Refuting the “eccentricity” fallacy from the words of Shaykh Bābṭain

The Muftī of Najd, Shaykh ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbdur-Raḥmān Bābṭain al-Ḥanbalī, may Allāh have mercy on him, was asked about the daʿwah of al-Shaykh al-Mujaddid Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdul-Wahhāb al-Ḥanbalī, may Allāh have mercy on him, to monotheism and his takfīr of those who associate partners with Allāh at the graves and elsewhere, which contradicted the scholars of his time in totality, and that he claimed what no one else claimed and forbade what was not forbidden in the entire world!

So he, may Allāh have mercy on him, gave a valuable answer from which I will take excerpts that serve the purpose of the title!

Many scholars of this time have forbade it (i.e. shirk and istighāthah), and a select group of scholars of the Two Holy Mosques and Yemen have agreed with it, and we have heard from them orally, but power was in the hands of others, and a group has written books it, such as an-Nuʿaimī from the people of Yemen, who has a good book on that, as well as al-Shawkāni and Muhammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Amīr as-Sanʿānī and others. I saw a book by a scholar from Jabal Sulaymān denying that. This is a confirmation of the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him): “There will never cease to be a group from my Ummah manifest upon the truth.” What is meant by “manifest” is not by the sword, but by evidence and proofs always, and sometimes by the sword.

If you understand that at one point in time there was someone who forbade the Oneness of Allāh and claimed that the people of his time “unanimously agreed” on what his opponents considered to be polytheism, then there is no point in claiming that people “settled” on an opinion that is in itself, when investigated, contrary to the evidence. Rather, in claiming this “settlement,” a dispute occurs. It may not even be a “settlement,” but rather all there is to it is that you have the power in your hands. However, there is no time period without someone who stands up for Allāh with the evidence and proofs, regardless if people know it or if they ignore it.

Shaykh Bābṭain said:

If this disputant had said that most people agreed with him, then he would have been truthful, and this is a confirmation of the ḥadīth: ‘Indeed Islām began as something strange and it will return to being strange as it began.’

Although, in this case, if he claims that his statement is a consensus of the people of his time, it is like someone who attributes a statement to those who are silent – for whatever reason, whether out of fear of the tyranny of a governor or someone else – or someone who compels those who do not know their doctrines to follow them – and they may be in opposition to his opinion or partly contradicting it, requiring further studying and following up, etc. – and this is one of the greatest forms of deception and trickery!

Shaykh Taqī ad-Dīn ibn Taymiyyah said in his “Refutation of as-Subkī on the Issue of Conditional Divorce”:

Some scholars even have claimed consensus on the necessity of abiding by emancipation oaths, as Ibn Jarīr mentioned about some and opposed it, and as Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿqūb al-Jawzjāni mentioned the consensus that there is no expiation for emancipation oaths and divorce oaths; so if it were not for the prevailing practice that the one who swore by that is obligated to abide by it and expiation does not benefit him, no one from the people of knowledge would have claimed consensus. And if the prevailing practice in some lands is according to a certain opinion, people will be afraid to contradict it, especially if it coincides with the objectives of some rulers, as they punish those who contradict them, such that in lands where an innovation appears, the people of Ḥadīth cannot show ḥadīths that contradict that innovation.

Shaykh Bābṭain continues:

And the ignorant person’s saying: “If this were true, so-and-so would have known it;” this is the claim of the disbelievers in their saying:

﴿لَوْ كَانَ خَيْرًا مَّا سَبَقُونَآ إِلَيْهِ ﴾

If it had [truly] been good, they would not have preceded us to it

and their saying:

﴿أَهَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ مَنَّ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيْهِم مِّنۢ بَيْنِنَآ ﴾

Is it these whom Allāh has favored among us?

and so on.

Shaykh Taqi ad-Din Ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā:

And if it is said to this seeker of guidance: ‘Who’s more knowledgeable, you or the Imām so-and-so?’ this would be a false counter-argument; Because the Imām so-and-so was contradicted in this issue by someone who is his equivalent from the Imāms, and you are not more knowledgeable than either one of them, but attributing them to the Imāms is the same as attributing Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, ʿAlī, Ibn Masʿūd, Ubayy, Muʿāḏ, etc. to the Imāms and so on, so just as these Companions are equal to each other in competency in matters of dispute, if they dispute about something, they refer what they dispute about to Allāh and the Messenger, even if some of them may be more knowledgeable in other matters, and so on.