The benefit of the deceased from the work of others and the problem of the updated Salafism (1)

I finally came across a video clip of a member of Salafism denying those who read the Qur'an and then dedicating its reward to the Muslim deceased, and the author of the video asserted that the deceased does not benefit from that, and challenged anyone to come up with proof of that!

Although the dispute – in this matter – with its evidence dates back centuries, this kind of radical denial with the denial that there is evidence, and with the innovation of everyone who does so is newly established in my opinion, it appeared with the Salafi and Wahhabi trends in the modern era, which led the idea of fighting heresies and claimed adherence to texts and the work of the first Sadr, and separated itself from the Islamic tradition and the inherited work in favor of an imagined predecessor, although the doctrine of Ahmad ibn Hanbal himself that reading the Qur'an Giving it to the deceased voluntarily without remuneration reaches him, as does the reward for fasting and pilgrimage. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (751 AH) lengthened this and its evidence, but modern Salafists, including Rashid Rida, approach the heritage of Ahmad, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibn al-Qayyim very selectively.

This type of sharp denial of the issue of reading the Qur'an and dedicating it to the deceased began with Rashid Rida, who had a good relationship with the imams of the Wahhabi call, and contributed to the publication of her books in Egypt in the early twentieth century, and had a tangible impact on some of the Salafi groups emerging in Egypt at the time, and this innovative and borderline tendency continued among contemporary Wahhabi sheikhs such as Abdul Aziz bin Baz (1999), Abdul Mohsen Al-Abbad and others. While the fatwas of the "Islamic Network" were troubled on the issue, in some of them they followed Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, whose Hanbali school of thought was based on the permissibility of reading and the arrival of its reward to the deceased (a fatwa dated the fourth of Ramadan 1423 AH, and a fatwa dated the first of Muharram 1427 AH), and in others it followed Ibn Baz and his Wahhabi way of fiqh (fatwa dated 11 Rajab 1429 AH).

I believe that this issue is typical for study and analysis, because it diagnoses the different approaches to jurisprudence on the one hand, and explains part of the history of the break with the pluralistic jurisprudential tradition on the other hand, which is what the modern Salafism sought, which cooperated with Wahhabism in striking the jurisprudential tradition and its methodology and spread a kind of intellectual and social tensions that lacked two central elements:

• The coherent scientific methodology that was available for the jurisprudential tradition.
• Tolerance of religious pluralism in that it wants to reshape social religious practice according to its updated convictions.

To illustrate this, I will devote 3 articles:

In the first article: I show the history of the modern problem of the issue of the deceased benefiting from the work of others by gifting the reward to him, and how this problem stores the methodology of modern Salafism, which is one of the most prominent features that it narrows the jurisprudential dispute and possible interpretations of the text, to support a single understanding unlike the jurisprudential tradition, which was constantly pluralistic.

In the second article: I present a critique of Rashid Rida's methodology in dealing with the issue, and how his tendencies and convictions made him selective, as he employed rhetorical techniques in order to prevail in the discussion, and did not adhere to what is imposed by the jurisprudential mentality and its scientific traditions, but he used them to serve his idea only, and accuse - nevertheless - his opponents of following the passion in the context of his campaign against those he calls imitators!

As for the third article, I will show the methodology of the jurists of the schools of thought in dealing with the issue and their perceptions in it, so that the differences between the updated Salafi path in jurisprudence (whether in dealing with texts or inherited work) become clear, and the methodology of jurisprudential tradition, which is characterized by rigor and consistency, and generations of scholars who have ruled the origins and branches, rationalized the perceptions of rulings and understood the different perceptions of view.

History of the complaint

As for the history of the problem of the deceased's use of the work of others, the discussion was restored in the twenties of the twentieth century in the form of a correction reported by Rashid Rida on the interpretation of a verse: (Do not visit another button and button), and elaborated in the denigration to read about the deceased and those who say that the reward has reached him and accused them of various charges.

Then on the ninth of Dhu al-Hijjah 1347 AH, Muhammad Ahmad Abd al-Salam al-Hawamdi (founder of the Salafi Society that raised the slogan "Reviving the Sunnah of Muhammadiyah" in the Hawamdiya area) sent him a number of questions, including: Is reading the Qur'an and dedicating its reward to the dead legitimate or not? Interestingly, the young Hawamdi has exaggerated very much – in his speech – to Rashid Rida, describing him as "the mufti of the people, the sheikh of the sheikhs of Islam, the imam of the prominent imams, the revival of the Sunnah and the effects of the predecessors, and the deadly heresy and the views of the successor"; Then published Hawamdi -after that- a message under the title "Sunan and innovations related to remembrances and prayers", praised – in the introduction – on Rashid Rida, then read Rashid Rida – in turn – this message in the magazine Al-Manar in Shaaban 1353 e, and said among what he said, "As for the Salafi Assembly Balhawamdiyah; it is characterized by the work of its president books of hadith and the call to guide them, and the command of virtue and the prevention of vice evidence books of the Sunnah", and then it came to be allocated "Islamic Network" translation of Hawamdi within its fatwas, and quoted in which The words of Rashid Rida in it and described him as Sheikh Allam.

These data refer to an attempt to build a new tradition in the face of the doctrinal jurisprudential tradition, claiming direct reliance on evidence and the authority of the predecessors. The aforementioned book of al-Hawamdi was printed in several editions during the twentieth century, starting in the early thirties, and some of its editions were commented on by Muhammad Hamid al-Fiqi (d. 1959), founder of Ansar al-Sunna al-Muhammadiyah, and Muhammad Khalil Haras (1975), also a prominent member of it.

The recent debate on the issue has been characterized by two central features: first, it has taken a radical and sharp stance that does not tolerate difference or pluralism, and second, a lack of doctrinal consistency.

Al-Hawamdi concluded – in his letter – by saying: "He knew – definitively – that reading for the dead and against them is not permissible and does not benefit them, so reading that is now known has become a heresy ... This was not quoted from any of the Companions... The chapter on kinship is limited to texts, and it is not disposed of by the types of measurements and opinions. As for supplication and charity, that is unanimous on their arrival, and it is stipulated by the street for them... It is narrated that Imam Ahmad said: If you enter the cemeteries, read the opening of the Book and the two mu'awdhatin and (Say, Allah is one) and make the reward for that to the people of the cemeteries, as it reaches them, it was not true in the first place. As well as a narration: Whoever passes by the tombs and recites (Say, Allah is One) eleven times and then gives his reward to the dead, he will be given from the reward the number of the dead, which is false, and not from the words of the prophecy or from the words of the companions of the Prophet definitively. What is narrated from Ibn Amr is that he recommended to read at his head the opening and conclusion of the cow, this was not mentioned in one of the approved books, but it is in the books of the Wahiyat such as the book of the ticket of Al-Qurtubi ... And the hadith: Whoever enters the cemeteries and recites Surah Yasin, may Allah relieve them, has no basis in the books of the Sunnah ... All these news and effects are abnormal and reprehensible, contrary to the general principles prescribed in the Glorious Qur'an, and also contrary to what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was."

It is clear that Al-Hawamdi here ignores the doctrine of Ahmad bin Hanbal and its sources, and deals with the texts directly dealing with the mujtahid imams, so he inferred, corrected and weakened, and in fact Al-Hawamdi imitated Rashid Rida, as Al-Hawamdi had already said at the end of his referendum to Rashid on this issue: "Realize me, sir, by fatwa; Rashid answered his question and explained that he had elaborated on it in the interpretation of al-Manar. This indicates that Rashid Rida was a pioneer in discussing the issue in the modern era and including it among the heresies of the incident, in which he stressed the denial on the people, and triumphed to say that one only benefits from the work of oneself and cut it and was charged to prove it in every way; to harm his opponents.

Imam al-Marwadhi (275 AH), the companion of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, quoted Ahmad as saying: "If you enter the cemeteries, read the opening of the Book and the Mu'awdhatin in them, and (Say, Allah is One), and make the reward for that for the people of the cemeteries, as it reaches them." The imams of the Hanbali school of thought have narrated this saying about Ahmad and build on it, including al-Qadi Abu Ya'la al-Hanbali (458 AH), al-Muwaffaq ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi (620 AH), Ibn Mufleh (763 AH), al-Mardawi (885 AH) and others. They considered this a text in the doctrine.

It is interesting that a commentary was added here to the Saudi edition of al-Mardawi's Kitab al-Insaaf (printed under the patronage of King Saud): "Did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or one of his companions do this? Although the wording mentioned by Judge Abu Ya'la does not tolerate such an intrusive comment, namely: "Oh God, if you prove me to this, you have made his reward or whatever you want from it for so-and-so", no one has made a decision that this happened.

As for the hadith of Ibn Umar (not Ibn Amr as stated in the message of Al-Hawamdi), and that he recommended if he was buried to read at his head the opening and conclusion of the cow, it was narrated that Ibn Umar was suspended and attributed to him other than one, and Imam Ahmad himself invoked it and returned to him after he denied reading at the grave, and for this I used to write the Hanbali school of thought with this text, and the imams of the doctrine responded to say: "It is true from Ibn 'Umar...", and this is why it was correct in the madhhab that reading at the grave is not compulsory, and this was narrated to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but its isnaad is weak.

Features of the debate

The recent debate on the issue in question has been characterized by two central features:

• The first characteristic is that he took a radical and sharp stance; he not only isolated himself from the doctrinal jurisprudential tradition (especially Hanbali), but he also did not tolerate any difference or pluralism in the matter, to the extent that he departed from his usual reference texts (I mean the texts of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim). Hence, this Salafi position saw that reading the Qur'an about the deceased and giving him reward and reading at the grave is heresy as a matter of certainty rather than ijtihad, and this is a perspective that Rashid Rida chose and others followed. Consider – for example – the saying of Al-Hawamdi: "Teach -definitely- that reading to the dead and them is not permissible and does not benefit them", and consider the saying of Ibn Baz: "As for what is narrated from Ibn Omar or other companions and others in worship is not reliable"; This is why Rashid Rida began to err Ibn al-Qayyim and accused him of negligence just because he did not understand the evidence in his way, and Ibn Baz and others followed him on that.

On the other hand, let us consider the position of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah on the issue, as he took a conservative position and said: "It was not the custom of the predecessors if they prayed voluntarily or fasted voluntarily or made a voluntary pilgrimage or read the Qur'an: to dedicate the reward for that to the dead Muslims and even not to their own", and then tended – based on this introduction – that: "People should not amend through the Salaf; it is better and more complete." But he – nevertheless – adhered to the jurisprudential tradition in his scientific and impartial statement of the doctrines of jurisprudence with the evidence of each doctrine and its perceptions and explanations, but he refuted – brilliantly – the corrupt inferences inferred by those who denied the arrival of the reward to the deceased, and did not innovate the act and did not deny the legitimacy of reading the dead and his gift of reward, but only a statement that it is different from the best and most complete, however, he did not find it clear that the hadiths of the Prophet indicate that physical worship does for the deceased as financial worship without difference.

• The second feature of this discussion: it is that it lacked methodological consistency, whether in the interpretation of texts or in walking on their phenomena and generalities, or in following the mental explanations that maintain order and cohesion and link the branches of the same issue and expel meanings in their analogues, and for this Rashid Rida and his followers fell into contradiction and fragmentation as we will explain in the subsequent article, and their expansion in the inference that the first Sadr did not work on the illegality of doing what led them to stagnation on phenomena and fell into inferences and interpretations Fragile, as we will see, including: inferring from a verse (and that man has nothing but what he sought) that a person can only benefit from his work only, although the verse talks about the entitlement to the penalty (not absolute benefit), including the interpretation of the authentic hadiths on fasting and Hajj on behalf of others that what is meant by the act of the child only, and we will explain later the corruption of this understanding, or its interpretation also that what is meant by the prosecution in the obligatory prayers only (such as fasting and Hajj) without reading the Qur'an, although what is permissible in the obligatory prayers is a fortiori. It is permissible in the offerings, or so that which is contrary to jurisprudential principles.