Shaykh ‘Alī al-Ḥudhayfī al-‘Adanī Responds To Errors of Dr Aḥmad Gumi & Advises Him
Shaykh Abū ‘Ammār ‘Alī al-Ḥufhayfī al-‘Adanī – حفظه الله –;
﷽
In the name of Allāh, the Most Merciful, the Most Beneficent.
All praise and thanks are for Allāh alone, the Lord of all that exisits, and may Allāh extol the mention of our Prophet, Muḥammad, and bless him, his family and companions. As for what follows;
Some of the brothers from Nigeria sent me a question in which they ask about a man that is called Dr Aḥmad Gumi, and this man has a lot of [incorrect] affairs, from these things is that:
He rejects the Ḥadīth of Abū Ayyūb in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim regarding fasting 6 days of Shawwāl, [the] Ḥadīth of Abū Ayyūb: The Prophet - صلى الله عليه وسلم - said,
“Whoever fasts Ramaḍān then follows it with 6 days of fasting in Shawwāl it would be as though he fasted the whole year.”
This man, Aḥmad Gumi, says that fasting 6 days of Shawwāl is a Bid’ah [an innovation in the Religion], and he says that Imām Mālik bin Anas doesn’t affirm fasting 6 days of Shawwāl, and ha says that Imām Mālik bin Anas rejected the Ḥadīth because the people of Madīnah didn’t act upon it.
And Dr Aḥmad Gumi claims that nothing has been established regarding the descent of ‘Īsá [Jesus] the son of Maryam.
And he also says, that Imām Mālik in his Muwaṭṭtā’ did not record even a single Ḥadīth concerning the descent of ʿĪsá ibn Maryam at the ending of time.
And it has been transmitted to me about him that he is plentiful in disparaging Shaykh al-Albānī (Muḥammad Nāṣir ad-Dīn al-Albānī), so he says that the Ḥadīth of fasting 6 days in Shawwāl and the likes of it from the Aḥadīth, that Imām Mālik had thrown them in the trash, so Imām al-Albānī gathered these (aḥadīth) from the trash and placed them in Silsilah aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥah.
No doubt this speech requires something of commentary. So we say, and Allāh is the granter of success.
Firstly: The Ḥadīth of fasting 6 days from Shawwāl is in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. From Abū Ayyūb - رضي الله عنه - and it has come from different paths, and there isn’t anything in the Sanad (Chain of Narration) of the Ḥadīth what necessitates its weakness. So the Ḥadīth is authentic, fulfilling the conditions of authenticity, so its acceptance is obligatory. As for the “rejection” of Imām Malik of Ḥadīth it is not due to the fact that the Ḥadīth has a hidden defect or a criticism of any of the narrators. Imām Mālik when he “rejected” the Ḥadīth it was not because the Ḥadīth has any defect of a break in the Sanad (Chain of Narration) or criticism of any of the narrators — rather it was due to the fact that he didn’t find any of the people of Madīnah acting upon it. It was their assumption that it could possibly be abrogated, or that for example the Ḥadīth had not come in the Sunnah. This was the Aṣl of Imām Mālik, and it is known that from the Uṣūl (principles and foundations) of Imām Mālik is the actions of the people of al-Madīnah, and this principle is exclusive to Imām Mālik alone. And none from the (other) three Imāms implemented it, rather the principles of some of the Imāms contradict this. So Imām ash-Shāfi’ī from his principles is that if the Chain of Narration of a Ḥadīth is authentic then it is a proof in and of itself, and it is to be given precedence over other than it from the speech of the people. And He —May Allāh have mercy upon him— said that the Ummah is in agreement that if the Sunnah of the Prophet — صلى الله عليه وسلم — has become clear it is not permissible for anyone to abandon it whoever he may be.
Furthermore, this is one affair from the many issues of Fiqh (Jurisprudence) which some of the four Imāms did not act upon. There are many of the Sunan that have come which the four Imāms did not act upon, whether owing to the fact that the Imām — for example — from the four Imāms, either because the Ḥadīth had not reach him, or it reached him but he thought it was not authentic, or it reached him that it was authentic but he thought it had been abrogated, or the likes of this from the affairs which excuse should be sought for them, as has come in the Risālah of (Shaykh al-Islām) Ibn Taymiyyah known as Raf‘ al-Malām ‘An al-A’immah al-A’lām (Removing The Blame From The (Four) Illustrious Imāms).
So we say to Dr Aḥmad Gumi is every Mas’alah that such-and-such Imām turned away from impermissible for us to act upon? Even if authentic Aḥadīth have come concerning it? Established in the Ṣaḥīḥ, and other than it? This would mean that we do not act except upon what the four Imāms agree upon. Na’am?
Also, if Imām Mālik prefers a position and the other Imāms oppose him, what is causing Dr Aḥmad Gumi to fanatically cling to the opinion of Imām Mālik with the exception of other than him from the Imāms? Why -for example- does he not hold on to the position of the one that takes the Ḥadīth from the three Imāms? Especially since the Ḥadīth is with them, so it is incumbent that he holds right to the speech of some of the three Imāms as the Ḥadīth is with them and that he leaves off the speech of Imām Mālik while seeking an excusing for him, as he has no proof (in reality).
So how is it permissible for him to abandon the speech of the Prophet - صلى الله عليه وسلم - for the speech of a scholar? With the knowledge that Imām Mālik - رحمه الله - used to say: “everyone’s speech can be accepted and rejected except the companion of this grave” — and he pointed to the grave of the Prophet - صلى الله عليه وسلم -. So, we ask Dr Gumi why do you fanatically cling to one whose speech can be accepted and rejected and you unfortunately display evil manners to the speech of one whose speech is accepted (in all circumstances) and no statement of his is to be rejected - صلى الله عليه وسلم -.
It is not permissible —and this is a Naṣiḥah to Dr Aḥmad Gumi— it is not permissible for him to say that Imām Mālik bin Anas has discarded these Aḥadīth in the trash, this is an extremely ugly speech. And it is not befitting to be said about the noble Prophetic Narrations the likes of these expression. Most especially from a Student of Knowledge that knows the Prophetic Sunnah, so how then for the one that is called “Dr.”?
These Aḥadīth are authentic, narrated by Imām Muslim in his Ṣaḥīḥ, and the Ummah is in agreement over the authenticity of what is in the two Ṣaḥīḥ, — except for a few Aḥadīth — and the Ḥadīth of fasting 6 days from the month of Shawwāl isn’t from these few Aḥadīth which the Ummah hasn’t agreed upon, rather they agree upon it (its authenticity). And if it in discovered that a Ḥadīth has in it weakness, then in the same light, it is not said regarding the Prophetic Narrations which have been graded as weak, the likes of statements — that they are thrown in the bin. The People of Knowledge maintain good manners with the Aḥadīth, even if they are weak.
As for what relates to the decent of ʿĪsá at the End of Time, then there has come regarding that many Aḥadīth from the Prophet - صلى الله عليه وسلم -, and these Aḥadīth have reached the the level of Tawātur¹ and a large group from the Imāms and scholars clearly stated it’s Tawātur, from them is the Imām ibn Jarīr in his Tafsīr, and Ḥāfidh ibn Kathīr in his Tafsīr, and Siddīq Ḥasan Khān, Shaykh al-Albānī and other than them.
As for Dr Aḥmad Gumi’s disparagement of Shaykh al-Albānī, for it has been said regarding him that he is frequent in his disparagement, he says the Ḥadīth of fasting six days of Shawwāl Imām Mālik had discarded them into the trash and Shaykh al-Albānī gathered them from the trash and placed them within Silsilah as-Ṣaḥīḥah. This statement, by Allāh, is a dangerous statement and extremely repugnant. We fear for an evil end for the one that said it if he doesn’t repent to Allāh from it, because this statement means Silsilah as-Ṣaḥīḥah gathers within it weak Aḥadīth that al-Albānī collected from the trash. Together with the fact that –we ask Allāh for safety and security– many of these authentic narrations scholars of the century do not differ with Shaykh al-Albānī in his authenticating them.
Shaykh al-Albānī would sometimes differ with the contemporary scholars in some Aḥadīth, in terms of authenticating or weakening, but most of these narrations he is in agreement with them in authenticating them, so who are you, O Doctor, in comparison to these scholars of this century that agree with Shaykh al-Albānī?
And I advise the brother Dr Aḥmad Gumi, I say it is upon you to stick to the way of Ahl as-Sunnah (The People of Sunnah) in dealing with the Prophetic narrations, so that whose chain of narration is authentic and the People of Ḥadīth rule that its chain of narration is authentic, or at the very least its quality of being good (Ḥasan) then it is obligatory to submit to it and accepting what it points to of meaning, except if the Ḥadīth is abrogated (Mansūkh).
And it is upon Dr Aḥmad Gumi -I ask Allāh to guide him to all goodness- I say to him; a caller who has been granted success is the one who gives concern to teaching the people affairs they are in severe need of, and they benefit from it a great deal, like warning people from different types of misguidance, from Shirk, and sorcery/magic (Siḥr) and astrology, charlatanry and likes of that from the kinds of corruption in belief that is present in Africa and other than it. Especially since these (affairs) are prevalent. So it is not befitting that he leaves these affairs that are very important like teaching people the affairs of ‘Aqīdah and he goes on to put the people to trial by the likes of the opinion of Imām Mālik in the Mas’alah of fasting six days from Shawwāl. It is not befitting for him to be fanatical in this affair.
Even if we say this affair (of fasting six days from Shawwāl) is from the affairs which differing is allowed, then it is a condition that the foundations of knowledge are not transgressed against, as it has occurred with Dr Aḥmad Gumi, may Allāh guide him.
This is what is sought after, that a caller, a Student of Knowledge turns to teaching the people and conveying the truth to them, and pointing them to goodness and warning them from evil.
I will suffice with this, In shā’ Allāh Ta‘ālá, and I ask Allāh to grant us success to all that is good, and may Allāh extol the mention of His servant and messenger, Muḥammad, and bless him.
─────────
¹ - Where there are so many narrators at each level of the Chain of Narration (Isnād) that it is not possible that the narrators would have gathered together to concoct a lie.
Translation: MiU Editorial • 26-Shawwāl-1446.h /24-April-2025.m
