How Do We Understand the Salaf’s Statements Regarding Ahlul Bid’ah?
The below is a translation of Ustadh Mahmud Sayyid’s article, Kayfa Nafham ‘Ibarat as-Salaf fi Ahl al-Ahwa’ wal-Bida’?!
What has endowed the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ with its excellence is its enjoining of good and forbidding of evil. Neglecting these duties leads to the loss of this excellence. Allah Almighty states: “You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah” [Al-Imran: 110]. This principle includes clarifying the status of innovators who alter the Shariah through their whims or even their ignorance. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah said:
ولهذا كان السلف يعدون كل من خرج عن الشريعة في شيئ من الدين من أهل الأهواء، ويجعلون أهل البدع هم أهل الأهواء، ويذمّونهم بذلك، ويأمرون بألا يُغترَّ بهم ولو أظهروا ما أظهروه من العلم والكلام والحِجاج أو العبادة والأحوال
“For this reason, the pious predecessors considered anyone who deviated from the Shariah in any aspect of religion to be among the people of desires. They regarded the people of innovation as the people of desires, condemned them for it, and instructed that they should not be trusted, regardless of the knowledge, eloquence, arguments, worship, or spiritual states they might display.”[1]
This is to preserve the religion and protect the Iman of the common people from the distortions and misguidance. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah said about such individuals:
ومثل أئمة البدع من أهل المقالات المخالفة للكتاب والسنة أو العبادات المخالفة للكتاب والسنة؛ فإن بيان حالهم وتحذير الأمة منهم واجب باتفاق المسلمين، حتى قيل لأحمد بن حنبل: الرجل يصوم ويصلي ويعتكف، أحبّ إليك أو يتكلم في أهل البدع؟ فقال: إذا قام وصلى واعتكف فإنما هو لنفسه، وإذا تكلم في أهل البدع فإنما هو للمسلمين؛ هذا أفضل
“As for the leaders of innovation, those whose statements contradict the Qur’an and Sunnah or whose practices deviate from the Qur’an and Sunnah, exposing their reality and warning the Ummah against them is an obligation agreed upon by the Muslims. It was even said to Ahmad ibn Hanbal: ‘A man fasts, prays, and observes i’tikaf; is that more beloved to you, or that he speaks against the people of innovation?’ He replied: ‘If he fasts, prays, and observes i’tikaf, it is for himself; but if he speaks against the people of innovation, it is for the Muslims; this is better.’”[2]
For this reason, the Imams of the deen and the guardians of the Sunnah have diligently fulfilled their duty of clarification. Their expressions and approaches towards the innovators varied, leading to diverse interpretations of their statements and positions. Some individuals applied these statements universally without distinction, resulting in unwarranted accusations of disbelief and fisq. Ibn Taymiyyah said:
وبإزاء هؤلاء المكفّرين بالباطل أقوامٌ لا يعرفون اعتقاد أهل السنة والجماعة كما يجب، أو يعرفون بعضه ويجهلون بعضه وما عرفوه منه قد لا يبيّنونه للناس بل يكتمونه ولا ينهون عن البدع المخالفة للكتاب والسنة ولا يذمّون أهل البدع ويعاقبونهم؛ بل لعلهم يذمّون الكلام في السنة وأصول الدين ذمًّا مطلقًا؛ لا يفرّقون فيه بين ما دلّ عليه الكتاب والسنة والإجماع وما يقوله أهل البدعة والفرقة أو يقرّون الجميع على مذاهبهم المختلفة كما يقرّ العلماء في مواضع الاجتهاد التي يسوغ فيها النزاع، وهذه الطريقة قد تغلب على كثير من المرجئة وبعض المتفقهّة والمتصوّفة والمتفلسفة كما تغلب الأولى على كثير من أهل الأهواء والكلام، وكلا هاتين الطريقتين منحرفة خارجة عن الكتاب والسنة. وإنما الواجب بيان ما بعث الله به رسله وأنزل به كتبه وتبليغ ما جاءت به الرسل عن الله والوفاء بميثاق الله الذي أخذه على العلماء، فيجب أن يعلم ما جاءت به الرسل ويؤمن به ويبلّغه ويدعو إليه
“In contrast to these baseless takfiris, some do not fully understand the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah, or they understand some aspects while remaining ignorant of others. What they do know, they might not communicate clearly to the people; instead, they conceal it and do not oppose the innovations that contradict the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and consensus, nor do they censure or punish the innovators. They might even condemn speaking about the Sunnah and the fundamentals of religion indiscriminately, failing to differentiate between what the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and consensus indicate and what the people of innovation and division claim. They may allow all differing views to persist as if they were permissible areas of scholarly debate. This approach often dominates many Murji’ah, some jurists, Sufis, and philosophers, just as the former approach dominates many of the people of whims and Mutakallimun. Both of these methods deviate from the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
What is obligatory is to clarify what Allah has sent with His messengers and revealed in His books, to convey what the messengers have brought from Allah, and to fulfill the covenant that Allah has taken from the scholars. It is essential to know what the messengers have brought, believe in it, convey it, call to it...”[3]
With the grace of Allah Almighty, in these lines, we will examine the words of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, which elucidate the general statements of the early scholars and clarify their ambiguities. This is to avoid falling into excess or negligence regarding promises and threats, distinguishing in this context between judging the statement or the deviant madhab and judging the person who utters or adheres to it. Just like in the case of takfir, there is no necessary correlation between the two. Some conditions must be met, and impediments must be absent before a ruling can be issued on specific individuals[4] while firmly asserting the heretical or blasphemous nature of the stance. Ibn Taymiyyah said:
فإنا نُطلق القول بنصوص الوعد والوعيد والتكفير والتفسيق، ولا نحكم للمعين بدخوله في ذلك العام حتى يقوم فيه المقتضى الذي لا معارض له
“We express general statements concerning promises, threats, takfir, and declaring someone a sinner, but we do not apply these judgments to specific individuals until the necessary conditions are met and there are no impediments.”[5]
This distinction between the two contexts is made clear by Shaykh al-Islam’s words, further clarified by his practical stances and his own experiences during his trials. He said:
وكنت أبيّن لهم أنما نقل لهم عن السلف والأئمة من إطلاق القول بتكفير من يقول كذا وكذا فهو أيضا حق، لكن يجب التفريق بين الإطلاق والتعيين
“I used to explain to them that what has been transmitted from the Salaf and the Imams regarding the general takfir of those who say such-and-such is also true, but it is necessary to distinguish between general statements and specific applications.”[6]
He also said:
فإذا رأيت إمامًا قد غلّظ على قائل مقالته أو كفّره فيها، فلا يعتبر هذا حكمًا عامًا في كل من قالها إلا إذا حصل فيه الشرط الذي يستحقّ به التغليظ عليه والتكفير له
“If you see an Imam severely criticizing someone for their statement or declaring them an unbeliever because of it, this should not be taken as a general ruling for everyone who says it unless the condition justifying such severity and takfir is met.”[7]
ففي هذا الإطار تُفهم إطلاقات الأئمة في المقالات البدعية وأصحابها على جهة البيان والتحذير، لا أن ذلك لازم لكل من وقع فيها.
Within this framework, the Imams' general statements regarding heretical statements and their proponents are understood as clarifications and warnings, not as a blanket judgment on everyone who accepts such statements.
Not everyone who associates themselves with a particular stance necessarily adheres to all its principles or accepts all its implications. Ibn Taymiyyah said:
ولازم المذهب لا يجب أن يكون مذهبًا، بل أكثر الناس يقولون أقوالًا ولا يلتزمون لوازمها، فلا يلزم إذا قال القائل ما يستلزم التعطيل أن يكون معتقدًا للتعطيل، بل يكون معتقدًا للإثبات ولكن لا يعرف ذلك اللزوم
“The implications of a madhab do not necessarily have to be part of the madhab itself. Most people espouse certain views without committing to all their implications. Therefore, just because someone makes a statement implying negation [of an attribute] does not mean they believe in negation; they might believe in affirmation but be unaware of the implication.”[8]
Furthermore, a stance may not be entirely false; it may contain some truth in certain respects. Ibn Taymiyyah elaborates on the methodology for dealing with stances:
فهذا أصل عظيم فتدبَّرْه فإنه نافع، وهو أن ينظر في شيئَيْن في المقالة: هل هي حق؟ أم باطل؟ أم تقبل التقسيم فتكون حقًا باعتبار باطلًا باعتبار؟ وهو كثير وغالب، ثم النظر الثاني في حكمه إثباتًا أو نفيًا أو تفصيلًا، واختلاف أحوال الناس فيه؛ فمن سَلَكَ هذا المسلك أصاب الحق قولًا وعملًا وعرف إبطال القول وإحقاقه
“This is a significant principle, so ponder it carefully, as it is beneficial. One must examine two aspects of a stance: whether it is true, false, or a combination of both, being true in some respects and false in others, which is often the case. The second aspect to consider is its ruling—whether to affirm, deny, or detail it, and the varying conditions of people in relation to it. Whoever follows this approach will attain the truth in both speech and action, recognizing what to affirm and what to negate.”[9]
After joining a group, individuals differ in their levels of commitment and adherence. Some may err on a particular issue, but this is not equivalent to adopting the entirety of the stance, nor is it the same as following a comprehensive madhab. It also differs from those who advocate for the ideology, write about it, or establish its principles. Furthermore, it is not comparable to those tested and persecuted for their beliefs. These individuals are not all the same.
Historically, the hadith distinguished between narrating from someone who actively promotes their beliefs and someone who merely affiliates without proselytizing. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked, “O Abu Abdullah, did you hear from Abu Qatan the Qadari?” He replied, “I did not see him as a propagator; had he been a propagator, I would not have heard from him.” When asked if it is permissible to write from a Murji’ or a Qadari, he said, “Yes, it is permissible to write from them if they are not propagators.” Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, may Allah have mercy on him, said, “They only prohibited writing from the propagators because their advocacy for innovation and encouragement towards it might lead them to fabricate what would embellish it.”[10]
Furthermore, bid’ah in religious matters is not on the same level, according to the Sharia. The criticism directed at those who claimed the Qur’an was created differs from the criticism directed at the proponents of Irja’ among the jurists or the Shi’ism of the Kufans. Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, hesitated in fighting the Khawarij but did not hesitate to kill those who claimed divinity for him. Hence, the hadith scholars differentiated in their narrations from innovators based on their beliefs. Ibn Rajab, may Allah have mercy on him (d. 795 AH), after discussing the disagreement on narrating from innovators, stated:
فيخرج من هذا: أن البدع الغليظة كالتجهّم يُرَدّ بها الرواية مطلقًا، والمتوسطة كالقدر إنما يُرَدّ رواية الداعي إليها، والخفية كالإرجاء، هل تُقبل معها الرواية مطلقًا أو تُرَدّ عن الداعية؟، على روايتين
“From this, it can be concluded that severe innovations, like Jahmism, invalidate a narration entirely. Moderate innovations, like to do with the stances of the Qadariyyah, only invalidate the narration of those who advocate for it. As for subtle innovations, like Irja’, there are two opinions: either the narration is accepted entirely, or it is only rejected from those who advocate it.”[11]
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah presented examples of errors made by scholars and various types of misinterpretations of their statements. Among these examples, he stated:
الثالث: قول قاله الإمام فزِيْدَ عليه قدرًا أو نوعًا كتكفيره نوعًا من أهل البدع كالجهمية فيجعل البدع نوعًا واحدًا حتى يدخل فيه المرجئة والقدرية، أو ذمّه لأصحاب الرأي بمخالفة الحديث والإرجاء فيُخرِج ذلك إلى التكفير واللعن، أو ردّه لشهادة الداعية وروايته وغير الداعية في بعض البدع الغليظة فيعتقد رد خبرهم مطلقًا مع نصوصه الصرائح بخلافه وكخروج من خرج في بعض الصفات إلى زيادة من التشبيه
“The third type involves an instance where the scholar makes a statement, which is subsequently exaggerated either in scope or type. For instance, the scholar may have pronounced takfir on a specific group of innovators, like the Jahmiyyah, but his statement is then extended to include all innovators, such as the Murji’ah and Qadariyyah. Similarly, his criticism of proponents of opinion (Ahl al-Ra’y) for opposing hadith and Irja’ may be misinterpreted as implying takfir and cursing. Or his rejection of the testimony and narration of an advocate of certain severe innovations is taken to mean the rejection of all their reports, despite his explicit texts to the contrary. This is similar to how some took certain attributes to an excessive level of anthropomorphism.”[12]
ثم إنه ما من هؤلاء إلا من له في الإسلام مساعٍ مشكورة، وحسنات مبرورة، وله في الردّ على كثير من أهل الإلحاد والبدع، والانتصار لكثير من أهل السنة والدين ما لا يخفى على من عرف أحوالهم، وتكلّم فيهم بعلم وصدق وعدل وإنصاف، لكن لما التبس عليهم هذا الأصل المأخوذ ابتداءً عن المعتزلة -وهم فضلاء عقلاء-، احتاجوا إلى طرده والتزام لوازمه، فلزمهم بسبب ذلك من الأقوال ما أنكره المسلمون من أهل العلم والدين، وصار الناس بسبب ذلك: منهم من يعظّمهم، لما لهم من المحاسن والفضائل، ومنهم من يذمّهم، لما وقع في كلامهم من البدع والباطل، وخيار الأمور أوساطها
“Each of these individuals has notable contributions to Islam, commendable good deeds, and has refuted many proponents of atheism and heresies. They have defended many followers of the Sunnah and the faith, which is well known to those who are aware of their circumstances and who speak about them with knowledge, honesty, justice, and fairness. However, because they misunderstood this principle initially derived from the Mu’tazilites—who were virtuous and intelligent—they felt compelled to adhere to it and its consequences. As a result, they adopted positions that knowledgeable and devout Muslims rejected. Consequently, people are divided regarding these individuals: some admire them for their virtues and good qualities, while others criticize them for the bidah and falsehoods in their statements. The best approach lies in moderation.”[13]
For example, Hatib ibn Abi Balta’ah, may Allah be pleased with him, had good deeds in Islam that interceded for him with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ when he committed treason. Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “He has betrayed Allah, His Messenger, and the believers; let me strike his neck.” The Prophet ﷺ replied, “O Umar, what do you know? Perhaps Allah has looked upon the people of Badr and said, ‘Do as you please, for Paradise has been granted to you.’” The narrator said, “Umar’s eyes filled with tears, and he said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know best.’[14]
To understand the Salaf's statements regarding the views and rulings on innovators, it is essential to consider a number of important factors. These factors clarify any apparent contradictions in the scholars' statements, remove ambiguities, and elucidate their general positions.
Firstly: Considering the Historical Context:
The early centuries were close to the time of the Companions and their successors, who were nurtured in their presence. During this period, adherence to the faith was at its strongest. Observing how the Companions denounced deviations that emerged after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, treating them as grave sins, helps one understand their profound regard for preserving the purity of the religion. For instance, Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, prepared palm stalks to discipline Ibn Subaygh when he detected a hint of innovation from him, showcasing his severe disapproval of any religious innovation, even in seemingly minor matters.
This contrasts with the approach of those who came after the virtuous centuries, during which innovations became widespread, much knowledge was lost, and deviant ideologies gained followers, established schools, and sometimes even governmental support. These ideologies were propagated, and dissenters were often persecuted, imprisoned, and tortured.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said:
وقَلَّ طائفة من المتأخرين إلا وقع في كلامها نوع غلط لكثرة ما وقع من شُبَه أهل البدع؛ ولهذا يوجد في كثير من المصنفات في أصول الفقه وأصول الدين والفقه والزهد والتفسير والحديث؛ من يذكر في الأصل العظيم عدة أقوال ويحكي من مقالات الناس ألوانًا، والقول الذي بعث الله به رسوله لا يذكره؛ لعدم علمه به لا لكراهته لما عليه الرسول ﷺ
“There are few later groups without some degree of error in their statements due to the abundance of doubts spread by the people of innovation. Thus, various opinions and viewpoints are presented in many works on jurisprudence, theology, asceticism, exegesis, and hadith. However, the opinion that Allah sent with His Messenger is often not mentioned, not due to a dislike for it, but because they were unaware of it.”[15]
He also said:
فلما طال الزمان خفي على كثير من الناس ما كان ظاهرًا لهم ودقّ على كثير من الناس ما كان جليًّا لهم، فكثر من المتأخرين مخالفة الكتاب والسنة ما لم يكن مثل هذا في السلف، وإن كانوا مع هذا مجتهدين معذورين يغفر الله لهم خطاياهم ويُثيبهم على اجتهادهم، وقد يكون لهم من الحسنات ما يكون للعامل منهم أجر خمسين رجلًا يعملها في ذلك الزمان؛ لأنهم كانوا يجدون من يُعينهم على ذلك، وهؤلاء المتأخرون لم يجدوا من يُعينهم على ذلك
“As time passed, what was once clear became obscure to many, and what was once evident became intricate. Consequently, many later scholars deviated from the Quran and Sunnah in ways that did not occur among the Salaf. Despite their diligence and good intentions, Allah forgives their mistakes and rewards their efforts. They might have as many good deeds as those who practiced them fifty times over in that early era because they had supporters to help them, whereas the later scholars did not have such support.”[16]
Secondly: Considering the Geographical Context:
The regions where the message of Islam was first revealed, where the Companions lived, and where they were raised on pure religion had a different approach to innovations compared to the distant parts of the Muslim world that had recently embraced Islam. In these distant regions, Islam had mixed with previous false madhabs, philosophies, and cultures, and many had adopted these ideas. Consequently, followers of the Salaf in these areas were often a minority, unable to denounce innovations effectively. Ibn Taymiyyah said:
في مسائل إسحاق بن منصور -وذكره الخلال في “كتاب السنة” في باب مجانبة من قال: القرآن مخلوق- عن إسحاق أنه قال لأبي عبد الله: من قال: القرآن مخلوق؟ قال: أَلْحِقْ به كلَّ بليَّة، قلت: فيُظهر العداوة لهم أم يُداريهم؟ قال: أهل خراسان لا يقوون بهم. وهذا الجواب منه مع قوله في القدرية: لو تركنا الرواية عن القدرية لتركناها عن أكثر أهل البصرة، ومع ما كان يعاملهم به في المحنة: من الدفع بالتي هي أحسن ومخاطبتهم بالحُجَج يفسّر ما في كلامه وأفعاله من هجرهم والنهي عن مجالستهم ومكالمتهم، حتى هَجَرَ في زمن غير ما أعيان من الأكابر وأمر بهجرهم لنوع مّا من التجهم
“In the “Masa’il Ishaq ibn Mansur,” mentioned by Al-Khallal in “Kitab al-Sunnah” in the chapter on avoiding those who say the Qur’an is created. Ishaq asked Abu Abdullah (Imam Ahmad): “What should be done with someone who says the Qur’an is created?” He replied, “Consider them as facing every calamity.” Ishaq then asked, “Should we show hostility towards them or treat them amicably?” Imam Ahmad responded, “The people of Khurasan are not strong enough to oppose them.”
This response, along with his statement about the Qadariyyah—“If we stopped narrating from the Qadariyyah, we would abandon most of the narrations from the people of Basra”—and his approach during the trial (mihna) of responding with the best manners and addressing them with arguments, explains his position and actions of avoiding and forbidding interaction with them. He even sometimes abandoned some prominent figures and commanded their abandonment due to a degree of Jahmism.”[17]
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies this geographical distinction in the statements of Imam Ahmad, saying:
وجواب الأئمة كأحمد وغيره في هذا الباب مبنيّ على هذا الأصل، ولهذا كان يفرّق بين الأماكن التي كثرت فيها البدع ؛كما كثر القدر في البصرة والتنجيم بخراسان والتشيع بالكوفة وبين ما ليس كذلك
"The responses of the scholars, such as Ahmad and others, in this regard are based on this principle. Therefore, he would differentiate between regions where innovations were widespread—such as the Qadariyyah in Basra, astrology in Khurasan, and Shi'ism in Kufa—and regions where they were not as prevalent."[18]
He also discusses dealing with innovations once they became entrenched:
كما ذكره أحمد عن أهل خراسان إذ ذاك: أنهم لم يكونوا يقوون بالجهمية، فإذا عجزوا عن إظهار العداوة لهم سقط الأمر بفعل هذه الحسنة، وكان مداراتهم فيه دفع الضرر عن المؤمن الضعيف ولعله أن يكون فيه تأليف الفاجر القوي، وكذلك لما كثر القدر في أهل البصرة؛ فلو تُرِكَ رواية الحديث عنهم لاندرسَ العلم والسنن والآثار المحفوظة فيهم
“As Ahmad mentioned regarding the people of Khurasan at that time, they were not strong enough to oppose the Jahmiyyah. If they could not show hostility towards them openly, the obligation to perform this good deed was waived. Their diplomacy was to prevent harm to the weak believers and possibly to win over the powerful wrongdoer. Similarly, when the Qadariyyah became widespread among the people of Basra, abandoning the narration of hadith from them would have led to the loss of much knowledge, Sunnah, and preserved traditions.”[19]
Thirdly: Considering Benefits and Harm:
The approach of the Salaf towards innovations varied depending on the realization of Shar’i interests, which many Islamic rulings hinge upon. This affects the degree and form of denunciation. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah says regarding boycotting innovators, which is a form of denouncement:
وهذا الهجر يختلف باختلاف الهاجِرين في قوتهم وضعفهم وقلتهم وكثرتهم، فإن المقصود به زجر المهجور وتأديبه ورجوع العامة عن مثل حاله؛ فإن كانت المصلحة في ذلك راجحة بحيث يُفضي هجره إلى ضعف الشر وخفيته كان مشروعًا، وإن كان لا المهجور ولا غيره يرتدع بذلك بل يزيد الشر والهاجر ضعيف بحيث يكون مفسدة ذلك راجحةً على مصلحته لم يُشرع الهجر؛ بل يكون التأليف لبعض الناس أنفع من الهجر. والهجر لبعض الناس أنفع من التأليف
“This boycott varies depending on the strength, weakness, scarcity, and abundance of those who are boycotting. The purpose is to reprimand and discipline the boycotted individual and to deter the public from adopting similar behaviors. If the benefit of the boycott is greater, leading to the reduction and concealment of evil, then it is prescribed. However, if neither the boycotted person nor others are deterred, and the evil increases while the one boycotting is weak, causing the harm to outweigh the benefit, then boycotting is not prescribed. In some cases, winning over certain individuals is more beneficial than boycotting, while for others, boycotting is more beneficial than winning them over.”[20]
This consideration is connected to the geographical context:
فحكم المسلم يتنوّع كما تنوّع الحكم في حق رسول الله ﷺ في حق مكة وفي المدينة. فليس حكم القادر على تعزيرهم بالهجرة حكم العاجز، ولا هجرة من لا يحتاج إلى مجالستهم كهجرة المحتاج
"The ruling for a Muslim varies, just as the rulings for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ varied in Mecca and in Medina. The ruling for someone capable of disciplining through boycotting is not the same as for someone incapable. Similarly, the ruling for someone who does not need to associate with them is not the same as for someone who does."[21]
خامسًا: اعتبار الفروق الشخصية: فالسلف ليسوا على درجة واحدة في الإنكار؛ فمنهم من يُعرف بشدته ومنهم من يُعرف بتساهله، وأقرب مثال لذلك تفاوت أهل الحديث في جرح الرجال وتعديلهم، فيقول الخطيب البغدادي -رحمه الله- (ت 463 ه) عن بعض النُّقّاد: “”[22]، كما روي عن شعبة أنه قيل له: لِمَ تركتَ حديث فلان؟ قال: “”[23].
Fourthly: Considering Personal Differences:
The Salaf were not uniform in their approach to denouncing innovations; some were known for their strictness, while others were more lenient. A close example of this variation is seen in the differing attitudes of the scholars of hadith toward critiquing and validating narrators. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, may Allah have mercy on him (d. 463 AH), said about some critics:
ومذاهب النُّقّاد للرجال غامضة دقيقة، وربما سمع بعضهم في الراوي أدنى مغمز فتوقّف عن الاحتجاج بخبره، وإن لم يكن الذي سمعه مُوجبًا لردّ الحديث ولا مُسقطًا للعدالة
“The methodologies of the critics of narrators are intricate and subtle. Sometimes, a critic might hear the slightest fault in a narrator and refrain from accepting their narration, even if what they heard does not necessitate rejecting the hadith or nullifying the narrator’s credibility.”[22]
For instance, it is reported that Shu’bah was asked why he abandoned the hadith of a particular person. He replied,
رأيته يركض على بِرْذَوْن، فتركت حديثه
“I saw him running after a horse, so I abandoned his hadith.”[23]
The differing opinions among the Companions regarding the treatment of the prisoners of Badr may fall into this category, as the Prophet ﷺ attributed it to their differing dispositions. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ asked, “What do you say about these prisoners?” Abu Bakr replied, “O Messenger of Allah, they are your people and family. Spare them and be lenient with them. Perhaps Allah will grant them repentance.” Umar said, “O Messenger of Allah, they expelled you and lied about you. Bring them close and strike their necks.” Abdullah ibn Rawahah said, “O Messenger of Allah, find a valley with plenty of wood, gather them in it, and set it on fire.” Abbas remarked, “You have severed your family ties.”
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ went inside without responding. Some people said he would take Abu Bakr’s opinion, others said he would take Umar’s opinion, and others said he would take Abdullah ibn Rawahah’s opinion. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ then came out and said, “Indeed, Allah softens the hearts of some men until they become softer than milk, and He hardens the hearts of some men until they become harder than stone. Your example, O Abu Bakr, is like that of Abraham (Ibrahim), who said, ‘Whoever follows me is of me, and whoever disobeys me—indeed, You are Forgiving and Merciful’ [Quran 14:36]. Your example, O Abu Bakr, is also like that of Jesus (Isa), who said, ‘If You should punish them—indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them—indeed it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise’ [Quran 5:118]. Your example, O Umar, is like that of Noah (Nuh), who said, ‘My Lord, do not leave upon the earth from among the disbelievers an inhabitant’ [Quran 71:26]. Your example, O Umar, is also like that of Moses (Musa) who said, ‘Our Lord, obliterate their wealth and harden their hearts so that they will not believe until they see the painful punishment’ [Quran 10:88].”[24]
Fifthly: Considering Context:
What is said in the context of writing and establishing principles differs from what is said in the context of trials and debates. In the former, mindfulness and careful choice of words are present, whereas, in the latter, harsh language and general condemnation might be used to deter and instill fear. The speaker might also be excused for other reasons, and their methodology should be derived from the former context rather than the latter. This explains the actions of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah during his trials, where he recounts:
فأغلظت لهم في الجواب، وقلت لهم بصوت رفيع: يا مبدّلين، يا مرتدّين عن الشريعة، يا زنادقة، وكلامًا آخر كثيرًا، ثم قمت وطلبت فتح الباب والعَود إلى مكاني
"I spoke harshly to them in my response, and I raised my voice, saying, 'O you who have altered [the religion], O apostates from the Sharia, O heretics,' and many other words. Then I stood up, asked for the door to be opened, and returned to my place."[25]
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal's actions can be understood in a similar context when he was sent someone to debate with him during his imprisonment. He said:
فقال لي أحدهما في بعض الأيام في كلام دارَ وسألته عن علم الله، فقال: علم الله مخلوق، قلت: يا كافر! كفرت، فقال لي الرسول الذي كان يحضر معهم من قِبَل إسحاق: هذا رسول أمير المؤمنين، قال: فقلت: إن هذا قد كفر، وكان صاحبه الذي يجيء معه خارج، فلما دخل قلت: إن هذا زعم أن علم الله مخلوق، فنظر إليه كالمُنكِر عليه، قال: ثم انصرف
"One day, during a discussion, I asked one of them about the knowledge of Allah. He said, 'The knowledge of Allah is created.' I responded, 'O disbeliever! You have committed disbelief.' The messenger present, sent by Ishaq, said to me, 'This is the messenger of the Commander of the Faithful.' I replied, 'This person has committed disbelief.' His companion, who used to come with him, was outside. When he entered, I said, 'This man claims that the knowledge of Allah is created.' He looked at him disapprovingly and then they left."[26]
فهذه بعض الاعتبارات التي إذا ما جُمعت تبيّنَ الحال وارتفع الإشكال، وسَلك المرء طريق الاعتدال بين من حَرَموا أنفسهم من الاستفادة من العلوم النافعة عند أولئك الأئمة، وبين المتساهلين الذين لا يُفرّقون بين السنة والبدعة
ونختم بجُمل نفيسة من كلام الذهبي (ت 748 ه) في أحد الأئمة الذين عُرف عنهم القول بالقدر رغم علو كعبه في العلم، فيقول: “وكان يرى القدر – نسأل الله العفو-، ومع هذا؛ فما توقَّف أحد في صدقه، وعدالته، وحفظه، ولعلّ الله يعذر أمثاله ممن تلبَّسَ ببدعة يريد بها تعظيم الباري وتنزيهه، وبذل وسعه، والله حَكمٌ عدلٌ لطيفٌ بعباده، ولا يُسأل عما يفعل
These are some considerations that, when combined, clarify the situation and resolve any confusion, guiding one towards a balanced approach between those who deprive themselves of the beneficial knowledge from these scholars and the lenient ones who do not differentiate between Sunnah and innovation.
We conclude with some precious words from Al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) regarding one of the scholars known for holding the belief in Qadar despite his high status in knowledge. He says:
وكان يرى القدر – نسأل الله العفو-، ومع هذا؛ فما توقَّف أحد في صدقه، وعدالته، وحفظه، ولعلّ الله يعذر أمثاله ممن تلبَّسَ ببدعة يريد بها تعظيم الباري وتنزيهه، وبذل وسعه، والله حَكمٌ عدلٌ لطيفٌ بعباده، ولا يُسأل عما يفعل
ثم إن الكبير من أئمة العلم إذا كثر صوابه، وعُلِمَ تحريه للحق، واتّسع علمه، وظهر ذكاؤه، وعُرِفَ صلاحه وورعه واتباعه، يُغفر له زلله، ولا نضلّله ونطرحه وننسى محاسنه. نعم؛ ولا نقتدي به في بدعته وخطئه، ونرجو له التوبة من ذلك
“He held the view of Qadar—may Allah forgive him. Nevertheless, no one ever doubted his honesty, integrity, and memory. Perhaps Allah will excuse those like him who, despite adopting a bid’ah, did so intending to glorify and exalt the Creator and who exerted their utmost effort. Allah is the Just Judge, Kind to His servants, and He is not questioned about what He does.
Furthermore, when a great scholar of knowledge, whose correctness is predominant, whose dedication to the truth is well-known, whose knowledge is extensive, whose intelligence is evident, and whose righteousness, piety, and adherence to the faith are recognized, makes a mistake, his error is forgiven. We do not consider him misguided, reject him, or forget his virtues. However, we do not follow him in his innovation or error, and we hope for his repentance from that.”[27]
And Allah knows best.
[1] Al-Istiqamah, vol. 1, p. 254
[2] Majmu’ al-Fatawa, vol. 28, p. 231
[3] Ibid., vol. 12, p. 467
[4] These lines are not sufficient to elaborate on these conditions and impediments, nor is this the appropriate place for such a discussion. The intention here is merely to provide general guidelines for understanding the statements of the scholars that might be confusing to some. And Allah is the one whose help is sought.
[5] Majmu’ al-Fatawa, vol. 28, p. 501
[6] Ibid., vol. 3, p. 231
[7] Ibid., vol. 6, p. 61
[8] Ibid., vol. 14, p. 461
[9] Ibid., vol. 6, p. 61
[10] See al-Kifayah fi ‘Ilm al-Riwayah, pp. 126-128
[11] Sharh ‘ilal al-Tirmidhi, vol. 1, p. 358
[12] Majmu’ al-Fatawa, vol. 20, p. 185
[13] Dar’ Ta’arudh al-‘Aql wal-Naql, vol. 2, p. 102
[14] Saheeh al-Bukhari, no. 6259
[15] Majmu’ al-Fatawa, vol. 5, p. 484
[16] Ibid., vol. 13, p. 65
[17] Ibid., vol. 28, p. 212
[18] Ibid., vol. 28, p. 206
[19] Ibid., vol. 28, p. 212
[20] Ibid., vol. 28, p. 206
[21] Ibid., vol. 28, p. 216
[22] Al-Kifayah, p. 109
[23] Ibid., p. 110
[24] Musnad Ahmad, no. 3632
[25] At-Tas’eeniyyah, vol. 1, p. 118
[26] Seerat al-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, p. 52
[27] Siyar ‘Alam an-Nubala’, vol. 5, p. 271