Nasīhatu Ahli Az-Zamān authored by Shaykh Mujaddid `Uthmān Dan Fodio rahimahullāh 23

🕌 HALQAH SESSION

SHARH
“Nasīhatu Ahli Az-Zamān” (023)

الحمد لله رب العالمين
والعاقبة للمتقين
ولا عدوان إلا على الظالمين
والصلاة والسلام على المبعوث رحمة للعالمين
وعلى آله وصحبه والتابعين لهم على الحق أجمعين

Assalāmu Alaykum Warahmatullāh Wabarakātuh.

Honoured brothers and sisters, you are welcome to this morning’s session of the Halqah.

We ask Allāh to bless it and to make it beneficial to both the presenter and the readers, āmīn.

We have been taking the Sharh of the book Nasīhatu Ahli Az-Zamān authored by the illustrious Imām and Mujaddid Shaykh Uthmān Dan Fodio – rahimahullāh.

We stopped at his statement:

ووشح محيي الدين النووي كلام عيّاض قائلا
أما المختلف فيه فلا إنكار فيه وليس للمفتي ولا القاضي أن يعترض على من خالفه إذا لم يخالف نصّ القرآن أو السنة أو الإجماع

__”And Muhyiddīn An-Nawawī commented on the statement of ‘Iyyād saying_As for that which is differed upon, then there is to be no Inkār (rebuke) on it. And it is not right for the Muftī or the Qādī to rebuke the one who disagrees with him as long as he does not go against an unambiguous text of the Qur’ān, the Sunnah or the Ijmā”__

Then he said , rahimahullāh;

وقال شيخ الشيوخ إبن لبٍّ
إذا كان عمل الناس على قول لبعض العلماء، فلا ينبغي إنكاره لا سيما إن كان الخلاف في كراهته، فذلك الإنكار جهالة عظيمة، ما حصل من أنكر على إنكاره إلا أنه أبصر ما أمامه ولم يلتفت إلى ما خلف وراءه

“The Shaykh of Shuyukh Ibn Lubb said; ‘If a deed done by a People is one that is based upon the statement of some of the Ulamā, it isn’t right that it be rebuked especially if the difference is on whether it is disliked or not. This rebuking would be termed a serious display of ignorance this is because such a person only rebuked what he rebuked because he could only see his front and is not seeing that which he has left behind him..”

وقف على بعض المسائل في المذهب ولم يهتد لواضح سبيلها ولا شعر بوجهها ودليلها ولا علم اختلاف العلماء في أصلها ولم يعطها من الفهم والتأمل حقها فظن أن لا علم إلا ما علم، ولا فهم إلا ما فهم، واستحقر العامة وجهل الخاصة ورأى أنه وحده على الجادة. انتهى

“He posits upon some matter of the Madhāhib and is not aware of the clarity of it, he does not feel its entirety and does not know that the Ulamā have differed on its reality. He does not understand it not has pondered over it as it is supposed thus he thinks there is no knowledge about it except that which he knows, neither is there understanding on the same matter except that which he understands. He therefore belittles the generality of people that way and considers ignorant the elites and thinks he alone is upon right.” end quote

As for Ibn Al-Lubb rahimahullāh, he is the Imām Abū Sa’īd Faraj Ibn Qāsim Ibn Lubb Ath-Tha’alabī Al-Andalusī Al-Gharnātī – rahimahullāh.

Imām Ibn Al-Jazarī – rahimahullāh – in Ghāyatu An-Nihāyah Fī Tabaqātu Al-Qurrā said he was born 701 years after the Hijrah.

He memorized the Qur’ān and took its Ulūm from the great Ulamā of Qur’ān and the Sciences in Garnātah and Andalus.

Al-Jazari said;
“He is the Shaykh of Andalus in this era of ours, its Muftī and the Khatīb in the great Jāmī of Gharnātah, a great Imām, a Polymath”

People relied upon him for Fatwah in his time and he was the Imām in Usul. He excelled in the Mālikī Madh’hab and was its Stallion.
He passed away 782 years after the Hijrah, rahimahullāh.

In this quotation, Ibn Lubb mentions that the One who makes rebuke on a matter that people practice must not rebuke unless the matter is not that which the Ulamā differed upon.

We have explained this matter last week, mentioning the correction in this precept
And that it must not be taken open ended.

Ibn Fūdī said;

وقال أبو عمرو في تمهيده ألا ترى أن الصحابة اختلفوا وهم الأسوة، فلم يعب أحد منهم على صاحبه، ولا وجد عليه في نفسه

“And Abū ‘Amr said in his Tamhīd do you not see that the Companions differed, and they are the ones to be emulated, and none of them levied blame at his Companion, neither did any of them hold any to heart?”

His reference here, rahimahullāh is to the difference that occurred within the Sahābah after the Battle of Ahzāb, the battle of Banī Quraydhah.

This story was recorded by both Imām Al-Bukhārī and Imām Muslim from the Companion ‘Abdullah Ibn Umar – radiyallāhu ‘anhuma.

The Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – had instructed them when they were leaving Madīnah saying
‘Let not any of you observe Asr Salāt except in Banī Quraydhah’

So when the time of Asr came and they were on the way, some of them delayed their Salāt until they got there while others observed the Salāt on the way
When they told the Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam this, he did not rebuke any of them.

As we have explained before, the ‘Ulamā with this precept aimed also at preventing unhealthy chaos in the society where people will fight and quarrel over some of the differences that occur within the Ulamā on matters of Fiqh.

However, if we are to implement this just as it has been said without restriction, then we would be leaving a lot to Iblīs.

Every Madh’hab has its strange positions and errors.

For this reason, Az-Zamakhsharī – Allāh forgive him – said;

إذا سألوا عن مذهبي لم أبح له،
وأكتمه، كتمانه لي أسلم

فإن حنفيا قلت قالو بأنني،
أبيح الطلا وهو الشراب المحرّم

وإن مالكيّا قلت قالوا بأنني،
أبيح لهم أكل الكلاب وهم همُ

وإن شافعيّا قلت قالوا بأنني،
أبيح نكاح البنت، والبنت محرّم

وإن حنبليّا قلت قالوا بأنني،
ثقيل حلولي بغيض مجسم

وإن كنت من أهل الحديث وحزبه،
يقولون تيس ليس يدري ويفهم
تعجبت من هذا الزمان وأهله،
فما أحد من ألسن الناس يسلم

“If I was asked of my Madh’hab, I don’t say a word,
And I conceal it. To conceal it is safer for me.
“If Hanafīyyah is what I say, they say,
I consider Wine permissible, and it is forbidden
“And if Malikiyyah I say, they say
I make permissible the eating of dogs for them permissible and it is what it is
“And if Shāfi’iyyah I say, they say,_
I make permissible marriage to a spouse’s daughter, and the daughter is Harām__
And if Hanbaliyyah is what I say, they say
I am a worthless person personifying Allāh in human form
And if I say, of the Ahlul Hadīth and its Party,
They say donkey! he understands and knows nothing!
“I am amazed at this era and its people
There is no one that is free from the tongues of people

What Zamakhsharī mentioned here are some of the wrong and Shawādh positions in some of the Madhāhib.

We have mentioned it here that we may know that errors have been made in some positions and some Fatāwah by ‘Ulamā in the past.

And it is not right to leave them and allow people practice them without rebuking and explaining their errors.

This is why Ibn Taymiyyah, rahimahullāh said the Precept ought be restricted by saying;

“Matters that permit Ijtihād should not be rebuked upon its doer who chooses one of the positions held by the Mujtahidūn”

This we have explained last week
We ask Allāh for His Barakāt, Āmīn.

Bārakallāhu fīkum
Jazākumullāhu Khayran
Assalāmu Alaykum Warahmatullāh Wabarakātuh

سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله أستغفرك وأتوب إليك

27th Rabīu’ Al-Ākhir, 1439H
(14/01/2018)

📮 *IslamNode*
🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿