that the meaning of Sunnah discussed here is not the meaning used as a technical term by the scholars of Hadith; nor is it the meaning accepted in the science of fiqh. In the terminology of the scholars of Hadith, ‘Sunnah’ is the reports of the Noble Messenger’s (peace be upon him) sayings, actions, and approvals—commonly called ‘Hadith.’ In the science of fiqh, ‘Sunnah’ refers to an act that is neither obligatory nor incumbent, but which the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) performed frequently. Neither of these two meanings of Sunnah is discussed in this book. What is discussed here is ‘Sunnah’ in its fundamental sense, signifying basic ideals, principles, rules, ways, paths, and methods. In reality, in this sense ‘Sunnah’ is the fundamental ideal that Allah Most High revealed for all humanity, which the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) himself followed in his practical life across the vast field of fulfilling his religious responsibility and presented before the people of the world for them to follow. ‘Sunnah’ is an alternative term for the original Islam that we have discussed here. For what the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) followed in practice originated in revelation, which he received from Allah. This revelation is divided into two parts. One is the laws and commands conveyed by Allah. The practical life of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) is a combination of both, in which all these things were fully reflected. If the Messenger’s practical life is analyzed, all of these will be found clearly. That, then, is Sunnah; that is the complete religion of Islam. To make the true form of the Messenger’s practical life clear in the Qur’an, it was said through his tongue: ‘I follow no ideal; I do only what is revealed to me through revelation.’

The ideal revealed through revelation, which the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) followed in practical deeds and actions, is the ‘Sunnah’ under discussion. Another name for this Sunnah is Islam.

In the Qur’an, this Sunnah has been called the ‘Straight Path.’ In the Qur’an, it was proclaimed through the Messenger’s words:

Indeed, this is My straight, firm path. So follow this path, and do not follow other paths besides it. If you do so, they will separate you from this path and lead you far away from it. Allah has instructed you in this way so that you may proceed with fear of Him.

In this verse, ‘the Straight Path’ refers to the very thing conveyed by the word ‘Sunnah.’ Imam al-Shatibi wrote about the identity of ‘the Straight Path’: ‘The Straight Path’ is Allah’s path, to which He has invited people to adhere. That is the Sunnah. By the other paths are meant the paths of those who oppose and create division, which take people away from ‘the Straight Path.’ They are the people of bid’ah. It must also be remembered that Sunnah is used in opposition to bid’ah. For bid’ah is the opposite of this Sunnah.

‘Bid’ah’ The Meaning of the Word Explained

Imam Raghib wrote the meaning of the word ‘bid’ah’:

To originate an act in a new manner without seeing any prior model or following the imitation of anything else.

Regarding bid’ah in matters of religion, he defined it as follows:

In matters of religion, bid’ah is to present a statement whose believer and follower do not embody the ideal of any lawgiver or preacher, and which has no conformity with the fundamental principles of the Shari’ah or with its sound and pure ideals.

In other words, to say something that the Lawgiver did not say and to adopt as an ideal an action that He did not perform—that is bid’ah.

Imam al-Nawawi wrote the meaning of the word ‘bid’ah’:

—To perform acts for which there is no prior example.

And Allamah Mulla Ali al-Qari wrote: Arabic (*********)

—Introducing in an entirely new manner a principle or path that did not exist in the age of the Messenger.

Imam Shatibi wrote: Arabic (*********)

—In the Arabic language, it is said that such-and-such a person has committed bid’ah. What this means is that such-and-such a person has invented a new way that had not previously been followed by anyone.

He also wrote: Arabic (*********)

—An act will be called bid’ah only when the innovator considers it an act in accordance with the Shariah, although in reality it is not in accordance with the Shariah. There is no other meaning.

In other words, actually believing as a matter of creed that an act not in accordance with the Shariah is in accordance with the Shariah is bid’ah in reality. Elsewhere he wrote: Arabic (*********)

—That is why an act for which there is no evidence in support of it in the Shariah has also been given the name bid’ah.

In short, bid’ah means introducing into the religion of Islam a mode or method of action that is contrary to the Shariah, with the aim of engaging in excess and exaggeration in the worship of Allah.

Again, regarding the distinction between genuine bid’ah and relative bid’ah, Imam Shatibi wrote: Arabic (*********)

—Genuine and true bid’ah is that for which there is no evidence whatsoever in the Shariah in its favor or support: neither from the Book of Allah, nor from the hadith of the Messenger, nor from ijma, nor can any evidence acceptable to scholars be presented—not in general terms, nor in detail or particulars. That is why it has been called bid’ah, because it is fabricated and self-conceived, with no precedent in the Shariah.

The renowned hadith scholar Imam Khattabi defined bid’ah as follows: Arabic (*********)

—Anything newly introduced that is not founded upon the fundamental principles of the religion and is not supported by any precedent or analogy is bid’ah. But whatever is based on the fundamental principles of the religion is neither bid’ah nor misguidance.

Hafiz Ibn Rajab also wrote the same: Arabic (*********)

‘Bid’ah’ means that which is newly introduced and for which there is no intelligible evidence or proof in the Shariah.

The Qur’an and Hadith ‘the word’ ‘Bid’ah’ mentioned

In the Noble Qur’an, the word ‘bid’ah’ has been mentioned in three contexts in three different ways.

First: This word has been used concerning Allah in two verses. One verse reads:

بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ وَإِذَا قَضَىٰ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ [٢:١١٧]

—The Originator and Innovator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He merely says to it, “Be,” and it comes to be. (Al-Baqarah: 117)

The other verse is:

بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ تَكُن لَّهُ صَاحِبَةٌ ۖ وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ ۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ [٦:١٠١

—He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a child, and how could He have a wife? He created everything, and He is All-Knowing of all things. (Al-An’am: 101)

In both of these verses, Allah Most High has been called the ‘Badi’ of the heavens and the earth’—the Creator without any prior example, material, or preparation.

Second, this word has been used in a verse spoken by the Noble Messenger concerning himself, as follows:

          قُلْ مَا كُنتُ بِدْعًا مِّنَ الرُّسُلِ وَمَا أَدْرِي مَا يُفْعَلُ بِي وَلَا بِكُمْ ۖ

—Say, O Prophet: I have not come as an unprecedentedly sent messenger or as a preacher of a new message. I myself do not know how I will be treated, nor do I know what will be done with you. (Al-Ahqaf: 9)

Third, this word has been used in speaking of a particular kind of practice adopted by a group of the Children of Israel.

The verse is as follows:وَرَهْبَانِيَّةً ابْتَدَعُوهَا مَا كَتَبْنَاهَا عَلَيْهِمْ إِلَّا ابْتِغَاءَ رِضْوَانِ اللَّهِ

—And monasticism and asceticism adopted out of excessive fear—they themselves devised it. We did not prescribe this practice for them as an obligation. Rather, We prescribed for them the seeking of Allah’s pleasure. (Al-Hadid: 27)

Here, ‘monasticism’ has been called bid’ah because Allah Most High did not institute it; rather, the people devised it on their own. The bid’ah mentioned here, as the opposite of Sunnah, is what this book discusses. What becomes clear from this verse is that whatever Allah did not prescribe as a rule or law for His servants, but which they devised according to their own wishes, is bid’ah. Conversely, carrying out whatever Allah has prescribed, made binding, and commanded is not bid’ah. From this, a clear indication of the basic definition and concept of bid’ah can be found.

In a verse of Surah Al-Kahf, the meaning of the word ‘bid’ah’ is indicated in entirely different language.

The verse is as follows:قُلْ هَلْ نُنَبِّئُكُم بِالْأَخْسَرِينَ أَعْمَالًا [١٨:١٠٣]

الَّذِينَ ضَلَّ سَعْيُهُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَهُمْ يَحْسَبُونَ أَنَّهُمْ يُحْسِنُونَ صُنْعًا [١٨:١٠٤]

—O Prophet, tell them about the people who will be the greatest losers in respect of their deeds. They are those whose entire efforts have gone astray in the life of this world, while they imagine that they have done excellent work. (Al-Kahf: 102–103).

In other words, those who, despite performing all their deeds on the basis of error, regard their own actions as very good, very just, and highly meritorious are the greatest losers. The people of bid’ah are likewise. The deeds they perform are, in reality, not based on the principles given by Allah. This, nevertheless, is the correct identification of bid’ah. In his commentary on the aforementioned verse of Surah Al-Kahf, Allamah Ibn Kathir wrote: This verse generally applies to all those who worship Allah in ways and methods contrary to those pleasing to Allah. Although they think that they have done the right thing and hope that their deeds will be accepted and approved by Allah, in reality they follow erroneous principles, and at this stage their deeds are rejected by Allah.

In other words, all acts of worship—those believed to earn reward when performed and sin when omitted—must be carried out according to the ways and methods pleasing to Allah. This is the Sunnah. If they are performed according to an opposite custom and practice, they are manifest bid’ah, because they contradict the Sunnah. Imam Qurtubi therefore called everything bid’ah that is inconsistent with, and unlike, the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of the Messenger, or the practices of the Companions.

A clearer statement on this subject is found in the following verse. The verse is:

وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ

 الرَّسُولَ مِن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْهُدَىٰ وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلَّىٰ وَنُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ ۖ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًا [٤:١١٥

—Whoever opposes the Noble Messenger after the path of true guidance has become clear and bright to him, and follows a path and model other than the Sunnah of the believing community, We shall let him continue along the path he has chosen, and on the Day of Resurrection We shall consign him to Hell. Indeed, Hell is an extremely evil destination. (An-Nisa: 115)

This verse is one of the Qur’anic proofs for the Sunnah. The clear manifestation of guidance mentioned here is essentially the Sunnah. This Sunnah is the only highway of guidance. For through his words and deeds, in accordance with the Word of Allah and Allah’s subtle revelation (wahy khafi), he illuminated this model of the Sunnah. The believers in the society established by the Messenger followed this path. Now, if someone harbors an adverse attitude toward the Messenger, is unwilling to follow his model, and therefore abandons the model followed by the believing community in favor of another model, his outcome can be nothing but Hell. Thus, following the Messenger’s Sunnah is the only means of attaining welfare and salvation.

In the words of the Noble Prophet in the hadith, the Sunnah has been called al-amr. A hadith narrated by Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) states that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) declared:

Arabic (*********)

Whoever introduces or devises in this matter of mine something that is not originally part of it, it will be rejected.

In this hadith, al-amr means the original religion of Islam, which the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) presented to the world. This is because this religion of Islam is fully connected with his practice, status, honor, and position.

Allamah Qadi Iyad explained the meaning of this hadith in the following words:

Whoever introduces into Islam an opinion or view and presents it as Islamic, although there is no clear, explicit, implicit, or potentially demonstrable proof in the Qur’an and hadith in its support, it is rejectable. This is another name for bid’ah. In the aforementioned hadith, the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him), by saying “in this matter of mine,” meant Islam itself. This proves that, in the Messenger’s view, this religion is complete, perfect, and fully perfected, and that it is known to all, widely proclaimed, and manifest in every direction to an apprehensible degree. Neither this religion nor any fundamental or subsidiary aspect of it is unknown, unfamiliar, or concealed from any person of insight. If someone now seeks to add something extraneous to the religion, or to present a non-religious matter or deed as religious, he will destroy the entire religion. For he has not truly recognized or understood the original religion at all. Therefore, in defining bid’ah, Allamah Kandhalvi wrote: Bid’ah means something novel in the sphere of religion, for which there is no basis or fundamental support in the Shariah. In the terminology of the Shariah, this is called bid’ah.

This definition of bid’ah makes it clear that the invention of ever-new means for practical and worldly life, and the manufacture of newly invented devices, have no connection with bid’ah in the Shariah. None of these is undertaken as an act of worship or with the hope of receiving reward from Allah. The condition, of course, is that none of them may contradict the fundamental principles of the Shariah. Likewise, acts of worship that are clearly or indicatively established through reports of the words or deeds of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) or the Companions are not bid’ah. It is also clear that an action which was not needed during the time of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), but later becomes necessary for a religious activity and for achieving a religious objective, cannot be considered bid’ah. For example, establishing madrasah education and preaching organizations and departments according to customary practice; composing Arabic grammar to understand the Qur’an and hadith, or logic and philosophy to respond to opponents of Islam; providing modern weapons, equipment, and modern military training for jihad; and using fast and convenient means of transport—these things are, in one respect, also acts of worship, although they did not exist in their present form during the time of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) and the Companions. Nevertheless, they cannot be called bid’ah, because there was no need to arrange them in this manner at that time. Their need arose later, which is why they were adopted, and they are necessary for the religion. The truth is that all these things existed then in forms and modes suitable and necessary for that time. Therefore, none of them is bid’ah today.

It may also be said about these matters that they are not acts of worship in themselves. No one undertakes them with the intention of earning reward. They are means, instruments, or prerequisites of worship. That is, they are not what can be called “the invention of something new within the religion.” Rather, they are “newly developed things intended for the observance and implementation of the religion.” What the Qur’an and hadith prohibit is inventing something new within the religion as though it were religion. Inventing new things for implementing the religion is not prohibited at all. Therefore, these things cannot be called bid’ah, nor can they necessarily be regarded as obligatory.

Qur’anic verse—Arabic (*********)

Those who have divided the foundation of their religion into many parts, found paths leading in different directions, and split into various groups—you, O Prophet, have no connection whatsoever with them.

In his commentary on this verse, Allamah Khazin wrote that, according to a narration from Hazrat Abu Hurairah, it refers here to the misguided people of this Muslim ummah. According to another hadith, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said that this verse refers to the people of bid’ah, the skeptics, and the misguided among the Muslim ummah.

This discussion proves that the religion which the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) received from Allah, which he himself followed in practical life, presented before the people, and instructed them to follow—in a single term—is the Sunnah. Whatever is contrary to it, whether in creed, belief, practice, or character and in whatever sphere it may be, is bid’ah. From this perspective, the Sunnah and bid’ah are two mutually opposite and conflicting ideologies, entirely opposed ways of thinking and believing, and contrasting ways and systems of life. They proceed in opposite directions like two straight lines. Whatever is Sunnah is not bid’ah; whatever is bid’ah is not Sunnah. Likewise, the Sunnah can never be bid’ah, and bid’ah can in no way, and by no one’s assertion, be accepted as the Sunnah.

Proof of the Sunnah in the Qur’an Proof of the Sunnah in the Qur’an Proof of the Sunnah in the Qur’an

It is stated in the Noble Qur’an concerning the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him):

 يَأْمُرُهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ

He commands them to do what is recognized as good and forbids them from what is recognized as evil.

(Al-A’raf: 157)

Commentators have expressed various views regarding what is meant by “ma’ruf” and “munkar.” According to one interpretation, “ma’ruf” means the Sunnah and “munkar” means bid’ah. Allamah Haddadi wrote in his commentary: “Ma’ruf” is the Sunnah, and “munkar” is bid’ah.

Proof of the Sunnah Proof of the Sunnah Proof of the Sunnah

Hazrat Imran ibn Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Qur’an was revealed, and the Messenger (peace be upon him) established the Sunnah. Then he said, “Follow me. By Allah, if you do not do so, you will go astray.”

In other words, the way, path, and model of living according to the Qur’an is the Sunnah. The Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) presented and established this Sunnah and instructed all people to follow it. At the end, he said that if this Sunnah is not followed, nothing remains except clear error and misguidance. Indeed, this misguidance is bid’ah, which is contrary to the Sunnah.

Hazrat Jabir ibn Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: We were once sitting with the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him). He drew a line before him and said, “This is the path of Allah, the Lord of the worlds.” Then he drew two lines to its right and left and said, “These are the paths of Satan.” He then placed his hand on the middle line and recited this verse of the Qur’an, whose meaning is: “This is My firm, straight, and direct path, so follow it. Do not follow any of the other paths and lines that you see besides it. Otherwise, you will move away from Allah’s path and become separated from it. Allah has commanded you to follow this; perhaps you will fear Allah and surely fulfill this command.”

This hadith has also been narrated from Hazrat Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him). However, there is some difference in the wording of the two narrations. (Darimi, Musnad Ahmad)

In a lengthy hadith narrated by Hazrat Irbaz ibn Sariyah, the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) said: You must follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided, truth-following caliphs. Hold fast to it firmly and cling to it with your teeth, remaining steadfast—so that under no circumstances does it slip from your grasp, and you neither deviate from it nor become separated from it.

[Explanation: In the above hadith, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) urged adherence, along with his own Sunnah, to the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. This is because they followed the Messenger’s Sunnah completely, acted accordingly, and never did anything contrary to it in any matter. Why, then, was that Sunnah called the ‘Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs’? It was called so because they acted according to the Messenger’s Sunnah; they understood from his words and deeds what was required and adopted it. They were extremely eager to act according to the Messenger’s Sunnah in every matter, and all of them kept away from opposing it. They did so not only in major matters but also in minor ones. Whenever they found evidence concerning anything in the Qur’an and the Messenger’s Sunnah, they held fast to it and would never abandon it. However, when they found no clear instruction regarding a matter, they would think deeply, examine it, consult one another, reach a decision, and act accordingly. Here one might ask: if the Rightly Guided Caliphs merely acted on their own judgment, what significance could there be in calling it the ‘Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs’? The answer is that there were many people who had not lived during the Messenger’s time but lived during the Caliphs’ time, or who were alive during both periods. Yet, because many new circumstances arose later, the Rightly Guided Caliphs had to establish principles concerning them. On seeing this, people at that stage might develop various doubts. Therefore, by making this statement, the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) removed that doubt. He said that whatever they did, you too should accept it, considering it to be an observance of my own Sunnah.]

The injunction to hold fast to the Sunnah and follow it firmly and steadfastly is extremely emphatic and strong. For this Sunnah is the practical way of life of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). Following it is, in practice, the observance of Islam; and when it is abandoned, nothing remains except manifest misguidance. It has been said: when the fundamental truth is left aside, what remains other than misguidance?

For this reason, the declaration of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) is highly significant. The final sentence of a lengthy hadith narrated by Hadrat Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud (may Allah be pleased with him) is: If you abandon the Sunnah of your Prophet, you will undoubtedly go astray. In another hadith he said: Whoever turns away from my Sunnah and does not follow it is not counted among my ummah, nor is he a follower of my path.

A man began slaughtering a camel while it was seated. Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said to him: Tie the camel and make it stand, then perform nahr; this is the Sunnah of Hadrat Abu al-Qasim Muhammad (peace be upon him).

The practice established in Muslim society in accordance with the Shariah has also been called Sunnah in hadith. The Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) said: Whoever offers the Eid al-Adha prayer and then slaughters an animal has completed his sacrifice and maintained the Muslims’ customary practice. ‘The Messenger’s Sunnah’ means the Messenger’s ideal and his prescribed way of action. Not following it means adopting and following a way of action contrary to it. Therefore, whoever observes and follows a way of action contrary to that of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) can in no way be an observer of Islam; he cannot be a Muslim. Indeed, this hadith proves even more forcefully that this ‘Sunnah’ is neither the technical term of Islamic jurisprudence nor the technical term used by hadith scholars. In these hadiths, ‘Sunnah’ means the way of life presented and actually followed by the Noble Messenger. This is the Sunnah under discussion here.

The significance of bid‘ah

Whatever is contrary to this Sunnah is bid‘ah. What is bid‘ah? Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Qasimi wrote: Bid‘ah means the emergence of something new within the din after the din had reached completion. It consists of things that did not exist during the era of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), whether as an actual deed, a word, or an approval or authorization; nor is there any permission concerning them from the perspective of the rules and regulations of the Shariah, nor is there any explicit prohibition.

In light of this definition, anything for which no consensus can be found in the statements, actions, or approvals of the Companions’ era is also bid‘ah.

For no one has the right to introduce anything new into the din. In reality, bid‘ah consists in adding something to the din after it has been completed, treating a new thing as part of the din and acting upon it, believing that one will receive reward for doing so, and fearing that Allah’s punishment will result from not doing so. Whatever matter has this character is bid‘ah. For such conduct clearly implies that the din is not complete but incomplete, and that it lacks many things. This concept is entirely contrary to the following declaration of the Qur’an.

In the Majestic Qur’an, Allah Most High declared concerning the din of Islam:

Arabic (*********)

Today I have perfected your din for you, completed My blessing upon you in full, and chosen and approved Islam as your din.

This verse conclusively proves that the din of Islam is complete. It contains no deficiency or lack. It is therefore fully capable of meeting all the religious needs of human beings for all time, and those who believe in and follow this din have no need to look elsewhere, add anything from outside to it, or remove anything from within it. For it provides for all of humanity’s basic needs, while containing nothing useless, unnecessary, or superfluous. Therefore nothing may be added to it, nor may anything be removed from it. Both actions contradict the perfection of the din and clearly oppose Allah’s declaration quoted above. Introducing, in acts of Islamic worship, gatherings regarded as meritorious deeds that were not practiced during the time of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Companions—regardless of how attractive they may appear—is plainly bid‘ah and entirely contrary to the Qur’anic declaration of the perfection of Islam. They were not instituted at that time because they were not pleasing or acceptable to Allah and His Messenger. For this reason Imam Malik said: An act that was not declared and specified as a religious act in that era cannot be regarded as a religious act today.

The introduction of bid‘ah into the din contains the cause of the distortion and disappearance of the original din itself. If fabricated rules, conditions, and ceremonies are tolerated in acts of worship today, so many new things will become mixed into them that later it will be impossible to determine which is original and instituted by the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), and which is false and was added by people of later times. This was also the sole reason that the din presented by earlier prophets was distorted and disappeared at the hands of their communities. They incorporated fabricated innovations into the worship instituted by the prophet. After some time, there remained no way to understand what the original din was.

The din is given by Allah and presented by the Messenger. When anyone adds something new to it, the implication is that Allah or the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) supposedly did not understand what the din should be, whereas these people now understand it—Allah forbid. Thus they seek to remove its defects and complete its incompleteness by adding everything according to their own understanding, and seek to make it suited to the age by removing certain things from it. Who gave them the right to do this? Did Allah give it? Did His Messenger give it? No one gave it; they are doing it solely according to their own desires. Bearing precisely this in mind, Hadrat Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Do not perform any worship that the Companions did not perform. (Do not regard it as worship, nor believe that it earns reward.) For the earlier people left nothing behind for later people that they would have to complete. Therefore, O Muslim community, fear Allah and adopt and follow the practices of those who came before.

In such circumstances, adding anything to the din or removing anything from it means unauthorized interference in the rulings of the Shariah, unlawful intrusion, opposition to Allah’s declaration, and insult to Him. The audacity to engage in such unauthorized interference is unforgivable.

Those who commit bid‘ah and tolerate it are people who have been unable to submit themselves sincerely to Allah and make themselves obedient to the Messenger. In reality, the source of bid‘ah is the desire of the lower self, arbitrariness, greed, and disobedience. Those who regard Allah’s decision and the Messenger’s guidance as obstacles to fulfilling the desires of the lower self are the ones who add to and subtract from the din according to their own wishes. They then grant religious status to whatever results from these additions and subtractions. Since this too is regarded as a religious act, they do not perceive its error and seriousness. For this reason, innovators never get the opportunity to repent from bid‘ah. Bid‘ah is such a serious matter that it even distorts the obligatory and necessary duties of the Shariah. No sense of reverence or regard remains in the heart for the obligatory duties of the Shariah. As people become accustomed to transgressing the limits of the Shariah, their natural disposition becomes corrupted and their minds become so warped that they no longer feel any hesitation or reluctance even to shatter all the limits and boundaries of the Shariah. Acts contrary to the Shariah then begin to seem very excellent to them.

It should be remembered in this connection what the true significance is of the din of Islam being a complete and perfect code. In reality, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) conveyed in detail all matters relating to the din. Regarding all worldly matters, he provided general rules and arrangements. He provided certain fundamental principles.

From the standpoint of practical administration, Islam provides a system of consultation, obedience to the Muslim ruler within the limits of the Shariah, acceptance of the rulings and commands derived through their ijtihad, facilitation, removal of hardship, and fulfillment of needs. These are such that, at every changing stage of time, their rules and regulations can establish human life and society in an entirely new manner. At this point, the wording of several hadiths is noteworthy. One is the hadith narrated by Irbad ibn Sariyah: Arabic (*********)

The Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) once delivered an important sermon and admonition to us. Its effect caused tears to flow from the eyes of those present. Their hearts softened and trembled. We said: O Messenger of Allah! You have delivered an admonition like one bidding farewell. What, then, do you instruct us to do? The Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I am leaving you upon a radiant way, whose perspective makes the night as bright as the day. Whoever opposes it after I have gone will be destroyed.

The radiant way mentioned in this hadith means the ideals, examples, and instructions of the Messenger’s active, practical life. Indeed, it is so bright and manifest that, by its light, guidance can be found even amid the darkness of the gravest problems of human life. Darkness cannot appear anywhere to block the way or render life stagnant and burdened with problems. For the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) came into the world precisely to leave humanity guidance to such a radiant path. He fulfilled this responsibility completely. No shadow of deficiency remained in it. The following statement of Imam Malik should also be read in this context:

Whoever introduces any bid‘ah into Islam and considers it good and excellent has, as it were, assumed that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not fulfill the responsibility of messengership and prophethood, but betrayed it. For if he did fulfill it, then nothing besides Islam and the Sunnah is needed. Everything good is already contained in them.

Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Allah Most High has not granted you any good that remained hidden or unknown to the Companions. Yet the Companions were the companions of His Messenger and the best of His creation.”

The significance of Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i’s (may Allah have mercy on him) statement is that one should not go to excess concerning the din. All Muslims should practice precisely the din genuinely received from the Messenger. Nothing should be reduced from it, nor is it proper to add anything to it.

The following verse of the Qur’an conveys this very point, addressing the People of the Book:

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ ۚ

O People of the Book! Do not go to excess in your din, and do not say anything about Allah except the truth.

The following was said concerning these ‘People of the Book’:

وَرَهْبَانِيَّةً ابْتَدَعُوهَا مَا كَتَبْنَاهَا عَلَيْهِمْ إِلَّا ابْتِغَاءَ رِضْوَانِ اللَّهِ فَمَا رَعَوْهَا حَقَّ رِعَايَتِهَا  [٥٧:٢٧]

And monasticism they invented themselves; We did not prescribe it for them. We prescribed for them only the pursuit of Allah’s pleasure, but they did not observe this obligation as it ought to have been observed. (Surah al-Hadid: 27).

In light of these two verses, it is the believer’s duty to accept the din exactly as it is. Adding anything to it on one’s own or reducing it by leaving something out is entirely prohibited. Even failing to give a thing or act in Allah’s din the degree of importance assigned to it, giving greater importance to something of lesser importance, or giving lesser importance to something more important—all this is sheer excess. Presenting as part of the din something that is not part of the din at all is plainly reprehensible and sinful.

Therefore, if someone performs an act and regards it as prescribed by the Shariah or compliant with it, although it is not a Shariah act at all, he has introduced something new into the din—and this is bid‘ah. He is speaking about Allah entirely without justification, with his own mouth. He is attributing to Allah what Allah did not say.

A man asked Hadrat Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him):

“From where should I enter ihram?” He replied: “Enter ihram from the place where the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) did so.” The man said: “If I sit on this side of that place and enter ihram, will there be any harm?” Hadrat Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Do not do that. I fear that you may fall into fitnah.” The man said: “Will even going somewhat beyond the proper limit in a good deed become fitnah?”

Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) then recited this verse:

فَلْيَحْذَرِ الَّذِينَ يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ أَن تُصِيبَهُمْ فِتْنَةٌ أَوْ يُصِيبَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ[ ٢٤:٦]

Those who oppose the Messenger’s command and prescribed way should beware, lest fitnah overtake them or a painful punishment reach them.

He said: “What greater fitnah could there be than considering a deed ‘righteous’ when the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) did not specify it as a righteous deed?”

This conversation gives a clear understanding of bid‘ah and makes it known that even if an additional act is considered a ‘good deed’ or a ‘meritorious deed,’ it cannot be performed when there is no basis for it in the original Shariah.

How does bid‘ah become established??

Four causes can be observed at the root of the emergence and spread of bid‘ah. The first is that an innovator devises it himself and introduces it into society. Later it becomes generally prevalent in society. The second is that a learned person may have performed an act contrary to the Shariah, knowingly doing so despite knowing that it was contrary to the Shariah. Seeing this, ignorant people begin to think that the act must be compliant with the Shariah. Thus, because of one person, bid‘ah spreads throughout the entire society. The third is that ignorant people begin performing an act contrary to the Shariah. The learned people of society then remain completely silent about it: they neither object nor forbid the act, and do not say, ‘This act is contrary to the Shariah; you must never do it.’ In such circumstances, although the scholars have the responsibility, opportunity, and authority, their failure to object to or oppose bid‘ah or an act contrary to the Shariah causes ordinary people to assume that the act cannot be unlawful or bid‘ah. Otherwise, would the scholars not have objected? Or they may say: ‘This act was performed at such-and-such gathering, and this statement was made there; such-and-such prominent scholars were present, and since they did not object, it must be understood that this act or statement is certainly compliant with the Shariah. Otherwise, they would surely have objected.’ In this way, an entirely bid‘ah or unlawful act becomes known and established in society as a ‘Shariah-compliant’ act. The fourth is that an act may in itself be good, compliant with the Shariah, or in accordance with the Sunnah. However, it may not have been mentioned or publicized before the people of society for a long time. They then come to think that it cannot be good; for if it were good, would the scholars not have mentioned it all these years? In this way, people eventually come to regard a Shariah-compliant act as contrary to the Shariah—and this too is a major bid‘ah.

There is also a psychological cause for the spread of bid‘ah. Human beings naturally desire eternal peace and happiness—the attainment of Paradise. For this reason, they strive to perform many good deeds. Although they find it difficult to observe the commands and rulings of the din properly, they become extremely eager to perform easy meritorious deeds. It is then that they fall into Satan’s scheme. Because of this greed and satanic deception, they hastily decide to perform certain easy meritorious deeds. They convince themselves that these are very righteous and meritorious acts. By performing them, they will receive so much reward that attaining the everlasting peace and happiness of Paradise will not be difficult at all. Yet at this point, they neither possess the Islamic ability nor show any particular interest in examining whether the acts they regard as meritorious are actually meritorious according to the Shariah or in reality. For doing so might shatter their pleasant dream of attaining eternal happiness. That is precisely what they fear.

It may be mentioned in this connection that the spread of bid‘ah in the name of the din within a religious society is not unusual, nor is it unprecedented in human history. When the din was first preached, its foundation was laid upon knowledge. Later, when most people or the influential members of society lost that knowledge, irreligion and anti-religion entered in the name of the din through the devotion, reverence, and attraction that remained in people’s hearts toward the din. People continued to perform those acts without hesitation, considering them religious. As a historical example, the Arabs were descendants of Ibrahim and Isma‘il (peace be upon them). Belief in tawhid had become widespread among them. The din of tawhid remained strong there for several centuries, but after a long passage of time, falsehood became mixed with truth in their creed and practice. Eventually, idol worship and the worship of stones and mountains also became widely established as good deeds. By the time of the arrival of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him), their religious and moral condition had reached an extreme state of decline.

Aqeedah and Fiqh in the light of Bid’ah

The books of Aqeedah and Fiqh also contain detailed discussions of ‘Bid’ah.’ Bid’ah is a greatly reprehensible act in Islam, and it is the duty of a believer to avoid it at every level. In general, it has become necessary to discuss Bid’ah in detail in these books precisely so that Muslims may be saved from this great wrongdoing. Here we mention the statements of several books.

The book ‘Kashf Bajduvi’ states: “Bid’ah is something newly introduced into the religion that was not present during the time of the Companions and the Tabi’un.”

The book ‘Sharh al-Maqasid’ states: Reprehensible Bid’ah means something newly introduced into the religion, although it did not exist in the time of the Companions and the Tabi’un, nor is there any evidence from the Shariah in its support.

Allama Shihabuddin Afendi states in his book ‘Majalis al-Abrar’: Know that the word Bid’ah has two meanings. The first is its lexical meaning: anything new, whether it concerns an act of worship or a matter of habit. The second is its technical meaning in the Shariah. In this sense, Bid’ah is adding or subtracting anything from the religion of Islam after the Companions, for which no permission—explicit or implicit—has been received from the Prophet (peace be upon him), either by word or deed.

Hadith concerning Bid’ah: Statements

After urging adherence to the ‘Sunnah’ at the end of a lengthy Hadith, the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) warned against Bid’ah and said:

 Arabic (********)

Keep yourselves away from newly introduced matters in your religion. For every newly introduced thing in the religion is Bid’ah, and every Bid’ah is the root of ultimate misguidance. (Ahmad)

In explaining the words ‘Muhdathat al-Umur’ in this Hadith, Allama Ahmad al-Banna wrote: Muhdathat al-Umur refers to such things and matters as are not sanctioned by the Shariah in any respect—neither by the Quran, the Sunnah, nor Ijma. And this is Bid’ah.

The aforementioned Hadith narrated by Hazrat Aisha is quoted in Sahih Muslim in these words: Whoever performs an act that is not in accordance with or supported by the Shariah I have brought—that is, which does not conform to the Shariah—that act is certainly to be rejected.

Imam Shatibi said regarding this Hadith: According to the experts, this Hadith possesses one-third of the distinction of Islam. This is because all aspects of opposition to the rulings brought by the Prophet (peace be upon him) have been collectively cited in this Hadith; and opposing it amounts to whatever concerns Bid’ah or disobedience.

Hazrat Umar al-Faruq and Hazrat Abdullah ibn Masud said: O Muslim community! You will introduce many things, and many new matters of the religion of Islam will be introduced for you. Know that every newly introduced thing is manifest misguidance, and the ultimate fate of every misguidance is Hell.

The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

Arabic (*******)

—Follow only the model given by the Messenger, and never introduce Bid’ah.

In one sermon he said:

Arabic (******)

—Know that the finest speech is the Book of Allah, and the finest way of conduct is the way of life presented by Muhammad (peace be upon him). Conversely, the worst thing is newly invented doctrine, and every newly invented doctrine is manifest misguidance.

In explaining the word ‘Muhdathat’ in this Hadith, Allama Mulla al-Qari wrote: ‘Muhdathat’ refers to those Bid’ahs newly introduced in matters of belief, speech, and practice.

Imam Malik said: The Noble Messenger (peace be upon him), and after him those entrusted with the affairs of the Muslims, established the Sunnah. By holding firmly to it and following it, the truth of the Book of Allah will be affirmed and the duty of obeying Allah will be fulfilled. This Sunnah is a great power in support of the religion of Allah. No one has the right to alter or replace this Sunnah and introduce something else in its place, nor may anyone even turn his attention to anything contrary to it. Rather, whoever acts according to this Sunnah will be guided. Whoever seeks strength through it will be aided; but whoever opposes it will lose the very way followed by the Muslims. Allah will turn such people in the direction toward which they themselves turn, and He will bring them to Hell. Yet Hell is an evil place.

The Sunnah is the way of conduct followed by the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). Also Sunnah is what the leaders of the Islamic community after him—the Rightly Guided Caliphs—instituted. They instituted only what the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) had commanded and shown the way to do. They did not oppose the model shown by the Messenger, nor did they introduce anything new into the religion of Islam. These are the Rightly Guided Caliphs.

Imam Shatibi wrote in this regard: The Sunnah—the practical course of conduct established by the responsible leaders of the Muslim community after the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him), namely the Rightly Guided Caliphs—is also to be accepted as a Sunnah that must be followed. It cannot be Bid’ah; there is no Bid’ah in it, even if it is not known explicitly from the Quran and Hadith. This is because the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) specifically mentioned this Sunnah as well.

Hazrat Abdullah ibn Masud possessed genuine mastery of the Quran and Sunnah. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) himself testified to this.

Hazrat Abdullah ibn Masud believed that Shirk is the negation of Tawhid, while Bid’ah is opposed to the Sunnah. Shirk is a denial of the first part of the Kalimah, La ilaha illallah. Bid’ah is contrary to the final part of the Kalimah, Muhammadur Rasulullah, and is its denial in the heart. Mujaddidi Alfesani (may Allah have mercy on him) explained this doctrine very beautifully. He said that Shirk and Bid’ah eradicate the Sunnah. For this reason, the consequence of both can be nothing other than the fire of Hell.

The Mujaddid did not say this on his own. It is quoted in Musnad Ahmad from Ghayb ibn al-Harith al-Shimali: Whenever people introduce a Bid’ah, a Sunnah equivalent to it disappears from among them. Therefore, it is better to hold firmly to the Sunnah rather than introduce Bid’ah.

A statement of Hazrat Hisan is quoted in the Hadith collection Musnad al-Darimi:

Whenever people introduce a Bid’ah into their religion, Allah removes an equivalent Sunnah from them. Then He does not restore it until the Day of Resurrection.

If we form the idea about an act that by performing it Allah will be pleased, that we will be regarded as beloved servants of Allah or the Messenger, that our popularity will increase, that through this act the provision of our children will increase by supernatural means, that it will bring blessing, or that through its blessing our hardships and calamities will be removed supernaturally, all such matters are known as ‘religious.’ But if there is no proof from the Shariah supporting them, or if the senior Companions did not practice them during their lifetimes, then they are Bid’ah. Likewise, if a permissible act may be performed in more than one way according to the Shariah, but we specify only one of those ways and believe that reward will be attained only by performing it in that particular way, then that too is Bid’ah.

Qiyas and Ijtihad: are they Bid’ah??

The primary sources of Islamic Shariah are the Quran and Hadith. On the basis of these two, rulings of the Shariah must be determined for the ever-new needs of Islamic life, and sound solutions must be provided for newly emerging problems. Therefore, Qiyas and Ijtihad are regarded as among the sources of the Shariah in Islam. Through these two, Islam is able to attain the capacity and qualification to be a complete way of life for all times and all people, and to provide correct guidance in every sphere and circumstance of Muslim life. Thus, these two are not Bid’ah. They are not Bid’ah because they are not in the least new things in the Islamic system. The Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) himself and the Rightly Guided Caliphs used both fully in formulating and implementing Islamic law.

Allama Alusi wrote: Qiyas and Ijtihad are in no way contrary to the perfection of the religion. The perfection of the religion means that the religion is complete and final in itself and in the necessary matters ancillary to it. From it, the necessary laws, regulations, and principles will now be derived. The fundamental principles of Aqeedah will be established, and the principles of the Shariah and the rules of Ijtihad will be formulated. None of this is contrary to the perfection of the Quran, and thus of the religion.

Mujaddidi Alfesani, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi, said: Qiyas and Ijtihad cannot be considered Bid’ah in any respect. This is because both merely manifest the proofs of the Quran and Hadith; they do not establish any new addition within the religion.

In reality, Qiyas and Ijtihad take shape through Ijma. Ijma is not something newly introduced into the religion of Islam, nor does it establish through it any opinion incompatible with the fundamental rulings of Islam. Therefore, Ijma is not Bid’ah, and no ruling established through Ijma can be considered Bid’ah. The basis of Ijma is clearly recognized in Hadith.

Hazrat Ibn Masud narrated that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

—Arabic (*******)

—What the Muslim community collectively regards as good from the perspective of the Shariah will also be accepted as good and excellent by Allah; and what those Muslims regard as bad and vile will be regarded as bad and vile by Allah. (Ibn Nujaym has cited this Hadith as a statement of Ibn Masud. Nevertheless, it counts as evidence in support of Ijma, because the statement of a Companion is also evidence in the Shariah.)

People of the Sunnah and People of Bid’ah

After this discussion of the Sunnah and Bid’ah, the matter to be considered is: Who are the Ahl al-Sunnah, and who are the Ahl al-Bid’ah?

Who are the Ahl al-Sunnah—meaning, who are the followers of the Sunnah? Who relies upon the Sunnah and keeps his way of life established upon it? And who are the Ahl al-Bid’ah—meaning, who are not followers of the Sunnah, who follow Bid’ah? Who are the people of Bid’ah?

This question also requires discussion. For it is being observed that some people, despite committing extremely serious acts of Bid’ah and acting contrary to the Sunnah in various aspects of life, claim that they alone are the Ahl al-Sunnah. Those who do not support their Bid’ahs, who wish to stand firmly upon the Sunnah and establish it in life and society, they label as people of Bid’ah (followers of innate nature). Therefore, through evidence-based judgment and analysis, it must be made clear who truly are the Ahl al-Sunnah and who are the Ahl al-Bid’ah in the light of the Quran and Hadith, and also what the position of the Ahl al-Sunnah is and where the Ahl al-Bid’ah stand.

In answer to the question of who the Ahl al-Sunnah are, the statement of Allama Abdur Rahman ibn al-Jawzi has been cited. He said: There is no doubt that those who follow the model of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions are truly the Ahl al-Sunnah. They are the ones who practically follow the model of the Sunnah, in which no new thing has been introduced. This is because the introduction of new things and the creation of Bid’ah occurred only in the period after the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) and his Companions.

He also said: The preceding discussion has made it clear that the Ahl al-Sunnah are the people who follow the Sunnah. The Ahl al-Bid’ah are those who have brought forth things that did not previously exist and for which there is no authority.

That is, those who practice the Sunnah in reality, neither diminishing nor increasing it, and practice it exactly as the Messenger and the Companions did, spoke, and conducted themselves—only they can be called the Ahl al-Sunnah. Those who make additions to or reductions from it, incorporate many self-invented things into the religion, and pass them off as religious practices cannot be the Ahl al-Sunnah. They are entirely the Ahl al-Bid’ah—followers of Bid’ah.

In fact, there was no Bid’ah in the era of the Companions. They practiced pure Sunnah, practicing it in their personal lives and following it in every sphere of collective life. Not only that, whenever any Bid’ah appeared anywhere, they resisted it with all their strength. They proved themselves true to the declaration of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

Arabic (************)

—My Companions are trustees over my Ummah. When my Companions depart, the condition promised for my Ummah will come upon it.

Sunnah Establishing and Bid‘ah Resisting Responsibility

This was the Noble Messenger’s (PBUH) advance warning. Mentioning the ideological dangers and conflicts that he thought might befall his ummah, the Noble Messenger (PBUH) warned them beforehand, so that the people of his ummah would remain alert and ensure that nothing of this kind entered their faith and creed, deeds, or character. Another hadith in this connection was narrated by Hazrat Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud (RA).

The Noble Messenger (PBUH) said: Arabic (********)

– Every prophet sent before me had hawariyyun from among his ummah, companions who adopted and upheld that prophet’s Sunnah and properly carried out his commands and instructions. Then such people succeeded that ummah who said things they did not do and did things they had never been commanded to do. In such a situation, those who wage jihad against them with their own strength are believers, and those who wage jihad against them with their speech and eloquence are also believers; and those who wage jihad against them with their hearts are also believers. But after that, not even an atom’s weight of faith can be considered to remain.  

The successors warned against in this lengthy hadith are the people of Bid‘ah. For their words and deeds do not agree, and they do things they were not told to do. Yet Islamic Shariah cannot permit anyone to perform such acts as religious deeds. Otherwise, the Messenger’s Sunnah would have no value or importance for anyone. That is why the command was given to wage jihad against them. Therefore, waging jihad against the people of Bid‘ah is the duty of every believing person. Whoever does not do so has not even a trace of faith in him, according to this hadith.

The command to declare jihad in Islam is primarily against kufr and shirk. But the importance of waging jihad against Bid‘ah has been expressed here in such forceful language because, although Bid‘ah is not manifest kufr or open shirk, there is no doubt that it is the beginning of kufr and shirk and the seed at their source.

Once Bid‘ah appears in an Islamic society and establishes a foothold, there is no doubt that it will soon draw people toward actual shirk and kufr. For this reason, the command was given to destroy this seed of kufr and shirk in Islamic society at its very sprouting, and faith was said to depend on declaring jihad against Bid‘ah and its adherents. In reality, treating as a religious deed something that Islam has not commanded is a form of kufr, and it contains the spirit of shirk. The following hadiths are also especially noteworthy in this connection.

The Noble Prophet (PBUH) said:

Arabic (********)

– Whoever revives a Sunnah that has died out after me will receive a reward equal to the reward earned by acting according to that Sunnah, without the doers’ reward being reduced in the slightest. Conversely, whoever introduces a misguided Bid‘ah—one with which Allah and His Messenger are not at all pleased—will bear a sin equal to the sin incurred by acting upon it, without the doer’s sin being reduced in the slightest.

The main purpose of this hadith’s discussion of the reward for reviving a dead Sunnah and the sin of introducing a misguided Bid‘ah is to encourage people to protect Muslim society from these things, to establish the Sunnah in society and prevent it from dying, and under no circumstances to allow Bid‘ah to become established.

The Noble Prophet (PBUH) said:

Arabic (**********)

– Just as Islam was strange and without influence in the beginning, the same condition will appear later. Glad tidings for the strangers of that time. These strangers are those who, after me, will strive to re-establish the Sunnah by eradicating everything that disrupts it. (Tirmidhi).

If the Sunnah is not generally established in Muslim society and Bid‘ah overwhelms it, then the true religion of Islam will become something strange there, and those who genuinely practice Islam—even if any remain—will become completely unknown and without influence in society. Authority and control over society will belong to the people of Bid‘ah and its adherents. In such a situation, those who strive to re-establish the Sunnah and build society soundly according to the perspective of religion have been given glad tidings from Allah and His Messenger. For they truly carry strong faith.

Indeed, when the Sunnah becomes dim and faint in society and the darkness of Bid‘ah accumulates and overwhelms the whole society, the sole duty of believers is to struggle to eliminate Bid‘ah and establish the Sunnah. Yet those who, even then, show respect to Bid‘ah and its adherents commit the utmost hostility against Islam.

The Noble Messenger (PBUH) said:

Arabic (********)

– Whoever shows respect to a person of Bid‘ah or one who follows Bid‘ah has helped destroy Islam.

For the role of a person who follows Bid‘ah is opposed to Islam. He is continuously devoted to eradicating Islam. In such circumstances, showing him respect or expressing reverence means that the person supports the work of the innovator and approves of Bid‘ah. This will give the innovator and the adherent of Bid‘ah greater courage and resolve to destroy Islam, making him fearless and audacious. That is why the Noble Messenger (PBUH) declared that this act helps destroy Islam.

Hazrat Ibn Abbas (RA) said that the Noble Prophet (PBUH) said:

Arabic (********)

– Three classes of people are most hateful to Allah: first, those who commit acts contrary to the Shariah in the Haram Sharif; second, those who wish to introduce the customs and practices of the Age of Ignorance into the Islamic way of life; and third, those who unjustifiably seek to shed Muslim blood. (Bukhari).

The hadith speaks of the Sunnah, rules, and customs of the Age of Ignorance—that is, the Sunnah of the Age of Ignorance. It is wholly opposed to the ‘Sunnah of the Messenger.’ What doubt can there be that a person who wishes to introduce the Sunnah, rules, or customs of the Age of Ignorance among Islam’s Sunnah as an Islamic Sunnah will be extremely hateful to Allah and extremely accursed before Him?

At this point, Hazrat Hasan Basri (RA) said: I swear by the name of Him besides whom there is no god: the principle of your Sunnah is the middle principle between the two extreme principles of excessive exaggeration and excessive reduction. So remain patiently steadfast upon it; may Allah have mercy on you. For the people of Ahl al-Sunnah—the followers of the Sunnah—have always been few in the past and will remain so in the future. They are those who have never joined the extremists, nor accompanied the people of Bid‘ah in their innovations. Rather, they have remained firm upon the Sunnah until they died to meet Allah. If Allah wills, you too will be like them. Hazrat Abdullah ibn Abbas said:

Whenever people introduced an innovation, they killed one Sunnah. Thus Bid‘ah became vigorous and powerful, while the Sunnah disappeared.

These hadiths present Muslims with a clear program of action: wherever and in whatever condition Muslims may be, they must strive to build an impenetrable resistance against Bid‘ah and its adherents, and to establish and preserve the Sunnah in its true form and spirit. If the Sunnah disappears and Bid‘ah becomes dominant, then the very existence of the believer and Muslim becomes meaningless.

The Companions’ Congre‘gationItself Is the Ideal

The world received the ideal of this Sunnah of Islam from the last Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH). It was Muhammad (PBUH) who established this Sunnah in practice, and his Companions also remained firm upon it. After the Companions, the Sunnah continued to prevail and be established over society during the eras of the Tabi‘in and the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in. But thereafter, various weaknesses gradually appeared in the Muslim nation, along with new innovations. The general condition of society changed drastically. Bid‘ah became dominant and conspicuous, while the Sunnah became weak and defeated; indeed, people accepted Bid‘ah as Sunnah and avoided the Sunnah as though it were Bid‘ah. That was approximately twelve or thirteen hundred years ago. Thereafter Muslim life gradually moved away from the ideal of the Sunnah, and Bid‘ah began to take root in place of that ideal. In this respect, today’s Muslims are trapped deep inside the belly of the python of Bid‘ah. Yet even today, the Messenger (PBUH) and his noble Companions remain the ideal before them, worthy of emulation and following. All Muslims should follow them. In the age of the Messenger and the Companions, the Sunnah was, for the entire Muslim world, an everlasting beacon in the dark sea. Even today, light must be taken from there and guidance for the path obtained. The Noble Messenger (PBUH) made such a prophecy and left guidance for misguided Muslims.

The concluding portion of one of the Messenger’s hadiths is as follows:

Arabic (************)

– The Children of Israel became divided into seventy-two groups, and my ummah will be divided into seventy-three sects. All of them except one sect will be inhabitants of Hell. The Companions asked, ‘Which is that one sect, O Messenger (PBUH)?’ He said, ‘They are those who will follow my ideal and the ideal of my Companions.’

Based on this hadith, what Imam Tirmidhi and Imam Ibn al-Jawzi said amounts to this: the hadith proves that ‘one congregation’ refers to the congregation of the Companions. It does not mean a particular Companion; rather, those who follow the Sunnah practiced by the Noble Prophet (PBUH) and the Companions collectively, even amid changed conditions and in an age of decline, will be entitled to enter Paradise. They will be those who derive their creed, words, and all the rules of outward practice from the consensus of the Companions.

The Tabi‘i Abul Aliyah said: Strive to firmly preserve and uphold the condition in which Muslim society existed before it became divided into sects.

This statement also points precisely to the era of the Companions. For the era of the Companions was the era in which Muslim society was united and undivided.

Asim told Hasan al-Basri about this advice of Abul Aliyah, and he said: By Allah, he gave you sound advice and spoke the absolute truth to you.

Imam Awza‘i said: Hold yourself firmly to the Sunnah. Adopt the principle adopted by those who upheld the Sunnah where they stood; say what they said and refrain from what they refrained from. Follow the path taken by the righteous people before you. Then you too will receive the ability to do what they did.

It must be remembered that Imam Awza‘i was a Tabi‘i, and by the Salaf al-Salih he meant the congregation of the Companions. Therefore, just as the Companions were the model society of the Sunnah after the Messenger, so after the Messenger the Companions can be the ideal and example to be followed by all Muslims of every era. They are the ones accepted by the Muslims of the world as the Salaf al-Salihin. For Allah Himself has testified in the Qur’an to their idealism and their quality of following the Messenger, and the Noble Prophet (PBUH) himself testified to it in the hadith. They alone fully passed the true test set by the Messenger.

Indeed, after the Messenger (PBUH), no person besides the noble Companions—regardless of the era, country, or eminence of the saint or elder—can be regarded by Muslims as the ideal to be followed. Hazrat Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud (RA) said regarding taking someone as an ideal: If one must adopt someone’s Sunnah, one should adopt the Sunnah of a person who has died. For there is no guarantee that someone who is still alive will not fall into tribulation in the future. Those who have died are the Companions of Muhammad (PBUH), who were the best people of this ummah, whose hearts were most virtuous and whose knowledge was deepest. There was no artificiality in them. Allah chose them to be the Companions of His Prophet and to establish His religion. Therefore, understand and acknowledge their true status. Follow in their footsteps, and adopt their character and qualities as far as possible. For they were established upon true and firmly grounded guidance.

This is the profoundly important statement of a Companion such as Hazrat Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud (RA). Its significance is that the noble Companions are the complete, flawless, and reliable ideal for people of every age. In matters of creed and belief, deeds, and character, they attained the highest level and occupied the most exalted status. But this does not refer to any particular Companion; it refers collectively to the congregation of the Companions. This congregation of the Companions is what Muslims must follow.

It is therefore understood that, apart from the Noble Messenger (PBUH), taking any single person in human society as one to be followed exclusively can never be beneficial; Islam has not instructed anyone to do so, regardless of the person’s era or how great an elder or saint of Allah he may be. Not only that, Islam has explicitly prohibited this. It is narrated from Hazrat Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud (RA): Let no one bind his religion so tightly to a person that, if he believes, he too believes, and if he commits kufr, he too commits kufr. If you must follow someone, follow those who have died, for a living person cannot remain free from tribulation while he is alive.

Here too, ‘those who have died’ means the congregation of the Companions, not any particular Companion. Blind following of anyone other than the Noble Messenger (PBUH) is not supported in Islam at all. This is the statement of a Companion of such high rank as Hazrat Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud. He was both a Companion of the first generation and a special attendant of the Messenger. Thus the correct and reliable course of action for Muslims in general can only be that they follow Allah, the Messenger of Allah, the Qur’an and hadith—in a word, the Sunnah. Apart from this, they should never cling to any individual’s personal opinion, conduct, character, or customs as their sole ideal. They should not accept the unconditional obedience of any living or dead human being. In human society, unconditional obedience may be given—and must be given—only to the Noble Messenger (PBUH), and to no one else.

At this point, it is absolutely necessary to remove a major misunderstanding. The misunderstanding centers on a famous hadith.

The hadith is this: Arabic (**********)

– My Companions are radiant like the stars. Whichever of them you follow, you will be rightly guided.

Based on this hadith, some people wish to say that it is possible to follow the path of guidance simply by following any one Companion according to one’s own preference. But for several reasons, it is not reasonable to present this hadith as evidence. The first reason is that this hadith has been narrated through three different chains. One chain is from al-A‘mash through Abu Sufyan, from Jabir (RA). Another is from Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyib, from Ibn Amr. The third is from Hamzah al-Jaza‘i, from Nafi‘, from Ibn Umar. But according to the judgment of the hadith scholars, no hadith is established through any of these chains. Allamah Ibn al-Qayyim, quoting Ibn Abd al-Barr, wrote: Ibrahim, the son of Sa‘id, narrated to us from his son Muhammad, who narrated to them that Hamd ibn Ayyub al-Samut narrated to them, and al-Bazzar said to us: ‘My Companions are like the stars; whichever of them you follow, you will be guided.’ The hadith narrated with this meaning is a statement that has not been authentically established as coming from the Noble Prophet (PBUH). (The contrary is known from the report of Hazrat Ibn al-Khattab (RA), cited by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi.)

The importance of the chain of transmission is fundamental in evaluating hadith. A hadith that has not been established as authentic according to its chain cannot legitimately be presented by anyone as evidence in the Shariah.

Sunnah—Difficult and Easy

We claim to be Ahl al-Sunnah and feel quite proud, thinking that we are not people of any misguided sect but members of the society established by the Noble Prophet (PBUH) and followers of the Sunnah. But we must think deeply about how accurate this notion of ours really is.

We are Ahl al-Sunnah, meaning followers of the Sunnah. The question is: which Sunnah of the Noble Messenger (PBUH) do we follow? The difficult and arduous Sunnah, or the easy, gentle, and sweet Sunnah?

There is no denying that both kinds of Sunnah came together in the life and character of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him). He was a human being. Therefore, as a human being, he had to do many things necessary for living in this world, such as eating, dressing, and living a married and domestic life. In these matters, whatever he did is also Sunnah according to the rulings of the Shariah. However, it is a very easy, gentle, and pleasant Sunnah. It causes no hardship; rather, it brings much comfort and happiness. For example, eating pumpkin curry, eating sweets, wearing clean clothes, using a miswak, using attar and perfume, marrying, taking more than one wife, wearing a long shirt and turban, keeping a beard, and so on.

But the true Sunnah in the life of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) consisted of those difficult and arduous deeds that he had to undertake while striving to spread the call to Tawhid and establish Islam in that polytheistic, rebellious society. At this stage, he had to suffer the pangs of hunger, tie stones to his stomach, and engage in relentless physical labor day and night. He had to endure the torment and persecution of his enemies, have thorns pierce his feet, and, upon going to Taif, have his blessed body wounded by stones thrown by ruffians, soaking his clothes in streams of blood, and then, exhausted and faint, collapse unconscious by the roadside. At one point, after the people of Makkah severed relations with and boycotted the Banu Hashim clan, he had to remain continuously in the Cave of Abu Talib for three years. Finally, he had to leave his ancestral home and migrate to Madinah. He had to fight with full valor alongside the mujahids against the forces of the kafir enemies, have his blessed tooth martyred, and dig the trench.

These deeds of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) are also Sunnah, and following this Sunnah is an absolute duty for the Ummah. However, this is the Sunnah of extremely difficult, arduous, and life-consuming effort.

The question naturally arises: are we observing this Sunnah? If we are not—and it can certainly be said that we are not—can our claim that we follow the Sunnah of the Messenger be considered true? At most, it may be said that yes, we do follow the Sunnah of the Messenger, but only the sweet, easy, and gentle Sunnah. Yet we pay no attention to observing any Sunnah that is difficult and causes hardship or injury to our lives and wealth; and we seem even afraid to remember that we must observe it and that, if we fail to do so, we will face severe accountability before Allah on the Day of Resurrection.

The Accumulated Heap of Bid’ah

The history of the Muslims in the period after the Companions proves conclusively and beyond doubt that the aforementioned statement of Hazrat Abdullah ibn Masud (may Allah be pleased with him) is true to the letter. In later times, various bid’ahs became prevalent in Muslim society, while the Sunnah was gradually abandoned and completely disappeared from people’s minds and lives. But whenever an effort was made to re-establish the Sunnah, the intense hostility of this blind personal following stood as a formidable obstacle in its path.

Invoking the name of a particular person who may, during his lifetime, have gained fame among the people as a great alim, pir, or wali of Allah, people say: “Such-and-such revered person or pir said this, so there is no harm in it.” Thus, judging truth and falsehood and right and wrong on the basis of individuals is an entirely new thing in Islam—a manifest bid’ah. Yet in Islam, apart from the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), invoking the statement or deed of any other person is not acceptable at all. In this way, the Sunnah—the model of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him)—has gradually sunk in Muslim society, and a heap of bid’ah and refuse has risen in its place. This bid’ah has appeared in beliefs and faith, in thought and the mind, as well as in practice and character—in every aspect and sphere of practical life. This heap is almost as high as the sky. Counting it piece by piece is beyond anyone’s capacity. Yet unless these bid’ahs are identified and defined, there is no other way to protect Muslims from them or rescue them from beneath the heap of bid’ah. Therefore, we shall present as concise a discussion as possible of some major bid’ahs. We shall show how each bid’ah entered among the Muslims and took root, and to what distant extremity of misguidance it has led them from the perspective of original Islam.

Toward the end of this discussion, we shall mention the famous sermon of Hazrat Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, the “Rightly Guided Caliph,” which he delivered before the assembled people immediately after being appointed caliph.

The sermon was as follows: Know that there is no prophet after your Prophet, no Book after your Book (the Glorious Qur’an), no Sunnah after the Sunnah prescribed for you, and no ummah of a prophet after this ummah of yours. Know that halal is only what Allah has declared halal in His Book through the tongue of His Messenger, and it remains halal until the Day of Resurrection. Know that haram is only what Allah has declared haram in His Book through the tongue of His Messenger, and it remains haram until the Day of Resurrection. Know that I am neither an adherent of bid’ah nor an innovator of anything new. I am merely a follower of the Din. Know that I am not the final decision-maker; I am only an executor. Know that I am not a hoarder of the treasury; rather, I shall place in it only what I have been commanded to place there. Also know that I am not the best among you; I have merely been imposed upon you as a burden. And finally, know that no created being may be obeyed through disobedience to the Creator.

Indeed, this sermon is precisely the kind of sermon suited to the highest authority of a state governed according to Islamic ideals. The central message of this sermon is also the message of our discussion.

How Many Kinds of Bid’ah??

At the conclusion of this fundamental discussion of bid’ah, it is essential to introduce an important subject: the classification of bid’ah. The question is, is bid’ah really divided into several categories?

The commonly held belief in Muslim society is that bid’ah is of two kinds. One is “bid’ah hasanah,” or “good bid’ah,” and the second is “bid’ah sayyi’ah,” or evil bid’ah. Some have called the second “bid’ah mustaqbihah,” or “detestable and abhorrent bid’ah.” But this classification of bid’ah itself also seems to be an unprecedented bid’ah. For by dividing bid’ah into “good” and “evil,” a large number of “bid’ahs” have unobtrusively entered the vast system of Islamic beliefs and practices with a license to be considered good bid’ahs. Consequently, even those who affirm Tawhid now freely perform acts that are actually opposed to Tawhid—acts that are manifestly bid’ah and that no adherent of Tawhid should tolerate even for a moment.

At this point, a learned scholar such as Allamah Badruddin Ayni has also presented a definition by saying that bid’ah is of two kinds. He said: If a bid’ah is included among good acts sanctioned by the Shariah, then it is “bid’ah hasanah”—good bid’ah. And if it is an evil and abhorrent act in the view of the Shariah, then it is “bid’ah mustaqbihah,” or “detestable and abhorrent bid’ah.”

The renowned hadith scholar and author Imam Shawkani wrote: “Bid’ah” properly refers to newly invented acts and words for which no precedent whatsoever can be found in the earlier community. In the terminology of the Shariah, anything opposed to the Sunnah is called bid’ah. Therefore, it must necessarily be blameworthy.

In other words, whatever is opposed to the Sunnah is bid’ah. Therefore, everything in bid’ah is blameworthy and to be abandoned; no aspect of it can be praiseworthy or good. On the other hand, dividing bid’ah into two parts, calling one part good bid’ah and the other evil bid’ah, is entirely baseless.

The logic of this statement is undeniable. Anything for which some basis or precedent can be found in the Shariah cannot possibly be opposed to the Sunnah. Whatever is not opposed to the Sunnah is not bid’ah. And anything for which no precedent can be found in the golden age of Islam, and for which no basis can be found in the Shariah, is in no way sanctioned by the Shariah; rather, it is precisely what is opposed to the Sunnah, and therefore it is bid’ah. No aspect of it is good, praiseworthy, or acceptable. In short, dividing bid’ah into hasanah and sayyi’ah—good and evil—is irrational.

No good aspect of bid’ah was found in the time of the Messenger. Nor was it found in the time of the Companions and the Tabi’in, and bid’ah was not divided in this manner in the statements of the Messenger either.

Then how did this classification of bid’ah become prevalent in Muslim society? The answer can be found through a detailed explanation of a statement by Hazrat Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him). It is mentioned in a hadith. Abdur Rahman ibn Abd al-Qari said: I went to the mosque with Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) in Ramadan. There I saw people praying separately and scattered, each one praying alone. Elsewhere, one man was praying while some people prayed along with him. Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) then said: I think it would be very good if we gathered these people behind one good reciter so that they could pray together. He subsequently arranged this and organized congregational prayer under the leadership of Hazrat Ubayy ibn Ka’b. One night at that time, I again went out with Umar al-Faruq. I saw the people praying Tarawih in congregation behind one imam. Seeing this, Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “What an excellent bid’ah this is.” (Imam Bukhari and other hadith scholars have mentioned this hadith specifically in connection with praying Tarawih in congregation. This hadith is evidence that praying Tarawih in congregation during Ramadan is permissible.)

It is this statement of Hazrat Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him), mentioned at the end of the hadith, that many people use as their argument for dividing bid’ah into two categories. The literal translation of the sentence is, “This is an excellent bid’ah.” If one bid’ah is excellent, it follows automatically that another bid’ah must be bad. Thus, it may be thought that some bid’ahs are good and some are evil. This is the basic history of the matter. It seems that people introduced these two divisions of bid’ah while writing explanations of hadith in later times. And from Bukhari this statement spread through general society and became firmly fixed in people’s minds. The situation now is that whenever any bid’ah is criticized or objection is raised against it, and people demand that it be abandoned as bid’ah, the immediate reply is: “Yes, it is bid’ah, but not bid’ah sayyi’ah; it is bid’ah hasanah, so there is no need to abandon it.” Perhaps, under the cover of the hasanah of this bid’ah, a grave bid’ah entirely opposed to the Sunnah has been counted among the Sunnah and among meritorious deeds, thereby gaining religious status in Muslim society. Indeed, this is the dangerous aspect of bid’ah. For this reason, in view of reality, the Messenger’s statement, “Every bid’ah is misguidance,” becomes meaningless. For if every bid’ah is misguidance, then no bid’ah can be guidance. But the classification of bid’ah proves the opposite. It means that some bid’ahs are also good. The statement of the Messenger, “Every bid’ah is misguidance,” is not correct (God forbid). Nothing could be more audacious than offering an interpretation contrary to the statement of the Messenger.

My point is that dividing bid’ah into hasanah and sayyi’ah in the first place is wrong. Nor is this classification proved by the statement of Hazrat Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him). For the meaning of Umar al-Faruq’s statement is not at all what has been assumed. This is because Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him) did not call praying Tarawih in congregation bid’ah in the sense in which bid’ah means the opposite of the Sunnah. Nor could he have said so. Who could know better than Hazrat Umar that praying Tarawih in congregation is not bid’ah at all? It was performed in the time of the Messenger. It is established from authentic hadith that the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) himself led the Tarawih prayer for two or three nights.

Hazrat Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: Arabic (*******)

The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was praying alone in the mosque. Many people prayed along with him, and the same happened on the second night. As a result, increasingly large numbers of people began participating in this prayer. On the third or fourth night, when the people gathered as before, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) did not come out of his house. The next morning, the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) said to the people: I noticed what you did. I did not come to the mosque for prayer for only one reason: I feared that if you prayed this prayer (Tarawih) in congregation in this manner, it might be made obligatory for you.

Hazrat Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: “This occurred during Ramadan.”

This hadith conclusively proves that the first person to lead the Tarawih prayer in congregation was the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) himself. He did so for three consecutive nights. People joined the prayer behind him, but he did not prohibit them. Later, he stopped leading it only because he feared that, if this non-obligatory prayer were performed under the leadership of the Messenger, it might be made obligatory by Allah. For revelation was still descending and the Shariah was still being established. And the act of the Prophet is Sunnah. How could it be bid’ah? The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) stopped leading the Tarawih prayer himself, but praying it in congregation did not stop. It continued even though he knew of it, and he did not prohibit it. The hadith narrated by Hazrat Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) proves this. She said: When he did not come to lead the Tarawih prayer on the third or fourth night, he addressed the Companions the next morning and said: I saw what you were doing at night (praying Tarawih). But only one fear prevented me from joining you: that praying Tarawih in congregation might become obligatory for you.

The fact that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) sometimes refrained from doing an act even though he wished to do it, solely for fear that if he performed it regularly people would also begin doing it regularly, and that Allah might then make it obligatory for His servants, is clearly established by the statement of Hazrat Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her). She said: The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) loved to perform certain acts, but nevertheless did not perform them because he feared that, if he continued performing them regularly, they might become obligatory upon the people.

Then why did Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) call praying in congregation bid’ah? He called it bid’ah in its literal and lexical sense, not as a technical term. It has already been stated that the literal and lexical meaning of bid’ah is “new.” Nor was it called new because such a prayer had never been performed before; rather, it was called so because, during the time of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), praying Tarawih in congregation ceased after two or four days, and many years then passed. During the caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), this prayer could not be resumed. After that, in the time of Hazrat Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him), this prayer was resumed. In this sense, calling it bid’ah was not incorrect, but that did not make it the kind of bid’ah opposed to the Sunnah, for which no precedent whatsoever can be found in the time of the Messenger. Nevertheless, the question remains: what is the correct significance of Hazrat Umar’s statement? According to the hadith scholars, its significance is this: praying in congregation is an excellent and splendid arrangement that was begun by the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) and was later abandoned during the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr because people were occupied with various difficulties.

Mulla Ali Qari explained this statement of Hazrat Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him) as follows:

Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him) called this act bid’ah with regard to its outward aspect. For after the Noble Prophet, this was the first time that Tarawih prayer was newly resumed in congregation. Otherwise, in reality, praying this prayer in congregation is not bid’ah at all.

Here the celebrated statement of Imam Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) is worth recalling. He said: Whoever introduces a bid’ah into Islam and considers it very good has, in effect, declared that Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) betrayed the trust of delivering the Message (God forbid). For Allah has said: “Today I have perfected and completed your Din for you.” Therefore, whatever was not part of the Din in the time of the Messenger is not part of the Din today either.

My final statement on this matter is that dividing bid’ah into two categories is itself a bid’ah, and through the doorway of this classification countless grave bid’ahs have entered the courtyard of Islam and acquired religious status. They have taken firm root in society as great meritorious deeds. The sooner this poisonous tree is uprooted, the greater the benefit for Islam and the Muslims.

The Plea of Pirs and Walis in Support of Bid’ah

Those who advocate bid’ah generally invoke the authority of the Sufis and the shaykhs of the tariqahs in support of the practices they have invented. They pass off even major and manifestly bid’ah practices as “not bid’ah” but as acts of great merit. They say: “Such-and-such a wali of Allah, such-and-such Hazrat Pir Qibla, performed this act himself and instructed others to perform it. And when a wali of Allah like him performed this act and instructed people to perform it, it cannot be bid’ah; it must certainly be an act of great merit. Otherwise, would he have performed it? Therefore, it must be regarded as Sunnah.”

Invoking such a pir in support of bid’ah has produced two kinds of reactions in society. One reaction is that, in order to know precisely and with certainty what is Sunnah and what is bid’ah, and what is permissible and what is impermissible, people consult neither the Qur’an nor hadith, nor the practices and life histories of the Companions. They only ask whether such-and-such Hazur Qibla performed the act. If he did, they have no hesitation in doing it. In that case, they do not even consider whether the person or people whose authority is invoked act according to the Qur’an and hadith, or whether they performed the act on the basis of the Shariah or according to their own wishes.

Such a statement is like the statement made by the people of the kafir society of Arabia. When the call to the true Din of Tawhid was presented to them, they said: “We found our forefathers united as followers of a particular path. By continuing to follow in their footsteps, we shall attain guidance.”

In other words, for them the sole evidence of what was right or wrong was the authority of their forefathers. They followed them not because they had followed any good model, but because they were their forefathers. The same thing is seen here: in support of a bid’ah practice, there is only the authority of Hazur Qibla. The basis of that authority is not any proof from the Shariah; the only proof is that, in their view, he is a great wali of Allah, and the act he performed is the principal warrant of the Shariah.

In response to the Arabs’ statement quoted above, the Qur’an said through the tongues of the prophets:

Say: Even if I have brought you guidance better than the way in which you found your forefathers, will you still continue to follow those forefathers?

In other words, it is astonishing that they are unwilling to follow what is considered good and best as a principle. They are not even prepared to judge which principle is good. Just as they were determined to follow their forefathers even when the finest principles and ideals were presented, so these people will continue performing a bid‘ah practice by invoking the authority of the revered pir, even when evidence based on the proofs of the Shariah establishes that the practice is a bid‘ah.

The consequence is that people’s religion and faith are made dependent on the conduct and practices of some wali of Allah or so-called pir. There, neither the word of Allah nor any deed or saying of the Messenger carries authority. In the light of the Qur’an and Hadith, this principle is manifest shirk and prohibited. Such a principle is the primary source of misguidance. In such a state, people become blind followers of other people; instead of being servants of Allah, they become servants of that person. They find no opportunity in their lives to become servants of Allah.

Yet the role of the true believing Muslim, from the Islamic viewpoint, has been fully described in the Qur’an, Hadith, and history. In their society, authority was invoked only through the Qur’an and Hadith. Invoking any individual’s authority was regarded as shirk in that society. In every difficult situation, the Qur’an and Hadith alone were cited; whenever a proof from the Qur’an and Hadith was presented to them, all disputes disappeared, rebellions were suppressed, and every difference of opinion vanished. They accepted it with bowed heads. They did not dare act contrary to it, nor did they think anyone had the right to do so. After the death of the Noble Messenger, disagreements and arguments arose among the Muslims during the caliphate period. But whenever a hadith of the Noble Messenger was presented to them, everyone immediately accepted it. The first caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakr, declared war against those who refused to pay zakat. The Companions differed on this matter. When Qur’anic evidence was presented, all accepted that the policy adopted by the caliph was reasonable. Disagreement also arose among the Companions over sending an army under the leadership of the freed slave Usama ibn Zayd. Hazrat Abu Bakr said: ‘I cannot withdraw the army whose dispatch the Noble Messenger himself had decided.’

Everyone accepted the soundness of this decision. In reality, this is the role of the ideal Muslim. This alone can be, and should be, the eternal ideal for Muslims.

The second consequence has been that ordinary people have begun to think that Shariah and ma‘rifah (or tariqah) are two completely different and separate things. What is unlawful according to Shariah is lawful from the perspective of ma‘rifah or tariqah. For on the one hand, evidence from the Shariah says, ‘This is a bid‘ah,’ while on the other, invoking the pir’s authority is used to permit and continue that very practice. Consequently, the notion that Shariah and ma‘rifah have contradictory rulings has become prominent.

It is difficult to fully describe how dangerous such a notion is for the religion of Islam. It can plainly be said that it offers no benefit whatsoever to religion and faith. The only means of saving people from every kind of misguidance is the Shariah. If even clear opposition to this Shariah is considered lawful and can be presented as lawful, who will be able to prevent the flood of misguidance from sweeping everything into ruin?

Therefore, we wish to say that regarding the Shariah, no one’s authority is acceptable except that of the Messenger and the Companions. No evidence can be recognized apart from the Qur’an, Hadith, and the consensus of the Companions. No Muslim is prepared to accept such authority. If one does, it will not be Islam; it will be something else.

Several Major Major Innovations

Having concluded our discussion of the principles concerning Sunnah and bid‘ah, in the second stage we shall present a detailed discussion of several major bid‘ahs. The fact that these matters are being presented as bid‘ahs does not mean that only these are bid‘ahs, that there are no others beyond them, or that once these few bid‘ahs are eradicated all bid‘ahs will have ended and the golden age of the Sunnah will begin. No, that is not the meaning. Rather, it means that among the bid‘ahs that have currently entered our Muslim society, these are fundamental and major bid‘ahs. But this is not the end. There are other bid‘ahs that have accumulated in our lives. After this principled discussion of bid‘ah, the discussion here may be regarded as illustrative. That is, these few bid‘ahs are presented as examples; viewed in this light, it will be seen that many more such bid‘ahs exist in our lives and society. Along with these, those too must be eradicated at the root.

Tawhidi Creed Shirk of Innovation

It is not something unknown only to Muslims; no one in the world should be unaware that the foundational creed of Islam is tawhid. ‘Tawhid’ means the oneness of Allah. Allah’s oneness is universal, complete, and absolute. From this perspective, Allah is not merely the Creator; He is also the sole Sustainer, Owner, Provider, Protector, and Legislator. Therefore, people must fear Allah alone, worship and serve Allah alone, and recognize Allah alone as the Creator, Provider, and Nurturer. In all these respects, He alone is the ‘Ilah.’ There is no ilah besides Him; no one is an ilah and no one can become an ilah. He alone is the Rabb; besides Him there is no other nurturer, developer, protector, or fulfiller of needs. He alone is the One worthy of worship. No one besides Him has the right to receive worship, service, or obedience. Therefore, only Allah’s laws and ordinances shall prevail over humanity. In brief: He is One, Singular, and Unique in His being Rabb; and He is One and without associate in His being Ilah. Allah is One in rububiyyah and One in uluhiyyah. In neither respect does He have any partner, equal, counterpart, or equivalent.

That is not all. He is One and Unique in His essence and fundamental being. He is also singular and without associate in His attributes. His uncontested right over creation—and therefore over human beings—belongs to Him alone. He has no partner in this right and authority. He alone possesses power and control over creation, including human beings. In these matters too, He has no partner or associate, nothing whatsoever. No one may be granted the status of being His partner.

This tawhidi creed of Islam is proven by the Qur’an and also by authentic Hadith. As the final Prophet and Messenger, the Noble Messenger presented this very creed before the world and called people to accept tawhid as the foundational creed. All those who accepted Islam at that time became Muslims by believing in this conception of Islam. Therefore, the Companions of the Messenger also believed in this creed. They never showed weakness regarding it, nor did they agree to any compromise or accommodation with anyone on this matter. Thus, this is the tawhidi creed of the Sunnah. This is the Sunnah of creed.

But various innovations of shirk have now appeared in this Sunnah-based creed of Islam, or, one might say, in this Sunnah of creed. Muslim society generally acknowledges Allah as One and Unique. In practice, however, it can be seen that although there is belief in Allah’s tawhid of uluhiyyah, His tawhid of rububiyyah is not being acknowledged. Even when it is acknowledged verbally, it is effectively being denied. Many other powers are being accepted as rabb—not verbally, but in practical conduct. This is shirk. Although, as a verbal creed, Allah alone is acknowledged as the Provider, Giver of life, Giver of death, Creator, Influential One, Possessor of authority, Manager of the universe, and Rabb, people of this class nevertheless pray to dead ‘saints,’ fear them instead of Allah, and hope to obtain things from them. When they face danger, they seek deliverance from them and seek prosperity from them. They believe that these people can supernaturally hear and accept human prayers, help, bestow spiritual grace, and cause good and evil to occur. For this purpose they seek their pleasure. To secure their pleasure, they make vows to them, slaughter animals for them, prostrate themselves at their graves after their death, and consider it obligatory to spend part of their wealth for them. For these reasons, the graves of such people are honored and venerated in various ways, and solid domes are built over them at great expense. Gradually, people travel across countries to visit the graves. On a particular day and at a particular time, devotees gather from all directions—just as polytheistic nations travel to their national places of pilgrimage.

From the perspective of Islam’s tawhidi creed, praying to anyone besides Allah—or addressing a prayer to anyone else—is manifest shirk. Islam explicitly prohibits it. Numerous verses in the Noble Qur’an provide conclusive proof of this. In some Qur’anic verses this prohibition is addressed to polytheists, in some it is stated generally, and in many it is directed specifically to Muslims who affirm tawhid.

At this point, several Qur’anic verses are presented. One verse says:

وَمَنْ أَضَلُّ مِمَّن يَدْعُو مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ مَن لَّا يَسْتَجِيبُ لَهُ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ وَهُمْ عَن دُعَائِهِمْ غَافِلُونَ [٤٦:٥—Those who call upon or pray to others besides Allah, who cannot answer them until the Day of Resurrection and are unaware of their prayers—who can be more misguided than such people? (Al-Ahqaf)

Another verse reads:

وَأَنَّ الْمَسَاجِدَ لِلَّهِ فَلَا تَدْعُوا مَعَ اللَّهِ أَحَدًا [٧٢:١٨]

—All mosques belong to Allah. Therefore, do not call upon anyone besides Allah. (Al-Jinn: 17)

This verse addresses the Noble Messenger himself and the Muslims. In his commentary on this verse, Allamah Ibn Kathir wrote: Allah commands His servants to call upon Him alone in the places designated for His worship, to uphold His oneness, and not to call upon anyone else alongside Him or commit any form of shirk with Him.

In one verse, the Noble Prophet himself is addressed:

Do not call upon or associate any other ilah with Allah. If you do so, you will be counted among those subjected to punishment.

The word ‘you’ in the verse addresses the Noble Prophet himself. Tafsir Fath al-Bayan states: When Allah established the truth of the Qur’an and proved that it was a Book revealed from Him, He commanded His Prophet Muhammad to call upon Him alone and pray only to Him. The same commentary explains the final part of the verse as follows:

The Noble Messenger was told that if he did so, he would be punished. These words were addressed to Muhammad. Although he himself was completely innocent and pure of the sin of shirk, he was addressed in this way in order to encourage believing servants regarding tawhid and keep them far from every touch of shirk. The meaning, then, is this: Allah said, ‘You are the most honored of all creation, the most dignified before Me, and the most beloved; yet even if you were to believe that there is another ilah besides Me, I would punish you as well. Therefore, consider what the outcome would be for other servants if they did such a thing.’

Calling upon anyone besides Allah is shirk, and praying to anyone else is shirk—therefore it is completely prohibited. This is also proven by the following Qur’anic verses.

وَلَا تَدْعُ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لَا يَنفَعُكَ وَلَا يَضُرُّكَ ۖ فَإِن فَعَلْتَ فَإِنَّكَ إِذًا مِّنَ الظَّالِمِينَ [١٠:١٠٦]

—Do not call upon anyone besides Allah who can neither benefit nor harm you. If you do so, you too will be counted among the wrongdoers.

This verse from Surah al-Mu’min is especially important at this point. It provides positive guidance concerning prayer.

Allah the Exalted has said:

هُوَ الْحَيُّ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ فَادْعُوهُ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ ۗ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ [٤٠:٦٥]

—He is the Ever-Living; there is no deity except Him. So call upon Him alone, devoting your obedience exclusively to Him. All praise belongs exclusively to Allah, the Rabb of all the worlds.

Calling Allah living and Ever-Living means that all those besides Him whom you acknowledge as deities, and whom you actually worship and serve, are in reality dead. No sign of life can be found in them. What benefit, then, can there be in calling upon the dead and pleading to them in an anguished voice? The dead have neither the ability to hear prayers nor the power to accept them after hearing them and carry out anything according to those prayers. Only Allah is living and Ever-Living; He suffers no decline, decay, or incapacity. Therefore, only He should be called upon, and only to Him should prayers and supplications be offered—at all times and in every condition. There can be no exception to this.

This verse makes it even clearer that prayer may be offered only to the One who is the true Ilah, and that whoever is prayed to must be obeyed in reality with wholehearted devotion—He alone. For a prayer to be accepted, all thanks and praise must be devoted to Allah. If one does not sincerely obey Allah in practical life and does not genuinely praise Him verbally, there is no meaning in praying to Him. You have no right to pray to the One whom you are unwilling to obey and whose praise and thanks do not resound from your lips. And why would He accept such a prayer?

Therefore, Allah the Exalted gave a clear command in Surah al-A‘raf:

المُعتَدينَ ا يُحِبُّ ل إِنَّهُ وَخُفيَةً  تَضَرُّعً رَبَّكُم ادعوا  ۗ  العٰلَمينَ رَبُّ اللَّهُ تَبارَكَ وَالأَمرُ الخَلقُ لَهُ أَلا

—Beware and remember: creation belongs to Him, and His command alone shall prevail. Blessed and Exalted is Allah, the Rabb of all the worlds. Call upon your Rabb humbly and in secret. Surely, He does not love those who transgress. (Al-A‘raf: 55)

The profound truth this verse clearly reveals to us is that Allah is the Creator; therefore, only His law and command shall prevail throughout the world. Allah, this Creator and Legislator, is Most Great and the Possessor of infinite blessings. You shall call upon this Rabb of yours—calling in a weeping voice, with a humble, bowed head and an imploring tone, and calling secretly and quietly. The final point is that those who do not accept Allah alone as Creator and Legislator, who do not recognize Him as the Blessed and Great Allah, and who do not pray to Him or call upon Him alone in times of danger and calamity are the transgressors. The transgressors do not receive Allah’s love.

Some groups think that the word ‘du‘a’ mentioned in these Qur’anic verses means worship, and that the meaning of these verses is: ‘Do not worship anyone besides Allah; doing so is shirk.’ Therefore, they say, praying to anyone besides Allah is neither prohibited nor shirk. But it goes without saying how far this claim is from the truth and how mistaken it is. The actual point is that in these verses of the Noble Qur’an, the word du‘a means making a sound, calling out, and supplicating to someone in such a way that there is no doubt or uncertainty that the prayer will be accepted or that the requested thing will be obtained from him. Worship is not the literal meaning of this word; it is its figurative or indirect meaning. Neither in Arabic dictionaries nor in the Shariah does it mean ‘worship’ in any respect. No Arabic dictionary gives worship as its meaning. Nor can the word be found used with this meaning in the writings of any poet or author of the Age of Ignorance. Here we quote from several ancient and authoritative Arabic dictionaries.

Al-Jawhari wrote in his dictionary:

Arabic (*********)

I called such-and-such a person, meaning: I called out his name and summoned him. I prayed to Allah for him, and I prayed against him. Da‘wah means calling once, while du‘a is a singular noun. Its plural is da‘awat or du‘as.

Here the different forms and uses of the word du‘a have been shown. In every case, the meaning is to supplicate, call, or summon.

Al-Qamus states:

Du‘a means a sincere call toward Allah and inclination toward Him. Call upon Him as He should be called upon. ‘Call them’ means to summon them; that is, begin the da‘wah or du‘a for them from them. Call them, meaning gather them together. The Noble Prophet is one who calls toward Allah. The caller to prayer is also called one who summons.

In short, no Arabic dictionary states that du‘a means worship.

Of course, Allamah Ibn Hajar said that the word du‘a is also used in the sense of worship. But this certainly is not the direct and literal meaning of the word; it would be an indirect meaning.

Shaykh Abu al-Qasim al-Qushayri wrote: In the Qur’an, the word du‘a is used in several senses, namely worship, earnest supplication, prayer, speech, calling, sound, and praise.

Allamah Taqi al-Din al-Subki wrote: Nevertheless, it is preferable to take the outward meaning of the word du‘a in this verse.

For in none of the verses where the word du‘a is used is there any reason that would make it necessary to take an indirect meaning instead of its literal and outward meaning. All Qur’anic commentators hold this view. Therefore, interpreting the Qur’anic word du‘a as worship and, on this pretext, considering it permissible to pray to powers besides Allah is nothing but extreme absurdity and manifest bid‘ah.

A Qur’anic verse:

Arabic (********)

—Wa la tad‘u min dunillahi ma la yanfa‘uka wa la yadurruka fa’in fa‘alta fa’innaka idhan lamina’z-zalimin.

In his commentary on this verse, Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi wrote:

The word du‘ā in the verse means seeking benefit and seeking protection from harm. The meaning of the verse is: If you devote yourself to supplication to anyone besides Allah for benefit or harm, then you will be a wrongdoer. For ظلم means placing something somewhere other than its proper place. Since no one besides Allah possesses any power, attributing any kind of power to someone other than Allah, and believing that another has the power to exercise it, is undoubtedly ظلم.

Although the literal meaning of the word ‘du‘ā’ is not ‘worship,’ du‘ā is nevertheless a form of worship. Therefore, it may be made to no one except Allah.

Then what of the supplications made to various powerful beings besides Allah in various ways—for deliverance from danger, worldly advancement, or healing? There is no doubt that these are manifest shirk. This shirk is a grave innovation in the tawḥīdic Sunnah of Islam. For when one calls upon another and supplicates to another for something that no one except Allah has the power to do—and can have no such power—it means that he considers that person the possessor of supernatural power and believes that he can accomplish something. Had he not believed this, he would never call upon him or supplicate to him. Consequently, his heart does not remain satisfied with merely supplicating to him; rather, he becomes eager to worship him as well. And this is manifest shirk.

The Qur’an’s clear declaration is:

وَإِن يَمْسَسْكَ اللَّهُ بِضُرٍّ فَلَا كَاشِفَ لَهُ إِلَّا هُوَ ۖ وَإِن يَمْسَسْكَ بِخَيْرٍ فَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ [٦:١٧]

—If any grief or affliction has befallen you, no one can remove it except Allah. Likewise, if you have received some good, then He alone is Omnipotent. (Al-An‘ām: 15)

That is, He alone possesses the power to bestow this good, and by His grace you have received it. No one besides Him could have given you this good, for no one else has the power, ability, or capacity to do anything.

Another verse states:

وَإِن يَمْسَسْكَ اللَّهُ بِضُرٍّ فَلَا كَاشِفَ لَهُ إِلَّا هُوَ ۖ وَإِن يُرِدْكَ بِخَيْرٍ فَلَا رَادَّ لِفَضْلِهِ ۚ يُصِيبُ بِهِ مَن يَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ ۚ وَهُوَ الْغَفُورُ الرَّحِيمُ [١٠:١٠٧]

—If Allah afflicts you with harm or calamity, no one can remove it except Allah. And if He intends to bestow some good upon you, no one can repel His bounty. He grants it to whichever of His servants He wills. He is the Most Forgiving, the Most Merciful. (Yūnus: 107)

These two verses, as well as countless other Qur’anic verses and the hadith of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him), clearly declare that no one besides Allah can inflict calamity, nor can anyone besides Allah remove it. Likewise, no one besides Allah can bestow good upon anyone. If He wishes good for someone, no one can repel it or deprive that person of it. He alone is the absolute Owner of all power. Therefore, du‘ā must be made only to Allah. It is obligatory to supplicate for deliverance from every kind of calamity and to supplicate for every kind of good. Such du‘ā must be directed straight to Allah—not through anyone else as an intermediary or by invoking anyone else, and not through anyone else’s medium. This is also the essential demand of belief in tawḥīd. For supplicating to anyone besides Allah has no result or validity.

At this point, Allah the Exalted has declared even more clearly and emphatically:

وَالَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِهِ مَا يَمْلِكُونَ مِن قِطْمِيرٍ [٣٥:١٣]

إِن تَدْعُوهُمْ لَا يَسْمَعُوا دُعَاءَكُمْ وَلَوْ سَمِعُوا مَا اسْتَجَابُوا لَكُمْ[٣٥:١٤]

—Those to whom you supplicate besides Allah do not own even a speck of anything. Yet if you call upon them—if you supplicate to them—they cannot even hear your call. (Fāṭir: 13–14)

Even if they were to hear your supplication, it is certain that they would neither answer your call nor be able to accept your supplication.

Indeed, we have also been taught through the numerous supplications quoted in the Noble Qur’an that du‘ā must be made exclusively to Allah, sincerely, without invoking anyone else or making anyone an intermediary before Him. Any supplication mentioned in the Qur’an may be presented as evidence for this. Here, by way of example, several special supplications from the Qur’an are quoted.

This supplication is quoted in the Qur’an’s first sūrah, Al-Fātiḥah:

اهْدِنَا الصِّرَاطَ الْمُسْتَقِيمَ [١:٦]

—O Allah, You alone show us the straight, correct, firm path, and guide us along it.

We were not taught to make a supplication such as: O Allah, by the intercession of such-and-such a pīr, show us the straight, correct, steadfast path.

The final verses of Sūrah Al-Baqarah are also supplications taught by Allah. Not a single statement in them teaches supplicating directly to anyone besides Allah, or supplicating to Allah through someone as an intermediary. At this point, the supplication of Ḥaḍrat Ibrāhīm (peace be upon him) is also noteworthy. While constructing the Ka‘bah, he and Ḥaḍrat Ismā‘īl (peace be upon him) supplicated:

رَبَّنَا تَقَبَّلْ مِنَّا ۖ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ [٢:١٢٧

رَبَّنَا وَاجْعَلْنَا مُسْلِمَيْنِ لَكَ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِنَا أُمَّةً مُّسْلِمَةً لَّكَ وَأَرِنَا مَنَاسِكَنَا وَتُبْ عَلَيْنَا ۖ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ [٢:١٢٨]

—O Allah, accept our supplication. You hear everything and know everything. O our Allah, make both of us Muslims—devoted to You. And raise from among our descendants a community devoted to You. O Allah, teach us all the rites of worship—of ḥajj and sacrifice—and accept our repentance. Surely, You are the Accepter of repentance.

Indeed, a servant may speak of the grief and pain in his heart only to Allah; he must speak only before Him. For just as that grief and pain arose by Allah’s permission, He alone possesses the power to remove it. When Ḥaḍrat Ya‘qūb (peace be upon him) lost his son, he presented his anguish not to anyone else in the world, nor to any pīr or occupant of a spiritual throne; he spoke only to Allah.

His words at that time are quoted in the Noble Qur’an in these terms:

Arabic (****)

—I express and present my grief, sorrow, and anxious thoughts only to Allah.

The supplication of Ḥaḍrat Mūsā (peace be upon him) was in the following words:

—Arabic (******)

—O Allah, all praise belongs to You; all complaints are addressed to You. I seek help only from You, and appeal only to You. I rely only upon You. For no one besides You possesses the ability, power, or strength to do anything.

Allah Himself praised Ḥaḍrat Zakariyyā and his wife, saying:

—Arabic (******)

—They hastened eagerly and competitively toward every good deed. They called upon Me alone—they supplicated to Me—with eagerness, hope, fear, and dread. Indeed, they were always fearful of Me.

The policy of the Final Prophet himself, Ḥaḍrat Muḥammad (peace be upon him), was likewise. There was no exception to this. Seeing the small number of his companions in the Battle of Badr, he turned toward Allah, raised both hands, and supplicated:

—Arabic (******)

—O Allah, fulfill today the promise You made to me. O Allah, if You destroy this small force that carries Islam, then You will not be worshipped in the world.

Immediately thereafter, Allah’s verse was revealed:

إِذْ تَسْتَغِيثُونَ رَبَّكُمْ فَاسْتَجَابَ لَكُمْ أَنِّي مُمِدُّكُم بِأَلْفٍ مِّنَ الْمَلَائِكَةِ مُرْدِفِينَ [٨:٩]

—When you appealed to your Lord, He answered you, accepting your supplication and appeal, and said: Yes, I will help you with one thousand angels sent in succession. (Al-Anfāl: 9)

This verse also proves that Allah accepts a supplication when an appeal is made exclusively to Him, without any medium, intermediary, or means; otherwise, He is under no obligation to accept anyone’s supplication. No one can compel Him to do so. To make it even clearer to whom supplication must be made, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) declared: Let every one of you ask Allah alone for all his needs. Even if someone’s shoelace breaks, he should ask Him alone. If He does not give it, no one else can give it.

The teaching of Allah and the Messenger is also that, in times of individual and collective danger, appeals must be made only to Allah; taking anyone else as an intermediary or invoking anyone else is completely contrary to this teaching and to this Sunnah of Islam. If the Prophets and Messengers appealed only to Allah in all their affairs and sought no help from anyone else in this matter, why should we ordinary Muslims depend upon or turn to anyone else, or take anyone else as an intermediary? These Prophets and Messengers are, after all, our eternal models. Their deeds are to be followed by us, as are their principles and methods of action. In particular, Allah taught us these supplications and instructed us likewise to turn toward Allah and supplicate only to Him.

Of course, it cannot be denied that during the lifetime of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), the Muslims of that time supplicated to Allah, making him an intermediary, seeking deliverance from danger. This is clearly mentioned in hadith. But that was during the Messenger’s lifetime, while the Messenger himself was present among the people as one making supplication. This proves only that during the Messenger’s lifetime it was permissible to supplicate while making him an intermediary. But after the death of the Noble Messenger, the Companions never again made him an intermediary in supplication. No deceased person who is not himself participating in the act of supplication was made an ‘intermediary.’ At this point, two more verses of the Noble Qur’an deserve consideration. In Sūrah As-Sajdah, Allah describes the righteous servants, saying:

تَتَجَافَىٰ جُنُوبُهُمْ عَنِ الْمَضَاجِعِ يَدْعُونَ رَبَّهُمْ خَوْفًا وَطَمَعًا وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ [٣٢:١٦]

—Their sides and backs remain apart from their comfortable beds; they call upon their Lord in fear and hope. Moreover, they spend from what We have provided them.

The phrase ‘they call upon their Lord in fear and hope’ in this verse deserves particular attention. It clearly states that those who truly believe in Allah’s verses fear only Allah and place their hope only in Allah, their Lord. Conversely, they fear no one besides Allah and place hope in no one else. Even when there is cause for fear, they call only upon Allah, supplicate only to Allah, and pray to no one besides Allah. Likewise, they hope to receive anything only from Allah, and for that reason they supplicate only to Him. They hope to receive nothing from anyone except Allah, and whenever they need anything, they supplicate and appeal for it only to Allah.

Moreover, the first part speaks of performing prayer, while the final part speaks of making supplication. Imām Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī wrote: In their essential meaning, supplication and prayer are the same thing.

That is, just as prayer is not performed for or directed toward anyone except Allah, du‘ā likewise cannot be made to anyone except Allah.

There is another verse:

Arabic (*******)

—Can the end of one who is obedient to Allah—who obeys Allah’s commands, prostrates to Allah at night, fears the Hereafter, and hopes only for Allah’s mercy—be like that of the polytheists?

This means that whoever possesses these qualities is not a polytheist; he is a believer in tawḥīd. Whoever lacks these qualities—even one of them—will, in reality, become a polytheist. For example, if someone does not obey Allah but obeys a power created by Allah; if someone does not fear the Hereafter; or if someone does not hope for the mercy of his Allah, but instead hopes to receive mercy, favor, and grace from someone else rather than Allah—then, according to the declaration of this Qur’anic verse, he is the polytheist. Therefore, seeking help from anyone besides Allah can in no way be permissible according to the Qur’an.

At the conclusion of this discussion, I consider it necessary to quote two or three statements of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qādir Jīlānī (may Allah have mercy on him) as evidence. At the very beginning of his book ….., he wrote: All praise belongs to Allah, with whose praise every book is begun and whose remembrance must begin every word. Through His praise, the people of Paradise will enter Paradise. He is the Being whose name, when mentioned, heals every illness; in His name every anxiety, grief, and calamity is removed. In times of happiness and sorrow, joy and distress, supplication is made before Him in a plaintive, tearful voice. His nature is such that, despite the variety of words and languages, He hears the call of every supplicant and He alone accepts the supplication of the afflicted and distressed.

In his book ‘Futūḥ al-Ghayb,’ he wrote: Our weeping and lamentation, our supplication, and our turning in every condition must be directed only to Allah, who is our Lord, our Creator, and our Provider. He feeds us; He gives us drink; He benefits us; He is our Protector and our Watcher. Our life is in His hand.

“Therefore, you must supplicate and call upon Allah alone, and Allah alone, to fulfill your needs; He alone will be your Giver, and He alone will be your goal.”

“The one who relies upon a created being like himself is accursed.”

While Shaykh Jīlānī was lying on his deathbed, his son ‘Abd al-Wahhāb said to him: “Give me some advice that I may follow and act upon after you.”

He then said: It is your duty to live in fear of Allah. Fear no one besides Allah; ask no one besides Allah for anything, and hope to receive nothing from anyone else. Entrust all your needs to Allah alone. Place not the slightest reliance or dependence on anyone besides that one Allah. Seek to receive everything only from Him. Place trust in no one besides Allah. Hold fast to tawḥīd, hold fast to tawḥīd, hold fast to tawḥīd. Everyone is in complete agreement on this matter.

The final word at this point is that if Allah the Exalted alone accepts supplication, and if He Himself has commanded us to supplicate directly to Him, then supplicating to anyone else or making anyone else an intermediary in supplication is nothing but audacity toward Allah. Those who instruct people to do this are not merely innovators; they are manifestly involved in and propagating shirk. They introduce shirk into Islam’s tawḥīdic creed.

Indeed, Islam’s unequivocal demand is that one must explicitly reject accepting anyone besides Allah as a ma‘būd or as a supernatural fulfiller of needs, and firmly believe that Allah alone, without any partner, is the unique Ma‘būd. This is the true tawḥīdic creed and the meaning of the first part of the Kalimah Ṭayyibah, ‘Lā ilāha illallāh.’ Thereafter, one must accept Ḥaḍrat Muḥammad (peace be upon him) as Allah’s Messenger. That is, regarding the pleasure of Allah in one’s way of life, the final and only person through whom it can be known is Ḥaḍrat Muḥammad (peace be upon him). Therefore, one must reject all other rules and methods of living that were not propagated by Ḥaḍrat Muḥammad (peace be upon him). This is the meaning of the second part of the Kalimah.

The earlier Prophets and Messengers also taught this very lesson to their communities. But there is no doubt that, in later times, they went astray and became immersed in shirk. In this regard, Ḥaḍrat Muḥammad (peace be upon him) issued very strong warnings against becoming immersed in the misguidance of shirk and bid‘ah by contradicting either of these two aspects of the Kalimah. For anyone who becomes immersed in shirk through either aspect will undoubtedly enter Hell.

Shirk in Following Laws in Following Shirk–of Innovation

The tawḥīdic creed of Islam recognizes Allah’s oneness and uniqueness in matters such as creation of the universe, nurturing, provision, and the right to receive supplication and worship. Likewise, in every level and sphere of human practical life, one must obey Allah alone without reservation. The sole One with the right to receive this obedience from human beings is Allah the Exalted; no one besides Allah has this right, just as every atom and particle of the entire universe obeys Allah alone. Moreover, just as Allah’s law governs everything in the whole universe, Allah alone has the absolute right to institute law in every direction and sphere of human life. No one besides Allah has the right to impose laws upon these humans created by Allah. Nor may human beings accept and follow the laws of anyone besides Allah. If they do so, it is wholly an unauthorized transgression, injustice, and oppression; it is manifest shirk.

Indeed, He alone will formulate the laws for human beings, and people will follow only the laws He has given in every aspect and sphere of their lives. They must never do anything contrary to His laws. For no one besides Allah has, or can have, the right to command human beings—in other words, to formulate and enforce laws. The fundamental question here is: To whom are you granting the right to make laws for you, which you will follow and be prepared to implement, and to whom are you not granting this right?

If you grant this right to Allah alone, then your belief in Allah’s tawḥīd is complete. But if you grant this right to someone else—to an individual or an institution—or believe that someone else possesses it, then in reality that one is your Allah, and you are his servant and slave. This latter condition is undoubtedly the condition of shirk. This very point is declared in the following verses of the Noble Qur’an.

In a verse of Sūrah Al-An‘ām, it is stated through the words of the Noble Messenger:

مَا عِندِي مَا تَسْتَعْجِلُونَ بِهِ ۚ إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ ۖ يَقُصُّ الْحَقَّ ۖ وَهُوَ خَيْرُ الْفَاصِلِينَ [٦:٥٧]

—That which you are demanding hastily is not in my possession. No one has the right to decide and command in all matters except Allah. He declares the truth, and He is the best of judges.

The verse of Sūrah Yūsuf is:

Arabic (*********)

—The ultimate right to command and formulate laws belongs to no one except Allah alone. That Allah has decreed: O humanity, you shall worship no one; you shall worship only Allah.

In his commentary on this verse, Allamah Ibn Kathir wrote: Command, intervention, will, ownership, and absolute authority—all these belong exclusively to Allah. He has commanded His servants decisively that they worship, serve, and submit to none but the One Allah.

In the aforementioned verse, the matter of issuing commands is mentioned on the one hand, and servitude on the other. In practice, servitude is rendered to the one whose command is obeyed. In the terminology of the Shariah, obeying, accepting, and following anyone’s commands, laws, orders and prohibitions, and determinations of what is lawful and unlawful, constitutes worship. Therefore, accepting Allah alone as the Lawgiver in this matter is itself the belief and practice of Tawhid. Granting this right to anyone else in this respect is manifest shirk.

The following verse has declared precisely this same point.

مَا لَهُم مِّن دُونِهِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلَا يُشْرِكُ فِي حُكْمِهِ أَحَدًا [١٨:٢٦]

—For the people there is no wali besides Allah, and He associates no one with Himself in formulating and enforcing His commands.

Here, the word ‘wali’ has been used precisely in the sense of ‘one who gives commands’ and ‘legislator.’ The meaning of “there is no wali besides Allah” is that besides Allah there is no one—and there can be no one—who gives commands, makes laws, or possesses lordship and authority. This is what the verse declares. The statement is made even more conclusive at the end of the verse: He associates no one with Himself in His command. That is, as the Lawgiver, Allah is One, unique, and incomparable. He has not granted anyone else the independent right to command people and enforce laws. Nor have people been granted the right to accept anyone else as a commander or to follow laws made by anyone else. If people grant anyone such a right, they commit shirk with Allah. This is an unlawful usurpation of authority. For Allah Himself has granted no one besides Him this right over His creation; then who can have the right to command Allah’s creation or to be accepted as a commander? Allah never forgives the sin of shirk. Other sins are a separate matter.

It has been stated:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَن يَشَاءُ ۚ

—If shirk is committed with Allah, He does not forgive it. Besides that, He forgives whichever other sins He wills. (An-Nisa: 116)

Indeed, this is the Sunnah in Islam’s Tawhid-based creed. The entire thirty-part Qur’an is filled with an exposition of this creed. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) preached this very creed, and on its foundation he conducted his entire movement of da’wah and establishing Islam. The people of that time understood this message from the creed he preached, and accepted Islam by accepting that creed. In short, this is Islam’s foundational creed, and on its basis the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) built a complete society and state.

It has been declared in a verse:

Arabic (********)

—The right to issue commands, formulate laws, and enforce them belongs exclusively to Almighty Allah.

Allah commanded His beloved Prophet:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْقُرْآنَ تَنزِيلًا [٧٦:٢٣]

فَاصْبِرْ لِحُكْمِ رَبِّكَ وَلَا تُطِعْ مِنْهُمْ آثِمًا أَوْ كَفُورًا [٧٦:٢٤]

—Indeed, We have revealed the Qur’an. Therefore, remain steadfast in obeying Allah’s command; do not obey any sinful or unbelieving person instead, and do not follow his command.

The significance of commanding steadfastness in obeying Allah’s command immediately after mentioning the revelation of the Qur’an is that the Qur’an is the Book containing Allah’s commands. Only by following this Book can Allah’s command be obeyed. Remaining steadfast in following it means being content with obeying Allah’s command and not obeying anyone else’s command.

The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said in his own words:

Arabic (*******)

—No one has the right to disobey Allah in obeying a created being.

This means that, fundamentally, obedience is due to Allah alone from human beings. People are commanded to obey Him alone. But if, in some matter, one must obey someone else or needs to follow someone else’s laws, what may be done? The Messenger’s brief statement contains the answer. Its significance is that obeying anyone besides Allah is permissible only under one condition: such obedience must not result in disobedience to Allah, whose right to be obeyed is original and fundamental. If it does, then no one else may be obeyed at all.

The science of fiqh also presents this same point before us in many ways and expressions. The book of Usul al-Fiqh, Nur al-Anwar, states:

From the discussion in the book Tawjih, it is known that three things are necessary for every command: (1) the one issuing the command, (2) the one to whom the command is given, and (3) the matter concerning which the command is given. Thus, the one issuing the command is Allah alone; the command is given to people obliged to follow the Shariah; and the command is to follow the Shariah.

The book Tawjih states the matter even more clearly as follows:

The second section of the book will discuss commands. A command requires one who issues it, and the one who issues commands is Allah, the Exalted—not human knowledge, reason, or conscience.

It has been stated: A command can come only from Allah. All the Imams are completely unanimous on this matter.

The Qur’an, Hadith, and ijma—the three foundational proofs of the Islamic Shariah—establish this very point: no one besides Allah has the right to issue commands. A person who believes in Allah’s Tawhid cannot accept anyone besides Allah as the issuer of commands, the giver of laws, or the determiner of what is permissible and impermissible. If he does, it is shirk. This was the creed and practice of the Muslims during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs after the Noble Messenger.

Hazrat Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote to Hazrat Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari in a letter setting out policy for administering Islamic governance:

Establishing a judicial system based on the Shariah is an incontrovertible religious obligation and an obligatory Sunnah to be followed.

But in later times, this fundamental conception of Tawhid in Muslim society—what we may call, in our language, the political significance of the creed of Tawhid—gradually became weakened. Eventually, a day came when Muslims began to regard religion and politics in Islam as two separate and unrelated things, and as a result of this attitude they accepted the authority of religious leaders in religious matters. They considered it necessary to obey not only Allah’s command but also the command of the religious leader, the pir sahib. They regarded the greatest spheres of life—politics, social affairs, and economic activity—as outside the scope of Islam. In those spheres, they accepted the laws of politicians and rulers. They insisted that only religious people should lead the prayer, yet felt no hesitation in accepting the leadership of the wicked and immoral, that is, enemies of Islam, in society, the state, and other areas; they did not regard this as contrary to Islam. Not only that: those who observe religion very seriously in their personal lives, and consider that it should be observed, engage in extreme non-Islamic politics, extremely Shariah-opposed social conduct, and business and transactions conducted through plainly unlawful means when they enter politics. This is because in these matters they are unwilling to grant Allah the right to issue commands and cannot accept that Allah’s command must be followed. Considering religion and politics, or religion and economics, and so on, to be separate and unrelated is the essence of modern secularism; and in the social and political dimension of Islam’s Tawhid-based creed, this is a grave innovation. At this stage, the religious people of society began proclaiming that taking a pir as a guide was obligatory in order to attain Allah. Another class began to regard monarchy, kingship, and even dictatorship as compatible with Islam. In practical life, they placed wicked leaders, kings, and dictators in Allah’s position in matters of law and governance. For this reason they publicized the Prophet’s hadith, “Sultans are like the shadow of Allah.” They established kings, rulers, and wicked leaders as equal to Allah in honor over human society. In their actual obedience, Muslims made scholars and pirs Allah’s equivalent in religious matters, and kings, rulers, political leaders, and dictators His equivalent in worldly matters. Just as Allah enforces His own laws over the people, they came to believe that religious leaders, pir-saints, kings, rulers, and state authorities also had the right to enforce laws according to their own wishes. Thus, a great innovation became possible in the Islamic religious system and worldly politics. As a result, by accepting the absolute authority of religious leaders and pir-saints in Allah’s Tawhid-based religion, and of politicians in politics and social organization, they established a very great innovation of shirk. Gradually, a day came when they began to regard obeying the laws made by kings, rulers, and state authorities as just as obligatory as obeying Allah’s law, and obeying a pir’s command as equally obligatory as obeying Allah’s command. They also began to believe that disobeying them was as sinful as disobeying Allah. (For precisely this reason, accepting two imams—heads of state—at the same time is not permissible. Accepting one religious imam-pir and one state imam-king or dictator is contrary to the Shariah.)

Yet, according to the instructions of the Shariah, their duty was to establish an Islamic system of government and appoint an ideal Islamic imam, that is, a ruler of the state. On the basis of the Qur’anic verse, “I will appoint a caliph on earth,” Imam Qurtubi wrote:

Appointing an imam and caliph is obligatory—one whose words will be heard and obeyed, so that the unity of the nation may be established and the caliph’s laws and commands may be fully enforced. At this level, the aforementioned verse is the primary proof. There is no disagreement on this matter among the Imams and the mujtahid Imams. Thus, it is established that this act is wajib. It is established that appointing such an imam or caliph is one of the pillars of that religion, Islam, which is the foundation of the social and collective life of Muslims.

It was established in the preceding discussion, on the basis of incontrovertible proofs from the Shariah, that obeying anyone else’s law instead of Allah’s command and law is shirk.

But there are some people calling themselves scholars who, falling prey to the deception of ignorant pirs, are unwilling to accept Allah alone as the sole Lawgiver. For if Allah alone is to be accepted as the giver of commands and laws, then what place will remain for ‘Huzur Qibla’? Therefore, there is no alternative but to accept ‘Huzur Qibla,’ along with Allah, as one entitled to issue commands. For this reason, in response to the statement that obeying anyone besides Allah is shirk—a statement consistent with Islam’s Tawhid-based creed—they began saying, in utter ignorance:

“Readers! Think for a moment—is it not necessary for all people, regardless of nation or religion, to follow laws made by human beings in schools, colleges, madrasas, maktabs and similar institutions; in political and social organizations, associations, committees and bodies; in operating and traveling by boats, steamers, buses, trains and so on; and in countless worldly and material matters? Yes, certainly it is; what doubt can there be about that? Then must Allah be accepted as the sole issuer of commands? In light of our preceding lengthy discussion, anyone can understand how ridiculous the foregoing statement of the person calling himself a scholar is. For he himself says: ‘In worldly and material matters, laws made by human beings must be followed.’ Who has told you that even in purely material matters there are no commands or ideals from Allah and the Messenger, and that no one else’s command may be obeyed in those matters? The fundamental issue is that you have made the grave mistake of dividing human life into two parts—material and religious. Islam has shattered this division. Therefore, not only in worldly matters, but also in what you regard as purely religious matters, the command of someone besides Allah may be followed—but not without conditions, rather on the basis of a specific condition. First, that command must conform to Allah’s command. Second, it must not contradict Allah’s command. On this basis, anyone’s command may be obeyed in any matter, because in reality it is Allah’s command. But, sir, you cannot obey Huzur Qibla’s command unconditionally and indiscriminately as though it were Allah’s command. If you do, it will be manifest shirk, and you will continue to flounder in the bottomless ocean of that shirk.”

Politics Not Practicing Innovation

Abandoning politics and living without any connection to it is another major innovation, which has engulfed a particular class of people in present-day Muslim society. In the view of these people, politics is entirely and fundamentally a worldly matter. Only worldly people engage in politics. And the sole proof that those who engage in politics are worldly is that they engage in politics. Among this class, one often hears them say: ‘I do not engage in politics,’ or ‘I engaged in politics for many years, but I no longer do so.’ Others say: ‘We are religious people; we have no connection with politics.’

This outlook is an innovation because it is completely contrary to the example, policy, and creed of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) himself. The life of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) during his prophethood conclusively proves that he engaged in politics, that his work came into conflict with the state, and that ultimately he abolished all false states and non-Islamic politics and established a completely Islamic state, establishing in society a politics and system of government based on Islamic ideals. During the Messenger’s lifetime and after him, the Companions engaged in this politics, governed the state, and performed all duties related to the state. The Tabi‘in and the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in also engaged in politics.

Politics is mentioned in the Noble Qur’an and in the Hadith, and it appears in the legal questions of the science of fiqh developed on the basis of these two sources. Therefore, engaging in politics is Sunnah and is fully consistent with Islamic ideals.

Politics is Sunnah and conforms to Islamic ideals—but not only that: it is the essence of Islam. The very purpose of sending prophets into the world was to establish Allah’s religion on earth. The prophets performed this task in the world with all their strength, with their lives and souls; in modern terms, this is politics.

The only way of life chosen by Allah for humanity is Islam, and nothing else. This is Allah’s declaration:

Indeed, the religion with Allah is Islam.

That is also its meaning. Allah sent the noble prophets and messengers for the purpose of establishing this religion and establishing justice in human society according to Allah’s law.

Allah Himself has said:

لَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلَنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَنزَلْنَا مَعَهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْمِيزَانَ لِيَقُومَ النَّاسُ بِالْقِسْطِ ۖ وَأَنزَلْنَا الْحَدِيدَ فِيهِ بَأْسٌ شَدِيدٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ

—Indeed, We sent Our messengers with clear proofs and evidence. With them We revealed the Book and the balance of justice, so that people might live with truth and justice. And We provided iron, in which there is tremendous strength and extraordinary benefit for people.

The fundamental point learned from this verse is that Allah, the Exalted, sent the prophets and messengers so that the people of the world might have the opportunity to live on the basis of sound and flawless justice. In order that the prophets and messengers might establish true justice and equity in the world, they were given two principal things by Allah as distinctive signs and evidence of His direct sending. One was miracles—conclusive arguments and proofs that demonstrated before the people the truth of the prophethood and messengership of the prophets and messengers. The second was Allah’s word—the heavenly Book—revealed as the practical code governing human life.

In addition, two more things were given. One was ‘mizan,’ meaning a standard or criterion, by which right and wrong, good and evil, and truth and falsehood can be established. In his commentary on this verse, Allamah Ibn Kathir wrote in explaining the word ‘mizan’: according to Mujahid and Qatadah, ‘mizan’ means ‘sound judgment and impartial justice.’ It is a truth established by sound, pure, and firm knowledge, reason, and conscience. The second thing was al-Hadid. ‘Hadid’ commonly means ‘iron.’ Lexically, in the words of Imam Raghib, it means something sharp, keen, and powerfully influential. The word is used in these various senses in different Qur’anic verses.

Thus, we can understand its meaning as, first, the metal iron, and second, something strong, sharp, irresistibly influential, and capable of exercising power. In the context of the prophets and messengers, its meaning can readily be understood as ‘coercive power.’ In English this is called Coercive Power, or, in other words, ‘state power.’

The prophets and messengers established powerful, incisive, and irresistibly effective systems of government based on Allah’s law. With their help, using weapons made of iron, they blocked every path of injustice and oppression and established impartial justice for all people without exception. Therefore, just as the prophets and messengers were sent into the world to establish justice, after the end of prophethood it is the responsibility and duty of the Prophet’s ummah to establish that justice and, for its sake, to establish a powerful and influential state power. Striving to acquire this power, and acquiring it in order to establish justice with its help, is called politics in modern terminology. This is echoed in the saying of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him):

Indeed, Almighty Allah accomplishes through state power many things that He does not accomplish through the Qur’an. (According to some scholars, these words belong to Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), not Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him). That may be so; perhaps he heard them from the Messenger himself. Even if not, the words of the Companions have undeniable importance and are also counted as Hadith. The Companions acquired all knowledge related to the religion from the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him).)

This means that state power is essential, along with the Qur’an, for achieving Allah’s ultimate objective. Unless state power is employed to make the Qur’an effective, the Qur’an cannot become effective in human society through its own power alone.

Moreover, the Noble Qur’an contains the following instruction:

شَرَعَ لَكُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا وَصَّىٰ بِهِ نُوحًا وَالَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ وَمَا وَصَّيْنَا بِهِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ ۖ أَنْ أَقِيمُوا الدِّينَ وَلَا تَتَفَرَّقُوا فِيهِ ۚ كَبُرَ عَلَى الْمُشْرِكِينَ مَا تَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَيْهِ ۚ اللَّهُ يَجْتَبِي إِلَيْهِ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي إِلَيْهِ مَن يُنِيبُ [٤٢:١٣]

—Allah, the Exalted, has prescribed for you the same way of religion that He enjoined upon Noah, and which We have revealed to you, O Muhammad, and which We enjoined upon Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: establish this religion and do not become divided in it. O Prophet, what you call them to is extremely burdensome and intolerable to the polytheists. Allah chooses for Himself whom He wills and guides to Himself whoever turns to Him. (Ash-Shura: 13).

This verse clearly states that from Hazrat Noah to the final Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), all were instructed to establish fully this religion given by Allah. Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) was calling the people of his time to establish this religion by destroying every state system founded on false ideals, and to build society, life, and the system of government on the foundation of this religion. This was precisely what was so intolerable to the polytheists. The call and effort to establish the religion was unbearable to the polytheists because it would erase every trace of shirk from human life. And if shirk no longer existed, the very existence of the polytheists would be extinguished; they would no longer be found anywhere. Here, the command to establish the religion was given at the very beginning of the Noble Messenger’s life as a prophet. Nowhere in the Noble Qur’an is there a command merely to preach the religion. Establishing the religion means building people’s minds, lives, creed, and social, political, economic, and international policies and systems on the foundation of the religion; practically enforcing and implementing Allah’s laws and commands; and fully shaping governance, justice, education, civilization, and culture on that basis.

(In the Majid Qur’an, the criminal law prescribed by Allah is called “Allah’s religion.” In Surah An-Nur, after commanding that the adulterous man and woman be flogged as a Shariah punishment, it is said: Let not compassion and pity for the two of them overcome you in enforcing and implementing Allah’s religion, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. In this verse, the criminal law of flogging is called “Allah’s religion.”)

Therefore, establishing the religion and striving to establish it is a religious obligation upon every Muslim who believes in Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), just as establishing the obligatory prayer, giving zakat, and so forth are obligatory. A clear mention of establishing the religion is also found in the Hadith.

In a Hadith, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If anyone openly discloses his crime of adultery before us, we shall establish Allah’s Book upon him.

The meaning of “We shall establish Allah’s Book upon him” is that we shall enforce upon him the punishment for adultery written in Allah’s Book; we shall inflict upon him the punishment prescribed therein. Here, establishing Allah’s Book means implementing the law according to Allah’s Book. Similarly, establishing the religion means reconstructing the whole of life according to the religion. The Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) received this command at the very beginning of his prophethood. The verse mentioned earlier is from Surah Ash-Shura, and it was revealed in Makkah. In that surah, shortly before the verse quoted above, there is this verse:

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِّتُنذِرَ أُمَّ الْقُرَىٰ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا وَتُنذِرَ يَوْمَ الْجَمْعِ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ ۚ [٤٢:٧]

—Thus, O Muhammad, We have revealed to you this Qur’an, a Book in the Arabic language, so that through it you may warn the people of Makkah and those around it; and warn them of the Day of Gathering, concerning whose coming there is no doubt.

In this verse, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was commanded to carry out the task of warning, and on its basis the command to establish the religion was given later. This means that establishing the religion, or striving for it, is an essential demand of faith in the Hereafter. If it is not done, one will have to answer to Allah on that day. This was the call and endeavor of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) during the initial period of his prophethood. This was the jihad which the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was commanded to undertake during his life in Makkah, in this verse:

فَلَا تُطِعِ الْكَافِرِينَ وَجَاهِدْهُم بِهِ جِهَادًا كَبِيرًا [٢٥:٥٢]

—O Prophet, never and under no circumstances obey the unbelievers. Rather, in accordance with the Qur’an’s command, wage jihad against the unbelievers with full strength and by every means.

From the very first day, the endeavor of the Universal Prophet was to refuse the obedience of the unbelievers—to reject and disobey them—and to strive with full force to remove these followers of falsehood from power. (At this point, Allama Ibn al-Qayyim wrote: On the very day Allah first appointed him as a prophet, He commanded him to wage jihad.

Regarding the aforementioned Qur’anic verse, he also wrote: This surah was revealed in Makkah. In it, Allah the Exalted commanded the Messenger to fight the unbelievers (and the hypocrites).)

In today’s language, this is the politics of establishing the religion. The practical result of the Prophet’s endeavor was the Islamic state system centered in Madinah after the Hijrah.

In this light, the claim of those who keep saying that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) neither called people to establish the religion—to establish an Islamic state system—nor made any effort to do so is proven false. The Islamic state of Madinah was supposedly merely a gift from Allah. Yet the actual fact is that calling people to establish Allah’s religion was the fundamental call of every prophet, and the endeavor of the Final Prophet was also devoted to it.

This is known today not merely through interpreting and analyzing the Qur’an and Hadith; the Companions themselves firmly believed that the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) had been sent into the world for this great purpose of establishing the religion, and that the honored Companions were his companions and associates precisely for this task. The statement of Hazrat Abdullah ibn Masud was quoted earlier.

Regarding the Companions, he said: Allah the Exalted selected and chose them to be companions and associates of His Prophet and for the purpose of establishing His religion.

Two points have been made here. The first proves that the sole basis of the excellence, honor, and superiority of the honored Companions is attaining the companionship of the Noble Messenger and being his companions and associates. In what work were they the companions and associates of the Messenger? Everyone knows that they were the Messenger’s companions and associates in fulfilling the fundamental responsibility of his messengership. This is such a great matter of honor and superiority that even the highest degree of faith, righteous action, and taqwa and purity cannot equal it.

The second point is that Allah selected the Companions of the Messenger for the purpose of establishing His religion. This was Allah’s second purpose regarding the Companions, and this purpose complemented the first. Indeed, it may be said that the primary aim of making them companions and associates of the Prophet was to establish Allah’s religion. From this, the purpose of the Noble Prophet’s own coming also becomes clear. It is known that the life-mission of the Prophet was to establish Allah’s religion, and that the purpose of the Companions was the same. It is inconceivable that the Prophet’s coming and mission and the purpose of the Companions’ lives were different or opposed to each other. The great purpose for which Allah the Exalted made the honored Companions companions and associates of the Noble Prophet was to establish Allah’s religion; and for this reason, the Companions’ responsibility did not end with the death of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). Rather, it was an enduring duty until the final moments of their lives. It is also understood from this that the purpose for which Allah selected and chose the Companions was not confined to Madinah; it was also to be carried out in Makkah. Rather, those who became companions of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) from the Makkan period held the greatest honor and status among the Companions. This conclusively proves that the purpose of the lives of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Companions was the same in the Makkan period as it was in the Madinan period. Just as no new objective was adopted upon going to Madinah, the objective of the Makkan period did not change after going to Madinah. It was not the case that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) and the honored Companions worked for one purpose in Makkah and then adopted a different purpose and objective in Madinah. Therefore, the objective and responsibility of the entire Muslim ummah was the same as that of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) and the honored Companions. Following in their footsteps and fulfilling this duty merely by remaining above party politics and guiding the nation and government cannot suffice. Rather, directly plunging into the politics of establishing the religion is the duty of every person who believes in Islam. (Here it must be remembered that those who merely preach the kalimah and say, “We are doing the work of the Prophet’s Makkan period,” are not speaking the truth at all. Rather, by presenting the work of the Prophet’s Makkan period in this distorted form, they are committing a grave offense. During the Makkan period, the Messenger (peace be upon him) presented the ideal of Islamic politics and the state system, and in the Madinan period he established that very ideal. Thus, his work was one indivisible and undivided ideal; it cannot be split into two parts. If it is divided, it will undoubtedly be bid‘ah.)

If this is politics, then this politics is interwoven with the very marrow of the religion of Islam and connected with Islam’s foundation. All the prophets brought this very religion, and all the prophets were instructed by Allah to engage in this politics. Those who today condemn this politics and express hatred for it as a lust for power do not understand that this accusation in effect falls upon the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him). It falls upon the exemplary honored Companions and upon the reformers and mujahids of Islam throughout the world. Without this politics, the religion is in no way the religion of Islam; it is not the religion brought by the Final Prophet. To avoid this politics and hate and abuse it by calling it a lust for power is a very great bid‘ah. If this bid‘ah is not ended, Islam cannot be preserved. Who can deny that denying such politics, evading it, and merely guiding the people and government while remaining above party politics—or remaining completely indifferent to politics while preaching some parts of religion—is undoubtedly tantamount to denying the fundamental declaration of the Qur’an and Hadith, indeed the very life-force of Islam?

It is by believing in the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) that we have become Muslims. He alone is our model. His Companions were the first caravan of people who followed that model, and they are our pioneers as well. Did they practice politics? Or did they merely provide guidance while remaining above party politics? No, they themselves plunged into the midst of politics, freeing people from servitude to other than Allah and leading them to the path of worshiping the One Allah. Anyone who knows the Prophet’s life story and the day-and-night activities of the Companions cannot have any confusion about this. They certainly know that the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) and the honored Companions acquired state power, implemented the Islamic way of life through it, resisted injustice and oppression, and established justice. Therefore, politics conducted for the purpose of establishing Allah’s religion, according to Allah’s law and in the way and manner shown by the Messenger, is truly Sunnah; and abandoning it, while believing that the politics of abandoning it is Sunnah or “the Islamic way,” is manifestly bid‘ah. This bid‘ah has turned Islam into an ascetic religion. Not only that, it has established a permanent system of authority, oppression, and exploitation over Muslims by the sinful and depraved. In fact, if the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) had followed a policy like theirs, if he had adopted toward Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab, the leading figures of Arab society at that time, merely a policy of “guidance,” then there would not have been such opposition from the polytheistic unbelievers; the Messenger would never have had to migrate, suffer broken teeth in jihad, or see his Companions martyred. Rather, by adopting such a policy, they could have received hundreds of thousands of taka, just as a class of scholars and pirs today receive money from the Abu Jahls and Abu Lahabs of this age. And if they had done so, Islam would have had no existence in this age; there would have been no history of Islam and no glorious living narrative.

According to the Imam Mujtahids, and from the perspectives of fiqh and aqidah, directly engaging in the politics of establishing Allah’s religion is a demand of faith and an absolute duty.

Allama Mulla Ali al-Qari was a major expositor of the Islamic aqaid of Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him). He wrote: All experts are in complete agreement that appointing an imam—the administrator of the Islamic state—is wajib.

To explain the great importance of appointing an imam, he further wrote: The honored Companions also gave the appointment of an imam the highest importance. They completed the appointment of an imam even before burying the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). But why? Because for Muslims an imam—a ruler of the state—is absolutely essential: one who will enforce their laws, establish the hudud, close their gaps and breaches, keep their armies perpetually ready and equipped, protect their honor and possessions, suppress their rebellious attackers by force, discipline robbers and highwaymen, maintain Jumu‘ah, Hajj, and the Eids, arrange marriages for orphaned boys and girls, distribute the spoils of war and national wealth, and complete all other such matters required by the Shariah. (Sharh Fiqh Akbar)

At this point, the final and extremely important matter is this: What has been said here under the heading “Not engaging in politics is bid‘ah” concerns only failing to engage in the politics of establishing the religion. It does not mean failing to engage in politics to establish ideologies opposed to the religion of Islam in the name of politics; engaging in that is itself one of the greatest bid‘ahs of the present age. It is deeply sad and shameful that the various groups, parties, and jama‘ats that generally claim a Muslim or Islamic identity are currently practicing politics that is not the politics of establishing the religion; rather, they are practicing politics to establish secularism, socialism, or capitalism, all of which oppose the religion of Islam. This is entirely bid‘ah and haram. Practicing politics to establish kufr while claiming a Muslim or Islamic identity is, in Qur’anic language, extreme hypocrisy, and it faces this question from Allah: Arabic (****)

—O believers, why do you say with your mouths what you do not do?

You say what you do not do; therefore, you do not do what you say. In light of your names and identities, you do not do what you should do, and you do what you should not do. On seeing your names and identities, people naturally expect a certain kind of politics from you, but you do not practice that politics; instead, you practice secularist, socialist, or capitalist politics. As a result, your entire existence has become an immense hypocrisy. You are liars and deceivers.

Your politics is manifest bid‘ah. It is your duty to abandon it immediately and directly engage in the politics of establishing Allah’s religion. Your names and identities also make this an emphatic demand. Saying that Islam can be established through democracy is manifest bid‘ah, because democracy is a kufri ideology. Islam cannot be established through kufr. Islam can be established only through the call to accept direct servitude to Allah; no middle path is acceptable in Islam, and therefore it must be abandoned.

The nearness to Wasilah’‘s bid‘ah

According to the comprehensive tawhidi aqidah presented in the Qur’an and Hadith, Allah the Exalted alone is the absolute Owner, Lord, and Director of the entire universe. People will worship, serve, and obey Allah alone; throughout every aspect of life they will follow the laws and regulations given by Allah alone, and in all these matters they will follow only Allah’s Messenger. They will receive guidance from the Messenger. Whatever path, method, means, and course of action he presented, people will carry out all their work accordingly. When they want anything, they will ask only Him, and even when they hope to receive something, they will hope to receive it only from Him.

The Majid Qur’an says in emphatic words:

قُلْ إِن كُنتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللَّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ [٣:٣١]

—If you love Allah, then follow me (the Prophet). Allah will love you and forgive your sins.

According to this verse, following the Messenger is the inevitable result of loving Allah and awakening in the servant’s heart the desire to worship Allah; likewise, in practical terms, no claim of love for Allah can be meaningful without following the Messenger. Moreover, the only way to attain Allah’s love is to follow the Messenger.

Allama Alusi wrote in his commentary on this verse: Whoever obeys Allah, thereby demonstrating love for Him, and attains nearness to Him by following His Prophet—Allah is Forgiving and Merciful toward him.

In the Majid Qur’an, the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) has been presented as the sole model to be followed by Muslims.

It is said:

لَّقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيرًا [٣٣:٢١]

—Indeed, in the character of Allah’s Messenger you have an excellent model to follow. It will benefit those who desire to attain Allah, seek salvation in the Hereafter, and remember Allah abundantly.

According to this verse as well, the practical model of character to be followed by the person who wants to attain Allah, seeks salvation in the Hereafter, and remembers Allah frequently is the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him). Whoever follows him completely will attain Allah and salvation in the Hereafter; likewise, his remembrance of Allah will take practical form through following the Prophet, being embodied and reflected in him.

According to these emphatic declarations of the Qur’an, people are obliged to obey Allah alone and to follow the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) alone. In fact, according to Islam’s tawhidi aqidah, there is no way to attain Allah except by practically following the Messenger. This was the actual form of Islamic society during the time of the Messenger, the time of the Companions, and the time of the Tabi‘un and Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in. They knew no other path to attain Allah and adopted no other means. But later the bid‘ah of piri-muridism came to dominate people. A class of people established themselves as pirs in society and claimed that they were the wasilah, or means, for servants to reach Allah. If they were accepted, Allah could be attained; if they were not accepted, Allah could not be attained (Allah forbid).

Yet it is conclusively proven from the Qur’an that, to attain Allah, there is neither any scope nor any need for a second means besides observing the Shariah by following the Messenger. A servant’s supplication reaches Allah directly, and Allah directly accepts the servant’s supplication. He has not instructed people to adopt any intermediary for this, nor has He made adopting an intermediary a condition for the acceptance of supplication. Rather, removing all confusion and erroneous beliefs in this matter, He has clearly declared:

وَإِذَا سَأَلَكَ عِبَادِي عَنِّي فَإِنِّي قَرِيبٌ ۖ أُجِيبُ دَعْوَةَ الدَّاعِ إِذَا دَعَانِ ۖ فَلْيَسْتَجِيبُوا لِي وَلْيُؤْمِنُوا بِي لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْشُدُونَ [٢:١٨٦]

—O Prophet, when My servants ask you about Me, tell them that I am very near. Whenever a supplicant calls upon Me, I answer his supplication—I accept it. Therefore, it is their duty to seek an answer from Me alone, and they should believe in Me alone. Then perhaps they will follow the right path.

The verse says that Allah alone accepts the supplication of every supplicant; one should supplicate only to Him and seek an answer from Him alone. This verse uproots the notion created by the innovators that Allah cannot be reached without an intermediary. By saying, “I alone accept the supplication of the supplicant,” Allah the Exalted clearly explained that no wasilah is needed to supplicate to Allah or to have one’s supplication accepted. If one can supplicate to Allah properly, Allah accepts it directly. By saying, “It is their duty to seek an answer from Me alone,” Allah explained that whoever supplicates should have special eagerness, encouragement, and emotion in his heart for that supplication to be accepted. This cannot be achieved through another person; a wasilah can do nothing. By the words, “They should believe in Me alone,” He stated that, keeping this declaration in mind, it is obligatory to believe that Allah is very near to you. One should not fall prey to the deception of an intermediary and, instead of supplicating directly to Allah, become confused into taking refuge in an intermediary. The final words of the verse also declare this path to be the true path and state that the only means of attaining nearness to Allah is to supplicate earnestly to Allah and keep in one’s heart the belief that Allah alone will accept one’s supplication.

In another verse, Allah the Exalted has declared even more forcefully:

وَقَالَ رَبُّكُمُ ادْعُونِي أَسْتَجِبْ لَكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ عَنْ عِبَادَتِي سَيَدْخُلُونَ جَهَنَّمَ دَاخِرِينَ [٤٠:٦٠]

—Your Lord has said: Call upon Me; supplicate to Me alone, and I alone will answer you—I will accept your supplication. Those who are arrogant about worshiping Me will all be gathered in Hell. (Al-Mu’min: 60)

Here too there is a command to call upon Allah directly—to supplicate directly to Allah. In the second part of the verse, this supplication itself is declared to be the worship of Allah. That is, those who do not supplicate directly to Allah and wish to advance by means of an intermediary are not prepared to worship Allah exclusively; there can be no doubt that they will go to Hell. The very crime of the unbelievers of Makkah was this, for which it was declared that they would be inhabitants of Hell.

It is clearly proved from these verses of the Qur’an that no intermediary is at all necessary, nor pleasing to Allah, for attaining nearness to Allah, having our supplications accepted, or worshipping and serving Allah in accordance with Islamic Shariah. Rather, Allah wants His servant to turn directly to Him, surrender to Him alone, and abandon prostrating at the court of anyone else instead of Him. But later, “intercession” was introduced into Muslim society in the name of Islam itself. Propaganda was spread that there was supposedly no way to attain Allah without an intermediary. Introducing this “intermediary” into Islam’s tawhidi system is a very great bid‘at, and this bid‘at has plunged the advocates of tawhid into severe shirk. Fatwas were issued from the courts of the innovators: adopting an intermediary to attain Allah or to receive Allah’s grace is not merely permissible; rather, in some cases it is also obligatory and compulsory.

In fact, declaring something obligatory or compulsory when it is not established by the Qur’an, nor by the words, deeds, or approvals of the Messenger, is bid‘at. The passage quoted above is a particular fatwa in support of this bid‘at. This bid‘at has now engulfed a section of the people. Some of them think: “We do not perform prayer or keep fasts, because we give paddy to the pir.” (God forbid.)

That means, if one gives paddy to the pir, the pir will be pleased. And if the pir is pleased, Allah will also be pleased. Then what need is there to worship and serve Allah? To attain Allah, supposedly giving gifts and offerings to the pir is enough.

Again, some people believe that it is certain that the pir will go to Paradise—as though they had learned from Allah that the pir is already a person of Paradise. Yet this belief is nothing but extreme folly. For the person whose hand is being held with such honor, let alone taking others to Paradise, there is no certainty whatsoever that he himself will enter Paradise.

The advocates of intercession also present part of a Qur’anic verse in support of their view. That portion of the verse is:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَابْتَغُوا إِلَيْهِ الْوَسِيلَةَ

O believers, fear Allah and seek a means of approach to Him.

The verse instructs people to fear Allah and strive to attain nearness to Him. But this verse has been used in an attempt to prove something completely contrary to its central message. First, the advocates of intercession have not accepted the verse in its entirety; only a portion of it has been used to prove their position. Yet the meaning of the complete verse is one thing, while by presenting only part of a verse one may try to say something entirely different according to one’s own purpose. That is exactly what has happened here.

The complete verse is:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَابْتَغُوا إِلَيْهِ الْوَسِيلَةَ وَجَاهِدُوا فِي سَبِيلِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ [٥:٣٥]

O believers, fear Allah, seek a means of approach to Him, and strive in His path. Perhaps you will attain success. (Al-Ma’idah 35)

It must first be proved what the word “wasilah” means and in what sense it has been used in this Qur’anic verse. Only then can the true message of this verse be understood. We therefore find that in the Qur’an the word “wasilah” has been used in only one other verse besides this one—in two places altogether.

The other verse is:

قُلِ ادْعُوا الَّذِينَ زَعَمْتُم مِّن دُونِهِ فَلَا يَمْلِكُونَ كَشْفَ الضُّرِّ عَنكُمْ وَلَا تَحْوِيلًا [١٧:٥٦]

أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ يَبْتَغُونَ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِمُ الْوَسِيلَةَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ وَيَرْجُونَ رَحْمَتَهُ وَيَخَافُونَ عَذَابَهُ ۚ إِنَّ عَذَابَ رَبِّكَ كَانَ مَحْذُورًا [١٧:٥٧]

Say: Call upon those whom you claim to be deities besides Allah; they have no power to remove hardship and distress from you, nor to change it. Those whom they call upon themselves seek a means of approach to their Lord—who among them is nearer—and hope for His mercy and fear His punishment. Surely, the punishment of your Lord is worthy of fear.

(Children of Israel: 56–57)

What is the meaning of the word “wasilah” used in these two places? The universally respected scholar and author who explained the words of the Qur’an, Allamah Raghib Isfahani, wrote its meaning as follows: Wasilah means reaching something with eagerness. Because it contains the sense of eagerness, it conveys a somewhat more specific meaning than merely reaching or arriving.

He wrote in his work entitled Khatib: “Wasilah” is a noun meaning nearness, becoming near, or the means of attaining nearness—in other words, obedience.

In his Tafsir, Allamah Qurtubi wrote in explaining this verse: “Wasilah” means nearness. This meaning has also been transmitted from such Tabi‘i and Qur’anic scholar sages as Abu Wa’il, Hasan, Mujahid, Qatadah, Ata, Suddi, Ibn Zayd, and Abdullah ibn Kathir.

He further wrote: Wasilah is such nearness that one should not ask anything of anyone on its account. One may ask Allah, so this nearness must also be to Allah alone.

Imam Suyuti wrote in explaining the first-mentioned verse: Wasilah is that obedience and worship which brings you near to Him.

Maulana Abdur Rashid Nomani wrote in Lughat al-Qur’an: There are two views concerning this word. According to Khatib and Imam Razi, it means the means of attaining nearness. Imam Suyuti gave it two meanings: one is the means of nearness, namely worship; the other is nearness itself, which can be attained through worship.

Imam Shawkani wrote: Wasilah means nearness, which should be sought.

Abu Wa’il, Hasan, Mujahid, Qatadah, Suddi, Ibn Zayd, and other scholars expressed this same view, and the same opinion has been transmitted from Ibn Abbas, Ata, and Abdullah ibn Kathir.

The same statement is found in Tafsir Fath al-Bayan. It says: Wasilah is a special rank in Paradise specifically reserved for the Messenger.

It is narrated in Bukhari Sharif from Jabir that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Whoever, upon hearing the call to prayer, says, “O Allah, Lord of this perfect call and the prayer about to be established, grant Muhammad the wasilah and honor, and send him to the Praiseworthy Station that You have promised him,” will certainly receive my intercession on the Day of Resurrection.

It is narrated in Muslim Sharif from Abdullah ibn Amr that he heard the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) say: When you hear the call of the muezzin, repeat whatever he says. Then send blessings upon me. Indeed, whoever sends one blessing upon me, Allah will send ten blessings upon him.

Then ask Allah to grant me the wasilah, for it is a special station in Paradise.

In the book Fath al-Bayan, while explaining the first meaning of the word wasilah, it is written: It is clear that wasilah, meaning nearness, may be used in the sense of taqwa, as well as for those qualities, apart from taqwa, by means of which servants attain nearness to Allah. Some have said that wasilah means love and affection—that is, you should love Allah. But the first meaning is better.

The translation of what Allamah Ibn Kathir wrote in his Tafsir in explaining the first verse is as follows: Allah Most High commanded His believing servants to adopt taqwa toward Him. If taqwa is combined with obedience to Him, it means refraining from unlawful acts and abandoning all prohibited deeds. Then He said: Seek a means of approach to Him.

He then wrote: Sufyan al-Thawri narrated from Talhah, Talhah from Ata, and Ata from Ibn Abbas that this wasilah means nearness.

The renowned early scholars Abu Wa’il, Hasan, Mujahid, Qatadah, Suddi, Ibn Zayd, and Abdullah ibn Kathir, among others, also expressed this same view, and Qatadah translated this verse as follows:

That is, draw near to Him, obey Him, and do what pleases Him.

Allamah Ibn Kathir then wrote: There is no disagreement among the exegetes concerning what these imams of Qur’anic knowledge have said about the meaning of the word wasilah.

He also gave two further meanings of the word wasilah.

One is wasilah, by means of which the ultimate objective is reached.

The second is that Wasilah is also the name of a higher station in Paradise. It is the rank of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him).

To support this meaning of wasilah, Imam Ibn Kathir cited numerous hadiths. One hadith of this kind, narrated by Ali, reads: In Paradise there is a specially honored place called Wasilah. When you ask Allah for something, ask Him for Wasilah for me.

In explaining the concluding portion of this verse, he wrote:

When Allah commanded the abandonment of unlawful acts and the completion of worship and obedience, He then commanded fighting the disbelieving polytheist enemy forces that had departed from the Straight Path.

Imam Baydawi wrote in his commentary on this verse:

That is, seek the thing by which you can attain His reward and nearness to Him. That consists of performing deeds of obedience to Allah and abandoning deeds of disobedience.

Allamah Zamakhshari wrote: Wasilah is something by which some form of nearness can be attained, whether an act or something else. Later it was used to mean that by which one can reach Allah Most High. That consists of performing acts of worship and obedience and abandoning disobedience. Allamah Abu al-Su‘ud also stated the same thing in his own words in his commentary on this verse.

It says concerning wasilah: Wasilah is that by which nearness to Allah can be attained—by which one can reach Allah. That consists of performing acts of worship and obedience and abandoning disobedience.

He further wrote: The verse has also been interpreted in this way: the first statement, “Fear Allah,” instructs people to abandon sins and disobedience. The second statement, “Seek a means of attaining nearness to Allah,” instructs them to adopt the worship and obedience of Allah. Whoever abandons disobedience and undertakes an act that is difficult for the soul will necessarily experience some hardship and exertion. Therefore, immediately after these two commands, Allah commands: Strive in the path of Allah by fighting His open and powerful enemies.

Allamah Sayyid Mahmud Alusi also discussed many matters in detail in explaining this verse. In his commentary on the aforementioned verse of Surah al-Ma’idah, he said: And seek—search for—His reward and His nearness for yourselves.

He wrote the meaning of wasilah as follows: Wasilah is that by which one reaches and draws near to Allah; it consists of performing acts of worship and service and abandoning acts of disobedience.

Allamah Ibn Jarir Tabari wrote: Seek nearness to Allah through deeds that will cause His pleasure; wasilah is on the pattern of fadilah. For example, someone says, “I drew near to him”; here tawassul is used in the sense of taqarrub. “Tawassaltu ilayhi” means, “I drew near to him.”

He further wrote: As we have said, the lexicographers and scholars of meaning have adopted this interpretation. Bashshar and Sufyan narrated from Abu Wa’il that “seek a means of approach to Him” commands the attainment of nearness through deeds. Sufyan, Abu Talhah, Ata, and others also interpreted it as nearness. It is narrated from Qatadah that he translated this verse as follows: “Draw near to Allah by obeying Him and doing what He likes.” It is narrated from Hudhayfah that Mashid Abu Najih said Mujahid interpreted “seek a means of approach to Him” as nearness.

Allamah Fakhr al-Din Razi wrote: Seek wasilah from Allah means seek nearness to Allah through deeds.

Allamah Alusi said: Ibn al-Anbari, quoting Ibn Abbas, said that wasilah means need or necessity.

According to this meaning, the verse would mean: Turn toward Allah and seek the fulfillment of your needs. For all the keys of the heavens and the earth are in His hand, so do not seek to fulfill your needs by depending on anyone else.

This meaning of the word wasilah may be called new; that is, no other exegete has mentioned it. Nevertheless, it may be said that the original Arabic dictionaries, all the Companions and Tabi‘un, and every authoritative commentary indicate that this is the meaning of wasilah, and nothing else. Giving it another meaning would be an invention of later people. It has no connection with the original Qur’an, hadith, or Arabic language. From this verse it is known that Allah Most High’s command to seek wasilah for attaining nearness to Him means obeying Allah alone, worshipping and serving Him alone, and not disobeying Him—or seeking the fulfillment of one’s needs only from Allah’s nearness, not from anyone else. No other person may be adopted as an intermediary or medium; if this is done, it is shirk and bid‘at. This verse was revealed precisely to close the path to this shirk forever. Sadly, this very verse is being presented with the evil purpose of proving the shirk of intercession sound, permissible, obligatory, and compulsory. At this stage, statements written in books such as Husn-e Haseen, al-Muhannad, and Shifa al-Siqam are being presented in an attempt to distort and destroy this eternal, everlasting creed of tawhid.

All exegetes agree that in the two Qur’anic verses where this word is used, this is the intended meaning in both places, and no other meaning. In light of the detailed discussion, the meaning of the entire verse is: “O believers! Fear Allah, fear Allah, seek nearness to Him or the means of attaining nearness, and for this reason strive in the path of Allah.” (Imam Qurtubi, Imam Ibn Kathir, Imam Shawkani, and others have stated the same in their commentaries; its Bengali translation was given above.)

The meaning of the word wasilah as used in hadith is a special station of Allah. This is the meaning accepted in Shariah. Now it must be examined what Shariah-compliant means and methods exist for making wasilah toward Allah. Several matters are presented here.

First: Seeking wasilah to attain nearness to Allah is wholly supported by the Qur’an and hadith. Allah Himself has said:

وَلِلَّهِ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ فَادْعُوهُ بِهَا ۖ

Allah has the Most Beautiful Names, so call upon Him by them. (Al-A‘raf 180)

It is narrated in a hadith that Abdullah narrated from his father, Buraydah: The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) heard a man supplicating in the following words.

O Allah, I supplicate to You because You are Allah; there is no deity but You. You are Self-Sufficient, who was not created and did not beget, and no one is equal or comparable to You.

The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) then said: This man supplicated to Allah by His immensely great Name; if one asks by it, he will certainly be given, and if one supplicates by it, the supplication will certainly be accepted.

Support for this is also found in hadiths narrated from Anas ibn Malik and Aishah.

Second: Wasilah through righteous deeds. At this stage too, there is evidence from the Qur’an and hadith. The Qur’anic evidence is the two verses in which the word wasilah is mentioned, because all exegetes agree that in both verses the word wasilah means nearness.إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُThe third proof at this stage is the verse of Surah al-Fatihah: “We worship You alone and seek help from You alone, O Allah!” Here worship is mentioned before seeking help in order to make the first a wasilah for the second.

The evidence from hadith is the story mentioned in Bukhari Sharif, in which it is said that three men took refuge in a mountain cave to escape the rain. Suddenly, a huge boulder came and blocked the mouth of the cave. Believing that there was no means of escape, each of them began to mention his own righteous deeds and pray to Allah for deliverance. Their supplications were then accepted by Allah, and they were saved. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) mentioned this incident approvingly and in praise of their virtue.

Regarding this hadith, it may be said: On Friday, when the sun has declined sufficiently toward the west, draw near to Allah by performing two rak‘ahs of prayer. This clearly shows that performing the Friday prayer also brings one nearer to Allah.

It is also stated in the hadith: This story proves that every person may make his own deeds a wasilah; but it contains no proof for adopting the deeds of another—prophets or friends of Allah—as wasilah.

In particular, when a servant makes his own righteous deeds a wasilah and supplicates to Allah, he thereby draws even nearer to Allah. This act is supported by Shariah according to both the Qur’an and consensus. Through it, a person’s soul is purified and becomes worthy of Allah’s pleasure.

Third: Accepting the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) as truthful regarding his prophethood and messengership and making him a wasilah. Having faith in the religion he brought and taking it as a wasilah. Making obedience to the Prophet’s commands and prohibitions, and helping him, a wasilah. Reviving his Sunnah, continuing his call, and conducting thought and research concerning it may also be wasilah. Making these things wasilah is in accordance with the original religion, because making them wasilah is included precisely in making righteous deeds a wasilah.

Fourth: During the Prophet’s lifetime, making his supplication a wasilah, including him in the act of supplication, asking him to supplicate to Allah, and after his death asking any righteous person of the time to supplicate or including him in the supplication, and regarding his supplication as a wasilah.

The evidence for this in hadith is that once, during a famine, Umar included Abbas as a wasilah in his supplication, saying:

O Allah, previously we used to make our Prophet a wasilah to You, and You would give us water to drink. Now we make his uncle a wasilah to You so that our supplication may be accepted. Therefore, give us water to drink.

It is clear here that Abbas himself participated and was present among those making the collective supplication held on this occasion. He was made a wasilah in the supplication because he was the oldest among the Companions. He held the highest status among them. Muawiyah and his companions made Yazid ibn al-Aswad al-Jurashi a wasilah because of his righteous deeds and taqwa. It was not difficult for all of them to go to the Rawdah and make the Messenger a wasilah, but they did not do so. Therefore, from the perspective of tawhidi Sunnah, there can be no fault in such a supplication, nor can it be bid‘at. Another point is that after the death of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), the Companions did not themselves make the Messenger a wasilah in supplication. For they regarded making a dead person—even if he were a prophet—a wasilah as bid‘at and shirk. In Umar’s supplication, instead of making the Noble Messenger a wasilah, his uncle Abbas was made a wasilah, and he was alive and present in the supplication. This becomes clear precisely from making him a wasilah. The senior Companions were also present at this supplication, yet none of them objected. If it had still been permissible to make the Messenger a wasilah, the other Companions would have told him to do so. But none of them said this; rather, they all participated in the supplication. If making the Messenger a wasilah after his death is bid‘at, then making any of the supposedly dead friends of Allah a wasilah is a hundred times more clearly bid‘at. For making someone a wasilah in supplication after his death means believing that, even after dying, he retains such power that he can rescue those afflicted by calamity or participate with Allah in rescuing them. Such a creed is manifest shirk from the perspective of tawhidi Shariah.

It is narrated in a hadith that during a severe famine, a Bedouin addressed the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) and said: Arabic (******)

O Messenger of Allah, wealth and property have been destroyed, and our families are starving. Therefore, supplicate to Allah for us.

There is also evidence for this in the Qur’an of Allah. Allah Himself has said:

وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذ ظَّلَمُوا أَنفُسَهُمْ جَاءُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُوا اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُوا اللَّهَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا [٤:٦٤]

—When they had wronged themselves, if they had come to you, O Prophet, and sought Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had also sought forgiveness for them, they would surely have found Allah Accepting of repentance and Merciful. (An-Nisa: 64)

This verse mentions that the people must seek forgiveness themselves before the Messenger seeks forgiveness for them. This means that if they do not seek forgiveness themselves, the Messenger’s seeking forgiveness for them has no value before Allah.

No one has any disagreement regarding accepting this kind of wasilah, nor can there be. But, after the death of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), making his person a wasilah for attaining closeness to Allah is an evident bid‘ah.

Fifth: To supplicate to Allah by citing His relationship with His righteous servants. For example, it is narrated in a hadith from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her):

—O our Allah, Lord of Jibril, Mikail and Israfil.

Although some regard making such a supplication as permissible, many have declared it impermissible.

Sixth: To make sending durud upon the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) a wasilah. It is narrated from Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

—When anyone has a need before Allah or before a person, let him perform ablution properly, offer two rak‘ahs of prayer, praise Allah well, and send durud upon the Prophet; then let him say: Allah is Forbearing and full of grace; there is no deity except Him.

In short, these are the methods of supplicating to Allah according to Islam and the Sunnah. Apart from these, it is not permissible for believing people to supplicate in any other manner or way.

Seventh: To make the following supplication:

O Allah, I appeal to You by Your such-and-such righteous servant, or I supplicate to You by invoking his honor.

But this kind of supplication has no support whatsoever in the Shariah. According to Izz ibn Abdus Salam and his followers, making such an appeal in the name of the Prophet alone may be permissible; it is not permissible in the name of anyone else. In the Hanbali madhhab, making such a supplication is makruh tahrimi. The Hanafi jurists, such as Al-Quduri, have narrated from Imam Abu Yusuf:

Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah be pleased with him) said: No one should supplicate to Allah by appealing to anyone other than Allah and in any name other than Allah’s.

I also regard it as makruh to supplicate by saying: ‘O Allah, I beseech You by the dignity of the bond of Your Throne; I supplicate by invoking so-and-so; I supplicate by invoking Your prophets and messengers; or I supplicate by invoking Your magnificent House.’

It is quoted from Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) in Tatarkhaniyyah, and from it in the book Al-Alai, that supplicating to Allah, the Glorified, by appealing to anyone other than Him—making that person a wasilah—is in no way appropriate.

Imam Badluji said: Supplicating to Allah through the wasilah of anyone other than Allah is makruh. One should never say, ‘O Allah, I beseech You through the wasilah of Your angels and prophets.’

All the books of the Hanafi madhhab mention that supplicating by making prophets and messengers, saints and pirs, or the House of Allah and similar things a wasilah is makruh tahrimi. In terms of the punishment of Hell, makruh tahrimi is equivalent to haram.

Why is it haram to supplicate to Allah by appealing to someone else or to make someone else a wasilah? It is haram because none of creation has any right over the Creator. Therefore, such an appeal cannot be valid. Making such an appeal or someone a wasilah would be meaningless. Thus, doing this in Muslim society is clearly a bid‘ah.

Although the idol-worshipping polytheists of Makkah knew and acknowledged that Allah exists and is One and Unique, they worshipped various idols and deities. Their primary objective was not actually to worship them; their primary objective was to attain closeness to Allah, draw near to Him, and gain a higher status. They accepted the worship of idols and deities as a means, or wasilah, of attaining that objective. Nevertheless, Allah called their action shirk and described them as deprived of guidance and lying disbelievers. The following verse states precisely this:

أَلَا لِلَّهِ الدِّينُ الْخَالِصُ ۚ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مِن دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَاءَ مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَىٰ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَهُمْ فِي مَا هُمْ فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي مَنْ هُوَ كَاذِبٌ كَفَّارٌ [٣٩:٣]

(Az-Zumar: 3)

—Know that sincere, undiluted obedience belongs to Allah alone. Those who take others besides Allah as friends and patrons claim that they do not actually worship them; whatever they do for them is only intended to bring them into the closest proximity to Allah. Their claim is false and unfounded. Allah will finally settle the matters over which they differ among themselves. Remember that Allah never guides a lying, most ungrateful disbeliever.

In the light of this verse, it is clearly seen that just as the Arabs of that time treated idols and deities with the aim of attaining Allah and achieving closeness to Him, people of the same nature today have adopted precisely the same treatment of pirs and dervishes in order to attain closeness to Allah. There is no fundamental difference between the two. If the Arabs’ action was regarded as shirk, and Allah considered their fundamental claim false and explicitly called them liars, why would today’s people who adopt a wasilah not be called liars before Allah? And if they were called disbelievers for this very reason, why would today’s prominent advocates of wasilah not be called disbelievers?

Is there any difference or distinction before Allah between the people of that time and the present time, or between the Arabs and the people of this country?

What an extremely evil thing they are saying or thinking.

Pir–Muridi Bid‘ah

Another serious kind of bid‘ah has appeared in the model of Islam’s Sunnah: pir-muridi. The ‘silsilah’ of pir-muridi seen today is an entirely new and fabricated invention. It did not exist in the era of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him), who never practiced pir-muridi. In the present sense, he himself was neither a pir, nor were the Companions his murids. The Companions also never practiced pir-muridi. None of them was anyone’s pir, and none was their murid. No trace of the name pir-muridi can be found even in the era of the Tabi‘in and Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in.

Not only that: even after searching the Qur’an and Hadith exhaustively, no evidence for this pir-muridi can be found. Yet today a class of supposedly ignorant people called pirs, and their even more ignorant murids, propagates pir-muridi as one of the foundational elements of the religion of Islam. Through it, they make ignorant and foolish people their murids and establish large businesses. No capital investment is required for this, and no income tax is paid on the accumulated capital of this highly profitable business. Nor is zakat ever paid on the vast accumulated cash.

Shariah Marifah

At this point, the most fundamental bid‘ah is to regard the Shariah and the tariqah as two completely different, independent things with no relationship to each other. The decline has gone so far that, by calling the Shariah ‘the knowledge of the outward’ and the tariqah or marifah ‘the knowledge of the inward,’ the religion of Islam itself has been divided in two. A group of ignorant followers of the tariqah began saying that the essence of Islam is tariqah or marifah, and that this is the haqiqat. If someone attains this haqiqat, they no longer need to observe the Shariah; they have already found Allah. According to them, the scholar of the Shariah is one person and the scholar of marifah or tariqah another. In the Indian subcontinent, these scholars of the tariqah are called pirs. It is propagated that if someone is a scholar of the Shariah but does not know the knowledge of the tariqah—and does not become a murid of a pir—then he is a fasiq.

Tasawwuf is generally called marifah. The renowned wali of Allah, Hazrat Junaid Baghdadi, said the following while discussing the worthlessness of this marifah:

Knowledge is far superior, more complete and more perfect than marifah. Allah Himself has been described by the name of knowledge, not by the name of marifah. He has said that those who possess knowledge have the highest rank. Moreover, when He addressed the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), He addressed him by mentioning the finest, most comprehensive, most beneficial and most perfect quality.

And He said:فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ

—‘Know that there is no deity at all except Allah.’

Or:فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّمَا يَتَّبِعُونَ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ ۚ وَمَنْ أَضَلُّ مِمَّنِ اتَّبَعَ هَوَاهُ بِغَيْرِ هُدًى مِّنَ اللَّهِ

—Then know that these people follow their own desires. And who can be more astray than those who follow their own desires?

This verse is highly applicable to pir-muridi. But nowhere did he say, ‘Acquire marifah.’ This is because a person may recognize something, but it is not possible for him to gain complete knowledge of it. When he acquires knowledge of that thing and comes to know it fully, then he can also recognize it.

The essence of Hazrat Junaid’s statement is that knowledge is greater than marifah. Therefore, one must acquire knowledge about Allah, not marifah of Allah. Once knowledge is acquired, marifah may be attained. One who has no knowledge cannot attain marifah either. The sole source of this knowledge is the Qur’an of Allah and the Hadith of the Messenger. The Messenger must be known through the Qur’an and Hadith, and it is through acquiring knowledge about Allah that a person can know and recognize Allah—not through any other means.

But the proponents of tasawwuf have built a labyrinthine palace around this marifah. According to them, marifah, or the knowledge of the inward, is a well-organized and disciplined method of practice, entirely separate from the Islamic Shariah. They claim that the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) taught this marifah to some Companions but not to many others. They further believe that the knowledge of the inward passed from Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) to Hasan Basri, and from him, through transmission from heart to heart, this thing reached the pirs of the present day.

All these claims are entirely baseless. The Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) did not teach anyone what today’s pirs teach their murids. Nor did he instruct anyone to do this. The idea that he taught some Companions certain necessary knowledge while depriving other Companions of it is completely contrary to the policy and model of the Noble Prophet. Moreover, Hasan Basri did not meet Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), let alone receive marifah instruction from him or receive the khilafah khirqah from him.

Allamah Mulla Ali al-Qari writes, quoting Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani:

—The tariqahs and rules that the Sufis and proponents of marifah seek to establish have no basis worthy of proof. No sahih, hasan or da‘if hadith states that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) clothed any of his Companions in the khirqah of khilafah of the kind customary among the proponents of tasawwuf. He did not command anyone to do these things either. Everything narrated concerning this is plainly false. Moreover, the claim that Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) clothed Hasan Basri in a khirqah—granting him the khilafah of marifah—is entirely fabricated and false. The hadith imams could not establish that Hasan Basri heard anything from Hazrat Ali, let alone that Hazrat Ali clothed him in his khirqah.

Mulla Ali Qari further writes:

—Likewise, the practice introduced among the proponents of tasawwuf of giving talqin to a murid and bestowing spiritual grace upon him has no basis in the Shariah for connecting it to Hazrat Ali through Hasan Basri.

In reality, this is merely an unfounded notion of the proponents of tasawwuf. Shah Waliullah Dehlawi wrote concerning this:

—The Sufis or proponents of tasawwuf claim that the silsilah of these tariqahs reaches Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). The answer is that this is a statement repeated and popularized by pirs and murids. But investigation has shown that it has no basis or truth whatsoever.

At this point he further wrote that there are two kinds of things that are famous. One kind is a statement famous among all learned scholars. The other kind is a statement famous only among a particular group. The claim that the knowledge of marifah began with Hazrat Ali is famous only among these Sufi pirs; no one else knows of it. In fact, this claim is false—or, one might say, wholly unacceptable. People of later times invented and accepted it. Such a statement cannot be accepted at all. Shah Dehlawi also declared that the methods of marifah, muraqabah-mushahadah and dhikr that today’s pirs teach their murids did not exist in the era of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) or the Companions.

He said:

—It should be known that the practices of the tasawwuf of Sufi pirs did not exist in the era of the Companions and the Tabi‘in. Abandoning means of livelihood, wearing patched clothing, remaining unmarried and not establishing a household, and sitting in a khanqah were not customary in those days.

The proponents of marifah believe that by fully following this method of marifah, the wayfarer, or salik, can know the profound reality, the haqiqat. Ultimately, this marifah leads to the doctrine that although these externally visible things are distinct from Allah in terms of their particular forms, in the ultimate sense they are Allah Himself. The difference perceived between Allah and external things is an illusion of ours—in other words, the diversity and multiplicity of existing visible things outside are a deception or maya created by creation. Put differently, by following this method, a person can ultimately free himself from visual illusion. Then it seems that he is seeing the One Allah in the form of this vast multiplicity. According to these people, this is the marifah of tawhid.

But a little reflection will show that these doctrines are the philosophy of the Vedas and Upanishads—Vedantism. The proper designation of this philosophy is monism. That is, Allah and the universe, or the Creator and creation, are actually one and identical. Whatever is created is the Creator, and the One who is the Creator is Himself creation. This is the fundamental principle of the monistic ideal. It is also the doctrine of Hinduism, which has entered Muslim society in the present pir-muridi tradition under the name of Islamic marifah; there is not the slightest room for doubt that this is manifest shirk.

In reality, Islam is a comprehensive religion. It provides detailed guidance concerning every aspect and department of practical life, and every action and matter, beginning with making a person’s mind, heart and inner self sincerely devoted exclusively to Allah. In it, the Shariah and the tariqah are not separate, independent or mutually opposed things, just as a person’s body and mind are not two opposed things. Just as a human being consists of the integration of body and mind, so the Shariah, tariqah and marifah are merely different aspects—outer and inner—of the same thing, all deriving from the same Qur’an and Hadith.

The Qur’an alone provides the correct and comprehensive knowledge of Allah, through analysis of the names relating to His essence and attributes and the varied descriptions of His power. The Qur’an alone teaches the Shariah rulings concerning belief in Allah, acceptance of His worship and observance of His commands and prohibitions with wholehearted devotion. When the profound reality, excellence and inner significance of these become established in the depths of a person’s heart, that is tariqah or marifah. When a person acts according to the Shariah, that is practice of the Shariah. When this practice becomes imbued and enlivened with sincerity, fear of Allah and love of Allah, and he can continually feel Allah’s presence and watchfulness, then it is marifah or tariqah. As long as conflict remains in the mind between knowledge and practice, it is a matter at the level of the Shariah. When the heart becomes tranquil in this conflict, completely surrenders to practice, and life becomes filled with practice, then one may say that tariqah or marifah has been attained. Shaykh Abdul Muhaddith Dehlawi wrote: ‘Do not regard the haqiqat as something separate from the Shariah.’ In reality, the haqiqat is the essential jewel and vital substance of the Shariah, while the Shariah is the outward form and appearance of the haqiqat.

The Shariah is to believe whatever Allah and the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) have said and to act accordingly. The haqiqat is that one’s belief in matters of which one has certainty becomes as firm and direct as possible.

Shaykh Muhyuddin Abdul Qadir Jilani, may Allah sanctify his secret, said: ‘Whatever haqiqat rejects the Shariah is zandaqah—opposition to the religion.’ The meaning of this statement is that if someone experiences a kashf that does not conform to the religion and Shariah, and makes it his creed, then he becomes a disbeliever and a zindiq.

Abu Sulayman al-Darani said: ‘Many a time, a doctrine of wujud or shukr from the path of suluk appears before me in full and perfect beauty, but I do not accept it. I say: I cannot accept you in any way until two trustworthy and reliable witnesses testify to your truth and correctness. And who are these two trustworthy witnesses? They are the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger.’ (Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlawi, Maktub no. 13)

In reality, there is no difference between these two, no contradiction or conflict, and no duality of any kind. Rather, the truth is that the description of tariqah or marifah given here is, in reality, the religion of Islam itself. This indivisible Islam is what Allah the Exalted revealed; the Qur’an presented this very religion of Islam; and the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), through his life, character, practices and all his actions, brought this undivided religion before the world in a radiant form. In Qur’anic terminology, the entire thing is called the Shariah. Therefore, no Muslim can reject either this Shariah or this tariqah or marifah. According to the learned experts of tasawwuf, tasawwuf is: noble character. But in later times, the Shariah and tariqah became two separate things and flowed in two opposing directions. The Shariah has remained—and will remain forever—unchanged and intact on the basis of the Qur’an and Sunnah. But the unwritten, independently transmitted thing that emerged under the names tariqah and marifah, passed from heart to heart, gave no importance at all to noble and pure character; instead, various kinds of shirk accumulated within it. This, in this regard, is the bid‘ah.

When Ma’rifat or Tariqat became detached from Shariah and began to flow along a completely independent course, all kinds of things that were not derived from Shariah—that is, the Qur’an and Sunnah—accumulated in it. Greek philosophy, ancient Egyptian philosophy, and Indian Vedanta philosophy were incorporated into it. Through the combination of all these, this independent knowledge of Ma’rifat or Tariqat took shape; it was named ‘Ilm al-Tasawwuf,’ or simply Tasawwuf. Yet in no earlier age had Islam possessed any knowledge by this name. Thus, Muslims did not realize that the concept of a duality between Shariah and Ma’rifat in Islam is a grave innovation. Equally grave is the notion that religion and politics are two separate things in Islam. By separating religion and politics and making them mutually unrelated, authority in political affairs was established for sinful, unbelieving, and oppressive people. Din was confined merely to prayer, fasting, Hajj, and Zakat. Similarly, by separating Shariah and Tariqat, a class of ignorant pirs came into existence. In Muslim society, a completely independent polytheistic institution called pirism is operating. Pirism has always been nurtured under the protection of sinful, immoral, and oppressive rulers—the kings and monarchs—and has been adorned in all its branches. Generally, pirs have always supported such rulers. They have never uttered even a word against oppressive, sinful rulers. Rather, they have always raised both hands in prayer for them, saying, “May Allah prolong your life.”

The Course of Islam Opposite Direction

Although the original source of Islamic spirituality was initially the Qur’an and Sunnah, in later times, when it entered into details and minutiae, it took the name Tasawwuf, and its ideals and objectives became completely distinct from those of the Qur’an and Sunnah. A comparative study of the two makes it clear that, in the sphere of Tasawwuf’s ideals, some of Islam’s fundamental ideals and objectives have become dimmed and neglected, while certain minor matters have received excessive importance. Some trends, upon entering Tasawwuf, have become more intense and pronounced, while others have become relatively weaker and less important. Some Islamic concepts, upon entering Tasawwuf, acquired entirely new meanings. The meanings and implications of others underwent partial change. Tasawwuf has also completely neglected many essential aspects of Islam, while in some respects many external elements have been incorporated into it.

Although there is no opportunity here to discuss all these matters in detail, I shall try to explain the issue briefly, so that no one assumes that these things are being said out of hostility toward Tasawwuf. That is not true at all. A few examples are being presented here.

In the early period of Islam, ‘Amal was used in a broad sense. But in Tasawwuf its scope became extremely narrow and restricted. It is Islam’s objective to find sound and effective solutions to human social life, social systems, and the complexities of human needs; but the followers of Tasawwuf have no interest or curiosity whatsoever regarding these matters. These matters lie entirely outside their activities. In Islam’s early period, deep mutual relationship and complete balance were maintained among Fikr, Jazbah, and Amal. But the followers of Tasawwuf place such great emphasis on emotion and inner spiritual states that, as a result, Amal—especially thought, or Fikr—has become less important or has disappeared altogether. The love of Allah is a fundamental current of Din al-Islam. In Islam’s early period, this love was not separate or detached from Amal, nor was it ever accepted as something that could be so. Rather, the love of Allah was a life-inspiring force that flowed through those deeds which people were obliged to implement because they were Allah’s vicegerents on earth. But later, the ideals and objectives of the followers of Tasawwuf not only became narrow regarding Amal; to strengthen Muhabbat alongside Amal, they adopted various methods. For example, it was held that faith becomes stronger through musical gatherings and the practice of music, and so on. But can the followers of Tasawwuf prove that, in the early period, Allah’s love caused people to do these things?

‘Dhikr’ too has been used here in a narrow sense. Sitting with one’s head bowed and repeatedly uttering the words ‘Allah, Allah’ or the Kalimah ‘La ilaha illallah’ softly or loudly is being regarded as Dhikr, and it is assumed that by doing this one has fulfilled the duty of remembering Allah. Yet there is no doubt that this is an extremely narrow conception and a distortion of a fundamental element of the Islamic ideal. The Noble Qur’an gives a clear command to remember Allah. It is stated in Surah al-Baqarah:

فَاذْكُرُونِي أَذْكُرْكُمْ وَاشْكُرُوا لِي وَلَا تَكْفُرُونِ [٢:١٥٢]

-Remember Me, and I will remember you; give thanks to Me, and do not be ungrateful to Me.

Allamah Raghib Isfahani wrote the meaning of the word ‘Dhikr’:

*******

Dhikr is a state of the mind through which a person is able to retain the knowledge he wishes to preserve. Just as it means keeping something in mind, remembering it, or preserving it, so does it mean this.

In another sense, it has been said that Dhikr means the presence of something in the mind. He further wrote that Dhikr is of two kinds: Dhikr of the heart and Dhikr of the tongue. Remembering something that one had forgotten, retaining it without forgetting it, keeping it constantly present in one’s memory, and preserving it—all these states are covered by the word Dhikr.

Allamah Qurtubi wrote: It is for the heart to remain constantly conscious and aware of something, and for the mind to be alert to it.

And he translated the verse:

Remember Me by obeying Me; then I will remember you by granting reward and forgiving sins.

In other words, Dhikr means worshipping Allah while remembering Him, obeying Him and carrying out His commands with heartfelt willingness.

It is stated in another verse:

إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الَّذِينَ إِذَا ذُكِرَ اللَّهُ وَجِلَتْ قُلُوبُهُمْ[٨:٢]

-The true believers are those whose hearts tremble whenever Allah is mentioned or remembered.

In the commentary on this verse, Imam Ibn Kathir wrote: Therefore, O believers, perform properly the obligatory duties prescribed by Allah.

The commentator later wrote: The duty of the believer whose heart trembles whenever Allah is remembered is to fear Allah, obey His commands, and abstain from His prohibitions.

This discussion makes it clear that the command to remember Allah means worshipping Allah, obeying Him at all times, regarding Him as one’s only Ma’bud, regarding oneself as solely His servant, never being heedless of this, remembering Allah constantly, and never forgetting Him at any time.

Moreover, according to the Qur’an’s declaration, Dhikr is not the only task to be performed. Fikr is also essential. To explain the importance and constant nature of both Dhikr and Fikr, Allah said:

الَّذِينَ يَذْكُرُونَ اللَّهَ قِيَامًا وَقُعُودًا وَعَلَىٰ جُنُوبِهِمْ وَيَتَفَكَّرُونَ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ[٣:١٩١]

-Those who remember Allah while standing, sitting, and lying on their sides, and reflect, contemplate, and investigate the creation of the heavens and the earth—in truth, they are the people of intelligence.

(Aal Imran: 191)

The verse commands the remembrance of Allah while sitting, standing, and lying down—that is, in every condition. This is because a person is always in one of these three conditions. At no time is he in any condition other than one of them: he is either sitting, standing, or lying down. Therefore, Allah must be remembered in every condition. That is, He must be kept in mind; Allah must never be forgotten under any circumstances.

Second, the verse does not mention only Dhikr; it also mentions Fikr. In the words of Imam Raghib, Fikr means the power employed to gain knowledge of something. It has been said that the original meaning of this word is to rub matters against one another in order to discover their subtle realities and profound truths.

In short, mere Dhikr is not what Allah desires, nor is it the work of intelligent people. Fikr is also essential. Dhikr without Fikr is the work of foolish people. And Fikr without Dhikr is the work of atheists and people who rebel against Allah.

But in today’s Tasawwuf there is only Dhikr; there is no Fikr. If one combines Fikr with Dhikr, then, in common usage, it is no longer Tasawwuf. If a disciple of a pir wishes to do this, he will lose his status as a disciple. Not only that: even this Dhikr has been accepted there in a very favorable sense and restricted to saying ‘Allah, Allah’ with the eyes closed at a specified time, though it is also practiced at other times outside that specified period. Beyond this extensive process, no sign of Allah’s remembrance can be seen anywhere in their lives across the vast field of life. This method and scheduling of Dhikr is a grave innovation in Islam. This innovation has prevented Islam from being an all-encompassing revolutionary ideal and turned it into an ascetic religion of yogic practice.

Verbal Dhikr is indeed Dhikr if it is accompanied by Dhikr of the heart. Thus Imam Qurtubi wrote: Verbal Dhikr has also been called Dhikr because it is a sign of Dhikr in the heart.

That is, the Dhikr of the heart is what assumes the form of the fundamental Dhikr. But an entirely different kind of Dhikr has been introduced in Tasawwuf. There is no place there for Dhikr of the heart. Its objective has been completely neglected here. Verbal Dhikr is chiefly emphasized. The main purpose of Dhikr is said to be cleansing the heart through its impact and activating the six lata’if. Thus, this Dhikr is said to be entirely different from the Dhikr mentioned in the Qur’an. There is no evidence for it in the Qur’an or Hadith. The lata’if too are merely an innovated concept. They are not recognized in the Qur’an or Hadith, nor are they derived from them.

It is stated in another verse: Arabic (*******)

-O you who believe! Remember Allah very frequently.

Allamah Qurtubi wrote in his commentary: The command to perform Dhikr in this verse means remembering with the heart in such a way that it can be maintained in every condition and continuously. One must never lose or forget it at any time.

At this point, the following verse is also noteworthy:

إِلَيْهِ يَصْعَدُ الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ وَالْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ يَرْفَعُهُ ۚ

-All pure and wholesome words rise toward Allah, and righteous deeds raise them. (Al-Fatir: 10)

That is, all good and pure words—belief in Tawhid, remembrance of Allah, recitation of the Qur’an, and so on—reach Allah, but righteous deeds cause them to rise. Mere words, mere Dhikr, or belief in Tawhid without righteous deeds are meaningless. They will not be accepted by Allah.

For this reason, although many virtues of Dhikr are mentioned in Hadith, the actual form by which it becomes remembrance of Allah, and the practical method of remembering Allah, have also been explained in clear language.

The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Arabic (*******)

-Whoever obeys Allah has remembered Allah, even if his voluntary prayers, fasting, and good works are very few.

That is, the correct practical form of remembering Allah is to obey Allah and carry out His commands and injunctions. When Allah’s commands are obeyed, Allah is automatically remembered, because it is impossible to obey Allah’s commands without keeping Allah in mind. Therefore, restricting Allah’s Dhikr to a particular form and to specified times and numbers is an innovation. In Tasawwuf, or pir-muridism, this innovation is the central occupation. Through ceremonies of this kind of Dhikr, pirs turn foolish people into sheep and announce it in the form of gifts and offerings. In fact, this type of Dhikr is practiced among Hindu ascetics and Vaishnavas. It would not be the slightest exaggeration to say that the pirs’ method was adopted from Hindu asceticism.

The Noble Qur’an has always raised its voice against asceticism. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) spent his entire life striving against it and removed people’s ascetic inclinations and tendencies. But Tasawwuf has strengthened this tendency. Among the leading figures of Tasawwuf today, a strongly negative attitude toward worldly enjoyment and social relationships can be observed. Yet this did not exist in Islam’s early period. Whenever such an attitude appeared among the Companions during the time of the Messenger, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) opposed it in severe terms. In the Qur’an and Hadith, special importance was placed on Divine Dhikr—the remembrance of Allah—in connection with Tazkiyah. But from Islam’s perspective, it was not the only means. Alongside Divine Dhikr, there were many other means and resources used by Muslims to attain Tazkiyat al-Nafs. At this point, Jihad fi Sabilillah deserves particular mention. In fact, Jihad is of the greatest importance for attaining Tazkiyat al-Nafs and acquiring such exalted qualities as patience, reliance upon Allah, surrender to Allah, and contentment with Allah’s arrangement. The Qur’an and Hadith have assigned it precisely this status. (In particular, see verses 152, 153, and 154 of Surah al-Baqarah and verses 22 and 23 of Surah al-Ahzab.) But the followers of Tasawwuf have abandoned Jihad, left the exhausting battlefield of Jihad, handed social and political authority over to wicked people, and remained occupied with Divine Dhikr and Muraqabah-Mushahadah in the safe refuge of the khanqah. They themselves accepted this activity as the sole means of Tazkiyat al-Nafs and invited others to do it as well. As a result, new methods and procedures of Dhikr were invented.

Entirely new terminology and novel methods and procedures of Muraqabah-Mushahadah were invented, of which there was no trace whatsoever during the time of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) and the Companions.

The Mujahadah of the followers of Tasawwuf is an intense and continuous struggle against the desires of the self. But it has not the slightest connection with fighting against the enemies of Allah. At this point, the followers of Tasawwuf present a Hadith as evidence. It is: Arabic (*********)

-We have returned from the minor Jihad to the greater Jihad. The people asked: What is the greater Jihad? He said: Jihad against the heart or the self.

This statement is propagated as the saying of the Messenger or as a Hadith. Relying upon it, the followers of Tasawwuf first regarded striving against one’s own self as better and as the greater Jihad than fighting or confronting the enemies of Din. Later, they made it their sole occupation. They completely abandoned Jihad against the enemies of Din, calling it worldly involvement or politics. But in reality, this is a massive deception. Regarding the statement above, the Hadith scholar and commentator on Sahih al-Bukhari, Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, said that it is not a Hadith. Rather, it is a very famous saying repeated from mouth to mouth. In fact, it was said by Ibrahim ibn Ablah, not by the Messenger.

The statement was indeed cited by Bayhaqi and Khatib al-Baghdadi, but its chain of transmission is extremely weak. Therefore, no ruling on such a major matter of Islam can be based on it. For this reason, the steadfastness, strength, firmness, and unwavering patience in fighting and struggling against the enemies of Allah, whose high status is declared in the Noble Qur’an, have no importance in the eyes of the followers of Tasawwuf. The same has happened with Tawakkul and other virtuous religious deeds.

How can the change introduced by the followers of Tasawwuf in the aims and ideals of life be lawful? This is a difficult question, and they have tried to answer it; but their answer is unacceptable and meaningless in light of the Qur’an and Sunnah. To establish the legitimacy of their own practice, they adopted the principle of Istikhbab and Ikhtiyar—’selection, discrimination, and acceptance.’ For example, from among the Companions who followed the Noble Prophet, they accepted only the Companions of the Suffah as their ideal, because they saw their overall ideal reflected in the lives of those Companions. They highlighted only those details of the lives of the other Companions that supported their own outlook. Hazrat Junayd was asked: What is Tasawwuf? He replied: The foundation of Tasawwuf rests on eight things. These eight things were distinctly manifested in the lives of eight prophets. They are: Ibrahim’s generosity, charity, and hospitality; Ismail’s striving to attain Allah’s pleasure and his submission; Yaqub’s patience; Zakariya’s gestures; Yahya’s being unknown; Isa’s traveling through the land; Musa’s wearing of the patched woolen cloak; and Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) poverty.

It can easily be understood that, from the vast array of virtues in each prophet’s great, comprehensive life, one single virtue has been separately adopted as an ‘ideal,’ although Allah and His Messenger did not grant permission for this. Allah the Exalted instructed us to take Muhammad (peace be upon him) as our ideal in his entirety and comprehensively—to embody all his qualities, not merely one of them.

He said:لَّقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ

-Indeed, in the person of the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent model to follow. (Al-Ahzab: 21)

And the Noble Messenger himself declared: Arabic (*******)

-None of you can be a believer until your mind and mentality become completely subject to the Din I have brought.

This means that one must accept not merely one statement or one principle of the Messenger, but the entire Din received from him—the complete ideal in its entirety.

The same principle has been followed regarding the Rightly Guided Caliphs. They give importance only to the asceticism, generosity, and devotional discipline reflected in their lives, while trying to forget their Jihadi activities and efforts. Yet their entire lives were spent fighting and struggling against false forces, organizing Islamic society and striving to establish the state, implementing and enforcing Shariah law in society, establishing justice, and crushing the heads of Allah’s enemies. But these great qualities have no importance in the eyes of today’s followers of Tasawwuf. As a result, Muslim society has today drifted along the current of asceticism, lost the distinctive qualities and vital strength of life and spirit, and become completely dispossessed.

A Hadith is also presented in support of the claim that the knowledge of Shariah and the knowledge of Ma’rifat are two separate things. The Hadith is quoted in Mishkat al-Sharif as follows: Arabic (******)

-It is narrated from Hasan al-Basri that he said: Knowledge is of two kinds. One is reflected within the heart, and this is the truly beneficial knowledge. The other is merely spoken from mouth to mouth, and that is Allah’s conclusive proof against people.

But this cannot serve as evidence for the matter under discussion. First, it is not the saying of the Messenger, nor the saying of any Companion. It is the statement of Hasan al-Basri, and he was only a Tabi’i.

Second, the knowledge mentioned here is not actually two distinct kinds of knowledge. It is two aspects of one knowledge—external and internal. One is not separate from the other. The knowledge called knowledge of the mouth is the knowledge of the Qur’an and Sunnah; it must be learned by reading and studying. The effect of this study upon the heart is what is called ‘Ilm fi al-Qalb’—knowledge of the heart. Thus there is no duality between the two, and they cannot be acquired through separate methods; rather, both must be learned from the same Qur’an and Hadith. When a lamp is lit, one thing is the fire and the other is the light and heat of that same fire. Can the heat of the light be separated from the fire? It is the same here. Abu Talib al-Makki said in explaining the statement above:

-Both are fundamental forms of knowledge. One cannot exist without the other, just as faith and Islam are inseparable. These two are deeply intertwined, exactly like body and soul. One cannot be separated from the other.

Neither ‘Ilm al-Batin’ nor anything called ‘Batinī knowledge’ is recognized in Islam. Although another hadith, called ‘Musalsal,’ is cited to prove the existence of this knowledge.

It is as follows: It is narrated from Hasan al-Basri (may Allah be pleased with him), who narrated from Hazrat Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him): Hazrat Hudhayfah said: I asked the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), “What is Ilm al-Batin?” The Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “When I asked Jibril about it, he said: Allah has said, ‘Ilm al-Batin is a special matter between Me and My beloved friends, My awliya and My sincere devotees. I entrust it within their hearts; neither any angel near Me nor any prophet or messenger can know it.’”

But alas! This is not a hadith at all. Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, the author of Fath al-Bari, was unwilling to accept it as a hadith.

He said: This statement was fabricated; it is not the saying of the Messenger (peace be upon him). Hasan al-Basri did not meet Hazrat Hudhayfah. He had no opportunity whatsoever to narrate a hadith from him.

Therefore, what has been said here—that Hasan al-Basri narrated this hadith from Hazrat Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him)—is completely false. This clearly shows that long after the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) and the golden age of Islam that followed, these false statements were extensively fabricated and circulated as hadiths under the name of ‘Ilm al-Batin’ to promote the pir-muridī business. In reality, this is the creed of the Batinī sect. They divided the Shariah into two parts, batinī and zahirī. The Batinī sect is not counted among Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah. It is a false sect. They did not accept prophethood or the Shariah. They considered everything forbidden to be lawful.

In fact, this marifat, detached from the Qur’an and Sunnah, turns people away from Islam’s monotheistic faith and plunges them into the great mire of Vedantic shirk. This is precisely what has happened in the lives of many present-day devotees of pirs and so-called followers of tasawwuf. Therefore, this tasawwuf has no place in Islam.

Pir taking is it obligatory?

Going further, a kind of half-learned alim began claiming that taking a pir is obligatory. For this, they present as evidence the Qur’anic verse concerning wasilah. They say, “Allah Himself has commanded the seeking of wasilah in the Noble Qur’an—and that wasilah is the pir. Therefore, it is proven that taking a pir is obligatory.” Yet earlier we gave a detailed explanation of this verse about wasilah. Citing nearly ten or twelve early and authoritative tafsirs, we showed that what Allah Most High commanded people to seek by “wasilah” never means a “pir”; taking a pir does not fulfill the command to seek that wasilah. Moreover, citing famous and reliable Arabic dictionaries, we showed that no one has given “pir” as the meaning of the word “wasilah.” Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (may Allah have mercy on him) was the widely respected great scholar of tasawwuf of this age. Yet he too did not give “pir” as the meaning of wasilah; rather, he translated it as “nearness.” Therefore, it is essential to consult his translation of the Qur’an. Indeed, he said that only ignorant people are trying to prove from this verse that taking a pir is obligatory, and no one else.

Another proof they offer is this Qur’anic verse:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَكُونُوا مَعَ الصَّادِقِينَ [٩:١١٩]

—O believers, fear Allah and be with the truthful. (At-Tawbah 9:119).

By presenting this verse, devotees of pirs want to claim that “the truthful” refers specifically to them and that people have been commanded to become their murids and seek their companionship. Yet no one in the world—and none of the commentators from the earliest period to the present—has understood, or could understand, from this verse a command to become a murid of a pir. If anyone wishes to understand it that way, it is using the Qur’an according to one’s own whim, using it arbitrarily to support one’s own position. This is a grave offense—so grave that even manifest kufr cannot be its equal.

Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote in explaining this verse: “The truthful” means those people who have proved truthful in their faith and in fulfilling their pledge of obedience made to Allah and His Messenger.

It can also be used in a general sense. In that case, it means people who have proved truthful in every respect—through their intention, speech, and deeds—in observing the religion.

Allamah Ibn Kathir wrote in the tafsir of this verse: Be truthful and adhere to the truth; then you will become bearers of the truth and be saved from destruction. This will bring ease to your conduct.

According to Allamah Alusi, it may specifically refer also to those who had separated from the Muslim army and confined themselves in an elevated place.

Thus, the meaning of the entire verse would be: Just as those three spoke the truth, with truthfulness and sincere intention, you too should be like them. (Imam al-Mufassirin Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Ansari al-Qurtubi gave a detailed explanation of this verse in his renowned tafsir, but did not mention that it signifies taking a pir or commands people to associate with a pir.)

The correct explanation of the word “sadiqin” is found in another verse of the Noble Qur’an. The verse is this:

Arabic(**********)

For the poor emigrants who were expelled from their homes and deprived of their wealth, seeking bounty and approval from Allah, and helping Allah and His Messenger—these are truly the truthful.

Here, the identity of the “sadiqin,” or truthful people, is described: because of the religion of Islam, they were expelled from their homes and deprived of their wealth; they constantly seek Allah’s bounty and approval and, for that purpose, constantly seek the help of Allah and His Messenger in establishing the religion. This is not the description of any pir.

I believe that people of this rank are what may be meant by the word “sadiqin.” Nafi‘ said that this refers to the three men who separated from the mujahidin during the Battle of Tabuk. Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions may also be meant by it. Sa‘id ibn Jubayr said that “sadiqin” in this verse refers to Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq and Hazrat Umar Faruq (may Allah be pleased with them). The question, then, is on what evidence it is claimed that sadiqin means pirs and that this verse commands people to take a pir.

Pir muridism regarding Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani’s statement

On this subject, we would most like to hear from Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi, and learn his opinion. For although in the Indian subcontinent he was, on the one hand, a founder of tasawwuf or the knowledge of marifat, on the other hand, in the face of the Akbari fitnah of “Din-i Ilahi” and the flood of hostility toward Islam, he revived the true religion of Islam. Therefore, his opinion concerning tasawwuf is far more important than that of you, me, or anyone else. Presenting his opinion is also especially important because the pirs of this country generally claim him as the originator of all pirs.

Regarding the levels of Shariah and marifat, he wrote in his Maktubat:

On the Day of Judgment, people will be questioned about the Shariah; they will not be questioned about tasawwuf. Entering Paradise and being saved from Hell depend on observing the rulings of the Shariah. The prophets and messengers—who are the best among all creation—called people to accept the Shariah and declared that the Shariah alone is the means of salvation in the Hereafter. The purpose of these great men’s coming into the world was to preach and establish the Shariah. The greatest righteous deed is to put the Shariah into practice, and to revive even one ruling of the Shariah, especially at a time when the symbols of Islam have been destroyed. Spending millions upon millions in the path of Allah cannot equal the reward of putting even one matter of the Shariah into practice.

Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani (may Allah have mercy on him) gave a detailed and clear answer to another question at this point. The commonly held view propagated by ignorant pirs and their murids is that the Shariah is the outer skin of the religion, while the real kernel is tariqah or marifat. Saying this, they call those who are scholars of the Shariah but have no regard for tariqah, marifat, and such matters, and who consider the Shariah sufficient, “fasiq” and “innovators,” criticize them, and keep publicizing their faults. In response, listen to the devastating reply of Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani—who is also the true source of marifat in this land.

He said: The Shariah has three parts: ilm (knowledge of the Shariah), amal (acting according to the Shariah), and ikhlas (sincerity). Tariqah and haqiqah are both merely servants of the Shariah, as the third part of the Shariah and as complements to Islam. This is the real point, but not everyone is capable of understanding it. Most people who call themselves scholars are absorbed in pleasant dreams of imagination and consider it sufficient to engage in useless, meaningless talk. What do these people know or understand about observing the Shariah? How could they understand the reality of tariqah? They have come to regard the Shariah as the skin or exterior, while considering haqiqah the core, kernel, and essence. They do not understand the real matter at all. They remain absorbed in the empty, meaningless talk of Sufis and pirs, and wander crazily among the ahwal and maqamat of marifat. I pray that Allah Most High guide these people to the right path.

Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani (may Allah have mercy on him) called those who regard the Shariah and marifat as two separate things and immerse themselves in the meaningless, unnecessary talk of tariqah ignorant and misguided people. At least among the scholars of the Shariah, there is no disagreement that this statement of Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani is completely true and entirely accurate. In fact, disagreement between the scholars of the Shariah and ignorant pirs and their blind murids has existed from the beginning. The scholars of the Shariah have never supported the division between the Islamic Shariah and tariqah; they have always opposed it and declared it a grave innovation imported from outside the religion of Islam. But today, for their worldly interests and to remain distant from the demanding work of observing and establishing the Shariah while acting out an easy and cheap imitation of the Sunnah within the four walls of the khanqah, ignorant pirs have introduced a new thing called “tariqah,” detached from the Shariah. In such a situation, whose word should be accepted as credible—the scholars’ or the Sufis’ and pirs’? Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani (may Allah have mercy on him) answered this. He said: It should be known that whenever Sufis, pirs, and scholars of the Shariah disagree on an issue, careful thought and study will show that the scholars’ view is the truth. This is because, by following the prophets and messengers, the scholars attained a deep understanding of the greatness of prophethood and the knowledge derived from it. The vision of the Sufi pirs, however, has remained confined to the sayings and speculative doctrines of sainthood.

The greatest capital of the business of turning people into the pirs’ murids is the claim of kashf and ilham. When pirs say, “I have experienced kashf—I learned this through ilham,” ignorant murids, overcome with devotion, begin kissing their feet. But these foolish pirs lack the ability to understand that such things are used to run the pir-muridī business. Ilham may occur, and kashf may also occur, through Allah’s grace. If someone receives it, they should thank Allah without telling other people about it. But ignorant pirs have no regard for the Shariah. Invoking ilham, they determine what is permissible and impermissible, lawful and unlawful, obligatory and necessary. Blind murids accept this submissively, without even thinking of consulting the rulings of the Shariah. On this subject, the words of Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani alone can guide us with certainty. He said:

Qiyas and ijtihad are among the fundamental principles of the Shariah. We have been commanded to follow them. But we have not been commanded to accept kashf and ilham. Moreover, ilham is not proof against another person. Ijtihad is proof for a muqallid, who is obliged to follow it. Therefore, one should follow the mujtahid scholars and seek the principles of the religion on the basis of their views. Whatever the Sufis say or claim contrary to the views of the mujtahid scholars should by no means be followed.

The saddest matter is that pirs and ignorant people are generally ignorant themselves, and want to keep their murids ignorant as well; they never guide them to acquire knowledge about the religion of Islam, the Islamic Shariah, the Qur’an, or hadith. The pir qiblah will tell the murid to practice muraqabah, remember Allah, and recite a thousand times a “fabricated litany of durood sharif”; but he will never tell him to recite the Noble Qur’an, the word of Allah and the primary source of the religion of Islam, understand its translation and tafsir, and become deeply acquainted with Allah’s words. In fact, this is astonishing. But Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani (may Allah have mercy on him) said plainly:

The most important advice is this: Do not fall short in studying and reading the Noble Qur’an. If all your time is spent on this study, that is good. Do not pursue zikr and muraqabah.

When, during the anti-Islamic rule of the Mughals, Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani began preaching the religion of Islam and opposing falsehood, the false pirs became one of the principal obstacles to his work. He clearly understood then that the religion of Islam could not be properly preached and established unless these false pirs were removed and tasawwuf reformed. For this reason, he also extensively reformed tasawwuf and freed it from false ideas and practices.

The real truth is that pirism is not an Islamic thing at all. It did not arise in the luminous environment of Islam. It emerged during the age of Islam’s decline. Of course, many Islamic thinkers also tried to lead people toward the religion of Islam through the knowledge of tasawwuf; but the fundamental defects of pirism remained, and they produced a poisonous tree. It has now grown into a huge tree, profoundly misleading the people and poisoning their beliefs and practices. To establish the original Sunnah of the religion of Islam, uprooting this false pirist order remains essential today, just as it was essential during the life of Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani.

Pirism or bay‘at acceptance practice

In present-day pir-muridī, making a murid give bay‘ah, accepting bay‘ah from a murid, and giving bay‘ah to a pir on behalf of the murid are fundamental practices. In reality, giving bay‘ah is an act in accordance with the Sunnah; but the bay‘ah of pir-muridī is entirely an innovation, just as pir-muridī itself is an innovation.

“Bay‘ah” is an Arabic word. Literally, it means buying or selling. When this word is mentioned, two parties come to mind. One party gives bay‘ah and the other accepts bay‘ah. One is the seller and the other the buyer. This matter of buying and selling is extremely serious. We must learn in detail what place it has in Islam, what its true nature is, and what the Sunnah method is in this regard.

In explaining the word “bay‘ah,” Imam Raghib al-Isfahani wrote:

When someone acknowledges the authority of a sovereign and recognizes that he will obey him, this act is called giving bay‘ah or mutually accepting bay‘ah. Thus it is said that he gave bay‘ah to that sovereign, or that two people mutually gave bay‘ah.

In the Noble Qur’an, Allah Most High mentions in several places the Companions giving bay‘ah to the Messenger (peace be upon him). Initially, those who first believed and accepted Islam would give bay‘ah to the Messenger, and the Messenger would accept their bay‘ah. Regarding the bay‘ah taken at Hudaybiyyah, the verse in Surah al-Fath says:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُبَايِعُونَكَ إِنَّمَا يُبَايِعُونَ اللَّهَ يَدُ اللَّهِ فَوْقَ أَيْدِيهِمْ ۚ فَمَن نَّكَثَ فَإِنَّمَا يَنكُثُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ ۖ وَمَنْ أَوْفَىٰ بِمَا عَاهَدَ عَلَيْهُ اللَّهَ فَسَيُؤْتِيهِ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا [٤٨:١٠]

O Prophet, those who pledge allegiance to you in fact pledge allegiance to Allah. Allah’s hand is over their hands. Then whoever breaks this pledge, the harm of breaking it will fall upon himself. And whoever fulfills what he has promised Allah, He will surely grant him a tremendous reward.

This verse clearly shows that bay‘ah is a fundamental matter of the Islamic way of life. But that bay‘ah, conducted through the Messenger, is in fact with Allah Himself. It is the pledge to accept Allah’s servitude sincerely and completely; the pledge to obey Allah and His Messenger; the pledge to sacrifice oneself in Allah’s path for the establishment of His religion; and the pledge to participate in jihad.

This is bay‘ah at the general level. Another bay‘ah at this level is mentioned, which the Noble Messenger accepted from believing women.

It is stated in Surah al-Mumtahanah:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ إِذَا جَاءَكَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتُ يُبَايِعْنَكَ عَلَىٰ أَن لَّا يُشْرِكْنَ بِاللَّهِ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَسْرِقْنَ وَلَا يَزْنِينَ وَلَا يَقْتُلْنَ أَوْلَادَهُنَّ وَلَا يَأْتِينَ بِبُهْتَانٍ يَفْتَرِينَهُ بَيْنَ أَيْدِيهِنَّ وَأَرْجُلِهِنَّ وَلَا يَعْصِينَكَ فِي مَعْرُوفٍ ۙ فَبَايِعْهُنَّ وَاسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُنَّ اللَّهَ ۖ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ [٦٠:١٢]

O Prophet, if believing women come to you and pledge allegiance on the condition that they will not associate anything with Allah, will not steal, will not commit fornication and adultery, will not kill their children, will not falsely attribute any baseless act to anyone openly, and will not disobey you in what is recognized as good, then accept their pledge and pray to Allah for their forgiveness. Surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. (al-Mumtahanah: 12)

This verse clearly states the matters regarding which the Noble Prophet accepted bay‘ah from Muslim women. It is plainly evident that these matters are fundamental to Islamic faith and practice, and that the bay‘ah was taken as a pledge not to commit major sins. Therefore, according to the Sunnah, bay‘ah is only that which is made or accepted concerning these and similar fundamental matters. In short, the bay‘ah made or accepted by pledging to observe all the commands and injunctions of Islam fully and to refrain from every act contrary to the Shariah is bay‘ah according to the Sunnah. Only accepting such bay‘ah can be Sunnah; no other form of bay‘ah can be so.

Second, the Noble Prophet accepted bay‘ah from Muslims according to particular circumstances and needs. The Bay‘at al-Ridwan was a bay‘ah of this kind. Regarding it, the Qur’an states:

لَّقَدْ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِذْ يُبَايِعُونَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ فَعَلِمَ مَا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ فَأَنزَلَ السَّكِينَةَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَثَابَهُمْ فَتْحًا قَرِيبًا [٤٨:١٨]

Those believers who pledged allegiance to you, O Prophet, beneath the tree—Allah was pleased with them. He knew well what was in their hearts, sent profound tranquility down upon them, and honored them with a near victory. (al-Fath: 18)

It is established from hadith that the Noble Prophet called all the Companions to make such a pledge. Concerning this bay‘ah, the people of that time used to say: The Noble Prophet accepted from the people a pledge to accept death.

And Hazrat Jabir ibn Abdullah said:

The Noble Prophet did not accept bay‘ah specifically to accept death. Rather, we pledged that none of us would flee from the battlefield. Thus the people pledged allegiance, and among those present, no one fled except Jadd ibn Qays, the chief of the Banu Salimah tribe. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 4).

It has become clear from this discussion how difficult the moment was when the Bay‘at al-Ridwan took place and what a grave matter it concerned. Similarly, the Noble Prophet also accepted bay‘ah in connection with jihad.

Hazrat Anas ibn Malik (RA) said: The Ansar used to say, “On the day of the Trench, we pledged allegiance to the Prophet for jihad, for as long as we lived.”

Other hadith also establish that the Noble Prophet generally accepted a pledge of obedience, and the people made it. Hazrat Abdullah ibn Umar (RA) said: Arabic (********)

We used to pledge allegiance to the Noble Messenger to listen and obey (to show obedience). The Messenger accepted that pledge. However, in this bay‘ah the Noble Prophet imposed on us the condition, “as far as our ability permits.”

This was the meaning and practice of bay‘ah during the time of the Messenger (SAW). Later, bay‘ah was also practiced during the era of the Companions. But it was only for pledging or promising allegiance to the caliph in matters of state. For example, after the death of the Noble Prophet (SAW), Hazrat Umar al-Faruq (RA) was the first to pledge allegiance to Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) at the assembly for electing the caliph.

It is stated in a hadith concerning this: Arabic (*********)

Hazrat Umar said to Abu Bakr: “No, we will pledge allegiance to you; you are our leader, the best among us, and the person most beloved by the Noble Prophet among us.” Then Umar al-Faruq (RA) took his hand and pledged allegiance, and all those present did so as well.

This incident proves that making and accepting bay‘ah has continued as a Sunnah in Muslim society. Even after the Noble Prophet (SAW), that bay‘ah was either for joining jihad or for expressing allegiance to the state.

But in the context of pir-muridism, where did this currently prevalent silsilah of taking bay‘ah at the hands of a faqir-hakir in the Chishtiyyah, Naqshbandiyyah-Mujaddidiyyah, and Muhammadiyyah paths come from? What relationship does this bay‘ah have with the bay‘ah of the Noble Prophet (SAW) and the Companions—where is the resemblance? In reality, this is like using a good deed for an evil purpose and in an evil context. The act is good, but it is being used for a bad purpose. For this reason, in pir-muridism, making bay‘ah hand-to-hand, or while holding a turban, or by pressing body against the person holding the turban, and making bay‘ah in various ways for the practice of muraqabah is entirely bid‘ah. An even greater bid‘ah is becoming absorbed, instead of in the Qur’an, in reciting a fabricated book containing invented salutations, called Dala’il al-Khayrat, belonging to the murid and the pir. It seems as though reciting it is absolutely obligatory. But in the Shariah, considering the recitation of anything other than the Qur’an a highly meritorious act, and considering any human-authored book more important than the Qur’an, is plainly a major bid‘ah.

Not only that, the lexical meaning of the word bay‘ah is “to sell.” Whoever has recited and believed in ‘La ilaha illallah’ has already sold himself to Allah; by what right can he sell himself anew to a pir?

Allah has declared:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ اشْتَرَىٰ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُم بِأَنَّ لَهُمُ الْجَنَّةَ

Surely Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their wealth in exchange for Paradise. (al-Tawbah: 111)

(According to this verse, the buyer is Allah Himself, and the seller is the believing person. The items sold are the believer’s own self and the price is the promise of granting Paradise. This sale is duly completed whenever a person consciously recites: La ilaha illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah.)

Therefore, after selling one’s life and property to Allah, if one sells them again (makes bay‘ah) at the hands of a pir, it is an unauthorized act and manifest shirk.

(Moreover, the purpose of making bay‘ah to Allah and the Messenger—namely, striving in jihad for the religion—is clearly stated in the words that follow in the verse. In contrast, the purpose of making bay‘ah to pirs is to close one’s eyes and practice muraqabah and mushahadah, perform dhikr, and fly about in the world of imagination. There is a world-and-sky difference between these forms of bay‘ah.)

Nevertheless, it is not authoritatively established that Sayyid Ahmad Shahid practiced pir-muridism. Rather, these words are authoritatively quoted in his reliable biographical work.

When he returned to Bareilly after receiving oral instruction in the Qur’an and hadith from Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlawi, the capable son of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi, who lived in Delhi and was proficient in the Qur’an, hadith, and all the subtle sciences of his contemporary age, he did not reside in his own home but stayed in a mosque and began admonishing the people on the basis of the Qur’an and hadith. A great multitude then pledged allegiance at his hands, expressed intense eagerness to become his murids, and tried to compel him to accept them. He explicitly refused to make them murids and said: “For Muslims, it is sufficient to be murids of Allah and His Messenger. Do not lie, do not deceive, and do not harm others for your own interests—this is my advice to you. Even if you become someone’s murid and continue doing these things, that muridship will benefit you nothing. But if, with a good intention, you remain steadfast in these good deeds, you will have no need to become anyone’s murid. Then you yourselves will be your own pirs and will make your rebellious nafs your murid. Take bay‘ah from your nafs so that it never follows satanic whisperings. This is a sufficient way to attain salvation in the Hereafter.”

Indeed, the resemblance between the basic underlying spirit of the Noble Prophet’s acceptance of bay‘ah and the foregoing words of Sayyid Ahmad Shahid can easily be understood. By nature, he did not like pir-muridism. He strongly disliked people sitting with bowed heads before him, showing him reverence, and expressing devotion and respect toward him. Therefore, rejecting all this, he joined the army and went far away. It is undeniable that in later life he accepted bay‘ah for jihad.

Becoming the Successor to the Seat Becoming the Successor to the Seat Bid‘ah

At this point another major question is whether, in pir-muridism, this practice of becoming a “seat-successor pir” has any basis in Islamic Shariah. Somehow, if a man once becomes known as a pir, his eldest son must immediately become his successor to the seat. But what is the pir’s seat, upon which the great gentleman becomes “seated”? Is a pir a zamindar, so that after his death his eldest son will take his place as zamindar? Is pir-muridism a matter of king and subjects—the pir being king and the murids his subjects, with his eldest son immediately ascending the throne after the king disappears? Or is a pir a great shopkeeper, whose eldest son will become owner of his shopkeeper’s seat after he dies? …Which of these is it? Whichever it may be, it is clear that none of them has the slightest connection with Islam. Islam has no zamindari or kingship; nor is there room here for conducting a shopkeeping business in the name of religion.

Not only that, when someone becomes known as a pir, his sons immediately begin to be called “Shah.” “Shah” means king. Calling the pir’s son “Shah” or “king” may imply that the pir himself is a king, while his sons are petty kings—princes. As soon as the old king departs, the eldest of his sons immediately becomes the pir’s seat-successor, and his sons immediately begin to receive the title Shah as before. This eternal rule has continued from time immemorial, and no exception has ever been seen in any case.

It can clearly be understood from this that the pir-murid tradition itself is a tradition of jahiliyyah. At the very least, it is clear that it became prevalent in an age when an intense system of kingship was established in society and the state. The influence of this all-encompassing system in social and political affairs became so powerful even in the purely religious sphere that religious leadership too was regarded as a similar kingship. Following the principle of kingship that “the king’s son becomes king,” the notion that “the pir’s son also becomes a pir” was likewise firmly established.

A king’s son is called a shahzada—an accurate usage in its literal sense (called “Prince” in English); the pir’s son also began to be called Shah, but in an artificial sense. For the pir is not actually a king, nor is his son a prince. The amusing point here is that the pir’s sons are everything: they alone are called Shah, and the eldest among them becomes the seat-successor. But the poor daughters have no rights recognized, nor are any rights recognized for the daughters’ children. Everything proceeds through the continuous succession: the pir’s son becomes a pir, and his son becomes a pir. This line never extends toward the pir’s daughters. The royal system is exactly the same. There, the only right to the seat—that is, the royal throne—belongs to the sons, not all the sons, but only the eldest son and his descendants. In the royal system among Muslims, it is sometimes seen that when the eldest son becomes king, a younger brother or someone else becomes ‘Wali Ahmad.’ This means that after this king, it will not be his son but his brother who becomes the seat-successor. But in pir-muridism, this royal system has become so distorted that here the eldest son is everything. Once the eldest son becomes the seat-successor, he alone is the supreme authority. He does not merely seize his father’s seat; all his father’s murids automatically become his murids, just as the subjects of a zamindar or king automatically become subjects of his son as well. And if there is any wealth or property, this great gentleman who becomes the seat-successor becomes its sole possessor and beneficiary. If there are younger brothers, they become utterly helpless, neglected, deprived, and expelled from their father’s vast circle of murids.

But the question is, are these religious matters? This may be the principle of Brahmanism. There, the eldest son of a Brahmin must become a Brahmin, and he automatically receives his father’s yajmans. Until then they were the old Brahmin’s yajmans; now they will be the yajmans of this Brahmin’s son—the Brahmin. Has this Brahmanical practice, then, been introduced letter for letter into Muslim society as well?

No one can have the slightest doubt that this practice has no connection whatsoever with Islam. This practice is not Islamic in the least. There is no provision in Islam for becoming a seat-successor, nor is there any opportunity to become a Shah. A system in which one person devours everything by depriving younger brothers and sisters of their rights cannot possibly be supported by Islam.

We received Islam from Hazrat Muhammad (SAW). He did not present Islam merely through verbal admonition; through his actual life, he implemented Islam’s complete ideal and reflected it in society. As a result of twenty-three years of striving and struggle, he established a great state. But after his death, the line of prophethood did not continue in his family, nor did anyone become a seat-successor prophet. Nor was authority in the state he established assigned to members of his family. Rather, the Muslims freely chose from among themselves, according to Islamic law, the person most conscious of Allah as caliph. That caliph was neither his beloved daughter Fatimah, nor his son-in-law, nor his dearly loved grandsons. The line of prophethood did not continue in his family either. Likewise, none of his honored sons-in-law became the caliph after the Messenger on this basis. If any of them became caliph later, it was not because he was the Messenger’s son-in-law; he became so because of the distinctive moral standing and qualifications he possessed in the society of that time. This is the Islamic system. Here hereditary succession is entirely invalid. If this pir-muridism has indeed come from the Noble Messenger (SAW), as is claimed, then where did this practice of becoming a seat-successor and a “Shah” come from? There is no trace of it in the Messenger’s life or in the society he established. Even in the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, there was no practice of a caliph’s son becoming caliph. Rather, they all opposed hereditary succession. No caliph’s son became caliph—not Abu Bakr’s, not Umar al-Faruq’s, not Uthman Dhu al-Nurayn’s, and not Ali Haydar’s (RA). It is therefore proven that this practice was not received from the Messenger (SAW). Hence it is not Sunnah; it is clearly bid‘ah. Yet, astonishingly, those who obtain the seat through this bid‘ah-based practice present themselves in society as the greatest followers and bearers of the Sunnah. In his view, supposedly no one but he is on the right path. Yet becoming a seat-successor through a completely bid‘ah-based system, presenting oneself as Ahl al-Sunnah, and claiming to be the greatest follower of the Sunnah is bid‘ah—nothing but the shameless audacity of bid‘ah.

This is not the end of the matter. Even if this seat succession were based on public opinion and suitability, some example of it might perhaps be found among the pious predecessors. But here there is no place for public opinion and no consideration of competence or incompetence. Simply being the eldest son is the strongest proof of entitlement to the seat. As a result, this seat succession has become a disgraceful form of Brahmanism. After the pir’s death, no consideration is given to which among his khalifah-murids is truly the most God-fearing and most qualified to become the next pir; nor is there any sign of a tendency, in accordance with the Sunnah, to make the most God-fearing and qualified person the seat-successor. Such a person is not even sought out from among them. It is permanently assumed here—the pir himself knows it, the murids know it, and ordinary people know it—that the respected master’s eldest son will become the next pir and seat-successor. Whether that son knows anything of education or not, however bad his moral character may be, and however foolish he may be in knowledge and intelligence, he will be the next pir. Even if someone else at that court is as qualified as the deceased pir, no place will be given to him there. Not only that, even a qualified and more God-fearing person must become the murid of that unqualified, non-‘alim—that is, ignorant, immoral, and foolish—seat-successor pir. Otherwise he will have no place at that court and will have to be expelled from it immediately.

This has surpassed even all the methods of jahiliyyah, such as the so-called zamindari system, monarchy, and Brahmanism. Can it have even the remotest connection with Islam’s Sunnah?

It cannot have any connection whatsoever. Not only that, this pir and his murids—the supporters of this pir—along with all those who give gifts, offerings, and money, are, according to the declaration of the Messenger (SAW), all accursed by Allah. The third of the four statements of the Noble Messenger (SAW) in a hadith narrated by Hazrat Ali (RA) is: Arabic (*******)

Allah Most High has cursed the person who gives refuge to, honors, or provides help and support to an innovator or one who follows bid‘ah.

My Final Word Concerning Pir-Muridism: My Final Word

If the respected reader observes everything I have written above concerning pir-muridism, he will acknowledge that I have not written anything based on my own invention. Just as I have written it on the basis of evidence from the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the statements of universally respected scholars, I also have my own practical experience in this matter.

But that experience is not confined merely to deviant pirs or to the innovation of the pir–murid relationship. I have also had the opposite experience: even after the death of the founder of a silsilah and pir and after someone succeeded him as the seat-holder, there have been some who pulled the pir–murid relationship out of the superstitious darkness of innovation and mere commercialism, and actually established the proper relationship of master and disciple, teacher and student. They reconstructed the practice of ma’rifah on the basis of the Shariah. Taking the Shariah as its foundation, they undertook the teaching of ma’rifah and, establishing a connection between this entire activity and jihad, are advancing toward the objective of a religious revolution. Seeing this filled my heart with joy and kindled hope in my mind that perhaps the religion revealed by Allah and preached and established by the Final Prophet and Messenger, Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), would be established here. In reality, the efforts to establish the religion that began in the early period after the end of the Rightly Guided Caliphate combined a religion-based, revolutionary spirit of ma’rifah and jihad; today’s commercialized, innovation-based pir–murid system is its remnant. To radically change the present situation and once again establish the integration of religion and Shariah, ma’rifah and jihad, for establishing the religion through that genuine, idealism-based, master–disciple public organization is the only way to save today’s dying Muslim society and brighten the future of the religion. Politics without religion, religion without politics—and, in addition, the dry theorization of religion—are major obstacles in the way of establishing the religion. It is essential to reconstruct the pir–murid system through jihad-oriented activity, reviving the sound theory of Islam with the believing emotion of the heart.

Vowing Makes Shirk of Innovation

Islam allows one to make a vow to perform an act or give something for a particular purpose. In Arabic, this vow is called nadhr. Imam Raghib wrote that the meaning of “nadhr” is:

A vow is to undertake and make obligatory upon oneself an act that is not actually obligatory upon one, in order for something to happen. For example, one may say: “I have vowed to Allah to perform this act.”

Ibn al-Arabi wrote in defining a vow:

To impose upon oneself, by one’s own words, the obligation to perform an act that is exclusively an act of obedience to Allah and through which closeness to Allah may be attained.

Tafsir Abu al-Sa’ud states:

A vow is to bind the mind to perform an act and complete it as an obligation.

Allamah Badr al-Din al-Ayni wrote:

The scholars of our school have said: A vow means making an act of worship or charitable giving additionally permissible for oneself. The making of vows is mentioned in several places in the Noble Qur’an. It is said in verse 270 of Surah al-Baqarah:

وَمَا أَنفَقْتُم مِّن نَّفَقَةٍ أَوْ نَذَرْتُم مِّن نَّذْرٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُهُ ۗ وَمَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ مِنْ أَنصَارٍ                              [٢:٢٧٠]

Whatever you spend or vow, Allah knows it all. And the wrongdoers will have no helpers. (Al-Baqarah: 270).

Tafsir Mazhari explains this verse as follows: A vow is that you make an act obligatory upon yourself, intending to perform it for Allah, whether conditionally or unconditionally.

This verse and the cited explanations clearly show that a vow must be made solely for Allah. According to the Qur’an, only a vow made solely for Allah is permissible; a vow that is not purely for Allah is in no way supported by the Qur’an. An example of the kind of vow supported by the Qur’an is the vow of the wife of Imran.

It is said in verse 35 of Surah Al Imran:

إِذْ قَالَتِ امْرَأَتُ عِمْرَانَ رَبِّ إِنِّي نَذَرْتُ لَكَ مَا فِي بَطْنِي مُحَرَّرًا فَتَقَبَّلْ مِنِّي ۖ

The wife of Imran said: “O Allah! I have vowed to You exclusively the child in my womb, dedicating him to Your service and freeing him from worldly occupations. So accept this vow of mine. (Al Imran: 35).

The vow of the wife of Imran was exclusively for Allah. It sought no worldly benefit and associated no one with Allah. This verse clearly guides us that a vow must be made only for Allah. The wife of Imran’s words, “I have vowed for You alone,” state this clearly. Another example is verse 26 of Surah Maryam. Allah Most High Himself addressed Maryam, saying:

فَقُولِي إِنِّي نَذَرْتُ لِلرَّحْمَٰنِ صَوْمًا

“So say: I have vowed a fast for the sake of Allah.” (Maryam: 26)

Through this verse, Allah Himself taught that a vow must be made only for Allah, not for anyone else or for any other purpose.

At this point, two more excerpts from the Qur’an may be cited. One is: “Let them fulfill their vows.”

And praising the Companions of the Messenger, the Qur’an says: “They fulfill their vows.”

There are also many other verses in the Qur’an commanding the fulfillment of covenants and promises made with Allah. Since a vow is a particular kind of promise made with Allah, it must therefore be fulfilled.

From the perspective of the Qur’an, Hadith, and fiqh, the basic condition for making a vow is that it must be made exclusively for Allah and to seek Allah’s pleasure. A vow not made to seek Allah’s pleasure is not a vow at all. Fulfilling it is not obligatory. Moreover, the vow must concern an act of obedience to Allah, not an act of disobedience to Him.

This is clearly stated in the Hadith. It is quoted in the book of Abu Dawud—Hazrat Ibn Amr narrated: I heard the Messenger (peace be upon him) say: Arabic (*********)

A vow by which Allah’s pleasure is not sought is not a vow at all.

Or it may be translated as: “A vow is only that through which Allah’s pleasure is sought.”

Imam Ahmad in the Musnad and al-Tabarani narrated:

The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was addressing the people on an extremely hot day. At that time, he saw a man—probably a desert Arab—standing in the scorching sun. He asked him: “What is the matter? Why do I see you standing in the sun?” The man replied: “I have vowed to stand in the sun until your address ends.” Then the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Arabic (******)

Sit down; this is not a vow. A vow is only that by which the pleasure of Allah is intended.

Many Hadiths to this effect have been narrated. All of them prove that the fundamental aim and purpose of a vow must be solely to seek Allah’s pleasure—not to gain any material benefit for oneself, nor to seek the pleasure of anyone besides Allah. A vow that is not such a vow is no vow at all, and it is not obligatory to fulfill it.

It is not enough for a vow merely to be intended to seek Allah’s pleasure; it must concern an act that is intrinsically an act of obedience to Allah. Even if one vows to perform an act that is not an act of obedience to Allah, it is not considered a vow, and fulfilling it is not obligatory. There is abundant evidence for this in the Hadith. A Hadith narrated by Hazrat Imran ibn Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) states that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

Vows are of two kinds. A vow concerning an act of obedience to Allah is for Allah, and it must therefore be fulfilled. A vow involving an act of disobedience to Allah is for Satan. There is no responsibility to fulfill it, nor is it required.

Sahih al-Bukhari mentions certain Hadiths that clearly prove that Islam has given no encouragement whatsoever to making vows. Among uneducated people there is an illness of making vows at every turn, and because they do not know the Islamic method of making vows, people fall into various forms of shirk in this matter. The Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) gave it no encouragement whatsoever and declared it a completely meaningless act. Hazrat Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

Why do you not prohibit people from making vows, when the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A vow neither brings anything forward nor postpones anything. It merely causes some of a miser’s wealth to be spent.

Hazrat Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A vow gives the human being no benefit whatsoever. It only brings about what has already been written in his destiny. Rather, a vow merely leads a person toward his destiny. Then Allah causes something to be spent from the hand of the miser, so that he gives Me (Allah) something he had never given before.

The Hadith of Hazrat Abdullah ibn Umar narrated in Sahih Muslim contains an explicit statement from the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) prohibiting the making of vows.

It has been stated: Arabic (******)

One day the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade us from making vows. He said that a vow can turn nothing away; it merely causes some of a miser’s money to be spent.

Another Hadith explicitly states: The Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) prohibited making vows. Another narration says: Do not make vows, for a vow cannot change or avert even the slightest part of destiny.

These Hadiths show that the practice of making vows is not favored in Islam; rather, it is a particular kind of innovation completely opposed to the Sunnah of the Messenger. It may be stated even more clearly that making vows involving money or property is completely unlawful, regardless of the purpose for which they are made. Imam Muhammad Ismail al-Kahlani al-Sanani wrote:

That making vows is unlawful is established by the Hadith itself. Its unlawfulness is further reinforced by the fact that, when prohibiting vows, the reason given was that they bring no benefit. The money spent through them is merely wasted, and wasting money is unlawful. Therefore, making vows to give wealth and property is also unlawful.

Most Shafi’is and Malikis believe that making vows is makruh. The Hanbali school also considers it makruh tahrimi. The reason given is that a vow is never purely for Allah; some kind of ‘exchange’ or benefit is intended by it. Often a vow is made but, because fulfilling it proves difficult, it remains unfulfilled. Allamah Qadi Iyad said: “A vow seeks to overcome destiny, and ignorant people think that making a vow will reverse destiny.” It is mentioned that Imam al-Tirmidhi and some of the Companions also considered making vows makruh. Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak wrote: A vow—whether it concerns obedience to Allah or disobedience—is makruh in both cases.

Here, makruh means makruh tahrimi. Ibn al-Arabi wrote: “Making a vow resembles supplication; it does not reverse destiny.” This is destiny. Yet supplication has been favored, while making vows has been prohibited. This is because supplication is an immediate act of worship: through it, the servant’s heart and mind turn directly toward Allah, becoming humble, distressed, and devoted before Allah alone. But no immediate worship is apparent in making a vow; rather, dependence becomes directed toward the vow itself instead of directly toward Allah. And that reaches the level of shirk.

In this context, it can be seen that the current rush among the general public, and among the followers of a class of ignorant pirs, to make vows at every turn, as well as the encouragement to make vows given in sermons and exhortations, is—whatever else it may be—not the ideal of Islam, nor the Sunnah established by the Messenger; rather, it is clearly an innovation. In some cases this innovation turns into shirk. Shirk occurs when a vow is made in the name of the grave of a dead pir. For however much a vow may be made ‘for Allah’s sake’ in such cases, in reality it does not remain ‘for Allah’s sake.’ The pir, madrasa, or similar object becomes dominant in one’s mind, and it is believed that it possesses some special qualities and miraculous powers enabling it, by virtue of this vow, to rescue the person from an immediate danger or grant some desired benefit. In Islam, this is clear shirk. In making such a vow, Allah is placed behind, while the one in whose name the vow is made becomes the central figure. An earnest relationship is formed with that figure, and pleasing it becomes the true objective. Therefore, this practice is prohibited by Allah, and it contradicts the word of Allah:

فَلَا تَجْعَلُوا لِلَّهِ أَندَاد ا

“Do not set up anyone as equal or rival to Allah” (Al-Baqarah: 22).

Can any Muslim have even the slightest doubt that making such vows is unlawful?

The foregoing Hadiths also show that if a vow is made purely and solely for Allah, it must be fulfilled and is permissible. But unfortunately, very few people are able to make a vow purely and correctly in the permissible manner. Therefore, for people who affirm tawhid, the safer course is not to make vows to spend money or give any property. If one must make a vow, it should concern an act such as prayer, fasting, or Hajj to the House of Allah, because in such acts no one besides Allah appears before the servant, nor is there any opportunity for anyone else to appear. But when a vow concerns wealth or property, the heart inclines more toward something or someone besides Allah. This is especially so when a class of exploitative, ignorant, money-loving seat-holder pirs has spread a web of vow-making over the entire society; ignorant and uninformed people can easily be caught in this web and sink into the dark abyss of severe shirk. It should be known in this connection that if a vow is made to spend money or give property for particular people in a particular place, Islam does not make it an essential condition that the money or property must be spent there.

The books of Hanafi fiqh state:

If someone says, “It is obligatory upon me to give some charity in the name of Allah on such-and-such a day,” or says, “It is obligatory to give some charity to the needy of such-and-such a place,” then observing the specified day or place is not essential.

In other words, the vow will be fulfilled by giving charity to the poor on any day and in any place.

Grave Visitation Innovation

In Islam, visiting graves is permissible and supported by the Sunnah. But what has long been done today around graves, especially those of people regarded as pirs or saints, is entirely an innovation, contrary to Islam, and clear shirk; there can be no doubt about this.

The Hadiths concerning grave visitation show that in the early period of Islam permission to visit graves had not been granted. Later, that permission was given. In this regard, one statement of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) is decisive evidence. He said: Arabic (******)

I had forbidden you to visit graves, but now I say: visit them.

Another narration states: Arabic (*******)

If any of you wishes to visit graves, he may do so, for visiting graves reminds people of the Hereafter.

Imam al-Nawawi wrote in explaining this Hadith: Everyone agrees that visiting graves is supported by the Sunnah for Muslims.

A Hadith narrated by Hazrat Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) gives a further detailed statement on this matter. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Arabic (********)

I initially forbade you to visit graves, but later it became clear to me that visiting graves softens the heart, brings tears to the eyes, and reminds one of the Hereafter. So visit graves. But while doing so, do not utter obscene, reprehensible, or foolish words.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani wrote: Obscene speech and undesirable excess speech—that is, obscene, unnecessary, and undesirable words—are forbidden from being spoken excessively in graveyards.

Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) pronounced a curse upon women who visit graves and also upon those who build mosques, domes, or structures over graves.

Hazrat Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her), while lying on her deathbed, said: Allah Most High has cursed the Jews and Christians because they turned the graves of their prophets and messengers into mosques.

The reason domes and structures are prohibited is that they waste wealth without benefiting anyone. And when a mosque is built in a graveyard, excessive honor is shown to the grave. The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent that.

Another Hadith states: Arabic (***********)

Allah Most High has cursed women who visit graves and those who light lamps over them.

Another Hadith says as follows: Arabic (********)

The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) clearly prohibited making graves solid, reinforced, and hard; carrying out any construction over them; sitting on them; and writing anything on them.

According to the command of the Noble Prophet, it can be said that performing such acts around graves is a grave wrong and undesirable. Those who do so are the worst of people. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) himself prayed concerning his own grave, saying: Arabic (*********)

O Allah! Do not make my grave an idol to be worshipped. Indeed, Allah’s wrath is becoming intense against the people who turned the graves of their prophets and messengers into mosques.

The significance of this Hadith is clear. Prostrating while facing a grave and praying with a grave positioned toward the qiblah are explicitly unlawful in the Shariah. Hazrat Jundub ibn Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) addressed the Muslims, saying: Arabic (*********)

—Beware: the people before you turned the graves of the prophets, messengers, and righteous into mosques. But you must beware; never turn graves into mosques. I expressly forbid you to do so.

The urs and fairs held around graves are forbidden in Islam. Hazrat Abu Hurairah (RA) said: Arabic (*********)

—I heard the Noble Messenger (SAW) say: Do not turn your houses into graveyards (at least perform voluntary prayers in your own homes). Do not hold fairs around my grave; send blessings upon me. Wherever you send blessings upon me, they will certainly reach me.

For this reason, it has also been forbidden to construct a grave as a conspicuous and elevated place. The Noble Prophet (SAW) sent Hazrat Ali (RA) with this responsibility—Arabic (*********)

—You shall smash all statues and demolish every tall and elevated grave, levelling it and making it one with the ground, so that no image and no grave may escape this. (This hadith is quoted in Sahih Muslim Sharif. Its narrator was Abul Hayyaj al-Asadi. Hazrat Ali (RA) said to him: “Should I not assign you the same duty with which the Messenger (SAW) sent me?” Hazrat Ali (RA) appointed him to this duty in his capacity as the Caliph of the Muslims.)

These several hadiths clearly prove that in the early period of Islam, visiting graves was forbidden even for ordinary Muslims. The reason for the prohibition is not stated clearly here. However, among the other reasons, one major reason was certainly that grave worship was widespread in Arab society as a polytheistic practice during the Age of Ignorance. Even after becoming Muslim, if people had extensive opportunities to visit graves, there was a grave danger that these believers in monotheism would become immersed in the shirk of grave worship. But later, when Islamic beliefs had been widely propagated and firmly established in the minds of large numbers of people, and the Islamic way of life had been fully implemented, permission was given to visit graves. But this permission was only for men; women were excluded from it. Not only that, going to visit graves was declared, in Islam’s view, an accursed act for women.

At this point Shah Waliullah Dehlawi wrote: Arabic (********)

—I say that at first, visiting graves was prohibited, because it opened the door to grave worship. But later, when the Islamic ideal was established and their minds became firmly convinced that worshipping anything besides Allah was unlawful, permission was given to visit graves.

Of course, some jurists have held a slightly different view regarding women going to visit graves. In order to reconcile the prohibition on the one hand and the permission on the other, they said: It is permissible and unobjectionable for elderly women to visit the graves of righteous people and seek blessings there. But for young women it is makruh tahrimi.

The reason for permitting grave visitation is stated in the hadith: it softens the heart, brings tears to the eyes, and reminds one of the Hereafter. One remembers that all those buried in the cemetery were once alive, just like them. But today they have no existence on the earth. Likewise, all people will one day meet such a fate. No one can escape it. This awakens in the visitor’s heart the necessary inclination to prepare for the Hereafter. And this is especially desired in Islam.

But regarding the construction of graves, these hadiths contain two stern prohibitions. One is that mosques must not be built in graveyards. For if this is done, people may come to revere graves as they revere mosques and show sincere honour and respect toward them. And this is the source of shirk. The practice of building mosques at graves has continued in Muslim society for a long time. Today, hardly anywhere can one find the grave of someone reputed to be a wali of Allah beside which no mosque has been built. These graveyards have become centres of shirk and bid‘at. Hundreds of forms of bid‘at have spread through Muslim society from these places. In reality, these are the infiltration of the bid‘at of shirk into Islam’s monotheistic creed.

According to the hadith, constructing anything whatsoever over a grave is haram. Imam al-Shawkani wrote in his commentary on the aforementioned hadith:

—This hadith provides evidence that constructing anything whatsoever over a grave is haram.

Not only that, writing anything on a grave is also haram. The hadith narrated in Tirmidhi Sharif contains this phrase along with other statements: —Writing anything on a grave is also forbidden.

That is, it is forbidden to write on a grave the deceased person’s name, dates of birth and death, or any elegy or lament. The Shariah makes no distinction between writing a name and writing anything else regarding what is haram.

Maulana Idris Kandhlawi wrote in explanation of this: This statement may have two meanings. The first is carrying out construction work over the grave with bricks and stones, or any similar work; the second is hanging a sheet, tent, and so forth over the grave. Both kinds of acts are forbidden. The reason the first is forbidden has already been stated. The second is forbidden because it too is as futile and meaningless as the first. It wastes money, and it is the practice of the people of the Age of Ignorance.

Since ordinary people are unfamiliar with the fundamental rulings of the Shariah, when they see domes built over the graves of all those known as saints of Allah, with names and other things written on each of them, they think that this must be sanctioned by the Shariah, or at least that the Shariah has no objection to it. Yet all these things are forbidden in Islam. A large number of statements on this subject have been narrated from the Noble Messenger (SAW) in the hadith and quoted in the books. Imam al-Hakim wrote about these hadiths:

—All the hadiths prohibiting the writing of anything on graves are absolutely authentic. Yet they are not acted upon, because everywhere one sees something written on the graves of Muslim imams. Later people learn these practices from earlier people (and consider them permissible).

In fact, this practice is established neither from the Noble Prophet (SAW) nor from the Companions. People of later times initiated it. But they were people whose words or actions are not accepted as evidence in the Shariah. On this subject, Imam al-Dhahabi wrote: Imam al-Hakim’s foregoing statement is of no consequence. In reality, none of the Companions carried out this forbidden act. It is an act invented in later times—a bid‘at. Some Tabi‘un and those who came after them invented it. The prohibition of the Noble Prophet (SAW) did not reach them.

And the renowned scholar Qazi Sanaullah Panipati of the Indian subcontinent wrote:

—Regarding the graves of the saints, raising their graves, building domes over them, holding urs ceremonies, and lighting lamps are entirely bid‘at. Some of these are haram and makruh (tahrimi). The Noble Prophet (SAW) cursed those who light lamps at graves and make vows. He said: Do not celebrate festivals over my grave, do not make it a place of prostration, and do not pray in any such mosque. Do not gather there on any particular date. The Noble Prophet (SAW) sent Hazrat Ali (RA) with the instruction to demolish elevated graves and level them, and to erase images wherever he found them.

There is evidence in authentic hadith that building mosques in the graveyards of righteous saints is an enduring practice of ordinary and ignorant people. Hazrat Aisha (RA) said: When the Noble Prophet (SAW) was lying on his deathbed, his wife Maria mentioned to the Messenger (SAW) the churches she had seen in Abyssinia. At that time, Umm Salama and Umm Habiba (RA) also mentioned the beauty of the churches they had seen and all the pictures and images kept in them. Hearing this, the Noble Prophet (SAW) raised his head and said: Arabic (********)

—The history of these pictures and images is that whenever a righteous person among them (in our terminology, someone regarded as a pir or saint of Allah) died, they built a mosque over his grave. Then they installed these pictures and images in it. In reality, such people are the worst of people in the sight of Allah.

This hadith also proves that building a mosque around anyone’s grave is forbidden in Islam. For there is a fear that ordinary people will treat graves in the same way as these accursed people did.

Indeed, even today it is rare to find the shrine of any famous or renowned ‘saint’ (?) scholar or renowned pir without a dome or cupola built over it, and without the person’s name, dates of birth and death, together with an elegiac poem, written there. These acts are as clearly contrary to the hadith as they are completely opposed to the monotheistic creed. The Noble Messenger (SAW) prohibited all these practices precisely to properly safeguard Islam’s fundamental monotheistic creed. But boldly defying this clear prohibition of the Messenger, domes, cupolas, memorials, minarets, and the like have been and are being built over the graves of those regarded as pirs and saints of Allah, political leaders, and famous persons; and their names, dates of birth and death, and tributes or elegiac poems are being written on them. That these are bid‘at and completely contrary to Islam cannot be doubted in the least by any believing person.

The foregoing evidence-based discussion conclusively proves that raising a grave, building a cupola over it, designating it as a mosque or place of prayer, turning it into a public place of visitation, and constructing a balcony beside the grave for people to stand on are all highly and clearly forbidden acts. Regarding this, the Noble Messenger (SAW) sometimes invoked a curse upon those who do these things.

At other times he said—Arabic (*****)

—Allah’s wrath has become exceedingly severe and intense upon those who have turned the graves of their prophets and messengers into mosques.

Thus, at times he himself prayed that Allah’s wrath would descend severely and harshly upon those who carried out that act. This is mentioned in an authentic hadith.

At other times he sent people with the responsibility of destroying all such graves, domes, and so forth. At times he called this practice the work of the Jews and Christians. At times he said: Do not turn my grave into an idol and behave in the same manner. And at other times he said—Arabic (******)

—Do not make my grave a centre of celebration like Eid.

That is, do not designate a particular season or time and then gather people at the graveyard at that time to hold a festival, as grave worshippers do. There they conduct various ceremonies and take up residence at the grave. In reality, they completely abandon the worship of Allah and become engrossed in worshipping the grave or the person buried there. The Noble Prophet (SAW) opposed all this in the strongest language and with extreme severity. Yet today, under the guise of being saints of Allah, pirs, shaykhs, and so forth, people claiming to belong to his ummah are turning people into grave worshippers. In some places they have displaced Allah and seated themselves as the objects of people’s worship. There, disciples and devotees show them the devotion, reverence, and conduct that belong exclusively to Allah.

This is not merely bid‘at; it is rampant shirk. Shrines that have become strongholds of shirk under the pretext of monotheistic Islam exist throughout the Muslim world.

Rules of visiting graves

Imam al-Nawawi wrote: “The visitor’s duty is to enter the graveyard, first offer greetings, and then pray to Allah for forgiveness and mercy to descend upon the souls of all those in the graveyard.” The greeting and supplication should be those narrated in the hadith. In addition, Quranic verses or surahs, or supplications narrated from the Messenger (SAW), may also be recited.

Imam al-Shafi‘i and all his companions and fellow scholars unanimously mentioned this as the procedure. Imam Abul Hasan Muhammad ibn Marzuq al-Ja‘farani was a discerning jurist. He said: Do not embrace the grave with your hands, touch it, or kiss it; this is the Sunnah method of visiting graves.

Abul Hasan further said: Grasping, touching, and kissing graves—as ordinary people nowadays do—is undoubtedly bid‘at, forbidden in the Shariah, and reprehensible. It is absolutely necessary to avoid it and to restrain anyone who does it from the practice.

Abu Musa and the learned jurists of Khurasan said that touching and kissing graves is a Christian custom. It is entirely forbidden for Muslims, because it has been conclusively established that showing any form of reverence to a grave is completely forbidden.

Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim wrote that the Noble Prophet (SAW) visited graves in order to supplicate for the people buried there, show mercy toward them, and seek Allah’s forgiveness for them.

He then wrote: The Noble Messenger (SAW) presented this kind of visitation as a Sunnah for his ummah and established it as their Shariah-based method and practice.

The Shariah also gives instructions regarding what Muslims should say and do when they enter a graveyard. Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim wrote: Arabic (*******)

—When a Muslim visits graves, he should say: Peace be upon you, believing Muslims who dwell in the graveyard. If Allah wills, we too shall join you. We now ask Allah for goodness and peace for you and for ourselves.

He then wrote: But the polytheists refuse to do this. They commit shirk in graveyards, invoke the names of the dead before Allah, make them intermediaries, and swear by them. They supplicate to the dead to fulfil their needs, seek their help, and turn their attention toward them. By doing all this, they oppose the guidance of the Messenger. For the Messenger’s guidance is monotheism and showing mercy to the dead. The way of the polytheists, however, is shirk and perpetrating every kind of injustice against themselves and the dead.

The supplication addressed to Khwaja Muinuddin Chishti at his grave in Ajmer Sharif places Khwaja Baba precisely in Allah’s position (God forbid).

It says: “O beloved of Allah, we seek a glimpse of the dust of your tomb; we seek a glimpse of the majesty of your dark beauty. Bestow blessings from your door.” —You are Allah’s beloved servant, the Lord of this universe. Allah hears your words. Therefore, this evening your two innocent children have appeared at your court. Father, give them knowledge, give them wisdom, give them wealth, honour, fame, and influence.

… May love and virtue remain steadfast in their lives forever, like your boundless stream of mercy. My father, my Khwaja Sahib, like a blind man’s staff, you alone are their support; you alone are the light in their darkness and their sole aid in every hardship.

You are the king of the world, the sole sustainer of the poor. Those who sink in your name rise to the surface and cross the vast ocean of dark sorrow laughing.

It is said: There is no fear, no worry; Father will surely make you happy. Father is extremely affectionate. When the boys and girls who rush here suffer, Father cannot bear to see their distress.

… Come again tomorrow. Father will be pleased. (God forbid.)

After the burial of a deceased person has been completed, supplicating for the deceased’s forgiveness is established as permissible from the practice of the Noble Messenger.

It is narrated in the hadith: Arabic (********)

—When the Noble Prophet (SAW) completed the burial of a deceased person, he would stand there and tell the people: Pray for forgiveness for your brother. Pray to Allah that he may remain firm and steadfast in the grave. For he is now being questioned.

It must be remembered that this refers to supplicating after the burial has been completed. That is entirely permissible. But today, it is commonly seen that as soon as the funeral prayer is completed, something is recited and hands are immediately raised to make a supplication. Yet in the Islamic Shariah this act is makruh! The third-century jurist Imam Abu Bakr ibn Hamid (RA) said: Making a separate supplication immediately after the funeral prayer is makruh (tahrimi).

Shams al-A’immah al-Hawani and Shaykh al-Islam Allamah Maghdi said: No one should stand to make a supplication after the funeral prayer.

This is likewise written in such books as Fatawa Sirajiyyah (vol. 1, p. 14), Jami‘ al-Rumuz (vol. 1, p. 174), and Bahr al-Ra’iq (vol. 2, p. 183).

Mulla Ali al-Qari said: Do not supplicate for the deceased immediately after the funeral prayer has been performed, because this amounts to adding something to the original funeral prayer.

It is therefore established that, when visiting a graveyard, the believing Muslim visitor has nothing else to do besides supplicating for the welfare of those buried there—no other deed to perform and no other words to say. From this perspective, it is clear that whatever Muslims are currently doing in graveyards is not merely bid‘at but also shirk. Likewise, while maintaining in the heart the conviction and belief that “Allah Most High is the source of all power,” seeking miraculous assistance of any kind from any created being, whether during that being’s life or after death, is completely shirk according to Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah; its prevalence in Muslim society is the bid‘at of shirk against the monotheistic creed.

Reciting the Quran is established, on the basis of both the Quran and hadith, as a highly meritorious act. Apparently, there is no objection to reciting the Quran while sitting near a grave. But the books of fiqh state on this matter: The jurists differ regarding reciting the Quran near a grave. Imam al-Shafi‘i and Muhammad ibn Hasan said that reciting it is mustahabb. Through it, the deceased may receive the blessing of companionship with the Quran. Qadi Iyad and Qirani of the Maliki school both agree with them. But Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa (RA) consider this act makruh, because no evidence from the Sunnah has been found in its support.

 Seeking help from the dead is asking for a bid‘at

Seeking any kind of help from those who have died—whether they are saints or prophets—is, in the terminology of the people of bid‘at, called istimdad-e ruhani, and is an obvious bid‘at.

In reality, no one besides Allah has the power to bring about anything beneficial or harmful. That is why Allah Most High has taught in the Noble Qur’an, in various ways, that help is to be sought only from Him. Surah al-Fatihah, which is essentially a surah of supplication, teaches that just as worship is to be offered exclusively to Allah, help too is to be sought exclusively from Allah. It is said:

—O Allah! We worship only You, and we seek help only from You.

Just as this verse commands that worship, servitude, and observance of the law be devoted exclusively to Allah, it also declares that every kind of help in all matters may, and should, be sought only from Allah. In the words of Imam Razi: O Allah, I seek no kind of help from anyone else. For whoever besides You I may seek help from cannot help me in any way at all without Your help. If no one can help me in any way without Your help, then why should I seek help from anyone besides You? What need is there to accept this intermediary and entreat him while bypassing You?

Moreover, the guidance given to us by the Noble Prophet’s words in this regard is that help must be sought only from Allah, not from anyone else. The Noble Prophet said to Abdullah ibn Abbas:

If you wish to ask for anything, ask Allah. And if you seek any help, seek help from Allah.

When this is the real situation, it is obligatory to seek help only from Allah in every matter. Seeking help from anyone else is the height of foolishness—utter stupidity, baseness, and disgrace.

Seeking help especially from the dead is even more serious. While a person is alive in this world, there is some justification for seeking material assistance from him. It has a material significance and is not prohibited; but what meaning can there be in seeking help from the dead? Can those in the graves hear the cries of the people of this world, and even if they can hear them, do they have the power to do anything for them? That they cannot hear is established by the declaration of the Qur’an itself. Allah Most High said to His Prophet:

—You cannot make the dead hear anything.

Elsewhere He said:

—Indeed, you, O Prophet, cannot make the dead hear anything.

If one believes that the dead remain so powerful after death that they can do whatever they wish there, and that they can do all this supernaturally, then this amounts to believing them to possess power equal to Allah’s. There can be no doubt that such a belief is shirk.

Imam Baghawi wrote: Seeking help is a form of worship. Worship means acting with humility and a sense of lowliness. A servant is called a servant because of his humility, submission, and lowliness before Allah.

—According to the view of no Muslim scholar, is it permissible for someone who visits the graves of prophets, messengers, and righteous people to pray at their graves, sit there and supplicate, and ask those in the graves to fulfill his needs? For worship, supplication for the fulfillment of needs, and seeking help are all rights belonging exclusively to Allah; they may be sought only from Him, not from anyone else.

At the end of a lengthy hadith of the Noble Prophet concerning this very matter, it is said:

—Know that even if all people united to benefit you in some way, they could benefit you only to the extent that Allah had already decreed and written for you. Likewise, even if all people united to harm you in the slightest, they could harm you only to the extent that Allah had decreed for you. Indeed, the pen has been lifted and the ink on the pages has dried.

That is, whatever is to happen according to Allah’s decree will happen, and only that will happen; nothing else will or can happen. No one has even the slightest power to do otherwise. Therefore, there can be no meaning in asking anyone besides Allah—whether a deceased prophet, messenger, saint, pir, ghawth, or qutb—for anything. Rather, it is manifest shirk—the innovation of shirk.

The following question was put to the Mufti of Makkah, Abdullah ibn Muhammad Mir Ghani al-Hanafi:

What do the scholars say about the living seeking help from the dead to gain honor and respect, abundant provision, and children? At the cemetery, saying, “O people of the graves, supplicate to Allah for us—for the removal of our poverty, abundance in provision, an increase in children, the healing of our sick, and our welfare in both worlds. For you are the righteous predecessors, and your supplications are accepted by Allah”—is it permissible to seek help from the dead in this manner? Give an answer based on the Qur’an, Sunnah, and the opinions of the mujtahids.

The essence of the fatwa given by the mufti in reply was this: One may call upon prophets and saints, but doing so in the circumstances and place mentioned in the question is not sanctioned by the Shariah. A large number of scholars of that time signed this fatwa in agreement.

Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi wrote in reply to another question: Believing that Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani knew the unseen and could exercise authority over the world independently and through his own power would be manifest shirk. At this point he first cited a Qur’anic verse:

—The keys to the unseen world are in Allah’s hand; no one knows them except Him.

Then, citing the books of fatwas, such as al-Bazzaziyyah, he said:

Whoever believes that the spirits of the shaykhs—that is, the pirs and elders—are present and that they know everything will become a kafir.

It is also written in that book that whoever believes that a dead person exercises independent authority over all matters apart from Allah, and holds such a creed and belief, will become a kafir. (This is likewise mentioned in Bahr al-Ra’iq and in the book Mi’at Masa’il.)

Maulana Nawab Qutbuddin Khan, a student of Maulana Shah Muhammad Ishaq, wrote in reply to a question asking whether it is permissible to seek help from those in the graves:

—Seeking help from those in the graves, in whatever form, is not permissible. Shaykh Abdul Haq wrote in his Arabic commentary on Mishkat: Many jurists have declared it impermissible to seek any kind of help from those buried in the graves, other than prophets and messengers—that is, to seek spiritual assistance from them. Tata said: Apart from supplicating for the dead, asking Allah to forgive them, and conveying some benefit to them through supplication and Qur’an recitation, nothing else is to be done when visiting graves.

Here there is a deception: supplicating to the spirit of a saint in the name of Allah and for Allah’s sake is considered permissible, and is not thought to contain any fault. It is assumed that the saint is being taken only as an intermediary, and that there is nothing wrong with taking such an intermediary.

But this is truly a deception through which many sincere Muslims who believe in tawhid become unknowingly involved in clear shirk. When, while asking for something, one mentions anyone’s name besides Allah, it means either that one is actually asking that other person, or that one doubts whether Allah will grant it if asked of Him, or whether Allah alone has the power to grant it. In either case, the matter is entirely classified as shirk.

Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlawi wrote in this regard:

—Among the cases considered shirk is that people supplicate to others besides Allah for the fulfillment of needs such as curing the sick and enriching the poor, make vows to them, hope to have their wishes fulfilled through those vows, and recite in their names in the hope of receiving blessings. For this reason, Allah has made it obligatory for people to say in prayer: “O Allah! We worship only You, and we seek help only from You.” Allah has also said: Do not call upon anyone besides Allah. The prohibition of this calling does not mean merely a prohibition of worshipping others, as some exegetes believe. Rather, it means that seeking help from anyone else is prohibited.

For Allah has said in another verse: “Call upon Allah alone, and He will open for you whatever you ask of Him.”

The Absurdity of False Propaganda

Those who believe in grave worship and spiritual assistance present a statement as evidence in support of their view. It is as follows:

—When you become extremely distressed and helpless in your worldly affairs, seek help from those in the graves.

They pass this statement off as a hadith. In reality, it is not a hadith; calling it a hadith is an outright falsehood. Experts have written about it: They have unanimously stated that this statement is entirely fabricated and false.

Shah Waliullah Dehlawi wrote about this statement: This saying, passed off as a hadith, was fabricated by the mujāvirs—the attendants serving at shrines. To obtain offerings and votive gifts, they falsely attributed this saying to the Noble Prophet.

In reality, this statement is not a hadith at all. Hadith scholars and discerning Sufis have also declared it fabricated and invented. Indeed, presenting such fabricated sayings as evidence in matters of creed is the result of extreme ignorance and foolishness.

The verse of Surah al-Baqarah:فَلَا تَجْعَلُوا لِلَّهِ أَندَادًا وَأَنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

In his commentary, Shah Abdul Aziz mentioned various kinds and forms of “rivals.” The fourth kind is the rival invented by grave worshippers. Regarding them he wrote: Pir worshippers say that because the elders engage in extensive spiritual exercises, ascetic discipline, and mujahadah, their supplications and intercession are accepted in Allah’s presence; therefore, after they depart from this world, their spirits acquire boundless power and vastness. If their physical forms are made into a barzakh, or if one prostrates before them with humility and submissiveness in their sitting room or at their graves, their spirits can learn of it because of the vastness of their knowledge and intercede for the prostrator’s welfare in this world and the Hereafter. (Allah forbid.)

It is therefore clear that Shah Abdul Aziz regarded this kind of spiritual assistance and grave worship as the explicit adoption of rivals to Allah. Adopting such rivals is shirk, which the Qur’an clearly prohibits.

If anyone believes that there is a need to take such an intermediary between Allah and His servants and obtain intercession, he has defamed Allah. Allamah Ibn al-Qayyim wrote: Whoever believes that Allah has a child, or that He has a partner, or that someone can intercede with Him without His permission, or that there is some intermediary between the Creator and creation who presents the needs of creation to Allah, or that besides Allah there are certain saints who act as intermediaries and means of nearness between Allah and those people and stand between the Creator and creation—so that they supplicate to them, fear them, and hope for many things from them—has thereby held an extremely vile and evil opinion about Allah.

Qazi Sanaullah Panipati was a great scholar of the Hanafi madhhab and a thinker inclined toward tasawwuf. Because of his profound knowledge of the Qur’an and hadith, he was honored and respected in all circles. He cited the Qur’anic verse:إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ عِبَادٌ أَمْثَالُكُمْ ۖ

–—Those whom you call upon besides Allah are merely servants like you.

Regarding this, he wrote: This verse is not specifically only for idol worshippers; rather,

مِن   دُونِ اللَّهِwhoever it may generally be besides Allah is included in it, and calling upon such a one is manifest shirk. For those being called upon, what power do they have to fulfill any human need? If someone says that this verse applies to the kafirs, since they are the ones who remember the idols, I would say

دُونِ اللَّهِit cannot be accepted that the word used in the general sense refers to some particular thing.

Indeed, presenting evidence from the Qur’an and hadith in support of polytheistic beliefs and practices is astonishing. Even more astonishing is that statements of some scholars who spent their entire lives writing and campaigning against shirk and bid‘ah have been detached from their context and used to support shirk and bid‘ah. These proponents and propagators of bid‘ah do not even fear that their deception in this regard may be exposed among experienced people. It seems that there is nothing in their minds except bid‘ah. Bid‘ah is their taste and bid‘ah is their occupation, just as a certain class of insects has a taste only for filth and garbage! May Allah guide them.

Deception with Qur’anic Verses

Seeking help from anyone besides Allah is not permissible; rather, it is shirk. This has been established in the preceding discussion on the basis of decisive evidence from the Qur’an, hadith, and fiqh. However, in the final part of this discussion, briefly addressing the three proofs cited by the pir-worshipping scholars is necessary; otherwise, correcting the error and refuting falsehood will remain incomplete.

Those scholars claim that it is permissible to seek spiritual assistance and help from a power other than Allah—from a saint of Allah, whether living or dead. To prove this, they cite three verses from the Noble Qur’an. The first verse is from Surah al-Saff.

مَنْ أَنصَارِي إِلَى اللَّهِ ۖ قَالَ الْحَوَارِيُّونَ نَحْنُ أَنصَارُ اللَّهِ ۖ

—Hazrat Isa said: Who will help me in the cause of Allah’s religion? The disciples said: We are the ones who will help you in the work of Allah. (Al-Saff: 14)

The second verse is from Surah al-Kahf.

قَالَ مَا مَكَّنِّي فِيهِ رَبِّي خَيْرٌ فَأَعِينُونِي بِقُوَّةٍ أَجْعَلْ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ رَدْمًا [١٨:٩٥]

—You do not need to give me financial assistance, for the wealth Allah has granted me is sufficient; but you may help me physically. Then I will build a strong barrier between you and them. (Al-Kahf: 95)

The third verse is from Surah Yusuf. The verse is:

اذْكُرْنِي عِندَ رَبِّكَ فَأَنسَاهُ الشَّيْطَانُ ذِكْرَ رَبِّهِ فَلَبِثَ فِي السِّجْنِ بِضْعَ سِنِينَ [١٢:٤٢]

—Mention me to your master (the Aziz of Egypt). But Satan caused him to forget to mention him to his master, so Yusuf remained in prison for several more years.

By presenting these three verses, the people known as pir-worshipping scholars wish to say that just as Hazrat Isa sought help from the disciples, just as Dhul-Qarnayn told the people to help him with their strength in building the barrier, and just as Hazrat Yusuf asked his companion who was released from prison to intercede for him with the king, likewise it is entirely permissible to supplicate to any saint of Allah, living or dead, for deliverance from a calamity or in the hope of worldly freedom. But unfortunately, the claim they present these three Qur’anic verses to prove is not established by any one of them. Examining each verse carefully will prove the truth of what I say. It must be remembered that the discussion concerns ‘spiritual assistance,’ that is, supplicating to someone to receive help through spiritual means. The creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah is that such help may be sought only from Allah. For no one besides Allah has the power to give such help, nor can anyone have it. Allah Most High’s clear instruction is that in such circumstances help must be sought only from Allah. This is also the creed of tawhid. Seeking help from anyone else is shirk in matters of creed, and therefore bid‘ah according to the creed of tawhid. Against this background, if the three verses are examined, it will be seen that none of them concerns seeking help of this kind. In the first-mentioned verse of Surah al-Saff, the help Hazrat Isa is said to have sought by asking, ‘Who will help me in the cause of Allah’s religion?’ was not help sought by someone facing a personal calamity. Hazrat Isa did not seek the disciples’ help because he was in distress. He did not seek help for any personal task. No appeal was made here for help through any spiritual means. The Qur’anic verseمَنْ أَنصَارِي إِلَى اللَّهِ‘Who will help me in the cause of Allah’s religion?’ itself proves that the purpose of seeking this help was merely to call them to come forward and work to propagate and establish Allah’s religion. For striving to establish the religion was not the sole responsibility of Isa; it was also the responsibility of all other Muslims. The verse itself begins with the instruction to become helpers of Allah.

It was said: O you who believe! Be helpers of Allah.

In practice, calling people to assist in Allah’s work was the responsibility of the prophet. Hazrat Isa fulfilled that responsibility by seeking this assistance. For this reason, all authoritative commentaries, including that of Allamah Alusi, have interpreted this verse as follows:

That is, who is willing to become my soldier for the purpose of assisting Allah? This is not a request to provide help through spiritual means. Rather, it is a call to assist in fulfilling the prophetic responsibility. This was not the Prophet’s personal work. It was the direct and straightforward work of assisting Allah. The strongest proof of this is found in the reply mentioned in this very surah. They came forward not to help Isa, but to assist in Allah’s work. Thus they said—نَحْنُ أَنصَارُ اللَّهِ—We are the helpers of Allah. Allamah Alusi wrote here: Saying “my helpers” means attributing the work of two partners to one of them. Since both parties participated equally in assisting Allah’s work, a relationship was established between them, validating this expression.

Thus it became clear that Hazrat Isa did not seek help from any dead person in performing a miraculous act. The gist of his words was: A barrier must be built; I have the money. You should help me in this work through practical assistance. This is a request for straightforward cooperation in a material task. This world is governed by real causes and effects. Seeking or receiving this kind of mutual help in this world has nothing whatsoever to do with spiritual assistance. It is an essential matter for human social life and is entirely permissible. Therefore, Imam Ibn Kathir wrote in his commentary on this verse:

—“That is, what Allah has given me of kingdom and dominion is better for you than everything else. But help me with your strength—that is, through labor and construction materials.”

And the third verse also concerns a worldly measure. Joseph (peace be upon him) had been imprisoned unjustly for a long time. He thought that the king might have completely forgotten him. Therefore, when his fellow prisoner was released and was leaving the prison, he told him, “Mention me to your master.” If this too is considered an instance of seeking spiritual assistance, then one would have to say that a prophet may seek supernatural assistance from a non-prophet. Yet it goes without saying how humiliating such a thing would be for a prophet. (At this point, Imam Ibn Kathir quoted a hadith. The hadith is as follows: The Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Because of the statement Joseph (peace be upon him) made—that is, because he sought release from someone other than Allah—he would have remained in prison for as long as he did. Ibn Kathir later wrote: This hadith is extremely weak and unacceptable.) The most important point is that a prophet sought help by supernatural or spiritual means(?), and Satan caused him to forget it and thwarted his attempt at freedom! Only pir-worshippers can believe such a thing; no monotheistic Sunni can be prepared to give such a belief even the remotest place in his heart.

In short, what the pir-worshippers seek to prove with these few verses is not proved at all. It is merely deception.

At this point, we must always keep the following verse of the Qur’an in mind.

Arabic (********)

—Those besides Allah can neither benefit you nor harm you, so do not call upon them at all. If you do, you will be counted among the wrongdoers.

A person calls upon someone hoping to obtain benefit from him or to be saved from some harm. What benefit is there in calling upon one who can neither benefit nor harm? Absolute power to do this belongs to Allah alone. Therefore, in every circumstance and for everything, one must call upon Him alone. Seeking refuge or protection is possible only from Him, because no one besides Allah possesses even an iota of power to grant refuge or protection. Thus Allah Himself has commanded: Seek refuge and protection only with that one Allah.

Grave visitation for the purpose of foreign travel

Visiting graves is permissible, but it must be done in accordance with the Shariah. Just as one may not do anything contrary to the Shariah or utter any objectionable words when visiting a graveyard, it is likewise not permissible to travel abroad for the purpose of visiting the grave of a prophet, wali, or righteous person. The foremost proof at this point is the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) emphatic and forceful prohibition.

He said: Arabic (******)

Travel undertaken to attain closeness to Allah may be made only to visit three mosques: al-Masjid al-Haram (the Kaaba), the Prophet’s Mosque, and al-Masjid al-Aqsa. Apart from these, no journey may be undertaken to any other place for the purpose of attaining closeness to Allah.

Imam al-Nawawi wrote in his commentary on this hadith: This hadith establishes the virtue of these three mosques and of traveling to them. According to scholars of every school, its meaning is that no virtue is attached to traveling to any mosque other than these three.

Imam al-Nawawi wrote elsewhere in his commentary on the hadith: These three are the mosques of the prophets. The virtue of praying in them is far greater than in other mosques.

Therefore, one may travel to them with the intention of praying and worshipping there. One may not travel there to worship anyone besides Allah. If one vows to travel toward al-Masjid al-Haram, fulfilling that vow for the purpose of performing Hajj or Umrah becomes obligatory. As for making a vow to travel to the latter two mosques, one position of Imam al-Shafi‘i is that traveling to them with this intention is recommended, not obligatory. The second position is that fulfilling the vow is obligatory, and many scholars hold this view. He then wrote:

—If one vows to travel to any mosque other than these three, fulfilling the vow is not obligatory, and the vow itself is invalid. This is our view and that of all the scholars. Muhammad ibn Muslim al-Maliki, however, held a different view.

It has been stated in explanation of this hadith: The hadith’s phrase ‘shadd al-rihal’ means undertaking a foreign journey. That is, one should not travel to any place other than these three mosques with the intention and purpose of attaining closeness to Allah. These three mosques alone are the most deserving of honor, because all other mosques are equal in rank. Thus, no matter in which mosque one prays, the same reward is received everywhere. The honor of these three mosques, however, is different. The meaning of this hadith is that one should not form the intention of traveling to a particular place for that purpose. If there is some separate need there, such as studying, that is a different matter. The apparent meaning of the hadith is that traveling to any place other than these three is prohibited. Some have said that if one vows to travel to a place other than these three mosques, fulfilling it is not obligatory. Such a vow is not considered a vow, and its fulfillment is not obligatory. Such a vow is not considered a vow, and its fulfillment is not necessary. There is disagreement concerning traveling to the graves of awliya and righteous people or to sacred places; in reality, however, it is forbidden.

It must be kept in mind that the prohibition here is not simply a prohibition against visitation; that is not the subject under discussion. Rather, the prohibition concerns traveling abroad solely for this purpose. This hadith of the Messenger is the Sunnah, and the Companions acted according to this Sunnah. Indeed, according to some reports, they did not travel solely to visit the Messenger’s grave, nor did they approve of doing so. At this point, the following two statements may be cited as evidence:

It is not known that any of the Companions—such as Mu‘adh, Abu ‘Ubaydah, ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit, and Abu al-Darda, among others—traveled with the purpose of visiting even a single graveyard in the world.

Indeed, there is no evidence that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) traveled solely to visit the tomb of any prophet. It has been stated that until the eras of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them), and those who came after them, had ended, no Companion traveled abroad to visit the grave of any prophet or righteous person.

At this point, I shall conclude our discussion of this matter by mentioning what the universally respected Indian scholar Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlawi wrote. This hadith is narrated in the Muwatta of Imam Malik in the following words: Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I met Busrah ibn Abi Ghifari. He asked, “Where have you come from?” I replied, “From Tur.” He said, “If I had met you once before you set out for Tur, you would not have gone there. For I heard the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say: Do not undertake a journey for any mosque other than al-Masjid al-Haram, my mosque, and the Mosque of Ilya, or Bayt al-Maqdis—these three mosques.”

Shah Waliullah wrote in his commentary on this hadith: This hadith proves that traveling to any place other than these three mosques with the intention of attaining closeness to Allah (or reward), and designating a particular place for this purpose, is prohibited.

Explaining the reason, he wrote: Perhaps the primary purpose of this prohibition is to prevent people from doing what the people of the Age of Ignorance used to do. For example, they would invent and designate places of veneration according to their own wishes.

On the basis of this hadith, he further wrote: I would say that the people of the Age of Ignorance regarded various places as places of veneration based on various imaginings; they visited them and sought blessings from them. As a result, the original religion became distorted and numerous corruptions arose. For this reason, through the hadith under discussion, the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) closed the way to this corruption, so that Islamic Sunni ideals and symbols would not merge and become indistinguishable from non-Islamic ideals, and so that they would not become a means of devising ways to worship other than Allah. In my view, the correct position is that graves, places of worship associated with any wali of Allah, and Tur are all equally included in this prohibition.

Allamah Qastallani wrote in his commentary on this hadith:

—Regarding traveling to all places other than these three mosques—for example, traveling to visit righteous people during their lifetime or after their death, to worship there, or to seek blessings from them—Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni says that if the hadith is followed according to its apparent meaning, all of this is forbidden. Qadi Husayn, Qadi Iyad, and other scholars also adopted this view. However, according to the Imam of the Two Sanctuaries of the Shafi‘i school and others, this is permissible. (It is obvious that one side considers it permissible and the other forbidden.) This permissible opinion cannot be adopted as a way of avoiding the forbidden.

Mulla Ali al-Qari wrote in his commentary on this hadith: Some scholars, citing this hadith as evidence, have said that traveling to visit places associated with blessings and the graves of scholars and righteous people (awliya, pirs, and dervishes) is prohibited.

In discussing this hadith, Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlawi (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote: One must not knowingly or unknowingly enter ihram as one does for Hajj, believing a journey to be equal to or better and superior than the journey for Hajj. This should not be done under any circumstances.

On the basis of the authentic hadith, its explanation, and the valuable statements of the eminent scholars of the early righteous generations of Islam cited above, it is clearly established that regarding a grave or a particular place as holy, blessed, or noble according to one’s own wishes; traveling to visit it, to pray to a wali, pir, or dervish buried there, or to use him as an intermediary; and seeking blessings from that place—all of these are practices of the polytheists of the Age of Ignorance and are completely contrary to the religion of Islam. They corrupt both creed and practice. For this reason, through this hadith, the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited such practices forever. Therefore, whatever is currently being done around the graves of self-invented, imaginary pirs or awliya at various places—the ‘urs and other ceremonies held at Ajmer Sharif, Baghdad Sharif, Data Ganj Bakhsh, Sarshina Sharif, Maizbhandar, and Sureshwar Sharif, and the gatherings of ignorant disciples in groups to obtain spiritual emanations from the grave of a deceased pir—all of this completely contradicts the Messenger’s command, opposes the Sunnah, and is an obvious bid‘ah. Because of the intensity and excess of devotion to pirs, it often becomes shirk.

Indeed, those who consider it obligatory to go to Madinah while traveling to Makkah for Hajj at the Kaaba should travel with the intention of praying in the Prophet’s Mosque; they should not travel solely for the purpose of offering salutation at the grave of the Noble Messenger.

In the face of all these decisive proofs, it will not take long for the words of the innovators to make pir-and-disciple devotion vanish into thin air.

May Allah guide these innovators.

Spiritual assistance

After reading the detailed discussion above concerning grave visitation, no one should have any doubt that, apart from praying for those buried there, doing anything else at a graveyard—attempting to convey one’s distress to the people in the graves, seeking their help to fulfill a need, or attempting to obtain spiritual emanations from them—is entirely shirk. In essence, this is the very practice that polytheists carry out with their invented deities and objects of worship. At this point, it is essential to mention an incident from the commentary on Surah Fatir in Tafsir Jami‘ al-Tafsir. The incident was narrated by Shah Ishaq Dehlawi from Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him).

The incident is as follows: Imam Abu Hanifa saw a man enter the graveyard of righteous people and offer salutations, addressing them by saying: “O people of the graves! Do you have any news? Do you possess any power? I have been coming to you for several months and calling out to you. I did not ask you for anything except a prayer on my behalf. But have you perceived anything, or have you become completely heedless?”

Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) heard this. He called the man and asked him: “Did the people in the graves answer your call in any way?” The man replied: “No, I received no answer at all.” Then Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “What a great cause for sorrow and shame! May both your hands perish. You are speaking to bodies that cannot answer at all, that have no power to do anything, and cannot even hear a sound.” Then he recited verse 22 of Surah Fatir: “You cannot make those who are in the graves hear.”

This statement of Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) proves that he held the view that going to the graves of awliya and righteous people, addressing them, or praying to them for anything is entirely impermissible. Secondly, the dead neither hear nor can they respond. They have no ability—and cannot have any ability—to rescue devotees from calamities, grant children to the childless, or bring success in employment, business, and the like. Imam Abu Hanifa’s (may Allah have mercy on him) view truly reflects the Qur’anic declaration. The Jews, Christians, and polytheists used to call upon Jesus, Ezra, and the angels, seeking their help to be rescued from calamities. In this context Allah the Exalted declared: Arabic (*********)

—No, they will never be able to remove your hardship or divert from you the hardship that has come upon you.

At this point, a verse of the Noble Qur’an is especially noteworthy. Allah the Exalted said:

وَمَنْ أَضَلُّ مِمَّن يَدْعُو مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ مَن لَّا يَسْتَجِيبُ لَهُ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ وَهُمْ عَن دُعَائِهِمْ غَافِلُونَ [٤٦:٥]

—Who can be more astray than one who calls upon someone besides Allah, who will not answer him until the Day of Resurrection, while they are unaware of their supplication? (Al-Ahqaf 46:5)

To learn the correct ruling at this point, we must first see what status the Noble Qur’an itself has declared for the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The status of the Noble Prophet declared in the Qur’an will serve as the foundation here—for keeping one’s creed correct and acquiring sound knowledge of the Sunnah. Every reader of the Qur’an knows that in many places the Noble Qur’an declares the Messenger’s own status through his own words. One such verse is this:

قُل لَّا أَمْلِكُ لِنَفْسِي نَفْعًا وَلَا ضَرًّا إِلَّا مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ ۚ وَلَوْ كُنتُ أَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ لَاسْتَكْثَرْتُ مِنَ الْخَيْرِ وَمَا مَسَّنِيَ السُّوءُ ۚ إِنْ أَنَا إِلَّا نَذِيرٌ وَبَشِيرٌ لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ [٧:١٨٨]

—Say, O Prophet: I possess no power over benefit or harm for myself, except what Allah wills. If I had knowledge of the unseen, I would surely have acquired much good, and no evil would have touched me. I am only a warner and a bearer of glad tidings for people who believe. (Al-A‘raf 7:188)

Allamah Alusi wrote in his commentary on this verse: This verse shows that the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) does not possess the knowledge of the unseen that is relevant to obtaining benefit and warding off harm. It has no connection with him, nor with religious commands, injunctions, or the laws of the Shariah. Therefore, the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) does not possess this type of knowledge of the unseen. Not possessing this knowledge is in no way harmful or blameworthy with respect to the greatness of his prophetic status.

That the Messenger did not possess knowledge of the unseen is also proven by a real incident. Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said: People used to pollinate the female date palms with the male ones. The Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “It would be better if you did not do this.” But in the following harvest season, the date crop was poor because they had not done it. Upon hearing this, the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “You know best about these worldly matters of yours.” In another narration, the statement is given as follows: “Look, if the matter concerns your worldly affairs, then it is your affair. But if it concerns religion, then it falls within my domain.”

The creed supported by the Hanafi school clearly states that if anyone believes that the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew the unseen, he is an outright unbeliever. Such a belief is completely contrary to the Qur’an (the verse cited earlier and) this verse. The verse is:

قُل لَّا يَعْلَمُ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ الْغَيْبَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ۚ

—Say: No one in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen except Allah alone.

That is, whatever lies beyond the scope of human perception and knowledge is unknown and unknowable to anyone among all created beings in the heavens and the earth except Allah.

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said: Arabic (********)

—Whoever claims that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) knows or informs people about worldly matters that will occur tomorrow has attributed a great lie to Allah.

On the basis of these decisive and clear proofs concerning knowledge of the unseen, it may be said that when even the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not know the unseen, there is no question of any pir, wali, or dervish knowing it. If anyone believes otherwise, it is a great shirk in matters of creed, completely contrary to the clear declarations of the Qur’an and hadith, and an obvious bid‘ah opposed to the Sunni creed.

Miraculous acts and events causing to occur is bid‘ah

Allah is the Creator of all the worlds. Authority over all this belongs solely to Allah. No one besides Him has the power to do anything in this world. While alive, a person can do only what Allah Most High has allowed him the opportunity to do. That opportunity is neither unlimited nor extraordinary. However, whoever Allah grants the ability to do something can do only as much as Allah permits. Therefore, it may be said that Allah sometimes allows His beloved servants to perform certain acts of the kind we call “miraculous acts.” Some of these acts are performed by the prophets and messengers. In Islamic terminology, these are called “mu‘jizāt.” The mu‘jizāt of the prophets and messengers are true. They are conclusive proofs establishing the truth of a prophet’s prophethood. But these mu‘jizāt occur for the welfare of creation and to bring about certain particular benefits, and they occur through Allah’s own power and will, not through the will of the prophet or messenger. The ability to perform them is not inherent in the prophets and messengers; it is power granted solely by Allah.

Just as Allah Most High gave the other prophets and messengers miracles and conclusive proofs to establish the certainty of their prophethood, He also granted Jesus, peace be upon him, the power to perform many extraordinary acts. But, seeing those signs, the Christians assumed that the ability to perform them belonged to Jesus himself, and that this power and strength were exactly the power and strength of Allah. For this reason, those ignorant people assumed that the Almighty Allah had somehow become absorbed into Jesus. Thus Allah and Jesus became one entity, Allah and Jesus became completely merged—Allah forbid. This is the essence of the Christians’ acceptance of a polytheistic creed.

Regarding those known among Muslims as awliyā’ of Allah, some have assumed, out of excessive devotion and extreme ignorance, that Allah has come into their grasp—or that they have become Allah, Allah forbid—and therefore that they possess the power to accomplish the impossible and perform extraordinary, miraculous events. This too is the result of the same extreme ignorance as that of the Christians immersed in polytheism. Just as the Christians did not understand that whatever power Jesus, peace be upon him, possessed was given to him by Allah as a prophet and was not his own, so these ignorant people among the Muslims neither understand nor are prepared to understand that those whom they regard as awliyā’ of Allah may not actually be Allah’s awliyā’. Even if they are, they have no power to perform anything miraculous or to alter Allah’s ongoing, ever-effective natural laws and ordinances. For this very reason, they too are submerged in extreme polytheism like the Christians.

But if extraordinary acts occur through people other than prophets and messengers, they may be of three kinds.

First: If they produce a religious benefit, they are counted among righteous deeds.

Second: If something lawful results from them, they are a worldly blessing granted by Allah. The person concerned should therefore give thanks to Allah.

Third: If an extraordinary event involves something forbidden or falls within the category of the unlawful, it will be a cause of Allah’s punishment. As a result, Allah’s displeasure will erupt.

It must be remembered that just as extraordinary events occur around the righteous servants of this world, they may also occur around other servants. Therefore, from the perspective of religion, they are neither necessarily good nor necessarily evil. Yet there are also events that are neither good nor evil.

If such an event occurs around a righteous person, it is neither a matter of personal glory for him nor proof of his sainthood. Nor is there any evidence in the Qur’an and Hadith that everyone around whom such a thing occurs must be regarded as possessing miraculous power or considered a beloved servant of Allah. On the basis of the Qur’anic verses, who is an ally of Allah and who is beloved by Him can be learned from the following verse. Allah has said:

أَلَا إِنَّ أَوْلِيَاءَ اللَّهِ لَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ [١٠:٦٢]

الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَكَانُوا يَتَّقُونَ [١٠:٦٣]

—Know that the allies of Allah shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve. They are those who believe and observe taqwā. (Yunus: 62–63)

Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated that, while relating a hadith qudsi, the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said that Allah had said: Arabic (**********)

—Whoever shows hostility to one of My allies has declared war against Me. Nothing is dearer to Me by which My servant draws near to Me than fulfilling the obligations I have prescribed for him. My servant continues to draw near to Me through voluntary acts until I begin to love him. And when I love a servant, I become his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he grasps, and his foot with which he walks. Thus, he hears through Me, sees through Me, grasps through Me, and walks through Me.

It has been established from Qur’anic verses and Hadith that an ally of Allah is one who is a believer and observes taqwā. Having faith and taqwā means possessing complete faith and flawless, genuine taqwā. It is also known from the Hadith that such a person properly fulfills the obligations imposed by Allah. But neither the Qur’an nor Hadith says that he must also possess karāmah. The subsequent words of the cited Qur’anic verse do not mention this karāmah. What they contain is this:لَهُمُ الْبُشْرَىٰ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَفِي الْآخِرَةِ ۚ

—For them are glad tidings in the life of this world and in the Hereafter.

بُشْرىThe word bushrā, or glad tidings, essentially means news that causes signs of joy to appear on the face when heard. Bashārah, meaning glad tidings, derives from this. Any news that brings such joy is also called bushrāبُشْرى. Its correct meaning is this: for them are glad tidings both while they remain in this world and after they depart for the Hereafter—in other words, both immediate and deferred.

Allāmah Alusi wrote: Numerous Hadith reports establish that this bushrā in the Qur’an means good and auspicious dreams in worldly life, which are one forty-sixth of prophethoodبُشْرى.

This interpretation is conclusively known from the words of the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, himself. As for the Hereafter, it means that, at the moment of death, the believer will be given the glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him and those who will carry him to his grave.

It is also known from a narration of Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, that its meaning is Paradise.

It has also been narrated from ‘Ata’: In this world, the bushrā is that, at the time of death, the angels will bring mercy to themبُشْرى. As for the Hereafter, the bushrā is that the angels will bring these Muslims glad tidings of their success, honor, and distinction. They will see their faces illuminated, their records of deeds placed in their right hands, and they will read them, along with glad tidings of similar kindsبُشْرى.

Then what is this claim that the awliyā’ of Allah will receive some kind of karāmah, which today’s genuine and false pirs use to attract blind and ignorant disciples even more strongly toward genuine and fraudulent pirs by telling them these fantastic stories?

These gifts bestowed upon the awliyā’ of Allah are indeed a great favor from Allah. But that favor is personal to them. If someone receives it, he should give thanks to Allah. But is there any proof that publicizing it provides divine sanction for running the pir–disciple business? The karāmah mentioned in books of creed is this: karāmah means honor and distinction; these too are honors and distinctions granted by Allah, and no Muslim can deny these karāmāt established by the declarations of the Qur’an and Hadith. But the karāmah being discussed here is not this. Rather, it is the claim that some pir or ally of Allah caused an extraordinary event, dazzled disciples by performing an unusual act, flew through the air, crossed the sea on foot, or went to the Ka‘bah every day to pray while imprisoned. What is the meaning of publicizing such claims? Any sane person will acknowledge that these are entirely empty words, told only to ignorant fools and propagated among them.

In short, the ideas that merely being an ally of Allah requires a person to possess karāmah or the ability to perform miracles, that anyone possessing karāmah must be regarded as an ally of Allah, and that someone without karāmah cannot be regarded as an ally of Allah are all baseless. There is no evidence for any of these claims in the Qur’an or Hadith.

The miraculous (?) feats that ignorant pirs display before even more ignorant disciples, or the claims that they exercise some kind of tasarruf over worldly administration and social affairs miraculously even after death, or that the spirits of shaykhs appear and know or hear what is happening in the world—what can these be other than manifestly unbelieving or polytheistic statements? This power was not even granted to the Messenger himself. Several proofs are cited at this point.

Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari wrote: The Hanafi imams have stated explicitly: Whoever holds the belief that the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, knows the unseen is an unbeliever. For such a belief contradicts Allah’s declaration, “No one in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen except Allah.” (قُل لَّا يَعْلَمُ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ الْغَيْبَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ۚThe verse means that the unseen matters beyond human perception, senses, knowledge, and understanding are known among the entire creation of the heavens and earth by none except Allah. Imam Ibn Kathir wrote in his commentary on this verse: Allah Most High commands His Messenger to tell the inhabitants of the entire creation, while teaching them, that no one among the inhabitants of the heavens and earth knows the unseen—only Allah Most High knows it. He then wrote: Allah’s words “except Allah” have been completely separated and set apart from the preceding words. This means that no one knows the unseen except Allah, for He is One and Unique in this matter, and no one shares with Him in it.)

Likewise, whoever believes that the dead exercise tasarruf over worldly affairs—causing events and carrying out actions according to their own will—holding such a belief apart from Allah is unbelief.

In the books of Hanafi jurisprudence, a person who makes the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, a witness at a marriage is called an unbeliever, because he did so believing the Noble Messenger to be an ‘ālim al-ghayb, one who knows the unseen.

The Mujaddid of Sirhind waged lifelong jihad against the polytheism and innovations practiced at graves. What he wrote on this subject is quoted here: Seeking help from idols, deities, and false objects of worship to remove illness and sorrow—a practice that has become common among ignorant Muslims—is outright polytheism and misguidance. Supplicating constructed or unconstructed stones to fulfill one’s needs is equivalent to explicitly denying Almighty Allah and is outright unbelief. Allah Most High, describing the condition of certain misguided people, said: “They wish to submit their affairs to the powers of the tāghūt, although Allah has commanded that these tāghūt powers be rejected. And Satan wishes to mislead them and cast them into error.

Many women, out of extreme ignorance, become involved in seeking such help. Some seek relief from illness, sorrow, and misfortunes from imaginary names. This involves the customs and practices of polytheists. Very few women have been saved from this subtle polytheism and refrained from participating in its associated rituals. Indeed, only those whom Allah has saved have been saved.

What is happening today at the graves of people called awliyā’ of Allah—what particular pirs’ particular disciples do when they visit the court of a living pir or the grave of a dead pir, seeking spiritual blessings from him and asking him for help in times of distress—is entirely polytheistic, and that it is an innovation of polytheism in Muslim society is clearly understood from the foregoing quotation from the Mujaddid of Sirhind. Yet, sadly, his later disciples and their disciples have done precisely these things, while still claiming to be Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamā‘ah. In light of the Mujaddid of Sirhind’s reasoned words, rather than calling them Ahl al-Sunnah, they may be called Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Bid‘ah. The Mujaddid of Sirhind, may Allah have mercy on him, explicitly described such acts as polytheistic and called those who perform them polytheists, because only polytheists can do such things. Polytheists are polytheists precisely because they do such things. If they did not do such things, they certainly would not be polytheists. Then if a class of Muslims or people bearing the names of pirs and scholars perform such acts, why should those acts not be polytheistic, and why should they not be condemned before Allah as polytheists? At the conclusion of this lengthy discussion, I wish to remind today’s pirs, disciples, and people known as awliyā’ of Allah of the advice of the Mujaddid of Sirhind, which he gave to the innovators among the pirs of his time. It is this:

—If the Sufis of this age act justly and observe the weakness of Islam and the widespread prevalence of falsehood, they should not follow their pirs outside the Sunnah. Nor should they follow invented practices on the pretext that they have seen their own pirs practice them.

Indeed, following the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is undoubtedly the vehicle of salvation and the source of good and blessed results. Blindly following matters outside the Sunnah contains danger upon danger.

Amulets Tumārs and grave construction innovations

In our society, amulets and talismans are widely practiced among ordinary uneducated people, while among a class of wealthy people—especially when traveling abroad—there is a widespread custom of tying an “Imam Zamin.” These people pay little attention to the fundamental teachings of Islam and do not really understand them. Nevertheless, when they fall into danger, encounter danger, or fear danger, they cannot refrain from tying amulets and talismans to their hands or necks, or tying an “Imam Zamin.” They believe that this will make the danger pass or prevent it from arriving at all. But they do not even find time to consider that, according to the Qur’an and Hadith, these practices are entirely opposed to Islam’s doctrine of tawhid and are completely innovative and polytheistic acts among Muslims. On deeper examination, it becomes clear that these people are not fundamentally at fault; rather, a class of mullahs and maulvis posing as scholars introduced these things among ordinary people and earn a little money from them. They never tried to instill any understanding of the doctrine of tawhid in the minds of ignorant and foolish people. Instead, they gave them the idea that the danger would pass and they would be rescued from it. In other words, instead of the doctrine of tawhid, an unmistakably polytheistic creed was implanted in their minds. Rather than teaching them to rely on the One Allah in every situation and supplicate Allah for rescue from danger, they were directed along the clear path of polytheism. Thus, through the custom of tying amulets, talismans, and Imam Zamins, a manifest innovation has been introduced among Muslims in Muslim society.

Yet any scholar who looked to the Qur’an would have seen that, when describing the identity of Muslims, the Qur’an declares in eloquent language:

وَيَرْجُونَ رَحْمَتَهُ وَيَخَافُونَ عَذَابَهُ ۚ

—The believing Muslims hope only for Allah’s mercy and fear only His punishment. (Children of Israel: 57).

In other words, they do not seek even the slightest help, peace, or security from anyone or anything besides Allah. Their hearts never place hope in anyone or anything else under any circumstances. They do not feel even the slightest fear of harm from anyone else. Thus, they do not seek refuge in any dead or absent person or in any lifeless object—neither in the hope of gaining some benefit nor to ward off any danger or harm. Indeed, this is the doctrine of tawhid, and this is the identity of the believer who upholds tawhid.

But tying amulets, tumārs, and talismans is completely contrary to this. It clearly contradicts the following verse of the Noble Qur’an. Allah Most High has said:

قُلْ أَفَرَأَيْتُم مَّا تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ إِنْ أَرَادَنِيَ اللَّهُ بِضُرٍّ هَلْ هُنَّ كَاشِفَاتُ ضُرِّهِ أَوْ أَرَادَنِي بِرَحْمَةٍ هَلْ هُنَّ مُمْسِكَاتُ رَحْمَتِهِ ۚ

—Say, O Prophet: Have you considered those whom you invoke besides Allah? If Allah intends harm for me, can they remove or avert His harm? Or if He intends mercy for me, can they withhold His mercy? (Az-Zumar: 38).

Allah alone is the absolute Master of granting harm or mercy; there is no one besides Allah. If Allah wills harm, He will cause it, and no one will be able to escape that harm. Likewise, if Allah wishes to grant someone mercy, he will not be deprived of it, and no one can deprive him of Allah’s mercy. No one can give that mercy to anyone else when it has been designated for a particular person. When the situation is thus, why would intelligent people seek anything from anyone, any power, or any object besides Allah? Why would they seek its mercy and help, or seek release from danger through it? Are amulets, talismans, and Imam Zamins in our country not things of this kind? The Hadith contains explicit prohibitions concerning them. Any scholar may examine these Hadith. If he does, he will understand that, from the perspective of Hadith, these are polytheistic acts. We mention several Hadith here.

Arabic (***********)

—It is narrated from ‘Imran ibn Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, saw a man wearing a ring on his hand to protect himself from bile disease. He asked in a tone of disapproval, “What is that you are wearing?” He replied, “I am wearing it in order to be cured of the disease.” The Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Take it off. For as long as it remains on your hand, it will only increase your affliction, not reduce it at all. And if you die while wearing it, you will never attain prosperity.”

It is narrated from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: Arabic (******)

—Whoever hangs an amulet or talisman, Allah will grant him no benefit. And whoever hangs a charm, Allah will never remove his affliction; he will never find peace.

Another narration states: Arabic (********)

—Whoever ties an amulet or talisman has committed polytheism.

These three Hadith mentioned consecutively clearly establish that tying an amulet or talisman to escape harm, loss, or danger, or in the hope of attaining some personal interest or objective, is manifest polytheism. The sincerity that the testimony Lā ilāha illā Allāh, the foundation of faith, demands from a servant is completely opposed to this act. For a truly sincere believer will never turn his heart toward anyone besides Allah in order to gain benefit from someone or escape someone’s harm. Therefore, the demand of complete tawhid cannot be fulfilled without abandoning these practices. Many people fail to recognize or simply overlook the seriousness of this sin because they call it minor polytheism. But although it is minor polytheism, it is extremely grave. The Hadith indicate that, during the lifetime of the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, its grave nature was not obscure or unknown to any Companion. If so, is it surprising that it remains hidden from people of little knowledge and weak faith today—especially when polytheism and innovation have spread everywhere?

Hudhayfah, may Allah be pleased with him, saw a man who had tied a thread around his hand as an amulet because of the severity of his fever. He tore it off and recited this verse: “Most of them do not believe in Allah except while they are polytheists.”

Hazrat Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (RA) played a very strong role against shirk and bid’ah. Whenever and wherever he saw any bid’ah or shirk, he quickly raised his voice in protest and took swift, effective action. Once, upon entering his house, he saw a thread amulet hanging around his wife’s neck. When he asked her about it, she replied, “I have tied it around my neck as a folk remedy for such-and-such an illness.” He seized it and pulled it so forcefully that it snapped; otherwise, his wife herself might have fallen face-first and been injured. He did not do this merely because of his firmness of character; rather, he did it to fulfill his religious duty against shirk and bid’ah.

In the Age of Ignorance, there was a tree called Dhat Anwāt. Once every year, Quraysh and all the Arabs would gather there, hang their swords on the tree, slaughter animals near it, and remain there for a day.

After the conquest of Makkah, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), accompanied by the newly converted Muslims of Makkah and the Companions who had come from Madinah, was advancing toward Hunayn. As soon as the newly converted Muslims of Makkah saw that tree along the way, they called out from the side, “O Messenger (peace be upon him)! Make a Dhat Anwāt for us as well, just as they have a Dhat Anwāt.” Hearing this, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Allahu akbar! You are saying the very sort of thing that the companions of Moses said: ‘Make for us a deity just as they have deities, O Moses!’”

In other words, just as their statement was contrary to Islam’s monotheistic creed, your statement today is likewise contrary to monotheistic faith. For, like their statement, this statement resembles the words of the polytheists. Consequently, it is a very grave statement of shirk. Since making a Dhat Anwāt like theirs, hanging swords on it, slaughtering animals near it, and staying there for a day would amount to setting up another deity alongside the One Allah, the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) rejected their statement. (Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn Ishaq in the Prophet’s biography.)

If this historical account is true—and who could say that it is not—then why should what today’s Muslims do at the graves of renowned awliya, pirs, and ghawths—staying near them, supplicating to them, calling upon them, and asking for their prayers—not also be clear shirk and worthy of rejection?

The two practices are completely alike in terms of constituting shirk. In the context of this incident, Abu Bakr al-Tartushi, a student of Imam Malik, instructed the people: “Wherever you see a tree of this kind around which people gather, show it respect and veneration, seek relief from illness and calamity from it, and hold an urs around it, cut that tree down immediately and demolish and eradicate this gathering place of shirk.”

It thus became clear that, in the view of Hazrat Hudhayfah, tying amulets and talismans to ward off fever and the like is clear shirk. Although this is minor shirk, the Companions would cite, in opposition to it, verses that had been revealed in opposition to major shirk. For there is no doubt that, although minor, it is still shirk. For this reason, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said: the Arabic text follows.

“What I fear most for you is minor forms of shirk.”

Therefore, no matter how minor shirk may seem, in reality it is not minor at all. Rather, in the view of the Companions, minor shirk was even more grave and severe than major sins.

When one considers, in light of the Qur’anic verses and hadiths, the widespread practice in our country of tying ta’wiz, talismans, amulets, and imam-jamen, one’s heart breaks with grief. If only ignorant people practiced these things, it would be understandable. But we see even people known by the title of great scholars immersed in this shirk. When, at the head of state’s departure for a foreign country, a person known as a scholar ceremoniously ties an imam-jamen around his hand at the airport; when, as a married daughter is sent off abroad, her mother ties an imam-jamen around her hand, and the news is published in large letters in the newspapers—then the head of a person who believes in tawhid cannot help but bow in shame and sorrow.

In our rural, ignorant society, one sees all sorts of useless objects tied around the necks and hands of newborn children. The stones of ber fruit, copper coins, the bulky amulets given by mullahs, and leaves or pieces of roots from various plants are hung on them. Children who can walk are made to wear anklets and rattles on their feet, in the hope that if they head toward a pond, this will be noticed and they will be saved from falling into the water and drowning. In reality, however, such a burden of rubbish cannot save a child whose death has been decreed in infancy. Children wearing anklets or rattles also drown and die, because death does not depend on these things. In fact, there is no doubt that these things constitute shirk in the case of people and that all these customs are bid’ah. Just as the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) made clear statements and issued prohibitions concerning these matters, he also actively opposed these practices that were prevalent in the Age of Ignorance. Indeed, he prohibited even tying such things around the necks of animals and tore them off when they were found there.

In the Age of Ignorance, it was customary to tie various amulets and talismans around the necks of fine camels to protect them from the evil eye. Hazrat Abu Bashir—Quraysh ibn Ubayd—said that on one occasion he was accompanying the Messenger (peace be upon him) on a journey abroad. Before setting out, the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) sent a man ahead, saying: the Arabic text follows.

“Let no camel have any such cord tied around its neck; if one is found, let it be cut off.”

Imam Ahmad and Abu Dawud narrated that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said: the Arabic text follows.

“Using amulets, talismans, and objects relied upon for protection is clear shirk.”

At the end of this discussion, one doubt needs to be dispelled. After reading the preceding discussion, someone may wonder: would it also be shirk to make an amulet from Qur’anic verses? The brief answer is that some of the Salaf al-Salih considered it permissible to make amulets and talismans from Qur’anic verses. Others, however, declared even this practice haram. Hazrat Ibn Mas’ud (RA) was one of the latter. Among the jurists, Qatadah, al-Sha’bi, Sa’id ibn Jubayr, and a large group said that using amulets and talismans is makruh (tahrim). Every believer has a duty to avoid these things, to rely and place trust in Allah while strengthening faith in Him, and, knowing that such things provide no benefit, to abandon them without fearing any harm.

I believe that if everyone considers the psychological state underlying these practices, they will acknowledge that such practices cannot be anything but haram and opposed to tawhid—even when they are made from Qur’anic verses. When someone practices these things out of fear of falling into danger, the focus of his mind shifts from Allah to things other than Allah. He relies on these things instead of Allah. In the perspective of tawhid, this is shirk. Secondly, if Qur’anic verses are used in this practice, is there any doubt that this is not the proper use of the Qur’an? The Qur’an did not come into the world to remain an amulet; it is diverted from its purpose and used for another purpose. Is there any doubt that this is an overt insult to the Qur’an, misuse of the Qur’an, and another form of tahrif—practical tahrif (distortion)? This is not at all unclear to a person experienced in the Qur’an and committed to tawhid. Therefore, the sooner this practice is stopped, people abandon it and become sincere monotheists and followers of tawhid, the better. At the very least, I wish to say emphatically that the scholars of society should take special action on this matter and should not give these things the slightest encouragement.

Of course, this does not prove that, in the event of a sudden calamity, one may not recite Qur’anic verses and seek Allah’s mercy, or blow over an afflicted person seeking healing from Allah. That these practices are permissible is established by hadith, and many jurists have also expressed this view.

Milad Ceremony Bid’ah

For many years, the practice of reciting Milad and holding Milad gatherings has continued in Muslim society. Muslims generally regard it as a highly meritorious act and observe it with great sincerity. Yet it seems that Muslims—even the educated and aware people of Muslim society—are unwilling to pause for even a moment and consider whether this practice conforms to Islamic Shariah and to the Sunnah that Muslims received from Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) by believing in him. Even the scholars of this country are being swept along by the current of this age-old social custom. They never stop to examine whether we are acting according to the Sunnah or practicing bid’ah. It has therefore become particularly necessary for this book to discuss the matter in some detail.

Everyone knows and acknowledges that no such Milad custom existed during the life of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him), nor during the time of the Companions, the Tabi’in, or the mujahids of later generations. The brief history of this Milad is that, approximately two hundred years after the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), a king introduced it—one whom history identifies as a sinful man. Dr. Ahmad Sharbaki, a teacher at al-Azhar, wrote that the Fatimid rulers introduced it in Egypt in the fourth century Hijri. It is also said that a man named Shaykh Umar ibn Muhammad introduced it in Mosul, Iraq. Later, King al-Muzaffar Abu Sa’id introduced Milad in Irbil, Iraq. Ibn Dihyah wrote a book on the subject and presented it to him. The king rewarded him with one thousand dinars.

In this context, it is clear that the present-day Milad is not an arrangement prescribed by the Sunnah, nor is it conducted according to the Sunnah. Rather, it is plainly bid’ah.

The clearest and most conclusive proof that it is bid’ah is that this practice did not exist in the time of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him), nor was it established as a meritorious act during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs—that is, the era of the Companions—after the Messenger. It was not seen even in the following era, during the time of the Tabi’i mujtahids. A practice that was not established in the Islamic era as worship or a meritorious act cannot be introduced as a meritorious act by anyone in a later period; no one has been granted that authority.

In Islam, the rules concerning what is permissible and impermissible, reward and sin, and Allah’s and the Messenger’s approval and disapproval can be established only on the basis of the Qur’an and Sunnah. There is no place in Islam for regarding as a highly meritorious act something that is not established on the basis of the Qur’an and Sunnah. In reality, such a practice itself is bid’ah. And for a practice that is inherently bid’ah, hoping for any reward from it is nothing but foolishness. The Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) himself testified to the excellence of certain generations, saying: the Arabic text follows.

“The most excellent Islamic era is my era, then the era of those who followed them, and then the era of those who followed them.”

The practice of holding Milad ceremonies was not established in Muslim society in any of these three eras—that is, the era of the Messenger’s Companions, the Tabi’in, and the generation after them—but only much later. Thus, merely believing that there is any genuine benefit in this practice is itself a major bid’ah. In particular, for several specific reasons, the Milad ceremony becomes extremely dangerous for Muslims in matters of creed and religion. In brief, the reasons are as follows:

((a))  The way the birth account of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) is discussed or recited in Arabic, Urdu, or Bengali pronunciation during this ceremony is fundamentally abhorrent. Yet people hold the creed that at precisely this time the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) appears bodily in the gathering. According to all authorities, however, such a creed is manifest kufr. On the basis of the Qur’an’s clear declaration and the firm rulings of jurisprudence, the unlawfulness of such a creed has been established.

The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) departed from this world forever. To hold the creed that he can return to this world is shirk. This is possible only for Allah. To attribute an act of Allah’s power to any servant is clear shirk. At this point, the statement from Fatawa al-Bazzaziyyah may again be mentioned.

It states: the Arabic text follows.

It is explicitly stated in the Hanafi school that whoever holds the creed that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) knows the knowledge of the unseen becomes a kafir. This is because such a creed is completely contrary to Allah’s declaration. Allah has said:

قُل لَّا يَعْلَمُ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ الْغَيْبَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ۚ

“Say: None in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen except Allah.”

It is stated in the books of jurisprudence that if someone says at a wedding ceremony, “The witnesses to this marriage are Allah Himself and the Messenger,” he will become a kafir. For he has believed the Messenger (peace be upon him) to be Knower of the Unseen.

((b)) Distributing sweets and confectionery at a Milad gathering is regarded as absolutely essential. The Milad gathering itself is also treated as obligatory. When an impermissible practice is regarded in this way as obligatory or essential, it becomes makruh. The books of jurisprudence state: Any permissible act that is treated as obligatory becomes makruh (and makruh means makruh tahrim).

((c)) Holding Milad on a specified day and date is regarded as essential. Yet when the Shariah has not specified any date for this practice, doing so amounts to adding something of our own to the rulings of the Shariah.

It is clearly stated in the hadith: the Arabic text follows.

“Do not single out Thursday night from among the nights for the Tahajjud prayer, nor Friday from among the days for voluntary fasting.”

Therefore, when the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) expressly prohibited designating a night or day of our own even for voluntary fasting, how can it possibly be permissible to make such a designation of our own for Milad?

((d)) A great deal of lighting is arranged to decorate the Milad gathering; candles and incense are burned in abundance. These are utterly futile practices. The money spent on them is likewise wasteful expenditure. This practice is prohibited, and Allah’s declaration applies to it:

“Do not spend money wastefully, for the wasteful are brothers of Satan.”

Is it not utter foolishness to think that one can earn reward from a ceremony in which these things are done and Allah’s words are openly opposed?

In response to a question concerning Milad, Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi wrote: “The customary form of the Milad ceremony is bid’ah and makruh.”

Many eminent contemporary scholars endorsed this answer as sahih and also signed the fatwa. Maulana Gangohi wrote elsewhere: “Making something unconditional in the Shariah conditional, and making something conditional in the Shariah unconditional, is bid’ah. An example is holding a Milad gathering. In fact, remembering Allah or narrating and discussing the life of the Messenger is mustahabb and permissible in the Shariah. But holding a gathering specifically for that purpose is bid’ah and haram. Speaking of Allah and the Messenger is mustahabb; but making a Milad discussion a specific requirement is bid’ah.”

Imam Allamah Ibn al-Hajj wrote:

“Among the bid’ahs they have devised is their belief that whatever they do on this occasion is the greatest form of worship and an expression of Allah’s commands. This consists of holding Milad ceremonies in the month of Rabi al-Awwal, during which they perform several types of bid’ah and commit haram acts. He went so far as to say that the corruption produced by these Milads is immense. Whether there is singing or music, whether an intention is made to hold Milad and people are invited for it, even if none of the aforementioned objectionable practices occur, it will still be bid’ah merely because of the intention to perform this act. For this practice is, in essence, an addition to the religion of Islam. The righteous and religious people of the past did not practice it, although following them is best. There is no mention that any of them ever intended to hold Milad. We follow them, after all. Therefore, the scope and circumstances available to us should extend only as far as those available to them.”

Maulana Abdur Rahman al-Maghribi al-Hanafi (RA) wrote in his fatwa: “Holding a Milad ceremony is bid’ah. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the Imams neither practiced it nor instructed others to practice it. The same is written in the book Shari’at al-Ilahiyyah.”

In response to a question, Maulana Nasiruddin al-Awdi al-Shafi’i wrote concerning this:

“A Milad recitation ceremony must not be held, because it is not reported that any of the Salaf al-Salih did this. Rather, after three generations (the generation after the Tabi’in), people of a corrupt age newly invented this practice. Since the Salaf al-Salih did not do it, we cannot follow later people in it. The example of the Salaf al-Salih is sufficient for us. What need is there to perform this bid’ah practice?”

Shaykh Sharafuddin (RA) of the Hanbali school said: “The annual Milad festival that the rulers of this country hold for the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) is, apart from being a gross form of excess, fundamentally a bid’ah practice. They invented it by following the desires of the self. They do not know what the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) commanded and what he prohibited, even though he alone is the bearer and institutor of the Shariah.”

Qadi Shihabuddin (RA) wrote in response to a question:

“No, it must not be done, because it is bid’ah. Every bid’ah is clear misguidance, and the consequence of all misguidance is Hell. Whatever ignorant people do at the beginning of every year in the month of Rabi al-Awwal has no basis in the Shariah. When they stand while mentioning the birth of the Noble Prophet, believing that the Noble Prophet’s spirit has come and is present, this is merely a false notion. This creed is clear shirk. The Imams have prohibited such practices.”

The author of the Shami biographical work wrote: “It has become the habit of lovers of the Messenger (peace be upon him) that when they hear the account of the Noble Prophet’s birth, they stand to show him reverence. Yet this standing is bid’ah and has no basis.”

Maulana Fazlullah Jaunpuri said: “There is no proof for the common people standing while hearing the story of the Noble Prophet’s birth; rather, it is makruh.”

Qadi Nasiruddin Gujarati wrote: “Some ignorant pirs have introduced many bid’ahs for which no hadith or principle can be found in the Qur’an and Sunnah to support them. One of these is standing while recounting the birth of the Noble Messenger.”

Mujaddid Alf-e Thani, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi, wrote: “Judge the matter fairly. Suppose that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) were present at this time, alive in this world, and saw such a gathering being held: would he approve of it, would he like this ceremony? It is certain that he would not like this practice in any way. Rather, he would oppose it.”

Regarding such gatherings, this verse of the Noble Qur’an is especially relevant:

وَقَدْ نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الْكِتَابِ أَنْ إِذَا سَمِعْتُمْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ يُكْفَرُ بِهَا وَيُسْتَهْزَأُ بِهَا فَلَا تَقْعُدُوا مَعَهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ ۚ إِنَّكُمْ إِذًا مِّثْلُهُمْ ۗ

—Allah has commanded you: when you hear Allah’s verses being rejected and mocked, do not sit with them until they turn to another discourse. Otherwise, you too would then be sinners like them. (An-Nisa: 140)

In explaining this verse, Imam Qurtubi and Muhyi as-Sunnah Imam Baghawi wrote: Dahhak related from Ibn Abbas that all newly invented practices in the religion of Islam fall under the scope of this verse, as does every bid‘ah that will be devised until the Day of Resurrection.

The concluding part of the verse:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ جَامِعُ الْمُنَافِقِينَ وَالْكَافِرِينَ فِي جَهَنَّمَ جَمِيعًا [٤:١٤٠]

—Indeed, Allah will gather all the hypocrites and disbelievers together in Hell. This is an extremely stern warning for both the people of bid‘ah and the disbelievers.

At this point, my final word is that the Noble Prophet is the model of the Muslims of the world, their most beloved, and the sole means of attaining Allah’s guidance and mercy. Therefore, the life, character, and example of the Noble Messenger are the only beacon of salvation in this dark world. For this reason, everyone must discuss them again and again, read and learn about them, present them in detail before others, follow him step by step in practical life, obey and love him, and receive from him guidance and direction for the path of life. Apart from this, a Muslim has no other option; there can be none. This is the essence of the fundamental guidance given in the Qur’an and Hadith concerning the Messenger. However, it is not permissible to worship the Noble Messenger. Nor may one hold regarding him any belief that, according to the Shariah, may be held only regarding Allah.

Loving the Noble Messenger is the greatest provision for a believing person on the path of Islam. That love must certainly not become excessive to the degree that is appropriate only for Allah. The Messenger must be given the honor, importance, and love that Allah has commanded and that the Messenger has instructed us to give him.

At this point, Allah’s greatest guidance is to follow the Noble Messenger.

The verse is:

قُلْ إِن كُنتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللَّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ [٣:٣١]

—Say: O Prophet! If you love Allah, then follow me, O Muslims! Allah will love you and forgive your sins. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Al Imran: 31)

The central message of this verse is that if one loves Allah, one must follow the Prophet. When one follows the Prophet, attaining Allah’s love and forgiveness is the servant’s greatest and highest aspiration. The only way to attain that is to follow the Noble Messenger in every respect.

The Ummah’s second duty toward the Messenger is to recite durood. It is stated in a verse of the Noble Qur’an: Arabic (*******)

—Indeed, Allah and His angels send blessings upon the Prophet. O believers! You too send blessings and peace upon the Prophet.

Sending durood upon the Prophet is a noble deed, a deed of immense reward. When Allah Himself sends durood upon a prophet, and the angels send it as well, how blessed a deed it is to send durood upon that prophet, and how much reward it brings—its explanation cannot be exhausted.

What else could the Ummah be required to do regarding the Prophet? Who said that discussing the Prophet’s birth and mentioning the events surrounding his mother’s labor would bring reward? How was this known? And this practice of standing in groups and saying, ‘O Prophet, peace be upon you,’ and ‘O Beloved, peace be upon you,’ while believing that it brings great reward, is not established from the Qur’an and Hadith. In the view of many, these practices resemble a kind of Hindu worship ceremony. Resembling people of other religions in any act at the level of worship is most objectionable for Muslims. For the Noble Prophet said: Arabic (******)

—Whoever resembles another people will be counted among them on the Day of Resurrection.

Even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the soul of the Noble Prophet is present at a Milad gathering, the question remains: why must everyone stand in the gathering upon remembering this? During the Messenger’s lifetime, did the Companions stand to show him reverence when he arrived, and did the Noble Messenger become pleased by their standing, or did he ever instruct them to stand and honor him? Here we find something completely contrary to authentic Hadith. It is related in Musnad Ahmad that Anas said regarding the Companions: Arabic (********)

—The Noble Messenger was the most beloved person to the Companions. Yet despite this, when they saw the Messenger present, they did not stand for him, because they knew that he disliked standing to honor him.

Abu Majlaz said: Muawiyah entered a room where Ibn Amir and Ibn az-Zubayr were present. Ibn Amir stood when Muawiyah arrived, but Ibn az-Zubayr remained seated. Muawiyah then said to him: Arabic (******)

—Sit down. For I heard the Noble Messenger say: Whoever wants people to stand in his honor and is pleased by that should prepare his dwelling in Hell.

The Noble Prophet himself did not like at all, nor did he want, people to stand for his honor. This is proven by the narration of Abu Umamah. He said: Arabic (******)

—The Noble Prophet came before us leaning on a staff. We then stood to honor him. The Noble Prophet said: Do not stand as non-Muslims stand to honor one another.

Some may describe this statement of the Noble Messenger as stemming from his innate humility. They may say that, out of humility, the Noble Messenger did not tell anyone to stand for his honor, or prohibited it even when they stood. But does that mean we should not stand to show him respect?

These people do not understand how terribly dangerous the true implication of such a statement is. It would mean that he prohibited it only outwardly, whereas in reality he liked people to stand, was pleased when they stood, and they even received reward for it. Yet the question is this: if standing were a deed for which Muslims could receive reward, or if standing to honor them brought reward, or if it were a duty of Muslims toward the Prophet, there could be no reason to prohibit it in this way. He could have stated it openly, just as he instructed them to send durood upon him and to follow him; there was no need for pretence in this matter. To believe that the Prophet could act pretentiously, or that he did so, is itself a blow against the foundations of the religion. No believer can possibly hold such a belief.

It must be remembered that our discussion here concerns standing to honor the Noble Messenger on the belief that his soul is present at a Milad gathering. Temporarily standing to welcome an honored person in society upon his arrival, receiving him warmly, and standing to greet him sincerely is a different matter. It is narrated in an authentic Hadith that when Sa‘d ibn Mu‘adh (RA) came riding on his mount, the Noble Prophet himself instructed the Ansar: Stand for your leader in honor. This proves that standing to honor a dignified person is not unlawful. Rather, the majority of scholars have considered it mustahabb. No prohibition has been found in this regard.

The Noble Prophet himself, out of an excess of affection, also stood for his daughter Fatimah (RA). This standing is not prohibited. Rather, what is prohibited is the standing about which the Noble Messenger said: Arabic (********)

—Whoever likes people to stand to honor him should make his seat in Hell.

No true believer can like this or be pleased when people stand to honor him. Therefore, standing so that a leader or any person will be pleased is completely haram.

In light of this detailed discussion, there can be no doubt that the formal Milad gatherings currently held, and the annual celebration with immense pomp and ceremony on the 12th of Rabi‘ al-Awwal under the name ‘Fatiha-i-Dwazdahum’ as a national festival, are manifest bid‘ah. No example of any of them can be shown from the era of the Companions, the Tabi‘in, or the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in. Nor can any evidence in their support be produced from the Qur’an and Hadith. Therefore, hoping to obtain any reward from Allah through these ceremonies is entirely baseless. Adopting them as national ceremonies and observing them at national and state level, taking pride in having thereby fulfilled a major duty toward the Messenger, or deceiving the people by presenting oneself through them as a great follower of the Messenger, is not merely bid‘ah; it is undoubtedly an even greater audacity than bid‘ah.

Kissing the feet as bid‘ah

Nowadays, the practice of kissing feet is widespread in the circles of pirs and Islamic scholars. As soon as one becomes a disciple, one must kiss the pir’s feet; as soon as one becomes a madrasa student, one is compelled to kiss the respected teacher’s feet. If he does not, neither can the disciple receive spiritual benefit from the pir, nor can the student gain knowledge from the teacher. Rather, in both circles he is deemed guilty of disrespect, and immediately a ‘great Qur’anic (?) proof’ is presented and it is said: Arabic (*******)

—A disrespectful person is deprived of Allah’s grace.

Whether kissing feet causes one to be deprived of Allah’s grace, Allah knows best. But it is a practical fact that such a disciple or student is deprived of the affectionate regard of the pir or teacher. The question, however, is whether kissing feet is truly a deed in accordance with the Shariah. From where did this practice enter Muslim society? And what are its consequences?

The honor and status that the Noble Prophet held before the Companions, and the extent of their reverence and devotion toward him, cannot be compared with anything else, nor can anyone give another person the same honor and reverence. But how did those Companions outwardly show respect to the Noble Prophet? In this regard, Hadith mentions only that some Companions lightly kissed the Noble Prophet’s hand and forehead. These kisses expressed love more than devotion. No significant evidence can be found in the books of Hadith or biography that any of them ever touched the Noble Messenger’s feet with his hand and wiped his face with that hand—that is, performed the practice of kissing feet.

In this regard, Hadith records only that some Companions, out of an excess of love, occasionally kissed the Noble Prophet’s hands and feet. But this was not a general practice among all the Companions. Nor was there any such custom in Muslim society during the eras of the Tabi‘in and the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in. No trace of this practice of kissing feet is found in the history of this golden age of Islam. Therefore, it is undeniable that this practice is completely contrary to the established tradition of ijma‘ and mutawatir transmission.

Moreover, a fundamental principle of Islamic Shariah is that even a permissible or Sunnah-based act, if it becomes a cause of corruption in belief or practice, must instead be abandoned. This is why Umar al-Faruq (RA) cut down the tree beneath which the Noble Prophet had accepted the historic Bay‘at ar-Ridwan. The people of his time had begun to regard gathering near that tree as a Sunnah practice and visiting it regularly as absolutely necessary and meritorious, even though that was the most glorious era of Islam. Hence the principle of jurisprudence states: when a permissible act reaches the level of being considered obligatory, performing it becomes makruh.

Furthermore, when a person kisses feet, he assumes precisely the posture he assumes during the bowing and prostration of prayer; and deliberately doing this for anyone is entirely unlawful.

Qadi Iyad wrote: Just as prostrating to anyone other than Allah is prohibited, bowing one’s head before anyone in the manner of ruku‘ is likewise prohibited.

Al-Mujaddid al-Fasani (RA) wrote: Bowing one’s head before anyone is close to disbelief.

The jurists hold that bowing one’s head for a king, ruler, or anyone else is makruh. And makruh here means makruh tahrimi.

It is conclusively proven from all this that Islamic Shariah contains no rule requiring one to kiss the feet of a pir, teacher, or any other elder, whoever he may be. This practice is completely contrary to the Sunnah of the Noble Messenger—an extremely grave bid‘ah.

Another point about kissing feet is that this custom is found only in the circles of scholars and pirs of the Indian subcontinent. There is no trace of it in other Muslim societies. It may therefore readily be assumed that this practice entered Muslim society from the local Hindu community and acquired a Muslim form. The current practice of kissing feet in Muslim society was actually ‘prostration at the feet of the Brahmin.’ It can still be seen here and there. When a patron comes before a Brahmin, the Brahmin raises the big toe of his left foot, and the patron places his forehead on the tip of that toe. Then the Brahmin withdraws his foot whenever he wishes. This custom is ancient in Brahminism, for in Brahminical religious philosophy, Brahmins alone are human beings and everyone else is the Brahmin’s slave. Therefore, prostrating at the Brahmin’s feet is their duty.

Later, when the Hindus of this country became Muslims, they transformed this Hindu Brahminical custom—this ‘prostration at the feet’—into a Muslim practice and turned it into kissing feet. In short, the entire Hindu Brahminical custom was introduced into Muslim society, particularly in the circles of pirs and scholar-teachers, as a highly meritorious deed.

Its harmful effects, however, as reflected in Muslim society, are extremely alarming from the perspective of tawhid. In the environment of pir-disciple and teacher-student relationships, this practice of kissing feet has spread an unmistakably polytheistic outlook. The disciple and student consider it indispensable; otherwise, they will not receive the respected teacher’s favorable attention, and the respected teacher will not be pleased. Second, the respected teacher is regarded as being of such exalted rank that whatever he says, or whatever pleases his heart, it becomes one’s duty to do it. Even uttering a word of objection to him is considered the height of disrespect, and Allah is thought to be displeased by it. Yet in Islam’s belief in tawhid, apart from Allah in matters of belief and the Messenger in actual practice, no one can possess such a status.

On the other hand, ‘the revered pir’ and the respected teacher clearly harbor this desire in their hearts—they are not angels but human beings—and the disciple or student must kiss their feet. Many respected teachers are seen taking their seats in such a way that it is easy for the disciple or student to touch their feet, so that the act can be performed effortlessly. This does not mean that they verbally tell anyone to kiss their feet; rather, they do prohibit it. But that prohibition is uttered only after the act of kissing feet has been duly completed, not before. And that prohibition is exactly like a command.

Most importantly, the form of kissing feet is just like prostration. Allamah Shami, in view of the conditions of his time, described this kind of act precisely as ‘prostration.’

He wrote: The way people prostrate at the feet of scholars and prominent persons is completely haram. Both the person who does it and the one who approves of and is pleased by it are sinners, because this act is exactly like idol worship.

The Mufti of Deoband, Maulana Rashid Ahmad Ludhianvi, likewise issued this fatwa. (See Ahsan al-Fatawa.)

In fact, kissing feet is not mentioned in the Qur’an and Hadith, nor does it have any place in Islamic culture and civilization. Instead, the Qur’an and Hadith mention and clearly instruct us to offer salam and perform musafahah.

Regarding salam, the Noble Qur’an says:

وَإِذَا حُيِّيتُم بِتَحِيَّةٍ فَحَيُّوا بِأَحْسَنَ مِنْهَا أَوْ رُدُّوهَا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ حَسِيبًا [٤:٨٦]

—When you are greeted with a greeting, respond with one better than it, or return it equally. Remember, Allah keeps account of all things. (An-Nisa: 46)

It is clearly understood from this that when Muslims meet one another, they should exchange greetings. This greeting must be verbal, and they must maintain sincere commitment to it without any miserliness. Rather, each person should be unreservedly ready to offer the other a better greeting. The concluding part of the verse emphasizes the importance of this greeting and instructs people to take care that it is exchanged properly.

The Noble Prophet repeatedly urged people in various ways to exchange salam with one another. Abu Hurayrah (RA) narrated that the Noble Prophet said:

Arabic (********)

—I swear by the One in whose hand is my soul: you will not enter Paradise until you believe, and you will not believe until you love one another. Then he said: Shall I show you an act by which you will love one another? It is this: spread the practice of offering salam among yourselves.

When the Noble Prophet migrated and arrived in Madinah, the Muslims of Madinah warmly welcomed him. Describing this welcome, Abdullah ibn Salam said: Arabic (************)

—When the Noble Prophet arrived in Madinah, the people hurried forward to welcome him. I was among those who went forward at that time. …The first words I heard him say at that time were: Exchange salam with one another.

This Hadith provides clear and precise guidance regarding what the mutual greeting mentioned in the Qur’anic verse is, how it is to be offered, and what words should be used. Thus, when meeting anew, the first essential duty of one Muslim toward another is to offer salam, saying, ‘As-salamu alaykum.’ The other party should reply, ‘Wa alaykumus-salam wa rahmatullah.’ A Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari tells us that after Adam (AS) was created, he exchanged this salam with the angels at Allah’s command.

The aforementioned Hadith gives clear guidance on the proper way to welcome an honored guest who has newly arrived. Another Hadith tells us what conduct is appropriate and what is inappropriate when offering this salam.

Considering all the Hadith narrated in this regard, it is clear that salam is to be pronounced verbally—conveyed through words. No gesture is necessary, nor is any such gesture established by Hadith.

The second practice established by Hadith as Sunnah when meeting a newly arrived Muslim is musafahah. A Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari tells us that Ka‘b ibn Malik (RA) said: Arabic (******)

—I entered the Prophet’s Mosque. Suddenly I saw that the Noble Prophet was there. As soon as he saw me, Talhah ibn Ubaydullah stood and hurried toward me. He shook my hand and warmly welcomed me.

Another Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari tells us that the Tabi‘i Qatadah asked Anas (RA): Arabic (********)

—Was the practice of the Companions of the Noble Prophet shaking hands with one another widespread? Anas (RA) replied: Yes, it was practiced.

Abdullah ibn Hisham said: We were with the Noble Prophet, and he was holding Umar’s hand.

These Hadith clearly mention shaking hands after offering salam to a newcomer, and conclusively establish that it was fully practiced in the society of the Companions of the Noble Messenger.

A Hadith narrated in Jami‘ at-Tirmidhi is the clearest on this matter. Anas ibn Malik (RA) said that a man asked the Noble Messenger: Arabic (*******)

—O Messenger of Allah, when one of us meets his brother or friend, should he bow his head before him? The Messenger (peace be upon him) said: No. He asked: Should he then embrace him and kiss his face? The Messenger (peace be upon him) said: No. He asked: Should he then hold his hand and shake hands with him? The Messenger (peace be upon him) said: Yes.

Regarding this hadith, Imam al-Tirmidhi said: “Musafahah” means holding hands and praying for one another, saying, “May Allah forgive us and you.”

Regarding its virtue, the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) said: Arabic (********)

—If two Muslims shake hands when they meet one another, both of them are forgiven before their two hands separate.

The third practice mentioned in the hadith is “mu‘anaqah”—embracing. The only hadith narrated on this subject in Tirmidhi Sharif is that Hazrat Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said:

Arabic (********)

—Zayd ibn Harithah [the foster son of the Messenger (peace be upon him)] arrived in Madinah. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) came to my room. Zayd came to meet him and knocked on the door. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) went out to him, and they embraced, each putting his arms around the other’s neck, and he kissed him affectionately.

At this point, citing several more hadiths, Allamah Ahmadul Banna wrote: These hadiths prove that mu‘anaqah (embracing) is permissible in the Shariah, especially with someone who has arrived.

The practice of the Companions of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was that when they met one another, they would shake hands. When they returned from a journey abroad, they would embrace one another.

From this discussion it is known that the Sunnah of Islam is that when two Muslims meet one another, they should offer salam, shake hands, and also embrace—especially with someone returning from abroad. All these practices are established by clear hadiths. The Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) did them, and this was the established practice in the society of the Companions; indeed, this is the Sunnah. But where did this practice of kissing the feet come from? Who instructed people to kiss feet? Who introduced it into Islamic society? Not the Qur’an, not the hadith, not the Messenger, and not the society established by the Messenger. Therefore, there is no doubt that it is an innovation and a polytheistic practice. Yet in the society of the so-called Pir-oriented Ahl al-Sunnah(?) of our society, kissing feet is an indispensable practice. And why would it not be? Here, Islam and the Sunnah are not taken from the Qur’an, hadith, the Messenger, and the practice of the Companions; they are taken from deceased or living pirs. Since this kind of pir-murid relationship was adopted from Vedantic Brahmanism, the Brahmanical practice of kissing feet was bound to become established here as well. If someone says that this practice was introduced to honor teachers, pirs, and elders, I would say: they must be honored through whatever method of honoring them is established from the Sunnah. No one has the right to introduce a practice of his own invention—especially if it involves something extremely reprehensible from the perspective of the Shariah. If he does so, it will indeed be an innovation. Those who, invoking prevailing custom, seek to establish things outside the Shariah as being sanctioned by the Shariah are the innovators. May Allah protect the believing and monotheistic Muslim community from the influence of these innovators.

At the end of this discussion on kissing feet, this lengthy discussion would remain incomplete if one point were mentioned without answering it. Under the approval of certain pirs, fatwas have been issued in books on Sufism declaring the kissing of feet—especially the feet of a pir or teacher—permissible. Two hadiths have been cited as evidence for this fatwa: one from Tirmidhi and the other from Abu Dawud. The first hadith mentions two Jews: they listened to the explanation of the religion of Islam from the Noble Messenger. Then they kissed both his hands and feet and said: We bear witness that you are a prophet.

Our first point concerning this is that although Imam al-Tirmidhi described the hadith as sound and good, Imam al-Nasa’i called it an unacceptable hadith. Al-Mundhiri said that the hadith is weak because of Abdullah ibn Salimah, since a defect was identified in him as a narrator. Moreover, the clear wording of the hadith is that it was two Jews who kissed the hands and feet. The actions of Jews cannot be followed by Muslims. In the other hadith narrated by Abu Dawud, the statement of Umamat ibn Sharik (may Allah be pleased with him) is quoted: Arabic (******)

—The hadith cited in Abu Dawud speaks not of kissing the hands or feet of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him), but of kissing his waist. (The hadith was narrated from Hazrat Usayd ibn Hudayr (may Allah be pleased with him). At the request of an Ansari, when the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) lifted the garment he was wearing from the back, the man embraced him and began kissing his waist.)

Second, when all the hadiths at this stage are brought together and examined, it becomes clear that their central subject is not identical in every hadith. Some mention kissing both hands, while others mention kissing one hand and one foot. Indeed, in the hadith narrated from Hazrat Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), only kissing the hand is mentioned. It says: Arabic (*******)

—Then we kissed his hand. He said: Abu Lubabah, Ka‘b ibn Malik, and his two companions also kissed the hand of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) when Allah accepted their repentance. Abrahah has also mentioned this.

Imam Bukhari mentioned this hadith narrated by Ibn Umar in his book Adab al-Mufrad. In a hadith narrated by Hazrat Buraydah, it is reported that when a foolish man requested permission to kiss the head and both feet of the Messenger, the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) permitted him. Abd al-Rahman ibn Ruzayn said that Salamah ibn al-Akwa‘ extended a hand like the hand of his camel, and we kissed it. It is narrated from Thabit that he kissed the hand of Hazrat Anas. And it is said that Hazrat ‘Ali kissed the hands and feet of Hazrat Abbas.

No clear understanding can be gained from the hadiths narrated in this way. It is not clear whether the correct practice is to kiss both the hands and feet or only the hands. Therefore, on the basis of these hadiths, kissing feet cannot in any way be declared permissible. Abu Malik al-Ash‘ari said: I said to Abu Awf (may Allah be pleased with him), “Bring out the hand with which you pledged allegiance to the Messenger.” He brought out that hand, and then we kissed it.

Such hadiths may establish the permissibility of reverently kissing the hand of a devout and ascetic person, but they do not establish the permissibility of kissing feet. Imam al-Nawawi also expressed this view.

Furthermore, even if a new Muslim, overwhelmed by reverence and respect, happened to kiss both the hands and feet of the Noble Messenger, present-day pirs and teachers cannot use this as a basis for having their devoted murids and students kiss their hands and feet. Do they consider themselves to have attained the rank of the Messenger?

In reality, the present practice of kissing feet is contrary to the Sunnah of the Messenger and extremely degrading to human dignity. This practice should be stopped without delay.

The Precedence of Women in Society Is Also an Innovation

The status of women in Islamic society is firmly established, declared by the Qur’an, and implemented by the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him). Their dignity and rights as women are fully recognized therein. But the status of women is not above that of men; it is below it—not first, but second; not absolute, but conditional.

At this point, the Qur’an declares:

الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنفَقُوا مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ ۚ

—Men are established over women, on the basis that Allah has given some people superiority over others, and also because men spend their wealth on women. (An-Nisa: 34).

One reason for men’s greater status in comparison with women is their natural qualities, characteristics, and particular capabilities. Second, men, rather than women, are responsible for managing the family and meeting its financial needs—they are the ones who do so. This is an effective rule for maintaining soundness and order both in the small, confined sphere of family life and in the broader social, political, economic, and cultural spheres. If this is reversed, social order is bound to be shattered. Therefore, the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) said: Arabic (********)

—After me, the greatest harmful fitnah for my ummah may come from women’s dominance over men.

Many societies and states have been ruined precisely because of women’s dominance; history is conclusive evidence of this.

Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated this statement of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him): Any people who entrust their collective important affairs and authority to a woman will never attain any prosperity.

It is also narrated: Arabic (***********)

—When men begin obeying women, know that men have then fallen into destruction.

The present condition of Western society proves the truth of this statement, just as the condition of our society and families in this country also proves it. If a woman is allowed to take the helm of a boat, or if a person who does not know how to drive or lacks the ability is made to drive a car while the driver sits aside, the result will be the same as the natural consequence of women’s dominance. This is contrary to the Sunnah of the Messenger. (This is the general truth; exceptions are not impossible.)

Innovations in Dress and Attire Are Innovations

In our country today, a long kurta with a particular cut and a particular length is being worn under the name of “Sunnah dress.” It is being propagated that this is the Sunnah clothing. Whoever does not wear this Sunnah clothing is considered fasiq, and if such a person is an alim, it is said to be impermissible to pray behind him. For this reason, a particular class of people in society—alims and pirs—regard wearing this type of kurta as the Sunnah and promote it specifically as “Sunnah clothing.” They not only wear it themselves, but also compel their students and murids to wear kurtas with a similar cut and length.

But the question is: what is meant by Sunnah clothing? Is wearing a garment with a particular cut or a particular length truly Sunnah? On what evidence was that Sunnah established? From the Qur’an? From the hadith? We shall try to understand the matter in the light of the Qur’an and hadith.

The most important verse in the Noble Qur’an concerning what clothing should be like is this.

يَا بَنِي آدَمَ قَدْ أَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ لِبَاسًا يُوَارِي سَوْآتِكُمْ وَرِيشًا ۖ وَلِبَاسُ التَّقْوَىٰ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ مِنْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَذَّكَّرُونَ [٧:٢٦]

—O children of Adam! Surely We have sent down for you clothing that will cover your private parts and serve as adornment. And the clothing of taqwa—that is best. This is among the signs of Allah, so that they may take heed. (Al-A‘raf: 26)

Several basic points can be learned from this verse. The first is that clothing is a special gift from Allah Most High to human beings. Therefore, care must be taken regarding clothing. As to what kind of clothing it should be, two points can be learned from this verse.

One is that clothing must necessarily cover a person’s private parts. Clothing that does not cover a person’s private parts cannot be human clothing. The second point is that the clothing must be an “adornment.” (رِيشThe word means brightness, brilliance, and something that enhances beauty. According to lexicographers, رِيشthe original meaning of the word is a bird’s feather, which is shiny and beautifying. Since human clothing is also like a bird’s wing and feather, رِيشthe word has been used to indicate what human clothing should outwardly be like.) One should ensure that clothing makes a person look good and not unattractive. In reality, clothing enhances human beauty; through clothing, a person’s sense of beauty, civility, modesty, and sound taste are demonstrated. If clothing is not like that, it will constitute disdain for a beautiful system given by Allah and ingratitude toward Allah. (The supplication that the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) instructed one to recite upon wearing new clothes is: “Praise belongs to Allah who clothed me with something by which I cover my private parts and attain adornment and beauty in my life.” This supplication likewise speaks of covering the private parts and seeking praise and beauty; there is no other fundamental purpose in wearing clothing. It is as though this is an explanation of the Qur’anic verse itself.)

It must also be remembered that people’s tastes regarding adornment and beauty are changeable, and many differences and changes in taste may arise depending on place, time, and mental condition. Therefore, according to the Qur’an, the style and cut of clothing are changeable. Clothing with one fixed cut cannot be called Islamic clothing.

The third point of this verse is the clothing of taqwa. There are various opinions about what the clothing of taqwa means. Qatadah said that “libas at-taqwa” here means faith. That is, clothing must be worn with the two characteristics mentioned above, but the most beneficial and important matter in this regard is to keep faith fresh and maintain it correctly. Hasan al-Basri said that it means shame, modesty, and decency, because this modesty and decency motivate a person to adopt taqwa. Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said that it means righteous deeds. Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) said that it means moral purity.

The meaning of the verse is that the clothing of taqwa is good and beneficial if it is taken from the clothing and system of beauty created by Allah.

In short, clothing must first cover the private parts. For this reason, there must necessarily be a fundamental difference between men’s and women’s clothing, because the extent of men’s private parts differs from that of women’s bodies. Second, it must be an adornment, enhance beauty, and express beauty. Clothing that makes a person’s form grotesque or horrific and distorts the face is not clothing supported by the Qur’an, and no Muslim may use it.

At this point, the second verse that can be cited from the Noble Qur’an is this:

قُلْ مَنْ حَرَّمَ زِينَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي أَخْرَجَ لِعِبَادِهِ

—Say, O Prophet! Who has made unlawful the adornment of Allah that He has brought forth for His servants? (Al-A‘raf: 32)

“The adornment of Allah” means the items of beauty that Allah has created for human beings: clothing and other elements of beauty, and things that enhance beauty. In other words, clothing and articles that enhance beauty are created by Allah, and He created them for His servants. He made them to be enjoyed and used; in principle, they are permissible for everyone. Who can declare this permissible thing unlawful? Only Allah has the power to declare something created by Allah unlawful. And He has made it lawful—not merely making it lawful, He has also instructed people to accept and use it, saying:

Arabic (*******)

—Take your adornment—your clothing—at every prayer.

This verse also speaks of accepting clothing that is zinah, adorned, and beautifying. Therefore, in accepting clothing, in accordance with the Qur’anic instruction, close attention must fundamentally be paid to three things: first, it must cover the private parts; second, it must be an adornment and enhance beauty; and third, it must be modest, a symbol of the feeling of modesty, and not an expression of shamelessness.

This is the guidance found in the Noble Qur’an concerning clothing. Apart from this, nothing further about clothing can be learned from the Qur’an. What is learned from the Qur’an says nothing about the cut, style, form, or measurements—length or width—of clothing.

We must then see what can be learned from hadith on this subject. First, attention should be paid to the hadith cited in Bukhari Sharif’s Kitab al-Libas. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Arabic (********)

—Eat, drink, wear clothing, and give charity. (And do these things subject to two conditions:) neither wastefully nor out of arrogance.

This is the instruction of the Noble Messenger concerning eating, drinking, wearing clothing, and giving charity. These acts are unrestricted and open, subject only to two conditions. The first is that none of them may involve pointless excess or transgression. The second is that they must not be done out of arrogance. Spending excessively beyond what is necessary is “israf.” Clothing that expresses arrogance, is excessively expensive, or displays bravado and status is prohibited. Our guidance concerning clothing is, first, that wearing clothing of a kind or measurement that entails pointless expenditure is contrary to the Sunnah. Clothing must be free of this. Second, one may not wear clothing out of pride and arrogance, nor clothing of such a type, form, or measurement that displays pride, arrogance, superiority, or bravado and distinguishes a person from ordinary people. Wearing it would be contrary to the Sunnah. Therefore, any clothing of any form, type, style, cut, or measurement that is free of extravagance and arrogance is clothing approved by the Sunnah. Sunnah clothing is that which is like this. Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Arabic (*****)

—Eat whatever you wish and wear whatever you wish, so long as you avoid two things: extravagance and wasteful spending, and clothing that expresses pride and arrogance.

That is, any clothing free of these two defects is clothing in accordance with the hadith, and wearing it is entirely permissible. Regarding its form, style, cut, and length or shortness, the hadith gives no specific instruction and imposes no obligation.

The hadith cited next in Bukhari Sharif is this:

Arabic (*********)

—The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Allah will not look with mercy upon a person; he will be deprived of Allah’s mercy.

It must be remembered that this hadith gives no guidance concerning the form, cut, or length of garments. It gives instruction only regarding the mental attitude. It states what the outward manner of wearing clothing should or should not be. Whatever is done with an attitude of arrogance, and however arrogance is expressed, is prohibited.

Then read all the hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari; you will not find in any one hadith an instruction to adopt a particular cut or measurement for clothing. However, the hadiths do tell us that the sleeves of the Prophet’s shirt were very narrow. This establishes the permissibility of wearing shirts with churidar-style sleeves here. How long was the qamis worn by the Prophet? One hadith clearly shows that it was not very long. The wording of the hadith is as follows: Arabic (*********)

The Prophet’s qamis was generally made of cotton, had a very short hem, and had churidar-style sleeves.

It is therefore conclusively known that those who claim that the Prophet wore a shirt hanging down to half the shin are inventing falsehoods. The truth is that when he wore a lungi, he wore a short shirt.

Among the hadiths cited in Sahih al-Tirmidhi concerning clothing, the first hadith is this:

Arabic (*******)

The Prophet said: Silk clothing and gold have been forbidden for the men of my ummah, but made lawful for its women.

In other words, silk clothing is forbidden for men.

Moreover, a hadith in Musnad Ahmad gives a clear idea of how long a garment should be. Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated: Arabic (*********)

The izar of believing men may hang midway between the two shins. It may extend down to the ankles, but not below them. If it goes below that, it is an act that leads to Hell.

The word izar is used in the hadith. It means a garment used to cover the lower part of the body below the waist. It may be a lungi, pajamas, modern trousers, or something else. Their hems may extend to nisf al-saq, midway between the knee and the ankle. They may hang below nisf al-saq down to the ankles; but if they go below that, it is not permissible.

On the basis of the Prophet’s hadiths on this subject, Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, said: Arabic (*******)

The punishment that the Messenger spoke of for letting the izar hang below the ankles, he also spoke of in connection with the qamis.

The qamis is an upper garment; whatever is worn to cover the upper part of the body is a qamis, regardless of its cut or style. It may be today’s panjabi, shirt, coat, or collarless shirt. The hadith says nothing about what its cut should be. It says only that it should not be so long that it also covers the ankles. Ibn Umar’s statement makes it clear that whether it is an izar or a qamis, anything hanging below the ankles is haram. It should be remembered that in Arab society at that time, people generally covered themselves from the upper body to below the knees with a single piece of cloth. Arab clothing is still generally like this. They wear a short garment underneath and, over it, a robe extending to the ankles—this is the usual dress of Arabs today. These hadiths are saying that neither garment may be allowed to hang down and cover the ankles. In reality, this is what is meant when nisf al-saq is mentioned.

But where is it established that, even while wearing a lungi or pajamas, a shirt must also hang from above down to nisf al-saq—the middle of the shin—and that wearing such a shirt is Sunnah? Not from the Qur’an, nor from the hadith. And whatever is not established by the Qur’an and hadith cannot be established by the books of fiqh either. Nor is it established by the customs of Arabs today. Therefore, the collarless shirt extending to half the shin that some scholars and pirs today promote as “Sunnah dress” is not established by the fundamental proofs of the Shariah. It is entirely fabricated. Promoting a garment not established as Sunnah by the Shariah as “Sunnah dress” is a very serious bid‘ah. (The claim that the collarless, nisf al-saq shirt worn over pajamas or a lungi by some scholars and pirs in this country is “Sunnah dress” is fabricated. At most, this garment may be called the preferred clothing—libas al-ulama—of the pious scholars and pirs of this land.) It is also bid‘ah because it involves spending more than necessary. Avoiding wasteful expenditure is the first requirement concerning clothing. This bid‘ah is now practiced among a section of society. They think, “We are wearing Sunnah clothing; we are following the Messenger,” without realizing what they are saying. In reality, this is nothing but extreme blindness.

In this evidence-based discussion of mine, I have not promoted hostility toward this clothing, nor have I forbidden wearing it. My only point is that calling only this type of clothing “Sunnah clothing” is itself bid‘ah. I have not called merely wearing this clothing bid‘ah, nor do I wish to call it bid‘ah.

The Bid‘ah of Accepting the Decisions of Dreams

The greatest feature of the pirs’ courts is that the realm of dreams is always established there. There is intense competition among the murids and attendants over who can have more and better dreams. Consequently, it cannot confidently be said that none of them reports fabricated dreams. For whoever has the best dreams and can prove through them the sainthood and lofty status of the revered master will receive the greatest share of his prayers, spiritual blessings, and affection. Thus, one must dream in this court—is there any alternative to dreaming? The people of this court see dreams as soon as they close their eyes; dreams seem so eager for them that they are always ready to appear before their eyes. They often dream even while awake, arranging and presenting those dreams beautifully at the court to please the revered master. Not only that, but judgments about what is good or bad, permissible or impermissible according to the Shariah are also made here through dreams. Someone may say, “I saw such-and-such master in a dream, and he forbade me to do this,” and the act is immediately abandoned. Or he may have ordered a certain act, and so they immediately begin doing it.

Someone may say, “I saw the Prophet in a dream, and he ordered me to do this,” and the person immediately begins doing it. Or an act is stopped because he supposedly forbade it. They do not even consider what the Shariah’s ruling on the matter is; they feel no need to ask what the Shariah says.

Thus, relying on dreams, being guided by dreams, and doing or refraining from an act on the basis of a dream are the principles of those who worship pirs, not the principles of anyone who follows the Shariah. For even if an ordinary person truly has a dream, it cannot constitute a ruling of the Shariah. A dream may be true. If someone genuinely has a true dream, he may receive personal glad tidings from it or an indication to exercise caution regarding some matter. He should therefore thank Allah. But a dream cannot establish what is obligatory or necessary, lawful or unlawful, permissible or impermissible, or what should or should not be done. If one learns something from a dream that accords with the Shariah, that is fine; but if one learns something contrary to the Shariah, it must not be followed in any way. It cannot be followed because no one has the right to issue an order contrary to the Shariah. What value can a dream have in opposition to the Shariah?

Of course, it is true that dreams are not entirely to be dismissed from the Islamic perspective. It is established in hadith that one may see the Prophet in a dream. But the first point is this: if Satan appears in a dream in some form other than the Prophet’s actual appearance and presents himself as “the Prophet,” how can the dreamer know that this is not the true Messenger?

At this point, the wording of the Messenger’s hadith and the words used in it deserve attention. Abdullah, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated from the Prophet that he said: Arabic (*******)

Whoever sees me in a dream has truly seen me, for Satan cannot take on my form or likeness. (Tirmidhi)

The words and wording of the hadith clearly establish that if someone sees the Messenger in a dream, he must believe that he has truly seen the Messenger himself and no one else, because Satan cannot assume the Messenger’s form and likeness. But on the basis of these very words and this wording, two issues remain that require clear resolution. First, the Messenger said, “Whoever sees me has seen me.” But what if someone sees another person and Satan causes him to be mistaken, making him think, “This is the Messenger”? Does the wording of this hadith not allow for such a possibility?

Second, the Messenger said that Satan cannot assume his form and likeness. But what if Satan assumes the form and likeness of someone else and causes the dreamer to think, “This is the Messenger”? What then?

Is such a thing possible in view of the clear wording of this hadith? It seems to me that the hadith does not close the door on these two possibilities. It is with this possibility in mind that the matter is being discussed here. The explanations of this hadith given by leading hadith scholars such as al-Maziri and Qadi Iyad also support this view. (See Tuhfat al-Ahwazi, the commentary on Tirmidhi, vol. 6, p. 555.)

Therefore, Islam does not accept the idea that one must act according to a dream merely because one has seen it. The second point is that everything the Prophet had to say was fully conveyed during his lifetime; indeed, the religion attained completion during his lifetime. He can have nothing new to say now. It is the Prophet’s responsibility to declare what is lawful and unlawful, permissible and impermissible. This responsibility of the Prophet was limited to his lifetime. After the Prophet’s life ended, he could have no responsibility of this kind. The final Prophet was already Khatam al-Nabiyyin during his lifetime. The Prophet’s life has ended, and before it ended the responsibility of prophethood had been fully discharged. There is consequently no need to issue any new ruling of the Shariah through dreams. Thus, even if someone sees the Prophet in a dream and receives an instruction from him, neither the dreamer nor any member of the ummah has any duty to follow it. Islam is complete. It is now the only final law for all humanity. Everything must be learned from it, accepted from it, and practiced by following it.

The status given to dreams in the Shariah is established by the following hadith. Two hadiths may be mentioned here. One was narrated by Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him. He said: Arabic (********)

The Prophet said: Nothing of prophethood remains; it has all ended. Only al-mubashshirat remain. The Companions asked, “What are al-mubashshirat?” The Prophet said: “Good dreams.”

The second hadith was narrated by Anas, may Allah be pleased with him. He said: Arabic (********)

A good dream is only one part out of forty-six parts of prophethood.

The first hadith tells us only that a good dream is one means by which a servant may receive glad tidings. The second tells us that this “good dream” possesses the status of one part out of forty-six parts of prophethood. What, then, are the remaining forty-five parts? They are the Qur’an and Sunnah received through prophethood. [This hadith calls a good dream one part of the forty-six parts of prophethood. In a hadith narrated by Abu Hurayrah in Sahih Muslim, a good dream is called one part of forty-five parts of prophethood; in a hadith narrated by Ibn Amr, it is called one part of seventy. Thus, these statements do not refer to any fixed number. Second, calling a good dream a part of prophethood does not mean that a good dream is an infallible source of rulings in exactly the same way as prophethood. It is mentioned here only to show a resemblance between prophethood and a good dream. Otherwise, a good dream can never equal prophethood. (Zarqani’s commentary on al-Muwatta, vol. 4, p. 351.)]

Therefore, the Qur’an and Sunnah are the true and fundamental basis of the religion. They are the reality; presenting dreams in opposition to them is the work of people given to fantasy. Those who wish to conduct the affairs of real life properly must advance with the Qur’an and Sunnah as their foundation, rather than chasing dreams. Those who do not act on the practical rulings of the Qur’an and hadith, and do not derive from them guidance and decisions for their lives, but instead make decisions about everything solely on the basis of dreams, are not truly believers; they are not believers in Allah’s Qur’an and the Sunnah of His Messenger. Therefore, they are people who follow bid‘ah—innovators.

Resistance to Bid‘ah and the Establishment of the Sunnah

This lengthy discussion of Sunnah and bid‘ah proves that the complete ideal of Islam is the Sunnah, and its opposite is called bid‘ah. Sunnah is the uswah hasanah—the perfect, finest, and most excellent example—which every person who believes in Allah and the Hereafter must follow. Indeed, whoever upholds the Islamic ideal accepts and follows it fully in heart, mind, and actions. Such a person is a true Muslim.

Conversely, whatever contrary beliefs, ideas, and practical customs are adopted in place of Islam are bid‘ah. That is the jahiliyyah which the universal Prophet, Muhammad, came into the world to eradicate. Through his tireless efforts throughout his prophetic life, he crushed the foundations of jahiliyyah and permanently blocked the path of bid‘ah, while fully establishing the Sunnah. He also built the society of the Companions completely upon this ideal. He left behind so many precious and invaluable teachings on this subject that they cannot all be described. He earnestly wished that the society he had created would never encourage bid‘ah under any circumstances or deviate from the radiant main road of the Sunnah. More than that, he earnestly wished that his community would remain continually occupied and devoted to resisting bid‘ah and re-establishing the Sunnah. We mention here some of his statements on this subject.

The Prophet addressed Bilal ibn al-Harith, may Allah be pleased with him, saying: Arabic (*****)

Know that whoever revives one of my Sunnahs that has died out after me will receive a reward and recompense equal to that received by whoever acts upon it. Yet not the slightest amount will be deducted from the reward of those who act upon it. Conversely, whoever introduces and establishes a misguided bid‘ah with which Allah and His Messenger are not at all pleased will bear a sin equal to the sin of whoever acts upon it. Yet nothing will be reduced from their sins.

Another hadith of his on this subject is the following. He addressed Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, saying: Arabic (*********)

My dear son! If you are able to pass every moment, morning and evening, without harboring any rancor toward anyone, then do so. My dear son! This is one of the Sunnahs that I have presented. Whoever revives my Sunnah has loved me, and whoever loves me will be my companion in Paradise in the Hereafter.

The first-mentioned hadith clearly shows that the Sunnah presented and established by the Messenger could at some time die out and be abandoned by Muslim society; he knew and understood this very well. But he could not imagine that this Sunnah would remain dead and disappear forever, never to be revived and re-established. For this reason, through these hadiths he sought to encourage the ummah he had formed to revive Sunnahs that had died out. Just as a Sunnah could die out, he also clearly understood that bid‘ah could be introduced and infiltrate the ummah he had formed. For this reason, he warned his ummah about the terrible consequences of introducing and establishing bid‘ah.

In the last-mentioned hadith, an analysis was first given of a particular Sunnah of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). This Sunnah is to leave no room in the heart of any member of Muslim society for hatred or rancor toward another person. From this portion of the hadith, it has become clear how gravely harmful such hatred and rancor are to faith and deeds, as well as to mutual relations and social peace and order. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said that spending one’s days with such a pure heart is my ideal and my Sunnah. If, at any time, society and its members lose the virtue of observing this highly elevated Sunnah, that will constitute a collective deviation of the people of the nation from their ideal. And the deviation of Muslims from their ideal can never be pleasing to the Messenger (peace be upon him). Therefore, taking this seemingly small Sunnah as the occasion, he conveyed to the entire Muslim ummah a priceless principle: whoever revives any of my Sunnahs and puts an abandoned Sunnah back into practice has truly loved the Messenger. In other words, only one who loves the Messenger can revive the Messenger’s Sunnah and devote himself to the effort of reviving it; no one else can. Not only that, such a person alone has proved the genuineness and sincerity of his love for the Messenger. A person who makes no effort to revive his Sunnah can have no proof whatsoever that even an atom’s weight of love for the Messenger exists in his heart. He has no right even to claim it. Yet sincere love for the Messenger is a fundamental condition of faith. Therefore, those who love the Messenger are the ones who love the Messenger’s Sunnah; and those who love the Messenger’s Sunnah cannot neglect it, cannot tolerate its dying out and disappearing, and cannot remain silent, speechless, and inactive after its disappearance. Faith in and love for the Messenger will inspire a person to throw himself into establishing the Sunnah and to exert his full strength in resisting bid‘ah; it will not allow him to sit idly and unconcernedly for even a moment. It is essential that such deep love for the Prophet and such genuine affection for the Prophet’s Sunnah be present in the heart of every believer. It is also necessary to have a community composed of such believers—people who are strong in faith, uncompromising regarding the Sunnah, and steadfast in resisting bid‘ah. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) had built such an organized community. As long as this community existed in the world, no bid‘ah could enter Muslim society, nor could any Sunnah be abandoned. But later, history reached a chapter in which bid‘ah entered Muslim society and the Sunnah became neglected. Even so, at no point was there ever a time when people striving to protest against bid‘ah and establish the Sunnah were absent from Muslim society. In the past, the fierce conflict between the Sunnah and bid‘ah played a historical role. At times the proponents of bid‘ah appeared to be victorious, while at other times those seeking to establish the Sunnah prevailed. This alternation of victory and defeat is also an eternal truth. But for a long time, the influence of bid‘ah has been seen to be extremely powerful in Muslim society, and bid‘ah has entered here without restraint. It is not that there has been no protest; but compared with the formidable strength with which bid‘ah has advanced, the protest has been exceedingly faint, disorganized, and almost entirely individual. What is needed, however, is a powerful, organized resistance. Not merely negative resistance is needed; what is needed is a comprehensive and all-out positive effort to establish the Sunnah. Only such an all-out and complete effort can now save Muslim society from this flood of bid‘ah. Otherwise, this society may be swept away by the current of bid‘ah into ruin. Therefore, this lengthy discussion on “Sunnah and Bid‘ah” is being presented before society today. Let bid‘ah be resisted—not merely some partial bid‘ah or a few minor observances of bid‘ah, but let it be resisted completely and comprehensively; let this all-consuming poisonous tree of bid‘ah be uprooted. Alongside it, let the Sunnah be established—not merely an outward Sunnah, but the true and complete Sunnah: that Sunnah which the final Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him), left in the world for all time. This is my sole hope and the deepest desire of my heart for humanity as a whole. This is the call I am presenting today before all Muslims in general, especially before the community of scholars, and even more particularly before the youth who believe in the Islamic ideal.

In this lengthy discussion of the Sunnah and bid‘ah, it has become clear, on the basis of proofs and evidence, that bid‘ah is to present, in the name of religion, any act, matter, affair, custom, practice, or method outside the Qur’an and Sunnah as a righteous deed and an act deserving reward—an act for which no authorization can be produced from the Qur’an and Sunnah and of which no precedent can be found in the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.

Indeed, to formulate a Shariah independently and to regard another as a partner in Allah’s power and divinity, and to accept another as a partner, is bid‘ah. No one is unaware of how great a sin it is to ascribe a partner to Allah or to believe that He has a partner. In this connection, the following verse of the Qur’an is noteworthy. Allah the Exalted has said:

Arabic (*****)

أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ ۚ وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةُ الْفَصْلِ لَقُضِيَ بَيْنَهُمْ ۗ وَإِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ [٤٢:٢١]

Do they have partners who have prescribed for them in religion that for which Allah has given no permission? Had it not been for the decree of final judgment, the matter between them would have been decided immediately. And surely the wrongdoers will have a painful punishment. (Ash-Shura: 21).

The meaning of this verse is that those who do not consider Allah’s Shariah sufficient, who deem it necessary to accept laws and a Shariah formulated by others, and who believe that man-made laws and religious prescriptions outside and contrary to the Shariah given by Allah are deeds deserving reward approved by Allah, are wrongdoers. A severe punishment has been decreed specifically for these wrongdoers.

Following man-made religious prescriptions and laws outside Allah’s Shariah is bid‘ah. And according to the declaration of this verse, this bid‘ah is shirk. For in reality there is no partner to Allah, nor is there anything that can be His partner. People are not obliged to follow a Shariah or law made by anyone other than Allah. Therefore, whoever gives legal opinions, formulates religious rulings, or introduces customs and methods without evidence from Allah’s Shariah is immersed in the shirk of bid‘ah.

By practicing bid‘ah, shirk is committed not only with Allah but also against the messengership of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him). This is because the Messenger presented the Shariah revealed by Allah in its entirety—that was precisely the purpose of sending the Messenger. What Allah’s religion is, the Messenger himself instructed by Allah’s permission.

It was through the Messenger that the limits of commands and prohibitions, the lawful and unlawful, the permissible and impermissible, and reward and punishment were defined. In such a situation, if anyone presents something outside the Messenger’s Shariah as part of the Shariah, and someone accepts it, then he commits shirk with Allah while also making shirk with the Messenger. He seeks either to take the Messenger’s responsibility and honor into his own possession or to give this honor to someone other than the Messenger. By introducing new customs and practices into Islam’s complete religion, he himself takes the place of the Prophet, although they do not claim this verbally. And the fact that no one will or can be a prophet after the Noble Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him), is part of the foundational creed of Islam.

Here it is necessary to mention a hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim and the Musnad of Ahmad:

On the Field of Resurrection, the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) will give his ummah cup after cup of water from the Hawd al-Kawthar. People will continue to come from one direction, drink until satisfied, and move away in the other direction. Then the Prophet will say: A barrier will be placed between me and them. They will not be able to reach me. I will appeal to Allah, saying: O Allah! They are my ummah, so why have they been prevented from coming? Allah the Exalted will reply: You do not know what innovations these people introduced after your death. It will be said: They changed and distorted the religion you presented. (For this reason, the people of bid‘ah will never be able to appear at the Hawd al-Kawthar.) The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) will say: Then I will address them, saying: Away with you, away with you. Get out of my sight.

The tragic fate of bid‘ah and its adherents has become clear from this authentic hadith. In these circumstances, it goes without saying what a great duty it is for believing Muslims to avoid bid‘ah in every way and to strive to eradicate it completely from society and the state. The correct course of action for this purpose is to promote the complete ideal of Islam free from bid‘ah, form public opinion, and establish an Islamic state through the strength of public opinion. Then the power of this Islamic state must be fully applied to erase even the last traces of bid‘ah remaining in life and society. If work is carried out in this manner, bid‘ah will disappear and the Sunnah will also be established. Indeed, this is Islam’s course of action.

Finally, I wish to conclude this book by quoting a statement of Imam Ghazali. He said: Arabic (*******)

Whatever forms bid‘ah may take, the door to all of them must be closed, and their innovations must be cast back in the faces of those who practice them—no matter how firmly they believe them to be right!

— The End —