Follow-up of Ruling of the 'Ulama on Staying Away from the People of Desires

[Maher.ibn.Ahmad.Attiyeh]

Bismillaah Al-Hamdulillaah wa salatu wa salaamu 'ala rasulullaah
Amma-ba'd

What would happen to the Deen of Allaah if people didn't defend it, and repel from it what doesn't belong to it? The Truth has more of a right to be followed


Abu Uwais (rahimahulllaah) read from Abu 'Abdullaah Khaalid adh-Dhufayree's book The Consensus of the Scholars in Warning & Boycotting The People of Desires and Bid'ah, and below are some of the notes of Abu Uwais' highly beneficial class under the same title.

The Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said: There will come out of this Ummah a people whose desires will go through their bodies like Rabies. There is no part of the body except that this disease will enter it.

Concerning the Prophet's (salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) statement, Al-'Allaamah 'Ubaidullaah ibnu 'Abdis-Salaam al-Mubarakfuree (rahimahullaah) said:

This is a Tahdheer (warning) from even coming near these desires or from even coming near the people who have them. And this disease is a disease than an individual catches by being in close proximity to. Once rabies reaches a person, it goes to every part of the body and, in the majority of the cases, it leads to his destruction. Similarly, the innovator. He compares the innovator to a dog with rabies. He will come to you with his opinion or viewpoint and present it to you in a way that very few people are safe from. And it will stay with you until you enter into his way and become one of his party.

This is a great example from the Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) in warning us against bid'ah in case one did not understand the seriousness of bid'ah before this - its comparison to a dog with rabies.

The Salaf were all stern regarding this issue.

It's obligatory for well-grounded students of knowledge to refute and warn against Ahlul Bid'ah, and explain their deviance. Not only is there a need for this and it is obligatory, but also it is considered Jihaad in the sake of Allaah. You can appreciate this. What would we be on if it wasn't for [Allaah raising] Ahlus-Sunnah to refute Ahlul Bid'ah, by the grace of Allaah?

Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) said it was obligatory to refute them by Ijma' (complete agreement).

When Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullaah) was asked which of the two was better: a man who prays voluntary fasts, and offers voluntary salaah, and gives in charity, and performs the i'tikaaf, and does (other) good (optional) deeds, or the one who refutes the innovators?

Imaam Ahmad said: Whoever offers salaah and fasts and gives in charity and performs i'tikaaf, then (all of) this is for himself, and as for he who refutes the innovators, then this is for (the benefit of) the Muslims. And this is dearer to me.

This is Jihaad because clearing the path of Allaah and the Deen and Manhaj of Allaah, and defending and pushing off the transgression of these enemies (Ahlul Bid'ah) is wajib upon some Muslims. And if some Muslims do not do it, then all the Muslims are sinful. Some from the Ummah have to do it. And if it wasn't for Allaah tabarak wa Ta'aala establishing those who remove the harm of the people, the Deen would have been corrupted.

Our situation, brothers, would be just as the Christians' situation with Paul. What did Paul do to the teachings of Jesus ('alayhi salaam)? [He changed it.] How did Paul do it? He took them away from the belief that Jesus was on. He came up with his own belief, and [many] followed him upon that (deviant) belief [in opposition to what Allaah revealed to Jesus]. What is Paul other than an Innovator (a heretic)?

As Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) said in The Correct Reply to the One Who Distorted the Religion of the Messiah: When Allaah raised 'Eesa (Jesus) to the heavens, Paul came and (lyingly) said he met Jesus in the desert and (lyingly) said that he (Jesus) told him everything he said before is over...eat what you want to eat, do what you want to do (changing this and that) and more importantly (changing and corrupting) the 'aqeedah (the creed of Jesus), claiming for Jesus a share in Lordship, and so on and so forth.

Paul was nothing but an Innovator (a heretic), whose call was not met by those who would stand for the truth, fight against it and repel it! No one repelled it. So what happened? You have a whole [invented] belief (creed) now - Christianity - which has now spread throughout the earth.

And you think bid'ah (heresy) is a light thing?

So if it wasn't for Allaah establishing those who would repel the harm of these people [innovators, heretics], the Deen would have been corrupted.

What would happen to the Deen if no one responded to the bid'ah [mukaffirah] (heresy that takes one out of the fold of Islaam) of hulool (and Wahdat al-Wujood), i.e. the deviant belief that Allaah is in everything? Aoodhubillaah!

What if there was no response to that? What if that was in our books, or what if no one responded to the tafseer baatini (the deviant belief of a hidden, secret tafseer). Everybody would be upon it (hulool), because no one (would have) refuted it, because no one (would have) responded to it, no one (would have) established the truth.

So if it wasn't for Allaah establishing those who would repel the harm of these people [innovators, heretics], the Deen would have been corrupted.

Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) said: This fasad (corruption) would be greater - listen to this - than the enemy taking over in a battle, because the occupation of the enemy [if they win a battle, or take over land] won't corrupt the hearts, except after a long time.

But the first thing Ahlul Bid'ah would take over is the hearts - in the beginning. The one who responds to Ahlul Bid'ah is a Mujaahid, a true Muslim warrior.

Nasr bin Zakariyaa (rahimahullaah) said I heard Muhammad bin Yahyaa adh-Dhuhlee (rahimahullaah) saying, I heard Yahyaa bin Yahyaa (rahimahullaah) saying: "Defense of the Sunnah is more superior than jihaad in the path of Allaah." So I said, "A man spends his wealth, tires his body and strives (in jihaad), so is this one (still) better than him? He said, "Yes, by many times!"

All the Imams of the Sunnah were/are upon this way. All the Books of Hadeeth have at least one chapter refuting Ahlul Bid'ah.

There is Ijma' (Consensus, total agreement). ...You're going to take one shadh (irregular and rejected) statement from someone, and knock down [reject] all the proofs and evidences.

You found the Deen in tact because this was their way (the way of the Imams of the Sunnah) and manner.

So if anyone comes to you now after studying half of this book - which is full of nothing but ayaat and ahadeeth and statements (of the Salaf and Imams of the Sunnah) - with something else, then you know he is upon ghairee saabeel, he's not upon the path, man. He don't know what time it is! He's confused, no matter how much you might respect him, or what level of knowledge you think he's on.

This is the haqq. This is the correct way!

Softness in its proper place, no problem with it. But softness in its improper place is not right, not correct, and not manly either.

Ibnul Qayyim (rahimahullaah) when he corrected Shaikhul-Islaam Isma'eel al-Harawee, he said: "I love Shaikh Isma'eel al-Harawee, but (al-Haqq Ahabu ilaya) the truth is more beloved to me. The truth has more right to be followed."

Source: Tape: The Consensus of the Scholars in Warning & Boycotting The People of Desires and Bid'ah, tape 16