| Posted By |
Topic: A Question for Abu Khadeejah
|
|
 ekbal.hussain
|
|
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Dec 2002
|
Assala mu alaykum
The Brother Abu Khadeejah came to London, last Friday, at Durning Hall, and gave a excellent talk on 'Sunah and Bid'ah'. He mentioned a few words on Al-Jarh wa ta'deel, related to the Fitnah of the mubtadi of Ma'rib. He also mentioned a few things about Shaikh Abdul Muhsin al-Abbad (Hafidha ullah), concerning his 'Husn uthan' for Abul Hasan al-Ma'ribee, and how the supporters of Al-Ma'ribee use this against the salafiyoon. And he (aba Khadeejah) asked, "Why are they using this 'husn uth than' of the Shaikh on this issue alone? Why don't these people use the Shaikh's 'husn uth than' for Jammiyah ihya turath. The Shaikh supports this group to this day, despite the fact, that so many scholars have criticised this Hizb of Jammiyah ihya Turath?
I was present at this talk and I had intended to ask a particular question on all of this, unfortunately I totally forgot about it. So I thought I'd post it in the forum, perhaps Abu Khadeejah, or some other Tulab ul ilm could answer it for me.
The question is that, many of us know (insha allah), that when a Alim give a Jarh which is Mufassar on an individual or Group, then it is obligatory to accept this and abandon and warn from this group. And that this Jarh is rejected if it is from someone who himself is 'majrooh' or if a 'Mu'addil' comes along and refutes the Jarh Mufassar point by point after giving his ta'deel. And that a Jarh Mufassar is the ?khabar? of a thiqah, and it is obligatory to accept this khabar, as the Imam of Ahl us sunnah Muqbil bin Hadee al wadi?ee has stated;
"And you submit to them (i.e. the scholars), for they are the people of that art, and they are more knowledgeable of their knowledge. And I do not call you to taqleed, since this is not from the aspect of taqleed, but it is from the angle of accepting the information of a trustworthy person, and Allaah, the Sublime and Exalted says, "O you who believe if a faasiq comes to you with news, then verify it", and the understanding of the verse is that when an upright (trustworthy) person comes, then we take his information, and Allah knows best.
Ghaaratul-Fasl, alaa al-Mu'tadee 'alaa Kutub il-Ilal p. 96
(taken from www.spubs.com)
What I would like to know is that, why are some of the Ulamah not expected to abide by this Important rule, (the acceptance a Khabar uth thiqah), such as Shaikh Abdul Muhsin al-Abbad(hafidha ullah)? I will explain what I mean. Let?s look at the recent calamity caused by the astray Mubtadi of Ma?rib, who has been given Jarh mufassar and refuted and warned against by many of the Ulama, four of them from the Kibaar, and at the forefront the Imam of al Jarh wat ta;deel, ash- Shaykh Rabee Ibn Hadee, and some have made tabdee on this viper of Ma?rib, the likes of Shaikh Ahmad ibn Yahya an-Najmee.
We have heard Shaikh Ahmad say:
?Abul hasan is an innovator and whoever defends him should be treated likewise (like an innovator)?
Whilst others like the respected Shaikh Abdul Muhsin al-Abbad have given very generalised ta?deel.
What I would like to understand is, why is Shaikh Abdul Muhsin not expected to accept the jarh from the scores of scholars, whereas the general people such as ourselves are obliged to accept the Jarh Mufassar, as it is the ?Khabar of a thiqah?. Doesn?t this acceptance of the khabar of a thiqah apply to everybody, if the person carrying the khabar is known for his trustworthiness?
To summarise my question:
?Why are the general muslims expected to accept the Jarh Mufassar of a Alim on a individual/group, whereas the Ulama are not??
I apologise for making my question sooo long., I hope the Brothers understand it (the question). I would prefer this question is answered by the noble brother Abu khadeejah, but I am aware that the Brother may be quite busy, so if he is unable to answer due to his busy schedule, any of the other Tulab ul ilm will do.
Barrak allahu feekum
|
|
| AbuKhadeejahSP
|
|
Administrator
Posts: 95
Joined: Sep 2002
|
Important Points and Principles
Asslaamu 'alaykum,
Firstly, I would like to apologise for not responding earlier to this concern of the brother Ekbal, may Allaah preserve him upon khair. My delay is only due to myself not being present in the UK. I was busy with the conference of our noble brothers at Daarul-Hadeeth in Philidelphia, USA and have just returned yesterday.
As for the point concerning Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad, hafidhahullaah, then the following important comments can be made as well as important principles established:
| 1. The Shaykh is scholar of the Sunnah and Salafiyyah. An individual who has strived for many years teaching the Sunnah of our Messenger, 'alayhi salaatu was-salaam, to the Ummah. We make du'aa for him and speak only good of him as do the rest of the Scholars. |
|
| 2. That we recognise that that there is no individual in this Ummah, other than the Messenger of Allaah, 'alayhi salaatu was-salaam, that can encompass every aspect of completion in every field of knowledge that Allaah has revealed. Bearing this in mind, any individual can err. The less knowledge you have of the legislation, the more you err. The more shar'ee knowledge you have, the less you err. The Messenger of Allaah, 'alayhi salaatu was-salaam, mentioned in a hadeeth, "Idhaa hakama Haakimu, fajtahada, fa asaaba falahu ajraan. Wa idha hakama fa akhta'a, falahu ajrun waahid" - meaning ? "When a judge makes a judgement and he makes ijtihaad and he is correct, he gets two rewards. And if he judges and is incorrect, he receives a single reward" (Hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah reported by Bukhaaree and Muslim).And these rewards are for the 'ulemah of Ahlus-Sunnah |
|
| 3. As for the statement, "Every Mujtahid is correct" (Kullu mujtahid museeb), then the Qaadi Abu Tayyib At-Tabaree said: "[as for the statement], 'every mujtahid is correct', then this is madhhab of the mu'tazilah of Basrah, and they are the root of this bid'ah." (see Bahrul-Muheet 6/243) |
|
| 4. The truth is one as Imaam Maalik stated with regard to the Sahaabah, radhi Allaahu 'anhum: "There is not in the differing of the Sahaabah an allowance/excuse (for others). Indeed there is only that which is wrong or right" (Jaami' Bayaanil-'Ilm wal-Fadlihi). And we have been ordered with that which is right and correct. And this is in agreement with the statement of Ibn Abbaas, radhi Allaahu 'anhu, said: "I say: 'The Messenger said' and you say: '[But] Abu Bakr and Umar said'!" |
|
| 5. Differring of the scholars is not a proof. Al-Haafidh Abu 'Umar Ibn Abdil-Barr said: "Difference of opinion is not a proof with a single one of the fuqahaa of the Ummah, except for the one who has no insight and possesses no knowledge - and he has no proof for his speech." (Jaami' Bayaanil-'Ilm). |
|
| 6. Clarifying the errors is an obligation. Al-Haafidh Ibn Rajab, rahimahullaah, said: "And from the headings of naseehah to Allaah, the Most High, and His Book and His Messenger ? and this is particular to the Scholars ? to refute the deviations from the Book and Sunnah... And likewise to refute the weak statements from the slips of the scholars and to make clear the proofs of the Book and Sunnah." (Jaami' ul-'Uloom wal-Hikam, abridged) |
|
| 7. Excusing Deviation and Bid'ah is not an option if one knows. Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) said: "And another group, [then] they do not know the 'aqeedah of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah as is obligated, or they know a part of it and are ignorant regarding a part of it ? and that which they know, they conceal and do not explain it to the people ? and they do not forbid the bid'ah and they do not censure Ahlul-Bid'ah nor punish or subdue them. Rather they may even have disparaging remarks with respect to the Sunnah and the foundations of the Deen ? not distinguishing between the speech of Ahlus-Sunnah and that of Ahlul-Bid'ah wal-Furqah ? Or they accept the different madhhabs of bid'ah just as the 'ulemah excuse each other in the issues of ijtihaad in which there is [genuine] difference. And this is the condition of many of the murji'ah, and some of the Thinkers, the Soofees and the Philosophers" (Majmoo' al-Fataawa Vol 12, slightly abridged). |
|
As can be seen, that if a person knows the reality of an issue, then he is not excused thereafter in supporting that which is opposition to the Sunnah after the matter is made clear from the texts of the Book and Sunnah upon the Manhaj of the Salaf. As for the one who does not know, then he is informed so that he takes the correct position against those who oppose Ahlus-Sunnah and its principles and fundamentals.
As for Ash-Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad, hafidhahullaah, then we say that he recognised some of the errors of Abul-Hasan Al-Misree Al-Ma'rabee, the innovator, and this has been mentioned by him and confirmed by Ash-Shaykh Rabee' bin Haadee, hafidhahullaah, in his last visit to Madeenah. But the affair is still not completely clear to him so that is why, as it seems he has not taken a stronger open stance against Al-Ma'rabee. It is not upon us now to start questioning the Jarh Mufassar of the other Scholars due to the apparent silence of another on Abul-Hasan Al-Ma'rabee. This is because the principle 'the detailed jarh takes precedence of the ta'deel' stands firm throughout time due to the fact that the one who brings this jarh mufassar (in this case Al-Allaamah Rabee' bin Haadee and other Scholars like Faaleh al-Harbee, Ahmad an-Najmee, Zayd al-Madkhalee, Muhammad bin Haadee, Ubayd Al-Jaabiree etc) is more knowledgeable of the affair of an individual (in this case Al-Ma'rabee) than the one who just brings a general ta'deel. And the one who has knowledge is a proof over the one who does not know.
So one should not feel confused or disillusioned due to not finding ijmaa' (consensus) in the jarh of an individual. Since ijmaa' is not a pre-condition for accepting a jarh. Rather the guiding factor is the bringing forth of a detailed refutation, clear and mufassal by one who is capable and this takes precedence over the ta'deel mujmal (general praise). And of-course those scholars who have refuted Abul-Hasan are from the kibaar in the field of Jarh wa Ta'deel ? and they have written to-date thousands of pages upon this innovator Abul-Hasan Al-Misree. Yet not one of the scholars, whom the supporters of Abul-Hasan try to rally around has brought a single detailed reply to the many, many refutations upon Abul-Hasan.
So we say, that the Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin, hafidhahullaah, is as Shaykh Rabee' himself stated: That Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin is not more knowledgeable about Abul-Hasan than Shaykh Rabee'.
Alongside we know that Al-Allaamah Rabee' is the Imaam of Jarh wa Ta'deel in our time as stated by Shaykhul-Islaam Al-Albaanee, rahimahullaah. So he is the expert in this field recommended by another expert in the field.
So we do not need to look into nor are we obligated to know why Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin, hafidhahullaah, does not make tabdee' upon Abul-Hasan (i.e. declare him to be an innovator) and take from the other Scholars in this regard. Since we have what is sufficient by way of exposition and refutation from the other scholars upon Abul-Fitan Al-Ma'rabee.
Sufficient is it that the scholar is rewarded a single reward if he is erroneous in a particular matter. So we give him that with which we are obligated, respect and honour ? we do not speak ill of him ? no more than we would about any of the 'ulemaa of the Salaf who erred in a particular matter. Rather we make du'aa for them as we have been ordered by the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth.
I will suffice with this for now.
Wassallaam 'alaykum wa rahmatullaah.
This message was edited by AbuKhadeejahSP on 1-4-03 @ 2:54 PM
|
|
| Moosaa
|
|
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sep 2002
|
جزاك الله خيرا يا أبا خديجة وأحسن إليك
Those are excellent words, maa shaa' Allaah!
I would like to add something I found about the statement, "Kullu mujtahid museeb" (Every mujtahid is correct):
Aboo Ishaaq Ibraaheem ibn Muhammad Al-Isfiraayeenee, the mujtahid imaam, the Shaafi'ee 'Allaamah, of the 4th-5th century, said:
القول بأن كل مجتهد مصيب أوله سفسطة وآخره زندقة
"The saying that every mujtahid is correct, it is sophistry (denial of reality) from its beginning, and zandaqah (hypocrisy/disbelief) to its end." [Siyaru A'laam An-Nubalaa', Risaalah, 11th printing, 1417]
As for the sophistry of the statement, then it is denying that the Truth is one, not many.
As for its zandaqah, then it is the fact that this statement is used to destroy the principles of the Religion so much so that a person can do whatever he likes with no limit, since he can always search for a mujtahid who made an error in favor of his desires. Thus, he ends up with no Deen in the end, a zindeeq.
And this zandaqah and denial of reality that Aboo Ishaaq Al-Isfiraayeenee referred to just about a thousand years ago can be found in the people who apply this statement (intending by it to follow their desires) in our day and time. And a simple look at today's fitnahs provides enough proof for this.
And Allaah knows best.
Moosaa
********************
سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك
أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت
أستغفرك وأتوب إليك
This message was edited by Moosaa on 1-5-03 @ 9:00 AM
|
|
| aboo.shaahir
|
|
Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Sep 2002
|
Assalaamu alaikum,
barakallaahu feek ya Aba Khadeejah for the tremendous explanation! Jazakallaah khayr ya Moosaa for the additional words. May you brothers continue to be thaabit on the dawah tu-salafiyyah...AAMEEN!
Aboo Shaahir as-Salafee
This message was edited by aboo.shaahir on 1-5-03 @ 2:13 AM
|
|
| ekbal.hussain
|
|
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Dec 2002
|
Wa alaikumus salam warahmatullahi wa barakatuhu
Jazzak ummullahu khair wa Barakumullahu feekum!
Those were indeed excellent words from the brother Abu khadeejah and likewise the noble brother Moosa (hafidha umullah)! And akhi Aba Khadijah, I have no problem withm the delay in your answer. I understand that you have a very busy schedule, please do not feel pressurised to answer to any of my questions, answer whenever you are free and able to, inshaallah.
I would like to say that, I have NO PROBLEMS with Ash Shaykh Abdul Muhsin al-Abbad (hafidha ullah), rather I know that he is from one of the Kibaar Ulamah and a person of the sunnah, and I have NO doubt upon his Manhaj whatsoever. And we Love a person as long as he is upon the SUNNAH and SALLAFIYYAH, and we hate and despise a person if he deviates from this, insha allah. My reason for asking the above question, was only to understand the PRINCIPLES and RULES, that govern the noble science of Al Jarh wat ta'deel and nothing else. I really appreciate your detailed answer, it was very beneficial! Masha allah!
Wa alaikumus salam
This message was edited by ekbal.hussain on 1-5-03 @ 1:13 AM
|
|
| ekbal.hussain
|
|
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Dec 2002
|
I forgot to also thank, the brother 'Iamsalafee', for relaying the highly beneficial answer from Shaikh Ubaid (hafidha ullah). Jazzak allahu khair akhi! And yes akhi Abu Shaahir, may ALL the tulaab ul ilm on this SALAFI forum, continue to be thaabit on the salafi da'wah! Ameen!
This message was edited by ekbal.hussain on 1-4-03 @ 11:16 PM
|
|
| sajid_chauhan_81
|
|
Member
Posts: 2031
Joined: Jul 2005
|
|
|
24-12-2002 @ 12:00 AM
04-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM
04-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM