The Unique Name
Praise belongs to Allah and that is enough, and peace on His chosen slaves, from the slave of his Lord, Ahmad ibn Mustafa al-'Alawi al-Mustaghanmi, peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. As for our subject, O’ esteemed brother, I recall the discussion which occurred between us during your short visit, when I saw you angered at your brothers the 'Alawiyun, as it seemed to me then, not for any wrong they did but just because they were madly in love with having the solitary name on their tongues, and that is their saying - ALLAH!
It seemed to you that this required reproof - we might even say punishment. And this because they are committed to invocation of that Name, with cause or without cause. It is the same for them in a dilemma or without one in a situation not meriting invocation, so that when one of them knocked on the door he would say, 'Allah!' and when he stood up he would say, 'Allah!' and when he sat down he would say, 'Allah!' and so on.
You were of the opinion that it was improper to use this Name as an invocation, it not being a form of structured speech according to you - based on what the grammarians have stipulated as the necessities of grammatical construction in their definition of informative speech. There is no point in my answering you unless it is with the object of seeking mutual understanding and investigating whether what they do is right and proper. Is it permissible or not? I present you with this note that through it there may be healing for the breasts and cure for the hearts.
So, as for your stand on what the grammarians have laid down as the necessities of grammatical construction in what is considered speech, it is sound, except that the fact has escaped you that in this decision of theirs the grammarians were concerned with discursive speech and were far from applying their definition to invocations and what distinguishes them, from the point of view of lawfulness or unlawfulness, and then what results from that of rewards and their like. If you had asked them in their day or this they would certainly have replied, ‘What we decided was merely a technical term which we rely on in our practice and there is no dispute in a technical term.’ You must be aware of the fact that the language of the grammarians is not the same as that of the scholastics, and theirs is not the same as that of the legalists, nor theirs in turn that of the traditionalists, and so on, for every group has technical terms. It follows for us from this, that the
grammarians were simply concerned with the definition of informative speech, and not concerned with distinguishing between lawful and unlawful invocations. In other words, what the grammarians stipulated as the requirements of grammatical construction, were particularly for the one who intends by his speech to communicate with another. As for the one who invokes, he does not intend anything except to benefit himself and establish the meaning of that noble Name in his heart through his invocation, or a purpose of that nature.
Secondly, the grammarians have not laid down the existence of grammatical construction for the one groaning or sighing in what he expresses, for his purpose is not that of the grammarians .and it is unlikely that the grammarians would say to the groaning man or the sighing man, 'I really did not understand your purpose in sighing since it is a word without construction, lacking a predicate or anything like it!' And none of this is relevant to the one groaning because his intention is not communication with another but simply by it to have relief from himself.
You must realise, brother, that every name has an effect which adheres to the self of the one who invokes it, even if it is not one of the Divine Names. Thus when man repeatedly mentions death, for example, he really experiences that effect, and it adheres to the self of the one who invokes that name, especially if he persists in it. And there is no doubt that that effect is not the same as the effect of mentioning wealth or power or authority, and even without consideration of the effect. It was reported in the noble hadith, 'Increase in mention of the destroyer of pleasures!' - meaning death, and there is no doubt that it is a single word and it is said that it was a wird for the first communities. Generally speaking, each man is aware of the relationship of the effect of the invoked name on the self if he has a subtle perception, but equally we can ascertain this whether the matter is serious or light, and if that is the case we must believe the fact that the Name of Majesty creates an effect in the self just as any other name creates an effect, and each has an effect suited to it. The fact will not escape you, O’ brother, that the Name ennobles you through the nobility of naming Him, by means of what it holds of His impression in the concealment of its secret and meaning. So let us' cut short our consideration of all that we have set out and restrict ourselves to standing by the judgment of the Lawgiver concerning the use of that Name upon the tongue. It must certainly come under one of the five evaluations of the Shari'at, that is - the
obligatory, the permitted, the forbidden, the disliked and the authorised. Since there is no question of there being either a word or an action that does not come under these preceding evaluations it would seem to us that before opposing the one who pronounces that Name we should see which evaluation it comes under, for if we found it entered under the categories of the forbidden or disliked things then opposing the one who pronounces it is obligatory on us, because he would be uttering something rejected. If not however, and we found it in another category, then the rejection is disagreeable, for the pronunciation would be permitted. On this assumption, even if neither obligatory nor authorised, while the work is within the limits of the permissible - what is to prevent us repeating the permissible, and what makes the one who pronounces it worthy of reproach or even punishment?
However we use it, we are not led to a position where we join it to the categories of the forbidden or disliked things, and it retains its character as regards its status as the Name of Majesty. So this leaves you in the position of the one who stays where it suits him - but whoever has awe of the interdictions of Allah it is better for him with his Lord, and whoever has awe of the rites of Allah it is from taqwa in the heart.
Now, all that we have set out so far is with respect to the fact that it is a single name not associated with anything even by way of implication. If we investigate the truth and uncover the matter we may in fact say that its invocation is possible even by the one who defines grammatical construction!
It is, in effect, a noun in the vocative case. Among the grammarians the vocative is the category of informative speech because they have vocative particles with the meaning 'I call out' and the omission of these is permissible and very common in the language of the Arabs. Often the situation calls for its omission by necessity, as in this case, because of what Qur'anic courtesy and Islamic teachings demand of us, and courtesy and teachings which maybe the Sufic Masters have more of than others. I implore you, O’ brother, not to consider far-fetched our saying to you that the folk allow themselves to be guided by the courtesy of the Qur'an, and are devoted to taqwa which gives discrimination. He said, may He be exalted, 'Fear Allah, He will give you discrimination,' and they inwardly listened to that until Allah showed to them in it what he had not shown to others. Thus, in relation to this case, the invocation of the solitary Name with the dropping of the vocative particles, they hold to what they were commanded by the injunction in His saying, may He be exalted,
“Say, 'Invoke Allah or invoke the Merciful, whichever you invoke, His are the Names most beautiful.”
So they concerned themselves with the first they were commanded to invoke which is our saying, 'Allah!' In the absorption of their zeal in retreats and seclusion, standing, sitting, and on their sides, some kept dutifully to the commanded invocation, and the divine granting of success forced on them the necessity of dropping the vocative particle when the Presence of Nearness sought them because the vocative particles are used for distance, not for One who is nearer to us than the jugular vein!
There are ayats found in the Book of Allah which show the sincerity of their inspiration, and they are in the vocative category and they are of two sorts, one from the slave to his Lord, and another from the Lord to His slave. In numerous examples of the first kind they occur with the vocative particle dropped and in those of the second kind they occur with the vocative particle. So what do you think is the reason for that? And how were the people guided to it? Oh how glorious is Allah!
I note that the Master Abu Ishaq ash-Shatili has this to say in his book of Analogies. ‘The Qur'an brought the message of Allah ta'ala to humanity and of humanity to Allah.’ As for the lesson when it brought the address of Allah ta'ala to humanity, it set it out with the vocative particle required by distance and invariably without curtailment as in His saying, ‘O my slaves who have accepted, My earth is truly vast.’ ‘Say, 'O My slaves who squander themselves.’ ‘Say, 'O men, I am truly the Messenger of Allah to all of you’, and 'O you who have accepted..’, and when it brings the address of mankind to Allah ta'ala it is invariably without the vocative particle because originally the vocative particle is for admonition and Allah is beyond admonition, and also most of the vocative particles are for distance, for example. ‘O!’ - and Allah ta'ala made clear that He is near, especially to the supplicant, in His saying ‘And when My slaves question you about Me, then I am truly near!’ and in general near to the creation, as in His saying, ‘There is never three talking confidentially but He is the fourth of them, and not five but He is the sixth of them.’ He said, ‘And We are closer to him than his jugular vein’, so they took admonition from this through the scholars, firstly in dropping the vocative particle, and secondly in consciousness of nearness. Similarly, with the presence of the particle in the other category they took admonition through the men of meaning, and reinforcement of the warning to the negligent, and pointed to the elevated concern of the One who addresses, and that He is free of nearness such as human nearness, since He in His nearness is exalted and in His exaltedness near, how glorious is He! Secondly, the address of the slave to the Lord is one of longing and seeking once he has corrected himself so He used in Qur'anic address the word 'the Lord', admonishing and instructing, since in his supplication the slave uses the name fitting the state of the One supplicated, and 'Lord' is the one who carries out what puts right the one subject to the Lord, as He said in the statement of mankind's supplication,
‘Our Lord do not punish us
if we forget or make mistake,
our Lord do not impose on us a burden
such as You imposed on those before us’
I have demonstrated how the cry of the slave particularly appears with the vocative 'O!' dropped and that is only on account of the preceding. If you have understood this, then tell me, by your Lord, are the people still to be blamed if we hear that they omit the vocative 'O!' in their supplication and cries to their Master? Is this from their discernment in the deen of Allah or from complete lack of understanding of Allah?
Legislating for others and compelling men to follow is one of the prerogatives of the infallible. No one else can say 'this is permitted and this is not', and the one whose business that is, it is better for him to lower his voice in the areas where his ignorance is greater than his knowledge, and that is a principle which adheres in every situation, so that the Sufi is obliged like others to lower his head and negate his choice before the noble Law and the Divine pure ordering of affairs. Certainly it is likely that our opponent will come against us from another quarter, saying that we are not allowed to worship by that which it is uncertain that our predecessors used, or make use of it as a means of seeking nearness expecting reward for it - so we say to him, Yes. The matter is just as you said and we hope from Allah that we and you are in unison on a point such as this, and I presume that you do not forget, O brother, and that it has not escaped you that the Divine Names are legitimate for worship by recitation, according to His saying, ‘Allah has the most beautiful Names so invoke Him by them,’ and they are single, and although they are single, neither this generous ayat nor any other ayat stipulates the manner of their invocation in respect to form or construction. I believe this is out of consideration for the states of the travellers and those turned towards Allah, since they differ regarding strength and weakness, desire and awe, yearning and eagerness, for men are in classes and yearning has degrees and the secrets of creation differ as to their relationship with Allah, powerful and majestic is He, and from that point of view no restriction springs from the forms of supplication and invocation that flowed on the tongues of the first communities to the point where we are able to say absolutely, ‘This Name was not an invocation of the first communities' or ‘they did not consider this Name an invocation’ For we are unable to be familiar with all that was on their tongues in their seclusions and retreats, in sickness and health, and it is unlikely that we will believe that the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, did not have the Name of Majesty on their tongues repeatedly, Allah! Allah!
Here it seems that we should set before you what is almost a proof in this matter, in order that you may realise that the fact of the matter was vaster than you suspected. Muslim has it in his Sahih from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, “A sick man was groaning in his presence, blessings of Allah and peace be upon him, so one of them forbade the man and told him to be patient, so the Prophet said, may Allah bless him and give him peace, 'Let him moan, for he is invoking one of the Names of Allah ta'ala.” And al-Bukhari and at-Tirmidhi stated also from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, 'Leave him to moan for the moan is one of the Names of Allah by which the sick man finds rest’ (Some negligence occurred at the time of transmission by ascribing the report to other than its relator, and the truth is that Ar-Rafi'i Imam ud-Din related it in Tarikh Qur'an from ‘Aisha and, my valued friend, established its superiority.)
Then, to develop the matter, what do you think - on the assumption that the sick man had been voicing the Name of Majesty repeatedly, 'Allah! Allah!' instead of saying 'Ah! Ah!' Would it have been correct of that Companion to oppose him? Never! For the situation evidently contradicts that and his opposition was only when he failed to grasp the meaning of the word 'Ah!', and the fact that it is one of the Names of Allah ta'ala, until the Prophet, may Allah bless him and give him peace, directed him by saying ‘Let him moan for he is invoking one of the names of Allah’ I believe that is enough. It is proof of what is obvious. We also relate it to the fact that the word 'Ah!' is single, so the Prophet, may Allah bless him and give him peace, agreed to its invocation in that
manner, and this is over and above what we have inferred from the fact that it is one of the Names of Allah. Without doubt it is a valuable lesson, inducing men to have a good opinion of those who invoke, however they may invoke.
On the assumption that what we set out as a proof to you, by way of demonstration, is not correct, it does not do justice to you or to us that we should say anything other than that the problem is controversial, and it is important that it is resolved for the problem is one of independent judgment (ijtihad), so what is the meaning of your compelling us, O’ brother, to accept your word or submit to your ijtihad on the spot when we do not force you to ours? This is from one point of view; from another point of view, however much you may have persisted in denial of your brothers, the ‘Alawiyun, in this case, you cannot make them less than forerunners among those who invoke that Name singly and also charge the imams of the de en and guides of the Muslims with its invocation.
Look! I will cite a passage to you from one who will put you at ease, insha'Allah; a passage of his which in all probability has not reached you, and if it has, then why when you saw the Alawiyun singled out by it did you look on them with disdain? In the Mufeed ar-Rawa of Shaykh Sidi Mustafa Maa' al-‘Aynayn, from Ibn Jarir in his commentary on Qur'an: “...he would say, wanting the murid to confine himself to invocation of the Single Name during his travelling the way, 'It occurs in the tradition that when the worshipper says Allah!' there arises from within him a shaft of light, which spreads out on the horizons, then rises to the height of the throne, thus filling the cosmos completely so that Allah says to it, Stop! - So it says, ‘By Your glory and majesty I will not stop until you forgive the one who invoked this Name’ Then He replies, 'By My glory and My majesty I had vowed to Myself before I created the world - I only set it moving on the tongue of My slave because I had already forgiven him’"
It is mentioned in the Sharh al-Mabahath al-Asliyya of Ibn Ajiba, may Allah have mercy on him, that Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, may Allah be pleased with him, said 'I wanted in the beginning to travel this way by many awrad, fasting and prayers so when Allah knew the sincerity of my intention He sent one of His friends to me who said to me, ‘O my son, detach your heart from each relationship except that with Allah alone, and go into solitude and gather your himma (yearning) and say, Allah! Allah! Allah!’ And he said, I mean al-Ghazali, in the Mishkat al-Anwar in his own words, is long as you are soiled with what is other-than-Allah then you have no alternative but the negation - 'la ilaha', but when you withdraw from all things in witnessing the Owner of all things, you can find rest from the negation and reach the affirmation:
Then leave them to their plunging and their playing’
Then he said, 'When you rid yourself of remembrance of what never was, and busy yourself with remembrance of the One who has never ceased, say Allah!' then find rest from what is other-than-He: He also said, 'Open the door of your heart by the key of your saying 'La ilaha illa'llah', the door to your spirit by saying ‘Allah!’, and draw down the bird of your secret by saying 'Hu, Hu!'
In his book Muqsid al-Asna Fisharh Asma'illab al-Husna in a passage on the Name of Majesty he said: ‘It appears that the slave's portion from it, meaning invocation of this Name, is the gift of Allah, and we mean by that, that his heart and himma become absorbed in Allah ta'ala, not seeing other-than-Him and not paying attention to other-than-Him’
AI-Ghazali chose this for each mumin to have his share of this Name, and if you choose what al-Ghazali chose for you then this is it, and if not, do not expect your lack of choice to be a proof for one whose choice agrees with Imam al-Ghazali's. Suppose that your argument is effective as a proof against the ‘Alawiyun and their like, would it also be a proof against distinguished scholars and commentators of Qur'an who have preceded them, like Al-Fakhr ar-Razi and others? For he himself undertook the invocation of this Name and states it explicitly in his great commentary. We find in the passage on the Bismillah that he says: '...and know, O men, that for the length of my life I have been saying ‘Allah!’ and when I die I will say ‘Allah!’ and when I am questioned in my grave I will say 'Allah!' and on the Day of Rising I will say 'Allah!' and when I take the Book I will say ‘Allah!’ and when my actions are weighed I will say ‘Allah!’ and when I travel on the Sirat I will say ‘Allah!’ and when I enter the Garden I will say ‘Allah!’ and when I see Allah I will say 'Allah!" Ar-Razi said all that in defiance of the one who did not say ‘Allah!’ and we really would not have used these passages over and above hadith except for you to realise the fact that the ‘Alawiyun are not innovators in their saying ‘Allah!’ as you imagined them to be, and you must be aware that the Sufis are generally concerned with this business and believe that it is the mightiest Name. If He is supplicated by it, He answers, glorious and exalted is He, and if He is asked by it He gives, and this is not only the choice of the Sufis but the choice of more than one of the Imams, and the outstanding narrators of hadith, and men learned in the sources. One of them, Shaykh Muhammad Bayram the fifth, may Allah be merciful to him, was of those who supported the permissibility of invocation of the Name of Majesty, and he mentioned in The Prophetic Assistance, '...that it is said in Rudd al-Mubtan lis-Sadat al-Hanifiyya that Hisham transmitted from Muhammad ibn Abi Hanif, may Allah be pleased with him, that it is Allah's mightiest Name, may He be exalted, and that at-Tahawy and many scholars stood by it, and the Shaykh of the community Abu Muhammad abd al-Qadir ibn Yusuf al-Fasi quoted it, may Allah be pleased with him, in his cases as to the legitimacy of invocation of the Name of Majesty, singly: He said, further, '...and in As-Sahih it is stated that the Hour will not come until there no longer remains on the face of the earth one who says 'Allah! Allah!" That is perfect evidence for invocation of this alone (especially in the account of the Nasb), and there is no dispute concerning speaking the Noble Name singly, and since that is the case what is the harm in a man repeating it many times. and what is the purpose of rejecting it?
In relation to the wording of the preceding hadith according to the way the Imam related in his Musnad and Ibn Majah in his Sahih from Anas ibn Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, it says: ‘The hour will not arise until 'Allah! Allah!' is not said on the earth’ Here is the strongest and most dependable evidence in this hadith for the repetition of the word of Majesty. Its intention clearly indicates invocation of that Name, for if it had not been repeated it could have implied, ‘there no longer remains one on earth who believes in the existence of Allah’ - because of the repetition this is not possible.
Now, there is proof in the Noble Law of the permissibility of the repetition of that Name, and also nothing to justify prohibition of repeating it on the tongue or in the heart. Since there is nothing in the Law to demonstrate the prohibition of repeating any of the names of created things and if this is all right, how can there be anything to prohibit giving voice to one of Allah's most beautiful Names, unless there were aberration and pig-headedness in the Law which prevented the mumin from turning the name of his Master upon his tongue by saying 'Allah! Allah!' - or one of His other Names, for Allah says, 'And Allah has the most beautiful Names, so call Him by them,' that is, ask Him and remember Him by them. This is what we understand and choose for ourselves, and you have the right of choice for yourselves, but it is not your business to force us to stand by your choice since we have not forced you to ours.
Assume the surrender and generosity of those who say that this Name is disliked. I seek the forgiveness of Allah, for it is laid down about that in which there is dispute as to whether it is disliked or authorised, that it is of a higher grade than the permissible in the Law. Khalil mentions this in his Analysis with this explanation ‘When there is dispute over something as to whether it is authorised or disliked, its enactment is preferable. As a result, when the dispute is over the status of something as a sunna, then its being disliked is not lower in rank than the permissible, rather they stipulate about that over which there is dispute concerning its lawfulness, that it is higher in rank than the permissible’
Now as to what you mentioned, or we might say disowned, of the 'Alawiyun voicing the Name of Majesty and employing it on their tongues fittingly and unfittingly, as you said, on the highways and similar unsuitable places, it appeared that you thought they had abandoned the reverence desired for Divine Names and that their action was not a stipulation of the Law. When one of them knocked on a door and said, ‘Allah!’, and the man answered him by calling ‘Allah!’, it was unacceptable in your eyes. I feel compelled to say that you have failed in your study of the hadith relating to this case of ours. Or else you have merely imagined that the matter among the first community was contrary to our action, for I cannot believe that if you had come across the relevant texts, that after serious examination you would not set them above your personal opinion - I have to believe that this would be the case with you!
Our holding unrestrainedly to the invocation is not outside the Sunna nor in conflict with it. This invocation is suitable not just now and then, or here and there, but at all times and in all places, in order to build up the times and remove the qualities of negligence from controlling the senses and overpowering the comprehension. In other words, invocation is praiseworthy in every state and negligence is blameworthy in every state, and without doubt recourse to the Book and Sunna is the proper thing for you and for us in this matter. The command to invocation and the cautioning against its neglect contained in the Book is clear and does not need to be set out in detail, especially among people such as you. Since there is no conflict between what is contained in the sunna and the Book, we can cite prophetic traditions and judgments from the madhhabs to clarify what the Lawgiver wants from us and how to act upon it, if Allah wills. Abu Ya'la related in his Musnad from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, 'You must have as much taqwa of Allah as possible and invoke Allah at every tree and stone: - the ultimate intention is generalisation of time and place. What the Imam Ahmad published in his Musnad from Anas, with a sound line of transmission, is comparable to this, and just like it is a tradition from ’Aisha that ‘he would invoke Allah at every opportunity, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him’ ‘Alqama said that ad-Damiri said that the meaning of this tradition is that he invoked Allah whether in a state of ritual purity or impurity, standing, lying down, walking or mounted. An-Nawawi mentions in his Analysis of Muslim something comparable to this, that the meaning of this tradition is that in his invocation he would not distinguish between states or places, may Allah bless him and give him peace.
Whoever studies the scholar's diwan in this section finds what will help the consensus of the community to absolute acceptance in the question of invocation. What is quoted from the Hanafi masters pertains to this, according to what is said in The States of the Rightly Guided Ones by Qadi Khan – ‘Invocations in the markets and negligent and outrageous assemblies in the markets are permissible given the intention that he is busy with glorification and declaring the unity of Allah and that they are busy with the world’ Consider carefully, may Allah have mercy on you, his saying 'Negligent and outrageous assemblies' - you will not find the ‘Alawiyun carried recklessly to that extreme.
Invocation is approved even in the hot baths. Over and above the fact that they are places where dirt is removed, they are places of negligence and uncovered imperfections. In Collected Cases, the author says that ‘reading Qur'an in the hot baths loudly is disliked, but softly it is not disliked, and glorification and declaring the Divine Unity are not disliked even when spoken aloud.’ If the invocation of Allah is permissible even in the baths, what is the fault of the ‘Alawiyun, for example, if one of them invokes Allah along the highway? If some individual unaccustomed to hearing this invocation recoils upon hearing it, and he is just and desires a decision regarding another person, it is his duty to judge according to the judgement of Allah and His Messenger, not according to his own personal opinion, and for his judgment to be free from the influence of the approval or disapproval of others. It is our duty not to resort to this source of approval and not to be content with options other than those of the Law. It is the duty of the one who accepts Allah and the Last Day to stop at the stipulation of the Law and behave according to it, without himself choosing anything except what Allah chose for him. ‘. . . and it is not for an accepting man or woman, if Allah and His Messenger decide an affair, to have a choice in it’
However noble your purpose in examining texts and passages relevant to this problem, perhaps what we have written is enough, although it is only a little. Assuming your need of something over and above this, (and the accepting one often needs increase in good), I say to you that more than one of the imams have made clear the permissibility of invocation, even in the toilet - this is mentioned only that you might grasp the significance of the permissibility of invocation near the filth of the highways, which you thought was unlikely. Qadi ‘Iyad said in the conclusion of the book of prayer, ‘The schools of ‘Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As, ash-Shafi'i, Malik and ibn Bashir, are licence for invocation of Allah in the toilet. It is also understood from the words of ibn Rushd Sama'i Suhanin and from the words of al-Barzili which Abu'l Fayd ash-Shaykh al-Kattani quoted in his treatise of commentary on His words, may He be exalted - 'O you who have accepted, do not enter houses other than your own until you ask permission and extend greeting to its people.’ Also from him, Customs of the Rightly Guided-Lakhamy said, 'The one who relieves himself invokes Allah before entering the place where he relieves himself.' ‘Iyad also reported its permissibility: “Some of them acknowledge the permissibility of invocation of Allah in the toilet, and that is the teaching of Malik, an-Nakha'i and Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As” He also said, 'Ibn al-Qasim, if he sneezed while urinating, would praise Allah: If you ask if Shaykh Khalil did not say that 'in the toilet we are ashamed to invoke Allah', and it was 'because of its being excluded' and that the immediate understanding of the words of Ibn Abu as-Salaam and Khalil in their clarification is that its exclusion is because of prohibition, then we must say that just as one understands from the words of these two that its exclusion is because of prohibition, so one understands from the words of Ibn Rushd and 'Iyad and the author of at-Tiraz that its exclusion means its 'being disliked' in their opinion – that is the clear position of al-Jazuli and the author of Conduct. The imams found fault with one who understood it as prohibition - for example, Imam Abu 'Abdullah al-Hattab, who said '…and it is not obvious because it is not consistent with the words of any of our predecessors, who were not explicit concerning its prohibition,’ and ‘the burden of their argument is that it is disliked, in order to be consistent with the words of the earlier generations.’
Our intention in using these passages is not to give more to one of the schools with respect to the permissibility of invocation in the toilet or its being forbidden - rather we quoted them in order that you might realise how the imams permitted invocation even in such a place, which is acknowledged absolutely as the worst place. If you find someone in a similar situation invoking Allah, do not look on him as strange and consider him an innovator gone astray, because ash-Shafi'i and al-Malik supported its permissibility and both of them are adequate examples of
holding to the rope of Allah and holding to the custom of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and give him peace. Without doubt, it follows from this passage and it’s like that the 'Alawiyun have been wronged by your reproach. This provided that recklessness did not lead them to extremes in invocation, which permissibility ultimately leads to, so that one mentioned that he did not stop invoking even in the toilet. The most that is reported of any of the 'Alawiyun is that when one saw him he would say 'Allah!', and when he saw another he would say 'Allah!' and so on. The like of this does not, according to my understanding, bring one nearer to what is disliked. We have not said to you that it is of importance to the Sunna, and even if on appraisal it is not of the Sunna, it still resembles the truth more than the false.
A proponent might say, 'Surely the Names of Allah are too exalted to be used to gain access to anything other than the things of the akhira, so it is not permissible to use them for stimulation and attracting attention or the like. This would be true if it were not that the Law concedes, or we could say commands, its equal, and if you searched out the most likely areas of resemblance in these cases you would find what the Lawgiver wants from us and what is nearer to straightforwardness. For example, consider the form of the call to prayer. You will find it used to make known the beginning of the time of prayer and to command attendance to the 'performance of a duty - yet it is nearer or more appropriate to the situation that one should call. 'the prayer is now' or, 'the time of prayer has begun: Why does the call to prayer reproduce the article of faith completely instead of some succinct words which could represent it? Can you ask 'Why are the names of Allah used to summon those who pray?' Questioning the legitimacy of calling out 'Subhanallah!' to make the imam aware of a mistake in the prayer is comparable to this. That some of the companions, may Allah be pleased with them, would arouse others by means of the takbir is also relevant to this. This is testified to by what is said in the two Sahih collections concerning the river valley. When they slept through the dawn prayer, the first to awaken was Abu Bakr and 'Umar was the fourth to awaken, and he took to calling out ‘Allahu akbar’ until the Prophet awoke, may Allah bless him and give him peace. So consider, may Allah have mercy
on you, how they employed invocations to awaken those asleep and the like.
What Ibn Rushd specified in Khalil's account resembles this – ‘Boasting was permitted when shooting arrows, naming and in the outcry (of battle) - but the most preferable thing is invocation of Allah.’ Ibn ‘Arafah adds, ‘...and when shooting arrows, if a direct hit on the target is achieved, it is preferable to invoke Allah.’ Just consider how they chose invocation of Allah for making known the striking of the target - they only chose it because they knew the desire of the Lawgiver was the increase of invocation in all conditions.
Since possibly he will consider what we deduced from the texts insufficient in clarity or proof, I must mention some of what is said concerning asking permission to enter demanded by the Law by means of invocation of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, that by it the noble brother might realise the desire which necessitated his study of the terms of the Lawgiver in this case. His saying, may Allah bless him and give him peace, 'When you reach the doors of your houses make yourselves known by invocation of Allah; is one of the clear traditions met with in this field. The distinguished as-Sanusi, author of Tenets, transmitted it in his book, Assistance of the Needy One. What most of the commentators have mentioned as the meaning of 'asking permission' is His saying, may He be exalted, 'O you who have accepted, do not enter houses other than your own until you ask permission and greet its occupants', which reinforces this passage. AI-Fakhr ar-Razi, after speaking about the ‘asking permission’ from many aspects in his commentary Al-Kabir, said, ‘...and Ikramah said it means magnification and glorification and their like, meaning other invocations’ What is in the commentary of an-Naisaburi, Gharib al-Qur'an, is exactly the same as what ar-Razi transmitted. From Abu Ayyub, and published by Ibn Abu Shaibah, at- Tirmidhi, Ibn Abu Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, and at- Tabarani – ‘I said, 'O Messenger of Allah, how do you see the saying of Allah’, ‘...until you ask permission and greet its occupants?’ 'We know about this greeting, so what about the asking permission?' He said, 'The man glorifies, magnifies and praises, and clears his throat, thus letting the occupants of the house know.' As-Suyuti transmitted it in his book, The Published Pearls in Commentary on the Qur'an by what has been transmitted.
By citing the preceding we are saved from pursuing the clear proofs of the legitimacy of seeking permission by means of invocation of Allah which showed up in this chapter. It is undisputed among the imams that invocation in seeking permission is preferable to calling out and knocking loudly on the door.
‘O brother, when you created a great distance between the sunna and us, however closely and justly you examined what we have set out, in our view you typified the form of innovation. For this reason we rose to combat it, and Allah inspired us, without any knowledge on our part, and He guided us with you, Amin.
Before the conclusion of this essay, blessed for us and you if Allah wills, I shall mention some traditions relevant to this area - I hope you will give them due attention as is your business. Each of these two noble traditions, among other things, summarises all that we have set out concerning the necessity of filling one's time and place, and the structure of all moments, with invocation of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.
First, a tradition which Imam Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Ibn Abi Dunya, Nasa'i, and Ibn Hibban published. In the wording of Abu Oawud - 'He said, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, ‘If one remained at a sitting without invoking Allah, it was counted against him as being frivolous with respect to Allah.’ Al-Hafidh ‘Abd al-Adhim said, ‘At-tirah (being frivolous), ta' with a kasra and a single ra', is a defect and something to be answerable for.' Second, the tradition which Abu Dawud and al-Hakim published from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him - 'He said, 'No people stand up from a gathering in which Allah was not invoked except that they
stand up from something like the corpse of a donkey, which will be a source of regret for them on the day of standing:'
Here the answer is concluded - success is in the hand of the One to Whom one turns, and returns. May Allah bless Sayyidina Muhammad and his family and Companions and give them peace. Praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all creatures.