In The Naame of Allaah, The Most Merciful The Bestower of Mercy
Hishaam Bin Urwah (rahimahullaah) used to say:
”Do not question the people about what they have innovated today,
because they have prepared answers for it;
rather ask them about the Sunnah because they do not know it.”
Source: Quoted by Imaam Aloosee (rahimahullaah) in Ghaayatul Amaanee Fee Ar-Radd Alaa An-Nabahaanee: page:367 Vol:1
In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful The Bestower of Mercy
Imaam Barbahaaree (rahimahullaah) stated in Sharh- As Sunnah:
”It is permissible to fight the Khawaarij if they attack the wealth of the Muslims, or the Muslims and their families, but if they are dispersed, then the Muslim Ruler is not to seek after them, nor are their wounded to be killed, nor is booty taken from them, nor may those taken captive be killed, nor are those who flee to be pursued.”
Sheikh Saaleh Al-Fawzaan commented on the above statement of Imaam Barbahaaree (rahimahullaah) saying:
We know that the khawaarij are those who hold that they can renounce obedience (to the ruler). They hold that the ruler is not given the oath of allegiance or that it is not binding upon the people to maintain their oath of allegiance to him when he becomes sinful, and they (also) declare the Muslims to be disbelievers for committing major sins. So if they adopt this school of thought and there arises neither uproar nor killing, then they are left alone, advised and given clarification in hope that they may repent. If they cause uproar and manifest their strength, it then becomes obligatory upon the Muslims to fight them to avert their evil.
They are not fought on the basis that they are disbelievers; rather they are fought on the basis that they are Muslims who commit outrage and transgression against other Muslims. That is why when Ameerul Mumineen Ali (radiyallaahu-anhu) was asked about the khawaarij, ”Are they disbelievers?” He said: ”No, they flee from disbelief, but they are a people who have rebelled against us.” Therefore, they (khawaarij) are not fought on the basis that they are disbelievers and that is why their women and children are not taken as captives, nor is their wealth taken, nor are their wounded killed; because they are only fought to avert their evil and not because of disbelief.
And regarding the saying of Imaam Barbahaaree (rahimahullaah):
‘It is permissible to fight the Khawaarij if they attack the wealth of the Muslims, or the Muslims and their families;’ because the Prophet (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) commanded that they are to be fought, and because Ali (radiyallaahu-anhu) fought them when they attacked and killed Abdullaah Ibn Khabbaab al Arrat and ripped open the stomach of his pregnant wife. So Ameerul Mumineen Ali (radiyallaahu-anhu) decided to fight them as they brought about a good reason to be fought against.
And regarding the saying of Imaam Barbahaaree (rahimahullaah): ‘But if they are dispersed, then the Muslim leader is not to seek after them.” If they refrain from fighting, the ruler is neither to chase them nor carry out a military expedition against them, as long as they do not commit acts of transgression. And no doubt they are misguided and are to be advised in hope that they may return (repentant) and are not fought.
And regarding the saying of Imaam Barbahaaree (rahimahullaah): ‘Nor are their wounded to be killed’; because the evil of the injured person is curtailed. And regarding the saying of Imaam Barbahaaree (rahimahullaah): ‘Nor is booty to be taken from them’, meaning: their wealth is not to be taken as war booty; because it is the wealth of the Muslims.
And regarding the saying of Imaam Barbahaaree (rahimahullaah): ‘Nor may those taken captive be killed’ because they are Muslims, and by being injured and taken as captive their evil is curtailed. And regarding the saying of Imaam Barbahaaree (rahimahullaah): ‘Nor are those who flee to be pursued’. If they flee, the leader is to leave them alone and not go after them as their evil is curtailed.
[Source: It-haaful Qaaree Bitta’liqaat Alaa Sharhus Sunnah Lil Imaam Barbahaaree) by Sheikh Saaleh al-Fawzaan (hafidha-hullaah) (page: 240-242, Vol: 1)]
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)”.
Author: Shaikh Ahmad As-Subay’ee (hafithahullah)
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;
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.
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]