"enjoining good and forbidding evil is obligatory when there is the ability to do so, according to ʾImām ʾAḥmad. However, it is often mistakenly attributed to him that he was overly harsh in condemning evils, which—
is incorrect.
Muhannā said: "I asked ʾImām ʾAḥmad about commanding good and forbidding evil—how should one do it?"
He replied: "One commands with gentleness and humility."
He continued: "If they respond with something offensive, he should not become angry, as if seeking to—
avenge himself."
ʾImām ʾAḥmad also said: "People need gentleness and courtesy in commanding good without harshness, except for someone who is brazen and openly indulges in wickedness; in such a case, it is obligatory to condemn him and inform him of his wrongdoing."
He added: "It is said that the openly sinful has no sanctity—such a person has no honor."
Thus, ʾImām ʾAḥmad explicitly disliked searching or investigating suspicious matters. He held that one should only condemn what is publicly known and agreed upon as forbidden.
The Ḥanbalī scholars frequently condemned evils and corrupt practices. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī mentioned in the biography of as͟h-S͟harīf ʾAbū Ja‘far al-‘Abbāsī, the S͟hayk͟h of the Ḥanbalīs:
"In the year 464 AH, as͟h-S͟harīf ʾAbū Ja‘far, along with the Ḥanbalīs,—
gathered in the Jāmi‘ al-Qaṣr mosque. They brought with them ʾAbū ʾIsḥāq as͟h-S͟hīrāzī and his S͟hāfi‘ī companions and petitioned the state to eliminate brothels, pursue wrongdoers and troublemakers, and stop those selling wine. They also requested the minting of proper coins—
to replace the clipped ones in circulation. The Caliph complied, leading to the closure of brothels, the raiding of houses, and the spilling of wine…"
This illustrates how the Ḥanbalī scholars stood against societal corruption.
It is commendable for Muslim countries to—
establish a Hay’at al-ʾAmr bil-Ma‘rūf wa al-Nahy ‘an al-Munkar (Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice), such as the one in the Biḷād al-Ḥaramayn (the lands of the Two Holy Mosques). However, this should focus on matters agreed upon as evil—such as—
brothels, alcohol, and blasphemy—not on minor or debatable issues like a woman uncovering her face or a man not growing his beard."
Footnotes.
1) Among the phrases commonly circulated among the general public is their saying to someone who is overly strict: “Don’t act like a Ḥanbalī” (Lā Ta‘maḷ Fīhā Ḥanbalī). Our S͟hayk͟h, Muṣṭafā al-Bug͟hā (Ḥafiẓahuḷḷāh) has said that this expression is incorrect—
because the mad͟hhab of ʾImām ʾAḥmad is among the broadest and easiest of the four schools.
2) [...] Most of the disturbances mentioned by Ibn al-ʾAt͟hīr in al-Kāmiḷ regarding the Ḥanābilah were due to their condemnation of evils and corruption.
Those who read with fairness and objectivity will recognize this.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Takfīr According to the Salaf al-Ṣāliḥ – By S͟hayk͟h Dr. Muḥammad al-Sayyid al-Ḥanbalī al-ʾAzharī
""Now, there is a straightforward principle: ‘No takfīr (declaring someone a disbeliever) while a possibility exists.’"
In the matter you are discussing about a specific—
individual, if there is even a possibility—this is similar to the legal principle that doubt is interpreted in favor of the accused. If there is a possibility, even if it is one in a thousand, it clears the person and saves them, because takfīr cannot occur in the presence of—
any doubt.
Some people may find this difficult, perhaps because some individuals—due to psychological tendencies, which honestly have nothing to do with religiosity—feel inclined to recklessly throw accusations. They hasten to label others as innovators, sinners, or—
ʾImām ʾAḥmad’s Moderate Approach Toward Ṣūfism and Ṣūfis.
Sh Muṣṭafā Ḥamdū ʿUḷayyān al-Ḥanbalī:
"We said earlier that al-ʾImām ʾAḥmad maintained a middle ground between Ṣūfism and those who exhibit spiritual emptiness and rigidity. His statements are balanced and—
measured—praising what is good in Ṣūfism while rejecting what is bad, innovative, or excessive.
The ʾImāms of the Ḥanbalī school, including scholars such as al-ʿAllāmah Ibn Mufliḥ, al-ʿAllāmah al-Buhūtī, and al-ʿAllāmah al-Saffārīnī, narrated from ʾIbrāhīm ibn ʿAbdullāh—
al-Qalānsī who said: "It was said to al-ʾImām ʾAḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: 'The Ṣūfis sit in the mosques without any knowledge, relying only on tawakkul (trust in Allah).'
He replied: 'The knowledge they possess has caused them to sit there.'
"Then he [i.e., Ibn Taymiyyah] made a statement regarding ʿĪsā (Jesus) and denied the legitimacy of seeking ʾistig͟hāt͟hah and tawassul through the Prophet ﷺ. Consequently, he was imprisoned in Alexandria, following a previous imprisonment after a hearing—
I attended at the S͟harī‘ah Court in the Ḥārat al-Dīlam district in Cairo.
When he denied seeking ʾistig͟hāt͟hah through the Prophet ﷺ, he was sent to Alexandria and detained there until the Sulṭān returned from al-Karak. Through the intercession of some Arab tribes, he was—
released in the year 710 AH. He remained in Cairo until the year 712 AH.
ʿIzz al-Dīn al-Nimrawī informed me that during this time, he issued a fatwā to Sallar (a prominent figure) permitting the killing of the marāziqah of Ḥawf—who were poor individuals associated with ʿUt͟hmān
"Seeing righteous individuals such as Al-K͟hiḍr is considered one of the miracles (karāmāt). Scholars have differed on whether Al-K͟hiḍr is alive or has passed away, with two well-known opinions. Many scholars—
have stated that he is alive, as asserted by al-ʾImām al-Nawawī.
ʾImām al-Nawawī mentioned in Tahd͟hīb al-ʾAsmāʾ wa al-Lug͟hāt:
“Scholars have differed regarding Al-K͟hiḍr's life and his prophethood. The majority of scholars maintain that he is alive and present among us.
This is a well-known and agreed-upon position among Ṣūfis and righteous individuals.”
Al-Qurṭubī wrote in his Tafsīr:
“After narrating the opinion that he is not alive, the correct opinion is the second, that he is alive, as we will explain.”
"It has also been reported from him (ʾImām ʾAḥmad) that he engaged in detailed interpretation (ta’wīl), which is abundant and not exclusive to the narration of Ḥanbal alone. The—
esteemed scholar Ibn Ḥamdān—who reached the pinnacle of expertise in the principles and branches of the Ḥanbalī school—stated: “ʾImām ʾAḥmad interpreted certain verses and ḥadīt͟hs, such as the verse on secret counsel (najwā): ‘An ya’tiyahumu Allāh’ (Sūrat Al-Baqarah: 210)—
—He said this refers to His power and command— and the verse: ‘Wa jā’a Rabbuka’ (Sūrat Al-Fajar: 22)
—He said this means His power.
Both interpretations were mentioned by Ibn al-Jawzī in Al-Minhāj, and he preferred to leave these verses as they are, without further explanation.