Verify, Contemplate And Ask The Scholars Before Speaking, For Indeed Sometimes The Transmitters Harbour Evil Intentions Or Are Genuinely Mistaken! – A Brief Reminder By Shaikh Uthaymeen

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestowed of Mercy

Shaikh Uthaymeen [rahimahullaah] said:

Verification is one of the most important affairs, if not the most important. Verifying what is transmitted from others is an important affair, because sometimes the transmitters harbour evil intentions, so they transmit – intentionally and deliberately – that which will tarnish the reputation of the one they transmit from. And sometimes they do not harbour an evil intention, but they understand something in a manner that is opposite to what is intended by it.
Therefore, it is obligatory to verify. So, when the proof [sound source] of the transmission is established, then the one from whom the statement was transmitted is engaged in a discussion [or his statement is examined] before a judgement is passed to [establish] as to whether it is a mistake or not. That is because it may become clear to you – by way of discussion [or observation] – that the one from whom the statement was transmitted is correct.
And if not, then what is [well] known is that if a person were to immediately pass a judgement merely based on what he hears, he will transmit things [i.e. statements, views, opinions etc] from some of the scholars – those considered to be the beacons of [Sharee’ah] knowledge – that which the souls will dislike; but when one verifies, contemplates and attaches himself to the Shaikh [or has close contact with the Shaikh], he [i.e. the Shaikh] will make the affair clear for him.
________________________________________
Sharh Hilyati Taalibil Ilm’ pages 75-76.
abridged & slightly paraphrased

A Faa’idah Related to Aayah Ninety ‘Surah An-Nahl’ -[By Sh Saaleh Aala Ash-Shaikh (hafifhahullaah)]

Verily, Allah enjoins Al-Adl (i.e. justice and worshipping none but Allah Alone – Islamic Monotheism) and Al-Ihsan [i.e. to be patient in performing your duties to Allah, totally for Allah’s sake and in accordance with the Sunnah (legal ways) of the Prophet in a perfect manner], and giving (help) to kith and kin (i.e. all that Allah has ordered you to give them e.g., wealth, visiting, looking after them, or any other kind of help, etc.): and forbids Al-Fahsha’ (i.e all evil deeds, e.g. illegal sexual acts, disobedience of parents, polytheism, to tell lies, to give false witness, to kill a life without right, etc.), and Al-Munkar (i.e all that is prohibited by Islamic law: polytheism of every kind, disbelief and every kind of evil deeds, etc.), and Al-Baghy (i.e. all kinds of oppression), He admonishes you, that you may take heed.


An Acknowledgement of The Respect Owed To The Upright Scholars And Students of Knowledge

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy
Imaam As-Sadi [rahimahullaah] said: They [i.e. (the upright) scholars and teachers] are the mediators between the Messenger [sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam] and his Ummah with regards to propagation of his religion and clarification of his sharee’ah. Had it not been for these ones, the people would have been like cattle. They are the ones who guide the Ummah in the fundamental and subsidiary affairs of their Religion. They return them to the rulings pertaining to the rights and dealings that are incumbent upon a person to fulfil, just as they return them to the affairs related to acts of worship. Through them, the Book and the Sunnah are established; truth is distinguished from falsehood, guidance is distinguished from misguidance, the lawful is distinguished from the unlawful, good is distinguished from evil, and [sound] rectification is distinguished from corruption.  They are of varying ranks, in accordance with what they establish of knowledge, teaching and benefit- great or small. They have great rights [to be fulfilled] by the ummah and are possessors of a lofty status.

Therefore, the people must have love and respect for them. They must recognise their excellence and virtue, and thank them greatly. They are to supplicate for them in private and public, and seek nearness to Allaah by having love for them and praising them. They are to proclaim their excellence; guard the hearts [from harbouring evil against them] and [prevent] the tongues [from] insulting them, for this would tarnish their excellence. [End of quote] [Ref 1]

Shaikh Uthaymeen’s [rahimahullaah] explanation in Sharh Hilyati Taalibil Ilm:
Beware of the disease of the despots: (pride) [1]; for indeed pride, avarice and [blameworthy] envy were the first [sins] Allaah was disobeyed with. [2] So raising yourself above your teacher is pride [3]; and being arrogant towards the one who benefits you from amongst those who are below you [in knowledge] is pride; [4] and your falling short in acting upon knowledge is a sludge of pride and an indication of being deprived of [well-being]. [5]

[1] The Prophet said: Pride is to reject the truth and mock at the people.

[2] This refers to shaytaan’s behaviour when he was commanded to prostrate to Aadam, but pride prevented him from doing so. He refused and was haughty.

[3] Raising oneself can either be by way of the tongue [i.e. speech] and it can also be by way of sentiments [feelings, attitude, behaviour etc]. He [i.e. the student] might be walking with his teacher, whilst swaggering and saying: I did this and I did this.

[4] Likewise, being arrogant towards the one who is below you in knowledge is pride. This also occurs from some of the students. If someone below him in knowledge informs him of something, you find him arrogant and does not accept.

[5] We ask Allaah for wellbeing because from the types of pride is to not act upon the knowledge one knows. [Ref 2]


Ref 1: Source: Noorul Basaa-ir Wal Albaab Fee Ahkaamil Ibaadaat Wal-Mu-aamalaat Wal Huqooq Wal Aadaab, page: 57-58′ by Imaam As-Sadi (rahimahullaah). Abridged and slightly paraphrased]

Ref 2: Source: Sharh Hilyati Taalibil Ilm’ pages 38-40′ by Shaikh Uthaymeen [rahimahullaah]. abridged & slightly paraphrased

Some Reasons Behind The Sinful Silence of Many of The Obstinate Rabble Rousers and Stooges of The Hizbiyyoon-[Freeing Themselves From The Deviated Leading Figureheads of Jamiat Ahle Hadeeth Uk -In Speech and Action – Is a Difficult Affair!]

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Bringing Down The Leading Figure Heads Is A Difficult Affair

Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool [may Allaah preserve him] said:

This is how some of the people justify their stances towards Bidah and its people.  So whenever Bidah occurs from one of those people with fame, he refrains from exposing the bidah of that famous person and refrains from warning against him, [whilst claiming]  that to bring down the leading figure heads is a difficult affair.

This is a false justification from different angles.  From them:

[1]Men are known by way of the truth and truth is not known by way of men.  Know the truth and you will know its people.  This [figurehead] opposed the truth, agrees with ahlul bidah and utters their statements, therefore he is not upon truth and it is obligatory to warn against his falsehood.

[2]The obligation [in relation to this affair] is to give advice, enjoin good and forbid evil.  His fame is brought to an end due to his bidah- as a warning and sincere advice to the Muslims, so that they do not fall into the falsehood he has fallen into.

[3]Truth is above everyone and from the well-known statements in that regard is [the statement]: ‘’So and so is beloved to me, but the truth is more beloved to my heart than him.’’

Therefore, when you wilfully incline towards such and such a person and keep quiet about his bidah, you have given him precedence over the truth and raised him above it. And what is there after truth except misguidance!  So regarding this [stance of yours], you have given precedence to this person -who describe as a leading figure- over the truth and thus you fall into misguidance.

[4]This saying [i.e. it is difficult to bring them down etc] is in opposition to the way of the pious predecessors, [for] they used to speak about the people.

[5]The application of this statement is in opposition to the clear methodology established by the pious predecessors with regards to acquiring knowledge, and that is: ‘Indeed this knowledge [of the sharee’ah] is Religion, so look to the one you take your religion from.’’ Therefore, how about your situation with a man from whom you take Hadeeth, Tafseer, Aqeedah and Fiqh? Do you either keep quiet about the bidah he has [based on your] claim that speaking against the leading figure heads is a difficult affair, or do you speak about him and his innovation- making his affair well known as a warning and advice, so that the people are not deceived by him and his bidah? There is no doubt that what is obligatory is to give clarification, otherwise your silence is a fraud and deception against the Muslims. And perhaps you will be the cause of his bidah and and misguidance being spread amongst the people due this [silence of yours].

[6]The reality of this statement [i.e. it is hard to bring them down] is itself an application of the manhaj of Muwaazanaat [Ref 1].  It [i.e. Muwaazanaat] is a false methodology that ruins and dilutes the Religion, whereas the truth is clear and sublime.  And within this [Muwaazanaat] is termination of the truth and disappearance of its people, except that which Allaah wills.

[7]This statement [i.e. it is hard to bring them down] embraces illegal partisanship. It [embraces] love and hate for the sake of the one being described as a leading figure head.  He [i.e. this figure head] is made a basis for love and hate in replacement of the truth, and this [attitude] is from the characteristics of those people who follow the satanic paths- those who call their adherents to the hell fire.

[8]This statement [i.e. i.e. it is hard to bring them down] is not from the manhaj of the pious predecessors, for we have not heard the likes of this statement stated about anyone from the Imaams of the Salaf, and all good is found in following the pious predecessors and all evil is found in the bidah of those who came after.

[9]What is a leading figurehead in your view? In your view, how did this man become one of the leading figure heads?  Who is it that has either clarified for you or him that he is a leading figure head?  O my brother, a person should know his limitations.  It has been reported in an authentic hadeeth from Iyaad Bin Himaar that the Prophet (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) said: ‘Allaah revealed to me that you must be humble, so that no one is haughty towards another person nor oppressive towards another person.’

[10]The lowering of a man or being raised is something in the hands of Allaah, and He [The Most High] alternates it how He pleases and it is not in our control.

Fulfil the obligation you have been commanded and that is to clarify the truth; disapprove evil and warn against the bidah of this figure head.  If he accepts the [truth], humbles himself, returns to the [truth] and repents to Allaah, then Allaah will raise his status if He [The Most High] wills because Allaah raises one who humbles himself in His presence. But if he oppresses and transgresses, then this man is from Ahlul Bidah; [so] how can you shed tears for him and that he has been degraded?! Glorified Be Allaah and Free is He from all imperfections, weaknesses and faults!

[Source: Ibaaraat Moohimah’ pages 53-55’ abridged and slightly paraphrased]

Ref A: See articles about the bidah of Muwaazanaat:  http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?secID=MNJ&subsecID=MNJ12&loadpage=displaysubsection.cfm

A Response To The Statement: Do Not Seek After The Mistakes of The People- [By Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool]

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool [may Allaah preserve him] said:

This statement is reiterated by some people when warning reaches them from one of the scholars or a student of knowledge against innovated statements [or views] that have occurred from some of the people, or when informed about mistakes committed in knowledge; so you find that his face becomes red, his [behaviour] changes and he says, ‘’Do not scrutinise the beliefs of the people and do not seek after mistakes.’’ The reality is that this statement is truth by way of which falsehood is intended in this particular instance.

Firstly: The right place to [make this statement] is when one seeks after secrets and hidden affairs that have neither manifested nor are there any factual evidence to substantiate that. The place [where this statement cannot be uttered] is  when innovation appears from one of [the people] or when one of them calls to falsehood, since there is a difference between that which is manifested and that which is either concealed and unknown or there is no indication to [affirm the affair].

Secondly: This statement of theirs will lead to the abandonment of warning against mistakes, innovation and falsehood, and the common people will be beguiled; rather even some of the students of knowledge will become heedless of this situation.

Thirdly: Was the speech of the Salaf in relation to warning against innovation and the people of falsehood not [carried out] from the angle of warning against false beliefs, innovations and affairs that are in opposition to the Sunnah?  So, how can it be said, ‘do not scrutinise the beliefs and mistakes of the people’ to a person who either warns against an innovation that has been manifested or points out a mistake committed by an individual?

Fourthly: Scrutinising the beliefs of the people by way of interrogation and trial as the Khaleefah Mamoon did with regards to the belief that the [Qur’aan is created], then this is an innovation that is warned against.  [However] to make a clarification and [issue] warning against an innovation that is propagated by some people, unveiling the falsehood of the callers to falsehood and warning against them, this is not from that [type of scrutiny that is disapproved].

Fifthly: Those who blame the one who unveils the [affairs] of the people of falsehood and issues warning against them, then it is either that they reject innovations or do not reject them!  If they reject innovation, point out mistakes and falsehood, and warn against them, then indeed they have pursued the right course by the Will of Allaah [The Most High]’ but why would they disapprove of those who take their place in renouncing innovation?! And if they do not warn the people against falsehood, then this [i.e. behaviour or stance of theirs] is not from the methodology of the Salaf and it suffices as a rebuke against them.

Sixthly: It has been reported in Durar As-Saniyyah [1/33] that the Imaam, the Mujaddid, Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhaab [rahimahullaah] said: I hold that the people of innovation are to be boycotted and their affair is to be made known until they repent.  I pass judgement against them based on what is apparent and I leave their secrets [or hidden] affairs to Allaah.  And I believe that every newly invented matter in the Religion is an innovation.

This [statement of Imaam Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhaab [rahimahullaah] is the statement of a Salafiy Athariy [i.e. a true follower of the Salaf and the authentic narrations] that emanates from the statement of Umar Ibnul Khattaab [radiyallaahu-anhu] when he said:

”People were (sometimes) judged by the revealing of a Divine Inspiration during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle but now there is no longer any more (new revelation). Now we judge you by the deeds you practice publicly, so we will trust and favour the one who does good deeds in front of us, and we will not call him to account about what he is really doing in secret, for Allah will judge him for that; but we will not trust or believe the one who presents to us with an evil deed even if he claims that his intentions were good.’’ [Saheeh Bukhaari; Vol 3; Hadith Number:2641]

So examine the statement of Imaam Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhaab [rahimahullaah] when he said: ”I judge [ahlul bidah] based upon what is apparent” and examine the statement of Umar Ibnul Khattaab [radiyallaahu-anhu] when he said, ”But we will not trust or believe the one who presents to us with an evil deed even if he claims that his intentions were good.”  Then examine the [affair] of that person who disapproves of one who warns against ahlul bidah and exposes their falsehood- claiming that ]this warning against ahlul bidah] is tantamount to [blameworthy] scrutiny of the Aqeedah of the people.  Is this [statement of his] correct? Glorified and Exalted You are, O My Lord!  Is not judgement passed against the people except through what is apparent?! This principle affirmed by Al Faarooq, Umar Ibnul Khattaab [radiyallaah-anhu] is utiliseed in in warning against a person of innovation when he manifests his innovation.

The Stance of Imaam Ahmad towards Daawood Ibn Ali Al- Asbahaanee

Daawood Ibn Ali Al-Asbahaanee came to Saaleh Ibn Imaam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal with whom he used to have a good relationship.  So he [Daawood] spoke to Saaleh Ibn Imaam Ahmad to make it easy for him to meet his father. So Saaleh approached Imaam Ahmad [i.e. his father] and said: A man asked me to bring him to you.

Imaam Ahmad said: What is his name?

Saaleh replied: Daawood.

Imaam Ahmad said: Where is he from?

Saaleh replied: He is from the people of Asbahaan.

Imaam Ahmad said: Has he being [involved] in fabricating anything?

At this point: Saaleh refrained from describing Daawood to his father [Imaam Ahmad].  So he [Imaam Ahmad] did not stop enquiring about Daawood until he knew who he was.  Then he said: Muhammad Bin Yahyaa An-Naysabooree wrote to me about this [Daawood] saying that he [Daawood] claims that the Qur’aan is something that was brought into existence [i.e. created], so do not bring him near me.

Saaleh said: O my father! he [Daawood] has negated and renounced this [statement].

Imaam Ahmad replied: Muhammad Bin Yahyaa is more trustworthy than him.  I do not give you permission to bring him to me.

O my brother! Contemplate upon the stance of Imaam Ahmad.  He is the Imaam of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah in his adherence to the Sunnah of the Prophet [sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam] and the narrations of the Sahaabah; so did he use to scrutinise the beliefs of the people and seek after their mistakes?!  So examine his [above conversation with his son Saaleh] as well as the statement of Umar Ibnul Khattaab mentioned earlier, ”But we will not trust or believe the one who presents to us with an evil deed even if he claims that his intentions were good.”

Therefore, the statement of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhaab [rahimahullaah] is certified by the statements of the Rightly Guided Khaleefah Umar Ibnul Khattaab [radiyallaahu-anhu] and that of Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal [rahimahullaah].


[1] Source: ‘Ibaaraat Moohimah’ pages 66-69. slightly paraphrased]

[Whoever Does Not Make Tabdee of a Mubtadi is a Mubtadi Himself]! – Unveiling The Fraudulent Claims of The Rabble Rousers and Stooges of The Hizbiyyoon Who Claim That The Salafiyyoon Apply This Statement Unrestrictedly

Inn The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Whoever does not make Tabdee of a Mubtadi is himself a Mubtadi!

Shaikh Rabee [may Allaah preserve him] stated:

It is not correct to apply this principle unrestrictedly because it maybe that he is unaware of the Bidah committed by that person, therefore he refrains from declaring him an innovator due to Wara [apprehensive fear]. [1] Why should you declare him an innovator? [i.e. why should you declare him an innovator when it is the case that he is unaware of the bidah of that Mubtadi or refrains from making Tabdee out of apprehensive fear].

But if he knows the innovator, [i.e. knows that such a person is upon bidah due to which the evidence was established against him], loves him and allies with him, then he is a Mubtadi.  This is the distinction in this affair – he knows that that person is a Mubtadi but he aids him and wages war against Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah, then he is a mubtadi without a doubt. As for a person who does not know that such and such person is a Mubtadi, he is not to be declared an innovator.

[As for] you  [i.e. the scholar or student of knowledge who is qualified to make Tabdee] – the one who studied the affair of [that person] and you know that he allies with a Mubtadi, puts him in a favourable position, wages war against Ahlus Sunnah for the sake of that Mubtadi and for the sake of this falsehood, this person is a Mubtadi; misguided.

As for the person who does not know that indeed such and such person is a mubtadi, then advise him and clarify for him [i.e. with clear unambiguous proofs until he understands] that such person is a mubtadi. So unless he ceases [i.e. refrains from defending this mubtadi after understanding the evidences], then put him with his companion – the mubtadi. [Source: Awnul Baari 2/891..slightly paraphrased & abridged]


[1]Translation of the tern [Al-Wara -Apprehensive fear] was taken from one of Ustaadh Amjad Rafiq’s [may Allaah preserve him] articles.

Unveiling The Fraudulent Claims of The Rabble Rouser And Stooge at [Markaz At-Tawheed And Markaz As-Sunnah (The Allies of Greenlane In Stoke On Trent)]

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Indeed, the hizbiyyoon at Markaz At-Tawheed and Markaz As-Sunnah – allies of the hizbiyyoon at Greenlane- have not ceased hiding behind the issue of Taqleed in order to divert attention from their crimes against the Salafi Manhaj. By the Tawfeeq of Allaah, neither have they been able to silence the Salafiyyoon at Masjid Al-Furqaan nor able to hide their corrupt Manhaj stances, which we’ll address in the next post InShaaAllaah.

However, the figureheads at these two Hizbi Masaajid -allies of Greenlane- give their silent approval to a rabble rouser and stooge amongst them, who is ignorant and foolish enough to take the lead and attack the Salafiyyoon at Masjid Al-Furqaan. This fool always utters nonsense and keeps on shooting himself in the foot.

A statement he constantly makes- whilst trying to hide the Manhaj deviations of his employers and reject the evidences against them- is that ‘They do not make Taqleed of Such and Such…and that the Salafiyyoon of Masjid Al-Furqaan are guilty of blameworthy Taqleed etc” So, here we present – briefly- from Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool [may Allaah preserve him] regarding this statement of truth by way of which the foolish rabble rouser and his employers-allies of Greenlane- seek to confound haqq with baatil.

Paraphrase:

Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool [may Allaah preserbe him] said:

The Statement of some of them [i.e. the people]: I am not obliged to make Taqleed of this Shaikh or that [one]:

This statement is made by some people with the claim that it is the Methodology of the Salaf [pious predecessors]. However, the reality is that this statement is to be to examined from several perspectives:

1: The right place to utilise this statement is where proof is manifest [or clearly established] in a particular issue related to the religion, which must be followed; so, in such a case, no consideration is given to anyone – regardless who that is – if his statement opposes the [sound or established] hadeeth of the Messenger [sallal laahu alayhi wasallam], since the statement of everyone else can either be accepted or abandoned, except that of the Messenger [sallal laahu alayhi wasallam].

2: A student of knowledge makes this statement in relation to issues of Ijtihaad in order to reject the statements of the scholars – those scholars who are his seniors, older than him, more knowledgeable and more fearful of Allaah than him -, then this is contrary to the way of the Salafus Saaleh, because with regards to the likes of these issues [i.e. issues of Ijtihaad], individuals among them use to abandon their own statement [or view] and take the statement [or view] of one who was more knowledgeable than them, and they never use to say: I am not obliged to accept  [the statement of the]  Shaikh.

3: A Muslim- first and foremost- should consider himself to be perhaps the one at fault [or mistaken], especially if he finds himself in a situation where he is in opposition to something affirmed by someone who is more knowledgeable than him, for indeed it is obligated on him not to be overwhelmed by his views; then how about when the very basis of the issue at hand is related to information he must accept and there is no justification for him to oppose it. And even in issues related to Ijtihaad, it was from the way of the Sahaabah that individuals among them use to abandon their statement [or view] and accept the statement [or view] of one who was more knowledgeable.

4: To have a high regard for the scholars is a Sunnah [i.e. an affair established in the Sunnah of the Prophet] and this statement [i.e. I am not obliged to make Taqleed of this or that Shaikh] is contrary to having respect for the scholars. Yes [or certainly], if proof is manifested [or clearly established] in a subject matter related to the religion which becomes an obligation on [a person to follow], then indeed no consideration is given to the statement of anyone – regardless who that is – when proof is present, since the statement of everyone can either be accepted or rejected, except that of the Messenger [sallal laahu alayhi wasallam].

However, some people make this statement in a situation where evidence is not manifested [or established] against the statement of a scholar; therefore, is it not the right thing -in this case- that a person acknowledges the virtue of a scholar- that the path of the scholars is more correct, they are more knowledgeable, more fearful of falling into something that will affect them in the afterlife and that they are more pious- and considers himself to be at fault [or mistaken] in comparison to the statements of the scholars and being careful of opposing their statements.

5: Taqleed is not forbidden unrestrictedly, for indeed an Aammi -the one on whom it is obligated to follow the upright scholars- if it is not easy for him to understand the proofs, and [also] the Mujtahid, if it difficult for him to perform Ijtihaad and examine the proofs, then it is obligated on him to make Taqleed, and this is what is obligated on him. And indeed, it has been reported about Imaam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal [rahimahullaah] in relation to a particular issue of the religion whose evidence he did not know, that he use to take the statement of Ash-Shaafi’ee [rahimahullaah]. Therefore, this statement [i.e. I am not obliged to make Taqleed of this or that Shaikh] being uttered in such a manner gives a Muslim the wrong impression that he can never make Taqleed, however this is contrary to what the people of knowledge have established regarding this affair. [Read more about this topic on this link: http://masjidfurqan.co.uk/2018/02/03/gentle-reminder-to-those-who-approach-this-affair-in-a-haphazard-manner-and-unveiling-the-half-truths-of-the-obstinate-hizbiyyoon/ ]

    6: There is a distinction between Ittibaa and Taqleed, because Ittibaa is to follow a statement whose evidence is manifest or clear to you. As for Taqleed, it is to take [or accept] the statement of someone you follow blindly [i.e. without knowing the proof].

7: It is obligatory to distinguish between the case where a person accepts the statement of a Mujtahid in relation to an issue in which Ijtihaad is allowed as opposed to accepting a khabar [report or information] given by a scholar, because in this case [i.e. when he gives a report about someone] it is [related to the subject matter of] accepting the report given by a reliable narrator; and it is an obligation [to accept his report] unless his mistake in relation to that report is made clear. Therefore, it cannot be said in this situation: I am not obliged to accept the statement of this scholar or I will not accept his statement regarding such and such person until I -myself- come across it [i.e. until I see – in that person- what the scholar said about him].

If a man who is well known to you is criticised by a reliable scholar based on a detailed-  explained -criticism, then the basis of the affair is that you accept the statement of this scholar,  and you do not say: I know this man and will not accept this detailed and explained criticism until I come across what has been stated about him. This is not to be said and it is not from the path of the Salaf in this affair. Yes [or certainly], a general [unexplained] criticism is not accepted when directed at someone whose trustworthiness is established [or ascertained]; and criticism is given precedence over appraisal, unless the one who gives the appraisal mentions the reason behind that criticism and refutes it [i.e. with detail and clear proofs or evidences]. [Read more about this topic on this link: http://www.abukhadeejah.com/al-jarh-wat-tadeel-and-the-corrupt-principles-of-abu-usamah-khalifah-part-1/ ]


[Source: Ibaaraat Moohimah’ pages 27-29’ By Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool (may Allaah preserve him)]

 

 

 

 

Gentle Reminder To Those Who Approach This Affair In a Haphazard Manner And Unveiling The Half-truths of The Obstinate Hizbiyyoon

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Introduction

Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool [may Allaah preserve him] said:

Among the rights of the scholars is that one should not be a partisan of their statements without proof. There is a difference between exalting the scholars, honouring them and acknowledging their rights as opposed to being a partisan of their statements when they oppose the proofs. Indeed, [blind] partisanship is blameworthy, and it is tantamount to ignorance [Ref 1]; but showing respect to a scholar and honouring him is related to the virtues of knowledge. And abandoning those statements of the scholars that are in opposition to the proofs is not tantamount to nullifying their statements and a violation of their rights, rather it is adherence to the path of the infallible one [i.e. the Prophet (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam)]. [Ref 2]

Source: [في قلب الحدث مقالات متنوعة   – pages 42-43. Abridged and slightly paraphrased]

Must Read: Taqleed, Ittibaa etc

Refs 1 & 2:  http://dev.masjidfurqan.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/A_return_to_the_Sunnah.pdf [Subject matter of Taqleed & Ittibaa starts from page 68]

 

Differing of The Scholars In issues of Ijtihaad

 http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=12294

 

Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool [may Allaah preserve him]

https://salaficentre.com/2015/05/a-misunderstanding-regarding-the-statement-laa-inkaar-fee-masaail-al-khilaaf-there-should-be-no-repudiation-in-the-affairs-of-khilaaf-i-e-differing/

 

 

Ponder, Before You Lend an Ear to Populist Leaders, Rushing into The Streets to Participate In So Called Peaceful Protests & Destroying Your Nation with Your Own Hands]  

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Shaikh Saaleh Al-Fawzaan [may Allaah preserve him] said: Security is a necessity for every human society, especially a Muslim society. Security is a necessity for every society because through it, the beneficial affairs of livelihood are attained. And in the absence of security, the rights of the people are violated, and the beneficial affairs of livelihood cannot be attained; anxiety, fear & chaos occurs, & people are overpowered by the oppressors. Robbery, looting and bloodshed takes place. In the absence of security in society, a person is neither safe even whilst he is at home nor is his family and wealth protected; neither will he be safe in the street nor in the masjid; neither in his office nor anywhere else. [Excerpt. abridged & paraphrased]


http://www.alfawzan.af.org.sa/ar/node/13208

A Precise Definition of Hizbiyyah [Illegal Partisanship]- By Shaikh Rabee Bin Haadi

Shaikh Rabee Bin Haadi
[may Allaah preserve him] said:

Bigoted partisanship for a particular idea that opposes the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Messenger, and [establishing] allegiance and enmity based upon it, this is Tahazzub [illegal partisanship]. This is Tahazzub even if it is not [done under an] organisation. To formulate deviated ideas and gather the people on it, this is a hizb, regardless whether it is [done under an] organisation or not.