In a cassette recording containing advice to Ahl al-Sunnah in Britain (كلمة ونصيحة إلى مسلمي بريطانيا ), Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) was asked about Shaykh Bakr Abū Zayd and Shaykh Ibn Jibrīn[1], both of whom were held in high respect due to knowledge and status, but who showed partisanship to Sayyid Quṭb and made claims and accusations against Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī .
Question:
Some of the opposers argue against us regarding some of the works of some of the scholars, such as Shaykh Bakr Abū Zayd (حفظه الله) and Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh bin Jibrīn… has it reached you that they have retracted from any of this, so that we can say this to our brothers here?
Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī:
This is one of the errors of some of those you have criticised. This is one of their clear and exposed mistakes. Only people of desires are concerned with these falsehoods.
Whoever is truthful in his religion, and is really from Ahl al-Sunnah, he must study these affairs. It is not allowed for him to prefer the words of one person over another until he has truly understood the words of both parties and distinguished between the one who is right and the one who is wrong. After that, he should speak with whatever he holds as truth with Allāh (تبارك وتعالى).
As for speaking according to his desire, we seek refuge in Allāh from that, this is one of the methods of the people of misguidance and desires, refuge is with Allāh. There is no doubt that these two men erred (i.e. the two shaykhs) and went far in their error and in supporting falsehood. We ask Allāh to grant them repentance.
The principle with Ahl al-Sunnah is that everyone’s speech can be accepted or rejected. So whatever from his speech agrees with the truth, it is accepted, and whatever opposes it, it is rejected, especially if it is accompanied with desire, and refuge is with Allāh, so teach them these principles.
“And if you disagree among yourselves over anything then refer it back to Allāh and the Messenger” (4:59-), and Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim say: “The scholars are not cited as evidence, but evidence is (to be) cited for them.”
So Ibn Jibrīn and whoever is bigger than him, and Bakr Abū Zayd and whoever is bigger than him by hundreds of times, they are not a proof over Allāh, rather, the evidence is sought from them, and if they are unable (to provide) the proof, they are not granted the proof.[2]
01 This is the cultivation (tarbiyah) of the major scholars, they cultivate people upon foundations and principles. During the tribulation of the Quṭbiyyah in the 1990s and early 2000s, there were scholars of status and reputation, who were considered senior scholars. They held a conflicting, opposing view and people rallied around them, using them and their statuses as an argument and to attack Shaykh Rabīʿ.
02 So Shaykh Rabīʿ explained to people that they must not take views, or sides, or prefer his speech or that of other contending scholars, until they have studied the speech of both parties, comprehended and understood them, and then determined truth from error and falsehood. Thereafter, to proclaim this truth and hold onto it.
The Shaykh explained a number of principles, that everyone’s saying can be accepted or rejected—except that of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم)—and that scholars are not cited as evidence but evidences are cited for their statements and views.
03 Cultivation upon these principles ensures that the field of criticism and refutation always remains sound, reliable and attains the objective, which is connecting people to the evidences and proofs that accord with the Book, the Sunnah, and the way of the Salaf, and to separate truth from error as it relates to Sharīʿah rulings, knowledge-based viewpoints, and judgements regarding individuals.
If these principles are not operated upon, then its just a matter of one person’s scholar against and another, and it becomes a battle of statuses and figureheads, leading to confusion, following desires, partisanship (taḥazzub) and bigotry (taʿaṣṣub), which are prohibited in the Sharīʿah.
04 The evidences and proofs were so clearly in favour of the position of Shaykh Rabīʿ that anyone who did not accept them was clearly following desires. This is because Shaykh Rabīʿs criticisms and refutations were based on honesty, integrity and justice, and this is why they could not be responded to except with emotions and unsubstantiated claims.