SalafiTalk.Net » For Students of Knowledge
» A Polite Reply to the Errors of Abu Usamah adh-Dhahabee in Usool, Manhaj, and Fahm
Search ===>

Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5Part 6Part 7Part 8Part 9 • Part 10 • Part 11 • Part 12

   Reply to this Discussion Start new discussion << previous || next >> 
Posted By Topic: A Polite Reply to the Errors of Abu Usamah adh-Dhahabee in Usool, Manhaj, and Fahm

book mark this topic Printer-friendly Version  send this discussion to a friend  new posts last
14-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002

PART 1: A Polite Reply to the Errors of Abu Usamah adh-Dhahabee in Usool, Manhaj, and Fahm

Alhamdulillaahi Rabbil-Aalameen Was-Salatu Was-Salamu Alaa Rasoolihi. Wa ba'ad

These are some quick notes that can be made on what has been written and spread by Abu Usamah adh-Dhahabee, as a response to some brothers who highlighted some of his errors. Seeing that many of the Hizbiyyeen have rejoiced with this article, and seeing that it contains many errors in understanding, in usool and affairs of manhaj, this is a serialisation of comments made by the brothers here, upon the statements of Abu Usamah, perhaps that he might see the error that he is upon, and leave it, and abandon his polemics against the Salafees which do not harm them in the least, but only harm the unsuspecting people who wrongly think Abu Usamah is speaking the truth, when he is upon great falsehood. Hence, for their sake, we have felt it necessary to indicate the serious errors of Abu Usamah. Since these are just quick notes which are being put out due to a need, they may be subject to revision, updates, addition of quotes, expansion and so on.

Part 1

Abu Usamah: As it relates to the statement that I made in a PRIVATE email that I sent to someone who I trusted, and he in turn made it public by sending it out to some ‎Ghulaat‎ from the shabaab of this blessed Da'wah - ‎Ghulaat‎ who Allaah is testing the Dawat-us-Salafiyyah and the Salafis with, due to their ‎ghuloo‎, ‎taqleed‎ and ‎BAATIL PRINCIPLES‎.


1. The origins of this fitnah lie with al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen, since Abul Hasan al-Ma'ribee came from them, and like those before him, those who are his close and intimate friends like Adnaan Ar'oor, from whom Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad has warned against severely. Perhaps you are aware, maybe not, but Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad has warned from sitting and taking knowledge from Ar'oor, why? Because of his false principles, and these principles are the ones that Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee has taken and developed further. Refer to the book that refutes Ahmad Salaam written by Abu Noor which contains the statements of the Major Scholars who refuted the false principles of Adnaan Ar'oor and the statement of Shaikh Abdul-Mushin al-Abbaad is found there also, in which he says that the man is one of false princples and no one should take from him. Al-Ma'ribee is actually a partner to the crime of Ar'oor, and has extended the principles of Ar'oor. Unfortunately, because al-Ma'ribee is more shrewd than Ar'oor his reality has remained hidden for the most part.

2. The accusations and labels of "Ghullaat" therefore, have their origins in the war of al-Ikhwaan against the Salafees. This began with the principles of Hasan al-Banna, then in more recent times with Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq and Salman al-Awdah, and today this thought is represented by Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee and Adnaan Ar'oor. Both of them are partners in this war against Salafiyyah, the only difference is that Al-M'aribee was more intelligent and shrewd, and entered the Salafees covertly and was not an open foul-mouth unlike Adnaan Ar'oor who gave himself away from the beginning. Ar'oor was not shrewd, he tried to teach manhaj from the books of Sayyid Qutb, with the claim that he is ironing out the mistakes, but the Salafee Mashaayikh and the Salafees looked upon him as a fool. But al-Ma'ribee waited till the time was right for him, or at least when he thought it was right, and he actually came out in the name of "the Usool of Salafiyyah", unlike all the previous people whose attachment to the Innovators, like Sayyid Qutb and his teachings, was more readily apparent.

3. In light of this, from the very beginning, the brother Abu Usamah unfortunately, gets the whole picture totally and utterly wrong, and this shows the great inhiraaf and inherent danger that lies in being ignorant of historical truths and realities and facts. This is because initial underlying perceptions, if they are not correct, can set a person upon a path of great misguidance, since all subsequent facts, occurrences, and issues are built around these perceptions. So if the initial perceptions are not correct, then what follows on from them are incorrect. And this is the problem with Abu Usamah and his likes, those who have not really grasped and understood the issues of manhaj in our times, have not comprehende historical realities, or what the great fuss is all about. There are many who ascribe themselves to Salafiyyah and many of them sincerely seeking the truth, who unfortunately, fall into this same problem. And this leads them to become susceptible to, if not actually being poisoned by the concepts underlying the manhaj of Ikhwaan (and as you will see later in this series, if Allaah wills), and yet they think they are defending Salafiyyah from the "Ghullaat", and then this starts becoming clear in their walaa and baraa and their speech and their behaviour.

Ibn al-Qayyim said in al-Fawaa'id:
"A Lofty Benefit: The Basis, Origin of Every Knowledge and Action:

The basis, origin of all theoretical knowledge and every wilfully chosen action are the thoughts (khawaatir) and ideas (afkaar). For they necessitate conceptions (visualisations, imaginations) [in the minds], and these conceptions invite towards iraadaat (i.e. the desires, will, intent for something), and these iraadaat require the occurrence of the action. And the frequent repetition of the occurrence of this action, then leads to a habit.

Hence, the rectitude of all of these steps lies in the rectitude of the (initial) thoughts and ideas, and the corruption (of all these steps) lies in them also...

So understand this, and know that the directions taken by the likes of Abu Usamah and Abdul-Qadir and  others who associated with Salafiyyah for many years, but without grasping the true realities of the fitan  that were to come, and without giving due importance to the manaahij of the Salaf, was due to their general ignorance and lack of perception of historical realities and truths, and facts that pertained to the fitnah of Ikhwaaniyyah, in contemporary da'wah, and in the absence of this, they continued upon flawed perceptions till this day, and this perfectly explains the behaviour that is now emerging from them. Even if from certain angles they knew certain things, they missed the important perspectives by far and as Abu Usamah often speaks about "sophistication", but unfortunately he himself lacks it, and was not able to grasp matters and gain clear, comprehensive thoughts with respect to them.

Instead of basing perceptions upon a comprehensive understanding of the Usool of the Salaf, the people who went astray did so because they had their perceptions built upon isolated events and occurrences. As an example, the Gulf War, or the fitnah of Safar and Salman, or the fitnah of Ihyaa at-Turaath or the fitnah of al-Ma'ribee. And this is what subsequently determined their behaviour and outlook. This is what we are seeing with Abu Usamah and Abdul-Qadir and their likes. Their mistake and error is known by the fact that this new wave of polemic that has come from them, only came after the fitnah of al-Ma'ribee, which shows that this is a new orientation they have brought that is newly arisen. But even though it is a new orientation, its roots can still be traced to the fitnahs that preceded it like that of Ar'oor and Shayijee and others.

As for the Salafees, then their manhaj has not changed, because their perceptions have not changed, because their perceptions were only ever based upon the Usool of the Manhaj of the Salaf, especially where the fitnah of al-Ikhwaan was concerned. Hence, there is consistency in their stances, their positions, the application of their principles, and this was uniform and remained the same for the fitnahs of Qutb, Safar and Salman, Suroor, Turaath, Ar'oor, Maghraawi and Ma'ribee. The Salafees never changed, there was a natural progression in their views and stances in each of these fitnahs, because in reality, these fitnahs were all connected and stemmed from each other. So in reality, those who brought something new are the followers of al-Ma'ribee, and they know this themselves, because prior to the fitnah of al-Maghraawee and al-Ma'ribee all those who ascribed to Salafiyyah at large, were actually united upon the deviation of Ar'oor and Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq and Safar and Salman and ash-Shayijee and others, they all took the criticisms of the scholars, even if some were found who praised them, and they all knew that something of the manhaj of Ikhwaan was found with these people. So the likes of Abu Usamah know this, and this is actually a hujjah upon them, to show that they are the ones who changed and they are the ones who brought something new, not the other way around. There is no natural progression in their Usool, rather this changed, as is clear. And they got affected, just like their predecessors from the followers of Safar and Salman, or Ar'oor got affected, and thereafter they still thought they were upon Salafiyyah when in reality the ideas and concepts and their general polemic was actually Ikwhaanee in essence.

4. Allaah is not testing the Da'was Salafiyyah by those whom you call Ghullaat, and to whom you ascribe "taqleed" and "baatil principles", and really, whether you like it or not, or whether you intend it or not, this is actually an attack upon the manhaj of Shaikh Rabee' and Shaikh Ubaid and Shaikh Ahmad an-Najmee and others. Without you realising, even though you might intend the youth with your speech, then their positions are taken from these scholars who spoke on each of these fitnahs, the fitnah of Safar and Salman, Ar'oor, al-Maghrawee, al- Ma'ribee and who refuted the false principles brought by these Ikhwaanees. But because Abu Usamah and his likes spent the last 6 or 7 years in ignorance and often mocking and laughing at those Salafees who gave importance to issues of manhaj, and who tried to gain baseerah with respect to them, then it should come as no surprise that now, when the fitnah has come to them from the Ikhwaan, by way of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, that they are defending what they think to be Salafiyyah, when it is in reality Ikhwaaniyyah. And don't be surprised that all of the Qutubiyyeen and Surooriyyeen and others, have joined with them, and entered amongst them, in order to fight the Salafees, even if they (Abu Usamah and his likes free themselves from the Qutubiyyeen and Surooriyyeen).

5. You find the likes of Abu Usamah, that many of their statements or actions or positions allow many from Ahl ul-Bid'ah to attack the Salafees. This is only because their hearts have resembled each other because the personalities that they got affected by and in whom they placed "ghuluww" (like Safar and Salman, Ar'oor, Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq, al-Maghraawee, al-Ma'ribee) and others, all of them were actually Ikhwaanees, some of them overt Ikhwaanees, and others were covert Ikhwaanees. We ourselves used to experience individuals who would come from Ma'rib, years ago, and we were amazed that they were Takfeerees, defenders of Safar and Salmaan, and we experienced statements of takfeer from them, and their alignment in general was Qutubi, and they had great aversion for the Salafees. And also they would be promoting the book "as-Siraaj al-Wahhaaj Fee Bayaan il-Minhaaj", which in reality was the new dustoor for the Ikhwaanee Da'wah. So this surprised us that individuals like this have been through the system at Ma'rib with al-Ma'ribee for six months or a year or longer, and this is how they emerged from Ma'rib, going in as Takfeerees, Qutubees and coming out as Takfeerees, Qutubees, but this time with a dustoor for their da'wah. But as for now it is no longer surprising because the reality of this man has become clear to most people.

6. The above assumptions and claims made by Abu Usamah are therefore untrue. Allaah has tested the Da'wah Salafiyyah and the Salafees by the fitnah of al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen and their war against the truth, not the other way around. Whoever claims the opposite, then certainly he is ignorant, and perhaps he was never taught the importance of learning history at school. Ikhwaaniyyah came from Safar and Salman, Adnan Ar'oor, Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq, and al-Ma'ribee, and as for al-Maghraawee then he got poisoned by Adnaan Ar'oor, a concrete fact, and it was only a matter of time before his Qutubiyyah began to emerge in his statements. So all of these people got taken by their companionship. The Salaf said, "It is from the fiqh of a man that he looks at who he mixes with and enters upon" or words with this same meaning. There are many of those who ascribe to Salafiyyah but they do not give attention to this fiqh. Which is why in this current fitnah, they have no fiqh.

7. The above expression of Abu Usamah is just one of many expressions in the chain of the evolution of the Ikhwaani polemic against the Salafees. We have heard these and similar meanings, in the slogans that have passed: "The Jews and Christians are Safe from you, but the Muslims are not", "Murij'ah with the Rulers and Khawaarij with the Callers", "Takfeerees with the Salafees" and so on, and "Ghullaat" is a natural extension. These came from the direction of Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee, Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, and Adnaan Ar'oor also played his role in spreading these ideas across Europe and America and elsewhere. So it comes as no surprise to us, that in the past month or so, Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee has actually utilised the books written by ash-Shayijee in the mid-90s to attack the Salafee Scholars, as has been pointed out by Shaikh Rabee. And hence, it comes as no surprise also that those who followed him the West, carry the same underlying concepts in the slogans they are now using against the Salafees.

8. We have just passed by a time in which al-Ikhwaan and their ideas, over a series of decades, had permeated the whole Ummah, and when Shaikh Rabee' stood up to their falsehood, beginning with their figureheads, and then those who followed them, it set off a series of events and counter-reactions, which with every fitnah that arose (like that of Safar and Salman, then Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq and ash-Shayijee, then Ar'oor, then al-Maghraawee, then al-Ma'ribee and the Mumayyi'ah), made the battle between Salafiyyah and Ikhwaaniyyah more subtle and acute. And thus these same counter-reactions towards those who stood up to this Ikhwaaniyah were often found amongst a people who did not grasp what was taking place during these momentous times, and nor did they grasp the details of the Salafee manhaj, and nor were they stringent and severe in applying and following this manhaj if they did know it. People like Abu Usamah and whoever else allied with Al-Maghraawee or al-Ma'ribee are a representation of this faction of people, and there are varying degrees and levels amongst these types of people, with some of them more severe than others.

9. Shaikh Rabee' is an Imaam of the Sunnah, just like Imaam Ahmad at his time, because what he has done in this age, is similar to what Imaam Ahmad did in relation to the Mu'tazilah and the Jahmiyyah who had permeated the whole Ummah. Look at what Usamah al-Qoosee said before this fitnah broke out. Unfortunately, he is amongst those who has been caught up in this fitnah and the Ulamaa have spoken about. But just look at what he said within the last two years, before this fitnah broke out:

"Shaykh Rabee' in our view is a mihnah (trial, test), in this time of ours, Shaykh Rabee' is a mihnah, just like Imaam Ahmad (rahimahullaah), and naturally, Imaam Ahmad is greater than Shaykh Rabee', but this is because one era differs from another era. So Imaam Ahmad during his time, then his example is Shaykh Rabee' in our time, so we say, Shaykh Rabee' is not just an individual, Shaykh Rabee' in our view, is a (complete) manhaj, Shaykh Rabee' is the Carrier of the Flag of Jarh and Ta'deel in these times, as has been said by Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa).

So the one who speaks about Shaykh Rabee' in our view, then he is not a Salafee, he is not a Salafee, even if he claims that, then he is not a Salafee. We do not declare him a disbeliever, but he is not a Salafee. Because if he was a Salafee then he would have [words unclear] that Shaykh Rabee's manhaj is Salafee, pure and clear, clear, with no impurities...

... ,the problem with Shaykh Rabee', the only problem is that Shaykh Rabee' is truthful, he does not lie, nor does he fabricate, and nor does he compromise (flatter)..."

So we ask, whose manhaj has changed throughout the fitnahs of Safar and Salman, Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq, at-Turaath, ash-Shayijee, Ar'oor, al-Maghraawee, al-Ma'ribee and others? Did Shaikh Rabee' change? The problem with Usamah al-Qoosee and those like him is what he himself mentioned, which is that they unfortunately compromised with and flattered Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee when they should have sat back and not spoken and remained with the Scholars who are old enough to be their fathers, if not grandfathers. Had they done this, then we would not be having this conversation, but what Allaah wills occurs and this is just a purification period for the true Salafi manhaj from the effects of Ikhwaaniyyah.

10. So we as clear firm Salafees, by Allaah's permission, say that Shaikh Rabee' remains a mihnah, because he is from those scholars who are most experienced in this field, and they are more grounded in this knowledge than others, and this is apparent to anyone open-minded person who has been reading their works and listening to their cassettes for almost the past decade.

11. As for those who do not understand these affairs, and who are from that faction of people alluded to ealier, who became susceptible to the counter-reactions of the Hizbiyyeen to the scholars clarifying the manhaj, then it is only natural that they were led to making accusations of "taqleed" and so on, and this will become clear as we continue to comment upon the speech of Abu Usamah, if Allaah wills. And similarly, the accusation of "ghuluww" that you see being made against the Salafees who are with these Shaikhs, then even though it is not explicitly intended, it implicitly includes these Shaikhs. Because Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee's war was against Shaikh Rabee', and this is why he authored the book "as-Siraaj al-Wahhaaj", which he has openly admitted. And thus, when we see Abu Usamah and Abdul-Qadir and others bringing these accusations of "ghuluww" and so on, then know that their predecessor is Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee and his intent was to pull down Shaikh Rabee' and his brothers from the Scholars of the Salafee manhaj who were instrumental in exposing some of the Ikhwaanee imposters before him (like Ar'oor). Hence, when we see the likes of Abu Usamah and Abdul-Qadir and those upon their Ikhwaanee manhaj uttering this speech, then know that even though they may not explicitly intend these Shaikhs, then whether they know it or not, they have taken this speech from the Ikhwaanees who actually intended Shaikh Rabee and others. And this is only a result of their ignorance and their entering into issues of which they have no knowledge.

12. Compare between the angle that the likes of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee, Ar'oor, and Ali Timimi and others came from, and you will note that al-Ma'ribee and Abu Usamah and his likes are a continuation of their tradition, because all of them collectively, got taken by way of the Ikhwaanees. Because those people came out with the slogans, "Salafiyyah Jadeedah (New Salafiyyah)", i.e. attacking the Salafees of bringing a new manhaj and new principles, and "distortion of the concepts of Sunnah and Salafiyyah to support the New World Order" and "not distinguishing between bid'ah and mubtadi" and similar rants, and on this pretence, did ash-Shayijee and others write their books,  attacking the manhaj of Shaikh Rabee', claiming it was new, and was devised. They all came out to attack the Jarh that relates to the Innovators because they were upon corrupt methodologies themselves.

And lo and behold. What do we see from Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee. He is from them, he is an Ikhwaanee, and hence, when you look at the way he came out, by Allaah it was identical. The claims of needing to correct the usool, and make a new ta'seel for the manhaj and so on, the accusations of Haddaadiyyah, laying down principles to accommodate the groups and sects, trying to revise the field of jarh of the innovators and so on. Which is why you see him and the Mumayyi'ah in general, they have great similarities with those who came before them. When you look at their speech, their slogans, their polemic, subhaanallaah, it is parallel to those who came before them who got taken by way of the Ikhwaan. By Allaah, it is not therefore amazing at all to the Salafees, that in recent months, Al-Ma'ribee has been employing the books and claims of the likes of ash-Shayijee to attack the Salafee manhaj. So this is the actual mess that Abu Usamah and his likes are caught up in. But as we said earlier, one who is not taught history, will not understand the fiqh of the waaqi'.

13. We request that the likes of Abu Usamah and those upon his way, spend some time out to research and write a 5,000 word essay on the similarities between the manhaj of Ar'oor, ash-Shayijee and Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, and then to present it to us Monday morning, and explain to us whether there are any broad essential differences, in their usool and in the way they have come out to attack the Salafee manhaj? If they do this, it might open up their eyes a little, and make them realise the baatil that they are upon.

Compiled by the brothers at Maktabah Salafiyyah


15-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 133
Joined: Sep 2002
Assalaamu alaikum,
may Allaah reward the brothers at Maktabah Salafiyyah...AAMEEN!!!!

Aboo Shaahir as-Salafee
18-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002

Alhamdulillaah was-Salaatu was-Salamu Alaa Rasoolillaah wa ba'ad

We had previously began some comments on the latest bayaan written by Abu Usaamah adh-Dhahabee in response to some brothers who had highlighted some of his mistakes, and it was intended to be a full commentary on each of his words. However, seeing that the affair might become too prolonged and too repetitive (as Abu Usaamah's bayaan is repetitive), we decided instead to pick out general themes in his bayaan, and indicate the mistakes he has made in usool, manhaj, fahm, so as to make it easier for the readers, and also for Abu Usaamah to see more clearly his errors so he can recant from them, and also so he can try to stop speaking in this matter, as it is way beyond his comprehension. Hence, to speak in this matter is dangerous for him, as it is for others.

There are a few points that need to made clear first though:

1. There is hardly anyone who went astray, except that he thought he was upon the truth, and that he had nothing but a good intention, and thought he was seeking nothing but Allaah's face. Thus, if we were to take people upon their good intentions alone, especially when it is coupled with jahl and so much confusion in their statements and their actions, then the misguidance would have been victorious and the truth would have disappeared many long centuries ago. For this reason, we find the Salaf took people by way of their statements and actions, and indicated what they contained of error, misguidance, innovations, unexplained generalisations, deception and so on, even if the person in question had nothing but good intentions.

2. The unfortunate case with Abu Usaamah is that he lacks sophistication and lacks understanding, and lacks perspectives, (or in fact has them all totally wrong) and his writings are filled with emotion, and outbursts, more than they are filled with knowledge, or what follows on from knowledge. He, of all people, is not fit for speaking in this fitnah, as is clear from his history and as is clear from his series of bayaans and public discourses since this fitnah began, because whether he realises it or not, he is only confusing the people even further.

3. As a result there are many meanings, statements, claims, observations that are contained in this latest bayaan of his (addressed to the Salafee brothers in the US), that ought to be pointed out for his own benefit and for the benefit of many of those who are deceived by him because there are many underlying deceptions in his bayaan, and which his bayaan is built upon.  However, we do not claim outright that this is deliberate on his behalf or it has been planned (i.e. to deceive the people), but it may possibly be due to his confusion and ignorance and his writing with pure emotion, and the weakness of his understanding of this fitnah, and his zeal in trying to vindicate himself and his position on this fitnah, more than actually trying to understanding its background, roots and realities.
He comes from that same reactionary school of thought that emerges everytime a figurehead of misguidance is exposed to which they have been attached. Just like what has happened with the followers of Safar and Salmaan, and Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, and Adnaan Ar'oor.

Because of this he has decided to come across in a certain way with his bayaan, such that the sum whole of what he has written of understandings and confused perspectives in his mind, when translated into words, can be very deceptive to those who read it. And these are the affairs that will be pointed out to him, to aid him and assist him.

So in what follows below we will just pick out general themes and observations (instead of commenting upon everything), so it is easier and of more benefit.

May Allaah guide Abu Usaamah away from the confusion he is upon.


This message was edited by on 1-18-03 @ 5:41 PM
18-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002


...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)
...During the Abu Bakr Siddeeq Seminar the question of Abul-Hasan was posed to one of the (TRUE) MAJOR SCHOLARS of this time Imaam 'Abdul-Muhsin al-'Abbaad (may Allah increase us with scholars like him)....

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.


This message was edited by on 1-21-03 @ 1:25 PM
18-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002


What can we expect in the next five or ten years Insha Allah when the new ?Jeel? of Salifis are intrusted with the Dawah if we continue to indulge ourselves and them in this ?Ghaloo? and Salifiyyah Jadeedah?

Note the phrase "Salifiyyah Jadeedah"
?Ghulaat? who Allaah is testing the Dawat-us-Salafiyyah and the Salafis with, due to their ?ghuloo?, ?taqleed? and ?BAATIL PRINCIPLES?.

This was an attempt on their part to practice one of their many BAATIL PRINCIPLES...

These brothers, who are pushing these BAATIL PRINCIPLES...

No matter how many people are confused and unable to see and distinguish between the Haqq and the BAATIL PRINCIPLES...

What I find utterly amazing and equally disturbing, is the danger these brothers have exposed themselves to (AS WELL AS THE UP AND COMING SALIFI YOUTH) by using their BAATIL PRINCIPLES!

by this new breed of Salafis who are practicing and training others upon BAATIL PRINCIPLES!

Note the phrase new breed of Salafis
From the BAATIL PRINCIPLES of these ?Ghulaat?

By now, most people, if Allaah wills, who have come across the refutations of the scholars upon al-Ma'ribee, will have learned that the fitnah of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee is an Ikhwaanee fitnah, and that is one in a succession of other fitnahs which all came from the same direction - the fitnah of Safar and Salmaan, that of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq and Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee, then that of Adnaan A'roor, then al-Maghraawee, then al-Ma'ribee. We are only experiencing a more covert Ikhwaanee assault than was experienced in previous fitnahs.

However, the previous fitnahs brought out certain arguments, claims, slogans and labels. Seeing that the baatil brings nothing new, then we see in the speech of Abu Usaamah adh-Dhahabee a 100% confirmation of this.

The situation is like this:

ONE: When someone innovates a matter, or invents a manhaj, and when the people of the Sunnah refute it, then they almost always accuse the people of the Sunnah with the other extreme of what their innovation entails or comprises. Whereas in reality, the people of the Sunnah are upon the balanced path,and they are free of what they are accused with.

TWO: To illustrate:

The Mu'attilah, the Jahmiyyah, the Mu'tazilah, the Asha'riyyah and others label Ahl us-Sunnah as "Mujassimah" and "Mushabbihah".

The Khawaarij label Ahl us-Sunnah as "Murji'ah".

The Murji'ah label Ahl us-Sunnah as "Shakkaakiyyah"

The Raafidah label Ahl us-Sunnah as "Naasibah".

etc. etc.

This is a trend that one observes.

Likewise in contemporary times, we see the following slogan:

Khawaarij with the Du'aat, Murji'ah with the Rulers, Raafidah with the Jamaa'at, Qadariyyah with the Kuffar.

Meaning, you are Khawaarij, because you refute opposition to the Sunnah, and you are Murji'ah because you obey the sinful, tyrannical rulers in that which is obedience to Allaah, and Raafidah because you hold there is only Jamaa'ah Waahidah not Jamaa'aat, and one path, not tens of them, and you are Qadariyyah because you adhere to purification of the deen and cultivation upon it, in order bring about the Imaan by which Allaah's aid, assistance will be earned.

This is what they mean, and by these labels, they wish to demonise the Salafees by the other extreme of the innovation that they themselves are upon.

So they are Khawaarij with the Rulers. But they call the Salafees Murji'ah with the Rulers.

They are Murj'iah with the Innovators. But they call the Salafees Khawaarij with the Callers.

They are Naasibah towards the Jamaa'aat. But they call the Salafees Raafidah towards the Jamaa'aat.

They are Qadariyyah with the Kuffaar, because they abandon the correct manhaj of da'wah and think that they will be saved without it. But they call the Salafees Qadariyyah, because the Salafees put Jihaad in its proper place and in the relevant order of priorities.

So this is how it is. When they innovate and invent principles, they think they are upon moderation, and that the Sunnah is what is extreme. Hence, they refer to the adherents to the Sunnah, with the opposite extreme of what they have innovated.

THREE: Once you have understood all of this, then the affairs will become more clear to you.

They are the ones who innovated new principles.

Such as the permissibility of multiple groups.
Such as cooperation with the innovators.
Such as exaggeration in Fiqh ul-Waaqi'.
Such as open criticism of the Rulers
Such as al-Muwaazanah for the Innovators

and many others.

So when the Salafee Scholars, and in fact when Shaykh Rabee', stood up to all of this falsehood and he authored and wrote and exposed their scandals and their BAATIL PRINCIPLES, then they did what is the recognisable trait of all of Ahl ul-Bid'ah. To accuse the Salafees of the opposite extreme of their innovation to claim that the Salafees are the Innovators of BAATIL PRINCIPLES.

So Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee is the one who coined this termed: "SALAFIYYAH JADEEDAH", and he is the one who wrote two books. Just read the introduction to a refutation of him by Faalih bin Talee'ah (NDV100001 @



All praise is due to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds and Prayers and Peace upon His trustworthy Messenger

To proceed:

Dr. Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee wrote a book called: Khutoot al-Areedah Li Usool Addi?aa as-Salafiyyah al-Jadeedah" (Broad Aspects of the Principles of the Claimants of ?New Salafism) and in this book he ascribed certain principles to an astray group - as he sees it (i.e. the Salafees) - and he made much confusion in these principles in that he entered along with the false principles certain [true and correct] principles of the Salaf - those by which the first and foremost [in faith] and those following them from the Ahl us-Sunnah spoke with.

And his intent by that was to censure and revile the Salafis, especially those who play a big role in exposing what the methodologies of the innovatory groups contain - amongst the qutubiyyah - of which ash-Shaayijee is a supporter and aider. He did this by using generalisations and equivocations. And Dr. Mubaarak bin Saif - may Allaah reward him - refuted him and exposed some of his deceptions and revealed those whom ash-Shaayijee meant by his writings by mentioning their names. But this did not cause him but to remove the covering of modesty from himself and to produce another book called: "Adwaa ?alaa Fikr D?uaat as-Salafiyyah al-Jadeedah" (Illuminations over the Thought of the Callers of ?New Salafism') and this book was more evil than the one before it. In it he said: "Those whom I intended by the first book were the people of Madinah (i.e. Shaykh Rabee whilst he was in Madinah and those with him from the Ulamaa)?" and (yet) they are the ones who have excelled in fighting against all the [false] ideas.

Then he reviled and slandered them and tried his best to separate them from their brothers, the other well-known and senior scholars and he did everything he could until he resorted to clear lying and forging as well as being far removed from justice and knowledge of manhaj?and his greatest concern with all of this was an attack upon the esteemed Shaikh Rabee? bin Haadee al-Madkhalee and one of this statements : "...? save that Shaikh Rabee? in our estimation is not one of the notable scholars, O Allaah, but that he is an Imaam in all of these calamities and sins that he has carried upon the people of Islaam" (p. 86).

And he also said: "And if it were not that the some of the youth quote the books of Shaikh Rabee then no one would have tasked himself in refuting them because they emanate from falsehood, intolerance and oppression". (p. 51)...

This article written by Faalih bin Talee'ah is actually 7 years old!! And just look at how relevant its contents are today, in this fitnah of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee. Is anything different? No, because the baatil just regenerates itself and brings nothing new. The only difference, is that it comes with a different sucker each time.

Just look at how every paragraph of this statement applies to the Mumayyi'ah of today. They try to marginalise Shaykh Rabee' by alluding to other scholars as TRUE Major scholars. They try to claim that they are upon the Manhaj of the Scholars that passed away and Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad, and by this method they are really trying to portray to the people, but in a deceptive way, that Shaykh Rabee's manhaj is not the same as theirs, trying to separate between the scholars and make talbeesaat upon the people. They also use the terms "false principles" and "Salafiyyah Jadeedah", just like ash-Shayijee did, whereas it is they who are upon the false principles, and they who are caught up in the new Ikhwaanee Manhaj. Read the above quote again, and just reflect upon what Abu Usamah has written in his bayaan and perhaps the affair will become clear to you even more.

FOUR: So once you have understood all the above, then this is what has happened with al-Ma'ribee. Al-Ma'ribee is just an extension of them Ikhwaanees who came years before and tried it on with Ahl us-Sunnah, before they were exposed and humiliated, the likes of ash-Shayijee and Ar'oor and others.

Abul-Hasan originally used to speak with the bid'ah of al-Muwaazanah and aspects of it were found in his manuscript form of "as-Siraaj al-Wahhaaj". Remember he was an associate of Adnaan Ar'oor who brought this innovation as well, for which he got blasted by the Scholars, including Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad. He also revived the argument used by Abdullaah Azzaam the Ikhwaanee, which was using the principle of al-Mujmal and Mufassal to defend Sayyid Qutb and others. Abdullaah Azzaam wrote a lengthy refutation of Imaam al-Albaanee's refutation of Sayyid Qutb on the issue of Wahdat ul-Wujood, and al-Ma'ribee merely took the principle Azzaam used, that of al-Mujmal and Mufassal. Then he made it a more broad principle, and began to use it in order to make ta'seel with it and to defend the Ikhwaani figureheads and others. He also brought the principles of "Tathabbut" and "Absence of Taqleed" and all of this was to cast aspersions and doubts against the Jarh made by the Salafee Scholars upon the deviants and innovators. So the point being that Abul-Hasan had a collection of statements, or BAATIL PRINCIPLES, by which he wished to push that same Ikhwaanee Manhaj that his predecessors came with.

And following the best of breed of the Innovators, he did the same thing, which is to accuse the Salafees, those whom he waged a war against, with the opposite extreme of what he was upon. So you see him and his followers accusing the Salafees of:

a) complete, utter blind taqleed (the opposite extreme of his arrogance and not accepting anything from any scholar until he hears the thing which necessitated that criticism of that person, or sees it, feels it, eats it, and excretes it - which is just another way of encouraging each person irrespective of his level of knowledge to be a qaadee unto himself who can judge and decide)

So you see them attacking the Salafees of being Muqallidah, when they have correctly and rightly taken the Jarh Mufassar of at least 20 or so scholars, making ittibaa' of them, many of whom have made tabdee' of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'raibee.

b) twisting the words of people to give the words possible meaning (the opposite extreme of his mujmal and mufassal which aims to defend all the innovators and to play down their evil statements and thus not allow them to be charged with what they deserve to be charged with, and even when statements of clear falsehood are found, to still defend them and explain them away)

So you see them today, that when the Salafees advise them of errors in their statements, by quoting the source, date and place, they are reluctant to admit their errors first and then when they do correct themselves, it is often coupled with attacks upon those who advised and correct them, accusing them of twisting words and so on. Just like what al-Ma'ribee did himself, when he was corrected for his errors. And then after a while they start accusing the people of being Khawaarij and Haddaadiyyah, which is the next point.

c) being Khawaarij and Haddaadiyyah (the opposite extreme of  being soft and lenient with the Innovators, defending them, like Sayyid Qutb, and teaching their books, like those of Sayyid Qutb, Salaah as-Saawee and Abdul-Qadir Abdul-Azeez, and mixing and sitting with them, and befriending them and being intimate with them and so on)

d) looking into peoples intentions and judging them and holding evil suspicions, and being hasty and so on (instead of the opposite extreme of his manhaj of giving the people the benefit of the doubt, even if clear manifest misguidance comes from them, like Sayyid Qutb's wahdatul wujood or al-Maghrawees statements of takfeer, and so on - and in laying down this attack against the Salafees, do you know what examples he used? Yes, the examples of the Usamah bin Zaid, Abu Saeed al-Khudree (accusing them of having evil suspicions and judging peoples intentions) and others from the Sahaabah(radiallaahu anhum) and the two Prophets of Allaah, Daawood and Sulaymaan (alaihimaa as-salaatu was-salaam) using them as examples of blameworthy hastiness).

And so on. This is just by way of illustration.

So now when you look at the polemic of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee and whoever is with him, you find that their tradition is the same tradition of the Innovators before them and of the sects in general, the baatil brings nothing new but regenerates itself. They are the mouthpieces of ash-Shayijee of today, and they carry on his tradition. They have brought nothing new, and because the fitnah of al-Ma'ribee is just another more subtle and  covert Ikhwaanee operation, it is inevitable that the polemic against the Salafees will also be the same.

FIVE:However, the problem with Abu Usaamah and those who got caught up in this fitnah is that while the Salafees were patiently learning the manhaj and tried to  understand these fitnahs, and actually paid attention to the scholars who were dealing with it and tried to correct their manhaj in their da'wah and their walaa and baraa and so on, the likes of Abu Usaamah were involved in jokes and jibes, and accusing them of being "super" and  "ultra" and "delta" and "gamma" and "too serious" and so on.

So now, when the fitnah has actually come to them, they are the ones who have got caught up in it, are utterly and totally confused, and the only thing that they have against the Salafees is perhaps errors of judgement made by some of the Salafees, or maybe they might have mishandled a matter, or maybe they might have put a bit of harshness slightly out of place and so on, or maybe they might have let some words slip or whatever.

So what they do is to take these affairs, which we readily admit, do come from some of the Salafees, and then to confuse everything and instead of speaking about the manhaj, or the usool, or sticking within the context of the specific fitnah at hand, and treating it from a knowledge based matter, they push the likes of these affairs in front of the people, and confuse them even more. So the people in general are not able to figure out, "hey, well what are the actual underlying issues here?".

This is what is taking place with all of these people, and this is the same tradition that is found with all these people who got taken by Ikhwaan, the likes of Safar and Salmaan, Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, Ar'oor, and so on.

SIX: And finally what conclusively proves the correctness of what has been said above is that many of those who are now caught up with Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, then prior to this fitnah, most of them were clear about the falsehood of Adnaan Ar'oor and also Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee,and they actually supported Shaykh Rabee' and knew he was upon haqq and knew that the claims of ash-Shayijee were baatil. However, after this fitnah of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, they are actually the neo-Shayijees. The likes of Ali at-Timimi and Idris Palmer, were pre-Ma'ribian Shayijites, and as for these, then they are post-Ma'ribian Shayijites. While taking note that Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee himself has gone back to the books of ash-Shayijee and Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq in order to find more with which to attack the Salafees.


This message was edited by on 1-27-03 @ 4:57 PM

18-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 347
Joined: Dec 2002
Wa alaykumus salam

Masha Allah!  Keep posting more ikhwaan.  May Allah guide those who still consider Abu Usaamah and his likes to be upon the haqq. AMEEN!

Ekbal as-Salafi al-Bangali
18-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002


What is most sad in Abu Usaamah's bayaan is that he, just like many others who came before him, vilified and found fault with a quality, and then brought it himself, after having vilified it.

Abu Usaamah says early on in this bayaan, speaking about those whom he is generally criticising:
When you read the post and you hear the statements of these people in their Masaajid, you will find them ALMOST ALWAYS resorting to their dictionaries of verbal abuses. The Rabid Dog! He?s a Dajjal! The Jaahil One! He?s the greatest trial of the Dawah since the fitnah of the creation of the Quran! He?s the greatest fitnah in modern times! If the Dajjal comes back, so and so will follow him because he?s a follower of desires!

Previously, we commented on Abdul-Qadir, another one of Abul-Hasan's partisans, and he was likened to Ibn Aqeel, with respect to whom Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisi brought some poetry, the essence of which is that Ibn Aqeel tried to forbid something which he brought something himself, or enjoin something that he did not do  himself, and thus he is like a man who thinks himself to be covered in front of the people, whereas in reality his awrah is uncovered, and he does not even know.

O you who admonish people, you yourself have become accused
Since you blame them for things you yourself perpetrate
Like him who is clothed to cover his nudity, while his pudendum (private part)
Remains visible to the people, and he does not cover it.

Abu Usaamah has also followed in this unfortunate tradition, when after making the above statement in his bayaan, only towards the end he brings the following:

In Abul-Hasan Haalik's last post he begins by writing...

As for the over zealous youth, the diseased and under qualified ?Nawaabit? like Abul-Hasan Haalik and Dawud 'AJEEB...

Let?s deal with Abul Hasan Haalik?sstatements in the same way the ?Ghulaat? deal with their practicing Salify brothers

not to mention Abul Hasan Haalik?sdescription of him being ?ONE OF THE BIGGEST TRIALS THAT THE UMMAH HAS FACED IN RECENT TIMES!!!!

the 'Ghulaat'...these 'Ghulaat' ... some 'Ghulaat'

From the scholars who don?t agree with Abul Hasan Haalik?s description...

When Abul Hasan Haalik describes our Salify brother as...

Even if Abul-Hasan Haalik and the other ?Ghulaat? who share his hatred for this man

Yaa Abal-Fitan Haalik....

Recently, while I was translating for the beneficial QSS conference in Canada Masha Allah, Abu Tasneem (Dawud 'AJEEB) and MAAD Qureshioutright disrespected Shaikh Rabee! IT IS A FACT, THAT CAN BE PROVEN, Sheikh Rabee himself chose Shaikhs 'Ali al-Halibi and Saleem al-Hilaly and Muhammad Moosaa Nasr to be the arbitrators between QSS and FRAUD (I mean our brothers at TROID).

I read Dawud 'AJEEB'S post to Ibn Fulaan. Dawud 'AJEEB said that Ali Sabir was the one who called him while he was in the hotel room in Philly with Fulaan and Fulaan. I believe brother Ali Sabir and Dawud 'AJEEB have a good working relationship and they go back a little (that?s why Ali was chosen by the Sheikhs to place the call to Duad).

As for this issue of Shaykh Rabee' giving a signed paper to the Shaykhs from Jordan to bring about reconciliation, then we will comment upon that a little later. However what is of concern is Abu Usaamah's decision to use the colourful language and name-calling, after having found fault with the Salafees in his past bayaans and public statements for falling into the likes of this shiddah, and name-calling and so on.

ONE: This is the very same that Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee fell into, which maybe hidden to many in the West. He too brought these speculative, theoretical Usool, which he was the first to oppose himself. How many insults and name-callings he has directed to the Salafees, and this is one of the affairs that the people of knowledge have exposed him for.

TWO: Amongst that which Allaah the Most High stated is "Do you enjoin good upon the people and then forget your own selves, while you read the book, will you not understand" and He also said, "Why do you say that which you do not do?"

THREE: This is really not a big deal, as far as we are concerned, and we don't believe that Dawud Adeeb or Abul-Hasan Malik or Maaz Qureshi or TROID are really that bothered either, and this really is not something that we want to focus on too much.

However, it should be a great deal to you and those upon your way. This is significant as it relates to your Usool, the Usool of al-Ma'ribee, and your manhaj, and the way you portray yourselves, with slogans of moderation and justice, and balance and so on, and you came out with the slogans of "wishing good for the people" and the "maslahah of the da'wah". In light of that, its hardly from wishing good for the people and considering the "maslahah of the da'wah" to refer to someone as "Haalik" (the perished, destroyed). This is an accordance with your usool and your principles and the very manhaj for which you are making all this commotion. Its just some advice to you, that it does not make you look good to your readers, and your audience, and it casts doubt on the rest of what you have to say, and it makes them see this is an open contradiction in behaviour. So we advise that either you remain true to your principles and avoid this speech so people can take your speech more seriously, or otherwise, stop making an issue out of this. As we said, this is not really a big deal and we don't believe it is a big deal to those brothers, inshaa'Allaah. But it is upon you and your likes who have been affected with this Ikhwaaniyyah, that you try to resolve it, and come with a consistent policy with respect to your slogans of "insaaf", "tawassut", "rahmah" and the likes.

FOUR:Sometimes there might occur something from a Salafee which he might have done or said in the past, but which he later realised and kept away from and regretted, and it was not done or said in public, or it  might have been in public, but he kept away from it thereafter, after having left that matter, or view or statement or action or whatever. And then later he might see or hear someone else fall into that same matter, so he prohibits him and advises him. There is no harm in this, and it is not a double-standard, when you prohibit something that you may have done in the past, since you may have recanted and repented from it, and here you are prohibiting or reprimanding someone else for it, knowing that it is a wrong. However, it is not the same when AFTER you have prohibited someone from something, then you come and bring it yourself. This is certainly blameworthy. So it is strange that al-Ma'ribee and his likes devise Usool, and call the people to them, and prohibit what opposes them, and speak of insaaf, and adl, and rahmah and tawassut and many other appealing slogans and then after this, they are the first amongst the people to contradict what they command or prohibit.

19-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002


Since this matter has been brought out into the open, and many people will be deceived by what has been written by Abu Usaamah, seeing that the full and complete picture is not present in his bayaan, then the following points can be made to explain this issue. Whilst noting that this speech is made only because of a necessity, and we would  never have raised or addressed this issue, had not Abu Usaamah spoken about it to begin with. However, in explaining this matter, we will only restrict ourselves to what has been understood from and explained by the scholars themselves, like Shaykh Ubayd, Shaykh Mohammad Bazmul.

ONE: The signed declaration that was made between Shaykh Rabee and the Shaykhs from Jordan was an agreement that Abul-Hasan is upon error that he needs to make an open tawbah without any playing or fooling around. Seeing that this agreement had been reached, and it had been agreed, based upon this acknowledgement by these Shaykhs from Jordan, that there will be no more speech against them (seeing that the least they have agreed to is that Abul-Hasan is upon error and needs to make clear open tawbah).

Here is a quote from that declaration

And built upon all of this, we advise, in ending, with two pieces of advice:

Firstly: That everyone who opposes these qawaa'id (principles), it is obligatory upon them to return to the clear truth, and that he returns (with penance) to this sound nahj (way, manhaj) - whoever that may be - with clarity (wudooh), and with explanation and clarification, and open manifestation of the truth, without any talbees (deception) or tadlees (fraud, swindle).

So built upon this, Shaykh Rabee's expectation was that this will now end the fitnah as far as the West is concerned, because if these Shaykhs from Jordan stick true to this bayaan, and hold that a clear open tawbah is required from al-Ma'ribee, then those who are with them should naturally follow this position also and thus, the differences will end. And that if this path is taken there are only two outcomes:

a) Al-Ma'ribee makes a clear open tawbah and abandons his false usool,
b) or he persists in his games and shows arrogance and withholds, in which case all the people will then see that clearly and hence be united against him and so the fitnah between the Salafees will be ended.

So built upon this husn udh-dhann, and seeing that they had acknowledged the truth in Shaykh Rabee's refutations and criticisms and convicting al-Ma'ribee of serious errors in manhaj, you report that he entrusted them to remove the problems between QSS and TROID, as has been related by you, and a mention has been made of a signed piece of paper, requesting that this islaah be made. As for what we know, then it is that Shaykh Rabee signed a piece of paper authorising that these brothers be brought to unite upon the Book and the Sunnah, (which effectively, rules out hizbiyyah and uniting upon anything else etc.).

TWO: On the way back to Jordan, they met with Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee at the airport in Jeddah, and it is also reported that they had a sitting with him, after returning to someone's house from the airport. We don't know what happened obviously with this encounter with al-Ma'ribee. Then two days later, after returning to Shaam, they issued a second bayaan. By issuing this bayaan they opposed the first bayaan. Because the agreement had been reached that this first bayaan solves all problems:
And the agreement was reached in numerous matters, the most important of them, and the very first of them, was emphasis and adherence to ending this fitnah, and closing its doors, and its reasons.

So when they wrote this second bayaan and it contained what it contained, then it was in opposition to the first bayaan, because they just went and opened a number of doors that had actually been closed by the first bayaan. Mohammad Omar Bazmul, who was present in that very same meeting has stated that what they did was not befitting, and likewise by Shaykh Ubayd al-Jaabiree has words with similar meaning, only a week or two after they issued this second bayaan, that was only two days after the original bayaan where a good result and agreement had been arrived at. It was not correct for them to write those things, and it destroyed whatever prospects of unity existed based upon the first bayaan, because those with hizbiyyah towards Abul-Hasan would have been marginilised, and those who sought the truth would have been brought closer to those who already knew that al-Ma'ribee was upon error and misguidance, and the prospects for unity were quite good. This is why immediately after it was issued, there were lots of posts by those with hizbiyyah towards al-Ma'ribee on al Istiqama attacking this bayaan, and expressions of amazement and strangeness towards it and so on, and even those who supported the Jordanian Shaykhs initially and used their stance to defend Abul-Hasan, they began to disown this bayaan and say that it was strange and so on.

However, this second bayaan that they then issued (after meeting with Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee), destroyed all those prospects for unity between the people, and those who were upon hizbiyyah towards Abul-Hasan, then they had just acquired another justification to remain upon their hizbiyyah due to what was written in that second bayaan from Shaam. This is what is happening now, and we can clearly see it because Abu Usaamah is using it, as is Abdul-Qadir and the likes of Abu Rayhaan and others, who are kindling this fitnah further, all of whom are partisans to Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, an Ikhwaanee.

Shaykh Ubayd explains:
As for the Mashaayikh of Shaam, then I only know two of them, and they are the brother, Shaikh Alee al-Halabee and the Shaikh Saleem al-Hilaalee, may Allaah preserve us and them and you upon the Sunnah. And they had a joint declaration along with the esteemed Shaikh Rabee', and so we welcomed this as goodness. However, lately, they inclined towards Abil-Hasan, and they became affable, cordial, friendly (hashshoo wa bashshoo, i.e. "very good buddies") with him, and they also issued another declaration [two days after the first, upon their return to Shaam] in which there were numerous departures (from impartiality and from what was in the first declaration of mutual agreement), and there are also observations upon it, and it also contains flaws. And I do not know what the motive was behind the issuance of this [second] declaration, whether it was allegiance (muwaalaat) of Abil-Hasan, or agreement with him (in his manhaj), or flattery and gentleness with him. And we say as the poet has said:

The days shall soon reveal to you what you were ignorant of
And the one you did not bestow upon [with recognition] will come to you with the news (of it)

So we will wait and will not be hasty, and we hope that they will fulfil what they promised by leaving alone the matters they did not solve, that there are matters that relate to the Salafees as they say.

Shaykh Mohammad Omar Bazmool explains:
... I do not support the way taken by Shaikh Alee (hafidhahullaah) and Shaikh Saleem, meaning that I have an observation, and there is nothing to stop me from explaining it...
...Secondly: I say that the truth is more worthy of being followed, such as what that man said, "So and so is my Shaikh, he is beloved to my heart, but the truth is more beloved to my heart, so when my Shaikh opposes the truth, then I follow the truth", and so I say, even if I belittle my true worth in speech in front of Shaikh Alee and Shaikh Saleem - I say that the path that these brothers are taking is not the path that is befitting for them, and this was not what we expected from them. Meaning that I was hoping that they teach the youth that they are only students of knowledge, and that they do not place themselves amongst the ranks of the Scholars, but that they themselves follow the Scholars, and that they and the Scholars do not stand on the same level. Shaikh Rabee is older than Shaikh Alee and older than Shaikh Saleem by 30 years, he is of very high tabaqah (rank) over them, Shaikh Rabee. He is a man who is unique in his speech in these affairs. It is almost the case that no one can be found in this subject, I do not know any man, meaning a man whose speech and time is unique for these affairs. He is the one who removed the fard kifaayah from the rest of the scholars (i.e. he performed what was obligatory, so the rest of the Scholars are absolved from this task). If it had not been for Shaikh Rabee and his likes from the people of knowledge standing to perform these affairs, then Ahl us-Sunnah would have remained quiet about Ahl ul-Bida' and from Ahl ul-Baatil and from explaining the errors which those people fall into.

I say that it was obligatory upon Shaikh Saleem and Shaikh Alee that they do not manifest anything (from themselves) that is in opposition to the Scholars, especially in the likes of these affairs. It was obligatory upon them that they themselves follow the Scholars so that they nurture the youth and teach them how to follow the Scholars, and that they are eager for them, and for their word (to be at the forefront) and to raise the status of (their) knowledge. And I, in reality, am not pleased with this bayaan and nor any other bayaans which were issued from over there (meaning Jordan). And it is as if they desire to set up another front (i.e. another direction) that faces (i.e. competes with) the Hai'ah Kibaar al-Ulamaa that is with us, or competes with the speech of the People of Knowledge with us. This is not something desireable and we do not deem it good...

...The third affair: I say to you that in the gathering with us that took place in Makkah with Shaikh Rabee (hafidhahullaah) they acknowledged the mistakes that Abul-Hasan fell into and that they oppose him in those mistakes...

...So if the contention of the brothers in Jordan was that he is not to be described as a "Mubtadi'" then the matter is clear, so therefore they should excuse those to whom the matter has become clear and who described him as a Mubtadi', and if it is the case that their intent behind this is to negate that he has any innovation with him to being with, then this is in opposition to the bayaan (they signed) as I have established a short while ago. And Allaah knows best."

So this is how the matters are, in reality, whether the people like it or not.

THREE: Despite that Shaykh Rabee', until this day, has adhered to his agreement, and has persistently refused to speak, even when asked, and this is a sign that he is a person of wara' and sidq, in his speech and his action, and the people of knowledge have attested to his sidq, in his speech and his mu'aamalah. He is truthful, he speaks the truth and abides by it and does not make flattery. Which is why Allaah has enabled the haqq to be established through him in these fitan and against those who oppose it, and this is what all the Hizbiyyeen cannot stand, because he speaks the truth. He signed something on paper (that first bayaan of agreement), knowing that Allaah was called as a witness over it, so to this day, he has adhered to his part of the agreement, and even if factors exist that might warrant that he speak and explain, he has remained silent and adhered to his signed agreement, showing patience and reservedness. This is a sign of his wara'. He has no siyaasah in the da'wah, nor does he make flattery for the people, and nor is he in need of that in establishing the truth. And he speaks the truth when it is time to speak the truth. Everything is in its proper place.

FOUR: So this is the reality of the matter, and we would not have explained this if we had not been compelled by what was written and presented by Abu Usaamah. So based upon this it is apparent that the Shaykh had no problem in authorising that the brothers in the US/Canada be brought together upon the Book and the Sunnah.

FIVE: Now, the knowledge of this, was kept hidden or was not really brought out, and its details not really made clear, and it was sprung upon Dawud Adeeb and TROID by surprise, so they were taken aback and surprised by this. If they chose not to sit and avoid a meeting or any speech, with the knowledge that they had at that time (i.e. what they had understood at that time of some of the affairs indicating that there seemed to be some departure from the first bayaan, and that there still remained a lack of clarity about the actual position being taken by the Shaykhs from Jordan), then that is from their own choice, and from their desire of remaining safe from any shubuhat concerning this fitnah. If they had been informed from the beginning, then perhaps they could have had the right to consult with Shaykh Rabee' himself. But this was sprung upon them, out of the blue, and this is undesirable. And due to their veneration of what they hold to be the truth concerning this fitnah, and from their firm belief in it, and mixed with their surprise and amazement at what had been sprung upon them, knowing what they knew, then if they made the choice not to agree to any sitting until they had made further clarifications and investigations, then it should not be surprising and nor should the supporters of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee be surprised with this either.

SIX: In light of all of this, the way Abu Usaamah has brought this issue, presented it, and used it to attack these brothers, in front of an audience which might not understand what has been taking place, and then to start making wild conclusions and outrageous claims like:

Recently, while I was translating for the beneficial QSS conference in Canada Masha Allah, Abu Tasneem (Dawud 'AJEEB) and MAAD Qureshi outright disrespected Shaikh Rabee! IT IS A FACT, THAT CAN BE PROVEN, Sheikh Rabee himself chose Shaikhs 'Ali al-Halibi and Saleem al-Hilaly and Muhammad Moosaa Nasr to be the arbitrators between QSS and FRAUD (I mean our brothers at TROID).

The Mashaykh have a written document (Shaikh Rabee‎ also has a copy) and it has his signature on it and the signature of the Mashaykh from Jordan as well. When the call was placed to these brothers, informing them of the document and what Shaikh Rabee‎ has ORDERED, they REFUSED to obey Shaikh Rabee and what he ordered! He was inviting them to make ISLAAH between themselves in front of those he (Shaikh Rabee) deputized himself.

Then this is a type of cheap and tiring opportunism that is undesirable, because the situation, in light of all the circumstances and background is not really like that.

This is similar to what Abdul-Qadir did. He went to Shaykh Rabee' sat in front of him, acknowledged that al-Ma'ribee (and al-Maghraawee) have mistakes, Shaykh Rabee' gave him some of his refutations and asked him to read them etc. So seeing some acknowledgement from Abdul-Qadir that these two men are upon error, then the Shaykh gave him a written letter addressed to the Salafees to unite. So he came back to the UK, and inwardly, he was not with the Shaykh on al-Ma'ribee or al-Maghraawee, which became clear as soon as he came back and what he was saying on paltalk and what he began to put on his website shortly afterwards. Then he made this letter public, and showed it to everyone trying to get across a message, "Look, Shaykh Rabee' gave me a letter, asking the Salafees to unite, and I am the one who brought it, and we want unity, so if they don't want unity then they are  mischief makers and trouble causers". So when the Salafees saw this they contacted Shaykh Rabee, thanked him for his naseehah that he gave and told him that Abdul-Qadir is a mischief maker and deceiver. And this is what actually turned out to be the case. These people they sit in front of the Shaykh and the Shaykh has husn udh-dhann, and expects good from them and for them to abide by the truth, and asks them to make islaah, islaah in their positions and islaah with their brothers, and then they abide by falsehood and do not rectify it, yet still continue to use the Shaykhs husn udh-dhann in order to attack those who are upon the same truth that Shaykh Rabee' is upon and which he is defending, while they know that Shaykh Rabee is displeased inwardly about their position, because it is falsehood. Yet at the same time, they make this kind of attachment to the Shaykh, using his husn udh-dhann, and they come out accusing the Salafees who are upon the very same manhaj as Shaykh Rabee' "you are disrespecting the Shaykh", and they are the very ones who are trying to marginilise the manhaj of Shaykh Rabee' by mentioning that they are on the manhaj of the three true major scholars who passed away and on the manhaj of Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad, and all of these games are to try and marginilise Shaykh Rabee' and move people away from his manhaj. It is this manhaj they are against, its not about TROID, or SP, or Dawud Adeeb or others, it is this manhaj they have a problem with.

So alongside all of this, which they know with certainty inside their own souls, that this is what they are doing, then look at how they manipulate the husn udh-dhann of Shaykh Rabee' and his expectations of bringing about good, look at how they use it against the Salafees and try to demonise them by way of it. And look at how they present these issues to the people, who for the most part, are completely ignorant of what is really taking place or has actually taken place behind the scenes.

SEVEN: In light of all of that the statement of Abu Usaamah:
1. Shaikh Rabee' knows that Shaikh 'Alee al-Halabee and Shaikh Saleem al-Hilaalee don't see Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee as being a deviant. If the one who doesn't see Abul-Hasan as a deviant is a supporter of Abul-Hasan and thus a DEVIANT HIMSELF, or a danger to the Da'wah, why would the Shaikh TRUST THEM and put the affairs of the Da'wah in their hands? (Inna hadha la shay oon 'ujaab)! (another BAATIL PRINCIPLE)

Is baatil and mardood and it is talbees upon the people (whether intended or not). Because as Shaykh Mohammad Umar Bazmul has explained that the least that had been agreed to was that they hold that Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee is upon false usool, and thus this makes him "saahibu bid'ah" (meaning someone who has somethign of innovated principles with him), even if they disagree upon him being called an outright "mubtadi'". This is what Shaykh Bazmul explained who was in that meeting.

And what Abu Usaamah has portrayed in this paragraph is baatil and opposes the truth, because at that moment in time, when Shaykh Rabee' was happy to authorise that the brothers be brought together upon the Book and the Sunnah, they had not issued their second bayaan, the one they went and wrote two days later in Shaam, and in which they opposed the first bayaan. Whereas upon the conclusion of the first meeting, when the first bayaan was written, the Shaykh was happy with the outcome that they had agreed that Abul-Hasan is upon false usool and this was a pleasing matter,and that they agreed that this person needs to make open clear tawbah without any tadlees or talbees. So in this situation it makes sense that the Shaykh, being happy with this outcome, wished for unity between the brothers upon the Book and the Sunnah.

So what Abu Usaamah has written above is not entirely correct, and again, due to his inaccuracy, he is portraying something in manner that is incorrect, and then deducing things from it which are also incorrect. It would be better if Abu Usaamah stop writing all these lengthy bayaans, this is sincere advice to him, as he is only confusing the people even more. His facts are flawed, his information is flawed, his understanding is flawed and he only writes out of emotion.

EIGHT: There are many issues that could be expanded upon and detailed here, but seeing that this is a sensitive matter, at this moment in time, we will limit this explanation only to what has already been mentioned above. And again, the above has only been explained because it has been made an issue openly by Abu Usaamah and he used this issue to claim that these brothers, TROID and Dawud Adeeb are disrespecting Shaykh Rabee' and this is a lie and slander upon those brothers, and it is a form of opportunism on behalf of Abu Usaamah to actually raise this matter against them in the way that he has. Rather they respect him and they love him and his manhaj and they are upon his manhaj, a manhaj which Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee and his followers and his allies are against, and which they cannot handle, as is clear. Whereas Abu Usaamah is not upon the manhaj of Shaykh Rabee' which the major scholars were pleased with, Shaykh al-Albaanee, and Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, and Shaykh Muqbil and Shaykh bin Baaz (rahimahumullaah), and there exist textual and verbal statements from these Shaykhs to indicate this.

In reality, this is what all of this is about. And as for these little side issues here and there which are being raised by these people, they are just used by these people to cloud the actual underlying truths and realities of this fitnah, and which they dare not address, because it has already been established that this fitnah they are caught up in is merely an extension of those fitnahs of the concealed Ikhwaaneees who preceded them, like Ar'oor and ash-Shayijee and others.

19-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002


Just reflect very carefully on the rest of this post, which is taken entirely from Shaykh Rabee' bin Haadee, and look at the observations he has made about the likes of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee (towards the end).

Excerpt from Haqeeqat ul-Manhaj il-Waasi? ?Inda Abil-Hasan ? The Reality of the ?Vast Manhaj? [Intended] In the View of Abul-Hasan, By the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta?deel, Rabee? bin Haadee al-Madkhalee


All praise is due to Allaah and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allaah, his companions and whoever follows his guidance.

To proceed: Then the Messenger of Allaah, the Truthful and Believed, has told us about the tribulations in this Ummah in numerous ahaadeeth, and amongst them is the hadeeth of Abu Hurairah (radiallaahu anhu), and practically, many great tribulations have occurred that have had a deep, profound effects in corrupting many Muslims in terms of belief and methodology. And they also had effects in tearing apart the ranks of the Muslims, the shedding of their blood and taking of their honours.

In fact, [there is] the saying of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), ?You will certainly follow the ways of those who came before you, hand span by hand span and arms lengthy by arms length, until if they were to enter into a lizards hole, you would also have followed them?.

And Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa?ah have faced these tribulations and [forms of] misguidance, and their respective peoples, and they explained their oppositions to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and what his Noble Companions were upon. And this is how Allaah mobilises Ahl us-Sunnah, or some of them, in order to face and stand against the tribulations, and to speak the truth concerning them and concerning the people (of these tribulations).

And in this time of ours, many tribulations have appeared in the lands of the Muslims, such as Communism, Socialism, Secularism, Ba?thism, Democracy, and whatever follows on from the, and also the increase (in the efforts) of the Raafidah, and the Khawaarij by a great deal. And so they openly displayed what they used to hide and conceal (before this). And likewise, the Qadiaanis, and the Bahaa?iyyah emerged.

So Allaah mobilised Ahl us-Sunnah and granted them success in repelling the falsehoods of these people and exposing their people, all as sincere advice (in calling) to Allaah, His Messenger and the Believers.

And amongst the tribulations whose spear has been directed towards Ahl us-Sunnah specifically, the people of the Salafee manhaj, in order to slaughter them, is the tribulation of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, the tribulation of Mahmood al-Haddaad, the tribulation of Adnaan Ar?oor, the tribulation of Hasan al-Maalikee, and the tribulation of Abul-Hasan al-Misree al-Ma?ribee, and this (latter one) is the most severe one of them all, and the greatest one with regards to deception and wide claims. And amongst these wide and false claims is the claim of ?ta?seel?  (laying down foundations, principles). And what will tell you exactly what this ?ta?seel? is? It is nothing but throwing destructive, corrupt principles (usool) that destroy the principles of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa?ah and the manhaj of the Salaf us-Saalih. Especially the principles (from the Sunnah) that stand against innovations and the various (types of) misguidance.

Amongst [the examples] of this ?ta?seel? is their speaking with the manhaj of al-Muwaazanaat, either explicitly, or (covertly) whilst hiding behind a wall of deceit. Also amongst them is the principle of ?We correct (the mistake) but we do not disparage, or destroy (the person).? And also amongst them is the [principle] of ?carrying the mujmal upon the mufassal and the mutlaq upon the muqayyad, and the ?aamm upon the khaas, and the naasikh upon the mansookh? and this principle was invented by some of the extremist [followers] of Sayyid Qutb, and then Abul-Hasan, in all severity, raised its flag, and then practically defended Sayyid Qutb using this [same principle invented by them].

Then he changed his skin and colour into a new one, which is actually a habit of his, so that he can escape from his constricting, deformed, gloomy predicament, [and come out] with a picture of blazing, beautiful light.

And also amongst (these principles) is the principle of ?at-tathabbut? (verification) and he does not actually intend by this the legislated form of tathabbut, rather he intends by it to reject the truth, and to drop its adherents from the scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah and the Salafee Manhaj. So regardless of how much their numbers increase, and their verdicts concord and are in agreement, and regardless of what they establish of evidences, then this one principle (i.e. of at-tathabbut) is sufficient to drop them all (i.e. to render their verdicts null and void), despite their great number, and the strength in their evidences and proofs. So Abul-Hasan does not believe in the reports of the trustworthy people (thiqaat), and nor their verdicts, regardless of how great their number is, up until he sees with his own eyes, and hears with his own ears. And this ?tathabbut? (verification) resembles the verification of the Jews, when they said to the Prophet of Allaah, Moosaa, ?We will never believe until we see Allaah plainly? and whatever resembles this of the obstinacy of the enemies of the Messengers (alaihim as-salaatu was-salaam). And Allaah, the Most High, said, ?And who is more unjust than the one who lies upon Allaah, and rejects the truth when it comes to him??.

And we do not declare those ignorants to be disbelievers, despite their despicable manners that they have exhibited, and which they have rendered into ?usool? (principles).

And also amongst them is their saying, ?We do not blindly follow anyone, and we are people of daleel?. And they do not desire by this except to drop the sayings of the scholars of the Sunnah, and to dropt their judgements and their verdicts upon the people of falsehood and misguidance.

And also amongst them is the saying of Abul-Hasan, ?We desire an extensive, spacious manhaj that suffices Ahl us-Sunnah and suffices the Ummah (as a whole) also?. And this manhaj that Abul-Hasan desires comprises all of these principles (that he layed down) and all of his falsehoods, and his deceptions and his distortions, and it also comprises the various factions of misguidance, and he (by way of this) pursues Ahl us-Sunnah and fights against them with the most severe war.

And I have found there to be a strong resemblance between him and Hasan al-Maalikee in their ?ta?seel? (laying down foundations) and ?talbees? (deception), and other characteristics.

For they share with each other (in the following):

1.     Additional pretence to knowledge, and this is not from the characteristics of the people of knowledge
2.     Outward pretence of fairness, and inviting to justice, whereas they are both the most severe of all people in injustice and being remote from fairness and justice.
3.     Outward pretence of waging a war against taqleed, and they are the most severe of all people in  their taqleed of mistakes and falsehoods.
4.     Defending the people of falsehood by mere sentiments, and waging a war against Ahl ul-Haqq using devised plans, and by way of [false] claims of ?ta?seel? and ?absence of taqleed?.
5.     Claims of holding fast to the evidences, and they are the most severe of all people in rejecting the evidences.
6.     Waging a war against those who hold fast to the truth, by calling it ?ghuluww? (extremism, exaggeration) towards so and so and so and so.
7.     Revilement of whoever refutes their falsehood, by saying that ?they enter into the intentions [of the people]?.
8.     Claiming Salafiyyah in order to be able to strike Salafiyyah and to wage a war against the Salafees.
9.     Ability to employ deception in presenting the various issues and in debating them, and perhaps Abul-Hasan is the greater (of the two) in deception, and more able with respect to it compared to his associate.

And al-Maalikee is unique in some affairs and which Abul-Hasan would probably not be so bold to embark upon. And Abul-Hasan is unique in revolving around this [so-called] ?ta?seel? and the ?ta?seel baatil?. And amongst his false principles is what has already proceeded, and they are extremely dangerous. We have already explained their deviation in numerous articles.

And amongst them is what he calls ?the vast, extensive manhaj?, and practically, it is vast and extensive, that suits all the falsehoods, and is an open place for all false foundations and deception and defence of people of misguidance.

And I will shortly mention the text of this foundation and then I will follow up the practical implementation of this foundation by Abul-Hasan, and then debate it and to expose and uncover his deceptions?


This message was edited by on 1-21-03 @ 1:27 PM
19-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002


ONE: Abu Usaamah makes  a drama out of a crisis in his bayaan when he goes on with the flawed argument that so and so Shaykh says that Abul-Hasan is a Salafee, and that so and so Shaykh does not hold he is a Mubtadi', and that so and so Shaykh does not hold he is a danger to the Ummah, so therefore this means that all of these Shaykhs, according to those who do hold that AL-Ma'ribee is not Salafee, or a Mubtadi', are all guilty of ignorance and tamyee' and watering down the haqq:

When Abul Hasan Haalik describes our Salify brother as being ONE OF THE BIGGEST TRIALS THE UMMAH HAS FACED RECENTLY, this is a ta'n or criticism of ALL OF THESE PEOPLE OF KNOWLEDGE who have been fooled, duped, or made unaware of his evil! This is a criticism on the Da'wah and the concept of respecting the scholars!...

...So your statement implies that all of these scholars are guilty of ignorance or TAMYEE' and watering down the Haqq! You have accused them of not having knowledge and the true GHEERAH for this Dawah since they haven?t been able to identify this man?s reality!?!?

How could they possibly praise such a dangerous and un-praiseworthy man, and in such numbers?! Yes, there are some instances in which people of sever deviance were praised by a scholar here or there like in the case of (Yahyah Ibrahim) and Imam Shaafie. But how many people did we witness along with Imam Shaafie praising him? Instead, we find them criticizing the one or two people who praised him!

This statement of yours is faulty, and that?s clear. Maybe you didn?t consider it in the past, but that?s the ?Ilzaam? of what you?re implying when you describe this man the way you?ve done. The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has commanded us to turn to the Ulemah, especially in times of fitnah, and according to you, MOST OF THEM don?t have a clue concerning one of the greatest trials in recent times! If that?s not disrespecting the SCHOLARS (not scholar), then I don't know what is!!!

This unfortunately arises due to the ignorance of Abu Usaamah and the confusion in his mind and his being far from the Salafee manhaj in how to deal with this type of situation. It is therefore not surprising that the arguments and constructs that the followers of Safar and Salmaan were using years ago, or the followers of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, are the same ones being repeated by the followers of al-Ma'ribee today.

TWO: There are numerous forms of falsehood and talbeesaat in the above quotation.

The statement that Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribees fitnah is the greatest fitnah today, greater than what has preceded it, and even worse than the fitnahs of some of the famous figureheads of innovation, is actually the statement of Shaykh Rabee' bin Haadee al-Madkhalee, and this is found scattered in his refutations, and also in his numerous gatherings and sittings, and many people will narrate this from him. Hence, do not find fault with Abul Hasan Maalik for a statement in which he has been preceded by an Imaam, yes, an Imaam in the Jarh of the Hizbiyyeen and those who wish inhiraaf for the Dawah. So attack Shaykh Rabee' with the words you have used above. We know that you and your likes are only using the attacks upon TROID and Dawud Adeeb and Abul-Hasan Maalik and others, because they are those who are actually upon the manhaj of Shaykh Rabee. You can say what you like with your tongues, but your actions, and these types of mistakes you are making, are the greatest of evidence, that you are unpleased with the manhaj of Shaykh Rabee.

Read the first two pages of Shaykh Rabee's article "Haqeeqat ul-Manhaj il-Waasi? ?Inda Abil-Hasan " and you will see that Shaykh Rabee' considers this to be a mighty fitnah, the greatest of previous fitnahs, and that he is the one who explained this and spoke of it.

To proceed: Then the Messenger of Allaah, the Truthful and Believed, has told us about the tribulations in this Ummah in numerous ahaadeeth, and amongst them is the hadeeth of Abu Hurairah (radiallaahu anhu), and practically, many great tribulations have occurred that have had a deep, profound effects in corrupting many Muslims in terms of belief and methodology...

...And Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa?ah have faced these tribulations and [forms of] misguidance, and their respective peoples,

...And in this time of ours, many tribulations have appeared in the lands of the Muslims, such as Communism, Socialism, Secularism, Ba?thism, Democracy, and whatever follows on from them

And amongst the tribulations whose spear has been directed towards Ahl us-Sunnah specifically, the people of the Salafee manhaj, in order to slaughter them, is the tribulation of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, the tribulation of Mahmood al-Haddaad, the tribulation of Adnaan Ar?oor, the tribulation of Hasan al-Maalikee and the tribulation of Abul-Hasan al-Misree al-Ma?ribee, and this (latter one) is the most severe one of them all, and the greatest one with regards to deception and wide claims...

And incidentally, this type of talbees here, which is to find fault with one of the tullaab in the West, on account of a statement, which itself comes from a person of knowledge, is found often with these people. When Shaykh Rabee said, "I am more knowledge than Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad in this matter", and the Salafees quoted it, then you saw the defenders of Abul-Hasan saying, "so and so says that Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin has less ilm" and other such matters. So this is common and it has been experienced for a very long time by the Salafees.

Abu Usaamah says:
In addition to this, everyone knows how you brothers described Shaikh 'Abdul-Muhsin al-'Abbaad as not understanding these affairs the way Shaikh Rabee understands them. You ?Ghulaat? stopped short of calling him ignorant and you made the same statements as the hizbees from the Suroorees and Ikhwaanees use to make when a scholar of the Da'wah disagreed with their leaders and their ideas.

Whereas the truth of the matter is that these brothers only narrated the actual words of Shaykh Rabee bin Haadee and spoke with what it means. Here is part of a QA session held by some Salafee brothers here in the UK, from Leicester, in October 2002:

QUESTIONER: O Shaykh they say, "If you consider the seniority in age and knowledge, then Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad is greater both in age and in knowledge than Shaykh Rabee". So what is your view about this?

SHAYKH RABEE?: This is a lie, a lie. I am more senior in age than him, and I am more knowledgeable of these things than him, I have studied them and he has not studied them. Meaning, that his knowledge is another field, arena, however in this field he is either left (i.e. his view left) or he studies (the matter). And I am more senior than him in age, and [Muhammad] al-Bannaa is more senior than him in age, and Shaykh an-Najmee is senior than him in age, and he is the older of all of us (i.e. the three of them Rabee', an-Najmee and al-Abbaad) and al-Bannaa is the oldest of oall of us (i.e. of the four). So when the affair is like this concerning age, then alhamdulillaah and the truth is with them. Seniority in age, and also the truth and evidences are actually with them (i.e. those older than al-Abbaad). They are asking about al-Abbaad, who is older, then it is me, and not him. And I comprehend and understand these affairs and al-Abbaad does not comprehend these affairs... the proofs are with us in this particular topic, and as for other areas, then Allaah knows best. They do not know (i.e. these people), they have not studied with Shaykh Rabee' and nor with al-Abbaad. So these tazkiyaat (commendations) are false.

So the likes of Abu Usaamah play these types of talbeesaat upon the people (whether intended or not), that when the Salafees speak with a saying or a meaning that they have acquired, verbally, or textually, from a scholar, (and the Salafees have openly presented this saying or meaning from this scholar), then what they do is limit it and make it look as if it has originated from those in the West, and then they play these talbeesaat in order to deceive the people, saying, "look at these fools, these nawaabit, these youngsters, and look at what they are saying and implying about the people of knowledge", when in reality, what the Salafees have said is actually from the people of knowledge.

So we ask Abu Usaamah pour your rage and your hatred upon Shaykh Rabee', just like you have done with Abul-Hasan Maalik, and describe Shaykh Rabee' with "Abul-Fitan Haalik", as you have described Abul-Hasan Maalik with that, and pour your insults upon Shaykh Rabee' as you have upon these brothers. Because these brothers are upon the manhaj of Shaykh Rabee' which you clearly have a problem with. Their manhaj is the one and same, and their mawaaqif are the one and same, and their walaa and baraa is built around the same manhaj and the same mawaaqif. But the likes of you are the deceivers because, you come out in the name of rejecting baatil principles, and in the name of mercy, clemency, forgiveness, moderation, and the maslaha of the da'wah and so on, and you are the most furthest of people from it when you speak against the Salafees. You abuse them, you revile them, you call them names, you accuse them with having false principles when it is your likes you are upon them, you twist matters, and there is no ilm, no fahm, no usool, no manhaj, no qawaa'id, in your compositions. Yet, you come out in the name of mercy, and moderation and balance, and forgiveness, and clemency. In reality this clemency is only for Ahl ul-Bid'ah and the Hizbiyyeen and the Jam'iyyaat, and this is what is meant by the maslahah of the da'wah. The maslahah for this Tamyee'i da'wah which enables leniency towards the Hizbiyyeen and severity upon the Salafees, and taking the shortcomings and faults of the Salafees in order to hide your own bankruptcy in the usool and the manhaj.

THREE: A second falsehood is the way he tries to imply and portray that the Salafees say that those who praise Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee (from the other major scholars) are thus accused with blameworthy ignorance and partisanship and so on, and this is again from the talbeesaat. Because the Salafees say that there are people of ijtihaad, who are capable of ijtihaad and hence they issue statements and verdicts based upon what they have of knowledge at that particular time. And there is not to be found any partisanship in what they say, and nor any blameworthy ignorance, but they judge according to what they know of about a matter. And so they are rewarded once or twice.

But not everyone is in a position to make Ijtihaad, this is only for the Scholars, those less than them, from the students of knowledge (such as those of Yemen, or Kuwait or Jordan) and others, then they look at the sayings of the scholars and apply the correct manhaj in this situation, in order to make ittibaa'. Which, in this case, is to take the jarh  mufassar, because these scholars have information and knowledge that others do not. And in this case we have those who are also true major scholars, and many other Mashaayikh who are upon judging Abul-Hasan with either inhiraaf or of bidah, and they expel him from the Sunnah and say he is Mubtadi', Saahibu Hawaa, an Ikhwaanee.

This is what Abu Usaamah and his likes consistently fail to address: What is the manhaj in behaving in the likes of this situation. Whereas the Salafees, you find that they have addressed this matter, and hence proceed upon this manhaj in arriving at the correct position, and they have remained consistent in this all along.

And this is precisely why this manhaj exists. If you reflect carefully upon the statement of Abu Usaamah, you will realise it contains great evil (even if he does not realise it or intend it). This is because it is as if he is challenging the very fact that overwhelmingly, the deviation of a person only becomes apparent at the initial stages by select people, who are most aware of this person, or who are closest to him, and spend the most time with him, and have seen things from him that others have not. It is for this reason that in the affairs of Jarh of the Innovators, or the narrators of hadeeth, or the sinners, or the witnesses, there exists this rule, that the Jarh Mufassar takes precedence over the ta'deel. And this rule is based upon this reality, which is a true reality. Most of the Innovators in the history of Islaam, there was no Ijmaa' upon them, and you find that the Imaams of that time who specialised in Jarh (of the Innovators), they are the ones who passed these judgements upon the figureheads, based upon information that was presented to them, and the rest of Ahl us-Sunnah followed. There was no existence of the Ikhwaanee Usool of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee when Imaam Ahmad declared Hussain al-Karaabeesee an Innovator, or al-Haarith al-Muhaasibee or a  large faction of people who the people thought to be from Ahl us-Sunnah but they were Jahmiyyah, Lafthiyyah and others, and these people at that time, were seen as people of the Sunnah. But because of what became apparent to some of the people of knowledge about these individuals, they spoke about them, and then this speech was taken by the rest of Ahl us-Sunnah in all the various lands, even if there remained many other scholars, in the various lands, of high repute and standing, who did not hold this, or remained holding a different view up until such time came that the realised they truth.

Look at what happened with Shaykh al-Albaanee and Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen with respect to Safar and Salmaan? Shaykh al-Albaanee continued to speak good of them until 1417H, and Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen around the year 2000H he warned from their cassettes, and associated them with the revolutionary ideologists. Whereas before that they spoke nothing but good about them. This is because of the reality that we have pointed out above. And thus, this rule and principle of taking the jarh mufassar, actually follows on from this reality, and Ahl us-Sunnah have  never ceased to abide by it with respect to the Innovators and Deviants, even if they be those who initially ascribe to Sunnah and Salafiyyah.

So the Salafees have consistency, because they proceed upon a consistent manhaj, upon consistent principles.

Whereas what Abu Usaamah says above (in his logic and his false principle) means that if Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) was not fully aware of the manhaj that Safar and Salman were upon, that therefore this is blameworthy ignorance, and that by not being in possession of this knowledge he has no gheerah for the da'wah. This is what the falsehood and false principles of Abu Usaamah necessitate, when we apply his reasoning and logic to previous fitnahs. In other words, the argument Abu Usaamah is using in order to defend his position, is to claim that the position of the Salafees is such that it necessitates that the likes of Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin have no gheerah for the da'wah. But if we take this rule he has devised, and then transpose it to similar situations that the Salafees have been in the past, then it means, according to Abu Usaamah's principle, that the likes of Shaykh al-Albaani, and Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen are to be accused with the same thing, merely because they only convicted Safar and Salman of faults, either 6 or 9 years after the Shaykhs of Madinah, at the head of them Shaykh Rabee'.

This is how he is trying to portray this matter, and to try to demonise the Salafees and to twist and distort what they are upon, and make talbeesaat upon the people, by way of these principles, and what he thinks to be logical necessities, when in fact they are great falsehood.

But as for the manhaj of the Salafees, it is based upon realities, and hence, they say that those scholars who praise they do so based upon what is apparent to them outwardly, and they speak in accordance to what they know and thus, they are not ascribed with blameworthy ignorance, but just ignorance of the true realities of this person, and Allaah has not tasked every single scholar to know all the realities of fulaan and fulaan. And this is what the principle of taking the Jarh Mufassar is built upon, and the Jarh Mufassar is the guiding maxim in the likes of these affairs, so that the knowledge of the truth about the innovators and deviants or those who wish inhiraaf, does not remain hidden from the people, with the claim that so and so praised them and so and so does not hold this view etc. And with this manhaj, we are able to remain consistent, in every issue or every fitnah. Unlike the defenders of al-Ma'ribee.

Here, this is a good quote from Shaykh Muhammad Omar Bazmul:
Question: What are the rules concerning the principle of the Jarh Mufassal that takes precedence over the Ta'deel. And when  the Jarh Mufassal conflicts with the Ta'deel Mufassar, does the Ta'deel Mufassar take precedence over the Jarh Mufassar?

Shaikh: The scholars have textually written that the Jarh is given precedence over the ta'deel, and they say concerning the one whose adaalah (integrity) is established, meaning that the scholars have textually written down that he has integrity and that he is trustworthy, then nothing can be accepted (in criticism of him) except the jarh mufassar. So their saying leads to the fact that the person whose adaalah is not established and the scholars have not textually stated his trustworthiness, that the jarh mujmal (i.e. not clarified) is acceptable regarding him.

As for the one whose integrity is established then nothing is accepted about him except the jarh mufassar.

Then they say that when the jarh mufassar conflicts with the ta'deel mufassar, such as what you have asked in the question, they say that the jarh is not rejected except when the one making the ta'deel mentions the reason why the jarh was made and then refutes it. Such as for example the one making the jarh, did so upon a man because of his aqeedah. So the one making the ta'deel said, yes, he used to be upon this belief but he abandoned it and did not return back to it. Or the one making the jarh says that he did not memorise this scroll, but he used to narrate from it from memory. So the one making the ta'deel says, yes, he used to be like that but then he returned and heard from his Shaikh again, and so his usool became grounded again concerning that scroll, and then he did not narrate except from his usool (that he revised). So when the one making the ta'deel mentions the reason why the jarh was made and also refutes it, then this (ta'deel mufassar) is accepted but with an (additional) condition that it is not known about this man who is being spoken about that he fools around, follows his desires and deception. Because some people may give ta'deel mufassal to someone whom the scholars have made jarh mufassal of, and the one who has had jarh made upon him by the Scholars with tafseel, it has become established concerning him that he is from those who play games and follow the desires, from the people of deception, those who do not submit to the truth and do not return to the truth. So then, that speech of the one who made ta'deel, even if it was mufassal concerning him, then we do not accepte it due to what we have come to know about the condition of this man. Allaah knows best.

So this is what the Salafees upon. A Clear manhaj, that is sareeh, waadih, bayyin. And as for what the followers of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee are upon, they are not able to define for us a clear manhaj in the likes of this situation. And their writings and their bayaans, like those coming from Abu Usaamah are a clear proof of this. And this is why even the Effeminate Qutubees have been able to overwhelm them in argument and have defeated them in this matter, and they have illustrated that the followers of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee are upon contradiction and falsehood.


This message was edited by on 1-21-03 @ 1:28 PM
20-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002


In light of what has already preceded above (and there is much more to come, if Allaah wills) we ask Abu Usaamah to sit by himself in seclusion and then to put these questions to his soul, and then if his intellect is satisfied with the answers, to then come out openly with these answers:

Question 1: Do you subscribe to the view of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee that Shaykh Rabee is traversing upon a very dangerous manhaj different to the three major Shaykhs who passed away, and that the reason why other Scholars were not able to notice was because they were too engaged in the affairs of knowledge and teaching? This is textually stated by the Ikhwaanee for whom you are tripping over, almost foolishly, in order to defend. Here are his words:

قال أبو الحسد :

فلقد علم الكثير من الناس في هذا العصر، خطورة المنهج الذي يسلكه الشيخ ربيع بن هادي المدخلي في هذه السنوات

الأخيرة، لا سيما بعد موت جماعة من العلماء الكبار، واشتغال آخرين من العلماء الكباربقضايا عامة ومصيرية، تهم أمة

الإسلام في جميع أقطارها، فخلا الجو -في كثير من الأحيان- للشيخ ربيع ومن كان على شاكلته، فاجتهدوا في بث قواعد مدمرة

لكيان الدعوة السلفية -وإن كانت نواياهم حسنة، ومقاصدهم صالحة، ولهم مواقف أخرى مشكورة- إلا أن الناظر في آثارهذه

القواعد المحْدَ ثة؛ لا يتردد في كونها قواعد مدمِّرة ومبيرة، وكما يقال: (بآثارهم يُعرفون)، فإن آثار هذه القواعد على الصف

السلفي هذه الأيام، لا يختلف في فسادها اثنان مدركان، ولا ينتطح فيها عنـَزَان!!.

So we want the answer, is this what you hold? It seems that you are affected by this thought, because it seems apparent in your bayaan, and we just want you to confirm whether you agree with this slander of your teacher or not, and if not, what are you prepared to do about it, to refute and expose this slander, that the manhaj of Shaykh Rabee' is different to that of the Major scholars before him? Since, in your bayaan, you showed so much gheerah for Shaykh Rabee' finding fault with some of the Shabaab for disrespecting Shaykh Rabee by choosing not to sit with the Tullaab from Jordan. So what great disrespect is it to outright slander Shaykh Rabee' and say that his manhaj is dangerous and his manhaj is different to that of the other Scholars, and that he has innovated Baatil Principles. This came from Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, to whose tune you are dancing to? So what do you say about this disrespect and this slander? Does it move you and shake you and disturb you to want to write another 10 page bayaan, and to write fiery passages to provoke the emotions and rouse the sentiments (as you did against TROID, and Dawud Adeeb and Abul-Hasan Maalik, for what you claimed was disrespect of the Scholars). Answer.

Question 2:This is still related to the above quotation. Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee claims about Shaykh Rabee that he has destructive principles (or to use Abu Usaamah's language "BAATIL PRINCIPLES"), and that these principles are the ones that have caused corruption, and destroyed the da'wah, and the ranks of the Salafees. So we just have a question, what you perceive to be BAATIL PRINCIPLES and a CORRUPT MANHAJ that you seem to be indicating by way of your bayaans, then by any chance, are you kind of referring to the same thing that your teacher is referring to in the quote from him above? Seriously, after reading the above quotation from Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, we cannot help but conclude that you are taking this from Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee and whoever is with him. He is your teacher, and you are probably his most outspoken spokesman in the West. And the deen of a man is known by way of his companion. So this is a second question.

Question 3: What is the reason that led you to reject the outcome and verdict of the Scholars of Madeenah (Shaykh Ubayd, Shaykh Salih as-Suhaymee, Shaykh Mohammad Haadee) who were chosen by Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee in order to judge in his affair. You have been heard numerous times, during that period, speaking about how good this is and that the Scholars in Madeenah will resolve this and we should wait for them and their judgement. Thats what the Salafees did, and they accepted it with Tasleem. That Abul-Hasan is an Ikhwaanee in flesh. So what led you to reject that, after you kind of enforced entrusting this affair to them, upon the people?
I informed them that we're going to find the Haqq out in time, especially since Shaikh Rabee' is criticizing him. Now it's upon the youth to wait and see what happens with the judgment that's going to be given by the committee of Madeenah that has been set up to judge in the issue.

So you first waited to see the outcome of Shaykh Rabee's criticisms, and that did not satisfy you, then you were happy with the arbiration of the Scholars in Madinah, and when they gained baseerah concerning this man, that did not satisfy you either, even though you entrusted the affair to them wholeheartedly? So what led you to reject them and their decision in the affair?

Question 4: Within the context of this fitnah, the Salafees have taken a jarh mufassar of 20 or more scholars, around four or five of which are Major Scholars, (to which there is no ta'deel mufassar which satisfactorily explains the asbaab of the jarh and refutes the jarh mufassar itself), and they have adopted a Sunnee, Salafee, Atharee manhaj in making Ittibaa of the scholars specialised in this subject (without implying that others do not also have a share of knowledge in this subject). And they have traversed upon a consistent manhaj in this and previous fitnahs, which they can illustrate with baraaheen and adillah. What manhaj have you adopted, that you can corroborate, and find evidence for from a knowledge-based perspective, and which you can illustrate to be coherent and consistent, over the last 10 years?

Question 5: Read this verdict of Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad (hafidhahullaah), and answer the questions that follow:

Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-?Abbaad on the False Principles of Adnaan Ar?oor
From the book ?Tahdheer ul-Anaam min Akhtaa? Ahmad Sallaam?, also on cassette. Compiled by Abu Noor bin Hasan Muhammad al-Kurdee, with an introduction by Shaykh ?Ubayd al-Jaabiree.

When the Shaykh was asked concerning him he replied, ?My advice to you is not to be busy yourself with the words of Adnaan, and nor with his principles, and do not even turn to whatever is with him, since he has confusion. And I have looked at something of his words and I found in his words what is not befitting.?

Question: ?Are his lessons to be attended??

Answer: ?No, by Allaah, it is not desirable for his lessons to be attended?.

Refer to p. 141 of ?Tahdheer ul-Anaam?.

If you only read this verdict on its own, would that make you content in taking this advice? And is this a Jarh Mujmal or Mufassar? And considering that Ar'oor has supposedly been praised by the Major Scholars who passed away. And what would your response be to those who said, "But Al-Albaani praised him, but Ibn Baaz praised him, they say that he is Salafee"? Would you take the saying of Shaykh Abdul-Mushin al-Abbaad, or the sayings of those others who praise him, or speak well of him, or do not see anything that warrants criticism upon him? What if Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad (and a whole host of other scholars and students of knowledge) brought detailed information about this man, and made this Jarh Mufassar, detailed.

And if you took this speech of this noble Aalim (while it only stands as quoted above) with nothing else to support it, then would anyone else have any grounds to oppose you and have a difference of opinion? And if they did, what grounds would they be exactly? And if it is only a Jarh Mujmal, then what if someone brought the speech of other Major Scholars, that explain these principles in detail and refute them, thus rendering it Mufassar. And then other scholars come along and show with evidences that this man, after all this, abuses, and reviles and mocks and slanders the scholars, and persists in his arrogance. Then would anyone else have any grounds to reject this Jarh, made by this Shaykh, which is made Mufassar by the refutations of other Shaykhs, and with the israar and takabbur of the man being refuted, established and proven by yet other Shaykhs? Answer these questions.

This is only to help focus your mind away from defending your own soul and vindicating yourself in these pathetic bayaans, and instead prompting you to try and understand something related to the affairs of manhaj in these issues.

Question 6: You made it a logical necessity in your bayaan that those say that Abul-Hasan's fitnah is the greatest today, and that those who say that some of the Scholars are not fully aware of the reality of this man as others are, and have thus spoken well of him, and included him within Ahl us-Sunnah, due to their incomplete knowledge of him - that this explanation necessitates that these scholars have no gheerah for the da'wah and are to be blamed and rebuked for this. We do not hold this to be a logical necessity, as we have already explained above, since our manhaj is clear, and it is built upon certain realities related to criticising and refuting and knowing the deviants and innovators, and we explained our position.

However, let us say that we accept your logical necessity, and accept it as being true and correct. However, this means that there have to be two logical necessities. One you have made for us, and one we are entitled to make for you.

And this is that your stance necessitates that Shaykh Rabee' and Shaykh Ubayd and Shaykh Mohammad al-Bannaa and Shaykh Ahmad an-Najmee, and Shaykh Zaid al-Madkhalee and Shaykh Muhammad al-Wasaabee, whom we can count as Major or Senior Scholars - all of them are Ghullaat, Haddaadees, they do not differentiate between bid'ah and Mubtadi', they are Dhaalimoon, from the followers of Dhul-Khuwaisarah, those who expel others from Salafiyyah upon a whim and a desire, those who do not bear in mind the Maslahah of the Da'wah, those who just want to destroy, destroy, destroy, and not build. Those who have devised Baatil Principles, in order fulfil their lusts for Tabdee', upon other than Sharee'ah principles.

So this is our logical necessity upon you, and it is actually more sound and valid than yours, and more justifiable than yours (for numerous reasons, perhaps you might know some of them). So do you accept it from us, and do you it apply it upon yourself, and do you abide by the justice, the adl, and insaaf whose flag you raise, and thus, apply this to yourself? Because this is more binding upon you, than what you have claimed upon us, for numerous reasons.

So these are only six questions, (and we have scores more) but we ask that you reflect upon them, and then come and present the answers. Seeing that you are much confused (by way of the bayaans you have been issuing), it seems fair to give you some direction in your thoughts, and help you to be a bit more focused, and to pull yourself together, may Allaah guide you.


This message was edited by on 1-21-03 @ 1:28 PM
20-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002

22-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002


Despite the fact that around two-thirds of Abu Usaamah's 12 page bayaan was centred around the issue of his statement made upon Shaykh Rabee' and the criticisms brought upon him due to it, we did not begin addressing that first, for numerous reasons, that will become clear as you read through the whole of what will make up Part 9 inshaa'allaah. However, some of what has preceded was needed first, to give a general kind of background to the issue of al-Ma'ribee, so that a context is found within which to address more specific issues, such as this one that will be the subject of Part 9.

However, before going into that specifically, we need to lay some foundations. In this section we shall learn the following:

A) Reasons why this split (and previous splits) occurred between the Salafees

B) Reasons why people today who ascribed themselves to Salafiyyah got affected by Ikhwaaniyyah

C) A comparison between the polemic of Al-Ma'ribee, whose style Abu Usaamah has followed perfectly and completely, and the polemic of ash-Shayijee of 7-8 years ago. This will allows to see more clearly, the style Abu Usaamah has adopted in writing his bayaan, before we go on to analyse the way he has covered the issue of his speech upon Shaykh Rabee'

D) The ways in which specific incidents or occurrences that follow on from and are subsidiary branches and consequences of the actual fundamental and base events (from which they spring), are often focused upon, discussed, analysed, and exaggerated by people (over and above the base, fundamental event or issue) leading to the creation of layers of deception, and manipulation of people's perceptions and emotions, and thereby  the true underlying issues become hidden from them. This mostly occurs unintentionally, but can also occur intentionally - and it is this phenomen that for many long years has both created and perpetuated the great confusion.

E) Reasons to explain why there exist many barriers that prevent people from making walaa and baraa upon the usool and the manhaj of the Salaf, and from uniting with the Salafees around this.

This will be looked at before we actually start analysing the way Abu Usaamah has covered the issue of the statement he made about Shaykh Rabee', and this will help us to dig out the underlying psychological mindsets, and thought patterns that are represented in people like Abu Usaamah adh-Dhahabee, may Allaah guide him to what is best, and which have been brought about by historical events and incidents in the plains of the da'wah of Ahl us-Sunnah in general.


This message was edited by on 1-25-03 @ 6:15 PM
23-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002


PARTS 9A) AND 9B) Reasons for the Splits Amongst Salafees and Why People Got Affected by Subtle Undertones of Ikhwaaniyyah

Before going into this we need to appreciate that there are aqaa'id and manaahij that distinguish the true Salafees from all the different sects, the groups and partisans, and those who proceed upon jahl and hawaa. It is important to appreciate this, and there are statements from the scholars in this regard.

Aqaa'id + Manaahij = Deliverance and Safety
Shaykh al-Albaanee says, "It is for this reason that we say that manhaj is more vast than aqidah and tawhid, hence it is necessary to adhere to what the Salaf us-Salih were upon with respect to both these affairs; the one that is vast (manhaj) first and foremost and the one that is more narrow (tawhid), meaning aqidah.‎ (Al-Asaalah Magazine, Vol 22).

Shaykh 'Ubayd says, "And Islaam is brought together (composed) of these two, (a) the soundness, correctness in `aqeedah, and (b) the soundness and safety in manhaj. Therefore, one of them cannot be separated from the other." From the tape, "Questions and Answers on the Ways of al-Ikhwaan"

And if you read the book of Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, on questions and answers on manhaj, you see that it is full of statements confirming the importance of correct manhaj and it is correct manhaj that unites the people, and incorrect manaahij divide the people.

OK once, this is understood, that there are aqaa'id and manaahij and that manaahij are more vast, then those who ascribed to the Salafee da'wah at one time or another, or continue to do so, then in the past 13 years or so, there are two main timescales, or two broad sections that need to be looked at:

Different Time Periods of Entrance into Aqaa'id and Manaahij
1) The time in which they began to enter Salafiyyah from the point of view aqaa'id (and ibaadaat and fiqh).

2) The time in which they began to enter Salafiyyah from the point of view of manaahij.

However, this observation here is a general observation, and is a general rule. There might be specific individuals who had entered into Salafiyyah completely, a long time ago, and many others who only entered into Salafiyyah completely, more recently. But in general, there are two distinct timespans.

The first period (roughly just prior to gulf war and until around 1995)
So in the beginning, people began to enter into Salafiyyah from the point of view of aqaa'id and ibaadaat and fiqh, so they learnt that Tawheed is of three types, they learnt about the Salafee aqeedah, about Asmaa was-Sifaat, they learnt about how to believe in the affairs of the Unseen, the affairs of al-Qadaa wal-Qadar and so on, to the rest of the generality of the aqaa'id. And here they made attachments to the major scholars like al-Albaani, Ibn baaz, Ibn Uthaymeen and others, and also by way of this they knew the deviations of the likes of the Soofees in ibaadaat and aqaa'id and also the rigidity of the madhaahib, also the deviations of the likes of Hizb ut-Tahreer, and of the Takfeerees in general, and also, in a broad general sense, the Ikhwaan (without knowing it in detail) and so on. At this time there was no real knowledge of manaahij.

So in this period we have numbers of people entering into Salafiyyah from this angle of aqaa'id and ibaadaat and fiqh, and proceeding in this manner.

However, this was also a period in which great confusion had been brought into, or already existed, or was beginning to emerge into the da'wah.

Refer to this diagram here (the first one, showing the historical entry of the ideologies of Ikhwaan into Ahl us-Sunnah):

And reflect upon it carefully for a few minutes. Then come back here.

The thing to note here is that in this period of time, due to the effects of Ikhwaan (spanning the previous couple of decades), there were many manaahij that had been entered in the field of the da'wah of Ahl us-Sunnah, and over time, they became the accepted norms and standards (due to the ignorance of the people in this regard). This was because at that time, many  of the scholars had good opinions of some of these jamaa'aat who were responsible for these ideologies and manaahij, and had husn udh-dhann for them (before their true realities became apparent). However, by way of these jamaa'aat many manaahij were entered into the da'wah, and these manaahij were such that they affected peoples speech, action, walaa and baraa', method of da'wah and so on - even if at the same time, they were entering into Salafiyyah from the point of view of aqaa'id and ibaadaat and fiqh.

So this concludes what we can broadly categorise as the first period.

The second period
Now the second period emerges around 1995-1996 onwards (and in the West this varied from country to country). And this is a period in which the knowledge of the fact that deviant methodologies had entered amongst Ahl us-Sunnah begins to emerge more openly, and knowledge of the scholars who are instrumental in refuting these methodologies begins to emerge in the West, the likes of Shaykh Rabee' , Shaykh Muqbil and the Scholars in Madinah specifically, and so we see them, speaking about methodologies, manaahij in different fields, in the fields of da'wah, in the fields of al-jarh and at-ta'deel, in the fields of refuting innovators, in the fields of walaa and baraa. And this is actually in response to the deviant manaahij that had been brought in and entered in to Salafiyyah, and in response to figureheads who became spokesmen for these methodologies, sometimes in name of Salafiyyah and sometimes not, but who actually came from the direction of al-Ikhwaan.

Beginnings of Separation
From this point the people who had previously ascribed to Salafiyyah became divided into two groups:

1) Those who actually clocked and figured out what was going on, realised the significance of the efforts of the likes of Shaykh Rabee', and the Shaykhs of Madinah in general, and Shaykh Muqbil and realised the importance of manaahij, and with great zeal took to finding everything they could on these subjects and trying to understand them, and learn them, and act by them, and so on, so as to avoid the pending confusion and misguidance. So from the very beginning, with their perceptions and outlook corrected, they embarked upon a particular direction, a direction which had as its goal, arriving at clarity, (wudooh) and purity in manhaj, so that one's da'wah, walaa and baraa' and mawaaqif (positions) in these times of fitan are correct and rightly-guided and so on. There were people like this in different lands walhamdulillaah, across Europe, in the US, and elsewhere, even if the number in each place varied.

2) All those besides the first group, who were those that fell into the following subcategories:

a) those who gave no attention to it, chose to remain in ingnorance,  and to them these slogans of "manhaj" seemed very strange to them and they just continued in their existing norms and standards (in da'wah and walaa and baraa' and so on) that they had been upon during the times in which they entered Salafiyyah from the point of view of aqaa'id, so it was as if the slogans of "manaahij" and "correcting one's manhaj" was an innovation to these people, and something that brings fitnah.

b) those who knew that there was "something there" and that there was something that needed looking into, but because of laziness or whatever, they did not really pay much attention, even though by way of their connections to Salafees who were giving importance to manhaj, they knew that there was something that clarity was needed in, but they remained indifferent, and just continued in their wordly pursuits or whatever it was that came in between them and a firm zeal for becoming clear with respect to the manaahij.

c) those who knew about these issues from a theoretical perspective (factually-speaking), but did not really abide by their implications from a practical perspective, to them it was if this knowledge of manhaj is just knowing the correct positions one should hold against people and groups and organisations, but without realising that a correct manhaj is something that is acted upon, implemented, adhered to, in a variety of different arenas that relate to da'wah, walaa and baraa and so on, and is tied to the fundamentals of the deen, and that the issues of the deviancy of so and so, is actually tied to this fundamentally, and is not an object in itself. So without grasping the real issues, they tended to consider some of those who spoke of the "correct manhaj" and abide by it strictly as being "a bit extreme", "a bit harsh", "going a bit overboard" and so on. Even if these people, knew the correct stances. This trend began to emergea and remained with large portion of people who had entered into Salafiyyah from the point of view of aqaa'id and ibaadaat etc. but had not entered or were not really entering from the point of view of manaahij.

Responses to the Fitan
OK, now this is the time, when we start seeing the fitan emerge more openly, and then people start wandering off in all sorts of directions (we are going to speak in the context of the UK here, but similar observations can be made elsewhere as well, because this fitnah reached every part of the world).

So what happens is that in response to the entrance of these deviant manaahij, there are numerous individuals, and organisations that are subject to refutation by collections of different scholars, and some of these are listed below:

Qutb, Banna Mawdudi


Mohammad Qutb

Mohammad Suroor

Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq

Ihyaa at-Turaath

Safar and Salmaan and others like them

Adnaan Ar'oor

Jam'iyyah Dar ul-Birr

Al-Maghraawee of Morocco


And numerous others. There is no need to mention other people like Riyaadh ul-Haqq, or the Deobandits, or the Ash'arees, or the Modernists, extremist takfeeris and others, because on account of the knowledge of the aqaa'id and ibaadaat and fiqh, the inhiraaf of these people was already known to the Salafees, in the earlier stages, and they were no real threat in confusing and misguiding Salafees, as a matter of principle, i.e. fundamentally, even if on occasions a Salafee might be confused in a specific issue that relates to them. But fundamentally, the misguidance of the likes of these was not a threat to the Salafees. But those listed above, especially the last eight, were outwardly known for Salafiyyah, and had aspects of defence for the Salafee aqaa'id (and some of them, the later ones even had defence of some aspects of the manaahij, but unfortunately, they deviated in other aspects of manaahij), and thus their danger to the Salafees in general was hidden, and in the later fitnahs the evil and misguidance in their usool were more subtle and hidden, especially considering that the more closer they got (like al-Ma'ribee), the more confusing the fitnah.

Some of the Factors Causing People to Separate and Split Off or Remain in Confusion
So when each of these fitnahs opened up, then it affected people in different ways, depending on numerous factors. Amongst these factors were:

1) Whether they had given importance to learning the manaahij or not
2) Who they kept company with and whom they had befriended, and which social networks they were a part of
3) Whether they had exaggerated in the status and standing of certain people or not, who became known for da'wah in the West (during the first period, when the manaahij were not clear or had not been clarified), and become overly attached to them (e.g. like Ahmad Sallaam, or Suhayb Hasan, or Zarabozo, or Bilal Phillips, of Abu Muslimah, and their likes).
4) Whether they had got involved in relationships, such as business agreements etc. upon which there were certain implications, if their manhaj had to be rectified and changes made in da'wah and walaa and baraa.
5) Whether they seriously wanted clarity in the deen, or were just after monetary gain, or status, or position, or whatever. Meaning were they more interested in their worldly pursuits and acquiring wealth, or status or whatever, than they were in arriving at baseerah in their deen and their manhaj.
6) Whom they had made alliances with in their da'wah, or their walaa and baraa'

And so on, there could be many other factors that we have not listed.

So now we have understood this, we should be able to appreciate what happened thereafter.

Behavioural Responses
When each of the Ikhwaanee fitnahs broke out (i.e. in the sense that those whom we had thought to be Salafee, but were being refuted because it became apparent that the manaahij that they were upon were not Salafee, even if their aqaa'id might have been Salafee for the most part), the responses to these fitnahs, each time, separated the Salafees even further.

So there were those in each of the lands, the Arab lands,  in Europe, in the US and other places, that when each fitnah broke out, they knew the truth and recognised, and it did not surprise them or amaze them, that the manhaj of so and so is such and such, etc. because they had already began to appreciate what had taken place in the plains of da'wah, and the many deviant manaahij that had entered and affected the people and which the people assumed to be the accepted norms and the standards. And so they took the right positions and also proceed upon their da'wah upon the right manaahij to the best of their abilities. And to them, this was not just academic knowledge, it was of the greatest of significance, because they understood the words of the scholars about the importance of correct manaahij in the various fields, and the great deviation that can result (over long periods of time) when these methodologies are not corrected, because deviation in these fields is more subtle and hidden. And this is one of the reasons why many of the Ikhwaanee norms and standards in their manaahij were accepted amongst the Salafees during the times in which they were just entering into Salafiyyah from the angles of aqaa'id and ibaadaat and fiqh etc.

And then there were those who in each fitnah got affected (due to any one or a combination of the factors listed above), and thus separated off, and instead of being guided towards clarity in manhaj in each of these fitnahs, they got caught up in it. So we see JIMAS got caught up in the fitnah of Safar and Salmaan, and Abu Aaliyah likewise caught up in these same fitnahs (in later times, when he praised these Qutubees), and similarly, Suhayb Hasan, whose manhaj in da'wah was Ikhwaanee all along, but unfortunately, the people had become too attached to him and got blinded by this attachment. And this applies to the various other personalities, and those engaged in da'wah in each and every location or each and every country, such as Zarabozo, and Abu Muslimah and Bilal Philips and others, and likewise in the Arab lands, similar phenomena were observed. It was the same pattern everywhere, wherever anyone had made attachment to Salafiyyah, similar patters were observed.

You also had those who even though they knew the right positions in all of these fitnahs, there was no walaa and baraa, or mahabbah, or zeal and eargerness attached to any of this, because these people did not appreciate the importance of the manaahij, and to them it was just academic facts to know that so and so is offit and so and so is To them, it was as if this was all it was to the Salafees, when in reality, it was a matter of the deen, of the Salafee manhaj, of veneration and giving importance to this noble manhaj, after having understood it and having understood what has taken place in the plains of da'wah and so on, and that the actions of the heart are tied to it and bound to it, and so that unity is brought about around it. Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan said, "Hence, it is not possible for the Muslims to unite except upon the kalimah of Tawheed and the Manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf. If they allow variant methodologies [to be remain amongst them] then they will split and differ, such as what is taking place now.So the one who calls to Tawheed and the Methodology of the Salaf, he is the one who calls to unity (al-Ijtimaa), and the one who calls to what opposes that, then he is the one calling to splitting and differing." (al-Ajwibah al-Mufeedah). So these were the same people who, despite knowing the right positions, then their behaviour and speech, and walaa and baraa never correlated with or followed on from that, and it is this same category of people who would actually be holding grudges inwardly against the Salafees and harbouring certain ideas and beliefs, (even if outwardly, they appeared to be with the Salafees), and they were are amongst those various factions who would hold the Salafees as "ultras" and "deltas" and "too extreme" and the "manhajees" and so on. And when later fitnahs came (such as those of al-Ma'ribee), it was these people who got affected, and they became further isolated away from those who adhered to the truth in all the various lands.

And each time a fitnah came it got a bit more subtle and complex, like that of al-Maghraawee or al-Ma'ribee, because each time, their attachment to Salafiyyah was more apparent (and their deviation therefore less expected) but each time, it would affect more and more of those who ascribed to Salafiyyah, on account of the factors that we have listed above.

So in reality, these are the real and true reasons why splits occurred amongst the Salafees, and why people were taken off in different directions, and this just a very quick collection of thoughts that has been put together, and is not actually a detailed treatment - there are further details and insights that have been left out, just to keep matters brief and to the point. If you want to understand this fitnah, then the above model is the one that will correct your perceptions of what has happened to the da'wah.

However, those who got affected in each of these fitnahs, have tried to confuse the matter, and tried to deceive the people and tried to give a different picture, all of which involves misrepresentation of the issues, ignorance on their behalf, exaggeration of certain matters, and downplaying others etc., using certain faults of the Salafees to misdirect people and confuse them etc.  And this is the phenomonen that we will tackle next.

So the summary of the matter is that though people appreciated and entered into Salafiyyah from the pont of view of aqaa'id and ibaadaat and fiqh, during the earlier years, in later years, when the affairs of manaahij began to be clarified, then in every fitnah that came as a result of the purification process of Salafiyyah from the Mukhaalifeen (who mostly came from the direction of al-Ikhwaan, or those claiming Salafiyyah but who got affected by them), then people began to be separated off, and wander off in different directions, for a variety of reasons and factors, and they remained upon misguidance and confusion in the manaahij. With the exception of those in all the various lands and places, who from the beginning had realised the value of the manaahij, when they understood the great importance of manaahij in each of the different fields of knowledge and action (as they relate to the issues in which controversy had entered), they continued to give great importance to them, and eagerly followed up and remained attached to the directions and advices given by  the scholars who played an instrumental role in clarifying these fitnahs and repelling them.

Remember, here we are still laying down the foundations for our answer and analysis of Abu Usaamah's method and style in covering the issue of his statement about Shaykh Rabee', in his reply to the brothers who advised and criticised him for that. So we have not got to that yet, we are still laying the foundations. It is important that you understand the background, the events, the realities, what really happened, etc. before we can look at the underlying psychologies, mindsets, patterns of thought, that make up people, and what underlies the way they write and compose their speech, and present issues.

And the purpose in giving this account here is to allow the reader to place people like Abu Usaamah and see exactly where he is and where he fits in. He has been well known, historically speaking, to be upon jahl in these matters and to speak with jahl with respect to them, and he also has some of the orientations that we have covered above, mocking the Salafees, calling them "ultras", using sarcasting remarks like "you are too serious" and so on, being indifferent with respect to the mode of operation in his da'wah, in his company, friendship etc., and he also had many directions and advice that he would give to the shabaab, which in the wider context were erroneous and were misplaced, but because of his ignorance he could not see that, and neither could those who attached themselves to him.

You should realise where all this is coming from, from a historical background, and in the context of this great fitnah, perhaps the greatest fitnah to come and enter into the Salafee da'wah in contemporary times, and you should try to realise and understand what actually exists in the minds and thoughts of people, of perceptions, mindsets etc., before their behaviour starts to make sense to you.

25-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002


PART 9C) A Comparison between the Polemic of al-Ma'ribee against the Salafees and that of ash-Shayijee against the Salafees (of 7-8 years ago), and an illustration of the true origins of the Ikhwaanee Counter-Reactionism that Lie in Abu Usaamah's bayaans and public rhetoric

Al-Ma'ribee and ash-Shayijee: Two Faces of the Same Evil

Alhamdulillaah, there has appeared an excellent article on Sahab.Net today by al-Husaam al-Maahiq, that compares, with full quotation, between the manhaj of Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee, the student and protege of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, and that of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, the intimate associate of Adnaan Ar'oor, in attacking Shaykh Rabee' bin Haadee and the Salafee Manhaj. It has been summarised, adapted slightly, with additional notes added that contain information relevant to the subject. We have included here as it is very pertinent to our discussion.

We already alluded over the past week, in some of the above posts, to the fact that al-Ma'ribee is taking all his polemic and arguments from ash-Shayijee, and we have had refutations of the people of knowledge against ash-Shayijee since 1997. So what al-Ma'ribee is doing now, is no surprise at all, and likewise, the behaviour of Abu Usaamah and what he has written contains nothing that confuses us or surprises us. We only fear for the Juhhaal who read his bayaan and think that the man is upon something, when he is serving as nothing but a spokesman for the Ikhwaanee manhaj and polemic of al-Ma'ribee and ash-Shayijee, which outwardly appears to be the truth, but contains great inherent misguidance. Shame to the Salafees who listened to him and read his bayaans and are convinced by him, and inwardly agree with him, certainly, the fitnah of Ikhwaaniyyah has come to them in ways that they did not imagine, and they exaggerated the shortcomings and mistakes of the Salafees so much, that it caused them to have walaa and baraa around them, and not upon the actual aqaa'id and usool and manaahij and what follows on from them of binding and necessary mawaaqif that the Salafees held onto, and then when this latest fitnah came to them, their false walaa and baraa and choice of friendship led to them to be aligned with the likes of these Ikhwaanees (and those who allied with them), against the Salafees, whilst they remained the most ignorant of people of the usool and manhaj and correct Salafee mawaaqif (because there was no value that they placed to these great issues), and thus they ended up becoming distant from the manhaj of Shaykhs of the Salafee manhaj, and from the Salafees, on account of the talbeesaat that came to them from the direction of these people, and their often misplaced walaa and baraa in friendship and company.

When you read through what follows below, then know that what Usaamah al-Qoosee and his likes are coming out with of lectures and attacks upon the Salafees, and claims of rectifying the Salafee manhaj as they claim, then know that they are upon the maslak (path) of Ash-Shayijee and al-Ma'ribee, who is the the source of their fountain. And you can extend that to their followers here in the West, like Abu Usaamah adh-Dhahabee, and Abdul-Qadir and others, organisations and individuals, and all those who inwardly are sympathetic to them, and who are caught up in this fitnah (even if outwardly, they claim freedom from al-Ma'ribee).

Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee is a "Shurocrat", a man who writes in Kuwaitee Newspapers in affirmation of political parties and democratic principles as methods of reform. Shaykh Muqbil labelled this man as a "Safeeh", and this is found recorded on cassette with us. When Shaykh Rabee began to refute the false principles and ideas of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq (Shayijees' teacher), after having patience with him for quite a time, ash-Shayijee began his attacks upon the Shaykh by accusing him of many false principles. He coined the term "Salafiyyah Jadeedah", which was championed by the likes of Abu Muntasir of JIMAS, and the Qutubees from the states like Alee at-Tameemee and his associates, and as has preceded he wrote two books in this regard. He was refuted extensively and all his false lies demolished and there exist many refutations upon him. This phenomenon has reared its ugly head once more following the fitnah of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee with people like Usaamah al-Qoosee and Abu Usaamah adh-Dhahabee and their likes continuing the legacy of Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee.

This is just a summary of the comparison:

Comparison 1
Al-Ma'ribee says: "Extremism (ghuluww) in tabdee', tafseeq, ta'theem, rather ghuluww also in takfeer, so you see Shaykh Rabee' for example, judge the righteous people with the greatest of innovations..."

Ash-Shayijee says: "The second principle (i.e. of the principles of what he calls the "Salafiyyah Jadeedah"): Everyone  who falls into al-kufr, then he is a kaafir, and everyone who falls into a bid'ah, then he is a mubtadi', this  is their second principle... and every Muslim who falls into bid'ah or what they consider to be a bid'ah, then he is a mubtadi'...".

NOTE: And compare what Usaamah al-Qoosee is now coming out with, of lectures and talks to teach the difference between bid'ah and mubtadi, something that ash-Shayijee also did previously, when Shaykh Rabee' defended the Salafee Manhaj from him and his likes.

Comparison 2
Al-Ma'ribee says: "Placing concocted principles, for which Allaah has sent down no authority, and expelling the Salafees, by way of them, from the fold of Salafiyyah, and associating them with the Ahl ul-Bid'ah by way of them, and from that is their saying, "Whoever does not make tabdee' of so and so, and say that he is the greatest liar, or the vilest, or more harmful than the Jews, Christians and the Rawaafid, then he is a Mumayyi', or a concealed hizbee"."

Ash-Shayijee says: "The third principle (i.e. of the principles of what he calls the "Salafiyyah Jadeedah"): Whoever does not make tabdee of a mubtadi', then he is a mubtadi' (man lam yubaddi' mubtadi, fahuwa mubtadi'). This is the third of their corrupt principles, so when they judge upon a man that he is an Innovator, or upon Jamaa'ah involved in da'wah that is a Jamaa'ah of bid'ah, and you do not adopt their view, then you too are a mubtadi', because you did not make tabdee' of a mubtadi'..."

NOTE: And compare between this and between the lectures of Usaamah al-Qoosee and some of the other talks and answers to questions that were given from some of the platforms here in the West, such as what took place in Luton, and QSS and elsewhere.

Comparison 3
Al-Ma'ribee says: "And the Shaykh (Rabee) and his followers are hell-bent on watching, gathering and collecting the errors that come from those that oppose them, even if it was in a small matter, and sometimes the truth might even be with their opponent, and then they spread it in the horizons, and spread everywhere, in order to publicise the affair of the one who opposes them, and to make the people flee from him, so that the place is left open for them, and they claim this is from the angle of warning the Muslims from Ahl ul-Bid'ah... and when a word from their opposer can take a sound meaning and an evil meaning, they carry it upon the evil meaning, with the claim that they are more knowledgeable of their opposers, and that their opposers are cunning, dodgy, and who play around.

Ash-Shayijee says: "And this is watching and observing for an error of a Muslim, and to carry a person's speech upon that which it does not carry, and to explain it with that which opposes his niyyah and qasd, whereas they make exceptions for their own Shaykhs and their followers"

NOTE: And these claims that arise from both al-Ma'ribee and ash-Shayijee and Abu Usaamah adh-Dhahabee, and anyone else who inwardly agrees with Abu Usaamah's polemic over the recent months against the Salafees, then all of them come after one of their Ikhwaanee figureheads has been refuted and exposed and his speech of evil, and his principles of falsehood and the errors in his walaa and baraa' and his opposition to the usool have been exposed. So Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee came out, after Shaykh Rabee demolished the  manhaj of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq (and Shaykh Rabee was supported in that by Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Shaykh al-Albaani, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, and Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, and Shaykh Muqbil and many others), and similarly, we see the likes of Abu Usaamah adh-Dhahabee and his teacher, Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, and Usaamah al-Qoosee and those upon his way, all of them, after Shaykh Rabee' demolished the usool of this Innovator, and his evil speech, and his lies and slanders against the Salafees, and his errors in walaa and baraa and defence of the Innovators by way of his corrupt principles (and he was supported in that by a large number of Shaykhs, including those who are amongst the most senior, in age and knowledge, alive today) - then along came this same polemic against the Salafees. However, the way they spread these claims and confuse and deceive the people, itself involves a great deal of talbeesaat and the unsuspecting people are taken in by them and begin to believe them, and we shall expand upon some of this when we analyse Abu Usaamah's coverage of the issue of his statements upon Shaykh Rabee, after having laid down the foundations we wish to lay.

Comparison 4
Al-Ma'ribee says: "Looking into the intentions, and not restricting oneself to the apparent. So you see Shaykh Rabee leaving the very clear evidences by which his opponent seeks to argue, and then he takes refuge in his saying, "He intends this, he means that, he does mean anything except this", and you see them competing with each other with respect to this matter, and they consider it to be from perspicacity (firaasah)"

Ash-Shayijee says: "The thirty-fourth principle (i.e. of the principles of what he calls the "Salafiyyah Jadeedah"): Suspecting the intentions without any evidence. The thirty-fourth principle with them is that they do no suffice with judging by the apparent, and those whose outward state of rectitude and calling to the Sunnah and goodness has aggravated them, and when they make ijtihaad and do not find any great mistake by which they destroy the one that they wish to destroy, they suspect their intentions and say, "They did not call to the Sunnah except to destroy it", and  "they did not adhere to Salafiyyah except to fight against it". And for this reason, taking people by suspicions, and accusing them without any strong evidence is a characteristic of the characteristics of their stagnant manhaj."

NOTE: This is the greatest feature of these people themselves, and they are the most skilled of all people in suspecting the intentions of the Salafees and accusing them of destroying the Sunnah and destroying Salafiyyah and interpreting their actions in ways that they desire, and always taking the talbeesaat and lies of the people of corruption  and never once sitting or wishing to sit with the Salafees and verify and clarify with them, when at the same time they themselves raise the slogans of "tathabbut", but this verification is only for their own partisans and their own friends, and they never rush to the Salafees with the likes of these methodologies. Rather, they take the rumours and lies, and then suspect the intentions of the Salafees by way of them, and then spread them everywhere.

Comparison 5
Al-Ma'ribee says: "Their use of severe, harsh, crude expressions for their opponents from Ahl us-Sunnah, such as their saying, "So and so is more vile, or a greater liar, than the Jews and Christians", or "the vilest of those upon the face of the earth", or "more astray than the people of innovation", or "he has brought what has not circulated in the  mind of Shaytaan since the history of mankind", and also their saying, "Dajjaal, Kadhdhaab, Faajir, Affaak, Atheem, Muraawigh, Mukhaadi', Maakir, enemy of the Sunnah, one who wages war against the Salafees, the Kibaar amongst them and the Sighaar, khabeeth, maai', mumayyi', daall, mudill, mubtadi' khabeeth, kadhdhaab ashirr, one of the Dajjaajilah, the Rawaafid are better than him, the [affair of the] Jews and the Christians is lighter than his, if the Dajjaal came out, then so and so would believe in him, or if a man claimed Ruboobiyyah and Uloohiyyah, so and so would have rallied behind him, and zaaigh, hizbee daall, hizbee mutasattir, daseesah, and planted amongst the ranks in order to destroy it, and one who has been empowered by way of the enemies to destroy Salafiyyah, and saaqit, and taafih, and a person of the world..."

Ash-Shayijee says: They have made easy the application of great mighty words, and amongst their words that are easy upon their tongues is the application of the word, "daall mudill", and "khabeeth", upon the callers to guidance, and goodness from Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, and applying this description which is not deserving of being given to a major sin, and there is no doubt that the likes of this returns upon the one who says it, we seek refuge in Allaah from being forsaken, and there is no power and no might except by Allah, the Most High, and Mighty."

NOTE: There is a mixture of falsehood, and lies and exaggerations in what al-Ma'ribee has included, and he has mixed his own made up exaggerated statements of  lies, with some of which does emanate from the Shaykhs of rulings upon the people of corruption and misguidance (and some of the statements he has included towards the end are actually the ones that some of the Shaykhs have actually applied upon al-Ma'ribee himself).

Comparison 6
As for the speech of al-Ma'ribee concerning al-Mujmal and Mufassal, then it is abundant and there is no great time here to quote it at length.

Ash-Shayijee: "The fifth principle (i.e. of the principles of what he calls the "Salafiyyah Jadeedah"): That the mutlaq is not carried upon the muqayyid, and the mujmal is not carried upon the mufassar, and the unclear is not carried upon the decisive except in the speech of the Allaah... and this is their fifth principle, and they have taken this principle until they have judged upon whomever they wish from the callers, with disbelief and innovation. So merely by finding a unclear word from them, or an obscure expression, or a mujmal saying that can be carried upon a false meaning, then they strive to carry this saying upon a corrupt meaning that they desire, and it is not accepted by them that the one who said this mujmal saying might have explained it in another place with a correct interpretation, or he might have said something in opposition to this corrupt meaning that is suspected, in other places".

NOTE: This is the recourse of the people of falsehood, when there is found falsehood and corrupt meanings in their statements, and it is refuted and exposed, and the error contained in it made clear and so on, then they bring the likes of this, which is what al-Ma'ribee tried to do with Sayyid Qutb, al-Maghraawee and also himself. And how amazing it is that ash-Shayijee also speaks with al-mujmal and mufassal, but here it is in order to defend the likes of his teacher, Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq,whose speech was refuted by many scholars, not just Shaykh Rabee'.

Comparison 7
Al-Ma'ribee: "And from the Manhaj of al-Hizbiyyah al-Jadeedah (note: ash-Shayijee called it as-Salafiyyah al-Jadeedah!) is "Explain you position towards so and so, otherwise you will be thrown alongside him", or to test the people by certain figures, or with certain hidden statements, or by asking "You went to Makkah or al-Madeenah or elsewhere, so who did you visit from the scholars, and then they categorise people according to their answer!!".

Ash-Shayijee: "The forty-third principle (i.e. of the principles of what he calls the "Salafiyyah Jadeedah"): Testing the callers to Allaah by the position towards some of the people of knowledge, for when some of them made tabdee' of some of the callers or the people of knowledge wihout any real cause for tabdee', they were compelled to test the peole by asking them to define their position towards the one whom they made tabdee' of. So if he did not speak with their saying, they expel him from Salafiyyah, and whoever spoke with their speech, then he is a true Salafee in the view of those people. And by this, Salafiyyah has its own special standards of measure with this group".

NOTES: Testing for the Sunnah, and being upon clarity, and checking ones company, in the times in which confusion and controversy arises, is found amongst the Salaf, and testing the people by way of love and hate of figureheads from the people of knowledge who have become known for Sunnah and Salafiyyah is found amongst the Salaf, and knowing people by their companionship is an asl, from the usool of the Sunnah and it is one of the foundations with respect to subject of the people of innovation. However, the deceptive style taken by the likes of these people is to take a matter which is correct in itself, and then portray it in the worst possible light (as both al-Ma'ribee and ash-Shayijee have done above), making great exaggerations and lies therein, and then make it appear as if it is a false principle altogether, completely deceiving the unsuspecting person, and making him think that this has nothing to do with Sunnah and Salafiyyah.

This was just a selection of the comparisons (and there are actually many more), but the picture should now be clear. The origins and roots of Abu Usaamah's counter-reactionisms trace through al-Ma'ribee back to Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee, the Shurocrat from Kuwait.

As for what ash-Shayijee and al-Ma'ribee have described what they see to be false principles then this is not the place to explain the talbeesaat that are in their writings, but because many people might be deceived and duped by them, some explanation is needed here

What they have done is to cause confusion about certain affairs of Sunnah and Salafiyyah which they themselves are ignorant of, and by way of which they have been exposed, and then as a counter-reaction to what has happened to them of being refuted justifiably for the falsehood they are upon, or have uttered, with evidences and clear proofs, they employ talbeesaat to claim that these are in fact false principles being used.

To illustrate:

Judging a person by his company is from the Sunnah, and throwing a person alongside the one whose methodology he praises and spreads is from Salafiyyah and there are fataawaa from Shaykh Ibn Baaz and Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan in this regard, and knowing people by their mawaaqif is found amongst the Salaf, and knowing people by looking at whom they visit in a town is found amongst the Salaf, and there are texts from Imaam Ahmad in this regard and so on. So you get the point here, that there is an established methodology for a given situation, and its origin and root lies in the Sunnah and the way of the Salaf and its implentation is corroborated by way of the Salaf, and it is a methodology that is recoursed to, in a given situation, when factors require or demand that. So when some of the Shaykhs find that so and so is defending Sayyid Qutb, or is spreading his books or even teaching his books (like Milestones, or the books of Salaah as-Saawee and AbdulQadir AbdulAzeez, Qutubees), and that when he goes to such and such land, he sits with at-Tayyaar the Takfeeree, and is found in a house where Salman al-Awdah is sat, and is in cooperation with the Kibaar amongst the Qutubiyyah in arranging funds, and numerous people narrate that much of his friendship and companionship are known to be upon takfeer, then in accordance with the manhaj of the Salaf, it is correct to convict this person of being with them.

So when they have been exposed from this angle (alongside many other angles, collectively), then they counter-react in the manner above. So let us just revisit their words:

Al-Ma'ribee: "And from the Manhaj of al-Hizbiyyah al-Jadeedah (note: ash-Shayijee called it as-Salafiyyah al-Jadeedah!) is "Explain you position towards so and so, otherwise you will be thrown alongside him", or to test the people by certain figures, or with certain hidden statements, or by asking "You went to Makkah or al-Madeenah or elsewhere, so who did you visit from the scholars, and then they categorise people according to their answer!!".

Ash-Shayijee: "The forty-third principle (i.e. of the principles of what he calls the "Salafiyyah Jadeedah"): Testing the callers to Allaah by the position towards some of the people of knowledge, for when some of them made tabdee' of some of the callers or the people of knowledge wihout any real cause for tabdee', they were compelled to test the peole by asking them to define their position towards the one whom they made tabdee' of. So if he did not speak with their saying, they expel him from Salafiyyah, and whoever spoke with their speech, then he is a true Salafee in the view of those people. And by this, Salafiyyah has its own special standards of measure with this group".

OK now, if you carefully analyse their speech quoted above, you see there is much talbeesaat in the way they have presented this matter, which is built partly upon their own ignorance of the precise Salafee manhaj in the likes of these affairs (by way of which they have been exposed and their true manhaj made clear), and then built upon this ignorance (or maybe it is a pretence of ignorance) they build other talbeesaat, by making exaggerations or wild claims, and then mix it altogether, so that when a poor wretch comes along and reads it, or hears this type of speech, then because on occasions, he might have witnessed the Salafees seeking clarity from some people, or the Salafees very cautious of whom they sit with and take knowledge from, he thinks that what ash-Shayijee or al-Ma'ribee has said, that all of it is the truth (alongside the great exaggerations and talbeesaat found therein), and as a result, he in turn also negates the actual underlying truths and correct methodologies in this regard, by way of which the people of knowledge refuted these people in the first place, and which have a basis in Sunnah and Salafiyyah.

The same principle applies to the other affairs.

So to close, this comparison has been included here to allow the reader to gain more insight into the origins of Abu Usaamah's rhetoric, is true nature, and how it is constructed, and this is to allow us to gain baseerah when - after having laid down these foundations - we come to analyse the style adopted by Abu Usaamah in treating the subject of his speech concerning Shaykh Rabee', and using it to confuse and confound the people and attack the Salafees and to misdirect the focus and attention of his audience, away from that which is of greater signifiance, to that which is in reality insignificant, but which is blown out of proportion, to enable certain conclusions and inferences to be made from it, for particular objectives.

BENEFIT By now, you will also have realised that Abu Usaamah, even though he outwardly claims that he does not speak ill of Shaykh Rabee' and so on, then due to the severity of his jahl, he doesnt realise that all of his polemic that he is using against the Salafees (almost verbatim) has its roots in Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee, the Kuwaitee Shurocrat, student of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, the Ikhwaanee in Manhaj, through Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, both of whom devised this polemic and this form of attack against Shaykh Rabee' and the Salafee manhaj, with al-Ma'ribee taking it from ash-Shayijee (and Abu Usaamah taking it from al-Ma'ribee).

So here there is a golden rule you should remember, you probably have already heard of the well-known saying "By their fruits you shall know them", then remember this rule:

By their roots, ye shall know them


This message was edited by on 1-27-03 @ 2:54 PM
25-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002


PART 9C) Continued... A Comparison between the Polemic of al-Ma'ribee against the Salafees and that of ash-Shayijee against the Salafees (of 7-8 years ago), and an illustration of the true origins of the Ikhwaanee Counter-Reactionism that Lie in Abu Usaamah's bayaans and public rhetoric

28-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002


To summarise PART 9 so far, to keep track of things, with respect to the foundations we are laying, let us briefly describe the picture that should be clear:

1) There was a time prior to the mid-90s when many people began to enter Salafiyyah from the point of view of aqaa'id, ibaadaat and fiqh. However, this was also a time, when due to the influx of al-Ikhwaan, over the past few decades into the main body of Ahl us-Sunnah, their manaahij were spread, and over time, many norms and standards, in terms of operation of da'wah, issues of walaa and baraa', positions towards innovators and deviants etc. became accepted. Thus, when people entered into Salafiyyah, it was at a time, when there was lack of clarity with respect to the manaahij, and thus, many individuals, groups, organisations, dawah groups etc. existed during this time, or gained prominence during this time that were carrying some of these manaahij and the behavioural elements tied to them, or following on from them.

2) When the Ulamaa began to address more directly, the individuals who outwardly portrayed Salafiyyah but began to make a more open call within the ranks of the Salafees towards these Ikhwaanee manaahij, then splits began to occur. The likes of Qutb, Mawdudi, Banna, Suroor, Safar and Salman, Ar'oor, Maghraawee, al-Ma'ribee are just a few of the many individuals whose reality became clear in the time when the manaahij began to be made clear by the Salafee Ulamaa, at their forefront, Shaykh Rabee' and the Shaykhs from Madinah. So each time, in each of these fitnahs, a fair portion of those ascribing to Salafiyyah got caught in these fitan, and separated from the main body who adhered to the Salafee manaahij, having realized the value of the manhaj, and having great concern and zeal for it, and adhering to the scholars at the forefront of clarifying it. Subsequently, in each location and each country, you began to see splits along similar lines amongst those ascribing to Salafiyyah.

3) As a counter-reaction in each of these tribulations, those who were refuted and exposed, and all those who allied with them or got caught up with them, began to accuse the Salafee Ulamaa and those with them, of inventing false principles, and being "extreme" and "ghullaat" and "those responsible for splitting the ranks", and being the source of fitnah, and accused them of judging the peoples intentions, and twisting their words, and lying in wait for their mistakes, and trying to distort Salafiyyah and so on. This counter-reaction was found in every fitnah. You see it clearly in the tapes of Safar and Salman and Nasir al-Umar and Muhammad al-Qahtaanee and others, and those following them. Then later you saw it emerge with Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq and ash-Shayijee, the latter actually writing two whole books on this subject and coining the phrase, "Salafiyyah Jadeedah", and combining such information that would be used by all of Ahl ul-Bidah, including the likes of Faisal al-Jamaikee (the outright takfeeree khaarijee in the UK) who used this material to make takfeer of the Salafees and to incite people against them. The likes of JIMAS, Alee at-Timimi and others also used this information, and many others. The same happened with Adnaan Ar'oor, when he was refuted, likewise al-Maghraawee, and more recently, al-Ma'ribee, who - as we saw earlier - has actually gone to the works of ash-Shayijee and regurgitated many of his arguments.

4) These counter-reactions (that came from these figureheads and those who got caught up with them, or those who got influenced by these tribulations) can be defined as:  

A concoction, mixture of the following:

a) factual errors on their behalf
b) exaggerations on their behalf
c) monopolising on occasional shortcomings and faults arising from some of the Salafee youth

And these affairs and errors of judgement, just as they are found amongst some of the Salafee youth, they are found in humankind in general, so do not think that these are unique to the Salafees, these are in fact found amongst the Hizbiyyeen and in fact all the people of deviation, because these affairs come down to personalities, and characters, and individuals within mankind. Whilst what is with the Salafees are correct usool and manaahij and what is with the hizbiyyeen are corrupt manaahij and corruption in their walaa and baraa and whatever follows on from that. And as for the issue of faults and shortcomings and mistakes, then that is common to everyone. The only difference is that the Salafees in general deal with issues of the fundamentals, the principles, the usool, the 'aqeedah, the Manhaj of the Salaf in the affairs of deen. And as for the hizbees, then they focus on particular personalities, figure-heads or personality traits, and isolated mistakes or errors of judgement - then they make walaa' and baraa' upon these - and  they ignore the issues of usool, 'aqeedah and Manhaj.

You should also know a reality here, which is that though they claim that the Salafees hunt out their mistakes, they are the worst of all people in gathering and compiling the genuine shortcomings and faults of the Salafees, and having so much suspicion, and spreading rumours and gossip, and then harbouring all of this inside. You should know this reality. This is a reality, and when they speak about "benefit of the doubt" and "maslahah", and "excusing and pardoning" and "verifying" and "sitting and clarifying" and so on, that is only as it relates to them, not to the Salafees. They never do this with the Salafees, even when they are asked and requested. This is the state of a fair portion of them.

d) outright lies and fabrications on their behalf
e) jealousy and hatred (for varying reasons)
f) faulty or completely erroneous perceptions of specific incidents that have taken place

So the hizbiyyah-based counter-reactions (i.e. like those of ash-Shayijee for example, and similarly those of al-Ma'ribee, and likewise in every community or location in which these fitnahs have divided the people ascribing to Salafiyyah) are built upon a collection of these types of affairs - all of which have no connection to the usool and manaahij, but go back down to what arises from specific individuals of shortcomings and faults, within the context of specific limited occurrences and localised incidents. And sometimes they are not even faults or shortcomings, or errors in understanding, but only appear to be so in the eyes of the opposers and examples of this will be expanded upon in the next section inshaa'allaah, which is Part 9D).

And by mixing together all of these matters, they begin to write, and issue warnings, and claim that the Salafees are upon baatil principles, and upon a "new salafiyyah" and so on. And unfortunately, because they capitalise on some of what occurs from some of the Salafee youth, within the context of specific localised incidents, of faults and shortcomings, (which they themselves are also not free from and which are found with them in abundance), then the unsuspecting people who don't know any better and are not filled with knowledge and understanding, and do not have any criterion to judge, fall prey to the propaganda that comes from these people, and then multiple layers of deception and hindrance are placed (by way of this propaganda) between them and the Salafees who are upon the truth.

This is the most of what is to be found with these people who, after the emergence of a particular fitnah, and who are caught up in the confusion and misguidance or lack of clarity, begin to attack and demonise the Salafees. This the most that they have with them. And know that this has been consistently observed over a lengthy period of time, in a host of different contexts and different fitan, and repeating patterns have been identified and analysed, and it is the same story all the time.

So this propaganda is made by way of a mixture of these issues, and it is used in order to demonise the Salafees and to lay down the claims that the Salafees are upon "baatil principles" and a "new Salafiyyah" and are cause of all the problems and so on. And unfortunately, many fall prey to this propaganda.

5) Those who got caught up in these Ikhwaanee counter-reactions, were often those who ascribed to Salafiyyah, but placed no value to the affairs of manaahij, it never concerned them or interested them, and they thought that Salafiyyah was aqaa'id (Asmaa was-Sifaat, Qadr, affairs of the unseen etc.), ibaadaat, fiqh, and that what they had already was sufficient to make them remain upon Salafiyyah. So the likes of these people often got caught up in these fitnahs (that concerned the manaahij). And if they did not get caught up in these fitnahs, but knew the right stances (because of the fact that they were in touch with Salafees who were clear), then they were still upon confusion internally because they had not given value to the affairs of manaahij and learning them and being precise with respect to them and abiding by them in their knowledge, their da'wah, their behaviour, their walaa and baraa and so on.

This led to the emergence of a particular faction of people in recent years who outwardly knew the right stances and held onto them, but inwardly had many grudges and ill-feelings towards the Salafees. This faction of people is found and it has been experienced, and the problem with these people is that if from the beginning they had valued the manhaj (instead of just outwardly affiliating with it), and paid attention to it, learned it, and had their walaa and baraa determined by it, and their behaviour administered and controlled by it, and their actions of the heart tied to it, then they would not have been led to exaggerate some of the shortcomings and mistakes of the Salafees (not related to usool or manaahij or aqaa'id) so much and so often, (mostly due to personal reasons) that they began to make their walaa and baraa to be based around these affairs in isolation, instead of being based around the usool, the aqaa'id, the manaahij and the correct Salafee mawaaqif. This led to the strange and contradictory situation of these people agreeing with the Salafees in their mawaaqif in certain issues and fitnahs, and often acknowledging and admitting that they are upon what is correct, but still having hatred and dislike towards them and being distant from them and harbouring ill-feelings towards them internally.

And from within this faction, there were many people who were just waiting for the right time to come out openly, gathering their strength to wage war upon those they hated due to their  adherence to the correct manhaj. Many of them thought that the Abul-Hasan Al-Ma'ribee issue was the one through which they would come out of the closet and declare their true allegiances, and alhamdulillaah, this latest fitnah was actually the greatest of affairs that has brought out the true realities of people ascribing to Salafiyyah, what they are actually upon in their manaahij, what they are actually upon in their walaa and baraa, what they actually base their walaa and baraa around, and so on.

So this is just a summary of PART 9 so far, it has been made just so that our thoughts remained gathered and composed, without losing track of anything, so that we can take a more thorough look at the bayaan of Abu Usaamah and its underlying rhetoric, and so we can trace its true ideological, psychological and behavioural roots.

It is now at this stage that we are going to expand and focus upon something here, which is part and parcel of the propaganda campaign against the Salafees, and this is what will constitute Part 9D, which naturally follows on from 9A) 9B) and 9C). Which is the way in which subsidiary issues that branch off from fundamental base issues, events or incidents, are exaggerated beyond all bounds and made the focus of attention, in order to build multiple layers of deception to cloud the peoples perceptions away from the real underlying issues. And often these subsidiary issues are ones in which the Salafees are lied upon, or great exaggerations made, or they are issues which the people of hizbiyyah have themselves not understood, and they consider the Salafees to be erroneous with respect to then, when in fact they are correct, and it is the people of hizbiyyah who are upon error, due to their jahl.


This message was edited by on 1-28-03 @ 6:43 PM

28-01-2003 @ 12:00 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 265
Joined: Sep 2002
"There was a time prior to the mid-90s when many people began to enter Salafiyyah from the point of view of aqaa'id, ibaadaat and fiqh. However, this was also a time, when due to the influx of al-Ikhwaan, over the past few decades into the main body of Ahl us-Sunnah, their manaahij were spread, and over time, many norms and standards, in terms of operation of da'wah, issues of walaa and baraa', positions towards innovators and deviants etc. became accepted. Thus, when people entered into Salafiyyah, it was at a time, when there was lack of clarity with respect to the manaahij, and thus, many individuals, groups, organisations, dawah groups etc. existed during this time, or gained prominence during this time that were carrying some of these manaahij and the behavioural elements tied to them, or following on from them".

This statement is so true! For I remember when I first claimed salafiyyah was in 1982-83 while living in Brooklyn, New York. I was introduced to Aqeedatus Salafiyyah by three brothers; two of which studied at Ummul Quraa and are both now Soofees and the other who still holds on to the aqeedah, but for the most part is Ikhwaanee in manhaj.

In 1985, while working as a Muslim chaplain in a prison upstate New York, I began introducing and inviting my fellow Muslim chaplains and the inmates alike to salafiyyah. I even encouraged them (the Muslim chaplains)to standardize throughout the entire prison system what we taught so that no matter where an inmate went throughout the system, he would learn the same thing; SALAFIYYAH!

Some of the English sources I used were:

1-al-Aqeedatul Waasitiyah by Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyah.
2-al-Qadaayaal Kulliyyah lil I'tiqaadil Kitaabi was Sunnah' General Prescripts of Belief in the Qur'aan and Sunnah' by none other than Abdur Rahmaan Abdul Khaaliq!

3-al-Hijrah Magazine was photocopied and distributed throughout the prison system.

I remember using heavily the articles from al-Hijrah Magazine which contained many articles from Abdur Rahmaan Abdul Khaaliq. One of them that sticks out in my mind, was entitled "The Constant and the Variable". Later on, I read an article by one our Ulamaa (I believe it was Shaikh Saalih al-Fawzaan) refuting this concept. Another article by Abdur Rahmaan Abdul Khaaliq had him stating that Tawheed was:

1-al-Asmaa was Sifaat
3-al-Hukm !

I remember going to the first QSS conference in the State of Maryland. Alee Tameemee was translating and our shining star 'shaikh' was Abdur Rahmaan Abdul Khaaliq.

This was in the early 1980's.

We were proud salafees and the only masjid (that I knew of on the East Coast) out right calling to salafiyyah at that time was on Ridge Avenue in Philadelphia, PA.

One of our brothers present with us was our brother Aboo Zaynab Tawfeeq Hosley who is presently with Daarul Hadeeth in Philadelphia. May Allaah preserve him and the rest of the brothers there.

Our slogan then was:

Tawheed, Ittibaa and Tazkiyah!

Our Shaikh, Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee later on introduced to us at-Tasfiyah wat Tarbiyah!

So the observations by our brothers from SPUB are true and accurate and may Allaah preserve and keep pure both our aqeedah and our manhaj!  

كن مستفيدا أو مفيدا
أو اسكت بحلم

24-06-2003 @ 3:51 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 347
Joined: Dec 2002
Ekbal Hussain

05-06-2004 @ 3:53 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sep 2002

TawhidFirst | Aqidah | AboveTheThrone | Asharis
Madkhalis | Takfiris | Maturidis | Dajjaal
Islam Against Extremism | Manhaj
Ibn Taymiyyah | Bidah
Learn the Arabic Alphabet

main page | contact us
Copyright © 2001 - SalafiTalk.Net
Madinah Dates Gold Silver Investments