Archive for the ‘Individuals and Groups whom the Scholars have criticized’ Category

Some Statements from Shaikh adh-Dhafeeri’s Refutation of Muhammad al Imaam, introduced by Shaikh Fawzaan

September 7, 2015

Firstly, a reminder about what Shaikh Rabee said a year agp when he was asked about Shaikh Ubaid al Jaabiree’s declaring Muhammad al Imaam to be an innovator, to which he responded:

( http://www.sahab.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=146223 )

“Firstly, it is obligatory upon Muhammad al Imaam to repent to Allaah from this pact”

Then he said,

“I am amazed at the one who seeks to reject the tabdee’ (declaration of one being an innovator) of Shaikh ‘Ubaid for Muhammad al Imaam, but this one doesn’t seek to reject the takfeer (declaring one to be a disbeliever) of some of the Haddaadees (extremists) and Hizbees of myself and Shaikh ‘Ubaid based upon Muhammad al Imaam’s pact”

More statements of the scholars on Muhammad al Imaam’s pact:

https://sughayyirah.wordpress.com/category/teach-children-and-ourselves-islam/aqeedah-and-manhaj/individuals-and-groups-whom-the-scholars-have-criticized/muhammad-al-imaam/

The following are a few sentences translated from the treatise by Shaikh Abdullah bin Sulfeeq adh-Dhafeeri[1] which can be downloaded from here:

http://www.sahab.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=154275

Shaikh Saalih Fawzaan said about this treatise by Shaikh Abdullah bin Sulfeeq adh-Dhafeeri:

“I have examined the treatise entitled: ‘Alerting those who possess pure intellects’ by Shaikh Abdullah bin Sulfeeq adh-Dhafeeri – (we ask that) Allaah grants him success – and I found it to be satisfactory with regards to its subject.  So (we ask that) Allaah rewards him with good and brings about benefit by his knowledge”

(p.2 in the pdf viewer)

The following are just a few of the statements of Shaikh Abdullah bin Sulfeeq adh-Dhafeeri from the treatise:

“Firstly, Muhammad al Imaam’s continuing to defend the pact and work by its ratified terms until the present – along with the Yemeni and Saudi governments as well as the governments of the Gulf nations being at war with the Houthis – those (Houthis) who have broken agreements, killed Ahlus Sunnah, betrayed them numerous times and who are supported by Iran which supplies them with weapons and equipment.

“Secondly, the followers of Muhammad al Imaam misguiding the people with fabrications about the noble Shaikh Saalih bin Fawzaan al Fawzaan in saying that he approves of this pact.” (p.4 in the pdf viewer)

Shaikh Abdullah bin Sulfeeq adh-Dhafeeri said:

“The unrestrictiveness of their statement (in the pact): ‘And the absence of war, mutual clashing, fighting, or fitnah no matter what the circumstances or the reasons’

“The unrestrictiveness of this shows foolishness, weakness, and cowardice.  Because it requires and necessitates a lack of fighting the Houthis no matter what they do.  Even if they fight and kill Ahlus Sunnah in all areas of Yemen, or if the (scholars and rulers) of the Muslims of Ahlus Sunnah announce a general call to arms against the Houthis, then Muhammad al Imaam will stick to the pact and won’t fight with his Muslim brothers from Ahlus Sunnah even if jihaad and fighting are considered fard ayn (an individual obligation).

“Likewise it requires that Muhammad al Imaam and whoever is under his leadership stick to this pact and this unrestricted agreement even if there occurs from the Houthis treachery and betrayal.” (p.9 in the pdf viewer)

Shaikh Abdullah bin Sulfeeq adh-Dhafeeri said:

“This is what Muhammad al Imaam has made obligatory with the Houthis which is built upon this agreement which he endorsed – even up until the present.  For indeed on the first jumuah after “Decisive Storm”[2] (started) he rejected this fighting.  This fighting which was a result of the Houthis breaking and betraying their treaties and their international agreement – and he called (this fighting against the Shia Houthis) the fighting of fitnah.  And he continues to be upon this.  He emphasized this in the khutbah he gave on the 15th of Shawwal 1436H in which he portrayed the fighting which is occurring right now against the (Shia) Houthis as the fighting of fitnah.  And (he mentioned) that whoever left it was the one who had intellect and understanding – and he meant by that himself and his followers.   He mentioned texts and narrations to try to argue that, which shows that he is only someone who memorizes and transmits (the texts) without understanding them.  And that he doesn’t distinguish between the fighting of jihaad against the evil-doers and the fighting of fitnah.” (p.9 in the pdf viewer)

Shaikh Abdullah bin Sulfeeq adh-Dhafeeri said:

“Seventhly, what it contains from far-reaching danger, and that is what some of Muhammad al Imaam’s followers are doing from misguiding the people through their telling lies about Shaikh Saalih Fawzaan that he supports this pact.  And from this is what has come on the website (which will not be named here) from what Uthmaan as-Saalimee and Jameel al-Haamilee have transmitted – that they showed Shaikh Fawzaan some of the terms of the pact and that he supported Muhammad al Imaam and said:

بما أنها قد وقعت انتهى الأمر

“Because it has already occurred, the affair has ended”

And that he said,

إن الشيخ محمد الإمام هو أعرف بحاله أي حال البلاد

“Indeed Shaikh Muhammad al Imaam is more knowledgeable about his situation”

And that he said,

وبما أن الشيخ محمد قد وقع على هذه الوثيقة فهو أمر مطلوب حفاظا على الدعوة والدماء والأعراض

“Because Shaikh Muhammad has signed this pact, then this is something which is desired to preserve the da’wah, the blood (of the people), and their honor”

“I (Shaikh Abdullah bin Sulfeeq adh-Dhafeeri) say: (Even) If they were truthful in their transmission, then they didn’t present to Shaikh Saalih Fawzaan the entire pact.  If they had shown Shaikh Fawzaan the entire pact along with what has become clear lately from the positions of Muhammad al Imaam regarding the “Decisive Storm” (military strikes), the Shaikh (Fawzaan) would have rejected this pact.  And how could Shaikh Fawzaan agree to its terms while it contains what it contains of calamities and misrepresentation of the (correct) beliefs?” (p.13 in the pdf viewer)

(end of what was translated from that treatise)

Shaikh Rabee on Saudi’s war against the Houthis:

https://sughayyirah.wordpress.com/2015/09/03/shaikh-rabee-on-saudis-war-against-the-houthi-raafidhah/

Footnotes

[1] Part of Shaikh Rabee’s praise for Shaikh Abdullah bin Sulfeeq adh-Dhafeeri and one of his books can be found here: http://www.rabee.net/ar/articles.php?cat=7&id=214

[2] The name of Saudi Arabia’s military operation: عَاصِفَة الحزم

Advertisements

Some of the Statements of the Scholars on Muhammad al Imam and the Pact he signed with the Shi’a

April 21, 2015

File can be downloaded from here:

Some of the statements of the Scholars on Muhammad al Imaam and the pact he signed with the Shia

Refutations of Tahir Wyatt

August 1, 2014

 

Firstly, at the below link is what Shaikh Muhammad ibn Haadee said about Madeenah.com ( which Tahir Wyatt is a part of) 4 years ago:

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=11241


Shaikh Rabee on Tahir Wyatt 3 years ago:

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=12547

“After I studied this matter, I found that he (i.e. Tahir Wyatt) was refuting Salafees in the West and harming them, and he would accompany those who were splitting the ranks of the Salafees. And recently some articles have been posted on Kulasalafiyyeen[1] relating to this matter. These things are an indication of something. The next matter is that he refused to speak about Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee, but his soul allows him to rebuke Salafees. How is it easy for him to attack Salafees here and there and he finds it difficult to speak a word of truth about Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee.  If he (i.e. Tahir Wyatt) was a Salafee, then this would not be his condition.

Under the advice of some of the Scholars, 3 years ago, some students wrote a comprehensive response to Tahir Wyatt, Muhammad Akhtar Chaudry, and Nadir Ahmed unveiling the reality of madeenah.com and fatwa-online (most articles can be downloaded at this link):

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=12297

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/uploads/madeenah-com-students-1.pdf

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/uploads/madeenah-com-students-2.pdf

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/uploads/madeenah-com-students-3.0.pdf

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/uploads/madeenah-com-students-3.1.pdf

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/uploads/madeenah-com-students-3.2.pdf

2 years ago Shaikh Rabee said:

http://www.alwaraqat.net/content.php?1310

You mentioned in your speech that you have stopped dealing with Tahir Wyatt and I urge you to continue upon this until he clarifies with a clear, satisfactory clarification (bayaan) the Islamic, Salafee position on Abul Hasan (al Maribi) and Ali Hasan (al Halabee). And he clarifies their misguidance and their fitnah and their oppositions to the Salafi manhaj. And if he does not do this, and if he does not clarify, then do not accept him”

More recently, the student Abu Hafsah Khashif Khan on Tahir Wyatt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4QX3TWFaTk

And most recently, is this rebuttal of Tahir Wyatt’s lame defense of his recent actions:

http://www.manhaj.com/manhaj/articles/nrnfu-tahir-wyatt-shadeed-muhammad-and-the-nation-of-islam.cfm

http://www.manhaj.com/manhaj/articles/mqwsb-tahir-wyatt-shadeed-muhammad-and-the-nation-of-islam-part-2.cfm

http://www.manhaj.com/manhaj/articles/feoja-tahir-wyatt-shadeed-muhammad-and-the-nation-of-islam-part-3.cfm

http://www.manhaj.com/manhaj/articles/xzuhc-tahir-wyatt-shadeed-muhammad-and-the-nation-of-islam-part-4.cfm

 

 

 

 

Some of the Reasons Why (a brother) Recanted From the Manhaj of Al-Hajuri

March 9, 2014

 

http://www.alhajuri.com/articles/vuvghdt-some-of-the-reasons-why-i-recanted-from-the-manhaj-of-al-shaykh-al-hajuri.cfm

 

 

Stay Away from Tahir Wyatt

October 6, 2013

Shaikh Rabee on Tahir Wyatt:

http://maktabah-alfawaaid.blogspot.com/2013/10/tahir-wyatt-is-not-salafee-so-beware-of.html

“After I studied this matter, I found that he (i.e. Tahir Wyatt) was refuting Salafees in the West and harming them, and he would accompany those who were splitting the ranks of the Salafees. And recently some articles have been posted on Kulasalafiyyeen[1] relating to this matter. These things are an indication of something. The next matter is that he refused to speak about Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee, but his soul allows him to rebuke Salafees. How is it easy for him to attack Salafees here and there and he finds it difficult to speak a word of truth about Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee.  If he (i.e. Tahir Wyatt) was a Salafee, then this would not be his condition.”

 

(originally from:

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=12547 )

 

 

The student Abu Hafsah Kashif Khan on Tahir Wyatt:

 

 

Summary of Some of the Major Errors of Yahya al Hajooree

May 29, 2013

This is a brief document taken from:

http://www.salafitalk.com/threads/1617-A-United-Word-From-Ahlus-Sunnah-in-Britain-Regarding-Yahyaa-al-Hajooree?p=2743#post2743

containing a summary of some of the major mistakes of Yahya al Hajooree, some of the names of some of the scholars who have spoken against him, and the names of the Salafi centers and masjids in England which endorse this document (as well as www.troid.ca as is mentioned at the link)

 

File: Yahyaa Bayaan English Final 8

 

 

Also see:

https://sughayyirah.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/from-march-13-2013-shaikh-rabee-on-yahyaa-al-hajooree/

 

Shaikh al- Utaybee on Muhammad Ibn Muneer (Mufti)

May 12, 2013

Shaikh Abu Umar Usaamah al Utaybee on Muhammad ibn Muneer (Mufti)

 

From:

http://ah-sp.com/2012/09/28/shaikh-usaama-al-utaibee-on-the-speech-of-muhammad-muneer-muftee/

 

 

[Q]: O Shaykh Usaamah, perhaps you have heard about the statements of an individual named Muhammad Ibn Muneer, he has made some statements.  And we would like your comments on his statements O Shaykh, if you would be so kind.

[A]: What are his important statements that he says?

[Q]: He differentiates between ar-Radd ‘alal-Mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel O Shaykh.  So he says for example yaa Shaykh, ar-Radd ‘alal-Mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) is one thing and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is something else.  Meaning, whosoever mixes between the two falls into problems and fumbles about…

[A]: Fine, we will begin with the first affair, may Allaah bless you.  Then we will move on to the second affair. do not know this individual, but I will speak about these things that you are mentioning from the one who said them.  So this statement, it is the differentiation between ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel as a complete differentiation, this indicates the ignorance of the one who spoke of it.  And when Allaah the Mighty and Majestic mentioned Fir’awn with kufr (disbelief) and that he claimed Uloohiyyah (divinity) and he claimed Ruboobiyyah (Lordship) for himself, and He mentioned his disbelief in Allaah the Mighty and Majestic and his striving in that, in the aayah of Allaah,

“And they belied those aayaat wrongfully and arrogantly, though their own selves were convinced thereof.  So see what was the end of the mufsidoon (evil-doers).” [Sooratun-Naml 27:14]

Then is this not a Jarh upon Fir’awn?  And is it not also from the radd (refutation) upon Fir’awn? The refutation upon his belief comprises al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel.  So al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is an aspect of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and it is an aspect of refuting the statements of the opponent (ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif).  So when he speaks about and claims that there is a difference between that and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, then this indicates his ignorance and his misguidance. because al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is a part of and cannot be separated from ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif (refuting the opponent).  Yes, it is true that refuting the opponents and those who have erred does not necessitate at-tajreeh (disparagement).  For example, when a Scholar of the Sunnah slips up and errs, then he is refuted with knowledge, but he is not disparaged (jarraha) due to that, especially when he is known for being upon the truth and striving to attain the truth, except that he has slipped up and erred in an issue.  So this involves the occurrence of an error amongst the righteous and the trutfhul and refuting their error. This is to be mentioned and refuted.

However, when the opponent who is being refuted is an innovator or a disbeliever, then the refutation upon him is not excluded from al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, not from the Jarh upon this disbeliever, nor from the Jarh upon this innovator.  This is because you are refuting his corrupt principles, which necessitate Jarh of him and expelling him from the Sunnah if he falsely and slanderously ascribes himself to it.  If the opponent reaches the level of a disbeliever or an innovator or a faasiq who is criminal in his belief and his statement, there is no doubt that the refutation upon him includes tajreeh (disparagement) of him, because these errors that he has committed obligate that he be refuted.

As for when what is intended by mukhaalif (opponent) is an opponent in an issue of ijtihaad (independent reasoning), or when the opponent is someone from Ahlus-Sunnah who slips up and errs but he is generally upon the truth, then this does not necessitate tajreeh (disparagement) of him.  Rather, his error is refuted.  So this is the detailed explanation of the issue.  The one who says that al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel has no connection to ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif or that there is a complete differentiation between the two of them, then such an individual is an ignorant liar.  And Allaah knows best.

[Q]: May Allaah reward you with goodness yaa Shaykh!  He also says, “Obedience to the rulers and the Scholars is not unconditional.  Rather, it is restricted.  If an individual says something that you do not agree with, then it is not permissible for someone to tell you, ‘It is obligatory upon you to accept his statement because he is a Shaykh, or because he is Shaykh so and so, or that Shaykh so and so said.’  This is not what the aayah said.”  And, Shaykh Usamaah, he intends by this to reject what Shaykh Rabee’ said about Taahir Wyatt because made this statement during his defence of Taahir Wyatt.

[A]: Yes.  This philosophy, with which some of the people philosophize, it is rejected from its proponents, because obedience to the Scholars and the rulers and obedience to the parents is obedience in that which is good.  It is only obedience when they command with good.  As for obedience to Allaah and His Messenger, then it is an unrestricted obedience.  And whoeover is obeyed outside of Allaah and His Messenger, then he is obeyed as part of obedience to Allaah and His Messenger.  This is well known and understood from the aayah.  No one says that the rulers must be obeyed in everything, even in disobedience to Allaah and no one says that it is obligatory to obey the Scholars when they err and slip up.  No one says such a thing.  However, the speech that is said to cause doubt in the rulings of the Scholars and which implies that the youth can make ijtihaad in affairs where they have no knowledge and that they can oppose the Scholars and say that it is not binding upon us to obey the Scholars; this is from ignorance.

So for example, when the ruler, or the father, or the husband when he orders his wife in a permissible affair, or an affair that the people consider from goodness, is it obligatory for him to be obeyed at that point?  The commander, regardless of whether he is the husband with his wife, or the ruler with his constituents, or some the people with the Scholar, then it is necessary that these individuals be obeyed, whether it is the ruler or the husband or the likes of that, regardless of whether it is in the affairs of the worldly life, even if he does desire this worldly affair.  So the person does not reply, ‘But my opinion is such and such,’ no!  If the affair is permissible (mubaah), then it is obligatory to obey the ruler and the wife must obey her husband and the son must obey his mother an,d his father.

As for the Scholars, then the obedience that is due to them is an obedience in the Religion.  Meaning, they clarify to the people what is halaal and what is haraam and they explain the ahkaam (religious rules and regulations) to the people and they clarify to them the rulings upon men, the rulings of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel.  The Scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets and it is necessary that they Scholars be revered and respected.  Allaah the Sublime and Exalted says,

“So ask the people of the reminder (knowledge) if you do not know.”

So questioning them obligates and makes it binding to follow what they answer from the truth and the guidance.  So if you have asked a Scholar about a man and the Scholar makes Jarh (disparagement) of him and warns you against him, it is binding upon you to listen to the speech of the Scholar, except if it becomes clear the Scholar has erred and opposed the truth, or if another Scholar has opposed him with proof, then the ruling is made with proof amongst the Scholars.  However, if the affair is from a specialized field of knowledge that a Scholar knows and he has a specific study in al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, especially the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel in modern times, Shaykh, al-’Allaamah Rabee’ Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee, then his speech concerning the men is like pure honey.  It is speech based upon sound proofs, clarification and evidence.  So when he speaks with speech, it is obligatory upon the youth to listen to him and to obey him.  This due to the command of Allaah the Sublime and Exalted to them in His statement,

“O you who believe!  Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you.”

So if Shaykh Rabee’ has clarified that affair, and he, may Allaah reward him with goodness, does not speak, except with knowledge and proof, then obedience to him is obligatory.  And the one who says that obedience is not obligatory must clarify: why is it not obligatory?  Why is he causing doubt in the rulings of Shaykh Rabee’?  These people are diseased yaa Shaykh.  These are people of disease and people of innovation and people of desire.

They cause doubt in the rulings of the Scholars and they make themselves equals to the Scholars.  Meaning, they consider themselves as one of them has stated, ‘We are men and they are men.’  The truthful student of knowledge does not say such speech, it is only said by people who are unsteady and fickle and people of corruption.  These people want to separate the youth from the Scholars and they want the youth to be attached to them.  Meaning, the likes of this ignorant youth wants the people for himself, instead of connecting them to Shaykh Rabee’.  And he may deceive the people with the affair of Shaykh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-’Abbaad, that he opposed Shaykh Rabee’ in such and such an issue…  Where is the Salafee manhaj with these individuals?  The Salafee manhaj says to follow the proof and follow the Scholar who is most knowledgeable if you do not have the proof or you do not know it.  The Scholar with the most knowledge of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel and the knowledge of men in these times by agreement of the Scholars is Shaykh Rabee’.  He is the one who is specialized in this and the Imaams of Ahlul-Hadeeth have testified to this, such as Shaykh al-Albaanee and Shaykh Ibn Baaz and Shaykh Ibnul-’Uthaymeen.

Due to this, those who say that the obedience to the Scholars is not unconditional, and they desire by this to reject the rulings of the Scholars, they are bring about fitnah (trial, tribulation).  However, they say that as long as obedience to them is in goodness and it is in obedience to Allaah and His Messenger, then there is no problem in that.  Indeed, this is truthful speech, but the intent should not be to nullify the speech of the Scholars.  Rather, it is obligatory upon the youth to be with their Scholars and to stick to them, as the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “The blessing is with your elders.”  Yes.

[Q]: Lastly, our Shaykh, he translated a lecture for the noble Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee – hafidhahullaah – when he commented upon three passages from Kitaabur-Rooh about the difference between naseehah (sincere advice) and gheebah (backbiting).  So I reminded this individual, yaa Shaykh, about what he translated for the noble Shaykh, Muhammad Ibn Haadee.  So he replied on Youtube saying, “Since when is it a condition that the translator must agree with everything that the lecturer says?  If I translate a book or a lecture, is it a condition that I take every letter said therein as my Religion in front of Allaah?  If it is a condition that the translator must accept everything the lecturer is saying, then bring the proof if you please.  And even if I did agree with everything that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee said (in that lecture) is this then to be applied in all situations?  Undoubtedly there is a difference between naseehah and gheebah, there is no doubt.  The Scholars have insight, however, the application!  Is this speech to be applied in all situations?  Respond please.”  This is how he said it yaa Shaykh, so what are your comments upon this speech of his?

[A]: This speech, which is his statement that it is not binding upon the translator to agree with the speech of the one for whom he is translating, then one of two affairs could be intended by this.  If he intends that he is not required to translate in a trustworthy manner and with truthfulness what the Scholar is saying, then such and individual is treacherous and he has made treachery permissible.  This is a treacherous person who has made treachery permissible, because he is a translator and the translator only clarifies the speech of the one whose speech is being translated.  So if his duty is merely to translate, then it is obligatory that it be trustworthy.  And if this speech contains that which is false, according to his thought, then he must translate the speech of the Shaykh and then he comments upon it if he is capable of that.  If we assume that there is a problem or an opposition in this speech, then he must clarify it in a translator’s note.  As for translating falsehood and concealing the speech of a Scholar, then this action of his is like the action of Banee Israa`eel from the Jews who concealed parts of the Torah and were treacherous.  So this treachery is not from the nature and the character of the Muslims.  And the Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Plotting and deception is in the Fire.”  And the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “And do not deceive the one who deceives you.”  And Allaah the Glorified and Exalted said,

“And do not be a pleader for the treacherous.” [Sooratun-Nisaa` 4:105]

And Allaah the Exalted said,

“And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves.” [Sooratun-Nisaa` 4:107]

So deception is a matter that is ignonimous.  So it is not permissible to be deceptive in translation.  Rather, it is obligatory to be truthful in it, especially when he is translating the speech of a Salafee Scholar who is well known for the Sunnah such as the Shaykh, al-’Allaamah Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee.  So playing around and being deceptive in translating his speech is not from the attributes of Ahlus-Sunnah.  Rather, it is from the attributes of the people of desires.

And as for if the translator intended that it is not obligatory for him to be in agreement with what he is translating, then this is correct.  Meaning, his opinion could be in opposition to the speech that he is translating.  For example, he may translate a book of fiqh in which differing has occurred (between the Scholars).  So the Scholar will determine the soundest position from these issues and this student of knowledge may follow another Scholar, or he may follow a statement that opposes this Scholar.  There is no problem with this as long as it is done with proofs and evidence, and as long as this person is qualified to make this disagreement.  There is no problem in this.  Meaning, the translator is not required to agree with all of the speech that he translates, as long as he is trustworthy in conveying the information.  Then after he has conveyed the information as it is, he can say, `This speech has been opposed by such and such a Scholar and I say such and such,’ with proof and evidence.

However, who is this individual who deceives the people by translating for Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee, then he says, ‘I oppose him and I do not agree with him.’  Who are you to say such speech?  Is this from manners with the Scholars?  And who has burdened you with translating this lecture if you do not agree?  If you do not agree, then do not translate.  Or at the very least, be trustworthy in conveying the information, and then mention what opposes this speech with proof and evidence.  So the authority is with the proof.  And it was the manhaj of the Salaf to take the proof.  However, do not make these issues a means for reviling the Scholars and causing doubts in their rulings and playing around with the likes of these affairs.  And it is not permissible for the Muslim to be treacherous.  Yes.

[Q]: May Allaah reward you with good.  We shall suffice with this, yaa Shaykhanaa.  May Allaah reward you with good.

[A]: The important thing is to be cautious of these people of desires who are people of fitan (trials, tribulations) and people of unrest and those who do not stick to the objective of the Scholars and those who stir up these fitan. So Shaykh Rabee’ – hafidhahullaah – is familiar with what is going on in Masjid Rahmah and other than it from the mosques in America and he has given them an appropriate advice.  And it is obligatory upon the youth to be cautious and to warn against those who are stirring up these fitan and to remain far away from them.  These individuals are a disease like scabies, which is contagious and spreading amongst the people.  And it cannot be passed on, except in accordance with the command of Allaah.  However, these individuals are a people of fitnah, so be cautious of them and remain far away from them and warn the youth against them.  And Allaah the Exalted knows best.

Here is the audio: http://www.sunnahpublishing.net/audio/utaybimufti.mp3

[Source: http://www.sunnahpublishing.net

 

Shaykh Ahmad Baazmool on Statements of Muhammad Ibn Muneer “Muftee”

May 12, 2013

The Qawaariyyah, (The Glass Vessels)

Shaykh Ahmad Baazmool on Statements of Muhammad Ibn Muneer “Muftee”

[Q]: He also says regarding one of the Salafee Scholars, one of the well known Scholars, he says, “When they asked Shaykh so and so regarding Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee in 2012CE was he an innovator that this Shaykh said, no he is not an innovator, rather he’s from Ahlus-Sunnah, he fell into some mistakes, benefit from him and leave his mistakes.”

 

Then this person said, meaning this student, “Am I calling to Abul-Hasan al-Ma`ribee, am I defending him, am I saying that he is or is not an innovator, I’m not saying that, but I want to prove a point, and this is, if someone else says that Abul-Hasan is not an innovator they will say about him he’s not Salafee, stay away from him. So what do you then say about Shaykh so and so and others…

View original post 1,070 more words

Sultan al-Eid is with Haddaadiyah, and knowledge is Not to be taken from him!

March 24, 2013

The statent of Shaikh Ahmad ibn Umar Bazmool (Arabic audio):

http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/0u9wy6b917/sultan_al_eid_condition.mp3

 

 

Translation can be found at the link here:

https://sughayyirah.wordpress.com/category/teach-children-and-ourselves-islam/aqeedah-and-manhaj/individuals-and-groups-whom-the-scholars-have-criticized/sultan-al-eid/

 

From March 13 2013 Shaikh Rabee on Yahyaa al Hajooree

March 15, 2013

Text (translated):

http://dusunnah.com/s20-methodology/c45-innovation-and-its-people/people-of-doubt-groups-and-innovators/we-have-remained-patient-for-7-years-with-yahya-al-hajoori-shaykh-rabee-ibn-hadee-al-madkhalee/

Audio:

http://sunnahpublishing.net/al-allaamah-rabee-ibn-haadee-al-madkhalee-on-yahyaa-al-hajooree-and-his-followers/

http://maktabah-alfawaaid.blogspot.com/2013/03/new-al-allaamah-rabee-ibn-haadee-al.html

Some of his errors:

http://www.salafitalk.com/entries/43-Our-Position-Towards-Shaikh-Yahyah-al-Hajooree-amp-His-Followers

https://sughayyirah.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/recent-statements-of-the-scholars-on-yahya-al-hajooree-and-some-detail-regarding-some-of-his-errors/