| Posted By |
Topic: Abdul-Qadir - PURE HIZBEE Part 1!
|
|
 Sulaifi
|
|
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Aug 2002
|
All Praise Is For Allaah - None has the right of worship except He.
Abdur Qadir still defends and holds the hizbee contract signed in Brixton 1999 to be correct. His own recent words are a testimony to to his hizbiyyah. He defended the contract on a Paltalk lecture he gave several weeks ago.
This hizbee claimed that Shaykh Obaid, who is from the major 'ulemah, was lied to. After reading what Shaykh Obaid says below - it is clear that the Shaykh had the contract with him and he responded to the contract having been fully aware of its contents. So repent, O hizbee Abdul-Qadir for lying upon the Shaykh and the Salafis who sent him the hizbee contract.
This what Shaikh Obaid Al-Jabiri said:
"From 'Ubayd bin 'Abdullaah bin Sulaymaan al-Jaabiree to the brothers at Salafi Publications (al-Maktabah as-Salafiyyah) and all of the Salafi brothers [and sisters] in Britain - may Allaah preserve them, and straighten their words and deeds, Ameen.
Assalaamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wabarakaatuhu, to proceed:
I have looked at the script (of the contract) from the judgement of Abul-Hasan Mustafaa bin Ismaa'eel as-Sulaymaanee al-Misree, then al-Ma'ribee, which he issued pertaining to the affairs [relating to] Salafiyyah that have occured amongst you, and after reflecting upon that judgement (i.e. the contract) which is composed of 27 points. There is found in the course of it a call to a form of tahazzub (partisanship) clothed as Salafiyyah, and Salafiyyah is free from it.
And this in light of his clear and explicit statement which binds the Salafis in Britain to the two Shaykhs Ali al-Halabi and Saleem al-Hilaalee, in 14 places, the essence of which is that the reference point for the affairs of Salafiyyah are the two Shaykhs only. And that the rest from the people of knowledge, then either they have no status (role) in your affairs, or they only follow after them (i.e. the two Shaykhs). And this is the extremity of oppression and partisanship, and forming a sect the likes of which has no equal as far as we know, in the history of the Salafi da'wah.
And therefore, I consider that agreement to be abolished. And it is not permissible to abide by it, and you must return in any differences amongst you, to the people of knowledge in every place, whether it be the two Shaykhs, Ali al-Halabi, or Saleem al-Hilaalee or other than them from the people of knowledge and excellence.
Signed : Ubayd al-Jaabiree.
And Allaah is the one who grants success and who guides to the better guided affairs.
Wassalaamu alaykum warahmatullaahi wabaraakutuhu
Issued on 29th Dhul-Hijjah 1422H"
This message was edited by Sulaifi on 9-16-02 @ 9:43 PM
|
|
| abu.sagheer
|
|
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Aug 2002
|
Jazakallahu khair Sulaifi for exposing this man. I also heard that he claimed that "Shaikh Ubayd was lied to about the contract"!!!
This is a ta'an upon Shaikh Ubayd and also a ta'an upon the Salafi brothers. Shaikh Ubayd clearly says he read every point in the contract and reflected upon it! So how can the Shaikh have been lied to?
Alhamdulillah, those who wanted to have their independent da'wah by restricting themselves to a handful of Shaikhs are now reaping the rewards of their great mistake. I think the only reason they are defending Abul-Hasan is because in reality, they restricted themselves in the whole of the da'wah to the Jordanians and Abul-Hasan. Now that their weakness on many issues is apparent (Aroor, Maghrawi, Turath, Abul-Hasan), they have no option but to come out and attack the Salafis and their Scholars. Anyone with a bit of sense can work that out. Otherwise the whole of their dawah collapses! The motive is very clear. This is the reason they are attacking SP and specific brothers. Why don't they attack Shaikh Rabee' and Shaikh Faalih and Shaikh Ahmad an-Najmee???!!
This message was edited by abu.sagheer on 9-15-02 @ 12:15 PM
|
|
| abu.sagheer
|
|
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Aug 2002
|
I received the following from another brother who heard this Abdul-Qadir the fool (safeeh, as Shaykh Rabee' described him) claim the following:
Like I said, Shaykh Ubayd was lied to because, there is nothing in the contract (i.e. contract of Brixton) that contains hizbiyyah, Shaykh Ubayd said in his fatwaa that all the affairs of Salafiyyah were to return to the two Mashayikh, but that is not true, that is not in the contract, what it does say is that the affairs of organisation and administration should return back to the two mashaykh, when we can't agree, so how this was misinterpreted to the Shaykh, then Allaahu Taa'aalaa a'lam
I do not have this contract, but I hope some of the brothers who do can show that this is a lie. A lie upon Shaykh Ubayd, and also a lie about the contract. Two lies in one. From what I have been told, all affairs to do with da'wah, such as inviting speakers (this is not administration, this is choosing the actual speakers), making jarh, enforcing the jarh of the two Shaykhs upon others, and other such issues were restricted to two Shaykhs. This is number one. And two, Shaykh Ubayd was not lied to, he read it himself, has he himself says. So this liar should repent from his wicked lies.
Who actually sent the contract to the Shaykh? Or how did it get to the Shaykh. This would be interesting to know.
This message was edited by abu.sagheer on 9-15-02 @ 9:30 PM
|
|
| Sulaifi
|
|
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Aug 2002
|
Shaykh Obaid al-Jabiri said, "I have looked at the script (of the contract) from the judgement of Abul-Hasan Mustafaa bin Ismaa'eel as-Sulaymaanee al-Misree, then al-Ma'ribee, which he issued pertaining to the affairs [relating to] Salafiyyah that have occured amongst you, and after reflecting upon that judgement (i.e. the contract) which is composed of 27 points."
Abdul-Qadir is a hizbi who is lying upon Shaykh 'Obaid claiming that the Shaykh did not read the contract and that he was lied to. So here all the Salafis can see that Shaykh Obaid was not lied to and he he did not give his ruling based upon ignorance as Abdul-Qadir Al-Hizbee implies.
This message was edited by Sulaifi on 9-15-02 @ 10:28 PM
|
|
| abu.ibraaheem
|
|
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Sep 2002
|
Brother Abu Sagheer posted this:
?I received the following from another brother who heard this Abdul-Qadir the fool (safeeh, as Shaykh Rabee' described him) claim the following:
Like I said, Shaykh Ubayd was lied to because, there is nothing in the contract (i.e. contract of Brixton) that contains hizbiyyah, Shaykh Ubayd said in his fatwaa that all the affairs of Salafiyyah were to return to the two Mashayikh, but that is not true, that is not in the contract, what it does say is that the affairs of organisation and administration should return back to the two mashaykh, when we can't agree, so how this was misinterpreted to the Shaykh, then Allaahu Taa'aalaa a'lam?
I say:
Is this what you think Shaykh ?Ubayd was lied to about, O Lutonian Liar?! Or is it that we should call you the Lutonian Muqallid, as you are a blind follower of al-Ma?ribee and the Sulaymaanee Manhaj of Tamyee? (melting and accommodating everyone into the Da?wah)?
It is most unfortunate that those two Shaykhs who were mentioned in this contract did not free themselves from its obvious baatil nature and open hizbiyyah. Verily, in that is a sign for people of intellect!
Consider, yaa ?Abdal-Qaadir, O you Mumaayi? (melter/accommodator), that these points are not limited to the fact that ?the affairs of organisation and administration should return back to the two mashaykh, when we can't agree?. Even if it had been, that is still a principle of Hizbiyyah. So either way, you are making harb (war) against the Kibaar and are exposing yourself as the Safeeh (fool) and Affaak (lying scandalmonger) that they have termed you. We didn?t expose you, you exposed yourself.
Here are the points from al-Ma?ribee?s contract:
"5. If they differ then they must all refer their affair to the two shaykhs (name of the Shaykhs)... since they are the two known to me who know best about the da'wah in this country and the state of its people."
And also:
"6. No one from either of the two sides may go to another scholar who is ignorant of the situation here.... Rather referring back to other scholars will only be for the two aforementioned shaykhs.."
And also:
"11. ... with regard to the present situation and future results, and this is referred back to the two shaykh alone - either they order something from that, otherwise it will not be, and it is binding upon everyone that they submit to what the two of them say, and not to open the door to all and sundry."
"12. Yearly da'wah conferences and other than them in Britain will be unified. The shaikhs who will take part will be chosen after consulting the two shaikhs... unless the two shaikhs hold some view in that regard - since they know best about whether it will be beneficial for so-and-so to be allowed to take part in the affair or not."
"17. Whoever takes the advice of the two shaikhs regarding hajr (boycotting) a certain person, or openly rebuking him - then others may not criticise them for this.."
"27. Whoever opposes what is contained in this judgement, then he is opposing what I hold to be what will draw the brothers closer together in Britain and will unite them together. So in such a case, then his affair will be referred back to the two shaikhs to decide what should be done about him according to the sharee'ah; even if that should result in a fatwa being given that he be boycotted and that none of the Salafis of this country should turn to him..."
Source of the contract points: Contract In Brixton 1999 (Part 2) SP Forum
|
|
|
15-09-2002 @ 12:00 AM
15-09-2002 @ 12:00 AM
15-09-2002 @ 12:00 AM
15-09-2002 @ 12:00 AM