Shah Ismail Shaheed (RA) on "Bidah and Sufiya"

[Abu_Bilal]

Assalam Alaikum.

I have scanned a whole chapter from Shah Ismael's book called "Bidat Ki Haqeeqat Aor Uss Kay Ahkam". I have underlined the necessary part. Reading the whole chapter would clear any doubts over tasawuf and bidah. The discussion was going on in the "Bidah : Sahaba & sufiya" thread, but i have decided to make a new thread, to make the reading easy.

Alhamdolilah, the methodology that i discussed in detail in the "Bidah : Sahaba & sufiya" thread from the various books is exactly right, and according to the methodology of the pious salaf and the abakibreen of deoband.

Before any comments, i would like the readers to read all the three posts in detail.

[Abu_Bilal]

Continuing from the first post ...

[Abu_Bilal]

Continuing from the second post ...

[Saad]

Assalam o alayukm,

JazakAllah Muhammad Ali Munir.

This needs to be translated into English.

[salman]

salamu `alaykum sidi

I pray you are well.

Thank you for these scans. However, they prove little when it comes to understanding the methodology of Hakim al-Ummah himself in the previous thread that we had our discussion in.

Firstly, you cannot clarify the methodology of a person by bringing the methodology of another person, unless you can clearly substantiate that both had the same methodology. This has not been done. At most what you have shown is Shah Isma`il's understanding of the matter.

Secondly, the point that Hakim al-Ummah employed different methodologies in defining innovation and deeming certain actions as innovation seems clear and nothing has been shown to prove otherwise. As I mentioned to you previously, contrast his outlined methodology to disprove an act like the mawlid with the methodology he used to approve of loud dhikr or group dhikr. The former is much in line with someone like Imam Shatibi and other Malikis, the latter with the likes of Suyuti and the Shafi`is.

The crux here is, of course, that both these methodologies - of the "Malikis" and "Shafi`is" - are different, not the same. This was outlined in quite a bit of detail before. For some reason, however, it is being ignored here.

Anyway, it seems that the problem we are facing right now is that we are failing to understand each others arguments. I am not claiming a unified methodology of "innovation" but merely that there is a whole school whose methodology permits "new" acts in a way not defined by Shah Isma`il. At the same time, there is a whole methodology that does not allow such "new" acts, even if a "basis" (asl) for them exists.

Hakim al-Ummah seems to have used both methodologies and this is why he employed the "sabab" argument on certain occasions and yet elsewhere the "general principles" argument. Thus, for the latter, he clearly stated that "[bida` suri] is that which is in itself not found in the sunna (explicitly) but is inferred from the general principles (of the Law)" and that "bida` hasanah and suriiyya are the same." (Imdad al-Fatawa) Do you know what Imam Shatibi would say to this "inferred" matter? He would reject it.

The other option is that there is a hybrid methodology he employed, but that waits to be seen. I am hopeful someone will one day bring a holistic discussion and elucidation of Hakim al-Ummah's approach.

Either way, I think you should first go back and read both these methodologies before getting into this discussion. If we have staunchly universalized understanding of a single methodology, while such a universal understanding does not even exist, then of course we are going to go around in circles.

Jazakallah
Wasalam
Salman

[salman]

This is the summary of Shaykh Mahmud al-Zayn's discussion again. The best thing about the discussion is that he does justice to both sides and presents both methodologies, not generalizing based on what he opines:

Shaykh Dr Mahmud Ahmad al-Zayn discusses the evidence in favour of group dhikr here and in doing so he explains the different understandings of bid'ah, confirming the divergence I described above.

The dominant approach was that of Imam al-Shafii, who believed general principles may be applied specifically as they are included under those general principles. So, for example, in Kitab al-Dhabaih of al-Umm, he recommends reading salawat on the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) after saying bismillah allahu akbar while slaughtering the animal - and he deduces this from the general command in Surat al-Ahzab (33:43) of sending salawat on the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).

This is contrasted with Imam Malik's answer to this question that no salawat can be read after saying bismillah allahu akbar, nor can one do so upon saying alhamdulillah (or alhamdulillah 'ala kulli hal) after sneezing. (also mentioned in al-Umm). In this latter view, in order to for there to be persistence (iltizam) on a particularised form (taqyid) of a general command (itlaq), there must be specific evidence. Al-Shatibi calls this takhsis al-umum bi la dalil (specifying a general principle without evidence), which in his view is impermissible but in the first view expounded above is permissible.

The general command to do good (22:77) can, according to the first view, be used to institutionalise or invent specific modes of devotional acts, so long as they do not oppose the legal requirements of the Shariah. However, this approach itself does not necessarily yield the same result because of the variable of "not contradicting the Shariah". Al-Zayn gives the example of Salat al-Raghaib and the dispute between two Shafiis: Ibn al-Salah and al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam - both of them ascribe to the aforementioned Shafii methodology. Ibn al-Salah considers the Salah with its particular features (awsaf khassah) permissible and desirable as it falls under the general desirability of "Salah". Al-Izz Ibn Abd al-Salam agrees on the principle: according to him bid'ah is any new act after the Prophet's lifetime and they are simply regulated according to the normal ethical categories of mubah, hasan or sayyi'ah (permissible, good or bad); mubah is that which the Shariah is silent upon like different types of food, hasan is that which agrees with legal requirements within broad principles and sayyiah is that which opposes legal requirements. On the question of Salat al-Raghaib al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam considers it a bad bid'ah because it contradicts the Shariah by having unique properties that the Shariah has disallowed. Hence, both Ibn al-Salah and al-Izz agree with the Shafii principle, but disagree over the outcome on this particular question because of their different understandings of a legal ruling.

Importantly, al-Zayn reminds us, the terms "hasan" and "sayyi'ah" have been used differently. Al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam believes all acts after the Prophet's lifetime legally (shar'i) bid'ah and not just linguistically (lughwi), whereas others equated legal bid'ah to bad bid'ah and linguistic bid'ah to all five categories. This is a semantic difference within this methodology itself.

This methodology is "open" as it can accommodate a very many different manifestations of worship within the foundations and principles of Shariah. The second methodology ascribed to Imam Malik above is "closed" as it restricts itself to particular past precedents. It could be said the first is "forward-looking", hence creative, and the second "backward-looking", hence puritanical. A major exponent of this latter approach is al-Shatibi who said unless a particular mode of devotion is done spontaneously or due to free-time (faragh) or depending on one's physical strength (nashat), that particular form would require evidence. He, for example, opposes du'a after Salah on the basis that it is attached significance in that particular time; however since in the act of making du'a one must specify time, place etc., if it is done without persistence (iltizam) and with the reason of convenience, it will be permissible. In other words, it is the institutional specification of an unprecedented act that al-Shatibi would oppose.

Both of the above approaches, of al-Shafii and of Malik, have evidence from the practice of the Sahabah. In favour of al-Shafii's approach are the following incidents:

1. According to Anas, an Imam from the Ansar would recite Surat al-Ikhlas in every first rakat, and when asked by the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) why he replied because he likes the surah, and the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) approved of this (al-Bukhari) - the man specified through persistence (iltizam) the recitation of a particular sura through his own judgement and preference and this was condoned by the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)

2. Abu Hurayra narrates that Khubayb ibn Adi was the first to initiate the practice (sunna) of reading two rak'ats before being executed (Bukhari) - here again a general recommendation of Salah is specified in time (waqt) and situation (hal)

3. Abu Said al-Khudri narrated the story when he and some Companions treated a village leader using Surat al-Fatiha and the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) later asked them "how is it that you knew it is a cure (ruqya)?" (Bukhari) - in other words, they took the general notion of the Qur’an being a cure (shifa) and applied it in a specific way

The view of Malik is supported by some of the actions of the Sahabah:

1. Ibn Umar opposed Salat al-Duha and Du'a Qunut declaring the "bid'ah" even though they may be included under general principles

2. Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud opposed group dhikr as bid'ah even though it may be included in the general practice of dhikr (Darimi)


3. Ibn Umar also opposed a man who said "alhamdulilla wa salamun ala rasulillah" upon sneezing saying "I also accept alhamdulillah and salamun ala rasulillah but this is not the way the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) taught us; he taught us to say 'alhamdulillah ala kulli hal'" (Tirmidhi)


These are just some examples of how each of these two methodologies function. As would be expected, the Shafii madhhab adopts the first methodology and according to Ibn Daqiq al-Id "the Malikis have tended towards this second (approach)" (wa mayl al-malikiyya ila hadhi l-thaniyah), but al-Zayn says this does not mean all Malikis took this view so we find for example Ibn 'Arafa saying about du'a after Salah "if it is done with the intention that it is from the sunnas of Salah it is impermissible but if it is free from this, then it remains according to the general ruling of du'a which is that it is a prescribed worship whose virtue and greatness is recognised in the Sharia". There were many Malikis, however, that followed Malik and al-Shatibi and did not allow the specification of general principles, and their rejection of mawlid derives from this (as with ibn al-Hajj, al-Haffar and many others as mentioned above).

Wasalam
Salman

[Abu_Bilal]

Both of the above approaches, of al-Shafii and of Malik, have evidence from the practice of the Sahabah. In favour of al-Shafii's approach are the following incidents:

1. According to Anas, an Imam from the Ansar would recite Surat al-Ikhlas in every first rakat, and when asked by the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) why he replied because he likes the surah, and the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) approved of this (al-Bukhari) - the man specified through persistence (iltizam) the recitation of a particular sura through his own judgement and preference and this was condoned by the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)

2. Abu Hurayra narrates that Khubayb ibn Adi was the first to initiate the practice (sunna) of reading two rak'ats before being executed (Bukhari) - here again a general recommendation of Salah is specified in time (waqt) and situation (hal)

3. Abu Said al-Khudri narrated the story when he and some Companions treated a village leader using Surat al-Fatiha and the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) later asked them "how is it that you knew it is a cure (ruqya)?" (Bukhari) - in other words, they took the general notion of the Qur’an being a cure (shifa) and applied it in a specific way

Assalam Alaikum.

All the above incidents are reported from the sahaba. And i have already explained in detail, that the practices done by the sahaba are not bidah, and anything that started AFTER the times of the sahaba, tabieen and taba-tabieen is bidah. So the above incidents do not prove anything.

[hope1]

Assalamu alaikum,

Regarding the incidents brother Salman mentioned I look at them like this:

1) Sura Ikhlaas issue: The Messenger of Allah made an exception for the person. This is because normally it will not be proper and I believe he used add other suras after Ikhlaas and going back in recitation in salaat according to fiqh is makhruh e tahrimi. But for him an exception was made just as some exceptions were made for other sahabas.

2) If someone does an action (in a "non-institutional" way) which the Messenger of Allah later approves then it becomes a sunnah and should be carried out in an "institutional" manner. Moreover the actions of sahabah can sometimes be used for establishing recommended (if I am not mistaken). I don't think anyone calls this sunnah, but rather recommended (mustahab) - and this is the ruling in Beheshti Zewar that it is mustahab (not sunnah).

3) There are several ahadith in Fazaile A'maal which talk about how Sura Fatiha is a cure for many diseases. So this is from a hadith not analogy.

[salman]

Assalam Alaikum.

All the above incidents are reported from the sahaba. And i have already explained in detail, that the practices done by the sahaba are not bidah, and anything that started AFTER the times of the sahaba, tabieen and taba-tabieen is bidah. So the above incidents do not prove anything.

salamu `alaykum

Your above statement, sayyidi, clearly indicates some misunderstanding of the proofs being mentioned above. The proofs are being mentioned to outline a "methodology", not to outline the validity of specific acts per se. The "methodology" of inventing new things based on general principles is found among the salaf and this is what the Shafi`i scholars based their methodology on. They witnessed the companions inventing new acts that the Prophet did not perform based on their understanding that these new acts could be subsumed under the general framework and goals of the shari`ah.

This is the verdict of Imam Shafi`i, as has been clarified many times. If you feel your explanation is superior to his and his schools, then feel free to do so.

In the end, your claim to a single methodology of innovation - if that is what you are claiming - is clearly negated by what these Shafi`i scholars outlined and the acts that they permitted in their legal edicts.

Any just reader would concede that our tradition has both approaches.

Regarding the incidents brother Salman mentioned I look at them like this:

The point is, sidi, that is their only one way of looking at these events and incidents?

The narratives are not to be viewed in terms of them being proofs for specific acts and practices, but as proofs for a methodology that scholars outlined. Before we begin to discuss the validity of a practice, we need to understand the methodology behind deducing such verdicts of validity and invalidity.

It is clear that the methodology of defining innovation itself differs and therefore so will our outcome. This is akin to every other issue of khilaf we have between the four schools of thought, and these differences return primarily to differences in the methodological framework of the schools rather than "proofs".

Proof based discussions are always circular since it leads to never ending barrages of hadith from both sides. No one seems to understand, however, that the Shafi`is and Hanafis do not differ on the obligation of reciting the fatiha - forexample - due to each of them lacking the others proof, but because both have a different framework and methodology of deducing whether something is obligatory or necessary or a sunna and so forth.

The same is the case with innovation and what is deemed as innovation. Shatibi and Ahmad Zarruq will say one thing is innovation while Suyuti and Ibn Hajar will say it is recommended and desirable. This is because they have different methodologies of defining what is a unacceptable innovation and what is not.

Wasalam
Salman

[London786]

i love shah ismail shaheed.... By the way brother salman i wanted to discuss something privately could i have ur email...please