Clarifying the issue of the common people following scholars and knowing the true nature of a scholar.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And you were present for the last part of the discussion, and you are asking: How can he distinguish? Glory be to Allah! We said that the Qur'an divided society into two categories: the knowledgeable and the ignorant. How does the ignorant person distinguish between a ruling that conforms to the Shari'ah and one that contradicts it? How does he distinguish? Give me an answer to this question, for it is the answer to your question!
The questioner : To my question?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me. We said: The Noble Qur'an divided society into two categories: the knowledgeable and the ignorant. How does the ignorant person distinguish whether a particular issue conforms to the Islamic Shari'ah or contradicts it?
The questioner : He asks the scholar...
The Shaykh : Well, that is the answer you asked for...
The questioner : But that is a scholar; he does not need...
The Shaykh : He is in the same position as the first one. The answer to your question is the answer to my question: How does this ignorant person know that this person is a scholar of a specific school of jurisprudence? How does he know?
The questioner : That is my answer.
The Shaykh : Say: That is your answer. My brother, this is something! It will lead to doubt regarding self-evident truths...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I mean, without offense, as I understand your question—and I may be mistaken—it is like someone who lives in the desert asking how he can know that the answer to this issue is such and such. Is there a way for him to know? The answer is no, is it not?
The questioner : Yes...
The Shaykh : Well, you are describing to me a man who lived in an environment dominated by a specific school of jurisprudence, and he has never heard of the Salafi call, nor that there is a call saying: "Adhere to the Book and the Sunnah, which is the foundation." And following a scholar without knowing his evidence, as Imam al-Shafi'i said regarding analogical reasoning: "It is a dire necessity that is not permissible except as it is permissible to eat carrion and pork." Imagine a person who has never heard of all this knowledge. What do you think I would say to you? If he has not heard anything about the Salafi call, would I tell him: "Ride your ignorance and leave that person who is called a scholar, even if only figuratively, as some professors have explicitly stated under compulsion"? Would I tell him: "Ride your ignorance" or "Ask someone more knowledgeable than you"? Is it not so?
The questioner : Yes...
The Shaykh : But why are you moving away from the topic we are discussing? When we say: It is not permissible for a Muslim to contradict what the Book and the Sunnah say now, or to contradict the scholar—when do I say this? When he knows what the scholar said, correct? But if he does not know, then that statement does not apply to him, because the argument, as you know, my brother, and as everyone knows, is only established after the message has been conveyed, correct?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So what I find strange is that you are now—given the environment we live in—extracting a person from the society dominated by schools of jurisprudence who has not heard a single word about the Book and the Sunnah and the Salafi call, and you ask me what he should do? I tell you: What you know he does is what I would agree with; he does that. But the issue here, my brother, is not that. The issue is: Do we accept this reality? Do we accept that after fourteen centuries, the Book and the Sunnah are on one side, and following a scholar without knowing his evidence is the dominant ruler over people? Even these scholars themselves, if you ask them to describe the manner of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) prayer, they tell you: "I do not know. I know the manner of al-Shafi'i's prayer." And that one tells you: "The Hanafi manner." And I know some Hanafi scholars whom I saw and received a bit of traditional knowledge from, who would stand in prayer like this, meaning leaning on one leg while the other was loose, and sometimes doing it like this. I asked him why he did this? He said: Abu Hifrah used to pray like this. Of course, this answer gives me two points, one negative and the other positive: That this man follows Imam Abu Hanifa to the extent of imitating him in his prayer, "He used to pray like this, I want to pray like this." And I told him: "What about your Prophet (peace be upon him), how did he pray?" He did not know. This is a scholar! So, do we accept this reality? The answer is: I believe there is no one here, and with the large crowd outside the mosque, who would accept the continuation of Muslim scholars being distant from studying the Book and the Sunnah to the extent they are currently in, which their leader admitted by saying: "There are no scholars today except figuratively." This is what we claim. We are not speaking now about the common people who live in the lap of the ignorant, meaning: scholars only figuratively. We are not speaking about them; they are excused. But if the call reaches them in one aspect or in one issue, what should these common people do? We say, as this writer said: "We leave them alone, because calling them to the Book and the Sunnah is misguiding them"?!
Now I have brought this book to hear the opinion of a man who is not a Salafi, but is against one of the Imams of the Salafis, namely Ibn Taymiyyah. The one whose words I will read to you is against Ibn Taymiyyah in many of his ideas and opinions. And he is speaking not about scholars, because I will quote to you the words of some scholars regarding jurists or students of knowledge, and the words of some others regarding a common person who is informed of a hadith: what does he do? First of all, among the strange and amusing things is that he says regarding the Sufis: "People who understood this reality, while those who were more deserving of it and qualified for it did not understand it." Al-Sha'rani says in the book *al-Mizan*: "And if you say: What do I do with the hadiths that became authentic after the death of my Imam and he did not act upon them? The answer is: What you should do is act upon them, for if your Imam had obtained them and they were authenticated to him, he might have ordered you to act upon them. For the Imams are all captives in the hand of the Shari'ah. And whoever does that has seized good with both hands. And whoever says: 'I do not act upon a hadith unless my Imam acted upon it'—who says this? The common followers of today and their writers and professors say this. He said: 'And whoever says: I do not act upon a hadith unless my Imam acted upon it, misses much good, as is the case with many of the followers of the Imams of the schools of jurisprudence. And it was more fitting for them to act upon every hadith that became authentic after their Imam, in fulfillment of the Imams' will. For our belief in them is that if they had lived and obtained those hadiths that became authentic after them, they would have acted upon them and followed what was in them, and left every analogical reasoning they had reasoned and every statement they had made.' This is the statement of al-Sha'rani.
The questioner : To my question?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me. We said: The Noble Qur'an divided society into two categories: the knowledgeable and the ignorant. How does the ignorant person distinguish whether a particular issue conforms to the Islamic Shari'ah or contradicts it?
The questioner : He asks the scholar...
The Shaykh : Well, that is the answer you asked for...
The questioner : But that is a scholar; he does not need...
The Shaykh : He is in the same position as the first one. The answer to your question is the answer to my question: How does this ignorant person know that this person is a scholar of a specific school of jurisprudence? How does he know?
The questioner : That is my answer.
The Shaykh : Say: That is your answer. My brother, this is something! It will lead to doubt regarding self-evident truths...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I mean, without offense, as I understand your question—and I may be mistaken—it is like someone who lives in the desert asking how he can know that the answer to this issue is such and such. Is there a way for him to know? The answer is no, is it not?
The questioner : Yes...
The Shaykh : Well, you are describing to me a man who lived in an environment dominated by a specific school of jurisprudence, and he has never heard of the Salafi call, nor that there is a call saying: "Adhere to the Book and the Sunnah, which is the foundation." And following a scholar without knowing his evidence, as Imam al-Shafi'i said regarding analogical reasoning: "It is a dire necessity that is not permissible except as it is permissible to eat carrion and pork." Imagine a person who has never heard of all this knowledge. What do you think I would say to you? If he has not heard anything about the Salafi call, would I tell him: "Ride your ignorance and leave that person who is called a scholar, even if only figuratively, as some professors have explicitly stated under compulsion"? Would I tell him: "Ride your ignorance" or "Ask someone more knowledgeable than you"? Is it not so?
The questioner : Yes...
The Shaykh : But why are you moving away from the topic we are discussing? When we say: It is not permissible for a Muslim to contradict what the Book and the Sunnah say now, or to contradict the scholar—when do I say this? When he knows what the scholar said, correct? But if he does not know, then that statement does not apply to him, because the argument, as you know, my brother, and as everyone knows, is only established after the message has been conveyed, correct?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So what I find strange is that you are now—given the environment we live in—extracting a person from the society dominated by schools of jurisprudence who has not heard a single word about the Book and the Sunnah and the Salafi call, and you ask me what he should do? I tell you: What you know he does is what I would agree with; he does that. But the issue here, my brother, is not that. The issue is: Do we accept this reality? Do we accept that after fourteen centuries, the Book and the Sunnah are on one side, and following a scholar without knowing his evidence is the dominant ruler over people? Even these scholars themselves, if you ask them to describe the manner of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) prayer, they tell you: "I do not know. I know the manner of al-Shafi'i's prayer." And that one tells you: "The Hanafi manner." And I know some Hanafi scholars whom I saw and received a bit of traditional knowledge from, who would stand in prayer like this, meaning leaning on one leg while the other was loose, and sometimes doing it like this. I asked him why he did this? He said: Abu Hifrah used to pray like this. Of course, this answer gives me two points, one negative and the other positive: That this man follows Imam Abu Hanifa to the extent of imitating him in his prayer, "He used to pray like this, I want to pray like this." And I told him: "What about your Prophet (peace be upon him), how did he pray?" He did not know. This is a scholar! So, do we accept this reality? The answer is: I believe there is no one here, and with the large crowd outside the mosque, who would accept the continuation of Muslim scholars being distant from studying the Book and the Sunnah to the extent they are currently in, which their leader admitted by saying: "There are no scholars today except figuratively." This is what we claim. We are not speaking now about the common people who live in the lap of the ignorant, meaning: scholars only figuratively. We are not speaking about them; they are excused. But if the call reaches them in one aspect or in one issue, what should these common people do? We say, as this writer said: "We leave them alone, because calling them to the Book and the Sunnah is misguiding them"?!
Now I have brought this book to hear the opinion of a man who is not a Salafi, but is against one of the Imams of the Salafis, namely Ibn Taymiyyah. The one whose words I will read to you is against Ibn Taymiyyah in many of his ideas and opinions. And he is speaking not about scholars, because I will quote to you the words of some scholars regarding jurists or students of knowledge, and the words of some others regarding a common person who is informed of a hadith: what does he do? First of all, among the strange and amusing things is that he says regarding the Sufis: "People who understood this reality, while those who were more deserving of it and qualified for it did not understand it." Al-Sha'rani says in the book *al-Mizan*: "And if you say: What do I do with the hadiths that became authentic after the death of my Imam and he did not act upon them? The answer is: What you should do is act upon them, for if your Imam had obtained them and they were authenticated to him, he might have ordered you to act upon them. For the Imams are all captives in the hand of the Shari'ah. And whoever does that has seized good with both hands. And whoever says: 'I do not act upon a hadith unless my Imam acted upon it'—who says this? The common followers of today and their writers and professors say this. He said: 'And whoever says: I do not act upon a hadith unless my Imam acted upon it, misses much good, as is the case with many of the followers of the Imams of the schools of jurisprudence. And it was more fitting for them to act upon every hadith that became authentic after their Imam, in fulfillment of the Imams' will. For our belief in them is that if they had lived and obtained those hadiths that became authentic after them, they would have acted upon them and followed what was in them, and left every analogical reasoning they had reasoned and every statement they had made.' This is the statement of al-Sha'rani.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.