Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh on the Claims of the Ḥarakiyyīn and Ḥizbiyyīn That the Scholars Have Least Effect and Influence in Events and Tribulations
In this 8 minute audio clip, Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh (حفظه الله) provides nice benefits while responding to the claim of the Ḥarakiyyīn and Ḥizbiyyīn that the scholars are least effective in dealing with political events, and that they prefer silence. This implies that this conduct (apathy, not speaking word of truth) is the result of knowledge itself.
Summary of the main points:
The Shaykhs says that this is a Satanic whispering and it is said by the people of desires to prevent people from following the scholars. This is a common accusation said by ignoramuses in every fitnah. The way of the Salaf was that they paused due to knowledge and withheld due to insight in the affairs.
Meaning, that their speech was always upon knowledge and their withholding of speech was due to insight. In tribulations, they would increase in silence and decrease in speech, and their little speech was remembered and conveyed. But those who came after, spoke more in tribulations, due to little knowledge.
The Shaykh then gives the example of the fitnah of the creation of the Qurʾān which lasted around 20 years and explains that Aḥmad (رحمه الله) did not speak every day, and his prominent statements were few. Likewise, Imām Mālik (رحمه الله) prohibited debating with the Sunnah and enjoined only conveying the Sunnah.
This is because what is obligatory is clarifying and conveying the truth, not debating and speaking much.
The Shaykh said that as for rectification of the servants, that is only for Allāh the Exalted. The speech of Ibn Rajab, that the speech of the Salaf was little, but of great benefit, and the speech of the Khalaf was much, but of little benefit.
The Shaykh explains that a small amount of well-grounded speech based on evidence is what benefits and as for speech that is plentiful, than parts of it will cause other parts to be forgotten. Hence, it will not be remembered due to it being plentiful speech.
The Shaykh says that scholars have an effect due to their speech, but that effect is the legislated type (meaning it is in line with legislated politics, not what is expected by the Ḥarakiyyīn and Ḥizbiyyīn). The Shaykh mentions the hadith of changing the evil by whoever sees it, with the hand, if not the tongue, then with the heart, which means to hate it.
The Shaykh says that this indicates that the change may not always occur as the bearer of truth desires it, but the real issue is to speak truth that endures to make the impact that is in line with the Book, the Sunnah and the way of the Salaf.
The Shaykh mentions the point that it is speech that is rooted in the Book and the Sunnah that endures while other speech is forgotten.
Hence, the Shaykh says, the duty upon scholars and students is to be influential in such events, but without causing tribulation and by not speaking about Allāh without knowledge. Specifically, a person should speak only what is truthful and with care.
The Salaf, through their knowledge and speech emanating from it, had influence in events without being reactionary to those events. And they varied beween little speech, or non-engagement, but each situation is judged and placed accordingly.
Given this, the student of knowledge should stay away from making personal itjtihāds in such great affairs, and if they speak, they should not speak from their own ijtihād and opinion, given that speech is rapidly spread, especially through the Internet, and the student of knowledge must not be hasty, review his speech and ensure he has evidences for what he is to say.
This is the essence of what the Shaykh said.
Notes
01 The above speech of Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh is a response to the Ḥarakiyyīn and Ḥizbiyyīn and relates to political events and occurrences, and tribulations that affect nations, such as war, bloodshed, rebellion, civil strife, and what has engulfed nations of democracy, party politics, and occupations and domination of enemies, and all the various evils these affairs bring to the Muslim ummah and in wnich partisan groups claim to be the rectifiers while portraying the scholars as having little impact.
02 The Ḥarakiyyīn expect the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah to speak in all of these affairs affecting the ummah in the way that they do, based upon their blameworthy politics. However, the scholars only speak with the Sunnah and the legislated politics, and with what actually treats the affairs and rectifies the people (i.e. the foundations of the Sunnah), and although they do that with clear speech grounded in the Book and the Sunnah, it is only Allāh who causes the people (rulers and ruled) to be rectified thereafter.
With this understanding, the Scholars, and Ahl al-Sunnah behind them, do not become reactionary to the events, knowing that the affairs are completely in Allāh’s control, and all they are obligated to do is to clarify and convey the truth, which incorporates clarification of doubts where necessary, as that is what is known from scholars, past and present, throughout tribulations.
03 This is what gives rise to the saying of the Ḥarakiyyīn and Ḥizbiyyīn, that the scholars have little effect in the affairs concerning the ummah, and this is because the scholars are not engaged in the blameworthy politics of the Ḥarakiyyīn and following up and speaking about every event and every occurrence in every nation, every day.
Rather, they only speak with what rectifies from the Sunnah, from adherence to it, and its foundations, especially in matters of rulership, obedience, civil strife and war, which in the eyes of the Ḥarakiyyīn is desertion and of no effect, based upon their deviated methodologies and blameworthy politics that clashes with the Sunnah.
04 As for Imām Aḥmad not speaking much, that is because the Miḥnah had a political dimension, and thousands of scholars were being imprisoned, beaten and killed, and also, there was the danger of people rebelling. Imām Aḥmad clarified the truth nevertheless, with the Sunnah, and he also prohibited rebellion, despite the tribulation being centred around a statement of kufr (hence, the wisdom in little speech), and this was out of concern for the blood of the Muslims.
When he was able to speak, he spoke, and refuted the Jahmiyyah, and warned against them by name, and had them removed from official positions and so on. Some individuals among the Salaf wrote many works against the Jahmiyyah, in refutation of their innovation and their kufr, due to the need for that. As for Imām Mālik, he said a person should not debate the opposers with the Sunnah, rather, he should suffice with conveying it.
So Aḥmad, being in highly influential position due to his standing, spoke cautiously because of the political dimension and danger of rebellion and bloodshed. Others spoke and wrote plentifully because they were able to do that and there was a need for that in affairs of creed, and due the spread of the saying of the Jahmites and due to the confusion by those who adopted it from the Kullābiyyah. And others said do not debate with Innovators in person, but only convey the Sunnah and suffice with that.
05 The Shaykh then explains that in such issues that shaykhs and students should have influence in directing people to the truth but without resorting to their own ijtihāds. Meaning, they should be preceded by scholars regarding these tribulations, based on clear affairs of the Sunnah and also without being reactionary to those events which the Ḥizbiyyīn and Ḥarakiyyīn react to (i.e. war, rebellion, revolution, civil strife, bloodshed, elections, demonstrations, marches and other related types of tribulation affecting the ummah) and which are the fuel for their activities. Most importantly, they should only speak with the truth that is well-grounded.
06 Alḥamdulillāh, this is what the Salafīs have been doing for decades regarding these types of events, following behind the scholars and shaykhs who clarified them with the Sunnah, enjoining the legislated politics, and not preceding them, but conveying their clarifications and refutations in the context of these events, even if that is not to the liking of the Ḥarakiyyīn who think that this speech (rooted in the foundations of the Sunnah), which does not require debate or much wrangling, is least effective, and hence, that these scholars— based on the warped and deviated methodologies of the Ḥizbīs—are least effective in rectifying the ummah.
This is the broad context and meaning of the speech of Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh, and we can give an illustration.
The Fitnah in Algeria
The fitnah in Algeria in the 1990s when civil war broke out for a full decade (1992-2002) following cancelled elections preventing the Islamic Salvation Front from taking power. This led to horrific, sustained violence and wholesale slaughter, with Qaʿdī Khārijites like Abu Qatādah and foreign disbelieving nations complicit in the turmoil involving extreme factions of Khārijites such as the Armed Islamic Group (GIA).
Before this civil war broke out, the leaders of this Islāmic party (ʿAbbāsī Madani and ʿAlī Bel-Ḥādj) would go to scholars such as Shaykh al-Albānī and present a rosy picture of their successful participation in elections. However, Shaykh al-Albānī made a simple, short memorable remark: He described this apparent victory as “froth on the ocean”, meaning it is temporal, illusory and will vanish.
This is because true rectification of hearts and nations does not occur through democratic means and nor through political power alone, and if the groundwork has not been done, then any apparent success is only an illusion and will soon vanish. Shaykh al-Albānī tried to advise the main figureheads, but they did not listen, and his memorable statement incorporates, through a simple similitude, the laws of Allāh in His creation and foundations of the Sunnah.
The Ḥizbīs thought at the time that this is the least effective and most defeatist speech, given the apparent victory. However, in reality, if they had listened and took heed, it would have saved the nation from chaos and the barbarity of mass slaughter that occurred in the decade that followed. Thereafter, it was only for the people of the Sunnah, scholars, shaykhs and students, to suffice with well-grounded speech based on clear evidences, and not to use the Sunnah to debate with people, and nor become reactionary to the events. Rather, to simply convey the plain truth, since what is obligatory is clarifying and conveying the truth, not debating and speaking much, as Ṣaliḥ Āl al-Shaykh mentioned.
Another example that could be given is the speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) regarding the situation in Yemen some years back: “Be with the Saudī coalition.” Its not a lot of speech, but it suffices, because its based on the foundations of the Sunnah, which are incorporated into the advice. Meaning, the Saudi coalition supports a united South Yemen behind its ruler and opposes splitting and secession, as that harms the nation as a whole and serves hostile foreign interests, and hence, any fighting should be behind that ruler, in support of him and his government. Not a lot of speech, but rooted in the Sunnah, and not requiring much debate either. It is not for people to come up with their own personal ijtihāds, but to follow behind the scholars, whose speech is little, but sufficient, while being firmly rooted in the foundations of the Sunnah.
Contextual Use of This Speech
Some people have confused this speech of Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh and its broader context with the scenario of clarifying the foundations of the Sunnah, refuting those who violate them and conveying the speech of scholars and shaykhs who expend efforts, time and resources in writing and speaking about such matters, particularly, matters of rulership, obedience, war, bloodshed, civil strife on the one hand and affairs pertaining to innovators and false principles regarding their criticism and disparagement on the other.
For this reason, the senior scholars such as Shaykh al-Albānī, Shaykh Bin Bāz, Shaykh Ibn al-ʿUthaymīn, Shaykh Muqbil, Shaykh Muḥammad Amān al-Jāmī and likewise, Shaykh Rabīʿ, Shaykh Aḥmad al-Najmī, Shaykh ʿUbayd, Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalī (رحمهم الله) and others had much speech, written and recorded in various tribulations that were centred around the same types of issues.
They did not remain silent for two decades and have very little speech during all the tribulations as they unfolded, but they wrote, refuted and clarified much, according to need, through the foundations of the Sunnah, until the truth and those venerating it and supporting it became distinct from those who opposed it. This is why we have thousands of cassette recordings, hundreds of their published works and likewise thousands of articles in clarification of all of these issues. None of this gives any impression of two decades of silence towards gross violations of foundations of the Sunnah regarding affairs of leadership on the one hand and innovators and deviants on the other..
Shaykh Rabīʿ, for example, wrote dozens of treatises and articles regarding the fitnah of Abū al-Ḥasan al-Maʾribī and Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, and often, he responded to doubts presented on Internet forums by their supporters. This was not reactionism, but responding to prominent people of desires and their followers in a timely manner, so that truth does not become mixed with falsehood and compromised and people are not led to confusion and deviation.
The speech of Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh is regarding tribulations, especially where there are political dimensions and huge implications, wherein scholars may speak briefly and infrequently, sufficing with the Sunnah, and not caring if they are listened to or not, since change and rectification of people and nations lies with Allāh, but they do the duty of enjoining good and prohibiting evil by merely conveying the Sunnah and not debating and wrangling with the opposer, and the shaykhs and students follow behind them, taking cues from their speech and not preceding them with their personal rulings and opinions in these affairs.
The obligation, as per the speech of Imām Mālik cited by Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh, is to clarify and convey the truth.
This is what the Salafīs have been doing, with Allāh’s praise, whether in the Algerian crisis, the fitnah of the Surūriyyah, Quṭbiyyah, the Arab Spring revolutions, the fitnah of the ISIS Khārijites and other tribulations, especially those with political dimensions in which the Ḥarakiyyīn and Ḥizbiyyīn are very active, which is the actual context of the speech of Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh.