Ṣalāt al-fātiḥ as an Arena for Inter-Tijānī Polemics

In the first half of the last century, both Ibrāhīm Niyās and Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ developed the conviction that there had been the interpolation of alien substances into Tijānī sources, particularly the Jawāhir.⁶⁶⁰ However, in a departure from a statement by the supreme master—in which he refers to the sublime nature of the sharīʿa and forcefully asserts that nothing that contradicts the to sharīʿa can have a binding nature, including his own teachings and practices, as well as his advice to his own followers to weight even his own teachings with the scale of the sharīʿa—both Ibrāhīm Niyās and Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ may be seen to have failed, or at least hesitated, to apply the scale of the sharīʿa where the sayings of their master were concerned. Thus, not a single passage was marked by either of them as an addition (dass) of the adversaries of the brotherhood.⁶⁶¹ However, this conviction nonetheless paved the way for subsequent Tijānī scholars to take this line of argumentation a step further. The second half of the twentieth century witnessed the rise of Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ,⁶⁶² a leader in the Niyāsiyya branch of the Tijāniyya, who enjoys widespread recognition in Tijānī circles in Nigeria and beyond, and who undertook the burden of completing the mission of the purification of Tijānī sources.

In one of his books al-Takfīr akhṭar bidʿa tuhaddid al-salām wa-l-waḥda bayn al-muslimīn fī Nigeria (Excommunication [of Muslims form the religion of Islam] is the Greatest Danger Threatening the Unity of Muslims in Nigeria), known for short as al-Takfīr,⁶⁶³ Ṣāliḥ dares to

659 ʿUmar Masʿūd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Ifrīqī, p. 47.

660 See details in Mohammad Ajmal Hanif, “An Evolution in Tijāniyya Perception of Jawāhir al-maʿānī”, in: 1st International Sufi Studies Graduate Student Symposium March 9-11 Papers, (published online by Nefes Yayınevi, Istanbul, 2018, https://issuu.com/hernefes/docs/tebligler_tag).

661 See Rüdiger Seesemann, “Three Ibrāhīms”, p. 307; Rüdiger Seesemann, “The Takfīr Debate: Part II: The Sudanese Arena”, Sudanic Africa 10, 1999, pp. 65-110, (see p. 77).

662 Full name Ibrāhīm b. Ṣāliḥ b. Yūnus al-Ḥusaynī. On his life and writings, see: ALA II, pp. 407-415; Roman Loimeier, Islamic Reform and Political Change in Northern Nigeria, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1997, pp. 271-277.

663 The book’s full title is al-Takfīr akhṭar bidʿa tuhaddid al-salam wa-l-waḥda bayn al-muslimin fi Nigeria. Written as a response to the opponents of the Tijāniyya, namely Abū Bakr Gumi, the book starts with a discussion of the development of different factions in matters of jurisprudence and faith. Other main topics include the origin of Sufism and its development, various Sufi brotherhoods, and the issue of excommunication (takfīr), with particular reference to anti-Tijānism, etc. It was first published in 1982 in Cairo by Mustāfā al-ābi al-Ḥalabī. Rüdiger

Seesemann, “The Takfīr Debate: Sources for the Study of a Contemporary Dispute Among African Sufis, Part I: The Nigerian Arena”, Sudanic Africa, 9, 1998, pp. 39-70. (see p. 44). The edition I consulted for this paper was printed

186

question the issue of the reward of ṣalāt al-fātiḥ, marking the beginning of an extreme departure from the conventional policy of the brotherhood. The common Tijānī belief of one recitation of al-yāqūta al-farīda being equivalent to six thousand recitations of the whole Qurʾān had attracted fierce criticism from Abū Bakr Maḥmūd Gumi (d. 1413/1992),⁶⁶⁴ a diehard anti-Sufist in Nigeria.

In a book known for short as al-ʿAqīda al-ṣaḥīḥa (The True Creed), he condemnes Tijānīs for comparing their litany with—and even giving it precedence over—the divine eternal speech.

Gumi’s onslaught shocked younger generations of Tijānīs, forcing substantial numbers of them to leave the brotherhood. A renowned example is that of Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir Maygharī, who not only denounced the ṭarīqa Tijāniyya, but then also began to voice his criticism in writing. Ṣāliḥ thus produced al-Takfīr as a written response to Gumi⁶⁶⁵ with the intention of discrediting both Gumi and his followers, the Izāla movement,⁶⁶⁶ who had reportedly accused Tijānīs of disbelief.

Ṣāliḥ denied the possibility of any kind of comparison between ṣalāt al-fātiḥ and the divine eternal speech, arguing that the common Tijānī perception of the litany’s equality to six thousand recitations of the Qurʾān was inaccurate and needed to be fixed, not to mention the fact that it was in sharp contradiction with other passages in Jawāhir.⁶⁶⁷ He claimed that it was certainly either an addition to the most authoritative source of the brotherhood by some of their enemies, or a printing

in 1998 in Khartoum by Aru li-l-Ṭabāʿat wa-l-Tijāra al-ʿĀmma with an introduction and appendix by Abū ʿArakī ʿAbd al-Qādir, a Sudanese disciple of Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ.

664 Abū Bakr Gumi held the post of grand judge (qāḍī al-quḍāt) of Northern Nigeria for a long time. On his life story, his struggle with Sufi brotherhoods and his influence within the religious and political arena of Northern Nigeria, see: Roman Loimeier, Islamic Reform and Political Change in Northern Nigeria, pp. 148-207; Huzaifa Aliyu Jangebe, “Islamic Reform in Nigeria: The Contributions of Sheikh Abubakar Mahmud Gumi” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 5, No. 9, September 2015, pp. 176-181.

665 Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ never mentions Gumi by name and remains silent about the identity of his opponent, except on one occasion where his opponent is indirectly referred to as the former chief judge of Northern Nigeria. Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ, al-Takfīr akhṭar bidʿa tuhaddid al-salām wa-l-waḥda bayn al-muslimn fi Nayjrīā (with an introduction and appendix by Abū ʿArakī ʿAbd al-Qādir), Khartoum: Uru li-l-Ṭibāʿa wa-l-Tijāra al-ʿĀmma, 1998, p. 8.

666 Yan Izāla is the Hausa short form for the Arabic Jamaʿa Izālat al-Bidʿa wa-Iqamat al-Sunna (Association for the Removal of Innovation and for the Establishment of the Sunna). For a full account of its establishment and anti-Sufi engagement, see: Roman Loimeier, Islamic Reform and Political Change in Northern Nigeria, pp. 207-266. For a more recent account, see: Ramzi Ben Amara, The Izāla Movement in Nigeria: Relationship to Sufis and Perception of Shari’a Re-implementation, (PhD Thesis, University of Bayreuth), 2011, pp. 150-290.

667 Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ refers here to a passage in Jawāhir that declares one recitation of al-ism al-aʿẓam (God’s greatest name) to be equivalent in reward to that of six thousand recitations of salāt al-fātih, and then, in the same passage goes on to claim that one recitation of the al-ism al-aʿẓam is equal to no more than a single recitation of the Qurʾān.

This passage thus contradicts that which states the reward of ṣalāt al-fātiḥ to be equal to six thousand recitations of the Qurʾān. Only one of these passages could be accurate, he argued, and that had to be the passage of Ism al-aʿẓam, since this made better common sense. This argument was further consolidated by another passage in Jawāhir which equalizes one recitation of al-ism al-a’zam to six thousand recitations of salāt al-fātih. Furthermore, with the exception of one passage, nowhere else in Jawāhir is the Qurʾān mentioned in the context of the reward of salāt al-fātih. Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ, al-Takfīr akhṭar bidʿa, pp. 89-90. For a full discussion of Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ’s argument see:

Rüdiger Seesemann, “The Takfīr Debate...” Part I, p. 51-53.

187

mistake that had supplied the enemies of the supreme leader with the means to attack him.⁶⁶⁸ In an interview with Roman Loimeier, Ṣāliḥ would argue that more than ten different versions of Jawāhir were in circulation at the time: ʿAlī Ḥarāzim himself, the book’s author, had produced three versions, none of which was approved by the supreme master, due to linguistic flaws. The second version had then been sent to Ibrāhīm al-Riyāḥī,⁶⁶⁹ the prominent Tunisian Tijānī scholar, for possible improvement, who had not time to work through the whole book. His students, however, had somehow come to copy the faulty text and take it to Cairo, where further copies, and versions, were produced. The first serious attempt at correction, according to Ṣāliḥ, had been undertaken by the Egyptian al-Ḥāfiẓ, while the second serious attempt was then in progress, by a committee of Moroccan and Nigerian scholars under his own supervision.⁶⁷⁰

This line of argumentation developed by Ṣāliḥ, and praised by some researchers as a flexible strategy, to the benefit of the Tijāniyya,⁶⁷¹ makes sense when the context in which al-Takfīr was produced is taken into consideration. Yan Izāla was on the march; Sufis in general and Tijānīs in particular were in a defensive mood. They had already lost considerable ground to Gumi’s Salafī followers; the conventional perception of the unconditional and uncritical acceptance of all that had been reported to have been said by the supreme leader was no longer of any good. An innovative approach to the issue was needed, and it was Ṣāliḥ who made the attempt. Thus, he said, the contents of Tijānī sources had to be investigated in light of the sharīʿa: this not only because it was the command of the supreme leader that it should be so, but due also to the fact that the instructions of Allah and his messenger must have, and indeed are, the last say. Therefore, the problematic contents of Tijānī sources must be made to comply with the rules of the sharīʿa, through interpretation and revision, and those offering no possibility of revision had to be eliminated.⁶⁷² Aḥmad al-Tijānī was indeed a divinely elected saint, but not impeccable; so Ṣāliḥ

668 Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ, al-Takfīr akhṭar bidʿa, p. 87.

669 On the life of Ibrāhīm Riyāḥī, see: ‘Umar b. Muḥammad, Taʿṭīr nawāḥī bi-tarjama Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Riyāḥī, Tunus: Maṭbaʿa Bikar wa-Shurakāʾih, 1320.

670 According to Loimeier, this interview took place on 27 March 1988. Roman Loimeier, Islamic Reform and Political Change in Northern Nigeria, pp. 274-275. It should be noted that other Tijānīs speak of only two versions having been produced by ʿAlī Ḥarāzim, the second of which, they say, was approved by Aḥmad al-Tijānī.

671 Roman Loimeier, argues that in developing this more flexible strategy by claiming “that none of the presently circulating copies of the book are really authentic, Ṣāliḥ is in a position to take the wind out of the sails of the Yan Izāla”. Roman Loimeier, Islamic Reform and Political Change in Northern Nigeria, p. 275.

672 Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ, al-Takfīr akhṭar bidʿa, pp. 48-49. Here Ṣāliḥ quotes an important statement of al-Tijānī’s reported in Jawāhir. The founding figure of the Tijāniyya dismisses scholarly opinions that do not comply with those of

188

asserted in his response to Gumi, when the latter had accused the Tijānī master of giving himself precedence over prophets by claiming that he had been given, in sabʿ l-mathānī, that which even the prophets, apart from the Prophet Muḥammad, had not been granted.⁶⁷³ Ṣāliḥ stated that since this claim had been reported in Rimāḥ and attributed to al-Tijānī on the authority of an unknown person, it should not be taken into consideration; while at the same time claiming that it belonged to the domain of ecstatic utterances (shaṭaḥāt) which Allah may forgive due to the good deeds of His servants.⁶⁷⁴ He further recalled the authority of al-Ḥāfiẓ, who stated that the statements of Sufi masters should be rejected if no proper interpretations were possible.⁶⁷⁵ This itself hints at the fact that some of the teachings of the Sufi masters may contradict the sharīʿa, while insisting that the last say belongs to the latter. Ṣāliḥ thus also explicitly admits that the Tijānī master’s daylight encounters with the Prophet are no more valuable than communications occurring in an ecstatic state, or that which is based on a visionary dream.⁶⁷⁶ Ṣāliḥ’s attempt to purify Tijānī sources had serious repercussions within the brotherhood. He was accused of distorting the original teachings and practices of the founding figure; some asked him for a clarification, while others even accused him of collaborating with Izāla against the Tijāniyya.

Ṣāliḥ’s flexible strategy caused a split between the Nigerian Tijānīs. His attempt to justify his position on the authority of a copy of the Kitāb al-jamiʿ by al-Mishrī, which he had borrowed from Ismāʿīl Khalīfa (b. 1932 CE),⁶⁷⁷ a Tijānī leader in Northern Nigeria, further complicated the issue, as it would have meant that not only were printed versions of Jawāhir affected by additions, but also that, except for the Khalīfa’s copy, the Kitab al-Jamiʿ had shared the fate of Jawāhir. The reality turned out to be otherwise. Muḥammad al-Thānī Kafanga, one of the eldest Tijānī shaykhs at the time, wrote to Ṣāliḥ’s mentor Aḥmad b. ʿAlī Abu l-Fatḥ (d. 1424/2003),⁶⁷⁸ informing him that he was withdrawing his consent from Ṣāliḥ. Kafanga and Tāhir ʿUthmān Būshī (b. 1347/1927) better known as Dahiru Bauchi, for their part, regarded the new strategy as suicidal, and as a

Allah and his messenger. This is called by Ṣāliḥ “the only foundation on which Tijāniyya is built”. See ʿAlī Ḥarāzim, Jawāhir al-maʿānī, vol. II, p. 206 as mentioned in al-Takfir.

673 This statement is reported in Rimāḥ on the authority of an unknown person. See: ʿUmar Fūtī, Rimāḥ ḥizb al-Raḥīm ʿalā nuḥūr ḥizb al-rajīm, vol. II, p. 28.

674 Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ, al-Takfīr akhṭar bidʿa, p. 49. Though Ṣāliḥ would latter provide another interpretation of the statement, claiming that it might have been uttered in a state of fanāʾ in the Prophet, it is astonishing for him to have quoted Ibn Qayyim on the issue, stating that impeccability belongs to the Prophet alone.

675 Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ, al-Takfīr akhṭar bidʿa, p. 59.

676 Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ, al-Takfīr akhṭar bidʿa, p. 94.

677 On Ismāʿīl Khalīfa, see: ALA II, pp. 286-287.

678 On Abu l-Fath, see: ALA II, pp. 400-403.

189

capitulation to the opponents of the brotherhood. Nevertheless, it gained Ṣāliḥ a considerable following, particularly among young Tijānīs.⁶⁷⁹ Abu l-Fatḥ succeeded in calming things down in favour of his disciple, whereupon it was agreed between Tijānī scholars in Nigeria that they would remain silent on the issue and keep it as a secret known only to themselves.

This silence, however, was broken by a harsh reply, known for short as al-Summ al-zuʿāf, by Ibrāhīm Sīdī,⁶⁸⁰ a Tijānī shaykh from Sudan.⁶⁸¹ In it, Ṣāliḥ was described as someone who only pretended to be a Tijānī defending the honour of the supreme master, while, in reality, defending his opponents. The damage Ṣāliḥ’s book had inflicted upon the brotherhood, the Sudanese argued, had not been inflicted by Gumi, to whom Ṣāliḥ had pretended to reply. Indeed, Ṣāliḥ’s own accusations had exceeded those made by the opponents. According to Sīdī, the ill-fated day (al-yawm al-mashʾūm) on which one pretending to be a Tijānī would rally with the brotherhood’s opponents had arrived. The Nigerian was claimed to be an example of the renouncer who, in writing his book, excommunicates himself from the brotherhood. Thus, Sīdī declared, he should look for another Sufi order to join; certainly, his knowledge could not be deemed any kind of yard stick for Tijānīs. In his comments regarding Tijānī sources, Ṣāliḥ had not only disrespected their authors, but also the founding figure himself, argued Sīdī. In doing so, he said, the Nigerian had

“drowned himself in an inch of water”, for these Tijānī sources had been in circulation for the past two centuries, and no one before him had besmirched their credibility. From Sīdī’s perspective, Ṣāliḥ’s remarks on Jawāhir constituted misbehaviour towards its author ʿAlī Ḥarāzim, and a contradiction of the book’s Prophetic guaranty. If that source had been infiltrated, argued the Sudanese, then what was left for Tijānīs?⁶⁸² Sīdī then provided a detailed discussion of how to

679 Roman Loimeier, Islamic Reform and Political Change in Northern Nigeria, p. 276.

680 For an account of Ibrāhīm Sīdī’s life and writings, see: ALA I, pp. 301-303; Rüdiger Seesemann, “The writings of the Sudanese Tijânî shaykh Ibrâhîm Sîdî (1949-1999), with notes on the writings of his grandfather, shaykh

Muḥammad Salmâ (d. 1918), and his brother, shaykh Muḥammad al-Ghâlî (b. c. 1947)”, Sudanic Africa 11, 2000, pp. 107-124.

681 According to Seesemann, al-Summ al-zuʿāf al-mudamman fī kitāb al-Takfīr li-ifsād al-Ṭariqa wa-l-itlāf (“The Folded Poison that is Hidden in the Kitāb al-Takfīr aiming at the Distortion and Destruction of the Order”) is only known in limited number of Tijānī circles in Sudan, Northern Nigeria and in some parts of Chad. Rüdiger Seesemann, “The Takfīr Debate...part I”, p. 43.

682 Ibrāhīm Sīdī, al-Summ al-zuʿāf al-muḍamman fī kitāb al-Takfīr li-ifsād al-ṭarīqa wa-l-itlāf, (completed on 8 Dhū l-Ḥijja/1404/3 March 1984 and printed with al-Hidāya al-hādiya and al-Najm al-thāqib al-Tijānī), n.p [Khartoum], n.d [c. 1985], pp. 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 ,14 ,15 , 18 , 33, 34. See also: Rüdiger Seesemann, “The Takfīr Debate...Part I”, pp. 50, 55, 57.

190

understand the book’s purportedly contradictory statements about the reward of ṣalāt al-fātiḥ.⁶⁸³ The Tijānī authorities, he asserted, were united on the topic of reward for one recitation of al-yāqūta al-farīda being equivalent to that for six thousand recitations of the holy Qurʾān. The Rimāḥ by al-Ḥājj ʿUmar, al-Kawkab al-wahhāj by Aḥmad Sukayrij, Kāshif al-ilbās by Ibrāhīm Niyās, and al-Jawhar al-muʿaẓẓam by his own grandfather, Muḥammad Salmā (d. 1337/1918-1919),⁶⁸⁴ were here recalled for textual support for his concluding statement that what was stated in Jawāhir was an unshakable fact.⁶⁸⁵ The author of al-Takfīr had achieved nothing, said Sīdī, except for breaking this consensus.

Ṣāliḥ responded with a voluminous but relatively restrained rejoinder known as al-Mughīr, in which he carefully avoided the repetition of his previous comments on additions. However, he did stick to one point—that of the possibility of weighing of the sayings of Aḥmad al-Tijānī in the scales of sharīʿa, a point which earlier authorities had already made. Indeed, the supreme master himself had applied this method of assay, and saw his followers as capable of doing so.⁶⁸⁶ Ṣāliḥ also returned Sīdī ‘s favour in full swing, portraying him as poking his nose into others’ business.⁶⁸⁷ Events in Sīdī’s native Sudan, however, took a different direction. Ṣāliḥ’s position was consolidated by almost all the Sudanese Tijānī circles, whether of the tarbiya faction or otherwise.

His followers in particular were seriously hurt by the excommunication of their beloved shaykh by Sīdī. Several rejoinders appeared in justification of Ṣāliḥ’s application of the sharīʿa scales to the sayings of the supreme master. Sīdī, for his part, continued to respond with rebuttals of his

683 Calling upon the authority of his grandfather Muḥammad Salmā Ibrāhīm, Sīdī announced that one recitation of God’s greatest name was equal to three million, six hundred thousand recitations of the Qurʾān, whereas the passage

683 Calling upon the authority of his grandfather Muḥammad Salmā Ibrāhīm, Sīdī announced that one recitation of God’s greatest name was equal to three million, six hundred thousand recitations of the Qurʾān, whereas the passage