What follows are notes from Abu Uwais’ beneficial class The Consensus of the Scholars in Warning & Boycotting The People of Desires and Bid’ah
Abu Uwais (rahimahullaah) began by removing a misconception that he observed from people concerning the word Ijma’ (consensus). He observed that people were misunderstanding the word ijma’ to mean something was not obligatory, i.e. something optional. And this wrong!
He explained that the maqsood (objective) of the word Ijma’ is sabeel ul-Mu`mineen (way of the believers
[the way of the companions]), and he brought the proof from ayah 115 of Soorat an-Nisa`:
Allaah said (what means): And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad, (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil destination. (An-Nisa, ayah 115)
This is a principle of the Deen. And the tremendous wisdom behind it is: preservation of the Deen, and to protect an individual from that which would displease his Lord and lead him astray.
For every bid’ah is dalaala (misguidance), and every dalaala (misguidance) is in the hellfire. This is a legislated means to achieve the end:
1– Hifdh (preservation) of the Deen
2– protecting one’s belief from corruption
People (deviants, people of bid’ah) try to get around this principle, but you can’t get around it.
Ijma’ is a legislated proof, absolute. It is Haram to go against it!
Allaah said (what means): And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad, (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil destination. (An-Nisa, ayah 115)
Then Abu Uwais made another important clarification that da’wah comes first – establishing the proofs comes first – then the boycotting, if they refuse. Like Shaikh Rabee’ (bin Hadee al-Madkhalee, hafidhahullaah) said: “All you know is Hajr, Hajr, Hajr!” No. Da’wah precedes it. And of course, we make a distinction between the Innovator who calls and the bid’i, blind-follower.
Abu Uwais also brought statements of scholars, who said: Do not sit with Ahlul Bid’ah.
Abu Uwais refuted and rebuked the doubt “I gotta listen to both sides*.”**
The people of bid’ah have no sides. It’s just bid’ah! Next thing that’s gonna happen is that (doubt or disease) is going to fall into your heart.
Showing the harms of debating Ahlul Bid’ah and what it leads to, Imam Lalika`ee (rahimahullah) said: No crime has been commited against the Muslims greater than debating the Innovator. They didn’t use to have any type of power, and they used to be more humiliated when Ahlus-Sunnah used to leave them, not talk to them, not give them importance.[Abu Uwais explained: when you debate, you’re putting someone on the same level as yourself. You’re saying, ok, you sit here and I sit here, and we discuss the issue. You start off on the same level when in fact you’re upon the Sunnah (adhering to revelation), and this man is upon bid’ah (opinions, desires in opposition to revelation). And those upon bid’ah are those who are to be humiliated, put down; they are the small ones, they are the ones to be avoided, and rejected and turned away from. But when you put them on the level of debate, you remove that from them, so that’s what he was saying.] So when they [Ahlul Bid’ah] used to die, they use to die in anger; they didn’t have a way to show their bid’ah. Imam Ahmad didn’t debate them. No one gave them a platform (saying), “we’re going to debate the issue.”
Until those who are deluded came and they opened for them this method (saying,) “we can debate.” They became people who led to the (attempted) destruction of Islaam until great arguments and debates.Then their da’wah became apparent to the people under the title “debate,” or what they call “conversation,” whereas before the people didn’t even know what they were talking about.
Abu Uwais said: Everybody wants to talk about it. We don’t need to talk about it; you’re upon bid’ah, dalaala. No need to talk about it. As Imam Lalika`ee said: then they [Ahlul Bid’ah] were able to spread their message to those who didn’t use to hear it. The specific and general people. Until Shubh (doubts) were mixed with Hujjaj (proofs, evidences). They were presented until they were on the same par. This is one of the worst things that happened, and one of the (most desirable) things for Ahlul Bid’ah.
Source: Tape: The Consensus of the Scholars in Warning & Boycotting The People of Desires and Bid’ah, tape 16
__________________________________________________ _______________
* So when the rebuked Shadeed Muhammad (may Allaah rectify his affairs) was giving khutbas even after the ‘ulemma refuted him and his doubts, and told him he is “not fit for da’wah,” to instead seek knowledge, and advised the rest of us not to listen to him, some said this same exact statement, “I gotta listen to both sides.” Allaahul Musta’aan!
This was less than a year ago, well before the Masjid Rahmah fitnah. Some listened to Shadeed’s poison – even though they were advised by the scholars of the Sunnah not to, in accordance with the Qur`an and Sunnah – and of course the doubts fell into the hearts of these listeners, they became confused, made alliances based upon emotion instead of the truth, and now they’re supporting Shadeed Muhammad who is attacking Allaah’s religion.
** [This is the cousinly doubt of the deceptive and invented principle Koodh Wa A’tee “You must give and take,” that people of bid’ah and desires use today to ignite a debate in order to set up a platform from which to spread their poison. So when this invented principle is said to a Salafee, it means, “okay, I heard you quote the Qur`an and Sunnah, but now you must listen to my side.” Aoodhubillaah!
Allaah, ‘Azza wa Jall, said in the Qur`an: So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away? (Yunus, ayah 32) Ayaat from the Qur`an and ahadeeth from the Sunnah were relayed to them – upon the correct understanding of the Salaf of this Ummah. What is after the truth except misguidance? As Abu Uwais (rahimahullaah) said: The people of bid’ah have no sides.
And Allaah’s Messenger (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: I did not leave anything that brings you closer to Allaah and distance you from the fire except I have commanded you with it. And I did not leave anything that will distance you from Allaah and bring you closer to the fire except that I have prohibited you from it.
Thus, if there was any good in what they were saying, it would be in the Qur`an or Sunnah, and thus the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and the sahaaba (radiallaahu ‘anhum) would have preceded us in it. And since Allaah, Al-Haqq, does not contradict himself, there would be no need to listen to their side. Allaah said in His Noble Book (what means): Do they not then consider the Qur`an carefully? Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely have found therein much contradiction. (An-Nisa`, ayah 82)] 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
Allaah said (what means): And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad, (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil destination. (An-Nisa, ayah 115)
This is a principle of the Deen. And the tremendous wisdom behind it is: preservation of the Deen, and to protect an individual from that which would displease his Lord and lead him astray.
For every bid’ah is dalaala (misguidance), and every dalaala (misguidance) is in the hellfire. This is a legislated means to achieve the end:
1– Hifdh (preservation) of the Deen
2– protecting one’s belief from corruption
People (deviants, people of bid’ah) try to get around this principle, but you can’t get around it.
Ijma’ is a legislated proof, absolute. It is Haram to go against it!
Allaah said (what means): And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad, (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil destination. (An-Nisa, ayah 115)
Then Abu Uwais made another important clarification that da’wah comes first – establishing the proofs comes first – then the boycotting, if they refuse. Like Shaikh Rabee’ (bin Hadee al-Madkhalee, hafidhahullaah) said: “All you know is Hajr, Hajr, Hajr!” No. Da’wah precedes it. And of course, we make a distinction between the Innovator who calls and the bid’i, blind-follower.
Abu Uwais also brought statements of scholars, who said: Do not sit with Ahlul Bid’ah.
Abu Uwais refuted and rebuked the doubt “I gotta listen to both sides*.”**
The people of bid’ah have no sides. It’s just bid’ah! Next thing that’s gonna happen is that (doubt or disease) is going to fall into your heart.
Showing the harms of debating Ahlul Bid’ah and what it leads to, Imam Lalika`ee (rahimahullah) said: No crime has been commited against the Muslims greater than debating the Innovator. They didn’t use to have any type of power, and they used to be more humiliated when Ahlus-Sunnah used to leave them, not talk to them, not give them importance.[Abu Uwais explained: when you debate, you’re putting someone on the same level as yourself. You’re saying, ok, you sit here and I sit here, and we discuss the issue. You start off on the same level when in fact you’re upon the Sunnah (adhering to revelation), and this man is upon bid’ah (opinions, desires in opposition to revelation). And those upon bid’ah are those who are to be humiliated, put down; they are the small ones, they are the ones to be avoided, and rejected and turned away from. But when you put them on the level of debate, you remove that from them, so that’s what he was saying.] So when they [Ahlul Bid’ah] used to die, they use to die in anger; they didn’t have a way to show their bid’ah. Imam Ahmad didn’t debate them. No one gave them a platform (saying), “we’re going to debate the issue.”
Until those who are deluded came and they opened for them this method (saying,) “we can debate.” They became people who led to the (attempted) destruction of Islaam until great arguments and debates.Then their da’wah became apparent to the people under the title “debate,” or what they call “conversation,” whereas before the people didn’t even know what they were talking about.
Abu Uwais said: Everybody wants to talk about it. We don’t need to talk about it; you’re upon bid’ah, dalaala. No need to talk about it. As Imam Lalika`ee said: then they [Ahlul Bid’ah] were able to spread their message to those who didn’t use to hear it. The specific and general people. Until Shubh (doubts) were mixed with Hujjaj (proofs, evidences). They were presented until they were on the same par. This is one of the worst things that happened, and one of the (most desirable) things for Ahlul Bid’ah.
Source: Tape: The Consensus of the Scholars in Warning & Boycotting The People of Desires and Bid’ah, tape 16
__________________________________________________ _______________
* So when the rebuked Shadeed Muhammad (may Allaah rectify his affairs) was giving khutbas even after the ‘ulemma refuted him and his doubts, and told him he is “not fit for da’wah,” to instead seek knowledge, and advised the rest of us not to listen to him, some said this same exact statement, “I gotta listen to both sides.” Allaahul Musta’aan!
This was less than a year ago, well before the Masjid Rahmah fitnah. Some listened to Shadeed’s poison – even though they were advised by the scholars of the Sunnah not to, in accordance with the Qur`an and Sunnah – and of course the doubts fell into the hearts of these listeners, they became confused, made alliances based upon emotion instead of the truth, and now they’re supporting Shadeed Muhammad who is attacking Allaah’s religion.
** [This is the cousinly doubt of the deceptive and invented principle Koodh Wa A’tee “You must give and take,” that people of bid’ah and desires use today to ignite a debate in order to set up a platform from which to spread their poison. So when this invented principle is said to a Salafee, it means, “okay, I heard you quote the Qur`an and Sunnah, but now you must listen to my side.” Aoodhubillaah!
Allaah, ‘Azza wa Jall, said in the Qur`an: So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away? (Yunus, ayah 32) Ayaat from the Qur`an and ahadeeth from the Sunnah were relayed to them – upon the correct understanding of the Salaf of this Ummah. What is after the truth except misguidance? As Abu Uwais (rahimahullaah) said: The people of bid’ah have no sides.
And Allaah’s Messenger (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: I did not leave anything that brings you closer to Allaah and distance you from the fire except I have commanded you with it. And I did not leave anything that will distance you from Allaah and bring you closer to the fire except that I have prohibited you from it.
Thus, if there was any good in what they were saying, it would be in the Qur`an or Sunnah, and thus the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and the sahaaba (radiallaahu ‘anhum) would have preceded us in it. And since Allaah, Al-Haqq, does not contradict himself, there would be no need to listen to their side. Allaah said in His Noble Book (what means): Do they not then consider the Qur`an carefully? Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely have found therein much contradiction. (An-Nisa`, ayah 82)] 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
