[Shaykh
Ahmad al-Alawî was born in Mostaganem, Algeria, in 1869. He never
obtained any formal schooling, although he learned the Qur’ān from his
father at home. He later earned his living as a cobbler, but he was
deeply religious by nature, and thirsty for knowledge. His meeting with
his spiritual master, Shaykh Muhammad Al-Būzīdī, was crucial in his
spiritual awakening. Al-Alawî had at that time been involved in
developing magical powers such as charming snakes, but Shaykh Al-Būzīdī
turned him away from this and awakened him to his true nature. After his
master’s death, al-Alawî was elected to succeed him as Shaykh. He first
resisted this call, and for several months in 1909 travelled to Tunis,
Tripoli, and Istanbul. Upon his return to Algeria, however, al-Alawî
duly assumed his spiritual function and became so influential that, as
early as 1923, he was reported as having in the region of one hundred
thousand disciples. The Shaykh al-Alawî died in 1934. His emphasis on
the way of the invocation is beautifully expressed in his statement:
“Remembrance is the mightiest rule of the religion. . . . The law was
not enjoined upon us, neither were the rites of worship ordained, but
for the sake of establishing the remembrance of God.” The epistle from
which the following passages have been excerpted was addressed to a
fellow Muslim who held the Sufi practice of the invocation of the Name
of God in suspicion…]
I observed during our brief conversation
that you felt rancor, or so it seemed to me, against your brethren the
Alawites not for any sin they committed, but because they ceaselessly
pronounce the Unique Name Allāh. You feel that this deserves reproof or
let us say chastisement, for according to you, they devote themselves to
this Name whether it is appropriate to do so or not; according to you,
it does not matter to them if they happen to be in the street in a place
that is deemed unsuitable for such an utterance. This is true, you say,
to such an extent that when one of them knocks on the door, he says
Allāh, when someone calls to him, he says Allāh, when he stands he says
Allāh, when he sits he says Allāh, and so on.
In addition, you are of the opinion that
this Name does not merit being called a form of invocation as it does
not, according to you, constitute a complete sentence (kalām mufīd),
based on what the grammarians have determined as being necessary
components of grammatical constructions.
I am answering you concerning all these
things solely for the purpose of arriving at an understanding, and in
order to determine the correctness of the ‘Alawites’ actions. The
question is, is this permissible or not? I write this missive in the
hope that it might provide a cure for the heart and rest for the soul.
To begin with, what you say about what
grammarians’ stipulations of necessary constituents of complete
sentences is correct, except that you do not realize that when the
grammarians laid down this rule it pertained to the classification of a
form of speech that conveys a meaning to the listener. They had no
thought of applying this criterion to forms of invocation, of judging
its legality or illegality, of discussing the rewards due for
accomplishing it, and so on. Were you to have asked them about this in
their day or were you to do so today, they would undoubtedly answer by
saying, “What we have stipulated in that regard is merely a technical
formulation which we use in our field, for such formulations prevent
ambiguity of meaning in our discussions.” You are well aware of the fact
that the formulations used by grammarians differ from those used by
theologians, which differ in their turn from those used by doctors of
the law, and these differ once again from those used by specialists in
the origins of law and so on. In this way, every group uses its own
terminology, which leads us to conclude that the grammarians were for
their part concerned with the identification of complete sentences— that
speech which benefits the person addressed in some way. They were not
concerned with distinguishing lawful invocations from unlawful ones. In
other words, conditions about the requirements of grammatical speech are
meant in particular for him who wishes, by his words, to inform someone
of something. The one who invokes, however, does it only to benefit his
soul and in order to establish the meaning of the noble Name firmly in
his heart, and other intentions of this kind. Moreover, the grammarians
did not formulate these conditions so as to include the expressions of a
grieving or saddened man, for the latter’s intention is not that of the
grammarians. The grammarian would hardly say to him, “I do not
understand what you mean by your sighs and groans, for they are not a
grammatical statement—they need some explanation,” or the like. The
intention of the saddened or grieving man is not to inform others of
anything, but only to console his heart. In the same way, the intention
of one who invokes the Name is to have it become imprinted permanently
in his soul.
You know, brother, that every name has
an influence that attaches itself to the soul of him who utters it, even
if it is not one of the divine Names. For example, if a man repeats the
word “death” he will feel an effect which attaches itself to him on
account of mentioning this word, especially if he persists in it. This
effect will undoubtedly be different from the one had by the mention of
“money,” “power,” or “authority,” even without considering this in the
light of the noble hadīth: “Increase in remembrance of the Destroyer of
Pleasures” (hazim al-Ladhdhāt), the reference here being to death. The
word death is but one word yet it is said that among some of the first
believers it formed an entire litany. Every man with a sense of the
subtle is aware of the effect of what is mentioned on the soul, whether
it be something serious or light hearted. If we admit this, then we are
bound to admit also that the Name of God has an influence on the soul,
as do other names, each to its own degree. And brother, do not lose
sight of the fact that a name is as noble as that which is named,
inasmuch as it bears its imprint in the folds of its secret essence and
meaning.
Now let us cease to consider everything
set forth above, and concern ourselves solely with the judgment of the
Lawgiver (God) concerning the pronunciation of this Name: we see that it
must fall under one of the five categories of the law, namely the
obligatory (wujūb), the recommended (nadb), the permitted (ibāha), the
strongly discouraged (karāha), and the forbidden (hurma) for there
exists no question pertaining to the words or actions that does not fall
within one of these categories. Thus, before opposing the utterance of
this name, one should decide under which category such an act falls. If
we find that it is something forbidden or strongly discouraged then we
are obliged to oppose whoever does it, for he has committed something
worthy of reproach. If, on the other hand, it does not fall into either
of these categories, then to reproach it is unjust, for the person
concerned has uttered something permissible, even if it is not
obligatory or recommended and even if it falls just within the bounds of
the lawful. What is to prevent us from repeating something lawful, and
how can you make the one who does so deserve reproach or punishment
through stripping this name of all religious significance? However we
think of this, we cannot classify it among the strongly discouraged or
forbidden things, and it retains its value in accordance with its divine
station.
You are the type who restricts himself
to the levels that suit him; and who so honors that which is sacred to
God has done well in the eyes of his Lord; “and who so honors the
commandments of God has acted out of devotion of heart.”1 All that we
have thus far set forth has been done for the sake of determining that
the Name is unique, and without association to anything, be it even by
way of implication. If we search for the truth, stripping it of its
veils, we can see that its mention is permitted even for a grammarian,
for it is in reality a noun in the vocative2 which is classified as a
complete sentence because it has a vocative particle meaning “I call.”
It is permissible and even common to omit this particle in Arabic. In
fact very often the position of the words makes it necessary to do
this—as for example in the case we are speaking of—because of the
demands of Koranic knowledge and Islamic learning which are perhaps
greater among the Sufi masters than among others.
. . . In addition to all that we have
said previously . . . there is the fact that those who invoke thus obey
the words of God: “Say: Invoke Allāh, or invoke the All-Merciful.
However ye call upon Him, His are the most beautiful Names.”3 They have
thus concentrated upon the first form of invocation ordered by Him. This
is our saying Allāh. Through their single-minded effort and their total
absorption in the solitary invocation of God “standing, sitting, and
lying on their sides,”4 and through their perseverance in the commanded
invocation, the triumph of the divine in them compels them to drop the
vocative particle, for the latter is used for one who is far, not for
Him who is “nearer to us than our jugular vein.”5 There are verses from
the Book of God which prove the truth of the inspiration of those who
invoke thus. Invocations are of two types: those from the servant to his
Lord, and those from God to His servant. There are examples of the
first type where the vocative particle has been dropped and of the
second where it has been kept. . . .
God has clearly set forth the
supplications of the servant as follows: “Our Lord, do not take us to
task if we forget or err. Our Lord, do not make us bear a burden as you
did those who came before us,” etc.6 So you see may God have mercy on
you—that the invocations by the servant omit the vocative yā for the
reasons set forth above. If you have understood this, then tell me, by
your Lord: If we hear the people omitting the vocative yā in their
invocations and prayers to their Lord, are they still to be reproached?
And do they do this because of their understanding of their religion, or
because of their complete ignorance thereof?
Given all of our attempts to prove our
point, I am yet aware that the opponent, or let us say the one who is
searching for the correct answer, will continue to scrutinize the texts
and proofs of the other side indicating the legality of invoking the
Name alone and showing this practice to come from that of the earliest
believers. . . . The strongest basis you have for this disagreement is
the grammatical argument that the Name is not structured speech. We have
shown the falseness of this statement by the proofs in this section;
even if there were more texts in your possession concerning this, you
should at least not be so quick to reject what people may have as
arguments. Finally, whether each side is given an equal voice or not,
the matter remains within the realm of ijtihād.7 Thus, the statement of
the opponent to the effect that the invocation of this Name in isolation
is not permissible proves nothing to those who say the opposite. The
crux of the matter is that your assertion of illegality is restricted to
what concerns you in particular; but legislating and compelling others
to do things is the prerogative of the Infallible, and no one else can
say of his own accord, “this is permitted” or “this is not.” Whoever
does so should lower his voice where his ignorance of the subject
exceeds his knowledge. This is a principle that holds for all other
disputes, for the Sufi, like others, is obliged to bow his head and to
refrain from holding other opinions in the face of the noble Law and the
holy Book.
It is certainly possible that the
opponent will attack us from another quarter, saying that we have no
right to worship and seek reward for the practice that we do not know
for certain the earliest Muslims performed. To this we would reply, yes,
this is as you say. I hope for the sake of God that we are at least in
unison on this point. However, I believe you will not forget, brother,
and take note that it is in fact permissible to recite the divine Names
and this is proven by the words of the Mighty and Powerful: “To God
belong the most beautiful Names, so invoke Him by them.”8 They are
single words, and although they are thus, neither this verse nor any
other have stipulated as to how the invocation should be pronounced—that
is, what form it should take, and so on. This, I believe, is simply out
of consideration for the levels of those who are pious and on the path
of God, for they will vary in strength and weakness, desire and awe,
passion and yearning. People are at different levels and there are
degrees of desire for God; and the innermost depths of men are known
from the standpoint of their relationship with Him, Mighty and Glorious.
From this we see that there were no restrictions concerning the forms
of prayers and invocations among the earliest believers that could cause
us to conclude that the Name was definitely not used as a form of
invocation among them, or that they did not consider this Name as a form
of invocation. For we do not know with certainty all that they uttered
in their seclusion or in the world, or in times of illness or health. It
is impossible for us to believe that the companions of the Prophet (may
God be pleased with them!) did not repeat the Name of God, Allāh,
Allāh, for He has protected them from such a possibility. Here I would
like to put before you evidence which will decide the argument, and you
may see then that this question has a wider import than you imagined.
Muslim, in his Sahīh, related on the authority of Abū Hurayrah (may God
be pleased with him!) that the latter once saw a sick man groaning in
the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him!).
One of the companions told him to cease his groaning and exhorted him to
be patient. The Prophet then said (peace and blessings of God be upon
him!), “Let him groan, for he is invoking one of the Names of God most
high.”
Al-Bukhārī and Tīrmidhī also had on the
authority of Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet said, “Let him groan, for the
groan is one of the Names of God which brings relief to the ill.”9
Then—God have mercy on you—what would you do in such a situation if the
sick man was pronouncing the Name of Majesty—Allāh, Allāh—instead of
saying “ah!, ah!”? Would it be correct for this companion to forbid him
this? Certainly not, for the exaltedness of the Name clearly precludes
this possibility. The companion was reproached only because of his
failure to understand the meaning of the word “ah,” for it is one of the
Names of God most high—and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon
him!) acknowledged that it is a form of invocation as such, apart from
its being classified as a Name of God. This is undoubtedly a valuable
lesson which should make men think well of those who invoke, however
they do so. But even supposing you are not convinced that what we have
presented to you as a logical argument is sound, yet justice permits one
only to say that the question is one about which we must remain in
disagreement. However sure its conclusion may seem to us by this
argument, it remains a question of ijtihād and thus, how can you try to
compel us, brother, to agree with your argument or submit to your
ijtihād when we compel you to nothing of the sort? All this is one
thing, and what is more, however much you assail your brethren the
‘Alawites with reproaches, you cannot prevent them from following the
way of those who invoke the Name alone, or from advocating this
invocation for the leaders and guides of religion.
. . . In his Sharh al-Mubāhith
al-Asliyya, Ibn ‘Ajība10 (may God have mercy on him!) relates that Abū
Hāmid al-Ghazālī (may God be pleased with him!) said: “At first I
desired to travel upon the path with many prayers, litanies, and fasts.
Then when God saw the sincerity of my intention, He brought me to one of
His saints who said to me: ‘My son, rid yourself of all preoccupations
save God alone. Withdraw into isolation, gather together all your
strength and fervor, and say Allāh, Allāh, Allāh.’” And al-Ghazālī in
his Mishkāt al-Anwār said: “As long as you occupy yourself with that
which is other than God, you must remain with the negation, lā ilāha.11
When you have become oblivious to all of creation by your contemplation
of the Creator, then you have left the negation behind and attained the
affirmation: ‘Say Allāh! Then leave them to their vain talk.’12” He also
said: “When you have left behind the remembrance of what never was, and
devoted yourself to the remembrance of He who has never ceased to be,
then when you say Allāh you will be delivered from all that is other
than God.” He also said, “Open the door of your heart with the key of
the saying lā ilāha illa Allāh, the door of your spirit with the word
Allāh, and invoke the presence of your innermost essence (sirr) with the
word Huwa, Huwa.13”. . .
Let us assume that the divine Law
contains no indication whatsoever as to whether the repetition of the
Name is permitted or not. If this is the case, then there is nothing at
all to cause one to prohibit its repetition by the tongue, or its
passage to the heart. In fact, it appears that there is nothing in the
law to forbid the repetition of any name related by tradition and if
this is so, then how can pronouncing one of the divine Names be
prohibited? Far be it from the divine Law to contain such excesses and
deviation and oblige the believer not to repeat the name of his Lord—not
to say Allāh, Allāh, or what is the same, not to repeat any of the rest
of God’s Names, for He said: “To God belong the most beautiful Names,
so call upon Him by them”14 meaning petition Him by them and invoke Him
by them. This is what we have understood and chosen for ourselves. You
in turn have the right to choose for yourselves, but you should not
oblige us to agree with your choice while we have not obliged you to
agree with ours. I will end this section by quoting a passage that
contains conclusive proof about the matter. I say this assuming the
modesty and generosity of those who claim that this Name is in the
category of strongly discouraged things. I ask forgiveness of God! The
question of the strongly discouraged (karāha) or permitted (nadab)
category of the word has been resolved, and it was stipulated that it
ranks above the merely “permissible.” Concerning this, al-Ajhuri, in his
Sharh of Khalīl mentions the following on the authority of al-Mawwaq:
“If there is a disagreement as to whether something is ‘permitted’ or
‘strongly discouraged,’ it is better to do it than not to. In the same
way, if there is disagreement as to whether an action is part of the
Sunna, or strongly discouraged, then it cannot be less than ‘permitted’
in any case.”
. . . You also mentioned, or let us say
objected, to the fact that they repeatedly utter the Name of Majesty
whether or not it is appropriate to do so. They behave thus in the
street and other such places. It appears to you that this attitude is
lacking in reverence for the divine Names, and that this practice was
never specifically ordered by the law. When one of them knocks on the
door, he says Allāh, when someone calls to him he says Allāh, and other
things of this kind, all of which you find inappropriate. Here I must
add that however indulgent I am in my answer I am yet compelled, after
asking your leave, to say that you have neglected to reveal the hadīths
relevant to our case which have given you cause to reproach the
‘Alawites for having done something wrong. For, if you had indeed read
about such traditions you would not have tried to oppose us on the basis
of suspicions that the earliest believers practiced differently. If you
were able to find texts which corroborate what we have said, I am
certain that you would have scrutinized them and pondered them in your
heart, submitting to what they say, and placing them above your own
opinion. This is only proper and fitting for someone in your position.
Thus, here I will quote what should be sufficient, God-willing, to show
that in the practice of the ‘Alawites free, spontaneous invocation is
not outside the realm of the Sunna; nor is it in conflict with it.
We have concluded that it is the essence
of the Sunna, and we base this belief on the command to “practice the
invocation.” This must indicate that it is not to be restricted to a
certain time or place, but can be practiced at all times and in all
places. At each instant, man must build upon his moments of remembrance
and rid himself of his inherent forgetfulness so that the former gains
strength in his mind and remains fixed in his consciousness. In other
words, the remembrance of God is praiseworthy whatever the
circumstances, just as forgetfulness is blameworthy whatever the
circumstances. Certainly the best course for both of us is to seek
direction from the Holy Book and the Sunna. The passages which the Koran
contains about the importance of the invocation and its warnings about
being forgetful probably do not need to be quoted for clarification,
especially to such as you. The Sunna, in turn, contains passages which
are no less clear, but it will not hurt for us to quote a few of these
hadīths, along with some practices established by the four schools of
law, so that we know the will of the Lawgiver concerning us, and can act
according to it, God-willing. Ibn Durays and Abu Yala15 related on the
authority of Abu Said al-Khudri: “It is incumbent upon you to fear God
as much as possible, and to mention His Name at every tree and stone.”
The most important idea here is the generalization of time and place
with reference to the practice of the invocation. . . . Nawawi relates
something similar in his commentary on Muslim, the gist of which is that
the Prophet (upon him be blessing and peace!) constantly practiced the
invocation, regardless of circumstance or place. Anyone who researches
legal opinions of scholars on this subject will find ample evidence
indicating unanimous consensus in favor of this invocation.
The Hanafi masters have related
according to the Nujūm al-Muhtadīn, that the Qādī Khan said: “The
invocation of God, as well as irreligious and dispersive gathering are
permitted in the market place provided that the one in the first
activity is preoccupied with glorifying and declaring the oneness of
God, and the others are preoccupied with their worldly affairs.” If you
ponder—God have mercy on you!—the words “dispersive and irreligious
gatherings” you will find that the ‘Alawites are not so negligent as to
belong to that category. In fact, the invocation has even been permitted
in the hot baths, the place where one’s private parts are uncovered and
one cleanses oneself of filth. This is shown in a large number of texts
such as: “Reciting the Koran out loud while in the bath is disliked,
but it is not disliked to do so in a whisper, just as one can glorify
God and pronounce the testimony of unity there, even in a loud voice.” .
. . If the invocation is permissible in the bath, what is the sin if
the ‘Alawites invoke in the street, for example? Given that a person
unaccustomed to hearing someone invoke in such places may be repulsed by
it, it is nonetheless incumbent upon the impartial man, if he wishes to
judge others, to do so according to the justice of God and His prophets
and not according to what he would choose or approve, by himself. He
should act without fear of the man who approves of one thing and
disapproves of all other possibilities. For this reason, we must not be
concerned with what a few have approved of, but should limit ourselves
to choosing one of the possibilities contained in the religious law. The
duty, then, for all who believe in God and the Last Day, is to look no
further than these texts, and to act in accordance with their commands
by choosing for their soul what God chooses for it. “When God and His
Messenger ordain something for the believer, whether man or woman, it is
not proper for him to choose for himself in the matter.
. . . In drawing upon all these texts my
purpose is not to favor the legal schools which either permit the
invocation in the toilet or otherwise, but in order to demonstrate,
brother, that some religious leaders have approved of the invocation
even in the place considered to be the worst and most unclean by far.
Thus if you happen to find someone invoking God while in such a place,
do not consider it strange, or look upon him as an innovator, for
al-Shāfi‘ī and Mālik have stated it to be permitted, and they are
sufficiently good examples of those who hold fast to the bond with God
and to the Sunna of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him!).
This and other texts clearly declare without a doubt that the ‘Alawites
were wronged by your accusations for they have not gone, through
imprudence, to the extreme limits of what is permitted. You have not
heard any one of them say that he did not refrain from invocation even
in the toilet or in other such unclean circumstances. The most that one
can relate of the ‘Alawites is that if someone calls to one of them he
says Allāh and if he calls out to someone he says Allāh, and so on.
Someone may say that the Names of God are too exalted to be used as a
means of gaining access to anything outside of the realm of the
afterlife, nor should it be permitted to use them as a means of calling
upon someone or attracting his attention. This would be correct, were it
not for the fact that this same thing is permitted and even commanded
in the religious law. If you were to look in the most obvious area for
material which corroborates these arguments, you would find that what
God wills of us in this matter is so clear that it comes close to being
an order from Him. For example, just consider the call to prayer. As I
am sure you know, it has been established as a means of declaring that
the times of prayer have come, and as an exhortation to all to fulfill
their duty of prayer. It would be more precise and fitting, perhaps, to
call out “the time of prayer has come” or “the time for prayer has
commenced,” or something that indicates the same thing. Why, in that
case, is the whole testimony of faith recited and not simply a few words
summarizing it? Furthermore, would you have asked why these Names of
God have come to be used as instruments to call men to prayer? A similar
example is saying “Glory be to God!” to inform the leader in prayer of a
mistake, or to inform him of whatever necessity demands. It is said
that the companions of the Prophet (may God be pleased with them!) used
to awaken each other by the saying, “God is most great!” This is
confirmed in both Sahīh collections in the story of the valley, where
they slept past the time for the dawn prayer, and the first to awaken
was Abū Bakr. ‘Umar was the fourth one to awake, and he began calling
out “God is most great!” until the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon
him!) awoke. Consider—may God have mercy on you!—how they used forms of
invocation to awaken one another from sleep. This was how they acted in
time of war or otherwise—indicating things by saying “God is most
great!”
. . . Before we end this letter that,
God-willing, contains blessings for you and for us, I would like to
relate some hadīths on this subject. I hope that you will give them the
attention they deserve, as is your custom. There are two hadīths which
contain the essence of all we have said about the duty of devoting
oneself to the remembrance of God, Mighty and Glorious, at every time
and place and of filling up every moment with this remembrance. The
first is related by Imam Ahmād, Abū Dāwūd, Ibn Abi al-Dunya, Nasai and
Ibn Habban. In Abū Dāwūd’s words: “The Prophet (peace and blessings be
upon him!) Said, ‘Whoever sits in a place and does not invoke God there,
his sitting is vain and frivolous in the eyes God.’” There Hafīz Abd
al-‘Azīm said the word al-tira, pronounced with a short i and a single
r, means a fault and something which God counts against a person. The
second hadīth comes from Abū Dāwūd and al-Hakīm, on the authority of Abū
Hurayrah (may God be pleased with him!). He said: “No one will arise
from a group in conversation where God has not been mentioned except
they will be like the corpses of donkeys, and will lament their deed on
the Day of Judgment.”
Notes:
- Koran 22:30, 32.
- An example of this is the opposition by some people to those who draw out the final h of the word Allāh, saying that here the h is interrogative, but an interrogation can only exist in complete sentences. Here it has been introduced into a single word, and thus it constitutes a vocative. Ibn Mālik in his Khulāsa said: “The vocative has a remote object (signified by) Yā and Ay and Aa, and by Ayyā and Hayyā.” Even if we assume it (the divine name) to be a sentence, no one could object to saying that the implication here is “O God, have mercy on us and forgive us” and the like.
- Koran 17:110.
- Koran 4:103.
- Koran 50:16.
- Koran 2:286.
- Lit. “Striving.” The exercise of reason by an individual or group in order to form an opinion about a point not explicitly laid down in the Koran or hadīth.
- Koran 7:180.
- At the time this hadīth was written down they ascribed the wrong source to it. The truth is that al-Rafii Imām al-Dīn related it in his Tārīkh al-Qarawīn on the authority of ‘Aishā’ and al-‘Azīz confirmed its reliability.
- d. 1809.
- The two parts of the first Shahādah, or testimony of faith, are lā ilāha, “there is no god,” illa Allāh, “save God.”
- Koran 6:91.
- “He,” the Name of the Divine Essence.
- Koran 7:180.
- d. 1131.
- Koran 33:36.
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire