Some Details Added To A Da’ee’s Emphasis – Part 4
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
In this article, I want to reflect as well as invite our Salafi brother Shamsi and the youth to revisit principles we’ve heard repeated by senior scholars for over thirty years. Solely through Allah’s Tawfīq, these have helped us follow the verdicts of the scholars with justice and balanced moderation in matters of criticism and praise. Whenever a well-known individual possessing some knowledge of the Shariah faced warnings from senior scholars such as Al-Allamah Rabee, Al-Allamah Ubaid and others — may Allah have mercy on them — these principles were revisited. But this does not mean every caution, warning or robust observation necessarily meant someone was labelled as deviated or subjected to Tabdee. Sometimes it was the case; at other times, it was a precaution to distance ourselves from certain individuals for our own safety until their situation became clearer.
Indeed, had brother Shamsi – may Allah grant us and him Tawfiq – not brought this matter into the public domain, we would not have addressed it in public, but Qadarallah, it reached our youth and others, thus, compelling us to clarify some issues for our beloved youth.
So, the discussion here is about Al-Allamah Rabee’s, may Allah have mercy upon him, caution against Shaikh Sulayman Ar-Ruhayli, may Allah grant us and him wellbeing, based on what was apparent from his state regarding association with Shaikh Muhammad Bin Hadi, may Allah grant us and him Tawfiq. Al-Allamah Rabee also advised keeping a distance from Shaikh Sulayman – a warning that is widespread and well-known. To understand its severity, one must revisit Shaikh Muhammad’s actions and why those who knew his affair in detail, such as Shaikh Sulayman, were required to take the stance issued by Al-Allamah Rabee – may Allah have mercy upon him. And there is no need here to go into detail regarding how the Salaf viewed one’s association with others. Rather, whoever objects to Al-Allamah Rabee’s verdict should provide proof to substantiate its invalidity. All we have done is accept his verdict based on the situation that was well-known and await whether the situation upon which it was based would change. And we ask Allah to change the situation Amin.
Furthermore, whether some of those who acted harshly towards Shaikh Sulayman have now joined Shaikh Muhammad has nothing to do with the validity of Al-Allamah Rabee’s verdict. We must distinguish between the reasons for his verdict and the decisions of those individuals, if they have indeed joined Shaikh Muhammad. Their stances are not a criterion for assessing its validity. Likewise, invitations extended to either Shaikh Muhammad or Shaikh Sulayman by other noble scholars – at the time- after Al-Allamah Rabee’s statement cannot be used to accept or reject his verdict. Instead, we adhere to the principle that:
“Man ‘alima ḥujjatun ‘alā man lam ya‘lam, wa man ḥafiẓa ḥujjatun ‘alā man lam yaḥfaẓ – The one who knows (or has detailed) knowledge (of something) is a proof against the one who does not have (detailed) knowledge (of that matter), and the one who has memorised (preserved something) is a proof against the one who has not memorised.”
This principle is taken from the texts of the Shariah. An example is the differing between two noble companions, Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbas. Bilal told Ibn Umar, and Umar narrated from him, that he entered the centre of the Kaba with the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and prayed two rak’ahs. He described precisely that there was about a forearm’s distance between him and the wall of the Kaba, with a column on his right and another on his left. This demonstrates that he had knowledge of the precise description of the Messenger’s prayer in that pure place. When the Messenger, peace be upon him, exited with his companions, Ibn Umar asked Bilal, who informed him that the Messenger had indeed prayed two rak’ahs in this manner. Ibn Abbas, on the other hand (i.e. when he reported this incident), stated that he did not enter the Kaba and that the Messenger only prayed in front of it, outside and facing it.
Both narrations are in the Sahih of Al-Imam Bukhari. After narrating the two reports from the two noble companions, both of whom are trustworthy, Al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated which report the scholars relied upon. He noted that the one who affirmed (i.e. based on details) had knowledge, while the one who denied did not. We do not question the latter about his lack of knowledge. However, we benefit from the one who possesses knowledge in a way that we cannot from the one who does not. [1]
Al-Allamah Ubaid Bin Abdillah Al-Jabiri, may Allah have mercy upon him, has a very detailed statement and some scenarios regarding this matter. Listen here:
Second, we have heard and read what some people are asking, saying: “Why is that Al-Allamah Rabee did not caution against those who invited Shaikh Sulayman and Shaikh Muhammad in the same way he cautioned against Shaikh Sulayman for his association with Shaikh Muhammad?” Indeed, those who ask this question must be reminded that this great scholar was an expert in this field and knows who deserves warning. Scholars approach such matters with cautious piety, not haste. We know he advised Abdur Rahman Abdul Khaliq for ten years and Al-Hajuri for seven. Therefore, we can only speak based on what is known and tangible until something else reaches us. In this regard, we recall the statement of Allāh, The Most High, that the brothers of Yusuf, peace be upon him, said:
وَمَا شَهِدْنَآ إِلَّا بِمَا عَلِمْنَا وَمَا كُنَّا لِلْغَيْبِ حَٰفِظِينَ
And we testify not except according to what we know, and we could not know the unseen. [Yusuf 81]
Also, some people bring the issue of Ali Al-Halabi Al-Mubtadi and Al-Allamah Abdul Muhsin, may Allah preserve him, but this cannot change anything. Al-Allamah Rabee presented the evidence against Ali Halabi and made that famous statement: “Shaikh Abdul Muhsin has not read”. In addition, Al-Allamah Ahmad An-Najmi, may Allah have mercy upon him, did have a robust discussion with Al-Allamah Abdul Muhsin, printed in Al-Fatawa Al-Jaleelah, concerning Rifqan Ahlus Sunnah Bi-Ahlis Sunnah and other important matters. Therefore, why one is warned against and another is not depended on Al-Allamah Rabee’s assessment of everyone’s situation. A scholar of Al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel is cautious about who deserves warning, the timing and circumstances. Al-Allamah Rabee himself said:
Al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl must be accompanied by sound creed, as al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī pointed out. It must be accompanied with knowledge of the reason for criticism, one must know the (reason or grounds for the criticism), accompanied by fear of Allah and cautious piety… [2]
Thus, the concern isn’t who should have been cautioned by Al-Allamah Rabee or how many individuals ought to be warned. None of us issued the warning because neither is it our expertise nor our right to do so, rather, it was Al-Allamah Rabee himself, an expert scholar in this specific area, and he, may Allah have mercy on him, has now passed away. What remains is whether the reasons for which he issued the warning are still relevant.
Finally, we end with some of the Shaikh’s clarification regarding the fact that an explained criticism takes precedence over an unspecified (general) commendation. From that which the Shaikh, may Allāh have mercy upon him, stated was as follows:
A man may praise a particular group—and he may himself be a virtuous and upright scholar—based on what is apparent, without knowing the true reality of that group or what its members truly stand for. Then another person comes along, studies their books and examines their true circumstances, and discovers that the scholar who praised them has made a mistake without realising it. He praised them based on their outward appearance. This is something that has even occurred with the great Imams. How many individuals did Imam Ahmad declare reliable, but his students—who did not even come close to matching his virtue and status—came to know what those individuals were really like and discovered the faults and reasons for criticism that existed in them? They rejected them, even though Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, had declared them trustworthy. Similarly, Imam Ash-Shafi‘i held certain individuals trustworthy, but others criticised them. The criticism of those who had a detailed knowledge of (the facts) and an actual understanding of the individuals was given precedence over the statements of the Imams who had praised them based on what was apparent to them.
So today, a person may come along claiming to be a student of knowledge, outwardly displaying religious commitment, Zuhd and good manners. He may sit with you and remain in your company for days, and you form your judgement based on what you see outwardly. I swear by Allah, I have personally praised certain individuals this year. By Allah, they kept my company, and they appeared to be devoted to worship, religiously committed, and so on and so forth… Then their faults and grounds for criticism became apparent to me.
If a person prays alongside me, behaves righteously, remembers Allah, travels with me, and so on, then I testify only to what I have personally witnessed. I do not declare anyone pure in the Sight of Allah. However, another person may come along who knows him better than I do, and I discover that he has identified mistakes and matters that disparage his trustworthiness. He criticises him on the basis of knowledge, substantiates his criticism with evidence, and explains the reasons for it. In that case, his criticism takes precedence over my commendation. I accept that. Once the evidence establishing this person’s faults has been presented, then that is it—the truth is with him.
For example, a particular group may approach a scholar and say: ‘By Allah, we are from Ahl al-Sunnah. We call to Tawheed, oppose shirk, oppose grave-worship and its associated practices, and so on.’ The scholar observes righteousness in them and writes a recommendation on their behalf to someone who can support them, saying that they are calling to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. Then other people, who are students of knowledge, mix with them, associate with them and spend time in their company. They discover that the reality is completely different: that these people are followers of innovations (Ahl al-Bid‘ah), that they are Sufis, and that they adhere to superstitious beliefs and practices. They then present evidence to substantiate what they are saying.
In that case, their testimony is to be accepted and given precedence over my praise of that scholar. This is an established and consistently applicable principle—which will remain so, Allah willing—concerning both individuals and groups, until the Day of Judgement. [3]
The Shaikh also said: “Suppose we assume that Ibn Bāz and al-Albānī continued giving Tazkiyah until they passed away, and that this is all the Tazkiyah they have to offer. Would the people then be obliged to accept their Tazkiyah, turn a blind eye, and shut off their minds to the mistakes of so-and-so and so-and-so whom al-Albānī or Ibn Bāz had given Tazkiyah?! The mistakes are clear, and the jarḥ (criticism) is clear. So, is it permissible for a Muslim to cling to the Tazkiyah of so-and-so and so-and-so when the jarḥ against the person being praised is clear?!” [3.1]
It was requested from Shubah, may Allah have mercy upon him, to refrain from (speaking) about Abān ibn Abee Ayyash, may Allah have mercy upon him. And Aban ibn Abee Ayyāsh was a man of Zuhd, a devout worshipper, and a virtuous man, but he would mix things up in hadith transmission. So, Shubah said, “I will wait”. Then he met the person who had advised him, saying to him: “Indeed, it is a matter of religion. I cannot, but speak about Aban Ibn Abee Ayyash”. [4]
We ask Allah to help us focus on these principles both now and in the future whenever dealing with the rulings of the scholars, while prioritising our own selves above all else. We ask Allah to include us among those who seek the truth in every matter, irrespective of who holds a special place in our hearts and especially during differing. Al-Ḥāfdh Ibn Rajab, may Allāh have mercy upon him, said:
“Here, there is a subtle matter that is befitting to be paid attention to, namely, that many of the Imams of the religion may hold an opinion that is outweighed by another opinion, while being mujtahid regarding it. He is rewarded for his ijtihād, and his error in that matter is excused. However, the person who supports his opinion does not necessarily occupy the same rank as the scholar in this regard. Indeed, he may support that opinion solely because the scholar whom he follows has said it. Had it been held by another (person) among the Imams of the religion, he would neither accept nor support it, neither ally with the one who agrees with him, nor show enmity to the one who opposes him. Yet, despite this, he thinks that he is supporting the truth in the same manner as the scholar whom he follows, whereas this is not the case. Indeed, the scholar whom he follows intended only to support the truth, even though he may have erred in his ijtihād.
As for this follower, his support for what he thinks to be the truth has been tainted by a desire to elevate the status of the scholar he follows, to make his position prevail, and to prevent him from being attributed with error. This is a hidden ulterior motive that undermines the sincerity of one’s intention to support the truth. So understand this, for it is a mighty understanding. And Allah guides whomsoever He wills to a straight path”. [5]
He also said: When people’s differences in the issues of the religion became many, and their divisions became many, mutual hatred and cursing also became widespread as a result. Each person thinks that he was indeed hating for the sake of Allah. In reality, a person may have a valid excuse for doing so, or he may have no valid excuse, but may be following his own desires and falling short in his efforts to investigate the reasons for which he hates someone. For indeed, much of this occurs merely because someone opposes a person whom he follows, believing that this person speaks nothing but the truth. Yet this belief may be either correct or mistaken.
It may be that what drives a person to incline towards someone is merely personal desire, familiarity, affection, or habit. All of this discredits the claim that such hatred is for the sake of Allah. Therefore, it is incumbent upon a Muslim to be sincere with himself and to exercise the utmost caution in this matter. And whatever is unclear to him, he should refrain from involving himself in it, out of fear that he may fall into the forbidden hatred that he has been prohibited from engaging in. [6]
Al-Allamah Rabee said:
It is obligated to every Muslim to examine himself, for indeed a person might incline towards (another) person who is upon truth based on his desires. Then, even before the truth is clear to him, he wishes that such and such person should be the one aided with the proofs or something else, so, his soul inclines (towards that person) because he (i.e. that person) is such and such (personality).
Therefore, even if that person is upon the truth, it is not permissible for this type of inclination to be present. If this type of inclination is present, even with the person upon truth, it is considered to be a trait of pre-Islamic ignorance. This is an affair that does not cross the minds of many people. Therefore, it is obligated on a Muslim – in relation to affairs wherein people differ – that he is attentive to the fact that Allah knows, sees and hears everything, and his intention (goal or aim) should only be that he (wants) to know the truth whether it is with this or that person. And in relation to this, Imam Ash-Shafi’ee said, “When I enter into a discussion, I am not bothered whether the truth is with me or with the other person”. So, he is not bothered nor does he wish that the truth is with him; rather he wishes that it is either with the other person or with him. This is the lofty moral conduct and the upright religion. [6.1]
So, we will look to these principles and we ask Allāh to enable us to follow anyone who acts upon these principles regardless of his status or level of knowledge, as Imam Ibn Jawzi, may Allāh have mercy upon him, said:
I have met the Mashayikh; their circumstances were different and their stations of knowledge varied. The most beneficial of them for me in companionship was the scholar who acted upon his knowledge, even though there were others more knowledgeable than him. [7]
We remind ourselves of these principles once again – seeking the aid of Allah not to either become lackadaisical or over-stringent.
To be conrinued…InShaAllah
[1] https://alathar.net/home/esound/index.php?op=codevi&coid=157884 paraphrased
[2] https://rabee.net/alfatawi/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%AD-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%84-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B4%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B5-%D9%87%D9%84-%D9%87%D9%88-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B5-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84/ paraphrased
[3] https://rabee.net/alfatawi/%D9%8A%D9%82%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84-%D9%87%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%AD/ paraphrased
[3.1] Al-Ijābāt al-Jaliyyah ʿan al-Qaḍāyā al-Manhajiyyah (p. 74)] [end of quotes]
[4] Gharah Al-Ash’ritah 1/71 (Al-Allamah Muqbil Bin Hadi Al-Wadi’ee, rahimahullah]
[5] Jāmiʿ al-ʿUlūm wa al-Ḥikam, 1/267–268]
[6] Jāmiʿ al-ʿUlūm wa al-Ḥikam, 2/267
[6.1] https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2026/10/15/a-type-of-subtle-possible-burning-desire-for-a-dominant-public-and-private-narrative/
[7] https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2025/02/17/i-have-met-the-mashayikh/
Donate
Related Posts
Follow Us
Share
Related Posts
Donate to the Dawah in Manchester
Join the Umrah Trip
