Breaking the Chains 7: SPUB’S recent positions and conclusion.

Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Oh Muslims,

This final part of the series, which is part seven, is based upon the positions of SPUBS. To be fair, in the past they took positions that were correct and based upon evidences. However, recently, it is quite clear that many of their positions are no longer based upon clear evidences. Rather, they are based upon self preservation and political expediency. To the point that they have actualized the principle: “We cooperate in what we agree upon and we excuse each other in what we disagree upon.”

I will simply give five examples of such, some which the public would know and one which they may not know.

1. Their flip-flopping regarding their position on the Yemeni scholars. After the first bombardment of Dammaj, Shaikh Rabee’ praised Shaikh Yahya (after saying he was Hadaadi some months before) and his students and even allowed Shaikh Yahya to deliver a class via tele-link to his house. However, they didn’t spread that news as it would have negated their slanderous remarks regarding Shaikh Yahya. The reason for that being that Shaikh Yahya clarified that SPUBS were ignorant and that that they were committing acts that were opposing the Sunnah.

2. Although Abdullah Al Bukhari clearly slandered the Imam and Muhaddith of Yemen, Shaikh Muqbil, and delivered a non-apologetic retraction there was not one statement or article by SPUBS showing their disdain for his statements.

3. Although the scholars who opposed Shaikh Yahya in Yemen such as  Abdur Rahmaan Al ‘Adeni, ‘Abdul ‘Azeez Al Bura’ee, Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab Al Wassabi and Muhammad Al Imaam were traversing upon the principles of Abu Hasan Al Ma’ribi regarding their leniency toward the people of Bid’ah (as evidenced by the book called Al Ibanah by Muhammad Al Imaam) not one word was said regarding that. Furthermore, when Shaikh Ubaid Al Jaabiri, Shaikh Rabee’ Al Madkhali and others refuted the individuals aforementioned there was no clarification forthcoming from SPUBS regarding their condition.

4. Furthermore, their current position regarding their companions, who have been refuted by Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Hadi Al Madkhali (based on clear evidences) hasn’t become apparent up to now. Their position on Hani Buraik,, who has clearly committed Khurooj (rebellion) against the established Muslim ruler in Yemen, hasn’t been articulated in any article or audio. Rather, the followers of SPUBS are being told to remain silent regarding the refutations by Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Haadi on Hani Buraik, Arafaat Muhammadi and others (who caused the majority of the fitnah in Yemen)  for the following reasons.

  • They have tele-links and attend seminars with these individuals (haven’t seen any by Hani recently)
  • They have closer access to Shaikh Rabee’.
  • For fear that if these individuals are shown for their deception it would invalidate their claims regarding Shaikh Yahya,

5. In Trinidad specifically, they cooperate with individuals who have clear deviations within their methodology. In one case, the individual possesses the methodology of the Ikhwaan Al Muslimeen believing that as an Imam he has the same authority as a Muslim ruler. This is of no surprise because that individual never purified himself from the ideology he was nurtured upon previously when he entered into Islam. As a matter of FACT, the word Salafeeyah was NEVER used on his Minbar (for seven years at that time) until your’s truly clarified that the members of his Jama’ah weren’t (and are still not) being nurtured upon this Manhaj.

In the other case, their callers cooperate with those who have clear enmity toward Dawah As Salafeeyah,* bringing forth excuses for them while being so anxious to spread the nonsensical ad-hominem diatribe emitted by Abu Hakeem Bilal Davies regarding myself. Likewise, when many of the youth were being swayed by callers hiding their deviant reality under the cloak of Salafeeyah everyone of them stood silent stating that they didn’t want to get within bacchanal (chaos). Many of these youths, who were upon Salafeeyah years ago are now either Ikhwani or Khariji.

Thirdly, they give prominence to individuals, like those of MPUBS, who lack foundational knowledge of the Manhaj and make them gate-keepers of this Da’wah in Trinidad. The same MPUBS who hosted a Guyanese caller who spewed the poison of the Ikhwaan Ul Muslimeen, under the guise of Salafeeyah within Trinidad and Tobago while they were none the wiser.

My dear brothers and sisters in the west, should those in my tiny, twin-island Republic in the Caribbean Sea be satisfied with a Salafeeyah mixed with clear deviation, cooperation with Ahlul Bid’ah, silence regarding the innovators and unqualified leadership?

Or is this type of Salafeeyah is inappropriate for the British consumption yet appropriate for Trinidad and Tobago?

May Allah ta’ala make this humble post a means to clarify to all and sundry that SPUBS neither operate based upon principles nor upon blind-following. Rather their allegiances and positions are strategically utilized for their own survival and self-preservation.


This seven part clarification was in refutation of Abu Hakeem Bilaal Davies who attempted to blow smoke in the faces of the general masses regarding the reality of Da’wah As Salafeeyah. Although one can’t deny that a lot of good has been spread and much has been clarified through their work in Da’wah, of recent they have not adhered to the principles of this Da’wah. Rather, they have done the following:

1. They have abandoned the rules of Jarh Wa Ta’deel when dealing with groups and individuals.*

2. They have restricted the definition of Ahlus Sunnah in the West as those who adhere and co-operate with them.

3. They have made general Tabdee’ upon those who oppose SPUBS.

4. Their positions are based upon self preservation rather than principles.

I ask Allah to give them all the guidance to repent from such deviations that are foreign to the Da’wah of all the past and present scholars.


*It has gotten so ridiculous that these callers are even being called the Kibaar (elders) by the youth. One of them even used the statement of the Messenger: “The blessing is with your elders,” when pertaining to them. And what I have clarified here is only a raindrop from the storm.

*To the point that when a sister was asked for evidence regarding my deviation she was heavily rebuked no other than Abu Khadeejah for asking!


Breaking the chains 4: (Tabdee’: Those who make the ruling)

Just to Re-iterate some of the statements of Abu Hakeem Bilal Davies in his post: Doubts around the Da’wah 1:

Thus seeking knowledge does not necessitate that a person will gain correct detailed knowledge of the methodology of the salaf, just as being from the people of knowledge does not, by default, necessitate that this scholar is skilled in the field of the intricasies of the methodology, since being knowledgable concerning good, does not automatically necessitate detailed knowledge of evil.

And the statement

This methodology is inherited from those who possess it (i.e. the people of knowledge), it is not based upon guesswork or conjecture, nor acting upon what we deem to be ‘obvious’. Neither should it be presumed that everyone referred to as an ‘Ālim’ must, by necessity be knowledgeable concerning it. Such that if one ‘took from the scholars’ they too must be knowledgeable and aware of it.

I have dealt with this in a previous post with the speech of Shaikh Saalih As Suhaimi here:

However, I would like to further analyze the issue of establishing a ruling regarding Tabdee’ (calling a person an innovator) . For the ruling of Tabdee’ to be established three things must be taken into consideration:

  • The one who makes the ruling.
  • The one who the ruling is being made upon
  • The evidences for Tabdee’

In this post I shall deal with the first point i.e the one who makes the ruling of Tabdee’. As for the second and third issue I shall be dealing with it in the next post.

As stated in the books of Jarh Wa Ta’deel (disparagement and appraisal) the one who is establishing the Jarh must be knowledgeable of the reasons for the Jarh in addition to being cautious, just and fearful of Allah ta’ala. Ibn Hajar Al ‘Asqalani said:

The Jarh of the one who goes extreme in it (by disparaging someone who doesn’t deserve it) is not accepted as this would lead to disparaging someone for that which the narrator’s Hadeeth wouldn’t be rejected for.” (Nuzhah An Nadhr: 401)

He also said:

And if one disparages without caution, he would have spoken ill of a Muslim who is distant from it (the Jarh).” (Nuzhah An Nadhr: 402)

If we apply this to Tabdee’ we would look at the following:

  • Does the individual know the reasons and conditions for Tabdee’?
  • Is the individual equipped to make the ruling of Tabdee‘?
  • Can the individual establish the evidences of Tabdee’ on a particular person?

As for the last point, the evidences have to be established to the point that it is clear and goes in according to the reality. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) said regarding Takfeer (calling someone Kaafir) that it must be clear Kufr which can be established by the revelation. And as the scholars clarified, Tabdee’ is the sister of Takfeer.

Regarding the Hukm (ruling) of Tabdee’, the individual who does so must have the aforementioned attributes in the points presented from the quotations of Imam Ibn Hajar Al ‘Asqalani. Once the individual has the characteristics mentioned above i.e of scholarship, knowledge of the principles and evidences, piety and caution then he/she has the ability to make Tabdee’.

However, it is amazing to witness that there are those who claim that some scholars who are known for their correct ‘Aqeedah, sound Manhaj and have the aforementioned attributes do not fit the requirements to make judgments upon individuals. Additionally,  no precise criteria has been laid out as to why their select few are the exception from these many scholars.*

We must realize that uttering such bold statements without understanding its implications and consequences is indeed unwise and is tantamount to disrespecting many of the known Salafi scholars worldwide. As Shaikh Saalih As Suhaimi mentioned,when some of them say that the scholars are not strong in the affairs of Manhaj, it is similar to the statement of the political activists when they said that the scholars don’t have knowledge regarding current affairs.

May Allah aid us in recognizing the status of our ‘Ulama.

*From what is apparent, the criteria of Abu Hakeem Bilal Davies regarding this affair is that he should have an intrinsic knowledge of the Manhaj. Although I agree with Abu Hakeem on this point, I beg the following questions:

  1. What is meant by knowledge of the intricacies of the Manhaj?
  2. What is it that excludes scholars, other than their select few, from having knowledge regarding the intricacies of the Manhaj? In other words what are the criteria for having intricate knowledge, or being a scholar of the Manhaj?

Since Islam is a religion based upon clarity the vague statements of Abu Hakeem must be explained. May Allah guide us all.



Breaking the chains: Part 3: Knowledge and the scholars.

Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah,

This is part three of Breaking the Chains. May Allah make it beneficial for those who read and spread it. And to proceed:

As aforementioned, respect, love and adherence to the methodology of the scholars is from the ‘Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. However, bearing this in mind, many scholars may only be known or may specialize in some Islamic sciences while having sufficient knowledge that is required for him/ her in other fields of Islamic scholarship. Hence, a scholar may be a Faqeeh (scholar in Fiqh) but not a Muhaddith (scholar of Hadeeth). He/ She may be a scholar of Tafseer (Qur’anic explanation) but not a scholar of Usool Ul Fiqh (the methodology of deriving Fiqh)

Upon this premise, without a shadow of a doubt it is a must that we return to the specialist scholars in every subject as it relates to detailed and intrinsic matters regarding their fields of study. Additionally, in this juncture of Islamic history it is difficult to find scholars who are experts in every field (an example being Shaikh Ul Islam Ibn Taymeeyah). Although this is the case, Allah has still been merciful to the Muslims who have specialists in Fiqh, the Arabic Language, Hadeeth, Qur’anic recitation, ‘Aqeedah, refuting the innovators etc. At the same instance we must bear the following principles in mind:

1. The statements of the scholar must still be weighed against evidences and principles as aforementioned.

2. Although a scholar may be most prominent in a field it neither excludes other scholars from having knowledge or even expertise in the same field. Nor does it grant the scholar infallibility in the science he specializes in.  

Hence, although Shaikh Rabee’, who is from the scholars of this time, specializes in refuting the opponents of the Salafi Da’wah this does not mean that other eminent scholars are excluded from participating in refuting the innovators. From those who have died include:

 Shaikh Ahmad An Najmi

Shaikh Zaid Al Madkhali

 Shaikh Muqbil Ibn Haadi

Shaikh ‘Abdul ‘Azeez Ibn Baaz and

Shaikh Naasir Ud Deen Al Albani.

And from those who are currently alive are Shaikh Saalih Ibn Fawzaan Al Fawzaan whose verdicts and lectures on the Salafi Manhaj have been written in quite a number of volumes. Likewise, Shaikh Saalih Ibn Sa’ad As Suhaimi, and Shaikh Yahya Ibn ‘Ali Al Haajoori whose statements are plentiful regarding the opponents to Da’wah Salafeeyah.

Secondly, being a specialist in a field does not necessitate immunity from mistakes. And if another scholar, who may be a specialist yet isn’t prominent, makes a statement that contradicts the former, the point of return is the principles and evidences not the personality. Unfortunately, there are some of those who claim to be vanguards and defenders of Da’wah As Salafeeyah who perceive that the point of return is the specialist rather than the principles. Such a principle is concocted and has no precedence whatsoever in Da’wah As Salafeeyah.

Thirdly, although scholars may be known for prominence in a particular field of study it doesn’t necessitate that these scholars aren’t specialists in other fields in the Islamic sciences. From those current examples are:

  • Shaikh Muqbil was a scholar of Hadeeth who specialized in Jarh Wa Ta’deel and scruitinizing the chains of narration however he was also a grammarian.
  • Shaikh Ibn Baaz was known for his scholarship in Fiqh but few know that he was also a Muhaddith (scholar in Hadeeth).
  • Shaikh Abdul Muhsin Al ‘Abbad is known for his specialization in the 6 books of Hadeeth but he is also a specialist in Fiqh.Hence, to exclude scholars from having extensive knowledge in a particular science without investigating or contemplating upon their statements, written or spoken, is indeed tantamount to oppressing them. Shaikh Saalih Ibn Sa’d As Suhaimi said:

One of them said on some websites that the two noble scholars: Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Saalih Al ‘Uthaimeen and Shaikh ‘Abdul Muhsin Al ‘Abbad are two great scholars who can be benefited from in regards to Hadeeth, Fiqh and the Sunnah. However, they are not to be asked about the methodology and individuals with the claim that each science has its men. And that there are those from the scholars who don’t have strong understanding regarding the methodology of the Salaf and refuting the deviant methodologies. And that this is the specialty of so and so individual.

And I think that the scholars who he pointed toward should be asked about the methodology and individuals would not be pleased with such an oppressive ruling made on the rest of the scholars and they would not agree with this idea.

And this reminds me of a statement of one of the partisan leaders here before twenty years ago when he described the scholars as not knowing the reality and that the modern day groups are those who know about the condition of the Muslims and the plans of the enemies and that this is specific to them... [Tanbeeh:16]

Unfortunately, this type of extremism, which Shaikh Suhaimi mentioned,  resembles the following statements of Abu Hakeem Bilal Davies when he said in part 1 of his posts: “Doubts around the Da’wah Part 1.”

This methodology is inherited from those who possess it (i.e. the people of knowledge), it is not based upon guesswork or conjecture, nor acting upon what we deem to be ‘obvious’. Neither should it be presumed that everyone referred to as an ‘Ālim’ must, by necessity be knowledgeable concerning it. Such that if one ‘took from the scholars’ they too must be knowledgeable and aware of it.”

He also said:

Thus seeking knowledge does not necessitate that a person will gain correct detailed knowledge of the methodology of the salaf, just as being from the people of knowledge does not, by default, necessitate that this scholar is skilled in the field of the intricasies of the methodology, since being knowledgable concerning good, does not automatically necessitate detailed knowledge of evil.”

 Regarding these arguments of Bilal Davies the following two questions must be considered since there is need for clarification rather than insinuation:

  1. Are the scholars who specialize in ‘Aqeedah, knowledgeable regarding Bid’ah; its conditions and its prohibitions, unqualified to make a ruling as to whether a person is an innovator or not? Or are such rulings made only by those who specialize in the field of Jarh Wa Ta’deel?
  2.  What is the basis of disqualifying a scholar from refuting the innovators or disqualifying a statement of  scholar? Is such premise based upon concrete evidences and principles or is it based upon other than that?

Lastly, it is very important for the readers to know that refuting the people of innovation is one of the several aspects of Jarh Wa Ta’deel and it is where the science of ‘Aqeedah,  colludes with Jarh Wa Ta’deel.. Hence, the scholar of Jarh Wa Ta’deel has to know about Bid’ah, the different groups and the premises by which one declares a narrator to be a Mubtadi’ (innovator). Likewise, the scholar of ‘Aqeedah who refutes groups and individuals from the people of innovation as well as the Qaadi (judge) both participate in Jarh Wa Ta’deel in this limited sense.*

In conclusion the following is clear to the reader:

  • Being a specialist doesn’t bestow infallibility as the statements of the specialists still have to be weighed on the scale of evidences and principles.
  • Being a specialist in a science doesn’t exclude others from specializing and participating in the same science.
  • It is not a necessity for a scholar to be a specialist in Jarh Wa Ta’deel in order to refute the innovator.  Rather, the scholar of ‘Aqeedah who refutes the innovators as well as the Qaadi may also do so providing that they fit the requirements.

And Allah knows best.

* The scope of the Qaadi in Jarh Wa Ta’deel is wider than the scope of the scholar of ‘Aqeedah.

Breaking the Chains (Pt. 1: Returning the affairs to the scholars)

Assalamu Alaikum,

This series called Breaking the Chains is an attempt to appeal those who have respect and love for Da’wah As Salafeeyah to adhere to its noble principles. May Allah bring benefit through it.

Principle Number 1: The importance of returning to the ‘Ulama.

Without doubt referring to the scholars in issues that are not clear in the Qur’an, Sunnah and Ijma’ (consensus) is obligatory. They are the inheritors of the Prophet, the leaders of this Da‘wah and a point of return for the Ummah. Allah has said:

“And when a matter of safety or fear comes to them they spread it. And if they were to return it to the Messenger and the people of authority (the scholars and the rulers) they would know who would be able to extract the matter…” [4:83]

Shaikh Saalih As Suhaimi said regarding the aforementioned verse:

“Verily the scholars are the signposts of guidance and the lamps in the darkness. Whoever deviates from their way and doesn’t return to them regarding the contentious matters of the Ummah will be astray and lead others astray.” [Tanbeeh Thawil Afhaam:34]

Imam Muqbil Ibn Haadi Al Waadi’ee said regarding the remedy for problems between the Salafis:

“And from it (the remedies) is to return to the people of knowledge from Ahlus Sunnah. Allah has said: “Ask the people of knowledge if you don’t know.” [16:43] But some students of knowledge are pleased with what they have from knowledge and argue with everyone who opposes them. And this is from the reasons of separation and differences…” [Naseehati Li Ahlis Sunnah: 11-12]

Unfortunately, there are those who pontificate that the “senior brothers” are to be adhered to based upon their interpretation of the statement of a scholar.. The following statement was said by one of their followers:

“The Salafi scholars recognise our brothers at Maktaba Salafeeyah to be the seniors and representatives of the Dawa in the west. It is upon the Salafi youth to adhere to these senior brothers…”

Indeed some scholars do recognize them based upon their perceptions. However, there are four matters surrounding this issue:

  1. Seniority is primarily based upon knowledge. Imam Al Khateeb Al Baghdaadi said:

    “The people will remain upon good once their scholars are elderly and once they are not young. Because the enjoyment, hastiness and foolishness of youth has left him…” [Sharf Ashaabul Hadeeth Wa Naseehatu Ashaabil Hadeeth: 243]

    Note: However, this doesn’t mean that one can’t take from those who are younger as some of the scholars such as Ibn ‘Abbas, Mu’aadh Ibn Jabal, Imam Malik, Imam Bukhari and Shaikh Ul Islam Ibn Taymeeyah were barely beyond their teenage years when they began to teach, give rulings and da’wah.

    Unfortunately, the seniority of these individuals in the Da’wah is based upon age rather than sound knowledge. It must be known that knowledge of the religion is the main criteria for entrance into the field of Da’wah. Therefore, being elderly in the Da’wah while lacking firm knowledge based upon principles and evidence doesn’t benefit. For this reason one may observe that such individuals violate some of the fundamentals of ‘Aqeedah and the methodology of the Salaf while perceiving that they are upon guidance.

  2. It is incomprehensible to perceive that what Shaikh Hasan Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Al Banna (who is one from many scholars) meant by this and other statements was to bestow unrestricted leadership of the Salafi Da’wah in the West to Salafi Publications. In other words, some are interpreting the Shaikh’s speech to mean that they have been given the green light to disparage, appraise, approve and disapprove of individuals with full unrestricted authority. Without doubt such an interpretation is indeed farfetched.
  3. As aforementioned, returning to scholarly guidance is from the principles of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. Therefore they are the ones who are adhered to because placing such immense responsibility in the hands of other than the people of knowledge would lead to immense catastrophe.
  4. The phrase “Salafi scholars” is used in an unrestricted fashion when in this case (if we were to follow their line of reasoning in point number two) it was Shaikh Hassan Al Banna who said such. Therefore, this is not something known to the Lajnah Ad Daaimah who include the Grand Mufti and Shaikh Fawzaan. Likewise, most of the scholars of Makkah, Madeenah and Riyadh are not privy to this declaration. Hence in lieu of the phrase “Salafi Scholars” the name Shaikh Hassan Al Banna should be inserted.

To conclude, the Salafi adheres to the Qur’an, the Sunnah, the understanding of the Salaf and the scholars of this era who are the leaders of Da’wah As Salafeeyah. As for adhering to the du’aat (callers), preachers, students of knowledge and translators this is absolutely inappropriate when dealing with major affairs such as Takfeer (calling a person a Kaafir), Tabdee’ (calling a person an innovator) and Tafseeq (calling an individual a sinner). Shaikh Saalih Al Fawzan said:

“And from here it is obligatory for those who take these names [Tabdee’, Tafseeq and Takfeer] and they don’t understand them to learn before they speak. And to fear Allah because speaking without knowledge, especially in these matters, is a great evil. And it is also from speaking about Allah without knowledge which is greater than Shirk...” [Majmoo’ah Rasail Da’weeyah Wa Manhajeeyah: 148]

To be continued…

Removing the doubts for the doubtful (Part 2).

My dear Muslim brothers and sisters,

I would like to inform all of those who respect the Salafi Manhaj that there is a false principle being posited based upon the statement of Abu Hatim Ar Razi:

“The sign of the people of innovation is their speaking ill of the people of narrations.”

The innovators speak about those who adhere to the Sunnah and Manhaj of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) because it opposes their innovations and principles. However, it is unfortunate that the above statement of truth is used to propagate manifest falsehood by some who claim to follow Salafeeyah.

To put it in a very simple format, the following sentences demonstrate what seems to constitute the logic and thought process of Abu Hakeem Bilal Davis from his audio (perhaps he doesn’t have time to write anymore) regarding doubts surrounding the Da’wah (Part 3):

  1. The people of innovation speak ill of the people of narrations.
  2. SPUBS and their affiliates/ satellites who number in the tens of thousands are from the people of narrations.
  3. Therefore those who speak ill of/ criticize SPUBS/MPUBS and others are innovators.

Based upon this line of reasoning I would like to ask the following:

i. Are the people of narrations the people who follow the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the way of the Salaf in their speech, actions and beliefs or do they ONLY constitute SPUBS and their worldwide affiliates?

ii. Is someone deemed a Salafi ONLY due to their association to SPUBS?

iii. If someone criticizes SPUBS or their affiliates due to clear opposition to established religious principles , are they deemed as people of innovation?

iv. Are all the scholars who criticized SPUBS deemed as innovators?

v. Is the outcry against SPUBS based upon the former’s disdain and opposition to the evidences and principles of the Salafi Manhaj? Or is it due to SPUBS opposing clear principles of the Manhaj especially in regards to making Tabdee’?

May Allah ta’ala guide us all.



The methodology of Shaikh Rabee’ in establishing Tabdee’

Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah

My dear Muslim brothers and sisters, some false principles regarding establishing Tabdee’ were put forward by Abu Hakeem Bilal Davies, may Allah guide him and us, which is in reality a re-establishment of the Usool (principles) of Faalih Al Harbi. He postulates, without any fear or reservation, that when a scholar makes Tabdee’ (calling someone an innovator) upon an individual that evidences should not be requested. Furthermore, he goes on to accuse those who request evidence of the following:

  • Having an evil intent
  • Following the methodology of Abu Hasan Al Ma’ribi
  • Destroying the status of the people of knowledge.  (see:

This is similar this to the statements of Faalih Al Harbi who said, after being asked if clarifying the reasons for Jarh (disparagement) is a condition for its acceptance:

 It is not a condition (asking for evidences). This is regarding the reasons for Jarh Wa Ta’deel (disparagement and appraisal) in narrating and this does not enter into speaking about those who deviate in their methodology and their way.

It was said to him afterward : Because they say that a Shaikh may be disparaged for what isn’t taken into consideration as a Jarh by other than him.He then stated:

No, no, this is from their principles and I seek refuge in Allah. This is an oppressive principle that is innovated and led the Ummah astray.

With the intention to be as brief as possible I will simply mention an excerpt from the advice of Sh. Rabee’ to Faalih Al Harbi which shows the falsehood of Abu Hakeem’s principle. Shaikh Rabee’ said after citing the aforementioned statements of Faalih Al Harbi:

Verily you were asked regarding specific individuals who are known to the people for Salafeeyah and Da’wah toward it. From them are scholars according to the people and you have removed them from Salafeeyah, and this removal is a severe Jarh (disparagement) which is in need of evidence. If you don’t come with evidence and reasons for this Jarh the people would think that you have oppressed them, transgressed upon them and spoke about their religion without any right. Therefore you would become accused in front of the people and would need to distance your religion and honour from this.

If you don’t do so the people would speak ill of you and neither yourself nor others would be pleased with such speech. Therefore trials and separation between the Salafis and accusations between groups would become common. And this wouldn’t stop until the reasons for this removal (from Salafeeyah) are presented and even you would request the reasons if someone disparaged you or removed you from Salafeeyah.

If there is a Jarh Mubham (unexplained criticism) and a Ta’deel (appraisal) then the strongest opinion is that it is an obligation to explain that Jarh Mubham. And being known regarding the religion, Sunnah, Salafeeyah and Da’wah is stronger than a Ta’deel that comes from one or two scholars.

And speech regarding those who have deviated in their methodology and what they traverse upon is from the most important matters that enter into the issue of disparagement because there is a binding factor between individuals and their methodology. Therefore those who speak ill of the methodology of a person speaks ill of him.

And for this reason you see that the Salaf present the evidences showing the misguidance of the people of innovation and the deviance of their methodology. And they have books which can’t be enumerated. And some of them shall be mentioned and I have the opinion that there is no issue in mentioning the speech of the people of knowledge regarding the condition of explaining the Jarh Mubham and the rejecting of some of the Jarh (of the scholars). So I say:

Ibn Salaah said that the strongest opinion is that the Ta‘deel is accepted without clarifying the reason.

As for Jarh, it is not accepted unless it is explained and the reasons are clear. This is because people differ regarding the reasons in what would be deemed an acceptable Jarh and that which would be unacceptable. And it has been relayed from Al Khateeb Al Baghdaadi (the famous scholar oh Hadeeth) that it is the Madhab (path) of the Imams of Hadeeth and its criticizers the likes of Imam Al Bukhari , Muslim and other than them. For this reason Bukhari narrated from a group who had been disparaged like ‘Ikrimah the Maula of Ibn Abbas and he (Ibn Salaah) mentioned others. Then he said: And Muslim narrated from Suwaid Ibn Sa’eed and a group who were known to have been disparaged and Abu Dawood As Sijistani did the same. And this demonstrates that they had the opinion that Jarh is not accepted unless its reasons have been explained... 

[Excerpt from the book: Naseehah Al Akhaweeyah Ela Al Akh Shaikh Faalih Al Harbi: 1-2]

As for the accusation that asking for evidences regarding Tabdee’ is the Madhab of Ma’ribi  Sh Rabee’ said to Faalih:

Yes the Da’wah of Abi Hasan toward not blind-following the scholars it was a statement of truth wanting by it falsehood. He wanted by it to belittle the scholars and their statements and rulings that came with evidences and clarity...[Ibid:20]

This has been further clarified in my e-book: Who are the extremists? (من هم الغلاة) and all praise is due to Allah. Furthermore, I would like to ask two simple  questions to Abu Hakeem Bilal Davies and affiliates:

When scholars such as Shaikh Waseeyullah Al ‘Abbas and Shaikh Saalih As Suhaimi disparaged you and Abu Khadeejah should the Salafis:

  • Ask for evidences and do research regarding the matter? Or..
  • Accept their statements automatically?

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