Kashf Shubuhāt Al-Mumayyi’ah (3)

Doubt: If you declare Abul Hasan, Ali Al-Halabi, Muhammad Al-Imam and co. to be innovators, then it follows that you must also declare Shaykh Al-ʿAbbād and As-Suhaymī to be innovators as well. Response: In reply to this, I say: This doubt has already been addressed in my treatise 'At-Tandīd', where I stated: "There are those who allege that Ahlus-Sunnah, in this fitnah, apply double standards—because they explicitly declared some of the Mashaayekh of Yemen (such as Al-Waṣābī, Al-Buraʿī, Adh-Dhamārī, Aṣ-Ṣawmalī, and As-Sālimī) to be Hizbi for having endorsed ‘Al-Ibānah’, while remaining silent about others who did the same from outside of Yemen." Response: Far be it from the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah in Yemen to act in such a manner. However, they declare someone to be an innovator or a Hizbi only after the proof has been established against them—when the individual recognises the falsehood and yet defends it knowingly. They do not declare those who have not met such criteria to be innovators or Hizbi. To clarify: those from Yemen who promoted 'Al-Ibānah' had witnessed the fitnah from its beginning, received the refutations issued by the scholars of Sunnah concerning 'Al-Ibānah' and other newly introduced matters, and despite this, they refused to retract their positions and persisted upon falsehood. Hence, the scholars judged them as being upon innovation, desires, and Hizbiyyah. As for others, it may be the case that they were not exposed to the same volume of scholarly refutations concerning 'Al-Ibānah' and its false foundational principles. Some may have only skimmed through the book without deep analysis; others may have read it with good thoughts about its author or due to other justifications. Because of this, the scholars of the Sunnah refrained from hastily declaring such individuals to be innovators or people of desires. However, if a person is made aware of the refutations from Ahlus-Sunnah against 'Al-Ibānah', reads and comprehends them, and still insists on defending the book, then such a person—regardless of whether he is from these lands or others—belongs to the people of desires. You are also aware, may Allāh grant you success, of what occurred during the fitnah of Abul-Ḥasan Al-Maʿribī, when the scholars of the Sunnah refuted him and exposed his deviations. Despite this, Shaykh ʿAbdul-Muḥsin Al-ʿAbbād (may Allāh preserve him) issued a statement titled "رِفقًا أهل السنَّة بِأهل السنَّة" “A Call for Kindness Among Ahlus-Sunnah”. Nonetheless, the scholars of Sunnah did not declare him an innovator nor did they include him among the followers of Abul-Ḥasan, because they understood that he had been misled by the associates of Abul-Ḥasan, and the reality of the fitnah had not become clear to him. Had it been made clear to him, he would have taken a different stance, given his known commitment to the Sunnah, knowledge, and righteousness. A scholar who has not experienced the fitnah and was preoccupied with other matters is not equal to one who lived through it, understood it, and then chose to defend it. More astonishing is that, even recently, some scholars outside of these lands have remained unaware of the fitnah of Sayyid Quṭb and the grave deviations he introduced into Islam. Others remain ignorant of the misguidance and deviation of figures like Az-Zindānī or the errors of the Tablīghī Jamāʿah, among others. We assume, however, that such scholars were preoccupied with fiqh and other sciences and did not find time to examine the conditions of these individuals. If they were informed of the errors, they would not accept them—they would vehemently refute them and clarify their falsehood and misguidance. So, in reality, this is not a case of “double standards,” but rather one of fairness, justice, and placing matters in their proper context. How can someone be deemed misguided or an innovator simply for being unaware of an issue due to legitimate preoccupations? If such a person had been informed like others, he would have held the same or even stronger stance.