In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful The Bestower of Mercy
Shaikh Saaleh Al-Fawzaan (hafidha-hullaah) a member of the committee of Major Scholars (Saudi Arabia) stated:
There is much evil in Al-Jazeerah news. There is much evil and provocation in it. There are a people presented in it who speak haphazardly in the affairs of the Religion and in the affairs of fiqh. They make unlawful that which Allaah has made lawful or make lawful that which Allaah has made unlawful in their verdicts, and this is a severe danger. The evil of hearkening to news in it is widespread at present… and all that is attributed to it is evil and none praises it.
In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful The Bestower of Mercy
Sheikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) said:
”Philosophical logic is like the flesh of a camel at the top of a mountain. It is not easy to climb the mountain, nor is the flesh good enough to justify climbing, nor is the path leading to it easy to follow.’’ He (rahimahullaah) also said: ”There are no philosophers upon right guidance” He (rahimahullaah) also said: ‘’Islaam does not have philosophers’’[1]
”Indeed the criticism from ahlul ilm and rebuttal of one whose rebuttal is an obligation, this is from the affair of giving sincere advice to the Ummah……..”
Imaam Muhammad Bin Saaleh Al-Uthaymeen (rahimahullaah) was asked about the above false principle, so he said:
”This is a mistake, rather we refute the one who willfully opposes the truth.”
Al-Allaama Saaleh Al-Fawzaan was asked about the above false principle, so he said:
”This principle has no foundation…..the people of falsehood must be refuted.”
Al-Allaama Zaid Bin Haadi Al Madkhalee said:
”This principle is not from the principles of the Rabbaani scholars.”
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Source: Siyaanatus Salafi Min Waswasati Wa Talbeesaat Ali Al-Halabi; page: 203 onwards
Question: Shaikh, I have a question concerning the issue of refuting the one who has erred. Is it incumbent upon the student of knowledge or the well-grounded student of knowledge to refer back to the scholar or senior scholars before warning against a specific individual, hizbee group/organization or innovators (in general)? Does he have to refer back to the scholar before warning?
Answer: Shaikh Rabee’ (may Allah Preserve him) was asked about this and his answer can be found on Sahab (i.e. www.Sahab.net) and perhaps you know of it. So he was asked about this issue, and he answered it and his answer was correct. This issue is not one (meaning it’s not the same across the board and in every situation). There are issues that are obvious, clear, and apparent of which the student of knowledge could clarify if he has the ability to do so; so one aspect would be linked to one who’s disapproving and clarifying level of knowledge, another to his ability and another to his resolve to be patient upon enduring harms. Another consideration would be his contemplation on the specific positive and negative ramifications which would necessitate decisive and specific actions, statements and judgments. So contemplation on the benefits and harms which (would translate into) direct and decisive action (is required); this would be established by the refutation or the one making the refutation. Especially, if the issue is a knowledge-based issue that the people of knowledge have already spoken about. In this case, there would be nothing preventing (the student of knowledge from boycotting and warning). Boycotting and warning are taken from the Islaamic legislation (i.e. from the Sharee’ah). [end of quote]
The following is a question raised to our noble shaikh Ahmad an-Najmy رحمه الله concerning the role students of knowledge play in clarifying the truth:
إذا فيجب على طلاب العلم أصحاب المعرفة ، الذين عرفوا المنهج السلفي ، وعرفوا المناهج الأخرى ، يجب عليهم أن يبينوا لغيرهم ، وأن يقولوا ،وأن يتكلموا ، وأن يلقوا الخطب ، وأن يوضّحوا في كل مقام ،وفي كل مناسبة الحق ،الذي يجب أن يتّبع والباطل الذي يجب أن يترك ، ويجتنب ، أما الذين سكتوا عن بيان الحق للناس ، فإنهم لا يعذرون بسكوتهم ، ولو قالوا : نحن لسنا معهم ، فإنهم لا يعذرون ، حتى ولو قالوا : نحن لسنا مع أهل هذه الأحزاب الضّالة عن طريق الحق ، إلا أن ينكروا ماهم عليه من الضلال .
“Therefore, it is binding upon the students of knowledge – the people of understanding – the ones who know the salafi methodology, and they know concerning the other methodologies, it is binding upon them to clarify to others, and that they state and speak and deliver sermons (khutba) and that they clarify in every situation and at every suitable opportunity the truth, the truth which is binding to be followed and the falsehood that is binding to be abandoned and avoided. As for those who are silent upon clarifying the truth to the people then they are not excused due to their silence and even if they say “we are not with them” (i.e the hizbiyyoon, as is apparent upon reading the text of the full question which relates to the groups). So they are not excused even if they say “we are not with the people of these misguided groups from the truth, except that they reject and rebut that which they (the misguided groups) are upon in terms of misguidance)”.
SHEIKH RABEE’S TRANSLATED TELEPHONE LECTURE THAT TOOK PLACE IN MASJID –AS-SUNNAH (CHEETHAM HILL MANCHESTER) ON 12TH JANUARY 2003
QUESTION: Concerning a man who says he is withholding on the issue of Abul Fitan alMaribee while he has actually read the refutations of the scholars, is he to be warnedagainst and boycotted?
There is no inkaar (renouncement/disapproval of one another) in those affairs of the Religion in which the (scholars) hold differences of opinion
Some people are under the illusion that what is intended by this statement, is that it is not permissible to disapprove of (one another) with regards to any affair in which difference of opinion is held. So based upon this (illusion of theirs), it becomes impermissible to disapprove of a Munkar (an evil) unless there is complete agreement in doing so. This is a wrong understanding necessitating the closure of the door of enjoining good and forbidding evil.
The scholars hold differences of opinion in most of the masaa-il; and that which is correct with regards to this statement (Laa Inkaar Fee Masaa-il Al-Khilaaf) is that there should neither be harshness in disapproval nor reprimand with regards to those issues about which there is no manifest proof to be taken as the final (affair). And the basis upon which this is founded is that the issues of khilaaf are of two categories;
The First Category Of Khilaaf:
They are those issues of khilaaf in which there is proof necessitating that it be taken as the final (affair). So here, the proof must be taken and the other statement/opinion in opposition is discarded.
And whoever follows the statement/opinion that is established to be in opposition to the proofs, then he is to be renounced/disapproved of.
The Second Category Of Khilaaf:
It is those issues of khilaaf in which the proof has not been manifested for it to be taken as the final (affair). It is an affair in which the evidences are either at contention or the views are at variance. This is an issue of ijtihaad, and there is neither disapproval nor reprimand against the one in opposition; rather advice is given for acquaintance with the statement/opinion that carries more weight.
This second category of (khilaaf) is what is intended by the statement (Laa Inkaar Fee Masaa-il Al-Khilaaf), which some people have understood in an unrestrictive manner. [1]
