al-Fawzan about Jarh upon Ahl-ul-Bid’ah and the Principles of Adnan Ar’ur [Video|Ar-En]

[Video|Arabic-English Captions]

Scholar: ´Allâmah Sâlih bin Fawzân al-Fawzân
Translation & video:

Question: We’re wondering about a few principles. We would like to hear with you whether they agree with the confirmed principles of Ahl-us-Sunnah. The first principle is “We correct without criticising (Jarh)”. What do you say about that?

Shaykh al-Fawzân: It is baseless. That principle is baseless. People who stick to that which is false have to be criticised.

Questioner: The second principle is “If you judge, you will be judged, and if you call, you will be rewarded.” What do you say about this principle?

al-Fawzân: It is innovated. It is unfounded. People who stick to that which is false have to be judged.

Questioner: The third principle is: “It is from justice to mention the good and bad sides.” The person argued for it with the known Hadîth:

“He spoke the truth to you whilst he is a liar.”

What do you say about this?

al-Fawzân: This is also false. This speech is also false. Allâh mentioned the bad sides of the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans or idolaters) without mentioning the good sides.

Questioner: Does this also apply to Ahl-ul-Bid’ah?

al-Fawzân: What about Ahl-ul-Bid’ah?

Questioner: He says that it is from justice to also mention their good and bad sides…

al-Fawzân: It’s the same thing. Their bad sides are mentioned unlike their good ones. Allâh mentioned the bad sides of the enemies without mentioning their good sides. Are these ‘Ar’ûr’s principles?

Questioner: Yes, these are his principles.

al-Fawzân: They are all rejected and false. He has been refuted in several books.

Questioner: The fifth principle is “It is allowed to say that a person is wrong but it is forbidden to slander him.”

al-Fawzân: This is just as “We correct without criticizing”. They are the same.

Questioner: He gave an example and asked why Imâm Ahmad is not condemned when making Takfîr upon the one who does not perform the prayer whilst Sayyid Qutb is condemned when he expresses himself in certain ways so that we say that he makes Takfîr upon the societies while Imâm Ahmad is not condemned when he makes Takfîr upon all these multitudes? What do you say about this?

al-Fawzân: Imâm Ahmad was incredibly learned. He knew the evidence and how they were to be used. Sayyid Qutb was ignorant and had no knowledge. He had no evidence for what he said. It is unjust to compare Imâm Ahmad with Sayyid Qutb.

Questioner: He also says that he does not know of anybody today in the world who has spoken about methodological matters such as Sayyid Qutb and that most of what he has written is correct. When he was put on the spot, he said that he with “methodological matters” meant affairs of elections and assassinations and that he with “today” meant the fifties…

al-Fawzân: He does not know. He does not know because he is ignorant. We know – and all praise is due to Allâh – that the scholars before and after Sayyid Qutb do not agree with him.

Questioner: He also says that there exists a call that consists of criticizing the people due to some mistake or unclear utterance and [unclear sound]. What do you say about that?

al-Fawzân: It is empty speech. He wants to whitewash the falsehood and defend those who stick to that which is false.

Questioner: He says that he who follows up the discord of the groups will find that the reason mostly is the character and not the creed or the methodology. Is that true?

al-Fawzân: The reasons are due to the creed and not the character. He wants to cover them up.

Question: What do you say about him?

al-Fawzân: He is no scholar at all. He came to Saudi Arabia as a craftsman. He thereafter revealed what he stands by.

Questioner: Should we refrain from going to his lessons? He is coming to Europe. Do you advise the Salafi-youth to attend his lessons?

al-Fawzân: I advise the Salafî-youth to boycott his lessons and that they do not attend them.

%d bloggers like this: