#fakhruddin

[elizabethanism]

"Whose beloved are You?"

I asked,

"You who are so

unbearably beautiful?"

"My own," He replied,

"for I am one and alone

love, lover, and beloved

mirror, beauty, and eye."

Fakhruddin 'Iraqi

[theexpressoutlet]

"What is the Origin of the Intellect?" | Syedna Fakhruddin TUS Majalis al Hikma Series

What is the intellect – aql – and where did it come from? Is faith based on intellect and reason – is it rational? Every intelligent person tries to reason the answers to these important questions.

Allah Ta’ala addresses humans in the Quran as rational beings. He addresses them specifically as people of intelligence in so many instances in the Quran. Rasulullah SA said that the first thing God…

View On WordPress

[theexpressoutlet]

"What is the Purpose of Life?" | Syedna Fakhruddin TUS Majalis al Hikma Series

What is the Purpose and Meaning of Life on Earth? All this that we see – the sky, the stars and the seas – why does it exist? Why do humans have an upright form and possess intelligence? Humans use their reason to comprehend, they ask why does life exist? Why have I been created? Whatever humans do they do for a reason. Surely the Almighty created this world for a reason. We see this creation,…

View On WordPress

[trendsnewsandnetwork-blog]

Former President of India Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed's nephew says his name not on Assam NRC list | India News

Former President of India Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed’s nephew says his name not on Assam NRC list | India News

[ad_1]

NEW DELHI: A nephew of former President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed said on Tuesday his name and some of his family’s name do not feature in the final draft of Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC) that was released a day earlier, reported news agency ANI.

“Our names are not mentioned in NRC list as my father’s name is not mentioned in the legacy data document, I will get in touch with my…

View On WordPress

[trendsnewsandnetwork-blog]

Left Out Of Assam Citizens’ List, Says Relative Of Former President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Ziauddin Ali Ahmed is the nephew of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, the fifth President of India. New Delhi: 

[vineetkaur]

Dilli is a multiple-award winning documentary that has played in over 50 international film festivals across North America, South America, Africa, Europe and Asia. 

I have always disliked this disparity that exists in Delhi and Gurgaon. Somehow the city's sprawling luxury apartments and shopping places have never impressed me. I haven't been able to understand how can authorities be oblivious to the chaos that exists outside their bubble.

There hasn't been a single instance when I have felt good about Delhi. 

Last week when I was in Delhi, I took a cab from Delhi to Gurgaon. After answering a couple of questions, as usual I jerked out a rude reply to an inquisitive cab driver. Staying away from home since eleven years, I can tackle the unwanted attention especially from notorious cab drivers. But this time I was in for a surprise ! 

"Kya madam taxi chala rahe hai to aisa waisa mat samjho !" I wasn't prepared for this sheer honesty ! This guy in his early twenties owned this and a couple of other cabs, was happily married and planned to help his wife study further. Fakhuruddin stays in Nizamuddin, Old Delhi with his wife Anjum whom he married against the wishes of his family. There was something so truthful about this fellow, wish I could describe why it sounded so convincing. He went on to tell me how he had returned an NRI's luggage with stuff worth crores ,he left it in Fakhruddin's cab, and how he helped a dozen others. Some offered him gifts, some thanked him and others simply walked away.

He's one of the most positive people I've ever met. That day I was feeling low and was a bit shaken. But after this journey I couldn't feel any better about my life ! I'm already planning my next trip to Old Delhi. With Anjum and Fakhruddin to show me around, why not ... !

[floodplains]

I've heard of Hanafi, Maliki and Shafi'i followers in the Tijani Tariqa, but never any mention of the Hanbali Madhab. Are there or have there ever been any prominent Hanbali Tijani's. If so could you name some of them?

As-salāmu ʿalaykum:

There are Hanbalī ʿUlamāᵓ in the Ṭarīqa Tijāniyya, several of which I know personally in the Hijāz who were formerly Wahhabis. Due to the waning presence and practise of the Hanbalī madhhab worldwide, it is difficult to say whether any Tijānī shuyūkh were renowned within that jurisprudential school. Allāhu aʿlam.

Waᵓs-salām,

Imām Fakhruddīn Owaisī al-Madanī al-Fayḍawī, Senior Correspondent [Cape Town, RSA]

©2011 سهول الفيضة | FLOODPLAINS®

[floodplains]

29DḤJ1432 | FAQs noº17 (Reasonable Doubt).

Q| Why do many Ṣūfīs quote aḥādīth in their books that have been classified as fabricated or wrongly attributed to the Prophet ﷺ [mawḍūʿ] or weak in their transmission [ḍaʿīf]? And can we use these books?

A| As you have asked for any answer, I will mention some of the points I picked up on this issue during my search for knowledge:

As a disclaimer, I DO NOT necessarily endorse everything here; I am simply explaining and exploring why the Ṣūfīs might have quoted aḥādīth that have been deemed as weak or fabricated in their works, as that’s what the inquirer wants to know.

First of all, many of the Ṣūfīs who have mentioned these “fabricated” aḥādīth in their works, were not masters in the field of ḥadīth, so there is a big probability that they did not know the mawḍūʿ status of these aḥādīth. They simply quoted these aḥādīth because they were renown and oft-cited [aḥādīth mashᵓhūra] among the masses and among many ʿUlamāᵓ, and their contents were good (i.e. they contained a good message, which could be attributed to the Prophet ﷺ).

Even a man like Ḥujjatuᵓl-Islām al-Ghazālī, may Allāh have mercy on him, mentioned many ḍaʿīf and mawḍūʿ aḥādīth in his works. Many fuqahāᵓ and wuʿāz have also done the same, not to mention countless historians. Even ʿUlamāᵓ who were masters in ḥadīth have quoted baseless aḥādīth in non-ḥadīth contexts, including Shaykh ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawzī and Imām as-Suyūtī.

Furthermore, it has never been a condition of benefiting from a book that all the aḥādīth cited therein should be classified as sound [ṣaḥīḥ]. If that was the case, then we would not be allowed to use any beneficial book in Islām, besides the collections of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, not even Tirmidhī, Nasāᵓī, Ibn Mājā, Abī Dāwūd or even the books of the Salafī ideologues Ibn Taymiyya and Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, as all these books contain many non-ṣaḥīḥ aḥādīth. Most of the blessed books of the Sufis are like that, and are from the greatest books written in Islām. The ʿUlamāᵓ have studied them for many centuries, long before the "Salafī movement" even existed.

The condition for using a book is that most of its aḥādīth should be authentic [ṣaḥīḥ aw ḥasan], and not nessecarily all. Aḥādīth ḍaʿīf are not the same as mawdūʿ. The former are aḥādīth which are lacking rigorous authenticity (but could still be indeed authentic), while the latter are outright fabrications exposed by the scholars.

Therefore, throughout most of our intellectual history, quoting fabricated aḥādīth without checking their status or origin was normal (it remains normal in many Muslim circles until the present day). To be fair, the Salafiyya, despite all the damage they have done to Islamic scholarship, definitely contributed to the rise of authentication [takhrīj] consciousness among the ʿUlamāᵓ and masses. Nowadays, one is scared to quote a ḥadīth without knowing the full extraction and status, whereas my grandfather (who was also an ʿālim and Ṣūfī) could do that frequently without question.

Nevertheless, the present Grand-Mufti of Egypt, al-ʿAllama Shaykh ʿAlī Gomaa severely critisizes the pseudo-Salafī researcher Nāsir ad-Dīn al-Albānī for inventing and promoting the innovation of "following only ṣaḥīḥ and rejecting all non-ṣaḥīḥ". He makes it clear that such a rigid approach to aḥādīth goes against the practice of the true Salaf themselves! Listen to him here.

Needless to say, the great Ṣūfiyya and Awliyāᵓ did not knowingly and intentionally attribute anything false to the Prophet ﷺ, but they did so unknowingly. It would beyond these “people of Jannah” to do something characteristic of the “people of Jahannam”.

The fact that a ḥadīth has been considered ḍaʿīf or mawḍūʿ, considering the chain of transmission [sanad] of the ḥadīth, doesn’t necessarily mean that the Prophet ﷺ definitely did not or could not have said it. It simply means that the sanad is unhealthy. Without the sanad, the muḥaddithīn had no other way of verifying the authenticity of the ḥadīth.

However, many (but not all) Ṣūfīs had another unique (but also very out of the ordinary) way of verifying the authenticity of aḥādīth; and that is through spiritual disclosure of Realities [kashf], or direct contact with Rasūluᵓllāh ﷺ, through a dream or in wakefulness.

The great majority of ʿUlamāᵓ consider both phenomena as very much possible and true, according to reason and revelation [jāᵓiz ʿaqlan wa thābit naqlan].  The Prophet ﷺ himself informed the Umma that they will continue seeing him ﷺ after his passing away; and lest anyone deny it, he ﷺ emphasized that they will see him ﷺ, for shayṭān cannot take his ﷺ form. Obviously they will not see him ﷺ for futility, but to purposefully learn things from him ﷺ.

This issue has already been resolved by our ʿUlamāᵓ, and most of the greatest ʿUlamāᵓ and Awliyāᵓ of this ummah have seen the Prophet ﷺ in dreams and wakefulness and have learned many things from him, such as supplications [duʿā], gracious expressions [ṣalawāt], conditions [masāᵓil], advice [nasāᵓiḥ], spiritual positions [maqāmāt] of people, places or poems, answers and decisions on Dīn and dunyā issues, and much more.

One can cite countless examples of this from numerous ʿUlamāᵓ and Ṣūfiyya but most of us know these stories already. Indeed, it is immensely fortuitous [bishāra] for this Umma that our Prophet ﷺ is still in touch with us... at least those of us who do not deny his ﷺ consistent presence.

With this said, it is very much possible for a walī who saw or always sees Sayyid al-Wujūd ﷺ to ask him ﷺ about the status of a certain ḥadīth; and it is also possible that he ﷺ authenticates a ḥadīth that is generally not verifiable in the books. It is also possible that he ﷺ confirms that he ﷺ did actually say those words, or confirms the contents of the words, which would then count as Prophetic approval.

None less than a great muḥaddith like the mujaddid as-Suyūtī mentions in his book Tanwīruᵓl-halak how a certain walī called a certain ḥadīth which a faqīḥ quoted in his lecture as mawḍūʿ, and when asked for a proof, said, “Rasūluᵓllāh ﷺ is standing next to you and rejecting that he ﷺ said those words.”

It is mentioned in the Ibrīz that the Ghawth, Mawlānā ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ad-Dabbagh, may Allāh be pleased with him, was quoted many aḥādīth ṣaḥīḥ wa mawḍūʿ by a certain arrogant faqīḥ who wanted to test him, but was astonished to see that the “illiterate” saint could easily distinguish between the authentic and the fabricated! When asked how he was able to do so, Sīdī ad-Dabbagh replied that every true saying of the Prophet ﷺ has a certain light that emanates with it, and he, as a master of illumined disclosures [ṣāḥibuᵓl-kashfuᵓl-nurānī], could see it!

Shaykhuᵓl-Akbar Ibn ʿArabī, may Allāh be pleased with him, also verified the authenticity of certain aḥādīth through kashf. Sayyidinā Shaykh Aḥmad at-Tijānī, may Allāh be well-pleased with him, also did so, and many other Awliyāᵓ.

In summary, for the walī who really saw the Prophet ﷺ and heard him confirm a certain ḥadīth, there is certainty [yaqīn] on the matter once and for all, and he will not listen to any muḥaddith ‘complaining about the sanad’ after that. For the Ṣūfī, the Prophet ﷺ had already warned to not take him ﷺ after anyone else if he ﷺ appeared in a dream or vision. Of course, the muḥaddithīn will not accept most of this, but I am simply explaining the Ṣūfī viewpoint, as that is what the brother wanted to know. I am NOT justifying anything here.

There is also the likelihood that the Prophet ﷺ said something to a certain walī in a dream or vision, and then the walī quoted the saying as “Qāla Rasūluᵓllah ﷺ...”, and with the passage of time, people (and other Sufis) took that saying to be a ḥadīth proper. This has happened.

Another important reason for the leniency of some Sufis in attributing sayings to the Prophet ﷺ is their understanding of who the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ really is… in his pre and post-human reality. Here I am referring to the Ṣūfī concept of the Muḥammadan Reality [al-ḥaqīqatuᵓl-Muḥammadiyya]. According to this concept, all goodness, wisdom, knowledge and beauty in the universe emanates from Muḥammad ﷺ (i.e. his Reality). Therefore, in a state of spiritual annihilation in the Muḥammadan Reality [fanāᵓ fīᵓr-Rasūl], it is all attributable to him ﷺ.

The Ṣūfī poet Imām al-Busīrī, in his Burda and Hamziyya (also recited with devotion by many fuqaḥāᵓ and muḥaddithīn) attributed all the miracles and wisdom of all the Prophets and all wise people to our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ!

و كل آي أتى الرسل الكرام بها

فإنما اتصلت من نوره بهم

و كلهم من رسول الله ملتمس

غرفا من البحر أو رشفاً من الديم

[Qasīdatuᵓl-Burda al-Mubāraka]

أنت مصباح كل فضل فما

تصدر إلا عن ضوئك الاضواء

 كل فضل في العالمين فمن

فضل النبي استعاره الفضلاء

[Qasīdatuᵓl-Hamziyya al-Mubāraka]

This is also another reason why a genuinely annihilated Ṣūfī might not hesitate as much as a muḥaddith in attributing a certain ‘wise saying’ to the Prophet ﷺ, even if the sanad was found lacking. The Ṣūfī might agree that in the outward [ẓāhir] manisfestation of matters, the saying would probably be more attributable to a known ṣaḥābi, tābiʿī or walī; but in the inward [bāṭin] Reality, he would have no doubt that such knowledge only emanates from the Prophet ﷺ, as he ﷺ is the Eminent Instructor [ustadhuᵓl-ʿaᵓẓam]! 

I have personally been in the company of some genuine, spiritually-finished people who, when they quote a certain wise saying as a ḥadīth and are then reminded that it is probably the saying of another blessed person, will immediately react and say, “It is still the Prophet ﷺ. It is all the Prophet ﷺ.”

In fact, this idea is confirmed in the ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ himself, who is narrated to have said:

ما قيل من قول حسن فأنا قلته

"Whatever, good words are said, then I have said them."

To be fair, this ḥadīth itself has ben classified as "weak". But it was still narrated by great men such as Imām Aḥmad bin Hanbal and Imām Ibn Mājā, may Allāh be pleased with them both. Point is that the Ṣūfīs did not just invent the concept I mentioned, but it has ḥadīth origins as well. 

In conclusion, these are some of the reasons I have picked up for the Ṣūfī quotation of weak or "fabricated" aḥādīth, and this is not meant to be comprehensive in any way.

It goes without saying that the honorable muḥaddithīn do not accept most of the above-mentioned points as a valid ḥadīth verification methodology (for good reason), and the Ṣūfīs themselves have not tried to impose this on the muḥaddithīn.

But it also goes without saying that the Ṣūfīs have a methodology and criteria of their own in these and other matters, and are not strictly bound to the methodology of the muḥaddithīn. They, the Qawm, are a ṭāᵓifa on their own, and most scholars mention them as such next to the mutakallimīn, muḥaddithīn and fuqaḥāᵓ. Each group of these seekers of the truth have there own methodologies and priorities.

What is amazing though (in Sunni tradition) is that despite these differences in approaches and epistemologies, most of the ṭawāᵓif of the ʿUlamāᵓ, including the mutakallimīn, muḥaddithīn, mufassirīn and fuqaḥāᵓ, have nevertheless held the Ṣūfīs in the highest of esteem and have rarely dared to criticize them.

Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-Makkī, despite his adherence to the methodology of the muḥaddithīn and fuqaḥāᵓ, considered criticizing the Ṣūfīs as a deadly poison [summuᵓl-qātil] , and warned the ʿUlamāᵓ and students of knowledge [ṭullāb al-ʿilm] to not to fall into the trap of criticizing the Awliyāᵓ and finding faults with them, as they are the beloveds of Allāh, and nothing matters more than that.  

In our times, there is an increase in the number of these unfortunate “students of knowledge” who love to find faults with the Awliyāᵓ, forgetting that their blessed meat is poisoned.

Mawlānā as-Shaykhuᵓl-Muḥaddith al-Faqīḥ Sīdī Aḥmad Sukayrij al-Fāsī at-Tijānī, may Allāh be well-pleased with him, used to say, “Allāh has declared war on two kinds of people only: those who are engaged in usury [ribāᵓ], and those who fight the Awliyāᵓ; and in our times, most of the traders are involved in usury and most of the students of Sharīʿa are involved in fighting the Awliyāᵓ…so no wonder that the Umma is in trouble with Allāh.”

The false "Ṣalafīyya" condemn the Ṣūfīs for not adhering to ḥadīth principles in their books, but forget that the greatest masters of ḥadīth had showed the highest respect [adab] and love [maḥabba] for the Ṣūfīs, and at the most, considered them excused [maᵓẓūr] due to their states.

We saw our Shaykh, the Muḥaddith of the Ḥaramayn, Sayyid Muḥammad bin ʿAlawī al-Mālikī, may Allāh illuminate his abode, show adab to some contemporary men of Allāh, who had probably never completely read any book of ḥadīth nor fiqḥ, yet he honored them for their ṣalāh and wilāya. I personally think that approach would be safer, but what I wrote is open for criticism.

Waᵓllāhu Aʿlam.

—Imām Fakhruddin Owaisī al-Madanī al-Fayḍawī, Senior Correspondent [Cape Town, RSA]

©2011 سهول الفيضة | FLOODPLAINS