Member
Posts: 327
Joined: Sep 2002
|
10-02-2002 @ 9:37 PM Notify Admin about this post
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Sep 2002
Abu Maryam Isma'eel says:
"You also mentioned that I posted something about Abul-Hasan Al-Misree on Islam1.net, which ?did not aid the situation.? This is not true. Of the three times I posted there, I never posted anything about him, whether by mentioning his name or defending him. You seem to have uncertainty about whether or not you read that from me, so al-hamdulillaah I do not consider this a lie against me, however it is a shubhah, which I needed to clarify."
I remember seeing your name as one of the posts giving an advice about not to enter the affair of refuting Abul Hasan. I would not accuse you brother just like that. Since now you have said otherwise i will leave this and take it back as al bayinah 'ala muda'ee and the site is down now so i can't paste it.
Abu Maryam Isma'eel says: "Concerning the comments to Shaikh Muhammad Al-Banna?s recording on his meeting with Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, then they were my words. They were on a previous messageboard, which is not on the site now, but it was only one or two sentences and said something like ?Look at the way the Shaikh dealt with Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, even though he is known to be a deviant, yet he was kind and gentle to him. So what about those who are less than him.? [I am paraphrasing from memory and uncertain about the correct wording, however the meaning is correct.]"
Akhee this statement on its own is baatil. And you are now giving me a long interpretation of it. Is this the mujmal and mufassal? Akhee it is wrong like that full stop without the explanation. The sheikh said so. How can you interpret this like you have. You put this out on the front page and you must say it is wrong brother for there was no interpretation to it when you put it out and it sends the wrong signal. Can't you see what is wrong with ?Look at the way the Shaikh dealt with Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, even though he is known to be a deviant, yet he was kind and gentle to him."
And i remember your words to be slightly different, you said look how he dealt with the heads of the innovators so how about other than him!! so you see akhee how this sounds worse even though your remembered phrase is wrong in itself.
Akhee this statement is against the manhaj and it is not true. How did you understand this from the sheikh from listening to the Arabic? Looks like you should have translated properly since we heard the sheikhs statement many times on this issue and it was not how you put it.
The sheikh said that he will not let him in his house until he repents!! Yes the sheikh was trying to reach out to him but not in the words you used "even though is a deviant." DID THE SHEIKH USE THESE WORDS? NO SO DON"T USE THEM.
Akhee i have to disagree with you in this one. You were wrong and the shiekh was told what you said both in Arabic and in English so don't make out that it was incorrectly translated! This is not good brother. Is this how you get out of admitting an open error.
Abu Maryam says:
"But rather, the faa?idah that I drew from the Shaikh?s encounter was that of his adaab and gentle words in calling this deviant back to the haqq. Even though the shiddah s there,"
Look akh i am not saying you disagree that shiddah has a place in the deen but your summary/statement of the event was incomplete and incorrect and hence put out the wrong message. A message of Tamayu' and i am not the only one to notice this but others including the shiekh both in Arabic and English. Alhamdolillaah the sheikh speaks English too so he can't be accused of not understanding it.
Abu Maryam says:
"So Allaah knows best how my words were interpreted, but if they were translated to the noble Shaikh properly and without ta?weel,"
This is not good!! you see how your defence now becomes an attack!!! Akhee i told you the sheikh was told in Arabic and English. And you were not even there for you to imply that it wasn't translated properly so why the accusation? Akhee this is not good from you.
"then I hold what the Shaikh says, as he is more knowledgeable about his words than me or anyone else. Still I can?t see how someone could interpret that small comment, which was not a ?summary?, as claimed, to hold such negative connotations,"
First you say you hold what the sheikh says then you
go back on it. And the comment was not small enough for the sheikh to say it was wrong.
Akhee i was not the only one to spot this mistake and the sheikh was not happy. You can tell me you didn't mean this or that but how many people intend good but don't reach it.
Then you go back again:
"At any rate, if the Shaikh stated what you narrate, then his words are given preference and my words are to be thrown against the wall."
This is all you had to say from the beginning.
Abu Maryam says:
"This point raises a question on my behalf to you, brother Abdul-Ilah. You mention that ?thereafter? you took these words to Shaikh Al-Bannaa and he said what he said. So I ask you why did you not contact me to correct this error?"
Firstly if you remember i said IF YOU WROTE IT. I made that clear. I never implied you wrote it until you admitted it.
Secondly, Akhee you put what was in your aql on the plate for all to see (as the Arabs say) and you should know from the manhaj if you put something out openly then from the NASEEHAH is to refute it openly.
Refer to the book by sheikh al ALBAANI rahimahullaah when he refuted AbdulMannan and he called his book NASEEHAH even though it was a refutation. So this is a naseehah to you refuting what you implied OPENLY said about Sheikh Muhammad Abdulwahhab al Banna which in the end you yourself say.
"At any rate, if the Shaikh stated what you narrate, then his words are given preference and my words are to be thrown against the wall."
If you had a personal mistake/error then i would have taken you to the side. But i didn't even know it was you!! I addressed someone at alManhaj.com and alhamdolillaah you admitted it but don't defend it and give it an interpretation which wasn't given on that statement. You should say it was wrong i should have said this and that. That is more sincere to Allaah.
Abu Maryam says:
"It is from Sincerity (naseehah) that a Muslim advises his brother wanting him to correct his error,"
This is indeed out of context. Tell that to the refutation of the ulamaa to those open errors of whoever it maybe. An open error is not a personal one. Refer the the 6 exception of backbiting by Imam Nawawee which you yourself translated! I am surprised you translated what you don't hold. This is wrong manhaj akhee.
Abu Maryam says,
"not that he remain silent and collect it to be used at a later time as daleel against him. Rather this is from Condemning (fadeehah), which is not allowed."
You now accusing me of remaining silent when i wrote IF IT WAS YOU WHO SAID, i did know you said it but now i know and refute what you said OPENLY since it is an open error which many people saw on that website.
Remember "al Qadhu laysa bigheebatin fi sitatin"
and from it is to make open inkaar of munkaar and errors. You translated this brother in Nawawees exception to backbiting. This is not fadeeha This IS Naseehah and from the Deen.
Abu Maryam says:
"So I advise you in the future, if you see any error in me or in any brother, you rush to advise, as opposed to keeping it bottled up to be displayed at a later time."
Again this is wrong manhaj. If the error is open and affects other Muslims like yours did which was not even true. Then your statement is refuted openly.
Abu Maryam:
"[Refer to the book Difference between Advising and Condemning for the proof on the above points]"
Akhee you should refer to Sheikh Rabee's explanation of this book (2 tapes)for the incorrect manhaj position you have showed in your post. Since it seems you have not understood this book which you don;t hold yourself. And that book clearly shows the way of the Ulamaa is that they refute open errors so the book is a rad on you. I am amazed when i often see the hizbees use this to hide their open faults. They come out with this book when in fact it is a rad on them. All praise is due to Allaah when i came accross the explanation of Sheikh Rabee' of that book. And believe me brother it refutes your manhaj of of not radding openly openl errors. Which you are negating because you want secret advice for your open error posted on manhaj.com
Abu Maryam:
"Please do not misunderstand me, I do not hate being corrected if I err knowingly and in public, Allaah has made the ways for communication easy in these days, so we should not refrain from advising/instructing one another."
If it was personal between yourself and Allaah i would hasten to do that. But this one is open and you should know this and not mix the two.
Abu Maryam:
"My purpose in coming here was only to repel some previous slander (which al-hamdulillaah has been removed now) and clarify some recent shubuhaat."
Not to say you was mistaken but slander and shubuhaat! Is your post a retraction of your errors or affirmation of them??? Sheikh al Banna said what you said was wrong. So who has the shubuhaat??? This is not good brother. If would have been better to say i was mistaken to put out what the sheikh didn't agree with rather than all this kallam.
الـعلم قـال الله قـال رسوله قال الصحابة هم أولوا العرفان
abdulilah 10-03-2002 @ 8:57 PM Notify Admin about this post
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Sep 2002
Just to show you i am not the only salafi who spotted this error on the front page of almanhaj.com regarding the meeting between Sheikh alBanna and Abdulrahman Abdulkhaaliq. And to show tou this is a matter of DEEN. There was no mistranslation to the sheikh as it was mentioned to him in English as well as the sheikh understands English too. Khair inshaallaah, i pray the brother takes it back and without long interpretation which wasn;t there on the front page. And without putting things out of place. When an open error in open for all to see it is not upon me to correct it secretly but for the benefit of the Muslims they must know this OPEN error is wrong. And this is in the same book you quoted by Ibn Rajab al Hanbalee.
Abu Sagheer wrote:
"abdulilah, the point you raised, Allaah knows that when I first read that article put on al-manhaj from Shaikh Mohammad al-Banna and I saw the way they commented on it, I sensed some type of tamyee' and some sort of softness that was out of place and as if they were saying "look at how the shaykh dealt with him, and abdur-rahman abdul-khaliq, and so we should all be like this" and to be honest I did not like the way it came across. It was not right for them to put this out.
As you pointed out what they tried to get across was not actually correct, since the Shaikh showed shiddah to abdur-rahman abdul-khaliq (and to abul-hasan) and secondly, just because a shaikh might give some admonition to someone, when they are one to one, and make du'a for them etc., does not mean that shiddah is NOT shown to them openly and in general. {{my note: I forgot to include the word NOT, so I have added it here, sorry for any confusion!}}. Since, in the first case guidance is intended for the individual (when advising directly) and in the second case warning is intended from this person's falsehood, and in both there is a shareeah benefit. This is an important point that I read somewhere I think maybe on SP Forums or in one of the articles when they explained that there is no contradiction between the steps taken by Shaikh Rabee' towards Abul Hasan and the steps taken by the Madinah Shaykhs (in the days when they were sitting with him and advising him)."."
الـعلم قـال الله قـال رسوله قال الصحابة هم أولوا العرفان
abdulilah 10-09-2002 @ 8:02 PM Notify Admin about this post
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Sep 2002
Abu Maryam did say he was going to reply to the questions posed to him so where is his response?
الـعلم قـال الله قـال رسوله قال الصحابة هم أولوا العرفان
الـعلم قـال الله قـال رسوله قال الصحابة هم أولوا العرفان
|
|
abdulilah
17-10-2002 @ 12:00 AM
