Topic: Al-fawaariq(3) 'striking the differences between 'jarh wa ta'deel' and the 'radd 'alal mukhaalif' (refuting the one that opposes the usool)

abu.hakeem    -- 06-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM
  Al hamdullillah was salaatu was salaamu 'ala rasoolillahi wa b'ad:-

Another example of this misusage:

Another example of using these principles in an incorrect manner is the bold sweeping statement that we hear from these people ?no one in the west is fit to make jarh wa ta?deel?

Anyone familiar with the statement knows that the intent behind this statement is the ?radd alal mukhaalif? (refutation of the one who opposes the deen).

If that is understood, would these same individuals be as bold as to make the same prohibition against enjoining the good and forbidding the evil?

And is the radd alal mukhaalif any thing other than enjoining the good and forbidding the evil?

Will they not reflect upon the statement of Allah:

?Indeed you are the best nation raised up for mankind you enjoin the good and forbid the evil and you believe in Allah?(s.aali imraam: 110)

Or the statement of Allah:

?Those among the children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of daawood and eesaa ibn maryam this was because they disobeyed (Allah) and were ever transgressing beyond bounds. They used not to forbid one another from evils they committed. Vile indeed was what they used to do?: (al maa?idah: 78-79)

Or the statement of Allah:

?And if Allah did not repel one set of people by means of another the earth would have become corrupt?? (S. baqarah: 251).

And will they not fear the likes of the statement of Allah:

?And say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely ?This is halaal (lawful) and this is haraam (forbidden)? so as to invent lies against Allah. Verily, those who invent lies against Allah will never prosper? (s nahl.116).

Or the statement of the messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) that occurs in the hadeeth of abi sa?eed al khudhri (radhiyallahu ?anhu)

?Let no man let his reverence for the people prevent him from speaking the truth if he knows it?

(Collected by at tirmidhi 4/419(2191) and declared authentic by shaikh naasir in saheeh jaami as sagheer)

Does not the likes of this statement (if one where to submit to it for argument sake) not first require a sound knowledge of the level of knowledge of each of the callers in the west, in order to negate from ALL of them this characteristic?

Also that which is mentioned as a reason for negating this from a good few thousand muslims is that the one who makes jarh needs to be acquainted with the asbaabul jarh (legitimate reasons for making jarh upon a person)

Again another example of confusing the issues of jarhi wat ta?deel with the issues of radd ?alal mukhaalif, because the asbaabul jarh (reasons for disparaging someone) as that relates to a narrator differ from the reasons because of which a person would make radd upon the mukhaalif

The radd upon the mukhaalif revolves around that person?s opposing the usool of ahlus Sunna in their manhaj and aqeedah, while the asbabul jarh as it relates to narrators differs from that, and may without doubt be a touch more intricate.

It is also important to bear in mind that many or the reasons for making jarh of a narrator, though they may lead us to reject his narration do not affect the salafiyah of a person.

From the reasons for making jarh of a narrator.

In order to bring some clarity to that;

?     From the reasons for making jarh of a narrator is his lying, yet lying is not a reason for making jarh of a person?s salafiyah.

?     Likewise from the reasons, is that a person is ?sayyiul hifdh? (i.e. has a bad memory) yet that is not a reason for making jarh of his salafiyah.

?     From the reasons, is that a person is known to have ?kathratul mukhaalafati lith thiqaat?(regularly opposes the trustworthy narrators in that which he narrates) yet that is not considered jarh in his salafiyah.

?     From the reasons, is ?al ikhtilaat?(i.e. that a persons memory becomes deficient at a particular stage in his life) yet that does not affect his salafiyah.

?     From the reasons, is that he is described as being ?faahishul ghalat? (known to make grave mistakes i.e. in his narrating) again that not affect his salafiyah.

?     As for that which returns back to his character, the established faasiq(evil doer) is made jarh of in his narration due to his fisq, while fisq does not remove a person from salafiyah.

?     From the narrators are those who are made jarh of in certain countries as opposed to others(as is the case with the likes of ma?mar ibn raashid) again that not affecting ones salafiyah.

?     From them those who have jarh made upon them if they narrate from certain individuals (the likes of hushaim ibn basher if he narrates from al imam zuhri) again a reason for jarh that does not blemish a persons salafiyah.

?     From them those who are considered weak if they narrate from the people of a particular state or province (like isma?eel ibn ?iyaash who is only trustworthy when he narrates from the people of his country) that not being considered jarh in a mans manhaj.

And the list goes on?.

Thus the asbaabul jarh as it relates to ones salafiyah revolve around the usool of ahlus sunnah and a person opposing them, keeping in mind those issues that if one were to differ concerning them, one would not leave the realms of ahlus sunnah and so forth.

To add insult to injury when that which is mentioned in order to substantiate this claim (i.e. that no one in the west is fit to make jarh or ta?deel) is that from the conditions of the one who makes jarh and ta?deel is that he is aquainted with the istilaahaatul khaasah(technical terminologies that are specific to certain of the muhaditheen)!!??

So before one gives naseehah to his brother about the dangerous speech of the local mubtadi? one must first be aquainted with the fact:

That when al imaamul bukhaari says concerning a narrator ?feehi nadhr?(he needs to be analysed) that that is a statement of jarh??!!

Or that when ibn ?adi says concerning a narrator ?arjoo an laa ba?sa bihi?(hopefully theres no problem with him) that that isn?t necessarily a statement of ta?deel??!!

Or that the one who abii haatim ar raazi says ?laa yahtaju bihi?(he is not to be used as a hujjah(proof i.e. in chains of narration)) about that that is not an absolute jarh rather it is possible that his narrations could be considered hasan depending on surrounding factors??!!


Samaahatush-shaikh al waalid abdul azeez ibn baaz ? rahimahullah mentions in his majmoo-ul fataawaa (vol 6 p 68) in his refutation of the falsehood of muhammad ibn ali as saabooni  who had stated that this is not the time to be attacking the deviant sects like the ash?arees , ikhwaanis etc the sheikh mentions:

??There is no doubt that it is compulsory upon the Muslims to unify their ranks and come together upon the truth and to co-operate upon righteousness and piety as allah ?subhaanahu has ordered them in his statement:

?..and cling to the rope of allah together and do not be divided?

and likewise he warned them from splitting with his statement

?..and do not be like those divided and differed after the clear proofs had come to them?

Although it does not necessitate that due to the compulsory nature of the Muslims unifying their ranks and coming together that they do not refute the evils that come from those who perform them or believe in them from the soofiyah and others.

Rather that which the command to cling to the rope of Allah would necessitate is that they enjoin the good and forbid the evil and clarify the truth to the one who has gone astray from it or the one who believes that the opposite of it is correct, doing so with proofs from the shari?ah until they are united upon the truth and they reject that which opposes it.

This is what is understood from the statement of Allah ?...And co operates upon righteousness and piety and do not cooperate upon sin and enmity?

And likewise his statement:

?...And let there be from amongst you a nation enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and they are the successful?

So when the people of truth remain silent in explaining the mistakes of those who make them and (remain silent concerning) the errors of the erroneous, they will not then be considered to have carried out that which Allah has commanded them with from calling to good, enjoining it and forbidding evil. Not forgetting that which is built upon that from the sin of remaining silent from repelling evils, likewise the erroneous one and opposer of the truth remaining upon his error. This indeed is in opposition to that which Allah has legislated from naseehah (giving advice) and co operating upon the good, enjoining it and forbidding the evil- wallahu waliyut tawfeeq.?(End of the shaikh?s statement)

Is not enjoining the good and forgiving the evil in the affairs of aqeedah and usool more important than doing so in other than that from the affairs??

Although there is no doubt that the initiation of refutation against certain individuals should be left to the scholars (like the refutation of other scholars or well known students of knowledge for instance)

While our belief in the blanket statement ?no one is fit? and its ramifications is indeed opening the door to much evil wallahul musta?aan

I posed this issue back in the year 2000 (a while before this shubhah really arose) to our sheikh abu abdir rahmaan faalih ibn naafi? al harbi -hafidhahullah in a sitting in his home after asr, the question is as follows:

Q: ?Our sheikh, if there is a person who is known to be salafi then there comes from him affairs that oppose the manhaj is it permissible for us to warn against him or is that specific to the scholars??

A: ?This individual who we see from him affairs that oppose the manhaj and affairs that don?t agree with that which ahlus sunnati wal jamaa?ah is upon, then the likes of this person is not to be trusted in the religion, and it is upon ahlus sunna if they know about his state to warn against him, (firstly)warn against that which he is upon, that they don?t follow his path and (secondly)that they warn against him(i.e. the person himself) and this is not specific to the ulamaa rather this is for everyone.

Yes, there are affairs that a person does that may not be clear from that religion (i.e. the correct ruling concerning it) therefore before a person speaks out against that he asks the ulamaa concerning it .If they ask the ulamaa concerning it and they pass the verdict that that which this person is upon is in opposition to the manhaj and way of ahlus sunnati wal jamaa?ah, and that those mistakes are in and of themselves bid?ah or from that which ahlul bid?ah use in their deceit and trickery against ahlus sunna.

Thus after seeking fatwa and ascertaining that that which is being attributed to this person is affirmed upon him and correct, and presenting that to the scholars and knowing its ruling then it is for everyone from ahlus sunna to be aware of this person and to warn against him, this warning is not specific to the scholars, rather the scholars pass rulings, so if a  scholar passes a verdict and warns against the likes of this person and his opposing behaviour, and they pass verdicts against those things that ahlul bid?ah are upon(generally), that behaviour that does not befit ahlus sunnah, that which is harmful to the people as they may perceive that to be from the shari?ah and believe it to be sound seeing that this specific person does this.

Therefore it is not befitting that this person be trusted and it is compulsory to warn against him and that we beware of that which this person does, even if that is merely his connection or manner of dealing with ahlul bid?ah. Whether those people of bid?ah be ikhwaani, tablighi or Sufi or other than that from the people of falsehood and the people of those methodologies that oppose the methodology of ahlus sunna and oppose the guidance of the messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa salam).For indeed the guidance of the messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) is the truth and is the religion that he was sent with. It is compulsory upon every Muslim to return back to his guidance and that they make sure that they are upon that which he and his companions were upon?..? (This sitting took place on 16/12/2000 and is recorded bi hamdillah)

Another example of its misusage

Another statement we hear chanted by them is their statement ?Imaam Ahmad and his contemporaries would differ in their ruling upon an individual yet this would not lead to differing of the heart?

Usually referring to those individuals who the scholars have clarified their opposition to the usool of ahlus Sunnah with shari?ah proofs and evidences.

Again there is no doubt that there is a difference between the one who the scholars of hadeeth have differed with concerning his precision and integrity in narration and the one whose bid?ah is established against him with proofs and evidences.

Those who quote this difference that occurred concerning narrators utilise it in the affairs of opposition to the usool of ahlus sunnati wal jamaa?ah.

Again this type of statement will confuse if taken absolutely. Analyse the advice of Imam Ahmad to his student al imam abi daawood as sijistaani when he approached his sheikh al imam Ahmad for advise he says:

?I said to abu Abdullah Ahmad ibn hanbal: there is a man from ahlus Sunna that I see with a man from ahlul bid?ah, should I stop speaking to him? He said: no, inform him that the man that you saw him walking with is a person of innovation, so if he stops speaking to him then (continue) speak(ing) to him and if not then attach him to him (for indeed) ibn masood said:?a man is (known) by his associates?(tabaqaatul hanaabilah 1/160 no# 216)

If we were to act upon this principle absolutely then there would be no grounds for him(the person of sunnah) leaving speaking to him(the person that abu dawood deemed to be from ahlul bid?ah) because it would be sufficient for him to say that he doesn?t agree with the opinion of abu daawood, therefore abu daawood shouldn?t have a problem in his heart concerning him much less stop speaking to him!

Likewise the statement of ibn ?aun?the one who sits with ahlul bid?ah is worse with us then ahlul bid?ah?(collected by ibn battah in al ibaanatul kubraa 2 /273 no# 486) would be and should be deemed out of place as that individual may not agree with the position the rest of ahlus sunnah hold concerning that individual based upon the proofs.

In a similar vein the statement of shaikhul islaam ibn taymiyah who said:?...And whosoever has good suspicions with them (i.e. ahlul bid?ah) and claims that he doesn?t know of their condition, then he is acquainted with their condition. Thereafter if he doesn?t separate from them and speak out against them openly he is attached to them and deemed from them??(majmoo?ul fataawaa vol 2 p 133)

Thus there is a difference between the positions held by ahlul hadeeth as that relates to the integrity and precision of individuals in narration which for the most part returns back to their memory and their narrations being in accordance and in line with the narrations of the trustworthy.

As for their ruling upon individuals as that relates to them innovating then that returns to that persons opposing the usool of ahlus sunnah, being advised in that regard and persisting upon that.

Two different rulings, having different implications and different ramifications one having more ease and allowance than the other.

Therefore we reiterate:

It does not necessitate that the one who has knowledge of the principles of jarhi wa ta?deel (that relate to narration) is likewise (due to his knowledge of that) well grounded in the manhaj of ahlus sunnah in dealing with the mukhaalif (those who oppose the sunnah, manhaj, aqeedah etc), this is a knowledge having its own principles and that is a knowledge having its principles, so reflect.

Wa sallallahu ?ala nabiyinaa Muhammad wa ?ala alaihi wa sahbihi ?ajma?een.

Abu Hakeem Bilaal Davis

Moosaa    -- 06-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM
  Abaa Hakeem

Jazaak Allaahu khayran akhee.  May Allaah allow you to continue in this series.  These clarifications are very much needed.

I have a question about a narration you used, hafithakallaah:


"Or the statement of the messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) that occurs in the hadeeth of abi sa?eed al khudhri (radhiyallahu ?anhu)

?Let no man let his reverence for the people prevent him from speaking the truth if he knows it?

(Collected by at tirmidhi 4/419(2191) and declared authentic by shaikh naasir in saheeh jaami as sagheer)"

Is this marfoo'?  And also, what is the first tarf of the hadeeth or its number in Al-Jaami' As-Sagheer.  The number you referred to is mentioned in Dha'eed Sunan At-Tirmithee as dha'eef (#2191), but the shaykh says that parts of the hadeeth are saheeh.  Jazaak Allaahu khayran for taking the time to clarify akhil-kareem.

I ask because this hadeeth is powerful, subhaan Allaah.  The narration in At-Tirmithee mentions that Aboo Sa'eed Al-Khudree broke down into tears after hearing it.  Would you know if this is also authentic?


سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك
أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت
أستغفرك وأتوب إليك

abu.hakeem    -- 06-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM
  Al hamdullillah was salaatu wa salaamu 'ala rasoolillah

Concerning the hadeeth then shaikh naasir declares it saheehun li-ghairihi in saheehut targheeb (vol 3 p 47 h 2751).Therein he mentions that the hukm of imaam al mundhiri upon the hadeeth that it is hasan is not correct absolutely as some portions of the hadeeth have no shawaahid,although he mentions (in the above reference)that which is thaabit and established from the hadeeth. As for the tarf of the hadeeth then it is ((...الا لا يمنعن رجل ))

wallahu a'lam

p.s. The crying of abi saeed (rahimahullah) is likewise established.

wal hamdullillahi rabil 'aalameen.

abu.hakeem    -- 06-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM
  ((...الا لا يمنعن رجل ))

Moosaa    -- 08-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM
  jazaak Allaahu khayran yaa akhee

سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك
أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت
أستغفرك وأتوب إليك

Moosaa    -- 08-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM
  jazaak Allaahu khayran yaa akhee

سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك
أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت
أستغفرك وأتوب إليك

abu.hakeem    -- 11-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM
  wa jazaak

abu.hakeem    -- 11-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM
  wa jazaak

SalafiTalk.Net :