[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
[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: Salafipublications.com]