“I’m proud that Allaah the Mighty and Majestic made it easy for me to be acquainted with the Salaf as-Saalih … their knowledge … their fiqh … their manners … and that I strive to follow in their steps … I take pride in that.”
Al-Albaani.
Al-Huda wan-Noor, 848.
Questioner: Noble Shaikh! Is it enough to establish the proof against the people of shirk and all the people of innovation or do they have to understand it? And what is the condition [by which to judge] this understanding? And Allaah the Most High says, “And We have placed over their hearts coverings …” and that is about the disbelievers, “And We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness.” [Al-Israa 17:46]
Al-Albaani: There is no doubt that when Allaah the Blessed and Most High’s proof is presented to some people who are foreign to the Arabic language and which is something they do not understand then the proof has not been established against them. Due to that Allaah the Most High said, “And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them.” [Ibraahim 14:4].
So when a scholar establishes Allaah’s proof against His servants but they didn’t understand it due to some obscurity which occurred to them concerning their Arabic tongue or because they were non-Arabic speakers then at that time this scholar must explain Allaah the Blessed and Most High’s proof to them until it becomes clear. Once it has become clear to them and they then reject it after being certain of it, it is then judged that they are disbelievers and that they will abide in Hell forever.
As for just reciting the proof to the people without them understanding it then the people of knowledge are agreed that [in such a case] the proof has not been established, and Allaah the Blessed and Most High said, “And never would We punish until We sent a messenger,” [Israa 17:15] He means a messenger who speaks his people’s language so that they can understand what he is preaching to them about from the revelation which has been sent down to him from his Lord, the Blessed and Most High.
And for this reason, as an affirmation of this meaning, he عليه الصلاة والسلام said, as Imaam Muslim reported in his Saheeh from the hadith of Abu Hurairah may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, that, ‘Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said, ‘There is no man from this ummah from the Jews or the Christians who hears about me and then does not believe in me except that he will enter the Fire.’
So in this hadith his صلى الله عليه وسلم statement regarding all of the disbelievers on the face of the earth whom news of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم reaches, [news showing how] he was in his call in its true form and then disbelieves in it, then such a person is in the Fire.
So his statement, ‘… who hears about me …’ means his true call, and naturally it does not mean that if an unbeliever from the Europeans for example, or the Americans or others, heard of our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم through the priests or monks or orientalists who tell lies about out Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and do not tell their people about the true reality of the manners and merits of Allaah’s Messenger’s صلى الله عليه وسلم person and who [also] do not speak about the reality of his call and that it is the call of monotheism and rectification in all aspects of life, but rather only speak to their people about things contrary to what he was upon صلى الله عليه وسلم relating to his person and his call–then there is no doubt that in such a circumstance these people would not have heard of him عليه الصلاة والسلام truly and for this reason that aforementioned warning at the end of the hadith does not apply to them.
I will repeat a mention of this hadith again due to its importance in relation to this topic, for many people assume that just by transmitting the Noble Quraan to unbelieving populations through Arabic radio that Allaah the Blessed and Most High’s proof has been established against them and as a result the Muslims don’t have to do anything in terms of conveying the message, it is not like that.
For the Quraan was sent down in an Arabic tongue and those people don’t understand any of it, how can they when many of the general Arabs themselves have become like foreigners who don’t understand what is recited to them from their Lord’s Book, so how can it be said that Allaah the Blessed and Most High’s proof has been established against those Europeans and their likes from those foreigners just because every day, morning and evening, they can hear the Quraan’s recitation on Arabic radio?
So there is no doubt a group of the Muslims, who are truly from the people of knowledge, must convey Islaam’s sharee’ah in the language of those peoples and they should be good at translating the Quraan, translating its meanings and not a literal translation.
This is the answer to that important question.
Fataawaa Jeddah, 26.
Questioner: A hadith in Bukhari:
بِسْمِ اللهِ تُرْبَةُ أَرْضِنَا بِرِيْقَةِ بَعْضِنَا يُشْفَى سَقِيْمُنَا بِإِذْنِ رَبِّنَا
“In the Name of Allaah. The earth of our land with the spittle of some of us, our sick will be cured, with the permission of our Lord.”
Some of the Sufis use this as a proof for the permissibility of wiping [one’s hands on the graves etc.]?
Al-Albaani: Along with the clear invalidity of this deduction [let me add the following].
As you can see the scope of the wiping referred to in this hadith is very limited, and the occasion it is concerning is when one is seeking a cure through spittle, supplication and a little earth, [the amount] that would stick to your thumb or finger–so where is this in relation to wiping/rubbing the graves of the dead and not reciting the dhikr which has been reported from the Messenger عليه السلام?
And I say and I have said recently that if there is a general hadith–this one [mentioned in the question] is specific–and it has its restrictions as myself and you hear … [let me clarify further] if there was a general hadith but it was implemented in a specific way and was not implemented in a general manner then it is not permissible for us to implement it in a general manner. Because the one who narrated the hadith and those who directly received the hadith from the Messenger عليه السلام did not implement it in a manner which would include it amongst the general texts. I gave you an example which I will mention now in order to clarify what is meant by this statement.
His saying عليه السلام, “A man’s prayer with another is better than his prayer alone and the prayer of three [together] is better than that of two,” to the end of the hadith. So if a group of people prayed the Sunnah before the midday prayer [dhuhr] in congregation using this hadith as a proof such an argument would be rejected, why?
Because the one who said this hadith and those who heard it from his mouth عليه السلام fresh and new did not implement it with this general meaning which includes praying the Sunnahs in congregation.
So how can a hadith which is specific be used for a general topic when we reject using a general hadith as a proof for a specific topic which was not the practice of those in the first era?
And this is from the fiqh which it befits a student of knowledge to bite onto with his molar teeth because it opens a door to knowledge for them which maybe some of the major scholars do not take note of especially those who are rigid and people of blind following.
Fatawa Jeddah, 6.
It has been reported from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم [that he said], “Whoever visits his parent’s graves every Friday and recites [surah] Yaa Seen by them or by one of them, he will be forgiven for each aayah or each letter.”
Fabricated.
Shaikh al-Albaani said, ‘And the hadith shows the recommendation to recite the Quraan at the graves, but there is nothing in the Sunnah which attests to that. Rather, the Sunnah proves that the legislated thing to do when visiting the graves is only to give salaam to them [i.e., the occupants] and for it to be a reminder of the Hereafter. And the practice of the Salaf as-Saalih may Allaah be pleased with them continued upon this.
For reciting the Quraan at the graves is a hated innovation as a group of the past scholars openly stated, from them Abu Hanifah, Maalik, and Ahmad in a narration as occurs in Sharhul-Ihyaa of az-Zubaidi [2/285], he said, ‘Because no Sunnah has been reported concerning it.’
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, and Ahmad in another narration, said, ‘It is not hated, because of what is reported from Ibn Umar: that he directed in his will that at the time of his burial the opening and closing aayahs of Surah Baqarah should be recited.’
I [i.e., al-Albaani] say: The chain of narration of this report is not authentic up to Ibn Umar, and even if it were, it would only prove the [validity of the] recitation of the Quraan at the time of burial and not unrestricted [recitation], as is clear.
So it is upon you, O Muslim, to follow the Sunnah, and beware of innovations, even if the people see it as something good, for indeed, ‘… every innovation is misguidance …’ as he said صلى الله عليه وسلم.
Ad-Da’eefah, 1/126-128.
Here’s the PDF: ThisIsNotYourNest.
Shaikh al-Albaani said, “The Allaamah ash-Shaatibi [d. 790ah], may Allaah have mercy on him, said in his book Al-Iitisaam [vol. 3, p. 99] when explaining the signs of the people of desires and innovation:
“And a scholar (here Shaikh al-Albaani said, “Examine this closely, he didn’t say, ‘a student of knowledge!’”)—if the [other] scholars have not attested [to his knowledge], then the ruling regarding him is that he remains under the original state of the absence of knowledge—until another [scholar] attests otherwise and until he himself knows what was attested to in his regard. And if not, then he, for a surety, is upon an absence of knowledge or is upon doubt.
So choosing to proceed [by presenting himself as a scholar] in these two cases instead of refraining is not done except by following desires [i.e., the two cases being [1] a scholar attesting to his knowledge and [2] knowing what the [other] scholar has attested to in his regard]. For it was his duty to get a fatwa from someone else about himself but he didn’t. And it was his right not to be put forward [presented as a scholar] unless another [scholar] put him forward, and no-one did.””
Shaikh Al-Albaani commenting on this said, “This is Imaam ash-Shaatibi’s advice to ‘a scholar’ who is capable of going before the people with some share of knowledge—he is advising him not to do so until the scholars attest [to his knowledge], fearful that he may be a person of desires. So what, I wonder, do you think his advice would have been if he saw some of these who are attaching themselves to this knowledge in this time of ours?! There is no doubt that he would have said to such a person:
لَيْسَ هَذَا بِعُشِّكِ، فَادْرُجِي
‘This is not your nest, so move along.’
[Ed. Note: Al-Midaani said in Majma’ul-Amthaal, “‘This is not your nest, so move along,’ i.e., this affair is not something you have a right in, so leave it … it is given as an example for someone who raises himself above his rank.”]
So is there anyone who will take heed?! And indeed I, by Allaah, fear that these [people] will be included in his saying صلى الله عليه وسلم, “The intellects of the people of that time will be plucked away. And in its place only worthless people will remain. Most of them will think that they are upon something, but they are not upon anything.” [As-Saheehah, no. 1682]
And Allaah’s Aid is sought.”
As-Saheehah, vol. 2, p. 713.
The Imaam said, “So aspire, O Muslim, to know your Islaam from your Lord’s Book and your Prophet’s Sunnah.
And don’t say, ‘So and so said.’
For verily, the Truth is not known by men—nay, know the Truth, you will recognise the men.’
As-Saheehah, 5/350.
Continuing from the first post.
Questioner: Yes, we said, ‘When is a man excluded from Ahlus-Sunnah? Is it when he believes in a creed other than theirs? And if he falls into some opposition to what Ahlus-Sunnah were upon even if it is only in one subsidiary issue, is he called an innovator?
Al-Albaani: This is an important question. It is possible to understand its answer in light of the answer to the previous question. So we say:
If he sought the truth and that which was correct but missed it then it is not permissible to say that, ‘He is not from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah,’ just because he fell into a mistake even if we were to say that he fell into innovation, as occurs in your question.
Many, as the students of knowledge will know let alone the people of knowledge, many scholars fell into that which was haraam, but did they wilfully intend it? Far be it! So are they sinful in that? The answer is: no.
Thus, there is no difference between a scholar who falls into declaring halaal something which Allaah has made haraam and for which he is [still] rewarded [one time] and between another scholar who fell into an innovation unintentionally, he was aiming for the Sunnah but missed it, there is no difference between these two.
For this reason, we complain now about this new revolution which has erupted in Saudi between Ahlus-Sunnah themselves, whereby those whom it is thought have opposed Ahlus-Sunnah in some issues have appeared and so they [i.e., other people] declared them to be innovators and excluded them from Ahlus-Sunnah. It would have been enough for them to have said, ‘He is mistaken,’ firstly, then it was upon them to establish the proof from the Book and the Sunnah and what the Salaf as-Saalih were upon, secondly.
As for increasing the disunity with even more splitting and differences, then this is not from the practice of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, ever.
For this reason, it is not permissible to throw out someone who may have made a mistake in an issue, in accordance with the detail [I] previously mentioned: no matter whether that mistake was in the fundamentals [usool], or the subsidiary issues [furoo], or in aqidah or in fiqh–it is not permissible to declare him to be misguided, but rather he should be dealt with in a manner that is best.
What else?
Questioner: And if the Ahlus-Sunnah are able to bring that person and establish the proof against him in that which he has opposed the manhaj of Ahlus-Sunnah in, and despite that he still refuses to return to what they are upon, is he [then] declared to be an innovator or not?
Al-Albaani: The answer to this is also understood. If he stubbornly resists and persists then he is declared to be an innovator.
But if he says, ‘I do not see the correct stance to be in what you are saying,’’ in fact, he flips it back on them and in turn says that they are mistaken, then the issue remains one of a difference between him and them and it is not fitting that we believe that we know that in his heart he [really] believes the opposite of what he disclosed on his tongue and that he is thus a hypocrite.
We are not, as the Prophet عليه السلام indicated in the authentic hadith, ‘Why didn’t you split his heart open?’ [in the story] where that polytheist had fallen under the sword of a Muslim and so said, ‘Laa ilaaha illallaah,’ so he didn’t pay any attention to it and killed him, and the story is well-known, so he عليه السلام said, ‘Where were you in relation to the statement, ‘Laa ilaaha illallaah?’
He said, ‘He only said it out of deception and the fear of being killed.’ So he عليه السلام said, ‘Why didn’t you split his heart open?’
And that person was a mushrik, and what is apparent makes one feel no doubt that he said it out of the fear of being killed, so [then] what is the matter with us regarding a Muslim who testifies that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is His Messenger and he stands by the Book and the Sunnah and the manhaj of the Salaf as-Saalih but who made a mistake in an issue and the proof was [then] established against him–and we say this [i.e., we say that the proof was established against him] with some reservation, because not everyone who argues is upon knowledge, but we will assume [in this example] that the proof really was established against him by a noble scholar or scholars, but he [still] was not convinced—then Allaah is the one who will judge him, and it is not permissible for us to give precedence to a mistake or mistakes [made by that person] over a multitude of that which [he] is correct [in].
The issue in this knowledge-based matter is exactly like that which is connected to righteousness or wickedness: it is not possible for a Muslim not to fall into some opposition to the Sharee’ah, i.e., he will definitely commit a sin or make a mistake, and each one of us errs as we all know. So, when we see a person has made a certain mistake or committed a certain sin, do we say that, ‘He is a disobedient sinner [faasiq],’ do we say that, ‘He is a criminal [faajir]?’ Or do we go by what is predominate? [We go] by that which is predominate—likewise the knowledge-based issue [we are discussing] is the same [i.e., just as you can’t call someone who falls into a sin a faasiq or a faajir you similarly cannot call someone an innovator based upon one mistake].
Questioner: The Shaikh of Islaam [Ibn Taymiyyah], may Allaah the Most High have mercy on him, mentioned in [his book], Iqtidaa as-Siraatal-Mustaqeem fee Mukhaalafati Ahlil-Jaheem that a man might attend an occasion like the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday or another such innovation and be rewarded for it due to his good intention and his lack of knowledge about the fact that the occasion he attended is something in opposition to what has come from Allaah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, what do you say about that?
Al-Albaani: There is no doubt that this speech is that of a man who is a scholar, and it is enough for you that the one who said it is the Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, he says, ‘… and he doesn’t know,’ so do we say, ‘He has to know everything?’ [i.e., do we expect a person to know absolutely everything such that he will never make a mistake?]
But I will say something else: it is permissible for a Muslim to attend a place like these [where such things are happening], and which he knows are newly-invented matters and are not legislated, not doing so to flatter [those who are performing that innovation] and nor to be seen [out of hypocrisy] but in order to inform [the people] about its lack of being something legislated.
Or if he is not able to … or the general situation does not enable him to renounce the origin/basis of this innovation, then he renounces that which may occur in that matter, which, if he does renounce, will not lead to a harm that is greater than the good which he is informing and reminding the people about.
And this, of course, is according to the well-known fiqh principle with the people of knowledge that bringing about the good takes precedence over repelling the harm and the opposite is true totally when the harm which is assumed will take place, is more than the benefit which he seeks … and we know that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used to attend the meeting places of the polytheists, and there is no doubt that much, very much wrongdoing would occur there … and which one of us doesn’t know that when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم was praying in the Masjid al-Haraam he used to be harmed and amnion and dust and unclean things would be placed on his back صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, whilst he was praying, but he would attend the[ir] gatherings in order to perform the obligatory duty of calling them to tawheed as is known from his biography عليه الصلاة والسلام.
But in addition to this when Allaah gave him the conquest of Makkah and he entered and prayed inside the Ka’bah and Aai’ishah, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with her wanted to follow the example of her Prophet and husband by praying inside the Ka’bah [too], he عليه السلام said to her, ‘Pray in the hijr [the area at the side of the Ka’bah within the semi-circular wall], for it is from the Ka’bah and when your people’s funds ran short they removed the hijr from the Ka’bah,’ he said عليه السلام and here is the point we are proving, ‘Were it not for the fact that your people just left shirk I would have demolished the Ka’bah and built it upon Ibrahim’s foundation عليه السلام and would have made two doors for it on the ground. A door for them to enter from and a door for them to exit from.’
So, he عليه السلام left the Ka’bah with the deficiency that the Arabs rebuilt it upon in the Days of Ignorance, why? He said, ‘Were it not for the fact that your people just left shirk I would have demolished the Ka’bah …’ he feared عليه الصلاة والسلام that when those who had just recently embraced Islaam would see the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام demolishing the Ka’bah [they would have said], ‘He never left anything of ours, he even demolished Allaah’s Forbidden Sanctuary!’ So the Prophet عليه السلام established as a Sunnah the wisdom behind enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with such good words.
So if a man attended an event or place where there were wrong acts and newly-invented affairs in order to rectify them then he is rewarded for that, but if he does not know that it is a wrongful act or a newly-invented matter then there is nothing against him, [the affair rests upon] him and his intention, as the Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy on him, said.
I think you have obtained your answer, and more.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 734.
This sitting was concluded on the 22nd of Dhul-Qa’dah 1413 which corresponds to 12th May 1993.
Questioner: All praise is due to Allaah, Lord of the Worlds, and may prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allaah, his family, Companions and whoever followed him in good until the Day of Judgement.
Your eminence, Shaikh, may Allaah reward you with good. I have some issues which I and others from the people of Medinah have found to be problematic, if you could please and with thanks from us, may Allaah reward you with good, give us an answer, in the detail that we [have come to] expect from you.
From these issues is [the question]: when is a person emitted from Ahlus-Sunnah? Is it when he believes as creed something different to their creed? And when he does fall into things which oppose the Ahlus-Sunnah, is it allowed to declare him to be an innovator straight away or after establishing the proof against him? And if it is not easy to establish the proof against him, either due to the death of that person or because of it being such a long time ago, or because it is [just] not possible to meet him in order to establish the proof against him [what do we do?].
So advise us [of the answer], and we thank you [for that].
Al-Albaani: Your question, may Allaah bless you, contains many [different] questions. If you would split between one question and the next, or put the paper in front of me so I can give you the answers to these parts which make up that one question.
Questioner: Okay, O Shaikh, I will repeat it point by point.
Al-Albaani: Point by point.
Questioner: Okay.
Al-Albaani: The first question?
Questioner: The first question: when is a person emitted from Ahlus-Sunnah, is it when he believes a creed other than their creed or when he falls into a few things which oppose their creed?
Al-Albaani: Yes. I say, and I ask Allaah the Mighty and Majestic for success in being correct in what I say:
It has become common amongst the scholars of the past and those of today that when a Muslim makes a mistake in what the scholars call the subsidiary issues [furoo] he is excused, but that if he makes a mistake in the fundamentals [usool], in aqidah, he is not—we believe that, firstly, this differentiation does not have any proof in the Legislation, and that secondly, it is obligatory upon a Muslim to, always and forever, seek to know the truth in that which the people have differed, whether that is connected to the fundamentals or the subsidiary issues or in aqidah or in the ahkaam.
So if he expends all his effort to come to know the truth in that which the people have differed and is correct then he has two rewards and if he is mistaken then he has one, as is well-known from the hadith of the Prophet reported in the Sahih, “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,” this is the basis/foundation.
Secondly, if a Muslim was eager in wanting to know the truth yet made a mistake, even if it is in aqidah or the fundamentals, then, firstly, he is not held to account for that—rather he is rewarded one time for his mistake, and secondly, due to what was previously mentioned [just above].
This is confirmed by the saying of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم which occurs in the Saheeh from the hadith of Hudhaifah ibn al-Yamaan and other noble Companions, [where they reported] that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said, “Amongst the people preceding your age, there was a man who had never done any good. While he was on his death-bed, he called his sons and said, ‘What type of father have I been to you?’ They replied, ‘You have been a good father.’ He said, ‘I have sinned against my Lord and if Allaah has power over me, He will punish me severely. So when I die, burn me and scatter half of the resulting ashes in the sea and half in the wind.’ His sons did accordingly, but Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said, ‘Be so and so,’ and so he became a fully formed man. Then He said to him, ‘What made you do so?’ He replied, ‘Fear of you.’ So Allaah said, ‘I have forgiven you.’”
So Allaah the Mighty and Majestic forgave this person even though he had fallen into disbelief and shirk, [and he fell into this disbelief and shirk] through this will of his, which may not, amongst all of the wills that we have known or come across, have an equivalent in terms of its injustice and oppression. [But] Allaah did not take him to account, in fact He forgave him, because He knew that he didn’t leave that unjust will except out of [his] fear of Him.
Thus, the Muslim … [and] now comes the summary of the answer … when a Muslim seeks Allaah the Mighty and Majestic’s Face in all that he holds as religion before Him and takes as creed concerning Him, but then misses the truth, then there is no doubt that Allaah the Mighty and Majestic will forgive his mistake—in fact he will be rewarded for it one time.
This is what we hold as religion before Allaah and this is the fatwa we give–always and forever.
And the summary of that is: that it [i.e., believing otherwise] is in opposition to the foundation and principle that Allaah does not hold a person to be accountable for what he is mistaken in but only for that which he wilfully intended, and secondly, due to [the reasons given when explaining] this authentic hadith [mentioned above].
What’s next?
Questioner: Next is that the Shaikh of Islaam [Ibn Taymiyyah] may Allaah have mercy on him, mentioned in [his book], Al-Iqtidaa, he mentioned that a man may be rewarded for his presence at the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday or for an innovation depending on his purpose and intention, what do you say about that?
Al-Albaani: This is not a question … this wasn’t read out just now, you read a question which included many others.
Questioner: Yes …
Al-Albaani:So maybe you have taken a leap like that of a gazelle!
Questioner: Yes, I leapt.
Al-Albaani: Why did you jump?
Someone else: Go back to the first.
Questioner: Shall we go back to the first?
Al-Albaani: We said that your first question was composed of [many different] questions, so just now you repeated the first part of it and I gave you the answer, because you based many questions upon the first which was whether he leaves the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah …
Questioner: Okay.
Al-Albaani: Yes?
Questioner: Now … would you like me to …
Al-Albaani: Ya’ni, there are things you jumped over …
Questioner: Yes, O Shaikh.
Al-Albaani: I don’t know, maybe if you are not in need of them then that is up to you, but I feel as though you are in need of the rest of the answers.
Questioner: Yes, we said, ‘When is a man …
Questioner: What do you advise us with Shaikh, what do you advise concerning this issue, i.e., [that] some of the brothers abroad regard books like these … they do not examine them closely, books will come out and they’ll start looking at the title only, and [then] they’ll try to judge some of their brothers from the title alone, without close examination. So what is your advice in terms of [explaining the correct] da’wah and in terms of help and so on, may Allaah bless you.
Al-Albaani: I think that along with the answer for the previous question, it is possible for us to get an answer for this one.
Questioner: Yes.
Al-Albaani: Now, without doubt, we are living through a very big problem. Where, in recent times, disunity between the groups that affiliate themselves to the Book and the Sunnah has surfaced. So, from one angle, we advise the students of knowledge and especially the general masses of Muslims not to raise their heads towards such differences as these and from the other that they not be with one group against another.
Because firstly, it is not easy, ever, to distinguish what is correct from an error or the truth from falsehood. And secondly, and this is very important, not every person can judge with justice and fairness and stand by His Saying, the Most High, “… and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just–that is nearer to righteousness.” [Maa’idah 5:8]
Carrying out justice between two disputants, especially when a person’s desire is with one of the two, is very, very difficult. And from the authentic Sunnah we know that when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم sent Ali as a judge to Yemen he said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! You’re sending me to a people and I do not know how to judge?’ So he عليه السلام struck his chest and said to him, ‘Do not judge between two people until you have heard from both of them.’
Actualising this text in such differences which you referred to [in your question] and a part of which I have [already] explained, achieving justice, in fact, actualising the truth before justice—none except the most elite of the elite from the people of knowledge are capable of it.
Because they are the ones who have the capability to familiarise themselves with what these [disputants] say and what those others say and then compare the statement of this [group of people] with that, and then extract the correct from the two statements.
And sometimes there may be no [actual] difference between the two parties or statements except for, as the scholars say concerning some matters of dispute, that it is a, ‘Difference in wording.’
No one can do this except for a few individuals from the elite.
And [yet] there are people from the elite who cannot judge with justice–he knows where the truth is concerning the two parties, [he knows] whether there is a difference between them or not, [but still even] if there is a difference between them, the truth may be with the side which he does not feel affection for—and so he swerves away from justice, and for this reason He, the Most High, said, “… and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just–that is nearer to righteousness.”
For this reason, we advise the students of knowledge, let alone those less than them, not to delve into [such matters] in this way, and that they not take a stance except for the truth that they know before this problem occurs or before these differences appear.
Questioner: May Allaah bless you.
Al-Albaani: And you.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 674.
Questioner: O Shaikh, may Allaah bless you! Regarding the youth that Allaah has blessed with the Salafi Da’wah, and those who have united on the fundamentals, but when they differ regarding some of the subsidiary issues you find that they have enmity in that? And likewise what is your advice regarding the youth whether it be those who associate themselves with the other Islamic calls or those who have associated [themselves] with the Salafi call and who stage protests and call out their slogans, is this from the methodology of the Salaf or not?
Al-Albaani: As for the students of knowledge who study the two fundamentals, i.e., Usoolul-Hadith and Usoolul-Fiqh, then these people have to implement the subsidiary affairs according to the usool [they have learnt], and they must not blindly-follow anyone from Allaah’s creation but should benefit from each scholar of the Salaf who were on the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Companions and those who followed them in good, this is my advice to the students of knowledge.
From another angle it is obligatory that we distance ourselves from [this] disgusting bigotry and offensive harshness and that we do not become enemies … that we do not have enmity towards each other because of hizbiyyah and [because of] gathering [the people] or affiliation to one of the groups, and it is fitting that we advise each other and show each other love/affection.
And that when we see some people are far from the Book and the Sunnah in practice even if in affiliation, verbally, they have taken as methodology the Book and the Sunnah, if we see that in action they are far away from that then it is upon us to be gentle with them and to call them to be with us in implementing what we all verbally affiliate ourselves to, that we [practically] make it the methodology of our lives, calling them as He the Most High said, “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.” [An-Nahl 16:125]
As for shouting out slogans, [a method] which some of the groups adopt, then in reality this, as has preceded in the previous repudiation of it, was something not present in all [previous] generations–I don’t just say [that it was not present] amongst the Salaf as-Saalih only who are our proof and our example, but that in fact such slogans were not present in the generations that came after them.
We have copied such shouting slogans from the Westerners and the disbelievers and the polytheists who do not have a methodology that was sent down by Allaah the Blessed and Most High, so every day they are upon innovation, rather misguidance.
So it is upon the Muslims to emulate what the Salaf as-Saalih alone were upon and not to increase upon that in any way.
These protests remind me of another custom of some people: when they enter a gathering and those in it are sitting and the person who enters is able to [go around, there being room, and] shake hands with each person, then [what they do is that] every time he gives salaam to one person he follows it up with another for the next person, and so on until he finishes shaking hands with all of them, this also is an innovation, an additional innovation [bid’ah idaafiyyah].
Because the Sunnah is that when a Muslim enters a gathering he gives salaam one time, [saying], ‘As-Salaamu alaikum … [or] As-Salaamu alaikum wa Rahmatullaah … [or] As-Salaamu alaikum wa Rahmatullaahi wa Barakaatuhu …’ and [then] if he is able to shake their hands then doing so is a sunnah due to the saying of some of the Companions, ‘We never met Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم except that we shook hands.’
And there is another hadith in Sunan at-Tirmidhee, I will mention it because of its total connection to this topic so that we can kill two birds with one stone, meaning it’s connected to what we are talking about, its chain of narration is weak, and it is, ‘From the completion of the greeting is to shake hands.’ So when a person enters, the Sunnah is that he gives salaam one time and then if it is possible for him to shake hands with those present then that is better, and better because of the authentic hadith which I just mentioned now concerning his action in that regard عليه السلام [i.e., the first hadith mentioned about the Companions above].
And for this reason, the weak hadith … regarding weak hadith like this one it is possible to say that it can be acted upon in relation to the excellence of performing certain actions [fadaa’ilul-a’maal], and this is a very fine and sensitive point which many of those who hold that weak hadith can be used regarding the excellence of performing certain actions are unmindful of.
Because in reality by the statement that, ‘It is permissible to act upon a weak hadith regarding the excellence of performing certain actions,’ they mean that it is permissible to establish the legitimacy and excellence of an action in the Sharee’ah through a weak hadith–and no scholar says this, for it is to make something part of the Sharee’ah through a weak hadith.
And the scholars are united, except some of the ones who came later who have taken an anomalous stance, like some of the Ghumaaris and their likes who said that it is permissible to establish a legislated ruling with weak hadiths, and they thought that the Imaams–and this is a lie and fabrication against them–established rulings with weak hadiths.
And these people were heedless of or wilfully ignored this … Allaah knows best as to what their intentions were … because some of the Imaams may establish a ruling without any hadith at all but instead based upon deductive analogy [qiyaas], and putting aside whether such qiyaas was correct or not, that being another issue, it is not allowed for us to say that they established legislative rulings with weak hadiths.
So if the ones who say that it is permissible to act upon a weak hadith regarding the excellence of performing certain actions [means] to legislate actions which have an excellence in the Sharee’ah with a weak hadith–then no scholar says this.
But if they mean that it is permissible to act upon a weak hadith regarding the excellence of performing certain actions which have already been established in the Sharee’ah with a proof which is qualified to be used as a proof in the Sharee’ah, and then they came with a weak hadith which established a [type of] excellence for this [action] already established by an authentic hadith, then there is no objection to that, and this example has [already] come to you [i.e., the one about shaking the hands].
‘We never met except that we shook hands,’ [which is an authentic narration, and then], ‘From the completion of the greeting is to shake hands,’ [which is weak].
So when he met them there is no doubt that he would give them salaam and then shake hands. So from the greeting’s perfection is to shake hands, so there is no harm in shaking hands as a completion of the greeting–but we do not establish this through a weak hadith, we do so through all of the hadiths regarding the obligation of giving salaam, and I mean what I say … ‘the obligation’ of giving salaam, and not just that it is a sunnah, because the Prophet said, ‘When you meet him then give him salaam,’ so when the Prophet met his Companions he for sure gave salaam to them and [this is also shown through] this hadith which we mentioned, that, ‘We never met except that we shook hands.’
Thus, it has been established from both of these hadiths at the very least that shaking hands is from the completion of the legislated greeting, and so if a hadith like this comes along and we mention it whilst making its weakness clear then there is no harm in that, and it is a good example of the permissibility of acting upon a weak hadith concerning the excellence of certain actions which have [already] been established not through a weak hadith but an authentic one.
This is what comes to me as an answer to the previous question.
Questioner: … also as a caution … for the youth …
Al-Albaani: Please go ahead …
Liqaa’aat al-Madinah, 3.
Shaikh al-Albaani said about Shaikh Rabee’s book in which he explains the mistakes of Sayyid Qutb, “Everything that you have refuted Sayyid Qutb with is true and correct, and from that it will become clear to every Muslim reader who has some Islamic heritage that Sayyid Qutb was not acquainted with the fundamentals and subsidiary issues of Islaam. So may Allaah reward you with the best of rewards, O brother Rabee, for fulfilling the obligation of clarifying and uncovering his ignorance and his deviation from Islaam.”
This book of Shaikh Rabee’s can be downloaded here.
Continuing from the first post …
For this reason, before everything we advise these people who have differed and who were the cause of the youth around them splitting into two factions or more, we advise these people who are at odds with each other in some issues, and I praise Allaah that this difference, in my opinion, is not a difference in aqidah but in some issues which maybe we can call, in the terminology of those who came later, subsidiary issues not fundamentals or the core of the matter–so if the scholars differ then it is not fitting that those people around them split due to the division of the scholars, because the issue is as he عليه الصلاة والسلام said, “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.”
So we advise these scholars or callers who have differed not to discriminate/be prejudiced against each other and to deal with each based upon his saying عليه الصلاة والسلام, ‘Beware of suspicion, for truly, suspicion is the most false of speech.’
So if some person, [let’s say he’s called] Zaid, makes a mistake then it is upon us to clarify his mistake to him in the best manner and not the worst, and all of those who differ [should] tread this path, because we all claim that we are Salafis, i.e., that we follow the guidance, manhaj and behaviour the Salaf as-Saalih were upon. And we know that they did differ in many issues but this difference [of opinion] was never a cause for them to split or for them to treat each other as enemies.
There are some statements which have been authentically reported from some of the Salaf as-Saalih which if today someone were to mistakenly adopt because it has no angle from which it is correct, a great furore would arise against him, but such a huge furore did not arise against that Companion who, in a certain opinion or ruling, parted with an anomalous stance from the ruling which the other [Companions] had adopted: Umar ibn al-Khattaab, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, used to prohibit performing the tamattu type of Hajj and after him Uthmaan ibn Affaan, may Allaah be pleased with him, followed him in this prohibition. When Uthmaan performed Hajj during his caliphate he also prohibited the pilgrims from performing the tamattu type of Hajj.
So Ali ibn Abi Taalib, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, stood in his face, an individual from the Ummah, and he would be the Khalifah after him, [he stood in his face and] said to him, ‘Why do you prohibit something which we did in the time of Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم! [And then he announced the talbiyyah for the tamattu type of Hajj] Here I am, O Allaah, performing Umrah with Hajj!’
That person [i.e., Uthmaan] was prohibiting performing the Umrah with Hajj [called Hajj tamattu] and this person [i.e., Ali ibn Abi Taalib] is declaring [his intention to do it] in his face, [saying] that the Sunnah is like this–despite that the people did not split around them, on the contrary they continued to respect each one’s opinion, and they [i.e., the people] may have leaned towards the Khalifah’s opinion [more than the other], because he was the Khalifah of the Muslims etc., [but] why [did the [people not split?]
Because when a dispute breaks out between the scholars it is fitting that it remains confined to them and that the dispute’s infection is not transmitted to the population, because the people do not have the composure, the impregnability and the mind to prevent them from going to extremes in the dispute.
Similarly, Uthmaan ibn Affaan used to hold the opinion that if a man has intercourse with his wife but does not emit any semen then it is enough for him to perform wudoo instead of ghusl, although this contradicts the authentic, clear hadith, ‘When the circumcised part meets the circumcised part ghusl becomes obligatory whether there is ejaculation or not,’ despite this, no fitnah and no discord occurred between him and, for example, Aaishah who is the one who narrated the hadith opposing Uthmaan’s statement, may Allaah be pleased with him.
There are many examples, and even stranger than all of this, and the intent [here] is just to give an example and to bring [what I am trying to convey] closer, is that Umar al-Khattaab used to forbid the traveller who could not find any water from performing tayammum, [saying that] he should carry on as he is without praying until he comes across some water, even though the aayah is clear in its apparent meaning, “… and find no water, then seek clean earth …” [Nisaa 4:43]
And it reached Umar ibn al-Khattab that Abu Musa al-Ash’ari used to give a verdict based upon the apparent meaning of the aayah: that when a traveller does not find water he performs tayammum, so Umar sent for him and said, ‘It has reached me that you say such and such?’ He said, ‘Yes, O Chief of the Believers! Don’t you remember that we were on a journey and we became junub [i.e., entered a state of ritual impurity], and so you and I rolled about in the dust and then when we came to the Prophet عليه السلام and told him the news he said, ‘It would have been enough for you to strike the earth with your palms one time and wipe over your face and hands.’
Okay, [so he said], ‘Don’t you remember that the Prophet عليه السلام said, ‘It would have been enough for you to strike the earth with your palms one time and wipe over your face and hands.’ He replied, ‘I don’t remember.’ So Abu Musa al-Ash’ari said, ‘Shall I cease giving the fatwa?’ Umar said, ‘No, we leave you to that which you have chosen …’ i.e., as they say today, ‘[It’s] under your responsibility, under your guarantee, [since] I don’t remember this story.’ [He i.e., Umar ibn al-Khattaab too was] a man, you are not the only one who forgets, here is the Chief of the Believers who forgot.
Questioner: … what was Umar’s proof … what was Umar’s proof that when [a person is on a journey and doesn’t find water he should wait and not pray until he does so] …
Al-Albaani: His proof was the basis/foundation [al-asl], the basis [in the ruling] is water …
Questioner: … the basis …
Al-Albaani: The basis is water … the important thing is that this dispute and many, many other such disputes were not the cause for the splitting of the Muslim nation, because knowledge takes its course and the ummah stays behind its scholars: whoever is content with this opinion then he is upon guidance and whoever is content with that opinion is upon guidance.
We make a statement regarding this which should be penned down and spread [and which is]: just as when, “… 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,” then likewise the one who follows a mujtahid comes under the ruling which applies to the mujtahid, i.e., someone who follows a correct opinion, the Mujtahid Imaam was correct [in a ruling he made] and so he has two rewards–so this person who followed him in this correct [judgement] is also rewarded twice, of course [the extent of] the reward differs, but [still he gets] two rewards. The other person who follows another Imaam who was mistaken, then such an Imaam is rewarded once, and likewise is the one following him.
So when a dispute between the scholars occurs, it is not fitting, firstly, that it should be taken as a cause for splitting amongst them [i.e., amongst the scholars themselves] and secondly, it is not fitting that it should be a cause for a split amongst the people because they are all rewarded, whether he is right or wrong.
This is how our Salaf as-Saalih were–and we think that we are treading upon their manhaj and their way.
Rather I say with profound regret that many of us make this claim and do implement it to a large extent but have deviated in some of its implementation to a very dangerous extent–and here are its effects manifesting themselves now and in a people who we used to think would be an example for others in collecting and bringing them together upon adherence to [the way of] the Salaf as-Saalih, following the Book and the Sunnah upon the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih.
With regret, some disunity has occurred and thus just as we advise the very people who have differed from amongst the callers or the scholars or the students of knowledge not to be enemies [one to another] but rather to love each other and to make excuses for each other whilst sticking to reminding and advising [each other] with that which is best, then in the same way we advise those of the Ummah–with all their [differing] levels–who are not scholars or students of knowledge but are from the general [mass of] Muslims, also not to be influenced by such differences which they see occurring between the callers.
Because in the Noble Quraan we read that separation in the religion is not from the makeup of the Muslims but rather is a characteristic of the polytheists, “… and be not of the polytheists, of those who split up their religion and became sects, each sect rejoicing in that which is with it.” [Rum 30:31-32]
Click here for the final post.
The PDF: Worshipping Personalities.
Questioner: I want you to give some advice to some of the brothers, students of knowledge in Kuwait. The current situation will not be hidden from the Shaikh concerning the fitnah which is on-going one after the other with the youth of the awakening, from which is the fitnah of the brothers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [concerning] the brother Safar and Salmaan and so on and those who support what they are on in some issues which they speak about, this issue has reached us in our area in Kuwait and then, ya’ni,“… each group [is] rejoicing in its belief …” [Mu’minoon 23:53]
Al-Albaani: Allaahu Akbar.
Questioner: … and each person claims the love of Lailaa [i.e., each person claims that he is right] …
Al-Albaani: Yes, by Allaah.
Questioner: … every one of them says, ‘I am on the Straight Path …’
Al-Albaani: Yes.
Questioner: ‘…I am the one bearing the Banner … the Banner of Salafiyyah and I am defending it.’
Now something has come between the brothers who are, inshaa Allaah tabaaraka wa ta’aala, on the Salafi way because of these issues, and there is nothing for us except this issue [i.e., it has become the only thing that concerns them]: we have left seeking knowledge …
Al-Albaani: Yes, by Allaah.
Questioner: … we have left memorizing the Book of Allaah the Blessed and Most High, we have left many things and [instead] speak about this issue, such that many of our brothers, the youth, have no concern except this issue, speaking about this person’s honour or that.
And they have made this the vehicle for what? The vehicle for the Salafi da’wah and for defending the Sunnah speaking by dishonouring so and so, and so and so, and so and so, and so and so [fulaan and fulaan and fulaan and fulaan], then the issue resulted in defaming[tajreeh] the people themselves and not the mistakes they have.
So now the youth, our youth who are at their prime, when someone comes … and I’ll give you one example, what we know about the Muslim Brotherhood when a youth starts practising Allaah’s Religion, taking up this way, they warn him against what? Against the Salafis.
Al-Albaani: Yes.
Questioner: [So] now as soon as this youth comes to practice the first thing they warn him against is the tape of so and so, and the cassette of so and so, and so and so.
This is the most important thing now, and this is what many of the youth talk about now until they have become identified with and known for [saying things like], ‘This person is an innovator … this person is misguided … this person has such and such an issue …’
Al-Albaani: Laa hawla wa laa quwwata illaa billaah..
Questioner: ‘… this one has this and that … and this one praises the people of innovation … and this one says such and such …’ and if you were to say to this person that this person [who you’re talking about] …
I was asked one time, a person came to me and said, ‘What do you say about Shaikh [Sayyid] Qutb?’ I said, ‘Yaa akhi, I love him for the Sake of Allaah, he’s a Muslim, and I hate the mistakes that he has. I love him as a Muslim, the general love [a Muslim has for another], and I hate the mistakes that he has …’
Al-Albaani: Tamaam [i.e., perfect/right/fine].
Questioner: … so they started saying, ‘This person is praising the people of innovation! And he’s saying that they have this and that! … These people should be warned against! … Here the proof is available …’
Shaikh, your advice for these youth, may Allaah bless you.
Al-Albaani: By Allaah, Yaa akhi, my opinion is not to apply oneself to/turn to these people who are being praised or criticised today.
And in reality, on many nights questions come to me from Kuwait, the Emirates and elsewhere, [saying], ‘What is your opinion about so and so?’ from which it is obvious that he [i.e., the questioner] is either for that person [he is asking about] or against him.
So I repel him from such a question and say to him, ‘Ask, Yaa akhi, about that which will benefit you concerning those things connected to rectifying your aqidah, your worship, improving your manners. Don’t ask about Zaid, Bakr and Amr [i.e., Tom, Dick and Harry], because this question adds fire to fire.
The person asking might be with these people and against those, or with those and against these, so if you [i.e., I] praise this one you will have slandered that one, or if you praise that one you will have slandered this one, [and] so this, as we said, just increases the fire’s intensity.
For this reason, I advise [the youth] with a concise statement which [in fact] reminds me of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq’s statement when the Prophet عليه السلام passed away. He [i.e., the Prophet عليه السلام] is the one personality whose love all of the Muslims are united upon, whoever turns away from this love will have disbelieved, in contrast to their difference in their love for many of the Companions and their slander of some of them, in most cases this will be [regarded as] fisq and not disbelief.
[So] what I want to say is that even though the Prophet عليه السلام is the Chief of Mankind, and every Muslim’s beloved, when Umar stood up fervently against the one who reported the news that the Prophet had passed away, you know the story, Abu Bakr as-Siddiq proceeded to say, ‘Whoever used to worship Muhammad, then Muhammad has died, and whoever used to worship Allaah, then Allaah is Living, Eternal, and does not die.’
So I do not hold that each one of these factions should be partisan to so and so against so and so or vice versa. Rather I advocate the statement of the Lord of the Worlds, ‘And be with the truthful,’ [Tawbah 9:119], so these youth you pointed out [in the question] are most deserving of [listening to] this statement, it is upon these people who get all worked up to correct their aqidah, their worship, their behaviour, and not to become bigoted for one of these individuals or against him.
Because such fanaticism, firstly, is just like worshipping people/personalities, the type of worship which Abu Bakr as-Siddiq warned against in his previous statement, ‘Whoever used to worship Muhammad, then Muhammad has died, and whoever used to worship Allaah, then Allaah is Living and does not die.’
So becoming enthused towards these people is to become enthused over those who are not infallible, and the issue is as Imaam Maalik, the Imaam of the place of migration, said, ‘There is none from us except that he rejects and is rejected, except for the companion of this grave,’ and he pointed to the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم grave.
So any person who becomes fanatical for another, [whether that person be] a scholar or a caller, then he will find mistakes in him, and [any person who] becomes fanatical against another will soon find that he [i.e., the person he is against] will have something correct and will soon find some good in him …
Click here for the second post.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Albaani Site 