Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Aug 2002
|
In the Name of Allaah
Maashaa Allaah i got this superb post from the SP Forums, now al-Hamdulillaah we have a Noticeboard where the Salafis can post and their posts will not be deleted by the Hizbeeyeen who try to hide the Truth from the people, and defend the baatil.
Again i have to say Jazaakum Allaah khairan to the Salafi brothers who are running the discussion board, keep up the good work, this is just what the English speaking Salafis needed.
Plesae read below.
------------------------------------------------------
Some of the people in current times have attempted to make a differentiation between accepting the "khabar" (news, information) of a trustworthy person, and accepting the "hukm" (judgement) of a trustworthy person, claiming that the former can be accepted without hesitation (such as when someone narrates something, from someone, or about an event or occurrence and the likes, where he narrates news), and as for the latter, then it cannot be accepted except with evidence, daleel.
It is apparent by this differentiation that an attempt is being made to make generalisations and equivocations which are unfounded, and have no basis. And this has come from those who wish to defend the likes of Abul-Fitan al-Ma'ribee and the false ideas he has been trying to enter into Ahl us-Sunnah in recent times.
In reply:
With respect to judgements "ahkaam", then they can be narrated with respect to three subject areas:
1) The ahkaam of the Sharee'ah, such as what relates to purification, menstruation, the acts of worship, inheritance, dealings, and so on. In other words the specific rulings of the Sharee'ah.
2) The ahkaam upon the narrators of hadeeth, such as what occurs in the books of rijaal (narrators).
3) The ahkaam upon Ahl ul-Bid'ah, such as what occurs in the words of Ahl us-Sunnah in all times and ages warning from Innovation and its people.
So with respect to each one:
1) With respect to the first, then the claimed differentiation is not absolute. Since, it is permissible for a common person, who does not have the ability to arrive at knowledge of the Sharee'ah rulings to ask the people of knowledge, and receive answers from them. In this situation taqleed is permissible for him, though with conditions such as he must not specificy one person or madhhab to be followed in every single affair, and also that if the error of that judgement with respect to a ruling of the Sharee'ah is shown to be in opposition to the Book and the Sunnah, then he must leave it. Further, this also varies, from person to person, depending upon their ability and level. For we have those who are mujtahidoon, then those who are muttabi'oon, and then those for whom taqleed is permissible. In general, yes we only follow the evidence, and we only seek to be in agreement with it. However, this depends upon the circumstance and other factors, such as the ability of a person to arrive at the evidence in a particular issue. Since many issues require specialist knowledge in order to arrive at the truth in a matter.
Thus, making the evaluation of the "hukm" narrated by a trustworthy person with respect to this subject, i.e. the ahkaam of the Sharee'ah, to be obligatory and binding upon everyone, and making this absolute, then this is incorrect - as is clear to any student of knowledge. Otherwise, many people would not be able to act upon the Sharee'ah, until many of the students of knowledge.
2) With respect to the second, then the scholars of hadeeth took the judgements of the specialists in the field upon the narrators, and relied upon them in knowing what can be taken and what can be rejected. And you do not find them demanding proof, "give me proof as to where this person lied, and on what day he lied, and what was his lie", before accepting the hukm of Yahyaa bin Ma'een for example, that so and so is a liar. And most of the subject of the narrators is like this, since overwhelmingly, there is a general agreement upon the ruling for most of the narrators. Thus, making the evaluation of the "hukm" narrated by a trustworthy person with respect to this subject, to be obligatory upone everyone, is also false. This is very clear and apparent.
3) With respect to the third, then the seerah of the Salaf falsifies this claim, since innovation and those falling into it, were warned against by the senior Imaams, and then others followed in their steps, guiding themselves by these Imaams, and they warned the common people from innovation and its people, without making binding upon them the knowledge of the proofs of the deviation of every Innovator, or one who became misguided after guidance. Whoever reads the aathaar of the Salaf in this regard, will see this very clearly and apparently. Again, overwhelmingly, those who are rooted in knowledge are the ones who can perceive innovation and the true nature, meaning and intent of the people of desires in their words and statements.
So this so claimed differentiation between accepting the "khabar" and between the "hukm" of a trustworthy person, if it is claimed in this manner, unrestrictedly, then it is false, and opposes the manhaj of the Salaf.
Someone might claim, "If one for whom taqleed is permissible must leave the saying of a scholar when it opposes the truth, then likewise, the one who takes the ruling of a scholars upon a person, he too must leave it when the evidence shows otherwise, otherwise, it would be blameworthy taqleed".
And this claim comes from the soldiers of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee in the various lands, again to discredit the truth. The reply is that when there occurs a jarh mufassar (a criticism that is explained) from a trustworthy scholar, then it is given precedence over any praises. The only way this can be overturned, is if an explained ta'deel (appraisal) is brought, which rebuts every single point of criticism, systematically, one by one, and explains why it is wrong, thus overturning the jarh completely. This sometimes occurs in the subject of the narrators of hadeeth, where a scholar might explain away the criticism that has been directed towards a narrator and he does that with evidences and explains why the criticism has been levelled against him and explains each of the issues which led to him being criticised. However, the people who bring this claim, really want to defend the Innovators by way of this, by treating the subject of the rules concerning riwaayah (narrating) to be the same as the rules pertaining to tahdheer (warning) from Ahl ul-Bid'ah . But in reality, we find that the Innovators who were criticised and refuted, then rarely, will you find, that the scholars were wrong, especially when the majority of scholars are united upon the affair. And even when they differed the truth was with those who provided jarh mufassar, and that the others only brought a general ta'deel, not being sufficient to overturn the jarh mufassar.
Thus, we caution Ahl us-Sunnah from falling into this mistake, and from following the mistakes of the students of knowledge, who do not reach the level of the major scholars. Instead they should stick to the specialists in the field, and take from their understanding and knowledge, and at the head of them Shaykh Rabee' bin Haadee, Shaykh Faalih al-Harbee and others.
______________________________________________
We follow the Haqq, the Haqq doesn't follow us
This message was edited by Admin on 9-10-02 @ 12:41 PM
|
|
Al-Majhool
09-09-2002 @ 12:00 AM
