Contents

1 Introduction 5

2 Defining the Parameters of Islām 6

3 A Tripartite Critique 9

4 Shaykh Būṭī on the Miracles of the Awliyā and Their

Beatific Vision of The Best of Creation ‫ ﷺ‬While Awake 9

5 Shaykh Būṭī on Facing The Best of Creation ‫ ﷺ‬While Supplicating 15

6 Shaykh Būṭī Regarding The Noble Parents Ι of The Best of Creation ‫ﷺ‬ 17

7 Conclusion 22

1
 The Opening

‫الحمد ل ه رب العالمين و صلى ال ه على سيدنا محمد خاتم النبين و اِمام المرسلين و على آله و صحبه أَ جمعين‬
“Among the temptations for the scholar is that speech becomes more beloved to him
than attentively listening. Speech allows for eloquent expression and superfluous em-
bellishment, and leaves the speaker susceptible to error; whereas in thoughtful silence,
there is integrity and knowledge. Some scholars hoard their knowledge; they love not
that it be found with other scholars. Such a scholar is destined for the first level of the
fire.
Other scholars take their knowledge as though they were the ruler; so that, should
anyone contradict him in any aspect of his knowledge or take his standing [as a scholar]
lightly he becomes incensed. Such people are destined for the second level of the fire.
Still, other scholars deem their knowledge and erudition suitable only for the noble
and affluent; they do not regard the people of need worthy of it. These are destined
for the third level of the fire.
Some scholars make themselves legal advisers and proceed to issue faulty rulings; God
loathes those who feign roles for they are not suited. These scholars are destined for the
fourth level of the fire. Then other scholars employ the terminology of the Jews and
Christians in their discourse, in order to enhance their knowledge. These are destined
for the fifth level of the fire.
Then there are the scholars who take their knowledge as a trait of chivalry, prestige,
and standing among the people. Such people are destined for the sixth level of the
fire. Some scholars are overcome with arrogance and vanity, so when they admonish
others, they respond with disdain. These are in the seventh level of the fire.
Hold fast to silence! For by it you will overcome Satan. Beware, lest you laugh when
there is nothing to be amused about, and do not set off without a destination in
mind.”
Qut al-Qulūb, on the authority of Sayyidunā Muʿādh Ibn Jabal Ζ
[Iḥyā ʿUlūm ul-Dīn]

2
This short work aims to tackle the false notions levelled at Shaykh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī
Ζ which have appeared in an article entitled, ‘The Parameters of Sunnī Islām’,
authored by Mufti Wajid Iqbal. Despite numerous attempts for a dialogue to discuss
the contents of his article, I did not receive a reply after the initial pleasantries, so I
hope this article will clarify the contentions I have with his statements.
Allāh Α allow us to remain objective.
Āmīn.

3
 Shaykh Ramaḍān al- Būṭī Ζ
Lovingly remembered as ‘the Shaykh of the Levant’, was martyred on the 21st March
2013 in Damascus whilst delivering a dars from The Noble Qur’ān.
Thousands witnessed his funeral in the city of Damascus, and he was finally laid to
rest next to Sulṭān Salāh ul-Dīn Ζ. Shaykh Ramaḍān will always be remembered as
a righteous man of Allāh Α.
A scrupulous individual, who diligently served this pure religion.
[1929 - 2013]

4
1 Introduction
A recent surge of attacks levelled against Shaykh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī and a number of
malignant attempts to tarnish his reputation have ultimately provoked a retaliatory
response. Initially, he was accused of rejecting the beatific vision of the Messenger of
Allāh Β while in a wakeful state, and since then, a torrent of unwarranted accusations
have been spewed at him creating a huge rift amongst the Sunnī public in the UK,
throwing them further into disarray. These dogged notions and erroneous claims have
now filtered down the pyramid and are being parroted by the common folk who have
absolutely no idea who Shaykh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī was, nor of his contributions to Sunnī
Islam. If these issues were truly contentious, Shaykh Ramaḍān was willing to sit and
have a dialogue with any of his contemporaries. During his life, a legal verdict [fatwa]
permitting the use of pornography was falsely ascribed to him. In response to this he
said:
“… I have found over there, blatant, foolish, and intended [statements].
I know them, and they know me, yet they did not challenge me, and nei-
ther did they ask me. Rather, they spread this matter amongst the com-
mon folk, for this very purpose [to discredit him] ….”
Islam demands sincerity on the part of Muslims and exhorts them to preach the divine
message with gracious conduct. In Surah al- Nahl, Allāh Α states:

ْ ِ ‫ك ب ِالْح‬
ِ ‫كمَة ِ و َال ْمَوْعِظَة ِ الْحَسَنَة‬ َ ِّ ‫ل ر َب‬
ِ ‫ا ُ ْدع ُ ِإلَى ٰ سَب ِي‬
Call people to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation.1
The Messenger of Allāh Β is reported to have said:

‫ و لأَ ئِمة المسلمين و عا َمّتِهم‬,‫ و لرسوله‬,‫ و لكتابه‬,‫ ل ه‬:‫ قلنا لمن يا رسول ال ه؟ قال‬:‫الدين النصيحة‬
The religion is sincerity. We [the Companions] asked: ‘for whom O’ Messenger of
Allāh? He said: ‘[sincerity] towards Allāh, His book, His Messenger, the leaders of
the Muslims, and their common folk.2

1
Surah al- Nahl, v. 125.
2
Saḥīḥ Muslim, on the authority of Sayyidunā Tamīm Ibn Aws al-Dārī Ζ.

5
Commenting on this ḥadīth, Ibn Ḥajr al- Makkī Ζ [d. 974] writes:

‫ من وعظ‬:‫ حتى قال بعضهم‬,‫ وعظوه س َرّا‬...ٍ‫و كان السلف اِذا أرادوا نصيحة أَ حد‬
َ ‫ فأ َِن ّما‬...‫ و منْ وعظه على رؤوس الناس‬,‫ فهي نصيحة‬...‫أَ خاه سرا‬
.‫وبّ خه‬
Whenever the predecessors intended to advise a person, they would
admonish him in private. Some of them said: ‘sincerity is when a per-
son admonishes his brother in private. The one who does so publicly has
undoubtedly rebuked him.’3
Al-Fuḍayl Ζ is reported to have said:
‫ و الفاجر يهتك و يعير‬,‫المؤمن يستر و ينصح‬
The believer shields and advises [his brother], whereas the shameless
one disgraces and censures him.4
Al- Dimyātī writes:

...‫ و تَعْظِي ْمهم‬,‫الظن بِه ِم‬

ِّ ‫و نشر مناقبهم و اِحْ سان‬
… and to publicize their virtues (the scholars), as well as thinking well
of them and honouring them…

2 Defining the Parameters of Islām

For a Muslim, true faith is the greatest treasure he possesses. A Muslim guards and
preserves his faith with his life. In the past, upright scholars immediately dispelled
heretical notions which attempted to violate the sanctity of faith by rejecting some of
its foundational tenets. The upright refuted heresies lest they sow doubts in the minds
of Muslims and cause the removal of faith from their hearts. It is for this very reason,
Abū Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī and Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī Ι are considered the foremost
authorities of Sunnī creed. Both of these illustrious Imāms came during bleak times
and worked tirelessly to eradicate the dogma of the Muʿtazila and other deviant sects.
Imām Ashʿarī and Imām Māturīdī were the means of the revival of Islām, and so their
names became etched into the hearts of every valiant Muslim.
3
Al-Fatḥ ul-Mubīn
4
Ibid.

6
Years before this, the Imām of the Ahl ul-Sunnah, Imām Aḥmad Ibn Hanbal Ζ was
ready to sacrifice his life to preserve the correct creed regarding the Divine Speech of
Allāh Α. As a consequence, he was imprisoned and savagely beaten causing him to
suffer from chronic pains for the remainder of his life.
These righteous Imāms defined the parameters of Sunnī Islam, and the likes of al-
Ghazzālī, al-Subkī, al-Rāzī, al-Sanūssī, and Ālahazrat traversed their path of dedica-
tion in preserving the Muslim creed and in eradicating abhorrent notions. Addressing
Sayyid Muḥammad Ibn ʿAlawī al-Mālikī, Sayyid Makkī al-Kattānī said: “if you did not
take a stand, we would have all been punished!” The former spent his life defending the
beliefs of Ahl ul-Sunnah, for which he was placed under house arrest by the Saudi-
Wahhābī government for some years of his life.
Today, Muslims are facing serious issues regarding creed, which has left the faith of
many hanging by a thread. To make matters worse, the perpetrators have changed
their attire and are not as conspicuous as they were before. Moreover, the caliber of
scholarship has drastically declined resulting in a huge void. Rather than tackling said
issues head-on, many have embroiled themselves in secondary and tertiary issues for
the sake of partisanship.
To illustrate this point, and before commencing a critique of the main body of Mufti
Wajid’s article, I would like to bring the reader’s attention to the following passage
extracted from the introduction:
Despite other commitments, I thoroughly read a range of works au-
thored by Shaykh Ramadān and listened to some of his recorded lectures.
Contrary to what I expected, I was shocked by some of his remarks that
clearly contravened key parameters of Ahl al Sunnah. These views were
unequivocally rooted in and akin to the Salafist-Deobandi methodology.
So, in an attempt to dispel those notions, I decided to write this short
epistle. [Emphasis added]
Somebody who contravenes the parameters of Ahl al-Sunnah has ultimately trans-
gressed the boundaries of Sunnī Islam. It may be in one or a number of issues. Mufti
Wajid, it seems, does not understand the implications of such a statement, and has
conflated ‘key parameters of Ahl ul-Sunnah’ with disputed (mukhtalifī) issues.
To expound on this point, consider the ruling concerning Abū Ṭālib. Imam Ahmad
Ridā Khān Ζ penned a comprehensive treatise entitled ‘Sharhu al-Maṭālib fī Mabhathi
Abī Ṭālib’, in which he categorically rejects the notion that Abū Ṭālib embraced Islam

7
on his deathbed. This was also the view of the vast majority of scholars, including the
likes of Imam al-Nawawī, Imam al-Baghawī, and Shaykh ʿAbd al-Ḥaq Θ. Despite this,
Mufti Aṭā Muḥammad Bandyalwī Ζ held a contrary position, believing Abū Ṭālib to
be a Muslim, as did the great Imam of Makkah, Zaynī Daḥlān Ζ.
Mufti Wajid’s understanding of parameters confuses primary issues with secondary and
tertiary ones. The consequent of Mufti Wajid’s methodology, when applied to the views
held by Imām Bandyalwī Ζ and Imām Zaynī Dahlān Ζ, would impute an accusation
of ‘views [that are] unequivocally rooted in and akin to the Shīʿah methodology’. This is
an absurd conclusion to draw. Many righteous scholars of the past held positions which
are considered anomalous (shādh). Case in point, Imām al-Qurṭubī, who considered
Lady Maryam Η to be a prophetess. Commentating on verse 42 of Surah Āal e Imrān,
he writes:
ِ ‫سطَة ِ ال ْمَل َكِ كَمَا أَ ْوحَى ِإلَى سَائِر‬
ِ ‫الل ّه َ تَع َالَى أَ ْوحَى ِإلَيْهَا ب ِوَا‬
َ ‫ن‬ ّ َ َ‫ ل ِأ‬،ٌ ‫ن م َْر ي َم َ نَب َِي ّة‬
ّ َ َ‫ح أ‬ َ ‫و‬
ُ ‫َالصّ حِي‬
َ
َ‫الن ّب ِيِّين‬
The correct position is that Sayyidah Maryam was a prophetess, be-
cause Allāh sent revelation to her by means of the angel like He did with
every other prophet.5
Elsewhere he writes:
ّ َ ‫ِيس عَلَيْه ِ ال‬
ُ ‫سلَام‬ َ ‫كوْنِهَا نَب َِي ّة ً كِ َإ ْدر‬ ِ َ‫ف َِإ َن ّه ُ يَج ُوز ُ أَ ْن تَكُون‬
َ ‫ص ّدِيق َة ً م َ َع‬
It is permissible that she was ‘siddīqa’ as well as a prophetess, much
like [Sayyidunā] Idrīs Γ.6
Despite this, nobody in their right mind would suggest Imām al-Qurṭubī Ζ has ‘con-
travened the parameters of Ahl al-Sunnah’, since it constitutes insolence and failing
to hold a good opinion about him (refer to the quote of Sayyidunā Fudayl Ζ). Many
Sunnī scholars of the past made statements which did not conform to mainstream
Sunnī beliefs, and although the notion would be dispelled (or interpreted in some
cases), the scholar was always held in high regard.
5
Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, Surah Āale Imrān, v. 42.
6
Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, Surah al-Mā’ida, v. 76

8
3 A Tripartite Critique
Shaykh Ramaḍān authored many groundbreaking works. One such work is entitled
‘Al-Lā Madhabiyya’ which highlights the necessity of adhering to the Four Schools of
Islamic Law. Furthermore, Shaykh Ramaḍān is perhaps one of the only Sunnī Imāms
to have debated Nāṣir ul-Dīn Albānī (the leader of the latter-day Najdī movement),
on key principles of the religion. Albānī also published a work attempting to refute
Shaykh Būṭī’s Fiqh ul-Sīrah.7
Many of his lectures emphasise the importance of creed, and coupled with his mastery
of the Arabic language and eloquent delivery, Allāh Α guided a great deal of Mus-
lims through him. To then suggest his methodology is akin to that of the Salafis and
Deobandis is utter slander. Nonetheless, we shall critique each of the following three
contentions of Mufti Wajid:

I. Shaykh Būṭī denied the miracles of the Awliyā and rejected the beatific vision of
the Messenger of Allāh Β while in a wakeful state.
II. Shaykh Būṭī’s stance on supplicating while facing The Noble Prophet Β.
III. Shaykh Būtī’s position regarding The Noble Parents of Allāh’s Messenger Β.

4 Shaykh Būṭī on the Miracles of the Awliyā and Their

Beatific Vision of The Best of Creation ‫ ﷺ‬While Awake
Mufti Wajid quotes the following miracle of Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī Ζ from
the fatāwa of Imam Ahmad Riḍā Khān Ζ:
A woman, impressed by the reputation of Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-
Jilani (Allāh sanctify his secrets), decided to leave her son in his care and
said: ‘Take this child as your own, I renounce all rights to him. Raise him
to become like you.’ The Shaykh accepted the child and started to guide
him. After some time, the mother returned to see her son and found him
thin and pale as he ate a crust of bread. She was angry and asked to see the
Shaykh. When she was taken to the Shaykh, she found him well dressed,
seated in a pleasant room, and eating a chicken. She exclaimed: ‘While
7
Difā Anil Hadīth al–Nabawī wa’l Sīrah fi’l Raddi ʿalā Jahālā til Dactūr al–Būṭī fī Kitābihī ‘Fiqh ul–Sīrah’

9
 you eat your chicken, my poor son - whom I left in your care - has nothing
but a piece of dry bread!’ The Shaykh placed his hand over the bones of
the chicken and said: ‘In the name of Allāh - Who revives bones from
dust - rise!” The chicken immediately came to life and it ran about the
table saying: “There is no god but Allāh, Muhammad Β is His Messenger,
and Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (Allāh sanctify his secrets) is the friend
of Allāh and His Messenger Β “! Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (Allāh
sanctify his secrets) then turned to the woman and said: ‘When your son
is able to do as I did, he can also eat whatever he wishes.’
He then quotes Shaykh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī from his book, ‘Hādha Wālidī:’
I say to these brothers: ‘What benefits me in my religion and in rec-
tifying my state that I incline towards a story that states Shaykh Abd
al-Qadir al-Jilani was served a cooked chicken. When he ate it, he gath-
ered its scattered bones on the table and said to it ‘stand by the permis-
sion of Allāh!’ it stood immediately as a living chicken. It went flapping
its wings.’ How much does this benefit me in rectifying my state and to
awake me from the ignorance of the whims towards the fate that I face
and in softening the heart after the hardness that veils it? I would rather
incline towards his preaching and advice with sincerity, burning the heart
with love of Allāh in a gathering filled with faith, a gathering on his book
al-Fath al-Rabbani...Thus why should I waste time in pastime listening to
a story which I do not know if it’s correct or fabricated…”
He [Mufti Wajid] concludes:
The sheer care and diligence taken by these erudite scholars in pre-
serving and transmitting saintly miracles demonstrates their saliency and
the importance of recounting them-a far cry from being useless or with-
out benefit. The wonders of the saints showcase the strength of Allāh, the
power he gives to his Friends due to their closeness with Him. These mira-
cles allow a person to revive their heart by turning to Allāh in amazement
and invoking His glory, whilst also paving a way for a seeker to follow in
the footsteps of the saints…
Regarding the second contention in which he implies denial of the beatific vision of
the Messenger of Allāh Β whilst in a wakeful state, he writes:
On this topic, Shaykh Ramadan al-Bouti writes in his commentary of

10
 the Hikam:
“…They tell me about their Shaykh seeing the Messenger of Al-
lāh in a wakeful state and not whilst asleep; telling me of the
discussions which took place between their Shaykh and the
Messenger of Allāh Β and his stance on several issues and con-
temporary problems. What does the Shari’ah say about these
people? The Shari’ah says that it is binding to punish anyone
who claims to see the Messenger of Allāh Β in wakefulness.
That is because no-one from the companions of Allāh’s Mes-
senger Β, the followers [Tabi’in], or the followers of the fol-
lowers [Tabi’ al-Tabi’in] claimed to see Allāh’s Messenger Β
in wakefulness after his Β demise; as per Islamic History, in
general or biographical accounts.”
The aforementioned statement was a devastating read, primarily because
it echoes the fabricated methodology adopted by modern Salafis who use
the same tactic to deliberately confuse the masses; the same fallacious
argument which has been refuted and dismantled by our Ulema.
Mufti Wajid’s assertion now raises the question, was Shaykh Ramaḍān truly a skeptic
and a critic of the miracles of the Awliyā? Was he truly an ardent critic of the Gnostics
who were honoured with the beatific vision? The answer is, of course, no. Unfortu-
nately, Mufti Wajid’s lack of research into Shaykh Būṭī’s comments evident, and the
absence of scholarly due-diligence is concerning.
Before returning to the actual text, let us momentarily turn our attention to a recorded
clip of Shaykh Ramaḍān (published on the 10th August 2015) which has accumulated
almost thirty thousand views. In the clip, Shaykh Ramaḍān categorically affirms the
miracle (karāma) of the great gnostic of Allāh, Sayyidī Aḥmad al-Rifāʿī Ζ, who had
the beatific vision of the Messenger of Allāh Β in a wakeful state.
In a lecture, Shaykh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī says:8
You must know that the Messenger of Allāh Β returns greetings to
the one who greets him, and now I will inform you of a story of Imam
Ahmad al-Rifāʿī [Allāh have mercy on him], and I hope and I affirm that
this story is absolutely authentic and sound. Yes, this man was a godly
man, this man was undoubtedly from amongst the great friends (of Allāh)
and his righteous slaves. He travelled for Ḥajj intending the sacred house
8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JV-Wfy8TGI

11
 of Allāh, and then proceeded to the resting place of the Messenger of
Allāh Β, and when he reached the noble abode of the Messenger of Allāh
Β, he conferred prayers unto him, and said:
When [I was distant], I would despatch my spirit, it would kiss
the earth on my behalf as my deputy. Now, in the physical
realm, I have presented myself, so stretch out your hand so
that my lips may be honoured…”
The [noble] Hand appeared from behind the lattice, and Ahmad al-Rifāʿī
kissed it…. This is sound, and has been mass transmitted, numerous peo-
ple bore witness to it.
The transcription above is enough to quell the accusations levelled at Shaykh Ra-
maḍān, since it clarifies his stance on the beatific vision, as well as the miracles of
the Awliyā. A few supplementary points to note:
• In the translation provided by Mufti Wajid, nowhere does Shaykh Ramaḍān
reject the miracles of the Gnostics. Rather, he questions the authenticity of the
report, not knowing whether it is verified or fabricated.
• To condemn Shaykh Būṭī for not knowing a miracle [of a walī] had reached
mass transmission is unfair. Some scholars quote fabricated hadīth assuming it
to be authentic. Surely Mufti Wajid is not giving preference to the reports of
the Awliyā over the science of hadith. The subtext of his statement suggests that
every scholar ought to know the grading of these miracles.
• To compare any latter-day scholar to Ālahazrat when it concerns knowledge re-
garding Sayyidī Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī is not an equivalent comparison.
Those familiar with Ālahazrat know of his unflinching love for Sulṭān ul-Awliyā
to the extent that it is possible he was a specialist (mutakhasis) in this field. It
raises the question, what possible motive could Shaykh Ramaḍān have had for
questioning the authenticity of a report ascribed to one gnostic, when he affirms
and relates a miracle of another gnostic elsewhere?
As for the contention from the commentary of ‘Al-Ḥikam al-Aṭṭāiyya’, Musṭaphā Jamāl
has already addressed this in an article entitled ‘The Prophetic Vision: In Defence
of Shaykh Dr Sa’īd Ramaḍān al-Būṭī’. Mufti Wajid has simply reiterated the initial
objection. Nonetheless, we will cite it here. Musṭaphā Jamāl writes:
…Commentating on the ‘Ĥikam’ of Ibn Átā’illāh, Dr Ramađān tackles
an issue largely associated with leaders of Sufi groups. Many of whom

12
 claim to have seen the Prophet Β in a wakeful state. Thus, Shaykh Būṭī
elucidates on the legal ramifications of such claims, he writes:
‫فما ذا يقول الشرع في حق هولاء الناس؟ يقول الشرع في حق من يزعم َأن ّه‬
َ ‫ ا َِن ّه‬:‫يرى رسول ال ه يقظة‬
‫يج ِبُ أَ ن يُعزر‬
‘What does the Sharīah say in the right of those people? The
Sharīah states regarding the one who claims to have seen the
Prophet [peace and blessings be upon Him] in a wakeful state:
it is wajib that he be rebuked [discretional punishment]’ [vol.
1, pg. 296].
The Shaykh then makes mention of the righteous Salaf; the Companions,
the Successors, and those who succeeded them. None of them ever lay
claim to witnessing the Prophet Β in a wakeful state after his passing,
and if anyone was deserving of this honour, it was surely these noble men
and women. He then writes:
‫و نحن لا نستدل بهذا الذي عرفناه من تاريخ السلف الصالح على أن رو ية‬
‫ فرسول ال ه حيّ يتمتع بحياة برزخية‬.‫رسول ال ه يقظة مستحيلة معاذ ال ه‬
‫ و امكانية رو ية أهل البرزخ‬.‫متميزة عن حياة غيره من الاولياء الصالحـين‬
.‫عقلا قائِماة‬
‘We are not inferring with this statement, something which
we know from the history of the righteous predecessors - that
the vision of the Messenger of Allāh Β whilst in a wakeful
state is impossible, refuge is sought in Allāh!9 The Messenger
of Allāh Β is alive, enjoying an afterlife which is distinct from
the living of anyone other than him from the righteous friends
(of Allāh Α). The possibility of witnessing the people of the
afterlife (barzakh) is rationally established’.
‫ولـكن الامكانية الع َقلية لها شئ ٌ و ادعاء وقوعها شيء آخر‬
‘Having said that, it being rationally possible is one thing,
whilst claiming it happens is another’.
‫ بل الأربعة من ادعى هذه‬,‫ن فى العصور المفضلة الثلاثة‬ ّ َِ‫ا‬
ّ َ َ‫ن التاريخ لا يعلم أ‬
‫ و لـكنه لم يزعمها‬,‫ فهى اِمّا أَ َ ّنها لم تقع أَ ْو أَ نّها ربما وقعت لبعض منهم‬...‫الرو ية‬
,‫ لا في مجالسة الخاصة و لا على الملأ و امام عامة الناس‬,‫لنفسه و لم يتحدث بها‬
9
Shaykh Būṭī categorically affirms the prophetic vision.

13
 ‫كما يفعل بعضهم اليوم‬
‘In history, it is not known from the three great generations,
rather four, that anyone of them lay claim to this type of vi-
sion… so, either it did not occur, or it was a rare occurrence
for a few of them. Despite that, a person would not make such
a claim for himself, and neither would he disclose it to others,
whether it was a gathering of the elect (awliyā’) or a gathering
for the masses, contrary to what some people do today’.
‫ أَ ْو يرى رسول ال ه يقظة في زماننا هذا ينبغي‬,‫اذن فالذي يدعي أَ َن ّه رأى‬
‫ لكان اذن‬,‫ اذ لو رآه فعلا بناء على الامكان العقلي‬.‫أن يعزر لأنه كاذب‬
‫من أصلح الصالحـين و لحملته حاله المتميزة من الصلاح و الفضل و التقوى و‬
‫ بل لا ب ّد‬,‫ على أن يصمت و لا يجلجل بهذا الامر بين الناس‬,‫القرب من ال ه‬
‫ن يزداد وجلا و‬
ّ َ‫ و أ‬,‫ان تحمله حاله تلك على أن لا يفتح فمه بهذا الخـبر لأَ حد‬
‫تواضعا و خوفا من ال ه عزوجل‬
‘Thus, the one who claims to have seen the Messenger of Allāh
Β in a wakeful state in our time deserves to be reprimanded
because he is a liar , even though his vision (of the Prophet) is
an action which is rationally possible. Such a person would be
exceptionally righteous, and this would cause him to conduct
himself in such a manner which sets him apart, in terms of
virtue, piety, and proximity towards Allāh, he would remain
silent and not announce this matter amongst people. Rather,
it is necessary that he carry himself in such a manner whereby
he does not open his mouth and inform anybody of this mat-
ter, and it increases him in fear, humility and dread of Allāh,
the Mighty, the Exalted’.
‫و لماذا يحدث الشيخ مريده بمثل هذه المزاعم أو الاخبار!؟‬
‘Why does the Shaykh inform his disciple of these kinds of
claims and reports?!’
Shaykh Ramađān al-Būṭī quite clearly adheres to the position of main-
stream Sunnī Islam, and to suggest anything contrary to this is outright
slander. His concerns with modern ‘Sufi’ scholars are absolutely justified
when considering the impact it has on undiscerning, naïve followers who
are duped into thinking their Shaykh has reached unprecedented heights

14
 and cannot possibly do any wrong. In recent times, this has become a
growing problem in various parts of the Muslim world, most notably in
Pakistan. In 1989, Tāhir ul-Qādrī addressed a large crowd, telling them
of an absurd dream in which he saw the Prophet Β complaining about
his mistreatment at the hands of the scholars of Pakistan. The Prophet,
according to Tāhir, was upset because the people of Pakistan did not
treat him well after having invited him. These preposterous claims were
enough to lure an otherwise docile public to donate thousands, if not
millions of rupees towards his organisation.
Shaykh Ramađān al-Būṭī was fully aware of these charlatans, and it is
ultimately these claimants of prophetic visions who display annoyance at
his comments.
A few further points to note:
• To suggest Shaykh Būṭī is reprimanding the Awliyā who were undoubtedly hon-
oured with these noble visions is not a fair reading of the Shaykh’s position. He
affirms the account of Shaykh Aḥmad al-Rifāʿī Ζ, and suggests it is rationally
possible in his commentary.
• Shaykh Aḥmad al-Rifāʿī Ζ did not inform others of his account at the noble
chamber, but even if he did, it could be substantiated, since many people wit-
nessed it. Shaykh Aḥmad Ḥabbāl and Shaykh Shukrī al-Luḥafī did not inform
others of their visions. If someone suggests otherwise, he needs to bring forth
proof.
• It is fine to suggest Shaykh Ramaḍān may have erred when he said: ‘none of the
salaf ever lay claim to such a vision…’

5 Shaykh Būṭī on Facing The Best of Creation ‫ ﷺ‬While

Supplicating
Moving onto the second contention, Mufti Wajid writes:
Shaykh Ramadan writes in Fiqh al-Sirah:
“Then turn to the Qibla and move to the right slightly un-
til you are between the grave and the first pillar. Raise your

15
 hands sincerely with prayer. Do not assume there is bad eti-
quette in this with the messenger of Allāh ‫ ﷺ‬or that du’a must
be made facing the grave, because du’a is addressed to Allāh
and so it is not permissible to associate (shirk) others in this.
The best direction [to face] for making du’a to Allāh is the
Qiblah. Do not pay any attention towards the many ignorant
and innovating people that you see going against this…”[Emphasis
added].
The aforementioned comments of the Ulema clearly and concisely prove
the inaccuracy of this hasty generalisation and unfounded criticism by
Shaykh Ramadan. A scholarly difference, however is acceptable in most
cases, but it is not tolerable to malign and rebuke others for a practice
which has been endorsed by the Ulema.
Having read this initially, I wondered whether Mufti Wajid’s condemnation would ex-
tend to Shaykh ul-Islām, Yaḥyā Ibn Sharaf al-Nawawī Ζ who writes (almost verbatim)
in ‘Al-Īḍāḥ fi’l-Manāsik’:

‫ و‬.‫ و يستقبل القبلة‬.‫ فيقف بين القير و الاسطوانة الى هناك‬.‫ثم ّ يتقدم اِلى رأس القبر‬
َ
‫يحمد ال ه تعالى و يمجده و يدعو لنفسه بما أهم ّه و ما أحبه و لوالديه و لمن شاء من أقاربه و‬
َ ‫أشياخه و اِخوانه و ساىئر المسلمين‬
.‫ثم ّ ياتي الروضة فيكثر فيها من الدعاء و الصلاة‬
Then he proceeds towards the The Sacred Resting Place, stopping be-
tween it and the pillar. And he faces the Qibla, and he glorifies Allāh
Α and extols His praises, and he supplicates for himself with whatever
concerns him, and whatever is dear to him, and for his parents, and for
whosoever he wishes from his kin, his teachers, his brothers, and the rest
of the Muslims. Then he advances towards The Sacred Resting Place and
remains abundant in supplications and prayers.
He goes on to mention:

‫لا يجوز أن يطاف بقير النبي صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم و يكره اِلصاق البطن و الظهر‬
‫ و يكره مسحه باليد و تقبيله بل الادب أن يبعد منه كما‬.‫ قاله الحليمي و غيره‬.‫بجدارالقير‬
‫ و هو الذي قاله‬.‫ هذا هو الصواب‬.‫يبعد منه لو حضر في حياته صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم‬
‫ فان الاقتداء‬.‫ و ينبغي أن لا يغْتَر ّ بكثير من العوام في مخالفتهم ذالك‬.‫ و أَ طبقو عليه‬.‫العلماء‬
...‫ ولا يلتفت الى محدثات العوام و جهالاتهم‬.‫و العمل انما يكون بأقوال العلماء‬

16
 And it is completely impermissible to perform rounds (tawaf ) around
The Sacred Resting Place of the Messenger of Allāh Β, and it is disliked
to cling to the inside, and outside of the walls of its walls, Ḥalīmī and
others have mentioned this. It is also disliked to wipe The Sacred Resting
Place with the hand and to kiss it. Rather, etiquettes dictate you remain
at a distance, as you would if He Β were before you in his worldly life
Β. This is undoubtedly the correct position, and well in accordance to
what the scholars have stipulated, and they concur with it. It is necessary
that one does not become misled through the actions of the many who
oppose that, since emulation and action are done with the words of the
scholars, and do not incline towards the innovations of the masses and
their foolishness.
He then concludes:
‫و من خطر بباله أَ ن المسح باليد و نحوه أبلغ في البركة فهو من جهالته و غفلته لأن‬
!‫البركة اِنما هي ما وافق الشرع و أقوال العلماء و كيف يبتغي في مخالفة الصواب؟‬
The one who thinks in his mind that touching with the hand and
other such actions are the greatest means of attaining blessings, then
this is from his patent ignorance and his heedlessness since blessings are
granted through whatever concords with the sharia and the statements
of the scholars. How then, does he desire to oppose what is correct?!
Some scholars were undoubtedly cut from the same cloth. Shaykh ul-Qul, Sayyidī Aṭā
Muḥammad Bandayalwī Ζ elucidated on this point when he suggested Shaykh ʿAbd
al-Ḥaq, Imām Yūsuf al-Nabhānī, and Ālahazrat were cut from the same cloth. It is
obvious to see, that Sayyidī Shaykh Ramaḍān emulated the way of Imam al-Nawawī,
adhering to his methodology. Thus, any accusations levelled against him are also di-
rected towards Shaykh ul-Islam and all the scholars who expressed the same views [we
seek refuge in Allāh Α!].

6 Shaykh Būṭī Regarding The Noble Parents Ι of The

Best of Creation ‫ﷺ‬
Finally, Mufti Wajid’s final contention pertains to the noble parents Ι of the Mes-
senger of Allāh Β, and it was this passage which finally convinced me of the lack of

17
scholarly verification and diligence in his article. The reader will also come to this
conclusion when he compares Mufti Wajid’s passage with Shaykh Ramaḍān’s actual
comments. Mufti Wajid writes:
Shaykh Ramadan not only objected to the prophetic prayer (salawat):
“O Allāh! Send blessing upon Muhammad and his parents”, he stated it
was a reprehensible innovation (Bid’a) - as published in his book ‘Hadha
Walidi’. He added that his father also objected to the same salawat and
wrote an article in the Nahjul Islam magazine expressing his criticism of
it.
Shaykh Ramadan writes:
The first of the two is the necessity to fulfil the Command of
the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﷺ‬. It is narrated by al-Bukhari in his
Sahih that following the revelation of the verse O those who
believe send prayers on him and send salutations abundantly,
the companions asked, how should we send prayers upon you
O Messenger of Allāh ‫ ? ﷺ‬He ‫ ﷺ‬replied: ‘Say: O Allāh! Send
prayers upon Muhammad and his family ‫ ﷺ‬, offspring, and
his ‫ ﷺ‬wives just has you sent prayers upon Ibrahim’…till the
end of the hadith.
The second of the two is the need to follow the Messenger of
Allāh ‫ ﷺ‬in him ‫ ﷺ‬being prohibited to pray for his ‫ ﷺ‬mother
when Allāh prohibited him ‫ ﷺ‬from this. do not find any of
the prayers of the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﷺ‬that he sought for-
giveness for his ‫ ﷺ‬parents or anyone of them, yet there are
many compositions for seeking forgiveness [related] from him
‫ ﷺ‬. For example, his saying before sleeping ‘O my lord! For-
give me my sins…” Proof cannot be taken of their disbelief by
this prohibition because the prohibition from his Lord was
for wisdom hidden from us just as we mentioned earlier.
Thirdly, prayers upon the messenger of Allāh ‫ ﷺ‬is worship
from amongst the greatest of worships and worship is not cor-
rect except by following what came from the Messenger of Al-
lāh ‫ ﷺ‬either by action or word, narrated authentically. It is
proven definitively that the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﷺ‬did not or-
der the companions with prayers upon his ‫ ﷺ‬parents nor did
they do this, and nor did the followers and those after them.
This is the same application of the fallacious principle that it is not lawful

18
 for us to practice something which not been practiced by the Prophet -‫ﷺ‬
it is the same reasoning used by Salafists to denounce and delegitimise
Mawlid celebrations. Shaykh Ramadan continues:
Indeed I see - in the insertion of the word ‘and his parents’ in
sending prayers upon the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬- flaws in this claim to
love.’
It pains us to say it, but the words and message that Shaykh Ramadan
portrays are indicative of a Salafi methodology, and such a stance on this
kind of salawat has been refuted by the Ulema of Ahl al-Sunnah. We
conclude and re-affirm that the parents of our beloved Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬are
Muslims, are part of the beloved’s Β ummah, and are the beloved’s ‫ﷺ‬
honourable companions ; ‫ ﷺ‬may Allāh be well pleased with them both-
and that is entirely lawful to supplicate for them and include them in
salawat.
Mufti Wajid makes it seem as if Shaykh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī held a position contrary
to that of Imam Jalāl ul-Dīn al-Suyūtī, Ālahazrat and other illustrious figures in this
religion Θ. However, the very chapter in his work ‘Hādha Wālidī’ reads:

‫مبحث نجاة والدي رسول ال ه صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم و الصلاة عليهما‬
Discussing the salvation of The Parents of The Messenger of Allāh Β
and sending prayers upon them.
In the very same book quoted by Mufti Wajid, Shaykh Ramaḍān writes:

‫هذه موعظة و نصيحة من ملا رمضان لمن يقولون بالصلاة على والدي رسول ال ه‬
‫ و حاشا‬.‫صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم و يتهمون المنكرين للصلاة عليهما ب ِأ َ ّنهم يحكمون بكفرها‬
‫و هو‬-‫منها‬-‫أَ ن يقول رجل مؤمن بِكُفرها بل اِن العلماء ذكروا أَ دلة على اِسلامها أو نجاتها‬
...‫أنّها من أَ هل الفترة‬-‫أَ ق ْواها‬
This is an exhortation and counsel from Mullāh Ramaḍān (his vener-
able father) to those who convey prayers upon the parents of the Messen-
ger of Allāh Β, and they charge those who reject the [legality of sending]
prayers upon them because they have ruled in favour of their disbelief.
God Forbid that a believing man associate disbelief to them! Rather,
the scholars have presented many proofs highlighting their Islam and sal-
vation. From amongst those proofs, and undoubtedly the strongest of
proofs is, that they are from ahl ul-fitra.

19
He then continues to explain other pathways which have led scholars to conclude
that the noble parents of the Messenger of Allāh Β are believers. After which, he
writes:
‫فثبت بهذه الادلة أنّهما ناجيان اِن شاء ال ه و لا ينافيها حديث مسلم في صحيحه عن‬
‫ استأْ ذنت ربي أن‬:‫أبي هريرة رضي ال ه عنه أَ ن رسول ال ه صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم قال‬

‫ فا ِن ظاهر هذا الحديث لا‬.‫أستغفر ل ُأمي فلم ي َأْ ذن لي و استأذنت أَ ن أزور قبرها فأَ ذن لي‬
...‫يدل على أنهما غير ناجيين اِذ قد يكون النهي عن الاستغفار لسبب آخر ال ه أعلم به‬
Thus it has been established with these proofs, that they [the noble
parents] have attained salvation if Allāh wills, and the report found in
the collection of Imam Muslim does not contradict this-from Abū Hu-
rayra [Allāh is pleased with him], the Messenger of Allāh Β said: ‘I asked
permission from my Lord to seek forgiveness for my mother, and I was
not granted it, and I sought permission to visit her grave and I was granted
it’. What is evident from the hadīth does not suggest that they have not
been delivered [from the fire], since the prohibition to seek forgiveness
for them is due to another reason, and Allāh knows best as to what that
reason is…
He then writes:
‫و كيف نحكم بكفرها أبوي رسول ال ه صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم و قد كنت أقرأ سورة‬
‫ت ي َدا أب ِ ْي لَه ٍَب َ ّو ت َ َّب( في بعض الاحيان فقرأْ ت في بعض الـكتب رواية عن بعض‬
ْ ّ ‫)تَب‬
‫الصالحـين أنه كان يكثر من قرأة هذه السورة فرأى رسول ال ه صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم فى‬
‫ و منذ‬.‫ أَ ليس هو عمي؟! يقصد أَ با لهب‬:‫الرو يا و في وجهه علائم التأثر و العتاب و قال له‬
‫ذالك الحـين أَ مسكت عن قراة هذه السورة الا في الختم اِك ْرام ًا لرسول ال ه صلى ال ه عليه و‬
‫اله و سلم‬
… and how can we level a ruling of disbelief against the parents of
the Messenger of Allāh Β?! I would recite Surah tul - Masad occasion-
ally, I came across a narration from some righteous slaves, that there was
somebody who would recite this surah excessively who later witnessed the
Messenger of Allāh Β in a dream, there were evident signs of emotion
and censure on his [noble] face, and he said to him, ‘is he not my uncle?!’
He Β meant by this, Abū Lahab. Since then, I have abstained from recit-

20
 ing this surah except during the recital of the entire Qur’an [khatam]-in
honour of the Messenger of Allāh Β!
Shyakh Ramaḍān al-Būṭī, and his noble father, Mullāh Ramaḍān Ι, both adhered to
the position of mainstream Sunnī Islam, in that the parents of the Messenger of Allāh
Β were believers, yet in an attempt to suggest otherwise, Mufti Wajid writes:
We conclude and re-affirm that the parents of our beloved Prophet
Β are Muslims, are part of the Beloved’s Β ummah.
A second contention against Shaykh Ramaḍān [and his father] was that they both
disapproved of sending prayers and blessings upon the noble parents of the Messenger
of Allāh Β. It’s worth noting at this point Mufti Wajid did not quote Shaykh Būṭī’s
reasoning. If he did, he would be forced to condemn a host of scholars, including the
great Imām, Muḥammad Ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī Ζ.
Shaykh Ramaḍān lists a number of reasons as to why sending prayers and salutations
upon The Parents of The Messenger of Allāh Β is prohibited (mamnūʿ), these have been
mentioned vaguely by Mufti Wajid [refer to the translation above]. What he failed to
mention was the following:

...‫و قد قرر العلماء أَ ن الامتثال خير من الادب‬

The scholars have reiterated that imitation is superior to adab…
‫و من التطبيقات الاحتياطية لهذه القاعدة ما هو ملاحظ من أن الامام الشافعي في‬
‫كتابه الأم اذا ذكر اسم رسول ال ه صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم لا يقول سيدنا محمد بل يقول‬
‫محمد صلى ال ه عليه و اله و سلم‬
…and from the precautionary application of this rule is what has been
observed from Imām al- Shā’fiʿī in his book ‘Al-Umm’, when he mentioned
the name of the Messenger of Allāh Β, he did not say ‘Sayyidunā Muḥam-
mad’. Rather, he said, Muḥammad [Β]…
Would it be fair to impute that Imam al- Shāfiʿī adopted a Salafi/Wahabi methodology,
and is this an application of a ‘fallacious principle’ on the part of Muḥammad Ibn
Idrīs? Mufti Wajid would be compelled to say yes. The omission of these passages
raises questions. Shaykh Ramaḍān continues:

َ ‫ن بعض‬
‫الن ّاس اقترح ز يادة )سيدنا( في‬ ّ َ َ‫كما ذكر في بعض الحواشي التحفة لابن حجر أ‬
‫الاذان و الاقامة فردّ الفقهاء جميعا بأَ ن ذالك غير وارد فلا رسول ال ه أمر به و لا الصحابة‬

21
 ...‫أو التابعون فعلوا ذالك‬
“… similarly, it has been mentioned in some marginalias of Al-Tuhfa
of Ibn Ḥajr that some people would insert the word ‘Sayyidunā’ in the
Adhān and Iqāma. As a result, all of the jurists categorically rejected this
practice, since it has not been transmitted, neither did the Messenger
of Allāh Β command it, and nor did the Companions and successors
practice it Θ…”

7 Conclusion
To conclude, Allāh Α and His Noble Messenger Β defined the parameters of Islam. In
order to determine who has contravened them, it is a prerequisite to first understand
what they are.
Issues such as perennialism, atheism, the honour of the Messenger of Allāh, ḥadīth
forgeries, endorsing deviant scholars and groups, are what contravene the parameters
of Islam, and it is these issues which need to be challenged.
On a final note, I urge Mufti Wajid to beseech Allāh Α in His court, and ask His
forgiveness for misinterpreting Shaykh Ramaḍān’s works and statements. and I ask
Allāh Α to grant him tawfīq to do so.

‫و صلى ال ه على سيدنا و مولنا محمد و على اله و صحبه أجمعين‬

22