Is “Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl” Authentic?

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

INTRODUCTION

Recently, there has been a surge of criticism against Shaykh Zakariyyā Kandhlawī’s book Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl, claiming that it should not be read as it contains fabrications and calls to grave-worshipping! A lot of these accusations are done by presenting a short passage from the book that is out of context and therefore misconstrued. Before commencing the discussion on Shaykh Zakariyyā‘s book, let us first tackle the question of whether a book and an author must be completely abandoned simply because of their inclusion of ḍaʿīf ḥadīth into their book?

Imām Bukhārī authored a book titled Adab al-Mufrad which contains aḥādīth classified as ḍaʿīf and even weaker by some scholars. Shaykh ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ (raḥimahullāh) has classified 1-2 of its aḥādīth as munkar and matrūk. Does this mean we should abandon all of Imām Bukhārī’s works because of this one book, including his al-Jāmiʿ aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ? Does it mean Imām Bukhārī did not have knowledge of ḥadīth? The answer is no. He was also of the opinion that using weak narrations for the topics of mannerism, encouragement, warnings etc. is permissible. It does not make Imām Bukhārī any less “Imām Bukhārī” who is known as the amīr al-muʾminīn fī al-ḥadīth. Similarly, Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl is a book that contains aḥādīth pertaining to motivation and encouragement, so leniency is acceptable in regards to its aḥādīth. It does not mean Shaykh Zakariyyā has included ḍaʿīf aḥādīth unsuitably and unjustifiably nor that he does not have knowledge of ḥadīth.

SHAYKH ZAKARIYYĀ’S METHODOLOGY

After a brief study of the book, it becomes clear that Shaykh Zakariyyā has begun every chapter with a verse of the Qurʾān that either directly or indirectly relates to the topic. Thereafter, he briefly mentions commentaries mainly from Imām Ibn Kathīr or ʿAllāmah Suyūṭī’s Durr al-Manthūr.

In the selection of ḥadīth, Shaykh Zakariyyā extensively relied on the Targhīb at-Tarhīb of ʿAllāmah Mundhirī. Therefore, any objection to the Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl that was extracted from Targhīb at-Tarhīb is an actual objection on ʿAllāmah Mundhirī. Imām Suyūṭī says regarding the reliability of ʿAllāmah Mundhirī: “If you learn of a ḥadīth, that it is the works of Mundhirī, author of Targhīb at-Tarhīb, then quote it with certainty.”

Additionally, Shaykh Zakariyyā quotes from the Mustadrak of Imām Ḥākim, Majmaʿ az-Zawāʾid, Jāmiʿ aṣ-Ṣaghīr of Imām Suyūṭī, Jāmiʿ al-Fawāʾid, Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, Imām Sakhāwī’s al-Qawl al-Badīʿ, and Maqāsid al-Ḥasanah. Any objections on the aḥādīth used in Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl are in actual fact objections on these books. Many scholars make use of these books, if someone avoids reading Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl, then it will only make sense that the person also abandons reading from the authors of all the books that the author of the Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl relied upon while compiling it.

KARĀMĀT

It is the belief of the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah that: all power belongs to Allāh. Moreover, Allāh Taʿālā occasionally grants the prophets muʿjizāt (miracles) — so their nations believe in the legitimacy of their prophethood — and grants His righteous saints karāmāt, in order to strengthen the faith of the Believers.

With regards to karāmāt, we believe in them through the following criteria:

1. Saints do not have control or the choice of whether to receive kashf/ihlām or not. Only if and when Allāh wills, they may receive it.
2. The karāmah/kashf is not consistent and does not last forever as opposed to the Barelvi belief that once Allāh grants someone righteous a ‘power’, it stays forever.
3. Karāmah happens in juzʾiyyāt (partial matters), not kulliyyāt (entire matters). For example, one of the incidents in the book is the incident regarding a boy who sees his mother in Jahannam. This does not mean that he actually saw Jahannam, with every detail, rather; he may have just seen something that resembles it or a portion of it i.e. a juz.

The majority of the incidents that are objected to in the Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl fall under the category of karāmāt, which is a part of the belief of Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah, including, the Ashʿarī and Maturīdī belief. The Qurʾān has established this belief as we know that non-prophets such as Khidr, Dhū al-Qarnayn, Mūsā (ʿalayhissalām)’s mother, ʿĪsā (ʿalayhissalām)‘s mother, and the scholars after them had performed karāmāt. It seems as though the Ghair Muqallidūn, namely, the modern Salafi movement, do not differentiate between karāmah/kashf and ʿilm al-ghaib. Consequently, they feel that any attribution towards a non-prophet is shirk and kufr. Furthermore, although they accept that the incidents mentioned in the Qurʾān and Ḥadīth have occurred individually, they dismiss them as substantial proof to back up any supernatural incident that takes place excluding them. Having said that, they believe that any extraordinary incident which is not mentioned in the Qurʾān is purely concocted and magic, done with the help of the jinn.  

STATEMENTS OF SCHOLARS

Hereunder, I list the statements of several scholars, many of which the Salafis rely on, which support the fact that ʿilm al-ghaib is one thing, and ‘karāmah’, ‘ilhām’, or ‘kashf’ is completely separate thing.

1. ʿAllāmah Ālūsī (raḥimahullāh) states after the verse:

{Indeed, Allah [alone] has 1) knowledge of the Hour and 2) sends down the rain, and 3) knows what is in the wombs. And 4) no soul perceives what it will earn tomorrow, and 5) no soul perceives in what land it will die. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted}

“It is possible that whoever Allāh wants, He can make him [a non-prophet] aware of something from these 5 things.”

2. Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī (raḥimahullāh) mentions in Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ that it is possible that Allāh Taʿālā can inform a righteous saint of His, regarding something from the ghaib. This obviously does not imply that someone other than Allāh Taʿālā is ʿĀlim al-Ghaib aʿūdhubillāh, rather, it is simply that Allāh Taʿālā informs a servant of His of something that is not naturally known to him.

3. Imām Ibn al-Qayyim (raḥimahullāh) states: “Kashf is not ʿIlm al-Ghaib.“

4. Mawlānā ʿAbdullāh Nāṣir Raḥmānī states whilst defining kashf: “Kashf is when a person hears something that others do not. It can be whilst sleeping or wakefulness. Also, a person may see something that others do not [normally] see. Furthermore, something may be revealed in a person’s heart which is not revealed to the hearts of others. This is called kashf.”

5. Abū Umāmah (raḍī Allāhu ʿanh) says that the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) said: “Fear the firāsah of a believer…” Imām Ibn al-Qayyim (raḥimahullāh) says defining the word firāsah: “To attain something from the ghaib” i.e. kashf/ilhām/karāmah since the chain of muʿjizāt stopped after the last Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam).

6. Imām Shawkānī mentions the following incident: Junayd Baghdādī was once sitting, a Christian man came to him who apparently resembled a Muslim and asked him: “What is the firāsah of a believer?” Junayd Baghdādī looked down for some time and thereafter looked up and said, “Become a Muslim! It is time for you to be a Muslim!” We can question the Salafis and say why has Imām Shawkānī mentioned this? How would Junayd Baghdādī know it was time for him to become Muslim? According to our belief and the belief of your scholar, It was Allāh who did kashf to him. How would you interpret this incident? Is Imām Shawkānī promoting kufr? Astaghfirullah. Imām Shawkānī then says, “No one has the right to say that awliyāʾ of Allāh do not receive kashf. They receive kashf! Certainly they do! It is such a door that the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam)  himself has opened!” (Qaṭr al-Walī ʿalā Ḥadīth al-Walī)

7. Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (raḥimahullāh) has said: “It is from the principle (uṣūl) of Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah that they must believe in the karāmāt of awliyāʾ and believe in kashf and which will forever remain in this ummah.” (ʿAqīdat al-Wāsiṭiyyah) Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan has written a commentary on this book. He also says it is upon the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah to believe in kashf.

OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES

(All objections are taken directly from an article that lists objections, sometimes inaccurately.)

First objection

It is Mentioned in Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl that Abū Qurṭubī says: The one who recites lā ilāha illa-llāh 70,000 times, saves himself from the fire of hell. There was a young man who was famed for receiving oracle. He would be informed about Heaven and Hell. One day, while eating, he screamed and started crying. Thus, I asked him, “Why are you crying?” He replied, “Uncle! My mother is burning in hell!” Abū Yazīd says, “I had recited lā ilāha illa-llāh 70,000 times saved in my heart that I invoiced for his mother. It was accepted, and the moment I invoiced it for her, she was freed [from the Hellfire]. I had done it in my heart.” He (the boy) started smiling and said, “Pīr Ṣāḥib! Mother is being sent to Heaven.”

Response

The objectors are quick in objecting upon Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl, but will they react similarly when we locate the same incident mentioned in the books of scholars they concur with? The same incident has been mentioned in Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah (2:44-45) and in Kitāb at-Taʿwīdhāt of Nawwāb Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān (another ghair muqallid). Would they say these scholars are bidʿati/kāfir? Astaghfirullāh. The incident they have misquoted above is very simple: Shaykh Muḥy ad-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī knew of a ḥadīth that is as follows: “A person who recites the kalimah ṭayyibah lā ilāha illa-llāh 70,000 times, attains forgiveness.” Once, a young man said to him, “I see my deceased mother in Jahannam.” At that point, Shaykh Ibn al-ʿArabī had already recited the kalimah ṭayyibah 70,000 times, so (in his heart) he passed on the reward of the recital to that young man’s mother. After doing so, the man smiled and said, “I now see my mother in Jannah.” Shaykh Ibn al-ʿArabi later said, “I then understood that the ḥadīth is therefore accurate through the inspiration (kashf) of this wali.” Only when they reject the attribution kashf to the awliyāʾ of Allāh, is when they face problems. In reality, sufficient quotes were provided above which prove that their own scholars, believed in karāmāt and kashf.

Second objection

Junayd Baghdādī was performing ṭawāf of baytullāh, and a young girl was also accompanying him. While doing ṭawāf, she asked him, “Are you performing ṭawāf of Allāh or baytullāh?” He replied, “No, I am doing ṭawāf of baytullāh.” She turned to the sky and said, “Allāh! How stone-hearted people are, who perform ṭawāf of stones. I am performing ṭawāf of You.“

(The above is the original quote of the objectors)

Response

That last part of this incident, which Tawsīr ar-Raḥmān (a ghair muqallid) has quoted, is a misquotation. In the actual Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl, the girl doe not say “I am performing ṭawāf of you” rather, the incident is mentioned differently, such that it does not entail any corrupt beliefs. The original and correct incident has been mentioned by Imām Yāfiʿī in Rawdhat ar-Riyāḍīn fī Ḥikāyāt aṣ-Ṣāliḥīn page 70.

Third objection

There is a poem in the book that entails corrupt beliefs, which is translated as: “Your beauty had been under a veil of mortality. O Prophet! you came in the veil of humanity, but you were not a human.”

Response

The actual poem mentioned in the book in Urdu is: “Rahā tērē jamāl mei ḥijāb e bashariyyat, na jāna kon kuch bhi juzwe Sattār”. It seems that the objection has been raised due to not correctly understanding the meaning of the poem. In English, they assert that it means: “Your beauty was covered by the veil of humanity, no one knew anything, (you’re) a part of the Sattār (Allāh).” Since the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) is being called “a part of Allāh” — aʿūdhu billāh — they claim that Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl promotes shirk. Although there is no doubt that the statement “you’re a part of Allāh” is kufr, this is not what the poem means at all. The actual meaning is: “Your beauty was covered by the veil of humanity, no one knew anything except the Sattār (Allāh)”. The word juzw can mean both ‘a part’ and ‘except’ in Urdu. Hence, it is possible that some English translators may have mistranslated the poem, therefore the English readers objected to it, and the Urdu readers misunderstood it. We understand that before objecting to anything, the original sources must be referred to in their original language.

Fourth objection

The book contains an incident regarding a scholar who would not use the toilet for long hours, and sometimes for days because he would see the “Nūr of Allāh” everywhere, and seeing it in such a place would cause him discomfort.

Response

Firstly, based on the verse: Allāhu Nūru ‘s-Samāwāti wa ‘l-Arḍ, we believe that Allāh is the Nūr of the heavens and the earth. However, there’s a principle we follow regarding statements like this, which is that it is sufficient for us to mention such beliefs ijmālan (concisely), and not tafsīlan (in detail). When one explicitly states its details, such as (for the sake of clarity, may Allāh pardon me:) “The light of Allāh is everywhere, as well as in the washroom, in the barn, etc.” It contains ill mannerism and so to avoid this, we do not utter it unless there’s an educational purpose behind it. The word that the scholar used in Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl is ‘anwār’ (plural) that “I see the lights of Allāh” meaning: “I see it everywhere”. He did not specify the washroom, although it is understood that everywhere includes it. If one finds it problematic that the Nūr of Allāh is everywhere, then such a person is displaying a problem with the verse of the Qurʾān.

Fifth objection

At another place in the book, the author (Shaykh Zakariyyā) writes: O Allah! I am so small, I am nothing, to You is the ẓill (sāyā, shade). To You belongs existence. Who am I? I am nothing, and I am what you are (aur jo mei hun, wo tu hei)

Response

The objection is on the last part of the poem, which states (according to the objectors): “And I am what you are”. The lack of their research and ignorance becomes humorously obvious. In Urdu, the last part is: “Jo mei hei, wo to hei” which is a little difficult to translate accurately in English. It translates to: “The ‘I’(i.e. self-centeredness, self-obsession) which is there, that is (unfortunately) admittingly in me.” This misunderstanding stems from not understanding Urdu and instead merely depending on a translation. The word ‘you’ and ‘unfortunately/so’ in Urdu is spelled the same exact way with a tā and wāw (تو) but pronounced differently. ‘You’ is pronounced ‘tū’ but ‘unfortunately/so’ pronounced ‘to’ (o sound). The objectors assumed it is the former of the two (i.e. I am You (tū)) but in reality, it is the latter (i.e. The “I” (self-centredness) is admittingly (to) present within me). Consequently, the objectors alleged that this book promotes shirk because the author is addressing Allāh and saying that he is Allāh! However, this is clearly not the case.

Sixth objection

In the chapter of the Virtues of the Qurʾān, the author slanders Imām Aḥmad (raḥimahullāh) that he has said that he (i.e. Imām Aḥmad) has seen Allāh.

Response

Shaykh Zakariyyā has not slandered anyone. Rather, he narrated an incident that Imām Aḥmad said: “I saw Allāh in a dream and said what is the best way to attain closeness to you? He (Taʿālā) replied: Through My speech. I (Imām Aḥmad) asked: “With comprehension or without?” Allāh Taʿālā said: “Both are a means of gaining proximity to me (taqarrub).” No one can claim that Shaykh Zakariyyā has slandered Imām Aḥmad when he only quoted what Imām Aḥmad himself has related. This incident has been mentioned in Imām Ghazzālī’s Iḥyāʾ and Imām Ibn al-Qayyim has mentioned this in Mānaqib Imām Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal (page 583).

Seventh objection

In the chapter of the Virtues of Durūd, the author mentions an incident where a woman was going somewhere with her son, but on the route, due to a stomach disease, the mother passed away. The son saw a cloud come down and someone came and put his hand on her stomach, because of which she got cured. When the son asked who the man was, he replied, “I am Prophet Muḥammad (ﷺ).”

Response

Let us reflect on the possibility of this. Is this possible for Allāh Taʿālā? Yes. It can simply be classified as a karāmah. One is not bound to believe in it, but as mentioned previously, one should at least acknowledge the fact that incidents like this are very possible to occur. Imām Ibn Kathīr has mentioned under the commentary of Surah Yūsuf, verse 24 that the meaning of “burhāna rabbih” is that Yūsuf (ʿalayhissalām) saw Yaʿqūb (ʿalayhissalām) biting his hand, which served as a reminder and warning and thus he feared Allāh and was not influenced by Zulekha. Although only the word burhān is in the Qur’ān, Imām Ibn Kathīr mentions such an elaborate meaning. Why is he not objected upon? We do not say supernatural incidents like these happen regularly and happen with multiple random Muslims, but what we assert is that it is possible, because the door of karāmāt is still open.

Eighth objection

The author mentions an incident regarding a person who was starving and went to the Prophet (ﷺ)’s grave and complained to him about his hunger. (My guess is that they are suggesting that this is a form of grave-worshipping or shirk, because they assume that the person is somehow asking the Prophet (ﷺ) to feed him, or remove his hunger?)

Response

They object to this, but Imām Ibn al-Qayyim has mentioned a similar incident. He said that Imām Mundhirī related, “Imām Ṭabrānī, Abū Shaykh, and I were in Madinah. We were very hungry, so we went to the grave of the Prophet (ﷺ) and said: al-jūʿ al-jūʿ. Thereafter, Abu Shaykh and I slept while Ṭabrānī stayed awake. After a while, an ʿalawī came and gave us food and said the Prophet (ﷺ) told him that we are hungry.”

In conclusion, this incident and other incidents of this nature fall under the category of karāmāt which is an established part of the belief of Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah. Incidents like these strengthen the belief of the Believers. Because a person went to the grave of the Prophet (ﷺ), it does not entail that he was “grave-worshipping” or that this incident “promotes shirk”. Those are claims that only someone with ill intentions would make but the reality stays the same.

TAWASSUL

Tawassul is also a part of the belief of Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah. It is to ask Allāh Taʿālā something through the means of someone pious, or a righteous deed one has performed with the intention and hope of gaining acceptance. For example, there is a ḥadīth that mentions the three individuals who got trapped in a cave and sought the help of Allāh Taʿālā through their good actions. Likewise, the previous incident of the three scholars who went to the Prophet (ﷺ)’s grave; they could have possibly gone to ask Allāh Taʿālā for sustenance through the means of His beloved Prophet (ﷺ), or by asking the Prophet (ﷺ) to make duʿā for them. All of these possibilities are absolutely valid. Furthermore, their hunger could have reminded them of the hunger of the Prophet (ﷺ), so they went to visit him to find solace from the pain of their own hunger.

CONCLUSION

There are many more appropriate ways to interpret these incidents but those who are eager in objecting on Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl object mainly because they read it with preconceived notions, a biased attitude, and with the intention of finding errors. Whoever intends fairness will first acknowledge the rank of the scholar, his expertise in the field, and similar practices of other scholars (who they ironically take knowledge from). Thereafter, they will attempt at finding valid interpretations for its perplexing texts before objecting, claiming that the book promotes shirk and grave-worshipping, and labeling the author and the readers of the book with labels and titles that they are free from.

And Allāh knows best

---

Sources:

1. Ḥukm al-ʿAmal bi al-Ḥadīth aḍ-Ḍaʿīf ʿind al-Muḥaddithīn wa al-Fuqahāʾ by ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Qudaysh al-Yāfiʿī.
2. Khuṭūrat Musāwāt Ḥadīth aḍ-Ḍaʿīf bi al-Mawdhūʿ by Dr. Khalīl ibn Ibrāhīm Mullā Khaṭir al-Aʿẓamī.
3. Objections on Faḍāʾil Aʿmāl: A Basic Analysis by Mawlānā Abdullāh Maʿrūfī.
4. Rūḥ al-Maʿānī under verse 34 of Sūrah Luqmān.
5. Kitāb ar-Rūḥ by Imām Ibn al-Qayyim page 67.
6. Aqīdah Firqat an-Nadiyyah page 335.
7. Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ (2:271).
8. Madārij as-Sālikīn page 706.