Month: December 2015

[Part 7.1: Observations on Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli (accompanied by important footnotes on refs 1 & 3 at the end of this article) – Shaikh Rabee Unveils the Reality behind Dr Ibraaheem’s Statement That Refutation against a Mukhaalif Is Fard Kifaayah]

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Dr Ibraaheem argues that one of the mistakes that are rife is that when a scholar refutes a Mukhaalif, or issues a Fatwa as a warning against a mistake, many of the students of knowledge who ascribe to the Sunnah would seek  from (other) students and the scholars to clarify their stance towards that refutation or fatwa, rather the affair has reached a state in which even the small students of knowledge and the common people are asked to determine their stance towards the refuter and the one refuted; (Ref 1) then based on this, they would determine loyalty, disassociation and boycotting, until maybe some of the students boycott their Shuyookh whom they have benefitted from in knowledge and sound creed for many years; and maybe the trial reaches the houses, so you find a brother boycotting his brother and a son disrespecting his parents; and maybe a wife is divorced and the little children are separated due to this (trial).

As for when you look at the society, you find that they are divided into two parties or more- every party pursues the other with rebuke and making it binding to boycott the other group. All this (fitnah) between those who ascribe to the Sunnah- those amongst whom one group was unable to rebuke the Aqeedah of the other and the soundness of its Manhaj before the occurrence of this differing. The basis of this (problem) is either due to ignorance in exceeding the boundaries of the Sunnah and the principles regarding the manner in Ahlus Sunnah should show disapproval (against a mistake) or due to desires.



Shaikh Rabee responded to the above statement of Dr Ibraaheem, saying that it is (was) obligated on Dr Ibraaheem, those scholars who remained silent and other than them (i.e. those who were knew about the fitnah) to confront this trial or trials and strike at the place it is (was) rooted. The painful situation [which Dr Ibraaheem describes (or described above)] should make him and others them (or should have made him and others) ready to stand up and fulfil this [communal obligation-Fard kifaa’iy) by refuting the initiator of the fitnah]. It is plausible that the cause of this great Fitna and what has come about by way of it resulted from the silence of those who refused to fulfil this communal obligation, whose goal has not been actualised through the refutation issued by one person. (Ref 2)

Then Shaikh Rabee stated that Dr Ibraheem should contemplate on the Fiqh of those Ahlus Sunnah who have preceeded and their togetherness in fulfilling this great obligation! Imam Ibnul Qayyim (rahimahullaah) stated whilst disapproving of Ahlul Bidah in Madaarij As-Saalikeen: And due to this, the Salaf’s and Imaam’s disapproval (or rejection against) it (i.e. bidah) was severe and they spoke out (loudly) against its people from the various regions of the earth. They warned against their fitnah with a more severe warning and did that to an extent that was not the same as their disapproval against lewd acts, oppression and aggression. (That is) because the harm of bidah (on the religion); its destructive (effects on the religion) and negation (of the religion) is more severe.

Then Shaikh Rabee asks Dr Ibraaheem about this Fard Kifaayah in relation to Jihaad; (Ref 3) -that for example Jihaad is from the Furood al-Kifaayaat (Communal obligations), so if one person goes for Jihaad in order to repel a threat faced by Islaam and the Muslims, will the Legislated Islamic goal of this Jihaad be fulfilled by one person; or if hundreds of people went but neither the Legislated Islamic goal is fulfilled nor is the threat repelled, then would it be permissible for the scholars to remain silent in such circumstances; or is it obligated that they exhort the people to go for Jihaad in order to fulfil this communal obligation, for there has to be sufficient numbers of people to fulfil this (Communal) obligation in order to put a stop to the threat face by the rest of the Muslims? And if this sufficient numbers that are required to carry out this obligation is not reached, then indeed all the Muslims are regarded to be sinful in such a case and held responsible for the harm that comes to Islaam and the Muslims. Likewise, this (i.e. the availability of sufficient numbers to fulfil this communal obligation) is the same thing stated regarding the affair of enjoining good and forbidding evil, for there has to be sufficient numbers to prevent the Fitnah, if one, ten or twenty are unable to do so.

Therefore, it becomes clear (from the above example) that many of the students- those who ascribe themselves to the sunnah-who seek from the Scholars to clarify their stances have sought after something appropriate and correct if there is a sound reason for seeking after it. It is not to be regarded a mistake (as Dr Ibraaheem claims) and the mistaken one is the one who declares those students to be mistaken. The silence of the scholars at the time of a need or necessity to clarify the truth is tantamount to concealment of the truth and it is from those grave mistakes that will result in corruption, trials, splitting of the people into two groups, two parties, boycotting one another and so on…..

Then Shaikh Rabee finally stated that it is (was) obligated on Dr Ibraaheem to clarify the affair of the oppressive obstinate one who initiated this dreadful fitnah, which has reached this grave state described by (Dr Ibraaheem), so that the people- especially the common people- would be upon clear-sightedness in their religion, and so that they will hold onto the truth and reject falsehood, and so that their loyalty and disassociation is established upon clear-sightedness. [Bayaan Maa Fee Naseehati Ibraaheem ar’Ruhayli Minal Khalal Wal-Ikhlaal’ pages 62-63]

To be continued…In-Shaa-Allaah


Importinat Footnotes:

[Ref 1] Question to Shaikh Fawzaan: Is it obligatory upon the scholars to clarify to the youth and the common people the danger of partisanship, splitting and groups?


Yes it is obligatory to clarify the danger of partisanship and dividing and splitting so that the people can be upon insight and understanding because even the common people are being deceived.  How many of the common people in this time have been fooled by some of the groups because they believe that they are upon the truth? So it is a must that we clarify to the people, the students and the common people, the danger of these parties and sects because if they remained silent [i.e. the scholars] then the people would say, “The scholars were aware of this and they remained silent.” Due to this innovation would enter upon them. So it is necessary to clarify these matters when these things appear. The danger for the common people is greater than the danger [posed] to the students because if the scholars remain silent the common people will think that this is correct and that this is the truth. [Al-Ajwibah Al-Mufeedah (page 131)

Question to Shaikh Rabee: What do you say concerning an individual who advises others to abstain from listening to refutations, and when he was asked about the reason for him adopting this stance he said, “The person who asked me about this was a common person and he is unable to recite the Quran properly”. What are your comments upon this, may Allah bless you?


If he is a layman then he is to be taught the Islamic creed and to be warned from the people of innovations. The majority of the common people these days have become supporters of the people of innovation. So it is necessary to warn them against them (i.e. the people of innovation). Say to him, “So and so is upon such and such innovations and you listening to him will harm you”. This is so that they will not read (his works), listen to his tapes and that he is cautious about his speech. Meaning that this layman needs someone to warn him and he is to be reminded of the principle: “This knowledge is religion so look at whom you take your religion from.” During these times the common people are targeted by the people of innovation and will say to you, “do not let them read the books of refutations. No. No.” This (approach) will expose them to ruin. Fataawa Fadeelah Ash-Shaykh Rabee’ Al-Madkhalee (1/273)

Question to Shaikh Rabee: Is it permissible for us as students of knowledge to be silent about the innovators, and to cultivate the youth and the students upon the way of the Salaf without mentioning the names of the innovators?


By Allah, the innovators are to be mentioned by their traits and by their names if there is a need for this. If so and so has put himself forward for leadership and leading this nation and the youth and he is leading them towards falsehood, then he is to be mentioned by his name. If there is a need then he is to be mentioned by his name and it is necessary to mention him by his name. As it relates to this, one of the Salafis in Egypt used to teach and he would just mention general (descriptions without specifying names) and the people did not comprehend these generalities.  After this he began to explicitly mention the names of the groups and individuals and they said (i.e. those who attended the lessons), “O Shaykh, why did you not teach us like this in the beginning?” He responded by saying, “I delivered to you many lessons and I would say this and I would say that (i.e. general descriptions without names).” They said, “By Allah, we did not understand.”

Fataawa Fadeelah Ash-Shaykh Rabee’ Al-Madkhalee (1/277)

[Ref 2]Amazing indeed is the affair of Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli, for not only did he argue with these ambiguities in order to play down the affair of Al-Halabi and others, but now we see him on stage with the followers of Al-Maribi, Al-Halabi etc So all those ambiguous arguments which he claims was an advice to Ahlus Sunnah is nothing else but a cover to justify his blameworthy stances. Shaikh Rabee, Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Muhammad Bin Haadi, Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari and others established the evidences against the innovators (Al-Halabi and Al-Maribi) based on what this Fard Kifaayah necessitates, but Dr Ibraaheem’s ambiguous utilisation of Fard Kifaayah in relation to warning against deviants has finally manifested, for indeed we find that he has been invited by the staunch followers of Al-Maribi and Al-Halabi at Luton. Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) stated: And Imaan is known about a man, just as all the states of his heart are known by way of his (outward) allegiances, enmities, his rejoicing, anger, hunger, thirst, and other such affairs. For these matters have certain outward binding necessities (lawaazim dhaahirah) and the outward matters necessitate inward matters. And this is a matter known, the people know this concerning the one that they have experienced and tested (jarraboohu wamtahinoohu)… [minhaaj-as-sunnah 8/475] [Translation:]




From Those Affairs That Make Us Oppressors Against Our Own selves

Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) said:

When a person does not act on truth he is in need of, and neither affirming nor loving it, he is an oppressor against himself. When he affirms falsehood or loves it, and follows his desires, he is an oppressor against himself. Oppression against oneself returns back to following conjecture and what the soul desires, and this can be by way of following one’s views and desires. Bidah is the basis of evil and that is to give precedence to one’s intellect over the revealed text and choosing one’s desires over the fulfilment of a command. Following the guidance is the basis of good, as Allaah (The Most High) said:

فَإِمَّا يَأۡتِيَنَّڪُم مِّنِّى هُدً۬ى فَمَنِ ٱتَّبَعَ هُدَاىَ فَلَا يَضِلُّ وَلَا يَشۡقَىٰ

وَمَنۡ أَعۡرَضَ عَن ذِڪۡرِى فَإِنَّ لَهُ ۥ مَعِيشَةً۬ ضَنكً۬ا وَنَحۡشُرُهُ ۥ يَوۡمَ ٱلۡقِيَـٰمَةِ أَعۡمَىٰ

”Then if there comes to you guidance from Me, then whoever follows My Guidance shall neither go astray, nor fall into distress and misery. But whosoever turns away from My Reminder (i.e. neither believes in this Qur’an nor acts on its orders, etc.) verily, for him is a life of hardship, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Resurrection.” [Taha Aayat 123-124]

[Source: شرحُ حديث ٱللهم إني ظلمت نفسي ظلما كثيرا of Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah. Page: 66]

[Part 7: Observations on Dr Ibraaheem Ar’Ruhayli – Shaikh Rabee Unveils the Reality behind Dr Ibraaheem’s Statement That Refutation against a Mukhaalif Is Fard Kifaayah]

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

NB: Instead of addressing the subject matter of boycotting too soon, we now intend to present few more posts on the subject matter of refutations before that series. The topic at present will be divided into two parts [Part 7 & 7.1]

To proceed: Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli carried on his argument on the subject matter of refutation saying that refutation against the Mukhaalif (i.e. the one in opposition to the truth) is from the Furood Al-Kifaayaat (i.e. obligations that when fulfilled by some of the Muslims, the rest are absolved of responsibility); so if one of the scholars fulfils (the refutation) and the Legislated Islamic goal is accomplished by way of the refutation against the Mukhaalif and the Ummah is warned against him, the rest the scholars are absolved of responsibility.

Then Dr Ibraaheem stated that one of the mistakes that are rife is that when a scholar refutes a Mukhaalif, or issues a Fatwa as a warning against a mistake, many of the students of knowledge who ascribe to the Sunnah would seek  from (other) students and the scholars to clarify their stance towards that refutation or fatwa, rather the affair has reached a state in which even the small students of knowledge and the common people are asked to determine their stance towards the refuter and the one refuted….


Shaikh Rabee Bin Haadi responded to this statement of Dr Ibraaheem and unveiled the realities behind this statement, saying that if the Legislated Islamic goal behind a refutation carried out by a single person is  reached, the rest of the Muslims (i.e. other scholars and students) are absolved of responsibility.

However, if the legislated Islamic goal is not reached by way of the refutation carried out by one person (i.e. a scholar or student) against a Mukhaalif, due to the fact that the Mukhaalif has become obstinate; supported by people who claim to be people of knowledge and are pleased with his oppressive false refutations against that scholar who refutes Bidah and Futilities, whilst other scholars keep quiet and have not clarified the mistake and futilities of this Mukhaalif; rather this Mukhaalif also utilises the silence of those scholars and seeks to delude the people that those keeping quiet are with him and supporting him, and that had he been upon falsehood, they would have pursued him; then it becomes clearly obligatory upon those scholars who are keeping quiet to clarify the truth for the people. They have to speak in order to aid the truth and put a stop to this fitnah and differing, which occurred as a result of their silence and thus preventing the Legislated Islamic goal of the refutation to be reached, which would have absolved the Muslims of this responsibility.

Therefore, in such a case, it is not permissible to say that the obligation of refutation is removed from the rest of the Muslims. If the Legislated Islamic goal goal is not reached by the refutation carried out by one person or ten people amongst the scholars, the rest of the scholars are not absolved of responsibility until they take up the cause or encourage others to fulfil this goal-those through whom the fitnah will be ended and so that they can manifest the truth to the people, the students of knowledge and the common people, just as they were exposed to the falsehood (of that Mukhaalif, deviant or innovator).


[Bayaan Maa Fee Naseehati Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli Minal Khalal Wal-Ikhlaal’ (pages 60-61)]Abridged and paraphrased]

Few Reminders and Important Points before we embark on the subject matter of boycotting the People of Bidah based on Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari’s Radd against Dr Ibraaheem ar-Ruhayli

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

The next article will be titled: Part 7-Observations on Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli- [An Examination of Some of His Unsubstantiated Claims Regarding the Sharee’ah Aims (or Goals) Behind Boycotting the People of Bidah]

In-Shaa-Allaah, we will be diverting from Shaikh Rabee’s Radd in order to utilise Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari’s observations for a few sessions. This is because Shaikh Rabee, Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Muhammad Bin Haadi, Shaikh Zaid (rahimahullaah), Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool and Shaikh Ali Naasir read the observations Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari wrote on Dr Ibraaheem’s unsubstantiated claims on the subject matter of boycotting and agreed that Shaikh Abdullah al-Bukhaari did make correct observations in that regard. We will therefore utilise Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari’s Radd for a few posts and then return to Shaikh Rabee to add more emphasis to what Shaikh Abdullah has already stated. So whilst we prepare the specific details related to Dr Ibraaheem’s unsubstantiated claims, you can reap tremendous benefits-In’Shaa’allaah- from this link in the subject matter.

Also see links in order to acquaint yourselves with some of Dr Ibraaheem’s attempts at blaming those who refuted his unsubstantaited claims.

A Great Sacrifice of ‘Ameerul Mu’mineen’ Uthmaan (radiyallaahu-anhu) In Order to Prevent Bloodshed

Imaam Ibnul Qayyim [rahimahullaah] said:

When he [radiyallaahu-anhu] knew that he would be killed due to what he could see and observe regarding the events and signs, he refrained from fighting and from defending himself lest fighting occurs between the Muslims, whose final end result would lead to his murder, so he preferred to be killed instead of [starting] a fight between the Muslims.[الطُّرُقُ الْحُكميَّة- page 30]

NB: This does not mean that the authorities do not fight the khawaarij when they engage in their satanic crimes. See article here

Asking About Conferences Organized by Hizbiyyoon? (Staunch UK followers of Al-Maribi etc )

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Shaikh Muhammad Bin Haadi (may Allaah preserve him) warns against the likes of these conferences, saying that these organizations seek to promote and establish their goals through some of the Mashaa-yikh, so one should not go to them. Some of the Mashaayikh are unaware of the pursuits of these organizations through them, so one should not go to them.

So be attentive O Salafi! Those staunch followers of Al-Maribi and Al-Halabi say to the common people- by way of deceit and concealment- ‘’We have a Shaikh or Mashaayikh!” Yet at the same time they defend the contemporary Senior Mubtadi’ah such as Ali Al-Halabi and Al-Maribi.

Likewise, Masjid Al-Furqan (Rusholme) follows the same deceitful methodology and have already been refuted as a result of that, for they seek to invite some of those Mashaayikh considered to be upon the Sunnah, yet on other days they invite ahlul bidah, such Abu Usama or speakers from deviant organizations, such as Al-Maghrib Institute.

Likewise, Shaikh Rabee (May Allaah preserve him) was asked about the Luton conference-followers of the innovators (Al-Maribi and Al-Halabi), so the Shaikh (may Allaah preserve him) stated that one should not attend. See link:

Therefore O sensible one! The verdicts above are based on reality, so do not aid those who utilize some Mashaayikh, but at the same time are aiders of Senior Contemporary Mubtadi’ah or allies of ahlul bidah.

Shaykh Rabee’ bin Haadee al-Madkhalee on the Defenders of Abul-Hasan al-Misree (Al-Maribi) in Luton, England


Part 6: Observations on Dr Ibraaheem Ar’Ruhayli- Sh Rabee Unveiled Realities behind Dr Ibraaheem’s Utilization of a Principle (i.e. Weighing up Benefits & Harms), Which He (Dr Ibraaheem) Applied to the Subject Matter of Refutation

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli continued his speech about refutations, saying that consideration must be given in ascertaining the legislated benefits of a refutation; for if there is going to be more harm than the corruption of the Mukhaalafah (i.e. the error that opposes the truth), the refutation is not legislated in these circumstances because a Mafsadah (i.e. a corrupt affair) is not to be repelled if that will lead to a greater corruption. Then Dr Ibraaheem quoted a statement of Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) as follows:

‘’It is not permissible to repel a little (act, deed) of corruption (which will lead to a) lot of corruption. The lesser of two harmful (affairs) is not to be repelled (which will lead to the one that is) greater; for indeed the Islamic Legislation came to bring about beneficial (affairs) and (accomplish) them completely; put a stop to corrupt (affairs) and lessen them as much as possible. Its aim is to (seek after what is) the weightier between two good (affairs) if it is not possible to (achieve) both of them, and to repel the eviler of two (affairs if not able to) get rid of both.’’

Shaikh Rabee Bin Haadi responded to Dr Ibraaheem, saying: Indeed, the speech of Shaikhul Islaam is Haqq- it is not permissible to repel a little (act, deed) of corruption (which will lead to a) lot of corruption…etc

However, I believe he (Shaikhul Islaam) does not hold that Shirk, Kufr, the Major Innovations (in the religion), waging war against Ahlus Sunnah and defending the Senior People of innovation are either from the little (affairs) of corruption or that disapproving of them (openly) and clarifying their danger is from (that which will lead to) a lot of corruption. There is no greater benefit than disseminating Tawheed and manifesting it; destroying Shirk and Kufr and purifying the earth of them; and (purifying the earth of) bidah about which the Messenger (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) described as the worst of all affairs.

What is clear (or apparent) is that Shaikhul Islaam intends by way of this statement the one who gives advice to the rulers or disapproves of (the deeds) of the Muslim rulers, or their representatives (i.e. governors, ministers etc); for indeed (such advise or disapproval) has to be carried out by way of (clear-unambiguous) proof and evidence, together with leniency and softness. But if disapproving of their little (acts, deeds) of corruption will lead to a greater affair or affairs of corruption, then bear the smaller affair of corruption in order to repel the greater of it [Shaikh Rabee further clarified this affair with a footnote in the same page 54, as follows: ‘’This is the opposite of what the khawaarij and those similar to them do, for indeed their disapproval (of the ruler) is either (done) by way of Khurooj with weapons or incitement and stiring (trouble), so the corruption (that results) from this disapproval (of the ruler’s deeds) becomes greater and more severe than the corruption they wanted to stop.” ]

Then Shaikh Rabee continued, saying that if those affairs of corruption committed by the rulers are tantamount to Shirk or Rafd (i.e. the creed of the Raafidah), or Kufr, then this principle (i.e. bearing the lesser evil) is not applied here [i.e. such beliefs must be refuted in a particular manner and this will become clear to the reader when the Shaikh mentions the stances of Imaam Ahmad, Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibnul Qayyim because they did not refrain from refuting those affairs of Shirk and Major innovations, even when they occurred from those in authority- so we direct the reader to the excellent and remarkable article on the link regarding khurooj, takfeer, speaking against rulers openly in general etc. The article is a must read and please pay close attention to what Imaam Ahmad advised the delegation that approached him and suggested rebellion, saying: ‘’Keep opposing [the false belief itself] with your statements but do not remove your hands from obedience and do not encourage the Muslims to rebel and do not spill your blood and the blood of the Muslims along with you. Look to the results of your actions. And remain patient until you are content with a righteous or sinful rule.” ]

Then Shaikh Rabee continued his response to Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli’s view about weighing up benefits and harms in refutations, saying that as for bidah, especially that which is tantamount to kufr or shirk, then the likes of that statement of Shaikhul Islaam [i.e. the statement Dr Ibraaheem quoted and applied to the subject matter of refutation] is not to be applied in these circumstances. Then Shaikh Rabee further emphasized this point to Dr Ibraaheem, saying that he should not forget Imaam Ahmad’s stance against those who held that the Qur’aan is created, even though they had (political) authority (in the land) and kinship. Shaikhul Islaam (i.e. Ibnu Taymiyyah) and Ibnul Qayyim have many books in refutation against ahlul bidah, such as Al-Waasityyah, Al-Hamawiyyah, At-Tadmuriyyah, Minhaaj Ahl Sunnah, Naqd al-Mantiq, Dar Ta’aarud Al-Naql Wal-Aql, Talbees Al-Jahmiyyah, Iqtidaa Siraat al-Mustaqeem, Al-Fataawaa Al-Kubraa, Majmoo Al-Fataawaa etc The majority of these books are refutations against the Ash’ariyyah. (1) Ibnul Qayyim’s books, such as As-Sawaa’iq Al-Mursalah Alal Jahmiyyah Wal-Mu’attilah (2) I’laam Al-Muwaqqi’een, Ighaatha Al-Lahfaan and An’Nubuwwah- the majority of these books were a refutation against the Ash’ariyyah Soofiyyah, even though they had political authority.

Then Shaikh Rabee concluded, saying that this is because clarification and disapproval in this affair (i.e. refutation of the major innovations) cannot be anything else except something that has more benefit than harm. This is the Dawah of the Messengers- the first of them Nuh to the last of them Muhammad- because they came out with the truth- clarifying Tawheed and warning against Shirk, regardless the tyranny of their enemies, the station of their authority, strength and transgressions. [Source: ‘Bayaan Maa Fee Naseehati Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli Minal Khalal Wal-Ikhlaal’ 53-54…paraphrased and abridged]

To be continued In-Shaa-Allaah


Footnote 1: Further read on the Ash’ariyyah, visit:

Footnote 2: Further read on the Jahmiyyah, see link: