فَمَنْ تَعَصَّبَ لِأَهْلِ بَلْدَتِهِ أَوْ مَذْهَبِهِ أَوْ طَرِيقَتِهِ أَوْ قَرَابَتِهِ أَوْ لِأَصْدِقَائِهِ دُونَ غَيْرِهِمْ كَانَتْ فِيهِ شُعْبَةٌ مِنْ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ

Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said:

Anyone who fanatically favours their fellow countrymen, their madhʾhab, chosen path, their kin, or their friends over others, embodies a trait from the era of pre-Islamic ignorance.¹

The Dangers of Blindly Following One’s Madhʾhab

Imām Nāsir al-Din al-Albānī said, regarding the issue of raising the hands (before/after rukūʿ) in ṣalāh and the lack of adoption of it by many claiming to be ‘Ḥanafī’:

It is our belief that many of the authentic ḥadīth that prove the validity of raising the hand in the ṣalāh when descending and rising from rukūʿ did not reach some imāms of the past—among them Abū Ḥanīfah (رحمه الله). However, we also believe that, had these narrations reached him, he would definitely have adopted them. This is supported by the fact that when Abū Ḥanīfah (رحمه الله) was once asked why he abandoned raising his hands in ṣalāh, he replied: “because there are no authentic narrations from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) that support it”, as mentioned by some of our scholars in their books of fiqh. Then, is it plausible that a major scholar like Abū Ḥanīfah would make such a statement regarding a matter that had been narrated and acted upon by no less than twenty companions?! Of course not! Absolutely not! He is excused because of ignorance in this matter which then removes the obligation of him acting in accordance with those narrations.

In consideration of this, it should be stated that even if such abandonment is excused for Abū Ḥanīfah (and others among the early scholars), it would not be considered permissible for those claiming to follow him from the contemporary scholars who are fully acquainted with the many narrations in this matter, their authenticity, and the lack of opposing evidence. Rather, if they choose to fanatically abandon these narrations, falsely claiming to be following or imitating Abū Ḥanīfah, then they are guilty of not only opposing the confirmed, authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), but also of opposing the very imām they are claiming to follow. For Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (رحمه الله) addresses such people in his statement: “If a ḥadīth is confirmed as authentic, then it is my madhʾhab” and “It is impermissible for anyone to issue an edict based on our opinion except that he knows the evidence from which our statement was made”. So, if he (رحمه الله) disavowed anyone issuing an edict based on his opinion except that the evidence used to support that opinion is known, how could they ever surmise it permissible for these supposed followers to hold an opinion that is clearly weak when the authentic narrations in this matter are considered? This is applicable to a plethora of issues—both from the past and present.

We praise Allāh and show immense gratitude to Him for blessing us with the guidance to follow the Sunnah of His Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), just as we ask Allāh to reward Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (رحمه الله) and the other scholars like him, all of whom directed us towards the Sunnah using the likeness of the aforementioned precious, monumental statements.

In consideration of this, we acknowledge that anyone who abandons the authentically confirmed Sunnah, preferring instead to follow the opinion of an imām, is in actuality opposing the very imām they are claiming to follow. Furthermore, that imām would not be pleased with his behaviour. For this reason, several of the contemporary and early followers of Abū Ḥanīfah opposed him in this issue, the earliest of them that we are aware of was ʿIṣām ibn Yūsuf (d. 215 AH), the student of Abū Yūsuf. As it was mentioned in his biography that he would raise his hands when descending into rukūʿ and when ascending from it. Regarding this, Abū al-Ḥasanāt al-Laknawī commented: “From this, we may acknowledge the falsehood of the narration on the authority of Makḥūl from Abū Ḥanīfah in which he apparently said: “Anyone who raises his hands when praying has invalidated his ṣalāh”. For, indeed, ʿIṣām ibn Yūsuf was among the close companions of Abū Yūsuf and he used to raise his hands. As such, if this narration had any basis whatsoever, Abū Yūsuf and his student, ʿIṣām, would have known.” Then, he said: “This issue also illustrates that if a student abandons the opinion of his imām in an issue because of the strength of the opposing view, he would not be considered abandoning following his imām. Rather, he is actually following him by outwardly abandoning his [erroneous] opinion.”

As for the contemporary scholars who follow his madhʾhab, they are great in number— especially those from India. For they—may Allāh bless all of them—account for a great proportion of the Muslims today who both know and act in accordance with the Sunnah, while showing no fanaticism to their madhʾab, adopting only that which is proven to be sound and correct from it. Among them, for example, is Abū al-Ḥasan al-Sindī, Walī Allāh al-Dahlawī, Abū al-Ḥasanāt al-Laknawī, Muḥammad Anwar al-Kashmīrī and many others. I would have quoted their statements in this regard, except that I fear this treatise would be overly long.

I also say: There has never been a single generation from the time of Abū Ḥanifah until now except that there were Muslims who claimed to be Ḥanafī while abiding fully by the Sunnah even if it opposed their madhʾhab. However, the details of their accounts were prevented from reaching us as many of the scholars know. For example, Ṣāliḥ al-Ḥimṣi—who was from among the most prominent Ḥanafī scholars—used to avoid raising his hands in ṣalāh out of fear of the fanatics. He (رحمه الله) explicitly stated this to me.

This is also supported by the fact that many Ḥanafī imams living in the eighth century used to raise their hands with every takbīr in ṣalāh. This was narrated in an incident related to Shaykh al-Islām (Ibn Taymiyyah) in which a Ḥanafī led the congregational prayer and raised his hands with every takbīr. This caused the alleged faqīh of the congregation to object to him saying: “This is impermissible according to your madhʾhab and so you should be considered an innovator. You are swaying between opinions as it suits you such that you have now refused to follow your very own imām and refused the guidance of your madhʾhab.” Thus, the question was posed to Shaykh al-Islām: “Should the ṣalāh of this imām be considered deficient due to his apparent opposition to the Sunnah and his imam?” After clarifying that raising the hands is Sunnah when descending into rukūʿ and ascending from it, and not with every takbīr, which is also the opinion of his student Ibn al-Qayyim, Shaykh al-Islām (رحمه الله) answered:

“If a person is following the madhʾhab of Abū Ḥanīfah, Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, or Aḥmad and views the opinion of another to be stronger in a particular issue, and so he follows this opposing opinion, he would have behaved correctly. Without doubt, the opposition to his imām is not considered a religious deficiency nor does it deleteriously affect his trustworthiness. Rather, this is more consistent with his adoption of the truth, more beloved to Allāh and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) than those who show fanaticism to any individual besides the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). For whoever claims that the opinion of an individual is always correct and must be followed, is both ignorant and misguided. Moreover, this view may even be considered outright disbelief. As the claim that it is obligatory for the people to follow certain individuals in everything they espouse is not the view of a Muslim. Rather, whoever seeks closeness to the imams, loving them, will follow all of them in whatever is apparent as being consistent with the Sunnah. The one who conducts himself thus should be considered to have engaged in righteousness and goodness, his circumstance is superior to those besides him. Moreover, it should not be said to such a person in an attempt to blame him: ‘You are swaying between views according to your own whims”. Rather, the type of swaying that is actually deserving of blame is in those who sway between disbelief and belief, not being among the disbelievers or the believers. Instead, they show agreement with both parties in certain instances as it suits them. As the Most High said:

إِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ يُخَادِعُونَ اللَّهَ وَهُوَ خَادِعُهُمْ وَإِذَا قَامُوا إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ قَامُوا كُسَالَىٰ يُرَاءُونَ النَّاسَ وَلَا يَذْكُرُونَ اللَّهَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا ‎﴿١٤٢﴾‏ مُّذَبْذَبِينَ بَيْنَ ذَٰلِكَ لَا إِلَىٰ هَٰؤُلَاءِ وَلَا إِلَىٰ هَٰؤُلَاءِ ۚ وَمَن يُضْلِلِ اللَّهُ فَلَن تَجِدَ لَهُ سَبِيلًا

‘Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allāh, but it is He Who deceives them. And when they stand up for al-ṣalāh (the prayer), they stand with laziness and to be seen of men, and they do not remember Allāh but little. (They are) swaying between this and that, belonging neither to these nor to those, and he whom Allāh sends astray, you will not find for him a way (to the truth – Islām).’
(Al-Nisāʾ, 4:143)

The one who shows fanaticism to a particular imām over the rest is akin to those who show fanaticism to one of the companions over the rest. This is inherent in the beliefs of the Rawāfiḍ who show fanaticism to ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) over the rest of the rightly guided caliphs and the other companions. This is also present in the Khawārij who insult and revile ʿUthmān and ʿAlī (رضي الله عنهما). We may deduce from this that showing selective fanaticism in this manner is among the practices of the people of innovation and false desires. Therefore, anyone who shows fanaticism to a single imām over all others has shown resemblance to these innovators, regardless of whether he chooses Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad, Abū Ḥanīfah or any other imām besides them.

The very pinnacle of this fanaticism is to fanaticise while being completely ignorant of the amount of Islamic knowledge and religious fortitude possessed by the subject of this obsession (i.e. the imām being blindly followed), while also being ignorant of the knowledge and religion of those besides him (i.e. the imam holding the opposing view), such that he combines oppression with ignorance. All the while Allāh orders us to educate ourselves and to be just, forbidding such oppression and ignorance.

For Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad [ibn al-Ḥasan] were among the most adherent followers of Abū Ḥanīfah, the most knowledgeable and acquainted of them with his opinions, but both of them still opposed him in countless issues of fiqh. This is because the authentic Sunnah was made plainly evident to them such that they were obligated to follow and adopt it. Even whilst opposing him, they never ceased praising and commemorating their imām. So, would it be accurate to describe them as ‘swaying between opinions according to their own whims’? Rather, Abū Ḥanīfah and the other imāms may postulate an opinion before opposing evidence is clarified to them, causing them to change their opinion. It may not be said that in doing so they are ‘swaying in accordance with their whims’. For every single person must seek knowledge and increase their īmān continuously and persistently. Those are the truly guided whom Allāh shall increase in guidance. As the Most High said:

وَقُل رَّبِّ زِدْنِي عِلْمًا

“And say: “My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.””
(Ṭā-Há, 20:114)

Therefore, it is obligatory upon every believer to seek close friends and allies from among the believers and their scholars, following the truth wherever he finds it, while acknowledging that the one who strives to reach the truth in an issue of Islamic jurisprudence and reaches it shall be rewarded twice, and the one who likewise strives but falls short of it shall be granted one reward for his strife and his mistake shall be forgiven and overlooked. Every believer should follow his imām in that which is permissible only. It is most unacceptable for anyone to interpret the opinions espoused by any scholar as a form of religious ceremony or rite that must be blindly adopted and abided by, while simultaneously forbidding others from incorporating the Sunnah that has been made abundantly clear to them.

Shaykh al-Islām (رحمه الله) then said:

“The vast majority of these fanatics are completely ignorant of the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah, except for a small proportion of it which Allāh has willed. Instead, they have chosen for themselves weak ḥadīth, opinions that are clearly corrupt, basing their actions on narrations from their mashāyikh and scholars that may be authentic or inauthentic. Even if we were to acquiesce to their authenticity, the one being quoted is not infallible. Thus, they adhere desperately to a narration whose authenticity is unknown, from a person who possesses mistakes like anyone else, whilst they claim that their narration is authentic and that their scholar is [effectually] infallible. Rather, the actual truthful narrations from one who is infallible exist only in the narrations from the trustworthy among the people of knowledge, which have been recorded in the books of authentic narration, from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). It is these aḥadīth that have been narrated authentically, in a fully substantiated manner, as fully agreed upon by the imāms of this religion. Just as the one they have narrated from is the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) who is absolutely infallible in his delivery of this message. For he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) does not speak based on his own desire, but rather his speech is an inspiration that is inspired.² Allāh has obligated showing obedience and following him (صلى الله عليه وسلم) upon His entire creation, as the Most High said:

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّىٰ يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا ‎

“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم)) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.”
(Al-Nisāʾ, 4:65)

And He said:

فَلْيَحْذَرِ الَّذِينَ يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ أَن تُصِيبَهُمْ فِتْنَةٌ أَوْ يُصِيبَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

“And let those who oppose the Messenger’s (Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم)) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah – legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements, etc.) (among the sects) beware, lest some fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant, etc.) befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them.”
(Al-Nūr, 24:63)³

The Danger of Using Pre-Islamic Phrases, Speech, and Practices

On the authority of ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd (رضي الله عنه) who said: The Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Those who slap their cheeks, rip their clothing [out of exasperation, sadness, and despair] or use expletives from the pre-Islamic time of ignorance are not from among us”.⁴

Shaykh Ṣāliḥ ibn Fawzān al-Fawzān comments:

“Not from among us”: This phrase is frequently used by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) to warn people from engaging in particular acts of disobedience. For example, his (صلى الله عليه وسلم) saying: “Those who deceive us are not from among us”⁵ or “Those who seek resemblance to others are not from among us”.⁶ The phrase “not from among us” is meant to declare innocence from those who engage in the disobedient act being referred to, not that those who perpetrate that act have extricated themselves from Islām. Rather, it is meant to discourage and deter away from that disobedient act. The best interpretation of this phrase is that it is meant as a threat without interpreting further. Although one must not surmise that it stipulates the extrication of the perpetrator from Islām because of the many other pieces of evidence that prove that the perpetrators of major sin have not left Islām, provided they do not associate partners with Allāh in worship.

“Those who slap their cheeks”: That is, in relation to the sadness, anxiety, frustration, stress, worry and despair attributable to a catastrophe. For this was among the practices of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islamic ignorance). Rather, it has been legislated for one to show patience regarding his affliction—of which this act represents a manifestation of the opposite.

“Rip their clothing”: That is, out of extreme sadness for their affliction.

“Or use expletives from the pre-Islamic time of ignorance (Jahiliyyah)”: That is, upon being afflicted with some catastrophe, they use statements and phrases that were previously said by those living in the pre-Islamic time of ignorance, before the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was sent during the time of Fatrah [the span of time between ʿĪsá and Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم)]. It is, therefore, impermissible to ever refer to the people of this ummah, after the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was sent to them, as ignorant—this is most unacceptable. As Allāh has remedied their previous state of ignorance by means of sending the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). However, there may remain characteristics and habits among them that are reminiscent of the pre-Islamic ignorant era. In consideration of this, it is permissible to say “Such-and-such is from Jāhiliyyah” or “Such-and-such characteristic was practiced in jahl (pre-Islamic ignorance)”. Also, those who have persisted in this pre-Islamic ignorant habit must not be described as ‘people of ignorance’. This is because Allāh has alleviated all ignorance by sending the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) to this ummah.

Among the types of expletives that are being referred to in this ḥadīth are the phrases used to incite zealous partisanship, fanaticism, tribalism, nationalism, patriotism and blind loyalty to a particular place, country, group or denomination. A person, therefore, must refrain from showing fanaticism to his tribe or country, especially if he recognises them to be in error. Rather, every individual must show loyalty in his adoption of the truth, regardless of whether it exists with the tribe or country he belongs to or otherwise. As Allāh—the Glorified, the High—said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَىٰ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالْأَقْرَبِينَ

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allāh, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents”
(Al-Nisāʾ, 4:135)

Therefore, a Muslim must never show fanaticism, not to a madhʾhab, an individual, tribe, country or nationality. Rather, he must only follow and show loyalty to the truth, perpetually responding and showing obeisance to it wherever it is, regardless of whether it happens to be with his madhʾhab, his imām, his tribe or nation, or even with those he recognises as his enemy. For returning to the truth is superior to persisting upon falsehood. As Allāh—the Most High—said:

وَإِذَا قُلْتُمْ فَاعْدِلُوا وَلَوْ كَانَ ذَا قُرْبَىٰ

“And whenever you give your word (i.e. judge between men or give evidence, etc.), say the truth even if a near relative is concerned.”
(Al-Anʿām, 6:152)

And the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Speak the truth, even if you find its utterance bitter”.^{7 8}

The Dangers of Blind Nationalism and Tribalism
Allāh—the Most High— said:

وَلَمَّا بَرَزُوا لِجَالُوتَ وَجُنُودِهِ قَالُوا رَبَّنَا أَفْرِغْ عَلَيْنَا صَبْرًا وَثَبِّتْ أَقْدَامَنَا وَانصُرْنَا عَلَى الْقَوْمِ الْكَافِرِينَ

“And when they went forth to [face] Goliath and his soldiers, they said, “Our Lord, pour upon us patience and plant firmly our feet and give us victory over the disbelieving people.”
(Al-Baqarah, 2:250)

Imām Ibn ʿUthaymīn comments:

The third aspect of the invocation made here is related to the desired outcome of the battle which is to “make us victorious over the disbelieving people”. Note that they did not invoke Allāh saying “make us victorious over our enemies”, referring to their opponents with the likeness of such descriptors. Rather, they invoked Allāh for victory citing only the disbelief of their assailants, not the seeking of vengeance or retribution from them. That is, we are battling them because they are disbelievers and in relation to their disbelief only. Acknowledge here that a war that is waged based on creed and belief is the only variety of fighting which shall result in true injury and grievance to the enemy being fought. As for fighting for the sake of protection, tribalism, patriotism, or nationalism; these are all considered corrupt. This is a fact that becomes abundantly clear to anyone acquainted with historical events. For example, who first liberated Palestine from Christian occupation? It was Ṣalāḥuddīn al-Ayyūbī who—by the way—was not from among the Arabs. Now, who seeks to liberate it again from the grips of the Jews? It is the Arabs, although today they find themselves unable to do so. Rather, the Jews have taken it by force several times; inflicting harm and punishment on those who oppose them. This is because the Arabs are not fighting them based on creed but, instead, based on nationality and tribalism which exists equally among the Christians, Jews, Muslims and even the atheists, and anyone else who attaches themselves to Arabism. If they had, instead, fought in relation to creed and belief saying: “We fight the Jews—not merely because they are Jewish and we are Arabs—but, rather, because they are disbelievers and we are Muslims”, we would observe a clear demonstration of the saying of the Most High:

لَا يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ جَمِيعًا إِلَّا فِي قُرًى مُّحَصَّنَةٍ أَوْ مِن وَرَاءِ جُدُرٍ

“They fight not against you even together, except in fortified townships, or from behind walls.”
(Al-Ḥashr, 59:14)

That is, they are unable to face you “except in fortified townships, or from behind walls” in relation to the firmness of your belief and your Islām, not because you happen to be Arabs. Conversely, if you were to fight them simply in relation to Arabism, you would find them fully able to oppose you, attacking you brazenly and fearlessly in the open, filling the horizon before you until they overcome your resistance.⁹

On the authority of Abū Hurayrah (رضي الله عنه), the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Whoever fights under a blind, nondescript banner—displaying anger for the sake of nationalism, calling to it, or seeking victory in relation to it—and is killed would have died in the manner of pre-Islamic ignorance.”¹⁰

Nāsir al-Din al-Bayḍāwī comments:

“Whoever fights under a blind, nondescript banner”: that is, a banner whose true purpose is unknown; either raised for the purpose of elevating the truth and making this religion apparent, or for some opposing, ulterior motive. Rather, the impetus for the raising of this banner may have been nationalism only. If this is the case, and a person dies fighting under such a banner, his death may be likened to one occurring in the Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islamic state of ignorance). This is because, in that era, they would fight only in the name of tribalism and nationalism. It is most inappropriate and unbefitting for a true believer to fight or argue except for the sole purpose of elevating the words of Allāh, and making His religion apparent over all others.¹¹

Compiled and translated by: Riyāḍ al-Kanadī