SalafiTalk.Net » The Fitnah of Al-Ma'ribee, Tamyee', those who Accommodate the Astray Sects
» Shaykh Rabee' on the Circumstances Surrounding His Allowance of the Jordanians to Make Peace Between Differing Parties
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: Shaykh Rabee' on the Circumstances Surrounding His Allowance of the Jordanians to Make Peace Between Differing Parties

book mark this topic Printer-friendly Version  send this discussion to a friend  new posts last

09-10-2003 @ 3:44 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sep 2002
Question: Some of the followers of 'Abdul-Mun'im are saying that one of the Jordanian students of knowledge came here (Toronto) with a letter from you, assigning them to reconcile what is between the Salafees and 'Abdul-Mun'im and his organization.  Is this correct?

Response (by Shaykh Rabee' ibn Haadee Al-Madkhalee):


This was when 'Alee Hasan 'Abdul-Hameed and Saleem Al-Hilaalee came to me in Ramadhaan, I believe it was in Ramadhaan.  An agreement was reached between me and them.  And in this agreement, we achieved a (mutual) affirmation of the falsehoods of a number of Abul-Hasan's principles, and then we issued a clarification regarding that.

So in the midst of these good circumstances, they requested that I write something for them[1], which I did, something that they could use to reconcile things between differing parties.  However, when they went, nothing was accomplished.  This was something that took place in Ramadhaan, may Allaah bless you.

This is not something new.  Is this something new or is he referring to what I have mentioned that occurred in Ramadhaan?  I say that this thing happened in Ramadhaan in the circumstances that I have related to you - that we reached a mutual understanding with 'Alee Hasan and Saleem, that we reached a good result, including an affirmation of the falsehoods of a number of Abul-Hasan's principles, and I thought that the position of Ahlus-Sunnah might become united, due to this meeting and clarification. [2]

However, sadly enough, they did things to breach this agreement.  And I was patient with them.  So it was within those good, appropriate circumstances that they requested me to write something for them to use with the Salafees in the West, to reconcile their affairs, and similar things.   And I did write that for them, and it was this past Ramadhaan. [3]

So is 'Abdul-Mun'im claiming that this is a new affair, or an old one?  

[Questioner: "Old, from Ramadhaan."]

Then yes, this is something that I wrote.  However, it was in the circumstances that I told you about? [4]

[The shaykh then asks if there are any more questions.  The questioner responds that there are no more.]

So then, right now, if there is anyone from the Qur'aan and Sunnah Society who wants to return to the truth, then the way is open in front of them, may Allaah bless you.  And our brother (someone specific who knows who he is), if he wants to return from what he was upon, then, "Ahlan wa sahlan" (he is welcome).

[taken from a recorded lecture dated 1424-07-09]


[1] So this is a far cry from the claims we heard that Shaykh Rabee' had sent 'Alee Hasan to correct what was between differing parties!

[2] Here the shaykh explains that he only allowed that due to the progress that had been made with the Jordanians at that time, and their "second bayaan" had not yet been issued, that which the shaykh is about to refer to.

[3] Here, the shaykh clearly says that the Jordanians had breached the agreement they made with the shaykh.  This was also a factor in the caution displayed by the brothers at TROID in their choice to not sit with the Jordanians and QSS, along with the fact that they had just returned from traveling and had not rested, and there was not enough time to contact Shaykh Rabee' before the Jordanians left.  However, the blind accusers could find no excuse for them, they were simply rebelling against the 'ulamaa', as they claimed.  In the absence of anything substantial against our brothers at TROID, this became such a big proof against TROID that they do not respect our Shaykh Rabee' and other outlandish claims, that which has, wal-hamdulillaah, been put to rest by Shaykh Rabee' here, hafithahullaah.  

[4] This is the third time that the shaykh mentions explicitly, that he only agreed to them making peace between differing parties based on those good circumstances that later changed, so take note.

And Allaah knows best.

Moosaa Richardson

سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك
أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت
أستغفرك وأتوب إليك

This message was edited by Moosaa on 10-9-03 @ 4:21 PM
09-10-2003 @ 6:09 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002

Here is an old post dated 19th January 2003, posted here on SalafiTalk on this same subject in response to Abu Usaaamah ath-Thahabee's attempt to use this same issue.


Since this matter has been brought out into the open, and many people will be deceived by what has been written by Abu Usaamah, seeing that the full and complete picture is not present in his bayaan, then the following points can be made to explain this issue. Whilst noting that this speech is made only because of a necessity, and we would  never have raised or addressed this issue, had not Abu Usaamah spoken about it to begin with. However, in explaining this matter, we will only restrict ourselves to what has been understood from and explained by the scholars themselves, like Shaykh Ubayd, Shaykh Mohammad Bazmul and Shaykh Faalih.

ONE: The signed declaration that was made between Shaykh Rabee and the Shaykhs from Jordan was an agreement that Abul-Hasan is upon error that he needs to make an open tawbah without any playing or fooling around. Seeing that this agreement had been reached, and it had been agreed, based upon this acknowledgement by these Shaykhs from Jordan, that there will be no more speech against them (seeing that the least they have agreed to is that Abul-Hasan is upon error and needs to make clear open tawbah).

Here is a quote from that declaration

And built upon all of this, we advise, in ending, with two pieces of advice:

Firstly: That everyone who opposes these qawaa'id (principles), it is obligatory upon them to return to the clear truth, and that he returns (with penance) to this sound nahj (way, manhaj) - whoever that may be - with clarity (wudooh), and with explanation and clarification, and open manifestation of the truth, without any talbees (deception) or tadlees (fraud, swindle).

So built upon this, Shaykh Rabee's expectation was that this will now end the fitnah as far as the West is concerned, because if these Shaykhs from Jordan stick true to this bayaan, and hold that a clear open tawbah is required from al-Ma'ribee, then those who are with them should naturally follow this position also and thus, the differences will end. And that if this path is taken there are only two outcomes:

a) Al-Ma'ribee makes a clear open tawbah and abandons his false usool,
b) or he persists in his games and shows arrogance and withholds, in which case all the people will then see that clearly and hence be united against him and so the fitnah between the Salafees will be ended.

So built upon this husn udh-dhann, and seeing that they had acknowledged the truth in Shaykh Rabee's refutations and criticisms and convicting al-Ma'ribee of serious errors in manhaj, you report that he entrusted them to remove the problems between QSS and TROID, as has been related by you, and a mention has been made of a signed piece of paper, requesting that this islaah be made. As for what we know, then it is that Shaykh Rabee signed a piece of paper authorising that these brothers be brought to unite upon the Book and the Sunnah, (which effectively, rules out hizbiyyah and uniting upon anything else etc.).

TWO: On the way back to Jordan, they met with Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee at the airport in Jeddah, and it is also reported that they had a sitting with him, after returning to someone's house from the airport. We don't know what happened obviously with this encounter with al-Ma'ribee. Then two days later, after returning to Shaam, they issued a second bayaan. By issuing this bayaan they opposed the first bayaan. Because the agreement had been reached that this first bayaan solves all problems:
And the agreement was reached in numerous matters, the most important of them, and the very first of them, was emphasis and adherence to ending this fitnah, and closing its doors, and its reasons.

So when they wrote this second bayaan and it contained what it contained, then it was in opposition to the first bayaan, because they just went and opened a number of doors that had actually been closed by the first bayaan. Mohammad Omar Bazmul, who was present in that very same meeting has stated that what they did was not befitting, and likewise by Shaykh Ubayd al-Jaabiree has words with similar meaning, only a week or two after they issued this second bayaan, that was only two days after the original bayaan where a good result and agreement had been arrived at. It was not correct for them to write those things, and it destroyed whatever prospects of unity existed based upon the first bayaan, because those with hizbiyyah towards Abul-Hasan would have been marginilised, and those who sought the truth would have been brought closer to those who already knew that al-Ma'ribee was upon error and misguidance, and the prospects for unity were quite good. This is why immediately after it was issued, there were lots of posts by those with hizbiyyah towards al-Ma'ribee on al Istiqama attacking this bayaan, and expressions of amazement and strangeness towards it and so on, and even those who supported the Jordanian Shaykhs initially and used their stance to defend Abul-Hasan, they began to disown this bayaan and say that it was strange and so on.

However, this second bayaan that they then issued (after meeting with Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee), destroyed all those prospects for unity between the people, and those who were upon hizbiyyah towards Abul-Hasan, then they had just acquired another justification to remain upon their hizbiyyah due to what was written in that second bayaan from Shaam. This is what is happening now, and we can clearly see it because Abu Usaamah is using it, as is Abdul-Qadir and the likes of Abu Rayhaan and others, who are kindling this fitnah further, all of whom are partisans to Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee, an Ikhwaanee.

Shaykh Ubayd explains:
As for the Mashaayikh of Shaam, then I only know two of them, and they are the brother, Shaikh Alee al-Halabee and the Shaikh Saleem al-Hilaalee, may Allaah preserve us and them and you upon the Sunnah. And they had a joint declaration along with the esteemed Shaikh Rabee', and so we welcomed this as goodness. However, lately, they inclined towards Abil-Hasan, and they became affable, cordial, friendly (hashshoo wa bashshoo, i.e. "very good buddies") with him, and they also issued another declaration [two days after the first, upon their return to Shaam] in which there were numerous departures (from impartiality and from what was in the first declaration of mutual agreement), and there are also observations upon it, and it also contains flaws. And I do not know what the motive was behind the issuance of this [second] declaration, whether it was allegiance (muwaalaat) of Abil-Hasan, or agreement with him (in his manhaj), or flattery and gentleness with him. And we say as the poet has said:

The days shall soon reveal to you what you were ignorant of
And the one you did not bestow upon [with recognition] will come to you with the news (of it)

So we will wait and will not be hasty, and we hope that they will fulfil what they promised by leaving alone the matters they did not solve, that there are matters that relate to the Salafees as they say.

Shaykh Mohammad Omar Bazmool explains:
... I do not support the way taken by Shaikh Alee (hafidhahullaah) and Shaikh Saleem, meaning that I have an observation, and there is nothing to stop me from explaining it...
...Secondly: I say that the truth is more worthy of being followed, such as what that man said, "So and so is my Shaikh, he is beloved to my heart, but the truth is more beloved to my heart, so when my Shaikh opposes the truth, then I follow the truth", and so I say, even if I belittle my true worth in speech in front of Shaikh Alee and Shaikh Saleem - I say that the path that these brothers are taking is not the path that is befitting for them, and this was not what we expected from them. Meaning that I was hoping that they teach the youth that they are only students of knowledge, and that they do not place themselves amongst the ranks of the Scholars, but that they themselves follow the Scholars, and that they and the Scholars do not stand on the same level. Shaikh Rabee is older than Shaikh Alee and older than Shaikh Saleem by 30 years, he is of very high tabaqah (rank) over them, Shaikh Rabee. He is a man who is unique in his speech in these affairs. It is almost the case that no one can be found in this subject, I do not know any man, meaning a man whose speech and time is unique for these affairs. He is the one who removed the fard kifaayah from the rest of the scholars (i.e. he performed what was obligatory, so the rest of the Scholars are absolved from this task). If it had not been for Shaikh Rabee and his likes from the people of knowledge standing to perform these affairs, then Ahl us-Sunnah would have remained quiet about Ahl ul-Bida' and from Ahl ul-Baatil and from explaining the errors which those people fall into.

I say that it was obligatory upon Shaikh Saleem and Shaikh Alee that they do not manifest anything (from themselves) that is in opposition to the Scholars, especially in the likes of these affairs. It was obligatory upon them that they themselves follow the Scholars so that they nurture the youth and teach them how to follow the Scholars, and that they are eager for them, and for their word (to be at the forefront) and to raise the status of (their) knowledge. And I, in reality, am not pleased with this bayaan and nor any other bayaans which were issued from over there (meaning Jordan). And it is as if they desire to set up another front (i.e. another direction) that faces (i.e. competes with) the Hai'ah Kibaar al-Ulamaa that is with us, or competes with the speech of the People of Knowledge with us. This is not something desireable and we do not deem it good...

...The third affair: I say to you that in the gathering with us that took place in Makkah with Shaikh Rabee (hafidhahullaah) they acknowledged the mistakes that Abul-Hasan fell into and that they oppose him in those mistakes...

...So if the contention of the brothers in Jordan was that he is not to be described as a "Mubtadi'" then the matter is clear, so therefore they should excuse those to whom the matter has become clear and who described him as a Mubtadi', and if it is the case that their intent behind this is to negate that he has any innovation with him to being with, then this is in opposition to the bayaan (they signed) as I have established a short while ago. And Allaah knows best."

So this is how the matters are, in reality, whether the people like it or not.

THREE: Despite that Shaykh Rabee', until this day, has adhered to his agreement, and has persistently refused to speak, even when asked, and this is a sign that he is a person of wara' and sidq, in his speech and his action, and the people of knowledge have attested to his sidq, in his speech and his mu'aamalah. He is truthful, he speaks the truth and abides by it and does not make flattery. Which is why Allaah has enabled the haqq to be established through him in these fitan and against those who oppose it, and this is what all the Hizbiyyeen cannot stand, because he speaks the truth. He signed something on paper (that first bayaan of agreement), knowing that Allaah was called as a witness over it, so to this day, he has adhered to his part of the agreement, and even if factors exist that might warrant that he speak and explain, he has remained silent and adhered to his signed agreement, showing patience and reservedness. This is a sign of his wara'. He has no siyaasah in the da'wah, nor does he make flattery for the people, and nor is he in need of that in establishing the truth. And he speaks the truth when it is time to speak the truth. Everything is in its proper place.

FOUR: So this is the reality of the matter, and we would not have explained this if we had not been compelled by what was written and presented by Abu Usaamah. So based upon this it is apparent that the Shaykh had no problem in authorising that the brothers in the US/Canada be brought together upon the Book and the Sunnah.

FIVE: Now, the knowledge of this, was kept hidden or was not really brought out, and its details not really made clear, and it was sprung upon Dawud Adeeb and TROID by surprise, so they were taken aback and surprised by this. If they chose not to sit and avoid a meeting or any speech, with the knowledge that they had at that time (i.e. what they had understood at that time of some of the affairs indicating that there seemed to be some departure from the first bayaan, and that there still remained a lack of clarity about the actual position being taken by the Shaykhs from Jordan), then that is from their own choice, and from their desire of remaining safe from any shubuhat concerning this fitnah. If they had been informed from the beginning, then perhaps they could have had the right to consult with Shaykh Rabee' himself. But this was sprung upon them, out of the blue, and this is undesirable. And due to their veneration of what they hold to be the truth concerning this fitnah, and from their firm belief in it, and mixed with their surprise and amazement at what had been sprung upon them, knowing what they knew, then if they made the choice not to agree to any sitting until they had made further clarifications and investigations, then it should not be surprising and nor should the supporters of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee be surprised with this either.

SIX: In light of all of this, the way Abu Usaamah has brought this issue, presented it, and used it to attack these brothers, in front of an audience which might not understand what has been taking place, and then to start making wild conclusions and outrageous claims like:
The Mashaykh have a written document (Shaikh Rabee? also has a copy) and it has his signature on it and the signature of the Mashaykh from Jordan as well. When the call was placed to these brothers, informing them of the document and what Shaikh Rabee? has ORDERED, they REFUSED to obey Shaikh Rabee and what he ordered! He was inviting them to make ISLAAH between themselves in front of those he (Shaikh Rabee) deputized himself.

Then this is a type of cheap and tiring opportunism that is undesirable, because the situation, in light of all the circumstances and background is not really like that.

This is similar to what Abdul-Qadir did. He went to Shaykh Rabee' sat in front of him, acknowledged that al-Ma'ribee (and al-Maghraawee) have mistakes, Shaykh Rabee' gave him some of his refutations and asked him to read them etc. So seeing some acknowledgement from Abdul-Qadir that these two men are upon error, then the Shaykh gave him a written letter addressed to the Salafees to unite. So he came back to the UK, and inwardly, he was not with the Shaykh on al-Ma'ribee or al-Maghraawee, which became clear as soon as he came back and what he was saying on paltalk and what he began to put on his website shortly afterwards. Then he made this letter public, and showed it to everyone trying to get across a message, "Look, Shaykh Rabee' gave me a letter, asking the Salafees to unite, and I am the one who brought it, and we want unity, so if they don't want unity then they are  mischief makers and trouble causers". So when the Salafees saw this they contacted Shaykh Rabee, thanked him for his naseehah that he gave and told him that Abdul-Qadir is a mischief maker and deceiver. And this is what actually turned out to be the case. These people they sit in front of the Shaykh and the Shaykh has husn udh-dhann, and expects good from them and for them to abide by the truth, and asks them to make islaah, islaah in their positions and islaah with their brothers, and then they abide by falsehood and do not rectify it, yet still continue to use the Shaykhs husn udh-dhann in order to attack those who are upon the same truth that Shaykh Rabee' is upon and which he is defending, while they know that Shaykh Rabee is displeased inwardly about their position, because it is falsehood. Yet at the same time, they make this kind of attachment to the Shaykh, using his husn udh-dhann, and they come out accusing the Salafees who are upon the very same manhaj as Shaykh Rabee' "you are disrespecting the Shaykh", and they are the very ones who are trying to marginilise the manhaj of Shaykh Rabee' by mentioning that they are on the manhaj of the three true major scholars who passed away and on the manhaj of Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad, and all of these games are to try and marginilise Shaykh Rabee' and move people away from his manhaj. It is this manhaj they are against, its not about TROID, or SP, or Dawud Adeeb or others, it is this manhaj they have a problem with.

So alongside all of this, which they know with certainty inside their own souls, that this is what they are doing, then look at how they manipulate the husn udh-dhann of Shaykh Rabee' and his expectations of bringing about good, look at how they use it against the Salafees and try to demonise them by way of it. And look at how they present these issues to the people, who for the most part, are completely ignorant of what is really taking place or has actually taken place behind the scenes.

SEVEN: In light of all of that the statement of Abu Usaamah:
1. Shaikh Rabee' knows that Shaikh 'Alee al-Halabee and Shaikh Saleem al-Hilaalee don't see Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee as being a deviant. If the one who doesn't see Abul-Hasan as a deviant is a supporter of Abul-Hasan and thus a DEVIANT HIMSELF, or a danger to the Da'wah, why would the Shaikh TRUST THEM and put the affairs of the Da'wah in their hands? (Inna hadha la shay oon 'ujaab)! (another BAATIL PRINCIPLE)

Is baatil and mardood and it is talbees upon the people (whether intended or not). Because as Shaykh Mohammad Umar Bazmul has explained that the least that had been agreed to was that they hold that Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee is upon false usool, and thus this makes him "saahibu bid'ah" (meaning someone who has somethign of innovated principles with him), even if they disagree upon him being called an outright "mubtadi'". This is what Shaykh Bazmul explained who was in that meeting.

And what Abu Usaamah has portrayed in this paragraph is baatil and opposes the truth, because at that moment in time, when Shaykh Rabee' was happy to authorise that the brothers be brought together upon the Book and the Sunnah, they had not issued their second bayaan, the one they went and wrote two days later in Shaam, and in which they opposed the first bayaan. Whereas upon the conclusion of the first meeting, when the first bayaan was written, the Shaykh was happy with the outcome that they had agreed that Abul-Hasan is upon false usool and this was a pleasing matter,and that they agreed that this person needs to make open clear tawbah without any tadlees or talbees. So in this situation it makes sense that the Shaykh, being happy with this outcome, wished for unity between the brothers upon the Book and the Sunnah.

So what Abu Usaamah has written above is not entirely correct, and again, due to his inaccuracy, he is portraying something in manner that is incorrect, and then deducing things from it which are also incorrect. It would be better if Abu Usaamah stop writing all these lengthy bayaans, this is sincere advice to him, as he is only confusing the people even more. His facts are flawed, his information is flawed, his understanding is flawed and he only writes out of emotion.

EIGHT: There are many issues that could be expanded upon and detailed here, but seeing that this is a sensitive matter, at this moment in time, we will limit this explanation only to what has already been mentioned above. And again, the above has only been explained because it has been made an issue openly by Abu Usaamah and he used this issue to claim that these brothers, TROID and Dawud Adeeb are disrespecting Shaykh Rabee' and this is a lie and slander upon those brothers, and it is a form of opportunism on behalf of Abu Usaamah to actually raise this matter against them in the way that he has. Rather they respect him and they love him and his manhaj and they are upon his manhaj, a manhaj which Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee and his followers and his allies are against, and which they cannot handle, as is clear. Whereas Abu Usaamah is not upon the manhaj of Shaykh Rabee' which the major scholars were pleased with, Shaykh al-Albaanee, and Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, and Shaykh Muqbil and Shaykh bin Baaz (rahimahumullaah), and there exist textual and verbal statements from these Shaykhs to indicate this.

In reality, this is what all of this is about. And as for these little side issues here and there which are being raised by these people, they are just used by these people to cloud the actual underlying truths and realities of this fitnah, and which they dare not address, because it has already been established that this fitnah they are caught up in is merely an extension of those fitnahs of the concealed Ikhwaaneees who preceded them, like Ar'oor and ash-Shayijee and others.


This message was edited by on 10-9-03 @ 6:16 PM

10-10-2003 @ 4:47 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Posts: 140
Joined: Sep 2002
As Salaam 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullaahi Wa Barakatuh,

You may listen to the audio/translation of this clarfication, sound advice and invitation from Shaykh Rabee' Ibn Haadee.


Stated Shaykh Rab'ee Ibn Haadee, "So then, right now, if there is anyone from the Qur'aan and Sunnah Society who wants to return to the truth, then the way is open in front of them, may Allaah bless you.  And our brother (someone specific who knows who he is), if he wants to return from what he was upon, then, "Ahlan wa sahlan" (he is welcome)."

The First Question: ?Abdul-Mun?im al-Leebee, the chairman of the Qur?aan and Sunnah Society, now lives in our city, in Toronto.  He is also moving his organization here as well.  We heard that you have warned against him and his organization, however, they claim that this is not true.  So we are seeking clarification from you regarding this man, ?Abdul-Mun?im al-Leebee, and his organization, as they are now in our city.

The Second Question: Some of the followers of 'Abdul-Mun'im are saying that one of the Jordanian students of knowledge came here (Toronto) with a letter from you, assigning them to reconcile what is between the Salafees and 'Abdul-Mun'im and his organization.  Is this correct?


Jazaakum Allaahu khayr

TawhidFirst | Aqidah | AboveTheThrone | Asharis
Madkhalis | Takfiris | Maturidis | Dajjaal
Islam Against Extremism | Manhaj
Ibn Taymiyyah | Bidah
Arabic Verbs List

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