Joined: Sep 2002
Regarding the Phrase Used by Some of the Scholars: "So-and-So was from the Murji'ah of Ahlus-Sunnah" and the questions that would naturally arise from those who read it...
sure, people can have a bid'ah with them and still be from ahlus-sunnah. i don't think anyone would claim that a person who has any bid'ah with them is outside of ahlus-sunnah blanketly.
|A quesion I would like answered is that would we apply the same principle in today's times? Example Sheikh Fulan has Irjaa but he is from Ahuls Sunnah??
yet, aboo haneefah held the foundational beliefs of the murji'ah, and that is why many of the scholars of the past criticized him harshly and made serious rulings on him, along with other issues. whoever is interested can read the writings of shaykh muqbil al-waadi'ee on the subject. yet, this discussion, if it goes on beyond this in a public forum, could be confusing to many people, and could anger the average hanafee and create a barrier that would prevent him from a lot of good.
the issue i wanted to clarify in shaa' Allaah - the idea of someone being from the "murji'ah of ahlus-sunnah" is not accepted by other scholars. shaykh rabee' when asked about this phrase, said that it is not correct, and that: can we call others:
|the shee'ah of ahlus-sunnah?
|or the qadariyyah of ahlus-Sunnah?
of course not. he advised us to avoid such phrases as it leads to confusion about the correct aqeedah. especially when irjaa was considered by some of the early scholars to be THE most dangerous sect of innovation.
|or the khawaarij of ahlus-sunnah?
(and there are people claiming shaykh rabee' has irjaa'!!!)
the murji'ah are ahlul-bid'ah, like the khawaarij and the jahmiyyah, they are foundational sects that many other sects came from. so if someone is a murji' he's not from ahlus-sunnah. however a person can have mistakes from the influence of the murji'ah, without having their usool, and our scholars advise them, warn against their errors, and at times against them themselves. all this while they may refrain from ruling upon them that they are murji'ah. this is what is correct - and Allaah knows best.
an example of this would be the council of senior scholars of saudi arabia warning from ali hassan al-halabee's errors in his writings that contained irjaa' - based on their reading of his books and their conclusions - yet they did not declare him to be from the murji'ah (as far as i know).
Yet it is correct to say as shaykh al-islaam ibn taymiyyah said that aboo haneefah was one of the followed imaams, like shaafi'ee, ahmad, and maalik, he called them: a'immah matboo'een.
and this is without opening up aboo haneedahs issues, and this is very important point. aboo haneefah is dead (rahimahullaah), his errors in aqeedah died with him! where is the book of aboo haneefah's irjaa'? a book misleading the people? not available. so there is no need to refute the errors in this case, since they have not reached and influenced the people.
you can not - ABSOLuTELY can not - apply this to other people, innovators who are alive and calling to their bid'ah, or they are dead, and their books remain in the hands of the people leading them astray. in this case, there is an obligation on the people of knowledge to warn the people from them and their errors.
i hope these words helped.
and Allaah knows best.
ıııııı ııııı ıııııı
ıııı ıı ıı ııı ııı ııı