“Pay note to the following, it should not be missed: Al-Hajuri has spoken on the misguidance of al-Ma’ribee and al-Halabee and he knows they are from the heads of innovation and misguidance, and the same for his students and defenders, for they have much speech against al-Ma’ribee and al-Halabee. This is a key difference between al-Hajuri meeting with innovators whom he made tabdee’ of and declared misguided and evil and so on, and between those Shayhs of Saudi whom al-Hajuri has been engineering his meetings with (for political purposes). For they do not know from al-Hajuri what they know and believe to be innovation. This is why the speech of Shaykh Muhammad bin Haadee that al-Hajuri has ended up with al-Ma’ribee and al-Halabee has meritN (see here) and at the same time, the attempted defence by the Fanatical Hajurites for al-Hajuri through this line of reasoning (that because the Saudi Shaykhs met with him, it implies praise and acceptance of him) is false – because the difference is that the Saudi Shaykhs do not know from al-Hajuri what they believe to be bid’ah and dalaalah (such as his revilements against the Sahaabah). They do not know that al-Hajuri speaks with that (such as accusing Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu) of bid’ah and mukhaalafah. But al-Hajuri knows of bid’ah and dalaalah from al-Ma’ribee and al-Halabee. So this matter is clear for anyone to understand who is not intoxicated by ghuluww.”
I have a few observations regarding Amjad’s speech:
1. “For they do not know from al-Hajuri what they know and believe to be innovation“
Wait a minute folks. Weren’t these the same people who said that Shaikh Yahya was refuted by Shaikh Fawzaan and Shaikh Luhaidaan?
Secondly, do refutations that were resurrected from Faalih Al Harbi’s site, that didn’t have merit between 6-10 years ago have merit now?
2. “Al-Hajuri has spoken on the misguidance of al-Ma’ribee and al-Halabee and he knows they are from the heads of innovation and misguidance, and the same for his students and defenders, for they have much speech against al-Ma’ribee and al-Halabee. This is a key difference between al-Hajuri meeting with innovators whom he made tabdee’ of and declared misguided and evil and so on, and between those Shayhs of Saudi whom al-Hajuri has been engineering his meetings with (for political purposes).”
So according to your Minhaaj when an innovator comes to a scholar the scholar should immediately refuse him. When Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen, Shaikh Ibn Baaz, Shaikh Al Albani and others have mentioned that it is lawful for a scholar to visit the innovator in order to advise him.
Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen mentioned in his explanation of Lam’ah Al Ittiqaad: “But if there is benefit in sitting with them in order to clarify the truth and warn them from innovation there is no problem with this and possibly this is something desirable.” Sharh Lam’ah Al Ittiqaad 110-111.
I sent it to you on twitter and you refused to translate it.
Also, these two individuals, Ma’ribi and Halabi met Shaikh Yahya suddenly. In other words no meeting was arranged but rather they went to meet him and the Shaikh gave them an audience. Hence, to make it appear as if he is with them meaning in their methodology is simply absurd because him meeting them for a few seconds is not a proof of that.
Additionally, Mustafa George said that possibly they knew of Shaikh Yahya’s innovations and advised him. So apparently you all are divided in opinion regarding what took place. None of you were present hence it is better you all remain quiet because we as Muslims build our religion upon knowledge and certainty not conjecture.
Furthermore, some of the scholars went to meet him in some cases such as Shaikh ‘Abdul ‘Azeez Ar Raajihi and Shaikh Wasiyullah Al ‘Abbas. And I would like to know what is wrong for a Muslim, even an ‘Aami or even an innovator to go and meet the scholars of the Sunnah because of his love for them!!
3. “because the difference is that the Saudi Shaykhs do not know from al-Hajuri what they believe to be bid’ah and dalaalah (such as his revilements against the Sahaabah).”
If you are saying that he reviled the Sahabah then you are in fact saying that he is a Raafidee because this is their major sign. And the funny part is Amjad and friends have to resort to such methods without coming with a straight statement. So when the lines of Shirk were recited to Shaikh Yahya he silently condoned it but he is not Kaafir!! And Shaikh Yahya reviles the companions but he is not Raafidee!!
Why don’t they come straight with their words and show the public what they truly believe? For example I believe SPUBS are Hizbees and that’s it because they have put together all the pillars of Hizbeeyah and more (the treatise will be finished soon). Many of Amjad’s speech alludes to Shaikh Yahya being a Kaafir, a Raafidee and an extreme Sufi so why doesn’t he just put it up and come straight out with it?
But as we say in Trinidad: “Where there is smoke there is fire”.
And Amjad’s blood is boiling because the people know now that what they have been claiming are nothing but lies.
As for what I said on twitter it is because according to Amjad’s logic, because Shaikh Yahya met with Halabi and Ma’ribi he is with them. Therefore using that same logic, because many of the major scholars, including the Grand Mufti who said that Sh. Yahya should continue his Da’wah, met Shaikh Yahya they are with him. Especially in the case of Shaikh Fawzaan and Shaikh Luhaidaan who both refuted Shaikh Yahya as these partisans claim.
Amjad Rafeeq, please spare the Muslims from your lack of intelligence and actually go to a scholar and study. Then again, you are even too knowledgeable for the Lajnah and you are too big to apologize for your errors, including errors that deal with the right of Allah. So keep pushing you carriage of ignorance on twitter as the more you speak the more people with be enlightened to the truth.