Author: The Salafi Centre of Manchester

Thorns that do but Perforate – the 4th perforation

Our noble Shaikh Zaid al-Madkhlay was questioned concerning an individual who refuses to accept the ruling of the scholars in their refutations against – and exiting out of salafiyyah – those who oppose the methodology of the salaf…instead he states “I am not convinced”, or “that is the opinion of the shaikh, it’s not upon me to accept it”.

قولي فيمن يرد حكم العلماء الذين يردون على من خالف منهج السلف الصالح أنه : متكبر

I say concerning the one who rejects the ruling of the scholars who refute the opposers of the methodology of the righteous salaf; he is arrogant…..

لأن حكم العلماء السائرين على نهج السلف الصالح في العقيدة والشريعة حق ولا يرد الحق إلا ظالم ولا سيما إذا كان الراد لحكم العلماء يعلم أن المخالف لمنهج السلف منحرف عن الحق

….because the ruling of the scholars who are treading upon the methodology of the righteous salaf in ‘aqeedah and legislation is the truth, and the truth is not rejected except by a wrong-doer, especially if the rejector of the ruling of the scholars knows that the opposer of the methodology of the salaf (the one being refuted) is deviated from the truth.

>>> The Thorns that do but Perforate – the 5th perforation‏

Thorns that do but Perforate

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله و الصلاة و السلام على رسول الله و بعد
This compilation of articles entitled “Thorns that do but Perforate” is a collection of the statements of our noble scholars clarifying aspects of the methodology of the Salaf in dealing with innovators and false methodologies, aspects that have become confused and – on occasion – somewhat purposefully distorted by those who follow desires rather than evidences.
From amongst the techniques employed by the likes of certain associate/s of and their affiliates is to divert attention away from such principles through promoting selective statements from the scholars relating to “busying yourself with knowledge”, and “leave asking about this one and that one”; statements that are accurate and in fact perfectly sound advice that we are accustomed to from our scholars, however such statements are employed in a deceptive manner by these wayward individuals in portraying a false methodology, and then upon complete audacity attributing this methodology to the scholars[!].
We therefore provide to the reader a compilation of statements from our noble scholars relating to the affair of innovators and the correct stance toward them – from amongst the same scholars certain members will claim do not engage themselves in such affairs and instead advise the people to “busy yourself with knowledge”, a deceptive ploy intended to divert attention away from the advice and warnings of the scholars against the people of innovation and desires….perhaps the same people of innovation and desires certain member/s promote and do not clarify their state for agendas and objectives they desire.
We ask Allah to guide these individuals, and pray that they may rectify their path.

Witholding On The Position of Innovators – Shaykh Rabee’


QUESTION: Concerning a man who says he is withholding on the issue of Abul Fitan alMaribee while he has actually read the refutations of the scholars, is he to be warnedagainst and boycotted?

Continue reading

Concerning the Correct understanding of: Laa Inkaar fee Masaa-il Al-Khilaaf

There is no inkaar (renouncement/disapproval of one another) in those affairs of the Religion in which the (scholars) hold differences of opinion

Some people are under the illusion that what is intended by this statement, is that it is not permissible to disapprove of (one another) with regards to any affair in which difference of opinion is held. So based upon this (illusion of theirs), it becomes impermissible to disapprove of a Munkar (an evil) unless there is complete agreement in doing so. This is a wrong understanding necessitating the closure of the door of enjoining good and forbidding evil.

The scholars hold differences of opinion in most of the masaa-il; and that which is correct with regards to this statement (Laa Inkaar Fee Masaa-il Al-Khilaaf) is that there should neither be harshness in disapproval nor reprimand with regards to those issues about which there is no manifest proof to be taken as the final (affair). And the basis upon which this is founded is that the issues of khilaaf are of two categories;

The First Category Of Khilaaf:

They are those issues of khilaaf in which there is proof necessitating that it be taken as the final (affair). So here, the proof must be taken and the other statement/opinion in opposition is discarded.

And whoever follows the statement/opinion that is established to be in opposition to the proofs, then he is to be renounced/disapproved of.

The Second Category Of Khilaaf:

It is those issues of khilaaf in which the proof has not been manifested for it to be taken as the final (affair). It is an affair in which the evidences are either at contention or the views are at variance. This is an issue of ijtihaad, and there is neither disapproval nor reprimand against the one in opposition; rather advice is given for acquaintance with the statement/opinion that carries more weight.

This second category of (khilaaf) is what is intended by the statement (Laa Inkaar Fee Masaa-il Al-Khilaaf), which some people have understood in an unrestrictive manner. [1]