Post by Zameel on Jul 7, 2016 23:52:09 GMT
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr narrates with an authentic chain to Imām ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī (135 – 198 H), the great imām of ḥadīth and famous ‘Irāqī student of Imām Mālik:
“One who takes something anomalous in scholarship is not a model of scholarship.” (Jāmi‘ Bayān al-‘Ilm wa Faḍlih, no. 1539)
Imām al-Bayhaqī narrates with an authentic chain to Imām ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Awzā‘ī (88 – 157 H), the great mujtahid imām of Shām:
“One who takes the aberrant opinions of scholars, he has surely come out of Islām!” (al-Sunan al-Kubrā, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 10:356)
Imām al-Bayhaqī also narrates with an authentic chain to the great ‘Irāqī Mālikī jurist, Qāḍī Ismā‘īl ibn Isḥāq (199 – 282 H):
“I entered upon (the caliph) al-Mu‘taḍid, and he handed me a book. I looked inside it. It gathered for him the easy opinions found in the mistakes of the scholars, and what each of them produced as proof for himself. I said: ‘Amīr al-Mu’minīn, the author of this book is a heretic (zindīq)!’ Al-Mu‘taḍid said: ‘Are these ḥadīths not sound?’ I said: ‘The ḥadīths are as they have been transmitted. But the one who allows intoxicating beverages [1] does not allow Mut‘ah marriage. Nor does the one who allows Mut‘ah marriage allow singing and intoxicating beverages. There is no scholar but he has slips. One who collects the slip-ups of the scholars, and then holds on to them, his religion is gone!’ Al-Mu‘taḍid gave orders for the book to be burnt.” (al-Sunan al-Kubrā, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 10:356)
One may find the statements of al-Awzā‘ī and Qādī Ismā‘īl somewhat harsh – as these opinions are, after all, opinions held by some scholars, no matter how aberrant and strange. But the reason they gave this harsh judgement is because this practice – of selecting marginal and fringe views of certain scholars – is a form of belittling the Dīn/treating the Dīn lightly (istihāna bi l-dīn), which can take a person out of Islām. (See: Mu‘īd al-Ni‘am, Dār al-Kitāb al-‘Arabī, p. 102)
There are many more statements from the early imāms condemning the practice of holding onto isolated, fringe and aberrant views. (More statements can be found in Athar al-Ḥadīth al-Sharīf, Adab al-Ikhtilāf and Ma‘ālim Irshādiyyah, all works of Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah).
Abu Layth is someone who follows marginal and fringe opinions, often distorting/misrepresenting textual evidences and the statements of the scholars in the process. Some of the fringe views that he advocates are as follows:
1) An actual joining of two ṣalahs without a Shar‘ī excuse is permissible [2]
2) Ridda (apostasy) in an Islāmic state is not a punishable offence [3]
3) It is permissible to abort a pregnancy after 120 days if it is discovered that the baby will suffer a long-term illness like Down’s syndrome
4) It is not necessary to close the fast of Ramaḍān at dawn but is permissible to eat until just before sunrise [4]
5) One does not have to make qaḍā’ of ṣalāhs missed due to laziness over a number of years [5]
Such a person’s “fatwās” are inadmissible in Sharī‘ah and cannot be followed. Those who take their Dīn seriously and worry for their ākhirah must avoid this person. Imām Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn said: "Undoubtedly, this knowledge is Dīn. So be careful of who you take your Dīn from." (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim)
[1] Some of the imāms allowed intoxicating beverages besides grape wine or date wine, as long as they are not consumed with the purpose of intoxication or to the point of intoxication.
[2] See: ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/436/reply-abu-layth-joining-excuse
[3] See: theislamiclens.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/comments-on-classical-islamic-views-on-the-punishment-for-apostasy/
[4] This view is “in opposition to the clear text of the Qur’ān” as stated by Ibn Kathīr (Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, Awlād Shaykh, 2:201). The verse says to close the fast when “the white thread is distinguishable from the black thread of dawn” (2:187), clearly mentioning dawn as the point at which the fast begins, not sunrise or close to sunrise. The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said in several ḥadīths, the “the horizontal dawn” is the point at which the fasting begins. The view that it can extend up to sunrise has been regarded as an invalid view. Imām Ibn al-Qaṭṭān (562 – 628 H) said: “The scholars (ulamā’) have reached consensus that the night [i.e. the period of Ramaḍān in which it is permissible to eat, drink and engage in sexual intercourse] extends from sunset up until dawn spreads across the horizon, except the one whose disagreement [on this subject] is disregarded.” (al-Iqnā‘ fī Masā’il al-Ijmā‘, 1:231) Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: “In this is evidence that suḥūr will only be before dawn…This is by consensus. Only A‘mash disagreed and he was isolated (shadhdha), and his view is given no consideration. The daytime in which it is necessary to fast extends from the break of dawn until sunset – the consensus of the scholars of the Muslims has settled on this, so there is no sense in discussing it.” (al-Tamhīd, 10:62)
[5] Imām al-Nawawī said: “The scholars who are taken into consideration have reached consensus that the one who leaves a ṣalāh intentionally, he must make-up for it. Abu Muḥammad ‘Alī ibn Hazm opposed them, and said: ‘He will never be able to make up for it and doing so won’t be valid.’ He also said: ‘Instead, he should do lots of good deeds and optional ṣalāh to make his scale heavy on the Day of Resurrection. He should seek forgiveness from Allāh and repent.’ What he said is not only against consensus, but is false from the perspective of evidence...Since making up the ṣalāh is obligatory on the one who omitted it forgetfully, the one who omitted it intentionally has an even greater obligation to make up for it.” (Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab, 3:76)
لا يكون إماما فى العلم من أخذ بالشاذ من العلم
Imām al-Bayhaqī narrates with an authentic chain to Imām ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Awzā‘ī (88 – 157 H), the great mujtahid imām of Shām:
من أخذ بنوادر العلماء فقد خرج من الإسلام
“One who takes the aberrant opinions of scholars, he has surely come out of Islām!” (al-Sunan al-Kubrā, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 10:356)
Imām al-Bayhaqī also narrates with an authentic chain to the great ‘Irāqī Mālikī jurist, Qāḍī Ismā‘īl ibn Isḥāq (199 – 282 H):
“I entered upon (the caliph) al-Mu‘taḍid, and he handed me a book. I looked inside it. It gathered for him the easy opinions found in the mistakes of the scholars, and what each of them produced as proof for himself. I said: ‘Amīr al-Mu’minīn, the author of this book is a heretic (zindīq)!’ Al-Mu‘taḍid said: ‘Are these ḥadīths not sound?’ I said: ‘The ḥadīths are as they have been transmitted. But the one who allows intoxicating beverages [1] does not allow Mut‘ah marriage. Nor does the one who allows Mut‘ah marriage allow singing and intoxicating beverages. There is no scholar but he has slips. One who collects the slip-ups of the scholars, and then holds on to them, his religion is gone!’ Al-Mu‘taḍid gave orders for the book to be burnt.” (al-Sunan al-Kubrā, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 10:356)
One may find the statements of al-Awzā‘ī and Qādī Ismā‘īl somewhat harsh – as these opinions are, after all, opinions held by some scholars, no matter how aberrant and strange. But the reason they gave this harsh judgement is because this practice – of selecting marginal and fringe views of certain scholars – is a form of belittling the Dīn/treating the Dīn lightly (istihāna bi l-dīn), which can take a person out of Islām. (See: Mu‘īd al-Ni‘am, Dār al-Kitāb al-‘Arabī, p. 102)
There are many more statements from the early imāms condemning the practice of holding onto isolated, fringe and aberrant views. (More statements can be found in Athar al-Ḥadīth al-Sharīf, Adab al-Ikhtilāf and Ma‘ālim Irshādiyyah, all works of Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah).
Abu Layth is someone who follows marginal and fringe opinions, often distorting/misrepresenting textual evidences and the statements of the scholars in the process. Some of the fringe views that he advocates are as follows:
1) An actual joining of two ṣalahs without a Shar‘ī excuse is permissible [2]
2) Ridda (apostasy) in an Islāmic state is not a punishable offence [3]
3) It is permissible to abort a pregnancy after 120 days if it is discovered that the baby will suffer a long-term illness like Down’s syndrome
4) It is not necessary to close the fast of Ramaḍān at dawn but is permissible to eat until just before sunrise [4]
5) One does not have to make qaḍā’ of ṣalāhs missed due to laziness over a number of years [5]
Such a person’s “fatwās” are inadmissible in Sharī‘ah and cannot be followed. Those who take their Dīn seriously and worry for their ākhirah must avoid this person. Imām Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn said: "Undoubtedly, this knowledge is Dīn. So be careful of who you take your Dīn from." (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim)
“Leave those who have turned their Dīn into futile play and amusement and are deluded by the life of this world.” (Qur’ān, 6:70)
[1] Some of the imāms allowed intoxicating beverages besides grape wine or date wine, as long as they are not consumed with the purpose of intoxication or to the point of intoxication.
[2] See: ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/436/reply-abu-layth-joining-excuse
[3] See: theislamiclens.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/comments-on-classical-islamic-views-on-the-punishment-for-apostasy/
[4] This view is “in opposition to the clear text of the Qur’ān” as stated by Ibn Kathīr (Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, Awlād Shaykh, 2:201). The verse says to close the fast when “the white thread is distinguishable from the black thread of dawn” (2:187), clearly mentioning dawn as the point at which the fast begins, not sunrise or close to sunrise. The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said in several ḥadīths, the “the horizontal dawn” is the point at which the fasting begins. The view that it can extend up to sunrise has been regarded as an invalid view. Imām Ibn al-Qaṭṭān (562 – 628 H) said: “The scholars (ulamā’) have reached consensus that the night [i.e. the period of Ramaḍān in which it is permissible to eat, drink and engage in sexual intercourse] extends from sunset up until dawn spreads across the horizon, except the one whose disagreement [on this subject] is disregarded.” (al-Iqnā‘ fī Masā’il al-Ijmā‘, 1:231) Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: “In this is evidence that suḥūr will only be before dawn…This is by consensus. Only A‘mash disagreed and he was isolated (shadhdha), and his view is given no consideration. The daytime in which it is necessary to fast extends from the break of dawn until sunset – the consensus of the scholars of the Muslims has settled on this, so there is no sense in discussing it.” (al-Tamhīd, 10:62)
[5] Imām al-Nawawī said: “The scholars who are taken into consideration have reached consensus that the one who leaves a ṣalāh intentionally, he must make-up for it. Abu Muḥammad ‘Alī ibn Hazm opposed them, and said: ‘He will never be able to make up for it and doing so won’t be valid.’ He also said: ‘Instead, he should do lots of good deeds and optional ṣalāh to make his scale heavy on the Day of Resurrection. He should seek forgiveness from Allāh and repent.’ What he said is not only against consensus, but is false from the perspective of evidence...Since making up the ṣalāh is obligatory on the one who omitted it forgetfully, the one who omitted it intentionally has an even greater obligation to make up for it.” (Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab, 3:76)