Here is the PDF version of all the separate posts in one place. If you want to save it, right click on the link and go to ‘Save Link/Target As’:
Here’s the YouTube video:
Here is the PDF version of all the separate posts in one place. If you want to save it, right click on the link and go to ‘Save Link/Target As’:
Here’s the YouTube video:
There used to be a Shaikh who had followers [mureeds]. He said to one of them, ‘Come here my son. Go and bring me your father’s head.’
‘I hear and I obey,’ [said the boy], since this is what he had learnt, i.e., that when the Shaikh orders something it is obligatory to follow him even if it opposes Allaah’s Legislation.
The boy went home and chopped off his father’s head while he was asleep next to his wife. He then came to his Shaikh full of joy. Why? Because he had carried out his Shaikh’s order.
So the Shaikh smiled at him and said another one of those recurring falsehoods given as answers by such people, ‘You think you killed your father? No. My son, your father is on a journey. As for this person who you killed, then he is your mother’s boyfriend. You think I was [really] going to order you to kill your father?! Allaah forbid. This person [who you decapitated] was your mother’s boyfriend, he was fornicating with her. That is why I ordered you to kill him.’
So when the Shaikh narrates this story with the [dramatic] ending it has, these poor souls, doped on this type of opium fill the mosque with what? With cries of Allaahu Akbar and so on.
This story happened in Ramadaan about ten years ago. One of the brothers came to me after we had prayed taraawih in one of the mosques in which [implementing] the Sunnah was [unfortunately] abandoned. In those days at the start of the da’wah we used to gather in my shop while I would be repairing watches, he said to me, ‘Do you know what Shaikh so and so said today?’
I replied, ‘No, what happened?’ He mentioned the story to me and while we were talking about it a relative of this man speaking to me passed by the shop, his maternal cousin to be exact. He was known as Abu Yusuf and was one of the committed followers [mureeds] of the Shaikh who narrated the story.
My brothers, the reality is that it is obligatory upon us to praise Allaah the Mighty and Majestic who has protected us from such opium. Because it is more dangerous than actual opium. It is true that real opium does take away a person’s senses–but [the effect is] not there all the time, [it wears off]. But the one who takes this abstract opium is lost, taken, gone.
The proof [that this is the case] is at the end of the story. So Abu Yusuf is in front of the shop, this person inside the shop with me, his cousin, calls him, ‘Abu Yusuf, come here.’ He enters and he says to him, ‘What do you think about tonight’s lesson, the Shaikh’s lesson?’
He said, ‘Maa shaa Allaah, tajalleeyaat, tajalleeyaat.’ [i.e., kashf which the Sufis claim, they claim that certain things, realities, manifest themselves to the Sufi Shaikhs which do not manifest themselves to others, so when he says ‘Tajalleeyaat,’ it’s like he’s saying that the story is just proof that, ‘… amazing realities manifest themselves to the Shaikhs.’]
We have a joke here in Syria, Damascus specifically. In Damascus there is a place especially for the Christians called Baab Tawmah. There is a shop there, the owner of the shop which has two entrances sells alcohol and on the shop sign there is written, ‘Tajalleeyaat Baqlah.’ Baqlah is the name of the Christian and he has called his shop by a name which doesn’t actually inform you as to what he sells. So when these Sufis say about such [ridiculous stories], ‘Maa shaa Allaah, tajalleeyaat,’ we follow up by saying, ‘Tajalleeyaat Baqlah!’ [i.e., this Christian whose name was Baqlah called his shop ‘tajalleeyaat’ the same word the Sufis use for their shaikh’s manifestations. So he called his shop ‘Tajalleeyaat Baqlah,’ or ‘Baqlah’s Manifestations/Revelations,’ because when you drink alcohol certain realities become clear to you that are not clear to those other sober folk! So Shaikh al-Albaani said that when these Sufis come and relate such far-fetched stories claiming them to be manifestations of realities that their shaikhs see, i.e., ‘tajalleeyaat,’ he follows up by saying, yes, just like Tajalleeyaat Baqlah!]
The point is that Abu Yusuf was saying, ‘Maa shaa Allaah, tajalleeyaat,’ [Shaikh al-Albaani adds] Baqlah. His cousin [who was with me in the shop] asked him, ‘What is your opinion about this story?’
He said, ‘It’s true. You wahhaabis reject the karaamaat [miracles] of the Allies of Allaah.’ In his mind he thought it was a miracle. So his cousin [who was with me in the shop] started to debate with him, but he was at the same level of knowledge as his cousin, Abu Yusuf.
I was sitting behind the table fixing watches. I felt as though there was no benefit in [what was being said between] the two of them, no result, no benefit. So I said [to myself] I must enter the discussion, so I got up and sat next to them both and started to talk to Abu Yusuf.
I said to him, ‘O Abu Yusuf, may Allaah bless you. Pay attention. The story [itself] shows you that it is fabricated and put together. So you see when the Shaikh spoke saying, ‘This is your mother’s boyfriend and because he fornicated with your mother I told you to kill him, to slaughter him, and do you really think I was going to tell you to kill your father?’ Okay, from this it is clear that he is upon ignorance from three angles.
The first: is it for anyone other than a Muslim ruler to carry out the prescribed punishment? [It’s not] because [if other people do it] discord will occur amongst the people.
Secondly: is the penalty for someone who is married and commits fornication that he be decapitated or that he be stoned to death? [It is that he be stoned to death].
Thirdly and lastly: why did he carry out the punishment on this fornicator, this man–who may not have been married [and thus it would not be allowed to kill him]–while he left the fornicating mother just as she was [who, according to the story, we know is married and so should have had the punishment applied to her]?
So it is clear that the story is fabricated and does not require any debate, there is no benefit in it, ‘Deaf, dumb and blind. They understand not.’
Finally I said to him–and we have no weapon except that of [trying to make them understand by appealing to their] sentiments, and there is no movement nor power except by the Will of Allaah–I said to him, ‘O Abu Yusuf, now, in short, if the Shaikh, your Shaikh who narrated this story to you, ordered you to slaughter your father, would you do it?’
A very uncomfortable question, and someone from the common Muslims in answer to this question would say, ‘I seek refuge with Allaah from killing my father.’ Do you know what he said [instead]?
He said, ‘I have not reached that level yet,’ and fled, leaving [the shop] while I was saying to him in our Syrian dialect, ‘You’ll never get there inshaa Allaah.’ He thinks that his reaching the level is when his Shaikh orders him to kill his father and he carries it out then, maa shaa Allaah, he has arrived. But he’s not there yet. So I said to him, ‘You’ll never get there inshaa Allaah.’
For this reason the remedy is to return to the Book and the Sunnah and not what is said or was said or reported [in such false stories].
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, no. 195, at 47:36, carries on to tape 196. If you make a video send me a link to it please. Mawsoo’atul-Allaamah, al-Imaam, Mujaddidil-Asr, Muhammad Naasirid-Deen al-Albaani, of Shaikh Shady Noaman, vol. 3, pp. 957-965.
He said, ‘There used to be a Shaikh, who would enjoin the good and forbid the evil, hoping for Allaah’s reward in that and not seeking any material gain from it. He would go out to the marketplace along with some of his keen students. Every time he saw an evil in the market [perpetrated] by a merchant, by a store owner, by a spice dealer, he would advise and remind them.
Until one day he stopped by a store owner and saw him selling hashish to another person so he criticised him strongly, ‘O disobedient one! O criminal! You sell that which harms and does not benefit …’ and so on. So this Azhari Shaikh said to them that this noble scholar who used to enjoin the good and forbid the evil had not completed his sentence except that he became just like an animal that doesn’t understand anything.
[Little did he know that] the store-owner was a Shaikh and one of the major Allies of Allaah and righteous people. For this reason, when that noble Shaikh criticised him, the store-owner-Shaikh stole and took away his intellect and reasoning.
His students were now perplexed regarding their Shaikh so they started to ask about the remedy to this problem which they did not know the cure for. They asked one person and another, going from one place to the next, until [finally] they came to a person who told them that no one could tell them [anything] about this person’s problem except so and so, for he is someone who has ‘two wings’, i.e., has gathered both the [knowledge of the] Sharee’ah and the ‘Reality,’ so go to him.
They did and told him the story. So he said that the store keeper–and I [Shaikh al-Albaani] am going to call him the ‘Hashish Wali’–is from the major Allies of Allaah [Awliyaa’ullaah] and from the major righteous people, ‘Your Shaikh’s cure is that you take him to that Hashish Wali and try to appease him so that he becomes pleased with this Shaikh [of yours, and when that happens,] the Shaikh will return to being just as he was.’
They went to him, they went to him and said, ‘Our master, don’t blame the Shaikh, the Shaikh didn’t know your rank and standing …’ –i.e., just as the alleged two-winged one had directed them, the one who had gathered between the Sharee’ah and the Reality–they kept on trying to please him in this manner until the Hashish Wali became pleased with the Shaikh, the Shaikh who would enjoin the good and forbid the evil.
And just like one asleep, [behold] the Shaikh awoke and the group [of students] felt that, truly, what the two-winged one had said was correct, i.e., the Shaikh returned to being just as he was.
And thus, the Shaikh, in turn, started to apologise and excuse himself before the Hashish Wali, ‘Don’t blame us for we did not know your rank and standing and your station before Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic.’
So where is the lesson?
The Hashish Wali said to this scholar, ‘You, O Shaikh, think that I sell Hashish, the drug. [But] I sell hashish which looks just like hashish but its effect is the opposite to hashish. No one buys this from me except that he is cured from smoking hashish.’
In this way they dispensed with the laws of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic and the intellect of the people so as to enslave and subjugate them.
And I know shaikhs in Damascus, in Syria, and a man in Aleppo who openly declare in their general lessons in big Jaami mosques, ‘If you see a Shaikh and he has hung a cross around his neck, then do not criticise him. For he sees what you do not, and knows that which you know not.’
And the proof for that is the following story …
The story of the wine and vinegar–and this is the calamity of this time–and researching this reality will take a long time … especially when some of the scholars permit reporting what is even more dangerous than this narration where [it was mentioned that] this person called upon Allaah to transform forbidden wine into permissible vinegar.
But what do you think then–and [such] stories are numerous indeed–of a person who drinks wine and is rebuked and he answers by saying, ‘He is drinking from the wine of Paradise. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your [wordly] wine!’
And another one is selling hashish and when he is refuted he says, ‘You think I’m selling hashish, the drug? I’m selling hashish that is the antidote to that hashish. And every person who buys this hashish from me is able to quit his addiction to [that other harmful] hashish.’
And through such means they paralysed people’s intellects and dispensed with the Sharee’ah. And enough for you [in this regard] is their saying, ‘There is the Sharee’ah and then there is the reality.’ And the reality contradicts the Sharee’ah, and they have other extremely dangerous sentences [too].
And maybe it is fitting that I mention a story that happened to me personally.
As was my habit, I [once] travelled to go to my brothers in Aleppo. On the way we got a house to spend the night in, in a town about twenty kilometres from Damascus, called Deer Atiyyah.
While we were chatting at night, having stayed up, instead of the door [of the house] being knocked–and the house was a single floor [i.e., like a bungalow, no upstairs]–instead of the door being knocked, the window was.
So the landlord went out to see who this strange night comer, knocking in an odd manner, was. [Like I said] instead of knocking the door he’s knocking the window. So we were all taken aback by the loud welcoming cries of the landlord for this night visitor, ‘Welcome so and so!’
We craned our necks to try and see this noble guest to whom the landlord had given such a hearty reception.
This guest enters [the house] and I was surprised when I saw him just as he was when he saw me.
He was a man given to taking hashish, one who had left praying, wouldn’t fast in Ramadaan, would smoke in Ramadaan while leaning back on one of the outside corner walls of the mosque, with his yellow eyes gazing and fixed in a stare due to the effect of the hashish.
I was surprised as to why this landlord with whom we were guests was welcoming [someone who was] a hashish addict, was disobedient [faasiq] and a criminal [faajir]–if not a disbeliever.
He was surprised to see me because he was my neighbour.
My shop was next to that mosque [where this druggie would sit], so every time I left for prayer he would be taking his hashish, smoking and naturally it had hashish in it. Every time he would see me he would sit far away from me and act as though he was overcome, i.e., captivated, in a [sufi] state of haal, i.e., he would start bowing and prostrating saying things which in Syria we call broken speech, i.e., in Arabic it is called an incomplete sentence, like, ‘Tomoatoes, hashish, eggs, aubergine.’ It’s not a sentence, it’s incomplete.
It was then that I realized that the landlord believed that this person was from the major Allies of Allaah [Awliyaa’ul-Allaah]. So I started to speak at the spur of the moment and opened what I said with the aayah, “Behold! Verily on the friends of Allaah there is no fear, nor shall they grieve. Those who believe and fear Allaah much. For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter …” [Yunus 10:62-64]. What is taqwaa? What is eemaan, we spoke in this vein.
Then we spoke about the likes of this Dajjaal [i.e., the stranger].
That this was nothing to do with Islaam at all. That the honour of the Muslim was only through his faith in Allaah and his taqwaa of Him. And that this was all there was to it, whether a miracle occurred at his hands or not. One of the Shaikhs with us in Damascus said:
When you see a person who may fly
And on the ocean does walk
Yet does not stop at the limits of the Legislation
Then an innovator is he
Being lead to destruction progressively
I don’t recall [exactly] what we said in this regard but we spoke about the fact that the landlord believed that this man, a disobedient sinner and criminal, who makes out as though he is someone who is so overcome with the remembrance of Allaah that he does not know what is going on around him, is from the major Allies of Allaah.
And then the landlord said, ‘O Shaikh, by Allaah, in this town we …’–and herein lies the lesson–‘… in this town we used to be as you said. [We used to hold] that eemaan and taqwaa is what Islaam is about. But then Shaikh so and so came to us, and he had studied in Azhar University for twenty years, he left his town for twenty years, and then he came, warning the people and teaching them in the mosque at night. More than once we would hear him say that Allaah has special, chosen people in [certain] places and times … common phrases [oft-repeated by innovators].
And that the jewel that doesn’t impress you will harm you. The jewel that doesn’t impress you will harm you: if you see a person who is drinking wine, taking hashish, it is possible that he is one of the major Allies [of Allaah] from the righteous people. Just don’t ever, don’t ever criticise him or else you will fall into problems with this righteous ally [of Allaah!].’
Then [the landlord said that] the [Azhari] Shaikh reported the following story to them …
Questioner: My question is concerning the subject that the brother, Shaikh Muhammad mentioned concerning stories and hadiths which some Shaikhs mention, for example, the story which I heard and which Abdul-Hamid Kishk reported. A story which I see great contradictions in such that I cannot believe that it is attributed or even mentioned in history [before].
The story as he himself says is that a person used to drink wine from a bottle. Umar ibn al-Khattaab passed by him the first time and when he saw him he threatened him that he would be whipped if he saw him drinking wine a second time. So he passed by him a second time at a distance, the man saw Umar ibn al-Khattaab and so asked Allaah to turn the wine into vinegar. When Umar ibn al-Khattaab asked him what was in the bottle, he replied, ‘It is vinegar.’ So Umar ibn al-Khattaab smelt it and it was [indeed] vinegar.
In my opinion this story has some contradictions and is also in opposition to [correct] fiqh. What I mean is that that person was committing a sin, and [then] calls on Allaah to save him from it while he is still doing it. Also, it has been mentioned that Abdul-Hamid Kishk reports or quotes some weak hadiths whose chains of narration are not authentic.
My question is in regard to this, because I know that Abdul-Hamid Kishk has a big effect on the youth today and he mentions weak hadiths and stories.
We’d like your input on this?
Al-Albani: The reality is that I have never come across this story which you just related about that man–[I’ve never seen it mentioned] amongst the authentic hadiths, nor the hasan hadiths, nor the weak ones, nor the fabricated ones and not even those that have no basis.
And another painful reality is that no one is denying that Shaikh Kishk’s style in effecting the people is uncanny, but I do not mean [by saying that] that his style is a legislated one. Because he uses emotion, inflaming the emotions of those present by such things as ordering that salaah be sent upon the Prophet [by saying], ‘Send more prayers!’ and ‘Let me hear you send prayers upon him,’ and so on. But in the end, his style leaves an affect.
But he, with great remorse, is a storyteller and not a scholar especially in that which is connected to the field of prophetic hadith. So along with being a storyteller he is also one who [just] rounds up and gathers things. He collects all kinds of hadiths [not caring about their authenticity] and then admonishes the people with them, reminding them using such hadiths.
And it is here that the alleged rule which leads admonishers such as this to deviate makes its entry. [A principle] which is mentioned in some of the books of the science of hadith as though it is something undisputed and without blemish: that it is allowed to act upon those weak hadiths which talk about the excellence [or merit] of [certain] actions [Fadaa’ilul-A’maal]. Whether this sentence is accepted or rejected is something disputed amongst the scholars of hadith.
That which I hold and which I have mentioned in more than one book or treatise is that it is not allowed for a Muslim to seek nearness to Allaah the Blessed and Most High through a hadith which he knows is weak. This is what I hold.
But [we must bear in mind that] those who adopted this rule laid down conditions [that must be met] to act upon such hadiths. So when the majority of the people who came later and who adopted this rule [actually] broke it, [the result was that] weak and fabricated hadiths became widespread.
We have very extensive experience with those who associate themselves to knowledge: when one of them mentions a hadith and we know for sure that he does not know where this hadith has come from, he doesn’t know whether it is authentic or weak, but when he is taken aback after he is repudiated and it is said to him, ‘O my brother, you’re relating this hadith and it is weak,’ he replies immediately with the alleged rule, ‘But weak hadiths can be acted upon in relation to the excellence of [certain] actions.’
But this rule is not taken without exception.
Do you [actually] know that the hadith you just related is [in fact] weak?
He doesn’t know anything about that. Thus, he has broken the rule, for conditions were laid down for it, from them being the fact that he should know that this hadith [which he is quoting] is weak so that he does not become mixed up [in differentiating between the] the weak hadith and the authentic one.
[The incorrect implementation of] this rule helps the admonishers, storytellers and preachers not to be cautious when narrating hadiths from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.
If the hadith were authentic then alhamdulillaah, and if it were weak [and the conditions applied] then it can be acted upon in relation to the excellence of [certain] actions. [I.e., Trans. note: the Shaikh does not agree with this rule but here mentioned the opinion of those who do hold it to be permissible, i.e., at the very least if these storytellers knew that a hadith was weak maybe this rule could then be implemented according to those who hold it to be permissible, but therein lies the problem, normally the storytellers don’t even know if it is weak: it could be worse than being just weak, i.e., it could be fabricated or have no basis whatsoever, so when they are not sure about the grading of the hadith how can they implement the rule that, ‘Weak hadith can be used concerning the excellence/merit of certain actions,’ correctly?]
So the aforementioned Shaikh does not have knowledge of hadith and for this reason in his stories and admonitions he narrates all kinds of hadith. So it is not strange that he should report narrations which have no basis whatsoever and have no connection to the sayings of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.
[Sorry folks, the druggie comes later!]