Salaficentre Appeal 2019

Posts Tagged ‘tamyee’’

[1]A Series in Response to Abu Usaama’s Habitual Deceitfulness and Deceitful Responses [Introduction]

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

Here we begin a series to address abu usaama’s recent deceitful reply regarding the incident last Friday. Once again he spoke about the two innovators Al-Maribi and Al-Halabi! Whenever he speaks about their affair in relation to the stance of the Salafiyyoon towards them, he is quick to announce his spider-web shubhah that he refrains from declaring them innovators because Shaikh Abdul Muhsin does not declare them to be innovators; however deceitful Abu Usaamah always refrains from detailing this affair to his unsuspecting audience.

Firstly, a must read:  http://www.themadkhalis.com/md/articles/nvskb-why-shaykh-rabee-was-correct-and-shaykh-abdul-muhsin-al-abbaad-was-wrong-yet-both-are-rewarded.cfm

Secondly, another must read: Establishment of Proof in Declaring a Person to be an Innovator By Shaikh Rabee bin Hādī al-Madkhalī http://www.abukhadeejah.com/the-conditions-for-the-establishment-of-proof-in-declaring-a-person-to-be-an-innovator-by-shaikh-rabee-bin-hadi-al-madkhali/

Thirdly, the Verdict of the scholars on Abul Hasan al-Maribi, see link:

Verdicts of the scholars against Abul Hasan Al-Maribi Al-Mubtadi [An Ally of Masjid As-Sunnah]

Fourthly: The categories of people in the fitna of Al-Halabi, see link:

http://www.salaficentre.com/2013/03/the-categories-of-people-in-the-fitna-of-halabi-al-mubtadi-a-question-to-brixton/

Finally: We have to be reminded of the fact that the students at Maktabah Salafiyyah have been translating numerous articles on various affairs of Manhaj for many years and this is all done for us to be fully acquainted wiith affairs of the Salafi Manhaj.

Yes indeed, we genuinely ask questions whenever a deviant like Abu Usaamah or others similar to him spread doubts, but this does not mean that we deliberately remain unaware of certain manhaj affairs as long as nothing has occured. Rather, we should be acquainting ourselves with many affairs of the manhaj that have already been translated into the English Language by the truthworthy and honest Salafi students.

This will make us well prepared – by the will of Allaah- when the deviants seek to spread doubts. It does not mean that we seek after what the deviants say, rather we should read what the students have translated on various affairs of Manhaj (or listen to audios), so that when the deceitful people of bidah speak and are refuted by the scholars or students, we will know the angle they are coming from, otherwise we will keep on repeating the same questions again and getting confused with the same issues. So do visit the websites

http://www.salafis.com/index.cfm

http://www.manhaj.com/manhaj/index.cfm

http://www.abukhadeejah.com/

 

Continue Reading

Reminder: The False Comparison Between Hadith Giants Ibn Hajar, an-Nawawi and 20th Century Ignoramuses Series

Reminder: The False Comparison Between Hadith Giants Ibn Hajar, an-Nawawi and 20th Century Ignoramuses Series

http://www.themadkhalis.com/md/series/the-false-comparison-between-hadith-giants-ibn-hajar-an-nawawi-and-20th-century-ignoramuses.cfm?CFID=54945701&CFTOKEN=80055695

Continue Reading

The One Who Praises Innovators Is One of Two People- by Shaikh Saaleh Al-Fawzaan

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

Shaikh Saaleh Al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said:

It is not permissible to exalt and praise the innovators even if they have some truth with them. That is because raising and praising them will spread their bidah and place them amongst the sincere ones-those who are taken as examples amongst distinguished men of this Ummah. The Salaf warned against having trust for the innovators, (warned against) praising them and their gatherings. In this regard, Asad Ibn Musa (rahimahullaah) wrote: ”Beware of being a brother of the innovator (by association) or a companion of his, or one whom you sit with; for indeed it has been narrated that ‘Whoever sits with a person of innovation has left the protection of Allaah and is entrusted to himself’.

The innovators must be warned against and kept away from even if they have some truth with them. Indeed, the most astray are not devoid of some truth, but as long as they have with them innovation, opposition and sinful views, it is not permissible to praise and exalt them. It is impermissible to not have an objection against their innovation because this spreads bidah, belittles the Sunnah and by way of this the innovator will emerge and become a guide for the Ummah.

As for giving consideration (to the fact) that the innovation has some truth, this does not justify praising him. This is -to a far greater extent- against what is of overriding benefit and it is known in relation to a principle in the religion that averting harm takes precedence over seeking that which is of benefit. And with regards to having hatred for the innovator, the harm that is averted from the Ummah is weightier than the benefit possessed by the innovator. And had we adhered to this concept (i.e. praising the innovator because he has some truth with him), then no one would have been judged to be misguided and declared an innovator. That is because there is not an innovator except that he has some truth and adherence to the Sunnah. The innovator (may) neither be a disbeliever nor be in opposition to all the Islamic legislation; rather he is either an innovator in some or most of the affairs. However, if the innovation is particularly related to affairs of Creed and Methodology, then the affair is dangerous indeed because it will become an example (to be followed); innovation will spread and the innovators will become active in spreading their innovation.

So, this person who praises the innovators and makes their affair obscure to the people -due to some truth they (i.e. innovators) have – is one of two (people): Either he is one ignorant of the methodology of the pious predecessors and their stance against the innovators, so it is neither permissible for this ignorant one to speak nor is it permissible for the Muslims to listen to him; or he is one who has an objection to the truth because he knows the danger of innovation and the innovators, but he wishes to spread innovations. Nevertheless, this is a dangerous affair and it is not permissible to be lackadaisical with regards to innovation and its people, whatever that may be.  [Source: At-Tabdee Wat-Tafseeq Wat Takfeer. Page: 72-76. Abridged and slightly paraphrased]

Continue Reading

[Part D: Observations on Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli’s Deficient and Defective Advice To Ahlus Sunnah- Dr Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari Establishes a Third Goal, Aim and Intent Behind Boycotting]

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

Reader [may Allaah grant us and you thabaat upon the Sunnah(Aameen)]: Before embarking upon this fourth aim (or goal) behind boycotting-by the Aid and Assistance of Allaah- we wish to inform you that this will be the last post in the section of Dr Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari’s criticism against Dr Ibraaheem ar-Ruhayli’s deficient and defective advice to Ahlus Sunnah regarding boycotting. Shaikh Abdullah’s book is a [Hundred and Sixty pages] and we have now reached [Page Number Eighty-Four]. So after this post, we will return to Shaikh’s Rabee’s observations and as soon as Shaikh Rabee’s observations are completed, we will carry on with Shaikh Abdullah’s observations by the Permission, Aid and Assistance of Allaah (The Most High).

To proceed:

Dr Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari (may Allaah preserve him) stated a fourth aim (or goal) behind boycotting by way of which the Ummah is given sincere advise. That is because a Mubtadi is corrupt and a corrupter; so it is obligatory to be cautious of him and his bidah; likewise to stop his bidah from spreading and protect the common people from falling into it. Therefore, from those affairs that will bring about safety is that the religion obligates that sincere advice is given, as reported from the Prophet (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) in the Hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim.

Then Dr Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari (may Allaah preserve him) stated that Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli (may Allaah rectify his affair) did indicate to this particular aim (goal) behind boycotting, but he restricted it to the affair of the one that when boycotted, the Ummah will be benefitted by it! So regarding this, a clarification will follow to show the deficiency in this view of Dr Ibraaheem.

Indeed this fourth aim (or goal) behind boycotting has been affirmed (or established) by Ahlus Sunnah in practice based on knowledge and justice, and in fulfilment of an affair legislated in the Sharee’ah. Imaam Al-Laalakaa’ee reported in Sharh Usool Al-Itiqaad Ahlus Sunnah 2/256 from Al-Haafidh Qataadah Ibn Du’aamata As-Saddoosiy who said:

“Indeed if a man innovates an innovation (in the religion), it (becomes) obligatory to make a mention of it so that (the people are) cautious (of it). [Ref 1]

Al Uqayliy reported in the introduction of Ad-Du’afaa (3/6) [in the biography of Abdul Azeez Ibn Abee Rawwaad Al-Atkiy (who died in the year 159)] with an established chain of transmission to Mu’ammil Ibn Ismaaeel, who said: Abdul Azeez Ibn Abee Rawwaad died and was brought for the Janaazah prayer; so he was placed at the door of Safaa, whilst the people were making Tawaaf. Ath-Thawri came along, so the people said: Ath-Thawri has arrived; Ath-Thawri has arrived! So he came along (i.e. walked along) until he went past the rows- whilst the people looked at him; (then) he went past the Jazaanah and did not pray (i.e. did not pray the Janaazah prayer of Ibn Abee Rawwaad). The reason behind this was because Ibn Abee Rawwaad used to hold the view of Ir’jaa.

Abu Saaleh Al-Farraa’u  said: I narrated something regarding the fitan to Yusuf Ibn Asbaat from  Wakee; so he (Yusuf) said: That one is like his Shaikh;  meaning Al-Hasan Ibn Yahyah (i.e. this Hasan Ibn Saaleh was influenced by some of the views of the khaarijites). I said to Yusuf, “Do you not fear that this is tantamount to back biting? He said, “Why, O idiot? I am better for these people than their fathers and mothers. I forbid the people from acting upon what they have innovated, so that they do not follow their footsteps in sin and the one who praises them is the most harmful to them. [Siyar A’laam An-Nubulaa 7/361]

Abul Wafaa Ibn Aqeel Al-Faqee said, our Shaikh Abul Fadl Al-Hamdaani said, ‘’The innovators (in) Islam and the fabricators of Hadeeth are worse than the Mulhiddoon [i.e. the heretics (2)], for the heretics aim to corrupt Islam from the outside, whilst these (people) want to corrupt it from within. They (i.e. the innovators and the fabricators of hadeeth) are similar to the people of a country who try to corrupt its state of affairs and the heretics are similar to those who lay a siege from the outside; so the ones from within (i.e. the innovators and fabricators of hadeeth) open the fortress. Therefore, they are more harmful to Islam than those who do not (attribute) themselves to it outwardly. [Reported by Ibnul Jawzi in Al-Mawdoo’aat 1/44]

Al-Marwadhiy said, I said to Abu Abdillaah (i.e. Imaam Ahmad), ‘’What do you think- a man preoccupies himself with fasting, prayers (i.e. optional fasting and prayers) and refrains from speaking against Ahlul Bidah?’’ So he frowned and said: ‘’If he fasts, prays and secludes himself from the people (i.e. he performs optional fasts, prayers and stays away from the people, except when he has to mix with them), he only benefits himself; but if he speaks (i.e. against ahlul bidah), he (benefits) himself and others, and that is better.[Tabaqaat Al-Hanaabilah 2/216]

Shaikhul Islam clarified the misguidance and bidah of some of the extreme Soofees, saying that it’s harmful (effects) on the Muslims is greater than the harm of poison they eat, whilst being unaware of it. The harmful effects of their bidah and misguidance on the Muslims is greater than the harm (perpetrated by the) thieves and deceivers whom they are not aware of being thieves and deceivers. That is because the severest the harm of the thieves and deceivers can be is that it causes the death of a person or loss of his wealth, which is a worldly affliction and may be a means of receiving Allah’s mercy in the afterlife. As for these ones (i.e. the extreme Soofiyyah), they inculcate the (beliefs and acts) of disbelief and hearsay through the sound path of Prophets and the friends of Allaah (i.e. they make the people believe that their beliefs, acts of disbelief and hearsay are based on the path of the Prophets and the close friends of Allaah). They portray themselves as strivers in the path of Allaah, but inwardly they are from those who wage war against Allaah and His Messenger. They manifest the statements of the disbelievers and the hypocrites through the statements of the true friends of Allaah (by way of forgery and manipulation); so a man joins them, whilst thinking that he will be from the believers and the friends of Allaah, but ends up being a hypocrite and an enemy of Allaah.  [Majmoo 2/360…Abridged and paraphrased]

Shaikhul Islaam also said:  For this reason, it is not considered backbiting to talk about one who openly publicizes his innovations and wickedness, as has been reported on Al-Hasan Al-Basree and others. This is because when one publicizes that, he justifies himself to be punished by the Muslims. The least of these forms of punishment is that he should be dispraised and dishonoured so that the people may avoid and refrain from him and his deviance. And if he is not dispraised and the evil or disobedience or innovation that lies within him is not conveyed (to the public), then the people will be deceived by him. Then it is likely that this will bring some of them to act upon what he believes in. At the same time, it will only cause him to increase in his daringness, evil and disobedience. So if the faults that he has in him are mentioned, then he will restrain and others will restrain from his evil and from accompanying and socializing with him. Al-Hasan Al-Basree said: Do you turn away from mentioning the condition of the evil-doer (faajir)? Mention what he has in him, so that the people may be warned of him! This has been reported in marfoo form.

Wickedness (fujoor) is a comprehensive term for every affair that involves disobedience or foul, evil speech, that of which causes the one who hears it to believe that there is wickedness in the heart of the one who spoke it. For this reason, it becomes necessary for this type of individual to be abandoned. If he openly proclaims his innovation or disobedience or wickedness or immorality or his intermingling with someone who does that, such that he doesn’t care about whether the people will speak evilly about him or not, then indeed not abandoning him would then become a form of supporting him. If he openly proclaims his evil deeds, then he must be openly forsaken and if he does his evil deeds in secrecy, then he must be forsaken secretly. This is since Hijrah (abandonment) is the abandoning of something based upon the evil that is found there. And abandoning evil is to stay away from what Allaah has forbidden, as Allaah says: [وَالرُّجْزَ فَاهْجُرْ- And keep away from Ar-Rujz (the idols)! (74:5)]

And Allaah (The Most High) stated:

وَقَدْ نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الْكِتَابِ أَنْ إِذَا سَمِعْتُمْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ يُكْفَرُ بِهَا وَيُسْتَهْزَأُ بِهَا فَلَا تَقْعُدُوا مَعَهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ ۚ إِنَّكُمْ إِذًا مِّثْلُهُمْ

And it has already been revealed to you in the Book (this Qur’an) that when you hear the Verses of Allah being denied and mocked at, then sit not with them, until they engage in a talk other than that; (but if you stayed with them) certainly in that case you would be like them. [4:140][Ref 3]

Shaikhul Islaam also stated in Majmoo 28/231-232:

And such as the People of innovation among the people of the [innovated] sayings that oppose the Book and the Sunnah or the acts of worship opposing the Book and the Sunnah – for exposing their condition and warning the Ummah about them is obligatory by unanimous agreement of the Muslims – until it was said to Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal: “Is it more loved by you that a man fasts, prays and peforms tawaaf or that he speaks about the People of innovation [i.e. exposes them and warns about them]?” He replied: “When he stands, prays and performs tawaaf that is for himself but when he talks about the People ofinnovation then that is for the Muslims and this is more excellent.” So he explained that the benefit of this is for the Muslims in general – for [the protection of] their religion – and it is a form of Jihaad in the Path of Allaah because the purification of the Path of Allaah, His Deen, His Minhaaj (methodology) and His Sharee’ah, repelling the oppressors and having enmity towards them is obligatory with kifaayah (i.e. there must be some amongst the Muslims who do this otherwise all of them are sinful for neglecting this duty). And if it had not been for the one whom Allaah had made to undertake this duty of repelling the harms of these people the Deen would have been corrupted and destroyed. And this corruption is greater than the corruption resulting from the domination of the enemies – amongst the people who fight against the Muslims (i.e. disbelievers) – and this is because these people (the disbelievers) when they dominate and conquer the Muslims, do not corrupt the hearts or whatever faith is contained within them except as a consequence, after time. As for these (the People of Innovation) then they corrupt the hearts right from the very beginning (i.e. since they corrupt the Deen itself).” [Ref 4]

Imaam Ibnul Qayyim (rahimahullaah) stated in Madaarij As-Saalikeen 1/372:

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 Dr Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari stated that it was obligatory on Dr (Ibraaheem)- whilst he was giving advice about boycotting and its precise principles– to clarify the true picture of boycotting held by the Salaf because a deficient clarification in this affair is a great shortcoming that will lead to an incorrect understanding of this great fundamental. That is because it is understood from Dr Ibraaheem’s speech that boycotting has a singular image, but the truth is that it of different types, and from them: To refrain from giving salaam (i.e. refrain from giving salaam to the figureheads of bidah, those who openly manifest their wicked acts etc); refrain from sitting with them; refrain from honouring them and the important people (i.e. such as the scholars and other pious leaders) are to refrain from praying their Janaazah.

[Source: At-Ta’aquubaat As-Sareehah Alaa Risaalah An-Naseehah Lid-Doktoor Ibraaheem Bin Aamir Ar-Ruhayli pages 78-84..Abridged and paraphrased]

————————————————————————————————————-

Ref 1: Faa’idah from Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool: This Athar that was reported from Qataadah is the same principle we mentioned earlier, but the first one was that they (i.e. salaf) held that  the religion is built upon two foundations: That we do not worship none, except Allaah and that we only worship Allaah with what He has legislated; so from this follows on warning against Ahlul bidah because the path of Ahlul bidah is the opposite of what the Messenger (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) and the companions were upon. So here Qataadah acquainted his companions with this principle that indeed if a person innovates a bidah, it (becomes) obligatory to make a mention of it, so that the people are cautious of it and so that the people are cautious of this man. This is the path of the Salafus Saaleh that they mentioned the people of bidah when they become famous and known; so they mention the innovation and warn the people against it, especially if they fear that the people will be affected by it and will follow it. www.ajurry.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7187

[Ref 2] Ilhaad: Complete Il-haad is to turn away from Islaam completely and that is Major Il-haad, which exits a person from the fold of Islaam, such as the Il-haad of the communists, the idol worshippers and those similar to them.

And Minor Il-haad does not exit a person from the Religion of Islaam, such as turning away from some actions.  Allaah (The Most High) said: [وَمَن يُرِدْ فِيهِ بِإِلْحَادٍ بِظُلْمٍ نُذِقْهُ مِنْ عَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ] ”And whoever inclines to evil actions therein or to do wrong, him We shall cause to taste a painful torment.” [22:25][for further details; see links:

http://www.ajurry.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13326 http://www.ibnothaimeen.com/all/noor/article_1802.shtml

[Ref3]http://www.spubs.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=BDH05&articleID=BDH050002&pfriend= NB: The statement of Shaikul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah quoted by Shaikh Abdullaah al-Bukhaari was already translated by the students at Salafipublications in (We ask Allaah by His Greatest Name to grant them Thabaat and Abundant reward in this dunyah and the aakhirah. Aameen)

[Ref4]http://www.ikhwanis.com/articles/araufda-refuting-yasir-qadhi-and-the-orientalists-ibn-taymiyyah-on–salafiyyah-being-the-prophetic-way.cfm

Continue Reading

[Part C: Observations on Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli’s Deficient and Defective Advice To Ahlus Sunnah- Dr Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari Establishes a Third Goal, Aim and Intent Behind Boycotting]

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

The third aim (or goal) behind boycotting is to fulfil the obligation of [Al-Amr Bil Ma’roofi Wan-Nahyi Anil Munkar- to enjoin good and forbid evil] because a Mubtadi is one who innovates (something) in the Sharee’ah Muhammadiyyah [i.e. the divine legislation revealed by Allaah to the Prophet (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam)]. Therefore, it is obligatory to disapprove (or reject) this evil in order that Allaah’s Word is elevated [i.e. the commands, prohibitions, sound creed, acts of worship, sound principles in the religion etc) because that is from the greatest types of jihad in the path of Allah.  This aim or (goal) is pointed out by the following:

Allaah (The Most High) said:

لُعِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِن بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ عَلَىٰ لِسَانِ دَاوُودَ وَعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِمَا عَصَوا وَّكَانُوا يَعْتَدُونَ

كَانُوا لَا يَتَنَاهَوْنَ عَن مُّنكَرٍ فَعَلُوهُ ۚ لَبِئْسَ مَا كَانُوا يَفْعَلُونَ

Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of Dawud (David) and ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). That was because they disobeyed (Allah and the Messengers) and were ever transgressing beyond bounds. They used not to forbid one another from the Munkar (wrong, evil-doing, sins, polytheism, disbelief, etc.) which they committed. Vile indeed was what they used to do. [5:78-79]

Imaam Ash-Shawkaaniy (rahimahullaah) stated in [Fat-hul Qadeer 2/65] that the curse against them was due to disobedience and transgression and not due to something else. Allaah clarified their act of disobedience and transgression, saying: [كَانُوا لَا يَتَنَاهَوْنَ عَن مُّنكَرٍ فَعَلُوهُ – They used not to forbid one another from the Munkar (wrong, evil-doing, sins, polytheism, disbelief, etc.) which they committed]; so Allaah attributed the act to them because the  perpetrator of the deed is one amongst them, even though not all of them committed the act….. up until the Imaam stated: Enjoining good and forbidding evil is from the most important principles of Islam and the loftiest legislated obligatory duties- and due to this, the one who abandons it (i.e. whilst having the ability to do so) is a partner [in crime] of the one who commits an act of disobedience and he is deserving of Allah’s anger and vengeance, just as what happened to the people of the Sabat [i.e. see Surah Al-A’raaf… Aayaat 163-166]

Then Allaah declared the act of refraining from forbidding evil as something vile, saying:

[لَبِئْسَ مَا كَانُوا يَفْعَلُونَ – Vile indeed was what they used to do] because they abandoned the obligation of rejecting (disapproving of) that which they were obligated to reject.

Allaah  (The Most High) said:

لَوْلَا يَنْهَاهُمُ الرَّبَّانِيُّونَ وَالْأَحْبَارُ عَن قَوْلِهِمُ الْإِثْمَ وَأَكْلِهِمُ السُّحْتَ ۚ لَبِئْسَ مَا كَانُوا يَصْنَعُونَ

Why do not the rabbis and the religious learned men forbid them from uttering sinful words and from eating illegal things. Evil indeed is that which they have been performing. [5:63]

Allaah [Glorified be He] rebuked the leading personalities (or people of distinction)- and they are the scholars who abandon enjoining good and forbidding evil- with a harsher and more severe rebuke than the one who perpetrates the act of disobedience. So the scholars should lend an ear to this verse and open their hearts to it, for it contains an unequivocal clarification for them that they refrain from disobedience by not abandoning the obligation of rejecting those who do evil; rather their affair is more severe and carries greater evil consequences than that of the sinners. So may Allaah have mercy upon the  scholar who fulfils what is obligated upon him in relation to enjoining good and forbidding evil, for it is the greatest of that which Allaah obligated on him and the most obligatory with regards to that which he should stand up for.

Imaam Muhammad Ibn Yahyah Adh-Dhuliy said: I heard Yahyah Ibn Maeen saying: Defending the Sunnah is better than jihad in the path of Allaah.” So I said to Yahyah, “A person spends his wealth, exerts himself and strives (in jihaad), yet this (i.e. defending the sunnah) is better than it.” He said: Yes, by a lot more.” [Siyar A’laam  An-Nubulaa  10/518]

Shaikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: The one who rebuts Ahlul  bidah is a Mujaahid, so much so that Yahyah Ibn Yahyah used to say: Defending the Sunnah is better than jihaad. [Majmoo 3/13]

Shaikhul Islaam also said, ‘’Likewise, this is what the Sunnah [obligates] in relation to companionship with the oppressors, the adulterers, the people of bidah and wickedness, and regarding all sins – it is neither permissible to accompany nor mix with them (i.e. these type of people), except in a manner that will save a person from Allaah’s punishment, and the least of that is that one rejects their acts of oppression; showing one’s hatred for them and hatred towards that which they are upon as much as possible, as stated in the hadeeth, ‘’Whoever sees an evil deed should stop it with his hand; and if he is not able, then with with tongue; and if he is not able, then with his heart and that is the weakest of Eemaan. ’’[Majmoo 15/324]

And he [Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah] was ask about the hadeeth: ‘’There is no Gheebah in the case of the faasiq (i.e. one is not guilty of back biting if he speaks against the open sinner)….so he replied saying that as for this hadeeth, it is not the Prophet’s speech; but it has been reported that Al -Hassan  Al Basri  said, ‘’Do you refrain from mentioning the (affair) of the wicked one?! Make a mention of him regarding what he does, so that the people are cautious of him.’’ [Al-Fataawa Al-Kubraa 2/693]

In another hadeeth:) ”Whoever removes the veil of shyness, then there is no Gheebah regarding him (i.e. those who speak about him are not guilty of back biting).

It is permissible to backbite these two types of people and the scholars do not disagree regarding this. The first of them is that one who openly commits wicked deeds, such as oppression, lewdness and bidah in opposition to the Sunnah; so if he manifests the evil deed, he is to be shown rejection based on one’s ability, just as the Prophet (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) said: ”Whoever sees an evil deed should stop it with his hand; and if he is not able, then with his tongue; and if he is not able, then with his heart and that is the weakest of Eemaan.”

Therefore, whoever manifests an evil deed, it is then obligatory to disapprove of him, boycotted [i.e. based on the severity of the deed and after asking the scholars in some cases] and rebuked. This is the meaning of the statement: ”Whoever removes the veil of shyness, then there is no Gheebah regarding him (i.e. those who speak about him are not guilty of back biting).”

As for the one who hides his sin, it should be hidden for him; but he is to be given advice in private and boycotted by the one who knows his state of affairs until he repents, and his affair is mentioned by way of advice.

Then Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari quoted a statement of Imam Ibnul Qayyim (rahimahullaah) in As-Sawaa’iq Al-Mursalah 1/301-302, who stated that exposing the faults of these ones (i.e. people of bidah and falsehood); clarifying their disgraceful acts and their principles is from the best of Jihaad in the path of Allaah. Indeed the Prophet (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) said to Hassan Ibn Thaabit, ”The Holy Spirit will continue to support you, so long as you are defending Allah and His Messenger.” He (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam also said to Hasan): ”Lampoon them (i.e. Quraish) and Jibril (Gabriel) is with you.” He (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam also said): ”O Allaah aid him (i.e. Hasan) with the Holy Spirit as long as he is defending Your Messenger.’’ He (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam stated about Hasan’s rebuke against the Quraish: “By Allaah! It will hurt them more than arrows.”

Then Ibnul Qayyim said:

So how can this not be from Jihaad in the path of Allaah when it is the case that many of these interpretations (i.e. those uttered by the deviants) are in opposition to the path of the Salafus Saaleh – the Sahaabah, the Taabieen, Ahlul Hadeeth and the Imaams of Islaam whom Allaah has granted honour and are mentioned with good praise by the Ummah- and are tantamount to jesting with the texts and harbouring evil suspicion towards them (i.e. the texts), which is a type of the evil speech that was uttred by those who slandered the Messenger and his religion. That is because these false interpretations contain false claims and what is apparent from the speech of its utterer is slander; something that is impossible to ascertain; disbelief; misguidance; Tashbeeh (i.e. false affirmation that Allaah resembles His creation in most of His Attributes); Tamtheel (false affirmation that Allaah is like His creation in every way) or deception; then he (i.e. the deviant utterer of such statements) changes them into meanings whose intended aim behind such words is known to be a type of intentional usage of words to cause ingenuity in ascertaining their sound meanings and to cause beguilement, which does not occur from one who intends to give sincere advice and sound clarification. Therefore, defending the speech of Allaah and that of His Messenger is from the best of deeds, the most beloved to Allaah and the most beneficial for the servant.

To be continued…..In-Shaa-Allaah

——————————————————————————————————————–

[Source: At-Ta’aqqubaat As-Sareehah Alaa Risaalah An-Naseehah Lid-Duktoor Ibraaheem Bin Aamir Ar-Ruhayli’ page:  72-77..Abridged and paraphrased]

Continue Reading

[Part B: Observations on Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli’s Deficient and Defective Advice To Ahlus Sunnah- Dr Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari Establishes a Second Goal, Aim and Intent Behind Boycotting]

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

Reader: In this discourse, Dr Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari (may Allaah preserve him) will indicate to another goal behind boycotting through the texts of the Qur’aan, the Sunnah and the statements of the scholars, which Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli (may Allaah rectify his affair or protect us from his false views) failed to mention in his defective and deficient advice to Ahlus Sunnah.

Likewise, not only will the texts of the Sharee’ah and the statements of the scholars utilised by the Shaikh (Dr Abdullah Al-Bukhaari) manifest the fact that the Hizbiyyoon propagate a corrupt Walaa Wal Baraa related to the affair of some of the Mubtadi’ah, but they will also unveil the deception of some of those hizbiyyoon of Luton (sponsees of Ihyaa Turaath) who have recently attempted to deceive the people through the statement [Whatever leads to hatred and enmity between the people, then verily the legislation categorically prohibits it]. However, this has to be understood in the light of what you will discover from the detailed texts of the Sharee’ah and the understanding of the Imaams of the Sunnah.

Finally, the reader should not be oblivious of the fact that Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli claimed that the aims (or goals) behind boycotting are for the purposed of achieving three affairs only and that his claim is supported by the A’immah Al-Muhaqqiqoon, even though he did not quote except Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah). As for Dr Shaikh Abdullaah Al-Bukhaari, not only did he nullify this above unsubstantiated claim-by the Tawfeeq of Allaah- but he also pointed out that Dr Ibraaheem did not provide statements from those A’immah Al-Muhaqqiqoon, whom he claims backed his views. In Part A of this series [see here https://t.co/fW6kmUrpSi ] we saw that Dr Shaikh Abdullah fulfilled the trust in this affair of knowledge by quoting the Imaams and in Part B to follow-InShaa’Allaah- he quoted the scholars, such as Sufyaan Ath-Thawri, Ash-Shawkaani, Abu Daawud, Al-Baghawiy, Al-Mundhiriy, Al-Bayhaqqi, An-Nawawi, As-Saabooniy, Ibn Aqeel, Sulaymaan Ibn Sahmaan and Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahumullaah). Likewise, the reader should not forget that Dr Shaikh Abdullaah’s observations on Dr Ibraaheem’s defective and deficient advice to Ahlus Sunnah was examined by a number of scholars in our era, such as Shaikh Rabee, Shaikh Zayd (rahimahullaah), Shaikh Muhammad Bin Haadi, Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Ali Naasir, Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool and others.

To proceed:

Dr Shaikh Abdullaah Al-Bukhaari (may Allaah preserve him) began this discussion, saying that a second goal (or aim) behind boycotting is to fulfil the belief in Loyalty and disassociation; love for the sake of Allaah and hatred for the sake of Allaah because a believer is commanded with it. The actualization of this great principle necessitates disassociating oneself from bidah and the innovators because the strongest bond of Imaan is to love for the sake of Allaah and hate for the sake of Allaah.

The texts of the Qur’aan and (authentic) Sunnah indicate to the fact that it is obligatory to establish this creed (concerning love and hatred for the sake of Allaah) and this is what the Salafus Saaleh (pious predecessors) of this Ummah understood; so they determined its texts and applied it through actions. And that which indicates to this aim (or goal) is as follows:

Allaah (The Most High) said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا دِينَكُمْ هُزُوًا وَلَعِبًا مِّنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ وَالْكُفَّارَ أَوْلِيَاءَ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ

O you who believe! Take not for Auliya’ (protectors and helpers) those who take your religion for a mockery and fun from among those who received the Scripture before you, nor from among the disbelievers; and fear Allah if you indeed are true believers. [5:57]

Then Shaikh Abdullaah Al-Bukhaari quoted Imaam Ash-Shawkaani (rahimahullaah) who stated in Fat’hul Qadeer 2/54 that the above ayah prohibits one from taking as helpers (or protectors) those who take the religion for mockery and fun. This includes everyone who does this, be it the polytheists, the people of the Book, and the people of bidah who ascribe themselves to Islaam. The part of the ayah [مِّنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ -among those who received the Scripture] does not negate the inclusion of other people besides them (i.e. those were given the scripture), if the stated cause (i.e. taking religion for mockery and fun) in the ayah is present, which is the very reason behind the prohibition. [End]

The scholars have given attention to the establishment of this aim (or goal behind boycotting) by placing chapter headings (in their books) and stated what indicates to it. Imaam Abu Daawud placed a chapter in his Sunan (i.e. Sunan Abu Daawud) titled, ‘’Chapter: keeping away from the people of desires and having hatred for them.’’ [Vol 5, page 6]

Al-Haafidh Al-Baghawi placed a chapter titled, ‘’Keeping away from the people of desires’’ [1/221]

Al-Haafidh Al-Mundhiriy placed a chapter in [At-Targheeb Wat-Tarheeb 4/8] which he called: [At-Targheeb Fil Hubbi Fil-laahi Ta’aalaa – An urge (i,e. through texts of the sharee’ah about having love for the sake of Allaah (The Most High); Wat-Tarheeb Min Hubbil Ash’raar Wa Alil Bidah (i.e. made to fear by way of warning through the sharee’ah texts that) the evil ones and ahlul bidah should not be loved; Li-annal Mar’a Ma’a Man Ahabba (i.e. because a person will be with the one he loves] [End]

Al-Bayhaqqi placed a chapter in Al-I’tiqaad’ page 236 titled: [’Prohibition against sitting with Ahlul Bidah] [End]

An-Nawawi placed a titled in Riyaadus Saaliheen’ page 551, Chapter: [The Prohibition against boycotting between two Muslims beyond three days, except in case of boycotting (a person) due to Bidah, or (one) who openly commits wicked deeds or what is similar] [End]

Imaam As-Saabooniy stated in Aqeedatus Salaf Ashaab Al-Hadeeth’ page 292: And they hate Ahul-Bid’ah (the People of Innovation) who innovate into the religion that which is not from it. They neither love them nor keep company with them; they neither listen to their speech nor sit with them; they neither argue with them about the religion nor debate with them. Rather, they guard their ears from hearing their falsehood, which if they pass through the ears and settle in the hearts, will cause harm (to the hearts); bring about devilish whisperings and corrupt ideas. And regarding this, Allaah [The Mighty and Majestic] sent down:

 وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَ الَّذِينَ يَخُوضُونَ فِي آيَاتِنَا فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ

And when you (Muhammad) see those who engage in a false conversation about Our Verses (of the Qur’an), stay away from them till they turn to another topic. [6:68] [End]

Imaam Adh-Dhahabi stated in the biography of Thawr Bin Yazeed Al-Himsiy (died 153) that Abu Tawbah Al-Halabiy said: ‘’Our companions related to us that Thawr met Al-Awzaa’ee, so he (Thawr) extended his hand (i.e. to shake Al-Awzaa’ee’s hand), but Al-Awzaa’ee refused to give his hand to him and said: O Thawr! If this was to due to an (affair of) the Dunyah, then there would have been closeness, but it is an (affair) of the religion.’’ The reason behind Imaam Al-Awzaa’ee turning away from Thawr was because Thawr used to subscribe to the Qadari views. [See Siyar A’laam Nubulaa 6/344 and Meezaan Al-I’tidaal’ 1/374] [End]

Ibn Aqeel said: If you want to know the state of Islaam in the midst of the people of the era, then neither look at their crowding at the doors of the grand mosques nor the raising of their voices with the (statement) Labbaik (i.e. the Talbiyah); rather look at their interaction with the enemies of the Sharee’ah. [Al-Aadaab Ash-Sharee’ah’ of Ibn Muflih 1/268] [End]

Then in the second paragraph on page 65, Shaikh Abdullaah Al-Bukhaari quoted a statement of Al-Allaamah Ash-Shaikh Sulaymaan Ibn Sahmaan regarding the affair that to refrain from giving Salaam to a person or replying to Salaam does not necessitate that such a person is outside the fold of Islaam, as some people claim that one can neither refrain from giving Salaam nor refrain from replying to the salaam, except if such a person has no Islaam! So are those who hold this view not aware that refraining from giving Salaam or replying to it is from the Sunnah of the Messenger (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam)- the one whose Sunnah is a source of guidance for those who are guided and those who abandon it are misguided; for indeed the Messenger (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) boycotted Ka’ab Ibn Maalik and his two companions when they failed to participate in the battle of Tabuk, even though they were amongst those who participated in the Battle of Badr.

Therefore, do those ones (i.e. the ones who claim that refraining from giving Salaam or replying to salaam is not to be applied except to one who has no Islaam) think that it was ascertained that Ka’ab and his two companions had no Islaam when the Messenger (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) boycotted them by neither giving them salaam nor speaking to them? If that is not the case- even though they were virtuous people- then indeed he (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) boycotted them, neither gave them salaam nor spoke to them when they committed (that blameworthy affair) which obligated that they were to be reprimanded and disciplined until Allaah showed them mercy, after they repented, turned in repentance and in obedience with true Faith.

So when this becomes clear to you, then you will know the ignorance of these ones (i.e. those who say that there is neither refraining from giving salaam to a Muslim nor replying to his salaam, except if he has no Islaam) regarding the Sunnah and the statements of the scholars. You should know that we do not refrain from giving them Salaam (i.e. to some of the people who deserve such treatment) except due to what they have innovated in the religion; speaking ill of the scholars and allying with the enemies of the sharee’ah, such as the Raafidah and those similar to them, and due to the evil deeds and statements they have brought about. [End]

Then Dr Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari stated on page 69 that there are those who claim that there should be softness and leniency (i.e. a claim to softness in its wrong place) which leads to negligence regarding this great fundamental and upright principle; so you find him showing a display of softness and leniency, and making claims of love for the sake of Allaah. It maybe that this person and his ilk are truthful in their claims of loving for the sake of Allaah, but when the affair is examined in reality, they do not hate for the sake of Allaah- meaning that he has love for the sake of Allaah but not hatred for the sake of Allaah (in this affair). So in that regard, he has not actualised this great principle in the manner it deserves to be actualised, for indeed love and hate for the sake of Allaah are two affairs that necessitate each another and are binded to one another- one cannot be separated from the other. Abu Nu’aym stated in Al-Hilya 7/24 that Yoosuf Ibn Asbaat said: I heard Sufyaan Ath-Thawriy saying: ‘‘If you love a man for the sake of Allaah, but then he innovated an innovation in Islaam and you do not hate him due to it, then indeed you did not love him for the sake of Allaah.’’ [End]

Then on page 71, Shaikh Abdullaah al-Bukhaari stated that a person should be careful of the games of shaytaan-be it a shaytaan amongst humans or the Jinn- with regards to these claims; so a person should cling to the texts of the sharee’ah and the understanding of the Salafus Saaleh because the entire Sharee’ah is goodness, mercy, compassion, justice and equity (i.e. within the boundaries legislated by the All-Wise Creator).  And it is from justice, equity, compassion and mercy for the slave (i.e. for everyone) that he actualises Allaah’s Sharee’ah. [End]

Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said: All the legislated punishments of the Sharee’ah are a beneficial remedy by way of which Allaah rectifies the disease of the hearts, and they are from Allaah’s Mercy to His slaves and compassion for them- all of which enters into the statement of Allaah (The Blessed and Most High):

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِّلْعَالَمِينَ

And We have sent you (O Muhammad) not but as a mercy for the ‘Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). [21:107]

So whoever abandons this beneficial mercy due to compassion for a sick person, then he has helped such a person to be subjected to punishment and destruction, even though he does not desire except good. (And in doing so) he is an ignoramus and an idiot, just as some ignorant women and men behave with their sick ones; those whom they nurture; their slaves and other than them by not disciplining and punishing them for the shirk they commit and preventing them from good due to compassion; so that leads them to corruption, transgression and destruction. [End] [Majmoo 15/290] [Ref 1]

To be continued In-Shaa-Allaah

———————————————————————————————————————-

[Ref 1] Question to Imaam Abdul Azeez Bin Baaz (Rahimahullaah): Is enjoining Ma’ruf and forbidding Munkar, namely correcting the wrong by the hand, a right for all Muslims or is it just confined to those in authority and their deputies?

A: Correcting the wrong is a right for all Muslims according to their ability, because the Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “Anyone of you who sees Munkar (that which is unacceptable or disapproved of by Islamic law and Muslims of sound intellect), let them change it with their hand (by taking action); if they cannot, then with their tongue (by speaking out); and if they cannot, then with their heart (by hating it and feeling that it is wrong); and that is the weakest of Iman (faith).”(Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi & others)

However, changing by the hand must be based on ability that will not result in greater corruption or evil. Man has the right to rectify matters with his hand (by taking action) in his home, with his children, wife, and servants; and a manager has the authority to make changes with the hand within the organization they are responsible for, in accordance with the instructions that were given to them. Otherwise, people should not change with their hand anything they are not authorized to change.  If they do make changes in matters that they have no authority over, this will result in more evil and great corruption between them and the people and between the people and the state.

In this case they should make the change with their tongue (by speaking out). They may say: “O so-and-so! Fear Allah! That is not permissible,” “This is Haram (prohibited),” or: “That is Wajib (obligatory) on you,” and clarify it with Shar’iy (Islamic legal) evidence. This is what can be done by the tongue. As for changing matters with the hand, this should be done where one has authority, such as one’s home, with those under one’s responsibility, or those authorized by the ruler, such as organizations given permission and authority to enjoin Ma’ruf (that which is judged as good, beneficial, or fitting by Islamic law and Muslims of sound intellect). They should make changes in accordance to the degree of authority that has been given to them, in the way prescribed by the Shari’ah (Islamic law), without exceeding their jurisdiction. The same applies to the governor of a city; he should make changes with his hand, in accordance with the instructions he has.

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=16&Topic=9751

[Ref 2: At-Ta’aqqubaat As-Sareehah Alaa Risaalah An-Naseehah Lid-Duktoor Ibraaheem Bin Aamir Ar’Rihayli’ pages …61-72 Abridged and paraphrased]

Continue Reading

Location

Telephone

0161 317 1481

Address

2 Dudley Street
Cheetham Hill
Manchester
M8 9DA

(C) 2012 The Salafi Centre of Manchester | 2 Dudley Street, Cheetham Hill, Manchester, M8 9DA
The Quran and Sunnah Upon The Understanding of The Salaf

Pin It on Pinterest