Author: admin

 

[Q]: The questioner says: It has been spread that the fitnah (trial, tribulation) of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel splits up the Ummah and speaking out against the people of innovation causes separation within the Ummah, especially those living in the western countries.  So they split up and distort the representation of Islaam by way of their speech against the mashaayikh, ‘This one is a hizbee (biased partisan),’ and the likes of that.

[A]: O my son, the Shaytaan has caused this rumour to circulate upon everyone’s tongues against Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Hadeeth.  The theme of the gathering is clear, so why do you beat about the bush and wander around by mentioning these ambiguities?!  Allaah the Glorified and Exalted has refused, except to separate between the truth and the falsehood and the guidance and the misguidance.  So why do you generalize?

Have you not come across the hadeeth, which mentions the procession of nations (umam)?  It occurs in the Saheehayn (i.e. the hadeeth collections of al-Bukhaaree and Muslim).  The Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, “I saw a Prophet passing and he had with him a raht – it is said this is a group of three to ten people – and a Prophet would pass and he would have with him three followers, and another would have two.  And a Prophet would pass and he would only have one man with him.  And a Prophet would pass and he would not have anyone with him.” [1] This Prophet who will have no one with him, was he sent to himself only?  Of course not!  He was sent to a nation (ummah).  However, that nation rejected his call.  And Ahlus-Sunnah never gossip about anyone, ever.  They only refute the innovation with evidence.  And consideration is not given to a large following, consideration is given to obtaining the truth.

The Shaykh, Muhammad Ibn ’Abdul-Wahhaab (d.1206H) – rahimahullaah – the Imaam of the da’wah and the reviver in the middle of the twelfth Hijree generation, the one who was aided by his brother, al-Ameer Muhammad Ibn Sa’ood – rahimahullaahul-jamee’ – derived rulings from this hadeeth, from them: that it is not permissible to forsake a small following, nor is it permissible to have high regard for a large following. [2]

And this is in agreement with a beautiful statement from al-Fudayl Ibn ’Iyaad (d.187H) – rahimahullaah – who said, “Hold fast to the paths of guidance and the scarcity of followers will not harm you.  And beware of the paths of misguidance and do not be deceived by the large numbers of those who are destroyed.” [3] So the majority have never been mentioned in a praiseworthy manner, ever. [4] We would love that the heads of disbelieving nations accept Islaam and remain upon the Sunnah: the president of America, the president of Russia, the king of Holland, the president of Poland and other than them.  We would love that they accept Islaam and remain upon the Sunnah, we do not dislike Islaam and the Sunnah for anyone and we invite them with wisdom and a beautiful admonition.

Endnotes:
[1]: Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 5420), Muslim (no. 323) and Ahmad in al-Musnad (no. 2444).
[2]: Shaykhul-Islaam Muhammad Ibn ’Abdul-Wahhaab (d.1206H) – rahimahullaah – said, “The fruit of this knowledge is to not have a high regard for a large following and to not forsake and be disheartened by a small following.”  Refer to Fathul-Majeed (p. 90), with the comments of Imaam Ibn Baaz and the checking of Shaykh Muhammad Haamid al-Fiqee.
[3]: Refer to al-I’tisaam (1/135) of ash-Shaatibee.  Sufyaan Ibn ’Uyaynah (d.197H) – rahimahullaah – said, “Traverse the path of truth and do not feel lonely due to the few people upon it.”  Related by Ibn ’Abdul-Barr in at-Tamheed (17/429).
[4]: BENEFIT – Imaam Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee on the Scarcity of Those who Answer the Da’wah: The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, “No Prophet from amongst the Prophets will have as many followers as me. Indeed, there will be from amongst the Prophets he who had no one believing in him, except one man.”  Related by Muslim (1/130).
Imaam Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee (d.1420H) commented upon this hadeeth, saying, “In this hadeeth is a clear proof that the abundance of followers, or lack thereof is not the measuring standard that indicates whether the caller is upon truth or falsehood. So even though the da’wah of these Prophets – ’alayhimus-salaatu was-salaam – was one and their Religion was one, their varied with regards to the numbers of their followers. Some of them had many and some of them had a few, to the extent that some had no one to believe in them except one man. Rather, there was from amongst them he who had not a single follower!
So in this is a profound lesson for the callers and those who are being called in this age of ours. So it is obligatory upon the caller to remember this reality. He must remain for a long time in the path of calling to Allaah the Exalted, and he must not pay any attention to the scarcity of those who answer him, because there is nothing upon him, except to convey the message clearly. And he has the best example in the previous Prophets who did not have anyone with them other than one or two men!
So the one being called upon must not despair due to the scarcity of those who answer the caller, and he must not take that as a reason for doubting in the da’wah of truth and thus abandon eemaan (faith) in it, let alone that he would take that as an indication of the falsity of the da’wah with the argument that no one is following this caller, or that only a few are following him. And if his da’wah were truthful, the majority of the people would not follow him! Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said,
“And most of mankind will not believe, even if you desire it eagerly.” [Soorah Yoosuf 12:103].”
Refer to Silsilatul-Ahaadeethis-Saheehah (no. 397) of al-Albaanee.

Translation by Maaz Qureshi

[Q]: Our noble Shaykh, why have you chosen the manhaj of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel as a path, even though in the view of many of the callers (du’aat) and reformers, it is considered a cause for discord within the Ummah and a way to hatred for those who travel upon this path.  They use as an argument the claim that al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel has already ended along with the time of hadeeth narration.

[A]: I have not chosen the manhaj of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel.  I am only a critic (naaqid).  I saw many innovations and calamities and misguidance had attached themselves to Islaam.  So I took great pains, within the limits of my strength, along with my incapability and my weakness, to expel this falsehood, which had attached itself to the Religion out of oppression and falsehood, from Islaam.  So the innovations, misguidance and deviation occurred from callers who ascribed to Islaam, not to mention that this was in the age of extremism and flattery.  Meaning, these affairs had attached themselves to Islaam and had become attributed to Islaam.  So I worked to expel this falsehood from Islaam.

Regardless of whether it is called jarh (disparagement, criticism) or ta’deel (praise), or whatever it is called, I only criticize false speech.  And I clarify its opposition to Islaam – may Allaah bless you – with proofs and evidence.  I clarify how this speech opposes the beliefs (’aqaa‘id) and how it opposes the manhaj of Islaam.  I clarify these issues that are considered fiqh (understanding) in the topic of al-’aqeedah (creed) and manhaj (methodology), may Allaah bless you.  Some of the people have named that jarh and ta’deel.  Of course something of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel has entered by way of this criticism (naqd).

So I do not call myself a mujarrih (one who disparages) and a mu’addil (one who praises), I only call myself a weak and indigent naaqid (critic).  And I have not gotten into the middle of this criticism, may Allaah bless you, except because the people have moved onto other aspects of Islaam in order to aid Islaam.  And this was made easy and all of that is from the affairs that aid Islaam and lead to the raising of its banner and they make the word of Allaah the Blessed and Exalted uppermost.  This one gives attention to the topic of criticism and that one gives attention to the authentication of ahaadeeth, and no one blames each other.

This is from the communal obligations (fard kifaayah).  When some of the people carry out this obligation, then the burden of it is lifted from the rest.  So this individual carries out the obligation of this aspect – the communal obligation – and that individual carries out the communal obligation of that aspect.  So this one writes about ’aqeedah (creed) and this one writes about the Sunnah, he authenticates and he declares ahaadeeth weak and he extracts fiqh rulings.  So the end result is that all of them complete and supplement each other.

And the statement that the Tableegh and the Ikhwaan and the other groups complete each other is an error and a blunder. It is an error that occurred from someone who is attributed to the Salafee manhaj and it is from the errors of the people of desires and misguidance.  So the innovation can never complete Islaam. [1]

So when this individual has drafted himself to raise the banner of innovation and to aid it and to call to it, and another one has done the same, and yet another one has done the same, then we do not hold that this will do anything but contribute to the destruction of Islaam.  And it will not complete anything from Islaam at all.  It will only bring about defect and deformity. [2]

And his statement, “The age of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel has ended,” this is a lie.  The manhaj of criticism (naqd) will not end up until the Day of Judgement.  And the manhaj of the Jarh wat-Ta’deel will not end until the Day of Judgement.  As long as innovations and slogans of misguidance exist and they have callers and imaams of misguidance, then al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel will not end up until the Day of Judgement.  And it is surely from Jihaad. [3] Rather, it is better than striking with swords. [4]

And the age of narration ended in the third generation.  So why did Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728H) raise the banner of criticism (naqd) and the banner of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel?!  Likewise, there were adh-Dhahabee (d.748H) and Ibnul-Qayyim (d.751H) and Ibn Katheer (d.774H) and Ibn Hajr (d.852H) and others up until the Day of Judgement.

As long as there is a struggle between truth and falsehood and between guidance and misguidance and between the people of truth and the falsehood and between the people of guidance and the misguidance, then it is inevitable that the swords of criticism (naqd) and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel remain unsheathed against the people of falsehood.  And they are more dangerous than the people of narration and have more reason to receive jarh than the narrators who could err legally and logically.

However, these are individuals who invent innovations and spread them deliberately amongst the ranks of the Muslims in the name of Islaam.

And as for the narrators, then the liars from amongst them were few and confined and the rest of the people were good and made errors.  So the other were not silent about them.

So even though the age of narration has already ended, the age of criticism has not ended – criticism of the people of innovation and disparagement (jarh) of them and clarifying their misguidance and their danger.  This shall remain continuous up until the Day of Judgement, and it is Jihaad. [5]

Endnotes:
[1]: One such example is ’Abdur-Rahmaan ’Abdul-Khaaliq who said in al-Wasaayaa al-’Ashar lil-’Aamileen bid-Da’wah (p. 72), “And the conclusion is that I call to mutual closeness and organization between the Islaamic groups (jamaa’aat).  And I call to opening up avenues for discussion and meeting and mutual competition in goodness and being mutually close in doing good works.  And this is what will hasten the spreading of religious sentiment what will transform our societies into Islaamic societies.”
Compare this to what the major Scholars of our times have said: Imaam Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-’Uthaymeen (d.1421H) said, “I say: There is not either in the Book or the Sunnah that which allows multiple groups and parties. Rather, there is in the Book and the Sunnah that which censures this. Allaah the Exalted said,
“Verily those who split up their Religion and become sects, you have no concern with them in the least. Their affair is with Allaah who will tell them about what they used to do.” [Sooratul-An’aam 6:159].” Refer to the cassette tape, Majmoo’ Kalaamul-’Ulamaa fee ’Abdur-Rahmaan ’Abdul-Khaaliq (side two).
Imaam Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee (d.1420H) said, “Therefore, we believe with certainty, that every group that does not establish itself upon the foundation of the Book and the Sunnah and the manhaj of the Salafus-Saalih – having extensively and comprehensively studied the rulings of Islaam, the large and the small, the principles and the branches – then this group will not be from the Saved-Sect; the Sect which proceeds upon the Straight Path which was indicated by the Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) in the authentic hadeeth.”  Refer to Fataawaa Shaykh al-Albaanee (p. 106-114). [TN]
[2]: Imaam al-Barbahaaree (d.329H) said, “And know that a people do not innovate an innovation, except that they abandon its like from the Sunnah.”  Refer to Sharhus-Sunnah (no. 6).
And Hassaan Ibn ’Atiyyah said, “Indeed, the people do not innovate an innovation, except that Allaah removes from them its like from the Sunnah.  It does not return to them until the Day of Judgement.”  Refer to Saheehul-Mishkaat (no. 188) of al-Albaanee.
And al-Fudayl Ibn ’Iyaad (d.187H) said, “And whosoever gives importance to an innovator, then he has aided him in the destruction of Islaam.”  Refer to Sharhus-Sunnah (p. 252) of al-Barbahaaree.
[3]: Imaam ’Abdur-Rahmaan Ibn Naasir as-Sa’dee (d.1376H) – rahimahullaah – said, “The Jihaad is of two types: a Jihaad by which the rectification of the Muslims is intended, and their correctness in their beliefs and their manners, and all of their religious and worldly affairs, and in their knowledge and action related education.  And this type is the basis of Jihaad and its foundation, and built upon it is the second type of Jihaad.  It is the Jihaad by which the defense against the transgressors upon Islaam is intended, such as the disbelievers, and the hypocrites, and the atheists and all of the enemies of the Religion and their supporters.”  Refer to Wujoobut-Ta’aawun baynal-Muslimeen (p. 7-8) of as-Sa’dee. [TN]
[4]: Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728H) said in Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (4/12), ‘So the one who refutes the people of innovation is a mujaahid, to the extent that Yahyaa Ibn Yahyaa said, ‘Defending the Sunnah has more excellence than Jihaad.”
I (Aboo Rawaahah) say: And that which I found in the biography of Yahyaa Ibn Yahyaa at-Taymee an-Naysaabooree in Siyar A’laamun-Nubalaa‘ (10/518) is that Imaam adh-Dhahabee quotes from Nasr Ibn Zakariyyaa who said: I heard Muhammad Ibn Yahyaa adh-Dhuhlee: I heard Yahyaa Ibn Ma’een saying, “Defending the Sunnah is more excellent than Jihaad in the path of Allaah.”  So I said to Yahyaa, “A man spends his wealth and tires himself and struggles, yet this is more excellent than that?”  He replied, “Yes, by much.”
I say: So when I presented this statement to our Shaykh (Rabee’ Ibn Haadee) – hafidhahullaah, he replied, “As for this statement, then it is attributed to Yahyaa Ibn Yahyaa at-Taymee an-Naysaabooree.  However, the fact that it has come from Yahyaa Ibn Ma’een is also considered a benefit.”
[5]: Refer to Ajwibatul-’Allaamatish-Shaykh Rabee’ Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee as-Salafiyyah (p. 13-15) of Aboo Rawaahah ’Abdullaah Ibn ’Eesaa al-Mawree al-Yamaanee.

Translation by Maaz Qureshi

[fap_track id=”3325″ layout=”list” enqueue=”no” button_enqueue=”no”]

[Q]: And this questioner asks: What is the validity of the statement that the adhaan (call to Prayer) of ’Uthmaan (radiyallaahu ’anhu) is an innovation or misguidance?

[A]: This itself is the innovation.  The one who says such speech, it is the innovation.  The Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said,

“Hold fast to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.” [1]

Was ’Uthmaan not from the Rightly Guided Caliphs?  ’Uthmaan, was he not from the Rightly Guided Caliphs?  Was he not the third Caliph?  Fine.

Therefore, whatever he commanded with is a Sunnah.  The first adhaan is a Sunnah.  It is like the first adhaan that occurs before the Fajr Prayer.  This is a Sunnah because it awakens the people.  ’Uthmaan commanded it when he saw that the people had become pre-occupied with their farming and their businesses, in order that they would be notified about the Jumu’ah Prayer and prepare for it.  So it became a Sunnah.  However, this individual does not know the Sunnah from the bid’ah (innovation).  Whatever he does not know, then he considers it innovation.  Yes.

Endnotes:
[1]: Saheeh: Related by Aboo Daawood (no. 4443), at-Tirmidhee (no. 2815), ad-Daarimee in his Sunan (no. 96) and Ahmad in al-Musnad (4/126-127).  It was authenticated by al-Albaanee in Saheehul-Jaami’ (no. 2549).

Translation by Maaz Qureshi

[fap_track id=”3290″ layout=”list” enqueue=”no” button_enqueue=”no”]

[Q]: The ninth question is: why have you chosen al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel as a path, even though it is counted as a cause for division within the Ummah and it is considered a path to hatred for those who travel upon this mode of conduct in the view of many of the callers (du’aat) and reformers?

[A]: If we were to abandon al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, then the statement of the Imaam, the exemplar, Shaykh Ibn Baaz (d.1420H) and the statement of ’Alee at-Tantaawee [1] would become the same, but they are not the same.  So we are in need of clarifying the condition of Hasan at-Turaabee [2] and Yoosuf al-Qardaawee [3] and ’Abdul-Majeed az-Zindaanee.  Likewise, it is inevitable to clarify the condition of the heads of the Ikhwaanul-Muslimeen be clarified and the government scholars as well.  It is inevitable that their condition be clarified, those who argue for the governments with falsehood, whilst the Lord of Might says in His Noble Book,

“And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves.  Indeed, Allaah does not like anyone who is a betrayer of trust and indulges in crime.” [Sooratun-Nisaa‘ 4:107]

 So the Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, “”Indeed, I fear for my Ummah imaams who will mislead.” [4] Who was its narrator?  And who related it, O Zakariyyaa?  Do you have it?  Speak, who related it?  Aboo Daawood, correct.  Yes, its narrator was Thawbaan and Aboo Daawood related it.

 So the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said that.  And the Lord of Might says in His Noble Book,

 

“O you who believe!  Indeed, there are many of the rabbis and the monks who devour the wealth of mankind in falsehood and hinder them from the Path of Allaah.” [Sooratut-Tawbah 9:43]

 And the Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, “What an evil brother to his family,” [5] and he said, as occurs in al-Bukhaaree, “I do not think that so and so and so and so know anything from our Religion.” [6] And he said whilst prohibiting Mu’aadh, “Are you a fattaan (one who stirs up trials and tribulations), O Mu’aadh?” [7] And he said, to Abee Dharr, “Indeed, you are a man who has jaahiliyyah (pre-Islaamic times of ignorance) in him.” [8] And he said to his wives, “You are surely like the female companions of Yoosuf.” [9]

 Indeed, I praise Allaah for we have mentioned a beneficial passage in al-Makhraj minal-Fitnah and also in al-Jaami’us-Saheeh mimmaa laysa fis-Saheehayn.  And this was done with evidences for whosoever will rely upon them.

 Indeed, I praise Allaah that al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel has pulverized (tahana) ’Abdur-Raheem at-Tahhaan. [10] It has pulverized him, O brothers.  And it has severed (qarrada) the tongue of Yoosuf al-Qardaawee.

 How many times have they informed us that an Egyptian individual delivers an admonition in which many government employees are present.  And after this, that individual explains,

 

“By al-’Asr (the time).  Indeed, mankind is in a state of loss.” [Sooratul-’Asr 103:1-2]

 So he says, ‘The minister of the interior is in a state of loss, except if he is from the Believers.’  And after that he says, ‘Before I had even realized it, the ministers and the employees would each hid behind the other so that none of them would be seen saying that he is in a state of loss, except if he is a Believer.’

 And I praise Allaah that the hearts of the innovators tremble due to a cassette tape, which perhaps has reached them in Britain, or America or in other places.  And Allaah is the One from whom aid is sought.  Yes.

 [Q]: And what about the one who says that it (i.e. al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel) ended with the time of narration?

 [A]: The ones who say that it ended, my brothers, they know that they are majrooh (disparaged, criticized).  Due to this, they do not want anyone to speak about al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel.  I met with some of them at the office of at-Tawjeeh wal-Irshaad after the release of al-Makhraj minal-Fitnah and they said, “It is backbiting, al-Makhraj minal-Fitnah is backbiting.  It is the madkhal (entrance) to fitnah (trial).”  I spoke with them and they said to us, ‘We shall make peace, We shall make peace.  Tell them to remain silent and we shall make peace with regards to whatever has agitated them.’  And then nothing happened.  They said, ‘Yes, you have struck a blow against us and we shall make peace.’  If our strike was correct, then why did you say you would make peace?  It was just that after we struck them a blow, we left it for a few days to let things cool down, then we came to them with another blow.  And was it not correct?  The war is deception.

 So they are fearful of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, because they know that they are majrooh (disparaged, criticized).  And they are likewise fearful of writings against them.  An elder from amongst the elders of the tribes, one of those who used to have sympathy for the Ikhwaanul-Muslimeen, said to me, ‘Why have you aggravated them, O Abaa ’Abdur-Rahmaan?’ I said, “Let us make peace and whatever has passed is in the past.”  He said, ‘No problem, we shall make peace and whatever has passed is in the past and do not write against them.’  He said, ‘We permit you to speak against them.  There is no problem in speaking on a cassette tape.  However, this writing agitates them.’  So when I saw that they were agitated, I resolved to collect the cassette tapes into books and publish them.  And Allaah is One from whom aid is sought.

Endnotes:
[1]: This is the individual whom Imaam Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee (d.1420H) referred to as an “enemy of the Da’watus-Salafiyyah.”  Shaykh Muqbil said, “The one who abstains from al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel has abstained from the Sunnah.  So if there was no Jarh wat-Ta’deel, then the speech of the noble Scholar who calls to Allaah would be the same as the speech of ’Alee at-Tantaawee, and the same as the speech of Muhammad as-Sawwaaf, and the same as the speech of Muhammad al-Ghazaalee, or the same as Hasan at-Turaabee, or the same as ash-Sha’raawee, or the same as the speech of the Shee’ah and the Raafidah, or the same as the speech of the Soofee: Hasan as-Saqqaaf.
No one abstains from this knowledge, except for a man who is ignorant, or a man who holds rancour in his heart, or a man who knows that he is majrooh (disparaged, criticized), so he diverts others from al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, because he knows that he is majrooh.”  Refer to Fadaa‘ih wan-Nasaa‘ih (p. 115) of Muqbil Ibn Haadee.
[2]: Shaykh Muqbil said about his books that they are, “books of deviation and misguidance.”  Refer to Qam’ul-Mu’aanid (p. 504) of Muqbil Ibn Haadee.
[3]: Shaykh Muqbil – rahimahullaah – said about his famous book, al-Halaal wal-Haraam, “As for this one, then it is a disfigured book.  And it is a small book!  This demonstrates the scope of your knowledge.  If an individual were to write about the halaal and the haraam, then it would surely reach volumes.  Indeed, Shaykh al-Fawzaan has refuted it in a book that he called: Naqdul-Halaal wal-Haraam.”  Refer to al-Majroohoon ’indal-Imaamil-Waadi’ee (p. 103) of ’Aadil as-Siyaaghee.
[4]: Saheeh: Related by Aboo Daawood (no. 4252), ad-Daarimee in his Sunan (no. 209) and Ahmad in al-Musnad (no. 21888).  It was authenticated by al-Albaanee in Saheeh Sunan Abee Daawood (no. 3577).
[5]: Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 5685), Muslim (no. 2591), Aboo Daawood (no. 4792), at-Tirmidhee (no. 1996) and Ahmad in al-Musnad (no. 23586).
[6]: Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 5720).
[7]: Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 673), Muslim (no. 465), Aboo Daawood (no. 790), an-Nisaa‘ee (no. 835) and Ahmad in al-Musnad (no. 13778).
[8]: Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 30), Muslim (no. 1661), Aboo Daawood (no. 5157) and Ahmad in al-Musnad (no. 20291).
[9]: Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 647), Muslim (no. 418), Maalik in al-Muwatta‘ (no. 414) and Ahmad in al-Musnad (no. 25348).
[10]: Shaykh Muqbil has stated about him, “You are nothing but an innovation and you come with innovation and you argue with misguidance.  And if Allaah so wills, we shall come out with a book entitled, Iqaamatul-Burhaan ’alaa Dalaal ’Abdir-Raheem at-Tahhaan (Establishing Evidence for the Misguidance of ’Abdur-Raheem at-Tahhaan).  So if only you would lower yourself and learn and study Saheehul-Bukhaaree and Muslim and Fathul-Majeed and other than those.”  Refer to Fadaa‘ih wan-Nasaa‘ih (p. 249).

Translation by Maaz Qureshi

[Q]: Can one possess both love and hatred for an innovator?

[A]: Love for the sake of Allaah and hatred for the sake of Allaah is the most trustworthy handhold of eemaan (faith).  And it encompasses love for the sincere and truthful Believers, because you love them for the sake of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic.

And hatred encompasses hatred for the hypocrites and the disbelievers, along with their variant categories.  Likewise, it encompasses hatred for the people of innovation, because they have a share in opposing the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (’alayhis-salaatu was-salaam); each of them shares in this in accordance to his innovation (bid’ah).  And they have a share in agreeing with the disbelievers and the hypocrites in these oppositions with regards to ’aqeedah (creed) and manhaj.  So they consequently take their portion from the hatred.

And when we reflect upon the speech of the Salaf and when we comprehensively study the books of the Sunnah, then we do not find this apportionment.  That is, the apportionment of the heart concerning the affair of the people of innovation into love from an angle and hatred from another angle.  We do not find that.  We do not find anything from the Salaf, except an encouragement to hate them and to boycott them.  Rather, a number of Imaams have mentioned an ijmaa’ (consensus) upon hating them, boycotting them and separating from them.  This has been mentioned by a number of Imaams, from them: Imaam al-Baghawee (d.516H) – rahimahullaah – the author of Sharhus-Sunnah and the author of at-Tafseer and other than these two from beneficial writings. [1] And he is an Imaam from the Imaams of the Sunnah and perhaps he is to be counted from amongst the revivers of the Religion.  Likewise, Imaam as-Saaboonee (d.449H), the author of Sharh ’Aqeedatus-Salaf Ashaabil-Hadeeth, and other than him have mentioned an ijmaa’ (consensus) upon hatred for the people of innovation and boycotting them and separating from them. [2] This consensus occurred from the Companions and those who came after them. [3]

And I do not believe that an individual is capable of combining between love and hatred and apportioning them and dividing them into two categories: hatred in accordance to whatever the person has committed from innovation, and love due to whatever has remained upon him from the Sunnah.  So this is a burden that cannot be endured.  And everyone can have his statement accepted or rejected, even if this statement was uttered by a man from amongst the Imaams of Islaam.  And his statement is evaluated as the statements of the Imaams of the Sunnah are evaluated.  We accept whatever is found therein from truth and raise it above our heads.  And whatever is an error, then it is rejected.  Everyone can have his statement accepted or rejected, except the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam).

And the Salaf interacted with the statements of the Companions.  So they maintained respect and honour for them, but they did not accept the errors from them.  So infallibility is not for anyone but the Messenger of Allaah (’alayhis-salaatu was-salaam) and for the Prophets (’alayhimus-salaatu was-salaam) in whatever they convey.  As for other than them, then they are not infallible from falling into error.

Due to this, you would see that they did not accept something from the statements of ’Umar (radiyallaahu ’anhu), nor something from the statements of ’Uthmaan (radiyallaahu ’anhu), in which there was a problem.  They would then reject it.  And they would reject something from the statements of ’Alee, something from the speech of Ibn ’Abbaas and something from the speech of Ibn Mas’ood and from the speech of the Major Imaams after them: from the statements of Sa’eed Ibnul-Musayyib (d.93H) and from the statements of Maalik (d.179H) and al-Awzaa’ee (d.157H) and ath-Thawree (d.167H) and ash-Shaafi’ee (d.204H) and Ahmad (d.241H) and other than them.

They accepted from their speech whatever was in conformity to the truth and whatever agreed with the Book and the Sunnah and they respected them and were pleased with him.  And they believed about them that they were mujtahidoon (Scholars capable of ijtihaad) and they were rewarded, even if they erred.  And this was in issues wherein ijtihaad (independent reasoning) is permissible.  And that occurs in the absence of a text from Allaah and from His Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam).

As for innovations in ’aqaa‘id (beliefs) and manaahij (methodologies), then this obligates hatred for the one who innovates therein.  So the statement that we love him in accordance to what he possesses from Sunnah and we hate him accordance to whatever has from innovation, then this speech was not found amongst the Salaf.

Indeed, we have debated this ideology in some of the written works [4] in refutation of the people of al-Muwaazinaat [5] and those who are connected to al-Muwaazinaat and who hide behind the statement of Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728H) who held that an individual is to be loved in accordance to what he possesses from the Sunnah and hated in accordance to what he possesses from innovations.  And we refuted these things with speech from the Salaf and their positions. [6] Rather, with their consensus.  I ask Allaah to establish us firmly upon the Sunnah.

However, hatred fluctuates.  Hatred for the Jew is more intense than the hatred for the Christian.  We hate the Christians and we hate the Jews, we do not love them.  However, the Jew is more staunch in enmity,

“You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the Believers to be the Jews and those who associate others with Allaah.” [Sooratul-Maa‘idah 5:72]

So the Christians have a slighter hatred for the Muslims than the Jews and a slighter animosity.  And this is something confirmed, it has been confirmed by the current state of affairs and throughout history.

So the Muslim is able to live in the lands of the Christians, as you see many of the Muslims living in the lands of the Christians, but they are not able to live in the lands of the Jews.  Rather, the Jews overtake them in the lands of the Christians, let alone their own lands.  Likewise, the Sunnee is not able to live amongst the Rawaafid.  So he will find therein suppression, suffering and perils that he would not find even amongst the Jews.  How can we love the Rawaafid despite what they have from views of disbelief and when they hate us more than the hatred of the Jews?  How can we love them?  And how can we divide love up between us and them?

The point is that when you read the books of all the Salaf, you do not find this Muwaazinaat (counterbalancing).  And when we hate the people of innovation from the Soofiyyah and other than them, and they are many sects, and when we hate the Ash’ariyyah and other than them, we do not hate them in the same manner that we hate the Jews and Christians.  Meaning, love is like eemaan, it increases and decreases and it fluctuates with regards to the servants.  And hatred is likewise.  My hatred for the Jews is not same as my hatred for the Christians, which is not the same as my hatred for the people of innovation.

And when the disbelieving Jews and Christians transgress against the likes of the Ashaa’irah and the Soofiyyah, then we defend them (i.e. the Ashaa’irah and the Soofiyyah) and we aid them in facing those enemies (i.e. the Jews and Christians), even though we hate them and they hate us with an intense hatred.  They do not have this apportionment.  So it is obligatory upon them to love us and return back to what we have with us.  However, there is no love and there is no justice.  Rather, some of their extremists become fanatical, so they declare us disbelievers out of oppression and enmity.  And we do not declare them disbelievers and we do not display towards them the enmity to be shown to the disbelievers. [7]

Endnotes:
[1]: Imaam Aboo Muhammad al-Husayn Ibn Mas’ood al-Baghawee (d.516H) – rahimahullaah – said, “Indeed, the Companions and the taabi’oon and their followers and the Scholars of the Sunnah have proceeded upon this, having consensus and agreement with regards to enmity towards the people of innovation and boycotting them.”  Refer to Sharhus-Sunnah (1/227) of al-Baghawee. [TN]
[2]: Imaam Aboo ’Uthmaan Ismaa’eel Ibn ’Abdur-Rahmaan as-Saaboonee (d.449H) – rahimahullaah – said whilst speaking about the Salaf, “And they were in agreement, along with that, upon subduing the people of innovation and humiliating them, disgracing them, banishing them and driving them away.  They held that one must maintain a distance from them and from whosoever associates with them and is intimate with them.  And they must seek nearness to Allaah the Mighty and Majestic by avoiding them and boycotting them.”  Refer to ’Aqeedatus-Salaf wa Ashaabul-Hadeeth (p. 123) of as-Saaboonee. [TN]
[3]: Ibn ’Asaakir (d.571H) related this consensus from Imaam al-Awzaa’ee (d.157H) in Taareekh Dimashq (6/362), Ibn Battah (d.387H) narrates it from ’Abdur-Rahmaan Ibn Abee Zinaad in al-Ibaanah (2/532), Aboo Nu’aym al-Asfahaanee (d.430H) relates it from al-Fudayl Ibn ’Iyaad (d.187H) in Hilyatul-Awliyaa‘ (8/104), Saalih Ibn Ahmad (d.266H) narrates it from his father Imaam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (d.241H) in his Masaa‘il (2/166-167), al-Muzanee (d.264H) mentions it in his Sharhus-Sunnah (p. 85) and al-Aajurree (d.360H) mentions it in ash-Sharee’ah (3/574). For many such examples, refer to Ijmaa’ul-’Ulamaa‘ ’alaa Hajr wat-Tahdheer Ahlil-Bid’ah wal-Ahwaa‘ of Khaalid adh-Dhufayree.  [TN]
[4]: Refer to the author’s magnum opus, Manhaj Ahlus-Sunnah fee Naqdir-Rijaal wal-Kutub wat-Tawaa‘if, as it contains almost two hundred pages of scholarly refutation upon the doubts of Salmaan al-’Awdah and Ahmad Ibn ’Abdur-Rahmaan as-Suwayyaan. [TN]
[5]: The innovation of al-Muwaazinaat refers to obligating the mention of good qualities possessed by the individual being criticized.  Shaykh Saalih Ibn Fawzaan al-Fawzaan said about it, “When you mention their good qualities it means that you are calling to following them.  No, do not mention their good qualities.  Mention the errors that they are upon only.”  Refer to As‘ilatul-Manaahijil-Jadeedah (p. 31-32) of Jamaal al-Haarithee. [TN]
[6]: From the individuals who have used this view to dilute the position of Ahlus-Sunnah towards the people of innovation in our time is Abul-Hasan al-Ma‘ribee, he said, “And I believe that the Muslim is shown allegiance and enmity and loved and hated and joined and boycotted in accordance to whatever he has from goodness and evil and Sunnah and innovation (bid’ah), and in accordance to his zeal for goodness and his pursuit of it, or his following of his own desire and his oppression against the people of the truth, along with weighing the benefits and the harms.”  Refer to Majmoo’ Rudood (p. 295) of Rabee’ al-Madkhalee.
[7]: Refer to ’Awnul-Baaree (2/978-981) of Rabee’ al-Madkhalee.

Translation by Maaz Qureshi

 

[fap_track id=”3233″ layout=”list” enqueue=”no” button_enqueue=”no”]
[Q]: The questioner is asking: how do we deal with those who spread nameemah (tale carrying) amongst the students of knowledge and cause splitting and separation between the Salafees who are known for istiqaamah (steadfastness)?

[A]: Listen, may Allaah bless you, this question leads me to something that I would like to bring your attention, and that is that you know that there are those who are hidden in the ranks of the Salafees from the followers of ’Ar’oor, al-Maghraawee, al-Ma‘ribee, al-Halaabee and the Haddaadiyyah.

These individuals are present, hidden within the ranks. Also, in this time there are those who are known as Hajooriyyah. So these individuals, may Allaah bless you, should be advised and they are requested to leave these affairs. However, if they persist upon these calamities and tribulations, then they should be abandoned and are warned from! This is because these calamities and tribulations have harmed the Salafees and have divided them.

And these individuals do not want to be upon the Salafee manhaj. Rather, their desire is only for their Scholars and their corrupt manhaj. For this reason it is upon you to be attentive to this matter. Also, I will bring your attention to another matter, which is that these individuals who are hidden (amongst the Salafees), they will not come to you calling you to follow al-Halabee, al-Ma‘ribee or ’Ar’oor, rather they come to you as if they are Salafees and perhaps they may even praise Shaykh Rabee’ in front of you.

Look at their trickery! So you can be deceived and then they reel you in. So for this reason, (know) that this is from their signs, causing division between the (Salafee) youth, spreading nameemah amongst them, creating problems and fitan (trials). If we find from them the likes of this, we advise them to leave the likes of this speech, if they are those who make apparent that they are upon Salafiyyah. But if they persist upon this they are abandoned and they are warned against. If they persist after that, they are abandoned and warned against! For indeed the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), if he found that a person lied he would focus his sight upon them as if he was angry or annoyed until they repented. These individuals (today) are worse than these liars, they cause separation between the people with the likes of this speech (nameemah) and cause corruption between relationships, and the one who does such is like), as the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) mentioned, “It is the shaver, which cuts down the Religion.” [1]

Endnotes:
[1]: Saheeh: Related by at-Tirmidhee (no. 2508) and Ahmad in al-Musnad (no. 1433).  It was authenticated by al-Albaanee in Ghaayatul-Maraam (no. 414).

Translation by Abu Suhayl Anwar Wright

 

 

[fap_track id=”3224″ layout=”list” enqueue=”no” button_enqueue=”no”]
[Q]: O Shaykh, one of them relates, using as evidence a statement (he claims) is from one of the Scholars: that it is not obligatory for every Salafee to cooperate with every Salafee, so is this statement correct – O Shaykh? [1]

[A]: No, this is incorrect. The Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said,

 

“The Believer to the Believer is like a structure, one part strengthens the other.” [2]

 

And he (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said,

“The likeness of the believers in their mutual love and mutual compassion is the like of one body, if one body part complains, the rest calls out with fever and sleeplessness.” [3]

And when the word believer is used what is intended is the Salafee and the person of Sunnah and the one who is devout and pious. Also Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728H) has a famous statement,

“Ahlus-Sunnah are the most knowledgeable of the people in regards to the truth and the most merciful of the people to the creation.” [4]

So this statement, which was mentioned, is not correct; that it is not obligatory for every Salafee to cooperate with every Salafee. No! The Salafee is with the Salafee. (For example) we give you lectures whilst you are in America and some others do not know us, and they have never physically seen us. Is this not the case? Do any of you have an objection to this? Many have not seen us physically, right or wrong? The Sunnah is the Sunnah where ever it is. The distinguishing characteristic of Ahlus-Sunnah is that they are united, heart and soul, even if there is a lengthy distance between them physically. As for their hearts, then that (distance) does not cause any separation between their hearts.

Endnotes:

[1]: This is one of the principles being used to disassociate us from working with the Salafees whom the likes of Shaykh Rabee’ Ibn Haadee and Shaykh ‘Ubayd al-Jaabiree have advised co-operating with.
[2]: Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 467), Muslim (no. 2585), at-Tirmidhee (no. 1928), an-Nisaa‘ee (no. 2560) and Ahmad in al-Musnad (no. 19128).
[3]: Related by Muslim (no 2856) and Ahmad in al-Musnad (no. 17907).
[4]: Refer to Minhaajus-Sunnah (5/158) of Ibn Taymiyyah.

Translation by Abu Suhayl Anwar Wright

This is the text sent out by Aboo Muhammad al-Jamaykee and it entails what follows:

“Salaam Alaikum Shaykh, I wanted to inform you that Shaykh Ubayd after Abdur Razzaq visited him, he agreed to teach a class for the seminar and also a class once a month at masjid ahlil Hadeeth. I am sending you this text to show the trickery of our salafee brothers, please inform the brothers, the non speakers who were present in that meeting of deception, may (Allah) rectify our affairs Ameen. You have my permission to send this to anyone you please” Abu Muhammad Nadir ibn Uzaer al Jamaky.

Shaykh ’Ubayd: In the name of Allaah, all praises are for Allaah and may His prayers and salutations be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family and all of his followers, as to proceed:

Perhaps the individual known as Naadir al-Jamaykee, whose kunyah is Aboo Muhammad intends by this text the meeting that was attended by Aboo Muhammad Ridwaan al-Maghribee, Hasan Ibn Husayn as-Somali and brother Anwar al-Amreekee. The summary of what occurred in that meeting is that the aforementioned brothers, and they are known to me to be upon Salafiyyah and being steadfast upon the Sunnah and calling to Allaah the High and Exalted, we deem them to be upon this and Allaah is their Reckoner. They requested from me advice and guidance in some affairs, so we gave them direction to that which was suitable for their situation and to that which will fulfill my responsibility (before Allaah), and this is what the meeting concluded upon. Likewise, I do not remember the date of the meeting, but I am certain it was last year, so this is the first matter.

The second matter is, there never occurred between me and our brother ’Abdur-Razzaaq a definitive promise (as regards to the lectures and classes), however between us was an appointment, under the condition of Allaah willing, for that. He requested from me to give a talk at a seminar being held in a few months and he requested from me a monthly lesson, so I said to him, “Inshaa‘ Allaah”. Here is an indication of Allaah willing that to occur, and it was not something definitive; perhaps I may fulfill that or perhaps I may not be able to. And our brother ’Abdur-Razzaaq is from our sons and is a graduate of the Islaamic University (of al-Madeenah).

The third matter is regarding the statement of Aboo Muhammad Naadir al-Jamaykee, “deception.” I do not know what he intends by this. So if he is calling that meeting and what occurred in it between me and the brothers Hasan as-Somali, Anwar al-Amreekee and Aboo Muhammad al-Maghribee deception, we request that he brings his proof, and if he cannot do so then he is a liar in that which he said. Also, this man is unknown to me (majhool). I remember that he called me once or twice many years ago, but there was never a relationship between him and I, so he made a judgement from mere conjecture and he fabricated against us and the brothers in that meeting what we did not say, not me or them! Because in it there was no mention of anyone specific to me, rather it was only that those aforementioned brothers sought my advice and I gave them my advice and direction regarding some matters which the affair of da’wah requires. May Allaah send prayers and salutations upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family and all of his followers.

Dictated by ’Ubayd Ibn ’Abdillaah Ibn Sulaymaan al-Jaabiree, former teacher in the Islaamic University of al-Madeenah, Saturday after Maghrib, 3^rd of Jumaadaa al-Aakhirah 1434H, corresponding to the 13^th of April 2013CE.

Translation by Abu Suhayl Anwar Wright

The following are selected questions and answers from Aboo Rawaahah ’Abdullaah Ibn Eesaa al-Mawree’s published questions to Shaykh ’Ubayd al-Jaabiree on the topic of polygamy.

[Q.5]: Some people of knowledge exclude from the impermissible backbiting (gheebah), the backbiting a woman commits against her co-wife, so what is the ruling concerning that?

[A.5]: First of all we say: where did they derive that exception from? It is incumbent that this be supported with evidence for indeed the origin of backbiting is that it is impermissible. Also, backbiting is not permissible except when a legislative matter cannot be achieved except by way of it, and one does not go beyond what needs to be mentioned out of necessity. So until today, I do not know of any evidence that permits a woman to back bite her co-wife, meaning out of oppression and transgression. However, if it is due to a defect regarding her Religion, whether this defect necessitates fisq (i.e. being a rebellious sinner) or kufr (disbelief), then she (i.e. the co-wife) is like everyone else and should be warned against and there is no problem with this.

Also, I just now remembered his statement (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) to ’Aa‘ishah (radiyallaahu ’anhu) when she said, “It suffices you regarding so and so that she is short.” She meant by this: Safiyyah, may Allaah be pleased with all of them. He (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, “Indeed, you have said a word, if it was mixed with the sea it would have changed its odor and taste.” [1]

He (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said this, or close to this meaning.  At any rate, back biting is impermissible and nothing is excluded from this except what constitutes necessity as we previously mentioned.

[Q.13]: Is it necessary that each wife have a bayt shar’ee and what are the conditions of this type of house? [2]

[A.13]: A separate house specific for the wife is from her legislated rights. Because of this the people of knowledge have said that one should not have two wives in one house, meaning in a small house which is one dwelling; except if they both agree. You find some people who place each wife in their own room, but if they agree to this there is no objection. However the origin is that each of them has their own separate house in which she does not have to share with anyone, except perhaps his or her family members and other than them who may visit, and their affair is well known. But again, this house belongs to her and she possesses the keys and she does in it the likes of what women normally do in their homes. Also the bayt shar’ee differs according to different circumstances and different customs. Custom plays a part in this. You find that the dwelling of the Bedouin women is not like the dwelling of the city women. Even the types of dwellings of the city women differ.

Also the condition of the husband should be examined and what he is able to afford. Because of this we advise the men not to marry women who are above them in social status; meaning from the aspect of wealth and money. He therefore should seek a woman similar to him in social status or a class lower.

[Q.14]: Perhaps the first wife acquired jewelry and furniture from her husband over a long period of time, so is it obligatory for him to give to the second wife the likes of what the first has of furniture and jewelry?

[A.14]: The first wife has preceded in marriage with the husband and has previously received things before the co-wife came along. So due to this long relationship, she acquired things of jewelry and furniture, so it is not required of him that he gives the second wife all of this; because the first received what she received due to her long marriage. So if he wants to be equal and just regarding both of them as Allah the Mighty and Majestic commanded, he must start this from the time of marriage (i.e. when he took on the second wife). Meaning, whatever comes about in the future (he must be just). However, as far as the past, he is not commanded to make the second equal to the first.

[Q.17]: A man wants to get married and he already has a wife. However, he is afraid that some family problems may occur between him and his first wife, keeping in mind that by him taking on a second wife will protect him from evil and fitnah (i.e. fornication etc…), so which of these two harms are greater?

[A.17]: I say in response to this: polygamy is the right of the man just as Allaah commanded,

“Marry the women that you like, two, three or four.” [Sooratun-Nisaa‘ 4:3]

So it is a right of his and she has no right to prevent him. Also we previously said that if she dislikes that, meaning she does not like that her husband marries a second, this is from her fitrah (natural disposition), but it is not permissible that she harms him in his self or his wealth. As for what the questioner thinks, that problems will occur between them, this matter in reality returns to him. If he is able to solve his problems and to suffice each of them (their needs) so that the first will have nothing to say about the second (this should be done). For example, that he makes both of their homes far apart, this will be something recommended in this instance.

Also the questioner mentioned that polygamy will protect him from fitnah. What is apparent is that the first wife is unable to keep him chaste and this is that which emphasizes the obligation of polygamy upon him. However, just to keep good relations, he should make her feel good and speak to her in a soft manner and also show her that he did not get a second wife because he doesn’t desire her anymore, nor because she is falling short in her duties; rather because it is a matter which Allaah legislated so he wants to enjoy what Allaah made permissible for him. Also, he should promise her that he will not deprive her of her rights and he will not fall short regarding her. Also he promises her that he will (continue) to maintain good relations with her and he will not forget her good companionship to him. He should mention these goodly words; but if she stubbornly resists and he sees himself capable of being just and that polygamy will keep him chaste, let him take another wife and let him not worry about her.

[Q.18]: A woman harms herself when her husband takes another wife, so if the husband does this (i.e. takes another wife in this instance) is he sinful?

[A.18]: No, never, she is sinful and this is his right! And in reality this shows the weakness in her Religion.

[Q.19]: What is the ruling on the one who sees that by often mentioning to his wife that he will take on another wife, in this is a preparation in order to lessen the problems when the marriage actually takes place? Or is it better that he remains silent and does it when she does not expect it?

[A.19]: My opinion is that it is best that one is balanced, and this is by him not speaking to her about polygamy, lest he may hurt her feelings. However, when he is ready, he speaks to her in a good, soft way, just as preceded. Also he should make her beautiful promises and fulfill those promises. Likewise he should fulfill with her that which he was already accustomed to doing with her in having good dealings. As for just surprising her with this (i.e. getting another wife), I do not see this to be correct.

[Q.20]: Is it a condition to have the permission of the wife before one takes on another wife? Also if they (i.e. her family, walee (guardian), etc.) make a condition upon him not to take on other wives, does he fulfill that condition, although he fears for himself fitnah and becoming sinful?

[A.20]: As for him seeking her permission, then we have already spoken about this (in a previous question) so there is no need to repeat. As for making a condition upon the man that he does not take on a second wife, the most correct opinion is that it is a shart baatil (an invalid condition) because it is not found in the Book of Allaah. [3]

[Q.22]: If one of the wives does not cook lunch for her husband or other than that, is it then permissible for him to go to the other wife’s house and eat there?

[A.22]: This affair should be examined. If the wife was able to cook or buy food then in reality she is negligent and he has the right to go and eat at the other wife’s house. However, if a matter intervened that did not allow her to prepare the food and was out of her hands, he is not allowed to go to the other wife’s house. Rather, he should buy food for everyone or give her some time to allow her to cook.

[Q.27]: O Shaykh – may Allaah preserve you – some people claim that the only obligation upon the wife is to give herself intimately to her husband, and it is not incumbent upon her to take care of the house, clean and carry out her husband’s needs?

[A.27]: This is another matter – may Allaah bless you – the woman should take care of the needs of her husband according to what is done customarily amongst the people (i.e. of her land, tribe, background etc.).

Endnotes:
[1]: Saheeh: Related by Aboo Daawood (no. 4875) and at-Tirmidhee (2/82), Ahmad in al-Musnad (6/189) and at-Tahaawee (2/19).  It was authenticated by al-Albaanee in Ghaayatul-Maraam (no. 427).
[2]: A bayt shar’ee is the house usually found in Arab countries where a part of the house consists of a majlis (large living room) and the bathroom is sectioned off from the main part of the house with a separate entrance in order to avoid mixing when either the wife or husband has guests, and Allaah knows best.
[3]: Here the Shaykh is refering to the hadeeth of ’Aa‘ishah (radiyallaahu ’anhaa) that the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, “What is wrong with people who impose conditions that are not found in the Book of Allaah? Whatever condition imposed and not found in the Book of Allaah is invalid, even if it be one hundred conditions. Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 2729) and Muslim (no. 1504). This footnote is in the original Arabic text by Aboo Rawaahah.

Translation by Abu Suhayl Anwar Wright

The Noble Shaykh said,

“I have nothing to add in regards to what was mentioned by the Scholars who previously spoke. However, just to return to the order of what was mentioned, it is incumbent to know that we find that all the Ghulaat (extremists) in every time and place, beginning from the time of  the Juhaymaan, then the Haddadiyyah in its initial stage, then the followers of Faalih and then the Haddadiyyah now, which is in its second stage. We know from history that the Scholars of Tawheed and Sunnah, they are those who in reality set out to refute this ghuluww. They suppress and fight against it with evidences and putting up a blockage in front of it.

On the other hand, the method of the people of Ghuloo in speaking ill of Ahlus-Sunnah is also from the ways of old amongst Ahlul-Bid’ah, past and present. This way was used by ’Abdur-Rahmaan ’Abdul-Khaaliq when he used the Juhaymaaniyyah as a bridge in order to attack Ahlus-Sunnah and to war against them. Then also Salmaan al-’Awdah used the Khubaybiyyah as a bridge to attack Ahlus-Sunnah because of what they possessed from extremism, harshness and going beyond the bounds of the rulings of justice and Sunnah. Likewise, when a group arose from the followers of Faalih, the people of Turaath (Ihyaa‘ut-Turaath in Kuwait) and other than them, they took it as a bridge to attack and warn against Ahlus-Sunnah and fight against them.

And the Haddadiyyah today are in their second stage, the intimate adherers of the different groups of partisanship took the same path of those who preceded them from the people of innovation in waging war against the people of Sunnah by way of describing them of being from the Haddadiyyah. The intimate adherers to the groups of partisanship who wish to erase from history an affair which just cannot be erased by a pencil; and this is the Jihaad (struggle) of Shaykh Muhammad Amaan al-Jaamee – rahimahullaah – which was started from the fruits of the da’wah of the three major Imaams of the Sunnah. It became clear by way of the Jihaad of Shaykh Muhammad Amaan and Shaykh Rabee’.

So the intimate adherents to the groups of partisanship seek to totally erase from history the mention of Shaykh Rabee’. For this reason you only find them mentioning “Jaamiyyah, Jaamiyyah.” Where is the mention of Shaykh Rabee’, whereas his life, efforts and his Jihaad has spread much more?

Rather, Shaykh Muhammad Amaan  al-Jaamee – rahimahullah – the fruits of his da’wah did not become apparent and did not spread as they did, except through the Jihaad of Shaykh Rabee’. So today the intimate adherents of the groups of partisanship are repeating their history. Due to this, dear brothers, those who were responsible for organizing this sitting have done extremely well, having wisdom; as it entails a deep, great legislative meaning, which you must pay attention to.

Indeed, the Glorious Qur‘aan, and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) in their exposing of falsehood, evil and its darkness, they both tread the path of mentioning descriptions and (general) meanings so the Muslim who is taking benefit can benefit the affair of taking caution from the paths of evil, which have been described. Also at the same time, he will be able to implement these general meanings on specific situations. So in the path of clarifying the truth, it is incumbent that two affairs take place: The affair of clarifying general principles so that the Muslim, the person of Sunnah will be upon clarity and the affair of specification.

However, the affair of specification cannot be used in every situation and this is because you have in front of you different groups who have talawwun (they are shifty), they lie and they try to make apparent that they are upon the Sunnah. And Ahlus-Sunnah are those who are the most diligent upon actualizing al-’Adl (justice and fairness), and the rulings that go in accordance with ’adl. So they do not want to be responsible (before Allaah) for any errors so they may refrain from specifying a particular person with Haddaadiyyah, because Haddaadiyyah is a group that has some sort of ambiguity and vagueness. However, there are general descriptions that they have and by knowing these, it is possible for the Muslim, the person of Sunnah to know how to protect themselves from evil, and it is possible to look to the presence of specific qualities in specific people for the purpose of being cautioned from them.

1. The first characteristic: They abandon returning to and attaching the people to the well-known people of knowledge.
2. The second characteristic: Having bad etiquettes and harsh manners.
3. The third characteristic: they deem light the affair of defaming Ahlus-Sunnah and criticizing them.
4. The fourth characteristic is that they have hastiness in their authoring of books, to the point that if one of them read two hours a day, they haste to write three pages and spread it on the internet.
5. The fifth matter, is that they are amazed at themselves and are impressed at their own opinions.
6. The sixth matter is that they follow the peculiar matters (shudhoodh) and they have abnormality in following these matters.
7. The seventh matter: they fall short in implementing the proper order of knowledge based issues.
8. The eighth description is that they do not have an affair – for example we read from the Scholars and we find from the Scholars regarding the affair of making Tahiyyatul-Masjid when entering the mosque before sunset (i.e. as they differ whether they should be prayed or not due to it being waqtun-nahiyy, or the prohibited times of praying, it has been conveyed to us that some of our Scholars refrained for ten years (without a conclusive opinion) due to them pondering over this particular matter. As for these individuals, (the Haddaadiyyah), there is not one issue that they refrain from speaking about (out of piety and reserve).
9. The ninth matter is that they have specific [a word in the recording is unclear] between them and they only direct to themselves.
10. The tenth matter is that they have no concern for the weighing of harms and benefits and not giving the slightest importance to this great foundation which Ahlus-Sunnah are upon and which was mentioned by the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam).
11. The eleventh matter is that they use the foundations of the Sunnah and the Saved Sect as a means of strength for themselves, not as a means to abide by, practice and find guidance thereby.
12. The twelfth characteristic is that they hover around the issue of takfeer even if they do not mention it outright.
13. The thirteenth issue is that they declare ahaadeeth authentic and unauthentic by way of innovation and going to extremes and making ijtihaad which is outside the realm of the ways of the pious predecessors.

So these are some of their characteristics and many of them as you have heard have come in the speech of the people of knowledge, may Allaah reward them, and with this we suffice and Allaah knows best.

And may Allaah send prayers and salutations upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family and all of his Companions.”  End of Shaykh Ahmad’s words.

SOURCE: http://soundcloud.com/annahj/24-26

Translation by Abu Suhayl Anwar Wright