Questioner: Did Abu Haamid al-Ghazali come back to the methodology of the Salaf, how correct is this statement?
Al-Albaani: No, unfortunately. But he started to take a few very slow steps towards it, and I ask Allaah عز وجل to forgive him and those like him from the people of knowledge.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 13.
Al-Albaani: Regarding the brother I want to say that his reward is doubled, this is what our Prophet عليه السلام stated in the authentic hadith which Imaam Bukhaari reported in his Saheeh, “Three people will be given their reward twice …” and from those three he mentioned, “… and a man from the Christians who believes in me and becomes a Muslim, his reward is doubled,” this means that he was a believer beforehand in the legislation of Jesus, peace be upon him, then when the truth became clear to him [concerning the fact] that what Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام brought is the truth he also believed in that, such a person’s reward is recorded twice for him.
This is not the case with anyone who was an unbeliever [mulhid] from the Christians, [someone who was] not a Christian or a Muslim and who then embraced Islaam, such a person is rewarded once, but as for the person who was truly a Christian including whatever deviation that may entail then he is a believer and he is rewarded twice, and I say, ‘… including whatever deviation the Christians have …’ because when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم uttered this hadith, saying, ‘… he will be given his reward twice …’ he was referring to the Christians who were present in his time عليه الصلاة والسلام, those Christians about whom Allaah عز وجل said in the Noble Quraan, “They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘Allaah is the third of three,’” [Maaidah 5:73] and these are the people whose sacrificial slaughter it is permissible for us to eat, thus it is not fitting that a Muslim doubts or questions [himself] about these Christians [saying] that they say, ‘The father, the son and the holy ghost are one,’ in response we say that they were like that in the time of the Messenger عليه السلام and they are the ones who the Lord of mankind referred to in the previous verse, “They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘Allaah is the third of three.’”
Thus, any person from the People of the Book who embraces Islaam and believes in Allaah and His Messenger will be rewarded twice: one time for his previous eemaan with all its flaws and defects, and a second time for his subsequent eemaan which is all truth containing no falsehood.
So firstly we ask Allaah to grant you firmness, and then [we ask Him to grant you] steadfastness upon the truth.
And it is obligatory upon you–and the religion is but to sincerely advise–to be eager to become acquainted with the correct Islaam, and unfortunately I say, ‘… the correct Islaam …’ because the Muslims have been afflicted with that which those who came before them were afflicted with, the Muslims have been stricken with that which befell the Jews and Christians in terms of becoming divided in the religion, and this is a confirmation of the statement of the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام, “You will certainly follow the ways (and habits) of those who came before you, handspan by handspan, cubit by cubit, until even if they entered a lizard’s hole, you would follow them.” We said, “O Messenger of Allaah, the Jews and the Christians?” He said, “Who else?” [Muslim] Namely, they will have power and influence at that time.
This narration,“You will certainly follow the ways (and habits) of those who came before you, handspan by handspan …” is true concerning most of the Muslims today, the Muslims have become divided. So if Allaah عز وجل has blessed you with the greater [type of] guidance …
The Imaam said, “My advice for every Muslim on the face of the earth, especially our brothers who share with us their affiliation to the blessed da’wah, that of the Book and the Sunnah on the methodology of the Pious Predecessors–I advise them and myself to fear Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, firstly, and then [advise them] to seek more beneficial knowledge as He the Most High said:
“And fear Allaah. And Allaah teaches you.” [Baqarah 2:282]
And [I advise them] to couple their meritorious knowledge which in our united opinion is that which does not digress from the Book, the Sunnah and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors, along with this knowledge of theirs and [along with] whatever increase in it they are able to seek–[I advise them] to couple that with action upon that knowledge, so that it will not be a proof against them but for them:
“The Day when there will not benefit [anyone] wealth or children. But only one who comes to Allaah with a sound heart.” [Shu’araa 26:88-89]
Thereafter I warn them from joining many of those who have left the path of the Salaf in many, numerous issues, something which can be termed as rebelling against the Muslims and their Jamaa’ahs [i.e., like the Khawaarij], rather we order them to be as the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام said in an authentic hadith, “And be servants of Allaah, brothers,” as Allaah the Blessed and Most High ordered you, and we should, as I said in a previous sitting and which I repeat again [here], and there is benefit in repeating [such points]–in our da’wah we should be gentle with those who oppose it and we should always and forever stand in line with His Saying, the Blessed and Most High:
“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best,” [Nahl 16:125] and the ones who have the most right for us to use [such] wisdom with them are those who are the most severe in their conflict/disagreement with us in our doctrine and our aqidah so that we do not bring together [both] the weightiness of the true call [itself which] Allaah عز وجل favoured us with and the burden of ill manners in calling to Allaah عز وجل.
So I hope that all of our brothers in all Islamic countries imitate these Islamic manners and seek, by doing so, Allaah’s Face عز وجل [i.e., to do so sincerely] and not to want any reward or thanks [from the people].”
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 900.
Continuing from the previous post.
Al-Albaani: Today, regretfully, my brother, the situation of the Muslims is very precarious. Today the Christians, rather the Jews, in fact the Magians live in an Islamic country as natives and the ruler does not differentiate between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, all are covered by the term citizen, and our Lord the Mighty and Majestic says, “Then will We treat the Muslims like the criminals? What is [the matter] with you? How do you judge?” [Qalam 68:35-36] for this reason this society which has reached this level of corruption … it is not permissible for an individual, righteous Muslim who acts upon his knowledge to confront this society with force because he will have to make an about turn, but rather [he should use] the force which cannot be overpowered, and that is the force of proof/evidence and clear statements [explaining the truth].
Next question.
Questioner: Also, as a completion, O Shaikh, ya’ni, a Muslim’s compassion for such a person before, ya’ni, establishing [the proof] …
Al-Albaani: It is that, all of that … ya’ni¸“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction …” [Nahl 16:125] that is what this means, and in this regard I say that many of our brothers who are enthusiastic for the correct Islaam [wrongfully] look at other Muslims, who have deviated due to their ignorance of the Book and the Sunnah, with a look of scorn and contempt and spite and buried hatred. For example, many [astray] Shaikhs permit seeking succour from the Allies [of Allaah] and the righteous, they permit other things even more readily [like] seeking intercession through them instead of the Lord of the Worlds, they permit frequenting their graves and seeking blessings [from them] by coming to them and so on. And another type [of Shaikh] forbids following the Book and the Sunnah based upon the fact that [according to them] the general folk do not understand the Book and the Sunnah, and they impose blind-following on them, and then the stance of the other people who are with us upon the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors is to have enmity towards these people and to hate them in a most severe manner, such that it is not possible that this person will meet that one–this is a mistake.
I say: these people [who call upon the Allies of Allaah and the righteous etc.] … I do not refrain from calling them by their [rightful] name … [i.e.,] people have ‘deviated from the truth [daaloon]’ and when I [do] say that they have ‘deviated from the truth’ there is no problem in using this expression from an Islamic perspective, for Allaah the Mighty and Majestic used this expression concerning His Messenger عليه السلام [stating] that before the revelation was sent down to him, “And He found you lost [daal] and guided [you].” [Duhaa 93:7]
Thus, there is no doubt that these people who oppose the Book and the Sunnah are misguided/lost [daaloon] … what I want to say is: as long as they are like that then they are ill and it is obligatory for us to be compassionate towards them and to deal with them with gentleness and to call them [to the Truth] as is mentioned in the previous aayah, “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.” [Nahl 16:125]
And we remain in this state until it becomes clear to us from one of them that he is haughty and denies the truth and that kindness and softness have no benefit at all with him, it is then that the Statement of our Lord the Mighty and Majestic comes in to play, “… and turn away from the ignorant.” [A’raaf 7:199]
Bring the next question.
Questioner: I mean, O Shaikh, now … so that we can move on to the second question [let me just ask about this final point] because it [i.e., the second question] is totally separate from this one … [so] is this [i.e., the answer you just gave] regarding Jamaa’ahs as a whole or [is it applied to] people on an individual basis … when it becomes clear that all of them as a group or sect or such are haughty [subsequently] when someone meets one of them individually should he apply this to them on an individual level?
Al-Albaani: No. That which is applied to a Jamaa’ah is not applied to the individual.
We say, for example, the system and laws of some of the factions present today in the Islamic world, unfortunately, are ones of disbelief, like the Ba’ath Party for example and the Communist Party, there is no doubt that these forms of government are those of disbelief, and that whoever adopts them as religion is a disbeliever.
But we know that as regards the reality in many Islamic countries, especially Syria for example, many of those people who used to affiliate [themselves] to the Ba’ath [Party] used to pray and fast and totally guard the obligatory duties, and [that] when they would be reminded and warned from affiliating to a sect such as it they would say, and their statement was invalid [i.e., incorrect] … but we understand that they have not adopted Ba’athism as a replacement for Islaam [and we know this] because they would say, ‘Yaa akhi, what can we do, we want to live,’ so the example of such a person is like any other obstinate sinner [faasiq] who does something forbidden in order to live … in order to earn a living.
And how many trades, professions and businesses many of the Muslims pursue nowadays which contain forbidden things, and when you remind them and tell them that this and that are haram, they’ll say, ‘Yaa akhi, what can we do,’ and the good one from among them will say to you, ‘Wallaahi, I’m thinking about getting something … [getting] another job which will be [Islamically] legal but until it becomes possible I’ll carry on doing what I’m doing,’ and so on. This all shows that it is not possible to declare these people to be disbelievers in the same way that we declare the system and all those who [actually] adopt it as a part of their ’aqidah to be disbelievers.
Therefore, it is possible that individuals in these factions can be found who really are disbelievers because they have adopted their system as a replacement for Islaam and [at the same time] there are individuals amongst them who are not like that and who only, as I gave you an example of just now, take it as a means of living–[but by me saying this] I do not mean that this way is permissible, what I mean is that as long as the individual has not adopted it as creed, as a system [which replaces Islaam], as an ideology, then it is not allowed to deal with them as the system itself and those who do adopt it as ’aqidah are dealt with.
End.
Al-Huda wan-Noor, 735.
Continuing from the first post of this series.
“So now, it is not necessary/a prerequisite that [such a] warning is coupled with ostracism or boycotting in this day and age, but as for when our society is an Islamic one then all of these issues must be brought together.
Nowadays, for example, there is a very clear example [which I will give you]: the Muslim who doesn’t keep up/maintain his prayers [and thus] to whom applies the hadith which you mentioned in your [other earlier] question, “Between a person and disbelief is abandoning the prayer, whoever abandons the prayer has disbelieved,” the correct, legislated expression concerning this man who I just mentioned is that he be called someone who is defiantly disobedient [a faasiq], if not a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion, it is only by way of using gentler words that he be called, ‘not practicing,’ he is a faasiq, and that disbeliever is more of a faasiq than him, so [for now] we will speak about this person and then we may be in need of talking about the one who is ever more defiantly disobedient than him, i.e., the kaafir.
This Muslim who has abandoned the prayer has left obedience to Allaah in that issue, for this reason he deserves the title of faasiq: if we warned the people against him and, along with this warning, [also] connected what I just mentioned earlier, [i.e.,] boycotting him … this warning and this cutting off and this boycotting will not produce the results desired by [the implementation of] these three words : warning … cutting off … boycotting–why?
Because if you cut off from him you will find tens of people like you who will keep contact with him, and thus the situation will be turned on its head–you will be cut off from him and not him from you, and at that point, what is the advantage of you boycotting him?
This reminds me of a Syrian saying and it has a similar [version] here [in Jordan], but [whatever the case] the Syrian expression says that the people thought that a faasiq who had abandoned the prayer repented to Allaah and turned back, and for the first time he goes to the mosque to pray but finds it closed, and so says, ‘You’re closed and [so] I have a day off [from praying]!’ obviously the saying is understood.
Okay, likewise nowadays this faasiq, the one who has abandoned the prayer, when you decide to boycott him … to cut off from him … to warn against him … he doesn’t care, [and even if he doesn't say it with his tongue] his state of affairs says, ‘You’re closed and [so] I have a day off [from praying]! You’re cutting off from me and I’ll cut off from you and distance myself from you,’ and so on.
In summary, the principle of cutting off/ostracizing today is out of the question because we are in a time when the Muslims are weak.
And this connection [that I’m about to mention] which keeps them linked together, [i.e.,] the correct Islaam, represented in his saying عليه السلام in the authentic hadith, ‘The example of the believers in their mutual love, mercy and compassion is that of the body, if one part of it complains, the rest of the body joins it in staying awake and suffering fever,’–the Muslims today are not like that.
For this reason we do not have the means which it is fitting to rely on to bring together this widespread and dispersed division of today except by relying on His Statement the Mighty and Majestic:
“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.” [Nahl 16:125]
This is now the means which it is fitting that we rely on.
So when we see a faasiq person who has turned away from performing some of what Allaah has made obligatory upon a Muslim, we admonish him and remind him and are gentle with him.
Likewise, when we see a person or people who we cannot call faasiqs because we [for example] assume that they are guarding the obligatory duties whose obligation is well-known amongst all of the Muslims, i.e., the type of things [that are so fundamental to the religion and well-known] that they are from the category of actions called, ‘known as being from the religion by necessity,’ for we may find people who perform such obligatory duties and who do not leave them, and [thus] their perseverance in those obligatory actions comes between us and the application of the term faasiq to them, understood [so far]?
Okay, yet along with that it is possible that in these people there is some deviation from the correct ’aqidah in a certain issue or in many points of ’aqidah, this is possible, like the groups whose names today we hear recorded in the books dealing with sects and history [but which] we do not find [present] with those names in the current day and age, but we do find their effects in the state of affairs of many of the Islamic jamaa’ahs or individual Muslims, the Mu’tzailah for example, the Jabariyyah, the Qadariyyah, the Khawaarij, and so on.
In these sects there used to be found people who had deviated from the Sunnah in ’aqidah and who were regarded as righteous worshippers, yet along with that would be misguided, for example, ’Umar ibn ’Ubaid al-Mu’tazili, he would be cited as an example in his righteousness and his taqwaa but he held the [belief of the] madhhab of the Mu’tazilah, so it is not said of him that he is a faasiq but rather that he strayed from the correct ’aqidah.
And this type exists today in the Muslim world even if there is no group or Jamaa’ah which [verbally] say, ‘We are Mu’tazilah,’–I haven’t heard of anyone except one man who openly declared it in this city in front of the people, he said, ‘I’m a Mu’tazili,’ he said it openly, ‘I’m a Mu’tazili,’ and he really was a Mu’tazili and [in fact] even more misguided than they were … [but] we’re not in the middle of explaining that right now …
So the point is that it is obligatory on us to be gentle with misguided people such as these too and to establish the proof against them from the Book of Allaah, the Sunnah of Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, the statements of the Pious Predecessors and the Mujtahid Imaams–this is what it is obligatory for our stance to be towards those who have deviated from Islaam in either action or notion, until the Muslims become stronger and gain power and a country, then when these people are told about the correct Islaam and [still] do not restrain from the defiant disobedience [fisq] and misguidance they are upon, they then have a different ruling, [but at the same time] this ruling is not connected to individual righteous Muslims [to carry out], but is rather connected to the Muslim ruler, and perchance this is close, if Allaah so wills.
Perhaps I’ve answered your question?
Questioner: Yes, as a completion, what … [is it] likewise with non-Muslims?
Al-Albaani: Yes, it is likewise, without a doubt.
Questioner: The Jews and the Christians and so on?
Al-Albaani: Today, regretfully, my brother, the situation of the Muslims is very precarious …”
The next post.
Questioner: The first [question] is concerning the topic of the ’aqidah of loyalty and disavowal [al-Walaa wal-Baraa]: is it permissible for a Muslim that the ’aqidah of loyalty and disavowal be made apparent [i.e., implemented] before, ya’ni, establishing the proof against the other person, whether that other person is a non-Muslim or someone from other than Ahlus-Sunnah, ya’ni, someone astray …
Al-Albaani: If you were to remove the term ‘loyalty and disavowal [al-Walaa wal-Baraa],’ from your question, do you think the question still holds? Because I see that a connection which holds the question together cannot be found if you remove the term ‘loyalty and disavowal?’
Questioner: No, it does not hold.
Al-Albaani: Why … I then don’t understand the question, because the completion of your question …
Questioner: Loyalty … so, the question … it’s as though it is worded incorrectly, in the negative, I mean disavowal …
Al-Albaani: Let us repeat the question. What is the question that is connected to [the term] disavowal, is it permissible for a Muslim to what?
Questioner: That, ya’ni, he starts from the person …
Al-Albaani: Now it’s clear.
Questioner: … from the action, the basis is for him to start from the action … but from a person, [his question is jumbled and not clear, he is saying that if you want to boycott someone you boycott him for the action not because of him personally, so you say the action is misguidance etc., and then afterwards based upon that that the person is misguided etc.] ya’ni, who is involved in this action before the proof being established against him, whether he is a non-Muslim or [a Muslim but] from other than Ahlus-Sunnah.
Al-Albaani: Now the question is clear. After this clarification, maybe we can replace the term, ‘disavowal,’ with another word which will make the question aimed at clearer, i.e., ‘disassociation or boycotting,’ is this correct do you think, [answer me] so I can go on to answer?
Questioner: Disassociation?
Al-Albaani: Yes, i.e., ‘Is it permissible for a Muslim to disassociate [himself] from a non-Muslim and not deal with him and to boycott him, [and] is it permissible for a Muslim to disassociate [himself] from an openly sinning Muslim who does not practice, [is it allowed for the practicing Muslim to] act upon Islaam and boycott him?’ This is what is intended from the question or something else?
Questioner: Warning, ya’ni, against him.
Al-Albaani: What?
Questioner: Warning against him and his da’wah.
Al-Albaani: Warning against him, does this warning against him necessitate cutting off and boycotting him? Say [in response to this question I just asked], ‘Of course,’ or should he maintain communication and then warn against him? Namely, the question must be clarified until we can come to know the answer.
Questioner: … so that I understand …
Al-Albaani: I’m saying, a person is warning against another, does he maintain relations with him or boycott him?
Questioner: He boycotts him.
Al-Albaani: Okay, so there is a correlation, the two issues are linked, after this clarification I now say that I can tackle the answer to the question.
Amongst our problems in this day and age is that we deal with issues based upon emotion.
[What] I want to say is that lots of the youth today who are enthusiastic about their Islaam, their religion, deal with some critical/complex fiqh issues in a manner based upon [their] emotions for Islaam … dealing with [those issues] in a manner not accompanied by knowledge drawn from the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors.
I believe that a question such as this, i.e., warning … cutting off … boycotting … loyalty and disavowal … these are issues that are connected to a strong Islamic society which is capable of, firstly, implementing issues such as these and secondly, is capable of benefitting from their outcome.
So now, it is not necessary/a prerequisite that [such a] warning is coupled with ostracism or boycotting in this day and age, but as for when our society is an Islamic one then all of these issues must be brought together. Nowadays, for example, there is a very clear example [which I will give you] …
The next post.
Questioner: When does a person know that he can reach the ability of making a ruling concerning a hadith?
Al-Albaani: This is an important question. He will know that when he puts his research and personal statements before those of the people of knowledge of old whose statements have been penned down in their books–and finds that in the majority of cases he is in agreement with them. This is from one angle.
From another angle [is that he] finds that the people of knowledge value his knowledge and ijtihaad, and that they do not regard him, as we just said, as yet unqualified to prop himself up as someone who authenticates [hadiths] and declares them to be weak.
In other words: a person should be distant from being deceived by his knowledge. And it is in the nature of many people not to see their own faults but to see those of others, for this reason he should seek the aid of those people of knowledge who are around him, and thus see his faults through them, as [the Prophet] صلى الله عليه وسلم indicated in the well-known hadith, ‘The believer is his brother’s mirror.’ [As-Saheehah, no. 926, hasan]
A believer truly sees his mistakes and faults through others.
And he should seek the help of the people of knowledge in order to know whether or not he is worthy of researching or performing ijtihaad–whether that be concerning declaring matters of knowledge authentic or weak or whether that be concerning issuing religious verdicts in fiqh issues.
Al-Fataawa al-Kuwaitiyyah, pp. 83-84.
“When the Companions came across an issue for which they didn’t know the ruling, they would ask Abu Bakr [about it] when they met him, they would ask Umar, they would ask Ibn Mas’ood and so on. There wasn’t anyone among them who would say, ‘I’m a Bakri,’ i.e., I don’t believe in anything except Abu Bakr’s knowledge, or, ‘I’m an Umari! I don’t believe in anything except Umar’s knowledge!’
Rather, they would ask whoever amongst them was from the people of the message [Ahlul-dhikr]–and this is how it is fitting that the course of action should be, for all good is in following the Salaf and all evil is in the innovations of those who came later [the khalaf].
When the affair became one of partisanship [hizbiyyah] to a school of thought, each person became partisan to an Imaam and fanatical towards him.”
Silsilatul-Hudaa wan-Noor, 1/219.
The Imaam said, “And it has reached the extent that one of those factions [hizbs] made it obligatory on all its members to adopt any opinion the hizb adopts, whatever that opinion maybe–even if it has no value from an Islamic point of view–and if that individual is not convinced with a particular opinion of the hizb, he is excommunicated and is not regarded as being part of the hizb, [a hizb] which calls itself a [so called], ‘Islamic’ one.
And what that means is that they are going back to what resembles the Jews and the Christians when they follow whatever their rabbis and monks make halaal or haram, for indeed Allaah, the Most High, has said, “They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allaah and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God–there is no deity [who has the right to be worshipped] except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.”” [Tawbah 9:31]
Silsilatul-Hudaa wan-Noor, 1/320.
