Muhammad Munir is from the people of tamyee' who weaken and water down the usool of the religion in order to call to themselves as independent scholars and to weaken links with the actual scholars. (see previous articles: here, here). Munir collects money from people (see screenshot) to enable himself to market himself as a scholar and a "mufti" who gives fatwa to people via a dedicated Q&A website.
In a video published 6 August 2017, Muhammad Munir made what is a clear, unambiguous slanderous attack upon a particular unnamed scholar he had in mind whilst he was answering a question relating to asking a person whether they are Salafi. The scholar which he had in mind can be overwhelmingly surmised from qarāʾin (indicators) in his later video published 31 August 2017 as well as other clips. He was subsequently and appropriately criticised by Moosaa Richardson in an article (screenshot) published on Bakkah.Net on 15 August 2017. After this was spread, it hurt Muhammad Munir that he was criticised and perhaps he feared that his statement may be taken to scholars. This is because people of truth have scholars of truth that they refer back to for guidance, whereas people like Muhammad Munir and Shadeed Muhammad market themselves to their audiences as independent scholars, mujtahids, muftis and leaders. So he then published another video on 31 August 2017 lasting a whole 90 minutes in which he spends most of his time displaying his arrogance, mockery and misplaced self-confidence. After a whole hour, he eventually plays his own speech that was criticised and proceeds to give it an explanation. This will be addressed in a separate article inshaa'Allaah.
In this article we will address Muhammad Munir accusing Salafis of shirk akbar (which is kufr akbar) with such statements of Ghuluww that are criminal, oppressive and beyond all bounds and which cannot be denied by any fair and just person.
Muhammad ibn Munir's Attribution of Major Shirk to Salafis
So we don't disagree with you that people will forsake the scholars, but we say you may be one of them. And your other friends and buddies and tagalongs who worship certain scholars basically, and blindly follow and put them on a status only Allaah knows of what they put them on, that is also forsaking the scholars.
Upon this unjust statement--which echoes past statements of Kharijites, Qutbists and others--there are observations:
Muhammad Munir was initially and correctly criticised (screenshot) for what was clearly a slander against a particular scholar that he had in mind.
In that statement, Muhammad Munir basically said that this scholar (and he intended a particular scholar) does not care about you or you country (referring to America and places like New York). It does not bother him to the degree that he stays up at night or misses his coffee and dates or morning tea and breakfast for your problems. So why should you be obsessed or bothered about the issues going on in Jordan, or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Yemen. The import of his statement is very clear: That scholar does not care about you or your problems so why should you care for the problems over there and be obsessed with them. And by these overseas problems, he either means: a) refutations and disparagement against certain people in those countries, such as al-Hajuri in Yemen, al-Halabi and company in Jordan and the Hizbiyyin, Siyaasiyyin in Egypt, and this is most likely the case or b) he is referring to the various shaykhs in those lands or c) problems of a political and social nature affecting those countries.
What he intends here is from the same angle as the oft-repeated speech of Shadeed Muhammad. That these scholars we have been attached to and raised high for two decades, they have failed our communities. They have done nothing for us and have in fact harmed our communities. They do not care for us and our country, so why should we care about them and their countries and the issues they are involved in of refuting individuals, whether in Yemen, Jordan or Egypt and which they want to involve us in, which only harms our communities. We should not care about them and lose sleep over the issues they embroil others in just like they do not lose sleep or miss their breakfast over our problems. This is exactly what Muhammad Munir is saying, this is the reality of what he is saying and it is the same as what Shadeed Muhammad says in many places. They are from the same madrasah, and speak the same language.
We will look at this statement in a later article inshaa'Allaah and prove with evidence that Muhammmad Munir was intending Shaykh Rabee, since there are other statements of his in which he speaks ill of the Shaykh and reveals his resentment against the Shaykh's manhaj of calling to and actualising the way of the Salaf.
To defend himself, Muhammad Munir tries to divert from the issue by using a non-substantial technical point, which is that he did not say "scholars" (in the plural), "do not care about you or your country", but only "this scholar". This is not a credible defence and is merely a smokescreen. But this will be taken up later inshaa'Allaah. In this article, we want to focus on Muhammad Munir's unjust slander which is uncalled for, is a transgression, is fujur in khusumah and exposes the ill-feelings he really harbours inside.
In this second video, Muhammad Munir engages in a mighty slander against people he knows are people of Tawhid who venerate and make great the affair of Tawhid and who are the furthest of people from shirk akbar. Rather, they warn against it severely, and their lessons and seminars are full of these affairs. He accuses Moosaa Richardson and friends, budddies and tagalongs by which he means other Salafis, of "worshipping certain scholars" and of "blindly following them". This is accusing those Salafis of shirk akbar in explicit terms.
This can also imply their disbelief upon the consideration that these Salafis already have the hujjah established against them in that they teach Tawhid, the books of Tawhid, repeatedly, over and over again. So they cannot possibly be ignorant that "worshipping scholars", that giving them ibaadah is shirk akbar and kufr akbar. And since the affair of shirk akbar is known by necessity to be from the foundations of the religion (ma'lum min al-din bil-dururah), then these words of Muhammad Munir--from this consideration--can be understood to imply takfir. This is because Muhammad Munir knows he is not talking about ignorant people, but people who know and understand Tawhid and actually call to it. This is dangerous territory that Muhammad Munir has entered into.
Nothing short of tawbah and apology is required from Muhammad Munir for this slander. This is gross injustice and his reckoning is with Allah.
And this behaviour fits the pattern that we mentioned previously with respect to Tahir Wyatt and Shadeed Muhammad. When they are legitimately and appropriately criticised for clear mistakes in usul and da'wah, they come back and make great and mighty statements against those who criticised them for their errors. Hence, Tahir Wyatt attributes manifestations of major nifaq to those who critiqued him for being used by the Nation of Kufr as a promotional tool--which was the truth (see this article). And Shadeed Muhammad, upon his ignorance, made an accusation of istihlaal (legalising the haram, which is kufr) against those who point out a known principle of the religion relating to sinners and Innovators (see this article). And here Muhammad Munir, after being criticised for slandering a scholar, has responded with an accusation of major shirk against those who pointed out his transgression and error.
His words are very clear, direct and explicit. There is nothing to misunderstand from them. They have not been misinterpreted. There is no other context required to explain them. It is a standalone statement whose meaning is complete and understood without requiring any of his other speech, before or after. This is great injustice and a mighty slander.
Munir said, "who worship certain scholars, basically", and the word basically means: "in the most essential respects, fundamentally". Hence, Munir is saying that fundamentally, essentially, these Salafis are worshipping scholars. There is no room for misconstruing what he is saying. His words imply that the Salafis he is addressing have turned scholars into arbaab (lords, deities) and worshipped them similar to how the Kharijites, Qutbists and Suroorists say about Salafis that they have made the rulers into tawaagheet and worshipped them. And the scholars and rulers are "those in authority" as in the verse (َيَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ) (4:59). So just like the Kharijites accuse Salafis of worshipping rulers, Munir accuses Salafis of worshipping certain scholars. The Kharijites have hatred towards the rulers and hate those who do not make takfir of them and rebel like they do. The likes of Muhammad Munir resent certain scholars (because they exposed the deviant methodologies) and then they resent those who stick with those scholars and the truth that is with them. Rather, Muhammad Munir is bold enough to say that they "worship" them. So look at how these people make khurooj against certain scholars of Tawhid and Sunnah just like the Kharijites make khurooj against the rulers of Tawhid and Sunnah, and they do it in the name of Tawhid and Sunnah! The Kharijites say, "Don't worship and blindly follow the rulers, it is shirk", and Muhammad Munir is saying, "Don't follow these shaykhs, it is worship of them and blind-following of them." However, Allaah ordered that we obey the rulers in what is ma'roof and having patience upon their injustice (and doing so is not shirk), and we have been ordered to return to the scholars in matters that require guidance and direction, especially in the field of actualising the manhaj of da'wah and of rectification and of unity and calling to Tawhid. And accepting their advices, directions and warnings is not worship of them.
As if these words were not evil and despicable, Munir then exceeded all bounds and surpassed many of the Kharijites, Takfiris, Qutbis and Surooris. He then said: "...and put them on a status only Allaah knows of what they put them on..."
With respect to the major shirk in the world, it is known what status mushriks give their deities and place them upon. Thus, the shirk of the Hindus, Christians, Nation of Kufr and so on, the Magians, the Aztecs, the Incas, the Ancient Egyptians from the past nations--all the shirk in the world--it is known what status was given to their deities of Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah.
Thus to say that "only Allaah knows" what status these Salafis have given to those scholars, then this wording, along with the accusation of "worshipping" certain scholars, means that this exaggerated status has surpassed the status given by other mushriks to their deities. This is because we have knowledge of that exaggeration due to the knowledge brought by the Qur'an and from the study of the shirk of nations. We know what status the mushriks give to their deities in rububiyyah and uluhiyyah. But as for when "only Allaah knows" what status has been given, and this is straight after you have accused Salafis of worshipping them (an accusation of major shirk), then this is a mighty type of Ghuluww (exaggeration) and dhulm (oppression).
We know that the Jews and Christians worshipped their scholars by making halal what is haram and haram what is halal and turned their priests and rabbis into arbaab (lords) thereby: (اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ ) (9:31). They were made into lords (arbaab). We have knowledge of what status they were raised to, because this knowledge was explained in the Sunnah. So in the accusation of Muhammad Munir against the Salafis, that they worship certain scholars, he says that they give them a status "only Allaah knows". This is a mighty type of Ghuluww and dhulm.
This is the most vile statement of Muhammad Munir, it is attribution of major shirk, the worst of major shirk to Salafis. In fact it is attribution of major shirk that is worse than any shirk knowable by any man because "only Allaah knows" of the status given to those worshipped by the Salafis as he claims. As the poet said (كل اناء بما فيه ينضح), "Every vessel pours that which it contains" and by these words, Muhammad Munir has revealed and exposed what his heart contains. Look at this dhulm (oppression) and hiqd (hatred). It shows that he thinks of Salafis with respect to their scholars as the Kharijites think of their opposers with respect to their rulers. Uthmaan (radiyallahau anhu) said: (ما أسرَّ أحد سريرة إلا أظهرها الله عز وجل على صفحات وجهه وفلتات لسانه), "No one concealed his innermost thought except that Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, will bring it out through the expressions of his face and the slips of his tongue". (Aadaab al-Sharee'ah of Ibn Muflih 1/136). These are the evil, hateful, oppressive thoughts Muhammad Munir has poured out in a moment when his emotions took over his intellect and he revealed what he is secretly holding inside.
As for what is being claimed to be shirk (by the likes of Muhammad Munir) then it is taking the advice, direction, guidance and rulings of the scholars pertaining to the great trials of this era coming from al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun and individuals claiming Salafiyyah whilst waging war against it, inventing principles to undermine it and so on. To describe this as "worship" is a mighty slander and it is also a sign of a person's ignorance and blindness. Rather, this is from the angle of "asking the people of knowledge" and "sticking to what we know from the Sunnah" and sticking to those scholars who carry knowledge in every generation, removing from it lies, distortions and fabrications. It is all from this angle and is counted as obedience to Allaah. It is from the angle of what the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) warned against of innovation and of striving against those who speak with error and falsehood. It is from the angle of how the Companions stood against the groups that appeared in their time and how the Taabi'een did likewise and after them the Imaams of the Salaf. It is all from that angle. This is obedience to Allaah and to His Messenger and it is Ittibaa' and not blind following. It is following right guidance and remaining on the path and not separating into other many paths. And this continues until the Day of Judgement, there will be scholars upon this way, separating truth from falsehood. This is what Muhammad Munir is describing as "worship of certain scholars" and "blind following" in reality.
Muhammad Munir needs to recant, explain, clarify and apologise to those whom he has slandered and mocked. We gain or lose nothing whatever he does, but he is the one who loses if he persists upon this slander and does not repent and recant from it.
It is clear from indicators and other statements of Muhammad Munir that the scholar he had in mind in his original statement (when he said that this scholar "does not care for you or your country") and when he says "worship certains scholars" - that he is speaking of Shaykh Rabee bin Haadee.
With respect to this last issue, as to who he is referring to when he speaks of worshipping scholars and blindly following them, then in this audio clip (MP3 File) Muhammad Munir reveals what is in his heart of self-amazement and arrogance as well as an indication as to who his speech is in reference to:
Here is a transcript of the above:
Shaykh Rabee himself, himself... I'll give you something he was asked about once. Listen to this. There was a book that I bought once, and then I went and bought a tape, this was when we were using tapes, and there was a question about ruqyah, about making ruqyah on people. And he asked the shaykh a question about reciting Surah al-Fatihah over water. Reciting Surah al-Fatihah over water and drinking the water. Is that permissible and is that a means of ruqyah. You know what the shaykh said? He said, 'No its not permissible.' He said you can't do that. The questioner said, 'But Ibn Taymiyyah said it and Ibn al-Qayyim'. Now, we all know the statement, our religion is based upon the Kitab and the Sunnah, these names are mentioned, this is Mount Uhud and, this is Shaykh al-Islam, its Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim both said, 'No, its been proven, there is nothing that goes against it.' You know what the Shaykh said? He said, 'Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim said... they taught us not to follow men and to follow what we are convinced with and we believe is the haqq. So therefore, for hypothetical purposes, if Shaykh Rabee can go against Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, why can't I go against Shaykh Rabee? And he was my teacher. For arguments sake.
So on this are a number of points:
The issue is on a matter of fiqh pertaining to ruqyah and its means and what is related in the Sunnah with respect to it. Shaykh Rabee's position is that it is not from the Sunnah, as is also the firm position of Shaykh al-Albaani and also the position of Shaykh Muhammad Amaan al-Jaamee and Shaykh Muhammad Hamid al-Fiqqi. They all hold that this practice does not have a basis in the Sunnah and that the reports from the Salaf in relation to this practice are not established and that, even if they were, this practice is not found with the Messsenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to whom all disputes are referred back to. So that is their general position.
Muhammad Munir is trying to equate between a fiqh matter and matters that pertain to usool, to Sunnah and bid'ah in matters of creed and methodology, to issues that refer to the greatest innovations of today, from the Ikhwan, Tabligh, Tahrir and others, and to their false principles and methodologies.
Using this issue, he is trying to say that if Shaykh Rabee (and he is not alone in this) opposed the view of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim [in a fiqh matter pertaining to the means of ruqyah], then why can't I oppose Shaykh Rabee in his defence of the Sunnah, in his refutations and disparagements of those who actually deserved disparagement for sayings such as: takfir of the ummah by way of sin, takfir of the rulers (al-Maghrawi); describing the Companions as scum and inventing false principles to defend Sayyyid Qutb and the jamaa'aat of Hizbiyyah and to undermine what the scholars perform of the obligation of refuting them and warning from their evil (al-Ma'ribi); inventing false principles in al-Jarh wal-Ta'deel (al-Ma'ribi, al-Halabi, al-Ramadani).
So Munir is saying, I have the right to oppose Shaykh Rabee' [in issues of actualisation of Tawhid and actualisation of the manhaj of the Salaf] because Shaykh Rabee' opposed Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim in the issue of ruqyah! Look at the ignorance, then the ghurur (deception) and the self-amazement of this man! He makes it look like he himself is a scholar, whilst he is in reality an ignoramus, not knowing that he does not know in this field in which the major scholars praised Shaykh Rabee and acknowledged that he is most knowledgeable of it (see links to their statements below).
Muhammad Munir ascribes to Shaykh Rabee that he said: "...they [Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim] taught us not to follow men and to follow what we are convinced with and we believe is the haqq..." This means that Muhammad Munir can be convinced of something and believe it to be the truth even if it is error. But so long as he is convinced and believes it is the truth, even when evidences are established to show it is falsehood, then he can continue to follow what he believes to be right and has convinced himself is right. Hence, with respect to Shaykh Rabee and his refutations of those who have been rightfully disparaged from the heads of innovation in our time and his verification and confirmation of the way of the Salaf--all the evidence can be established that the truth and evidence is with Shaykh Rabee--but because Shaykh Rabee opposed Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim in the matter of ruqyah, then Muhammad Munir is under no obligation to "blindly follow" Shaykh Rabee and those scholars who are with him and those scholars who affirm that the truth is with him in the knowledge-based issues, and they include major scholars such as Imaam al-Albani, Imaam Ibn Baz, Imaam Ibn Uthaymin, Shaykh Muqbil, Shaykh Ahmad al-Najmi, Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhali and others.
In reality this is what is going on:
There appeared in da'wah, those ascribing to Salafiyyah, who intended harm and evil to it. They wanted to silence the Salafi scholars and to give breathing space to the jamaa'aat and to certain figureheads whose disparagement for opposing the way of the Salaf was necessary and inevitable. So they invented principles to this end. These principles are such that they allow a person to make attachment to Salafiyyah in certain "thawaabit" (fixed affairs) whilst choosing and doing whatever they want in their manhaj of da'wah, associations and walaa and baraa. Hence, "a vast, broad, all-inclusive manhaj" to use the principle of Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribi, the Ikhwani innovator. This required an attack upon the well established usool of the Salaf with respect to disparagement of the Innovators and deviants.
Now what people like Shadeed Muhammad, Muhammad Munir, Tahir Wyatt (and also Yasir Qadhi) have in mind for their da'wah, the type of da'wah they want and envisage is one which is justified by these false, covert Ikhwani principles disguised as Salafi principles. Hence, they are threatened and undermined by fact that the likes of these people have been refuted whether it is Salman al-Awdah for Yasir Qadhi, or whether it is al-Ma'ribee, al-Halabi, al-Ramadani, al-Ruhayli for the others. Their own deviation in da'wah, their loyalties, their walaa and baraa, their associations, all of them are exposed by the fact that these individuals were refuted and their principles shown to be false and opposed to the truth. Anyone who ascribed to Salafiyyah, yet his actions were clearly contrary to it was exposed by way of these refutations which exposed these false principles.
This is why the issue of al-Ma'ribee, al-Halabi, al-Ramadani, al-Ruhaylee and company is such a big issue and why they have no vocal position on it. Because it undermines their own da'wah.
It is for this reason that they hate the da'wah of Shaykh Rabee and the great service he has offered to the ummah in returning it back to the manhaj of the Prophets, to the manhaj of the Salaf. What great words were expressed by Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin (rahimahullaah) which exonerate the Shaykh (and those who follow the truth that is with him) as occurs in the cassette (كشف اللثام عن مخالفات أحمد سلام) and which are applicable today as they were then:
والشيخ ربيع من علماء السنَّة ومن أهل الخير وعقيدته سليمة ومنهجه قويم ، لكن لما كان يتكلم على بعض الرموز عند بعض الناس من المتأخرين وصموه بهذه العيوب ، أعرفت ؟
Shaikh Rabee' is from the Ulamaa of the Sunnah, and from the people of goodness. His aqidah is sound and his manhaj is strong and sound. However, when he began to speak about some of the symbolic figureheads of some of the people, from amongst the latecomers they began to tarnish him with these faults. Do you know [this] now?
Shaykh Rabee has been attacked during the 1990s for standing up against the Kharijites (Qutbists, Suroorists, Turathists). Also against the Haddaadites during the 1990s (Haddaad, Bashmeel) through the 2010s with al-Hajuri. And also against the Mumayyi'ah during 2000s and 2010s. The polemics of all of these groups and their attacks upon Shaykh Rabee and those with him upon the truth are being repeated today by a people claiming Salafiyyah.
So this is why we have the following approaches today:
Tahir Wyatt comes from the angle of Salafis limiting scholarship to only a few scholars (a great lie) and having a monopoly in the da'wah and that there is American scholarship that can be utilised which is being neglected. Tahir is saying in a subtle and careful manner, what the others below are saying bluntly.
Muhammad Munir comes from the angle of taqlid and worshipping scholars, as we have discussed above, (echoing the statements of the Takfiri Kharijites) and that this scholar does not care for "you or your country". He also portrays himself and his associates as "scholars", "muftis", "shaykhs" through marketing and self-promotion on social media and the tube.
Shadeed brings the race angle, saying that scholars have neglected communities and there are clear elements of resentment on grounds of race in his statements. He also markets himself as an "imam" and "shaykh" and considers himself and intellectual who is fit to be a leader for the African American community. He is affected by the ideas of people like Umar Johnson who say that race is primary and religion is secondary and that black men must regain "alpha-manhood". It must be clear that Shadeed is not necessarily "racist" against other races as such, but his da'wah, his call, is one that is based around race, around socio-political issues affecting race. At the same time he belittles the affair of Tawhid (see detailed article). As such, his call is like that of black nationalists and black activists, where religion (Tawhid) becomes secondary and socio-political issues are primary. This is plainly obvious to see in the da'wah of Shadeed, he has been affected by this to a degree that it is clearly noticeable in his speech and his activities.
Abdul Haqq-Baker (Brixton), Abu Usamah Khaleefah and others who bring the "cult" angle, following the ways of the Qutbists and Suroorists. These are the words of hateful and resentful hearts. This slander is just a means of hiding their own errors. For allying and defending a misguided innovator (in the case of Abu Usamah) and for shilly-shallying around and sitting on the fence after acknowledging the truth in the case of Abdul Haqq Baker and those with him. They are angry that they were disparaged by the scholars for these errors and for not sticking by the truth, for splitting Salafis and for not maintaining unity.
All of these approaches are in the name of Salafiyyah.
As for Yasir Qadhi (see article) he realised that if you are going to oppose the way of the Salaf, you can't ascribe to it, because then you will be judged by its criteria, by its usool. So he decided that this would be too much headache for his da'wah and he would be exposed. You can't say you follow the way of the Salaf and blatantly contradict it. So he decided he might as well just let go of it altogether. So he threw off the cloak of Salafiyyah he had been wearing and said "I no longer follow Salafiyyah" and he treated it as a "fallible human trend", meaning a movement like other movements. Now, he markets himself as a thinker, scholar and is upon the manhaj of Hassan al-Banna and Salman al-Awdah. In actuality, this is where his heart was 20 years ago when he was confused and did not know what Surooriyyah was. In reality, that's where he has been since that time and never actually entered Salafiyyah.
As for the others, their resentment is against Shaykh Rabee because Shaykh Rabee has undermined the da'wah they envisage by defending and explaining the methodology of the Prophets and the methodology of the Salaf in various fields (al-jarh wal-ta'deel, stances towards Innovators, issues of wala for the truth). These affairs were clarified through his refutations of numerous individuals over the past few decades.
So in order to justify their own da'wah, they need to silence and discredit those whom they know will not accept their falsehood and misguiding of others. This is the angle of their speech against Maktabah Salafiyyah and against Salafis in the US. They want their own independent "scholarship" upon a "vast broad manhaj" and they want to shield it.
The intellectual justification for this approach (the usool of al-Ma'ribi, al-Halabi, al-Ramadani, al-Ruhayli) was demolished by Shaykh Rabee bin Haadee. So this is where they are coming from in reality and the veil has been lifted from above them, and this is the angle of their dislike of Shaykh Rabee.
Understand this well... Yasir Qadhi realised that the deviation of people like Salman al-Awdah was exposed over two decades ago by Shaykh Rabee. Al-Awdah is a pure Ikhwani, Khariji, a revolutionary and he brought false principles such as distinguishing between al-Taa'ifat al-Mansurah and al-Firqat al-Naajiyyah in order enter all the sects, parties and groups into al-Firqat al-Naajiyah. So he was refuted and exposed. Yasir Qadhi knows that he cannot follow Salman al-Awdah's manhaj and at the same time ascribe to Salafiyyah. He is smart enough to realise that. So he washed his hands clean from this ascription and his speech against the scholars is clear.
As for this group, this madrasah in the US, Tahir Wyatt, Shadeed Muhammad, Muhammad Munir, and their supporters and allies such as Abdul Haqq Baker, they know that Shaykh Rabee has refuted the principles of al-Ma'ribee, al-Halabi, al-Ramadani and al-Ruhayli, which provided the intellectual justification for them to operate their da'wah. However, they continue to make an ascription to the way and manhaj of the Salaf and what they hate the most is that their opposition to the way of the Salaf in their manhaj of da'wah and rectification, in their associations, in their walaa and baraa is exposed and made known.
This is the reality behind their attacks upon Salafis in the UK, the US and elsewhere using labels such as "monopoly", "control", "cult characteristics" and so on.
Returning back to our points:
Muhammad Munir says: "...if Shaykh Rabee can go against Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, why can't I go against Shaykh Rabee? And he was my teacher." He is justifying his own misguidance here because Shaykh Rabee actualised the manhaj of the Prophets in calling to Allaah and actualised the manhaj of the Salaf with respect to al-Jarh wal-Ta'deel and the jamaa'aat of bid'ah and Hizbiyyah and the heads of innovation in our time. And Shaykh Rabee was correct in that. And as for those who criticised Shaykh Rabee, such as Shaykh Abd al-Muhsin al-Abbaad, then they were in error and empirical facts and subsequent events have already proven this (see this article, "Why Shaykh Rabee Was Correct and Shaykh Abd al-Muhsin Was Wrong").
Also see the following articles:
Shaykh al-Luhaydan: They Harbour Malice Towards Shaykh Rabee Because He Refutes the Opposers - (see here)
Shaykh Muqbil bin Haadee: Shaykh Rabee is an Ayah (Sign) in Knowledge of the Hizbiyyeen - (see here)
Shaykh Muqbil bin Haadee: Shaykh Rabee is Insightful Regarding the Hizbiyyeen and 'Chisels Out' Their Hizbiyyah - (see here)
Shaykh Muqbil bin Haadee: Shaykh Rabee is From the Taa'ifah Mansoorah and Filters out the Hizbiyyeen - (see here)
Shaykh Muqbil bin Haadee on Shaykh Rabee: If Shaykh Rabee Says So and So is a Hizbee, Over the Passing of Days, It Will Become Clear That He is a Hizbee - (see here)
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin: The People Began to Tarnish Shaykh Rabee' with Faults After He Spoke About Some of Their Symbolic Figureheads - (see here)
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin Defends and Praises Shaykh Rabee' al-Madkhali - (see here)
This issue is not about "taqlid" of scholars and following evidence as these people try to make out. This is merely a smokescreen used by them. They have inhiraaf (deviation) in their dawah which is as clear as daylight--as in the case of Shadeed Muhammad--or they desire inhiraaf but they find it hard to openly express and call to it--as appears to be the case with the others. So they have these approaches in order to shield themselves and find ways to lead people into the deviation they desire. The only problem is the obstacle they find in people who value Tawhid and Sunnah and who value the scholars and refer to them in issues requiring advice and direction. This is what they want to break because it is a hindrance for the type of da'wah they envisage, whose roots like in Ikhwaniyyah.
This is a great and mighty slander against the Salafis intended by Muhammad Munir, and by extension all other Salafis who hold the same positions. It is upon Muhammad Munir to make tawbah to Allaah and to recant and apologise to these Salafis whom he has slandered.
Also, the self-amazement of this man with himself, thinking he has reached such scholarly proportions that he can make the likes of these statements. In reality, these people are callers to themselves, they want to cut people off from scholars as is clear, so that they can lead the people in the way that they desire.
They have such statements against Salafis that they do not have against the Nation of Kufr, the Jahmites, the Grave Worshippers and the worst of Ahl al-Bid'ah! That's the truth, without no sugar, its raw. It's the haqq, say whatever you want!