Category Archives: The Scholars

Trust your Mashaaykh!

Bismillahi wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘ala rasoolillahi

Ammaa ba’d:

Ibn Abi Haatim mentions under the biography of Yusuf Ibn Khaalid As Samti:

I refused to accept the statement of Yahya Ibn Ma’een concerning him, wherein he referred to him as a ‘Zindeeq’ (Heretic) until a book that he wrote supporting ‘Tajahum’ (The aqeedah of the Jahmiyah) chapter after chapter, was brought to me. He rejected within it belief in the scales on the day of Judgement. It was then that I knew that Yahya Ibn Ma’een did not speak except upon foresight and understanding!” Continue reading

The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say.. (Part 3)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say (and still hold):

3. Weakness due to a narrator being discredited for problems in his Dhabt (His Precision) Continue reading

The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say…(Part 2)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say (and still hold) that: Continue reading

100 Observations on Al Hajoori – 3 (31 – 106)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdulillah Was Salaatu Was Salaatu ‘alaa Rasoolillah

Ammaa Ba’d:

A word on these observations

It should be known that this small series was not intended to be a detailed ‘rebuttal’ of Al Hajoori, rather the intent of the series was merely to enumerate some of the many issues the people of knowledge and students of knowledge have against him, hence the title ‘Observations’. Continue reading

An update on the condition of Shaikh Zaid Al Madkhali – Shafaahullah (27 Ramadhan 1434 (5/8/2013))

Bismillahi wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘ alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d

From the grace of Allah and his concern (for his servant) and then the continued attention of his royal highness prince Muhammad Ibn Naasir, the prince of the region of Jaazaan, and the concern of a dedicated medical consultancy team, the examination, cardiographic (heart), Renal (kidney) scan and full internal X-ray of Shaikh Zaid have been carried out along with all other necessary tests and intricate checks by consultants and specialists, and he has now been allocated his own V.I.P wing (within Saamitah General Hospital ) Continue reading

100 Observations against Al Hajoori – 2 (21-30)

Bismillahi Wal hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Sallaamu ‘alaa Rasoolillahi

Continue reading

100 Observations against Al Hajoori – Point 13

Bismillahi Wal hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘alaa Rasooliillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

As mentioned in the beginning of this post the intent behind this post is only to mention the issues and not to discuss the issues with any detail

It has reached me that one of the Hajoori fanatics has criticized part one of this post (which, of course was what I was expecting!) saying that in point 13 you mentioned:

13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees (The belief of Ahlus Sunnah is that Allah would never do such a thing rather he only punishes due to actions committed and Ahlus Sunnah do not even make the suggestion since it opposses the attribute of Justice)

The individual states:


Abu Hakeem has falsely accused Shaikh Yahya (may Allaah preserve him) of having the aqeedah of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees. Abu Hakeem said,
“13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees…”

Here B. Davis makes a terrible mistake. Why is this such a huge mistake? Because the meaning of the speech of Shaikh Yahya comes in a hadeeth which Shaikh Muqbil brings in his Al-Jaamee As-Saheeh.

وقال الإمام أحمد رحمه الله أيضا(5/185)
حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا سِنَانٍ يُحَدِّثُعَنْ وَهْبِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ الْحِمْصِيِّ عَنِ ابْنِ الدَّيْلَمِيِّ قَالَ وَقَعَ فِي نَفْسِي شَيْءٌمِنْ الْقَدَرِ فَأَتَيْتُ زَيْدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ فَسَأَلْتُهُ فَقَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِوَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ لَوْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَذَّبَ أَهْلَ سَمَاوَاتِهِ وَأَهْلَأَرْضِهِ لَعَذَّبَهُمْ غَيْرَ ظَالِمٍ لَهُمْ وَلَوْرَحِمَهُمْ كَانَتْ رَحْمَتُهُ لَهُمْ خَيْرًا مِنْ أَعْمَالِهِمْ وَلَوْ كَانَلَكَ جَبَلُ أُحُدٍ أَوْ مِثْلُ جَبَلِ أُحُدٍ ذَهَبًا أَنْفَقْتَهُ فِي سَبِيلِاللَّهِ مَا قَبِلَهُ اللَّهُ مِنْكَ حَتَّى تُؤْمِنَ بِالْقَدَرِ وَتَعْلَمَأَنَّ مَا أَصَابَكَ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِيُخْطِئَكَ وَأَنَّ مَا أَخْطَأَكَ لَمْ يَكُنْلِيُصِيبَكَ وَأَنَّكَ إِنْ مِتَّ عَلَى غَيْرِ هَذَا دَخَلْتَ النَّارَ.

“So he (Zaid ibn Thaabit) said, I heard the Messenger of the Allaah (praise and peace be upon him) say, “If verily Allaah punished the companions of His heavens and the companions of His earth, He would punish them and would not be an Oppressor to them…” (Al-Hadeeth)

So we see that Shaikh Yahya did not add anything to the hadeeth. So we ask B. Davis, “Do you accuse the Prophet (praise and peace be upon him) of being Jahmee or Ash’aree?” Now, we wait for your reply or your tawba!..”

Here we see a typical example of the problem at hand, the tarbiyah Ilmiyah they recieve, and the smug attitude of one pleased with himself and his skanty understanding. Not forgetting the close to humourous ‘confidence’ many of their ignorant chests are filled with!

His statement: “..Now, we wait for your reply or your tawba!..” is actually an invitation to play ‘Ping-Pong’ with them which is something i refuse to do! But i will say this..

He accuses me of ignorance in the affairs of the adeedah as is their normal practice (though i have been aquainted with this hadeeth for more than 15 years since studying the explanation of Al Aqeedatut Tahaawiyah of Ibn Abil ‘Izz Al Hanafi with our Shaikh Ali Naasir Al faqeehi in Madina in the mid ninties!)

But this ‘Defense’ of theirs is nothing but more evidence of their Jahl!

For your information, this hadeeth has been discussed and used by three sets of people. It has been discussed by the Qadariyah, it has been used by the Jabariyah and it has been used ‘correctly’ by Ahlus Sunnah. Each of them UNDERSTAND the hadeeth in accordance with their belief.

Al Haafidh Ibn Hajr mentions in ‘Fathul Baari (18/284)

“قَالَ وَهَذَا فَصْل الْخِطَاب مَعَ الْجَبْرِيَّة الَّذِينَ أَنْكَرُوا أَنْ تَكُون الْأَعْمَال سَبَبًا فِي دُخُول الْجَنَّة مِنْ كُلّ وَجْه ، وَالْقَدَرِيَّة الَّذِينَ زَعَمُوا أَنَّ الْجَنَّة عِوَضُ الْعَمَل وَأَنَّهَا ثَمَنه وَأَنَّ دُخُولهَا بِمَحْضِ الْأَعْمَال ، وَالْحَدِيث يُبْطِل دَعْوَى الطَّائِفَتَيْنِ وَاَللَّه أَعْلَم

This is the determining factor between the belief of the Jabariyah those who reject the fact that ones actions may be a cause for an individual entering Jannah, and between the Qadariyah who claim that Jannah is granted to a person in exchange for his actions, but this hadeeth (actually) nullifies the claim of both parties..”

The Jabariyah then, hold that ones actions are not a cause for one entering jannah (since they believe that we are taken by predecree like feathers are taken by wind and our actions have no effect upon our final destination).

Since this is their belief they use the hadeeth in question to establish that Allah does with us that which he wills (i.e. without our actions coming into play and having any effect upon our outcome) therefore this hadeeth is from the strongest of that which they use to substantiate their belief.

Particularly the statement of the Messenger Saw “If Allah were to punish the inhabitants of the heaven and the inhabitants of earth he would punish them without oppressing them..”

They hold that this hadeeth establishes their belief that we are like feathers in the wind

After mentioning the Hadeeth Ibn Abil ‘Izz Al Hanafi mentions in his explanation of Al Aqeedah At Tahaawiyah

This Hadeeth is from that which the Jabariyyah use as evidence (i.e. for their belief)..”

As for the Qadariyah then it is not relevant to their false principles so they either receive it with rejection or interpretation. The best of the people in its regard are Ahlus Sunnah..”

(Sharhul Aqeedatit Tahaawiyah)

So do we now say as Al Hajooris defenders say “Oh the Jabariyah were only quoting the hadeeth!!”

Ibnil Qayyim Mentions concerning the Hadeeth in ‘Miftaahu Daaris Sa’aadah:

“Thus his mercy is not an exchange for their actions, neither is it a fruit of their actions, rather it is greater than their actions as occurs in the same hadeeth “If he were to be merciful to them then his mercy would be better for them than their actions..”

So he gathered between both affairs in the hadeeth that is (the clarification of the fact that) if he punished them he would punish them DUE TO THEM BEING DESERVED OF THAT and he would not have oppressed them. And if he had mercy upon them then that would be purely due to virtue from him and benevolence not because of their actions..”

Thus Ahlus Sunnah understand that the hadeeth is held to mean that if Allah were to punish all of the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth he would do so because THEY WERE DESERVED OF PUNISHMENT hence he would not have wronged them.

The problem with the speech of Al Hajoori is that his speech is connected to an earlier statement (as we mentioned in the beginning of the article these were merely bullet points and was not meant to be a breakdown of the issues)

Al Hajoori mentions in ‘Al Minnatul Ilaahiyah bi Sharhil Aqeedatus Safaareeniyah P153) quoting one of the mistakes of Imaam Safaareeni who said in some lines of poetry:

And it is possible for our patron (Allah) to punish his creation * WITHOUT THEM HAVING SINNED OR COMMITED ANY CRIME!”

This statement of Safaareeni is the exact statement of the Jabariyah those who say that Allah does with us as he wills and our actions play no part in our outcome! Instead of doing that which all of the scholars who explain it do which is to hasten to highlight the error of this statement. And that it is in accordance to the belief of the Jabariyyah and that Ahlus Sunnah hold such and such.

Instead he says:

“What is EVEN BETTER(!) (Ahsan Min Haadhaa) than this, is the statement of Imaam At Tahaawi:

He guides who he wills and he protects and pardons from his virtue. He misguides who he wills and he forsakes them and tests them from his justice, all of them revolve around his will, between his virtue and his justice

then he says:

Allah says: “ He will not be asked about what he does but they will be asked”(Suratul Anbiyaa 23)

Allah pardons and is benevolent.

He says: “If it were not for the virtue of Allah upon you then none of you would be purified ever but indeed Allah purifies whosoever he wills” (Suratun Noor Vs 21)

Then he quotes: “So Virtue is for Allah before and after if Allah were to punish All of his worshippers he would not have oppressed them, and if he is merciful to them then it would be due to his virtue, his favour and his generosity..”

So as you can see the statement is devoid of the necessary explanation of the correct position of Ahlus Sunnah. And even though the statement of Imaam Tahaawi that he quotes is correct it does not sufficiently clarify the error or clarify the position of Ahlus Sunnah in regards to the Justice of Allah.

So I ask you, what will the reader walk away with?

Would he walk away correctly understanding the aqeedah of Ahlis Sunnah in relation to the justice of Allah and being clear about the error of As Safaarini or will he walk away with the aqeedah of the Jahmiyah (who are Jabariyah in regards to Qadr)?

Where is the clarification that we would expect from a small student of knowledge much less ‘An Naasihul Ameen!!

So the issue is not an issue of quotation of Hadeeth alone! If that were the case then the people of bid’ah would be correct in that which they say or hold since many of them just ‘quote the hadeeth!’

Wallahu A’lam

On hajoori: https://ah-sp.com/2013/03/15/oh-yahyaa-hold-onto-the-book-with-firm-strength-i-e-hold-fast-to-it-suratul-maryam-vs-13/

100 observations against Al Hajoori

Bismillahi Wal Hamdulillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu Was Salaaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah

Ammaa ba’d:

As promised in the end of our dawra in Birmingham yesterday (30/6/2013), here are the 100 (or more) points and observations the people of knowledge have against Yahya Al Hajoori, collectively gathered from the writings and audio of the people of knowledge against him, I will mention them twenty at a time so as to make them easier to digest and they are of course simply listed since the intent here is not to mention them with their quotations and references, (that can be done at a later date) but simply to mention the issues in a bullet point for those who wish to be acquainted with the affair

Wa billahit Tawfeeq

1. His claim that the Messenger erred in regards to the means of giving da’wah (Wasaa’ilud Da’wah)

2. His belief that not all of the sunnah is revelation

3. His establishing that the statements of the Messenger – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi was Salam are not accepted except with evidence

4. His belittling some of the affairs of the religion that we have been commanded with (like his statement about Shaikh Muhammad Al Imaam, who gave a lecture during the period of the attack of the Hoothi shi’ites upon Ahlus Sunnah and he mentioned “Ahlus Sunnah will die from hunger and Killing and this one doesn’t even mention it! instead he speaks of the Hijaab and whether a woman should cover or not!”)

5. His holding that some of the people of hypocrisy (Munaafiqoon) were students of the Messenger – Sallallahu ‘alaihi was Salam

6. His claim that the deviation known as ‘Irjaa’ (the belief that imaan is in the heart alone (or the heart and tongue as some used to hold) and it doesn’t rise and fall, and that actions are not from Imaan) started with the Sahaabah and that the first the speak with it was Qudaama Ibn Madh’oon – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu

7. His attack upon the rightly guided Khalifah Uthmaan – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu

8. His claim that The Companions at the battle of Badr disobeyed Allah twice and so Allah made a calamity overcome them (this he claims, is the meaning of the verse 165 in Suratu Aali Imraam (“you smote your enemies with one (i.e a disaster) twice as great”..(Refering to their victory in the Battle of Badr) he claims the verse means they commited two sins in the battle of Badr!

9. His method of enumerating the errors of the companions similar to the raafidhah

10. His view that the Sahaabah participated in the killing Uthmaan

11. His view that whosoever curses all of the companions, then he doesn’t disbelieve until he intends by way of that to reject the whole religion or to disparage it

12. His claim that the companions forsook uthmaan – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhum

13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves without them having sinned or committed a crime, then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees (The belief of Ahlus Sunnah is that Allah would never do such a thing rather he only punishes due to actions committed and Ahlus Sunnah do not even make the suggestion since it opposses the attribute of Justice)

14. His claim that whosoever doesn’t know the truth (I.e From the people of knowledge) after researching, then that is due to his negligence, for if he had researched correctly then he would have found it. This is the belief of the Qadariyah and the Mu’tazilah. Ahlus Sunnah Hold that the Mujtahid who strives to come to the truth and exerts all his efforts doing so then he is rewarded for his efforts and is not punished or considered negligent

15. His claim that Pharoah and the Kuffaar called to Tawheed Ar Ruboobiyah

16. His view that Ahlus Sunnah is the ‘closest’ of the groups to the truth

17. His claim that there is no difference between innovators who call to their innovation and those who do not call and thus he claims that the speech of the Salaf in that regard is false empty speech

18. His declaring someone an innovator due to sin (like him declaring on the tape ‘Tubayin Al Kadhib’ when asked about a man that leads people in Salaah but he is homosexual he responded ‘A homosexual is not from Ahlus Sunnah!’ what is a Sunni?! Is he merely the one who affirm the names and attributes?!)

19. Him not making a difference between At-Tawwali (To show love and alliegence to the Kuffaar, and to love to see them and their religion aided and victorious over the Muslims) and Al Muwaalaat (as for Muwaalaat, then it resembles At Tawali in the affair of aiding and supporting but on occasions it is done for reasons related to deen and on occasions it is done for worldly purposes which is a sin but not considered Kufr)

20. He declares the son of Adam Qaabil (Kane) a Kaafir! And he passes the verdict of apostasy upon him! (Shaikh Ibn Baaz Mentions in Majmoo’ Al Fataawaa (3/117): “Indeed Qaabil (Kane) was sinful and killed his brother Haabil (Abel) without right but they were both upon Islaam!”)

Wallahu A’lam

Part 2: https://ah-sp.com/2013/07/15/100-observations-against-al-hajoori-2-21-30/

Addressing Anjem Choudhury Part 3

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah

Ammaa Ba’d:

Under Point 2 The Document mentions:

02: THERE IN NO SUCH THING AS MODERATE OR RADICAL OR EXTREME ISLAM

Under this point he begins with the statement:

“The terms extremist, moderate, terrorist, radical etc… have no place in Islam whatsoever.”

He also claims: “..These terms have been introduced into the vocabulary by the British regime and the media in order to isolate Muslims who practice their deen and thereafter to demonize them and eventually to bring in laws to silence them hoping that the other Muslims will not speak up in their defence..”

This statement of his is again either one of ignorance concerning the statements of Allah and his Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him), or a continuation of the ongoing fabrications we see coming from this man and his group.

Regardless of how these terms are used by the Non-Muslims, it is falsehood to reject the fact that these concepts have been mentioned in the Book and the Sunnah. If Anjem is ignorant of the presence of these affairs in the book and Sunnah, then he has no place speaking on behalf of any Muslim until he learns the religion (or perhaps he is working with the previous principle of his ‘anyone of them (the Muslims) may represent them all!’) or he knows of them, and he intentionally hides that which is in the book and the Sunnah, which is a worse calamity!

Allah mentions in the Qur’aan

Thus have we make you a balanced nation (i.e. moderate) that you may be witnesses over mankind
(Suratul Baqarah Vs 143)

The Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) also said:

“Be aware of extremism (Al Ghuloo) for indeed those who came before you were destroyed by extremism
(Sunan An Nasaa’ie Hadeeth No. 3057)

Thus we clearly have references to extremism and moderation in Islamic text. We have the encouragement with one, and a warning against the other.

As far as the term ‘Terrorist’ then, while the issue of striking terror in the heart of the enemy during ‘legislated’ and ‘legitimate’ warfare is a desired affair among all nations, to use murder, kidnapping and other such methods as a means for change, political or otherwise, is the evil path of the first of the innovators who appeared within this Ummah, those who assassinated Ali Radhiyallahu Anhu, the khawaarij. Thus the Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah consider the terms ‘Irhaab/Irhaabi’ (Terrorism/Terrorist) as accepted terms referring to a well known group of individuals.

Shaikh Abdul Azeez Ibn Baaz mentions: “At-Tattarruf (Extremism) is (a methodology based upon) taking (innovated) allowances that have no legitimate substantiation and no evidence supporting them. Terrorism is that one attacks or kills individuals without right or evidence, in fact upon ignorance and devoid of insight. They then, are referred to as ‘Terrorists’ (Irhaabiyoon), those who kill people without right and without shariah proof. They affect the security of the people and cause problems between then and within their country, they are Terrorists.

(From the tape: Verdicts of the scholars concerning Jihaad and Suicide missions and terrorism)

In this section we see other examples of Choudhurys ignorant generalisations. He states:

“The Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) Muhammad (saw) said: “Whatever is not based upon my teachings will be rejected

Again here we see an example of his untrustworthiness in narration, if he cannot be trusted when narrating from the Messenger of Allah (May Peace Be Upon Him) then he undoubtedly will be even less trustworthy with the speech of anyone else!

The Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) said in the hadeeth of Aisha:

Whoever brings about in this affair of ours that which is not from it then it will be rejected

(Collected by Bukhaari and Muslim) And in a variant narration:

Whoever carries out an action in this affair of ours that is not from it will have it rejected
(Collected by Muslim)

These two narrations are the closest authentic hadeeths carrying that which resembles the meaning of the text that Choudhury has quoted. No doubt though, we observe that the meanings of the authentic narrations revolve around innovations ‘in the religion’ while the wording Choudhury sites is broader and encompasses much more than the actual hadeeth.

The authentic hadeeth mentions specifies the issues of religion, while his version would appear to carry the meaning that there is nothing that may be carried out by the Muslim at all, unless there is text to substantiate it. While this is true as it relates to acts of worship and issues of belief, it does not hold true in relation to worldly affairs. The principle that our scholars mention regularly is that the worldly affairs are all permissible unless there are clear-cut texts prohibiting a particular action. This principle they base upon the statement of Allah the most high:

It is he who has created for you all that is on the earth” (Suratul Baqarah Vs 29)

And other such texts which indicate that Allah has given us these things to enjoy as we will, as long as we do not partake in prohibited matters.

It is important then that we observe well, the inaccuracies we observe in this document, since they form the basis of much of their warped view and extreme methodology as we will go on to see inshallah.

Abu Hakeem

Shaikh Usaama Al Utaibee on the speech of Muhammad Muneer ‘Muftee’

Shaykh Aboo ‘Umar Usaamah al-‘Utaybee on the Statements of Muhammad Ibn Muneer “Muftee”

[Q]: O Shaykh Usaamah, perhaps you have heard about the statements of an individual named Muhammad Ibn Muneer, he has made some statements. And we would like your comments on his statements O Shaykh, if you would be so kind.

[A]: What are his important statements that he says?

[Q]: He differentiates between ar-Radd ‘alal-Mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel O Shaykh. So he says for example yaa Shaykh, ar-Radd ‘alal-Mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) is one thing and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is something else. Meaning, whosoever mixes between the two falls into problems and fumbles about…

[A]: Fine, we will begin with the first affair, may Allaah bless you. Then we will move on to the second affair. do not know this individual, but I will speak about these things that you are mentioning from the one who said them. So this statement, it is the differentiation between ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel as a complete differentiation, this indicates the ignorance of the one who spoke of it. And when Allaah the Mighty and Majestic mentioned Fir’awn with kufr (disbelief) and that he claimed Uloohiyyah (divinity) and he claimed Ruboobiyyah (Lordship) for himself, and He mentioned his disbelief in Allaah the Mighty and Majestic and his striving in that, in the aayah of Allaah,

“And they belied those aayaat wrongfully and arrogantly, though their own selves were convinced thereof. So see what was the end of the mufsidoon (evil-doers).” [Sooratun-Naml 27:14]

Then is this not a Jarh upon Fir’awn? And is it not also from the radd (refutation) upon Fir’awn? The refutation upon his belief comprises al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel. So al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is an aspect of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and it is an aspect of refuting the statements of the opponent (ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif). So when he speaks about and claims that there is a difference between that and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, then this indicates his ignorance and his misguidance. because al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is a part of and cannot be separated from ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif (refuting the opponent). Yes, it is true that refuting the opponents and those who have erred does not necessitate at-tajreeh (disparagement). For example, when a Scholar of the Sunnah slips up and errs, then he is refuted with knowledge, but he is not disparaged (jarraha) due to that, especially when he is known for being upon the truth and striving to attain the truth, except that he has slipped up and erred in an issue. So this involves the occurrence of an error amongst the righteous and the trutfhul and refuting their error. This is to be mentioned and refuted.

However, when the opponent who is being refuted is an innovator or a disbeliever, then the refutation upon him is not excluded from al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, not from the Jarh upon this disbeliever, nor from the Jarh upon this innovator. This is because you are refuting his corrupt principles, which necessitate Jarh of him and expelling him from the Sunnah if he falsely and slanderously ascribes himself to it. If the opponent reaches the level of a disbeliever or an innovator or a faasiq who is criminal in his belief and his statement, there is no doubt that the refutation upon him includes tajreeh (disparagement) of him, because these errors that he has committed obligate that he be refuted.

As for when what is intended by mukhaalif (opponent) is an opponent in an issue of ijtihaad (independent reasoning), or when the opponent is someone from Ahlus-Sunnah who slips up and errs but he is generally upon the truth, then this does not necessitate tajreeh (disparagement) of him. Rather, his error is refuted. So this is the detailed explanation of the issue. The one who says that al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel has no connection to ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif or that there is a complete differentiation between the two of them, then such an individual is an ignorant liar. And Allaah knows best.

[Q]: May Allaah reward you with goodness yaa Shaykh! He also says, “Obedience to the rulers and the Scholars is not unconditional. Rather, it is restricted. If an individual says something that you do not agree with, then it is not permissible for someone to tell you, ‘It is obligatory upon you to accept his statement because he is a Shaykh, or because he is Shaykh so and so, or that Shaykh so and so said.’ This is not what the aayah said.” And, Shaykh Usamaah, he intends by this to reject what Shaykh Rabee’ said about Taahir Wyatt because made this statement during his defence of Taahir Wyatt.

[A]: Yes. This philosophy, with which some of the people philosophize, it is rejected from its proponents, because obedience to the Scholars and the rulers and obedience to the parents is obedience in that which is good. It is only obedience when they command with good. As for obedience to Allaah and His Messenger, then it is an unrestricted obedience. And whoeover is obeyed outside of Allaah and His Messenger, then he is obeyed as part of obedience to Allaah and His Messenger. This is well known and understood from the aayah. No one says that the rulers must be obeyed in everything, even in disobedience to Allaah and no one says that it is obligatory to obey the Scholars when they err and slip up. No one says such a thing. However, the speech that is said to cause doubt in the rulings of the Scholars and which implies that the youth can make ijtihaad in affairs where they have no knowledge and that they can oppose the Scholars and say that it is not binding upon us to obey the Scholars; this is from ignorance.

So for example, when the ruler, or the father, or the husband when he orders his wife in a permissible affair, or an affair that the people consider from goodness, is it obligatory for him to be obeyed at that point? The commander, regardless of whether he is the husband with his wife, or the ruler with his constituents, or some the people with the Scholar, then it is necessary that these individuals be obeyed, whether it is the ruler or the husband or the likes of that, regardless of whether it is in the affairs of the worldly life, even if he does desire this worldly affair. So the person does not reply, ‘But my opinion is such and such,’ no! If the affair is permissible (mubaah), then it is obligatory to obey the ruler and the wife must obey her husband and the son must obey his mother an,d his father.

As for the Scholars, then the obedience that is due to them is an obedience in the Religion. Meaning, they clarify to the people what is halaal and what is haraam and they explain the ahkaam (religious rules and regulations) to the people and they clarify to them the rulings upon men, the rulings of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel. The Scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets and it is necessary that they Scholars be revered and respected. Allaah the Sublime and Exalted says,

“So ask the people of the reminder (knowledge) if you do not know.”

So questioning them obligates and makes it binding to follow what they answer from the truth and the guidance. So if you have asked a Scholar about a man and the Scholar makes Jarh (disparagement) of him and warns you against him, it is binding upon you to listen to the speech of the Scholar, except if it becomes clear the Scholar has erred and opposed the truth, or if another Scholar has opposed him with proof, then the ruling is made with proof amongst the Scholars. However, if the affair is from a specialized field of knowledge that a Scholar knows and he has a specific study in al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, especially the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel in modern times, Shaykh, al-‘Allaamah Rabee’ Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee, then his speech concerning the men is like pure honey. It is speech based upon sound proofs, clarification and evidence. So when he speaks with speech, it is obligatory upon the youth to listen to him and to obey him. This due to the command of Allaah the Sublime and Exalted to them in His statement,

“O you who believe! Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you.”

So if Shaykh Rabee’ has clarified that affair, and he, may Allaah reward him with goodness, does not speak, except with knowledge and proof, then obedience to him is obligatory. And the one who says that obedience is not obligatory must clarify: why is it not obligatory? Why is he causing doubt in the rulings of Shaykh Rabee’? These people are diseased yaa Shaykh. These are people of disease and people of innovation and people of desire.

They cause doubt in the rulings of the Scholars and they make themselves equals to the Scholars. Meaning, they consider themselves as one of them has stated, ‘We are men and they are men.’ The truthful student of knowledge does not say such speech, it is only said by people who are unsteady and fickle and people of corruption. These people want to separate the youth from the Scholars and they want the youth to be attached to them. Meaning, the likes of this ignorant youth wants the people for himself, instead of connecting them to Shaykh Rabee’. And he may deceive the people with the affair of Shaykh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbaad, that he opposed Shaykh Rabee’ in such and such an issue… Where is the Salafee manhaj with these individuals? The Salafee manhaj says to follow the proof and follow the Scholar who is most knowledgeable if you do not have the proof or you do not know it. The Scholar with the most knowledge of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel and the knowledge of men in these times by agreement of the Scholars is Shaykh Rabee’. He is the one who is specialized in this and the Imaams of Ahlul-Hadeeth have testified to this, such as Shaykh al-Albaanee and Shaykh Ibn Baaz and Shaykh Ibnul-‘Uthaymeen.

Due to this, those who say that the obedience to the Scholars is not unconditional, and they desire by this to reject the rulings of the Scholars, they are bring about fitnah (trial, tribulation). However, they say that as long as obedience to them is in goodness and it is in obedience to Allaah and His Messenger, then there is no problem in that. Indeed, this is truthful speech, but the intent should not be to nullify the speech of the Scholars. Rather, it is obligatory upon the youth to be with their Scholars and to stick to them, as the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “The blessing is with your elders.” Yes.

[Q]: Lastly, our Shaykh, he translated a lecture for the noble Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee – hafidhahullaah – when he commented upon three passages from Kitaabur-Rooh about the difference between naseehah (sincere advice) and gheebah (backbiting). So I reminded this individual, yaa Shaykh, about what he translated for the noble Shaykh, Muhammad Ibn Haadee. So he replied on Youtube saying, “Since when is it a condition that the translator must agree with everything that the lecturer says? If I translate a book or a lecture, is it a condition that I take every letter said therein as my Religion in front of Allaah? If it is a condition that the translator must accept everything the lecturer is saying, then bring the proof if you please. And even if I did agree with everything that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee said (in that lecture) is this then to be applied in all situations? Undoubtedly there is a difference between naseehah and gheebah, there is no doubt. The Scholars have insight, however, the application! Is this speech to be applied in all situations? Respond please.” This is how he said it yaa Shaykh, so what are your comments upon this speech of his?

[A]: This speech, which is his statement that it is not binding upon the translator to agree with the speech of the one for whom he is translating, then one of two affairs could be intended by this. If he intends that he is not required to translate in a trustworthy manner and with truthfulness what the Scholar is saying, then such and individual is treacherous and he has made treachery permissible. This is a treacherous person who has made treachery permissible, because he is a translator and the translator only clarifies the speech of the one whose speech is being translated. So if his duty is merely to translate, then it is obligatory that it be trustworthy. And if this speech contains that which is false, according to his thought, then he must translate the speech of the Shaykh and then he comments upon it if he is capable of that. If we assume that there is a problem or an opposition in this speech, then he must clarify it in a translator’s note. As for translating falsehood and concealing the speech of a Scholar, then this action of his is like the action of Banee Israa`eel from the Jews who concealed parts of the Torah and were treacherous. So this treachery is not from the nature and the character of the Muslims. And the Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Plotting and deception is in the Fire.” And the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “And do not deceive the one who deceives you.” And Allaah the Glorified and Exalted said,

“And do not be a pleader for the treacherous.” [Sooratun-Nisaa` 4:105]

And Allaah the Exalted said,

“And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves.” [Sooratun-Nisaa` 4:107]

So deception is a matter that is ignonimous. So it is not permissible to be deceptive in translation. Rather, it is obligatory to be truthful in it, especially when he is translating the speech of a Salafee Scholar who is well known for the Sunnah such as the Shaykh, al-‘Allaamah Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee. So playing around and being deceptive in translating his speech is not from the attributes of Ahlus-Sunnah. Rather, it is from the attributes of the people of desires.

And as for if the translator intended that it is not obligatory for him to be in agreement with what he is translating, then this is correct. Meaning, his opinion could be in opposition to the speech that he is translating. For example, he may translate a book of fiqh in which differing has occurred (between the Scholars). So the Scholar will determine the soundest position from these issues and this student of knowledge may follow another Scholar, or he may follow a statement that opposes this Scholar. There is no problem with this as long as it is done with proofs and evidence, and as long as this person is qualified to make this disagreement. There is no problem in this. Meaning, the translator is not required to agree with all of the speech that he translates, as long as he is trustworthy in conveying the information. Then after he has conveyed the information as it is, he can say, `This speech has been opposed by such and such a Scholar and I say such and such,’ with proof and evidence.

However, who is this individual who deceives the people by translating for Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee, then he says, ‘I oppose him and I do not agree with him.’ Who are you to say such speech? Is this from manners with the Scholars? And who has burdened you with translating this lecture if you do not agree? If you do not agree, then do not translate. Or at the very least, be trustworthy in conveying the information, and then mention what opposes this speech with proof and evidence. So the authority is with the proof. And it was the manhaj of the Salaf to take the proof. However, do not make these issues a means for reviling the Scholars and causing doubts in their rulings and playing around with the likes of these affairs. And it is not permissible for the Muslim to be treacherous. Yes.

[Q]: May Allaah reward you with good. We shall suffice with this, yaa Shaykhanaa. May Allaah reward you with good.

[A]: The important thing is to be cautious of these people of desires who are people of fitan (trials, tribulations) and people of unrest and those who do not stick to the objective of the Scholars and those who stir up these fitan. So Shaykh Rabee’ – hafidhahullaah – is familiar with what is going on in Masjid Rahmah and other than it from the mosques in America and he has given them an appropriate advice. And it is obligatory upon the youth to be cautious and to warn against those who are stirring up these fitan and to remain far away from them. These individuals are a disease like scabies, which is contagious and spreading amongst the people. And it cannot be passed on, except in accordance with the command of Allaah. However, these individuals are a people of fitnah, so be cautious of them and remain far away from them and warn the youth against them. And Allaah the Exalted knows best.

Here is the audio: http://www.sunnahpublishing.net/audio/utaybimufti.mp3

[Source: http://www.sunnahpublishing.net]

%d bloggers like this: