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.

Advertisements

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: https://ah-sp.com/2017/08/22/doubts-around-the-dawah-part-2/

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

For those who respect Salafeeyah and Jarh and Ta’deel.

Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah,

My dear brothers and sisters who have respect for the Salafi Da’wah,

For many years we have been hearing the words “Salafeeyah”, “Sunnah”, “Manhaj”, “Jarh Wa Ta’deel” and “The ‘Ulama” by many callers in the west. Unfortunately, behind these terms there has been a sinister agenda by some da’ees [callers] to foster Taqleed [blind-following] within Salafi communities. This Taqleed has been centered around specific scholars who the aforementioned da’ees have utilized to keep those who see and speak out about their wrongdoing in check.

Without doubt there is always need for the scholars who are the inheritors of the Prophets. Likewise it is impossible to understand the religion without scholarly guidance. However, the phenomenon of: “The Shaikh said this” & “the Shaikh said that” has been presented as answers instead of Allah and his Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم) have said. Therefore, instead of making the statements of the scholars as an extension or branch of the evidences they have made the evidences a branch of what the scholars have said.

Their methods mirror that of the methods of the Hardcore Madhabists. When one asks for evidences they are told the following:

  • Do you know better than the Shaikhs and the noble elders?
  • Are you a scholar?
  • So and so scholar is the flag bearer of Jarh Wa Ta’deel. [disparagement and appraisal]
  • The noble brothers have been giving Da’wah for years!
  • The scholars recommend these brothers.
  • You have no right to ask for evidences you just have to follow.

All these futile arguments are utilized in order to steer the questioner away from seeking evidences. Afterwards, shackles are placed upon their minds to the point that they are blind, deaf and speechless toward clear guidance and evidence.

Trinidad and Tobago is no different from Barbados, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and other western countries. This concept of blind loyalty to particular scholars and personalities has been planted, nurtured and harvested into ultimate havoc, chaos and recklessness to the point that there are youths who involve themselves in speaking about the Muslims who don’t have the necessary knowledge to live their lives as functional Muslims.

Oh those who respect Salafeeyah, reflect and ask:

  • Why can’t I ask for evidences?
  • Isn’t the way of the Salaf based on Allah, the Messenger and the Companions said?
  • Why do I have to follow statements which clearly contradict the reality?

The heart, which is the receptacle of the intellect, must be used to ponder and submit to the Verses in the book of Allah and the Ahadeeth in the Sunnah of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم). As for the statements of the scholars or “noble brothers” they are weighed according to the two sources of revelation and can be either accepted or rejected.

An argument may follow when the specific scholars, who they return to, appraise and disparage individuals it must be accepted without question. 

My dear brothers and sisters this is a false notion that has been used to secure control of many worldwide. Although I have written in a treatise of mine regarding this matter. I would like to re-iterate that not all Jarh [disparagements] are accepted even if they are Imams of the Sunnah. For this reason Imam Ibn Katheer said in his books the Summary of the Sciences of Hadeeth [220]:

And some of them have spoken about other than him and it wasn’t taken into account because of what they had between them from known animosity. And we have mentioned examples of this: The speech of Muhammad Ibn Ishaaq about Imam Malik and likewise the speech of Malik regarding him. And As Suhaili has spoken extensively about this. And likewise the speech of Imam An Nasai regarding Ahmad Ibn Saalih Al Misri when the latter prevented him from sitting in his classes.”

Lastly, I would like the Muslims to reflect upon the following statement which I told my former colleague before he climbed on the bandwagon:

“If you think that Shaikh Rabee’ is free from error regarding Jarh Wa Ta’deel this means that you perceive him to be greater than the scholars of the Salaf in this area from the  likes of Imam Shu’bah Ibn Hajaaj.”

Hence, how could great Imams of Jarh Wa Ta’deel from the Salaf such as Shu’bah, Malik and An Nasa’ee be considered as mistaken regarding some individuals yet stating that Shaikh Rabee’ was mistaken is tantamount to vilifying Salafeeyah and the Salafi methodology?

These are questions that each individual who truly loves and respects Salafeeyah and its knowledge based principles have to ask themselves. May Allah ta’ala bring us to the freedom of following evidences and principles and remove us from the prison of taqleed and blind partisanship.

Link to my previous treatise: Who are the extremists:

https://musamills.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/d985d986-d987d985-d8a7d984d8bad984d8a7d8a9d89f.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jarh and Tadlees spubs style

After it was said that Sh. Fawzaan warned from the likes of Yahya Al Hajoori by Amjad Rafeeq on this link:

http://www.manhaj.com/manhaj/articles/xbajs-shaykh-saalih-al-fawzan-warns-from-studying-with-the-likes-of-al-hajuri-who-have-no-firm-grounding-in-knowledge.cfm

And after Mustafa George made various analogies regarding Sh. Fawzan’s visit to Sh. Yahya saying maybe Sh. Fawzan went to advise Sh. Yahya about his errors and bid’ah. This phone call took place between someone in the United States and Sh. Fawzaan:

https://safeshare.tv/submit?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5MlPM-wo5to

On this juncture the request to spubs is as follows:

1. PUBLICLY apologize for writing and speaking contrary to that which has occurred.

2. Leave off their Jarh and Tadlees for the following reasons:

(i) Sh. Fawzaan doesn’t mean that he is unknown (majhool). Rather the audio shows that  he doesn’t personally know him and has only heard good about him relayed by others.On the flip side if one were to say that Sh. Fawzaan praised a person who was completely unknown regarding his condition this would be an improper accusation to level at the Shaikh.

(ii) This is seen as an appraisal (Ta’deel) as he relied upon the statements of others (who he sees as trustworthy) to say: “Listen to him.” And in the books of Jarh Wa Ta’deel one would find that scholars would build their praise or disparagement upon what was relayed to them by trustworthy individuals. 

(iii) As for the disparagement of some scholars and spubs it was built upon lies, half truths and statements taken completely out of context.

Truth be told if they can say that Sh Yahya praises the Shia, loves others to overpraise him, has spoken ill about the Sahabah more than anyone else (Shamsudeen of Daar Us Sunnah), and has spoken ill of the Prophet (which constitutes Takfeer), and furthermore indirectly implicate Sh. Fawzaan in their shenanigans then it would be easy for them to spin around Sh. Fawzan’s recent speech to mean other than that which was said.

#spubs Jarh Wa Tadlees