| Posted By |
Topic: How Do we Understand the Actions of some of the Salaf in Advising the Ruler Publicly?
|
|
 sajid_chauhan_81
|
|
|
|
unspecified ساجد
(Mumbai (India))
|
|
Member
Posts: 2031
Joined: Jul 2005
|
Question:
Noble Shaykh, how do we reconcile between the statement of the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), "Whosoever desires to advise the ruler, then let him not do so publicly," to the end of the hadeeth, and between the action of some of the Scholars of the Salaf in opposing the rulers publicly, such as Sa'eed Ibn Jubayr (d.95H), al-'Izz Ibn 'Abdus-Salaam (d.660H) and other than them. And may Allaah reward you with goodness.
Reply by Allamah Zaid al-Madhkhalee and translated by Brother Maaz Qureshi at http://www.fatwaislam.com/fis/index.cfm?scn=fd&ID=598
Also plz. read the important clarification regarding the Reality of Al-'Izz Ibn 'Abdis-Salaam As-Sulamee at http://www.bakkah.net/articles/izz.htm
BarakAllaahu feekum
|
|
| sajid_chauhan_81
|
|
|
|
unspecified ساجد
(Mumbai (India))
|
|
Member
Posts: 2031
Joined: Jul 2005
|
Q. Some people are very relaxed with regard to revolt against the rulers. They use as a proof that which occurred at the time of al-Hajjaaj and those who rebelled against him, at the head of them Saeed bin Jubayr (may Allaah have mercy upon him). So what is the response to this point?
A. This speech is totally baseless and rubbish. The Muslims have never ceased to cling to hearing and obeying (the rulers), even if some differences occurred in some periods of time. However the majority of the Muslims have stuck to hearing and obeying. And if there occurred from some of them differences or errors, then they would reject it. And Saeed bin Jubayr (may Allaah have mercy upon him) was from imaams of the Taabi'een and he was unjustly killed, and even if he did rebel then this is something that is not agreed with.(Reply by Allamah Salih al-Fawzaan found [url=http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=3678]here[/url])
Also plz. refer the section entitled [url=http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/reports/between-shaykul-islaam-ibn-taymiyyah-and-contemporary-leninist-takfiris-on-the-issue-of-rebellion-against-tyranny-and-injustice-03.cfm]'There Was Not in Any Revolt Any Rectification or Benefit For the Religion'[/url] in the excellent report [url=http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/reports/between-shaykul-islaam-ibn-taymiyyah-and-contemporary-leninist-takfiris-on-the-issue-of-rebellion-against-tyranny-and-injustice.cfm]Between Shaykul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and Contemporary Takfiris On The Issue of Rebellion Against Tyranny and Injustice[/url].
Finally plz. refer the thread [url=http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=7956]The Methodology of Advising the Muslim Rulers[/url].
|
|
| sajid_chauhan_81
|
|
|
|
unspecified ساجد
(Mumbai (India))
|
|
Member
Posts: 2031
Joined: Jul 2005
|
Those who attempt to justify the actions of the opposers of the Sunnah of today with the excuse that they have a precedence from a tiny minority of the people of knowledge from the Salaf should ponder on the following points:-- The truth is one as Imaam Maalik stated with regards to the Sahaabah, radhi Allaahu 'anhum: "There is not in the differing of the Sahaabah an allowance/excuse (for others). Indeed there is only that which is wrong or right" (Jaami' Bayaanil-'Ilm wal-Fadlihi). And we have been ordered with that which is right and correct. And this is in agreement with the statement of Ibn Abbaas, radhi Allaahu 'anhu, who said: "I say: 'The Messenger said' and you say: '[But] Abu Bakr and Umar said'!"
- Differring of the scholars is not a proof.Al-Khattaabee said, "And Ikhtilaaf (in a matter) is not a proof, rather the explanation of the Sunnah is a proof against the opposers, whether they be from the first (Muslims) or the later ones." (A'laam al-Hadeeth 3/2093). And al-Haafidh Abu Umar Ibn Abdul-Barr said, "Ikhtilaaf is not a proof in the view of anyone that I know from the Fuquhaa of this Ummah, except the one who has no vision, and who has no knowledge, and who has no proof in his saying." (Jaami' Bayaan ul-Ilm 2/229)
- Aboo Ishaaq Ibraaheem ibn Muhammad Al-Isfiraayeenee, the mujtahid imaam, the Shaafi'ee 'Allaamah, of the 4th-5th century, said: القول بأن كل مجتهد مصيب أوله سفسطة وآخره زندقة
"The saying that every mujtahid is correct, it is sophistry (denial of reality) from its beginning, and zandaqah (hypocrisy/disbelief) to its end." [Siyaru A'laam An-Nubalaa', Risaalah, 11th printing, 1417]
As for the sophistry of the statement, then it is denying that the Truth is one, not many.
As for its zandaqah, then it is the fact that this statement is used to destroy the principles of the Religion so much so that a person can do whatever he likes with no limit, since he can always search for a mujtahid who made an error in favor of his desires. Thus, he ends up with no Deen in the end, a zindeeq.
Compiled from the posts of Brothers Abu Khadeejah and Moosaa Richardson found here and footnote no. 4 found [url=http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/reports/between-shaykul-islaam-ibn-taymiyyah-and-contemporary-leninist-takfiris-on-the-issue-of-rebellion-against-tyranny-and-injustice-02.cfm]here[/url].
|
|
|
28-07-2008 @ 8:23 PM
24-12-2009 @ 6:14 AM
22-02-2010 @ 3:28 AM