Rifqan Ahl as-Sunnah in Published in Hardcopy

Back in December I was contacted by one of the brothers from Dar al-Arqam Publishing in the UK about participating in a couple of translation projects they had in mind. After some thought and consultation with a few dear friends, I agreed to take part. The main project eventually ended up falling apart due to news of another publisher already working on the intended book they wanted me working on. The other smaller project, however, was still a go.

While the book is pretty old now, they had asked me for the necessary permissions to have my translation of Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbad’s second edition of Rifqan Ahl as-Sunnah bi Ahl as-Sunnah printed. They felt that it was still very relevant in our current times considering all the controversies the Salafi community is still embroiled with and that it might help with some of those affected and influenced by the exaggertionist mentality. Despite the small intended audience for the book (even though it generally applies to all of the People of the Sunnah and not just those involved in the controversies), they felt that the benefit of having it printed and distributed warranted it being done. So, after speaking with the brothers at QSSC, permission was granted and some necessary corrections and editions were made to the existing published version  (i.e., the one I posted here on my blog). It was also decided that al-Abbad’s short essay Marratan Ukhra Rifqan Ahl as-Sunnah bi Ahl as-Sunnah would be translated (again–as it was already translated by the brothers at Madeenah.com) and added as an appendix.

The book is now printed and is available at al-Hidaayah Publishing & Distribution’s online shop (link) for whoever wants to pick up a copy.

Advertisements

It’s A Goat, Even If It Flies!!!

Well, that didn’t take too long. At the beginning of Abu Usamah’s piece commenting on Rabi’ al-Madkhali’s recent statement about merely being a critic and not an imam in the science of disparagement and accreditation, he asked the question,

I await to see what the response is going to be from those who have taken him as the undisputed authority in every aspect of the Deen?

Will they apply their normal spin to his words and take them as merely an example of his humility that shows and indicates he is in fact THE IMAM of this science that the scholars of yesterday said ONLY A SELECT FEW WERE CONSIDERED TO BE COMPETENT AND CAPABLE ENOUGH OF DELVING INTO THIS FIELD?

As expected, the exaggerationists obliged in kind and promptly scrambled to carry out some sort of “damage control”, easily living up to the moniker I’ve given them. Take this image of a message that had made its rounds shortly after the audio recording of Rabi’ al-Madkhali’s statement and its translation by Madeenah.com was released:

Oh no! Quick, cover your eyes, plug your ears!

Then there’s also this audio recording of a rather emotional statement made by Abul-Hasan Maalik the Green that was promptly sent out by the brothers at TROID.

In response to this, Abu Usamah Atthahabi has written another piece–which can be read after the jump–specifically commenting on the exaggerationism displayed by Maalik in this recording. Enjoy!

Read more of this post

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

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.

——————————————————————————–
Notes:
[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.

More of al-Abbad’s Words Regarding al-Ma’ribi

Earlier this morning I got a request for Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin’s praise for Shaikh Abul-Hasan and I realized that I hadn’t posted the actual conversation the shaikh had with some questioners in which he said that Shaikh Rabî’ al-Madkhalî’s beef with Shaikh Abul-Hasan was personal. I had to dig through my old draft folders on my HDD, but I found an old translation I did of the conversation, which I had originally found on the now defunct alisteqama.net messageboard. I did some searching with Shaikh Google and was able to find the transcription, along with another statement the shaikh made regarding al-Ma’ribi. Both of these date a bit earlier than the conversation I posted a few months ago; that one dating Wednesday, Rajab 23, 1423H, these two dating Wednesday, Safar 25, 1423H and Thursday, Jumâdâ al-Ūlâ 22, 1423H respectively (to give some frame of reference with the Gregorian calendar, the second date from Jumâdâ al-Ūlâ, corresponds to August 1st, 2002). I tried my best to find the earliest references to these statements as I could. The two I found were posted to almeshkat.net’s forum back in 2002, which predates the original reference I found, which was posted in 2008.

Read more of this post

al-Abbad on the Summarized & Elaborated, and Single Reports

I was digging through my draft folders on my harddrive and came across this old translation I did around 10 years ago (give or take some). Since there has been some mention of the principle of correlating the summarized to the elaborated (i.e., taking a person’s summarized, general speech to mean what he’s been known to say in more explicit and elaborated speech) fairly recently (see the recent squabble between SP’s Amjad Rafiq (here) and Musa Millington (here) concerning faith, disbelief, and irja’), I thought I’d touch up and post this short little bit from Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbâd on the issue. He also touches on the issue of single reports (khabar al-âhâd). which along with the summarized-elaborated principle, are a couple of the things Shaikh Abul-Hasan al-Ma’ribî is accused of innovating (NB: the opinion expressed and held by Shaikh al-‘Abbâd regarding single reports is the very opinion that Shaikh Abul-Hasan holds himself).

Read more of this post

Quoting Your Adversary

In his essay titled, al-Qawl al-Mufhim li -man Ankara Maqâlah: Nusahhih wa Lâ Nahdim (trans. “The Irrefutable Statement to Whoever Censured the Principle of Correcting & Not Destroying”), Shaikh Abul-Hasan al-Ma’ribî states that “[i]n citation of an adversary’s expression are abundant utilities and important etiquettes, especially when some self-interests become obvious in the quarrel. In al-‘Awâsim,[1] Ibn al-Wazîr rebuked his adversary [for] not citing Ibn al-Wazîr’s words and heaped accusations against him. Due to the preciousness of these words, I am mentioning them in their entirety; and Allah is the accommodator for every good and sensible conduct.” He then brings a long and beneficial quote from Imam Muhammad bin Ibrâhîm al-Wazîr al-Yamânî (d. 840AH) where he states (with abridgement by myself, RG),

Sir,[2] may Allah aid him, has violated a great rule; it is the foundation of debate and the root of correspondence, i.e., the citation of the words of the adversary with his expression, firstly, then the undertaking of its criticism, secondly. This is something that no one from the people familiar with academics, engrossed in realities, and pursue intricacies, is unmindful of.

[O]ne [should] cite the adversary’s words with its text and rid himself of the accusation of its alteration and its omission. This is the satisfactory opinion with the emirs[3] of the theoretical sciences and the imams of the dialectical procedures; ‘Abdul-Hamîd bin Abil-Hadîd[4] had denounced the Chief Justice[5] for refuting the Sir’s[6] satisfactory words in correspondences that took place between them without mentioning his expression.

Know that leaving the adversary’s words is an obvious oppresion to him and a clear injustice against him, because certainly, he speaks his words in order to be a counterweight to his adversary’s words in the golden scale of the balance and as a parallel to them in the dialectical field; because the solitary weights more on the balance, even if light, and comes ahead in the field, even if weak. This, all of it, is if there were words preserved by the adversary and a selection is rightly refutable. From justice is clarification of his statement and mention of its expression. As for if he definitely did not have an opinion, and instead it was wrongly assumed about his opinion, and he was accused of what he did not speak of, then this is oppression upon oppression, and darknesses, some above others.

Source: as-Sulaimânî, Abul-Hasan Mustafâ bin Ismâ’îl. “al-Qawl al-Mufhim li -man Ankara 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, pg. 315.

 

——————————————————————————–
Endnotes:
[1] al-Wazîr, Muḥammad bin Ibrâhîm. al-‘Awâsim wal-Qawâsim fidh-Dhabb ‘an Sunnah Abil-Qâsim, vol. 1, pgs. 236-239. [t] Judging by the corresponding page numbers, I assume that al-Ma’ribî is quoting from Mu’asasah ar-Risâlah’s print, edited by Shaikh Shu’aib al-Arna’ūt; its 2nd edition being printed in 1992. All references I make to this book are to al-Arna’ūt’s edition.

[2] [t] Ar. sayyid (سَيِّد) – master; gentleman; Mister; Sir; lord, overlord; chief, chieftain; honorific used to denote sainthood (in Sufism) or nobility.

[3] [t] Ar. umarâ’ (أُمَرَاء) (pl. – sing. amîr (أَمٍير)) – commander; prince, emir; title of princes of a ruling house; tribal chief.

[4] [t] He is ‘Abdul-Hamîd bin Hibatillah bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Abil-Hadîd al-Madâ’inî, author of Sharh Nahj al-Balâghah al-Ghâlî fit-Tashayyu’. See al-‘Awâsim, vol. 1, pg. 236, footnote no. 2.

[5] [t] He is ‘Abdul-Jabbâr bin Ahmad bin ‘Abdil-Jabbâr al-Hamdhânî al-Asadâbâdî, Shaikh of the Mu’tazilah in his era and they addressed him as Chief Justice and did not apply this honorific to others. See al-‘Awâsim, vol. 1, pg. 236, footnote no. 3.

[6] [t] He is ‘Alî bin al-Husain bin Mūsâ al-‘Alawî. See al-‘Awâsim, vol. 1, pg. 237, footnote no. 1.