Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani's Stance Against Bid'ah Hasanah

[ahmad12]

Don't the barelwi's also consider Mujaddid Alf Thani (RA) a legitimate scholar and take his opinions on things? I'm pretty sure they consider Shaykh Raza Khan his 'successor' in a way... how do they explain away these statements?

[SeekerOfGuidance]

I have a question which has been sitting in the back of my mind for quite some time now and that is do the Hanafis (from classical texts) believe in the concept of bid`ah hasanah? Furthermore, do the Deobandi Hanafis believe in the concept of bid`ah hasanah? From what I've read, the Shafi`is and Malikis accept this categorization of bid`ah but as for the Hanafis, I haven't really grasped a clear picture.

The following is a brief explanation of bid`ah by Mufti Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf which I was wondering if someone could elaborate on as to whether he is explaining bid`ah hasanah.

“Whoever innovates something reprehensible in this matter of ours that does not belong to it is rejected.” (Bukhari, Muslim)

"In this matter" i.e. religion - Islam. Defining "innovation," Qadi Iyad writes, "Whoever innovates an opinion in Islam that does not have any manifest (zahir) or obscure (khafi) or clear derived substantiation from the Qur'an and Sunna, then it is rejected."

Islam was preferred as a religion, and anyone who attempts to bring into it an unsubstantiated idea has undertaken a disliked practice - disliked because of the implication that Islam is incomplete or defective, and hence has need for some innovation. As for the words "that does not belong to it," they indicate that innovating something that is in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunna (i.e. "which belongs to it") cannot be considered reprehensible. Imam Shafi'i said, "Any innovation that violates the Qur'an or Sunna or a statement [of the Companion - athar] or the consensus (ijma') [of Muslim scholars] is a deviance. And whatever good that has been innovated and does not contravene any of the above is not reprehensible" (Mirqat al-mafatih 1:366, 368).

Thus, according to Islamic law, bid'a is any new way in worship that is done with the intention of attaining more reward, but not proven from the words or the actions - explicit or tacit - of the Messenger (salawaatullahi wasalaamu alaih) or the four caliphs, Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and 'Ali (radiallahu anhum), in spite of them having had the ability to do so (Shatibi, Al-I'tisam).

The Messenger of Allah strongly warned his Umma against innovating something into Islam saying, "When a people innovate something new into their religion, a sunna to that amount is lifted from them. Hence, holding fast to a sunna is superior to introducing a new innovation (Ahmad).

This is why extreme caution is required in the issue of bid'a. When there is doubt about whether or not something is a reprehensible innovation, it is superior to leave the action. Ibn 'Abidin, the great Syrian jurist, writes, "When there is confusion between the ruling of something being a sunna or bid'a, it is preferable that one abandon the [possible] sunna than enact the [possible] innovation" (Radd al-muthar 1:431)

New methods invented to fulfill human needs have nothing to do with bid'a, because they are not introduced as an act of worship or with the intention of earning reward. Hence, they are permissible as long as they do not violate any command of the Shari'a.

It also can be understood from the above explanation of bid'a that many things were not needed in the time of Allah's Messenger , but were established later to achieve a religious objective, cannot be included in the realm of bid'a (in the legal sense) either, [even though they may be considered bid'a in the literal sense, i.e., "an innovation" or "something new." Many times the later is intended when referencing a certain matter to be a good or bad bid'a, since every action legally considered a bid'a can only be reprehensible].

Some innovations that do not violate the Qur'an or the Sunna include the establishment of of madrasas with their organized curricula and classrooms and centers and institutions for spreading Islam (da'wa). Also included among these commendable innovations is the codification of sciences like Arabic grammar, syntax, etymology, rhetoric, and literature to better understand and interpret the Qur'an and hadith; the study of philosophy [or other relevant subjects] to repudiate heretical groups; and the use of certain modern weapons for the defense of Muslims.

Examples of [legally] reprehensible innovation include [unnecessary] decoration of masjids or the custom of shaking hands after the prayers. Mulla 'Ali al-Qari writes, "Some of our scholars [i.e. the Hanafi scholars] have explicitly mentioned that it [shaking hands after prayer] is disliked, and for this reason it is from among the reprehensible innovations (Mirqat al-mafatih 1:368, see also Radd al-muthar 5:244). [A] Conversely, one must also be cautious of ignorantly labeling something, which may be recommended or permissible, as a bid'a, since that is also detrimental to the faith.

[Excerpt from, Provisions for the Seekers with commentary by Mufti Abdur-Rahman Ibn Yusuf]

http://www.muftisays.com/blog/Seifed...d%27ah%29.html

Words can have a literal definition and a technical definition. Bidah used in its literal sense can be used for anything new, such as the latest technology. Used in this sense, Bidah can be classified into good and bad. Minarets can be called a good bid’ah, whilst photo booths can be called reprehensible bid’ah.

Umar used the word Bid’ah in this sense, when talking about taraweeh.

As another example to portray the difference between literal/linguistic and technical/legal definition, the word ‘Shirk’ can be used in its literal sense to label any partnership. A business partnership to run a charity can be called ‘Good Shirk’ or 'Shirk Hasanah', whereas a partnership to run a pub can be called ‘Bad Shirk’, again in its literal sense.

Just as there is no such concept as Shirk Hasanah in its technical (religious) usage, there is no such concept as Bid’ah Hasanah. The Prophet condemned Bi’dah repeatedly without restriction almost as many times as he condemned Shirk. All Bid’ah in its technical usage, i.e. innovations in the deen, are reprehensible.

Some ulamah were not very particular in their usage of the word Bid’ah and mistakenly conflated the literal and technical definitions of the word. The Ahl al-bid’ah have used this to their advantage to open the apparently limitless door towards justifying the countless Bid’ah that are in vogue today.

As Allamah Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani said:

"By this account which we reviewed from the instructions of our praiseworthy teacher [Shaykh al-Hind Mawlana Mahmud al-Hasan] and others of the ‘ulama of this field (Allah have mercy on them), it [should] be clear to you, if Allah (Most High) wills, legal bid’ah in its entirety is evil and blameworthy and is not divided into good and bad, or obligatory, recommended and disliked, and other divisions. So his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement in the hadith of the chapter “every bid’ah is misguidance” is understood by us as general.

Those who specify it as evil bid’ah and divide bid’ah into types seem not to have been over particular about the use of this word and they shifted from the legal definition to the linguistic definition and construed it as legal[11], as the statement of al-Zurqani in Sharh al-Mawahib indicates where he said: “It is linguistically what is done without a past precedent and is used in the Shar’iah in this sense also. It divides into obligatory [bid'ah] like knowledge of the evidences of the dialectical theologians (mutakallimin) to refute the atheists and innovators; recommended, like compiling books, building schools and endowments; permissible, like expanding foods and drinks; prohibited, like errors produced in [the recitation of] the Qur’an; and disliked, like the effect of something the detestability of which is proven textually.”

http://www.deoband.org/2010/07/gener...n-the-shariah/

[warea]

I dont see the issue has anything to do with the not so relevent classification of linguistic bidah and technical bidah or so forth. The issue is about what exactly is "new".

Those who accept a good bidah say that a good bidah would be having a basis in the shariah, and hence we know it is "good". If it contridicts shariah, it is "bad". Then there would those which would be neutral/doubtful. They are new and hence called bidah. But they are good because the goodness of it is based on the shariah itself or in other words the shariah itself permits this good bidah.

Those who reject good bidah falls into two categories. One category would accept a innovation which has a basis; meaning the shariah itself permits that particular innovation and does not put a restriction to innovate. But does not call it "bidah" because that permission to innovate is part of shariah itself and therefore not new to the shariah. Hence not really a bidah. There is another category of those who reject bidah whereby they tend towards rejection of qiyas and do not consider permissible to do anything which the prophet sallallahu alaihi wassallam did not specifically do in the exact manner such that no dot or exclaimation mark should be changed or added. The latter category would then sometimes try to further narrow down by categorizing between religion from wordly matters or matters of worship from matters that which are not considered as worship, etc and appply bidah to only one aspect of the classification I.e religion or worship.

If you notice from these three, the first case and the second case are same and their difference is merely linguistic. But the third case has fundamental difference with the first two case. And the real controversy on bidah is between the third case with the other two. And hence not a mere issue of linguistic difference.

Wasalam

[warea]

For example take the hadith: “The Religion is naseeha (sincerity and sincere advice).”*[Saheeh Muslim]

Ist case is a person who accepts good bidah. He would consider a innovation in naseeha as permissible and good when the goodness of the innovated naseeha has a basis in shariah

2nd case also accepts innovation in naseeha, the only difference bbeing that he does not consider it a "bidah" as the permissibility of innovation is part of shariah and not a new addition to it.

The 3rd category is were issues and difference really lie. As their definition of innovation would have to consider a innovation in naseeha to be forbidden as a naseeha cannot be done in any way or manner other than which the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him, did. The hadith considers naseeha as an aspect of religion hence a classification into secular and religious matter wouldn't apply to this.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Don't the barelwi's also consider Mujaddid Alf Thani (RA) a legitimate scholar and take his opinions on things? I'm pretty sure they consider Shaykh Raza Khan his 'successor' in a way... how do they explain away these statements?

The barelwis' claim of being true inheritors of Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani and Shah Waliullah (along with their claim of being true conveyors of the Hanafi madhab), is almost as hollow as their claim of having love for the Prophet whilst relegating his beloved Sunnah in preference to actions not found in the Sunnah.

The Ahl al-Bid’ah tend to use one of two methods when interpreting the statements of the two Mujaddids:

1)They claim, without manuscriptural evidence, that their works have been fabricated and forged. Nobody should access their works except through the filters of the deviant group e.g. only those parts that are not in conflict with barelwism has escaped tampering.

This tactic allows any deviant group to lay claim to any scholar in history. It also implies that Allah sends a reviver, a signpost through which the Ummah can be set straight again, only to allow the reviver’s works to become inaccessible.

2)They claim, without sound basis, that Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani and Shah Waliullah have erred and/ or are deviants.

[Biddahbasher]

The idea could be hard to grasp if you think Tazkiyah is synonymous with bid'ah.

I did not say this. However if you look at reality of todays sufis they are the most guilty of spreading bidahs

[SeekerOfGuidance]

I dont see the issue has anything to do with the not so relevent classification of linguistic bidah and technical bidah or so forth. The issue is about what exactly is "new".

Those who accept a good bidah say that a good bidah would be having a basis in the shariah, and hence we know it is "good". If it contridicts shariah, it is "bad". Then there would those which would be neutral/doubtful. They are new and hence called bidah. But they are good because the goodness of it is based on the shariah itself or in other words the shariah itself permits this good bidah.

Those who reject good bidah falls into two categories. One category would accept a innovation which has a basis; meaning the shariah itself permits that particular innovation and does not put a restriction to innovate. But does not call it "bidah" because that permission to innovate is part of shariah itself and therefore not new to the shariah. Hence not really a bidah. There is another category of those who reject bidah whereby they tend towards rejection of qiyas and do not consider permissible to do anything which the prophet sallallahu alaihi wassallam did not specifically do in the exact manner such that no dot or exclaimation mark should be changed or added. The latter category would then sometimes try to further narrow down by categorizing between religion from wordly matters or matters of worship from matters that which are not considered as worship, etc and appply bidah to only one aspect of the classification I.e religion or worship.

If you notice from these three, the first case and the second case are same and their difference is merely linguistic. But the third case has fundamental difference with the first two case. And the real controversy on bidah is between the third case with the other two. And hence not a mere issue of linguistic difference.

Wasalam

Could you tell me which accepted classical scholar mentioned the above categories? There seems to be just as fundamental a difference between the first and second cases above, as there is between the second and third cases. The middle path tends to be the haqq.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Another letter of profound insight by the Mujaddid of this millenium:

"The happiest, the most fortunate person is he who recovers one of the forgotten sunnats and annihilates one of the widespread bid'ats in a time when irreligiousness is on the increase. We are now in such a time when a thousand years have elapsed after the Best of man kind [Hadhrat Muhammad ], As we get farther from the time of happiness of our Prophet, the sunnats are gradually being covered and, lies being on the increase, the bid'ats are spreading.

A hero is needed who will uphold the sunnats and stop, expel the bid'ats. To spread bid'ats is to demolish Islam. To respect those who make up and commit bid'ats, to deem them great will cause Islam to perish. It is declared in a hadith, "He who says 'great' about those who commit bid'ats has helped the demolition of islam". The meaning of this should be given die consideration on. Utmost energy should be spent in striving for uncovering one Sunnat and annihilating one bid'at. For strengthening Islam any-time, especially when Islam has become so weak, it is necessary to spread the sunnats and demolish the bid'ats.

The former Islamic savants, having seen maybe some beauty in the bid'ats, gave some of them the name of hasana [beautiful]. But this faqir [Imaam-Rabbini means himself] do not follow them in this respect; I do not regard any of the bid'ats as beautiful. I see all of them as dark and cloudy. Our Prophet declared: "All bid'ats are aberration, deviation from the right way". In such a time as this when Islam has become weak, I see that salvation and escaping Hell is in holding fast to the Sunnat; and destruction of the din is, no matter how, in falling for any bid'at. I understand that each bid'at is like a pickaxe to demolish the building of Islam and all sunnats are like brilliant stars to guide you on a dark night.

May Allahu ta'ala give enough reasonableness to the hodjas of our time so that they will not say that any bid'at is beautiful or permit any bid'at to be committed. They should not tolerate bid'ats even if they seem to illuminate darknesses like the rising of the sun! For, the satans do their work easily outside the sunnats. In the early times, Islam being strong, the darknesses of bid'ats were not conspicuous, but, maybe, along with the world-wide powerful light of Islam, some of those darknesses passed as bright. Therefore they were said to be beautiful. Whereas, those bid'ats did not have any brightness or beauty, either.

But now, Islam having become weak and disbelievers' customs and even the symptoms of disbelief having become settled [as fashion] among Muslims, each bid'at has displayed its harm, and Islam, without anyone noticing it, has been slipping away. Our hodjas should be most vigilant in this respect, and they should not pioneer the spreading of bid'ats by saying, "it is permissible to do so and so", or "such and such things is not harmful", and putting forward the old fatwas. Here is the place for the saying, 'The din will change in process of time". It is wrong for disbelievers to use this saying as tongs for demolishing Islam and settling the bid'ats and disbelief.

The bid'ats having covered all the world, this age roosts like a dark night. The sunnats being on the decrease, their lights blink like fire-flies flying here and there in dark night. As the committing of bid'ats increases, the darkness of the night has been increasing and the light of Sunnat has been decreasing. But the increasing of the sunnats would decrease the darkness and increase the light. He who wishes may increase the darkness of bid'at, thus strengthening the devil's army! And he who wishes may increase the light of Sunnat, thus strengthening the soldiers of Allahu ta'ala! Know well that the end of the devil's army is calamity, loss. He who is in the army of Allahu ta'ala will attain endless bliss." (Vol 2:23)

[warea]

Could you also translate how bidah was precisely defined as per shariah, by the Imam ?

Jazakallah khair.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Could you also translate how bidah was precisely defined as per shariah, by the Imam ?

Jazakallah khair.

I don't think the Mujaddid defined bidah himself. He was a staunch follower of the Hanafi Madhab and he emphasized strongly the necessity of adhering to the rulings of the early authorities of the Madhab, rather than that of the latter day ulama and sufis. The authorities of the Madhab appear to be very strict with regards to Bid'ah, although nowadays there seems to be a revisionist version of the Madhab in many parts of the world. One only needs to look at rulings issued regarding building over the graves, the beard, the current regard for Mawlid etc. by Hanafi ulama, which clearly contradict the ruling of the Madhab, or its principles.

Four hundred years on, the Mujaddid's statement that "the majority of the Ulama of this age are engaged in establishing bid’at and eliminating Sunnah", is more poignant than ever before.