The allegation of Bid’ah
In this allegation primarily two arguments are made:
- During his rule, Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the founder of bid’ah (innovation).
- Initiating the practice of calling the adhan and iqamah before the Eid salah makes Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu guilty of committing bid’ah.
As far as the first argument is concerned, it is unanimously agreed upon that the statements and actions of the Sahaba do not fall under the definition of bid’ah, but rather their statements and actions are to be regarded as proof for the ummah. To further understand this, please refer to the following books: Minhaj al Sunnah (vol. 1 pg. 256), I’lam al Muwaqi’in (vol. 1 pg. 6), Badaʼ al Fawaʼid (vol. 4 pg. 477), Tabqat al Subki (vol. 1 pg. 262), ‘Umdat al Qari (vol. 3 pg. 323), Kitab al ’Ilm (vol. 2 pg. 83), Ahkam (vol. 2 pg. 140), Izalat al Khafa (vol. 1 pg. 16), and Yasurru man Raʼa (vol. 2 pg. 48).
Furthermore, the Sahaba are not in need of anybody’s approval from the Ummah. I have already discussed this topic at length in the beginning of the book, making reference to Al Khatib al Baghdadi rahimahu Llah. For further details please refer to: Mirqat (vol. 5 pg. 517), Usd al Ghabah (vol. 1 pg. 2), Al Isti’ab (vol. 1 pg. 2), Al Isabah (vol. 1 pg. 11), Taqrir al Usul (vol. 2 pg. 260), Fawatih al Rahamut (vol. 1 pg. 156), and Musamarah (vol. 1 pg. 158).
When the statements and actions of the Sahaba are a proof for the Ummah and they are not in need of any confirmation, how can they then become the discussion of bid’ah?
It is narrated from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that the successful sect will only be;
ما انأ عليه و اصحابي
Those who are upon my path and the path of my Sahaba.
In the following statement Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam clarifies that the path of salvation and guidance to be the path of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Sahaba:
بايهم اقتديتم اهتديتم
Whomsoever from amongst them you follow, you shall be rightly guided.
In this hadith, together with the virtue and praise of the Sahaba being evidently clear, it also becomes apparent that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has attached the Sahaba to himself as far as the yardstick and benchmark between truth and falsehood is concerned. The Qurʼan itself has declared the Sahaba to be the yardstick of the truth:
وَمَنْ یُّشَاقِقِ الرَّسُوْلَ مِنْۢ بَعْدِ مَا تَبَیَّنَ لَهُ الْهُدٰی وَیَتَّبِعْ غَیْرَ سَبِیْلِ الْمُؤْمِنِیْنَ نُوَلِّه مَا تَوَلّٰی وَنُصْلِه جَهَنَّمَؕ وَسَآءَتْ مَصِيْرًا
Whoever opposes the Rasul after the guidance has become manifest to him and follows a path other than that of the Muʼminin, We shall allow him to do that which he is doing and then enter him into Jahannam. It is the worst of abodes.
“Path of the believers” mentioned in this verse refers to the Sahaba.
Likewise, the statement of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
اوصيكم باصحابي ثم الذين يلونهم ثم الذين يلونهم فليلزم الجماعة
I exhort you regarding my Sahaba (that you follow in their footsteps) then those who come after them, then those who come after them…stringently adhere to the Jama’ah.
This is the reason why Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam declared the Sahaba, those who followed them (Tabi’in), and those who in turn followed the latter (Taba’ Tabi’in) to be the khayr al Qurun (the best of eras).
It is reported from Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
من كان مستنا فليستن بمن قد مات فان الحي لا تؤمن عليه الفتنة أولئك أصحاب محمد صلى الله عليه و سلم كانوا أفضل هذه الأمة أبرها قلوبا و أعمقها علما و أقلها تكلفا اختارهم الله لصحبة نبيه و لإقامة دينه فاعرفوا لهم فضلهم و اتبعوهم على أثرهم و تمسكوا بما استطعتم من أخلاقهم و سيرهم فإنهم كانوا على الهدى المستقيم
Whoever intends to follow, he should follow those who have already passed away, because those who are alive are not safe from tribulations. And these are the companions of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, who are the best of this Ummah, purest of heart, people of most profound knowledge, and more abstinent from formalities than anyone else. Allah chose them for the companionship of his Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and to establish His religion. Recognize their virtue, follow in their footsteps, and as far as possible inculcate their lifestyle and character, because they are rightly guided and upon the straight path.
‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al ’Aziz rahimahu Llah, in reply to a question, said:
فارض لنفسك ما رضي به القوم لانفسهم فإنهم على علم وقفوا و ببصر نافذ كفوا و هم على كشف الأمور كانوا أقوى بفضل ما كانوا فيه أولى فإن كان الهدى ما أنتم عليه سبقتموهم إليه
Be pleased for yourself with that way which the pious predecessors were pleased with for themselves because they had accurate knowledge, and on the basis of deep insight stayed away from these innovations. Undoubtedly, they were more able to reach the depth of matters. Their condition is the best condition, thus if the path which you have chosen opposes the path chosen by the pious predecessors, then you would be claiming to have surpassed them in guidance (May Allah protect us).
Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Delhwi rahimahu Llah writes:
أقول: الفرقة الناجية هم الآخذون في العقيدة و العمل جميعا بما ظهر من الكتاب و السنة و جرى عليه جمهور الصحابة و التابعين…إلى أن قال…و غير الناجية كل فرقة إنتحلت عقيدة خلاف عقيدة السلف أو عملا دون أعمالهم
I say that the successful sect is only those who follow the Qurʼan and Sunnah in both their belief as well as in their practical lives, which the majority of the Sahaba and Tabi’in firmly held on to, and unsuccessful will be every such sect who opposes the pious predecessors, be it in belief or action.
Hence, those blessed souls whose statements and actions stand as a proof for the Ummah are undoubtedly worthy of being followed and are the benchmark for guidance. How can they be accused of bid’ah? Those who accuse the Sahaba of bid’ah are unaware of the definition of bid’ah (which has been transmitted from our pious predecessors).
In fact, according to our pious predecessors any person who abandons the path of the Sahaba is regarded as having abandoned the Sunnah:
و اما ترك السنة فالخروج من الجماعة
Leaving the Sahaba is leaving the Sunnah.
Definition of bid’ah
The definition of bid’ah as explained by the senior scholars of the Ummah is as follows:
Molana Sakhawat ‘Ali Jounpuri al Hanafi rahimahu Llah (d. 1275 A.H) says:
Bid’ah is any such action which is regarded to be part of din, to which benefit or harm in the hereafter is attributed. Whereas it is not established from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam nor from his Sahaba.
Allamah Taftazani rahimahu Llah (d. 808 A.H) states:
إن البدعة المذمومة هو المحدث في الدين من غير أن يكون في عهد الصحابة و التابعين و لا دل عليه الدليل الشرعي
A detested bid’ah is that which is initiated as part of din, whereas it was not present during the time of the Sahaba and Tabi’in, nor does any Shar’i proof indicate towards it.
Allamah ‘Abd al ’Aziz al Farharawi rahimahu Llah (d. 1239 A.H) writes:
هو كل ما حدث في الدين بعد زمن الصحابة بلا حجة شرعية
Bid’ah is every such action which was initiated after the era of the Sahaba without Shar’i proof.
Hafiz Ibn al Kathir rahimahu Llah (d. 774 A.H) says:
أما أهل السنة و الجماعة فيقولون في كل فعل و قول لم يثبت عن الصحابة هو بدعة لأنه لو كان خيرا لسبقونا إليه لأنه لم يتركوا خصلة من خصال الخير إلا و قد بادروا إليها
The stance of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah is this: Every statement or action not proven from the Sahaba is bid’ah, because if there was goodness in that action then the Sahaba would have definitely preceded us in it as they did not leave out any good deed or any good quality but rather strove to attain it.
The grand mufti of the Indian subcontinent- Mufti Kifayat Allah Delhwi rahimahu Llah (d. 1372 A.H) mentions:
Bid’ah are those things that have no basis in Shari’ah. In other words no proof is found for it in the Qurʼan and ahadith, nor was it present during the era of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the Sahaba, the Tabi’in, nor the Taba’ Tabi’in.
Molana Karim Bakhsh rahimahu Llah (d. 1365 A.H) says:
According to the Shar’i definition: Bid’ah is every such action which was not accepted by the majority of the three eras.
It is for this very reason that Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu narrated:
اتبعوا آثارنا و لا تبتدعوا فقد كفيتم
Follow our (i.e. the Sahaba’s) footsteps and do not initiate bid’ah. The din upon which you are is enough for you.
Sayyidina Hudhayfah radiya Llahu ‘anhu mentions:
كل عبادة لم يتعبدها أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فلا تعبدوها
Every act of worship that the Sahaba of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not engage in, do not engage in it.
Similarly, the fuqaha regard the abstention of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Sahaba from an action to be an independent proof and substantiate laws from their abstention. A few examples of this:
- Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu said:
Do not concern yourselves about rhyming your supplications because Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Sahaba did not rhyme their supplications.
- It is stated in Fatawa al Alamghiri:
To recite Surah al Kafirun from beginning to end in one breath is makruh (disliked). The reason being that it is a bid’ah, since it was not transmitted to us from the Sahaba and Tabi’in.
- Muhammad ibn ‘Isa Al Tabba’ rahimahu Llah (179 A.H) quotes Imam Malik rahimahu Llah saying:
كل حديث جائك من النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم لم يبلغكم أن أحدا من الصحابة فعله فدعه
Discard every hadith of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that you find none of the Sahaba to have practiced upon.
Many aspects become apparent from these reports. Mainly that the statements and actions of the Sahaba are to be regarded as proof. We may lament over the present day Ahlul hadith not regarding the statements of the Sahaba to be a valid proof, but even more lamentable is that in this era such self-styled scholars have emerged, who under the pretext of defending the Sunnah label the Sahaba as innovators (May Allah protect us!). In other words, until the present era the lifestyle of the Sahaba was regarded as a defining factor between Sunnah and bid’ah but today they have become personifications of the hadith:
لعن آخر هذه الأمة أولها
The latter part of the Ummah will curse its first part.
It is indeed strange that people have begun to label the Sahaba as innovators. Even more strange would be the command to follow them; how is this possible, when they are Ahlul Bid’ah?
As for the allegation against Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who was also a Mujtahid and would issue fatawa (rulings), and from whom many Sahaba reported hadith; Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu said:
ليس أحد منا أعلم من معاوية
There is none amongst us (the Sahaba present at that time) who is more learned than Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
Once during a discussion pertaining to witr salah, Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself praised the understanding of Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu saying: “He is a faqih (jurist).”
Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is accused of being an innovator whereas Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu states:
ما كان معاوية على رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم متهما
Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is not regarded as unreliable (by anyone) with regard to narrating hadith from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is also counted amongst those Sahaba who would issue fatawa.
The Sahaba reported ahadith from Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu numbering 163 narrations. Amongst those who have narrated from him are ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu, ‘Abdullah ibn Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Abu al Darda radiya Llahu ‘anhu and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. To still have the courage to accuse a Sahabi of this calibre of being an innovator is nothing but sheer audacity.
Today, if I take the name of Mohr ‘Ali Shah (d. 1356 A.H) and label him an innovator then will any follower of Mohr ‘Ali tolerate such an allegation? Will such a statement not cause anger to his circle of followers? If the allegation of innovation does not behoove Mohr ‘Ali but would be tantamount to biased criticism, bad manners and insolence, then can such an allegation ever be condoned towards a Sahabi?
Pertaining to the second argument that the Sunnah of Eid salah is that there be no adhan and iqamah but Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu instituted the practice of calling the adhan and iqamah before the Eid salah. First and foremost, the question needs to be asked whether the attribution of this to Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is correct? Is the narration accusing Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu in conformity with what actually transpired? Do weak narrations have any effect in rendering a person unreliable? To what extent did Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu desire to follow the Sunnah and prevent evil?
For further reading, please refer to; Majma’ al Zawaʼid (vol. 9 pg. 357), Mishkat (pg. 105), Sahih al Muslim (vol. 1 pg. 288), Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (vol. 2 pg. 351), Sunan al Darami (pg. 200), Tarikh al Madina al Munawwarah (vol. 1 pg. 132), Al Adab al Mufrad of Imam Bukhari (pg. 144), Musnad Ahmed (vol. 4 pg. 93), Tirmidhi (vol. 2 pg. 100), Sunan al Kubra of Imam al Bayhaqi (vol. 4 pg. 290) and Musnad al Humaidi (vol. 2 pg. 273).
Is it just and fair to accuse a Sahabi, who is a strict follower of the Sunnah, as well as a mujtahid and faqih, of innovation? Is the attribution of such a terrible crime to any person (let alone a Sahabi) correct?
In reply to this slander, we ask the same questions which were asked by the renowned Muhaqqiq Molana Muhammad Nafi’ rahimahu Llah to those who slandered Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu (in the same manner):
- Those who wish to criticise should clarify the year in which the adhan and iqamah for the Eid salah was introduced.
- Was it introduced in all the Islamic states or only in the state known as Sham (Syria)?
- Was the action refuted in the areas in which it was introduced?
- Did all the great scholars of Islam (Sahaba, Tabi’in, and others) of that era and time accept this new innovation or was there a conflict?
- Please clarify who refuted it and who were those in favour of it?
- In particular to the people of the two sacred cities, did they practice upon this new innovation or did they refute it?
- What action did the elders of the Banu Hashim take? Did they cast their lots in favour of it or did they also disprove of it?
The matter can only be analysed after all these different aspects are taken into perspective, whilst keeping in mind the disadvantages and advantages of the matter at hand. It is the responsibility of the opposition to clarify all the above matters. If the era of Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is to be criticised then the above mentioned conditions have to be clarified, and if the elders of that era had confronted the above matters in a negative manner then how were such rulings enforced? In light of this, the clarification of this dispute will have to be proven through reliable sources.
One cannot cite unreliable and flawed narrations at points of criticism, and if the senior scholars (including the Banu Hashim) had agreed on the matter and conformed with the idea, then Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu should not have to suffer the blame of practicing on bid’ah alone. Rather, the blame should be placed upon all, for having fallen under the umbrella of:
تعاون على الإثم والعدوان
Assisting in sin and transgression.
However, if we were to look at the true nature of these people then one would be certain that they would never be supportive of any type of sin or transgression.
In conclusion to this discussion, three points need to be understood:
1) A narration is often presented because of which Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is labelled an innovator. However, the status of the Sahaba is so lofty (in light of the Qurʼan and ahadith) that if any question is raised against them on account of some narration then the narration should be interpreted in accordance to the status that Allah Ta’ala has granted them. This has already been explained in the beginning of the book, with reference to the quotation of the Head Mufti of Pakistan- Mufti Muhammad Shafi rahimahu Llah (d. 1396 A.H). We will now present two more references in this regard.
Allamah Muhiyy al Din al Nawawi rahimahu Llah writes:
قال العلماء الأحاديث الواردة التي في ظاهرها دخل على صحابي يجب تأويلها ولا يقع في روايات الثقات الا ما يمكن تأويله
The scholars of hadith have ruled that it is compulsory to render a suitable interpretation to all those narrations which might apparently seem to cast some kind of negativity upon the Sahaba.
Molana Sayed Hussain Ahmed al Madani rahimahu Llah (d. 1377 A.H) mentions:
The narrations recorded by the historians generally have no basis. Neither are the chain of narrators known and even if they are, there is absolutely no knowledge of the strength of the narrators, nor is the continuity and the discontinuity of the narration considered. Even in the case where some of the earlier historians have taken it upon themselves to mention the chain of narrators then too they have accepted the narrations of every insignificant and wretched person. They did not consider whether the chain of narrators was continuous or if they were flawed. This applies to all the historians whether it be Ibn al Athir, Ibn Qutaybah, Ibn Abi al Hadid, or even Ibn Sa’d.
To regard such narrations to be mutawatir or acceptable is absolutely incorrect and out of place. Even amongst the reliable and mutawatir narrations, if we were to find any sahih narration that is not in favour of the status and integrity of the Sahaba, then too we will deem it to be unacceptable or a suitable interpretation rendered. How then can we even consider accepting historical narrations (which have no basis).
2.) Labelling any Sahabi as an innovator makes one himself guilty of committing a bid’ah.
Allamah Abu al Shakur al Salami rahimahu Llah (d. 265 A.H), a renowned scholar in rhetoric sciences, mentions:
الكلام في البدعة على خمسة أوجه- الكلام في الله والكلام في كلام الله والكلام في قدر الله والكلام في عبيد الله والكلام في أصحاب رسول اللهصلو الله عليه و سلم
Bid’ah is of five types: discussing the entity of Allah Himself and His qualities (other than that which our pious predecessors have mentioned), to bring about new opinions with regard to the text of the Qurʼan, discussing the extent of Allah’s power, to put forward one’s own opinion with regard to the messengers of Allah, and to be self-opinionative of the Sahaba.
3) The accusation against Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is false to begin with and even if taken to be true then too it cannot be termed as bid’ah. Mufti Muhammad Taqi ‘Uthmani explains:
My answer is that if a Sahabi or Tabi’i is a mujtahid, and he bases his opinion on any kind of Shar’i proof (even if that proof might seem weak to us), then without a doubt this will be called “ijtihad”. It will not be labelled as bid’ah or innovation. In such an instance the practice of the Muslims will be upon the ruling of the Qur’an, hadith and the Sunnah of the al Khulafaʼ al Rashidin. The individual opinion of the said Sahabi will be ruled to be weak, unpreserved, or in some circumstances can even be regarded to be an error in ijtihad, but under no circumstance can it be labelled as bid’ah.
The status of the Sahaba is very high indeed. When the fuqaha (jurists) of later times presented numerous opinions and rulings, which were apparently contradictory to the teachings of the Qurʼan and Sunnah, these opinions were termed errors in ijtihad, because of the fact that these opinions were based on some type of Shar’i proof. It was never termed as bid’ah.
For instance let us consider one of the opinions of Imam Shafi’i rahimahu Llah, he is of the opinion that even if a person does not recite tasmiyyah intentionally when slaughtering, the animal will still be regarded to be halal (Bidayat al Mujtahid vol. 1 pg. 446), whereas it is clearly mentioned in the Qurʼan:
وَلَا تَاْكُلُوْا مِمَّا لَمْ یُذْکَرِاسْمُ اللهِ عَلَیْهِ
And do not consume of that upon which the name of Allah has not been taken.
The majority of the fuqaha have refuted this view of Imam Shafi’i rahimahu Llah and have ruled it to be a weak opinion, which they did not adopt. However, there is not a single scholar who accused him of having committed an act of bid’ah because of this? The reason being that Imam Shafi’i rahimahu Llah is regarded to be a mujtahid and he has supportive proof for his opinion. The proof is weak according to the majority of the ‘ulama but it is sufficient to save him from being guilty of initiating any type of bid’ah or distortion in din. If the meaning of bid’ah is taken in accordance to the suggested principle, then not one mujtahid will remain who will not be cut down by the sharp edge of this sword, since every one of them has one or two such opinions, which apparently seems to contradict the teachings of the Qurʼan and Sunnah. The vast majority of scholars did not agree with these opinions and refuted it but not a single person labelled their actions as bid’ah.
Indeed, the matter has to be examined whether that individual is qualified to come to such a conclusion and opinion of his own and that he does not intend to distort the teachings of din simply to satisfy his carnal desires. Imam Shatbi rahimahu Llah writes:
ان الرأي المذموم ما بني على الجهل واتباع الهوى من غير أن يرجع إليه و ما كان ذريعة إليه وإن كان في أصله محمودا وذلك راجع إلى أصل شرعي فالأول داخل تحت حد البدعة وتنزل عليه أدلة الذم والثاني خارج عنه ولا يكون بدعة أبدا (الإعتصام ج1 ص131)
Verily the opinion which is frowned upon is that which is based upon ignorance and arises on account of following one’s base desires (lacking support from principles of Shari’ah) as well as that opinion which even though supported by the principles of Shari’ah may lead to vice, even though virtuous itself. The first of the two falls under the definition of bid’ah and is subject to all the condemnation that is mentioned in our texts, but the second type can never be regarded as bid’ah.
4) Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is labelled an innovator based upon one baseless narration. We will now present one fact that is proven by a complete reliable chain of narration. We ask the opponents of Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu to please reply to it. The meaning of the hadith of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is:
The ‘iddah (period of waiting) of a woman whose husband has passed away will end when she gives birth.
Ibn Hajar al ’Asqalani rahimahu Llah (d. 852 A.H) writes:
وقد قال جمهور العلماء من السلف و ائمة الفتوى فى الامصار ان الحامل اذا مات عنها زوجها تحل بوضع الحمل و تنقضى عدة الوفاة و خالف فى ذلك علىّ فقال تعتد اخر الاجلين و معناه انها ان وضعت قبل مضى اربعة اشهر و عشر تربصت الى الوضع اخرجه سعيد بن منصور و عبد بن حميد عن على بسند صحيح و به قال ابن عباس كما فى هذه القصة و يقال انه رجع عنه و يقويه ان المنقول عن اتباعه و فاق الجماعة فى ذلك
The majority of scholars are of the unanimous view that when the husband of a pregnant woman passes away, her ‘iddah will terminate as soon as she gives birth. However, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu issued a ruling contrary to it. According to him, her ‘iddah is the longer of the two. This means: if she gives birth before four months and ten days then she still has to wait the complete four months and ten days, and her ‘iddah will not terminate by just giving birth. In the same manner, if four months and ten days pass and she still has not given birth then she will have to wait until she gives birth.
This ruling of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is authentically narrated on the authority of Sa’id ibn Mansur and ‘Abd ibn Humaid. Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu was also of the same opinion, but he later retracted his opinion which is supported by the rulings of his students and is in accordance with the ruling of the majority of the ummah.
Scrutiny of the reference- Futuhat al Makkiyyah
After the allegations of bid’ah against Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu have been clarified, we now return to discussing the book of Sheikh Akbar Muhiy al Din ibn al ’Arabi rahimahu Llah (d. 638 A.H) entitled: Futuhat al Makkiyyah, which was quoted in support of this claim. Citing a reference such as Futuhat al Makkiyyah informs us that there is no credible proof supported by a chain of narrators or from the books of hadith or even history to support this baseless claim. The narration in Futuhat al Makkiyyah does not contain any chain of narrators. It should be borne in mind that Imam Muslim rahimahu Llah (d. 261 A.H) quotes the statement of ‘Abdullah ibn Mubarak rahimahu Llah in the preface of his famous work- Sahih al Muslim:
الإسناد من الدين ولو لا الإسناد لقال من شاء ما شاء
Chains of narration are part of din and if there were no chains of narration then anyone would say whatever he desired.
As far as Futuhat al Makkiyyah is concerned, firstly, the senior scholars of the ummah have already criticised it.
Secondly, what is the status of Futuhat al Makkiyyah as far as its chain of narrations and status as a reference is concerned, for this we quote Mujaddid Alf-e Thani rahimahu Llah, which will enlighten the readers of its significance:
Respected reader! This humble servant has not the forbearance to hear such words. Instantaneously my anger arises and gives me not the chance to make any other interpretation of such words, whether they are the words of some great Yemeni sheikh or some illustrious sheikh of Syria.
We depend upon the words of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and not Muhiyy al Din ibn al ’Arabi, Sadr al Din al Qunawi, or ‘Abd al Razzaq al Kashi. Our duty is to adhere to the divine text (nusus) and not fusus. Futuhat al Madaniyyah has made us independent of Futuhat al Makkiyyah.
Molana Hussain Ahmed al Madani rahimahu Llah (d. 1377 A.H) says:
Sheikh Akbar is a pious person of a very high status and academic scholar. Considering this, it is possible that these words are not even his but rather of some heretic, falsely inserted into the text, as is understood from the words of Sheikh ‘Abd al Wahhab al Sha’rani rahimahu Llah and others. Even if it is his words, it will be regarded as an error from his side. He is definitely a great scholar but he is not infallible, so the opinion of the majority of the scholars will be accepted.
 Tirmidhi vol. 2 pg. 89, Mustadrak al Hakim vol. 1 pg. 129, Mishkat vol. 1 pg. 30
 Surah al Nisa: 115
 Mustadrak al Hakim vol. 1 pg. 114, Musnad Abu Dawood vol. 1 pg. 7
 Mishkat vol. 1 pg. 33
 Abu Dawood vol. 2 pg. 277
 Hujjat Allah al Balighah vol. pg. 170
 Mustadrak al Hakim vol. 1 pg. 120
 Risalah Taqwa pg. 9
 Sharh al Maqasid vol. 2 pg. 271
 Nabras pg. 21
 Tafsir Ibn al Kathir vol. 4 pg. 157
 Ta’lim al Islam part 4 pg. 24
 Haqiqat al Iman pg. 38
 Al I’tisam vol. 1 pg. 59
 Ibid vol. 2 pg. 366
 Bukhari vol. 2 pg. 938
 Fatawa al Alamghiri vol. 4 pg. 264
 Al Faqih wal Mutafaqqih vol. 1 pg. 132
 Al Sunan al Kubra of al Baihaqi vol. 3 pg. 26
 Bukhari vol. 1 pg. 531
 Musnad Ahmed vol. 4 pg. 95
 I’lamul Muwaqi’in vol. 1 pg. 5 , Tadreebur Rawi pg. 404, Al Isabah vol. 1 pg. 166
 Al Isabah vol. 1 pg. 122, Usd al Ghabah vol. 5 pg. 223
 The reason being that when we study the narrations pertaining to the matter, we find Mughirah ibn Shu’bah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who had been appointed by Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu as the governor of Kufah, performing the Eid salah without adhan or iqamah. (Al Musannaf ‘Abd al Razzaq vol.3 pg. 278, Al Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah vol. 2 pg. 168)
 Sirat Amir Muawiyah vol. 2 pg. 326-327
 Muslim with the commentary of Imam al Nawawi vol. 2 pg. 278
 Maktubat-e Sheikh al Islam vol. 1 pg. 287 doc. 89
 Al Tamhid pg. 192
 Surah al An’am: 121
 Hadrat Muawiyah awr Tarikhi Haqaʼiq pg. 166-167
 Bukhari vol. 2 pg. 802, Muslim vol. 1 pg. 486
 Fath al Bari vol. 9 pg. 469
 Ibid vol. 6 pg. 114
 Ibid vol. 3 pg. 329
 Ibid vol. 8 pg. 150
 Muslim vol. 1 pg. 12
 Al Yawaqit wal Jawahir vol. 1 pg. 7, Tarikh Da’wah wa ‘Azimah vol. 2 pg. 158
 Hinting at the book of Sheikh al Akbar- Fusus al Hikam.
 Maktubat Imam-e Rabbani letter: 100
 Maktubat-e Sheikh al Islam vol. 1 pg. 242