sheikh bin baz,uthaymeen,albani controversy [Archive]

View Full Version : sheikh bin baz,uthaymeen,albani controversy

asharee_salafi

1st June 2005, 08:15 PM

Assalaamulekum. 

I have a question,especially since we are talking much about personalities recenty on this forum.

My question is about the 3 sheikhs, sheikh bin baz, sheikh albani, sheikh uthaymeen.

Now , what has been confusing me for long is the problematic fatwas I see from saudi salafi websites and the almost confused followers of the above sheikhs, It seems that the 3 sheikhs were representatives more so of the saudi salafees rather then the normal salafees, 

1.They say that we should obey the rulers. Despite them not ruling by the shariah? Why do they say this?

2.Why is it that certain memebers of ahl sunnah pick on the mistakes of other scholars but they do not consider the mistakes of their own scholars...for instance sheikh bin baaz allowed the american troops in the peninsula? How do we acknowldge this fatwa and what is our stance with the fatwa and the individual.

3.Why are the followers of these sheikhs confused in relation to the rulers. You get one group who say the rulers are apostates and another who say we should obey them ...but how is that reconciled with the above 3 sheikhs statements since they are known to back the rulers up, how can some of his followers that have that stance of calling the rulers apostates when their ulema didnt?

4.For someone to have the aqeedah of the salaf must he back the above scholars?

Jazak Allah kahirun...maybe one of the followers of teh above sheikh like abu zubair or someone knowldgeable about this issue can give me these answers I have been longing for.

WS

slave-of-THE_ONE

3rd June 2005, 03:01 PM

assalamu 'aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu

i've heared some brothers making takfeer on them and others blindly follow them and never knew what stand to take knowing the kufr some of the 3 have uttered*******or condoned or given permission for untill i heard a debate between Shaikh Abu Hamza HafithauLLAH and JIMAS where after an hour or humiliation which they brought upon themselves they asked : "what do you think of Shaikh Bin Baz, is he a muslim or a kafir?" to which he answered "ALLAHu a'lam, he is with the kufr group." and then explained his position by giving the example of the position of Abbas the uncle of the Prophet (saw) at the battle of Badr when he fought against the muslims beside the quraish and at the end of the battle was captured and said that he believed in ALLAH and HIS Rasul (saw)*******but that he was forced to fight. The Prophet (saw) told him that*******his excuse*******was not going to be accepted and that if he wanted his freedom, he would have to pay the ransom money just as the mushrik quraish were paying.

i'm greatfull to the sheikh for the knowledge he has propagated in the circostances he was in not fearing the wrath of the creation upon him over the wrath of the CREATOR.******* May ALLAH release him and protect him and give victory to the believers and make us able to protect our 'ulemaa & shiyukh and imams.

Wal 'Izzatu liLLAHi wa Rasulih (saw) wal Mu'mineen

Abuz Zubair

3rd June 2005, 05:53 PM

As-Salaamu ‘Alaikum,

There is a very important principle we must remember when speaking about scholars and their worth.

As a matter of principle, we are obliged by the Shariah to give the people the status they deserve, as Aisha – may Allah be pleased with her – said that the Messenger of Allah – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – ordered us to rank the people according to their status.

Ignorance of this principle has lead many of us to rank some people way above their level, just as it has lead many to rank others way below their level.

For example, the Shias ranked ‘Ali way above his level. For he was indeed from the ten promised paradise and one of the four righteous Caliphs, but he was never the most courageous, or the best, or the most knowledgeable of all the Companions. The Shias became extremists when they went into an extreme in their love for Ali.

Likewise, some of the followers of the four Madhabs ranked their respective Imams above the rest of the Imams, out of sheer bigotry.

In our time, we have many Muslim groups around, and you will find the followers of each of these groups consider their leader to be the ‘Imam’ of the age and more knowledgeable with respect to Fiqh and current affairs than the rest of the scholars of the world.

Take Ikhwan, for example, to whom Sh Hasan al-Banna is the Imam of the century.

Take Hizbut-Tahrir, for example, to whom Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nabahani was a Mujtahid Mutlaq.

Take Pakistani Deobandi Muslims, for example, to whom their Pakistan scholars are the greatest scholars of Hadeeth.

Take the Salafis, for example, to whom Sheikh Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaimeen and al-Albaani are the Imams of our time.

In fact, let’s take a look at various Jihadi groups, to whom the greatest scholars and the only ones to speak the truth are: Sh Abu Basir, Sh Abu Qatada, Sh al-Maqdisi, Sh ‘Abd al-Qadir, Sh Nasir al-Fahd, Sh Ali al-Khudair, etc.

It turns into a calamity when people give an elevated rank to those who are either outright deviants, or clowns, such as Abu ‘Isa the Takfiri, or Omar Bakri, for these people deserving no ranking in the first place, yet for so many people they are the leading scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah!

So what is the common error amongst all these people?

The error is that they have inappropriately ranked their respective leaders way above what they deserve.

Sheikh Hasan al-Banna, was surely a leading and from the most influential figures of the Islamic Movement in Egypt, but he was surely not an Imam.

Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nabahani was likewise a great thinker and a scholar, but surely he wasn’t a Mujtahid let alone a Mujtahid Mutlaq.

The Pakistani scholars of Deoband are surely scholars of great caliber in Fiqh and Hadeeth, but they are not the only scholars in the Muslim world.

Sheikh Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaimin and al-Albani were truly scholars and great caliber, but again, they weren’t the only scholars in the world.

Sh Abu Basir, Abu Qatada, et al, are surely scholars who speak the truth and have sacrificed a lot for Islam and Muslims, but they are not the only scholars who speak the truth, such that all fatawas should be restricted to them.

The other important principle is that amongst the scholars I listed above, there are those who are agreed upon amongst the entire Ummah.

Such as some of the scholars of Pakistan, such as Taqi Uthmani, or some of the scholars of Ikhwan, such as Abd al-Karim Zaidan, or some of the Ash’ari scholars such as Abu Zahra, or some of the modernist scholars such as al-Qaradhawi.

These people are recognized scholars throughout the Muslim world, in the sense that you don’t have to be a Salafi to recognize Sh Ibn Baz’s scholarship, just as you don’t have to be an Ikhwani to recognize Zaidan’s scholarship, or an Ash’ari to recognize Abu Zahra’s scholarship etc. The entire Ummah, irrespective of what background they are from, recognizes these people as reputable scholars.

Others from the scholars are not unanimously agreed upon, such as Sh Taqi al-Din al-Nabahani, Sh Abu Basir, Sh Nasir al-Fahd etc. These type of scholars are only scholars for their respective groups and parties. I am not trying to deny their scholarship, but I am just making a point.

This is why, when you look at various groups bickering with each other, you will find that all they can give to you is what their respective scholar has taught them. So if a Jihadi wants to prove a point, his list of scholars will always remain the same, (i.e. Sh Abu Basir, Sh Abu Qatada, et al), which to their opponents means nothing, for the 99.9% of the Ummah do not recognize them as reputable scholars. This is surely not to doubt their scholarship, but I am just making a point.

It becomes problematic, when the second category of scholars are given ranks higher than they deserve, and made into the only scholars of the Ummah who speak the truth, know the Tawheed, don’t fear anyone etc.

So always remember these two basic principles whenever you want to discern the caliber of a particular scholar and how widely accepted he is.

Now to your question about ruling by the law and obedience:
Firstly, the widely accepted and reputable scholars around the Muslim world have made their position very clear with respect to ruling by mad-made laws. And to be fair, all those minor scholars who write on this topic, they use quotations from these reputable scholars to support their arguments, and therefore they should give the credit where it’s due.

Secondly, having established the first point, none of the reputable scholars have ever called for a revolt against these governments, or even called these governments in particular ‘Kufr governments’ for various reasons. From them is that there is a great Mafsadah in rousing the emotions of the people, which most probably will lead to an unsuccessful revolt and a great set-back for Islamic Dawah, as we have witnessed in Syria, Libya, Algeria and Egypt. Al-Jama’ah al-Islamiyah of Egypt is one example when they initiated a military struggle with the government, which was mercilessly crushed after which they had to sign a humiliating ceasefire deal, which was followed by another set of humiliating books published by the group retracting all of their ideas. Meaning, none of these revolts that took place in Muslims countries resulted in a greater good, and if anything, they brought about more evil.

Your point about picking mistakes of other scholars yet not that of our own scholars is not true.

It is known for example, that Sh al-Albaani made an error with respect to the issue of Iman, and many scholars wrote about it explaining his error extensively, and the same with respect to some of his odd opinions regarding some Fiqh issues.

As for Sh Ibn Baz allowing the American troops in the Arabian Peninsula, then it is just a matter of Fiqhi dispute. Ibn Qudamah is of the opinion, and it is the correct position in the Hanbali Madhab, that it is permissible for the ruler to seek help from the Mushrikin against Mushrikin in case of necessity. His Fatwa was about nothing but the Fiqhi ruling. This is why he wasn’t criticised by Sh Safar and others on the ruling of seeking aid from the Mushrikin itself. Rather, he was criticised for his inaccurate view on the status quo of the Middle East and the American agenda behind stationing its troops in the Gulf. It was never a matter of Kufr and Iman, the way some people have made it out to be. On the other hand, Sheikh al-Albani was extremely critical of Sh Ibn Baz’s view and he was so outspoken that I think, his views caused him to be banned from entering Saudi again. Moreover, Sh Ibn Baz wasn’t the only scholar to have signed the Fatwa, rather it was also the great Deobandi Indian scholar Abul-Hasan al-Nadawi. Hence, the Fatwa wasn’t a big issue in terms of its Fiqhi nature, but it was problematic with respect to its application in reality, which greatly varied from people to people as to how they viewed American hidden agendas, and at what length they thought the Americans would go, and whether inviting the Americans along with their agendas is a greater harm than letting Saddam roll his tanks into Arabia and crushing the Dawah with full force.

Your point about the division amongst the ‘wahabists’ with respect to the status of the rulers:

Bear in mind that there are many people who attribute themselves to Ahl al-Sunnah, but not all of them completely adhere to its principles.

Talking from principles, Takfeer on a particular individual is an Ijtihadi issue where scholars differ. Secondly, Takfeer must be performed by scholars who know what Iman and Kufr is, and know the conditions and impediments of Takfeer.

Thirdly, for a layman, it should suffice him to abstain from Takfeer of any particular individual, that no widely-accepted reputable scholar from the Salafis, Deobandis, Ikhwanis or anyone else has made Takfeer of a certain ruler. If the layman wants to make Taqlid of a lesser scholar for legitimate reasons in Takfeer of any individual, then he is well within his rights. But he should not make the opinion of his Sheikh binding upon the rest of the Ummah, especially when 99.9% of the Ummah don’t even recognise his Sheikh to be a scholar.

The one who wants to truly safeguard his Deen would usually refer to the reputable and recognised scholars of the Muslim world.

Your last point about the necessity of backing these scholars if one is to have the right creed.

Well, technically speaking, so long as a person on the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, it does not matter whether or not he even knows people like Imam Ahmad, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab etc.

However, it is equally important to note that Allah often makes some of his servants into signposts of the truth, such that those individuals are then used by the Muslims as the criteria to discern who is a Sunni and who is a heretic.

For example, any one can disagree with Imam Ahmad with respect to some of his Fiqhi opinions. However, no one would refuse to recognise the Imamate of Ahmad ibn Hanbal in theology, except that he is an innovator, and most probably a philosopher or a Mu’tazalite.

Likewise, no one would belittle Ibn Taymiyah, or refuse to acknowledge his authority in theology, except an Ash’ari, or a Mu’tazili, or a philosopher or a Shia.

Likewise, people like Sh Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaimin and al-Albani have become the signpost of Ahl al-Sunnah in our time whose scholarship is acknowledged far and wide by all the scholars of the Muslim world irrespective of their background, such that no one belittles them except that he is a Takfiri fringe, a Sufi heretic, or a socialist.

The bottom line is: Remember that Allah has obliged you to be just with his entire creation, and that includes your friends and foes. It is not from justice to deny someone’s status and belittle their rank, just as it is not from justice to elevate a people beyond their level.

Was-salaamu ‘alaikum

terrorthreat

4th June 2005, 06:18 AM

*******<div class="smallfont">Correct Opinion on Ibn Baz, Uthaymin, Albani </div><hr style="COLOR: rgb(158,157,157)" size="1" /><div>The following was between al-Muwahhid and some of the brothers on a different site.
----------------------------

Those who call the Shuyookh "Murtaddeen" and declare Baraa'ah from them--- Bring us who your Salaf are in these matters.

And hold your tongues from the skins of the 'Ulamaa who have already passed onto their Ilaah. And please take heed.

1 ) The Shaykh, the Mujaahid, the Shaheed Yoosuf al-'Uyayree (ra) called the man you called a murtadd, and disaccosiated from: "The Noble Shaykh, Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen MAY ALLAAH PRESERVE HIM". http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=799

2) Shaykh 'Alee ibn Khudhayr al-Khudhayr (may Allaah hasten his release from the prisons of the Tawaagheet) The Shaykh says MAY ALLAAH HAVE MERCY UPON HIM after mentioned Ibn Baaz.
http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=550

3) Shaykh Naasir al-Fahd (may Allaah hasten his release from the prisons of the Tawaagheet) Regarding Shaykh 'Abdul-Azeez ibn Baaz (ra)
http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=838

4) Shaykh Aboo Qattaadah al-Filasteenee (may Allaah hasten his release from the prisons of the Tawaagheet) On Shaykh al-Albaanee (ra).
http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=1352

5) And finally, the Fatwaa of the Mujaahid Shaykh, Aboo Muhammad al-Maqdisee (may Allaah hasten his release from the prisons of the Tawaagheet).
http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=109

===

No doubt these Shuyookh (al-Albaanee , Ibn Baaz, al-'Uthaymeen) had many errors in there Fataawaa- but let us follow what the our Salaf (the 5 Shuyookh mentioned above, and many more) with regards to our position towards them. Remember the Truth is the middlepath--- not like Madaakhilah making taqleed of them, nor making takfeer of the Shuyookh. We take the good, and throw away the evil. Go ahead and refute , with Daleel, the error and mistakes of the Shuyookh, but do not talk about matters in which those more knowledgeable (like the 5 mentioned above) have not delved into.

And if these Shuyookh are not enough- then let us hear this statement of Ibn Taymiyyah (ra):

Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) narrates from Imaam ‘Abdullaah Ibn al-Mubaarak and Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal that they said, “If the people disagree (ikhtilaaf) regarding anything, then look at what the Mujaahidoon say- since the Truth is with them; because Allaah says, “As for those who wage Jihaad in Us (for Our Cause), We will surely guide them to Our Paths.” al-‘Ankaboot: 69. Refer to Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa (28/442).

And do you know what the Mujaahideen of Sheeshaan called Shaykh Ibn Baaz (ra): Imaam as-Sunnah. And i wonder what Shaykh Aboo 'Umar as-Sayf of Sheeshaan would say to you when you call his Shaykh a "murtadd". So let us hold our tongues, for the Sake of Allaah.

Just a Naseehah for my dear Brothers in Tawheed. May Allaah forgive me my mistakes.

---
The Imprisoned Imaam, Aboo Muhammad al-Maqdisee , may Allaah hasten his release from prison, said in

http://tawhed.ws/r?i=82

his book in Q & A:

كما جرى معي في باكستان فقد كانت موجة تكفير ابن باز واضرابه من علماء الحكومات على أشدها .. وكانت مجموعة من غلاة المكفرة يمتحنون الناس بهذه المسألة فمن كفر ابن باز تركوه ومن لم يكفره كفروه وكفروا من لم يكفره وهكذا ..

[i]And all the Ghullaat Mukaffirah (Extremist Takfeerees) used to test (ask) the people regarding this Mas'alah. So whosoever did takfeer on Ibn Baaz, they left him alone; and whosoever didn't do takfeer on him, then they pronounced that person as a kaafir- and also whosoever didn't do takfeer on that person, they would perform takfeer on him.

==

And put this together with what he said earlier- that it is NOT Halaal to do takfeer of them.

And on Shaykh al-Albaanee (ra), when asked if he does takfeer on him; he replied in these strong words:

فلم يصدر مني يوماً من الأيام تكفيره لا قولاً ولا كتابة

"There has never emanated from me in even a single day, any takfeer on him (al-Albaanee)- not in a single statement, nor in a single writing."

then please read this also:

http://tawhed.ws/r?i=150

Shaykh Aboo Muhammad al-Maqdisee (fa) says regarding Ibn Baaz (ra) and al-Albaanee (ra).

بالنسبة لعدم تكفير المشايخ المذكورين للطواغيت ، فالظاهر أنه اجتهاد خاطئ منهم

"And with relation to the mentioned Shuyookh not performing Takfeer on the Tawaagheet- what is apparent is that it was an incorrect ijtihaad from them."

فلا نستحل تكفيرهم لمجرد خطئهم هذا، ومن قوّلنا غير ذلك فقد افترى علينا

"We do not make permissible (istihlaal) making takfeer on them for merely this mistake of theirs. And whosoever says other than this from us (regarding our position) - then they have fabricated a lie against us."

And this is the position of Shaykh al-Maqdisee. If you read the opinions of al-Khudhayr and al-Fahd, and many of Imaams of the Muwhahideen- then you would hear praise of the Shuyookh and even more defense.

Shaykh Aboo Qattaadah (may Allaah hasten his release from the prisons of the Tawaagheet) said: "And Shaykh Naasir (ad-Deen al-Albaanee) opposes us, but we do not do takfeer upon him; may Allaah save us from being Khawaarij."
(Shaykh Aboo Qattaadah said this here: http://www.tibyanpubs.com/forums/in...p?showtopic=799 (http://www.tibyanpubs.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=799) )

So this is what the extremist takfeerees say regarding Ibn Baaz/'Uthaymeen/Albaanee- and you also see what the people of 'Ilm say.

Lets compare what those who slander the 3 Shuyookh, with what people who have tasted 'Ilm say regarding the 3 Shuyookh:

the imprisoned Shaykh Aboo Muhammad al-Maqdisee (fakkAllaahu asrah) said in
http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=109

This is how the Shaykh began his answer when he was asked the QUESTION :

"Will scholars like Shaykh Ibn Baaz leave the Ummah upon misguidance?"

And the Shaykh, the Haneef, the Mujaahid, Aboo Muhammad al-Maqdisee (fa) answered:

"فاعلم بارك الله فيك أنا لم نؤمر أن نشق عن قلوب الناس ولا أن ننبش عن نواياهم ولم نشتغل يوما قط في قصد ابن باز أوغيره من المشايخ ودوافعهم القلبية في اجتهاداتهم التي خالفناهم وخطأناهم فيها .. وإنما يهمنا من ذلك كله التنبيه على الخطأ الظاهر والضلال البين والانحراف الواضح الذي قد يغتر به الشباب "

"Know! May Allaah bless you: We were not ordered to split open the hearts of people, nor were we ordered to escavate for their intentions. And we have never ever in even a single day pondered over the intention of Ibn Baaz or those Shuyookh similar to him, nor for their internal motives in their Ijtihaads which we have opposed and taken them as mistaken with regards to it. Rather, the only thing which we are interested in, is to point out these apparent mistakes and clear misguidance, and obvious astrayness which could decieve the Youth.”

And then he goes onto say, after pointing out the mistakes of the Shuyookh:

فليس الخلاف في ذلك ونحن لم نطعن قط في نوايا هؤلاء المشايخ ولا تعرضنا لمفاصدهم القلبية أو لخفايا نفوسهم أو زعمنا فساد إراداتهم أودوافعهم القلبية ؛ بل على العكس فنحن نصرح دوما بأن المتتبع لحال هؤلاء المشايخ يعرف زهدهم في الدنيا وعدم حرصهم عليها مع كونها كانت مبذولة لهم ميسرة بين أيديهم ؛ وأنا أعرف هذا وأتكلم فيه عن معرفة بأحوالهم ؛ فأنا لم أكن بعيدا عنهم في أول التوجه والطلب فقد حضرت كثيرا من مجالسهم ودروسهم شأني في ذلك كشأن أكثر من نشأ في هذا العصر نشأة سلفية فمكثت مدة في عنيزة وحضرت كثيرا من دروس الشيخ ابن عثيمين واطلعت عن قرب على أحواله وزهده وإنفاقه وكذا الشيخ ابن باز فقد حضرت كثيرا من مجالسه في بيته وفي غير بيته ولم تمنعنا مخالفتهم في فتاواهم المتعلقة في طواغيت الحكام وما إلى ذلك من الشهادة لهؤلاء المشايخ بالزهد في الدنيا بل والعلم في أكثر أبواب الدين وكذا الانفاق ومساعدة الناس والحرص على الخير للمسلمين فليس هذا موضع خلاف عندنا كما أننا لم نتكلم قط على النوايا ولا تعرضنا لما في الصدور؛ فهذا نكله لمن يعلم السر وأخفى سبحانه وتعالى وإنما كلامنا دوما منحصر فيما يظهر لنا من أعمال أو فتاوى وأقوال ؛ وهكذا أمرنا في أحكام الدنيا 

"The disagreement is not there (i.e. not staying silent regarding the mistakes of the Shuyookh just because they had good intention). Rather, we have never made any accusation upon the intentions of these Shuyookh, nor have we pondered over their internal motives, or what is hidden in their souls- Nor have we claimed that their desires and internal motives were evil/corrupt.
Rather- The OPPOSITE. We have always made clear that one who follows the situation of these Shuyookh, he will realize their absistence (ZUHD) from the world, and their lack of desire for it, EVEN THOUGH it was laid in front of them, easily in reach of their hands. And I (Aboo Muhammad al-Maqdisee) know this, and I speak regarding him (Ibn Baaz and similar Scholars) from KNOWING their situations. I was not far from them in my seeking of Knowledge, for I indeed attended many of their gatherings and lessons. My affair in this was similar to most of those who grew in this Era, a growth of Salafiyyah. And I resided in 'Unayzah for a period of time, and I attended many of the duroos/lessons of ash-Shaykh al-'Uthaymeen, and I saw his conditions very closely, and his Zuhd (absistence), and his charities. And likewise, ash-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, for indeed I attended many of his gatherings, inside his house and outside of it. And our opposition to their Fataawaa regarding the Tawaagheet Rulers and such does NOT PREVENT us from giving TESTIMONY to the ZUHD, absistence from the world, of these Shuyookh- and even their 'Ilm in most of the matters of Deen, and similarly their givingness and their assisting mankind, and their encouraging Muslims upon Khayr [goodness]. So this is not the matter of difference with us; Just as we have never ever spoken regarding the intentions (of these Shuyookh), nor have we delved into their breasts- Rather, we leave that to the One Who knows the Hidden and Subtle, Glory is to Him and High is He. Rather, our words are always stopped at whatever is apparent and external to us."</div>

Mansoor Ali

4th June 2005, 05:54 PM

Please remember - If ibn Baaz was a kaafir then everyone of the half a million or so who prayed the funeral prayer for him in Makkah and everyone who believes he was a Muslim is also a kaafir, because believing a kaafir to be a******* Muslim takes a person out of Islaam.

asharee_salafi

6th June 2005, 05:53 PM

ASSALAAMULEKUM.

I have found the above points of extreme benefit and unbelievable help. It really clarified a lot, and to tell you the truth I did think what you had wrote but I needed confirmation on what I was thinking.

Thanks very much,

There is one small point id liek to make, to the brother who copy and pasted the arabic and also abu zubair,

Firstly I never said they were apostates, Secondly I never used the phrase wahabites......

On one issue abu zubair that I have seen not only on this post but others too, is this concept of calling or deciding who is or is not a scholar-often you talk about******* so and so having no recognised scholar-but to recognise a scholar you must be one your self, for instance if i do a phd thesis in physics, nd you do IT, how can you critizie me if u dont know nothing about my subject area.

I think for us layman we rather TRUST whom is a scholar, For instance, taqiudeen nabahani- a muatizili- I do not regard him as a scholar since for me I dont trust him,especially with his inconistent views regarding the aqeedah.

I have seen that you often judge who is or is not scholar based upon welll know muslim personalities. But they should not be the yardstick by which we judge the ummah's scholars. Rather what should be judged is what teh scholars say, not what is the majority or minority view. Ibn taymiyyah, abdul wahab, if you look at them, they were only one man armies, yet I can imagine the scholars at their time saying that they had odd opinions, they had no known scholarship etc etc....

*******Often you judge people base upon if they fit in this small circle of saudi scholars, If I was to ask you if you regarded anyone as a scholar whom who respect and yet they didnt suppot those 3 shakykhs I preume the answer would be in the negative.

About your points about no reputable scholar regarding the current goverments as kufr goverments-well most of those scholars, with all respect are at the gates of the rulers, so wouldnt it be unthinkable******* for them to go against the rulers? Also if these giverments we have today are not ones of kufr then what is a goverment of kufr? where is that ''point'' to which they can be regarded as kufr.

The above is just for some food for thought, you may or may not reply, but jazak Allahu Khairun for the effort and thanks for the other brother in giving teh copy and pastes 

WS

asharee_salafi

6th June 2005, 06:27 PM

One thing you may want to detail is actually when a scholar does become deviant? whats the linean ashari, a modernist, a sufi, a slafi must cross the be regarded as deviant, because some with the line of arguments thats cholars must always be respected talk as though scholras can never be wrong, by doing this even if a scholar does a kaufr act he his to be excused because ''you are a lay man and he is a very knowledgeable person''

Allahu Alim

slave-of-THE_ONE

7th June 2005, 03:31 PM

assalamu 'aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu

ya ikhwan

it does not change the nature of kufr of every government leader the only fact that the 3 did not perform takfir on them by name ( even though by teacings they have, i can't say the same for shk. Albani r.a. as he had irja' in the issue of iman and kufr).

the scholars of a lesser digree as our brother abu zubair descraibed them, have exposed*******for us the stand of the ulema of the past regarding this issue of ruling by other than what ALLAH has revealed.

only because an 'alim is popular and well known does not mean that he is desorving of more admiration, rather the one who speaks the haqq in front of the leader (the greatest jihad)*******and goes against the corrent with the haqq is desorving of admiration as in the time of imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal r.a. when there were ulema in his time that were much more knowledgeble than him and exelled more than him in certan*******fields of the deen, he spoke the haqq in front of the ruler and went against the popular current with the haqq and today he is given by the will of ALLAH more praise then any of them.******* 

just as the scholars in his time said that they feared the ruler whould punish them brothers make the same excuse for our ulema of today.

if the haqq is clear, you you need not an 'alim to tell you of it, maybe to explain it.

the rulers in the muslim countries have apostated and the 3 ulama did not tell us about it in a clear way but have explained to us many other aspect of the deen jazahumULLAHU khairan.

in my understanding ALLAH elevates HIS slaves in degrees by their actions as well as their intentions but we only elevate people according to their actons as Umar ibn Khattab r.a. said "revelations have seased to come so we judge according to actions".

according to their actions the 3 ulema have brought immence benefit to this ummah but the greatest need of the ummah today, and i expect that brothers agree with me, is*******to resist to the attacks******* that are being directed at her, physical military attacks that is. The greatest enemy of the ummah is the apostate taht is ruling her wherever that be "saudi" arabia, syria, the gulf ,egypt and every other country with a muslim population.

the 3 ulema failed to address this issue and because of the importance of the issue, many have taken the position of making takfir on them and those who benefitted from their silence namely the saudi salafis, have followed them blindly in that which suited them. 

respect and gratitude goes to them for their contribution but i'm afraid that in history they will always be remembered as the ulema who kept silent about the apostacy of the rulers of the muslims.



Wal 'Izzatu liLLAHi wa Rasulih (saw) wal Mu'mineen

ALLAHUMMA 'nsurnal Mujahedeena fi julli makaan

Abuz Zubair

20th June 2005, 02:47 AM

On one issue abu zubair that I have seen not only on this post but others too, is this concept of calling or deciding who is or is not a scholar-often you talk about******* so and so having no recognised scholar-but to recognise a scholar you must be one your self, for instance if i do a phd thesis in physics, nd you do IT, how can you critizie me if u dont know nothing about my subject area.

It is very important for the commoners like ourselves to know who is a scholar qualified enough to give a Fatwa and who is not. Hence, due to the importance of this issue, the classical scholars in the past have already discussed, how a commoner should discern who is or isn’t qualified.

They specifically state that one should not ask anyone to readily takes up the position of a Mufti. Rather, one should only ask the one who is known amongst the Muslims as a reference point for all of their religious affairs. Some scholars say, that one may also ask a knowledgeable trustworthy person as to who in particular he should ask his questions, provided that this person is really trustworthy and knowledgable enough to discern who truly is or isn’t qualified to be a Mufti.

Our problem today is that many people have taken up the position of Muftis, without being asked to do so by anyone. And these are the sort of people the classical scholars specifically told us not to refer to.

There are other types of ‘Muftis’ a commoner should avoid, such as (taken from Etiquettes of Seeking Fatwa):

Istifta of a Sinful (Fasiq) Mufti
A Fasiq Mufti is the one who lacks moral integrity (‘Adalah). This is when a person falls short in his obligations, specially the obligatory prayers, or regularly misses supererogatory (Nawafil) prayers, or commits a major sin, or persists on committing a minor sin, or does not pay attention to aspects that effect his reputation and standing in society (Muru’ah), such as not covering one’s head in a country where to do so is disliked, or eating on the streets in a country where such a practice is disliked, and so forth.

*******Ibn al-Salah , Ibn Taymiyah and al-Mardawi consider it impermissible to ask a Fasiq Mujtahid in any instance. As for Ibn al-Qayyim, he says, having first agreed with this opinion, that it is permissible to ask a Fasiq Mufti, upon condition that he is does not publicise his sins, or call openly to innovations in the religion, which itself differs according to time and place. He argues that if sins were to become widespread, and if we were to reject the Fatawa, imamate, or witness of a Fasiq, then the Islamic laws would become defunct. Therefore, under normal circumstances, consideration is to be given to the one most suitable for Ifta, and then the next suitable, but, in cases of necessity, and when sins and disobedience have become prevalent, one has no choice but to remain patient and practice the lowest form of forbidding evil. Therefore, if Fisq is prevalent amongst Muftis, and one is unable to find a pious Mufti at all, then one should ask the least sinful amongst them.

Istifta of a Mufti whose condition is unknown (al-Mastoor)
Al-Mastoor is the one who outwardly appears to be upright, whilst his inner state is not known. Al-Mardawi says that it is not permissible to ask a Mufti if his condition is unknown, where as Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyah allow it, in addition to Ibn al-Salah who argues that it is difficult to ascertain whether one is upright inwardly or not, hence, the masses should not be burdened with that which is beyond their capabilities.

Istifta of a Careless Mufti
Al-Mardawi says that it is prohibited for a Mufti to be careless in issuing verdicts, just as it is prohibited for the layman to follow such a Mufti. He reports that Ibn Taymiyah said: “It is not permissible to ask a person, except one who issues verdicts based on knowledge and justice”. Ibn Hamdan, from the Hanbalis, and Ibn al-Salah and al-Nawawi, from the Shafi’is, hold the same opinion, further adding that from carelessness is to fail to verify the facts of a case before passing a verdict, or doing so hastily, without giving the issue due thought, and so forth. These are some of the indications of******* a ‘careless Mufti’, and if a Mustafti ever notices these traits in a Mufti, it becomes forbidden for him to ask him for a verdict in any issue.

A Caution from the Worldly Mufti
Ahmad ibn Hanbal wrote to Sa’id ibn Ya’qub:

“Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim,
From Ahmad ibn Muhammad [ibn Hanbal] to Sa’id ibn Ya’qub. To proceed:
Verily, the world is a disease, and the Sultan is a cure, while the scholar is a doctor. If you notice the doctor pulling the disease towards himself, then beware of him.
Was-Salaamu ‘Alaik”

Ibn Taymiyah said, commenting on Imam Ahmad’s statement: “This entails warning against asking the one from the scholars who seeks wealth and status.”

It is authentically reported that Abu Hazim said: “[In the past] the scholars would flee from the ruler, whilst he would pursue them. Today, they (the scholars) come to the door of the ruler, whilst the ruler flees from them”; and in our time, the evil scholars chase after the rulers, in the same manner that these rulers run after these these evil scholars, seeking to use them for their political expediency, and to crush any Islamic resistance – the most recent example of this being the infamous Fatwa endorsing the French move to ban Hijab, and thereby, crushing the political Jihad of the French Muslims under their feet.

It is therefore prohibited to ask such a ‘Mufti’ about any religious matter - in spite of the fact he may be the state Mufti - particularly in a secular state that is known for its ideological and military war against the Shari’ah. Moreover, what occurs in most countries in the present time – namely, that a scholar is selected by a secular government to be the ‘state Mufti’ - was condemned as an innovation in Allah’s religion by Ibn Badran al-Dimashqi, who says: “And what has been innovated in our time, that they gather the people wearing turbans, and choose from amongst them a Mufti, and call him ‘Head of the scholars’, then the government establishes him as a Mufti, and restricts the entire process of Ifta to him, whilst often the one instated in this position is an ocean of ignorance, who would not be able to make head or tail of an expression from the books of jurisprudence were it to be given to him. So we ask Allah for a good end.

Choosing a specific person for the position of Ifta - in the sense that the ruler would not accept a Fatwa except that which originated from him - was not known in the early centuries, for the process of Ifta continued to be delegated to the known scholars until Sultan Saleem II entered Damascus in the year 922 AH and took possession of the city; observing the discord amongst many of those who claimed to have knowledge, he then designated the process of Ifta, in each Madhab, to one of the esteemed scholars of that Madhab, as a means to appease the discord. This remained the status quo for some time, until this lofty position was obtained by many of those ignorant of the principles (Usul) or of jurisprudential matters (Furu’), and so the matter was given to the undeserving and incompetent.”

I think for us layman we rather TRUST whom is a scholar, For instance, taqiudeen nabahani- a muatizili- I do not regard him as a scholar since for me I dont trust him,especially with his inconistent views regarding the aqeedah.

Well, you are right not to trust him with respect to ‘Aqeedah, and perhaps with respect to various aspects of Fiqh due to the modernist influence. But one still cannot right off an individual completely.

Take for example, many of the Ikhwani scholars. They are truly disastrous in ‘Aqeedah and Fiqh due to the same problems as with Nabahani; yet, they have contributed a great deal to the philosophy of Islamic legislation while battling against the secularists in Egypt and elsewhere. And this is what distinguishes us – as Ahl al-Sunnah – from the rest, that we give credit where it’s due, and our hatred for a people does not blind us from their good.

I have seen that you often judge who is or is not scholar based upon welll know muslim personalities. But they should not be the yardstick by which we judge the ummah's scholars. Rather what should be judged is what teh scholars say, not what is the majority or minority view.

All well and good, if a commoner is able to understand what is Islamically right or wrong in the first place. In fact, this the problem we are facing today, that if a scholar says what you regard to be the truth, then for you he is a true scholar and for others, he is a sell-out scholar. Whereas others, would consider a person as a scholar if he sings their tunes, while you may regard him to be a maniac. So this isn’t really a yardstick, is it?

Many of Abu Isa’s cult followers regard him to be a scholar, primarily because they regard his nonsense to be of some worth, all the while they are clueless with respect to Islam, and therefore completely unable to discern what is or isn’t Islamically right.

Ibn taymiyyah, abdul wahab, if you look at them, they were only one man armies, yet I can imagine the scholars at their time saying that they had odd opinions, they had no known scholarship etc etc....

On the contrary, Ibn Taymiyah was known in his time by his friends and foes as ‘Sheikh al-Islam’. Likewise, Sh Muhammad b ‘Abd al-Wahhab was a Qadhi and one of the major Hanbali scholars in the area with massive support from other scholars who continued his message even after his death.

About your points about no reputable scholar regarding the current goverments as kufr goverments-well most of those scholars, with all respect are at the gates of the rulers, so wouldnt it be unthinkable******* for them to go against the rulers? Also if these giverments we have today are not ones of kufr then what is a goverment of kufr? where is that ''point'' to which they can be regarded as kufr

I was speaking about Saudi in particular and not about other governments. Many other major scholars have declared some other countries to be Kufr governments.

Al-Lajnah al-Daimah of Saudi Arabia clearly state in their Fatwa that any country where the overwhelming laws are Kufr laws, is a Kafir Jahili government, and any country where the overwhelming laws are Islamic laws is an Islamic government, and this is the official position of the Hanbali Madhab.

People often accuse these scholars of taking up government positions and then deduce from that, that they are simply government scholars who will never betray their paymasters by declaring them as Kuffar.

Firstly, to start with the scholars do not regard Saudi to be a Kafir gov. (not even Ali al-Khudair, Nasir al-Fahd, Shu’aibi al-Alwan and others).

Secondly, the scholars have differed over working under a tyrant or a Kafir government and majority of the scholars have allowed if it results in a greater benefit for the Muslims.

Thirdly, for arguments sake, if the Saudi gov was a Kafir gov, there is a great Mafsadah in declaring such openly, while there is absolutely no Maslaha in declaring their Kufr in public. This is why I see that these scholars are more careful about their words and actions, than many of the younger scholars (in Egypt and Saudi) who issue Fatwas right-left-and-centre, and when things get out of hand they back out (as it happened in Algeria, Saudi and Egypt).

wasalam

Aabidah

23rd June 2005, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair

In fact, let’s take a look at various Jihadi groups, to whom the greatest scholars and the only ones to speak the truth are: Sh Abu Basir, Sh Abu Qatada, Sh al-Maqdisi, Sh ‘Abd al-Qadir, Sh Nasir al-Fahd, Sh Ali al-Khudair, etc.

It turns into a calamity when people give an elevated rank to those who are either outright deviants, or clowns, such as Abu ‘Isa the Takfiri, or Omar Bakri, for these people deserving no ranking in the first place, yet for so many people they are the leading scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah!



subhanallah, if you people are calling sheikh OBM a clown then i think you all need to do mre research!!

i think you lot are clowns for calling the scholar a clown!! 

do you hav evidence to what you are claiming?? an what hav you seen in him that makes you calll him a clown?? may allah bless the sheikh!!

please i wnat to no what you've seen in him thats wrong!!

Abuz Zubair

24th June 2005, 01:17 AM

http://www.islamicawakening.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=666 (viewtopic.php?t=666)

Ibn Adam

25th June 2005, 04:03 AM

al-Salaamu 'alaikum sister,

I think there may possibly be a little misunderstanding here.

I think a misunderstanding may have arisen in that the link the brother posted goes straight to the last post in*******a particular*******thread. If you read the whole thread that the link sends you to and not just the last post, you will see a detailed discussion of some of the issues that Abu Zubair has highlighted*******regarding Omar Bakri, and for the most part, the thread is in Abu Zubair's own words, as you requested.

I don't believe you have been made unwelcome on this board. And if you do feel unwelcome at all, then please allow me to cordially welcome you to this forum and I ask Allaah that He helps you benefit from that which is beneficial here and that He protect from any harm in anything that is not of benefit here, ameen.

asharee_salafi

25th June 2005, 05:30 PM

u know what....i want to reply but i dont know how to use that flaming quote thingy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its really making my blood boil! how do you guys do it man?!?

asharee_salafi

1st July 2005, 05:40 PM

Assalaamulekum jazak Allahu Khairun for your efforts. I have learned a lot from what you wrote. There is something I would like to come back upon inshAllah. But before I say it I would just like to say that I am with no group and I don’t believe in affiliations. Im *******only asking since I would like to know what is closer to the truth.

*******

You said

*******

Thirdly, for arguments sake, if the Saudi gov was a Kafir gov, there is a great Mafsadah in declaring such openly, while there is absolutely no Maslaha in declaring their Kufr in public. This is why I see that these scholars are more careful about their words and actions, than many of the younger scholars (in Egypt and Saudi) who issue Fatwas right-left-and-centre, and when things get out of hand they back out (as it happened in Algeria, Saudi and Egypt).

*******

1.*********************************** What constitutes kufr?? If being part of the disregarding the shariah, helping non muslims kill muslims, being part of the u.n is not kufr al akbar, then what is? Isn’t******* action part of imaan?

*******

2.*********************************** Is there any ‘reputable scholars’ who have declared the Saudi gov to be kuffar?

*******

3.*********************************** when you say we should not speak out against tyranny in public, then how will the ummah ever be guided if the ulema don’t speak out in public against tyranny and correct Muslims, one may argue that there is a great evil in speaking against peers and sufi grave worshippers since people would be angry and could cause dissension, why do we speak out from the pulpits of that shirk but not the shirk of ruling by non Islamic laws?

*******

4.*********************************** Many individuals say that we should not speak out cos it results in in greater evil, but others may say that if we stay silent that is worse for Islaam since having shirki laws are worse then staying silent and worse then the oppression that can arise from staying s ilent under tyrnanny.

*******

5. they argue that no one knows the greater evil or the lesser evil from our actions, no one can look into the future and make predictions saying this wont work since only Allah knows the ghayb.

*******

6. A lot of these Saudi ulema are thought to be ‘supporters of the tawagheet’ l. This is because they have not just stayed silent under the tyranny, but they have actually used hadeeth to support the rulers…..which is wrong isn’t it? Why do they briong hadeeth when these hadeeth are non applicable since******* A. They apply to rulers who implement Islam B. They are for rulers who have been given the bayah. C. They must be a caliph in a kahilafah, not a president or king in a Non Islamic state

*******

hope you can reply since the above is confusing me a bit.

*******

May Allah make it easy ameen/

gag order

3rd July 2005, 11:13 PM

the gulf war fatwa was passed on august 14th 1990: it states;

"as for what the saudi government has done*******due to the effects of the original oppression by the president of iraq ie seeking the help of a number of armies made up of various nationalities, muslims and others to repel the aggression and defend the country then this is allowed"

a lot of muslims do not know that the descision to allow kafir troops into the holy land had already been*******made*******a week earlier on august 8th by the saudi government. the 82nd airborne division's "ready brigade"*******was already on its way well before the fatwa. 

what is the significance of the 82nd?

it is part of the RDF rapid deployment force intended to "defend" saudi*******arabia*******if soviets were to succeed in afghanistan and sweep through pakistan all the way to the gulf and seize the worlds primary source of oil. the*******mutual defence pact*******to allow kafir troops into the holy land had been on the books since the cold war! so the fatwa was not necassary in the first place. the saudi rulers had it drafted to give their 'islamic legitamacy' but this came at the expense of the dishonouring of shaykh bin baaz.

with the threat of soviets gone the U.S needed an excuse to deploy the RDF, along came saddam! at the behest of the U.S he invaded kuwait and*******whilst the*******RDF was bieng deployed to saudi, it coincided with bushes big NWO speech. 

bin laden has maintained that the shaykh was in fact manipulated by the interior ministry and not given the facts etc etc im inclined to agree.*******i believe the shaykh was played by the powers that be, in light of the information i personally feel the shaykh*******may be absolved of all blame. having said that, shaykh faisal argued*******that*******shaykh bin baaz*******was infact blameworthy in "devils deception of the saudisalafis" and brought to*******the fore some glaring inconsistencies of shaykh bin baaz.

perhaps shaykh bin baaz was terribly naive despite his 'unparelleld' islamic knowledge to*******pass a fatwa without*******considering the world around him, the NWO, and the US colonial ambitions in muslim lands, are just some the things he*******should have*******considered before*******passing the fatwa. 

i suppose that "sometimes the most educated and knowledgable can overlook*******the most simplest of things and it takes*******a layman to point*******it out"**************

Abu Ayoub Al-Ansari

17th July 2005, 06:30 AM

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Quote:i believe the shaykh was played by the powers that be, in light of the information i personally feel the shaykh*******may be absolved of all blame. 



What I try to do whenever I think about the mistakes that were made by the scholars is I put my shoes in their situation.******* Now as for Shiekh*******Bin Baz and the rest of the scholars in Saudia, you see that the political fatwas are limited (except for some May Allah guide them) and more focused on Tawheed and fighting Bida'ah.******* So that in and of itself is a sign that they are forced into these opinions because usually they don't speak on the subject unless asked(usually being a government officail)*******so we make excuses for our mashaykh on these issues and we turn a blind eye to the politics from them and just take the Aqueda, Tawheed and Fiqh.******* Anyone with sense can see that a shiekh that represents the government has to have been forced to make some opinions.******* But to recap on what I began the conversation with is putting ourself in their shoes, as for the shiekh being offered the job of Mufti and knowing that he'll be forced he had to make*******some decicions, the thing that I think that made him take the job is that fact that he knew if he didn't take it they might put in someone that isn't sincire and would corrupt the land.******* So if this was the fact for the shiekh then may Allah reward him 2 for the correct and 1 for the incorrect.******* The brother above pointed out a good thing about how the government had already deployed the troops before the Fatwa, there you*******have it.******* Now lets just think if the sheikh was to go up on the menbar and openly speak out against this (It'll only be once) then he'd lose his job and might be replaced with someone that would corrupt the very foundations of our religion.*******So I suggest*******that people leave this mistake and read the books written on*******Tawheed that he wrote and see if there mistakes there.******* As for this being an act of Kufr, anyone who aids the kufar against the muslims has commited kufr.******* But with Saddam its something that isn't clear because he was oppressing Kuwait, so if Saudia had the Military power to stop him they would have.******* Just try to imagine if we where to have declared jihad with Saddam, it would have been muslims fighting muslims.******* But Allahu A'lam maybee sadams soldgers wouldn't have fought the mujahideen, but that seems unlikely because when they went into kuwait the soldgier knew full well that they'd kill a few hundred muslims in the process.******* So where do we go from here, we just spoke about the alternative of what could've happen but yet we're still not clear what was the right way to handle it.******* Well you can find comfort in knowing that this is the Qadr of Allah, and we should leave the past mistakes and fix whats going on now.******* Now we know that America and the rest of the Kufar need to leave the Gulf, we should do what every we can(in accordance to Islam) to make them leave.******* I would like to also point that theres a difference when the mashaykh speak on this issue and then the student of knowledge go over board in repeating the oppinon and twisting it out of porpotion.******* These are the ones that have a sickness because there not forced into it but choose to follow that opinion themselfs.******* So beware of those one because those one are more clearly upon error.

Jizak Allah Khair

asharee_salafi

18th July 2005, 04:33 PM

Thanks brother abu ayoob, very nicely put and may Allah reward you...*******

Abu Ayoub Al-Ansari

19th July 2005, 01:32 PM

Asharee_salafi, that name seems to contradict itself.******* Are you an Ashari, that being you don't believe in some of Allah's attributes and describe them without any proof from the Quran and sunnah.******* If not bro, well you should really reconsider your name because right off the bat I see the word ashari I think of those people who follow that belief.******* If so well I see why alot of people hate Bin Bazz and the mashaykh of Saudia for the simply fact that they hold the true Aqueda beliefs.*******

asharee_salafi

21st July 2005, 04:53 PM

Assalaamulekum.

Brother abu ayoob. To ask about my Aqeedah is a bid'ah in itself without a proof from the Quran and the Sunnah.

Secondly Asharee could be a name. like Abu Musa Al Asharee.

Thirdly I certainly Am upon the aqeedah of Imam asharee where by he affirms Alalhs atributes as mentioned in al ilbanah.

Abu Ayoub Al-Ansari

30th July 2005, 05:49 PM

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Ya Akhi, with all due respect please don't take my question as an insult, and be careful on how you inturpret someones comments.******* As for me asking you whats your aqueda, then if theres some proof to establish that you follow that then I don't believe I'm at blame to question you about it (i.e. Your Name).******* But if I'm incorrect in my approach then I*******seek tawbah only from Allah, for******* He's the only one Who accepts Repentance.******* You should love******* that your brothers are upon the right Aqueda and are stern against people of innovation.******* So even if I was wrong in the matter you should have patience with your brother and try to correct him not in a defensive manner.******* There's no Might******* nor Power except with Allah.

ykhan

29th May 2007, 09:24 PM

MOSABJA

29th June 2007, 01:25 AM

All scholars are respected and should be respected in the muslim world
BUT
Allah strictly forbids in the holy Quran to BLINDLY follow the Scholars or Imams .No one Except prophet Muhammad(S.A) and Sahaba are to be followed completely.

S bin baz may be a great scholar but his OBEDIENCE is not WAJIB and so one can agree with him where ever he matches with Quran and HAdith and disagree on other matters.

Also keep in mind that the time in which we are living is near to Qiyamah about which RASULULLAH(S.A)said

IF YOU SEE BLACK BANNERS RISING FROM THE EAST THEN GO AND JOIN THEM AS MAHDI WOULD BE AMONG THEM .OTHER WISE SIT UNDER A TREE AND WAIT FOR YOUR DEATH(MEANS DO NOT FOLLOW ANY ONE ELSE)

Abu_Abdillah2000

29th June 2007, 05:40 AM

S bin baz may be a great scholar but his OBEDIENCE is not WAJIB and so one can agree with him where ever he matches with Quran and HAdith and disagree on other matters.

And who are you, O 'allaamatu 'asrihi, wa shaykh al-islaam fi zamaanihi, to determine where the scholars have or have not "matched with the Qur'an and Hadith"?

Also keep in mind that the time in which we are living is near to Qiyamah about which RASULULLAH(S.A)said

IF YOU SEE BLACK BANNERS RISING FROM THE EAST THEN GO AND JOIN THEM AS MAHDI WOULD BE AMONG THEM .OTHER WISE SIT UNDER A TREE AND WAIT FOR YOUR DEATH(MEANS DO NOT FOLLOW ANY ONE ELSE)

Firstly, these two sentences have been taken from 2 different hadiths, yet you have put them together as if they are one and the same hadith.

Secondly, the ahadith of the black banners are generally agreed to be dha'if. Even if we assume that some of them are sahih, many of them do not contain clear references to the Mahdi and some of them are more apparently referring to the black flags of Banul-'Abbas, i.e. to an event which already happpened more than 1000 years ago.

Thirdly, you cannot make clear-cut statements such as the ones you have implied above, based on the mere possibility that the Mahdi might appear soon.

Fourthly, what is your proof that the black flags of al-Qa'idah or any of the mujahidun today are the same black flags which will (allegedly) come from Khurasan with the Mahdi? Because there have been many examples in history when black flags came from the east, it is not something which just began recently, you know.

Fifthly, did you type those words from under your tree where you are waiting to die?

abu imaan an-nepalee

29th June 2007, 09:58 AM

Fifthly, did you type those words from under your tree where you are waiting to die?

wow that must be a wicked wireless router!

Abu Nihla

30th June 2007, 01:09 PM

Abu_Abdallah

30th June 2007, 01:45 PM

The Moroccan scholars as the Wizarat al-Awqaf issued out, agree with Ibn Baz and many more scholars concerning the Gulf crisis. Are they also less in 'knowledge' than those Mauritanian scholars?

And memorization is not the same as knowledge, for knowledge you need understanding. There are many Moroccan 'ulama - and a lot of Moroccans, Algerians and Tunesians are known for this espec. their students - who memorize the Qur'an in Warsh (a little more difficult than Hafs) before their 10th year, after which they memorize Ibn 'Ashur's Matn, the Hamziyyah, the Alfiyyah, the Shatibiyyah and several other Mutun, and they haven't passed the 15th year.

Yet, they have meagre understanding (fiqh). Are these knowledgeable as the Shuyukh known for their knowledge, understanding and memorization: such as al-'Uthaymin and the blind Shaykh Ibn Baz, may Allah have mercy upon them? Yes, there may be scholars who had more knowledge than these. But to consider a group or many as more knowledgeable as if it something of a fact, bring your proof.

Husain

30th June 2007, 06:25 PM

Allah strictly forbids in the holy Quran to BLINDLY follow the Scholars or Imams .
Where does He do that? Quote please.

- Husain.

abu imaan an-nepalee

1st July 2007, 04:29 AM

A scholars mistake is the biggest set-back in this Ummah

you can say that again! just take a look at your party! can you name any of nabhanis mistakes other than saying "ikhtilaf"

Abul-Fadl

1st July 2007, 06:50 AM

In Mauritania we have scholars who have memorized much more than what bin Baaz memorized or who have in them ilm far much more to what the likes of Abu Zubeir mention as scholars yet we don't c anyone even mentioning about them yet they don't make blunders and mistakes to the level of what bin Baaz made, that led to the slaughter of millions of Muslims in Iraq and Abu Zubeir as usual just boldly brashes it a way just simply as a fiqh issues subhanallah this's kufur issue.
----
So again you find Abu Zubeir profiling the scholars giving his ignorant opinion to which some may think is a good argument yet his knowledge to the level to those whom he think were not scholars is not even worth a day work compared to the list he gave

As-Salamu 'Alaykum

Brother, yes the tulab and shuyookh in mauritania are great and very strong especially the Shanaaqeet, i mean look at Shaykh muhamad as-saalim who has memorized a 14,000 line poem with fiqh , explanation of fiqh etc not to mention all of the other mutoon he has memorized, and just look at Al-'Alaama Muhamad Ash-Shanqeeti rahimallah and another example of that nation is his son Muhamad al-mukhtar Ash-Shanqeeti hafidhallah and any true lover of 'ilm knows their high status, as well as the high status of the other scholars in africa and that they are famous for passing on 'ilm verbally like very few other nations.

One of the reasons why people don't mention scholars from africa is because people in the west just don't know them. i don't think its a conspiracy or pushing an agenda to not mention them its just that if your trying to explain something to someone on an issue that brothers in the west are differing on its better to say " and ibnu 'uthaymeen gave a fatwa supporting this " than to say " Muhamad ibn Hassan Ad-Dadoo gave a fatwa supporting it" though shaykh muhamad is more famous than even muhamad as-saalim and i believe has quite easily superseded both 'uthaymeen and bin baz in text's memorized.

And as for the the whole memorization thing then just go to mauritania or sudan or maghrib or somal or parts of yemen and then go to saudi and you will see that the first cultures focus heavily on memorization and in the village of umm al-qura in Mauritania in the masjid you will rarely even see one mushaf! but if you look at saudi culture they too memorize and their hufadh are no were near the hufadh of africa but they focus much on understanding and situations of fiqh etc.

And what is better? any normal person will tell you understanding is better than amassing a lot of letters without the understanding to match that. Dont get me wrong the scholars in those area's are great and have great fiqh masha Allaah but if were talking in general the saudi culture focuses more on in depth understanding .

I mean look at the style there, umda -- zaad---al-kaafi--- al-mughni , subhanallah if this isnt a gradual understanding driven curriculum then i don't know what is. Yes other country's have a gradual ladder too but not to this style and it defiantly wasn't intentionally planned like that.

Again i am in no way saying that saudi scholars like bin baz are better than others because in all honesty saudi has few real fuqaha like 'uthaymeen, and im not saying the great scholars in other country's like the one you mentioned are better than the saudi scholars.

Im just trying to explain that the scholars like bin baz and ibn 'uthaymeen don't need to be great hufadh to be great fuqaha.

Also, who is more knowledgeable 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood or Bukhari? anyone with sense will say bukhari, but who is the greater faqeeh? 'Abdullah ibn mas'ood right? but why? because he had greater understanding.

knowledge is common, understanding is rare.

Call a spade a spade...at the level of understanding of bin Baaz he should have not indulged in taking an opinion that was adopted by a salaf hundreds of years to which might have been even a grave error. There's no priesthood in Islaam so we say this scholars are the problem that this Ummah is not growing and they are very incompetent with us as ignorant followers who hero worship them and eat on their vomit.

brother, if you go to the scholars in that country you mentioned you will never see them speak of Sh Bin Baz like you are speaking of him.

Its sad to see this seeing as scholars like safar al-hawali disagreed with bin baz but never attacked his person.

may Allaah teach us a little 'ilm and a lot of respect.

abu imaan an-nepalee

1st July 2007, 10:21 PM

even in the books of nasir bin fahd you see him refer to shaykh al-albani and shaykh bin baz!

Yasir

1st July 2007, 10:39 PM

Also, who is more knowledgeable 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood or Bukhari? anyone with sense will say bukhari, but who is the greater faqeeh? 'Abdullah ibn mas'ood right? but why? because he had greater understanding.I disagree with your conclusion. With all respect to the Master of Hadeeth, Imam al-Bukhaari rahimahullah, his knowledge and the knowledge of those that came after Ibn Mas'ood radhiyAllahu 'anh cannot be said to be greater than this great Sahabi. Could Imam al-Bukhari have ever been able to experience what it was like to sit in the company of the Prophet sallAllahu 'alaihi wa sallam for a single hour, or even to see the Prophet sallAllahu 'alaihi wa sallam? Imam al-Bukhaari was a great scholar, and we are all indebted to his services to the deen, yet I suspect even he rahimahullah would not accept such a comparison.

Abu_Abdallah

1st July 2007, 10:49 PM

I disagree with your conclusion. With all respect to the Master of Hadeeth, Imam al-Bukhaari rahimahullah, his knowledge and the knowledge of those that came after Ibn Mas'ood radhiyAllahu 'anh cannot be said to be greater than this great Sahabi. Could Imam al-Bukhari have ever been able to experience what it was like to sit in the company of the Prophet sallAllahu 'alaihi wa sallam for a single hour, or even to see the Prophet sallAllahu 'alaihi wa sallam? Imam al-Bukhaari was a great scholar, and we are all indebted to his services to the deen, yet I suspect even he rahimahullah would not accept such a comparison.

The brother was trying to make a point concerning accumulation of knowledge (i.e. statements of the Prophet peace be upon him) and understanding.

No doubt Ibn Mas'ud is more knowledgeable than al-Bukhari in a general sense; indeed, Ibn Umm 'Abd is a 'Allâma among the Companions. However, no doubt Abu Hurayrah and probably a few others have greater knowledge of Sunan thanks to the blessings of Allah upon them.

al-Bukhari has the greatest knowledge of Sunan and many narrations that are not counted as Sunan, and as such he was preferred even above his teachers as Ahmad. Its possible, or likely, that al-Bukhari accumulated more than Ibn Mas'ud in that sense.

wa-Allahu A'lam.

Abul-Fadl

1st July 2007, 10:55 PM

As-Salamu 'alayka

Yasir ,your explanation further proves my point, because as you said ibn Mas'ood radiallahu 'anhu actually experienced and lived the ahadeth from the prophet of Allaah and he lived the ayat that came down.

But does this necessarily mean that it makes that person more knowledgeable than others or does it mean that they have deeper understanding?

If we are talking numbers then Ahmad was reported to have memorized 1 million ahadeth and he him self admited that al-bukhari superceded him in hifdh.

So like i said bukhari had more than ibn mas'ood but ibn mas'ood understood it better thus making him the greater faqeeh.

oh and yeah there would be no chance of al-bukhari ever saying that, because of his manners.

Abu Nihla

2nd July 2007, 12:22 PM

Without regrets it's like you misunderstood my compliments. I don't c the understanding that Sh Bin Baaz rahimahullah had different fiqh understanding from the Mauritanians or the Moroccans or the Sudanis. The fact remains that Bin Baaz rahimahullah and his Saudi detail are Shuyukh who were advertised by their respective governments and not the Muslim populous.

We have Shuyukh in jails who don't even regard the Shuyukh we mention as scholars and infact just as a statement of fact, a very learned Shaikh from Syria told me Bin Baaz is not at a level of a scholar so i ask you, which science did he create in Islaam, what new contribution did him bin Baaz make to this Ummah apart from writing books, articles and essays on fiqh or aqeedah and remained silent on Hakimiyyah and never criticized openly the Saudi regime for it's imprisonment of the Shuyukh e.t.c As for his contribution in Books we say alhamdulillah may Allah reward him and this’s not limited to him only. As for his Fatwas’ he mostly relied on opinions that were of the Salaf largely than his own ijtihad so I ask what’s new or strange about this in particular. As for his being at the hands of the Mulk of Saud, is contradictory to the Statement of the Salaf since they highly discouraged association with the Sultans and the rulers and infact they the Salaf told us to be aware of scholars who frequent the palaces.

We know the contribution of Sh Albani rahimahullah on hadeeth as we know also that of the likes of Shaykh Muqbil bi Hadee rahimahumullah.

So although we love them, and pray for Allahs Rahma for them, we cease not to condemn the mistakes from them which are dhahir for even a lay Muslim to see, we condemn them harshly for we depend on them to give us guidance. If they do the opposite from what even they themselves teach in their books and their classes, the likes that led even Bro. Abdallah Feisal labeling them as Kuffar for what they write and teach in their books are the opposite of what they do.

Read ‘’nawaqidul-Islam’’ by bin Baaz and what he mentions about relations with the kuffar and assisting them then you will understand me.

Um Abdullah M.

2nd July 2007, 02:37 PM

infact just as a statement of fact, a very learned We have Shuyukh in jails who don't even regard the Shuyukh we mention as scholars and infact just as a statement of fact, a very learned Shaikh from Syria told me Bin Baaz is not at a level of a scholar so i ask you

who are those "shuyukh" in jail who don't regard the shuyukh we mention as scholars?
and who is that Syrian shaikh?