Mu'ammar said:
((I used to attend the lessons of Qataadah when I was 14 years old, and there is nothing which I heard in those years except that it is as if it has been written (etched) in (on) my heart))
Siyar A'laam an-Nubalaa. - Volume 7, Page 6
Ref: Fatwa-Online
|
|
|
 |
Reference: Silsilat al Hudaa wal Noor |
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.
 |
Date Published: Monday, 15 January 2007 |
 |
This article has been read 5,236 times |
 |
Print this article |
 |
This article has been published with the permission of the translator, who affirms the accuracy of his translation of this article as well as the authenticity of the original Arabic source. Should you have any comment(s) and/or correction(s) to suggest, please write to us at:
...and your email will be passed on to him, inshaa.-Allaah. |
ÇáãÑÌÚ: سلسلة الهدى والنور |
|
هناك بعض القواعد يعمل بها بعض الشباب ومن ضمنها قاعدة من لم يكفر الكافر فهو كافرثم من لم يبدع المبتدع فهو مبتدع وقاعدة اخرى من لم يكن معنا فهو ضدنا ما رايك في هذه القواعد يا شيخ؟ |
ومن اين جاءت هذه القواعد ومن قعدها؟هذا يذكرنا بنكتة في بلادنا الاصيله البانيا حكاها في بعض المجالس والدى رحمه الله، القصه تقول بان رجلاً علماً زار صديقاً له في بيته ثم لما خرج من عنده كفره، قيل له لما؟
هذا العلم لما زار صديقه وخرج وجد النعلين كما هما يعنى ما احترم الشيخ تركهما كما هما فقال الرجل العالم انه هذا كفر،لماذا؟لانه لم يحترم العالم والذى لا يحترم العالم لا يحترم العلم والذى لا يحترم العلم لا يحترم من جاء بالعلم والذى جاء بالعلم هو محمد عليه السلام وهكذا صارت سلسلها الى جبريل الى رب العالمين فاذن فهو كافر.هذا السؤال او هذه القاعدة ذكرتنى بهذه القصة.
ليس شرطاً ابداً ان من كفر شخصاً واقام عليه الحجة ان يكون كالناس معه في التكفير لانه قد يكون هو متاولاً ويرى العالم الاخر انه لا يجوز تكفيره، كذلك التفسيق والتبديع فهذه الحقيقة من فتن العصر الحاضر ومن تسرع بعض في ادعاء العلم فالمقصود ان هذا التسلسل او هذا النظام ماهو لازم ابداً هذا باب واسع قد يرى عالم امراً واجباً ويراه الآخر ليس كذلك ، وما اختلف العلماء من قبل ومن بعد الا لان باب الاجتهاد لا يلزم الآخرين بان ياخذوا براى . الذى يوجب الاخذ براى الآخر انما هو المقلد الذى لا علم عنده فهو الذى يجب عليه ان يقلد من كان عالماً. فالذى كفر او فسق او بدع ولا يرىميل رايه فلا يلزمه ابداً ان يتابع ذلك العالم.
وفي الظاهر مصيبة لعلها ان شاء الله ما انتشرت بعد من بلادكم الى بلاد اخرى |
|
|
