What is the Naqshbandi (Sufi) order? And a discussion about Ahmad Kiftaro.

The questioner : He is our Shaykh, a Naqshbandi, meaning according to your knowledge, the Naqshbandis claim this.

The Shaykh : No, the Naqshbandis are a group of dervishes who do not use their intellect or understanding or anything else. This is not Naqshbandi; this is a new method. Listen, Abu Hassan, if this is Naqshbandi, from the group of al-Bani 'Abd al-Hadi, this is not Naqshbandi, my brother. If he claims affiliation with the Naqshbandis, then it is a cover-up. The Naqshbandis are known. For example,The Shaykh : Ahmad Kiftaro, the current Mufti of the Syrian Republic, is a Naqshbandi from father to grandfather. And these people follow this misguidance, and even if what is in him of misguidance is sufficient, but his matter did not reach this extent, because he follows the Naqshbandi method. As for this 'Abd al-Hadi, he and his Shaykh have deviated from the Naqshbandis, because his Shaykh, whose name is Amin Shaykho, was one of the students of Amin Kiftaro, who is the father of Ahmad Kiftaro. Amin Shaykho was one of the students of Amin Kiftaro, the father of Ahmad Kiftaro.

The questioner : 'Abd al-Hadi is the son of Kiftaro.

The Shaykh : No, he is not his son, but his student. Yes, among the wonders of the world, these three are brothers from the house of al-Bani. Three brothers: one is a Salafi, one of our best brothers, named 'Abd al-Rahman al-Bani. One is a Naqshbandi, from the group of Kiftaro, and he still is, and I have forgotten his name due to the long time since we met. And the third is neither of these nor of those; he is from the group of Amin Shaykho. Amin Shaykho separated from Ahmad Kiftaro fifteen years ago; he was naturally his student, by inheritance. He was a student of Amin Shaykho. Amin Shaykho bequeathed the so-called succession to whom? To his son, Ahmad Kiftaro. Amin bequeathed the succession to Ahmad, so just as the succession of the Shaykhdom of the order passed to Ahmad Kiftaro, the studentship of the students of Amin Shaykho also passed to studentship under Ahmad Kiftaro. Amin Shaykho, considering he was a student of Amin Kiftaro, became, due to this transfer, a student of Ahmad Kiftaro, although he is older than him. Amin Shaykho is older than him. In our time, we were in Damascus with a Shaykh from the Salafi Shaykhs, on a plan to contact the Shaykhs to convey the Salafi call to them. And our turn came to Ahmad Kiftaro. We went to him; he had built a mosque called al-Nur Mosque, and he gathers there, meeting the students sitting at the edges of the islands in his residence. The extremity was such that when we entered,The Shaykh : even in the mosque, they all stood up, meaning it was clear polytheism, completely. The important thing is they brought us in, they stood up forThe Shaykh : in a room at the edge of the mosque. It is a long story that we do not have time for now. Our companion, as he was older than me in age, had the role of speaking, so he clashed with Kiftaro, and the heat intensified between them. And the saying of the poet was true in both of them:
You went east and I went west *** How great is the difference between east and west
I entered at the end a little in order to soften the matter,The Shaykh : Kiftaro refused, saying I do not have the willingness to discuss withThe Shaykh : Well, we gave a second appointment. He said: on the condition thatThe Shaykh : does not attend. The important thing is we attended at the appointment, and one of our young brothers was with us. When we approached the house ofThe Shaykh : andThe Shaykh : came, and around him were a group, among them Amin Shaykho. So he parted from him after he had shaken his hand. We entered atThe Shaykh : After a little while, Amin Shaykho returned to his Shaykh, Ahmad Kiftaro. We told him, based on our previous discussion, the question thatThe Shaykh : our companion, whose name is 'Abd al-Fattah al-Imam, asked. We do not want you to give us the answer. And there was also a long discussion, which we do not have time for now, and the truth prevailed in it, as is its nature. But the point is, we prayed Maghrib behind Kiftaro, and we descended, and Amin Shaykho descended with me. I wanted to raise the topic because between his house and the tram stop, we had a tram in Sham and a long distance, I wanted to take advantage of it as an opportunity, and speak with him regarding the call as well. I said to him, I have a question, is it possible? He said, go ahead, any question you want, I am ready to answer it. It became clear to me that the man is very arrogant. I said to him, I noticed that when Ahmad Kiftaro raised his hands at the bowing, the raising from him, and you were beside me, you did not raise your hands. He said, what is in it? He is Shafi'i and I am Hanafi. So I took advantage of the opportunity, I said to him, but I know that your Shaykh, he said, yes, he is my Shaykh in the order. Ah, I said to him, meaning there is a difference between the Shaykhdom of the order and the Shaykhdom of knowledge. Meaning there is knowledge and there is no knowledge. He said, this has no bearing, everything is for itself, and so on. And he repeated the previous word, any question you have, I am ready to answer it. I said, well, I ask you a question: how do you know that the scholars say, some of them that touching a woman breaks the wudu, and some say touching a woman does not break it, and some of them say with desire it breaks and without desire it does not break? Can I know the reason? He said to me: here in the order, we do not do research in the order. This one is ready to answer every question. And he brought a catastrophe, saying the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to, when one of his noble Companions asked him a matter in the order, he would say to him, come to me in the house. And the students are like this, and the Messenger does it. And we continued our conversation with him to the tram stop, we stopped, and the people gathered, naturally the people there are his neighborhood and the people know him. I am in Sham, down in Damascus, down and a stranger to the area, and I... and he repeats the word, any question I am ready to answer you. Well, we are asking you, where is the answer? He said, here it does not happen, come to the house. When he repeated the invitation, I said to him, O Professor, you are not better than the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) until you say any question you have, I am ready to answer. The Messenger was asked and said, and a promise was made and some of the known verses in the Noble Qur'an descended regarding him, the story of the People of the Cave, for example, and in the occasion of the delay of revelation from him, So how do you say I am ready to answer every question, and this was not for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? So he said to me, meaning an animal from the animals standing around him, said, perhaps Allah gave it to him. Allah is the Greatest, I said to him, help me, O man, fear Allah. Meaning Allah gives to Shaykh Amin Shaykho more than He gave to His Prophet, the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers. And we dispersed from him without him giving us any answer to any question. This is what came after, here is the point. What came after, listen, a disagreement arose between him and Ahmad Kiftaro, so he split from him and formed an order based on mere desire and intellect. And therefore he does not believe in something called Hadith or Sunnah. The Sunnah and Hadith that match his intellect. Kiftaro, despite what is in him of Sufism and so on, is not like this... Kiftaro, in terms of the general scientific methodology, is on the Sunnah, Book and Sunnah and Madhabs. But this one deviated from everything—he does not recognize the Book, nor the Sunnah, nor any of the Madhabs. His Madhhab is his intellect, because if you say to him, he will say Allah told him so. For example, he denies intercession, he denies intercession despite the abundance of verses and hadiths coming regarding it, and he brings interpretations that are not witnessed by, neither customary language nor Shari'ah language nor any of the Madhabs followed today. If this man is from the group of this one, then he is not Naqshbandi at all. Yes, their ailance is a very dangerous destroyer. And Allah is the Helper. Yes.

The questioner : If the hadith is established and authentic, and the man knows that this hadith is established and authentic, but he denied it, what is your opinion?

The Shaykh : Your saying "knows" needs clarification, or needs a comment from me on it. Ah, how does he know? Meaning you work in hadith and you told him this is an authentic hadith, or he saw it in Sahih al-Bukhari and hears about Sahih al-Bukhari that its hadiths are authentic. Is this not the way of knowledge?

The questioner : Yes, exactly.

The Shaykh : In a way other than this.

The questioner : No

The Shaykh : Well, is this knowledge of his certain or presumptive?

The questioner : I do not know.

The Shaykh : I know it is presumptive and you know it, meaning you imagine that his knowledge of this hadith is like his knowledge of the one who spoke the hadith.

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : This is my opinion, and that is my certainty. The one who denies the prophethood of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and his message is headed for the Fire, and what a wretched destination that is. But you are saying that he knew this hadith was authentic. This is not knowledge by which the argument is established against him, because it is speculative knowledge. And so-and-so, a scholar, said this hadith is authentic. I am obligated to follow him, but I am not convinced by it. So this person is following his desires, but he is not denying what is known from the religion by necessity.

The questioner : A report from a single narrator does not yield certainty.

The Shaykh : This does not mean it does not yield knowledge.

The questioner : If the hadith is established.

The Shaykh : It yields knowledge for the one for whom it is established, and not through blind following. And then you say this report from a single narrator does not yield knowledge. I am reversing the question on you now to clarify that issue: does every report from a single narrator yield knowledge?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : So take this angle on which you agreed with me, and the man is cleared of disbelief.

The questioner : Fine, your statement that the hadith is an argument in itself.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : And whoever denies what is established and authentic is like whoever denies a verse from the Qur'an.

The Shaykh : I do not think so, I do not think so. With such brevity, I do not think so. And even if this exists, it is the speech of humans, but you do not know from me this classification that you imposed on me, that not every report from a single narrator yields certainty.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine, how does this statement you are quoting reconcile with what you know? May Allah know best. Give us the phrase so we can study it.

The questioner : Our Shaykh, there are recitations that are singular in transmission, but they became widespread and famous and were accepted, like the recitation of Qamir. The scholars of recitations attach it to the mass-transmitted reports. So what is the ruling on one who denies such a recitation, which is a seven-letter recitation?

The Shaykh : It is like the one who denies a hadith. The research is the same, but listing examples: is this known from the religion by necessity such that its denier is declared a disbeliever, or not? Yes, what about the one who sometimes rises and sometimes sets, and he is... upon them.

The questioner : But the scholars of recitations declare him a disbeliever.

The Shaykh : But he relied on his land, and you came to him. Who is the right one? Yes.

The questioner : The phrase quoted by the brother Salim is that whoever denies the Qur'an is like whoever denies the Sunnah, or repeat the phrase.
Salim: Whoever denies what is established and authentic from the Sunnah is like whoever denies a verse from the Qur'an.

The questioner : Fine, whoever denies what is established and authentic for him.
Salim: We said what is established and authentic for him, he denied it.

The questioner : The Shaykh : I agree with you on this.

The Shaykh : For him how? I mean, for me, for example, does it mean this for me or that for him?
Salim: No, for him, it is for the one who denied it.

The Shaykh : My brother, we have not differed. The one who denied is two deniers: one denies that a specific hadith is authentic, the one in which the scholars said it is authentic; the other denies that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said this hadith, while he himself believes in his heart that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said it. This is not like that.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : This is not like that. This one, may Allah forbid, is the one who is declared a disbeliever.

The questioner : Yes. He believed in its authenticity.

The Shaykh : Where did he get that belief, my brother? Since you, may Allah bless you, since you believe with me that not every singular hadith yields certainty, is that so? Tell me yes or no.

The questioner : I believe that...

The Shaykh : Is that not so?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : I say, is it not a result of this distinction, the distinction in issuing the ruling of disbelief on one who denies a hadith?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : The ruling differs.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So now we need to qualify and say that the one who denies a hadith that is established with certainty for him is declared a disbeliever. Correct.

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : How do you imagine that an ordinary person establishes a hadith for himself through certainty? I will give you an example, because your research did not say so, but you know that you are talking about a person, and without a doubt this person is not al-Bukhari of his time, but he is from the general people, is that not so? I am asking you.
Salim: He may be from the general people.

The Shaykh : May Allah give you this precision, my brother. This precision is a language that allows for two interpretations, so I am taking one of the two interpretations with you. Why are you putting precision in the text in order to ruin this interpretation? Stick to this interpretation, not now. Two interpretations: the hadith yields certainty.
Salim: ...

The Shaykh : It does not yield certainty. Fine, we are now researching a hadith that does not yield certainty for its owner. This is necessary. We agree that he is not declared a disbeliever.

The questioner : He is not declared a disbeliever.

The Shaykh : Fine, now we take the other side that entered into the precision. Now you say a hadith that is certain for its owner was said by the Messenger (peace be upon him), and he denies it. Without a doubt, that is disbelief. But come and see what happened to you. You were in the East, now you are in the West. You were talking about some ordinary people who denied a Prophetic hadith, and you said in your phrase, it is authentic for him. What is authentic for him? It may be that you told him, or I, or so on. Fine, this did not become certain for him, correct or not?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine, it is not permissible to declare him a disbeliever.

The questioner : But are there not ways that lead to certainty?

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, what do you gain? I am telling you there are ways that lead to certainty and ways that do not lead to certainty, correct? Fine, do you mean that this person, Zayd, whose image you have in your mind and whose denial you have heard, is of the type for whom the hadith is established through ways of certainty? If you say yes, I will tell you he is a disbeliever. And if you say you did not declare him a disbeliever, we are done with the problem.

The questioner : May Allah bless you, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : And in you, yes.