﷽

It was brought to my attention that some individuals have began warning against this channel simply because it contains translations and references to Sheikh Sulaymān Ar-Ruḥaili. The warning stems from the fact that Sheikh Sulaymān Ar-Ruḥaili has been disparaged for certain errors which have transpired from him. My obejctive here is to shed light on the matter unbiasedly seeking the pleasure of Allāh, hence I am going to provide short responses to some of the main points raised: 1⃣. He defended some of those who were disparaged by the scholars in Yemen (Ubaid, Al-Adeni..etc.) Response: If Sheikh Fawzan and other Saudi scholars praised Ubaid based on what was apparent to them and this did not diminish their status, why don't we replicate this with Sheikh Sulaymān Ruhaylī? If we can consider this an excusable zallah (slip-up) on the part of Sheikh Fawzan, why not do the same for Sheikh Sulaymān Ar-Ruḥaili? Listen to this clip: https://t.me/almanhajussalafi/136 Note: Someone boldly claimed that this analogy does not apply as Sheikh Yusuf no longer excuses Sheikh Rabee'. This is an indication of Jahl on the part of the speaker because the analogy is being applied to the situation of Sheikh Yusuf at the time of speaking...so that same excuse he gave to them at that time is the same excuse that applies to Sheikh Sulaymān Ar-Ruḥaili now because their circumstances are the same. The fact that Sheikh Yusuf later changed his stance does not invalidate the analogy. To affirm this further: قال أبو حمزة محمد السوري حفظه الله: الرجل ما عنده بصيرة بالحزب الجديد لذلك له ثناء على الوصابي والعدني وياسين ويمجدهم... He (I.e. Sheikh Sulaymān Ar-Ruḥaili) has no baseerah (insight) concerning these individuals -> this is why he praised them! Furthermore, Sheikh Yusuf changed his stance and began criticising Sheikh Rabee due to matters pertaining to Emān, which developed after he had excused Sheikh Rabee for those other issues. 2⃣. He fell into ḥamlul Mujmal ’alal Mufaṣṣal Response: This issue of accusing people to have fallen into ḥamlul Mujmal ’alal Mufaṣṣal is problematic from two angles: ● The first angle: we have the likes of Sheikh Fawzan (https://youtu.be/_cg-4pLisIQ?si=VvXZF2zu7FGNb35d), Sheikh AbdulMuhsin Al-Abbad (https://youtu.be/0bHYf7qTjtw?si=x9HX-duH5Xk5Pp0p) and others clearly endorsing ḥamlul Mujmal ’alal Mufaṣṣal. So is this the same view Sheikh Sulaymān Ar-Ruḥaili holds, considering that these are some of his mashayekh?! If so, what do we say regarding Sheikh Fawzan and Sheikh Al-Abbad? If we consider it an excusable zallah (slip-up) for these two mountains of knowledge, why can't we say the same on the part of Sheikh Sulaymān Ar-Ruḥaili...If we don't warn against Shaykh Saalih Fawzan for endorsing it, why would we warn from someone who doesn't even endorse it? ● The second angle: assuming everyone is in agreement that the principle is wrong (which is the case!) differing may arise in terms of application; has fulaan really fallen into hamlul Mujmal ’ala Mufaṣṣal?! This may be what is apparent to the critic, but others may not necessarily agree with him. They may consider it to be from the angle of doing Jam’ (https://t.me/almanhajussalafi/140) or husn dhann. 3⃣. He allows voting Response: As far as I know, he holds voting to be impermissible, but he made one exceptional allowance for voting with certain stipulations (in the case of necessity and in order to remove a greater evil by committing the lesser of the two evils, and in matters outside of tashree'), although I don't agree with this exception, would it be fair to take this solitary fatwa pertaining to a single incident and generalise it to make it seem like he allows voting outright. Additionally, Sheikh Muqbil refuted three of the greatest scholars of this era; Al-Albānī, Ibn Bāz and ’Uthaymīn on their stances in voting, but he did not warn from any of them. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bSEI3-aaqvQ 4⃣. He participated in a free-mixed conference and hugged one of the innovators and took pictures with him.