The hadith: "The Hour will not be established until it is no longer said on earth: Allah, Allah." Did the Sufis use it as evidence for the permissibility of remembering Allah with the singular name?

The Shaykh: Others

The questioner : The hadith in Sahih Muslim Do they use it as evidence for the permissibility of remembering Allah with the singular name?

The Shaykh : Yes, we addressed this in the lecture we delivered in al-Madinah al-Munawwarah before coming here. They call it the "Rabita," and in the non-Arabic Kurdish expression, "Rabita..." This Rabita, specifically among the Naqshbandi order among all the paths, they instruct the disciple, when he sits to remember Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He), to close his eyes and visualize an imageThe Shaykh : before him. By this method, they claim that the disciple reaches Allah, and without this method and this intermediary, he will not reach Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). We wanted to hear from him and respond to him if the report was true. So we went to him. When we sat down, he entered; he had been outside the assembly. We said to him, "We have a question." He said, "Go ahead." We said, "What is your evidence for this Rabita?" He said, "What do you know about it?" I mentioned to him what I had heard. He said, "No, this is not correct." When he said this, we knew he was being evasive and deceptive, but we could not tell the people, "You are lying." We only hold him accountable for what he says. He said, "This is not possible. In the Syrian expression, it is like holding two watermelons in one hand. Of course, it is not possible. That is, one can watch over Allah and watch over the servant of Allah at the same time. This is not possible." Well, if that is the case, there is no objection. The topic progressed, and this is the point. We asked, "What is your evidence for the singular dhikr?" He brought up this hadith. This hadith is authentic. He said, "He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: " I said, "This does not mean that the Muslim sits to remember Allah with the singular name and says 'Allah, Allah, Allah, Allah' one hundred times, as they do in many of the paths." He said, "Then..." I said, "Its interpretation is in a narration from Imam Ahmad in al-Musnad: This has come explicitly in the long hadith of Ibn Sam'an in Sahih Muslim, in which it states that when Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) intends to establish the Hour: I said to him, "All of this explains to us the meaning of the narration you are using as evidence for remembering Allah with the singular name." Then I debated him logically. I said to him, "Is remembering Allah with the phrase 'Allah, Allah' obligatory (fard)?" He said, "No," and he had no choice but to say so. I said, "Is it obligatory (wajib)?" He said, "No." I said, "Does that mean it is more than recommended (mustahabb)? If it is recommended..." He said, "It is so." I said, "Does the Hour not come except upon those who leave the recommended? That is, if the Muslims continue to perform all their obligations and hold to the correct beliefs, but they neglect this recommended matter, does the Hour come upon them?" The man was stunned. In fact, in the Syrian expression, we say he is a "harbuq" who knows how to eat the head. He expressed his joy, as it was the first time I had met him, saying, "In fact, this pleases me. I hope we will visit each other and that such a session will be repeated." So, one of the illusions of the Sufis in general is their exploitation of this authentic hadith for their innovation in dhikr. And I conceded withThe Shaykh : when I said that the best state of this dhikr is that it is recommended. But the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And another hadith: So how can it be said that dhikr with the singular phrase is the best? No, the best of its states is that it is said to be permissible, but in terms of preference, it is inferior. But even the permissibility of this dhikr is negated for many reasons, some of which are legal and some linguistic. As for the legal reasons, it is very clear, because it is not authentically reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), neither in his words and teaching nor in his actions and practice, that he remembered Allah with the phrase "Allah, Allah, Allah." As for the linguistic aspect, the language says that meaningful speech is composed of a complete sentence with a subject and a predicate, for example, a verb and a subject. It is said, "The speaker ate." Here, the listener attends to something. The speaker said, "Ate," and what comes after? Who ate? What was eaten? So this is an incomplete sentence, not complete. So if it is said, "Zayd ate," well, "Zayd ate" is good, but what did he eat? "Zayd ate bread," and so on. So when the one remembering Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and this is one of the greatest matters, says "Allah," and would that they say "Allah, Allah," but you find them rushing through this word until you hardly hear from them anything but "Ah, ah, ah, ah." So the word was explicit in the Name of Majesty, then it became an "alif" and a "ha" with no meaning. And to smooth out their misguidance, they relied on a weak hadith mentioned in al-Jami' al-Saghir, and I mentioned it in Da'if al-Jami' al-Saghir, that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) visited a sick person and heard him saying "Ah, ah." Some of them disapproved of that, so he said, "Leave him, for he is remembering a name from the names of Allah." So when they turned the word of Majesty "Allah" into "Ah," they are still in a name from the names of Allah, but the hadith is not correct. The point is: when a person says "Allah," this is a subject. Where is its predicate? There is no predicate. If someone says, "Zayd, Zayd, Zayd, 'Amr, 'Amr, 'Amr," it has no meaning, my brother. What is Zayd? "Zayd is a scholar." And 'Amr? "He is excellent." The speech is complete. "Allah"—either you say "Allah is Majestic," "Allah is Great," "Allah is All-Knowing." This is a complete sentence. Even if they completed it and made it a complete sentence, we would remain with our previous statement that this dhikr is not permissible, because it is not reported from one side, and from another side, it contradicts what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) taught us of the good dhikrs, some of which we mentioned earlier.