The Albaani Site

Translation from the Works of the Reviver of this Century

Tag: albaani

April 11, 2012

A New Form of Extremism, Hizbiyyah, Hatred and Hostility


 

 

Questioner, reading out a written question: How correct is the statement that the present-day Islamic groups apart from the Salafi Jamaa’ah–[the questioner wrote], ‘the mother of the groups,’ and between brackets he put, ‘Salafiyyah’–are more harmful to Islaam than the Jews and the Christians, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, basing this analogy upon this statement of Ibn Taymiyyah’s [Trans. Note. which must have been mentioned in an earlier sitting] regarding the Raafidah?

Al-Albaani: No, I don’t believe except that this is a new form of extremism and a new form of partisanship and hatred and hostility.

In all of the Islamic Jamaa’ahs there is good and bad.

Passing judgement regarding the Jamaa’ahs, my brothers, is like passing judgement on individuals, passing judgement regarding the Jamaa’ahs is like passing judgement on individuals. There is no Muslim individual who has gathered all the qualities of perfection, only some and not others, maybe his good will be more than his bad, his bad more than his good–and even in the case where his bad is more than his good, it is not fitting that we deny the good which has come from him.

So the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hizb at-Tahrir and the Tablighi Jamaa’ah have good in them but they are also distant from Islaam, either out of ignorance or because they have ignored it.

For this reason, this statement contains extreme gravity, it is not allowed to make such generalised statements, in fact, it is not permissible to declare them to be misguided. We said in some of our sittings … [I said that] I do not hold that we should say that every Shee’ee is a kaafir, but any Shee’ee who says that our Quraan is only a quarter of the missing one, [the one they call] the Mushaf of Faatimah, or he makes statements of disbelief such as that and believes in them and takes them as religion before Allaah, then such a person is the one we call a kaafir. As for saying that all of the Shee’ah are disbelievers, then this is an expression of extremism in the religion.

So it is more becoming, more fitting, that this statement [I just made above] is applied to [those less than the Shee’ah like] the Muslim Brotherhood or other Jamaa’ahs which are all gathered together by Islaam.

But some of them are closer to Islaam than others, some are further than others, so, in all of these Jamaa’ahs there is good and [also] smoke, as occurs in an authentic hadith.

So we in reality look at the Salafi da’wah as the one call which unites the Muslims, because it is the call of truth which the Pious Predecessors were upon, as for the other groups then they have this and that and such and such.

Thus it is not allowed to make such statements general, for they contain oppression and an opposition to His Saying, the Blessed and Most High, “… and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just, that is nearer to righteousness …” [Al-Maa’idah 5:8]

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 752.

Leave a comment
April 11, 2012

Warn Against Him Personally or Clarify the Mistakes?


Questioner: A man whose foundations are those of Ahlus-Sunnah and he traverses their methodology, and is known for defending it and for his service to their methodology, and sometimes some mistakes in the methodology emanate from him: should he be warned against personally or by clarifying his mistakes?

Al-Albaani: The second and not the first.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 751.

2 Comments
April 10, 2012

Writing off Scholars who Fall Into Mistakes in Aqidah And A Discussion of Other Important Issues


 

Questioner: O Shaikh! One more question, and it’s the last: there is someone who is vicious in speaking about the scholars, not concerned whether they are major or not, I’ll give you an example, whoever has been described as being Ash’ari or about whom it has been said that his aqidah is Ash’ari, then you will find that this person speaks about him in the most despicable manner, so we want you to advise him, especially since a lot of people have been deceived by him and they say that, ‘He has the characteristics of the righteous.’

So we want you to advise him, O Shaikh!

Al-Albaani: Yes. May Allaah reward you with good.

I believe that justice is that every Muslim is mentioned with the goodness and correctness that he has, and that he is mentioned with the mistakes that he has–and I [say ‘mistakes’ and] not, ‘evil’ because evil is more specific than a mistake.

I believe that this person mentioned in the question is not a faqeeh, it may be that he is righteous, but righteousness is something and understanding in the religion [fiqh] is something else.

And maybe it is pertinent [here] for me to remind you that the result of righteousness which is not coupled with knowledge is that such a righteous person will end up giving himself the death penalty.

As he عليه الصلاة والسلام narrated to us in an authentic hadith, agreed upon by Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Abu Hurairah, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, who said, “Allaah’s Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said, ‘Amongst those before you was a man who killed ninety-nine people and he wanted to repent so he asked about the most knowledgeable people on the face of the earth? And so he was directed to a raahib …” i.e., a righteous slave who had secluded himself from the people to worship Allaah according to their way of monasticism in those times, “… so he came to him and said, ‘I have killed ninety-nine people, is there a chance for me to repent?’ He said, ‘You have killed ninety-nine people and now you’re asking if you can repent?’ There is no chance for you to repent,’–and so he killed him and completed a hundred …”

And it seems from the many versions of the story and its context that the man [i.e., the murderer] really was sincere in wanting to repent, but he wanted a scholar who could show him the path that he should undertake, “… so he carried on asking until he was directed to a scholar and so went to him and said, ‘I have killed one hundred people unlawfully, is there a chance for me to repent?’ So he replied, ‘And who can come between you and repentance? But you are in an evil land …’ this is the answer of a scholar, ‘… so leave it and go to such and such a place whose inhabitants are righteous.’”

So he left, walking, and on his way there his appointed time came and so the angels started to contend over him, the Angels of Mercy and the Angels of Punishment, each one claiming that the man was rightfully theirs to take. So Allaah sent an angel to them to judge between them, and so he said, ‘Measure the distance between him and both towns, the one he left and the one he was going to, and cause him to join the people of whichever of the two he is closest.’

So they measured and found him to be closer to the town he was going to and so the Angels of Mercy took his soul. [Transl. note: so the Shaikh was trying to show that even though the first person the murderer asked may have been righteous, he was not a scholar and gave the wrong answer, telling the murderer that there was no way for him to repent, and thus the result of his incorrect ruling was that he was also killed. Whereas the second person was a true scholar, someone who is righteous and has knowledge too, and based upon his knowledge did give the correct answer.]

The point is that this man [you mentioned in the question], if he is righteous, as we hope he is, then [we still say that] he is not a faqeeh.

He does not picture, and he is not alone in this–and I think this is a very important point–many people differentiate between mistakes in the subsidiary issues [furoo’] and those in the fundamentals [usool], saying, ‘Mistakes in the subsidiary issues are forgiven if they emanate from ijtihaad, but as for those which occur in the fundamentals then they are not forgiven,’–this is incorrect.

The first reason [for this being incorrect] is that there is no proof for this categorization, i.e., splitting the Sharee’ah into fundamentals and subsidiary issues and then basing judgements on this categorization has no basis.

The second is that the proofs, or some of them at the very least, confirm that even if a person makes a mistake in things connected to aqidah he is also excused.

The greatest proofs for that are the two hadiths which I will quote now. The first is the one of that man who gathered his children when he was about to die and said to them, ‘What kind of a father have I been to you?’ They said, ‘The best father.’ He said, ‘Verily, I have sinned against my Lord. After my death, burn me and then crush me, and scatter half the powder in the air and half in the sea, for by Allah, if Allah has control over me, He will give me such a punishment as He has never given to anyone else.’

So when he died they carried out his request, a request whose injustice and distance from the legislation may not have an equivalent, So Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said to his particles, ‘Be so and so.’ And then Allaah the Mighty and Majestic asked him, ‘My servant! What made you do that?’ He said, ‘My Lord! I was afraid of You.’ So He said, ‘Go, for I have forgiven you.’

So he disbelieved, there is no doubt that he disbelieved, because he made that unjust will thinking that he would be able to get away from his Lord, which reminds us of the Most High’s Saying, “And he presents for Us an example and forgets his [own] creation. He says, “Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?” [Yaa Seen 36:78]

So this man, [what] his will [contains] says that Allaah the Mighty and Majestic is unable to resurrect him to be the fully formed man that he was, but Allaah did, saying, ‘Be so and so,’ and then addressed him.

But Allaah the Mighty and Majestic who is the One who knows what man’s breast conceals, knew that this person in doing that action was not denying the Resurrection and that it was only the fear of the impending punishment [which made him do what he did], and he admitted that it would happen and that he would deserve it, [so it was these things] that blinded his insight and thus he left that unjust will.

The second hadith is his saying عليه السلام–and this is also very important and has a connection to the issue of the Ahlul-Fitrah, and many sittings concerning this topic have preceded–he عليه السلام said, “There is no man from this Ummah, whether Jew or Christian, who hears about me yet does not believe in me except that he will enter the Fire.”

So, these people who did not hear of the Prophet عليه السلام and died as disbelievers, as polytheists, will not be punished because of their shirk and misguidance–in fact I will go even further and, taking the understanding from his saying عليه السلام, “…who hears about me …” say that it means, ‘… [who hears about] me truly/my true reality …’ because if we picture some of these Europeans, like the British or the Germans and their like, those who have been affected by the call of the Qadiyanis and who have believed that there are other Prophets after the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم and that one of them was sent to Qadian [in India], the one who was initially well-known as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyani, and who then changed his name to Ahmad for a reason well-known … so the point is that these Germans and British people who were led astray in the name of the call to Islaam, [being led to believe that] Islaam acknowledges the coming of messengers after the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and that one of them was called Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyani and that Islam denies the existence of a creation called the Jinn–which have well-known characteristics in the Book and the Sunnah–there is no doubt that these people have gone astray: but did they really hear about him عليه السلام truly? The answer is no.

Thus, this hadith teaches us that:

Firstly, those whom the message does not reach at all will not be punished. They will be dealt with in that well-known manner on the Day of Resurrection.

Secondly, if Islaam’s message reaches them in a distorted manner, altered, changed, and they believe in it, then they will also not be held to account over that.

So, differentiating between fundamentals [usool] and subsidiary issues [furoo] is a deviance from the Book and the Sunnah, for this reason I say that it is obligatory on this brother [you asked about in the question and] who is righteous inshaa Allaah, to rectify his knowledge, at the very least to rectify it in his unjust fatwa.

So the fact that a noble scholar erred in an Aqidah issue like [Allaah’s] Names and Attributes and other such things which some of the Ash’aris and Maaturidis fell into … then it is possible that that could have been based upon their ijtihaad and not because of any evil intent on their behalf–so it is not allowed to make such a statement [as the one mentioned in the question] unrestrictedly except with a restriction [like the following]: whoever comes to know the truth and then deviates from it then he is such and such.

[And following on from this] there is no difference between someone who deviates from what is right in the issue of [Allaah’s] Names and Attributes or anything [else] connected to aqidah and someone who deviates in a legislative ruling.

For example, someone who knows that the truth is that bleeding does not break one’s ablution but who still goes astray and insists [on the opposite] arrogantly [going against] the proofs [then the case is clear], and you can judge the rest based upon this [example].

And how many subsidiary issues there are which the scholars have differed in and whose effect on the community can be much worse than some issues which are only connected to aqidah.

I wonder, do you think those who deny the punishment of the grave like some of the groups found in the Islamic world today, would you say that the harm of denying the punishment of the grave is greater than that fiqh opinion which says that it is permissible for a Muslim girl who reaches the age of discernment to get married herself without her guardians consent, in opposition to the hadith?

Which of the two opinions has a greater effect in corrupting the community? Is it the first which denies the punishment of the grave or this one which denies the condition of the guardian’s consent?

There is no doubt that this [i.e., denying the guardian’s consent] causes more corruption, but this issue is a subsidiary one [furoo] and that other one [i.e., denying the punishment in the grave] is a fundamental [usool], “They are not but [mere] names you have named–you and your forefathers for which Allaah has sent down no authority.” [An-Najm 53:23]

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 635.

1 Comment
April 9, 2012

Asked About Spying on People who Want to Harm the Scholars


 

Questioner: Is it allowed to spy on people who want to harm the scholars or callers of the Ummah? In order to distance this harm from them, is it allowed to spy?

Al-Albaani: I think the question contradicts itself, how did this person who wants to spy come to know that there are people who want to harm the Ummah except by spying?

Questioner: [He and the others present start laughing].

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 674.

2 Comments
April 8, 2012

Is it Allowed to Praise the People of Innovation?


In this post, the Shaikh refers to a, ‘… long answer,’ he gave just before this one was asked, that answer can be found here.

 

Questioner: Is it allowed to praise the people of innovation even if they claim to be serving Islaam and [say] that they are striving for that, like at-Turaabi and those like him?

Al-Albaani: The answer differs according to the circumstance.

If what is meant by praising a Muslim who we assume is an innovator, and we do not say that he is an innovator [and you will have understood this] by that long answer [I just gave, where I said that] we differentiate between the two things inshaa Allaah–so if what is intended by praising him is to defend him in the face of the disbelievers then this is obligatory.

But if what is meant by praising him is to beautify his methodology and to call the people to it, then this is not permissible.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 666.

Leave a comment
April 8, 2012

Differentiating Between Innovations


Questioner: Some people say that someone who innovates a type of innovation which can lead to disbelief [bid’ah ‘mukaffirah’] has left the Ahlus-Sunnah, [but that] someone who innovates a type which can lead to defiant disobedience [bid’ah ‘mufassiqah’] does not leave the Ahlus-Sunnah.  If the proof was established against him and he persisted in it would he [still] be regarded as being from the Ahlus-Sunnah then?

Al-Albaani: Repeat [your question].

Questioner: Some people say that someone who innovates a type of innovation which can lead to disbelief has left the Ahlus-Sunnah …

Al-Albaani: Firstly, what is an innovation which can lead to disbelief and one which can lead to defiant disobedience?

Questioner: An innovation which can lead to disbelief and one which can lead to defiant disobedience.

Al-Albaani: What are they?

Questioner: An innovation which can lead to disbelief would be like if he were to innovate an innovation comprising disbelief like when some of them do not hold that Allaah the Most High rose above His Throne and so on. And an innovation which can lead to defiant disobedience would be like if he were to fall into an innovation connected to worship, like celebrating the Prophet’s birthday, for example.

Al-Albaani: This speech is incorrect, it emanates from [scholastic] theology [ilmul-kalaam].

Differentiating between innovations connected to fundamentals [usool], innovations in the subsidiary issues [furoo], innovations connected to rulings [ahkaam], innovations connected to worship–this differentiation is [in itself] an innovation.

Do you see if there were a man who approached a certain Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, like the Sunnah for the morning prayer, for example, and read four [instead of two] and insisted on that, which type of innovation would this be?  One which can lead to disbelief or defiant disobedience?

Questioner: According to the categorisation [I asked about] it would be an innovation which can lead to defiant disobedience.

Al-Albaani: This is false and futile speech.

From the things which later generations [khalaf] inherited from the Salaf–and by the term ‘Salaf’ here I don’t mean that technical meaning which we use it with [i.e., the Shaikh is saying that people have taken the incorrect understanding which he is going to mention in the next few sentences, from their fathers, forefathers, ancestors etc., and not from ‘the’ Salaf, i.e., the first three generations of Muslims and those upon their way, i.e., he’s using the term Salaf here with the linguistic meaning]–is to distinguish between mistakes in subsidiary issues [furoo’] and those in the fundamentals [usool], [saying that] mistakes in the subsidiary issues are forgiven while those committed concerning the fundamentals are not … and the authentic hadith, “If a judge passes judgment and makes Ijtihad and he is right then he will have two rewards. And if he makes a mistake he will have one,” [Bukhari: 7352, Muslim: 1716] this is concerning the subsidiary issues [they say], but as for the fundamentals, mistakes made concerning them are not forgiven–this [saying of theirs] has no origin, not the Book nor the Sunnah, and nor from the statements of the Salaf as-Saalih. That which is found in the statements of the Salaf is a severe threat from all innovation, whether in aqidah or [matters of] worship.

In reality, just now I remembered, ‘Whoever declares a Muslim to be a disbeliever has disbelieved,’ and I add to it that whoever declares a Muslim to be an innovator … to the end.

Because the reality is that in my opinion there is no difference between disbelief and innovations. If a Muslim innovated something and his innovation was made clear to him but he still persisted in it, like the example I gave just now, like denying Allaah’s Ascendancy above His creation, or denying that the Quraan is His Speech or, or … etc., [then] there is no difference between these things at all, not in affirming or negating: i.e., affirming by saying, ‘This is disbelief,’ [is done] with the aforementioned condition, i.e., that the proof has been established … and negating, i.e., [saying] that he is not to be declared a disbeliever, is [also] not done except with the aforementioned condition [i.e., establishing the proof].

I say again that the Mu’tazilah and the Khawaarij are the same in some of their misguidance and different in other things. For example, the Khawaarij are the same as the Mu’tazilah in saying that the Quraan is created, and I just mentioned to you that the scholars of hadith do not declare the Khawaarij to be disbelievers, thus, in our minds how do we reconcile between [those who say that] someone who denies aqidah is a kaafir but someone who innovates something concerning worship is a faasiq [and not a kaafir, even though both have innovated]?

[How can we say this when ] we see that the Imaams of Hadith narrate from the Khawaarij and from the Mu’tazilah even though they oppose the correct aqidah in more than one issue?

So for example, these people who said that Allaah’s Speech is created also deny that Allaah will be seen in the Hereafter, this denial and the one before it cause our previous definition to apply to them, that it is disbelief but that not everyone who falls in to disbelief has the ruling of disbelief applied to them.

How do we reconcile between the fact that we find the Imaams of Hadith and the Imaams of the Salaf like Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim ruling that the Khawaarij and the Mu’tazilah are misguided no doubt, [and between the fact that] they do not declare them to be disbelievers who have apostatised from their religion? [This is so] because they hold that there is a possibility that, firstly, the issues was unclear to them and secondly that the proof was not established against them.

Let’s go back to the root of our first topic, that these people are innovators, but that we do not know whether they wilfully intended that innovation, [nor do we know if] the proof has been established against them … etc., this is the manhaj of the scholars–they declare the Mu’tazilah to be misguided, and the Khawaarij, and the Ash’aris, in more than one issue, but they do not declare them to be disbelievers, and nor do they declare them to be outside the fold of Islaam due to the possibility of what we just mentioned, which goes back to two things which I will remind you of: the first, that they did not intend to innovate or [fall into such] violations, and secondly, that we do not know if the proof was established against them or not.

Thus, their reckoning is with Allaah and we go by what is apparent from them–which is Islaam, and they died upon Islaam and were buried in the Muslim graveyards, and thus, they are Muslims.

So differentiating between innovations which can lead to disbelief [bid’ah ‘mukaffirah’] and innovations which can lead to defiant disobedience [bid’ah ‘mufassiqah’] is terminology which emanates from the scholars of theological rhetoric, and secondly, there is no proof for it whatsoever.

And I will finish this topic by reminding you [of the point I’m making] with a hadith which proves what I just mentioned: that not everyone who falls into disbelief becomes a disbeliever.

I’m referring to the hadith of Bukhaari reported by the two venerable Companions, Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri and Hudhaifah ibn al-Yamaan, who said that Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said, “A man used to do sinful deeds, and when death came to him, he said to his sons, ‘After my death, burn me and then crush me, and scatter the powder in the air, for by Allaah, if Allaah has control over me, He will give me such a punishment as He has never given to anyone else.’ When he died, his sons did accordingly. Allaah ordered the earth saying, ‘Collect what you hold of his particles.’ It did so, and behold! There he was (the man) standing. Allah asked (him), ‘What made you do what you did?’ He replied, ‘O my Lord! I was afraid of You.’ So Allah forgave him.”

So now let us ask, did this man disbelieve or not?

Questioner: He disbelieved.

Al-Albaani: He disbelieved? But Allaah forgave him?

Questioner: He didn’t disbelieve [then].

Al-Albaani: Didn’t you see what he said, ‘… if Allah has control over me …’ he didn’t disbelieve?

Questioner: According to this statement, [then] yes [he disbelieved].

Al-Albaani: I didn’t restrict it [to being based upon that statement alone], I said did he disbelieve or not?

We know from the Noble Quraan that Allaah does not forgive associating partners with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whoever He wills. How do we reconcile [between these two things]?

We do so based upon what we just said before: [that] Allaah does not forgive associating partners with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whoever He wills–He does not forgive someone who associates partners with Him intentionally and deliberately.

What do you think about this condition/stipulation?

Questioner: Good.

Al-Albaani: Good. But is it present in the aayah?

Questioner: It’s not.

Al-Albaani: Did we conjure it up based upon our desires?

Questioner: No.

Al-Albaani: This is how the Sharee’ah is, it is not taken from one aayah or one hadith, but rather from a group of what has been reported in the issue [at hand].

For this reason, it is not only in issues of fiqh that we must gather all the texts in order to know the abrogating from the abrogated, the general from the specific, the unrestricted from that which restricts/limits, and so on–rather aqidah has a greater priority in that by far, so when the scholars explain this aayah, “Indeed, Allaah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills …” [An-Nisaa 4:48] they normally do not mention such detail, but when problems and doubts occur, it is there that the scholar is compelled to make clear the knowledge that he has.

So this man left a will which I cannot picture there being an equivalent to, in its injustice, oppression and misguidance: [he told them to] burn him so that he could get away from His Lord, and Allaah says, “And he presents for Us an example and forgets his [own] creation. He says, “Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?” [Yaa Seen 36:78] yet despite that, our Lord forgave him, because disbelief had not taken root in this person’s heart.

He pictured his sins before Allaah the Mighty and Majestic and his fear of Him and the fact that when he reaches Him, the Mighty and Majestic, He would punish him severely, this inclination and dread blinded him from seeing the correct aqidah, and so he ordered that [that] wrongful will [be carried out], and the hadith is clear, ‘Go, for I have forgiven you.’

So for example, [although] we believe he did fall into Wahdatul-Wujood, it is not fitting for us to picture that Sayyid Qutb did so intentionally and that he firmly set his heart onto it–unlike Ibn Arabi, the one who misguided millions of Sufi Muslims. Maybe this Sufi ideology, occurred to him [i.e., Qutb] while he was imprisoned and he didn’t grasp the issue based upon knowledge, and so he wrote that phrase which I was one of the first to criticise.

We do not judge him to be a disbeliever, because we do not know if disbelief took root in his heart or not, or whether the proof was established against him, especially when he was in prison–how could it have been?

For this reason we do not connect the fact that a Muslim falls into disbelief with him being a disbeliever, we do not bind these two issues together, this is the first matter and it has been repeated in order to warn [you]. Secondly, we do not differentiate between innovations in aqidah or innovations in worship, both of them are either misguidance or disbelief.

And maybe in this much there is sufficiency, O Abu Abdur-Rahmaan.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 664.

1 Comment
April 6, 2012

Is There an Established Date for the Israa and Mi’raaj?


 

Questioner: Do you recall anything concerning the likely date of the Prophet’s night-journey [Israa] and his ascension [mi’raaj]?

Al-Albaani: There is nothing established concerning it.

Questioner: There’s nothing established until now?

Al-Albaani: Not at all.

Questioner: And the hadith which says that it was on the 18th of Rabee’ul-Awwal, what is its grading?

Al-Albaani: It’s a mu’addal narration.

Questioner: ‘Mu’addal’ meaning weak [da’eef]?

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 594.

1 Comment
April 3, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | End | Praying Behind Someone who May Have Some Shirk


Questioner: In addition to the brother’s question, if the Imaam has some form of shirk, like making amulets or making fun of the Prophet’s Sunnah صلى الله عليه وسلم like the beard or shortening the thawb and so on …

Al-Albaani: Yaa Akhi, the issue of the beard and other such issues, that sin is on him, but as for shirk then that is the dangerous thing, but we, Ahlus-Sunnah, have to know that not everyone who falls into shirk has the ruling of being a mushrik applied to him, and that is because shirk is divided into [differing] categories, two of which concern us now: shirk [which one believes] from the heart [shirk qalbee], and spoken shirk [shirk lafdhi].

So if a Muslim who prays and fasts falls into spoken shirk, this spoken shirk may reflect shirk of the heart and [yet] it may not. So it is not allowed to judge this person who has committed shirk in a statement to say that he is a mushrik at heart except after having asked him about it in detail and sought clarification from him.

So if we were to assume that his shirk is from the first type, then he is a Muslim, who has for him and against him whatever we [as Muslims] have for us and against us. And maybe you have heard the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وآله سلم saying to that man who heard one of his sermons and, wanting to express his obedience to him, said, ‘Whatever Allaah and you have willed!’ So he عليه السلام said, ‘Have you made me a partner of Allaah’s? Say, ‘Whatever Allaah Alone has willed.’’

So this is shirk, but spoken. He should have said, ‘Whatever Allaah willed and then you willed,’ but he made a mistake and said, ‘Whatever Allaah and you have willed!’ and so made the Prophet a partner by making him a peer of his Lord.

Also from this type is that a man from his Companions صلى الله عليه وآله سلم saw a dream in which he was walking in some of Medinah’s alleyways when he met a Jew, and so said to him, ‘How excellent a people you would be if only you never committed shirk with Allaah by saying, ‘Uzair is the son of Allaah.’ So the Jew said, ‘How excellent a people you would be if only you never committed shirk with Allaah by saying, ‘Whatever Allaah and Muhammad have willed!’

Then he went on a little and met a Christian, and so said to him, ‘How excellent a people you would be if only you never committed shirk with Allaah by saying, ‘Jesus is the son of Allaah.’ So the Christian said, ‘How excellent a people you would be if only you never committed shirk with Allaah by saying, ‘Whatever Allaah and Muhammad have willed!’

In the morning he went to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and told him about his dream, so he said, ‘Have you related it to anyone?’ He said no and so the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام delivered a sermon to the people, saying, ‘O People! Oftentimes I would hear one of you say, ‘Whatever Allaah and Muhammad have willed!’ Verily, do not say, ‘Whatever Allaah and Muhammad have willed!’ but say, ‘Whatever Allaah Alone has willed …’ and in another narration [there occurs], ‘… whatever Allaah has willed and then you willed.’

So if the shirk of this person who you say is a mushrik is spoken, then he is a Muslim, and if it is revealed that his shirk is from the heart, then, too, we are not allowed to rush into declaring him to be a disbeliever as long as he testifies that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah except after the proof is established against him. If it is and he still persists on his shirk and misguidance then he is cast aside.

Without such a clarification it is not allowed to declare to be a disbeliever a Muslim who testifies that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah let alone one who prays the five daily prayers and leads the Muslims in that.

So we must pay heed to this detail.

Do you have anything else?

Questioner: And if he makes amulets?

Al-Albaani: It’s a mistake, O brother, this is a mistake, but we say that you must differentiate between disbelief in action [kufr amali] and disbelief that one actually believes in [kufr I’tiqadi], spoken disbelief and disbelief of the heart. [Making amulets] is haraam there is no doubt in that, but it is not allowed to declare him to be a disbeliever based only on these actions [i.e., without establishing the proof against him as the Shaikh mentioned above].

Questioner [asking a question on a different topic now]: After the tarawih prayer I heard them say, ‘Subhaanal-Malikil-Quddoos.’ Has this been reported from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم?

Al-Albaani: Yes. This is an authentic Sunnah reported in Sunan an-Nisaa’i with an authentic chain of narration.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Albaani: And it is obligatory on us to revive these Sunnahs by virtue of the fact of the many things which are said in various countries and each country has its own customs and habits, the people have killed off the Sunnah.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 574.

End

Leave a comment
April 3, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 9 | A Question from Holland: Brothers who Boycotted the Mosques Because the Imaams Oppose the Sunnah in Some Issues


Questioner: … when I said to you that a group of our brothers in a city in Holland boycott the mosques and that they were waiting for a fatwa from you such that if you said to them that it was permissible they, inshaa Allaah, would be totally ready to go to any mosque, and the reason they don’t go is because, as I mentioned to you, there are people of innovation there and that some of the Imaams there shave their beards and wear their thawbs below their ankles and other such things.

Al-Albaani: Ya’ni, this question is not connected to the Jamaa’ah of Takfeer and Hijrah?

Questioner: It’s as though they have left some of that thinking but other remnants from it still remain, from which is boycotting the mosques and not praying in them, and not establishing the Friday prayer.

Al-Albaani: If these people who have boycotted the mosques are from the Jamaa’ah of takfeer then the answer has preceded, but if they are from another group who have not been affected with their ideology then such people are very widespread in the Islamic world, such that they hold that it is not correct to pray behind people who oppose [the Sunnah] or innovate or things such as that.

So according to what we believe, this [stance of theirs] is taking the legislation to extremes and has no basis.

I don’t know if I mentioned some of the legislative texts in that [previous] gathering or a different one, from which is his saying عليه الصلاة والسلام about the Imaams, “If they lead the prayer correctly then they and you will receive the rewards, but if they make a mistake, then you will receive the reward for the prayer and the sin will be theirs.”  [Bukhaari, no. 694]. Do you remember if we mentioned this hadith?

Questioner: No, you didn’t mention it …

Al-Albaani: We didn’t mention it …

Questioner: I went over the tape [and you never mentioned it].

Al-Albaani: Ok, it is the answer, i.e., it is not allowed for any Muslim to keep away from praying in a mosque as long as a Muslim Imaam is leading the prayer [there], even if in that Imaam’s ideology, aqidah, behaviour and manners, there is some deviation from the [correct] legislated rulings [in those areas].

So as we all know, Islaam always and forever orders unity, oneness, and being distant from the causes of disunity, such that the issue reached the level where the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام said a hadith like this which is express in showing the correctness of the prayer of someone who prays behind an Imaam even if that Imaam has shortcomings in some areas, so he صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said, as occurs in Sahih Bukhari, reported by Abu Hurairah, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said, ‘They will lead you in prayer. If they do so correctly then they and you will receive the rewards, but if they make a mistake, then you will receive the reward for the prayer and the sin will be theirs.”

So if I had an opinion, or order, or piece of advice to direct to these people who you mentioned [in the question], then we order them with the Prophet’s order صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم who said what you just heard about the Imaams, “They will lead you in prayer. If they do so correctly then they and you will receive the rewards, but if they make a mistake, then you will receive the reward for the prayer and the sin will be theirs.”

This is the answer.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 523.

Leave a comment
April 2, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 8 | Following the Imaam if He is Mistaken


Questioner: If the Imaam performs the Qunut supplication in the morning prayer, raising his hands, and the one praying behind him knows that he performs the Qunut in the morning prayer, does the one praying behind him have to raise his hands in order to follow the Imaam?

Al-Albaani: Yes. Because of the previous hadith, and in reality this is a precise/detailed issue, because in the first part of that hadith he عليه السلام said, ‘The Imam is only there to be followed, so when he says, ‘Allaahu Akbar,’ then you should say it, and when he recites, then listen, and when he bows then you should bow, and when he says, ‘Allaah has heard the one who praised him,’ then say, ‘Our Lord, all praise is for you,’ and when he prostrates then you should prostrate, and if he prays standing then pray standing, and if he prays sitting then you should pray sitting.’

This hadith is a very great text concerning the fact that the praying person has to follow the Imaam even if it means that he has to leave a pillar of the prayer, not just something obligatory or sunnah [but a pillar even], because we all know that from the pillars of the prayer, without which the prayer is not correct, is to pray whilst standing, as He, the Most High, said, ‘… and stand before Allaah, devoutly obedient.’ [Baqarah 2:238]

If a man performed an obligatory prayer whilst sitting when he could have done so standing, then his prayer is null and void, this is in contrast to the optional prayer which the Legislator has permitted one to pray sitting, but He made its reward equivalent to half of the one who prays whilst standing.

As for [praying] the obligatory prayer whilst sitting if one is not ill or does not have any other excuse, then such a prayer is null and void.

Yet even though that is the case [and to show how important following the Imaam is], if the Imaam prayed whilst sitting out of illness then all of those who are following him, even though they are healthy, have to pray whilst sitting along with him as a realisation of this general principle, that, ‘The Imam is only there to be followed …’

And the circumstance relating to this hadith is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was riding an animal of his one day when he fell off and hurt a vein in the middle of his arm. The time for midday prayer approached and so he led them whilst sitting, since due to the severity of the impact he عليه السلام wasn’t able to do so standing. He عليه السلام noticed that the people behind him were praying standing, since firstly, this was what [in normal circumstances] was ordained for them and they always used to pray behind him عليه السلام standing, so he signalled for them to sit which they did and then he عليه السلام said, ‘You were almost about to do what the Persians do before their greats, they stand before their kings. ‘The Imam is only there to be followed, so when he says, ‘Allaahu Akbar,’ you should say it …’ until the end of the hadith.

So we notice here that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ordered his Companions who were strong and healthy to sit down, because he was. He was the one who couldn’t stand and so was excused, those following him were able to stand, but the Wise Legislator deemed them to be excused from having to pray standing in order to follow the Imaam who, due to a valid excuse, was praying sitting.

For this reason, we say that when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, ‘… when he bows then you should bow and when he prostrates you should prostrate …’ he did not do so to mean that following the Imaam was only to be limited to these things, but rather it was to give an example [of the things he is to be followed in], and there is a difference between those things being mentioned by way of limitation and between being mentioned as some examples, i.e., the Prophet عليه السلام mentioned them as examples to affirm the principle that, ‘The Imam is only there to be followed …’

And we know, for example, that when an Imaam forgets [to sit for] the first tashhahud and stands, it is upon some of those following him to remind him by saying, ‘Subhaanallaah!’  So if he remembers, he goes back and this has some elaboration which maybe I can mention soon, and if the Imaam doesn’t remember and stands, then he will have left this [first] tashhahud, [he will have left] the sitting for the first tashhahud and what is to be read therein mistakenly–but we [i.e., the people praying behind him] follow him in that mistake [i.e., we have to stand up with him and can’t remain sitting to recite the tashhahud], because he has an excuse [i.e., forgetfulness].

And in a similar way, elimate each issue where difference has occurred between the Imaams, so if the Imaam is performing a prayer in which he opposes the Sunnah while believing himself to be upon the Sunnah, then we do not oppose him.

But as we mentioned earlier, if he left the Sunnah out of negligence/disregard then following him is not applied here, because he is not following the Sunnah and not following an Imaam, here we oppose him because he has opposed the Sunnah and his Imaam, so he is a negligent, lazy person who does not have an excuse.

So the principle is that he [i.e., the Imaam] is followed in whatever breach he has an excuse for, and if he doesn’t [have an excuse] then no, the Sunnah.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 75.

Leave a comment
April 2, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 7 | A Question from America: Can A Group of Brothers Establish the Prayer at Home if the Imaam is Upon Innovation?


Al-Albaani: Wa alaikum salaam.

Questioner: Is his eminence, the Shaikh present?

Al-Albaani [out of humility]: The old, aged, Shaikh is present.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: And you.

Questioner: Can we ask some questions, O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: We called you yesterday and didn’t find you, so the brother al-Khateeb gave us some answers about the issue.

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: And he asked us to call you today, so we are here in the city of Arlington in Texas, in the US, and we have a Mosque here with an Imaam …

Al-Albaani: He [i.e., al-Khateeb] explained the issue to me, so listen to the answer.

Any Imaam who leads the Muslims [in prayer], in any place, whether in a mosque or a musalla, or a house, or any other place, as long as the Muslims praying behind him hold that that Imaam is a Muslim, then their prayer behind him is correct–whatever their opinion about him is, whether in relation to aqidah or in terms of manners and actions.

So as long as his violation in aqidah or manners does not lead them to believe that he has disbelieved and left the fold of Islaam, then their prayer behind him is correct, due to his saying عليه الصلاة والسلام about the Imaams who lead you in prayer, “If they lead the prayer correctly then they and you will receive the rewards, but if they make a mistake, then you will receive the reward for the prayer and the sin will be theirs.”  This hadith is in Sahih Bukhari, what does it say? “If they lead the prayer correctly then they and you will receive the rewards, but if they make a mistake, then you will receive the reward for the prayer and the sin will be theirs.”  [Bukhaari, no. 694].

But in addition to this, if those who are being led in prayer are discontent with their Imaam in something related to aqidah or manners, then  I advise that they try to replace him with someone else, someone better than him, if that is within their ability, and if it isn’t, then Allaah does not burden any soul with more than it can bear.

So it is either within your control or power to distance this Imaam of yours from being the Imaam and to bring someone better than him … this is something obligatory on you, or if the other case is true [i.e., it is not within your power], then your prayer behind him is correct as I told you before.

And through this legislated ruling it is possible for the Muslims to come together despite their differences and for them not to cut off or turn away from each other, has the answer become clear for you?

Questioner: It’s clear.

Al-Albaani: Good, what else do you have?

Questioner: It’s not allowed after … [tape unclear] … to pray on our own, is it allowed?

Al-Albaani: If the mosque, if the congregation is in the mosque and not outside it and the mosque has an appointed Imaam and an appointed muezzin behind whom the Muslims are gathered, yes.

Questioner: There is an appointed Imaam but not an appointed muezzin.

Al-Albaani: There is an appointed Imaam but not an appointed muezzin? This is something we cannot picture except in the land of disbelief which you live in. For this reason, it is upon you to emigrate from there.

As for the legislated ruling [Transl. note: the person’s question seems to have been about repeating the prayer in the mosque], then repeating the prayer in a mosque which has an appointed muezzin and Imaam who the Muslims gather behind, then here it is not allowed to split the congregation with a second congregational prayer and then a third and so on. But if the two conditions [i.e., the presence of both an appointed Imaam and muezzin] or one of them is not met as you mentioned, then fleeing that country is obligatory.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Albaani: And you.

Questioner: Your eminence, Shaikh, in this situation, is it allowed to establish the congregation at home and not in the mosque, three or four brothers, for example, praying in a house?

Al-Albaani: Which situation do you mean?

Questioner: I don’t understand [your question], O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: Which situation do you mean, you said, ‘In this situation …’

Questioner: In the situation where an Imaam has such things and such characteristics as lying and other things, we, for example, in … [unclear] …we are not innovators who would establish [a second, third etc.] congregation in the mosque, but, for example, we will establish it in a house, for example, three or four brothers or a number of brothers establish it in a house and do not pray behind that Imaam, and we pray the congregation in a house on our own, is that allowed or not?

Al-Albaani: Why won’t you pray behind him [i.e., the Imaam in the mosque]?

Questioner: Ya’ni, our prayer [behind him] is permissible even if he has those characteristics?

Al-Albaani: By Allaah, what did I just speak about [i.e., wasn’t my whole answer about that]?

Questioner: Yes, may Allaah reward you with good, O Shaikh, can I ask you a second question?

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 442.

Leave a comment
April 1, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 6 | ‘To pray behind every righteous person or wicked sinner’


 

Questioner: Many of the practising brothers who are keen in sticking to the Sunnah frequently ask about praying behind Imaams who are innovators, from the Ash’aris or, if the term is correct, the extreme Sufis, those who say that it is permissible to seek succour from other than Allaah in those things which only Allaah is capable of, and that leaving off praying behind them will at most times lead to an abandonment of the Jamaa’ah, because most of the Imaams with us are from the people of innovation, except for a few.

Another Person: Allaah’s Aid is sought.

Al-Albaani to someone who entered the gathering: Welcome.

Questioner: So what do you say, may your excellence continue.

Al-Albaani: We’ve answered this more than one time, [saying] that prayer …

Questioner: Yes.

Someone who enters: As-Salaamu alaikum.

Al-Albaani: Wa alaikumus-Salaam wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu.

I hold, and knowledge is with Allaah, following on from what those who came after inherited from the Salaf, that it is legislated to pray behind every righteous person and wicked sinner, and to pray over every righteous person and wicked sinner and that the prayer performed behind such Imaams is correct.

As long as we, or at the very least as long as the one who is praying [behind that person], holds–and we stipulate the [following] condition–that whatever innovation or innovations the Imaam is upon, he has not left the fold of Islaam and [has not left being regarded as from amongst] the Muslims.  He is an innovator, but without doubt and for a surety, not every innovator is a disbeliever, this is for sure. And if the situation is as such, then the one giving the the question [which you put] must place a check there and he must be precise, and this is what I am doing, so I say:

If the one praying behind an Imaam who is an innovator, whether that Imaam is a Sufi, or a Maaturidi, or an Ash’ari or … or, and so on to whatever other names the groups and parties have, if the one praying [behind such a person] holds that this Imaam who is an innovator has not left [the state of] being a Muslim, then the previous principle is employed, ‘To pray behind every righteous person or wicked sinner.’

And if he holds the opposite, that the Imaam has disbelieved, then it clearly goes without saying that praying behind him is not allowed.

But at the same time we warn [the people] from rushing to issue fatwas declaring a [single] Muslim to be a disbeliever, let alone Muslims, just because they fell into an innovation even if this innovation, as they say today, is one connected to aqidah. So one must take one’s time and be patient and not rush into issuing fatwas declaring others to be disbelievers.

Yet at the same time, we say that it is upon a Muslim to choose that the Imaam he prays behind is upon the Sunnah and correct aqidah and worship and manners, if he is able to, and if not, if the situation is that he has to choose between praying alone at home or praying behind that Imaam who has his innovations, then praying behind that Imaam is more fitting than praying alone …

Questioner: In order to preserve what is good …

Al-Albaani: Yes, thereafter along with that I say that if the person really is asking this question out of piety and devoutness, then I say, the door to devoutness is vast, when you come back from the mosque pray it again with your family.

Questioner: As occurred with some of the Salaf in times past.

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: He said, ‘Those who delay the prayers from their appointed times …’

Al-Albaani: It is as such, [delaying] the prayer from its time. This is our answer in this issue.

Questioner: And the one he prayed behind the Imaam would be counted as optional.

Al-Albaani: Optional, yes.

Questioner: May Allaah bless you.

Al-Albaani: And you.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 754.

2 Comments
March 31, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 5 |


 

Questioner: What is the situation with an Imaam who leads the people in prayer and is upon innovation, and all the time whenever we advise him he does not listen, in fact he hates us and is spiteful towards us, is it allowed to pray behind him or not, or does the innovation differ in terms of its … being whatever it is, ya’ni … [i.e., does praying behind him depend on what type of innovation he is upon]

Al-Albaani: Namely, whether it is an innovation which makes one a disbeliever or not?

Questioner: Whether it is an innovation which makes one a disbeliever or not, may Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Albaani: Firstly, I don’t know whether you were present at the previous sitting where we spoke about the Shee’ah?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: And that it is not allowed for a Muslim to rush to declare the Shee’ah or others to be disbelievers just because they are Shee’ah, do you remember?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: So it is even more the case that it is not allowed for us to declare someone who at the very least is regarded as being from us and amongst us, from the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, to be a disbeliever except if we see open and manifest disbelief from him.

Especially when, my brother, we live, as I think is clear to you from the previous gathering and this one–and I hope that we are able to have another such gathering or sittings and that is in Allaah the Mighty and Majestic’s Hands–[so I think it is clear] that you understand well that the people are as described by the Lord of the Worlds, “But most of mankind know not …” [Al-A’raaf 7:187]

For this reason it is not allowed for a Muslim to rush into declaring an individual from the Muslims to be a disbeliever as long as he is praying, and you now put forward a question about an Imaam who leads the people in prayer, so, in an authentic hadith it occurs that–and for this reason we encourage the Muslim youth to study the Sunnah and everyone who doesn’t study the Sunnah is in misguidance but the extent [of just how misguided] differs totally [from individual to individual]–in the authentic Sunnah it occurs that [the Prophet said], ‘I have been prohibited from killing those who pray.’

Is it not an analogy a fortiori [qiyaas awlawi] that [consequently] we say that I have been forbidden from declaring the Muslims to be disbelievers, this is an argument a fortiori, like His Saying, the Most High, “And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to parents, good treatment. Whether one or both of them reach old age [while] with you, say not to them [so much as], ‘uff,’ and do not repel them …” [Israa 17:23] to the end of the aayah, so is it allowed for a son to hit his father? It is even less permissible, saying ‘uff’ is haraam so hitting him with your hand is even more severe in harm, this is called qiyas awlawi.

No one denies this, even Ibn Hazm fell into using this analogy sometimes even though he totally rejects [the use of] analogy [qiyaas]. The point is that it has been authentically reported that he عليه السلام said, ‘I have been prohibited from killing those who pray,’ so it is even more correct to [say that] I have been forbidden from declaring those who pray to be disbelievers.

May Allaah forbid it, but when we see open disbelief from someone who prays, whether he is an Imaam or not–and that [is something which] in reality [would] need to be researched specifically–then maybe it would be correct for me to say … rather, then it would not be permissible to declare him to be a disbeliever even if we saw open disbelief from him except after having established the proof against him, and [if] after having done so he [still] was not deterred or inhibited [from that disbelief], it is then that you would not pray behind him and it would not be permissible for you to deal with him as a Muslim.

As for the generality of those who pray now, whether the Imaams or the followers, then the foundational principle is that they are Muslims and it is not allowed to declare them to be disbelievers.

As for the prayer, then no matter what you don’t like about his prayer, whether you are right [in that] or mistaken, your prayer behind him is correct, i.e., let us assume that he prays incorrectly, he is the one who is incorrect in his innovation and you are correct in your judgement that he is an innovator but you have not declared him to be a disbeliever alhamdulillaah, even with this your prayer behind him is correct.

And you will not find this answer in the books of the madhhabs at all, if you have studied one of those madhhabs that are followed today, like the Hanafi [madhhab], or the Shaafi’i one …  the agreement/contract of the Muslims would be dissolved and that which befell the Muslims of the previous generations would befall the Muslims of today, these are tragedies which happened in past Islamic history, and it has been reported that a bigot, and I don’t want to mention which madhhab [he was from], came to a mosque in which the Muslims were praying but not according to his madhhab, so he said, ‘Isn’t it time that this church closed its doors?’

It’s a mosque, the Muslims are praying in it according to one of the four madhhabs, not shee’ah, not khawaarij, not Zaidiyyah and so on, [they were praying according to] one of the four madhhabs, so this bigot says, ‘Isn’t it time that this church closed its doors?’

Similarly another of them who was a Qaadi judging according to the Sharee’ah, so he thought, said, ‘If it were up to me, I would have taken the jizyah from the Shaafi’is,’ just like that.

If we now wanted to implement some of the subsidiary issues present even till today in some of these books, [the result would be that] a Shaafi’i wouldn’t pray behind a Hanafi, and nor a Hanafi behind a Shaafi’i, because from the Hanafi texts [it is stated that], ’It is disliked to pray behind someone who opposes the madhhab.’

[Addressing those present] have any of you studied Hanafi or Shaafi’i fiqh so that we can discuss this issue with him?

‘It is disliked to pray behind someone who opposes the madhhab,’ in fact it could be nullified if the one praying behind a certain Imaam knows that the Imaam’s ablution is not correct and they gave examples of that, [like] if a Hanafi saw a Shaafi’i perform ablution completely and then he touched his wife then such a person’s ablution would be broken, sorry, I made a mistake …  if there were a Hanafi who performed ablution and then touched his wife, his ablution according to the Hanafi madhhabs is correct, but not so according to the Shaafi’i one.

So the Shaafi’i does not hold the prayer to be correct behind him because he regards the ablution to have been broken.  And the total opposite is true if the Hanafi were to perform ablution and then he bled, according to his madhhab his ablution would have been broken, such a prayer would be invalid in the eyes of someone who holds that view. So if there was a Hanafi who adopted the madhhab of Imaam ash-Shaafi’i that no matter how much blood comes out then the ablution is still correct, [a person who holds the other view] will not pray behind him.

Questioner: The Maaliki madhhab or the Hanafi madhhab?

Al-Albaani: No, I’m saying that now we’re talking about two madhhabs, the Hanafis who hold that if someone bleeds, no matter how little, the ablution is broken but if he touches a woman his ablution is sound, and conversely you have the Shaafi’is who say that touching a woman breaks the ablution but bleeding, no matter how plentiful, does not.

Salvation is found in embarking on the ship of salvation, the Sunnah.

Listen now to the answer from the Sunnah.

He عليه الصلاة والسلام said concerning the Imaams who lead us in prayer, “If they lead the prayer correctly then they and you will receive the rewards, but if they make a mistake, then you will receive the reward for the prayer and the sin will be theirs.” [Bukhaari, no. 694].

No answer or ruling more comprehensive then this can be found.

So I wanted to show that through such meaning and such a ruling it is possible to bring the Muslims together.

Wallaahi, as for [one person saying], ‘Your madhhab is such and such but my madhhab says this,’ then this is division which we have been prohibited from, “And do not be of those who associate others with Allaah. [Or] of those who have divided their religion and become sects, every faction rejoicing in what it has.” [Rum 30:31-32]

Perhaps you have obtained your answer, inshaa Allaah.

Let us have another question …

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 539.

2 Comments
March 29, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 4 | Al-Albaani Asked About Praying Behind the Quburis [People Who Fall Into Shirk Connected to the Graves]


 

Questioner: Another cassette reached us which had some of your statements regarding the fighting in Afghanistan and your fatwa about the permissibility of praying behind the grave-worshippers [Qaburis], so the people differed [after hearing this fatwa of yours], O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: “… and they will not cease to differ, except whom your Lord has given mercy …” [Hud 118-119], this is the text of the Noble Quraan, “And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ, except whom your Lord has given mercy.” [Hud 118-119]

So differing is something very normal and there is no escape nor deliverance from it except by sticking to the Book and the Sunnah, for this reason, if some differing does occur then two things are obligatory on those who have differed:

The first is that this differing should not be a cause for disunity [and that it should not be] differing which leads to disunion/separation.

The second thing is that they should return to Allaah and His Messenger in that [issue], as Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said in the Quraan, “… and if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allaah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allaah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.” [Nisaa 4:59] And I believe that in many issues [people either] go too far or fall short.

In many issues there is excessiveness and negligence. Many of our brothers who cling to the Sunnah hold that one should not pray behind innovators but I say: these innovators, in our ruling about them based upon what is apparent to us, are either disbelievers or Muslims. So if they are disbelievers then praying behind them is not correct unanimously. And if they are Muslims then the prayer behind them is correct even if they are from the innovators or are misguided in some issues which they have left the Sunnah in.

And we have a hadith in Sahih Bukhari from Abu Hurairah, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, where he said that Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said concerning the Imaams, “If they lead the prayer correctly then they and you will receive the rewards, but if they make a mistake, then you will receive the reward for the prayer and the sin will be theirs.” [Bukhaari, no. 694].

And another hadith also from Sahih Bukhari that a ruler in one of the cities, I think it was Medinah, during the time of the Amawis, his name was Uqbah ibn al-Walid as far as I recall, led the people in the morning prayer one day with four rak’ahs [instead of two]–because he was drunk, having drunk alcohol, so he didn’t know what he had prayed, and from his misguidance was that after he gave salaam to end the prayer he said [to the people], ‘Shall I give you some more [i.e., make it even longer]?’ He prayed four rak’ahs for fajr and yet along with that he said, ‘Shall I give you some more?’

The hadith is in Sahih Bukhari, [and Imaam Bukhaari is] the one who narrates the hadiths exactly as they are, and he didn’t relate to us that those Salaf repeated the prayer which that man led them in as four rak’ahs, why? Because of that first hadith [I mentioned to you, i.e.,], “If they lead the prayer correctly then they and you will receive the rewards, but if they make a mistake, then you will receive the reward for the prayer and the sin will be theirs.”

This is from one angle. The other angle is that there is no doubt that many of these innovators wanted what was correct but missed it, for this reason our obligation is to try to direct and guide them and not to take them as our opponents and enemies. And this issue is contingent upon what I mentioned just now: that as long as they are Muslims then they have the same rights as us and the same responsibilities.

And if they leave the fold of Islaam and become disbelievers like those who believe in Wahdatul-Wujood, for example, then it is not correct to pray behind them, but such people are not called innovators. The innovators are those like the Khawaarij, the Mu’tazilah, the Murji’ah–the Imaams of Hadith used to report hadith from them with the condition that they be truthful in that which they were reporting and had memorised their narrations and they did not declare them to be outside the fold of Islaam but gave them the ruling they deserved which was that they had left the Sunnah.

For this reason we do not become enthusiastic in warning the people from praying behind innovators, rather, many times I am asked openly, ‘Imaam so and so seeks intercession with the Awliyaa and the righteous, should we pray behind him?’ I say: yes, has he left the fold of Islaam through that … [tape cuts off here] …

And through this method, in my view, it is possible to bring together the views and differences [found] amongst the Muslims. As for if we were to pass the judgement that the one who innovated one innovation or many in Islaam has left Islaam then the distance [caused by] differing will increase between us and the Muslims, and this, without doubt is not allowed.

This is my opinion concerning praying behind the innovators, I don’t know if you have any comments that we can listen to and benefit from?

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: And you.

Questioner: Because … your old or previous stance … and it was a stance which … ya’ni, was strong concerning them, this became the foundation of those youth with us, it became a foundation which is difficult for them to leave.

Al-Albaani: The previous stance? What was it?

Questioner: Shaikh it was the categorical stance towards the innovators, even with us our stance regarding the innovators [became such] that everyone who seeks intercession is an innovator, everyone who seeks succour [with the Awliyaa] is an innovator, in fact, it reached such an extent that everyone who doesn’t move his finger in tashahhud [is an innovator] … i.e., a stance which was not good in this affair …

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: So it has become, O Shaikh, ya’ni, the foundation of the youth’s stance is that there should be severity towards the grave-worshippers, towards those who seek intercession [through the righteous etc.], total severity.

Because frankly, O Shaikh, the situation of the grave-worshippers where we are is clear and manifest, and their seeking aid from other than Allaah is clear and none of them hide it, in fact they show enmity to the Ahlus-Sunnah through that, indeed they sometimes plot against the Ahlus-Sunnah, as is present now, and this has resulted in problems, so when they [i.e., those youth] heard this fatwa [of yours], the reality was that some of them were looking left and right [not knowing what to do], except that, alhamdulillaah, the stance of the people of knowledge with us was clear and they understood what you meant, O Shaikh, so alhamdulillaah, they clarified the situation.

Al-Albaani: Whatever the case, may Allaah bless you. What you mention concerning your country is in all countries, i.e., that the people of innovation fight the Ahlus-Sunnah.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 337.

1 Comment
March 29, 2012

When Can a Person Say, ‘I have established the proof against so and so?’


Questioner: When can I say, ‘I have established the proof against a certain person?’

Al-Albaani: Firstly, it is obligatory here that both people are taken into consideration, the one establishing the proof and the one it is being established against. If the one establishing the proof really is a scholar of the Book and the Sunnah, then this is the first condition.

The second is that he be eloquent and clear in what he says such that he is able to present the knowledge that he has to the people in a clear Arabic tongue, if he is an Arab, and if he is a non-Arab then similarly the situation does not go beyond what we mentioned of being capable of clarifying [what is required], as the Quraan indicated in His Saying, “And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them …” [Ibraaheem 14:4] i.e., if the one establishing the proof has been granted eloquence and clarity in his language or in the language of his people and as we mentioned before has knowledge, it is then that he is able to say, ‘I have established the proof,’ [but] this is [only] regarding that which is in relation to him–the other side remains.

[Namely,] does the other person [against whom the proof is being established] have the understanding and perception and mental preparedness to accept–sorry, I made a mistake, [let me say this] so that you understand it clearly–is he mentally prepared to understand and not [just] accept, because the proof may be clear and plain, but is still not accepted by the one who turns away, or the mushrik, the kaafir.

But I want to repeat what I mean to say again, so: if he has the ability to understand the proof, then if the first condition is met in that person who is trying to establish/clarify the proof, and thereafter it becomes evident to this person that the one against whom the proof is being established has grasped the topic through his proofs and his clarification, at that time it is possible that he can say, ‘I have established the proof against so and so.’

I personally find it difficult to picture that the statement of a person that, ‘I have established the proof against so and so,’ is in agreement with reality, it is difficult for me to picture this situation. Because I don’t find–rather I can hardly imagine that the conditions [I mentioned earlier] be met in the one establishing the proof and the one it is being established against, for the issue may be defective on one of the two sides, and thus it is not correct to say, ‘I have established the proof against so and so,’ this is from one aspect.

The other aspect is [to ask] what is the point of the saying of the one who claims that, ‘I have established the proof against so and so?’ Is it to declare him to be a disbeliever? Declaring him to be a disbeliever … nothing will be the decisive boundary between him and disbelief except the sword, so if he chooses disbelief over the sword then he is a kaafir without any doubt, but as for us where today we live in a state of confusion and freedom which has no bounds, and a person is free to say and do whatever he wants, so we say what is the purpose behind saying, ‘I have established the proof against someone?’ is it to declare him to be a disbeliever? You can’t say that, ‘I have established the proof against him and so he is a disbeliever,’ because what we just mentioned stands in the way of that.

Thus, nothing remains except to entrust this person’s affair to Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, for He is the One who knows the reality of the one establishing the proof and the one it is being established against, i.e., [He is the One who knows] whether the proof has been established against the person or not. And your Lord is the One who knows what is in the breast of man and so He is his judge.

As for us, then we go by what is apparent from any Muslim who declares that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is His Messenger.

Only in an extremely rare case can I picture that [on one side] there is a real scholar of the Book and the Sunnah and that on the other there is the one who the proof is being established against and who has actually had the affair conveyed to him and has understood it but who then opposes it and disbelieves, such a person would be the one concerning whom it would be possible to say, ‘He has disbelieved.’  Even though in our society there is no major benefit which comes about through this, because the Sharee’ah laws are not implemented, this is what I have.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 24.

Leave a comment
March 26, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 3 | The Ruling on Praying in Mosques Which Have Many Innovations in Them and on Praying Behind an Imaam Who is an Innovator


Questioner: What is the ruling on praying in mosques which have many innovations in them, and following on from that, [what is the ruling on] praying behind an Imaam who is an innovator?

Al-Albaani: This is a question which is asked very often these days, and even though from one angle it shows signs of something good from another it bodes evil.

It shows signs of being something good in that those people who are keen on [implementing] the Sunnah are increasing day by day, alhamdulillaah, and they have started to pay attention to the many innovations found in the mosques and Imaams and muezzins and so on and for this reason they avoid praying in those mosques that are full of innovations and [avoid] following the Imaams who oppose the Sunnah in many of the things they do in their prayers.

So this is something good–but for how long will we carry on asking questions like this?

And I always and forever repeat two things: the first is related to following [i.e., praying behind] an Imaam who is an innovator and that it is from the Sunnah to pray behind every righteous or sinful person, this is a point of creed, mentioned in the aqidah of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, [i.e.,] praying behind every righteous or wicked person, which is something contrary to what the Shee’ah do.

For the Shee’ah do not hold it to be valid to pray behind anyone except–[and here] I will not only say that they do not hold it to be valid to pray behind anyone except the Shee’ah–no, they are even more misguided than that, [for they say that prayer is not valid] except behind an infallible Imaam and naturally in their eyes such an Imaam can only be from the Shee’ah, from the Ahlul-Bait.

So the Salaf laid this principle down for us: that we even pray behind a wicked sinner, why?

Because in many hadiths it has been reported that prayer behind the tyrannical or oppressive Imaams is permissible, like his saying عليه السلام reported in Sahih Muslim, “There will be rulers over you who delay the prayer from its correct time, so if you meet them, pray the prayer at its correct time and then pray it with them, for it will be an optional prayer for you.”

And in another hadith which is more important, encompassing and greater, he said about the Imaams, “If they lead the prayer correctly then they and you will receive the rewards, but if they make a mistake, then you will receive the reward for the prayer and the sin will be theirs.” [Bukhaari, no. 694]. [Thus] what concern is it of a person’s when he is praying behind an innovator whether he [i.e., the Imaam] is praying according to the Sunnah or opposing it?

If he [i.e., the Imaam] is correct in his prayer then the reward is for him and us and if he makes a mistake then the sin is on him and the reward is for us, so we gain in both situations, just like [a person using] a saw, [whether  he] pushes forward with it or pulls it back [on what he is cutting, either way it will cut and so he gains].  If we pray behind a Sunni Imaam then the reward is for us and if we pray behind an innovating Imaam then the reward is [still] for us–but his innovation is on his head and none of its sin reaches us. I always and forever repeat this regarding following these Imaams.

So this is an issue which I have constantly addressed and have mentioned that each Muslim is required to distance himself from praying in mosques that are decorated and full of innovations–but Allaah’s Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم spoke the truth when he said, ‘Indeed Islaam began as something strange and will return to being strange …’ nowadays it is rare that you will find a mosque which does not have an innovation or decorations by which they seek nearness, so they think, to Allaah, the Blessed and Most High.

If both types of mosque were present [i.e., ones with decorations and innovations and others without], I would have said that you should not pray in those mosques that are decorated and which have those innovations for it has been established from Ibn Umar, may Allaah be pleased with him, that he entered a mosque to pray the midday prayer when [all of a sudden] he was taken aback by a man calling out and saying, ‘The Prayer! The Prayer!’ after the actual call to prayer had been announced, so Ibn Umar said to the person with him, ‘Let us leave this mosque for there is innovation in it.’

If we wanted to copy this action of Ibn Umar’s in this age of ours we would have to stick to our houses for hardly a mosque can be found except that it is decorated … the carpets/prayer rugs and the images they are full of is enough, sometimes they have forbidden images, either they will have a forbidden image like a horse or something like that, a lion, or two crosses or something which resembles that.  So there is hardly any mosque except that it has that which distracts [a person]–but, ‘Some evil is less than others [in severity].’

If the matter centres around us praying on our own at home and praying in decorated mosques in which the Imaams are innovators then we repel the greater evil with the lesser evil, especially when we are not responsible for that greater evil and nor did it emanate from us, it having done so from those other people.

If we hold back from the congregational prayer then we have sinned and opposed the Saying of our Lord, “And establish the prayer and give zakah and bow with those who bow [in worship and obedience].” [Baqarah 2:43]

This is a point we must not forget, “And establish the prayer and give zakah and bow with those who bow [in worship and obedience].” And what is that point [which we must not forget]? ‘Establish the prayer …’ i.e., perform it perfectly, ‘… and bow with those who bow …’ i.e., with the Muslim congregation.

So if we leave the congregational prayer in those mosques–[bearing in mind that] we are not responsible for the decorations in them or for the incorrect way that some of the Imaams perform the prayer therein, we are not responsible for both of these wrongs–but if we pray at home we will be responsible for having opposed our Lord’s Saying, i.e., ‘… and bow with those who bow …’

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 190.

Leave a comment
March 25, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 2 | The Ruling Concerning the Youth Boycotting Those Mosques in Which the Imaams Fall Short in Implementing the Sunnah


Questioner: There are some youth in Morocco and Poland and other countries who boycott the mosques of the innovators, for example, [those who perform innovations such as] sending salaah on the Prophet of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم in unison, reading the Quraan in one voice, they do not give due attention to the Prophet’s Sunnah صلى الله عليه وسلم …

Al-Albaani: Like?

Questioner: … straightening the rows during prayer, saying Aameen loudly, and they also recite the Quraan in unison [as I mentioned above] and other things too.

Al-Albaani: From the mistakes of these Imaams boycotted by that group [of youths] you are speaking about is that they [i.e., those Imaams] do not establish the Sunnah, correct? [i.e., that is what you’re asking, right]?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: This [itself] is something which is considered to be in opposition to the Sunnah: i.e., boycotting a mosque because of the shortcomings of the Imaams of these mosques in implementing the Sharee’ah rulings and their lack of due concern for the Prophetic Sunnah does not make it permissible for those keen on following the Sunnah to boycott those mosques–except if it is to leave a mosque which has innovations like those [you mentioned] for another mosque which does not.

As for boycotting in the manner described in the question, i.e., a total boycotting of all mosques, then the example of that is like someone who builds a palace but destroys a whole country in doing so.

Since establishing the prayer, establishing the five prayers with the Muslim congregation in the mosques is an obligation, and it is not permissible for a Muslim to turn away from or to be complacent in carrying it out except for a legislated excuse.

It is no excuse whatsoever that mosques should be completely abandoned because some of those who pray there, even if it be the Imaam himself, oppose the Sunnah in many or a few matters–except if it is like what I just mentioned, that a person leaves a mosque which is close to him and goes to another because it is free of innovation, this is something obligatory on those who want to cling to the Sunnah.

This is because in this day and age, if a Muslim wanted to go into such fine detail with the Imaams of the mosques he would have to seclude himself from all of the people, because you will hardly ever find a mosque today which is established on the Sunnah from all angles, this is something impossible.

And that is because firstly, all of the mosques, or most of them, are built with tainted money, and are built in a manner which opposes the Sunnah. You will hardly find a mosque today except that it is decorated and embellished, even Makkah and Madinah, as you know.

So if these people don’t want to pray in a mosque which has an innovation in it, where will they go? They will have to leave all the congregations of the Muslims and will remain in the corners of their homes, praying there. And as such many hadiths would apply to them about the one who opposes the jamaa’ah dying the death of the days of ignorance.

For we find an excuse for a person who leaves a certain mosque to go to another which has less innovations, I do not say that this other mosque does not have any innovations, this does not exist today, but as was said of old, ‘Some evil is less than others [in severity].’

So it is possible that a Muslim can find a mosque close or far from him which establishes the prayer on the Sunnah, but [still] it will be full of engravings and decorations, but he has no say in that.

So today the Muslim [should be] as the Prophet عليه السلام said in some authentic hadiths, ‘Be moderate and aim to do good …’ [Sahih Muslim, no. 7117], as for trying to find the Prophet’s Mosque as it was in his time عليه السلام, then he will not find it today–so will a person then isolate himself from the people by staying in his house and severing his ties between himself and the Muslims in the most sacred and pure of Allaah’s places as is mentioned in an authentic hadith that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said about the best and worst of places, ‘The best places are the mosques and the worst are the markets.’

So if a Muslim wants a mosque which does not have a single breach of the Sharee’ah, it will mean that he will leave the best of places, i.e., the mosques–and this is not allowed, because as you know the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله سلم, and I will not prolong this too much, encouraged and stressed that one should pray with the Muslim congregation in the mosques, rather, Allaah the Mighty and Majestic ordered that in the Noble Quran when He said, “And establish prayer and give zakah and bow with those who bow [in worship and obedience].” [Baqarah 2:43]

Thus, these people who stay away from or who boycott praying in the mosques–they are not doing so based upon any knowledge, for if they were upon knowledge they would have known the principle that when a Muslim is presented with two evils, he chooses the lesser of the two.

So they either pray in these mosques which they have no control over, except for ordering the good and forbidding the evil, they can’t change the evil there with their hands but they can say a good word–so if they leave off praying in these mosques and do so in their houses it would mean that they would have left the legislated principle which [as I just mentioned is that] when a Muslim is presented with two evils, he chooses the lesser of the two.

But I [also] said that if there is a mosque which opposes the Sunnah less [than another] and a Muslim goes there leaving the one close to him, then this is something we order and encourage as far as we are able to do so.

It may be that one of these beginners in knowledge may have read, for example, the narration which occurs in Sunan Abee Dawud that Ibn Umar entered a mosque and heard a man calling out to the prayer, saying, ‘The prayer! The prayer!’ … in Syria after the call to prayer is given they open a window and [a person calls out and] his voice can be heard in the street, saying, ‘O worshippers, the prayer! O worshippers, the prayer!’–when the muezzin said, ‘Come to prayer! Come to success!’ was it in vain [such that this man now has to say these extra words after the call to prayer?] [Calling out with these extra words after the adhaan] is a correction of the One who laid down the Sharee’ah [i.e., Allaah], for this reason [going back to that narration of Ibn Umar], when he entered the mosque and heard that man calling out, he said, ‘This is a mosque which has an innovation in it,’ and he left it.

But this does not mean that one should leave all mosques, but rather that one should go to a mosque which does not have innovations [if he can find one], for this reason these people [mentioned in the question] were only overcome due to their lack of knowledge and their extremism in following the Sunnah and worship, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, sincerely advising his Ummah, ‘Indeed, for every action there is some vigor, and each [instance of] vigor has a certain time, so whoever’s period [of vigor] is towards my Sunnah then he has been rightly guided, and whoever’s is towards an innovation, then he has gone astray.’

They flee from some innovations which they do not have the power to rectify and instead fall into a bigger innovation which they do have the power to change, and thus they fell into the madhhab of Abu Nawwaas who said, ‘And cure me with the disease [itself] …’

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, no. 574.

3 Comments
March 24, 2012

Advice Must Be Accompanied with Proof


 

 

Al-Albaani: He has to advise him, why wouldn’t he advise him?  But he can’t just advise him with mere claims, [saying], ‘Why do you do that? That is not allowed.’  This is not enough because maybe he will greet you with a similar response and say, ‘Why do you do such and such?  That is not allowed.’

So when you want to advise him and do so by reminding him of that which has been narrated from the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم sayings and actions–then the advice will [indeed] be advice, done in the legislated manner.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 79.

Leave a comment
March 24, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 1 | There is a Distinction Between Praying Behind Innovators and Mixing with Them


Questioner: How do you deal with a dissenter [i.e., someone who opposes the Sunnah], between those who are too lenient which can lead to tamyee’ in practising the Sunnah, and those who are too harsh/strict which can lead to that which we have heard you mention many times, i.e., the lack of establishing the proof against the dissenter and other things, and I say this so as to not tire you by repeating what you have already mentioned.

But a doubt crops up based upon some actions of the Salaf, like the statement of some of them, ‘The hearts are weak, and sitting with the innovators snatches them away …’ and likewise, the fact that Imaam Ahmad, may Allaah have mercy on him, would drive the people away from al-Haarith al-Muhaasibi.

Al-Albaani: Yes, yes.

Someone Else: He prohibited that his books be read.

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: … and dealing with this dissenter according to the scale of his good and bad deeds, i.e., there is a principle which says, ‘We look at the person’s good and bad actions,’ [but] then we have the statements of some of the Salaf regarding driving the innovators away even if they have some good deeds?

Al-Albaani: Yes. That which I hold, and Allaah knows best, is that the statements of the Salaf, are related regarding a Salafi environment, i.e., an environment that is full of strong faith and the correct following of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Companions.

And [this issue you mentioned] is totally like that of boycotting, where a Muslim boycotts another to educate and discipline him, this is a well-known Sunnah. But my conviction, and how many times I’m asked about this, is that I say: our day and age is not right for boycotting, our day and age is not right for boycotting the innovators, because that means that you will have to go and live on the peak of a mountain, that you isolate yourself from the people and seclude yourself from them.

And that is because if you do boycott the people due to their sins or innovations then you will not have the effect which the Salaf used to have when they made those statements encouraging the people to avoid the people of innovation. There is no doubt that that is something which is derived from the directions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم amongst which is his well-known saying, “The example of a good companion (who sits with you) in comparison with a bad one, is like that of the musk seller and the blacksmith’s bellows (or furnace); from the first you will either buy musk or enjoy its good smell while the bellows will either burn your clothes or your house, or you get a bad nasty smell thereof,” [Bukhaari], the well-known hadith, this is like what is mentioned in some places, ‘Your friend pulls/draws you [to whatever he/she is upon],’ ‘Your friend pulls/draws you [to whatever he/she is upon].’

But accompanying/associating with innovators is one thing and distancing yourself from them to such an extent … like that which is asked about often, for example [people will ask], ‘So and so is a Sufi who uses the Prophets and Messengers as intermediaries [instead of calling upon Allaah directly themselves],’ and so on, ‘… and he leads the people in prayer, should I pray behind him?’ I say: pray behind him, so this is one thing and [actually] accompanying and associating with him and benefitting from him is something else.

And I think that which will support me in this distinction and which comes together/agrees with the guidance of the Salaf stated in those words I just mentioned, is that it has reached us that from the aqidah of the Salaf as-Saalih is to pray behind and over every righteous person and sinner, so it will be from harshness that we take these statements to drive the people away from praying behind these Imaams [who lead the prayers in the mosques], Imaams amongst whom it is very rare to find those upon the Sunnah.  The result of doing so would be that the people would have to stick to their houses and suspend the Jamaa’ah of the Muslims, such a thing goes against the statement of the Salaf that it is from aqidah to pray behind every righteous person or sinner.

But what is correct is that we warn these people from mixing with the people of innovation and the Sufis due to what we just mentioned in the hadith and [due to] the example which is a summary of the hadith, that, ‘Your friend pulls/draws you [to whatever he/she is upon].’

This is my opinion, and Allaah knows best.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 511.

Leave a comment
March 12, 2012

Selling Books and Tapes of Those Who Do Not Adopt the Salafi Methodology


Questioner: I work with Islamic cassettes, and I wanted to ask some of the people of knowledge about the responsibility of distributing the tapes of some of those people who do not adopt the methodology of the Salaf, they ascribe, for example, to some of the groups that we are aware of in the Islamic world, like the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon or the Tablighis and so on.

Some of them [i.e., the people of knowledge] ruled that I should not record or distribute these tapes at all and others said [that I should] choose those which I see to be valid and which do not openly oppose the methodology of the Salaf.

I’m still confused even now, and I ask Allaah the Mighty and Majestic to remove this confusion through what you see to be correct and through your direction in this issue, may Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Albaani: I have no doubt that the second opinion which you related from some of the people of knowledge is the correct one, because, ‘Wisdom is the believer’s objective, he takes it from wherever he hears it,’ even though this is a weak, inauthentic, hadith which some people in certain countries have become attached to, writing it on plaques and hanging it in prominent places in [their] sitting rooms on the basis that it is a hadith which is established from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, but it is not established, [so even though this hadith is weak] it is sufficient for us that it really is a wise saying, and thus we act upon it and do not show bigotry towards our madhhabs, learning a lesson from the bigotry of those of the other madhhabs.

So we are the followers of the truth wherever that truth may be, and from wherever it comes, so wisdom is the believer’s objective, he takes it from wherever he hears it.

So when you come across an article or a piece of learned research from one of those groups which, unfortunately, does not adopt the methodology of the Salaf, but which contains a reminder by using Allaah’s aayahs … [using] some authentic hadiths of Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, then there is nothing which prevents one from distributing these pieces of research through recordings–as long as they do not contain that which opposes the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih.

And this is a problem which in reality is not confined to recordings but goes beyond that to written works which are more widespread than this recorded material.

So is it correct for a book distributor or seller to print that which is not in accordance with the methodology of the Salaf, and is it permissible for him to sell such books? The answer is that maybe no book is free of certain conflicting statements, and it is the following two things that have to be taken into consideration:

The first is that the book, or tape, is not something which is calling to a methodology which opposes that of the Salaf as-Saalih.

Secondly, that that in it which is correct be more than its mistakes, for as Imaam Maalik, may Allaah have mercy on him, said, “There is none among us except that he rejects [things that other people may say or do] and has his speech rejected, except for the person of this grave, i.e., the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).” So for this reason these two principles must be taken into consideration concerning recorded material and printing books and selling them.

And if you were asking about recordings which do not contain any opposition to the Salafi methodology then I do not see any objection whatsoever to distributing them just because the one talking in them is not Salafi in his methodology but rather is a khalafi, or a hizbi, or similar to that. This is what knowledge and fairness demands, and what the attempt to bring together the differences present today, unfortunately, between the Islamic groups demands. This in summary is my answer to what you asked about.

Questioner: As a completion of this issue, some of those who hold that such things should be prevented say that by distributing the statements or tapes of people such as these there is a recommendation [tazkiyyah] of their methodology as though it is an approval of everything that they say.

Al-Albaani: I think there is exaggeration in that statement. If we were to assume that a man wrote a book in which he gathered hadiths about the words of remembrance [dhikr] from Sahih Bukhari, all the while not being someone who is Salafi in methodology, how can such a statement be applied to him? And what is the relation between distributing this material and supporting his methodology? No, by distributing this book of his we are supporting our methodology because he tread our way by choosing that which is authentically reported from our Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, so I think that such a statement is an exaggeration, and Allaah knows best.

Fataawaa Jeddah, 9.

1 Comment
March 10, 2012

Calling to the Truth is Coupled with Answering Those who Spread Falsehood


Questioner: We see many of the people who attribute themselves to the Salafi methodology constantly attacking the Salafi methodology and its representatives.

Al-Albaani: And its?

Questioner: And its representatives from the Imaams of the Salaf, like Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab.

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: Constant in this attack, not letting up. And along with this practice of theirs we do not hear an outcry or uproar about this aversive action. But when the issue comes to a head and such criticism reaches this dangerous level, objections [to what they say] arises [but then], for example, [you will hear people say], ‘So and so attacked you and so you defended yourselves by refuting him,’ and those people will reject your refutation and call out saying that there is no time to split the ranks [by answering those people who speak speak against the Salafi methodology], you have experienced this in Syria, they say, ‘This way of doing things is too harsh and you have to use wisdom and tact,’ and that, ‘The enemies of Islaam are the Communists and Ba’athists, and the Naseris …’ and so on.

So we see that this group is constant and unrelenting [in its attack] in books, commentaries and in such and such, so what should we do? Is it from wisdom that we do not criticise their scholars at all? And that we try to clarify the truth without it?

Or as part of da’wah, when the situation reaches such a level, should we clarify the extremism and enmity and deviation [that is directed at the Salafi methodology and scholars], i.e., should we employ both means or give precedence to being silent and [just] continuing in our da’wah [without correcting them] …?

Al-Albaani: No, that is not enough. We have to combine both calling to the truth and answering those who spread falsehood, those who fight the truth and its callers, and this is something very clear from what I have said before. So [we must] make the truth known along with using wisdom and beautiful preaching.

Questioner: People now think that that isn’t wise.

Al-Albaani: We’ve gone back to ‘the people’ again. What have we got to do with the people?

We have to know the truth and get closer to Allaah the Mighty and Majestic by calling to it. All of us are familiar with His Statement, the Blessed and Most High, in Surah al-Asr, “By time. Indeed, mankind is in loss. Except for those who have believed and done righteous deeds and advised each other to truth and advised each other to patience.” [Al-Asr 103]

So we have to call to the truth and be patient in that, not becoming weary or fed up, no matter what the enemies plot against us, or refute us with, or attribute to us in terms of harshness and even khurooj and so on–it doesn’t trouble us since our Lord, the Mighty and Majestic, said to His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, “Nothing is said to you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) except what was said to the Messengers before you.” [Fussilat 41:43].

What are we–we who think that we are callers [to the truth]–what are we in comparison to our Prophet عليه السلام?

Nothing whatsoever.

So if the disbelievers and those people who are misguided speak as a matter of course about the Prophets, and our Prophet عليه السلام is from them too, then we must prepare ourselves for the fact that we will hear many things from those who are astray, we have to prepare ourselves [for that], and be patient in our call so that we will be rewarded, as He, the Most High, said, “Only those who are patient shall receive their rewards in full, without reckoning.” [Az-Zumar 39:10].

And Allaah’s Aid is sought.

Questioner: Jazaakumullaahu khaira.

Al-Albaani: Wa iyaakum.

Leave a comment
March 6, 2012

Principles Concerning Declaring Others to be Disbelievers, Innovators or Open Sinners [Faasiqs] | 4 | Questioning Intentions


 

Questioner: There are refutations going on now in the Islamic world on the students of knowledge along with the scholars and what can be noticed in these refutations is accusing [the other person of having bad] intentions, what is your answer to this or what is your explanation?

Al-Albaani: [Let the one who does that] fear Allaah, what is my answer to that supposed to be? Let them fear Allaah concerning our Muslim brothers, and let them purify their intentions and their hearts from malice towards each other, do not be envious of one another, do not hate each other, and be servants of Allaah, brothers, as Allaah has ordered you to be. O Ustaadh, we always say that the issue with the Islamic world now is its distance from two things, they taken up one of the two, but not the other.

You must have heard what I have said in some of my tapes about the fact that rectification starts with purification and cultivation, you must have heard it. So there is some purification in it [i.e., the Islamic world] but education/cultivation is not found in the Islamic world, this is a problem.

So you will find the students of knowledge who are supposed to be the ones who have the most impeccable manners have only been granted some knowledge [and this too] has become a proof against them and not for them [due to the lack of cultivation upon correct manners].

So what is the solution? Only Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, can resolve it. And whoever from the people of knowledge is eager to tread upon these two pillars, purification and cultivation, then it is upon him to nurture those around him upon this base from childhood, such that when they grow and have matured they will have been nurtured upon correct knowledge, [upon] purification and cultivation.

As for these grown-ups who have gone back to the obligation of purification and have taken up a good portion of that … [yet even] then it is very rare that among them you will find those who have cleansed themselves of base manners, and jealousy, and hatred, and refuge is sought with Allaah.

[This is] something very apparent nowadays, even from some of the elite [students of knowledge/scholars], even from some of the elite, such that I find myself forced sometimes to go by the apparent meaning of His Saying, the Most High, and I mean what I say when I say the apparent meaning, “O you who have believed, upon you is [responsibility for] yourselves. Those who have gone astray will not harm you when you have been guided …” [Maa’idah 5:105], I said, what is apparent, because in the apparent meaning of the aayah there is no order to enjoin the good or forbid the evil–but you know the hadith of Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq when he rejected what some of the people had done and told them that they were misinterpreting the aayah and he mentioned the hadith which orders the Muslims to order the good and forbid the evil. [Ed. Note: i.e., the Shaikh is trying to say that sometimes when he sees the state of the people is as mentioned above, i.e., bad manners etc., and that many of them do not listen or cleanse themselves of these evils, he feels like going by the apparent meaning of the aayah, i.e., just taking care of himself and not bothering with these people since they don’t listen, but the Shaikh says that this cannot be done because the correct understanding of the aayah is as Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq رضي الله عنه mentioned, so the Shaikh was showing how disheartening such things can be].

So the phenomenon which has now become widespread in recent times in Saudi and before that in many Islamic countries, this reality has no cure except to employ the necessary means and to turn back to Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, that He rectify the situation of the Muslims, for there is no reason at all that the callers to the Book and the Sunnah and those who affiliate themselves to the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih … there is no cause whatsoever which makes it permissible for them to split into two groups, many groups in fact, each suffering the other, like it would be if there were salafis and their enemies the Sufis.

[There is no cause for the Salafis to split amongst each other] when they are one group, each of them saying, ‘I am on the Book and the Sunnah,’ even though a certain individual amongst them is not pleased with being affiliated to the Salaf as-Saalih, and this is a problem which happened amongst you, where one of the beginner students, as I heard in a tape of his, said that he does not want to say, ‘I am a Salafi,’ and that whoever insists on that should be ordered to repent and if he does not then he is to be killed, did you hear this?

Questioner: He recanted that statement, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: Alhamdulillaah …

Questioner: A tape about that came out.

Al-Albaani: This is what we want.

Questioner: And he explained what he meant, saying that he was talking about the issue of forming parties.

Al-Albaani: May Allaah guide him.

Questioner: Then he said that I repent from this wording.

Al-Albaani: Jazakallaahu khair, this is what we thought of him [i.e., that he would turn back from making such a statement]. But if this indicates anything, then as they say today, [it indicates that] the passion of youth overcomes their knowledge.

This is not a light statement to make, that a person says that if someone attributes himself to the Salaf as-Saalih he should be asked to repent and if he doesn’t then he is to be killed and then to [incorrectly] use as a proof some statements of Ibn Taymiyyah, how far this statement is from that [of Ibn Taymiyyah]. Do you have the tape [where that person said these things]?

Questioner: Shaikh Abdullaah al-Ubailaan told me about this tape. I was in Riyadh a few days ago and he told me about this tape. Inshaa Allaah, if I get a copy I will send it to you, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: Jazakallaahu khair.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 778.

Leave a comment
February 21, 2012

Principles Concerning Declaring Others to be Disbelievers, Innovators or Open Sinners [Faasiqs] | 3 | Is It Allowed to Say Anything Against Someone Who Takes the Opinion of One Shaikh and You Another?


 

[Continuing from the second part of this series which can be found here: Al-Albaani Destroys, ‘If You’re Not With Us You’re Against Us.’]

Questioner: There are some issues, O Shaikh, which some of the people of knowledge with us have differed in, some of them calling those things an innovation and others saying it is permissible, and some of the youth blindly follow and due to the trust they have in the scholar who says that it is permissible, he takes his [i.e., that scholar’s] opinion in the issue, so is it permissible, O Shaikh, to judge this person, like slandering his manhaj or declaring him to be an innovator due to him doing that, and an example of that is acting. Shaikh Muhammad ibn Uthaimeen laid down some conditions for it and holds it to be permissible and Shaikh ‘Abdullaah ibn Jibreen, some Shaikhs like Shaikh Bakr Abu Zaid and Shaikh Rabee ibn Haadi say that it is an innovation, what is your opinion, O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: Subhaanllaah! Allaahu Akbar! Your question started as something and ended as something else in my opinion. So are you asking one question or more than one?

Questioner: One question, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: Then define your question, because I felt that there was more than one. Define your question.

Questioner: The question is about the ruling concerning an individual who goes by the saying of a Shaikh who declares something to be allowable, [declares it] to be permissible to do that thing, and an example of that is acting.

Al-Albaani: Yes, yes.

Questioner: Is it allowed for me, being that I hold acting to be an innovation and this other person holds the view of, for example, one of the major scholars who says it is permissible, is it permissible for me to slander this person’s manhaj by saying that, ‘This is the manhaj of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon in this issue,’ or that such a person can be declared to be an innovator because he took the opinion [of another Shaikh] in this issue, bearing in mind that the person is a blind-follower, O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: Is it permissible for a scholar to say anything against someone who opposes his opinion?

Questioner: No.

Al-Albaani: Then this situation is even less permissible.  Is the answer clear?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Okay.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Albaani: And you.

2 Comments
February 20, 2012

Principles Concerning Declaring Others to be Disbelievers, Innovators or Open Sinners [Faasiqs] | 1 |


Questioner: I have a number of questions, may Allaah reward you with good. The first: is establishing the proof against someone a requirement for declaring him to be an innovator or a faasiq?

Al-Albaani: Wallaahi, the answer differs according to the differences found in the countries [the people live in] and in the differences amongst the residents in terms of the presence of scholars who uphold the obligation of educating and da’wah.

Let us give a clear and concise example of that: there is a very big difference between someone who is in the lands of disbelief, a group of people [there] who have newly embraced Islaam, there is no doubt, naturally, that it is not allowed to go ahead and declare such people to be disbelievers or open sinners [faasiqs] or innovators straight away, because they live in an environment where they are new to Islaam and Islamic rulings, this is on one side. [So there is a very big difference between such people and those on] the other side [where there] is a clear Islamic environment, an unadulterated Islamic environment which does not require the proof to be established, because the issue is [already] established by the very nature of this learned, Islamic environment.

These are two totally contrastive examples. So between these two situations there is no doubt that there are a great many examples, some of which will be closer to the first example and others closer to the second, and so on.

So the point of giving this example is to show that it is not allowed to make a statement, whether positive or negative, about that question, so it should not be said that, ‘[The proof] has to be established,’ and nor that, ‘It doesn’t have to be established.’ The answer differs according to the differing states of the people he wants to declare to be disbelievers or faasiqs or innovators.

And the foundational principle here is that it is not allowed to declare Muslims to be disbelievers, and following on from that, [it is not allowed] to declare them to be faasiqs, and following on from that, [it is not allowed] to declare them to be innovators except after the proof has been established due to the well-known aayah and authentic hadiths which have a similar meaning, the well-known aayah being, “… And never would We punish until We sent a messenger …” [Israa 17:15] “… that I may warn you thereby and whomever it reaches,” [An’aam 6:19] likewise is his saying عليه الصلاة والسلام, which Imaam Muslim reported in his Sahih from the hadith of Abu Hurairah, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, who said, “Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم said, ‘There is no man from this Ummah, Jew or Christian, who hears of me and then does not believe in me except that he will enter the Fire.’

So I say: the foundational principle is that the proof be established [before delivering a verdict] against these three types of people [i.e., the three types being, declaring someone to be a disbeliever, or innovator or open sinner], this is what the ruling centres around. After [understanding] the examples we have given the issue is that whoever knows or is certain that the proof has been established against such and such a person then based upon that it is permissible to declare him to be a disbeliever, or a faasiq or an innovator, and if that is not the case then it is not permissible. This is the answer.

Questioner: Okay, O Shaikh, if a Muslim scholar established the proof against a person, whether that be declaring him to be a disbeliever, or an innovator or a faasiq, is it then obligatory upon a person to follow that scholar or does he have the option of establishing the proof himself?

Al-Albaani: It’s not a condition [that he has to establish the proof himself], rather what is obligatory is that he be convinced that the proof has been established on the person who is to be declared a disbeliever, or innovator …

[The second part of this series of questions has already been translated and can be found here: Al-Albaani Destroys, ‘If You’re Not With Us You’re Against Us.’]

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 778.

Leave a comment
February 17, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about al-Banna | 18 | A Mention of Some Important Principles


Questioner: In the past we read in some hadiths that the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم uncovered his thigh and that when the Companions came to see him, Abu Bakr, then Umar [he didn’t do anything, but] when Uthmaan entered he covered it, can’t it be understood from this that uncovering the thigh is permissible?

Al-Albaani: This incident cannot be used to establish a stance to be adopted as part of one’s life, may Allaah bless you, it is limited to this occurrence, we’re talking about social life in general, which the Muslim youth has to live by.

Questioner: I’m with you on that.

Al-Albaani: Be patient. When the Messenger عليه السلام would sit with his Companions and travel with them, pray with them, were his thighs uncovered? Obviously, the answer is no.

These people are uncovered and they pray like that especially when, during games, prayer time comes by and they want to pray.

[And the point I’m going to mention now] is knowledge which we must revive: that the common approach the Messenger عليه السلام took in his life is what we take, as for something he would do whose occurrence was rare, then it is possible that in most cases such a thing has a reason or situation which required the Messenger عليه السلام to leave the norm, and what we are talking about now is an example of that.

So far be it for the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم to be among his Companions and to enter the mosque or to sit somewhere whether while travelling or resident with his thighs uncovered. Yes, there is no doubt that this incident [which you mentioned] did occur, but from a fiqh perspective does this show that it is permissible for a Muslim to leave his thighs uncovered during his life in general? This may or may not prove that in specific circumstances it is permissible, like the situation [which I am about to mention and] which is not regarded as being the Messenger’s صلى الله عليه وسلم norm, do you know it?

That he was sitting with his legs hanging over the side of a well, and the weather in Medinah was hot, so he was cooling himself down, and in order to do wudoo part of his thigh was uncovered , this incident does not represent the Prophet’s عليه السلام life, it represents that particular situation he was in.

Yet having said that, there is a knowledge-based point here [which we need to understand]. When the Prophet عليه السلام performed an action and he explained that Allaah’s Legislation for the Ummah is different to that, and in the words of the scholars of fiqh: if his statements oppose his actions then which of them are given precedence?

His statements are given precedence over his actions. Because a statement is universal legislation, it may be possible that an action was carried out due to a particular excuse or due to it being a characteristic exclusive to him, and it is [also] possible that it occurred before a legislative ruling about it was revealed.

For example, we have a hadith in which it is mentioned that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم gave a sermon to the people while he was wearing a ring made out of gold, are we now going to say, ‘It is permissible to wear a ring made out of gold,’ because the Prophet wore it? No, he wore it at a time when it was permissible.

You know that the major Companions used to drink wine, and there is a very unusual story which is not well-known amongst the people, it is reported in Sahih Bukhari. The Companions were in a house, drunk, when Ali came and knelt his camels down by the house. His uncle Hamzah came out and cut open their stomachs, when Ali saw that he was extremely upset and went to the Prophet عليه السلام and told him what had happened. The Prophet عليه السلام came to his uncle and reprimanded him for what he had done.

What was Hamzah’s stance? He said a statement which was such that had he said it after alcohol was made forbidden it would have caused him to have committed disbelief and would have caused him to have left the religion, he said, ‘Aren’t you but the slaves of my father?’ Hamzah is saying to his cousin and his Prophet, ‘Aren’t you but the slaves of my father?’ Why? He didn’t understand, he was drunk.

[Here is the full text of the hadith from Bukhari: “Narrated Ali, ‘I got a she-camel in my share of the war booty on the day (of the battle) of Badr, and the Prophet had given me a she-camel from the Khumus. When I intended to marry Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle, I had an appointment with a goldsmith from the tribe of Bani Qainuqa’ to go with me to bring Idhkhir (i.e. grass of pleasant smell) and sell it to the goldsmiths and spend its price on my wedding party. I was collecting for my she-camels equipment of saddles, sacks and ropes while my two she-camels were kneeling down beside the room of an Ansari man.

I returned after collecting whatever I collected, to see the humps of my two she-camels cut off and their flanks cut open and some portion of their livers was taken out. When I saw that state of my two she-camels, I could not help weeping. I asked, “Who has done this?” The people replied, “Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib who is staying with some Ansari drunks in this house.” I went away till I reached the Prophet and Zaid bin Haritha was with him. The Prophet noticed on my face the effect of what I had suffered, so the Prophet asked. “What is wrong with you?” I replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have never seen such a day as today. Hamza attacked my two she-camels, cut off their humps, and ripped open their flanks, and he is sitting there in a house in the company of some drunks.”

The Prophet then asked for his covering sheet, put it on, and set out walking followed by me and Zaid bin Haritha till he came to the house where Hamza was. He asked permission to enter, and they allowed him, and they were drunk. Allah’s Apostle started rebuking Hamza for what he had done, but Hamza was drunk and his eyes were red.

Hamza looked at Allah’s Apostle and then he raised his eyes, looking at his knees, then he raised up his eyes looking at his umbilicus, and again he raised up his eyes look in at his face. Hamza then said, “Aren’t you but the slaves of my father?” Allah’s Apostle realized that he was drunk, so Allah’s Apostle retreated, and we went out with him.”]

Questioner: He was drunk, yes.

Al-Albaani: Yes. This was at a time in Islamic history when the legislation was still being prescribed.

For this reason, when a statement comes from the Prophet عليه السلام which opposes his action then his statement is what is relied upon because it is in the legislation, as for his actions then it is left to him عليه السلام [he may either do something] out of an excuse/specific reason, or because it is something particular to him alone, or it may have been before he made a statement about it, before something was legislated, as in the story of the alcohol and things like it.

From this type of incident is the fact that the Prophet عليه السلام was sitting at the edge of a well, with his legs hanging over the side, when Abu Bakr entered and Umar but he didn’t change the way he was, until when Uthmaan came he did so.  So Sayyidah Aa’ishah said that so and so and so and so entered and you did not change the way you were but when Uthmaan entered you covered yourself? So he replied, ‘Should I not feel shy in front of someone who the Angels feel shy of?’

So it is possible that [1] this was before the Prophet عليه السلام said, ‘The thigh is awrah,’ and it is possible that [2] it was after he said it but that he had an excuse and it is possible that [3] there was no [specific] excuse and that it was just something exclusive to him.

Whatever the case, I was talking about some of the Islamic jamaa’ahs, how can they live with no connection between themselves and Islaam, what is the reason? It is because they have not studied Islaam.

I do not mean that it is upon every individual Muslim to become a scholar and to taken it upon himself to carry out the duty of purification [tasfiyyah], no, this must be done by the people specialising in it. So where are the specialists in these groups such that they can be nurtured upon this foundation of purification?

Take Hizb at-Tahrir for example which wants to establish an Islamic state … look at Hasan al-Banna he made a [particular] statement which is as though it is revelation from the sky but along with that his group do not implement it. That statement was, ‘Establish the state of Islaam in your hearts and it will be established for you in your lands.’

Hizb at-Tahrir do not go by this piece of wisdom at all, [instead] they say, ‘We will establish the state first and then afterwards the state will rectify the populace.’  Subhaanallaah!  This is in opposition to logic and the Sunnah of the Prophet who spent long years nurturing a few individuals until a core and the foundation of the Muslim jamaa’ah was formed.

Likewise that which comes under this topic, “There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allaah an excellent example …” [Ahzaab 33:21] … you will find members of Hizb al-Tahrir … in all groups you will find people who are good and sincere and so on, but as a group they are extremely far from implementing the Islaam which is known as Islaam [i.e., the basics]; as for implementing that pure Islaam, then how far they are from it.

[The founder of Hizb al-Tahrir] Taqiyud-Deen’s books, may Allaah have mercy on him, are full of weak hadiths which have no basis, and upon them he built his ideology and established his group, such that when explaining the hadith that, ‘There is no obedience to the creation in disobedience of the Creator,’ he said it means: there is no obedience to the creation if that person who is ordering the disobedience believes that what he is ordering is actually disobedience, but if he is ordering it as a result of his own ijtihaad [and does not hold it to be disobedience] then it is not disobedience and it is obligatory to obey him.

And based upon this he made it obligatory on every individual in his group to obey their Amir and to submit to him, and not to place knowledge, i.e., the Book and the Sunnah, as a judge over him, since, ‘It is the Amir’s opinion.’

Questioner: By way of ijtihaad.

Al-Albaani: By way of ijtihaad, yes. And a debate took place between me and them, many, many debates, one of them was when we were brought together in the Al-Haskaa Prison in Syria, about fifteen of them, and so I gave them the following example.

Interjector: Should I record this, O Shaikh? [i.e., the person recording the sitting is asking whether the Shaikh wants this part where he mentioned the prison to be recorded, since it is something personal].

Al-Albaani: Yes.

One of them, very zealous, came and so I said to him, ‘What do you say about his saying عليه السلام, ‘Everything which intoxicates is alcohol and all alcohol is haram,’ and ‘Whatever intoxicates in large amounts, then a small quantity of it is haram?’ He said, ‘Of course, these are authentic hadiths and I believe in them.’

I said to him, ‘What do you say, aren’t there some Imaams of the Muslims from the past who performed ijtihaad and said, ‘The alcohol whose [consumption in] small quantities is forbidden is only that which is derived from grapes, as for the alcohol which is made from other things then only the amount which intoxicates is forbidden,’ namely, if a person were to drink two bottles, three, and stayed sober then this is halaal but if he took a sip and got drunk then it is forbidden.’ I said to him, ‘What is your opinion about the scholars who say that?’ He said, ‘Yes.’

The point is I said to him, ‘If our Lord tested the Muslims with an Amir ruling over them who held this opinion, what would you do?’ He said, ‘I would obey him.’

He would obey him even though he believes this is haram, why? Because the hizb told him that, ‘If the Amir believes that it is haram he will not order you to commit a sin.’ Thus, they twisted the hadith which states that, ‘There is no obedience to the creation in disobedience of the Creator,’ [to mean that] there is no obedience to someone who orders one to commit an act of disobedience if he holds it to be a sin, as for if he does not hold it to be a sin then you have to obey him.

This has all been attributed to Islaam in the name of Islaam, and in the name of setting up an Islamic state.

And Allaah’s Aid is sought.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 200.

Leave a comment
February 16, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about al-Banna | 17 | He was not a Scholar Either and a Mention of Blind Hizbiyyah


Questioner: I read [a transcription of] this tape, the topic being the Book and the Sunnah, a topic which in reality there has been much debate and argument over, and the centre of the argumentation and debate is this: some of the brothers in the Islamic world will say to you, ‘I take from the Book and the Sunnah as explained by one of the Imaams,’ for example, Hasan al-Banna, may Allaah have mercy on him.

Al-Albaani: Who?

Questioner: Hasan al-Banna.

Al-Albaani: Okay, yes.

Quesrtioner: You will find his followers now, namely, we’ve heard people say, ‘My brother, I only completely take what Hasan al-Banna said,’ okay, my brother, go back to the Book and the Sunnah … following on from that he will not take from the Book and the Sunnah, and there are many who say such things … okay, all of you say, ‘the Book and the Sunnah,’ [but] come and sit with one of them and the first thing they do is fight, okay, then where is the Book and the Sunnah amongst you?

Al-Albaani: Why do they fight? Because they are hizbis who are not united. Thereafter, [this statement that], ‘Hasan al-Banna is on the Book and the Sunnah,’ this term, ‘The Book and the Sunnah,’ is one which is only made up of a few words but the entire life of a Muslim, every aspect of it, comes under it.

And all claim Laylaa’s love
but Laylaa doesn’t acknowledge it for any of them

Hasan al-Banna, is not a man of knowledge, he was just a man of da’wah, and Allaah benefitted the Muslim youth through him by saving them from the cafe’s and cinemas and so on, there is no doubt or uncertainty about that.

But where are the books of Hasan al-Banna which show his knowledge? His father whose name was Abdur-Rahmaan has some books which show [us] his knowledge, but his son Hasan al-Banna doesn’t have anything other than a few small booklets. These small booklets are like a methodology for his da’wah but they do not show us that the man was a scholar.

So he [i.e., the person you mentioned in the question] will say to you that, ‘I am on the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of Hasan al-Banna,’ this is proof that his eyes are closed and that he has submitted to the desire of blind hizbiyyah [simply] because, ‘he is Hasan al-Banna.’

Hasan al-Banna has a small book about words of remembrance [adhkaar].

Questioner: Al-Ma’thuraat.

Al-Albaani: It’s called, ‘Al-Ma’thuraat,’ very small, I don’t know have you seen it? One of the heads of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon in Syria put it to me to check this book and have it printed with a knowledge-based checking, because he trusted me as someone who specialises in the science of hadith.

I told him I would do so but that I feared my efforts would go to waste. He asked why and so I told him that it was his religious and knowledge-based sentiments which made him make such a suggestion, that I should check Hasan al-Banna’s book, but that the way of hizbiyyah will not let it pass for when it is said to the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon that here is Hasan al-Banna’s book with al-Albaani’s checking, they will put an end to it, because it is very hard and painful for them to see a book by al-Banna with the checking of al-Albaani, why?

Because there is bigotry and blind partisanship … and [indeed that is what happened,] the book was not printed except as Hasan al-Banna, may Allaah have mercy on him, composed it [without al-Albaani’s checking]. What’s in this book? It contains [hadith] from books of the scholars of old, and fiqh of some of the hadiths about adhkaar and ma’thuraat, as far as I can tell, [but] not according to the principles of [the science of] hadith–because he was not from the people of hadith, his father was from the people of hadith somewhat, but he wasn’t. Whereas Ahmad Shaakir was also an Egyptian [but] he was an Imaam in this field of knowledge.

So Hasan al-Banna selected [content for his book], ‘Al-Ma’thuraat,’ as he liked, not based upon knowledge, yet even so you will find people who are bigoted for Hasan al-Banna, this bigotry did not come about due to knowledge at all, [but rather] from blind hizbiyyah, and I said recently that you will see major [members] of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon cut off the connection between themselves and the Messenger عليه السلام and [instead] make their connection with Hasan al-Banna …

So you will find that amongst the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon the religious one or the one who does not want to shave his beard will let a small one grow and make it just like that of Hasan al-Banna. Yaa Jamaa’ah, where are you in relation to the Messenger who is the example [that should be followed] and he is the one about whom our Lord said in the Noble Quraan, “There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allaah an excellent example …” [Ahzaab 33:21] The defect is that they are not acquainted with the Messenger’s life.

Questioner: For who?

Al-Albaani: Sorry?

Questioner: For who, “… an excellent example for anyone who …”

Al-Albaani: Aah, may Allaah bless you, “… for anyone whose hope is in Allaah and the Last Day …” [Ahzaab 33:21]

So they cut off from the Messenger عليه السلام due to their turning away from studying the Sunnah and due to their preoccupation with politics, sociology, economics, and their calls which are nothing but shouting.

Leave the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon and look at ‘Shabaab Muhammad,’ [they are even] further and further away, their religion is sport and football and basketball, and I don’t know which other such sports there are, would that it were in the way of clinging to the Sunnah and strengthening the foundation, because the Prophet عليه السلام said, “The strong believer is more beloved to Allaah than the weak one, and in all there is good.”

It is not from Islaam that the Muslim imitates the disbelievers, it is not from Islamic manners that he uncovers his thigh, it is not from Islamic manners that he wears the uniform of Jewish scouts, you can’t unless you uncover your thigh, what is this blind following?

It is a confirmation of his saying عليه السلام regarding the ignorant amongst the Muslims, “You will certainly follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit, so much so that even if they entered a lizard hole, you would follow them.”

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Aah.

Questioner: Sorry Shaikh, could I ask you a quick question?

Al-Albaani: Please do.

Questioner: In the past we read in some hadiths that …

Leave a comment
February 16, 2012

The Difference Between Inspiration [Ilhaam] and Revelation [Wahy]


From Jaabir, may Allaah be pleased with him, who said, “When the time of the Battle of Uhud approached, my father called me at night and said, “I think that I will be the first amongst the Companions of the Prophet to be martyred. I do not leave anyone after me dearer to me than you, except Allah’s Apostle’s soul and I owe some debt and you should repay it and treat your sisters favourably (nicely and politely).” So in the morning he was the first to be martyred and was buried along with another (martyr).” [Bukhaari]

Shaikh al-Albaani said, “It should be known that this is not to be considered as having knowledge of the Unseen, for no-one except Allaah knows the Unseen, and nor is it from the category of Allaah showing His servants some of the Unseen as many ignorant people think it is, for Allaah the Most High said, “[He is] Knower of the unseen, and He does not disclose His [knowledge of the] unseen to anyone except a Messenger He has approved of.” [Jinn 72:26-27] [i.e., Jaabir’s father was a Companion not a Messenger]

Rather [this incident] comes under the category of truthful inspiration [al-Ilhaam as-Saadiq], and the difference between it and revelation [wahy] is that inspiration [al-Ilhaam] is not safe from error or the fact that it may not materialise, unlike revelation [wahy] which is always infallible.”

Tahqiq Mishkaah al-Masaabih, 3/1674.

1 Comment
February 8, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb | 16 | He was not a Scholar


 

Questioner: The first question, both questions, are regarding the book, ‘In the Shade of the Quraan.’  Its author [i.e., Qutb] mentioned at the beginning of Surah Taa Haa that the Quraan is a cosmic/universal phenomenon like the phenomena of the heavens and the earth, what is your opinion about this statement, bearing in mind that he uses the particle of comparison [i.e., the word ‘like’], O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: We, my brother, have said more than one time: that Sayyid Qutb, may Allaah have mercy on him, was not a scholar. He was just an author, a writer and he didn’t know how to express the legislated Islamic creed, especially the Salafi beliefs from it.

For this reason, it is not fitting that we drone on about his statements too much, because he was not a scholar with the meaning of the word that we want, [i.e.,] a scholar of the Book and the Sunnah upon the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih. Many times his expressions are stylistic rhetoric and are not scholarly/knowledge-based ones, and are especially not Salafi expressions, not being from this type at all, and we do not hesitate to condemn expressions such as those nor such tahsbeeh.

The least that can be said about it [i.e., the expression you asked about] is that he did not mean that the Quraan is literally Allaah’s Speech as is the creed of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah and nor does he mean that Allaah’s Speech is metaphorical, as is the creed of the Mu’tazilah. [His statements are] rhetorical, poetic speech.

But I do not hold that we should stop too much at such statements, except to clarify that it is speech which is not permissible in the sharee’ah, and that [at the same time] it is not expressing the creed of the author regarding the Noble Quraan, i.e., is it the actual Speech of Allaah or not?

This is what I believe and this is the answer to the first question.

Questioner: Okay, O Shaikh, the second question which is also about the same book, at the beginning of Surah Naml he said about the Quraan and its words/sentences that they are, ‘musical undulations?’ [tamowwujaat musiqiyyah]

Al-Albaani: Same answer.

Questioner: Same answer?

Al-Albaani: Same answer.

Questioner: Okay, this leads us, O Shaikh, to some questions, we see in many of the writings of some authors or those associated to knowledge …

Al-Albaani: Sorry, before you carry on, what did you understand when he said, ‘undulations [tamowwujaat]?’ Does he mean the Speech that emanated from the Lord of the Worlds? Or from Jibreel عليه السلام? Or from our noble Prophet عليه السلام? You will not understand that or that or this [i.e., neither one of the three from that statement of his].

For this reason I say that it is rhetorical, poetic speech, which does not tell us much about the author’s opinion or what he means.

This is the reality; when many authors do write, they pen down expressions of stylistic rhetoric which do not give [us] solid/realistic information [lit: ‘existential answers’ [about what exactly it is they mean]].

Okay, carry on.

Questioner: Even though you say that, O Shaikh, may Allaah bless you, we still find many writers or even [people] from students of knowledge who are influenced by the methodology of the scholars of hadith or who [have some knowledge], for example, in the science of hadith or have knowledge in some issues, [we find that even such people] have been influenced by his [i.e., Qutb’s] methodology.

Al-Albaani: And what is his methodology? Does he have a methodology?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: What is it?

Questioner: It’s [his] being influenced in his statements, in many statements, by the writings of Abul-A’laa al-Maududi, like in his book, ‘Social Justice [in Islaam],’ and his book, ‘At-Tasweer al-Fanni fil-Quraan …’

Al-Albaani: This is a literary style/way [of writing] it is not a scholarly/knowledge-based method/manner [of writing].

Questioner: There is a specific methodology regarding declaring people to be disbelievers [takfir], like slandering the Ummah and declaring [the Muslims in] it to be disbelievers, especially in the book, ‘Social Justice in Islaam.’ The author of the book, ‘Al-I’laam,’ mentioned this about him, az-Zarkashi …

Al-Albaani: Az-Zirikli.

Questioner: Az-Zarkashi or Az-Zirikli.

Al-Albaani: Az-Zirikli …

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: He [i.e., Az-Zirikli in his book Al-I’laam] mentioned this about him [i.e., Qutb], that he used to take up this methodology of slandering the entire Ummah, declaring all those around him to be ignorant. So many of the youth have now been influenced by this methodology and they have started calling to his books and his opinions and everything that he has written, so what is your opinion, O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: Our opinion is that the man was not a scholar, I said that to you already. What more do you want from me? If you wish for me to call him a kaafir then I am not from those who declare people to be kaafirs, and you are not either?

Questioner: … O Shaikh, I …

Al-Albaani: Listen, I testify along with you, but what do you want?

It is enough for the just, impartial Muslim that he gives every person his right, and as He, the Most High, said, “… and do not deprive the people of their due and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption.” [Hud 11:85]

The man is a writer, passionate for the Islaam that he understood, but he is not a scholar, and his book, ‘Social Justice,’ is from the first things he wrote, and when he did so he was nothing but an author and not a scholar.

But the reality is that in prison he progressed a lot and wrote some pieces which are as though they are written by the pen of a Salafi and not from him. I believe that prison nurtures some souls and awakens some conscience [in people]. So he wrote some words whose title is enough [to show what I just said], i.e., ‘Laa ilaaha Illallaah A Way of Life.’

But if he doesn’t distinguish between Tawhid al-Uluhiyyah and Tawhid ar-Rububiyyah then this does not mean that he doesn’t understand Tawhid ar-Rububiyyah and Tawhid al-Uluhiyyah and that he considers them to be one thing. It means that he is not a faqih, and that he is not a scholar and that he is not able to express the legislated meanings which have come in the Book and the Sunnah.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Albaani: And you, inshaa Allaah.

Questioner: Don’t you see … ya’ni, this affect and these things that he wrote, ya’ni, that he should be answered/refuted, for example?

Al-Albaani: Yes he should be answered/refuted, this is obligatory, but answering a person who has made a mistake is not limited to a person or people: everyone who makes a mistake in understanding Islaam, understanding it with innovated and newly-invented meanings which have no basis in the Book, nor in the Sunnah nor from our Salaf as-Saalih and the four Imaams who are followed–then it is fitting that such a person is answered/refuted.

But this does not mean that we treat him as an enemy or that we forget that he has some good deeds, it is enough that he is a Muslim, and that he was an Islamic author [writing] according to his understanding of Islaam as I said initially, and that he was killed in the way of his call to Islaam and that the ones who killed him, they are the enemies of Islaam.

As for [the fact that] he had deviated in many or a few issues in Islaam, then it was my belief before this revolution against him was fomented–I was the one who was boycotted here by the Muslim Brotherhood [Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon] under the assumption that I had declared Sayyid Qutb to be a disbeliever, and I was the one who showed some people that he used to agree with the [belief of] Wahdatul-Wujood in some of what he wrote in the same tafsir [mentioned in the question], but at the same time, I do not deny that he was a Muslim and that he was zealous for Islaam and for the Muslim youth and that he wanted to establish Islaam and an Islamic state. But the reality is:

Sa’d led the camels to water while being completely wrapped up
[with only his hands sticking out].

This is not how, O Sa’d, the camels are taken to water.

Questioner: Are his books to be warned against?

Al-Albaani: Those who do not have correct Islamic education are warned against his books.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good and bless you.

Al-Albaani: And you, inshaa Allaah.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 814.

1 Comment
February 7, 2012

Visiting the Prophet’s Grave عليه السلام After Every Prayer


The Shaikh was asked a question about whether a visitor to Medinah is allowed to go to the Prophet’s grave صلى الله عليه وسلم after every prayer, so he said:

Al-Albaani: If what you mean is every time someone prays, then we say no; but it is permissible [for the visitor] to do that sometimes and likewise it is not permissible for the residents of Medinah to visit it constantly after every prayer as is the case nowadays, for in doing so they are taking his grave عليه السلام as a place of festivity [Eed], and established hadiths have been reported which prohibit taking his grave عليه السلام as a place of festivity.

But a person who does that sometimes whether he be a resident or a visitor to Medinah–then let him do it sometimes and not repeatedly.

Questioner: Wouldn’t Ibn Umar do that?

Al-Albaani: Not all the time, he would, for example, upon returning from a journey, go to the Prophet’s grave عليه السلام and give him salaam and to Abu Bakr and his father, but as for him making that his habit as the innovators do–then far be it for him to do such a thing.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 97.

1 Comment
February 6, 2012

The Companions and the Time they Found the Body of the Prophet Daanyaal عليه السلام



Questioner: The story which the ‘Imaams of the Da’wah’ report in some of their books, that some of the Companions found the body of the Prophet Daanyaal and so dug thirteen graves for it [such that they would bury him in one of them] so that the people would be unable to locate it, how far is this narration authentic?

Al-Albaani: Firstly, at the start of your question you mentioned, the ‘Imaams of the Da’wah,’ who are you referring to with that phrase?

Questioner: Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s grandchildren.

Al-Albaani: But nowadays it usually refers to the Tablighi Jamaa’ah.

Questioner: I didn’t mean that.

Al-Albaani: You didn’t mean that but your wording gave that false impression, that’s why, according to what I understood [when you used that term], I found it strange that you attributed that to them because those people [i.e., Jamaa’atut-Tabligh] do not give important to such noble issues at all.

Questioner: True.

Al-Albaani: [Anyway], what is important is that this narration has an authentic, established basis, having many paths of narration. Right now I do not recall whether the particular details that you mentioned are correct. But what is important is that they really did find [his body] and then dug [the earth] and caused a river to flow over him [i.e., over the grave] such that it was not possible to go to it and glorify it or for it to be worshipped instead of Allaah the Blessed and Most High, this is established.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 304.

7 Comments