Uncovering the doubts of callers on Social Media (Part 6/1)

From the doubts that are spreading on social media from those who oppose Ad Da’wah As Salafeeyah was that Shaikh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab was a Khariji/ from the Neo-Khawarij or had Khariji tendencies.

Before I debunk such propaganda it is a must to know who the Khawarij are and their beliefs. Then, after doing so one can examine as to whether or not such a description fits Shaikh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and his da’wah.

The word Khawarij comes from Kharaja (خرج) meaning to leave. The group was named the Khawarij because of their action of making Khuruuj or rebelling against the Muslim ruler, the first being ‘Ali (رضي الله عنه). In other words they left (خرجوا) from the obedience of the Muslim ruler.

Secondly, one of the major beliefs of the Khawarij was that they call those who commit major sins disbelievers. They therefore believe that Imaan (belief) is stripped from a Muslim if he commits Zina (fornication/adultery), Riba (usary) etc.

Knowing that these are the main beliefs of the Khawarij and that they are now known to the esteemed reader the question must be asked as to whether or not such a description should be applied to Sh. Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab. In other words:

i. Does Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab believe that it is lawful to rebel against the Muslim ruler?

ii. Does Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab believe that the one who commits major sin is a disbeliever?

These two aforementioned questions are the main two questions we must ask before we make a judgment as to whether or not an individual is from the Khawarij/ Neo-Khariji/ Kharijite. We shouldn’t get caught up on the banter, emotion and apparent eloquence of speakers on social media like Bro. Hajji and others of his ilk. Rather, we must base our arguments on solid premises and evidence.

Hence, in the next post I shall debunk the arguments of Yasir Qadhi and Bro. Hajji regarding Shaikh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s Da’wah by clarifying the following:

i. Sh. Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s position regarding revolting against Muslim rulers.

ii. Sh. Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s position regarding the one who commits major sins.

و الله تعالى اعلم

Note: Another topic that needs to be dealt with is the topic of homosexuality (LBGTQ alphabet soup movement) and Islam. In that I will go point out the following:

i. Islam’s view on the LBGTQ movement.

ii. The History of the LBGTQ movement in the U.S.A and how it piggybacked (and is still piggybacking) off the African American Civil Rights movement.

Is scholarship known according to the custom of the people?

I have issue with a particular brother, who is a known public figure, saying that it returns to the ‘Urf and Ijtihaad because in the Qur’an and the Sunnah there are general guidelines in knowing who is a scholar and who is not a scholar:

  1. That the scholars are those who truly fear Allah.
  2. That they have the verses and Ahadeeth in their chests.
  3. That they judge by the truth and measure every matter according to it.

4.That they are the inheritors of the Prophets.

  1. That they are upright and defend the Sunnah from frivolous interpretation.
  2. That they became well known as scholars to the people and spread the light of Islam and Sunnah to them.
  3. They don’t cloak the truth with falsehood and hide the truth.
  4. They act upon their knowledge and are worshippers of Allah.
  5. That Allah raises them amongst his servants.

I0. Their knowledge is based on evidences from the book and the Sunnah. And there are few who can base their knowledge upon evidences in the west.

  1. They have the ability to make Ijtihaad in different issues as they have the tools for it.
    In that they can examine evidences based upon principled arguments and critically analyze the statements of different parties in order to drae sound conclusions.
    And there are few in the west who are able to do that.
  2. They follow the way of the pious predecessors and of Ulama who preceeded them.
  3. Praise from the people of knowledge regarding him/her being a scholar.


I didn’t want to be long. But my logic is this:

If a scholar is left to the custom of the people then in that case one cannot give a definite answer as to what knowledge is!
This is because a scholar عالم possesses that knowledge. Hence if the definition of a scholar goes according to custom then scholarship/knowledge would be left undefined and left up to the custom of the people as well and this is not suitable.

Secondly, if the definition of a scholar is totally according to custom in that case when Allah said ask the people of knowledge if you don’t know we are saying in essense that Allah, after the death of the Prophet, left no clear guidelines as to who we should ask when he said to ask the people of knowledge. And this is also unsuitable.

I hope that this is taken in good faith. I understand where the respected brother is coming from i.e that we should be ambitious and taking Islam and knowledge to the next level. However, at the same time it is a must to be more precise when dealing with such matters.

Repost: Is Islamic Knowledge Hinged upon Certificates

I am reposting this because in this time of podcasts a lot of Fitnah has taken place regarding who should/ shouldn’t speak making it seem that an individual cannot speak regarding issues that are known by necessity (e.g the impermissibility of supporting homosexual civil unions) unless he has memorized the Qur’an and sat with several Shuyookh. Such a principle has no precedent whatsoever and those who have propagated such a principle are asked to bring their evidences if they are truthful. Rather, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) said: “Whoever sees and evil he must change it with his hand, if not then by his tongue, if not by his heart and this is the weakest of Imaan.”

Likewise, because we don’t live in the Muslim lands where knowledge is more widespread we in the west have the tendancy to equate knowledge with certificates and appraisals rather than looking at its reality (its fruits) which are actions and da’wah upon the methodology of the pious predecessors and adherence to it until death. This is seen from the lessons of the scholars, their verdicts, their actions and the books they have left with beneficial knowledge.

The reality is that the likes of Umar Sulaimaan, who goes to rallies with LBGT priests and priestesses and commits cannot be considered a scholar in any sense of the word. Likewise, Tahir Wyatt who has defended the deviant Yaqeen institute, likewise Yasir Qadhi who is not even certain about the Qur’ans preservation.

Hence, underneath are the statements of the MAJOR SCHOLARS of our times regarding who the Ummah should consider a scholar. As for ascribing scholarship with false criteria that hold no weight in the Qur’an and the Sunnah it is rejected.

And Allah knows best.

Macron, the Pope, Yaqeen Institute and Liberal/Secularist idolatry.

On Macron and religious figures bowing at the alter of liberal ideology.

I will not address the beheading. Those who have followed my writings know already that such an action is unislamic and impermissible. Also, I know of Western tendancies to create bogeymen to fulfill an agenda. (Read the books by Robert Dreyfuss and you would understand my suspicions regarding this occurence). This is especially with the measures against French Muslims that Macron announced BEFORE this incident.

Now, the drawing of cartoons of Prophet Muhammad is nothing new to Europe. In fact its occurence now shows the backwardness and ideological immaturity reminiscent of the Dark Ages as many cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad were drawn during the crusades (1000 years ago) in order to create fervour among those who adhered to Western Christendom.

Although they have replaced the alter of Notre Damme for the alter of liberalism the target is similar. Before it was to rescue Jerusalem from the Saracens and now it is to rescue France from “Islamization.”


We have religious figures bowing to that same alter of secularist liberalism. Heterodoxy is now becoming the new Orthodoxy. The Pope, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, advocated that Civil Unions between homosexuals should become law in order that such unions (which by the way is an abomination according to the Bible and the Catholic Church) be protected under law!

Now, this is NOT the position of ALL Catholics and NOR is it the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church. Additionally, many cardinals, bishops and priests have voiced their displeasure regarding the Pope’s statements clarifying that he heterodox position contradicts that of the 2003 position of the Vatican regarding same-sex civil unions.

Then there is the Yaqeen Institute, which claims to be an Islamic institute, that supports the “right”of homosexual marriage. Their leader, Omar Sulaimaan, has also found himself marching with LGBTQI priests and priestesses. Furthermore, their leader had the audacity to compare his activism to that of the noble brother Malcolm X!

I think all readers should realize that religious authorities are using the window dressing of spirituality and religion in order to spread the Liberal LBGTQI agenda. Once the foundations of decency and morality are destroyed religion would become morally obselete and would no longer have an impact on the daily lives of its adherants.

Its replacement is the religion of liberal secularism wherein mankind becomes devoid of all spiritual and moral boundaries. With Islam on the rise especially, Western European nations have taken upon themselves to be in the forefront of this ideological war which neither requires weapons nor young men to die in battlefields unknown to them.

Allah help us.

Uncovering the Doubts of callers on Social Media (Part 10) Is refuting the innovator something that should be abandoned?

This is indeed one of the biggest doubts that has been making its rounds for a long period of time. Due to the principle of the Ikhwaan Al Muslimeen which states: “We co-operate in that which we agree upon and we excuse each other in that which we disagree upon”, many have the notion that individuals and groups which are known to spread deviance, doubts and innovations should be left alone.

In this post I am not going to write a detailed explanation as to why the deviant individuals and groups should be refuted. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) himself warned against deviant groups such as the Khawarij and the Qadareeyah. Likewise, the Prophet’s companions, the Tabi’een and those who followed them in goodness until this time have refuted deviant groups, individuals and ideologies.

The details of this is available in this treatise which I wrote a few years ago: https://musamills.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/d8a7d984d8acd985d8b9-d8a7d984d986d981d98ad8b3-d981d98a-d8a7d984d8b1d8af-d8b9d984d989-d8acd986d988d8af-d8a5d8a8d984d98ad8b3.pdf

In it there are evidences and statements of many scholars of different eras regarding the aforementioned matter which is one of the foundational issues upon which the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah is built.

Secondly, if one forsakes this aspect of commanding the good and forbidding the evil; refuting deviant groups, individuals and ideologies the following would occur:

  1. Ignorance of the correct creed, deviant beliefs and practices would become widespread and commonplace among the Muslims.
  2. The Muslims would become confused, then begin to doubt and eventually abandon that which is established in the book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
  3.  The Muslims would be confused regarding from whom they should take their religion from. Muhammad Ibn Sireen said: “Verily this religion is knowledge therefore be aware of the one you take your religion from.”
  4. Deviants, deviant groups and ideologies would gain credence and would be afforded the same status as the ideology of Ahlus Sunah and deviants would be afforded the same status as scholars of truth.
  5. Most importantly, the ‘Ibadah of refuting the innovators, boycotting them and refuting deviant groups and ideologies would be abandoned.

Hence, to declare that a particular individual (Yasir Qadhi) should not be refuted although he:

  • Spoke ill of Umar Ibn Khattab
  • Called an Islamic Punishment bizarre
  • Has a tendency to call certain matters relating to Islam “problematic”
  • Called Ya’juuj and Ma’juuj Zombies
  • Declared that one who calls upon the dead isn’t doing major Shirk (and lied on Imams As San’aani and Ash Shawkani in the process)
  • Speaks ill of Shaikh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab
  • Says that the standard narrative regarding Qur’an preservation has holes.
  • Casts shade on scholars making it seem that they can’t handle “modern problems.” (And the list goes on)

BECAUSE he is well known and has done some good for the west is an erroneous statement that opposes the methodology of the Salaf. Rather, the fact that Yasir Qadhi has became infamous for spreading doubts (that has been a cause of celebration among Christian Missionaries) and innovation in recent times provides even more of an incentive for Ahlus Sunnah  to warn against him and his phantasms in order that the public not be beguiled and bewildered by his rhetoric and delusions.

Likewise, deviant individuals wish that this great obligation of refuting the innovator disappears as their reality and condition would remain obscure to the Muslims once this methodology dies a slow death. There is nothing that Ahlul Bid’ah are more afraid of than a Jarh (criticism/disparagement) that is robust and based upon sound knowledge. Hence, when confronted with such robust disparagement they cry wolf while they themselves invest much of their time and resources in refuting Ahlus Sunnah and in trying to demolish some of the fundamentals of ‘Aqeedah and Manhaj (methodology). 

If one really pays attention to what has been written in this series it appears that some of the callers on social media have one goal in mind, to demolish firmly established principles of Da’wah Us Salafeeyah.

For those who respect the creed and methodology of Ahlus Sunnah; it is improper to give such individuals a platform to spread their doubts, those who vilify Imam Al Barbahari, Sh. Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and other scholars of the past and present. Those who dismiss firmly established principles of the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah as “Madkhali” principles and those who wish to host infamous personalities from Ahlul Bid’ah, aggrandize them and defend them.

May Allah make this series an enlightening series and may he make it easy to compile and publish.

الله اعلم و صلى الله على نبينا محمد و على اله و صحبه و سلم


Uncovering the doubts of callers on Social Media (Part 9) Is Al Barbahari’s Sharh Us Sunnah (Explanation of the Sunnah) a reliable reference for the creed of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah?

Much ado about Imam Al Barbahari!

Some have made concerted efforts to tarnish his name (e.g Hajji) and others have tried to demonize his book using various methods e.g calling it the “Talmud” of the “Madkhalis”. Some (like Hajji) have even become so desperate that they quote from Anti-“Wahhabi” websites with reckless abandon.

All of this is done to discredit a well known scholar who spent his life defending the Sunnah. A scholar who is praised by Imam Ibn Katheer in Al Bidayah Wan Nihayah, Imam Ibn Jawzi  and Imam Adh Dhahabi in Siyar ‘Alaam An Nubala.

But then again what do these scholars/ Muslim historians know in front of the formidable Bro. Hajji!

And although scholars such as Ibn Abi Ya’la, Imam Adh Dhahabi, Shaikh Ul Islam Ibn Taymeeyah, Ibn Muflih etc. ascribed this book to Imam Al Barbahari why take their speech seriously when the formidable Bro. Hajji has spoken on youtube!!

Although it is a travesty that Bro. Hajji is taken seriously by some when he really shouldn’t be taken seriously. I will still write this short post to clarify this issue.

The reasons why so many are opposed to Sharh Us Sunnah are two:

  1. It’s strong speech against the Khawarij, and the manner in which it clarifies the Khariji methodology.
  2. It’s strong speech regarding those who associate with the people of innovation. Meaning that they are constantly seen entering with them, leaving with them and keeping their company.

Hence we find such a robust effort among those who oppose the pristine Salafi Methodology in demonizing the book and its author as the deviance of many of these personalities on social media would be uncovered and they would be seen for who they truly are.

It is quite interesting that the book and its author have been unfairly targeted when what should have been targeted was the misunderstanding of the book which resulted in its reckless misapplication in the issues of boycotting and Tabdee’ (calling an individual an innovator) by SPUBS.

However, the book should not be dismissed as it contains general guidelines regarding the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah. Furthermore, the likes of Shaikh Salih Al Fawzan and Shaikh Ahmad An Najmi have both written explanations of the book as it is primary source material regarding the beliefs of the early Muslims.

There is no need for me to write anything in defense of Imam Al Barbahari as the appraisals of Imam Adh Dhahabi and Imam Ibn Katheer should be considered far more weighty than the disparagement of Hajji. And although I don’t have the need to prove the ascription of Sharhus Sunnah to Imam Al Barbahari after distinguished Imams of the Sunnah have done such, I will still take this as a teaching moment to educate the readers regarding the science of textual criticism.

Now in looking at a text, a few things must come to mind:

  1. Title of the text.
  2. Author (Date of Birth, Death, Biography)
  3. Type of paper and ink used (which helps to determine age of the text)
  4. What ideological inclination the author has.
  5. The contents of the text.
  6. What were the socio-political/ cultural conditions of the time.

After looking at these factors one can determine as to whether or not a text, diary, letter etc. can be ascribed to a particular author. The first 5 I mentioned is from a historical method called textual analysis. What is an added help to is to whom well known, trustworthy authors ascribe the text to. Hence, the fact that so many well known mountains of knowledge ascribed Sharh Us Sunnah to Imam Al Barbahari and quoted from it shows that it can indeed be ascribed to Imam Al Barbahari.

Secondly, the difference between the manuscript of Ghulam Khaleel and that of Imam Abu Ya’la is that Abu Ya’la’s script has a small part of the beginning missing and the Manuscript of Ghulam Khaleel has some points from the end missing. Hence, it is indeed amazing that although both sources have parts missing it is preferred that Sharh Us Sunnah be ascribed to Ghulam Khaleel although the vast majority of scholars ascribe it to Imam Al Barbahari as was done by Imam Abu Ya’la. 

Thirdly, it is highly possible that Imam Abu Ya’la and others who have ascribed the book to Imam Al Barbahari came into contact with manuscripts that ascribed the book to him. However, their sources may have disappeared or are maybe hard to find. A principle that must be realized is that the non-availability of a previous text doesn’t prove it never existed. One simply has to read the biography of past scholars to see that some of their books are مفقود or lost.

May Allah ta’ala give us beneficial knowledge coupled with righteous actions. May Allah make ourselves and others humble to realize that if we don’t know we either stay quiet or ask a scholar.