Criticisms and Warnings Regarding Shaykh Sulaymān al-Ruḥaylī

Scholars may criticise other scholars and shaykhs and sometimes warn from them when they fail to fulfil scholarly duty by upholding the truth and siding with its people to repel or end tribulations, and instead support and aid those who seed tribulation and split Ahl al-Sunnah. Likewise, when they raise and praise them at the time when their evil should be curbed and warned against. Such warnings are not to be taken as tabdīʿ (heresification) but protective measures against dereliction of scholarly duty, which can have harmful impacts.

Here are some examples of what Shaykh Sulaymān al-Ruḥaylī has been criticised for:^[1]

Al-Ruhayli praised Ferkous and his edition of the book “Miftāḥ al-Wuṣūl ilā Bināʾ al-Furuʿ ʿalā al-Uṣūl”. In this work, Ferkous offers praise for heads of innovation (bidʿah), misguidance (ḍalāl), and heresy (ilḥād), such as his commendation of Ibn Sinā, the misguided philosopher Ibn Rushd, the Muʿtazilī-Khārijī Almohad state, and the Sufi lodges.

In his commentary on the book using Ferkous’s edition, during the sixth lesson, Sulaymān al-Ruḥayli stated:

Teaching from and praising from Ferkous’s edition can lead students to belittle innovation and to be confused or enticed by it.

In the audio clip below Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī and a group of Algerians who are trying their hardest to present the excuses used for printing these work and Shaykh Rabīʿ explains it is falsehood and this must be repented from. More details are here.

Shaykh Rabīʿ said:

However, we find that al-Ruhayli stands in the way to lead in another direction.

In this audio, Shaykh Nizār speaks of the dubious behaviour of the likes of al-Ruḥaylī, and explains Shaykh Rabīʿ’s advice to take from those who are clear, and to promote them (as opposed to those who are dubious in tribulations), and how al-Ruḥaylī contributed to the fitnah of Muḥammad bin Hādī, and claimed Shaykh Rabīʿ failed to perceive matters as they truly are, and his intellectual terrorism in his assertion that only a scholar can refute a scholar like him, and likewise, making claims about Shaykh Rabīʿ after he passed away and not while he was alive.

If this was a principled stance taken by Shaykh Sulaymān al-Ruḥaylī back then, then why, only a few years later in the fitnah of Muḥammad bin Hādī and the Muṣaʿfiqah did he side with them, given that these were the same, but worse actions against a group of mashāyikh, with more devastating effect within the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah?

There are from those who possess knowledge, those who do not have the same insight, vision and foresight as deeply rooted scholars such as Shaykh Rabīʿ or Shaykh Aḥmad al-Najmī in whom we see the madrasah of the Salaf. What happens is that when tribulations occur, and they have around them audiences and followers, or they have particular ties, connections and interests that may be impacted, they perceive that if they uphold the truth, they will lose that following or those interests, and their following often consists of remnants of past tribulations due to them (these shaykhs) not having clarity, so they attract these types.

Hence, they may murmur and complain, and wish if only so-and-so scholar would let go of all of this refutation, and they position themselves to become obstacles, and use vague, ambiguous language and speak about respecting scholars and not dropping them, and adhering to justice and fairness and working for unity and so on, all of which in themselves are true. However, they cannot address the actual evidences and nor argue against the basis of the refutation or the warning. These types exist and they present in the garb of knowledge, and they do possess it, but they are not made of the same material.

A Similitude

Imagine a group of people installing paths and signposts to enable safe and easy travel to a destination over difficult and treacherous terrain, and then after they have dug and planted posts, lights, and directions, along come another group of people who start undoing and shifting these posts and lights in other directions, or removing them altogether. That which the Salaf left us, when they spoke about matters of creed and about sects and men, are those signposts, lights and directions for the path. In the same way, the rulings and warnings of contemporary scholars serve the same purpose and they also define the path for future generations because these rulings and warnings are effectively a tafṣīl (detail) of that same path. So when people position themselves as obstacles and diversions, then they hinder people. This reality may not be readily perceivable because the presence of knowledge, much correct speech and observable goodness masks the reality, and this is where the masses are drawn into fitnah, if they do not find those who encourage them in the right direction and notify them of pitfalls.

This raises the question: Should we keep people on this path so that future generations remain upon the madrasah of the Salaf, to preserve the integrity of the transmission, or should we look forward to generations of Mumayyiʿah with no distinction (tamyīz) or clarity (wuḍūḥ), who end up giving lectures on waṣaṭiyyah to Jahmites, or being one of the attendees?

Notes

The general picture we have is of a shaykh who has not been known for clarity, and seems to operate as someone who comes in between the senior scholars like Shaykh Rabīʿ—who are far above his level, in knowledge, understanding, efforts, and defence of Islām, Sunnah and Salafiyyah—and, presenting himself as a balanced insider, serves as a hindrance or a barrier to people, speaking with what appears to be speech of justice and respecting scholars and so on, but the reality of his orientation is to contest valid criticisms and warnings proceeding upon sound principles and correct assessments. Further, he presents as one who speaks of principles in his lectures, theoretically speaking, but when we look at how they are applied in tribulations, or in his dealings, we are led to the conclusion that they are either for decoration, or are being misused.

For this reason, Shaykh Rabīʿ warned against him, not for any idle reason, but because his likes do not uphold the truth and instead, undermine the correct judgements and rulings of the scholars which serve legislated purposes in preservation of the Sunnah, its people and methodological clarity.

Alongside that, they raise and praise the disparaged, and promote the books of those with major errors. In this way, they become a risk to Ahl al-Sunnah, even though they are not expelled from Ahl al-Sunnah, because they are a gateway to potential error and misguidance, and this is why they have been warned against, for their own benefit and for the benefit of others. Shaykh Rabīʿ saw his taṣarrufāt (conduct), how he moves and what he aims to achieve in a way that others may not perceive.

From the observations made against him is that he seeks to gather people by pleasing everyone, so he will praise Shaykh Rabīʿ and those who respect and love Shaykh Rabīʿ are drawn towards him. However, the remnants of past tribulations flock around him as well, from the followers of al-Ḥalabī, and al-Maʾribī and others, and hence, his gatherings are an amalgamation of various categories. When he came to the UK some years ago, the ḥizbīs from Jamʿiyyah Ahl al-Ḥadīth, the followers of al-Ḥalabī and al-Maʾribī all flocked to him, and this is due to the lack of methodological clarity, and also indicates the subtle dangers in such affairs.

These warnings have been taken by Salafīs with acceptance, and they are based on the sum of what emanates from a man, his history, conduct, his positions during tribulations and how he moves and acts. For if he does not uphold the truth in a matter, say the issue of Ibn Hādī, then it’s a sign of caution because that may also extend to other matters, and hence we also see him promoting books in which there is praise of innovators and deviants.

We praise and thank Allāh for senior scholars who upheld the truth and provided great clarity at critical moments in time, when many callers to falsehood, deviation and oppression appeared, intending evil for Ahl al-Sunnah by diluting or polluting the path with corrupt principles and partisanship and bigotry or destroying their unity through oppression. We have the Salafī way and methodology of Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī, Shaykh Muḥammad Amān al-Jāmī, Shaykh Aḥmad al-Najmī, Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalī, Shaykh ʿUbayd al-Jābirī and others. This lies in contrast to the way of al-Ruḥaylī and those like him. In times of great confusion, as Shaykh Rabīʿ said, we should take from those who are clear, and promote them, because there is safety in the acquisition of knowledge and its transmission through such a route.

When you have a generation nurtured upon these types of mashāyikh, who serve as gateways to confusion and hesitation towards the timely advices, rulings, refutations and warnings made by senior scholars for meaningful, legislated objectives, then this causes a danger to the integrity of the path over larger scales of time, and this is what is foreseen by scholars when they issue such warnings.

In relation to taking knowledge from al-Ruḥaylī, then people are of types:

1. Those who have no knowledge or awareness of the preceding fitnah and this reality or his stances towards those who deviated, being unfamiliar and uaware of it all, and just see him as someone of knowledge who teaches.
2. Those who know this reality, and heed the warning and do not seek him for knowledge or take anything from him, and pursue clarity in the medium of acquisition.
3. Those who may benefit privately from his writings or recorded lectures on occasions, not consistently, but not promote him to others.^[2]
4. Those who acknowledge his errors—and perhaps they are not familiar with all of them, and their true nature—and take knowledge from him, seeing nothing wrong with it.
5. Those who are with him upon his path and are with those whom he raise, praises and defends, such as Muḥammad bin Ḥādī and his followers, and likewise, those who flock around him from the remnants of past tribulations from the Mumayyiʿah, the likes of al-Maʾribī, al-Ḥalabī, and Ibrāhīm al-Ruḥaylī.

Those who are of the second type, they will be safe and not fear that some generations down the line, that their offspring may have deviated from the path. Those towards the end, it could be the case that due to tamyīʿī tendencies, some generations down the line, their offspring may have lost their compass and criterion, and end up where al-Maʾribī and al-Ḥalabī and their followers ended up, having entertained good thoughts about deviants, philosophers and Ṣūfīs because of what they read in a book recommended to them, or having been directed to shaykhs who print the books of the innovators.

To put it another way, you could buy a car with a strong safety profile, which handles impacts well (having good crash and occupant protection) and will likely minimise injury or death and hence, keep you and your family safe. Or you could go for something with a lower safety profile, despite having the means (the wealth), or the ability to make that extra effort to afford it. People make these types of important decisions in the affairs of the world to preserve life, wealth and property with zeal.

This is the meaning of what Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) said: “Be with the clear ones (wāḍiḥīn).”

One final point to make is that just as the religion has been carried and conveyed through the truthful and trustworthy, and transmitted by those who are truthful and precise in their reports, this being an essential element of the preservation of the religion, then likewise, there are trustworthy, upright carriers who maintain methodological purity and clarity, which also preserve the Book, the Sunnah with the understanding of the Righteous Salaf, and this is the pure Islām. Hence, this issue of warning against certain mashāyikh who may not necessarily have deviations in foundational areas of creed, is connected to the preservation of sound religion and its future protection. These are from the lofty objectives that are recognised by deeply-rooted scholars. Hence, this is from the preservation of the integrity of transmission, and acquisition of knowledge from men (and about men) is one of its mediums.

How many a righteous and pious man was criticised sharply and warned against so that the errors in his reports do not harm the religion, this being sincerity of purpose to Allāh and His religion? And likewise, how many a possessor of knowledge is warned against because of the harmful ramifications of his methodological misconduct, so that the religion is not harmed and likewise, the people are not deceived by his abundant knowledge?

Footnotes