RT @AbuMuadhTaqweem: Friday Khutba: “Du’ā & it’s Importance for a Believer” 1st half in Arabic 2nd half in English Based upon a khutba of…
- Posts: 31
- Thank you received: 0
Refuting the false principle of 'Ali Ḥasan regarding getting closer to the innovators due to a benefit
Sheikh Rabee' ibn Haadi al-Madkhali advised to translate refutations against some of these incorrect principles that 'Ali Ḥasan has been calling to so that the Muslims do not fall into them due to the doubts been mentioned.
Sheikh Rabee' stressed that these doubts are dangerous in that they attack the methodology of the pious predecessors in how they used to not mix with the innovators and refute them.
Sheikh 'Ubayd al-Jābirī, Sheikh Muhammad ibn Haadi and Sheikh Abdullah al-Bukhaari also showed the seriousness of these latest mistakes of 'Ali Ḥasan.
Sheikh 'Ubayd al-Jābirī advised also to translate what is sufficient for the people to be aware of these errors so that they do not fall into them.
Doubt number 1
'Ali Ḥasan al-Halabi said in his book "Menhaj as-Salafus Ṣāliḥ fi Tarjeeh al-Masaalih" p.16 regarding the fundamentals of refuting:
"What will these individuals reply, may Allaah guide them regarding the situation of visiting (innovators), to what was reported by Khateeb (Baghdaadi) in his (Tareekh 10/262) and it seems this is the reason for their fitnahý
On the authority of Ya'qoob ibn Yusuf al-Mutdawi' who said "'Abdulrahman ibn Ṣāliḥ al-Azdi who was a Raafidi and he used to visit Imam Ahmed, and he (Imam Ahmed) would bring him closer to himself so it was said, "O Aba 'Abdillah, 'Abdulrahman ibn Ṣāliḥ al-Azdi is a Raafidi?!
So Imam Ahmed said, "subhanallaah, he is a man who loved the family of the Prophet, shall we say to him don't love him! He is thiqa (trustworthy in narrating)."
'Ali Ḥasan said commenting on this in the endnotes, "even though it was known that Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal rahmahullaah refused Dawood adh-Dhaahiree to enter upon him (due to his position with regards the Qur'an being created)." Tareekh Baghdad (8/373) in a report that many quote without a good understanding but times have changed and one must look at the benefits and harms and they are two important principles which many are unaware of who are energetic upon futile matters."
The actual complete story between Imam Ahmed and 'Abdulrahman ibn Ṣāliḥ al-Azdi, the Raafidi is narrated fully in as-Sunnah of al-Khallal vol.1 p.501 and it is not as 'Ali Ḥasan portrayed:
Abū Bakr al-Marwazi said that I heard Aba 'Abdillaah (Imam Ahmed), there are a people who write these lowly aḥadīth concerning the companions of the Messenger of Allaah, and it is reported that you do not reject that the one who reports these narrations to be from the people of ḥadīth. So he became angry and refuted this strongly and said "this is futile! We seek refuge in Allaah, I don't refute this! Even if this was regarding the lowliest of people then I would have refuted it so how is it then if it was concerning the companions of the Messenger ṣallallāhu 'alaihi wa sallam! Then he said "I don't write these aḥadīth." I said, "O Aba 'Abdillaah (Imam Ahmed), if you come to know of one who writes these lowly aḥadīth should he be boycotted?" He said "Yes, the one who narrates these lowly aḥadīth deserves to be stoned."
Abū 'Abdillaah (Imam Ahmed) said "'Abdulrahman came to me and I asked him: do you narrate these aḥadīth?" 'Abdulrahman said "so and so narrated it and so and so narrated it." So I tried to have gentleness with him(to advise him such that he leaves his misguidance) but he continued using as proof that so and so narrated these so when I saw him afterwards I turned away from him and did not speak to him.".
1. Sheikh Muhammad ibn Haadi said that Imam Ahmed initially didn't know that Abdulrahman ibn Ṣāliḥ was a Raafidi (since he spoke about 'Uthman and Mu'awiyyah ibn Abi Sufyaan (may Allaah be pleased with them)) because he showed his love for the Prophet's family initially and spoke well of Abū Bakr and 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with them). However, when it became known to Imam Ahmed that he was spreading these narrations against the companions, Imam Ahmed turned away from him and didn't speak to him.
2. Sheikh 'Ubayd al-Jābirī said that Imam Ahmed's position towards 'Abdulrahman ibn Ṣāliḥ is his same position towards Dawood adh-Dhaahiree so 'Ali Ḥasan is mistaken in trying to separate the two incidents.
3. Sheikh Muhammad ibn Haadimentioned that 'Ali Ḥasan is mistaken to use an incomplete story regarding Imam Ahmed's position to allow one to come closer to the innovators in the name of benefit (maslaha) as this opens doors to much evil.
4. Sheikh Muhammad ibn Haadi said, "Ali Ḥasan came to my house and I quoted to him the full story from as-Sunnah of al-Khallal so he knew of the boycott of Imam Ahmed regarding 'Abdulrahman ibn Ṣāliḥ so why is he misquoting when I already advised him regarding this before he printed this book."
5. Sheikh Abdullah al-Bukhaari said that Ali Ḥasan's book should not be called Menhaj as-Salaf but rather Menhaj al-khalaf regarding the opposition in it to the methodology of the Sallaf.
6. Sheikh Ubayd al-Jābirī said that these doubts concerning the allowance of visiting and mixing with the innovators in the name of maslaha (overall benefit) will open doors to many to mix with the innovators (and sign pledges of mutual cooperation as we have seen in the name of maslaha).
7. Sheikh Muhammad ibn Haadi mentioned that these errors are clearly the reason for Ali Ḥasan's defence for cooperating with 'Abdulrahman Abdulkhaaliq's Ihyaa Turath, Abūl Ḥasan al-Misree, Maghrawi, Adnan 'Urur, Muhammad Hassan and others who have refuted by the scholars and until today have not retracted their errors.
When the corrections of Shaykh 'Ubayd al-Jābirī were presented regarding some of the statements of Shaykh 'Alee, it was not befitting for anyone to raise his voice over the Scholars and suggest that this is 'fitnah', 'a private matter', 'should not be distributed' etc.
We, as Muslim needs to close off the avenues to fitnah and confusion, we can do this easily by not partaking in the coffee shop gossip, by being careful who we spend our time with and gather our opinions from, leaving off the folly on the various blogs without benefit and being protective of our 'Aqīdah, sticking to the statements of the scholars, not elevating the opinions of those less than them.
: Shaykh al-Halabee said, "The term khabaruth-thiqah today is naturally another form from the forms of taqleed (blind-following) unfortunately."
I say: Indeed, your statement that accepting the news of the trustworthy narrator is taqleed has not been stated, except by the callers and supporters of taqleed. And this is a concealed revilement against the news of the trustworthy narrators in this time. How can it be taqleed when we accept your own statement about a khabar from the akhbaar! So your statement is not fair, nor is it just. And I ask you: Where is the Victorious Group (at-taa`ifatul¬mansoorah), which will not cease to exist up until the Day of Judgement? Is accepting their statements without asking them for proof due to their trustworthiness considered taqleed?!
As-San'aanee - - said, "And when you have come to know that this, you will realize that the one who accepts the khabaruth-thiqah in authentication of ḥadīth, then he is a mujtahjd in accepting his news, just as the rest of the reports are accepted from the trustworthy narrators, and he will not be a muqallid for accepting them."
...Ash-Shaafi' ee (d.204H) said after speaking about the topic of the news of one narrator from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam), "And the rulers from the judges and other than them would pronounce judgements. So their judgements would be carried out and the prescribed punishments would be established. And their rulings were carried out afterwards and their rulings were news from them."
...So these Scholars, and many others besides them, have mentioned the term: khabaruth-thiqah. However, they did not differentiate in its application, contrary to the speech of Shaykh al-Halabee where he differentiates in applying this term. So he restricted the speech of the Scholars about khabaruth-thiqah to the topic of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel only. And if only he had informed us and elaborated for us how the acceptance of the khabaruth-thiqah occurs today, or how it is only a form from the forms of taqleed?!
: Shaykh al-Halabee said, "Nowadays, there is a shaykh who sees a student, or he sees a narrator, so due to his experience, he knows that this one is da'eef (weak), or he knows that he is thiqah (trustworthy). When I declare him trustworthy, it cannot be said to me: what is the proof for my tawtheeq (declaring trustworthy)?"
...Secondly: When this person doing the praise fulfills the conditions in regards to the one he is praising and he builds his ta'deel upon the apparent condition of the individual he is praising, but there is another Scholar who knows about (hidden) affairs that will make that praised individual a faasiq and this Scholar clarifies his wicked condition that makes him a faasiq, then should we not give precedence to the statement of this disparaging Scholar over the Scholar who praised the individual? So when we add to this that the praising Scholar did not fulfill the conditions required for ta'deel and tajreeh (disparagement) and that he assessed with false praises someone who manifested a corrupt condition, then this further supports the obligation of accepting the jarh and considering that false ta'deel to be invalid and built upon desire and false or doubtful assessments.
: Then he said, "However, is there a khabaruth-thiqah in the tabdee' (declaring an innovator) of a Sunnee or the tasleef (declaring Salafī) of an innovator? This has not been known in the history of al-Islām. The confusion about this affair has now become stronger and it is very strong. And with great regret, I have not seen anyone who is paying attention to it."
I say: Indeed, you have become arrogant in your claim that this was not known in the history of al-Islām. Rather, this manhaj was well-known and documented in the history books of Islām. No one denies it, except that he is an ignoramus or a hizbee conspirator who wants to abolish through these methods al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, which is built upon the akhbaar of trustworthy narrators. So where are you from the akhbaar of Imāms of Islām in tabdee' of the innovators, which is documented in the general books of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel and in the books of jarh specifically? From them is the book, ad-Du'afaa` of al-Bukhārī (d.256H) and the book ad-Du'afaa` wal-Matrookeen of an-Nisaa`ee (d.303H) and the book al¬Majrooheen of Ibn Hibbaan (d.354H) and ad-Du'afaa` of ad-Daaraqutnee and other than them from the Imāms. In these books, the Scholars declared innovators those who used to be upon the Sunnah, but when some innovations became apparent from them, the Scholars clearly declared them innovators and warned the people against them, such as Ya'qoob Ibn Shaybah and his likes from those who withheld concerning the Qur`aan.18 Imām Aḥmad (d.241H) and other than him declared them innovators. And do not forget al-Haarith al-Muhaasibee and his likes from those whom the Scholars of the Sunnah declared innovators. And there is no doubt that these innovators were better than the ones that al-Halabee protects and those for whom al-Halabee testifies that they are Salafiyyoon, in opposition to the Scholars of the Sunnah who have explained their corrupt principles and their misguidance and their allegiances with the people of innovation and the Scholars have fought against them. And if Shaykh al-Albānī (d.1420H) or Ibn Bāz (d.1420H) or Ibnul-'Uthaymīn (d.1421H) or other than them were to be asked about individuals, so they informed that these were from the people of innovation, so must we accept their speech? And the apparent meaning of your speech and those who agree with you is that you do not accept the speech of Ahl al-Sunnah in tabdee' of those who have deviated from the manhaj of the Salaf.
Therefore, with this manhaj (i.e. the manhaj of 'Alee al-Halabee) there are no people of innovation in existence today. And this is the manhaj of the Ikhwaanul-Muslimeen, "We co-operate in whatever we agree upon and we excuse (that is, we do not perform tabdee' of) each other in that which we differ about." And this is what Abūl-Ḥasan al-Ma'ribee revolves around. So he wants a vast manhaj that accommodates the entire Umrnah as well as Ahl al-Sunnah.
Dāwūd adh-Dhaahiree came to Baghdaad and between him and Imām Aḥmad was Ṣāliḥ the son of Aḥmad. So he spoke to Ṣāliḥ kindly and asked him to seek permission from his father to let him enter. So Ṣāliḥ came to his father and said to him, "There is a man who is asking me to enter upon you." He said, "What is his name?" He said, "Dāwūd." He said, "Where is he from?" He said, "He is from the people of Asbahaan." He said, "What work does he do?" And Ṣāliḥ kept evading making him known to his father. So Imām Aḥmad - Abū 'Abdullāh - kept scrutinizing him until he figured out who he was. So he said, "Indeed, Muhammad Ibn Yahyá adh-Dhuhalee has written to me about his affair that he claims the Qur`aan is newly-invented. So he cannot come near me." He said, "0 my father, he denies that and rejects it." So Abū 'Abdullāh said,"Muhammad Ibn Yahyá is more truthful than him. Do not grant him permission to visit me. And al-Fallaas said, "Arrir is abandoned, a person of innovation."'
And Abū Tawbah said, "Our companions informed us that Thawr met with al-Awzaa'ee (d.157H) and extended his hand towards him. So al-Awzaa'ee refused to shake his hand and said, "0 Thawr! If this were an affair of worldly life, we would be close, but it is a matter of Religion."'
Indeed, the noble Shaykh al-Najmī was asked, "0 noble Shaykh! Many of the people do not verify and confirm in the matter of tabdee' and tafseeq (declaring someone a faasiq) and they hold the people accountable due to suspicion. Due to this, there is division amongst the Ummah of Islām, as has occurred during these times. So is there a straightforward instruction surrounding verification in the matter of tabdee' and tafseeq and takfee?? And must one return for that to the Scholars of this country? May Allaah grant you success and reward you with goodness."
So he replied, "There is no doubt that it is obligatory upon the person to verify and confirm the affair, because it is inevitable that you seek proof for such a statement, or you will be asked about it in front of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic. So everyone who speaks about the people, it is obligatory upon him to say something about which he is certain, if he is not, then he will be speaking of suspicion. As for the person who is silent, then it is said about this one that he is silent, he is not with these ones and he is not with those ones. Ahl al-Sunnah are known and the path of Salaf is known by their following their way upon this manhaj and loving its people and rallying around them under their banner. And there are people who have perhaps been deceived by people from the people of innovation who manifest goodness. However, behind this goodness is a hidden affair that many of the people do not know. So with regards to this one, the statement of those who know him is taken, if they are trustworthy. So when people from the leaders of the tribes came to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam), he gave them a hundred camels, or fifty camels or sheep. A man came and said, "Indeed, the Face of Allaah is not desired by this division." So the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, "Woe to you! I am trusted by He who is above the heavens, yet you do not trust me?" Meaning, Allaah has entrusted for the people of this earth, so he sent me to them. That is, He made me a Messenger to them and yet you do not trust me with something from the vanities of this world? So one of the Companions stood up and said, "Leave me to strike the neck of this hypocrite." So the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) replied, "Indeed, there will come out of the loins of this one a people whom you will look down upon your own Prayer in comparison to their Prayer and you will look down upon your own fast in comparison to their fast and you will look down upon your own recitation in comparison to theirs. They will pass through the