Monday, December 04, 2006

The meaning of Ijma' its types & misuse

Possessing an ideology is a prerequisite for a group of people to progress. They must have a belief that explains the existence of man, life, and the Universe in terms of origin, destination, and their inter-relationship, as well as a complete system that addresses every aspect of life. Once this system - derived from their belief - is implemented in life, revival is achieved. For a system to exist and to remain of the same nature as the belief it emanated from, to maintain the system, and to shield the system against any foreign ideas and pollution, the legislative sources must be clearly defined. Moreover, to ensure that the believers of that ideology follow nothing but the system that resulted from their belief, the sources of legislation must be defined. Also, the Muslim Ummah is in a very critical time period. It is attempting to initiate revival after its body debilitated and its unifying force as embodied in the state and which implemented the Islamic system, collapsed. Furthermore, it is attempting revival after centuries of Western invasions against the Islamic values and ideas, which left the Muslim Ummah uncertain of its ability regarding the Islamic system to solve contemporary problems. The decline in the Muslims' understanding of Islam and the fascination in Western ideas has paralyzed the Muslims with many erroneous concepts. For example, the Muslims blur the clear distinction between democracy and Islam, classifying Islam using the democratic paradigm. They exhibit a paucity of knowledge when asked to explain or discuss the Islamic political system, foreign policy, or sources of legislation. It is in this degenerate stage that the Ummah is being confronted with many proposals, suggestions, and offers, which duping the Ummah that it this is the way towards revival.

Some will suggest the implementation of foreign systems and laws, and more dangerously others will suggest altering and changing the system itself.

Therefore, to ensure that the Muslim Ummah's revival is nothing less than Islamic, the legislative sources must be well defined and explained to the Ummah. This will lead the Ummah to accept only those ideas and laws that are taken from the Islamic legislative sources1. This will help maintain its identity, protect its system, and ensure an ideologically correct revival. In this article, Ijma' will be discussed as a legislative source covering the following:

What is Ijma'?
Which Ijma' is valid?
How is Ijma' misused?

Before going into the details, we must emphasize a specific point, namely, following Islam, i.e. the Wahi (textual evidences) must serve as the basis in all our affairs. We are forbidden to follow anything else. Allah Ta'ala says,

''No, by your Lord, they will not become true believers until they put you [Muhammad] as a ruler in that which they dispute.'' [An-Nisaa' 4: 65]

He (swt) also says,

''And what ever the Messenger brought to you take it and whatever he ordered you to abstain from, do so.'' [Al-Hashr 59: 7]

He Ta'ala says,
''Indeed, ruling belongs to none but Allah.'' [Yusuf 12: 40]
suf:].Therefore, by definition, whatever the Ijma' is going to be, it must be based on the Wahi. Otherwise, just following the Ijma' of any group without Wahi would be on the same level as following the whims and desires of men.

All are Haram to follow and lead adherents astray. Allah Ta'ala says,

''And follow not their desires.'' [Ash-Shura 42: 15]

In addition, for any group to establish Ijma', there should be no possibility of agreeing on mistake. It is well known that the two basic sources of laws in Islam are the Qur'an and Sunnah, since they are both Wahi (revelation) from Allah Ta'ala. From the Qur'an and the Sunnah, the Ijma' (consensus) and Qiyas (analogy with reason or Illah) are taken.

Al-Adillat ush-Shari'ah must be decisive: The subject of Al-Adillat ush-Shari'ah (sources of Shariah) is one related to the Usool of the Deen, i.e. the basis of it. Therefore, to consider or to reject any source, the evidence must be conclusive (Qata'ee) and not conjectural (Thanni). A proof must exist that conclusively explains what Allah Ta'ala wants us to

use as a source of law for our actions. In other words, we must have decisive evidence that this source is from Allah, i.e. it is Wahi. There are two types of evidences that definitely classify it is Wahi. They are the Qur'an and the Sunnah reported by Tawatur. This is what the scholars of Usool called Qata'ee uth-Thubut (conclusive in report). Furthermore, the meaning contained in the Ayat and the Mutawatir Hadeeth must be Qata'ee ud-Dalalah (decisive in meaning). Imam Ash-Shatibi, in his book Al-Muwafaqaat stated, ''Usool ul-Fiqh of the Deen are Qata'ee, not Thanni. The proof for this is that they are part of the guidelines of the Shari'ah. Anything of this nature must be conclusive.'' [Vol. I, p.29]

What is Ijma'?

In the Arabic language, Ijma' means 'Azm or determination. It can also mean Ittifaq or agreement. As a term among the scholars of Usool, ''it is the agreement over a rule for an incident that already existed that it is a Hukm Shari'ah."'' While they agreed on this definition, they disagreed on whose Ijma' is valid. And based on their opinion, they defined Ijma'. While all Muslims are in agreement that Ijma' is a Daleel Shari' (legal evidence), they disagreed on whose Ijma' is binding. All agreed that the Ijma' of the Sahabah is a Daleel Shari'e but then deferred after the Sahabah era. Some said that the Ijma' of the Ummah in any era is binding, while others opined that it is not the Ummah but the Ijma' of the Ulama' or scholars at any time. Others viewed the Ijma' of the Itrah or the family of the Prophet as the only proper Ijma'. While these are Islamic opinions, they have been used nowadays by the West as tools in the hands of their Islamic ''reformers'' to reinterpret Islam. They are also used by scholars to legitimize the rulers' Haram actions and their illegitimate Kufr systems. How many times have we heard about the Ijma' of the scholars of regarding the British calling Saudi Arabia an Islamic state, the King being legitimate, seeking the protection and alliance of the American troops is allowed, etc.? How many times have we heard that there is Ijma' al Ulema stating that the Deen is based on Maslahah (benefit) of the people?

All of these examples demonstrate how an Islamic idea is used to legitimize Kufr ideas and systems. We also hear of an Ijma' of Ahl us Sunnah scholars that questioning the rulers and holding them accountable to the Ummah for the systems they rule by and the actions they perform based on Islam and discussing their affairs runs counter to the path of Ahl us-Sunnah. Therefore, discussing the issue of Ijma' should not be viewed as an academic or theoretical discussion. It is very practical and is directly related to our daily lives and the obligation of initiating Islamic revival. Now let us address the issue at hand.

For example, Imam Ash-Shawkani in his book Irshad ul-Fuhool said, ''It is the agreement of the Mujtahideen of the Ummah of Muhammad (saaw) after his death in a certain era on something.'' [p. 70]

Imam Ar-Razi is of the same opinion as Imam Ash-Shawkani, with the exception that he includes the Ijma' of the Ummah. He said in his book Al-Mahsool, ''The Ijma' of the Ummah is an evidence.'' [vol., p.9].

Ijma' as Sahabah is the Only Valid Ijma'

By having stated that this is the basis of the subject, we can easily reach to the conclusion that the only group of people who can have their Ijma' based on revelation is the group of Sahabah. This is so for the following reasons:

1. Their credibility, as a group, is established. Allah Ta'ala has complemented them in the Qur'an.

Allah Ta'ala says,

''Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those with him are harsh on the disbelievers and merciful to each others.'' [Al-Fath 48: 29]

And,
''And the early ones, the Muhajiroon and the Ansar and those who followed them with righteousness, Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him.'' [At-Tauba 9: 100]

Also, He Ta'ala says,
''[wealth should be given] to the poor immigrants who were removed from their homes and to abandon their wealth, seeking the pleasure of Allah and giving victory to Allah and His Messenger.'' [Al-Hashr 59: 8-9]

Also, the Messenger (saaw) complemented them in many Ahadeeth. He (saaw) said, ''Allah has chosen my companions over all mankind except the prophets.'' And he said, ''Take care of my companions.''

And he (saaw) said, ''the best generation is my generation.'' Complementing them as a group reflects that they as a community cannot conspire to lie or commit any act of disobedience.

2. The Sahabah are the ones who carried Qur'an to us, compiled it and insured that it is kept in the same form as they received it from the Prophet (saaw). Allah (swt) says:

''We have, without doubt, Sent down the Message; And We will assuredly Guard it.'' [Al-Hajr 15:9]

This Ayah confirms their Ijma' as being correct. Qur'an was preserved through this Ijma', therefore, it has to be correct.

3. Although Sahabah as individuals are not infallible but the Sahabah as a whole group cannot agree on any mistake or error, since they are the ones who carried Islam to us.

4. The Sahabah would not agree that a certain thing is Islamically permitted or forbidden without knowing whether that action was approved or disapproved by the Prophet (saaw). However, the Hadith in this regard is not narrated to us, but the rule is conveyed by the total agreement of the Sahabah (raa). The Ulema are in agreement that Ijma' as Sahabah is a binding proof. For example, It is reported that Omar (ra) before is death, after being stabbed, nominated 6 Sahabah as candidates to be Khalifs. He instructed that any of those 6 individuals should be killed if they disagreed on who was to be a Khalifah after 3 days of consultation. The Sahabah (raa) heard and approved the actions of Omar (ra), including Ali (ra), and no one objected.

Their approval on such serious matters where one or more of the Sahabah was to be killed could only reflect that there existed a Hadeeth which they heard from the Messenger (saaw) commanding them to do so, and thus limiting the time with which the Muslims may remain without a Khalifah to 3 days. This is obvious that this could only apply to the group of the Sahabah, since they were the only ones who witnessed the descent of the revelation. Therefore, the Sahabah were the only group to be complemented by Allah Ta'ala in the Qur'an and the Sunnah unconditionally; since their Ijma' is error free, and since they witnessed the revelation of the Wahi, their Ijma' is a Daleel Shari'. Other Ijma's

As for the opinions other than the Ijma' of the Sahabah, they are all invalid. This is what was reported about Imam Ahmad that he said: Any one who claims Ijma' after the Sahabah, he has lied.'' Also, Imam Ashirazi in his book Al-Luma' fi Usool il-Fiqh cites Imam Dawood as saying, ''The Ijma' of other than As-Sahabah is not binding.'' [p.90]

This is due to the fact that none of them is based on a Qata'ee Daleel and they are impossible to implement on the practical level. The most prominent type of Ijma' is that of the Ummah which resulted in the Ijma' of the Ulamaa'.

Ijma' of the Ummah

The Ijma' of the Ummah rests on evidences that are not Qata'ee. They use the following Ayat: ''And whosoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger after the Right Path and has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers' way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in hell - what an evil destination'' [An-Nisa' 4:115] and

''You are the best Nation raised for mankind, you command good and forbid evil, and you believe in Allah.'' [Al-i-Imran 3:110]

''And We have made you the best nation so that you bear testimony against mankind.'' [2:143]

They also bring forth the Ahadeeth, ''My Ummah will not agree on Dalalah'' and ''Whatever Muslims see good, it is good for Allah.'' He also (saaw) said, ''My Ummah will be divided into 73 groups, all in Hellfire but one. He was asked: O Messenger of Allah, which group is it? He said, the Jama'ah."'' None of these texts can be used as an evidence, since they are all Thanni in Thubut or in Dalalah. As for the first Ayah, they say that since not following the Messenger and the ''believers' way'' is condemned, then it is mandatory to follow them, and their Ijma' is binding. This understanding is weak. Even if it were strong, it would not be considered as a sound proof for this issue since the meaning is not conclusive. Also the word ''Huda'' that is used here means the Tawheed and the prophethood of Muhammad (saaw), and not the detailed Ahkam of Islam. Disobeying the Messenger in rules is Fisq (clear disobedience), and not Dalalah (abandoning Islam). As for the word ''Sabeel il-Mu'mineen'', it refers to the path which the Muslims follow, based on the 'Aqeedah. This meaning is strengthened by the fact that the Ayah was revealed addressing a man who committed apostasy. Therefore, the Ayah is addressing the subject of Islam and apostasy, and not the rules of Islam. As for the second Ayah, it merely complements the Ummah. As a matter of fact, the complement is conditional. Allah Ta'ala complements the Ummah when it commands good and forbid evil. In reality, there is no group that is unconditionally complemented by Allah Ta'ala, i.e. for being themselves, but the Sahabah. The later generation were complemented for following the Sahabah. At any rate, the complement in itself is insufficient to make their consensus a Daleel Shari'. This is similar to the complement of the Sahabah. Had it not been accompanied by the other factors mentioned above, their complement would not have sufficed either.

As for the Ahadeeth, they are all Thanni in Thuboot since they are Akhbar Ahad. In other words, they are below the Tawatur level and therefore not Qata'ee. Studying their texts however does not reflect a Daleel for Ijma'. The Hadeeth which says that the Ummah will not agree on Dalalah means that the Ummah will not abandon Islam as a whole, for ''Dalalah'' here means misguidance or going astray. This applies to the Usool of the Deen, and not the Furoo'. In other words, it does not say that they will not agree to an error or sin. This is possible and has taken place with the issue of the absence of Islam, and the issue of nationalism. They are forbidden to be without a Khalifah more than three days. They have been without one for more than 84 years. And Muslims are forbidden to be nationalistic, and they have accepted to be divided into 54 states in which they are proud of. As for the other Ahadeeth, they are all either Da'eef, i.e., weak or having nothing to do with the subject matter.

In addition, there are certain realities that make the Ijma' of the Ummah impossible, and therefore invalid, for Allah does not command the impossible:

a) It is impossible to gather the entire Ummah on one single opinion.

b) Most of the Muslims are 'Ammi (unable to perform Ijtihad). On what basis are they supposed to render their understanding?

c) Ijma' by definition does not mean that it is a majority opinion. It has to be an unanimous approval, in such a way, that there is not a possibility of even one single disagreement. It is for this reason, among others, that some scholars considered valid Ijma' to be that of Ijma' of Scholars (Ulema') and not Ijma' of the Ummah.

However, this opinion is wrong due to the following:

1) There is not a single proof for this idea, not Qata'ee or even Thanni. All that exists is some Hadith complementing Ilm and Ulema'.

2) The Mujtahideen(scholars) are the ones who are able to perform Ijtihad, be it in one issue or in a Madhab or in the entire Shari'ah. Some of them may know certain things, and others might not. So how could we require their Ijma' and make it binding! Ijtihad, by definition, is Thanni. The Mujtahidden engage in their utmost to reach the correct conclusion, while a margin of error remains that the conclusion they reached is wrong. How could we make people who are could agree on error and who reach a conclusion that might be wrong as a source of Shari'ah, where the error they reach will be binding on the Ummah of Muhammad until the Day of Judgment?

3) Who will decide who is a Mujtahid and who is not? For example, Ibn Hazm Ath-Thahiri was considered by scholars of his time to be a prominent and an outstanding Mujtahid. Others like Ibn Al-Arabi viewed him as ''a child from the desert who taught himself and criticized the majority of scholars.'' Similarly, the scholars nowadays who graduate from the institutions of the Saudi establishment do not view the graduates of Azhar as ''legitimate,'' that their Ilm is not according to their brand of As-Salaf. Who is a ''legitimate'' scholar and who is not?

4) As Imam Shirazi stated in his book Al-Luma', ''for Ijma' to be valid, all scholars of that time must agree to that rule. If some of them disagree, then it is not Ijma'.'' [P.91]

What issue other than the conclusive ones due to their Daleel are agreed upon by all scholars?

Besides the conclusive ones, there has always been someone who disagreed. And there will always be someone who will agree. The disagreement will always exist. In reality, there is much more to be said. Our concern is the manner that this issue effects us now.

For example, it is known for an item to be considered as a subject of Ijma', it must meet certain conditions.

Two conditions are:

There is no Ijma' (regardless of whose Ijma') when there exists a Daleel. If there is a text (Ayah or Hadeeth) that address an issue, no one can claim Ijma', for Ijma' serves as the third in the Adillat ush-Shari'ah.

The second condition is that Ijma' regarding something cannot conflict with the text. If there exists a Hukm based on a Daleel, no one can disobey it due to ''Ijma'.''

Examples of this nowadays are in abundance. For example, in the month of Ramadan, we often hear about ''Ijma''' of certain organizations that there is Ijma' that the moon will be
sighted nationally. Anyone who disagrees is considered to go against the Ijma'. But how could there be Ijma' if there are many Ahadeeth addressing the sighting of the moon, especially most of which instruct us otherwise?! Another example is the ''Shura'' meeting in the Masajid in some countries. It is often stated that no one is to speak in the Masjid unless authorized by the committee. And such an opinion cannot be reversed since there is Ijma' and Ijma' is binding. Not only is this Islamic idea of Ijma' being abused in these situations, but it also reflects that they have no idea what Ijma' is!

How Ijma' is Misused

This is what is most common nowadays. These days, clear-cut Haram is legitimized under the guise of Ijma', especially that of the Ulama. For example, the Saudi regime is headed by a monarch that rules according to a collection of rules, some of them from Islam and many emanate from the Western system. Riba, which is Qata'ee Haram is the basis of its economic system. The International Law, which is Kufr, is the basis of its foreign policy. It serves as a member in the United Nations, accepting their Kufr based resolutions.

Also it is a leading member in the nationalistic Arab League, which is Haram. With all these illegitimate practices, there exists an Ijma' among the scholars of Saudi Arabia as represented by ''Hayatu Kibar al Ulamaa'' or the Council of the Grand Scholars that it is Haram to criticize the regime, sell or buy tapes that criticize it, or support anyone who does so. In addition, such persons would be considered as one practicing a deviant 'Aqeedah that is against that of Ahl us-Sunnah. In reality, the Islamic concept of Ijma' is being misused and abused. Such ''Ijma''' is invalid, for it contradicts with the Qata'ee rule of Al-'Amr bi'l Ma'roof wa'n Nahi an il Munkar as well as the fact that Ijma' al Ulama is not a correct Daleel Shari'.

Another example of an invalid Ijma' is the claim that since the purpose of Ahkam(rules) is to ensure the benefit of the people, then, as a result, they have made the laws of Islam revolve around benefit, as perceived by the human mind. This idea is one of several that is being used to ''reform'' Islam in such away that it becomes compatible with the Western value system, and make it possible to integrate Muslims in Western societies. Political participation has been made Halal under this pretext of Ijma'. How could there be Ijma' if Imam Ar-Razi or Imam Shatei disagreed with the notion of benefit? Or are they nobody? And how could it be Ijma' if there exists a plethora of texts that prohibit it?

The same concept of Ijma' is being used against forming political parties based on Islam. The same scholars of the Saudi establishment have claimed via that having Islamic parties, especially political, are Haram to establish since they are a division of the Ummah. Furthermore, they say that the Ahl us-Sunnah are against any group that is formed. . Their Ijma' is invalid because their it goes against the Ayah commanding the Muslims to carry the Da'wah and change the society to Islam in an organized fashion.

Allah Ta'ala says,
''Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining Al-Ma'ruf and forbidding Al-Munkar. And it is they who are successful.'' [Al-i-Imran 3: 104]

Also, how could it be Ijma' if the Mufasireen of the past viewed commanding the good and forbidding the evil in an organized way as mandatory, such as At-Tabari. Also, many contemporary scholars viewed working for the re-establishment of Islam as mandatory.

Conclusion

The concept of Ijma' is currently being used to isolate any people who look for revival. This is done by creating a ''mainstream'' that takes its validity from Ijma' of the Ulama. Their are new Fatawa that we hear of everyday, such as, making Riba Halal, legitimizing the peace process with the Jews, forbidding the criticism of the rulers on the basis of Islam, allowing political participation in the West on the basis of benefit, the Khilafah system can be replaced by any ''modern'' system as long it is just...etc. In reality, these opinions among many others are only the tip of the new and reformed Islam. This is Islam that is suited for the 21st century. It is the brand that is approved by the Western masters.

For anyone to speak against it, means he is going against Ijma'. Thus, Ijma' is being used to form a monopoly on Islam. The truth of the matter is that the concept of Ijma' al Ummah and especially Ulama, is being used by the regimes to prevent Islamic activism for the return of Islam via the Khilafah state from gaining strength and momentum. Hence, the misconception of the Ijma' of the Ulama has become an obstacle in the way for revival due to misuse by the Ulama of the establishment.

Therefore, it is vital for the Islamic movement that works for revival to define its Adillah ush-Shari'ah, primarily for two reasons:

To propagate its idea to the Ummah in order to purify Islam in their minds from any rules that became attached to it through this improper channel. Also to create a basis for thinking in the Ummah upon which it will judge ideas and rules. It will also enable it to see the politics of Ijma' that is used to legitimize Kufr. As a group that seeks revival via the establishment of Islam, it must adopt the legislative sources it will use once it assumes power and commences with the implementation of Islam. It is of great importance to explain to the Ummah the correct legislative sources in order to create an aware public opinion among the Ummah for the kind of state the party seeks. By adopting Al-Qur'an, As-Sunnah, Ijma' as-Sahabah and Qiyas with Shari' Illah as the only Adillah ush-Shari'ah, and by using these evidences as the only valid sources, this will result in protecting Islam from any foreign idea that might come to it in the future. It will not allow the depraved rulers to use corrupt people to legitimize Kufr in any form. Islam will inshaa' Allah return to prevail.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Excellent points.
Islam's strength of not changing anything can also make it too rigid, if we don't constantly seek Allah of what use is ijma`, which other people got from seeking Allah ?

Anonymous said...

There are some points that needs to be addressed. Even if
the Ijma' as Sahabah as you said is the only valid ijma--how
do you determine the authenticity of an incident where
there were an ijma? Is there any canonical collections
(like Sahih Bukhari) of such authentic incidents?
Let's talk about the example of Hazrat Umar(RA) that you gave.
We clearly know from the first two sources or Wahi that
the blood of Muslims are haaram except for certain definite cases
with conditions. So, how could Hazrat Umar(RA) contradicted
this clear rule by instructing that any of those 6 individuals
should be killed if they disagreed on who was to be a Khalifah
after 3 days of consultation and the Sahabah (raa) heard and
approved the actions of Omar (ra), including Ali (ra), and no
one objected.
We know that one of the criterion to determine a Sahih
is that it won't contradict Quran(there are other criterions
as well). It is possible that the above-mentioned incident
is a fabrication and even withous a biased spectacle anybody
will understand that kind of ruthlessness is not the nature of
Hazrat Umar or the Sahaba.
There is another point-- We know about some tensions before
the election of Hazrat Abu Bakr as a Caliph--among the Ansars and
the Muhajirun and also Most accounts agree that Hazrat Ali and his
supporters initially refused to submit. After a period of time,
whose duration(Was that more than 3 days?) is disputed, the dissidents
gave their bay'ah. Did the Prophet gave some similar instructions
like Hazrat Umar(RA)--as we know--he explicitly nominated not
even 1 (6 is too far from 1) as candidates to be Khalifas.
So, "The Sahabah would not agree that a certain thing is Islamically
permitted or forbidden without knowing whether that action was
approved or disapproved by the Prophet (saaw). However, the Hadith
in this regard is not narrated to us, but the rule is conveyed by the
total agreement of the Sahabah (raa)."--this satement doesn't make
any sense.


Last of all-you made a self contradictory statement--
"The Ulema are in agreement that Ijma' as Sahabah is a binding proof."
So, now you are taking the ijma of the Ulema to validate
Ijma' as Sahabah --AS THE ONLY VALID IJMA????

Islamic Revival said...

Regarding your questions:

1) As with Hadith, Ijma as-Sahabah can be Qata’i or Dhanni in transmission and meaning. Its reports are mentioned in the books of Hadith and Tareekh (history) which are compiled by Isnad (chains of narration). A chain of narration relating to the agreement of the Sahabah maybe mentioned in a book of Hadith like Sahih al-Bukhari, a book of history like the Tareekh of Al-Tabari, Tareekh of Ad-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir or a book of Fiqh like Kitab al-Umm of Shafi’i. As with Ahadith, Mujtahideen look at the strength of the narration to determine its authenticity.

For example, in Sahih al-Bukhari:

"Volume 9, Book 89, Number 314:
Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama:

The group of people whom 'Umar had selected as candidates for the Caliphate gathered and consulted each other. Abdur-Rahman said to them, "I am not going to compete with you in this matter, but if you wish, I would select for you a caliph from among you." So all of them agreed to let 'Abdur-Rahman decide the case. So when the candidates placed the case in the hands of 'Abdur-Rahman, the people went towards him and nobody followed the rest of the group nor obeyed any after him. So the people followed 'Abdur-Rahman and consulted him all those nights till there came the night we gave the oath of allegiance to 'Uthman. Al-Miswar (bin Makhrama) added: 'Abdur-Rahman called on me after a portion of the night had passed and knocked on my door till I got up, and he said to me, "I see you have been sleeping! By Allah, during the last three nights I have not slept enough. Go and call Az-Zubair and Sa'd.' So I called them for him and he consulted them and then called me saying, 'Call 'Ali for me." I called 'Ali and he held a private talk with him till very late at night, and then 'Al, got up to leave having had much hope (to be chosen as a Caliph) but 'Abdur-Rahman was afraid of something concerning 'Ali. 'Abdur-Rahman then said to me, "Call 'Uthman for me." I called him and he kept on speaking to him privately till the Mu'adhdhin put an end to their talk by announcing the Adhan for the Fajr prayer. When the people finished their morning prayer and that (six men) group gathered near the pulpit, 'Abdur-Rahman sent for all the Muhajirin (emigrants) and the Ansar present there and sent for the army chief who had performed the Hajj with 'Umar that year. When all of them had gathered, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah," and added, "Now then, O 'Ali, I have looked at the people's tendencies and noticed that they do not consider anybody equal to 'Uthman, so you should not incur blame (by disagreeing)." Then 'Abdur-Rahman said (to 'Uthman), "I gave the oath of allegiance to you on condition that you will follow Allah's Laws and the traditions of Allah's Apostle and the traditions of the two Caliphs after him." So 'Abdur-Rahman gave the oath of allegiance to him, and so did the people including the Muhajirin (emigrants) and the Ansar and the chiefs of the army staff and all the Muslims."

Another example is of the Ijma as-Sahabah regarding the number of Raka'a for Taraweeh:

"Al-Bayhaqi has related in al-Marifa via the following chain of transmission:
Abu Tahir al-Faqih -> Abu Uthman al-Basri -> Abu Ahmad Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab -> Khalid ibn Mukhallad -> Muhammad ibn Ja'far -> Yazid ibn Khaseefah -> Sa'eeb ibn Yazid, who said:

'In the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab (radiallahu anhu) the people used to observe 20 rak'ahs and the witr.'

Al-Nawawi said in al-Khulasa:
'Its Isnad is Sahih.'"

Hafiz al-Zayla'i has also mentioned after reporting the authenticity of this Hadith, that Imam al-Bayhaqi has also reported another version of the above narration through a different channel of transmission, in his Sunan al-Kubra.

2) What you have said regarding a narration not contradicting an established rule from Quran or Sunnah is generally true. However in the case of Ijma as-Sahabah it is in fact one of the indicators that the Sahabah must have known of a hadith of the Prophet (saw) that was not transmitted to us which is conceivable.

The great Muhaditheen did not reject such narrations as fabricated at all as they recognised that it indicates Ijma.

3) We didn't mean that the Ijma of the Ulema validates Ijma as-Sahabah as it is validated by the Quran as I explained. However we were making the point that it is an established issue with the aim that it makes us think. As usually when we know something is an established issue it makes us study a matter more deeply instead of rejecting it outright as well as opening our mind to the possibility that we could be wrong.

Shaikh Khusrow Naamazi said...

First of all, I didn't say that we should reject outright anything
as long as it doesnot contradict Quran and Sahih Hadith--let be
it "ijma as sahabah" or "ijma of ulema". Also "ijma as sahabah"
can't be the "only" binding ijma according to the following Hadith.
"The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them,
and then whose who follow the latter (i.e. the first three generations
of Muslims."(Bukhari 3:48:819 and 820 [1] and Muslim 31:6150 and 6151).
So, the credibility of 3 generations(not only Sahabah), as a group,
is established by Wahi. So, the ijma of the Tabi‘in and the Taba‘ at-Tabi‘in
should also be binding.

You said,--" What you have said regarding a narration not contradicting
an established rule from Quran or Sunnah is generally true. However in
the case of Ijma as-Sahabah it is in fact one of the indicators that the
Sahabah must have known of a hadith of the Prophet (saw) that was not
transmitted to us which is conceivable."
When something is "generally" true there can't be any option for
"However". As long as that transmitted ijma doesn't contradict
Wahi--it can't be rejected outright. Otherwise we cannot "assume"
that it is in "fact" that the Sahabah "must have known" of a hadith
of the Prophet (saw) that was not transmitted to us. No, neither it's
conceivable nor something obvious.
The Hadith of Hazat Umar(RA) that you quoted was taken from
the history book of Tabari. Tabari is not authentic according
to a lot of scholars and he is not a reliable source.
I don't want to discuss here about he fact that-- Muslims
faces many new problems associated with completely
new situations regarding certain religious ruling-- in which case
just "ijma as sahabah" have no rulings.
I agree with you that any AUTHENTIC "ijma as sahabah" is
binding.But I disagree with your reasoning--"Allah (swt) says:

''We have, without doubt, Sent down the Message;
And We will assuredly Guard it.'' [Al-Hajr 15:9]

This Ayah confirms their Ijma' as being correct.
Qur'an was preserved through this Ijma', therefore,
it has to be correct."
This ayah only confirms that their "particular" ijma
about preserving Quran will be correct--not all consensus.

Now, also as I have said--a correct Isnad is not the only
criterion for determining a Sahih Ijma As Sahabah. There
are other criterions as well.Some of the narratives have a
strong and reliable sanad (i.e.
the chain of narrators who report these sayings are honest and
reliable, in the case of some of the chains). However, as we
know that the narration of every reliable and honest person is
not necessarily the truth. Man is prone to errors of
understanding as well as reporting. An honest and reliable person
is no less a subject to these errors, as compared to a dishonest person.

It is primarily because of this reason that a narrative, before
being accepted as a true reporting of a saying of the Prophet (pbuh)
should be as thoroughly checked vis a vis its contents, as it is
checked with reference to its sanad. Thus, even if a narrative
is reported by a strong and reliable chain of narrators it can only
be accepted as a true and accurate reporting of an actual saying of
the Prophet (pbuh) after analyzing its contents on the following two
criteria:

(1)The narrative under consideration is not in contradiction to anything
contained in the Qur'an or the Sunnah(as the Tabari story) or the
established human knowledge and information;
(2)If the narrative relates to a religious issue then its contents should
have a clear basis in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, the two basic and
independent sources of Islam. This, obviously, implies that no addition
or deletion in the main corpus of religion is made on the basis of
Hadith(nor even "Ijma as Sahabah") alone.
If the narrative falls short on these criteria, even if it is reported
by honest and reliable people, then the decision regarding its
acceptance would either be deferred till the time that an adequate
explanation is given for such a narrative or would be rejected
as one wrongly ascribed (possibly due to the element of misperception
of a saying or its misreporting) to the Prophet (pbuh).


Also, about the ijma of the Tarawih Salat:
Yazeed Ibn Ruman reported:
“The people stood in qiyam during the time of Umar Ibn Khattab with twenty
three rakat” [This Hadith is recorded by Maalik, al-Faryabi and al Baihaqi
(both in as-Sunan and al-Ma’rifah]
But that's not the end of it.Let us stick some scholarly commentary :
In al-Ma’rifah, al-Baihaqi indicated the weakness of this report by saying:
“Yazid Bin Ruman did not encounter Umar” .
Al-Hafiz az-Zaylai agreed with this (in Nasb ur-Rayah 2:54).
Imam Nawawi called it mursal in Majmu 4:33 because Yazid Ibn Ruman
did not encounter Umar. Allama Ayni (This fellow is highly regarded by
the Hanafis too.) said that its isnad is munqati (disconnected) in
Umdat ul-Qari 5:357
So,this report cannot be taken as evidence.

Islamic Revival said...

1) The other Ijma such as Ijma al-Ummah, Ijma al-Mujtahidin, etc are areas of legitimate difference of opinion amongst the scholars. Whoever follows them is following a valid Islamic opinion, we may consider it weak but is still valid just like other areas of Ikhtilaf.

The Hadith you mentioned is Khabar Ahad and is not Qat'i in meaning, in our view for something to be considered as a source of Shariah i.e. Wahi (revelation) it must be Qat'i (Definitive) and not Dhanni (speculative). The hadith talks about the best generations and doesn't discuss the issue of Ijma, there are other ahadith where the Prophet (saw) has also mentioned the best something which doesnt imply Ijma such as when he said 'I am from the best family and the best tribe'.

2) Regarding what you mentioned about the history of Tabari, it is incorrect to say that all of it is not authentic, it contains both authentic and non-authentic reports. Therefore you cannot discount the narration just because it is mentioned in Tabari. If you want to dispute the narration you need to dispute its chain and provide evidence that it is weak for example from what the scholars of hadith and narration said about it.

3) What Umar (ra) is reported to have said in the narration is not so far away from the deen as you suggest, as he was talking about a known vital issue which life and death have been linked to in existing Sahih ahadith, the issue of the Unity of the Khilafah. The Prophet (saw) said as mentioned in Sahih Muslim:

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: "When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the latter of them". [Muslim]

Abdullah b. ‘Amru b. al-‘A'as said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: "Whoever pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart, he should obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him, you must strike the neck of the latter". [Muslim]

Afrajah said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: "Whosoever comes to you while your affairs has been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him." [Muslim]

4) Regarding the issue of Tarawih there is legitimate difference of opinion on it amongst the Ulema.

"(Bayhaqi) has related in al-Sunan (via the following isnad):
Abu Abdullah al-Hussain ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hussain finjuwayh al-Dinawari - Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Sunni - Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abdul Aziz al-Baghawi - Ali ibn al-J'ad - Ibn Abi Dhib - Yazid ibn Khaseefah - Sa'eeb ibn Yazid,
who said:

"In the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab, radiallahu anhu, they would perform 20 rak'ats in the month of Ramadan. He said (also): And they would recite the Mi'in, and they would lean on their sticks in the time of Uthman ibn Affan, radiallahu anhu, from the discomfort of standing."
All the men in the (above) isnad are trustworthy, as mentioned by the Indian research scholar, Shaykh al-Nimawi, in Athar al-Sunan.

The issue has also been reported by others Musannaf of Imam Ibn Abi Shaibah from some 13 different isnads.

However I agree it is from the Dhanni (speculative) types of Ijma.

Shaikh Khusrow Naamazi said...

First of all,Brother, I don't understand why you are telling that the

meaning of the Hadith I mentioned is speculative. It explains the word--"best" very clearly.
The Prophet(PBUH)--when he said that--he is from the best family
and best tribe--didn't say that he followed them, their judgement or

their consensus.
Didn't you mention the same Hadith to establish the binding of "Ijma as

Sahabah"? Although you didn't mention the full Hadith. Please, correct

me-if I am wrong. Here is what you said--"And he (saaw) said, ''the best generation is my generation.'' Complementing them as a group reflects that they as a community cannot conspire to lie or commit any act of disobedience."
The ijma of the Tabi‘in and the Taba‘ at-Tabi‘in
should also be binding--simply because they follow
the Sahabah. I am not talking about the Ijma of
Ulama or Ummah here.
The Ayah or Hadith you mentioned and the Hadith that I(also yourself--
although part of it) can be interpreted as conclusive in meaning
by the same reasonings.
See, again, it's very important to judge the person who is
the compiler of a canon of Hadith or Tarikh. For example,
somebody can compile a collection of fake Hadith and
copy-paste isnads before them. He will choose those
chains--which the scholars would already labeled authentic.
Yes, he can misguide the scholars--if they just choose
and pick according to isnads and all other criterions--leaving
the trustworthiness of that compiler. Scholars are human-beings.
Also, there are other criterions as well--which I mentioned earlier.
The hadith you mentioned--is it in any other source other than Tabari?
If that is so--are you depending on the "ijma of ulama" for the
authenticity of that account although their ijma is not authoritative
over Quran? Also--what is the status of that account according to
the scholars? Let me know.
You have mentioned several hadith from Muslim.
If you carefully read them--you will see that
there is clear difference between the Tabari
event and them. All the Hadith says that
"after" the ummah have already chosen a Khalif or
given bayah --to knowingly challenge it consists of
treason and fitnah. The Quran clears the fact--
" If any one slew a person - unless it be for murder
or for spreading mischief(fasad) in the land - it would be
as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a
life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole
people. (The Noble Quran, 5:32)"
The Tabari account is in no way in this line.It implies that the

Sahabah might creat fasad!!Nauzubillah!! Also--it implies
killing Sahabah(RA)!!!! How can you say that suggesting the
killing of Sahabah(RA)(even like a great Sahabah like Umar(RA) can

suggest such a thing??) whose greatness is established by Allah
Ta'ala Himself-- "is not so far away from the deen"??
In the Saqifah--Umar(RA) immediately grabbed Abu Bakr(RA)'s
hand and gave him bay'ah (declared his allegiance; an Arabian custom)
causing the rest of the men at the gathering to also give their bay'ah.
Umar(RA)later described this process as a falta, a rushed and hasty

decision. However, this decision would not have been binding upon

therest of the Muslims unless they themselves chose to give their

bay'ah, which all save the supporters of Ali(RA) did. Later Ali(RA)

gave bayah. But did the Muslims went and start killing Ali(RA) and his

followers--until then?

Islamic Revival said...

Sorry for the late response, we have been busy.

1) The hadith you mention is khabar ahad and not mutawatir so cannot be used as a definitive evidence. It can be used as a supportive evidence on top of the definitive evidence for Ijma as-Sahabah

2) The narration is mentioned in various books such as Ibn Qutaybah the author of the book ‘al-Imamah and Siyasah’ known as the book of the Khulafaa’, and Ibn Sa’d in his book ‘at-Tabaqat al-Kubra.

3) I only mentioned fropm Muslim to demonstrate that the issue of Khilafah is a vital issue i.e. a matter of life and death and therefore the Ijma is understandable and not contradictory to the essence of the deen as you attempt to argue.

4) Please provide an authentic reference to prove what you alleged that Umar (ra) said about it being a hasty decision?

5) The Bay'ah is a hukm shar'i and not and not just the custom of the arabs. Many rites of Hajj were customs before Islam, but we only follow them as they are ahkam shariah and not because they are customs.

6) It is a well known hukm that once the bay'ah of Ini'qad (contracting bay'ah) has been given, the bay'ah of obedience is obligatory upon the Muslims. This doesn't mean that they have to physically have to go and give the bay'ah, their silence is acceptance of it. Ali (ra) did not refuse the bay'ah and as you rightly said he gave it later on as was reported in the famous narration of Imam Muslim. Why did Ali ibn Abi Talib fight against Mu'awiyah? It was because he was legitimately elected as the Khalifah and Mu'waiyah refused to give the Bay'ah until the killers of Uthman were caught.

Shaikh Khusrow Naamazi said...

Dear Brother/s, here is my response.
(4)First, I will provide you an authentic reference to prove what you said
I have alleged about the hasty decision. It is Sahih Bukhari-Volume 8,
Book 82, Number 817. Here Hazrat Umar(RA) not only said that it was a hasty

decision but also that Allah had saved people from that evil."One should not

deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr(RA)

was given hastily and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but

Allah saved (the people) from its evil." Well, now the un-authentic

reference is Tarikh of Tabari-- the very book from which you quoted that ijma

about which we are arguing till now!!
(2)You said--"The narration is mentioned in various books such as Ibn

Qutaybah the author of the book ‘al-Imamah and Siyasah’ known as the book of

the Khulafaa’, and Ibn Sa’d in his book ‘at-Tabaqat al-Kubra." Those books

are neither regarded as authoritative as sources of Shariah, there is
question about their authenticity and finally you haven't provided any single
Sahih were that particular incident is mentioned precisely.The question of

that ijma being Qata'ee or Thanni is secondary.
(1)I think I have already replied about the Hadith having definitive or

speculative meaning. You didn't answer any of my arguments. Instead you

re-stated your claim.On the basis of the explanation/s which you took the

Wahi/s mentioned as definitive evidences, the same can be given about
the Hadith I quoted. Infact many scholars did understand it as having
definitive meaning. And also vice-versa about the ONLY BINDING IJMA.
Are there any Ijmas regarding which Wahis are Qata'ee and which are Thanni?
What about the verse of Quran prohibiting alcohol? Or does it only
prohibit Date-Wine(Khamr)? Or does it only discourages to drink
alcohol by saying it's Satan's handywork? Does it permits to be intoxicated
unless being in Saalat? We know that to drink water standing is not
haaram but maqruh--but there is a Hadith were Satan is associated with
drinking water--standing. Another Hadith is there-were the Prophet (PBUH)
drank standing. The deduction from those apparently contradicting Hadiths is

the ruling of being that action as maqruh. These are examples of speculative

evidences which taken as a whole or being elaborated with further sources

gives definitive output. What you or I have mentioned are not quite like this
case.
(5) I didn't say that the bayah or oath of allegiance is only an Arab custom.
It were and is a custom in many other cultures as well as accepted in Islam.
(3) I agree with you 100% that the issue of Khilafah is a vital issue but not

a matter of life and death--if that is so--why Prophet (PBUH) didn't
"explicitly" choose his successor and history tells us about the disputes
amongst Muslims from the very beginning--which resulted in the dissolution of

the Caliphate within 30 years!! Except Hazrat Abu Bakr(RA)--all the Caliphs
were assassinated.Even the Prophet(PBUH)'s Grandsons(RA) were not immune.

Created the great strife between Shiahs and Sunnis--solely standing on--who

are the legitimate successors of the Prophet(PBUH). Can you tell me--why the

Prophet(PBUH) didn't choose his succesor--if it's a matter of life and death?

No--the Ijma(in Tabari) is not understandable and very very contradictory to

the essence of the deen as I didn't just attempted to argue but gave clear

proofs and evidences--where you again just re-stated your statement without
any refutation.

(6)You said that--"It is a well known hukm that once the bay'ah of

Ini'qad(contracting bay'ah) has been given, the bay'ah of obedience is

obligatory upon the Muslims. This doesn't mean that they have to physically

have to go and give the bay'ah, their silence is acceptance of it."
Can you give me the authentic references? "Being silence is accepting"
--is plain absurd. Tomorrow both I and you can claim to have allegiance to
20 people and take the silence of 1.3 billion Muslims as acceptance
and then declare ourselves to be Caliphs. Now--who will judge who claimed
first and kill one of us? What about some Shiah Mullah or Osama Bin Laden
or some Sunni Mullah from Pakistan claim such? When you slaughter a dumb
sheep--if you ask it's permission--it will be most probably silent if
not incited to bray. Muslims are not dumb and were not dumb. Infact
Hazrat Umar(RA) said--"if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to

somebody (to become a Caliph) without consulting the other Muslims(not only

Sahabas), then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest

both of them should be killed." This is reasonable. Can you consult with dumb

people?
Can you tell me why Hazrat Ali(RA) didn't give the bayah immediately?
What took him so long--when we can't be without three days? Can you answer

that? Let me refer to Tabari again. You told why Hazrat Ali(RA) fought
Hazrat Mu'waiyah(RA).According to Tabari, the Caliphate was partitioned, and

it was agreed that Muawiyah was to be the Caliph for Egypt and Syria, while

Ali was to be the Caliph for the rest of the territories under the control of

the Muslims.It may be recalled that prior to the Battle of Siffin, Hazrat

Mu'waiyah(RA) had proposed such partition but Hazrat Ali(RA) had not agreed

thereto because he held such partition to be repugnant to Islam. Since then

things had turned out to go in favor of Hazrat Mu'waiyah(RA), and according

to the decision of the umpires, howsoever obtained, Hazrat Mu'waiyah(RA) had

manipulated to secure the sovereignty of the whole of the Muslim world.
Finally two Hadiths from Sahih Muslim, Book 41:Number 6899 and 6906:
"Ahnaf b. Qais reported on the authority of Abu Bakr that Allah's Messenger
(may peace be upon him) said: When two Muslims confront each other with their
swords, both the slayer and the slain are doomed to Hell-Fire."

"Amir b. Sa'd reported on the authority of his father that one day Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) came from a high land. He passed by the
mosque of Banu Mu'awiya, went in and observed two rak'ahs there and we also
observed prayer along with him and he made a long supplication to his Lord.

He then came to us and said: I asked my Lord three things and He has granted

me two but has withheld one. I begged my Lord that my Ummah should not be
destroyed because of famine and He granted me this. And I begged my Lord that

my Ummah should not be destroyed by drowning (by deluge) and He granted me

this. And I begged my Lord that there should be no bloodshed among the people

of my Ummah. but He did not grant it."

Hassan said...

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,

Dear brother, you said:

"The hadith you mention is khabar ahad and not mutawatir so cannot be used as a definitive evidence. It can be used as a supportive evidence on top of the definitive evidence for Ijma as-Sahabah"

The criterions for a Sahih Hadith are well known. The content of a hadith is accepted depending on what the Ahlu Hadith graded it (sahih, da3eef etc.), not if it is muttawatir or ahad.

Do you mean muttawatir ma3nawi or muttawatir lafdhi?

Kattani, Suyuti have gathered about 200 ahadith muttawatir lafdhi and ma3nawi. Imam Adhahabi says there are about 10.000 hadith without repetition. If one states that ahad ahadith are all not definitive means that our deen hasn't been protected.

How many have to be there before it is Muttawatir? How many have to be there before it is Ahad?
Ibn Hiban and Al-Haazimi says there is no such thing as muttawatir and ahad (shariah wise).

Ibn Qayim (rh) said people who wishes to use Muttawatir and Ahad in reality want to get rid of Sunnah within Aqeedah.

Also saying that we can't accept ahadith as Qad3i ( definitive) but only dhani(doubtful) means that if Abu Bakr (ra) came up to one of us and said the Prophet (saws) said this and that, we wouldn't accept it as being definitive because he is alone (ahad). Even worse is if you say that ahad is 3 - 4 people in the chain, because then you wouldn't still not accept it if Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali (ra) said the same. This not how the sahaba treated each other. This is a grave mistake. What you are also saying is that the tabi3een have commited sins because they have written and told about Aqeedah issues which are based on ahadith ahad.

Imam as-shafi3i and Imam Muzni have both written about Belief (Aqeedah) where both have included ahadith ahad. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal has written approx. 10 letters about belief where he says "This is the belief of 90 tabi3i". In his sons book Sunnah and Al-Khalal's book called Sunnah you will find that there Belief is based on Hadith ahad.

Imam Tirmidhi have explaination in his Belief Collection also here there are based on ahadith ahad.
Imam Muslim in Kitab Al-Iman writes about the Aqeedah almost all of it is ahadith ahad.

In the beggining of Abu’l Hassan Al-ash3ari's - Maqalat Al-islamieen he mentioens the ahlu-hadeeths belief.

It is also clear from Sharh usool i3tiqaad – al lalakalee and Ibn Batta al 3akbare that their faith was based upon ahadith ahad. Salaf made it clear that the people who weren't on the same belief as them had gone astray. Hadeeth Jibreel is a hadith ahad and it is in sahih muslim. This is hadith is called Umm’ul Sunnah. Like the Fatiha is called Umm'ul Quran.

Allah (swt) says that He has completed Islam and that He will protect the dikhr.

Wa Allahu A3lam.

May Allah give us hidaya and lead us to the straight path.

Islamic Revival said...

Al-Imam Al-Shafi'i: In his book "Ar-Risaala", on page 357-359 and 478, subjects 961-966 and 1328-1330 of the Arabic text, he said (in summary) "Khabar Al-Khaasa (Ahad) is accepted as outward knowledge (actions), and allows interpretation and is understood through Ijtihaad, and it is used for the slaves (of Allah) in the branches of the Deen, not in its Usool, such as the Aqeeda".

Al-Imam Al-Nawawi: In his explanation of Sahih Muslim, part 1, page 20 of the Arabic text, he said "The Sahih Ahadith in both Bukhari and Muslim do not count as anything except doubt (THann)", and "The Ahadith in both Bukhari and Muslim are Wajib to implement, but are not taken as 'Ilm (Aqeeda)", and "Khabar Ahaad must be taken for actions related to Ahkam Shari'ee, but not for the Aqeeda Ahkam", and "Khabar Ahaad cannot be used as proof in matters that require 'Ilm and Yaqeen (100% absolute decisive authenticity), such as the Aqeeda and the Usool of the Deen", as well as many other quotes in this book.

Ibn Taymiyya: In his book "Al-Fataawa Al-Kubra" said, in part 1, page 487 of the Arabic book "Khabar Ahaad does not count as anything except doubt (THann) (meaning that it is not 100% free of doubt), but when accompanied with the consensus of scholars in authenticity, its (ruling) becomes also consensus of scholars...and thus becomes definite (Qat'iee)".

Al-Sarkhasi: In his book "Nihayat Al-Su'l Fee 'Ilm Al-Usool", part 1, page 112, he said "Khabar Ahaad does not amount to Yaqeen (decisive belief), since it carries the possiblity of error from the narrator, but it must be acted upon (not believed in) due to accepting his word as truthful by default"

Al-Sarkhasi: In his book "Nihayat Al-Su'l Fee 'Ilm Al-Usool", part 1, page 112, he said "Khabar Ahaad does not amount to Yaqeen (decisive belief), since it carries the possiblity of error from the narrator, but it must be acted upon (not believed in) due to accepting his word as truthful by default"

Al-Baghdadi: In the book "Usool Al-Deen", he said "Khabar Ahaad, if its chain of narration is authentic and its text is not rationally impossible, then it is Wajib to implement, but it is not permissible to take it as 'Ilm (and 'Ilm is what 'Aqeeda is comprised of)".

There is a difference between the ahkam shar’iyyah and ‘aqaa’id in terms of the daleel. The daleel of the ahkam shar’iyyh is allowed to be probable (zanni) as well as to be definite (qat’i). This is different to the ‘aqaa’id, whose daleel must be definite (qat’i); and it is not allowed for their evidence to be probable (zanni), whatsoever. Thus, ‘aqaa’id can’t be taken except based on certainty (yaqeen). So, whatever its evidence (daleel) is definite (qat’i) must be believed in, and who rejects it is kafir; and whatever its evidence is probable (zanni), Muslim is prohibited from believing in it.

The fact that the daleel of the ‘aqeedah is definite (qat’i) is due to three matters:

Firstly: Its evidence is evidence on the specific issue; so it is a proof for establishing it. It is not possible that the proof has been furnished to establish a matter unless this proving has been definite (qat’i). For if the proving was probable, then the proof would have not been furnished on establishing it. Therefore, furnishing the proof for establishing (a matter) necessitates it to be a definite proof. Moreover, daleel and burhan (proof) are only called to the definite. However, the probable is not a daleel (evidence) or burhan (proof). Qur’an used the two words “burhan and sultan”. If we examine the usage of each one of these two words in all the aayaat of the Qur’an, it becomes obvious that its meaning is the definite evidence (daleel qat’i). Allah (SWT) said:

وَمَن يَدْعُ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَهًا آخَرَ لَا بُرْهَانَ لَهُ بِهِ فَإِنَّمَا حِسَابُهُ عِندَ رَبِّهِ إِنَّهُ لَا يُفْلِحُ الْكَافِرُونَ

Whoever calls to any other god along with Allah, and has no proof for it, his reckoning is only with his Lord. Lo! The disbelievers will not be successful. [23:117].
أَمِ اتَّخَذُوا مِن دُونِهِ آلِهَةً قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ

Or have they chosen other gods beside Him? Say: Bring your proof. [21:24].

مَّعَ اللَّهِ قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ

Is there any god beside Allah? Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful. [27:64]

وَنَزَعْنَا مِن كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ شَهِيدًا فَقُلْنَا هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ فَعَلِمُوا أَنَّ الْحَقَّ لِلَّهِ وَضَلَّ عَنْهُم مَّا كَانُوا يَفْتَرُونَ

And we shall take from every nation a witness and We shall say: Bring your proof. They they will know that Allah has the Truth, and all that they invented will have failed them. [28:75]

وَقَالُواْ لَن يَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ إِلاَّ مَن كَانَ هُوداً أَوْ نَصَارَى تِلْكَ أَمَانِيُّهُمْ قُلْ هَاتُواْ بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
“Waqaaloo lan yadkhulal jannata illa man kana hoodan aw nasaaraa, tilka amaniyyuhum, qul haatoo burhanakum in kuntum sadiqeen”.
(And they said: None will enter Jannah unless he is a Jew or a Christian. These are their own desires. Say: Bring your proof (of what you say) if you are truthful.) [2:111]

فَأْتُوا بِكِتَابِكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
“Am lakum sultanum mubeen. Fa’too bikitabikum in kuntum sadiqeen”.
(Or you have a clear warrant? Then produce your writ, if you are truthful.) [37:156/157]

قَالَ قَدْ وَقَعَ عَلَيْكُم مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ رِجْسٌ وَغَضَبٌ أَتُجَادِلُونَنِي فِي أَسْمَاء سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنتُمْ وَآبَآؤكُم مَّا نَزَّلَ اللّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ فَانتَظِرُواْ إِنِّي مَعَكُم مِّنَ الْمُنتَظِرِينَ

“Atujadiloonani fee asmaa’in sammaitomooha antum wa’aabaa’ukum ma nazzala Allahu biha min sultan”.

(Would you wrangle with me over names, which you have named, you and your fathers, for which no warrant from Allah has been revealed.” [7:71].

قَالُواْ اتَّخَذَ اللّهُ وَلَدًا سُبْحَانَهُ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَات وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ إِنْ عِندَكُم مِّن سُلْطَانٍ بِهَـذَا أَتقُولُونَ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ (10:68)

“Qaaloo t-takhadha Allahu waladan, subhanahu hual ghaiyyu, lahu ma fissamaawaati wama filardhi, in ‘indakum min sultanim bihaadha”.
(They say: Allah has taken (to Him) a son. Glorified be He! He has no need! His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Do you have a warrant for this?) [10:68]

وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا مُوسَى بِآيَاتِنَا وَسُلْطَانٍ مُّبِينٍ

“Walaqd arsalna Mousa bi’aayaatina wa sultanim mubeen”.
(And verily We sent Moses with Our revelations and a clear warrant). [11:96]


ثُمَّ أَرْسَلْنَا مُوسَى وَأَخَاهُ هَارُونَ بِآيَاتِنَا وَسُلْطَانٍ مُّبِينٍ

“Thumma arsalna Mousa wa’akhahu Haroona bisultanim mubeen”.
(Then We sent Mousa and his brother Haroon with a clear warrant.) [23:45]

مَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِهِ إِلاَّ أَسْمَاء سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنتُمْ وَآبَآؤُكُم مَّا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلاَّ لِلّهِ أَمَرَ أَلاَّ تَعْبُدُواْ إِلاَّ إِيَّاهُ ذَلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ وَلَـكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ

“Maa ta’abodoona min doonihi illa asmaa’an sammaitomooha antum wa’aabaa’ukum, ma anzala Allahu biha min sultan”.
(Those whom you worship beside Him are but names, which you have named, you and your fathers. Allah has revealed no sanction for them.) [12:40]

قَالَتْ رُسُلُهُمْ أَفِي اللّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ يَدْعُوكُمْ لِيَغْفِرَ لَكُم مِّن ذُنُوبِكُمْ وَيُؤَخِّرَكُمْ إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُّسَـمًّى قَالُواْ إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلاَّ بَشَرٌ مِّثْلُنَا تُرِيدُونَ أَن تَصُدُّونَا عَمَّا كَانَ يَعْبُدُ آبَآؤُنَا فَأْتُونَا بِسُلْطَانٍ مُّبِينٍ

“Qaaloo in antum illa basharum mithluna, tureedoona an tasuddoona ‘amma kana y’abudu ‘aabaa’una, fa’toona bisultanim mubeen”.
(They said: You are but mortals like us, who want to turn us away from what our fathers used to worship. Then bring a clear warrant.) [14:10]

قَالَتْ لَهُمْ رُسُلُهُمْ إِن نَّحْنُ إِلاَّ بَشَرٌ مِّثْلُكُمْ وَلَـكِنَّ اللّهَ يَمُنُّ عَلَى مَن يَشَاء مِنْ عِبَادِهِ وَمَا كَانَ لَنَا أَن نَّأْتِيَكُم بِسُلْطَانٍ إِلاَّ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ وَعلَى اللّهِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ

“Wama kana lana an na’tiyakum bisultanin illa bi’idhnillahi”.
(It is not ours to bring you a warrant, unless by the permission of Allah.) [14:11]

هَؤُلَاء قَوْمُنَا اتَّخَذُوا مِن دُونِهِ آلِهَةً لَّوْلَا يَأْتُونَ عَلَيْهِم بِسُلْطَانٍ بَيِّنٍ فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا

“Haa’ulaa’I qawmuna t-takhadhoo min doonihi aalihatan, lawla ya’toona ‘alaihum bisultanim mubeen”.
(These our people, have chosen (other) gods beside Him, thouh they bring no clear warrant to Him.) [18:15]

لَأُعَذِّبَنَّهُ عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا أَوْ لَأَذْبَحَنَّهُ أَوْ لَيَأْتِيَنِّي بِسُلْطَانٍ مُّبِينٍ

“Aw laya’atiyanni bisultanaim mubeen”.
(Or he verily shall brin a clear reason (warrant)). [27:21]

الَّذِينَ يُجَادِلُونَ فِي آيَاتِ اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِ سُلْطَانٍ أَتَاهُمْ كَبُرَ مَقْتًا عِندَ اللَّهِ وَعِندَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كَذَلِكَ يَطْبَعُ اللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ قَلْبِ مُتَكَبِّرٍ جَبَّارٍ
(Those who wrangle concerning the revelations of Allah without any warrant that has come to them.) [40:35]

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُجَادِلُونَ فِي آيَاتِ اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِ سُلْطَانٍ أَتَاهُمْ إِن فِي صُدُورِهِمْ إِلَّا كِبْرٌ مَّا هُم بِبَالِغِيهِ فَاسْتَعِذْ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ

(Lo! Those who wrangle concerning the revelations of Allah without a warrant having come to them, there is nothing else in their breasts save a pride which they will never attain.) [40:56]

This is beside other aayaat, which all mean the definite evidence (ad-daleel ul-qaati’). So, the daleel, as it is, can’t be called so unless it is definite. The Qur’an did not use it except in the meaning of definite (qat’). Therefore, since the daleel of ‘aqeedah is a daleel on the specific question, so as to be considered a daleel, burhan or sultan, it is required to be qat’i (definite).

Secondly: The fact that something is ‘Aqeedah means it is definite. This is because the definition of the ‘Aqeedqh is that ‘it is the decisive conviction, which agrees with the reality, based on evidence.’ So, in order that a thing becomes an ‘Aqeedah, it must be decisive conviction; if it was conviction only, it would not be an ‘Aqeedah. Therefore, it must be decisive, in order to be an ‘Aqeedah, for ‘Aqeedah means decisiveness. It is quite plain that decisiveness is not attained unless its proof was decisive. Therefore, the evidence of the ‘Aqeedah must be definite; for if it was not definite, it would not be an ‘Aqeedah. Accordingly, the reality of the ‘Aqeedah necessitates that its evidence is definite (qat’ee).

Thirdly: Allah (swt) rebuked those who follow conjecture (zann) regarding the ‘aqaa’id (creeds), in many aayaat, in numerous suwar (chapters), in the Qur’an. Allah (swt) says:

إِنْ هِيَ إِلَّا أَسْمَاء سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُم مَّا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى الْأَنفُسُ وَلَقَدْ جَاءهُم مِّن رَّبِّهِمُ الْهُدَى

“These are nothing but names, which you have devised, you and your fathers, for which Allah have sent down no authority (sulTaan), (whatever). They follow nothing but conjecture (zann) and what the souls desire! Even there has already come to them guidance from their Lord!” [An-Najm: 23]

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ لَيُسَمُّونَ الْمَلَائِكَةَ تَسْمِيَةَ الْأُنثَى

وَمَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَإِنَّ الظَّنَّ لَا يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا

“Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names. But they have no knowledge therein. They have nothing but conjecture (zann); and conjecture (zann) avails nothing against Truth.” [An-Najm: 27-28]

وَمَا يَتَّبِعُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ إِلاَّ ظَنًّا إَنَّ الظَّنَّ لاَ يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا إِنَّ اللّهَ عَلَيمٌ بِمَا يَفْعَلُونَ

“But most of them follow nothing but conjecture (zann). Truly conjecture (zann) can be of no avail against Truth.” [Younus: 36]

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا
“And those who differ about him are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge (‘ilm), but only conjecture (zann) to follow, for of surety they killed him not.” [An-Nisaa’: 157]

وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَخْرُصُونَ

“If you follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead you away from the Way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture (zann). They do nothing but lie.” [Al-An’aam: 116]

سَيَقُولُ الَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُواْ لَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا أَشْرَكْنَا وَلاَ آبَاؤُنَا وَلاَ حَرَّمْنَا مِن شَيْءٍ كَذَلِكَ كَذَّبَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِم حَتَّى ذَاقُواْ بَأْسَنَا قُلْ هَلْ عِندَكُم مِّنْ عِلْمٍ فَتُخْرِجُوهُ لَنَا إِن تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ أَنتُمْ إَلاَّ تَخْرُصُونَ

“So did their ancestors argue falsely, until they tasted of Our wrath. Say: ‘have you any (certain) knowledge (‘ilm)? If so, produce it before us. You follow nothing but conjecture (zann). You do nothing but lie.’” [Al-An’aam: 148]

قَالَ قَدْ وَقَعَ عَلَيْكُم مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ رِجْسٌ وَغَضَبٌ أَتُجَادِلُونَنِي فِي أَسْمَاء سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنتُمْ وَآبَآؤكُم مَّا نَزَّلَ اللّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ فَانتَظِرُواْ إِنِّي مَعَكُم مِّنَ الْمُنتَظِرِينَ

“Do you dispute with me over names, which you have devised, you and your fathers, without authority (sulTaan) from Allah?” [Al-A’raaf: 71]

Sultaan is the definite proof (burhaan); and the conjectural (zannee) evidence can’t be sulTaan. Allah (swt) says:


وَمِنهُم مَّن يُؤْمِنُ بِهِ وَمِنْهُم مَّن لاَّ يُؤْمِنُ بِهِ وَرَبُّكَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُفْسِدِينَ

“Whatever you worship apart from Him is nothing but names, which you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allah have sent down no authority (sulTaan). The command (Hukm) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him. That is the right religion; but most men understand not.” [Yousuf: 40]

الَّذِينَ يُجَادِلُونَ فِي آيَاتِ اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِ سُلْطَانٍ أَتَاهُمْ كَبُرَ مَقْتًا عِندَ اللَّهِ وَعِندَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كَذَلِكَ يَطْبَعُ اللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ قَلْبِ مُتَكَبِّرٍ جَبَّارٍ

“Those who dispute about the signs of Allah, without any authority (sulTaan) that has reached them, very hateful (is such conduct) in the sight of Allah and of the believers.” [Ghaafir: 35]

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُجَادِلُونَ فِي آيَاتِ اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِ سُلْطَانٍ أَتَاهُمْ إِن فِي صُدُورِهِمْ إِلَّا كِبْرٌ مَّا هُم بِبَالِغِيهِ فَاسْتَعِذْ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ

“Those who dispute about the signs of Allah without any authority (sulTaan) that has reached them; there is nothing in their breasts but (the quest of) greatness, which they shall never attain to. So seek refuge in Allah. It is He Who hears and sees (all things).” [Ghaafir: 56]


سَنُلْقِي فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ الرُّعْبَ بِمَا أَشْرَكُواْ بِاللّهِ مَا لَمْ
يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا وَمَأْوَاهُمُ النَّارُ وَبِئْسَ مَثْوَى الظَّالِمِينَ (3:151)
“Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined partners with Allah, for which He had sent down no authority (sulTaan).” [Aali Imran: 151]

وَكَيْفَ أَخَافُ مَا أَشْرَكْتُمْ وَلاَ تَخَافُونَ أَنَّكُمْ أَشْرَكْتُم بِاللّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ عَلَيْكُمْ سُلْطَانًا فَأَيُّ الْفَرِيقَيْنِ أَحَقُّ بِالأَمْنِ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

“And how should I fear (the beings) you associate with Allah, when you fear not to give, as partners to Allah, that for which He has sent down no authority (sulTaan).” [Al-An’aam: 81]

These aayaat are explicit in rebuking those who follow conjecture (zann), and those who follow without sulTaan, i.e. without definite evidence. Their rebuke and disparagement is evidence on the decisive forbiddance against following the conjecture (zann), and on the decisive forbiddance against following that for which there is no definite (qaati’) evidence. The Shar’ee evidence indicates that it is not allowed to use the conjectural (zannee) evidence. However, this is specific to the ‘Aqaa’id only, and it does not include the aHkaam Shar’iyyah. This is because there is Shar’ee evidence from the action of the Messenger (saw) that allows the deduction of them from the conjectural (zannee) evidence. The Messenger (saw) sent at the same time twelve delegates to twelve kings, calling them to Islam. Every one of those delegates was sent alone to his area. If it were not obligatory to follow the Da’wah conveyed through the singular report, then the Messenger would have not been satisfied with sending one person for conveying the Da’wah to Islam. Thus, this is explicit evidence that the singular report is proof (Hujjah) in conveying Islam, i.e. it is proof regarding the Hukm Shar’ee. As the singular report is conjectural (zannee), then the conjectural (zannee) evidence is enough for the Hukm Shar’ee. Though the aayaat are general (‘aammah), which include the ‘Aqaa’id and aHkaam, but the hadeeth specifies them in other than the aHkaam Shar’iyyah. Therefore, they are evidence that the evidence of the ‘Aqaa’id is not allowed to be conjectural (zannee). Moreover, these aayaat are confined to the ‘Aqaa’id, so they are specific to the ‘Aqaa’id.
The aayah:

إِنْ هِيَ إِلَّا أَسْمَاء سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُم مَّا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى الْأَنفُسُ وَلَقَدْ جَاءهُم مِّن رَّبِّهِمُ الْهُدَى

“They are nothing but names which you devised.” [An-Najm: 23]

came in the subject of the ‘Aqeedah. They used to say that the angels and these idols are the daughters of Allah; and they used to worship them and claim them to be their intercessors with Allah (swt). This is despite they buried the daughters alive. So, it was said to them, ‘ Is the male to you and the female to Him?’ The aayah comes as follows:

أَفَرَأَيْتُمُ اللَّاتَ وَالْعُزَّى
وَمَنَاةَ الثَّالِثَةَ الْأُخْرَى
أَلَكُمُ الذَّكَرُ وَلَهُ الْأُنثَى
تِلْكَ إِذًا قِسْمَةٌ ضِيزَى

إِنْ هِيَ إِلَّا أَسْمَاء سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُم مَّا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى الْأَنفُسُ وَلَقَدْ جَاءهُم مِّن رَّبِّهِمُ الْهُدَى
“Have you seen Laat and ‘Uzzaa, and another, the third (goddess), Manaat? Is for you the male sex, and for Him the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! These are nothing but names, which you have devised, you and your fathers, for which Allah have sent down no authority (sulTaan), (whatever).” [An-Najm: 19-23]

Allah brought the aayah in the subject of ‘Aqaa’id; and he clearly reproached those who follow conjecture (zann) in the subject of ‘Aqaa’id. The remaing aayaat are the same.

Thus, the aayah:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ لَيُسَمُّونَ الْمَلَائِكَةَ تَسْمِيَةَ الْأُنثَى

“(They) name the angels with female names,” [An-Najm: 27]
is in the subject of ‘Aqeedah; and the aayah:

وَمَا يَتَّبِعُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ إِلاَّ ظَنًّا إَنَّ الظَّنَّ لاَ يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا إِنَّ اللّهَ عَلَيمٌ بِمَا يَفْعَلُونَ

“But most of them follow nothing but conjecture (zann),” [Younus: 36]

is also in the subject of ‘Aqeedah. This is because Allah (swt) says to them, ‘is there any of your partners, you made rivals to Allah, including the most noble of them, like the angels, Al-Maseeh and ‘Uzayr, that guides to the Truth the way Allah guides?’ The aayah starts as follows:

قُلْ هَلْ مِن شُرَكَآئِكُم مَّن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِّ قُلِ اللّهُ يَهْدِي لِلْحَقِّ أَفَمَن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِّ أَحَقُّ أَن يُتَّبَعَ أَمَّن لاَّ يَهِدِّيَ إِلاَّ أَن يُهْدَى فَمَا لَكُمْ كَيْفَ تَحْكُمُونَ

وَمَا يَتَّبِعُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ إِلاَّ ظَنًّا إَنَّ الظَّنَّ لاَ يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا
إِنَّ اللّهَ عَلَيمٌ بِمَا يَفْعَلُونَ

“Say: ‘Is there any, of your partners, that can give any guidance towards Truth?’ Say: ‘It is Allah Who gives guidance towards the Truth.’ Is then He Who gives guidance to Truth more worthy to be followed, or he who finds not guidance (himself) unless he is guided? What is the matter with you? How you judge?’ But most of them follow nothing but conjecture (zann).” [Younus: 35-36]

So, the aayah is in the subject of the ‘aqeedah. Likewise, the aayah:

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا

‘and those who differed about him’ [An-Nisaa’: 157]

comes also in the subject of the ‘Aqeedah. The aayah talks about the Jews and ‘Isa, where they differed concerning him. Some of them said, ‘he is a god and it is invalid that he was killed’; while others said, ‘he was killed and crossed’. Some others said, ‘if this is ‘Isa, then where is our companion; and if this is our companion, then where is ‘Isa?’ Some of them said, ‘he was raised to Heavens’, and others said, ‘ his face is that of ‘Isa, but his body is that of our companion’. All these statements are in the subject of I’tiqaad (belief) in ‘Isa, so the aayah is in the subject of ‘Aqaaid. The aayah;


وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَخْرُصُونَ

‘If you follow the common run of those on earth,’ [Al-An’aam: 116]
comes in the subject of the ‘Aqeedah, by the evidence of His (swt) saying:

وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَخْرُصُونَ

‘They will lead you away from the Way of Allah.’ [Al-An’aam: 116]

This is because leading away (Dalaal) from the way of Allah (sabeelillah) is kufr. Moreover, what came before and after this aayah indicate the speech is in the subject of the ‘Aqeedah. The aayaat state:

وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَعَدْلاً لاَّ مُبَدِّلِ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ
وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَخْرُصُونَ
إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ مَن يَضِلُّ عَن سَبِيلِهِ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ

“The word of your Lord does find its fulfilment in truth and justice. None can change His Words. For He is the one Who hears and knows all. If you follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead you away from the Way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture (zann). They do nothing but lie. Your Lord knows best who strays from His Way. He knows best those who are rightly guided.” [Al-An’aam: 115-117]

specifies that the mentioned aayah is in the subject of the ‘Aqaa’id. Moreover, the aayah,

سَيَقُولُ الَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُواْ لَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا أَشْرَكْنَا وَلاَ آبَاؤُنَا وَلاَ حَرَّمْنَا مِن شَيْءٍ كَذَلِكَ كَذَّبَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِم حَتَّى ذَاقُواْ بَأْسَنَا قُلْ هَلْ عِندَكُم مِّنْ عِلْمٍ فَتُخْرِجُوهُ لَنَا إِن تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ أَنتُمْ إَلاَّ تَخْرُصُونَ

‘Have you any (certain) knowledge (‘ilm), so as to produce before us?’ [Al-an’aam: 148]

is in the subject of ‘aqaa’id. This is because the mushrikoon (Pagans) said that their shirk and kufr were by the Will of Allah; so Allah said to the Messenger (saw): say to them, ‘Do you have any evidence to that? You only follow conjecture (zann).’ The aayah reads as follows:

سَيَقُولُ الَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُواْ لَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا أَشْرَكْنَا وَلاَ آبَاؤُنَا وَلاَ حَرَّمْنَا مِن شَيْءٍ كَذَلِكَ كَذَّبَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِم حَتَّى ذَاقُواْ بَأْسَنَا قُلْ هَلْ عِندَكُم مِّنْ عِلْمٍ فَتُخْرِجُوهُ لَنَا إِن تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ أَنتُمْ إَلاَّ تَخْرُصُونَ

“Those who give patners (to Allah) will say: ‘If Allah had wished, we should not have given patners to Him, and nor would our fathers; nor should we have made any forbidden thing.’ So did their ancestors argue falsely, until they tasted of Our wrath. Say: ‘have you any (certain) knowledge (‘ilm)? If so, produce it before us. You follow nothing but conjecture (zann). You do nothing but lie.’” [Al-An’aam: 148]
Thus, all the aayaat of conjecture (zann) are in the ‘Aqaa’id, which indicates the subject of the aayaat is the ‘aqaa’id. The aayaat that came to reproach those who have no authority (sulTaan) are also in the ‘Aqaa’id. All this definitely indicates that ‘Aqaa’id must be proved by the definite evidence, otherwise they would not be considered of the ‘Aqaa’id. It is not allowed that their evidence is conjectural (zannee). Thus, the aayaat indicate two issues: Firstly, it is not allowed to have belief (I’tiqaad) by conjectural (zannee) evidence, a matter, which is indicated by the aayaat of conjecture (zann). Secondly: The necessity of establishing the definite evidence over the ‘Aqeedah so as to be considered ‘Aqeedah, a matter, which is indicated by the aayaat of the manifest authority (sulTaan mubeen).

It is incorrect to say: The delegates sent by the Messenger (saw) is suitable to be evidence that singular report (khabar al-aahaad) is allowed to be evidence on the ‘Aqaa’id, as it is evidence on the Hukm Shar’ee. This is because the Messenger sent the delegates to convey Islam; so it is for conveying its ‘Aqeedah. This is incorrect, because the Messenger sent the delegates to the kings so as to only convey Islam, and not for belief (I’tiqaad). So, his (saw) action indicates the acceptance of the singular report (khabar al- aahaad) in conveyance and not in the ‘Aqeedah.

It is not correct to say that acceptance of the conveyance of Islam is equivalent of conveyance of the ‘Aqeedah. This is because acceptance, of the conveyance of Islam is acceptance of a report (kahabar), and not acceptance of belief in what is reported. The evidence for this is that the informed person must use his mind regarding what he is informed of. If there were certain evidence on it, he would believe in it, and he would be accounted for rejecting it. If, however, there were no certain evidence on it, he would not be accounted for rejecting it. Thus, rejecting a report about Islam is not considered kufr. However, rejecting the Islam established by certain evidence is that which is considered kufr. Therefore, conveyance of Islam is not considered an ‘Aqeedah. Accordingly, the delegates sent, by the Messenger, to the kings is not an appropriate evidence that the singular report is valid to be evidence on the ‘Aqeedah. So, this is not suitable evidence that the conjectural (zannee) is accepted in ‘Aqaa’id.

It is not also correct to say these aayaat came regarding the Mushrikeen and the Kuffar, and they are specific for them; so they do not apply to the Muslims, and nor include them. This is because the Shar’ee principle states “the crucial factor is the generality of the expression, and not the specificity of the cause”. The fact that the aayah came regarding specific people does not mean it is specific to them; it is rather general. So, the aayah of theft was revealed regarding the theft of the shield, or the garment of Safwaan.And the aayah of zihaar (pagan time divorce) was revealed regarding Aws bin As-Saamit. The aayah of li’aan (oath of condemnation) was revealed regarding Hilaal bin Umayyah. This is beside other aayaat. There is no consideration for the specific people in whose regard all these aayyat were revealed, and nor for the specific incident in whose respect they were revealed. They rather encompass all those who are addressed. The evidence to this is that the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them) generalised the aHkaam of these aayaat, without any body disputing with that. This indicated the specific cause (of revelation) does not eliminate the generality (of the text); and there is no consideration in the specific cause; rather the Hukm is generalised and remains general. Therefore, though the aayaat were revealed regarding the Mushrikeen, they encompass all the people, for they are general; thus they apply to Muslims. Accordingly, they are general evidence of decisive forbiddance from following conjecture (zann) in the ‘Aqaa’id. Moreover, the aayah of Surat Al-An’aam, which is His (swt) saying:

وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَخْرُصُونَ

“If you follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead you away from the Way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture (zann). They do nothing but lie,” [Al-An’aam: 116]

was a speech from Allah (swt) to His Messenger (saw). It explicitly forbids following the conjecture (zann), and condemns it. So, it is an explicit text that we are addressed with it. This is because the speech directed to the Messenger is speech to his Ummah, unless there is evidence to specify it to him. There is no here evidence that indicates it is specific to the Messenger, so it includes the Messenger and us, and thus we are addressed with it. This aayah is enough to indicate the decisive forbiddance from following the conjecture (zann) in the ‘Aqaa’id.

For these three reasons, it is not allowed that the evidence of the ‘Aqeedah is conjectural (zannee); it must rather be definite (qaT’ee).

This is in regards to the ‘Aqaa’id. As regards the aHkaam Shar’iyyah, it is allowed that their evidence is conjectural (zannee); so it is not stipulated that their evidence is definite (qat’ee). It is rather allowed to be conjectural (zannee). The evidence to that are two matters:

Firstly: The evidence (daleel) for the Hukm Shar’ee is not proof for the specific issue, but rather proof that the specific issue exists in it (the daleel). Thus, the evidences (adillah) for the aHkaam Shar’iyyah are: The Kitab (Qur’an), the Sunnah, the Ijmaa’, the Qiyaas, and other evidences proved to be a proof (Hujjah). As for the aayaat and aHaadeeth, those that are proved to be from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, are used to indicate that the aHkaam Shar’iyyah exist in them. Therefore, it is not stipulated they are definite (qat’ee); but it is rather allowed to be conjectural (zannee).

Secondly: It is established the use of the singular report (khabar aahaad) as a proof (Hujjah). The Sahabah (r.a.) unanimously agreed upon that. It was proved by the explicit text of the Qur’an to pronounce a judgment based on the witness of two men, or a man and two women in the subject of properties; and based the witness of four men in the subject of adulter (zina); and based on the witness of two men in the capital punishments (Hudood) and retaliation (qiSaaS). The Messenger of Allah (saw) judged (in a case) buying the witness of one person and the oath of the claimant; he accepted also the witness of one woman in the issue of suckling. All of this is singular report (khabar aaHaad). Judicial decision (qaDaa’) is (law) enforcement, which is action based on singular report. Inference by the singular report on the Hukm, is like acceptance of the witness and judgment based on it, so it is measured on it (by analogy). Moreover, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “ May Allah shine the face of a man, who listened to my word, he understood it, and then conveyed it from me. For the one who conveys knowledge (fiqh) might not be legist (faqeeh); and the one who conveys knowledge (fiqh) might conveys it to that who is of more knowledge (fiqh) than him.” [Ibn Majah] The Messenger here praises the single person who carries his Hadeeth. This is evidence that the singular report is allowed to be evidence /proof on the Hukm Shar’ee. Moreover, the Messenger sent singular messenger to the kings, and singular messenger to his governors. If the conveyance of the Da’wah was not obliged to follow based on the singular report; and if the execution of the order of the Messenger were not obligatory by his governors based on singular report, sending singular person would have not satisfied him. However, the fact the sending singular person to convey Islam, and to convey his orders satisfied the Messenger (saw), is an explicit proof that it is allowed to use the singular report as evidence on the Hukm Shar’ee. The Sahabah (r.a.) used also to accept the singular messenger regarding informing of the Hukm Shar’ee, such as the issue of facing the Ka’bah (in prayer), and the issue of prohibiting the alcohol (khamr). All of this leaves no doubt that it is allowed to use the conjectural evidence (daleel zannee) on the Hukm Shar’ee.

Islamic Revival said...

Regarding your question about Mutawatir:

The Mutawatir Hadith is the Hadith reported to us through successive groups of people wherein it was impossible for them to have conspired to lie about any aspect of the hadith. A group of people heard a piece of news from the Prophet (saaws) and reported this to another group, who reported it to another group, who then reported it to another, until it reached the Hadith compilers, who then documented and compiled the hadith. This group of people must be trustworthy to such an extent that it would be impossible for one to say that they had conspired or fabricated a lie. It is this type of chain that the hadith Scholars referred to as Mutawatir. This definition implies certainty. This is an undisputed fact [refer to Al-Muwafaqaat by Ash-Shatibi, Irshaad ul-Fuhool by Ashwkani, Al-Baa'ith Al-Hathith by Ibn Kathir].

The quantity and quality of the reporters is such that a conspiracy would have been impossible. There is an ability to ascertain whether or not there were mistakes, lies, etc., simply due to the credibility of the reporters, and the accuracy of their reporting. They listened to A and then transmitted the report to B without adding anything to the report itself. Nowadays, news and information is conveyed with additions and interpretations. This was not even a possibility with the Mutawatir Hadiths. These hadiths are exact reports of what was said or what occurred. The reporter conveys the exact message, along with his credibility as a reporter, as well as a quantity of other reporters, each with credibility, and an identical report. These qualifications were met in each generation of the report, from the Sahaba until it reached the Muhadditheen who collected and compiled the reports. As is evident, such criteria eradicates any possibility of fabrication of the report. This is the type of hadith called Mutawatir.

An example of this type of hadith is when Muhammed (saaw) said: "He who lies about me intentionally, then he deserves a seat in the Hell fire."

The Scholars of Hadith determined that there were three types of Mutawatir reports; namely The Practical Tawatur, Tawatur by the Text (bil Laf-dh ), and Tawatur by the Meaning (bil-Ma'na ).Practical Tawatur (amali)

The Hadiths which report that the Prophet Muhammed (saaws) used to pray four Rak'as in the Dhur prayer, or three Rak'as in the Maghrib prayer, or that he stood on mount Arafat during the Hajj, are examples of Practical Mutawatir Hadiths. So today, we cannot change these rules, claiming that the reporters might have erred in the transmission, and suggesting a change in the number of rakahs. These Hadiths were reported by tawatur, and not just one, two, or even three persons, or even one hundred. All of the Sahaba who used to pray behind him (saaws) and they reported this to us. This type of Tawatur is called a Practical Tawatur. So it is beyond even a shadow of doubt that the Dhur prayer has four Rak'as. If a person claimed that the Dhur prayer is three Rak'as then he is a Kafir. Even if he accepted everything else in Islam but claims that in this issue he does not think that the Dhur prayer is 4 rakah, he is a Kafir. Tawatur by the Text (lafthi)

This type of Mutawatir hadith was narrated with the same text, from a group of the Sahaba, on down to groups of trustworthy and accurate reporters, until it reached the Muhadditheen, who compiled them. Examples of this type are the hadiths about the Prophet's Hawdh (basin or fountain in Jennah), the raising of the Prophet's hands in du'a, or the hadith which state: "He who likes about me intentionally, then he deserves his seat in the Hellfire. "Tawatur by Meaning (ma'nawi)

This type of Tawatur deals with cases where the occurrence of certain topics, subject matters, or information, are overwhelmingly reported in various Hadiths. While each reported Hadith is not Mutawatir, the topic or information appear in so many Hadith that if these topics were taken together, they would reach to the level of Tawatur. Hence, the Scholars declared that the meaning of these topics are Tawatur. This category of Tawatur was debated amongst the Scholars of Hadith due to their definition of Tawatur. for example, some Scholars differed on the number of reports which met the level of Tawatur. An example of such Mutawatir-by-Meaning Hadiths talking about intercession.
However, the Practical Tawatur and the Tawatur by Text hadiths are undebated methods of narration and all Scholars agreed on these types of Tawatur. When differences would occur it would revolve around the number of reporters necessary to reach to certainty. They all agreed that it had to be reported by a number wherein it would be impossible for them to conspire to fabricate a lie, and when this number was reached, the Hadith would be considered as Tawatur. Nonetheless, most scholars agree that the number can not be less than five(5). Ibn Taymiyyah in Al-Fatawa Al-Kubra vol 5 p.81 stated," With regard to Al-Mutawatir: The correct opinion is that of the majority (Jumhoor) [of scholars], which is that Al-Mutawatir has no set number. Rather, if certainty is established due to the report of the narrators, then it is Mutawatir."Abu At-Tayyb At-Tabari, As-Sabaki, Al-Kamal bin Al-Humaam and Abu Bakr al-Baqillani were of this opinion. [Ash-Shawkani, "Irshadul Fuhool" pg.47; Al-Ibhaaj fi Sharh Al-Mihaaj vol.2 pg. 290; Ibn Al-Humaam Kitab At-Tareer vol.3 pg.34; Al-Mankhool for Ghazali pg.240 ]

Islamic Revival said...

Sheikh Kusrow, inshallah we will be responding to your points and questions soon. We are sorry that we posted another question first, this is because we had all the references, etc to hand for this. We are compiling the neccessary references, etc neccessary to answer your question, so please bear with us - as we also receive many other questions from other readers.

We are only doing this for the sake of Allah (swt), so please think well of us and have patience with us.

wassalam

Shaikh Khusrow Naamazi said...

Dear Brother/s,
I don't doubt your intention and may Allah(swt) bless you for your
effort and make you successful provided that what you are doing
is beneficial for our deen and ummah.May Allah(swt) give you as well
as myself,the strength to admit any error if you realize to have done so
and learn from each other.
I really have the patience to wait for your response(if you have any) for

1000 days InshaAllah,but why are you not posting "my responses" as you have

done so before? It's not dependent on whether you have accepted my statements
as valid or compiling the neccessary references to refute.

Islamic Revival said...

Brother, we have accepted your earlier comment, if you scroll up you will see it - as it was accepted after a later comment it appears before it.

We will respond soon inshallah.

Islamic Revival said...

Brother Khusrow it seems you have misquoted the narration in Bukhari you mentioned from Umar (ra), the following is the translation of the full narration. We will be answering your other points soon - if you understand Arabic this will be easier as it will take too long to translate some of the quotes of the scholars, references, etc:

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

I used to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with 'Umar bin Al-Khattab during 'Umar's last Hajj, Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, "Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers ('Umar), saying, 'O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, 'If 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.' 'Umar became angry and then said, 'Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership)."

'Abdur-Rahman said, "I said, 'O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet's Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.' On that, 'Umar said, 'By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina."

Ibn Abbas added: We reached Medina by the end of the month of Dhul-Hijja, and when it was Friday, we went quickly (to the mosque) as soon as the sun had declined, and I saw Sa'id bin Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail sitting at the corner of the pulpit, and I too sat close to him so that my knee was touching his knee, and after a short while 'Umar bin Al-Khattab came out, and when I saw him coming towards us, I said to Said bin Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail "Today 'Umar will say such a thing as he has never said since he was chosen as Caliph." Said denied my statement with astonishment and said, "What thing do you expect 'Umar to say the like of which he has never said before?"

In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.

I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: 'O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father.' Then Allah's Apostle said, 'Do not praise me excessively as Jesus, son of Marry was praised, but call me Allah's Slave and His Apostles.' (O people!) I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, 'By Allah, if 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person.' One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed.

And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr. I said to Abu Bakr, 'Let's go to these Ansari brothers of ours.' So we set out seeking them, and when we approached them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final decision of the Ansar, and said, 'O group of Muhajirin (emigrants) ! Where are you going?' We replied, 'We are going to these Ansari brothers of ours.' They said to us, 'You shouldn't go near them. Carry out whatever we have already decided.' I said, 'By Allah, we will go to them.' And so we proceeded until we reached them at the shed of Bani Sa'da. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped in something. I asked, 'Who is that man?' They said, 'He is Sa'd bin 'Ubada.' I asked, 'What is wrong with him?' They said, 'He is sick.' After we sat for a while, the Ansar's speaker said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, 'To proceed, we are Allah's Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.'

When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, 'Wait a while.' I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. By Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own prepared speech, but he said the like of it or better than it spontaneously. After a pause he said, 'O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu Ubada bin Abdullah's hand who was sitting amongst us. I hated nothing of what he had said except that proposal, for by Allah, I would rather have my neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than become the ruler of a nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr, unless at the time of my death my own-self suggests something I don't feel at present.'

And then one of the Ansar said, 'I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.'

Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, 'O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.' He held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became victorious over Sa'd bin Ubada (whom Al-Ansar wanted to make a ruler). One of the Ansar said, 'You have killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' I replied, 'Allah has killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' Umar added, "By Allah, apart from the great tragedy that had happened to us (i.e. the death of the Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble. So if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a Caliph) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed."

Shaikh Khusrow Naamazi said...

Dear Brother,
I will need few more years to respond you. I will visit Isfahan
within 3 months InshaAllah
and then to Qom to consult with
scholars regarding the issue.
But if Allah wants--I will answer you even today.
One thing I am thinking though--
how--today--can we consult 6 billion people with so differing views and come into any agreement. Or how can we expect to kill few hundred people seemingly being chosen as Caliphs?

abu khaled said...

First of all, we need to understand that the appointment of the Caliph is a fard kifaya and the time period of his appointment is 3 days and 2 nights as is clearly understandable From the procedings after umar was stabbed. During this time the Ummah and the people of authority hold the option to chose one of their opinion but after the time limit has surpassed the responsibility falls from the necks of the few (i.e ahlul halli wal aqd).

Today we are in a similar situation, the Caliph was deposed in 1924 C.E. Its been over 80 years since this happened and the Ummah lost the choice of appointing some one of its choice. Beyond the time limit any one who takes power and rules by Islam, and if the land he rules in fulfills the conditions of darul islam, then he has to be given baya and accepted as Ameer.

Since 1924C.e there has been no such ruler and no land can be called as Darul Islam. Further as we said earlier, the ummah has lost the option of giving its opinion for the appointment of the Caliph, therefore it will not be consulted concerning its opinion about the Caliph.

Indeed when the Khilafah has been established and the first caliph has been installed, then shall we try to take opinion from the Muslim Masses (note:- Only muslims and not non-muslims and that constitutes 1.5 Billion people), And inshalla the mechanism that can be adopted at that time shall be elections by voting

As for killing a few hundred people which you mentioned in your question, it needs to be made clear that there will be no such occuring because candidates for the post on loosing the elections do not become murtad,so they are not killed and neither is there any Hukm to kill the candidates loosing the elections.

As for the mentioned Ijmaa assahabah during Umars time, he emphasised on the fact that if anyone does not accept the opinion of the others concerning one of the six sahabis then he would have to be killed and so on...the ijmaa. The similar would apply today as well, if there is someone who after the declaration of the results does not accept the results and does not give the baya to the elected Khalifa and tries to create strife in teh people then he is to be killed. Note:- that he is killed if he tries to create strife and conflict among the people. This is also discussed in the hadith of hte prophet where he said " من بايع إماما فأعطاه صفقة يده وثمرة فؤاده فليطعه ما ستطاع فإن جاء آخر ينازعه فاضربوا رقبة الآخر
whosoever give baya to an imam and he gives the clasp of his hand and the fruits of his heart then he should obey him and if some one come and tries to create strife and objects to his authority then kill him" This hadith gives us evidence that only there can be only one khalifa at a time and no more than one and if the people have agreed upon one then there can be no objection unless it is shari and if someone objects only to create fitna then he should be killed.

Anonymous said...

I am not scholar so can only paraphrase but does it not say in The Holy Q'Uran 'there are those who will take this Holy Book and use It for their own purposes - they are the worst sinners'

zeb said...

word "Dhan" which has two opposite meanings. "Dhan" is sometimes condemned in the Qur`aan and sometimes praised.

From the examples of praiseworthy "Dhan" is when Allah said:
"Indeed, I believed (Dhanantu)that I shall meet my Account! So he shall be in a life, well-pleasing." (al-Haaqqah 20-21)

Here Allah uses the word "Dhan" as a synonym for belief in the day of reckoning, which is indeed a decisive belief.

"...and they perceived (wa Dhannoo) that there is no fleeing from Allah, and no refuge but with Him." (at-Tawbah 118).

Again, Allah praises the "Dhan" of the three Sahaaba who were abandoned by the Prophet SAW and his companions, as a punishment for not responding to the call of Jihaad.

"(They are those) who are certain (Yadhunnoona) that they are going to meet their Lord, and that unto Him they are going to return." (al-Baqarah 46)

This is why the scholars of the Arabic language stated "Adh-Dhan - Shakkun wa Yaqeen" (meaning: adh-Dhan is doubt and certainty, see Lisaan al-Arab 13/272 and an-Nihaaya 3/163).
i am not an alim too brother sirf seekhnay kay liye baat kar raha hun i did some digging and research on this matter and came up with very useful things so wanted to share
Therefore the "Dhan" mentioned by the scholars regarding Ahadeeth al-Ahad is Dhan ar-Raajih (beneficial Dhan)

zeb said...

//Al-Imam Al-Shafi'i: In his book "Ar-Risaala", on page 357-359 and 478, subjects 961-966 and 1328-1330 of the Arabic text, he said (in summary) "Khabar Al-Khaasa (Ahad) is accepted as outward knowledge (actions), and allows interpretation and is understood through Ijtihaad, and it is used for the slaves (of Allah) in the branches of the Deen, not in its Usool, such as the Aqeeda".//

I did not find any of such statements of Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee, and I would urge you or someone else to quote to me exactly what ash-Shaaf'iee says and where, and not paraphrase! What the actual paragraph in ar-Risaalah (p.478) is referring to is ash-Shaafi'ee's discussion on 'Ilm 'Aam and 'Ilm Khaas and that it is binding upon everyone to know 'Ilm 'Aam, but not 'Ilm Khaas because such knowledge is not available to the public. So in this case, it is Waajib upon the people of knowledge to hold on to it! The Imaam was certainly not talking about the matters of 'Aqeeda and Ahkam! It is the compiler/translator deception, by twisting the words of the Imaam implying that Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee does not take Ahad narrations into 'Aqeedah, which is a far fetched assumption.

As a matter of fact, Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee in his work ar-Risaalah (p. 401-458), titled a chapter with the heading "The evidence for affirming Ahad narrations, with many evidences that affirm the [fact that] Khabr al-Waahid is an evidence [in itself], and the refutation of those who criticised it as an evidence". It is known that the people of Kalaam in his time from the Jahmiyah intended to rejected the evidences of Khabr al-Waahid that are related to the Names and Attributes of Allah. Therefore, he wrote this chapter, affirming the fact that he accepts Ahad narrations in his Aqeeda, by refuting the Jahmiyah who rejected Ahad narrations to do with the names and attributes. No where does Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee make a distinction between accepting Ahad narrations in Aqeeda and Ahkam.

And from what confirms that, by accepting Khabr al-Waahid, ash-Shaafi'ee meant the entire Deen in its totality and not just Ahkaam without Aqeeda, is the fact that he mentions in ar-Risaala (p. 242) the story of Sa'eed bin Jubair regarding Ibn 'Abbaas belying a person who claimed that the Musa of al-Khidr was different than Musa of Bani Israa`il, by using Ahad narration, narrated by Ubay Ibn Ka'ab. It is obvious that this Hadeeth has no relation with Ahkaam, and it is only related to 'Aqeeda, yet Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee uses this incident to prove the fact that Ahlus-sunnah accept Ahad narrations whole heartedly whether in Ahkaam or Aqeeda so he says, "So Ibn 'Abbaas, due to his understanding and his piety, affirms the report of Ubay bin Ka'b from the Messenger of Allah SAW, so much so that he belies a man from the Muslims, when Ubay Ibn Ka'b reports from the Messenger of Allah SAW, in which there is proof that the Musa of Bani Israa`il is the companion of al-Khidr"

This statement of Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee is an evidence that he does not differentiate between Aqeeda and Ahkaam in accepting Ahad narrations, because Musa being the same Musa to accompany al-Khidr is a matter of Aqeeda and not Ahkaam, as it is obvious!

zeb said...

as far as ibn e tamyyah is concernded look what he said

"Khabr al-Waahid that has been met with acceptance, necessitates knowledge.According to the majority of the scholars from the companions of Abu Haneefah, Maalik, ash-Shaafi'ee and Ahmad, and it is also the statement of most of the companions of Ash'ari such as as-Safarini and Ibn Fuwarrak. Even if it [Ahad narration] on its own does not benefit except Dhan, but when it is accompanied with Ijmaa' of the people of the knowledge of Hadeeth upon accepting it with testification of it, it reaches the level of Ijmaa' of the people of the knowledge of Fiqh over a ruling, as they base it on either the Dhaahir, or Qiyaas or Khabr Waahid, then this ruling becomes Qata'ee (definite) with the majority, and if it is without Ijmaa', it will be non-definite as Ijmaa' is Ma'soom (infallible)". (Majmoo' al-Fataawa 18/48 & 70)

zeb said...

salaf never made divisions in khabar ahad or matwatir if the ahad is authentic, ibn e hazam said
the authentic hadeeth amounts to al-'ilm-ul-qat'ee (decisive and certain knowledge); whether it is in one of the two Saheehs, or other than them. ). .Al-Baaithul-Hatheeth (p.39).

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f15/khabar-ahad-not-admitted-into-aqueeda-2404/

Islamic Revival said...

The following article answers your points and includes the translations of the quotes from Imam Shafi'i: http://islamicsystem.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/iman-must-be-definitive.html

Imam Shafi'i acknowledged the difference between the knowledge that comes from texts that are decisive in their authenticity, and texts that are speculative in their authenticity in his famous work al-Risala, he says: "Legal knowledge is of two kinds: one is for the general public, and no sober and mature person should be ignorant of it...For example, that the daily prayers are five, that men owe it to God to fast the month of Ramadan, to make the pilgrimage to the [sacred] House whenever they are able, and to [pay] the legal alms in their estate; that He [God] has prohibited usury, adultery, homicide, theft [the drinking of] wine, and [everything] of that sort which He has obligated men to comprehend, to perform, to pay in their property, and to abstain from [because] He has forbidden it to them. This kind of knowledge may be found textually in the Book of God, or may be found generally among the people of Islam. The public relates it from the preceding public and ascribes it to the Messenger of God, nobody ever questions its ascription or its binding force upon them. It is the kind of knowledge which admits of error neither in its narrative nor in its interpretation; it is not permissible to question it."

In reply to the question `What is the second kind?' Shafi'i replies: "It consists of the detailed duties and rules obligatory on men, concerning which there exists neither a text in the Book of God, nor regarding most of them, a Sunnah (tradition). Whenever a Sunnah exists, it is of the kind related by few authorities, not by the public, and is subject to different interpretations arrived at by analogy."[al-Shafi'i's Risala translated by Majid Khadduri,pp81-82]

Imam Shafi'i makes the distinction between legal knowledge which he describes as 'ilm al-ammah which is transmitted from the people at large to the people at large, and knowledge which comes from a Sunnah related by a few authorities, i.e., ahad reports. Ilm al-ammah was later termed tawatur. The knowledge acquired through tawatur is certain (qati).[Ahmad Hasan, The Doctrine of Ijma, p.61.]