What has been said concerning the Rejecters of the Sunnah.

It is stated in al-Muheet that if a religious scholar is speaking points of knowledge or is relating authentic Hadith i.e., Hadith that are proven and not fake, and someone laughed at it saying that “all this is nothing”, whereby the purpose is to reject it, he will become an infidel. Because it is a contradiction of Allah’s statement: “But honour, power and glory belong to Allah and to His messenger and the believers.” and “While the word of Allah that became the uppermost” [Fatawa al-Muheet]

Muhammad bin Nasr al-Marwazi said concerning the wiping of the khuffs, “Whoever rejected that, then rejection of all of what we have mentioned from the Sunan is binding upon him, and also other than that from what we have not mentioned. And this constitutes exiting from the main body of the people of Islaam”. [As-Sunnah, p.104].

And al-Aajurree said, “The ruling concerning all of the obligatory duties that Allah has made incumbent in His Book is not known except by way of the Sunan of Allah’s Messenger (sallAllahu alaihi wasallam). This is the saying of the Scholars of the Muslims, and whoever says other than this has left the fold of Islaam and entered into the religion of the (apostate) heretics.” [Ash-Sharee’ah 1/412].

Ibn Hazm said, “If a man was to say, ‘We do not take except what we find in the Qur’aan’, then he would be a Kaafir (disbeliever) by unanimous agreement of the Muslims, and there would not be binding upon him (as a result of this saying of his) except a single rak’ah (of prayer) between the rising of the sun until the night time, since this is the least of what can actually be given the label of salaah (prayer), and there is no definition for that is greater than that (i.e. that one rak’ah is sufficient for it to be considered salaah). And the one who says this a Kaafir (disbeliever), Mushrik (pagan), whose blood is lawful to be shed, and whose wealth is lawful to be taken. Indeed, some of the extremist Raafidah – upon whose kufr (disbelief) the whole Ummah is agreed upon – have tended towards this view.” [Al-Ihkaam Fee Usool il-Ahkaam 2/80].

And Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Muhammad (sallAllahu alaihi wasallam) was sent to the two worlds, the men amongst them and the jinn amongst them. Whoever believes that it is permissible for anyone to exit from his Sharee’ah and from his obedience, then he is a kaafir, it is obligatory to kill him”. [al-Wasiyyat ul-Kubraa Dimn Majmoo’at ar-Rasaa’il al-Kubraa 1/315].

Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid commented upon the revilement of some of the deviants of the hadeeth of the fly, “Indeed this (hadeeth) and its likes, from what which has come the authentic hadeeths, if the one who speaks against them intends to nullify them, after having belief that the Messenger (sallAllahu alaihi wasallam) did speak with them, then is an open kaafir (disbeliever). And if he intends to nullify their ascription to the Messenger (sallAllahu alaihi wasallam) on account of a reason that returns back to the text of the hadeeth, then he is not a kaafir, though he is one who falsifies the authenticity of the hadeeth.” [Sharh ul-Ilmaam 2/177-178].

As- Suyootee said, “Whoever rejects that the hadeeth of the Prophet (sallAllahu alaihi wasallam) – whether it is related to speech or action – on account of the well known conditions in the Usool (sciences related to this subject), is considered a proof, has disbelieved, and has left the fold of Islaam, and he will be raised alongside the Jews and Christians, or alongside whomever Allah wills amongst the sects of disbelievers.” [Miftaah ul-Jannah Fil-Ihtijaaj Bis-Sunnah p.14]

Al- Mu’allimee said, “The one who rejects the obligation of acting upon the hadeeth in absolute terms (i.e. in principle), the proof is to be established upon him, and if he persists, then he is a kaafir (disbeliever). And the rejecter of the obligation to act upon some of the ahaadeeth, then if he has an excuse amongst the well-known excuses amongst the people of knowledge and what approximates to them, then he is excused. But otherwise, he is disobedient to Allah and His Messenger, and the disobedient one is a sinner, a faasiq.” [Anwaar ul-Kaashifah p.81-82].

And the Allaamah, ‘Abdul-Azeez bin Baaz (rahimahullaah) said: “What Rasheed Khalifah has expressed of rejection of the Sunnah, by claiming the lack of need and dependency upon it is kufr and apostasy from Islaam. This is because whoever rejects the Sunnah has in fact rejected the Book, and whoever rejects them both or just one of them is a kaafir by unanimous concensus, and it is not permissible to interact with him and his likes. Rather, it is obligatory to boycott him and to warn against his fitnah and to explain his kufr and misguidance at ever opportunity until he repents to Allah from all of that, with an openly proclaimed repentance, in the various newspapers (and otherwise) – due to the saying of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic: “Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers. Except those who repent and do righteous deeds, and openly declare (the truth which they concealed). These, I will accept their repentance. And I am the One Who accepts repentance, the Most Merciful” (Baqarah 2:159-160).” [Majmoo’ Fataawaa Wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah 2/403].

And he also said, “It is known to all the people of knowledge that the Sunnah is the second foundation of the foundations of Islam and that its position in Islaam is that it comes after the Book of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. Hence, it is a foundation that is depended upon after the Book of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, by the unanimous consensus of the people of knowledge, without exception. And it is also an independent proof and authority over all of the Ummah. Whoever denied or rejected it, or claimed that it is permissible to turn away from it and to suffice with the Qur’aan only, then he has gone far astray, and he has disbelieved with the major kufr and has apostatised from Islaam with this saying of his. For by this saying and by this belief he has belied Allah and His Messenger, and has rejected what Allah and His Messenger have commanded, and he has rejected a mighty foundation that Allah has made it obligatory to refer back to, depend upon, and take from. And he has also rejected the unanimous consensus of the people of knowledge that is binding upon him and has denied it.

And a new band has emerged, and this saying has not ceased to be repeated at one time or another, and this new band has been labelled “al-Qur’aaniyyah” (Quranites) and they have claimed that they are the people of the Qur’aan and that they seek proof in the Qur’aan only and that the Sunnah is not to be sought for proof (as an authority), since it was written a long time after the Prophet (sallAllahu alaihi wasallam) and that a person can forget and make mistakes, and that mistakes and errors can also creep into books – and other such deviations, mocking deceptions, and corrupt viewpoints. And they claimed that by all of this they are actually safeguarding their religion by not taking from anything but the Qur’aan alone. And they have indeed strayed far from the path, and they belied and disbelieved on account of all of this with the major kufr, that is open and clear. For indeed, Allah the Mighty and Majestic ordered with obedience to the Messenger (alaihis- salaatu was-salaam) and with Ittibaa’ (following) of what he came with, and He also called his speech “wahiy” (revelation), as occurs in His, the Most High’s, saying: “By the star when it goes down, (or vanishes). Your companion (Muhammad) has neither gone astray nor has erred. Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only an Inspiration that is inspired.” (Najm 53:1-4).

And if His Messenger was not to be followed or obeyed then there would have been no benefit or worth in His commands and prohibitions. And he (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) ordered that his Sunnah be conveyed, and hence, when he gave a sermon he ordered that his Sunnah be conveyed and transmitted. And this shows that his Sunnah is obligatory to be followed and that obeying him is obligatory upon the whole Ummah and whoever reflects upon the Mighty Qur’aan will find this abundantly clear. [Majmoo’ Fataawaa Wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah 9/176-178].

And the respected Shaikh, Abdul-Azeez bin Baaz made takfeer of the main spokesman of their sect, Ghulaam Ahmad Perweiz, and this is one of his comments in the Hajj Magazine, “At- Tadaamun al-Islaamee” which actually published the verdict that was sought by Shaikh Muhammad Yoosuf al-Banaori concerning the Sharee’ah judgement upon Ghulaam Ahmad Perweiz, and who also presented about twenty examples of what Perweiz had spoken or written. So Ibn Baaz (rahmatullaahi alaihi) said, “Everyone from those possessing knowledge and insight who reflects upon the abovementioned examples knows with certain knowledge which does not carry any doubt from any angle whatsoever that the one who is satisfied with them and believes them and who calls to them is a kaafir with the major kufr, an apostate from Islaam. It is obligatory that his repentance be demanded. If he repents with an open repentance, declaring himself to be a liar in a most clear manner, spreading all of this in the newspapers, just like he spread within them the beguiling false beliefs, then fine, otherwise, it is obligatory for the wali ul-amr (one in authority) over the Muslims to kill him. And this affair is known from the religion by necessity, and the evidences for it from the Book and the Sunnah and the consensus of the people of knowledge are very many indeed. It is not possible to enumerate all of them in this answer. And every example from those examples that the questioner has presented, from the beliefs of Ghulaam Ahmad Perweiz necessitate his kufr and his apostasy from Islaam in the view of the scholars of the Islamic Sharee’ah.” [Majmoo’ Fataawaa Wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah 3/268-270, and then the Shaikh refuted him with verses of the Qur’aan, and ahaadeeth. And he ended his words by saying, “The kufr of Perweiz is known most clearly and evidently to the common Muslims, let alone the Scholars, hence, there is no need to provide ample evidences for it.”

Taken from Sunnipoint

4 Responses to “What has been said concerning the Rejecters of the Sunnah.”

  1. 1 Koranist
    November 26, 2008 at 4:24 pm

    Schacht asserts that hadiths, particularly from Muhammad, did not form, together with the Qur’an, the original bases of Islamic law and jurisprudence as is traditionally assumed. Rather, hadiths were an innovation begun after some of the legal foundation had already been built. “The ancient schools of law shared the old concept of sunna or ‘living tradition’ as the ideal practice of the community, expressed in the accepted doctrine of the school.” And this ideal practice was embodied in various forms, but certainly not exclusively in the hadiths from the Prophet. Schacht argues that it was not until al-Shafi`i that ‘sunna’ was exclusively identified with the contents of hadiths from the Prophet to which he gave, not for the first time, but for the first time consistently, overriding authority. Al-Shafi`i argued that even a single, isolated hadith going back to Muhammad, assuming its isnad is not suspect, takes precedence over the opinions and arguments of any and all Companions, Successors, and later authorities. Schacht notes that:

    Two generations before Shafi`i reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule, to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception, and it was left to Shafi`i to make the exception the principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking, traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet.

    Based on these conclusions, Schacht offers the following schema of the growth of legal hadiths. The ancient schools of law had a ‘living tradition’ (sunna) which was largely based on individual reasoning (ra’y). Later this sunna came to be associated with and attributed to the earlier generations of the Successors and Companions. Later still, hadiths with isnads extending back to Muhammad came into circulation by traditionists towards the middle of the second century. Finally, the efforts of al-Shafi`i and other traditionists secured for these hadiths from the Prophet supreme authority.

    Goldziher maintains that, while reliance on the sunna to regulate the empire was favoured, there was still in these early years of Islam insufficient material going back to Muhammad himself. Scholars sought to fill the gaps left by the Qur’an and the sunna with material from other sources. Some borrowed from Roman law. Others attempted to fill these lacunae with their own opinions (ra’y). This latter option came under a concerted attack by those who believed that all legal and ethical questions (not addressed by the Qur’an) must be referred back to the Prophet himself, that is, must be rooted in hadiths.These supporters of hadiths (ahl al-hadith) were extremely successful in establishing hadiths as a primary source of law and in discrediting ra’y. But in many ways it was a Pyrrhic victory. The various legal madhhabs were loath to sacrifice their doctrines and so they found it more expedient to fabricate hadiths or adapt existing hadiths in their support. Even the advocates of ra’y were eventually persuaded or cajoled into accepting the authority of hadiths and so they too “found” hadiths which substantiated their doctrines that had hitherto been based upon the opinions of their schools’ founders and teachers. The insistence of the advocates of hadiths that the only opinions of any value were those which could appeal to the authority of the Prophet resulted in the situation that “where no traditional matter was to be had, men speedily began to fabricate it. The greater the demand, the busier was invention with the manufacture of apocryphal traditions in support of the respective theses.”

    In summary, Goldziher sees in hadiths “a battlefield of the political and dynastic conflicts of the first few centuries of Islam; it is a mirror of the aspirations of various parties, each of which wants to make the Prophet himself their witness and authority.” Likewise,

    Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam has found its expression in the form of a hadith, and there is no difference in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever field. What we learnt about political parties holds true too for differences regarding religious law, dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra’y or hawa, every sunna and bid`a has sought and found expression in the form of hadith.

    And even though Muslim traditionalists developed elaborate means to scrutinize the mass of traditions that were then extant in the Muslim lands, they were “able to exclude only part of the most obvious falsifications from the hadith material.” Goldziher, for all his scepticism, accepted that the practice of preserving hadiths was authentic and that some hadiths were likely to be authentic. However, having said that, Goldziher is adamant in maintaining that:

    In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation immediately following the Prophet’s death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections.

    From Daniel Brown Muslim Scholar from America

    The relevance of the past: classical conceptions of Prophetic authority

    The word sunna predates the rise of Islam and is well attested in pre-Islamic sources. The word sunna was likely to be applied to Muhammad even during his lifetime (p8).

    The Quran never mentions sunna-al-nabi (sunna of the Prophet). The application of the term sunna is likely to be post-Quranic, especially when applied exclusively to Muhammad.

    Early muslims did not give precedence of Muhammad’s sunna over other sunnas, such as the sunna of the early caliphs or early companions. The sunna term was not exclusive to Muhammad. There were no rigid distinctions about sources of religious law, i.e. it wasn’t concrete that Muhammad’s sunna could be used as a source of law.

    Shafi was born in 204 AH (193 years after Prophet Muhammad’s death). He was the first to argue the Prophet’s sunna as a source of law, identified to authentic prophetic hadith, and give it an equal footing to The Quran. Different attitudes to sunna existed during Shafi, al-kalam (a particular group or school of thought) rejected hadith altogether in favour of The Quran alone. Shafi’s view was also oppossed early by schools of jurisprudence in Hijaz, Iraq and Syria, who applied the term sunna to Muhammad, his companions and the early caliphs as well.
    After Shafi, it is rare to find the term sunna applied to other than Muhammad. Al-kalam argued the sunna of Muhammad should never be allowed to rule on The Quran and described the science of hadith (as in the methods used to collect hadith) as arbitrary. Evidence of this was the hadith was filled with contradictory, blasphemous and absurd traditions. [top]

    Challenges to the view of the organic relationship between The Quran and sunna are not completely unprecedented in the history of Islamic thought. Some of the opponents of Shafi argued that The Quran explains everything (e.g. 16:89) and needs no supplement, this was because one of Shafi’s central arguments was the need to clarify The Quran. This opposing viewpoint was snuffed out after the triumph of the traditionist view. However and it was not until the 19th and 20th centuries that the argument was seriously revived. One of the reasons Daniel Brown gives for the defeat of the opponents of Shafi was that they could not deny the authority of the Prophet. If for example, you found a hadith that was truly authentic then there is no way you can deny it because as it states in The Quran the Prophet was a very good example. Also, Shafi emphasised that to obey the Prophet was to obey God. Under this pressure, the opponents of Shafi were defeated. Rarely does the author address how specific arguments were defeated unfortunately, which was the most disappointing aspect of this book.

    The question arose: how is it possible to determine which hadith were authentic and which were not?

    In the 19th and 20th centuries, increased criticism and scrutiny by Western scholars of Islam showed Muslims that the hadith could not stand up to the criticism, whilst The Quran could. It made Muslims look back on the hadith and reflect more and examine their basis and origin in Islam.

    The authenticity of hadith

    The great compilations of the hadith took place in the 3rd century AH (i.e. beginning about 189 years after Prophet Muhammad’s death, with the 6 books being complete about 280 years after his death), p83. In the eyes of most Muslim scholars sahih (reliable/authentic) hadith could with a high degree of confidence be considered to represent the actual words and deeds of the Prophet. On the other hand, few scholars would have argued the system was full proof. Any information in the hadiths was no absolute truth, it had to be classified as conjecture. The opponents of the hadith at the start were a minority. It was not seriously questioned.
    Goldziher was unquestionably the most important 19th century critic of hadith. He became the first scholar to subject the hadith to a systematic historical and critical method. His study was published in 1896. Joseph Schacht “origins of Muhammadan jurisprudence” in 1950 was published. Like Goldziher, he concluded that few, if any traditions originated with the Prophet.
    Even the Prophet recognised that there were people among his companions or those living during his lifetime were spreading lies about him. This is testified to in a hadith in Bukhari (p85). There is documented evidence that the companions disagreed with each other and criticsed each other, for example Aisha and Ibn Abbas were reported to have criticised Abu Hurayra. A number of companions demanded evidence for the truth of reports passed onto them. Umar alledgedly questioned a report from Fatima bint Qays. Umar is also reported to have confined three companions to Medina to keep them from spreading traditions. Abu Huyrara was only with the Prophet for 3 years, yet he is alledged to have been the most prolific in transmitting hadith. Biographical literature provides ample material for criticism for Abu Huyrara’s character, Umar called Abu Huyrara a liar for example. Aisha criticised Anas for transmitting traditions as he was only a child during the life of the Prophet. And Hassan called both Umar and Zubair liars.

    The process of hadith transmission was primarily oral, at least through the first century. Even after written collections of hadith were compiled, oral transmission remained the ideal (p88). Abu Rayya argues that the late date when traditions began to be registered in written form more than 100 years after the Prophet’s death became a major obstacle to the fidelity of hadith (p89). Emerged in final form only in the 3rd and 4th centuries

    Those who argue that Muhammad’s companions began to record hadith in writing during his lifetime must explain the Prophetic prohibition on writing of hadith. Contradictions within the hadith exist regarding this subject. (p91)

    Under orders from Caliph Hisham, Shihab al-Zuhri was first assigned to collect hadith. This tradition has commonly been taken to mean that al-Zuhri, under duress, became the first traditionist to violate the Prophet’s prohibition on recording hadith in writing. Al-Zuhri is reported to have said: “We disapproved of recording knowledge until these rulers forced us to do so. After that reason we saw no reason to forbid the Muslims to do so.” In other words, before al-Zuhri writing was the rare exception; after him writing of traditions became commonplace. This argument is bolstered by numerous accounts that early generations of pious Muslims, including not only al-Zuhri and traditionists like him but also the first four Caliphs, strongly disapproved of writing hadith.
    The evidence strongly suggests that early generations of Muslims did record traditions in writing, however having reports about written records is rather different than having the records themselves. Thus, the apparent aversion of pious Muslims to the recording of hadith should be interpreted as reluctance to record an official, public collection of hadith. (p92)

    Scholars agree that forgery of hadith took place on a massive scale. The science of hadith developed gradually as a response to this problem. The early written compilations called suhuf were little more than random transcriptions or personal collections. Muslim sources identify the first systematic collection in recording of the hadith with the Ummad Caliph Umar and with the scholars Abu Bakr. No such collection has survived. The earliest systematic collection is the muttawata of Mailk bin Anas, 179 AH (168 years after Prophet Muhammad’s death), p94. Isnad (checking of transmissions) was not applied until after the early 2nd century AH according to Schacht. The book studies in early hadith literature stated it was earlier than this. For middle ground see Juynboll: “Muslim tradition”. Major works of hadith (p161 footnote 70).

    According to some, forgers of hadith became active even during the lifetime of the Prophet. In the Caliphate of Umar, the problem became so serious that he prohibited transmission of hadith altogether. The degree of the problem that resulted can be seen from the testimony of the muhahadithin (those who collect hadith) themselves. Bukhari selected 9000 traditions out of 700 000 (p96). When Bukhari reports that he selected from over 700 000 traditions, he is counting every different transmission chain, even when the substance of the tradition are the same (p99). The point is that hadith criticism did not begin during the 3rd century but was practiced continually from the time of the companions onwards (p99).

  2. June 20, 2009 at 2:00 pm

    HafidhakAllaahu Ya Akhee

    I actually wanted to write up a post similar to this speaking about what the Salaf said about the individuals that rejected the Hadeeth and Sunnah. This way of rejecting the Prophet Muhammad salallaahu alaihi wa salam never came to be a group until the 1800’s, before then individuals popped up with this idea of disbelief but they were rejected and refuted by the entire Ummah.

    BarakAllaahu feek for this post. InshaAllaah check out some of my posts on the Kaafir Quraanites.

  3. June 20, 2009 at 2:49 pm

    Woops that was before i realize you’re one of these disbelievers. May Allaah guide you.

  4. June 27, 2014 at 5:41 am

    great put up, very informative. I ponder why the opposite specialists of this sector do
    not notice this. You must proceed your writing.
    I’m confident, you have a huge readers’ base already!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Stefan Rosty Founded TruthBooth22.04.07

  • 451,654 hitz

“Virtual Insanity”

That's not nature's way Well that's what they said yesterday There's nothing left to do but pray I think it's time I found a new religion Waoh - it's so insane To synthesize another strain There's something in these Futures that we have to be told. JAMIROQUAI

RSS Genuine Islam

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

trashcontentz (by day)

July 2007
« Jun   Aug »

trashcontentz (by month)


RSS RationalReality.com

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Selves and Others

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS المؤلف: احمد صبحي منصور

%d bloggers like this: