IN HIS CLARIFICATION and refutation of the errors of Ibrāhīm al-Ruḥaylī, Shaykh Rabīʿ made note of one of the main causes of differing and tribulation, which is failure in sufficiently clarifying the truth, and failing to aid the one who has the truth, in pursuit of the Sharīʿah objective. When a scholar refutes someone, and the Sharīʿah objective is achieved, then the obligation is lifted from the rest. But when the objective has not been achieved, the obligation remains upon the rest to aid the truth and the critiquing scholar(s) until it is achieved.
The Sharīʿah objective remains unfulfilled so long as the refuted shows stubbornness and there are those who support him and rejoice with oppressive counter-refutations against the critic(s) who spoke the truth. In such a situation, silence is not permitted, and the collective obligation remains outstanding.
He (رحمه الله) said:[1]
... therefore, [in this situation] it is undoubtedly obligatory for the scholars who have remained silent to explain the truth to the people, out of sincerity of purpose to Allāh, His Book, His Messenger, to the Muslim leaders and their common-folk, and to aid the truth, and to cut off the cause of tribulation and differing, which stemmed from silence, or tacit support for the person of falsehood, two [causes] which led to the [Sharīʿah] objective not being achieved and which would have absolved the others from the responsibility.
It is not permissible to claim that the rest have been cleared of responsibility, for if the objective is not achieved through the rebuttal of just one or (even) ten scholars, the remaining scholars are not absolved of their responsibility until they—or some among them—come forward to achieve that objective, to extinguish the fitnah, and so that truth becomes apparent to people, the students of knowledge and the common-folk, just as falsehood appeared to them.
Thus, to claim that the objective has been achieved, while this is the situation, (where) turmoil and severe confusion prevail, is astonishing. Even more astonishing is the claim that, “the scholars have been absolved of responsibility”.
It was obligatory upon Dr. Ibrāhīm [al-Ruḥaylī] and the scholars who remained silent to have taken action to address the tribulation or the various types of tribulation that have taken deep root, and this painful reality should have served as a catalyst for them to fulfil the collective obligation (farḍ kifāyah).
It is very likely that the cause of this great tribulation and its consequences is the silence of the silent, those who refuse to fulfil this collective obligation whose objective has not been achieved by the refutation of one person alone. Reflect upon the understanding (fiqh) of prior (scholars) of Ahl al-Sunnah, and how they collectively embarked upon this mighty obligation.
In order to help us put this speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ into a broader context, before we discuss its benefits, the reader should note that from past tribulations over the past few decades the following categories tend to emerge during them:
The Sukūtiyyah: They call for silence, the opposite of what is required in the circumstances, which means withdrawal and absence of establishing truth and justice as demanded by principles. This is despite them knowing of the occurrence of violations (of the foundations), the correct from the errant, the oppressed from the oppressor, after the truth has been made clear at the hands of one or more shaykhs. This is likely due to protecting some interest (financial or otherwise), or friendships and loyalties which they cannot or are unwilling to break. Hence, under the guise of unity, avoiding fitnah, and protecting the daʿwah, they ask for silence. Any speech in support of the truth and its people in the matter is considered fitnah. This tends to work one way only, as inwardly, they may be inclined to the critiqued party. That is to say that those who speak in support of the critics in their justified criticisms are silenced and accused of causing fitnah while those partisan to the criticised are left alone to attack, abuse, vilify and spread doubts.
This is a reflection of internal confusion, lack of grounding in methodology, mixed with prioritisation of interests which overwhelm any knowledge held of the truth in the matter, and prevent its outward expression in speech and deed. Any claims of objectivity or neutrality are quickly vaporised through their statements, behaviours which reveal biases and loyalties.
There is indeed a time for silence, and that is when the truth is not clear, and when there is dialogue between the critic(s) and the critiqued. But when the affairs become clear, when truth is known from error and falsehood, and the correct from the errant, and the oppressed from the oppressor, and the criticisms and refutations are in the public domain because the critics have already weighed the benefit and harms, and already exhausted the means of advice and correction, and stubbornness is shown and partisans and bigots engage in abuse, oppression, defending falsehood and creating confusion, then here, silence no longer has its place. Those who call to silence in such circumstances are ignorant, or they are on the side of the errant inwardly and in reality.
The Ruḥaylī Types: They invoke consideration of the maṣāliḥ (benefits), mafāsid (harms) and ḥikmah (wisdom) and apply principles and statements of scholars, out of context and in error, in the wrong stage of the fitnah. Their posturings and activities eventually lead to the oppressor becoming the oppressed, the aggressor becoming the victim, and the errant originators of the tribulations being given excuses and every way out, without true accountability and justice having been established, while the justified critics and victims are silenced and shunned for daring to speak the truth and seek the right they are due. Further, slips of the rightful critics are pounced upon whereas the calamities of the critiqued in major foundations are given every excuse, belittled and explained away.
Hence, the scales of justice are overturned and justice is never really established and becomes prolonged, and never in sight. Subjective localised interests (maṣāliḥ) sideline the actual interests demanded by the just Sharīʿah and the just Salafī methodology, and hence, the Sharīʿah objective remains to be achieved and most likely never will.
Thereafter, confusion abounds while the errant instigators enjoy their immunity thanks to the people of this category. This perpetuates the confusion and blurs the lines, leaving people bewildered and prone to many doubts.
Here, clarity (wuḍūḥ) is compromised, and those who are correct and due their rights are silenced and marginalised, perhaps even punished, while the errant and transgressing parties remain unscathed, thrive, have free reign in the field, and their loyalists and partisans continue in either attacking or spreading doubts, and gaining ground.
This is why Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) wrote his book about this Ruḥaylī phenomenon after identifying it in prior tribulations.
It is because there are those who are biased and sympathetic to the critiqued, and they wish to shield them while silencing their critics. So they come out in the name of good manners, considering the benefits and harms, using wisdom and not causing fitnah and other such alluring terms, but in reality, it is to provide an escape route for the critiqued and also for themselves, to evade the toil and struggle of having to uphold the truth and the abuses and harms that necessarily follow.
This is what people like Abū al-Ḥasan al-Maʾribī and ʿAlī al-Ḥalabī were doing in relation to Muḥammad al-Maghrāwī and ʿAdnān ʿArʿūr, and then Ibrāhīm al-Ruḥaylī came along and gave the process some organisation and dressed it up somewhat with the terms “good manners”, “benefits and harms”, “wisdoms” and so on.
The Watchers-and-Waiters: Also, Fence-Sitters. This orientation seeks to keep favour with all parties and will shift alliances according to circumstances for the purposes of optics and perceptions, and they may use arguments such as keeping away from fitnah, or patience and wisdom, despite the truth being clear and the era of advice and patience has long ended.
They are not really committed to a side or a view, even if they know right from wrong, but they wait to see who comes out on top with a dominating voice (regardless of right or wrong) and where the wind blows, so they can be on the dominating side, based not on truth and justice, but on maintaining a status quo and protecting interests.
The underlying objective is to shield and protect oneself from harm, which is really the harm and abuse that comes inevitably as a result of proclaiming the truth and supporting it. They care not for any prior relationships or loyalties and simply wish to avoid the scorn of people. However, this is disguised as “consideration of the benefits and harms” and “wisdom” when in reality, it is evasion of responsibility, and waiting to see who comes out on top, so that it can be said, “we were with you”.
The Fourth: This is the way of Rabbānī scholars such as Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī, Shaykh Aḥmad al-Najmī and others, upon the principle of clarity (wuḍūḥ) and preserving unity and strength upon such clarity, and establishing the actual scales of justice, the actual Sharīʿah objectives, and the actual desired benefits (maṣāliḥ) in such circumstances and repelling the actual harms (mafāsid), as exemplified in the way of these scholars who put a swift end to these types of tribulations involving violation of foundations (especially in matters or rulership, the aḥzāb and innovators) and the ways of the Ḥaddādiyyah and Mumayyiʿah whenever they surface and negatively impact the daʿwah.
So after the era of advice and patience is over, which may last a single sitting, or hours, days, weeks or months, and at most, some years in some circumstances, they embark upon ending the fitnah, seeing it as a collective obligation.
They do this by corroborating the foundations (uṣūl) and holding people to them, and saying, without fear and blame, “This one is right and has the truth, that one is wrong and is upon falsehood and must recant”, and “This one is the oppressor and that one is the oppressed to whom the right is due” and so on. The lines are clearly drawn, the truth is visible for people to see and embrace for safety, there is no confusion, and certainly, no Brownian motion. In the matter, you are either here or there, both in private and in open, not everywhere and nowhere.
So long as the errant opposer and instigator is unresponsive, stubborn, persistent and he has helpers and aiders who abuse, revile and attack the justified critics, then the Sharīʿah objective has not been achieved. And hence, those with ability from Ahl al-Sunnah are required join hands and embark collectively to end the fitnah, by upholding the truth.
01 From the speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) it is clear that the Sharīʿah objective behind refuting the opposer is that he recants from his error, that the truth in the matter is made known, and that the truth was with the critic(s) who are thanked for fulfilling the collective obligation on behalf of others. Hence, here, no fitnah arises.
The fitnah arises when stubbornness and persistence are shown after the period of advice, correction and patience has been endured by the critics, and biased partisans emerge to attack and vilify the critics and spread doubts and confusion. When this occurs, silence is not permissible and it remains a collective duty upon Ahl al-Sunnah to raise their voices in support of the truth and its people, out of veneration for the truth itself, and not mere loyalty to the critics, whoever they may be.
02 From the false sayings is that “the farḍ kifāyah (collective obligation) has already been fulfilled, and hence, we do not need to speak”. And what is meant by this is that the critics have refuted, and hence, the obligation and the objective has been achieved.
This is not true, because the objective is not mere criticism and refutation by a scholar or two or ten. The objective is upholding of truth, so that it is uppermost, until it is divulged and known, such that the errant is known to be errant, the deviant is known to be deviant, the one who is right or oppressed is known to be such and so on, because of the truth being aided. This is what cuts off the fitnah and ends the disputes. This cannot be said when there is rampant confusion and chaos, and when those who possess the truth are vilified, attacked and abused while the errant enjoy immunity thanks to the Sukūtiyyah, the Ruḥaylī-types and the Fence-sitters.
We have never heard before in any prior fitnah statements such as “Shaykh Rabīʿ has fulfilled the obligation, we are not obliged to say anything or declare a position in the matter”, in relation to his refutations of those who violate foundations of the Sunnah, when there are defenders of the refuted and of their falsehood and misguidance in various lands in the east or west, spreading doubts and attacking and belittling the critic(s), in this case, Shaykh Rabīʿ, but it could be any shaykh or group of shaykhs, because the same principle applies, regardless of the issues (i.e. under dispute) or the specific shaykh(s) involved.
03 The importance of distinguishing between a) the consideration of the maṣāliḥ and mafāsīd and the claimed wisdom (ḥikmah) as envisaged by the Ruḥaylī-types and b) the actual Sharīʿah objective as explained by scholars such as Shaykh Rabīʿ and what we have known in every past fitnah during the past decades. The critiquing scholars already considered the maṣāliḥ and mafāsid and used patience and wisdom with the critiqued and refuted, and the only reason they came out openly is because of encountering stubbornness, non-engagement (unresponsive to advice and questions), playing games and disdain of those possessing and speaking the truth. When loyalists, fanatics and bigots emerge to attack and vilify the critic(s) and spread confusion and doubts, then even more so, the Sharīʿah objective demands that voices are raised in support of the truth.
To call for silence here with the claim of maṣāliḥ and mafāsid and ḥikmah is an error and demonstrates confusion in methodology. This is not to deny that wisdom has its place in everything and in every moment and place, however, when it is clear that the actual Sharīʿah objective is being neglected and compromised, then that’s a clear sign that its not really wisdom that is being used or called for.
Thus, we contrast between the way of the Ḥaddādiyyah such as Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, which is absence of considering the benefits and harms and making hasty tabdīʿ, taḍlīl and severe tajrīḥ without sufficient advice, correction, patience and wisdom, and that of the Mumayyiʿah who invoke consideration of the benefits and harms and the use of wisdom, when that has already taken place and that period already ended, and when stubbornness and unresponsiveness are shown, and a war is waged by biased partisans, bigots and fanatics, and much confusion is spread and dominates the arena.
Here, where vocal support of the truth, the oppressed and the rightful critic(s) is required to achieve the Sharīʿah objective, they invoke benefits, harms and wisdoms, out of sympathy for the critiqued, and in contrast, they silence the critics and prevent their speech from reaching the people for the attainment of the Sharīʿah objective.
04 The only way to end the fitnah is for Ahl al-Sunnah to speak out, support the truth, and make it known that “so-and-so has the truth in this matter” and “so-and-so has violations and must recant”, and “so-and-so has persisted upon falsehood, corruption, lying and is to be warned against and shunned” and so on, along with promoting the evidences and the refutations of the critics and augmenting them and supporting them, until the truth is overwhelming, and until the fitnah is extinguished.
05 Shaykh Rabīʿ explained that the cause of such tribulations is the silence of the silent who refuse to fulfil the collective obligation—claiming it has already been fulfilled—when in reality, the desired Sharīʿah objective has not been achieved. Their error lies in confusing mere refutation and criticism on behalf of a scholar, or two, or ten, with “fulfilment of the collective obligation”. The obligation is not fulfilled if the Sharīʿah objective has not been achieved.
Hence, we must distinguish between the period of silence and the period of non-silence. So when the critics advise, correct and engage with those who fell into error, deviation and violation of foundations, then others remain silent, and if those who fell into errors and violations acknowledge, repent and make amends, then the Sharīʿah objective has been achieved.
But if stubbornness ensues, with abuse, vilification and counter-refutations aimed at causing doubts and serving partisan causes, and false defences are made of the critiqued, out of bigotry and loyalty, and the fitnah accelerates and grows, then the Sharīʿah objective has not been achieved. So long as this condition remains, the rest of Ahl al-Sunnah still remain under a collective obligation to proclaim and uphold the truth and support the critics by adding their voices, until the fitnah is extinguished and the people of truth become known from the people who persist upon falsehood and error coupled with bigotry and partisanship.
May Allāḥ reward Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) for his valuable and insightful observations during tribulations, as they help to clear the confusion.