Tag: Salafi

Statements from the Salaf on Ascription to the Salaf

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

Imaam al-Asbahaanee (d.535H) – rahimahullaah – said: “The sign of Ahlus-Sunnah is that they follow the Salafus-Saalih and abandon all that is innovated and newly introduced into the Deen.” [Al-Hujjah fee Bayaanil Mahajjah 1/364]

Abu Haneefah (d. 150H) (rahimahullaah) said: “Adhere to the athar (narration) and the tareeqah (way) of the Salaf (Pious Predecessors) and beware of newly invented matters for all of it is innovation” [Reported by As-Suyootee in Sawn al Mantaq wal-Kalaam p.32]

lbn Taymiyyah (d.728H) – rahimahullaah – said: “There is no criticism for the one who proclaims the way (madhdhab) of the Salaf, who attaches himself to it and refers to it. Rather, it is obligatory to accept that from him by unanimous agreement (Ittifaaq) because the way (madhdhab) of the Salaf is nothing but the Truth (Haqq).” [Majmoo al-Fataawaa 4:149]

Imaam adh-Dhahabee (d.748H) – rahimahullaah – said: “It is authentically related from ad-Daaraqutnee that he said: There is nothing more despised by me than ‘ilmul-kalaam (innovated speech and rhetorics). I say: He never entered into ‘ilmul-kalaam, nor argumentation. Rather, was a Salafee (a follower of the Salaf).”[Siyar 16/457]

As-Sam’aanee (d.562H) said in al-lnsaab (3/273): “As-Salafi: this is an ascription to the Salaf and following their ways, in that which is related from them.” lbn al-Atheer (d.630H) said in al-Lubaab fee Tahdheebul-lnsaab (2/162), commenting upon the previous saying of as-Sam’aanee: “And a group were known by this ascription.” So the meaning is: that the term Salafi, and its ascription to them, was a matter known in the time of Imaam as-Sam’aanee, or before him.


[Source: www.salafipublications.com]

Part 4: Ali Halabi’s Long Journey (may Allaah guide him)

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

Abul Wafaa Ibnu Aqeel (rahimahullaah) said: ”Whoever pronounces his creed based upon proofs, then unsteadiness will not remain with him due to the differences of opinion regarding the state of affairs of men.’’

 

Ali Halabi (The Innovator) and the Fitnah of Abul Hasan Al-Maribi (The Innovator)

Between pages 20-25 in Arabic PDF (revised and read by Al-Allaamah Rabee Bin Haadee al-Madkhalee), the author discusses the Fitnah of Abul Hasan Al-Maribi and the two facedness of Ali Halabi during the Fitnah, which finally led him to deviation. So we will abridge and paraphrase the discussion. For further details download PDF here: http://www.sahab.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=122127

There came about the fitnah of Al-Maribi and his innovations in opposition to the methodology of the Salafus Saaleh (i.e. the pious predecessors). However, before the Fitnah of Al-Maribi became manifested, there were observations on his book titled [Siraaj Al-Wahhaaj], and this took place during the lifetime of the three Imaams [Abdul Azeez Bin Baaz, Muhammad Nasiruddeen Al-Albaanee and Muhammad Bin Saaleh Al-Uthaymeen (rahimahumullaah)].  

Al-Maribi was already promoting his innovations on the subject matter of passing judgments against deviated individuals and the position towards those in opposition to the Book, The Sunnah and understanding of the pious predecessors.  He wished to make this book of his a methodology for the salafis in this time, so he embark upon seeking the recommendations of the major scholars, especially from Imaam Abdul Azeez Bin Baaz (rahimahullaah). Imaam Bin Baaz (rahimahullaah) passed the book to the present Mufti Al-Allaamah Abdul Azeez Aala Shaikh (hafidha-hullaah) who carried out his observations on the book and referred them back to Imaam Bin Baaz (rahimahullaah). However, Imaam Bin Baaz (rahimahullaah) passed away and Abul Hasan did not obtain what he wanted. Indeed Allaah has full control and power over His Affairs.

Indeed, it was Al-Maribi who kindled the fitnah between the salafis after the fitnah of Adnaan Ar’oor. He intended by way of his book a warning against the methodology of Al-Allaamah Rabee Bin Haadee Al-Madkhalee (hafidha-hullaah), which he described as excessive. The evidence showing Al-Maribi as the initiator of the Fitnah is due to the fact that he defended the people of falsehood and innovations in his book, especially the leaders of Ikhwaan Al-Muslimeen, which he titled: A defense of the people of Ittibaa [i.e. a defense of the people who follow the correct path of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah].

Al-Maribi himself said that he rejected/disapproved the methodology of Shaikh Rabee in his book Siraaj al-Wahhaaj few years ago before the clear and final manifestation of his differences with Shaikh Rabee, and that this book of his was written in the year 1418AH and has been reprinted thrice.  Al-Maribi also acknowledged that Shaikh Rabee did refute him in his Book titled: ”Intiqaad Aqadee Alaa Siraaj Al-Wahhaaj, and that Shaikh Rabee himself said: ”Indeed, when I received the book (Siraaj Al-Wahhaaj), I knew that he (Al-Maribi) intended me (i.e. a warning against me in a number of descriptions in relation to extremism, which he said I fell into.”

Students And Refutations – Shaikh Ahmad As-Subay’ee

Question: Shaikh, I have a question concerning the issue of refuting the one who has erred. Is it incumbent upon the student of knowledge or the well-grounded student of knowledge to refer back to the scholar or senior scholars before warning against a specific individual, hizbee group/organization or innovators (in general)? Does he have to refer back to the scholar before warning?

Answer: Shaikh Rabee’ (may Allah Preserve him) was asked about this and his answer can be found on Sahab (i.e. http://www.Sahab.net) and perhaps you know of it. So he was asked about this issue, and he answered it and his answer was correct. This issue is not one (meaning it’s not the same across the board and in every situation). There are issues that are obvious, clear, and apparent of which the student of knowledge could clarify if he has the ability to do so; so one aspect would be linked to one who’s disapproving and clarifying level of knowledge, another to his ability and another to his resolve to be patient upon enduring harms. Another consideration would be his contemplation on the specific positive and negative ramifications which would necessitate decisive and specific actions, statements and judgments. So contemplation on the benefits and harms which (would translate into) direct and decisive action (is required); this would be established by the refutation or the one making the refutation. Especially, if the issue is a knowledge-based issue that the people of knowledge have already spoken about. In this case, there would be nothing preventing (the student of knowledge from boycotting and warning). Boycotting and warning are taken from the Islaamic legislation (i.e. from the Sharee’ah). [end of quote]

The following is a question raised to our noble shaikh Ahmad an-Najmy رحمه الله concerning the role students of knowledge play in clarifying the truth:

إذا فيجب على طلاب العلم أصحاب المعرفة ، الذين عرفوا المنهج السلفي ، وعرفوا المناهج الأخرى ، يجب عليهم أن يبينوا لغيرهم ، وأن يقولوا ،وأن يتكلموا ، وأن يلقوا الخطب ، وأن يوضّحوا في كل مقام ،وفي كل مناسبة الحق ،الذي يجب أن يتّبع والباطل الذي يجب أن يترك ، ويجتنب ، أما الذين سكتوا عن بيان الحق للناس ، فإنهم لا يعذرون بسكوتهم ، ولو قالوا : نحن لسنا معهم ، فإنهم لا يعذرون ، حتى ولو قالوا : نحن لسنا مع أهل هذه الأحزاب الضّالة عن طريق الحق ، إلا أن ينكروا ماهم عليه من الضلال .

“Therefore, it is binding upon the students of knowledge – the people of understanding – the ones who know the salafi methodology, and they know concerning the other methodologies, it is binding upon them to clarify to others, and that they state and speak and deliver sermons (khutba) and that they clarify in every situation and at every suitable opportunity the truth, the truth which is binding to be followed and the falsehood that is binding to be abandoned and avoided. As for those who are silent upon clarifying the truth to the people then they are not excused due to their silence and even if they say “we are not with them” (i.e the hizbiyyoon, as is apparent upon reading the text of the full question which relates to the groups). So they are not excused even if they say “we are not with the people of these misguided groups from the truth, except that they reject and rebut that which they (the misguided groups) are upon in terms of misguidance)”.

Author: Shaikh Ahmad As-Subay’ee (hafithahullah)

Continue reading