|Wednesday, 23 August 2017 Home About Us Contact Us|
You are here:
Mail to a Friend Printer friendly
Shaykh Rabee, the Haddaadiyyah and the Accusation of al-Irjaa'
In a lecture titled, (كلمة في التوحيد وتعليق على بعض أعمال الحدادية الجديدة), "A Word Regarding Tawhid and a Commentary on Some of the Actions of the Haddaadiyyah" (21/12/1425H) - see transcript here - Shaykh Rabee' bin Haadee said:
"... they accused al-Albaani of Irjaa' because this expression occurred from him, may Allaah pardon him, the likes of this expression occurred from the Imaams (of the past) and no one judged them with Irjaa'. Mis'ar (bin Kidaam) did not make exception (istithnaa) in eemaan... and it was said to Imaam Ahmad, "Is he a Murji'?" and he said, "No." And we do not know Mis'ar (rahimahullah) to make war against Irjaa' as Ahl al-Sunnah (meaning al-Albaanee) wage war (against it), those whom you (Haddaadiyyah) accuse of Irjaa', out of oppression and wrongdoing. For if Imaam Ahmad was asked today about the expression of al-Albaanee [actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan] he would have said, "He is not a Murji'" ... and I, by Allaah, I rejected this expression from others, even before al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) said it, this expression, "Action is a condition of perfection in eemaan" and Ibn Baz (rahimahullaah) shares with him somewhat, they asked him about action, is it a condition of perfection (kamaal) or of correctness (validity)? He said, "From it is that which is a condition of validity, such as the prayer..." and in my presence he said, "and the actions of the heart..." and in the presence of others besides me he said, "...From the actions are those that are a condition of validity, such as the prayer and whatever is besides it, then it is a condition of perfection..." So he shared with al-Albaanee (in this matter) by a great deal - in relation to all of Islam, except the prayer, in relation to all actions of eemaan except the prayer and (yet these people, the Haddaadiyyah), they say, "al-Albaanee is Murji'..."
 Note: The others being alluded to here by Shaykh Rabee, who are similar to Mis'ar bin Kidaam appear to be: Ibrahim al-Taymee, Abdur-Rahman al-Sullamee, Awn bin Abd Allaah and others. And the issue was that they did not make exception in eemaan (meaning to say "I am a believer, if Allaah wills") and this position was the same as what the Murji'ah were saying, who also abandoned making the exception. However, in affirming faith resolutely (without the exception), they (those Imaams from the Salaf) were intending the asl (foundation) of eemaan and not the perfection of eemaan, so they did not see the necessity of making the exception. However, some people accused them of irjaa' on account of this - because of the apparent agreement with the saying of the Murji'ah. Yet they were free and innocent from it. This is why Imaam Ahmad exonerated Mis'ar from this, because he knew and understood his saying. And the same here, what Shaykh al-Albaanee and Shaykh Ibn Baaz meant in their use of the phrase "actions are condition in eemaan" (for its perfection), they were speaking here from the angle of major sins (leaving an obligation) not being kufr, unlike what the Mu'tazilah and the Khawaarij say. However, the expression is unrestricted, ambiguous because those who actually do expel actions from the reality (haqeeqah) or meaning (musammaa) of eemaan (the Maturidi Hanafis and others), they also use this statement "actions are a condition of perfection" but intend something else by it, based upon their foundation that actions are not from eemaan. The Murji'ah of old withheld from making exception (istithnaa) in eemaan because they did not believe actions to be from eemaan, hence, they could not make the exception (istithnaa), otherwise it necessitated doubt for them. This view is unlike that of those Scholars from the Salaf who were actually intending the asl (foundation) of eemaan when they withheld from making the exception (saying "inshaa'Allaah") whilst affirming that actions are from eemaan, because a person cannot be in doubt about the foundation of his faith. This is the point being made by Shaykh Rabee' here, referring to what happened in the past on the issue of al-istithnaa where some were accused of Irjaa' when they were free of it, and this is similar to what the Haddaadiyyah have done on this issue of al-Albaanee and the statement "actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan." The contemporary Haddaadiyyah, they play upon these types of issues in order to accuse Ahl al-Sunnah of Irjaa', and this is what we find from the followers of Yahyaa al-Hajooree and from them is Abu Fujoor al-Kanadi and the other oppressive ignoramus being Musa Millington from Trinidad.
Driving the Stake into the Ignorance, Deceptions and Pretences of Abu Fujoor al-Kanadi and Musa Millington
Some of these Haddaadiyyah attempted to use a Shaykh in Riyaadh, Shaykh Abdur-Rahman al-Barraak, in order to throw the accusation of Irjaa' in relation to this issue. They took some of the speech in question (twisted it) and put it to the Shaykh. However, when they released the audio, it was clear and apparent that they clipped the answer and hid a portion of it, as the answer stops very abruptly and the cut in the audio is apparent. These people not only have evil intentions, they are dumb too. The reason and intent behind that is perhaps made clear when we refer to a small treatise on eemaan by the same Shaykh where he discusses in detail the issue of "shart" (condition) as it relates to eemaan. In the treatise (جَوَابٌ فِي الإِيمَانِ وَنَوَاقِضِه), "An Answer Pertaining to Eemaan and its Nullifiers" Here we reproduce excerpts from the relevant section (download PDF file here) for benefit in this matter. If you have followed the detailed thread ( here) you should be familiar with the background to this episode - and what follows below exposes Musa Millington and Abu Fujoor for the liars and deceivers that they are, on top of their fame for being ignoramuses.
Notification: It is not correct to apply unrestrictedly the saying, meaning that we apply unrestrictedly, saying, "Action is a condition for the validity (sihhah) or eemaan." This speech is unrestricted speech (kalaam mutlaq), it does not contain any tafseel (detail). Or that we say, "Action is a condition for the perfection of eemaan." The opposite of generalization (itlaaq) is what? Detail (tafseel). In detail, the precise meaning is afforded. The unrestricted saying (is) "Action is a condition for the validity of eemaan or a condition for perfection", rather this requires detail (tafseel).
This is the same as what I explained (here) that this expression is unrestricted, mujmal (general) requiring tafseel. Unfortunately, Musa Millington, in his compound ignorance, rushed to treat this saying (of a generalization whose intent is to be investigated) to be the same as the false principle of Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee of "al-mujmal wal-mufassal." Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee's intent behind that principle was to defend statements that are outright baatil (such as statements of wahdat ul-wujood, revilement of the companions and so on) and not mere ambiguous, generalized statements. Shaykh Rabee', in his refutation of al-Ma'ribee, made this distinction between the two, and said that as for speech that is mujmal (general), then it must be accompanied with tafseel, and the person making it must clarify the intent and that this has nothing to do with statements of outright baatil (falsehood) coming from al-Ma'ribee and from Sayyid Qutb which al-Ma'ribee was trying to defend using this principle, statements such as the Companions are "ghuthaa'iyyah" (scum) and explicit statements of wahdat ul-wujood from Sayyid Qutb and explicit statements of takfeer of the whole Ummah coming from Muhammad al-Maghrawi. So al-Ma'ribi's intent was to defend these statements by claiming they are "general" when that is utter complete falsehood. They are in fact futile sayings in and of themselves. So Musa Millington in his compound ignorance tried to make the two matters the same and accuse me of speaking with the principle of al-Ma'ribee.
...rather this requires detail (tafseel). Because the word "action" (al-amal) comprises the action of the heart and the action of the limbs, and it comprises fi'l (performing an action) and tark (abandoning an action). This is because from what enters into eemaan are the abandonments, as has preceded that abandonment that is desired (in the Sharee'ah), in the view of the usooliyyeen (scholars who extract and lay down principles), it is considered an action. The labels of "amal" and "fi'l" (action), then abandonment (of an action) also enters into them. And [further], it (the label of amal) comprises the obligations (waajibaat) which are the five foundations (pillars) of Islaam and also (comprises) what is less than them. Meaning the obligations, the greatest of which are the five foundations of Islaam and what is less than them from the obligations such as jihaad, commanding good and prohibiting evil, and also the collective obligations. And it (the label of amal) also comprises abandonment of shirk and kufr and what is less than them of actions. Yes, it comprises that, entering into amal (action) is abandonment of shirk and kufr and what is less than them of sins, all of this is from amal (action), abandoning zinaa, abandoning drinking of intoxicants, abandoning usury, until even the minor sins, abandoning them is from eemaan, abandoning the minor sins.
The Shaykh speaks of the necessity of tafseel, the first ambiguity is in relation to the word "action" (amal) itself, because it comprises so many matters and when it is used by a Scholar, then he may not intend to include all of these matters into the word "action" (amal) when he makes the phrase "actions are a condition..." - so here we find that this ambiguous phrase is used, then we have to be clear about the intent of the person using it, just like when Mis'ar bin Kidaam, Ibraaheem al-Taymee and others, when they did not make al-istithnaa (exception) in eemaan, then their intent was other than the intent of the actual Murji'ah, despite outwardly their speech being the same. And this has nothing to do with al-Ma'ribee's false principle - since we are dealing with generalizations that need clarification. Thus, when the word "amal" (action) can include fi'l (doing an action), tark (leaving an action) and fi'l can include what is a rukn (pillar) or what is a waajib (obligation) or what is mustahabb (reccommended) and when tark can include leaving an action that is shirk, or kufr, or major sin, or minor sin, then it has to be clear what exactly is a person speaking of when he uses the word amal (action), and Imaam al-Albaanee, he means the outward (obligatory and reccommended) righteous deeds and is not referring to the turook (abandonments) which relate to major shirk and major kufr. So this issue is similar in a way to the Ahl al-Kalaam and their use of ambiguous words such as jism, jawhar, 'arad and the likes, through which different meanings can be intended. And so investigating and clarifying the intent is necessary, and this has nothing to do with the corrupt principle of al-Ma'ribee. However alongside this, the terminology used is to be avoided because of its ambiguity, and it is blameworthy to use such terms, and best to stick to words used by the Salaf.
As for the pillars of Islaam after the two testimonials: Then as for the two testimonials, then affirmation (iqraar) of them outwardly and inwardly, they are a condition of validity (sihhah). There is no eemaan without that. [And aside from the two testimonials] Ahl al-Sunnah are not united upon anything from them (the remaining pillars), that any of them are a condition for the validity of eemaan, with the meaning that abandoning it is disbelief, rather, they differed regarding the disbelief of the one who abandoned anything from them, despite the greatest and most apparent of what they differed in was the five prayers. The pillars of Islaam, with respect to the one who abandoned anything of them, or (meaning) the one who abandoned any of the four pillars after the two testimonials.
What we are seeing here from the Shaykh's explanation is that the only matter agreed upon by all Scholars, a matter which if abandoned is disbelief and which is therefore "a condition for the validity of eemaan ", is the shahaadataan (two testimonials of faith). And as for the rest of the pillars, then there is no agreement about them, not even in the prayer - the difference regarding it as to whether abandoning it constitutes disbelief or not is well known. This explains and puts into context the saying of Shaykh al-Albanee, that all outward righteous actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan (because he considers abandoning prayer not to be disbelief) and also what is found in the speech of Shaykh Ibn Baaz that besides the prayer, all the rest of the righteous actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan, because he considers abandoning prayer to be disbelief. This same explanation has been given by Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen who also used the terms "condition of validity" and "condition of perfection" wherein he said, "When evidence shows a person leaves Islam by this action then it becomes a condition for the validity (sihhah) of eemaan. And when evidence shows that he does not exit (Islaam) it becomes a condition of the perfection (kamaal) of eemaan. The topic has ended" - refer to the full article.
The Shaykh continues:
And as for all the other obligations after the five pillars of Islaam, then Ahl al-Sunnah do not differ that performing them is a condition for the perfection (kamaal) of the eemaan of a servant, and leaving them is disobedience (ma'siyah) which does not expel him from eemaan.
Alhamdulillaah this makes the affair crystal clear. And it shows the intent of those who use these terms "actions are a condition" whether for its validity (sihhah) or its perfection (kamaal). Their intent is to oppose the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah who expel Muslims from Islaam on account of the actions of disobedience. Al-Haafidh al-Hakamee in Ma'arij al-Qubool (2/31), "And the difference between this - meaning the saying of the Mu'tazilah - and between the saying of the Righteous Salaf is that the Salaf did not make all of the actions to be a condition for validity. Rather, they made many of them a condition for perfection, just as Umar bin Abd al-Aziz said regarding them, 'Whoever perfects them has perfected eemaan, and whoever does not perfect them has not perfected eemaan'." Yes, these terms might be unrestricted and ambiguous and are best avoided, but this is the tafseel (detail) that makes the desired intent clear. And sadly for Musa Millington, all of this has got nothing to do with al-Ma'ribi's corrupt principle of "al-mujmal wal-mufassal" which he wrongly thought was in play here. Musa Millington wasted his time writing a barrage of PDFs on this matter thinking that the sheer volume and rapid succession will hide his own ignorance and foolishness and make the accusations stick.
The Shaykh continues:
And it is desirable for it to be known that the intent here behind [the word] (الشَّرْط), "condition" is with its more general meaning, which is "that whose existence the reality (of a thing) depends upon irrespective of whether it is a pillar therein or external to it." So what has been said here that it (action) is a condition for eemaan, it is from eemaan, and this tafseel (detail), all of it is upon the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah. There is (the well-known) definition of (الشَّرْط) "condition" with the usooliyyeen, which is "that upon which the reality of a thing depends from what is external to it", for example: Notice the conditions of prayer. Purification (tahaarah) is a condition for the validity of the prayer, but purification, meaning purifying oneself (wudhoo), it is not from the prayer. For example, reason (aql) is a condition for the validity of worship, however it is not from the components of prayer, it is simply a description found in the one obligated (with worship). And intention (niyyah) is a condition, even though it preceds (acts of) worship. However, sometimes, the intent behind the (term) "condition" is that upon which the reality of something depends [without it being external to the thing itself], like what the Jurists rerfer to as "pillars." The pillar of the prayer is in reality a condition, because it depends upon it and the absence of the pillar necessitates the absence of the validity (correctness) of the worship. So this is the meaning of our saying that it is desirable for it to be known ... in that which we are (discussing) the (action) from eemaan about which we say it is a condition for the validity (sihhah) of eemaan or a condition for the perfection (kamaal) of eemaan, it is from eemaan itself, it is not a part that is outside of eemaan, or a matter that is outside of eemaan... for the pillars of prayer they are a condition for the validity of prayer absolutely, when a pillar is lost then the rak'ah (unit) of prayer is invalidated, or the prayer itself is invalidated...
Compare this with the statements of Musa Millington wherein he said, "If one says that actions are a condition for the completeness of Imaan then in that case he is putting actions outside of Imaan" and also "To explain this more clearly we all know that Wuduu is one of the conditions of prayer. If there is no Wuduu there is no prayer. However, the Wuduu itself is not part of the prayer but rather a pre-requisite that must be established before the prayer is done hence outside of it. Likewise, the one who says that actions are a condition for the completeness of Imaan is like the one that says that actions are a pre-requisite for its completeness but not part of it." I addressed Musa Millington's ignorance in this regard and his lack of understanding in this issue and advised him not to speak in matters he does not understand. The reason is that when Musa Millington gave this explanation of the word "shart" then it meant he undermined everything that his partner (Abu Fujoor) wrote in the first place, and the very quotations brought by his partner in trying to stir up this issue, and hence, the entire purpose for which Abu Fujoor raised this issue in the first place became meaningless. These are some of my statements in the discussion from 18 months ago - and compare them with what Shaykh Rabee has said and also what you see in this tafseel from Shaykh al-Barraak. First, the following in this post:
The Shaykh continues:
And this tafseel (detail), all of it proceeds upon the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. Hence, the one who spoke with the absence of disbelief of the one who abandoned the prayer or any of the other pillars, he is not a Murji' just like the one who spoke of his kufr (for abandoning the prayer) he is not a Haruri (Khariji)... because these (ones) and these (ones), whoever spoke from the Salaf of the disbelief of the one who abandoned prayer or spoke with its absence - all of them are agreed that eemaan is a term that comprises the four matters which have preceded, belief, the action of the heart, and the action of the limbs, all of them enter into the action (that is from) eemaan.
The first of those who used this issue of abandonment of prayer to slander the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah with al-Irjaa' was the extremist Qutbi, Safar al-Hawali (see here). The Haddaadiyyah then utilized this issue of eemaan and actions in a more general sense and started to accuse Shaykh al-Albani, Shaykh Ibn Baz (and also Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin) of al-Irjaa' because there is found in their speech something of this (the use of "actions being a condition in the perfection of eemaan," either all of them, or most of them) and also because they do not make takfir of the rulers who judge by other than what Allaah revealed. Then this accusation became a slogan and banner for the Haddaadiyyah, and it was inherited by the different levels of Haddaadiyyah until today we see some of the fanatical followers of Yahya al-Haddaadi use this matter out of treachery to the Imaams of Ahl al-Sunnah of our time and out of deception and oppression and out of jealousy for Yahya al-Haddaadi and malice towards Ahl al-Sunnah.
The Shaykh says in concluding the discussion:
And from all of this, the answer regarding the issue of action relating to eemaan becomes apparent, [the issue of whether] it is a condition for validity or condition for perfection, and the madhhab of the Murji'ah in this matter. And with this, I do not know anyone from the earlier Scholars who spoke with this, but it is found in the speech of some of the later ones, meaning this terminology, or this question, or this unrestricted (application of the term). Meaning, I do not not know whether the Imaams spoke (regarding it) and spoke with (this saying) or not? But they spoke about action being from eemaan and they rejected against those who said action is not from eemaan. And I do not recall anyone... but some of the explainers (of the books of hadeeth), I believe al-Haafidh ibn Hajar, it was cited to him from some of them, "Is the difference between the Murji'ah and Ahl al-Sunnah in this issue..." and the meaning of that is, the Murji'ah say action is a condition for the perfection of eemaan and Ahl al-Sunnah say action is a condition for the validity of eemaan, and the affair is not like this, with such an unrestricted (generalization). And this is why we said in what has preceded, it is not correct to make an unrestricted generalization that action is a condition for the validity of eemaan and nor that action is a condition for the perfection of eemaan, as has preceded in detail.
These terms are not found with the Salaf, but the first who appeared to use it is Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and he was intending to differentiate between the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah and the Mu'tazilah, and his saying was cited by Imaam al-Albani (rahimahullaah) to make the same point in his book Hukm Taarik al-Salaat, wherein he said, "...for all the righteous actions are a condition for the perfection with Ahl al-Sunnah, in opposition to the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah those who say that the major sinners will remain eternally in the fire, alongside the Khawarij making explicit takfeer of them (the sinners)." And he alluded to Fath al-Baaree (1/46) in the footnote, referring to Ibn Hajar's usage of this term to contrast the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah from that of the Mu'tazilah. However, this is an unrestricted phrase that requires tafseel as has preceded. However, the Haddaadiyyah accuse anyone who speaks with these terms without qualification as being someone who calls to Irjaa' when they are in fact free and innocent of it. Rather, the most that is said is that it is an unqualified generalization which requires tafseel. In his utter rank ignorance in this matter, Abu Fujoor al-Kanadi used this issue to throw the accusation of the extremist Irjaa' of the As'harites, those who do not consider actions to be from eemaan in the first place. This is a gross unjust slander. Despite being corrected, he has not recanted from this slander, which indicates that the issue was not raised for the sake of Allaah, or for the sake of the aqidah but for the sake of jealousy for Yahya al-Hajuri al-Haddadi.
Summary and Conclusion
We can finish with some other relevant quotes that can be found in the detailed discussion elsewhere:
And the reality is that these are general (i.e. ambiguous words), there must be clarification with respect to them, they are not accepted or rejected except after enquiring into the intent of the one who [expresses] them. If the one who said, "Actions are shart kamaal" intends that falling short in action is a cause of the decrease in eemaan, for it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience and can sometimes decrease until it ceases altogether when he abandons action alltogether whilst having the ability to do so and without anything preventing him, then this is the meaning of the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah but the error is in the expression. And if he intended that eemaan can be established in its foundation (asl) without any action, and that action is not from the reality of eemaan, then this is the sayig of the Murji'ah.
And the saying of Shaykh Muhammad Aqeel in a short treatise of his (see here):
This is a summary of this issue (of the excuse of ignorance), and this issue has equivalent issues (that are like it) for example, "actions are a condition for perfection (kamaal) or a condition for validity (sihhah)", this (issue) is a sister-issue (to the issue of the excuse of ignorance). We do not say "shart kamaal" nor do we say "shart sihhah", we say "actions are from eemaan". However we do not show severity upon a Salafi who says, "shart kamaal" or "shart sihhah." For this one (in saying shart kamaal) has a salaf (a precedence) and that one (in saying shart sihhah) also has a salaf (a precedence). I say that this matter (of the excuse of ignorance) has other equivalent issues, because they are propagated in order to bring about separation between Ahl al-Sunnah, and by Allaah besides whom there is none worthy of worship besides Him, al-udhru bil-jahl (the excuse of ignorance) and al-a'maal shart kamaal or shart sihhah (actions being a condition of the perfection or validity [of eemaan]) and what is like them from the issues, then verily they are propagated for no reason except to split the Salafis.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.
© Manhaj.Com. All rights reserved.