Excessiveness is totally condemned, but…

Excessiveness is totally condemned, but…

His Eminence, Sheikh 'Ali al-Halabi al-Atharee





Translated by: www.asaala.com




It is almost agreed upon by all the intellectuals to condemn excessiveness, debunk it, and expose its practices, as the ideologies of its people include deviation from the Sharee'ah, not to mention the loathsome consequences of their practices on the individuals as well as groups and communities.



And among the most manifest forms of this excessiveness—in accordance with the contemporary widespread meaning—is the irresponsible Takfeeree ideology, which the people of which show themselves in the form of the defenders of the faith, while the truth is that they are completely away from this as we see them conniving at charging the Muslim rulers with Kufr—initially--, then they dispute over the rest of the Muslims—accordingly—starting from the ministers, the parliament representatives, and finally the soldiers. Furthermore, they sometimes exceed all the limits in their excessiveness to charge all the Muslims with Kufr and claim that they are the only Muslims!!!



And among the gloomy forms of excessiveness are the actions of the swindlers who commit the evil actions in the name of Jihaad, while they are very far from the true, legitimate Jihaad in its agreed upon requirements, among the most important of which is abiding by the rules of the scholars as well as the rulers. But, how would they do that, while most of them charge the rulers with Kufr and stir up suspicions about the sound judgments of the scholars?



And thus, those swindlers committed many crimes against the Muslims like killing, bombing, destroying, and vandalizing; they destroyed the corps and the cattle but in the name of Islam and the signature of the Muslims! This led to the present hurricane-like international attack against the Islam in order to weaken the Muslim nation and defame Islam in a more impudent rather than a clearer way!!



And among the aggressive forms of excessiveness also is that loathsome ideological partisanship, which divides our nation into different parts and closed, compressed circles in a way that paralyze the movement of the safe Muslim community due to that aggressive partisanship which revolves around ideological axes which are far from the lights of the two revelations; the Book and the Sunnah. Thus, the end results of their actions should be in accordance with the ideologies of the so-and-so party which one belongs to, not to mention the stands where they reject or keep away any contradictory ideologies in a way that rips apart the Ummah…all of this happens as the intolerant partisan class is revolving around its partisan axis and shrinking in its secluded pot!!



The aforementioned were some forms of excessiveness—in its widespread, contemporary image—with what it holds of catastrophic consequences that drown the nation deeper and deeper and increase its weakness; and thus no individuals will live peacefully and no communities will ever be settled and well-established!!



Thus, all of this is agreed upon by the intellectuals as I said earlier, but:

I recently had a look at a book which researched excessiveness and its reality, reasons, forms, and remedies. In deed, its authors did a good job in exposing as well as criticizing some of the aforementioned forms of excessiveness which are—undoubtedly—the most dangerous ones against individuals—the rulers as well as the citizens—and the communities—the Islamic as well as the non-Islamic--.



However, these authors did not do a good job regarding mentioning some juristically disputed matters among the jurists—in ancient as well as modern times—as if they were among the forms of excessiveness, nor did they deal with them in a true, scholarly way, because some jurists would prefer a say to another on the basis of evidence; and this is something which does not in any way contradict with the schools of the people of Sunnah and its scholars…



And so, how could we consider preferring a jurisprudent say to another—be it the right or the wrong one—on a well-established, scholarly basis to be a loathsome act, let alone to call it a condemned excessiveness? Well, this will lead to the fact that we will ascribe the people who do this to the rows of the Takfeerees, partisans, or destructive people who do their loathsome acts in the name of Jihaad—without any guidance from the Lord of the worlds--!!



I say all of this after establishing the following settled scholarly fact, which states that: the change of time and place entails a change in the meaning of terms, their denotations, and their effects. Thus, excessiveness—in its original linguistic meaning—is taken from the edge of something, be it the first or the final edge; and this edge—the first or the final—is far from the center point as understood by Imaam al-Jassaass in Ahkaam al-Qur'aan (3/550).



Thus, the thing which is far from its two edges is the true, just center point; and this is something that distinguishes this nation as Allah, Exalted be He, says:

"Thus we have made you a Wasat nation (i.e. just and the best) so that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you".

The Prophet—peace be upon him—also says:

"Verily, you should shun Ghuloo (i.e. excessiveness) in religion, because nothing destroyed the previous nations except their excessiveness in their religions"; and Ghuloo is transgressing the legal limits. Consequently, excessiveness—in its linguistic meaning—goes under this general legal meaning which should be shunned and warned against…



However, the crux of the matter does not lie in this general linguistic meaning—which is an important foundation—but it lies in the legal contemporary meaning which is widespread among people, and which connects excessiveness with violence, Takfeer, and being away from tranquility and security…



Thus, excessiveness in its general linguistic meaning is not only connected with Islam alone, but it is rather known in all the other ideologies, religions, and sects.



And all of us are familiar with those contemporary political terms which are related to the Jewish, Nazarene, or even Communist extreme rightist or leftist parties!



Thus, it is a manifest oppression to mix between the linguistic meaning and the technical contemporary one so that the laymen think or the notables misconceive that any one who commits something from that excessiveness in its linguistic meaning—if he really did –will be committing it in its technical, contemporary one, among the forms of which are violence, Takfeer, and bombing.





Thus, and as the confusion is related to a number of "Sunni" juristic choices, cannot the other side reverse the image and thus convert the accusations against the former so that the defender becomes a plaintiff and vice versa using the same basis upon which the former launched his accusations? And thus, is this aggressive state of accusing one another beneficial in any way to the Ummah or it is just—sooner or later—a cause for dividing it into different sects and spreading sedition among its individuals?



Furthermore, I am afraid to say—on a well-established premise—that deeming the preference of a juristic matter to another as excessiveness is excessiveness in itself, because of what it holds of marginalizing the "other" exceeding the limits of being wrong or right to accusing the hearts' intentions and the bases of deeds and words…besides, we do not want to take our Ummah back in history—while we are at the beginning of the twenty-first century—to some of the gloomy images where the Ummah suffered because of that loathsome excessiveness like what ancient judges used to issue in that a Hanafee[1] woman is not allowed to marry a Shafi'ee[2] man unless she is to be considered as if she were among the people of the Scriptures (i.e. Jewish or Nazarene). There the other side reversed this—with counter-excessiveness—by saying: "if things were under my authority, I would have taken the Jizyah (i.e. toll money) form the Shaafi'yyah". However, the just people among the two parties, not to mention those who are ascribed to the scholarly religious field as well as the schools of Sunnah, are free from all of this idle talk…



And in order not to avoid mentioning some scholarly examples on that, I will mention some examples on the disputable, "Sunni" juristic matters which the authors, of the book entitled at-Tatarruf; Haqeeqatuhu wa Bawaa'ithuhu wa Madhaahiruhu wa 'Ilaajuhu (i.e. Excessiveness; its reality, reasons, forms, and remedies), described them to be excessive where they were completely wrong:



1. They mentioned the acts of being biased to one's opinion, bluntness, and being suspicious about people without any sound basis for that. Well, these are loathsome acts for sure, but are they exclusive to a specific group of people—and I do not refer to the callers or students of knowledge in particular--? Or are they—unfortunately—inclusive to all the people, whether they do it rarely or repeatedly? Well, I believe that even those who produce such acts will condemn them in a moment of tranquility…And may Allah have mercy on Sheikhul-Islaam, Ibn, Taymiyyah, who said once: "no one is allowed to enjoin the Ma'roof (i.e. all that is good) or warn against the Munkar (i.e. all that is evil) unless he is completely knowledgeable, gentle, and forbearing of what he enjoins and warns against"…

Thus, who contradicts this well-established rule, be it to a little or big degrees, then he is the only one to be blamed but not the others, because this is going to be oppression and aggression!

2. They mentioned tying some acts with Bid'ah (innovation) among the forms of excessiveness, and they set some examples on that like celebrating the Prophet's birthday. Well, I do not intend thru mentioning this example and the ones that follow to deem preponderate any opinion over the other, because it is not proper to do that herein, but I want to point out that these matters and their like are disputable to a great extent. Thus, are the scholars who go against such matters considered excessive? And who is the part which deserves to be deemed excessive among the two? In this respect, celebrating the Mawlid (the Prophet's birthday) has been disapproved of by many scholars like Taajud-Deen al-Faakahaanee (d. 734 H.), Ibn al-Haaj al-Maalikee (d. 737 H.), Abu 'Abdullaah al-Haffaar (d. 811 H.), and others. Thus, are these scholars excessive?

3. They also mentioned the disapproval of the pronouncement of the Salaah upon the Prophet—peace be upon him—right after the Adhaan (i.e. the call of prayer) among the forms of excessiveness! Well, this thing was disapproved of by a number of the scholars—in the modern as well as the old times—like the great scholar Ibn Hajar al-Haitamee (d. 973 H.), the Sheikh of Azhar University, Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltoot (d. 1383 H.), and others. Thus, are these scholars excessive?

4. They mentioned the disapproval of shaking hands after the end of prayer as well as saying: Taqabbala Allah (i.e. may Allah accept your worship) among the forms of excessiveness. Well, this one has been disapproved of by the great scholar Idrees at-Turkumaanee—lived in the eighth century—and Ibn Zarrooq (d. 899 H.).

5. They also said that among the forms used by the excessive people to confuse the Muslims' thoughts and beliefs; is launching an offensive on al-Madh-habiyyah (i.e. following a certain school of juristic thought)!



And it goes without saying that such launch of offensive is null and void—in case it was there in the first place--, but Iam afraid that the authors of this book have confused the rules-governed, scholarly Madh-Habiyyah with the bigotry to a certain Madh-Hab which we mentioned some of its calamities earlier, and which should be shunned and warned against for sure…



In this respect, may Allah have mercy on Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee who said: "if you find anything which contradicts the Sunnah of the Prophet—peace be upon him—in my book, then hold on to that in the Sunnah and abandon what I said (in my book)", and he also said: "if the hadeeth is proved to be Saheeh, then it is my say (regarding the matter in question)".

6. They also mentioned the disapproval of splitting between the good Bid'ah and the bad one!



And it is going to be enough—in order to debunk their say—to mention that Imaam Abu Ishaaq ash-Shaatibee (d. 790 H.) authored a book in hundreds of pages and called it: al-I'tisaam, which he did in order to debunk this splitting on the bases of language, principles, and rules of the Sharee'ah.



Thus, what the authors mentioned under excessiveness among that which is not really under it is actually numerous; however, all of it—unfortunately—patterned after the aforementioned juristic examples which I mentioned and debunked in accordance with what some scholars say…And I will repeat that I did not intend to deem preponderate any say over the other, but I just wanted to say that this thing is a great confusion which destroys the friendly relations between people; and I also did this in an attempt to debunk the loathsome excessiveness which await for every opponent and to preserve our nation's security, tranquility, and faith from the evil hands which the owners of which believe that they are upon the right way while they are not!!!



So, this is the duty of this time instead of that confusion, disinterment, and stirring up sedition which causes nothing but distraction that no one benefits from—sooner or later—but the excessive themselves, while the true, pious Muslims lose!!



Thus, where is—for these authors—the scale of benefits and evils? Especially that these authors—may Allah guide them—were very careful about mentioning the opinions of the different schools of thoughts, and we are with them in that these opinions are very important, but why did they (the authors) go in contradiction with what they said?



Are not these opinions—which are deemed excessive—among the opinions of those scholars?



Or are they taken from abandoned schools of thought?



"Our Lord! Judge between us and our people in truth, for You are the Best of those who give judgment".



"Allah says the Truth, and He guides to the Righteous Path"…




Footnotes

[1] The Hanafiyyah is a school of thought which was based on the rulings of Imaam Abu Haneefah—may Allah have mercy on him.

[2] The Shaafi'yyah is another school of thought which was based on the rulings of Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee—may Allah have mercy on him.