Q&A With Shaykh Ahmad Bazmool
Author: Shaykh Ahmad ibn ‘Umar Baazmool (hafidhahullaah Ta’aala)
Questions posed by Anwar Wright & Abu Yusuf Khaleefah, Translated by Anwar Wright
Published on 7 Jun 2012 by SalafyInk
We know the virtue of the Lajnatud Daa`imah (i.e. The Permanent Committee of Scholars in Saudi Arabia) and that they are those who possess knowledge and virtue, and they are returned to in those Nawaazil (i.e. major issues concerning the Ummah). However, some people if they are refuted by some of the people of knowledge, like Shaykh Rabee’ or Shaykh ‘Ubayd – hafithahumaAllah – they say, ‘we’re returning our affairs to the Lajnatud Daa`imah,’ so what is your statement concerning this?
The Lajnatud Daa`imah has ‘ulamah (scholars). The likes of Shaykh Abdul- ‘Aziz Aali Shaykh and like Shaykh Saalih al Fawzaan – hafithahumullah – and they are well known scholars. However, this questioner who says: “We’re returning our affairs to the Lajnatud Daa`imah,” there is nothing wrong with returning the affairs to the ‘ulamah (scholars), and there is nothing wrong with asking a question to more than one scholar. However, we say to this questioner, you leave the statement of Shaykh Rabee’ and then you go to the Lajnatud Daa`imah to ask them, there is nothing wrong with this. However, it is incumbent that you give the full picture of the question, just as Shaykh Rabee’ knows the full picture and the detailed affair. What does this mean?
Shaykh Rabee’ perhaps may say about a thing that it is an innovation and misguidance from that which he knows from the trickery that may occur and (what he knows) from the people of desires taking advantage of a situation. The board of major scholars may perhaps be asked about a matter which outwardly seems good, and they say there is no problem with that. This is because you didn’t mention to them the harms (of the situation) and you didn’t mention some of the angles by which if mentioned will have an effect on the ruling [i.e. you concealed in your question to the second group of scholars what was not concealed to the first group scholars!].
So for example if the Shaykh (i.e Rabee’) says about an affair, ‘this affair is bid’ah’ and then the Lajnatud Daa`imah and some others from the people of knowledge like Shaykh ['Abdul-MuHsin] al-Abbad says, ‘this affair is not a bid’ah,’ here I say both of them are correct and there is no contradiction between the two of them. The only contradiction is in the question. So both of them are correct because Shaykh Rabee’ – hafithahumullah – judged on these affairs and the Lajnatud Daa`imah – or Shaykh Abdul-MuHsin al-‘Abbad or Shaykh Saalih Suhaymee, – hafithahumullah – if they say, ‘this matter is correct and there is nothing wrong with it,’ they only ruled based upon the question that came to them - in which those negative aspects of the question were not mentioned.
Let’s give an example regarding this. For example Shaykh Rabee’ declares Abul Hasan al Ma`ribee to be an innovator and others from the scholars – who are known to be upon the Sunnah – did not declare him to be an innovator. Is there any contradiction between them? We say: No. Shaykh Rabee’ knew from the condition of Abul Hasan al Ma`ribee that which declares him to be an innovator, and the others didn’t know from him -conditions that which- declares him to be an innovator. Perhaps they only heard some rumors and some things being spread around, and then Abul Hasan himself would go to them and make apparent to them that he is upon the Sunnah, thus they would judge from what he made apparent to them.
The scholars do not know the unseen; they are only human beings and they make rulings according to what they hear. So due to this, we say to this questioner: Fear Allaah within yourself, and fear Allaah regarding the scholars, and fear Allaah regarding your religion and your brothers that you try to misguide them with the likes of these affairs!
And this is what is understood by the statement of some of the scholars,
“Whoever (out of vain desires) shops around for the different allowances of the scholars falls into heresy.”
Meaning, whoever does the likes of these actions, he resembles the actions of the fusaaq (i.e. rebellious sinners). So you ask Shaykh Rabee’ something and you know his fatwa (in the matter), and then you go to another scholar seeking another fatwa due to some vain desire within yourself – not out of fear of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic. Because if you want the truth and what is correct, you know that the speech of Shaykh Rabee’ – for the most part – with his proofs and with its truth is accepted amongst the scholars, so why are you searching here and there for the fatawa that you want to go in accordance with your own excuses and those who agree with you.
Oh my brother, you know that Shaykh Rabee’ declared so and so to be an innovator due to his misguidance, and you know of this. Then you go to another scholar who does not declare him an innovator, rather he praises him, know that you are sinning from many angles.
Firstly: you have hidden some truth (in your question) from this scholar.
Secondly: you will bear that burden of everyone put to trial by this question that you [deceptively] asked that scholar.
Thirdly: you are playing with the religion of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic.
Fourthy: with this way of yours, you have opened a door for evil for the common folk, and have misguided them. Then also know that Shaykh Al-‘Abbad, for example, or Shaykh as-Suhaymee or other than them who may have praised [them] and the other scholars who have declared their misguidance, they are excused, because they don’t know their detailed affairs and they do not know the unseen.
Also the one who knows is a proof against the one who doesn’t know and the one who criticizes has some extra details that the one who praised did not have (about the person), thus the one who praises is excused. For this reason, the scholars mention if a scholar gives a fatwa and errs, he has one reward and if he gives a fatwa and is correct, he has two rewards just as it comes in the hadeeth.
Likewise the one who must blind follow (i.e. the common person who does not have the ability to look into the evidences) knows that this scholar erred, but he follows him anyway, then this common blind follower is sinning and you are just like this.
So – by Allaah – beware regarding our religion, and beware regarding the common folk, and beware regarding our scholars. Let us not start this calamity and this confusion all due to some personal or monetary gains and benefits. For indeed the religion of Allaah is something valued and something that is preserved – by the permission of Allaah – and you only harm yourself at the end of the day.