True Brotherhood

Al-Imam, the Shaykhul-Islam of his time, Al-‘Allāmah, Al-Faqīh, Al-Muftī ‘Abdul-‘Azīz ibn ‘Abdillāh ibn Bāz رحمه الله said:

❝So, your brother is the one who advises you, reminds you, and alerts you.
And he is not your brother, the one who is neglectful of you, turns away from you, and flatters you disingenuously.

Rather, your brother – in reality – is the one who advises you, exhorts and admonishes you, and reminds you. He invites you to Allah, he clarifies for you the path of success and salvation so that you may tread upon it.

And he warns you from the path of destruction and clarifies and explains the evil of its repercussions and results so that you may avoid it.❞

[Majmū’ Fatāwa of Ibn Baz (14/21)]

---

قال الإمام ، شيخ الأسلام في زمانه، العلامة الفقيه ، مغني ديار المملكة العربية السعودية سابقًا ، الشيخ عبد العزيز بن عبد الله بن باز – رحمة الله عليه رحمة واسعة -:

“فأخوك من نصحك وذكرك ونبهك، وليس أخوك من غفل عنك وأعرض عنك وجاملك، ولكن أخاك في الحقيقة هو الذي ينصحك والذي يعظك ويذكرك، يدعوك إلى الله، يبين لك طريق النجاة حتى تسلكه، ويحذرك من طريق الهلاك ويبين لك سوء عاقبته حتى تجتنبه.٠”

[مجموع فتاوى ابن باز ٢١/١٤]

The Definition Of The Word “Congregation” (جماعة / Jamā’ah) With The Salaf

Al-Imām Abū ‘Īsā Muḥammad ibn ’Īsā At-Tirmidhī (279 H.) رحمه الله said:

And the Tafsīr of “Al-Jamā’ah” (جماعة “congregation”) with the People of Knowledge; they are the people of Fiqh, Knowledge, and Ḥadīth.

[With his isnād (chain of narration) At-Tirmidhī mentions that] ‘Abdullāh ibn Al-Mubārak was asked: “Who are the congregation?”

And so he said: “Abū Bakr and ‘Umar.”

It was said to him: “Surely, Abū Bakr and ‘Umar have passed away.”

And so he said: “So and so and so and so.”

It was said to him: “Surely, so and so and so and so have passed away.”

And so, ‘Abdullāh ibn Al-Mubārak said: “And Abū Ḥamzah As-Sukkarī is the congregation.”

Abū ‘Īsā [At-Tirmidhī then] said:
Abū Ḥamzah, he is Muḥammad ibn Maymūn, and he was a righteous scholar.

And, we believe, he [‘Abdullāh ibn Al-Mubārak] only said this [regarding Abū Ḥamzah] for his lifetime.

[Reference: Tuḥfadhul-Aḥwadhī bi-Sharḥ Jāmi’ At-Tirmidhī/(6/390) – Publisher: Dārul-Fayḥā’/Dārul-Manhal 1432 H./2011 C.E.]

*TR NOTES: This narration – and the plethora of others – clearly shows the Traditionalist Sunni Orthodox understanding of the word “Al-Jamā’ah” (جماعة “congregation”); their understanding of this word had nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with adhering to the guidance of the Beloved ﷺ.

**NOTE: what is between [ ] is from me and not from Imām At-Tirmidhī.

(translated by: @Abul_Layth Ziyad Saleem Qureshi)

---

کتاب الفتن عن رسول الله ﷺ / باب ما جاء في نزول العذاب إذا لم يغير المنكر

قال أبو عیسی: وتفسير الجماعة عند أهل العلم: هم أهل الفقه والحديث ، قال : وسمعت الجارود بن معاذ يقول : سمعت علي بن الحسن يقول: سألت عبد الله بن المبارك، من الجماعة ؟ فقال : أبو بكر وعمر، قيل له : قد مات أبو بكر وعمر، قال: فلان وفلان، قيل له : قد مات فلان وفلان؟ فقال عبد الله بن المبارك : وأبو حمزة السكري جماعة.

قال أبو عيسى : وأبو حمزة، هو : محمد بن ميمون، وكان شيخا صالحا، وانما قال هذا في حياته عندنا.

Is The First of This Ummah Better or the Latter?

I was asked the following question:

قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:

مثلُ أُمَّتِي مثلُ المطَرِ، لا يُدْرَي أوَّلُهُ خيرٌ أم آخرُهُ

صحيح الترمذي ٢٨٦٩ | الشيخ الألباني رحمه الله | حسن صحيح

صحيح الجامع ٥٨٥٤ | الشيخ الألباني رحمه الله | صحيح

The Messenger of Allāh صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ said:

“The parable of my Ummah is like of rain. It is not known whether the initial part (of the rain) is good or the latter part.”

Saheeh at-Tirmidhi 2869 | Shaykh al-Albāni رحمه الله | Hasan-Saheeh

Saheeh al-Jāmi’ 5854 | Shaykh al-Albāni رحمه الله | Saheeh

Translation: Authentic Quotes

Brother Ziyad Qureshi Assalamu Alaikum.

What does the above hadeeth mean ? Is the Prophet of Allah ( Sallallaahu Alaihiwasallam) referring to the to the benefit that accrues to the people as a result of scholars and students of knowledge and which generation was better ( earlier or latter ) or is it something else ?

I answered:

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم والحمد لله رب العالمين والصلاة والسلام على سيد الأولين والآخرين نبينا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه ومن تبعهم بإحسان إلى يوم الدين، أما بعد؛

فالسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته إخوتي في الله،

As-Salām ‘alaikum wa Raḥmatullāhi wa Barakātuhu brothers in Islam, may Allāh bless and preserve you all, āmīn.

The ḥadīth mentioned which was narrated by Al-Imām At-Tirmidhī رحمه الله is also found in the “Musnad” collection of Imām Aḥmed رحمه الله along with other supporting narrations there and in other books of ḥadīth.

As for what is meant by this ḥadīth then it is that the good in the Ummah of Muḥammad ﷺ is so much that it can be hard to discern where the most good is; in the beginning or in the end.

Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله mentions:

“… معناه : أنه يكون في آخر الأمة من يقارب أولهم في الفضل وإن لم يكن منهم حتى يشتبه على الناظر أيهما أفضل وإن كان الله يعلم أن الأول أفضل كما يقال في الثوب المتشابه الطرفين : هذا الثوب لا يدري أي طرفيه خير مع العلم بأن أحد طرفيه خير من الآخر …”

[مجموع فتاوى ابن تيمية (١٨/٣٠٦)، مجمع الملك فهد، سنة النشر: ١٤١٦هـ/١٩٩٥م]

“… it’s meaning is: there will surely be in the latter part of this Ummah those who come near to those who were from the first of the Ummah in virtue, even if they are not from them. Up until it becomes ambiguous to the onlooker as to which of them is better, all while Allāh Knows that the first of the Ummah are more virtuous.

As it is said about a thobe, which has two similar sides, “it can’t be said which side is better,” at the same time, it is known one side is more presentable and better than the other. …”

[Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā of Ibn Taymiyyah 18/306]

And Imām Al-‘Aẓīm’ābādī رحمه الله in “Tuḥfatu Al-Aḥwadhī” which is his monumental, and the principle, explanation of the “Sunan” of Imām At-Tirmidhī رحمه الله mentioned:

“… ( خير ) أي أنفع … قال التوربشتي: لا يحمل هذا الحديث على التردد في فضل الأول على الآخر فإن القرن الأول هم المفضلون على سائر القرون من غير شبهة ثم الذين يلونهم …، وإنما المراد بهم نفعهم في بث الشريعة والذب عن الحقيقة. …”

“… (better) meaning: more beneficial … At-Tūribishtī said: ‘This ḥadīth should not be interpreted to cause hesitation or uncertainty regarding the virtue of the former over the latter. For indeed, the First Generation they are the more virtuous over all other generations with out any doubt, then those who come after them, … The only thing intended by their mention is their benefit in propagating the Sharī’ah and defending the Truth’.”

So, what is clear from the above mentioned speech of the Scholars, is that this ḥadīth should not cause confusion regarding the principle and foundational belief that the best of generations is the first of this Ummah, then those who came after them, then those who came after them.

This ḥadīth is simply highlighting the abundance of goodness in this Ummah, to the point where an outsider looking in would be hard pressed to discern where the most good is.

I hope that this is clear, by the permission of Allāh.

And Allāh Knows best.

A Refutation of ISIS – The “Burning Man” Ḥadīth & Its Weakness

عن بشر بن حازم عن عمران بن يزيد بن البراء عن أبيه عن جدِّه عن  النبيِّ ﷺ قال: من عرض عرضنا له، ومن حرق حرقناه، ومن غرق غرقناه

On the authority of Bishr ibn Ḥāzim, from ‘Imrān ibn Yazīd ibn Al-Barā’, from his father, from his grandfather, from the Prophet ﷺ that he said:

Whoever deceives then we will deceive him, and whoever burns (another) then we will burn him and whoever drowns another then we will drown him.

---

This ḥadīth was used by a Khārijī supporter of ISIS to justify their deplorable act of burning alive a MUSLIM. (an apostate according to their beliefs)

The isnād of the ḥadīth is as follows;

(عَنْ بِشْرِ بْنِ حَازِمٍ ، عَنْ عِمْرَانَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ بْنِ الْبَرَاء ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّه)

(On the authority of Bishr ibn Ḥāzim, on ‘Imrān ibn Yazīd ibn Al-Barā’, on his father, on his grandfather …)

But according to Imam Al-Bayhaqī – who himself narrates the ḥadīth in his book “Sunan Al-Kubrā” and “Al-Ma’rifah” – he mentions that this ḥadīth is weak.

He says in “Al-Ma’rifah” after mentioning this ḥadīth:

“The author of “At-Tanqīh” (Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr) said: ‘In the isnād (chain of narration) are those who are unknown, like Bishr and other than him.’

Also ‘Imrān ibn Yazīd ibn Al-Barā’ is unknown.

Along side Al-Bayhaqī declaring this ḥadīth weak (ḍa’īf/ ٌضَعِيْف), we also have: Imām Ibn Al-Jawzī, Imām Ibn ‘Abdil-Hādī (contemporary and student of Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah), Imām Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr, Imām Al-Ḥāfiẓ Adh-Dhahabī, Imām Al-Albānī  – from our time and many others – رحم الله الجميع – all declaring this ḥadīth weak

As for ‘Alī (رضي الله عنه) burning those who ascribed godhood to him, then he was also rebuked in this action by the Ṣaḥābah. From them was Ibn ‘Abbās.

Also, his action here is in confliction with a clear ḥadīth. And so, due to these reasons it is not acceptable to use his actions as a proof, according to Traditional Sunnī Principles.

As for using the claim that the Salaf “differed” in this issue, then difference of opinion is NOT a proof as clarified by Ash-Shāṭibī (رحمه الله) in his compendium “Al-Muwāfaqāt” – and I have translated it for those who are interested.

You can find that here: https://GoodTreePubs.wordpress.com/category/methodology-manhaj/

And let’s say they did, for arguments sake of course; then we return the issue back to Allāh and His Messenger ﷺ as Allāh orders us to do so.

And the aḥādīth of our Beloved ﷺ are clear and unambiguous.

Furthering the weakness of the ḥadīth is the fact that; the entire ḥadīth is related in the manner which is known as ‘An’anah (عَنْعَنَةٌ) – meaning each narrator uses the word عَنْ / “from” or “on” (roughly translated) – which is from the weakest forms of transmitting according the Principles of Ḥadīth Sciences.

And to Allāh belongs all forms of gratitude and praise.

And Allāh knows best.

A Refutation of the Perverted Understanding of ISIS – A Verse from the Qur’ān

بسم الله الحمن الرحيم، الحمد لله رب العالمين، وصلوات ربي وسلامه وبركاته على نبينا وحبيبنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين،

أما بعد؛

In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful, All the praises and thanks be to Allāh, the Lord of all that exists, an may the Salutations of my Lord, His Peace and His Blessings be upon our Prophet and our Beloved Muḥammad, his Family and Companions.

As for what follows;

Not so long ago, an article was brought to my attention – written by a supporter of ISIS claiming that the burning alive of a prisoner carried out by this so called “Islamic State” was an act which was condoned by the Qur’ān and had premise therein.

The proof used by this viciously ignorant individual was the following verse from the Qur’ān, Allāh said:

﴾وَإِنْ عَاقَبْتُمْ فَعَاقِبُوا بِمِثْلِ مَا عُوقِبْتُمْ بِهِ  وَلَئِنْ صَبَرْتُمْ لَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لِلصَّابِرِينَ﴿

«And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient – it is better for those who are patient»

[An-Naḥl 16:126]

Here I will present some exegesis of some Traditional Sunnī Scholars of the past and the Orthodox interpretation and understanding of this verse.

And with Allāh rests all success.

The Imām, the Muḥaddith (Scholar of Ḥadīth), the Faqīh (Scholar if Jurisprudence), the Mufassir (Scholar of Exegesis), the Mu’arrikh (Historian); Abul-Fidā ‘Imādud-Dīn Ismā’īl ibn ‘Umar ibn Kathīr – commonly known as Ibn Kathīr رحمه الله تعالى said in his tafsīr (exegesis) of this verse:

‘Abdullāh – the son of Imām Aḥmed رحمهما الله – said in the Musnad collection of his father … [narrating his father’s chain of narration back to the Companion] … On the authority of Ubay ibn Ka’ab رضي الله عنه that he said: When it was the day of the battle of Uḥud, 60 men were killed from the Anṣār and 6 men from the Muhājirīn.

So some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: “If we ever have a day of victory like this over the Mushrikīn (polytheists), we will surely torture them.” And so, when the day of the Conquest of Makkah came, a man said, “the Quraysh will not be known after this day!” and so a man called out saying: “the Messenger of Allāh has granted sanctuary and safety to the Black and to the White, except so and so and so and so!” – and he named some people.

So Allāh, the Blessed and Most High, revealed: “And if you punish (your enemy), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sābirīn (the patient ones, etc.).” So thereafter the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: “We will be patient and we will not punish.”

The ḥadīth is narrated in the Musnad of Imām Ahmed, Al-Mustadrak of Imām Al-Ḥākim, Sunan Al-Kubrā of An-Nasāī, Shu’abul-Īmān of Al-Bayhaqī and many others; and the ḥadīth is Ṣaḥīḥ.

And to Allāh belongs all forms of gratitude and praise, and to Him Alone we direct our complaints.

Shaykhul-Islām Al-Imām Aḥmed ibn ‘Abdul-Halīm Ibn Taymiyyah رحمة الله علي ه said regarding this verse:

As for Tamthīl (المُثْلَةُ / التَّمْثِيْلُ / or “Al-Muthlah” – which is to kill a person in retribution for murder using the same means he used to commit the murder) then it is not permissible, except in the case of Qissās (retribution for murder). But indeed ‘Imrān ibn Ḥusayn رضي الله عنه said: The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ never addressed us except that he ordered us with charity and forbade us from Al-Muthlah (torturing). [Tafsīr Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Jāmi’ li Kalām Al-Imām Ibn Taymiyyah fī At-Tafsīr – Publishers: Dār Ibn Al-Jawzī (4/192)]

After some brief reading I found the ḥadīth of ‘Imrān ibn Ḥusayn رضي الله عنه can be found in; At-Tirmidhī, An-Nasāī, Musnad of Imām Aḥmed, Sunan Al-Kubrā of Al-Bayhaqī and many other books of ḥadīth. It has a total of 27 ṣaḥīḥ chains of narration, 208 ṣaḥīḥ supporting narrations and 108 supporting narrations which are ḥasan (good chain of narration).

Shaykhul-Islām does go on to say, on page 193 of the same book, that those who did permit Tamthīl did so “… so long as it is not in that which is impermissible by the right of Allāh …”.

And punishing with fire is known to be from the rights of Allāh, Lord of the Fire, as stated by the Prophet ﷺ in various aḥādīth.

Imām Muwaffaqud-Dīn Al-Maqdisī [620 H.] mentions in his great compendium “Al-Mughnī[1]” while explaining the statement of Imām Al-Khiraqī where he said:

“And if the enemy is fought, then they are not burned by fire.”

Imām Al-Maqdisī explains:

“As for the enemy, if he is captured, then it is not permissible to burn him – with out any difference of opinion known to us …”

Then he says:

“… And Abū Bakr Aṣ-Ṣiddīq رضي الله عنه had ordered with the burning of those who had left Islām. And Khālid ibn Walīd had done so upon an order from him as well …”.

What is attributed to Abū Bakr and Khālid ibn Walīd here are stories that are found in books of Sīrah and History – both known to contain narrations that are not authentic.

Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr mentions in “Al-Istī’āb”[2] after mentioning the name “Ṭarīfah ibn Ḥājiz”, he mentions the story that is alluded to, and then he says:

“… and in its chain of narration is; Sayf ibn ‘Umar At-Tamīmī: he’s a liar and is accused of heresy.”

And there is another narration which narrates another athar where Abū Bakr mentions on his death bed that he burned certain people – and regretted it, by the way; the proof is, he supposedly said, “… I wish I hadn’t done so …” – in the book of Humayd ibn Zanjawayyah in his book “Al-Amwāl”.

Commenting on a narrator of this athar – ‘Ulwān, Imām Al-‘Uqaylī in “Aḍ-Ḍu’afā” says about him:

“’Ulwān ibn Dāwūd Al-Bajalī, and it is said ‘Ulwān ibn Ṣāliḥ, and his narrations are not followed up by others, and this ḥadīth is not known except through him. Ādam ibn Mūsā narrated to me and said: I heard Al-Bukhārī say: ’Ulwān ibn Dāwūd Al-Bajalī – and it is said ‘Ulwān ibn Ṣāliḥ – he is rejected in ḥadīth (munkarul-ḥadīth).”

Also, Al-Ḥāfiẓ Adh-Dhahabī mentions him in “Mīzānul-‘Itidāl[3]” and mentions what Al-‘Uqaylī mentioned above and then adds:

“… and Sa’īd ibn Yūnus said: He is rejected in ḥadīth (munkarul-ḥadīth)…”

So, after all of this – is there left any doubt regarding the weakness of these narrations?

Furthermore, Imām Muwaffaqud-Dīn Al-Maqdisī doesn’t stop there! No. He continues on to say:

“As for today, then I do not know of any difference of opinion concerning it amongst the people.

And indeed Ḥamza Al-Aslamī narrated that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ ordered him with a mission, he said: ‘So I set out for it, so he ﷺ said: ‘If you capture so and so, then burn him with fire.’ So I turned and left and he then he called me back so I went back. Then he said to me: ‘If you capture so and so, then kill him and do not burn him, for indeed none punish with fire except the Lord of fire.’ Narrated by Abū Dāwūd and Sa’īd (i.e. in his Sunan)[4] and he narrated other than this ḥadīth that carry the same meaning. And Imām Al-Bukhārī, and other than him, narrates on the authority of Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه from the Prophet ﷺ a similar ḥadīth to Ḥamzah. …” (end quote)

I pray that after reading this, dear reader – may Allāh bless and preserve you – you ponder and contemplate over the message of Al-Islām, the message of the Qur’ān, your Messenger ﷺ and of your Lord, and that the Most Merciful bestows upon you and I correct understanding of his Sharī’ah, Allāhumma āmīn.

And may the Salutations, Peace and Blessings of Allāh be upon our Beloved, his Family and Companions and all those who follow them in sincerity and truth till the Last Day.

And all the praises and thanks

be to Allāh, the Lord

of all that

exists.

____________________________

FOOTNOTES:

[1] [13/ 138-139] issue #1669 – Publishers: Dār ‘Ālimil-Kutub (2007 C.E., 1428 H.), by Imām Muwaffiqud-Dīn Abū Muḥammad ‘Abdullah ibn Aḥmed ibn Muḥammad ibn Qudāmah Al-Maqdisī Al-Jammā’īlī Ad-Dimishqī Aṣ-Ṣāliḥī Al-Ḥanbalī [620 H.].

[2] [2/776].

[3] Mīzānul-‘Itidāl fi Naqdir-Rijāl [3/108] – Al-Ḥāfiẓ Adh-Dhahabī, Print: Dārul-Ma’rifah, Beirut – Lebanon, 1382 H. / 1963 C.E.

[4] Sunan Abī Dāwūd [2/50] – in ‘The Book of Jihād’, Chapter: The Dislike of Burning the Enemy with Fire. And it is narrated by Sa’īd ibn Manṣūr in his Sunan, [2/243] – in ‘The Book of Jihād’, Chapter: The Dislike of Punishing with Fire. It is also narrated by Imām At-Tirmidhī [7/66] and Imām Aḥmed in his Musnad [3/494].

Difference Of Opinion Is Not A Proof – الإختلاف ليس بحجة

No Doubt, that enjoining the good and forbidding the evil is a core principle of our religion of Islam. The one who possesses the requisite knowledge to do so, is obligated to do so. Of course, with all the proper etiquette that Islam teaches and requires of someone who places himself in this position.

But whilst in Toronto, I often heard the words “brother/sister, it’s OK, the Scholars differed in this issue” when perhaps trying to give advice or warn against a sin or an innovation. I heard them a little too often, it became the jingle of almost every laymen Muslim I came across. I was amazed to hear this from people who are considered Daa’ees in the West, or are even given the title “Shaykh” and have a ‘Sh.’ placed in front of their names.

I wondered, what did the Salaf say about this issue? We know that difference of opinion existed amongst Scholars in their times as well, so how did they deal with it? Is it really OK to hide behind differences of opinion? To use it as a proof in our Religion?

This is why I translated the following:

Imam Ash-Shaatibee [790 H.] (رحمه الله) said in his monumental work “Al-Muwaafaqaat” in the “Book of Ijtihaad” under the heading: “The Sharee’ah in its principles and subsidiary branches returns back to one single opinion, even if there is much differing”, he brings the chapter: “The progression of the issue and its severity, to the point where differing in matters is seen as a proof of permissibility” – he says there in:

“And indeed, the issue has progressed to a point that is now far beyond necessary. To the point where difference of opinion in an issue has become considered a proof for permissibility. And it occurs that reliance, in the past and present, is made in making actions permissible upon the mere fact that the issue was a matter of Ikhtilaaf amongst the Scholars. And this has nothing to do with actually having due consideration for differences of opinion, because that requires a completely different perspective, rather, in issues other than that as well.

So it may be that a Fatwa is given in an issue that it is prohibited; so it is said, “why are you prohibiting something whilst the issues is a point of difference of opinion”, and hence difference of opinion is made a proof for the permissibility of something – for the mere fact that it is an issue disputed therein by Scholars.

Not due to a proof which proves and supports the position of the one who says it is permissible, nor does it support the blind following (taqleed) of the one who has more right to be blindly followed – that being the one whose position concerning the issue is prohibition.

And this is the essence of what a mistake is in the Sharee’ah, because he has made dependable that which is not depended upon, and has made evidence that which is not an evidence.

Al-Khattaabee relates in regards to the issue of Al-Bit’u(1), which is mentioned in the Hadeeth regarding certain people, that they said: “Verily, when the people differed in regards to drinks, and they agreed upon the prohibition of alcohol fermented from grapes, and they differed in what is fermented from other than it, we declared haraam that which they agreed upon its prohibition and allowed all other things other than it.”

He (Al-Khattaabee) said: “And this is a disgusting mistake. Indeed Allah, the Most High, has ordered those who differed in a matter to return that matter to Allah and the Messenger.” (صلى الله عليه وسلم)

And he said: “And if what the one who believes this was actually binding, then the same principle would have to be applied to usury (ribaa), money exchange (sarf), temporary marriages (nikaah mut’ah); since the Ummah at some point differed in these issues.”

And he said: “And difference of opinion (ikhtilaaf) is not an evidence or a proof, and the clarity of the Sunnah is evidence and proof upon those who differer in an issue from the early and later generations.”

This is just a summary of what he said.

So the one who claims such a claim (as the one expounded upon above) does so based upon a following of his (or her) own desires, and makes the opinion which is in agreement to his whims a proof for himself and uses it to defend his own nafs. Indeed this person has taken this opinion as a means to follow his own desires and not as a means to increase him in his taqwah. And this is the furthest action he can do from being someone who is living in accordance to the Sharee’ah, and closer to the actions of those who take their own whims and desires as a god.

[Al-Muwaafaqaat 5/92 – 94, Edition: Dar Ibn Al-Qayyim & Dar Ibn ‘Affaan; 2009 C.E./1430 H. – 3rd edition]

___________________________________________________________________

(1) البِتْعُ : this is a type of drink that is made from honey, which resembles a whine like alcohol (khamr) when solidified – and Allah knows best.

___________________________________________________________________

فصل:

وقد زاد هذا الأمر على قدر الكفاية؛ حتى صار الخلاف في المسائل معدودا فى حجج الإباحة، ووقع فيما تقدم وتأخر من الزمان الاعتماد فى جواز الفعل على كونه مختلفا فيه بين أهل العلم، لا بمعنى مراعاة الخلاف؛ فإن له نظرا آخر1، بل فى غير ذلك، فربما وقع الإفتاء فى المسألة بالمنع؛ فيقال: لم تمنع والمسألة مختلف فيها، فيجعل الخلاف حجة فى الجواز لمجرد كونها مختلفا فيها، لا لدليل يدل على صحة مذهب الجواز، ولا لتقليد من هو أولى بالتقليد من القائل بالمنع، وهو عين الخطأ على الشريعة حيث جعل ما ليس بمعتمد متعمدا2 وما ليس بحجة حجة.

حكى الخطابي3 فى مسألة البتع4 المذكور فى الحديث عن بعض الناس؛ أنه قال: “إن الناس لما اختلفوا فى الأشربة، وأجمعوا على تحريم خمر العنب، واختلفوا فيما سواه؛ حرمنا ما اجتمعوا5 على تحريمه وأبحنا ما سواه“.

قال: “وهذا خطأ فاحش، وقد أمر الله تعالى المتنازعين أن يردُّوا ما تنازعوا فيه إلى الله والرسول“.

قال: “ولو لزم ما ذهب إليه هذا القائل للزم مثله فى الربا والصرف ونكاح المتعة؛ لأن الأمة قد اختلف فيها“.

قال: “وليس الاختلاف حجة وبيان السنة حجة6 على المختلفين منالْأَوَّلِينَ وَالْآخِرِين} . هذا مختصر ما قال1.

والقائل بهذا راجع إلى أن يتبع ما يشتهيه، ويجعل القول الموافق حجة له ويدرأ بها عن نفسه، فهو قد أخذ القول وسيلة إلى اتباع هواه، لا وسيلة إلى تقواه، وذلك أبعد [له]2 من أن يكون ممتثلًا لأمر الشارع، وأقرب إلى أن يكون ممن اتخذ إلهه هواه.