| yusuf.adam | -- 30-09-2002 @ 12:00 AM |
|
deleted This message was edited by yusuf.adam on 12-28-02 @ 12:49 AM
|
|
| abumaryam.arcon | -- 02-10-2002 @ 12:00 AM |
|
Al-Hamdulillaah was-Salaatu was-Salaamu ?alaa Rasoolillaah. Amma Ba?ad: This is a follow-up clarification on some issues raised concerning myself and the web site al-manhaj.com: 1. Al-Hamdulillaah, I was pleased to finally be given access to this board, so that I may respond for myself concerning any doubts/accusations. I was also happy to see the Admin delete the final posts of brother Arabani, since they also contained an incorrect relating of events and more blanket accusations. However, I wish to make one point clear ? which is that there is no personal issue between Arabani and myself. I am not known to have any discord with him whether online or off it. But he made some false statements against me, (mis)narrating what occurred privately between us. So it was an obligation to defend myself. I further addressed his character and manners, not to insult but to convey what kind of person he is/was, since the manhaj of an individual is reflected in one?s speech, actions and behavior. So there was no need to state such things as we should ?have it out? elsewhere or that there is a ?personal? dispute between us. This is not the case at all. Perhaps the brother has something personal with me, which I am not aware of, but it is wrong to put us both under this light. 2. As for the other posts raising issues on al-manhaj.com, then in shaa Allaah I will first respond to brother Abdul-Ilah?s remarks. First of all to make matters clear, I did not ?set up? al-manhaj.com, although I was there at its inception, my position was that of a content provider. The site is run by its own webmaster and belongs to ssna, who has the last say on the way things are run. 3. You also mentioned that I posted something about Abul-Hasan Al-Misree on Islam1.net, which ?did not aid the situation.? This is not true. Of the three times I posted there, I never posted anything about him, whether by mentioning his name or defending him. You seem to have uncertainty about whether or not you read that from me, so al-hamdulillaah I do not consider this a lie against me, however it is a shubhah, which I needed to clarify. 4. The brother Abdul-Ilah asked me what my position is concerning Abul-Hasan. I think it is quite clear from what I stated in the other thread what my position is, which is that Abul-Hasan Al-Misree has committed errors and deviated from the Manhaj of the Salaf. The scholars have spoken against him and consequently we should abandon him and avoid propagating him. This is the view I have held for some time now and if I said anything in private in the past, which I cant remember, then I free myself from it and ask Allaah to forgive me for it, but as for public, then I never in no way discussed this issue nor did I let it reflect in my work. 5. Concerning the comments to Shaikh Muhammad Al-Banna?s recording on his meeting with Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, then they were my words. They were on a previous messageboard, which is not on the site now, but it was only one or two sentences and said something like ?Look at the way the Shaikh dealt with Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, even though he is known to be a deviant, yet he was kind and gentle to him. So what about those who are less than him.? [I am paraphrasing from memory and uncertain about the correct wording, however the meaning is correct.] With these words, I was referring to those who are ?less? than Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq meaning who are not even students of knowledge having studied anywhere, yet have errors, I did not mean ?less deviant.? I in no way indicated a negation of shiddah anywhere in my words nor did I imply the wujoob of rifq. But rather, the faa?idah that I drew from the Shaikh?s encounter was that of his adaab and gentle words in calling this deviant back to the haqq. Even though the shiddah s there, I felt it quite redundant to say the Shaikh shows shiddah and refutes Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq when his case is already known and the scholars have already refuted him and been severe with him. So the faa?idah was in the manners displayed by the Shaikh. I felt him calling him ?O my son? and the sort was from rifq and in no way denied shiddah, as that is obviously there. So Allaah knows best how my words were interpreted, but if they were translated to the noble Shaikh properly and without ta?weel, then I hold what the Shaikh says, as he is more knowledgeable about his words than me or anyone else. Still I can?t see how someone could interpret that small comment, which was not a ?summary?, as claimed, to hold such negative connotations, as Shaikh Ibn Baaz (rahimahullaah) said once when his words were misunderstood: ?It is an obligation to take someone's words according to the best manner of understanding.? [?The Scholars Praise for Shaikh Rabee??] Furthermore, how can al-manhaj be held as promoting rifq to the mubtadi?ah bi-dooni shiddah, when there are many articles on al-manhaj which show the manhaj of the Salaf in dealing with the innovators, including an article from Shaikh Abdul-Maalik Ramadaanee on showing Harshness (shiddah). At any rate, if the Shaikh stated what you narrate, then his words are given preference and my words are to be thrown against the wall. 6. This point raises a question on my behalf to you, brother Abdul-Ilah. You mention that ?thereafter? you took these words to Shaikh Al-Bannaa and he said what he said. So I ask you why did you not contact me to correct this error? Had you informed me, you would have found me quick to make the rectification. It is from Sincerity (naseehah) that a Muslim advises his brother wanting him to correct his error, not that he remain silent and collect it to be used at a later time as daleel against him. Rather this is from Condemning (fadeehah), which is not allowed. So I advise you in the future, if you see any error in me or in any brother, you rush to advise, as opposed to keeping it bottled up to be displayed at a later time. [Refer to the book Difference between Advising and Condemning for the proof on the above points] 7. As for removing Abul-Hasan?s name from Shaikh Muhammad Al-Banna?s biography then jazaakAllaah khairan for advising me on this as due to ghaflah, I forgot that it was there. That is one of the last updates I made to the site, before resigning. But I reiterate, had you advised me, I would have done it sooner. Instead you chose to publicize it here, giving the impression that I intentionally chose to leave it. Please do not misunderstand me, I do not hate being corrected if I err knowingly and in public, Allaah has made the ways for communication easy in these days, so we should not refrain from advising/instructing one another. 8. Now turning to brother abu sagheer?s posts: You mention why al-manhaj doesn?t have any of the rudood against abul-hasan al-misree. Firstly, if you had read my previous post carefully, you would have seen that I said my view on the issue was my ?personal? view. And my ?personal views? concerning this issue are not reflected on the site. How can a site that ?belongs? to the shuyookh of Shaam as I was told, hold other than their view on the issue, so I saw it better to avoid posting anything in his regard as opposed to posting their views on the issue. Secondly, for argument?s sake, is not mentioning the rudood on abul-Hasan considered a daleel that al-manhaj supports him or that it is not salafee? As far as I am aware, warning against the innovators and ahlul-ahwaa is fard kifaa?ee and not fard ?ain, such that every single individual/group must rush to make a public statement. And sites like Sahab/SP were already fulfilling this obligation in the (respective) Arabic/English languages. Thirdly, if we take your claim that silence on Abul-Hasan means al-manhaj supports him, then we can also say that al-manhaj is Irhaabee, Takfeeree, Sufi etc. since we do not have any of the ulamaa?s rudood on bin Ladin, Azzam, Al-Kautharee, etc. So is this the way you judge?! ?What is the matter with you, how do you judge?!? [Surah Al-Qalam: 36] Then you go on to use the article from Shaikh Ahmad An-Najmee (hafidhahullaah) as further proof that al-manhaj supports Abul-Hasan. So I say, why do you take one post (not article) on the messageboard and isolate it as a daleel, presenting it as if that ?article? was solely chosen as an attempt to refute and support baatil. Anyone with intellect can go to the board and see that fatwa is one of several fatawa from Shaikh Ahmad an-Najmee from his great book on q and a on manhaj issues. Furthermore, there are several other fataawaa from other similar books on manhaj by Shaikh Saalih Al-Fawzaan and Shaikh Muqbil, rahimahullaah. So why do you just take this one post out of over 30 fatwas and base your ?observation? on that ?!? Allaahul-Musta?aan! ?What is the matter with you, how do you judge?!? [Surah Al-Qalam: 36] And for argument?s sake, lets say this post can be used as daleel to support abul-Hasan, then what do you say regarding these posts: http://www.al-manhaj.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000024.html http://www.al-manhaj.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000023.html which can be used against Abul-Hasan?! These books are from the most severe of books against the innovators, yet now simply because it is on al-manhaj, you claim that one of them is used to defend the innovators?! 9. Lastly on this issue, if you must really know my intent in translating this fatwa, which was chosen at random ? I hope(d) to go through the whole book, but was starting with the shorter fataawaa first ? then it is an issue of the manhaj which needs addressing so that the Salafiyeen around the world do not fall into this ?error? as the Shaikh put it. If you feel that there are no Salafees like this that exist in the world then you must be living in some utopia which I am unaware of. Rather, the Shaikh acknowledges this himself, as he does not oppose the question and answers it. But perhaps you are one of those who fall into this group whom the speech is being directed to, so if so, I counsel you to take hold of the Shaikh?s advice. And I advise you to not be like the Hizbees who when they see a statement of truth opposing what they are upon, they become angry with it. Rather, this fatwa is addressing an issue on the manhaj, just like all the other fataawaa address various issues of the manhaj. 10. This is what I have to say regarding your ?observations?, which you use as daleel to claim that al-manhaj is a ?so-called? salafi web site. SubhanAllaah, you bring the mutashaabihaat and try to derive a muhkim verdict from it. Two things should become clear to everyone regarding your observations: 1. They are based on your ta?weel and tafseer of what is apparent, meaning you have (mis)interpreted them according to your possible already preset notions about me/the site. 2. You understand little about the manners of Istidlaal and Istinbaat, so how can you make judgements when you cannot even establish nor expound on the proof?! As the saying goes: ?Faaqidu shayin Laa Yu?teehee? [One who does not have something cannot give it] 11. So let it be known that the site is free from supporting Abul-Hasan Al-Misree, in light of his errors and deviation, whether directly or indirectly. I made sure of this as the content provider and al-hamdulillaah Allaah blessed me to not post anything in his support, even though I was presented with the option. There was an audio made available on the site in which Shaikh Al-Banna advised regarding the Abul-Hasan issue, but this was in the beginning stages. This audio was removed after a while when the warnings started to increase and spread. Allaah knows best, but I tried my best to provide authentic content and I think it is unjust to say that the site, in and of itself, is not salafee/i.e. hizbee. I feel no emotional attachments to this site, as I left it behind, but I do feel that the work I put in does not deserve to be looked down upon based on ?unclarity? or its affiliations. Regardless, I am finished working there and not responsible for whatever comes out from it in the future. A further point, I grant permission to anyone who wishes, to use any of the articles/books I did for da?wah purposes. 12. Concerning my withdrawal from al-manhaj.com, then it was something I have been contemplating for a while now, but for the sake of maslahah I stayed and tried to make the most of the situation. But now that it is coming to light that brother(s) from ssna are making statements publicly, which are spreading, and which I myself do not hold or say, I saw it best to step down. For I do not wish to be held responsible for the views and statements of someone else, especially when I do not hold those views/statements, simply because I am associated with them. 13. I hope to take this opportunity now to take a long break from the internet/translating arena, so that I may focus on my family, as my children are growing and the responsibilities becoming greater. This means I will no longer post on this board either. My purpose in coming here was only to repel some previous slander (which al-hamdulillaah has been removed now) and clarify some recent shubuhaat. If anyone desires further clarification, I will be more than happy to reply, and if I have made any errors, then with advice you will find me more than happy to accept, by Allaah?s Will. You can find my e-mail address below to contact me, although, I will ?stay off the net?, I will still be checking my e-mails regularly in shaa Allaah. 14. I advise my noble Salafee brothers everywhere to stick to the elder scholars, since they are more knowledgeable, aware and experienced. And even if you do not understand the proofs or do not agree with the stance against Abul-Hasan Al-Misree, we should put our trust in the guidance of the Kibaar, and let this issue go for the sake of the unity of the Salafees and for the sake of the Da?wah. 15. Another point I would like to get across is that I do not wish for people to look at me as being something. I have told brothers time and again, that I am just a worker. I am not known for teaching or giving lectures. Rather I am just an average brother who works full time and tries to raise a family, and with what spare time I have I try to contribute my little knowledge in promoting this blessed da?wah. So I hardly consider myself anyone to refute or be refuted. I ask Allaah to benefit the Muslims with the work and effort I put in and that He perhaps allow me in the future to continue working somewhere/somehow for this da?wah. And I ask Allaah that He forgive me for whatever transgressions/deviations I committed while in the line of work. I also pray that Allaah grants victory to the Salafees and that He enable them to unite upon the Haqq. abu maryam ismaaeel@yahoo.com SubhaanakAllaahumma wa Bi-Hamdika Ash-hadu an Laa Ilaaha Illaa Anta, Astaghfiruka wa Atoobu Ilayk. as-Salaam ?Alaikum wa Rahmatullaahi wa Barakaatuh
|
|
| abdulilah | -- 02-10-2002 @ 12:00 AM |
|
Abu Maryam Isma'eel says: "You also mentioned that I posted something about Abul-Hasan Al-Misree on Islam1.net, which ?did not aid the situation.? This is not true. Of the three times I posted there, I never posted anything about him, whether by mentioning his name or defending him. You seem to have uncertainty about whether or not you read that from me, so al-hamdulillaah I do not consider this a lie against me, however it is a shubhah, which I needed to clarify." I remember seeing your name as one of the posts giving an advice about not to enter the affair of refuting Abul Hasan. I would not accuse you brother just like that. Since now you have said otherwise i will leave this and take it back as al bayinah 'ala muda'ee and the site is down now so i can't paste it. Abu Maryam Isma'eel says: "Concerning the comments to Shaikh Muhammad Al-Banna?s recording on his meeting with Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, then they were my words. They were on a previous messageboard, which is not on the site now, but it was only one or two sentences and said something like ?Look at the way the Shaikh dealt with Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, even though he is known to be a deviant, yet he was kind and gentle to him. So what about those who are less than him.? [I am paraphrasing from memory and uncertain about the correct wording, however the meaning is correct.]" Akhee this statement on its own is baatil. And you are now giving me a long interpretation of it. Is this the mujmal and mufassal? Akhee it is wrong like that full stop without the explanation. The sheikh said so. How can you interpret this like you have. You put this out on the front page and you must say it is wrong brother for there was no interpretation to it when you put it out and it sends the wrong signal. Can't you see what is wrong with ?Look at the way the Shaikh dealt with Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, even though he is known to be a deviant, yet he was kind and gentle to him." And i remember your words to be slightly different, you said look how he dealt with the heads of the innovators so how about other than him!! so you see akhee how this sounds worse even though your remembered phrase is wrong in itself. Akhee this statement is against the manhaj and it is not true. How did you understand this from the sheikh from listening to the Arabic? Looks like you should have translated properly since we heard the sheikhs statement many times on this issue and it was not how you put it. The sheikh said that he will not let him in his house until he repents!! Yes the sheikh was trying to reach out to him but not in the words you used "even though is a deviant." DID THE SHEIKH USE THESE WORDS? NO SO DON"T USE THEM. Akhee i have to disagree with you in this one. You were wrong and the shiekh was told what you said both in Arabic and in English so don't make out that it was incorrectly translated! This is not good brother. Is this how you get out of admitting an open error. Abu Maryam says: "But rather, the faa?idah that I drew from the Shaikh?s encounter was that of his adaab and gentle words in calling this deviant back to the haqq. Even though the shiddah s there," Look akh i am not saying you disagree that shiddah has a place in the deen but your summary/statement of the event was incomplete and incorrect and hence put out the wrong message. A message of Tamayu' and i am not the only one to notice this but others including the shiekh both in Arabic and English. Alhamdolillaah the sheikh speaks English too so he can't be accused of not understanding it. Abu Maryam says: "So Allaah knows best how my words were interpreted, but if they were translated to the noble Shaikh properly and without ta?weel," This is not good!! you see how your defence now becomes an attack!!! Akhee i told you the sheikh was told in Arabic and English. And you were not even there for you to imply that it wasn't translated properly so why the accusation? Akhee this is not good from you. "then I hold what the Shaikh says, as he is more knowledgeable about his words than me or anyone else. Still I can?t see how someone could interpret that small comment, which was not a ?summary?, as claimed, to hold such negative connotations," First you say you hold what the sheikh says then you go back on it. And the comment was not small enough for the sheikh to say it was wrong. Akhee i was not the only one to spot this mistake and the sheikh was not happy. You can tell me you didn't mean this or that but how many people intend good but don't reach it. Then you go back again: "At any rate, if the Shaikh stated what you narrate, then his words are given preference and my words are to be thrown against the wall." This is all you had to say from the beginning. Abu Maryam says: "This point raises a question on my behalf to you, brother Abdul-Ilah. You mention that ?thereafter? you took these words to Shaikh Al-Bannaa and he said what he said. So I ask you why did you not contact me to correct this error?" Firstly if you remember i said IF YOU WROTE IT. I made that clear. I never implied you wrote it until you admitted it. Secondly, Akhee you put what was in your aql on the plate for all to see (as the Arabs say) and you should know from the manhaj if you put something out openly then from the NASEEHAH is to refute it openly. Refer to the book by sheikh al ALBAANI rahimahullaah when he refuted AbdulMannan and he called his book NASEEHAH even though it was a refutation. So this is a naseehah to you refuting what you implied OPENLY said about Sheikh Muhammad Abdulwahhab al Banna which in the end you yourself say. "At any rate, if the Shaikh stated what you narrate, then his words are given preference and my words are to be thrown against the wall." If you had a personal mistake/error then i would have taken you to the side. But i didn't even know it was you!! I addressed someone at alManhaj.com and alhamdolillaah you admitted it but don't defend it and give it an interpretation which wasn't given on that statement. You should say it was wrong i should have said this and that. That is more sincere to Allaah. Abu Maryam says: "It is from Sincerity (naseehah) that a Muslim advises his brother wanting him to correct his error," This is indeed out of context. Tell that to the refutation of the ulamaa to those open errors of whoever it maybe. An open error is not a personal one. Refer the the 6 exception of backbiting by Imam Nawawee which you yourself translated! I am surprised you translated what you don't hold. This is wrong manhaj akhee. Abu Maryam says, "not that he remain silent and collect it to be used at a later time as daleel against him. Rather this is from Condemning (fadeehah), which is not allowed." You now accusing me of remaining silent when i wrote IF IT WAS YOU WHO SAID, i did know you said it but now i know and refute what you said OPENLY since it is an open error which many people saw on that website. Remember "al Qadhu laysa bigheebatin fi sitatin" and from it is to make open inkaar of munkaar and errors. You translated this brother in Nawawees exception to backbiting. This is not fadeeha This IS Naseehah and from the Deen. Abu Maryam says: "So I advise you in the future, if you see any error in me or in any brother, you rush to advise, as opposed to keeping it bottled up to be displayed at a later time." Again this is wrong manhaj. If the error is open and affects other Muslims like yours did which was not even true. Then your statement is refuted openly. Abu Maryam: "[Refer to the book Difference between Advising and Condemning for the proof on the above points]" Akhee you should refer to Sheikh Rabee's explanation of this book (2 tapes)for the incorrect manhaj position you have showed in your post. Since it seems you have not understood this book which you don;t hold yourself. And that book clearly shows the way of the Ulamaa is that they refute open errors so the book is a rad on you. I am amazed when i often see the hizbees use this to hide their open faults. They come out with this book when in fact it is a rad on them. All praise is due to Allaah when i came accross the explanation of Sheikh Rabee' of that book. And believe me brother it refutes your manhaj of of not radding openly openl errors. Which you are negating because you want secret advice for your open error posted on manhaj.com Abu Maryam: "Please do not misunderstand me, I do not hate being corrected if I err knowingly and in public, Allaah has made the ways for communication easy in these days, so we should not refrain from advising/instructing one another." If it was personal between yourself and Allaah i would hasten to do that. But this one is open and you should know this and not mix the two. Abu Maryam: "My purpose in coming here was only to repel some previous slander (which al-hamdulillaah has been removed now) and clarify some recent shubuhaat." Not to say you was mistaken but slander and shubuhaat! Is your post a retraction of your errors or affirmation of them??? Sheikh al Banna said what you said was wrong. So who has the shubuhaat??? This is not good brother. If would have been better to say i was mistaken to put out what the sheikh didn't agree with rather than all this kallam. الـعلم قـال الله قـال رسوله قال الصحابة هم أولوا العرفان
|
|
| abdulilah | -- 03-10-2002 @ 12:00 AM |
|
Just to show you i am not the only salafi who spotted this error on the front page of almanhaj.com regarding the meeting between Sheikh alBanna and Abdulrahman Abdulkhaaliq. And to show tou this is a matter of DEEN. There was no mistranslation to the sheikh as it was mentioned to him in English as well as the sheikh understands English too. Khair inshaallaah, i pray the brother takes it back and without long interpretation which wasn;t there on the front page. And without putting things out of place. When an open error in open for all to see it is not upon me to correct it secretly but for the benefit of the Muslims they must know this OPEN error is wrong. And this is in the same book you quoted by Ibn Rajab al Hanbalee. Abu Sagheer wrote: "abdulilah, the point you raised, Allaah knows that when I first read that article put on al-manhaj from Shaikh Mohammad al-Banna and I saw the way they commented on it, I sensed some type of tamyee' and some sort of softness that was out of place and as if they were saying "look at how the shaykh dealt with him, and abdur-rahman abdul-khaliq, and so we should all be like this" and to be honest I did not like the way it came across. It was not right for them to put this out. As you pointed out what they tried to get across was not actually correct, since the Shaikh showed shiddah to abdur-rahman abdul-khaliq (and to abul-hasan) and secondly, just because a shaikh might give some admonition to someone, when they are one to one, and make du'a for them etc., does not mean that shiddah is NOT shown to them openly and in general. {{my note: I forgot to include the word NOT, so I have added it here, sorry for any confusion!}}. Since, in the first case guidance is intended for the individual (when advising directly) and in the second case warning is intended from this person's falsehood, and in both there is a shareeah benefit. This is an important point that I read somewhere I think maybe on SP Forums or in one of the articles when they explained that there is no contradiction between the steps taken by Shaikh Rabee' towards Abul Hasan and the steps taken by the Madinah Shaykhs (in the days when they were sitting with him and advising him)."." الـعلم قـال الله قـال رسوله قال الصحابة هم أولوا العرفان
|
|
| abdulilah | -- 09-10-2002 @ 12:00 AM |
|
Abu Maryam did say he was going to reply to the questions posed to him so where is his response? الـعلم قـال الله قـال رسوله قال الصحابة هم أولوا العرفان
|
|
| SalafiTalk.Net : | http://www.salafitalk.net/st |
| Topic: | http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=14&Topic=246 |