The Albaani Site

Allah have Mercy on Him

Tag: ibn hajr

The Muhaddith of Medinah, Al-’Abbaad, Asked About Ignorant People who Warn Against The Imaam, The Mujaddid, Al-Albaani


Questioner: What is your advice about people who slander Shaikh al-Albaani, may Allaah have mercy on him, and warn against him? And what should our stance towards such an individual be?

Al-’Abbaad: That is the strangest thing, the fact that Shaikh al-Albaani is warned against, that a man who served the Sunnah is warned against, someone who spent his [entire] life examining and researching the hadiths of Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ, clarifying the authentic from what is not. What a person should do is supplicate for him, praise him, and benefit from his knowledge.

And the reality is that there are two people who someone working in the [field of] hadith cannot but refer back to, i.e., al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr and Shaikh al-Albaani. The benefit from al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr in those things connected to hadith is colossal, and the benefit from Shaikh al-Albaani in those things connected to hadith is colossal [too].

For this reason it means that the one who warns against Al-Albaani is warning against becoming acquainted with the truth and accessing the Sunnah, because what Al-Albaani did in connection to hadith was a preeminent service and complete diligence in [serving] the Sunnah, facilitating access to it and bringing it closer to comprehension for the students of knowledge.

So he is worthy of being complimented and supplicated for.

Asking For Allaah’s Mercy For Those who Fell into Innovations Connected to Aqidah | End | If we open the door to boycotting, ostracising and declaring people to be innovators, we will have to go and live in the mountains.


 

Maybe it is pertinent on this occasion to mention the well-known narration from Imaam Maalik when a man came to him and said, ‘O Maalik! Allaah’s Ascendancy?’ He replied, ‘Al-Istiwaa is known. The ‘how’ is not and asking about it is an innovation. Remove the man for he is an innovator.’ So the man didn’t become an innovator just because he asked a question, he wanted to understand something but Imaam Maalik feared that as a result an objection to the Salafi Aqidah would occur, so he said, ‘Remove the man, for he is an innovator.’

Look now how the means differ, do you or me, or Bakr, or Umar or Zaid and so on think that … if we were to ask a person from the common folk of the Muslims let alone their elite a question like this … shall we give him the same answer that [Imaam] Maalik gave and put him in the same category as that man, saying, ‘Remove him for he is an innovator?’

No. Why?

Because the time [we live in] differs, the means which in those days were accepted are not acceptable today–because they harm more than they benefit. And this speech has a connection with the well-known principle of boycotting in Islaam, or ostracizing for the Sake of Allaah.

Many times I am asked that so and so is my friend and companion but he does not pray, he smokes, does such and such … and so on, shall I boycott him? I say [in answer]: do not boycott him, because you ostracizing him is what he wants. Your leaving him will not benefit him, on the contrary, it will make him happy and will [just] leave him in his misguidance.

And I remember on this occasion the example of that sinner, someone who had abandoned the prayer but who repented. He went to pray his first prayer at the mosque and lo and behold [when he gets there] he finds the door closed, and so says, ‘You’re closed and I have a day off [from praying]!’ [i.e., the first chance he got he went back to his old ways].

So this sinner which the [practicing] Muslim wants to boycott, it is as though from his behaviour he is saying [the same thing as the person in the example above], ‘You’re closed and I have a day off …’ [i.e., he wants the practicing Muslim to leave him so he can carry on as he is].

Because a righteous person accompanying a sinner hinders that sinner from committing his sins, and that sinner does not want that. So if a righteous person boycotts him, it is what the sinner wants. For this reason, boycotting is a legislated means through which the realization of a legislated benefit is desired, i.e., to educate/discipline the person being ostracized. So if the boycotting does not educate him, and in fact just causes him to increase in misguidance upon misguidance, then it is not applied.

Today we live in a time in which it is not right that we stick to the means that the Salaf used to use, because they were moving forth from a position where [the sunnah] was strong and [innovation was] weak.

Today, have a look at the state of the Muslims, they are weak in everything, not only in the governments, individuals [too], the state of affairs is as he عليه السلام said, “Indeed Islaam began as something strange and will return to being strange. So glad-tidings to the strangers.” They said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Who are the strangers?’ He replied, “They are the righteous few among the evil masses, those who disobey them are more than those obey them.”

So if we open the door to boycotting, ostracising and declaring people to be innovators–we will have to go and live in the mountains.

Rather it is obligatory on us today to, “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.” [Nahl 16:125]

Questioner: As a completion of this discussion, O Shaikh, this issue as you have noticed is something which repeats itself often these days … in the following comments I wanted to point to something so that the benefit [from this discussion] will be complete, inshaa Allaah. And this is something which the brothers who adopt this stance mention.

They say that, “We say that mercy should not be sought for them [i.e., for those scholars] because asking for Allaah’s Mercy for them is permissible but not obligatory. We do not prevent nor declare to be forbidden the asking of Mercy for them but we refrain [from doing so] so that it does not show some form of praise, or recommendation, or commendation for the people of innovation.  We may say that these people are not innovators for example and are not from the major innovators, but we do not praise them or say they are scholars. For example, when mention is made of Al-Nawawi we do not say, ‘Imaam al-Nawawi,’” rather sometimes they refrain from and shun quoting from them or referring to them.

Such that in a talk one of our brothers was giving he quoted something from one of these, and the thing he quoted was quite frankly a Salafi quote which aided the manhaj, [but] they said to him, ‘How can you quote from these people?’ And by ‘these people’ I am not referring to those who our Shaikh [al-Albaani] mentioned, like Ibn Hajr or al-Nawawi, but let’s say, for example, Sayyid Qutb, Muhammad Qutb, so he [i.e., the people who say you should not ask for mercy] said, ‘How can you quote these people when they are known not to be Salafi, so when you, being a Salafi, quote from them, it is as though you are praising them and as a result the people will say that these people are Salafis. And this is a way of deceiving the people regarding them and maybe [as a result] they will become like them in innovations and deviance and being far from seriousness.”

So if you, O Shaikh, see fit to comment on this.

Al-Albaani: Firstly, I don’t think this is what their objective is, and secondly, if their objective [by not quoting from these scholars or asking for Allaah’s Mercy for them] is a way of warning then I say:

These people [i.e., the ones who hold the views mentioned above of not asking for Allaah’s Mercy] who you just alluded to, do they read Fathul-Baari [i.e., the explanation of Sahih Bukhaari by Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani] or not?

Whichever of the two answers we assume, then it is a mistake in relation to them. If it is said they do not read it, then where do they understand Sahih al-Bukhaari from, its explanation, its understanding, the differences of opinion, the terminology, [things related to the] hadith and so on …

They will not find, in the whole world, explanations of Sahih Bukhaari that are entirely Salafi.

They will not find a [totally] Salafi explanation of Sahih Bukhaari like we want, and even if they did it would only have the main points [and wouldn’t be as detailed as Fathul-Baari]. As for this ocean replete with comprehensive knowledge, which Allaah granted to the author of Fath [ul-Baari] they will not find what it contains in any of the books that have taken up the task of explaining Sahih Bukhaari.

Thus, they will lose out on a huge amount of knowledge. So if they mean or what they say includes, amongst the things they warn against, preventing people from benefitting from what this Imaam [i.e., Ibn Hajr] says, then they will lose out on knowledge whereas it is possible for them to gather between taking the benefit and repelling the harm which is what the scholars do.

In the [whole] world now, not a scholar after al-Asqalaani and al-Nawawi can be found, to this day, who can do without benefitting from both of their explanations–this one’s [i.e., Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani’s] explanation of Bukhaari and that one’s [i.e., Imaam al-Nawawi’s] explanation of Muslim.

Yet along with that, when they [i.e., the scholars] take benefits from both of their books, they know that in many issues they were Ash’aris and were contrary to the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih [in those particular issues]. So with their knowledge and not with ignorance they [i.e., the scholars] were able to take the knowledge which benefits them from these two books or their authors, and turn away from what would harm them and not benefit them.

So I want to say that the thing I fear the most is that behind all of this [apparently] favourable but in reality false talk is a warning from benefitting from their books, and [that being the case] then there is a loss.

And if they say that we do benefit from both of their books and read them ourselves and to others too–if that is the case then what is the point of this procedure of refraining from asking for Allaah’s mercy for them when they are Muslims as we said at the beginning of this answer?

Additionally, what is the benefit or the fruit of their saying, “We do not say that it is not permissible to ask for Allaah’s Mercy for them, but we [personally] don’t, because he fell into innovation,” we just mentioned that not everyone who falls into innovation is called an innovator, not everyone who falls into disbelief is declared a disbeliever, the disbelief may have been unclear to this one and the innovation unclear to that one, we already said this.

Thus, there is no benefit from this cautiousness now. Thereafter, O my brother … the scholars who we inherited this good da’wah from–was their stance like this towards these Imaams? Was it like the stance of these new, novice, youngsters who claim Salafiyyah? They [i.e., those scholars] were like these [youngsters]? The opposite is the case. It is only natural that these [ignorant youth should try to] be like those who preceded us to this righteous da’wah.

Is there anything else?

End.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 666.

The Shaikh’s Opinion About Those Who Do Not Ask For Allaah’s Mercy [e.g., by Saying, ‘May Allaah have mercy on so and so,’] For Those who Fell into Innovations Connected to Aqidah | 1 |



Questioner: What do you say, O Shaikh, about someone who says, ‘You do not ask for [Allaah’s] Mercy for those who opposed the Aqidah of the Salaf, like Al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajr, Ibn Hazm, Ibn al-Jawzi and others, and those from this day and age like Sayyid Qutb and Hasan al-Banna,’ bearing in mind that you know what Al-Banna [has written] in his Memoirs and [what] Sayyid Qutb has in [his book], ‘In the Shade of the Quraan?’

Al-Albaani: We believe that mercy, or to be more precise, asking for mercy is permissible for every Muslim and impermissible for every non-Muslim. So the answer depends on what the person believes–[i.e.,] whoever thinks that these people and those like them who were named in the question are Muslims then the answer is known from what has preceded: that it is permissible for a person to supplicate for mercy and forgiveness for them.

And whoever thinks, Allaah forbid, that these Muslims who were mentioned in the question are not Muslims then it is not permissible to ask for mercy for them, because [asking for] mercy has been forbidden for the unbelievers. This is the answer regarding what was asked in the question.

Questioner: Theysay this based upon [their assumption] that the manhaj of the Salaf was that they would not ask for mercy for the people of innovation, and following on from that they regard these people who were mentioned in the question as being from the people of innovation, so it is from this angle that they do not ask for Allaah’s Mercy for them.

Al-Albaani: We now made a statement, [that] asking for Allaah’s Mercy is permissible for every Muslim and not permissible for a non-Muslim, is this statement correct or not?

Questioner: It’s correct.

Al-Albaani: If it is correct then the second question is not valid, and if it is not correct then the discussion can continue.

Are not those, who some of these name as being from the people of innovations, prayed over? Is the prayer of the Muslims not performed over them?

And from the aqidah of the Salaf which the khalaf inherited from the Salaf is that prayer is performed behind every righteous or sinful [Imaam] and it is [also] performed over every righteous and sinful person, as for the non-Muslim, then he is not prayed over.

So, these people who I do not think the second question applies to, are they prayed over or are they not prayed over?

I do not want to get into a debate unless I am forced to, so if the answer is that they are prayed over the topic is over and no tenable position remains for the second question, and if not, then the discussion is open and possible.

Questioner: Okay, the person who says they shouldn’t be prayed over, O Shaikh, does so based upon [their assumption] that they are from the people of innovation, so what is the answer to that?

Al-Albaani: What is the proof?

Questioner: He uses the Salaf as proof, for example, he will differentiate between sins and immorality [on one hand] and the people of innovation who innovate into the religion [on the other]. And the Salaf never used to pray over the people of innovation nor sit with them nor eat or drink with them, so it is from this angle that he says this thing.

Al-Albaani: You have digressed, so pay attention. What was the question?

Questioner: About praying over them?

Al-Albaani: No. And [indeed] you had to have digressed because you gave a long answer that was misplaced. The question was, ‘What is the proof?’ You mentioned a claim, and a claim is not proof. Who is the one who says that the Muslim who innovates is not prayed over? What is the proof?

Questioner: He doesn’t have any proof except, just … only … that he uses the action of the Salaf as proof.

Al-Albaani: Are the actions of the Salaf proof?

Questioner: This is what he says.

Al-Albaani: Okay. Where is the proof?

Questioner: He doesn’t mention any, but the statements in this regard are always general.

Al-Albaani: Okay, the Salaf, wouldn’t the Salaf boycott people for committing a certain sin or for a certain innovation, does this then mean that they declared them to be disbelievers?

Questioner: No.

Al-Albaani: So they judged that he was [still] a Muslim.

Questioner: Of course.

Al-Albaani: Okay, we do not have a middle way between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, i.e., we do not have a station between two stations as the Mu’tazilah do. [A person is either] a Muslim and so is treated as a Muslim, or a disbeliever and is treated as such.

Thereafter, my brother, may Allaah bless you, these are just claims, that the Salaf would not pray over the generality of innovators, or over all innovators, this is just a claim which is present in the minds of some good people who …

See part two here.

“Woe to the one who …”


Question: In Bulughul-Maraam Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr mentions the hadith of Bahz ibn Hakeem who narrates from his father from his grandafather that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “Woe to the one who lies when he speaks just to make the people laugh!  Woe unto him, woe unto him.” And al-Haafidh declared its chain of narration to be authentic, what [do you say about its] level of authenticity?

Shaikh al-Albaani answered: It is hasan.

Su’aalaat of Shaikh Ali Hasan al-Halabi, vol. 2, p. 250, no. 214.

%d bloggers like this: