Category Archives: Contemporary Issues

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Clarification Concerning Translating The Works Of Shaykh Saalih Al Fawzan

 

By the permission of Allah, we were able to visit our father and teacher Shaykh Saalih Al Fawzan, may Allah preserve him, today in his office at Dar al-Iftaa and put forward a couple of questions. From those questions asked was one concerning translating the works of the Shaykh. It is not hidden from any of his students here in Riyadh or elsewhere, that the Shaykh does not permit translating his works (books, treatises, lessons, etc) nor transcribing them, except with his permission and a thorough checking under his authority. And I testify that I’ve heard this a number of times from him throughout my years of sitting with him, may Allah preserve the Shaykh.

So, we asked the Shaykh for some clarification concerning this as some fatwas are specifically directed/connected to affairs of other countries, so do those fall under the prohibition he has regarding his works? The Shaykh answered: “It is true that I do not allow any of my works to be translated except with my permission. This is regarding the works that have been published (i.e. the Shaykh’s written work in book form or what is similar), anything other than that does not require permission.”

By the will of Allah, the Shaykh made the issue clear for those who wish to translate his works without his permission. As for those who wish to gain permission to translate some of his published work and spread them, the situation is easy, all praise is to Allah, he has to simply put it together and officially present it to the Shaykh to gain his permission.

Abdul-Hameed Aboo Zaynab
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
8th of Ramadan 1440 After Hijrah. 

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Sheikh Usamah Al Utaybi stated about Al Maghribi: “He is an ignorant layman from the Sa’aafiqah, the people of lies and false testimony.”(1)

In order to better understand his condition it is incumbent upon the reader to consider what follows.

Abu Saalih Ilyas ibn Aidarus Al-Kanadi said, “I bear witness in front of Allah that Abu Muhammad Al Maghribi sat in front of me in 2015 in Atlanta telling me to ignore Troid and Germantown and telling me they have no deen nor akhlaq and that he is only with them because of dawah and otherwise has no relationship with them and that they consider him a mummayi’ in reality and only act like they like him.”

He also mentioned that these statements of Al Maghribi were witnessed by both Dr. Abdur Rahman Omaisan and another brother named Abu Abdur Razzaq Hilowle.

Al Maghribi’s speech illustrates the true reality and condition of him and his so called associates in dawah. That being that they only appear to be united, but are truly divided a characteristic of the Jews, the people of hypocrisy, and the people of innovation. The Exalted says:

بأسهم بينهم شديد تحسبهم جميعا وقلوبهم شتي ذلك بأنهم قوم لا يعقلون
“Their enmity among themselves is severe. You would think they are together, but their hearts are divided. That is due to them being a people who do not comprehend.” [Al-Hashr: 14]

Sheikh Abdur Rahman ibn Naasir As-Sa’dee said, “You would think they are together when you see them gathered in mass as those feigning (to be united). Their hearts are divided i.e. hearts hating one another, divided, and splintered apart.”
تيسير الكريم الرحمن في تفسير كلام المنان

And this was uttered at a time when Somali and crew were blatantly lying to the masses claiming the Salafis had not seen the like of the unity they were experiencing at that time in 10 years. This folly was echoed at a time when Abu Abdis Salaam was warned against with no proof, Al Jamaiky had already been slandered by Somali and Anwar, and the Salafi ranks were splitting over these events.

Secondly, it illustrates the sentiment they hold for Maghribi. However, is the sentiment unfounded? There is no doubt to the intelligent person who is slightly aware of Maghribi’s affair that he bad mouths Salafis, yet has no known criticism against anyone from the people of innovation, and his vicious criticism of Troid and Germantown here are a prime example.

Last, it illustrates the fact that Maghribi is a two faced individual. As he held this opinion about them yet sat on multiple platforms alongside them, i.e. alongside people he feels have neither deen nor akhlaq. The Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- said:

“…You will find the most evil of people is the possessor of two faces, he who comes to these people with a face, and those people with (another) face.”
متفق عليه

Imam An-Nawawi said, “His -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- statement as it pertains to the two faced person -i.e. indeed he is from the most evil of people- its reason is clear, because it is unadulterated hypocrisy, lying, deception, and the employing of trickery in his becoming acquainted with the private thoughts of two groups, He comes to every group with that which pleases them while feigning to be among them as it pertains to good and bad. It is a forbidden type of flattery.”
شرح صحيح مسلم

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Saalih Al Uthaymin said, “It is a branch of hypocrisy. You will find the two faced person comes to you flattering you and praising you. Perhaps he will even go to extremes with his praise; however, when he was behind your back he rebukes, dispraises, and insults you. He even mentions that which is not with you (slanders). Thus this person -and Allah’s refuge is sought- is just as The Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- said, ‘You will find the most evil of people is the possessor of two faces, he who comes to these people with a face, and those people with (another) face.’ So this is from the major sins.”
شرح رياض الصالحين

This describes Maghribi’s action to the letter, yet Maghribi has the nerve to shamelessly speak on another’s manners. So, is this the manners of “a noble brother” or a “major student of knowedge” or a “senior in dawah”? My response….YEAH RIGHT!!!.

Written by Najeeb ibn Yusuf Al Anjelesi

 

---

 

1. Q: As salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuhu. O Sheikh, may Allah be kind towards you. Here in America we have a man within the field of dawah who’s name is Ridwan Al Maghribi, but he is well known by his kunya Abu Muhammad. Some people here say about him that he is “A mountain of knowledge” and “For us he is an authority -in knowledge- returned to” and he is “A sheikh” and he is this and that from descriptive terms that are considered to be praises of him. 
The question: Do you know this man and what is your opinion of him?

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Saalih Al Uthaymin said:

Pardoning is to overlook inflicting punishment. If anyone directs evil towards you, and you consequently pardon them, then indeed Allah is aware of that. However, the pardoning that is required for the pardoner to be praised must be connected with reconciliation, due to The Exalted’s statement:

فمن عفا وأصلح فأجره على الله
“So whoever pardons and makes reconciliation, his reward is with Allah.” [Ash-Shura: 40]

The reason being is that pardoning often times can be the reason for the increase in oppression and hostility. Often times it can be the means to end the oppression, and sometimes there is neither increase -in oppression- nor a reduction therein.

1. So if it is a means for the increase in oppression pardoning in this instance is blameworthy, and perhaps it is prohibited.

For example; we pardon a criminal while knowing, or the most overwhelming probability is that he will go and commit a greater crime, in this situation the pardoner is not praised, on the contrary he is condemned.

2. Often times the pardoning is a means to ending the hostility, that being if the pardoned person has shame as a result he says, “This person has pardoned me there is no way I can oppress him again, nor anyone besides him.” Thus he has shame from being among the oppressors while the other is from those that pardon.

Therefore pardoning here is praiseworthy and demanded, and most times it is obligatory.

3. Sometimes pardoning has no affect neither in increase nor reduction -of the oppression and hostility. This is better due to The Exalted’s statement:

وأن تعفو أقرب للتقوى
“And to pardon is closer to taqwa” [Al-Baqarah: 237]

شرح العقيدة الواسطية

In light of this it is quite ridiculous the statement of some who state that our brother Abu Muhammad Al Jamaiky should pardon Hasan As-Somali and Anwar Wright for the crimes mentioned in his -Abu Muhammad’s- recent speech. Especially considering the fact that he has been patient since 2013 enduring the harms that resulted while both individuals increased in their oppression, foolishness, and slander of their brother and others associated with him.

Thus it is strongly perceived that pardoning them will only increase them in stubbornness and opposition to the truth in this regard. After all Anwar Wright AKA The Deceitful was recently exposed for holding hostility against Salafis based on non issues, slander of other Salafis by use of sensationalism, and double standards. Allah brought to light his condition as a result of him indirectly attacking Abu Muhammad (and others) once again via Twitter.

Thus him and As-Somali had more than enough time to rectify their wrongs; however, they have obstinately clung to their narrow minded position that has been the cause of disunity among the Salafis throughout the states. So upon them is to repent and rectify their wrongs. They had better hope that the oppressed do not return this affair to Allah by way of supplication, as the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- said:

“And fear the supplication of the oppressed, for indeed there is not between it and Allah a veil.”

Al-Hafidh ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaani said: “There is no one that can avert it -i.e. the supplication-, nor block it. The intent is that it is accepted, even though he -the one supplicating- may be a sinner…”
فتح الباري شرح صحيح البخاري

It’s time these brothers practice the unity, brotherhood, and togetherness that they preach, and Allah knows best.

Written by Najeeb Al Anjelesi

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira is the statement of Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam: “Sufficient for a man to be lying is that he narrates everything he hears.” 

Imam An-Nawawi said: Lying is that a person states what opposes the factual (i.e. reality), hence he says such and such occurred yet he is lying. Or he says so and so said whilst he is a liar. Thus it is the declaring/stating of that which opposes the factual. [رياض الصالحين]

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Saalih Al Uthaymin said: Included in lying is the lying as it pertains to discourse among the people, circulating between the people. So he -the liar- says “I said to so and so this” yet he did not say it. Or he says “So and so said this” yet he did not say it. He says “So and so came” but he did not come. This (type of lying) is also prohibited and is a sign of hypocrisy, just as the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- said: “The sign of the hypocrite are three. Whenever he speaks he lies…” til he -the sheikh- eventually said …Thus a person is prohibited from speaking in two circumstances. The first being that he -the speaker- knows the -factual- situation contradicts what he is saying, the second is that he speaks in a matter of which he has no knowledge. All of this is prohibited. [شرح رياض الصالحين]

This is a very important reminder in light of a recent tweet of Anwar Wright wherein lying is utilized in order to legitimize a fraudulent criticism against several Salafis. The dishonesty on his part is that which causes some -including myself- to have a low opinion of him due to the blatant and brazen contradiction of his speech with reality. His speech is as follows:

“I’m amazed at a people who are vocal about Salafis and promote the Sa’fiqah agenda, but they were booted from a whatsapp group because of defending Shadeed saying ‘he’s erred, but we cannot take him out of Salafiyyah’! Jokes!”

This is clear misrepresentation of what is factual on Anwar’s part; however, there will be some that have a bigoted love for him consequently making it impossible for them to accept this reality. Thus there are two other possibilities that could exonerate him from the previously mentioned crime. 

1. He did not see the entire discussion, on the contrary someone showed him selected comments that consisted of the possible meaning to which he understands.
2. Just as the shameless cheerleader behind Al-Minhaj Magazine’s twitter account Anwar also must have been given too much credit in the intelligence department due to him being unable to differentiate between a defense of someone, and a caution from others exceeding limits as it pertains to passing rulings on people, specifically the ruling of tabdi. The language and usage of speech distinguishing one from the other is explicitly clear, making the one unable to discern one from the other being equivalent to one eating a yellow peeled fruit that’s as bitter as can be, yet calls it an orange when in reality it’s a lemon. Or on the level of a person that has two animals in front of him but cannot distinguish the horse from the donkey.

As for the first possibility it is less probable due to Anwar’s statement in another tweet: “Long arguments in this group about not making Tabdee’ of Shadeed, but when one clearly makes Tabdee’ on shaykh Abdullah…crickets!” The discussion in the group about Shadeed was long, and I imagine he took the time to read the comments, yet he utilizes sensationalism in order to trick the people into believing what did not occur. There was no defense of Shadeed on the contrary there was a cautioning from going beyond bounds as relates to Shadeed by passing rulings against him no scholar before them have passed. Simple. Thus Anwar is either a shameless liar, or the biggest buffoon involved in dawah today for not being able to distinguish between the two (which is highly unlikely), and Allah knows best.

The following is a question and its answer that sparked the conversation Anwar refers to in his tweet. The very inception of this conversation depicts the illegitimate assessment of Anwar and further indicates that he is either a shameless liar, or the biggest buffoon involved in Dawah today.

Questioner: I am aware of all his mistakes and I do not defend him in any of them, and I warn from him the same way you do, but my only question here is, are we qualified to precede the ulama in tabdee in this situation on an individual who’s salafiyyah was established?

Ilyaas Aidarus Al-Kanadi: So, then students are able to remove people from salafiyyah without referring back to the people of knowledge? I don’t believe anyone differs on how false his statements are and how they are -I believe Ilyaas meant to put “not” here- aligned with the manhaj of the Salaf, however mentioning his errors that we all are in agreement on, does not answer the question.

The question is do students and laymen have the right to remove someone from salafiyyah without referring back to the scholars?

Me (Najeeb Al Anjelesi): The answer is no. Plain and simple. That’s a new precedent I’ve never heard from people of knowledge and Allah knows best.

Ilyaas Aidarus Al-Kanadi: Refuting the errors and warning against him is one thing. Making rulings and removing him from Salafiyyah without going back to scholars is another. The two matters are very different. 

The inception of this conversation illustrates the position of the admin of this Whatsapp group as this sentiment was recurring throughout this lengthy discussion. Thus the following understanding is extracted from the previously cited speech:

1. Acknowledgement of the mistakes, errors, and misguidance of Shadeed.
2. Cautioning against preceding the scholars in passing a ruling of tabdee, that being a stark contrast to defending Shadeed as Anwar ignorantly alleged.
3. A distinction between refuting and warning against Shadeed and from declaring him to be an innovator (by students and laymen).

Therefore how can it be alleged that there was a defense of Shadeed in light of what was previously mentioned? How was he defended? Which mistakes of his were defended? Who defended him? Indeed this is a tremendous lie invented by the pitiful one Anwar that emphasizes the fact that he is willing to lie viciously in order to discourage the people from aiding and assisting those to which he harbors animosity. If this is not the case then he would have to be the biggest buffoon in dawah for his inability to distinguish between a defense and what was previously highlighted.

Sheikh Rabee said: “Lying is worse than innovation [in the religion], O brothers, and a liar is considered worse than an innovator by the People of Sunnah; an innovator [may] be narrated from-[The people of Sunnah] narrated from [some of] the Qadariyyah [sect], they narrated from the Murj’iah, and they nrrated from other than them from the different kinds of people of innovation, so long as the innovation did not fall into disbelief and the [narrator] was not a liar. If a liar were to say he was with the People of Sunnah, he would be considered by them to be of a lower level than the People of Innovation…” (1)  

The following are some statements of the admin throughout the discussion to which Anwar references that clearly shows the stance of the admin and how it dramatically differs with the fabrication invented by Anwar and spread to the masses. They are as follows:

1: Do Not Proceed The Scholars 

Ilyaas Aidarus Al-Kanadi -at one point in the discussion- said: And from my knowledge, there have been those who scholars saw doing worse than what Shadeed is doing and they did not make tabdee of them, rather they warned against their mistakes until the hujjah was established. Haajooree didn’t have CLEAR mistakes for years before tabdee was made of him? Halabi? Mashoor? Ma’ribi? Abdulrahman Abdulkhaliq? They did and they were CLEAR. Yet, which students went around preceding the scholars and making tabdee of them? This was left for the scholars. If you open this door for laymen, you will only see atrocities take place. Each one thinking he is qualified since the affair is “clear.”

He –Ilyaas– also said: What leniency is there in returning the affair back to scholars for a ruling on him instead of opening the door for anyone to enter into this field like this?

Abu Yusuf Khaleefah -at one point in the discussion- said: Tabdee is not for us, nor is Takfir.

He also said: Passing a ruling is for the people of knowledge.

Hisham Abouzeid -at one point in the conversation- said: I agree with this. It is unacceptable for students of knowledge to cross their limits and precede the scholars in this matter. And let there be no confusion regarding my stance on Shadeed I view him to be misguided and hold many of his positions to be deviant. However, to make tabdee is a different level.

I -myself- said during the course of the discussion: Sheikh Ubayd speaking against him is not the issue, the sheikh criticized him for something worse than what he’s being criticized for now, that being the Salafiyyah is not a card that will get you into jannah, yet with that he said “I fear he’s an Ikhwaani” which is not tabdee. 

And many more statements of this nature recurring throughout the discourse that indicate the discouragement from preceding the scholars in matters of this nature. We stop where they stopped and say what they said. Also therein are clear statements acknowledging the mistakes of Shadeed with no excuses being made for him, thus where is the defense? 

2: Acknowledgement Of Shadeed’s Mistakes

Abu Yusuf Khaleefah -during the discourse- said: Are the statements of Shadeed misguidance? Yes.

He also said throughout the discourse: Refuting errors and misguidance is a must.

Ilyaas Aidarus said: His misguidance is clear.

Hisham Abouzeid -during the discourse- said: If anyone wants to benefit us with highlighting more of Shadeed’s errors and refuting them through text, then please do so. I bear witness that this forum is open for accepting the truth irrespective of who it is for or who it is against.

And the statements in this regard are plentiful none of which has therein a defense or excuse being made for Shadeed’s errors.

3: Encouragement To Contact The Scholars

I-myself- said throughout the discourse: My advice, for the brothers who are in Saudi now, compile Shadeed’s statements and take it to one of the scholars but don’t precede them.

I also said: Thus my advice, for all the 966 country code holders, compile Shadeed’s statements and take it to the closest aalim for a definitive ruling, but don’t set an evil precedent by preceding them in a right that’s due to them.

Ilyaas Aidarus -at one point- said: But to say since it’s clear to us that he is upon falsehood, khalaas, we take him out? And if we say go back to the scholars for that then (the claim made against us) we are being lenient?

Khalil Davis -at one point- said: As Salaamu alaykum. Baarakallahu feekum brothers. I think the above advice from our brother Najeeb should suffice. Those who are now in Saudi compile his statements and take them to one of the scholars. I think too much time texting is being wasted along with time talking about Shadeed. Don’t dignify him by wasting all your precious words on him…

We clearly see that there is no defense of Shadeed, truthfully what we see is a cautioning from delving into matters that are not the place of small  students of knowledge (like found here in the states) nor laymen. Sheikh Ahmad An-Najmi was asked: What are the guidelines as it relates to innovation, and when is it permissible for me to describe a person with it? He replied: “First, innovation is the introducing into the religion that which is not from it -til he eventually said- second, describing (others) with innovation and boycotting the innovator that is to whom the scholars have declared to be an innovator. So do not be hasty o you small students in passing rulings upon an individual -even though he may have innovation with him- until you present his case to the scholars, and they assist you in that affair. Outside of that do not indulge in anything regarding it (that affair).” [الفتاوى الجلية]

Thus this shows that once again Anwar has criticized Salafis over a non issue and likewise indulged in sensationalism in a cheap attempt to dupe his audience into believing the scenario was what it was not. Or maybe he really does not know the difference between a defense and cautioning from going beyond bounds as it relates to passing rulings of tabdi on others, hence making him equivalent to one who cannot distinguish between a donkey and a horse, and Allah knows best.

Written by Najeeb Al Anjelesi
7/29/2018 

 

 

---

1: Link:http://www.miraathpubs.net/en/lying-is-worse-than-innovation-in-the-religion/

 

On July 14, 2018 our brother Abu Yusuf Khaleefah -under Masjid Nur Allah’s official twitter account- tweeted the following: This was a direct response to a portion of a tweet from Anwar Wright, wherein the mixing of truth with falsehood by twisting the reality of certain occurrences was utilized, in order to substantiate false accusations against several (unnamed) Salafi callers. The portion of his tweet addressed here is as follows:

“I’m Amazed at a people that have the likes of Muftari Munir causing confusion in their own backyard (NYC) and we’ve yet to see one ilmi  refutation from them on him. Add to that no refutation from their زعيم who claims to “know Tahir better and longer than everyone else”. And the amazement doesn’t stop here…!”

Although it is widely believed that Anwar’s speech was directed at Abu Yusuf Khaleefah, this conclusion -at this point- is speculative due to the absence of any name being mentioned. Likewise due to the presence of several salafi callers within New York i.e. our two elders Dawud Adib and Abdur Ra’uf Shakir along with our brother Abu Yusuf. Thus keeping in accordance with the principle لا ينسب إلى ساكت قول والسكوت في وفت الحاجة بيان There’s no attributing to one who remains silent (in an affair) a statement (clarifying his view and or position), and silence in the time of need is a declaration (i.e. of one’s view/position) we will leave it to Anwar to make clear who it is he criticized in his speech.

Regardless if the criticism is directed at all three or one among the three, one thing is made explicitly clear, that being that the basis of Anwar’s criticism is incorrect, false, and blatantly misplaced. This is made clear when contemplating on the following points extracted from this conversation.

1: Anwar’s criticism is a non issue

Khaleefah clearly illustrates this by mentioning the ruling to enjoining good and prohibiting evil. It is a communal obligation and not an obligation made binding upon every individual. Thus Anwar’s amazement and criticism is not due to any violation of Islamic principles and guidelines, on the contrary it’s based solely on his own preference, and his preference bears no weight when compared to truth and guidance. Thus his criticism -in reality- is a non issue.

Sheikh Rabee ibn Haadi said: “Criticism is for the purpose of purifying the people, often times it is a criticism of them (specifically) and other times it is a notification with regards to their mistakes or their misguidance. These affairs Islam has brought forth consequently prohibiting the wealth, blood, and honor (of a Muslim). However the blood is permissible if -the one whose blood is spilled- is a taker of life (i.e. murderer, killer), or an adulterer, or one who has abandoned his religion (an apostate) and separated from the Muslim body/community. These things make permissible his blood.

Coinciding with that is he who errs and or goes astray, he losses his honor. Thus that is made clear with the condition that the clarification is advice for Allah’s sake and that the one giving advice intents to clarify the truth and warn the Islamic Nation against falling into the mistakes and misguidance. Hence the presence of these conditions are imperative.” [النقد منهج شرعي]

In light of this, Anwar’s amazement is deemed to be baseless, and nothing more than his imagination getting the better of him by way of whispers from the Shaitan. As Anwar has done nothing here but give precedence to his preference and nothing more. Furthermore, if preference was a yardstick in this matter, wouldn’t it be more preferred that Anwar puts out something knowledge based against Mufti Muneer? After all Mufti did do a 3 part series against Anwar that-to my knowledge- he has not responded to til this very day. Thus one of three conclusions can be drawn concerning Anwar and his awareness of the rulings pertaining to enjoining good and prohibiting evil.

1. One who is ignorant with regards to its rulings and as a result should remain quiet with regards to affairs that are beyond his knowledge.
2. One who is fully aware of its rulings yet strives to deceive his audience into believing there’s an actual issue with whoever the intended criticism is directed towards, while knowing that his criticism -in light of the principles- is one big fat nothing burger.
3. One who is aware of its rulings but has not been given success by Allah in how to properly apply what he knows, resulting in the overt blunder he has fallen into with his baseless criticism.

What is evident from Anwar’s own writing is that the first possibility is the least probable. As Anwar said, in a document titled “Meeting the people where they are, or meeting the people where they need to be“: “I would like to conclude by mentioning some important Fatwa by the Imam, Shaykh Abdul Aziz bin Baz. The Shaykh was asked about the ruling on commanding the good and forbidding by those charged with authority or those who are from the general people. Here is a portion of what he said in his lengthy reply:

...And in summary, commanding the good and forbidding the evil is a great affair and a holy obligation and a duty upon the Muslims; if those who are sufficient from (the people of) a land or town performs it, its obligation falls from the rest (of the Muslims). but if it’s not performed by those sufficient to do so, it becomes a duty upon the rest (of the Muslims) and they are sinful for leaving it off. Also, if you are in a locality, a town, a country, a masjid or a neighborhood where there is a manifest evil and it is not prohibited, it is upon you to prohibit it and not to be negligent in that, because perhaps there is no one other than you who can prohibit it and take your place… to the end of the speech he quoted.

Thus the first option is the least probable, and only Allah is well acquainted with his reality as it relates to the last two options. 

2. Anwar’s usage of sensationalism

Sensationalism is the use of shocking or exciting stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement. This is exactly what Anwar utilizes in a cheap attempt to legitimizes his non issue. In reality it is a twisting of truth, a fallacy, and an unsubstantiated claim that resembles a characteristic of hypocrisy related to action. The Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- said: “There are four If combine in a person is (by way of these four characteristics) a pure hypocrite, and if there is a characteristic from these four -within him- then he has within him a characteristic of hypocrisy until he abandons it..” From the four he -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- mentioned was: “When he disputes he is immoral.”

Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaani said about this characteristic: “It is a turning away from truth and trickery/dupery as pertains to disproving it. It is quite often classified under the first characteristic (of hypocrisy as relates to action) that being lying in speech/conversation.” This was done quite often in his declaration of amazement, especially in the portion pertaining to Shadeed (which will be addressed sooner than expected inshaa’llah), and likewise in the focal part of his speech being addressed now. 

Anwar dishonestly said: “Add to that no refutation from their زعيم…” which he translated as ringleader suggesting that the previously mentioned brothers or one among them are flunkies, yes men, and lackeys to some personality. But none of the aforementioned brothers are known to be stooges to anyone, nor is anyone at Masjid Ahlul Hadith, or the contributors to Salafy Ink. On the contrary this is an accusation that has been hurled at Anwar and his cohorts for years. As some honestly wonder if he were to disagree with Abu Khadeejah on a matter, what would his status in the crew be? This is pure sensationalism and nothing more, it’s a repulsive slander expected from a lowlife degenerate, not from a Islamic University graduate. Now that’s truly amazing.  

3. Anwar’s double standards

A double standard is the application of different principles for the exact same circumstance or in laymens’ terms having a different rule for the same thing or circumstance. It’s two identical things and or circumstances being measured with different standards or rules. Thus it is, in reality, a bias or prejudice for something (i.e. a person, group, organization, etc) that leads to unfair conduct in judgement. Thus whoever there is a bias held for, an excuse is always made and judgement concerning him/her is favorable. However he who is not looked at with that same sentiment, conduct and judgement of him is always negative.  Allah says:

يأيّها الذين آمنوا كونوا قوّامين لله شهداء بالقسط ولا يجرمنكم شنئان قوم على ألا تعدلوا اعدلوا هو أقرب للتقوى

“O you who believe! Stand firm for Allah as just witnesses, and do not let enmity and hatred ofa people prevent you from justice. Be just as that is nearer to piety…” [Al-Ma’idah: 8] 

Unfortunately Anwar and his cohorts are drowning in double standards and have been accused of such for years. Within his brief statement above is yet another example of such. Anwar said: “Add to that no refutation from their زعيم who claims to ‘know Tahir better and longer than everyone else.’ “ In this statement he mentions Tahir Wyatt and the absence of a refutation against him. Tahir is accused of speaking against salafis yet keeping quiet against the people of innovation. As a result Anwar and his cohorts have criticized, warned against, and ostracized him from their communities yet this same exact characteristic that Tahir is described with, fits Abu Muhammad Al Maghribi to the letter. Al Maghribi is not known to have -in the past- warned against or refuted any person from the people of innovation, on the contrary the only known warning he has ever made against anyone is Abu Abdis Salaam Al Juyaanee, a well known salafi caller. 

So why question your imaginary best friend O Anwar whom you referred to as a ringleader about a refutation against Tahir yet you don’t ask Al Maghribi that? Where is his refutation against the people of innovation in his locality or in any locality of which he has been a resident? Why, while Maghribi was in Newark, was his dawah referred to, by some salafis, as the love boat dawah? Anyone who is able to answer these questions truthfully will see that there’s a clear double standard. Once again he prefers that someone he does not think of favorably refute Tahir while he who he does think of favorably doesn’t refute anybody whatsoever except salafis, which is the very claim levied against Tahir that justifies refutations against him. Now that’s the real joke Anwar. 

In conclusion, when looking at the previously highlighted points we see the childish nature of Anwar and the reality of his elementary scribbling found in the pitiful tweet. As Anwar has done nothing more than expose the fact that he holds animosity for salafis over non issues and encourages others with the same by utilization of deception. The remainder of his tweet will face the same scrutiny to illustrate the reality of this individual and his lowly conduct by Allah’s permission, and with Him is success.

Written by Najeeb Al Anjelesi 

7/28/2018

 

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Allah says:

ولا تقف ما ليس لك به علمٌ إن السمع والبصر والفؤاد كل أولئك كان عنه مسئولاً 

“And do not pursue that which therein you have no knowledge. Undoubtedly the hearing, the sight, and the heart, he (the possessor of these things) concerning all of those, will be questioned.” [Al-Israa: 36]

Ibn Kathir said -in explanation to this verse-: Ali ibn Abi Talha said, narrating from Ibn Abbas, “Do not say.” Al Awfi said -interpreting the statement of Allah as- “Do not accuse anyone with that which therein you have no knowledge.” Muhammad ibn Al Hanafiyyah said, “It -the verse- means false testimony.” Qataadah said, “Do not say ‘I saw’ yet you did not see, or ‘I heard’ yet you did not hear, or ‘I know’ yet you do not know, for indeed Allah will question you about all of that.” The implied meaning of what they have mentioned is that Allah has prohibited speech not aided by knowledge, on the contrary it’s aided by assumption that is -in reality- conjecture and (whimsical) speculation. [تفسير القرآن العظيم]

Sheikh Bin Baaz said: The obligation upon him is to not say “I heard this” unless it is backed by sure knowledge, do not say “I saw this” unless backed by sure knowledge, do not believe a thing by way of the heart unless backed by sure knowledge. This is incumbent as he -will be- questioned. Thus the obligation upon him is that he verify and be heedful, in order that he does not speak except upon knowledge, he does not do (an action) except upon knowledge, and he does not believe except upon knowledge.(1)

Sheikh Saalih Alish-Sheikh said: When tribulations become manifest and the circumstances change, do not pass judgment on anything pertaining to neither the tribulations nor the changed circumstance except after proper (and or accurate) perception as it relates to it, keeping in consideration the principle:

الحكم على الشيء فرعٌ عن تصوره “The Ruling On A Thing Emanates From Its Perception (i.e. how it is understood).” 

All of the intellectuals, before and after Islam, took heed of this principle. Its evidence is in the book of Allah, as He says:

“So do not pursue that which therein you have no knowledge.”

Meaning; the affair in which you have no knowledge thereof, you do not accurately perceive it, nor are you upon clarity with regards to it, then beware of speaking about it…[الضوابط الشرعية لموقف المسلم من الفتن]

Recently our brother Abu Iyaad wrote a 28 page article entitled, “A Refutation Of The Doubts And Diversions Of The Musa’fiqah In Denying The Role Of Wisdom, Justice, And Foresight In Criticism And Refutation” in which therein he highlighted some of the principles pertaining to criticism and praise found within the methodology of the salaf, likewise he reminded the reader of the fraudulent actions of innovators that led to there current and lowly ranking with Ahlus Sunnah today. However also contained therein was speech that illustrates Abu Iyaad’s inaccurate and false perception of the stance of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Haadi, Dr. Abdur Rahman Omaysan, and Salafy Ink. As Abu Iyaad constantly regurgitated the incorrect notion and false allegation that sheikh Muhammad made unwarranted tabdi, and that everyone on his position likewise is making unwarranted tabdi of a number of individuals. Abu Iyaad said:

• Recently Shaykh Rabi bin Hadi made open his rejection of the harm caused by premature tabdi (declaring someone an innovator)…
• This is the affect of premature tabdi and tadlil, before its proper time and without sufficient evidence…
• They have made taqlid in the tabdi of others and do not have a shred of evidence to justify it.
• So the point here is the Musa’fiqah have zero evidence for the tabdi…
• The aim of this doubt is to divert away from the factual realities on the ground which are: Transgressions in judgments of tabdi and tadlil upon salafi students and shaykhs…

   The conclusion drawn from Abu Iyaad’s own statements is; certain salafi students and mashaayikh fell into some mistakes, as a result Sheikh Muhammad bin Haadi made a premature tabdi of them, and this premature tabdi was blindfollowed by whomsoever supports the Sheikh in this affair. But there’s a problem, with the exception of Haani Burayk, Sheikh Muhammad DID NOT make tabdi of anyone, nor is it understood that he did by anyone at Salafy Ink. Those whom the Sheikh labeled as Sa’aafiqah (i.e. Arafaat Al Muhammadi, Abdullah Ath-Thufayri, Abbas Al Jawnah, Nizaar Haashim, Abdul Wahid Al Madkhali, and others) are not considered to be, with the Sheikh or anyone else, innovators. On the contrary, the Sheikh highlighted the fact that some are liars, mischief makers, sowers of dissension between some of the scholars and students, and people that have caused splits throughout the ranks of Ahlus Sunnah. These are the matters that drove Sheikh Muhammad to warn against them. But there must be an emphasis on the fact that a warning does not necessitate tabdi, as is well known to Abu Iyaad.

The words of Sheikh Muhammad are sufficient in disproving Abu Iyaad’s flawed understanding, the sheikh said: “There is another category who are close/akin to the people of desire (in the sense of being similar to but not the same, like pink and red are similar but are not the same color) even though they portray the sunnah in this time, in this time of ours, in these days of ours, and they are the Sa’aafiqah. They are made subsequent to the people of desire.” (2)(3)

The previously mentioned statement makes clear the intent of the Sheikh, when looking at it in totality and not by cutting and pasting that consequently obfuscates the intent. As Abu Iyaad quoted the last portion of the above statement (leaving it in Arabic) but excluded what came before it, thus rendering it to being understood multiple ways, due to the word the Sheikh used having multiple meanings. Thus we remind Abu Iyaad of the principle:

 لا عبرة بالدلالة في مقابلة التصريح “There is no consideration to the inferred -if/when- in contrast to the clear/indisputable (expression).”

In light of the Sheikh’s speech we see he is talking about a different category of people and not the people of desires. Had Sheikh Muhammad actually did what Abu Iyaad inaccurately perceived, I -myself personally- would agree with him, however this is not the case and so the foundation of his argument becomes totally irrelevant causing the salafi whom Allah has blessed with sincerity of heart and soundness of intellect to place it where it belongs, that being the trash bin.

Furthermore, Sheikh Muhammad’s warning and criticism of these individuals is very similar to Abu Iyaad’s public criticism of those brothers at Salafi Events -May Allah guide them. Although these brothers are salafi, nonetheless he publicly criticized them for attempting to sow dissension between  SPUBS and Sheikh Rabee. Abu Iyaad said, “Do not use the name of Maktabah Salafiyyah for self-marketing purposes and for deceptively facilitating your evil activities of splintering and weakening salafi communities.” This is very similar to those whom Sheikh Muhammad has criticized, however what Sheikh Muhammad is dealing with is on a global level (affecting salafis in varying countries) while his was a problem specific to his locality.

Mulitudes of salafi scholars and callers have been criticized and warned against without a detailed criticism or without reasons behind a criticism being hurl against some who are not known to be what they are alleged of. From them:

• Sheikh Ahmad Bazmool
• Sheikh Usamah Al Utaybi
• Sheikh Adil Mansur
• Sheikh Muhammad Al Anjari
• Sheikh Ahmad As Subayee
• Sheikh Khalid ibn Abdur Rahman, and others. 

All of the aforementioned were at one time highly recommended and from them benefit was sought, now -as a result of the actions of the Sa’aafiqah- they are shunned, spoken ill about, and accused without proof. This is the circumstance -that took place for years- which caused Sheikh Muhammad to finally refrain from being silent. This is what caused the Sheikh to criticize them with that which Abu Iyaad has inaccurately understood to be tabdi.  

This incorrect perception of the affair, by Abu Iyaad, caused him to hurl despicable accusations against his brothers upon al minhaj as salafi. He said:

• This dampened the commotion and harm caused by the people of trials and tribulations…
• The people of personal interests and those with scores to settle…
• This proves their ignorance and their lack of nurturing upon Salafiyyah.
• They are not people of evidence, but people of taqlid.
• …as implied by Abd al-Rahman al-Umaysan who is one of the main leaders of this fitnah in the West.   

These false allegations were built upon a false perception of the affair, thus I remind Abu Iyaad firstly to fear Allah, and to not speak about a matter until you first comprehend the matter accurately, as silence would have been better than to launch this attack based on a flimsy, distorted, and poorly analyzed perception of the reality. I remind you of the statement of our Lord:

وإن عليكم لحافظين * كراماً كاتبين * يعلمون ما تفعلون

“Indeed appointed over you are guardians. Honorable recorders. They know whatsoever you do.” [Al-Infitar: 10-12]
Imam Ibn Jarir At-Tabari said: “These guardians know whatsoever you do from good and evil, they record that on account of you.”
[جامع البيان في تفسير القرآن]

So be mindful of this Yaa Abaa Iyaad! There will be a day one’s actions -recorded in a scribe- will be laid in front of him, even the intent behind those actions. So be mindful, and be truthful with Allah in whatever you do, as being truthful with Allah will cause an individual to be focused on being in good standing with Him -by saying and doing only that which is pleasing to Him, despite the opinions of a man or group of men- on the day he stands before Him. Allah says:

و أما من خاف مقام ربه و نهى النفس عن الهوى (40) فإنّ الجنة هي المأوى

“And as for he who fears the standing with his Lord and prohibits the nafs from desires (40) Then undoubtedly his abode is paradise (41).”[An-Naaziat: 40-41]

I ask Allah to unite the hearts of Ahlus Sunnah here in the states and throughout the world, and to bless us to be firm upon the truth regardless of who it displeases from His creation. May Allah pardon Abu Iyaad for the horrendous and utterly false accusations hurled at his brothers that are only known to traverse upon al-minhaj as-salafi. And may Allah preserve Sheikh Muhammad ibn Haadi and grant him victory over those who are truly sowing dissension among us, and with Allah is success.

Written by Najeeb ibn Yusuf Al Anjelesi.
3/25/18 

 

---

1. Source: https://www.binbaz.org.sa/noor/251
2. Only two possible meanings are understood, none of which constitute tabdi. The first; following in succession after -similar to a line one after another in alignment- but not apart or among. The second; that they are aligned with the people of desires concerning interaction or treatment of them. None of these two possibilities suggest tabdi.
3. Source: http://www.alsideeq.org/the-narration-of-the-imam-mufadhal-ibn-muhalhal-regarding-the-clarification-of-the-ways-of-the-people-of-innovation-by-al-sheikh-dr-muhammad-ibn-hadi-al-madkhali-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B9%D9%84/

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
In a recent speech, wherein Sheikh Muhammad ibn Haadi addressed some of the antics of the Sa’aafiqah, -and criticized some in detail- he also addressed the recent retraction of Sheikh Ubayd concerning his warnings against Haani ibn Burayk (the khaariji). This is the correction of a scholar to another so that the people understand clearly the position in accordance with the prophetic methodology.

Sheikh Muhammad said: “As for the retraction of Sheikh Ubayd (concerning his speech against the innovator Haani ibn Burayk) we say; all praise is for Allah, the Islamic legislative sciences are preserved, recorded, and present (til this very day). The foundations of Salafiyyah are preserved -and to Allah belongs all praise- and are recorded. Whoever is mistaken his mistake is manifest (not something obscure when weighed against the principles). The speech of Sheikh Ubayd i.e. his retraction is a mistake. The correct (stance/position) is his first speech (clear warnings against Haani the Khaariji).

As for his second speech (recanting from his warnings against Haani the innovator) it is false, and it opposes the consensus of Ahlus Sunnah and their foundations. Indeed the brother i.e. the questioner, I don’t know him however he read to the sheikh and it was as if he tried to find an exit for him (from the mistake he heard from the sheikh’s speech), yet the sheikh this was his speech. At any rate we say concerning the sheikh that his speech is false, and the truth within our hearts is greater (that Haani clearly opposed a foundation of Ahlus Sunnah and Salafiyyah).”

Thus it becomes incumbent upon the Salafi to apply the principles in this regard and not be deceived by the status of an individual, especially the status of one such as Sheikh Ubayd. Although the sheikh is a senior scholar, a defender of the sunnah, and beloved to all those who traverse upon the Salafi Methodology, the sheikh in this issue is clearly mistaken, as is stated by another scholar of lofty standing Sheikh Muhammad ibn Haadi and firmly supported by the principles of the religion. I ask Allah to bless us with firmness during these times of trials, and I ask Allah to bless the people of Yemen by ridding them of trouble makers and kharijites like Haani Burayk.

Translated by Najeeb ibn Yusuf Al Anjelesi.

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Al-Bukhari and Muslim collected a narration upon the authority of Abdullah ibn Amr wherein the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- said, “The Muslim is he who the Muslims are safe (from the harm) of his tongue and hand.”

Imam An-Nawawi said, “Its meaning is whoever does not harm the Muslim with speech nor action.” [شرح صحيح مسلم]
Ibn Rajab said, “So whoever the Muslims are safe from the harms of his tongue and hand his Islam is better than the Islam of another who is not like that due to both sharing in enactment of Allah’s rights as it pertains to Islam from the two testimonies, performance of the prayers, paying zakat, etc. In addition one of them distinguishes himself (from comparison to the other) by establishing the rights of the Muslims, hence this one’s Islam is better than the others.” [شرح صحيح البخاري]

Recently, statements of our brother Abbas Abu Yahya -May Allah pardon him- were circulated on Facebook in a page titled “Da’waatus Salafiyyah Brisbane” on October 26 of this year (2017), therein we find that Salafy Ink and its contributors have been harmed by the statements of Abbas which unfortunately include a lie, academic fraudulence, and double standards that is not expected from one who attributes himself to Al-Minhaj As-Salafi, let alone someone who is busied with clarifying it to others. The following are his statements found on that page:

Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu
Dear brothers, from my own dealings with these brothers, I advise you not to involve yourselves with them.
Firstly, stick to those who our scholars give tazkeeyah to.
Secondly, these brothers have not -as far as I am aware- study correctly or have studied only for a short period and put themselves forward.
Thirdly, I have found that they lack in manners and wisdom.
So stick to the brothers at Spubs UK and those affiliated with them.
May Allah guide those brothers.
And Allah knows best.

Before continuing it is important to make mention of who exactly is Salafy Ink and associates. Salafy Ink is under the direct supervision of our brother Abu Abdis Salaam Siddeeq Al-Juyaanee, it consist of several platforms on social media (website, sound cloud page, twitter account etc) and has several students of knowledge -all based in the US- assisting and supporting the effort in spreading As-Salafiyyah whether it be from translations, articles, classes, seminars, etc, their approach in this regard is multifaceted. Those that currently contribute to this effort are as follows:

• Abu Yusuf Khaleefah (Imam of Masjid Nurullah NY)
• Abu Muhammad Al-Jamaiki (imam of Masjid Ahlil Hadith in Philly PA)
• Amin Manning (Teacher at Masjid Ahlil Hadith in Philly PA)
• Abu Zaynab Tawfeeq Hosley (teacher at Masjid Ahlil Hadith and former imam of Masjid Bin Baz)
• Mujahid Al-Jamaiki (teacher at Masjid Ahlil Hadith)
• Khalil Davis (former imam of Masjid Ahlil Quran Wal Hadith from 2003 to 2009 in DC)
• Hisham Abouzaid (Ulama Audio)
• Naasir Al-Hanbali
• And myself -Najeeb ibn Yusuf Al-Anjelesi

There are also former contributors like Dawud Adib and Muslim Abu Yasmean whose works are also present.

The reason for clarifying this is because of Abbas Abu Yahya’s statement, “Dear brothers, from my own dealings with these brothers” which did lead readers to believe that Abbas has or has had a relationship with the aforementioned that has caused him to have multiple dealings with them. Unfortunately this is a lie. He has had no dealings with anyone from Salafy Ink. The brothers mentioned don’t know him. Siddeeq mentioned to me that he met him one time in a meeting while in Saudi, however his exchange with him was brief. Abu Yusuf mentioned that he corresponded with him once when he made an erroneous statement about another salafi organization to which he was left silenced and unable to answer Abu Yusuf’s questions. The remainder of the aforementioned don’t know him. So how is it that Abbas Abu Yahya would consider two separate encounters as “my own dealings” a phrase that was perceived by most to be multiple interactions with the aforementioned.  

This blatant and apparent exaggeration gave readers the impression that Abbas -may Allah bless him to be more accurate in speech- is qualified to speak about the character of those affiliated with Salafy Ink after all he had dealings with them, thus he knows first hand about their character, their strengths and weaknesses in knowledge, etc. However this is a lie.

The Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- said, “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day let him speak good or keep quiet.” Collected by Al-Bukhari and Muslim.

Al-Haafidh ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaani said, “This is from speech that is small in wording yet extensive in meaning due to all speech consisting of either good or bad, or leading to one of the two. Thus what enters into good is everything demanded from statements that are obligatory and recommended and it is permissible (to utter) with regards to its various types. Likewise what enters into it is whatever leads to it. Whatever is contrary to that from what is bad (speech) or what results in that, the command when desiring the indulging in such is to be quiet.” [فتح الباري]

Imam An-Nawawi said, “As for his -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- statement ‘speak good or keep quiet’ it’s meaning is that whenever one wants to speak, if whatever he says is actual good that is rewarded, whether it be obligatory or recommended (speech) then say it. However if it is not clear to him that it is the good that is rewarded, then refrain from speaking.” [شرح صحيح مسلم]

This lie is utilized in order to legitimize fraudulent criticism against Salafy Ink and even has therein a blatant slander. Abbas -may Allah bless him with success in repenting- said, “I have found that they lack in manners and wisdom.” How could he have ascertained that when he has no relationship with any of us, he does not know one of us neither intimately nor casually. Had he said that it was reported to him such and such, then that would be a different scenario, however he said, “I have found…” Thus any salafi striving to be upon this dawah based on proofs and principles, and judging affairs with fairness and balance will immediately reject this fraudulent claim and outright slander of their brothers upon Al-Minhaj As-Salafi. Allah says:

ولا تقف ما ليس لك به علمٌ إنّ السمع و البصر والفؤاد كل أُولئك كان عنه مسئولاً 

And do not pursue that which you have no knowledge therein. Indeed the hearing, sight, and heart of each of them will be questioned. [Al-Israa: 36]

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Saalih Al-Uthaymin said, -do not pursue- “Do not follow that which you have no knowledge about, and this prohibition encompasses everything. Everything that you have no knowledge of do not follow, rather avoid it and do not speak concerning it because you are mistaken. If it is with regards to what is attributed to Allah and His Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- the prohibition is from the most severe of sins.” After detailing the issue of falsely attributing lies to Allah and the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- Sheikh Al-Uthaymin said, “Likewise if you follow that which you have no knowledge with regards to a human being in that you quote a person as saying such and such yet he did not say it, or even if it is said to you -so and so said such and such-, do not rely on this until you know for certain.” [شرح رياض الصالحين]

Thus my advise to Abbas Abu Yahya in this regard is to produce your proof in detail substantiating the claim of lack of manners and wisdom if indeed you are truthful. If you cannot do so, and we know you can’t, then know that you are the one more deserving of this attribute than anyone you have accused. As wisdom is to put things in their proper place, so how have you been wise as it relates to the honor of your brothers upon Al-Minahj As-Salafi by way of lying and slandering them? How have you displayed good manners in this regard? 

Abbas said, “Secondly, these brothers have not -as far as I am aware- study correctly or have studied only for a short period and put themselves forward.” 

First, the recorded lectures and classes of the aforementioned brothers are widely circulated as is their translations and articles, so if Abbas is truthful in his claim of not studying correctly, then the mistakes of our brothers would be easily noticed and readily available in order for him to substantiate this claim. Therefore we ask Abbas once again to produce proof for what we deem as a baseless accusation. 

The Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- said, “Indeed Allah is pleased with 3 things and He hates for you all 3 things” til he said, “He hates for you all it is said and he said (commonly expressed in English as he said she said)…”  Imam An-Nawawi, in his explanation to Sahih Muslim where this narration is found, he said, “It is speaking falsely and giving accounts as it pertains to the affairs of the people, and their condition and conduct of that which is of no concern.”

Sheikh Rabee said, “The prohibition on it is said and he said (he said she said) and it is the engaging (by way of discourse) in falsehood, publicizing immorality, spreading rumors and lies, as it is sufficient for a man to be a liar who narrates everything he hears.” [مذكرة الحديث النبوي] 

Abbas Abu Yahya’s statement is just that he said she said and nothing more.

Second, he also said, “Or have studied only for a short period and put themselves forward.” It would be of benefit to understand what Abbas considers to be a short period, due to his advice at the end “So stick to the brothers at Spubs UK and those affiliated with them.” As some of our brothers at Spubs UK and those directed affiliated with them from our brothers here in the states have studied for a short period of time, and in some cases have never sat with the scholars. For instance Kashiff Khan, who has lectured at Masjid As Salafi in Birmingham, did not complete the language program -which is a 2 year program- at the Islamic University in Medinah. Umar Quinn, who participated in the 2016 Medinah conference of Spubs, is not known to have actually studied directly with the scholars. And there are many more examples.

The mentioning of this is not in order to belittle, defame, disrespect, or discourage from benefiting from them, on the contrary this is me only stating a matter of fact. These brothers have praiseworthy efforts in dawah that no one can deny, and when they open their mouths they prove that they are capable of speaking about the issues in which they address. Hence the mentioning of this is to disprove Abbas Abu Yahya’s clear and apparent double standard. If this is actually a point of concern for him as it relates to who one should benefit from, then it would be applicable to all including Spubs UK and those directly affiliated with them. However this is not the case, and we don’t know what actual personal grievance Abbas has with Salafy Ink, but whatever it is it has caused him to forego justice and fairness as it relates to his brothers upon Al-Minhaj As-Salafi. Allah says:

يأيها الذين ءامنوا كونوا قوامين لله شهداء بالقسط و لا يجرمنكم شنئان قومٍ على ألاَّ تعدلوا اعْدِلوا هو أقربوا للتقوى

O you who believe! Stand firm for Allah as just witnesses, and do not let your hatred of a people cause you to avoid justice. Be just that is nearer to taqwa.. [Al-Maa’idah: 8]

Abbas said, “Stick to those who our scholars give tazkeeyah to.” This statement limits the spread of the Sunnah and Islam, likewise it indicates a lack of understanding on Abu Yahya’s part as it relates to who it is that should teach. Compare his speech with that of Sheikh Sulayman Ar-Ruhayli to fully understand the academic fraudulence of his statement. 

Q: Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatahu, O our Shaikh may Allah reward you and benefit (you and others) with your knowledge. We have with us (in our lands) students of knowledge whom we only know good about them–may Allah benefit (others) by way of them. They teach us the books of ‘Itiqaad (‘Aqeedah) and Sunnah. Some brothers have come to us and have spread (the following) concerning the students: Firstly, knowledge is only to be taken from the Akaabir.
Secondly, It’s a must that there be a Tazkiyyah from the ‘Ulama for the one who is establishing (the likes of) these classes.So this has led to the abandonment of some of the classes of which there is not present (or available) other (classes) in our area/province. So what should be our stance in this regard? (We hope) you give us direction (in this affair) may Allah bless you.

Sheikh Sulayman Ar-Ruhayli: There’s no doubt, that knowledge indeed should be taken from the Akaabir and a person must have a Tazkiyyah. However, who are the Akaabir? The Akaabir are those whom their knowledge has magnified (their status) and they are known for knowledge, even if they are young in age, even if they are youth.There were Akaabir from the Sahaabah who were young in age; knowledge was taken from them and their knowledge illuminated the world. This affair is from the important affairs in this issue, and it is, that the one who is young could be magnified (in status) by his knowledge; such that he is known by his profound beneficial knowledge. This(scenario) took place in abundance amongst the Salaf, starting with the Sahaabah may Allah be pleased with them (and it took place) after the Imaams. A Tazkiyyah (is also) a must; for verily, this knowledge is Deen. So it is a must that we carefully look at the one we take our Deen from. However, what is a Tazkiyyah (and how is it attained)? A Tazkiyyah is achieved by way of three affairs:

The First Affair: A textual (i.e. written and/or verbal) Tazkiyyah from the reputable ‘Ulama, giving him Tazkiyyah. The ‘Ulama or some of them have given him a textual Tazkiyyah; a Tazkiyyah is not confined to one, two or three scholars. Rather (it would constitute a Tazkiyyah), if a (single) scholar from the reputable scholars (give him a Tazkiyyah) or a group of them (stating) that so and so has Tazkiyyah and he is suitable that knowledge be taken from him.

The Second Affair: It is well-known (by the ‘Ulama) that this student gives classes and no one from the people of knowledge has disapproved (of him doing so). It is well-known that he teaches and none of the reputable people of knowledge have disapproved of his classes. This is a Silent Tazkiyyah. This (is a Tazkiyyah) because it is not suitable that the ‘Ulama with their (lofty) status that they (know) that this person is from those who should be prevented from being studied with and yet they don’t say anything to prevent him.

The Third Affair: And this is the most important affair in this issue and that is, that his knowledge gives him Tazkiyyah. So he doesn’t teach anything except the Sunnah. What I mean by this, is that he only speaks the truth and that he only takes from the ‘Ulama of the Sunnah and that he agrees with the books of the ‘Ulama of the Sunnah. (In addition to this) he does not refute any of the speech of reputable ‘Ulama nor does he contradict the Sunnah, this one, his knowledge gives him Tazkiyyah. The ‘Ulama don’t personally know every student of beneficial knowledge. However,they would look into the knowledge he presents. Does he teach the Sunnah? Does he respect the views of the ‘Ulama of the Sunnah? Does he convey the speech of the ‘Ulama of the Sunnah? If this is the case, his knowledge gives him Tazkiyyah and knowledge is taken from him.

The statement that, “Verily knowledge is not taken except from the one who the ‘Ulama have given a written/verbal Tazkiyyah to;”(verily) this (statement) closes the door on much good. Many places have students of knowledge therein who teach the Sunnah and the explanations of the people of the Sunnah and they teach in accordance to that which they have learned. However, they do not hold a (textual) Tazkiyyah from a specific scholar. However, it is not known about him that which disparages him as relates to his knowledge; so if we say, “Don’t take knowledge from him,” knowledge would not remain in many places, the door of good would be closed, the people of innovation (would take his place) in teaching and the people of the Sunnah would be stopped and halted. The people of the Sunnah would then (have no alternative) except to take knowledge from the people of innovation or take knowledge from the internet or other than it. This is not correct and this does not benefit. [http://www.salafyink.com/tazkiyyahconditionknowledge]

So reflect O salafi to the words of Sheikh Sulayman Ar-Ruhayli and compare them to the statement of Abbas Abu Yahya. The honest seeker of truth would have to acknowledge that Abu Yahya’s speech is limited in terms of what the sheikh presented about a tazkiyah, thus making it clear that his speech has no place except and or restricted to the garbage. If only Abu Yahya had taken the time to refer this matter to a scholar, his speech would been more accurate and in accordance to the truth, and Allah knows best. There are other issues that could have been addressed, but this is sufficient in illustrating the fact that his speech should be rejected.

Written by Najeeb ibn Yusuf Al Anjelesi
Nov 5, 2017   

 

 

 

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Q: We want an adequate and decisive answer from you with regards to the 2nd generation Islamic specialist Muhammad ibn Seereen’s statement, “Indeed this knowledge is religion, so look carefully at those from which you take your religion.” Also do we seek knowledge from proficient students of knowledge in creed and methodology, whilst knowing that they (only) speak in accordance with the understanding of the salaf?

Sheikh Ubayd: Muhammad ibn Seereen was among those who were educated by the companions of Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam. He learned religion, Quran, Sunnah,  and the sound exemplary path of inviting to Allah from them. So if he made such a statement or similar to it, he said it based on awareness, comprehension, understanding, and experience. Conveyed from him are two matters.

The first; warning against the people of desire.

The second; advice to the (Islamic) nation, and calling them to stick to the people of knowledge, those whose firmness in knowledge, correctness of creed, and soundness of methodology are attested i.e., whoever virtue, and good education and nurturing have been exhibited.

Along with that you are aware that what he intended was knowledge i.e., Islamic legislative knowledge, as it is comprehension of Allah’s religion in which the book and sunnah came with. The pious predecessors traversed upon this. Thus their way of life was to physically enact the text i.e., the text of the book and sunnah. So knowledge it is obligatory that it not be taken except from he who is credible in creed and methodology, and the people of desires are not resorted towards. Knowledge is not taken from them except out of necessity. For example, if the people of a region are in need of a teacher of Arabic grammar, and there is no one among Ahlis Sunnah, there is no one except an innovator, in this case they learn from him along with caution from his schemes while teaching.

Translated by Najeeb Al Anjelesi

Source: مجموعة الرسائل الجابرية في مسائل علمية وفق الكتاب و السنة النبوية م#2

   

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Q: Some have determined that it is not befitting to warn the common folk from specific innovators (by name), because they will not accept the criticism of them. They say that we should progress gradually with them as it relates to teaching the Sunnah and innovation, and when they understand, then we mention their (the innovators) names. Is this correct?

A: Yes, this is correct and we are upon this, if Allah wills. This is because our call, the call of Ahlus Sunnah and the Jamaa’ah is wisdom. Like Allah said to His Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam-, and the speech is general encompassing him and every caller to Allah upon wisdom.

ادْعُ إلى سبيل ربك بالحكمة و الموعظةِ الحسنةِ و جادِلْهم بالتي هي أَحْسن

“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom, good admonishment, and argue with them in a better way.” [An-Nahl: 125]

Ali -radi Allahu anhu- said: “Call the people to that with which they are familiar.” Thus it is incumbent that the insightful caller looks at the benefits and harms. So if the people of a country’s love for a man becomes strong and deep rooted, due to him being their imam, and them not knowing religiousness except from him, yet the caller deems him to be an astray innovator, then he should not say a thing against him (the innovator). Instill in them a love for the Sunnah and its people and warn from innovation in a general sense. (Say) this is innovation, that is innovation, like this, until it enters their souls and their hearts are at ease concerning it. ِAs for starting with it, this is wrong.

Furthermore, from the heads of innovation are men who are quite often in positions of authority within the country. For example, the minister of Islamic affairs, or the head of the judiciary, or the head judge of the country etc. This (type of individual) it would not be right to warn against him, due to it harming our call and not benefiting it. In Al Bukhari’s authentic collection, upon the authority Ayesha she said:

“Indeed a man sought permission to enter upon Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam-, so he said, “Grant him permission. O what an evil brother of his tribe.” When he entered, he -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- was friendly and cheerful, and spoke softly to him. Thus when the man exited, it was said to him, “O Messenger of Allah, you said what you said yet we noticed you were soft spoken in speech, friendly and cheerful towards him.” He said, “Indeed the most evil of people on the Day of Resurrection are those whom the people abandon being cautioned from his evil.”(1)

Therefore some people are neither boycotted nor warned against, because its evil will harm the people of Islam. As for the mistaken one, that which is within himself, it is not correct, yet he is not boycotted, nor is he held in high esteem.

Translated by Najeeb Al Anjelesi

Source: مجموعة الرسائل الجابرية في مسائل علمية وفق الكتاب و السنة النبوية: المجموعة الثانية

 

---

1: The hadith is translated in the manner in which Sheikh Ubayd mentioned it, however I’m not familiar with the wording the Sheikh quoted.