Criticising Narrators In Hadeeth, By Ibn Rajab

Ibn Rajab said:

“As for the people of knowledge and understanding and those who adhere to the sunnah and the Jamaa’ah, then indeed they only mention the defects of the hadeeth out of sincerity to the religion and in order to preserve and safeguard the Prophet’s sunnah and to identify what befell the narrators of hadeeth from error, forgetfulness, and weakness.

This type of criticism was not required for other than weak and defective hadeeths. Rather, in their view, this strengthened the authentic hadeeths, since they were free from these defects and errors. So these individuals are the ones who are truly aware of the sunnah of the messenger of Allaah. And they are the great intellectual critics who criticeze the hadeeth after having skillfully and efficiently examined them in order to discredit the fake from the authentic…

[Sharh ‘Ilal At-Tirmidhee, 2/808]

Elsewhere he said:

“The righteous Imaams went to great lengths in forsaking the weak sayings (opinions) of some of the scholars. And they refuted them with the highest degree of refutation, as Imaam Ahmad used to censure Aboo Thawr and others in their opinions that they were alone in saying. And he went to great extremes in refuting them in these opinions…

[Al-Farq Bayna An-Naseeha Wat-Ta’yeer, p.30]

Correcting Your Intention When Criticising, By Ibn Rajab

Ibn Rajab said:

“As for the inner affairs, then if one’s intention in doing that (criticism) is to just clarify the truth so that the people will not be deceived by the saying of someone who erred in his opinions, then there is no doubt that this individual will be rewarded for his intention. And by doing this with this intention, he falls into the category of being from those who show sincerity to Allaah, His Messenger, the leaders of the Muslims and their common folk…

But if the intention of the one refuting is to expose the faults of the one being refuted and to debase him and manifest his ignorance and shortness of knowledge, then this is forbidden whether the refutation is done in the presence of the one being refuted or in his absence, or whether it is done during that person’s lifetime or after his death.

This type of action falls under the acts which Allaah condemns in His book and which he threatens the one who does it, concerning his slander and backbiting.

It also falls into the statement of the Prophet (saw):

‘O you group of people that believe with your tongues but not with your hearts! Do not abuse the Muslims nor seek after their faults, for indeed, he who seeks after their faults, Allaah will seek after his faults. And whoever has Allaah seek after his faults, he will expose them, even if he may have committed them in privacy of his own home.‘

All of this talk is with respect to the scholars that are followed in the religion. As for the people of innovation and misguidance and those who imitate the scholars but are not from them, then it is permissible to expose their ignorance and manifest their deficiencies, in order to warn others against following them.”

[Al-Farq Bayna An-Naseeha Wat-Ta’yeer, p.30-33]

Burning With Fire. A Punishment Also Found In The Bible

[Leviticus 21:9] “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profanes her father; she shall be burnt with fire.”

[Leviticus 20:14] “And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there shall be no wickedness among you.”

 

Lessons learned from previous posts on this topic:

1) Majority of the Ummah are jaahil.

2) Majority of the Kuffaar are jaahil.

3) Too many apologetic Muslims nowadays.

4) Too many people of knowledge who either (a) fear to speak the haqq or (b) are not really people of ‘knowledge’.

5) Too many Muslims who fear the Kuffaar more than they fear Allaah.

6) Always remember, just as in the time of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, only a few among the scholars stand up and speak the haqq when it goes against their governments. Even great giants can become weak, fearing to say the haqq when put to trial. And no one alive today is even close to the scholars who never spoke the haqq at the time of Imam Ahmad (regarding the creation of the Quraan). So if the MAJORITY of the great giants of Islam from our Salaf at the time of Imam Ahmad never spoke the haqq, then know that our times are much worse.

Burning Someone With Fire, Part 8 (By An-Nawawi)

Imaam An-Nawawi said:

“If the transgressor kills using a sword, then Qisaas should not be applied to him with anything other than a sword, because Alllaah says, “Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him.” [Quran 2:194] And also because the sword is the lightest weapon of pain (i.e. causes the least amount of pain). So if he uses this ti kill, but the Qisaas is applied to him with other than a sword – then the oppressed one has taken more than legitimate right; because he only had the right to kill, yet he not only killed, he also caused the transgressor torment.

But if the transgressor burned his victim (till death), or drowned him, or threw stones at him (till death), or threw him off a cliff, or struck him with a piece of wood (till death), or confined him (till death), or refused to give him water and food till the victim died – then it is the right of the guardian to apply the equal means, since Allaah says: “And if you punish (your enemy, O Believer), punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed.” [Quran 16:126]

And also what is narrated by Al-Baraa’ (r.a) from the Prophet (saw), “Whosoever torches (a Muslim till death), then we shall also torch him; and whosoever drowns (a Muslim till death), then we shall also drown him.“

And Qisaas is a matter of being equally like in retaliation, and it is perfectly possible to be equally like in retaliation with regards to these forms of Qisaas to be carried out – so it is permissible. And it is also permissible for the oppressed (in the situations just mentioned) to use a sword for Qisaas, because it is his right to kill and also torment – but if he only chooses to kill with a sword and gives up his right to torment, then this is also permissible.”

[End quote of An-Nawawi]

Burning Someone With Fire, Part 7 (By Ibn Rushd)

Burning With Fire, By Ibn Rushd:

Ibn Rushd said:

“The proscription of mutilating the bodies of the enemy is fully established. The Muslim jurists (fuqahaa) agreed on the permissibility of slaying them with weapons, but disagreed about burning them with fire.

A group of jurists disallowed burning them with fire or even attacking them with it, and this is the opinion of ‘Umar and is also narrated from Maalik.

Sufyaan Ath-Thawree permitted this, while some of them said, ‘If the enemy initiates this then it is permitted, otherwise not.’ “

[Bidaayat Al-Mujtahid, by Ibn Rushd. Book of Jihad, chapter, “Identification Of The Harm Permitted To Be Inflicted Upon The Enemy”]

The Reality Of The Soofees, By Ibn Al-Jawzee

Ibn Al-Jawzee said:

“Then another group of people came (afterwards) that revised the way of Soofism, characterized it with attributes by which they distinguished it (from its original state), such as: wearing old tattered clothes, hearing (music), bursting out n passionate emotions, dancing and clapping. And they particularized themselves by exceeding in cleanliness and purification.

Then this matter (Soofism) continued to flourish, and their shaykhs began to fabricate stories for them and speak about their mystical occurrences. This affirmed their remoteness from the scholars. Rather, this even affirmed their views that what they were upon was the most complete forms of knowledge, such that they named it the hidden knowledge (al-‘ilm al-baatin), while making knowledge of the religion apparent knowledge (al-‘ilm adh-dhaahir).

Among them were those whose severity in hunger brought them to fancy corrupt notions. SO they would claim strong love and passion for the truth. It was as if they imagined a figure with a beautiful appearance and thus fell madly in love with it. These individuals linger between disbelief and innovation!

Then these people divided into various orders and their beliefs grew corrupt. So among them were those who held the view that Allaah is incarnate in His creation (hulool), and those who held the view that the Creator and creation were in reality one existence (ittihaad).

And the devil did not stop speaking to them about different types of innovations until they made them into aspects of the Sunnah.”

[Tablees Iblees, by Ibn Al-Jawzee, p. 162]