Shaykh Ahmad Baazmool on Statements of Muhammad Ibn Muneer “Muftee”
[Q]: He also says regarding one of the Salafee Scholars, one of the well known Scholars, he says, “When they asked Shaykh so and so regarding Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee in 2012CE was he an innovator that this Shaykh said, no he is not an innovator, rather he’s from Ahlus-Sunnah, he fell into some mistakes, benefit from him and leave his mistakes.”
Then this person said, meaning this student, “Am I calling to Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee, am I defending him, am I saying that he is or is not an innovator, I’m not saying that, but I want to prove a point, and this is, if someone else says that Abul-Hasan is not an innovator they will say about him he’s not Salafee, stay away from him. So what do you then say about Shaykh so and so and others from the scholars who did not declare him an innovator, are they also not Salafee, are they hizbiyyoon, are they Ikhwaanee, do they have misguided principles….?”
[A]: We say to you, may Allaah bless you, regarding this speech; this man is just as has preceded, he is either a jaahil (ignoramus) or either mutasattir (concealing his true reality) only wanting to speak ill of the Salafiyyeen. So the issue of Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee, is an issue in which differing occurred between the Scholars, from them are those who declared him an innovator, and from them are those who made tawaqquf (didn’t take a position initially) and said that he was a person who had errors but not an innovator and from them are those who did not declare him an innovator. So it is not permissible for this person to use the differing of the Scholars regarding this issue. This is the first thing. Secondly, the Scholars whom which he (the speaker) described as being upon the Sunnah, al-Hamdulillaah, it also emanated from them speech returning from those statements and they described him (al-Ma`ribee) as having talawwun (being shifty) and talaa’ub (playing games). Thirdly, it’s a difference between a Scholar who made ijtihaad and erred and between the person who knows the innovations and misguidance present in this person, it has been established with him that the Scholars declared him an innovator and he knows the errors of this individual then afterwards he uses as his proof those Scholars who deemed him trustworthy or upright. For verily this Scholar who is mujtahid has an excuse and he also has one reward. As for the muqallid (blind follower) who knows what is correct from what is erroneous, he is not excused. For verily the Scholars mention that whoever knows the error of his Shaykh and knows that the truth is elsewhere, he is obligatory to follow the truth and if he follows the errors (falsehood) of his shaykh then he is then following his desires and he is sinful.
Also from the aspects in which he is refuted (i.e the speaker) is that ikhtilaaf does not cause the main issue to become an issue which is problematic, rejected or not given consideration. Ikhtilaaf can occur, but what is taken into consideration is that which is most correct from this differing, knowing truth from error and what is correct from what is erroneous, so this type of speech is not permissible. I fear that this man is from the followers of al-Halabee or those who have a relationship with them and Allaah knows best.
[Q]: May Allaah reward you O Shaykh. As for the last question, he also says, “The ‘Ulamaa`. Allaahul-Musta’aan. It is very strange that there are some people who reject this and they say you cannot say that the Scholars are harsh. This is human nature. There are some people like ‘Umar (radiyallaahu ‘anhu) and Khaalid Ibn Waleed, and some individuals like Aboo Bakr as-Siddeeq who were soft, humble people. Tayyib. Therefore, if some of the Mashaayikh said this and some of the Mashaayikh said that, and some of the Mashaayikh said that. Whose statement will we look at first? The moderate one without a doubt. The one who has ilm, experience and is moderate. We wouldn’t take the one whose the harshest we wouldn’t take the one whose the most lax. We would take the moderate one firstly. Waadih?”
This is what he said O Shaykh so what is your comment upon this?
[A]: Firstly it is said, Aboo Bakr (radiyallaahu ‘anhu), he was known to be a man of wisdom and a person who possessed mercy and ‘Umar (radiyallaahu ‘anhu) was known to be a man of wisdom and intellect and possessed harshness, however the harshness of ‘Umar (radiyallaahu ‘anhu) was in truth and for the truth and did not prevent him from being just, for this reason the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) commanded the people to follow what Aboo Bakr and ‘Umar were upon.
Secondly, the Scholars who rejected the categorization of the Salafees to Mutashaddideen (harsh) and Muta’aqileen or Mutawassiteen (middle course or balanced), they criticized that which results from this categorization from not accepting the statement of the Scholars who are harsh. So ‘Umar (radiyallaahu ‘anhu), even though he was described to be harsh in the Religion of Allaah, his statement was still accepted, so those who describe the Salafee Scholars with tashaddud (harshness) they only intend to reject their statements because (as they claim) they are too harsh and are not balanced and this is the affair which is not accepted. Why is this affair not accept regarding their harshness, because there are biographies found in Siyar A’laamin-Nubalaa of people such as al-Khallaal and al-Barbahaaree and like Asad Ibn Moosaa and a number of people who were described as being firm (stern) upon the Sunnah, shadeed (harsh) upon the people of innovation and this description was that of praise not blame, as for those now who are hiding under the cloak of Salafiyyah and they are far from it, they make this a blameworthy description and a description that results thereby not accepting the statement, so therefore how great is the difference between the one heading east and the one heading west! So the speech of this man and him saying this in an absolute sense is incorrect. And the Scholars rejected describing Scholars with tashdeed (harshness), due to what results from that in not accepting their statement and also that it is a blameworthy description of this Scholar. Is this clear?
[Q]: Yes, O Shaykh, may Allaah reward you with goodness. Lastly Shaykh do you advise the common folk to take knowledge from the likes of this man?
[A]: By Allaah, it is apparent as I previously said that this man is either one who doesn’t understand and he has jahl (ignorance) and is grossly mixed up and confused or he is a person of talbeesaat (one who intentionally seeks to confuse the people with his speech) and whether it be this or that, it is upon this man to learn before he speaks and he should not be sat with.