Explaining the severity of sectarian fanaticism and its harm to Muslims in general, and to new Muslims in particular

The Shaykh : And that was the reason the Japanese nearly apostatized from their new religion, Islam, because of the contradictions and conflicts they found among Muslims themselves. However, there was one there whom Allah (Mighty and Majestic) blessed with deliverance from narrow sectarian fanaticism to the broad arena of the Salafi methodology. He went and wrote a question to one of the distinguished scholars in Mecca who had emigrated long ago from Russia due to the Red Revolution. The question presented the problem of these Japanese who had embraced Islam, stating that they were told they must adopt a specific school of jurisprudence: these Hanafis follow the Hanafi school, and these Shafi'is follow the Shafi'i school. So, is it obligatory for a Muslim to adopt one specific school of jurisprudence? As a result, he composed a treatise—may Allah reward him with good—and sent it to them. It is known by its primary title: "Guidance of the Sultan to the Land of Japan," by Shaykh al-Ma'sumi. We printed it in Damascus a few years ago, specifically the second edition, under the title: "Is it obligatory for a Muslim to adopt a specific school of jurisprudence?" The point is, we return to that Shia prince who became a Sunni and was offered the choice to adopt one of the two schools. He said to them: "Okay, but I want to know what this school says, for example, and what that one says." He suggested bringing two senior scholars, one Hanafi and one Shafi'i, so that each would pray according to his own school, and then he would observe which of the two prayers was acceptable to him and affiliate with that school. The author of the printed treatise says: So they brought a learned man from the Hanafi scholars. He was told: "Pray before the prince according to the Hanafi school, so that he can later observe the Shafi'i prayer and choose one of the two schools." The book mentions—and here is the point and the lesson—that this Hanafi imam prepared for prayer. He put on a male dog's skin. This is a reference to a Hanafi opinion: they say the dog is undoubtedly ritually impure and not to be eaten, but if the dog is slaughtered and the name of Allah is invoked over it, it becomes pure. So a male dog was brought, and its skin and all the dust—meaning he swept the area with this skin—presented a very terrifying sight. According to the Hanafi school, this is pure, so the prayer is valid. Then, when he began the prayer, instead of saying in clear Arabic: "Allahu Akbar," he said the takbir in a foreign language, for example in Turkish—if any of you knows Turkish: ... meaning: "Allahu Akbar," or in my Albanian language: "Zotim, Zotim," which means "Allahu Akbar." Then he recited a verse; he did not recite Surat al-Fatihah at all. Then he bowed, and before he had settled, he raised his head. He did not say a single tasbih. Before he had straightened up standing, he went down into prostration. Before his body had touched the ground, he raised his head. Before he had sat up straight, he stood up a second time. And so on until he completed the prayer, tapping it out like a crow. When he sat for the tashahhud, he did not recite anything. But while sitting during the tashahhud, instead of saying the specific Islamic salam for prayer, without any blame, he farted. Instead of "As-salamu alaykum," he farted, and the prayer ended. Yes?

The questioner : This is the...?

The Shaykh : A Hanafi. Come on, you Shafi'i, how do you pray? And he prayed a complete prayer. Which fool would prefer the first prayer over the second? So that Shia prince became a Shafi'i. This presentation of the story reveals fanaticism and its loathsomeness. Because, unfortunately, although the Hanafi school has these branches, in practice no one says, "Take the skin of a slaughtered dog and wear it instead of your pure, clean, beautiful garment." And although they say that if he sits for the tashahhud and that sound escapes him, his prayer is valid, because the obligatory exit from prayer in their view is by his will, by his action, and he did something, so this is an exit. It is not obligatory for him to say, excuse me, it is not a pillar, so that he says: "As-salamu alaykum." It is true he says this, but in practice he does not direct his followers to this. Fanaticism is clearly evident in this story. And this is a small part of what the researcher finds in Islamic history, which is worthy of reading. For example, the famous judge whose name is known to hadith scholars in some centuries, perhaps the fifth or sixth, was in Damascus. He said: "If I had any authority, I would take the jizyah from the Shafi'is." This is sectarian fanaticism.