Skip to main content

Tag: hizbiyah

[Part 5] Series of Responses to Abu Usaamah’s Habitual Deceitfulness

Written by Salafi Dawah Manchester on . Posted in Abu Usaamah ad-Dhahabi (Goldie), Deviated Callers & Individuals.

Deceitfully Refraining from Explaining and Stating the Scholarly Restrictions Regarding the Principle: “Whoever does not make Tabdee of Mubtadi is a Mubtadi”

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

In his deceptive reply to the Friday incident at Al-Markazus Salafi, the man of bidah mentioned a principle by way of which he sought to establish yet again a trick utilised by ahlul bidah- narrating only what benefits him -(and this time he referred to a principle and refrained from explaining it, whilst passing a verdict against us); whereas the Salafiyyoon narrate what is for them and against. Indeed, it is well known that Abu Usaamah and his allies amongst the Mu’mayyi’ah are famous for utilising general statements, especially regarding some affairs that have been detailed, explained and clarified by the scholars in order to show the falsehood of the Haddaadiyyah and Mu’mayyi’ah, and the sound stance of Ahlus Sunnah.

Abu Usaama stated that we declared him a Mubtadi simply because he does not declare Al-Maribi a Mubtadi, and this, according to Abu Usaamah, is a bidah we are upon – because we declared him a Mubtadi solely due to the fact that he does not declare al-Maribi a Mubtadi.

Firstly: We do not know a single Salafi who preceded any Salafi scholar in declaring Abu Usaama a man of bidah; rather his affair was made known to Shaikh Ahmad An-Najmi (rahimahullaah).

Secondly: Once again, as it is well known of him, he deliberately sought to conceal the knowledge base clarification regarding this affair in order to deceitfully slander Salafiyyoon, just as he attempted to conceal, lie and distort whilst seeking to slander Shaikh Rabee and Ustaadh Abu Khadeejah in the past.

Thirdly: Indeed, what Abu Usaama sought to conceal from his unsuspecting followers will be revealed as follows In-Shaa-Allaah. Shaikh Rabee Bin Haadi (may Allaah preserve him) was asked:

Question: The principle: ‘whoever does not declare an innovator as an innovation, he (himself) is an innovator; some people say that this principle is strange; (or alien to Salafiyyah);

Shaikh Rabee [may Allaah preserve him] stated:

It is not correct to apply this principle unrestrictedly because it maybe that he is unaware of the Bidah committed by that person, therefore he refrains from declaring him an innovator due to Wara [apprehensive fear]. [1] Why should you declare him an innovator? [i.e. why should you declare him an innovator when it is the case that he is unaware of the bidah of that Mubtadi or refrains from making Tabdee out of apprehensive fear].

But if he knows the innovator, [i.e. knows that such a person is upon bidah due to which the evidence was established against him], loves him and allies with him, then he is a Mubtadi.  This is the distinction in this affair – he knows that that person is a Mubtadi but he aids him and wages war against Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah, then he is a mubtadi without a doubt. As for a person who does not know that such and such person is a Mubtadi, he is not to be declared an innovator.

[As for] you  [i.e. the scholar or student of knowledge who is qualified to make Tabdee] – the one who studied the affair of [that person] and you know that he allies with a Mubtadi, puts him in a favourable position, wages war against Ahlus Sunnah for the sake of that Mubtadi and for the sake of this falsehood, this person is a Mubtadi; misguided.

As for the person who does not know that indeed such and such person is a mubtadi, then advise him and clarify for him [i.e. with clear unambiguous proofs until he understands] that such person is a mubtadi. So unless he ceases [i.e. refrains from defending this mubtadi after understanding the evidences], then put him with his companion – the mubtadi. [Source: Awnul Baari 2/891..slightly paraphrased & abridged]

The Shaikh answered: Finally: This is what Abu Usama sought to conceal in order to deceive his listeners that he was declared a man of Bidah merely based on the fact that he refuses to make Tabdee of Al-Maribi. So his unsuspecting listeners should be made aware of the fact that he deliberately refrained from explaining this principle as well as the fact that we did not precede Shaikh Ahmad (rahimahullaah), nor do we intend to precede the scholars (In-Shaa-Allaah) in declaring him or anyone else a man of bidah and misguidance. However, manipulation, concealment, lies and deception became Abu Usaama’s second skin since when he started defending Mubtadi’ah and cannot argue with the Salafiyyoon based on any evidence; rather deception is what appeals to him but not the truth.

We ask Allaah for Ikhlaas, Thabaat and Husnul Khaatimah. Aameen

To be continued…In-Shaa-Allaah

(1) Wara (apprehensive fear). The translation of this term was taken from one of Ustaadh Amjad Rafiq’s (may Allaah preserve him)  translations.

 

[Part 2] Series of Responses to Abu Usaamah’s Habitual Deceitfulness

Written by Salafi Dawah Manchester on . Posted in Abu Usaamah ad-Dhahabi (Goldie), Ali Hassan Al Halabi, Deviated Callers & Individuals.

Another Deceptive Attempt by Abu Usaamah to Nullify The Fatwa Against Him (via Facebook)

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Every Sensible Person Can Smell The Rat Here? [Abu Usaamah Does Not Support Al-Maribi (according to his followers)]; Yet He Elevated Al-Maribi With Praise

Abu Usaamah was recently caught amputating important sections of the question that was put to Shaikh Ahmad An-Najmi (rahimahullaah) about him, see here: https://twitter.com/SalafiCentre/status/718165871961751553

Just as a reminder here is the full question:

“O Shaykh Ahmad we have with us in America a man called Abu Usaamah, who is considered to be from the Du’aat, he aids and supports Abul-Hasan and he calls some noble Salafi brothers ghulaat (extremists), muqallidah (blind followers), and muhqiboon (the people whose religion is the religion of the one they blindly follow), so what is the legislated position from this man and how should we deal with him?’’

With the answer

“Your position with him is the same as your position with the People of Innovation. Turn away from him and abandon him.”

It was strange for us to discover his (or his administration’s/PR people’s) response on his facebook1 page. Soon after that uncovering of his deception, he/they made a short reply in an attempt to rebut what had been made clear, trying to annul againt he Shaykh’s verdict by claiming that

“BLATANT LIES WERE TOLD TO THE SHAYKH”

and

“Abu Usaamah DOES NOT support Abul Hasan al Ma’ribi at all, but does not see him to be an innovator”

These claims were made against the backdrop of that clearly incriminating cut and paste fatwa Abu Usaamah tried to use. Abu Usaamah here is trying to annul the section in the fatwa where the question states “supports Abul-Hasan“. He thinks by doing so, he may once again dig himself out of the hole he has found himself in, by now claiming that he does not support Al-Maribi (as stated in the question in the fatwa), and therefore by extension say that this fatwa cannot apply to him?!

Well once again this is a smokescreen, and another attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the people. So let us go back and reconcile his statement, with the position Abu Usaamah was in at the time of the question! So he stated in 2002 about Al-Maribi:

WHAT I STILL BELIEVE TODAY Wa Lilaahi-l-Hamd, that Abul Hasan IS SALAFEE and that the (TRUE) MAJOR SCHOLARS of this era, Imaam al-Albaanee and Imaam Ibn Baaz and Imaam Ibn ‘Uthaimeen and Shaikh Muqbil (may Allah have mercy upon them) they all died while being pleased with him – and that carries some weight and consideration in this Deen?! (raghm unoofihim)

So this statement was made by Abu Usaamah, after the proofs had been established against Al-Maribi. Yet he is trying to claim that the fatwa cannot apply because he was is not a supporter of Al-Maribi?! We can clearly see from the statement above, that ad-Dhahabi still elevated Al-Maribi (the innovator) with praise! He uttered words that put Al-Maribi in a favourable position, even going as far as adding some shubuhaat (doubts) about support for Al Ma’ribi from scholars.

With regards to his doubt-ridden statement above the students at SalafiPublications (may Allaah preserve them) replied to the above statement (made by ad-Dhahabi). But let us all be clear and in no doubt of the position held by Abu Usaamah with regards to the innovator Abu Hasan al Ma’ribi when the question was asked about him. And with Allah lies the success.

 

Response by Salafi Publications to the statement of Praise and elevation from Abu Usaamah for Abul Hasan al Ma’ribi

Abu Usaamah adh-Dhahabi, may Allaah guide him away from this Ikhwaanee fitnah, makes numerous references to TRUE Major scholars. And he also makes it a point to emphasise the word “TRUE”, keeping it in caps, and also in brackets, before the term “Major Scholars”. By this term he means to intend either the Imaams of the Sunnah who have recently passed away, or those from the Major scholars, who defend Abul-Hasan or do not share the same viewpoint as those who have refuted him and exposed him.

A few points need to be made clear, because this can be counted as talbees upon the people, whether intended or not:

ONE: When a reader reads his, he most probably thinks that therefore the TRUE major scholars are those who spoke good of Abul-Hasan al-Ma’ribee and did not criticise him or expel him from Salafiyyah.

TWO: When a reader reads this, he is led to believe that Shaykh Rabee is not from the “TRUE” Major scholars, even if Abu Usaamah does not intend this, but this is what comes across to the reader, because the situation here for Abu Usaamah is one of vindicating himself and his false position on Abul-Hasan, hence he deliberately made it a point to emphasise the TRUE major scholars, and he connected this with the position on Abul-Hasan and defence of him. And we do not dispute that all those mentioned are in fact TRUE Major scholars, we are in agreement. But this is ends up with talbees upon the people, whether intended or not, because, we have to keep things into context.

THREE:  Imaam al-Albaanee said, “The carrier of the flag of al-jarh wat-ta’deel is our brother, dr. Rabee… and those who refute him do not so upon knowledge, rather to him is all the knowledge”. And Imaam al-Albaani here is not talking about the narrators of hadeeth, he is speaking about refuting the opposers to Salafiyyah. Imaam Ibn Uthaymeen also said, that Shaykh Rabee’ is one whose manhaj is  Salafiyyah and he is very strong in calling to it, and the Shaykh also said that the only reason why people find fault with Shaykh Rabee’ and dislike his cassettes and make accusations against him is because he spoke about their figureheads from the contemporary latecomers. Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan has many statements written and recorded in which he says that Shaykh Rabee’ is amongst those who have skilled and deep knowledge in refuting those who wish inhiraaf in the da’wah. And Shaykh Muhammad al-Bannaa has many statements about Shaykh Rabee also, and Shaykh Muqbil said that whoever Shaykh Rabee says is a hizbee, then it will become clear to you after some time that he is a hizbee. Also Shaykh Rabee is amongst the oldest of the scholars alive today. And don’t forget what Usaamah al-Qoosee (may Allaah guide him) used to say, that Rabee is the Imaam Ahmad of our times, he is a mihnah (test), he does not compromise nor lie, he speaks the truth, he is a whole manhaj, not just a person. So don’t forget this Yaa Abaa Usaamah, may Allaah guide you away from this Ikhwaanee fitnah.

In light of all of this it is established that Shaykh Rabee’, is a TRUE major Scholar. So it is obligatory upon you to explain this to the people and not to allow the people to be  deceived by these talbeesaat which exist in your bayaan.

FOUR: For the readers, why is this is of significance. This is of significance, because Abul-Hasan al-Ma’ribee and those who are deceived by him like Abu Usaamah, are trying to wage a war against the principles of Jarh of the Innovators and Opposers.

Al-Ma’ribee represents a line and tradition of people, who came before him, who brought about this war. This started with Hasan al-Bannaa with the principle, “Let us cooperate in that which we agree, and pardon each other (i.e. for the Shirk, Innovation, and misguidance), in which we disagree.” This principle abolished the idea of Jarh of the Innovators and these ideas spread by way of al-Ikhwaan into many different lands, thereby harming the Sunnah. Then when the scholars refuted this and explained that there are sects that are headed for the Fire, sects of innovation and they are upon innovation and deviation and hence must be spoken about, and that there are Innovators and those who misguide who must be spoken about, this harmed the Ikhwaanee da’wah. So along came Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq and Salman al-Awdah and Adnaan Ar’oor and they brought al-Muwaazanah. The evil innovation which makes it binding that when you refute someone, an innovator, a deviant, an opposer, you must mention his good points also. So the Major Scholars, amongst the Shaykh Rabee’ at the forefront, and then after him there followed Shaykh al-Albaani, Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Shaykh al-Fawzaan, Shaykh al-Abbaad, and many others who demolished this innovation. Then there came Abu-Hasan al-Maribee, and he brought some new principles, this time to try to demolish the jarh that would come from the scholars. And basically what he wanted to do was to refute the established principle, that a Jarh Mufassar overrules the ta’deel, even if the Mu’addiloon are many in number. So he layed down all his principles, of “tathabbut”, of “absence of taqleed”, “mujmal and mufassal” and many other matters, all to make as many excuses and ways out for those people whom the scholars would refute and criticise and convict with innovation or misguidance, where that was the case. This is what he did, he merely extended the Ikhwaanee war against the Salafees by way of this deception.

So once you have understood all this, you will also have some appreciation as to why what Abu Usaamah has written and his deliberate intent to emphasise TRUE major scholars, only in the context of those who passed away while speaking good of Abul-Hasan al-Ma’ribee or in the context of Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad. This is because this underlying deception (whether it is intended by Abu Usaamah or not) has the effect of leading the person to think: “Yeah, the manhaj of these Scholars is different to the manhaj of Shaykh Rabee. Yeah. Their manhaj wasn’t like this.”

And this type of speech you see also coming from Usaamah al-Qoosee and those with him in their loyalty to Abul-Hasan al-Ma’ribee. Pushing it in the minds of the people that the TRUE major scholars who passed away and Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin who is alive (hafidhahullaah), all have a different manhaj to those criticising Abul-Hasan al-Ma’ribee, and they all have a different manhaj to Shaykh Rabee. All of this is talbees upon the people. This is what this group of people are now doing both in the Arab lands, and also in the West to get this idea across to the people, so beware of it, and they are using the likes of these talbeesaat upon the people. They know that this is the case, even if they do not explicitly say it outwardly, they know deeply inside their own souls, that this is the propaganda they are forcing upon the people. Al-Ma’ribee has come out openly with this, but those who are with him like Usaamah al-Qoosee and those with him, are upon the same thing, but they are not so open and instead use other tactics, like coming out in the name of moderation, balance, equity, justice and so on.

FIVE: So the point here is that we know that if one scholar, known to be upon the Sunnah, an Aalim, rather an Imaam in his field, knowing what he says, brings proof for what he says, is truthful, trustworthy, when he makes jarh upon an individual, and has a jarh mufassar, then it is obligatory to take his speech, even if those who oppose him and make ta’deel are many.

And this is what has happened in the issue of Abul-Hasan al-Ma’ribee except that the issue is even more clear, because there are about 8 of the people of knowledge who have declared him outside of Ahl us-Sunnah, some of them made explicit tabdee’, and this number is growing, and those who know he is upon baatil and misguidance are very many also. So now, these people want to fight against this reality, and they want to the people to lose track of this important principle which is that the jarh mufassar takes precedence over the ta’deel. This is why if you read this bayaan of Abu Usaamah and also his previous writings, you find that they never ever go in this direction, to explain this point. Why because they themselves, (because they have been deceived by al-Ma’ribee), are actually waging a war against this principle. Al-Mar’ibee waged a war against this principle in order to defend Sayyid Qutb, and al-Maghraawee, and al-Ikhwaan and some of its figureheads. Hence, you see the likes of these talbeesaat and arguing by way of the mutashaabihaat and focusing the people in directions which make them lose track of what this matter is all about. So you never see them going in this direction, whereas the Salafees, as you have seen, they have made it clear to the people, the issue of Jarh Mufassar, and they have made it clear to the people, the difference between Jarh in narrators of hadeeth and Jarh of the Innovators and Mukhaalifeen, there are differences between these two subjects (even if there some similarities), so the Salafees  have clarified the Usool in the manhaj, and you see the speech of the Salafees revolving around this, you see knowledge, you see fahm, you see the desire to clarify and explain. And as for the likes of Abu Usaamah and those upon the manhaj of Abul-Hasan, you only see confusion, no knowledge, and dodging the issues and confusing the people, and fleeing from the real issues that make up this fitnah.

Instead you see examples, of what we have pointed out here, examples by which they keep away from the actual issue of Abul-Hasan, and the particular details of it and the established principles in the Salafee manhaj pertaining to Jarh of the innovators and deviants, and then most of their argument is centred around demonising the Salafees, they said this and did that, and tried to push this one out of the da’wah and that one, and accusing them of all sorts, whilst keeping away from discussing the actual issue, from an usool point of view, which has been the cause of all this fitnah: the Ikhwaanee manhaj of Abul-Hasan al-Ma’ribee. And also talbeesaat like the one that comes across here, which is trying to portray or link someone being a TRUE major scholar as being one who did not speak evil of Abul-Hasan.

SIX: The summary here, is Abu Usaamah needs to openly acknowledge to the people, that Shaykh Rabee is also a TRUE major scholar who has criticised Abul-Hasan al-Ma’ribee and that he should not try to play these psychological games with his audience. And that by testimony of Shaykh al-Albaani, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, Shaykh Muqbil, Shaykh Mohammad al-Bannaa (all of them major scholars), Shaykh Rabee’ is an Imaam in the field of refuting the Hizbiyyeen and the figureheads of Ikhwaan, and in knowing the people who “wish to cause deviation in da’wah” (as Shaykh al-Fawzaan said) and that by the admission of these scholars themselves, Shaykh Rabee’ is more knowledgeable and more skilled than them in this particular field. So we ask Abu Usaamah to openly announce this to the people, so as to not cause talbeesaat upon them. Then when he has announced this to the people, we then also ask him to openly announce and explain to the people the correct manhaj in the issue of when some scholars refute a person and others give him praise and see nothing that warrants him being refuted or having jarh made upon, and that there is a rule, an established rule that represents this manhaj that is to be adopted, which is that a Jarh Mufassar takes precedence over the ta’deel, even if the Mu’addiloon are many.

If Abu Usaamah’s bayaans were more knowledge-based instead of being filled with emotions, then maybe we can evaluate and see what Abu Usaamah is bringing. But unfortunately, there is no fahm and no knowledge in his writings. Only aspects of confusion which perpetuate confusion. http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=14&Topic=1153

—————————————————————————————————————————

Part 1: http://www.salaficentre.com/2016/04/1-a-series-in-response-to-abu-usaamas-habitual-and-addictive-deceitful-responses/

Exhibit 1:

photo55047561201954282

What Really was said by Shaykh Ahmad Najmi about Abu Usaamah Dhahabi

Written by Salafi Dawah Manchester on . Posted in Abu Usaamah ad-Dhahabi (Goldie), Articles, Deviated Callers & Individuals, Must Read, Tamyee'.

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

In his deceitful response to the Friday incident, whereby Abu Usaamah came to the wrong masjid (in order to give khutbah) before being ushered out; he put forward an absurd complaint about the fatwa from Shaykh Ahmad an Najmi (rahimahullah) against him, which has been quoted since the incident.

In his usual manner, Abu Usaamah did not quote the full question asked in his youtube published video response; a crime he has committed previously and still not repented from. It is clear that cutting, pasting, twisting and hiding, is habitual for this individual, as anyone with the least bit of experience of his past capers, clearly can attest to. He did the same with regards to Shaikh Rabee’ al Madhkhali and with regards to Ustaadh Abu Khadeejah1.

Let us examine briefly this point Abu Usaamah is trying to make. According to him, Shaikh Ahmad an-Najmi (rahimahullaah) was asked “there is a person in America, he supports Abul Hasan al-Maribi, how should we deal with him?”

To the average listener who does not know, this seems a generalised question, about any person in America (who may support Abul Hasan). And so the cries will come “how can this be applied to Abu Usaamah!”- Well then let us be completely clear… This is not the full question the Shaykh was asked. Once again here we have a classic example of his cutting, pasting and selectively exposing his listeners to only a part of the fatwa; most likely due to the incriminating position he would have put himself in, had he quoted it in its entirety.

Rather the full question is as follows:

“O Shaykh Ahmad we have with us in America a man called Abu Usaamah, who is considered to be from the Du’aat, he aids and supports Abul-Hasan and he calls some noble Salafi brothers ghulaat (extremists), muqallidah (blind followers), and muhqiboon (the people whose religion is the religion of the one they blindly follow), so what is the legislated position from this man and how should we deal with him?’’

The Shaikh response was:

“Your position with him is the same as your position with the People of Innovation. Turn away from him and abandon him.

After reading the full question (and answer) then it is clear to the reader, that his argument falls flat. The Shaykh is most certainly referring to Abu Usaamah. This is yet another attempt to dupe the common people.

When we mention the deception and twisting, of Abu Usaamah, it is not merely lip service. Those who may not have known previously, or do not perhaps understand this deceitful methodology, should no longer be in any doubt. It is clear that he did not complete the question, to hide the truth from his unsuspecting audience.

Why? Because it will clearly manifest the severity of his bid’ah. He hid the specific nature of this question, so a general person will retort those who refute him, with statements such as “you are harsh” or “it wasn’t even him who the Shaykh was talking about”. We have already heard such statements, emanating from those without complete knowledge of the situation. Thus, this is his method of twisting and hiding the truth, by which he continues to pull the wool over the eyes of many innocent and unsuspecting people.

Perhaps his position of “shaykh” to some, that he has carved out through deceit and treachery over they years, will be lost if this reality was made clear to them and Allah knows best.

Playing the victim (yet again) he complained that the Salafis are always quoting this fatwa of Shaikh Ahmad (rahimahullaah) against him, in order to keep reminding the people; and he brands those that listen as “sheep”. Unfortunately for him, his opinion is in opposition to reality. The person who reads the knowledge based refutations against him isn’t a sheep; but has now had the chance to witness the full evidence against Abu Usaamah; something he (Abu Usaamah) tried his utmost to hide, when cutting and pasting from the fatwa.

Nevertheless, the answer to this doubt is very simple. We will continue to quote this fatwa, and we will continue to warn against him; so long as he continues spreading false principles in the issues of Jarh Wat-Tadeel2. How ironic it is, that Shaikh Rabee’, whom he holds a huge disdain for, so simply and clearly outlines a precise rebuttal of this Ma’ribi3-esque statement:

”And they (i.e. the people of baatil and fitan) do not keep quiet- they spread their falsehoods in their newspapers, magazines and audio tapes, while wishing that the voice of truth should be silent. In their view, the voice of truth is what should be silent and the voice of falsehood should be raised and spread in the earth! Do they remain silent?! The people of falsehood do not remain silent- they neither abate nor slow down. They have [ خطط جهنمية -i.e. paths or footsteps leading to the hell fire] which they enforce and thereafter they demand silence from the people of truth!” [Source: Source: Question number 16; Page 28-29 in الإجابات الجلية عن القضايا المنهجية]

References

  1. See article for further details: Few Decietful Acts and Lies http://www.salaficentre.com/2015/12/few-deceitful-acts-and-lies-backfired-on-abu-usaamah-in-public-but-still-no-public-repentance/
  2. http://www.abukhadeejah.com/al-jarh-wat-tadeel-and-the-corrupt-principles-of-abu-usamah-khalifah-part-1/
  3. The individual from Ma’rib who revived the innovations of his precursors to fight AhluSunnah—see here: http://spubs.com > Deviated Callers

page01  page02page03

[Part B: Observations on Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli’s Deficient and Defective Advice To Ahlus Sunnah- Dr Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari Establishes a Second Goal, Aim and Intent Behind Boycotting]

Written by Salafi Dawah Manchester on . Posted in Uncategorized.

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Reader: In this discourse, Dr Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari (may Allaah preserve him) will indicate to another goal behind boycotting through the texts of the Qur’aan, the Sunnah and the statements of the scholars, which Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli (may Allaah rectify his affair or protect us from his false views) failed to mention in his defective and deficient advice to Ahlus Sunnah.

Likewise, not only will the texts of the Sharee’ah and the statements of the scholars utilised by the Shaikh (Dr Abdullah Al-Bukhaari) manifest the fact that the Hizbiyyoon propagate a corrupt Walaa Wal Baraa related to the affair of some of the Mubtadi’ah, but they will also unveil the deception of some of those hizbiyyoon of Luton (sponsees of Ihyaa Turaath) who have recently attempted to deceive the people through the statement [Whatever leads to hatred and enmity between the people, then verily the legislation categorically prohibits it]. However, this has to be understood in the light of what you will discover from the detailed texts of the Sharee’ah and the understanding of the Imaams of the Sunnah.

Finally, the reader should not be oblivious of the fact that Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli claimed that the aims (or goals) behind boycotting are for the purposed of achieving three affairs only and that his claim is supported by the A’immah Al-Muhaqqiqoon, even though he did not quote except Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah). As for Dr Shaikh Abdullaah Al-Bukhaari, not only did he nullify this above unsubstantiated claim-by the Tawfeeq of Allaah- but he also pointed out that Dr Ibraaheem did not provide statements from those A’immah Al-Muhaqqiqoon, whom he claims backed his views. In Part A of this series [see here https://t.co/fW6kmUrpSi ] we saw that Dr Shaikh Abdullah fulfilled the trust in this affair of knowledge by quoting the Imaams and in Part B to follow-InShaa’Allaah- he quoted the scholars, such as Sufyaan Ath-Thawri, Ash-Shawkaani, Abu Daawud, Al-Baghawiy, Al-Mundhiriy, Al-Bayhaqqi, An-Nawawi, As-Saabooniy, Ibn Aqeel, Sulaymaan Ibn Sahmaan and Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahumullaah). Likewise, the reader should not forget that Dr Shaikh Abdullaah’s observations on Dr Ibraaheem’s defective and deficient advice to Ahlus Sunnah was examined by a number of scholars in our era, such as Shaikh Rabee, Shaikh Zayd (rahimahullaah), Shaikh Muhammad Bin Haadi, Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Ali Naasir, Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool and others.

To proceed:

Dr Shaikh Abdullaah Al-Bukhaari (may Allaah preserve him) began this discussion, saying that a second goal (or aim) behind boycotting is to fulfil the belief in Loyalty and disassociation; love for the sake of Allaah and hatred for the sake of Allaah because a believer is commanded with it. The actualization of this great principle necessitates disassociating oneself from bidah and the innovators because the strongest bond of Imaan is to love for the sake of Allaah and hate for the sake of Allaah.

The texts of the Qur’aan and (authentic) Sunnah indicate to the fact that it is obligatory to establish this creed (concerning love and hatred for the sake of Allaah) and this is what the Salafus Saaleh (pious predecessors) of this Ummah understood; so they determined its texts and applied it through actions. And that which indicates to this aim (or goal) is as follows:

Allaah (The Most High) said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا دِينَكُمْ هُزُوًا وَلَعِبًا مِّنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ وَالْكُفَّارَ أَوْلِيَاءَ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ

O you who believe! Take not for Auliya’ (protectors and helpers) those who take your religion for a mockery and fun from among those who received the Scripture before you, nor from among the disbelievers; and fear Allah if you indeed are true believers. [5:57]

Then Shaikh Abdullaah Al-Bukhaari quoted Imaam Ash-Shawkaani (rahimahullaah) who stated in Fat’hul Qadeer 2/54 that the above ayah prohibits one from taking as helpers (or protectors) those who take the religion for mockery and fun. This includes everyone who does this, be it the polytheists, the people of the Book, and the people of bidah who ascribe themselves to Islaam. The part of the ayah [مِّنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ -among those who received the Scripture] does not negate the inclusion of other people besides them (i.e. those were given the scripture), if the stated cause (i.e. taking religion for mockery and fun) in the ayah is present, which is the very reason behind the prohibition. [End]

The scholars have given attention to the establishment of this aim (or goal behind boycotting) by placing chapter headings (in their books) and stated what indicates to it. Imaam Abu Daawud placed a chapter in his Sunan (i.e. Sunan Abu Daawud) titled, ‘’Chapter: keeping away from the people of desires and having hatred for them.’’ [Vol 5, page 6]

Al-Haafidh Al-Baghawi placed a chapter titled, ‘’Keeping away from the people of desires’’ [1/221]

Al-Haafidh Al-Mundhiriy placed a chapter in [At-Targheeb Wat-Tarheeb 4/8] which he called: [At-Targheeb Fil Hubbi Fil-laahi Ta’aalaa – An urge (i,e. through texts of the sharee’ah about having love for the sake of Allaah (The Most High); Wat-Tarheeb Min Hubbil Ash’raar Wa Alil Bidah (i.e. made to fear by way of warning through the sharee’ah texts that) the evil ones and ahlul bidah should not be loved; Li-annal Mar’a Ma’a Man Ahabba (i.e. because a person will be with the one he loves] [End]

Al-Bayhaqqi placed a chapter in Al-I’tiqaad’ page 236 titled: [’Prohibition against sitting with Ahlul Bidah] [End]

An-Nawawi placed a titled in Riyaadus Saaliheen’ page 551, Chapter: [The Prohibition against boycotting between two Muslims beyond three days, except in case of boycotting (a person) due to Bidah, or (one) who openly commits wicked deeds or what is similar] [End]

Imaam As-Saabooniy stated in Aqeedatus Salaf Ashaab Al-Hadeeth’ page 292: And they hate Ahul-Bid’ah (the People of Innovation) who innovate into the religion that which is not from it. They neither love them nor keep company with them; they neither listen to their speech nor sit with them; they neither argue with them about the religion nor debate with them. Rather, they guard their ears from hearing their falsehood, which if they pass through the ears and settle in the hearts, will cause harm (to the hearts); bring about devilish whisperings and corrupt ideas. And regarding this, Allaah [The Mighty and Majestic] sent down:

 وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَ الَّذِينَ يَخُوضُونَ فِي آيَاتِنَا فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ

And when you (Muhammad) see those who engage in a false conversation about Our Verses (of the Qur’an), stay away from them till they turn to another topic. [6:68] [End]

Imaam Adh-Dhahabi stated in the biography of Thawr Bin Yazeed Al-Himsiy (died 153) that Abu Tawbah Al-Halabiy said: ‘’Our companions related to us that Thawr met Al-Awzaa’ee, so he (Thawr) extended his hand (i.e. to shake Al-Awzaa’ee’s hand), but Al-Awzaa’ee refused to give his hand to him and said: O Thawr! If this was to due to an (affair of) the Dunyah, then there would have been closeness, but it is an (affair) of the religion.’’ The reason behind Imaam Al-Awzaa’ee turning away from Thawr was because Thawr used to subscribe to the Qadari views. [See Siyar A’laam Nubulaa 6/344 and Meezaan Al-I’tidaal’ 1/374] [End]

Ibn Aqeel said: If you want to know the state of Islaam in the midst of the people of the era, then neither look at their crowding at the doors of the grand mosques nor the raising of their voices with the (statement) Labbaik (i.e. the Talbiyah); rather look at their interaction with the enemies of the Sharee’ah. [Al-Aadaab Ash-Sharee’ah’ of Ibn Muflih 1/268] [End]

Then in the second paragraph on page 65, Shaikh Abdullaah Al-Bukhaari quoted a statement of Al-Allaamah Ash-Shaikh Sulaymaan Ibn Sahmaan regarding the affair that to refrain from giving Salaam to a person or replying to Salaam does not necessitate that such a person is outside the fold of Islaam, as some people claim that one can neither refrain from giving Salaam nor refrain from replying to the salaam, except if such a person has no Islaam! So are those who hold this view not aware that refraining from giving Salaam or replying to it is from the Sunnah of the Messenger (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam)- the one whose Sunnah is a source of guidance for those who are guided and those who abandon it are misguided; for indeed the Messenger (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) boycotted Ka’ab Ibn Maalik and his two companions when they failed to participate in the battle of Tabuk, even though they were amongst those who participated in the Battle of Badr.

Therefore, do those ones (i.e. the ones who claim that refraining from giving Salaam or replying to salaam is not to be applied except to one who has no Islaam) think that it was ascertained that Ka’ab and his two companions had no Islaam when the Messenger (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) boycotted them by neither giving them salaam nor speaking to them? If that is not the case- even though they were virtuous people- then indeed he (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) boycotted them, neither gave them salaam nor spoke to them when they committed (that blameworthy affair) which obligated that they were to be reprimanded and disciplined until Allaah showed them mercy, after they repented, turned in repentance and in obedience with true Faith.

So when this becomes clear to you, then you will know the ignorance of these ones (i.e. those who say that there is neither refraining from giving salaam to a Muslim nor replying to his salaam, except if he has no Islaam) regarding the Sunnah and the statements of the scholars. You should know that we do not refrain from giving them Salaam (i.e. to some of the people who deserve such treatment) except due to what they have innovated in the religion; speaking ill of the scholars and allying with the enemies of the sharee’ah, such as the Raafidah and those similar to them, and due to the evil deeds and statements they have brought about. [End]

Then Dr Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari stated on page 69 that there are those who claim that there should be softness and leniency (i.e. a claim to softness in its wrong place) which leads to negligence regarding this great fundamental and upright principle; so you find him showing a display of softness and leniency, and making claims of love for the sake of Allaah. It maybe that this person and his ilk are truthful in their claims of loving for the sake of Allaah, but when the affair is examined in reality, they do not hate for the sake of Allaah- meaning that he has love for the sake of Allaah but not hatred for the sake of Allaah (in this affair). So in that regard, he has not actualised this great principle in the manner it deserves to be actualised, for indeed love and hate for the sake of Allaah are two affairs that necessitate each another and are binded to one another- one cannot be separated from the other. Abu Nu’aym stated in Al-Hilya 7/24 that Yoosuf Ibn Asbaat said: I heard Sufyaan Ath-Thawriy saying: ‘‘If you love a man for the sake of Allaah, but then he innovated an innovation in Islaam and you do not hate him due to it, then indeed you did not love him for the sake of Allaah.’’ [End]

Then on page 71, Shaikh Abdullaah al-Bukhaari stated that a person should be careful of the games of shaytaan-be it a shaytaan amongst humans or the Jinn- with regards to these claims; so a person should cling to the texts of the sharee’ah and the understanding of the Salafus Saaleh because the entire Sharee’ah is goodness, mercy, compassion, justice and equity (i.e. within the boundaries legislated by the All-Wise Creator).  And it is from justice, equity, compassion and mercy for the slave (i.e. for everyone) that he actualises Allaah’s Sharee’ah. [End]

Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said: All the legislated punishments of the Sharee’ah are a beneficial remedy by way of which Allaah rectifies the disease of the hearts, and they are from Allaah’s Mercy to His slaves and compassion for them- all of which enters into the statement of Allaah (The Blessed and Most High):

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِّلْعَالَمِينَ

And We have sent you (O Muhammad) not but as a mercy for the ‘Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). [21:107]

So whoever abandons this beneficial mercy due to compassion for a sick person, then he has helped such a person to be subjected to punishment and destruction, even though he does not desire except good. (And in doing so) he is an ignoramus and an idiot, just as some ignorant women and men behave with their sick ones; those whom they nurture; their slaves and other than them by not disciplining and punishing them for the shirk they commit and preventing them from good due to compassion; so that leads them to corruption, transgression and destruction. [End] [Majmoo 15/290] [Ref 1]

To be continued In-Shaa-Allaah

———————————————————————————————————————-

[Ref 1] Question to Imaam Abdul Azeez Bin Baaz (Rahimahullaah): Is enjoining Ma’ruf and forbidding Munkar, namely correcting the wrong by the hand, a right for all Muslims or is it just confined to those in authority and their deputies?

A: Correcting the wrong is a right for all Muslims according to their ability, because the Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “Anyone of you who sees Munkar (that which is unacceptable or disapproved of by Islamic law and Muslims of sound intellect), let them change it with their hand (by taking action); if they cannot, then with their tongue (by speaking out); and if they cannot, then with their heart (by hating it and feeling that it is wrong); and that is the weakest of Iman (faith).”(Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi & others)

However, changing by the hand must be based on ability that will not result in greater corruption or evil. Man has the right to rectify matters with his hand (by taking action) in his home, with his children, wife, and servants; and a manager has the authority to make changes with the hand within the organization they are responsible for, in accordance with the instructions that were given to them. Otherwise, people should not change with their hand anything they are not authorized to change.  If they do make changes in matters that they have no authority over, this will result in more evil and great corruption between them and the people and between the people and the state.

In this case they should make the change with their tongue (by speaking out). They may say: “O so-and-so! Fear Allah! That is not permissible,” “This is Haram (prohibited),” or: “That is Wajib (obligatory) on you,” and clarify it with Shar’iy (Islamic legal) evidence. This is what can be done by the tongue. As for changing matters with the hand, this should be done where one has authority, such as one’s home, with those under one’s responsibility, or those authorized by the ruler, such as organizations given permission and authority to enjoin Ma’ruf (that which is judged as good, beneficial, or fitting by Islamic law and Muslims of sound intellect). They should make changes in accordance to the degree of authority that has been given to them, in the way prescribed by the Shari’ah (Islamic law), without exceeding their jurisdiction. The same applies to the governor of a city; he should make changes with his hand, in accordance with the instructions he has.

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=16&Topic=9751

[Ref 2: At-Ta’aqqubaat As-Sareehah Alaa Risaalah An-Naseehah Lid-Duktoor Ibraaheem Bin Aamir Ar’Rihayli’ pages …61-72 Abridged and paraphrased]

[Part One- Unveiling The Deceit of The Hizbiyyoon of Luton (Sponsees of the deviants of Ihyaa Turaath) Against The Correct Stances Regarding Ihyaa Turaath and Their Utilising Scholars Without Proofs In order To Hide Their Misguidance

Written by Salafi Dawah Manchester on . Posted in Deviated Groups, Sects and Parties, Methodology - 'Manhaj', Scholars of Islam, Tamyee'.

http://salaficentre.com/2014/12/shaikh-muhammad-bin-haadi-conferences-organized-by-hizbiyyoon-and-attended-by-those-mashaayikh-considered-to-be-upon-the-sunnah/

http://salaficentre.com/2016/01/1-unveiling-the-deceit-of-the-hizbiyyoon-luton-and-other-sponsees-of-ihyaa-turaath-through-some-very-beneficial-and-precise-principles-concerning-the-differing-of-the-scholars-on-jarh-wat-tadeel-t/

http://salaficentre.com/2016/01/2-unveiling-the-deceit-of-the-hizbiyyoon-luton-and-other-sponsees-of-ihyaa-turaath-through-some-very-beneficial-and-precise-principles-concerning-the-differing-of-the-scholars-on-jarh-wat-tadeel-t/

http://salaficentre.com/2016/01/3-unveiling-the-deceit-of-the-hizbiyyoon-luton-and-other-sponsees-of-ihyaa-turaath-through-some-very-beneficial-and-precise-principles-concerning-the-differing-of-the-scholars-on-jarh-wat-tadeel-t/

http://salaficentre.com/2016/01/4-unveiling-the-deceit-of-the-hizbiyyoon-luton-and-other-sponsees-of-ihyaa-turaath-through-some-very-beneficial-and-precise-principles-concerning-the-differing-of-the-scholars-on-jarh-wat-tadeel-t/

http://salaficentre.com/2016/01/5-after-acquainting-oneself-with-the-principles-mentioned-by-shaikh-ubaid-posts-1-4-now-let-us-see-whether-we-can-blindly-follow-anyone-who-has-a-good-opinion-of-ihyaa-turaath/

http://salaficentre.com/2016/01/6-after-acquainting-oneself-with-the-principles-mentioned-by-shaikh-ubaid-posts-1-4-now-let-us-see-whether-we-can-blindly-follow-anyone-who-has-a-good-opinion-of-ihyaa-turaath-based-on-what-he-kn/

http://salaficentre.com/2016/01/7-after-acquainting-oneself-with-the-principles-mentioned-by-shaikh-ubaid-posts-1-4-let-us-listen-to-the-muhaddith-of-yemen-muqbil-bin-haadi-rahimahullaah/

http://salaficentre.com/2016/01/8-after-acquainting-oneself-with-the-principles-mentioned-by-shaikh-ubaid-posts-1-4-let-us-listen-to-shaikh-ubaid/

http://salaficentre.com/2016/01/9-after-acquainting-oneself-with-the-principles-mentioned-by-shaikh-ubaid-posts-1-4-let-us-listen-to-shaikh-muhammad-baazmools-reply-regarding-the-false-accusation-that-shaikh-rabee-comp/

http://salaficentre.com/2016/01/10-after-acquainting-oneself-with-the-principles-mentioned-by-shaikh-ubaid-posts-1-4-let-us-listen-to-shaikh-rabees-speech-regarding-those-who-turn-away-from-the-clear-proofs-and-utilise/

In-Shaa-Allaah Part 2 of this series will be based on acquainting ourselves with deviant individuals of Ihyaa Turaath and their statements of misguidance in affairs of Manhaj and Aqeedah, so that it may become very clear that Shaikh Abdur Razzaaq Al-Badr’s unawareness of the true reality of Ihya Turaath cannot be taken into consideration as an excuse to promote Ihya Turaath or to turn a blind eye to the reality, rather a seeker of truth seeks after the clear proofs, as Shaikh Ubaid stated: The one who knows of a mistake and it is clear to him, then it is not permissible for him to blindly follow a scholar to whom an affair is hidden. And indeed you already heard yesterday that the scholars are not infallible in their Ijtihaadaat. Therefore, it is not permissible to adopt them (i.e. the mistakes of the scholars) as a methodology (to follow).

http://salaficentre.com/2015/05/a-misunderstanding-regarding-the-statement-laa-inkaar-fee-masaail-al-khilaaf-there-should-be-no-repudiation-in-the-affairs-of-khilaaf-i-e-differing/

 

 

https://yootheme.com/support/question/137985

[Part 7.1: Observations on Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli (accompanied by important footnotes on refs 1 & 3 at the end of this article) – Shaikh Rabee Unveils the Reality behind Dr Ibraaheem’s Statement That Refutation against a Mukhaalif Is Fard Kifaayah]

Written by Salafi Dawah Manchester on . Posted in Da'wah - Calling To Islam, Methodology - 'Manhaj', Refutations, Tamyee'.

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Dr Ibraaheem argues that one of the mistakes that are rife is that when a scholar refutes a Mukhaalif, or issues a Fatwa as a warning against a mistake, many of the students of knowledge who ascribe to the Sunnah would seek  from (other) students and the scholars to clarify their stance towards that refutation or fatwa, rather the affair has reached a state in which even the small students of knowledge and the common people are asked to determine their stance towards the refuter and the one refuted; (Ref 1) then based on this, they would determine loyalty, disassociation and boycotting, until maybe some of the students boycott their Shuyookh whom they have benefitted from in knowledge and sound creed for many years; and maybe the trial reaches the houses, so you find a brother boycotting his brother and a son disrespecting his parents; and maybe a wife is divorced and the little children are separated due to this (trial).

As for when you look at the society, you find that they are divided into two parties or more- every party pursues the other with rebuke and making it binding to boycott the other group. All this (fitnah) between those who ascribe to the Sunnah- those amongst whom one group was unable to rebuke the Aqeedah of the other and the soundness of its Manhaj before the occurrence of this differing. The basis of this (problem) is either due to ignorance in exceeding the boundaries of the Sunnah and the principles regarding the manner in Ahlus Sunnah should show disapproval (against a mistake) or due to desires.

 

Response:

Shaikh Rabee responded to the above statement of Dr Ibraaheem, saying that it is (was) obligated on Dr Ibraaheem, those scholars who remained silent and other than them (i.e. those who were knew about the fitnah) to confront this trial or trials and strike at the place it is (was) rooted. The painful situation [which Dr Ibraaheem describes (or described above)] should make him and others them (or should have made him and others) ready to stand up and fulfil this [communal obligation-Fard kifaa’iy) by refuting the initiator of the fitnah]. It is plausible that the cause of this great Fitna and what has come about by way of it resulted from the silence of those who refused to fulfil this communal obligation, whose goal has not been actualised through the refutation issued by one person. (Ref 2)

Then Shaikh Rabee stated that Dr Ibraheem should contemplate on the Fiqh of those Ahlus Sunnah who have preceeded and their togetherness in fulfilling this great obligation! Imam Ibnul Qayyim (rahimahullaah) stated whilst disapproving of Ahlul Bidah in Madaarij As-Saalikeen: And due to this, the Salaf’s and Imaam’s disapproval (or rejection against) it (i.e. bidah) was severe and they spoke out (loudly) against its people from the various regions of the earth. They warned against their fitnah with a more severe warning and did that to an extent that was not the same as their disapproval against lewd acts, oppression and aggression. (That is) because the harm of bidah (on the religion); its destructive (effects on the religion) and negation (of the religion) is more severe.

Then Shaikh Rabee asks Dr Ibraaheem about this Fard Kifaayah in relation to Jihaad; (Ref 3) -that for example Jihaad is from the Furood al-Kifaayaat (Communal obligations), so if one person goes for Jihaad in order to repel a threat faced by Islaam and the Muslims, will the Legislated Islamic goal of this Jihaad be fulfilled by one person; or if hundreds of people went but neither the Legislated Islamic goal is fulfilled nor is the threat repelled, then would it be permissible for the scholars to remain silent in such circumstances; or is it obligated that they exhort the people to go for Jihaad in order to fulfil this communal obligation, for there has to be sufficient numbers of people to fulfil this (Communal) obligation in order to put a stop to the threat face by the rest of the Muslims? And if this sufficient numbers that are required to carry out this obligation is not reached, then indeed all the Muslims are regarded to be sinful in such a case and held responsible for the harm that comes to Islaam and the Muslims. Likewise, this (i.e. the availability of sufficient numbers to fulfil this communal obligation) is the same thing stated regarding the affair of enjoining good and forbidding evil, for there has to be sufficient numbers to prevent the Fitnah, if one, ten or twenty are unable to do so.

Therefore, it becomes clear (from the above example) that many of the students- those who ascribe themselves to the sunnah-who seek from the Scholars to clarify their stances have sought after something appropriate and correct if there is a sound reason for seeking after it. It is not to be regarded a mistake (as Dr Ibraaheem claims) and the mistaken one is the one who declares those students to be mistaken. The silence of the scholars at the time of a need or necessity to clarify the truth is tantamount to concealment of the truth and it is from those grave mistakes that will result in corruption, trials, splitting of the people into two groups, two parties, boycotting one another and so on…..

Then Shaikh Rabee finally stated that it is (was) obligated on Dr Ibraaheem to clarify the affair of the oppressive obstinate one who initiated this dreadful fitnah, which has reached this grave state described by (Dr Ibraaheem), so that the people- especially the common people- would be upon clear-sightedness in their religion, and so that they will hold onto the truth and reject falsehood, and so that their loyalty and disassociation is established upon clear-sightedness. [Bayaan Maa Fee Naseehati Ibraaheem ar’Ruhayli Minal Khalal Wal-Ikhlaal’ pages 62-63]

To be continued…In-Shaa-Allaah

———————————————————————————————————————

Importinat Footnotes:

[Ref 1] Question to Shaikh Fawzaan: Is it obligatory upon the scholars to clarify to the youth and the common people the danger of partisanship, splitting and groups?

Answer:

Yes it is obligatory to clarify the danger of partisanship and dividing and splitting so that the people can be upon insight and understanding because even the common people are being deceived.  How many of the common people in this time have been fooled by some of the groups because they believe that they are upon the truth? So it is a must that we clarify to the people, the students and the common people, the danger of these parties and sects because if they remained silent [i.e. the scholars] then the people would say, “The scholars were aware of this and they remained silent.” Due to this innovation would enter upon them. So it is necessary to clarify these matters when these things appear. The danger for the common people is greater than the danger [posed] to the students because if the scholars remain silent the common people will think that this is correct and that this is the truth. [Al-Ajwibah Al-Mufeedah (page 131)

Question to Shaikh Rabee: What do you say concerning an individual who advises others to abstain from listening to refutations, and when he was asked about the reason for him adopting this stance he said, “The person who asked me about this was a common person and he is unable to recite the Quran properly”. What are your comments upon this, may Allah bless you?

Answer:

If he is a layman then he is to be taught the Islamic creed and to be warned from the people of innovations. The majority of the common people these days have become supporters of the people of innovation. So it is necessary to warn them against them (i.e. the people of innovation). Say to him, “So and so is upon such and such innovations and you listening to him will harm you”. This is so that they will not read (his works), listen to his tapes and that he is cautious about his speech. Meaning that this layman needs someone to warn him and he is to be reminded of the principle: “This knowledge is religion so look at whom you take your religion from.” During these times the common people are targeted by the people of innovation and will say to you, “do not let them read the books of refutations. No. No.” This (approach) will expose them to ruin. Fataawa Fadeelah Ash-Shaykh Rabee’ Al-Madkhalee (1/273)

Question to Shaikh Rabee: Is it permissible for us as students of knowledge to be silent about the innovators, and to cultivate the youth and the students upon the way of the Salaf without mentioning the names of the innovators?

Answer:

By Allah, the innovators are to be mentioned by their traits and by their names if there is a need for this. If so and so has put himself forward for leadership and leading this nation and the youth and he is leading them towards falsehood, then he is to be mentioned by his name. If there is a need then he is to be mentioned by his name and it is necessary to mention him by his name. As it relates to this, one of the Salafis in Egypt used to teach and he would just mention general (descriptions without specifying names) and the people did not comprehend these generalities.  After this he began to explicitly mention the names of the groups and individuals and they said (i.e. those who attended the lessons), “O Shaykh, why did you not teach us like this in the beginning?” He responded by saying, “I delivered to you many lessons and I would say this and I would say that (i.e. general descriptions without names).” They said, “By Allah, we did not understand.”

Fataawa Fadeelah Ash-Shaykh Rabee’ Al-Madkhalee (1/277)

http://www.salafitalk.com/threads/217-Al-Jarh-Wa-At-Tadeel-Clarifying-The-Public-Errors-Of-Our-Brother-Muhammad-Muneer-Mufti

[Ref 2]Amazing indeed is the affair of Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli, for not only did he argue with these ambiguities in order to play down the affair of Al-Halabi and others, but now we see him on stage with the followers of Al-Maribi, Al-Halabi etc So all those ambiguous arguments which he claims was an advice to Ahlus Sunnah is nothing else but a cover to justify his blameworthy stances. Shaikh Rabee, Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Muhammad Bin Haadi, Shaikh Abdullah Al-Bukhaari and others established the evidences against the innovators (Al-Halabi and Al-Maribi) based on what this Fard Kifaayah necessitates, but Dr Ibraaheem’s ambiguous utilisation of Fard Kifaayah in relation to warning against deviants has finally manifested, for indeed we find that he has been invited by the staunch followers of Al-Maribi and Al-Halabi at Luton. Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) stated: And Imaan is known about a man, just as all the states of his heart are known by way of his (outward) allegiances, enmities, his rejoicing, anger, hunger, thirst, and other such affairs. For these matters have certain outward binding necessities (lawaazim dhaahirah) and the outward matters necessitate inward matters. And this is a matter known, the people know this concerning the one that they have experienced and tested (jarraboohu wamtahinoohu)… [minhaaj-as-sunnah 8/475] [Translation: Salafipublications.com]

[Ref3]

http://www.abukhadeejah.com/salafi-shaikh-fawzaan-on-jihaad-in-our-times-and-the-guidelines-of-jihaad-according-to-islam/

http://www.abukhadeejah.com/is-there-jihad-in-syria-should-one-go-and-fight-by-salafi-shaikh-abdullaah-al-bukhaaree/

http://www.abukhadeejah.com/are-we-in-a-period-similar-to-the-prophet-in-makkah-as-it-relates-to-fighting-jihad/

http://www.abukhadeejah.com/?s=ruling+on+jihad

http://www.abukhadeejah.com/?s=+jihad

 

 

Part 3: Observations on Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli – A Short Evaluation of His Statement Regarding Good Manners And Reminding Him That The Most Evil Mannered Ones Are Those [Al-Halabi, Al-Maribi etc] Who Wear a False Gown of Salafiyyah In Order To Deceive

Written by Salafi Dawah Manchester on . Posted in Methodology - 'Manhaj', Morals and Manners - 'Akhlaaq', Refutations, Tamyee'.

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli stated that it is obligatory to know that Ahlus Sunnah are the people (who) comply with Islaam completely in creed and (good) manners, and that from lack of understanding is to think that indeed a Sunni or Salafi is the one who actualises (establishes) the creed of Ahlus Sunnah without (having) concern for (good) Islamic manners and etiquettes, and not fulfilling the rights of others etc.

Then Dr Ar-Ruhayli quoted the statement of Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) in Al-Aqeedah Al-Waasitiyyah concerning affairs that Ahlus Sunnah call to such as enjoining good and forbidding evil, performance of the Hajj, Jihaad, the Juma’ah (prayer) and the Eed prayer alongside the rulers whether they (i.e. the rulers) are righteous or sinful.

Also that Ahlus Sunnah preserve the congregational (prayers), give sincere advice to the Muslim Ummah and believe in the statement of the [Prophet (sallal laahu alayhi wasallam)]: ‘’A believer is like a structure (or building) for another believer, some parts of which support the other parts.” Then the Prophet clasped his fingers together to explain] and the statement of the [Prophet (sallal laahu alayhi wasallam)]: [The mutual love, mercy and affection between the believers are like one body; if one limb is hurt the whole body becomes restless with fever]

And that Ahlus Sunnah advice (people) to exercise patience during times of calamity and to be grateful in times of ease, and being pleased with what has been pre-decreed. They call to noble manners and good deeds, and they believe in the meaning of the statement of the [Prophet (sallal laahu alayhi wasallam)]: [The most perfect believer is the one with the best manners]

They (Ahlus Sunnah) urge (people) to keep ties with the one who cuts you off and give to the one who denies you (something). They command (people and themselves) to treat parents with kindness and respect, to keep the ties of kinship and treat neighbours with kindness. They forbid boasting and conceit; transgression and attacking others – whether due to right (i.e. in seeking after a right of theirs) or without right. They command (people and themselves) with noble manners and forbid lowly manners. All they say and do in this regard is carried out whilst adhering to the Book and the Sunnah etc. [For further details, refer to an English translation of the explanation of Al-Aqeedah Al-Waasitiyyah’ by Ustaadh  Taqweem Aslam where the above affairs have been mentioned: http://www.learnaboutislam.co.uk/audio/taqweem-aslam/aqeedah-wasitiyah/aqeedah-wasitiyah-78.mp3  http://www.learnaboutislam.co.uk/audio/taqweem-aslam/aqeedah-wasitiyah/aqeedah-wasitiyah-79.mp3

Response:

Concerning Dr Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli’s statement that from lack of understanding is to think that indeed a Sunni or Salafi is the one who actualises (establishes) the creed of Ahlus Sunnah without (having) concern for (good) Islamic manners and etiquettes etc; Shaikh Rabee replied to him, saying that the one who actualises the creed of Ahlus Sunnah and follows their methodology – (and establishes correct) alliance and disassociation (based on this methodology), but falls short in his manners, he does not exit the fold of Ahlus Sunnah and enter into the fold of Bidah. We do not know from Ahlus Sunnah (i.e. their Imaams, Scholars and notables – the Salaf and khalaf) that they declared a person an innovator due to his shortcomings related to good manners. Even if a follower of the Sunnah fell into some sins, he does not exit the fold of the Sunnah.

And besides this, Ahlus Sunnah of this era are like their predecessors, for they believe in the sound issues of creed and follow the great paths of the Islamic legislation. They establish these great deeds (i.e. they strive in establishing those affairs mentioned by Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah) and noble manners, which the sects of fitan and misguidance cannot catch up with them in that regard. However, the people of fitan and slander hurl accusations at them- out of oppression and transgression- that they do not possess good manners or that they are deprived of good manners. This criminal act (i.e. the false accusations of the people of fitan and misguidance) carried out to oppose Ahlus Sunnah is not something that has occurred in this era, rather it is a repetition of the fabrications of the people of falsehood-the Mutazilah and other than them- and foremost among them were [الجاحظ ] and [النظَّام].

These fabricators (i.e. Al-Jaahiz and An-Nadh-dhaam) of lies against Ahlus Sunnah of old and Ahlus Sunnah of the present era are the vilest people with regards to their manners -though lies, deceptions and slanders in their statements and actions. These evil manners are possessed by Ahlus Sunnah’s adversaries in this era, but they are merely inheritors (i.e. they inherited these evil manners from the old adversaries of Ahlus Sunnah), especially those who wear a false gown of Salafiyyah in this era- those we have referred to in this research (i.e. Al-Maribi, Al-Halabi, Ar’oor etc)

[Source: Bayaan Maa Fee Naseehati Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhayli Minal Khalal Wal-Ikhlaal’ pages 20-21..paraphrased]

To be continued…In-Shaa-Allaah

To Bring Down [or Disparage) The Leading Figureheads [i.e. Those Who Give Dawah] Is a Difficult Affair

Written by Salafi Dawah Manchester on . Posted in Da'wah - Calling To Islam, Methodology - 'Manhaj', Morals and Manners - 'Akhlaaq', Scholars of Islam, Worship - 'Ibaadah'.

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy

Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool [may Allaah preserve him] said:

This is how some of the people justify their stances towards Bidah and its people.  So whenever Bidah occurs from one of those people with fame, he refrains from exposing the bidah of that famous person and refrains from warning against him, [whilst claiming]  that to bring down the leading figure heads is a difficult affair.

This is a false justification from different angles.  From them:

[1]Men are known by way of the truth and truth is not known by way of men.  Know the truth and you will know its people.  This [figurehead] opposed the truth, agrees with ahlul bidah and utters their statements, therefore he is not upon truth and it is obligatory to warn against his falsehood.

[2]The obligation [in relation to this affair] is to give advice, enjoin good and forbid evil.  His fame is brought to an end due to his bidah- as a warning and sincere advice to the Muslims, so that they do not fall into the falsehood he has fallen into.

[3]Truth is above everyone and from the well-known statements in that regard is [the statement]: ‘’So and so is beloved to me, but the truth is more beloved to my heart than him.’’

Therefore, when you wilfully incline towards such and such a person and keep quiet about his bidah, you have given him precedence over the truth and raised him above it. And what is there after truth except misguidance!  So regarding this [stance of yours], you have given precedence to this person -who describe as a leading figure- over the truth and thus you fall into misguidance.

[4]This saying [i.e. it is difficult to bring them down etc] is in opposition to the way of the pious predecessors, [for] they used to speak about the people.

[5]The application of this statement is in opposition to the clear methodology established by the pious predecessors with regards to acquiring knowledge, and that is: ‘Indeed this knowledge [of the sharee’ah] is Religion, so look to the one you take your religion from.’’ Therefore, how about your situation with a man from whom you take Hadeeth, Tafseer, Aqeedah and Fiqh? Do you either keep quiet about the bidah he has [based on your] claim that speaking against the leading figure heads is a difficult affair, or do you speak about him and his innovation- making his affair well known as a warning and advice, so that the people are not deceived by him and his bidah? There is no doubt that what is obligatory is to give clarification, otherwise your silence is a fraud and deception against the Muslims. And perhaps you will be the cause of his bidah and and misguidance being spread amongst the people due this [silence of yours].

[6]The reality of this statement [i.e. it is hard to bring them down] is itself an application of the manhaj of Muwaazanaat [Ref 1].  It [i.e. Muwaazanaat] is a false methodology that ruins and dilutes the Religion, whereas the truth is clear and sublime.  And within this [Muwaazanaat] is termination of the truth and disappearance of its people, except that which Allaah wills.

[7]This statement [i.e. it is hard to bring them down] embraces illegal partisanship. It [embraces] love and hate for the sake of the one being described as a leading figure head.  He [i.e. this figure head] is made a basis for love and hate in replacement of the truth, and this [attitude] is from the characteristics of those people who follow the satanic paths- those who call their adherents to the hell fire.

[8]This statement [i.e. i.e. it is hard to bring them down] is not from the manhaj of the pious predecessors, for we have not heard the likes of this statement stated about anyone from the Imaams of the Salaf, and all good is found in following the pious predecessors and all evil is found in the bidah of those who came after.

[9]What is a leading figurehead in your view? In your view, how did this man become one of the leading figure heads?  Who is it that has either clarified for you or him that he is a leading figure head?  O my brother, a person should know his limitations.  It has been reported in an authentic hadeeth from Iyaad Bin Himaar that the Prophet (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) said: ‘Allaah revealed to me that you must be humble, so that no one is haughty towards another person nor oppressive towards another person.’

[10]The lowering of a man or being raised is something in the hands of Allaah, and He [The Most High] alternates it how He pleases and it is not in our control.

Fulfil the obligation you have been commanded and that is to clarify the truth; disapprove evil and warn against the bidah of this figure head.  If he accepts the [truth], humbles himself, returns to the [truth] and repents to Allaah, then Allaah will raise his status if He [The Most High] wills because Allaah raises one who humbles himself in His presence. But if he oppresses and transgresses, then this man is from Ahlul Bidah; [so] how can you shed tears for him and that he has been degraded?! Glorified Be Allaah and Free is He from all imperfections, weaknesses and faults! [Source: Ibaaraat Moohimah’ pages 53-55’ abridged and slightly paraphrased]

Ref A: See articles about the bidah of Muwaazanaat:  http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?secID=MNJ&subsecID=MNJ12&loadpage=displaysubsection.cfm