Erroneous principles that some youth act on


Erroneous principles that some youth act on

Shaykh Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee

Reference: Silsilat al Hudaa wal Noor
CategoryMethodology

There are some principles that some youth act on O Shaykh. Amongst them are: Whoever does not declare a Kafir to be a Kafir is a Kafir himself. Whoever does not declare an innovator to be an innovator is an innovator himself. Whoever is not with us is against us. What do you think O Shaykh?

 

And where did these principles come from and who is it that instituted them?

This reminds me of a joke in my country of origin, Albania, that my father, may Allaah have mercy upon him, used to tell:

The story is of a scholar who visited a friend of his, when he left at the end of his visit, he declared his host to be a disbeliever…(story goes on to the point of the story)…so he (host) didn’t respect the Shaykh, so the Shaykh declared him to be a disbeliever because he does not respect the scholars. Whoever does not respect scholars does not respect knowledge, whoever does not respect knowledge does not respect the one who came with the knowledge, who is Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم). And likewise he kept progressing [in his argument until he reached] Gibreel and subsequently to the Lord of the world, so therefore he (host) is a disbeliever.

This question reminded me of this joke.

It can never be a condition that if a certain individual declares another to be a disbeliever after establishing the evidences upon him, that everybody else must agree with him. Because the person may have a misunderstanding, and another scholar may hold the opinion that due to that misunderstanding he is not to be declared a disbeliever. Likewise is declaring people as sinners and innovators.

In reality, this is from the tribulations of this current era and from the haste of some youth in calling to knowledge. The point is, this chain is progression is not binding at all.

This is an extensive issue. A scholar may hold the opinion that a certain act is obligatory while another scholar doesn’t. The scholars do not differ except while knowing that when practicing Ijtihaad, one scholar can not bind by obligation other scholars with his opinion. The one who is obligated in taking another person’s opinion is the Muqalid, one who doesn’t have knowledge, he is the one who is obligated to blindly follow someone else’s opinion.

As for a scholar however, if another scholar declares an individual to be a disbeliever, an innovator or a sinner, then it is not binding upon him at all to follow that scholar.

In reality this is a calamity, insha-Allaah it hasn’t spread from your country to other countries yet.

Advertisements