Schools of Thought, Religions and Sects
Chapter 1
General
34576: Freemasonry and ruling
on joining the Masons
Question:
What is Freemasonry, and what is the ruling
on it in Islam? What is the ruling on joining
the Masons?.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
Freemasonry is a secret political society
whose goal is to put an end to all religions and
good morals, and to replace them with man-made
laws and non-religious systems. It strives to
provoke ongoing revolutions and to replace one
regime with another, on the basis of its call
for freedom of thought and freedom of belief.
This is what they have stated clearly.
This is what was announced by one of them in
the Students' Conference held in 1865 CE in the
city of Liege which is considered to be one of
the centers of Freemasonry. He said:
Man must prevail over God, and declare war on
Him. He should demolish the heavens and tear
them like paper.
It says in the Masonic Grand Lodge (1922, p.
98): We will strengthen the freedom of
individual thought with all the powers at our
disposal, and we will declare war against the
real enemy of man, which is religion.
The Masons say that Masonry takes the human
soul as its object of worship.
They say: It is not enough for us to prevail
over the religious people and their places of
worship, rather our basic goal is to wipe them
out of existence.
Minutes of the World Masonic Conference, 1903
CE, p. 102.
They say: Freemasonry will take the place of
religion and its Lodges will take the place of
places of worship… and there are many other
statements which clearly point to the intensity
of their enmity towards religion and their
uncompromising war on religion.
The Freemasons are one of the most ancient
secret societies which still exist and its
origins are still unknown to many people and are
still unknown to many of their members, because
the plots of their leaders are very secret and
hidden and they are so keen to conceal their
plots and aims. Therefore most of their affairs
are conducted verbally, with no written record.
When they want to write an idea or announce
it to the public, it is first subjected to the
scrutiny of Masonic censors who decide whether
it may be released or not. The foundations of
Freemasonry were based on theories taken from
several sources, mostly from Jewish traditions.
This is supported by the fact that Jewish
ideas and teachings were taken as the basis for
the founding of the Grand Lodge in 1717 CE with
its principles and symbols. The Masons still
venerate the Jew Hiram and the temple that he
built, from which they take the design of the
Masonic lodges in the world. The greatest
Masonic leaders are Jews and form the backbone
of the Masonic movement, and they are the ones
who represent Jewish organizations in Masonic
lodges. It is to them that the spread of Masonry
and global cooperation between Freemasons is to
be attributed. They are the driving force behind
Freemasonry and this Jewish elite are leading
different secret cells, running their affairs
and directing them secretly as they wish. This
is supported by a report in the Masonic
Acacia magazine (1908, issue no. 66)
which says that there is no Masonic lodge that
is free of Jews and that all the Jews do not
follow one way or another exclusively, rather
there are only principles for them to follow.
And this is also the case with the Masons. Hence
the Jewish synagogues are our [Masons'] support
and we find many Jews among the Freemasons.
This is also supported by what it says in the
Masonic publications: that the Jews are certain
that the best means of destroying religion is
Freemasonry. The history of the Masons is
similar to the history of the Jews in belief.
Their symbol is the six-pointed Star of David.
The Jews and the Freemasons both consider
themselves to be the spiritual sons of the
builders of the Temple of Solomon. The
Freemasonry which distorts other religions lends
full support to Judaism and its followers. The
Jews took advantage of people's
simple-mindedness and good intentions, and
infiltrated Freemasonry and reached high
positions within it, thus they breathed a Jewish
spirit into the Masonic lodges and subjugated
them to their own aims.
One of the clearest indications of their
intense desire to conceal their plans to destroy
religions and provoke political revolutions is
what it says in the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion, where it says: we will concentrate these
cells under a single leadership that is known to
us alone. This leadership will be composed of
our scholars and these cells will have special
representatives, so that the true location of
our leadership will be concealed. This
leadership alone will have the right to decide
who will speak, and to draw up the plans of the
day. In these cells we will plan to lay traps
for all the socialists and classes of
revolutionary society. Most of the secret
political plans are known to us and we will
decide when to implement them. But the agents of
the international secret police will be members
of these cells. When the conspiracies start
throughout the world, that will mean that one of
our most dedicated agents will be at the head of
these conspiracies and of course we will be the
only people to direct the Masonic plans. We are
the only people who know how to direct them and
we know the ultimate goal of each action, whilst
the illiterates _ meaning non-Jews _ are
ignorant of most of these things, especially
Masonry, and they can only see the immediate
results of what they are doing.
And there is other evidence which points to
the strong connection between the Jews and the
Masons, and the cooperation between the two
parties in revolutionary conspiracies and
stirring up destructive movements. Even though
Freemasonry outwardly appears to be a call to
freedom of belief, tolerance and social reform
in general, in fact it is really a call for
permissiveness and destructive factors which
cause social disintegration and the loosening of
bonds between nations and destruction of
religion and morals and the spread of mischief.
Based on this, any Muslim who joins a Masonic
group knowing the true nature of Freemasonry and
its secrets, and carries out its rituals and is
keen to do so, is a kaafir who should be asked
to repent. If he repents, all well and good,
otherwise he is to be put to death and if he
dies in that state then his recompense will be
that of the kaafirs. Whoever joins the
Freemasons but does not know what they really
are, or know about their plots against Islam and
the Muslims, and their spreading evil and the
evil that they are planning against everyone who
tries to bring people together and reform
nations, and he joins them in their general
activities and talk that does not apparently
contradict Islam, is not a kaafir, rather he is
excused in general because of their concealing
their true nature from him, and because he does
not share their basic beliefs or aims. The
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him) said: "Acts are but by intentions, and each
man will have but that which he intended."
But he must disavow himself of them when he
finds out what they really are, and he must tell
people about their real nature and strive to
spread their secrets and their plots against the
Muslims, so that this will cause a scandal for
them and will undermine their efforts. The
Muslim should surround himself with good people
who will cooperate with him in his religious and
worldly affairs. He should be far-sighted in
choosing close friends so that he will be safe
from being tempted by these apparently
attractive ideas and be safe from the evil
consequences of honeyed words, and so he will
not fall into the traps of the people of shirk
which they set up to ensnare those who are
easily deceived, follow their whims and desires
and are weak in reasoning.
From Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah,
2/312-315.
Islam Q&A
(www.islam-qa.com)
10469: Questions from a
confused Christian
Question:
I read in the newspaper that 15% of the Koran
is about Jesus Christ; and I also read in the
English version of Koran that Mohammad believe
in Christ, Abraham, The prophets and their
writings which preceded Koran. If so, why does
the Koran accept some doctrines of the bible,
like the miracles of Christ, his sinlessness,
being a prophet, etc. and contradict many of its
doctrines like the deity of Christ as written in
Isa.9:6 & John 1:1, 3:16, and the atonement
both in the old and new testaments?
If the
Koran is without error, why are there sects in
Islam namely, shuhite& shiite respectively?
Why does the Koran allows polygamy, while the
Bible is against it as written in Gen. 2:24
& Matt. 19:5 ?
My soul needs THE TRUTH.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Allaah often mentions the Messiah `Eesa ibn
Maryam (Jesus son of Mary) in His Book the
Qur'aan for a number of reasons, including the
following:
1. He is one of His Prophets, indeed he is
one of the Messengers of strong will whom He
sent to His creation and His slaves. It is
obligatory to believe in him as in all the other
Prophets, as enjoined by Allaah in the verse
(interpretation of the meaning):
"Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allaah and
that which has been sent down to us and that
which has been sent down to Ibraaheem (Abraham),
Ismaa'eel (Ishmael), Ishaaq (Isaac), Ya'qoob
(Jacob), and to Al-Asbaat [the offspring of the
twelve sons of Ya'qoob (Jacob)], and that which
has been given to Moosa (Moses) and `Eesa
(Jesus), and that which has been given to the
Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction
between any of them, and to Him we have
submitted (in Islam)"
[al-Baqarah 2:36]
2. The first people whom we should be
concerned about when calling others to Islam are
the People of the Book, i.e., the Jews and the
Christians, because they are the closest of
later nations to whom the later Messengers were
sent. Both the Jews and the Christians knew of
the coming of Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) and his attributes were
written in their books, the Tawraat (Torah) and
Injeel (Gospel). So they should not deny what
they find in their books and they should hasten
to believe in him, because they already believe
in the Messengers who came before him, unlike
other nations who worshipped idols. Because they
did not believe in the Last Messenger (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) as they were
enjoined to do, they had to be refuted and shown
how they had distorted the message of divine
Oneness (Tawheed). This is why they are
frequently mentioned in the verses of the
Qur'aan.
3. Tawheed (the Oneness of God) is the basic
principle upon which everything else, both
religious and worldly affairs, is to be built;
through Tawheed people will be saved from Hell
and admitted to Paradise. This means affirming
that Allaah is One. We see that the Jews and
Christians differed concerning `Eesa ibn Maryam.
The Jews said that he was a charlatan who told
lies about God, so he had to be killed. The
Christians differed from them greatly; some of
them said that he was God, and some of them said
that he was the son of God, but was one with Him
in the Trinity, so that outwardly he appeared to
be the son of God but he was in fact God. And
some of them said that he was the third person
of the Trinity which is a rejection of Tawheed.
Others said that he was a Messenger from God and
was human like the rest of mankind, but that
Allaah singled him out to perform miracles in
order to establish proof against people. The
last group are the ones who were right. So it
was essential to explain the matter and describe
`Eesa in befitting terms. As with all the other
Prophets and Messengers, it is not inappropriate
to say that he was a human being, created from
clay, whom Allaah chose from among all of
mankind to be created without a father, as a
manifestation of the power of Allaah to create a
man outside the usual means. The likeness of
`Eesa before Allaah is like Adam, as Allaah says
(interpretation of the meaning):
"Verily, the likeness of `Eesa (Jesus)
before Allaah is the likeness of Adam. He
created him from dust, then (He) said to him:
`Be!' — and he was"
[Aal `Imraan 3:59]
This is the correct belief concerning the
creation of the Prophet of Allaah `Eesa, which
was a miracle for all the people to see.
But the miracle of Adam's creation is
greater. For `Eesa (peace be upon him) was
created without a father, but Adam was created
without a father or a mother, and this is more
expressive of the power of Allaah to create; it
is more miraculous than the creation of `Eesa
(peace be upon him). For all these reasons and
others, it was essential to explain the issue of
`Eesa (peace be upon him) and put matters
straight.
In conclusion, the miracles which Allaah gave
to `Eesa (peace be upon him) were just like the
miracles of all the other Prophets, to prove
that he was speaking the truth and that he was
truly a Messenger from Allaah. But those who
distorted the religion confused the matter for
the simple-minded people and used his miracles
as a justification to say that he was the son of
God or that he was God. All of that is a
distortion of the teachings and message of the
Messiah (peace be upon him).
If everyone who follows a Prophet were to
take the miracles which Allaah bestowed upon him
as a sign that he was a god, then all the
Prophets would be gods and each Prophet would be
different from the others. For the mountains
glorified Allaah along with Dawood (David _
peace be upon him), but they did not do so with
`Eesa. The sea was parted for Moosa (Moses _
peace be upon him) and he spoke with his Lord
and his Lord spoke with him, so he was known as
Kaleem-Allaah (the one who spoke with
Allaah), but this did not happen to `Eesa (peace
be upon him). Allaah flooded the earth in
response to the supplication of Nooh (Noah _
peace be upon him) and that did not happen to
`Eesa (peace be upon him). Allaah singled out
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him) to speak to him and to protect his miracle
from being lost or distorted; he alone was sent
to all of mankind, and he was given miracles
that were not given to `Eesa. So how could that
be taken to mean that they were all gods?
Secondly:
With regard to the view that if the Qur'aan
were not distorted there would not be all these
many sects such as the Shi'ah and other groups.
The answer to that is that the Qur'aan cannot
force people to choose the right path, because
the Qur'aan is simply guidance (and it is up to
people to choose). Allaah has warned us about
these sects and groups, and He has forbidden us
to imitate the nations who became divided in
religious matters. Allaah says (interpretation
of the meaning):
"and be not of AlMushrikoon (the
polytheists, idolaters, disbelievers in the
Oneness of Allaah).
Of those who split up their religion (i.e.
who left the true Islamic Monotheism), and
became sects, [i.e. they invented new things in
the religion (Bid`ah), and followed their vain
desires], each sect rejoicing in that which is
with it"
[al-Room 30:31-32]
"And be not as those who divided and differed
among themselves after the clear proofs had come
to them. It is they for whom there is an awful
torment"
[Aal `Imraan 3:105]
Allaah has commanded them to adhere to His
Book and to follow the Sunnah (way, path) of His
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him), as He says (interpretation of the
meanings):
"And hold fast, all of you together, to
the Rope of Allaah (i.e. this Qur'aan), and be
not divided among yourselves, and remember
Allaah's Favour on you, for you were enemies one
to another but He joined your hearts together,
so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in
Islamic Faith), and you were on the brink of a
pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus
Allaah makes His Ayaat (proofs, evidences,
verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,)
clear to you, that you may be guided"
[Aal `Imraan 3:103]
"O you who believe! Make not (a decision) in
advance before Allaah and His Messenger, and
fear Allaah. Verily, Allaah is AllHearing,
AllKnowing"
[al-Hujuraat 49:1]
i.e., do not say or do anything that goes
against the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His
Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him).
What is meant here is that Allaah forbade the
people to split into various groups, and He
commanded them to be united, but they followed
their own whims and desires, and they cast the
Book of Allaah behind their backs, and if they
were confused about a verse from the Book of
Allaah, they did not refer to the Sunnah of the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) in order to understand it,
rather they let their own opinion and corrupt
reasoning be the judge. All of that is not from
the Qur'aan and not from the Sunnah of the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him).
Thirdly:
With regard to the question about plural
marriage in Islam and its being forbidden in the
New Testament, it should be noted that Allaah
gave each Messenger his own laws and path.
Allaah enjoined Tawheed (belief in the Oneness
of Allaah) upon every single Prophet whom He
sent, but the laws varied and some of them
abrogated others. Some things that were
permissible at the time of Adam (peace be upon
him) were abrogated at the time of Nooh (peace
be upon him).
The laws that existed at the time of Moosa
(Moses _ peace be upon him) were partially
abrogated at the time of `Eesa (Jesus _ peace be
upon him), as Allaah tells us (interpretation of
the meaning):
"To each among you, We have prescribed a
law and a clear way"
[al-Maa'idah 5:48]
So once this is understood, we will realize
that plural marriage did not exist only in the
law of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him), rather it existed in the laws of
all the previous Prophets. For example, Ya'qoob
(Jabob _ peace be upon him) had two wives and
was married to two sisters at the same time,
according to the Old Testament, as it says in
the Book of Genesis 29:15-35.
The father of the Prophets, Ibraaheem
(Abraham _ peace be upon him) was also married
to two women, Haajar (Hagar) and Saara (Sarah).
The Old Testament mentions that the Prophet of
Allaah Dawood (David) had seventy or ninety-nine
wives, and Sulaymaan (Solomon) had one hundred
wives. These and other examples demonstrate that
each of the Prophets implemented the laws that
Allaah had prescribed. Plural marriage is not
only for this ummah (nation _ i.e., the
Muslims). The fact that the Christians do not
allow it may be for two reasons:
1 _ This is one of the laws of Allaah which
was binding before the time of Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
2 _ They introduced their own innovation and
went to extremes in this matter, as in the case
of monasticism which they invented and which was
not prescribed for them, but they sought to earn
the pleasure of Allaah thereby.
We ask Allaah to guide you and to help you
find the true religion, which is Islam, and the
path of the Prophet of Mercy (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) according to
the understanding of his noble Companions.
And Allaah is the Guide to the Straight Path.
Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)
30905: To whom is the book
Nahj al-Balaaghah attributed?
Question:
I would like to ask how authentic the book
Nahj al-Balaagha is and what your opinion of it
is?
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
The book Nahj al-Balaaghah is one of
the books that are attributed to Ameer
al-Mu'mineen `Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be
pleased with him), but it contains many things
concerning which those who claim to be Muslims
have disputed. Following the great scientific
principle which was followed by the imams of
Islam in obedience to the shar'i command to
verify reports, we have no choice but to refer
to the scholars and specialists to check on the
veracity of the things that are attributed to
`Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), because
what is narrated from the Sahaabah (may Allaah
be pleased with them) has an effect on
sharee'ah, especially in the case of someone
like Ameer al-Mu'mineen `Ali (may Allaah be
pleased with him), concerning whom some people
have exaggerated or fallen short, but Allaah
guided the Ahl al-Sunnah to follow a middle
course.
By referring to the words of the scholars
concerning this book and comparing its contents
with what has been proven with saheeh isnaads
from `Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), it
becomes clear that there is material in this
book that contradicts what was proven from him
(may Allaah be pleased with him). So we should
look at what some of these great scholars have
said:
Imaam al-Dhahabi (may Allaah be pleased with
him) said in his biography of al-Murtada `Ali
ibn Husayn ibn Moosa al-Moosawi (d. 436 AH): I
said, he was the compiler of the book Nahj
al-Balaaghah which is attributed to Imam `Ali
(may Allaah be pleased with him), but the
reports contained therein have are no isnaads.
Some of it is false and some of it is true, but
it contains some frabricated reports of things
that the Imam would never have said. But who is
the fair-minded man who would look at it in an
objective manner?! It was said that it was
compiled by his brother Shareef al-Radiy. It
includes slander against the companions of the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him); we seek refuge with Allaah
from knowledge that is of no benefit.
Siyar A'laam al-Nubala', 17/589
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have
mercy on him) said: "Most of the khutab
(sermons) that the author of Nahj
al-Balaaghah includes in his book are lies
against `Ali. `Ali (may Allaah be pleased with
him) is too noble and too worthy to have uttered
such words. But these people fabricated lies and
thought that they were praise, but they are
neither truth nor praise. Whoever says that the
words of `Ali or any other human being are above
the words of any other created being is
mistaken, for the words of the Prophet (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him) are above
his words, and both of them are created beings.
Moreover the correct meanings that are to be
found in the words of `Ali are to be found in
the words of others, but the author of Nahj
al-Balaaghah and his ilk took many of the
things that people say and made them the words
of `Ali. There are some words narrated from `Ali
that he did say, and some of them are true words
that would have been befitting for him to say,
but in fact they are the words of others. Hence
in Kalaam al-Bayaan wa'l-Tabyeen by
al-Haafiz and in other books there are words
narrated from people other than `Ali and the
author of Nahj al-Balaaghah attributed
them to `Ali. If these sermons which were
transmitted in Nahj al-Balaaghah were
really spoken by `Ali, they would have been
found in other books that existed before this
book was written, and they would have been
narrated from `Ali with isnaads and otherwise.
It is known from those who are well versed in
the study of narrations that many of them (these
sermons) _ indeed most of them _ were unknown
before this, therefore it may be concluded that
they are fabrications. So the narrator should
state in which book they are mentioned, who
narrated it from `Ali, and what its isnaad is.
Otherwise, anybody could say something and claim
that it was said by `Ali. Those who are
well-versed in the knowledge of the hadeeth
scholars and of reports and isnaads and are able
to tell what is sound and what is not sound
would know that these people who transmitted
reports from `Ali are the least likely people to
know about reports and be able to distinguish
the sound from the unsound.
Manhaaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, 8/55.
Other scholars who pointed out the lies in
this book was al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi, in
al-Jaami' li Akhlaaq al-Raawi wa Adaab
al-Saami', 2.161; al-Qaadi Ibn Khalkaan;
al-Safadi, and others. The things that have been
said against it may be summarized in the
following points:
1. There are seven generations of narrators
between `Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him)
and the author of this book, and he did not
mention any name whatsoever. Hence we cannot
accept his words without an isnaad.
2. If these narrators are mentioned, it is
essential to research about them and find out
whether they are trustworthy.
3. The fact that most of these sermons did
not exist before this book was written indicates
that they were fabricated.
4. Al-Murtada _ the author of the book _ was
not one of the scholars of reports, rather he
was one of those whose religious commitment and
competence were debatable.
5. The slander that it contains against the
leading Sahaabah is sufficient to count it as
false.
6. The insults and slander that it contains
are not the characteristics of the believers,
let alone their leaders such as `Ali (may Allaah
be pleased with him).
7. It contains contradictions and clumsy
expressions from which it may be known for
certain that it was not produced by one who was
prominent in eloquence and fluency.
8. The fact that the Raafidah accept it and
are certain that it is as true as the Qur'aan,
despite all these objections, indicates that
they do not pay attention to verifying sources
and ensuring that they are sound with regard to
the matters of their religion.
Based on the above, it is clear that this
book cannot be attributed to `Ali (may Allaah be
pleased with him), therefore nothing in it can
be used as evidence in matters of sharee'ah, no
matter what the issue is. But whoever reads it
in order to find out what it contains of
eloquence, the ruling is the same as that on all
other books on Arabic language, without
attributing its contents to Ameer al-Mu'mineen
`Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him).
See Kutub hadhdhara minha al-`Ulama',
2/250
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
(www.islam-qa.com)
27328: The book Ihya' `Uloom
al-Deen
Question:
Do you advise us to read the book Ihya'
`Uloom al-Deen by Shaykh Abu Haamid
al-Ghazzaali?
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyah] was asked
about this book, and he replied as follows:
"With regard to the books Qoot
al-Quloob and the similar book
al-Ihya', which speak of the actions of
the heart such as patience, gratitude, love,
trust in Allaah, Tawheed (belief in Allah alone)
and so on, Abu Taalib [the author of Qoot
al-Quloob] has more knowledge of hadeeth,
reports and the views of scholars who spoke of
spiritual matters among the Sufis and others
than Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali, and his words are
more correct, more precise and further removed
from bid'ah (innovation). But nevertheless
Qoot al-Quloob includes da'eef (weak) and
mawdoo' (fabricated) ahaadeeth, and many
unacceptable things. With regard to what is said
in al-Ihya' about things that may doom a
person to Hell, such as pride, self-admiration,
showing off, malicious envy, etc., most of it is
taken from al-Haarith al-Muhaasibi in
al-Ri'aayah; some of it is acceptable and
some of it is to be rejected, and some of it is
controversial. There is a great deal of good in
al-Ihya' but it also contains some
blameworthy material and some corrupt material
such as the words of the philosophers on
Tawheed, Prophethood and the Resurrection. When
he deals with Sufi topics it is like one who has
taken an enemy of the Muslims and dressed him in
Muslim garb. The leaders of Islam denounced Abu
Haamid for this feature of his books, and they
said that he was made sick by al-Shifa',
meaning Shifa' Ibn Seena, which is about
philosophy. [Shifa' literally means
"healing" in Arabic].
Al-Ihya' contains da'eef (weak)
ahaadeeth and reports, and even many mawdoo'
(fabricated) reports.
It contains many of the errors and myths of
the Sufis.
Nevertheless it also contains some of the
words of Sufi shaykhs who correctly understand
the actions of the heart in accordance with the
Qur'aan and Sunnah, and it speaks of acts of
worship and etiquette in accordance with the
Qur'aan and Sunnah; such material outweighs the
material that is to be rejected. This is why
people differed and disputed concerning it."
(Majmoo' al-Fataawa, vol 10, p. 551).
Hence our advice is that people should not
read it, especially since there other books in
the same field which mean that there is no need
for it, such as Haadi al-Arwaah,
al-Fawaa'id, Zaad al-Ma'aad by Ibn
al-Qayyim; al-`Uboodiyyah and
al-Eemaan by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn
Taymiyah; Lataa'if al-Ma'aarif, and
Risaalat al-Khushoo' fi'l-Salaah, by Ibn
Rajab. There is also a summary of Ihya'
`Uloom al-Deen from which one may benefit,
such as Mukhtasar Manhaaj al-Qaasideen by
Ibn Qudaamah. In the case of a student
(taalib al-`ilm) who has a strong
foundation of knowledge, there is nothing wrong
with him reading it if he is able to distinguish
between what is saheeh (sound) and what is
da'eef (weak), what is true and what is false.
For more information on al-Ghazzaali and his
book, please see Question no. 13473.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A Sheikh Muhammed Salih
Al-Munajjid
(www.islam-qa.com)
10714: It is not correct to
differentiate between the Salafis and Ahl
al-Sunnah
Question:
What is your view of those who differentiate
between the Salafis and Ahl al-Sunnah, and who
regard the Salafis as a more specific group than
Ahl al-Sunnah, and they say that the principles
of this group are based on the opinions of the
group's shaykhs?
Answer:
This is not correct, because the Ahl
al-Sunnah are those who follow the Sahaabah and
the path of the Salaf (the early generations of
Islam). These are not two distinct groups, and
the Salafis are not a more specific group!
According to the terminology that is well
known, the Salaf are the Sahaabah and those who
follow their path, and the Ahl al-Sunnah are
those who follow the Sunnah of the Messenger
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
They are the ones concerning whom the hadeeth
was reported: "Whoever follows the same path as
me and my Companions" (The hadeeth about the
saved group).
Stirring up disputes and conflict on the
grounds of names alone is not permissible.
Allaah has commanded the believers to be united
and has forbidden them to be divided and warned
them against that.
The individual's aim must be to seek the
truth, and when he speaks he should say what is
fair and just, and not hate individuals in such
a way that his hatred makes him reject the truth
that the person is saying, or look for faults in
him. He should not come up with things that are
ambiguous or far-fetched for that purpose. This
is not the way of Ahl al-Sunnah, and the Muslim
has to like for his brother what he likes for
himself. He must be sincere towards him, and
hold love and sincerity in his heart.
Shaykh `Abd-Allaah al-Ghunaymaan
(www.islam-qa.com)
Click this link to
Preview all 30 Parts Online
Biography of Hafiz Ibn Kathir
Reasons For Buying Tafsir Ibn Kathir
| 
RSS 2.0
Comments
Introduction