Joined: Oct 2002
Refutation of Usaamah al-Qoosee?s Position on Abul-Hasan by His Own Speech: The Issue of Arjahiyyah Taking Precedence in Reports |
|This is an illustration of the confusion that is with Usaamah al-Qoosee, and also aspects of deception that are under way by his followers and the followers of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, by not applying the principles that are contained in the answers of these students of knowledge, honestly and truthfully. This is most likely due to the fact that most of them do not understand these answers, and the aspect of correctness or incorrectness (in their theory and application) that are to be found within them.|
The translation of his speech is taken from the followers of al-Ma'ribee, therefore the onus of accuracy is upon them (there are numerous mistakes in the translation).
Usaamah al-Qoosee was asked:
|Question: What is the difference between accepting news from a thiqqah (reliable person) and taqleed (blind following)?|
So far, fine.
|...News from a Thiqqah: its basis is that it is accepted, But with conditions, from its conditions is that the news must not be shaadh , nor mualalal . The one bringing the news could be a thiqqah and his news still be rejected, because he is shaadh or mu?all [naasir.ud-deen's comment: it should be "because it is shaadh or mu'allal" because the pronoun refers to the khabar and not the narrator]. It is well known amongst the people of hadith that a shaadh hadith or news that is shaadh is a hadith / news reported by a person who contradicts a different person that is more acceptable than him. |
So understand what has been said so far. We are going to take these principles and apply to them to the situation of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee:
|It does not need to be someone more reliable than him; it can be enough that the one contradicting him is more acceptable (there is a difference between reliable- thiqah and more acceptable-Arjaah). This could be because the one who is more acceptable has more numbers (of men) agreeing with what he is saying. Or it could be because the one who is more acceptable is more aware of what is being said, for example he may be a member of the persons family, or a close companion.|
A thiqah person's khabar can be rejected because:
a) there others who are also thiqah, but they all oppose him in that narration
b) there is another person who is more arjah in that particular narration due to factors, such as (i) he is more aware of what is being said or (ii) he is a close companion or member of the family or (iii) the one more acceptable has more numbers of men agreeing with his particular narration.
In light of this, it does not follow that just because a person is more thiqah he can have his narrations accepted all the time, it is possible that he may be in error, and the narration of a person who might have a lower degree of tawtheeq might be more correct, due to certain factors, such as him being closer to the person in question, or being more aware of the realities that led to jarh or ta'deel etc, or having a large number of people agreeing with him.
Now al-Qoosee goes on to explain this:
Then later, after a few insults upon the Salafees, accusing them of being Muqallidah and not knowing how to say "Jaa'a Zaidun" he says:
|So a person from his family can give news about him and be more acceptable than one who is not a member of his family or does not know him well. This reliability is by virtue of the fact that he is a member of his family, and therefore knows him well. However the one whose news is rejected is still thiqah. |
Then another person comes bringing contradicting news about a person. This other person is more knowledgeable about his father / brother than the first one. So the news of the second is accepted over the news of the first even though he is thiqqah. The news from the first is considered shaadh. So the supporting evidence (of him being from his father/brothers family) is what makes the second person acceptable over the first. I know this is deep and some of you may not understand it easily. But regretfully, we are compelled to mention it.
So this is what we needed to extract from this speech of al-Qoosee. Hopefully, everyone has understood what he has explained. Now let us take him upon his own words and apply them to the situation of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee.
|So may Allah bless you, this issue of ?news from a thiqqah? has conditions with the people of knowledge, it is not chaos. The asl (or root) of the matter is that we accept the news from a thiqqah and believe in him and in what he informs, but with the conditions mentioned above. That is to say again, the news must not be Shaadh or Mualal. Again to repeat for emphasis, the news from the second one who is more acceptable than him is accepted and the news from the first thiqaah is rejected, not because he is weak, or to defame him, or rebuke him but rather because his news has become shaadh or muallal.|
1. Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad and Shaikh Saalih al-Fawzaan are thiqah no doubt. They hold a particular view on Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, as do certain other scholars. However, a condition of this is that their saying is not contradicted by those who are "arjahu" (more acceptable in this context), irrespective of whether they are more thiqah or less thiqah. In fact, those other Scholars are established to be thiqaat, something that no Mumayyi' will question.
2. The circumstances indicate that the six or so Mashaayikh of Yemen (who are thiqaat) are "arjahu" more acceptable in this particular matter, than those besides them. Likewise, Shaikh Rabee' is "arjahu" in this particular matter than those besides him. Likewise the Shaikhs of Madinah, Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Saalih as-Suhaymee, Shaikh Muhammad al-Madkhalee, are "arjahu" in this particular matter. So here, there are factors to establish the arjahiyyah of these thiqaat (and also a very large group from the people of knowledge). The arjahiyyah is based upon the fact that they have first-hand, direct, one-to-one interaction, and historical experience, with Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, and that they are most aware of the background and details of al-Ma'ribee's deviation, from its beginnings many years ago, till recent times in which he launched his assault fully and openly.
3. This means that even though those scholars like Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin and Shaikh Saalih al-Fawzaan are no doubt thiqaat, then there is an arjahiyyah that exists, which is that those who contradict them are more knowledgeable of this particular matter than them. There is a difference between (i) being more knowledgeable in a particular matter, and between (ii) being more knowledgeable in all matters of the deen. The followers of al-Ma'ribee, in their deception, keep coming with slogans, like "Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin is more knowledgeable", meaning this in a general sense, divorced from the issue of al-Ma'ribee, in order to brush aside and hide the fact, that in reference to this specific matter of al-Ma'ribee he does not have greater knowledge of the reality of al-Ma'ribee, compared to those who have more direct interaction with al-Ma'ribee.
4. All of this shows that according to al-Qoosee, and his principles, if he was to remain true to them, there is a definite arjahiyyah established for the very large number of people of knowledge who have convicted al-Ma'ribee with misguidance. And that their news takes precedence over other thiqaat from the people of knowledge.
5. However, the intent behind al-Qoosee's speech is to apply this the other way around. In other words to say that those who convicted al-Ma'ribee are thiqaat (in fact he calls them "followers of dhul-khuwaisarah at-tameemee", to be honest and just to him), but others contradict them and they are more arjah. This is the purpose behind his answer, to present this particular application in the minds of his audience.
6. But in order for this to be sustainable, proof has to be given of this arjahiyyah. And this proof has to be presented, as clear as daylight. The following does not constitute proof "Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin is more knowledgeable", "Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin is the most knowledgeable Scholar alive today", "Shaikh Saalih al-Fawzaan is a Major Scholar" and so on. If the followers of al-Ma'ribee bring this as a proof for the arjahiyyah, even they know that they are being deceptive and dishonest, and that this is not the actual proof of the arjahiyyah, but just the mere claim of arjahiyyah (being more acceptable in this particular matter).
Likewise, the following does not constitute arjahiyyah "Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin rejected the jarh". This does not prove that there is an arjahiyyah that necessitates taking the speech of Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin against that of others. All it says is that he rejected the jarh. This in itself is not proof of the arjahiyyah of his saying in this particular matter. This has to be proven by other external fa ctors.
Then if they say that "Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin is more aware of the reasons for jarh", then again, this in itself is not what constitutes proof of the arjahiyyah, this is just the claim itself. The actual proof of this claim needs to be brought and this is what would then prove the arjahiyyah.
The proof is external to the claim itself.
However, it is clear that this claim is not true. This is because Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin (and also Shaikh Saalih al-Fawzaan) refuted Adnaan Ar'oor on his false principles, included amongst them the principle of "We correct but do not disparage". Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee also says this, and perhaps they are unaware of it. Shaikh Rabee' refuted and exposed him for this. Also Shaikh Saalih al-Fawzaan refuted Adnaan Ar'oors defence of Sayyid Qutb, something that Abul-Hasan al-M'aribee also was upon. Shaikh Rabee' refuted him for that as well, as did many other scholars, including those of Yemen and Madinah. Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee includes the Jamaa'at of Hizbiyyah into the Firqat un-Naajiyah, and Ahl us-Sunnah, the same thing that Salman al-Awdah and others are upon. And there are many other matters. The reality is that Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin and Shaikh Salih al-Fawzan and others are actually less aware of reasons and background for the jarh, and there is great evidence to substantiate this. I mean tangible evidence, not just mere claims and slogans that are made by the followers of al-Ma'ribee, which actually lack evidence.
And from the proofs that the arjahiyyah is with the other scholars who convicted al-Ma'ribee is the following account by Shaikh Ahmad bin Sufayl of a discussion he had in an open gathering with Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin about 3 months ago (it can be found in Part 1 of the Shaikhs account which is downloadable from Sahab):
وقد حصل شيء من ذلك عندما جلست مع بعض الأفاضل من العلماء الكبار وهو الشيخ عبدالمحسن العباد حفظه الله تعالى ورعاه وعافاه من كل سوء ومكروه، فبدأت أعرض عليه بعض ما يدور في اليمن من فتنة أبي الحسن فاستغرب بعض الأمور وأنكرها وقال: ما سمعت غيرك يقولها، والأشياء التي عند أبي الحسن قد تراجع عنها، وعندي رسالة منه أنه متراجع، وأخبرني في رسالته أن الذي أثار الفتنة عليه الشيخ ربيع، فقلت: يا شيخ أحسن الله إليك ليس الأمر كذلك، رأس الفتنة أبو الحسن في اليمن، بحزبيته التي فرق الدعوة السلفية بها،وقد سجلت شريطًا عنوانه «رأس الفتنة باليمن دار البر وأبو الحسن» فكرر الشيخ هذه الكلمة: أن ما سمعت غيرك يقول هذا، وأبو الحسن قد تراجع فكيف لا تقبلون تراجعه؟ فقلت: يا شيخ أحسن الله إليك
أبو الحسن جرب مرارًا وتكرارًا أنه يظهر الخير بلسانه ويضمر الشر بقلبه، ونحن نحكم على ما يظهر من أقواله وأفعاله في أشرطته ورسائله، أحيانًا يقول قولاً وتكذبه أفعاله، وأحيانًا يتراجع عن أمر من الأمور فيكون كاذبًا، وأكبر شاهد تراجعه عن دار البر أمام الملأ العظيم من الناس في اجتماع أُعلن لأهل السنة بمسجد الخير بصنعاء، وأعلن تراجعه أمام الألوف من الناس، ووعد بتسكيرها وسحب مكتبها من الوزارة، والشريط موجود بصوته، وأصبح كاذبًا في ذلك كله، وتراجع عن أشياء أمام مشايخ من علماء المدينة، وأصبح كاذبًا، وبعد ذلك كذبوه وبدعوه وحذروا منه، وقد فصل ذلك الشيخ عبدالله البخاري تفصيلاً جيدًا في ردوده عن أبي الحسن، فجزاه الله خير الجزاء على صدعه بالحق، ثم قلت للشيخ: أما قول أبي الحسن لك: أن الذي أثار الفتنة عليه الشيخ ربيع، هذه من كذبات أبي الحسن التي تبلغ الآفاق، الشيخ ربيع ما تدخل في هذه الفتنة إلا بعد مرور سنة تقريبًا، ونحن في أخذ ورد في اليمن في فتنة أبي الحسن، الذي فرق بها الدعوة السلفية حقًا، وفعلاً قمنا عليه، وقلنا: إما أن تتراجع عن هذه الحزبية أو نبذناك مع حزبيتك، فتراجع عنها ولكن لم يصدق في تراجعه.
ثم قلت للشيخ عبدالمحسن حفظه الله تعالى: قد سألوني يا شيخ في اليمن في أكثر من محاضرة ومحاضرة عن قولك: أن هذه الأمور ما تؤدي إلى هجر وإنما شيء في النفوس؟ وكان جوابي: الشيخ عبدالمحسن حفظه الله تعالى معذورًا لأنه ما ظهر على حقيقة ما عند أبي الحسن، وأحيانًا يكون جوابي: صدق الشيخ عبدالمحسن أعني لو أنَّ ما عند أبي الحسن إلا هذه الأمور التي رُفعت للشيخ وأجاب عليها وهي: خبر الآحاد والمجمل والمفصل، أنها لا تؤدي إلى هجر، ولكن أقسم بالله العظيم أن أبا الحسن انحرف عن الصراط المستقيم، ودعا إلى بدعة فرق الناس بها في اليمن، وقال لي الشيخ: اتق الله، اتق الله، ودع عنك هذه الفتنة. فقلت له: نصيحتك مقبولة، ولكن أقول: فستذكرون ما أقول لكم اليوم أو غدًا أو بعد غدًا. وهو يكرر: اتق الله. وأنا أقول أكرر هذه الجملة: فستذكرون ما أقول لكم. انتهى كلامي مع الشيخ عبدالمحسن.
فأقول: الشيخ عبدالمحسن شيخ فاضل، ومقصده حسن، وشيخ مشهور بالعلم والزهد والورع نحسبه كذلك والله حسيبنا وحسيبه ولا نزكي أنفسنا على الله، لكن عندما سمع من أحد الطرفين ولم يسمع من الطرف الثاني قال ما قال على ضوء ما سمع من أبي الحسن ولم يسمع من خصوم أبي الحسن، وكنت أقول ولا أزال أقول: إن الشيخ عبدالمحسن حفظه الله تعالى وهذا ظني به، أنه لو عرف ما عرف إخوانه وزملائه وطلابه من علماء المدينة وهو الشيخ عبيد الجابري والشيخ السحيمي والشيخ محمد بن هادي والشيخ فالح الحربي والشيخ الرحيلي والشيخ عبدالله البخاري وغيرهم من دعاة وطلاب علم في المدينة لا أستحضر أسماءهم.
وكذلك علماء جيزان كالشيخ النجمي والشيخ زيد المدخلي وغيرهما، وكذلك علماء ودعاة وطلاب علم في الرياض والخرج، قد سبق ذكر أسماء بعضهم في هذه الرسالة.
كنت أقول: إذا عرف الشيخ عبدالمحسن حفظه الله تعالى ما عرف هؤلاء لقال بقولهم، ولا يتردد إطلاقًا، لأنه عالم مشهور بالعلم والعقيدة السليمة والنهج القويم، والزهد والورع نحسبه كذلك والله حسيبه،
This translates as:
|And something of that occurred when I sat with one of the nobles from the major scholars, and that is Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad, may Allaah, the Most High, protect him, and watch over him and keep him away from every evil and dislikeable thing. I began to present to him some of what was occurring in Yemen of the fitnah of Abul-Hasan, and he was surprised about some of the matters, and he rejected them, and he said, "I have not heard anyone besides you say this, and the matters that are with Abul-Hasan, he has recanted from them, and I have a letter from him (saying) that he has recanted, and he informed me in the letter that the one who kindled the tribulation against him was Shaikh Rabee". So I said to him, O Shaikh, may Allaah be benevolent to you, the matter is not like taht, the head of fitnah is Abul-Hasan in Yemen, with his hizbiyyah by which he has split the Salafee Da'wah, and I have recorded a cassette "The head of fitnah in Yemen is Dar ul-Birr and Abul-Hasan". |
So the Shaikh kept repeating this matter, "I have not heard anyone besides you saying this, and Abul-Hasan has recanted so how can you not accept his recantation", so I said, "O Shaikh, may Allaah be benevolent to you, Abul Hasan, it has been experienced many times, over and over, that Abul-Hasan manifests goodness with his tongue, but he conceals evil within his heart, and we judge based upon what is apparent from his speech and action, and in his cassettes and booklets. Sometimes he says a saying and his actions declare it to be a lie, and sometimes he recants from a matter amongst the matters, and he turns out to be a liar, and the greatest evidence is his recantation from Dar ul-Birr, in front of a great gathering of people, in a gathering, he announced to Ahl us-Sunnah in Masjid ul-Khayr in San'aa, and he announced his recantation in front of thousands of people, and he promised to put an end to it, and to withdraw its library from the ministry, and the cassette is present with his voice. And then he turned out to be a liar in all of that. He also recanted from certain matters in front of the Mashaayikh of the scholars of Madinah, and he turned out a liar in that, and after this, they declare him a liare, and made tabdee' of him, and warned from him, and this has been explained in detail by Shaikh Abdulllaah al-Bukhaaree, in great detail in his refutations upon Abul-Hasan, so may Allaah reward him for his stance for the truth". Then I said to the Shaikh, "As for the saying of Abul-Hasan to you that Shaikh Rabee is that one who stirred the fitnah upon him, this is from the lies of Abul-Hasan which have reached the horizons, Shaikh Rabee' did not even enter into this fitnah except after the passing of a year roughly, and we were still dealing with the fitnah of Abul-Hasan in Yemen, the one by which he split the da'wah salafiyyah in truth, and practically we stood against him and said, "Either you repent from this hizbiyyah, or we will shun you along with your hizbiyyah", so he recanted from it, but he was not truthful in his recantation."
Then I said to the Shayk Abdul-Muhsin, may Allaah the Most High protect him, "In Yemen O Shaikh, they have asked me in more than one lecture, regarding your saying that these matters should not lead to boycotting, and that it is only something in the souls. My answer was that Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad may Allaah the Most High protect him, is excused, because the reality of what is with Abul-Hasan has not appeared to him, and other times I would say, "Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin has spoken the truth, meaning that if the only matters with Abul-Hasan were those that have been raised to the Shaikh (Abdul-Muhsin) which are Khabar ul-Aahaad and Mujmal and Mufassal, that they should not lead to boycotting". However, I swear by Allaah, the Mighty, that Abul-Hasan has deviated from the Straight Path, and has called to bid'ah and has split the people by it in Yemen. And Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin said to me "Fear Allaah, fear Allaah and leave this fitnah", so I said to him, "Your advice is accepted, but I say, you will soon recall what I asy to you today, or tomorrow, or maybe after tomorrow", and he was repeating, "Fear Allaah", and I was repeating this sentence, "You will soon remember what I say to you". End of my speech with Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin. So I say that Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin is an esteemed Shaikh, his intend is good, and he is a Shaikh known with knowledge, zuhd, awe, and we consider him like that and Allaah is our Reckoner and his Reckoner and we do not purify ourselves over (what) Allaah knows of us. However, when he has heard from one side, and has not heard from the second side, he said what he said based uopn what he heard from Abul-Hasan, and did not hear from the disputants to Abul-Hasan.
And I used to say and continue to say, "Verily Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin may Allaah the Most High protect him, and this is my opinion of him, is that if he knew what his brothers, and associates and his students, from the scholars of Madinah knew, such as Shaikh Ubaid al-Jaabiree, and Shaikh Saalih as-Suhaimee, and Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee, and Shaikh Faalih al-Harbee, and Shaikh ar-Ruhaylee, and Shaikh Abdullaah al-Bukhaaree andothers from the du'aat and students of knowledge in Madinah, I do not recall their names, and likewise, the Scholars of Jeezaan like Shaikh an-Najmee, and Shaikh Zaid al-Madkhalee, and other than them both, and likewise, the Scholars and students of knowledge in Riyaadh and al-Kharaj, and some of their names have already been mentioned in this risaalah, I say, that if Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin may Allaah the Most High protect him, knew what they knew, he would have spoken with their saying, and he would not hesitate absolutely, because he is Scholar known for knowledge and sound aqeedah and a straight methodology, and zuhd and wara', we consider him like that and Allaah is his Reckoner, and we do not purify ourselves.
The above clearly and without any doubt, proves the arjahiyyah is with the Shaikhs of Yemen, Madinah, Jeezaan and Shaikh Rabee. Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin stated "I have not heard anyone else say this..." indicating he is not aware of what was taking place in Yemen, and when one thiqah negates a matter and seven or eight others affirm it, and the arjahiyyah is with them (in this case the Shaikhs of Yemen who witnessed first hand), then the negation of that one thiqah is not accepted. And the saying of the many thiqaat who affirmed it, is accepted.
7. So all of this indicates that the arjahiyyah (the factor of being more acceptable) is actually with the Shaikhs of Yemen, Madinah, Jeezaan and others, all of whom are thiqaat, and who reach a very large number. And this arjahiyyah is proven with clear explicit evidence. It would not be feasible for the Mumayyi'oon to reject this.
8. In conclusion, the saying of Usaamah al-Qoosee in his answer to the question put to him, is a proof against his position on al-Ma'ribee and a proof against the Mumayyi'oon in general. This is because all the evidence points to the arjahiyyah of the information and position of all of the thiqaat scholars who warned from Abul-Hasan and described him with innovation and misguidance. This is based upon the principle al-Qoosee himself outlined. And perhaps this is too complicated for the Mumayyi'oon to understand, but it is a truth.
However, as Shaikh Rabee' said, "However, I ask Allaah that he does not prolong their affair until they show arrogance and stubbornness, and being occupied in falsehood. Returning to the truth is better than wallowing in falsehood, and a believer is one who always returns to Allaah"
It is feared that for most of these people, continuing to oppose the obvious truth and following desires, has blinded them from recognising the truth.
This message was edited by naasir.ud-deen on 8-21-03 @ 3:37 PM