بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Contents

The Salaf and the People of Innovation. 8

Al-JarH wa al-Ta`deel and “Refutation culture”. 17

The narration of “the splitting of the Ummah” [حديث افتراق الأمة] and the “saved sect”. 20

So how do we understand this narration? 24

A not-so-new paradigm for understanding Ahlus-Sunnah vs Ahl-bid`ah. 26

Positions among the Salaf regarding taking knowledge from the people of innovation. 27

Who is really “off” the manhaj? 30

Ibn Taymiyyah as an example of a minority Athari amid a diverse metropolitan Islam.. 33

Was ibn Taymiyah an anomaly? What contemporaries say…… 36

Regarding the differences in Sifaat, Iman and Qadr…… 41

Regarding collaboration in America. 50

Conclusion…… 52

This is the fourth and final installment of a series concerning major points by which western Salafiyyah diverge from mainstream Islam.

In the first article, I wrote about how I came to western Salafism (or Madkhalism), and my slow, inconspicuous, but intentional departure from it in Madeenah when it became clear to me that their ideology was much narrower than Islam.

Secondly, I wrote at length about the subject of Islamic scholarship, and a variety of issues about defining scholars and the work scholars do. I talked about local vs distant scholars, the mistakes of scholars, and the difference between scholars and duaat. I also talked about differences of opinion, and how to understand whether an issue is one of ijtihad.

The second page was specifically about how Salafiyyah became popular via hadeeth scholars, and the problems this created. From their faults in manhaj is that they treat some of their choices in matters of ijtihad as if they were matters of consensus, demarcating Sunnah and bid`ah. They elevate a tiny group of scholars to levels they do not deserve, treating their words as sacred. All while demoting the vast majority of Islamic scholars below their place.

The third and most recent article covers political issues that set Salafis apart from mainstream Muslims, especially the Ikhwanil-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood). I primarily highlight the errors of their blanket condemnation of voting, candidacy, demonstrations, protests and boycotts. Anything remotely political is “ikhwani” and anything ikhwani is “khurooj” and from the 72 sects in their view. The difference of opinion that exists concerning publicly rebuking rulers and revolting against the sinful and oppressive, even if they are still Muslim. Also, the beliefs they have which could potentially make them truly dangerous stateside, as many Madkhalis have done abroad, serving as agents to disappear their enemies for torture and imprisonment.

In this final installment, I discuss their hereticating of other Muslims and applying upon them the classical shunning of the people of innovation. and what it means to be Ahlus-Sunnah.

If I pen others, they will focus on individual topics and not so much on the Salafi stance, but what scholars say in general regarding issues many ultra conservative immigrant Muslims may be overly rigid. I am often asked about interfaith dialogue, pictures, plays and nasheeds, and whether or not women have any place in the masjid(!)

Sometimes I question whether I am wasting my time writing these articles, since it seems that Western Salafiyyah – or rather, Madkhalism – is on the decline. But I remember that this seeming decline could be temporary. And the responses I’ve received from those who’ve reached out to me have all been positive. “Keep going” they tell me. I also remind myself that the need for this was because of the confusion that many Muslims had been confronted with as if they had to embrace another cultish religion within Islam. There is not much in English that gathers their mistakes and gives the issues proper attention in one place. Most critique simply ridicules them, which is not right.

But it is quite amazing how much material is available in Arabic refuting them. Even just on YouTube, if you search “الجامية” or “المدخلية” or “التحذير من ____” or “الرد على ____” and mention any of their names in those blanks, you will find too much. Some of it is akin to name calling which offers little. But others are extremely beneficial.

Many will say I am cherry picking quotes. My response is in three points:

1. Of course I am. I’m not copy/pasting an entire book. If I can, I simply link to the source. In other cases, I paraphrase if I believe the quote is well known or easy to find if someone has decent research skills. I especially paraphrase with audio clips. And as I’ve said previously, this series is partially a rant. I’m standing – no, reclining quite comfortably – on the shoulders of giants.
2. كما تدين تدان As you do, so shall be done to you.
3. These quotes are in their rightful place and carry far more applicability for the situations of Muslims here in America than those that many western Salafi-Madkhalis have been spreading which leads so many of them to apostasy or going to other extremes if they do not find proper guidance.

Before commencing, I’ll mention that “the Salafis” are a group with distinct scholars and distinct “culture” which they call manhaj. They are an offshoot of “Wahhabis” or anyone who views sh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as a legitimate scholar and reformer, whether or not they agree with him on particulars, Allah have mercy upon him.

“Wahhabis” for lack of a better word, mostly follow the Athari aqeedah and Hanbali fiqh. The primary theological distinction of “Wahhabis” is the paganization of invoking righteous dead. This is a staunchly held view common to all of them, including the Madkhalis. But there are many from other fiqh madhabs and a few who are even Maturidi in aqeedah in the Indian subcontinent and others Ashari.

Nearly all “Wahhabis” would refer to themselves as Salafi, but it is not as common among the rest. They do not view it as a religious recommendation or obligation. As for the Madkhalis who treat the words of scholars as sacred, they may refer to a quote of ibn Tamiyyah about ascription to the Salaf, along with a word from al-Albani about the need to ascribe oneself to the Salaf, because those who claim to be “Ahlus-Sunnah” are far too diverse.

The phenomenon of Salafis among the greater “Wahhabi” group is their cultural war against much of the rest of “Wahhabis” over issues of ijtihad – mostly political. They may treat Ali Hasan al-Halabi (rh), for example, and his students as if they were hardly different from Ahmadiyah or NoI. They form their own communities and own masajid.^[1]One thing I always explain to non-Muslims is that Muslims do not consider themselves as “belonging to” or being “members of” any one masjid to the exclusion of others, in the same manner that … Continue reading You do not see this kind of behavior from the students of Abu Ishaq al-Huwainy or Saleem al-Hilali or Husain al-`Awayishah or any of the students of Al-Albani in the West. You do not hear this about western students of Khalid al-Musleh or other students of ibn Uthaymeen or ibn Baz. Even the English-speaking scholars and duaat like Dr Bilal Philips, Muhammad al-Jibaly, Muhammad Syed Adly, and Jalal Abualrub. They do not form mini groups to the paranoid exclusion of each other. But the followers of Sh Rabee al-Madkhali do this and all but refuse to mix with others. The only other “Wahhabis” that behave like this are of jihad and takfeer like Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi and have zero presence in the western hemisphere.

As a former graduate of the Islamic University of Medinah, no current Madkhali-Salafis have reached out to me, despite my scholastic background. I have made efforts from time to time, whether that was in St Louis or in Pittsburgh. But I’m honestly not too bothered because I am far too busy with those who do want assistance.

Since I’ve been in Pittsburgh, I only recall one single Salafi brother (no recollection of where he was from) reaching out to me by e-mail. He quoted some passages of my page bio, and told me to repent from having worked with CAIR and engaging in multifaith work. He finished with the signature Salafi duaa of “may Allah guide you or break your back.”

That is not anomalous behavior but quite common among those who “drink the koolaid”. They view the rest of the Muslim Ummah as enemies, not to be spoken to or interacted with except to make dawah to them, calling them to their cult, and nothing else. They view everyone else, basically, as “people of innovation and desires”. They strictly apply quotes from the Salaf about people of innovation in their interactions with other Muslims, especially people of knowledge. They may be 1 out of every five thousand of the Ummah, yet they view and treat the rest as innovators.

That is the subject of this article.

And I will conclude this introduction by quoting Shaykh Saalih al-Suhaimi (rh), who, upon visiting America, said, “this is a land where the struggle is between faith and disbelief, not orthodoxy and heresy.”

The Salaf and the People of Innovation

Going back a thousand years, many of the great scholars of the Salaf, especially among ahl-hadeeth, had a great care for orthodoxy, as they should. Bid`ah was spreading. Whether it was the bid`ah of qadr, or irja’, or khurooj, or i`tizaal, or tashayyu` and Ismaili esotericists, or any unfounded practices or extremes of the storytellers, worshipers or ascetics. Theological kalaam rhetoric was just beginning with Jahm ibn Safwan and adopted by the Mu`tazilah and then ibn Kullaab. Scholars of hadeeth condemned these innovations and condemned those who spread and beautified them. There were schools of hadeeth in every city. There were schools of fiqh, most famously ra’y and hadeeth. There were two great schools of grammar in Kufah and Basra, until a synthesis created in Baghdad. There were schools in all the traditions that were developing, and Ahl-hadeeth was a minority among them.

And so there is a good strong precedent among the Salaf — ahl-hadeeth at least — for hating the people of innovation. People of innovation, being those who may have modified a belief or practice of Islam – regardless of their intention – and upon correction, then do not submit their desires to agree with the Sunnah, and are therefore also referred to as “people of desires” or ahl-ahwaa’ in Arabic. Or they were ignorant of the Sunnah, and initiated a practice, without realizing that there is something better from the Sunnah.

The Sunnah and Islam are perfectly complete. Like a bucket of water filled to the brim. If you so much as drop a bb into that bucket, a drop of water will fall out. Hence, the Salaf, and scholars of hadeeth who were most knowledgeable about the Prophet’s Sunnah would say that no bid`ah is practiced except that its likeness from the Sunnah is forgotten or displaced. And there is also great reward for reviving forgotten Sunan.

But due to the importance of protecting the orthodox practices, some even claimed that shunning the people of innovation is a matter of consensus in Islam.

Here are some example quotes:

Shu`bah is quoted:

كان سفيان الثوري يبغض أهل الأهواء وينهى عن مجالستهم أشد النهي

Sufyan used to hate the people of desires and strongly prohibit from sitting with them.

And al-Baihaqi said in Manaqib al-Shaafi`ee:

وكان الشافعي – رضي الله عنه – شديداً على أهل الإلحاد وأهل البدع مجاهراً ببغضهم وهجرهم

Al-Shaafi`ee was severe against blasphemers and innovators, public with his hatred and shunning.

And quoted of Imam Ahmad in Tabaqaat al-Hanabilah:

إذا سلّم الرجل على المبتدع فهو يحبه

If a man gives salaam to an innovator, then he loves him.

And from Abdullah ibn al-Mubaarak:

اللهم لا تجعل لصاحب بدعة عندي يداً فيحبه قلبي

“O Allah to not give a possessor of innovation any favor with me so that my heart loves him.”

And Sufyan also said:

(من جالس صاحب بدعة لم يسلم من إحدى ثلاث: إما أن يكون فتنة لغيره وإما أن يقع في قلبه شيء فيزل به فيدخله الله النار وإما أن يقول: والله ما أبالي ما تكلموا وإني واثق بنفسي فمن أمن الله على دينه طرفة عين سلبه إياه).

Whoever sits with a possessor of innovation is not safe from at least one of three things: either he will be a trial for other than him, or something will fall into his heart that will cause it to deviate and Allah will enter him into the Fire; or either he will say by Allah I do not mind what they are saying and I am confident in myself. And whoever feels safe from Allah regarding their religion, even for the blinking of an eye will have it removed from them.

And from FuDail ibn `IyaaD:

من أحب صاحب بدعة أحبط الله عمله وأخرج نور الإسلام من قلبه

Whoever loves a possessor of innovation then Allah has nullified their deeds and removed the light of Islam from their heart.

And likewise from al-`Ukbari in al-Ibaanah:

ولا تشاور أحداً من أهل البدع في دينك، ولا ترافقه في سفرك، وإن أمكنك أن لا تقربه في جوارك.

Never consult a person of innovation in your religion, nor accompany them in travel, and if possible, do not live near them.

ومن السنة مجانبة كل من اعتقد شيئاً مما ذكرناه (أي: من البدع)، وهجرانه، والمقت له، وهجران من والاه، ونصره، وذب عنه، وصاحبه، وإن كان الفاعل لذلك يظهر السنّة

And from the Sunnah is avoiding anyone who believes anything that we mentioned [of innovation], and shunning them, hating them, leaving off those who ally with them and help them, defending them, accompanying them, even if the one doing that exemplifies Sunnah.

And likewise from Abu Zur`ah:

من لم يكن له في كتاب الله عبرة فليس له في هذه الكتب عبرة ، بلغكم أن سفيان ومالكا والأوزاعي صنفوا هذه الكتب في الخطرات والوساوس ؟! ما أسرع الناس إلى البدع !

Whoever is not admonished by the Book of Allah they will not find in these books [of al-Haarith al-Muhaasibi] any lesson. Did it ever reach you that Sufyan, Malik, or al-Awza`ee wrote books of reflections and ideas? How quickly are people to rush into innovations!

Commentary: people should begin with the Book of Allah and tie themselves to it first and foremost. As so many, like ibn Taymiyyah, at the end of their lives said “I regret wasting most of my time outside the meanings of the Quran.” HOWEVER, it takes a great teacher to get people there. Without that, we are prohibited from boring people with the Quran. They have to be gently eased into what is best. Unfortunately, people are so far beyond the Quran that they prefer beautiful philosophical words, pages and pages, or hours of listening, without a single verse being recited.

The people of hadeeth were a tough bunch, well disciplined. As I recall reading in Sufyan’s biography that when one was amazed about the story of the cave, he said “we do not learn these stories for entertainment.”

And al-Baghawi said:

وقال البغوي: (وقد مضت الصحابة والتابعون وأتباعهم وعلماء السنة على هذا مجمعين متفقين على معاداة أهل البدعة ومهاجرتهم).

The Sahabah passed, along with the taabi’een and their followers and the ulema of the Sunnah upon this, agreeing in consensus upon declaring enmity to the people of innovation and shunning them.

And al-Awza`i said, “whoever keeps their innovation secret from us cannot keep their friendships safe from us.”

من كتم علينا بدعتنا لم تُخفَ علينا أُلفتُه

And a similar saying from Imam Ahmad where he asked about a person, and was told good, but when told that the man befriends the Qadariyyah, Imam Ahmad said “then he is a qadari”.

Words like this are in fact helpful for scholars of hadeeth to sort out narrators. If a narrator is known to be Qadari and they narrate a hadeeth about qadar that no one else narrates, then there is reason to suspect that this hadeeth may not be authentic. But even with that, it doesn’t automatically mean rejecting all hadeeth or teachings of those individuals – as the Salaf disagreed over this. It could in fact be that when this narrator learned a hadeeth which seemed to aid a false idea, he then followed that idea.

But the dangers of praising the people of innovations is sometimes illustrated with examples. Abu Dharr al-Harawi is said to be the source of Ash`ariyah for all of the western lands of Islam, the “Maghrib”. He was originally a close friend of the great hadeeth scholar al-DaaraquTnee. One day he saw his shaykh meet the great developer of the Ashari aqeedah Abu Bakr al-Baaqillaani, and praise him for his debates against the Mu`tazilah. Abu Dharr saw this praise and then studied with al-Baqillani, adopted his views and spread them.

The severity against the people of innovation had changed.

From 200 ah until 400 ah, the number of scholars that travelled in search of hadeeth, following their manhaj in every way shrunk significantly, if not entirely. After all, the hadeeth had been published, although it was almost too late, since most fiqh schools had already formed and adapted to suffice with what their teachers knew from the traditions of Allah’s Messenger ﷺ.

Eventually kalaam and taṣawwuf affected the people of hadeeth. This is pronounced with ibn Hibban al-Busti (d. 354 ah). And then Abu Bakr al-Baihaqi (d. 458 ah), the compiler of Al-Sunan al-Kubra, Shu`ab al-Iman and his own Dalaail al-Nubuwah was a well-known follower of Shafi`ee fiqh, and early adopter of Ashari kalam. And then you had muhaddiths like Abu Nu`aim al-Asfahani (d. 430 ah) and Hakeem al-Tirmidhi (d. 320 ah) who are more known among Sufi circles.

It is important to note that this shift all came around the year 300. Of the last compilers who did not succumb to other ideologies were Imam Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn Jareer al-Tabari (d. 310 ah) and Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaimah (d. 311).

Had the narrations of the Prophet ﷺ been compiled just like the Quran was, and along with it, much innovation probably never would have ever taken hold, and would be as shunned today as it was when first pronounced. But this is what Allah decreed, and we weigh all the factors.

But before then, the battle for influence was fierce, and the words that many of the Salaf had for the proponents and followers of different ideas was very unkind. There was an attempt by many to make a clear social demarcation between heresy and orthodoxy. This was in effort to snuff out innovation and discourage its spread, so those less knowledgeable would know to learn from the people of the Sunnah. It was also in attempt to make the carriers of innovations retract. The primary justification offered for the tactics of boycotting one who professes and practices Islam despite preaching an innovation is the Prophet’s boycott of Ka`b ibn Maalik among the three honest ones who offered no excuse for staying behind the expedition to Tabuk.

But ultimately, Islam spread too fast for orthodoxy to continue suppressing innovation and have any effect. Many political, social, and scholastic trends and events played a role in the weakening of orthodoxy and the rise of a more “tossed salad” Islamicate.

Throughout history until present day, whether at the various learning institutions of different persuasions formed in the Muslim world, to political movements and states, intolerance to “the other” has been applied at varying degrees to protect the unity of the message of its overseers. Stories abound of scholars from ahl-Hadeeth, such as Abdul-Ghani al-Maqdisi, to ibn Taymiyyah and scripturalists like ibn Abil-`Izz al-Hanafi, and the difficulties they encountered trying to preach what they believed and held onto firmly amid intolerant atmospheres, whether a city or school.

Returning to present day, or the past century, MiAW inspired reform, and al-Albani inspired hadeeth revivalism, the old tactics used to suppress innovation were dusted off once again.

And then, as hinted at in my second and third articles, those tactics were greatly misapplied against people who are from Ahlus-Sunnah, but merely follow different ijtihads.

And that leads to what we know…

The movement possesses a trait of the khawaarij as they may treat non-Muslims with respect or politeness to endear their hearts towards Islam—which is commendable in America—but neglecting that same treatment to other Muslims, not excusing them for ignorance or decades of cultural conditioning and taqleed. All this has left mainstream Muslims with negative opinions towards ultra or super Salafis as they are sometimes called, along with their scholars and learning institutions.

You find them almost limiting Muslims to Salafis. I’ve heard them make the same accusations of Sufis, ironically. But I remember being with some students of knowledge in Medinah when one of them received a phone call. Someone on the other line was asking about what they could do for those impacted by floods in Pakistan. The brother said to pray for Ahlus-Sunnah among them. And part of me vaguely recalls feeling the same way much earlier in my Salafi experimentations.

I remember reading about sh Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini speaking with someone who justified blowing up a nightclub. Abu Ishaq asked the man, “did the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ call people to Paradise or to Fire?” The man said to Paradise. Abu Ishaq then asked, “when you kill them while they are engaged in sin, do you think they are more likely to go to Paradise or the Fire?” The man said the Fire. And so the shaykh said, “you are in one valley and Allah’s Messenger ﷺ is in another valley.”

Praying for Ahlus-Sunnah alone? With their narrowing of what that means?

When the greatest scholars of Islam talk about Islam and the Muslims, they talk about Islam and the Muslims. They usually only talk about “salafiyyah” when among students of knowledge in the most exclusive of gatherings.

And like scientology, those who are excommunicated from Salafiyyah are almost never allowed back in. But usually by that time, they either realize it’s a cult, or they essentially found their own splinter group and go their own way.

And as their group shrinks and you question them, they will quote another word from the Salaf:

الجماعة ما وافق الحق ولو كنت وحدك

“The jamaa`ah is what agrees with the Truth, even if you are alone.”

That is an example of a quote that can easily be misused by anyone to justify their deviations, and it is not a word from the Prophet ﷺ. Rather, instead, from that same speaker Abdullah ibn Mas`ood , “differing is evil.” And also from him ironically, “what the Muslims see as good, is good with Allah.” But when I think of the first quote, I think of Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and the decision to fight those who refused to pay zakaat, until persuading the rest to the truth. But if the rest have strong hujjah against one and the one is creating division, then that may be a sign of deviation as is evident from the pattern of Dr Rabee` al-Madkhali and his followers.

Al-JarH wa al-Ta`deel and “Refutation culture”

A sign that you’re in the wrong: when you get a firqah named after you, that may be an indicator—not necessarily. But when dozens of scholars all around the world take time to refute one scholar – because it is primarily one single aalim, then this is another very strong indicator. However, in this case, that aalim’s group has become more of an annoyance because of how insignificant they have become, except for a few pockets. Almost reminiscent of the Nation of Islam.

The first scholar who started the refutation movement was an Ethiopian hadeeth professor of Madinah, sh Muhammad Amān al-Jāmī (d. 1996) rh. In fact, most of the Arab world actually refers to this group as the Jāmiyyah because of him. It is only in the west where they are more often referred to as the Madkhalis.

Rabee` al-Madkhali was a student of Sh Muhammad al-Jaami. He eclipsed his teacher in renown after the latter passed away and Sh Rabee` penned refutations of author Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966) and sh Abdul-Rahman Abd al-Khaaliq (d. 2020). A far more renowned and recognized scholar, Shaykh Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (d. 1999) dubbed sh Rabee the “carrier of the banner of disparagement and criticism for our times.” A statement that has gone on to have far reaching consequences. Other scholars compared Sh Rabee to Yahya ibn Ma`een, a famous muhaddith and narrator of the Salaf known for severity. Indeed, others went so far as to say that whoever loves sh Rabee is a person of Sunnah, and whoever dislikes him is a person of innovation and desires. And as mentioned before, some even postulated that he is to be trusted, and basically infallible, when criticizing people.

لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله

I do not want to speak much about Sh Rabee` himself. When I think of the shaykh personally, I just want to cry, and I ask Allah to forgive him his mistakes. But I remember watching an informal discussion among scholars in Medinah, where many said that Sh Rabee bases a lot of his disparagement of others on liars and unknowns. And other scholars have gone on to refute Dr Rabee`, general and specific, exposing his ignorances even in matters of hadeeth.

Others describe chain tabdee` based on visitations and presences, based on words from the Salaf. And it essentially leads to hereticating a Sunni who sat with a Sunni who sat with a Sunni who differed in an issue of political or collaborative ijtihad.

But what is al-jarh wa al-ta`deel? Dispraise and evaluation of hadeeth narrators of the past. And this is no longer a living tradition. Rather it ended once the last narrations made it into the books. And so it is more like, in terms of contemporary application, the study of Roman-Greco art critique – not studying the art itself, but studying the critique of the art. When this became clear, they stopped saying the duaat are majrooh, but instead called their refutations “naseeha” advising the person, and indirectly advising the common Muslims against the [holders of] deviant ideas.

What’s amazing is that they will scream until blue in the face, about advising rulers privately but when it comes to fellow scholars, duaat, students of knowledge, there is little hesitancy. Do they stop to think whether this will help or hurt the Ummah. They claim to advise them privately before publishing their “naseehah” in a harshly worded nitpicking PDF that leaves no contradiction, big or small, with any quote ever uttered by any of the salaf or any of their handful of contemporary scholars. They dismiss the generality of the message or precedents that the message follows and instead really just seem to attempt to claim “no one knows scholarship except us, and in fact, we don’t even know it, but just learn Arabic and translate. That’s the only salvation.” They cannot give fatwa but they can refute. It’s all they’ve ever learned to write. [ذلك مبلغهم من العلم]

Why is it that they gather a different interpretation of al-jarh wa ta`deel and guilt by association than other scholars? The books of al-jarh wal-ta`deel do not describe in any way shape or form the isolationist communities that Salafi duaats and imams have created in the West, as their interpretation of what the scholars actually intend. I remember reading a book about al-jarh wa al-ta`deel from cover to cover. There was zero instruction in this regard! The big benefits of that science is understanding the words that each great muhaddith of the past used to evaluate narrators, along with the methodologies of the books that gather biographical data and evaluations of those narrators. There is not even instruction on how to evaluate narrators oneself, because there are no narrators anymore.

The narration of “the splitting of the Ummah” [حديث افتراق الأمة] and the “saved sect”

Often, when Salafis refer to someone from outside of themselves, they may say that they are “from the 72 sects.” This comes from the famous narration of the Prophet ﷺ recorded by Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi and ibn Maajah. All those imams recorded one version of the hadeeth, from Abu Hurairah, which merely describes division of the Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Were it just this, then it would simply describe that each religion is a kaleidoscope of flavors, each with the same goal, but with different emphases on how to achieve it. The differences between each would be rendered inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. It would be like the famous split between two churches in Chicago of the “church of Adam with the navel” and “church of Adam without the navel” when a congregation divided over whether or not Adam had a belly button! Or like the difference between those who use calculations to determine the start of the month versus those who sight the moon with the naked eye. At least 28 days and nights they will be united – including the rest of the year.

But there are a couple other versions that ibn Maajah (via Anas ibn Malik) also recorded (via Awf ibn Malik) that says “one in Paradise and the rest are in the Fire”. Obviously, this difference is very significant. The Prophet ﷺ then says that the one in Paradise is the jamaa`ah. Another version from al-Tirmidhi, via Abdullah ibn `Amr instead describes the one sect as “what I and my companions are upon”.

Other versions recorded by other imams of the past (outside of the 6 books), instead of “the jama`ah” might have al-sawaad al-a`zam (the greatest mass/crowd).

References and claims to al-firqatun-nājiah (the saved sect) stem from this famous hadeeth.

There have been attempts to weaken and claim that this ominous addendum is muḍṭarib or mudraj. Personally, I am not too persuaded by their arguments, given how many paths they contain, narrated by different companions, and gathered by different collectors, even though each of those paths contain some discrepancy or weakness. It seems to me, just as most of the greatest scholars of the past throughout history have validated this hadeeth with its addition, that the addition has a Prophetic origin that must not be discounted. Sure, there is even one version that says “all are in Paradise except one”, naming the “zanadiqah, qadariyah” but that is one single version. It has obvious bizarreness and more right to be considered fabricated. Allah knows best. But the rest seem to be pretty consistent in meaning.

Both claims of iḍṭirāb and idrāj are incredibly weak. Iḍṭirāb is usually only evoked – theoretically speaking – when there is no reconciliation, and that’s the meaning of it.^[2]every time people want to dismiss a hadeeth of the Prophet ﷺ from the Ṣaḥīḥain especially, they usually claim it is mudtarib, just because the Prophet ﷺ said the same thing multiple … Continue reading But we know the Prophet ﷺ repeated things often. And it is very possible that he gave the same words multiple times, and of course the companions would enquire who. Whether his answer was slightly different each time, or different companions preserved different words from that answer are all possible. “The united group, the largest mass, [that shall forever represent] what I and my companions are upon.” As for idraaj, while one could claim that about “all are in the Fire except one” that claim is suddenly cancelled out by the companions’ question “who are they O Messenger!” and his response.

As much as I might love that we celebrate Islam as one kaleidoscope, we cannot ignore that the Prophet ﷺ warned against bid`ah in his opening sermons quite often.

And there are other entirely different narrations with identical indication, even if they are also not spared from critique, such as:

وَيَدُ اللَّهِ مَعَ الْجَمَاعَةِ وَمَنْ شَذَّ شَذَّ إِلَى النَّارِ

The Hand of Allah is with the jama`ah, and whoever deviates, deviates to the Fire.

The famous narration of `Irbāḍ in al-Nawawi’s Forty, recorded by ibn Maajah and Abu Dawud, commanding to follow the Prophet’s Sunnah, and that of the righteous predecessors after him, especially at times of differing. Along with the incontestable narration of Hudhaifah describing “callers at the gates of Hell” with the command to “avoid those sects” even though they speak the same language. Likewise, the narration of ibn Mas`ood, recorded by Ahmad and al-Darimi, where the Prophet ﷺ drew a straight line, and then drew several other lines, saying the others each had a devil calling to them (and the devil only calls to the Fire), and one path is Allah’s Path.

And so, even if the Prophet ﷺ said “all are in the Fire except one” it can be correctly understood. Even if a companion or taabi`ee spoke those words instead as tafseer – which would be quite the coincidence given the paths – they would have done so based on sound extraction.

So how do we understand this narration?

I do not find this hadeeth problematic. It is important to understand several terms in these narrations.

Some scholars have explained “my ummah” as the Ummah of da`wah, referring to all groups on earth, from the Prophet’s time till the present. They could justify this by saying that with each new religion, one is added to the number, and the remaining 70 refer to all other groups on earth that are outside the fold of Islam. However, historically, scholars understood these sects to be among those who ascribe or have split off from Islam. And that is what the language supports, especially when referring to the Jews and the Christians.

But that interpretation would also go well with some of the other narrations, even the one of Huzaifah , since the Prophet ﷺ did not specify “within Islam” or “claimed Muslims”. But this could include Arab secularists and nationalists and false prophets of different types and stripes from history to the present day – and there have been lots.

Opening the door to this interpretation also makes us wonder about the historic shunning by Imam Ahmad of Haarith al-Muhaasibi (d. 243) for example. The Salaf and scholars of hadeeth were most knowledgeable of the Sunnah and most jealous in effort to protect it. But was their protection of it due to innovations that would actually lead its practitioners to the Fire – like how the khawarij are the dogs of the Fire? Or were many of the innovations, like when ibn Masood found and rebuked a group who counted dhikr with rocks, inevitably less than that, and they shunned them harshly to protect the original practices, even if the innovated practices are not in of themselves sinful?

As for describing the other sects in the Fire, then without doubt,

• it cannot mean forever for many of them. As there are too many narrations testifying that eventually everyone who spoke the shahādah or had any iman will be removed from the Fire.
• And it cannot mean there is no chance for Paradise if one is not a member of the Saved Sect.
• Nor does it mean that everyone from the Saved Sect is automatically saved from the Fire as Allah will definitely act on some of His threats against sinners by His justice, even though al-Kareem will pardon some by His Mercy, may Allah accept us.

But it is, without doubt, a grave and terrible threat to anyone who deviates from the simple beliefs of the companions, or adopts and teaches a deviated behavior or innovated worship or foreign methodology among the Muslims and picks and chooses from the Prophet’s traditions based on desires.

The jamaa`ah is explained by other versions of the narration, revering and committing to the Prophet’s Sunnah, in general, and staying with the main Muslim body. This is further validated by some of the defining characteristics of the khawarij who physically departed from the mainstream Muslims during Ali’s time and since. Likewise, being patient with the people, and not isolating oneself. There are of course some narrations that praise isolation, but considering the others, it would seem that these refer to times of great tribulation, war, or even a complete social reversal of right and wrong. Of course, there is a case to argue that the latter has taken place, but there is a stronger argument to say that the Muslim communities in general still have lots of good in them, and are worth fighting for, as I am doing.

As for the beliefs and methodologies of the Saved Sect, or rather, Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah, that will come next.