Mail to a Friend Printer friendly
On 3rd Shawwal 1439 (17 June 2018), Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī wrote an article addressed to Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī, asking him to provide his evidence for his tabdīʿ of Salafi students and Shaykhs and also to name the major scholars whom he alleges have been "affected" and "destroyed" by the so-called Ṣaʿāfiqah. I summarised that article and published it, along with some examples of the speech of tabdīʿ that came from Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī (and his blind-followers) in the introduction, such as the following (audio):
And there is another category who are close to the People of Desires, even if they display the Sunnah. In this era. In our era, in these days of ours, and they are the Ṣaʿāfiqah. For they are to be added to the People of Desires (i.e. Innovators).... Beware of them with the extremity of caution O gathering of loved ones, do not look at their websites, do not listen to their speech, for by He besides whom there is no deity worthy of worship, they are evil for the Muslims and for Ahl al-Sunnah in general, in every place. So beware of them with the extremity of caution... They cut off the path between them [the people] and the people of knowledge, so beware--may Allāh preserve you--of the People of Desires, and beware of those who resemble the students of knowledge and the scholars... So beware O gathering of loved ones from inclining towards these ones just as you beware of inclining towards the People of Desires... So beware of those Ṣaʿāfiqah... So I warn you O gathering of loved ones... and beware in every way from the Innovators and whoever sits with them or resembles them in their path, even if he claims he is upon the Sunnah.
The word (ألحق) means to annex, to make an addition. So the Ṣaʿāfiqah are made an addition, annexed to the People of Desires. In other words, they are another faction among them. That's the explicit meaning of the sentence in the plain, clear Arabic tongue.
And here is the opening part of Shaykh Rabīʿs article:
And here is introduction to the summarised translation of that article (click to open and read):
And here is the translation of that opening statement in Shaykh Rabīʿ's article:
So keep in mind here what Shaykh Rabīʿ said, very clearly.
Yesterday, 3 Dhul-Qa'dah 1439 (16 July 2018), after the passing of one month, I tweeted a reminder of the above article of Shaykh Rabīʿ:
This "triggered" Ilyās and led him to make this thoughtless, meaningless outburst via social media (see here). As was stated earlier, cowards like Ilyās Ibn Aidarūs al-Kanadi are simply using Maktabah Salafiyyah as a proxy to malign and attack Shaykh Rabīʿ. Here are some highlighted parts from his response:
FIRST: Shaykh Rabīʿ said about Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī:
He labels them 'Ṣaʿāfiqah' and says that they are to be 'put alongside the Ahl al-Ahwāʾ' (ملحقون بأهل الأهواء). And this is tabdīʿ of them [expelling them from Salafiyyah] without any mention of the evidences for his claim.
The statement, "They are to be put alongside Ahl al-Ahwaa" is tabdīʿ of those Salafi students and shaykhs, and this, alongside all of the other harsh speech of Muḥammad bin Hādī (such as calling them "more vile than al-Ikhwan al-Muslimīn" أخس من الإخوان المسلمين) and his call for an unrestricted boycott in all places is clear evidence that tabdīʿ has in fact been made of them. And this is the conclusion of the Allāmah Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (and not Abu Iyaad who is merely the conveyor of the speech).
In light of this, those with defunct intellects and deficiency in the vision of the eyes such as Ilyās Ibn Aidarūs al-Kanadai should know that one of the very first conditions in responding to someone is that you have to actually read, understand and then reproduce with integrity what your opponent actually said, and that you ascribe the statement you are attacking to the one who said it, not to the one who conveyed it.
SECOND: Ilyās's deception in that he claims that the basis upon which Abu Iyaad, the translator and conveyor (whilst really intending Shaykh Rabīʿ the author and utterer of the statement) perpetuates his "propaganda" that Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī made tabdīʿ is the use of the label of "Ṣaʿāfiqah". He wrote:
From the scholars who have been maligned lately with this dispicable (sic) tactic is our Shaykh Muḥammad bin Haadi حفظه الله. There are those such as @AbuIyaadSP who persists in his desperate attempt to attribute to Sh. Muḥammad bin Haadi that he has made tabdee' of Salafi students by calling them Ṣaʿāfiqah.
And this is not true. As for the "Ṣaʿāfiqah" label, then it has been refuted from the angle that it is false witness and factually incorrect as is clear to every sane person. You cannot call people who have qualifications from recognised state institutions, to the level of doctorates, and who are authorised by the state, or by major scholars, to teach, and who have efforts in da'wah, as "Ṣaʿāfiqah" - this is blatant falsehood which every sane person recognises instantly. And Shaykh Rabīʿ has repeated his refutation of this lie many times. See our article on this subject (here).
And as for the attribution of tabdīʿ to Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī, it is on the basis that he used words and language of tabdīʿ that are clear, namely that those whom he disparages are to be "put alongside the people of desires" and then adding to that all the corollaries that follow on from this, such as calling for an unrestricted boycott and making walāʾ and barāʾ to revolve around the affair and splitting communities around it. And this is evident from the Musa'fiqah and their activities for the past year. Their behaviour in this affair, and the tumult and commotion they have caused through it, simply cannot be reconciled with the principles of Ahl al-Sunnah regarding refuting the Salafi who errs, which have been clearly violated by Muḥammad bin Hādī and his blind-followers. They have entered into the realm of ẓulm and Haddadiyyah (see Shaykh Rabee on this here and here).
So Ilyās has confused the two issues in order to deceive his audience, thinking that the audience will not go and check the details or that the details will not be made clear to them. In short, Muḥammad bin Hādī has been refuted for his use of the label Ṣaʿāfiqah because it opposes the factual reality. And he has been refuted for his oppressive tabdīʿ because he has used words that are clearly indicative of tabdīʿ and because what he has caused of splits in every place and making loyalty and disownment around this issue.
THIRD: As for the response of Muḥammad bin Hādī (in what is ascribed to him), two weeks after Shaykh Rabīʿ wrote his above letter to him demanding evidences then it is nothing but an attack against Shaykh Rabīʿ and is one of the many evil attacks made by Muḥammad bin Hādī against Shaykh, Allaamah Rabi', Carrier of the Flag of al-Jarh wal-Ta'deel in this era. Here it is, and it was posted by Ilyās Ibn Aidarūs al-Kanadi:
Essentially: Shaykh Rabīʿ is an ignoramus or a person of desires. He says: "No one understands from that statement (that I'm making) Tabdi except an ignoramus or a person of desires." So only an ignoramus or a person of desires would understand that. Hence, upon this judgement, Shaykh Rabīʿ is an ignoramus or a person of desires. And this is two weeks after Shaykh Rabīʿ put those questions to Muḥammad bin Hādī and rejected his tabdīʿ as oppression. Here is what Shaykh Rabīʿ wrote:
FOURTH: Ilyās's statement:
So, will @AbuIyaadSP continue with these false accusations against Sh Muḥammad bin Haadi or will he stop with this propoganda (sic)? Will he be sincere in following the truth or will he continue to attribute to a salafi Shaykh that whcub (sic) he is free of? Let us wait and see!
So, will Shaykh Rabīʿ continue with these false accusations against Sh Muḥammad bin Haadi or will he stop with this propoganda (sic)? Will he be sincere in following the truth or will he continue to attribute to a salafi Shaykh that whcub (sic) he is free of? Let us wait and see!
Yes, Ilyās! Let us wait and see whether Shaykh Rabīʿ will continue in what to us is defence of the uṣūl of Salafiyyah and repelling the oppressor and what to you is propaganda, deception and lies!
FIFTH: Regarding Ilyās's statement:
Since @AbuIyaadSP loves reminders so much we remind him of the speech of our Shaykh, the Imam, Sh Rabee' حفظه الله ورعاه, with regards to the very actions he is guilty of. Who is really following Shaykh Rabee? Or is Sh Rabee's name just being used as a disguise?
This piece here is evidence that Ilyās is lacking in mental faculties. Recall that the words (that Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī has made tabdīʿ without evidence) are the words of Shaykh Rabīʿ. Feigning ignorance of this material fact which was already in front of his face, Ilyās now pretends to cite from Shaykh Rabīʿ with regards to the very actions that Shaykh Rabīʿ is actually guilty of (which is saying that Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī has made tabdīʿ without evidence). Ilyās then asks, "who is really following Shaykh Rabīʿ?" Meaning, in actuality, is Shaykh Rabīʿ really following Shaykh Rabīʿ? Or is Shaykh Rabīʿ just using Shaykh Rabīʿs name as a disguise to spread his propaganda and lies (that Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī has made tabdīʿ without evidence)? This is because it is Shaykh Rabīʿwho is the author of the statement that Ilyās dismisses as propaganda and lies (and Abu Iyaad is the conveyor).
So these are the ramblings of a lunatic who has lost touch with factual reality and who in his haste and self-amazement, got carried away on social media, spouting out nonsense without even a second thought about the coherence of what he is putting out. That's why it was said earlier, social media is a trial for fools like Ilyās, and these trials are a blessing for Ahl al-Sunnah in that fools like Ilyās are exposed by way of them.
As for Ilyās's statement:
...we remind him of the speech of our Shaykh, the Imam, Sh Rabee' حفظه الله ورعاه...
This is talbīs (deception) and taẓāhur (pretence) and is feigned respect. Alḥamdulillāh, and with Allaah's tawfīq, we have been with the Shaykh since the early 1990s and have followed the truth that he has stood for and defended in all the various fitnahs till this day of ours, a quarter of a century later. He refuted the Ikhwānīs, Quṭb, Bannā, Mawdūdī, Safar, Salmān, Arʿūr, Maḥmūd al-Ḥaddād, al-Maghrāwī, al-Maʾribī, al-Ḥalabī, al-Ruḥaylī, al-Ḥajūrī and many others, and we conveyed his refutations, articles and statements and faced many harms over those years for doing so. Then Ilyās uses language to pretend as if he and his likes are the followers of the Shaykh's legacy--which is nothing but the Salafi manhaj he has been upholding--the while he makes cowardly, veiled attacks against the Shaykh and accuses him, by proxy, of ignorance or following desires.
You are not with Shaykh Rabīʿ! Stop deluding yourself. You are an opposer, one who contends with Shaykh Rabīʿ, one who reviles him, a blind-follower of the attacks of your leader, Muḥammad bin Hādī, against him. Shaykh Rabi' has already spoken of your likes and warned against them in no uncertain terms.
SIXTh: Ilyās says:
Let it be known that anyone who continues to accuse Sh Muḥammad bin Haadi of having called salafis Innovators without evidence or that he intended tabdee' when he called them Ṣaʿāfiqah, then they have either been deceived by @AbuIyaadSP's deception or are deceivers themselves.
Refer to the points above. Shaykh Rabīʿs position is that calling them Ṣaʿāfiqah is false witness and in opposition to the realities, as they are not bankrupt in knowledge, but they have recognised qualifications and much effort in da'wah and teaching. So this label is factually incorrect. And secondly, about the tabdīʿ, Shaykh Rabīʿs speech in this matter is based on the statement of Muḥammad bin Hādī 'They are put alongside the Ahl al-Ahwāʾ' (ملحقون بأهل الأهواء) and his calls for unrestricted boycott and making walāʾ and barāʾ around this issue and splitting Ahl al-Sunnah in every place. So all of these are additional evidences that it is tabdīʿ.
As for his statement, "then they have either been deceived by @AbuIyaadSP's deception or are deceivers themselves." Once again, Ilyās is deceptively using my name as a proxy to attack Shaykh Rabīʿ. He really should be saying, "they have been deceived by Shaykh Rabīʿs deception or are deceivers themselves", but this would expose these people and finish them. So instead, they have concocted this deceptive narrative and thrown everything that they wish to throw on to Shaykh Rabīʿ on to the "Ṣaʿāfiqah" instead, in order to camouflage their actions. And this leads to the next point:
SEVENTH: After all the above, which should now be very clear, and the ḥamāqah of Ilyās on the table for all to see, we have now to look at the escape route for Ilyās in this matter. That is to say, when the above makes clear that Ilyās is in reality attacking Shaykh Rabīʿ and accusing him of ignorance or being from the people of desires, blindly-following Muḥammad bin Hādī in this evil slander, then what can he say to deny that this is the case, even though it is evidently the case and is there to see in plain black and white.
The escape route is only one and is along the following lines:
We excuse Shaykh Rabīʿ because he has become a senile old man, bed-bound, surrounded, brainwashed and destroyed by the evil Ṣaʿāfiqah around him and thus, we can no longer trust in what he says and writes. So when the Shaykh writes in his article regarding Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī: "To proceed: Then Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī has manifested conduct which has led to revilement of many Salafīs. He labels them 'Ṣaʿāfiqah' and says that they are to be 'put alongside the Ahl al-Ahwāʾ'. And this is tabdīʿ of them [expelling them from Salafiyyah] without any mention of the evidences for his claim. So I desired to aid the oppressed..." then we have to excuse the Shaykh who has been brainwashed. And we are his real followers because we care for him in this state he has been put into by his old age, his illness and the evil Ṣaʿāfiqah around him. Hence we are exposing the evil Ṣaʿāfiqah around him out of mercy and love for the Shaykh. So whatever the Shaykh says, he is excused, the pen is raised from him--so we have no issue against him and we do not intend him, but this is the reality of his situation.
The above pretty much crystallises their stance and this is the gist of what Ilyās says in his private discussions. They first desire to attack him via proxy, and then when this is made clear and exposed, they revile him with the affairs mentioned in the previous paragraph, which makes the matter worse, because they are all lies that the Shaykh himself has rejected as false. So they combine two evils.
As for the facts, then the Shaykh is well, active in reading, studying, writing and authoring. His doors are open to visitors, whom he receives and then discusses issues with them, or debates them, or advises them in matters they require advice in. Large scale transmission from those who have visited him over the past year falsify these evil slanders of the Muṣaʿfiqah. These are nothing but evil lies which they invented because they were unable to justify--through evidence and in accordance with the uṣūl of Salafiyyah--as to why they are labelling Salafis as "Ṣaʿāfiqah" and because the Major scholars such as Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd rejected their oppression.
Ilyās, as it stands, you are a deceptive, incoherent, lying coward, and the evidence for this has preceded. I therefore await one of two things from you:
Either: To delete your tweets and then to repost them, but this time with Shaykh Rabīʾs name instead of mine. That way, we will come to know that you are not the coward we have presumed you to be and we will redact the cowardice label from this article.
Or: To explain to us why Shaykh Rabīʿ is not held responsible, maligned and attacked for what he has consciously and knowingly written of "propaganda" and "lies", according to you, about Muḥammad bin Hādī's oppressive tabdīʿ of Salafīs and why I am held responsible, maligned and attacked for quoting, translating and conveying his speech from the bāb (angle) of ikhbār (informing).
This is what I await from you, either one of these two and nothing else. Do not think that the more you write (whether on social media or any other format) and that the more flowery and emotive you make it, it will look as if you have any substance. No. Rather, respond in substance by doing one of these two things and you will have proven yourself to be a brave and consistent man in front of your audience, though, still a mistaken and deluded one at that.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.