Tijānī Denigration of al-Ifrīqī

One may wonder why ʿUmar Masʿūd would compile a brand new refutation of al-Ifrīqī, instead of simply issuing a reprint of his master Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ’s own polemical pamphlet, just as, by his own account, Anṣār al-Sunna had attacked the brotherhood by their reproduction and redistribution of al-Ifrīqī’s al-Anwār. While a fully satisfactory reply to this question may not be possible for the time being, two possible factors that might have forced him to think that a newly

562 ʿUmar Masʿūd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Ifrīqī, p. 2.

563 Anṣār Al-Sunna al-Muḥammadiyya is an Egypt-based Salafī organization with active branches in Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Tanzania, Chad, the Central African Republic, Liberia, and South Africa, on the African

continent, as well as in other countries like Sri Lanka and Thailand outside the continent. Founded in 1926 by Muḥammad Ḥāmid al-Fiqī (d. 1959 CE), Anṣār al-Sunna maintains close doctrinal and political links with the Saudis. It is currently headed by ʿAbdallāh Shākir al-Junaydī. Their anti-Sufi struggle forms an essential part of the organization’s puritanical campaign for the elimination of alien substances which they say have been injected into the doctrines of Islam. For further information, see: http://www.saaid.net/feraq/mthahb/8.htm last check 1.6.2016;

http://www.ansaralsonna.com/web/pageother-659.html; http://www.saaid.net/feraq/mthahb/8.htm. last check October 5, 2017. A detailed account of the Anṣār is given by Fatḥī Amīn ʿUthmān (b. 1935 CE), known as the historian of the organization (mu ʾarrikh al- Jamaʿa) in his Jamaʿa Anṣār al-Sunna al-Muḥammadiyya: Nashatuhā wa-ahdafuhā, wa-rijaluhā.

564 ʿUmar Masʿūd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Ifrīqī, p. 12.

565 ʿUmar Masʿūd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Ifrīqī, p. 3.

164

written reply would better serve his goals than the reproduction of the Radd akādhīb al-muftarīn, are as follows:

a) That of Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ’s accommodation of his opponents’ critique, and his giving credit to them. Indeed, the twentieth-century Tijānī authority Ibrāhīm Sīdī had admonished the Egyptian for the allegedly soft tone he used against his adversaries.⁵⁶⁶ Thus it may be said that within certain Sudanese Tijānī milieus of the time, the relgious landscape was still affected by anti-Ḥāfiẓian sentiments. As such, it may be that ʿUmar Masʿūd did not want to reignite the fire of intra-Tijānī conflict by reprinting his master’s pamphlet, though one may easily deduce, from his own publications, that he had thoroughly followed in the footsteps of his Egyptian shaykh. Indeed, except for the unprecedentedly harsh and occasionally vulgar language used by the Sudanese, the responses provided in his al-Radd ʿalā al-Ifrīqī seem to have been inspired and shaped by those of his master’s Radd akādhīb al-muftarīn.

b) That, in general, one’s scholarly refutation of one’s opponents may help one to enhance one’s personal authority and prestige. Tijānī shaykhs are no exemption in this regard, in the sense that, their polemical confrontations with outsiders could gain them considerable prestige within Tijānī circles.⁵⁶⁷ ʿUmar Masʿūd’s refutation of the Malian Salafī seems to be of a nature in which the personality of the opponent is brought under fire.⁵⁶⁸ The aim of such refutations is to prove that one’s adversary is unworthy of a response in the first place, a strategy that prevailed in the second half of the last century. Other Tijānī protagonists may also be seen to have displayed a similar attitude.⁵⁶⁹

566 Ibrāhīm Sīdī condemns al-Ḥāfiẓ’s relatively soft tone in response to his opponents as too accommodating. See Ibrāhīm Sīdī, “al-Irshādāt al-Aḥmad iyya fī sham raʾiha al-khatmiyya wa al-kawniyya”, n.p.n.d., see in particular p.15.

567 One could think here of Aḥmad al-ʿAyyāshī Sukayrij of Morocco, who, due to his polemical writings in

refutation of opponents, came to be known as the leading protagonist of the Tijānīs in West and North Africa during his life-time. For more details, see: Jamil Abun-Nasr, The Tijāniyya: a Sufi Order in the Modern World, p. 182.

568 Targeting the personality of one’s opponents seems to be a relatively well-established tradition among Sudanese Tijānīs. Rüdiger Seesemann provides an account of controversies between the Niyasiyya branch of the brotherhood and traditional Tijānīs who refused to submit to the authority of Ibrāhīm Niyās, in which the latter, having seen their position weakened, resort to directing personal attacks against their adversaries. See Rüdiger Seesemann, “The History of the Tijāniyya and the issue of tarbiya in Darfur (Sudan)”, p. 422.

569 A good example of this kind is Aḥmad b. al-Hādī’s Muntahā sayl al-jārif fī tanāquḍāt Mushtahā al-kharif in refutation of Ibn Mayābā.

165

Two out of four chapters in Umar Masʿūd’s Radd ʿalā al-Ifrīqī serve to denigrate the scholarly capabilities of the Malian Salafī. In the very first chapter, a short account of the life of al-Ifrīqī is provided, with special emphasis on two phases of his life which are considered to have shaped his intellectual career. The reader’s attention is attracted to al-Ifrīqī’s eight years of study in the French mission college in Timbuktu, and to his subsequent five years’ of service as a teacher of the French language at the same institution. The other aspect upon which importance is placed the Malian’s alleged lack of knowledge regarding the Islamic sciences, particularly the Arabic language. It is well-known that the Malian Salafī came relatively late to gaining a high standard of religious education in Dār al-Ḥadīth, a Salafī/Wahhābī institution in Medina.⁵⁷⁰ On the basis of this fact, ʿUmar Masʿūd tries to convince his fellow Tijānīs that they might well expect to receive criticism from someone whose early stages of life were so thoroughly shaped by his French education, followed by his exposure to a heavily anti-Sufi education in the so-called House of the Prophetic Traditions. The Malian is portrayed as someone who pretends to have expertise in the field of ḥadīth, whereas the Sudanese Tijānī claims that his lack of knowledge, particularly regarding the Arabic language, is obvious in his arguments.

In the fourth chapter, ʿUmar Masʿūd takes particular care to elaborate on his opponent’s purported incompetence in the Islamic sciences. The condescending style of argument applied therein is obvious from the chapter’s title, “al-muḍḥikāt al-mubkiyāt” meaning that which makes one simultaneously laugh and cry. In a total of eleven pages, the Sudanese Tijānī sets out twelve issues that he claims prove al-Ifrīqī’s lack of knowledge and indifference in quoting Prophetic traditions.

For example, in his discussion of innovations, the Malian Salafī has cited a Prophetic statement from the Sharḥ al-Sunna (Commentary on the Sunna) by Imām al-Baghawī, and from the al-Arbaʿīn by Imām al-Nawawī, which goes: “By [Allah] who controls my soul that none of you would be a true believer until he subjugates his lower self to what I have brought to you”. This statement, according to al-Ifrīqī, is reported by al-Nawawī in al-Arbaʿīn with a true chain of transmission (sanad); whereas, ʿUmar Masʿūd claims that al-Arbaʿīn does not contain any single Prophetic tradition, let alone one with a true chain of transmission. He goes on to argue that this fact is explicitly mentioned in the the book’s prologue; thus the Malian Salafī is mocked for his alleged lack of knowledge. This is a book, the Sudanese asserts, that is memorized by heart by

570 ʿUmar Masʿūd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Ifrīqī, pp. 6-10.

166

little boys, while al-Ifrīqī, a teacher at the Dār al-Ḥadīth, is ignorant of it. Al-Baghawī is said to have reported it to have a weak chain of transmission (sanad ḍaʿif). The authority of Shuʿayb al-Arnawṭ (d. 1438/2016) and Zuhayr al-Shāwīsh (d. 1434/2013)—two prominent Salafī experts in the sciences of ḥadīth and disciples of the eminent Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī (d. 1419/1999) a towering figure, credited with shaping contemporary Salafism,⁵⁷¹—is then invoked for further textual support, as in a commentary on al-Baghawī’s Sharḥ al-Sunna, both scholars articulate that the above-mentioned tradition is weak (ḍa’īf) due to the existence of a certain Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād in the chain of transmission.⁵⁷² Al-Albānī had already passed a similar verdict on Nuʿaym b.

Ḥammād in his Ẓilāl al-janna (The Shadows of Paradise). This allegedly obvious lack of knowledge is meant to prove al-Ifrīqī’s incompetency in the field of Prophetic traditions, which is enough to make one simultaneously laugh and cry. Furthermore, he is charged with the fabrication of lies and their attribution to the Prophet. The original form of the tradition reported by al-Baghawī and al-Nawawī, according to ʿUmar Masʿūd, goes: “No one of you will be a true believer until he subjugates his lower self to what I have brought to you”, whereas al-Ifrīqī’s version contains the addition of “By [Allah] who controls my soul”. Any addition to the text of a Prophetic statement is a fabrication of lies. Thus, ʿUmar Masʿūd’s claims: “This [addition to the text] is considered by authorities in the field of ḥadīth as a sort of attribution of lies to the Prophet, the committer of which is [not only] a liar [but also an] attributor of lies to the Prophet, even if he was a teacher at Dār al-Ḥadīth”.⁵⁷³ Another purported indication of the Malian’s incompetence in the field of ḥadīth is his constant reference to, and quotation of, Prophetic traditions from al-Shāṭibī’s al-Iʿtiṣām. The Sudanese states:

We know that al-Shāṭibī’s book is not a source of Prophetic traditions.

Despite this, al-Ifrīqī refers to [the] Prophetic traditions in it, so we laughed.

These Prophetic statements are known in the sources of ḥadīth but the teacher of Dār al-Ḥadīth was not competent enough [to know], so we cried”.⁵⁷⁴

571 Al-Albānī is one of the foremost authorities for all of the different orientations of the Salafī movement. On his life see: Muḥammad al-Majdhūb, ʿUlamāʾ wa-mafakkirūn ʿaraftuhum, vol. I, pp. 287-326. For his impact on contemporary Salafism in favour of the apolitical tendency, see: Stéphane Lacroix, “Between Revolution and Apoliticism: Nasir al-Din al-Albani and his Impact on the Shaping of Contemporary Salafism”, in Roel Meijer (ed.), Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement, London: Hurst & Company, pp. 58-87.

572 ʿUmar Masʿūd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Ifrīqī, p. 34.

573 ʿUmar Masʿūd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Ifrīqī, p. 36.

574 ʿUmar Masʿūd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Ifrīqī, p. 38.

167

Elsewhere, the Malian is even charged with lies regarding his name. Following Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ, the Sudanese targets his opponent for falsely naming himself al-Ifrīqī, whereas Ifrīqyā, a well-known geographic territory, does not contain Bilād al-Takrūr, the Malian’s true place of origin.⁵⁷⁵ Therefore, ʿUmar Masʿūd argues, he should have named himself after Takrūr (fal-yunsib nafsahu inshāʾa takruriyyan). He condescendingly continues by stating that Ifrīqyā has produced many valuable scholars, among which no Takrūrī could be found. “One might argue” he hypothesizes, “that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ifrīqī might have named himself after ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.

Anʿum al-Ifrīqī, since naming oneself after esteemed people is a sign of salvation”.⁵⁷⁶ This, however, would entirely fail to rescue him from damage to his reputation since ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Anʿum al-Ifrīqī was known for his narrations of fabricated Prophetic traditions on behalf of reliable authorities. “This, I would say”, concludes the Sudanese, “is a similarity between the two”⁵⁷⁷—because of which, he archly implies, the Malian might have named himself after this liar.

ʿUmar Masʿūd then asks his adversary for the reason for the animosity and hatred between Salafī circles—this because the Malian, in his own pamphlet, had held innovations responsible for rifts and hostility between Muslims. If so, asks ʿUmar Masʿūd, then why would the bitterest enemies of innovations, namely the Salafīs, fall pray to disunity? They are even said to have accused each other of the greatest polytheism (al-shirk al-akbar). He goes on to quote a prominent Salafī authority from Aleppo, Muḥammad Nasīb al-Rifāʿī (d. 1413/1992),⁵⁷⁸ the founder of a Salafī organization in Syria known as Jamāʿat al-Daʿwa al-Muḥammadiyya li-l-Sirāṭ al-Mustaqīm (The Association of the Muhammdan Call to the Straight Path), complaining about the inter-Salafī rifts.

The Sudanese continues: “al-Ifrīqī should let us ask him, while laughing and crying, a simple question: what is the reason for hatred and hostility among Salafīs, who are claimed to be strict followers of the Sunna [?]”⁵⁷⁹ To demonstrate inter-Salafī disagreements, at least eight additional Salafī sources, including those of al-Albānī, are then brought to reader’s attention. All of them indicate rifts and allegations made within the Salafī movement.⁵⁸⁰ The Malian is then further

575 ʿUmar Masʿūd relies on Muʿjam al-Buldān’s description of the territorial boundaries of Ifrīqyā, which excludes al-Ifrīqī’s homeland Mali. For details, see: ʿUmar Masʿūd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Ifrīqī, p. 15.

576 ʿUmar Masʿūd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Ifrīqī, p. 16.

577 ʿUmar Masʿūd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Ifrīqī, p. 17.

578 For an account of his life, see: ʿIṣām Mūsā Hādī, Nafaḥāt min ḥayāt al-ʿAllāma Muḥammad Nasīb al-Rufāʿī, n.p, n.d.

579 ʿUmar Masʿūd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Ifrīqī, p. 40.

580 For a list of these sources and their authors, see: ʿUmar Masʿūd, al-Radd ʿalā l-Ifrīqī, pp. 41-42.

168

admonished for his alleged confirmation of ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī’s litanies in Ghunyat al-ṭālibīn (Wealth of the Knowledge Seekers), some of which, according to the Sudanese, are devoid of Prophetic origin:

Al-Ifrīqī has evoked the authority of Shaykh ʿAbd Qādir Jīlānī al-Baghdadī and his book Ghunyat al-ṭālibīn, although some of the litanies mentioned in the book are not reported with true chains of transmission from the Prophet (ghayr maʾthūra). Thus, who wants to laugh should do so and who wants to cry should do so”.⁵⁸¹

Thus, the Malian is accused of double standards for allegedly supporting al-Jīlānī in the issue of litanies not verifiably transmitted from the Prophet, while condemning al-Tijānī for the same reason. The Sudanese Tijānī ignores the fact that neither al-Ifrīqī nor other protagonists of the Salafī movement admonish unverified litanies: they even believe in a certain reward for them.

What is denied by Salafīs is that there are unprecedented and unmatched sublime rewards attached to them, which they say are not ascribed even to litanies with Prophetic origins; it is this context in which ṣalāt al-fātiḥ is denied. It is chiefly this condescending chapter, along with the short biography of the Malian, which sets ʿUmar Masʿūd’s polemical pamphlet apart from that of his Egyptian master.