Who Was Rebekah’s Father?

“I am the daughter of Betuel the son of Milkah, whom she bore to Nahor” (Gen 24:24) – Why the unusual and cumbersome genealogical description?^[1]

Dr. Rabbi Zev Farber

Eliezer and Rebekah. Gustave Doré 1866

Abraham, advanced in years and blessed with wealth, charges his servant with finding a wife from outside the local Canaanite families, for Isaac:

בראשית כד:ד כִּי אֶל אַרְצִי וְאֶל מוֹלַדְתִּי תֵּלֵךְ וְלָקַחְתָּ אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי לְיִצְחָק.

Gen 24:4 but you will go to the land of my birth and get a wife for my son Isaac.

After the servant asks what to do if the woman prefers that Isaac move to her land instead, Abraham warns the servant never to bring Isaac out of Canaan, but reassures him that the plan will work:

בראשית כד:ז יְ-הוָה אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם אֲשֶׁר לְקָחַנִי מִבֵּית אָבִי וּמֵאֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתִּי וַאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לִי וַאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לִי לֵאמֹר לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת הוּא יִשְׁלַח מַלְאָכוֹ לְפָנֶיךָ וְלָקַחְתָּ אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי מִשָּׁם.

Gen 24:7 YHWH, the God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house and from my native land, who promised me on oath, saying, ‘I will assign this land to your offspring’ — He will send His angel before you, and you will get a wife for my son from there.

Abraham’s reference to YHWH taking him out of his homeland, his birth place, and his father’s house harkens back to the first command Abraham received from YHWH in the opening of the Abraham narrative:

בראשית יב:א וַיֹּאמֶר יְ-הוָה אֶל אַבְרָם לֶךְ לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָ וּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ וּמִבֵּית אָבִיךָ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ.

Gen 12:1 YHWH said to Abram, “Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you.[2]

Abraham does not name this homeland when speaking with the servant, but the text tells us soon after that the land is called Aram-naharayim:

בראשית כד:י …וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל אֲרַם נַהֲרַיִם אֶל עִיר נָחוֹר.

Gen 24:10 and he set out and went to Aram-naharayim, to the city of Nahor.

The city is here referred to incidentally, as the city of Nahor, who is Abraham’s brother. At no time does Abraham say that his servant should specifically look for a member of his family,^[3]but fortuitously Rebekah, the woman Abraham’s servant chooses, is from this clan:

בראשית כד:כג וַיֹּאמֶר בַּת מִי אַתְּ… כד:כדוַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו בַּת בְּתוּאֵל אָנֹכִי בֶּן מִלְכָּה אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לְנָחוֹר.

Gen 24:23 And he said, “whose daughter are you?… 24:24She said, “I am the daughter of Betuel the son of Milkah, whom she bore to Nahor.”

This is a very strange answer. Where else in the Bible do we hear such a cumbersome lineage? Not only does she mention her father (Betuel), and her grandfather (Nahor), but even her grandmother (Milkah)! This same lineage was also mentioned earlier when the text introduces the reader to Rebekah (v. 15), and is repeated by the servant when he retells this story (v. 47). Why this unusual and cumbersome introduction?

Betuel the Aramean from Paddan-aram (P)

This very detailed lineage in Genesis 24 contrasts starkly with the description of Rebekah’s family in Genesis 25:

בראשית כה:כ וַיְהִי יִצְחָק בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בְּקַחְתּוֹ אֶת רִבְקָה בַּת בְּתוּאֵל הָאֲרַמִּי מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם אֲחוֹת לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה.

Gen 25:20 Isaac was forty years old when he took to wife Rebekah, daughter of Betuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean.

In this text, Rebekah is merely the daughter Betuel the Aramean and the sister of Laban. No mention is made of Betuel’s father or mother.

Betuel is mentioned again in a similar way when Isaac sends Jacob off to marry one of Laban’s daughters:

בראשית כח:א וַיִּקְרָא יִצְחָק אֶל יַעֲקֹב וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתוֹ וַיְצַוֵּהוּ וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ לֹא תִקַּח אִשָּׁה מִבְּנוֹת כְּנָעַן. כח:ב קוּם לֵךְ פַּדֶּנָה אֲרָם בֵּיתָה בְתוּאֵל אֲבִי אִמֶּךָ וְקַח לְךָ מִשָּׁם אִשָּׁה מִבְּנוֹת לָבָן אֲחִי אִמֶּךָ.	Gen 28:1 So Isaac sent for Jacob and blessed him. He instructed him, saying, “You shall not take a wife from among the Canaanite women. 28:2 Up, go to Paddan-aram, to the house of Betuel, your mother’s father, and take a wife there from among the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother….”
בראשית כח:ה וַיִּשְׁלַח יִצְחָק אֶת יַעֲקֹב וַיֵּלֶךְ פַּדֶּנָה אֲרָם אֶל לָבָן בֶּן בְּתוּאֵל הָאֲרַמִּי אֲחִי רִבְקָה אֵם יַעֲקֹב וְעֵשָׂו.	Gen 28:5 Then Isaac sent Jacob off, and he went to Paddan-aram, to Laban the son of Betuel the Aramean, the brother of Rebekah, mother of Jacob and Esau.

Again, we hear that Betuel is Rebekah’s father, but nothing about his being the son of Nahor or Milkah or related in any way to Isaac and Abraham.

Laban son of Nahor?

All of these texts agree that Betuel is the father of Rebekah and Laban.  Later in Genesis, however, Nahor is presented as Laban’s father.  This is narrated when Jacob runs away to Laban’s city to escape Esau and goes to the well and speaks the local shepherds:

בראשית כט:ד וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם יַעֲקֹב אַחַי מֵאַיִן אַתֶּם וַיֹּאמְרוּ מֵחָרָן אֲנָחְנוּ. כט:הוַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם הַיְדַעְתֶּם אֶת לָבָן בֶּן נָחוֹר וַיֹּאמְרוּ יָדָעְנוּ.

Gen 29:4 Jacob said to them, “My friends, where are you from?” And they said, “We are from Haran.” 29:5 He said to them, “Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” And they said, “Yes, we do.”

In this text, not only is Laban’s father Nahor rather than Betuel,^[4] but the name of the city is Haran, not Padan-aram. 

Some other verses in this story also suggest that Nahor is the father of Laban and Rebekah. For example, when the servant heads to Abraham’s home town, the text states that he was headed to “the city of Nahor” (v. 10), not the city of Betuel.

More telling, is the servant’s reaction when he finds out who Rebekah is, and refers to her as the daughter of his master’s brother:

בראשית כד:כז וַיֹּאמֶר בָּרוּךְ יְ-הוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲדֹנִי אַבְרָהָם אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָזַב חַסְדּוֹ וַאֲמִתּוֹ מֵעִם אֲדֹנִי אָנֹכִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ נָחַנִי יְ-הוָה בֵּית אֲחֵי [תה”ש ונה”ש אֲחִי] אֲדֹנִי.

Gen 24:27 And he said, “Blessed be YHWH, the God of my master Abraham, who has not withheld His steadfast faithfulness from my master. For I have been guided on my errand by YHWH, to the house of my master’s brothers [LXX and SP: brother].”

In the LXX and SP, the word “brother” is in singular (אֲחִי); this fits a story where Rebekah is Nahor’s daughter, since Nahor is Abraham’s brother. In the MT, the word is plural “brothers” (אֲחֵי) and is likely meant to convey the vaguer concept “kinsmen,” since Rebekah is clearly not the daughter of Abraham’s “brothers” (in plural). Thus, it seems likely that the MT’s pointing is an attempt to avoid the implication that Rebekah is Nahor’s daughter.

Finally, when Jacob and Laban meet for the last time in Gilad, Laban sets up a pillar of stones and declares that neither of them should ever cross this pillar with evil intentions, because the gods will be watching:

בראשית לא:נג אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם וֵאלֹהֵי נָחוֹר יִשְׁפְּטוּ בֵינֵינוּ…

Gen 31:53 May the god(s) of Abraham and the god(s) of Nahor judge between us…

Laban makes no mention of Betuel here.

Two Traditions about Rebekah and Laban’s Parentage

Many critical scholars explain this confusion about whether Nahor or Betuel was the father of Rebekah and Laban with a source-critical solution, that J and P have different traditions about Rebekah and Laban’s parentage.^[5] More specifically, the text which refers to Rebekah as the daughter of Betuel the Aramean from Paddan-aram is the Priestly text (P). In this text, Betuel is not the son of Nahor or Isaac’s cousin.^[6]

In the J stories, however, Rebekah is the daughter of Abraham’s brother Nahor, who lives in the city of Haran in the land of Aram-naharayim. This genealogical disparity did not go unnoticed by the Torah’s redactors, who tried to solve the problem by both adding genealogies and revising already existent ones.

The Nahor Genealogy in Genesis 22

We are first introduced to Rebekah in a passage that comes immediately after the story of theAkedah:

בראשית כב:כ וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיֻּגַּד לְאַבְרָהָם לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה יָלְדָה מִלְכָּה גַם הִוא בָּנִים לְנָחוֹר אָחִיךָ. כב:כא אֶת עוּץ בְּכֹרוֹ וְאֶת בּוּז אָחִיו וְאֶת קְמוּאֵל אֲבִי אֲרָם. כב:כב וְאֶת כֶּשֶׂד וְאֶת חֲזוֹ וְאֶת פִּלְדָּשׁ וְאֶת יִדְלָף וְאֵת בְּתוּאֵל.כב:כג וּבְתוּאֵל יָלַד אֶת רִבְקָה שְׁמֹנָה אֵלֶּה יָלְדָה מִלְכָּה לְנָחוֹר אֲחִי אַבְרָהָם.

Gen 22:20 Some time later, Abraham was told, “Milkah too has borne children to your brother Nahor: 22:21 Uz the first-born, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram; 22:22 and Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, and Betuel” 22:23 —Betuel being the father of Rebekah. These eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham’s brother.[7]

This genealogy makes Nahor the father of Betuel and the grandfather of Rebekah, thus connecting the father in P (Betuel) with the father in J (Nahor) and putting Rebekah squarely into Abraham’s family. The text was likely added by a redactor for exactly this purpose.^[8] 

The list was probably not created out of whole cloth by the editor, but borrowed from somewhere else and adapted to its current context. This is clear from the fact that it references Aram—the eponymous ancestor of the Arameans—as the son of Kemuel and thus Nahor’s grandson and Betuel’s nepew. But in both J and P, Rebekah’s father lives among the Arameans, or is himself an Aramean, implying they were already a people!^[9]

Redacting Rebekah’s Introduction

The other place where the redactor made adjustments is in the story of the finding of Rebekah, which is from J and would originally have featured Nahor and not Betuel as her father. When Rebekah is first introduced, the verse says (24:15):

בראשית כד:טו וַיְהִי הוּא טֶרֶם כִּלָּה לְדַבֵּר וְהִנֵּה רִבְקָה יֹצֵאת אֲשֶׁר יֻלְּדָה לִבְתוּאֵל בֶּן מִלְכָּה אֵשֶׁת נָחוֹר אֲחִי אַבְרָהָם וְכַדָּהּ עַל שִׁכְמָהּ.

Gen 24:15 He had scarcely finished speaking, when Rebekah came out, who was born to Betuel, the son of Milkah the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her jar on her shoulder.

As noted above, the introduction is long and cumbersome. The only important fact about Rebekah is that she is from Abraham’s family. Thus, it is understandable that the lineage would include her father and her grandfather, since the latter is Abraham’s brother. But why include her grandmother? Once we realize that in the original J story, her father was Nahor and not Betuel, the explanation for this cumbersome phrase becomes clear: a much shorter J genealogy was supplemented here to comport with P.  The redactional supplement that accomplishes this is noted in italics:

…וְהִנֵּה רִבְקָה יֹצֵאת אֲשֶׁר יֻלְּדָה לִבְתוּאֵל בֶּן מִלְכָּה אֵשֶׁת נָחוֹר אֲחִי אַבְרָהָם וְכַדָּהּ עַל שִׁכְמָהּ.

…Rebekah came out, who was born to Betuel, the son of Milkah the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her jar on her shoulder.[10]

A similar redactional addition is found when Rebekah tells Abraham’s servant who she is (24:24), and when the servant repeats the story to Laban and Rebekah’s mother:

בראשית כד:כד וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו בַּת בְּתוּאֵל אָנֹכִי בֶּן מִלְכָּה אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לְנָחוֹר.	Gen 24:24 She replied, “The daughter of Betuel is who I am, the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.”
בראשית כד:מז וַתֹּאמֶר בַּת בְּתוּאֵל בֶּןנָחוֹר אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לּוֹ מִלְכָּה	Gen 24:47 And she said, “The daughter of Betuel, son ofNahor, whom Milkah bore to him.”

When these redactions are removed, we are left with a simple and consistent J text, in which Rebekah is the daughter of Nahor, and thus Isaac’s cousin.^[11]

P is also consistent, she is the daughter of Betuel the Aramean and not related to Abraham at all. It is only in the combined and redacted Pentateuch text that we find both traditions combined into one extensive and cumbersome genealogy in which Rebekah is both the daughter of Betuel, the granddaughter of Nahor and Milkah, and a cousin of Isaac.

___________________

Dr. Rabbi Zev Farber is a fellow at Project TABS and editor of TheTorah.com. He holds a Ph.D. from Emory University in Jewish Religious Cultures (Hebrew Bible focus) and an M.A. from Hebrew University in Jewish History (biblical period focus). In addition to academic training, Zev holds ordination (yoreh yoreh) and advanced ordination (yadin yadin) from Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) Rabbinical School. He is the author of Images of Joshua in the Bible and their Reception (De Gruyter, BZAW 457) and the editor of Halakhic Realities: Collected Essays on Brain Death (Maggid).

11/09/2017

[1] This piece is an expanded version of an older archived piece, “Was Betuel Lavan’s Father? An Analysis of Lavan and Rebekah’s Genealogy,” TheTorah.com (2014).

[2] Similarly, the promise that Abraham’s seed will receive the land comes almost immediately after, once Abraham enters the land and begins to traverse it:

בראשית יב:ו וַיַּעֲבֹר אַבְרָם בָּאָרֶץ עַד מְקוֹם שְׁכֶם עַד אֵלוֹן מוֹרֶה… יב:ז וַיֵּרָא יְ-הוָה אֶל אַבְרָם וַיֹּאמֶר לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת.

Gen 12:6 Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, at the terebinth of Moreh… 12:7 YHWH appeared to Abram and said, “I will assign this land to your heirs.”

[3] For discussion of this point, see Martin Lockshin, “A Wife for Isaac: From Abraham’s Hometown or Family?” TheTorah.com (2015). 

[4] Some critical biblical scholars solve this problem by suggesting that בן, “son of” in 29:5 really means “descendent of.” For example, the British scholar S. R. Driver (1846-1914), Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, notes other cases where son, בן, means grandson:

“Son.” i.e. descendant, Laban being in reality son of Bethuel (xxviii. 5), and grandson of Nahor (xxii. 22). So in ‘Jehu, son of Nimshi,’ 2 K. ix. 20 (see v. 14), ‘Zechariah, son of Iddo,’ Ezr. v. 1 (see Zech. i. 1).

Samuel R. Driver, The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes (London: Methuan, 1916), 269. Some medieval Jewish commentators already proposed this solution. For example, Ramban (1194-1270), in his commentary (ad loc.) notes:

ויתכן שהיה בתואל אדם פחות מעלה ולא ירצה לבן שייחסו אותו האנשים רק לאבי אביו

It appears that Betuel was an unimportant person, and Lavan wished to be identified by people as a descendent of his father’s father.

This answer is problematic. When Isaac tells Jacob to go to Paddan Aram, he tells him to go to the house of “Laban son of Betuel.” If Isaac did not know that Laban preferred to be called “son of Nahor,” how could Jacob have known? 

[5] This was suggested more than a century ago by the German Bible scholar Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932), when explaining why Jacob calls Laban “Nahor’s son”:

בן is not to be taken in the broader sense of “grandson” here. Instead, according to the original tradition in J, even in Gen 24, Laban is Nahor’s son. He became Betuel’s son only secondarily

See, Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (trans. Mark E. Biddle; Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997 [German ed., 1910]), 317. His contemporary, the British Bible scholar John Skinner (1851-1925) makes the same suggestion:

[T]here is a considerable probability that the original J made Laban and Rebekah the children of Nahôr.

See, John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2^nd Edition (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930 [1910]), 343. (Both commentaries were published the same year.) Although other suggestions have been floated with regard to J’s conception of Rebekah’s parentage, Gunkel and Skinner’s suggestion remains the most persuasive.

[6] We do not know how Isaac found Rebekah according to this version, as it has no “finding of Rebekah” story.

[7] The genealogy here continues with four more sons born to Nahor from his concubine:

בראשית כב:כד וּפִילַגְשׁוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ רְאוּמָה וַתֵּלֶד גַּם הִוא אֶת טֶבַח וְאֶת גַּחַם וְאֶת תַּחַשׁ וְאֶת מַעֲכָה.

Gen 22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah, also bore children: Tebah, Gaham, Tahash, and Maacah.

[8] Tzemah Yoreh identifies this text as coming from what he calls the Bridger; a late redactional layer that smooths over rough spots in the text.  See Tzemah Yoreh, Genesis: Israel’s Origins (Kernel to Canon; Modern Scriptures, 2014), 188-189.

[9] The placement of Aram as Kemuel’s son also contradicts the genealogy of Gen 10:22-23 in which Aram is the son of Shem, which would make him many generations earlier than Nahor or Kemuel. In that genealogy, Aram is also the father of Uz, whereas in Gen 22, Uz is his father’s older brother.

[10] Yoreh suggests a slightly different redaction here, namely that the entire genealogy here was added later, noting that the genealogy comes awkwardly after the verb. In fact, this awkward syntax is glossed over in many English translation (e.g., NJPS, NRSV), by putting the genealogy immediately after her name is mentioned. Despite the awkward syntax, I am unconvinced that the entire genealogy was added here as it is important to the story. Moreover, delaying the verb until after the genealogy would also have been awkward. With regard to the editing of vv. 24 and 47, my suggestions agree with Yoreh’s. See his analysis of the revisions in this chapter (which he again attributes to Bridger) in Yoreh, Genesis, 204-211.

[11] The reference to Betuel in 24:50 is also likely redactional, and in any case, causes an enormous narrative problem. See discussion in Zev Farber and Daniel M. Zucker, “Rebekah Ran to her “Mother’s Household”: Where Was her Father?” TheTorah.com (2017). 

Know that departing from the correct path occurs in one of two ways – Dawud Burbank [Audio|En]

by AbdurRahman.org

Sharhu Sunnah : Lesson 11 : Point 07
Shaykh Fawzan | Dawud Burbank [Audio|English]

The author Imam Barbahaaree rahimahullaah said,

And know that departing from the correct path occurs in one of two ways. As for one of them, then it is that a man strays from the correct path, intending nothing but good. So he is not to be followed upon his error, because he is heading towards destruction. And (secondly) a man who deliberately opposes the Truth and acts contrary to the pious ones who came before him, then he is astray, leading others astray. He is a rebellious devil within this nation. It is a duty upon those who are aware of him to warn the people against him and to explain his condition to them so that no one falls into his innovation and is destroyed.

[Souncloud Audio Link] 

The Explanation (Transcription of above Audio):

The Shaykh rahimahullaah having explained in the preceding speech the correct path which it is obligatory upon the Muslim to proceed upon in his `aqeedah (creed and belief and his Religion. He then mentioned that one who departs from this path will be one two men.

The first man: is one who departs from it, not doing so deliberately, rather intending good. However he follows a path other than the path of good. And personal deduction will not be sufficient, even if the person’s intention was righteous and his intent was good, but along with that he must be upon the correct path. This person is counted as being one who has erred. Whoever agrees with him upon that and proceeds with him upon error, and he knows that it is error, then he is destroyed, because this is a path leading to destruction. Even though the person (original person), did not intend to depart from it, rather he was only seeking after good. And this is the condition of many of those people who introduce new ideas from themselves in the matter of knowledge of `aqeedah (creed and belief). So this is a matter which is not permissible and they are not to be followed upon it and the person is not upon correctness.

Allaah the Majestic and Most High says,

And this is my Straight Path so follow it, and do not follow the divergent paths which will separate you away from His path (Allaah’s path) (Sooratul-An`aam (6), aayah 153)

So whichever path will take us away from the Straight Path, then we reject it. Even if the person upon it is intending good and his intention is good, then still we do not following him upon that. And he, if he continues upon his error, he will go on to destruction, because whoever leaves the correct path on his journey and takes a path leading to ruin, then he will be destroyed. [01]

As for the second man: then he is the one who exits deliberately. He is aware of the Truth. And he knows that what he is gone out to is baatil (false and futile). However, he deliberately exits from the Truth with the intent of misleading the people.

So the first person, his intention was to rectify the people. However he did not proceed upon the correct path. Whereas the second person, his intention is to misguide the people and to turn them away from the correct path. So this one is a shaytaan (a devil), because the devils take the people away from the Straight Path. Iblees said to his Lord, the Mighty and Majestic,

"I shall lie in wait for them and lead them astray from Your Straight Path"(Sooratul-A`raaf (7), aayah 16)

He meant that he would turn them away from it, towards the deviant paths. And the Prophet, sallAllaahu `alayhi wa sallam, struck an example for this, when he drew a straight line and he drew around it other lines. He said with regard to the straight path,

“This is the path of Allaah,”

And he said with regard to the other paths,

“and these are the other paths, upon every path from them there is a devil calling the people to it.” [02]

This is a clear illustration, and what the Shaykh (Imaam Al-Barbahaaree) mentioned here is consistent with it. Since the person who takes the people from the Straight Path, taking them to new and innovated paths, does not want good for them. Rather he wants for them destruction and he is a devil. Whether he be from the devils of the jinn or from the devils of mankind. So it is upon us to beware of this even more than we are wary of the first one, because this one deliberately tries to misguide the people.

His saying, “So he is astray, leading others astray. He is a rebellious devil.” He is misguided himself, misguiding other people and he is a rebellious, defiant devil. He wants the people turn away from the Straight Path.

His saying, “It is a duty upon whoever knows of him that he should warn the people against him and make clear his condition to the people so that no one falls into his innovation and is destroyed.” This person who has departed from the Truth deliberately, it is not permissible to remain silent about him. Rather it is obligatory to disclose his affair and to expose his shameful state, so that the people can beware of him. It should not be said, “The people are free to have their own opinions,” “The people should have freedom of speech,” or “There should be respect for the opinions of others,” as they constantly say these days, with regard to respecting the other person’s opinion. So the matter is not a matter of opinions, the matter is a question of ittibaa` (following the Truth). So for us, Allaah has laid down and described a clear path and He has told us to proceed upon it when He said,

"And this is my straight path, so follow it." (Sooratul- An`aam (6), aayah 153)

So whichever person comes to us and wants us to depart from this path then, firstly, we reject his saying, and secondly, we make his affair clear and we warn the people against him. And it is not allowable to remain silent about him, because if we remain silent about him, then the people will be fooled by him. Especially if he is a person of eloquence, one who can speak and write well, and a person of culture, then the people will be fooled by him. They will say, “This is a qualified person” “This person is from the thinkers,” as occurs at present. So the matter is very dangerous.

And this shows that it is obligatory to refute the one who opposes. Opposite to those people who say, “Leave off refutations,” “Leave the people,” “Let everyone have his own opinion and have his own respect and have freedom of thought and the freedom to speak.” In this way this nation will be destroyed. The Salaf (Predecessors), were not silent about the like of those people. Rather they exposed them and refuted them, because they knew of their danger to this nation. So we have no scope for remaining silent about their evil. Rather we must make clear that which Allaah send down. Otherwise we will be people hiding the Truth from those whom about Allaah has said,

Those who conceal that which Allaah sent down from the clear signs and the guidance after we have made it clear to the people in the Book; those people Allaah curses them and those who curse, curse them. (Sooratul-Baqarah (2), aayah 159)

So the affair is not restricted to the mubtadi’ (innovator). Rather the matter involves those who remain silent about him, because blame and punishment include him as well, because what is obligatory is to clarify and clearly explain to the people. This is the role of the knowledge based refutations (rudood), which are to be found plentifully in Islaamic book shops today. All of them defending the Straight Path and warning against those people. So no one promotes these ideas, the idea of the freedom to hold any opinion, or the freedom of speech and respecting others, except for one who strives to misguide and who conceals the Truth.

So we, our intention is the Truth. We do not intend just to defame the people or to just speak against the people. The intent is to make the Truth clear. This is an amaanah (trust and responsibility) which Allaah has placed upon the scholars. So it is not permissible to remain silent about the like of those people. However, unfortunately, when a scholar comes and refutes the like of those people, then they say, “He is just one who is speaking in haste,” to the rest of the evil whisperings. So such a person should not betray the People of Knowledge for their clarifying the evil of the callers to misguidance to the people. He should not betray and let them down. [03] [04]

Points discussed by Shaykh Saalih al-Fowzaan and Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee hafizahumAllaah:

leaving the correct path occurs in one of two ways:

• The first is one who leaves the correct path but only intends good
  1. He did not seek knowledge from the correct place and is heading for destruction
  2. Following him in his error knowingly is a path leading to destruction
  3. He should be advised privately (if he is not calling to his error)
• The second one leaves the correct path deliberately, obstinately and knowing the Truth
  1. He wishes to mislead the people and he is a devil
  2. The devil misleads people from the Straight Path (aayah and hadeeth mentioned as proof)
  3. It is obligatory to warn against this person otherwise he will fool the people
  4. This is the role of the knowledge-based refutations, rudood
  5. Clarifying the Truth is a trust and responsibility Allaah placed upon the scholars
  6. Remaining silent about those who mislead the people is hiding the Truth

Footnotes:

[01] Translator’s side point: With regard to the wording, “ Innahu Haalaka” this person who intended good but strayed away from the true path, strayed into innovation, then literally ‘he is destroyed’, Shaykh Ahmad an-Najmee rahimahullaah said, “I say, if the author rahimahullaah, had restricted this wording and the judgement concerning it, such that he had said, ‘he is destroyed, if he dies upon it and does not repent’ (it would be better). And I say also, that intending good will not benefit a person, that he just intends what is good, but he does not adhere to the Straight Path which came from Allaah and from His Messenger sallAllaahu `alayhi wa sallam.” Then the Shaykh, mentioned the long incident of those people who were counting the stones in the masjid (reported by ad-Daarimee in his Sunan) the narration concerning `Abdullaah ibn Mas`ood radiyAllaahu `anh. When they were criticized by `Abdullaah ibn Mas`ood radiyAllaahu `anh, that they made their excuse and they said, “By Allaah, O Aboo `Abdur-Rahmaan, we only intended good.” Ibn Mas`ood radiyAllaahu `anh, responded to them, “And how many people intend good, but do not attain it.”

[02] Reported by at-Tayaalisee in his Musnad, Imaam Ahmad in his Musnad, Sa`eed ibn Mansoor in his Sunan, ad-Daarimee, an-Nasaa·ee in (Sunan) al-Kubraa and a number of other references besides. All of them say as a narration of `Abdullaah ibn Mas`ood. It was declared authentic by Ibn Hibbaan and al-Haakim, agreed to by ath-Thahabee and declared saheeh (authentic) by others from the people of knowledge.

Translator’s side point: In addition Shaykh al-Albaanee, in his checking of al-Mishkaat, declared this narration to have a hasan (good) chain of narration.

[03] Translators side point: Shaykh Ahmad an-Najmee rahimahullaah said, “What is obligatory upon everyone who is aware of the Truth is that he should aid it.” After some speech he said, “And whoever claims that refuting the people of innovation causes splits in this nation and it disunites this nation, then he is misguided also, because he wants this nation to unite upon falsehood. This is a matter which Islaam does not consent to.”

[04] Translators side point: From the taped explanation of Shaykh Saalih ibn Sa`d as-Suhaymee hafizahullaah. With regard to this point that the people who depart from the Truth are one of two people, he said, “Yes, this is a precise categorisation from the Shaykh, rahimahullaah. The innovators are indeed of two categories, because the Shaykh, as you know, throughout his whole book, his focus is upon the innovators. And from them there is a category who actually want the Truth, but he does not attain it. Just like the people of thikr who we mentioned a short while ago (the same incident of those people in the masjid who were doing an innovated form of thikr which `Abdullaah ibn Mas`ood criticised). Those who said to Ibn Mas`ood, radiyAllaahu’anh, ‘We only intend the Truth.’ However, how many people there are who intend the Truth, but do not attain it.

“Whoever intends the Truth, he should seek it from its correct place. And the Truth does not come about through venerating individuals, nor through flashy words, nor by having a majority. It only comes about through ittibaa`, following the Truth, following the first generations, the generations of the Companions and the Taabi`een and proceeding upon their methodology. So the like of this person (the first person, he strays into innovation but he only intends the Truth) is destroyed if he does not come back and seek the Truth with its proof from the correct place. However his danger is less than the danger of the second category of the people. And perhaps his harm will be restricted to himself, meaning the one who intends the Truth but he seeks it not in the correct way. So he slips and innovates and falls into innovation, and the judgement upon him will be in the light of how severe his innovations are. It may be of the level of something less or it may be something major or it may be something which takes him out of Islaam, but his danger will be less. And your advising him should be between you and him, if you know that he is not a caller to innovation and that he does not propagate innovation. Then you should come to him privately and you make clear to him the correct path, so that he can follow it. You make clear to him the methodology of the Ahlus-Sunnah walJamaa`ah. You don’t make his affair open. You don’t mention him upon the minbars. You don’t mention him as being a person with criticism. Rather you direct him and give him sincere advice. So if this type of person is how he is, then maybe be one day, by the permission of Allaah, he will turn back. And even if he stays upon his innovation, then he does not represent a great danger to the people (he doesn’t call to this innovation). However what is obligatory is that you strive to give him advice and clarify and give him correct, constructive direction.

“As for the second category of people, those who are obstinate, those who do so deliberately with pride, they commit innovation, obstinately, deliberately. The more you forbid him, the more he increases in his error until he becomes a caller to innovation. Therefore the Salaf used to reject the narrations of an innovator, who was a caller to innovation and not accept them, rather they would reject them and warn against him and against his innovation. So the like of this person, you must make his affair clear and warn against him. And if he has written a book, he is refuted with a book. If he has a tape, he is refuted with a tape. If he gives speeches, he is refuted in speeches. The people are warned against his evil. ”

Then the Shaykh went on to mention further examples in that regard: this is not backbiting; this is correct; this is one of the examples that Imaam An-Nawawee in his book Riyaadus-Saaliheen mentioned are an exception. This is a case where it is obligatory to speak against that person and it cannot be said, “This is backbiting, this is forbidden.” This is not the case. Then after some speech the Shaykh said finishing, “So this second type, who is indicated by the author here, he is the most dangerous of people for this nation. Therefore it is obligatory to warn the people against him and to draw attention to their evil and to warn the nation against their evil. ”

Transcribed by Fawad Abu aid Al Afghaani. Download PDF of Lesson 10

Ithaaful-Qaaree bit-Ta`leeqaat `alaa Sharhis-Sunnah
by Shaykh Saalih ibn Fowzaan al-Fowzaan hafizahullaah
Translated by Aboo Talhah Daawood Burbank, rahimahullaah

Posted with kind permission from Dawud Burbank rahimahullaah

Listen to the full Audio Series of Sharhu Sunnah
Sharh-us-Sunnah – Shaykh Saalih Fawzaan – Dawood Burbank [Audio|En]

Visit : Book Study of Sharhu Sunnah of Imaam Barbahaaree

Related Link : https://abdurrahman.org/innovation/