|Wednesday, 08 July 2020 Home About Us Contact Us|
Mail to a Friend Printer 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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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]:
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!!
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:
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.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.