Doubt-raising arguments and their corrections concerning the word Salafee

 By: Shaikh Saleem Al-Hilaalee Source: Limadha Akhtartu al-Manhaj As-Salafee (pg. 36-38) Translator: abu maryam for www.al-manhaj.com

The Answer: The word Salafee did not apply to the time of the Messenger SAWS and his Companions because there was no need for it, since the first Muslims were upon the correct form of Islaam. So there wasn’t any need for the word Salafee, since they were naturally upon that (correct) understanding (of Islaam). Similarly, they used to speak the pure form of the Arabic language - free from grammatical mistakes and errors. So the sciences of Nahu, Sarf and Balaagha did not exist until grammatical mistakes appeared. So therefore, when these grammatical errors appeared, the sciences that set guidelines to the language also appeared afterwards.

In the same manner, when there appeared diversions and deviations from the main body of Muslims, the word Salafee began to appear in reaction to those occurrences. And furthermore, the Messenger SAWS gave an indication towards this understanding in the Hadeeth that states that the ummah will divide up into sects, by saying: “(The group that is on) That which I and my Companions are upon.”  

And when the Islamic groups became many and all of them began claiming that they followed the Qur'ân and the Sunnah, the scholars of the ummah took it upon themselves to differentiate it more from the rest. So they called it: Ahlul-Hadeeth and the Salaf. Because of this, the word Salafee is distinguished from all the other Islaamic groups. This is since it attributes itself to something that guarantees for its adherents that they are upon the correct form of Islaam, and that is:

Adhering closely to what the Companions of Allaah’s

Messenger SAWS were upon – the Muhaajiroon, the Ansaar and

those who followed them in goodness. These are the

generations of Muslims that have received testimony and

affirmation of their excellence.

2. It is said: “Why should we attribute ourselves to

the Salaf when Allaah says: “It is He who has named you

Muslims since before.” [Surah Al-Hajj: 78]

We will present to the noble reader a short debate that

occurred between our Shaikh (i.e. AlAlbaanee),

rahimahullaah, and the professor ‘Abdul-Haleem Abu Shaqqah,

author of the book “The woman’s liberation during the time

of the Revelation”:

The Shaikh said: "If it is said to you 'What is your madh-

hab', what will you say?"

He said: I will say: “I am Muslim.”

The Shaikh said: “This is not sufficient.”

He said: “But Allaah has named us Muslims.” And then he

recited the verse: “It is He who has named you Muslims

since before.” [Surah Al-Hajj: 78]

So the Shaikh said: “This is a correct answer – if we were

living during the first generation, before the spreading of

groups. So if we were to ask any Muslim today, from these

groups that we differ with fundamentally in Creed, his

response would not be any different from this word, for all

of them – the Shi’ee, the Raafidee, the Khaarijee, the

Durzee, the Nusairee, the ‘Alawee – would say ‘I am

Muslim.’ So this is not sufficient in these days.”

He said: “So then I will say: ‘I am a Muslim upon the

Qur’aan and the Sunnah.’”

So the Shaikh said: “This is also not sufficient.”

He said: “Why not?”

The Shaikh said: “Do you find any person from the people we

have just used as an example saying: ‘I am a Muslim that is

not upon the Qur’aan and the Sunnah.’ Which person will

say that he is not upon the Qur’aan and the Sunnah?” Then

the Shaikh began to explain to him the importance of this

supplemental phrase, which we have adopted. And it is: The

Qur’aan and the Sunnah with the understanding of the Salaf

As-Saalih (righteous predecessors).

He said: “So then I am a Muslim on the Qur’aan and the

Sunnah with the understanding of the Salaf As-Saalih

(righteous predecessors).”

The Shaikh said: “So if someone were to ask you what is

your madh-hab, you would tell him that?”

He said: “Yes.”

So the Shaikh said: “What do you think if we were to

shorten that linguistically, for the best types of speech

is that which is short but has a lot of meaning? So let us

(just) say: I am a Salafee.”

He said: “I could be polite to you and say yes, but my

belief is the same as before. Because when people hear

that you are a Salafee, the first thing that will come into

their minds are occurrences in which they experienced

harshness from some of the extremists amongst the Salafees.”

The Shaikh said: “Assuming your words were correct, if you

said: ‘I am a Muslim’, will they not think that you are a

Shi’ee or a Raafidee or a Durzee or an Isma’eelee, etc.?”

He said: “Possibly, but I would have followed the noble

verse: ‘It is He who has named you Muslims.’”

So the Shaikh said: “No, my brother! You did not follow

the verse because the verse refers to the correct form of

Islaam. It is necessary that you speak to the people

according to their levels of comprehension…will anyone

understand from you that you are a Muslim according to the

intended meaning of the verse?

And the things that you warned about just now may be

correct or they may not because your

mentioning 'harshness' - this can be found in some

individuals, but not as a methodology of belief and

knowledge. So leave the individuals to the side for we are

talking about the methodology. This is since if we were to

say: 'Shi'ee' or 'Durzee' or 'Khaarijee' or 'Sufi'

or 'Mu'tazilee', these same things that you warned about

(i.e. harshness) would appear from them (also)."

So this is not our discussion. We are looking for a name

that provides an indication of a person's belief, which he

worships Allaah with."

Then the Shaikh said: "Were not all of the Sahaabah

Muslims?"

He said: "Of course."

The Shaikh said: "But in spite of this, there was among

them those who stole and those who fornicated, but this did

not lead any of them to say: 'I am not a Muslim.' Rather,

he was a Muslim - a believer in Allaah and His Messenger

SAWS as a methodology - however he would contradict his

methodology at times, for he was not infallible.

Therefore, may Allaah bless you, we are talking about a

word that indicates our belief, our ideas, and our source

of reference in our life in that which is related to the

affairs of our religion, which we worship Allaah by. And

as for this person being harsh and that person being

lenient, then that is another matter."

Then the Shaikh said: "I want you to contemplate on this

concise word until you no longer persist in (just using)

the word Muslim. And you know well that there doesn't

exist anyone that will understand what you are intending to

say at all, so speak to the people according to their

levels of comprehension. And May Allaah bless you for your

compliance."

This is our Call (The Way of the Salaf)

Speaker: Shaikh Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albaanee

(rahimahullaah)

Source: A cassette with the same title [Hadhihi Da'watunaa:

Side B]

Comments: This week's discussion continues from last week

on the topic of "Following the Way of the Salaf As-Saalih

(Pious Predecessors)." The following article is an edited

translation of what occurs in a lecture given by Shaikh Al-

Albaanee entitled "This is Our Call" produced by Shoor Lil-

Intaaj Al-Islaamee (Side B). The whole tape with edited

translation will be made available in article format on our

site in sha Allaah, and we will also have the (translated)

tape [Arabic/English] available for sale on our site, insha

Allaah. Post your comments at: http://www.al-

manhaj.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000014.html

[Side B]

I will present some examples to clarify this issue - rather

this important point, which is (following) the methodology

of the Salaf As-Saalih. There is a statement reported from

Al-Farooq, 'Umar Ibn Khattaab, radyAllaahu 'anhu, in which

he says: "If the people of innovation and desires debate

you with the Qur'aan, then debate them with the Sunnah…"

What led 'Umar, radyAllaahu 'anhu, to make such a

statement? It was due to Allaah's saying, in which He is

speaking to the Prophet (saws):

"And We revealed the dhikr (reminder, Sunnah) so that you

(O Muhammad) may give an Explanation to the people of what

was (already) revealed to them." [Surah Nahl: 44]

Is a Muslim, who is firmly grounded in Arabic, knowing its

rules and grammar, is this person able to understand the

Qur'aan without using the Way of our Messenger (saws)? The

answer is no. And if this is not so, then Allaah's

saying "so that you (O Muhammad) may give an Explanation to

the people of what was (already) revealed to them" would

have no significance. And Allaah's Speech is void of

having any insignificance in it. Therefore, whoever seeks

to understand the Qur'aan through other than the Way of the

Messenger (saws), he has gone far astray.

Furthermore, is this same person (mentioned above) able to

understand the Qur'aan and the Sunnah through other than

the Way of the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (saws).

The answer is also no. This is since, they (the

Companions) are the ones who transmitted to us, firstly,

the wording of the Qur'aan, which Allaah revealed unto the

heart of Muhammad (saws). And secondly, they transmitted

to us, the Prophet's Explanation (of it), which has been

mentioned in the previously stated ayah, as well his (saws)

application of this Noble Qur'aan.

The Prophet's Explanation (of the Qur'aan) can be divided

into three categories: 1) Speech, 2) Action and 3) (Silent)

Approval. Who are the ones who transmitted his (saws)

speech (?) - his Companions. Who are the ones who

transmitted his (saws) actions (?) - his Companions. Who

are the ones who transmitted his (saws) silent approvals

(?) - his Companions. So because of this, it is not

possible for us to depend solely on our linguistic

capacities for understanding the Qur'aan. Rather, we must

seek assistance in understanding the Qur'aan. But this

does not mean that we have no need for the (Arabic)

language in this matter, no.

This is why we firmly believe that the non-Arabic speaking

people, who have not mastered the Arabic language, fall

into many, many errors. This is especially so, since they

fall into this fundamental error of not returning back to

the Salaf As-Saalih for understanding the Qur'aan and the

Sunnah. I do not mean by the words I stated before that we

cannot rely on the (Arabic) language for explaining the

Qur'aan. How can this be - for if we want to understand

the words of the Arabs, then no doubt we must understand

the Arabic language. Likewise, in order to understand the

Qur'aan and the Sunnah, one must know the Arabic language.

So we say that the Messenger's (saws) Explanation, which

was mentioned in the previous ayah, is divided into three

categories: sayings, actions and silent approvals. We will

present an example, in order to comprehend that this

division is an established fact, which cannot be disputed.

Allaah says:

"And (as for) the male thief and the female thief, cut off

their hands." [Surah Al-Maa'idah: 38]

Look now at how it is not possible for us to explain the

Qur'aan based on the language only. The thief according to

the language is someone who steals property from some

restricted place, regardless of whether this property has

value or not. For example someone steals an egg or a loaf

of bread - this according to the (Arabic) language is

considered a thief. Allaah says: "And (as for) the male

thief and the female thief, cut off their hands." Does

everyone who steals have to have his hand cut off? The

answer is no. Why? It is because the one who is

explaining (i.e. the Prophet), who is in charge of

explaining that thing which is being explained (i.e. the

Qur'aan) has informed us those amongst the thieves whose

hands are to be cut off. The one explaining is the Prophet

and the thing being explained is the Qur'aan. He (saws)

said: "Do not cut off the hand except for (someone who

steals) a quarter of a dinar and what is beyond that." So

anyone that steals something that is less than a quarter of

a dinar, even if according to the language he is called a

thief, he is not considered a thief according to the

religious definition.

So here, we come upon a knowledge-based reality, which many

students of knowledge are unaware of. On one side, we have

an Arabic language, which has been passed down through the

generations. And on the other side, we have a religious

language, that Allaah Himself has termed and defined, which

the Arabs - who spoke the language of the Qur'aan (i.e.

Arabic), which the Qur'aan was revealed in - were not aware

of before. So if the thief is applied according to the

(Arabic) language, it covers all of the thieves. But if

the thief is mentioned according to the religious

terminology, then not all thieves are included, but rather

only those who steal what equals a quarter of a dinar and

beyond that. So this is an actual example - it is not

possible for us to depend solely on our knowledge of the

Arabic language for understanding the Qur'aan and the

Sunnah. This is the mistake that many contemporary writers

have fallen into nowadays. They place their knowledge of

the Arabic language over the Qur'aanic ayaat and the

prophetic ahaadeeth. So they interpret these religious

texts and come up with innovated interpretations, which the

Muslims never heard of in the past.

Due to this, we say, It is an obligation to understand that

the true Call to Islaam is based on three fundamental

principles and foundations, which are the 1) Qur'aan, 2)

the Sunnah and 3) the way and understanding of the Salaf As-

Saalih. Therefore the ayah "And (as for) the male thief

and the female thief" is not to be interpreted according to

the linguistic requirements, but rather according to the

requirements of the religious language, which states: "Do

not cut off the hand except for (someone who steals) a

quarter of a dinar and what is beyond that."

The remainder of the ayah states: "cut off their hands."

What is a hand according to the language? All of this is

considered the hand - from the fingertips to the armpit -

all of this is the hand. So is the hand to be cut from

here or from here or from here? The Messenger of Allaah

(saws) has explained this to us with his actions [i.e. to

be cut off from the wrist joint]. We don't have any

authentic hadeeth - like that one which confirmed which of

the thieves is required to have his hand cut off - we don’t

have any hadeeth that clearly defines the place from where

we are supposed to cut, from the Messenger's Explanation by

speech. Instead, there was revealed his Explanation by

action - his physical application. How do we come to know

of this application (?) from our Salaf As-Saalih - the

Companions of the Prophet (saws). This is the second

category, which is the Explanation by action. The third

category is the approval of Allaah's Messenger for

something, which he didn’t reject or forbid. This approval

is neither speech from him nor an action that came from

him, rather it is an action that came from someone else,

which he (saws) saw and approved of. So if the Messenger

(saws) saw something and remained silent about it,

approving of it, it becomes something approved of and

permissible. But if he saw something and rejected it, even

if this thing was done by some of his Companions, yet it is

authentically established in the texts that he forbade it,

then this forbiddance takes precedence over that which he

approved of. I will give an example for these two things,

based on the ahaadeeth.

'Abdullaah Ibn 'Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, radyAllaahu 'anhumaa,

said: "We used to drink while standing and eat while

walking during the lifetime of the Prophet (saws)."

So in this hadeeth, 'Abdullaah has informed us of two

things: 1) Drinking while standing, and 2) Eating while

walking.

And he stated that these were two things that were done at

the time of the Prophet (saws). So what is the religious

ruling regarding these two matters: drinking while standing

and eating while walking?

If we apply the points we mentioned earlier, we are able to

derive the ruling - of course - with a required addition to

it, which is that someone knows about what the Messenger of

Allaah (saws) has forbidden, through speech, action and

(silent) approval.

So if we refer back to the authentic Sunnah, concerning

what is related to the first matter (drinking while

standing), which many of the Muslims, if not the majority

of them, are being tested with today. And that is opposing

the saying of Allaah's Messenger (saws) by drinking while

standing. They drink while standing, they (i.e. the men)

wear gold and silk. These are facts that no one can deny.

But did the Prophet (saws) agree with all of this? The

answer is that he forbade some of it and he approved some

of it. So whatever he forbade then it falls into the

bounds of evil (munkar) and whatever he approved, then it

falls into the bounds of good (ma'roof). So he forbade

drinking while standing in many ahaadeeth. And I do not

want to go deep in mentioning all of them - so that

firstly, we don’t divert from the time that we have

restricted ourselves to discuss this topic so we can take

questions at the end, and secondly, this issue requires a

special sitting in itself.

But it is sufficient to present one authentic hadeeth,

which has been reported by Imaam Muslim in his Saheeh, from

the report of Anas Ibn Maalik, radyAllaahu 'anhu, who said:

"The Messenger of Allaah (saws) forbade drinking while

standing."

And in another narration [of the hadeeth], he said: "The

Messenger of Allaah (saws) restricted (others) from

drinking while standing."

Therefore, this thing which used to be done during the time

of Allaah's Messenger (saws), as has been testified to in

the report of Ibn 'Umar, was forsaken and restricted. So

that thing which they used to do became forbidden, based on

the Prophet's (saws) forbiddance of it. But the second

part of the hadeeth (of Ibn 'Umar), which states that they

used to eat while walking, we did not receive any report

that the Messenger of Allaah (saws) forbade this. So we

derive from this (silent) approval, a religious ruling. So

up to here, we have come to realize the strong need for

relying on the way of the Salaf As-Saalih for understanding

the Qur'aan and the Sunnah. And that no one can rely on

his own knowledge, if not to say his ignorance, to

understand the Qur'aan and the Sunnah.

After making clear this important condition of "upon the

methodology of the Salaf As-Saalih", I must give you some

examples. In the past, the Muslims split up into many

sects. You hear about the Mu'tazilah, you hear about the

Murji'ah, you hear about the Khawaarij, you hear about the

Zaidiyyah, not to mention the Shi'a and the Raafidah and so

on. There is no one amongst these groups, no matter how

deep in misguidance they are, that does not share the same

saying as the rest of the Muslims, which is that: "We are

on the Qur'aan and the Sunnah."

No one amongst them says: "We don’t follow the Qur'aan and

the Sunnah." And if one of them were to say that, he would

completely leave the fold of Islaam. So then why did they

split up so long as all of them rely on the Qur'aan and the

Sunnah - and I bear witness that they do rely on the

Qur'aan and the Sunnah for support. But how is this

relying done? It is done without relying on the third

foundation, which is what the Salaf As-Saalih were upon.

And there is another additional point that must be noted

here - and it is that the Sunnah differs completely from

the Noble Qur'aan in the sense that the Noble Qur'aan is

preserved between the two covers of the mus-haf, as is well

known to everyone. But as for the Sunnah, then for the

most part, it is spread out in hundreds, if not thousands

of books, amongst which there is a very large portion of

them that remain in the hidden world - the world of non-

printed manuscripts.

Furthermore, even these books from them that are in print

today, there are those ahaadeeth that are authentic and

those that are weak. So those who rely on the Sunnah for

support, whether they are from those who ascribe themselves

to Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah and the methodology of the

Salaf As-Saalih or they are from the other groups - many of

them are not able to distinguish the authentic Sunnah from

the weak Sunnah. So they fall into contradicting and

opposing the Qur’aan and the Sunnah due to their relying on

weak and fabricated ahaadeeth. The point is that some of

these groups that we just mentioned reject literal meanings

stated in the Qur’aan and the prophetic Hadeeth, in the

past and also in present days. [For example] The Noble

Qur’aan affirms and gives the good tidings to the believers

of a very great blessing they will receive in Paradise,

which is that the Lord of the Worlds will reveal Himself to

them and they will see Him. As one Salafee scholar stated:

“The Believers will see Him, (we believe this) without

saying how it will be done or making comparisons to that,

or giving examples of it.”

The textual evidences from the Qur’aan and the Sunnah

indicate this. So how can some of these past and present-

day sects deny this great blessing? As for those groups in

the past that rejected this seeing (of Allaah), then there

was the Mu’tazilah. Today, according to what I know, there

is not found any group on the face of this earth that

says: “We are Mu’tazilah. We are following the beliefs of

the Mu’tazilah.” However, I did see a foolish man who

announced publicly that he was Mu’tazilee. And he rejects

many established facts from the Religion, because he acts

rashly. So these Mu’tazilah reject this great blessing and

they say with their weak intellects: “It is impossible that

Allaah can be seen!” So what did they do? Did they reject

the Qur’aan? Allaah says in the Qur’aan:

“Faces on that Day will be bright, looking at their Lord.”

[Surah Al-Qiyaamah: 22-23

Did they reject this ayah? No, they didn’t reject it nor

did they disbelieve or apostate. Up to today, the true

Ahlus-Sunnah rule that the Mu’tazilah are upon deviance but

they do not take them out of the fold of Islaam. This is

because they do not reject this ayah, but rather they

reject its true meaning, of which its Explanation has been

stated in the Sunnah, if we recall. Allaah says about the

believers who will enter Paradise: "Faces on that Day will

be bright, looking at their Lord." So they changed its

meaning - they believe in the ayah's wording but they

disbelieve in its meaning. And the wording, as the

scholars say, is the mold of the meaning. So if we believe

in the wording but disbelieve in the meaning, then this

belief (Eemaan) neither nourishes nor avails against

hunger. [i.e. is of no benefit]

So why did these people reject this seeing of Allaah?

Their minds are constricted from imagining and

conceptualizing that this slave ('abd), that is created and

limited is able to see Allaah openly, similar to the case

when the Jews requested from Moosaa (to see Allaah), so

Allaah prevented them, as is found in that well known story

[See Surah Al-Baqarah: 55-59, Allaah said to Moosaa]:

"Look upon the mountain, if it stands still, then you

shall see Me." [Surah Al-A'raaf: 143]

Their intellects were narrowed so they felt obliged to play

with the Qur'aanic text and change its meaning. Why (?) -

because their Eemaan (Faith) in the Unseen is weak and

their Faith in their intellect is stronger than their Faith

in the Unseen, which they were commanded to have faith in,

in the beginning of Surah Al-Baqarah:

"Alif Laam Meem. This is the Book in which there is no

doubt - a guidance to the Muttaqeen - (who are they?) -

Those who believe (i.e. have faith) in the Unseen." [Surah

Al-Baqarah: 1-2]

Allaah is Unseen, so whenever our Lord talks about Himself,

we must affirm that it is the truth and we must believe in

it, because our intellects are very limited. The

Mu'tazilah did not acknowledge this point, so that is why

they denied and rejected many of the facts established in

the Religion, such as Allaah's saying:

"Faces on the Day will be bright, looking at their Lord."

[Surah Al-Qiyaamah: 22-23]

This goes the same for the other ayah, which is more

obscure to these people than the first ayah, and it is the

saying of Allaah:

"For those people who do good, they will receive Al-Husnaa

(goodness) and Ziyaadah (an increase to that)." [Surah

Yoonus: 26]

Al-Husnaa (goodness) here refers to Paradise, and the

Ziyaadah (increase) here means, seeing Allaah in the

Hereafter. This is what is stated in a hadeeth reported in

Saheeh Muslim, with an authentic chain of narration from

Sa'ad Ibn Abee Waqqaas, radyAllaahu 'anhu, who said:

Allaah's Messenger (saws) said: "'For those people who do

good, they will receive Al-Husnaa' - (means) Paradise -

'and Ziyaadah' - (means) seeing Allaah."

The Mu'tazilah and also the Shi'ah, who are Mu'tazilah in

their Creed, reject that Allaah will be seen, which is

affirmed in the first ayah and explained by the Messenger

of Allaah in the second ayah. And there are many ahaadeeth

(reaching the level of Mutawaatir) from the Prophet (saws)

about this. So their ta'weel (distorting the true meaning)

of the Qur'aan brought them to reject the authentic

ahaadeeth of Allaah's Messenger (saws). So they left from

the realm of being considered the Saved Sect - "That which

I and my Companions are upon." Allaah's Messenger believed

and had firm faith that the believers would see their Lord,

because it is reported in the two Saheeh collections from

the narration of a large group of Companions, such as Abu

Sa'eed Al-Khudree, Anas Ibn Maalik - and outside of the

Saheeh collections - there was Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq and so

on.

The Prophet (saws) said: "Indeed you will see your Lord on

the Day of Judgement, just as you see the moon on a (clear)

night in which there is a full moon - you have no problem

in seeing it."

What is meant by this, is that you will not have any

problem seeing Allaah just as there is no problem in seeing

the moon on a clear night of in which there is a full moon,

with no clouds. They reject these ahaadeeth based on their

intellects, so they have weak Eemaan (Faith).

This is one example of the things that some sects of the

past fell into, and also some sects of the present, such as

the Khawaarij, believe in this too. From their ranks are

the Ibaadiyyah who nowadays have become active in calling

people to their misguidance. They have articles and

treatises that they are spreading and distributing, by

which they revive the many deviations, which the Khawaarij

were known for (doing) in the past, such as their rejecting

that Allaah will be seen in Paradise.

Now we will present you with a present day example, which

is the Qadiyanis. Maybe you heard of them. These people

say as we say: “I bear witness that there is no god that

has the right to be worshipped except Allaah, and that

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah." They pray the five

daily prayers, they establish the Jumu'ah prayer, they make

Hajj and 'Umrah to Allsaah's sacred house. There is no

difference between us and between them - they are like the

Muslims. However, they differ with us in many aspects of

the Creed, such as their belief that the prophethood did

not end. They believe that prophets will come after

Muhammad and they claim that one of them came already to

Qadiyan, a land in India. So (they say that) anyone that

doesn’t believe in this prophet that came to them, then he

is a disbeliever. How can they say this when the ayah is

clear:

"Muhammad is not the father of any amongst your men, but

(rather he is) the Messenger of Allaah and the seal (last)

of the prophets." [Surah Ahzaab: 40]

How can they say this, when the ahaadeeth have reached the

level of Tawaatur, (stating): "There is no prophet after

me." So they changed the meaning of the Qur'aan and the

Sunnah and they did not interpret the Qur'aan and the

Sunnah as the Salaf As-Saalih interpreted them. So the

Muslims also followed them in that without any disagreement

occurring amongst them, until there came this deviant and

misguided person, named Mirza Ghulaam Ahmad Al-Qadiyani who

claimed to be a prophet. And he has a long story, which is

not the focus of our subject now. So he deceived many

people who don’t have knowledge of these facts, which

preserves the Muslim from deviating, just as these

Qadiyanis deviated with this Dajjaal who claimed

prophethood for himself.

What did they do with Allaah's saying: "But (rather he is)

the Messenger of Allaah and the seal (last) of the

prophets?" They said that it does not mean that there is

no prophet after him, but rather the word khaatam refers to

the Prophet's adornment. So just as the khaatam (seal or

ring) is the adornment of the finger, then likewise,

Muhammad is the adornment of the prophets. So then they

did not disbelieve in the ayah. They did not say that

Allaah didn't reveal this ayah unto the heart of Muhammad.

Rather, they disbelieved in its true meaning. So what good

is having faith in the wording if there is no faith in the

true meaning. If you have no doubt about this fact, then

what is the way of coming to known the meanings of the

Qur'aan and the Sunnah. You already know the way. It is

not for us to rely on our knowledge of the Arabic Language,

nor to interpret the Qur'aan and the Sunnah with our

desires or our traditions, or our blind following or our

madh-habs or our (sufi) orders, but rather, the only way

is - as is commonly said, and I will close my speech with

this:

"And every good is in following those who came before

(Salaf),

while every evil is in the innovating of those who came

after (Khalaf)."

We hope that this serves as a "reminder to the one who has

a heart or lends his ear while being heedful." [Surah Qaaf:

37]