 | The Names of 'Firqaat an-Najiyyah' (Saved Sect) and their meanings! | by Nissho for everyone |
The Names of 'Firqaat an-Najiyyah' (Saved Sect) and their meanings!
The Noble Shaykh, Al-'Allaamah Doctor Saalih bin Fawzaan Al-Fawzaan said:
As this sect is the only sect safe from going astray, it is required to know its various names and characteristics, so you can follow it . It has great names which distinguish it from the other sects, and most important of these names and characteristics are:
Firqaat an-Najiyya (Saved Sect), Taaifah al-Mansoorah (Victorious Group), Ahlu Sunnah wal-Jama'ah (People of Sunnah and Jama'ah), and the meaning of them are as follows:
* As for Firqaat an-Najiyya (Saved Sect), they are the ones saved from the hell-fire, since the Prophet -sallalaahu 'alaihi wasallam- said, ( كلها في النار إلا واحدة ) "All are in the hell-fire except one". This means, they are not in the hell-fire.
* They adhere to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Prophet - sallalaahu 'alaihi wasallam - and it was the first ones of the former migrants and supporters who said the Prophet - peace be upon him -: (who was like what I am today and my companions). And they upon that which the first of the Muhaajiroon and Ansaar are upon, who said that the Prophet - sallalaahu 'alaihi wasallam -:( هم من كان على مثل ما أنا عليه اليوم وأصحابي ) "They are upon what I and my companions are upon today."
* * And their people are Ahlu Sunnah wal-Jama'ah (People of Sunnah and Jama'ah): They are a distinguished by two great distinguishing factors:
1. They hold on to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah - sallalaahu 'alaihi wasallam -to the point that they became its people. But as for the other sects they hold on to their own whims and desires, and they are not attributed to the Sunnah, but they are attributed to bid'ah and misguidance as it is with Qadariyyah and Murji'ah, or they are attributed to their founders as it is with Jahmiyyah, or they are attributed to their ugly actions as it is with Raafidah and Khawarij.As this sect is the only sect safe from going astray, it is required to know its various names and characteristics, so you can follow it . It has great names which distinguish it from the other sects, and most important of these names and characteristics are:
Firqaat an-Najiyya (Saved Sect), Taaifah al-Mansoorah (Victorious Group), Ahlu Sunnah wal-Jama'ah (People of Sunnah and Jama'ah), and the meaning of them are as follows:
* As for Firqaat an-Najiyya (Saved Sect), they are the ones saved from the hell-fire, since the Prophet -sallalaahu 'alaihi wasallam- said, ( كلها في النار إلا واحدة ) "All are in the hell-fire except one". This means, they are not in the hell-fire.
* They adhere to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Prophet - sallalaahu 'alaihi wasallam - and it was the first ones of the former migrants and supporters who said the Prophet - peace be upon him -: (who was like what I am today and my companions). And they upon that which the first of the Muhaajiroon and Ansaar are upon, who said that the Prophet - sallalaahu 'alaihi wasallam -:( هم من كان على مثل ما أنا عليه اليوم وأصحابي ) "They are upon what I and my companions are upon today."
* * And their people are Ahlu Sunnah wal-Jama'ah (People of Sunnah and Jama'ah): They are a distinguished by two great distinguishing factors:
2. The second factor is: And they are the people of the Jama'ah, they gather themselves upon Haqq(truth) and not upon Tafarruq (separation, sectarianism). But as for the other sects they do not gather themselves upon Haqq, but they follow their whims and desires.
* * They are the Taaifah al-Mansoorah (Victorious Group) up until the Day of Qiyamah, because they give victory to the Deen of Allaah and Allaah gives them victory, as Allaah ta'ala said: (إِنْ تَنْصُرُوا اللهَ يَنْصُرْكُمْ ) ( If you help (in the cause of) Allaah, He will help you, and make your foothold firm). (Muhammad 47:7) and as the Prophet - sallalaahu 'alaihi wasallam - ( لا يضرهم من خذلهم ولا من خالفهم حتى يأتي أمر الله تبارك وتعالى وهم على ذلك ) "those who abandon them will not harm them, until the command of Allaah tabaaraka wata'aala comes about".
_____________________________________________________________________
To read the original 'Arabic please click here.
To download the Dhivehi translation click here.
| Clearing the Doubts- Salafiyyah is a hizb? | by Nissho for everyone |
Clearing the Doubts- Salafiyyah is a hizb?
Shaykh al-Allaamah Doctor Saalih al-FawzaanQuestion: Is Salafiyyah a hizb (party) from the various ahzaab (parties) and is ascribing to them blameworthy?
Answer: As-Salafiyyah (i.e. the Salafis) is the Saved Sect, and they are Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. It is not a hizb (party) from amongst the various parties, those which are called "parties" today. Rather they are the Jamaa’ah, the Jamaa’ah upon the Sunnah and upon the Deen (religion). They are Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. The Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, "There will not cease to be a group from my Ummah manifest and upon the truth not being harmed by those who forsake them neither by those who oppose them" and he (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) also said, "And this Ummah will split into seventy-three sects, all of them in the Hellfire but one". They said, which one is this O Messenger of Allaah? He replied, "They are those who are upon what I and my companions are upon today". Hence Salafiyyah is a group of people (i.e. the Salafis) upon the madhhab of the Salaf, upon what the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and his companions were upon and it is not a hizb from amongst the contemporary groups present today. Rather it is the very old Jamaa’ah, from the time of the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) which inherits (this way) and continues, and which never ceases to be upon the manifest truth until the establishment of the Hour, as he (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) has informed (us)." (Cassette: "at-Tahdheer min al-Bid’ah" second cassette, delivered as a lecture in Hawtah Sadeer, 1416H).
____________________________________________________________________
Download the audio with it's Dhivehi translation from here.
| Clearing the Doubts- Is Ahlu Sunnah of three groups? The Ash'aris? Maturidis? and Salafis? | by Nissho for everyone |
Clearing the Doubts- Is Ahlu Sunnah of three groups? The Ash'aris? Maturidis? and Salafis?
Imaam Ibn al-Uthaimeen - may Allaah have mercy on him - said: "....whoever says that Ahl us-Sunnah are three groups: the Salafees, the Ash'arees and the Maatooreedees - then such a person is indeed mistaken. Rather we say: How can all three be considered Ahl us-Sunnah and they differ with each other? What is there after Truth, except misguidance. How can they all be Ahl us-Sunnah, whilst each one of them refutes the other - this is not possible - except if it is possible to reconcile the opposites. There is no doubt however, that one of them is truly Ahl us-Sunnah - but which one? Is it the Ash'arees, the Maturidees or the Salafees? Whichever of them agrees with the Sunnah is considered to be Ahl us-Sunnah, whilst whichever of them opposes it is not. So we say: The Salafare Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, and this description cannot be true for anyone else other than them. So how can those who oppose the Sunnah be called Ahl us-Sunnah - this is not possible. How is it possible to say Ahl us-Sunnah are of three differing groups, but we say that they are in agreement? So where is the agreement and concensus? Rather, Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah are those who hold on to what the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and his Companions were upon, and to the aqeedah of the Salaf - until the Day of Judgement - and they are the Salafees."Sharh Aqeedatil-Waasitiyyah (1/123)_____________________________________________________________________
Download the audio with its Dhivehi translation from here.
| Tareeqah (way) of Ahlu Sunnah wal Jama'ah طريقة أهل السنة والجماعة | by Nissho for everyone |
Tareeqah (way) of Ahlu Sunnah wal Jama'ah طريقة أهل السنة والجماعة
شيخ الإسلام أحْمَدُ بن تَيْمية ـ قَدسَ اللَّه روحه
Shaykhul Islaam Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah)
Shaykhul Islaam Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah)
ثم من طريقة أهل السنة والجماعة:اتباع آثار رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم باطنًا وظاهرًا، واتباع سبيل السابقين الأولين من المهاجرين والأنصار، واتباع وصية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، حيث قال: (عليكم بسنتي وسنة الخلفاء الراشدين المهديين من بعدي، تمسكوا بها، وعضوا عليها بالنواجذ، وإياكم ومحدثات الأمور، فإن كل محدثة بدعة، وكل بدعة ضلالة).
ويعلمون أن أصدق الكلام كلام الله، وخير الهدى هدى محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم، ويؤثرون كلام الله على كلام غيره من كلام أصناف الناس، ويقدمون هدى محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم على هدى كل أحد، وبهذا سموا: أهل الكتاب والسنة.
وسموا أهل الجماعة؛ لأن الجماعة هى الاجتماع وضدها الفرقة، وإن كان لفظ الجماعة قد صار اسمًا لنفس القوم المجتمعين، والإجماع هو الأصل الثالث الذى يعتمد عليه فى العلم والدين.
وهم يزنون بهذه الأصول الثلاثة جميع ما عليه الناس من أقوال وأعمال باطنة أو ظاهرة مما له تعلق بالدين، والإجماع الذى ينضبط هو ما كان عليه السلف الصالح؛ إذ بعدهم كثر الاختلاف وانتشرت الأمة.
As for the tareeqah (way) of Ahlu Sunnah wal Jama'ah: it is to follow the athaar (narrations) of the Allaah's messenger (sallalaahu 'alaihi wasallam) in secret and in open, and to follow the sabeel (path) of the first of those from the Muhaajiroon and Ansaar, and to follow thewasiyyah (testament) of the messenger (sallalaahu 'alaihi wasallam):Upon you is to follow my sunnah and sunnah of the righly guided caliphs after me, cling on to it, and bit on to it with your molar teeth, and beware of newly invented matters, for every newly invented matter is an innovation, and every innovation is a misguidance.وسموا أهل الجماعة؛ لأن الجماعة هى الاجتماع وضدها الفرقة، وإن كان لفظ الجماعة قد صار اسمًا لنفس القوم المجتمعين، والإجماع هو الأصل الثالث الذى يعتمد عليه فى العلم والدين.
وهم يزنون بهذه الأصول الثلاثة جميع ما عليه الناس من أقوال وأعمال باطنة أو ظاهرة مما له تعلق بالدين، والإجماع الذى ينضبط هو ما كان عليه السلف الصالح؛ إذ بعدهم كثر الاختلاف وانتشرت الأمة.
And it is to know that the most truthful speech is the speech of Allaah, and to know that the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (sallalaahu 'alaihi wasallaam), giving preference to the speech of Allaah above the speech of the people, and to precede the guidance of Muhammad (sallalaahu 'alaihi wasallam) above the guidance of all other people, and those who hold on to this are called: Ahlul Kitaab wa Sunnah (The people of the Book and Sunnah).
And they are also called Ahlul Jama'ah; as the Jama'ah is to unify and the opposite is to split in to groups, and the word 'Jama'ah' became a name to those who unify (upon haqq), andijmaa' (consensus) is from the three fundamentals which the knowledge of the deen is built upon.
And they weigh from these three fundamentals, the statements and the hidden and open actions of the people which are connected to the deen. And the ijmaa' that they cling on to is what the salaf saalih were upon; as for those who came after them have so many ikhtilaaf(differences) which spread upon the ummah.
| علامات أهل البدع The Signs of the Ahlul Bid'ah | by Nissho for everyone |
علامات أهل البدع The Signs of the Ahlul Bid'ah
قال الإمام ابن عثيمين رحمه الله :
Shaykh Saleh al-Uthaimeen (rahimahullaah) said:لأهل البدع علامات ، منها :
(1) أنهم يتصفون بغير الإسلام والسنة، بما يحدثونه من البدع ، القولية ، والفعلية ، والعقدية .
(2) أنهم يتعصبون لآرائهم ، فلا يرجعون إلى الحق وإن تبين لهم .
(3) أنهم يكرهون أئمة الإسلام والدين .
الفتاوى : (5/90ـ91
(1) أنهم يتصفون بغير الإسلام والسنة، بما يحدثونه من البدع ، القولية ، والفعلية ، والعقدية .
(2) أنهم يتعصبون لآرائهم ، فلا يرجعون إلى الحق وإن تبين لهم .
(3) أنهم يكرهون أئمة الإسلام والدين .
الفتاوى : (5/90ـ91
Ahlul Bid'ah (they) have signs:
1) They attribute themselves to other than Islaam and Sunnah, which they have innovated, from Bid'ah : al-Gawliyyah (statements), al-fi'liyyah (actions), al;'aqdiyyah (beliefs).
2) They have bigotry to their opinions, so they do not return back to the haqq if its clarified to them.
3) They have hatred for the Imaams of al-Islaam and Deen.
_____________________________________________________________________
Source: Saif al-Maslool li bayaan mafaasid al-ihtifaal yawm al-maulood ar-rasool
| Pillars of Hizbiyyah! أركان الحزبية | by Nissho for everyone |
Pillars of Hizbiyyah! أركان الحزبية
مَا ذَكَرَهُ الشَّيْخ: مُقْبِل بِن هَادِي الوَادِعِي -رحمه الله تعالى- في رسالة أحكام التصوير(ص5):
"أركان الحزبية ثلاثة:
الكذب.
الخداع.
التلبيس
الخداع.
التلبيس
As it was mentioned by as-Shaykh Muqbil bin Hadee al-Waadiyee (may Allaah have mercy on him) in his treatise "Ahkaamu-Tasweer" (Rulings of pictures) (page 5):
The pillars of Hizbiyyah (partisanship) are three:
1) Lying
2) Deciet
3) Deception.
http://noorul-furqaan.blogspot.com/2009/07/pillars-of-hizbiyyah.html
| Will Those from the 72 Misguided Sects Remain in the Hellfire Forever? | by Nissho for everyone |
Question: Regarding the hadeeth of the saved sect, ‘all in the hellfire except one’[1], will those from the other 72 sects ever come out of the Hellfire or will they reside in the Hell forever so that they may be called kuffaar (Disbelievers), or will they come out of it after some time?
Answer: This question has 2 parts. The first part is that it is apparent that the questioner has misunderstood and has made a mistake pertaining to a very important matter. He has assumed that whoever was threatened by the Fire is a Kaafir (Disbeliever) or that the ruling of kufr (disbelief) is applicable to him; this is a big mistake. This is a big mistake because Allaah سبحانه وتعالى may have threatened them with the Fire due to their disobedience and not due to their being from the Disbelievers.
No doubt, the Disbelievers will abide in the Fire. Those disobedient to Allaah سبحانه وتعالى, for example the one who eats ribaa (usury) and the one who is undutiful to his parents and the likes of this; they are threatened with the punishment of the Fire. However, they are under the Will of Allaah سبحانه وتعالى which is the ‘Aqeedah (Creed) of Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. If they are punished in the Fire they will not remain there forever because they are from the People of Tawheed.
As for the second part of this question, as it relates to statements of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم concerning the deviant sects “all of them in the fire except one.”[1] Firstly, ‘all of them in the fire’(meaning the rest of the groups), does not mean that they are all Disbelievers, as previously mentioned.
Secondly, the meaning of this hadeeth is that whoever goes against the manhaj (methodology) of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his Companions falls into following one of these deviant groups. So he is a sinner, committing a sin and great disobedience (to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم) and is subject to punishment in the Fire.
Thirdly, from the People of Knowledge who are firm on this Deen from the `Ulamaa’ of Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, is that from amongst the misguided groups are:
From another angle, Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah believes that if an individual (not the group) errs and goes against the manhaj of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Sahaabah, there are conditions which must be satisfied before he may be considered a disbeliever i.e. the conditions (which necessitate the ruling of takfeer) must be present altogether and the obstacles (which prevent the ruling of takfeer) must be negated. Then, the ruling of disbelief may be considered if the individual makes a statement of disbelief or if he is upon an aqeedah of disbelief.
We differentiate between the statement which is possibly a statement of disbelief and between theone who made the statement. So they generalize by saying that “someone who makes a statement of disbelief is generally considered a disbeliever”.
As for takfeer of a specific individual, then they are required to examine his condition i.e. the conditions (which necessitate the ruling of takfeer) must be present altogether and the obstacles (which prevent the ruling of takfeer) must be negated.
This is the answer by and large, therefore it is not correct to generalize the pronouncement of disbelief on these Muslim groups that they are all in the Fire. Rather, Allaah سبحانه وتعالى has commanded us to be just and the likes of this. Indeed, regarding the ruling of a specific individualbeing in the Fire, his affair is only with Allaah سبحانه وتعالى. Inshaa Allaah this is beneficial to our brother the questioner.
Answered by: Shaykh Fahad Ibn Sulaymaan Al-Fuhayd
Title of Lecture: UIK Educational Seminar
Date of the Lecture: Saturday, September 16, 2006
Listen to Lecture: Click Here
Read the Transcribed Lecture: Click Here
[1] Reported in Sunan Ibn Maajah 2/1322 (#3993), Shaykh Al-Albaanee رحمه الله says Saheeh in Saheeh al-Jaami` (#2042)
Answer: This question has 2 parts. The first part is that it is apparent that the questioner has misunderstood and has made a mistake pertaining to a very important matter. He has assumed that whoever was threatened by the Fire is a Kaafir (Disbeliever) or that the ruling of kufr (disbelief) is applicable to him; this is a big mistake. This is a big mistake because Allaah سبحانه وتعالى may have threatened them with the Fire due to their disobedience and not due to their being from the Disbelievers.
No doubt, the Disbelievers will abide in the Fire. Those disobedient to Allaah سبحانه وتعالى, for example the one who eats ribaa (usury) and the one who is undutiful to his parents and the likes of this; they are threatened with the punishment of the Fire. However, they are under the Will of Allaah سبحانه وتعالى which is the ‘Aqeedah (Creed) of Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. If they are punished in the Fire they will not remain there forever because they are from the People of Tawheed.
As for the second part of this question, as it relates to statements of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم concerning the deviant sects “all of them in the fire except one.”[1] Firstly, ‘all of them in the fire’(meaning the rest of the groups), does not mean that they are all Disbelievers, as previously mentioned.
Secondly, the meaning of this hadeeth is that whoever goes against the manhaj (methodology) of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his Companions falls into following one of these deviant groups. So he is a sinner, committing a sin and great disobedience (to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم) and is subject to punishment in the Fire.
Thirdly, from the People of Knowledge who are firm on this Deen from the `Ulamaa’ of Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, is that from amongst the misguided groups are:
- those who are wrong or make mistakes
- those who disobeyed
- those who commit sins (faasiq)
- those who disbelieve e.g. they fall into extreme innovation, the likes of the extremists among the Raafidah, and the Jahmiyyah who deny the attributes of Allaah سبحانه وتعالى
- the atheists
- the hypocrite who acts upon disobedience
- the ignorant people who make mistakes;
From another angle, Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah believes that if an individual (not the group) errs and goes against the manhaj of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Sahaabah, there are conditions which must be satisfied before he may be considered a disbeliever i.e. the conditions (which necessitate the ruling of takfeer) must be present altogether and the obstacles (which prevent the ruling of takfeer) must be negated. Then, the ruling of disbelief may be considered if the individual makes a statement of disbelief or if he is upon an aqeedah of disbelief.
We differentiate between the statement which is possibly a statement of disbelief and between theone who made the statement. So they generalize by saying that “someone who makes a statement of disbelief is generally considered a disbeliever”.
As for takfeer of a specific individual, then they are required to examine his condition i.e. the conditions (which necessitate the ruling of takfeer) must be present altogether and the obstacles (which prevent the ruling of takfeer) must be negated.
This is the answer by and large, therefore it is not correct to generalize the pronouncement of disbelief on these Muslim groups that they are all in the Fire. Rather, Allaah سبحانه وتعالى has commanded us to be just and the likes of this. Indeed, regarding the ruling of a specific individualbeing in the Fire, his affair is only with Allaah سبحانه وتعالى. Inshaa Allaah this is beneficial to our brother the questioner.
Answered by: Shaykh Fahad Ibn Sulaymaan Al-Fuhayd
Title of Lecture: UIK Educational Seminar
Date of the Lecture: Saturday, September 16, 2006
Listen to Lecture: Click Here
Read the Transcribed Lecture: Click Here
[1] Reported in Sunan Ibn Maajah 2/1322 (#3993), Shaykh Al-Albaanee رحمه الله says Saheeh in Saheeh al-Jaami` (#2042)
كلها في النار إلا واحدة
| Refutation of Anwar al-Awlakee pt.1 | by Nissho for everyone |
Refutation of Anwar al-Awlakee pt.1
http://www.ibad-ur-rahman.org/
This is a translated transcription of a phone call with our shayk Dr. Abdullaah bin Abdur- Rahmaan al-Jarboo, Professor from the College of Dawah "Usool ud-Deen" - Former head of Dept. of Aqeedah at Medinah
The call was placed by Br.Saeed Rhana al-Maghribee and the questions were put to the shaykh by Br. Muwahhid Aaadil al-Michiganee.
Now to the text of the call.
The Translator: Our Shaykh, we would like to present to you some of the mistakes of a man called Anwar Awlaki who is Yemeni and is currently residing in Yemen, but he used to be in the U.S. He has a lot of affect on the youth all over the west and they raise him to the level of the scholars. Awlaki has served as an Imam in Colorado, California, and most recently in the Washington, D.C. area where he headed the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Centre and was the Muslim Chaplain at George Washington University [2]. He studied under Sheikh Uthaymeen for a short while (few months) as well as Salman Oadah. He received a general ijaza in Quran, Sciences of Quran, Hadith, Sciences of Hadith, Tafsir , Fiqh, Usool Fiqh and Arabic from: Hassan Maqbooli al Ahdal, Hussein bin Mahfoodh, AbdulRahman Shumailah al Ahdal, Hamud Shumailah al Ahdal.. Anwar al-Awlaki currently resides in Yemen, and is associated with Iman University. (In Yemen, where Zindani is)
He published many Cds, lectures and albums, from the most famous lives of the prophets. He gives listeners doubts in their religion and does not call to Dawah Salafiyyah; rather he calls to praise the people of Desire and has great mistakes in his manhaj like allowing suicide bombings. He also quotes from the people of innovation in his lectures and Cds like Sayed Qutub, Salman Oadah and Mowdoodee.
The Shaykh: This is some background information on him then?
Translator: Yes. The first of the observances against him is his saying; University. This took place on Saturday, March 28, 2009(2/4/1430). This call was placed to the Shaykh in order to gain clarification about a man called Anwar al-Awlakee. "Brothers and sisters whether you agree or not with martyrdom operations let's leave our differences behind us, and let us support our Muslim brothers who are in the frontlines. Just like we disagree on many other issues, we should not let our disagreements stand in the way of our solidarity in the face of our adversaries." (This can be found on his website on the article called Suicide or martyrdom).
The Shaykh: In the name of Allaah the Kind Bestower of kindness. All praise is due to Allaah the Lord of all creation. In addition, may Allaah mention in the highest company and secure our prophet Muhammad, his family and his companions; to proceed.
From the standpoint of what I heard of his background, his "shaykhs', and his ideas in general, is it clear that this individual is affiliated with the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon (muslim brotherhood). Especially one of their branches called the "Suroorees".
The muslim brotherhood group has a distinct orientation, and their concerns revolve around certain contemporary issues in which they oppose those firmly rooted in knowledge. They oppose the scholars in their speech and verdicts.
Therefore if this man builds his orientation upon this thinking and ideology of those groups affiliated with, and derived from the likes of the Islaamic Group of Pakistan, at whose head was al-Mawdoodee; the Muslim Brotherhood group of Egypt , and Hamaas of Palestine, (then know) that all of these groups have a specific ideology for themselves.
Thus, the awareness of this man's background his ideological affiliation is very important in knowing his orientation, and making a ruling concerning him and his statements.
As far as the issue of suicide bombings- they call them martyrdom operations-and the scholars have labeled them as suicide, then these acts are most of what the opposers, endorsers of takfeer (i.e. those who expel muslims from the fold of al-Islaam without right) from the Muslim Brotherhood group promote on the internet, in their writings, books, CD's, and lectures. They authorize these acts of violence for which they attempt to assemble proofs to validate them.
These proofs and evidences that they seek to substantiate their position by have already been declared by the people of knowledge as invalid for their use as evidence in the supporting of these acts.
The most important premise in their process of presenting the legitimacy of their stance is their use of al-Qiyas (i.e. analogy or comparative deduction). They conclude that these acts are the same as al-Iqtihaam (attacking the enemy ranks individually) or at-Tatarrus (making one's self or the use of one as a human shield in a face-to-face battle with the enemy).
Because of this, and pay close attention to the following, there exists neither one explicit text, nor any historical account from the companions, Allaah be pleased with them, nor in the history of jihad that can be used to prove the validity their ideology having a basis in the religion.
There is no precedent in history (i.e. Islamic) of anyone committing suicide in jihad! Rather, there was one who committed suicide during a battle in the era of the messenger, but the prophet condemned him for that.
On the account of there not being any clear text to support them, they resort to analogical deduction by comparing suicide bombings to al-Iqtihaam(attacking the enemy ranks individually), exposing one's self to the possibility of being killed; or they compare these bombings with the permissibility of at-Tatarrus( making one's self or the use of one as a human shield in a face-to-face battle with the enemy). The al-mutatarras bihi (soldier used as a human shield) who is killed to create an advantage for the muslim forces, is not to be compared to one who kills himself!
All of their proofs return to their comparing suicide attacks with al-Iqtihaam or at-Tatarrus. Consequently, the response to this is that they oppose the verdict passed by those firmly rooted in legislated knowledge, which is the outlawing of killing of one's self. The people of knowledge, the scholars, have explained that there are definitive texts showing that the one who kills himself with anything will be punished with the self-same object and method from his death until resurrection day.
In addition to this, whoever killed himself deliberately, then he is considered as a suicide, and is included among those threatened with the fire of hell.
The scholars have clarified that the approved warfare mentioned in Allaah's statement,
يقاتلون في سبيل الله فيقتلون و يقتلون
"�they fight in Allaah's path, wherein they kill the enemy or are killed by the enemy�"
There is not a third situation where it is mentioned that they kill them selves!
This is what is connected with the definitive texts that prove the illegality of killing one's self in any condition.
As far as the verdicts of those firmly rooted in knowledge, then those such as:
* Shaykh Abdul-Azeez bin Baaz
* The Permanent Committee for the issuance of verdicts in Saudi Arabia
* Shaykh Muhammad ibn SAalih al-Uthaymeen
* Imam al-Albaanee
And many others than these scholars, known for their knowledge, righteousness, and understanding, have agreed with the consensus, and following the example of those firmly established scholars before them, that killing of one's self is forbidden!
Now for those who oppose the scholars, then they do so from two approaches;
1. Their opposition is the result of their lack of understanding of the religion (of al-Islaam).
2. They seek to prove their position with arguments leveled by the takfiree groups, or from the splinter groups of the Muslim Brotherhood, and use their methods of proof.
There are those from the people of knowledge who have issued verdicts (in favor of suicide bombings), but the reality of their proof do not extend beyond the previously mentioned arguments, or they are ambiguous evidences. However, the explicit and detailed proofs point to the illegality of such activities.
Secondly, from the angle of Qiyaas (comparative deduction), in their use of comparing suicide bombing with al-Iqtihaam and at-Tatarrus, to what they call "martyrdom operations", this is an invalid conclusion involving two errors:
1. First of all, it is the use of deduction in the presence of explicit texts regarding the forbidden nature of killing one's self, and in that case, there is no basis for the use of comparative deduction. This type of deduction is called "al-Qiyas Iblisee" (satanic reasoning). This satanic reasoning happens when one seeks to employ analogy in a matter where there exists a clear text, and a conclusion is drawn by this reasoning. This is similar as what occurred when Iblis (satan) was ordered by Allaah to prostrate to Aadam, and he refused to do so in the face of an explicit text, or order. He resorted to analogy by saying that fire is superior to mud, so how could he prostrate to Aadam? How could the superior one prostrate to the inferior?
Thus, they seek to prove their position while there are explicit texts to the contrary of what they promote. The evidence for the forbiddance of suicide is clear and definite. If we accept that analogy in this matter is permitted, when in fact it is not, but if we did so for the sake of argument, this analogy would be false. The false analogy is one wherein there exists disparity between the situations compared
The primary disparity is the analogy of suicide bombings to at-Tatarrus( making one's self or the use of one as a human shield in a face-to-face battle with the enemy) and the Mutatarras bihi ( soldier used as a human shield) or al-Iqtihaam (attacking the enemy ranks individually). This person does not kill himself; others only kill him. Thus, the enemy kills the one who attacks the enemy lines by himself. He does not kill himself. He does not commit suicide; rather, the one who kills him is the enemy. Furthermore, the soldier employed as a shield by the Muslim army is killed by the Muslims, because they crush him in the rush of the swollen ranks towards the enemy, with the aim of killing the unbelievers. They (the Muslims) may trample him and he dies. The Muslims do not kill him intentionally; he dies in the course of the battle. You will not find any of them killing themselves.
1. The second disparity is that the scholars have stipulated that there has to be a horde of soldiers at the battle, and that is an important condition. The condition that this person's death is the result of the throng of soldiers pushing forward in a face-to-face battle with the unbelievers has been stipulated. In this case, he is allowed to penetrate the enemy ranks individually, distracting the enemy, and inspiring bravery in the Muslim ranks. Just as the jurists require that the soldier employed as a shield is not killed except out of extreme necessity. This occurs when no other option is present. Consequently, comparing suicide attacks to al-Iqtihaam or at-Tatarrus is impermissible, and is considered a satanic analogy when made in contradiction to definitive texts.
If we accept that for the sake of argument that suicide is lawful, then it is an invalid analogy because of existing disparities that in both cases, this person is killed by other than himself.
Similarly, the jurists have explained that there exists the condition of the battle taking place amongst a crowd of combatants, and of there being a dire necessity.
It has become clear to us that the Takfeerees' dependence upon these proofs is futile. As a result of this, they contradict and oppose those scholars deeply rooted in knowledge, and muddle up the issue by resorting to analogy to prove their stance, which is not allowed, and is considered a satanic analogy.
None of their methods of proof goes beyond what we have stated, and all praise is due to Allaah.
Sa'eed Rhana: possessor of excellence, they also seek to prove their position by using the story of the Boy and the King, and the story of Baraa ibn Maalik.
Sh. Al-Jarboo: their means of using these stories as proof is well known. I myself have researched this issue, and all who seek proof by their methods, this is their condition.
In so far as using the proof of the narration about Baraa ibn Maalik is concerned, then this story is a proof for al-Iqtihaam (attacking the enemy ranks individually), because Maalik attacked the enemy lines by himself. This is their seeking proof by comparing suicide attacks with alIiqtihaam.
Now as far as the Boy is concerned, then:
1. The boy did not kill himself: he was killed by the king.
((The call was interrupted at this point))
We say that the story of Baraa ibn Maalik falls under the category of al-Iqtihaam. The Takfeerees/Jihaadees use this as proof when actually it is a proof for al-Iqtihaam.
Furthermore, we say that Maalik did not kill himself, and he was not killed in this instance. For if he was killed, it would have been the enemy that had done so; he did not at all commit suicide! This was a situation where the ranks were extremely tight and crowded. What he did was advantageous for The Muslim army in a throng of soldiers; it does not compare to these suicide attacks.
For them, the Takfeeree/Jihaadees, there is a comparison with existing disparities, and they are not at all permitted to make analogy in this case.
They make analogies upon analogies. They compare the texts with what they call "martyrdom operations"; these bombings. They compare this with al-Iqtihaam; so we say that this analogy is exceedingly impermissible, and it is satanic when there is a found explicit text regarding this issue. We also say that this analogy is futile as it is a comparison with obvious disparities.
The reason for this is that Baraa ibn Maalik advanced on the enemy ranks by himself, during a face-to-face battle. None who do this in en-masse, and are killed, is considered to have committed suicide; they were killed by the enemy. This is contrary to what one who blows himself does.
The jurists have stipulated that there is a crush and jam of combatants for this type of strategy to be valid. The attacks that they carry out do not include this condition; rather they carry them out in a sneaky fashion.
Regarding the story of the Boy and the King, first, the Boy did not kill himself; the misguided King killed him. Secondly, the boy's situation is from the category of extraordinary phenomena and miracles are manifest among people in accord with a wisdom that Allaah desires.
Allaah prevented the killing of the boy by the king by any method except for one. Allaah informed the boy of the method, and the boy, in turn, informed the king-thus achieving the wisdom that Allaah desired from the boy's death.
Thus, what happened was nothing other than from the category of miracles. What proves this is that the boy was thrown from a mountain; and lived-he was thrown into the sea, and did not drown; he came out. In addition to what is mentioned in the narration is that the King said to the boy, "Your fame has reached the extent that is said that you can return sight to the blind and raise the dead, etc�" The boy was also thrown to a lion and killed it. This proves that he was given miracles.
Miracles cannot be employed in the use of analogy; there is no comparison to be made with them. They are special incidents that cannot be used as a proof in legal matters.
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen said, "that this miracle has a benefit, and that this benefit is in accord with Allaah's wisdom; meaning that Allaah is the one who desired that benefit and that he arranged the means by which the boy was not killed except in a certain manner."
Therefore, the seeking of proof for these suicide bombings by employing this story is not acceptable from two matters:
* The boy did not kill himself, the boy did not kill himself; the unbelieving king killed him.
* This story is from the category of miracles and extraordinary phenomena, and comparison is not allowed to be made them. This happening was specifically for the boy. This is because Allaah informed him of the manner by which he could be killed; and the boy said to the king, "You cannot kill me except by this and that�"
* There is also a third important perspective that the people of knowledge have explained; it is that the boy was under a legislation of those nations who came before us. If we accepted this and assessed the permissibility of using this as a proof, then this is from a legislation of those who came before us; and it is not permissible to use as a proof for ourselves in a case where we find that is in contradiction to and/or abrogated by our legislation. We have in our legislation that the clear forbiddance of suicide.
From these three perspectives, it is clear that is not allowed to use the story of the Boy and the King as a proof supporting suicide attacks- and Allaah knows best.
End of Part one����
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
http://www.ibad-ur-rahman.org/
This is a translated transcription of a phone call with our shayk Dr. Abdullaah bin Abdur- Rahmaan al-Jarboo, Professor from the College of Dawah "Usool ud-Deen" - Former head of Dept. of Aqeedah at Medinah
The call was placed by Br.Saeed Rhana al-Maghribee and the questions were put to the shaykh by Br. Muwahhid Aaadil al-Michiganee.
Now to the text of the call.
The Translator: Our Shaykh, we would like to present to you some of the mistakes of a man called Anwar Awlaki who is Yemeni and is currently residing in Yemen, but he used to be in the U.S. He has a lot of affect on the youth all over the west and they raise him to the level of the scholars. Awlaki has served as an Imam in Colorado, California, and most recently in the Washington, D.C. area where he headed the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Centre and was the Muslim Chaplain at George Washington University [2]. He studied under Sheikh Uthaymeen for a short while (few months) as well as Salman Oadah. He received a general ijaza in Quran, Sciences of Quran, Hadith, Sciences of Hadith, Tafsir , Fiqh, Usool Fiqh and Arabic from: Hassan Maqbooli al Ahdal, Hussein bin Mahfoodh, AbdulRahman Shumailah al Ahdal, Hamud Shumailah al Ahdal.. Anwar al-Awlaki currently resides in Yemen, and is associated with Iman University. (In Yemen, where Zindani is)
He published many Cds, lectures and albums, from the most famous lives of the prophets. He gives listeners doubts in their religion and does not call to Dawah Salafiyyah; rather he calls to praise the people of Desire and has great mistakes in his manhaj like allowing suicide bombings. He also quotes from the people of innovation in his lectures and Cds like Sayed Qutub, Salman Oadah and Mowdoodee.
The Shaykh: This is some background information on him then?
Translator: Yes. The first of the observances against him is his saying; University. This took place on Saturday, March 28, 2009(2/4/1430). This call was placed to the Shaykh in order to gain clarification about a man called Anwar al-Awlakee. "Brothers and sisters whether you agree or not with martyrdom operations let's leave our differences behind us, and let us support our Muslim brothers who are in the frontlines. Just like we disagree on many other issues, we should not let our disagreements stand in the way of our solidarity in the face of our adversaries." (This can be found on his website on the article called Suicide or martyrdom).
The Shaykh: In the name of Allaah the Kind Bestower of kindness. All praise is due to Allaah the Lord of all creation. In addition, may Allaah mention in the highest company and secure our prophet Muhammad, his family and his companions; to proceed.
From the standpoint of what I heard of his background, his "shaykhs', and his ideas in general, is it clear that this individual is affiliated with the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon (muslim brotherhood). Especially one of their branches called the "Suroorees".
The muslim brotherhood group has a distinct orientation, and their concerns revolve around certain contemporary issues in which they oppose those firmly rooted in knowledge. They oppose the scholars in their speech and verdicts.
Therefore if this man builds his orientation upon this thinking and ideology of those groups affiliated with, and derived from the likes of the Islaamic Group of Pakistan, at whose head was al-Mawdoodee; the Muslim Brotherhood group of Egypt , and Hamaas of Palestine, (then know) that all of these groups have a specific ideology for themselves.
Thus, the awareness of this man's background his ideological affiliation is very important in knowing his orientation, and making a ruling concerning him and his statements.
As far as the issue of suicide bombings- they call them martyrdom operations-and the scholars have labeled them as suicide, then these acts are most of what the opposers, endorsers of takfeer (i.e. those who expel muslims from the fold of al-Islaam without right) from the Muslim Brotherhood group promote on the internet, in their writings, books, CD's, and lectures. They authorize these acts of violence for which they attempt to assemble proofs to validate them.
These proofs and evidences that they seek to substantiate their position by have already been declared by the people of knowledge as invalid for their use as evidence in the supporting of these acts.
The most important premise in their process of presenting the legitimacy of their stance is their use of al-Qiyas (i.e. analogy or comparative deduction). They conclude that these acts are the same as al-Iqtihaam (attacking the enemy ranks individually) or at-Tatarrus (making one's self or the use of one as a human shield in a face-to-face battle with the enemy).
Because of this, and pay close attention to the following, there exists neither one explicit text, nor any historical account from the companions, Allaah be pleased with them, nor in the history of jihad that can be used to prove the validity their ideology having a basis in the religion.
There is no precedent in history (i.e. Islamic) of anyone committing suicide in jihad! Rather, there was one who committed suicide during a battle in the era of the messenger, but the prophet condemned him for that.
On the account of there not being any clear text to support them, they resort to analogical deduction by comparing suicide bombings to al-Iqtihaam(attacking the enemy ranks individually), exposing one's self to the possibility of being killed; or they compare these bombings with the permissibility of at-Tatarrus( making one's self or the use of one as a human shield in a face-to-face battle with the enemy). The al-mutatarras bihi (soldier used as a human shield) who is killed to create an advantage for the muslim forces, is not to be compared to one who kills himself!
All of their proofs return to their comparing suicide attacks with al-Iqtihaam or at-Tatarrus. Consequently, the response to this is that they oppose the verdict passed by those firmly rooted in legislated knowledge, which is the outlawing of killing of one's self. The people of knowledge, the scholars, have explained that there are definitive texts showing that the one who kills himself with anything will be punished with the self-same object and method from his death until resurrection day.
In addition to this, whoever killed himself deliberately, then he is considered as a suicide, and is included among those threatened with the fire of hell.
The scholars have clarified that the approved warfare mentioned in Allaah's statement,
يقاتلون في سبيل الله فيقتلون و يقتلون
"�they fight in Allaah's path, wherein they kill the enemy or are killed by the enemy�"
There is not a third situation where it is mentioned that they kill them selves!
This is what is connected with the definitive texts that prove the illegality of killing one's self in any condition.
As far as the verdicts of those firmly rooted in knowledge, then those such as:
* Shaykh Abdul-Azeez bin Baaz
* The Permanent Committee for the issuance of verdicts in Saudi Arabia
* Shaykh Muhammad ibn SAalih al-Uthaymeen
* Imam al-Albaanee
And many others than these scholars, known for their knowledge, righteousness, and understanding, have agreed with the consensus, and following the example of those firmly established scholars before them, that killing of one's self is forbidden!
Now for those who oppose the scholars, then they do so from two approaches;
1. Their opposition is the result of their lack of understanding of the religion (of al-Islaam).
2. They seek to prove their position with arguments leveled by the takfiree groups, or from the splinter groups of the Muslim Brotherhood, and use their methods of proof.
There are those from the people of knowledge who have issued verdicts (in favor of suicide bombings), but the reality of their proof do not extend beyond the previously mentioned arguments, or they are ambiguous evidences. However, the explicit and detailed proofs point to the illegality of such activities.
Secondly, from the angle of Qiyaas (comparative deduction), in their use of comparing suicide bombing with al-Iqtihaam and at-Tatarrus, to what they call "martyrdom operations", this is an invalid conclusion involving two errors:
1. First of all, it is the use of deduction in the presence of explicit texts regarding the forbidden nature of killing one's self, and in that case, there is no basis for the use of comparative deduction. This type of deduction is called "al-Qiyas Iblisee" (satanic reasoning). This satanic reasoning happens when one seeks to employ analogy in a matter where there exists a clear text, and a conclusion is drawn by this reasoning. This is similar as what occurred when Iblis (satan) was ordered by Allaah to prostrate to Aadam, and he refused to do so in the face of an explicit text, or order. He resorted to analogy by saying that fire is superior to mud, so how could he prostrate to Aadam? How could the superior one prostrate to the inferior?
Thus, they seek to prove their position while there are explicit texts to the contrary of what they promote. The evidence for the forbiddance of suicide is clear and definite. If we accept that analogy in this matter is permitted, when in fact it is not, but if we did so for the sake of argument, this analogy would be false. The false analogy is one wherein there exists disparity between the situations compared
The primary disparity is the analogy of suicide bombings to at-Tatarrus( making one's self or the use of one as a human shield in a face-to-face battle with the enemy) and the Mutatarras bihi ( soldier used as a human shield) or al-Iqtihaam (attacking the enemy ranks individually). This person does not kill himself; others only kill him. Thus, the enemy kills the one who attacks the enemy lines by himself. He does not kill himself. He does not commit suicide; rather, the one who kills him is the enemy. Furthermore, the soldier employed as a shield by the Muslim army is killed by the Muslims, because they crush him in the rush of the swollen ranks towards the enemy, with the aim of killing the unbelievers. They (the Muslims) may trample him and he dies. The Muslims do not kill him intentionally; he dies in the course of the battle. You will not find any of them killing themselves.
1. The second disparity is that the scholars have stipulated that there has to be a horde of soldiers at the battle, and that is an important condition. The condition that this person's death is the result of the throng of soldiers pushing forward in a face-to-face battle with the unbelievers has been stipulated. In this case, he is allowed to penetrate the enemy ranks individually, distracting the enemy, and inspiring bravery in the Muslim ranks. Just as the jurists require that the soldier employed as a shield is not killed except out of extreme necessity. This occurs when no other option is present. Consequently, comparing suicide attacks to al-Iqtihaam or at-Tatarrus is impermissible, and is considered a satanic analogy when made in contradiction to definitive texts.
If we accept that for the sake of argument that suicide is lawful, then it is an invalid analogy because of existing disparities that in both cases, this person is killed by other than himself.
Similarly, the jurists have explained that there exists the condition of the battle taking place amongst a crowd of combatants, and of there being a dire necessity.
It has become clear to us that the Takfeerees' dependence upon these proofs is futile. As a result of this, they contradict and oppose those scholars deeply rooted in knowledge, and muddle up the issue by resorting to analogy to prove their stance, which is not allowed, and is considered a satanic analogy.
None of their methods of proof goes beyond what we have stated, and all praise is due to Allaah.
Sa'eed Rhana: possessor of excellence, they also seek to prove their position by using the story of the Boy and the King, and the story of Baraa ibn Maalik.
Sh. Al-Jarboo: their means of using these stories as proof is well known. I myself have researched this issue, and all who seek proof by their methods, this is their condition.
In so far as using the proof of the narration about Baraa ibn Maalik is concerned, then this story is a proof for al-Iqtihaam (attacking the enemy ranks individually), because Maalik attacked the enemy lines by himself. This is their seeking proof by comparing suicide attacks with alIiqtihaam.
Now as far as the Boy is concerned, then:
1. The boy did not kill himself: he was killed by the king.
((The call was interrupted at this point))
We say that the story of Baraa ibn Maalik falls under the category of al-Iqtihaam. The Takfeerees/Jihaadees use this as proof when actually it is a proof for al-Iqtihaam.
Furthermore, we say that Maalik did not kill himself, and he was not killed in this instance. For if he was killed, it would have been the enemy that had done so; he did not at all commit suicide! This was a situation where the ranks were extremely tight and crowded. What he did was advantageous for The Muslim army in a throng of soldiers; it does not compare to these suicide attacks.
For them, the Takfeeree/Jihaadees, there is a comparison with existing disparities, and they are not at all permitted to make analogy in this case.
They make analogies upon analogies. They compare the texts with what they call "martyrdom operations"; these bombings. They compare this with al-Iqtihaam; so we say that this analogy is exceedingly impermissible, and it is satanic when there is a found explicit text regarding this issue. We also say that this analogy is futile as it is a comparison with obvious disparities.
The reason for this is that Baraa ibn Maalik advanced on the enemy ranks by himself, during a face-to-face battle. None who do this in en-masse, and are killed, is considered to have committed suicide; they were killed by the enemy. This is contrary to what one who blows himself does.
The jurists have stipulated that there is a crush and jam of combatants for this type of strategy to be valid. The attacks that they carry out do not include this condition; rather they carry them out in a sneaky fashion.
Regarding the story of the Boy and the King, first, the Boy did not kill himself; the misguided King killed him. Secondly, the boy's situation is from the category of extraordinary phenomena and miracles are manifest among people in accord with a wisdom that Allaah desires.
Allaah prevented the killing of the boy by the king by any method except for one. Allaah informed the boy of the method, and the boy, in turn, informed the king-thus achieving the wisdom that Allaah desired from the boy's death.
Thus, what happened was nothing other than from the category of miracles. What proves this is that the boy was thrown from a mountain; and lived-he was thrown into the sea, and did not drown; he came out. In addition to what is mentioned in the narration is that the King said to the boy, "Your fame has reached the extent that is said that you can return sight to the blind and raise the dead, etc�" The boy was also thrown to a lion and killed it. This proves that he was given miracles.
Miracles cannot be employed in the use of analogy; there is no comparison to be made with them. They are special incidents that cannot be used as a proof in legal matters.
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen said, "that this miracle has a benefit, and that this benefit is in accord with Allaah's wisdom; meaning that Allaah is the one who desired that benefit and that he arranged the means by which the boy was not killed except in a certain manner."
Therefore, the seeking of proof for these suicide bombings by employing this story is not acceptable from two matters:
* The boy did not kill himself, the boy did not kill himself; the unbelieving king killed him.
* This story is from the category of miracles and extraordinary phenomena, and comparison is not allowed to be made them. This happening was specifically for the boy. This is because Allaah informed him of the manner by which he could be killed; and the boy said to the king, "You cannot kill me except by this and that�"
* There is also a third important perspective that the people of knowledge have explained; it is that the boy was under a legislation of those nations who came before us. If we accepted this and assessed the permissibility of using this as a proof, then this is from a legislation of those who came before us; and it is not permissible to use as a proof for ourselves in a case where we find that is in contradiction to and/or abrogated by our legislation. We have in our legislation that the clear forbiddance of suicide.
From these three perspectives, it is clear that is not allowed to use the story of the Boy and the King as a proof supporting suicide attacks- and Allaah knows best.
End of Part one����
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
| The Importance of Strengthening Our Connection with the Scholars | by Nissho for everyone |
| The Importance of Strengthening Our Connection with the Scholars | for everyone |
I have attached the translation of an important question previously posted in the form of an Arabic mp3 file. I have translated the audio clip and posted it as a PDF document in an effort to bring about more benefit. I was still a little jet lagged from the trip back from Parsippany, NJ when I finished the translation, so if anyone notices mistakes please contact me so that I can correct them.
Akhookum fillah,
---Abul-Layth Qasim ibn Aggrey Mutiva
Attachment: The Importance of Strengthening Our Connection with the Scholars.pdfAkhookum fillah,
---Abul-Layth Qasim ibn Aggrey Mutiva
| Shaykh Saalim replies to baatil speech of a Sufi Innovator | by Nissho for everyone |
Shaykh Saalim replies to baatil speech of a Sufi Innovator
All praise belongs to Allah, about a month ago, I had the opportunity to sit with Shaykh Saalim at-Taweel when he was in Boston, MA for a few days.
On Saturday July 11th, he was in a Masjid in Quincy, MA. The imaam of that masjid is a Sufi innovator. He would lead the maghrib and isha prayers and would make them very long on purpose so that the people will not be able to get benefit from the Shaykh.
After he completed salaatul-ishaa, he stood up and said a few words. Unfortunately, my recorder was not running at that time as I had turned it off for isha. But his words were to the effect of saying that in this masjid there are people of different madhaahib (school of Islaamic Jurisprudence), different ‘aqaaid (creeds) and people of different cultures. He said that we respect the words of the Shaykh and have given him the opportunity to speak here but his fataawas are not binding on any person. They are free to choose any opinion they want. His opinions are not necessarily the opinion of this masjid.
The Shaykh hafidahullah had a session with the imaam of that masjid Wednesday night after isha which lasted up to 2am in the morning from what some of the brothers told me who were there present.
In this session, this sufi Imaam told the Shaykh not to speak about ‘Aqeedah. He said that these are simple Americans and they do not understand Tawheed.
This is how the people of innovation are. They want the people to remain ignorant about the Deen of Allah so that they don’t learn the Haqq (Truth) and oppose them in their baatil (falsehood). They simply want their positions and are afraid of being removed from those positions and their titles being stripped from them.
As for the people of the Sunnah, alhamdulillah, they do not desire anything from the people, not fame, nor wealth, nor their praise. Rather they only desire the Face of Allah ajja wa jal with their actions and they seek the pleasure only of Allah ajja wa jal.
| Our stance towards the differences amongst the Scholars | by Nissho for everyone |
Our stance towards the differences amongst the Scholars
Posted on: Wednesday, March 5th, 2003 @ 10:29 pm in Learning and Following the Sunnah
As I mentioned at the beginning, due to the many forms of media: audio, visual and written material and due to the differences amongst scholars of those who speak across this media, the general masses have become doubtful, and started asking: “Who do we follow?”
“The gazelles have gathered in great numbers around Khirash to the extent that Khirash no longer knows which to hunt.” [1]
I say therefore, our stance towards this differing, and I mean the differing between the Scholars, who are well trusted for their knowledge and religion, not those who have been classified as being upon knowledge but are not in fact from the People of Knowledge. As we do not regard the likes of such as Scholars, nor do we hold that their statements are to be known and recorded like the statements of the People of Knowledge. But who we mean, are the Scholars who are well known for their sincere advice to the Ummah, for their Islaam and ‘Ilm; our stance towards them is from two angles.
The first: How did the Scholars go against the book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم)? The answer to this question can be known in part by what has preceded of its causes for differing and also by the other many causes not mentioned which the student of knowledge will come across and come to realize even if he is not very knowledgeable. [2]
The second: What is our stance towards following them? Whom do we follow from amongst these Scholars? Does one follow a particular Imaam and never leave his sayings? Even if the correct opinion is with another Scholar, as is the norm with the blind followers of the madhaahib. Or does one follow the opinion he sees to be the most accurate, even if it is against the opinion of the madhab he attributes himself to?
The correct opinion is the second, as it is compulsory upon the one that is aware of the evidence to follow it, even if it goes against whomsoever of the Scholars, so long as it does not go against a consensus of the Ummah. Whoever believes that it is obligatory to follow the sayings of someone other than the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) acting by what he orders and refraining from what he prohibits, at all times and places, has indeed affirmed for this person qualities unique and solely for the bearer of the Message, because no one’s statement can posses this unequivocal right except that of the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Everyone’s opinion is either accepted or rejected, except that of the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم).
But the issue still remains unsolved, because we still question: “Who has the capability to extract the rulings from the texts?” Herein, lies a problem, because everyone is stating: “I am able to do that!” This, in reality is neither correct nor befitting. Indeed, in terms of the objective and basis, it is a good thing for one’s guiding principle to be the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of his Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم); but to open the door for anyone who can mention the evidence, even if he does not understand its meaning or implication, and to say: “You are a Mujtahid, say what you desire"; this will cause the ruin of the Sharee’ah, people, and society.
In this respect, people are placed in one of three categories:
As for the second, whom Allaah has given knowledge but has not yet reached the level of the first. Then there is no harm on him to act by the general evidences, their apparent meanings and by that which he becomes aware of.[3] However, he must be very careful in this and he should never fall short in asking those more knowledgeable than him from amongst the People of Knowledge. As he can fall into error and his knowledge may not embody a particular evidence which makes specific what seems to be a general text, or which restricts what seems to be an unrestricted text, or which abrogates a text that he regards to be valid.
As for the third, he is the one who does not have any knowledge; it is compulsory upon him to ask the people of knowledge as Allaah says,
Do we say: “It is obligatory on this person to search and investigate in order to find the one closest to the correct opinion, so that he asks him and acts by his ruling.” Or do we say: “He is to ask anyone whom he believes to be from the People of Knowledge, since, the Scholar who is less knowledgeable may arrive to a correct decision in a specific issue and the Scholar who is better and more knowledgeable than the former may not” The scholars differed on this:
A group of the scholars are of the opinion that it is compulsory for the layman to ask the one whom he believes to be the most competent in his knowledge from amongst the Scholars in his country; because, just as the person who is sick looks for the most competent person in the field of medicine, then the same applies here, as knowledge is the remedy for the hearts. Accordingly, you must choose the most competent in knowledge, as there is no difference.
Other scholars hold the view that it is not compulsory because the one who is the most knowledgeable may not be so in every single issue and this opinion is supported by the fact that at the time of the Companions, people would ask one who was less knowledgeable than others who were also present.
My view is that he should ask the one whom he believes to be the most competent in his religion and knowledge. Not because it is compulsory, due to the possibility of this Scholar making an error in a specific issue and the possibility of the one who is less knowledgeable to be correct, but because it is preferable and should be the person’s first choice.
Finally, I sincerely advise, myself first, and my Muslim brothers, especially the students of knowledge not to make haste and be quick when a new issue befalls a person until he verifies the situation, gains knowledge and then speaks, so that he does not speak about Allaah without knowledge.
As the person who gives judgement is an emissary between the people and Allaah; he conveys the Sharee’ah of Allaah as has been reported from the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم):
Some of my teachers mentioned to me that it is befitting for the person who has been questioned on an issue, to seek forgiveness from Allaah even more; deducing that from Allaah’s statement:
I complained to Wakee’ [6] about my poor memory. So he advised me to abandon sins.
And he said, “Know that knowledge is light. And the light of Allaah is not bestowed upon the (one who is) disobedient.”
So it is certainly possible that seeking forgiveness causes Allaah to give a person enlightenment.
I ask Allaah to grant me success, make me upright, that He keeps us firm with the Firm Word (Shahaadah) in this life and the Hereafter; and that He does not cause our hearts to deviate after having guided us and grant us mercy from Himself. Indeed, He is the Benevolent.
All praise is for Allaah alone, and may He praise, send peace and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad and his Companions.
[1] An Arabic proverb applied to a person overcome by too many affairs, each one of equal priority and this, he is unsure which to begin with and which to defer. The origin of this proverb traces back to a hunter of gazelles known as Khirash. On one particular day, they gathered around him in great numbers whereby he became confused on how to confront the situation and which gazelle to hunt; upon that he uttered these words portraying the situation. Its relevance here is due to the presence of a number of opinions on one single issue causing confusion for the layman in need of judgement.
[2] Shaykh Ibraheem ar-Ruhaylee, a lecturer at the Islamic University in Madeenah, states the following words referring to the ten causes of differences mentioned by Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah: “Within these causes is found an excellent and agreeable explanation for the mistakes committed by the scholars as a result of their ijtihaad. It is also a way of seeking excuses for them in such a manner by which, we hope that Allaah rewards Shaykhul-Islaam with the highest reward.
“If only the person, who comes across a statement of a scholar which is found to be in opposition to the texts (of the Sharee’ah), was to subject it to these ten causes which Shaykhul-Islaam mentions, then he would surely find and pinpoint one of these causes as a reason for the scholar’s opposition. In turn, we would deliver ourselves from the vilification and bad suspicion of the scholars which so many people in our time have fallen into. [taken from Mawfiq Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah min Ahlil Ahwaa wal Bida’ by by Shaykh Ibraaheem ar-Ruhaylee (1/70), published by Maktabah al-Ghurabaa al-Athariyyah, Madeenah, Saudi Arabia.]
The application of these words is of crucial importance in helping to nurture and cultivate the Muslims, the youths especially, towards a balanced middle path. Since, as history has repeatedly shown, whenever the value and respect for scholars disappear from the hearts and minds of the people, then they are no longer lead by knowledge, wisdom and experience, but rather, by immaturity, rashness and enthusiasm based on ignorance.
[3] Scholars past and present have warned against the pitfalls, which the student of knowledge who has not yet established himself sufficiently in the basic sciences of the Sharee’ah, can fall into. The Shaykh has mentioned some of the important guidelines, which the person, who is eligible to be classified in this category, must adhere to; such as being deliberate, not hasty, questioning the people of knowledge and referring back to them.
[4] Ahmad (5/196), Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhee and others.
[5] Related by Abu Dawood with the following wording: “The judges are three; one of the judges is in Paradise and two are in the Fire. With regards to the one in Paradise then he is the man who knew the truth and judged according to it. The man who knew the truth and was unjust in his ruling is in the Fire, and the man who judged between the people out of ignorance is in the Fire.”
[6] Wakee’ Ibn al-Jarraah was a famous scholar from the Salaf and one of the teachers of Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee. He died in the year 196H.
“The gazelles have gathered in great numbers around Khirash to the extent that Khirash no longer knows which to hunt.” [1]
I say therefore, our stance towards this differing, and I mean the differing between the Scholars, who are well trusted for their knowledge and religion, not those who have been classified as being upon knowledge but are not in fact from the People of Knowledge. As we do not regard the likes of such as Scholars, nor do we hold that their statements are to be known and recorded like the statements of the People of Knowledge. But who we mean, are the Scholars who are well known for their sincere advice to the Ummah, for their Islaam and ‘Ilm; our stance towards them is from two angles.
The first: How did the Scholars go against the book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم)? The answer to this question can be known in part by what has preceded of its causes for differing and also by the other many causes not mentioned which the student of knowledge will come across and come to realize even if he is not very knowledgeable. [2]
The second: What is our stance towards following them? Whom do we follow from amongst these Scholars? Does one follow a particular Imaam and never leave his sayings? Even if the correct opinion is with another Scholar, as is the norm with the blind followers of the madhaahib. Or does one follow the opinion he sees to be the most accurate, even if it is against the opinion of the madhab he attributes himself to?
The correct opinion is the second, as it is compulsory upon the one that is aware of the evidence to follow it, even if it goes against whomsoever of the Scholars, so long as it does not go against a consensus of the Ummah. Whoever believes that it is obligatory to follow the sayings of someone other than the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) acting by what he orders and refraining from what he prohibits, at all times and places, has indeed affirmed for this person qualities unique and solely for the bearer of the Message, because no one’s statement can posses this unequivocal right except that of the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Everyone’s opinion is either accepted or rejected, except that of the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم).
But the issue still remains unsolved, because we still question: “Who has the capability to extract the rulings from the texts?” Herein, lies a problem, because everyone is stating: “I am able to do that!” This, in reality is neither correct nor befitting. Indeed, in terms of the objective and basis, it is a good thing for one’s guiding principle to be the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of his Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم); but to open the door for anyone who can mention the evidence, even if he does not understand its meaning or implication, and to say: “You are a Mujtahid, say what you desire"; this will cause the ruin of the Sharee’ah, people, and society.
In this respect, people are placed in one of three categories:
i. The Scholar whom Allaah has given knowledge and understanding.As for the first, then he has the right to perform ijtihaad and to give his opinion. In fact, it is compulsory for him to express that which he believes the texts indicate regardless of whom he opposes, because he has been ordered to do so. Allaah says,
ii. The student of knowledge who has some knowledge, but has not yet reached the level of a Scholar.
iii. The layman who does not know anything.
“Those amongst them who have the ability to extract its rulings would have understood it directly from them” - An Nisaa’ (4):83The person in this category is from those who are able to extract rulings, who know the intended meaning behind the speech of Allaah and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم).
As for the second, whom Allaah has given knowledge but has not yet reached the level of the first. Then there is no harm on him to act by the general evidences, their apparent meanings and by that which he becomes aware of.[3] However, he must be very careful in this and he should never fall short in asking those more knowledgeable than him from amongst the People of Knowledge. As he can fall into error and his knowledge may not embody a particular evidence which makes specific what seems to be a general text, or which restricts what seems to be an unrestricted text, or which abrogates a text that he regards to be valid.
As for the third, he is the one who does not have any knowledge; it is compulsory upon him to ask the people of knowledge as Allaah says,
“So ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know.” - Al-Anbiyah (21):7And in another verse He says,
“So ask of those who know the Scripture, if you know not. With clear signs and Books (We sent the Messengers).” - An Nahl (16):43-44So his duty is to ask, but who does he ask? In the land are many Scholars and everyone says, So and so is a Scholar” or it is said about everyone: “He is a Scholar” Whom does he ask?
Do we say: “It is obligatory on this person to search and investigate in order to find the one closest to the correct opinion, so that he asks him and acts by his ruling.” Or do we say: “He is to ask anyone whom he believes to be from the People of Knowledge, since, the Scholar who is less knowledgeable may arrive to a correct decision in a specific issue and the Scholar who is better and more knowledgeable than the former may not” The scholars differed on this:
A group of the scholars are of the opinion that it is compulsory for the layman to ask the one whom he believes to be the most competent in his knowledge from amongst the Scholars in his country; because, just as the person who is sick looks for the most competent person in the field of medicine, then the same applies here, as knowledge is the remedy for the hearts. Accordingly, you must choose the most competent in knowledge, as there is no difference.
Other scholars hold the view that it is not compulsory because the one who is the most knowledgeable may not be so in every single issue and this opinion is supported by the fact that at the time of the Companions, people would ask one who was less knowledgeable than others who were also present.
My view is that he should ask the one whom he believes to be the most competent in his religion and knowledge. Not because it is compulsory, due to the possibility of this Scholar making an error in a specific issue and the possibility of the one who is less knowledgeable to be correct, but because it is preferable and should be the person’s first choice.
Finally, I sincerely advise, myself first, and my Muslim brothers, especially the students of knowledge not to make haste and be quick when a new issue befalls a person until he verifies the situation, gains knowledge and then speaks, so that he does not speak about Allaah without knowledge.
As the person who gives judgement is an emissary between the people and Allaah; he conveys the Sharee’ah of Allaah as has been reported from the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم):
“The scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets.” [4]And the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) has also said:
“The judges are three (only) one of the judges being in Paradise and he is the one who knew the truth and judged according to it.” [5]Also of importance, when a new issue befalls you, draw your heart towards Allaah and feel in need of Him so that He causes you to understand and imparts knowledge to you; especially in grave and important matters, where many people remain in ignorance.
Some of my teachers mentioned to me that it is befitting for the person who has been questioned on an issue, to seek forgiveness from Allaah even more; deducing that from Allaah’s statement:
“Surely, We have sent down to you (O Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم)) the Book (this Qur’aan) in truth that you might judge between men by that which Allaah has shown you, so be not a pleader for the treacherous. And seek the forgiveness of Allaah, certainly, Allaah is Ever OftForgiving, Most Merciful.” - An-Nisaa’ (4):105-106An increase in seeking forgiveness necessitates the wiping away of repercussions from sins, which is one of the causes of forgetting knowledge and becoming ignorant, as Allaah says:
“So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them.” - Al-Maa’idah (5):13Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee once said:
I complained to Wakee’ [6] about my poor memory. So he advised me to abandon sins.
And he said, “Know that knowledge is light. And the light of Allaah is not bestowed upon the (one who is) disobedient.”
So it is certainly possible that seeking forgiveness causes Allaah to give a person enlightenment.
I ask Allaah to grant me success, make me upright, that He keeps us firm with the Firm Word (Shahaadah) in this life and the Hereafter; and that He does not cause our hearts to deviate after having guided us and grant us mercy from Himself. Indeed, He is the Benevolent.
All praise is for Allaah alone, and may He praise, send peace and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad and his Companions.
[1] An Arabic proverb applied to a person overcome by too many affairs, each one of equal priority and this, he is unsure which to begin with and which to defer. The origin of this proverb traces back to a hunter of gazelles known as Khirash. On one particular day, they gathered around him in great numbers whereby he became confused on how to confront the situation and which gazelle to hunt; upon that he uttered these words portraying the situation. Its relevance here is due to the presence of a number of opinions on one single issue causing confusion for the layman in need of judgement.
[2] Shaykh Ibraheem ar-Ruhaylee, a lecturer at the Islamic University in Madeenah, states the following words referring to the ten causes of differences mentioned by Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah: “Within these causes is found an excellent and agreeable explanation for the mistakes committed by the scholars as a result of their ijtihaad. It is also a way of seeking excuses for them in such a manner by which, we hope that Allaah rewards Shaykhul-Islaam with the highest reward.
“If only the person, who comes across a statement of a scholar which is found to be in opposition to the texts (of the Sharee’ah), was to subject it to these ten causes which Shaykhul-Islaam mentions, then he would surely find and pinpoint one of these causes as a reason for the scholar’s opposition. In turn, we would deliver ourselves from the vilification and bad suspicion of the scholars which so many people in our time have fallen into. [taken from Mawfiq Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah min Ahlil Ahwaa wal Bida’ by by Shaykh Ibraaheem ar-Ruhaylee (1/70), published by Maktabah al-Ghurabaa al-Athariyyah, Madeenah, Saudi Arabia.]
The application of these words is of crucial importance in helping to nurture and cultivate the Muslims, the youths especially, towards a balanced middle path. Since, as history has repeatedly shown, whenever the value and respect for scholars disappear from the hearts and minds of the people, then they are no longer lead by knowledge, wisdom and experience, but rather, by immaturity, rashness and enthusiasm based on ignorance.
[3] Scholars past and present have warned against the pitfalls, which the student of knowledge who has not yet established himself sufficiently in the basic sciences of the Sharee’ah, can fall into. The Shaykh has mentioned some of the important guidelines, which the person, who is eligible to be classified in this category, must adhere to; such as being deliberate, not hasty, questioning the people of knowledge and referring back to them.
[4] Ahmad (5/196), Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhee and others.
[5] Related by Abu Dawood with the following wording: “The judges are three; one of the judges is in Paradise and two are in the Fire. With regards to the one in Paradise then he is the man who knew the truth and judged according to it. The man who knew the truth and was unjust in his ruling is in the Fire, and the man who judged between the people out of ignorance is in the Fire.”
[6] Wakee’ Ibn al-Jarraah was a famous scholar from the Salaf and one of the teachers of Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee. He died in the year 196H.
Article printed from masjiduthaymeen.org
URL to article: http://www.masjiduthaymeen.org/posts/2003/03/05/6.htm
| Hijrah from innovators and evildoers | by Nissho for everyone |
Hijrah from innovators and evildoers
Posted on: Wednesday, March 5th, 2003 @ 10:31 pm in Recognizing and Abandoning the Bid'ah
Question: From whom is it obligatory or permissible to show hatred or abandon for the sake of Allaah, the Exalted. And what are the conditions under which one hates such a person or abandons him for the sake of Allaah, the Exalted. And does one who leaves prayer fall under this category of abandonment or not. And when the person who is being shunned gives salaams, is it obligatory for the one shunning him to return salaams or not. And what is the duration of such hatred and shunning for the sake of Allaah, is it as long as one is certain that the attributes, which require hatred and shunning, are present, or is there a fixed limit for it? If so, then what are its regulations, please explain how it works.”
Answer: The hijraah of the Sharee’ah is of two types:
i. Meaning to leave evil
ii. With the meaning of punishment for the evil being done As for the first, it is mentioned in the saying of Allaah (سبحانه وتعالى):
“And when you (Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) see those who engage in a false conversation about Our Verses (of the Qur’aan) by mocking at them, stay away from them till they turn to another topic. And if Shaytaan (Satan) causes you to forget, then after the remembrance sit not you in the company of those people who are the Dhaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers, etc).” - Al-An’aam (6):68 And the saying of Allaah (سبحانه وتعالى):
“And it has already been revealed to you in the Book (this Qur’aan) that when you hear the Verses of Allaah 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. Surely, Allaah will collect the hypocrites and disbelievers all together in Hell…” - An-Nisaa’ (4):140 So these mean that one is not to witness al-Munkaaraat (the evil deeds) without necessity. Like the people who drink intoxicants or sitting with them, or people who invite to feast in which intoxicants or wind instruments are common. It is not obligatory to accept their invitation or their likes. The difference is over one who attends them intending only to abject to such behavior, or by other than his own choice. And for this is the saying, ‘One who witnesses evil is like the one who does it’ and the hadeeth,
“Whoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day, let him not sit at the table in which Khamr is drunk.”[1] This type of Hijrah is that in which one removes himself from doing evil. As he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said,
“The Muhaajir is one who migrates from what Allaah has forbidden him from.” (Saheeh Al-Bukhaaree) This is the topic of migration from the lands of Kufr (disbelief) and Tamarrud (disobedience) to the lands of Islaam and Eemaan, a migration from living among the disbelievers and hypocrites for one who is incapable of doing what Allaah has ordered him to do, as Allaah has said,
“And keep away from Ar-Rujz (the idols)!” - Al-Muddaththir (74):5 The second type is hijrah with the aim of discipline. It is abandoning the one who displays evil, abandoning him until he repents from it as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and the Muslims abandoned the three who stayed home until Allaah revealed that they had repented when without an excuse they did not go out for jihaad for which they were called. And hijrah is not made of one who demonstrates good, even if he is a hypocrite. So here hijrah holds the status of punishment (at-Ta’zeer). And at-Ta’zeer is for anyone who abandoned an obligatory duty, or does what is forbidden, like abandoning obligations such as prayer, zakaat, or establishing oppression and immorality, and inviting to innovation, which contradicts the Book and the Sunnah and the consensus of the Imaams of the Salaf - that which is clearly innovation.
This is the correct saying among sayings of Imaams of the Salaf: That is that testimony is not accepted from those who call to innovation, nor are they to be prayed behind, nor is knowledge to be taken from them, nor are they to be married. This is the punishment for them until they refrain. And here they make a distinction between the one who invites to it and the one who does not, because the one who invites spreads the evil, so he deserves the punishment. The case is opposite with the one who is discrete about it, for he is no more evil than the hypocrites whose outward appearance the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) accepted, entrusted their intent with Allaah, although he was cognizant of the condition of many of them. Similar is the hadeeth:
“When a sin is hidden, it harms no one but the one who does it. But if it is publicized, and not objected to, then everyone is harmed.” [2] And that is because the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said,
“Surely when people see an evil and do not change it, then Allaah is quick to reach them all with a punishment from Him.” (Reported by Ahmad, Abu Dawood and others) So correcting evil is obligatory when it is apparent, contrary to the hidden type. For punishment of it is reserved only for the one who does it.
Hijrah differs depending upon the strength or weakness of the Believer, the good that is more preponderate, and circumstances of place and time.
This hijrah differs for the people who perform it depending upon their strength, their weakness, and their numbers, large or small. The aim of it is to scold the one who is abandoned and discipline him and save the society from a similar outcome. So if the good in doing so is more preponderate as far as one can ascertain, then hijrah until the evil is weakened and diminishes is permissible. But if the one abandoned or others cannot leave the evil but increase in evil due to the treatment, or the one abandoning is weak, so much so that it is improbable that the good will prevail, then hijrah is not allowed.
Rather, being friendly to some people is more beneficial than shunning them. And shunning is more beneficial with some people than friendliness. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was friendly with some people while he abandoned others. As in the case of the three who stayed home, they were better than many others whom he was friendly with. This is because those people held the reigns of obedience over their tribesmen. So the religion derived the most benefit from softening their hearts. And these people, they were believers and there were many other believers like them, so by shunning them, the religion became fortified and this helped to purify them from their sins. This is similar to waging war sometimes and making treaties of peace at other times. All of this depends upon the situation and the good expected. And the answers of the Imaams like Ahmad and others regarding this topic are based on this principle.
The same distinction occurs between locations in which innovation is predominant; like the concept of al-Qadariyyah in Basrah, astrology in Khurasaan, Shi’ism in Koofah, and other areas that do not have these problems. There is also a distinction between the people pf power and those other than them.
When this is clear, then the hijrah of the Sharee’ah is among those deeds which Allaah and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) command. So obedience in it must be sincere for Allaah and in conformity with His command. Then if it is sincere for Allaah it is correct. But, whoever makes hijrah due to his own desires or he makes hijrah other than what has been commanded, then his hijrah is not included here. The more the souls act according to their desire, the more doubt there is that it is being done out of obedience to Allaah.
Now hijrah for the sake of oneself is not allowed for more than three days, as is found in the Saheehayn that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said,
“A Muslim is not allowed to abandon his brother for more than three days - they meet, and one turns away from the other. The best of them is he who gives the Salaam.” So permission for this hijrah does not extend beyond three days, just as permission to marry additional wives does not extend beyond three. In the Saheehayn, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is reported to have said,
“The gates of paradise are opened every Monday and Thursday, so all worshippers who did not associate anything with Allaah are forgiven, except for a man whom between he and his brother is a grudge. It is said, ‘Detain these two until they reconcile.’” Such abandoning of ones rights is prohibited, there is only an allowance for some people, like in the case of the wife, her husband abandoning her bed when she rebels is like the allowance to abandon for three days.
Here it is necessary to distinguish between the hijrah which is Allaah’s right, and the hijrah which is one’s own right. The first of them is something that is commanded, and the second is something that is commanded, and the second is something forbidden, because the believers are brethren. In an authentic hadeeth it is reported that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said,
“Do not cut one another off, do not turn away from one another, do not hate one another, and do not envy one another, be the brethren of Allaah’s servants, the Muslim is the brother of his fellow Muslim.” (Saheeh al-Bukhaaree) In a hadeeth from the Sunan, he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said,
“Shall I inform you of more virtue than numerous acts of prayer, fasting, charity and commanding good and forbidding evil?” They (the Companions) said, ‘Yes! O’ Messenger of Allaah!’ He said,“Reconcile enmity, for enmity is the razor, I do not mean that which shaves off hair, but the one that shaves off the religion.” (Recorded by at-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, Ahmad and others) In an authentic hadeeth he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said,
“The similitude of the believers’ love, mercy and kindness with one another is like that of one body. When one of its members suffers, the rest of the body is affected by fever and sleeplessness.”(Saheeh Muslim) This is so because hijrah is among the legislated punishments. It is a type of jihaad in Allaah’s path. It is done so that Allaah’s word is supreme and so the entirety of the religion is for Him. The believer is required to make enmity for Allaah’s sake, and to befriend for Allaah’s sake, so much so that the believer is required to maintain the friendship even if he is oppressed. For oppression does not sever the allegiance of fait. Allaah, The Most High said,
* “And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which rebels till it complies with the Command of Allâh; then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allâh loves those who are equitable. The believers are nothing else than brothers (in Islaamic religion).”* - Al-Hujuraat (49):9-10 He renders them brothers even while they are fighting and committing oppression and He commands reconciliation between them.
So the believer must distinguish between these two types. Which has more doubt in it than the other? Then know that your allegiance is obligatory to the believer, even if you are oppressed or attacked, and your enmity of the disbeliever is obligatory even if he is beneficent and is good to you. For Allaah, Glorious is He who sent the Messenger and revealed the Book so that the entirety of the religion be for Allaah, so love is for His allies and enmity is for His enemies, reward is for His allies, and punishment is for His enemies.
Now if both good and evil are present in a man, both sin and obedience, disobedience, Sunnah, and innovation: He has the right to allegiance and friendship in proportion to his goodness, and the right to enmity and punishment according to his evil. So it may be that one personality possesses what warrants both honor and dishonor, he possesses some of this and some of that like the poor thief whose hand is cut off for what he has stolen but he is given what will satisfy his needs from charity.
These are the fundamentals, which are agreed upon by Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, whereas the Khawaarij, the Mu’tazilah and those of similar thinking differ. For them the people are either deserving of absolute reward or absolute punishment. But Ahlus Sunnah say: “Allaah punishes some people for major sins in the Fire, then they are taken out of it by means of the intercession of those whom He permits to intercede by virtue of His Mercy, as is elaborated upon by the Sunnah of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).”
And Allaah, Glorious is He and Most High, knows best. O Allaah make mention of Muhammad and his family and his companions.
[1] A Hasan hadeeth, recorded by at-Tirmidhi (#2801) from Jaabir that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, “Whoever believes in Allaah and the last Day, then let him not enter the (public toilet) without having his waste wrapped. And whoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day let him not allow his wife to enter the (public toilet). And whoever believes in Allaah and the last day, let him not sit at a table in which Khamr is circulated.” at-Tirmidhi said it is Hasan Ghareeb, and in its chain is Layth bin Abee Saleem who is truthful according to most but sometimes there is concern about him as an-Nukhaari said. There is another route for it with al-Haakim which strengthens it.
[2] The meaning of the hadeeth is reported by Ahmad 94/192), Ibn al-Mubaarak in az-Zuhd #1352, at-Tabraani in al-Kabeer (17/130) and at-Tahaawi in Mushkil al-Athaar (2/66), al-Baghawi in Sharh us-Sunnah (14/346), from ‘Adiy bin ‘Adiy al-Kindi who said, “Our freed slave said that he heard my grandfather saying, ‘I heard Allaahs Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) saying, “Allaah does not chastise everyone for actions of some until they see evil in their midst and they are able to rebuke it but do not. When they do this Allaah punishes the masses as well as individuals (who sinned).”
Answer: The hijraah of the Sharee’ah is of two types:
ii. With the meaning of punishment for the evil being done
This is the correct saying among sayings of Imaams of the Salaf: That is that testimony is not accepted from those who call to innovation, nor are they to be prayed behind, nor is knowledge to be taken from them, nor are they to be married. This is the punishment for them until they refrain. And here they make a distinction between the one who invites to it and the one who does not, because the one who invites spreads the evil, so he deserves the punishment. The case is opposite with the one who is discrete about it, for he is no more evil than the hypocrites whose outward appearance the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) accepted, entrusted their intent with Allaah, although he was cognizant of the condition of many of them. Similar is the hadeeth:
Hijrah differs depending upon the strength or weakness of the Believer, the good that is more preponderate, and circumstances of place and time.
This hijrah differs for the people who perform it depending upon their strength, their weakness, and their numbers, large or small. The aim of it is to scold the one who is abandoned and discipline him and save the society from a similar outcome. So if the good in doing so is more preponderate as far as one can ascertain, then hijrah until the evil is weakened and diminishes is permissible. But if the one abandoned or others cannot leave the evil but increase in evil due to the treatment, or the one abandoning is weak, so much so that it is improbable that the good will prevail, then hijrah is not allowed.
Rather, being friendly to some people is more beneficial than shunning them. And shunning is more beneficial with some people than friendliness. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was friendly with some people while he abandoned others. As in the case of the three who stayed home, they were better than many others whom he was friendly with. This is because those people held the reigns of obedience over their tribesmen. So the religion derived the most benefit from softening their hearts. And these people, they were believers and there were many other believers like them, so by shunning them, the religion became fortified and this helped to purify them from their sins. This is similar to waging war sometimes and making treaties of peace at other times. All of this depends upon the situation and the good expected. And the answers of the Imaams like Ahmad and others regarding this topic are based on this principle.
The same distinction occurs between locations in which innovation is predominant; like the concept of al-Qadariyyah in Basrah, astrology in Khurasaan, Shi’ism in Koofah, and other areas that do not have these problems. There is also a distinction between the people pf power and those other than them.
When this is clear, then the hijrah of the Sharee’ah is among those deeds which Allaah and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) command. So obedience in it must be sincere for Allaah and in conformity with His command. Then if it is sincere for Allaah it is correct. But, whoever makes hijrah due to his own desires or he makes hijrah other than what has been commanded, then his hijrah is not included here. The more the souls act according to their desire, the more doubt there is that it is being done out of obedience to Allaah.
Now hijrah for the sake of oneself is not allowed for more than three days, as is found in the Saheehayn that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said,
Here it is necessary to distinguish between the hijrah which is Allaah’s right, and the hijrah which is one’s own right. The first of them is something that is commanded, and the second is something that is commanded, and the second is something forbidden, because the believers are brethren. In an authentic hadeeth it is reported that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said,
So the believer must distinguish between these two types. Which has more doubt in it than the other? Then know that your allegiance is obligatory to the believer, even if you are oppressed or attacked, and your enmity of the disbeliever is obligatory even if he is beneficent and is good to you. For Allaah, Glorious is He who sent the Messenger and revealed the Book so that the entirety of the religion be for Allaah, so love is for His allies and enmity is for His enemies, reward is for His allies, and punishment is for His enemies.
Now if both good and evil are present in a man, both sin and obedience, disobedience, Sunnah, and innovation: He has the right to allegiance and friendship in proportion to his goodness, and the right to enmity and punishment according to his evil. So it may be that one personality possesses what warrants both honor and dishonor, he possesses some of this and some of that like the poor thief whose hand is cut off for what he has stolen but he is given what will satisfy his needs from charity.
These are the fundamentals, which are agreed upon by Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, whereas the Khawaarij, the Mu’tazilah and those of similar thinking differ. For them the people are either deserving of absolute reward or absolute punishment. But Ahlus Sunnah say: “Allaah punishes some people for major sins in the Fire, then they are taken out of it by means of the intercession of those whom He permits to intercede by virtue of His Mercy, as is elaborated upon by the Sunnah of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).”
And Allaah, Glorious is He and Most High, knows best. O Allaah make mention of Muhammad and his family and his companions.
[1] A Hasan hadeeth, recorded by at-Tirmidhi (#2801) from Jaabir that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, “Whoever believes in Allaah and the last Day, then let him not enter the (public toilet) without having his waste wrapped. And whoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day let him not allow his wife to enter the (public toilet). And whoever believes in Allaah and the last day, let him not sit at a table in which Khamr is circulated.” at-Tirmidhi said it is Hasan Ghareeb, and in its chain is Layth bin Abee Saleem who is truthful according to most but sometimes there is concern about him as an-Nukhaari said. There is another route for it with al-Haakim which strengthens it.
[2] The meaning of the hadeeth is reported by Ahmad 94/192), Ibn al-Mubaarak in az-Zuhd #1352, at-Tabraani in al-Kabeer (17/130) and at-Tahaawi in Mushkil al-Athaar (2/66), al-Baghawi in Sharh us-Sunnah (14/346), from ‘Adiy bin ‘Adiy al-Kindi who said, “Our freed slave said that he heard my grandfather saying, ‘I heard Allaahs Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) saying, “Allaah does not chastise everyone for actions of some until they see evil in their midst and they are able to rebuke it but do not. When they do this Allaah punishes the masses as well as individuals (who sinned).”
Article printed from masjiduthaymeen.org
URL to article: http://www.masjiduthaymeen.org/posts/2003/03/05/8.htm
| The key to the return of the glory of Islaam | by Nissho for everyone |
The key to the return of the glory of Islaam
Posted on: Saturday, June 21st, 2003 @ 10:59 pm in Learning and Following the Sunnah
The Muhaddith, Al-Imaam, Ar-Rabbaani, Muhammad Naasir ud-Deen al-Albaani (رحمه الله) wrote:
The key to the return of the glory of Islaam is:
The application of beneficial knowledge and the establishment of righteous actions.
And it is a great matter that the Muslims will not achieve except by applying the methodology of tasfiyah (purification) and tarbiyah (cultivation).
And these two are extremely important obligations.
Secondly: The purification of the Fiqh (understanding) of Islaam from the incorrect ijtihaadaat (deductions of legal rulings) which oppose the Book and the Sunnah and the liberation of the mind from blind following and the darkness of fanaticism.
Thirdly: The purification of the books of tafseer (commentaries of the Qur’aan), fiqh (understanding), ar-Raqaiq (softening of the hearts), and other than them from the weak (da’eef), fabricated (maudoo’), Isra’eeliaat (from the doubtful sources of Ahl al-Kitaab), and abominations (munkaraat).
And there is no doubt that the realization of these two obligations, requires enormous cooperative effort with sincerity between all the Muslim groups and individuals, from those who are truly concerned in building the desired Islaamic society, each one working in their field and specialization.
The key to the return of the glory of Islaam is:
The application of beneficial knowledge and the establishment of righteous actions.
And it is a great matter that the Muslims will not achieve except by applying the methodology of tasfiyah (purification) and tarbiyah (cultivation).
And these two are extremely important obligations.
And what is meant by the first of these matters (Tasfiyah):
Firstly: The purification of the ‘aqeedah (creed) of Islaam from that which is foreign to it of shirk, denial of the attributes of Allaah and misinterpretation of them (ta’weel), and the rejection of authentic ahadeeth (by the people) because they are connected to ‘aqeedah and their like.Secondly: The purification of the Fiqh (understanding) of Islaam from the incorrect ijtihaadaat (deductions of legal rulings) which oppose the Book and the Sunnah and the liberation of the mind from blind following and the darkness of fanaticism.
Thirdly: The purification of the books of tafseer (commentaries of the Qur’aan), fiqh (understanding), ar-Raqaiq (softening of the hearts), and other than them from the weak (da’eef), fabricated (maudoo’), Isra’eeliaat (from the doubtful sources of Ahl al-Kitaab), and abominations (munkaraat).
And as for the other obligation (Tarbiyah):
What is needed is the cultivation of the next generation (of Muslims) upon this Islaam which is purified from everything we have mentioned, giving them the correct Islaamic Tarbiyah (cultivation) from the beginning without having any influences from the Western indoctrination of kufr.And there is no doubt that the realization of these two obligations, requires enormous cooperative effort with sincerity between all the Muslim groups and individuals, from those who are truly concerned in building the desired Islaamic society, each one working in their field and specialization.
Article printed from masjiduthaymeen.org
URL to article: http://www.masjiduthaymeen.org/posts/2003/06/21/18.htm
| Prayer behind the innovator | by Nissho for everyone |
Prayer behind the innovator
Posted on: Saturday, June 10th, 2006 @ 10:40 am in Prayer (Salaat), Recognizing and Abandoning the Bid'ah
Question: “What is the ruling of the prayer behind the Qubooree (grave worshipping) innovator?”
Answer: If he is a Qubooree who believes that the people of the graves do benefit and do harm along with Allaah or besides Allaah then this one is considered to be a polytheist so the prayer is not valid behind him. As for if he wipes himself with the dirt of the dead or sits at the graves and he says that they have status with Allaah and he does not believe that they do benefit or do harm then this one is an innovator who has not reached the degree of polytheism. However, the most often case of the one who sits at the graves and circumambulates it and wipes himself with the dirt of the dead is that he does that on the basis of a belief as Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel Al-Ameer said in his valuable book Tatheer Al-’Itiqaad as he had presented to himself a question that they slaughter at the graves without there being any belief. He said, “Do they come from a far away place to stain the grave with blood then we say without a belief? This was not done except on the basis of a belief!”
And if he is an innovator who his innovation does not reach polytheism then what is appropriate is that he be removed and that someone else leads the people in prayer because Allaah (عز و جل) says in His noble book concerning the faithful slaves of Ar-Rahmaan:
وَاجْعَلْنَا لِلْمُتَّقِينَ إِمَامًا
Answer: If he is a Qubooree who believes that the people of the graves do benefit and do harm along with Allaah or besides Allaah then this one is considered to be a polytheist so the prayer is not valid behind him. As for if he wipes himself with the dirt of the dead or sits at the graves and he says that they have status with Allaah and he does not believe that they do benefit or do harm then this one is an innovator who has not reached the degree of polytheism. However, the most often case of the one who sits at the graves and circumambulates it and wipes himself with the dirt of the dead is that he does that on the basis of a belief as Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel Al-Ameer said in his valuable book Tatheer Al-’Itiqaad as he had presented to himself a question that they slaughter at the graves without there being any belief. He said, “Do they come from a far away place to stain the grave with blood then we say without a belief? This was not done except on the basis of a belief!”
And if he is an innovator who his innovation does not reach polytheism then what is appropriate is that he be removed and that someone else leads the people in prayer because Allaah (عز و جل) says in His noble book concerning the faithful slaves of Ar-Rahmaan:
“And make us leaders for the pious…” - Al-Furqaan (25):74And being Imaam is considered a distinction and an honor and perhaps the ignorant will think that you agree with him about his innovation or that he is a righteous man. So based on this if you are able to remove him and lead the prayer yourself or a Sunnee leads the prayer then do that. And if you are not able then we advise to pray in another masjid from the masjids of the Sunnah. And if you are not able and you have the ability to build a masjid then what is best is that you build for yourselves a masjid so that you will be able to perform the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وعلى اله وسلم). And the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وعلى اله وسلم) will not be performed except with tamayyuz (that Ahlus-Sunnah distinguish themselves from the people of Bid’ah). And if this is not possible and that is not possible, meaning you are not able to remove him and you fear a fitnah will occur and there is not another masjid of Sunnah and you are not able to build for yourself a masjid, then if his innovation does not reach disbelief the prayer (behind him) is valid because the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وعلى اله وسلم) says:
“Pray, for if they (the Imaams) do right then it is for you and for them, and if they do wrong then it is for you and against them.”
Article printed from masjiduthaymeen.org
URL to article: http://www.masjiduthaymeen.org/posts/2006/06/10/74.htm
| Ibn Taymiyyah on the authority of the Sunnah | by Nissho for everyone |
Ibn Taymiyyah on the authority of the Sunnah
Posted on: Wednesday, March 5th, 2003 @ 10:19 pm in Wisdom of the Salaf
Written by/Said by Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله)
Taken from Majmoo’ al-Fataawa
Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) said:
“The Sunnah, that is a must to be followed for which one is praised upon following it and blamed for going against it, is the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in matters of beliefs, matters of worship and the rest of the affairs of the religion. And it is known only by knowledge of the hadeeth of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) that are confirmed on his authority.”
Taken from Majmoo’ al-Fataawa
Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) said:
“The Sunnah, that is a must to be followed for which one is praised upon following it and blamed for going against it, is the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in matters of beliefs, matters of worship and the rest of the affairs of the religion. And it is known only by knowledge of the hadeeth of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) that are confirmed on his authority.”
Article printed from masjiduthaymeen.org
URL to article: http://www.masjiduthaymeen.org/posts/2003/03/05/4.htm
| About calling oneself Salafee | by Nissho for everyone |
About calling oneself Salafee
Posted on: Wednesday, March 5th, 2003 @ 10:30 pm in Salafiyyah
Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) said:
“There is no blameworthiness upon the one who manifests the way of the Salaf, or affiliates himself or ascribes himself to it, rather it is unanimously agreed that it is obligatory to accept that from him, because the way of the salaf can be none other than the truth.”
“There is no blameworthiness upon the one who manifests the way of the Salaf, or affiliates himself or ascribes himself to it, rather it is unanimously agreed that it is obligatory to accept that from him, because the way of the salaf can be none other than the truth.”
Article printed from masjiduthaymeen.org
URL to article: http://www.masjiduthaymeen.org/posts/2003/03/05/7.htm
| Shaykh ‘Uthaymeen on innovations | by Nissho for everyone |
Shaykh ‘Uthaymeen on innovations
Posted on: Tuesday, March 25th, 2003 @ 7:43 pm in Recognizing and Abandoning the Bid'ah
His eminence, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-’Uthaymeen (رحمه الله) was asked concerning bid’ah (innovations).
Then he answered by saying:
The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said regarding innovations:
Therefore, the innovations, in reality are indirect criticisms of the Shari’ah; because they necessicate the implication that the Shar’iah is incomplete and that the innovation is a more perfect form of worship to seek nearness to Allaah as the innovator claims.
Then to the innovator we say: “Every innovation is misguidance and every misguidance is in the fire". And it is a duty to warn about all the innovations and that mankind not worship Allaah except by what Allaah and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) have legislated.
In this way, one’s Imaam will truly be the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), for whomsoever follows the path of innovation then he has made the innovator his Imaam in that innovation, instead of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).
Then he answered by saying:
The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said regarding innovations:
“Be careful about the invented matters for every innovation is misguidance and every misguidance is in the fire.”And if this is so, then one has to be warned from following any innovation, whether it is initial or continual, for it is, as the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “in the fire”, meaning that misguidance is the cause of the punishment in the fire and the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) warned his nation from the innovations necessitating that that they are a sheer corruption because the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said generally concerning this: “every innovation is misguidance”.
Therefore, the innovations, in reality are indirect criticisms of the Shari’ah; because they necessicate the implication that the Shar’iah is incomplete and that the innovation is a more perfect form of worship to seek nearness to Allaah as the innovator claims.
Then to the innovator we say: “Every innovation is misguidance and every misguidance is in the fire". And it is a duty to warn about all the innovations and that mankind not worship Allaah except by what Allaah and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) have legislated.
In this way, one’s Imaam will truly be the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), for whomsoever follows the path of innovation then he has made the innovator his Imaam in that innovation, instead of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).
Article printed from masjiduthaymeen.org
URL to article: http://www.masjiduthaymeen.org/posts/2003/03/25/9.htm
| Is there a difference between “al-Firqatun Naajiyyah” and “at-Taa’ifatun Mansoorah"? | by Nissho for everyone |
Is there a difference between “al-Firqatun Naajiyyah” and “at-Taa’ifatun Mansoorah"?
Posted on: Tuesday, December 30th, 2003 @ 11:14 am in Methodology (Manhaj)
Question: Is there a difference between al-Firqatun Naajiyyah (the saved sect) and at-Taa’ifatun Mansoorah (the victorious group)?
Answer: Absolutely not! al-Firqatun Naajiyyah (the saved sect), it is mansoorah (victorious). It is not naajiyyah (saved) except that it is mansoorah (victorious) and it is not mansoorah (victorious) except that it is naajiyyah (saved). These are their attributes: Ahlus Sunnaah wal-Jama’ah, al-Firqatun Naajiyyah, at-Taa’ifatun Mansoorah.
And whosoever desires to differentiate between these attributes and designates some with this attribute and some others with this (other) attribute, then he desires to divide Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah. So he designates some of them as al-Firqatun Naajiyyah and some of them as at-Taa’ifatun Mansoorah.
This is wrong! Because they are one group. All the exemplary attributes and praise is gathered within them. And they are Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, and they are al-Firqatun Naajiyyah, and they are at-Taa’ifatun Mansoorah. They are al-Baqoona ‘Ala al-Haqqi Illa Qiyaam as-Sa’a (the ones remaining upon the truth until the establishment of the Hour) and they are al-Ghurabaa’ Fi Aakhir az-Zamaan (the strangers at the end of time).
Answer: Absolutely not! al-Firqatun Naajiyyah (the saved sect), it is mansoorah (victorious). It is not naajiyyah (saved) except that it is mansoorah (victorious) and it is not mansoorah (victorious) except that it is naajiyyah (saved). These are their attributes: Ahlus Sunnaah wal-Jama’ah, al-Firqatun Naajiyyah, at-Taa’ifatun Mansoorah.
And whosoever desires to differentiate between these attributes and designates some with this attribute and some others with this (other) attribute, then he desires to divide Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah. So he designates some of them as al-Firqatun Naajiyyah and some of them as at-Taa’ifatun Mansoorah.
This is wrong! Because they are one group. All the exemplary attributes and praise is gathered within them. And they are Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, and they are al-Firqatun Naajiyyah, and they are at-Taa’ifatun Mansoorah. They are al-Baqoona ‘Ala al-Haqqi Illa Qiyaam as-Sa’a (the ones remaining upon the truth until the establishment of the Hour) and they are al-Ghurabaa’ Fi Aakhir az-Zamaan (the strangers at the end of time).
Article printed from masjiduthaymeen.org
URL to article: http://www.masjiduthaymeen.org/posts/2003/12/30/37.htm
| “My Ummah will break up in to seventy three sects…", is this number specific? | by Nissho for everyone |
“My Ummah will break up in to seventy three sects…", is this number specific?
Posted on: Wednesday, December 31st, 2003 @ 10:52 am in Methodology (Manhaj)
Question: O’ Eminent Shaykh, the Messenger said, “My Ummah will break up in to seventy three sects” - so is this number specific or not?
Answer: This (number) is not of the specific type because the sects are very many. If you read the books about the sects, you find that there are a lot of sects. But, and Allaah knows best, these seventy three (sects), are the basis of the sects. Then from this, many sects sub-divided.
And the contemporary sects now, the ones in opposition to the group of Ahlus Sunnah, so (they are) extensions of these sects and branches from them.
Article printed from masjiduthaymeen.org
URL to article: http://www.masjiduthaymeen.org/posts/2003/12/31/38.htm
| Shaykh ‘Ubayd clarifies the usage of the term “Al-Wahabiyyah” | by Nissho for everyone |
Shaykh ‘Ubayd clarifies the usage of the term “Al-Wahabiyyah”
Posted on: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2005 @ 5:05 pm in Recognizing and Abandoning the Bid'ah
Question: This (female) questioner from France says that she has just professed Islaam and always hears of (the term) “Al-Wahabiyyah", so she desires clarification from the Shaykh regarding this issue, may Allaah protect him.
Answer: I ask Allaah, O my daughter, that He establish you on Islaam and the Sunnah. O Allaah, establish her! [The Shaykh made this supplication three times]
(The term) “Al-Wahabiyyah” is attributed to Ash-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhaab (رحمه الله) because he was the one who revived the call of Tawheed in the middle part of the twelfth century of the hijrah. He was aided upon this revival by the Ameer, the Imaam, Muhammad ibn Saud, may Allaah have mercy upon them both.
This ascription (Al-Wahabiyyah) is used by the enemies; the enemies of Tawheed, the enemies of the Sunnah. So it has become, that every enemy of Tawheed and the Sunnah ascribes the person of Tawheed and the Sunnah with being “Wahabee". This is the explanation of the word “Al-Wahabiyyah”.
And perhaps you should know that it is an evil ascription both blameworthy and faulty, because Ash-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhaab (رحمه الله) did not ascribe himself with this. Likewise, this ascription was never attributed to him by the Scholars of the da’wah after him, nor from amongst his sons, grandchildren and brothers of the da’wah up until the present time.
It is not known from anyone from amongst them attributing him with this ascription except the people of superstitions, innovations, and Shirk. They are the ones who ascribe the people of the Sunnah with this ascription.
Answer: I ask Allaah, O my daughter, that He establish you on Islaam and the Sunnah. O Allaah, establish her! [The Shaykh made this supplication three times]
(The term) “Al-Wahabiyyah” is attributed to Ash-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhaab (رحمه الله) because he was the one who revived the call of Tawheed in the middle part of the twelfth century of the hijrah. He was aided upon this revival by the Ameer, the Imaam, Muhammad ibn Saud, may Allaah have mercy upon them both.
This ascription (Al-Wahabiyyah) is used by the enemies; the enemies of Tawheed, the enemies of the Sunnah. So it has become, that every enemy of Tawheed and the Sunnah ascribes the person of Tawheed and the Sunnah with being “Wahabee". This is the explanation of the word “Al-Wahabiyyah”.
And perhaps you should know that it is an evil ascription both blameworthy and faulty, because Ash-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhaab (رحمه الله) did not ascribe himself with this. Likewise, this ascription was never attributed to him by the Scholars of the da’wah after him, nor from amongst his sons, grandchildren and brothers of the da’wah up until the present time.
It is not known from anyone from amongst them attributing him with this ascription except the people of superstitions, innovations, and Shirk. They are the ones who ascribe the people of the Sunnah with this ascription.
Article printed from masjiduthaymeen.org
URL to article: http://www.masjiduthaymeen.org/posts/2005/03/02/55.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment