Murabitun

[Abdassamad Clarke]

I get a strong feeling that the Murabitun look down upon those who dis agree with them and they use 'Intellect' as a weapon to shoot down the un educated,,,,,,

Laughinglion plays on emotions and keeps referring to Ghibat where as we are discussing issues in the open on the internet, if this is Ghiba then this Forum is a Horn of Shaytaan........

I have done allot of reading on the Murabitun websites in the last couple of weeks and those sincere notes that I have read from Shaykh Abul Qadir as Sufi are very thought provoking and deep, it is definitely worth a read if you are interested in the Shaykhs outlook on the current day status of the Ummah.

As-salamu alaikum,

Look at your language. You get a 'feeling', and then you class a whole group of people whom you call the 'Murabitun' as 'looking down upon people'!

The warnings about ghibah are serious enough, but what about buhtan-slander? These are good reminders to us all. And yes there are things that are serious enough that one has to talk about people critically.

Glad you found the Shaykh's articles useful.

Abdassamad

[mospike]

what are you saying? using the word 'feeling' to show my emotion aint good enough for you?

[Abdassamad Clarke]

But is not the tone employed in many Murabitun writings, when discussing other madhabs, one wherein the writer appears to "talk down" to followers of others madhabs and allege that they were mistaken almost completely in their perspectives on fiqh? I don't get the sense that they "believe that they are right with the possibility of being wrong" or that the founders and followers of other madhabs are "wrong with the possibility of being right".

I was reading through Root Islamic Education just last week and came away with that impression after reading nearly three separate chapters.

I'd rather not go through the text and knit pick by quoting sentences and passages were such sentiments were expressed, but my point is that the partisanship shown to the Maliki madhab sometimes makes me more than uneasy, not because I follow Hanafi fiqh in my dad to day activities, but because few "Traditional" Muslims appear to be as intolerant of differences as some Murabitun writers.

Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the impression that one gets after reading many Murabitun writings, not to mention the fact that the tone is almost always grim and ominous.

As-salamu alaikum,

But the truth is that we have to get beyond 'impressions' and 'feelings' and deal with specifics. It is not halal to judge people on feelings. Evidence must be the matter to hand. Your statements are too general, and thus are potentially slanderous. You talk about Murabitun writers, but do you have any idea of who and how many they are? You have passed judgement on them all, because of the impressions you have gained of a few.

First of all, Shaykh Abdalqadir's book is trying to get beyond the madhhabs to Islam in its primal form. He clearly says that at times the Maliki madhhab has failed in that.

This discussion is too vague, and we are better to take some particular passage rather than just impressions.

Abdassamad

[Abdassamad Clarke]

But is not the tone employed in many Murabitun writings, when discussing other madhabs, one wherein the writer appears to "talk down" to followers of others madhabs and allege that they were mistaken almost completely in their perspectives on fiqh? I don't get the sense that they "believe that they are right with the possibility of being wrong" or that the founders and followers of other madhabs are "wrong with the possibility of being right".

I was reading through Root Islamic Education just last week and came away with that impression after reading nearly three separate chapters.

I'd rather not go through the text and knit pick by quoting sentences and passages were such sentiments were expressed, but my point is that the partisanship shown to the Maliki madhab sometimes makes me more than uneasy, not because I follow Hanafi fiqh in my dad to day activities, but because few "Traditional" Muslims appear to be as intolerant of differences as some Murabitun writers.

Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the impression that one gets after reading many Murabitun writings, not to mention the fact that the tone is almost always grim and ominous.

Then please share with us your partial understanding of why the Murabitun chose to close off a community's mosque without even a word of explanation, locking themselves in for several months and preventing other Muslims from worshipping there.

I want to know what were the Murabitun motivations for undertaking such a bizarre and unprecedented action.

You are the current Imam of the mosque, right?




I don't want to change our focus. Let's deal with this question first:
Why on earth would the Murabitun, a group that claims to work for the establishment of the deen, shut down a mosque and prevent people from praying there? You must have *some* understanding of this.

As-salamu alaikum,

Sidi,

You seem happy to have found something to beat us with. I have nothing really to add. If out of more than three decades of establishing the deen and da'wah, you only want to talk of this event that occured more than a decade ago to which none of us were witnesses, then that says more about you than it does about 'Murabitun'. Indeed, it is curious to me that you should adopt such an inquisitorial and self-righteous tone about an event that presumably has come to you through the media.

Abdassamad

[Abdassamad Clarke]

what are you saying? using the word 'feeling' to show my emotion aint good enough for you?

No. That to pass judgement on the basis of feelings is not correct. We have criteria in the deen.

Abdassamad

[Ansari_UK]

I'd rather not go through the text and knit pick by quoting sentences and passages were such sentiments were expressed, but my point is that the partisanship shown to the Maliki madhab sometimes makes me more than uneasy, not because I follow Hanafi fiqh in my dad to day activities, but because few "Traditional" Muslims appear to be as intolerant of differences as some Murabitun writers.

Asalaam Alaykum,

Im sorry i have never heard something so incorrect. Deobandis, Tableeghis, Barelwis are famous for their ta'asub (partisanship). in Truth everyone thinks their correct. and im Hanafi in the murabitun, so what difference does that make if the Murabitun think their correct? It is no different to other groups and trust me on a scale of 1 to 10 on ta'asub the Murabitun are quite low. Do you really want me to quote some of the books of "tit for tat" amongst the Ulema of Hind? We wouild be here all day.

On the other hand the more i study the works of Syrian Ulema, whom in my humble opinion are far more knowledgable in Hanafi Fiqh then the striking resemblance of them to Maliki scholars cements my view in Root Islamic Education that the Hanafis and Malikis where the two oldest madhabs. You then have split off of the Hanafis and the Malikis. To get to the source you have to kind of work backwards, affirming all the time all the 4 madhabs are true, with a fine tooth comb and then you arrive at:

Madinah

The Amal and the people. The Deen complete. Trade and Religous rulings complete. What is so inherently wrong with that?

[Ansari_UK]

Sidi Abdassamad,

It is good to have someone here from the Murabitun themselves: no doubt we all have many erroneous beleifs about them. It would be helpful for us to hear your thoughts on a number of issues concerning this movement.

What was the motivation behind the closure of the Ihsan Mosque in Norwich in the mid-nineties? Were you residing in the mosque at the period (at least several months if I recall correctly) that the mosque was closed? How does one justify denying Muslim men and women the right to pray in a mosque?

Here is some media footage for those who may not know about this story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCZytYbGgPU

Asalaam Alaykum

You posted a video on a mosque dispute. Neither i was there nor i assume you. However you also state you are Hanafi like me. Do you want me to post the amount of fisticuffs and fights in our own mosques over the last 20 years God Forbid? It happens. i dont want to post examples but you know it and i know it. Probably more a sign of the Day of Judgement getting closer than anything. So if this was an issue 12 years ago there, so what?

Whats new brother? Look around you. All it takes is 5minutes in any Deobandi or Barelvi or Tableeghi Mosque to say a few words and bingo, you will have them out and disputing quicker than you can say "post". However what will this serve? So we are Human too like you and others, at least that is a good point to get from the discussion.

Walaykum Asalaam

[Murad]

As-salamu alaikum,

Wa Aleykum Salam

First of all, let me make it clear that I do not speak as an official 'Murabit', but rather from the perspective of what I know of the deen.

Likewise my freind.

Would rather not cite the hadith, because I do not want to use hadith in a slanging match. You know perfectly well the hadith surely?

I am sorry, I don't. There is no need for a slanging match with over a 1300 years of scholarly treatises and consensus behind us so please do cite the Hadith.

What on earth does your sentence on NGOs mean? Are you going to take that entire concept into the deen of Islam, and if so what does that mean?

It was an attempt to get to a fact of a matter from my understanding of your statements, was the line of thought incorrect?

There is something very serious that you have not understood about Islam itself, if you can talk about a 'religious' shaykh. What separation can there possibly be here?

Is an amir supposed to be seperate from a shaykh? once again an attempt to get to a fact of a matter, from my understanding, your statements ask for a pledge of allegience to an amir before pledging an allegience to a shaykh, is this correct, i am really ignorant of the matter.

Reason for the concern is that it sounds frightfully similar in concept along the lines of the pact, between the two, of people having to pledge allegience to Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and their perpetual generations.

Ibn Khaldun first of all showed that each hadith on the Mahdi, except for one from Sahih Muslim that, however, does not name him but speaks of a caliph in later times, is weak according to the scholars of hadith.

A hadith being weak does not negate its validity according to the Ullamah. The hadith themselves are so mass transmitted that its beleif, according to the ulema of the four sunni schools, is part of the islamic creed.

Then he says that when the Mahdi does appear it will be according to the political forces he has already outlined in his book, and not miraculously as an apocalypical figure.

What forces would they be, is it the political forces behind oppression, famine, injustices? In relation to this day in age, have these forces already expired somewhere in the past along with Imam Mahdis appearence?

Without exception modern people are anticipating a miraculous figure who will save the Muslims. That is not going to happen.

Muslims dont need saving other than by their Liege-Lord. I am of the belief that Imam Mahdi as a righteous king will not discriminate between muslims and non muslims when stamping out injustices.

Not all the hadith in the six books are sahih. That is Ibn Khaldun's point.

Is Ibn Khaldun considered a muhadith by the ulema?

No one accused the one who spoke of being in contact with the Mahdi of disbelief. You read further than has been said.

It was to clarify, if any, issues.

Where are these authorities who dealt with the claimants to being Mahdi? Most of the claimants died in battle.

Which battle are you referring to. I am reffering to authorities in religious knowldege during each of the past islamic administrations.

You are still talking about an apocalyptical Mahdi. And this is utterly irrelevant until such a figure appears. It is a waste of time to talk about it.

It cannot to be cut out with the fervour of if it having the status of a cancerous menace from islamic literature either.

Imam Malik's work is more sahih than the six.

Which religious authority had claimed that? According to consensus Sahih Bukhari is the epitome for sahih hadith.

It is only not included among them because it is not exclusively a work of hadith.

Correct, as the hadith used were restricted according to Hasret Imam Maliks criteria for traditions from within a social normative, subjected to location and not the criteria of it being sahih as understood within muhadith circles.

Zakat is a fallen pillar because if I describe to you the way that zakat happened at the time of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and at the time of the Khulafa ar-Rashidun, and right down to the end of the caliphate, and if I outline the demands of the fiqh, then you will realise that we do not have zakat.

That is only becuase there is no rightly guided kaliph to wage war on us if we dont pay zakat. Imam Mahdi will institute Zakah in his rule, how then is it a fallen pillar?

It has a form and a fiqh just as the prayer does. And we do not observe that.

Is it more of an appeal to religious duty than an actual fact then?

And Allah knows best.

[Abdassamad Clarke]

Wa Aleykum Salam



Likewise my freind.



I am sorry, I don't. There is no need for a slanging match with over a 1300 years of scholarly treatises and consensus behind us so please do cite the Hadith.

Shayban ibn Farukh narrated to us: Jarir narrated to us (meaning Ibn Hazim): Ghaylan ibn Jarir narrated to us from Abu Qays ibn Riyah from Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "Whoever goes out from obedience and separates himself from the jama'ah and dies, dies a jahiliyyah death."
Zuhayr ibn Harb narrated to me: 'Abd ar-Rahman ibn Mahdi narrated to us: Mahdi ibn Maymun narrated to us from Ghaylan ibn Jarir from Ziyad ibn Riyah from Abu Hurayrah who said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Whoever goes out from obedience, and separates himself from the jama'ah then dies, dies a jahiliyyah death."
Abdullah ibn Umar came to Abdullah ibn Muti' when that happened of the matter of al-Harrah which happened at the time of Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah and he said, "Put out a cushion for Abu 'Abd ar-Rahman." He said, "I did not come to you to sit. I came to you to narrate a hadith which I head the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying. I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying, 'Whoever takes his hand away from obedience will meet Allah on the Day of Rising with no argument on his side. And whoever dies without there being bay'ah on his neck dies a jahiliyyah death'."

(These are just a few of many from Sahih Muslim. The translation is my own.)

It was an attempt to get to a fact of a matter from my understanding of your statements, was the line of thought incorrect?



Is an amir supposed to be seperate from a shaykh? once again an attempt to get to a fact of a matter, from my understanding, your statements ask for a pledge of allegience to an amir before pledging an allegience to a shaykh, is this correct, i am really ignorant of the matter.

The pledge of allegiance of Islam is to the ruler, whether a king, sultan, amir, caliph. In reality all of these things have happened, and the Muslims have always lived in obedience to someone in authority. The contract with the shaykh of Tasawwuf can only happen within the context of a Muslim society. It is not a pledge of allegiance.

Reason for the concern is that it sounds frightfully similar in concept along the lines of the pact, between the two, of people having to pledge allegience to Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and their perpetual generations.

You mix things up terribly. If the family of Saud are the political rulers of a country and of a people then quite correctly they take the pledge of allegiance. The ulama reportedly asked Ibn Saud to take the pledge of allegiance as caliph but he refused.

A hadith being weak does not negate its validity according to the Ullamah. The hadith themselves are so mass transmitted that its beleif, according to the ulema of the four sunni schools, is part of the islamic creed.

But yet it has a lesser standing in the aqidah. None of the standard aqidahs that I have found mention the Mahdi.

What forces would they be, is it the political forces behind oppression, famine, injustices? In relation to this day in age, have these forces already expired somewhere in the past along with Imam Mahdis appearence?

Read Ibn Khaldun. His work is an education on history and the nature of society.

Muslims dont need saving other than by their Liege-Lord. I am of the belief that Imam Mahdi as a righteous king will not discriminate between muslims and non muslims when stamping out injustices.

But you are living in fantasy. If the Mahdi comes about in two hundred years, then you will have wasted your life dreaming about him.

Is Ibn Khaldun considered a muhadith by the ulema?

He is not a specialist in hadith if that is what you mean. But he was an active aliim, and taught all the sciences in Cairo and was appointed Qadi a number of times. To be a muhaddith is a specialist activity that usually means that scholar does little else. It doesn't mean that other ulama do not understand something about hadith.

It was to clarify, if any, issues.



Which battle are you referring to. I am reffering to authorities in religious knowldege during each of the past islamic administrations.

The people who proclaimed themselves Mahdi were either victorious, like Ibn Tumart who founded the Muwahhidun dynasty or they were unsuccessful and died in battle.

It cannot to be cut out with the fervour of if it having the status of a cancerous menace from islamic literature either.



Which religious authority had claimed that? According to consensus Sahih Bukhari is the epitome for sahih hadith.


Shaykh 'Abd al-Hayy al-Laknawi said in his commentary on the Muwatta' of Imam Muhammad:
Ash-Shafi'i said, “There is not on the face of the earth a book –*after the Book of Allah –*which is more sound than the book of Malik.” Ibn Fihr narrated by way of Yunus ibn 'Abd al-A'la from him [ash-Shafi'i] in one wording, “No book has appeared on Earth which is closer to the Qur'an than the book of Malik,” and in another wording, “There is not to be found on Earth – after the Book of Allah – anything more correct than the Muwatta' of Malik,” and in another wording, “There is nothing – after the Book of Allah – which is more useful than the Muwatta'.”
Shah Wali Allah ad-Dihlawi (1114-1176AH) said in the introduction to his book al-Musaffa Sharh al-Muwatta in Persian –*after mentioning his bewilderment because of the disagreements of the madhhabs of the fuqaha', and the many different parties among the people of knowledge and their contending with each other, each one trying to draw the other to its side – then he said, may Allah have mercy on him:
“I was given the inspiration that pointed me to the book, the Muwatta', the composition of the courageous and liberally generous Imam, the Proof of Islam, Malik ibn Anas, and that thought grew stronger bit by bit. I became certain that there is not to be found any book of fiqh stronger than the Muwatta' of Imam Malik, because books are distinguished from each other in merit either because of the standing of the author, or because of their insistence on authenticity of transmission, or from the point of view of the fame of their ahadith, or from the point of view of their wide acceptance among the Muslims generally, or from the point of view of excellence of their structure and comprehensiveness of major goals or such like. All of these matters exist in the Muwatta' completely, in contrast with all other books on the face of the earth today.”
He also said in the same introduction to the Musaffa:
"My breast expanded and I became certain that the Muwatta' is the most sahih book to be found on the earth after the Book of Allah."
In the Bustan al-muhaddithin of Shaykh 'Abd al-'Aziz ad-Dihlawi the son of Shah Wali Allah, the great Hanafi mujaddid, the author makes a survery of the great books of hadith and the most eminent scholars. In it he gives 43 pages to the Muwatta', in contrast giving 2, 3 or 4 pages to the hadith collections of each of the other Imams, and 6 pages to Sahih al-Bukhari. He quotes Abu Zur'ah ar-Razi{{The Imam and Hafidh of his age, 'Abdullah ibn 'Abd al-Karim ibn Yazid ibn Furukh, al-Qurashi by clientage, ar-Razi, one of the unique men of his age in memory, intelligence, din, sincerity, knowledge and action. He was born in 200 AH. He listened to Qurrah ibn Habib, Abu Nu'aym, al-Qa'nabi, Yahya ibn Bukayr, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Abu Hafs al-Fallas, Yunus ibn 'Abd al-A'la, Ibn Warrah, Abu Hatim, Muslim, Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud, and Abu 'Awanah related from him. Ishaq ibn Rahwayh said, “Every hadith which Abu Zur'ah ar-Razi does not know has no root.” Ibn Abi Shaybah said, “I have not seen anyone with more memory than Abu Zur'ah.” Adh-Dhahabi said, “The extensive of the words of Abu Zur'ah about invalidation and validation (al-jarh wa’t-ta'dil) please me.” Abu Hatim said, “Abu Zur'ah did not leave anyone like him after him.” He died on the last day of 264.
See Imam adh-Dhahabi, Tadhkirat al-huffadh, 2:136-137 and Siyar a'lam an-nubala', 13:65-75, Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wa’t-ta'dil, 1:328-349, al-Khatib, History of Baghdad, 10:326-337, Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib at-tahdhib, 7:30-34, Ibn al-'Imad, Shadharat adh-dhahab, 2:148-149.}},the leader of hadith scholars, as saying, “If a man were to take an oath of divorce that the hadith of Malik which are in the Muwatta' are sound, he would not have broken his oath.{{Qadi 'Iyad, Tartib al-madarik, 2:73.}} No other book reached this level of soundness and reliability.”
Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi said in Sharh at-Tirmidhi – the Commentary on at-Tirmidhi, “The Muwatta' is the first source and core [material], and the book of al-Bukhari is the second source in this process. On the two of them all of the rest are built, such as Muslim and at-Tirmidhi.”
Hafidh Ibn Hajar said, “The unqualified truth is that all of the Muwatta' is sound without any exception. (My own translations)

Correct, as the hadith used were restricted according to Hasret Imam Maliks criteria for traditions from within a social normative, subjected to location and not the criteria of it being sahih as understood within muhadith circles.



That is only becuase there is no rightly guided kaliph to wage war on us if we dont pay zakat.

Indeed, and so there is no zakat.

Imam Mahdi will institute Zakah in his rule, how then is it a fallen pillar?

It is fallen then, in your view until he restores it in ten years, a hundred years or a thousand, and you are going to wait that long? What excuse have you before Allah?



Is it more of an appeal to religious duty than an actual fact then?

And Allah knows best.

I am sorry, I don't. There is no need for a slanging match with over a 1300 years of scholarly treatises and consensus behind us so please do cite the Hadith.

AS. Shayban ibn Farukh narrated to us: Jarir narrated to us (meaning Ibn Hazim): Ghaylan ibn Jarir narrated to us from Abu Qays ibn Riyah from Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "Whoever goes out from obedience and separates himself from the jama'ah and dies, dies a jahiliyyah death."
Zuhayr ibn Harb narrated to me: 'Abd ar-Rahman ibn Mahdi narrated to us: Mahdi ibn Maymun narrated to us from Ghaylan ibn Jarir from Ziyad ibn Riyah from Abu Hurayrah who said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Whoever goes out from obedience, and separates himself from the jama'ah then dies, dies a jahiliyyah death."
Abdullah ibn Umar came to Abdullah ibn Muti' when that happened of the matter of al-Harrah which happened at the time of Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah and he said, "Put out a cushion for Abu 'Abd ar-Rahman." He said, "I did not come to you to sit. I came to you to narrate a hadith which I head the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying. I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying, 'Whoever takes his hand away from obedience will meet Allah on the Day of Rising with no argument on his side. And whoever dies without there being bay'ah on his neck dies a jahiliyyah death'."

(These are just a few of many from Sahih Muslim. The translation is my own.)

It was an attempt to get to a fact of a matter from my understanding of your statements, was the line of thought incorrect?



Is an amir supposed to be seperate from a shaykh? once again an attempt to get to a fact of a matter, from my understanding, your statements ask for a pledge of allegience to an amir before pledging an allegience to a shaykh, is this correct, i am really ignorant of the matter.

AS. The pledge of allegiance of Islam is to the ruler, whether a king, sultan, amir, caliph. In reality all of these things have happened, and the Muslims have always lived in obedience to someone in authority. The contract with the shaykh of Tasawwuf can only happen within the context of a Muslim society. It is not a pledge of allegiance.

Reason for the concern is that it sounds frightfully similar in concept along the lines of the pact, between the two, of people having to pledge allegience to Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and their perpetual generations.

AS. You mix things up terribly. If the family of Saud are the political rulers of a country and of a people then quite correctly they take the pledge of allegiance. The ulama reportedly asked Ibn Saud to take the pledge of allegiance as caliph but he refused.

A hadith being weak does not negate its validity according to the Ullamah. The hadith themselves are so mass transmitted that its beleif, according to the ulema of the four sunni schools, is part of the islamic creed.

AS. But yet it has a lesser standing in the aqidah. None of the standard aqidahs that I have found mention the Mahdi.

What forces would they be, is it the political forces behind oppression, famine, injustices? In relation to this day in age, have these forces already expired somewhere in the past along with Imam Mahdis appearence?

AS. Read Ibn Khaldun. His work is an education on history and the nature of society.

Muslims dont need saving other than by their Liege-Lord. I am of the belief that Imam Mahdi as a righteous king will not discriminate between muslims and non muslims when stamping out injustices.

AS. But you are living in fantasy. If the Mahdi comes in two hundred years, then you will have wasted your life dreaming about him.

Is Ibn Khaldun considered a muhadith by the ulema?

AS. He is not a specialist in hadith if that is what you mean. But he was an active aliim, and taught all the sciences in Cairo and was appointed Qadi a number of times. To be a muhaddith is a specialist activity that usually means that scholar does little else. It doesn't mean that other ulama do not understand something about hadith.

It was to clarify, if any, issues.



Which battle are you referring to. I am reffering to authorities in religious knowldege during each of the past islamic administrations.

AS. The people who proclaimed themselves Mahdi were either victorious, like Ibn Tumart who founded the Muwahhidun dynasty or they were unsuccessful and died in battle.

It cannot to be cut out with the fervour of if it having the status of a cancerous menace from islamic literature either.



Which religious authority had claimed that? According to consensus Sahih Bukhari is the epitome for sahih hadith.


AS. Shaykh 'Abd al-Hayy al-Laknawi said in his commentary on the Muwatta' of Imam Muhammad:
Ash-Shafi'i said, “There is not on the face of the earth a book –*after the Book of Allah –*which is more sound than the book of Malik.” Ibn Fihr narrated by way of Yunus ibn 'Abd al-A'la from him [ash-Shafi'i] in one wording, “No book has appeared on Earth which is closer to the Qur'an than the book of Malik,” and in another wording, “There is not to be found on Earth – after the Book of Allah – anything more correct than the Muwatta' of Malik,” and in another wording, “There is nothing – after the Book of Allah – which is more useful than the Muwatta'.”
Shah Wali Allah ad-Dihlawi (1114-1176AH) said in the introduction to his book al-Musaffa Sharh al-Muwatta in Persian –*after mentioning his bewilderment because of the disagreements of the madhhabs of the fuqaha', and the many different parties among the people of knowledge and their contending with each other, each one trying to draw the other to its side – then he said, may Allah have mercy on him:
“I was given the inspiration that pointed me to the book, the Muwatta', the composition of the courageous and liberally generous Imam, the Proof of Islam, Malik ibn Anas, and that thought grew stronger bit by bit. I became certain that there is not to be found any book of fiqh stronger than the Muwatta' of Imam Malik, because books are distinguished from each other in merit either because of the standing of the author, or because of their insistence on authenticity of transmission, or from the point of view of the fame of their ahadith, or from the point of view of their wide acceptance among the Muslims generally, or from the point of view of excellence of their structure and comprehensiveness of major goals or such like. All of these matters exist in the Muwatta' completely, in contrast with all other books on the face of the earth today.”
He also said in the same introduction to the Musaffa:
"My breast expanded and I became certain that the Muwatta' is the most sahih book to be found on the earth after the Book of Allah."
In the Bustan al-muhaddithin of Shaykh 'Abd al-'Aziz ad-Dihlawi the son of Shah Wali Allah, the great Hanafi mujaddid, the author makes a survery of the great books of hadith and the most eminent scholars. In it he gives 43 pages to the Muwatta', in contrast giving 2, 3 or 4 pages to the hadith collections of each of the other Imams, and 6 pages to Sahih al-Bukhari. He quotes Abu Zur'ah ar-Razi{{The Imam and Hafidh of his age, 'Abdullah ibn 'Abd al-Karim ibn Yazid ibn Furukh, al-Qurashi by clientage, ar-Razi, one of the unique men of his age in memory, intelligence, din, sincerity, knowledge and action. He was born in 200 AH. He listened to Qurrah ibn Habib, Abu Nu'aym, al-Qa'nabi, Yahya ibn Bukayr, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Abu Hafs al-Fallas, Yunus ibn 'Abd al-A'la, Ibn Warrah, Abu Hatim, Muslim, Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud, and Abu 'Awanah related from him. Ishaq ibn Rahwayh said, “Every hadith which Abu Zur'ah ar-Razi does not know has no root.” Ibn Abi Shaybah said, “I have not seen anyone with more memory than Abu Zur'ah.” Adh-Dhahabi said, “The extensive of the words of Abu Zur'ah about invalidation and validation (al-jarh wa’t-ta'dil) please me.” Abu Hatim said, “Abu Zur'ah did not leave anyone like him after him.” He died on the last day of 264.
See Imam adh-Dhahabi, Tadhkirat al-huffadh, 2:136-137 and Siyar a'lam an-nubala', 13:65-75, Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wa’t-ta'dil, 1:328-349, al-Khatib, History of Baghdad, 10:326-337, Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib at-tahdhib, 7:30-34, Ibn al-'Imad, Shadharat adh-dhahab, 2:148-149.}},the leader of hadith scholars, as saying, “If a man were to take an oath of divorce that the hadith of Malik which are in the Muwatta' are sound, he would not have broken his oath.{{Qadi 'Iyad, Tartib al-madarik, 2:73.}} No other book reached this level of soundness and reliability.”
Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi said in Sharh at-Tirmidhi – the Commentary on at-Tirmidhi, “The Muwatta' is the first source and core [material], and the book of al-Bukhari is the second source in this process. On the two of them all of the rest are built, such as Muslim and at-Tirmidhi.”
Hafidh Ibn Hajar said, “The unqualified truth is that all of the Muwatta' is sound without any exception. (My own translations)

Correct, as the hadith used were restricted according to Hasret Imam Maliks criteria for traditions from within a social normative, subjected to location and not the criteria of it being sahih as understood within muhadith circles.

AS. Wrong. Unqualifiedly sahih as the hadith scholars said.

That is only becuase there is no rightly guided kaliph to wage war on us if we dont pay zakat.

AS. Indeed, and so there is no zakat.

Imam Mahdi will institute Zakah in his rule, how then is it a fallen pillar?

AS. It is fallen then, in your view until he restores it in ten years, a hundred years or a thousand, and you are going to wait that long? What excuse have you before Allah?

[laughinglion]

As-salamu alaikum,

As to membership of the branch of the Darqawi tariqah that Shaykh Abdalqadir represents being dependent on allegiance to an amir, that is quite simple: the shari'ah is 'over' the tariqah, and that is the teaching of the Shadhili-Darqawi tariqah (and I believe of the genuine Naqshabandi and other tariqahs of the people of Islam). If you want texts on that, I am happy to help insha'Allah. Therefore a precondition of being a mureed of Shaykh Abdalqadir is to have pledged allegiance to an amir and to be involved in the establishment of the deen outwardly.


And Allah knows best.

As-salamu alaikum,


Abdassamad Clarke

I think this point, raised by hajj `Abda's-Samad (Allah protect him and benefit us by him), draws attention to one of the underlying reasons why, I believe, so many people seem to have problems with the 'Murabitun'. In brief, I believe that many people consider positions taken by the 'Murabitun' to be 'unorthodox' while all the while overlooking the reality that their so called 'orthodox traditional Islam' was formulated in times and places where the hudud of Allah were firmly established. That is to say that the detractors of the 'Murabitun' are holding to a 'tradition' that is no longer connected to the vehicle that is responsible for conveying and giving that 'tradition' meaning, or they believe that the shari`a (and everything that flows from it) is not connected to political authority, which are highly irregular and unorthodox positions. In either case, I feel the consequences of this to be a dereliction of the thinking Muslims duty, a distortion and a negative representation of a noble and high tradition, not to mention how holding so dogmatically to a body of tradition which is the product of a different time and age handicaps Muslims from addressing the significant issues with which we are presently faced with.

There is nothing more important in our 'tradition' than to make sure that our obligations are established, for everything is built upon these obligations....

While I am on the subject, another reason why people misunderstand the 'Murabitun' is that their views are informed by isolated reports or misunderstandings/misrepresentations of valid positions, not on any real knowledge of the people of whom they are antagonistic, under this label. As our Shaykh, Allah bless and protect him and benefit us by him, has said, "Our proof is our people". Thus if anyone is really interested in finding who the real 'Murabitun' (the people who man the ribats, do dzikr of Allah, study the deen of Allah and defend it against the incursions of the kuffar) are seek the company of these men and women.

And we seek assistance from Allah alone

With peace