Posted on

al-‘Allaamah ‘Ubayd Ibn ‘Abdullaah al-Jaabiree on Taking Knowledge from Books

[fap_track id=”3101″ layout=”list” enqueue=”no” button_enqueue=”no”][wpdm_package id=61]

The Noble Scholar, al-‘Allaamah ‘Ubayd Ibn ‘Abdullaah Ibn Sulaymaan al-Jaabiree was asked,

O Shaykh, may Allaah preserve you, can it be said that knowledge must not be taken, except from the mouths of the mashaayikh and the Scholars; and it is not to be taken from the internet and books?  And what is the instruction concerning that when the Prophet (‘alayhis-salaam) has said in a hadeeth saheeh, “Document knowledge through writing.”?

The Noble Scholar answered this question as follows,

There is no evidence in this hadeeth for this claim.  The hadeeth says, “Document knowledge…” Meaning, document whatever you have taken from a Scholar so that it does not escape you.  However, that which I have come to know from the biographies of the people of knowledge is that they did not prohibit taking knowledge from books at all.  They only called to taking knowledge from the mouths of its people.  This is the primary basis.  Yes.  And based upon this, it is possible to say that knowledge is obtained through two paths:

  1. The ideal path and the origin is to take knowledge verbally from its people.
  2. And the second path is utilized due to a need and incapability and it is to take knowledge from books.

And they used to say in times of old, “The individual whose Shaykh is his book, then his errors will outnumber his correct positions.”  Yes.

However, when the individual attains knowledge by studying under a Scholar or Scholars and takes the usool (foundations) of Sharee’ah knowledge from them and the ways of deriving rulings from proofs, or using texts as proofs for issues or ijmaa’ (consensus) with proficiency in Sharee’ah knowledge, then there is nothing to prevent him from researching independently and looking and applying what he took from his Shaykhs.

And perhaps a need within a country from amongst the countries may call for a man or men to look into the books of the people of knowledge and convey what they see to the people of their country, due to their need for it, and they do not have the ability to look into the issues and select the correct view.  No, they do not have the ability.  However, for example, an individual reads from books of the trusted Scholars in the topics of ‘aqaa`id (beliefs) and in the topics of fiqh (jurisprudence) and he clarifies and explains to the people what he understands then,

“Allaah does not burden a soul with more than it can bear.” [Sooratul-Baqarah 2:286]

This is what he can bear.

“Allaah does not burden a soul with more than it can bear.” [Sooratul-Baqarah 2:286]

And it is not permissible to prohibit the people from the likes of him, those who are in need of him.  Yes.

Then the Noble Shaykh was asked,

Shaykh, what if he reads to the people when he does not have knowledge and he says that he is reading from the likes of Shaykh Ibn Baaz (d.1420H) and Shaykh Ibnul-‘Uthaymeen (d.1421H)?  What should he do when he encounters disagreement (khilaaf) in some of the subsidiary issues?  This is with regards to the stronger action and with regards to reading to the people.

So the noble Shaykh replied,

This is something he does not have originally – meaning proficiency with which to distinguish the correct position from the weaker one.  However, this is his ability.  Yes, this is his ability.  And whosoever from amongst them is upon goodness and righteousness, then you will find that when a Scholar comes who is stronger than him, he entrusts the affair to the Scholar.  Yes.

End of Shaykh ‘Ubayd’s words.

SOURCE: These were questions that were posed to Shaykh ‘Ubayd in 1431H.  The recording can be obtained from the mosque in the Shaykh’s neighbourhood.

Translation by Maaz Qureshi

Posted on

Ash-Shaykh al-’Allaamah Saalih Ibn Muhammad al-Luhaydaan (hafidhahullaah) on the Disbelief of the Nation of Islam

[fap_track id=”3025″ layout=”list” enqueue=”no” button_enqueue=”no”][wpdm_package id=60]

[Q]: All praises are for Allaah, Lord of everything that exists and may His peace and Prayers be upon Muhammad, his family and his Companions. As to proceed:

O Shaykh there is found in America a religious sect who call themselves “The Nation of Islam” and they claim to be upon Islaam. Their beliefs are as follows:

  1. That generally, every black person is an incarnate of Allaah, specifically he is in the form of a man named Fard Muhammad, and that all whites are devils.
  2. That Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) was not the seal of all Prophets and Messengers and that Elijah Muhammad was indeed the last prophet and that he is the messiah and Mahdee expected to appear in the last days. They also deny Allaah resurrecting the creation and they consider the Resurrection to be a metaphor of one exiting from ignorance and gaining knowledge, and they have many other aspects of creed which are clear disbelief.

So the question, O Shaykh, is firstly: Is this sect a disbelieving sect, outside of the fold of Islaam. Second, what is the ruling on the common folk from amongst them? Third, are these individuals excused due to them living far away from the Scholars of Islaam and fourth, what is your advice to those who hesitate in declaring these individuals to be disbelievers?

[A]: In the name of Allaah the Most Beneficent, Most Merciful, all praises are for Allaah, and may His peace and prayers be upon His Messenger, the one whom Allaah sent as a mercy to the whole of mankind, and has made him the seal of all Prophets and Messengers. Thus, there is no prophet or messenger that will come after him.

These individuals, who were described in these three questions, are not Muslims. Did they accept Islaam before this as to say that they are even apostates?! It is not clear to me that they ever accepted Islaam. Their belief is a branch of that of the Hulooliyyah (those who say Allah becomes incarnate with His creation), however they claim that Allaah became incarnate within the blacks, and they claim that the whites are devils. And this is something that they use to offend and spite the whites. So in reality, the Muslim is a brother of a Muslim, and a condition for one to enter Islaam, is to testify that no deity has the right to be worshipped in truth except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and there is no prophet after him. The Muslim also believes in Allaah, His Angels, His revealed Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection, and believe in His Pre-Ordained Decree, the good and bad of it. Whoever does not believe in this, they are not a Muslim or a Believer (mu‘min). So whoever’s belief and creed is the likes of what was mentioned in the questions are not Muslims. Rather they are not Jews or Christians. Without a doubt, there is no Jew or Christian that comes after the sending of Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) except none of their actions will be accepted if they do not believe in Muhammad and enter the true Religion of Allaah. The destination of this person will be the Hellfire.

The Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said,

“There is not a Jew or Christian who hears about me and then dies not believing in what I was sent with (i.e. Islaam) except they will be from the people of the Hellfire.” [Related by Muslim (no. 240) and Ibn Mandah in Kitaabul-Eemaan (no. 401).]

Furthermore, I do not think that a Muslim who understands Islaam can have any doubt and hesitate in the disbelief of these individuals. There is no doubt in the disbelief of these individuals, and the common folk amongst them are not excused! The Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) did not excuse the disbelievers from the Arabs who died and those who remained living up until Muhammad was sent. He did not say they are excused because of their ignorance. Rather, he mentioned when a person came to him and asked him,

“What was the end result of my father?”  He (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, “Your father and my father are both in the Hellfire.” [Related by Muslim (no. 203).]

Allaah the Most High says,

“It is not for the Prophet or those who believe to seek forgiveness for the disbelievers, even if they were relatives.” [Sooratut-Tawbah 9:113]

Therefore it is not permissible for any Muslim to seek forgiveness for anyone who died upon disbelief. As for these individuals (i.e. the Nation) there is no doubt regarding their disbelief, and there is no doubt in the disbelief of those who know what they are upon and then say, “I do not declare them to be disbelievers.” The truth is that there is no such thing in this world as religions.

“Indeed, the only religion accepted by Allaah is Islaam.” [Soorah Aali-’Imraan 3:18]

Also, Allaah says,

“Whoever desires a religion other than Islaam, it will never be accepted from him.” [Soorah Aali-’Imraan 3:85]

So you find people who say, “religion, religion.” There are no religions in the world because whoever follows a religion other than that of Islaam, they are following a religion of falsehood. There is no difference between a Jew, Christian, Magian, or the idol worshipper who does not know about any of these religions but rather worships graves and other gods that they invent and call upon. All of this is disbelief, without a shadow of the doubt.

However, it is incumbent that these individuals (i.e. the nation) be advised for those who are able to do so. Allaah the Mighty and Majestic did not become incarnate with anything from His creation, nor did anything from His creation become incarnate with Him. This is merely the belief of the people of Hulool who distorted this from those who believe in Wahdatul-Wujood, meaning that everybody is Allaah and Allaah is everybody. And more amazing than this are these individuals who call to Wahdatul-Wujood and call themselves the Hulooliyyah, they do not exempt even the animals. They say that there is no such thing as the servant and Allaah (being separate) and all of this is clear misguidance, except that which the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) was upon and his Companions.

Allaah mentions,

“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and with a good admonition, and debate with them in a way that is better.” [Sooratun-Nahl 16:125]

And He says,

“Say (O Muhammad): This is my path, I invite to Allaah upon clear knowledge, me and those who follow me.” [Sooratul-An’aam 8:153]

It is incumbent upon those who are prepared to call them (i.e. to Islaam) to be gentle with them and also to clarify to them that they are only inviting them (i.e. to Islaam) with the desire to save them from a lasting painful torment. The Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said to ’Alee (Ibn Abee Taalib) during the expedition of Khaybar,

“That Allaah guides through you just one person, is better for you than red camels.” [Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 2783) and Muslim (no. 2406).]

The most precious of the wealth of the Arabs in al-Jaahiliyyah (pre-Islaamic times of ignorance) was the camels. And the best of the camels were the red camels.

So the Messenger of Allaah said this to ’Alee and this hadeeth is in al-Bukhaaree and Muslim. That if Allaah guides just one person through you is better for you than having the most precious of wealth. So we ask Allaah first and foremost to guide the misguided Muslims and then that He makes the Muslims…[speech unclear]. On top of this our souls should be tranquil because the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said,

“There will not come a time, except the time that comes after it will be more evil than it, up until you meet your Lord.” [Related by al-Bukhaaree (13/22).]

Also worship will not correct except that which was legislated by Muhammad. It is not for anyone to worship from what they deem to be good. The Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said,

“Whoever does an action not in accordance with our matter, it will be rejected.” [Related by Muslim (no. 1718).]

This hadeeth is in al-Bukharee and Muslim.

[Q]: So that I may be sure, it is not permissible that we have doubt about them being disbelievers?

[A]: No, how free is Allaah from all imperfection! A person of intellect will not have doubt regarding their disbelief. The disbelievers of old from Arab did not even say that Allah took on the form of the creation!

[Q]: So it is correct that we say that they are from the original disbelievers and never entered into Islaam?

[A]: They never entered into Islaam! Those who we say about them they are apostates are those who entered into Islaam and then left it. This is another aspect. The Prophet said,

“Whoever changes their Religion then kill them.” [Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 6922).]

And there is the other hadeeth,

“The blood of a Muslim is not permissible except due to one of three: Adultery, a life for a life, or the one who changes his Religion and departs the Jamaa’ah.” [Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 6878) and Muslim (no. 1678).]

Meaning, he departs Islaam.

End of Shaykh Saalih al-Luhaydaan’s words.

Translation by Abu Suhayl Anwar Wright

Posted on

AUDIO: Death – The Destroyer Of Lust & Desire by Hasan as-Somali

A fiery khutbah delivered by our noble brother Hasan as-Somali in Philadelphia, USA pertaining to the danger of attaching oneself to the worldly affairs and falling into sins and disobedience to Allaah. He gives extra attention and warning to those lovers of Facebook and Instagram who expose their sins on social media websites, by posting pictures of themselves and others. He brings great benefits from the works of the Salaf, in particular Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah in his tremedous book Ad-Dā’i wa Dawā (The Sickness and the Cure).

[fap_track id=”2952″ layout=”list” enqueue=”no” button_enqueue=”no”]

Posted on

AUDIO: Shaykh Aboo ‘Umar Usaamah al-‘Utaybee on the Statements of Muhammad Ibn Muneer “Muftee”

[fap_track id=”2223″ layout=”list” enqueue=”no” button_enqueue=”no”][wpdm_package id=53]

Shaykh Aboo ‘Umar Usaamah al-‘Utaybee on the Statements of Muhammad Ibn Muneer “Muftee”

 

[Q]: O Shaykh Usaamah, perhaps you have heard about the statements of an individual named Muhammad Ibn Muneer, he has made some statements.  And we would like your comments on his statements O Shaykh, if you would be so kind.

[A]: What are his important statements that he says?

[Q]: He differentiates between ar-Radd ‘alal-Mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel O Shaykh.  So he says for example yaa Shaykh, ar-Radd ‘alal-Mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) is one thing and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is something else.  Meaning, whosoever mixes between the two falls into problems and fumbles about…

[A]: Fine, we will begin with the first affair, may Allaah bless you.  Then we will move on to the second affair. do not know this individual, but I will speak about these things that you are mentioning from the one who said them.  So this statement, it is the differentiation between ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel as a complete differentiation, this indicates the ignorance of the one who spoke of it.  And when Allaah the Mighty and Majestic mentioned Fir’awn with kufr (disbelief) and that he claimed Uloohiyyah (divinity) and he claimed Ruboobiyyah (Lordship) for himself, and He mentioned his disbelief in Allaah the Mighty and Majestic and his striving in that, in the aayah of Allaah,

“And they belied those aayaat wrongfully and arrogantly, though their own selves were convinced thereof.  So see what was the end of the mufsidoon (evil-doers).” [Sooratun-Naml 27:14]

Then is this not a Jarh upon Fir’awn?  And is it not also from the radd (refutation) upon Fir’awn? The refutation upon his belief comprises al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel.  So al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is an aspect of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and it is an aspect of refuting the statements of the opponent (ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif).  So when he speaks about and claims that there is a difference between that and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, then this indicates his ignorance and his misguidance. because al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is a part of and cannot be separated from ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif (refuting the opponent).  Yes, it is true that refuting the opponents and those who have erred does not necessitate at-tajreeh (disparagement).  For example, when a Scholar of the Sunnah slips up and errs, then he is refuted with knowledge, but he is not disparaged (jarraha) due to that, especially when he is known for being upon the truth and striving to attain the truth, except that he has slipped up and erred in an issue.  So this involves the occurrence of an error amongst the righteous and the trutfhul and refuting their error. This is to be mentioned and refuted.

However, when the opponent who is being refuted is an innovator or a disbeliever, then the refutation upon him is not excluded from al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, not from the Jarh upon this disbeliever, nor from the Jarh upon this innovator.  This is because you are refuting his corrupt principles, which necessitate Jarh of him and expelling him from the Sunnah if he falsely and slanderously ascribes himself to it.  If the opponent reaches the level of a disbeliever or an innovator or a faasiq who is criminal in his belief and his statement, there is no doubt that the refutation upon him includes tajreeh (disparagement) of him, because these errors that he has committed obligate that he be refuted.

As for when what is intended by mukhaalif (opponent) is an opponent in an issue of ijtihaad (independent reasoning), or when the opponent is someone from Ahlus-Sunnah who slips up and errs but he is generally upon the truth, then this does not necessitate tajreeh (disparagement) of him.  Rather, his error is refuted.  So this is the detailed explanation of the issue.  The one who says that al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel has no connection to ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif or that there is a complete differentiation between the two of them, then such an individual is an ignorant liar.  And Allaah knows best.

[Q]: May Allaah reward you with goodness yaa Shaykh!  He also says, “Obedience to the rulers and the Scholars is not unconditional.  Rather, it is restricted.  If an individual says something that you do not agree with, then it is not permissible for someone to tell you, ‘It is obligatory upon you to accept his statement because he is a Shaykh, or because he is Shaykh so and so, or that Shaykh so and so said.’  This is not what the aayah said.”  And, Shaykh Usamaah, he intends by this to reject what Shaykh Rabee’ said about Taahir Wyatt because made this statement during his defence of Taahir Wyatt.

[A]: Yes.  This philosophy, with which some of the people philosophize, it is rejected from its proponents, because obedience to the Scholars and the rulers and obedience to the parents is obedience in that which is good.  It is only obedience when they command with good.  As for obedience to Allaah and His Messenger, then it is an unrestricted obedience.  And whoeover is obeyed outside of Allaah and His Messenger, then he is obeyed as part of obedience to Allaah and His Messenger.  This is well known and understood from the aayah.  No one says that the rulers must be obeyed in everything, even in disobedience to Allaah and no one says that it is obligatory to obey the Scholars when they err and slip up.  No one says such a thing.  However, the speech that is said to cause doubt in the rulings of the Scholars and which implies that the youth can make ijtihaad in affairs where they have no knowledge and that they can oppose the Scholars and say that it is not binding upon us to obey the Scholars; this is from ignorance.

So for example, when the ruler, or the father, or the husband when he orders his wife in a permissible affair, or an affair that the people consider from goodness, is it obligatory for him to be obeyed at that point?  The commander, regardless of whether he is the husband with his wife, or the ruler with his constituents, or some the people with the Scholar, then it is necessary that these individuals be obeyed, whether it is the ruler or the husband or the likes of that, regardless of whether it is in the affairs of the worldly life, even if he does desire this worldly affair.  So the person does not reply, ‘But my opinion is such and such,’ no!  If the affair is permissible (mubaah), then it is obligatory to obey the ruler and the wife must obey her husband and the son must obey his mother an,d his father.

As for the Scholars, then the obedience that is due to them is an obedience in the Religion.  Meaning, they clarify to the people what is halaal and what is haraam and they explain the ahkaam (religious rules and regulations) to the people and they clarify to them the rulings upon men, the rulings of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel.  The Scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets and it is necessary that they Scholars be revered and respected.  Allaah the Sublime and Exalted says,

“So ask the people of the reminder (knowledge) if you do not know.”

So questioning them obligates and makes it binding to follow what they answer from the truth and the guidance.  So if you have asked a Scholar about a man and the Scholar makes Jarh (disparagement) of him and warns you against him, it is binding upon you to listen to the speech of the Scholar, except if it becomes clear the Scholar has erred and opposed the truth, or if another Scholar has opposed him with proof, then the ruling is made with proof amongst the Scholars.  However, if the affair is from a specialized field of knowledge that a Scholar knows and he has a specific study in al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, especially the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel in modern times, Shaykh, al-‘Allaamah Rabee’ Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee, then his speech concerning the men is like pure honey.  It is speech based upon sound proofs, clarification and evidence.  So when he speaks with speech, it is obligatory upon the youth to listen to him and to obey him.  This due to the command of Allaah the Sublime and Exalted to them in His statement,

“O you who believe!  Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you.”

So if Shaykh Rabee’ has clarified that affair, and he, may Allaah reward him with goodness, does not speak, except with knowledge and proof, then obedience to him is obligatory.  And the one who says that obedience is not obligatory must clarify: why is it not obligatory?  Why is he causing doubt in the rulings of Shaykh Rabee’?  These people are diseased yaa Shaykh.  These are people of disease and people of innovation and people of desire.

They cause doubt in the rulings of the Scholars and they make themselves equals to the Scholars.  Meaning, they consider themselves as one of them has stated, ‘We are men and they are men.’  The truthful student of knowledge does not say such speech, it is only said by people who are unsteady and fickle and people of corruption.  These people want to separate the youth from the Scholars and they want the youth to be attached to them.  Meaning, the likes of this ignorant youth wants the people for himself, instead of connecting them to Shaykh Rabee’.  And he may deceive the people with the affair of Shaykh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbaad, that he opposed Shaykh Rabee’ in such and such an issue…  Where is the Salafee manhaj with these individuals?  The Salafee manhaj says to follow the proof and follow the Scholar who is most knowledgeable if you do not have the proof or you do not know it.  The Scholar with the most knowledge of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel and the knowledge of men in these times by agreement of the Scholars is Shaykh Rabee’.  He is the one who is specialized in this and the Imaams of Ahlul-Hadeeth have testified to this, such as Shaykh al-Albaanee and Shaykh Ibn Baaz and Shaykh Ibnul-‘Uthaymeen.

Due to this, those who say that the obedience to the Scholars is not unconditional, and they desire by this to reject the rulings of the Scholars, they are bring about fitnah (trial, tribulation).  However, they say that as long as obedience to them is in goodness and it is in obedience to Allaah and His Messenger, then there is no problem in that.  Indeed, this is truthful speech, but the intent should not be to nullify the speech of the Scholars.  Rather, it is obligatory upon the youth to be with their Scholars and to stick to them, as the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “The blessing is with your elders.”  Yes.

[Q]: Lastly, our Shaykh, he translated a lecture for the noble Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee – hafidhahullaah – when he commented upon three passages from Kitaabur-Rooh about the difference between naseehah (sincere advice) and gheebah (backbiting).  So I reminded this individual, yaa Shaykh, about what he translated for the noble Shaykh, Muhammad Ibn Haadee.  So he replied on Youtube saying, “Since when is it a condition that the translator must agree with everything that the lecturer says?  If I translate a book or a lecture, is it a condition that I take every letter said therein as my Religion in front of Allaah?  If it is a condition that the translator must accept everything the lecturer is saying, then bring the proof if you please.  And even if I did agree with everything that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee said (in that lecture) is this then to be applied in all situations?  Undoubtedly there is a difference between naseehah and gheebah, there is no doubt.  The Scholars have insight, however, the application!  Is this speech to be applied in all situations?  Respond please.”  This is how he said it yaa Shaykh, so what are your comments upon this speech of his?

[A]: This speech, which is his statement that it is not binding upon the translator to agree with the speech of the one for whom he is translating, then one of two affairs could be intended by this.  If he intends that he is not required to translate in a trustworthy manner and with truthfulness what the Scholar is saying, then such and individual is treacherous and he has made treachery permissible.  This is a treacherous person who has made treachery permissible, because he is a translator and the translator only clarifies the speech of the one whose speech is being translated.  So if his duty is merely to translate, then it is obligatory that it be trustworthy.  And if this speech contains that which is false, according to his thought, then he must translate the speech of the Shaykh and then he comments upon it if he is capable of that.  If we assume that there is a problem or an opposition in this speech, then he must clarify it in a translator’s note.  As for translating falsehood and concealing the speech of a Scholar, then this action of his is like the action of Banee Israa`eel from the Jews who concealed parts of the Torah and were treacherous.  So this treachery is not from the nature and the character of the Muslims.  And the Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Plotting and deception is in the Fire.”  And the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “And do not deceive the one who deceives you.”  And Allaah the Glorified and Exalted said,

“And do not be a pleader for the treacherous.” [Sooratun-Nisaa` 4:105]

And Allaah the Exalted said,

“And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves.” [Sooratun-Nisaa` 4:107]

So deception is a matter that is ignonimous.  So it is not permissible to be deceptive in translation.  Rather, it is obligatory to be truthful in it, especially when he is translating the speech of a Salafee Scholar who is well known for the Sunnah such as the Shaykh, al-‘Allaamah Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee.  So playing around and being deceptive in translating his speech is not from the attributes of Ahlus-Sunnah.  Rather, it is from the attributes of the people of desires.

And as for if the translator intended that it is not obligatory for him to be in agreement with what he is translating, then this is correct.  Meaning, his opinion could be in opposition to the speech that he is translating.  For example, he may translate a book of fiqh in which differing has occurred (between the Scholars).  So the Scholar will determine the soundest position from these issues and this student of knowledge may follow another Scholar, or he may follow a statement that opposes this Scholar.  There is no problem with this as long as it is done with proofs and evidence, and as long as this person is qualified to make this disagreement.  There is no problem in this.  Meaning, the translator is not required to agree with all of the speech that he translates, as long as he is trustworthy in conveying the information.  Then after he has conveyed the information as it is, he can say, `This speech has been opposed by such and such a Scholar and I say such and such,’ with proof and evidence.

However, who is this individual who deceives the people by translating for Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee, then he says, ‘I oppose him and I do not agree with him.’  Who are you to say such speech?  Is this from manners with the Scholars?  And who has burdened you with translating this lecture if you do not agree?  If you do not agree, then do not translate.  Or at the very least, be trustworthy in conveying the information, and then mention what opposes this speech with proof and evidence.  So the authority is with the proof.  And it was the manhaj of the Salaf to take the proof.  However, do not make these issues a means for reviling the Scholars and causing doubts in their rulings and playing around with the likes of these affairs.  And it is not permissible for the Muslim to be treacherous.  Yes.

[Q]: May Allaah reward you with good.  We shall suffice with this, yaa Shaykhanaa.  May Allaah reward you with good.

[A]: The important thing is to be cautious of these people of desires who are people of fitan (trials, tribulations) and people of unrest and those who do not stick to the objective of the Scholars and those who stir up these fitan. So Shaykh Rabee’ – hafidhahullaah – is familiar with what is going on in Masjid Rahmah and other than it from the mosques in America and he has given them an appropriate advice.  And it is obligatory upon the youth to be cautious and to warn against those who are stirring up these fitan and to remain far away from them.  These individuals are a disease like scabies, which is contagious and spreading amongst the people.  And it cannot be passed on, except in accordance with the command of Allaah.  However, these individuals are a people of fitnah, so be cautious of them and remain far away from them and warn the youth against them.  And Allaah the Exalted knows best.

 

Posted on

LECTURE: The Science of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel Exists in Our Times by Abu Suhayl Anwar Wright

[fap_track id=”2225″ layout=”list” enqueue=”no” button_enqueue=”no”][wpdm_package id=55]

Our noble brother, Anwar Wright – a graduate from the Islamic University of al-Madeenah – uncovers a deceptive doubt that al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel does not exist in our times and that it has ended. The speaker deals with those who attribute this doubt to al-‘Allaamah Saalih Ibn Fawzaan al-Fawzaan – may Allaah preserve him. Additionally, the speaker goes on to answer with the doubts spread by Muhammad Ibn Muneer “Muftee” ‘Abdul-Hameed. From the points of benefit found in this blessed lecture:

– A presentation of research from al-‘Allaamah al-Mu’allimee (d.1386H) demonstrating that praise and criticism is found firstly in the Qur`aan – it contains both praise and censure of specific individuals by their names
– Al-Mu’allimee also brings examples from the Salaf where praise and criticism of specific individuals occurred amongst the Companions and the taabi’een.
– Imaam at-Tirmidhee (d.274H) spoke in his book al-‘Ilal about those without understanding who found fault with the Ashaabul-Hadeeth for criticizing the people.
– ‘Abdullaah Ibnul-Mubaarak (d.181H), al-Awzaa’ee (d.157H), Sufyaan ath-Thawree (d.167H) and others were known for criticizing those who were accused of lying in hadeeth as well as the people of innovation.
– The Salaf spoke against the people of innovation and the liars out of jealousy for the Religion and out of a desire to clarify the truth.
– Ibn Rajab (d.795H) mentioned in Sharh ‘Ilalit-Tirmidhee that the Salaf of the Ummah have a consensus that it is permissible to speak out against the people of innovation and desires
– Ibn Rajab mentions the example of al-Hasan al-Basree (d.110H) and Taawoos (d.106H) – that they warned against Ma’bad al-Juhanee due to his denial of al-Qadr and Ibn Rajab mentioned that they did this for the benefit of the entire Ummah.
– What would be our condition if the likes of Imaam Ahmad (d.241H) didn’t refute the Jahmiyyah? What if the Scholars did not warn against the Khawaarij, the Shee’ah and the Qadariyyah?
– If the Scholars of the Ummah, such as al-‘Allaamah Rabee’ Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee – hafidhahullaah – did not warn us against the false principles of the Soofiyyah, al-Ikhwaanul-Muslimoon, Jamaa’atut-Tableegh and so on…what would be our condition? Would we know where to take knowledge from and where not to take it from?
– Likewise, if they did not warn against the likes of Bilaal Philips, Abu Muslimah, Abu Usaamah, Shadeed Muhammad and Taahir Wyatt, then what would be our condition?
– The speaker outlines Taahir Wyatt’s trickery and excuses when Shaykh Rabee’ asked him to clarify his position against Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee and ‘Alee al-Halabee.
– Abu Waleed al-Baajee and Ibn Hajr (d.852H) spoke about al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel well after the time of hadeeth narrators was over. They specified the criticism of innovators and that this is not from the impermissible backbiting.
– The speaker replies to Muhammad Ibn Muneer’s ignorant comment that the Salafees “threw Shadeed under the bus,” because they clarified to the people the misguidance of Shadeed’s statements.
– The speaker mentions the speech of al-‘Allaamah Saalih Ibn Fawzaan al-Fawzaan in refutation and criticism of ‘Adnaan ‘Ar’oor’s principles.
– The speaker mentions the falsehood in Muhammad Ibn Muneer’s statement, “I’m not really a fan of Fawzaan.”
– The speaker explains that Muhammad Ibn Muneer knows full well that these statements of his are false, because Ibn Muneer warned Anwar against Taahir Wyatt back in 2003CE, he also advised Anwar to purchase the book, Sharh ‘Ilalit-Tirmidhee of Ibn Rajab!
– The speaker clarifies that Muhammad Ibn Muneer knows the falsehood of his own statements because he was present when Shaykh ‘Abdullaah al-Bukhaaree clarified that al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel still exists in our times during his lessons on Dawaabit al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel in al-Madeenah! The speaker plays the pertinent section from the class and translates from it.
– An answer to Muhammad Ibn Muneer’s other doubts about al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel.
– Degrees are only of benefit when they are coupled with sound ‘aqeedah and manhaj, and degrees without sound ‘aqeedah and manhaj are of no use. The speaker mentions that two of the most prolific Salafee callers in the west did not have degrees: Abu Uways ‘Abdullaah Ibn Ahmad and Abu Talhah Daawood Ibn Ronald Burbank – rahimahumullaah.
– Answer to the arrogance of Muhammad Ibn Muneer when he claimed that Shaykh Muqbil (d.1421H) made an error when he called Yoosuf al-Qardaawee the “Barking Dog” in his famous book on al-Qardaawee.
– The speaker mentions that the likes of Shadeed Muhammad, Muhammad Ibn Muneer and Taahir Wyatt have been advised in secret before the warnings against them were made public.
– The speaker concludes with an advice to stick to those who are well-known for Salafiyyah in the West and defending it for years and refuting the people of deviation and those who are known to have contact with the people of knowledge, such as: Dawud Adeeb, Abu Zaynab Tawfeeq, Hasan as-Somali, Abul-Hasan Maalik, Kashiff Khan, Abu Hakeem Bilaal Davis, Abu Khadeejah ‘Abdul-Waahid and Abu ‘Iyaad Amjad Rafiq.

Posted on

AUDIO: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ramzaan al-Haajiree on Shaykh Rabee’s Attendance at the Conference for National Unity in Saudi Arabia‏

Recently, our noble brother, Hasan as-Somali presented a knowledge-based reply to Aboo Usaamah Khaleefah’s attempt to justify his co-operation with the hizbiyyeen by comparing his actions to Shaykh Rabee’ Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee attending the Conference for National Unity Saudi Arabia to present the views of Ahlus-Sunnah and refute the falsehoods of the Raafidah. Now Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ramzaan al-Haajiree further corroborates what Shaykh Saalih al-Luhaydaan and Shaykh Ahmad Baazmool have clarified.
[wpdm_package id=57]

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ramzaan al-Haajiree on Shaykh Rabee’s Attendance at the Conference for National Unity in Saudi Arabia

The Shaykh, Muhammad Ibn Ramzaan stated:

Yes, Shaykh Rabee’ Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee attended this event in which the crown prince gathered together various groups (tawaa`if) and they attended it. And the role of Shaykh Rabee’, as well as the role of others from the mashaayikh of Ahlus-Sunnah who attended was a role of sincere advice and clarification and elucidation of the misguidance that these (groups) are upon. And their (Shaykh Rabee’ and the mashaayikh of Ahlus-Sunnah) call to was to unite them upon a singular, just word (i.e. the correct creed) and they did not gather with them to accommodate them nor flatter them and accept the falsehood they were upon.

I say this as a notification to the brothers so that they are not deceived by the statements of the false claimants.

[fap_track id=”2227″ layout=”list” enqueue=”no” button_enqueue=”no”][wpdm_package id=56]