SalafiTalk.Net
SalafiTalk.Net » Affairs of Manhaj
» clarification needed
Search ===>




Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5Part 6Part 7Part 8Part 9 • Part 10 • Part 11 • Part 12


   Reply to this Discussion Start new discussion << previous || next >> 
Posted By Topic: clarification needed

book mark this topic Printer-friendly Version  send this discussion to a friend  new posts last

oummou.assia
09-16-2002 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sep 2002
          
bissmillahi rahmani rahim
assalam alaykoum wa rahmatoullahi wa barakaatouh

could someone please explain to me this i quoted from a message of a brotehr about aboul hassan:

"Sheikh Muhammad al Madhkhalee has also refuted Abul Hasan last saturday by showing how he lied about the position of sheikh al Islaam ibn Taymiyyah regarding those that make the takfeer and tafseeq of the companions are kuffar. Firstly Abul Hasan does not include those that make tafseeq of the companions as being kuffar as sheikh Islaam ibn Taymiyyah did but Abul Hasan also says that one must even after that establish the hujjah before takfeer is made and he said his statement is the same as sheikh al Islaam ibn Taymiyyah. This is not true since nowhere does Sheikh al Islaam ibn Taymiyyah say hujjah must first be applied and sheikh Islaam added the tafseeq of the companion enough to take one out of the deen which Abul Hasan did not include in his book seraaj al Wahhaaj."

i mean, what i would like to know is this point  of manhaj about the sahaba (radi allahou anhoum) : the view of cheikh al islam ibnou taymiyah, and then the wrong view of aboul hassan.
please clarify!
jazakoum allahou khairan wa barakallahou fikoum
wa assalam alaykoum.



abu.iyaad
09-16-2002 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: Sep 2002
          
..--=ahamdulillaah was. salaatu was. salaamu `alaa rasoolillaah.=--..
wa. ba`ad
-----\|/-----


The Criticism


Shaykh Rabee` bin Haadee al-Madkhalee, the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta`deel by the judgement of Imaam al-Albaani, Imaam of Hadeeth of our times, by judgement of the remaining Imaams of Ahl us-Sunnah in contemporary times, said, in pointing out one of the mistakes in the book of Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee, "as-Siraaj al-Wahhaaj Fee Bayaan il-Minhaaj":

13. On p.49, completing the point 111, you said after the previous words, "So whoever reviles the Sahaabah and openly speaks with their disbelief, or of most of them, then he is one who rejects the Qur'aan which promises them (i.e. Paradise), so the proof is established upon him, so either he repents, otherwise, he disbelieves. And if he reviles them with what necessitates their fisq (i.e. that they were fussaaq), then in the disbelief of such a one there is a dispute..." And then you referred this to as-Saarim al-Maslool (of Ibn Taymiyyah).

However, the words of Shaykh ul-Islaam are very clear in takfir of the one who made takfeer of them and also the one who made tafseeq of them (declared them as fussaaq) without making establishment of the proof to be a condition, when he said - rahimahullaah - after the previous words, "And as for the one who exceeded that and claimed that they apostated after the Messenger (`alayh is-Salaatu was-Salaam), except a very small number of them who do not reach more then ten odd people, or that they generally were upon fisq, then this also no doubt is disbelief, since such a one is a disbeliever (mukaddhib) in what the Qur'aan has textually stated in more than one place of (Allaah's) pleasure with them and (His) praise for them. Rather, the one who actually doubts about the disbelief of the likes of this, then his kufr is muta'ayyan. Since the content of this statement is that the narrators of the Book and the Sunnah are Kuffaar or Fussaaq. and that this verse which is "You are the best nation brought about for mankind..." and the best of it is the first generation, that the generality of them were Kuffaar or Fussaaq, and what this statement contains is that this nation is the worst of nations, and that those who came first in this nation are its worst. The kufr of such a person is one that is known by necessity from the religion of Islaam, and for this reason you find that the generality of those from whom something of these statements appear then it is to be made clear that he is a Zindeeq, and the generality of the Zanaadiqah actually conceal their madhhab, and by Allaah, examples have appeared for them, for it is narrated successively (by tawaatur) that their faces are transformed into those of pigs in life and in death" (Refer to as-Saarim al-Maslool, p.586-587), verification by Muhammad Muhyee ud-Deen)

So Shaykh ul-Islaam affirms that the kufr of such a person is what is known from the religion by necessity, since he rejects what the Qur'aan has clearly stated in more than one place of pleasure and praise (for the Companions), with clear, open takdheeb (rejection, disbelief), and also that the one who doubts about the disbelief of the likes of this, then his kufr is muta'ayyan (mean iqaamat ul-hujjah is not required here)..."

Then Shaykh Rabee' indicates in a footnote that "I completed these corrections to Abul-Hasan around 30/7/1420H just before the printing of the first edition, and that he had opposed Shaykh ul-Islaam in this matter both in terms of the ruling and in terms of extracting evidence from his words. But he did not actually accept it and I also spoke to him directly after the first edition came out, and again he did not give it any attention, until the book reached three editions, and all of this was stubborn resistance from him. Then when he entered into the dispute (concerning this), then he outwardly portrayed his recantation from this matter, without actually explaining why it was that he recanted on this issue, and without explaining the actual evidences which caused him to make this recantation. And in these days he has recanted numerous times due to requests from some people, and there does not cease to be some observation on his recantation.

But the most important thing with me is his stubborn resistance to the Imaams of the Sunnah concerning very great affairs, for in some of them disbelief is necessitated, such as in this matter which Shaykh  ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) spoke about, saying, "Rather the one who doubts about the disbelief of the likes of this, then this kufr is muta'ayyan". Abul-Hasan saw these words from Shaykh ul-Islaam, and I also notified him of this danger, and alongside this, he showed doubt and stubborn resistance, and persisted upon it for years, and then afterwards he portrays recantation, and in which there is doubt as to his truthfulness in it, because he did not explain the reason why he did this, and nor did he show any remorse for his opposition and his stubborn resistance..."

The Issue

Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee made a mistake in both the ruling in this issue (the hukm) and also in using Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah's words. Since the ruling that Abul-Hasan speaks of is not in the words of Ibn Taymiyyah at all. Since Ibn Taymiyyah says that the one who considers the Sahaabah to be Kuffaar, or most of them, or considers them to be Fussaaq, then his kufr is muta'ayyan. This means that his kufr is known from the religion by necessity, and he is an automatic kaafir. Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah did not specify the establishment of a proof as a condition for the kufr of such a person, since this kufr is known from the religion by necessity. Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee was not faithful in conveying the text and nor the ruling and nor in his method of extracting proof (istidlaal). Shaykh Rabee' advised him, firstly in private by writing, then again, directly by speaking to him, yet he persisted upon this mistake in a further two editions of his book, over a number of years. His open recantations now are suspect, seeing that he was making stubborn opposition all the way along. He actually displayed the same behaviour (stubborn resistance and arrogance) with the issue of his revilement of the Companions, and then also the issue of Sayyid Qutb and Wahdat ul-Wujood, as has been indicated by the Scholars, amongst them Shaykh Muhammad bin `Abdul-Wahhaab al-Bannaa.


.-=abu.iyaad=-.
--as.salafi--


This message was edited by abu.iyaad on 9-16-02 @ 9:04 PM

oummou.assia
09-18-2002 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sep 2002
          
bissmillahi rahmani rahim
assalam alaykoum

jazakallahou khair, now it's waadih for me: just... so the one who makes takfeer on sahaba or tafseeq , it is koufr AKBAR which makes one goes out of islam, is that it?

al haqqou min rabbikoum

oummou.assia
09-18-2002 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sep 2002
          
bissmillahi rahmani rahim
assalam alaykoum
well, after redaing one article on sp forum, i need an other clarification insahALLAH
i am going to paste the article,which is a fatwa by Noble Cheikh Ibnou baz (rahimahou llah):

Question: I know that the one who mocks anything from the Sharee'ah of Allaah, or His Messenger, is upon great danger, reaching the level of kufr. So is it correct that I describe the one who does that, that he is a Kaafir, or what? May Allaah reward you.

So he replied: Whoever mocks anything from the relgion, or mocks Allaah the Sublime, or the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), then he is a kaafir, a murtadd, due to his saying, the Exalted, "Say, is it in Allaah and His signs and His Messenger, that you were mocking? Do not make excuses, you have already disbelieved after your faith..." (9:65-66). This is the ruling upon the one who mocks. TextHowever, to apply this ruling upon a specific person requires the establishment of the proof (iqaamat ul-hujjah), and also knowledge of the fulfilment of the conditions (for this takfir) and the absence of any barriers (to it). And this is not for anyone except one who is a firmly established scholar, who is grounded in this issue of establishing the proof, and also the conditions and barriers to takfir. And I love that I advise my brother Muslims and students of knowledge specifically that they are cautious of falling into this matter (i.e. making takfir) since it causes errors, and causes the minds to go astray, and let them entrust the affairs to those who are worthy of them."

From Majallut-ad-Da'wah, no. 1797 (21st June 2001, p.40).



i need to understand that point with what is said by shaykoul islam (rahimahou llah):

"So Shaykh ul-Islaam affirms that the kufr of such a person is what is known from the religion by necessity, since he rejects what the Qur'aan has clearly stated in more than one place of pleasure and praise (for the Companions), with clear, open takdheeb (rejection, disbelief), and also that the one who doubts about the disbelief of the likes of this, then his kufr is muta'ayyan (mean iqaamat ul-hujjah is not required here)...""


what i do not understand is that in both cases ther eis the proof in the QOran, so why in one case and not in the other one iqaamatoul hujjah is needed?

I am am sorry, i am really ignorant in this topic( as well as many many others), so be patient with me and keep on explaining to me , jazakoum allahou khairan.

al haqqou min rabbikoum






SalafiPublications.Com
TawhidFirst | Aqidah | AboveTheThrone | Asharis
Madkhalis | Takfiris | Maturidis | Dajjaal
Islam Against Extremism | Manhaj
Ibn Taymiyyah | Bidah
Learning the Arabic Language Can be Easy and Fun


main page | contact us
Copyright 2001 - SalafiTalk.Net
Madinah Dates Gold Silver Investments