Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī said in his treatise The Superiority of the Knowledge of the Salaf over the Knowledge of the Khalaf:
My comment:
Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī is among the best of the later scholars in fiqh, and one of the most powerful in admonition and ḥadīth explanation. His aforementioned treatise is incredibly precious. However, his words here contain a number of issues that have unfortunately been exploited by groups of falsehood.
First Issue:
His claim that Makkī ibn Ibrāhīm considered it permissible to kill Muqātil ibn Sulaymān because he refuted the Jahmiyyah using rational arguments is an inaccurate claim—actually, a grotesque fabrication. I do not understand how it passed by an imām like Ibn Rajab.
Makkī, the teacher of al-Bukhārī, was only 14 years old when Muqātil died. How could he declare his blood lawful when Muqātil was already dead? Makkī wouldn’t have been issuing fatwās at age 14 to begin with! Moreover, no major scholar who lived at that time ever issued a fatwā permitting Muqātil's execution. You will not find this report mentioned anywhere except in Ibn Rajab’s treatise—and Allāh knows best where he got it from.
Second Issue:
He includes Nūḥ ibn Abī Maryam as a follower of Muqātil and generalizes this to include a group of ḥadīth scholars, old and recent thus subjecting them all to his intended criticism.
Yet in reality, although most people agree that Nūḥ was a liar, they praised his refutation of the Jahmiyyah, and they praised his student Nuʿīm bin Ḥammād unanimously.
Aḥmad’s son ʿAbdullāh said:
Here, Imām Aḥmad explicitly mentions their refutation of the Jahmiyyah and does not criticize it. Al-Bukhārī praised his teacher Naʿīm in issues of belief. Al-Dāraqutnī described him as an imām in Sunnah. Al-Nasāʾī praised him in both knowledge and creed. Ibn ʿAdī said: "He was firm in the Sunnah."
All of this places Ibn Rajab’s words in question. In fact, Ibn Abī Ḥātim quoting Ibn Ḥajar used Naʿīm ibn Ḥammād’s arguments against the Jahmiyyah, even though some people today reject these types of arguments.
In Fatḥ al-Bārī, Ibn Ḥajar quotes:
Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in his book al-Radd ʿala al-Jahmiyyah:
I found in the book of Abū ʿUmar Naʿīm ibn Ḥammād that it is said to the Jahmiyyah:
“Tell us about Allāh’s statement, after all creatures perish: ‘To whom belongs the dominion today?’ None will respond, so He answers Himself: ‘To Allāh, the One, the Irresistible.’ This is after the speech of creation ceases by their death—so is this [divine statement] created?”
He also said: “The Jahmiyyah said: ‘The names of Allāh are created, since the name is not the same as the named. Allāh existed without these names, then created them, and then named Himself with them.’
"Whoever attempts to establish these [attributes] through rational proofs not reported in the texts, and refutes the opponents using their own arguments, follows the approach of Muqātil ibn Sulaymān and those who followed him, like Nūḥ ibn Abī Maryam. A group of ḥadīth scholars, early and later, followed this path. This is also the path of the Karrāmiyyah, some of whom affirmed a body [for Allāh] either in wording or in meaning. Some among them affirmed attributes for Allāh that are not found in the Book or the Sunnah, such as movement and other things which they considered as necessitated by the affirmed attributes.
The Salaf criticized Muqātil for using rational arguments to refute Jahm, and they were excessive in disparaging him. Some of them even considered it permissible to kill him, among them was Makkī ibn Ibrāhīm, the teacher of al-Bukhārī and others."
My comment:
Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī is among the best of the later scholars in fiqh, and one of the most powerful in admonition and ḥadīth explanation. His aforementioned treatise is incredibly precious. However, his words here contain a number of issues that have unfortunately been exploited by groups of falsehood.
First Issue:
His claim that Makkī ibn Ibrāhīm considered it permissible to kill Muqātil ibn Sulaymān because he refuted the Jahmiyyah using rational arguments is an inaccurate claim—actually, a grotesque fabrication. I do not understand how it passed by an imām like Ibn Rajab.
Makkī, the teacher of al-Bukhārī, was only 14 years old when Muqātil died. How could he declare his blood lawful when Muqātil was already dead? Makkī wouldn’t have been issuing fatwās at age 14 to begin with! Moreover, no major scholar who lived at that time ever issued a fatwā permitting Muqātil's execution. You will not find this report mentioned anywhere except in Ibn Rajab’s treatise—and Allāh knows best where he got it from.
Second Issue:
He includes Nūḥ ibn Abī Maryam as a follower of Muqātil and generalizes this to include a group of ḥadīth scholars, old and recent thus subjecting them all to his intended criticism.
Yet in reality, although most people agree that Nūḥ was a liar, they praised his refutation of the Jahmiyyah, and they praised his student Nuʿīm bin Ḥammād unanimously.
Aḥmad’s son ʿAbdullāh said:
“I heard my father say: Abū ʿAṣim used to narrate strange (munkar) ḥadīths. He wasn’t strong in ḥadīth. But Abū ʿAṣim was extremely tough on the Jahmiyyah and refuting them, and from him Naʿīm ibn Ḥammād learned the refutation of the Jahmiyyah.” (ʿIlal, Aḥmad)
Here, Imām Aḥmad explicitly mentions their refutation of the Jahmiyyah and does not criticize it. Al-Bukhārī praised his teacher Naʿīm in issues of belief. Al-Dāraqutnī described him as an imām in Sunnah. Al-Nasāʾī praised him in both knowledge and creed. Ibn ʿAdī said: "He was firm in the Sunnah."
All of this places Ibn Rajab’s words in question. In fact, Ibn Abī Ḥātim quoting Ibn Ḥajar used Naʿīm ibn Ḥammād’s arguments against the Jahmiyyah, even though some people today reject these types of arguments.
In Fatḥ al-Bārī, Ibn Ḥajar quotes:
Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in his book al-Radd ʿala al-Jahmiyyah:
I found in the book of Abū ʿUmar Naʿīm ibn Ḥammād that it is said to the Jahmiyyah:
“Tell us about Allāh’s statement, after all creatures perish: ‘To whom belongs the dominion today?’ None will respond, so He answers Himself: ‘To Allāh, the One, the Irresistible.’ This is after the speech of creation ceases by their death—so is this [divine statement] created?”
He also said: “The Jahmiyyah said: ‘The names of Allāh are created, since the name is not the same as the named. Allāh existed without these names, then created them, and then named Himself with them.’
We said to them: ‘Allāh said: ‘Glorify the name of your Lord Most High’ and ‘That is your Lord, so worship Him.’ He informed that He is to be worshipped and referred to by His names. Whoever claims that Allāh’s names are created has claimed that Allāh commanded His Prophet to glorify a created thing.”
Third Issue:
Ibn Rajab said:
This statement is entirely unsupported by the Salaf. There is no record of any sect called "Mujassimah" (corporealists) among them, nor of any group affirming such a creed. Accusing others by implication (“in meaning”) is exactly what the Jahmiyyah used to do.
They would say, “So-and-so is a mushabbih (anthropomorphist).”
If you responded, “He doesn’t say anything of the sort; he only affirms what’s in the texts,” they would say, “The apparent meanings of the texts are tashbīh, and all bodies are similar—so he’s a mushabbih whether he admits it or not.”
—These are false premises.
It is strange that while urging people to follow the Salaf, one ends up using the arguments of the Jahmiyyah. This whole debate about whether tajsīm (corporeality) is impossible is pure philosophy. According to the Jahmiyyah, even the attributes affirmed by the Ashʿarīs amount to tajsīm based on such reasoning!
Ibn Rajab affirms the divine attributes and criticizes figurative interpretation (taʾwīl), but, like al-Dhahabī, he didn’t possess the clarity of exposition found in Ibn Taymiyyah—so they sometimes fall into such slips. Though I personally prefer Ibn Rajab’s fiqh over Shaykh al-Islām’s when it comes to weighing between opinions, in reasoning and evidence-based argumentation, Ibn Taymiyyah is unrivaled.
Fourth Issue:
He mentions the issue of “movement” (ḥaraka), which is found in the speech of Ḥarb al-Kirmānī and attributed to Imām Aḥmad, as well as in the works of al-Dārimī.
This may appear problematic because it seems to affirm something not found explicitly in the Qurʾān or Sunnah. But my take is that what they meant by “ḥaraka” is merely the category of volitional actions (ṣifāt fiʿliyyah). The Jahmiyyah, all of them, reject these types of attributes.
Statements like: “Allāh is apart from His creation” or “Allāh is not created” were only intended to affirm meanings already found in the revealed texts and to defend them. Likewise, “ḥaraka” was sometimes used in this context. Some scholars objected to using this specific term, but they did not accuse the opposing side of anthropomorphism or corporealism. The texts mention coming, descending, and rising (istiwa) — all of which involve movement in meaning.
So it is outright contradictory to accuse someone of tajsīm for using the term “ḥaraka,” while affirming the Qurʾānic terms that imply the same thing.
Ibn Taymiyyah said in Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa al-Naql:
Third Issue:
Ibn Rajab said:
“Some of them affirmed for Allāh a body, either in wording or in meaning.”
This statement is entirely unsupported by the Salaf. There is no record of any sect called "Mujassimah" (corporealists) among them, nor of any group affirming such a creed. Accusing others by implication (“in meaning”) is exactly what the Jahmiyyah used to do.
They would say, “So-and-so is a mushabbih (anthropomorphist).”
If you responded, “He doesn’t say anything of the sort; he only affirms what’s in the texts,” they would say, “The apparent meanings of the texts are tashbīh, and all bodies are similar—so he’s a mushabbih whether he admits it or not.”
—These are false premises.
It is strange that while urging people to follow the Salaf, one ends up using the arguments of the Jahmiyyah. This whole debate about whether tajsīm (corporeality) is impossible is pure philosophy. According to the Jahmiyyah, even the attributes affirmed by the Ashʿarīs amount to tajsīm based on such reasoning!
Ibn Rajab affirms the divine attributes and criticizes figurative interpretation (taʾwīl), but, like al-Dhahabī, he didn’t possess the clarity of exposition found in Ibn Taymiyyah—so they sometimes fall into such slips. Though I personally prefer Ibn Rajab’s fiqh over Shaykh al-Islām’s when it comes to weighing between opinions, in reasoning and evidence-based argumentation, Ibn Taymiyyah is unrivaled.
Fourth Issue:
He mentions the issue of “movement” (ḥaraka), which is found in the speech of Ḥarb al-Kirmānī and attributed to Imām Aḥmad, as well as in the works of al-Dārimī.
This may appear problematic because it seems to affirm something not found explicitly in the Qurʾān or Sunnah. But my take is that what they meant by “ḥaraka” is merely the category of volitional actions (ṣifāt fiʿliyyah). The Jahmiyyah, all of them, reject these types of attributes.
Statements like: “Allāh is apart from His creation” or “Allāh is not created” were only intended to affirm meanings already found in the revealed texts and to defend them. Likewise, “ḥaraka” was sometimes used in this context. Some scholars objected to using this specific term, but they did not accuse the opposing side of anthropomorphism or corporealism. The texts mention coming, descending, and rising (istiwa) — all of which involve movement in meaning.
So it is outright contradictory to accuse someone of tajsīm for using the term “ḥaraka,” while affirming the Qurʾānic terms that imply the same thing.
Ibn Taymiyyah said in Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa al-Naql:
“The imāms of the Sunnah and ḥadīth affirm both types [of attributes: essential and volitional]. This is what the transmitters of their views affirm—like Ḥarb al-Kirmānī and ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī and others. They explicitly used the word ‘ḥaraka’ and considered this the view of the imāms of Sunnah and ḥadīth, early and late.
Ḥarb al-Kirmānī said that this was the view of all he met from the imāms of Sunnah—like Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh, ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr al-Ḥumaydī, and Saʿīd ibn Manṣūr.
ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd and others said: ‘Movement is a necessary quality of life. Every living being moves. Denying this is the position of the Jahmiyyah—those who deny the attributes—whom the Salaf unanimously condemned.’
Another group from the Salafiyyah—like Naʿīm ibn Ḥammād al-Khuzāʿī, al-Bukhārī (the author of the Ṣaḥīḥ), Abū Bakr ibn Khuzaymah, and others such as Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr—affirmed the meaning intended by these terms but used alternative expressions like ‘actions’ (fiʿl), and avoided the word ‘ḥaraka’ as it is not mentioned in the transmitted reports.
Among Aḥmad’s followers, some agree with these—like Abū Bakr ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Ibn Baṭṭah; others agree with the first group—like Ibn Ḥāmid; and a third group, such as the Tamīmiyyīn and Ibn al-Zāghūnī, align with the negators from among the disciples of Ibn Kullāb and others.”
This is the kind of calm, precise clarification that should be upheld.
Some hastily used Ibn Rajab’s statement to attack the authenticity of al-Radd ʿala al-Zanādiqah wa al-Jahmiyyah attributed to Aḥmad, claiming it’s really Muqātil’s work, citing that all the chains in it are weak and contain unknown narrators!
Yet they only recognize weakness in the chain of al-Radd ʿala al-Jahmiyyah—which was accepted by the majority of Ḥanbalīs! This hasty critic forgets that most of the arguments in that book were used by Ibn Baṭṭah in al-Ibānah and also by Ibn Qudāmah and ʿAbd al-Ghanī.
So if you try to discredit Ibn Taymiyyah through this, it would logically follow that you are condemning most of the imāms of the Ḥanbalī madhhab as being “Muqātilites” in the very things you criticize.
❤1👍1
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from قناة | أبي جعفر عبدالله الخليفي
قال ابن قدامة المقدسي في «المغني» وغيره من كتبه: "ويجوز أن يشتري من زكاته أسيرا مسلما من أيدى المشركين؛ لأنه فكُّ رقبة من الأسر، فهو كفكِّ رقبة العبد من الرِّق، ولأن فيه إعزازا للدين، فهو كصرفه إلى المؤلفة قلوبهم، ولأنه يدفعه إلى الأسير في فكِّ رقبته، فأشبه ما يدفعه إلى الغارم لفك رقبته من الدَّين".
تأمل قوله: "فهو كفكِّ رقبة العبد من الرِّق".
نسأل الله عز وجل أن يأجر من حرَّر المسلمين والمسلمات من الأسر أجر عتق الرقبة وإعزاز الدِّين.
فإن ذلك مما يُدَّخر ليوم القيامة.
{وما أدراك ما العقبة • فك رقبة • أو إطعام في يوم ذي مسغبة} [البلد].
وهذا تفريج كربة وإدخال سرور وستر على مسلمين.
وقد قال النبي ﷺ: «من فرق بين والدة وولدها، فرق الله بينه وبين أحبته يوم القيامة» رواه الترمذي وأحمد.
فيُرجى بدلالة العكس لمن جمع بين المسلمين وأحبَّتهم أن يجمع الله بينه وبين أحبَّته يوم القيامة في دار كرامته.
هذا كتبته قديماً في مناسبة أخرى، وأزيد هنا أن أسر النساء أشد، لهذا تحريرهن أجل، ألا ترى إلى العهد في الحديبية كيف استثني منه النساء؟
تأمل قوله: "فهو كفكِّ رقبة العبد من الرِّق".
نسأل الله عز وجل أن يأجر من حرَّر المسلمين والمسلمات من الأسر أجر عتق الرقبة وإعزاز الدِّين.
فإن ذلك مما يُدَّخر ليوم القيامة.
{وما أدراك ما العقبة • فك رقبة • أو إطعام في يوم ذي مسغبة} [البلد].
وهذا تفريج كربة وإدخال سرور وستر على مسلمين.
وقد قال النبي ﷺ: «من فرق بين والدة وولدها، فرق الله بينه وبين أحبته يوم القيامة» رواه الترمذي وأحمد.
فيُرجى بدلالة العكس لمن جمع بين المسلمين وأحبَّتهم أن يجمع الله بينه وبين أحبَّته يوم القيامة في دار كرامته.
هذا كتبته قديماً في مناسبة أخرى، وأزيد هنا أن أسر النساء أشد، لهذا تحريرهن أجل، ألا ترى إلى العهد في الحديبية كيف استثني منه النساء؟
Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī said in al-Mughnī and elsewhere:
Reflect on his words:
We ask Allah, Mighty and Majestic, to reward those who have freed Muslim men and women from captivity with the reward of freeing a slave and upholding the honor of the religion.
Indeed, such actions are stored for the Day of Judgment:
[Sūrat al-Balad, 90:12–14]
“It is permissible to purchase a Muslim prisoner from the hands of the polytheists using zakāh funds—because it is akin to freeing a neck (a slave) from bondage, just as freeing a slave from ownership. And because it brings honor to the religion, it is similar to giving it to those whose hearts are to be reconciled. And because it is given to the prisoner to secure his release, it resembles what is given to one in debt to free himself from it.”
Reflect on his words:
“It is akin to freeing a neck (a slave) from bondage.”
We ask Allah, Mighty and Majestic, to reward those who have freed Muslim men and women from captivity with the reward of freeing a slave and upholding the honor of the religion.
Indeed, such actions are stored for the Day of Judgment:
“And what can make you know what is [breaking through] the difficult pass?
It is freeing a neck,
or feeding on a day of severe hunger.”
[Sūrat al-Balad, 90:12–14]
This is a relief of distress, a bringing of joy, and a covering (of shame and vulnerability) for Muslims.
And the Prophet ﷺ said:
Narrated by al-Tirmidhī and Aḥmad.
So, by the indication of the opposite (mafhum al-mukhālafah), it is hoped that whoever reunites Muslims with their beloved ones, Allah will reunite him with his loved ones on the Day of Judgment, in the abode of His honor.
This I had written previously on another occasion. I add here that the captivity of women is even more severe, and so their liberation is even more virtuous. Do you not see how, in the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah, women were specifically excluded (from being returned to the disbelievers)?
And the Prophet ﷺ said:
“Whoever separates a mother from her child, Allah will separate him from his beloved ones on the Day of Resurrection.”
Narrated by al-Tirmidhī and Aḥmad.
So, by the indication of the opposite (mafhum al-mukhālafah), it is hoped that whoever reunites Muslims with their beloved ones, Allah will reunite him with his loved ones on the Day of Judgment, in the abode of His honor.
This I had written previously on another occasion. I add here that the captivity of women is even more severe, and so their liberation is even more virtuous. Do you not see how, in the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah, women were specifically excluded (from being returned to the disbelievers)?
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from قناة | أبي جعفر عبدالله الخليفي
هذه الأيام نشهد تقارباً عجيباً بين الإمامية والدروز.
ويبدو أن السيستاني شيخ الشيعة راعى هذا المعنى، فلما سئل عن نجاسة الدروز استخدم التقية وادعى الجهل وأحال على من يعلم.
ومعتمد مذهب الإمامية أن الدروز من الغالية المحكوم بنجاستهم.
جاء في كتاب «مسالك الأفهام إلى تنقيح شرائع الإسلام» تأليف زين الدين بن علي العاملي: "الثالث في الأسئار. وهي كلها طاهرة، عدا سؤر الكلب والخنزير والكافر. وفي سؤر المسوخ تردد، والطهارة أظهر. ومن عدا الخوارج والغلاة، من أصناف المسلمين طاهر الجسد والسؤر".
ثم جاء في الحاشية شرح لأمر الغلاة: "وبالغلاة من اعتقد إلهية علي عليه السلام أو أحد الأئمة عليهم السلام، وقد يطلق على من قال بإلهية أحد من الناس، فيدخل فيهم من ببلاد الشام من التيامنة، والدروز، ومن قال بمقالتهم. وجعل الغلاة من فرق المسلمين تجوز لانسلاخهم منه جملة، ومباينتهم له اسما ومعنى".
وعلى هذا فتيا عامة شيوخ الشيعة، ولكن السيستاني يتلاعب للدواعي السياسية.
ويبدو أن السيستاني شيخ الشيعة راعى هذا المعنى، فلما سئل عن نجاسة الدروز استخدم التقية وادعى الجهل وأحال على من يعلم.
ومعتمد مذهب الإمامية أن الدروز من الغالية المحكوم بنجاستهم.
جاء في كتاب «مسالك الأفهام إلى تنقيح شرائع الإسلام» تأليف زين الدين بن علي العاملي: "الثالث في الأسئار. وهي كلها طاهرة، عدا سؤر الكلب والخنزير والكافر. وفي سؤر المسوخ تردد، والطهارة أظهر. ومن عدا الخوارج والغلاة، من أصناف المسلمين طاهر الجسد والسؤر".
ثم جاء في الحاشية شرح لأمر الغلاة: "وبالغلاة من اعتقد إلهية علي عليه السلام أو أحد الأئمة عليهم السلام، وقد يطلق على من قال بإلهية أحد من الناس، فيدخل فيهم من ببلاد الشام من التيامنة، والدروز، ومن قال بمقالتهم. وجعل الغلاة من فرق المسلمين تجوز لانسلاخهم منه جملة، ومباينتهم له اسما ومعنى".
وعلى هذا فتيا عامة شيوخ الشيعة، ولكن السيستاني يتلاعب للدواعي السياسية.
These days we are witnessing a strange rapprochement between the Imāmiyyah (Twelver Shīah) and the Druze.
It seems that al-Sīstānī, the Shīʿī, took this into consideration; for when he was asked about the impurity (najāsah) of the Druze, he resorted to taqiyyah, claimed ignorance, and referred the questioner to someone who knows.
The relied-upon position of the Imāmiyyah madhhab is that the Druze are among the ghulāt (extremists) who are judged to be impure.
It is stated in Masālik al-Afhām by Zayn al-Dīn bin Ali al-Āmilī:
Then, in the marginal note explaining the matter of the ghulāt:
Such is the fatwā of the general Shīʿī scholars; however, al-Sīstānī plays around for political motives.
It seems that al-Sīstānī, the Shīʿī, took this into consideration; for when he was asked about the impurity (najāsah) of the Druze, he resorted to taqiyyah, claimed ignorance, and referred the questioner to someone who knows.
The relied-upon position of the Imāmiyyah madhhab is that the Druze are among the ghulāt (extremists) who are judged to be impure.
It is stated in Masālik al-Afhām by Zayn al-Dīn bin Ali al-Āmilī:
“The third [discussion] is on the leftover water. All of it is pure, except for the leftover of a dog, a pig, and a kāfir. As for the leftover of metamorphosed creatures (al-masūkh), there is a difference of opinion, and purity is the stronger view. Whoever is not among the Khawārij and the ghulāt from the categories of Muslims is pure in body and leftover water.”
Then, in the marginal note explaining the matter of the ghulāt:
“By ghulāt [it is] meant those who believe in the divinity of Alī (alayhi as-salām) or one of the Imāms (alayhim as-salām), and it may also be applied to anyone who claims divinity for any human being. This includes those in the lands of al-Shām from the Tayāminah and the Druze, and those who hold their doctrine. Considering the ghulāt as one of the sects of the Muslims is incorrect, due to their complete departure from Islam and their opposition to it in name and meaning.”
Such is the fatwā of the general Shīʿī scholars; however, al-Sīstānī plays around for political motives.
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from قناة | أبي جعفر عبدالله الخليفي
يقول الناشط المؤيد لإسرائيل مايكل رابابورت إن غزة أصبحت "جحيماً" بسبب "الأشخاص الذين يديرون ذلك المكان".
"يجب أن تكون هناك كازينوهات، ويجب أن تكون هناك نوادي تعري، ويجب أن تكون هناك مطاعم تشيك فيل آس، لن يحدث هذا أبداً بسبب حماس!".
أقول: كانوا يقولون لنا إن الملحد الغربي ألحد بسبب مشاكل النصرانية، بخلاف الملحد العربي الذي يتسلل الخطاب الشهواني إلى كلامه دائماً ويخرج من فلتات لسانه.
ولكن يبدو أنهم متشابهون.
يوجد إبادة جماعية وتجويع وأناس يموتون من الجوع وكل جرائم الحرب الممكنة ارتكبت، وهذا يتكلم عن أندية التعري!
هكذا تختزل المشكلة بشهوات إنسان أصيب بسعار جنسي من كثرة رؤيته للتعري في بلاده، خلافاً لمن يحكي لنا العكس.
كثيراً ما تراهم يوردون الإشكالات على الشرائع ويحاولون استخدام ألف ملف، يستخدمونه كحصان طروادة ليدخلوا المجتمعات باسم الحقوق.
والهدف النهائي والإنجاز الأعظم عندهم هذا الذي ذكره!
صار مؤيداً لجرائم حرب منظمة لأجل شهواته، وآخر يكفر بالله ويُفقد حياته معناها، فيزعم أنه جاء بلا غاية ويصير إلى لا شيء لأجل شهواته.
ما أرذل المرء تقوده شهواته البدائية.
كان بعض الفلاسفة القدامى يردون على من يزعمون أن غاية الحياة اللذة، بأن يقولوا لهم: إذا كان غاية الحياة اللذة فلماذا يستتر المرء بشهواته ويستحي من إظهارها؟ وكانت حجةً قائمة.
حتى جاء هؤلاء الذين فاقوا أراذل البهائم.
قال تعالى: {أم تحسب أن أكثرهم يسمعون أو يعقلون إن هم إلا كالأنعام بل هم أضل سبيلا} [الفرقان ٤٤].
"يجب أن تكون هناك كازينوهات، ويجب أن تكون هناك نوادي تعري، ويجب أن تكون هناك مطاعم تشيك فيل آس، لن يحدث هذا أبداً بسبب حماس!".
أقول: كانوا يقولون لنا إن الملحد الغربي ألحد بسبب مشاكل النصرانية، بخلاف الملحد العربي الذي يتسلل الخطاب الشهواني إلى كلامه دائماً ويخرج من فلتات لسانه.
ولكن يبدو أنهم متشابهون.
يوجد إبادة جماعية وتجويع وأناس يموتون من الجوع وكل جرائم الحرب الممكنة ارتكبت، وهذا يتكلم عن أندية التعري!
هكذا تختزل المشكلة بشهوات إنسان أصيب بسعار جنسي من كثرة رؤيته للتعري في بلاده، خلافاً لمن يحكي لنا العكس.
كثيراً ما تراهم يوردون الإشكالات على الشرائع ويحاولون استخدام ألف ملف، يستخدمونه كحصان طروادة ليدخلوا المجتمعات باسم الحقوق.
والهدف النهائي والإنجاز الأعظم عندهم هذا الذي ذكره!
صار مؤيداً لجرائم حرب منظمة لأجل شهواته، وآخر يكفر بالله ويُفقد حياته معناها، فيزعم أنه جاء بلا غاية ويصير إلى لا شيء لأجل شهواته.
ما أرذل المرء تقوده شهواته البدائية.
كان بعض الفلاسفة القدامى يردون على من يزعمون أن غاية الحياة اللذة، بأن يقولوا لهم: إذا كان غاية الحياة اللذة فلماذا يستتر المرء بشهواته ويستحي من إظهارها؟ وكانت حجةً قائمة.
حتى جاء هؤلاء الذين فاقوا أراذل البهائم.
قال تعالى: {أم تحسب أن أكثرهم يسمعون أو يعقلون إن هم إلا كالأنعام بل هم أضل سبيلا} [الفرقان ٤٤].
Pro-Israel activist Michael Rapaport says Gāzā has become “hell” because of “the people running that place.”
I say: They used to tell us that the Western atheist only became an atheist because of problems in Christianity, unlike the Arab atheist, whose speech is always infiltrated by lustful discourse and whose slips of the tongue reveal it.
But it seems they are alike.
There is genocide, starvation, people dying from hunger, and every possible war crime being committed and this man is talking about strip clubs!
This is how the problem is reduced: to the lusts of a man who has gone into sexual frenzy from being constantly exposed to nudity in his country contrary to what some claim to us.
You often see them bringing objections against religious laws, using countless “files” as Trojan horses to enter societies under the name of rights.
And their ultimate goal, their greatest “achievement,” is exactly what he mentioned!
He became a supporter of organized war crimes for the sake of his desires. Another disbelieves in Allāh, losing all meaning in his life, claiming he came without purpose and will end in nothing, also for the sake of his desires.
How vile is the human being who is led by his base desires.
Some ancient philosophers used to respond to those who claimed that the purpose of life is pleasure by saying: “If the purpose of life were pleasure, then why does a person conceal his lusts and feel shame in showing them?” and it was a sound argument.
Until these people came, who surpassed the vilest of animals.
Allāh said:
“Or do you think that most of them hear or reason? They are but like cattle; rather, they are even more astray in way.” (al-Furqān 44)
“There should be casinos, there should be strip clubs, there should be Chick-fil-A restaurants. This will never happen because of Hamās!”
I say: They used to tell us that the Western atheist only became an atheist because of problems in Christianity, unlike the Arab atheist, whose speech is always infiltrated by lustful discourse and whose slips of the tongue reveal it.
But it seems they are alike.
There is genocide, starvation, people dying from hunger, and every possible war crime being committed and this man is talking about strip clubs!
This is how the problem is reduced: to the lusts of a man who has gone into sexual frenzy from being constantly exposed to nudity in his country contrary to what some claim to us.
You often see them bringing objections against religious laws, using countless “files” as Trojan horses to enter societies under the name of rights.
And their ultimate goal, their greatest “achievement,” is exactly what he mentioned!
He became a supporter of organized war crimes for the sake of his desires. Another disbelieves in Allāh, losing all meaning in his life, claiming he came without purpose and will end in nothing, also for the sake of his desires.
How vile is the human being who is led by his base desires.
Some ancient philosophers used to respond to those who claimed that the purpose of life is pleasure by saying: “If the purpose of life were pleasure, then why does a person conceal his lusts and feel shame in showing them?” and it was a sound argument.
Until these people came, who surpassed the vilest of animals.
Allāh said:
“Or do you think that most of them hear or reason? They are but like cattle; rather, they are even more astray in way.” (al-Furqān 44)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from قناة | أبي جعفر عبدالله الخليفي
هذا نقاش حول الإقامة في كندا، بين صانع محتوى وامرأة عراقية في كندا.
وجهة نظرها أن كل بلاء موجود في العراق هو في كندا مقنن، الوظائف صعبة والضرائب عالية.
هذا كله قد يناقش البعض فيه.
غير أن العجيب قولها إنهم يقتلون أبناءنا (تقصد قتلهم أخلاقياً).
تقول: كل مغريات الحياة (تقصد خمر ونساء ومخدرات) يضعونها أمامه.
تقول: من كل عشرة أطفال اثنان فقط لا يتعاطون ولا يشربون.
وإذا تكلمت يأخذون منك الطفل، بلد قوانينه وضعت خصيصاً لهدم الأسرة.
أعجبني وصفها لوضع كل المغريات أمام الطفل بالإجبار، هو ليس إجباراً كلياً، ولكنه في معنى الإغراء الشديد، خصوصاً مع كثرة المغريات.
التصور الذي ذهل بعض الناس من وجود دولة تحفظ للجميع حقوقهم وللكل حريته من يريد الفضيلة ومن يريد الرذيلة، ذلك وهم.
فهذا بالأساس انحياز للرذيلة، لأن أهلها سيصيرون يتاجرون بشهوات المراهقين ويستفزون أهل الطهارة.
ما زلت أذكر أحدهم يقول إنه تفاجأ بأن جيرانه صناع محتوى إباحي، يقول: تخيلوا لو كان عندي أبناء ماذا سأفعل؟
ليتدبر هذا الناس.
وجهة نظرها أن كل بلاء موجود في العراق هو في كندا مقنن، الوظائف صعبة والضرائب عالية.
هذا كله قد يناقش البعض فيه.
غير أن العجيب قولها إنهم يقتلون أبناءنا (تقصد قتلهم أخلاقياً).
تقول: كل مغريات الحياة (تقصد خمر ونساء ومخدرات) يضعونها أمامه.
تقول: من كل عشرة أطفال اثنان فقط لا يتعاطون ولا يشربون.
وإذا تكلمت يأخذون منك الطفل، بلد قوانينه وضعت خصيصاً لهدم الأسرة.
أعجبني وصفها لوضع كل المغريات أمام الطفل بالإجبار، هو ليس إجباراً كلياً، ولكنه في معنى الإغراء الشديد، خصوصاً مع كثرة المغريات.
التصور الذي ذهل بعض الناس من وجود دولة تحفظ للجميع حقوقهم وللكل حريته من يريد الفضيلة ومن يريد الرذيلة، ذلك وهم.
فهذا بالأساس انحياز للرذيلة، لأن أهلها سيصيرون يتاجرون بشهوات المراهقين ويستفزون أهل الطهارة.
ما زلت أذكر أحدهم يقول إنه تفاجأ بأن جيرانه صناع محتوى إباحي، يقول: تخيلوا لو كان عندي أبناء ماذا سأفعل؟
ليتدبر هذا الناس.
This is a discussion about living in Canada, between a content creator and an Iraqi woman residing there.
Her view is that every calamity that exists in Iraq is legalized in Canada. Jobs are difficult to find, and taxes are high.
All of this may be debated.
But what is truly astonishing is her statement that “they are killing our children” (she means killing them morally).
She says: all the temptations of life (meaning alcohol, women, drugs) are placed in front of them.
She says: out of every ten children, only two do not drink or use drugs.
And if you speak out, they take your child away. A country whose laws were designed specifically to destroy the family.
What I found striking was her description of putting all these temptations in front of the child by force. It is not absolute compulsion, but it carries the meaning of severe enticement, especially with so many temptations around.
Her view is that every calamity that exists in Iraq is legalized in Canada. Jobs are difficult to find, and taxes are high.
All of this may be debated.
But what is truly astonishing is her statement that “they are killing our children” (she means killing them morally).
She says: all the temptations of life (meaning alcohol, women, drugs) are placed in front of them.
She says: out of every ten children, only two do not drink or use drugs.
And if you speak out, they take your child away. A country whose laws were designed specifically to destroy the family.
What I found striking was her description of putting all these temptations in front of the child by force. It is not absolute compulsion, but it carries the meaning of severe enticement, especially with so many temptations around.
❤1👍1
The idea that amazed some people, that there is a country where everyone’s rights are preserved and everyone has the freedom to choose virtue or vice, is an illusion.
In reality, it is a bias towards vice, because its people will end up trading in the desires of teenagers and provoking those who wish to remain pure.
I still remember someone saying he was shocked to discover that his neighbors were pornographic content creators. He said: imagine if I had children, what would I do?
Let people reflect on this.
In reality, it is a bias towards vice, because its people will end up trading in the desires of teenagers and provoking those who wish to remain pure.
I still remember someone saying he was shocked to discover that his neighbors were pornographic content creators. He said: imagine if I had children, what would I do?
Let people reflect on this.
❤1👍1
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from قناة | أبي جعفر عبدالله الخليفي
لا تلق منجلك بل أعطهم مناجل...
جاء في «صيد الخاطر» لابن الجوزي صـ٣٣٦: "١٠٥٤- ورأيت بعض القوم يقول: أنا قد ألقيت منجلي بين الحصادين ونمت! ثم كان يتفسح في أشياء لا تجوز! فتفكرت؛ فإذا العلم الذي هو معرفة الحقائق، والنظر في سير القدماء، والتأدب بآداب القوم، ومعرفة الحق، وما يجب له ليس عند القوم، إن ما عندهم صور ألفاظ، يعرفون بها ما يحل وما يحرم، وليس كذلك العلم النافع، إنما العلم فهم الأصول، ومعرفة المعبود وعظمته، وما يستحقه، والنظر في سير الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وصحابته، والتأدب بآدابهم، وفهم ما نقل عنهم، هو العلم النافع الذي يدَع أعظم العلماء أحقر عند نفسه من أجهل الجهال".
أقول: كتاب «صيد الخاطر» فيه مواد فلسفية وكلامية -على ما فيه من فوائد- تجعلنا ننصح المبتدئ بالابتعاد عنه، وكذا فعل الشيخ السعدي، كما في فتاويه.
وهذا موطن حسن بالجملة، ويحتاج شرحاً.
ابن الجوزي يتكلم عن فقهاء في زمانه لا يعملون ويغترون بما معهم من الفقه.
ويقول القائل منهم: "ألقيت منجلي بين الحصادين ونمت"، يقصد أنه لمَّا علم الناس العلم يأخذ الأجر، وهذا معنى صحيح، غير أن الفاسد أنه جزم لنفسه بالأجر، وأنه جعل ذلك باباً للكسل عن العمل، والتجري على المعاصي.
العلم من أسباب مغفرة الذنوب، فمعلم الناس الخير يستغفر له من في السماوات ومن في الأرض حتى الحيتان في البحر.
ولا يخلو إنسان من ذنوب ونقص، حتى المشار إليهم بالعلم الواسع، غير أن المرء لا ينتفع بدعاء الناس له تمام النفع حتى ينفع نفسه أولاً.
دليل ذلك: الصحابي الذي سأل النبي ﷺ مرافقته في الجنة، فقال له: «فأعني على نفسك بكثرة السجود».
فكان لا بد من مبادرة منه وعمل، ولو فهم هذا المتعلقون بالموتى ممن سرى بهم الأمر إلى الشرك، وأصحاب الكبر والغرور، لتركوا ما هم فيه.
وتأمل حال عبد الله بن عمر في هذا الحديث: قال البخاري في صحيحه: "1639- حدثنا يعقوب بن إبراهيم، حدثنا ابن علية، عن أيوب، عن نافع، أن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما دخل ابنه عبد الله بن عبد الله وظهره في الدار، فقال: إني لا آمن أن يكون العام بين الناس قتال فيصدوك عن البيت فلو أقمت، فقال: «قد خرج رسول الله ﷺ فحال كفار قريش بينه وبين البيت، فإن حيل بيني وبينه أفعل كما فعل رسول الله ﷺ {لقد كان لكم في رسول الله أسوة حسنة}» ثم قال: «أشهدكم أني قد أوجبت مع عمرتي حجا»، قال: ثم قدم، فطاف لهما طوافا واحدا".
ابن عمر كان كثير الحج، ويحج حتى في أوقات الفتن في مكة وما جاورها.
ولك أن تتساءل ما سر هذا الحرص مع كبر سنه وعظيم فضيلته، فهو حج مرات وهو صاحب فضائل عظيمة، فلم لا يريح نفسه؟
والجواب والله أعلم: أن هؤلاء الناس مع ما فعلوا من طاعات ما أمنوا مكر الله، كما أن المعاصي لا ينبغي أن تقنِّط من رحمة الله.
ثم هو حريص على أن يكرر الحج، حتى يراه الناس ويتعلموا منه مناسك الحج، فيأخذ الأجر ويكون سبباً في نجاة الناس وتكفير ذنوبهم.
فهو ما ألقى منجله بين الحصَّادين، بل أمسك بمنجله وأعطاهم مناجل، ثم علمهم كيف يحصدون (عملياً) بالمشاهدة، وذلك أرسخ للعلم من مجرد التحديث.
ولهذا أهل العلم والفضل من المنظور إليهم ينبغي أن يحتسبوا في إظهار السنن والطاعات، ليراهم الناس ويقتدوا بهم.
جاء في «صيد الخاطر» لابن الجوزي صـ٣٣٦: "١٠٥٤- ورأيت بعض القوم يقول: أنا قد ألقيت منجلي بين الحصادين ونمت! ثم كان يتفسح في أشياء لا تجوز! فتفكرت؛ فإذا العلم الذي هو معرفة الحقائق، والنظر في سير القدماء، والتأدب بآداب القوم، ومعرفة الحق، وما يجب له ليس عند القوم، إن ما عندهم صور ألفاظ، يعرفون بها ما يحل وما يحرم، وليس كذلك العلم النافع، إنما العلم فهم الأصول، ومعرفة المعبود وعظمته، وما يستحقه، والنظر في سير الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وصحابته، والتأدب بآدابهم، وفهم ما نقل عنهم، هو العلم النافع الذي يدَع أعظم العلماء أحقر عند نفسه من أجهل الجهال".
أقول: كتاب «صيد الخاطر» فيه مواد فلسفية وكلامية -على ما فيه من فوائد- تجعلنا ننصح المبتدئ بالابتعاد عنه، وكذا فعل الشيخ السعدي، كما في فتاويه.
وهذا موطن حسن بالجملة، ويحتاج شرحاً.
ابن الجوزي يتكلم عن فقهاء في زمانه لا يعملون ويغترون بما معهم من الفقه.
ويقول القائل منهم: "ألقيت منجلي بين الحصادين ونمت"، يقصد أنه لمَّا علم الناس العلم يأخذ الأجر، وهذا معنى صحيح، غير أن الفاسد أنه جزم لنفسه بالأجر، وأنه جعل ذلك باباً للكسل عن العمل، والتجري على المعاصي.
العلم من أسباب مغفرة الذنوب، فمعلم الناس الخير يستغفر له من في السماوات ومن في الأرض حتى الحيتان في البحر.
ولا يخلو إنسان من ذنوب ونقص، حتى المشار إليهم بالعلم الواسع، غير أن المرء لا ينتفع بدعاء الناس له تمام النفع حتى ينفع نفسه أولاً.
دليل ذلك: الصحابي الذي سأل النبي ﷺ مرافقته في الجنة، فقال له: «فأعني على نفسك بكثرة السجود».
فكان لا بد من مبادرة منه وعمل، ولو فهم هذا المتعلقون بالموتى ممن سرى بهم الأمر إلى الشرك، وأصحاب الكبر والغرور، لتركوا ما هم فيه.
وتأمل حال عبد الله بن عمر في هذا الحديث: قال البخاري في صحيحه: "1639- حدثنا يعقوب بن إبراهيم، حدثنا ابن علية، عن أيوب، عن نافع، أن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما دخل ابنه عبد الله بن عبد الله وظهره في الدار، فقال: إني لا آمن أن يكون العام بين الناس قتال فيصدوك عن البيت فلو أقمت، فقال: «قد خرج رسول الله ﷺ فحال كفار قريش بينه وبين البيت، فإن حيل بيني وبينه أفعل كما فعل رسول الله ﷺ {لقد كان لكم في رسول الله أسوة حسنة}» ثم قال: «أشهدكم أني قد أوجبت مع عمرتي حجا»، قال: ثم قدم، فطاف لهما طوافا واحدا".
ابن عمر كان كثير الحج، ويحج حتى في أوقات الفتن في مكة وما جاورها.
ولك أن تتساءل ما سر هذا الحرص مع كبر سنه وعظيم فضيلته، فهو حج مرات وهو صاحب فضائل عظيمة، فلم لا يريح نفسه؟
والجواب والله أعلم: أن هؤلاء الناس مع ما فعلوا من طاعات ما أمنوا مكر الله، كما أن المعاصي لا ينبغي أن تقنِّط من رحمة الله.
ثم هو حريص على أن يكرر الحج، حتى يراه الناس ويتعلموا منه مناسك الحج، فيأخذ الأجر ويكون سبباً في نجاة الناس وتكفير ذنوبهم.
فهو ما ألقى منجله بين الحصَّادين، بل أمسك بمنجله وأعطاهم مناجل، ثم علمهم كيف يحصدون (عملياً) بالمشاهدة، وذلك أرسخ للعلم من مجرد التحديث.
ولهذا أهل العلم والفضل من المنظور إليهم ينبغي أن يحتسبوا في إظهار السنن والطاعات، ليراهم الناس ويقتدوا بهم.
“Do not cast away your sickle¹, but rather give them sickles…”
It is mentioned in Ṣayd al-Khāṭir by Ibn al-Jawzī (p. 336):
“1054. I saw some of the people saying: ‘I have thrown my sickle among the harvesters and have gone to sleep!’ Then he would indulge in matters that are impermissible. So I reflected: and realized that the knowledge they possess, which is only forms of words by which they know what is lawful and unlawful, is not true knowledge. True beneficial knowledge is the understanding of fundamentals, the knowledge of the Creator and His greatness and what is His due, the study of the life of the Messenger ﷺ and his Companions, refining oneself with their manners, and understanding what has been transmitted from them. That is the knowledge which causes the greatest of scholars to see himself as smaller than the most ignorant of the ignorant.”
I say: The book Ṣayd al-Khāṭir contains philosophical and theological issues², despite its many benefits, that make us advise beginners to avoid it. This was also the view of Shaykh al-Sa'dī, as found in his Fatāwā.
This passage, however, is overall a fine point and requires clarification.
Ibn al-Jawzī is speaking about scholars of his time who neither acted [upon their knowledge] nor strove, being deluded by the knowledge they carried. One of them would say: “I threw my sickle among the harvesters and slept,” meaning: since I taught people knowledge, I will still get the reward. This meaning in itself is true. But the corruption lies in that he was certain of reward for himself, and took it as a reason for laziness in action and boldness upon sins.
Knowledge is indeed one of the means for forgiveness of sins, for the one who teaches people goodness is prayed for by all creatures in the heavens and the earth, even the fish in the sea.
Yet no human being is free of sins and shortcomings, even those with vast knowledge. A person does not benefit fully from people’s prayers for him until he benefits himself first.
Evidence for this is the Companion who asked the Prophet ﷺ for his companionship in Paradise. The Prophet ﷺ said to him: “Then assist me over yourself by abundant prostration.”
So there had to be personal effort and action. If only those who attach themselves to the dead, those carried away to shirk thereby, as well as the arrogant and self-deluded, understood this, they would leave what they are upon.
Reflect also on the state of 'Abdullāh bin Umar in this narration:
Al-Bukhārī said in his Ṣaḥīḥ (no. 1639):
“Ya'qūb bin Ibrāhīm narrated to us, Ibn 'Ulayyah narrated to us, from Ayyūb, from Nāfi', that Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) entered his son 'Abdullāh bin 'Abdullāh, with his back in the house, and said: ‘I fear that this year there will be fighting among the people, and they will prevent you from the House, so why not stay back?’ He replied: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ set out, but the disbelievers of Quraysh barred him from the House. If I am prevented from it, I will do as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did. {Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example}.’ Then he said: ‘I testify before you that I have joined Ḥajj to my Umrah.’ Then he arrived and performed one Ṭawāf for both.”
Ibn Umar performed many pilgrimages, even in times of civil strife in Makkah and its surroundings.
One may ask: what was the secret behind such diligence despite his old age and lofty rank? He had already performed many ḥajj, and was a man of great virtues, why did he not rest himself?
The answer, and Allah knows best, is that such people, despite all their acts of obedience, never felt safe from the plotting of Allah. Just as sins should not cause one to despair from Allah’s mercy, so too obedience should not make one feel secure from His plan.
Furthermore, Ibn Umar was keen to repeat ḥajj so that people would see him and learn from him the rites of pilgrimage. Thus he would earn reward, and be a cause for people’s salvation and expiation of their sins.
It is mentioned in Ṣayd al-Khāṭir by Ibn al-Jawzī (p. 336):
“1054. I saw some of the people saying: ‘I have thrown my sickle among the harvesters and have gone to sleep!’ Then he would indulge in matters that are impermissible. So I reflected: and realized that the knowledge they possess, which is only forms of words by which they know what is lawful and unlawful, is not true knowledge. True beneficial knowledge is the understanding of fundamentals, the knowledge of the Creator and His greatness and what is His due, the study of the life of the Messenger ﷺ and his Companions, refining oneself with their manners, and understanding what has been transmitted from them. That is the knowledge which causes the greatest of scholars to see himself as smaller than the most ignorant of the ignorant.”
I say: The book Ṣayd al-Khāṭir contains philosophical and theological issues², despite its many benefits, that make us advise beginners to avoid it. This was also the view of Shaykh al-Sa'dī, as found in his Fatāwā.
This passage, however, is overall a fine point and requires clarification.
Ibn al-Jawzī is speaking about scholars of his time who neither acted [upon their knowledge] nor strove, being deluded by the knowledge they carried. One of them would say: “I threw my sickle among the harvesters and slept,” meaning: since I taught people knowledge, I will still get the reward. This meaning in itself is true. But the corruption lies in that he was certain of reward for himself, and took it as a reason for laziness in action and boldness upon sins.
Knowledge is indeed one of the means for forgiveness of sins, for the one who teaches people goodness is prayed for by all creatures in the heavens and the earth, even the fish in the sea.
Yet no human being is free of sins and shortcomings, even those with vast knowledge. A person does not benefit fully from people’s prayers for him until he benefits himself first.
Evidence for this is the Companion who asked the Prophet ﷺ for his companionship in Paradise. The Prophet ﷺ said to him: “Then assist me over yourself by abundant prostration.”
So there had to be personal effort and action. If only those who attach themselves to the dead, those carried away to shirk thereby, as well as the arrogant and self-deluded, understood this, they would leave what they are upon.
Reflect also on the state of 'Abdullāh bin Umar in this narration:
Al-Bukhārī said in his Ṣaḥīḥ (no. 1639):
“Ya'qūb bin Ibrāhīm narrated to us, Ibn 'Ulayyah narrated to us, from Ayyūb, from Nāfi', that Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) entered his son 'Abdullāh bin 'Abdullāh, with his back in the house, and said: ‘I fear that this year there will be fighting among the people, and they will prevent you from the House, so why not stay back?’ He replied: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ set out, but the disbelievers of Quraysh barred him from the House. If I am prevented from it, I will do as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did. {Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example}.’ Then he said: ‘I testify before you that I have joined Ḥajj to my Umrah.’ Then he arrived and performed one Ṭawāf for both.”
Ibn Umar performed many pilgrimages, even in times of civil strife in Makkah and its surroundings.
One may ask: what was the secret behind such diligence despite his old age and lofty rank? He had already performed many ḥajj, and was a man of great virtues, why did he not rest himself?
The answer, and Allah knows best, is that such people, despite all their acts of obedience, never felt safe from the plotting of Allah. Just as sins should not cause one to despair from Allah’s mercy, so too obedience should not make one feel secure from His plan.
Furthermore, Ibn Umar was keen to repeat ḥajj so that people would see him and learn from him the rites of pilgrimage. Thus he would earn reward, and be a cause for people’s salvation and expiation of their sins.