In the name of Allāh, the Most Merciful, the Especially Merciful. All praise is due to Allāh. And may Allāh extol, grant peace, and bless His Chosen Prophet, his household, his Companions, and whoever follows him. To proceed:
[This is] an advice to the beginner, intermediate, or advanced students. And this advice, in reality, I wanted it to be in a larger sitting, but [it is] from the aspect of reminders.
There is, in reality, a tribulation that has entered the hearts of many students of knowledge, even among those who have reached a reasonable level in knowledge, and it is that when one of the major scholars speaks—with proof and clarification—against an individual, so he disparaged him in details, and clarified what he has with him, you will find the students of knowledge dividing into three groups or three categories:
A category that agrees with the scholars and follows their footsteps.
And the second category opposes the scholars and places their speech on their own scale.
And the third category withhold [from taking a stance]. They say: “We are withholding [from taking a stance]. We do not accept, nor do we reject [the speech of the scholars].”
This issue is important, O student of knowledge. It is imperative for you to know it.
These individuals mixed-up the affair of dissociation from taqlīd (blind following); how will I dissociate from taqlīd, not accept it, and consider it as absolutely blameworthy; and on the other hand, how do I deal with these affairs i.e., the issue of Ittibāʿ (following) and agreeing with the major scholars in what they say.
What is the guiding principle that helps us to know the issues in which ijtihād and ‘accepting and rejecting’ is allowed, and the statement of Imām Mālik bn Anas, may Allāh have mercy upon him, is applicable to: “Everyone’s statement is accepted or rejected.”
And what are the issues or scenarios in which it is imperative to submit to what our major scholars assert. This is the criterion.
And due to that, I used Muḥammad Al-Imām as an example. When our scholars spoke against Muḥammad Al-Imām, another group—considered to be upon the Sunnah during that time—such as Shaykh Ṣāliḥ As-Suḥaymī and Waṣiyullāh ʿAbbās; [some people] mentioned that they both excused Muḥammad Al-Imām regarding what he attested to in that sinful pact/document of disbelief.
Despite the fact that the major scholars, our Shaykh Rabīʿ, Shaykh ʿUbayd, Shaykh ʿAbdullāh Al-Bukhārī, and their likes did not speak with what these two spoke with.
Now, what is the guiding principle that will help you—O student of knowledge—to know the issues in which you will say, “here, one is to submit to what the scholars assert.” And what are the scenarios in which we say, “Everyone’s statement is accepted or rejected.”
Meaning, O student of knowledge, if Allāh facilitates the tools and qualification to examine and check, then what are the issues in which it is permissible for you to say: “I will place the speech of so-and-so on my scale, and I will say, ’The Shaykh was right or wrong’.”
There is something called Khabar ath-Thiqah (the narration of a trustworthy individual) with the people of knowledge.
And that is for a reliable trustworthy individual to inform you about something, so it is imperative to accept it.
And there are issues that are based on proof. Something unlawful, detested, or lawful. So-and-so provides you with an evidence, and another does likewise.
For example, the differing in the issue of eating crocodiles; is it permissible to eat it or not? A group [from the people of knowledge] said such-and-such and another said such-and-such.
Is it permissible to eat foxes or not? A group said such-and-such and another said such-and-such.
Likewise, intoxicants—or these perfumes—is it permissible to use them as a perfume or not? A group said such-and-such and another said such-and-such.
You—O student of knowledge—what do you do here? You will take the proofs of everyone and examine it—if you have the tools. Take note of this issue. If you have the tools and qualification to examine and make ijtihād.
Here, you will make tarjīḥ [i.e., select the preponderant opinion] and say, “Everyone’s statement is accepted or rejected.”
As for the issues in which a particular scholar says to you, “So-and-so possesses such-and-such attribute, and I have advised him. He possesses such-and-such attributes which are attributes of the people of innovations, such as renouncing the Sunnah, waging war against the Sunnah, or opposing significant fundamental principles with the people of knowledge…”
Here, you do not say, “I will set up my scale. I will take the Shaykh’s speech and place it [on the scale, to see] whether he opposed or not.”
There is something complex which is referred to as Nawāzil (newly-occurring affairs of public interest) with the people of knowledge. The science of Nawāzil.
These newly-occurring affairs of public interest, none is able to see and be aware of them except the shrewd from the major scholars.
Allāh, the Mighty and Majestic, said [what means]:
﴾When there comes to them some matter touching (public) safety or fear,﴿ what? ﴾They make it known (among the people), if only they had referred it to the Messenger or to those charged with authority among them, it would have been understood by﴿ who? ﴾Those who﴿ what? Those who know it straightaway? No. ﴾Those who [can] draw correct conclusions from it among them.﴿ [An-Nisāʾ: 83]
See! ﴾Among them.﴿ The ﴾among them﴿ here is to show partitioning. Meaning, it is not everybody that [can] draw correct conclusions. Not everybody, infact, not every scholar has the capability to draw correct conclusions.
So, due to that, it is imperative for you, whenever an information reaches you from a major scholar, especially if more than an individual from those described as Imāms are together [upon this].
At the moment, disparagement of people in this era, with the testimony of our preceding scholars, such as our Shaykh Muqbil, may Allāh have mercy upon him, Shaykh Al-Albānī, may Allāh have mercy upon him, Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn, and Ibn Bāz, they all testify to [Shaykh] Rabīʿ—may grant him safety and well-being—being the flag bearer of al-Jarḥ wa at-Taʿdīl in this era.
So, how will you come and say, “No. I will place the speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ on my scale.”
For example, if myself and Shaykh Rabīʿ differ regarding the issue of whether elongating the cloth’s sleeve is considered to be from Isbāl or not. [This is] an issue that is subject to consideration among the scholars. Some of them hold such-and-such [opinion] and some of them hold such-and-such. And everyone has his own perspective.
So, here, as a student of knowledge, I will examine the proofs. If I see that the proof of so-and-so is stronger, and in agreement with the evidence from the verses and hadiths, I will accept it. And if […], my brother, I must unconditionally accept your speech?
My brother, we have not ceased to say, “Ash-Shāfiʿī was right and Aḥmad erred.” And we have not ceased to say, “Aḥmad was right and Ash-Shāfiʿī erred.”
In the issue of touching a woman; is directly touching a woman’s skin a nullifier of the ablution or not?
Ash-Shāfiʿī, may Allāh have mercy upon him, said, “Touching a woman nullifies [the ablution].”
Alright. We examine his proofs for considering absolute touching [a nullifier].
[After doing so,] we saw that what Aḥmad asserted is what is correct; that directly touching a woman is not a nullifier. Rather, what is intended by touching is sexual intercourse.
That is how you speak, O student of knowledge. You place this affair on the sound scale, and then you examine.
However, for you to treat the narrations of trustworthy individuals [in a similar manner]…
Why do we accept from Shuʿbah when he says to us that so-and-so is a liar? We say, “It’s over! Shuʿbah said he is a liar.” We do not say, “No. We will investigate and bring forth his hadiths to see whether Shuʿbah was right or..”
No. These are narrations of trustworthy individuals. “So-and-so is a liar.“ “So-and-so is trustworthy.” “So-and-so is truthful.” “So-and-so is such-and-such.”
We accept it straightaway, unconditionally.
When there occurs a differing amidst the scholars of al-Jarḥ wa at-Taʿdīl, we make tarjīḥ. This tarjīḥ is similar to the one we mentioned earlier regarding the issues related to jurisprudence.
However, if the specialist and the one with the decisive opinion comes to you in the likes of these affairs…
If a doctor comes to you, a qualified surgeon who performs open-heart surgery, and another person—an assistant doctor or a nurse—comes to you, and they both differ regarding something. Who will you give precedence to?
Will you give precedence to the one with the qualifications, the one who performs open-heart surgery? Or will you say, “No. The nurse might be correct!”
O brothers, [these are] from the surprising affairs.
And due to that, some of these fools say, “You have restricted the daʿwah to only two [scholars]. You do not have more than Rabīʿ and ʿUbayd. You do not have so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so.”
They mention individuals who, by Allāh, if you were to go to them—and I am not saying this as a belittlement of them, in reality, however specialization has its role.
Let us take this as an example.
Assuming you have a family issue, and an individual has known your family for forty years—the grandfather’s friend—and he knows the details, the women, and the children, and they are still in a roll—as they say—and he knows all the issues; when you report an issue to him and you want him to intervene as a judge, he will have a more far-reaching [effect]. Why? Because he knows your details.
In contrast to the person that got to the apartment last week and he does not know any details or any of the inherited old previous issues.
So, the scholars, Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd, both of them, may Allāh preserve them, are from those who pay attention to the files of the daʿwah—especially the files of Salafiyyah all over the world. They know certain details which we are astonished as to how they know of them.
So, I say: The error that occurs from these individuals is that they place the speech of the scholars on their scales in issues that what is imperative in them is submission. What is imperative in them is submission.
And do not say, “No. It might be that it did not reach the scholars.” The scholars are not babies. They are not from those who dictated to. Because some of these individuals say—as Al-Buraʿī said: “Erroneous reports reach them.”
This is if it is an individual that—as we say—can be loaded. So-and-so will come to him and say such-and-such, such-and-such, and such-and-such to him. And that’s all! [He reacts] straightaway.
For example, Shaykh ʿArafāt sits with Shaykh Rabīʿ and says to him, “By Allāh, so-and-so and so-and-so [did this and that].” And he [i.e., Shaykh Rabīʿ] says, “It is over! A ruling should be passed on him outrightly!”
He will not take the speech of ʿArafāt and make his research and investigate it.
This is an accusation.
And this is the basis of the misguidance of many in this era.
Only if they had differentiated between the two issues—between the scenario in which we say, “Everyone’s statement is accepted or rejected,” and the scenario in which it is imperative to submit, especially in the disparagement of men.
Disparagement of men is included in the aspect of what is referred to as Khabar ath-Thiqah (narration of a trustworthy individual).
He informs you that so-and-so is weak, so-and-so is trustworthy, so-and-so is a liar, so-and-so is a ḥizbī (partisan), so-and-so is wasted, so-and-so is such-and-such… Good?
In the case of the occurrence of a considerable differing—pay attention to this affair—a considerable differing between two mountains [of knowledge]…
For example, if Shaykh ʿUbayd and Shaykh Rabīʿ come, and Shaykh Rabīʿ says, “So-and-so is a ḥizbī,” while Shaykh ʿUbayd says, “No. He is not a ḥizbī.”
Here, if we agree for argument’s sake that something like this occurs, O student of knowledge, you will examine the proofs.
If the Shaykh provides you with the proof and clarified the detailed disparagement to you [on] how he is a ḥizbī…
[[[It is not that we outrightly accept it if Shaykh Rabīʿ said so-and-so is ḥizbī.]]]
The Shaykh, from his piety and honesty, is that he says, “[He is] a ḥizbī due to such-and-such reason. An innovator due to such-and-such reason.” He clarified the reason openly.
So you—O student of knowledge—understand, and you know whether this reason is enough to remove this man from the Sunnah? If it is enough, the Shaykh is right, and Shaykh ʿUbayd erred. Clear?
So, this issue is very important.
By Allāh, in reality, I hold that this issue is from the greatest cause of the deviation of most of the youths and their failure to accept the speech of the scholars.
Bear in mind that there is something called Nawāzil. It is not everyone that is capable of seeing the truth in Nawāzil.
When an issue occurred during the time of Al-Bukhārī, may Allāh have mercy upon him. And Imām Muḥammad bn Yaḥyá Adh-Dhuhlī spoke against Al-Bukhārī, and labelled him as Jahmī. Perhaps, this affair has reached you.
What did the scholars do? The placed the speech of Adh-Dhuhlī, may Allāh have mercy upon him, on the scale and they saw that Adh-Dhuhlī was not right.
Meaning, what Al-Bukhārī said is not Tajahhum (the innovation of the Jahmīs). Good?
He [Adh-Dhuhlī] erred and they rejected his speech. And Al-Bukhārī became more popular with the general folks than his Shaykh, Adh-Dhuhlī. May Allāh have mercy on them all.
However, when a scholar provides you with a clear evident detailed disparagement, you should not place it on your own scale and say, “No. This is not acceptable.”
And similar to this issue is what was widespread sometime ago, regarding the verdict of the scholars on fighting the Ikhwān—who wanted to wage war on Aden.
They placed this [on their scales]. “No. How come?” And they placed their speech on their personal scale, so they rejected it, while some of them withheld [from taking a stance], and some of them said “I am faraway, and I am such-and-such.” And Allāh’s aid is sought.
So, I advise my children to fear Allāh, the Exalted and Most High, in this aspect, and to differentiate between what it can be said regarding, “His statement is accepted or rejected,” and what is imperative for us to accept and submit to.
May Allāh guide all to what He loves and is pleased with.
