Protecting the Honour of Whoever Stands Up For Allah

In his letter to Zaid bin Muhammad Al Sulaiman compiled in Majmu’ah ar-Rasa’il wal-Masa’il an-Najdiyyah, vol. 3, pg. 162, Shaikh ‘Abdul-Latif bin ‘Abdir-Rahman Al ash-Shaikh said,

… it is obligatory to protect the honour of whoever stands up for Allah and takes steps in aiding His religion, which He legislated and was satisfied with; and to leave off paying attention to his slips and raising objections to his phrases, for love of Allah, fervour for His religion, and aiding His book and His messenger are of a high rank, beloved to Allah, satisfactory. Because of them (i.e., his high ranking deeds), a tremendous [amount] of sins are forgiven and these feeble objections and the disputes that undermine the vigor of the caller to Allah and the petitioner for His pleasure are not paid attention to along with them. Suppose that it was as it was said (i.e., these mistakes and objections), then the affair is easy beside those good deeds:

  • «And what do you know? Perhaps Allah examined the People of Badr then said, ‘Do what you will, for I have forgiven you.’»[1];
  • the poem, ‘So let the cavalcade produce what they will for themselves || They are the People of Badr, so do not fear of [any] constriction.’;
  • and when al-Mutawakkil told Ibn az-Zayyat, ‘O Ibn al-Fa’ilah,’ and defamed his mother, Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said, ‘I hope that Allah forgives him in consideration of the good of his intent in aiding the Sunnah and supressing heresy.’;
  • and when ‘Umar told Hatib what he said and accused him of hypocrisy, the Prophet, may Allah send salutations and peace upon him, did not berate him. Instead he informed him that there was a hinderance[2] … .

[1] Part of an authentic hadith narrated by several Companions and recorded in several compilations, including Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawud, and others, concerning the incident where Hatib bin Abi Balta’ah, who had fought in the Battle of Badr, had sent word to the polytheists of Mecca informing them of some of the Prophet’s plans.

[2] i.e., something that prevents him from being held blameworthy of his offence.


Shaikh Rabi’ IS NOT an Imam of Jarh & Ta’dil

A couple days ago I received an email from my dear friend, Abu Usamah Atthahabi, with the subject line “Re: Sheikh Rabee’ IS NOT an Imam of Jarh Wa Ta’deel“. It’s not often that he sends out long emails like this one, so although the subject of Rabi bin Hadi al-Madkhali is one that I find tired and old, I thought I’d read it and see what was up.

With young new exaggerationists popping up constantly, I thought it might be good to share what Abu Usamah had to say on my blog. Although the readership numbers to my blog have died down due to my inactivity, perhaps his thoughts might find their way to people’s screens than they would being forwarded from recipient to recipient through email.

May Allah reward Abu Usamah immensely for his attempts at fairness and levelheadedness.

For those who want some backstory to the email, the subject line of Abu Usamah’s email is in reference to the statement from Rabi’ al-Madkhali found in the YouTube video before the email, both below the jump (email is without any editing done on my part–you read it as I received it).

Read more of this post

We Can’t Answer Him So Keep Away From That Guy!!!

[ Edit: I added links to the YouTube videos mentioned in the post. Also note that MuslimVlogGuy deleted his comments to my video some time ago–good thing I got screen caps, lol. ]

Earlier this week (Monday) I received a private message on Facebook from one of my buddies telling me of some self-deluded exaggerationist wannabe vanguards of Salafism warning others to keep away from me on Twitter. Being that I don’t have a Twitter account, I had to do a bit of searching to find the tweets. Here’s the exchange that took place (on all images in this post, click to enlarge to actual size):

Read more of this post

Ibn al-Qayyim on Dealing with Errors and Those Who Commit Them

In Madârij as-Sâlikîn, Imam Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, had alluded to some of the escapades of the opponents[1] and said,

These escapades imposed a tribulation on two groups from the people. The first of them was screened by them from the merits of this group, the mildness of their souls, and the truthfulness of their interactions. They relinquished them on account of these escapades and disavowed them with the utmost disavowal, and they had an ill suspicion of them in absolute terms, and this is enmity and excessiveness. If everyone who erred or blundered was left off entirely and his merits relinquished, the sciences, skills, and wisdoms would certainly have been corrupted and their landmarks obstructed.

Then, he, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned the group counter to what preceded and named them transgressors and opposers.[2] Then he said,

The third group, and they are the people of justice and fairness, and those who give every possessor of rights his right, and grant every possessor of status his status, [such that] they did not adjudge the ruling of the sick [and] the ill to the healthy nor the ruling of the healthy to the ill [and] the sick. Rather, they accepted what is to be accepted and rejected what is to be rejected.[3]

[1] [t] Ibn al-Qayyim is referring to unbridled excesses committed by the Ṣūfîs.

[2] [t] Ibn al-Qayyim’s exact words were ‘transgressors and excessive [ones]’ (معتدون ومفرطون). Perhaps ‘excessive [ones]’ was misread as ‘opposers’ (معرضون) as the two words resemble each other.

[3] Madârij as-Sâlikîn Bain Manâzil «Iyyâk Na’bud wa Iyyâk Nasta’în», vol. 2, pgs. 39-40.

Source: as-Sulaimânî, Abul-Hasan Mustafâ bin Ismâ’îl. “al-Qawl al-Mufhim li Man Ankar Maqâlah: Nusahhih wa Lâ Nahdim.” ad-Difâ’ ‘an Ahl al-Ittibâ’: ar-Radd al-’Ilmî ‘alash-Shaikh Rabî’ bin Hâdî al-Madkhalî (2nd ed.). Menoufia, Egypt: Dâr al-Ansâr, 2006. vol. 1, pgs. 347-348.

Do not Refute Them Until you Know What They Meant?

I woke up this morning and found an email in my inbox from the SPubs mailing list titled, “NEW ARTICLE: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee Disproves the False Principle: Do not Refute Them Until you Know What They Meant”. It contained the following quote, which I assume is part of a longer article (I didn’t click on the link provided to check):

So we have not been commanded to investigate into the intended meanings. Whosoever has speech that is falsehood, then falsehood must be refuted. And if he is ignorant and he says, “I meant such and such, but I erred in the expression,” we reply, ‘The praise is for Allaah. Therefore, you have corrected yourself. So it is not permissible for anyone, from this point onwards, to follow you in that falsehood now that you are aware of it.’ So now you – O critic – have benefited the people firstly and him (i.e. the speaker of falsehood) secondly.

Read more of this post

Ibn al-Qayyim on Correcting but Not Destroying

In I’lâm al-Muwaqqi’în (vol. 3, pg. 283), Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said,

… cognizance of the virtue of Islam’s imams, their measures, their rights, and their grades, and that their virtue, their knowledge, and their advising is for Allah and His messenger does not make acceptance of all of what they say and what occurred in their verdicts, from the issues in which what the Messenger came with was hidden to them, incumbent, for they spoke with the extent of their knowledge. The truth [being] contrary to them[1] does not make repudiation of their statements entirely, degradation and defamation of them incumbent.

These two extremities deviate from the goal, and the goal of the path is between them [both]. We do not accuse [people] of inequity nor do we render [them] immune [from error]. With them,[2] we do not traverse the Râfiḍah’s path with regards to ‘Alî, nor their path with regards to the two Shaikhs.[3] Rather, [with them], we traverse their own path with regards to whoever is before them from the Companions, for surely, they do not accuse them of inequity, nor do they render them immune [from error], and they do not accept all of their statements nor do they relinquish them. So how do they rebuke us regarding the four imams for a path they traverse with regards to the four Caliphs and the rest of the Companions? There is no incompatibility between these two affairs for [the one] whose chest Allah opened to Islam. They are only incompatible with one of two men: a [person] ignorant of the measure of the imams and their virtue or a [person] ignorant of the reality of the Sharî’ah that Allah sent His messenger with.

[The one] who has knowledge of the Law and fact knows decisively that an esteemed man who has a righteous involvement in Islam and good effects, and [has] a place with respect to Islam and its people, could [have] a lapse or a mistake happen from him for which he is excused—and even rewarded for his [independent] deliberation. Thus, it is not permissible that he be followed in it, nor is it permissible that his station, his imamate, and his status be relinquished from the hearts of the Muslims.

[1] [t] I.e., their verdicts.

[2] [t] I.e., some of the scholars who attribute themselves to Imam ash-Shâfi’î’s school of thought.

[3] [t] I.e., Abū Bakr asSiddîq and ‘Umar bin al-Khattâb, may Allah be pleased with them both. Ibn al-Qayyim is referring to the fact that the Râfidah excessively venerate ‘Alî bin Abî Tâlib, may Allah be pleased with him (some to the extent of deifying him), while they excommunicate Abū Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, and declare them apostates.

Source: as-Sulaimânî, Abul-Hasan Mustafâ bin Ismâ’îl. “al-Qawl al-Mufhim li Man Ankar Maqâlah: Nusahhih wa Lâ Nahdim.” ad-Difâ’ ‘an Ahl al-Ittibâ’: ar-Radd al-‘Ilmî ‘alash-Shaikh Rabî’ bin Hâdî al-Madkhalî (2nd ed.). Menoufia, Egypt: Dâr al-Ansâr, 2006. vol. 1, pgs. 348-349.

Accepting the Reliable Person’s Information?

How’s this for accepting the information of the reliable or credible person (qubul khabar ath-thiqah)? Keep in mind, the belief of Ahl as-Sunnah is that all of the Companions are considered reliable and trustworthy.

Taken from Hâtim al-Awnî’s al-Manhaj al-Muqtarah li Fahm al-Mustalah.

From Abi Sa’îd al-Khudri [who] said,

We were in a sitting with Ubay bin Ka’b [when] Abu Musa al-Ash’ari came [having been] angered (and in a narration: frightened or dismayed) until he stopped. He said, “I implore you, by Allah, have any of you heard Allah’s messenger, may Allah send salutations and peace upon him, saying, «Seeking permission [to enter someone’s home] is [done] three [times]. So if he permitted you, [then enter]. Otherwise, return.»?”

Ubay [asked], “And why is that?”

He said, “Yesterday, I sought permission [to enter] Umar bin al-Khattab’s [home] three times. He did not give me permission [to enter], so I returned [from where I came]. Then today, I came and dropped in on him. I informed him that I came yesterday and gave salam three times, then turned away [and left]. He said, ‘We had heard you, [but] at that time we were busy. If only you sought permission [to enter] until you were given permission.’ [I] said I sought permission [to enter] just as I heard Allah’s messenger [say to do so]. He said, ‘By Allah, I will truly hurt your back and your stomach or you will surely come with someone who testifies this for you!”

So Ubay bin Ka’b said, “By Allah, none will stand with you except the youngest of us. Stand, O Aba Sa’îd.”

So I stood [and] came to Umar. I said I had heard Allah’s messenger, may Allah send salutations and peace upon him, saying this.

Rather, ‘Umar had truly been, just as Imam adh-Dhahabi says, “the one who introduced [the sunnah] of ascertainment for the traditionists with regards to the transmission [of reports and narrations],” meaning he was intent on spreading this sunnah and teaching it.

Here is a Companion not accepting the information given to him by another Companion until it is corroberated by another Companion. Call it what you will … verification, ascertainment, or whatever. It’s what the exaggerationists don’t want you to do when it comes to their claims.