SalafiTalk.Net » Affairs of Manhaj
» Why is Everybody Dropping Suhaib Hasan Like Volatile Hot Potatoes?
Search ===>

Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5Part 6Part 7Part 8Part 9 • Part 10 • Part 11 • Part 12

   Reply to this Discussion Start new discussion << previous || next >> 
Posted By Topic: Why is Everybody Dropping Suhaib Hasan Like Volatile Hot Potatoes?

book mark this topic Printer-friendly Version  send this discussion to a friend  new posts last
01-28-2011 @ 2:32 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002

Why is Everybody Dropping Suhaib Hasan Like Volatile Hot Potatoes 13 Years After the Scholars Spoke Against Him and Exposed His Reality?

Alhamdulillaah, it was only a matter of time, that the ghuluw and much of the deception with respect to Suhaib Hasan would simply implode upon itself as it has done now as we see many different factions scurrying to jump off the ship and disown him.

What is in the title of this post is an important question that should be addressed given the great turmoil in the da'wah caused by this man and those associated with him and affiliated with him who have maintained a policy of ghuluww towards him. There are three categories of people:

a) The takfiris who have historically often associated with Suhayb Hasan, co-operating with him, but they have their own methodologies, orientations, objectives and agendas.

b) Fatwa-Online and the various students associated with them who aided and supported Suhaib Hasan's dawah against Ahl al-Sunnah out of treachery, deception and playing games, alongside their full knowledge of the verdicts of the scholars (like Shaykh Muqbil, Shaykh Rabee', Shaykh Ubayd, Shaykh Muhammad bin Haadee) - and being fully aware of the evidences that supported those verdicts!

c) The generality of those showing ghuluww towards Suhaib Hasan from those affiliated with Green Lane Mosque. And this group quite often being aligned and supported by Fatwa-Online. Enter here the ghuluww, for example, of Abu Usamah Dhahabi and his Green Lane counterparts for Suhaib Hasan. Suhaib Hasan is/was their Shaikh, their Mufti, despite them knowing full well of strong reasons that necessitated al-baraa' al-juz'ee from him.

Inshaa'allah this thread will be used to discuss, analyze this issue, we encourage participation from whoever has anything of relevance to say, ask or discuss.

01-28-2011 @ 3:10 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002

The Takfiris and Suhayb Hasan

We should understand that Takfiris like Abu Zubair al-Kadhdhaabi (Saleem Begg) - firmly established kadhdhaab (with calculated forms of deliberate lying, learn more here), and likewise Shakeel Begg and others - if we ignore their Qutbiyyah - are largely upon the same manhaj as Suhaib Hasan which is the Ikhwani approach of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq (Ihyaa al-Turath) in da'wah. You see certain orientations from these people which are strangely alike. This is because the source of their understanding and orientations are one and the same. For this reason there have historically been aspects of mutual understanding, respect and cooperation between them. Here is an example below:

Generally speaking, the Qutbiyyah, and many of the people of Takfir are upon  the methodologies of rallies, demonstrations and even participation in parliamentary elections (historically these same takfiris have encouraged participation in elections, including Saleem Begg), and likewise they have a certain perception towards the Jamaa'aat which are identical. This perception is taken from Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq who stated that the presence of multiple groups in da'wah and rectification is a good thing and that it can only be good overall. For this reason, you see Qutbis like Saleem Begg taking certain stances towards Hizb al-Tahrir, al-Muhajiroun and others in terms of cooperation. This similar approach towards certain jamaa'aat is also seen with Suhaib Hasan, and he has been the greatest of people in the UK operating upon and pushing this type of da'wah.

What unites them is their aversion towards the Salafi methodologies and their claim that they are not suitable for these times. So the Qutbiyyah say that the way of the Salaf towards the rulers is not appropriate for today, and that rallies and demonstrations and revolts and even voting are ways and means of da'wah that can and ought to be used and encouraged. And likewise they say we have to give some leeway to the jamaa'aat (meanings sects), because the overall goal is more important (which is removing the rulers, establishing the rule), and these jamaa'aat can be utilized as part of that greater objective, if we just overlook some of their faults. Whilst Suhaib Hasan is not upon the specific goals of the Takfiris and Qutbis, he does share in many of the underlying Ikhwani methodologies and approaches as it relates to the Jamaa'aat.

When the Scholars of the Sunnah saw and heard of this deviation from Suhaib Hasan close to fifteen years ago, they spoke against him with strong words.  The Aalim sees the fitnah before it comes and the Jaahil only sees its tail end, when it has come and gone and is passing onto the horizon - as has been stated by the Salaf. Hence, there was speech from Shaykh Muqbil (rahimahullaah) and numerous other scholars. Of particular relevance is the saying of Shaykh Muqbil:
As for the question of how you are to deal with him, then if you are able to prevent him from your masaajid, then prevent him so that he does not corrupt the hearts of your youth. But if you are not able to prevent him, then when he comes, you depart from the masjid and leave him to address the pillars in the masjid! Do not sit with a deviant, one who is astray.
What we are seeing now is all of these people, for whatever political objectives, are jumping ship after having shown a history of cooperation, affiliation, allegiance or support for Suhaib Hasan. Ignorance can't be an excuse because many of them actually waged war against those who held fast to that perceptive, insightful advice of the likes of Shaykh Muqbil, Shaykh Rabee, Shaykh Muhammad and others, particularly on this issue of Suhaib Hasan. Likewise you see these Takfiris like Shakeel Begg still cooperating with Suhaib Hasan well into 2009.

As for the Takfiris, despite their cooperation with Suhaib Hasan until very recently, they have jumped on this issue as a means of displaying a certain type of bravado to assume the reigns of leadership for the masses, by confronting Suhaib Hasan and his son. All we are seeing here is an internal conflict between two groups of Ikhwanis, one of which has a strong qutbi takfiri tendency, and the other has a bannaawi, tamyee'ee tendency, and that's without belittling the kufr expressed by the "nearly-human" son. Further, the son is but the produce and fruit of the father. That liberal tamyee'ee da'wah is one upon which Usamah Hasan was raised as a 30-year student of his father and despite many people bending over backwards trying to absolve the father ("it's not the father's fault"), the facts read otherwise. But each to his own hawaa. One should understand this situation for what it is and not be deceived.

Suhaib Hasan is just an Ikhwani, always has been, and he is simply an extension of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq in this country, and Abdu-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq in turn is an extension of Hasan al-Banna who is addressing a contemporary Salafi audience, to rope them into his Ikhwaanee baatil. Suhayb Hasan shares in the underlying fabric along with the all the other Ikhwani factions, except that they have differences in what is of greatest importance to them. To the Qutbis it is removing the rulers, to the Banaawis it is bringing unity for the sake of unity, and thus a certain approach towards the deviants (jama'aat and firaq). This should give you an idea of where Suhaib Hasan has always been aligned and positioned, and one can see this from his co-operation with Ikhwanis, Modernists, Sufis, Jahmees and so on.

The Scholars saw and recognized the great fitnah of this man and spoke accordingly, and it is not necessary that all scholars have to be united before a man is warned against (unlike the false principles that are being used these days). Many simply showed ghuluww towards this man whose fitnah has now culminated in this recent disgrace. Strangely, the Ghulaat who rallied behind this man for all those long years are treating this as an isolated and unexpected random mutation despite the fact that the father has been witness to the speciation taking place in his son for a few years at least.

The bottom line here is that the Qutbi Takfiris and Suhaib Hasan have a "common ancestor" (Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq) and at some time in the not so distant past they just simply split and went their own [evolutionary] ways through the forces of natural selection. In one particular species which inherited from that ancestor, a particular trait started out as showing indifference to what appear to be very small and insignificant innovations and dismissing them as trivial. As time went by, this indifference became amplified and increased through the combined power of evolutionary forces and the struggle for existence in a challenging and diverse da'wah terrain. This indifference grew and grew, until it was displayed towards those justifying istighaathah to other than Allaah, those claiming there is no Lord above the heaven, and likewise Sufis, Jahmis, Modernists, Rationalists, and so on, finally reaching a stage was reached where it was shown to takdheeb of Allaah and His Messenger under the guise of "permitted ta'weel upon a difference of opinion."

It is only now that we are seeing emails being distributed with a display of concern for the deen. We did not see that when Suhaib Hasan was sat next to callers to Shirk and deniers of al-Uluww.  The potato has become  explosive, it's way too hot, and way too volatile to hold onto any longer. Hence the realization by many a fence-sitter that now is the perfect time to pull out the knife, bring that butter, sacrifice this poor potato that  suddenly turned juicy, and make sure everyone else can see your potato-sacrificing orgy in full view... Ten years ago, heck, two years ago, it was a different story.

01-30-2011 @ 12:25 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002

The Volatile and Unstable Abdullaah al-Farsee Makes Unrestricted Takfeer of Anyone Who Defends Usamah Hasan

Abdullaah al-Farsee said in a video released by his muqallids:
No one should pray behind anyone who defends him [Usamah Hasan] in any way, in any way [emphasized] because he who defends him is like him, because it is a clear issue, the Qur'an is there, the Sunnah is there, the issue is very clear, Allaah has honoured Aadam in many ways, and they want to insult him, the greatest insult, you see, and they have no excuse, and no one should pray behind such a person, if he prays, his prayer is invalid.
Those familiar with al-Farsi should already know his history of making takfir upon baatil and then having to take it back and likewise his well-known instability, refuting the Surooris one day then joining them, cursing Ihyaa al-Turath one day and then joining them, praising the scholars of Madinah one day, then flipping and cursing them, praising al-Albani, defending him and then flipping and accusing him of Irjaa'.  As he has been appropriately described "a lost sheep, not knowing which valley (i.e. with whom) he ought to be walking."

After spending a fair portion of time in this newly-released video talking about how the Salafi scholars "tighten" takfir so as not to make unjustified takfir on Muslims, he is happy to make takfir himself without restriction and qualification, as is clear in his statement above in invalidating the prayer of those who pray behind those defending Usamah Hasan. There is a difference between boycotting the prayer (out of punishment and rejection) and between declaring prayer to be totally invalid (necessitating takfir).

This statement includes takfir of Suhayb Hasan and anyone else who defended Usamah not for his belief of kufr but upon their mistaken, misguided and false notion that Usamah is making a ta'weel that is permitted. Now even if this is an evil and repugnant defense, we do not make unrestricted and generalized takfir like this, rather this matter is first taken to genuine scholars for their judgement. Al-Farsee did not make any tafseel in his speech. If anyone defended Usamah's viewpoint regarding the creation of Aadam, or defended him on account of this viewpoint, no doubt he is like him, but if someone is defending Usamah from the point of view that this person [mistakingly] believes this is a matter of ta'weel and ijtihaad because there are Muslim scholars [in history] who [allegedly] expressed ideas similar to Darwinian ones and that Usamah has simply taken an opinion (even if it is a minority or mistaken one), and that he is to be defended in the sense that he is not to be judged a kaafir for this and is still a Muslim, then the judgement of al-Farsee upon these people who make this type of excuse and defence (which include Suhaib Hasan and many other people), then this is very dangerous - it is not for the likes of al-Farsee to indulge in, this is the domain of the Scholars - and it shows that ignorant people like al-Farsee should not be referred to in matters like these, making unjust and oppressive takfir upon people without tafseel and without qualification and causing chaos for the congregation and the community with respect to matters of their ibaadah. It is one thing to call for boycotting the mosque in a broad sense, and boycotting prayer, and it is another to claim prayer behind Suhaib Hasan is invalid (meaning, Suhaib Hasan is a kaafir). This should only come from qualified scholars whose knowledge is trusted in, not shaky individuals like al-Farsee.

At the same time, this is no doubt an evil and repugnant defense, because it helps to justify a view that entails takdheeb of Allaah and His Messenger and it shows the ignorance and misguidance of the one making this defense, which is also not free of hawaa. So boycotting such people maybe warranted, but extending takfeer to such people without tafseel and without recourse to the counsel of the genuine scholars is dhulm and if you would have expected anything like this from anyone, well Dr. Abdullah al-Farsee is always there to fill that gap and give a helping hand to the Qutbiyyah Takfiriyyah, just like he did in accusing al-Albani (raihmahullaah) of Irjaa'!

To add to his calamity, al-Farsee  claims in the same sets of videos that the ta'weel of the Ash'aris was not in matters of ghayb! Then what are Allaah's attributes if they are not from the ghayb! In another part of the video he has another calamity, implying takfir of the Ash'aris, more on that later. In short, al-Farsee is another volatile hot potato and those scholars who know him well from the Scholars of Kuwait and Madinah do not take him seriously for his shakiness, his lack of being firmly grounded and his volatility, and they state that he should just be ignored. Here, he is entering into false and oppressive judgements, so this must be pointed out and warned against. If you are intuitive and sharp, a quick bit of research and you can see with your own eyes, al-Farsee getting slapped and tossed in every direction when you see him debating others in many of the Arabic forums. Unfortunately, most of his muqallids know little Arabic to be able to realize that they are living in one universe and that their "Shaykh" has other universes they know very little about...

Note: It is important and crucial for those who take this matter to the Scholars (we mean genuine Scholars, not ignorants like al-Farsee) to make sure their questions are worded with precision and with an honest reflection of the actual facts so that further confusion is not caused by generalized verdicts and answers that have not addressed the intricacies of the matter due to the ambiguity of the question. So if this has been done and the Scholars answer (with whatever they answer), then it is accepted, and the proper routes and channels will have been followed. Ignoramuses like al-Farsee are the last of people to be speaking on this matter (see his mass takfir below).

01-30-2011 @ 3:08 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002

Abu Usamah adh-Dhahabi and Usamah Hasan

As we indicated earlier, this issue of Usamah Hasan and Suhaib Hasan is one in which everyone wants a piece of the pie because it's been cooked to the level of kufr. When it was at the level of vile methodological innovations, it just wasn't tasty enough. From an angle, the level of methodological innovations (like cooperating with Sufis, Jahmis, callers to Shirk,  Modernists etc. etc.) can be more harmful in the sense that most Muslims recognize and reject plain kufr (most Muslims have rejected Darwinism without even needing verdicts from Scholars) whereas they will not recognize methodological innovations and will become deceived by them. But the pie can no longer remain in the oven, and everyone had their oven gloves on, waiting to pounce. We saw the Takfiri hounds in full-force making a display of bravado, little revealing to their kindergarten audience their own cooperation with Suhaib Hasan (!), a cooperation upon the Bannaawee manhaj of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq (a common ancestor) which they share with Suhaib Hasan, and doing so in a period when they knew full well that Suhaib Hasan in turn knew of his son's orientation. It's a nice drama they've got running there, great for their kindergarten audience of lost and confused sheep. Then we see the likes of Abdullah al-Farsee coming out, shaky, unstable, volatile, making oppressive judgments of takfir upon those around Usamah Hasan without tafseel. Then we see the likes of Fatwa-Online who have historically supported and sided with Suhaib Hasan and aided him against those adhering to the way of the Salaf - out of treachery and out of full knowledge of the positions of Scholars in Madinah regarding Suhaib Hasan. They used to run to some of our Scholars in Madinah in order to create mischief, Microsoft Outlook Express printouts with "Abu Abdullaah" written at the top in their hands, but we never saw them running to the same scholars with the same zeal and determination to get verdicts on a very prominent figure in the Jam'iyyah Ahl al-Hadeeth whose calamities were well-known to them, or on his son who has been promulgating kufr for years.

All of these factions are coming out to make sure they get a piece of that pie and hot potatoes.  In this vain, we see Abu Usamah al-Dhahabi being forced address the issue. From the most amazing of affairs is that Abu Usamah can go for forty minutes or so (in his last Jumu'ah khutbah) and speak about this particular issue (one of kufr) without even mentioning once, not even once, the name of Usamah Hasan. Great when you can refute a person speaking and calling to kufr (openly, through numeous forms of media) and not mention his name, but its a different story for others, in fact we never fail to hear in Abu Usamah's khutbahs or lectures making reference to brothers at Maktabah Salafiyyah. Perhaps there is a maslahah regarding Usamah Hasan's pronouncements of kufr and openly calling to it that does not apply to us.  Yet he makes the excuse of Usamah being "confused", having a "shubhah" and we don't know which country Abu Usamah al-Dhahabi has been living in for the past three to four years, such that he should make this statement.

Firstly, the scholars distinguish between the clear, manifest affairs and the obscure, minute affairs. It is in the obscure, minute affairs where the plausibility of shubhah is accepted, not in the major, clear, manifest affairs. Whilst we do not negate that the clarity and manifestness of religious affairs can be subject to fluctuation upon the parameters of time and place, it can hardly be argued that certain affairs remain obscure to Oxford graduates who have memorized the Qur'an, and who come from a traditional Sunni background.  Secondly, the excuse of ignorance does not apply to matters which are well-known, which are known by necessity, such as the five prayers, and fasting, unlawfulness of zina and so on, and likewise from the well known affairs are that Aadam was the first man and that humanity all originates from Aadam.  Again, some of the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah speak of fluctuation in exactly "what is known from the religion by necessity" depending on parameters of time and place. But again, this can hardly be invoked as defence for self-righteous, elitist bigots (like Usamah) who are certainly not ignorant in the matter. Thirdly, Usamah Hasan has displayed mockery of the Qur'an ("a children's madrasah level of understanding"), he calls Muslim backwards for not believing in Darwinism (in itself something entailing kufr), he makes mockery of the symbols of Islam (the beard, the hijab), he calls for the removal of the khimaar (not niqab, but the khimar). He is also speaking about an "Islamic secularism", and he claims Socrates, Aristotle and Plato come from the prophetic tradition, and many other strange things. All of this combined shows that this individual does not have any "shubhah", rather he has a determined orientation. A shubhah is in an isolated individual issue or in a particular subject area. Not in a broad, general orientation comprising many different aspects of the religion. Usamah certainly knows what he is saying (alongside the arrogance that comes with it).

Alongside this, Abu Usamah al-Dhahabi is gracious enough to offer the excuse of "shubhah" and "confusion". That is a very exclusivist type of rifq. Maybe some are born with more privileges than others, and maybe only these privileged people deserve such rifq, even when calling to kufr and apostasy. In the land of tamyee' there are no surprises, and not even kufr is out of its reach.

01-30-2011 @ 4:12 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002

The Ignorant and Confused Abdullaah al-Farsee And His Oppressive Judgements of Takfir Upon Muslims, Including All Ash'arites

In an earlier post in this thread we mentioned an oppressive judgement coming from this shaky, volatile and ignorant person, and much to our surprise we find that he has even clearer statements (than what is quoted above). We mentioned how Abdullaah al-Farsee swings from one side to the other, from up to down and from side to side, and that he has many parallel universes of existence which his ignorant muqallids of Ahya in all those years have never had the benefit of finding. If you seek them, you shall find them, and in many of those universes you see Abdullaah al-Farsee getting slapped and tossed in every direction by those whom he decided to debate with, upon his well known lack of stability and false application of principles.

In the series of videos released by his muqallids, the first video, from the 11:35 mark onwards, he begins a discourse in which he leaves no room except for unrestricted takfir of Usamah Hasan's father and mother and all those who "directly or indirectly" defend him (without any further tafseel, clarification), and likewise takfir of the Ash'aris, and every Muslim in fact who makes ta'weel without having a proof for it. In fact, even Abu Usamah al-Dhahabi who defended Usamah Hasan by giving him the excuse of "shubhah" and "confusion", even he would not be able to escape Abdullaal al-Farsee's takfir bazooka. Let's first quote his words so we can see more clearly:
So this is something which unfortunately comes from someone who has a doctorate [i.e. Usamah Hasan] and his father is a so called shaykh and has graduated from a  respectful university. I was informed about this maybe a year ago or something but I thought his father was not able to do anything to his son, to correct him or advise him but unfortunately as I heard a few days a ago that the father defends the son and he tries to claim that this is a ta'weel from his son. Of course it is a ta'weel, but who says every ta'weel is legitimate, who says every ta'weel is accepted ....

Al-Farsee goes on to explain issue of ta'weel and what is legitimate ta'weel. He says that if ta'weel has no proof from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, but has something from the language, linguistically, then we declare that person an innovator, but not a kaafir. He explains that Usamah has no legitimate ta'weel at all, not even a linguistic ta'weel. He gives the example of the ta'weel of istawaa to istawlaa (made by Ash'aris) which is an example al-Farsee gives of a baseless ta'weel (having no proof for it), even though Ash'aris say otherwise, he says about it:
The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah declare the one who explains the verse "al-Rahmaanu alal arsh istawaa", the Most Benificent has risen above the Throne, istawaa, rising upon His Throne, some people say istawlaa, istawlaa meaning took it by force, overpowered, or took it by force. This has no back up from Qur'an and Sunnah, this kind of ta'weel, and it has no back up from the language, the arabic language ok, so they consider this, as Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin (rahimahullaah) mentioned, that this kind of ta'weel which is not backed up by Qur'an and Sunnah or at least by the language then he is a kaafir, who does it, ok.
Al-Farsee, that's great, now we've got more corpses (victims of the takfir bazooka)! Now we've got takfir of the Ash'aris in the bag as well who make ta'weel of istawaa to istawlaa (and to them, the language allows it). This implies takfir of a large number of Muslims! Where did he get this principle that a ta'weel which has a basis only in the language is bid'ah but a ta'weel which has no basis at all  (giving the example of istawlaa) is kufr for the one who falls into it? And in which book or tape of Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin is this principle?
Now those issues which you mentioned about this person, they are common knowledge for all Muslims, every muslim should know, a person like him is never excused. So anyone who defends him directly or indirectly, he is a kaafir, like him also.
As we said earlier, this is dangerous territory and this should be left for the real scholars to speak about and to judge upon. And the road that al-Farsee is going down here is the road of takfir of Usamah Hasan's father, mother, sister and many other people we have heard of and whose words we have been sent and which we have read. They do not defend Usamah's view, nor do they agree with it, but they defend him from the angle that they do not believe he has exited Islam, because they (albeit wrongly and misguidedly) believe he is making a faulty ta'weel, whilst affirming that his statement is wrong. Others defend him (from the charge of kufr) by saying he is "confused" and has a "shubhah", like Abu Usamah al-Dhahabi, for example, and we certainly do not agree with that claim either. Yet, al-Farsee leaves little room for these people not to be considered kaafirs, when that takfir bazooka is loaded, its hard not to feel trigger-happy. The point here, is this matter should not be entered into by the likes of al-Farsee, it is best to leave it to the genuine Scholars.
... He is a kaafir (meaning the one who defends him) because as the scholars  say he who does not declare someone who is a kaafir to be a kaafir, then he is like him. Or if he doubts that he is a kaafir, he is still like him...ya'nee if you ask some person, what do you think of such and such person who says Aadam was ya'nee was created in this way, from human-like or whatever, and he says I don't know, I cannot say anything, I don't know, then he is like him, he is like him. So how about the one who defends him and tries to make it look like it is ta'weel and this, he is a kaafir, like him. Even if he is his father, or mother, that doesn't help you see ...
The issue isn't as simple as al-Farsee is making it here, and whilst the principles he is speaking of here are correct and have their place, applying them requires care and caution, and this again is for the Scholars to speak on, and the discussion of these principles is for a separate place, not here. Leaving that to one side, al-Farsee has made takfir of both the parents, as well as plenty of other Muslims who have actually defended Usamah Hasan, themselves being confused in this matter, they have defended him from the charge of kufr, upon their own ignorance of course, but they have not defended his actual viewpoint and nor are they defending him because of his viewpoint, and to extend this judgement of takfir in a broad manner like this to cover all those people, without tafseel, this is dangerous and oppressive and it is not for confused, shaky ignoramuses like Abdullaah al-Farsee to be putting himself forward in matters like these, leading people astray with false innovated principles not heard of before and by which mass takfir of Muslims is warranted. Rather, this should only be the domain of properly qualified, bonafide, firmly established scholars, only they should be issuing rulings in such matters.

The most amazing (and laughable) thing is that in one of those eight serialized videos released by his muqallids, al-Farsee goes to great lengths to show how the Salafi scholars made great efforts to ensure takfir is not left loose and open but is "tightened" and he mentions Imaam Ahmad, and Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdal Wahhaab and others. Only to trash all of it, throw it against the wall and leave it by the wayside, and start implying mass takfir of Muslims or Muslim groups (like the Ash'aris who make ta'weel of istiwaa to istawlaa). As we said, this guy is a danger zone, one of confusion,  shakiness and instability.

Finally, it should be pointed out that ignoramuses like al-Farsee should not be approached in matters like this, these are grave and serious affairs and it involves matters of takfir, and it impacts upon the worship of the people in the community, and so these matters should be taken to the Major Scholars. So whatever they advise or recommended or judge with is taken with acceptance and without hesitation, so long as they have been given an accurate depiction of everything and verbatim statments. However, it is a serious methodological error for the likes of al-Farsee (who make light of making takfir of masses of Muslims through false innovated principles) to be approached.

02-01-2011 @ 12:39 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002

The Amwaat Dilemma - To Whom Shall We Turn? The Takfir of Abdullaah al-Farsee or the Tamyee' of Abu Usamah al-Dhahabi

Here's al-Farsee with his takfir bazooka, there wasn't enough meat on Usamah Hasan, so he's gone for takfir of the "so-called Shaikh" (Farsee's words), Suhaib Hasan, and Usamah's mother (and possibly his sister and other members of the family) and anyone who "indirectly" defends Usamah (whatever that means). But that wasn't enough either, so al-Farsee decided  every Muslim who made ta'weel of istawaa to istawlaa without a proof from Qu'ran, Sunnah or language is a kaafir, and that would be takfir of all Ash'arites.

Then there is Abu Usamah al-Dhahabi. He's defending Usamah Hasan through the angle of "shubhah" and "confusion" Al-Farsee would probably cringe and immediately point that takfir bazooka in his direction. And to the Takfiris, this is getting dangerously close to al-Udhru bil-Jahl (the excuse of ignorance). They took him to town and wiped the floor clean with him on that one. Unlike what al-Farsee is saying about Suhaib Hasan (the so called Shaykh), Abu Usamah is saying "what a great Shaykh, always has been."

It's confusing the wits out of them. But this is really besides the point. Forget Haddaadiyyah. To al-Farsee, that's just for small kids, takfir is where the real action is. Al-Farsee should repent from making implying of the Ash'arites who make ta'weel of istiwaa to istawlaa.


03-18-2011 @ 4:00 PM    Notify Admin about this post
no problem (netherlands)
Posts: 35
Joined: Mar 2009
salamu alaikum we should be very carefull in corecting others mistakes and call the deviant if the mistake u try to corect is not a mistake. im only saying this becuz many are attacking salafitalk these days so please be carefull.

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen's Sharh Kitaab At Tawheed Chapter: Whoever denies

anything from the Names and Attributes
The 2nd: Denial by interpretation and it is not that they deny it (outright) but that they interpret it to a meaning which opposes its apparent meaning and this is of 2 types;

1) That the interpretation has justification/is plausible in the Arabic language, so this does not necessitate disbelief.
2) That it does not have justification/is not plausible in the Arabic language, so the ruling on this is that it s disbelief.
03-18-2011 @ 8:15 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002

Wa alaykum as salaam. Akhee,  jazaakallaahu khayran for your post. You should realise that the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah do not make takfir of those making ta'weel of the sifaat, even if there is no proof for that ta'weel in principle, unless the person makes jahd (rejection, denial). Shaykh Abdul-Aziz al-Rajihee answered the question, whether the Ash'aris become disbelievers due to their making ta'weel of the attributes, and note the example he used:

المتأول لا يكفر. الجاحد من جحد اسمًا من أسماء الله كفر ، قال الله -تعالى-: وَهُمْ يَكْفُرُونَ بِالرَّحْمَنِ إذا جحد اسمًا من الأسماء أو صفة من الصفات بدون تأويل كفر. الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى لو أنكر الآية كفر، لكن إذا أوَّلها بالاستيلاء يكون له شبهة، يدرأ عنه التكفير
The one who makes ta'weel does not become a disbeliever, the one who is jaahid, the one who rejects a name from the names of Allaah disbelieves. Allaah, the Exalted said, "And they disbelieve in al-Rahmaan", when he rejects (makes jahd) a name from the names or an attribute from the attributes, without ta'weel, he disbelieves. "Ar-Rahmaan ascended (istawaa) ovevr the throne", if he rejected this verse, he would disbelieve, but if he made ta'weel of it with isteelaa (conquering), he has a misconception, then takfeer is averted from him.
He also said in his audio explanation of the Nawaaqid al-Islaam:

المتأول يقول: استوى معناه استولى. هذا عاص، هذا مبتدع. لأنه يقول: أنا أعتقد أنها آية، لكن معنى استوى استولى، أما الجاحد ينكر يقول أيش الآية؟ فرق بين الجاحد وبين أيش؟ المتأول له شبهة ما يكفر، والجاحد يكفر.
The muta'awwil says: istiwaa, its meaning is isteelaa. This one is a sinner. This is a mubtadi'. Because he says, "I believe that it is a verse, but the meaning of istiwaa is isteelaa." As for the jaahid, he rejects, he says, "What verse?" There is a difference between the jaahid and between what? The Muta'awwil, he has a misconception, and he does not disbelieve, but the jaahid disbelieves.
That statement of Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin (rahimahullaah) is not to be taken absolutely and requires further clarification and in fact, the Shaykh gives some more detail elsewhere in his explanation of Lumu'at al-I'tiqaad, where he makes three categories and distinguishes between a) the ta'weel made in error with good intention and ijtihaad  and b) the ta'weel made with hawaa, ta'assub and having a basis in the language, and c) the ta'weel made with hawaa, ta'assub and not having a basis in the language.

In reality, the third one comes back to making jahd, and it is not the case that making a ta'weel which has no basis in the language automatically equates to takdheeb or jahd. For this reason, none of the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah made takfeer of the Ash'aris or even the Mu'tazilah in general for ta'weel of the sifaat. However, they made takfir of anyone who made jahd, and jahd of anything from the Book and the Sunnah, or takdheeb of Allaah and His Messenger is kufr in and of itself. So the matter requires some elaboration.

For this reason, we reiterate that no attention should be given to the likes of the confused and shaky Abdullah al-Farsee who use the statements of the scholars in contexts and situations without full clarification, and which can leave people with misunderstandings and lack of precision and detail in the matter. So everything we have said above still stands, and it is dangerous for people to come across that speech of Abdullaah al-Farsee (who used the example of the ta'weel of istiwaa to isteelaa) and walk off with an incorrect idea in their mind, and to think that Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin (or any of the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah) make unrestricted takfir of anyone who made a ta'wil which has no basis, in such a general manner. We distinguish between the types of ta'weel found with the Baatiniyyah and the Raafidah (which comprise kufr), and the ta'weel of the Ash'aris and their likes (which is bid'ah, much of which has no proof for it in the language, and which may or may not occur out of hawaa), and the ta'weel which as khata' (error), arising out of ijtihaad and treat each one accordingly. For this reason, flee from taking knowledge from Abdullah al-Farsee, he is not grounded nor stable, as his history proves and shows, and you should fear from people who speak in generalizations and use the statements of the Scholars out of their proper places.


TawhidFirst | Aqidah | AboveTheThrone | Asharis
Madkhalis | Takfiris | Maturidis | Dajjaal
Islam Against Extremism | Manhaj
Ibn Taymiyyah | Bidah
Sentence Structure in Arabic Grammar

main page | contact us
Copyright 2001 - SalafiTalk.Net
Madinah Dates Gold Silver Investments