why turn away those who seek knowledge/understanding

[Bint Nail]

Bismillah, wassalaatu wassalaamu 'ala rasulillah

Assalaamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh,

Insha'allah this post comes across attentive ears and open hearts.

I was at first hesitant with this concern, but then I thought what does it hurt to ask.

Some time ago I (and another brother) have asked a question about "al-muwaazanah", and brother haitham stated it was permissible to discuss it as long as no names are mentioned.

Although I feel that I should not clarify why I asked such a question, still, speaking for myself, and Allah is Sufficient as my Witness, I merely sought the truth with its' evidences in light of that issue, as it is very much a part of our deen and something we should know about.
If it is asked how it is going to benefit me even if I knew the truth about it, then I say it will benefit me because it will remove doubt and ignorance from my heart-insha'allah ta 'ala. And truth in matters of deen always benefits.
So I would like to give advice to myself first and then to others, when someone comes to us seeking knowledge, if we have knowledge of it we should share it, and if we don't know then we simply don't know.Because if we do not share our knowledge simply because we feel bothered by the question then how will the ignorant one ever know?

Anything good I said here is only from Allah, and anything wrong and evil is only from myself and shaytan.

Barakallaahu feekum

[ibn abi 'Abdirrahman]

wa'alaykumussalam warahmatullah wabarakaatuh

Maybe it was to avoid greater harm ;dissension, discord, endless arguments.

It is common among scholars to refrain from commenting on issues out of taqwa, etc.

[Bint Nail]

Bismillah

assalaamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh,

Na'am I am sure that is the reason-to avoid discord and arguments with no end. Yet I tried to ask the question in a way that shows that I am only seeking to understand and not to debate. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly, but yes, with any of my posts, past, present or future insha'allah, I am seeking to know and understand and not to debate, I do not even have the knowledge to do so.
So insha'allah I can try to benefit from this forum in the way of reading others' posts, may Allah reward everyone on this forum for their efforts.

[AbuAliTheRoman]

Maybe you could private message him and ask him sister.

[Haitham Hamdan]

Waalykum Assalam warahmatullahi wabarakaatuh.

Jazakaumullahu khairan.

Please don’t take decisions by the moderators personally.
The topic of Muwazanah will only result in useless debate. It has been like this for the past two decades. In the Multaqa, we would like to present useful topics only.
A student of knowledge is to occupy him/herself with beneficial knowledge.
Wallahu A’lam.

[salafee_4400]

assalamalaikum wa rahmatullaah

Hudayfah RadyAllaahu anhu said, the people used to ask about the good whereas i would ask about the evil for fear i may fall into it

if we dont know the evil, how can we avoid it?

if we dont know the evil, how do we forbid others from it?

secondly, concerning Muwazanah, this is an old issue which has been dealt with by the ulema - there are statements from the likes of shaykh abdul azeez ibne baaz, shaykh al albanee, shaykh uthaymeen, shaykh al fawzan, shaykh abdul muhsin, shaykh rabee and other than them who all state, that muwazanah is not to be made in refuting as this was not the way of the salaf.

what is there after the truth except falsehood?

[Bint Nail]

Bismillah, wassalaatu wassalaamu 'ala rasulillah,

Assalaamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh,

To everyone who replied, barakallaahu feekum. Please note that in my post I did not take things personally, nor did I direct my post to a particular individual, may Allah have Mercy on me and you. The post of muawaazanah was only an example, but there are a few other posts I made that had nothing to do with this and there was a similar result, wallahu musta'an.
If you notice I gave advice not to turn the ignorant away. Many other issues are being discussed in this mutlaqa in quite a detail, and it is to help one another and recommend one another with the truth. And in my situation I do not feel that having knowledge of this will not benefit me, it is actually quite the opposite. YET at the same time I do understand your reasons for staying away from this particular issue, jazakumullaahu khayr.

[ibn abi 'Abdirrahman]

wa'alaykumussalam warahmatullah

just a bit of comment

whether it is from the way of the salaf or not, that we have to refer back to the book of Jarh and Ta'diil written during the time of the Salaf.

Why is the science called Jarh and Ta'deel in the first place and not Jarh and Tajreeh

I think it always best to listen to the arguments from both sides and keep an open mind. Listen to how Syaikh Al Albaani commented on Hasan Al Banna.

قَالَ لِى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- « إِذَا تَقَاضَى إِلَيْكَ رَجُلاَنِ فَلاَ تَقْضِ لِلأَوَّلِ حَتَّى تَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ الآخَرِ فَسَوْفَ تَدْرِى كَيْفَ تَقْضِى »

[salafee_4400]

Assalam alaykum

akhee ibn abu abdur rahman, could you please explain what you meant by your statement:

"I think it always best to listen to the arguments from both sides and keep an open mind"

this statement is open to misinterpretation. if you could explain

barakallahfeek

[Bint Nail]

Wa 'alaykumussalaam wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh,

Akhi that is exactly what I am trying to do (keep an open mind), yet I need to know the daleel of both sides. On the other hand, especially in issues that cause differing, we must return to the original state of affairs, and that is what was the aqeedah and manhaj on the salaf on a particular issue. So it is very much an issue of how the salaf dealt with it.Rulings are not made based on rare exceptions, such as that a certain scholar said something good about a particular individual. As for mentioning names then I must refrain since our brother Haitham did not allow that.

[salafee_4400]

As for mentioning names then I must refrain since our brother Haitham did not allow that.

Assalamalaykum wa rahmatullaah

i dont understand why people are so adament that no names be mentioned here. if people are calling to innovation, then it is an obligation we warn against them. upon this there is clear ijmaa.

Here is a nice fatwa from the Noble Shaykh Abdul Azeez ibn Baaz rahimahullaah:

Question:

Is it permissible to mention peoples’ names and characters when one wants to criticize them and their thinking?
Answer:

If someone write something that contradicts the pure Shari’ah. and distributes that material, or if he promulgates that view in the media, it becomes compulsory to refute him and expose the falsehood of what he says. There is nothing wrong in mentioning that person’s name or in warning people about him if he calls to innovation, Shirk, or if he calls people to what Allaah has prohibited or to disobedience. Until this day, there are knowledgeable and believing people from the callers to the truth and bearers of the Shari’ah fulfilling this obligation, sincerely for Allaah Almighty and for the benefit of His servants, rebuking the wrong, inviting to the truth, warning others against those who propagate falsehood and destructive rhetoric.

Shaykh `Abdul-`Azeez Bin Baz
Fatawa Islamiyah vol.8, p.53, DARUSSALAM

It is very clear to those aquainted with the issue of al muwazanah, that this is a contemporary innovation and we all know who started this vile innovation. so why shouldnt we expose the affair of this person so others will be cautious of this individual(s)? after all, isnt this naseeha to the Muslims that the Messenger of Allaah salallahu alaihi wa sallam told us about

Brothers and sisters, look at the example of al-Imaam al-Qurtubee rahimahullaah and how he would deal with the people of innovation.

Abu Abdullaah Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Mufarraj said, “Abu Ja’far Ahmad bin Awn illaah (d. 378H) would show rejection against the People and Innovation and call them to account, showing extreme harshness against them, utterly humiliating them, always seek to pick out their faults, rushing to damage them, vehemently oppressive against them, chasing them away whenever he was able to, not allowing them to remain. And every one of them (Ahl ul-Bid’ah) used to be frightened of him, and would seek to hide and protect himself from him. He would never compromise with a single one of them, and nor would he allow any of them to remain safe. And if he came across evil and witnessed any deviation from the Sunnah, he would oppose it and would disgrace and humiliate (its perpetrator), and he would announce the affair of this person and declare his own disownment of him by mentioning the evil of such a one in the various public gatherings, and he would incite others against him such that he either destroyed him or caused him to abandon his evil and repugnant madhhab and his evil doctrine. And he would never cease to remain upon this habit, making Jihaad therein, seeking the Face of Allaah, up until he met Allaah.” (Taareekh Dimashq 5/118). And he is the Muhaddith, Imaam, Ahmad bin Awn illaah bin Hudair Abu Ja’far al-Andalusee al-Qurtubee (d. 378H).

if only we had more people like him today - rahimahullaah

[Um Abdullah M.]

Unless the individual is deemed an innovator by the vast majority of scholars of Salafiyyah or there is an ijma' on it, then we are to refrain from attacking the person himself (not the mistake he made), and leave it to the scholars.

you can discuss the issue in which one errored in, but not the individual himself.

[ibn abi 'Abdirrahman]

Many a times individuals attacked by the SuperSalafis have never been involved in any form of bid'ah but when they don't have tazkiyyah from the SuperSalafis they are considered an innovator and tajriih will be made against them. Whenever someone comes up with an opinion contradicting that of the Supersalafis he will quickly be attacked even when the issue is strictly a Fiqhi one.

2. Listen to the tapes of Syaikh Al ALbaani. He praised Hasan Al Banna before refuting him. Is this not muwaazanah ?

3. Let's go back to the Qur'aan and Sunnah without blind following of what is only an ijtihaad.

[Bint Nail]

Many a times individuals attacked by the SuperSalafis have never been involved in any form of bid'ah but when they don't have tazkiyyah from the SuperSalafis they are considered an innovator and tajriih will be made against them. Whenever someone comes up with an opinion contradicting that of the Supersalafis he will quickly be attacked even when the issue is strictly a Fiqhi one.

2. Listen to the tapes of Syaikh Al ALbaani. He praised Hasan Al Banna before refuting him. Is this not muwaazanah ?

3. Let's go back to the Qur'aan and Sunnah without blind following of what is only an ijtihaad.

Bismillah wassalaatu wassalaamu 'ala rasulillah

noble brother,

This nickname is used a lot here, namely "supersalafis" and noone has yet clarified what that means. It is clear such a thing does not exist, either you are salafi or not. And akhi I am not concerned with what people do, I am concerned with what is the correct way, that is why I am asking questions instead of giving my opinions.
Secondly, you are bringing up the rare situation once again of shaykh al Albanee rahimahullah in terms of Hasan Al Banna,so in turn I could bring up times when shaykh Al Albanee talked about someone and he did not say anything good about them. So what do I possibly learn from this akhi? You yourself say let us go back to Qur'an and Sunnah without blind following of what is only an ijtihaad. Akhi how is it that I am blind following when nothing in my posts indicates that? Is it not a fact that all this time I have been asking a sincere question trying to get to the truth and get rid of doubts? Even if I hold a certain opinion, then akhi if the truth is with you just present it to me so that I may be guided. But to assume about a questioner merely because of a question is not ok. So let us not assume things of one another akhi.And just because I ask a question on this issue it certainly does not throw me into the group of people you are talking about simply because they busy themselves with it to much, may Allah bless you akhi. I am not saying this or that is right, I am saying what are the evidences from the Book and the Sunnah according to the understanding of the salaf. Not according to a particular shaykh, whether it be shaykh Rabee, shaykh al Albanee, may Allah have Mercy on them, rather what was the Sunnah of the majority of the salaf on this issue and how did they derive those rulings. So I am not in need of opinions but I am in need of daleel, and if it cannot be provided than that is fine, but my intention was not to discuss something if it does not bring results and clarify things for us. I am open to the truth whatever it may be yet all I have seen and read is that the salaf were in fact stern with the innovators and no muwazanah was made obligatory in their statements.

Also, I would like to ask my noble sister Umm Abdullah, may Allah bless you, can you give me the daleel for the statement that an innovator is to be refuted only if there is 'ijmaa from the vast majority of the scholars. A lot of times there is only one or two scholars who are aware of the position of an individual, and they advise and advise him, yet he persists, so what is upon these scholars to do? Do they have to wait until a vast majority of scholars become aware or does he give precedence to defending the religion, warning against his error, hoping that he will repent by this (since the advice did not help) and not allowing his deviation to take roots among the people? Is this not a way of helping your brother even when he is the oppressor? And is it not true that ijtihaad is allowed only in the allowed type of differing, but when it clearly goes against the Sharee'ah, is it still a praiseworthy ijtihaad? And of course this is something that awwam should not busy themselves with, however knowing the correct position as a layman does benefit since I will insha'allah know the truth and stay away from falsehood.This is my understanding and if I am wrong then I rather be corrected insha'allah ta 'ala, however I would like to be corrected based on daleel and there should be no problem with this, since I would be blind following if I follow opinions instead of evidence.


I truly hope that we all can discuss this issue and present daleel for whatever the truth is in a mature way and as muslims who recommend one another with the truth and who recommend one another with patience,and who are patient with one another, and if that is not possible that there is no need to continue this thread.

Allahu A'lam

[ibn abi 'Abdirrahman]

Sister bint nail,
I was not specifically addressing you. It was very general.

2. Do you have daleel from Al Qur'aan and Sunnah that when tajreeh is made by a specific individual then everyone must follow the Tajreeh ?

3. What evidence do you have to say that Syaikh AL Albaani's act is rare ? Everything that contradicts the acts of Supersalafis is rare?


Whoever has a Tazkiyyah from certain individuals does that make him free to criticize and label everyone as Hizbiyy ? (Do you sincerely believe that the scholars of today have reached the level of 'Ali Al Madiini, Abu Zur'ah, Al Bukhari, Ibn Ma'een ?)

Can you bring evidence from the Qur'aan and Sunnah as to who is entitled to make Tajreeh ? If x makes tazkiyyah of y and subsequently y criticizes x and label him as a mubtadi' whose statement do we need to accept ?



Can you give any evidence from the Al Qur'aan, Sunnah and acts of the Salaaf that the Prophet/ Sahaabah/ Salaf boycotted and clearly continuously criticized an individual just on the basis that that person gave a lecture at a gathering of Hizbees or shook hands with a Suufiyy or invited a Suufiyy to his house or did not criticize an individual who is Salafi in 'Aqeedah?

How many times in the lifetime of the Prophet saw and the Sahaabah that he/they made open tajrih of a particular Muslim and subsequently boycotted him ?

THen compare that with the acts of the Supersalafis whose life revolves arond Hajr and Tajriih all year round.

[Musa Al Colombee]

Jazak Allahu Khair Ibn Abi Abdul Rahman.

What's good for the gander is not good for the goose.... I guess that sums up their way.

I remember reading specifically about the issue of keeping the pants above the ankles. Then the respect a certain individual showed Sheikh Salih Fauzan (May Allah preserve him) for having an "incorrect" opinion about the issue and how the great Sheikh fulan ibn i'lan refuted him. However the respect he showed for Sheikh Fauzan was immense. However, if someone else went with the same exact opinion, great dhulm would be perpetrated. May Allah Help us attain husn ad dhan.

I believe they should also take a course in usool ul fiqh. I think that is also something which is lacking. I remember looking at an institute's (no names mentioned) curriculum they have qawaid al fiqhiyah and that's it. No usul ul fiqh no nothing. Anyway....

Allah Hu Alim....

I am not anybody but i just wanted to share my thoughts.

Disclaimer... The thoughts mentioned above are only the opinion of this individual and does not reflect multaqa ahlil hadeeth (hafithahum allah) :)

[Um Abdullah M.]

Also, I would like to ask my noble sister Umm Abdullah, may Allah bless you, can you give me the daleel for the statement that an innovator is to be refuted only if there is 'ijmaa from the vast majority of the scholars.

Sister, I was speaking about a scholar refuting an innovator for his innovation.
I am speaking about laymen and students of knowledge who still lack a lot of knowledge in deen who eat the flesh of shaikhs and scholars whom they call "innovators" for erroring out of ijtihad, or having a wrong opinion, or for any other reason, while that shaikh or scholar is upon the Salafi aqeedah, also putting them on the "blacklist".

Ukhti, Imam Ibn Hajar and An Nawawi rahimahuma Allah were known to make ta'wil of sifat, which is opposed to the Salafi aqeedah.
Did our Salafi scholars eat their flesh, always labeling them as "innovators" when speaking about them, or stop reading any of their books or teaching it to others?

No they didn't, they actually studied from many of their books, wrote shurooh on it, taught it to others, and even praised those Imams for the good that they had which outweighted the incorrect beliefs they had.

Yes, they tell their students about the mistakes that those 2 Imams had, but at the same time they praise the much good they had, and did not boycott their works because of the incorrect beliefs they had.

Now if the person was an extreme innovator, like a deviant sufi (i.e Keller, G. F. Haddad, Saqqaf, Rifa'i ..etc.) then yes, their books are not to be taken from, and our Muslim bro and sisters are to be warned about them.


A lot of times there is only one or two scholars who are aware of the position of an individual,

That would be kind of difficult to imagine, only 2 scholars knowing about it, and it not reaching others especially if those 2 wrote something about that person and refuted him in an article or book or tape.

And is it not true that ijtihaad is allowed only in the allowed type of differing, but when it clearly goes against the Sharee'ah, is it still a praiseworthy ijtihaad?

It is not necessarly a praiseworthy ijtihad but
we leave it up to the major scholars to judge these matters, like shaikh Salih al Fawzan, Abdul Aziz Aal Shaikh and others (and if we have any known quotes by scholars who have passed away like sh. Ibn Baz, Uthaimin & Albani rahimahum Allah)

Look at the example I gave you above (Imam Ibn Hajar and Nawawi r.A.)
Some students of knowledge today who lack a lot of knowledge would reach the point of burning the books of those 2 Imams in the name of boycotting and warning against "innovators" !
subhanallah.

This is an extreme.
We should be balanced in this matter, not to go over board nor be too laxed.

This is not a simple issue, it needs for us to study it and understand it correctly, it is a serious matter in which people from different groups have gone to extremes.


And of course this is something that awwam should not busy themselves with,

Yes, agreed.

however knowing the correct position as a layman does benefit since I will insha'allah know the truth and stay away from falsehood.This is my understanding and if I am wrong then I rather be corrected insha'allah ta 'ala, however I would like to be corrected based on daleel and there should be no problem with this, since I would be blind following if I follow opinions instead of evidence.

I understand.


I truly hope that we all can discuss this issue and present daleel for whatever the truth is in a mature way and as muslims who recommend one another with the truth and who recommend one another with patience,and who are patient with one another, and if that is not possible that there is no need to continue this thread.

Allahu A'lam

Yes, I hope it can be discussed without members attacking each other or having ill feelings towards each other.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Jazak Allahu Khair Ibn Abi Abdul Rahman.

What's good for the gander is not good for the goose.... I guess that sums up their way.

I remember reading specifically about the issue of keeping the pants above the ankles. Then the respect a certain individual showed Sheikh Salih Fauzan (May Allah preserve him) for having an "incorrect" opinion about the issue and how the great Sheikh fulan ibn i'lan refuted him. However the respect he showed for Sheikh Fauzan was immense. However, if someone else went with the same exact opinion, great dhulm would be perpetrated. May Allah Help us attain husn ad dhan.

I believe they should also take a course in usool ul fiqh. I think that is also something which is lacking. I remember looking at an institute's (no names mentioned) curriculum they have qawaid al fiqhiyah and that's it. No usul ul fiqh no nothing. Anyway....

Allah Hu Alim....

I am not anybody but i just wanted to share my thoughts.

please discuss the issue itself with evidences, and refrain from attacking any specific group.


Disclaimer... The thoughts mentioned above are only the opinion of this individual and does not reflect multaqa ahlil hadeeth (hafithahum allah) :)

Thank you.

[Bint Nail]

Sister bint nail,
I was not specifically addressing you. It was very general.

2. Do you have daleel from Al Qur'aan and Sunnah that when tajreeh is made by a specific individual then everyone must follow the Tajreeh ?

3. What evidence do you have to say that Syaikh AL Albaani's act is rare ? Everything that contradicts the acts of Supersalafis is rare?


Whoever has a Tazkiyyah from certain individuals does that make him free to criticize and label everyone as Hizbiyy ? (Do you sincerely believe that the scholars of today have reached the level of 'Ali Al Madiini, Abu Zur'ah, Al Bukhari, Ibn Ma'een ?)

Can you bring evidence from the Qur'aan and Sunnah as to who is entitled to make Tajreeh ? If x makes tazkiyyah of y and subsequently y criticizes x and label him as a mubtadi' whose statement do we need to accept ?



Can you give any evidence from the Al Qur'aan, Sunnah and acts of the Salaaf that the Prophet/ Sahaabah/ Salaf boycotted and clearly continuously criticized an individual just on the basis that that person gave a lecture at a gathering of Hizbees or shook hands with a Suufiyy or invited a Suufiyy to his house or did not criticize an individual who is Salafi in 'Aqeedah?

How many times in the lifetime of the Prophet saw and the Sahaabah that he/they made open tajrih of a particular Muslim and subsequently boycotted him ?

THen compare that with the acts of the Supersalafis whose life revolves arond Hajr and Tajriih all year round.


Assalaamu 'alaykum brother ibn abi 'Abdirrahman,

brother if you cannot pay attention to what I am saying than it should stop here, because it is at this point not necessary that I repeat myself over and over again. I do not care about supersalafis, whatever you mean by that brother. I am not a supersalafi and just because I made a statement according to my current understanding of the issue, I do not consider it to be written in stone, and you can correct me if I am wrong. But brother if you cannot contribute to teaching me and guiding me on this issue then please don't even reply akhi. All of the statements you have made here do not apply to me at all, that way at least we preserve our good manners insha'allah ta'ala.

May Allah bless you

[Bint Nail]

Assalaamu alaykum,

sister Umm Abdullah,

jazakiallah khayr for the brief explanation, but mainly for your manners masha'allah and for paying attention to the question and not accusing and assuming and straying from the subject at hand.

So may Allah reward you ukhti, and if you do not mind I would like to exchange PMs with you on this issue if the time allows both of us to do so insha'allah ta'ala.
May Allah help you for helping a fellow muslim.

[Um Abdullah M.]

wa alaykum assalam ukhti

So may Allah reward you ukhti, and if you do not mind I would like to exchange PMs with you on this issue if the time allows both of us to do so insha'allah ta'ala.


ok
sure

[salafee_4400]

assalam alaykum wa rahmatullaah

one of the posts on this thread someone suggested we refer issues back to the ulema and they mentioned the likes of shaykh ibn baaz and shaykh salih al fawzan.

at the same time i would like to know why it is that when shaykh ibn baaz said clearly said: "there is nothing wrong in mentioning that person’s name or in warning people about him if he calls to innovation, Shirk, or if he calls people to what Allaah has prohibited or to disobediencey that", why do we find people opposing the shaykh by responding: we dont name any individuals

can someone please issue some clarity

barakallah feek

[Um Abdullah M.]

when we say not to mention names, we are speaking about shaikhs who are Salafi in aqeedah not ones from ahl bidah and shirk.

As for the saying of sh Ibn Baz rahimahu Allah, it is not very clear to me if he speang about ahl bidah only (non Salafis) or also ones with Salafi aqeedah and had a wrong opinion in an issue.

so we need to find that out first, and make sure we understand it correctly.
I will try and see if I can get sh. Saleh al Fwzan's # and try to contact him insha Allah.

[salafee_4400]

Assalam Alaykum

I am sorry to prolong this, however, I am yet to any real evidence to uphold the claim that when we speak about the errors of ahlus-sunnah then we can not mention their names. Are you claiming it unrestrictedly or does it only apply in certain situations?

Is it, therefore, permissable to mention that ibn hajr and an-nawawi (both are imams of ahlus-sunnah) had mistakes in aqeedah?

I would contend that it contradicts the narration where the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) cites certain shortcomings of a sahabi by name:

When Fatimah bint Qays finished her waiting period from the divorce of her husband, Abu Amr bin Hafs, she mentioned to the Prophet Salallahu alayhi wa sallam that both mu’aawiyah ibn Abee Sufyaan and Abu Jahm had both proposed to her for marriage. So the Prophet Salallahu alayhi wa sallam said: "As for Abu Jahm, he does not put down the stick he carries on his shoulder (i.e he beats his wives). And as for Mu’aawiyah, he is very poor and has no wealth of his own. Marry Usaamah bin Zayd (Instead)." She said: "But I do not like him". He said (again): "Marry Usaamah". So she married him and Allaah placed goodness in their marriage and she was extremely happy. Sahih Muslim: Book of Divorce (no.1480)

The hadeeth explains the matter of sincere advice in marriage but as we know sincere advice in the matter of aqeedah and of bidah is far, far greater in importance and need.

Hence, we often hear brothers mention those mistakes in taweel of ibn hajr and an-nawawi (here and on other salafi lists). This is so that Muslims are not beguiled by the Asharis.

[Abu Bakr b. Nasir]

These matters require one to use hikmah, not merely applying mechanical rules.

[ibn abi 'Abdirrahman]

Sister bint nail,

I think there is no need to be emotional or take things personally. All I have implied so far is that you are defending some ideas of the supersalafis but I have never called you a supersalafi. I don't regard you as a supersalafi. This forum doesn't carry the ideas of supersalafism. If you cannot accept me questioning your ideas then there is no need for you to bring up those ideas.


Supersalafis ? Who are they ? It has been discussed before. PLease browse through the forum.

2. Can someone criticize a mubtadi' without mentioning the good things about him ?

No dalil against that.


3. Is it wrong to mention the good things about someone before criticizing him ?

No daleel against that.


4. As brother Abu Bakr has mentioned it requires hikmah when handling such issues especially when it involves people who have done a lot of good things to Islam even though they might have endorsed some bid'ah out of jahl, ta'weel, etc.

Have you read about how the Qur'an prohibited liquor ?

[al-boriqee]

Bin Nail

ya ukhti

Bismillah wassalaatu wassalaamu 'ala rasulillah

noble brother,

This nickname is used a lot here, namely "supersalafis" and noone has yet clarified what that means. It is clear such a thing does not exist, either you are salafi or not

he means the haddadees. If the asl of "you are either salafi or not" then why was that asl not implemented by these people when they invented for themselves the innovation of "clear salafi" of which Khalid Radadee and others have exposed them on

salafi 4400 said

at the same time i would like to know why it is that when shaykh ibn baaz said clearly said: "there is nothing wrong in mentioning that person’s name or in warning people about him if he calls to innovation, Shirk, or if he calls people to what Allaah has prohibited or to disobediencey that", why do we find people opposing the shaykh by responding: we dont name any individuals

akhee, Bin Baz as talking about aone someone undertakes an actual refutation. A refutation in the religion, is somehtign that is odne with ilm, daleel. However, this specific thread, with this specific people, and using general fatwas does not constitue a refutation against soemone and on that basis when it was requested not to mention names of individuals, it was for the purpose of
1. not being succumbed to personality bigotry (shaqsiyyah)
2. preventing the harm of gheebah in the name of refuting the mubtadiah

I am sorry to prolong this, however, I am yet to any real evidence to uphold the claim that when we speak about the errors of ahlus-sunnah then we can not mention their names. Are you claiming it unrestrictedly or does it only apply in certain situations?


firstly akhee

you have to understand the most important matter in this question. Does the opposite of this equal somethign that came down "wahi". If not then what your doing is reasing the ijtihaad of some scholars to be above ijtihaad and into "wahi" , because after all, there is no ijtihaad where there are proofs, and there are no proofs about muwazinah anyway in the two sources, rther it is tarjeeh done from the ijtihaad of others. Even under "ijma" the ijma is still less in weight than the two sources.

and more importantly akhee and ukhti, this statement of ABu Bakr can literally be explained in the volumes

These matters require one to use hikmah, not merely applying mechanical rules.

The problem with some of the western styled salafis (non arabic members) and we ask Allah to unite the ranks, is that they for some reason, are prevented or just simply do not realize the maqaasid of the shariah, and that the shari'ah is not some rigid usool set by a group of scholars (mainly in those matters where the sources are silent i.e. muwazinah) and that anything in oppositionto that equals 'opposing the usool of ahlu-sunnah". I think there needsto be a thread that expounds on the maqaasid ash-shar'iyyah inshallah, that would be good.

and as ibnabdir-rahman pointed out, a lot of them just simply lack any kind of fiqh that will eventually advance them into a legitimized group of salafis who act truely in accordance with the salafu-saalih, and not just act like its some gangster cult "yeah Im salafi". Trust me, I was there. And no I didnt call them gansters, its just that I know what the gangster mentality is and when compared to how they act (especially here in the states) its all to exact.
Just ponder ukhti bin nail, at how was you came to realization in the "hajr wa tabde" thread. Beleive me exiting this narrow western filtered salafism nd into the boroad realm of salafiyyah is this same experience continuously

but enough of me ramblin, here is how the issue is more properly to be understood from what I know.

I explained this before long ago. Im no fan of muwazinah, and I think everyone here agrees regarding it. The problem gets technical when a certain group of salafis take these ahkaam of our scholars, and then apply such rules when someone refutes a "salafi" who is accused of an error in aqeedah, or what is popular nowadays "mistakes in manhaj".

the issue is to be understood that when the ulema spoke of muwazinah, they were speakign in

1. when someone in the rank of those able to make a radd
2. they had in mind fully fledged people of heresy

that means 90 percent of those rudood brought by those types of salafis upon their other salafi counterparts are infact null and void and of no benefit and useless to say the least as they do not enter the ranks of those capable of making rudood, nor do those who they refute enter the realm of deviation that would negate one's salafiyyah

with regard to the maqaasid (objective) of lets say this issue. then there is reason for their ruling on muwazinah, but there are situations were those objectives are not meant which would not warrent the need to comply with the hukm of those ulema.

Here is an example

Alamah Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbadd said

The Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbadd said

When the students of knowledge ask about the state of some people who are devoted to knowledge it is necessary that they refer to the committee for passing legal rulings in Riyad and ask them: can we take rulings or knowledge from this person? It is possible for whoever has knowledge concerning specific personalities to write to this committee explaining what he knows so that they may look into it. In this way disparagement and warning will come from a direction that can be depended upon. There is no doubt that the ones who are referred to for legal rulings in issues should also be referred to for legal rulings concerning who knowledge should be taken from, and one should steer clear of making himself a reference point for such essential matters! From the excellence of a person Islam is his leaving that which does not concern him.

Also he said “truly jarh wa ‘adeel is in the courts”

Now, had we salafis opted for the particular manner that others have done, we would have used this statement of al-Abbadd as the criterion by which a person's salafiyyah can be administered or revoked, as those people did with others. But no, we, without braggin, at least of enough rudimentary knowledge to knw that this is merely an ijtihaad from the shaykh and that it should and can be enforced if it serves the maqaasid of our law. example, the reason al-Abbadd said this was because he was introduced to the extremism that some of those brothers (at you know were) had fell into ghuloo and with this he issued this as a way to 'curve the fitnah" which is part of the maqaasid.

But does that mean that it is wahi, that if we don't take our case to the courts, then we are innovators, or that if we don't go to riyaadh, then we are innovators. Such statements have no origin in the two sources, but the aim of the shaykh does. Thats the point. But to our brothers on the other side of the parl, they don't have this in mind rather to them, whatever their shaykh says is somethign thatcame from the mouth of the messenger, and while they may not express this verbatim, they surely do act according to thi, and I can persoanlly know first hand, I nearly got punched in the face due to this.

This word muwazeenat is a bida concept or innovated principle that was laid out by certain individuals. This principle is that when refuting the innovator, then the one who is doing the refuting MUST mention the good points and qualities of the person they are refuting. These people from the ikhwaan have tried to, with no success, add this innovated principle into the glorious methodology of as-salafu salih in order for ahlu-sunnah to keep quite and be deceived by certian individuals.

Notice oh reader that I said when refuting the innovator. This has been comfirmed by many of the scholars and so this bida concept is false and to be abandoned. When Shaykh Uthaymin was asked about this principle he got mad and took his kufi off. He said

“it is not a condition that you must mention the good qualities of an individual who is being refuted because this would weaken my refutation of him”

So this is the case is and most likely the haq. What needs to be clarified for the haddadis because of their infatuation, as Abdul-Muhsin says, and ghuloo in the issues revolving refuting people, is that if someone does mention the good qualities of an innovator as he refutes then this is not muwaazinaat. Remember muwaazinaat as those certian people invented have laid down was that it is a condition when refuting that you must mention the good qualities of those being refuted. This does not mean that if a person does this then he has muwaazinaat or he is a hizbi. This is because if the one who refutes may not believe that IT IS A MUST to mention the good qualities when refuting someone. Personally speaking I would not do this, but rather this is a clarification for the haddad to understand what is what and not simply construe that if a person mentions something good about those who are deviant then he has performed muwaazinaat or that he practices muwaazinaat.

Another point to add to the first in this matter is that notice that this bida revolves on when or while the refuter refutes. What the supersalfis would interpret from this is that if someone mentions a good quality or point or some t’adeel about someone who is abandoned then they interpret this to mean that this person as well performed muwaazinaat. This is not the case. Remember we must keep in mind that this bida is “WHILE REFUTING THE INNOVATOR, THEN IT IS A MUST”. This is the bida. Not if someone says something good about so and so.


lastly, I would like to add additional comments


Point 10: The bida concept of “whoever does not say he’s an innovator then he is an innovator”

A statement by our father Alaamah Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbad in which he has stated the following may allah preserve him

It is not permissible to test another student of knowledge that he must have a stance against the refuter or refuted such that if he conforms he is safe but if he does not, he is declared an innovator and boycotted. It is not for anyone to attribute to Ahlus-Sunnah the likes of this anarchic behaviour in passing verdicts of innovation and boycotting. Neither is for anyone to describe whoever does not traverse this anarchic path that he is someone who is watering down (mumayyi') the methodology of the Salaf.

How truthfully this Imaam has spoken and you will notice that those who have integrated this behavior into their manhaj in dealing with the people then he says or describes it as “an anarchic behavior”. Subhanallah, indeed it is truly as he described it.

Again this Imaam has stated the following.

“And close to the bid’ah of testing the people by personalities”.

He as well said

“From that also is the occurrence of warning from attending the lessons of an individual because he does not speak about so-and-so (fulaan al-fulaanee) or such-and-such group (al-jamaa’at al-fulaaniyyah).”

All of this is in the same tree because this false manhaj means “if you don’t refute so and so then you are with him and will be warned against” or other people who at one time attested to Salafiyyah and they never said they were not salafee or who have fallen into some errors.

Another point to show is that this is a refutation of the “with me or against me policy”
The Shaykh says “It is not for anyone to attribute to Ahlus-Sunnah the likes of this anarchic behaviour in passing verdicts of innovation and boycotting. Neither is for anyone to describe whoever does not traverse this anarchic path that he is someone who is watering down (mumayyi') the methodology of the Salaf”. This is exactly the manhaj that the haddad have implemented in their criticism of others who were not with them. So those who did not join them were branded mumay’ee.

Point 11. Forcing people to take positions that they have a right to not take

Here is a quote from Shaykhul-Islaam Ibnu-Taymiyyah where he said in Majmua al-Fatwa

“It is necessary to know that the various groups that are attributed to those who are followed with regards the foundations of the religion and Kalam are of varying levels: some of them have opposed the Sunnah in great foundations and others who have opposed the Sunnah in some of the more finer issues.

Those, amongst these groups, who refuted other members of these groups who were farther from the Sunnah than he is to be praised for the falsehood he refuted and the truth he spoke. However it is also possible that he left the balanced path in his refutation in that he rejected some truth and spoke some falsehood: he could have refuted a major innovation with an innovation that is lesser than it, or refuted falsehood with falsehood lesser than it - and this is the case with the majority of Ahlu-l-Kalam who are attributed to the Sunnah and the Jama'ah.

The likes of these people, if they do not make what they have innovated to be something that splits the Jama'ah of the Muslims such that they based their allegiance and enmity upon it, then it is to be considered an error. Allah, Glorious is He, will forgive the errors of the believers in such cases.

(note: now check this out)

Many of the Salaf of this nation and its Imams fell into the likes of this through taking to stances, through ijtihad, that opposed what is established in the Book and Sunnah. But their stances in these issues were different from those (haddad fit this description) who based allegiance and enmity on these issues and split the Jama'ah of the Muslims: declaring disbelievers and sinners all those who differed with them, and allowing the spilling of their blood in issues that were just opinion and ijtihad! Such people are the people of splitting.'

Unfortunately, these supersalafis did make the present day issues of ijtihaad a cause for separation and division, which in their eyes warranted hajr, tadheer, and the use of no salams to their brethren even if the one being boycotted claims Salafiyyah.


Point 12. making the statements of their scholars as hujjah.

What I mean by their scholars is usually three but I wish not to say their name in accordance to the wish of the forum. Although they take other scholars they really perform a type of taqleed in regards to these particular scholars hafidhahumullah in these matters of jarh. Their proof is that Imaam So and So is one who specializes in this field, the Imaam of Jarh wa t'adeel. What they fail to realize is that many including Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbadd have also specialized in this field of science, likewise the likes of Abdur-Rahman al-Ajlaan, Adam Ethiopee, and many of the sindhi scholars of jamiyaa ahlul-hadeeth.

So when these particular mashaykh have a statement in regards to this issue then that statement is proof like the texts of the quraan and the sunnah as if it was a hujjah. Again this is known by many as I myself have experienced this mentality first hand with these individuals.

This also includes the statements of their scholars that they make taqleed of in matters of ijtihaad. Example of this is when a scholar performs a jarh that may be detailed or not, and this is the matter of the scholar performing ijtihaad based off his knowledge and understanding of the Naql (texts). So they are decieved by the shaytaan with the saying “look at the proofs that the shaykh brings” and making the proofs that the shaykh has as the hujjah not realizing that the jarh itself is an ijtihaad. Truly the salaf of this nation were careful in this matter and did not sway from one statement of a scholar to the next on this issue, rather they would look into it and if indeed the person in question errorred then the hukm of this person would be established as in the case of those who deviated like Jahm bin Safwaan and others.

Point 13. Making friends and boycotting based off the statements of scholars instead of the texts.

Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah has stated

“It is not for anyone of this nation to appoint a person to whose way one is called to, and upon which allegiance and enmity is based - except for the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him - neither is it permissible to assign their speech and words as something that one bases allegiance and enmity upon - except for the words of Allah and His Messenger and what this nation has unanimously agreed upon - indeed such practice is from the actions of the People of Innovation who set up a particular person or speech through which they divide the nation; basing their allegiance and enmity upon that speech or attribution.'

When the scholars speak then this is not a light matter and therefore we take it into consideration and if we see it best then we take their statements. The problem of the matter lies in the manner they go about it. The manner they go about it is “If you don’t take the shaykh’s statement then you are hizbi” especially if there is ikhtilaaf in that very same issue.

that is why Imaam Ibnul-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah rahimahullah said


'Knowing the excellence of the Imams of Islam, their rights, and rankings; and knowing that their excellence, knowledge, and sincerity to Allah and His Messenger does not necessitate that everything they say be accepted. What judgments they passed, the truth of which was hidden to them, such that they spoke based upon their knowledge but said that which opposed the truth, does not necessitate that all of their opinions be discarded, or that they be demeaned or abused. These are two extremes that are far from the balanced path, for that lies between the two: we do not declare him to be a sinner and neither do we declare him to be free from error.. Whoever has knowledge of the Shari'ah and reality will know with certainty that a great man, who has a righteous place and effect in Islam, could slip and err, but he be excused for this, even rewarded for his ijtihad. In this case it is not permissible to follow the error nor to invalidate his ranking, being an Imam, and the status he holds in the hearts of the Muslims.'


Unfortunately, the haddad have slipped into both extremes knowingly or unknowingly, and that is that they disparaige the scholar for attending or giving lessons to the conferences of ahlul-bid’a or those who they claim as that, and also do not consider the ones they agree with in error in the issues of jarh. So they did not fall into one of the two extremes as Ibnul-Qayyim rahimahullah well put it, they fell into both of which this Imaam has described

We ask Allah to have mercy on us and guide us from the fitnah of ignorance

asalamu alaikum warahmatullah

[Um Abdullah M.]

al Boriqee
I think that people mean when saying "superSalafis" the ones labeled as "Madhkhalis" not "Haddadis" as they are not the same.
2 different groups.

[Abu Bakr b. Nasir]

al Boriqee
I think that people mean when saying "superSalafis" the ones labeled as "Madhkhalis" not "Haddadis" as they are not the same.
2 different groups.

Some use the titles interchangeably. Some prefer to use one over the other. In fact, you will find that the term Haddadi is used mostly by the splinter groups that have formed amongst those who follow Rabee al-Madkhali (or those who used to follow him but are now against him) use this label to refer to each other.

Apparently, this Haddad character for whose followers the label "Haddadi" was originally used was the one who said ibn Hajar and an-Nawawi's books used to be burnt. He originally was an associate of al-Madkhali but when his views started becoming too outlandish (as with his views on ibn Hajar/an-Nawawi) the scholars refuted him and al-Madkhali joined them in doing so.

Since then, the factions that have started to crop up amongst the followers of al-Madkhali have used this title to call one another at various times.

[Bint Nail]

Sister bint nail,

I think there is no need to be emotional or take things personally. All I have implied so far is that you are defending some ideas of the supersalafis but I have never called you a supersalafi. I don't regard you as a supersalafi. This forum doesn't carry the ideas of supersalafism. If you cannot accept me questioning your ideas then there is no need for you to bring up those ideas.


Supersalafis ? Who are they ? It has been discussed before. PLease browse through the forum.

2. Can someone criticize a mubtadi' without mentioning the good things about him ?

No dalil against that.


3. Is it wrong to mention the good things about someone before criticizing him ?

No daleel against that.


4. As brother Abu Bakr has mentioned it requires hikmah when handling such issues especially when it involves people who have done a lot of good things to Islam even though they might have endorsed some bid'ah out of jahl, ta'weel, etc.

Have you read about how the Qur'an prohibited liquor ?

Assalaamu 'alaykum brother,

With all due respect, and i say this calmly, the ideas that you claim I brought up are in fact not brought up by me, rather it is implied by you that I have those ideas since you cannot for some reason focus on what i am asking. the only thing I said is that rulings cannot be made on rare exceptions. Does that mean that i got this statement from the "supersalafis"? NO! It means that I made this statement according to what i believed because i saw nothing else to convince me otherwise.
Akhi, i clearly stated that i do not have much knowledge on this issue and that i am seeking to learn and understand. So akhi I am not the one who is getting emotional since I am trying to seek knowledge according to the understanding of our scholars and not according to awaam, yet you continuously speak about awaam.
Akhi, look how brother al boriqee took the time to explain and post releveant words of the scholars!!! May Allah reward him for this, this is all I was looking for. Akhi I will not be questioned about people on this website or people on that website, therefore i sought to broaden my knowledge on this issue so that i may not fall into evil akhi. Simple as that.

So i think all is clear now walhamdulillah, or at least clearer then what is was.

Brother al boriqee, jazakumullahu khayran

[al-boriqee]

al Boriqee
I think that people mean when saying "superSalafis" the ones labeled as "Madhkhalis" not "Haddadis" as they are not the same.
2 different groups.

as abu bakr said, the term is used interchangably, because the base asl of such ghulaat, even though it is an actual characteristic of the khawaarij, the base in this new case is haddad, as he was the student of Shaykh Rabee, buthe kinda like magnified this more harsh characterisitc, over his shaykh.

So i don't mind at allt he label"madkhalis" because thats what they are, they make taqleed of him, but I kinda don't use it in general since it gives the impression that somehow Rabee is a mubtadi and he began a new school of thought, a sect, kinda like the innvoators say Ibn Abdul-Wahhab began a new school, a new sect, which is just as much as absurd as the other side who make taqleed of him.

Rather, for the more balanced among us, he is a shaykh from among the generality of of mashaa'ikh and he is repected as such as a good number of scholars and who have made noteworthy praise of him, but I beleive that praise got in the heads of his students, and as well I belive he, as other students of revealed, allowed it to happen, wallahu alim. That is why they make him a source reference for all things. And what even adds to the calamity of their preposterous state is his blind followers don't even know what the heck they follow from him, they can't define what is his stance on any fiqh issue whatsoever, or even on anythign regarding hadeeth, any of the mustalah at all, all they know of Rabee is "Imaam al-jarh wa t'adeel" orwhatever 1 or 2 naseehas from him posted on that talk borad they have and thats it.

and just to add some emphasis onto what Abu Bakr was saying, Rabee as well did that with Harbi. Once he began accuse major schoalrs with irj'aa, like al-albanee, and making tabdee of everyone, Najmee, Ubayd, and Rabee, where all giving faalih t'adeel. But when the students gathered to go to the senior scholars (over rabee), thats when they made faalih take the bait. I will always remember that post you did abu bakr where you said soemthign about the fact that those ghulaat called us stpid when we recognized the stupidness of faalih, and that its stupid that faalih was not declared stupid until they agreed to say he was stupid. That was the most hilarious post I ever seen from you.

secondly, we know the original haddadees for the most part are not connected with those brothers, but the connection is in the same kinda thinking, thus the link is there.

thats is why the other side has labeled their refutations against those "madkhalis' as "refutation of the ghulaat, Hadadees" and not madkhalis even though thats who they are addressing

Thats the problem with such boards, they go to ecessive iinto thier refutations and stuff, and at the end it becomes their deen over actual knowledge of the deen.

asalamu alaikum

[Um Abdullah M.]

what I meant is that sh. Rabee' is not a Haddadi.
not that the Haddadis weren't from the followers of sh. Rabee' in past then broke off.

anyways, we should remember that everyone we take from and leave, except the PRophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and he is the only one we make complete taqlid of.
and a shaikh or a scholar is still to be respected even if he has made a mistake while trying to follow the haq.

and I don't see much benefit in continuing this discussion, and it might cause more harm than good.

[Bint Nail]

I agree sister Umm Abdullah.


I was the one who started this thread with one intention and then it turned out into other then what was intended.

Yet, Alhamdulillah, some good has come out of it, at least for me,(is this muwaazanah or what!!!) not necessarily on this thread but on another in which brother al boriqee has posted some words relating to this issue.

So I suggest this thread be closed insha'allah as it is not of benefit to discuss what awaam do, it may make us fall into sins while not even being aware.

Allahu A'lam