Regarding Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee al-Ikhwani: Why Shaykh Rabee' Was Correct and Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad Was Wrong (Yet Both Are Rewarded) - Part 1|
Monday, September 10 2012 - by Admin
Read more articles at TheMadkhalis.Com
Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee al-Mubtadi on the Nile Satellite Channel: Interview About Salafiyyah, Politics and the Egyptian Revolution
This video is on the tube and can be accessed by anyone wanting to verify. Note that these issues al-Ma'ribee speaks of are not isolated statements, they are in fact repeated in other statements of his found in other writings and broadcasts of his and they are not uncommon knowledge.
Al-Ikhwaan and al-Thawaabit
Around 18:37 mark, "(al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen) - all of them represent Islaam (yumaththiloon al-islaam) ... all are agreed upon the thawaabit of the deen..."
Comment: This is the new language of al-Ma'ribee "thawaabit," he means by this those firmly-fixed aspects of Islaam that do not change and are not areas of ijtihaad, and he is using this new language to indicate that all the various jamaa'aat present today do not oppose the thawaabit and that they are from Ahl al-Sunnah. He is following the way of Salaah al-Saawee, an Ikhwani Innovator who wrote a book "al-Thawaabit wal-Mutaghayyiraat" whose purpose was along the same lines - to lay down theoretical foundations which when promulgated amongst the Muslims will allow them, the Ikhwan, to more easily amass them under their own umbrella for their desired "political work." This is how these people work, they have plans and designs, and they work to lay down theoretical foundations which they can use to soften the people's minds so as to make them more readily enter into their methodologies they have laid down which oppose the Book and the Sunnah and what the Salaf were upon. They operate in the same way as those Kalaam heretics of old who likewise laid down theoretical foundations to justify the language of their heretical theology which the general-folk with intact fitrah would not have accepted otherwise.
Hassan al-Banna was Salafi
Around 23:20 mark, "Hasan al-Bannaa followed the manhaj, path of Salaf (انتهج طريق السلف) and he gave that some taste through political activist da'wah work, which he took from some of his shaykhs and those present now in the field of da'wah they also follow the Salafi Manhaj which is tied to the Salaf of the Ummah and not the scholars of Saudi..."
Comment: He is claiming Hasan al-Bannaa, the Sufi Mufawwidh, was following the path of the Salaf to which he "gave flavour and taste" through the political activist angle and that those upon that path today in the field of da'wah are also upon the Salafi Manhaj, and he means here the Ikhwanis, Qutbis, Takfiris and their likes.
The Benefits of Revolution in al-Ma'ribee's Eyes
Around 27:45 mark, when asked about the revolution, "We are more concerned about our times now, the difficulties, than delving into the past. This revolution has changed a lot of things from the corruption that used to be present. This revolution has opened up door to activity which was completely closed for the people before. This revolution has given certain Egyptian locations that were previously in dishonour some honour, both internally and externally (to the land). So we should safeguard those things this revolution has brought about which will benefit the country."
Comment: The revolution did not change and remove those idols worshipped besides Allaah, the graves of Badawai, Dusuqi, Sinjar, and others to where millions flock and invoke others besides Allaah, seek aid, assistance, healing, rescue and the likes, and so long as this remains the Egyptian people will remain upon fear (khawf) and poverty (joo') as per the divine rule in Surah al-Nahl (16:112). As for what they see now of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen taking power, just as Shaykh al-Albani (rahimahullaah) perspicuously said about Algeria, when the activists took power through democracy, that it is "only a mirage" - which is exactly what it turned out to be - this too is a mirage. However, this is recognized only by one who venerates the Sharee'ah of Allaah and venerates the Salafi aqidah and the Salafi Manhaj and judges by it in all of his affairs and makes his walaa and baraa around it. But those whose hearts are blinded by bid'ah and dalaalah they will not see it or they will feign wilful ignorance of it.
Obligatory to Revolt Against a Muslim Oppressive Ruler
From the 32:00 mark, "...If revolting against a Muslim oppressive, tyrannical ruler (al-haakim al-muslim al-dhaalim al-jaa'ir) leads to greater oppression then revelation and reason judges we do not do so. But when it is possible to remove him with evil less than his oppression then it is obligatory... the scholars say when the revolting against an oppressive, tyrannical ruler (wali ul-amr al-jaa'ir al-dhaalim) will lead to greater corruption... they say have patience in this situation..."
Comment: This is not the saying of the Scholars nor that of the Salaf, it is the saying of the Mu'tazilah, the Khawaarij and the contemporary jamaa'aat of Takfir and revolution - those that were spawned through Sayyid Qutb's infusion of Marxism, Socialism and Leninism into the deen of Islaam to produce his doctrine of "everyone on this earth is an apostate (except for me of course and my followers) and it is obligatory to launch worldwide revolutions against all contemporary 'apostate jaahilee' societies." So al-Ma'ribee has declared it obligatory to revolt against a Muslim tyrannical ruler and has thus opposed every book written on the Salafi aqidah in history and has opposed the Sunnah of Allaah's Messenger. These considerations mentioned by this innovator actually apply when the matter has been referred to the senior Scholars after it is established that a Muslim ruler has become a kaafir. Then the issue of a) ability (qudrah) and b) weighing the benefit and harm comes into play.
Around the 33:50 mark the presenter interjects after Ma'ribee's last comment and asks a shrewd question, "Does this situation then apply to Syria?" and what he means is that are you (al-Ma'ribee) saying that the Syrians therefore should not revolt because there is clearly greater harm and corruption. Here seeing he is in a difficult position, al-Ma'ribee gives a political answer and says, "This is something that the people of Syria should decide as they are living in that situation. This is a fatwa for them not for me sitting here."
Comment: This is the nature and way of Ahl al-Bid'ah, they do not have any sound principles, do not show consistency and they lie against the deen of Allaah. After having already told a lie against the deen of Allaah by declaring it obligatory to revolt against a tyrannical Muslim ruler (without that ruler having becoming a kaafir), he was asked about Syria whose ruler is a kaafir by agreement of the Scholars and who is unleashing his army against the population who are revolting. He did not make clear the issue, was not consistent with what he laid down earlier, and instead gave a political answer, "Hey it's up to the Syrians to make the fatwa, they are experiencing what they are experiencing, not me." Whereas a Sunni, Salafi, Athari who has rudimentary knowledge of the aqidah and manhaj will say that although the ruler is a kaafir, revolt is not advised because there is more harm that good as it currently stands, however, each individual is free to defend himself if fitnah comes his way, and this is what the Syrians should abide by. Al-Ma'ribee was not able to say these simple words, because like all Harakiyyeen, it is the sentiments of the people that drive them, they want to keep in line with the sentiments of the general folk which are not in line with sound knowledge.
Al-Ma'ribee on Democracy
Around 36:00 mark, the presenter asks, "What is view of Islam on Democracy?" Al-Ma'ribee responds, "Democracy has tafseel (a detail to it), if it has the meaning of watching over the ruler and judging him, accounting him and overseeing his behaviour and actions, this is in agreement with the Shari'ah. And if it means that declaring lawful and declaring unlawful is taken from other than judgement of Allah and his Messenger, this is in opposition to the Shari'ah.
Comment: Meaning, democracy is permissible in the deen of Allaah when it is institutionalized within a nation so as to keep an eye on the ruler! So if this is the meaning of democracy, then yes, the existence of competing political parties all vying for rule, and then each party keeping an eye on the ruling party, all of this is permissible in the deen of Allaah, there is nothing wrong with this as democracy!
Around 47:50 mark, al-Maribee says, "Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen are from people of Islaam, they have positions in aid of the religion, they have history, from the days of Shaykh Hasan al-Banna rahimahullaah and we (unclear) them from Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, we do not differ with them in..." here the presenter interjects and asks about the political aspect (of al-Ikhwaan), to which al-Ma'ribee responds, "In general, we (i.e. Salafis and Ikhwaan) agree upon the usool of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah ... I personally see that they should all be one and that one party should accommodate the other (يتنازل) [meaning, accommodate by overlooking their faults] and the other party should accomodate the other ... so they should bear some conciliatory (approach) to each other ... all of them should be [such] that [it is as if] they are poured from the same container ... this is from my viewpoint..."
Comment: The manhaj of Hassan al-Banna for the 21st century, pure and clear. You see dear reader, this is not the greatest calamity. This man split the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah which was his aim along as he candidly revealed to some people he thought would support him and remain with him during the height of the fitnah in 2002, and as is recorded and documented elsewhere. The greatest calamity is that there many fools and ignoramuses ascribing to the Salafi Manhaj in both the East and West who got taken for a ride and did not grasp the foundations of the Salafi Manhaj and the foundations of al-Jarh wal-Ta'deel and how to behave when there appears apparent praise for a man who has otherwise been exposed in detail for his errors and misguidances. Rather, fools such as Abdul-Qadir Baksh of Luton and Ikhwanis like Abu Usaamah Khaleefah wallowed and stoked this fitnah and supported baatil and its people because of a sickness in their hearts and because they did not possess sound knowledge regarding these crucial matters, or they did, but were following their desires for other reasons.
Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon and the Jamaa'aat Such as the Soofiyyah
From the 50:20 mark, al-Ma'ribee says, "As for the issue of what is with al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen and the issue also progresses to the jamaa'aat that come after them such as the Soofees and other than that, I, in this position of mine, I love that I bring cordiality and unite, and that I make great the thawaabit (firmly fixed issues of agreement) between these sects, I do not cause the particulars and subsidiary issues that cause splitting to grow... and even if they do not unite, then that their hearts are separated but in them are love, mercy and silence about issues of bickering is better than being separated with all the bickering (taking place)... (52:10) we say that differing is present, the Sahaabah differed regarding understanding of the texts, however there is differing in usool and this is not found with most of the Islamic jamaa'aat. And there are differences in matters of ijtihaad, and this is found, and there is no walaa and no baraa, in matters of ijtihaad..."
Comment: Allaahu Akbar! There are few issues here. First, we see the word again "thawaabit", meaning that there are things that all these jamaa'aat are agreed upon, the "thawaabit" and we should build unity around that. Yes, it is Hassan al-Banna's "Golden Principle" of, "Let us cooperate in that which we agree and overlook each other in that which we disagree" being expressed in another way. Second, he claims that differing in usool is not to be found amongst these jamaa'aat, in other words the Ikhwaan, Tabligh, Salafis and others, their differences with each other are not in usool. And the third matter is that he says that it is better there is separation but with the presence of love and cordiality and absence of bickering than having separation along with bickering. So we have here the same manhaj of Hassan al-Bannaa (let us cooperate in that which we agree and pardon each other in that which we disagree), a destruction of the aqidah of al-walaa (loyalty) and al-baraa (disownment) and opening the doors for the innovators to have an open field with Ahl al-Sunnah.
Shaykh Rabee' bin Haadee (hafidhahullaah), when al-Ma'ribee boldly launched his revolution at the turn of the 21st century, characterized him as an Ikhwani plant amongst the Salafis whose aim is to split and divide them and bring the Ikhwani manhaj to the Salafis with the worst and most evil type of plotting. Al-Ma'ribee laid down sophisticated yet false principles in order to defend the heads of innovation like Sayyid Qutb, to include the jamaa'aat of misguidance into the Saved Sect and into the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah (he was carrying on the work of Adnaan Ar'oor and Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq). He cast doubt upon the Sunnah of Allaah's Messenger by adducing all the arguments of the Khawaarij and Mu'tazilah regarding the aahaad hadeeth instead of supporting the Sunnah through the sayings of the Imaams of the Sunnah (that aahaad hadeeth amount to ilm and yaqeen with supporting factors) and many other disgraces and calamities too long to mention here. In short, Shaykh Rabee' was 100% correct!. This is one evil, conniving Ikhwani Mubtadi'.
There are some important observations here: