Monday, 22 July 2024    HomeAbout UsContact Us     

Refutation of the Slander of the Confused Abdullaah al-Farsee Against Shaykh Rabee Regarding the Issue of Iqaamat ul-Hujjah
Filed under: Shaykh Rabee
Tuesday, October 08 2013 - by Admin
Key topics: Abdullah Al-Farsee

Mail to a FriendPrinter friendly

The Gross Slander of the Ignorant, Confused Abdullaah al-Farsee That Has Been Recorded by the Angels and Will Be Brought Out on Yawm ul-Qiyaamah

The video to the right was published on 8th August 2012 by a Turathi Ikhwani organisation masquerading behind Sunnah and Salafiyyah whilst attacking some of the leading scholars of the Sunnah who have great efforts in protecting Islam, Sunnah and Salafiyyah from the contemporary Innovators from al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen and others. This faction has taken the confused and ignorant Abdullah al-Farsee (a mentally unstable individual) as its leader and guide. Abdullah al-Farsee haphazardly makes accusations and makes claims that are not referenced and he puts words into the mouth of Shaykh Rabee' which the Shaykh never said. The video is aimed at evaluating "Madkhali criticisms" and "reviewing this group's unprincipled accusations". Let us jump straight into the first 6 minutes where Abdullaah al-Farsee is going to teach us how "Madkhalis" play about with the religion. The discussion is regarding the issue of iqaamat ul-hujjah (establishment of the proof):

Inshaa'Allaah we will comment on this ignorant rant in what follows so that the reality is made clear that Abdullah al-Farsee has lost his marbles. He says at the beginning:

This group of extremists actually, although they are called extremists, but I call them players, they play with the religion of Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa) for their own desires. One day you will see them going this extreme and then all of a sudden go the other extreme, the opposite extreme, you see.

A great roar of laughter first and foremost here, where al-Farsee is actually describing himself, he is a great entertainer. He has forgotten his Takfir he made of Abdur-Raheem al-Tahhaan upon other than Sharee'ah principles then was forced to retract it. Then he has forgotten how he used to assault Turaath and make cassettes refuting the false principles of the Hizbiyyeen such as his lecture "Ma'naa Qawl al-Hizbiyyeen: Wasaa'il al-Da'wah Ijtihaadiyyah..." in which he refuted Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaliq and Ihyaa al-Turaath amongst others. Then he turns around and sends Maktabah Salafiyyah an email from his address dated 27th September 1998 threatening legal action if we don't take his speech regarding Ihyaa al-Turaath down! And then he writes an introduction for the English translation of Shaykh Rabee's book "The Methodology of the Prophets in Calling to Allaah" (which was - alhamdulillaah - never included in the printed version but saved nevertheless!) and in which there occurs his statements:

The Shaykh has clearly proven in his wonderful work, the deviation of the so-called contemporary groups of da'wah who have turned da'wah into a means of seeking power using all means possible even if they were to be corruption...Recently, Abdul-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq has falsely accused [Shaykh Rabee'] of "emptying" Tawheed of the concept of Rulership of Allah - this was what Shaykh Abdul-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq said in his book "Ar-Radd Al-Wajeez", p.15,16 (This book was published in 1996, First edition)... In conclusion to this small introduction, I would like the reader to get the correct message from this great book of Shaykh Rabee' and compare every existing da'wah to the true criterion of da'wah that is explained in this book and supported by many proofs from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the messenger and the way of the Companions. To save yourself the time and effort, I can tell you that all the so-called "groups of da'wah" have deviated from the path of the prophets in their beginning, the means and the goal. I ask Allah that you may benefit a great deal by our Shaykh's book and may Allah reward him with the best...

Then he flips and turns on his heels, contradicts himself and invalidates everything he spoke with before. One day he is attacking Safar and Salmaan, the Qutbiyyah of Saudi Arabia, then another day he is praising them. This is an unstable man, a mentally unstable man. This is leaving aside the way he has been battered, bruised and humiliated in the various Arabic forums in which he used to participate and from which an entire catalogue of his ignorance, confusion, lies and outright stupidity can be produced. But of course, his Muqallidah who do not speak or understand Arabic do not see the other universe of Abdullaah al-Farsee and so they remain stooped in their ignorance and misguidance.

The Issue of Iqaamat al-Hujjah (Establishment Of the Proof) And Abdullaah al-Farsee's Jahl (Ignorance), Hawaa (Desire) and Hamaaqah (Stupidity)

Let's now get into the main issue and here it is, this is Abdullaah al-Farsee, making a display of himself:

And they do both ways in the name of the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the consensus of the Salaf. Because this is their only way to pass those thoughts, to attribute them to the Qur'an and the Sunnah and the way of the Salaf, this is the only way they can market them, those rules for example regarding which is the first fundamental of Islaam and yet they have played with it. One day they say that someone who makes clear Shirk like worshipping the graves then by the consensus of the scholars he is a mushrik and he does not need that the proof should be established upon him before calling him a mushrik, this is for example when their head, Rabee' al-Madkhali replied on al-Ma'ribee. He blamed him for not considering people like grave worshippers to be mushriks until the proof is established. He said, "Who said that, it is the concensus of the Salaf that they are Mushriks" which is true. But then later on when they accused him of declaring the Barelwis as kafirs, Ikhwanis as kafirs, others (as) kafirs, he wanted to defend himself. So he said "I don't declare those who worship the graves like the Barelwis before establishing the proof so how do you accuse me of declaring those people kafirs" and then he said "What i am saying is not only my position, this is what Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said and this is the consensus of the Salaf." You see how they are playing with the religion. Meaning, here he says "The consensus of the Salaf, you should call them mushriks, there is no need to establish the proof" and here he said, "It is the consensus of the Salaf that you cannot call them Mushriks except after establishing the proof" and this is Tawhid, the Tawhid of Allaah, the first fundamental of Islam. And then in a third position, when he wants his followers not to dispute amongst each other and not to be harsh for each other, he says, "Look my brother, the scholars of Najd have differed in this issue, and yet they remained polite towards each other , respecting each other." Now there is a third position. First there is a concensus here, second there is a consensus in the opposite way and now there is a difference. What kind of a religion is this. What kind of Salafiyyah is this. And if you dare to do this with the most important fundamental of Islam, then what are you going to do with the rest of Islam? Playing with everything as you desire. Here you want to prove al-Ma'ribee wrong, you make Tawhid look this way. Here you wany to make yourself innocent from Takfir, you put it like you want and you say the opposite of what you said there. Then in a third place, you say something altogether different, subhanallaah.

Let's make sure we have got this clear in our minds: Al-Farsee is alleging that Shaykh Rabee first showed rejection against al-Ma'ribee for specifying establishment of the proof for those who fall into Shirk (pay attention to this). Then he says that secondly Shaykh Rabee' began to affirm the requirement of the establishment of the proof when accusations of Takfir were made against him. And then third, al-Farsee says that Shaykh Rabee started saying that there is a difference regarding the issue of establishment of the proof. Al-Farsee then says that this is an issuee connected to Tawhid and portrays as if Shaykh Rabee' is changing views and "playing around." Make sure you have grasped all of this!

We will deal with this matter in the following way: Firstly, we will establish the realities by quoting directly from the corrections of Shaykh Rabee' to al-Ma'aribee so we can see that al-Farsee is a great liar indeed. Secondly, we will then address the actual issue of establishment of the proof, citing Shaykh Rabee's detailed treatment of it in a specific article and make clear by way of this as well that al-Farsee is a scheming liar.

A Clarification of the True Realities And Merciful Guidance For the Confused Billy-Goat (al-Farsee) Banging Its Head on the Mountain (Rabee')

Further below we present to you six scanned pages from the advice (to al-Ma'ribee) that had been sent by Shaykh Rabee' bin Haadee in private many years prior to it being made open and public when Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee did not accept the criticisms and advice he was given. This was published separately online during the early 2000s and it is also available in Volume 13 of Majmu' Kutub wa Rasaa'il wa Fataawaa of Shaykh Rabee' (pp. 250-276).

First on pages 252-253 (see image to the right) we see the Shaykh briefly alluding to this issue in the opening part to his small treatise before he goes into detail about the various issues. He says, "... such as that issue in which he (al-Ma'ribee) opposed the Salaf, Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah declared to be a disbeliever the one who doubted the kufr of the one who spoke with that (issue), which is the issue of the Takfir of the Sahaabah, or the majority of them, or who made tafseeq of them. For the one from whom that occurs disbelieves, and whoever doubts in the disbelief of such a one, then his kufr too is designated. But Abu al-Hasan refused to accept this observation and he published his book upon his anvil (printing press). And when this book appeared without taking this observation I made him aware verbally (directly) and I believe this was two or three times, but he did not raise his head for this and continued to publish the book, despite its obvious flaws, reaching three editions..."

The issue here is pertaining to Takfeer of the Sahaabah, and this is addressed in more detail in what is to follow in the Shaykh's observations on al-Ma'ribee's book "al-Siraaj al-Wahhaaj Fi Bayaan al-Minhaaj." The issue of Takfeer and iqaamat ul-hujjah was addressed by Shaykh Rabee' numerous times within this advice to al-Ma'ribee in relation to a number of different issues: a) Takfir of the Sahaabah, b) revilement of Allaah and His Messenger and c) beliefs and actions of kufr and Shirk.

Below are the six pages from the list of corrections Shaykh Rabee' sent to al-Ma'ribee. Please click on each of the pages to see the full page on its own (from left to right we have pages 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261):

Translation and Explanation of What is Above

First Merciful Indication to al-Farsee to Stop Banging His Head on the Mountain: From the middle of page 256, Shaykh Rabee' lists the 3rd of the 44 observations to be made on al-Ma'ribee's book, and it is the issue of the ruling on the one who reviles Allaah or the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Shaykh Rabee' pointed out a subtle issue regarding anger (ghadab) that al-Ma'ribee did not pick up on and the Shaykh cited from Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah in that regard in which Shaykh al-Islaam is refuting the one who made istihlaal (to declare as lawful) a condition in the Takfir of such a person (as in a person becomes a kaafir only when he makes it lawful to revile Allaah and His Messenger). The Shaykh cited from the book of Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah "al-Saarim al-Maslool" (p. 516) to clarify the issue of "anger", and Shaykh Rabee says (on page 257):

The shaahid (point of evidence from Ibn Taymiyyah's words) is that he considered the one who claimed his revilement (of Allaah and His Messenger) was because of anger to be a kaafir, even if he believed that this is unlawful, and al-ghaydh is anger, rather more severe than (anger)...

Here we see that the matter pertains to revilement of Allaah and His Messenger and some tafseel regarding the issue of anger, and the issue of istihlaal from the speech of Ibn Taymiyyah. Other matters pertaining to a) Takfir of the Sahaabah as a whole and b) matters of kufr and Shirk are mentioned separately by Shaykh Rabee' - see points below.

Second Merciful Indication to al-Farsee to Stop Banging His Head on the Mountain: On page 257 Shaykh Rabee mentions the 4th observation, regarding the saying of al-Ma'ribee, "And the people of the innovations that expel from Islaam, then they are not from these sects (i.e. the seventy-two sects)" - in which some ambiguity and confusion may arise, so the Shaykh stated:

Do not forget that the people of innovation from the Khawaarij, the Mu'tazilah, the Ashaa'irah and the Soofiyyah have with them innovations that expel from Islaam, such as denial of the attributes, the statement of rejecting al-Qadar, the statement of the Qur'an being created and the various types of actions of Shirk they fall into. However, we do not make Takfir of them except after the establishment of the proof against them. Hence, this is to be made clear as has been corroborated by the Scholars of Islaam such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim and before them both, al-Shaafi'i.

Here the issue is very apparent and clear in that he is speaking about matters which are kufr but which require the establishment of the proof and this includes beliefs of kufr that are held and actions of Shirk that may be committed. The issue of revilement of Allaah and His Messenger and likewise Takfir of the Sahaabah as a whole are separate matters having their own discussion - and Shaykh Rabee was alluding that about those matters, you have to be precise and accurate and correctly convey what the great Imaams have clarified in those issues (in particular, Ibn Taymiyyah, whom al-Ma'ribee was claiming to reference for those points). As for the other issues, then the Scholars of the Sunnah are agreed that the proof should be established before Takfir is made. So, has Abdullaah al-Farsee been honest and truthful in correctly conveying what Shaykh Rabee' actually said to al-Ma'ribee? Of course not, he is a scheming liar.

Third Merciful Indication to al-Farsee to Stop Banging His Head on the Mountain: At the bottom of page 258 and moving into page 259, in the 7th observation, Shaykh Rabee cites the statement of al-Ma'ribee, "We do not make Takfir of a Muslim on account of a major sin he committed which is not kufr", so the Shaykh commented upon this saying:

I believe that there is need for this qualification "which is not kufr" because even if it was something that expels from Islam then a person would not disbelieve until after the establishment of the proof. For the one who falls into kufr is not declared a disbeliever immediately, rather it is vital for Takfir that the conditions of Takfir are fulfilled and the barriers are removed. Hence, here to keep it unqualified (as in to limit oneself in saying, "We do not make Takfir of a Muslim on account of a major sin") is more befitting and the Salaf also stated this (matter) by keeping it unqualified, and in them there is a model (to be followed).

Here the Shaykh affirms once more the issue of establishment of the proof contrary to what the confused, ignorant yet oppressive al-Farsee has falsely claimed. By this point in the article it should already start to become clear that someone needs to make tawbah, to apologise and to make amends.

Fourth Merciful Indication to al-Farsee to Stop Banging His Head on the Mountain: Also on page 259 in the 8th observation the Shaykh writes:

... also if you remove this qualification, 'And he did not associate partners with Allaah', for a person may fall into a type of Shirk whilst the proof has not been established against him, hence prayer is performed over him - and how numerous are these types (of people). But whoever fell into Shirk, and you knew that the proof had been established against him, then it is not permissible that you pray over him. In any case, it is safer to keep (the statement) unrestricted...

This is the greatest of what establishes that Abdullaah al-Farsee is a great liar, deceiver and swindler. He is speaking to a group of ignorant youths who have little knowledge, do not speak or read Arabic for the most part, at least enough to grasp and understand adequately, and who are not in any position to understand these subtle issues. But here we see that Shaykh Rabee' is saying the exact opposite of what al-Farsee claimed. Al-Farsee stated that the first position of Shaykh Rabee' when he refuted al-Ma'ribee was to deny and reject the necessity of establishment of the proof upon an individual. A great lie as you can see already. What has happened is that the confused billy-goat, due to either a) ignorance or b) following desires or c) senility, did not distinguish between the issues of making Takfir of all of the Companions which is where Shaykh Rabee' found fault with al-Ma'ribee for not accurately conveying the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah and the other general issues of falling into beliefs and actions of kufr and shirk in which Shaykh Rabee' clearly affirms that establishment of the proof is necessary. Even in this above statement Shaykh Rabee' affirms that someone who might have fell into Shirk but without the hujjah being established upon him, he is still prayed over. This scenario becomes more clear when you read the clarification of Shaykh Rabee' on the issue of establishment of the proof (see the detailed article cited from him at end of this article) and in which he gives a scenario of people who come to Islam, say through Jamaa'at ut-Tabligh or the Soofees, and they are led to believe this is the correct Islaam and they may be introduced to actions which are Shirk. So they die thinking this is the authentic Islam without being told or made aware they are opposing the deen of the Messengers. So in the observation Shaykh Rabee' is saying that in light of this type of circumstance, you should not add the qualification 'And he did not associate partners with Allaah' because of the issue of establishment of proof. Meaning that even if someone committed Shirk, his expulsion from Islaam would require establishment of the proof, and thus it is better to leave out that qualification so as to be more accurate and precise. Here we see the great insight of Shaykh Rabee', a mountain of knowledge, whilst al-Farsee the billy-goat is grazing down below, in blissful compound ignorance surrounded by his flock of muqallid followers!

Fifth Merciful Indication to al-Farsee to Stop Banging His Head on the Mountain: We now come to the major issue on the basis of which Abdullah al-Farsee - as indicated earlier - either due to ignorance, following desires or senility - lied upon Shaykh Rabee' and confused the matter with something else. In the 13th observation (page 260) Shaykh Rabee' makes an important clarification regarding the saying of al-Ma'ribee in his book, "So whoever reviled the Companions and declare explicitly their disbelief or of most of them, then he is a rejector of the Qur'an which declared them honest, upright. Thus, the proof is to be established against him, so either he repents or he disbelieves. And if he reviles them with what necessitate their fisq (being sinful people) then there is dispute about his kufr..." and al-Ma'ribee referenced "al-Sarim al-Maslul" the book of Ibn Taymiyyah as his source for this point. So Shaykh Rabee followed him up with this (middle of page 260):

The expression of Shaykh al-Islaam is very clear in making Takfir of whoever made Takfir of them (the Companions) or who declared them all to be sinners (faasiqs) without specifying the establishment of the proof as a condition, wherein he (Ibn Taymiyyah) said after the previous speech [of Ibn Taymiyyah quoted by al-Ma'ribee]:

And as for the one who went beyond that until he claimed that they apostated after the Messenger of Allaah (alayhis salaatu wassalaam) except a very small faction of them that do not reach ten-odd persons, or that the vast majority of them became faasiqs (sinners) then there is no doubt about the disbelief of this one either, because he is a rejector of what the Qur'an has explicitly stated inmore than one place of [Allaah] being pleased with them and praising them. Rather, the one who doubts about the disbelief of the likes of this person, then is disbelief is designated (also), because the essence of this saying is that the transmitters of the Book and the Sunnah are disbelievers or sinners and that this verse which is "You are the best nation brought out for mankind" (3:110), and the best of this (ummah) is the first generation, that the generality of them were disbelievers or sinners, and likewise the essence of this saying is that this ummah is the worst of all nations and that the foremost of this ummah are the worst of them. The disbelief of such a person is from that which is known by necessity from the deen of Islaam...

[Shaykh Rabee' continues] So Shaykh al-Islaam corroborates that the disbelief of this type (of person) is from what is known by necessity in the religion because he is one who rejects with clear takdheeb (denial, rejection) that which is textually stated in the Qur'an in more than one place of [Allaah] being pleased with them and praising them, and [that] whoever doubts about the kufr of such a one, his disbelief too is the end of it. And this is the same type as the one who rejects a matter known from the religion by necessity such as the obligation of the five prayers, or the obligation of the zakaah or fasting or the hajj or that Muhammad is the Messeennger of Allaah and so on to the rest of the necessities. Hence it is more befitting that you quote with respect to this important matter this speech of Shaykh al-Islaam, may Allaah grant you success.

So here Shaykh Rabee' corrected al-Ma'ribee in that he did not accurately convey what Ibn Taymiyyah actually said on the issue despite him referencing the book "al-Saarim al-Maslool" of Ibn Taymiyyah and as such he ascribed to Ibn Taymiyyah that which Ibn Taymiyyah did not say, rather Ibn Taymiyyah treated the matter of declaring all the Companions to be Kuffaar (disbelievers) to be a matter known to be disbelief by necessity in the religion as it is clear takdheeb of the Qur'an. Unfortunately, the ignorant Abdullaah al-Farsee has confused the issue or lied deliberately and made it look as if Shaykh Rabee' was refuting al-Ma'ribee for affirming the issue of establishment of proof in the matters of Shirk - when this is not the case. Rather Shaykh Rabee' said in the very same set of corrections to al-Ma'ribee that establishment of the proof is required for whoever falls into kufr or Shirk. This is the difference between the scholar and the fake pseudo-scholar. Shaykh Rabee' has diqqah (precision) and al-Farsee is lost in his mind somewhere in a parallel universe, waiting for his next big flip.

Summary: It is clear that al-Farsee has falsified and distorted the realities because Shaykh Rabee corrected al-Ma'ribee regarding establishment of the proof in relation to the issue of making Takfir of the generality of the Companions (radiallaahu anhum) when al-Ma'ribee did not accurately convey the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah despite referencing Ibn Taymiyyah as the basis for this particular point. Al-Farsee, due to ignorance, following desires or senility, confused this issue with the more general issue of establishment of proof for falling into kufr and Shirk. Shaykh Rabee is of the view that establishment of the proof is necessary in those matters. We can now get some further clarity from Shaykh Rabee' in this matter:

Regarding the Issue of Establishment of the Proof and the Difference of Opinion Therein

This issue is very clear and many of the Scholars have spoken about it. You may read the explanations of Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin, Shaykh al-Islaam Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhaab and Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen (see here, here and here). Shaykh Rabee' (hafidhahullaah) said as occurs in the first volume of his Fataawaa, Fataawaa Fadheelat al-Shaykh Rabee bin Haadee Umayr al-Madkhalee (two volumes, Dar al-Muhsin, 2010) in response to a question about the excuse of ignorance (1/309-312):

This issue, the issue of the excuse of ignorance [in matters of disbelief] or the absence of the excuse [of ignorance], there are people of tribulation who revolve around it! They desire to separate the Salafees and cause some of them to strike others! I used to be in al-Madinah and (the brother) Riyaadh al-Sa'eed contacted me, and he is known and present in al-Riyaadh now and he said, "There are here in al-Taa'if, fifty youths, all of them make Takfir of al-Albaanee!!" Why!? Because he does not make Takfir of the grave-worshippers and applies the excuse of ignorance to them!!

Fine, those people (in reality must) also make Takfir of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim and many of the Salaf because they grant the excuse of ignorance, and they have evidences, from them, "And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)" (17:15), and from them, "And whoever contends with the Messenger after the guidance has been made plain to him and chooses a path other than that of the Believers, we shall leave him in the path he has chosen and burn him in the Fire, what an evil refuge?" (4:115) and from them, "And never does Allaah misguide a people after He guides them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid" (9:115).

And there are other texts which indicate that a Muslim does not disbelieve due to anything of kufr he has fallen into, we say, fallen into kufr, this kufr which he has fallen into due to ignorance for example, then we do not make Takfir of him until we make the proof clear to him and establish the proof against him. If he then shows stubborn opposition, we make Takfir of him. This is the saying that a number of the Imaams of the da'wah of Najd are upon, and some of them, their speech may vary, making the establishment of the proof conditional at one time, and another time saying the excuse of ignorance is not given! So some people cling to the sayings of the one who does not give the excuse of ignorance, yet neglects the clear texts about the establishment of the proof being a condition and that Takfir is not made of a Muslim who falls into a mukaffir (nullifier) until the proof is established upon him. And from them is what I mentioned from Imaam al-Shaafi'ee (rahimahullaah), and the texts which I mentioned to you.

I used to know an esteemed Shaykh who did not give the excuse of ignorance, and we used to study in Saamitah, and this Shaykh visited us (there) and he used to carry this notion! However, he would not kindle tribulations and would not dispute or argue or declare astray the one who would give the excuse of ignorance. And we lived as friends for close to forty years! He died recently, may Allaah have mercy upon him. I once sat in one of the gatherings and one (of the people in the gathering) affirmed the absence of the excuse of ignorance. So I mentioned to him these proofs and I mentioned to him that the Scholars of Najd know each other and some of them (affirm) the excuse of ignorance and some of them do not (affirm the) excuse, yet they are bonded (as brothers), there are no differences, nor arguments, nor matters stirred (between them) and nor (this) and nor (that)... So he remained quiet and did not argue because he did not want tribulation. So we know that this difference (of opinion) is found in Najd between some of the Mashaayikh and other than them, however, there is no dispute and no declaring astray and no war or tribulation (between them).

But this is the way of the Haddaadiyyah O brothers! The conniving, misguided Haddaadi faction has been devised in order to kindle tribulation between Ahl al-Sunnah and for them to strike one another! And they are (in reality) concealed Takfiris, and they have other calamities possibly besides takfir. They use the vilest form of deception (taqiyyah) as a veil for their vile methodology and their corrupt goals! I saw a youth affected by this methodology and he would carry a book in which there were selected sayings about the absence of the excuse of ignorance, and he would travel between al-Riyaadh, al-Taa'if, Makkah and al-Madinah and so on. He would be with us and study with us, then we but perceived that he was carrying this idea in this manner. So I debated him a number of times and I explained to him the methodology of Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and the methodology of the Salaf and the evidences, yet he would argue. I said to him, "Who is your Imaam (in this matter)?" He would say, "So and so and so and so." I researched and I found - by Allaah - that they (those cited) had conflicting statements, excusing due to ignorance at one time and not excusing due to ignorance at another. He said to me, "So and so is with me (on this matter)," I said to him, "This is the speech of so and so - I have got it ready for you - this so and so, he excuses due to ignorance and makes the establishment of the proof to be a condition." He said, "No, I am with Ibn al-Qayyim." I said to him, "But from time, you rejected Ibn al-Qayyim! Ibn al-Qayyim specifies the establishment of the proof as a condition," and so he was confounded, but he persisted upon his misguidance. He stubbornly rejected and he (happened to be) expelled from the country and later returned. And in my debate with him I said to him, "A disbelieving people in a peninsula somewhere, in Britain or the Pacific Ocean or other than it, none of the Salafees have come to them, but Jamaa'at al-Tabligh come to them and teach them and they (the Tablighis) say that this is Islaam, and within (this Islaam they teach) are deviations, innovations and affairs of Shirk, and within it are misguidances and within it is such and such... and they say to them, 'This is Islaam.' So they accept it (as such), and seek nearness to Allaah (through that) and they worship Allaah upon this religion which has been called Islaam, do you declare them to be disbelievers, or do you clarify for them and establish the proof against them?" He said, "They are disbelievers and establishing the proof is not a condition!" I said to him, "Go to Algeria for you are more severe than those revolutionaries now, you are more severe in Takfir than them, go to them for there is no place for you in this country."

The madhhab of Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim regarding this is established upon proofs and evidences, and it is the madhhab of the Salaf - if Allaah wills - and whoever founded (his madhhab) and was satisfied with other than this and remained silent, we have no concern with him, however, that he goes and kindles tribulations and declares (others) as astray and declares (others) as disbelievers, then no, no by Allaah, silence should not be held regarding him.

I advise the youth that they leave this matter because it is a way from among the ways of the people of evil and tribulation which they spread amongst the Muslims. Fine, eras have passed over you from the time of the Imaam Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhaab to this day of ours, there were not any battles between them on this matter at all. The one who made ijtihaad and held this view he kept silent and went on his way, he affirmed it in his book and spread it, that's it, and he went on his way. And the one who opposed him, he went on his way, all of them are brothers, there are not any differences (in the hearts) between them, and nor disputations and nor did anyone declare another to be misguided or to be a disbeliever. As for these, then they declare (others) to be disbelievers (on this issue)! Look at this - through this they reached the level of making Takfir of the leading scholars of Islaam, which indicates the vileness of their orientations and the evil of their goals. So I advise the Salafi youth that they should not delve into this matter.

As for the strongest madhhab (in this matter): It is requiring establishment of the proof to be a condition (prior to takfir bil-ayn), and when it does not appear to be stronger to him, then upon him is to remain silent and to respect his other brothers. He should not declare them astray, because they have the truth, and with them is the Book of Allaah, and with them is the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and with them is the methodology of the Salaf. And the one who wishes to make Takfir, he (ought to) make Takfir of the Salaf! And make Takfir of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abd al-Wahhaab as well! The Imaam Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhaab said, "We do not make Takfir of those who make tawaaf around the graves and who worship them until we establish the proof against them, because they have not found one who would clarify (the matter) for them."

From this you have probably become wise as to what al-Farsee has done. Because Shaykh Rabee' clarified this issue of establishment of the proof and addressed the difference of opinion regarding it (as have other scholars such as Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin) al-Farsee accused Shaykh Rabee' of "playing around!" Now, every time a scholar speaks about the difference of opinion in a matter (and clearly outlines his own position) is it fair to say to he "playing around" just because he discussed the actual issue of difference? What a great deceiver and liar al-Farsee is. To see this more clearly, please go and read the following two articles:

  • Takfir and the Excuse of Ignorance: Shaykh Abd al-Muhsin al-Abbaad - (see here)
  • Takfir and the Excuse of Ignorance: Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen - (see here)

Closing Remarks

Abdullah al-Farsee, an ignorant, flippant and mentally unstable man, has committed a great slander and fabrication against Shaykh Rabee'. His ignorant muqallidaah recorded it. They put this recording on Youtube. Before all of that, the Angels recorded it. And it will come out in the scrolls of Abdullah al-Farsee on Yawm al-Qiyaamah. Through this article we have come to learn the precision and accuracy of Shaykh Rabee' in knowledge-based matters and that Abdullaah al-Farsee, a fake pseudo-scholar is in cloud-cuckoo land somewhere in another universe. He confused between the issue that making Takfir of all of the Companions (radiallaahu anhum) is disbelief that is known by necessity in the view of Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) - and Shaykh Rabee' was simply asking al-Ma'ribee to do justice and accurately convey what Ibn Taymiyyah said - and between the more general issue of establishing the proof when a person falls into kufr or Shirk - which is what Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah is upon too. So when Abdullaah al-Farsee is attacking Shaykh Rabee' in this five minute clip, in reality, he is attacking Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, because Shaykh Rabee was simply clarifying the positions of Ibn Taymiyyah and advising al-Ma'ribee in that regard.

As for the difference of opinion on the issue of establishment of the proof in matters of Shirk then as the scholars affirm and establish, from them Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin and Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, that there is a difference of opinion, even amongst the Scholars of Najd. So how can Abdullaah al-Farsee use the fact that Shaykh Rabee' pointed out this matter in the context of warning against trouble-making Takfiris and Haddadis who raise this issue to cause confusion amongst Ahl al-Sunnah as a means to claim he (Shaykh Rabee') is playing around in the issue of "Tawhid"?! This man is a fool and has clearly lost his marbles.

Link to this article:   Show: HTML LinkFull LinkShort Link
Related Articles:
Add a Comment (comments are currently moderated)
You must be registered and logged in to comment.

© TheMadkhalis.Com. All rights reserved.
Madkhalis Madaakhilah The Madkhalis