لايكلفاللهنفساًإلاوسعها} [البقرة / 286 ]
“Allah tidak membebani seseorang kecuali yang menjadi kemampuannya”
وقوله: {وماجعلعليكمفيالدينمنحرج}[الحج / 78 ]
“dan tidaklah Allah menjadikan bagi kalian kesulitan dalam beragama”
وقوله: {فاتقوااللهمااستطعتم} [التغابن / 16 ]
“Bertaqwalah kepada Allah semampu kalian”
Syarat-syarat Akikah / Aqiqah
Pertama, Sifat Sembelihan yang Layak (Sah) Sebagai Akikah (Aqiqah)
Imam Nawawi ra berkata dalam kitabnya, al-Majmu', "Hewan yang layak (sah) disembelih sebagai Akikah (Aqiqah) adalah domba yang dewasa dan kambing yang dewasa yang sudah memiliki gigi seri (gigi depan).
Domba dan kambing itu harus selamat dari cacat. Karena Akikah (Aqiqah) adalah mengalirkan darah secara syar'i (sesuai dengan ketentuan Islam) maka sifat-sifat hewan yang disembelih untuk Akikah (Aqiqah) sama dengan sifat-sifat hewan yang disembelih untuk kurban, sesuai dengan hadis yang diriwayatkan oleh Abu Daud dengan sanad sahih sahih bahwa Ibnu Abbas r.a. berkata "Rasulullah mengaqiqahkan Hasan da Husain masing-masing dengan seekor domba."
Berdasarkan hadis di atas, sifat-sifat hewan yang disembelih sebagai Akikah (Aqiqah) harus sama dengan sifat-sifat hewan yang disembelih sebagai kurban.
Untuk anak laki-laki disembelihkan dua ekor kambing sebagai aqiqahnya dan untuk anak perempuan satu ekor saja. Hadis-hadis yang menjelaskan bahwa anak laki-laki diaqiqahkan dengan dua ekor kambing adalah hadis-hadis yang memiliki kelebihan (jika dibandingkan dengan hadis-hadis yang menjelaskan bahwa anak laki-laki diaqiqahkan dengan satu kambing).
Oleh karena itu, hadis-hadis yang dijelaskan bahwa anak laki-laki diaqiqahkan dengan dua ekor kambing lebih layak diterima. Hal ini diperkuat lagi oleh perkataan Ibnu Abbas ra. "bahwa Rasulullah Saw mengakikahkan (Hasan dan Husain) masing-masing dua ekor domba."
Kedua, Waktu Penyembelihan Hewan Aqiqah
Menurut sunnah Nabi, penyembelihan hewan akikah (Aqiqah) dilaksanakan pada hari ketujuh dari kelahirannya dengan menghitung hari kelahirannya. Jadi, hewan akikah (Aqiqah) disembelih pada hari keenam, jika hari kelahiran tidak dihitung. Apabila sang anak dilahirkan pada malam hari maka dihitung dari hari setelah malam kelahiran itu.
Penyembelihan hewan akikah (Aqiqah) dilaksanakan pada hari ketujuh, sesuai dengan hadis yang diriwayatkan oleh al-Baihaqi dari Abdullah ibn Buraidah, dari ayahnya, dari Nabi Saw, beliau bersabda, "Hewan akikah (Aqiqah) itu disembelih pada hari ketujuh, hari keempat belas, dan hari kedua puluh satu."
Menurut penganut Mazhab Hanbali, akikah (Aqiqah) disembelih pada hari ketujuh dan seterusnya, kelipatan tujuh. Mereka memiliki beberapa riwayat (yang dapat dijadikan dalil).
Sedangkan menurut penganut Mazhab Syafi'I disebutkan bahwa penyebutan tujuh itu untuk ikhtiyar (pilihan) bukan keharusan. Rafi'I menambahkan bahwa waktu penyembelihan hewan akikah (Aqiqah) dimulai dari kelahiran bayi.
Imam Syafi'i berkata, "Makna hadis itu adalah penyembelihan akikah (Aqiqah) diusahakan tidak ditangguhkan hingga melewati hari ketujuh. Namun jika memang belum sempat berakikah sampai sang bayi telah mencapai usia baligh, maka gugurlah tanggung jawab orang yang seharusnya mengakikahkannya. Tetapi, jika sang anak ingin berakikah untuk dirinya sendiri maka ia boleh melakukannya.
Ada ulama yang mengatakan, "Tanggung jawab untuk mengakikahkan tidak hilang walaupun tidak dilaksanakan pada hari ketujuh, namun disunnahkan agar tidak terlambat sampai usia balig."
Imam an-Nawawi berkata, "Aku Abdillah al-Busyihi, salah seorang imam dalam mazhab kami berkata, "Jika tidak sempat menyembelih pada hari ketujuh maka di hari keempat belas, (jika belum juga dilaksanakan) maka di hari kedua puluh satunya, demikian terus pada kelipatan tujuh."
Ketika akan menyembelih hewan akikah (Aqiqah), orang yang menyembelih disunnahkan membaca, Sebagaimana hadis yang diriwayatkan oleh Baihaqi dengan sanad hasan, dari Aisyah r.a. bahwa Nabi Saw menyembelih hewan akikah (Aqiqah) untuk Hasan dan Husain, dan beliau bersabda. "Ucapkanlah, Dengan Nama Allah. Ya Allah, untuk-Mu dan kepada-Mu akikah si Fulan."
Namun, jika bacaannya dipendekkan dengan hanya mengucap bismillah maka itu lebih utama karena kesahihan hadis di atas masih diperdebatkan.
Disunnahkan juga memisah-misahkan anggota badan hewan akikah (Aqiqah), dan dilarang meremukkan tulang-tulangnya. Ada dua hikmah dari hal tersebut, yaitu:
Pertama, sebagai penghormatan terhadap orang-orang miskin dan para tetangga yang diberikan hidangan atau hadiah berupa daging akikah (Aqiqah), yaitu dengan memberikan potongan besar yang sempurna yang tulangnya tidak dipecah dan dagingnya tidak dikurangi. Tidak diragukan bahwa cara penyajian dan pemberian seperti ini merupakan penghormatan bagi orang-orang yang menerima.
Kedua, oleh karena kedudukan akikah sebagai tebusan untuk menebus sang bayi maka dianjurkan tulangnya tidak usah dipotong-potong, untuk mengharap keberkahan (dari Allah SWT juga dengan harapan agar anggota-anggota tubuh si bayi menjadi sehat dan kuat. Wallahu a'alam.
Ketiga, Apa yang Dilakukan Setelah Penyembelihan?
Setelah penyembelihan hewan selesai, hendaknya kaum Muslimin waspada, jangan sampai melumuri kepala bayi dengan darah hewan akikah (Aqiqah), karena hal itu merupakan kebiasaan kaum Jahiliyah. Akan tetapi, hendaknya kepala bayi tersebut dilumuri dengan minyak za'faran.
Disunnahkan memakan hewan akikah (Aqiqah), boleh juga menghadiahkannya atau menyedekahkannya kepada orang lain, karena akikah (Aqiqah) adalah menyembelih hewan yang hukumnya sunnah maka hukumnya sama dengan hewan kurban.
Rafi'I berkata, "Sunnah memberikan bagian kaki dari hewan akikah (Aqiqah) kepada bidan atau dokter (yang membantu proses kelahiran) sebagaimana yang disebutkan dalam sunnah al-Baihaqi, dari Ali r.a. bahwa Rasulullah Saw memerintahkan Fatimah ra. "Timbanglah rambut al-Husain, kemudian bersedekah dengan perak (seberat rambut yang ditimbang) dan berikanlah bagian kaki hewan akikah (Aqiqah) kepada wanita yang membantu proses kelahiran." (Diriwayatkan secara mauquf sampai pada Ali r.a.)
Disunnahkan juga memasak daging hewan akikah (Aqiqah) sehingga masakannya menjadi manis, dengan harapan agar sang bayi kelak memiliki akhlak yang baik dan terpuji.
Sudah Dewasa Belum Diaqiqah, Lebih Utama Qurban atau Aqiqah yang Tertunda ?
Redaksi – Selasa, 29 Zulqa'dah 1435 H / 23 September 2014 13:10 WIB
sigit1Assalamu’alaikum wr wb..
Ustad, saya berumur 22 th, saya belum di aqiqah kan oleh orang tua saya. Mana yang lebih utama untuk saya, aqiqah atau qurban? cttn dg biaya sendiri. saya belum berqurban.
Wassalamu’alaikum wr wb..
nilmi
Waalaikumussalam Wr Wb
Hukum Aqiqah
Aqiqah adalah sembelihan hewan kurban untuk anak yang baru lahir dan dilakukan pada hari ketujuh kelahirannya. Hukum pelaksanaan aqiqah ini adalah sunnah muakkadah, sebagaimana diriwayatkan dari Samurah bahwa Nabi saw bersabda,”Setiap anak yang dilahirkan itu terpelihara dengan aqiqahnya dan disembelihkan hewan untuknya pada hari ketujuh, dicukur dan diberikan nama untuknya.” (HR. Imam yang lima, Ahmad dan Ashabush Sunan dan dishohihkan oleh Tirmidzi)
Waktu pelaksanaan aqiqah ini adalah pada hari ketujuh dari hari kelahirannya namun jika ia tidak memiliki kesanggupan untuk menagqiqahkannya pada hari itu maka ia diperbolehkan mengaqiqahkannya pada hari keempat belas, dua puluh satu atau pada saat kapan pun ia memiliki kelapangan rezeki untuk itu, sebagaimana makna dari pendapat para ulama madzhab Syafi’i dan Hambali bahwa sembelihan untuk aqiqah bisa dilakukan sebelum atau setelah hari ketujuh.
Adapun yang bertanggung jawab melakukan aqiqah ini adalah ayah dari bayi yang terlahir namun para ulama berbeda pendapat apabila yang melakukannya adalah selain ayahnya :
1. Para ulama Madzhab Syafi’i berpendapat bahwa sunnah ini dibebankan kepada orang yang menanggung nafkahnya.
2. Para ulama Madzhab Hambali dan Maliki berpendapat bahwa tidak diperkenankan seseorang mengaqiqahkan kecuali ayahnya dan tidak dieperbolehkan seorang yang dilahirkan mengaqiqahkan dirinya sendiri walaupun dia sudah besar dikarenakan menurut syariat bahwa aqiqah ini adalah kewajiban ayah dan tidak bisa dilakukan oleh selainnya.
3. Sekelompok ulama Madzhab Hambali berpendapat bahwa seseorang diperbolehkan mengaqiqahkan dirinya sendiri sebagai suatu yang disunnahkan. Aqiqah tidak mesti dilakukan saat masih kecil dan seorang ayah boleh mengaqiqahkan anak yang terlahir walaupun anak itu sudah baligh karena tidak ada batas waktu maksimalnya.(al Fiqhul Islami wa Adillatuhu juz IV hal 2748)
Aqiqah atau Kurban
Dari keterangan diatas bisa disimpulkan bahwa aqiqah tidak mesti dilakukan pada hari ketujuh dan itu semua diserahkan kepada kemampuan dan kelapangan rezeki orang tuanya, bahkan ia bisa dilakukan pada saat anak itu sudah besar / baligh.
Orang yang paling bertanggung jawab melakukan aqiqah adalah ayah dari bayi terlahir pada waktu kapan pun ia memiliki kesanggupan. Namun jika dikarenakan si ayah memiliki halangan untuk mengadakannya maka si anak bisa menggantikan posisinya yaitu mengaqiqahkan dirinya sendiri, meskipun perkara ini tidak menjadi kesepakatan dari para ulama.
Dari dua hal tersebut diatas maka ketika seseorang dihadapkan oleh dua pilihan dengan keterbatasan dana yang dimilikinya antara kurban atau aqiqah maka kurban lebih diutamakan baginya, dikarenakan hal berikut :
1. Perintah berkurban ini ditujukan kepada setiap orang yang mukallaf dan memiliki kesanggupan berbeda dengan perintah aqiqah yang pada asalnya ia ditujukan kepada ayah dari bayi yang terlahir.
2. Meskipun ada pendapat yang memperbolehkan seseorang mengaqiqahkan dirinya sendiri namun perkara ini bukanlah yang disepakati oleh para ulama.
Dalil mereka yang memperbolehkan seseorang mengaqiqahkan dirinya sendiri adalah apa yang diriwayatkan dari Anas dan dikeluarkan oleh al Baihaqi, “Bahwa Nabi saw mengaqiqahkan dirinya sendiri setelah beliau diutus menjadi Rasul.” Kalau saja hadits ini shohih, akan tetapi dia mengatakan,”Sesungguhnya hadits ini munkar dan didalamnya ada Abdullah bin Muharror dan ia termasuk orang lemah sekali sebagaimana disebutkan oleh al Hafizh. Kemudian Abdur Rozaq berkata,
”Sesungguhnya mereka telah membicarakan dalam masalah ini dikarenakan hadits ini.” (Nailul Author juz VIII hal 161 – 162, Maktabah Syamilah)
Wallahu A’lam
– Ustadz Sigit Pranowo, Lc-
Bila ingin memiliki karya beliau dari kumpulan jawaban jawaban dari Ustadz Sigit Pranowo LC di Rubrik Ustadz Menjawab , silahkan kunjungi link ini :
Resensi Buku : Fiqh Kontemporer yang membahas 100 Solusi Masalah Kehidupan…
TENTANG IMAM ABDULLAH IBN KULLAB
Berkata Imam Tajuddin as Subki dalam kitab ath Thoaqotus Syafiiyyah al Kubro (2/300):
( وابن كلاّب على كل حال من أهل السنة . . . . ورأيت الإمام ضياء الدين الخطيب والد الإمام فخر الدين الرازي قد ذكر عبدالله بن سعيد في آخر كتابه "غاية المرام في علم الكلام " فقال : ومن متكلمي أهل السنة في أيام المأمون عبدالله بن سعيد التميمي الذي دمّر المعتزلة في مجلس المأمون وفضحهم ببيانه ) اهـ.
“Dan Ibnu Kullab adalah pengikut ahlus sunnah … dan aku melihat Imam Dliyauddin al Khothib ayah Imam Fakhruddin ar Rozi menyebut Ibnu Kullab di akhir kitabnya Ghoyatul Marom fi Ilmil Kalam, dan dia berkata : Dan termasuk ahli ilmu kalam Ahlus Sunnah di masa al Ma’mun adalah Abdullah Ibnu Said at Tamimy yang menghancurkan argumentasi Mu’tazilah di majlis al Ma’mun.”
Berkata Ibnu Qodli Syuhbah dalam kitab Thobaqotus Syafiiyyah
(1/78) :
( كان من كبار المتكلمين ومن أهل السنة ، وبطريقته وطريقة الحارث المحاسبي اقتدى أبو الحسن الأشعري ) اهـ.
“Ibnu Kullab termasuk pembesar ahli ilmu kalam dari ahlus sunnah. Imam al Asy’ari mengikuti metodenya dan metode al Harits al Muhasiby.”
Berkata al Imam adz Dzahabi dalam Siyar A’lamin Nubala (11/175)
( والرجل أقرب المتكلمين إلى السنة ، بل هو في مناظريهم ) اهـ.
“Laki-laki ini (Ibnu Kullab) adalah ahli ilmu kalam yang paling dekat dengan sunnah”.
Syaikh Syuaib al Arnauth mengomentari ucapan adz Dzahabi ini dengan berkata :
( كان إمام أهل السنة في عصره ، وإليه مرجعها ، وقد وصفه إمام الحرمين في كتابه " الإرشاد " بأنه من أصحابنا ) اهـ.
“Ibnu Kullab adalah imam dan rujukan ahlus sunnah di masanya.”
Berkata Ibnu Kholdun dalam kitab al Muqoddimahnya yang termasyhur (h. 853) :
( إلى أن ظهر الشيخ أبو الحسن الأشعري . . . . وكان على رأي عبدالله بن سعيد بن كلاّب وأبي العباس القلانسي والحارث المحاسبي من أتباع السلف وعلى طريقة السنة ) اهـ.
“Sampai muncul Syaikh Abul Hasan al Asy’ari … dan dia mengikuti pendapat Abdullah bin Said bin Kullab, Abul Abbas al Qolanisi dan al Harits al Muhasibi dari pengikut salaf yang menempuh jalan sunnah”.
Berkata al Hafidh Ibnu Hajar al Asqolany dalam Lisanul Mizan (3/291) setelah menukil ucapan Ibnun Nadim bahwa Ibnu Kullab termasuk al Hasyawiyyah :
يريد من يكون على طريق السلف في ترك التأويل للآيات والأحاديث المتعلقة بالصفات ، ويقال لهم المفوضة ) اهـ.
Maksud Ibnun Nadim adalah bahwa Ibnu Kullab mengikuti jalan salaf dalam meninggalkan ta’wil terhadap ayat dan hadits sifat. Mereka ini yang disebut al mufawwidloh (memasrahkan makna kepada Allah).
Bahkan Imam al Bukhori sendiri mengikuti jalan Ibnu Kullab. Berkata al Hafidh Ibnu Hajar dalam Fathul Bary (1/293)
( البخاري في جميع ما يورده من تفسير الغريب إنما ينقله عن أهل ذلك الفن كأبي عبيدة والنضر بن شميل والفراء وغيرهم , وأما المباحث الفقهية فغالبها مستمدة له من الشافعي وأبي عبيـد وأمثالهـما , وأما المسائـل الكلامية فأكثرها من الكرابيـسي وابن كُـلاَّب ونحـوهما ) اهـ .
Imam Bukhori dalam menafsirkan kata-kata yang ghorib (asing) menukil dari ahli bidang ini seperti Abu Ubaidah, Nadlr ibn Syumail, al Farro’ dan lainnya. Dalam pembahasan fiqh beliau mengambil dari asy Syafii, Abu Ubaid dan lainnya. Adapun dalam masalah ilmu kalam maka kebanyakan mengambil dari al Karobisi, Ibn Kullab dan lainnya.
Lalu, mengapa timbul tuduhan Ibnu Kullab bukan ahlus sunnah ?
Sumbernya adalah perbedaan pendapat beliau dengan Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal dalam masalah kholqul qur’an yang akhirnya membuat pengikut Imam Hanbali bermusuhan dengan beliau.
Berkata al Hafidh Ibnu Abdil Barr al Maliki dalam kitab al Intiqo’ (hal. 165) :
( وكانت بينه ـ يعني الكرابيسي ـ وبين أحمد بن حنبل صداقة وكيدة , فلمّا خالفه في القرآن عادت تلك الصداقة عداوة , فكان كلُّ واحد منهما يطعن على صاحبه , وذلك أن أحمد كان يقول : من قال القرآن مخلوق فهو جهمي , ومن قال القرآن كلام الله ولا يقول غير مخلوق ولا مخلوق فهو واقفي , ومن قال لفظي بالقرآن مخلوق فهو مبتدع . وكان الكرابيسي وعبدالله بن كلاّب وأبو ثور وداود بن علي وطبقاتهم يقولون : إن القرآن الذي تكلم الله به صفة من صفاته لا يجوز عليه الخلق , وإن تلاوة التالي وكلامه بالقرآن كسب له وفعل له وذلك مخلوق وإنه حكاية عن كلام الله . . . وهجرت الحنبلية أصحاب أحمد بن حنبل حسيناً الكرابيسي وبدّعوه وطعنوا عليه وعلى كل من قال بقوله في ذلك ) اهـ .
“Antara al Karobisi dan Imam Hanbali ada persahabatan yang kuat, sampai timbul perbedaan antara keduanya dalam masalah kholqul qur’an maka keduanya kemudian bermusuhan. Yang satu mencela yang lain.
Ini karena Imam Ahmad berkata : barangsiapa mengatakan al Qur’an adalah makhluq maka ia pengikut Jahmiyyah. Barangsiapa mengatakan al Qur’an tak bisa disebut makhluq atau bukan makhluq maka ia waqify (tak punya pendapat jelas). Barangsiapa yang mengatakan bahwa al Qur’an yang kuucapkan adalah makhluq maka dia ahli bid’ah.
Sementara al Karobisy, Ibnu Kullab, Abu Tsaur dan Daud bin Ali mengatakan : al Qur’an yang merupakan kalamulLoh dan salah satu sifatNya tak boleh disebut makhluq. Sesungguhnya bacaan pembaca al Qur’an adalah makhluq, dan menceritakan isi kalamulLoh tersebut.
Maka pengikut Imam Hanbali lalu memusuhi dan mencela Husain al Karobisy dan yang mengikuti pendapatnya.”
Al Imam adz Dzahabi menjelaskan bahwa pendapat al Karobisi dalam hal ini adalah yang benar. Adapun Imam Ahmad memilih pendapat yang berbeda karena alasan saddudz dzariah (menutup jalan kejelekan) agar orang tak mendiskusikan hal ini (Siyar A’lamin Nubala’ 12/82).
( ولا ريب أن ما ابتدعه الكرابيسي وحرره في مسألة اللفظ وأنه مخلوق هو حق ، لكن أباه الإمام أحمد لئلا يُتذرع به إلى القول بخلق القرآن فسدّ الباب ) اهـ.
Sebagai catatan kelompok wahhabi paling dekat dengan Hanabilah di antara 4 madzhab fiqh terbesar yang ada. Jadi bisa dipahami kalau mereka tak menyukai Ibnu Kullab dan yang lainnya. Padahal masalah ini sebenarnya perbedaan ringan dan enteng. Hal yang sama pernah terjadi pada Imam al Bukhori dengan guru beliau adz Dzuhaly, dan juga Imam ath Thobary dengan pengikut Hanbali.
Kesimpulannya : Imam Ibnu Kullab adalah imam ahlus sunnah di masanya, dan Imam al Asy’ari (dan sebelumnya Imam al Bukhory) mengikuti metodenya.
WalLohu a’lam
Diposkan oleh Firman Wahyudi anag TI di 22.23
ON TASAWWUF
Ibn `Ata’ Allah al-Iskandari (d. 709)
The Debate with Ibn Taymiyya
One of the great sufi imams who was also known as a muhaddith, preacher, and Maliki jurist, Abu al-Fadl Ibn `Ata Allah al-Iskandari (d. 709) is the author of al-Hikam (Aphorisms), Miftah al-falah (The key to success), al-Qasd al-mujarrad fi ma`rifat al-ism al-mufrad (The pure goal concerning knowledge of the Unique Name), Taj al-`arus al-hawi li tadhhib al-nufus (The bride’s crown containing the discipline of souls), `Unwan al-tawfiq fi adab al-tariq (The sign of success concerning the discipline of the path), the biographical al-Lata’if fi manaqib Abi al-`Abbas al-Mursi wa shaykhihi Abi al-Hasan (The subtle blessings in the saintly lives of Abu al-`Abbas al-Mursi and his master Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili), and others. He was Abu al-`Abbas al-Mursi’s (d. 686) student and the second successor of the Sufi founder, Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili.
Ibn `Ata’ Allah was one of those who confronted Ibn Taymiyya for his excesses in attacking those of the Sufis with whom he disagreed. He never refers to Ibn Taymiyya by name in his works, but it is clearly of him that he speaks when he says, in his Lata’if, that Allah has put the Sufis to the test through what he terms “the scholars of external learning.”1 In the pages below are the first English translation of a historical account which took place between the two.
Text of the Debate
From Usul al-Wusulby Muhammad Zaki Ibrahim Ibn Kathir, Ibn al-Athir, and other authors of biographical dictionaries and biographies have transmitted to us this authentic historical debate.2 It gives an idea of the ethics of debate among the people of learning. It documents the controversy between a pivotal personality in tasawwuf, Shaykh Ahmad Ibn Ata’ Allah al-Iskandari, and an equally important person of the so-called “Salafi” movement, Shaykh Ahmad Ibn `Abd al-Halim Ibn Taymiyya during the Mamluke era in Egypt under the reign of the Sultan Muhammad Ibn Qalawun (al-Malik al-Nasir).
The Testimony of Ibn Taymiyya to Ibn `Ata’ Allah:
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya had been imprisoned in Alexandria. When the Sultan pardoned him, he came back to Cairo. At the time of the evening prayer he went to al-Azhar mosque where salat al-maghrib was being led by Shaykh Ahmad Ibn `Ata Allah al-Iskandari. Following the prayer, Ibn `Ata’ Allah was surprised to discover that Ibn Taymiyya had been praying behind him. Greeting him with a smile, the Sufi shaykh cordially welcomed Ibn Taymiyya’s arrival to Cairo, saying: “as-Salamu alaykum”. Then Ibn `Ata’ Allah started to talk with the learned visitor.
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: “Ordinarily, I pray the evening prayer in the Mosque of Imam Husayn and the night prayer here. But look how the Divine plan works itself out! Allah has ordained that I should be the first one to greet you (after your return to Cairo). Tell me, O faqih, do you blame me for what happened?
Ibn Taymiyya: “I know you intended me no harm, but our differences of opinion still stand. In any case, whoever has harmed me in any way, from this day on I hereby exonerate and free him from any blame in the matter.”
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: “What is it you know about me, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya?”
Ibn Taymiyya: “I know you to be a man of scrupulous piety, abundant learning, integrity and truthfulness in speech. I bear witness that I have seen no one like you either in Egypt or Syria who loves Allah more nor who is more self-effacing in Him nor who is more obedient in carrying out what He has commanded and in refraining from what He has forbidden. Nevertheless, we have our differences. What do you know about me? Are you claiming that I am misguided when I deny the validity of calling on anyone save Allah for aid (istighatha)?”
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: “Surely, my dear colleague, you know that istighatha or calling for help is the same as tawassul or seeking a means and asking for intercession (shafa`a); and that the Messenger, on him be peace, is the one whose help is sought since he is our means and he the one whose intercession we seek.”
Ibn Taymiyya: “In this matter, I follow what the Prophet’s Sunna has laid down in the Shari`a. For it has been transmitted in a sound hadith: “I have been granted the power of intercession.”3 I have also collected the sayings on the Qur’anic verse: “It may be that thy Lord will raise thee (O Prophet) to a praised estate” (17:79) to the effect that the “praised estate” is intercession. Moreover, when the mother of the Commander of the Faithful `Ali died, the Prophet prayed to Allah at her grave and said:O Allah who lives and never dies, who quickens and puts to death, forgive the sins of my mother Fatima bint Asad, make wide the place wherein she enters through the intercession of me, Thy Prophet, and the Prophets who came before me. For Thou art the most merciful of those capable of having mercy.4
This is the intercession that belongs to the Prophet, on him be peace. As for seeking the help of someone other than Allah, it smacks of idolatry; for the Prophet commanded his cousin `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas not to ask of anyone to help him other than Allah.”5
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: May Allah cause you to prosper, O faqih! As for the advice which the Prophet — on him be peace — gave to his cousin Ibn Abbas, he wanted him to draw near to Allah not through his familial relationship to the Prophet but through his knowledge. With regard to your understanding of istighatha as being seeking the aid of someone other than Allah which is idolatry, I ask you: Is there any Muslim possessed of real faith and believing in Allah and His Prophet who thinks there is someone other than Allah who has autonomous power over events and who is able to carry out what He has willed with regard to them? Is there any true believer who believes that there is someone who can reward him for his good deeds and punish him for his bad ones other than Allah?
Besides this, we must consider that there are expressions which should not be taken just in their literal sense. This is not because of fear of associating a partner with Allah and in order to block the means to idolatry. For whoever seeks help from the Prophet only seeks his power of intercession with Allah as when you yourself say: “This food satisfies my appetite.” Does the food itself satisfy your appetite? Or is it the case that it is Allah who satisfies your appetite through the food?
As for your statement that Allah has forbidden Muslims to call upon anyone other than Himself in seeking help, have you actually seen any Muslim calling on someone other than Allah? The verse you cite from the Qur’an was revealed concerning the idolaters and those who used to call on their false gods and ignore Allah. Whereas, the only way Muslims seek the help of the Prophet is in the sense of tawassul or seeking a means, by virtue of the privilege he has received from Allah (bi haqqihi `inda Allah), and tashaffu` or seeking intercession, by virtue of the power of intercession which Allah has bestowed on him.
As for your pronouncement that istighatha or seeking help is forbidden in the Shari`a because it can lead to idolatry, if this is the case, then we ought also to prohibit grapes because they are means to making wine, and to castrate unmarried men because not to do so leaves in the world a means to commit fornication and adultery.”
At the latter comment both the shaykhs laughed. Ibn `Ata Allah continued: “I am acquainted with the all-inclusiveness and foresight of the legal school founded by your Shaykh, Imam Ahmad, and know the comprehensiveness of your own legal theory and about its principle of blocking the means to evil (sadd al-dhara’i`) as well as the sense of moral obligation a man of your proficiency in Islamic jurisprudence and integrity must feel. But I realize also that your knowledge of language demands that you search out the hidden meanings of words which are often shrouded behind their obvious senses. As for the Sufis, meaning for them is like a spirit, and the words themselves are like its body. You must penetrate deeply into what is behind the verbal body in order to seize the deeper reality of the word’s spirit.
Now you have found a basis in your ruling against Ibn `Arabi in the Fusus al-hikam, the text of which has been tampered with by his opponents not only with things he did not say, but with statements he could not even have intended saying (given the character of his Islam). When Shaykh al-Islam al-`Izz ibn `Abd al-Salam understood what Shaykh Ibn `Arabi had actually said and analyzed, grasped and comprehended the real meaning of his symbolic utterances, he asked Allah’s pardon for his former opinion about the Shaykh and acknowledged that Muhyiddin ibn `Arabi was an Imam of Islam.6
As for the statement of al-Shadhili against Ibn Arabi, you should know that Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili is not the person who said it but one of the students of the Shadhiliyya. Furthermore, in making this statement that student was talking about some of the followers of Shadhili. Thus, his words were taken in a fashion he himself never intended.
“What do you think about the Commander of the Faithful, Sayyidina `Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him?”
Ibn Taymiyya: In the hadith the Prophet, on him be peace, said: “I am the city of knowledge and `Ali is its door.”7 Sayyidina `Ali is the one mujahid who never went out to battle except to return victoriously. What scholar or jurist who came after him struggled for the sake of Allah using tongue, pen and sword at the same time? He was a most accomplished Companion of the Prophet — may Allah honor his countenance. His words are a radiant lamp which have illumined me during the entire course of my life after the Qur’an and Sunna. Ah! one who is ever short of provision and long in his journeying.
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: Now, did Imam `Ali ask anyone to take his side in a faction? For this faction has claimed that the Angel Gabriel made a mistake and delivered the revelation to Muhammad — on him be peace instead of `Ali! Or did he ask them to claim that Allah had become incarnate in his body and the Imam had become divine? Or did he not fight and slay them and give a fatwa (legal opinion) that they should be killed wherever they were found?
Ibn Taymiyya: “On the basis of this very fatwa, I went out to fight them in the mountains of Syria for more than ten years.
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: And Imam Ahmad — may Allah be pleased with him — questioned the actions of some of his followers who were in the habit of going on patrols, breaking open casks of wine (in the shops of their Christian vendors or wherever they find them), spilling their contents on the floor, beating up singing girls, and confronting people in the street. All of this they did in the name of enjoining good and prohibiting what is forbidden. However, the Imam had not given any fatwa that they should censure or rebuke all those people. Consequently, these followers of his were flogged, thrown into jail, and paraded mounted on assback facing the tail.
Now, is Imam Ahmad himself responsible for the bad behavior which the worst and most vicious Hanbalis continue to perpetrate right down to our own day, in the name of enjoining good and prohibiting what is forbidden?
All this is to say that Shaykh Muhyiddin Ibn `Arabi is innocent with respect to what those of his followers do who absolve people of legal and moral obligations set down by the religion and from committing deeds that are prohibited. Do you not see this?
Ibn Taymiyya: “But where do they stand with respect to Allah? Among you Sufis are those who assert that when the Prophet — on him be peace — gave glad tidings to the poor and said that they would enter paradise before the rich, the poor fell into ecstasy and began to tear their garments into pieces; that at that moment the Angel Gabriel descended from heaven and said to the Prophet that Allah had sought his rightful portion from among these torn garments; and that the Angel Jibril carried one of them and hung it on Allah’s throne. For this reason, they claim, Sufis wear patchworked garments and call themselves fuqara’ or the “poor”!
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: “Not all Sufis wear patchworked vests and clothing. Here I am before you: what do you disapprove of in my appearance?”
Ibn Taymiyya: “You are from the men of Shari`a and teach in al-Azhar.”
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: “al-Ghazali was equally an Imam both in Shari`a and tasawwuf. He treated legal rulings, the Sunna, and the Shari’a with the spirit of the Sufi. And by applying this method he was able to revive the religious sciences. We know that tasawwuf recognizes that what is sullied has no part in religion and that cleanliness has the character of faith. The true and sincere sufi must cultivate in his heart the faith recognized by the Ahl al-Sunna.
Two centuries ago the very phenomena of pseudo-Sufis appeared which you yourself criticize and reject. There were persons who sought to diminish the performance of worship and religious obligations, lighten fasting and belittle the five daily prayers. They ran wild into the vast arenas of sloth and heedlessness, claiming that they had been liberated from the shackles of the slavery of divine worship. Not satisfied with their own vile deeds until they have claimed intimations of the most extravagent realities and mystical states just as Imam al-Qushayri himself described in his well-known Risala, which he directed against them. He also set down in detail what constituted the true path to Allah, which consists in taking a firm hold upon the Qur’an and the Sunna. The Imams of tasawwuf desire to arrive at the true reality not only by means of rational evidences thought up by the human mind which are capable of being false as well as true, but by means of purifying the heart and purging the ego through a course of spiritual exercises. They cast aside concerns for the life of this world inasmuch as the true servant of Allah does not busy himself with anything else except love of Allah and His Prophet. This is a high order of business and one which makes a servant pious and healthy and prosperous. It is an occupation that reforms those things that corrupt the human creature, such as love of money and ambition for personal standing in society. However, it is an order of business which is constituted by nothing less than spiritual warfare for the sake of Allah.
My learned friend, interpreting texts according to their literal meanings can sometimes land a person in error. Literalism is what has caused your judgments about Ibn `Arabi who is one of the Imams of our faith known for his scrupulous piety. You have understood what he wrote in a superficial fashion; whereas sufis are masters of literary figures which intimate much deeper meanings, hyperbolic language that indicates heightened spiritual awareness and words which convey secrets concerning the realm of the unseen.”
Ibn Taymiyya: “This argument is against you, not in your favor. For when Imam al-Qushayri saw his followers deviating from the path to Allah he took steps to improve them. What do the sufi shaykhs in our day do? I only ask that Sufis follow the path of the Sunna of these great and pious ancestors of our faith (Salaf): the ascetics (zuhhad) among the Companions, the generation which suceeded them, and the generation that followed in their footsteps to their best! Whoever acts in this way I esteem him highly and consider him to be an Imam of the religion. As for unwarranted innovation and the insertion of the ideas of idolaters such as the Greek philosophers and the Indian Buddhists, or like the idea that man can incarnate Allah (hulul) or attain unity with Him (ittihad), or the theory that all existence is one in being (wahdat al-wujud) and other such things to which your Shaykh summons people: this is clearly godlessness and unbelief.”
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: “Ibn `Arabi was one of the greatest of the jurists who followed the school of Dawud al-Zahiri after Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, who is close to your methodology in Islamic law, O Hanbalis! But although Ibn `Arabi was a Zahiri (i.e. a literalist in matters of Islamic law), the method he applied to understand ultimate reality (al-haqiqa) was to search out the hidden, spiritual meaning (tariq al-batin), that is, to purify the inward self (tathir al-batin).8 However, not all followers of the hidden are alike. In order that you not err or forget, repeat your reading of Ibn `Arabi with fresh understanding of his symbols and inspirations. You will find him to be very much like al-Qushayri. He has taken his path in tasawwuf under the umbrella of the Qur’an and Sunna just like the Proof of Islam, Shaykh al-Ghazali, who carried on debates about doctrinal differences in matters of creed and issues of worship but considered them occupations lacking in real value and benefit. He invited people to see that the love of Allah is the way of a proper servant of Allah with respect to faith.
Do you have anything to object to in this, O faqih? Or do you love the disputations of Islamic jurists? Imam Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, exercised extreme caution about such wrangling in matters of creed and used to say:
“Whenever a man enters into arguing about issues of creed it diminishes his faith.”
Similarly al-Ghazali said:
“The quickest means of drawing near to Allah is through the heart, not the body. I do not mean by heart this fleshy thing palpable to seeing, hearing, sight and touch. Rather, I have in mind the inner most secret of Allah himself the Exalted and Great which is imperceptible to sight or touch.”
Indeed, the Ahl al-Sunna are the very ones who named the Sufi shaykh al-Ghazali: “the Proof of Islam,”9 and there is no-one to gainsay his opinions even if one of the scholars has been excessive in praising his book when he said: “The Ihya’ `ulum al-din was almost a Qur’an.”10
The carrying out of religious obligation (taklif) in the view of Ibn `Arabi and Ibn al-Farid is a worship whose mihrab, or prayer-niche indicating the orientation of prayer, is its inward aspect, not merely its external ritual. For what is the good of you standing and sitting in prayer if your heart is preoccupied with something other than Allah. Allah praises people when He says in the Qur’an:
“Those who are humble in their prayer” (23:2)
and He blames peoples when He says:
“Those who are heedless in their prayer” (107:5).
This is what Ibn `Arabi means when he says:
“Worship is the mihrab of the heart, that is, the inward aspect of prayer not the outward.”
The Muslim is unable to arrive at the knowledge of certitude (`ilm al-yaqin) nor at certitude itself (`ayn al-yaqin) of which the Qur’an speaks unless he evacuates his heart from whatever distracts it in the way of wordly cravings and center himself on inward contemplation. Then the outpourings of Divine reality will fill his heart, and from there will spring his sustenance. The real sufi is not the one who derives his sustenace from asking and begging people for alms. The only one who is sincere is he who rouses his heart and spirit to self-obliteration in Allah by obedience to Allah. Perhaps Ibn `Arabi caused the jurists to rise up against him because of his contempt of their preoccupation with arguing and wrangling about credal matters, actual legal cases, and hypothetical legal situations, since he saw how much it distracted them from purifying the heart. He named them “the jurists of women’s menses.” May Allah grant you refuge from being among them! Have you read Ibn `Arabi’s statement that:
“Whoever builds his faith exclusively on demonstrative proofs and deductive arguments, builds a faith on which it is impossible to rely. For he is affected by the negativities of constant objections. Certainty (al-yaqin) does not derive from the evidences of the mind but pours out from the depths of the heart.” Have you ever read talk as pure and sweet as this?”
Ibn Taymiyya: “You have spoken well if only your master were as you say, for he would then be as far as possible from unbelief. But what he has said cannot sustain the meanings that you have given in my view.”11
1 Ibn `Ata Allah, Lata’if al-minan fi manaqib Abi al-`Abbas.on the margins of Sha`rani’s Lata’if al-minan wa al-akhlaq (Cairo, 1357) 2:17-18.
2 See Ibn al-`Imad, Shadharat al-dhahab (1350/1931) 6:20f.; al- Zirikly, al-A`lam (1405/1984) 1:221; Ibn Hajar, al-Durar al-kamina (1348/1929) 1:148-273; Al-Maqrizi, Kitab al-suluk (1934-1958) 2:40-94; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya (1351/1932) 14:45; Subki, Tabaqat al-shafi`iyya (1324/1906) 5:177f. and 9:23f.; Suyuti, Husn al-muhadara fi akhbar misr wa al-qahira (1299/) 1:301; al-Dawadari, al-Durr al-fakhir fi sirat al-malik al-Nasir (1960) p. 200f.; al-Yafi`i, Mir’at al-janan (1337/1918) 4:246; Sha`rani, al-Tabaqat al-kubra (1355/1936) 2:19f.; al-Nabahani, Jami` karamat al-awliya’ (1381/1962) 2:25f.
3 Bukhari and Muslim, hadith of Jabir: “I have been given five things which no prophet was given before me…”
4 al-Tabarani relates it in al-Kabir. Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim declare it sound. Ibn Abi Shayba on the authority of Jabir relates a similar narrative. Similar also is what Ibn `Abd Al-Barr on the authority of Ibn `Abbas and Abu Nu`aym in his Hilya on the authority of Anas Ibn Malik relate, as al-Hafiz al-Suyuti mentioned in the Jami` al-Kabir. Haythami says in Majma` al-zawa’id: “Tabarani’s chain contains Rawh ibn Salah who has some weakness but Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim declared him trustworthy. The rest of its sub-narrators are the men of sound hadith.” This Fatima is `Ali’s mother, who raised the Prophet.
5 Hadith: “O young man… if you have need to ask, ask of Allah. If you must seek help, seek help from Allah…” (ya ghulam ala u`allimuka…): Tirmidhi (#2516 hasan sahih); Bayhaqi in Asma’ wa al-sifat p. 75-76 and Shu`ab al-iman 2:27-28 (#1074-1075) and 7:203 (#10000); Ahmad 1:307; Tabarani; Ibn Hibban; Abu Dawud; al-Hakim; Nawawi included it in his 40 Hadiths (#19) but Ibn al-Jawzi placed it among the forgeries.
6 See al-`Izz ibn `Abd al-Salam al-Maqdisi’s Zabad khulasat al-tasawwuf (The quintessence of self-purification) (Tanta: al-matba`a al-yusufiyya). Published under the title Hall al-rumuz wa-mafatih al-kunuz (The explanation of symbols and the keys to treasures) (Cairo: al-maktab al-fanni li al-nashr, 1961). Note that this is a different author than Shaykh al-Islam al-`Izz ibn `Abd al-Salam al-Sulami.
7 From the Reliance of the Traveller p. 954-957: “(`Ali Qari:) The Hadith “I am the city of knowledge and `Ali is its gate” was mentioned by Tirmidhi… [who] said it was unacknowledgeable. Bukhari also said this, and said that it was without legitimate claim to authenticity. Ibn Ma`in said that it was a baseless lie, as did Abu Hatim and Yahya ibn Sa`id. Ibn Jawzi recorded it in his book of Hadith forgeries, and was confirmed by Dhahabi, and others in this. Ibn Daqiq al-`Eid said, “This Hadith is not confirmed by scholars, and is held by some to be spurious.” Daraqutni stated that it was uncorroborated. Ibn Hajar `Asqalani was asked about it and answered that it was well authenticated (hasan), not rigorously authenticated (sahih), as Hakim had said, but not a forgery (mawdu`), as Ibn Jawzi had said. This was mentioned by Suyuti. The Hadith master (hafiz) Abu Sa`id `Ala’i said, “The truth is that the Hadith is well authenticated (hasan), in view of its multiple means of transmission, being neither rigorously authenticated (sahih) nor weak (da`if), much less a forgery” (Risala al-mawdu`at, 26).”
8 This is a key equivalence in Ibn `Ata Allah’s Hikam, for example #205: “Sometimes lights come upon you and find the heart stuffed with forms of created things, so they go back from whence they descended.” Ibn `Ata’ Allah, Sufi Aphorisms (Kitab al-hikam), trans. Victor Danner (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1984) p. 53.
9 As illustrated by Salah al-Din al-Safadi for Ghazali’s entry in his biographical dictionary: “Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad, the Proof of Islam, the Ornament of the Faith, Abu Hamid al-Tusi…” al-Safadi, al-Wafi bi al-wafayat 1:274.
10 Ironically, a similar kind of praise on Ibn `Ata’ Allah’s own book al-Hikam is related on the authority of the great shaykh Mawlay al-`Arabi al-Darqawi by Ibn `Ajiba in Iqaz al-himam (p. 3-4): “I heard the jurist al-Bannani say: “The Hikam of Ibn `Ata’ is almost a revelation (wahy). Were it permitted to recite the daily prayer without the Qur’an, the words of the Hikam would be allowed.” He meant by this that there is nothing in the Hikam except what proceeds from the Qur’an and points back to it again, and Allah knows best.
11 In Muhammad Zaki Ibrahim, Usul al-wusul (Cairo: 1404/ 1984) 299-310.
“Reproduced with permission from Shaykh M. Hisham Kabbani’s
The Repudiation of “Salafi” Innovations (Kazi, 1996) p. 367-379.
Blessings and Peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions
kitab-kuneng
Para Ulama adalah Waritsatul Anbiya, maka pahamilah agama melalui karya-karyanya
Rabu, 23 Mei 2012
Dialog Syaikh al-Nabhani dengan Rasyid Ridha
Terkadang kelompok yang anti madzhab menggugat kita dengan pendapat sang pendiri madzhab atau para ulama dalam madzhab yang kita ikuti, seakan-akan mereka lebih konsisten dari kita dalam bermadzhab. Kaum Wahhabi ketika menggugat kita agar meninggalkan tahlilan dan selamatan tujuh hari selalu beralasan dengan pendapat al-Imam al-Syafi’i yang mengatakan bahwa hadiah pahala bacaan al-Qur’an tidak akan sampai kepada mayit, atau pendapat kitab I’anah al-Thalibin yang melarang acara selamatan tahlilan selama tujuh hari. Padahal selain al-Imam al-Syafi’i menyatakan sampai.
Kita kadang menjadi bingung menyikapi mereka. Terkadang mereka menggugat kita karena bermadzhab, yang mereka anggap telah meninggalkan al-Qur’an dan Sunnah. Dan terkadang mereka menggugat kita dengan pendapat imam madzhab dan para ulama madzhab. Padahal mereka sering menyuarakan anti madzhab.
Pada dasarnya kelompok anti madzhab itu bermadzhab. Hanya saja madzhab mereka berbeda dengan madzhab mayoritas kaum Muslimin. Ketika mereka menyuarakan anti tawassul, maka sebenarnya mereka mengikuti pendapat Ibn Taimiyah dan Ibn Abdil Wahhab al-Najdi. Sedangkan kaum Muslimin yang bertawassul, mengikuti Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam, para sahabat, seluruh ulama salaf dan ahli hadits.
Ketika mereka menyuarakan shalat tarawih 11 raka’at, maka sebenarnya mereka mengikuti pendapat Nashiruddin al-Albani, seorang tukang jam yang beralih profesi menjadi muhaddits tanpa bimbingan seorang guru, dengan belajar secara otodidak di perpustakaan. Sedangkan kaum Muslimin yang tarawih 23 raka’at, mengikuti Sayidina Umar, para sahabat dan seluruh ulama salaf yang saleh yang tidak diragukan keilmuannya.
Ketika mereka menyuarakan anti madzhab, maka sebenarnya mereka mengikuti Rasyid Ridha, Muhammad Abduh dan Ibn Abdil Wahhab. Sedangkan kaum Muslimin yang bermadzhab, mengikuti ulama salaf dan seluruh ahli hadits. Demikian pula ketika mereka menyuarakan anti bid’ah hasanah, maka sebenarnya mereka mengikuti madzhab Rasyid Ridha dan Ibn Abdil Wahhab al-Najdi. Sedangkan kaum Muslimin yang berpendapat adanya bid’ah hasanah, mengikuti Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam, Khulafaur Rasyidin, para sahabat, ulama salaf dan ahli hadits. Syaikh Muhammad Rasyid Ridha, termasuk orang pertama yang sangat kencang menyuarakan anti madzhab, dengan menulis karyanya al-Wahdat al-Islamiyyah fi al-Madzahib al-Fiqhiyyah. Akan tetapi, secara terus terang, ia mengikuti pemikiran Syaikh Muhammad Abduh al-Gharabili. Kedua nama ini, Rasyid Ridha dan Muhammad Abduh, serta Syaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab al-Najdi, pendiri aliran Wahhabi, sebenarnya yang menjadi imam madzhab beberapa aliran dan kelompok keagamaan yang anti madzhab di Indonesia.
Ada dialog menarik untuk dikutip di sini, berkaitan dengan bermadzhab. Yaitu dialog antara Syaikh Yusuf bin Ismail al-Nabhani al-Syafi’i, seorang ulama besar yang sangat populer, dengan Syaikh Muhammad Rasyid Ridha, seorang ulama Salafi yang menyuarakan anti madzhab.
Dalam mukaddimah kitab al-’Uqud al-Lu’luiyyah fi al-Madaih al-Nabawiyyah, Syaikh Yusuf bin Ismail al-Nabhani berkata: “Ketika saya berkumpul dengan Syaikh Rasyid Ridha, saya berdialog dengannya tentang pribadi Syaikh Muhammad Abduh, gurunya. Saya berkata: “Kalian menjadikan Syaikh Muhammad Abduh sebagai panutan dalam agama kalian, dan kalian mengajak manusia untuk mengikuti kalian. Ini jelas tidak benar. Syaikh Muhammad Abduh itu bukan orang yang konsisten memelihara kewajiban-kewajiban agama. Ia tidak sah menjadi panutan dalam agama. Sebagaimana dimaklumi dan diakui oleh semua orang, Abduh seringkali meninggalkan shalat fardhu tanpa ada uzur. Saya sendiri pernah menemaninya dari pagi hari sampai menjelang maghrib, di rumah seorang laki-laki yang mengundang kami di Jabal Lebanon. Abduh tidak shalat zhuhur dan ashar, tanpa ada uzur. Bahkan ia sehat sekali. Dan ia melihat saya shalat zhuhur dan ashar, tetapi ia tidak melakukannya.” Mendengar pernyataan saya, Syaikh Rasyid Ridha mengakui bahwa Abduh memang sering meninggalkan shalat fardhu tanpa ada uzur. Akan tetapi Rasyid Ridha masih membelanya dengan memberikan jawaban: “Barangkali madzhab beliau membolehkan jama’ shalat di rumah (fi al-hadhar).”Saya merasa heran dengan jawaban Rasyid ini. Karena jama’ shalat itu hanya dibolehkan dalam bepergian, ketika turun hujan dan sedang sakit menurut sebagian imam mujtahid, antara zhuhur dan ashar, serta antara maghrib dan isya’, sebagaimana hadits shahih dari Nabi shallallahu alaihi wasallam. Dan tidak seorang pun dari kalangan ulama berpendapat bahwa zhuhur dan ashar boleh dijama’ dengan maghrib dan isya’. Oleh karena itu, kami sulit menerima jawaban Rasyid Ridha. Saya berkata kepada Syaikh Rasyid Ridha: “Lagi pula Syaikh Muhammad Abduh tidak pernah menunaikan ibadah haji ke baitullah di tanah suci, padahal ia mampu melakukannya. Dengan kemampuan yang ia miliki, berupa kekuatan fisik dan finansial, ia seringkali pergi ke Paris, London dan negara-negara Eropa lainnya. Tidak pernah terlintas dalam benaknya untuk menunaikan ibadah haji, padahal negaranya dekat dengan Makkah. Jadi tidak diragukan lagi, bahwa ia telah memikul dosa yang sangat besar dan meninggalkan salah satu rukun Islam”.
Lalu saya berkata kepada Syaikh Rasyid Ridha: “Semua orang sepakat bahwa Syaikh Muhammad Abduh dan gurunya, Syaikh Jamaluddin al-Afghani, masuk dalam organisasi Masoni. Organisasi ini tidak ada kaitannya sama sekali dengan agama Islam. Bahkan organisasi ini menolak semua agama, anti semua pemerintahan, baik keagamaan maupun yang bukan. Bagaimana mungkin Syaikh Muhammad Abduh menjadi panutan dalam agama Islam, padahal ia seorang Masoni. Demikian pula gurunya.”Mendengar pertanyaan saya, Syaikh Rasyid Ridha menjawab: “Saya kan tidak ikut organisasi Masoni.” Saya berkata: “Seandainya kalian berkata bahwa Syaikh Muhammad Abduh itu seorang filosof Islam, seperti halnya Ibn Sina dan al-Farabi, tentu kami dapat menerima, meskipun kenyataannya tidak demikian. Karena hal itu tidak berdampak negatif pada kami dan agama kami. Adapun ketika ia termasuk orang yang paling fasiq sebab meninggalkan rukun-rukun Islam, lalu kalian berpendapat bahwa ia seorang imam (panutan) dalam agama Islam, tentu hal ini merupakan kemungkaran yang tidak akan diterima oleh orang yang berakal.”Mendengar pernyataan saya, Syaikh Rasyid Ridha berkata: “Kami tidak menganggap Syaikh Muhammad Abduh seperti Ibn Sina. Akan tetapi kami menganggapnya seperti al-Imam al-Ghazali.”
Rasyid Ridha ini memang orang yang sesat dan keras kepala. Ia mengakui kalau Muhammad Abduh itu meninggalkan shalat dan haji serta menjadi anggota Masoni. Tetapi, ia masih menyamakannya dengan al-Imam al-Ghazali. Sebenarnya, setiap orang dari kelompok Wahhabi atau anti madzhab ini, meyakini bahwa dirinya lebih hebat dari pada al-Imam al-Ghazali. Karena kelompok mereka, baik yang besar maupun yang kecil, semuanya mengklaim sebagai mujtahid muthlaq. Sedangkan al-Ghazali sendiri tidak mengklaim sebagai mujtahid muthlaq, sebagaimana beliau jelaskan dalam Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din.
Orang-orang Wahhabi atau anti madzhab itu, masing-masing menganggap dirinya selevel imam madzhab yang empat radhiyallahu anhum. Perasaan ini begitu menancap dalam benak mereka. Nasehat tidak akan mempan bagi mereka. Mereka selalu berusaha agar orang lain mengikuti mereka, menjadi mujtahid muthlaq. Demikian komentar Syaikh Yusuf bin Ismail al-Nabhani dengan disederhanakan.
(sumber : buku pintar berdebat dengan Wahabi, oleh Muhammad Idrus Ramli)
Diposkan oleh Tgk Alizar Usman di 23.47
CATATAN :
tulisan dalam blog ini
bebas utk disebarkan
baik dlm bentuk copi
paste/lainnya, namun
diharuskan menyebut
sumbernya.
Mengenai Saya
Tgk Alizar Usman
Tapaktuan, Aceh, Indonesia
Riwayat pendidikan : Dayah/Pesantren Darul Muarrif Lam-Ateuk Aceh Besar (1986-1996),- S1, Fak. Syari'ah IAIN ar-Raniry (1996-2000),- S2, Ilmu Hukum USU (2000-2003)
XIII. QUESTIONS ON FASTING AND VOLUNTARY WORSHIP IN THE MONTHS OF RAJAB AND SHA`BAN
The "Salafis" try to prevent the people from treating the night of isra' and mi`raj on 27 Rajab and the night of mid-Sha`ban (laylat al-bara'a) as special. They claim that honoring these nights are innovations that must not be allowed. Yet practically all Muslims hold these two nights in high esteem and consider it good, not blameworthy, to celebrate or commemorate them through gathering, feeding the people, reciting Qur'an and Sira, reading hadith, performing supererogatory prayers etc.
"Salafi" literature also abounds with condemnations of those who fast in Rajab. Since many pious Muslims are known to fast the three blessed months of Rajab, Sha`ban, and Ramadan in a row as far back as can be remembered, and like to offer voluntary worship and invocation (du`a) on the nights of 27 Rajab and 15 Sha`ban, I wanted to confirm that these are recommended in the fiqh of Ahl al-Sunna, not blameworthy, and what is the evidence for either position?
FASTING RAJAB, SHA`BAN, AND
THE REST OF THE HOLY MONTHS
It is recommended to fast the months of Rajab and Sha`ban as a nafila or supererogatory worship, with the intention of following the Sunna of the Prophet who has established the merit of this fast. As for extra devotions on certain nights of Rajab and Sha`ban there are no grounds for prohibiting them as the "Salafis" try to do, and only those with a deficient understanding or faith would object to increasing remembrance of Allah on such nights as laylat al-isra' or 15 Sha`ban.
The following paragraph is a translation of `Abd al-Rahman al-Jaziri's chapter entitled "Fasting Rajab, Sha`ban, and the Rest of the Holy Months" in his book al-Fiqh `ala al-madhahib al-arba`a (Islamic law according to the Four Schools):
Fasting the months of Rajab and Sha`ban is recommended (mandub) as agreed upon by three of the Imams, while the Hanbalis differed in that they said fasting Rajab singly is disliked, except if one breaks the fast during it then it is not disliked. Regarding the holy months -- Dhul Qi`da, Dhul Hijja, Muharram, and Rajab -- fasting them is recommended according to three of the Imams, while the Hanafis differed in that they said what is recommended in the Holy months is to fast three days from each of them, which are Thursday, Friday and Saturday.[1]
Hadiths on Rajab
1. In Muslim, Abu Dawud, and Ahmad: `Uthman ibn Hakim al-Ansari said: I asked Sa`id ibn Jubayr about fasting in Rajab, and we were then passing through the month of Rajab, whereupon he said:
I heard Ibn `Abbas saying: "The Messenger of Allah used to observe fast so continuously that we thought he would never break it, and at other times he remained without fasting so continuously that we thought he would never fast."[2]
Imam Nawawi commented on this:
It appears that the meaning inferred by Sa`id ibn Jubayr from Ibn `Abbas's report is that fasting in Rajab is neither forbidden nor considered praiseworthy in itself, rather, the ruling concerning it is the same as the rest of the months.
This is also the commentary of Qastallani in al-Mawahib al-laduniyya.[3] Nawawi continues:
Neither prohibition nor praiseworthiness has been established for the month of Rajab in itself, however, the principle concerning fasting is that it is praiseworthy in itself, and in the Sunan of Abu Dawud[4] the Prophet has made the fasting of the sacred months praiseworthy, and Rajab is one of them. And Allah knows best.[5]
It is established, on the one hand, that Ibn `Umar fasted during the sacred months,[6] and on the other, that he fasted all year as shown by the following hadith.
2. In Muslim, Ibn Majah, and (partly) Ahmad: `Abd Allah, the freed slave of Asma' the daughter of Abu Bakr, the maternal uncle of the son of `Ata', reported:
Asma' sent me to Abdullah ibn `Umar saying: "The news has reached me that you prohibit the use of three things: the striped robe, saddle cloth made of red silk, and fasting the whole month of Rajab." Abdullah said to me: "So far as what you say about fasting in the month of Rajab, how about one who observes continuous fasting? And so far as what you say about the striped garment, I heard `Umar ibn al-Khattab say that he had heard from Allah's Messenger: "He who wears a silk garment, has no share for him (in the Hereafter)." And I am afraid that stripes were part of it. And so far as the red saddle cloth is concerned, here is my saddle cloth and it is red. I went back to Asma' and informed her, so she said: "Here is the cloak (jubba) of Allah's Messenger," and she brought out to me that cloak made of Persian cloth with a hem of (silk) brocade, and its sleeves bordered with (silk) brocade, and said: "This was Allah's Messenger's cloak with `A'isha until she died, then I took possession of it. The Apostle of Allah used to wear that, and we washed it for the sick so that they could seek healing with it."[7]
Nawawi commented on the above:
Ibn `Umar's reply concerning fasting in Rajab is a denial on his part of what Asma' had heard with regard to his forbidding it, and it is an affirmation that he fasted Rajab in its entirety as well as fasting permanently, i.e. except the days of `Id and tashriq.[8] This (perpetual fast) is his way and the way of his father `Umar ibn al-Khattab, `A'isha, Abu Talha, and others of the Salaf as well as Shafi`i and other scholars: their position is that perpetual fasting is not disliked (makruh).
Ibn Qudama states something similar in al-Mughni concerning perpetual fasting and adds that the same view is related from Ahmad and Malik, and that after the Prophet's death Abu Talha fasted permanently for forty years, among other Companions.[9] Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in al-Khayrat al-hisan similarly relates that Abu Hanifa was never seen eating except at night.[10]
Nawawi adds:
In this hadith is a proof that it is recommended to seek blessings through the relics of the righteous and their clothes (wa fi hadha al-hadith dalil `ala istihbab al-tabarruk bi athar al-salihin wa thiyabihim).[11]
3. Bayhaqi relates in Shu`ab al-iman and Abu Nu`aym in al-Targhib:
Abu `Abd Allah al-Hafiz and
Abu Muhammad ibn Abi Hamid al-Muqri said:
from Abu al-`Abbas al-Asamm,
from Ibrahim ibn Sulayman al-Barlisi,
from Abdallah ibn Yusuf,
from `Amir ibn Shibl who said:
I heard Abu Qilaba say: "There is a palace in Paradise for those who fast the month of Rajab."[12]
Bayhaqi comments:
Even if it is mawquf at Abu Qilaba (i.e. not traced back to the Prophet) who is one of the Successors (d. 104) such as he does not say such a saying except if it were related to him by someone who had heard it from him to whom revelation comes (i.e. the Prophet), and success is from Allah.
Commentaries
Those who object to fasting part or all of Rajab and Sha`ban cite the following:
a) `Umar's punishment of the mutarajjibun -- those who fasted the month of Rajab according to a practice carried over from the Jahiliyya -- by striking their hands until they broke their fast.
However, this does not constitute a valid objection as `Umar's act was solely due to some people's emphasis of Rajab -- which used to be fasted during the Jahiliyya -- over Ramadan as the fasting month. This is clearly not feared for present-day Muslims. There was also a sacrifice named rajabiyya performed in that month, a practice carried over from the Jahiliyya. Several hadiths in Abu Dawud and Ahmad show that it became obligatory in Islam until the obligation was abrogated. Certain pre-Islamic remnants were fought even in the time of `Umar, as is shown by the latter's uprooting of a tree for fear of its veneration by some people.
It must be understood that Umar never said "Don't fast," rather, he said: "Break your fast," i.e. do not complete it as you would be obliged to if it were Ramadan. And no one fasted Rajab and Sha`ban completely, this was reserved for Ramadan. However, if someone makes the intention to fast Rajab and Sha`ban completely, it is permitted in the Shari`a, with the understanding that it is mustahabb to break it shortly before Ramadan begins.
Ibn Qudama states in al-Mughni:
It is disliked that Rajab be singled out for fasting. Ahmad said: "If a man fasts during that month, let him break the fast for one day in it, or several, just so as not to fast it all."
The reason for this is what Ahmad has narrated with his chains:
· from Kharasha ibn al-Hurr: I saw `Umar striking the hands of the mutarajjibin until they helped themselves to the food, and he would say: "Eat! For it is only a month which the Jahiliyya used to magnify";
· from `Abd Allah ibn `Umar that he would dislike to see the people make preparations for Rajab and would say: "Fast some of it and break fast some of it";
· from Ibn `Abbas, something similar;
· from Abu Bakrah: He saw his household preparing new baskets and clay jugs and said: "What is this?" They said: "For Rajab, so that we may fast it." He said: "Did you change Rajab into Ramadan?" Then he took apart the baskets and broke the jugs.
And Imam Ahmad said: "Whoever fasts all year round may fast all of Rajab. Otherwise, let him not fast all of it but only some of it so that he will not liken it to Ramadan."[13]
The above makes it clear that:
- Singling out the month of Rajab for fasting is not forbidden, but is at worst disliked;
- It is not even disliked as long as one's fast is broken to the extent that the similitude with the month of Ramadan is eliminated;
- Even unbroken fast is not disliked if the person fasts all year round.
b) Others cite Sayyid Sabiq's statement in Fiqh as-Sunnah:
Fasting during Rajab contains no more virtue than during any other month. There is no sound report from the sunnah that states that it has a special reward. All that has been related concerning it is not strong enough to be used as a proof. Ibn Hajar says: "There is no authentic hadith related to its virtues, nor fasting during it or on certain days of it, nor concerning exclusively making night prayers during that month."[14]
The opinion of Sayyid Sabiq whereby "Fasting during Rajab contains no more virtue than during any other month" etc. is certainly incorrect in view of the fact that Rajab is a sacred month, and the Prophet emphasized the merit of fasting in the sacred months and in Sha`ban. This is established by Nawawi's commentary of the hadith of Sa`id ibn Jubayr in Muslim cited above, as well as the following hadiths:
1. In Abu Dawud and Bayhaqi: From Mujiba al-Bahiliyya who reported that her father or uncle was told by the Prophet three times: "Fast some and leave some in the sacred months."[15]
2. In Ahmad: From Usama ibn Zayd: "O Messenger of Allah... I never saw you fast any month (besides Ramadan) as much as you fast during the month of Sha`ban." He said: "The people become inattentive during that month between Rajab and Ramadan (i.e. between two great months), and it is a month in which actions are raised to the Lord of the worlds, therefore I like that my actions be raised while I am fasting."[16]
3. In Bukhari and Muslim from `A'isha: "The Prophet used to fast the whole of Sha`ban but for a little."
4. In Muslim from Abu Hurayra, the Prophet said: "The best month to fast after Ramadan is Muharram."
As for the hafiz Ibn Hajar's opinion it only applies to the pure singling out of the month of Rajab at the exclusion of Ramadan, or Sha`ban, or the sacred months, or the rest of the entire year, because there is no basis for singling out these cases. His opinion therefore does not provide a basis for the claim of the objectors that fasting during Rajab is forbidden or that it is an innovation: for neither the Imams of the fours schools, nor Bayhaqi, nor Nawawi, nor Ibn Hajar, nor even Sayyid Sabiq have claimed this! Furthermore, there is also no sound hadith from the Prophet forbidding the fast of Rajab or disavowing its merit.
c) As for those who object by quoting the hadith in Bukhari and Muslim whereby the Prophet emphasized that the one who fasts all his life has not fasted, then their understanding of this hadith is diametrically opposed to that of the Companions and the Salaf, Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi`i, and Ahmad, who did not dislike perpetual fasting as long as it did not include the days of `Id and tashriq.
d) As for the narration from Ibn `Abbas whereby the Prophet forbade the fast of Rajab, then only Ibn Majah reports it, with a chain containing Dawud ibn `Ata' al-Muzani concerning whom Buhakri, Ibn Abi Hatim, and Abu Zur`a said: "His hadith is rejected" (munkar al-hadith), and Nisa'i declared him da`if, and Ahmad said: "He is nothing." The chain also contains Abu Ayyub Sulayman ibn `Ali al-Hashimi about whom Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Qattan said: "His case is not known," although Ibn Hibban declared him trustworthy, but Ibn Hibban's leniency in this is known.
e) As for the hadiths in Tirmidhi, Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and Darimi concerning the Prophet's injunction to refrain from fasting in the second half of Sha`ban, then as Tirmidhi explained it applies to those who would deliberately intend to fast only then: it should not be done in view of the proximity of the month of Ramadan. As for those who were fasting before, then they may fast in the second half of Sha`ban.
In conclusion, it is at the very least allowed to fast Rajab and Sha`ban in part or in whole, and we say it is recommended, as the clarity of the intention to follow the Sunna and the knowledge that only the fast of Ramadan is obligatory, preclude the reprehensibility of those who used to honor Rajab in rivalry with Ramadan. Sufficient proof of the month of Rajab's status as a great month lies in the fact that it is the month of the Prophet's rapture and ascension to his Lord (al-isra' wa al-mi`raj), and they are blessed who commemorate this month and that night for the sake of Allah's favor to His Prophet and the Community of His Prophet. And Allah knows best.[17]
