Tag: refutations

A Response To The Statement: Do Not Seek After The Mistakes of The People- [By Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool]

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

Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool [may Allaah preserve him] said:

This statement is reiterated by some people when warning reaches them from one of the scholars or a student of knowledge against innovated statements [or views] that have occurred from some of the people, or when informed about mistakes committed in knowledge; so you find that his face becomes red, his [behaviour] changes and he says, ‘’Do not scrutinise the beliefs of the people and do not seek after mistakes.’’ The reality is that this statement is truth by way of which falsehood is intended in this particular instance.

Firstly: The right place to [make this statement] is when one seeks after secrets and hidden affairs that have neither manifested nor are there any factual evidence to substantiate that. The place [where this statement cannot be uttered] is  when innovation appears from one of [the people] or when one of them calls to falsehood, since there is a difference between that which is manifested and that which is either concealed and unknown or there is no indication to [affirm the affair].

Secondly: This statement of theirs will lead to the abandonment of warning against mistakes, innovation and falsehood, and the common people will be beguiled; rather even some of the students of knowledge will become heedless of this situation.

Thirdly: Was the speech of the Salaf in relation to warning against innovation and the people of falsehood not [carried out] from the angle of warning against false beliefs, innovations and affairs that are in opposition to the Sunnah?  So, how can it be said, ‘do not scrutinise the beliefs and mistakes of the people’ to a person who either warns against an innovation that has been manifested or points out a mistake committed by an individual?

Fourthly: Scrutinising the beliefs of the people by way of interrogation and trial as the Khaleefah Mamoon did with regards to the belief that the [Qur’aan is created], then this is an innovation that is warned against.  [However] to make a clarification and [issue] warning against an innovation that is propagated by some people, unveiling the falsehood of the callers to falsehood and warning against them, this is not from that [type of scrutiny that is disapproved].

Fifthly: Those who blame the one who unveils the [affairs] of the people of falsehood and issues warning against them, then it is either that they reject innovations or do not reject them!  If they reject innovation, point out mistakes and falsehood, and warn against them, then indeed they have pursued the right course by the Will of Allaah [The Most High]’ but why would they disapprove of those who take their place in renouncing innovation?! And if they do not warn the people against falsehood, then this [i.e. behaviour or stance of theirs] is not from the methodology of the Salaf and it suffices as a rebuke against them.

Sixthly: It has been reported in Durar As-Saniyyah [1/33] that the Imaam, the Mujaddid, Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhaab [rahimahullaah] said: I hold that the people of innovation are to be boycotted and their affair is to be made known until they repent.  I pass judgement against them based on what is apparent and I leave their secrets [or hidden] affairs to Allaah.  And I believe that every newly invented matter in the Religion is an innovation.

This [statement of Imaam Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhaab [rahimahullaah] is the statement of a Salafiy Athariy [i.e. a true follower of the Salaf and the authentic narrations] that emanates from the statement of Umar Ibnul Khattaab [radiyallaahu-anhu] when he said:

”People were (sometimes) judged by the revealing of a Divine Inspiration during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle but now there is no longer any more (new revelation). Now we judge you by the deeds you practice publicly, so we will trust and favour the one who does good deeds in front of us, and we will not call him to account about what he is really doing in secret, for Allah will judge him for that; but we will not trust or believe the one who presents to us with an evil deed even if he claims that his intentions were good.’’ [Saheeh Bukhaari; Vol 3; Hadith Number:2641]

So examine the statement of Imaam Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhaab [rahimahullaah] when he said: ”I judge [ahlul bidah] based upon what is apparent” and examine the statement of Umar Ibnul Khattaab [radiyallaahu-anhu] when he said, ”But we will not trust or believe the one who presents to us with an evil deed even if he claims that his intentions were good.”  Then examine the [affair] of that person who disapproves of one who warns against ahlul bidah and exposes their falsehood- claiming that ]this warning against ahlul bidah] is tantamount to [blameworthy] scrutiny of the Aqeedah of the people.  Is this [statement of his] correct? Glorified and Exalted You are, O My Lord!  Is not judgement passed against the people except through what is apparent?! This principle affirmed by Al Faarooq, Umar Ibnul Khattaab [radiyallaah-anhu] is utiliseed in in warning against a person of innovation when he manifests his innovation.

The Stance of Imaam Ahmad towards Daawood Ibn Ali Al- Asbahaanee

Daawood Ibn Ali Al-Asbahaanee came to Saaleh Ibn Imaam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal with whom he used to have a good relationship.  So he [Daawood] spoke to Saaleh Ibn Imaam Ahmad to make it easy for him to meet his father. So Saaleh approached Imaam Ahmad [i.e. his father] and said: A man asked me to bring him to you.

Imaam Ahmad said: What is his name?

Saaleh replied: Daawood.

Imaam Ahmad said: Where is he from?

Saaleh replied: He is from the people of Asbahaan.

Imaam Ahmad said: Has he being [involved] in fabricating anything?

At this point: Saaleh refrained from describing Daawood to his father [Imaam Ahmad].  So he [Imaam Ahmad] did not stop enquiring about Daawood until he knew who he was.  Then he said: Muhammad Bin Yahyaa An-Naysabooree wrote to me about this [Daawood] saying that he [Daawood] claims that the Qur’aan is something that was brought into existence [i.e. created], so do not bring him near me.

Saaleh said: O my father! he [Daawood] has negated and renounced this [statement].

Imaam Ahmad replied: Muhammad Bin Yahyaa is more trustworthy than him.  I do not give you permission to bring him to me.

O my brother! Contemplate upon the stance of Imaam Ahmad.  He is the Imaam of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah in his adherence to the Sunnah of the Prophet [sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam] and the narrations of the Sahaabah; so did he use to scrutinise the beliefs of the people and seek after their mistakes?!  So examine his [above conversation with his son Saaleh] as well as the statement of Umar Ibnul Khattaab mentioned earlier, ”But we will not trust or believe the one who presents to us with an evil deed even if he claims that his intentions were good.”

Therefore, the statement of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhaab [rahimahullaah] is certified by the statements of the Rightly Guided Khaleefah Umar Ibnul Khattaab [radiyallaahu-anhu] and that of Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal [rahimahullaah].


[1] Source: ‘Ibaaraat Moohimah’ pages 66-69. slightly paraphrased]

Unveiling The Fraudulent Claims of The Rabble Rouser And Stooge at [Markaz At-Tawheed And Markaz As-Sunnah (The Allies of Greenlane In Stoke On Trent)]

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

Indeed, the hizbiyyoon at Markaz At-Tawheed and Markaz As-Sunnah – allies of the hizbiyyoon at Greenlane- have not ceased hiding behind the issue of Taqleed in order to divert attention from their crimes against the Salafi Manhaj. By the Tawfeeq of Allaah, neither have they been able to silence the Salafiyyoon at Masjid Al-Furqaan nor able to hide their corrupt Manhaj stances, which we’ll address in the next post InShaaAllaah.

However, the figureheads at these two Hizbi Masaajid -allies of Greenlane- give their silent approval to a rabble rouser and stooge amongst them, who is ignorant and foolish enough to take the lead and attack the Salafiyyoon at Masjid Al-Furqaan. This fool always utters nonsense and keeps on shooting himself in the foot.

A statement he constantly makes- whilst trying to hide the Manhaj deviations of his employers and reject the evidences against them- is that ‘They do not make Taqleed of Such and Such…and that the Salafiyyoon of Masjid Al-Furqaan are guilty of blameworthy Taqleed etc” So, here we present – briefly- from Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool [may Allaah preserve him] regarding this statement of truth by way of which the foolish rabble rouser and his employers-allies of Greenlane- seek to confound haqq with baatil.

Paraphrase:

Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool [may Allaah preserbe him] said:

The Statement of some of them [i.e. the people]: I am not obliged to make Taqleed of this Shaikh or that [one]:

This statement is made by some people with the claim that it is the Methodology of the Salaf [pious predecessors]. However, the reality is that this statement is to be to examined from several perspectives:

1: The right place to utilise this statement is where proof is manifest [or clearly established] in a particular issue related to the religion, which must be followed; so, in such a case, no consideration is given to anyone – regardless who that is – if his statement opposes the [sound or established] hadeeth of the Messenger [sallal laahu alayhi wasallam], since the statement of everyone else can either be accepted or abandoned, except that of the Messenger [sallal laahu alayhi wasallam].

2: A student of knowledge makes this statement in relation to issues of Ijtihaad in order to reject the statements of the scholars – those scholars who are his seniors, older than him, more knowledgeable and more fearful of Allaah than him -, then this is contrary to the way of the Salafus Saaleh, because with regards to the likes of these issues [i.e. issues of Ijtihaad], individuals among them use to abandon their own statement [or view] and take the statement [or view] of one who was more knowledgeable than them, and they never use to say: I am not obliged to accept  [the statement of the]  Shaikh.

3: A Muslim- first and foremost- should consider himself to be perhaps the one at fault [or mistaken], especially if he finds himself in a situation where he is in opposition to something affirmed by someone who is more knowledgeable than him, for indeed it is obligated on him not to be overwhelmed by his views; then how about when the very basis of the issue at hand is related to information he must accept and there is no justification for him to oppose it. And even in issues related to Ijtihaad, it was from the way of the Sahaabah that individuals among them use to abandon their statement [or view] and accept the statement [or view] of one who was more knowledgeable.

4: To have a high regard for the scholars is a Sunnah [i.e. an affair established in the Sunnah of the Prophet] and this statement [i.e. I am not obliged to make Taqleed of this or that Shaikh] is contrary to having respect for the scholars. Yes [or certainly], if proof is manifested [or clearly established] in a subject matter related to the religion which becomes an obligation on [a person to follow], then indeed no consideration is given to the statement of anyone – regardless who that is – when proof is present, since the statement of everyone can either be accepted or rejected, except that of the Messenger [sallal laahu alayhi wasallam].

However, some people make this statement in a situation where evidence is not manifested [or established] against the statement of a scholar; therefore, is it not the right thing -in this case- that a person acknowledges the virtue of a scholar- that the path of the scholars is more correct, they are more knowledgeable, more fearful of falling into something that will affect them in the afterlife and that they are more pious- and considers himself to be at fault [or mistaken] in comparison to the statements of the scholars and being careful of opposing their statements.

5: Taqleed is not forbidden unrestrictedly, for indeed an Aammi -the one on whom it is obligated to follow the upright scholars- if it is not easy for him to understand the proofs, and [also] the Mujtahid, if it difficult for him to perform Ijtihaad and examine the proofs, then it is obligated on him to make Taqleed, and this is what is obligated on him. And indeed, it has been reported about Imaam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal [rahimahullaah] in relation to a particular issue of the religion whose evidence he did not know, that he use to take the statement of Ash-Shaafi’ee [rahimahullaah]. Therefore, this statement [i.e. I am not obliged to make Taqleed of this or that Shaikh] being uttered in such a manner gives a Muslim the wrong impression that he can never make Taqleed, however this is contrary to what the people of knowledge have established regarding this affair. [Read more about this topic on this link: http://masjidfurqan.co.uk/2018/02/03/gentle-reminder-to-those-who-approach-this-affair-in-a-haphazard-manner-and-unveiling-the-half-truths-of-the-obstinate-hizbiyyoon/ ]

    6: There is a distinction between Ittibaa and Taqleed, because Ittibaa is to follow a statement whose evidence is manifest or clear to you. As for Taqleed, it is to take [or accept] the statement of someone you follow blindly [i.e. without knowing the proof].

7: It is obligatory to distinguish between the case where a person accepts the statement of a Mujtahid in relation to an issue in which Ijtihaad is allowed as opposed to accepting a khabar [report or information] given by a scholar, because in this case [i.e. when he gives a report about someone] it is [related to the subject matter of] accepting the report given by a reliable narrator; and it is an obligation [to accept his report] unless his mistake in relation to that report is made clear. Therefore, it cannot be said in this situation: I am not obliged to accept the statement of this scholar or I will not accept his statement regarding such and such person until I -myself- come across it [i.e. until I see – in that person- what the scholar said about him].

If a man who is well known to you is criticised by a reliable scholar based on a detailed-  explained -criticism, then the basis of the affair is that you accept the statement of this scholar,  and you do not say: I know this man and will not accept this detailed and explained criticism until I come across what has been stated about him. This is not to be said and it is not from the path of the Salaf in this affair. Yes [or certainly], a general [unexplained] criticism is not accepted when directed at someone whose trustworthiness is established [or ascertained]; and criticism is given precedence over appraisal, unless the one who gives the appraisal mentions the reason behind that criticism and refutes it [i.e. with detail and clear proofs or evidences]. [Read more about this topic on this link: http://www.abukhadeejah.com/al-jarh-wat-tadeel-and-the-corrupt-principles-of-abu-usamah-khalifah-part-1/ ]


[Source: Ibaaraat Moohimah’ pages 27-29’ By Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool (may Allaah preserve him)]

 

 

 

 

The Danger of Praising and Promoting Ahlul Bidah, Or Co-operating With Them: [Educating Those Confused by the Hizbiyyoon of Stoke On Trent Regarding This Affair]

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

Shaikh Saaleh Al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said:

It is not permissible to exalt and praise the innovators even if they have some truth with them. That is because raising and praising them will spread their bidah and place them amongst the sincere ones-those who are taken as examples amongst distinguished men of this Ummah. The Salaf warned against having trust for the innovators, (warned against) praising them and their gatherings. In this regard, Asad Ibn Musa (rahimahullaah) wrote: ”Beware of being a brother of the innovator (by association) or a companion of his, or one whom you sit with; for indeed it has been narrated that ‘Whoever sits with a person of innovation has left the protection of Allaah and is entrusted to himself”.

The innovators must be warned against and kept away from even if they have some truth with them. Indeed, the most astray are not devoid of some truth, but as long as they have with them innovation, opposition and sinful views, it is not permissible to praise and exalt them. It is impermissible to not have an objection against their innovation because this spreads bidah, belittles the Sunnah and by way of this the innovator will emerge and become a guide for the Ummah.

As for giving consideration (to the fact) that the innovation has some truth, this does not justify praising him. This is -to a far greater extent- against what is of overriding benefit and it is known in relation to a principle in the religion that averting harm takes precedence over seeking that which is of benefit. And with regards to having hatred for the innovator, the harm that is averted from the Ummah is weightier than the benefit possessed by the innovator. And had we adhered to this concept (i.e. praising the innovator because he has some truth with him), then no one would have been judged to be misguided and declared an innovator. That is because there is not an innovator except that he has some truth and adherence to the Sunnah. The innovator (may) neither be a disbeliever nor be in opposition to all the Islamic legislation; rather he is either an innovator in some or most of the affairs. However, if the innovation is particularly related to affairs of Creed and Methodology, then the affair is dangerous indeed because it will become an example (to be followed); innovation will spread and the innovators will become active in spreading their innovation.

So, this person who praises the innovators and makes their affair obscure to the people -due to some truth they (i.e. innovators) have – is one of two (people): He is either one ignorant of the methodology of the pious predecessors and their stance against the innovators, and it is neither permissible for this ignorant one to speak nor is it permissible for the Muslims to listen to him; or he is one who has an objection to the truth because he knows the danger of innovation and the innovators, but he wishes to spread innovations. Nevertheless, this is a dangerous affair and it is not permissible to be lackadaisical with regards to innovation and its people, whatever that may be.


[Source: At-Tabdee Wat-Tafseeq Wat Takfeer. Page: 72-76]

Educating Those Deceived And Misled By The False Claims of Some of The Hizbiyyoon of Stoke On Trent at [Markaz Al-Huda, Markaz At-Tawheed and Markaz As-Sunnah]-Staunch Allies of The Hizbiyyoon of Greenlane

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

Shaikh Muhammad Baazmool (may Allaah preserve him) said:

This statement is reiterated by some people when warning reaches them from one of the scholars or a student of knowledge against innovated statements (or views) that have occurred from some of the people, or when informed about mistakes committed in knowledge and he is warned about it; so you find that his face becomes red, his (behaviour) changes and he says, ‘’Do not scrutinize the beliefs of the people and do not search for their mistakes.’’ The reality is that this statement is truth by way of which falsehood is sought in this particular instance.

Firstly: The right place to (use this statement) is where one seeks after secrets and hidden affairs, which have neither manifested nor are there any factual evidences indicating towards that. The place (where this statement cannot be used) is  where innovation arises from one of (the people) or when one of them calls to falsehood, since there is a difference between that which is manifested and that which is either concealed, hidden and unknown, or that there is no indication towards that.

Secondly: This statement of theirs will lead to the abandonment of warning against mistakes and censure against innovation and falsehood.  And the meaning of this is that the common people will be beguiled, rather even some of the students of knowledge will become inattentive to this situation.

Thirdly: Was the speech of the Salaf with regards to warning against innovation and the people of falsehood not (carried out) from the angle of warning against false beliefs, innovations and affairs in opposition to the Sunnah?  So how can it be said, ‘do not scrutinize the beliefs and mistakes of the people’ to a person who either warns against an innovation manifested by an individual or points out a mistake committed by an individual?

Fourthly: Scrutinizing the beliefs of the people by way of interrogation and trial as the Khaleefah Mamoon did with regards to the belief that the (Qur’aan is created), then this is an innovation that is warned against.  (However) to make a clarification and (issue) warning against an innovation that some people call to, unveiling the falsehood of the callers to falsehood and warning against them, this is not from that (type of scrutiny that is warned against).

Fifthly: Those (people) who blame the one who unveils the (affairs) of the people of falsehood and issues warning against them, then it is either they disapprove innovations or do not!  If they disapprove innovation, point out mistakes and falsehood, and warn against them, then indeed they have pursued the right course by the Will of Allaah (The Most High). However, why do they disapprove of those who take their place in renouncing innovation?! If they do not warn the people against falsehood, then this (i.e. behaviour or stance of theirs) is not from the methodology of the Salaf and it suffices as a rebuke against them.

Sixthly: It has been reported in Durar As-Saniyyah (1/33) that the Imaam, the Mujaddid, Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhaab [rahimahullaah] said: I hold that the people of innovation are to be boycotted and their affair is to be made known until they repent.  I pass judgement against them based on what is apparent and I leave their secrets (or hidden) affairs to Allaah.  And I believe that every newly invented matter in the Religion is an innovation.

This [statement of Imaam Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhaab [rahimahullaah] is the statement of a Salafiy Athariy [i.e. a true follower of the Salaf and the authentic narrations] that emanates from the statement of Umar Ibnul Khattaab (radiyallaahu-anhu) when he said:

‘People were (sometimes) judged by the revealing of a Divine Inspiration during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle but now there is no longer any more (new revelation). Now we judge you by the deeds you practice publicly, so we will trust and favour the one who does good deeds in front of us, and we will not call him to account about what he is really doing in secret, for Allah will judge him for that; but we will not trust or believe the one who presents to us with an evil deed even if he claims that his intentions were good.’ [Saheeh Bukhaari; Vol 3; Hadith Number:2641]

So examine the statement of Imaam Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhaab (rahimahullaah) when he said: ‘I judge (ahlul bidah) based upon what is apparent’‘ and examine the statement of Umar Ibnul Khattaab (radiyallaahu-anhu) when he said, ‘but we will not trust or believe the one who presents to us with an evil deed even if he claims that his intentions were good.’  Then examine the (affair) of that person who disapproves of one who warns against ahlul bidah and exposes their falsehood- claiming that (this warning against ahlul bidah) is tantamount to scrutinizing the Aqeedah of the people.  Is this (statement of his) correct? Glorified and Exalted You are, O My Lord!  Is not judgement passed against the people except through what is apparent?! This principle affirmed by Al Faarooq, Umar Ibnul Khattaab (radiyallaah-anhu) is employed in warning against a person of innovation when he manifests his innovation. [1]

The Stance of Imaam Ahmad towards Daawood Ibn Ali Al- Asbahaanee

Daawood Ibn Ali Al-Asbahaanee came to Saaleh Ibn Imaam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal with whom he used to have a good relationship.  So he (Daawood) spoke to Saaleh Ibn Imaam Ahmad to make it easy for him to meet his father.

So Saaleh approached Imaam Ahmad (i.e. his father) and said; A man asked me to bring him to you.

Imaam Ahmad: What is his name?

Saaleh: Daawood.

Imaam Ahmad: Where is he from?

Saaleh: He is from the people of Asbahaan.

Imaam Ahmad: Has he being (involved) in fabricating anything?

At this point: Saaleh refrained from describing Daawood to his father (Imaam Ahmad).  So he (Imaam Ahmad) did not stop enquiring about Daawood until he realized who he was.  Then he said: Muhammad Bin Yahyaa An-Naysabooree wrote to me about this (Daawood) saying that he (Daawood) claims that the Qur’aan is something that was brought into existence (i.e. created), so do not bring him near me.

Saaleh: O my father! he (Daawood) has negated and renounced this (statement).

Imaam Ahmad: Muhammad Bin Yahyaa is more trustworthy than him.  I do not give you permission to bring him to me.

O my brother! Contemplate upon the stance of Imaam Ahmad.  Is this the Imaam? He is the Imaam of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah in his adherence to the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) and in following the narrations of the Sahaabah; so did he use to scrutinize the beliefs of the people and seek after their mistakes?!  Examine his statement and that of Umar Ibnul Khattaab mentioned earlier, ‘but we will not trust or believe the one who presents to us with an evil deed even if he claims that his intentions were good.’

Therefore, the statement of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhaab [rahimahullaah] is certified by the statement of the Rightly Guided Khaleefah Umar Ibnul Khattaab [radiyallaahu-anhu] and that of Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal [rahimahullaah]. [2]


[1] Source: ‘Ibaaraat Moohimah’ pages 66-68- few words slightly paraphrased]

[2] Ibaaraat Moohimah’ pages: 66-69

The Prattler and Stooge of The Hizbiyyoon at Markaz As-Sunnah Spreads The Baatil Principles of The Followers of Al-Halabi, But Claims That Accepting The Knowledge Based Refutations Against Such falsehood Is Tantamount to Blind Following!

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

Shaikh Rabee Bin Haadi (may Allaah preserve him) said:

They (i.e. the people of baatil and fitan) do not keep quiet- they spread their falsehoods in their newspapers, magazines and audio tapes, while wishing that the voice of truth should be silent. In their view, the voice of truth is what should be silent and the voice of falsehood should be raised and spread in the earth! Do they remain silent?! The people of falsehood do not remain silent-they neither abate nor slow down.[1]

Indeed, the prattler refuses to accept reality! He spreads the false principles and ambiguities propagated by the followers of the innovator Ali Al-Halabi, but when such falsehoods and ambiguities are rebutted by the Salafiyyoon through the unambiguous and detailed knowledge based proofs presented by the likes of Shaikh Rabee and others, he claims that the Salafiyyoon are blind followers. This is the same tactic that was employed by the innovators Ali Al-Halabi, Abul Hasan Al-Maribi and others. Obviously we do not believe and intend that the prattler is an innovator, but this behaviour of his is no different from that of these innovators. Likewise, this is the same tactic employed by the man of bidah Abu Usaama, who is an ally of his employers at Markaz as’Sunnah (may Allaah guide them).

O Allaah guide them all,  but if he (the prattler) and his employers at Markaz As’Sunnah continue to propagate falsehood, then grant us firmness and tawfeeq to refute them .. Aameen

We warn the prattler against self amazement, as the Prophet (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) said:

”Three things destroy: The greed that is obeyed, the desires that are followed and a person being amazed with his own opinion.” [2]

Shaikh Raslaan (may Allaah preserve him) said: Indeed the great religion of Islaam is founded upon knowledge and not ignorance, but when a person is amazed with himself and his opinion, and when splitting occurs in the Ummah in the big affairs of knowledge and every foolish one formulates his own independent judgement, there comes about an uncontrollable chaos –leading to a path that does not cease, becomes an affair of trial, corruption, confusion, deviation and an affair in which truth is confounded with falsehood [3]

To be continued..InShaaAllaah

——————————————————————————————————

[1] Source: Question number 16; Page 28-29 in الإجابات الجلية عن القضايا المنهجية

Note: This particular excerpt is found in the second section of the book, titled:

كشف الستار عما تحمله بعض الدعوات من أخطار

[2]Silsilah Al-hadeeth as-saheehah: Number: 1802: 4/412-416]

[3] Ash-Shi-aaraat Wahdahaa Laa Takfee: pages: 35 and 39 Footnote 1]

 

The Prattler and Stooge of The Hizbiyyoon at Markaz As’Sunnah -Allies of Greenlane and Jamiat Ahle Hadeeth in Stoke On Trent- Makes a Fool of Himself Again By Transmitting The Old Hizbi Shubhah: [Are We Obliged To Follow The Stance of Scholar When He Makes Tabdee?]

 

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

Once again the prattler and stooge of the hizbiyyoon at Markaz As-Sunnah made a fool of himself! He visits the websites of the followers of the innovator Ali Al-Halabi and transmits their spider wed doubts. His latest prattling revolves around the affair as to whether we are obliged to follow the stance of scholar when he makes Tabdee. This is an old refuted doubt of the hizbiyyoon, but because the prattler is an ill-informed newcomer and amateur doubt monger, he chooses to do the doggy job of his employers at Markaz As-Sunnah, rather than sincerely acquaint himself with the sound principles of the Salafi Manhaj. Here is a short clarification for the prattler – either he accepts it (may Allaah guide him) or he continues to follow his desires and carry on doing the doggy job of his employers at Markaz As-Sunnah. Shaikh Rabee Bin Haadi (may Allaah preserve him) says:

He (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam) sent individuals to Bahrain, Oman and Yemen and their narrations were accepted; so how about in this present time of ours when there are ten or fifty Salafi (scholars) who are in agreement regarding a particular affair, but their narrations are rejected. And those who reject them, say: ‘’There has to be a consensus of all the scholars.’’  And from the false principles of these people is that they say: ‘’we neither accept criticism against a person nor a praise for him even if many of the contemporary scholars say that such a person is an innovator.’’ 

Therefore be warned against these people, because they make a claim to Salafiyyah, whilst seeking to destroy the Salafi Methodology, its principles and foundations.  How many false precepts do they have, such as their saying: ‘’I am not obliged to (take/accept) the speech of such and such a Shaikh?!’’  You find a scholar quoting and refuting the affairs of misguidance found in the Book of such and such a person, in such and such page, yet you find these people saying: ‘’I am not obliged to (take/accept) the speech of such and such a Shaikh?!’’

This statement of theirs is a principle by way of which they seek to shun and reject truth.  It is a false principle by way of which they seek to reject the sound principles of Jarh Wat-Tadeel.  Therefore, learn the sound principles of Jarh Wat-Tadeel and look to the methodology of the Salaf; and leave alone these who misguide. They bring turmoil upon the true religion of Allaah and upon the Methodology of the Salaf and its followers. http://www.salaficentre.com/2014/02/they-say-we-are-not-obliged-to-take-the-speech-of-the-shaikh-so-how-many-trustworthy-scholars-do-they-need-in-order-to-abandon-the-innovators/

Also see link here – Refuting the Satanic Principle; There has to be a Consensus on a refuted person before the refutation is accepted

https://youtu.be/5TdqimZf0zY

To be continued InShaaAllaah

Clarifying The Errors’ by Shaikh Fawzaan…

instaquote-04-05-2016-08-50-56

Clarifying The Errors’ by Shaikh Fawzaan…

Clarification must be carried out, especially when the one who erred is one followed or has leadership. It should not be said that errors are narrated and will come to pass, rather it should be said that it is narrated and refuted. That is because it (i.e. refuting error) is sincerity to Allaah, His Book and His Messenger, and it is sincere advice to the leaders of the Muslims”.


[Source: Ijaabatul Muhimmah Fil Mashaakil Al-Mulimmah…pages 221-222]

Al-Allaamah Muqbil Bin Haadi on Yusuf Al-Qaradaawi

Al-Allaamah Muqbil Bin Haadee Al-Waadi-ee (rahimahullaah) said:

Some of the Hizbiyyoon (illegal partisans) will say: ”A scholar amongst the scholars and you call him a barking dog! This is great O Abaa AbdirRahmaan! A scholar amongst the scholars! The Mufti of Qatar!”

Listen to Allaah’s statement:

وَٱتۡلُ عَلَيۡهِمۡ نَبَأَ ٱلَّذِىٓ ءَاتَيۡنَـٰهُ ءَايَـٰتِنَا فَٱنسَلَخَ مِنۡهَا فَأَتۡبَعَهُ ٱلشَّيۡطَـٰنُ فَكَانَ مِنَ ٱلۡغَاوِينَ

وَلَوۡ شِئۡنَا لَرَفَعۡنَـٰهُ بِہَا وَلَـٰكِنَّهُ ۥۤ أَخۡلَدَ إِلَى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ وَٱتَّبَعَ هَوَٮٰهُ‌ۚ فَمَثَلُهُ ۥ كَمَثَلِ ٱلۡڪَلۡبِ إِن تَحۡمِلۡ عَلَيۡهِ يَلۡهَثۡ أَوۡ تَتۡرُڪۡهُ يَلۡهَث‌ۚ ذَّٲلِكَ مَثَلُ ٱلۡقَوۡمِ ٱلَّذِينَ كَذَّبُواْ بِـَٔايَـٰتِنَا‌ۚ فَٱقۡصُصِ ٱلۡقَصَصَ لَعَلَّهُمۡ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ

سَآءَ مَثَلاً ٱلۡقَوۡمُ ٱلَّذِينَ كَذَّبُواْ بِـَٔايَـٰتِنَا وَأَنفُسَہُمۡ كَانُواْ يَظۡلِمُونَ

And recite (O Muhammad) to them the story of him to whom We gave Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), but he threw them away, so Shaitan (Satan) followed him up, and he became of those who went astray.  And had We willed, We would surely have elevated him therewith but he clung to the earth and followed his own vain desire. So his description is the description of a dog: if you drive him away, he lolls his tongue out, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls his tongue out. Such is the description of the people who reject Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.). So relate the stories, perhaps they may reflect.  Evil is the likeness of the people who reject Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses and signs, etc.), and used to wrong their ownselves.” [Soorah A’raaf: Ayaat:175-177]

 

Allaah (The Most High) said:

 مَثَلُ ٱلَّذِينَ حُمِّلُواْ ٱلتَّوۡرَٮٰةَ ثُمَّ لَمۡ يَحۡمِلُوهَا كَمَثَلِ ٱلۡحِمَارِ يَحۡمِلُ أَسۡفَارَۢا‌ۚ بِئۡسَ مَثَلُ ٱلۡقَوۡمِ ٱلَّذِينَ كَذَّبُواْ بِـَٔايَـٰتِ ٱللَّهِ‌ۚ وَٱللَّهُ لَا يَہۡدِى ٱلۡقَوۡمَ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ

”The likeness of those who were entrusted with the (obligation of the) Taurat (Torah) (i.e. to obey its commandments and to practise its legal laws), but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is as the likeness of a donkey who carries huge burdens of books (but understands nothing from them).” [Soorah Al-Juma-ah: Ayah 5]

 

Allaah (The Most High) said:

 إِنَّ شَرَّ ٱلدَّوَآبِّ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلصُّمُّ ٱلۡبُكۡمُ ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يَعۡقِلُونَ

”Verily! The worst of (moving) living creatures with Allah are the deaf and the dumb, those who understand not.” [Soorah Anfaal: Ayah:22]

 

Allaah (The Most High) said:

وَلَوْ عَلِمَ اللّهُ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا لَّأسْمَعَهُمْ وَلَوْ أَسْمَعَهُمْ لَتَوَلَّواْ وَّهُم مُّعْرِضُونَ

”Had Allah known of any good in them, He would indeed have made them listen, and even if He had made them listen, they would but have turned away, averse (to the truth).”

So I say: Abdullaah Bin Sabah Al-Yahoodee-the one who came from San’a and arrived in Madeenah–manifested asceticism, fear of Allaah, worship and other than that in Islaam. (He manifested) enjoining good and forbidding evil, and thereafter he disseminated trials and became the cause of much trial. Therefore, the Sunni must be recognized as opposed to the hizbiy (illegal partisan).  And I do not say that he (Al-Qaradaawee) is a Christian or a Jew; rather (we have been) asked (about him), for indeed his falsehoods which he makes to resemble the truth are dangerous.

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

[Source: Iskaat Kalbul Aawee Yoosuf Bin Abdillaah Al-Qaradaawee: page: 5-6]