Imam Abu Yusuf and His reliability in transmitting Hadith

Kitab-al-Kharaj_Abu-Yusuf

Imam Abu Yusuf and His reliability in transmitting Hadith

23 Oct, 2015

1. Imam Abu Yusuf Ya’qub ibn Ibrahim al-Qadi’s Reliability in Narrating Hadith

Imam Abu Yusuf (113 – 182), the foremost student of Imam Abu Hanifah and the first chief judge in Muslim history, was also a hafiz of hadith as he is included in Imam al-Dhahabi’s Tadhkirat al-Huffaz, and as is clear from his works like Kitab al-Kharaj, which is in print, in which he narrates many hadiths. His reliability in hadith was accepted by most of the scholars of narrator-criticism. I will quote authentic reports from them below:

1. ‘Ali ibn al-Madini (161 – 235 H), the Imam of al-Jarh wa l-Ta’dil

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrates: Al-Azhari and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Maliki informed me: ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Uthman al-Saffar narrated to us: Muhammad ibn ‘Imran ibn Musa al-Sayrafi reported to us: ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Madini narrated to us: I heard my father say: “Abu Yusuf al-Qadi came to Basra twice. First in the year, 176 and I did not come to him. The second, in the year 180 and we would come to him, and he would narrate ten hadiths and ten opinions [of fiqh at a time], and I did not find anything [objectionable in his hadiths] except the hadith of Hisham on the stone. He was reliable (saduq), and he did not narrate from Hisham besides this hadith.” (Tarikh Baghdad 16:374)

This isnad is sahih or hasan. All the narrators in this chain are reliable: Al-Azhari is ‘Abd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Uthman al-Sayrafi (355 – 435), and is saduq according to al-Khatib (Misbah al-Arib 2:303); Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Maliki (350 – 437 H) is saduq (Tarikh Baghdad 13:584); ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Uthman ibn Muhammad al-Saffar (d. 382) is thiqah (Tarikh Baghdad 11:225-6); Muhammad ibn ‘Imran ibn Musa al-Sayrafi (d. 315) is thiqah according to Daraqutni (Tarikh Baghdad 4:226).

Ibn al-Madini, a strict critic of narrators and one who spent time with Abu Yusuf and heard hadith from him directly, acknowledged his reliability in the narration of hadith.

2. Ahmad ibn Hanbal (164 – 241 H), the Imam of hadith and fiqh

Al-Khatib narrates: Abu Sa‘id Muhammad ibn Musa al-Sayrafi reported to us: I heard Abu l-‘Abbas Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub al-Asamm say: I heard ‘Abd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal say: My father (Ahmad ibn Habal) said: “Abu Yusuf is reliable (saduq), but it is not appropriate to narrate anything from the companions of Abu Hanifah.” (Tarikh Baghdad 16:380)

This isnad is sahih. Al-Sayrafi (d. 421) is thiqah according to al-Dhahabi (Misbah al-Arib 3:238); al-Asamm (247 – 346) is a famous Hafiz from whom al-Hakim narrated in his Mustadrak and he is thiqah; ‘Abd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal (d. 290) is a narrator of al-Nasa’i, and thiqah according to Taqrib.

Imam Ahmad does not hide his bias against Imam Abu Hanifah and his companions, but because Abu Yusuf was his first teacher from whom he wrote hadith, he had some level of respect for him, which is why he referred to him as saduq (reliable) and munsif (fair) in hadith.

Al-Khatib narrates: Al-Azhari reported to us: ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Umar narrated to us: Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Ya‘qub narrated to us: My grandfather narrated to us: I heard Yayha ibn Ma‘in say: “I wrote [hadiths] from Abu Yusuf, and I narrate [hadiths] from him.” And my grandfather said: I heard Ahmad ibn Hanbal say: “The first from whom I wrote hadith is Abu Yusuf and I do not narrate from him.” (Tarikh Baghdad 16:380)

This isnad is hasan. ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Umar ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad known as Ibn Hammah (d. 397) is thiqah according to al-Khatib and al-‘Atiqi (Tarikh Baghdad 11:608); Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Ya‘qub ibn Shaybah (254 – 331) is thiqah according to al-Khatib (Tarikh Baghdad 2:248). He heard from his grandfather, the famous trustworthy hafiz Ya‘qub ibn Shaybah (180 – 262), author of the Musnad, as a child.

Al-Khatib narrates: Al-Barqani reported to us: It was read to Ishaq al-Ni‘ali while I listened: ‘Abd Allah ibn Ishaq al-Mada’ini narrated to you: Hanbal ibn Ishaq narrated to us: I heard my uncle, i.e. Ahmad ibn Hanbal, say: “Ya‘qub Abu Yusuf would narrate from Hanzalah and the Meccans, and he was fair in hadith.” (Tarikh Baghdad 16:380)

The isnad is sahih. Al-Barqani is thiqah; Ishaq ibn Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Ni‘ali (d. 364) is thiqah (Misbah al-Arib 1:199); ‘Abd Allah ibn Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Anmati al-Mada’ini (d. 311) is thiqah as said by al-Daraqutni and al-Khatib (Misbah al-Arib 2:240); Hanbal ibn Ishaq (d. 273) is saduq according to al-Daraqutni and thiqah according to al-Khatib (Misbah al-Arib 1:406)

3. Yahya ibn Ma’in (158 – 233), the Imam of al-Jarh wa l-Ta’dil

Al-Khatib narrates: ‘Abd Allah ibn Yahya al-Sukkari informed me: Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Shafi‘i reported to us: Ja‘far ibn Muhammad ibn al-Azhar narrated to us: Ibn al-Ghalabi narrated to us: Yahya ibn Ma‘in said: “Abu Yusuf al-Qadi was not acquainted with hadith, and he is thiqah.”

This isnad is sahih or hasan. Abu Muhammad ‘Abd Allah ibn Yahya ibn ‘Abd al-Jabbar al-Sukkari (d. 417) is saduq according to al-Khatib (Tarikh Baghdad 11:454); Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Shafi‘i (d. 353) is thiqah according to al-Khatib and al-Daraqutni; Ja‘far ibn Muhammad ibn al-Azhar known as al-Bawardi and al-Tusi (d. 299) is thiqah according to al-Khatib (Tarikh Baghdad 8:98); al-Mufaddal ibn Ghassan ibn al-Mufaddal Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Ghalabi (no date of death) is thiqah (Tarikh Baghdad 15:156).

Ibn Ma’in’s comment that Abu Yusuf was not acquainted with hadith is probably due to the latter’s preoccupation with fiqh and qada, for otherwise, Abu Yusuf was a hafiz of hadith as is apparent from his works and from the number of his shuyukh. This comment is also contradicted by what was also narrated from Ibn Ma’in as mentioned by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani in Lisan al-Mizan (8:518) that al-Tahawi narrated from Ibrahim ibn Sulayman ibn Dawud al-Asadi (d. 270) who is trustworthy according to Ibn Yunus (Misbah al-Arib 1:32) from Ibn Ma‘in that, “There is not amongst the champions of opinion [one with] more hadith, nor more firm than Abu Yusuf.” It is also mentioned above in the second narration from Ahmad that Ibn Ma’in would write and narrate from Abu Yusuf.

There is, however, an authentic narration from Ibn Ma’in as narrated by Ahmad ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Maryam that he said about Abu Yusuf, “his hadiths are not written.” (Tarikh Baghdad 16:378) However, al-Khatib counters this with his statement “[narrators] besides Ibn Abi Maryam narrated from Yahya that he declared [Abu Yusuf] thiqah.” Hence, it appears that according to al-Khatib the latter narration is shadh (anomolous) while the narrations from Ibn Ma’in supporting Abu Yusuf’s reliability are mahfuz (preserved).

From the above, it is clear al-Madini, Ibn Ma’in and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who were contemporaries, and who would meet regularly to discuss hadiths, all agreed Abu Yusuf was either saduq or thiqah. Al-Khatib narrates with an authentic chain from Qadi Ahmad ibn Kamil (d. 305) that he said: “Yahya ibn Ma’in, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and ‘Ali ibn al-Madini did not differ on Abu Yusuf being thiqah in narration.” (Tarikh Baghdad 16:361) Although Ibn Kamil is weak in hadith, his statement is corroborated by the above evidence.

4. Al-Daraqutni (306 – 385 H)

Al-Barqani narrated in his Su’alat (no. 567) that al-Daraqutni said of Abu Yusuf “he is stronger than Muhammad ibn al-Hasan,” and as shown here al-Daraqutni said of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan he is from “the trustworthy huffaz” and “he does not deserve rejection.” Hence, Abu Yusuf is thiqah according to him.

5. Imam al-Nasa’i (214 – 303 H), the author of the Sunan

Imam al-Nasa’i like Ibn al-Madini was from the mutashaddid (strict) critics of narrators, so when he says a narrator is reliable, his word is generally accepted. He wrote in his Kitab al-Du’afa, as mentioned in Lisan al-Mizan (8:519), “Abu Yusuf is trustworthy (thiqah).”

6. Ibn Hibban (270 – 354), the author of the Sahih

He included Imam Abu Yusuf in his list of trustworthy narrators (al-Thiqat) and said Abu Yusuf is a “proficient (mutqin) shaykh (of hadith).” “Mutqin” is equivalent to “thiqah” as mentioned in Tadrib al-Rawi and other books on Usul al-Hadith.

7. Ibn ‘Adi (277 – 365)

Ibn ‘Adi said about Abu Yusuf, despite his bigotry and bias against the Hanafi Imams, “there is no harm in him” (la ba’sa bihi) which is equivalent to “saduq.” (Lisan al-Mizan 8:519)

8/9. Imam al-Bayhaqi and Imam al-Hakim also declared Abu Yusuf trustworthy (thiqah) in their 2. works.

————————————-

Based on the above, the statement of al-Bukhari in al-Tarikh al-Kabir, “they abandoned him,” will not be accepted.

Imam Abu Yusuf was, without doubt, thiqah (trustworthy) in the narration of hadith.

Taken with thanks from – HERE

————————————

2. Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut: Qadi Abu Yusuf is trustworthy

Here is an excerpts from Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut’s research on Sharh Mushkil al-Athar of Imam Abu Ja’far at-Tahawi. He counted Qadi Abu Yusuf, the student of Imam Abu Hanifa, as trustworthy (thiqah).

Mushkil al-Athar - Abu Yusuf 1

2256: Ja’far bin Ahmad bin al-Walid al-Aslami — Bishr bin al-Walid al-Kindi — Abu Yusuf — ‘Ubaydullah bin ‘Umar — Usamah bin Zayd — ‘Irak bin Malik — Abu Hurayrah from the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), narrated a report similar to the previous one.[2] [2] Its chain is Hasan due to Usamah bin Zayd al-Laythi. Rest of its narrators are trustworthy.

See,

al-Arna’ut, Shu’ayb (editor), at-Tahawi’s Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, (Beirut: Mo’assasat ar-Resalah, 1994) vol.6 p.29

Ahmad Shamil

—————————————————–

3. Ahmad Shakir: Criticism on Qadi Abu Yusuf is unjust

Renowned hadith scholar Shaykh Ahmad Shakir in annotations to a Hadith in his research on Musnad Ahmad defends the great jurist and the most prominent of the students of Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Abu Yusuf al-Qadi, against criticism by some hadith scholars.

أبو يوسف القاضي : ثقة صدوق تكلموا فيه بغير حق ترجمه البخاري في ” الكبير ” 4 / 397 : 2 ، وقال : تركوه وقال في ” الضعفاء ” ص 38 : تركه يحيى وابن مهدي وغيرهما وترجمه الذهبي في ” الميزان ” 447 : 4 ، والحافظ في ” لسان الميزان ” 300 : 6 ، والخطيب في ” تاريخ بغداد ” ترجمة حافلة (14:242.262) ، وأعدل ما قيل فيه قول أحمد بن كامل عند الخطيب : ولم يختلف يحيى بن معين وأحمد بن حنبل وعلي بن المديني في ثقته في النقل

Abu Yusuf al-Qadi: Trustworthy, reliable. People have criticized him unjustly. Al-Bukhari mentions him in Tarikh al-Kabir 4/397 and said, “They have rejected him.” And in al-Du’afa p.38 he said, “He was rejected by Yahya and Ibn Mahdi and others.” Adh-Dhahabi makes a mention of him in al-Mizan 4/447 and al-Hafiz in Lisan al-Mizan 6/300. Al-Khatib gives his detailed account in Tarikh Baghdad 14/242-262. The most just saying about him is the statement of Ahmad bin Kamil given by al-Khatib, “Yahya bin Ma’in, Ahmad bin Hanbal and ‘Ali bin al-Madini did not differ in grading him as trustworthy in reporting.”

See, Ahmad Shakir (ed.), Musnad Ahmad, (Cairo: Dar al-Hadith, 1995) vol.6 p.268

—  Yahya Ja’far

source

Advertisements

Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani and his reliability in hadith transmission

Kitab-al-Athar-of-Shaybani

Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani and his reliability in hadith transmission

27 Oct, 2015

  1. Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani’s Reliability in Narrating Hadith

Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani (132 – 189), who was one of the foremost students of Imam Abu Hanifah, and an undisputed authority in fiqh (jurispudence) and lughah (language), was also a hafiz (memoriser of a large number) of hadith as mentioned by al-Daraqutni and as is apparent from his works on hadith like his Muwatta’, Kitab al-Athar and Kitab al-Hujjah, all of which are in print. His reliability in hadith was transmitted from ‘Ali ibn al-Madini (d. 235) and al-Daraqutni (d. 385):

1. ‘Ali ibn al-Madini

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrates: ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Maliki informed us: ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Uthman al-Saffar reported to us: Muhammad ibn ‘Imran ibn Musa al-Sayrafi narrated to us: ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Madini narrated to us from his father: “I asked him about Asad ibn ‘Amr, al-Hasan ibn Ziyad al-Lu’lu’i and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, and he weakened Asad and al-Hasan ibn Ziyad, and said ‘Muhammad ibn al-Hasan is reliable (saduq).’” Tarikh Baghdad (Bashshar ‘Awwad ed. 2:572)

Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Maliki (350 – 437 H) is saduq (Tarikh Baghdad 13:584); ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Uthman ibn Muhammad al-Saffar (d. 382) is thiqah (Tarikh Baghdad 11:225-6); Muhammad ibn ‘Imran ibn Musa al-Sayrafi (d. 315) is thiqah according to Daraqutni (Tarikh Baghdad 4:226).

‘Ali ibn al-Madini was a strict (mutashaddid) critic of narrators and was not partial to the Hanafi Imams, so this statement from him strongly supports the view that Imam Muhammad is trustworthy in hadith.

2. Al-Daraqutni

Imam al-Zayla’i wrote in his Nasb al-Rayah (Muhammad ‘Awwamah ed. 1:408-9) while discussing the hadiths in favour of those who advocate raising the hands before and after ruku:

“Al-Daraqutni said in Ghara’ib Malik: ‘Malik did not mention [in his narration from Ibn ‘Umar] in al-Muwatta’ raising [the hands] before ruku’, and he mentioned it in [his narrations] outside of al-Muwatta’. Twenty individuals from the trustworthy memorisers (al-thiqat al-huffaz) narrated it. From them are: Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, Yahya ibn Sa‘id al-Qattan, ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Mahdi, Ibn Wahb and others.’”

Al-Daraqutni refers to Muhammad ibn al-Hasan as a thiqah hafiz on par with such masters of hadith as Yahya al-Qattan, Ibn al-Mubarak and Ibn al-Mahdi. Al-Barqani (who is thiqah according to al-Khatib) narrated in his Su’alat (questions) from al-Daraqutni that he said about Muhammad ibn al-Hasan “according to me, he does not deserve rejection” (‘indi la yastahiqq al-tark).

Hence, it is established that Ibn al-Madini and al-Daraqutni believed Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani was reliable or trustworthy in the narration of hadith.

———————————–

Al-Khatib narrated: Al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Khallal narrated to me: ‘Ali ibn ‘Amr al-Hariri reported to us that Abu l-Qasim ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Kas al-Nakha‘i narrated to them: ‘Abd Allah ibn al-‘Abbas al-Tayalisi narrated to us: ‘Abbas al-Duri narrated to us: I heard Yahya ibn Ma‘in say: “I wrote al-Jami‘ al-Saghir from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan.” Tarikh Baghdad (2:566)

The narrators in this chain are all thiqat. Al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali Abu Muhammad al-Khallal (352 – 439) is thiqah according to al-Khatib (Tarikh Baghdad 8:454); ‘Ali ibn ‘Amr ibn Sahl Abu l-Husayn al-Hariri (292 – 380) is thiqah according to al-‘Atiqi (Tarikh Baghdad 13:470); ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn Abu l-Qasim al-Nakha‘i known as “Ibn Kas” (d. 324), a Hanafi, and a shaykh of al-Daraqutni and Ibn Shahin, is thiqah according to al-Khatib (Tarikh Baghdad 13:540); ‘Abd Allah ibn al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Ubayd Allah Abu Muhammad al-Tayalisi (d. 308) is thiqah according to al-Khatib (Tarikh Baghdad 11:219-20); ‘Abbas ibn Muhammad ibn Hatim al-Duri (185 – 271) is a narrator of the Four (Tirmidhi, Nasa’i, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah) and is thiqah as mentioned in al-Taqrib.

Yahya ibn Ma’in who was over thirty when Imam Muhammad died narrated al-Jam’i al-Saghir on fiqh from him. This is why the narration from him as mentioned in al-Du’afa by al-‘Uqayli that Imam Muhammad was a “liar” (kadhdhab), although with an authentic chain, its matn is doubtful as it is very unlikely that Ibn Ma’in would narrate from somebody he believed to be a liar as pointed out by al-Kawthari in Ta’nib al-Khatib. The narrations from Abu Yusuf and Malik saying they believed Imam Muhammad a liar as narrated by al-Khatib have chains that are weak or fabricated. There are other narrations from Ibn Ma’in indicating he believed Imam Muhammad was weak in hadith, but such criticism from contemporaries are rejected.

However, it is authentically reported from Ahmad ibn Hanbal and al-Nasa’i that they believed Imam Muhammad was weak in hadith. Their crticism (jarh) however is unexplained (ghayr mufassar) and ambiguous (mubham) and therefore will not be given precedence over what was said by al-Madini and al-Daraqutni. Moreover, it is well-known Imam Ahmad was biased against Abu Hanifah and his companions as mentioned by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (al-Intiqa, p. 179) and as is clear from his statements about them, so his criticism of them will not be accepted. Al-Nasa’i is also known to be strict in his criticism of narrators, so his assessment against a narrator is suspect while his assessment in favour of a narrator is reliable.

Imam al-Dhahabi after mentioning al-Nasa’i’s weakening of Imam Muhammad, he said “he was from the oceans of knowledge and strong in his narrations from Malik.” (Lisan al-Mizan 7:61) Imam Muhammad said: “I stood at the door of Malik for three and some years and I heard seven hundred hadiths directly from him.” Narrated with an authentic chain in Tarikh Bagdad (2:562) from al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali al-Tanajiri (351 – 439) who is thiqah, from the famous Ibn Shahin (297 – 385) who is thiqah from ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ib Ziyad (d. 324) who is thiqah from Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam (182 – 268) who is thiqah (as mentioned in al-Taqrib) from Imam al-Shafi‘i from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani.

While he spent three years with Malik, Imam Muhammad spent over five years with Abu Hanifah, and even longer with Imam Abu Yusuf, which means that according to al-Dhahabi, his narrations from them should also be strong.

Based on al-Madini’s and al-Daraqutni’s unequivocal statements in support of Imam Muhammad’s reliability in narrating hadith, and the ambiguous nature of the statements of those who criticised him like Ahmad and al-Nasa’i, and based on the principles of narrator-criticism, Imam Muhammad is either saduq (reliable) or thiqah (trustworthy) in the narration of hadith, particularly when he narrates from Abu Yusuf, Abu Hanifah or Malik.

 Taken with thanks from – HERE

2. Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut: Muhammad bin al-Hasan is trustworthy

Here are two excerpts from Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut’s research on Sharh Mushkil al-Athar of Imam Abu Ja’far at-Tahawi. He counted Imam Muhammad bin al-Hasan ash-Shaybani as trustworthy (thiqah).

1)

Mushkil al-Athar - Shaybani 1

2282: Ahmad bin Dawud – Isma’il bin Salim – Muhammad bin al-Hasan– Abu Hanifa – ‘Ata bin Abi Rabah – Abu Huraira: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “When the star (Pleiades) appears blight is raised from all lands.”[1] [1] Its isnaad are sahih and narrators are reliable …

See,

Al-Arna’ut, Shu’ayb (editor), at-Tahawi’s Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, (Beirut: Mo’assasat ar-Resalah, 1994) vol.6 p.53

2)

Mushkil al-Athar - Shaybani 2

5502: Ahmad bin Dawud – Isma’il bin Saalim — Muhammad bin al-Hasan — Abu Hanifa — Hammad said: “I asked Ibrahim (al-Nakha’i) regarding salah before maghrib payers, he stopped me from it and said: ‘Verily the Prophet, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did not offer this salah.’”[2]
.
[2] Its narrators are trustworthy …

See,

Al-Arna’ut, Shu’ayb (editor), at-Tahawi’s Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, (Beirut: Mo’assasat ar-Resalah, 1994) vol.14 p.143

Ahmad Shamil

source

Imam Abu Hanifah and his connection to the Sahabi: Ibn Mas‘ūd (ra)

The following is a short treatise linking the Ḥanafī Madhab, one of the great schools of jurisprudence established during the time of the Salaf, to one of the great Companions of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd, and for the most part this treatise also serves as an answer to the accusations made against this great companion with regards to his credentials in the Islāmic sciences.

علاقة مذهب أبي حنيفة النعمان بعبد الله ابن مسعود أبي عبد الرحمان
The Connection of the School of Abū Ḥanīfah al-Nu‘mān
with ‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd Abū ‘Abd ‘l-Raḥmān

Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s chain of knowledge is as follows:

Imām Abū Ḥanīfah
|
Ḥammād Ibn Abī Sulaymān
|
Ibrahīm al-Nakha‘ī
|
‘Alqamah Ibn Qays
|
‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd
|
Rasūlullāh ﷺ

1. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah al-Nu‘mān Ibn Thābit: he took over the seat of teaching in Kūfā after his teacher Ḥammād Ibn Abī Sulaymān passed away, and was recognised as his main student.[1]

2. Ḥammād Ibn Abī Sulaymān: he was the most learned of the students of Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī and the most noble.[2]

3. Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī: he was born into a family of Scholars, he succeeded ‘Alqamah Ibn Qays, his maternal uncle.[3] He was also regarded as those who were most knowledgeable in regards to opinions and views of ‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd.[4]

4. ‘Alqamah Ibn Qays: he was a highly recognised student of ‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd to the extent that he was regarded as the closest of the people in terms of attributes, conduct and habit, to ‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd.[5]

5. He is ‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd (May Allāh be pleased with him), he was a noteable ṣaḥābī (companion) of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ and died in the year 33 or 34 ḥijrī. He has many outstanding virtues which would be far too lengthy to mention here.  It suffices to say that there was not a field that he himself did not excel in, this is because of his attachment to the Messenger ﷺ and always being in close proximity to him; learning from him, helping him [doing his khidmah], asking questions related to the Dīn to the extent that even onlookers would think that he was part of the Ahl ‘l-Bayt [The Messenger’s ﷺ family].

Imām Shams ‘l-Dīn al-Dhahabī writes in his Siyar:

وأخرج البخاري والنسائي من حديث أبي موسى قال: قدمت أنا وأخي من اليمن، فمكثنا حينا، وما نحسب ابن مسعود وأمه إلا من أهل بيت النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – لكثرة دخولهم وخروجهم عليه .

‘(Imām) al-Bukhārī and (Imām) al-Nasā’ī narrated from a narration of Abū Mūsā that he said: ‘Me and my brother came from Yemen [to Madīnah] and stayed for sometime, we were then led to believe that Ibn Mas‘ūd and his mother were part of the household of the Prophet ﷺ due to their constant going in and out [from the house]’.[6]

He goes on to narrate further:

منصور والأعمش: عن أبي وائل قال: كنت مع حذيفة، فجاء ابن مسعود، فقال حذيفة: إن أشبه الناس هديا ودلا وقضاء وخطبة برسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – من حين يخرج من بيته، إلى أن يرجع، لا أدري ما يصنع في أهله

‘Manṣūr and al-A‘mash [both] narrate from Abū Wā’il that he said we were with Ḥudhayfah while Ibn Mas‘ūd went by, so Ḥudhayfah said [regarding Ibn Mas‘ūd]: ‘Verily, [he was] the closest of the people to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ in terms of conduct, habit, judgement and speech, until he went in his home [after which we did not know]’.[7]

‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd – The Narrator of Ḥadīth

عن حذيفة قال كنا جلوسا عند النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال إني لا أدري ما قدر بقائي فيكم فاقتدوا باللذين من بعدي وأشار إلى أبي بكر وعمر واهتدوا بهدي عمار وما حدثكم ابن مسعود فصدقوه هذا حديث حسن وروى إبراهيم بن سعد هذا الحديث عن سفيان الثوري عن عبد الملك بن عمير عن هلال مولى ربعي عن ربعي عن حذيفة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نحوه وقد روى سالم المرادي الكوفي عن عمرو بن هرم عن ربعي بن حراش عن حذيفة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نحو هذا

From Ḥudhayfah that he said: ‘We were sitting with the Prophet ﷺ and he said: ‘I do not know how long I will be amongst you, so stick to the two after me,’ and he signalled towards Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, ‘be guided through the example of ‘Ammār and whatever Ibn Mas‘ūd narrates to you believe it [accept it]’.[8] [Imām al-Tirmidhī said] This is a ḥasan ḥadīth, Ibrāhīm Ibn Sa‘d narrates this ḥadīth from Suyān al-Thawrī from ‘Abd ‘l-Mālik Ibn ‘Umayr from Hilāl the Mawlā of Rib‘ī from Rib‘ī from Ḥudhayfah from the Prophet ﷺ similar to the above. Sālim al-Murādī al-Kūfī also narrated the same from ‘Amr Ibn Harim from Rib‘ī Ibn Ḥirāsh from Ḥudhayfah from Prophet ﷺ similar to the above.[9]

‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd – The Mufassir (Qur’ānic Exegete)

قال عبد الله رضي الله عنه والله الذي لا إله غيره ما أنزلت سورة من كتاب الله إلا أنا أعلم أين أنزلت ولا أنزلت آية من كتاب الله إلا أنا أعلم فيم أنزلت ولو أعلم أحدا أعلم مني بكتاب الله تبلغه الإبل لركبت إليه

‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd said: ‘By Allāh besides whom there is no God, there is not a sūrah that was revealed from the Book of Allāh except that I am the most knowledgable regarding where it was revealed, and there is not an āyah from the Book of Allāh that was revealed except that I am the most knowledgeable regarding its [reason for] revelation, and if I were to know of anyone more knowledgeable than me regarding the book of Allāh who was within [the distance of] a camel’s journey, I would surely travel to him’.[10]

‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd – The Faqīh (Jurisprudent)

The statement of ‘Umar Ibn al-Khaṭṭāb regarding Ibn Mas‘ūd’s jurisprudential skills proves he also excelled in this field:

عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ وَهْبٍ، قَالَ: أَقْبَلَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ ذَاتَ يَوْمٍ وَعُمَرُ جَالِسٌ، فَقَالَ: “كُنَيْفٌ مُلِئَ فِقْهًا “

From Zayd Ibn Wahb, he said: ‘Abdullāh came by one day whilst ‘Umar was sitting, so he [‘Umar] said: ‘He [Ibn Mas‘ūd] is a person filled with [the knowledge of] fiqh’.[11]

It is sufficient to mention that Imām al-Dhahabī gives him the title of Faqīh ‘l-Ummah (The Jurist of the Ummah)[12].

‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd – The Natural Leader

عَنْ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ: “لَوْ كُنْتُ مُسْتَخْلِفًا أَحَدًا مِنْ غَيْرِ مَشُورَةٍ، لاسْتَخْلَفْتُ عَلَيْهِمُ ابْنَ أُمِّ عَبْدٍ”. هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحُ الإِسْنَادِ، وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجَاهُ

From ‘Alī may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: ‘If I were to appoint a leader (khalīfah) without consultation then I would appoint over them Ibn Ummi ‘Abd (Ibn Mas‘ūd)’. [Imām al-Ḥākim says] This is a ḥadīth which has an authentic chain although it was not narrated in the ṣaḥīḥayn’.[13]

‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd – The Qārī (Reciter)
عن عبد الله بن عمرو قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: خذوا القرآن من أربعة من عبد الله بن مسعود وسالم ومعاذ بن جبل وأبي بن كعب

From ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Amr that he said: the Messenger of Allāh said: ‘Take the Qur‘ān [meaning it’s recitation] from four (people), from ‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd, Sālim, Mu‘ādh Ibn Jabal, and Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b’.[14]

Points of Benefit:

One thing the above Imāms have in common is that they were all distinguished students of their teachers. This chain of knowledge containing intellectuals of the highest calibre from their respective times has been summarised in Radd ‘l-Muḥtār of ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Ābidīn al-Shāmī as follows:

الفقه زرعه عبد الله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه ، وسقاه علقمة ، وحصده إبراهيم النخعي ، وداسه حماد ، وطحنه أبو حنيفة ، وعجنه أبو يوسف وخبزه محمد ، فسائر الناس يأكلون من خبزه

‘Fiqh was planted by ‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd, irrigated by ‘Alqamah, harvested by Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī, threshed by Ḥammād [Ibn Abī Sulaymān], milled by Abū Ḥanīfah, kneaded by Abū Yūsuf, and then baked by Muḥammad [Ibn ‘l-Ḥasan al-Shaybani]. [And now] the rest of Muslims are eating from his bread.'[15]

Conclusion

It is manifest that the great companion ‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas‘ūd was a Mujtahid of highest repute, and left no field except that he had mastered it.


[1] Imām al-Dhahabī, Siyar A‘lām ‘l-Nubalā (5/232)[2] Ibid.[3] Ibid (4/521)[4] Imām Dāraqūṭnī, Sunan al-Dāraqūṭnī (3/94 no. 3319)[5] Ibid (4/55), Imām al-Dhahabī writes:

وكان يشبه بابن مسعود في هديه ودله وسمته

[6] Ibid (1/469)[7] Ibid (1/471), also narrated in al-Bukhārī.[8] In other narrations the wording is:

وتمسكوا بعهد ابن مسعود
‘Hold tightly to the order of Ibn Mas‘ūd’, refer to Musnad ‘l-Ḥumaydī (#436).

[9] Imām al-Tirmidhī, Jāmi‘ ‘l-Tirmidhī (#3799)[10] Imām al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ’l-Bukhārī (#4716)

[11] Imām Ibn Abī Shaybah, al-Muṣannaf (#31557)[12] Imām al-Dhahabī, Siyar A‘lām ‘l-Nubalā (1/462)[13] Imām al-Ḥākim, Mustadrak ‘ala ‘l-Ṣaḥīḥayn (#5354)[14] Imām al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ ‘l-Bukhārī (#4713)[15] ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Ābidīn, Radd ‘l-Muḥtār (1/51)

——————

Compiled by Abu Humayd

source

Sheikhism and partisanship

Turkey-

Sunni Islam is something that has been clearly defined several times. It is adherence to one of the four schools of jurisprudence: Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali or Maliki; as well being Maturidi or Ash’ari in doctrine. That’s who Ahl al Sunna wa jammah are and if they are other than this then are not Sunni Islam! It’s not adherence to a scholar born in the last two hundred years! It is about following Islam from the beginning! Following an unbroken chain of teachers back to the Prophet (may Allah bestow peace and blessings upon him).
Not following one scholar’s opinion!
That is not Ahl al Sunna! When people follow one scholar’s opinion over others then they have left Ahl al Sunna because Ahl al Sunna is the opinion of the consensus of the rightly guided scholars. Not taking one scholars opinion in isolation! What I mean is when people ignore the consensus on an issue and follow one scholar’s opinion, which is against the consensus. When someone takes a singular opinion of one scholar in isolation, they go astray. This happens very often. Especially by uninformed speakers who have no grounding in knowledge. You will be surprised if I actually mention the names of such individuals who are not qualified to speak. So why do they speak? Ignorance recognises ignorance.

When you are following your Sheikhs/Pir’s opinion in spirituality then you have to adhere to it. The above is about aquida and fiqh, when they have their own opinions that go outside their own school. They should adhere to their school and encourage you to follow yours.

A scholar in the sciences of Aquida and fiqh have to follow the majority in their schools. So a Hanafi Imam must adhere to the majority opinion of the Hanafi school and not have an opinion outside his school. In dire need another madhab can be used, according to the Hanafis, other schools are different. In Aquida, a Maturidi should adhere to its school and not propagate his own opinion outside this school. I see this very often now. People do not even need to see the moon to decide when Ramadan begins! Yet claim to follow a madhab?? Following a singular opinion of a scholar, that is their own opinion, causes one to go astray.
Your Pir/Sheikh could be wrong!
Get ready for a shock because your Sheikh could be wrong! Yes, it is true! Murids of particular Sheikh/Pir follow their teachers with that much love that they even follow them when they are wrong. This is not the fault of the Murid from the onset but it is the fault of the Pir/Sheikh. It shows that he has little knowledge of the sacred law. No one is above the sacred law and your Pir cannot override the Quran but how often they do. If they do it frequently then it points a finger that he might not be a Wali. If your Pir does not know the sacred law then he should refer people to someone who do and not answer questions about things he does not know. Unfortunately, there are ‘masters’ who are not qualified but pretend as if they are. There are many pretenders to the ‘throne’ of waliyyah and they have no right. People who are not qualified may die disbelievers because they are propagating a lie about Allah (the Exalted) and His Messenger (may Allah bestow peace and blessings be upon him).
Now your Pir should never leave the dominate position of his fiqh and aquida school rather than fluff it up! Most Pirs make it up as they go along, with whatever they feel like at the time. I am not joking!
If your Sheikh/Pir makes a statement that becomes criticised by other scholars then, if you can, clarify it but otherwise leave it. There are a group of the Ummah who have tongues like daggers ready for anyone who they disagree with. Do not be fanatic about your Sheikh because your Sheikh could be wrong. I have come across many circumstances that a Pir has made a statement and his fanatical followers cannot cope with the fact that their Pir is wrong. It is a fact because he is human and humans make mistakes because even a Wali can be wrong. Let the fools argue and step back and not allow yourself to get involved in such issues. If the opinion is against the sacred law then do not do it. Know that most scholars disagree with each other. If you need clarification on a matter then seek it with someone you trust. Do not go to extremes in these matters because it makes you look childish and no righteous scholar wants their Murids fighting each other.
Sidi Ahmed Zarruq (may Allah show him mercy) said in Kitab Al-Inayah, “Do not listen to he who is like thunder and lighting and not to he who jumps up and sits.”
My sheikh is better than yours
This is also as bad as handbags at fifty paces or should I say tasbihs at fifty paces. Your Pir/sheikh is the best person for you and this is might not be true for others. Your friend might not feel the same way as you do about your Sheikh. That is fine; he might follow a Sheikh of another path, that is no problem. The problem is when the Murids boast about their sheikh and make invalid claims.
I find it very strange that students like a particular sheikh but do not follow their actions. Therefore, it is just for barakah but that has gone when act like you do despite the knowledge you have, there is no point to this!
It is only us
One of the worst things that occurs to new Murids, when they join a spiritual path, they just spend their time with their own Murids. Rather than take from what he needs from those before, he becomes a murid and he even leaves his teachers. There are times when people have to leave teachers but that is rare. Most Murids now exclusively learn from their own ‘teachers’ rather learn from those better qualified. Therefore, people will drive teachers from across one part of the country to the other rather than call someone local who is more qualified. This is the pinnacle of corruption that exists at this time. It is ugly and unwanted. Sheikhy notes is not like that, we support all those who say anything good.
The source of the problems is the Murids
Sidi Ali Al-Jamal (may Allah show him mercy) had twenty-eight Murids and all of them were Awliyah. This to me makes more sense, than having many Murids and most are neglected because they have no access to teaching. Alternatively, cannot reach the Sheikh, cannot understand him and so forth.
Most Murids paint their Sheikh to be who they (the Murid) are. Therefore, whatever the murid is the Sheikh is. However, correct adherence to the spiritual path is when the murid takes on the characteristics of the Sheikh and not when the Sheikh becomes like the murid. This is one of the main problems that we see today. The ignorant murid who does not know who is Sheikh is or what path he follows! Yet he propagates his misunderstanding everywhere. He is heard because he screams louder than everyone else.
Is tasawwaf dead?
I would say it is dead in the Murids and only alive in some of the Awliyah. Most of the Murids, are obsessed with outward dress and appearance to the neglect of their inward wretchedness. One of my teachers said that he saw a dream that he went to the grave of the last Wali. Almost everyday we receive news about awliyah dying and are they being replaced? The sad answer is no and if they are, they are not like their precedessors.
Most people who are on the spiritual path have more sins that those not on the spiritual path. Yet, this should not put you off because those who are not on the spiritual path are in a much worse state. They have not taken the spiritual path and have not taken an oath with Allah (the Exalted).
I do believe that Murids are the worst thing about any path. Yet strangely they can be the best.
Imam Al Arabi Al Darqawi (may Allah show him mercy) said, “Our path is the path of lions yet pigs and monkeys travel upon it.” (Al-Risala Al-Darqawiyyah)

Closing points
Realise that your Sheikh is a human being and can be wrong, like everyone else in the world. Only Allah (the Exalted) and his Messenger (may Allah bestow peace and blessings upon him) are never wrong. Everyone else do not have such protection. Scholars/Pirs etc can be wrong so it is up to you to find out about what does not seem clearly right. Do not obey your Sheikh if he commands you to do any haram act. A wali has protection/hifz from disbelief but not committing sins or mistakes. Someone asked Junaid Al-Baghdadi (may Allah show him mercy) if a wali can commit illegal fornication, he began to sweat and recited the verse, “The decree is apportioned.” So the Wali can commit sins but will repent straight away.
I am not advocating people leaving their sheikh, do not leave your Sheikh unless he is drinking alcohol in public or something similar. If he is doing this then he is not a Sheikh then a pretender. Just understand that there are strange circumstances that occur and you have to aware of them. Breaking ones bayah/bayat is a serious matter and should not occur in normal circumstances.

The only reason another sheikh can be taken is when their Sheikh dies, is too far to be reached and there is no access to him or when the Sheikh is found out to be someone else. Alternatively, when the Sheikh dies and there is no one to take his place. So then another sheikh can be sought. Otherwise, a murid should never break his bayah.

Be realistic and know that you might never find that perfect murshid/guide and you might not be the perfect murid. So let us continue on the path and struggle.

The spiritual path is all about giving one another the benefit of the doubt, so let us start with each other.

source

İmâm-ı Şâfiî Hazretleri buyurur

İmâm-ı Şâfiî Hazretleri buyurur:

“Bir adam, görünüşte ne kadar güzel ahlâklı olursa olsun, bile bile vicdansız ve kötü huylu adamları dost edinirse ahlâksızlıkta onlarla müşterek sayılır.”

İnsan şahsiyetine tesir eden iki büyük müessir vardır:

1) Yediği lokmanın helâliyet derecesi.

2) Beraber olduğu kimselerin mânevî keyfiyeti. Zira hayırlı biriyse hayra sevk eder, şerli biriyse şerre sürükler.

Ahl’ul-Bayt and the Love of Ahl’ul-Bayt

5db41a354698196f130fdadb8daa0f71_90-697-c

Ahl’ul-Bayt denotes the members of a family living under the same roof. In the technical sense, it covers the entire members of the Blessed Prophet’s family, as well as his extended family; hence the families of, first and foremost, the Prophet of Allah (s.a.s), and then of Ali, Jafar, Aqil and Abbas.

Just as praying for and sending greetings (salat’u salam) to the Noble Prophet (s.a.s) is a duty for all Muslims, so is respecting and adhering to the Ahl’ul-Bayt with love. It is impermissible for the Ahl’ul-Bayt to receive alms (zakat). Seeing on one occasion the little Hasan (r.a) take a piece of date from the pile reserved for zakat in the Treasury to his mouth, the Blessed Prophet (s.a.s) quickly made him spit it out and said:

“Don’t you know that Muhammad’s family does not receive zakat?” (Bukhari, Zakat, 57; Ahmad, I, 200)

Recounting the following is Zayd in Arqam (r.a): “One day, by the Hum Creek between Mecca and Medina, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.s) stood and gave us a talk. After praising and glorifying Allah, he gave us some advice, which he followed up by saying:

‘People…! I, too, am but a man. Soon the messenger of my Lord will come and I will accept his invitation and leave. I leave you two important things. One of them is the light and guide that takes one to the truth, which is the Quran. Stick to it and do not let go!’

He then gave some advice regarding holding fast to the Quran and adhering to it. He then continued with the words:

‘And I leave you my Ahl’ul-Bayt. Fear Allah and show them respect! Fear Allah and show them respect!’”

Zayd ibn Arqam (r.a) was then asked as to who exactly Ahl’ul-Bayt was and whether or not the Prophet’s (s.a.s) wives were also included.

“His wives are also included”, replied Zayd.

“But his real Ahl’ulBayt are those for whom alms are impermissible even after the Messenger of Allah (s.a.s).”

“And who are those?”

“They are the families of Ali, Aqil, Jafar and Abbas.” (Muslim, Fadail’us-Sahabah, 36)

The Blessed Prophet (s.a.s) has stated:

“Love Allah for having showered you with His blessings. Love me for the love of Allah. And love my Ahl’ul-Bayt for the sake of my love!” (Tirmidhi, Manaqib, 31/3789)

Again, one day holding his dear grandchildren Hasan and Husayn by the hand, the Blessed Prophet declared:

“Whoever loves me, them and their parents shall be in my company on the Day of Judgment.” (Tirmidhi, Manaqib, 20/3733)

The Companions had great love and respect for the family and relatives of the Blessed Prophet (s.a.s).

Naturally, one nurtures feelings of affection not only for the beloved but, to the extent of the love felt, also for his or her friends and moreover every little thing that helps remind of the beloved, like the clothes worn, foods eaten, and so forth. The deeper the love grows, the deeper it permeates everything that surrounds the beloved. The Companions would let their love bursting forth from the depths of their hearts for the Blessed Prophet (s.a.s) show with various acts, like holding the stirrups of a horse or a camel a relative of the Blessed Prophet (s.a.s) was to mount.

Profoundly conscious that on the Day of Judgment all other ties of blood would be severed except for the bond one had with the Blessed Prophet (s.a.s), they were eager to marry one of his relatives to reinforce their bond of love with a bondship of kin.

The descendants of the Noble Messenger (s.a.s) today survive in various parts throughout the Muslim world. The term Sayyid is used in reference to those to have descended through the line of Husayn (s.a.s), and Sharif for the descendants of Hasan (r.a).

The Ottomans referred to sayyids as amir, and the turban they wrapped around their heads as amir turbans. Women of the Noble Prophet’s (s.a.s) lineage would also carry a green mark on their hijabs. Serving the Ahl’ul-Bayt was considered by the Ottomans a duty, to the point where they even found an official institution for the purpose.

Officials exclusively entrusted with the duty of seeing to this service were called naqib’ul-ashraf, also chosen from among the members of the Ahl’ul-Bayt. Among the various aspects of their needs the naqib’ul-ashraf dealt with included registering their lineage, births and deaths included, preventing them from entering any old profession, distributing among them their share of taxes and spoils and precluding their women from marrying men not their equal.

Being successors of the children of the Blessed Prophet (s.a.s) and owing to the honor of the duty they carried out, the naqib’ul-ashraf were given the one of the highest official ranks, second behind the Caliph in protocol. The naqib’ul-ashraf would be the first to officially pledge allegiance to the sultan upon his ascension to the throne and pray for his wellbeing, only after which the remainder of the protocol would follow.

Priority of congratulation during eids also belonged to the naqib’ul-ashraf, for whom the sultan would rise to greet during the proceedings of both eids. A sayyid or a sharif found guilty of committing a crime or acting in an unacceptable manner would be dealt with by the naqib’ulashraf, if in Istanbul, or by the official head of a district, if elsewhere.

Before the actual punishment, the official would remove the green turban from their heads and kiss it; and eventually restoring it once the punishment came to an end.

source

KARDEŞLİĞE DAVET

KARDEŞLİĞE DAVET…

Her medeniyet, kendi insan tipini meydana getirir. O insan tipi de, mensup olduğu medeniyetin sıfat ve karakterleriyle âhenk arz eder. Bu yönüyle şanlı mâzimiz, insanlığa sunulan muhteşem bir “fazîletler medeniyeti”dir.

Mâverâünnehrʼin bembeyaz çadırlarında metafizik ihtilâçlar yaşayıp nihâyetinde İslâmʼla şereflenen milletimiz; asırlarca birçok kavmi; İslâmʼın merhamet, şefkat, nezâket, zarâfet ve adâletiyle kucaklayıp kendi bünyesi içinde huzurla yaşatmıştır. Zira bizim medeniyetimiz; “İnsanların en hayırlısı, insanlara en faydalı olandır.”[1] hadîs-i şerîfini hayat düstûru edinen îmanlı sînelerin eseri bir medeniyettir.

Malazgirtʼte başlayan “îman” vecdini kıtalara taşıma heyecanı; üzerinde yaşadığımız toprakları asırlar boyunca şehid kanlarıyla sulayarak aziz bir vatan hâline getirmiştir. Dînin yaşanabilmesi, ırzın-nâmusun, mülkiyetin muhafazası, bayrağın dalgalanabilmesi; mukaddes bir emanet olan vatanı korumakla mümkündür. Zira vatan parçalanırsa -Osmanlıʼnın son hâlinde olduğu gibi- Dünya devlerinin lokması hâline geliverir.

Bunun içindir ki, hadîs-i şerîfte buyrulduğu üzere:

“Beraberlik rahmet, ayrılık azaptır.” (Ahmed, IV, 278, 375; Heysemî, V, 217)

Ecdâdımız pek çok milleti kendi bünyesinde cem etmiş, hepsine kendi inanç ve örfü içinde hayat hakkı tanımış, karşılıklı hak ve hukuka riâyet bereketiyle, huzurlu bir toplum inşâ etmiştir. Böylece altı asır boyunca insanlığa hak ve adâlet tevzî etmiştir.

Bugün de vatanımızda bu minval üzere, sulh ve sükûn içinde yaşamanın huzuruna muhtacız. Bunun için, millet olarak, birlik, beraberlik ve kardeşliğin değerini idrâk etmeliyiz. Birbirimizin dertlerine şefkat ve merhametle derman olmalıyız. Zira toprağına kardeşlik, muhabbet, şefkat ve merhamet tohumları ekilmeyen memleketler, istikbâlin mâtem ülkeleri olmaya mahkûmdur.

Toplumlar için en büyük tehlike; ihtilâflar, bölünmeler, parçalanmalar neticesinde meydana gelen anarşidir. Müslümanların fitne ve ihtilâflara düşmemeleri için, kardeşlik hukukuna riâyet etmeleri şarttır.

Unutmayalım ki Cenâb-ı Hak bütün müslümanları kardeşimiz, diğer insanları da yaratılıştaki eşimiz kılmıştır. Bu bakımdan İslâm, fertler gibi milletlerin de birbirleriyle iyi geçinmelerini, sulh ve selâmet içinde yaşamalarını ister. Bu sebeple İslâm’da harp değil sulh esastır.

Bizim medeniyetimizde savaşlar, toprağı kanla sulamak ve toprak gasp etmek için yapılmaz. Zulmü bertaraf etmek, mazlumların yanında olmak, onların âhını dindirmek ve hidâyetlere vesîle olmak için icrâ edilir. Bunun sayısız misallerinden biri de:

“Osmanlı atları Vistül Nehri’nden su içmedikçe, bu ülke hürriyet ve istiklâle kavuşamaz!” sözünün Lehistanʼda bir darb-ı mesel hâline gelmiş olmasıdır.

Mevlânâ Hazretleri ne güzel söyler:

“İnsanlarla dost ol. Çünkü kervan ne kadar kalabalık ve halkı çok olursa, yol kesenlerin beli o kadar kırılır.”

Bugün bir ve beraber olmaya, iyilikte yardımlaşmaya, hakkı, adâleti, merhameti ve muhabbeti yükseltip toplumumuza dostluk ve kardeşliği hâkim kılmaya her zamankinden daha fazla muhtaç durumdayız.

Yaşamakta olduğumuz bu zor günlerin, -inşâallah- huzurlu yarınların doğum sancıları olması temennîsiyle, Cenâb-ı Hakʼtan vatanımıza, milletimize ve farklı coğrafyalarda yaşayan kardeşlerimize, huzur, saâdet ve selâmetler niyâz ederiz.

Dipnot:

[1] Beyhakî, Şuab, VI, 117; İbn-i Hacer, Metâlib, I, 264.

Up ↑