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.




Uncovering the doubts of callers on social media. Part 5

Topic: What is the reality of Da’wah As Salafeeyah?

In this post I am not going to write extensively regarding the proofs that one should follow the Salaf Us Saalih. For those that wish to know about these proofs and understand them they can check here:


The goal of this post is to clarify the reality of Da’wah As Salafeeyah. Since many may know the proofs regarding it, many may ascribe to it but a minority know the reality of it. Hence I will write a few points regarding some misconceptions:

  • Salafeeyah means to follow the belief and the methodology of the pious predecessors, from the first three generations of Islam, regarding the religion. Anyone who adheres to these maxims is called a Salafi.
  • Those who propagate the methodology of the Salaf seek to unite the Muslims upon the truth, upon evidences of the Qur’an and the Sunnah with the understanding and consensus of the first three generations of Islam. Hence, the purpose of warning against individuals who promote misguidance, Shirk and Bid’ah is to bring the Ummah back to guidance of Tawheed (monotheism) and the Sunnah upon Prophetic methodology.
  • An important factor of unity is to unite under a leader as this brings about many benefits which include the establishment of the religion and the security of one’s wealth and person. Hence, obedience to the Muslim ruler, even those who are tyrannical, is not a ‘Madkhali’ fabrication. Rather this is established by the religion and by extension common sense. 
  • The scholars of Salafeeyah must be loved and are the most important means for us to understand the religion and to connect ourselves with the inheritance of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم). To connect ourselves with the scholars, to take from their wisdom and to consult them is obligatory. However, it does not mean the following:

1. That we connect Salafeeyah exclusively to one scholar or a group of scholars. Such a practice is reprehensible Hizbeeyah (partisanship) which is frowned upon in the religion of Islam. It is impermissible to take an individual and his statements to determine one’s Walaa (allegiance) and Baraa (disassociation). Such Hizbeeyah has led to the following:

i. Some scholars have been raised to a level of infallibility wherein their statements and pronouncements are rendered beyond question. Furthermore, if someone dares to question or critique using proofs, statements of the Salaf and contemporary scholars he is rendered an innovator, a fool and one who opposes the Salafi Methodology.

ii.  Scholars who are known for their adherence have been figuratively thrown under the bus. Although these scholars haven’t done anything to oppose the ‘Aqeedah and the methodology of the Salaf they are warned against and vilified for their positions regarding specific individuals. Such behaviour has led to division among those who claim to adhere to the same creed and methodology. And since well respected scholars were thrown under the bus on a regular basis this has restricted the channels from which Salafi youth can benefit from. Furthermore, it has led the Salafi youth so confused to the point that many have left Salafeeyah altogether. It has also led to the rise of cannibalistic (as they eat the flesh of the scholars), opportunist charlatans to attack Salafi scholars and the Salafi methodology to the point that they openly vilify the likes of Imam Al Barbahari, Imam Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, Shaikh Saalih Ibn Fawzaan Al Fawzaan and others.

2. It also doesn’t mean that we connect Salafeeyah to a particular organization and render those who critique that organization as innovators. Rather it is upon such an organization e.g SPUBS to make introspection and examine as to whether or not they are adhering to the methodology of the Salaf in the particular issue which they are criticized for to determine as to whether or not they have been criticized fairly. This is because everyone makes mistakes, errors and forgets and as a result of our nature as mankind we need beneficial reminders.

In conclusion, although there are many misconceptions in social media regarding Salafeeyah those which I have mentioned are circulating around social media currently. This, in addition to the sustained attacks of several individuals on  Salafeeyah, its Imams and its foundational principles have led me to write a series of posts which shall end in the coming weeks In Sha Allah. 

Note: Sh. Rabee’ is a scholar from Ahlus Sunnah. He isn’t infallible in any form or fashion and without doubt many (including myself) have misgivings of what he has said recently against established Salafi scholars who are known to adhere to and teach the Sunnah. The statements of everyone, including scholars, are measured according to evidences and consensus. As Ibn Rajab Al Hanbali said: “Truth is not known by men but rather men are known by the truth.”

However, the purpose of the use of name tags such as ‘Madkhali’ and ‘Madakhilah’ by the people of innovation and desires returns to two matters:

i. His strong refutations against the methodology and principles of the Ikhwan Al Muslimeen.

ii. His strong refutations against misguided individuals from the Ikhwaan Al Muslimeen such as Hasan Al Banna, Sayyid Qutb and Mauduudi.

To reiterate, refuting those who oppose the methodology of the salaf and obeying the rulers, are not ‘Madkhali’ innovations. Rather these are well established principles which the people of desires don’t adhere to. Hence, they use countless means to direct the masses away from understanding and implementing these principles.

  And Allah knows best.


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!

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.