Assalamalaikum wa rahamatullah.
Date: 2007-08-29 01:40:02
Title: "By the one in Whose hand is Abu al-Qasim's soul, `Isa ibn Maryam shall descend as a just and wise ruler. He shall destroy the cross, slay the swine....
Category: Hadith
Question: Could you please certify the authenticity of this hadith?
1) Hadith on the authority of Abu Hurayra: I heard the Prophet say: "By the one in Whose hand is Abu al-Qasim's soul, `Isa ibn Maryam shall descend as a just and wise ruler. He shall destroy the cross, slay the swine, eradicate discord and grudges, and money shall be offered to him but he will not accept it. Then he shall stand at my grave side and say: Ya Muhammad! and I will answer him." Abu Ya`la relates it with a sound (sahih) chain in his Musnad (Dar al-Ma'mun ed. 1407/1987) 11:462; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani cites it in al-Matalib al-`aliya (Kuwait, 1393/1973) 4:23, chapter entitled: "Concerning the Prophet's life in his grave" and #4574. Haythami says in Majma` al-zawa'id (8:5), Chapter entitled: "`Isa ibn Maryam's Descent": "Its sub-narrators are the men of sound (sahih) hadith."
2) Is there a sahi hadith in Musnad of Imam Hanbal( rh) or any other book which says that Isa Bin Maryam ( alaihis salaam) will be buried next to the grave of prophet Mohammed ( sal lallahu allaihi wa sallam)? 3) Is there any hadith in which prophet said that a prophet is buried at the place where he dies? If yes , then will Isa Bin Maryam ( alaihis salaam) die near the grave of prophet? Or the hadith in (2) mentions only to those prophet who come with book? I would be really thankful to you if you can please provide the clarification on the above issues.
Jazakallah khair
Anwser: In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatoh
1. Yes, the above hadith has been confirmed and mentioned in Mustadrak lil Hakim as well.
2. This hadith had been mentioned in Mirqaatul Mafateeh on pg 67, volume 11, Maktaba Imdaadiyah print. Similarly, the hadith concerning a prophet being buried at place of his death is mentioned in Shamaail Muhammadiyyah, pg 665, hadith 396.
3. Hazrat Eesaa (AS)’s reappearance in this world will not be as a Nabi but rather as an Ummati of Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه و سلّم).
And Allah knows best
Wassalam
Ml. Haroon Dhooma,
Checked and Approved by:
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In'aamiyyah
Allah orders us not to call upon the Prophet in the same way as we call upon each other:
la taj`alu du`a'a al-rasuli baynakum ka du`a'i ba`dikum ba`dan
"Make not the calling of the Messenger among you
as your calling one of another" (24:63)
This is a proof that He did not prohibit us from calling upon him, for an absolute prohibition needs not be qualified further. Allah Himself shows us the etiquette of addressing the Prophet by calling him Himself "Ya ayyuha al-nabi" -- O Prophet -- and referring to him as "The Messenger" in the Qur'an, whereas He calls other Prophets by name: Ya Ibrahim, Ya Yahya, Ya Musa, Ya `Isa, etc. The `ulama have explained that Allah established by this an honorific difference between the Seal of Prophets and those that preceded him, blessings and peace of Allah upon him and upon all of them. They have also said that it is the reason why we should prefer to say: Ya Rasulallah over saying Ya Muhammad.
2)
As mentioned in the section on Tawassul, the Prophet taught a blind man to make a du`a in which he has to say: "Ya Muhammad".
THE WAHHABIS' TAMPERING OF THE MUWAJAHA AL-SHARIFA (GATE TO THE PROPHET'S NOBLE GRAVE)
In this connection Muslims should take note of the following heinous act on the issue of "Ya Muhammad," because it is established without doubt as one of the great Wahhabi tamperings of our time. If one looks at an old picture of the golden gate at the entrance of the Prophet's grave, one will see, at the top of each door, intertwined, the invocations in Arabic calligraphy:
YA ALLAH
YA MUHAMMAD
If one looks now at the top of each door, one will notice that the Arabic letter Y (Ar. ya') in the initial position in the word YA in "Ya Muhammad" has been lopped off, but the A (Ar. alif) as well as the bottom two dots of the Y have been left in place, so that now one will read:
YA ALLAH
A MUHAMMAD
We have published a picture of the old gate, before the Wahhabis defaced it, on the front cover of our book Islamic Beliefs and Doctrine According to Ahl al-Sunna: A Repudiation of "Salafi" Innovations, Part I. It is a high-quality, clear color picture which we hope can be seen and understood by all Muslims.
1)Ya Muhammad" is the speech of Sayyidina `Isa to
the Prophet after `Isa's descent, according to an authentic
hadith on the authority of Abu Hurayra:
I heard the Prophet say: "By the one in Whose hand is Abu al-Qasim's soul, `Isa ibn Maryam shall descend as a just and wise ruler. He shall destroy the cross, slay the swine, eradicate discord and grudges, and money shall be offered to him but he will not accept it. Then he shall stand at my grave side and say: Ya Muhammad! and I will answer him."
Abu Ya`la relates it with a sound (sahih) chain in his Musnad
(Dar al-Ma'mun ed. 1407/1987) 11:462; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani cites it in al-Matalib al-`aliya (Kuwait, 1393/1973) 4:23, chapter entitled: "Concerning the Prophet's life in his grave" and #4574. Haythami says in Majma` al-zawa'id (8:5), Chapter entitled: "`Isa ibn Maryam's Descent": "Its sub-narrators are the men of sound (sahih) hadith."
2)
Following report of Ibn Abi Fudayk, one of the early scholars of Madina and one of Shafi`i's shaykhs, applies not only to the Prophet's visitor in Madina, but to every person who invokes blessings on the Prophet from afar with the words Ya Muhammad as if he were standing in front of the Prophet: "I heard one of the authorities whom I have met say: "It has reached us that whoever stands at the Prophet's grave and recites: "Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet..." (33:56) and then says: "May Allah bless you, O Muhammad" (sallallahu `alayka ya Muhammad) seventy times, an angel will call him saying: May Allah bless you, O So-and-so; none of your needs will be left unfulfilled."" Ibn Jama`a related it in Hidayat al-salik 3:1382-1383, Ibn al-Jawzi in Muthir al-gharam p. 487, Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa', and Bayhaqi in Shu`ab al-iman (#4169).
3)
Bukhari in his Adab al-mufrad, Nawawi in his Adhkar, and Shawkani in Tuhfat al-dhakirin all relate the narrations of Ibn `Umar and Ibn `Abbas whereby they would call out Ya Muhammad whenever they had a cramp in their leg (Chapters entitled: "What one says if he feels a cramp in his leg"). Regardless of the grade of authenticity of these narrations, it is significant that Bukhari, Nawawi, and Shawkani never raised such a disturbing notion as to say that calling out "O Muhammad" amounted to shirk.
The permissibility to say 'Ya Muhammad'
The sensitive issue of whether or not Muslims can say the words 'Ya Rasool Allah' or 'Ya Muhammad!' (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) needs to be clarified, since this issue divides the Muslim community and causes a great deal of friction among the Muslims throughout the world. Basically, there appears to be what we could label as two "schools of thought"; one insists that stating "Ya Rasulu'llah!" is 'shirk' and that infact, any Muslim proclaiming it goes outside the pale of Islam. Now the other school believes that it is indeed permissible to say so, based on evidences from the Salaf, and the tafsirs of later day scholars. However, they do not insist that one must proclaim this, or that it is even a fard to do so; rather, it is permissible to do so. This is, and always has been, the stance of the Ahl as-Sunna.
Those who believe that it is impermissible to say 'Ya Muhammad!' (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) not only say that there are no evidences to support the permissibility, but also believe that the prefix of 'Ya', can only be used when that person who is being called upon is present, as opposed to being absent. The proclamation of 'Ya Muhammad!', or 'Ya Rasulu'llah!' (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is not an innovation (bid'a) that crept in after the first three generations but, contrary to modern misconceptions, was initiated and practiced within these generations, as we shall see, Allah willing. Also, it is a fact that the death of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not prevent the later generations to proclaim 'Ya Muhammad!', even though there were great distances between them and Madina.
As we shall aim to demonstrate to the readers in this chapter, insha'llah, if it is wrong today [or even Kufr and shirk as some of our brothers declare], to proclaim 'Ya Muhammad!' (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) why then, did the Sahaba and Tabi'un in and the later generations of Muslims do so? Would those brothers who oppose the Muslims of saying 'Ya Muhammad!' (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) apply the same criteria to the first generations of this Umma as they do for the believers of today?
The permissibility of saying 'Ya!' For someone who is not physically present.
One of the main arguments used against the believers on this issue, is the one of the impermisibility of using the prefix 'Ya' (Oh!) to someone who is not physically present.
Innovation in the Language
The understanding that one is not able to use 'Ya!' for an absent person is an innovation (bid'a) in Arabic grammar. To the minority holding this view, it appears that this is the only way of accusing the majority of Muslims to be constantly committing an impermissible deed, or even shirk and kufr as others may profess.
We first would like to invite those who hold the above view, to examine one of the most respected classical dictionaries of the Arabic language, the Lasan al Arab of Ibn Manzur (d. 711 hijri). Ibn Manzur states that 'Ya!' can be applied for either a person who is near, or far, from the caller.
[Ibn Manzur al-Afriqi, Lasan al-Arab, under the word 'Ya']
Since those Muslims often claim that saying 'Ya Muhammad!' (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is shirk, I now propose to examine the views of Ibn Taymiyya on this issue. Why? Well, it is mainly because these very brothers have given Ibn Taymiyya the noble title of Shaykh al Islam, and such, use him as an authority (if not the foremost) in their attempts to practice Islam as the Salaf (pious predecessors) did. Ibn Taymiyya writes:
"When someone calls upon someone else, saying 'Ya!', it may be used in one of two ways: physically or by the knowledge of that person. An example of this is when the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) warned the people of the time of Dajjal, "Yaa 'ibaadillaahi! Fathbutu..." (Oh servants of Allah! Keep your feet steadfast...). The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said this to the people who would be present at the time of Dajjal, and who were not yet born.
Another example is when Sayyidna 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was walking through the plains of Karbala and said, 'Ya Abu 'Abd Allah Husayn! Fasbir! ('Oh, [my son] Abu 'Abd Allah Husayn! Be patient [when facing the enemy in this place]') This was because 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was informed by the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) that his son, Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), would be martyred at Karbala. Sayyidna 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) called Husayn despite the fact that he was not present with him, and even though Husayn could not hear his father, 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) remained in his father's thoughts"
[Ibn Taymiyya, Minhaj-as-sunna, chapter 'Aswad-al-Qadeem']
The above example demonstrates, as provided by Ibn Taymiyya, that, at least in one way, 'Ya' can be used in the Arabic language to call someone who is not physically present, but who is present in the thoughts of the caller, as when Sayyidna 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) remembered his son and called to him.
Evidence to support the permissibility of saying 'Ya Muhammad!' (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)
Hafiz ibn al-Qayyim writes that the Prophet of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said:
"Send salutations on me, but send more salutations on Friday. When you recite the salutation, your voice will reach me wherever you are. Some Companions asked, "Even after your death?"The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) replied, "Allah has made it unlawful for the earth to decompose my body"
[Ibn-al-Qayyim, Jala-ul-Afhaan, page 145]
Imam Nasa'i narrates that there are specific angels who visit the earth and whose sole duties are to go to the people who send salutations upon the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and then to take those salutations to the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).
[Mishkat, chapter on 'salat al Nabi']
The above mentioned Ahadith indicate that if anyone were to send salutations to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) he himself would either hear the salutations, or an angel will convey them to him. In both cases salutations will reach the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).
The Salaf Used to Say 'Ya Muhammad!'(may Allah bless him and grant him peace)
Imam Bukhari, Hafiz Ibn Taymiyya and Qadi Shawkani all posed the same question: if a person's foot becomes numb, what should he do? Their recommendations were the same, and included with their answer the following hadith:
"Some time after Rasulu'llah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had passed away, 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was in Najd where one day his foot became numb. As a remedy to alleviate the pain, a person advised him, "Remember the one whom you love the most!". Upon hearing this Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "Ya Muhammad! (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)" and his foot made an immediate recovery from numbness"
[Bukhari, Adab al Mufrad al Kalim al Tayyab; Ibn Taymiyya and Qadi Shawkani, Tuhfah al Dakireen, chapter on 'Khadirat Rijluhu', and also an-Nawawi, Kitab al Adhkar]
Hafiz Ibn Taymiyya writes,
"In the same way as 'Abd Allah ibn Umar's foot became numb and he remembered the one he loves the most, 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Abbas's foot also became numb. Someone also advised him to remember the one who he loves the most, whereupon 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Abbas exclaimed 'Ya! Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his foot immediately recovered from numbness"
[Ibn Taymiyya, Al Kalim al Tayyib, chapter on 'Khadirat Rijluhu']
Qadi Shawkani relates that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said:
"If one is in trouble or is in distress, he should perform two nawafil rakats and then make a supplication. One should say 'Ya Muhammad!' (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and Allah Most High will grant them what they requested and their problems and troubles should be resolved.The scholars of hadith say that this hadith is authentic and at-Tirmidhi, al-Hakim, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah and at-Tabarani record it.
[Qadi Shawkani, Tofah al Dhakireen, chapter on 'Salat al-Hajat']
Hafiz Ibn Kathir, Imam at-Tabari and Imam Ibn al-Athir all wrote:
"During the Khilafa of Abu Bakr as-Siddique (may Allah be pleased with him) there was a battle against the false prophet, Musaylima of Najd. When the battle commenced, the Muslims lost their footing at which point Khalid ibn Walid (may Allah be pleased with him) and the rest of the Companions called out 'Ya Muhammad!' (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and proceeded to win the battle"
[Tabari, Ta'rikh at-Tabari; Ibn Kathir, Ta'rikh Ibn Kathir; and Ibn al-Athir and Ibn Jarir, Ta'rikh Qamil, chapter on 'Musaylima Kazzab']
Hafiz Ibn Kathir and Imam Tabari both write:
"During the Khilafa of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) there was a famine outside the city of Madina. A Companion called Bilal ibn Harith al Muzni (may Allah be pleased with him) said to his people, 'The famine is very severe, [let us] sacrifice a goat.' Apart from a red bone nothing came from the goat [the goat was very thin due to famine and as such, there was no meat on the bones]. Bilal ibn Harith (may Allah be pleased with him) called out, 'Ya Muhammad! (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)'.The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) then appeared in the dream of Bilal ibn Harith and informed him that there will be rain"
[Ta'rikh Ibn Kathir and Ibn Jarir, chapter on 'Khilafah of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him)]
As-Sayyid Mawdudi writes:
"When Hajaj ibn Yusuf had placed tax upon some new Muslims, they left Basra crying with their fuqaha [scholars] and they were all saying, 'Ya Muhammad!, Ya Muhammad!'"
[Mawdudi Sayyid, Khilafa wa Malukiyat, page 270 and Ta'rikh Ibn al-Athir]
Hafiz Ibn Kathir and Imam Tabari both write:
"After the occasion of Karbala, Sayyida Zaynab (may Allah be well pleased with her) [the sister of Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him)] and her company were taken as prisoners to Syria. When she passed the dead bodies she proclaimed: 'Ya Muhammad! Your Husayn is drenched in blood without a shroud or a grave', and 'Ya Muhammad! Your daughters are taken prisoners and your children have been killed'"
[Ibn Jarir and Ta'rikh Ibn Kathir, chapter on 'Karbala']
NOTE: Karbala took place in Iraq in 60AH. At that time Zaynab (may Allah be well pleased with her) said 'Ya Muhammad!'
Imam Waqdi writes:
"During the khilafa of Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) there was a battle at Halb. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said 'Ya Muhammad! Ya Muhammad!' and shouted, 'Oh Companions! Stay firm footed!'
['Allama Waqdi, Futoohusham, chapter on 'The Battle of Halb']
Imam Ibn Sa'd writes:
"After the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had passed away, Arwa ibnt 'Abd al Muttalib (may Allah be well pleased with her) recited: 'Ya Rasulu'llah! You were our place of hope' "
[Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, chapter on 'The Death of the Prophet']
Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim writes:
"Muhammad ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) relates:'I was sitting in the company of Abu Bakr ibn Mujahid in Baghdad when Shaykh Shibli came before us. Abu Bakr ibn Mujahid stood up and hugged Shaykh Shibli, kissed his forehead and sat him by his side.' Muhammad ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) enquired: 'You are the Shaykh [Abu Bakr ibn Mujahid] whilst the whole of Baghdad regards Shibli as majnun [mad] - why have you treated him with so much respect?' To this, Abu Bakr ibn Mujahid replied, 'I have done nothing strange; I have treated him exactly as I have seen the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) treat him. In my dream I saw the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) kiss Shibli between his two eyes. I asked the Prophet,'Why did you treat Shibli in this way?' to which he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) replied, 'I love him because after every salaah he recites the last verse of Sura Tauba after which he recites 'Sallal la ho 'alayka Ya Muhammad!' ['Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you Oh Muhammad!') three times"
[Ibn-al-Qayyim, Jala-al-Afham.,page 80]
The above mentioned Ahadith clearly illustrate that the Companions and others of the Salaf used to say 'Ya Muhammad' or 'Ya Rasulu'llah!' when they experienced difficulty, and that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) did help them, either by making supplication for their success or appearing in their dreams to comfort them. Those Companions who were ill and said 'Ya Rasulu'llah!' found that they would get better; and if they were in a battle which they were losing, they would soon win; and if they were facing a famine, they would soon have rain.
The last quotation from Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim shows that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) loves the one who pronounces 'Ya Muhammad!' to a considerably high degree. All these occurances took place many years after the death of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).So if it was kufr to say 'Ya Muhammad!' today and after the lifetime of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), the Prophet would not have expressed any love for Shibli. Also, if this is an unreliable narration, why did Ibn al-Qayyim choose to quote it? Was he someone who supported shirk or kufr?
What has been said above supports the fact that it is not kufr or shirk to call out 'Ya Muhammad'. However, people will still insist that, despite all the above, to say 'Ya Muhammad!' is shirk, and will deduce to the fact that this is a form of worshipping someone besides Allah. They often put forward the following aya of the Qur'an:
"And the mosques are only for Allah, so worship none with Allah"
[Sura al Jinn, verse 18]
This is just a doubt and a misunderstanding of the grammatical use of the words 'Tad`u/Yad`u' in the Arabic language, since 'Tad'u' and 'Yad'u' have been used in two different contexts in the Qur'an: in the context of worship and also in the context of calling.
In the above verse it has been used in the context of worship and we agree that anyone who worships something besides Allah is a kafir and a mushrik. However, when a Muslim says 'Ya Rasulu'llah!', he is not worshipping the Messenger of Allah(may Allah bless him and grant him peace), but merely calling him; just as Ibrahim (peace be upon him) called all the people to Hajj[Tafsir Ibn Kathir, under 'Sura Hajj'] and as 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) called Sariah. This type of calling is not worship, an example of which is provided in the Qur'an when Allah commanded Ibrahim (peace be upon him) to call the dead birds [Sura al-Baqara, verse 260]
This should demonstrate that the word 'call' is not always used in the context of worship. Whoever says 'Ya Muhammad!' cannot be called either a kafir or mushrik because he is calling out of love for the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) as was the case when the Salaf called upon the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). His intention is not the intention to worship him.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
KHAWARIJ part2
In the first part of the article we have seen that the first Khawarij Hurqus ibn Zuhair was from the tribe of Bani tameem and also the leader of the modern day khawarij Ibn Abdl wahab najdi was also from the same tribe.
Our prophet told about this mischief which will rise in Najd during his life time it self.
The hadith is called “HADITH OF NAJD”” and many SALAFIS try to twist this hadith and say that Najd is same as Iraq . But the fact is NAJD is different from Iraq, for prophet and for the whole world. Here is an interesting article on this.
HADITH IN WHICH PROPHET TOLD ANBOUT NAJD
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: (The Prophet) said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and our Yemen." People said, "Our Najd as well." The Prophet again said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and Yemen." They said again, "Our Najd as well." On that the Prophet said, "There will appear earthquakes and afflictions, and from there will come out the side of the head of Satan." (SAHI BUKHARI)
IRAQ IS DIFFERENT FROM NAJD AS MENTIONED IN BELOW HADITH
In a hadith narrated by Imam Muslim Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) appointed miqat points for pilgrims. The blessed prophet very clearly made two different points for people of Iraq and people of Najd.
HADITH
Abu Zubair heard Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) as saying as he was asked about (the place for entering upon the) state of Ihram: I heard (and I think he carried it directly to the Apostle of Allah) him saying: For the people of Medina Dhu'l-Hulaifa is the place for entering upon the state of Ihram, and for (the people coming through the other way, i. e. Syria) it is Juhfa; for the people of Iraq it is Dbat al-'Irq; for the people uf Najd it is Qarn (al-Manazil) and for the people of Yemen it is Yalamlam.( SAHI MUSLIM)
Strange are the khawarij way! They cannot accept clear evidence.
Before reading a detailed discussion about this Hadith of Najd, please find time to check “NAJD” on Internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nejd
It is striking that not one of the great muhaddiths, mufassirs, grammarians, historians, or legists of Islam has emerged from the region known as Najd, despite the extraordinary and blessed profusion of such people in other Muslim lands. This essay offers to Muslims with open minds an explanation of this remarkable fact.
The Hadith of Najd: a correction
The land of Najd, which for two centuries has been the crucible of the Wahhabi doctrine, is the subject of a body of interesting hadiths and early narrations which repay close analysis. Among the best-known of these hadiths is the relation of Imam al-Bukhari in which Ibn Umar said: ‘The Prophet (s.w.s.) mentioned: “O Allah, give us baraka in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen.” They said: “And in our Najd?” and he said: “O Allah, give us baraka in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen.” They said: “And in our Najd?” and I believe that he said the third time: “In that place are earthquakes, and seditions, and in that place shall rise the devil’s horn [qarn al-shaytan].”’
This hadith is clearly unpalatable to the Najdites themselves, some of whom to this day strive to persuade Muslims from more reputable districts that the hadith does not mean what it clearly says. One device used by such apologists is to utilise a definition which includes Iraq in the frontiers of Najd. By this manoeuvre, the Najdis draw the conclusion that the part of Najd which is condemned so strongly in this hadith is in fact Iraq, and that Najd proper is excluded. Medieval Islamic geographers contest this inherently strange thesis (see for instance Ibn Khurradadhbih, al-Masalik wa’l-mamalik [Leiden, 1887], 125; Ibn Hawqal, Kitab Surat al-ard [Beirut, 1968],18); and limit the northern extent of Najd at Wadi al-Rumma, or to the deserts to the south of al-Mada’in. There is no indication that the places in which the second wave of sedition arose, such as Kufa and Basra, were associated in the mind of the first Muslims with the term ‘Najd’. On the contrary, these places are in every case identified as lying within the land of Iraq.
The evasion of this early understanding of the term in order to exclude Najd, as usually understood, from the purport of the hadith of Najd, has required considerable ingenuity from pro-Najdi writers in the present day. Some apologists attempt to conflate this hadith with a group of other hadiths which associate the ‘devil’s horn’ with ‘the East’, which is supposedly a generic reference to Iraq. While it is true that some late-medieval commentaries also incline to this view, modern geographical knowledge clearly rules it out. Even the briefest glimpse at a modern atlas will show that a straight line drawn to the east of al-Madina al-Munawwara does not pass anywhere near Iraq, but passes some distance to the south of Riyadh; that is to say, through the exact centre of Najd. The hadiths which speak of ‘the East’ in this context hence support the view that Najd is indicated, not Iraq.
On occasion the pro-Najdi apologists also cite the etymological sense of the Arabic word najd, which means ‘high ground’. Again, a brief consultation of an atlas resolves this matter decisively. With the exception of present-day northern Iraq, which was not considered part of Iraq by any Muslim until the present century (it was called ‘al-Jazira’), Iraq is notably flat and low-lying, much of it even today being marshland, while the remainder, up to and well to the north of Baghdad, is flat, low desert or agricultural land. Najd, by contrast, is mostly plateau, culminating in peaks such as Jabal Tayyi’ (1300 metres), in the Jabal Shammar range. It is hard to see how the Arabs could have routinely applied a topographic term meaning ‘upland’ to the flat terrain of southern Iraq (the same territory which proved so suitable for tank warfare during the 1991 ‘Gulf War’, that notorious source of dispute between Riyadh’s ‘Cavaliers’ and ‘Roundheads’).
Confirmation of this identification is easily located in the hadith literature, which contains numerous references to Najd, all of which clearly denote Central Arabia. To take a few examples out of many dozens: there is the hadith narrated by Abu Daud (Salat al-Safar, 15), which runs: ‘We went out to Najd with Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) until we arrived at Dhat al-Riqa‘, where he met a group from Ghatafan [a Najdite tribe].’ In Tirmidhi (Hajj, 57), there is the record of an encounter between the Messenger (s.w.s.) and a Najdi delegation which he received at Arafa (see also Ibn Maja, Manasik, 57). In no such case does the Sunna indicate that Iraq was somehow included in the Prophetic definition of ‘Najd’.
Further evidence can be cited from the cluster of hadiths which identify the miqat points for pilgrims. In a hadith narrated by Imam Nasa’i (Manasik al-Hajj, 22), ‘A’isha (r.a.) declared that ‘Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) established the miqat for the people of Madina at Dhu’l-Hulayfa, for the people of Syria and Egypt at al-Juhfa, for the people of Iraq at Dhat Irq, and for the people of Najd at Qarn, and for the Yemenis at Yalamlam.’ Imam Muslim (Hajj, 2) narrates a similar hadith: ‘for the people of Madina it is Dhu’l-Hulayfa - while on the other road it is al-Juhfa - for the people of Iraq it is Dhat Irq, for the people of Najd it is Qarn, and for the people of Yemen it is Yalamlam.’
These texts constitute unarguable proof that the Prophet (s.w.s.) distinguished between Najd and Iraq, so much so that he appointed two separate miqat points for the inhabitants of each. For him, clearly, Najd did not include Iraq.
Najd in the Hadith
There are many hadiths in which the Messenger (s.w.s.) praised particular lands. It is significant that although Najd is the closest of lands to Makka and Madina, it is not praised by any one of these hadiths. The first hadith cited above shows the Messenger’s willingness to pray for Syria and Yemen, and his insistent refusal to pray for Najd. And wherever Najd is mentioned, it is clearly seen as a problematic territory. Consider, for instance, the following noble hadith:
Amr ibn Abasa said: ‘Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) was one day reviewing the horses, in the company of Uyayna ibn Hisn ibn Badr al-Fazari. [...] Uyayna remarked: “The best of men are those who bear their swords on their shoulders, and carry their lances in the woven stocks of their horses, wearing cloaks, and are the people of the Najd.” But Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) replied: “You lie! Rather, the best of men are the men of the Yemen. Faith is a Yemeni, the Yemen of [the tribes of] Lakhm and Judham and Amila. [...] Hadramawt is better than the tribe of Harith; one tribe is better than another; another is worse [...] My Lord commanded me to curse Quraysh, and I cursed them, but he then commanded me to bless them twice, and I did so [...] Aslam and Ghifar, and their associates of Juhaina, are better than Asad and Tamim and Ghatafan and Hawazin, in the sight of Allah on the Day of Rising. [...] The most numerous tribe in the Garden shall be [the Yemeni tribes of] Madhhij and Ma’kul.’ (Ahmad ibn Hanbal and al-Tabarani, by sound narrators. Cited in Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Haythami, Majma‘ al-zawa’id wa manba‘ al-fawa’id [Cairo, 1352], X, 43).
The Messenger says ‘You lie!’ to a man who praises Najd. Nowhere does he extol Najd - quite the contrary. But other hadiths in praise of other lands abound. For instance:
Umm Salama narrated that Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) gave the following counsel on his deathbed: ‘By Allah, I adjure you by Him, concerning the Egyptians, for you shall be victorious over them, and they will be a support for you and helpers in Allah’s path.’ (Tabarani, classed by al-Haythami as sahih [Majma‘, X, 63].) (For more on the merit of the Egyptians see Sahih Muslim, commentary by Imam al-Nawawi [Cairo, 1347], XVI, 96-7.)
Qays ibn Sa‘d narrated that Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) said: ‘Were faith to be suspended from the Pleiades, men from the sons of Faris [south-central Iran] would reach it.’ (Narrated in the Musnads of both Abu Ya‘la and al-Bazzar, classified as Sahih by al-Haythami. Majma‘, X, 64-5. See further Nawawi’s commentary to Sahih Muslim, XVI, 100.)
Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Tranquillity (sakina) is in the people of the Hijaz.’ (al-Bazzar, cited in Haythami, X, 53.)
On the authority of Abu’l-Darda (r.a.), the Messenger of Allah (s.w.s.) said: ‘You will find armies. An army in Syria, in Egypt, in Iraq and in the Yemen.’ (Bazzar and Tabarani, classified as sahih: al-Haythami, Majma‘, X, 58.) This constitutes praise for these lands as homes of jihad volunteers.
‘The angels of the All-Compassionate spread their wings over Syria.’ (Tabarani, classed as sahih: Majma‘, X, 60. See also Tirmidhi, commentary of Imam Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Mubarakfuri: Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi bi-sharh Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi, X, 454; who confirms it as hasan sahih.)
Abu Hurayra narrated that Allah’s Messenger (s) said: ‘The people of Yemen have come to you. They are tenderer of heart, and more delicate of soul. Faith is a Yemeni, and wisdom is a Yemeni.’ (Tirmidhi, Fi fadl al-Yaman, no.4028. Mubarakfuri, X, 435, 437: hadith hasan sahih. On page 436 Imam Mubarakfuri points out that the ancestors of the Ansar were from the Yemen.)
‘The people of the Yemen are the best people on earth’. (Abu Ya‘la and Bazzar, classified as sahih. Haythami, X, 54-5.)
Allah’s Messenger (s) sent a man to one of the clans of the Arabs, but they insulted and beat him. He came to Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) and told him what had occurred. And the Messenger (s) said, ‘Had you gone to the people of Oman, they would not have insulted or beaten you.’ (Muslim, Fada’il al-Sahaba, 57. See Nawawi’s commentary, XVI, 98: ‘this indicates praise for them, and their merit.’)
The above hadiths are culled from a substantial corpus of material which records the Messenger (s.w.s.) praising neighbouring regions. Again, it is striking that although Najd was closer than any other, hadiths in praise of it are completely absent.
This fact is generally known, although not publicised, by Najdites themselves. It is clear that if there existed a single hadith that names and praises Najd, they would let the Umma know. In an attempt to circumvent or neutralise the explicit and implicit Prophetic condemnation of their province, some refuse to consider that the territorial hadiths might be in any way worthy of attention, and focus their comments on the tribal groupings who dwell in Najd.
The Tribe of Tamim
The best-known tribe of Central Arabia are the Banu Tamim. There are hadiths which praise virtually all of the major Arab tribal groups, and to indicate the extent of this praise a few examples are listed here:
Allah’s Messenger (s) said: ‘O Allah, bless [the tribe of] Ahmas and its horses and its men sevenfold.’ (Ibn Hanbal, in Haythami, Majma‘, X, 49. According to al-Haythami its narrators are all trustworthy.)
Ghalib b. Abjur said: ‘I mentioned Qays in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (s) and he said, “May Allah show His mercy to Qays.” He was asked, “O Messenger of God! Are you asking for His mercy for Qays?” and he replied, “Yes. He followed the religion of our father Ismail b. Ibrahim, Allah’s Friend. Qays! Salute our Yemen! Yemen! Salute our Qays! Qays are Allah’s cavalry upon the earth.”’ (Tabarani, declared sahih by al-Haythami, X, 49.)
Abu Hurayra narrated that Allah’s Messenger (s) said: ‘How excellent a people are Azd, sweet-mouthed, honouring their vows, and pure of heart!’ (Ibn Hanbal via a good (hasan) isnad, according to Haythami, X, 49.)
Anas b. Malik said: ‘If we are not from Azd, we are not from the human race.’ (Tirmidhi, Manaqib, 72; confirmed by Mubarakfuri, X, 439 as hasan gharib sahih.)
Abdallah ibn Mas‘ud said: ‘I witnessed Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) praying for this clan of Nakh‘.’ Or he said: ‘He praised them until I wished that I was one of them.’ (Ibn Hanbal, with a sound isnad. Haythami, X, 51.)
On the authority of Abdallah ibn Amr ibn al-As, who said: ‘I heard Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) saying: “This command [the Caliphate] shall be in Quraysh. No-one shall oppose them without being cast down on his face by Allah, for as long as they establish the religion.”’ (Bukhari, Manaqib, 2.)
The hadith which appears to praise Tamim is hence not exceptional, and can by no stretch of the imagination be employed to indicate Tamim’s superiority over other tribes. In fact, out of this vast literature on the merits of the tribes, only one significant account praises Tamim. This runs as follows: Abu Hurayra said: ‘I have continued to love Banu Tamim after I heard three things concerning them from Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.). “They will be the sternest of my Umma against the Dajjal; one of them was a captive owned by ‘A’isha, and he said: ‘Free her, for she is a descendent of Ismail;’ and when their zakat came, he said: ‘This is the zakat of a people,’ or ‘of my people’.”’ (Bukhari, Maghazi, 68.)
This hadith clearly indicates that the rigour of the Tamimites will be used for, and not against, Islam in the final culminating battle against the Dajjal; and this is unquestionably a merit. The second point is less significant, since all the Arabs are descendents of Ismail; while the variant readings of the third point make it difficult to establish its significance in an unambiguous way. Even the most positive interpretation, however, allows us to conclude no more than that the Messenger (s.w.s.) was pleased with that tribe at the moment it paid its zakat. As we shall see, its payment of zakat proved to be short-lived.
Far more numerous are the hadiths which explicitly critique the Tamimites. These hadiths are usually disregarded by pro-Najdite apologists; but traditional Islamic scholarship demands that all, not merely some, of the evidence be mustered and taken as a whole before a verdict can be reached. And a consideration of the abundant critical material on Tamim demonstrates beyond any doubt that this tribe was regarded by the Messenger (s.w.s.) and by the Salaf as deeply problematic.
An early indication of the nature of the Tamimites is given by Allah himself in Sura al-Hujurat. In aya 4 of this sura, He says: ‘Those who call you from behind the chambers: most of them have no sense.’ The occasion for revelation (sabab al-nuzul) here was as follows:
The “chambers” (hujurat) were spaces enclosed by walls. Each of the wives of Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) had one of them. The aya was revealed in connection with the delegation of the Banu Tamim who came to the Prophet (s.w.s.). They entered the mosque, and approached the chambers of his wives. They stood outside them and called: “Muhammad! Come out to us!” an action which expressed a good deal of harshness, crudeness and disrespect. Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) waited a while, and then came out to them. One of them, known as al-Aqra‘ ibn Habis, said: “Muhammad! My praise is an ornament, and my denunciation brings shame!” And the Messenger (s.w.s.) replied: “Woe betide you! That is the due of Allah.”’ (Imam Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Juzayy, al-Tashil [Beirut, 1403], p.702. See also the other tafsir works; also Ibn Hazm, Jamharat ansab al-‘Arab [Cairo, 1382], 208, in the chapter on Tamim.)
In addition to this Qur’anic critique, abundant hadiths also furnish the Umma with advice about this tribe. Since the tacit acceptance of the Prophet (s.w.s.) constitutes a hadith, we may begin with the following incident.
This relates to a famous poem by Hassan ibn Thabit (r.a.). The Tamimites were late converts to Islam, joining the religion, after much resistance, only in the Year of Delegations (‘am al-wufud), which was the ninth year of the Hijra. They hence miss the virtue of sabiqa, of precedence in Islam. Coming at last to the Prophet (s.w.s.), the Tamim insisted on a public debate against him, and he appointed Hassan to reply to the Tamimites’ vain boasting about their tribe. Hassan’s ode, which completely defeated and humiliated them by describing the low status of their tribe, can be considered evidence for the Prophet’s (s.w.s.) own view of Tamim, since the condemnation was given in his presence, and there is no record of his criticising it. (Diwan Hassan ibn Thabit [Beirut, 1966], p.440; for full details of the incident see Barquqi’s commentary in the same volume. See also Ibn Hisham, Sira [Guillaume translation], p.631.)
A further hadith concerning Tamim runs as follows:
On the authority of Imran ibn Husayn (r.a.): ‘A group of Tamimites came to the Prophet (s.w.s.), and he said: “O tribe of Tamim! Receive good news!” “You promise us good news, so give us something [money]!” they replied. And his face changed. Then some Yemenis came, and he said: “O people of Yemen! Accept good news, even though the tribe of Tamim have not accepted it!” And they said: “We accept.” And the Prophet (s.w.s.) began to speak about the beginning of creation, and about the Throne.’ (Bukhari, Bad’ al-Khalq, 1.)
The harsh waywardness of the Tamimi mentality documented in the Qur’an and Hadith casts an interesting light on the personality of Abu Jahl, the arch-pagan leader of Quraysh. Abu Jahl, with his fanatical hatred of the Prophet (s.w.s.), must have been shaped by the Tamimi ethic in his childhood. His mother, Asma’ bint Mukharriba, was of the tribe of Tamim. (al-Jumahi, Tabaqat Fuhul al-Shu‘ara, ed. Mahmud Shakir [Cairo, 1952], p.123.) He also married the daughter of ‘Umayr ibn Ma‘bad al-Tamimi, by whom he had his son, predictably named Tamim. (Mus‘ab ibn Abdallah, Nasab Quraysh [Cairo, 1953], p.312.)
An attribute recurrently ascribed to the Tamimites in the hadith literature is that of misplaced zeal. When they finally enter Islam, they are associated with a fanatical form of piety that demands simple and rigid adherence, rather than understanding; and which frequently defies the established authorities of the religion. Imam Muslim records a narration from Abdallah ibn Shaqiq which runs: ‘Ibn Abbas once preached to us after the asr prayer, until the sun set and the stars appeared, and people began to say: “The prayer! The prayer!” A man of the Banu Tamim came up to him and said, constantly and insistently: “The prayer! The prayer!” And Ibn Abbas replied: “Are you teaching me the sunna, you wretch?”’ (Muslim, Salat al-Musafirin, 6.)
Banu Tamim and the Khawarij
Perhaps the best-known of any hadith about a Tamimite, which again draws our attention to their misplaced zeal, is the hadith of Dhu’l-Khuwaysira:
Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri (r.a.) said: ‘We were once in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) while he was dividing the spoils of war. Dhu’l-Khuwaysira, a man of the Tamim tribe, came up to him and said: “Messenger of Allah, be fair!” He replied: “Woe betide you! Who will be fair if I am not? You are lost and disappointed if I am not fair!” And Umar (r.a.) said, “Messenger of Allah! Give me permission to deal with him, so that I can cut off his head!” But he said: “Let him be. And he has companions. One of you would despise his prayer in their company, and his fast in their company. They recite the Qur’an but it goes no further than their collarbones. They pass through religion as an arrow passes through its target.”’ Abu Sa‘id continued: ‘I swear that I was present when Ali ibn Abi Talib fought against them. He ordered that that man be sought out, and he was brought to us.’ (Bukhari, Manaqib, 25. For the ‘passing through’ see Abu’l-Abbas al-Mubarrad, al-Kamil, chapter on ‘Akhbar al-Khawarij’ published separately by Dar al-Fikr al-Hadith [Beirut, n.d.], pp.23-4: ‘usually when this happens none of the target’s blood remains upon it’.)
This hadith is taken by the exegetes as a prophecy, and a warning, about the nature of the Kharijites. There is a certain type of believing zealot who goes into religion so hard that he comes out the other side, with little or nothing of it remaining with him. One expert who confirms this is the Hanbali scholar Ibn al-Jawzi, well-known for his hagiographies of Ma‘ruf al-Karkhi and Rabi‘a al-Adawiya. In his book Talbis Iblis. (Beirut, 1403, p.88) under the chapter heading ‘A Mention of the Devil’s Delusion upon the Kharijites’ he narrates the hadith, and then writes: ‘This man was called Dhu’l-Khuwaysira al-Tamimi. [...] He was the first Kharijite in Islam. His fault was to be satisfied with his own view; had he paused he would have realised that there is no view superior to that of Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.).’
Ibn al-Jawzi goes on to document the development of the Kharijite movement, and the central role played by the tribe of Tamim in it. Hence (p.89) ‘The commander of the fight [against the Sunnis, at Harura] was Shabib ibn Rab‘i al-Tamimi’; also (p.92) ‘Amr ibn Bakr al-Tamimi agreed to murder Umar’. All this even though their camp sounded like a beehive, so assiduously were they reciting the Qur’an (p.91).
The Kharijite movement proper commenced at the Siffin arbitration, when the first dissenters left the army of the khalifa Ali (k.A.w.). One of them was Abu Bilal Mirdas, a member of the tribe of Tamim (Ibn Hazm, 223), who despite his constant worship and recitation of the Qur’an became one of the most brutal of the Kharijite zealots. He is remembered as the first who said the Tahkim - the formula ‘The judgment is Allah’s alone’ - on the Day of Siffin, which became the slogan of the later Kharijite da‘wa.
In his long analysis of the Kharijite movement, Imam Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi also describes the intimate involvement of Tamimites, and of Central Arabians generally, noting that the tribes of Yemen and Hijaz contributed hardly anyone to the Kharijite forces. He gives an account of Dhu’l-Khuwaysira’s later Kharijite activities. Appearing before Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (k.A.w.) he says: ‘Ibn Abi Talib! I am only fighting you for the sake of Allah and the Hereafter!’ to which Imam Ali replies: ‘Nay, you are like those of whom Allah says, “Shall I inform you who are the ones whose works are most in loss? It is they whose efforts are astray in the life of this world, but who think that they are doing good!” [Kahf, 103].’ (Imam Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, al-Farq bayn al-firaq [Cairo, n.d.], 80; see the note to p.76 for the full identification of Dhu’l-Khuwaysira.)
As Imam Abd al-Qahir gives his account of the early Kharijite rebellions, replete with appalling massacres of innocent Muslim civilians, he makes it clear that the leaders of each of the significant Kharijite movements hailed from Najd. For instance, the Azariqa, one of the most vicious and widespread Khariji movements, were led by Nafi‘ ibn al-Azraq, who was from the Central Arabian tribe of Banu Hanifa (Abd al-Qahir, 82). As the Imam records, ‘Nafi and his followers considered the territory of those who opposed them to be Dar al-Kufr, in which one could slaughter their women and children. [...] They used to say: “Our opponents are mushriks, and hence we are not obliged to return anything we hold in trust to them.’ (Abd al-Qahir, 84.) After his death in battle, ‘the Azariqa pledged their allegiance to Ubaydallah ibn Ma’mun al-Tamimi. Al-Muhallab then fought them at Ahwaz, where Ubaidallah ibn Ma’mun himself died, along with his brother Uthman ibn Ma’mun and three hundred of the most fanatical of the Azariqa. The remainder retreated to Aydaj, where they pledged their allegiance to Qatari ibn al-Fuja’a, whom they called Amir al-Mu’minin.’ (Abd al-Qahir, 85-6.) The commentator to Abd al-Qahir’s text reminds us that Ibn Fuja’a was also of Tamim (p.86).
The Azariqa, who massacred countless tens of thousands of Muslims who refused to accept their views, had a rival in the Najdiyya faction of the Kharijites. These were named after Najda ibn Amir, a member of the tribe of Hanifa whose homeland is Najd; Najda himself maintained his army in Yamama, which is part of Najd. (Abd al-Qahir, 87.)
As is the way with Kharijism in all ages, the Najdiyya fragmented amid heated arguments generated by their intolerance of any dissent. The causes of this schism included the Kharijite attack on Madina, which came away with many captives; and different Kharijite ijtihads over sexual relations with Muslim women who, not being Kharijites, they had enslaved. Three major factions emerged from this split, the most dangerous of which was led by Atiyya ibn al-Aswad, again of the tribe of Hanifa. Following Najda’s death, his own faction split, again into three, one of which left Najd to raid the vicinity of Basra (Abd al-Qahir, 90-1).
The last major Kharijite sect was the Ibadiyya, which, in a gentler and much attenuated form, retains a presence even today in Zanzibar, southern Algeria, and Oman. The movement was founded by Abdallah ibn Ibad, another Tamimi. Its best-known doctrine is that non-Ibadis are kuffar: they are not mu’mins, but they are not mushriks either. ‘They forbid secret assassinations [of non-Ibadis], but allow open battles. They allow marriages [with non-Ibadis], and inheritance from them. They claim that all this is to aid them in their war for Allah and His Messenger.’ (Abd al-Qahir, 103.)
The best-known woman among the Kharijites was Qutam bint ‘Alqama, a member of the Tamimite tribe. She is remembered as the one who told her bridegroom, Ibn Muljam, that ‘I will only accept you as my husband at a dowry which I myself must name, which is three thousand dirhams, a male and a female slave, and the murder of Ali!’ He asked, ‘You shall have all that, but how may I accomplish it?’ and she replied, ‘Take him by surprise. If you escape, you will have rescued the people from evil, and will live with your wife; while if you die in the attempt, you will go on to the Garden and a delight that shall never end!’ (Mubarrad, 27.) As is generally known, Ibn Muljam was executed after he stabbed imam Ali (k.A.w.) to death outside the mosque in Kufa.
Muslims anxious not to repeat the tragic errors of the past will wish to reflect deeply upon this pattern of events. Tens of thousands of Muslims, fervently committed to the faith and outstanding for their practical piety, nonetheless fell prey to the Kharijite temptation. The ulema trace the origins of that temptation back to the incident of Dhu’l-Khuwaysira, who considered himself a better Muslim than the Prophet himself (s.w.s.). And he, like the overwhelming majority of the Kharijite leaders who followed in his footsteps, was a Tamimi. Of the non-Tamimi Kharijites, almost all were from Najd.
The Ridda: the First Fitna
There is a further issue which Muslims will wish to consider when forming their view of Najd. This is the attitude of the Najdis following the death of the Messenger (s.w.s.). The historians affirm that the great majority of the rebellions against the payment of zakat which broke out during the khilafa of Abu Bakr (r.a.) took place among Najdis. Moreoever, and even more significantly, many of the the Najdi rebellions were grounded in a strange anti-Islamic ideology. The best-known of these was led by Musaylima, who claimed to be a prophet, and who established a rival shari‘a which included quasi-Muslim rituals such as forms of fasting and dietary rules. He followed the Islamic prayer rules, but abolished the Fajr and the Isha prayers. One of his so-called ‘revelations’ ran:
Banu Tamim is a tribe of purity,a free people, with no fault in them,neither do they pay a tribute.We shall be their allies of protection,good to them for as long as we live!We shall protect them from everyone,and when we die, their affair is with al-Rahman.
(Imam al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Rusul wa’l-Muluk [Beirut, 1407], II, 276).
Musaylima was a forceful speaker, and soon gained a huge following in Central Arabia. However the historians record that when he tried to imitate the miracles of the Prophet (s.a.w.) disaster would result. Children brought to him for cures would become sicker. When his wudu water was poured over crops, the land would turn sterile. Wells that he had used would turn salty. However the power of tribalism caused many to pay no attention.
Talha al-Namari came to Najd and said: ‘Where is Musaylima?’ At this the people said: ‘Careful! Call him the Messenger of Allah!’ So he replied: ‘No, not until I have seen him.’ So when he came to him he said: ‘You are Musaylima,’ and he replied, ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Who comes to you?’ and he replied: ‘Al-Rahman’. He asked: ‘Does he come in light or darkness?’ ‘In darkness.’ Whereupon he said: ‘I bear witness that you are a liar and that Muhammad tells the truth, but a liar of your tribe is dearer to me than a truth-teller of his.’ So he joined Musaylima until he was killed at the Battle of Aqraba. (Tabari, II, 277).
Incidents like this are revealing in two ways. Firstly, they show the characteristic feature of Musaylima’s aqeedah: Allah resembles a physical being who can ‘come’. Secondly, they reveal the immense, blind power of Arabian tribalism as this still existed in Najd.
As leader of a rival religion, he and his Najdi enthusiasts were in a state of baghy, heretical revolt against due caliphal authority, and Abu Bakr (r.a.) sent an army against them under Khalid ibn al-Walid. In the year 12 of the Hijra Khalid defeated the Najdis at the Battle of al-Aqraba, a bloody clash that centred on a walled garden which is known to our historians as the Garden of Death, because hundreds of great Companions lost their lives there at the hands of the Najdis.
The battle ranged the egalitarian spirit of Islam against the old Arab tribalism, as was shown by the fact that the banner of the Muhajirun was held by a freed Persian slave, Salim, while the banner of the Ansar was held high by Thabit b. Qays. The Muslim battle-cry was not the invocation of a tribe or an ancestor, instead it was, ‘Ya Muhammad!’ (Tabari, 281.)
The pseudo-prophet was killed by Wahshi, the Ethiopian slave who, even though he had killed Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib, had made good his Islam, and was now an honored member of the community. The killing of the prophet of Najdi pride by a man of such humble origins was a powerful symbol of the principles that were at stake. (See Abdallah ibn Muslim Ibn Qutayba, Kitab al-Ma‘arif [Cairo, 1960], p.206; Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-buldan [repr. Beirut, n.d., p.86.])
Devotion to Musaylima lingered on in Central Arabia, however. An indication of the continuity of Najdi religious life is given by the non-Muslim traveller Palgrave, who as late as 1862 found that some Najdi tribesmen continued to revere Musaylima as a prophet. (W. Palgrave, Narrative of a year’s journey through Central and Eastern Arabia [London, 1865], I, 382.)
The other ringleader of Najdi rebellion against the khilafa was a woman known as Sajah, whose full name was Umm Sadir bint Aws, and who belonged to the tribe of Tamim. She made claims to prophethood in the name of a rabb who was ‘in the clouds’, and who gave her revelations by which she succeeded in uniting sections of the Tamim who had argued among themselves over the extent to which they should reject the authority of Madina. Leading several campaigns against tribes who remained loyal to Islam, the Najdi prophetess is said to have thrown in her lot with Musaylima. Other than this, little is known of her fate. (Ibn Qutayba, Ma‘arif, p.405; Baladhuri, Futuh, pp.99-100.)
Recent Najdi Tendencies
It is well-known that the Najdi reformer, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, was a Tamimi. The violence and takfir associated with the movement which carries his name surely bears more than a coincidental resemblance to the policies and mindset of the Tamimi Kharijites of ancient Najd. Consider, for instance, the following massacre, of the Shi‘a of Karbala in April 1801, as described by a Wahhabi historian:
Saud made for Karbala with his victorious army, famous pedigree horses, and all the settled people and bedouin of Najd [...] The Muslims (i.e. the Wahhabis) surrounded Karbala and took it by storm. They killed most of the people in the markets and houses. One cannot count their spoils. They stayed there for just one morning, and left after midday, taking away all the possessions. Nearly two thousand people were killed in Karbala. (Uthman ibn Bishr, Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd [Makka, 1349], 1, 121-122.)
It is hard to distinguish this raid, and the brutality of its accomplishment, from the Khariji raids from Najd into the same region a thousand years earlier.Muhammad Finati, an Italian revert to Islam who served with the Caliphal army which defeated the Wahhabis, wrote a long first-hand account of the extreme barbarism of the Najdi hordes. For instance:
Such among us as fell alive into the hands of these cruel fanatics, were wantonly mutilated by the cutting off of their arms and legs, and left to perish in that state, some of whom, in the course of our retreat, I myself actually saw, who had no greater favour to ask than that we would put them to death. (G. Finati, Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Giovanni Finati [London, 1830], I, 287.)
It is sometimes claimed that the days when ‘all the settled people and bedouin of Najd’ would happily commit such mass murder are long gone, and that Wahhabism has become more moderate. But another, more recent example, shows otherwise. In 1924, the Wahhabi army entered the city of Ta’if, plundering it for three days.
The chief qadi and the ulema were dragged from their houses and slaughtered, while several hundred other civilians lost their lives. (Ibn Hizlul, Tarikh Muluk Al Sa‘ud [Riyadh, 1961], pp.151-3.) After giving the the Sunni population of the Hijaz this terrorist lesson, ‘Ibn Saud occupied Mecca with Britain’s tacit blessing’ (Alexei Vassiliev, A History of Saudi Arabia [London, 1998], p.264).
CONCLUSION
A good deal of material concerning Najd and Tamim has been preserved from the time of the Salaf. If we reject the method of some Najdi apologists, a method based on the highly selective quotation of hadiths coupled with the blind imitation of opinions expressed by late-medieval commentary writers, we may reach some reasonably settled and authoritative conclusions regarding Central Arabia and its people. The Qur’an, the sound Hadith, and the experience of the Salaf overwhelmingly concur that Central Arabia is a region of fitna. The first of all fitnas in Islam emerged from that place, notably the arrogance of Dhu’l-Khuwaysira and his like, and also the apostasy and fondness for false prophets which caused such difficulty for Abu Bakr (r.a.). Subsequently, the Kharijite heresy, overwhelmingly Najdi in its roots, cast a long shadow over the early history of Islam, dividing the Muslims, distracting their armies from the task of conquering Byzantium, and injecting rancour, suspicion, and bitterness among the very earliest generations of Muslims. Only the most determined, blinkered and irresponsible Najdi sympathiser could ignore this evidence, transmitted so reliably from the pure Salaf, and persist in the delusion that Najd and the misguided, literalistic rigorism which it recurrently produces, is somehow an area favoured by Allah.
And Allah knows best. May He unite the Umma through love for the early Muslims who refused bigotry, and may He preserve us from the trap of Kharijism and those who are attracted to its mindset in our time. Ameen.
Our prophet told about this mischief which will rise in Najd during his life time it self.
The hadith is called “HADITH OF NAJD”” and many SALAFIS try to twist this hadith and say that Najd is same as Iraq . But the fact is NAJD is different from Iraq, for prophet and for the whole world. Here is an interesting article on this.
HADITH IN WHICH PROPHET TOLD ANBOUT NAJD
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: (The Prophet) said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and our Yemen." People said, "Our Najd as well." The Prophet again said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and Yemen." They said again, "Our Najd as well." On that the Prophet said, "There will appear earthquakes and afflictions, and from there will come out the side of the head of Satan." (SAHI BUKHARI)
IRAQ IS DIFFERENT FROM NAJD AS MENTIONED IN BELOW HADITH
In a hadith narrated by Imam Muslim Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) appointed miqat points for pilgrims. The blessed prophet very clearly made two different points for people of Iraq and people of Najd.
HADITH
Abu Zubair heard Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) as saying as he was asked about (the place for entering upon the) state of Ihram: I heard (and I think he carried it directly to the Apostle of Allah) him saying: For the people of Medina Dhu'l-Hulaifa is the place for entering upon the state of Ihram, and for (the people coming through the other way, i. e. Syria) it is Juhfa; for the people of Iraq it is Dbat al-'Irq; for the people uf Najd it is Qarn (al-Manazil) and for the people of Yemen it is Yalamlam.( SAHI MUSLIM)
Strange are the khawarij way! They cannot accept clear evidence.
Before reading a detailed discussion about this Hadith of Najd, please find time to check “NAJD” on Internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nejd
It is striking that not one of the great muhaddiths, mufassirs, grammarians, historians, or legists of Islam has emerged from the region known as Najd, despite the extraordinary and blessed profusion of such people in other Muslim lands. This essay offers to Muslims with open minds an explanation of this remarkable fact.
The Hadith of Najd: a correction
The land of Najd, which for two centuries has been the crucible of the Wahhabi doctrine, is the subject of a body of interesting hadiths and early narrations which repay close analysis. Among the best-known of these hadiths is the relation of Imam al-Bukhari in which Ibn Umar said: ‘The Prophet (s.w.s.) mentioned: “O Allah, give us baraka in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen.” They said: “And in our Najd?” and he said: “O Allah, give us baraka in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen.” They said: “And in our Najd?” and I believe that he said the third time: “In that place are earthquakes, and seditions, and in that place shall rise the devil’s horn [qarn al-shaytan].”’
This hadith is clearly unpalatable to the Najdites themselves, some of whom to this day strive to persuade Muslims from more reputable districts that the hadith does not mean what it clearly says. One device used by such apologists is to utilise a definition which includes Iraq in the frontiers of Najd. By this manoeuvre, the Najdis draw the conclusion that the part of Najd which is condemned so strongly in this hadith is in fact Iraq, and that Najd proper is excluded. Medieval Islamic geographers contest this inherently strange thesis (see for instance Ibn Khurradadhbih, al-Masalik wa’l-mamalik [Leiden, 1887], 125; Ibn Hawqal, Kitab Surat al-ard [Beirut, 1968],18); and limit the northern extent of Najd at Wadi al-Rumma, or to the deserts to the south of al-Mada’in. There is no indication that the places in which the second wave of sedition arose, such as Kufa and Basra, were associated in the mind of the first Muslims with the term ‘Najd’. On the contrary, these places are in every case identified as lying within the land of Iraq.
The evasion of this early understanding of the term in order to exclude Najd, as usually understood, from the purport of the hadith of Najd, has required considerable ingenuity from pro-Najdi writers in the present day. Some apologists attempt to conflate this hadith with a group of other hadiths which associate the ‘devil’s horn’ with ‘the East’, which is supposedly a generic reference to Iraq. While it is true that some late-medieval commentaries also incline to this view, modern geographical knowledge clearly rules it out. Even the briefest glimpse at a modern atlas will show that a straight line drawn to the east of al-Madina al-Munawwara does not pass anywhere near Iraq, but passes some distance to the south of Riyadh; that is to say, through the exact centre of Najd. The hadiths which speak of ‘the East’ in this context hence support the view that Najd is indicated, not Iraq.
On occasion the pro-Najdi apologists also cite the etymological sense of the Arabic word najd, which means ‘high ground’. Again, a brief consultation of an atlas resolves this matter decisively. With the exception of present-day northern Iraq, which was not considered part of Iraq by any Muslim until the present century (it was called ‘al-Jazira’), Iraq is notably flat and low-lying, much of it even today being marshland, while the remainder, up to and well to the north of Baghdad, is flat, low desert or agricultural land. Najd, by contrast, is mostly plateau, culminating in peaks such as Jabal Tayyi’ (1300 metres), in the Jabal Shammar range. It is hard to see how the Arabs could have routinely applied a topographic term meaning ‘upland’ to the flat terrain of southern Iraq (the same territory which proved so suitable for tank warfare during the 1991 ‘Gulf War’, that notorious source of dispute between Riyadh’s ‘Cavaliers’ and ‘Roundheads’).
Confirmation of this identification is easily located in the hadith literature, which contains numerous references to Najd, all of which clearly denote Central Arabia. To take a few examples out of many dozens: there is the hadith narrated by Abu Daud (Salat al-Safar, 15), which runs: ‘We went out to Najd with Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) until we arrived at Dhat al-Riqa‘, where he met a group from Ghatafan [a Najdite tribe].’ In Tirmidhi (Hajj, 57), there is the record of an encounter between the Messenger (s.w.s.) and a Najdi delegation which he received at Arafa (see also Ibn Maja, Manasik, 57). In no such case does the Sunna indicate that Iraq was somehow included in the Prophetic definition of ‘Najd’.
Further evidence can be cited from the cluster of hadiths which identify the miqat points for pilgrims. In a hadith narrated by Imam Nasa’i (Manasik al-Hajj, 22), ‘A’isha (r.a.) declared that ‘Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) established the miqat for the people of Madina at Dhu’l-Hulayfa, for the people of Syria and Egypt at al-Juhfa, for the people of Iraq at Dhat Irq, and for the people of Najd at Qarn, and for the Yemenis at Yalamlam.’ Imam Muslim (Hajj, 2) narrates a similar hadith: ‘for the people of Madina it is Dhu’l-Hulayfa - while on the other road it is al-Juhfa - for the people of Iraq it is Dhat Irq, for the people of Najd it is Qarn, and for the people of Yemen it is Yalamlam.’
These texts constitute unarguable proof that the Prophet (s.w.s.) distinguished between Najd and Iraq, so much so that he appointed two separate miqat points for the inhabitants of each. For him, clearly, Najd did not include Iraq.
Najd in the Hadith
There are many hadiths in which the Messenger (s.w.s.) praised particular lands. It is significant that although Najd is the closest of lands to Makka and Madina, it is not praised by any one of these hadiths. The first hadith cited above shows the Messenger’s willingness to pray for Syria and Yemen, and his insistent refusal to pray for Najd. And wherever Najd is mentioned, it is clearly seen as a problematic territory. Consider, for instance, the following noble hadith:
Amr ibn Abasa said: ‘Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) was one day reviewing the horses, in the company of Uyayna ibn Hisn ibn Badr al-Fazari. [...] Uyayna remarked: “The best of men are those who bear their swords on their shoulders, and carry their lances in the woven stocks of their horses, wearing cloaks, and are the people of the Najd.” But Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) replied: “You lie! Rather, the best of men are the men of the Yemen. Faith is a Yemeni, the Yemen of [the tribes of] Lakhm and Judham and Amila. [...] Hadramawt is better than the tribe of Harith; one tribe is better than another; another is worse [...] My Lord commanded me to curse Quraysh, and I cursed them, but he then commanded me to bless them twice, and I did so [...] Aslam and Ghifar, and their associates of Juhaina, are better than Asad and Tamim and Ghatafan and Hawazin, in the sight of Allah on the Day of Rising. [...] The most numerous tribe in the Garden shall be [the Yemeni tribes of] Madhhij and Ma’kul.’ (Ahmad ibn Hanbal and al-Tabarani, by sound narrators. Cited in Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Haythami, Majma‘ al-zawa’id wa manba‘ al-fawa’id [Cairo, 1352], X, 43).
The Messenger says ‘You lie!’ to a man who praises Najd. Nowhere does he extol Najd - quite the contrary. But other hadiths in praise of other lands abound. For instance:
Umm Salama narrated that Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) gave the following counsel on his deathbed: ‘By Allah, I adjure you by Him, concerning the Egyptians, for you shall be victorious over them, and they will be a support for you and helpers in Allah’s path.’ (Tabarani, classed by al-Haythami as sahih [Majma‘, X, 63].) (For more on the merit of the Egyptians see Sahih Muslim, commentary by Imam al-Nawawi [Cairo, 1347], XVI, 96-7.)
Qays ibn Sa‘d narrated that Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) said: ‘Were faith to be suspended from the Pleiades, men from the sons of Faris [south-central Iran] would reach it.’ (Narrated in the Musnads of both Abu Ya‘la and al-Bazzar, classified as Sahih by al-Haythami. Majma‘, X, 64-5. See further Nawawi’s commentary to Sahih Muslim, XVI, 100.)
Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Tranquillity (sakina) is in the people of the Hijaz.’ (al-Bazzar, cited in Haythami, X, 53.)
On the authority of Abu’l-Darda (r.a.), the Messenger of Allah (s.w.s.) said: ‘You will find armies. An army in Syria, in Egypt, in Iraq and in the Yemen.’ (Bazzar and Tabarani, classified as sahih: al-Haythami, Majma‘, X, 58.) This constitutes praise for these lands as homes of jihad volunteers.
‘The angels of the All-Compassionate spread their wings over Syria.’ (Tabarani, classed as sahih: Majma‘, X, 60. See also Tirmidhi, commentary of Imam Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Mubarakfuri: Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi bi-sharh Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi, X, 454; who confirms it as hasan sahih.)
Abu Hurayra narrated that Allah’s Messenger (s) said: ‘The people of Yemen have come to you. They are tenderer of heart, and more delicate of soul. Faith is a Yemeni, and wisdom is a Yemeni.’ (Tirmidhi, Fi fadl al-Yaman, no.4028. Mubarakfuri, X, 435, 437: hadith hasan sahih. On page 436 Imam Mubarakfuri points out that the ancestors of the Ansar were from the Yemen.)
‘The people of the Yemen are the best people on earth’. (Abu Ya‘la and Bazzar, classified as sahih. Haythami, X, 54-5.)
Allah’s Messenger (s) sent a man to one of the clans of the Arabs, but they insulted and beat him. He came to Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) and told him what had occurred. And the Messenger (s) said, ‘Had you gone to the people of Oman, they would not have insulted or beaten you.’ (Muslim, Fada’il al-Sahaba, 57. See Nawawi’s commentary, XVI, 98: ‘this indicates praise for them, and their merit.’)
The above hadiths are culled from a substantial corpus of material which records the Messenger (s.w.s.) praising neighbouring regions. Again, it is striking that although Najd was closer than any other, hadiths in praise of it are completely absent.
This fact is generally known, although not publicised, by Najdites themselves. It is clear that if there existed a single hadith that names and praises Najd, they would let the Umma know. In an attempt to circumvent or neutralise the explicit and implicit Prophetic condemnation of their province, some refuse to consider that the territorial hadiths might be in any way worthy of attention, and focus their comments on the tribal groupings who dwell in Najd.
The Tribe of Tamim
The best-known tribe of Central Arabia are the Banu Tamim. There are hadiths which praise virtually all of the major Arab tribal groups, and to indicate the extent of this praise a few examples are listed here:
Allah’s Messenger (s) said: ‘O Allah, bless [the tribe of] Ahmas and its horses and its men sevenfold.’ (Ibn Hanbal, in Haythami, Majma‘, X, 49. According to al-Haythami its narrators are all trustworthy.)
Ghalib b. Abjur said: ‘I mentioned Qays in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (s) and he said, “May Allah show His mercy to Qays.” He was asked, “O Messenger of God! Are you asking for His mercy for Qays?” and he replied, “Yes. He followed the religion of our father Ismail b. Ibrahim, Allah’s Friend. Qays! Salute our Yemen! Yemen! Salute our Qays! Qays are Allah’s cavalry upon the earth.”’ (Tabarani, declared sahih by al-Haythami, X, 49.)
Abu Hurayra narrated that Allah’s Messenger (s) said: ‘How excellent a people are Azd, sweet-mouthed, honouring their vows, and pure of heart!’ (Ibn Hanbal via a good (hasan) isnad, according to Haythami, X, 49.)
Anas b. Malik said: ‘If we are not from Azd, we are not from the human race.’ (Tirmidhi, Manaqib, 72; confirmed by Mubarakfuri, X, 439 as hasan gharib sahih.)
Abdallah ibn Mas‘ud said: ‘I witnessed Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) praying for this clan of Nakh‘.’ Or he said: ‘He praised them until I wished that I was one of them.’ (Ibn Hanbal, with a sound isnad. Haythami, X, 51.)
On the authority of Abdallah ibn Amr ibn al-As, who said: ‘I heard Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) saying: “This command [the Caliphate] shall be in Quraysh. No-one shall oppose them without being cast down on his face by Allah, for as long as they establish the religion.”’ (Bukhari, Manaqib, 2.)
The hadith which appears to praise Tamim is hence not exceptional, and can by no stretch of the imagination be employed to indicate Tamim’s superiority over other tribes. In fact, out of this vast literature on the merits of the tribes, only one significant account praises Tamim. This runs as follows: Abu Hurayra said: ‘I have continued to love Banu Tamim after I heard three things concerning them from Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.). “They will be the sternest of my Umma against the Dajjal; one of them was a captive owned by ‘A’isha, and he said: ‘Free her, for she is a descendent of Ismail;’ and when their zakat came, he said: ‘This is the zakat of a people,’ or ‘of my people’.”’ (Bukhari, Maghazi, 68.)
This hadith clearly indicates that the rigour of the Tamimites will be used for, and not against, Islam in the final culminating battle against the Dajjal; and this is unquestionably a merit. The second point is less significant, since all the Arabs are descendents of Ismail; while the variant readings of the third point make it difficult to establish its significance in an unambiguous way. Even the most positive interpretation, however, allows us to conclude no more than that the Messenger (s.w.s.) was pleased with that tribe at the moment it paid its zakat. As we shall see, its payment of zakat proved to be short-lived.
Far more numerous are the hadiths which explicitly critique the Tamimites. These hadiths are usually disregarded by pro-Najdite apologists; but traditional Islamic scholarship demands that all, not merely some, of the evidence be mustered and taken as a whole before a verdict can be reached. And a consideration of the abundant critical material on Tamim demonstrates beyond any doubt that this tribe was regarded by the Messenger (s.w.s.) and by the Salaf as deeply problematic.
An early indication of the nature of the Tamimites is given by Allah himself in Sura al-Hujurat. In aya 4 of this sura, He says: ‘Those who call you from behind the chambers: most of them have no sense.’ The occasion for revelation (sabab al-nuzul) here was as follows:
The “chambers” (hujurat) were spaces enclosed by walls. Each of the wives of Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) had one of them. The aya was revealed in connection with the delegation of the Banu Tamim who came to the Prophet (s.w.s.). They entered the mosque, and approached the chambers of his wives. They stood outside them and called: “Muhammad! Come out to us!” an action which expressed a good deal of harshness, crudeness and disrespect. Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) waited a while, and then came out to them. One of them, known as al-Aqra‘ ibn Habis, said: “Muhammad! My praise is an ornament, and my denunciation brings shame!” And the Messenger (s.w.s.) replied: “Woe betide you! That is the due of Allah.”’ (Imam Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Juzayy, al-Tashil [Beirut, 1403], p.702. See also the other tafsir works; also Ibn Hazm, Jamharat ansab al-‘Arab [Cairo, 1382], 208, in the chapter on Tamim.)
In addition to this Qur’anic critique, abundant hadiths also furnish the Umma with advice about this tribe. Since the tacit acceptance of the Prophet (s.w.s.) constitutes a hadith, we may begin with the following incident.
This relates to a famous poem by Hassan ibn Thabit (r.a.). The Tamimites were late converts to Islam, joining the religion, after much resistance, only in the Year of Delegations (‘am al-wufud), which was the ninth year of the Hijra. They hence miss the virtue of sabiqa, of precedence in Islam. Coming at last to the Prophet (s.w.s.), the Tamim insisted on a public debate against him, and he appointed Hassan to reply to the Tamimites’ vain boasting about their tribe. Hassan’s ode, which completely defeated and humiliated them by describing the low status of their tribe, can be considered evidence for the Prophet’s (s.w.s.) own view of Tamim, since the condemnation was given in his presence, and there is no record of his criticising it. (Diwan Hassan ibn Thabit [Beirut, 1966], p.440; for full details of the incident see Barquqi’s commentary in the same volume. See also Ibn Hisham, Sira [Guillaume translation], p.631.)
A further hadith concerning Tamim runs as follows:
On the authority of Imran ibn Husayn (r.a.): ‘A group of Tamimites came to the Prophet (s.w.s.), and he said: “O tribe of Tamim! Receive good news!” “You promise us good news, so give us something [money]!” they replied. And his face changed. Then some Yemenis came, and he said: “O people of Yemen! Accept good news, even though the tribe of Tamim have not accepted it!” And they said: “We accept.” And the Prophet (s.w.s.) began to speak about the beginning of creation, and about the Throne.’ (Bukhari, Bad’ al-Khalq, 1.)
The harsh waywardness of the Tamimi mentality documented in the Qur’an and Hadith casts an interesting light on the personality of Abu Jahl, the arch-pagan leader of Quraysh. Abu Jahl, with his fanatical hatred of the Prophet (s.w.s.), must have been shaped by the Tamimi ethic in his childhood. His mother, Asma’ bint Mukharriba, was of the tribe of Tamim. (al-Jumahi, Tabaqat Fuhul al-Shu‘ara, ed. Mahmud Shakir [Cairo, 1952], p.123.) He also married the daughter of ‘Umayr ibn Ma‘bad al-Tamimi, by whom he had his son, predictably named Tamim. (Mus‘ab ibn Abdallah, Nasab Quraysh [Cairo, 1953], p.312.)
An attribute recurrently ascribed to the Tamimites in the hadith literature is that of misplaced zeal. When they finally enter Islam, they are associated with a fanatical form of piety that demands simple and rigid adherence, rather than understanding; and which frequently defies the established authorities of the religion. Imam Muslim records a narration from Abdallah ibn Shaqiq which runs: ‘Ibn Abbas once preached to us after the asr prayer, until the sun set and the stars appeared, and people began to say: “The prayer! The prayer!” A man of the Banu Tamim came up to him and said, constantly and insistently: “The prayer! The prayer!” And Ibn Abbas replied: “Are you teaching me the sunna, you wretch?”’ (Muslim, Salat al-Musafirin, 6.)
Banu Tamim and the Khawarij
Perhaps the best-known of any hadith about a Tamimite, which again draws our attention to their misplaced zeal, is the hadith of Dhu’l-Khuwaysira:
Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri (r.a.) said: ‘We were once in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) while he was dividing the spoils of war. Dhu’l-Khuwaysira, a man of the Tamim tribe, came up to him and said: “Messenger of Allah, be fair!” He replied: “Woe betide you! Who will be fair if I am not? You are lost and disappointed if I am not fair!” And Umar (r.a.) said, “Messenger of Allah! Give me permission to deal with him, so that I can cut off his head!” But he said: “Let him be. And he has companions. One of you would despise his prayer in their company, and his fast in their company. They recite the Qur’an but it goes no further than their collarbones. They pass through religion as an arrow passes through its target.”’ Abu Sa‘id continued: ‘I swear that I was present when Ali ibn Abi Talib fought against them. He ordered that that man be sought out, and he was brought to us.’ (Bukhari, Manaqib, 25. For the ‘passing through’ see Abu’l-Abbas al-Mubarrad, al-Kamil, chapter on ‘Akhbar al-Khawarij’ published separately by Dar al-Fikr al-Hadith [Beirut, n.d.], pp.23-4: ‘usually when this happens none of the target’s blood remains upon it’.)
This hadith is taken by the exegetes as a prophecy, and a warning, about the nature of the Kharijites. There is a certain type of believing zealot who goes into religion so hard that he comes out the other side, with little or nothing of it remaining with him. One expert who confirms this is the Hanbali scholar Ibn al-Jawzi, well-known for his hagiographies of Ma‘ruf al-Karkhi and Rabi‘a al-Adawiya. In his book Talbis Iblis. (Beirut, 1403, p.88) under the chapter heading ‘A Mention of the Devil’s Delusion upon the Kharijites’ he narrates the hadith, and then writes: ‘This man was called Dhu’l-Khuwaysira al-Tamimi. [...] He was the first Kharijite in Islam. His fault was to be satisfied with his own view; had he paused he would have realised that there is no view superior to that of Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.).’
Ibn al-Jawzi goes on to document the development of the Kharijite movement, and the central role played by the tribe of Tamim in it. Hence (p.89) ‘The commander of the fight [against the Sunnis, at Harura] was Shabib ibn Rab‘i al-Tamimi’; also (p.92) ‘Amr ibn Bakr al-Tamimi agreed to murder Umar’. All this even though their camp sounded like a beehive, so assiduously were they reciting the Qur’an (p.91).
The Kharijite movement proper commenced at the Siffin arbitration, when the first dissenters left the army of the khalifa Ali (k.A.w.). One of them was Abu Bilal Mirdas, a member of the tribe of Tamim (Ibn Hazm, 223), who despite his constant worship and recitation of the Qur’an became one of the most brutal of the Kharijite zealots. He is remembered as the first who said the Tahkim - the formula ‘The judgment is Allah’s alone’ - on the Day of Siffin, which became the slogan of the later Kharijite da‘wa.
In his long analysis of the Kharijite movement, Imam Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi also describes the intimate involvement of Tamimites, and of Central Arabians generally, noting that the tribes of Yemen and Hijaz contributed hardly anyone to the Kharijite forces. He gives an account of Dhu’l-Khuwaysira’s later Kharijite activities. Appearing before Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (k.A.w.) he says: ‘Ibn Abi Talib! I am only fighting you for the sake of Allah and the Hereafter!’ to which Imam Ali replies: ‘Nay, you are like those of whom Allah says, “Shall I inform you who are the ones whose works are most in loss? It is they whose efforts are astray in the life of this world, but who think that they are doing good!” [Kahf, 103].’ (Imam Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, al-Farq bayn al-firaq [Cairo, n.d.], 80; see the note to p.76 for the full identification of Dhu’l-Khuwaysira.)
As Imam Abd al-Qahir gives his account of the early Kharijite rebellions, replete with appalling massacres of innocent Muslim civilians, he makes it clear that the leaders of each of the significant Kharijite movements hailed from Najd. For instance, the Azariqa, one of the most vicious and widespread Khariji movements, were led by Nafi‘ ibn al-Azraq, who was from the Central Arabian tribe of Banu Hanifa (Abd al-Qahir, 82). As the Imam records, ‘Nafi and his followers considered the territory of those who opposed them to be Dar al-Kufr, in which one could slaughter their women and children. [...] They used to say: “Our opponents are mushriks, and hence we are not obliged to return anything we hold in trust to them.’ (Abd al-Qahir, 84.) After his death in battle, ‘the Azariqa pledged their allegiance to Ubaydallah ibn Ma’mun al-Tamimi. Al-Muhallab then fought them at Ahwaz, where Ubaidallah ibn Ma’mun himself died, along with his brother Uthman ibn Ma’mun and three hundred of the most fanatical of the Azariqa. The remainder retreated to Aydaj, where they pledged their allegiance to Qatari ibn al-Fuja’a, whom they called Amir al-Mu’minin.’ (Abd al-Qahir, 85-6.) The commentator to Abd al-Qahir’s text reminds us that Ibn Fuja’a was also of Tamim (p.86).
The Azariqa, who massacred countless tens of thousands of Muslims who refused to accept their views, had a rival in the Najdiyya faction of the Kharijites. These were named after Najda ibn Amir, a member of the tribe of Hanifa whose homeland is Najd; Najda himself maintained his army in Yamama, which is part of Najd. (Abd al-Qahir, 87.)
As is the way with Kharijism in all ages, the Najdiyya fragmented amid heated arguments generated by their intolerance of any dissent. The causes of this schism included the Kharijite attack on Madina, which came away with many captives; and different Kharijite ijtihads over sexual relations with Muslim women who, not being Kharijites, they had enslaved. Three major factions emerged from this split, the most dangerous of which was led by Atiyya ibn al-Aswad, again of the tribe of Hanifa. Following Najda’s death, his own faction split, again into three, one of which left Najd to raid the vicinity of Basra (Abd al-Qahir, 90-1).
The last major Kharijite sect was the Ibadiyya, which, in a gentler and much attenuated form, retains a presence even today in Zanzibar, southern Algeria, and Oman. The movement was founded by Abdallah ibn Ibad, another Tamimi. Its best-known doctrine is that non-Ibadis are kuffar: they are not mu’mins, but they are not mushriks either. ‘They forbid secret assassinations [of non-Ibadis], but allow open battles. They allow marriages [with non-Ibadis], and inheritance from them. They claim that all this is to aid them in their war for Allah and His Messenger.’ (Abd al-Qahir, 103.)
The best-known woman among the Kharijites was Qutam bint ‘Alqama, a member of the Tamimite tribe. She is remembered as the one who told her bridegroom, Ibn Muljam, that ‘I will only accept you as my husband at a dowry which I myself must name, which is three thousand dirhams, a male and a female slave, and the murder of Ali!’ He asked, ‘You shall have all that, but how may I accomplish it?’ and she replied, ‘Take him by surprise. If you escape, you will have rescued the people from evil, and will live with your wife; while if you die in the attempt, you will go on to the Garden and a delight that shall never end!’ (Mubarrad, 27.) As is generally known, Ibn Muljam was executed after he stabbed imam Ali (k.A.w.) to death outside the mosque in Kufa.
Muslims anxious not to repeat the tragic errors of the past will wish to reflect deeply upon this pattern of events. Tens of thousands of Muslims, fervently committed to the faith and outstanding for their practical piety, nonetheless fell prey to the Kharijite temptation. The ulema trace the origins of that temptation back to the incident of Dhu’l-Khuwaysira, who considered himself a better Muslim than the Prophet himself (s.w.s.). And he, like the overwhelming majority of the Kharijite leaders who followed in his footsteps, was a Tamimi. Of the non-Tamimi Kharijites, almost all were from Najd.
The Ridda: the First Fitna
There is a further issue which Muslims will wish to consider when forming their view of Najd. This is the attitude of the Najdis following the death of the Messenger (s.w.s.). The historians affirm that the great majority of the rebellions against the payment of zakat which broke out during the khilafa of Abu Bakr (r.a.) took place among Najdis. Moreoever, and even more significantly, many of the the Najdi rebellions were grounded in a strange anti-Islamic ideology. The best-known of these was led by Musaylima, who claimed to be a prophet, and who established a rival shari‘a which included quasi-Muslim rituals such as forms of fasting and dietary rules. He followed the Islamic prayer rules, but abolished the Fajr and the Isha prayers. One of his so-called ‘revelations’ ran:
Banu Tamim is a tribe of purity,a free people, with no fault in them,neither do they pay a tribute.We shall be their allies of protection,good to them for as long as we live!We shall protect them from everyone,and when we die, their affair is with al-Rahman.
(Imam al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Rusul wa’l-Muluk [Beirut, 1407], II, 276).
Musaylima was a forceful speaker, and soon gained a huge following in Central Arabia. However the historians record that when he tried to imitate the miracles of the Prophet (s.a.w.) disaster would result. Children brought to him for cures would become sicker. When his wudu water was poured over crops, the land would turn sterile. Wells that he had used would turn salty. However the power of tribalism caused many to pay no attention.
Talha al-Namari came to Najd and said: ‘Where is Musaylima?’ At this the people said: ‘Careful! Call him the Messenger of Allah!’ So he replied: ‘No, not until I have seen him.’ So when he came to him he said: ‘You are Musaylima,’ and he replied, ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Who comes to you?’ and he replied: ‘Al-Rahman’. He asked: ‘Does he come in light or darkness?’ ‘In darkness.’ Whereupon he said: ‘I bear witness that you are a liar and that Muhammad tells the truth, but a liar of your tribe is dearer to me than a truth-teller of his.’ So he joined Musaylima until he was killed at the Battle of Aqraba. (Tabari, II, 277).
Incidents like this are revealing in two ways. Firstly, they show the characteristic feature of Musaylima’s aqeedah: Allah resembles a physical being who can ‘come’. Secondly, they reveal the immense, blind power of Arabian tribalism as this still existed in Najd.
As leader of a rival religion, he and his Najdi enthusiasts were in a state of baghy, heretical revolt against due caliphal authority, and Abu Bakr (r.a.) sent an army against them under Khalid ibn al-Walid. In the year 12 of the Hijra Khalid defeated the Najdis at the Battle of al-Aqraba, a bloody clash that centred on a walled garden which is known to our historians as the Garden of Death, because hundreds of great Companions lost their lives there at the hands of the Najdis.
The battle ranged the egalitarian spirit of Islam against the old Arab tribalism, as was shown by the fact that the banner of the Muhajirun was held by a freed Persian slave, Salim, while the banner of the Ansar was held high by Thabit b. Qays. The Muslim battle-cry was not the invocation of a tribe or an ancestor, instead it was, ‘Ya Muhammad!’ (Tabari, 281.)
The pseudo-prophet was killed by Wahshi, the Ethiopian slave who, even though he had killed Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib, had made good his Islam, and was now an honored member of the community. The killing of the prophet of Najdi pride by a man of such humble origins was a powerful symbol of the principles that were at stake. (See Abdallah ibn Muslim Ibn Qutayba, Kitab al-Ma‘arif [Cairo, 1960], p.206; Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-buldan [repr. Beirut, n.d., p.86.])
Devotion to Musaylima lingered on in Central Arabia, however. An indication of the continuity of Najdi religious life is given by the non-Muslim traveller Palgrave, who as late as 1862 found that some Najdi tribesmen continued to revere Musaylima as a prophet. (W. Palgrave, Narrative of a year’s journey through Central and Eastern Arabia [London, 1865], I, 382.)
The other ringleader of Najdi rebellion against the khilafa was a woman known as Sajah, whose full name was Umm Sadir bint Aws, and who belonged to the tribe of Tamim. She made claims to prophethood in the name of a rabb who was ‘in the clouds’, and who gave her revelations by which she succeeded in uniting sections of the Tamim who had argued among themselves over the extent to which they should reject the authority of Madina. Leading several campaigns against tribes who remained loyal to Islam, the Najdi prophetess is said to have thrown in her lot with Musaylima. Other than this, little is known of her fate. (Ibn Qutayba, Ma‘arif, p.405; Baladhuri, Futuh, pp.99-100.)
Recent Najdi Tendencies
It is well-known that the Najdi reformer, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, was a Tamimi. The violence and takfir associated with the movement which carries his name surely bears more than a coincidental resemblance to the policies and mindset of the Tamimi Kharijites of ancient Najd. Consider, for instance, the following massacre, of the Shi‘a of Karbala in April 1801, as described by a Wahhabi historian:
Saud made for Karbala with his victorious army, famous pedigree horses, and all the settled people and bedouin of Najd [...] The Muslims (i.e. the Wahhabis) surrounded Karbala and took it by storm. They killed most of the people in the markets and houses. One cannot count their spoils. They stayed there for just one morning, and left after midday, taking away all the possessions. Nearly two thousand people were killed in Karbala. (Uthman ibn Bishr, Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd [Makka, 1349], 1, 121-122.)
It is hard to distinguish this raid, and the brutality of its accomplishment, from the Khariji raids from Najd into the same region a thousand years earlier.Muhammad Finati, an Italian revert to Islam who served with the Caliphal army which defeated the Wahhabis, wrote a long first-hand account of the extreme barbarism of the Najdi hordes. For instance:
Such among us as fell alive into the hands of these cruel fanatics, were wantonly mutilated by the cutting off of their arms and legs, and left to perish in that state, some of whom, in the course of our retreat, I myself actually saw, who had no greater favour to ask than that we would put them to death. (G. Finati, Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Giovanni Finati [London, 1830], I, 287.)
It is sometimes claimed that the days when ‘all the settled people and bedouin of Najd’ would happily commit such mass murder are long gone, and that Wahhabism has become more moderate. But another, more recent example, shows otherwise. In 1924, the Wahhabi army entered the city of Ta’if, plundering it for three days.
The chief qadi and the ulema were dragged from their houses and slaughtered, while several hundred other civilians lost their lives. (Ibn Hizlul, Tarikh Muluk Al Sa‘ud [Riyadh, 1961], pp.151-3.) After giving the the Sunni population of the Hijaz this terrorist lesson, ‘Ibn Saud occupied Mecca with Britain’s tacit blessing’ (Alexei Vassiliev, A History of Saudi Arabia [London, 1998], p.264).
CONCLUSION
A good deal of material concerning Najd and Tamim has been preserved from the time of the Salaf. If we reject the method of some Najdi apologists, a method based on the highly selective quotation of hadiths coupled with the blind imitation of opinions expressed by late-medieval commentary writers, we may reach some reasonably settled and authoritative conclusions regarding Central Arabia and its people. The Qur’an, the sound Hadith, and the experience of the Salaf overwhelmingly concur that Central Arabia is a region of fitna. The first of all fitnas in Islam emerged from that place, notably the arrogance of Dhu’l-Khuwaysira and his like, and also the apostasy and fondness for false prophets which caused such difficulty for Abu Bakr (r.a.). Subsequently, the Kharijite heresy, overwhelmingly Najdi in its roots, cast a long shadow over the early history of Islam, dividing the Muslims, distracting their armies from the task of conquering Byzantium, and injecting rancour, suspicion, and bitterness among the very earliest generations of Muslims. Only the most determined, blinkered and irresponsible Najdi sympathiser could ignore this evidence, transmitted so reliably from the pure Salaf, and persist in the delusion that Najd and the misguided, literalistic rigorism which it recurrently produces, is somehow an area favoured by Allah.
And Allah knows best. May He unite the Umma through love for the early Muslims who refused bigotry, and may He preserve us from the trap of Kharijism and those who are attracted to its mindset in our time. Ameen.
RISE OF KHAWARIJ : PART 1 ( requested by brother AIDIL)
All praise is for Allah, Lord of all the worlds, and blessings and peace upon His servant Sayyiduna Muhammad (sall-Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), upon his family, his companions, his wives and those who follow them for the best until the Day of the judgment.
A humble request: We start reading many articles and leave them in the middle. What is the end result? We do not have complete knowledge on any topic.
Please read this article completely.
In order to know the good among the people, one must first examine the history of heresy in Islam. Only by understanding false teachings and their supporters will we appreciate the importance of the people of good. (Ahl ul-khayr).
Insha Allah this article will be divided into 2 parts.
The first part will be about the origin of KHAWARIJ and the “MODERN DAY KHAWARIJ”. For all those who just want to know this, they must read PART 1 completely.
The second part will analyze hadith of NAJD.
It should be known that the original KHAWARIJ were outside the fold of Islam.
ORIGIN OF KHAWARIJ
The origins of Kharijism date back to the time of the Prophet (s).
Amongst the clearest indications we have of this is the Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim.
After the Battle of Hunain the Prophet (s) - in distributing the booty - gave preference to a number of non-Muslims. His aim was to attract them to Islam Hurqus ibn Zuhair. rebuked the Prophet (s) by saying to him: "Be just in your distribution O Messenger of Allah."
The Prophet was incensed by this remark and responded by saying:"Then who can be called just if I am not just?"
To this the Prophet added:
"There will come a time when a group of people will leave our ranks. They will recite the Quran with fervour and passion (lit. "With tongues that are moist".) but its spirit will not go beyond their throats. They will leave our ranks in the manner of an arrow when it shoots from its bow."
Points from above hadith:
This man objected to the decision of prophet and showed his preference over the decision of prophet. He showed disrespect to the prophet. He rebelled against the Prophet (sallallaahualaihi wasallam) in the sense that accused him of treachery. ( He is counted amongst the Kafir and not as a companion( sahaba) of the prophet). He is considered the first of the Kharij (the Seceders" or "the Rebels )to arise in Islam. The root of his sickness was that he preferred his own opinion above that of the Prophet . If he had waited to hear what the Prophet had to say, he would have realized that no opinion can be given precedence over that of The Prophet (s) .
He went against the Command of Allah subhanhu wa tala.
Say, (O Muhammad, to mankind): If ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. ( Quran , 3: 31)
He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah. But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds). "( Quran 4 : 80).
The Battle of Siffin (very important development)
It is significant that this selfsame Hurqus was elected as one of the heads of the Kharijites after the Battle of Siffin.
The Battle of Siffin was a battle between two groups of muslims. Sayyidna Ali(rd) on the one side and Sayyidna Muawiyyah(rd) on the other side. Many Companions on both sides were disheartened by this conflict. The necessity, therefore, for arbitration between the two parties was felt. The proposal was accepted by both parties with Abu Musa al-Ash'ari representing Sayyidna Ali (r) and 'Amr ibn al-As (r) representing Sayyidna Muawiyyah (r).
When the pact was read out by ibn Qais a large group on the side of Sayyidna Ali objected to its terms. Most of the members of this group belonged to the Bedouin tribe of Tamim.
Their spokesperson on the occasion was Urwa ibn Udaiyya. He said: "Are men to arbitrate in the affairs of Allah? There can be no arbitration except by Allah."In support of his view he quoted the following Quranic passage: "The prerogative of command rests with none but Allah. He declares the truth and he is the best of judges" (6:57).
Sayyidna Ali's response to this was typical:"There is a word of truth in what they say," he said, "but their ends are devious."
Urwa, along with 12,000 others, then seceded from the party of Sayyidna Ali. Initially they set up camp at a place called Harawra on the outskirts of Kufa. Here they elected Abdullah ibn al-Kawwa as their head. Sayyidna Ali pursued them and engaged them in debate. Ibn al-Kuwwa conceded to Sayyidna Ali's arguments and he, along with a few others, returned to his ranks.
The rest of the Kharijites then left for Nahrawan. Here they elected Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi and the above-mentioned Hurqus ibn Zuhair as their leaders.
It is interesting to note here that al-Rasibi was known for his fervour in reciting the Quran and was also nicknamed Dhu al-Thafanat (the one whose kneecaps appeared like two humps of a camel because of the intense and extended nature of his prostration in Salaah).
Nevertheless, on their way to Nahrawan, they encountered Abdullah ibn Khabbaab al-Aratt, one of the governors of Sayyidna Ali. Amongst the things he said to them after they identified him as an enemy was the following:"My father related to me that the Prophet (s) said: 'There will come a time when the fitna (corruption and sedition) of the one who sits will be considered preferable to the one who stands; and the fitna of the one who stands will be preferable to the one who walks; and the fitna of the one who walks will be preferable to the one who runs. So if it is at all possible then try to be amongst those who are slaughtered rather than amongst those who will do the slaughtering."
Khabbab, ironically, was one of the first victims of Kharijite brutality. He, along with his pregnant wife, was hacked to death. When the news of this slaughter reached Sayyidna Ali he set out for Nahrawan with an army of 4,000 men.
Points from above incidence
Khawarij use Quran to back up their false claim.
They think their understanding of Quran is better than the understating of the companions of the prophet.
If Muslims do not agree with them, they kill innocent Muslims.
They have riya (show off) in Ibadah (worshippig Allah).
Imam Bukhari (rh) in his sahi under the chapter” Book of Asking apostates and those who separate themselves in obstinate rebellion to repent and fighting them” names a sub chapter as “Killing Kharijites and heretics after proof is established against them”.
Imam Bukhari (rh) narrates this:
Ibn 'Umar used to consider them to be the worst of Allah's creation. He said, "They took verses which were revealed about the unbelievers and then applied them to the believers."
This is a hall mark of the khawarij who use quranic verses revealed about unbelievers and apply them upon muslims.
Hadith ( Sahi Bukhari)
Abu Salama and 'Ata' ibn Yasar reported that they went to Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and asked him about the Haruriyya*, "Did you hear the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say anything?" He said, "I do not know what the Haruriyya are, but I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Some people will emerge in this nation (and he did not say, 'from this nation") whose prayer will make you think little of your prayers in comparison. They will recite the Qur'an, but it will not go beyond their throats. They will pass through the deen as an arrow passes through game. The archer looks at his arrow, arrowhead and its fastening and is unsure about its notch, and whether there is any blood on it.'"
The Haruriyya are the Kharijites. The name is taken from Harura', a place in Iraq where they first gathered.]
Suffice it for us at this stage to know that by now this group of Kharijites - known as the "Muhakkima"- had already resolved upon the following principles:
a) The declaration of Kufr (unbelief) on Sayyidna Ali, Muawiyyah, and all those who had participated in and agreed to the process of arbitrationb) Takfir (charging with unbelief) of all those who disagreed with them on any theological issuesc) The right to kill any of the above.
In this context the response of Sayyidna Ali to their view that the "prerogative of command belongs to Allah alone"( "fal-hukmu lillah", Quran 40: 12)by saying that it was "a word of truth with a devious end" becomes quite apparent.
It was evident to Sayyidna Ali that theirs was a political agenda - an agenda that was inspired by an ill-conceived sense of political isolationism owing to their Bedouin status. The spirit of Islam - as yet - had not served to de-tribalise them. Strength, to them, resided in aggression and belligerence; and not in the deeper recesses of the spirit and soul - the wellsprings of genuine faith (Iman).
Sayyidna Ali understood this for he understood the meaning of the Quranic verse:"The desert Arabs say, 'We believe (amanna).' Say: 'You do not as yet have true faith.' Rather say: 'We have only submitted our wills to Allah (aslamna), for not yet has true faith entered your hearts.'" (49:14).
It is therefore not surprising that the Hurub al-Ridda (the War against the Apostates) that occurred during the time of Sayyidna Abu Bakr was inspired by a group of people with similar backgrounds. It is even less surprising that most of the claims to prophethood after the death of the Prophet (s) also emanated from these localities.
For the Kharijites, on the other hand, to legitimise their agenda and justify their killing of Muslims they had to declare them as Kafir and hence the territories in which they lived as a Dar al-Harb (an abode of war). This they legitimised under the nefarious pretence of "the prerogative of command belongs to Allah." This statement - and more correctly read, in its Kharijite context, as "only we (with our swords) have the prerogative of command" - spawned thousands of little gods who maimed and massacred and killed in the name of the most Merciful of the Merciful.
FIGHTING BETWEEN THE MUSLIMS AND THE KHAWARIJ
( REFERENCE: al-Farq bain al-Firaq BY Abdul Qahir al-Baghdadi)
Sayyidna Ali set out for Nahrawan, as mentioned earlier, with a party of 4,000 soldiers. Here he confronted the Kharajites.
"When Ali approached the Kharajites he demanded that they hand over the one who killed Abdullah ibn Khabbab. They responded by saying that all of them were responsible for his death and that if they should get the opportunity they would kill Ali too.
Ali and his army moved out and confronted them. Shortly before the battle, however, he said to them: 'For what reason do you seek revenge from me?' They replied: ' The first reason is that after having fought alongside you at the Battle of the Camel - and after having been victorious - you allowed us to take the spoils of war but you prohibited us from imprisoning their women and children. So how did you allow us the one and not the other?'
Ali replied, 'I allowed you the booty for the reason that they had unlawfully taken that wealth from the Bait al-Mal in Basra in the first place. That happened before I went to Basra. As for their women and children, they did not join in the battle. So their rights within Islam remain as it would for any Muslim living in a Dar al-Islam. Moreover, none of them apostatised and it's not permissible to shed the blood of those who remain within the fold. But above all, had I allowed you to imprison their women, then who amongst you would have had the temerity to take Aisha as a prisoner?' The Kharajites shuddered at this rejoinder.
They then said, 'The second reason for our revenge is that that when you signed the treaty of peace between yourself and Muawiyya you eliminated your title 'Amir al-Mu'minin'.
To this Ali replied, 'In this respect I did exactly what the Prophet (s) of Allah did with Suhail ibn 'Amr at the Treaty of Hudaibiyya. Suhail said to him (s), 'Had I accepted that you were the Prophet of Allah then I would not be disputing with you in this fashion. So remove your title 'The Prophet of Allah' from the pact and write your name followed by the name of your father. The Prophet (s) acceded to this and had his Companions record 'This is what Muhammad ibn Abdullah and Suhail ibn 'Amr have agreed upon…'
Soon after that the Prophet informed me that I would one day find myself in a position similar to the one in which he had found himself at Hudaibiyya. So my situation today with the children of those people is identical to that of the Prophet with their fathers.
The Kharajites then said to Ali, 'Why did you say to the two arbitrators (Abu Musa al-Ashari and Amr ibn al-As), 'If I am suited for the position of Khalifa then you may appoint me.' By this you expressed doubt in your own ability as a Khalifa. It is therefore understandable, if not preferable, for others to hold similar doubts about you.'
Ali replied, 'Indeed through that I wished to be fair to Muawiyya. Had I unconditionally asked the arbitrators to appoint me as the Khalifa then Muawiyya would not have accepted that. In this regard, when the Prophet invited the Christians of Najran to earnestly pray to Allah for an answer he expressed a similar fair-mindedness. This is evident from the verse of the Quran, 'Say: Come! Let us gather together - our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves. Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah upon the one who lies.' (Quran, 3: 61)
In this manner the Prophet was fair to the Christians. Had he (s) said, on the other hand, 'I will earnestly pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon you' then the Christians of Najran would never have accepted his invitation. For the same reason, therefore, I wished to be fair to Muawiyya. Moreover, at that point I could not be certain about Amr ibn al-As's position - whether he would mislead me or not.
Lastly they said to Ali, 'Why did you, in the first place, allow two arbitrators to arbitrate in a matter that was inherently your right?'
Ali responded, 'I was present when the Prophet of Allah appointed Sa'ad ibn Muadh as an arbitrator after the battle with the tribe of Quraitha. If he wished then he need not have appointed an arbitrator in the first place. So I did the same - and followed the example of the Prophet - when I appointed an arbitrator.'"
After this lengthy discourse most of the Kharajites - 8,000 of them - capitulated and returned to the ranks of Sayyidna Ali. 4,000 of them - including Hurqus ibn Zuhair and Abdullah al-Rasibi - remained committed to their cause. This is a story of the integrity of Sayyidna Ali. And that integrity, as told in the narration of al-Baghdadi, continues where he records that Sayyidna Ali ordered the 8,000 who capitulated not to join them in the battle. He had come with 4,000 and with 4,000 he would fight. On that day too, he swore that no more than ten on his side would die and no more than ten on their side would survive. That is precisely what happened. Amongst those who survived was Hurqus ibn Zuhair.
The intractable Hurqus confronted Sayyidna Ali and said, "O son of Abi Talib, I fight you not except for the sake of Allah, and for my reward in the afterlife."
Sayyidna Ali retorted, "Your kind, Hurqus, is the kind that Allahu Ta'ala refers to in the Quran where He states, 'Say: Shall We tell you of those who lose most in respect of their deeds? Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they imagined that they were acquiring good by their works' (18: 103). Amongst these - and I swear by this in the name of the Lord of the Ka'ba - are you Hurqus!"
Hurqus met his end and was killed.
Perhaps Hurqus would see the worth of his "good" deeds in the afterlife. But the roots of internecine hatred they left behind were firmly sunk in the soil of this world. Nevertheless, the story, if it needs to be told, need not be for the sake of the legacy the Kharajites left behind. If there is ever a need for the story to be told, then it is for the lessons to be learnt from Sayyidna Ali's attitude and approach to them during his short reign as Khalifa. Not only is he a model of justice and integrity, but, like his three great predecessors, is a model of how Muslim leaders, governors and communities ought to behave and conduct themselves.
POINTS TO BE NOTED
Khawarij misinterpret Quran and Sunnah to justify their wrong action.
They think they know the most and go against the Muslims. They don’t accept any evidence which does not suit their desire. For them killing muslims is permissible.
HOW ALI (RD) WAS KILLED BY A KHAWARIJ
Muhammad ibn Sad (RH) in his Tabaqat, reported from his teachers that three Kharijites--Abdur-Rahman ibn Muljam, al-Burak ibn Abdilaah and and Amr ibn Bakr at-Tamīmī--gathered in Makkah and pledged to kill Sayyidina `Alī (r) on a Friday morning on the seventeenth day of Ramadhan, the three envious conspirators went to the main masjid of Kufa just before the break of dawn, there they took their position in the narrow passage leading to the prayer hall. A little later, Hadrat `Alī (r) the Beloved of Sayyiduna Muhammad (s) and the “Door of Knowledge” came to the masjid, when it was still dark and their was no one else in the masjid. Ibn Muljam struck Sayyidina `Alī (r) a vicious blow on the forehead which penetrated to his blessed brain. Sayyidina `Alī (r) cried out to the people not to let him escape and they caught him.
[NOTE: Abdurrahman Ibnu Muljam, the assassin of Imam `Alī, was the most important muhaddith (narrator of Hadith) in his generation of Tabi'een.]
When Umm Kulthūm screamed at him, “O enemy of Allah! [yā `aduwullh], you have killed the Amīril Mu'minīn wrongly,” the cursed one replied, “Then cry!” He then went on to say , “I poisoned the my sword, so if he survives me, I pray that Allah (swt) banishes him and destroys him.”
After Sayyidina `Alī (r) was martyred, Ibn Muljam was brought out to be executed. It was observed that the skin of his forehead was brown from the effects of constant prostration in prayer.
When Sayyidina Imam Hassan ibn `Alī (r) wanted to make a peace settlement with Mu`awiyah, a Kharijite by the name of al-Jarrah ibn Sinān revolted against him. Al-Jarrah said to him, “You have committed shirk as your father did,” then stabbed him in his upper thigh.
The Kharijites continued to raise confusion within and against the Muslim state, massacring innocent Muslim men, women and children during both the Ummayad and Abbassid dynasties. Later on they were all but eradicated by the Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jama`ah.
MODERN DAY KHAWARIJ
Ibn `Abdul Wahhāb at-Tamīmī of Najd, a descendant of Dhul-Khuwaisarah, revived the Kharijite sect, some of whom call themselves Wahabis and others who call themselves Salafis.
Ibn Abd al-Wahhab belonged to the Bani Tamim tribe. He was born in Uyayna village near the town of Huraimila in the Najd Desert in 1111 A.H. (1699) and died in 1206 (1792).
(TO SEE THE HADITH OF NAJD, PLEASE READ PART 2 OF THIS ARTICLE)
He spread their evil thought amongst the Bedouins of Najd, encouraging them to revolt against the Ottoman caliphate, with the help of the British, just as their forebears had revolted against the early caliphs.
Ibn Abdul Wahab najdi made friendship with Ibn saud and they both ordered many innocent muslims to be killed in Mecca and Taif. Mulsims women were tortured and Muslim property was taken.
Ibn Abdul Wahab and Ibn Saud made new laws. They said that Muslims worship grave. [Recall how the first Khawarij called the companions as Kafir ]. The blessed graveyard in Medina ‘jannat ul baqi” was destroyed. The graves of pious companions of the prophet which was not destroyed from the time of first Caliph till 1120 AH ( 1708) was destroyed by these wahabis. The house in which prophet was born has been recently destroyed by these modern day khawarij to make business centers.
1) The foremost Hanafi scholar of his time, Imam Muhammad Amin ibn Abidin (d. 1252/1836 Rahimahullah) said in his celebrated work Hashiyya radd al-Mukhtar (vol. 3, pg. 309): "In our time Ibn Abdal Wahhab (Najdi) appeared, and attacked the two noble sanctuaries (Makkah and Madinah). He claimed to be a Hanbali, but his thinking was such that only he alone was a Muslim, and everyone else was a polytheist! Under this guise, he said that killing the Ahl as-Sunnah was permissible, until Allah destroyed them (Wahhabi's) in the year 1233 AH by way of the Muslim army."
(2) Shaykh Zayni Dahlan (Rahimahullah) said in his book Futuhat al-Islamiyya (vol. 2, pg. 268): "The sign of the Khawarij (the first deviant sect that appeared in the time of the Companions) concerning the shaving of the head, was not found in the Khawarij of the past, but only in the Najdi's of our time!"
(3) Shaykh al-Islam Hussain Ahmad al-Madani (Rahimahullah) said in his book ash-Shihab as-saqib (pg. 42): "Ibn Abdal Wahhab arose in the beginning of the thirteenth Islamic century in the Najd. His thinking was false, and his beliefs were corruptional; on these grounds he opened the way for killing the Ahl as-Sunnah."
(4) A more contemporary view on the Wahhabite sect has been expressed by Abdal-Hakim Murad in the journal Islamica (pg. 9): "Ibn Abdal Wahhab, however, went far beyond this (i.e; of Ibn Taymiyya). Raised in the wastelands of Najd in Central Arabia, he had little access to mainstream Muslim scholarship (I say: This may be disputed by his supporters). In fact, when his da'wah appeared and became notorious, the scholars and muftis of the day applied to it the famous hadith of Najd: Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) reported the Prophet (Peace be upon him) as saying: "Oh God, bless us in our Syria; O God, bless us in our Yemen." Those present said: "And in our Najd, O Messenger of God!" But he said, "O God, bless us in our Syria; O God, bless us in our Yemen." Those present said, "And in our Najd, O Messenger of God!" Ibn Umar said that he thought that he said on the third occasion: "Earthquakes and dissensions (fitnah) are there, and there shall arise the horn of the devil." (Sahih al-Bukhari). And it is significant that almost uniquely among the lands of Islam, Najd has never produced scholars of any repute.
The Najd-based da'wah of the Wahhabi's, however, began to be heard more loudly following the explosion of Saudi oil wealth. Many, even most, Islamic publishing houses in Cairo and Beirut are now subsidised by Wahhabi organisations, which prevent them from publishing traditional works on Sufism, and remove passages in other works considered unnacceptable to Wahhabist doctrine.
Undoubtedly, one of the worst abominations perpetrated by the Wahhabis under the leadership of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was the massacre of the people of Taif. They killed everyone in sight, slaughtering child and adult, ruler and ruled, lowly and high-born. They began with a suckling child nursing at his mother’s breast and moved on to a group studying the Qur’an, slaying all of them, down to the last man. When they had wiped out the people in the houses, they went into the streets, the shops and the mosques, killing whoever happened to be there. They even killed people in prayer until they had annihilated every Muslim in Taif and until only some twenty or more people remained.
The Wahhabis cast books into the streets to be blown to and fro, including copies of the Qur’an, volumes of Bukhari, Muslim and other canonical collections of hadith, and books of fiqh, all amounting to thousands. Books remained in the streets for several days, trampled on by the Wahhabis. Not one among them made the slightest attempt to remove even one page of the Qur’an from under foot and preserve it from the ignominy and disrespect of this display. Then they destroyed the houses and made what was once a town into a barren wasteland. This happened in the Hijra Year, 1217 (Jamal Effendial-Sidqi al-Zahawi).
UNFORTUNATELY not many young Muslim read this recent history. All we have to do is just cross check and we will find that it is a Historical fact about attack on Mecca and taif. I request Muslims to plz do their own research about the history of Saudi Arabia for the year 1924.
Please find time to investigate the following:
The origins of the Wahhabi Movement in the eighteenth century
The conquest of Mecca and Medina, 1803-1806: the first Saudi state
The reigns of Faisal b. Turki Al Sa´ud, 1834-1838 and 1843-1865
Travellers and surveyors of the Arabian Peninsula, 1831-1841
The capture of Riyadh, 1902
Relations with Ibn Rashid and with the Shaiks of Kuwait and Muhammerah, 1902-1918
Captain W.H.I. Shakespear´s meeting with Ibn Saud, 1911
The conquest of the Hijaz: the attack on Taif, September 1924, the siege of Jedda and the occupation of Mecca and Medina, 1924-1926
The Anglo-Saudi treaty, 1927
The Ikhwan rebellion, 1928
The proclamation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1932
The border dispute with Yemen, 1934
The oil concession with Standard Oil of California, 1933
The first oil exports, 1939, and the development of the oil economy
US/Saudi relations and ARAMCO.
Destruction of the graves of the companions of the prophet
Destruction of the house in which prophet was born.
For those who have academic interest can find, how Wahabis have deviated from the basic Aqidah( belief) of Islam.
The modern day Khawarij call themselves as SALAFI and they follow scholars like Ibn Tyamiah , ibn abdul wahab najadee, albani , ibn baaz, . The scholars from the Khawarij sect try to show disrespect to prophet , try to find faults in individual companions of the prophet and also in their collective decision.
Next time if you meet a wahabi calling you as a mushrik ,kafir or a deviant don’t be surprised! Recall how Hurqus ibn Zuhair and his friends called the companions of prophet as Kafir! Recall how wahabis killed muslims just 105 years back when their modern form developed. Recall how the original Khawarij used Quran to prove their wrong action and how they used quranic verse revaled for non muslims on muslims and you will find ALL OF THIS in WAHABIS.
List of modern day khawarij
1. Muhammad Abduh Jamal al Afghani Salafiyah - common with many modernists.
2. Madhkhalis further subdivided into-Faleh al Harbi group-Haddad group-Maribi group-Maghrawi group-Abdul Muhsin Abbad group-Ahya types who call against the others and claim to be on the middle ground.
3. The Sahwis ( these are the ones that call themselves Hanbali), further subdivided into:-Turathi group in Kuwait-Qutubi group-Sururi group who are realy just a salafi ikhwani group-Hawali conspiratorial group-Ittihad Somali group-Sad al Faqihs anti Saudi group-Markaz ad Dawah wal Irshad Pakistan-Ahlul Hadith -although some sub groups of them are with the Madkhalis-Ansar as Sunnah in Egypt and Sudan.
.
AND NOT TO TALK OF THOSE WHO COME ON INTERNET, NEVER READ TAFSIR , SHARAH but will be First To call the great scholars as “deviant”’!
A humble request: We start reading many articles and leave them in the middle. What is the end result? We do not have complete knowledge on any topic.
Please read this article completely.
In order to know the good among the people, one must first examine the history of heresy in Islam. Only by understanding false teachings and their supporters will we appreciate the importance of the people of good. (Ahl ul-khayr).
Insha Allah this article will be divided into 2 parts.
The first part will be about the origin of KHAWARIJ and the “MODERN DAY KHAWARIJ”. For all those who just want to know this, they must read PART 1 completely.
The second part will analyze hadith of NAJD.
It should be known that the original KHAWARIJ were outside the fold of Islam.
ORIGIN OF KHAWARIJ
The origins of Kharijism date back to the time of the Prophet (s).
Amongst the clearest indications we have of this is the Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim.
After the Battle of Hunain the Prophet (s) - in distributing the booty - gave preference to a number of non-Muslims. His aim was to attract them to Islam Hurqus ibn Zuhair. rebuked the Prophet (s) by saying to him: "Be just in your distribution O Messenger of Allah."
The Prophet was incensed by this remark and responded by saying:"Then who can be called just if I am not just?"
To this the Prophet added:
"There will come a time when a group of people will leave our ranks. They will recite the Quran with fervour and passion (lit. "With tongues that are moist".) but its spirit will not go beyond their throats. They will leave our ranks in the manner of an arrow when it shoots from its bow."
Points from above hadith:
This man objected to the decision of prophet and showed his preference over the decision of prophet. He showed disrespect to the prophet. He rebelled against the Prophet (sallallaahualaihi wasallam) in the sense that accused him of treachery. ( He is counted amongst the Kafir and not as a companion( sahaba) of the prophet). He is considered the first of the Kharij (the Seceders" or "the Rebels )to arise in Islam. The root of his sickness was that he preferred his own opinion above that of the Prophet . If he had waited to hear what the Prophet had to say, he would have realized that no opinion can be given precedence over that of The Prophet (s) .
He went against the Command of Allah subhanhu wa tala.
Say, (O Muhammad, to mankind): If ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. ( Quran , 3: 31)
He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah. But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds). "( Quran 4 : 80).
The Battle of Siffin (very important development)
It is significant that this selfsame Hurqus was elected as one of the heads of the Kharijites after the Battle of Siffin.
The Battle of Siffin was a battle between two groups of muslims. Sayyidna Ali(rd) on the one side and Sayyidna Muawiyyah(rd) on the other side. Many Companions on both sides were disheartened by this conflict. The necessity, therefore, for arbitration between the two parties was felt. The proposal was accepted by both parties with Abu Musa al-Ash'ari representing Sayyidna Ali (r) and 'Amr ibn al-As (r) representing Sayyidna Muawiyyah (r).
When the pact was read out by ibn Qais a large group on the side of Sayyidna Ali objected to its terms. Most of the members of this group belonged to the Bedouin tribe of Tamim.
Their spokesperson on the occasion was Urwa ibn Udaiyya. He said: "Are men to arbitrate in the affairs of Allah? There can be no arbitration except by Allah."In support of his view he quoted the following Quranic passage: "The prerogative of command rests with none but Allah. He declares the truth and he is the best of judges" (6:57).
Sayyidna Ali's response to this was typical:"There is a word of truth in what they say," he said, "but their ends are devious."
Urwa, along with 12,000 others, then seceded from the party of Sayyidna Ali. Initially they set up camp at a place called Harawra on the outskirts of Kufa. Here they elected Abdullah ibn al-Kawwa as their head. Sayyidna Ali pursued them and engaged them in debate. Ibn al-Kuwwa conceded to Sayyidna Ali's arguments and he, along with a few others, returned to his ranks.
The rest of the Kharijites then left for Nahrawan. Here they elected Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi and the above-mentioned Hurqus ibn Zuhair as their leaders.
It is interesting to note here that al-Rasibi was known for his fervour in reciting the Quran and was also nicknamed Dhu al-Thafanat (the one whose kneecaps appeared like two humps of a camel because of the intense and extended nature of his prostration in Salaah).
Nevertheless, on their way to Nahrawan, they encountered Abdullah ibn Khabbaab al-Aratt, one of the governors of Sayyidna Ali. Amongst the things he said to them after they identified him as an enemy was the following:"My father related to me that the Prophet (s) said: 'There will come a time when the fitna (corruption and sedition) of the one who sits will be considered preferable to the one who stands; and the fitna of the one who stands will be preferable to the one who walks; and the fitna of the one who walks will be preferable to the one who runs. So if it is at all possible then try to be amongst those who are slaughtered rather than amongst those who will do the slaughtering."
Khabbab, ironically, was one of the first victims of Kharijite brutality. He, along with his pregnant wife, was hacked to death. When the news of this slaughter reached Sayyidna Ali he set out for Nahrawan with an army of 4,000 men.
Points from above incidence
Khawarij use Quran to back up their false claim.
They think their understanding of Quran is better than the understating of the companions of the prophet.
If Muslims do not agree with them, they kill innocent Muslims.
They have riya (show off) in Ibadah (worshippig Allah).
Imam Bukhari (rh) in his sahi under the chapter” Book of Asking apostates and those who separate themselves in obstinate rebellion to repent and fighting them” names a sub chapter as “Killing Kharijites and heretics after proof is established against them”.
Imam Bukhari (rh) narrates this:
Ibn 'Umar used to consider them to be the worst of Allah's creation. He said, "They took verses which were revealed about the unbelievers and then applied them to the believers."
This is a hall mark of the khawarij who use quranic verses revealed about unbelievers and apply them upon muslims.
Hadith ( Sahi Bukhari)
Abu Salama and 'Ata' ibn Yasar reported that they went to Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and asked him about the Haruriyya*, "Did you hear the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say anything?" He said, "I do not know what the Haruriyya are, but I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Some people will emerge in this nation (and he did not say, 'from this nation") whose prayer will make you think little of your prayers in comparison. They will recite the Qur'an, but it will not go beyond their throats. They will pass through the deen as an arrow passes through game. The archer looks at his arrow, arrowhead and its fastening and is unsure about its notch, and whether there is any blood on it.'"
The Haruriyya are the Kharijites. The name is taken from Harura', a place in Iraq where they first gathered.]
Suffice it for us at this stage to know that by now this group of Kharijites - known as the "Muhakkima"- had already resolved upon the following principles:
a) The declaration of Kufr (unbelief) on Sayyidna Ali, Muawiyyah, and all those who had participated in and agreed to the process of arbitrationb) Takfir (charging with unbelief) of all those who disagreed with them on any theological issuesc) The right to kill any of the above.
In this context the response of Sayyidna Ali to their view that the "prerogative of command belongs to Allah alone"( "fal-hukmu lillah", Quran 40: 12)by saying that it was "a word of truth with a devious end" becomes quite apparent.
It was evident to Sayyidna Ali that theirs was a political agenda - an agenda that was inspired by an ill-conceived sense of political isolationism owing to their Bedouin status. The spirit of Islam - as yet - had not served to de-tribalise them. Strength, to them, resided in aggression and belligerence; and not in the deeper recesses of the spirit and soul - the wellsprings of genuine faith (Iman).
Sayyidna Ali understood this for he understood the meaning of the Quranic verse:"The desert Arabs say, 'We believe (amanna).' Say: 'You do not as yet have true faith.' Rather say: 'We have only submitted our wills to Allah (aslamna), for not yet has true faith entered your hearts.'" (49:14).
It is therefore not surprising that the Hurub al-Ridda (the War against the Apostates) that occurred during the time of Sayyidna Abu Bakr was inspired by a group of people with similar backgrounds. It is even less surprising that most of the claims to prophethood after the death of the Prophet (s) also emanated from these localities.
For the Kharijites, on the other hand, to legitimise their agenda and justify their killing of Muslims they had to declare them as Kafir and hence the territories in which they lived as a Dar al-Harb (an abode of war). This they legitimised under the nefarious pretence of "the prerogative of command belongs to Allah." This statement - and more correctly read, in its Kharijite context, as "only we (with our swords) have the prerogative of command" - spawned thousands of little gods who maimed and massacred and killed in the name of the most Merciful of the Merciful.
FIGHTING BETWEEN THE MUSLIMS AND THE KHAWARIJ
( REFERENCE: al-Farq bain al-Firaq BY Abdul Qahir al-Baghdadi)
Sayyidna Ali set out for Nahrawan, as mentioned earlier, with a party of 4,000 soldiers. Here he confronted the Kharajites.
"When Ali approached the Kharajites he demanded that they hand over the one who killed Abdullah ibn Khabbab. They responded by saying that all of them were responsible for his death and that if they should get the opportunity they would kill Ali too.
Ali and his army moved out and confronted them. Shortly before the battle, however, he said to them: 'For what reason do you seek revenge from me?' They replied: ' The first reason is that after having fought alongside you at the Battle of the Camel - and after having been victorious - you allowed us to take the spoils of war but you prohibited us from imprisoning their women and children. So how did you allow us the one and not the other?'
Ali replied, 'I allowed you the booty for the reason that they had unlawfully taken that wealth from the Bait al-Mal in Basra in the first place. That happened before I went to Basra. As for their women and children, they did not join in the battle. So their rights within Islam remain as it would for any Muslim living in a Dar al-Islam. Moreover, none of them apostatised and it's not permissible to shed the blood of those who remain within the fold. But above all, had I allowed you to imprison their women, then who amongst you would have had the temerity to take Aisha as a prisoner?' The Kharajites shuddered at this rejoinder.
They then said, 'The second reason for our revenge is that that when you signed the treaty of peace between yourself and Muawiyya you eliminated your title 'Amir al-Mu'minin'.
To this Ali replied, 'In this respect I did exactly what the Prophet (s) of Allah did with Suhail ibn 'Amr at the Treaty of Hudaibiyya. Suhail said to him (s), 'Had I accepted that you were the Prophet of Allah then I would not be disputing with you in this fashion. So remove your title 'The Prophet of Allah' from the pact and write your name followed by the name of your father. The Prophet (s) acceded to this and had his Companions record 'This is what Muhammad ibn Abdullah and Suhail ibn 'Amr have agreed upon…'
Soon after that the Prophet informed me that I would one day find myself in a position similar to the one in which he had found himself at Hudaibiyya. So my situation today with the children of those people is identical to that of the Prophet with their fathers.
The Kharajites then said to Ali, 'Why did you say to the two arbitrators (Abu Musa al-Ashari and Amr ibn al-As), 'If I am suited for the position of Khalifa then you may appoint me.' By this you expressed doubt in your own ability as a Khalifa. It is therefore understandable, if not preferable, for others to hold similar doubts about you.'
Ali replied, 'Indeed through that I wished to be fair to Muawiyya. Had I unconditionally asked the arbitrators to appoint me as the Khalifa then Muawiyya would not have accepted that. In this regard, when the Prophet invited the Christians of Najran to earnestly pray to Allah for an answer he expressed a similar fair-mindedness. This is evident from the verse of the Quran, 'Say: Come! Let us gather together - our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves. Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah upon the one who lies.' (Quran, 3: 61)
In this manner the Prophet was fair to the Christians. Had he (s) said, on the other hand, 'I will earnestly pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon you' then the Christians of Najran would never have accepted his invitation. For the same reason, therefore, I wished to be fair to Muawiyya. Moreover, at that point I could not be certain about Amr ibn al-As's position - whether he would mislead me or not.
Lastly they said to Ali, 'Why did you, in the first place, allow two arbitrators to arbitrate in a matter that was inherently your right?'
Ali responded, 'I was present when the Prophet of Allah appointed Sa'ad ibn Muadh as an arbitrator after the battle with the tribe of Quraitha. If he wished then he need not have appointed an arbitrator in the first place. So I did the same - and followed the example of the Prophet - when I appointed an arbitrator.'"
After this lengthy discourse most of the Kharajites - 8,000 of them - capitulated and returned to the ranks of Sayyidna Ali. 4,000 of them - including Hurqus ibn Zuhair and Abdullah al-Rasibi - remained committed to their cause. This is a story of the integrity of Sayyidna Ali. And that integrity, as told in the narration of al-Baghdadi, continues where he records that Sayyidna Ali ordered the 8,000 who capitulated not to join them in the battle. He had come with 4,000 and with 4,000 he would fight. On that day too, he swore that no more than ten on his side would die and no more than ten on their side would survive. That is precisely what happened. Amongst those who survived was Hurqus ibn Zuhair.
The intractable Hurqus confronted Sayyidna Ali and said, "O son of Abi Talib, I fight you not except for the sake of Allah, and for my reward in the afterlife."
Sayyidna Ali retorted, "Your kind, Hurqus, is the kind that Allahu Ta'ala refers to in the Quran where He states, 'Say: Shall We tell you of those who lose most in respect of their deeds? Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they imagined that they were acquiring good by their works' (18: 103). Amongst these - and I swear by this in the name of the Lord of the Ka'ba - are you Hurqus!"
Hurqus met his end and was killed.
Perhaps Hurqus would see the worth of his "good" deeds in the afterlife. But the roots of internecine hatred they left behind were firmly sunk in the soil of this world. Nevertheless, the story, if it needs to be told, need not be for the sake of the legacy the Kharajites left behind. If there is ever a need for the story to be told, then it is for the lessons to be learnt from Sayyidna Ali's attitude and approach to them during his short reign as Khalifa. Not only is he a model of justice and integrity, but, like his three great predecessors, is a model of how Muslim leaders, governors and communities ought to behave and conduct themselves.
POINTS TO BE NOTED
Khawarij misinterpret Quran and Sunnah to justify their wrong action.
They think they know the most and go against the Muslims. They don’t accept any evidence which does not suit their desire. For them killing muslims is permissible.
HOW ALI (RD) WAS KILLED BY A KHAWARIJ
Muhammad ibn Sad (RH) in his Tabaqat, reported from his teachers that three Kharijites--Abdur-Rahman ibn Muljam, al-Burak ibn Abdilaah and and Amr ibn Bakr at-Tamīmī--gathered in Makkah and pledged to kill Sayyidina `Alī (r) on a Friday morning on the seventeenth day of Ramadhan, the three envious conspirators went to the main masjid of Kufa just before the break of dawn, there they took their position in the narrow passage leading to the prayer hall. A little later, Hadrat `Alī (r) the Beloved of Sayyiduna Muhammad (s) and the “Door of Knowledge” came to the masjid, when it was still dark and their was no one else in the masjid. Ibn Muljam struck Sayyidina `Alī (r) a vicious blow on the forehead which penetrated to his blessed brain. Sayyidina `Alī (r) cried out to the people not to let him escape and they caught him.
[NOTE: Abdurrahman Ibnu Muljam, the assassin of Imam `Alī, was the most important muhaddith (narrator of Hadith) in his generation of Tabi'een.]
When Umm Kulthūm screamed at him, “O enemy of Allah! [yā `aduwullh], you have killed the Amīril Mu'minīn wrongly,” the cursed one replied, “Then cry!” He then went on to say , “I poisoned the my sword, so if he survives me, I pray that Allah (swt) banishes him and destroys him.”
After Sayyidina `Alī (r) was martyred, Ibn Muljam was brought out to be executed. It was observed that the skin of his forehead was brown from the effects of constant prostration in prayer.
When Sayyidina Imam Hassan ibn `Alī (r) wanted to make a peace settlement with Mu`awiyah, a Kharijite by the name of al-Jarrah ibn Sinān revolted against him. Al-Jarrah said to him, “You have committed shirk as your father did,” then stabbed him in his upper thigh.
The Kharijites continued to raise confusion within and against the Muslim state, massacring innocent Muslim men, women and children during both the Ummayad and Abbassid dynasties. Later on they were all but eradicated by the Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jama`ah.
MODERN DAY KHAWARIJ
Ibn `Abdul Wahhāb at-Tamīmī of Najd, a descendant of Dhul-Khuwaisarah, revived the Kharijite sect, some of whom call themselves Wahabis and others who call themselves Salafis.
Ibn Abd al-Wahhab belonged to the Bani Tamim tribe. He was born in Uyayna village near the town of Huraimila in the Najd Desert in 1111 A.H. (1699) and died in 1206 (1792).
(TO SEE THE HADITH OF NAJD, PLEASE READ PART 2 OF THIS ARTICLE)
He spread their evil thought amongst the Bedouins of Najd, encouraging them to revolt against the Ottoman caliphate, with the help of the British, just as their forebears had revolted against the early caliphs.
Ibn Abdul Wahab najdi made friendship with Ibn saud and they both ordered many innocent muslims to be killed in Mecca and Taif. Mulsims women were tortured and Muslim property was taken.
Ibn Abdul Wahab and Ibn Saud made new laws. They said that Muslims worship grave. [Recall how the first Khawarij called the companions as Kafir ]. The blessed graveyard in Medina ‘jannat ul baqi” was destroyed. The graves of pious companions of the prophet which was not destroyed from the time of first Caliph till 1120 AH ( 1708) was destroyed by these wahabis. The house in which prophet was born has been recently destroyed by these modern day khawarij to make business centers.
1) The foremost Hanafi scholar of his time, Imam Muhammad Amin ibn Abidin (d. 1252/1836 Rahimahullah) said in his celebrated work Hashiyya radd al-Mukhtar (vol. 3, pg. 309): "In our time Ibn Abdal Wahhab (Najdi) appeared, and attacked the two noble sanctuaries (Makkah and Madinah). He claimed to be a Hanbali, but his thinking was such that only he alone was a Muslim, and everyone else was a polytheist! Under this guise, he said that killing the Ahl as-Sunnah was permissible, until Allah destroyed them (Wahhabi's) in the year 1233 AH by way of the Muslim army."
(2) Shaykh Zayni Dahlan (Rahimahullah) said in his book Futuhat al-Islamiyya (vol. 2, pg. 268): "The sign of the Khawarij (the first deviant sect that appeared in the time of the Companions) concerning the shaving of the head, was not found in the Khawarij of the past, but only in the Najdi's of our time!"
(3) Shaykh al-Islam Hussain Ahmad al-Madani (Rahimahullah) said in his book ash-Shihab as-saqib (pg. 42): "Ibn Abdal Wahhab arose in the beginning of the thirteenth Islamic century in the Najd. His thinking was false, and his beliefs were corruptional; on these grounds he opened the way for killing the Ahl as-Sunnah."
(4) A more contemporary view on the Wahhabite sect has been expressed by Abdal-Hakim Murad in the journal Islamica (pg. 9): "Ibn Abdal Wahhab, however, went far beyond this (i.e; of Ibn Taymiyya). Raised in the wastelands of Najd in Central Arabia, he had little access to mainstream Muslim scholarship (I say: This may be disputed by his supporters). In fact, when his da'wah appeared and became notorious, the scholars and muftis of the day applied to it the famous hadith of Najd: Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) reported the Prophet (Peace be upon him) as saying: "Oh God, bless us in our Syria; O God, bless us in our Yemen." Those present said: "And in our Najd, O Messenger of God!" But he said, "O God, bless us in our Syria; O God, bless us in our Yemen." Those present said, "And in our Najd, O Messenger of God!" Ibn Umar said that he thought that he said on the third occasion: "Earthquakes and dissensions (fitnah) are there, and there shall arise the horn of the devil." (Sahih al-Bukhari). And it is significant that almost uniquely among the lands of Islam, Najd has never produced scholars of any repute.
The Najd-based da'wah of the Wahhabi's, however, began to be heard more loudly following the explosion of Saudi oil wealth. Many, even most, Islamic publishing houses in Cairo and Beirut are now subsidised by Wahhabi organisations, which prevent them from publishing traditional works on Sufism, and remove passages in other works considered unnacceptable to Wahhabist doctrine.
Undoubtedly, one of the worst abominations perpetrated by the Wahhabis under the leadership of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was the massacre of the people of Taif. They killed everyone in sight, slaughtering child and adult, ruler and ruled, lowly and high-born. They began with a suckling child nursing at his mother’s breast and moved on to a group studying the Qur’an, slaying all of them, down to the last man. When they had wiped out the people in the houses, they went into the streets, the shops and the mosques, killing whoever happened to be there. They even killed people in prayer until they had annihilated every Muslim in Taif and until only some twenty or more people remained.
The Wahhabis cast books into the streets to be blown to and fro, including copies of the Qur’an, volumes of Bukhari, Muslim and other canonical collections of hadith, and books of fiqh, all amounting to thousands. Books remained in the streets for several days, trampled on by the Wahhabis. Not one among them made the slightest attempt to remove even one page of the Qur’an from under foot and preserve it from the ignominy and disrespect of this display. Then they destroyed the houses and made what was once a town into a barren wasteland. This happened in the Hijra Year, 1217 (Jamal Effendial-Sidqi al-Zahawi).
UNFORTUNATELY not many young Muslim read this recent history. All we have to do is just cross check and we will find that it is a Historical fact about attack on Mecca and taif. I request Muslims to plz do their own research about the history of Saudi Arabia for the year 1924.
Please find time to investigate the following:
The origins of the Wahhabi Movement in the eighteenth century
The conquest of Mecca and Medina, 1803-1806: the first Saudi state
The reigns of Faisal b. Turki Al Sa´ud, 1834-1838 and 1843-1865
Travellers and surveyors of the Arabian Peninsula, 1831-1841
The capture of Riyadh, 1902
Relations with Ibn Rashid and with the Shaiks of Kuwait and Muhammerah, 1902-1918
Captain W.H.I. Shakespear´s meeting with Ibn Saud, 1911
The conquest of the Hijaz: the attack on Taif, September 1924, the siege of Jedda and the occupation of Mecca and Medina, 1924-1926
The Anglo-Saudi treaty, 1927
The Ikhwan rebellion, 1928
The proclamation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1932
The border dispute with Yemen, 1934
The oil concession with Standard Oil of California, 1933
The first oil exports, 1939, and the development of the oil economy
US/Saudi relations and ARAMCO.
Destruction of the graves of the companions of the prophet
Destruction of the house in which prophet was born.
For those who have academic interest can find, how Wahabis have deviated from the basic Aqidah( belief) of Islam.
The modern day Khawarij call themselves as SALAFI and they follow scholars like Ibn Tyamiah , ibn abdul wahab najadee, albani , ibn baaz, . The scholars from the Khawarij sect try to show disrespect to prophet , try to find faults in individual companions of the prophet and also in their collective decision.
Next time if you meet a wahabi calling you as a mushrik ,kafir or a deviant don’t be surprised! Recall how Hurqus ibn Zuhair and his friends called the companions of prophet as Kafir! Recall how wahabis killed muslims just 105 years back when their modern form developed. Recall how the original Khawarij used Quran to prove their wrong action and how they used quranic verse revaled for non muslims on muslims and you will find ALL OF THIS in WAHABIS.
List of modern day khawarij
1. Muhammad Abduh Jamal al Afghani Salafiyah - common with many modernists.
2. Madhkhalis further subdivided into-Faleh al Harbi group-Haddad group-Maribi group-Maghrawi group-Abdul Muhsin Abbad group-Ahya types who call against the others and claim to be on the middle ground.
3. The Sahwis ( these are the ones that call themselves Hanbali), further subdivided into:-Turathi group in Kuwait-Qutubi group-Sururi group who are realy just a salafi ikhwani group-Hawali conspiratorial group-Ittihad Somali group-Sad al Faqihs anti Saudi group-Markaz ad Dawah wal Irshad Pakistan-Ahlul Hadith -although some sub groups of them are with the Madkhalis-Ansar as Sunnah in Egypt and Sudan.
.
AND NOT TO TALK OF THOSE WHO COME ON INTERNET, NEVER READ TAFSIR , SHARAH but will be First To call the great scholars as “deviant”’!
Monday, December 31, 2007
position of feet in salah: wahabi mistake
The Feet In Salaat -
The Salafi ErrorIntroductionIn this fourteenth century of the Islamic era, a recently mushroomed sect known as the Salafis, has invented some new rules which they believe are the Sunnat teachings of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Inspite of their views being in conflict with the teachings of the Salf-e-Saaliheen belonging to the Noblest Ages of Islam (Khairul Quroon), they obstinately cling to their misguided opinions. Their method is to subject the Ahadith to their personal understanding. Inspite of the divergence which this self-opinion produces from the Way of the Ummah inherited from the Sahaabah, the Salafis intransigently cling to their deviation.
A little reflection would convince them that it is not possible that the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen who were the Students of the Sahaabah would propagate acts which are in conflict with the Sunnah. Any act which has been accepted and practised by the entire Ummah from the earliest era of Islam cannot be deviation. Deviation will be the act which is in conflict with this sacred Unanimity.
One of the erroneous practices of the Salafis is their act of spreading their legs wide apart during Salaat. In the bid to touch the toes of the musalli standing adjacent to them, they disfigure their stance and ruin their composure with the mental preoccupation of touching the toes of the musallis standing on both sides in the Saff during Jamaat Salaat. Even when performing Salaat alone, they stretch the legs hideously apart. But for this innovation they have absolutely no Shar’i evidence. A solitary Hadith which makes reference to ‘foot with foot’ has been grievously misunderstood and misinterpreted by them. Besides their misinterpretation, they have intentionally ignored all the other Shar’i proofs which refute their interpretation.
A perusal of the relevant Ahadith on this subject will convince every unbiased Muslim that the Salafi interpretation of the Hadith is a concoction of the nafs. It is a concoction designed and prepared by shaitaan to create rifts and discord in the Ummah. When people opt to abandon the practices which the Aimmah Mujtahideen have reported on the basis of the authority of the Sahaabah, then shaitaani manipulation is evident.
All four Math-habs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah unanimously refute the Salafi contention on the position to be adopted when standing for Salaat. None of the Math-habs teaches that the legs should be spread out widely when standing for Salaat nor that the toes of the Musalli alongside should be touched. Some of the Salafis go to great lengths in spreading their legs in the bid to touch the next man’s toes causing annoyance and much irritation.
The Emphasis on Straghtening the Sufoof(Sufoof is the plural of saff which refers to the row of musallis in a Jamaat)
The Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) emphasise the straightening of the sufoof. The emphasis in all the Hadith narrations dealing with this subject is directed to proper saff*-formation, not on the feet of the musallis touching the toes of the musalli standing alongside as the Salafis inordinately and inconsiderately practice.
In the endeavour to sustain the practice of stretching the legs wide open while performing Salaat, the Salafis have gone to the extreme of adopting this ugly stance even when performing Salaat alone. While a man who is uneducated in the laws of the Shariah may misunderstand the solitary Hadith in which reference has been made to “foot with foot”, the same mistake cannot and should not be made in so far as Salaat performed alone because the question of “foot with foot” is not remotely related to infiraadi Salaat, i.e. performing Salaat alone.
The Salafis may abortively argue that the aim of spreading the legs wide apart is to ensure straightness of the sufoof, but what argument do they have for justifying this unbecoming practice when a man is performing Salaat infiraadan(individually)? Furthermore, there is no Hadith narration in this regard which could even be misinterpreted to support the case of a munfarid stretching his legs to the extremities of east and west or north and south, depending on the location of the Qiblah from where he happens to be.
The Salafis claim that it is Sunnah to stretch the legs wide apart and for a musalli’s toes to touch the toes of the musalli standing alongside him in the saff. This ludicrous position is imposed by the Salafis on even women who are obliged to stand with their legs wide open. What an ugly, miserable and immodest stance for a woman to adopt? A woman is an object of concealment according to the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). When she has to stretch her legs wide open, she adopts the stance of lewd and shameless women. Throughout Salaat, a woman’s postures are to be constricted -- made small and drawn in, not asserted like a man asserts and expresses his actions during Salaat.
As far as their stance is concerned for the munfarid, there is not a single Hadith which they can cite in substantiation for their view which anyhow is utterly baseless. All the relevant Ahadith on this topic teach the contrary, namely, that the feet should be held slightly apart -- about four to five inches (10 cm). There also exists consensus of the Four Math-habs on this issue.
As far as the feet position for the saff is concerned, the Salafis conveniently overlook all the Ahadith which negate their corrupt view and intransigently cling to a view which they have understood to be the method. In taking to this view, they deliberately cast aside what exactly the Hadith in question says. They took a single word (namely ‘foot with foot’) out of the context of the Hadith and formulated the practice of stretching the legs wide apart and touching the toes of the musallis standing alongside on either side in the saff. For understanding this issue, it is best that we cite all the relevant Ahadith.
The Ahadith
1. Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Straighten the sufoof, line up the shoulders, close the gaps and become tender in the hands of your brothers. Do not leave any gaps for shaitaan. Whoever joins the saff, Allah will join him. And whoever cuts the saff Allah will cut him.” (Bukhari & Abu Dawood)[Become tender: that is to comply when a brother musalli in the saff touches your shoulder indicating that you should bring it in line with the shoulders of the other musallis in the saff.]
2. Hadhrat Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to enter the saff from end to end, touching our chests and our shoulders. He would say:“Do not be irregular (in your rows), for then your hearts will become irregular (i.e. discord will overtake you).” He would (also) say:“ Verily, Allah Azza Wa Jal and His Malaaikah dispatch Salaam on the first sufoof” [When the word ‘Salaat’ is related to Allah Ta ‘ala, it denotes Rahmat, i.e. He sends down mercy. When it is related to the Malaaikah, it means that they supplicate to Allah Ta`ala to send His mercy upon His servants.]
3. Hadhrat Anas Bin Maalik (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Iqaamah for Salaat was given. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) turned towards us and said: “Straighten your sufoof and stand close together, for verily I see you from behind.” In a narration of Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) it is mentioned: “Everyone among us would put his shoulder with the shoulder of his companion (alongside) and his foot with his foot.”
4. Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Join your sufoof and stand close together, and stand in line with (your) necks. I take oath by The Being in Whose power is my life that most certainly I see shaitaan entering the gaps in the saff as if he is a lamb.” (Abu Dawood)
5. Abul Qaasim Jadli (rahmatullah alayh) said :“I heard Nu’maan Bin Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) say: ‘Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) turned towards the people (the musallis) and say three times: ‘By Allah! Most certainly, you should straighten your sufoof otherwise Allah will create discord in your hearts.’ Thereafter I saw that a man would attach his shoulder to the shoulder of his companion (the one standing alongside), his knee to the knee of his companion and his ankle to the ankle of his companion.” (Bukhari & Abu Dawood)
6. Nu’maan Bin Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: “Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would arrange (set in order) our sufoof. One day he came out (from his home) and saw a man (in the saff) whose chest was protruding in front of the (chests of) the community (i.e. the musallis). He then commented: ‘Straighten your sufoof otherwise Allah will cast discord in your faces (i.e. in the words coming from your mouths).” (Tirmizi)
7. Maalik Ibn Abi Aamir Ansaari (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: “Uthmaan Bin Affaan (radhiyallahu anhu) would recite in his Khutbah: ‘When the Salaat is ready, arrange the sufoof properly and line up with the shoulders’ (i.e. the shoulders of the musallis should all be in line and touching).” (Muatta Imaam Muhammad)
8. Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Join your sufoof and draw close among yourselves and line up with the necks.” Reported by Abu Dawood and Nisai. Authenticated by Ibn Hibbaan. (Bulooghul Maraam)--*I’laaus Sunnan.
These are about all the narrations pertaining to the manner and style of standing in Jamaat Salaat.
Explaining these Ahadith, Imaam Bukhaari (rahmatullah alayh) states in the section captioned:“JOINING SHOULDER TO SHOULDER”:
“This is what the Jamhoor have said: ‘Verily, the meaning (of joining in this context) is complete nearness and lining up, not actual joining (or touching).’” Al-Haafiz said: “The meaning of this is to emphasise in straightening the saff and closing the gaps.” And Aini too has said so. With this, the indication is towards emphasis in straightening the sufoof and closing the gaps. Qustulaani and others have also said this.”(Laamiud Duraari—commentary of Bukhari)In Faidhul Baari it is reported as follows:“It is stated in Sharhul Wiqaayah: ‘The musalli should stand apart (with his feet) so that there is a distance of four fingers in between them, and that is also the view of Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayh), In another view it is said that the distance (between the feet) should be one hand (i.e. about 10 cm).’ (The author says): I did not find any difference of opinion among the Salf (i.e. Salf-e-Saaliheen) between the stance (of the musalli) in Jama’ah and in infiraad (i.e. performing alone). There is no difference regarding the gap (between the feet). It is not that the spreading of the feet should be more in Jama’ah than when performing Salaat alone.”
The summary of this is: When we do not find the Sahaabah and the Taabi-een differentiating in their standing position between Jama’ah and individual Salaat, then we understand that the only meaning of Rasulullah’s statement of ‘joining the shoulders’ is to line up closely and to abstain from leaving gaps (between the musallis).
The following appears in Laamiud Duraari, Commentary of Saheeh Bukhaari:“The Authorities (the Fuqaha) stated that it is best for the musalli to keep his feet about four fingers apart. They did not say that the feet should be united in ruku’ or sajdah. Aini says in Binaayah: ‘It is appropriate that there be the distance of four fingers between the feet of the musalli, for verily, this is nearest to khushoo.’”
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhuma) would not spread (widely) his feet nor would the one foot touch the other, but between this there would be neither much closeness nor much distance.
In Raddul Mihtaar it is reported as follows:“The meaning of joining ankles to ankles is that everyone in the Jama’ah should stand alongside the other (i.e. in a straight line). So is it said in Fataawa Samarqand).” (I’laaus Sunan).
From all the narrations and views of the Muhadditheen and Fuqaha of the Khairul Quroon era it is abundantly clear that the Hadith which mentions joining foot with foot does not have a literal meaning. It simply means that the feet should be all in line, and this is achieved by the heels of the musallis all being in the same line. This will ensure a straight saff on which the emphasis of all the Ahadith is.
The Salafis
The Salafis of this age, while grabbing the words ‘foot with foot’, ignore ‘neck with neck’, ‘shoulder with shoulder’, ‘knee with knee’ and ‘ankle with ankle’. The narrations command joining of the necks just as it instructs joining of the feet. And, in the same way it commands joining of the knees and ankles. How is it possible for the neck of one musalli to touch the neck of the musalli alongside? At most, shoulders can touch. But to achieve the phenomenal act of joining necks, the musallis will have to ruin their Salaat and stand on their toes balancing at a precarious angle to achieve the goal of touching each other’s neck. But no one has ever advocated this ludicrous stance. Similarly, if the literal sense of the ‘ankle with ankle’ has to be accepted, it will place the musallis under great stress to achieve what is not simple because the protruding heels are barriers for this achievement. Also, if ‘knee against knee’ had to be literally considered, the musallis would have to stand with ugly bandied legs, stretching even their thighs hideously in order to join their knees with the knees of their companions? But, not even the Salafis have ventured such ludicrousness.
Why do the Salafis choose only ‘foot with foot’ out of the several instructions pertaining to the joining of various bodily parts? For this choice they have only their intransigent nafsaani desire --no daleel whatsoever. What is the determining factor to choose only feet and to ignore necks, knees, shoulders and ankles? On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah -- the followers of the Four Math-habs -- *have a mass of evidence to support ‘joining of the shoulders’. Furthermore, joining or lining up of the shoulders is simple, rational and fulfills in the best way the instruction of straightening the saff.
It should be noted that the emphasis is on closing the gaps. There should be no gap between two musallis standing in the saff. But, the wider the legs are spread apart, the more the distance between the shoulders will increase. Thus, spreading the legs wide apart defeats the very command issued in the Hadith to close the gaps and straighten the sufoof.
In order to achieve ‘foot with foot’ literally, the Salafis are constrained to turn their feet at angles away from the Qiblah. In this hideous exercise they manage only to touch the toes of the adjacent musalli with much difficulty and irritation to those whose peace of mind is disturbed with the unruly encroachment of his companion’s toes. When the toes are made to touch with the feet in diagonal positions, the shoulders cannot touch, the knees, ankles, necks, etc. are thrown completely out of alignment.
When shoulders are not lined up, it is impossible to achieve straight sufoof. It is for this reason that the Hadith emphasises more on shoulders. Feet are mentioned only once. The Sahaabah and the Taabi-een relate the instruction ‘to line up’ and straighten the saff to the shoulders, necks, knees, ankles and the feet. In other words, all these should be in line, not out of alignment. It is for this reason that the Hadith clearly mentions that the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, in fact Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself, would order protruding chests to recede into line. Never did any of the Authorities of the Shariah speak about feet which should touch.
In the adoption of the Salafi mode, the movement is excessive in Salaat. Neither is proper Ruku’ nor proper Sajdah possible if this hideous posture has to be retained throughout Salaat. In fact Sajdah is not at all possible with the feet spread wide apart. Therefore, the Salafis are constrained to shift positions repeatedly when going to ruku’. This excessive movement in Salaat in negatory of khushoo’.
THE FOUR MATH-HABS
While the case of the Four Math-habs is logical, the actual daleel (proof) for our view is not rational interpretation, but is narrational evidence. Such evidence has been transmitted down the centuries from the Sahaabah. It should be understood that the Aimmah-e-*Mujtahideen -- the Imaams of the Math-habs -- had acquired their knowledge of Islam from either the Sahaabah or the Taabi-een who were the Students of the Sahaabah. Whatever they taught is therefore, what the Sahaabah had instructed. It is the height of folly and deviation to differ with them and to choose a way which is at variance with what they had disseminated.
It is not conceivable that the Salf-e-Saaliheen -- all the Imaams of the Math-bas were among them -- were in deviation and the present-day Salafis are on Rectitude. This is unacceptable to any Muslim who is prepared to reflect a bit. The greatest daleel for the view of the Math-habs is that whatever they teach has been acquired directly from either the Sahaabah or the Taabi-een.
The Salafi practice of spreading the feet wide apart and the irritating attempt to touch the next man’s toes are in conflict with the Sunnah as the aforegoing Shar’i evidences have established.
Conclusion
1. According to the Hambali Math-hab there should be a ‘small’ gap between the feet of the musalli.
2. According to the Maaliki Math-hab, the distance should be moderate, neither together nor so wide apart which is considered repugnant.
3. According to the Shaafi Math-hab, the gap between the feet should be one hand. It is Makrooh to spread the feet wider than this.
4. According to the Hanafi Math-hab, the distance between the feet should be four fingers. This is the Sunnah and the Way of the Salf-e-Saaliheen. The Salafis have no authority from the Salf-e-Saaliheen to substantiate its view of bid’ah.
Comments
In the Hanafi school (also in the Shafi'i school), there are predominantly two views. One is to stand with a gap of four fingers in between one's feet, as is mentioned in Ibn 'Abidin's authoritative commentary of the al-Durr al-Muhtar (1:462). The second view, mentioned in the commentary of Sunan al-Tirmidhi,Ma'arif al-Sunan, is that there is no specified distance to be maintain between one's feet and it is permissible to stand as one finds comfortable.
The hadith, related by Imam Abu Dawud and others, which is normally used to prove that one must touch their feet to those of the adjacent person, has been misunderstood. The Prophet (upon him be peace) only commands that the Companions straighten their rows.
In some narrations he also commands that shoulders be leveled together. It is the narrator who mentions that the Companions employed the joining of the feet together (and according to the narration in Sunan Abu Dawud, the knees were also linked together) to ensure the straightening of the rows. The Prophet (upon him be peace) did not order this.
Nowadays, since the rows are clearly marked in our masjids, there is no need to link the feet together. Standing with the heels on the marked lines will normally ensure that the rows remain straight and orderly.
Manner of standing in the rows of the jama`ah
It is established from several ahadith that the row should be absolutely straight and no gaps should be left between the worshippers. However, some people insist on spreading their feet and standing in such a manner that their ankles touch the ankles of their neighbour. What is the reality of standing in this fashion?
Those who stand in this way base their practice upon a hadith narrated by Nu’maan bin Basheer (radhiallahu anhu). He says: "Once Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) faced us and said: "Straighten your rows". He repeated this thrice. He then said: "By Allah, you must most certainly straighten your rows or else Allah Ta’ala will disunite your hearts". Hazrat Nu’maan bin Basheer (radhiallahu anhu) says: "I then saw the people joining together their shoulders and ankles". [Abu Dawood, Sahih ibn Khuzaima]
The concluding statement of Hazrat Nu’maan (radhiallahu anhu) is also reported in Sahih Bukhari.
However, upon analysing this hadith, several points come to light: Firstly, Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) never commanded the joining of the ankles. No hadith has yet been found wherein Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) himself instructed the Sahaaba (radhiallahu anhu) to join their ankles. The Sahaaba (radhiallahu anhu) had themselves adopted this manner in order to fulfil the command of straightening the saff. Secondly, this hadith clearly mentions that Nu’maan bin Basheer (radhiallahu anhu) saw the Sahaaba (radhiallahu anhu) doing this PRIOR to the commencement of the salah. There is no mention of this position being maintained even after the salah had commenced.
Therefore we find that great muhadditheen such as Hafiz ibn Hajar (R.A.) and Allama Shawkani (R.A.) have regarded this as an extreme measure which was occasionally adopted by the Sahaaba (radhiallahu anhu) to ensure that the row is straight.
In fact, a hadith of Hazrat Anas (radhiallahu anhu) makes it absolutely clear that this practice was merely a measure adopted BEFORE the salah to ensure the straightening of the row. He says: "If I had to do that (join the ankles) with anyone of them (the tabi’een) today, they would run like wild mules". [Fath al-Bari, vol.2, pg.176]
This simply means that the taabi’een severely disliked that anybody should join their ankles with them. Several points are understood from this: Firstly, Hazrat Anas (radhiallahu anhu) had stopped doing this completely. Had this been a sunnah and not just a manner of ensuring that the saff was straight, it is impossible that Hazrat Anas (radhiallahu anhu) would have left it out merely upon somebody disliking it.
Secondly, the taabi’een would never have disliked it if they had observed many of the Sahaba (radhiallahu anhum) continuously practicing upon this. It was only due to the fact that they had not generally observed the Sahaba (radhiallahu anhum) adopting this procedure that they disliked it. Hence this makes it crystal clear that the Sahaba (radhiallahu anhum) had only occasionally adopted this practice to ensure the straightening of the saff. It was not a sunnah in itself, otherwise they would never have left it out.
It has already been made clear that Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) never himself instructed the joining of the ankles, nor is there any mention of the Sahaba (radhiallahu anhum) having maintained this position even IN salah. However, if for a moment we do accept that this position must be adopted during the course of the salah as well, the question is: In which posture of salah must this position be maintained? Must it be maintained during qiyam, ruku, sajdah and qada or in only some of these postures? If one says that the ankles should be joined only in the qiyam posture, on what basis were the other postures excluded? If it is argued that it is difficult to do so in ruku and sajdah, the same could be said for qiyam, since to stand with one’s feet spread apart is naturally awkward and hence it presents a certain amount of difficulty and uneasiness for many people.
In short, this practice is not established as a sunnah of salah. It was merely adopted initially by the Sahaba (radiallahu anhum) BEFORE the commencement of salah to ensure that the rows are straight.
COMMENT
Abul Qaasim Jadli (rahmatullah alayh) said :I heard Nu’maan Bin Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) say: ‘Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) turned towards the people (the musallis) and say three times: ‘By Allah! Most certainly, you should straighten your sufoof otherwise Allah will create discord in your hearts.’ Thereafter I saw that a man would attach his shoulder to the shoulder of his companion (the one standing alongside), his knee to the knee of his companion and his ankle to the ankle of his companion. (Bukhari & Abu Dawood)
If we take the literal meaning of this hadith which a few people( WAHABIS) take , then we have to join our knee with the knee of the person standing next to us in suhoof, which is PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE if the two person are of different height, because the height of knee from ground will be different for two person of different height.( I really tried this!)
These people who take literal meaning fail to answer thisIn the endeavour to sustain the practice of stretching the legs wide open while performing Salaat, the Salafis have gone to the extreme of adopting this ugly stance even when performing Salaat alone.
The Salafis claim that it is Sunnah to stretch the legs wide apart and for a musalli’s toes to touch the toes of the musalli standing alongside him in the saff. This ludicrous position is imposed by the Salafis on even women who are obliged to stand with their legs wide open. What an ugly, miserable and immodest stance for a woman to adopt? A woman is an object of concealment according to the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). When she has to stretch her legs wide open, she adopts the stance of lewd and shameless women. Throughout Salaat, a woman’s postures are to be constricted -- made small and drawn in, not asserted like a man asserts and expresses his actions during Salaat.
COMMENT
Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: Join your sufoof and draw close among yourselves and line up with the necks. Reported by Abu Dawood and Nisai. Authenticated by Ibn Hibbaan. (Bulooghul Maraam)--*I’laaus SunnanSo the hadeeth tells up to line with Necks and not touch necks.
Even if the hadith tells us to LINE NECK ( AND NOT TOUCH) how woould WAHABIS explain this that if two brothers of different height are standing next to each other in a line during salah then their NECK WOULD not be in a straight line, rather the neck of the shorter person will be near the chest of the taller person, making NECKS in zig zag path rather than a straight line!
It is for this reason that the title of a chapter in Sahih al-Bukhari ‘Chapter on the Joining of the Shoulders and Feet Together Whilst Forming the Rows’ has been classified by Hafiz Ibn Hajar to be based on exaggeration. He writes in his commentary Fath al-Bari,
[Imam Bukhari’s] reason for choosing this specific title is to exaggerate (mubalagha) the importance of straightening the rows and filling the gaps in between. (Fath al-Bari2:247).
This means that the narration is not to be taken literally. Imam Shawkani, who is constantly referred to by those who prefer not to follow a school of thought( wahabis) in Islamic jurisprudence, has not taken it for its literal interpretation either. He writes in his bookNayl al-awtar:
[The statement of the Companion] means, place the parts of the body [shoulders, etc.] in line with each other, so that the shoulder of each person performing prayer is in level with the shoulder of the next person. This way everyone’s shoulders, knees and feet will be in a single straight line (Nayl al-awtar3:65*).In clear words, this indicates that the real reason for joining the shoulders and other parts, was to straighten the rows, not that the joining itself is an obligatory act.
COMMENT
Even one of the recent WAHABI scholar (Shaykh Salih al-'Uthaymin) says this
س234: ما المعتمد في إقامة الصفوف؟ وهل يشرع للمصلي أن يلصق كعبه بكعب من بجانبه؟ أفتونا مأجورين؟الجواب: الصحيح أن المعتمد في تسوية الصف محاذاة الكعبين بعضهما بعضاً، لا رؤوس الأصابع، وذلك لأن البدن مركب على الكعب، والأصابع تختلف الأقدام فيها، فهناك القدم الطويل، وهناك القدم القصير، فلا يمكن ضبط التساوي إلا بالكعب .وأما إلصاق الكعبين بعضهما ببعض فلا شك أنه وارد عن الصحابة –رضي الله عنهم- فإنهم كانا يسوون الصفوف بإلصاق الكعبين بعضهما ببعض ، أي أن كل واحد منهم يلصق كعبه بكعب جاره لتحقق المحاذاة وتسوية الصف، فهو ليس مقصوداً لذاته لكنه مقصود لغيره كما ذكر بعض أهل العلم، ولهذا إذا تمت الصفوف وقام الناس ينبغي لكل واحد أن يلصق كعبه بكعب صاحبه لتحقق المساواة، وليس معنى ذلك أن يلازم هذا الإلصاق ويبقى ملازماً له في جميع الصلاة . ومن الغلو في هذه المسألة ما يفعله بعض الناس من كونه يلصق كعبه بكعب صاحبه ويفتح قدميه فيما بينهما حتى يكون بينه وبين جاره في المناكب فرجة فيخالف السنة في ذلك، والمقصود أن المناكب والأكعب تتساوى
Question: What is the relied-upon position regarding the straightening of the rows (sufuf)? Is it prescribed for the praying person to join his ankle (ka'b) to the ankle of the person next to him? Please give us the fatwa, may you be rewarded.
Answer: That which is correct is that the relied-upon position regarding the straightening of the row is that the ankles should be in line with each other, not the ends of the toes, and that is because the body is supported upon the ankle, and the feet differ in regard to the toes, because some feet are long, and some feet are short. So it is impossible to ensure straightness except by the ankles (i.e. by the ankles being in line with each other).
As for joining the ankles to the ankles of the others, then no doubt this is reported from the Sahabah, radhiyallahu 'anhum, for they would straighten the rows by joining ankles, that is, every one of them would join his ankle with the ankle of his neighbour to ensure being line, and the straightness of the row. So it is not meant as an aim in itself, but rather as a means of achieving another aim, as some of the people of knowledge have mentioned. Therefore, when the rows are completed and the people are standing, it is befitting for every one of them to join his ankle to the ankle of his companion to ensure straightness. It does not mean that he should continue this joining and remain so for the whole salah.
From the extremism that has occurred with regard to this issue is what is done by some people in that one of them will join his ankle to the ankle of his companion, and he will spread his feet so far apart until there is a gap between his shoulder and the shoulder of his companion, so he will oppose the Sunnah by doing that. But the aim is that the shoulders and ankles should be in line with each other.
The Salafi ErrorIntroductionIn this fourteenth century of the Islamic era, a recently mushroomed sect known as the Salafis, has invented some new rules which they believe are the Sunnat teachings of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Inspite of their views being in conflict with the teachings of the Salf-e-Saaliheen belonging to the Noblest Ages of Islam (Khairul Quroon), they obstinately cling to their misguided opinions. Their method is to subject the Ahadith to their personal understanding. Inspite of the divergence which this self-opinion produces from the Way of the Ummah inherited from the Sahaabah, the Salafis intransigently cling to their deviation.
A little reflection would convince them that it is not possible that the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen who were the Students of the Sahaabah would propagate acts which are in conflict with the Sunnah. Any act which has been accepted and practised by the entire Ummah from the earliest era of Islam cannot be deviation. Deviation will be the act which is in conflict with this sacred Unanimity.
One of the erroneous practices of the Salafis is their act of spreading their legs wide apart during Salaat. In the bid to touch the toes of the musalli standing adjacent to them, they disfigure their stance and ruin their composure with the mental preoccupation of touching the toes of the musallis standing on both sides in the Saff during Jamaat Salaat. Even when performing Salaat alone, they stretch the legs hideously apart. But for this innovation they have absolutely no Shar’i evidence. A solitary Hadith which makes reference to ‘foot with foot’ has been grievously misunderstood and misinterpreted by them. Besides their misinterpretation, they have intentionally ignored all the other Shar’i proofs which refute their interpretation.
A perusal of the relevant Ahadith on this subject will convince every unbiased Muslim that the Salafi interpretation of the Hadith is a concoction of the nafs. It is a concoction designed and prepared by shaitaan to create rifts and discord in the Ummah. When people opt to abandon the practices which the Aimmah Mujtahideen have reported on the basis of the authority of the Sahaabah, then shaitaani manipulation is evident.
All four Math-habs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah unanimously refute the Salafi contention on the position to be adopted when standing for Salaat. None of the Math-habs teaches that the legs should be spread out widely when standing for Salaat nor that the toes of the Musalli alongside should be touched. Some of the Salafis go to great lengths in spreading their legs in the bid to touch the next man’s toes causing annoyance and much irritation.
The Emphasis on Straghtening the Sufoof(Sufoof is the plural of saff which refers to the row of musallis in a Jamaat)
The Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) emphasise the straightening of the sufoof. The emphasis in all the Hadith narrations dealing with this subject is directed to proper saff*-formation, not on the feet of the musallis touching the toes of the musalli standing alongside as the Salafis inordinately and inconsiderately practice.
In the endeavour to sustain the practice of stretching the legs wide open while performing Salaat, the Salafis have gone to the extreme of adopting this ugly stance even when performing Salaat alone. While a man who is uneducated in the laws of the Shariah may misunderstand the solitary Hadith in which reference has been made to “foot with foot”, the same mistake cannot and should not be made in so far as Salaat performed alone because the question of “foot with foot” is not remotely related to infiraadi Salaat, i.e. performing Salaat alone.
The Salafis may abortively argue that the aim of spreading the legs wide apart is to ensure straightness of the sufoof, but what argument do they have for justifying this unbecoming practice when a man is performing Salaat infiraadan(individually)? Furthermore, there is no Hadith narration in this regard which could even be misinterpreted to support the case of a munfarid stretching his legs to the extremities of east and west or north and south, depending on the location of the Qiblah from where he happens to be.
The Salafis claim that it is Sunnah to stretch the legs wide apart and for a musalli’s toes to touch the toes of the musalli standing alongside him in the saff. This ludicrous position is imposed by the Salafis on even women who are obliged to stand with their legs wide open. What an ugly, miserable and immodest stance for a woman to adopt? A woman is an object of concealment according to the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). When she has to stretch her legs wide open, she adopts the stance of lewd and shameless women. Throughout Salaat, a woman’s postures are to be constricted -- made small and drawn in, not asserted like a man asserts and expresses his actions during Salaat.
As far as their stance is concerned for the munfarid, there is not a single Hadith which they can cite in substantiation for their view which anyhow is utterly baseless. All the relevant Ahadith on this topic teach the contrary, namely, that the feet should be held slightly apart -- about four to five inches (10 cm). There also exists consensus of the Four Math-habs on this issue.
As far as the feet position for the saff is concerned, the Salafis conveniently overlook all the Ahadith which negate their corrupt view and intransigently cling to a view which they have understood to be the method. In taking to this view, they deliberately cast aside what exactly the Hadith in question says. They took a single word (namely ‘foot with foot’) out of the context of the Hadith and formulated the practice of stretching the legs wide apart and touching the toes of the musallis standing alongside on either side in the saff. For understanding this issue, it is best that we cite all the relevant Ahadith.
The Ahadith
1. Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Straighten the sufoof, line up the shoulders, close the gaps and become tender in the hands of your brothers. Do not leave any gaps for shaitaan. Whoever joins the saff, Allah will join him. And whoever cuts the saff Allah will cut him.” (Bukhari & Abu Dawood)[Become tender: that is to comply when a brother musalli in the saff touches your shoulder indicating that you should bring it in line with the shoulders of the other musallis in the saff.]
2. Hadhrat Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to enter the saff from end to end, touching our chests and our shoulders. He would say:“Do not be irregular (in your rows), for then your hearts will become irregular (i.e. discord will overtake you).” He would (also) say:“ Verily, Allah Azza Wa Jal and His Malaaikah dispatch Salaam on the first sufoof” [When the word ‘Salaat’ is related to Allah Ta ‘ala, it denotes Rahmat, i.e. He sends down mercy. When it is related to the Malaaikah, it means that they supplicate to Allah Ta`ala to send His mercy upon His servants.]
3. Hadhrat Anas Bin Maalik (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Iqaamah for Salaat was given. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) turned towards us and said: “Straighten your sufoof and stand close together, for verily I see you from behind.” In a narration of Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) it is mentioned: “Everyone among us would put his shoulder with the shoulder of his companion (alongside) and his foot with his foot.”
4. Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Join your sufoof and stand close together, and stand in line with (your) necks. I take oath by The Being in Whose power is my life that most certainly I see shaitaan entering the gaps in the saff as if he is a lamb.” (Abu Dawood)
5. Abul Qaasim Jadli (rahmatullah alayh) said :“I heard Nu’maan Bin Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) say: ‘Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) turned towards the people (the musallis) and say three times: ‘By Allah! Most certainly, you should straighten your sufoof otherwise Allah will create discord in your hearts.’ Thereafter I saw that a man would attach his shoulder to the shoulder of his companion (the one standing alongside), his knee to the knee of his companion and his ankle to the ankle of his companion.” (Bukhari & Abu Dawood)
6. Nu’maan Bin Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: “Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would arrange (set in order) our sufoof. One day he came out (from his home) and saw a man (in the saff) whose chest was protruding in front of the (chests of) the community (i.e. the musallis). He then commented: ‘Straighten your sufoof otherwise Allah will cast discord in your faces (i.e. in the words coming from your mouths).” (Tirmizi)
7. Maalik Ibn Abi Aamir Ansaari (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: “Uthmaan Bin Affaan (radhiyallahu anhu) would recite in his Khutbah: ‘When the Salaat is ready, arrange the sufoof properly and line up with the shoulders’ (i.e. the shoulders of the musallis should all be in line and touching).” (Muatta Imaam Muhammad)
8. Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Join your sufoof and draw close among yourselves and line up with the necks.” Reported by Abu Dawood and Nisai. Authenticated by Ibn Hibbaan. (Bulooghul Maraam)--*I’laaus Sunnan.
These are about all the narrations pertaining to the manner and style of standing in Jamaat Salaat.
Explaining these Ahadith, Imaam Bukhaari (rahmatullah alayh) states in the section captioned:“JOINING SHOULDER TO SHOULDER”:
“This is what the Jamhoor have said: ‘Verily, the meaning (of joining in this context) is complete nearness and lining up, not actual joining (or touching).’” Al-Haafiz said: “The meaning of this is to emphasise in straightening the saff and closing the gaps.” And Aini too has said so. With this, the indication is towards emphasis in straightening the sufoof and closing the gaps. Qustulaani and others have also said this.”(Laamiud Duraari—commentary of Bukhari)In Faidhul Baari it is reported as follows:“It is stated in Sharhul Wiqaayah: ‘The musalli should stand apart (with his feet) so that there is a distance of four fingers in between them, and that is also the view of Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayh), In another view it is said that the distance (between the feet) should be one hand (i.e. about 10 cm).’ (The author says): I did not find any difference of opinion among the Salf (i.e. Salf-e-Saaliheen) between the stance (of the musalli) in Jama’ah and in infiraad (i.e. performing alone). There is no difference regarding the gap (between the feet). It is not that the spreading of the feet should be more in Jama’ah than when performing Salaat alone.”
The summary of this is: When we do not find the Sahaabah and the Taabi-een differentiating in their standing position between Jama’ah and individual Salaat, then we understand that the only meaning of Rasulullah’s statement of ‘joining the shoulders’ is to line up closely and to abstain from leaving gaps (between the musallis).
The following appears in Laamiud Duraari, Commentary of Saheeh Bukhaari:“The Authorities (the Fuqaha) stated that it is best for the musalli to keep his feet about four fingers apart. They did not say that the feet should be united in ruku’ or sajdah. Aini says in Binaayah: ‘It is appropriate that there be the distance of four fingers between the feet of the musalli, for verily, this is nearest to khushoo.’”
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhuma) would not spread (widely) his feet nor would the one foot touch the other, but between this there would be neither much closeness nor much distance.
In Raddul Mihtaar it is reported as follows:“The meaning of joining ankles to ankles is that everyone in the Jama’ah should stand alongside the other (i.e. in a straight line). So is it said in Fataawa Samarqand).” (I’laaus Sunan).
From all the narrations and views of the Muhadditheen and Fuqaha of the Khairul Quroon era it is abundantly clear that the Hadith which mentions joining foot with foot does not have a literal meaning. It simply means that the feet should be all in line, and this is achieved by the heels of the musallis all being in the same line. This will ensure a straight saff on which the emphasis of all the Ahadith is.
The Salafis
The Salafis of this age, while grabbing the words ‘foot with foot’, ignore ‘neck with neck’, ‘shoulder with shoulder’, ‘knee with knee’ and ‘ankle with ankle’. The narrations command joining of the necks just as it instructs joining of the feet. And, in the same way it commands joining of the knees and ankles. How is it possible for the neck of one musalli to touch the neck of the musalli alongside? At most, shoulders can touch. But to achieve the phenomenal act of joining necks, the musallis will have to ruin their Salaat and stand on their toes balancing at a precarious angle to achieve the goal of touching each other’s neck. But no one has ever advocated this ludicrous stance. Similarly, if the literal sense of the ‘ankle with ankle’ has to be accepted, it will place the musallis under great stress to achieve what is not simple because the protruding heels are barriers for this achievement. Also, if ‘knee against knee’ had to be literally considered, the musallis would have to stand with ugly bandied legs, stretching even their thighs hideously in order to join their knees with the knees of their companions? But, not even the Salafis have ventured such ludicrousness.
Why do the Salafis choose only ‘foot with foot’ out of the several instructions pertaining to the joining of various bodily parts? For this choice they have only their intransigent nafsaani desire --no daleel whatsoever. What is the determining factor to choose only feet and to ignore necks, knees, shoulders and ankles? On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah -- the followers of the Four Math-habs -- *have a mass of evidence to support ‘joining of the shoulders’. Furthermore, joining or lining up of the shoulders is simple, rational and fulfills in the best way the instruction of straightening the saff.
It should be noted that the emphasis is on closing the gaps. There should be no gap between two musallis standing in the saff. But, the wider the legs are spread apart, the more the distance between the shoulders will increase. Thus, spreading the legs wide apart defeats the very command issued in the Hadith to close the gaps and straighten the sufoof.
In order to achieve ‘foot with foot’ literally, the Salafis are constrained to turn their feet at angles away from the Qiblah. In this hideous exercise they manage only to touch the toes of the adjacent musalli with much difficulty and irritation to those whose peace of mind is disturbed with the unruly encroachment of his companion’s toes. When the toes are made to touch with the feet in diagonal positions, the shoulders cannot touch, the knees, ankles, necks, etc. are thrown completely out of alignment.
When shoulders are not lined up, it is impossible to achieve straight sufoof. It is for this reason that the Hadith emphasises more on shoulders. Feet are mentioned only once. The Sahaabah and the Taabi-een relate the instruction ‘to line up’ and straighten the saff to the shoulders, necks, knees, ankles and the feet. In other words, all these should be in line, not out of alignment. It is for this reason that the Hadith clearly mentions that the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, in fact Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself, would order protruding chests to recede into line. Never did any of the Authorities of the Shariah speak about feet which should touch.
In the adoption of the Salafi mode, the movement is excessive in Salaat. Neither is proper Ruku’ nor proper Sajdah possible if this hideous posture has to be retained throughout Salaat. In fact Sajdah is not at all possible with the feet spread wide apart. Therefore, the Salafis are constrained to shift positions repeatedly when going to ruku’. This excessive movement in Salaat in negatory of khushoo’.
THE FOUR MATH-HABS
While the case of the Four Math-habs is logical, the actual daleel (proof) for our view is not rational interpretation, but is narrational evidence. Such evidence has been transmitted down the centuries from the Sahaabah. It should be understood that the Aimmah-e-*Mujtahideen -- the Imaams of the Math-habs -- had acquired their knowledge of Islam from either the Sahaabah or the Taabi-een who were the Students of the Sahaabah. Whatever they taught is therefore, what the Sahaabah had instructed. It is the height of folly and deviation to differ with them and to choose a way which is at variance with what they had disseminated.
It is not conceivable that the Salf-e-Saaliheen -- all the Imaams of the Math-bas were among them -- were in deviation and the present-day Salafis are on Rectitude. This is unacceptable to any Muslim who is prepared to reflect a bit. The greatest daleel for the view of the Math-habs is that whatever they teach has been acquired directly from either the Sahaabah or the Taabi-een.
The Salafi practice of spreading the feet wide apart and the irritating attempt to touch the next man’s toes are in conflict with the Sunnah as the aforegoing Shar’i evidences have established.
Conclusion
1. According to the Hambali Math-hab there should be a ‘small’ gap between the feet of the musalli.
2. According to the Maaliki Math-hab, the distance should be moderate, neither together nor so wide apart which is considered repugnant.
3. According to the Shaafi Math-hab, the gap between the feet should be one hand. It is Makrooh to spread the feet wider than this.
4. According to the Hanafi Math-hab, the distance between the feet should be four fingers. This is the Sunnah and the Way of the Salf-e-Saaliheen. The Salafis have no authority from the Salf-e-Saaliheen to substantiate its view of bid’ah.
Comments
In the Hanafi school (also in the Shafi'i school), there are predominantly two views. One is to stand with a gap of four fingers in between one's feet, as is mentioned in Ibn 'Abidin's authoritative commentary of the al-Durr al-Muhtar (1:462). The second view, mentioned in the commentary of Sunan al-Tirmidhi,Ma'arif al-Sunan, is that there is no specified distance to be maintain between one's feet and it is permissible to stand as one finds comfortable.
The hadith, related by Imam Abu Dawud and others, which is normally used to prove that one must touch their feet to those of the adjacent person, has been misunderstood. The Prophet (upon him be peace) only commands that the Companions straighten their rows.
In some narrations he also commands that shoulders be leveled together. It is the narrator who mentions that the Companions employed the joining of the feet together (and according to the narration in Sunan Abu Dawud, the knees were also linked together) to ensure the straightening of the rows. The Prophet (upon him be peace) did not order this.
Nowadays, since the rows are clearly marked in our masjids, there is no need to link the feet together. Standing with the heels on the marked lines will normally ensure that the rows remain straight and orderly.
Manner of standing in the rows of the jama`ah
It is established from several ahadith that the row should be absolutely straight and no gaps should be left between the worshippers. However, some people insist on spreading their feet and standing in such a manner that their ankles touch the ankles of their neighbour. What is the reality of standing in this fashion?
Those who stand in this way base their practice upon a hadith narrated by Nu’maan bin Basheer (radhiallahu anhu). He says: "Once Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) faced us and said: "Straighten your rows". He repeated this thrice. He then said: "By Allah, you must most certainly straighten your rows or else Allah Ta’ala will disunite your hearts". Hazrat Nu’maan bin Basheer (radhiallahu anhu) says: "I then saw the people joining together their shoulders and ankles". [Abu Dawood, Sahih ibn Khuzaima]
The concluding statement of Hazrat Nu’maan (radhiallahu anhu) is also reported in Sahih Bukhari.
However, upon analysing this hadith, several points come to light: Firstly, Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) never commanded the joining of the ankles. No hadith has yet been found wherein Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) himself instructed the Sahaaba (radhiallahu anhu) to join their ankles. The Sahaaba (radhiallahu anhu) had themselves adopted this manner in order to fulfil the command of straightening the saff. Secondly, this hadith clearly mentions that Nu’maan bin Basheer (radhiallahu anhu) saw the Sahaaba (radhiallahu anhu) doing this PRIOR to the commencement of the salah. There is no mention of this position being maintained even after the salah had commenced.
Therefore we find that great muhadditheen such as Hafiz ibn Hajar (R.A.) and Allama Shawkani (R.A.) have regarded this as an extreme measure which was occasionally adopted by the Sahaaba (radhiallahu anhu) to ensure that the row is straight.
In fact, a hadith of Hazrat Anas (radhiallahu anhu) makes it absolutely clear that this practice was merely a measure adopted BEFORE the salah to ensure the straightening of the row. He says: "If I had to do that (join the ankles) with anyone of them (the tabi’een) today, they would run like wild mules". [Fath al-Bari, vol.2, pg.176]
This simply means that the taabi’een severely disliked that anybody should join their ankles with them. Several points are understood from this: Firstly, Hazrat Anas (radhiallahu anhu) had stopped doing this completely. Had this been a sunnah and not just a manner of ensuring that the saff was straight, it is impossible that Hazrat Anas (radhiallahu anhu) would have left it out merely upon somebody disliking it.
Secondly, the taabi’een would never have disliked it if they had observed many of the Sahaba (radhiallahu anhum) continuously practicing upon this. It was only due to the fact that they had not generally observed the Sahaba (radhiallahu anhum) adopting this procedure that they disliked it. Hence this makes it crystal clear that the Sahaba (radhiallahu anhum) had only occasionally adopted this practice to ensure the straightening of the saff. It was not a sunnah in itself, otherwise they would never have left it out.
It has already been made clear that Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) never himself instructed the joining of the ankles, nor is there any mention of the Sahaba (radhiallahu anhum) having maintained this position even IN salah. However, if for a moment we do accept that this position must be adopted during the course of the salah as well, the question is: In which posture of salah must this position be maintained? Must it be maintained during qiyam, ruku, sajdah and qada or in only some of these postures? If one says that the ankles should be joined only in the qiyam posture, on what basis were the other postures excluded? If it is argued that it is difficult to do so in ruku and sajdah, the same could be said for qiyam, since to stand with one’s feet spread apart is naturally awkward and hence it presents a certain amount of difficulty and uneasiness for many people.
In short, this practice is not established as a sunnah of salah. It was merely adopted initially by the Sahaba (radiallahu anhum) BEFORE the commencement of salah to ensure that the rows are straight.
COMMENT
Abul Qaasim Jadli (rahmatullah alayh) said :I heard Nu’maan Bin Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) say: ‘Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) turned towards the people (the musallis) and say three times: ‘By Allah! Most certainly, you should straighten your sufoof otherwise Allah will create discord in your hearts.’ Thereafter I saw that a man would attach his shoulder to the shoulder of his companion (the one standing alongside), his knee to the knee of his companion and his ankle to the ankle of his companion. (Bukhari & Abu Dawood)
If we take the literal meaning of this hadith which a few people( WAHABIS) take , then we have to join our knee with the knee of the person standing next to us in suhoof, which is PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE if the two person are of different height, because the height of knee from ground will be different for two person of different height.( I really tried this!)
These people who take literal meaning fail to answer thisIn the endeavour to sustain the practice of stretching the legs wide open while performing Salaat, the Salafis have gone to the extreme of adopting this ugly stance even when performing Salaat alone.
The Salafis claim that it is Sunnah to stretch the legs wide apart and for a musalli’s toes to touch the toes of the musalli standing alongside him in the saff. This ludicrous position is imposed by the Salafis on even women who are obliged to stand with their legs wide open. What an ugly, miserable and immodest stance for a woman to adopt? A woman is an object of concealment according to the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). When she has to stretch her legs wide open, she adopts the stance of lewd and shameless women. Throughout Salaat, a woman’s postures are to be constricted -- made small and drawn in, not asserted like a man asserts and expresses his actions during Salaat.
COMMENT
Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: Join your sufoof and draw close among yourselves and line up with the necks. Reported by Abu Dawood and Nisai. Authenticated by Ibn Hibbaan. (Bulooghul Maraam)--*I’laaus SunnanSo the hadeeth tells up to line with Necks and not touch necks.
Even if the hadith tells us to LINE NECK ( AND NOT TOUCH) how woould WAHABIS explain this that if two brothers of different height are standing next to each other in a line during salah then their NECK WOULD not be in a straight line, rather the neck of the shorter person will be near the chest of the taller person, making NECKS in zig zag path rather than a straight line!
It is for this reason that the title of a chapter in Sahih al-Bukhari ‘Chapter on the Joining of the Shoulders and Feet Together Whilst Forming the Rows’ has been classified by Hafiz Ibn Hajar to be based on exaggeration. He writes in his commentary Fath al-Bari,
[Imam Bukhari’s] reason for choosing this specific title is to exaggerate (mubalagha) the importance of straightening the rows and filling the gaps in between. (Fath al-Bari2:247).
This means that the narration is not to be taken literally. Imam Shawkani, who is constantly referred to by those who prefer not to follow a school of thought( wahabis) in Islamic jurisprudence, has not taken it for its literal interpretation either. He writes in his bookNayl al-awtar:
[The statement of the Companion] means, place the parts of the body [shoulders, etc.] in line with each other, so that the shoulder of each person performing prayer is in level with the shoulder of the next person. This way everyone’s shoulders, knees and feet will be in a single straight line (Nayl al-awtar3:65*).In clear words, this indicates that the real reason for joining the shoulders and other parts, was to straighten the rows, not that the joining itself is an obligatory act.
COMMENT
Even one of the recent WAHABI scholar (Shaykh Salih al-'Uthaymin) says this
س234: ما المعتمد في إقامة الصفوف؟ وهل يشرع للمصلي أن يلصق كعبه بكعب من بجانبه؟ أفتونا مأجورين؟الجواب: الصحيح أن المعتمد في تسوية الصف محاذاة الكعبين بعضهما بعضاً، لا رؤوس الأصابع، وذلك لأن البدن مركب على الكعب، والأصابع تختلف الأقدام فيها، فهناك القدم الطويل، وهناك القدم القصير، فلا يمكن ضبط التساوي إلا بالكعب .وأما إلصاق الكعبين بعضهما ببعض فلا شك أنه وارد عن الصحابة –رضي الله عنهم- فإنهم كانا يسوون الصفوف بإلصاق الكعبين بعضهما ببعض ، أي أن كل واحد منهم يلصق كعبه بكعب جاره لتحقق المحاذاة وتسوية الصف، فهو ليس مقصوداً لذاته لكنه مقصود لغيره كما ذكر بعض أهل العلم، ولهذا إذا تمت الصفوف وقام الناس ينبغي لكل واحد أن يلصق كعبه بكعب صاحبه لتحقق المساواة، وليس معنى ذلك أن يلازم هذا الإلصاق ويبقى ملازماً له في جميع الصلاة . ومن الغلو في هذه المسألة ما يفعله بعض الناس من كونه يلصق كعبه بكعب صاحبه ويفتح قدميه فيما بينهما حتى يكون بينه وبين جاره في المناكب فرجة فيخالف السنة في ذلك، والمقصود أن المناكب والأكعب تتساوى
Question: What is the relied-upon position regarding the straightening of the rows (sufuf)? Is it prescribed for the praying person to join his ankle (ka'b) to the ankle of the person next to him? Please give us the fatwa, may you be rewarded.
Answer: That which is correct is that the relied-upon position regarding the straightening of the row is that the ankles should be in line with each other, not the ends of the toes, and that is because the body is supported upon the ankle, and the feet differ in regard to the toes, because some feet are long, and some feet are short. So it is impossible to ensure straightness except by the ankles (i.e. by the ankles being in line with each other).
As for joining the ankles to the ankles of the others, then no doubt this is reported from the Sahabah, radhiyallahu 'anhum, for they would straighten the rows by joining ankles, that is, every one of them would join his ankle with the ankle of his neighbour to ensure being line, and the straightness of the row. So it is not meant as an aim in itself, but rather as a means of achieving another aim, as some of the people of knowledge have mentioned. Therefore, when the rows are completed and the people are standing, it is befitting for every one of them to join his ankle to the ankle of his companion to ensure straightness. It does not mean that he should continue this joining and remain so for the whole salah.
From the extremism that has occurred with regard to this issue is what is done by some people in that one of them will join his ankle to the ankle of his companion, and he will spread his feet so far apart until there is a gap between his shoulder and the shoulder of his companion, so he will oppose the Sunnah by doing that. But the aim is that the shoulders and ankles should be in line with each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)