EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOK ‘JAAMIUL BAYYAAN AL-ILM WAL FADL’  By Ibn Abdul Barr.

Chapter: The ruling regarding scholars refuting other scholars.

The Messenger (salalahu alaihi wa salaam) said, “the diseases of the nations before of you have been lifted. Envy and hatred they are both destructive, (they will cut off) I don’t mean cut off the hair, rather they (cut off) destroy the religion. By He Whose hand Mohammed’s soul is in you will never enter paradise until you believe and you will not believe until you love one another. Shall I not inform you of that which will establish this for you…spread salaams between yourselves.”  Hadith Hasan Tirmindi 2510 Ahmad 1/167 and others.

He (salalahu alaihi wa salaam) also said, “Do you know what is better than charity and fasting and prayer? It is keeping peace and good relations between people, as quarrels and bad feelings destroy mankind.” (Bukhari)

  He (salalahu alaihi wa salaam) said “I warn you of bad relations for indeed it is destructive!”  Tirmidhi said it is a ghareeb hadeeth

Bad relations mean enmity, and hatred, which are destructive to the deen.

2128: Abdul Aziz Ibn Abi Hazim said: “I heard my father say. If the scholars of old met one who was more knowledgeable than them that day would be a day of `booty` for them. If they met someone who was at the same level as them they would learn from them and if they met one who was less than them in knowledge they did not boast over him. Until these days now a person finds fault with the one whom is more knowledgeable than him to make the people cut off from him and see that they have no need for him. And they would not learn from one who is on the same level as them, and be arrogant with one who is less than them in knowledge so the people would be destroyed.  Isnaad Is hasan.

Abu Umar said: “Many people have made mistakes in this….and those who sowed the seeds of ignorance went astray in not comprehending its true meaning. So that which is correct in this regard is whoever’s trustworthiness is proven and he is established to have knowledge (immamship), his trustworthiness is apparent, clear and if knowledge is his preoccupation. Then they should not look or take heed of any speech against him from anyone except if they come with a clear, just criticism (jarh), where his being criticised is accompanied with witnesses…

Verily the salaf amongst themselves they spoke ill of each other a lot in anger. From amongst them were those who were driven by jealousy as Ibn Abbas, Malik ibn Deenar, and Abu Haazim said. And some were driven to this by falsely interpreting what others said. Some of them raised their swords against others because of false interpretations and ijtihaad. It is not required for us to do taqleed of them in anything without proof and evidence.”

2129 Hammad mentioned the people of Hijaaz:  “Indeed I questioned them, and they had no reply. By Allah, verily your children are more knowledgeable than them. Rather your children’s children are more knowledgeable than they are.  (Sahih)

2131: Mughara said that Hammad said:  “I met Ata and Tawoos, and Mujaahid and your children are more knowledgeable than them, rather your children’s children”. Mughara said “This is unjust of him”

Abu Umar said, “ Mughara spoke the truth. Indeed Abu Haneefah use to sit with Hammad the most, and he preferred Ata over him.” Saheeh.

2132:  Daahaak Bin Mukhalid said: “ I heard Abu Haneefah say”: “ I have never seen better than Ata Bin Abi Ribaaha.” The men in this narration are thiqaat“ (trustworthy)

2140: I heard al Awzaai say:  “They use to be afraid of speaking about ahadeeth which mention the greatness of Ahl-lul Bait, because maybe the people of Shaam would refute them for their position regarding them.”

2141: Az-Zuhri said:  “I have not seen any people more destructive to the vulnerability of Islam than the people of Makkah. (i.e. harmful to the religion at a time when it is vulnerable) And I have not seen a people more similar to the Christians than “As-Sabaaiya” (followers of Abdullah Ibn Sabba who said Ali was Allah. They said “You, you, you” meaning you are Allah.)”

END OF TRANSLATION

An Important note 

Many Scholars make mistakes in issues of Aqeedah, Manhaj and Ijtihaad. Some of the scholars are our beloved ones, they are upon this noble Salafi Dawah and others are not.

What we need to explain is the principle of tathbeequl manaat which is implementation of ahkaam (rulings). In this regard we are specifically discussing the issue of our stance when scholars make mistakes or when a student of knowledge or daa’ee or a general person makes a mistake. Do we refute them all? Do we let it be? Do we warn against them? Do we abandon them? Do we take them out of salafiyya? Do we label them? Do we say they are mutasahil in their salafiyaa? Or do we leave it to the scholars?

The following are examples of our righteous salafi scholars making mistakes. The point here is not to highlight the mistakes of our scholars but to realise that no one is free from mistakes except Allah and his Messenger, and also to show how the ahlul ilm, and the ahlul jarh wa tadeel dealt with them and their mistakes. By default, the rule which was applied to them must be the same rule we apply to other than them, if their asl is known to be salafi. This is unless and until their wala and their baraa changes to be for ahlul biddah or for the hizbys- those who are against the salafi manhaj and their masheikh. Or unless they oppose absolute clear texts from the Quraan and the Sunnah and the proof has been established upon them.

I wish to stress once again that what you are about to read is not speaking ill of our beloved masheikh , nor is it criticising them but rather a clarification of the issue at hand.

1)      Sheikh Ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy upon him), gave a fatwa saying it is permissible to join in elections?

We know well that the ikwaan al muflisoon are the ones calling for this and making this as a major part of their dawah. Did any other scholar make jarh of Sheikh Ibn Baaz. Did they accuse him of being mutasahil, or being ikwaani? Of course not but they did not accept his fatwa!

2)     Sheikh Naasirudeen Albani (may Allah have mercy upon him) said “in Saudi Arabia there are asnaam (idols) everywhere.”  (Tape Silsiatul Huda wa Noor)

He was referring to the pictures of Malik Fahad that are everywhere. Again did any scholar make jarh of him? Did they say he was a Qutubi, did they say he was jihaadi or takfeeri or calling for rebellion? Of course not but they did not accept his statement?

3)   Sheikh Muqbil (may Allah have mercy upon him) pronounced takfeer on some leaders, and use to speak ill of the King of Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom openly.

He even spoke ill of some righteous salafi scholars Sheikh Mohammad Amaan al Jaami.

(This was well known from the Sheikh- Mutawatir in its narration’s from his students and others).Did any scholars make jarh of him? Did they say he was a khariji, did they accuse him of being a Suroori? Of course not but they did not accept his fatwa. And as for those who will say that the Sheikh took it back before his death. We say,yes this is true, but we are referring to the period specifically when he did not take it back. At that time no one rendered Sheikh Muqbil a deviant, or a takfiri, qutbi, nor did they question his adaala (trustworthiness).

4)      Sheikh ibn Uthaimeen (may Allah have mercy upon him) gave a tazkeyyah to Sheikh Zindani in Yemen who is a well know Ikwaani. Did any scholar make jarh of Sheikh Uthaimeen) Of course not, but they did not accept his tazkeeya of him.

5)    Sheikh Ibn Baaz remained silent and praised Safar and Salman in the midst of the Suroori attack against Sheikh Rabee. (This is well known, and happened in the periods between 1991-1995. I was a student in Madina University at the time and witnessed this along with many others). Did any scholar make jarh of Sheikh Ibn Baaz, of course not,  nor did they call him a suroori, but at the same time, they did not accept his praise of them!

6)     After the Manhaj of Safar and Salman became clear, Sheikh Ibn Baaz issued a fatwa in 1995 to prevent them from teaching and if they continued they should be arrested. They were put in prison and after that Sheikh Ibn Baaz defended them when certain individuals were accused of back biting, spreading lies, and defaming them. The Sheikh said it is fine to benefit from their knowledge and that the people should refrain from speaking ill of them and he praised them. So did any other scholar make jarh of Sheikh Ibn Baaz call him a Suroori, Takfeeri, Qutbi. Did any scholar accuse ibn Baaz of making Muwaazanah?

(Muwaazanah is to mention praise of one at the same time as criticism. This is something which is rejected by the Ahlu Sunnah wal Jammah because it weakens the criticism.)

7)     More recently Sheikh Saalih al Fawzaan openly refuted Sheikh Khalid Al Ambry and Ali Hasan al Halabi and made jarh of his book and him. Did any scholar make jarh of Sheikh Fawzaan, or say he was a Takfiri or Qutubi?  And did Sheikh Fawzaan take Sheikh Khalid or Ali Al Halabi out of Salafiya even though they were accused of irjaa?

8)     Sheikh Ibn Baaz gave a tazkiya for Al Muntada who are well known surooris who fight the dawah salafiyya,  its callers and its ulema. The tazkiyah was for collecting money for poor Muslims around the world. But did anyone accuse Ibn Baaz of supporting the hizbies who openly wage war against the Salafis?

9)     Sheikh Ibn Baaz permitted working with Ihyaa Turaath when they openly made ta`awon with Shia and Takfeeris. When he was asked can we make ta`awoon with them he replied ‘yes’. But did the other scholars make jarh of Ibn Baaz or say he was a hizby?

10)   Sheikh Ibn Uthaimeen did exactly the same as Sheikh Ibn Baaz and permitted the co-operation with Ihyaa Turaath. Sheikh Rabee, Sheikh Saleem al Hilali and many other scholars refuted Ihyaa Turaath with jarhul mufasal  (detailed criticism) over the general praise of them by both Sheikh Uthaimeen And Ibn Baaz. Did any scholar refute, or label, or take either Sheikh Uthaimeen or Sheik Ibn Baaz out of salafiyya?

11)   Let us not forget the Hadaadis who took Ibn Hajr and An Nawaawi out of salafiyya and said their books Fathul Baari and sharhu Nawaawi should be burnt and never read. They said this about them because due to their (Ibn Hajr and An Nawaawi) making an incorrect taweel of Allah’s attributes. Did the scholars accept this from the Hadaadis? No, rather  they labelled them after their teacher Al Hadaad. All the scholars refuted them making it clear that “we can benefit from Ibn Hajr’s and An Nawaawi’s explanations of Bukhari and Muslim, however we reject their errors. So no scholar called for that sort of extremism Allahu Mustaan. Having said this we do not call for reading the books of ahlul biddah of this day and age.

But in all the examples above we excuse our Masheikh here for their mistakes. We say may Allah give them their entitlement of one reward for their mistake.

So upon us is to follow the truth and without partisanship to any scholar. This is the way forward and upon bayinah.

As the Salaf use to say “ we know the men by the truth and we do not know the truth by the men.”

Taqleed of scholars is impermissible; upon the layman is itibaa (following) But even here we must change our opinion if evidence is brought to us. If we choose to continue follow a scholar even after plain, clear guidance is brought to us, then this is non else than impermissible  taqleed, with hizbiyya, extremism, and could lead to shirk.