Kashf Shubuhāt Al-Mumayyi’ah (1)

Doubt: “You are not obliged to accept my opinion, nor am I obliged to accept yours. Each person pursues what they believe brings them closer to Allāh the Exalted and Da’wah continues.” Response: This statement is precisely the same as the principle of “excusing and cooperating”—a foundational principle of the Ikhwānī manhaj: "We cooperate in matters upon which we agree, and excuse one another in that which we differ." This principle, which entails excusing the one who errs in his mistake and not rebuking him, is among the most invalid of principles and furthest from the Qur'ān, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the pious predecessors of this Ummah. Indeed, this false principle contradicts all the evidences commanding enjoining good and forbidding evil—which are numerous—and all the evidences commanding sincere advice. It also opposes all the proofs related to Jarḥ wa Taʿdīl (criticism and appraisal). It was never known among the Imams of the Salaf that they would differ on declaring someone an innovator and yet excuse one another regarding that individual. For instance, if Imām Aḥmad declared a man to be a Jahmī, Murjiʾī, or Qadarī, presenting his evidence for that judgment, and another scholar heard both his statement and evidence, he would not oppose him. If anyone did oppose such a judgment, he would be included among those criticised. Here is a good example of how the Salaf dealt with someone whom one of them accused of innovation, and how they would accept that accusation and not differ regarding him. In Aḍ-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-Ajwibat Abī Zurʿah Ar-Rāzī ʿalā Suʾālāt Al-Bardhaʿī (2/554), it is reported from Abū Zurʿah (may Allāh have mercy on him): قال: «لقد قَدِمَ علينا من نيسابور فكتب إلىٰ محمد بن رافع ومحمد بن يحيىٰ وعمرو بن زرارة وحسين بن منصور ومشيَخَةِ نيسابور بِما قد أُحدِثَ هناك فَكَتمت ذالِك لما خفت عواقبه ولم أبدأ له شيئًا من ذالك فقدِم بغداد وكان بينه وبين صالح أحمد حسن فكلم صالِحًا أن يتلطف له في الإستِئذان علىٰ أبيه فأتىٰ صالح أباه فقال له رجل: سألني رجلٌ أن يأتيك قال: اسمه؟ قال: داود قال: من أين هو؟ قال: من أهل صهبان قال: أي شيئ صِناعته قال: وكان صالح يروغ عن تعريفه إياه فما زال أبو عبد الله ـ رحمه الله ـ يفحص عنه حتَّىٰ فطن فقال: هذا قد كتب إليَّ محمد بن يحيىٰ النيسابوري في أمرِهِ أنَّه زَعَم أنَّ القرآن مُحدَث فلا يقربني قال: يا أبة أنه ينتفي من هذا ويُنكِره فقال: أبو عبد الله أحمد: محمد بن يحيىٰ أصدق منه لا تأذن له في المصير إِلَيَّ» “A man came to us from Nīshāpūr and wrote to Muḥammad ibn Rāfiʿ, Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā, ʿAmr ibn Zurārah, Ḥusayn ibn Manṣūr, and the scholars of Nīshāpūr about a matter that had been introduced there. I kept silent out of fear for the consequences and said nothing of it. That man later came to Baghdad and had a good relationship with Ṣāliḥ, the son of Imām Aḥmad. He asked Ṣāliḥ to intercede for him to gain permission to visit Imām Aḥmad. So Ṣāliḥ came to his father and said, ‘A man has asked to visit you.’ Imām Aḥmad asked, ‘What is his name?’ He replied, ‘Dāwūd.’ He asked, ‘Where is he from?’ He said, ‘From Ṣahbān.’ He then asked, ‘What is his profession?’ Ṣāliḥ tried to avoid giving a clear answer, but Imām Aḥmad continued to question him until he realised who the man was. He said: ‘Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā An-Naysābūrī wrote to me about this man, stating that he claimed the Qur'ān is created. Do not let him approach me.’ Ṣāliḥ said: ‘Father, he disassociates himself from that statement and denies it.’ Imām Aḥmad replied: ‘Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā is more truthful than he is. Do not allow him to come to me.’ I say: It is well known among the scholars that excusing one another applies only in matters of ijtihād where there is no clear, explicit text from the Qur'ān or Sunnah. This statement also reaffirms the corrupt principle previously addressed: “Our disagreement regarding others should not lead to division among ourselves.” [الجواب المفيد عن شُبَهِ دُعاة الصلح مع أصحاب الحزب الجديد للشَّيخ أبي بكر الحمَّادي حفظه الله]