SalafiTalk.Net » Affairs of Manhaj
» Principles that are Obligatory for the Salafee to Know, by Shaykh Ahmad Baazmool
Search ===>

Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5Part 6Part 7Part 8Part 9 • Part 10 • Part 11 • Part 12

   Reply to this Discussion Start new discussion << previous || next >> 
Posted By Topic: Principles that are Obligatory for the Salafee to Know, by Shaykh Ahmad Baazmool

book mark this topic Printer-friendly Version  send this discussion to a friend  new posts last

19-10-2010 @ 9:48 AM    Notify Admin about this post
ibn Ahmad Maher ibn Ahmad (U.S.A.)
Posts: 950
Joined: Nov 2006
Bismillaah Al-Hamdulillaah wa salatu wa salaamu 'ala rasulullaah
Amma ba'd

Principles that are Obligatory for the Salafee to Know by Shaykh Ahmad Ibn 'Umar Baazmool (hafidhahullaah)

The noble Shaykh covers numerous principles of the Salafee manhaj pertaining to issues of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, warning against the innovators, accepting the jarh (disparagement) of the Scholars and so on...

From the principles covered in this important lecture are:

- Know the truth and you will know its people.

- Speaking ill of the People of Sunnah is in reality speaking ill of the Sunnah which they carry; and those who speak ill of the People of Sunnah are misguided innovators.

- Differentiating between [1]: the Scholars' refutation of falsehood intending by that refutation of that falsehood and between [2]: him refuting him due to jealousy or because they were contemporaries or out of oppression.

-  The Scholars are of different levels, ranks and degrees.

- It is not correct and not permissible in the Salafee manhaj to make the differing of the Scholars in al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel an excuse to follow falsehood for the one whom the truth has become clear to.

- The people of falsehood confuse the common-folk by making general, ambiguous statements.

- Giving importance to knowledge, learning and returning to the Scholars.  And the beginner student of knowledge and the one who is not qualified does not put himself forth to make jarh and ta'deel.

The lecture was translated by our brother, Anwar Ibn 'Aarif Wright - a graduate from the Islamic University of al-Madeenah - may Allaah preserve him. The Shaykh, Ahmad Baazmool, has granted permission to Sunnah Publishing to translate and distribute this lecture.

Source: currently, the audio is on the home page of SunnahPublishing

Subhanak Allaahuma wa bihamdika ash-hadu anlaa illaaha illa anta astaghfiruka wa atubu ilayk  

If I said anything correct, then it is from Allaah (subhanahu wa taa'ala), and if I erred, then that is from me and shaytan.  

31-10-2010 @ 1:33 AM    Notify Admin about this post
ibn Ahmad Maher ibn Ahmad (U.S.A.)
Posts: 950
Joined: Nov 2006
Bismillaah Al-Hamdulillaah wa salatu wa salaamu 'ala rasulullaah
Amma ba'd

The following is a summary [not verbatim] of some of the main points from the above lecture, obtained via West London Da'wah:

When you're warning against a person, it's because he is opposing the manhaj (of the Salaf) and so you advise him until he repents. This person is at a stage at which he has to be avoided and he needs to be advised with the truth. Know the truth and you will know its people. He is in a stage in which the scholars have yet to declare him an innovator; he is being advised so he will either accept the truth or deny it.

You may be deceived by him, so you have to stay away from him until the 'Ulemma (scholars) say more about him. As for someone speaking ill of the people of the Sunnah, then he is actually speaking ill of the Sunnah so he is a misguided innovator. We love and hate for Allaah, and this is a principle in boycotting - this is al-Walaa` wal-Baraa` (Loving and Hating for Allaah's sake).

Some people say Salafis are harsh, but harshness is if they criticized without valid reasons. Shaykh Rabee advises before he refutes the innovators; the shaykh is just.

If you refute someone without proofs, that's dhulm (oppression). But when Shaykh Rabee' bin Hadee al-Madkhalee (hafidhahullaah) refutes innovators, he has proof by quoting from the innovators' own books and tapes, which reveal their innovations. Shaykh Rabee is over 80 years old and has refuted about 20 people in his lifetime so far.

Compared to the Salaf (early Muslim scholars), this isn't much because they refuted hundreds or thousands of people yet some still accuse Shaikh Rabee' of being "harsh." When Shaikh Rabee' refuted the innovators, you wont find any other Salafi scholars saying he was wrong, so they agreed with him too. And if there were some scholars who didn't agree with him, you will find that after some time they returned to Shaikh Rabee's opinion.

Scholars are of different levels: some more involved in fiqh, some more in refuting bid'ah, some more in Arabic grammer. You can't reject the scholar who refutes with proof just because other mashayikh are quiet on the issue. These mashayikh did not turn to address this fitan. And just because they're quiet, doesn't mean they agree with the fitan/trial of an innovator.

If a certain shaikh hasn't spoken about an innovator, maybe he doesnt know [the innovator's] condition as well as the other shaikh who did [refute the innovator]. The latter looked into the issue in more depth. Even if there was a difference amongst scholars over an innovator, you follow the proof and return to the truth. You are sinning if you follow falsehood, using as an excuse that you follow that shaikh instead.

For example, if a doctor who specializes in heart surgery spoke about a cure, and another general doctor came and spoke, the common folk would give precedence to the speech of the doctor who was a specialist in that field [heart surgery]. So likewise, when you want to know about the innovators, you would go the shaikh who has more knowledge of the field than the rest of the scholars because he specialised in this.

Someone asked about the Jordanian "mashayikh," so I said to them - you should fear Allaah. The Jordanians aren't scholars but are students of 'ilm, because they are less in their age and 'ilm. So to say they are "mashayikh" is dhulm.

What we mean when we say two scholars are "contemporaries" is that they are close in age and in knowledge.

If someone falls into a mistake by purpose and it's clarified to him yet he persists, then you can criticize that person. This is different than the case of a person who makes a mistake inadvertently.

If some scholars have refuted innovators, this suffices the other scholars from doing so because it's fard ul-kifayah (one qualified shaikh doing so suffices the rest). Even if only one scholar refutes with proofs and the rest remain quiet, then this is sufficient. You don't require a group of scholars to refute; this (would be) the khalafi manhaj.

If a scholar criticizes someone, you can quote [relay] his statements to the people. And if they don't accept the statement of the scholars, then they wont accept it from you! The beginner student of 'ilm should not declare people "innovators"; this is for the scholars or those students of 'ilm who are qualified. Don't precede the scholars in these affairs. Do not enter into debating.

Source: West London Da'wah (may Allaah reward them and preserve them)

Subhanak Allaahuma wa bihamdika ash-hadu anlaa illaaha illa anta astaghfiruka wa atubu ilayk  

If I said anything correct, then it is from Allaah (subhanahu wa taa'ala), and if I erred, then that is from me and shaytan.  

11-12-2010 @ 8:46 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Aminah Ilyas bin Friedhelm (Germany)
Posts: 103
Joined: Oct 2002
As salam alaykum, due to the benefit from this Lecture, I have transcribet the whole Lecture Word for Word from the Shaykh.

Here are the Text:

That which in obligatory for the Salafee to know from the Principles of the Salaf.

This is a Transcription of the Audio of Shaykh Ahmed Bazmool.

Transcribter: Abu Amina Ilyas from Germany


The Shaykh began with Khutbatul-Hajah and than he continued:

Principle: The Difference between warning and declaring someone an Innovator

So from the important matters which will inshallah rid the Salafees from many problems, is to know a important matter and principle. And that is, the difference between warning against an Individual and declaring an Individual an Innovator, and when did each occur. This Principle will rid the Salafees from many Problems. This is because sometimes when you warn against a person, they say you declare him an Innovator. And every one wants to stand and want to quarrel with you. The Ulema, and the Salafus-Salih, and those who treat there path till this day, differantiate between warning against an Person and deeming him an Innovator.

As for Tabdeeı , this is to rule on a person that he has fall into Bidah. And the obligation of warning from him.As for Tahtheer (warning), this is not a ruling that a person has falling into innovation. However the Person is in a opposing stage and is being giving advice. Meaning that he has opposed the Manhaj in matters which he maybe confused about or has be mistaking in, and has persisted on his mistake and this is in the beginning stages, when they are warning from this person. It may be said: Be careful of being around so and so and he is to be staying away from until he repents and returns to the truth and until we heard the detailed statemants of the scholars concerning him. What is the dangerous matter here? The dangerous matter is from different aspects.

The first is the differering that occurs between the salafee youth in having al-wala wal-bara regarding that individual. Some sees that you declared him an innovator and spoke ill of him and from there differing occurs. This is a dangerous matter.

The second matter is that some youth, and they are the other side, they think that this person is still on place and still able to be benefited from. No, for verily this person with the opposition he has, is in a stage, that we stop and stay away from him. So no one can be affected by him. If he repents and leaves which he is upon, and returns to the truth, we return to him. And if he persist upon falsehood, the Ulema ruled upon him, to be an Innovator or the likes. So the Person who has be warned against is to be stayed away from. Aspecially from the Student of knowledge whom feed has not be granted in knowledge. Why? This is because in this stage, the Person being warned against is between one of two things:

The first, that he returns to the Truth, and if he does, may Allah reward him.

And the second, that he persist upon his falsehood and does not return. Also during this stage he sends him to the mind to the youth unclear proofs and principles. And he rules into them foundation, that mix them, think that he isnıt an Innovator. And they see him not who have left the Manhaj. Due to this, if the Ulema declared him an Innovator after that. They warenıt be pleased because they already have planted in there heart that which was being said of him is not true. OK, do they leave him? We say yes. Leave him and stay away. There is nothing better than being save and sound and that the religion is save. Alhamdulillah the Ulama are present. And the Salafee Student of knowledge are wide spread. If they can not be found, than the Salafi Tapes and Books are around. Allah didnıt attach the religion to a specific person. And the religion in truth is ongoing, alhamdulillah. And it is not related to personalities. Know the ruth and you will know its People.
So this is a serious principle that you have to be aware of. Some People come and say: Such and such person has fall into this and that. Others say: The Ulama have not declared him yet an Innovator. OK, if they has not declared him an Innovator, this mean he is in a stage, that either he will accept the truth or either denied it. And you may be become deceived by him in falling to his plot. So therefore islamicly it is upon you to stay away from him and wait and see what the Ulama has said about him. If it is okay to returned to him and being benefited from or be left. Is this principle clear know?

Principle: Do not attach the truth to personalities

Also it is incumbant in this principle just as has precedet yesterday and it is not to be overzealos and not to attach the truth to personalities.
What is Halabee? Is he Quran, Sunnah the Salafus-Salih? He is not of that. If he is guided than this is for his own benefit. And if he goes astray, than thats on him. Because the truth is fixed and doesnıt move. As for you attacking the truth to just Halabee , if he says something you say it, and if he refuses you refuse, and you make donıt make your source the Quran and the Sunnah, this is misguidance. How is this? And al-Halabee for example, just as you all know, fell into the error of interfaith services. Calling for all Religion to be one. And saying that the middle course, Islam, what the Prophet has came with, is that which gather the People upon the foundation that they are all Human Beings. And not to differ between them and split them. This is the ipedimy of heresy and disbelief. Even tho this false statemant, which Halabee has falling into, you still find some or many or all who follow him from amongst those who left him and they defend him. This confirms for you all that has precedet. That the student of knowledge they has been warned from, and Halabee is not a Scholar, has to be stayed away from, so one want fall into this fitan.
Due to this, Shaykh an-Najmi rahimahullah, what did he say? He said: This Individuals from Shaam are defending the People of Innovation and the knowledge isnıt taking from the likes of this people. What he means is, that you wait and stop regarding this Individuals. That either they will return to the truth or you leave them. Do not attach the Religion or due not attach the Truth that you follow personalities.
Also because of this we have a statemant of Ibn Masud, this principle is with the same person that we are speaking of. He said: Whoever is following or taking someone as an example, let him follow those who have already died. From those who hasnıt been trialed and tribulations. Which are the Sahaba. Ibn Masud said: For verily you can be sure one who is living will go thru to any trials. This is a principle that was said by Ibn Masud and also Ibn Omar. So where are the Salafees in applying this statemant? Some of them are far from it. Some attach guidance to a particular person, if he is guided, they are guided. And if he goes astray, they go astray. This is an error. And by this you are sinning and responsible before Allah. For verily Allah made for truth people and signs just as He made for falsehood people and signs. And He commanded for you to follow the true path and forbade you to follow the path of falsehood.
And say, this is my straight path, so follow it,  and do not follow the other path, for verily it will seperately you from His path.
This is a counsel and an advice from Allah just as it is known.

Principle: Speaking ill of the People of Sunnah is speaking ill of the Sunnah itself

The second principle, it is something well known but it has repeated and reminded of. Because we find many of the Salafee youth do not applied or understand it and far unaware of it. So we want to remind.
And remind for verily reminders benefit the believers.     
The second principle is, speking ill of the people of sunnah is in reality speaking ill of the sunnah which they cary. And those who speak ill of the people of sunnah are misguided innovators. Whoever speaks ill of the people of sunnah intentionally is a misguided innovator. This principle is well known and established amongst us.
However it has some defincency in it application amomgst many of the youth.
How many of the youth hear those who spek ill of the Salafi Scholars, for the like of Shaykh Ahmed an-Najmee, or Shaykh Muhammed Amaan al-Jaamee or Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalee or Shaykh Rabee al-Madkhalee. They hear this attacks and they remain quite and do not say anything. Likewise these attacks may be in secret and not apparent and they remain quite and doesnıt do anything, rather he may also starts and mention these things, altough he knows of speaking ill of the Scholars of Sunnah is speaking ill of the Sunnah itself. And whoever speaks ill of the People of Sunnah intentionally they are misguided innovator.
Okay, when the Scholars mention that speaking ill of some of the People of Sunnah or those who carry the Sunnah and defend it, it is in reality an attack against the Sunnah itself, also its Innovation.  
Is this considered of being overzealos? The Answer is no. Because for example Shaykh Rabee al-Madkhalee, when we speak ill of those who speak ill of him, do we speak ill of those who speak ill of Shaykh Rabee, just due to the eyes of Shaykh Rabee or due to the lineage of Shaykh Rabee al-Madkhalee or due to a financial benefit? No! Its just that Shaykh Rabee al-Madkhalee, as it is known as a Person who is a carrier of the Sunnah and defends it and refuse the People of Innovation and stood as a thorn in their throat, may Allah reward him. This is what we deem him and we do not praise anyone above Allah. So what is incumbant upon us, is that we defend him and love him due to his defense and love for the Sunnah.The reason why those who speak against those who speak aganinst the likes of this Salafis is a aforementioned matter. Not just due being who he is. And you all know that Halabee, lets take an example. The Salafi youth use to magnified and respect him, however when he fall into misguidance and innovation and all of his dirt, the true Salafis left him and takes him to the side. Refuted him and clarified his misguidance. Okay when they left him, they had a position. And when they have to hate him, they had another position. What is the reason? Because we love for Allah and we hate for Allah.

Principle: Boycotting is due to loving and hating for the sake of Allah

And this is a principle in Boycotting.
Some people say al-wala wal-bara doesnıt have anything to do with boycotting. This statement is ingorance and misguidance. For verily the reason of boycotting the Innovator is loving and hating for the sake of Allah. So you hate him for Allah, just that we love the Salafis and Salafi Scholars for Allah. Not for just being them. So it is incumbant to pay attention to this.

Principle: Jarh wa-Tadeel is of diffenrent Types: Easygoing, in the Middle or Harsh

Let us give an example: From the attacks on Shaykh Rabee and other than him, from the Salafi Scholars, they attack him by saying: They are harsh or saying: They donıt comprehend and that they just criticize and that they are dictators. Or say: They are from the People of Harshness and they have harshness. So these type of attacks or attacking the People of Sunnah. So we you both know that they are some People in al-Madinah and elsewhere who also describe Shaykh Rabee, that he is harsh. Or that he is not rational or wise or balanced. And they describe other Scholars that they are rational or are wise and balanced. This Principle is true but that what is intended behind it is false. For verily the Scholars catagorised those who speak of al-Jarh wa-Tadeel into three catagories.

ı     Those who are easygoing.
ı     Those who are in the middle
ı     And those who are harsh.

What is the exact meaning of those who are in the middle?
It is that the reason for Jarh wa-Tadeel being an islamically legislated reason. And that it be with truth. And proof and evidences on that issue. And mentioning the reason why and that the Jarh wa-Tadeel are like be something that be consideredable.
As for those who are easygoing, it is that they deem those who are unknown or are criticized to be trustworthy or the likes of this. This is negligence and watering down the truth.
As for those who are harsh, it is that they criticise without a valid reason. This is harshness.

Benefit: Is Shaykh Rabeeı one who is harh when he did Jarh wa-Tadeel?

Now lets come and apply this principles amongst the well-known Salafi Scholars. And we have the most outstanding one in this regard. He is spoking ill of and attack and is intentionally spoking against, and that is Shaykh Rabee. This is known.
Halabee, Maribee, Aruur, al-Maghrawee, ar-Ruhaylee so and so they all go around wanting to attack and speak ill of Shaykh Rabee. They want to see his downfall. Falling in the Footsteps of the Group Ihyaa at-Turaath and other than them.
Lets come and look at Shaykh Rabee. And this is an answer to a question that come up. And it is: Is Shaykh Rabee as reffering as being harsh?
Lets look at Shaykh Rabee.

Firstly when Shaykh Rabee criticised someone, he critized them along with mentioning the reason. So you oh Maghrawee, and Maghribee and Aroor, Shaykh Rabee critized you with your own Speech and voice and Books. And he mentioned, you said this and you did this and your affair is this etc. So did he, Shaykh Rabee, come and say Maghribee is dispared and critizised and than we asked: Why Shaykh Rabee? Because I saw him and he scratched his Head! No. Rather he clarified to you the evidence. That Maghribee said that Ikhwan ul-Muslimiin and the misguided Groups are amongst Ahlu-Sunnah. And that the terminology Salafiyyah is something spacious. And he entered into democracy and many other misguided matters which is well-known. Also he described the Ulama of the Sunnah that they are case of tomatos and things like that. Even the Hizbees didnıt attributed this to Ahlu-Sunnah. And this is Maghribee in attributing this to Ahlu-Sunnah. Than Shaykh Rabee came with proofs and evidences and clarified. Therefore their Speech is based on proofs.

Secondly: What is the Position of the Salafi Scholars regarding the refutation of Shaykh Rabee?

The Answer is:  They have praised them and said that this man is a Mujahid and he doesnt criticized anyone except with explaining the reasons and he verified that which what said regarding that Individual and he doesnıt critizised except the truth has being become apparent to him and he advices before he disparagered  and refutes and he is also a Signpost in the Jarh wa-Tadeel just as Shaykh al-Albani described him.So this is the second thing.
Thirdly, is the Shaykh alone regarding those whom he disparaged and criticizes or do the Scholars agree with him?
Come to me with one Person whom the Shaykh has criticized and not one Person agree with him. You wonıt find that. Therefore the Shaykh is not alone in his criticizing. Rather those Scholars who have opposed the Shaykh, after some time you find them returning to the Shaykhs opinion. And the most apparent and well known example here is with Shaykh al-Albani. For indeed, some of those who Shaykh Rabee has criticized, he, meaning Shaykh Albani said regarding that, it is apparent that the Scholars of al-Madinah and those whom he met, meaning Shaykh Albani met, was Shaykh Rabee and Muhammed Ibn Hadee and Muhammed Amaan al-Jami and also who is included was Shaykh an-Najmee and Shaykh Zayd. Because they are were all the ones who are refuting the People of Faslehood. Shaykh al-Albani said, it is apparent that the Scholars of al-Madinah is upon the truth regarding those whom they have refuted. Altough he, meaning Shaykh Albani saw that in the beginning there was some harshness and here was al-Albani, it is said, the Primciple that we heard yesterday and it is, that if the Scholars of the Sunnah defend the People of Innovation the excuse is giving that he donıt know the actual state of falsehood and if they did know the actual state they would have clarified it. Therefore Shaykh al-Albani agree with Shaykh Rabee in those things that he clarified.

Fourthly: How many People has Shaykh Rabee actually criticized? 5, 10, 20? I donıt think it goes beyond 20. Look at the Scholars of the Salaf. They criticized 100ıs rather 1000ıs of People. So you come to Shaykh Rabee who hasnıt spoken against except a few Individuals over a period of time now, and we ask Allah to give the Shaykh a long life upon obediance and to bless him in that and to bestow upon him good health and well being and make him a thorn in the throat of the People of Innovation. The Shaykh has passed 80 years old. In 80 years the Shaykh hasnıt criticized except around 20 People and if you say 100, even if you say 100. Did he criticized a lot of People? No. He didnıt criticized a lot of People. Likeweise regarding those who the Shaykh was correct in critisizing, for verily we do not know that the Shaykh, may Allah preserve him, declared an Person an Innovator or refuted him and the Shaykh was in error in doing so. We donıt know this from the Shaykh. However if this happen, it is known from the Character from the Shaykh that he would apologise and return what he said. So if this happen, Shaykh Rabee is known for him returning to that what is correct, if he falls into error.
So that which is intended from this, is to be aware of this, be aware. Why do they say Shaykh Rabee is harsh? Up unto the point if he clafifies the condition and speaks against him, the one who is being criticize has fellow in saying this is being harsh. Or Shaykh so and so is a good Person. And Shaykh Rabee is Salafy but he has harshness, Brother you should fear Allah. The Shaykh is of middle course and is just. So one has to pay attention to this point.

Principle: Differentiating between the Scholars Refutation of Falsehood

The next Point or Principle, differentiating between the Scholars refutation of falsehood and turning by that refutation of that falsehood and between him, refuting him due to jealousy or because they were contamporaries or out of oppression. The origin is that if the Scholars refuted and clarifies with evidence in his refutation, that we accept his statement. That he refutes out of jealousy or oppression, theses are inner intentions that only Allah knows. So our Position if a Scholar refutes falsehood with a acknowledgeable refutation and the Scholars has accepted it, that is accepted from that which it appears to us.
One instand said that a particular refutation is done out of jealousy or because they are contemporaries or out of oppression. The Answer is, that the refutation done of oppression is that a person refutes without a reason and speaks about a person without a reason.  So no doubt this is oppression. For example a person speaks ill about a person and  warns from him, you ask why, they say, just because. Or  Iım not feeling him. You are not feeling him? Allah didnıt make things evil just based on your interlect. This is oppression. Fear Allah within yourself. Because when it comes to the Peoples Honour, if you donıt have proof and evidences that warent speaking about them, than their honour is poison. You canıt go near it. And you will responsible for that. So how about the honour of the Scholars. And what about the strong Student of knowledge. For example a person comes to us warning from Shaykh Abdullah al-Bukhari. Why you warning from him? Whats the reason? He doesnıt have a reason. This is oppression. Shaykh al-Bukhari is well-known, the Salafi Scholars whom he has sought knowledge with from are well known. The Praise of the Scholars for him are well known, his books and lectures and classes and his Dawah to the true Salafi Manhaj is clear, we donıt know that he has any opposition to the truth, so speaking ill of him is oppression and some people warned from Salafis like this. As for a person if he refuted due to jealousy and envy, this becomes clear when the refuter goes overboard in the reasons of criticism. In reality there is no criticism, however a person is just merely speaking. In this case the Scholars reject this type of criticism and say, it appears that you have something against this Person. Notice that they clarified that he fell into envy or oppression with proof. Some of the youth, when you say to them, Shaykh Rabee or Shaykh so and so warns from such a such Shaykh. They say to you, this is only envy without even hearing what was said and what the proofs are. And they didnıt hear the Shaykhıs words. This is an error.
First of all, if you are from the common folk, whats upon you is to return to the Major Scholars and if you are a Student of knowledge it is upon you to ask for the proof and not to reject from the beginning. Is that clear!
The Third is the situation which being contemporary, meaning they are close in age and knowledge. On top of this, the Scholars did not clarify his reasons for his refutation. He is just merely refuting. Here they say they are contemporaries. Look at there closeness in age and in knowledge, an addition that there is no proof along with the refutation. However that you come to me with the Shaykh an-Najmee who is in his 80ıs than you come with al-Halabee and Mashoor and the Jordanien Scholars and you appear that they are contemporaries? This statemant is false. He rejects the truth and doesnıt want it. Where did the contamopraries with these two? When we talk about contemporaries, this is between those who are close in age and in knowledge, is this clear?
If a Major Scholar refutes a small student wrongfully, what is this call? Is this call the refutation that occur between contantporaries? No. This is called oppression and the likes. But you donıt say, this is due between contamporaries. So pay attention to this.
Someone called me and said: Whats your opinion in regards to differing occuring between the Scholars of Jordan and the Scholars of the Kingdom?
I said to him: Brother you should fear Allah. The Scholars of Jordan arenıt describe as being Scholars. However they only being describe as being Students of knowledge. As for the Scholars of the Kingdom, the likes of Shaykh Rabeeı , Shaykh an-Najmee and Shaykh Zayd and other than them are described as being Scholars. Due to their age, knowledge and them being firmly grounded in it. As for you to come with Student of knowledge and say that they are Scholars and compare between them, this is oppression. Let alone that these Individuals come into Matters that oppose the Salafi Manhaj. Even if they were Major Scholars, they are not considered in front of these Scholars to be Scholars. So you have to be aware of this.

Principle: The Scholars are of different Levels

The next Principle is that the Scholars are of different Levels, Ranks and degrees.
What does this Principle mean? From the Scholars are those that are exclusively occupied with Fiqh and Hadeeth along with him still being Salafee. And from the Scholars are those who are exclusively occupied with refuting the People of Innovation and Desires. And from the Scholars are those who busy themselves with the arabic grammar and laws of inheritance and other things. So it is incumbant that you know the Scholars and their Levels.
What do we benefit from this? The Answer is, that which we benefit from this, is that you canıt come and oppose between the statemant of a Scholar who is specialiced in Jarh wa Tadeel and the refutation of the People of Innovation. You canıt come and reject the Scholar because the other Scholars remain quite. Saying: But Brother Shaykh Ibn Baz didnıt speak against him, Shaykh Fawzan didnıt speak against him, Shaykh Abdul Azeez Alu-Shaykh didnıt speak against so and so.
Brother all these Scholars are Salafees and no doubt about it and they are well-known. However these Scholars did not turn intention to this Fitnah and just because they are quite doesnıt mean there are in agreement.
Also we have a well-known Principle. You can not attribute something to someone who has not spoken.
And another Principle and it is that Fardu kifayah is something that if a people undertake that matter the sins falls of the rest of the people. So the Scholars who have refuted the People of Falsehood has suffice the other Scholars from doing so. And this is based on another Principle and the Salafee should remembered it.
Which is:
If one Scholar clarified the mistake of an Individual this is sufficent.
It is not a condition that two or three or all the Scholars refute. If that Refutation is in truth, this is sufficent, even if all the other Scholars remain quite. But you now say, but Brother such and such Scholar hasnıt said anything and so and so hasnıt said anything. This is just of your saying that there is a need a group of Scholars in order to refute someone. And this statement is false. And this is a Khalafi Manhaj not a Salafi Manhaj, so this is one scenario, that one specialised Scholar refutes and the rest remain quite.

The second scenario and that is specialised large Scholars refutes and criticizies. However another Scholar not specialised in criticism praises that person or they havenıt heard the refutation. Here these two are not opposed and contradicted. If this Scholars praised the cursed without knowing that the criticism of the other scholar, here there is no contradiction. Because the one who praised did it because of what he knows of praiseworthy matters. And the one who criticise did that because of what he knows of blameworthy matters. So donıt than come and say: Iım with such and such Shaykh who praise such and such and Iım not with such and such Shaykh, like Shaykh Rabeeı because this one praise him and this one criticise him, so Iım with the other Shaykh. No. It is incumbant that you know the Level of the Scholars because this one is specialied in that field and the other is known among the common folk who are not student of knowledge. So if a Doctor came who is specialised is Heart diggery and spoke about a particular cure and than another Doctor came who is a general practitioner and spoke curing the Heart thru another way. The common folk, even the common folk who did not have any knowledge or any Salafiyyah as far as knowing this Principles, what will they say? The speech of the Doctor who is specialised in that will be giving precedence. Matter of fact lets leave the common folk, this is the statement of the Scholars, they have a Principle which is, that one who is specialised in a particular field his statemant is returned to and taken especially when differing occurs.

The third scenario. That a Scholar criticizes and another praises and said: The statemant of the one who criticizes is not considered. He said: Yes, I know that so and so criticize him however this person is a person of sunnah. This is what it is known as ıat-Taıawwun beyna jarh wa tadeelı Confliction between Jarh and Tadeel and the second scenario includes this, however this is more specific. This is called ıat-taıawwun meyna jarh wa tadeelı Confliction between Jarh and Tadeel. What is the Manhaj of the Salaf concerning this? The Manhaj of the Salaf in this is that we look. If the criticism is a detailed criticism it is obligatory upon us that we take the statemant and obligatory that we returned to it and make it a judge in our affair. Also the Scholars who praised him made a mistake. He is not spoken ill of but he made ijtihad and was mistaken because of course this scholar did not praised him out of vain desires. There is some speech for example and Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbad came along and praised the Person and Shaykh an-Najmee and Shaykh Rabeeı criticised him and Shaykh al-Abbad said he is a Person of sunnah even if so and so criticise him. We look to the two statements, where is the true proofs? Were is the true statement and than we follow it. Than is Shaykh al-Abbad criticised? No. Shaykh al-Abbad is of knowledge, Salafee Scholar. It might be than said: OK, how was when Halabee praised Maghribee and Shaykh Rabee refuted him, Halabee was spoken against. There is a difference. One that Shaykh al-Abbad praises Maghrawee and so did Halabee. Shaykh al-Abbad one day praised him based on what become clear to him on his own ijtihad and than he is on truth and not upon desires. So the falsehood that al-Maghrawee had, did not become apparent to Shaykh al-Abbad. However Halabee knows that al-Maghrawee makes Takfeer and knows what al-Maghrawee holds. And he participate with al-Maghrawee and he said: Iım the most knowledgeable of  People concerning him. Therefore the proof has being established against him. And the truth has become complain clear to him. However he is persisting upon faslehood.
Because of that, this is based on another Principle. It is to differentiate between the one who false into falsehood by mistake and the one who false into falsehood intentionally. So the one who false into faslehood by mistake is not criticised, rather it is clarified to him and he is remained patiant upon but the one who false into falsehood intentionally and persist as it is made clear he is criticised without making any excuses for him. So here the criticism takes precedence. This is based on a principle with is incumbant to take note of along which with had preceded, and that is. It is not correct and not permissible in the Salafi Manhaj to make the difference of the Scholars in praising in criticism an excuse to follow falsehood for the one who has the truth become clear to and the application of that Principle is that we find some of the Salafee youth follow Maghribee and following those who praised him. You than come and say to him: Brother fear Allah, Maghribee was declared to be an Innovator by the Scholars. He than says: However Shaykh so and so said that he is a Person of Sunnah and Salafee. Than you say: Brother, Maghribee says such and such. Is this falsehood or not? He says: Thats falsehood. Than you says to him: Was the proofs established against him or not? But than you say to him: Was the Proofs established against Maghribee and the Scholars refuted him? Is this not correct? They will than say: Yes they refuted him. Than you say to him: It is upon you to leave him. He says: No. Iım following such and such Scholar who praised him, this is my excuse!
No. So long as you know the truth from falsehood, it is not permissible for you to make the differing of the Scholars as your proof and excuse for you to follow falsehood. For verily you are sinning if you follow falsehood while knowing. Is this principle clear know? And it is important and many times it is used by the Salafee youth. One come to them putting themselve forth, so they come to him and asked him: So and so declared so and so an Innovator. And so and so praised him. So the Person said: So long as you followed so and so, this is your excuse. You see how they whispers to them! However with the Salafee Mahnhaj no, did the truth become clear to you? Do you know who the truth was with? Did you search for the truth? Did you returned to the Scholars who are specialised in that area? Did the one who criticised to it with detail? Thats clear to that what is general.

Due to this from the priciple of the people of falsehood just as he mentioned confusing the people by making general statemants. This is from the principle of the people of falsehood. So you have to be aware of them. By making general and unrestricted statemants they path falsehood by it. So it is incumbant to you to pay attention to this principle and to be aware so that you not oppose the Salafee Manhaj that they are turning upon.
The Last issue is, giving importance to knowledge. Learning and returning to the scholars and that the beginner of stud

14-12-2010 @ 6:15 AM    Notify Admin about this post
unspecified ساجد (Mumbai (India))
Posts: 2031
Joined: Jul 2005
JazaakAllaah khayr akhee Ilyas for the transcription. This is a very beneficial and important lecture.

16-12-2010 @ 1:31 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Aminah Ilyas bin Friedhelm (Germany)
Posts: 103
Joined: Oct 2002
wa iyyakum. I did this because of the great benefit of what the Shaykh has clarified in this Lecture.

I am about to translate it into the German language, and put in on my Website online inshallah, because many of the youth here in Germany are confused in many issues regarding this important Principles that the Shaykh has mentioned.

TawhidFirst | Aqidah | AboveTheThrone | Asharis
Madkhalis | Takfiris | Maturidis | Dajjaal
Islam Against Extremism | Manhaj
Ibn Taymiyyah | Bidah
Learning the Arabic Language Can be Easy and Fun

main page | contact us
Copyright © 2001 - SalafiTalk.Net
Madinah Dates Gold Silver Investments