riyada in arabic means "training" or "discipline". It was used by the arabs in relation to horse taming. Sufis refer to their discipline as "riyadat an-nafs": disciplining the soul / training the ego. Today, the word riyada has come to mean "sports". There is an Arabic proverb that says: "The purpose of sports (riyada) is not to win cups, but to discipline the soul". This blog is here to help me discipline my soul and train my body.

Sunday, October 07, 2007

Smoking and the Tariqa Muhammadiyya

The great sufi masters of the Tariqa Muhammadiyya movements all spoke out against smoking and criticized it strongly. Here are some explanations on why they considered it to be haram.

We begin with Abd al-Aziz al-Dabbagh (d. 1719) because of his historic precedence and because the book of his teachings, al-Ibriz, is one of the most widespread and highly valued Sufis works today . He said, “Tobacco is forbidden (haram) because it harms the body, because those who smoke it have an addiction to it that keeps them from worship of Allah and cuts them off from it…and because the angels are hurt by its smell.”

His student asked, “But garlic and onions and the like have a bad odor and eating them is not forbidden.”

He replied, “If the right of the human and the right of the angel came into conflict, then the right of the human is given precedence because everything was created for the sake of humans, and therefore that which benefits humans is not forbidden even if it harms angels. And in garlic and onions are clear benefits, in contrast to smoking for it has no benefit….” (1)

Another great shaykh among the Muhammadiyya turuq was Ahmad Tijani (d.1815), founder of the Tijaniyya. He declared Tobacco to be forbidden based on the Prophetic tradition that “All that causes a state of weakness is prohibited”, and tobacco causes a state of weakness because of the smoker’s addiction and dependency.

Al-Tijani also demanded that smokers repent or they will not die a good death, and when one of his followers was dying, he started uttering vulgar words and was not able to say the Shahadah, despite having been a pious man of much worship. When al-Tijani found out that he smoked, he said that this was why he could not utter the Shahadah on his deathbed and that he must repent immediately.

Al-Tijani’s companions refused to give the litanies of the path to any seeker who smoked Tobacco, and if they found out that someone smoked they forced them to quit their litanies until they stopped smoking. (2)

Then came the student of al-Dabbagh’s student, the great scholar Ahmad ibn Idris (d. 1837). He was just as strongly opposed to smoking. When teaching a Prophetic hadith about Allah’s hatred for money squandering, he said,

And the greatest waste of money is in Tobacco. For I heard that in a previous year in which it was scarce, people used to buy it for 11 Riyals a pound. What mind does such a person have? Is there a mind behind this? No, it is far behind! Did he clothe he who has no clothes, or feed the hungry? And it doesn’t nourish or satiate…. And it causes illness: do you not see the chimneys of kitchens, how their shafts become blackened from the smoke that passes through them? So how do you think is the chest and throat of the smoker? Rust has piled up in them, so what benefit is sought from a person whose state is thus? For we have known many who quit it and became much happier, had lesser expenses, and their disposition came back to balance as they have told us; and they were able to sleep better, sleep being the source of man’s rest and mental stability. So what waste of money is worse than this waste?

And I was told by him in whose truthfulness I have no doubt, and in whose story I trust, that he saw the Prophet (pbuh) in his sleep and said to him: ‘Oh Messenger of God, is tobacco halal or haram‘? So he turned to Aisha who was next to him and said: ‘If she smoked it I would not come near her’. So he said, ‘Is it halal or haram’? He said, ‘If she smoked it I would not come near her’ three times. The man of the vision said, “I thought about saying to him: Did you forbid it in the Sharia? And if so, in which part of hadith? But I forgot because of the state I was in.”

So look at that which, had Aisha the mother of the believers smoked, the Messenger (pbuh) would have parted with her. What greater catastrophe is there than the separation of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and the Mother of the Believers, and what greater exposition of its prohibition than this? And he who has seen the Prophet (pbuh) in a dream has truly seen him, and he who has seen him in sleep is as if he has seen him in waking. (3)

Ahmad ibn Idris’ grandson Muhammad al-Sharif relates that a scholar asked Ahmad ibn Idris to help him see the Prophet (pbuh) in a dream. So when Ibn Idris saw the Prophet (pbuh) he said: ‘Oh Messenger of God, so-and-so wants to see you in his sleep’, but then the Prophet turned away from him. Then the next time he saw him he mentioned the same thing and the Prophet turned away from him again and it happened a third time. So Ahmad ibn Idris wondered why the Prophet turned away every time he mentioned this man, and the Prophet turned back toward him and said: “This man smokes, and I do not go to him who smokes.” Ahmad ibn Idris told this to the scholar the next time he saw him, which caused him to cry until he fainted. After this he repented for who he had been doing and God accepted his repentance and the Prophet visited him in his sleep for the sake of shaykh Ahmad ibn Idris.

Muhammad al-Sharif also relates about his father Abd al-Aali, Ibn Idris’ son, the following: A man came to my father and said, “This is the price of the wheat, and this for the fava beans, and this for the tobacco.” So Abd al-Aali said with anger, “subhanAllah brother! Who told you to plant tobacco on our land?” And he refused to take the money from the tobacco, and ordered the man to leave the land a whole year without any plant until it is purified.

Finally, Muhammad bin Ali al Yamani, the great grandson of Ahmad ibn Idris through his other son Muhammad al-Qutb, was once invited to the house of a man in Dunqula, Sudan. He accepted the invitation. Before that day came, he passed by the store of the man who invited him and saw him selling tobacco so he said: “subhanAllah brother, you sell tobacco? Your food is haram and I withdraw my acceptance of your invitation”, and he did not go to his house. (4)

There are many more examples from other turuq and other shaykhs, but these shall suffice to show how serious of a sin smoking was considered for these Muhammadan Sufis: It annulled your permission to recite the path’s litanies, it kept the Prophet (pbuh) away from you, it made any money made from it haram, and therefore your food and that which you bought with your money haram, and it prevented you from every Muslim’s greatest wish: husn al khatimah, sealing one’s life with a good end.

And think about this: If tobacco makes the land on which it is planted impure, then what of the body that inhales it?


1. al-Lamati, al-Ibriz min Kalam Sidi Abd al-Aziz al-Dabbagh, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, pg 260-1.

2. sufi.forumup.co.uk/post-2201-sufi.html

3. Ahmad ibn Idris. al-Iqd al-Nafees, Cairo: Dar Jawami’ al-Kalim, pg 60-1.

4. Saleh al-Jaafari. al-Muntaqa al-Nafees, Cairo: Dar Jawami’ al-Kalim, pg 93.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , .

Thursday, October 04, 2007

This Blog is Moving!

As you can see, I have decided to breathe some life back into this blog, now that I have a lot of time for it. I have already written three new long posts (but only two appear here). That is because I have moved the blog to the following address:


please visit there regularly, as insha'Allah I will update it frequently.

My next priority is creating a special page for all the Tariqa Muhammadiyya posts, including the newest one I just wrote about the view of the Tariqa Muhammadiyya shuyukh on smoking.

But I still start getting back to other topics of interest, not just focus on the tariqa muhammadiyya.


Wednesday, October 03, 2007

The Shii Doctrine of Isma

Isma means infallibility and impeccability: to be free from error or sin. Imami (Twelever) and Ismaili (Sevener) Shiis hold that their Imams have isma. The following is based on the notes I used in order to give a short lecture on the topic.


In the earliest Islamic period, the Muslim people had not yet formed clear-cut sects like Sunnism or Shiism. Instead, there were opposing trends, each with tens, sometimes hundreds, of groups under its fold. This was especially true of the Alid, or proto-Shia, movement, which was consisted of hundreds of different groups with highly divergent, even conflicting, beliefs. From this same group, for example, would come the Abbasids who overthrew the Umayyad Caliphate and replaced it, as well as the proto-Shia followers of Jafar al-Sadiq's sons, who would form the Abbasid dynasty's enemies, the Imami (Twelever) and Ismaili (Sevener) Shii sects.

Because of this situation, there were no universally approved leaders of the Alid movement- but there were always certain stars that shined more than the rest. After Imam Ali's two sons from his wife Fatima (al-Hasan and al-Husayn) died, the next most important figure behind whom the Alids flocked was Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya. This was a third son of Ali, but from a wife that he took after the passing of Fatima (r.a.).

At the time of Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr had set himself as a counter-caliph to the Umayyads, and had met the approval of all of the Hijaz, reducing the Umayyad control to Syria. Thus the Muslims were divided into three large camps: The Zubayrids, the Umayyads, and the Alids who followed Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya. Ibn al-Hanafiyya had so much prestige among the people, and so many followers, that he could have easily taken the Caliphate for himself- but he did not seek it. Whoever he would give allegiance to, would therefore be more likely to win, but he refused to give his allegiance to someone who did not meet the approval of all Muslims.

At that time, all indications pointed toward a Zubayrid victory, except that their constant battles with Kharijites weakened them enough for the Ummayyads to defeat them under the leadership of the infamous al-Hajjaj. When Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya saw that the Ummayads won, he gave them his allegiance, in order to preserve the unity of the Muslim ummah, even though he could have revolted against them, even toppled them.

But after Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya, the Alids did not have another great leader for a while. They all loved and respected al-Husayn's son Ali Zainul Abidin, but he had no political role. His own son Zaid did not consider his father to be an Imam because he never sought power or held it. The proto-Shiis were again just a large array of different groups with divergent beliefs, united only in their desire to topple the Umayyads and put a Hashemite in power. Back then the movement was called a Hashimiyya movement, because they wanted someone from the Prophet's clan Bani Hashim, a subdivision of Quraysh. Being a descendant of the Prophet (and Ali) was not a prerequisite for all groups, and eventually it was the Abbasids, descendants of the Prophet's uncle al-Abbas, who would come to the forefront of the Hashimiyya movement.

After the passing of Ali Zainul Abidin, more revolts agaisnt the Umayyads ensued. One major revolt was led by Zaid, his son, who fought against the Ummayad caliph Hisham and was defeated. A large section of the Hashimiyya/Alid/proto-Shias had made Zaid their Imam, and these would later become known as the Zaidi Shia- the third largest Shia group still extant today. Other Shia with more extremist beliefs offered him his allegiance on the condition that he denounce the Prophet's companions Abu Bakr and Omar. When he refused to say anything but praise about them, they withdrew their support, and he said, "laqad rafadtumuni" (you have rejected me), after which they became known as Rafida (the rejectors), which is a label still used today to denounce the Shia.


All this historical introduction was important to make two points clear:

1) There was still no clear Imamate among the proto-shiis. Each group had its own leader.

and 2) The Zaydis were the first major sect to form from among the proto-Shia. This happened around the middle of the 8th century (Zayd's revolt took place in December 740). The Zaydis do not believe in the Isma, or infallibility, of Shia imams. This is clear evidence that the idea of the Isma had not yet emerged, or at least, had not taken hold, among the proto-Shia groups.

The other main figure that emerged at that time was Zaid's brother, Muhammad al-Baqir. Those who did not follow Zaid flocked around Muhammad, and when Zaid died he became the major figure among the proto-Shia.

This time, the time of Muhammad al-Baqir, is a major turning point for these Alid movements. The reason is that at this time, Muhammad al-Baqir was the only heavyweight figure, and most, if not all, Alid groups considered him as their imam. It was at this time that the idea of a single imam who is divinely guided and immune from sin or error, in other words, ma'sum, really emerged and began to gain widespread acceptance among the proto-Shia. Muhammad al-Baqir and his descendants did not seem to have openly claimed this idea but did not criticize it either, allowing this idea to spread and take hold.

The first clear doctrine of isma is that of the early theologian Hisham b. al-Hakam. He said that Prophets may disobey God but then be reproached by the Qur'an. The Imams, however, could never err, sin, or disobey God in anyway (presumably because there could be no new revelation to reproach them). Obviously this doctrine in which Imams seemed better than Prophets will be changed with time.

Muhammad al-Baqir was succeeded by his son Jaafar al-Sadiq, who also gained the unanimous support of the Alids. Thus began to emerge the idea of a succession of Imams, and idea that was not present before, and does not exist in Zaidi thought. But for non-Zaidi Alids, this belief that the imams are divinely appointed, and that it is transferred from father to son, became the accepted doctrine.

These divinely-appointed imams were thought to have inherited all the knowledge of the Prophet, and thus to be identical with him in knowledge and wisdom.

They developed the doctrine that out of God’s divine kindness and grace, there has to be at all times a guide to whom people can turn for certitude in religious matters and who can settle all problems with perfect justice. At first there were prophets, and them Imams. They argued that due to God's grace, it was impossible for the world to ever lack such a perfect living Guide. The isma of the Prophets and Imams thus became an early cardinal dogma.

Because of their belief that there will always be a living Imam ma'sum to guide them, the majority of the proto-Shia developed the following belief: That rational methods of deducing religious law, like individual reasoning, analogy, or transmission of hadith all corrupted the religious law. Reasoning is faulty and hadith might be false or inaccurate- only mass-transmitted hadiths are acceptable. Only an Imam ma'sum can protect the law from corruption. This meant a clear condemnation of the entire science of usul al-fiqh and of the reliance on singly-transmitted traditions (hadiths).

[When their line of Imams unexpectedly came to an end after Jaafar al-Sadiq's 5th descendant, they had to reverse their entire doctrine regarding jurisprudence and hadith, in order to fit the reality of them lacking a living imam. However all their previous doctrines still exist in their oldest books.]

This, however, was only the majority of opinion. Many companions of the Imams themselves considered them to be pious learned men, whose authority based purely on a scholarly basis. Many companions of the Imams believed that the Imams used analogical reasoning or independent judgment in legal opinions, and would thus question them on basis of their rulings, argue with them, and even outright disagree with them.

One of Jaafar al-Sadiq's most competent companions was known Abu Basir. He was highly praised by the Imams and is considered one of the four elite scholars of the Shia religion. He did not accept the legal opinions of Jaafar's son and successor Musa al-Kazim and thought that he had not yet acquired an adequate knowledge of law. This goes against the belief, held by the majority, that upon the Imam's death, all of his knowledge is transferred to son.

At this point there was a major split in the Shia community. Jaafar al-Sadiq had first appointed his son Ismail as his successor, and a large portion of the community started looking to him for guidance, because they believed that the Imamate is transferred at the time of appointment. However Ismail died, while his father was still alive, and so Jaafar appointed his son Musa al-Kazim as successor. This created a split between those who chose to follow Ismail's son Muhammad (the Ismaili or Sevener Shiis), and those who chose to follow Musa al-Kazim (later to become the Imami or Twelever Shiis). Ismail's infant son Muhammad disappeared, and the Ismailis held that he had gone into occultation, and that he will come back at the end of times as the Mahdi.

As for those who followed Musa, the proto-Twlevers, their line of imams continued. In the year 874, the 4th Imam to lead the proto-Twelevers after Musa (considered the 11th imam in general by the Shia), died. With him ended the line of living Imams. His followers resorted to the belief that he had given birth to a son, the 12th imam, who had been concealed from the community and will emerge from his occultation at the end of time as a full-grown man, and as the Mahdi. As you can see, this idea of occultation was not new. In fact it was first held by some extremists regarding Ali when he died, and later Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya, and then Ibn al-Hanafiyya's son, then the Ismailis, and now it was taken up by the proto-Twelvers. As mentioned above, this suddenly brought about the very situation that the proto-Shia had been claiming, in their debates with Sunnis, was impossible: that the world could exist without a living, present, infallible Imam, who will solve any religious problem and ensure justice. In fact that had earlier held that only an infallible Imam could execute hudud punishments (severe punishments for adultery, theft, murder, etc).

Because of this sudden reversal, the Shia had to abandon their earlier doctrine and borrow Mutazili beliefs, which placed a high emphasis on mental reasoning. These were the very beliefs they had attacked for centuries, when they did not expect their line of imams to die.

But as we said before, there was always the minority view that the Imams were not infallible and that they were scholars who exercised reasoning and mental judgment. This view was held, as mentioned, by close companions to the Imams, and was now upheld by some of the later theologians. One prominent example is Muhammad b. Qiba al-Razi, one of the leaders of the Shia community in the tenth century, and highly respected by later scholars. He said that the Imams were only pious scholars who had comprehensive knowledge of the Quran and Tradition. Some of the traditionists of Qum, who at that time became the very backbone of Shia thought, held the same opinion.

In 945, an unprecedented event took place: A Zaydi Shia dynasty known as the Buwayhids conquered Baghdad, and turned the Sunni Caliph into a puppet figure. The Buywahids (aka Buyids), allowed Shia thought to flourish in the Caliphal capital, Baghdad. It was at this point that the proto-Twelver community began developing a clear-cut doctrine, and became what is now known as Imami or Twelver Shi'is. The Twlever Shia doctrine began to spread, and it was strengthened by a re-writing of the past, so that it appeared as though there was a continuous line of Imams, by succession, from the time of Ali until the twelfth Imam. Many traditions were invented and sayings ascribed to earlier Imams. The Buywahids later generations of Buwayhid rulers eventually became Twelver Shii's themselves. But they kept the Abbasid Caliphate in place, and their political enemy was in fact the Ismaili Shia Caliphate in Egypt.

At this period, known as "The Shia Century", the doctrine of the Isma developed as follows:

* Ibn Babuya (d. 991), held that Imams and Prophets were immune from both error and sin. However, the Imams were not immune from sahw (inadvertence: to make an oversight, an unintentional mistake, or a careless omission). He argued they did such mistakes to remind people that they were only human.

* Shaykh al-Mufid (d. 1022), held that Imams and Prophets were immune from inadvertence, forgetfulness, and major sins. However, they were capable of committing minor since before their prophethood or imamate, as long as they were not disgraceful.

and finally

* Sharif al-Murtada (d. 1044), who held that they were immune from any error or sin, both before and during their prophecy or imamate. This is the accepted belief today.


All information about the actual doctrines on Isma and the beliefs of the imams and their companions comes from Shia sources. They can be found in:

- Modarressi, Hossein. Introduction to Shii Law: A Bibliographical Study. London: Ithaca Press 1994.

- Encyclopedia of Islam 2: Isma

- Madelung, Wilferd, "Authority in Twelver Shiism in the absence of the Imam", La notion d'autorite au Moyen Age: Islam, Byzance, Occident. Presses Universitaire de France, Paris 1982, pp. 163-74.

Technorati Tags: , , , .

Shiism and Christianity

Over the past 4 or 5 years, I have been realizing just how much Twelever, or Imami, Shiism is similar to Christianity, primarily Roman Catholicism. I never really had a conscious effort to compare the two, but every once in a while I'd learn of something in Shiism that would remind me of Christianity and think "huh". Sadly I never wrote them down as they came along so I've forgotten a lot of these similarities.

Just yesterday I was watching tv with my aunt and we saw some Shii supplications being chanted and my aunt noted how much it resembled, in style, the supplication of priests and pastors. This led me to try and list for her the similarities between Shiism and Christianity.

Well, on the very same night, I was reading a magazine at the doctor's office and was surprised to find a short book review for a book comparing Roman Catholics to Twelver Shi'is! The book is called Roman Catholics and Shi'i Muslims: Prayer, Passion, and Politics and is written by James A. Bill. The review itself was short, but it gave some more examples. So here is a short list of the similarities that come to my mind, as well 3 or 4 from the book review. The most important similarities are of course those of doctrine, but I will list those toward the end.

* First of all, the most important event in the history of Shi'i Islam is the Battle of Karbalaa, in which the Prophet's grandson al-Husayn, peace be upon them both, and his family, were martyred. This martyrdom has almost the same significance for the Shii's as the crucifixion does for Christians.

* The identical practice of passion plays, in which Roman Catholics and Twelver Shii's commemorate and re-enact the Crucifixion and the massacre at Karablaa, respectively.

* Shii's self-flagellate every year in large processions, in order to atone for their sin: the fact that they (or rather their ancestors) failed to support al-Husayn at Karbala. This practice is usually looked down upon by the Shi'i Ulama but they cannot say anything against it because of its popularity with the public. Since the 13th century, and throughout the middle ages, there was a large Flagellant movement in which processions would walk long distances flagellating themselves, sometimes during a pilgrimage, and this is still practiced today by some Christian groups. It was outlawed by the Catholic Church, however.

* Al-Husayn's mother Fatima, daughter of the Prophet, peace be upon them all, has taken a very similar role in Twlever Shiism as the Virgin Mary in Christianity, and even the paintings they do of Fatima are almost identical to those that Christians do of the Virgin Mary. While painting of humans, especially religious figures, is strictly forbidden by Islam, Twelever Shi'is have always drawn the family of the Prophet, in the same style as those of Mary and Jesus are drawn in the Christian tradition.

* Christianity was at first the religion of the weak and oppressed (I'm remember here what Nietzsche wrote about religion in general), and in the same way, the first proto-Shii groups provided a cause for the weak and disaffected within Muslim society, and as these groups had not really developed an ideology yet, most of their followers came because they felt oppressed.

* Twelver Shiis and Roman Catholics share a hierarchy of priesthood (ulama in the case of the Shiis). This does not exist in Sunnism, but the hierarchy is elaborate and well-defined in Shiism.

* At the top of the hierarchy for Roman Catholics is the pope, while for Twelver Shiism it is the 12 Imams and those who represent the twelvth Imam now that he is in occultation. Both the Roman Catholic pope and the 12 Imams are thought to be infallible. Even the highest level of ulama today for shii's, the Ayatollah, are considered to be almost infallible. While they are not said to be infallible, they are treated in the same way. This is why in Twelever Shiism no Ayatollah can ever reverse the fatwa of a previous Ayatollah, because that would imply a mistake on the behalf of an Ayatollah.

My next post will be about the historical development of the idea of infallibility of the Imams in Shii thought, insha'Allah. It is based completely on Shi'i sources and studies of Shi'i sources.

* The importance of - and impatience for- the return of Jesus/the Mahdi in Christianity and Shiism. Much more so than in Sunni Islam.

Those were some similarities that I can think of right now, but there were many more that I feel I had noted and have forgotten. I'm sure the above-mentioned book has many more examples and a deeper level of analysis but I dont think I'll be buying it.

Technorati Tags: , , .