As it turned out in the first article of this series, the modern Salafism was characterized by two main features:
- First: It took a radical and sharp stance on what it described as heresy, and isolated itself from the doctrinal jurisprudential tradition (including Hanbali, as it turned out, for example, in the issue of the deceased benefiting from the work of others), and did not tolerate jurisprudential pluralism, so it violated even the texts of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya.
- Second: It lacked - in its understanding - 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 then:
Rashid Rida – as I mentioned in the first article – was a pioneer in the modern era to say that the deceased does not benefit from the offerings that are given to him, and that their reward does not reach him, except what the text excludes and the act of the one who gave birth to the deceased exclusively. In the second article, I explained the flaws and shortcomings in the arguments of Rashid Rida and his arguments to prove this view, compared to his sources (Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim), especially Ibn Qayyim al-Rouh's book al-Ruh. This third article illustrates 3 additional methodological issues that illustrate the impact of ideology on the way of understanding and the conclusions it reaches.
Issue I: Arbitrary Judgments
Rashid Rida concluded from his arguments to prove the heresy of reading about the deceased and giving him reward and reading at the grave to a number of hasty and inaccurate rulings in view of the reality of doctrinal jurisprudence, but in view of the work of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, which shows that Rashid Rida, although he begged some tools of jurisprudential tradition to support his idea, but it is not a continuation of it, but rather an outsider from it.
One of these arbitrary rulings is his saying: "Whoever says that the deceased should benefit from every work he does, even if the worker is not his son, has violated the Qur'an, and there is no argument for him in the correct hadith or the correct analogy" (8: 218). The discussion here is not about the benefit of the deceased from every work, as it is not possible to say with certainty, but rather that one may benefit from the work of others, and the second article - of this series - explained how the appearance of the Qur'an talks about one's work for himself, while the benefit is related to the work of others, which is not addressed in the text of the Qur'an.
Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah said that the Qur'an "did not say: He does not benefit except what he sought", but rather denied the property of man for something other than his quest, and man benefits from what he owns and what he does not have. Rashid Rida also confused usufruct with retribution; the penalty is only for work, while the benefit is more general. The hadiths of the Prophet pretend that one benefits from the work of others, and the jurisprudential analogy testifies to this, as explained by Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah and his statement in the second article.
Among the arbitrary rulings concluded by Rashid Rida, he said: The arguments of the dissenters "most of them are false theories", and his saying about the imams who say that the deceased benefits from the work of others: "The reason for their negligence and interpretation is that they are trying to correct all the innovations that have spread among their people and those attributed to their doctrines and are not among the people of evidence, but they do not leave the misguidance of interpretation ... They were followed by some Sunni scholars of the people of impact and consideration" (8: 255-256), and it is clear from the second article that Rashid Rida's inferences and his fragmentation of the texts and the cost of interpreting them are inadequate, which shows that such statements lack accuracy and responsibility, and that what Rashid Rida winked at his opponents may be validated (such as his talk about them not being among the people of evidence, and his talk about the misguidance of interpretation).
Rashid Rida also said that these people "distorted the word from its places" with absurd interpretations and under the pretext of abrogation and others (8: 255), and this is a departure from the subject of discussion, because the discussion is only in combining the various evidence (general and specific) and interpreting the texts and expelling their meanings in a coherent manner, otherwise what Rashid Rida threw his opponents can throw it (such as distorting the word from its places).
Consider, for example, how he understood who "sought" in the words of Allah, the Almighty: "And that man has nothing but what he sought" (Surah An-Najm, verse 39), the absolute benefit of the seeking, whether from man himself or from others, although the verse speaks of man's pursuit of himself only, but the inclusion of everything else in the text of the verse is an interpretation. She ponders how Rashid Rida understood that usufruct is the same as reward, even though there is a clear difference between them, as Ibn Taymiyyah explained.
Consider how he understood that the hadith "If the son of Adam dies, his work is interrupted except for three things" is evidence that one ceases to benefit from the work of another, although the hadith tells that a person's work is interrupted by his death, while the work of another person is for his worker, and its inclusion in the text of the hadith is an interpretation.
Consider how Rashid Rida claimed that the word "waliyeh" – in the hadith "whoever dies and fasts on his behalf and his guardian" – means: "his son", although the word has come in the hadith "my sister died and she has to fast" and in another narration "kinship to me", then the interpretation of "wali" with the child only corrupts the explanation that the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) made a justification for the permissibility of Hajj and fasting on behalf of others, which is that like religion, it is eliminated from the deceased, and therefore he said: "The religion of God is more worthy to be spent," and this is not only for the child.
The scholars are unanimous that praying for the deceased benefits him, whether it is from his child or from others, and this is not the work of the deceased. Indeed, Rashid Rida – with his cost in interpretation and his lack of investigation of the hadiths and his narrations and with his response to the requirements of analogy – accused Ibn al-Qayyim of being "oblivious to the fact that the hadiths that made him the only proof that the dead Muslims benefit from any work that is rewarded for them from the work of their neighborhoods, were contained in private works and were authorized for children – alone – to do them on behalf of their parents" (8: 257). It is not their only argument nor is it specific to children, as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim have proved.
Rashid Rida also repeated that reading at the grave and giving the reward to the deceased is an invention of the "imitators of the late", although the benefit of the deceased by the work of others was pretended by the texts, and that the reading at the grave was reported by some companions and that it was the work of the Ansar, which is the saying of some of the followers and the saying of Al-Shafi'i, the madhhab of Ahmad and others.
Rashid Rida's conclusions and absolute rulings illustrate one of the features of the modern Salafism, which is the radical and sharp denial of the existence of evidence contrary to what it is, the narrowness of the jurisprudential dispute, the commission of interpretations to support its opinion, and even the illusion that the text can only bear one meaning, which is that understanding that they are, and this is what Rashid Rida and those who followed him did, and this is what those affiliated with the Enlightenment do today, while you do not find such behavior among the people of the jurisprudential tradition, who follow the path of jurisprudential pilgrims according to its principles and its rules and abide by its ethics.
The scientific mind expands the boundaries of meaning, while the reformist or the one who claims the Enlightenment is an ideologue who has a preconceived conviction that he seeks to promote, and has a single orientation that he sees as right and necessary, and therefore does not see any evidence or suspicion of evidence for those who say otherwise. However, if you contemplate the words of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim on this issue, you will see high jurisprudential arguments, who understand the arguments of the two groups: those who are permitted and those who prevent them in moderation and fairness.
Issue Two: Use of Rhetorical Arguments
Rashid Rida – in his discussion of the issue and his response to the owners of the dissenting opinion – used constructional phrases that depart from the methods of scientific jurisprudential pilgrims, he opened the discussion by saying: "O Muslim who is keen on his religion", as if to delude that the discussion is between those who are keen on his religion and those who are not keen on it, and he said – in the context of the controversy – "God blessed the likely followers of the predecessors of all these scholars, and not only the precaution; 8).
The issue is not between those who follow the predecessors and those who disagree with them, but rather a discussion in the interpretation of evidence and the rules of inference, just as Imam Ahmad followed the predecessors as well. Then Rashid Rida concluded the discussion by saying: "Whoever wants to follow the guidance, and fears making religion subordinate to the fancy, let him stand at the correct texts and follow the biography of the righteous predecessors and present the measurement of some of the successors promoting heresy" (8: 269), and this is an accusation of the imams who say that - including Ahmed - to follow the passion and that they are adrift, and those who say that the deceased benefit from the work of others follow the texts of the Qur'an and hadith, and their evidence is stronger text and measurement, and I explained - in the second article - how the texts pretend that the dead Ibn Taymiyyah even explained that "the repetition of texts and the agreement of the imams that a person may benefit from the work of others."
The third issue: criticism of the sources of Rashid Rida
In discussing the issue, Rashid Rida relied on scarce sources; he relied on Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's al-Ruh. Although he dealt with him selectively and accused him of negligence, he did not hide his admiration for him, saying: "He was indulging in it and prolonging as usual what no one else or boat had ever seen" (8:257). Rashid Rida then added – to what he quoted from Ibn al-Qayyim – some quotes from Ibn Mufleh, Ibn Abdeen and others, while imitating al-Shawkaani in the matter, although he accused him of disorder as well.
Rashid Rida did not understand the issue from its doctrinal and hadith jurisprudential sources, nor did he follow a specific system, whether in research and sources or in pilgrims. In particular, this issue has historically occupied many scholars until it classified individual letters, in which Taqi al-Din Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi (600 AH), Abu Ishaq ibn al-Barni al-Hanbali (622 AH), Shams al-Din al-Srouji al-Hanafi (710 AH), Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (728 AH), as well as Zain al-Din al-Malti al-Shafi'i (788 AH), Sadr al-Din al-Manawi (804 AH), Shams al-Din ibn al-Qattan al-Masri al-Shafi'i (813 AH), Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (852 AH), and Saad al-Din ibn al-Dairi al-Hanafi (867 AH). Shams al-Din al-Sakhawi (902 AH), Wajih al-Din al-Zubaidi (975 AH), Ibn Berri al-Hanafi (1099 AH), and Isa bin Isa al-Safti al-Hanafi (1143 AH) have also printed, some of these letters have been printed, indicating the importance of the issue and the richness of the discussion in it, contrary to what Rashid Rida's words suggest.
When he reviewed the book "Branches" by Ibn Mufleh al-Hanbali (763 AH), he said: "I saw in it a lot of disagreement in this matter about the Hanbali scholars and others," while the text of Ibn Mufleh, which refers to him, was explicit in that the doctrine of Ahmad and his text is permissible to read at the grave, and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya quoted that it is the doctrine of some Applicants such as Ibn Aqeel al-Hanbali (513 AH) according to Ali bin Al-Muwaffaq who was in the class of Al-Junaid (298 AH), and that it is also the doctrine of Abu Al-Abbas Muhammad bin Ishaq Al-Sarraj Al-Nisaburi (313 AH), and all this was also transmitted by Ibn Taymiyyah in his letter (51).
Moreover, Rashid Rida quoted Izz al-Din ibn Abd al-Salam al-Shafi'i (660 AH) as saying that it is permissible to read about the deceased (8: 263) and this is wrong;
It is interesting that Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya added a funny type of inference to the issue in addition to inference from the Qur'an, hadith, analogy and inherited work, which is the inference of the frequency of visions; Ibn al-Qayyim said: "The vision of the believers and the greatest frequency have colluded to tell the dead to them of the arrival of what they give them in terms of reading, prayer, charity, pilgrimage and others" (Al-Ruh 401), which is inconsistent with the behavior of the modern Salafis, despite their reliance a lot on Ibn al-Qayyim's books.
There is an important difference here between the method of jurisprudence of jurists and the method of Rashid Rida and the modern Salafists, which is that the jurisprudence of jurists is based on an integrated scientific field and well-established traditions, and a methodological and subsidiary system that takes each other to reserve until it forms a reasonable and coherent system whose branches are related to its origins, and in which consistency and reasonableness are achieved, unlike the "reform orientation" that is driven by a specific idea or conviction imposed by reality, not the method or the scientific field, and therefore its concerns are partial and selected, and does not establish a system and lacks consistency, because its engine is the pressure of reality. Or the prior conviction of an individual or group, while the scientific tradition has been followed by generations of scientists throughout history, and has developed a scientific field, and a coherent and cumulative methodology.
It is now clear the difference between the scientific method and the reformist method through this issue, which made it a model example of jurisprudential criticism, and to show the impact of the difference in the method in jurisprudence, and Rashid Rida here is just an example that left an impact on the symbols of Wahhabism later, and had a positive attitude towards Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. While Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim are a continuation of the jurisprudential tradition, although they have independent opinions and an inferential tendency in the texts (Ibn al-Qayyim has expanded further on this path), they were the first to explain the corruption of this minor understanding taken by Rashid Rida, and they were pluralists who understood the different perceptions of jurisprudential consideration, the possibility of evidence, and the relevance of each doctrine.