The Ahle Hadis conference in Mangalore just concluded successfully Alhamdulillah. And with that the frogs in the well, extremists who call themselves Salafi, are forwarding messages ‘refuting the Ahle Hadis’.
Their points-
(1) Ahle Hadis shared Nasheeds in promotion of their event, but Nasheeds are HARAAM.
(2) Ahle Hadis support voting in elections.
(3)Ahle Hadith made protests Halal, which Allah made Haram.
(4) Shaykh Abdul Azeem Madani is a supporter of Yusuf Qardawi so he is ‘out of the Manhaj’. I will answer all these doubts for them InshaAllah.
Point 1.
Just because Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan said that Nasheeds are Haram, it doesn’t become Haram. If you want to follow that opinion please follow it, but don’t throw someone out of Salafiyyah just because they don’t follow an opinion you follow. Shaykhs Ibn Baaz, Ibn Uthaymeen and Al-Albani and others from our times have allowed Islamic Anashaeeds with certain conditions. I will just share Shaykh Ibn Baaz’s Fatwa. (Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, Shaykh Al-Albani and Shaykh Ibn Jibreen also have similar Fatwas.)
Attitude of these small well frogs when someone shows them these Fatawa. They will not even see it, because ‘we shouldn’t read deviants’ and they will not even search for what the other Ulama said. Allahul Musta’an.
Point 2. Regarding voting.
Again, it’s OK if you hate voting in non-Muslim countries. But don’t call those who support the opinion of voting as ‘deviant’ or ‘people supporting Shirk’. If you still want to call the scholars of India who support voting as non-Salafi, then use the same logic to blame Shaykhs Al-Luhaydan, Ibn Uthaymeen, Abdul Muhsin Al-Abbad, Al-Albani etc. Voting in Non-Muslim lands is a matter disputed amongst the Ulama and the scholars of Non-Muslim lands will chose what they deem fit in The light of The Quran and The Sunnah.
The typical debate tactics of these extremists when they’re shown Fatawa of Saudi scholars that permit Nasheeds, Voting and protests etc., is as below-
The problem with the extremist Salafis is that whenever people quote the Quran and the Sunnah to them, they demand that we present evidence from major Saudi scholars (such as Ibn Baaz, Al-Luhaydaan, Al-Albani, or Ibn Uthaymeen). They argue that the primary texts cannot be understood directly and must be viewed through the lens of these specific authorities to ensure “proper” understanding. However, if you actually present evidence from those very same scholars that challenges their specific viewpoint, they immediately pivot. At that point, they will claim that “scholars are also human and can make mistakes,” and insist that everyone must instead return to following the Quran and the Sunnah “directly.” May Allah guide us to the proper understanding of the Deen.
Point 3. The Ahle Hadis made protests Halal which Allah made Haram.
Where did Allah call protests Haram? The combined Fatwas of Saudi scholars on an issue is not a revelation from Allah, it’s their Ijtihad. And again it’s a matter where the Ulama have differed and the Fatwa are chosen based on benefits and harms. And the scholars of India will chose what’s beneficial for India, not the Saudi Fatwa committee.
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen (below) allowing protests in non-Islamic countries. Did he make what Allah made Haram as Halal? Source
Eight major Salafi scholars of Pakistan, publicly signed a Fatwa regarding the permissibility of protests. See here.
Point 4.
Shaykh Abdul Azeem Madani gave a talk ‘supporting’ Yusuf Al-Qardawi that’s why he’s ‘out of the Manhaj’ and the organisation that calls him is also out of the Manhaj. But did Shaykh Abdul Azeem Umri Madani Hafidhahullah praise and support Yusuf Al-Qardawi unrestrictedly?
When I went to the actual lecture on YT, it was an event to remember and eulogise the services of Dr.Yusuf Al-Qardawi (May Allah forgive us and him). And Shaykh Abdul Azeem did attend it.
Point A. The video that was being shared by the extremists was carefully cropped out to the first 12-13 mins of Shaykh Abdul Azeem’s speech where he’s mentioning the positive services of Yusuf Qardawi. The last 5-7 minutes where Shaykh Abdul Azeem publicly mentioned the grave mistakes of Shaykh Qardawi were not kept or even translated. No where did Shaykh Abdul Azeem ‘support’ Yusuf Al-Qardawi.
Why was this done? Why did they wish to hide that Shaykh Abdul Azeem refuted Shaykh Qardawi in front of thousands of his supporters? Is this justice or just an attempt to put down and misrepresent a scholar of Islam?
Point B. Does praising a deviant for some service that he has done for Islam throw us ‘out of the Manhaj’? If that was the case then Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Katheer, Adh-Dhahabi etc must all be out of the Manhaj for praising some people of Bid’ah…
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (above) praising a Mu’tazili (a sect that believes in rationale more than the Sunnah, and distorts the Asma was Sifath).
The Mu’tazili stance of Az-Zamakhshari, the author of Al-Kashshaf, is well-known. Despite this, Allama Ibn Kathir (Rahimahullah) writes in his Tafsir:
“The Allama (Great Scholar) Abu al-Qasim Mahmud bin Umar az-Zamakhshari said in his Tafsir…”
Here, despite Zamakhshari’s Mutazili Aqeedah, Ibn Kathir refers to him as “Allama” in his Tafsir.
So Imam Ibn Kathir is ‘out of the Manhaj’?
Al-Alusi: Allama Al-Alusi is a Naqshbandi Sufi exegete (Mufassir), and his Tafsir contains a large number of Sufi issues.
Despite this, Allama Al-Albani (Rahimahullah) has mentioned him as “Allama” in several places. For instance, he says in one place:
“If you have known this, then it is not correct to use the verse as evidence in any way. And the Investigating Scholar (Al-Allama Al-Muhaqqiq) Al-Alusi said in ‘Ruh al-Ma’ani’…”
(Tahdhir al-Sajid min Ittikhadh al-Qubur Masajid, 55)
So Shaykh Al-Albani is ‘out of the Manhaj’?
Read the full note here.
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimahullah also stated that some of the Ahlul-Bidah may have achieved the state of being a Wali of Allah because of their deeds. So is Imam Ibn Taymiyyah also out of the Manhaj?
(After mentioning the evil type of innovators Imam Ibn Taymiyyah notes-) And among the people of innovation is one who has faith inwardly and outwardly, but he has ignorance and Dhulm (wrongdoing/injustice), such that he erred regarding some of the Sunnah. Such a person is not a disbeliever nor a hypocrite. Then he may have aggression and wrongdoing by which he becomes sinful or disobedient; and he may be mistaken, making an interpretive error, and his error may be forgiven. Yet along with that, he may still possess such faith and taqwā that he has a share of Allah’s wilāyah in proportion to his faith and taqwā. (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, Vol 3,354-355)
Another issue that these extremists have is that they read whatever we write with the worst possible interpretation. So let me clarify, ‘I do not assert that the Jamiat e Ahle Hadis organisation is cent percent perfect’, nor must we ignore the great Khair they’re doing in spreading The Quran and The Sunnah in the length and breadth of India. The point of these posts is to clarify that the haters are hating them for things that the scholars differed upon and not something greatly deviant.
May Allah give all of us the right understanding.
(Penned by Mohammed bin Thajammul Hussain Manna.)
Saheehus-Seerah 