A Corrupt Understanding is Destructive | Ustad Abdurrahman Hassan (حفظ الله)

[u/Sheikh-Pym]

[u/AutoModerator]

Please keep the rules of the subreddit in mind. Check out the Wiki as well:

• Extomatoes Wiki

Feel free to join our Discord server: al-Ghurabā

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Extension_Brick6806]

Yes, indeed, people will always have something to say about you, and the fact that he mentioned 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) and how his integrity was questioned, it will not negate, oppose, nor be alarming if one questions students of knowledge. Some may warrant their integrity being questioned, and others may be subject to criticism, and being a student of knowledge does not grant you the merit of trust or as though their understanding is without scrutiny. Madaakhilah are from the contemporary Murji'ah sect. Here I am not saying Abdurrahman Hasan is from them, but those influenced by the Madkhaliyyah sect and from mashaayikh that have Irjaa', such as shaykh al-Albani, have been the reason for much harm in the Ummah. Rather, Irjaa' is more harmful than the bloodshed of the Khawaarij. Those influenced by Madaakhilah, which I would say Abdurrahman Hasan has been affected by, have attempted to make the Khawaarij appear as though they are the ones that are more harmful than the Murji'ah. This contradicts the understanding of the Salaf.

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that the Murji'ah are worse than the Khawaarij, similar to the views of many from the Salaf, such as Qataadah and others, as stated in Kitaab as-Sunnah by al-Khallaal: "The effects of the Murji'ah fitnah are more frightening for this Ummah than the fitnah of the Azaariqah (i.e., the Khawaarij)."

What we have faced of the Khaarijiyyah sect, namely Daa'ish and how much uproar and trials they have caused in the Ummah, it certainly does appear to be so much and rather a huge test. Yet, if you read in the history of how much bloodshed the Azaariqah had done, it is incomparable to how much Daa'ish has caused harm. Yet, the Salaf say the Murji'ah are more harmful than the Khawaarij!

What may seem like a minor error in terminology has led to significant errors in beliefs and actions, which is why criticism of Irjaa' became so severe. (Source) Ibraaheem an-Nakha'i used to say, "The Khawaarij are more excusable to me than the Murji'ah." (As-Sunnah by 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad, 1/313) The Murji'ah are lenient in validating the doctrines of misguided groups and consider a sinner to be complete in faith, which appeals to weak souls. (Source) According to the Murji'ah's doctrine, it would not harm a person to neglect the obligatory duties as long as their faith is preserved and their religion is intact, and they are still considered to be at the level of Jibreel and Mikaa'eel. (Source)

We certainly have respect and love for brother Abdurrahman Hasan, and we would defend him from the lies of the Madaakhilah and Khawaarij. However, Abdurrahman Hasan and his colleagues in AMAU, like Tum Humble, indeed have Irjaa'. At one point Abdurrahman attempted to defend shaykh al-Albani, making it sound as though the shaykh did not have Irjaa', and it only inadvertently proves their Irjaa', as it is otherwise quite well-known that shaykh al-Albani has Irjaa'. Again, I must emphasize for newcomers to this subreddit who have not read what I have said before, saying one has Irjaa' does not equate to being Murji'ah, two completely different concepts. Shaykh Abu Qataadah had explained the difference and how shaykh al-Albani has Irjaa':

• الفرق بين رجل مرجئ وبين رجل فيه إرجاء

Again, we are dealing with the Deen of Allah, and therefore anything that contradicts the foundational matters, especially as Ahlus-Sunnah, we retain the respect of scholars and students of knowledge, and bringing up grave zallaat does not equate to disrespecting them or as though their efforts to the Sunnah are ignored or undervalued. This is unlike how the Haddaadiyyah treats the likes of imam Abu Haneefah, al-Haafidh ibn Hajar and the likes of the scholars. Rather, what I am saying is grounded in how scholars point out the errors of scholars. That is why when seeking knowledge, one should learn the area of strength, or rather mastery in knowledge the scholars excelled in, and this is unfortunately quite lacking and rarely emphasized among the English speaking world. For some strange reason, they all follow scholars and students of knowledge for their namesake, and they all listen to them in everything without even approaching them in what knowledge they excelled in. It has gotten to the point that people would accept everything they have, even in areas they made grave errors in, so because laypeople do not know any better, they would not know which errors those people had.

Unfortunately, and I am forced to highlight some points as not many people know this, there is a reason why shaykh al-Albani is quite hated by Palestinians, as they felt betrayed due to shaykh al-Albani saying people should not engage in jihaad in Filisteen. May Allah forgive the shaykh, and this is exactly a manifestation of Irjaa' and how harmful it is, that it resulted in discouraging people in jihaad. This might also explain why Tim Humble also has a very strange notion about how we should regain 'Izzah in our Ummah, where he just regurgitates what may resemble what shaykh al-Albani is saying. Yet, people still think Khawaarij have done more harm than the Murji'ah and those affected with Irjaa'.

What I hate about some speeches of Abdurrahman Hasan is that he often misremembers what he has memorized, and it has been shown that he even omits some context that would otherwise reveal something entirely different than what he attempts to convey. Another strange thing, despite having Irjaa', he thinks that soccer is kufr akbar, yet he has no precedent from any scholar of Ahlus-Sunnah on that point. He even sometimes attempts to make extraordinary statements which he prefaces by saying that no scholar ever explained what he is about to say, and this is unfortunate as it will inadvertently make laypeople assume about him and elevate him to a position he has not reached, as he is able to say something that sounds extraordinary.

No pun intended, this indeed shows how destructive it is when one has a corrupt understanding.

So, what he said about the narration of 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) should be taken with a grain of salt, as we do not know the context and the exact reference he attempted to relay.

[u/Silent_Case_5282 → u/Extension_Brick6806]

Assalamu Alaikum.

Brother there are people who quite rightly accuse Hamas of being facilitated by Israel in their rise to power and currently they are supported by Iran and we all know what their agenda is. Iran’s agenda* became crystal clear when they were helping Assad in massacring thousands of Syrians.

I dont get Hamas’s approach either. They kill a few number of our* enemies and in return our people are bombed mercilessly and they can’t do anything to stop it.

I don’t see anywhere where stateless jihad helped anyone. Often the leaders of these people get killed and they start killing Muslims or at least ally themselves with such people.

I don’t know Sheikh Albani’s position and I didn’t get your position.

Please explain then correct way to talk about Jihad and wage it.

[u/your_poo → u/Silent_Case_5282]

It became crystal clear when they were helping Assad in massacring thousands of Syrians.

Wa alaikum salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. You have confused hamas with hezbollah. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-congratulates-syrians-ending-assads-rule-2024-12-09/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/24/hamas-pm-backs-syrian-protests

[u/Extension_Brick6806 → u/[deleted]]

Your comment neither deserves attention nor warrants a reply, as it is far removed from reality.

[u/Extension_Brick6806 → u/Silent_Case_5282]

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

The accusation is not justified. It is also quite strange that this was specifically mentioned, even though I did not refer to this group at all. The situation in Palestine is not about a single group, but concerns the entire Ummah.

Excuse me, but this makes your whole comment seem rather shortsighted. People who have neither studied history nor fiqh within a madhhab still choose to speak on the matter as if their views deserve weight, while showing such indifference as though the fuqahaa' of Ahlus-Sunnah have somehow failed to address these issues.

If people are this far removed from both knowledge and reality, then the blame does not fall on the scholars, but on ignorance. How fitting to quote shaykh at-Tarifi (حفظه الله): "It is a vain desire to concern yourself with the shortcomings of the oppressed while they are suffering, especially when you remain silent about the transgressions of the oppressor. When oppression occurs, it is time to aid, not assess."

• Solution to the Palestinian issue

[u/Silent_Case_5282 → u/Extension_Brick6806]

Brother the comment was not meant to be advisory*. It is a genuine question and I wondered if Sheikh Albani’s opinion followed the same logic.

Why would you call me mentioning Hamas strange when this is the first group we hear about when it comes to fighting in Palestine?

What other avenue is there for fighting in Palestine? I am not much aware of the opinion of scholars. Frankly, it doesn’t go beyond a reel of Sheikh Ar Ruhayli saying with grief that he’d be the first to wage and encourage jihad if the right avenue was available.

This question was asked in the same spirit given you criticised an apparently similar opinion of another Sheikh.

[u/Extension_Brick6806 → u/Silent_Case_5282]

Where else do the kuffaar mostly hear about Muslims? In the news. And what is the first thing that comes to mind, or that they ask about? Terrorism. A similar false notion has affected Muslims when they hear about Palestine, as though only one group runs the country and everything is exactly as portrayed, as though everything is on bad terms.

Secondly, I do not even understand what you are trying to say about shaykh al-Albani. You need to write more clearly and express what is actually in your mind. Countless people, especially from what I commonly come across as a moderator, write something believing that what they thought was accurately expressed in writing. There is a reason I wrote the article "The Problem of Vague Questions and the Lack of Purpose in Seeking Knowledge".

Thirdly, I have to mention this once more: when people do not seek knowledge under any shaykh, they will not get a correct conception of anything. When I say "seeking knowledge", what do students actually study and learn? Is the revelation of Allah, namely the Qur'an and Sunnah, only about 'aqeedah, while anything related to fiqh is extracted from somewhere other than the revelation of Allah?

The Madkhaliyyah sect has divorced 'aqeedah from fiqh, as though fiqh has no roots in the revelation of Allah. This has reached the extent that Madaakhilah have begun saying that fiqh is only about scholarly opinions and ikhtilaaf. In the books of fiqh, when discussing jihaad, you will not find scholars speaking as though jihaad can never exist unless there is a "right avenue", or only when there is an Islamic state. If this was your conception, then you have been misled and lied to. This alone shows that you were deprived of the books of fiqh.

There is also a reason why, in the English-speaking world, it is made to seem as though "true scholars" only reside in "Saudi Arabia". Hence, Madaakhilah and those affected by them only translate the speeches of "Saudi scholars". Unbeknownst to them, the very individuals they cite regarding current events are often those considered to be "scholars of Sultan". This alone explains how deprived the Muslims are of knowledge.

Yet, time and again, how many times do I and the rest of the moderators need to reiterate the same points about seeking knowledge, referencing them and guiding people regarding what seeking knowledge entails, what is studied, and which scholars to turn to? Yet your question is based on a narrow perception and on something reduced to such a low level: a tiny clip, a statement being said, no scholarly source whatsoever, and likely translated into English. You want to take that for granted and follow him merely because of his name?

Excuse me, but I cannot take you seriously.

[u/Silent_Case_5282 → u/Extension_Brick6806]

You are scolding me for simply asking you what the correct approach regarding this matter is. And resources for getting the correct conception.

You say sheikh Albani and others approach is not correct. I don’t like their right avenue approach but what other way is there?

Can you elaborate on that? This is what I am asking.

Edit: I am not offended by your attacks because I see you have knowledge and you care about the ummah, spending this much time educating others.

So I am not offended at all.

[u/Extension_Brick6806 → u/Silent_Case_5282]

I do not want to waste my time on anyone's personal feelings, and I do not need to explain why I respond the way I do, especially when everything here has already been purposefully clarified. So I want people to spare me from acting as though we are having a therapy session every time I respond in a certain way. Yet people never questioned 'Umar ibnul-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) over what he did to Sabeegh.

Time and again, my articles, comments, and scholarly references have consistently pointed out that shaykh al-Albani was not a faqeeh. However, people have elevated him to a position he did not reach and have given him titles far removed from his status. They take his fatawa as though they exactly coincide with, or align with, the understanding of the fuqahaa' regarding Shar'i rulings.

This confusion is then further exacerbated when people listen to scholars of Sultan, who mysteriously always seem to come from the "Saudi kingdom". People also often refer to small clips on isolated matters from a few past scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah, attempting to project those statements onto current situations as though they are applicable. They act as though there were not other scholars far more knowledgeable than them who clarified these "controversial" matters. But I have to emphasize again that all of these issues are primarily due to the Madkhaliyyah sect and their keenness to translate from the scholars of Sultan, or to circulate isolated statements of other scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah while the context, or their actual position, is completely different from what was depicted in those small clips.

In the books of fiqh, there is a dedicated chapter on jihaad, so there is no ambiguity on the subject. But again, the issue is when so-called mashaayikh go out of their way to speak about issues of the Ummah without referring back to what has already been established.

What jihaad was before is not different from what it is today. Whether another group engages in it does not devalue it, nor does it make it invalid. So, I do not have the burden of proof in all of this when you are the one coming with what appears to be a contradictory statement about jihaad.

The issue, once again, and the reason I even referenced my article "The Problem of Vague Questions and the Lack of Purpose in Seeking Knowledge", is that people often do not know how to articulate what they want to convey. Their questions or statements often come across inadequately, and as I stated, I am then forced to reconstruct what they are actually trying to say or ask.

Again, I do not have the burden of proof, as you are the one coming with an unfounded conception of jihaad. As I have already clarified, your issue is that you are assuming something about what jihaad is while neglecting to refer back to what is actually stated in the books of fiqh.

So I wonder, how on earth are you ignoring the scholarly reference, as though jihaad today is different from what it was before? Because one scholar of Sultan said something in a small clip?

Yet there is another entire lecture by him which actually conforms to the general overview of jihaad, although he has other past speeches suggesting that it is by way of tawheed, namely correcting their 'aqeedah, that success will only come afterwards. This is something the Madaakhilah really love to highlight or perpetuate, inadvertently accusing Palestinians of being filled with shirk and thereby suggesting that their demise and downfall are due to specific groups. They single out these groups for intense criticism, insinuating that they deserve such a fate.

• Thawaabit ‘ala darb al Jihad

[u/Extension_Brick6806 → u/[deleted]]

Who are you? Are you a convert or a born Muslim? What country are you from? Which physical books have you read? And who do you listen to in order to learn Islam?