The
Salafees have differed in sub-divisional rulings but they have not differed in
their principles (i.e. to follow the Quraan and the Sunnah with the
understanding of the Salaf). Their Usool (principles) are well-known and
established. However, concerning certain current-day rulings the Salafees have
differed. An example is the ruling on a particular individual; so what does the
Salafee do in these particular examples of Ijtihaad where the scholars have
differed?
We
are aware on how to engage with those who aren’t Salafee, the scholars have
explained in how to interact and deal with them; with justice and fairness and
the Principles of the Sharee’ah.
However,
the problem we face now is when the Salafees themselves differ.
If
a well-known scholar who is known to have expertise in this field places a
ruling on a particular person, stating that such a person is from the people of
innovation, and no one from the people of knowledge differed with him then we
cannot doubt his ruling on such a person. We take the statement of this
scholar, especially if no one differed with him and this is how the Salaf were
(and something well-known in al-Mustalah al-Hadeeth). If Imaam Ahmad, for
example, stated that such and such person is a person of innovation and there
was no opposition to this, then the statement of Ahmad is accepted and acted
upon.
But
what do we do if the scholars differed?
If
the scholars differed about an individual; firstly we look at the situation. If
we have one that does Jarh and the other does Ta’deel then we take precedence
to the one who has more information. It may be that the one with Jarh has more
information but the one with Ta’deel praises a person because this is generally
what is apparent from him. The opposite is also true. It may be that a person
does Jarh, such as doing Jarh upon a person who was known to be a Hizbee, but
the one who does Ta’deel does so based on new information, such as him making
Tawbah. So the principle here is; we take the ruling from the one who has (and
presents) more information.
If
the scholars differed, then I have always said and I say again so that you may
understand: differences between well-known Salafee scholars in such affairs
have causes:
1) They differed in the
authenticity of the information. It could be that a person presents information
to a scholar and the scholar accepts it and makes a ruling based on this, then
he is excused even if he is wrong. It could be that the scholar who issues a
different ruling has different information presented to him, and likewise, he
is excused also if he is wrong.
2) It could be that
there is a misunderstanding. It could be that a scholar praises or dispraises a
person but the Salafees differed on their understanding of the speech of the
scholar.
3) Differences can arise
on the importance of the statement of the scholar. This is the third scenario -
the Salafee agree that the information is correct and they all have the same
understanding but they differed is the Shaykh talking about a mistake of a
person or is it Jarh thus warning against him? Meaning, none of the Salafees
deny that the scholar has said something, but the Salafees differed: some
believing that the scholar has declared the person as doing an innovation
whilst others have understood that the person being talked about has made a
mistake, but not necessarily an innovator.
I
do not know any scholar, from those who we know - those who are Salafee and
from Ahl as-Sunnah – that does Jarh or Ta’deel based on desires, oppression or
having a personal agenda. Never! But the differences between them occur because
of the aforementioned causes.
So
what is our stance?
Upon
us is to fear Allaah as much as we are able and to follow what we think is the
closest to the truth.
We
do not follow a particular opinion because of the one who issues it.
Likewise,
we do not follow our own opinions – whether we like something or not.
It
is upon us to fear Allaah as much as we are able and follow what is apparently
closest to the truth. These are matters of Ijtihaad therefore we can’t force
one to follow the opinion of another.
The
problem we face with the Salafee youth today is that if a particular scholar issues
a statement and another scholar says something different, then it becomes
binding to follow the opinion of the first scholar. It is not like they say to
themselves, “Let’s look at the difference of opinion and follow which is
closest to the truth based on its evidences”. If you were to say this they
would say that you have doubts about the Manhaj and the scholars!
Rather,
such people are those who have doubts, because here we are talking about
Ijtihaad between well-known scholars. Therefore, it is upon us to follow the
truth and the principles of Sharee’ah in this. With this, we don’t take the
statement of one over another (except if they have stronger evidences).
We
cannot say, “If you don’t follow the Jarh about a person (that our scholar has
made Jarh upon) then you will become Majrooh (dispraised) as well!”
Or
some of them say, “If you don’t do Jarh on a particular person (that our
scholar has made Jarh upon) then you will become Majrooh (dispraised) as well!”
All
of us know that your brother is following something to the best of his ability.
These
are some of the principles (Usool) and division and it is a must that you know
about this. It is obligatory for you to know how to deal with differences so
that you avoid differing yourself or causing differences between the Salafees.
These are issues of Ijtihaad but have differed the Salafees without them
differentiating the different principles mentioned here.
Someone
may say that he is supporting the truth that is apparent to him.
We
say: this is correct but he must do so with principles and etiquettes that have
been mentioned here.
Some
of the Salafees have become hard-hearted because of busying themselves with
these matters of Ijtihaad.
Some
of the Salafees have even created sub-parties within each other. They say these
Salafees are with us and those Salafees are against us!
This
is in reality is not right.
One
of the brothers from another country informed me of something similar the other
day, so I advised them to preserve brotherhood, their rights and their virtues
and not to make sub-parties, “us and them”, but we must be united.
Bearing
in mind all of these are sub-issues and the Salafees have not differed in their
principles!
Also,
some Salafees have even created labels for others. Shaykh such and such, if he
is with them in their opinion, then such a scholar is an upright scholar. Thus
the truth is always with him.
If
another scholar disagrees with him, then he has Tamyee’ (softness), meaning he
is a scholar but he is not upright in his Manhaj.
Likewise
we find those who are extreme and harsh in making Jarh and they find opinions
of a scholar confirming what they want to hear, they will say such and such a
scholar is just.
We
are not aware of any of these labels for scholars. We have never heard of this
being amongst the Salafees before, never!
This
is especially the case if the Salafees differed in sub-issues and not their
principles. It is upon us all to be wary of this and for us to cooperate with
one another with the principles of the Sharee’ah.
Give
the people of status their due status and seek the truth and follow it with the
intent to unite the people of truth with the truth.
Shaykh Sulaymaan bin Saleem-Allaah ar-Ruhaylee [may Allaah Preserve him]
Teacher in Masjid an-Nabawee in al-Madeenah an-Nabaweeyah
