Questioner: What is the correct view regarding al-Hajjaaj ibn Yusuf ath-Thaqafi? Was he a kaafir?
Al-Albaani: Even though we attest to the fact that al-Hajjaaj was a profligate oppressor, we do not know that he denied anything known to necessarily be from the religion. So it is not allowed to declare him to be a disbeliever based only on the fact that he was wicked, oppressed and killed innocent Muslims.
Fataawaa al-Madinah, 14.
Questioner: A man that Allaah has put to trial through his aged father who does not abstain from sinning, like listening to singing, looking at women dancers and disparaging some of the Companions, and when he advises him he doesn’t listen, so is he sinful if he angers him when he does that which contradicts the legislation?
Al-Albaani: It is not allowed for the son to anger his parents. Rather it is only for him to advise them both, acting in accordance with the obligation of advising from one angle and due to His Saying, “And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to parents, good treatment,” [Israa 17:23] from another.
Fataawaa al-Madinah, 125.
“Yes, by Allaah, I believe in Allaah and Allaah’s Messenger and in what has reached us from our Salaf as-Saalih.”
Su’aalaat, p. 100.
Al-Albaani: The reality is that the case with every beginner student of knowledge, and I was like that and probably still am, I used to read this hadith and it would be problematic, because in some narrations [there occurs], “There is nothing between a man and disbelief except abandoning the prayer. So whoever abandons the prayer has disbelieved,” and in some narrations, “… then he has committed shirk.”
Interjection: Subhaanallaahil-Adheem.
Al-Albaani: I used to ask how can he have committed shirk? Yaa akhi, this person who has left praying, especially the one who does so out of laziness, how has he committed shirk?
I used to think that maybe there was a mistake on behalf of the narrator [of the hadith], I was a student of knowledge, then later our Lord granted me success in understanding, even if it was when I was older alhamdulillaah, [he granted me success in understanding it] such that I recognized that legislatively, as opposed to linguistically, there is no difference between kufr and shirk.
So all kufr is shirk and all shirk is kufr there is no difference between them legislatively, linguistically there is, because in the language kufr means to cover. Shirk is to make something a partner of another, like the polytheists who make equals with Allaah.
But later I came to recognise that every unbeliever, even if he wasn’t a polytheist linguistically, he was in reality. No unbeliever is free from being anything but a polytheist [mushrik], our Lord said, “Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire?” [Jaathiyah 45:23] He took as his god his own desires, so, everyone who follows his desires has made it a partner with Allaah, thus, any kufr–[for example] if someone were to reject a letter from the Noble Quraan it would mean that he has put his intellect in charge and has taken it as a god and it is from this angle that the shirk has come.
So, the one who said that all disbelief is polytheism and all polytheism is disbelief spoke truthfully, not like the one who says that not all kufr is shirk like you heard from at-Tahawi.
In reality this is knowledge which is very rare and is something through which many, many problems are resolved, from them being the verse, “Indeed, Allaah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.” [Nisaa 4:48]
I read [a mention of] a problem about this verse in the Al-Manaar magazine which Sayyid Rashid Rida used to publish. An objection came his way which stated that the meaning of the aayah is that these unbelieving Europeans who believe in ‘nature’, they call it nature, i.e., that this universe has a creator and who do not know any more than that, it is possible that Allaah will forgive them because they are not polytheists. And so Sayyid Rashid Rida at that time was not able to give an answer like this one which if he had known then would have been the conclusive judgement, [i.e., that] all kufr is shirk and all shirk is kufr.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 341.
Questioner: We hear a lot about the Ash’aris but we don’t know about them or their actions except that they misinterpret the Attributes [of Allaah], so could you tell us more about them?
Al-Albaani: The Ash’ari madhhab is a madhhab in aqidah, likewise is the Maaturidi madhhab. They share with the People of Hadith the fact that they believe in some of the Attributes in opposition to the Mu’tazilah, so they are with the [Ahlus]-Sunnah in some things and with the Mu’tazilah in others.
And I advise the students of knowledge not to busy themselves with becoming acquainted with opinions that oppose the Sunnah, on the contrary, I advise them to learn the Sunnah and the correct aqidah. After that, if the opportunity arises and they are able to become acquainted with the madhhabs that oppose that of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Hadith and are able to refute them and defend the madhhab of Ahlus-Sunnah, then they do so, and if not, then it is enough for them to know the madhhab of the truth and it is not upon them, after that, to become acquainted with what opposes this madhhab.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 384.
“I am only, as I always and forever say, a student of knowledge.”
Al-Albaani
Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good. Regarding mentioning [Allaah’s] Names and Attributes, some people say that the callers to Allaah must not speak about this issue in front of the common masses and riffraff, because delving into such things leads to placing doubt in them, so how true is this statement?
Al-Albaani: We say to these people: then you [find and] speak about something in front of the common folk which is better than that, you speak about something which is better than that.
And if talking about that does not impress you then you have to speak about something which does other than that, and if you can’t [find something better than Allaah’s Names and Attributes to talk about]–and you won’t be able to–then you will hear what will not please you and this is the thing that doesn’t please you, [but] what is important is that it pleases your Lord. And this is what has reached us from the Salaf’s knowledge and what we hold as religion before Allaah.
And the common folk, as I said to you just now, are upon the natural inborn inclination [that Allaah created man on, al-fitrah], when it is said to them that, ‘[Allaah is] not above, and not below …’ [as the deviant sects say when explaining Allaah’s Names and Attributes] their hearts disapprove of that, but when it is said to them that, ‘Allaah is above all of His creation and there is no created thing above Him,’ [as is the aqidah of the Salaf], then this is what goes with the sound inborn inclination [that Allaah created them on], “… the fitrah of Allaah which He has created [all] people upon.” [Rum 30:30].
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 314.
“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 …
The Albaani Site 