An answer to a letter, this letter by Sayyid Abdulhakim Arwasi, a real religious savant with perfect knowledge, explains tafsir and hadiths, and praises religious savants.

Sir! At the beginning of your valuable letter you refer to religious savants. Knowledge which Muslims have to learn is called Ulum-i Islamiyya. This knowledge, which Islam commands, was divided into two sections by Rasulullah "sallallahu alaihi wa sallam'; he said, "Al-'ilmu'ilman, 'ilm-ul-abdan wa 'ilm-ul-adyan." He said that the former is Ulum-i aqliyya, which is scientific knowledge, and the latter is Ulum-i naqliyya, which is religious knowledge.

[In order to mislead youngsters, enemies of Islam say, "Religions are man-made. First totemism, then polytheism, and lastly monotheism were made up; thus, religions deterred science and civilization." Spreading atrocious slanders they denigrate Islam. They sever scientific knowledge and intellectual knowledge from Islam's nature. They misrepresent Islam in such a way as to make it appear as if it were different from and contrary to intellectual knowledge. They strive to spread the conviction that mind's learning scientific knowledge depends on its giving up Islam. Vigilant people who have read books teaching the elements of religion and realized how much importance Islam places on intellectual knowledge and science, will certainly not believe such lies].

Religious knowledge is knowledge that brings peace and happiness in this and the next worlds. It is divided into two parts: Ulum-i 'aliyya, that is, advanced religious knowledge and Ulum-i ibtidaiyya, that is, elementary knowledge. Branches of advanced religious knowledge are eight:

1- The knowledge of Tafsir (explanation, expounding).

2- The knowledge of Usul-i kalam. This is the branch of knowledge that explains how the knowledge of kalam is derived from ayats and hadiths. This branch of knowledge is explained clearly in al-Hadiqa.

3- The knowledge of Kalam. This is the branch of knowledge that explains the Kalimat ash-shahadat and the six tenets of iman relative to it.

4- The knowledge of Usul-i hadith. This is the branch of knowledge that explains the different kinds of hadiths.

5- 'Ilm-i hadith relates and explains Rasulullah's "sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam' actions, utterances and manners.

6- The knowledge of Usul-i fiqh. It explains how learnings of fiqh are derived from ayats and hadiths. A book of usul entitled Manar is well-known.

7- The knowledge of Fiqh explains the afal-i mukallafin. That is, it explains the commands, the prohibitions and the permissible things that must be done or avoided physically. The knowledge of fiqh is divided into four divisions: 'Ibadad, Munakahat, Muamalat, and 'Uqubat.

8- Ilm-i tasawwuf explains the things to be done or avoided with the heart, and the ways to purify the heart and soul. This is also called 'Ilm-i akhlaq or Ilm-i ikhlas.

Of these eight branches of knowledge, it is fard-i 'ayn for every Muslim to learn the subjects of kalam, fiqh and morals to the extent that is necessary and to teach them to his household. Those who do not learn them and those who do not teach them to their household are gravely sinful. They will go to Hell and burn. And he who does not even think it is necessary to learn them and who slights them becomes a kafir; his iman goes away. It is fard-i kifaya to learn these three branches of knowledge to a degree that is more than necessary or the other five branches of the advanced religious knowledge or the 'Ulum-i aqliyya. It is written in Bazaziyya, "After memorizing some parts of Qur'an al- karim, it is necessary to learn fiqh. For, it is fard-i kifaya to memorize the whole Qur'an al- karim. But it is fard-i ayn to learn the indispensable subjects of fiqh. Muhammad bin Hasan Shaibani "rahmat-Allahi ta'ala alaih' says: Every Muslim has to learn the two hundred thousand branches of knowledge of fiqh teaching harams and halals. After the fard, the most valuable worship is to learn knowledge and fiqh.

[Expatiating on the harmful branches of knowledge which the Shariat prohibits, the book al-Hadiqa states: It is fard-i 'ayn to study the knowledge of kalam enough to learn the belief taught by the savants of Ahl as-sunnat wal jamaat, to prove it by religious and scientific knowledge, and to explain it to heretical or irreligious people. To learn more is necessary only for savants, but not permissible for others. It is fard-i kifaya to learn more for the purpose of serving the religion, yet it is permissible only for an intelligent man of religion who works for Allah's sake. If others learn more they will deviate onto wrong paths. [They will become zindiqs, that is, insidious enemies of religion]. Al-imam ash-Shafi'i said, "When compared with dealing with 'ilm-i kalam and deviating, committing grave sins is trivial." After being advised about the 'ilm-i kalam of the time of al-imam ash-Shafi'i, we should consider the danger and the degree of prohibition involved in reading those religious books that are now being written by the short-sighted, visionary people who are so ignorant in religion. Al-imam ash-Shafi'i, again, said, "If it were known how harmful it is to deal with the knowledge of kalam before learning the Ahl as-sunnat belief well, you would avoid dealing with the knowledge of kalam more than you would avoid a lion." Now there has been an increase in the number of those who write their own thoughts and opinions in the name of books on 'Ilm-i kalam. [Wahhabis and religion reformers are the ringleaders of this harmful movement.] Their books teem with shirk and heresy. Al-imam Abu Yusuf said, "It is not permissible for those who deal with 'ilm-i kalam to be imams." It is stated in the fatwa of Bazaziyya, "Most of those who deal with 'ilm-i kalam become zindiqs." As for dealing with the knowledge of fiqh, that is, learning the fards and the harams; it is fard-i ayn for every Muslim. And to learn it more than needed is fard-i kifaya; it brings much thawab; there is no harm in it. Here we end our translation from Hadiqa. Writing religious books based on insufficient background of knowledge and heretical sentiments has had a great vogue among today's people. Giving these books of theirs such titles as (The Qur'an's Translation) and (Facts Of The Qur'an), they offer them to younger generations. Telling them that they should read these books only, they hinder them from learning the religious knowledge communicated by the savants of Ahl as-sunnat. They drift Muslims into heresy and perdition. To be true Muslims, we must read books of 'Ilm-i hal written by pious Muslims].

Learning these eight branches of advanced religious knowledge requires learning twelve elementary branches of knowledge, which are Sarf, Ishtiqaq, Nahw, Kitabat, Ishtiqaq-i kabir, Lughat, Matn-i lughat, Bayan, Ma'ani, Badi, Balaghat and Insha. These are written on the three hundred and twenty-eighth (328) page of the book Hadiqa, and on the three hundred and twenty-ninth (329) page of the book Bariqa. Thus, branches of Islamic knowledge are twenty.

To be a religious savant it is necessary to learn the eight branches of advanced religious knowledge together with all their subtle particulars, and to be as well learned as necessary in scientific knowledge. Only such people can be called Islamic savants. There are two groups of Islamic savants: The first group are the religious imams, who are the Mufassirin- i 'izam, the Muhaddithin-i kiram, the Mutakallimin, the Mutasawwifin, and the Fuqaha-i fiham. Their every utterance, every declaration is an explanation of Qur'an al-karim and hadith ash-Sharifs. Everything they say is unchangeable, exactly as it was taught to them, and is absolutely true.

Mufassir does not mean a person who writes books of tafsir. Mufassir is a person who understands what Allahu ta'ala means by His Word. Tafsir is only the information that comes from Rasulullah's "sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam' blessed speech to the Sahaba "ridwanullahi ta'ala 'anhum ajmain', then to the Tabiin, then to the Taba-i tabiin, and then, through the communication of such reliable and valuable people, to writers of books of tafsir; to be more exact, to savants of fiqh and kalam. Any information other than this cannot be called tafsir; it is called tawil. Correctness of tawils is assessed by measuring them with tafsirs. If a tawil contradicts a tafsir, it is discarded. If it agrees, it can be accepted. It is thus stated (by savants). Those who wrote books of tafsir accepted the sections that were tafsirs as tafsirs and the sections that were tawils as tafsirs again because they agreed with the tafsir.

Some books of tafsir that are other than these convey the tawils of Qur'an al-karim. That is, they are not tafsirs. They do not communicate what Allahu ta'ala means. The tafsir by Shaikh-i Akbar and the tafsir of Najmaddin are books of tawil. These cannot be documents for the knowledge of kalam or for the knowledge of fiqh, which are the basic branches of religious knowledge.

The second group of Islamic savants are those who are other than the above mentioned savants of tafsir, hadith, kalam, tasawwuf and fiqh. These are not admitted as mujtahids in the religion. Their words cannot be dependable, for or against.

Those who explain the essentials, the fundamentals of Islamic religion are the savants of the first group. They acquired all their knowledge from the Qur'an and hadiths. They learned the meanings of the Qur'an and hadiths from the Sahaba. They did not express anything from their own minds. Being followers of the Sahaba, they have been called the Ahl as-sunnat wal-jamaat.

The owners of Madhhabs in fiqh are the four imams. In their Madhhabs there are people who have reached the high grade of mujtahid-i fi'l madhhab. They are al-imam Muhammad and al-imam Abu Yusuf, in Hanafi, al-imam an-Nawawi and al-imam ar-Rafii and al-imam al Ghazali, in Shafi'i, and others. These people also own the ijtihads that (seemingly) belong to others. That is, they will be accepted if they agree with their ijtihads. If they do not agree, they will be adapted to their ijtihads if possible. If they cannot be adapted, the religion cannot be based upon them. Those who are to do this, that is, those who are to see if they can be adapted, are only those who have higher knowledge and a deeper understanding than the owners of these new ijtihads; they are the Islamic savants educated by those great imams, that is, they are the savants who love and watch over their faith, and each of them is known to be exalted all over the world. Shamsaddin Sahawi, whose name is mentioned in your letter, is, of course, outside this circle. And the book entitled Al- maqasid-ul-Hasana is not considered to be among the authentic religious books. Its yardstick is the valuable Islamic books. If it agrees with them it will be admitted. If it does not, the utmost will be done to adapt it to them. If it cannot be adapted, the book will be given up, and the responsibility will be left to its author. The tafsirs that have established the basis of Islam cannot be refused or criticized with such books. Therefore, his saying that there are very few hadiths about Malahima [great war, combat] and Murtaqiba and Muntazira [both mean to watch, to wait. These three branches of knowledge teach the methods of pre-estimating the results of a war] appeals for deliberation. It is not important if the hadiths are many or few. When it is discovered that there is a hadith, one hadith will do as well. For, any information coming from the Mukhbir-i sadiq (the Prophet) is to be believed. A standard of comparison is needed to determine whether a certain number is too low or high enough. What will be the standard of comparison to decide whether they are too few, or numerous enough? Valuable books of hadith contain more hadiths about these matters than about other matters.

Rasulullah "sallallahu alaihi wa sallam' intimated to Huzaifat-ibnu Yaman many facts that must remain secret. This exalted person and Abu Huraira "radiallahu anhuma' stated: "Sarwar-i 'alam "sallallahu alaihi wa sallam' intimated to us all the things that have happened and will happen from the creation of all beings till the day on which all will be annihilated. We have narrated those which we were permitted to disclose. We did not communicate, but kept secret those which were to be concealed." Maybe not all of those which were communicated have reached us. Hadiths that have not reached us cannot be said to be nonexistent. Furthermore, books of Malahima are not among the books forming the basis of the religion. They teach the acts to be avoided. These books contain exaggerations, which facilitates the act of heeding a warning. Islam's soundness does not depend upon the correctness of books of Malahima; then why should the religion be blamed for the incorrectness of these books? These books are like history books. Certainly, history books will be like that.

You write that Sahawi says, "Imam-i Ahmad has said that the three books do not have a foundation"! That Ahmad must not be Imam-i Ahmad Ibni Hanbal. Such a great imam would not just say, "The three books do not have a foundation." Those great savants would separate the doubtful parts. They would not say that a book is altogether wrong. However, because the books Malahim and Maghazi [war history] are not Islam's valuable books, the statement, "It does not accept any true hadiths," about Malahim, is of no value. We would like to add that not to admit something does not show that it is nonexistent. Things that are nonexistent cannot be proved. For, no proof can be found to demonstrate nonexistence.

According to Sahawi, "Imam-i Ahmad has said that Tafsir-i Kalbi is thoroughly incorrect." As we have stated above, Tafsir-i Kalbi is not a basic book of the religion. Nor is Tafsir-i Muqatil.

You write that Shawkani has said, "The tafsirs of the Sufiyya, such as Tafsir-i Haqaiq [Sulami], are not tafsirs." The above given information about tafsirs includes this tafsir, too. We will point out also that the superiors of Sufiyya-i aliyya did not write anything in the name of tafsir. They wrote what they called tawils. It has been said that the inspirations that came to their pure brains might be the information willed by Allahu ta'ala. Their statements depend upon conscience. It is left to the owners of conscience to believe them. They cannot be proofs for others. That is, they do not prove the facts to be believed, nor can they indicate deeds or worships. Those who know them understand their states, and only those who have reached their high grades know them. Such people as Shawkani are very far below these grades. Shawkani's statement cannot be a proof against them. You say, "They have many batini tafsirs." If the word "batin' is used to mean the group of Batinayya, that group have already deviated from the right way. But if it means the savants of batin, the statement must be thrown back into the teeth of the person who has made it.

[The book Milal-Nihal, by Shihristani, was published in Arabic in Egypt, in India, and in London, and was translated into Latin, English and other languages. It was translated into Turkish by Nuh bin Mustafa. It is written on its forty-third page: "The Shii sect consists of twenty groups. The eighteenth group is the group of Ismaili. This group is also called Batiniyya. For, they say "The Qur'an has a batini [secret, interior] meaning as well as a zahiri [overt] meaning. Its batini meaning is necessary, and its Zahiri meaning is unnecessary.' This is kufr, ilhad, that is, to deviate from the right way. For, they do not believe a word of the Islamic scholars." They are not called Shii. The most widespread group of Shiis in Iran and India today is the Imamiyya group, who call themselves Jafari. Today, when the word Shii is mentioned it means the Imamiyya group].

At one place in your letter you write that Shawkani has said, "The tafsir of Ibni Abbas is not a tafsir at all." There is not a book in the name of the tafsir of Ibni Abbas. Abdullah Ibni Abbas did not write books. Having attended Rasulullah's "sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam' valuable sohbats, having seen Hadrat Jabrail, and having been known as one of the most deeply learned of the Sahaba "alaihimurridwan', he expounded upon some ayats as well as hadiths. Making use of his exalted explanations, our savants of tafsir enriched their tafsirs. Islamic savants admit with consensus that these tafsirs are at a very high level. Shawkani's statement needs to be corrected. And correcting it requires knowing the subtle rules of the knowledge of usul-i hadith, which is very high. But it is not known whether or not Shawkani reached those grades. For, if he had reached those grades he would not have said anything incompatible with the methods of great savants.

Concerning the tafsir of Salabi, that is, the tafsir entitled Kashf-u bayan, we should keep the above mentioned explanation in view. So is the case with the Tafsir-i Wahidi.

Zemahshari belonged to the Mutazila group. For this reason, to understand the divine meanings in the tafsir of Kashshaf, the above mentioned explanation, again, should be kept in consideration. But, because Zemahshari occupied the highest grade of the savants of the knowledge of balaghat, which is an essential factor to prove that Qur'an al-karim is mujiz, the savants of tafsir of the Ahl as-sunnat quoted from his tafsir in describing the balaghat of Qur'an al-karim.

As for Qadi Baidawi "bayyad-Allahu wajhah' [may Allahu ta'ala make his face luminous]; he is exalted enough to deserve his name and the prayer (attached to his name). He is loved and honored above all by mufassirs. He reached the highest grade in the knowledge of tafsir. He was an authority in every branch. He was a leader in every Madhhab. He was a guide in every thought. He was skilled in every science, he was an authority in every usul, and was known as authentic, firm and was praised by the early savants as well as by later ones. It takes a lot of nerve to say that there are mawdu' hadiths in such a profound savant's tafsir; it is identical with tearing a deep gap in the religion. It would be fit if the tongue that uttered such words, the heart that believed them, and the ears that listened to them caught fire. Was that greatly learned sage unable to distinguish mawdu' hadiths from sahih ones? What should we call those people who would say, "Yes, he was"? Or, did he lack religious faith or fear of Allah to such an extent as to make up hadiths or ignore the heavy punishments which our Prophet had reported about those who would do so? It would be very base, very heinous to say he did. Because the meanings in these hadiths are too vast for the narrow comprehension and the thick head of the person who says so, he will look for a way out; then, finding no other way, he calls them mawdu'. For this reason, it will be pertinent here to explain mawdu' hadiths.

The word (mawdu') has one lexical meaning and one istilah (technical) meaning, [that is, a different meaning peculiar to the concerned branch of knowledge.] In other words, it has a meaning given by the knowledge of Usul-i hadith. In the dictionary, mawdu' means that which has been put somewhere afterwards, that is, made-up. That is, it was not uttered by the blessed mouth of the Sarwar-i alam "sallallahu alaihi wa sallam' but was introduced in the name of a hadith by a zindiq, by a munafiq, or by a liar, for slanderous purposes. There are two ways to determine it. The first way is with a statement from Fakhr-i Rusul "sallAllahu 'alaihi wa sallam', who is the owner of the hadith, "This is not my hadith," that is, his saying that he did not utter it. The second way is with the absence of this mawdu' hadith among the hadiths that were recorded by those who were with our master Rasulullah "sallAllahu 'alaihi wa sallam' from the first day of his prophethood until he honored the Hereafter with his presence. This second way entails some conditions to be fulfilled. For instance, the people involved (in the recording of the so-called hadiths) must have paid strict attention to each and every statement made by the Prophet "sall-Allahu alaihi wassalam' and they must have observed closely all his blessed manners and habits. Accordingly, this second way also is impracticable. Then, how could a hadith ever be called mawdu' in this sense? No one would pay heed to an assertion of this sort.

From the beginning of Sarwar-i alam's "sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam' prophethood until his death, every word uttered by his blessed mouth, every silent moment and every action, became a hadith. In describing the knowledge of hadith they said, "It is the science that deals with his utterances and manners."

The science of Usul-i hadith contains another knowledge through whose methods and ways, kinds and classes of hadiths are distinguished. Different and detailed explanations, definitions and specifications of numerous kinds of hadiths, such as Mutawatir, Mashhur, Sahih, Hasan, Marfu', Musnad, Mursal, Daif and Mawdu', fill volumes of books. Each hadith has conditions and references. This vast information is peculiar only to those great savants who have reached the grade of ijtihad in the science of Usul-i hadith.

The knowledge of Hadith is completely different. When a savant who is a mujtahid in the science of Usul-i hadith proves that a hadith is mawdu', there is no need for all the savants of this science to say that it is mawdu'. For, a mujtahid who says mawdu' about a hadith which does not fulfill the conditions which he considers indispensable for a hadith to be sahih means to say, "It is mawdu' according to the rules of the usul of my Madhhab." He does not mean that it is not an utterance of Rasulullah's. In other words, he means to say, "This statement is said to be a hadith ash-Sharif, but I have not come to the same conclusion." Its not being a hadith according to this savant does not prove that it is not a hadith in actual fact. As a matter of fact, when another mujtahid in the science of Usul-i hadith finds in this utterance the conditions which he requires of a hadith to be sahih, he may say that it is a hadith and not mawdu'. Then, Shawkani's statement, "The hadiths in some of the tafsirs are mawdu'," does not make them mawdu'. If we were to suppose that Shawkani is a mujtahid in the science of Usul-i hadith, then we would know that it has not been understood clearly that it is a hadith according to the rules of the (science of Usul-i hadith) of his Madhhab; but how dare he say that it is a mawdu' hadith? The ugliness of casting such aspersions on religious superiors is quite conspicuous. As the existence of differences between the well-known four Madhhabs does not mean that there are incorrect teachings in them, likewise, you could apply the same reasoning to hadiths! Since such things are a matter of ijtihad, it does not have to be in fact mawdu' only because a mujtahid says that it is mawdu'.

Tafsir-i Abussuud was derived from the tafsirs of Baidawi and Zemahshari and from Tafsir-i kabir. Your highness did not mention Tafsir-i kabir. [Tafsir-i kabir is also called Mafatih-ul-Ghayb. It consists of thirteen volumes. It was written by Fakhruddin-i Radi.]

The statement, "The tafsirs reported from the Salaf-i salihin are not dependable," is not true at all. The proof, the evidence which he puts forward in order to explain that some hadiths are mawdu' exposes his own mistake according to the science of Munazara (debate). Especially, his saying mawdu' about those hadiths that relate the virtue and the value of suras is answerable in no way except by saying, "La hawla..."

Yes, zindiqs fabricated some statements in the name of hadith. The savants of Ahl as- sunnat identified and discarded them. Now our religious books do not contain any of them.

Tafsir-i Khazin, -which is entitled Lubab-ut-tawil fee ma'an-it-tanzil and was written by Ala'uddin-i Baghdadi-, and the tafsir of Ruh-ul-bayan are more of preaching books. The hadiths they contain may be daif hadiths at the most. Daif hadiths can be valuable in terms of informing us about the virtues and thawabs in worships. Basic religious information is not derived from such tafsirs. Such books are not sources for the essentials of Islam. Books of preaches and khutbas and books of those who are in the low grades of tasawwuf are like speeches and conferences. You do not look up evidence or proofs in such books. Therefore they may contain any kind of hadith besides mawdu' hadiths. But in books of Kalam, which are the basis of the religion, only sound hadiths can be proofs and documents. And in books of fiqh and worship, the hadiths other than ahad, daif and mawdu' hadiths are proofs and witnesses. Acts of worship that are reported by daif hadiths to have much thawab in them can be done. It is written in Ibni Abidin, in the section dealing with prayers of ablution, that it is haram, perhaps kufr, to substantiate worships with mawdu' hadiths.

Jalaladdin-i Suyuti, author of the books Jami'-us-saghir and Jami'ul-kabir [which are great hadith books], reached the grade of imam in the science of hadith. There are no mawdu hadiths in his books, nor in al-Imam-i Muhammad Ghazali's books.

A person who says that a hadith is mawdu, first of all has to be a mujtahid in the science of Usul-i hadith. If such a mujtahid proves that a hadith is mawdu' according to the rules of the science of Usul-i hadith, it is mawdu' only in his Madhhab. It does not have to be mawdu' in the Madhhabs of other savants who are mujtahid in the science of Usul-i-hadith. Those savants recorded such hadiths as sahih in their books. And Muslims know them as hadiths.

Muhammad Damiri is the author of the book Hayat-ul-haywan. Books such as Qisas-i Anbiya [by Imam-i Ali bin Hamza Kisai], Mustatraf [written by Muhammad bin Ahmad Abshihi and entitled Mustatraf fi kulli fanni Muztazraf], Anisuljalis [written by Ali bin Hasan Hulli], Khazinat-ul-asrar [written by Muhammad Haqqi], Tuhfat-ul-ikhwan [which deals with reading Qur'an al-karim and was written by Khalil bin 'Uthman], and Makarim-i akhlaq [written by Ibni Abiddunya] are not books that form the basis of the religion. However, since the authors of these books are great, hadiths that are mawdu' in their Madhhabs must not exist in them. Even if they were mawdu' in the Madhhabs of those who would say they were mawdu', we would not have to downgrade something scrupulously observed by savants minutely by saying that it is mawdu'. Nor could Islam be denigrated with the extraneous sophisms of such outsiders. To say that a hadith is mawdu', a person would have to be able to take the hadith and prove with evidence and documents that it is mawdu'.

[People who belong to the seventy-two groups who will go to Hell, munafiqs, zindiqs, Wahhabis, and Jews disguised as Muslims said mawdu' about many hadiths in order to break the Ahl as-sunnat into groups and camouflage their own vices. And some people who are known to be Sunnis were deceived by the books of these enemies, and looked on many sahih hadiths as mawdu'. One of those who, being unable to see the greatness of Ahl as- sunnat savants or comprehend their books, were deceived by the enemies, is Aliyy-ul-Qari. Though he wrote many books and revised valuable ones, he calls sahih hadiths mawdu' in his book Ahadith-ul-Mawduat. Those who believe the enemies of religion and say mawdu' about the sahih hadiths in the most valuable books are thus helping the enemies of religion demolish Islam.]

I will never believe that a book captioned Tahzir-ul-muslimin is true; I understand that it is one of the behind-the-scenes lies fibbed in order to demolish the religion.

The books listed at the end of the first page of your letter are not the basic books of Islam. [One of these books is Durrat-un-nasihin, written by 'Uthman Hopawi]. Another one is the hadith book captioned Attarghib-wattarhib, by Ismail Isfahani. Abdul'azim wrote another hadith book with the same title; hadrat Imam-i Rabbani praises this book. Another one is the book entitled Ajaib-ul-Qur'an, written by Mahmud-i Kermani. The Islamic religion does not defend these books, for neither they themselves nor their authors have been deemed great by religious savants. Nevertheless, neither all nor a few of the hadiths they contain can be said to be mawdu'. Each hadith has to be proven to be mawdu' separately. Even if there were mawdu' hadiths it would not make any difference. The fundamentals of the religion have not been based upon these books. Faults and defects belong to the authors of the books. And since their authors are not religious authorities or superior persons, criticisms leveled against them would not defame the religion.

If those who say mawdu' about the hadiths reported by men of tasawwuf intend to contradict the reports of the superiors of tasawwuf, their words have no value and are not worth answering. Every religious fact reported by those great people is true, dependable, and documented. But if they intend to contradict false Darwish convents and false men of tasawwuf, they may say as much as they wish; we will not defend the latter.

Hadrat Muhammad Amin-i Tokadi quotes the hadith "One jadhba of the jadhbas of Rahman is like the thawabs of all people and genies" in his booklet Suluk. The booklet occupies number 169 of section Dar-ul-masnawi in the library of Sulaimaniyya, Istanbul. It is also written on the 386th page of Marifatnama that it is a hadith. The hadith "He who knows his nafs will know his Rabb (Allah)" is written on the eleventh page of Kunuz-ud- daqaiq, which also informs us that it exists in Dailami. (The book) Lataif-ul-minan says that Shaikh Abul Abbas Mursi stated that this is a hadith ash-Sharif, and quotes his lengthy interpretation (of the hadith). The first page of Kashf-un-nur and also Salat-i Masudi clearly write that this is a hadith ash-Sharif and explain its meaning as follows: "He who is aware of his incapability will recognize his Rabb's greatness." Ibni Taymiyya's and Zerkeshi's and Ibni Samani's saying that it is only a statement uttered by Yahya bin Muaz-i Radi is not based upon any foundation. Persian explanation of Fiqh-i Ghidani communicates that it is written in the thirteenth chapter of Salat-i Masudi that this is a hadith. Abdulkarim Ibni Samani died in 562.

"Love of the world is the origin of all sins" is a hadith. [Imam-i Manawi and Baihaki report that it is a hadith]. Those who do not know what "world" means will not admit this fact.

It is written at the end of Sharh-i mawaqif that the hadith, "My Ummat will part into seventy-three groups. Only one of them will enter Paradise, and the rest will go to Hell," is sahih. It is communicated in the translation of the book Milal-Nihal that the four imams who wrote the books of hadith named the Sunan quoted this hadith from Abu Huraira "radi- Allahu 'anh'. Great Islamic savant Shaikh-ul-Islam Ahmad Namiqi Jami quotes this hadith in his books Miftah-un-najat and Uns-ut-talibin. Also, such mujtahids as Imam-i Rabbani and Imam-i Ghazali quote this hadith. Any person who would say that this hadith is mawdu' would also try to daub the sun with sticky mud, for this hadith would be denied only by the adversaries of the Ahl as-sunnat.

While explaining the value of knowledge in his book Nashr-ul-mahasin, Imam-i Yafii states that the utterance "Savants of my Ummat are like the Prophets of the sons of Israil" is a hadith. This is written clearly in many books, particularly in the 268th, 294th and 121st letters of the third volume of Hadrat Imam-i Rabbani's Maktubat, and at the beginning of the book Lataif-ul-minan. Also, it is written in the book Al-hamilu fil-fulk, by AbdulGhani Nabulusi. This book exists in the library of Sulaimaniyya, Istanbul, in section Asad Effendi, number 3606.

"Worships of the abrar are sins for the muqarrabs" is a hadith. [Someone, who confused this hadith with the statement "The riya of 'arifs is better than the ikhlas of murids" by Abu Said-i Harraz, made a wrong marginal note in the Arabic translation of the hundred and twenty-seventh letter, thus misleading some people.] "What remains from a Believer's food or drink is a curative," is a hadith. "The world is a field (to be tilled) for the next world," is a hadith. [Imam-i Manawi and Dailami state that this is a sahih hadith]. A person who does not know their meanings will find no other way than to contradict them. Masnawi states that the utterance "Love of one's country originates from one's iman" is a hadith. It is written in Maktubat and "Kanz-i makhfi" that "Kuntu kanzan makhfiyyan..." is a hadith al- qudsi, and it is written in the 76th letter of the second volume of Maktubat that "La yasa'uni ardi..." is a hadith al-qudsi.

All the hadiths reported by those who occupy the high grades of tasawwuf are sahih. Dalail-ul-khayrat is not a book of hadiths, but a book of prayers. I cannot guess what it could mean for a prayer to be mawdu'.

If the book Ihya-ul-'Ulum by Imam-i Ghazali is meant by the word Ihya, the book is correct and exalted according to the consensus of savants. If a non-Muslim turned its pages with a good intention he would be honored with becoming a Muslim.

The book Qut-ul-qulub [written by Abu Talib-i Makki] and the book Bahjat-ul-asrar fi manaqib-il-akhyar [written by Ali bin Yusuf, and consists of the biographies of the superiors of tasawwuf] do not teach the basic facts of the religion; I therefore shall not defend them.

To say mawdu' about the hadiths describing the creation of the world would mean to pelt the unknown with rocks. Knowing whether a hadith is sahih requires lengthy observation. Whether or not it is compatible with the mind is of no importance. Our religion is based upon communication. When what is communicated is correct it is necessary to believe it.

The hadith about the wives of Ibrahim "alaihis-salam" is not mawdu'. It is true that our Prophet's "sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam' blessed heart was taken out and purified. When he was born it was seen that he was circumcised. So were all the other Prophets "alaihimussalam". It is true that he had a seal of prophethood. [Information about Ashura is given in the fifty-eighth chapter of the third fascicle of Endless Bliss].

If the referred book Asnalmatalib is the one which was written by Ibni Hajar-i Makki, it is beyond question, absolutely true, documentary, and very dependable. If it is one of the others it is of no importance.

The hadith about the fifteenth night of the month of Shaban is sahih. So is the case with the virtue of the month of Rajab. Miraj is a truth. But it is not definitely known which night it is. [How Miraj happened is explained in detail in the fifty-eighth chapter of the third fascicle of Endless Bliss. Also, see the book Belief and Islam].

[Muhammad Rabhami says in his Persian book, Riyad-un-nasihin, "There are many groups of those who disbelieve Miraj:

Jahmiyya, who are the second group of the Jabriyya sect, and Kabiyya, who are the twelfth group of the Mutazila sect, stated that Miraj was untrue. The Mutazila group stated that Miraj was a dream. Recently the number of people following the Mutazila example has been on the increase. The Bahili group said that Miraj extended up to Jerusalem, not up to heavens.

The groups Hashawiyya and Mushabbiha, two of those groups who assert that Allahu ta'ala is an object, said that Miraj lasted one night, that that night was as long as three hundred years, and that all people remained asleep in the course of that time. The group called Ibahati, or Ismaili, stated that Miraj happened spiritually, and that the body did not leave its place.

Savants of Ahl as-sunnat wal-jamaat stated that during the Miraj the soul and the body together were taken from Mecca to Jerusalem, then to the seven skies, then to the place named Sidra, and then to the rank of Qaba Qawsayn while awake, and then they were taken back in one moment in one night. They said that Allahu ta'ala created this, and they proved this in many ways." He experienced other mirajs, too, which happened spiritually.]

The hadith describing the namaz of tarawih is sahih. The fact that the Arab is the best of mankind, together with the superior merits of Quraishis and Hashimis, is written in hadiths, [which exist in the fifty-seventh chapter of the first fascicle].

[Some sahih hadiths are written in the book Basirat-us-salikin but it says that Suyuti had said that they are unfounded. However, Ibni Abidin, while explaining fasting on a yawm-i shak (doubtful day), stated: "If the hadith scholars say unfounded for a hadith, it means not the hadith itself is unfounded but its being a marfu' hadith is unfounded and this hadith is mawkuf."]

If the statements in the booklet Rabita-i Sharifa were read with due attention, you would solve your other questions! Those who deny rabita are those who do not know what rabita is. Most of the savants of the Hanafi Madhhab for the past thousand years describe rabita in their books. To deny this means to deny the savants of Hanafi Madhhab. Objecting against them would require not only being a mujtahid but also being one as exalted as they are. Not everybody could derive meanings from ayats and hadiths; one would have to be a mujtahid. Ignorant people's approving or disapproving the facts cannot change them.

Men's helping one another will be possible only by shafaat (intercession). Asking for help from souls has become a custom among all Muslims and all people.

Sir! Due to it being the month of Ramadan, I have been able to write only this much. Anyone who would like more detailed information would need a long interview on a favorable day. Yet it would be necessary to be reasonable and educated, for it is not possible to talk with an obstinate person. To understand why Hadrat Ali "radi-Allahu 'anh' did not help Hadrat Hasan and Hadrat Husain "radi-Allahu 'anhuma' we have to meet and converse. I beg you to excuse me.
28th Ramadan 1347 [1929]
Abdulhakim Arwasi

HizmetBooks © 1998

See our Important Disclaimers and Legal Information