Risking your religion through Argumentation

[Summers]

Ma’n bin Isa reports

Malik bin Anas was once returning from the mosque, leaning on my arm, when a man called Abu Al-Juwayriyah who was accused of Al-Irja caught up with him. He said. “O Abu ‘Abdullah, listen to something I have to say and debate with me and let me tell you my opinion.” [Imam] Malik said, “And what if you overcome me?” The man replied, “If I defeat you, you follow me.” Malik asked, “And what if another man comes and defeats us?” He replied, “Then we follow him.” To this, Malik – Allah’s mercy be upon him – said, “O servant of Allah, Allah sent Muhammad - Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him – with a single religion, but I see you moving from religion to religion. ‘Umar bin Abd Al-‘Aziz said, ‘Whoever makes his religion the object of argumentation will frequently change it.’”

Al-Ajurri, Ktab Al-Shariah Vol.1 p128.

[Jaysh]

As-Salam Alaykum.

This matter deserves further discussion, as some people may misunderstand this athar (narration). It may even be used by the innovators to shield themselves from the attacks of the rightly guided People of the Sunnah.

To begin with, let us quote what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said:

“Refuting Ahl al-Bidah is a Jihad, to the extent that Yahya ibn Yahya said: ‘Defense of the Sunnah is more excellent than Jihad in the path of Allah.’”
(Naqdul-Mataq wal-Kalam)

And he (Ibn Taymiyyah) quoted Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal:

Shaykh al-Islam stated in another book:

When some people asked Ahmad bin Hanbal that they felt uneasy about (criticizing people) by saying that such-and-such is this (i.e. bidah, kufr, shirk, etc), and such-and-such is that, he replied: ‘If I were to remain silent, how would the ignorant ones know the authentic from the inauthentic?’

Similarly, the innovators who introduce heretical writings which oppose the Quran and the Sunnah, and those who innovate in matters of worship, then explaining their true condition and warning the Ummah against them is an obligation by the unanimous agreement of the Muslim Scholars.

In fact, when Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked whether a person who fasted, prayed and secluded himself in the mosque for worship was dearer to him than a person who spoke out against Ahl al-Bidah, he replied: “When he fasts and prays and secludes himself, then he does so for the benefit of his own self. However, when he speaks out against the innovators, he does so for the benefit of the Muslims in general, and this is more virtuous.”

So it is clear that opposing the innovators is of general benefit to the Muslims and is considered one of the types of Jihad in the path of Allah. Since purifying the Religion of Allah, and its Manhaj (methodology), its Shari’ah, and defending it from their attacks and that of their enemies is a collective obligation–a fact which is agreed upon by the scholars. For if Allah did not raise up some people to repel the harms (caused by) others, then the Religion would become corrupted.

Indeed, this type of corruption is even greater than the corruption resulting from the disbelievers conquering the Muslims. This is because when the disbelievers conquer the Muslims, they do not corrupt their hearts nor their Religion, except after some time. Whereas the innovators corrupt the hearts from the very outset.

(Majmoo al-Fatawa, 28/231-232)

Imam Dhahabi said that the objective of debating is to obtain truth, and Imam Shafi'i said: "Everytime I enter into a debate..." Why would he say that if he never debated? And it is known that the scholars did that, so how can we overturn all of that with just one athar?

Rather, to properly understand this athar--from Imam Malik--we say that this means we should not be of those who enter into debates with the intention of converting to whatever our opponents are upon if we just happen to lose that particular debate. This is the attitude that the person in the athar--Abu Al-Juwayriyah--had. He had a very lax attitude towards converting from one ideology to another: "If I win, then you convert to my ideology, otherwise I'll convert to yours, and if someone else defeats us, then we'll just convert to that!"

And so a person like this would bounce around endlessly, and I have seen this with my own eyes when I see some people reading Sunni and Shia debates, and converting to Sunnism when they read a Sunni argument and then convert to Shi'ism when they read the Shia counter-argument, and so on and so forth. So they enter into debate in order to convert to whoever is the winner and that is a false methodology which would turn religion into a mockery.

So this is what is meant by "Whoever makes his religion the object of argumentation will frequently change it." In other words, whoever makes his religion the prize (i.e. object) to be won in a debate, such a person will be led astray.

One should not enter debate with the people in order to win or lose like some sort of game. Rather, the intention should be to refute the heretics to show the falsehood they are upon and the truth we are upon. If we lose a particular debate, then we don't just blithely convert ideologies...rather, we realize that one single debate is just that: a single debate.

None of this means that we do not engage and refute the heretics. Rather, that is obligatory to do, and should be done by those who are capable of it. And there is a lot of reward in that.

To conclude, the narration posted by sister Spice has a correct meaning but it should be understood properly. I do not want it to be abused by the people of innovation who hide behind "difference of opinion" and "no argumentation"....no! We will refute and expose you, as has been done by our predecessors in the faith. If we do not do that, then the people will not know what is truth and what is falsehood.

In any case, I'm not saying that sister Spice is wrong for posting this. It has a good meaning and we accept it.

Fi Aman Allah

P.S. I asked very reliable people about the proper understanding of this athar before I posted.

[Jaysh]

There is another issue here . The man was asking to debate Imam Malik and it seems to be in private, as there were only two in the "room" at that time. This is like if a bidati were to add a rightly guided Sunni to MSN Messenger and then waste his time by arguing with him via messenger. (I hate it when people do this.) So this is just a waste of time.

On the other hand, if the people of bidah are posting on public forums, blogs, and websites....then the matter is different! We are not even debating them JUST to show THEM the falseness in THEIR ways, but to show THE PUBLIC the falseness in their ways. In fact, most times they themselves will remain stubbornly upon falsehood, but the matter is clarified for the rest of the believers, who will come to know the truth. If we sit back and don't refute the people of innovation, then the masses will remain confused on the matter and may err.

For example, brother Bassam (founder of the Call-to-Monotheism website) would probably find it a waste of time to have Sam Shamoun (admin of Answering-Islam) on msn messenger...but the minute Sam Shamoun posts on a website, THOUSANDS of people are going to read it, so Bassam needs to refute it...not for Sam's sake, but for the thousands of people, of them whom would include Muslims and future Muslims. So there is a difference between debating for sport (i.e. 1 on 1 match) vs refuting a person for the good of the community, the preservation of the religion, and the promotion of Tawheed.

As another brother told me: it is not as if Imam Malik would remain silent if the Muslims were engaging in shirk, i.e. calling on other than Allah [swt].

[bluey]

JazakiAllahu Khairan Spice. Excellent advice. [And Jaysh for the explanation].

[Rida]

Nice find. jzakAllah khair.

was-Salaam