Joined: Aug 2002
From SP (Reply to Abu Abdullaah's post): |
"Your right. Looks like they replied to the above article as well. They don't even understand the issue.
1. Alhamdulillah, the scholars instructed Al-Ma'ribee on this issue, those of Madinah, and they requested that he repent openly and clearly and refute every thing he said in that tape that was error, word for word. Refer to the tape by Shaykh Muhammad al-Madhkalee that, the lecture he did on Paltalk, that was delivered in Jeddah. So we do not precede the scholars, rather our speech comes from the scholars.
2. Secondly, what al-Ma'ribee wrote is hardly a taraaju', it is just a cunning way of trying to defend his viewpoint, and in which he still does not explicitly admit his error. Instead of saying, "Yes, including the Ihkwan within Ahl us-Sunnah was wrong and what was correct is that they are Innovators, outside of Ahl us-Sunnah", he went and found words to try and play down his words of error. Even when you read his words, he does not really make all of this clear.
3. He is not compared to the likes of the major scholars, since they were unaware of the true nature of Ikhwan and Tabligh. When that information came to them, they changed their viewpoints. As for al-Ma'ribee, then he lived in a land in the presence of Shaykh Muqbil, whose refutation, exposition, and tabdee' of these Innovators was known. This is what Shaykh Muhammad al-Madkhalee pointed out in his refutation of al-Ma'ribee.
4. If the fools had bothered to read the above article properly, they would not have found any negation of al-Albaani having considered the Ikhwan to be from Ahl us-Sunnah. This is known.However, the issue is that in al-Ma'ribee's reply there is deception involved, because he must know that what Al-Albaani settled upon was that Ikhwaan were outside of Ahl us-Sunnah. But he did not venture into that direction, and clearly say, "I hold the final view of al-Albaani", instead he just played around and tried to defend what he said and explain it away.
5. As for our statement, "?So al-Misree has used some discussions of Shaykh al-Albaani in order to arrive at this particular understanding and ascribe it to Shaykh al-Albaani, without consideration of other statements of Shaykh al-Albaani in which he expels Ikhwaan from Ahl us-Sunnah."
Then yes it is correct, and it does not include any negation of the fact that Shaykh al-Albaani used to consider Ikhwan from Ahl us-Sunnah before knowing their reality.
However, the following must be noted:
a) that al-Ma'ribee is speaking in 2002CE, 1423H, at a time when he knows clearly the final position of Shaykh al-Albaani. And he is speaking in a context in which he is trying to defend a statement in which he says Ikhwan are from Ahl us-Sunnah.
b) that in his reply to Shaykh Muhammad bin Haadee, he is using some discussions of Shaykh al-Albaani, in order to arrive at an understanding by which he can explain away his statement of error, even if he made it back in 1416H or whenever it was. However, since it is 1423H(!!), he never once went in the direction of mentioning what Shaykh al-Albaani's final, actual position was, even though he knows it clearly.
c) Thus, he has only relied upon some discussions as opposed to others, and since the context is one in which he is trying to use Shaykh al-Albaanis' old words to defend what he is upon, or what he said, and also the context is him being criticised, and also him having lived in Yemen with Shaykh Muqbil and others, and also knowing know the view of all the scholars, his reply contains cunningness and deception.
If the fools had actually bothered to understand the discussion, they would not have lied upon us, claiming that we said Shaykh al-Albaani never held that Ikhwan were from Ahl us-Sunnah. All we said was that if we are in 1423H, then trying to explain ones' error away by relying upon an old discussion of Shaykh al-Albaani, and then not even explaining what is final viewpoint was (which al-Ma'ribee knows), and avoiding the issue altogether, amd not admitting that Shaykh Muhammad al-Madkhalee is actually correct in what he said, then this contains some deception.
Its difficult to discuss with people who don't even understand the course of discussion to begin with."
This message was edited by Sulaifi on 9-16-02 @ 7:57 PM