100 Observations against Al Hajoori – 2 (21-30)

Bismillahi Wal hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Sallaamu ‘alaa Rasoolillahi

Continue reading

100 Observations against Al Hajoori – Point 13

Bismillahi Wal hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘alaa Rasooliillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

As mentioned in the beginning of this post the intent behind this post is only to mention the issues and not to discuss the issues with any detail

It has reached me that one of the Hajoori fanatics has criticized part one of this post (which, of course was what I was expecting!) saying that in point 13 you mentioned:

13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees (The belief of Ahlus Sunnah is that Allah would never do such a thing rather he only punishes due to actions committed and Ahlus Sunnah do not even make the suggestion since it opposses the attribute of Justice)

The individual states:


Abu Hakeem has falsely accused Shaikh Yahya (may Allaah preserve him) of having the aqeedah of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees. Abu Hakeem said,
“13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees…”

Here B. Davis makes a terrible mistake. Why is this such a huge mistake? Because the meaning of the speech of Shaikh Yahya comes in a hadeeth which Shaikh Muqbil brings in his Al-Jaamee As-Saheeh.

وقال الإمام أحمد رحمه الله أيضا(5/185)
حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا سِنَانٍ يُحَدِّثُعَنْ وَهْبِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ الْحِمْصِيِّ عَنِ ابْنِ الدَّيْلَمِيِّ قَالَ وَقَعَ فِي نَفْسِي شَيْءٌمِنْ الْقَدَرِ فَأَتَيْتُ زَيْدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ فَسَأَلْتُهُ فَقَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِوَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ لَوْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَذَّبَ أَهْلَ سَمَاوَاتِهِ وَأَهْلَأَرْضِهِ لَعَذَّبَهُمْ غَيْرَ ظَالِمٍ لَهُمْ وَلَوْرَحِمَهُمْ كَانَتْ رَحْمَتُهُ لَهُمْ خَيْرًا مِنْ أَعْمَالِهِمْ وَلَوْ كَانَلَكَ جَبَلُ أُحُدٍ أَوْ مِثْلُ جَبَلِ أُحُدٍ ذَهَبًا أَنْفَقْتَهُ فِي سَبِيلِاللَّهِ مَا قَبِلَهُ اللَّهُ مِنْكَ حَتَّى تُؤْمِنَ بِالْقَدَرِ وَتَعْلَمَأَنَّ مَا أَصَابَكَ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِيُخْطِئَكَ وَأَنَّ مَا أَخْطَأَكَ لَمْ يَكُنْلِيُصِيبَكَ وَأَنَّكَ إِنْ مِتَّ عَلَى غَيْرِ هَذَا دَخَلْتَ النَّارَ.

“So he (Zaid ibn Thaabit) said, I heard the Messenger of the Allaah (praise and peace be upon him) say, “If verily Allaah punished the companions of His heavens and the companions of His earth, He would punish them and would not be an Oppressor to them…” (Al-Hadeeth)

So we see that Shaikh Yahya did not add anything to the hadeeth. So we ask B. Davis, “Do you accuse the Prophet (praise and peace be upon him) of being Jahmee or Ash’aree?” Now, we wait for your reply or your tawba!..”

Here we see a typical example of the problem at hand, the tarbiyah Ilmiyah they recieve, and the smug attitude of one pleased with himself and his skanty understanding. Not forgetting the close to humourous ‘confidence’ many of their ignorant chests are filled with!

His statement: “..Now, we wait for your reply or your tawba!..” is actually an invitation to play ‘Ping-Pong’ with them which is something i refuse to do! But i will say this..

He accuses me of ignorance in the affairs of the adeedah as is their normal practice (though i have been aquainted with this hadeeth for more than 15 years since studying the explanation of Al Aqeedatut Tahaawiyah of Ibn Abil ‘Izz Al Hanafi with our Shaikh Ali Naasir Al faqeehi in Madina in the mid ninties!)

But this ‘Defense’ of theirs is nothing but more evidence of their Jahl!

For your information, this hadeeth has been discussed and used by three sets of people. It has been discussed by the Qadariyah, it has been used by the Jabariyah and it has been used ‘correctly’ by Ahlus Sunnah. Each of them UNDERSTAND the hadeeth in accordance with their belief.

Al Haafidh Ibn Hajr mentions in ‘Fathul Baari (18/284)

“قَالَ وَهَذَا فَصْل الْخِطَاب مَعَ الْجَبْرِيَّة الَّذِينَ أَنْكَرُوا أَنْ تَكُون الْأَعْمَال سَبَبًا فِي دُخُول الْجَنَّة مِنْ كُلّ وَجْه ، وَالْقَدَرِيَّة الَّذِينَ زَعَمُوا أَنَّ الْجَنَّة عِوَضُ الْعَمَل وَأَنَّهَا ثَمَنه وَأَنَّ دُخُولهَا بِمَحْضِ الْأَعْمَال ، وَالْحَدِيث يُبْطِل دَعْوَى الطَّائِفَتَيْنِ وَاَللَّه أَعْلَم

This is the determining factor between the belief of the Jabariyah those who reject the fact that ones actions may be a cause for an individual entering Jannah, and between the Qadariyah who claim that Jannah is granted to a person in exchange for his actions, but this hadeeth (actually) nullifies the claim of both parties..”

The Jabariyah then, hold that ones actions are not a cause for one entering jannah (since they believe that we are taken by predecree like feathers are taken by wind and our actions have no effect upon our final destination).

Since this is their belief they use the hadeeth in question to establish that Allah does with us that which he wills (i.e. without our actions coming into play and having any effect upon our outcome) therefore this hadeeth is from the strongest of that which they use to substantiate their belief.

Particularly the statement of the Messenger Saw “If Allah were to punish the inhabitants of the heaven and the inhabitants of earth he would punish them without oppressing them..”

They hold that this hadeeth establishes their belief that we are like feathers in the wind

After mentioning the Hadeeth Ibn Abil ‘Izz Al Hanafi mentions in his explanation of Al Aqeedah At Tahaawiyah

This Hadeeth is from that which the Jabariyyah use as evidence (i.e. for their belief)..”

As for the Qadariyah then it is not relevant to their false principles so they either receive it with rejection or interpretation. The best of the people in its regard are Ahlus Sunnah..”

(Sharhul Aqeedatit Tahaawiyah)

So do we now say as Al Hajooris defenders say “Oh the Jabariyah were only quoting the hadeeth!!”

Ibnil Qayyim Mentions concerning the Hadeeth in ‘Miftaahu Daaris Sa’aadah:

“Thus his mercy is not an exchange for their actions, neither is it a fruit of their actions, rather it is greater than their actions as occurs in the same hadeeth “If he were to be merciful to them then his mercy would be better for them than their actions..”

So he gathered between both affairs in the hadeeth that is (the clarification of the fact that) if he punished them he would punish them DUE TO THEM BEING DESERVED OF THAT and he would not have oppressed them. And if he had mercy upon them then that would be purely due to virtue from him and benevolence not because of their actions..”

Thus Ahlus Sunnah understand that the hadeeth is held to mean that if Allah were to punish all of the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth he would do so because THEY WERE DESERVED OF PUNISHMENT hence he would not have wronged them.

The problem with the speech of Al Hajoori is that his speech is connected to an earlier statement (as we mentioned in the beginning of the article these were merely bullet points and was not meant to be a breakdown of the issues)

Al Hajoori mentions in ‘Al Minnatul Ilaahiyah bi Sharhil Aqeedatus Safaareeniyah P153) quoting one of the mistakes of Imaam Safaareeni who said in some lines of poetry:

And it is possible for our patron (Allah) to punish his creation * WITHOUT THEM HAVING SINNED OR COMMITED ANY CRIME!”

This statement of Safaareeni is the exact statement of the Jabariyah those who say that Allah does with us as he wills and our actions play no part in our outcome! Instead of doing that which all of the scholars who explain it do which is to hasten to highlight the error of this statement. And that it is in accordance to the belief of the Jabariyyah and that Ahlus Sunnah hold such and such.

Instead he says:

“What is EVEN BETTER(!) (Ahsan Min Haadhaa) than this, is the statement of Imaam At Tahaawi:

He guides who he wills and he protects and pardons from his virtue. He misguides who he wills and he forsakes them and tests them from his justice, all of them revolve around his will, between his virtue and his justice

then he says:

Allah says: “ He will not be asked about what he does but they will be asked”(Suratul Anbiyaa 23)

Allah pardons and is benevolent.

He says: “If it were not for the virtue of Allah upon you then none of you would be purified ever but indeed Allah purifies whosoever he wills” (Suratun Noor Vs 21)

Then he quotes: “So Virtue is for Allah before and after if Allah were to punish All of his worshippers he would not have oppressed them, and if he is merciful to them then it would be due to his virtue, his favour and his generosity..”

So as you can see the statement is devoid of the necessary explanation of the correct position of Ahlus Sunnah. And even though the statement of Imaam Tahaawi that he quotes is correct it does not sufficiently clarify the error or clarify the position of Ahlus Sunnah in regards to the Justice of Allah.

So I ask you, what will the reader walk away with?

Would he walk away correctly understanding the aqeedah of Ahlis Sunnah in relation to the justice of Allah and being clear about the error of As Safaarini or will he walk away with the aqeedah of the Jahmiyah (who are Jabariyah in regards to Qadr)?

Where is the clarification that we would expect from a small student of knowledge much less ‘An Naasihul Ameen!!

So the issue is not an issue of quotation of Hadeeth alone! If that were the case then the people of bid’ah would be correct in that which they say or hold since many of them just ‘quote the hadeeth!’

Wallahu A’lam

On hajoori: https://ah-sp.com/2013/03/15/oh-yahyaa-hold-onto-the-book-with-firm-strength-i-e-hold-fast-to-it-suratul-maryam-vs-13/

100 observations against Al Hajoori

Bismillahi Wal Hamdulillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu Was Salaaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah

Ammaa ba’d:

As promised in the end of our dawra in Birmingham yesterday (30/6/2013), here are the 100 (or more) points and observations the people of knowledge have against Yahya Al Hajoori, collectively gathered from the writings and audio of the people of knowledge against him, I will mention them twenty at a time so as to make them easier to digest and they are of course simply listed since the intent here is not to mention them with their quotations and references, (that can be done at a later date) but simply to mention the issues in a bullet point for those who wish to be acquainted with the affair

Wa billahit Tawfeeq

1. His claim that the Messenger erred in regards to the means of giving da’wah (Wasaa’ilud Da’wah)

2. His belief that not all of the sunnah is revelation

3. His establishing that the statements of the Messenger – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi was Salam are not accepted except with evidence

4. His belittling some of the affairs of the religion that we have been commanded with (like his statement about Shaikh Muhammad Al Imaam, who gave a lecture during the period of the attack of the Hoothi shi’ites upon Ahlus Sunnah and he mentioned “Ahlus Sunnah will die from hunger and Killing and this one doesn’t even mention it! instead he speaks of the Hijaab and whether a woman should cover or not!”)

5. His holding that some of the people of hypocrisy (Munaafiqoon) were students of the Messenger – Sallallahu ‘alaihi was Salam

6. His claim that the deviation known as ‘Irjaa’ (the belief that imaan is in the heart alone (or the heart and tongue as some used to hold) and it doesn’t rise and fall, and that actions are not from Imaan) started with the Sahaabah and that the first the speak with it was Qudaama Ibn Madh’oon – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu

7. His attack upon the rightly guided Khalifah Uthmaan – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu

8. His claim that The Companions at the battle of Badr disobeyed Allah twice and so Allah made a calamity overcome them (this he claims, is the meaning of the verse 165 in Suratu Aali Imraam (“you smote your enemies with one (i.e a disaster) twice as great”..(Refering to their victory in the Battle of Badr) he claims the verse means they commited two sins in the battle of Badr!

9. His method of enumerating the errors of the companions similar to the raafidhah

10. His view that the Sahaabah participated in the killing Uthmaan

11. His view that whosoever curses all of the companions, then he doesn’t disbelieve until he intends by way of that to reject the whole religion or to disparage it

12. His claim that the companions forsook uthmaan – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhum

13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves without them having sinned or committed a crime, then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees (The belief of Ahlus Sunnah is that Allah would never do such a thing rather he only punishes due to actions committed and Ahlus Sunnah do not even make the suggestion since it opposses the attribute of Justice)

14. His claim that whosoever doesn’t know the truth (I.e From the people of knowledge) after researching, then that is due to his negligence, for if he had researched correctly then he would have found it. This is the belief of the Qadariyah and the Mu’tazilah. Ahlus Sunnah Hold that the Mujtahid who strives to come to the truth and exerts all his efforts doing so then he is rewarded for his efforts and is not punished or considered negligent

15. His claim that Pharoah and the Kuffaar called to Tawheed Ar Ruboobiyah

16. His view that Ahlus Sunnah is the ‘closest’ of the groups to the truth

17. His claim that there is no difference between innovators who call to their innovation and those who do not call and thus he claims that the speech of the Salaf in that regard is false empty speech

18. His declaring someone an innovator due to sin (like him declaring on the tape ‘Tubayin Al Kadhib’ when asked about a man that leads people in Salaah but he is homosexual he responded ‘A homosexual is not from Ahlus Sunnah!’ what is a Sunni?! Is he merely the one who affirm the names and attributes?!)

19. Him not making a difference between At-Tawwali (To show love and alliegence to the Kuffaar, and to love to see them and their religion aided and victorious over the Muslims) and Al Muwaalaat (as for Muwaalaat, then it resembles At Tawali in the affair of aiding and supporting but on occasions it is done for reasons related to deen and on occasions it is done for worldly purposes which is a sin but not considered Kufr)

20. He declares the son of Adam Qaabil (Kane) a Kaafir! And he passes the verdict of apostasy upon him! (Shaikh Ibn Baaz Mentions in Majmoo’ Al Fataawaa (3/117): “Indeed Qaabil (Kane) was sinful and killed his brother Haabil (Abel) without right but they were both upon Islaam!”)

Wallahu A’lam

Part 2: https://ah-sp.com/2013/07/15/100-observations-against-al-hajoori-2-21-30/

Addressing Anjem Choudhury Part 3

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah

Ammaa Ba’d:

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.

Abu Hakeem

Addressing Anjem Choudhury Part 2

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

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.

    Point 1: THE ONLY IDENTITY FOR MUSLIMS IS ISLAM

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

Addressing Anjem Choudhury: Part 1

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa B’ad:

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

Abu Hakeem

,

Beware of the hypocrisy and corruption of the two-faced

In the name of Allāh, the Merciful, the bestower of Mercy

Beware of the Hypocrisy and Corruption of the Two-faced

By Abū al-Hasan Mālik Ādam al-Akhdar

It was related by Abū Hurayrah (radhi Allaahu anhu) that the Messenger of Allāh (sallallaahu aaihi wa sallam) said,

Indeed the worst of the people are the two-faced, those who go to one group of people with one face and a different group with another.”[1]

In his explanation of this narration, al-Hāfiz Ibn Hajr (rahimahullaah) says, “al-Qurtub stated,

Indeed the one who is two-faced is the worst of the people because he is similar to the hypocrite[2],using cajolery and lying to create fasād (corruption) between the people.

Al-Nawawī said,

He is the one who goes to each group of people with that which will please them, so he gives them the impression that he is with them and against the other group, and his action is that of hypocrisy, lying, deceit and using trickery to uncover the secrets of each group; and it is from the prohibited sycophancy.’”[3]

Also, in his book al-Zawājir, Al-Haythamī(rahimahullaah) considers the two-faced person from the people of major sin. He states,

“The Two-hundred and Fifty-third Major Sin: the speech of the fork-tongued, i.e. the two-faced, who has no regard with Allāh.”[4]

In another wording of the narration, ‘Ammār ibn Yāsir(radhi Allaahu anhu) related that the Messenger of Allāh (sallallaahu aaihi wa sallam) said,

Whoever had two-faces in the worldly life will have two tongues of fire on the Day of Resurrection.” [5]

Azīm Ābadī(rahimahullaah) says: “Al-‘Alqamī stated:

This means that since he came to each group with different faces to cause corruption, he will be given two tongues of fire like the two tongues he had with each group in the worldly life.’”[6]

Therefore, it is incumbent upon the believers to be wary of those who carry other people’s speech to them, “So and so said such and such about you,” only to turn around and take the second party’s speech back to the first. For how many close companions have been turned into enemies and much rancor has replaced love among us as a result of such machinations? And if these provocateurs truly understood what awaited them from punishment and humiliation, perhaps it would cause them to turn to All ā h in penitence and repair the bonds their whispers have destroyed. We ask Allāh (azzawajal), the Mighty and Majestic, to give us protection from the two-faced and to unite our hearts upon Islām and Sunnah.

References:

[1] Collected by al-Bukhārī in his al-Saheeh(no. 3232, 5719 and 6765) and Muslim in his al-Saheeh(no. 4566, 4693 and 4694)

[2] Just as the hypocrite gives the outward appearance of Islām while harboring disblief and hatred in his heart, the two-faced person gives the outward appearance of love, fealty and reporation while harboring the desire to cause hatred and division in his heart.

[3] Fath al-Bārī (10/475)

[4] al-Zawājir(2/574-576)

[5] Collected by Abū Dāwud in his Sunan(no. 4212). It has been authenticated by al-Albānī in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah (no.992)

[6] ‘Awn al-Ma’b ū d Sharḥ Sunan Abū Dāwud (13/150)

Posted from : http://rahmaniyyahpublishing.wordpress.com/

A Word on Easter – A benefit from Ibn Katheer

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

Since this is the easter season and much is being said about the significance of easter and its claimed origins. It is well known that easter and the customary practices within this season have, in truth, no connection to Jesus the son of Mary, but in fact have paganistic origins (The term ‘Easter’ is in actuality a reference to the Persian goddess of fertility ‘Ishtar’ who was worshipped at this time of year. The Easter bunny and Easter egg (symbolic of fertility) are likewise paganistic in origin, thus these traditions were ‘imported’ into Christianity. We mention here then, a benefit related to the significance of Easter and clarification concerning a misconception.

The Christian narrative suggests that Eesaa had travelled to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover (which was that which took place prior to the day that Allah saved Moosa and his followers from pharaoh and his army, the day of Aashooraa. The biblical story suggests that it had been decreed that the firstborn sons of the people of Egypt would be killed as a punishment for rejection of Moosaa except the households of the believers, who were commanded to smear lambs blood around their doors which would cause the angel of death to ‘passover’ that household.) The following week he (Jesus) learnt that his time to go was near, thus he had a ‘Last Supper’ with his disciples on a day which is referred to as maunday Thursday and then washed their feet. On Friday he was crucified and then on Sunday, Christians believe, he was raised from the dead and that is celebrated on easter Sunday.

It is established in the book of Allah, that it was not Eesaa who was taken and crucifed in fact it was someone Allah made to resemble him (based upon one of the positions of the scholars of tafseer) and he was taken in his place.

Allah the most high states (concerning the reasons of disbelief of the Jews):

and because of their saying (in boast) “We killed the Messiah Eesaa, son of Mary the Messenger of Allah, but they didn’t kill him, neither did they crucify him but rather a resemblance was made..”

When the Christian version of the story is mentioned many conclude that the incident of the last supper is the same as that mentioned in Suratul Maa’idah Vs 112-115:

(Remember) when the disciples said: “O Eesaa, Son of Maryam! Can your lord send to us a table spread with food from the heavens? Eesaa said: “Fear Allah if you are indeed believers” They said: “We wish to eat thereof and to satisfy our hearts and know that you have indeed spoken the truth to us and that we may be witnesses thereof. Eesaa son of Maryam said: “Oh Allah Our Lord send us from the heavens a table spread that it may be a feast for us, the first of us and the last of us and a sign from thee and give us sustenance for though art the best of sustainers. Allah said: ‘I am going to send it down unto you, but if any of you disbelieves , then I will punish him with a torment such as I have never inflicted upon anyone among all the aalameen (Mankind and the Jinn)

It should be mentioned that this incident is NOT the same incident as the last supper, as is commonly misunderstood, in fact this incident has NO mention in the bible at all.

Imaam Ibn Katheer mentions in tafseer of the verse:

“The story of the table spread (descending from the heavens) is not mentioned in the Injeel, it is not known by the christians except by way of the Muslims, and Allah knows best.”

Imaam Ibn Katheer mentions a number of narrations (much of them unconfirmed) that are linked to this story.

Some of those narrations mention that Eesaa had commanded his followers to fast for thirty days after which they made the request for the table since they were in need of eating and they were for the most part poor and needy.

One narration states that when they made the request Eesaa became upset with them and mentioned the fact that the people of ‘Aad were destroyed because they asked their prophet for a sign and due to how they received and responded to the sign Allah sent to them, they earned the anger of Allah and were destroyed.

Some narrations would appear to liken the occurrence to the popular ‘feeding of the five thousand’ incident, since some narrations mention four thousand individuals were present while other narrations mention that the meal consisted of fish and bread which is similar to the food mentioned in the feeding of the five thousand incident in the bible, is it a reference to the same occurrance? No doubt there are similarities.

In any case, that which is established, is that the affair of the table descending from the sky is not mentioned in any christian source, as is the case with that which is mentioned in the Qur’aan concerning the story of the birth of Eesaa and him speaking in the cradle, and other affairs that have no mention in the Bible. This establishes then the falsehood of those who claim that the Messenger ‏‏ (ﷺ)wrote the Qur’aan after being inspired by some of the people of the book he had sat with, and he then modelled his book upon christian scripture!

Some of the scholars of tafseer held that in fact the table did NOT descend because they say that when Allah said:

“..but if any of you disbelieves , then I will punish him with a torment such as I have never inflicted upon anyone among all the aalameen (Mankind and the Jinn)

They (Jesus’ disciples) responded by saying:

“Then we have no need for it!” and it didn’t descend. This was held by Mujaahid and Al Hasan (Al Basri) and Ibn Katheer declared the chains of narration going back to these statements of these two Imaams of the Salaf to be ‘Saheeh’

He then goes on to mention that this may be one of the reasons it does not occur in their sources, for if it had occurred then the narrations from them would have been plentiful.

But then he ultimately concludes that the majority of the scholars of tafseer hold that it DID occur, and this is the choice of Imaam Ibn Jareer At Tabari, because Allah affirms that he sent it down with his statement:

“..I am going to send it down unto you, but if any of you disbelieves , then I will punish him…”

It is for this reason some narrations mention that Eesaa disliked the request, but that which highlights the virtue of Muhammad – Sallallahu alaihi was Salam, is that when a similar request was made to him he responded to the request differently.

Upon the authority of Ibn Abbaas – Radhiyallahu anhu who said: ” (Individuals from The tribe of) Quraish approached the Prophet – Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Salam and said: “Make Dua to your lord for us to that he turn Mount Safaa into gold! and then we will believe in you! So He said: “And will you do so? they said: “Yes! so the Messenger of Allah supplicated to Allah and he was approached by Jibreel who said to him: “Indeed your lord conveys Salaam to you and says: “If you wish I will turn Safaa into gold but whosoever disbelieves after that I will punish him with a punishment I have not inflicted upon anyone in creation, or if you wish I will open for them the door of repentance and mercy” so he said: “Then the doors of repentance and mercy

(Collected by Imaam Ahmad in his ‘Musnad 4/60 and Al Faakihi In ‘Akhbaar Makkah 4/12 and declared ‘Saheeh’ by Shaikh Al Albaani in ‘As Saheehah 9/174)

Highlighting the mercy the Messenger -Sallallahu alaihi was Salam – had and his desire to see people guided to the Haq even though many of them were arrogant and steeped in rejection.

Was Sallallahu ‘Alaa Nabiyyinaa Muhammad

http://www.twitter.com/abuhakeembilal

“Oh Yahyaa! Hold onto the book with firm strength! (i.e. Hold fast to it)” (Suratul Maryam Vs 12)

“Oh Yahyaa! Hold onto the book with firm strength (i.e. Hold fast to it)” (Suratul Maryam Vs 13)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

‘Ammaa Ba’d:

There is no doubt that success lies in following the book and the sunnah, clinging to the two of them and holding fast to them both. And this was Allah’s command to the prophets and the Messengers.

Allah The most high says addressing the prophet of Allah Yahyaa – ‘Alahis Salaam:

“Oh yahyaa!  Hold on to the book with strength, and we gave him ‘Hukm’ while yet a child”

Imaam At Tabari – Rahimahullah mentions in his tafseer (18/155) quoting the statement of Ibn Zaid – Rahimahullah:

“(The statement of Allah) ‘..with strength’  “This is that he carries out what Allah has commanded him and avoids his prohibitions”

Imaam Baghawi states in his tafseer (3/190):

(Speaking concerning the statement of Allah:

“And we gave him ‘Hukm’ while yet a child”)

‘It has been said (i.e. by the scholars of tafseer) that which is intended by ‘Hukm’ is understanding”

He previously mentioned that the command for Yahyaa – ‘Alaihis Salaam to hold onto the book was a command to hold onto the Taurah

Thus Allah praised him for that which he possessed not only of the book (i.e. knowledge of its words) but that he had understanding of that which he possessed from it, then he was further commanded to hold onto it firmly.

Thus that which we understand from the verse is the praiseworthy nature of having knowledge of the book (i.e. memorizing it) and ‘understanding’ that which it contains with ‘correct’ understanding, then clinging to it.

How then would one who observes how Allah raises the mention of the book and those who understand it revile and speak ill of those who carry it and understand it correctly?!

Allah the most high mentions:

“But those among them who are firmly grounded in knowledge and the believers, believe in what has been sent down to you and what was sent down before you,and those who perform the salaah and give zakaah and believe in Allah and the last day. It is they to whom we will give a great reward (Suratun Nisaa Vs 162)

And Allah the most high says:

“Allah will exalt in degree those who of you believe and those who have been given knowledge”

This no doubt is one of the deviations that Yahyaa Al Hajoori – May Allah Guide him has fallen into (among many other things) that has caused the recent clarification from our sheikh, the waalid, defender of the Sunnah and its people in our time in truth Shaikh Rabee ibn Haadi Al Madkhali – Hafidhahullah

This – By Allah – grieves our hearts

Though in reality this speech of the Shaikh is not new to us, since we have known of the Shaikhs displeasure with that which is taking in Dammaj for a good while, but being the perfect example of a patient Aalim of the Sunnah that he is, he advised and gave more than sufficient time for reflection and rectification but alas to no avail.

When we spoke and expressed that the Mashaikh of Ahlus Sunnah are not pleased with that which is occurring there, and the manner in which the students there are being taught and nurtured to disrespect and dishonor the scholars of the sunnah and their students and that no one is safe from the tongue of Al Hajoori we were dubbed liars, lying upon Shaikh Rabee’ and the other scholars. In fact, i recall my speech was promptly sent to Dammaj for swift analysis, dissection and refutation! Which one of the students of Al Hajoori did not fail to satisfy those infactuated with Al Hajoori and the ‘cult-like’ partisanship we have observed over the years. Thus the ‘hold no prisoners, take no captives, kill everything in sight’ manner in which they defend the one that dares to speak unfavourably about the ‘Imaamuth Thaqalain’ (Imaam and leader of Mankind and the Jinn! – A title the followers of Al Hajoori give to him!), or the ‘goings on’ in the camp, is a far cry from the patient perseverance of Shaikhunaa Rabee’ – Hafidhahullah

But no doubt the Salafi fears not the blame of the blamers in advising with the truth, for the Messenger – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Sallam gave a bequest to Abi dharr – Radhiyallahu anhu to ‘Speak the truth even if it is bitter!’ and that, unfortunately, is exactly how our advise has been taken, with bitter rejection!

On more than one occasion I have known that some their supporters here in the Uk, have secretly recorded me (though they, admittedly, are not so good at secret recordings since I have caught them doing so every time!) possibly with a view to getting my speech sent to the ‘Camp’ for rebuttal.

All of that has never stopped us from advising with the advise of our Mashaikh, not proceeding except upon their wise instruction.

Now that Sheikh Rabee’ – may Allah preserve him, has publicly made his position clear, (which to my recollection was the only thing many an individual claimed they were waiting for) we ask Allah to make it easy for them to drop this fitnah and take onboard the advice of the people of knowledge who have not remained silent throughout this trial, just as we ask him to make it a means for Al Hajoori and his followers to return from this fitna and to stop splitting the ranks of the people of Sunnah across the globe.

Reminding them of the statement of  Abul Aaliyah and Mujaahid from the salaf who both said:

I do not know which of the two blessing is greater, that Allah guided me to Islaam or that he saved me from following desires” (Collected by Ad Daarimi in the muqadima of his sunan and like wise Imaamul Harawee in ‘Dhamul Kalaam (4/319)

or the statement of  Imaam Abu Bakr ibn Abi Iyaash who, when a man asked him who is the Sunni? He responded: “He is the one who when desires are mentioned he doesn’t show partisan fanaticism to any of it!”

(Collected by Imaam Al Lilakaa’ee in ‘Sharh Usool ‘I’tiqaad Ahlis Sunnati Wal Jamaa’ah’ (1/65)

So the sunni’s concern is being upon the Haq and Salafiyah, he is not one to get emotional for any group, party or individual

The saddest thing is that we see ignoramuses now seeking to explain the speech of the sheikh, ‘he doesn’t mean and he doesn’t intend, and and and’ making ‘tafseer’ of his intent while the Shaikh is alive and breathing and it is possible to return to him for an explanation of his own intent.

We ask Allah to make seeing the haq easy and to unite the hearts of Ahlus Sunnah under our ‘Ulamaa’ wherever they may be, and Allah’s aid is sought.

Was Sallallahu ‘ala Nabiyinaa Muhammad Wa ‘Alaa Aalihi Wa Sahbihi Ajma’een

Abu Hakeem

Benefits related to our last tafseer lesson (4/3/2013)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

Since todays (11/3/2013) lesson in tafseer has been cancelled, I mention here some brief benefits related to last weeks lesson that were not discussed due to time constraints .

Allah the most high says:

Oh Children of Israa’eel remember the blessings I bestowed upon you..” (Suratul Baqarah Vs 40)

Imaam Ibn Katheer mentions (1/151) with a chain of narration going back to Ibn Abaas that:

“(The name) Israa’eel is like your statement ‘Abdullah’

Imaam Abd Ibn Humaid mentions with a chain of narration going back to Ibn mas’ood who said:

Ilyaas is (another name for) Idrees, and Ya’qoob is Israa’eel

Allah the most high states:

And fear none but me” (Vs 40)

Ibn Abbaas said:

“Lest there come upon you that which befell your forefathers of Allahs wrath and retribution, mutation being from that (Allah transformed some of them into Pigs and Monkeys as a punishment upon them)”

Allah the most high mentions:

And believe in what I have sent down (This qur’aan) confirming that which is with you and be not the first to disbelieve therein..” (Suratul Baqarah Vs 41)

Imaam At tirmidhi mentions his chain of narration going back to Ibn Abaas who said: ” The Jews came to the Messenger of Allah and they said “Oh Abal Qaassim! Inform us about thunder what is it? He replyed:

An Angel from the angels who is responsible for the clouds, he has with him bolts of fire that he drives the clouds with wherever he wills” so they said: “So what is this noise we hear (i.e. thunder)? He replied: “It is him rebuking them as he drives them, so as to cause them to arrive at the goal he intends (for them)” (in a variant version it mentions that his response was: “It is his voice“) so they responded: “You have spoken the truth!”

So they asked him: “Then inform us what it was that Israa’eel made prohibited upon himself? (a reference to the statement of Allah the most high: “All food was lawful for the children of Israa’eel other than what Israa’eel made unlawful for himself before the taurah was revealed (Surah Aali Imraan Vs 93) he responded:

He was suffering from sciatica and there was nothing he could find reponsible for it other than him consuming camels meat and camels milk, for this reason he made it prohibited upon himself” they said: “You have spoken the truth!

(Collected by Imaamut Tirmidhi in his ‘Sunan’ and declared Saheeh’ in ‘Saheeh Sunanit Tirmidhi (2492))

Indicating that which the Jews were upon from rejection of the truth.

(As a side benefit, in this hadeeth is evidence that the prophets understood that some bodily ailments are diet related)

Allah the most high states:

“..And do not be the first to disbelieve therein” (Baqarah Vs 41)

Ibn Abaas – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu mentioned:

While you possess of knowledge that which others do not

Allah the most high says:

And mix not truth with falsehood..” (Baqarah Vs 42)

Qatadah – Rahimahullah said:

Do not mix Judaism and Christianity with Islaam, for indeed the religion of Allah is Islaam, while Judaism and Christianity are Innovations and not from Allah”

Waallahu Ta’alaa a’lam

%d bloggers like this: