Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah
After the recent atrocities that we have all witnessed in France, the believer may be receiving mixed and confusing messages. Continue reading
Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah
After the recent atrocities that we have all witnessed in France, the believer may be receiving mixed and confusing messages. Continue reading →
Bismillahi Wal Hamdulillah Was Salaatu Was Salaatu ‘alaa Rasoolillah
A word on these observations
It should be known that this small series was not intended to be a detailed ‘rebuttal’ of Al Hajoori, rather the intent of the series was merely to enumerate some of the many issues the people of knowledge and students of knowledge have against him, hence the title ‘Observations’. Continue reading →
Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah
Under Point 2 The Document mentions:
02: THERE IN NO SUCH THING AS MODERATE OR RADICAL OR EXTREME ISLAM
Under this point he begins with the statement:
“The terms extremist, moderate, terrorist, radical etc… have no place in Islam whatsoever.”
He also claims: “..These terms have been introduced into the vocabulary by the British regime and the media in order to isolate Muslims who practice their deen and thereafter to demonize them and eventually to bring in laws to silence them hoping that the other Muslims will not speak up in their defence..”
This statement of his is again either one of ignorance concerning the statements of Allah and his Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him), or a continuation of the ongoing fabrications we see coming from this man and his group.
Regardless of how these terms are used by the Non-Muslims, it is falsehood to reject the fact that these concepts have been mentioned in the Book and the Sunnah. If Anjem is ignorant of the presence of these affairs in the book and Sunnah, then he has no place speaking on behalf of any Muslim until he learns the religion (or perhaps he is working with the previous principle of his ‘anyone of them (the Muslims) may represent them all!’) or he knows of them, and he intentionally hides that which is in the book and the Sunnah, which is a worse calamity!
Allah mentions in the Qur’aan
“Thus have we make you a balanced nation (i.e. moderate) that you may be witnesses over mankind”
(Suratul Baqarah Vs 143)
The Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) also said:
“Be aware of extremism (Al Ghuloo) for indeed those who came before you were destroyed by extremism”
(Sunan An Nasaa’ie Hadeeth No. 3057)
Thus we clearly have references to extremism and moderation in Islamic text. We have the encouragement with one, and a warning against the other.
As far as the term ‘Terrorist’ then, while the issue of striking terror in the heart of the enemy during ‘legislated’ and ‘legitimate’ warfare is a desired affair among all nations, to use murder, kidnapping and other such methods as a means for change, political or otherwise, is the evil path of the first of the innovators who appeared within this Ummah, those who assassinated Ali Radhiyallahu Anhu, the khawaarij. Thus the Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah consider the terms ‘Irhaab/Irhaabi’ (Terrorism/Terrorist) as accepted terms referring to a well known group of individuals.
Shaikh Abdul Azeez Ibn Baaz mentions: “At-Tattarruf (Extremism) is (a methodology based upon) taking (innovated) allowances that have no legitimate substantiation and no evidence supporting them. Terrorism is that one attacks or kills individuals without right or evidence, in fact upon ignorance and devoid of insight. They then, are referred to as ‘Terrorists’ (Irhaabiyoon), those who kill people without right and without shariah proof. They affect the security of the people and cause problems between then and within their country, they are Terrorists.
(From the tape: Verdicts of the scholars concerning Jihaad and Suicide missions and terrorism)
In this section we see other examples of Choudhurys ignorant generalisations. He states:
“The Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) Muhammad (saw) said: “Whatever is not based upon my teachings will be rejected”
Again here we see an example of his untrustworthiness in narration, if he cannot be trusted when narrating from the Messenger of Allah (May Peace Be Upon Him) then he undoubtedly will be even less trustworthy with the speech of anyone else!
The Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) said in the hadeeth of Aisha:
“Whoever brings about in this affair of ours that which is not from it then it will be rejected”
(Collected by Bukhaari and Muslim) And in a variant narration:
“Whoever carries out an action in this affair of ours that is not from it will have it rejected”
(Collected by Muslim)
These two narrations are the closest authentic hadeeths carrying that which resembles the meaning of the text that Choudhury has quoted. No doubt though, we observe that the meanings of the authentic narrations revolve around innovations ‘in the religion’ while the wording Choudhury sites is broader and encompasses much more than the actual hadeeth.
The authentic hadeeth mentions specifies the issues of religion, while his version would appear to carry the meaning that there is nothing that may be carried out by the Muslim at all, unless there is text to substantiate it. While this is true as it relates to acts of worship and issues of belief, it does not hold true in relation to worldly affairs. The principle that our scholars mention regularly is that the worldly affairs are all permissible unless there are clear-cut texts prohibiting a particular action. This principle they base upon the statement of Allah the most high:
“It is he who has created for you all that is on the earth” (Suratul Baqarah Vs 29)
And other such texts which indicate that Allah has given us these things to enjoy as we will, as long as we do not partake in prohibited matters.
It is important then that we observe well, the inaccuracies we observe in this document, since they form the basis of much of their warped view and extreme methodology as we will go on to see inshallah.
Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi
As mentioned in part 1, Anjem and his group have produced a document entitled ‘Islamic Prevent’ He mentions the main title, then follows it with an explanatory subtitle that states ‘Preventing Secular Fundamentalism and the Occupation of Muslim Land’ it is clear then that the document represents the blueprint for his organisations approach, ideology and methodology.
It is presented with an introductory passage which is followed by an 18 point ‘Action Plan’ for every Muslim living in the U.K. It is then sealed with a conclusion and a reference to his (now inactive) website. In the introductory passage he states: “The pamphlet you are reading is intended to open the eyes of Muslims and non-Muslims to the responsibility of Muslims living in the UK..” Thus the intent is to ‘open the eyes’ of Muslims living in the U.K to their responsibility and (he states) to highlight the dangers of this UK government led campaign against them (I.e the ‘Prevent’ agenda). In this discussion I will not quote the whole document but address some if its issues hoping this will shed light upon Anjem and his group.
Under this point he states: “A Muslim cannot have any other identity than that of Al-Islam. He is a Muslim first and last. The Messenger Muhammad (saw) taught us that (he then mentions the following in bold to give the impression that it is a hadeeth of the Messenger -Sallallahu Alahi Was Salam) the Muslims are one community among the whole of mankind, their land is one, their war is one, their peace is one, their honour is one and any one of them can represent them all.” So the question then to Anjem is where are these ‘Teachings’ of the messenger – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam recorded? Is this statement recorded in one of the well known collections of hadeeth? If so which one? Where are they in the Sunan, or the Masaaneed or the musanafaat or the Jawaami’ Or are these a collection of ‘teachings’ taken from individual Ahaadeeth? If that is the intent, then in which narration did the Messenger – Sallallahu alaihi was salam teach that their land is one? In which hadeeth did he teach that anyone of them may represent them all!? or is this just your way of trying to make your own statements pass as the statement of the Messenger – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam?
He further states: “..A Muslim cannot have any bond with other Muslims other than that of Al-Islam.
No doubt Allah has mentioned in the Qur‟an:
“Cling to the rope of Allah together and do not be divided…” (Surah Aali Imraan Vs 103)
This verse no doubt commands us with unity to the best of our ability in accordance with that which is upright, correct and most apt depending upon our situation.
There is no proponent of any belief, except that he would love that the followers of his faith are united in every affair from their affairs, their reality though is very different.
While the ideal is that they strive for unity as much as possible, it has been decreed that this is something that will never occur.
Allah the most high says:
“And they will never cease to disagree except him on whom your lord has bestowed his mercy…”
(Suratul Hud Vs118-119)
This then, is a decreed reality we must try and comprehend
And the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) also said:
“The Jews split into seventy one sects, seventy in the hell fire, one in paradise, the Christians split into seventy two sects, seventy one in the fire one in paradise and this nation will split into seventy three sects seventy two in the hell fire one in paradise. So the companions asked who is that one oh Messenger of Allah (May Peace Be Upon Him) ? So he responded “The one who is upon what I and my companions are upon today”
(Just as correct guidance at the period after Moses was in following him and correctness after Jesus was in following him. Muslim belief is that the those groups that have veered away from the path of the prophet, if they are not forgiven prior to punishment, then they will be purified for their transgressions and deviations and then will ultimately enter paradise)
Thus the reality is that this absolute unity will not occur, but the Muslims have been commanded to make the best of all situations and strive to unify their ranks as best as possible.
In more than one narration the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) has commanded with this:
He said in the hadeeth narrated by Abu Huraira:
“Strive to do that which is right, come as close as possible to correctness and give glad tidings if you do so..” (Saheeh bukhaari)
As far as Choudhurys statement: “their land is one…”
Then this has never been the case even at the time of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him). Though the Islamic empire had one ruler, the Messenger of Allah (May Peace Be Upon Him), it has always been comprised of well-known countries, having known borders and having established boundaries. The Caliphs of Muhammad after his death established governors over those regions who governed in accordance with Islamic law, much like the well-known British empire of our time. Why did the caliphs of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) not abolish these known countries with their boundaries and make one united colony without borders and names?. Shaam (a region comprising of present day Syria, Jordan and Palestine) remained sham, the Yemen remained the Yemen, Hijaaz remained Hijaaz and the Najd remained the Najd.
In addition to retaining these names the caliphs of Muhammad also appointed governors for those regions
In order to attempt to establish this concept of a borderless Muslim empire, Choudhury fabricates a prophetic narration, the correct version of which is actually a refutation of him.
He mentions: “The division of Muslim land or placing of borders is also condemned, the Prophet said: “Whoever puts a border to land has been cursed”
Nowhere in the well-known collections of prophetic traditions do we find this statement attributed to the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) with an authentic chain of transmission.
What we do find though, is the authentic narration:
“Cursed indeed is he who changes the borders of the land”
The narration was collected in the mustadrak of Haakim 4/366, and likewise Sunanul Kubraa of Baihaqi 8/231 with an authentic chain of transmission
The classical commenters of hadeeth have mentioned that the hadeeth refers to an individual who owns land bordering the land of another, who then secretly changes the boundaries of his land in order to usurp land from his neighbour.
Thus the narration is in actuality a refutation of his claim, that division of Muslim land is condemned.
Here we see the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) condemning someone who tries to claim land that isn’t theirs, so what of Choudhurys claim that Muslims lands are one or that whoever puts a border to land is cursed??
As far as the hadeeth that he quotes from the well-known hadeeth compilation Sunan Abi Daawood concerning Asabiyah (Nationalism, tribalism):
“He is not one of us he who calls for`Asabiyyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyyah or who dies for`Asabiyyah.”
Then it is a weak narration. It is weak due to there being a break in its chain between the companion of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) who narrated it, namely Jubair ibn Mut‟im (Radhiyallahu „anhu) and the narrator in the chain of transmission who took it from the companion, a narrator known as Abdullah ibn Abi Sulaimaan.
The compiler of this collection Imaam Abu Dawood himself said about the hadeeth:
قال أبو داود : هذا مُرْسَلٌ ، عَبْد اللهِ بن أَبي سُلَيْمَان لم يَسْمع من جُبَيْر
“This is Mursal (meaning that the chain of transmission is broken) Abdullah ibn Abi Sulaimaan didn’t hear from JubairYes, there is a version of the Hadeeth that is authentic but it is a version that carries a slightly different meaning, the wording of which is:
“Whosoever fights under a banner of bigotry, he becomes angry due to tribalism, he supports and aids it and calls to it and then he is killed (i.e. in that path) then his death is like the death of the pre-Islamic era (Jahilliyah)”
Clearly the authentic version of the narration differs in meaning and is less general than the version used by Choudhury, since it refers to one who engages in battle for that cause and dies. No doubt tribalism, racism etc is still considered a sin and unrighteous but the point here is that this text doesn‟t support the claim that the Muslim can have no bond with another Muslim other than Islaam. Neither does it support that which Anjem alludes to.
The prophet named the Muslims who migrated with him from Makka to Madina as Muhaajiroon and those who welcomed him to Madina from its Muslim inhabitants Ansaar (as Allah does in the Qur’aan). Similarly attributing oneself to ones tribe was not abolished.
The companions continued to attribute themselves to their tribes which were for the most part pagan tribes, until the conquest of Makka which was close to the death of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him).
For example we had the well-known four caliphs of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) all well known by their attributions to their tribes:
Abu Bakr As Sideeq (whose full name was Abdullah ibn abi Quhaafah At Taymee) attributed to the taymee tribe
Umar ibn Al Khataab Al Adawi (attributed to the Adawi tribe)
Uthmaan ibn „Affaan Al Amawi (attributed to the Amawi tribe)
Ali Ibn Abi Taalib Al Haashimi (attributed to the Haashimi tribe)
Abu Dharr Al Ghifaari (An attribution to the Ghifaari tribe)
Abu Huraira, also known as Abdur Rahmaan ibn sakhr Ad-Dausi (an attribution to the Dausi tribe)
And the list is endless,
From them were those who were attributed to their countries of origin for example,
Suhaib Ar Roomi (i.e. Suhaib the Roman)
Salmaan Al Faarisi (Salmaan the Persian)
Abu Raafi Al Qibti (Abu Raafi the Coptic)
Thus the attribution of a people to a tribe or place is not dispraised In Islaam, unless it leads to, or causes some form of discrimination.
Allah the most high states:
“Oh Mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, an made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honourable of you with Allah is he who has most Taqwa (piety) Verily Allah is All-knowing All Aware” (Suratul Hujaraat Vs 13)
He then states towards the end of point one:
“..This will mean that nationalistic flags, clothes, emblems, anthems etc… or to support regional or national football teams are completely prohibited, let alone to join the non-Muslim armies and to protect or defend land for the sake of nationalism.
Anyone aquainted with the rhetoric of these people will know that what Anjem is attempting to do here is make you join their ‘Rally against the Rulers” Since (according to them) they put borders to your lands, they dont support and defend you when you are attacked, they prevent you from representing the Ummaah (regardless of whether you are an illiterate bedouin or an uneducated immature adolecent with a violent background) since any one of us can do so. They (the rulers) also call Non-Muslim Troops to a nationalistic war and will have you saluting the National anthem. Thus we have this Rabble-Rousing begining from this very first point…Allahul Musta’aan
Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi
Undoubtedly from the trials faced by the Muslims in the west, are those trials that the individual muslim undergoes, then there are the trials that occur at the hands of oppressors within the Ummah that are more general and affect more than the perpetrators themselves.
Allah the most high says:
“And fear the affliction which affects not in particular those of you who do wrong (but it afflicts good and bad people)”
(Suratul Anfaal Vs 25)
From the greatest examples of this type of trial is that which is witnessed by Muslims and non-Muslims in the west alike, being promoted by deviant khaariji individuals and groups.
Maybe one of the most bothersome for citizens of Great Britain is that which has come from Anjem Choudhury and his organisation.
In a relatively recent document produced by him and his group, we see various examples of his misrepresentation of Islaam, the Muslims in general and the Muslim creed, the like of which is harms Muslims before it harms anyone else.
Analysis of the document brings to light the Ignorance, destructive misunderstanding and at times the outright treachery, lies and deception of this individual and his group.
The reality then of this individual and his group is that they are nothing but another modern day manifestation of the prophesized khawaarij the messenger of Allah – Sallallahu Alaihi was Salam spoke of.
The Messenger of Allah mentioned as occurs in a hadeeth in Saheeh Al Bukhaari, the hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed Al Khudree – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu wherein the Messenger – Sallallahu alaihi Was Salam described a people who were to come who would ‘..recite the Qur’aan but it will not go past their throats, they will pass through the religion the way an arrow passes through its game, they will kill the people of Islaam but leave the people of Idol worship..”
We see then that the Messenger mentioned that from their characteristics is that they will ‘kill the people of Islaam and leave alone the people of Idol worship’. Our scholars mention though, that the Khawaarij that succeeded this early band of khawaarij went on to kill muslims and non muslims alike. From the sects of khawaarij that have manifested there is a sect known as the ‘An-Najdaat’ which was from the earliest groups of the khawaarij, they began to view as lawful the blood of Ahludh Dhimma (non Muslims living under the Islamic state) as Shahrastaani states in Al Millali Wan Nihal (P124). Likewise another group known as the Sufriya deemed it permissible to indiscriminately kill Muslims and Non Muslims. Imaam Ibn Hazm states: “A group from among the Sufriya held it compulsory to kill whoever they were able whether Muslim or Non Muslim..” (Al Fisal 4/190). Thus their killing became indiscriminate not long after their initial appearance, and this trait has continued with them until the present day.
There is no doubt then, that what we all recently witnessed, from the brutal murder of lee Rigby in Woolwich London carried out by Khaariji Mujaahid (Michael) Adebolajo, was nothing but another manifestation of this very evil ideology. Regardless of how we feel about events in our countries the act was ‘Haraam’ and no one should feel that ‘it serves them right’ or they are now receiving ‘a taste of their own medicine’ for when has an act of haram ever been praiseworthy? Hajaaj bin Yusuf not only took life but he killed Sahabah yet it would have been Haraam for an individual to take it upon himself to kill him due to that.
From the well known groups of early khawaarij we have those who were known as the Qa’diyah. They were those who sat back (Qa’adoo) and encouraged others to revolt and kill and were from the most evil of them.
There is no doubt that in our time and country Anjem Choudhury is at the head of them (i.e The Qa’diyah) Thus when he was questioned about the Woolwich murder carried out by someone he had nurtured, he expressed that he was ‘Shocked’ by the murder but refused to condemn it. Any Muslim would have hastened to condemn the murder, if only on the basis that it was haram, but Amjem refuses to do so which of course implies tacit approval. And perhaps the only reason he was ‘shocked’ was due to the fact that he and his group have historically in the U.K been a group of ‘Qa’diyah’ it then perhaps shocked him that someone actually did something for once, though he clearly did not disapprove.
This then is the first part of a brief discussion of some of the points Anjem Choudhry makes in a relatively recent article him and his group produced called ‘Islamic Prevent’ wherein he states that which he holds every muslim, particularly those in the U.K should be maintain.
This Individual and his group have been responsible for bringing nothing but Fitnah, corruption, turmoil and hardship to our midst! Due to their actions brothers have been attacked, sisters abused and unveiled (or even made to strip in one case!) legislation affecting Muslims tightened, travel made difficult and sometimes humiliating, Articles, books and blogs written in ridicule of Islaam, the da’wah affected, Masaajid, The houses of Allah firebombed and burnt to the ground, and our elderly killed. Will they then not reflect upon the blessing of peace and security mentioned in the book and the sunnah.
The Blessing of peace and security
There is no doubt that peace and security and public safety is indeed a great blessing. It is a blessing that is enjoyed by the rich, the poor, the young, and the old, both male and female. Even the creatures and animals benefit from it. By way of Allah blessing us with security we are able to establish the Salaah (Prayer), populate the Masaajid (Mosques),the Ulamaa and students of knowledge are free to bring benefit, Tawheed is established, good is enjoined, evil is prohibited, the bonds of kinship are easily maintained, the pathways are safe, students of knowledge are able to travel to obtain knowledge, oppression is repelled and the wealth, property, honour and blood of the people is protected.
And indeed Allah has warned us against Fitan (the plural of fitna lit: trials/afflictions) particularly the like of which encompass the people in general.
Allah the most high says: “And fear the fitna (trial/affliction)that does not affect the oppressor alone” (Suratul An’aam Vs 25)
that is it affects the oppressor and perpetrator of crime and other than him.
And indeed Allah the most high mentioned the affair of public security being from the reasons why they should establish worship to him alone as he is the one who as blessed them with it among other things.
Allah the most high says: “..We cause the (Quraish) caravans to set forth safe in winter and in Summer, so let them worship the lord of this house (the Ka’bah in Makka. (He) who has fed them in hunger and granted them safety from fear” (Suratul Quraish Vs 2-4)
Indeed the prophet of Allah has said: “Whoever wakes up in security with his herd (of cattle), healthy in his body, possessing sustenance for his day, then it is as though he has the whole world in its entirety as his possession” (Authentic: Collected by At Tirmidhi 2346)
When security has the station that it does, Abraham – Alaihis Salaam gave it precedence in the supplication that he made for the future inhabitants of Makka.
Allah the most high says: “And when Ibraaheem said “Oh my lord make this land (Makka) secure and provide sustenance for its people…”(Suratul Baqarah:126)
Similarly Islam with its various rulings and legislations has come to protect that which is known as the ‘Durooriyaatul khams’ (the five major major necessities that Islam has been sent to protect) namely: the religion, ones person, the intellect, the lineage and ones wealth) For indeed the affair of mankind in this world is as the messenger (saw) has informed us, resemblant to a ship that the people are in. Those on the lower deck of the ship intend to make a hole in the boat which will result in all of them sinking in the boat and so it is the duty of rest of those on board to stop them from their intent so as to save all of those aboard.
Therefore whosoever opens a door from the doors of fitan it is the duty of every Muslim to close it and to prevent that even if they intend good or feel these actions are justified. Thus what is ultimately looked at is the outcome of those actions and the path being followed and not the fact that the one who carries them out have good intent. For intent alone doth not a good action make.
Thus we will address some of the ideas of Anjem Choudhury and his group hoping this will highlight the evil of this man and his call.
I initially called it ‘Addressing soundly, the corruption of Anjem Choudhury, his transgressions of the boundaries and his foolishness and floundery’ or alternatively ‘Addressing Anjem Choudhury’ and I ask Allah to make it sincerely for his face.
Wa Billahit Tawfeeq
Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi
One of our noble brothers recently posted this introduction to the book ‘Fasaad Bayaanil Mi’yaar’ of the Waalid, our Shaikh and teacher, Rabee’ Ibnu Haadi Al Madkhalee – Hafidhahullah. It discusses quite aptly, some of the false and deceptive methods employed by the likes of Abu Usaama Adhahabee and those who share his orientation, whose war isn’t, in actuality against ‘Salafi publications’ per se, but rather the Salafi methodology upheld by the scholars of this manhaj in our time. Since ‘Salafi Publications’ is a vehicle disseminating that methodology in the English language, it feels the brunt of their attacks, their ‘true’ goal though, be clear, is other than Salafi Publications.
Thus I mention his words here for reflection, but is there any that will take admonition?
Shaikh Rabee Bin Haadee Al-Madkhalee (may Allaah preserve him) stated:
“Indeed, from the severest of afflictions and trials upon Islaam and the Muslims in this era, is the appearance of a group claiming to be upon the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah Wal-Jamaa-ah, but unfortunately this group does not act except in opposition to this methodology and its people, openly at times and behind veils at other times.
And indeed this group has placed a heavy burden upon its (own) shoulders, and that is its defence of the people of innovation and misguidance. They author books in this regard and decorate articles due to it, and they spread their defence around the world under the banner of ‘justice and equity’ or (under) the methodology of Al Muwaazanaat (a methodology that revolves around the belief that justice is in mentioning the good characteristics of the one being refuted alongside the refutation, which is a methodology in opposition to the true methodology of Ahlus Sunnah).
They exceed the limits in the affair of Fiqul Waaqi (knowledge of current affairs) and speak ill of the scholars of the Salafi Methodology as a result of that; In fact they belittle and discredit the methodology of the scholars due to this, and (further) increase in ill speech against the Salafi Methodology and its people. Yet one sees no effect of their methodology of ‘justice and equity’ when they debate the people of the Salafi methodology!. Nor (is it seen) in their praises and exaltations for the people of innovation (i.e they are not just or balanced in that regard).
Additionally, although one sees them concealing themselves under the banner of the ‘Salafi Methodology’, you will not see them giving it any importance, except with respect to what they utilize to deceive those who are deceived by them and their (false) garment, in order that they may bring them over to their corrupt partisanship organization, and so as to kill off their love for the (true) Salafi Methodology, the call to it, defence of it, traversing on it upon the methodology of the pious predecessors with the (correct) love and hate (for the sake of Allaah), and warning against the people of innovation.
So they divert a generation of individuals from the true methodology and having true allegiance to it; and they (direct them) towards a ‘heated’ allegiance to the people of innovation and defence of them and their innovations and falsehoods. Or they trivialise the affair of their innovations to the extent that it leads them to the station of the extreme murji-a (i.e those who held that sinful actions have no effect upon Imaan) with regards to how they view the major innovations and these great oppositions to the true religion of Allaah.
Meanwhile, on the opposite end of the spectrum, their hatred for the carriers of the Sunnah and the (true) Salafi Methodology has led them to blow their minor errors out of proportion, errors the likes of which a Sunni or (even) an innovator amongst those who ascribe themselves to Islaam should not be criticised for. They present these mistakes as mighty affairs of blunder and destruction; in fact they (go as far as to) make the virtues and merits of Ahlus Sunnah (i.e such as their praiseworthy position regarding the people of innovation) to be repugnant and disdainful. Not to mention the many fabrications they accuse them (the people of sunnah) of.
So they are, due to these lowly, despicable acts perpetrated by them, from the worst and most severe of the people waging war against the Salafi Methodology and its people, the severest in preventing and blocking people from them both (i.e the salafi methodology and its people); and the most intense in their defence of the groups of innovation and fitan, their claimants and their methodologies. And they have authorships in this regard, and from them are the many authorships of Shaikh Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul Khaaliq who carries the responsibility for this destructive orientation…”
And we ask Allah the most high to cause the ‘Just Aaqil’ (person of intelligence) to reflect upon this!